{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_71647/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_71647","id":"gutenberg_71647","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71647","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Christianity and other religions","Religions"],"text":"FORERUNNERS AND RIVALS OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n                         CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n                            C. F. CLAY, MANAGER\n                         London: FETTER LANE, E.C.\n                       Edinburgh: 100 PRINCES STREET\n\n                       New York: G. P. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n            Bombay, Calcutta and Madras: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.\n                     Toronto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.\n                    Tokyo: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA\n\n\n                           _All rights reserved_\n\n\n\n\n                 FORERUNNERS AND RIVALS OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n                                 BEING\n\n                      STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY\n                       FROM 330 B.C. TO 330 A.D.\n\n\n                                   BY\n\n                            F. LEGGE, F.S.A.\n\n     (Honorary) Foreign Secretary Society of Biblical Archaeology,\n                Member of Council Royal Asiatic Society,\n            Member of Committee Egypt Exploration Fund, &c.\n\n                 \u201cThe ghosts of words and dusty dreams\u201d\n                 \u201cOld memories, faiths infirm and dead\u201d\n\n                          SWINBURNE, _F\u00e9lise_.\n\n                             IN TWO VOLUMES\n\n                                VOL. II\n\n\n                               Cambridge:\n                        at the University Press\n                                  1915\n\n                               Cambridge:\n                       PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.\n                        AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nPOST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS\n\nExpectation of Parusia causes Gnosticism to be ignored by Apostolic\nwriters\u2014Change in Christian teaching at end of Ist century\u2014Destruction\nof Temple of Jerusalem forces Christians to separate from Jews\u2014Some\ncompromise with heathenism necessary\u2014Coveted position of Christian\nbishops\u2014Founders of Gnostic sects\u2014Only evidence of their teaching till\nlately, Irenaeus and Epiphanius, both unsatisfactory\u2014Discovery of\n_Philosophumena_ of Hippolytus, and Salmon and St\u00e4helin\u2019s attacks on its\ncredibility\u2014The _Pistis Sophia_ and _Bruce Papyrus_\u2014General features of\nPost-Christian Gnostics\u2014Their belief in Divinity and Historicity of\nJesus\u2014Difficulties arising from this and their various solutions\u2014Secrecy\nof doctrine common among Gnostics and consequent calumnies\u2014Many Gnostic\ndoctrines still doubtful\u2014Parallel between the Gnostic and Protestant\nsects\u2014Gnosticism bridge between heathenism and Christianity\u2014Effect of\nthis on Catholic practice and doctrine 1-24\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nPOST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS:\u2014THE OPHITES\n\nDifferent accounts of origin of Ophites\u2014Alteration from time to time of\ntheir doctrines\u2014Phrygia first home of Ophites and its history\u2014Its\nreligion and bi-sexual deity lead to _theocrasia_\u2014Jewish settlements in\nPhrygia and their apostasy\u2014Addiction of Phrygian Jews to magic\u2014Their\nconnection with Cabala uncertain\u2014Ineffable First Cause of the\nOphites\u2014The Great Light or Supreme Being at once Father-and-Son\u2014Female\nDeity necessary in Phrygia\u2014Formation of Supreme Triad of Father, Mother,\nand Son\u2014Messenger of Triad called Christos\u2014Creation of Universe by\nPowers intermediate between God and man, and Legend of Sophia\u2014Sophia\u2019s\nson Ialdabaoth the Demiurge, the seven heavens, and their rulers\u2014The\nOphiomorphus or serpent-shaped god, whence derived\u2014Passions of mankind\nderived from Ophiomorphus, but latter not bad\u2014Creation of Man by\nplanetary powers\u2014The seven earthly demons, Talmud, and Cabala\u2014Man\u2019s soul\nbrought from above by Christos\u2014The soul of the world and the\nMysteries\u2014Ophites followers of Jesus, but believe in salvation through\nMysteries\u2014Scheme of redemption and abstinence from generation\u2014Composite\nnature of Jesus, His earthly life, passion, and resurrection\u2014Rites\nattributed to Ophites\u2014Naassene Hymn and its explanation\u2014Changes of man\u2019s\nsoul and _Gospel according to the Egyptians_\u2014Necessity of guide through\nnext world like _Book of the Dead_\u2014Celsus\u2019 Diagram described and\nexplained\u2014\u201cDefences\u201d or Apologiae of soul added by Origen\u2014Explanation of\nand commentary on Diagram and Defences\u2014Spread and decay of Ophite\nsect\u2014Gradual modification of their doctrines and connection with the\n_Pistis Sophia_\u2014Apocryphal Gospels used by Ophites: extracts\nquoted\u2014Ophites apply fantastic interpretation to all literature 25-82\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nPOST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: VALENTINUS\n\nEarly Ophites probably uneducated\u2014General softening of manners under\nJulian Emperors and development of morality\u2014Change in ethical ideals of\nGnosticism probably starts in Alexandria\u2014Doctrines of Saturninus and\nBasilides\u2014Basilides\u2019 system never intended for public use and probably\nmerges in that of Valentinus\u2014Links with Simon Magus and Ophites\u2014Success\nof Valentinus\u2019 teaching and abuse of him by Fathers\u2014Valentinus\u2019\ntheology: Bythos either bi-sexual or makes syzygy with Sig\u00ea\u2014Emanation of\nOgdoad\u2014Valentinus\u2019 statements as to this possibly metaphors\u2014Emanation of\nDecad and Dodecad\u2014Names of Aeons and their explanation\u2014Sophia and her\nFall in Valentinus\u2019 system\u2014Her Ectroma and emanation of Christos, the\nHoly Spirit, and the Cross\u2014Sophia Without and Jesus the Joint Fruit of\nthe Pleroma\u2014Formation of worlds from passions of Sophia Without and\ntheir rulers\u2014The different natures of men and demons\u2014The Heavenly\nBanquet\u2014Valentinus\u2019 predestinarian views contrasted with\nOphites\u2019\u2014Salvation of Psychics by Jesus\u2014-Valentinus\u2019 account of\nCrucifixion doubtful\u2014Life of Valentinus\u2014His successors\u2014Italic School:\nPtolemy, Secundus, and Heracleon\u2014Anatolic School: Axionicus, Bardesanes,\nTheodotus, and Alexander\u2014Life of Bardesanes and his Hymns\u2014Valentinus\u2019\ninnovations on Christianity and attitude of early Fathers towards\nthem\u2014His use of metaphor and \u201cGod is Love\u201d\u2014Exegesis of Valentinus and\nhis followers and his pastoral attitude\u2014Did Valentinus ever attempt to\nbreak with Church or to found secret sect?\u2014Valentinus\u2019 compliance with\nheathenism attracts rich and learned\u2014Dangers of this for\nChurch\u2014Proceedings of Marcus\u2014-Spread of sect after Valentinus\u2019\ndeath\u2014Ptolemy\u2019s letter to Flora\u2014Egypt natural home of sect\u2014Its\nDecay\u2014Half-way house between earlier Gnosticism and Catholicism 83-133\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE SYSTEM OF THE PISTIS SOPHIA AND ITS RELATED TEXTS\n\nDescription of the _Pistis Sophia_ MS.\u2014Story of two first\nparts\u2014Pre-terrestrial acts of Jesus\u2014Incarnation and Second Ascension\nwith address of the Powers\u2014Arrangement of Heavenly Worlds and their\noccupants: the Powers above and below the Veil: those of the Right,\nMiddle, and Left\u2014The starry world\u2014Adventures of Jesus\u2019 passage to the\nupper worlds\u2014He changes the course of the stars\u2014Meeting of Jesus with\n_Pistis Sophia_ and her history\u2014Is the _Pistis Sophia_ the\n_Interrogations of Mary_?\u2014Ophite features in _Pistis Sophia_\u2014Valentinian\nones more marked\u2014Joys of elect in next world and places according to\nmysteries\u2014Mysteries are sacraments\u2014Eucharistic grace revealed in\nbook\u2014-Complete union of worshippers with deity confined to few\u2014Egyptian\nfeatures in book\u2014Existing MS., Coptic version of Greek text\u2014Original\nwork probably by Valentinus\u2014_The Texts of the Saviour_: a thaumaturgic\nwork\u2014Its continuation\u2014_Texts of the Saviour_ later than _Pistis Sophia_\nand quotations from them\u2014Are the _Texts_ by Marcus the Magician?\u2014The\nBodleian Papyrus Bruce and its divisions\u2014One fragment must be later than\n_Pistis Sophia_\u2014Another connected with the _Texts of the Saviour_\u2014Dr\nKarl Schmidt\u2019s views as to date, etc. discussed\u2014Increase of post-mortem\nterrors in later books, a peculiarly Egyptian feature\u2014Degeneration of\nGnosticism in Egypt and its magical tendencies\u2014Ill effects of this upon\nEgyptian Christianity\u2014Services rendered to Church by Gnosticism\ngenerally 134-202\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nMARCION\n\nIncrease of anti-Jewish feeling in Rome under Antoninus Pius\u2014History of\nMarcion\u2014Terror of Church at Marcion\u2019s doctrine\u2014Uncompromising character\nof Marcionism\u2014Marcion\u2019s expurgation of Scripture\u2014His _Antitheses_\u2014His\nTwo Gods\u2014His Docetic views\u2014His anti-Jewish teaching\u2014His treatment of the\nPauline Epistles\u2014His abhorrence of allegory\u2014The original nature of his\nsystem and its resemblance to Protestantism\u2014Puritanism of\nMarcionites\u2014History of Marcionism\u2014Rise of sects within it\u2014Marcion\u2019s\nfollower Apelles leans towards Catholicism\u2014Tatian\u2019s, Encratites\u2019, and\nother variations of Marcionism\u2014After Constantine, many Marcionites\nrejoin Church\u2014Others coalesce with Manichaeans\u2014Failure of Marcion\u2019s\nattempted reform\u2014Interest of Marcion\u2019s heresy for later ages 203-223\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nTHE WORSHIP OF MITHRAS\n\nReaction of East towards Persia in Roman times\u2014Struggle between Rome and\nPersia only closes with Mahommedan Invasion\u2014Rome leans to Persian\nfashions and proclaims Mithras protector of Empire\u2014How Mithraism reached\nRome\u2014Its propagation by the soldiery\u2014Mithras may have been originally\ngod of Western Asia\u2014His place in Persian religion\u2014Magism, its tenets and\nconnection with magic\u2014And with astrology\u2014Uncertainty as to Mithraic\ntenets and Cumont\u2019s theory\u2014Roman ideas as to Ormuzd and\nAhriman\u2014Connection of Mithras with the Sun\u2014The Legend of\nMithras\u2014Explanation of Tauroctony\u2014The Mithraic Eucharist or\nBanquet\u2014Mithras probably the only god for his worshippers\u2014His position\nmidway between heaven and earth\u2014Ahriman in Mithraism\u2014Identified with\nGreek Hades\u2014Lord of Destiny\u2014The seven spheres in Mithraism\u2014Eclecticism\nof Mithraics as to worship of other gods\u2014Possibly as to Christianity\nalso\u2014The Mysteries of Mithras\u2014The seven degrees of initiation\u2014Privileges\nof higher initiates doubtful\u2014The so-called Mithraic Liturgy\u2014The priests\nand ceremonies of Mithraism\u2014Likeness of Mithraism to Freemasonry and its\npolitical uses\u2014Decline of Mithraism on loss of Dacia\u2014Its extinction\nunder Gratian\u2014Exclusion of women from mysteries drawback to\nMithraism\u2014Not attractive save to soldiers\u2014Survivals of Mithraism in\nroyal titles\u2014And in magic and astrology 224-276\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nMANES AND THE MANICHAEANS\n\nContrast between Mithraism and Manichaeism\u2014Life and Death of\nManes\u2014Ardesh\u00eer, son of Sassan, finds religion necessary to\nState\u2014Restores Zoroastrianism\u2014Manichaeism a Zoroastrian heresy\u2014Christian\naccount of origin of Manichaeism too late\u2014Manes\u2019 cardinal doctrines\nPersian\u2014Conflict between Light and Darkness\u2014Satan and the First\nMan\u2014Defeat of latter and creation of Universe\u2014The Redemption of the\nLight\u2014Birth and ancestry of Adam\u2014Jesus sent as Saviour to\nAdam\u2014Infidelity of Eve and its results\u2014Likeness of these to Mandaite\nstories\u2014R\u00f4les of Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus in Manichaeism\u2014The\nsalvation and transmigration of souls\u2014The death of the perfect\nrighteous\u2014Of the Hearer\u2014Distinction between Perfect and Hearer peculiar\nto Manichaeism\u2014Obligations of Hearers\u2014Hatred of Manes for Jews\u2014Manes\naims at syncretic religion\u2014MSS. found at Turfan prove chameleon-like\ncharacter of Manichaeism\u2014Manichaeans are Christians among Christians,\nBuddhists among Buddhists\u2014Manichaean Cosmogony and Anthropogony in Bar\nKh\u00f4ni and the Turkestan MSS.\u2014-Organization of Manichaean Church\u2014Ritual\nof Manichaeans confined to prayers and hymns\u2014Manichaean prayers from\nMahommedan sources\u2014_Khuastuanift_ or Manichaean Litany from Turkestan\ngiven with commentary\u2014Perfect redeem Light by eating food\u2014Hearers\u2019\nfasts help scheme of redemption\u2014Sacrament among Manichaeans\ndoubtful\u2014Symbolical pictures in Manichaean Churches\u2014Festivals of the\nBema, Christmas, and Sunday\u2014Manichaean Scriptures\u2014Manichaean treatise\nfound at Tunhuang\u2014The two great archangels and the division of the\nsexes\u2014History of Manichaeism 277-357\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nEnd of Paganism\u2014Supremacy of Christianity in West\u2014Its borrowings from\nits defeated rivals\u2014Triumph of Christianity survival of fittest 358-361\n\nIndex 362-425\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII\n                        POST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS\n\n\nIt will be seen, from what has been said in the first volume, that, even\nat the beginning of the Christian era, there was no lack of \u03b1\u1f35\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or\nchoice of creeds offered to those peoples of the Levant who had outgrown\ntheir national religions; and it may be a surprise to many that more\nnotice was not taken by the Christians of the Apostolic age of these\nearly essays at a universal faith. Some writers, indeed, among whom\nBishop Lightfoot is perhaps the most notable, have thought that they\ncould detect allusions to them in the Canonical writings, and that by\nthe \u201cworshipping of angels, intruding into those things which man hath\nnot seen, vainly puffed up by the understanding of his flesh[1]\u201d which\nSt Paul condemns in the Epistle to the Colossians, must be understood\nthe teachings of Gnostic sects already in existence[2]. Others have gone\nfurther, and think that the Fourth Gospel was itself written under\nGnostic influence[3], and that the Apocalypse attributed to the same\nauthor vituperates under the name of the Nicolaitans a Christian sect\nprofessing Gnostic tenets[4]. Even if this be so, however, the\ncomparatively late date assigned to all these documents[5] must prevent\ntheir being received as evidence of what happened in the earliest stage\nof the Christian Church; and we find no proof that Gnosticism ever\nseriously competed for popular favour with orthodox Christianity until\nwell into the IInd century[6]. That the first Christians would take\nlittle heed either of organized religions like that of the Alexandrian\ndivinities, or of the speculations of the Orphic poets and of such sects\nas the Simonians is plain, when we consider the way in which their\nexpectation of the Parusia or Second Coming dominated every moment of\ntheir lives[7]. They believed with the unquestioning faith of children\nthat their dead Master would presently return to the earth, and that it\nwould then be destroyed to make way for a new state of things in which,\nwhile the majority of mankind would be condemned to everlasting fire,\nHis followers should taste all the joys of Paradise. With this before\ntheir eyes, they turned, as has been said, their possessions into a\ncommon fund[8], they bound themselves together in a strict association\nfor mutual help and comfort, and they set to work to sweep their fellows\ninto the Christian fold with an earnestness and an energy that was the\nfiercer because the time for its exercise was thought to be so short.\n\u201cThe Lord is at hand and His reward,\u201d a saying which seems to have been\na password among them[9], was an idea never absent from their minds, and\nthe result was an outburst of proselytism such as the world till then\nhad never seen.\n\n    \u201cThey saw,\u201d says a writer who was under no temptation to exaggerate\n    the charity and zeal of the primitive Church, \u201ctheir fathers and\n    mothers, their sisters and their dearest friends, hurrying onward to\n    that fearful pit, laughing and singing, lured on by the fiends whom\n    they called the gods. They felt as we should feel were we to see a\n    blind man walking towards a river bank.... Who that could hope to\n    save a soul by tears and supplications would remain quiescent as men\n    do now?.... In that age every Christian was a missionary. The\n    soldier sought to win recruits for the heavenly host; the prisoner\n    of war discoursed to his Persian jailer; the slave girl whispered\n    the gospel in the ears of her mistress as she built up the mass of\n    towered hair; there stood men in cloak and beard at street corners\n    who, when the people, according to the manners of the day, invited\n    them to speak, preached, not the doctrines of the Painted Porch, but\n    the words of a new and strange philosophy; the young wife threw her\n    arms round her husband\u2019s neck and made him agree to be baptised,\n    that their souls might not be parted after death[10]....\u201d\n\nHow could people thus preoccupied be expected to concern themselves with\ntheories of the origin of a world about to perish, or with the\nphilosophic belief that all the gods of the nations were but varying\nforms of one supreme and kindly power?\n\nBefore the end of the Ist century, however, this belief in the immediate\nnearness of the Second Coming had died away[11]. The promise that the\nsecond Gospel puts into the mouth of Jesus that some of His hearers\nshould not taste of death until they saw the Son of Man come with\npower[12], had become incapable of fulfilment by the death of the last\nof those who had listened to Him. Nor were all the converts to the faith\nwhich His immediate disciples had left behind them possessed with the\nsame simple faith and mental equipment as themselves[13]. To the poor\nfishermen and peasants of Judaea had succeeded the slaves and freedmen\nof great houses\u2014including even Caesar\u2019s own,\u2014some of them professionally\nversed in the philosophy of the time, and all with a greater or less\nacquaintance with the religious beliefs of the non-Jewish citizens of\nthe great Roman Empire[14]. The preachings and journeys of St Paul and\nother missionaries had also brought into the Christian Church many\nbelievers of other than Jewish blood, together with the foreign\nmerchants and members of the Jewish communities scattered throughout the\nRoman world, who were better able than the Jews of Palestine to\nappreciate the stability and the organized strength of the Roman Empire\nand to desire an alliance with it. To ask such men, deeply engaged as\nmany of them were in the pursuit of wealth, to join in the temporary\ncommunism and other-worldliness practised by the first Christian Church\nwould have been as futile as to expect the great Jewish banking-houses\nof the present day to sell all that they have and give it to the poor.\n\nAnother cause that profoundly altered the views of the early Christian\ncommunities must have been the catastrophe and final dispersion of the\nJewish nation. Up to the time of the destruction of the Temple of\nJerusalem under Titus, the Christians not only regarded themselves as\nJews[15], but were looked upon by such of the other subjects of Rome as\nhad happened to have heard of them, as merely one sect the more of a\nrace always factious and given to internal dissensions. Yet even in St\nPaul\u2019s time, the Christians were exposed to a bitter persecution at the\nhands of those orthodox Jews who seemed to the Gentile world to be their\nco-religionists[16], and it is probable that in the outbreak of\nfanaticism attending the first Jewish war, they suffered severely at the\nhands of both combatants[17]. The burning of the Temple must also have\nbeen a crushing blow to all who looked for a literal and immediate\nfulfilment of the Messianic hope, and its result was to further\naccentuate the difference between the Christians and the Jews[18].\nMoreover, the hatred and scorn felt by these last for all other members\nof the human race had now been recognized by the Gentiles[19], and the\nrepeated insurrections attempted by the Jews between the time of Titus\nand the final war of extermination under Hadrian showed that these\nfeelings were shared by the Jewish communities outside Palestine[20]. It\nwas therefore not at all the time which worldly-wise and prudent men, as\nmany of the later Christian converts were, would choose for identifying\nthemselves with a race which not only repudiated the relationship in the\nmost practical way, but had lately exposed themselves on other grounds\nto the deserved execration of the civilized world.\n\nIt is, then, by no means surprising that some of the new converts should\nhave begun to look about them for some compromise between their recently\nacquired convictions and the religious beliefs of the Graeco-Roman world\nin which they had been brought up, and they found this ready to their\nhand in the pre-Christian sects which we have ventured above to class\ntogether under the generic name of Gnostic. In the Orphic poems, they\nfound the doctrine of successive ages of the world, each with its\ndifferent characteristics, which coincided well enough with the repeated\ndeclaration of the Christians that the old world was passing away,\u2014as\nwas indeed the fact since the conquests of Alexander[21]. They found,\ntoo, both in the Orphic poems and in the mixed religions like that of\nthe Alexandrian divinities which had sprung from the doctrines taught by\nthese poems, the legend of a god dying and rising again for the\nsalvation of mankind told in a way which had many analogies with the\nGospel narratives of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus[22]. Among\nthe Essenes, too, who may have owed, as has been said above, some of\ntheir doctrines to Orphic inspiration, they found all the modest virtues\nof sobriety, chastity, and mutual help which had already distinguished\nthe Christian Church above all the other religious associations of the\ntime. And among both the Orphics and the Essenes was to be noticed the\nstrained and fanciful system of interpretation by allegory and figure\nwhich enabled them to put their own construction upon the words not only\nof the books of the Jewish Canon, but of those writings which had begun\nto circulate among the scattered Christian communities as containing the\nauthentic teaching of Jesus and His immediate disciples[23]. Add to this\nthat the Simonians, and no doubt other pre-Christian Gnostic sects of\nwhich we have lost all trace, had already shown the mixed populations of\nthe Levant how to reconcile the innovations of a teacher of impressive\nand commanding personality with their own ancestral traditions[24], and\nthat the many mysteries then diffused throughout the ancient world\noffered a ready means of propagating new doctrines under cover of\nsecrecy; and it will be seen that most of the sources from which the\nfounders of the great post-Christian sects afterwards drew their systems\nwere then lying open and ready to hand.\n\nThe prize which awaited success was, moreover, no mean one. It is\nsometimes said that the only distinction that awaited a leader of the\nChurch at this time was the distinction of being burned alive[25]. Yet\nthe fear of impeachment to be followed by a still more horrible death\nnever prevented English statesmen in the XVIIth century from struggling\nwith each other for place and power; while the State had not as yet made\nany serious attempt to suppress the propagation of Christianity by\nforce. On the other hand, a Christian bishop, even at this early date,\noccupied a position which was really superior to that of most\nfunctionaries of the secular State. Gifted with almost complete power\nover his flock in temporal as well as in spiritual matters, he was at\nonce their judge and their adviser; and, so long as there were Pagan\nemperors on the throne, the faithful were forbidden to come to any\ntribunal but his[26]. His judgments, too, had a greater sanction than\nthose of any temporal judge; for while he could not indeed lawfully\ncondemn any of his hearers to death, he had in the sentence of\nexcommunication which he alone could pronounce, the power of cutting\nthem off from eternal life. The adoration with which he was regarded by\nthem also surpassed the respect paid to proconsul or legate[27]; and the\nliterature of the time is full of allusions to the way in which, when\nbrought before the temporal rulers, he was attended by weeping\nmultitudes who crowded round him even in prison, imploring his blessing\nand kissing his fetters[28]. Hence it is not to be wondered at that such\na position was eagerly sought after, that envy of the episcopate was the\nprincipal sin against which the Christian writers of the sub-Apostolic\nage warned their readers[29], and that it is to the disappointment at\nfailing to attain the highest places in the orthodox Church that they\nascribe the foundation of all the principal post-Christian sects[30].\nWithout taking this accusation as literally correct, it is plain that\nthe chance of irresponsible power over those whom they could convince\nmust have proved a most alluring bait to religious-minded persons who\nwere also ambitious and intellectual men of the world[31].\n\nThus it came about that during the IInd and IIIrd centuries, there arose\nmore than one teacher who set himself to construct a system which should\nenable its votaries to retain the Hellenistic culture which Alexander\u2019s\nconquests had spread throughout the whole civilized world with the\nreligious and moral ideas which the enthusiasm and energy of the first\nChristians had begun to diffuse among the lower classes of citizens[32].\nAlexandria, the natural meeting-place between the East and West, was no\ndoubt the scene of the first of these attempts, and the writings of\nPhilo, fortunately still extant, had already shown the way in which the\nallegorical system of interpretation could be used to this end. That\nmany of the founders of post-Christian Gnostic sects were Alexandrian\nJews is the constant tradition of the Christian Church, and is\nantecedently probable enough[33]. But other Gnostic leaders were\ncertainly not Alexandrians and came from centres sufficiently distant\nfrom Egypt to show that the phenomenon was very widely spread, and that\nthe same causes produced the same results in the most distant places and\nentirely outside the Jewish community. Marcion, the founder of the\nMarcionite Church, was a native of Pontus. Saturnilus or Saturninus\u2014the\nname is spelt differently by Irenaeus and Hippolytus\u2014came from Antioch,\nTheodotus from Byzantium, others, such as Cerdo, and probably Prepon the\nSyrian, began teaching in Rome, while we hear of a certain Monoimus, who\nis said to have been an Arab[34]. Most of these are to us merely names,\nonly very brief summaries of the different systems founded or professed\nby them having been preserved in the heresiologies compiled by the\nFathers of the Church both before and immediately after the alliance of\nthe Christian Church with the Roman State under Constantine.\n\nOf these treatises, the two, which, up to about sixty years ago, formed\nour main sources of information with regard to the Gnostics of the\nsub-Apostolic age[35], are the writings of St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons\nabout the year 177 A.D., and of Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia in\nCyprus, who tells us he wrote in the seventh year of Gratian or 374 A.D.\nThe first of these is considerably later in date than the heresiarchs in\nrefutation of whose doctrines he wrote his five books \u201cagainst\nHeresies\u201d; and although he is most probably honest in his account of\ntheir tenets, it is evident that Irenaeus was incapable of\ndistinguishing between the opinions of the founders of the sects which\nhe controverts and those of their followers and successors. Epiphanius,\non the other hand, wrote when the Catholic Church was already\ntriumphant, and his principal object seems to have been to blacken the\nmemory of those competitors whom she had already outdistanced in the\nrace for popularity and power. Hence he spares no pains to rake together\nevery story which theological hatred and unclean imagination had ever\ninvented against her opponents and rivals; while his contempt for\nconsistency and the rules of evidence show the intellectual depths to\nwhich the war which orthodox Christianity had from the first waged\nagainst Hellenistic culture had reduced the learning of the age. The\nlanguage in which he and the other Catholic writers on heresy describe\nthe Gnostics is, indeed, the first and most salient instance of that\nintolerance for any other opinions than their own, which a recent writer\nof great authority declares the Apostles and their successors derived\nfrom their Jewish nationality[36]. \u201cThe first-born of Satan,\u201d \u201cseducers\nof women,\u201d \u201csavage beasts,\u201d \u201cscorpions,\u201d \u201cravening wolves,\u201d \u201cdemoniacs,\u201d\n\u201csorcerers,\u201d and \u201catheists\u201d were the mildest terms in which Epiphanius\nand his fellow heresiologists can bring themselves to speak of the\nsectaries. They afford ample justification for the remark of the\nphilosophic Emperor Julian that \u201cno wild beasts are so hostile to men as\nChristian sects in general are to one another[37].\u201d\n\nFrom this lack of trustworthy evidence, the discovery in 1842 at a\nconvent on Mt Athos of eight out of the ten books of the\n_Philosophumena_ now generally attributed to Hippolytus, Bishop of\n\u201cPortus Romana\u201d in 230 A.D.[38], seemed likely to deliver us. The work\nthus recovered bore the title of the _Refutation of all Heresies_, and\ndid succeed in giving us a fairly clear and coherent account of some\ntwenty Gnostic sects, the very existence of many of which was previously\nunknown to us. Moreover, it went a good way beyond its predecessors in\npointing out that the real origin of all the heretical sects then\nexisting was to be found, not so much in the diabolic inspiration which\nother writers thought sufficient to account for it, as in the\nPythagorean, Platonic, and other philosophies then in vogue, together\nwith the practice of astrology and magic rites which had come to form an\nimportant part of all the Pagan religions then popular. It also showed a\nvery extensive and apparently first-hand acquaintance with the works of\nthe Gnostic leaders, and the lengthy quotations which it gives from\ntheir writings enable us to form a better idea than we had before been\nable to do both of what the Gnostic tenets really were and of the\narguments by which they were propagated. Unfortunately the text of the\n_Philosophumena_ has not been able to withstand the assaults of those\ntextual critics who have already reduced the Book of Genesis to a\npatchwork of several authors writing at widely separate times and\nplaces, and writers like Dr. Salmon and Prof. St\u00e4helin have laboured to\nshow that the author of the _Philosophumena_ was taken in by a forger\nwho had himself concocted all the documents which Hippolytus quotes as\nbeing the work of different heresiarchs[39]. Their conclusions, although\nthey do not seem to put the matter entirely beyond doubt, have been\naccepted by many theological writers, especially in Germany, and in the\ncourse of the discussion the fact has emerged that the documents quoted\ncan hardly go back to an earlier date than the year 200 A.D.[40] It is\ntherefore unlikely that Hippolytus had before him the actual words of\nthe heresiarchs whom he is endeavouring to refute; and if the\n_Philosophumena_ were all we had to depend upon, we might despair of\nknowing what \u201cthe great Gnostics of Hadrian\u2019s time\u201d really taught.\n\nThe reason for this paucity of documents is also plain enough. \u201cThe\nantidote to the scorpion\u2019s bite,\u201d to use a patristic figure of\nspeech[41], was felt by the early Church to be the actual cautery, and\nits leaders spared no pains to rout out and burn the writings of the\nheretics pending the time when they could apply the same treatment to\ntheir authors. Even before their alliance with Constantine had put the\nresources of the State at their disposal, they had contrived to use the\nsecular arm for this purpose. In several persecutions, notably that of\nDiocletian, which was probably the most severe of them all, the\nChristian scriptures were particularly sought for by the Inquisitors of\nthe State, and many of the orthodox boasted that they had arranged that\nthe police should find the writings of the heretics in their stead[42].\nLater, when it came to the turn of the Christians to dictate imperial\nedicts, the possession of heretical writings was made punishable with\nsevere penalties[43]. Between orthodox Christian and Pagan it is a\nwonder that any have survived to us.\n\nA lucky chance, however, has prevented us from being entirely ignorant\nof what the Gnostics had to say for themselves. In 1851, a MS. which had\nbeen known to be in the British Museum since 1778, was published with a\ntranslation into a curious mixture of Latin and Greek by the learned\nPetermann, and turned out to include a sort of Gospel coming from some\nearly Gnostic sect[44]. From a note made on it by a writer who seems to\nhave been nearly contemporary with its scribes, it is known as _Pistis\nSophia_ or \u201c_Faith-Wisdom_\u201d; and the same MS. also contains fragments of\nother works coming from a cognate source. In 1891, a papyrus in the\nBodleian Library at Oxford, which had been brought into this country in\n1769 by the traveller Bruce, was also published with a French\ntranslation by M. Am\u00e9lineau, an ex-Abb\u00e9 who has long made the later\nEgyptian language his peculiar study, and proved to contain two\ndocuments connected with the system disclosed in the _Pistis\nSophia_[45]. Both MSS. are in Coptic of the dialect of the Sahid or\nUpper Egypt, to which fact they probably owe their escape from the\nnotice of the Byzantine Inquisitors; and they purport to contain\nrevelations as to the next world and the means of attaining salvation\ntherein made by Jesus on His return to earth after the Resurrection.\nAlthough these several documents were evidently not all written at one\ntime and place, and cannot be assigned to a single author, the notes and\nemendations appearing on the MSS. show that most of them must have been\nin the possession of members of the same school as their composers; and\nthat therefore we have here for the first time direct and authentic\nevidence of the Gnostic tenets, as put forward by their adherents\ninstead of by their opponents.\n\nThe collation of these documents with the excerpts from other Gnostic\nwritings appearing in early writers like Clement of Alexandria who were\nnot professed heresiologists[46], shows that the post-Christian Gnostic\nsects had more opinions in common than would be gathered from the\nstatements of St Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, and that they\nprobably fulfilled a real want of the age[47]. All of them seem to have\nheld that there was one Supreme Being, the source of all good, and that\nmatter was inherently malignant and opposed to him. All of them, too,\nseem to have taught the perfectibility of man\u2019s nature, the salvation of\nat any rate the majority of mankind, and the possibility of their rising\nin the scale of being; and all of them held that this was to be effected\nmainly by means of certain mysteries or sacramental rites which were\nassumed to have a magical efficacy. All these fundamental\ncharacteristics find their origin in the beliefs of the pre-Christian\nreligions and religious associations described above, and doubtless owed\nmuch to their influence. But with these, there was now combined for the\nfirst time the recognition of the divinity of One who, while appearing\nupon earth as a man among men, was yet thought by all to be endowed with\na greater share of the Divine nature than they. Orpheus, Moses, Homer,\nand the Jewish prophets had in turn been claimed as religious teachers\nwho were divinely inspired; but Jesus was asserted by every later\nGnostic school of whose teachings we have any evidence to have been\nHimself of higher essence and substance than the rest of mankind[48].\nHow far this assertion was dictated by the necessity for finding a\nsuperhuman authority for the revelation which each Gnostic leader\nprofessed to make to his disciples may be open to question; but in view\nof some contemporary controversies it is well to draw attention to the\nfact that the Divinity in some shape or other of Jesus, as well as what\nis now called His \u201chistoricity,\u201d was never for a moment called in\nquestion during the first three centuries by Gnostic or Catholic.\n\u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2 or _Monogenes_[49]\u2014a word which Catholic writers later\nconfused with \u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 or \u201conly-begotten,\u201d but which is best\nrepresented by the corresponding Latin expression _unicus_ or \u201cunique\u201d\n(_i.e._ one of a kind)\u2014is the word in which the Gnostics summed up their\nconceptions of the nature of Jesus[50].\n\nThis belief, however, led to consequences which do not at first sight\nseem to follow from it. The gods of classical antiquity were indeed\nsupposed to be of like passions with ourselves, and the Greek of Homer\u2019s\ntime never thought it shame to attribute to them jealousy or lust or\nfear or vanity or any other of the weaknesses which afflict us[51]. But\nthe one feature besides their beauty that distinguished the Greek gods\nfrom humanity was their immortality or freedom from death; and if\ndemigods like Heracles were said to have gone through the common\nexperience of mortals, this was held as proof that their apotheosis or\ndeification did not take place until they had left the earth[52]. So\nmuch was this the case that the Greeks are said to have been much amused\nwhen they first beheld the Egyptians wailing for the death of Osiris,\ndeclaring that if he were a god he could not be dead, while if he were\nnot, his death was not to be lamented[53]; and Plutarch, when repeating\nthe story to his countrymen, thought it necessary to explain that in his\nview the protagonists in the Osiris and Set legend were neither gods nor\nmen, but \u201cgreat powers\u201d or daemons not yet deified and in the meantime\noccupying a place between the two[54]. The same difficulty was, perhaps,\nless felt by the other Mediterranean peoples, among whom, as we have\nseen, the idea of a god who died and rose again was familiar enough[55];\nbut the Gnostic leaders must always have had before their eyes the\nnecessity of making Christianity acceptable to persons in possession of\nthat Hellenistic culture which then dominated the world, and which still\nforms the root of all modern civilization. How, then, were they to\naccount for the fact that their God Jesus, whether they considered Him\nas the Logos or Word of Philo, or the Monogenes or Unique Power of the\nSupreme Being, had suffered a shameful death by sentence of the Roman\nprocurator in Judaea?\n\nThe many different answers that they gave to this question showed more\neloquently than anything else the difficulties with which it was\nsurrounded. Simon, according to Hippolytus, said that Jesus only\nappeared on earth as a man, but was not really one, and seemed to have\nsuffered in Judaea, although he had not really done so[56]. Basilides\nthe Egyptian, the leader of another sect, held, according to Irenaeus,\nthat the body of Jesus was a phantasm and had no real existence, Simon\nof Cyrene having been crucified in his stead[57]; while Hippolytus, who\nseems to have drawn his account of Basilides\u2019 teaching from a different\nsource from that used by his predecessor, makes him say that only the\nbody of Jesus suffered and relapsed into \u201cformlessness[58],\u201d but that\nHis soul returned into the different worlds whence it was drawn.\nSaturninus, another heresiarch, held, according to both authors, to the\nphantasmal theory of Jesus\u2019 body, which attained such popularity among\nother Gnostic sects that \u201cDocetism,\u201d as the opinion was called, came to\nbe looked upon by later writers as one of the marks of heresy[59], and\nHippolytus imagines that there were in existence sects who attached such\nimportance to this point that they called themselves simply\nDocetics[60]. Valentinus, from whose teaching, as we shall see, the\nprincipal system of the _Pistis Sophia_ was probably derived, also\nadhered to this Docetic theory, and said that the body of Jesus was not\nmade of human flesh, but was constructed \u201cwith unspeakable art\u201d so as to\nresemble it, the dove-like form which had descended into it at His\nbaptism leaving it before the Crucifixion[61]. According to Irenaeus,\ntoo, Valentinus held that the Passion of Jesus was not intended as an\natonement or sacrifice for sin, as the Catholics taught, but merely as a\nsymbol or reflection of something that was taking place in the bosom of\nthe Godhead[62].\n\nAnother point in which the chief post-Christian Gnostic sects seem to\nhave resembled one another is the secrecy with which their teachings\nwere surrounded. Following strictly the practice of the various\nmysteries\u2014the Eleusinian, the Isiac, Cabiric, and others\u2014in which the\nMediterranean god, whether called Dionysos, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, or by\nany other name, was worshipped, none were admitted to a knowledge of\ntheir doctrines without undergoing a long, arduous, and expensive course\nof initiation. More than one Gnostic teacher is said to have told his\nhearers to conceal from men what they were, or in other words not to let\nit be known that they were affiliated to the sect[63], and all the\nFathers bear witness to the way in which in time of persecution the\nGnostics escaped by professing any faith that would satisfy the Roman\nauthorities. By doing so, they laid themselves open to the accusation\nhurled at them with great virulence by the Church, that their secret\nrites and doctrines were so filthy as to shock human nature if made\npublic\u2014an accusation which at the first appearance of Christianity had\nbeen brought against the Catholics, and which the Church has ever since\nmade use of against any sect which has differed from her, repeating it\neven at the present day against the Jews and the Freemasons[64]. There\nis, however, no reason why the accusation should be better founded in\none case than in the others; and it is plain in any event that the\npractice of secrecy when expedient followed directly from the magical\nideas which have been shown above to be the foundation of the dogmas of\nall the pre-Christian Gnostics, besides permeating religions like that\nof the Alexandrian divinities. The willingness of the post-Christian\nGnostics to subscribe to any public profession of faith that might be\nconvenient was no doubt due to the same cause[65]. As has been well\nsaid, to the true Gnostic, Paganism, Christianity, and Mahommedanism are\nmerely veils[66]. The secret words and formulas delivered, and the\nsecret rites which the initiate alone knows, are all that is necessary\nto assure him a distinguished place in the next world; and, armed with\nthese, he can contemplate with perfect indifference all outward forms of\nworship.\n\nThese and other points which the post-Christian Gnostic sects seem to\nhave had in common[67] can therefore be accounted for by their common\norigin, without accepting the theory of the textual critics that the\nFathers had been deceived by an impostor who had made one document do\nduty several times over. Yet until we have the writings of the\nheresiarchs actually in our hands, we must always be in doubt as to how\nfar their opinions have been correctly recorded for us. The\npost-Christian Gnostic sects have been compared with great aptness to\nthe Protestant bodies which have sprung up outside the Catholic Church\nsince the German Reformation[68], and the analogy in most respects seems\nto be perfect. Yet it would probably be extremely difficult for a bishop\nof the Church of Rome or of that of England to give within the compass\nof an heresiology like those quoted above an account of the tenets of\nthe different sects in England and America, without making grave and\nserious mistakes in points of detail. The difficulty would arise from\nwant of first-hand knowledge, in spite of the invention of printing\nhaving made the dissemination of information on such subjects a thousand\ntimes more general than in sub-Apostolic times, and of the fact that the\nmodern sects, unlike their predecessors, do not seek to keep their\ndoctrines secret. But the analogy shows us another cause of error. The\n\u201cFree Churches,\u201d as they are called in modern parlance, have from the\noutset shown themselves above all things fissiparous, and it is enough\nto mention the names of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Socinus, Wesley, and\nChalmers to show how hopelessly at variance the teachings of the\nfounders of sects at first sight are. But in spite of this, there seems\nto have been always a sort of fluidity of doctrine among them, and\nhardly any of the Nonconformist sects now profess the dogmas with which\nthey first came into existence. The changes in this respect, however,\nnever involve the borrowing of new tenets from sources external to them\nall, but seem to be brought about by a sort of interfiltration between\none sect and another. Thus, for example, for many centuries after the\nReformation the majority of the dissident sects which rejected all\nconnection with the Catholic Church were among the stoutest defenders of\nthe Divinity of Jesus, and the Socinians who held the contrary opinion\nwere in an entirely negligible minority. At the present day, however,\nthe tendency seems to run the other way, and many Nonconformist bodies\nare leaning towards Unitarian doctrines, although few of them probably\nhave ever heard the name of Socinus. A similar tendency to\ninterpenetration of doctrines early showed itself among the Gnostics;\nand there can be little doubt that it sometimes led to a fusion or\namalgamation between sects of widely differing origin. Hence it is not\nextraordinary that certain tenets are sometimes recorded by the Fathers\nas peculiar to one Gnostic leader and sometimes to another, and to trace\naccurately their descent, it would be necessary to know the exact point\nin the history of each sect at which such tenets appeared. But the\nFathers seldom thought of distinguishing between the opinions of an\nheresiarch and those of his successors, and the literary habits of the\ntime were not in favour of accurate quotation of documents or even of\nnames[69]. This forms the chief difficulty in dealing with the history\nof the Gnostic teaching, and although the discovery of fresh documents\ncontemporary with those we now possess would undoubtedly throw\nadditional light upon the subject, it is probable that it will never be\nentirely overcome.\n\nGenerally speaking, however, Gnosticism played a most important part in\nthe history of Christianity. Renan\u2019s view that it was a disease which,\nlike croup, went near to strangling the infant Church is often\nquoted[70]; but in the long run it is probable that Gnosticism was on\nthe whole favourable to her development. In religion, sentiment often\nplays a larger part than reason; and any faith which would enable men of\nweight and influence to continue the religious practices in which they\nhad been brought up, with at the outset but slight modification, was\nsure of wide acceptance. There seems no doubt that the earlier Gnostics\ncontinued to attend the mysteries of the Chthonian deities in Greece and\nof their Oriental analogues, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and the like\nelsewhere, while professing to place upon what they there saw a\nChristian interpretation[71]. Here they acted like the little leaven\nthat leaveneth the whole lump, and this did much to spread the knowledge\nof the new faith among those spiritually-minded Gentiles, who would\nnever have felt any interest in Christianity so long as it remained\nmerely a branch of Judaism[72]. Most of them, moreover, sooner or later\nabandoned their Gnosticism, and became practising members of the\nCatholic Church, who sometimes went a long way to meet them. As Renan\nhas said, none of them ever relapsed into Paganism[73], and in this way\nthe so-called heresies became at once the feeders of orthodox\nChristianity and its richest recruiting-ground[74]. They offered in fact\nan easy road by which the wealthy, the learned, and the highly-placed\ncould pass from Paganism to Christianity without suffering the\ninconvenience imposed upon the first followers of the Apostles.\n\nOn the other hand, it may be argued that the Church in receiving such\nrecruits lost much of that simplicity of doctrine and practice to which\nit had hitherto owed her rapid and unvarying success. The Gnostics\nbrought with them into their new faith the use of pictures and statues,\nof incense, and of all the paraphernalia of the worship of the heathen\ngods. Baptism which, among the Jewish community in which Christianity\nwas born, was an extremely simple rite, to be performed by anybody and\nentirely symbolical in its character[75], became an elaborate ceremony\nwhich borrowed the name as well as many of the adjuncts of initiation\ninto the Mysteries. So, too, the Agape (love-feast) or common meal,\nwhich in pre-Christian times was, as we have seen, common to all Greek\nreligious associations unconnected with the State, was transformed by\nthe Gnostics into a rite surrounded by the same provisions for secrecy\nand symbolizing the same kind of sacrifice as those which formed the\ncentral point of the mystic drama at Eleusis and elsewhere. Both these\nsacraments, as they now came to be called, were thought to be invested\nwith a magical efficacy, and to demand for their proper celebration a\npriesthood as exclusive as, and a great deal more ambitious than, that\nof Eleusis or Alexandria. The daring speculations of the Gnostics as to\nthe nature of the godhead and the origin of the world also forced upon\nthe Catholics the necessity of formulating her views on these points and\nmaking adhesion to them a test of membership[76]. To do so was possibly\nto choose the smaller of two evils, yet it can hardly be denied that the\nresult of the differences of opinion thus aroused was to deluge the\nworld with blood and to stay the progress of human knowledge for more\nthan a thousand years[77]. It is said that if Gnosticism had not been\nforcibly suppressed, as it was directly the Christian priesthood\nobtained a share in the government of the State, Christianity would have\nbeen nothing but a battle-ground for warring sects, and must have\nperished from its own internal dissensions. It may be so; but it is at\nleast as possible that, if left unmolested, many of the wilder sects\nwould soon have withered away from their own absurdity, and that none of\nthe others would have been able to endure for long. In this respect\nalso, the history of the post-Reformation sects offers an interesting\nparallel.\n\nBe that as it may, it is plain that the Catholic Church, in devoting her\nenergies to the suppression of the Gnostic heresies, lost much of the\nmissionary power which till then had seemed all-conquering. During the\ntwo centuries which elapsed between the siege of Jerusalem under\nVespasian and the accession of Aurelian, the Church had raised herself\nfrom the position of a tiny Jewish sect to that of the foremost among\nthe many religions of the Roman Empire. A brief but bloody persecution\nunder Diocletian convinced the still Pagan Emperors of the impossibility\nof suppressing Christianity by force, and the alliance which they were\nthus driven to conclude with it enabled the Church to use successfully\nagainst the Gnostics the arm which had proved powerless against the\nCatholics[78]. Yet the triumph was a costly one, and was in its turn\nfollowed by a schism which rent the Church in twain more effectually\nthan the Gnostic speculations could ever have done. In the West, indeed,\nthe Latin Church was able to convert the barbarians who extinguished the\nWestern half of the Roman Empire; but in the East, Christianity had to\ngive way to a younger and more ardent faith. How far this was due to the\nmeans taken by the Church to suppress Gnosticism must still be a matter\nof speculation, but it is certain that after her first triumph over\nheresy she gained no more great victories.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  Col. ii. 18.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Lightfoot, _St Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Colossians_, pp. 90 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  So A. J\u00fclicher in _Encyc. Bibl._ _s.v._ Gnosis.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 23, p. 214, Harvey. Salmon in _Dict. of\n  Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Nicolaitans, thinks this an idea peculiar to\n  Irenaeus alone and not to be found in the older source from which he\n  drew his account of the other Gnostics.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  The Canonical Apocalypse was probably written after the siege of\n  Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D., while the first unmistakable mention we\n  have of St John\u2019s Gospel is by Theophilus of Antioch a hundred years\n  later. Earlier quotations from it are anonymous, _i.e._ they give the\n  words of the Gospel as in the A.V. but without referring them to any\n  specified author. See Duchesne, _Early Christian Church_, Eng. ed. pp.\n  102, 192.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 22, says that\n  the Church was untroubled by heresy until the reign of Trajan.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Hegesippus (see last note) in his account of the martyrdom of \u201cJames\n  the Brother of the Lord,\u201d _op. cit._ Bk II. c. 23.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  See Schmiedel, _Encyc. Bibl._ _s.v._ Community of Goods. Cf. Lucian,\n  _de Mort. Peregrini_, c. XIII, and Mozley\u2019s comments in _Dict.\n  Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Lucianus.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  _Maran atha._ See _Epistle of Barnabas_, c. XXI.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Winwood Reade, _op. cit._ pp. 237 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Eug\u00e8ne de Faye, \u201cFormation d\u2019un Doctrine de Dieu au IIme Si\u00e8cle,\u201d\n  _R.H.R._ t. LXIII. (1911), p. 9. He quotes Harnack in his support.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Mark xi. 1.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  On the ignorance of the first Christian writers, see de Faye, _op.\n  cit._ p. 4.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Celsum_, Bk III. c. 12. Cf. Kr\u00fcger, _La Grande\n  Encyclop\u00e9die_, Paris, _s.v._ Gnosticisme.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  \u201cThose which say they are Jews, but are not\u201d; Rev. ii. 9; _ibid._ iii.\n  9. The _Clementine Homilies_, though of much later date, never speak\n  of the Christians otherwise than as Jews. Cf. Duchesne, _Early\n  Christian Church_, p. 12.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Acts viii. 1.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Renan (_L\u2019Ant\u00e9christ_, p. 511, and note 1) gives a passage, which he\n  thinks is from Tacitus, showing that Titus aimed at the suppression of\n  the Christians as well as the Jews. Doubtless many Christians perished\n  in the punitive measures taken in the Ist century against the Jews in\n  Antioch and elsewhere. Cf. Josephus, _Wars of the Jews_, Bk VII. c. 3;\n  Eusebius, _H. E._ Bk III. cc. 12, 17, 19, 20. It was the persecution\n  by the fanatical Jews that compelled the flight of the Christians to\n  Pella shortly before the siege. See Eusebius, Bk III. c. 5; Epiph.\n  _Haer._ XXIX. c. 7, p. 239, Oehler. The episode of the \u201cWoman clothed\n  with the Sun\u201d of the Canonical Apocalypse is supposed by some to refer\n  to this.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  So that the members of the little Church of Pella who retained the\n  name of Jews gradually ceased to be regarded as orthodox by the other\n  Christian communities and were called Ebionites. See Renan,\n  _L\u2019Ant\u00e9christ_, p. 548. Cf. Fuller in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._\n  Ebionites for authorities. The connection that Fuller would find\n  between the Essenes and the Ebionites seems to rest on little proof.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  Thus Mgr Duchesne, _op. cit._ p. 14, says that \u201cSt Paul was a Jew by\n  birth, imbued with the exclusiveness and disdainful spirit which\n  inspired his race and influenced all their dealings with other\n  nations.\u201d\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Many of the Sicarii and other fanatics managed to escape before the\n  catastrophe of the First Jewish War to Egypt and the Cyrenaica, where\n  they continued to commit outrages and make rebellion until they\n  brought on themselves and their co-religionists the wrath of the\n  Romans. See Josephus, _Wars_, Bk VII. cc. 10, 11. Cf. Renan,\n  _L\u2019Ant\u00e9christ_, p. 539; _id._, _Les \u00c9vangiles_, p. 369.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, Frgs. 243-248, especially the quotation from\n  Nigidius.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  See Chapter II, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  So Renan, _L\u2019Ant\u00e9christ_, p. 300, says that the Synoptic Gospels\n  probably first took shape in the Church at Pella. Thus he explains the\n  so-called \u201clittle Apocalypse\u201d of Matthew xxiv., Mark xiii., and Luke\n  xxi. Cf. _ibid._, p. 296 and note. For the symbolic construction\n  placed upon them by the Gnostics, see Hatch, _H. L._, p. 75.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  Hegesippus, who probably wrote about 150 A.D., speaks of Thebuthis,\n  Dositheus, and others as leaders of early sects. Eusebius, _Hist.\n  Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 22, and Origen (_cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 11) make this\n  last a contemporary of Simon Magus. The _Clementine Homilies_ (Bk II.\n  c. 24), from whom both authors may have derived their information,\n  have a long story about Dositheus being with Simon a follower of John\n  the Baptist, and disputing with Simon the headship of the sect. From\n  presumably other sources, Hegesippus speaks of the Essenes, the\n  Masbothoeans and the Hemero-baptists, for which last see Chapter XIII,\n  _infra_, as pre-Christian sects.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Winwood Reade, _op. cit._ p. 244. Probably this is what is meant by\n  Gibbon when he says (_Decline and Fall_, Bury\u2019s ed. III. p. 153, n.\n  54) that no future bishop of Avila is likely to imitate Priscillian by\n  turning heretic, because the income of the see is 20,000 ducats a\n  year.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  _Apostolical Constitutions_, Bk II. cc. 45, 46, 47. Harnack,\n  _Expansion of Christianity_, Eng. ed. II. p. 98 n. 1, gives the date\n  of this work as \u201cmiddle of the 2nd century.\u201d Duchesne, _op. cit._ p.\n  109, thinks it is derived from the _Didache_ which he puts not later\n  than Trajan.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  _Apost. Const._ Bk II. c. 26: \u201cHe (_i.e._ the bishop) is your ruler\n  and governor; he is your king and potentate; he is next after God,\n  your earthly divinity, who has a right to be honoured by you.\u201d\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  Lucian, _Proteus Peregrinus_, _passim_; _Acts of Paul and Thekla_;\n  _Acts of Peter of Alexandria_.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Clement of Rome, _First Epistle to the Corinthians_, c. 44.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  So Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 26, pp. 219, 220, Harvey, says it was\n  the desire to become a \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 or teacher that drove Tatian, once a\n  hearer of Justin Martyr\u2019s, into heresy. Hegesippus, _ubi cit._\n  _supra_, says that Thebuthis first corrupted the Church, on account of\n  his not being made a bishop. For the same accusation in the cases of\n  Valentinus and Marcion, see Chapters IX and XI, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Celsus _apud_ Origen (_op. cit._ Bk III. cc. 10, 11) says: \u201cChristians\n  at first were few in number, and all held like opinions, but when they\n  increased to a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each\n  wishing to have his own individual party; for this was their object\n  from the beginning\u201d\u2014a contention which Origen rebuts.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  Thus in Egypt it was almost exclusively the lower classes which\n  embraced Christianity at the outset. See Am\u00e9lineau, \u201cLes Actes Coptes\n  du martyre de St Polycarpe\u201d in _P.S.B.A._ vol. X. (1888), p. 392.\n  Julian (_Cyr._ VI. p. 206) says that under Tiberius and Claudius there\n  were no converts of rank.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Thus Cerinthus, who is made by tradition the opponent of St John, is\n  said to have been a Jew and to have been trained in the doctrines of\n  Philo at Alexandria (Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ Bk II. \u00a7 3). Cf. Neander,\n  _Ch. Hist._ (Eng. ed.) vol. II. pp. 42-47. Neander says the same thing\n  about Basilides (_op. cit._ p. 47 and note) and Valentinus (p. 71),\n  although it is difficult to discover any authority for the statement\n  other than the Jewish features in their doctrines. There is more\n  evidence for the statement regarding Marcus, the heresiarch and\n  magician whom Irenaeus (_op. cit._ Bk I. c. 7) accuses of the\n  seduction of Christian women, apparently in his own time, since the\n  words of Marcus\u2019 ritual, which the Bishop of Lyons quotes, are in much\n  corrupted Hebrew, and the Jewish Cabala was used by him. Renan\u2019s view\n  (_Marc Aur\u00e8le_, pp. 139 _sqq._) that Christianity in Egypt never\n  passed through the Judaeo-Christian stage may in part account for the\n  desire of Jewish converts there to set up schools of their own.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  For Marcion, see Chapter XI, _infra_. Summary accounts of the\n  doctrines of other Gnostics mentioned are given by Irenaeus and\n  Hippolytus in the works quoted. See also the _Dict. of Christian\n  Biog._, under their respective names.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  The lesser heresiologists, such as Philaster of Brescia, St Augustine,\n  the writer who is known as Praedestinatus, the author of the tract\n  _Adversus omnes Haereses_ wrongly ascribed to Tertullian, and the\n  other writers included in the first volume of Oehler\u2019s _Corpus\n  Haereseologici_, Berlin, 1856, as well as writers like Eusebius, all\n  copy from one or other of these sources. The _Excerpta Theodoti_\n  appended to the works of Clement of Alexandria are on a different\n  footing, but their effect at the time spoken of in the text was not\n  appreciated. Cf. Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Valentinus.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L\u2019Intol\u00e9rance Religieuse et Politique_, Paris, 1912,\n  p. 140.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Ammianus Marcellinus, Bk XXII. c. 5, \u00a7 4.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  An excellent and concise account of the discovery and the subsequent\n  controversy as to the authorship of the book is given by Salmon in the\n  _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Hippolytus Romanus. For Mgr Duchesne\u2019s\n  theory that Hippolytus was a schismatic Pope, see his _Hist. Christian\n  Church_, pp. 227-233.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Salmon\u2019s position is set out by him in _Hermathena_, Dublin, 1885, pp.\n  389 _sqq._ For St\u00e4helin\u2019s, see his tractate _Die Gnostische Quellen\n  Hippolyts_, Leipzig, 1890, in Harnack\u2019s _Texte und Untersuchungen_.\n  Both are skilfully summarized by de Faye in his _Introduction \u00e0\n  l\u2019\u00c9tude du Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1903, pp. 25 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  De Faye does not accept St\u00e4helin\u2019s contention as to the forgery, but\n  his conclusion as to the date is as stated in the text. See\n  _Introduction_, etc. pp. 68, 71.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Tertullian, _Scorpiace_, c. 1.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ (Eng. ed.), I. p. 208, quotes a case from St\n  Augustine which I have not been able to verify.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, II. p. 110 and note 144 (Bury\u2019s ed.). For\n  the search which the Christian emperors directed to be made for the\n  heretics\u2019 books, see Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_, Bk III. cc. 64, 65.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  The actual transcription and translation were made by Maurice\n  Schwartze, a young German who was sent over here to study the\n  documents in the British Museum at the expense of the King of Prussia.\n  He died after the completion of his task, and before the book could be\n  printed.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau\u2019s transcription and translation appeared in the _Notices et\n  Extraits_, etc. of the Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions, t. XXIX. pt 2\n  (Paris, 1891). He has also published a translation into French without\n  text of the _Pistis Sophia_ (Paris, 1895). Dr Carl Schmidt, of the\n  University of Berlin, has published translations into German of both\n  works under the title _Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften_, Bd I., Leipzig,\n  1905. None of these versions are entirely satisfactory, and it is much\n  to be wished that an authoritative edition of the two works could be\n  put forward by English scholars. The present writer gave a short\n  history and analysis of them in the _Scottish Review_ for 1893 under\n  the title \u201cSome Heretic Gospels.\u201d\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Clement was so far from being a heresiologist that he has not escaped\n  the reproach of being himself a heretic. He repeatedly speaks in\n  praise of the \u201ctrue Gnostic,\u201d meaning thereby the perfect Christian,\n  and although this is probably a mere matter of words, it seems to have\n  induced Photius in the IXth century to examine his writings with a\n  jealous eye. The result was that, as M. Courdaveaux points out\n  (_R.H.R._ 1892, p. 293 and note), he found him guilty of teaching that\n  matter was eternal, the Son a simple creature of the Father, the\n  Incarnation only an appearance, that man\u2019s soul entered several bodies\n  in succession, and that several worlds were created before that of\n  Adam. All these are Gnostic opinions, and it may be that if we had all\n  Clement\u2019s books in our hands, as had Photius, we might confirm M.\n  Courdaveaux\u2019s judgment, as does apparently Mgr Duchesne. Cf. his\n  _Hist. of Christian Ch._ pp. 244, 245.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  Cf. A. C. McGiffert, _Prolegomena to the Church History of Eusebius_\n  (Schaff and Wace\u2019s Nicene Library), Oxford, 1890, vol. I. p. 179 and\n  note.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  Of the heresies mentioned in the _Philosophumena_ only two, viz. that\n  of Simon Magus and that of those whom Hippolytus calls the Sethiani,\n  do not admit, either expressly or by implication, the divinity of\n  Jesus. This may be accounted for by what has been said above as to\n  both being pre-Christian in origin.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  _E.g._ Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 1, I. p. 9, Harvey. Here he is\n  called \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f34\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, \u201clike and equal to him who\n  had sent him forth.\u201d There is certainly here no allusion to\n  \u201cbegetting\u201d in the ordinary sense of the word.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  As in the epithet of Persephone in the Orphic Hymn quoted above. See\n  Chapter IV, _supra_. The unanimity with which all post-Christian\n  Gnostics accepted the superhuman nature of Jesus seems to have struck\n  Harnack. See his _What is Christianity?_ Eng. ed. 1904, pp. 209, 210.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  _Iliad_ I. ll. 560 _sqq._; IV. ll. 57, 330; XIV. ll. 320 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  _Odyssey_ XI. ll. 600 _sqq._; Plutarch, _Life of Pelopidas_, c. XVI.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. LXXI.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  _Ibid._ cc. XXV., XXVII., XXX.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  Probably this was one of the reasons why the Mysteries which showed\n  the death of a god had in Greece to be celebrated in secret. See\n  Diodorus\u2019 remark (Bk V. c. 77, \u00a7 3) that the things which the Greeks\n  only handed down in secret were by the Cretans concealed from no one.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 19, p. 265, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 19, II. p. 200, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 27, p. 366, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 18, p. 197, Harvey. Hippolytus, _op.\n  cit._ Bk VII. c. 28, p. 368, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VIII. c. 8.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 13, pp. cxli and 61, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  _Ibid._ Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 31, pp. cxli and 62, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 19, \u00a7 3, p. 202, Harvey; Hippolytus,\n  _op. cit._ Bk IV. c. 24, p. 225, Cruice; Tertullian, _Scorpiace_, c.\n  I.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  For the accusation against the Christians, see Athenagoras,\n  _Apologia_, cc. III., XXXI.; Justin Martyr, _First Apol._ c. XXVI. For\n  that against the Jews, Strack, _Le Sang et la fausse Accusation du\n  Meurtre Rituel_, Paris, 1893. For that against the Freemasons, \u201cDevil\n  Worship and Freemasonry,\u201d _Contemporary Review_ for 1896.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  See n. 1, _supra_. So Eusebius speaks of the Simonians receiving\n  baptism and slipping into the Church without revealing their secret\n  tenets, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk II. c. 1.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  Revillout, _Vie et Sentences de Secundus_, Paris, 1873, p. 3, n. 1.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Le Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien_, p. 75, thus enumerates them: the\n  doctrine of emanation, an unknown [_i.e._ an inaccessible and\n  incomprehensible] God, the resemblance of the three worlds, the\n  aeonology of Simon, and a common cosmology. To this may be added the\n  inherent malignity of matter and the belief in salvation by knowledge.\n  See Kr\u00fcger, _La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_, _s.v._ Gnosticisme.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  Renan, _Mare Aur\u00e8le_, p. 114.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  Witness the confusion between Ennoia and Epinoia in Chapter VI, vol.\n  I. p. 180, n. 4, _supra_, and between Saturnilus and Saturninus in\n  this chapter, p. 9. So Irenaeus and others record the opinions of an\n  associate of Marcus whom they call \u201c_Colarbasus_,\u201d a name which modern\n  criticism has shown to be a mistake for \u05e7\u05d5\u05dc \u05d0\u05e8\u05d1\u05e2 Kol-arba, \u201cThe Voice\n  of the Four\u201d or the Supreme Tetrad. See Renan, _Mare Aur\u00e8le_, p. 129;\n  Hort in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.h.v._ So Clement of Alexandria,\n  _Protrept._ c. II. mistakes Evoe, the mystic cry of the Bacchantes,\n  for the Eve of Genesis.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  Renan, _L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne_, p. 140.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 177, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  As in the case of Clement of Alexandria, who seems to have been\n  initiated into most of the heathen mysteries then current. It is to be\n  noted, too, that Origen, although he speaks of the Ophites as an\n  insignificant sect (see Chapter VIII, _infra_), yet professes to know\n  all about their secret opinions.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Renan, _Marc Aur\u00e8le_, p. 139.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  Thus Ambrose of Milan had been before his conversion a Valentinian,\n  Epiphanius a Nicolaitan. See Eusebius, _H.E._ Bk VI. c. 18; Epiph.\n  _Haer._ XXVI. c. 17, p. 198, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  It could be even self-administered, as in the _Acts of Paul and\n  Thekla_, where Thekla baptizes herself in the arena. See Tischendorf\u2019s\n  text. The _Clementine Homilies_ (Bk XIV. c. 1) show that it could be\n  immediately followed by the Eucharist without any intermediate rite or\n  preparation. Contrast with this the elaborate ceremonies described by\n  Cyril of Jerusalem, where the white-robed band of converts after a\n  long catechumenate, including fasting and the communication of secret\n  doctrines and passwords, approach on Easter Eve the doors of the\n  church where the lights turned darkness into day. See Hatch, _H. L._\n  pp. 297, 299.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  Duchesne, _Hist. Christian Ch._ p. 32; Harnack, _What is\n  Christianity?_ Eng. ed. p. 210.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  As Hatch, _H. L._ pp. 274-279, has pointed out, the term \u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n  which led to so much shedding of Christian blood, first occurs among\n  the post-Christian Gnostics, and led in turn to most of the wranglings\n  about \u201csubstance,\u201d \u201cperson,\u201d and the other metaphysical distinctions\n  and their result in \u201cstrife and murder, the devastation of fair\n  fields, the flame of fire and sword\u201d (_ibid._ p. 279). For the\n  possibilities of Greek science, had it not been opposed by the Church,\n  see _ibid._ p. 26.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  See the edict of Constantine, which Eusebius (_Vit. Constantini_, cc.\n  LXIV., LXV.) quotes with unholy glee, prohibiting the Gnostics from\n  presuming to assemble together either publicly or privately, and\n  commanding that their \u201chouses of prayer\u201d should be confiscated and\n  handed over to the Catholic Church. Eusebius (_ibid._ c. LXVI.) says\n  that the result of this was that the \u201csavage beasts crept secretly\n  into the Church,\u201d and continued to disseminate their doctrines by\n  stealth. Perhaps such a result was to be expected.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII\n                  POST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: THE OPHITES\n\n\nAlthough the Ophites were one of the most widely-spread and in some\nrespects the most interesting of the heretical sects which came to light\nafter the foundation of the Christian Church, we know nothing at first\nhand about their origin. Philastrius, or Philaster of Brescia, writing\nabout 380 A.D., includes them among those \u201cwho taught heresies before\nthe Coming of Christ[79]\u201d; but the phrase does not perhaps bear its\napparent meaning, and the late date at which he wrote makes it unlikely\nthat he possessed any exclusive evidence on the point. A more plausible\ntradition, which is common to St Augustine[80], to the tractate _Against\nAll Heresies_ which passes under the name of Tertullian[81], and to the\nsimilar one attributed to St Jerome[82], is that the Ophites derived\ntheir doctrines from Nicolaus or Nicolas of Antioch, the deacon\nmentioned in the Acts[83], and that they are therefore alluded to under\nthe name of Nicolaitans[84] in the address to the Church of Ephesus in\nthe Canonical Apocalypse. Origen, on the other hand, in his _Discourse\nagainst Celsus_ says that they boasted of one Euphrates as their\nfounder[85]; while Hippolytus declares that their tenets were said by\nthemselves to be due to \u201cthe very numerous discourses which were handed\ndown by James the brother of the Lord to Mariamne[86].\u201d From which\ncontradictory statements we may gather that the \u201cheresy\u201d of the Ophites\nwas, even as early as 230 A.D., a very old one, which may have appeared\neven before Christianity began to show its power, and that it was\nprobably born in Asia Minor and owed much to the Pagan religions there\npractised and little or nothing to any dominant personality as did the\nsystems of Simon Magus and the heresies treated of in the succeeding\nchapters.\n\nIt is also probable that between the time when the Canonical Apocalypse\nwas written and that of Origen and Hippolytus[87], the Ophites altered\ntheir doctrines more than once. We may not be able to go so far as their\nhistorian, Father Giraud, who thinks that he can distinguish between\ntheir earlier opinions, which he would attribute to the Naassenes or\nOphites[88] described by Hippolytus, and those of a later school to\nwhich he would assign the name of Ophites specially[89]. Yet many of the\nFathers confuse their doctrines with those of the Sethians, the\nCainites, and other sects which seem to have had some distinguishing\nfeatures[90]; while Hippolytus, who shows a more critical spirit than\nthe other heresiologists, says expressly that the other heresies just\nnamed were little different in appearance from this one, being united by\nthe same spirit of error[91]. The confusion is further increased by his\nstatement that the Naassenes called themselves Gnostics, although\nCarpocrates\u2019 followers, who must have been later in time, are elsewhere\nsaid to be the first to adopt this name[92]. For there was at least one\nother sect of heretics who did the same thing, and to whom Epiphanius in\nhis _Panarion_ attributes, together with a theological and cosmological\nsystem not unlike that hereafter described, mysteries of unnameable\nobscenity with which the Ophites were never charged[93]. In this respect\nit may be as well to remember the words of Tertullian that the heretics\n\n    \u201cknow no respect even for their own leaders. Hence it is that\n    schisms seldom happen among heretics because, even when they exist,\n    they do not appear; for their very unity is schism. I am greatly in\n    error,\u201d he continues, \u201cif they do not amongst themselves even\n    diverge from their own rules, since every man, as it suits his own\n    temper, modifies the traditions he has received after the same\n    fashion as did he who handed them down to him, when he moulded them\n    according to his own free will.... What was allowed to Valentinus is\n    allowable to the Valentinians, and that is lawful for the\n    Marcionites which Marcion did, _i.e._ to innovate on the faith\n    according to his own judgment. In short, all heresies when\n    investigated are found to be in many particulars disagreeing with\n    their own authors[94].\u201d\n\nIf Tertullian was right, it is idle to expect that after the lapse of\nnineteen centuries we can hope to distinguish between the opinions of an\nheresiarch and those of his followers who differed from or improved upon\nhis teaching.\n\nOf the country in which the Ophites first appeared, and where to the\nlast they had their strongest following, there can, however, be little\ndoubt. Phrygia, by which is meant the entire central part of Asia Minor\nor, to use its modern name, Anatolia, must from its situation have\nformed a great meeting-place for different creeds, among which that of\nthe Jews occupied in the first centuries of our era a prominent place.\nSeleucus Nicator had followed the example of Alexander in Egypt in\ngranting the Jews full rights of citizenship in all his cities, and\nAntiochus the Great took even more practical steps towards inducing them\nto settle there when he transported thither two thousand Jewish families\nfrom Mesopotamia and Babylon[95]. These Jews of the Eastern Diaspora or\nDispersion had, however, by no means kept whole the faith of their\nforefathers, and there seems in consequence to have been less racial\nhatred between them and the earlier inhabitants of the country here than\nelsewhere[96]. In religious matters, these last, too, seem to have been\nlittle affected by the Euhemerism that had destroyed the faith of the\nmore sophisticated Greeks, and the orgiastic worship of Cybele, Attis,\nand Sabazius found in Phrygia its principal seat. The tendency of the\ninhabitants towards religious hysteria was not likely to be lessened by\nthe settlement in the centre of Asia Minor of the Celtic tribes known as\nthe Galatae, who had gradually passed under the Roman yoke in the time\nof Augustus, but seem long to have retained their Celtic taste for\ninnovations in religious matters, and to have supplied from the outset\nan endless number of heresies to the Church[97]. Moreover, in the Wars\nof Succession which followed the death of Alexander, Phrygia had been\nbandied about like a shuttlecock between Antigonus and Lysimachus; in\nthe decadence of the Seleucid house, it had been repeatedly harried by\nthe pretenders to the Syrian crown; and it had, during the temporary\nsupremacy of Mithridates and his son-in-law Tigranes, been subject to\nthe tyranny of the Armenians[98]. Thanks to the policy of these\nbarbarian kings, it had in great measure been denuded of its\nGreek-speaking inhabitants[99], the growth of its towns had been\nchecked, and the country seems to have been practically divided among a\ncrowd of dynasts or priest-kings, generally the high-priests of temples\npossessing vast landed estates and preserving their importance by the\ncelebration of yearly festivals. Dr Mahaffy compares these potentates\nwith the prince-bishops and lordly abbots produced by nearly the same\nconditions in mediaeval Europe[100], and Sir William Ramsay\u2019s and Mr\nHogarth\u2019s researches of late years in Anatolia have shown how much truth\nthere is in the comparison.\n\nThe religion practised by these priest-kings throughout the whole of\nAsia Minor differed slightly in form, but was one in substance[101]. It\nwas in effect the worship of the bisexual and mortal gods whom we have\nalready seen worshipped under varying names in the Eastern basin of the\nMediterranean. These deities, whose alternate appearance as male and\nfemale, infant and adult, could only be explained to Western ears as the\nresult of incestuous unions, could all on final analysis be reduced to\none great divinity in whom all Nature was contained. The essence of the\nAnatolian religion, says Sir William Ramsay, when describing the state\nof things that existed in Phrygia immediately before the preaching of St\nPaul, was\n\n    \u201cthe adoration of the life of Nature\u2014that life apparently subject to\n    death, yet never dying, but reproducing itself in new forms,\n    different and yet the same. This perpetual self-identity under\n    varying forms, this annihilation of death through the power of\n    self-reproduction, was the object of an enthusiastic worship,\n    characterized by remarkable self-abandonment and immersion in the\n    divine, by a mixture of obscene symbolism and sublime truths, by\n    negation of the moral distinctions and family ties that exist in a\n    more developed society, but do not exist in the free life of Nature.\n    The mystery of self-reproduction, of eternal unity amid temporary\n    diversity, is the key to explain all the repulsive legends and\n    ceremonies that cluster round that worship, and all the manifold\n    manifestations or diverse embodiments of the ultimate single divine\n    life that are carved on the rocks of Asia Minor[102].\u201d\n\nWhether the Phrygians of Apostolic times actually saw all these sublime\nideas underlying the religion of their country may be doubted; but it is\nfairly certain that at the time in question there was worshipped\nthroughout Anatolia a divine family comprising a goddess known as the\nMother of the Gods, together with a male deity, who was at once her son,\nher spouse, her brother, and sometimes her father[103]. The worship of\nthis pair, who were in the last resort considered as one bisexual being,\nwas celebrated in the form of festivals and mystery-plays like those of\nthe Middle Ages, in which the birth, nuptials, death, and resurrection\nof the divinities were acted in dramatic form. At these festivals, the\nworshippers gave themselves up to religious excitement alternating\nbetween continence sometimes carried to the extent of self-mutilation on\nthe part of the men, and hysterical or religious prostitution on the\npart of the women[104]. The gathering of foreign merchants and slaves in\nthe Anatolian cities, and the constant shifting of their inhabitants by\ntheir successive masters, had forced on the votaries of these Phrygian\ndeities a _theocrasia_ of the most complete kind, and the Phrygian god\nand goddess were in turn identified with the deities of Eleusis, of whom\nindeed they may have been the prototypes, with the Syrian Aphrodite and\nAdonis, with the Egypto-Greek Serapis and Isis, and probably with many\nOriental deities as well[105]. At the same time, their fame and their\nworship had spread far beyond Phrygia. The primitive statue of the\ngoddess of Pessinus, a black stone or baetyl dignified by the name of\nthe Mother of the Gods, was transported to Rome in the stress of the\nSecond Punic War and there became the centre of a ritual served by\neunuch priests supported by the State[106]; while, later, her analogue,\nthe Syrian goddess, whose temple at Hierapolis, according to Lucian,\nrequired a _personnel_ of over three hundred ministrants, became the\nobject of the special devotion of the Emperor Nero[107]. As with the\nAlexandrian divinities, the respect paid to these stranger deities by\nthe legions carried their worship into every part of the Roman\nworld[108].\n\nThe element which the Jews of Asia contributed to Anatolian religion at\nthis period was probably more important than has been generally\nsupposed. M. Cumont\u2019s theory that the epithet of the \u201cHighest\u201d (\u1f5d\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2)\noften applied to the God of Anatolia and Syria really covers the\npersonality of Yahweh of Israel rests upon little proof at present[109].\nIt may be conceded that the tendency to monotheism\u2014or to speak strictly\ntheir hatred for the worshippers of many gods\u2014rooted in the Jews from\nthe Captivity onwards may at first have done much to hasten the progress\nof the _theocrasia_ which was welding all the gods of the Mysteries into\none great God of Nature. But the Babylonian or Oriental Jews, called in\nthe Talmud and elsewhere the Ten Tribes, probably had some inborn\nsympathy with the more or less exalted divinities of the West. Even in\nthe temple of Jerusalem, Ezekiel sees in his vision \u201cwomen weeping for\nTammuz[110],\u201d while Jeremiah complains of the Jews making cakes to the\nQueen of Heaven, which seems to be another name for the Mother of the\nGods[111]. The feminine side of the Anatolian worship can therefore have\ncome to them as no new thing. Perhaps it was due to this that they so\nsoon fell away from their ancestral faith, and that, in the words of the\nTalmud, \u201cthe baths and wines of Phrygia separated the Ten Tribes from\ntheir brethren[112].\u201d That their collection of money for the Temple in\nRoman times was due not so much to any religious motive, as to some of\nthe financial operations in which the Jews were always engaging, Cicero\nhints with fair plainness in his Oration in defence of Flaccus[113].\nThey seem, too, to have intermarried freely with the Greek citizens,\nwhile the sons of these mixed marriages did not undergo the circumcision\nwhich the Jews of the Western Dispersion demanded not only from native\nJews but also from proselytes of alien blood[114].\n\nThe Jews also brought with them into Phrygia superstitions or\nside-beliefs to which they were probably much more firmly attached than\nto their national religion. The practice of magic had always been\npopular among the Chosen People as far back as the time of Saul, and the\nbowls inscribed with spells against enchantments and evil spirits form\nalmost the only relics which they have left in the mounds which mark\ntheir settlement at Hilleh on the site of the ancient Babylon[115]. From\nthis and other evidence, it would seem that the Babylonian Jews had\nborrowed from their Chaldaean captors many of their views as to the\nimportance of the Name in magic, especially when used for the purposes\nof exorcism or of spells; that they thought the name of their national\ngod Yahweh particularly efficacious; and that the different names of God\nused in the Old Testament were supposed, according to a well-known rule\nin magic, to be of greater efficiency as the memory of their meaning and\nactual significance died out among them[116]. The Babylonian Jews,\nmoreover, as is evident from the Book of Daniel, no sooner found\nthemselves among the well-to-do citizens of a great city than they\nturned to the professional practice of divination and of those curious\narts whereby they could make a living from the credulity of their\nGentile neighbours without the manual labour always dreaded by\nthem[117]. Hence Phrygia, like the rest of Asia Minor during the\nApostolic Age, was full of strolling Jewish sorcerers who undertook for\nmoney to cast out devils, to effect and destroy enchantments, to send\nand interpret dreams, and to manufacture love philtres[118]. That in\ndoing so they made great use of the name of their national deity seems\nplain from Origen\u2019s remark that \u201cnot only do those belonging to the\nJewish nation employ in their prayers to God and in the exorcising of\ndemons the words: God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob, but\nso also do most of those who occupy themselves with magical rites. For\nthere is found in treatises on magic in many countries such an\ninvocation of God and assumption of the divine name, as implies a\nfamiliar use of it by these men in their dealings with demons[119].\u201d\nThis is abundantly borne out by the spells preserved for us by the Magic\nPapyri before mentioned, where the expressions \u201cGod of Abraham,\u201d \u201cGod of\nIsaac,\u201d \u201cGod of Jacob\u201d constantly occur. One spell given above contains,\nas we have seen, along with many unfamiliar expressions drawn from\nGreek, Persian, Egyptian, and even Sumerian sources, the words \u201cBlessed\nbe the Lord God of Abraham[120],\u201d and in nearly every one do we find the\nTetragrammaton or four-lettered name of God transliterated in the A.V.\nJehovah, either with or without some of the other Divine names used in\nthe Old Testament. The names of the angels Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael\ngiven in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha are also common in all this\nliterature[121].\n\nDid the Babylonian Jews bring with them into Phrygia any theory of the\nuniverse other than the direct and unfettered rule of Jehovah and the\ncreation of the world from nothing, which they gathered from their\nsacred books? There is little evidence on the point, save some\nexpressions of doubtful import in the Magic Papyri[122] and the\nstatement of Origen that \u201cthe name Sabaoth, and Adonai and the other\nnames treated with so much reverence among the Hebrews ... belong to a\nsecret theology which refers to the Framer of all things[123].\u201d It might\nbe possible to deduce from this that the elaborate system known as the\nCabala or secret tradition of the Jews was already in existence[124].\nThis system, on its theoretical or speculative side, attempts to explain\nthe existence of the physical universe by postulating a whole series of\nintermediate powers emanating from the Supreme Being of whom they are\nthe attributes or names; while, on the other or \u201cpractical,\u201d it\nprofesses to perform wonders and to reveal mysteries by a childish\njuggling with letters in the shape of anagrams and acrostics or with\ntheir numerical values[125]. As has been said above, follies of this\nlast-named kind were unknown neither to the later Orphics nor to the\nprimitive Church, and might well be thought to have been acquired by the\nJews during their stay in Babylon, where the Semitic inhabitants seem\nfrom a very early date and for magical reasons to have used numbers\ninstead of letters in writing the names of their gods[126]. It would not\nhave been difficult for them to have acquired at the same time from the\nPersian masters of Babylon the doctrine of emanation instead of creation\nwhich is to be found in the Zend Avesta as well as in all the\npost-Christian Gnostic systems. But there are other channels besides the\nAnatolian religion through which these ideas might have come into the\nWest[127], and it will be better not to lay any stress upon this. That\nthe Cabala in the complete form in which it appears in the books known\nas the _Sepher Jetzirah_ and the _Sepher Zohar_ does not go further back\nthan the VIth or VIIth century of our era, seems to be the opinion of\nall those best qualified to judge in the matter. M. Isidore Loeb, who\nhas given the most coherent and compact summary of Cabalistic teaching\nthat has appeared of late years, finds its germs in Babylonian Judaism\nat about the same period which saw the blossoming of the Christian\nGnostic sects, without going so far as to derive either of the later\ndoctrines from the other[128].\n\nHowever this may be, there is a fair consensus of opinion among the\nFathers of the Church as to the doctrines current among those whom, for\nreasons to be presently seen, they called the Ophites or worshippers of\nthe Serpent. The aim of the sect seems to have been to produce an\neclectic system which should reconcile the religious traditions current\nfrom time immemorial in Western Asia with the worship of the Hellenized\ngods of Asia Minor, and the teachings of the already powerful Christian\nChurch. With this view they went back to what is probably the earliest\nphilosophical theory of the origin of the universe, and declared that\nbefore anything was, there existed God, but God conceived as an infinite\nocean of divinity, too great and too remote to be apprehended by man\u2019s\nintelligence, of whom and of whose attributes nothing could be known or\nsaid, and who could only be likened to a boundless sea. Something like\nthis was the view of the earliest inhabitants of Babylonia, who declared\nthat before heaven or earth or the gods came into being there was\nnothing but a vast waste of waters[129]. At some time or another, the\nsame idea passed into Egypt, when the Egyptians attributed the beginning\nof things to Nu or the primaeval deep[130]; and it was probably the\nspread of this tradition into Ionia which induced Thales of Miletus, the\nearliest of the Ionian philosophers, to assert that water was the first\nof all things[131]. This unknowable and inaccessible power, the Ophites\ndeclared to be ineffable or impossible to name, and he was only referred\nto by them as Bythos or the Deep. The same idea and the same name were\nadopted by most of the later Gnostics[132].\n\nFrom this unknowable principle or Father (\u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f04\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) there shone\nforth, according to the Ophites, a Primordial Light, infinite and\nincorruptible, which is the Father of all things subsequent to him[133].\nHere they may have been inspired, not by the Babylonian, but by its\nderivative, the Jewish tradition given in the Book of Genesis[134]. But\nthis Light was in effect, though not in name, the chief god of their\nsystem, and in Asia Minor the gods had never perhaps been imagined as\nexisting in any but human form. Accordingly they described this Light as\nthe First Man, meaning thereby no terrestrial creature, but a heavenly\nor archetypal man in whose likeness mankind was afterwards made[135].\nFrom him came forth a second Light sometimes called his Ennoia or\nThought, which expression seems to cover the idea that this Second Man\nor Son of Man, by both which names he was known to the Ophites, was not\nbegotten in the ordinary way of mortals, but was produced from the First\nMan as a thought or concept is formed in the brain[136]. Or we may, to\ntake another metaphor, regard this Ennoia as the rays of light which\nemanate or flow forth from a lamp or other source of light, but which\nhave no independent existence and still remain connected with their\nparent. Such was the Ophite idea with regard to the two great Lights or\nthe First and Second Man whom they refused to consider as separate,\ngiving them both the name of Adamas, or the Unconquered, a classical\nepithet of the Hades already identified at Eleusis with Dionysos[137].\nThey also called them, as will be seen later, the Father-and-Son. In\nthis, perhaps, they did not go outside the conception of the Anatolian\nreligion, which always represented the Divine Son as the spouse of the\ngoddess who gave him birth, and in this way eternally begetting himself.\nThus, the Phrygian goddess Cybele under the name of Agdistis was said to\nbe violently enamoured of Atys who was in effect her own son[138]. The\nsame idea was familiar to the Egyptians, among whom more than one god is\ndescribed as the \u201cbull (_i.e._ male or husband) of his mother,\u201d and it\nmay thus have passed into the Alexandrian religion, where Horus was, as\nwe have seen, often given instead of Osiris as the lover of Isis[139].\nAt Eleusis it was more modestly concealed under the myth which made\nDionysos or Hades at once the ravisher of Persephone and her son by Zeus\nin serpent form\u2014a myth which is summed up in the mystic phrase preserved\nby Clement of Alexandria that \u201cThe bull is the father of the serpent,\nand the serpent the father of the bull[140].\u201d\n\nThus the Ophites accounted for the divinity who was in effect their\nSupreme God, the still higher Bythos, as we have seen, being put in the\nbackground as too awful for human consideration[141]. But it was still\nnecessary to make manifest the feminine aspect of the deity which was\nalways very prominent in Asia Minor. The Mother of the Gods, known as Ma\nin Lydia, Cybele in Phrygia proper, Artemis at Ephesus, the unnamed\nSyrian goddess at Hierapolis, and Aphrodite in Cyprus and\nelsewhere[142], was in the early Christian centuries the most prominent\nperson in the Anatolian pantheon, a fact which Sir William Ramsay would\nattribute to the matriarchate, _Mutterrecht_, or custom of descent in\nthe female line, which he thinks indigenous to Asia Minor. In the\nearliest Phrygian religion there seems little doubt that the supreme\ngoddess was originally considered to be bisexual, and capable of\nproduction without male assistance, as is expressly stated in the legend\nof Agdistis or Cybele preserved by Pausanias[143], and perhaps hinted at\nin the stories of Amazons spread throughout the whole of Asia Minor. But\nit is probable that, as Sir William Ramsay himself says, this idea had\nbecome less prominent with the immigration from Europe of tribes of male\nwarriors without female companions,[144] while Semitic influence was\nalways against it. Hence the Ophites found themselves compelled to make\ntheir female deity inferior or posterior to their male. \u201cBelow these,\nagain (_i.e._ below the First and Second Man or Father-and-Son),\u201d says\nIrenaeus in reporting their doctrines, \u201cis the Holy Spirit ... whom they\ncall the First Woman[145].\u201d Neither he nor Hippolytus gives us any\ndirect evidence of the source whence this feminine Power was thought by\nthem to have issued. But Hippolytus says without circumlocution that\n\u201cthis Man,\u201d _i.e._ Adamas or the Father-and-Son, \u201cis both male and\nfemale[146],\u201d and he quotes the words of an Ophite hymn[147] addressed\nto him that: \u201c_From_ thee is Father and _through_ thee is Mother, two\nnames immortal, parents of Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, Man of\nmighty name[148]!\u201d Later, he puts in the mouth of the Naassene or Ophite\nwriter from whom he repeatedly quotes, the phrase:\n\n    \u201cThe Spirit is where the Father and the Son are named, from whom and\n    from the Father it is there born; and this (that is, the Spirit) is\n    the many-named, myriad-eyed Incomprehensible One for whom every\n    nature in different ways yearns,\u201d\n\nor in other words the soul or animating principle of Nature[149]. It\ntherefore seems that the first Ophites made their Supreme God a triad\nlike the Eleusinian, the Alexandrian, and the Anatolian, consisting of\nthree persons two of whom were males and the third a female, or a\nFather, Mother, and Son, of whom the Son was but another and renewed\nform of the Father, while the union of all three was necessary to\nexpress every aspect of the Deity, who was nevertheless one in\nessence[150]. This threefold division of things, said the Ophites, ran\nthrough all nature \u201cthere being three worlds or universes: the angelic\n(that sent directly from God), the psychic, and the earthly or material;\nand three Churches: the Chosen, the Called, and the Captive[151].\u201d The\nmeaning of these names we shall see later when we consider the Ophite\nidea of the Apocatastasis[152] or return of the worlds to the Deity.\n\nFirst, however, another Power had to be produced which should serve as\nan intermediary or ambassador from the Supreme Triad to the worlds below\nit. This necessity may have arisen from Plato\u2019s view, adopted by Philo\nof Alexandria, that God was too high and pure to be contaminated by any\ncontact with matter[153]. But it may also owe something to the idea\ncommon to all Orientals that a king or great man can only communicate\nwith his inferiors through a _wakil_ or agent; and that this idea was\nthen current in Phrygia seems plain from the story in the Acts of the\nApostles that in the Lycaonian province Barnabas, who was of majestic\npresence, was adored and nearly sacrificed to as Zeus, while Paul, who\nwas the principal speaker, was only revered as Hermes[154]. The later\nOphite account of the production of this intermediary power or messenger\nwhich we find in Irenaeus is that the Father-and-Son \u201cdelighting in the\nbeauty of the Spirit\u201d\u2014that is of the First Woman\u2014\u201cshed their light upon\nher\u201d and thus brought into existence \u201can incorruptible light, the third\nman, whom they call Christos[155].\u201d With this last addition the Divine\nFamily was considered complete, and the same author tells us that\nChristos and his mother were \u201cimmediately drawn up into the\nincorruptible aeon which they call the veritable Church[156].\u201d This\nseems to be the first appearance in Gnosticism of the use of the word\nChurch as signifying what was later called the Pleroma or Fulness of the\nGodhead; but it may be compared to the \u201cGreat Council\u201d apparently used\nin the same sense by some unidentified prophet quoted by Origen, of\nwhich Great Council Christ was said by the prophet to be the \u201cAngel\u201d or\nmessenger[157].\n\nFrom this perfect Godhead, the Ophites had to show the evolution of a\nless perfect universe, a problem which they approached in a way\ndiffering but slightly from that of Simon Magus. This last, as we have\nseen, interposed between God and our own world three pairs of \u201cRoots\u201d or\nPowers together with an intermediate world of aeons whose angels and\nauthorities had brought our universe into existence. These angels\npurposely fashioned it from existing matter, the substance most removed\nfrom and hostile to God, in order that they might rule over it and thus\npossess a dominion of their own. But the Ophites went behind this\nconception, and made the first confusion of the Divine light with matter\nthe result of an accident. The light, in Irenaeus\u2019 account of their\ndoctrines, shed by the Father-and-Son upon the Holy Spirit was so\nabundant that she could not contain it all within herself, and some of\nit therefore, as it were, boiled over and fell down[158], when it was\nreceived by that matter which they, like Simon, looked upon as existing\nindependently[159]. They described this last as separated into four\nelements, water, darkness, the abyss, and chaos, which we may suppose to\nbe different strata of the same substance, the uppermost layer being\napparently the waste of waters mentioned in Genesis. Falling upon these\nwaters, the superfluity of light of the Holy Spirit stirred them,\nalthough before immovable, to their lowest depths, and took from them a\nbody formed apparently from the envelope of waters surrounding it. Then,\nrising again by a supreme effort from this contact, it made out of this\nenvelope the visible heaven which has ever since been stretched over the\nearth like a canopy[160]. This superfluity of light which thus mingled\nwith matter, the earlier Ophites called, like the authors of the\nWisdom-literature, Sophia, and also Prunicos (meaning apparently the\n\u201csubstitute\u201d) and described as bisexual[161]. Another and perhaps a\nlater modification of their doctrine fabled that it sprang from the left\nside of the First Woman while Christos emerged from her right. They\ntherefore called it Sinistra and declared it to be feminine only[162].\nBoth traditions agreed that this Sophia or Prunicos put forth a son\nwithout male assistance, that this son in like manner gave birth to\nanother power and so on, until at last seven powers at seven removes\nsprang from Sophia. Each of them fashioned from matter a habitation, and\nthese are represented as heavens or hemispheres stretched out one under\nthe other, every one becoming less perfect as it gets further from the\nPrimordial Light[163]. Irenaeus and Hippolytus are agreed that the first\nor immediate son of Sophia was called Ialdabaoth, a name which Origen\nsays, in speaking of the Ophites, is taken from the art of magic, and\nwhich surely enough appears in nearly all the earlier Magic Papyri[164].\nHippolytus says that this Ialdabaoth was the Demiurge and father of the\nvisible universe or phenomenal world[165]. Irenaeus also gives the names\nof the later \u201cheavens, virtues, powers, angels, and builders\u201d as being\nrespectively Iao, Sabaoth, Adonai, Eloaeus, Oreus, and Astaphaeus or\nAstanpheus, which agrees with the Ophite document or Diagram to be\npresently mentioned[166]. The first four of these names are too\nevidently the names given in the Old Testament to Yahweh for us to doubt\nthe assertion of the Fathers that by Ialdabaoth the Ophites meant the\nGod of the Jews[167]. The last two names, Oreus and Astaphaeus, Origen\nalso asserts to be taken from the art of magic, and may be supposed to\nhave some connection with fire and water respectively[168]. It is\nprobable that the later Ophites identified all these seven heavens with\nthe seven astrological \u201cplanets,\u201d _i.e._ Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun,\nVenus, Mercury and the Moon in probably that order[169].\n\nHow now did the earth on which we live come into being? The primitive\nBabylonians, whose ideas and culture were at a very early date spread\nover the whole of Asia Minor, conceived the earth not as a globe but as\na circular boat like the ancient coracle, over which the heavens\nstretched like a canopy or hemisphere[170]. Hence we must regard these\nheavens of the planetary powers, Ialdabaoth and his progeny, as a series\nof covers fitting one within the other like, in the words of the\nFathers, \u201cjuggling cups,\u201d or to take another simile, the successive\nskins of an onion. The earth stretched below these, but was at the stage\nof creation at which we have arrived really without form and void, being\nthe formless waste of waters which covered the denser darkness and\nchaos. The ordered shape which it afterwards assumed and which we now\nsee, was, in the Ophite story, the result of the fall of no deity,\nangel, or heavenly power, but of Man. Irenaeus\u2019 account of this Second\nFall is that the six powers descended from Ialdabaoth began to quarrel\nwith their progenitor for supremacy\u2014an idea which perhaps is to be\nreferred either to the Jewish tradition of the revolt of the angels or\nwith more likelihood to the astrological ideas about the benefic and\nmalefic planets[171]. This so enraged him that he glared in his wrath\nupon the underlying dregs of matter, and his thought (\u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1) implanted\nthere took birth and shape[172]. This fresh son of his was possessed of\na quality of the possession of which he himself had never given any\nevidence, and was called Nous or Intelligence like the male of Simon\u2019s\nfirst syzygy or pair of roots. But he was said to be of serpent form\n(\u1f40\u03c6\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2) because, as says the Naassene or Ophite author quoted by\nHippolytus, \u201cthe serpent is the personification of the watery element,\u201d\nand therefore, perhaps, the symbol of that external ocean which the\nancients thought surrounded the inhabited world[173]. It seems more\nprobable, however, that the Ophites were compelled to introduce this\nform because the serpent was worshipped everywhere in Asia Minor as the\ntype of the paternal aspect of the earth-goddess\u2019 consort[174]. This is\nbest shown, perhaps, in the Eleusinian legend of Zeus and Persephone;\nbut Alexander himself was said to have been begotten by Zeus in the form\nof a serpent, and no Phrygian goddess seems ever to have been portrayed\nwithout one[175]. So much was this the case that in the Apocryphal _Acta\nPhilippi_ it is said that sacred serpents were kept in all the heathen\ntemples in Asia. Hierapolis is, in the same document, called Ophioryma\nor the serpent\u2019s stronghold, whence idolatry seems to be spoken of as\nthe Echidna or Viper[176]. The connection of the serpent with the\nSabazian rites has already been mentioned.\n\nThis Ophiomorphus, or god in serpent form, was in the later Ophite\nteaching the cause not only of man\u2019s soul but of his passions. The Latin\ntext of Irenaeus says that from him came \u201cthe spirit and the soul and\nall earthly things, whence all forgetfulness, and malice, and jealousy,\nand envy, and death came into being[177].\u201d This was evidently written\nunder the influence of the Christian idea that the serpent of Genesis\nwas Satan or the Devil. But Hippolytus tells us, no doubt truly, that\nthe Ophiomorphus of the earlier Ophites was in the opinion of his\nvotaries a benevolent and beneficent power. After saying that they\nworship\n\n    \u201cnothing else than Naas, whence they are called Naassenes, and that\n    they say that to this Naas (or serpent) alone is dedicated every\n    temple, and that he is to be found in every mystery and initiatory\n    rite,\u201d he continues, \u201cThey say that nothing of the things that are,\n    whether deathless or mortal, with or without soul, could exist apart\n    from him. And all things are set under him, and he is good and\n    contains all things within himself, as in the horn of the unicorn,\n    whence beauty and bloom are freely given to all things that exist\n    according to their nature and relationship[178].\u201d\n\nIt can hardly be doubted that the writer from whom Hippolytus here\nquotes is referring to the soul or animating principle of the world,\nwhom he here and elsewhere identifies with the great God of the Greek\nmysteries[179]. Hence it was the casting-down to this earth of\nOphiomorphus which gave it life and shape, and thus stamped upon it the\nimpress of the First Man[180]. As Ophiomorphus was also the child of\nIaldabaoth son of Sophia, the Soul of the World might therefore properly\nbe said to be drawn from all the three visible worlds[181].\n\nWe come to the creation of man which the Ophites attributed to the act\nof Ialdabaoth and the other planetary powers, and represented as\ntaking place not on the earth, but in some one or other of the heavens\nunder their sway[182]. According to Irenaeus\u2014here our only\nauthority\u2014Ialdabaoth boasted that he was God and Father, and that\nthere was none above him[183]. His mother Sophia or Prunicos,\ndisgusted at this, cried out that he lied, inasmuch as there was above\nhim \u201cthe Father of all, the First Man and the Son of Man[184]\u201d; and\nthat Ialdabaoth was thereby led on the counsel of the serpent or\nOphiomorphus to say, \u201cLet us make man in our own image[185]!\u201d Here the\nGreek or older text of Irenaeus ends, and our only remaining guide is\nthe later Latin one, which bears many signs of having been added to\nfrom time to time by some person more zealous for orthodoxy than\naccuracy. Such as it is, however, it narrates at a length which\ncompares very unfavourably with the brevity and concision of the\nstatements of the Greek text, that Ialdabaoth\u2019s six planetary powers\non his command and at the instigation of Sophia formed an immense man\nwho could only writhe along the ground until they carried him to\nIaldabaoth who breathed into him the breath of life, thereby parting\nwith some of the light that was in himself; that man \u201chaving thereby\nbecome possessed of intelligence (Nous) and desire (Enthymesis)\nabandoned his makers and gave thanks to the First Man\u201d; that\nIaldabaoth on this in order to deprive man of the light he had given\nhim created Eve out of his own desire; that the other planetary powers\nfell in love with her beauty and begot from her sons who are called\nangels; and finally, that the serpent induced Adam and Eve to\ntransgress Ialdabaoth\u2019s command not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of\nKnowledge[186]. On their doing so, he cast them out of Paradise, and\nthrew them down to this world together with the serpent or\nOphiomorphus. All this was done by the secret contrivance of Sophia,\nwhose object throughout was to win back the light and return it to the\nhighest world whence it had originally come. Her manner of doing so\nseems to have been somewhat roundabout, for it involved the further\nmingling of light with matter, and even included the taking away by\nher of light from Adam and Eve when turned out of Paradise and the\nrestoring it to them when they appeared on this earth\u2014a proceeding\nwhich gave them to understand that they had become clothed with\nmaterial bodies in which their stay would be only temporary[187].\nCain\u2019s murder of Abel was brought about by the same agency, as was the\nbegettal of Seth, ancestor of the existing human race. We further\nlearn that the serpent who was cast down got under him the angels\nbegotten upon Eve by the planetary powers, and brought into existence\nsix sons who, with himself, form \u201cthe seven earthly demons.\u201d These are\nthe adversaries of mankind, because it was on account of man that\ntheir father was cast down; and \u201cthis serpent is called Michael and\nSammael[188].\u201d Later Ialdabaoth sent the Flood, sought out Abraham,\nand gave the Law to the Jews. In this, as in everything, he was\nopposed by his mother Sophia, who saved Noah, made the Prophets\nprophesy of Christ, and even arranged that John the Baptist and Jesus\nshould be born, the one from Elizabeth and the other from the Virgin\nMary[189]. In all this, it is difficult not to see a later\ninterpolation introduced for the purpose of incorporating with the\nteaching of the earlier Ophites the Biblical narrative, of which they\nwere perhaps only fully informed through Apostolic teaching[190]. It\nis quite possible that this interpolation may be taken from the\ndoctrine of the Sethians, which Irenaeus expressly couples in this\nchapter with that of the Ophites, and which, as given by Hippolytus,\ncontains many Jewish but no Christian features[191]. Many of the\nstories in this interpolation seem to have found their way into the\nTalmud and the later Cabala, as well as into some of the Manichaean\nbooks.\n\nSo far, then, the Ophites succeeded in accounting to their satisfaction\nfor the origin of all things, the nature of the Deity, the origin of the\nuniverse, and for that of man\u2019s body. But they still had to account in\ndetail for the existence of the soul or incorporeal part of man.\nIrenaeus, as we have seen, attributes it to Ophiomorphus, but although\nthis may have been the belief of the Ophites of his time, the Naassenes\nassigned it a more complicated origin. They divided it, as Hippolytus\ntells us, into three parts which were nevertheless one, no doubt\ncorresponding to the threefold division that we have before seen running\nthrough all nature into angelic, psychic, and earthly[192]. The angelic\npart is brought by Christos, who is, as we have seen, the angel or\nmessenger of the triune Deity, into \u201cthe form of clay[193],\u201d the psychic\nwe may suppose to be fashioned with the body by the planetary powers,\nand the earthly is possibly thought to be the work of the earthly demons\nhostile to man[194]. Of these last two parts, however, we hear nothing\ndirectly, and their existence can only be gathered from the difference\nhere strongly insisted upon between things \u201ccelestial earthly and\ninfernal.\u201d But the conveyance of the angelic soul to the body\nHippolytus\u2019 Ophite writer illustrates by a bold figure from what Homer\nin the _Odyssey_ says concerning Hermes in his character of psychopomp\nor leader of souls[195]. As to the soul or animating principle of the\nworld, Hippolytus tells us that the Ophites did not seek information\nconcerning it and its nature from the Scriptures, where indeed they\nwould have some difficulty in finding any, but from the mystic rites\nalike of the Greeks and the Barbarians[196]; and he takes us in turns\nthrough the mysteries of the Syrian worshippers of Adonis, of the\nPhrygians, the Egyptian (or rather Alexandrian) worshippers of Osiris,\nof the Cabiri of Samothrace, and finally those celebrated at Eleusis,\npointing out many things which he considers as indicating the Ophites\u2019\nown peculiar doctrine on this point[197]. That he considers the god\nworshipped in all these different mysteries to be one and the same\ndivinity seems plain from a hymn which he quotes as a song of \u201cthe great\nMysteries,\u201d and which the late Prof. Conington turned into English\nverse[198]. So far as any sense can be read into an explanation made\ndoubly hard for us by our ignorance of what really took place in the\nrites the Ophite writer describes, or of any clear account of his own\ntenets, he seems to say that the many apparently obscene and sensual\nscenes that he alludes to, cover the doctrine that man\u2019s soul is part of\nthe universal soul diffused through Nature and eventually to be freed\nfrom all material contact and united to the Deity; whence it is only\nthose who abstain from the practice of carnal generation who can hope to\nbe admitted to the highest heaven[199]. All this is illustrated by many\nquotations not only from the heathen poets and philosophers, but also\nfrom the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Jewish Prophets, and from the\nCanonical Gospels and St Paul\u2019s Epistles.\n\nThe connection of such a system with orthodox Christianity seems at\nfirst sight remote enough, but it must be remembered that Hippolytus was\nnot endeavouring to explain or record the Ophite beliefs as a historian\nwould have done, but to hold them up to ridicule and, as he describes\nit, to \u201crefute\u201d them. Yet there can be no doubt that the Ophites were\nChristians or followers of Christ who accepted without question the\nDivine Mission of Jesus, and held that only through Him could they\nattain salvation. The difference between them and the orthodox in\nrespect to this was that salvation was not, according to them, offered\nfreely to all, but was on the contrary a magical result following\nautomatically upon complete initiation and participation in the\nMysteries[200]. Texts like \u201cStrait is the way and narrow is the gate\nthat leadeth into eternal life\u201d and \u201cNot every one that saith unto me\nLord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven\u201d were laid hold of by\nthem as showing that complete salvation was confined to a few highly\ninstructed persons, who had had the sense to acquire the knowledge of\nthe nature of the Deity and of the topography of the heavenly places\nwhich underlay the ceremonies of the Mysteries. Such an one, they said\nafter his death would be born again not with a fleshly but with a\nspiritual body and passing through the gate of heaven would become a\ngod[201]. It does not follow, however, that those who did not obtain\nthis perfect _gnosis_ would be left, as in some later creeds, to\nreprobation. The cry of \u201call things in heaven, on earth, and below the\nearth[202]\u201d that the discord of this world[203] might be made to cease,\nwhich the Naassene author quoted by Hippolytus daringly connects with\nthe name of Pappas given by the Phrygians to Sabazius or Dionysos, would\none day be heard, and the Apocatastasis or return of the world to the\nDeity would then take place[204]. If we may judge from the later\ndevelopments of the Ophite teaching this was to be when the last\nspiritual man (\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2) or perfect Gnostic had been withdrawn from\nit. In the meantime those less gifted would after death pass through the\nplanetary worlds of Ialdabaoth until they arrived at his heaven or\nsphere, and would then be sent down to the earth to be reincarnated in\nother bodies. Whether those who had attained some knowledge of the\nDivine nature without arriving at perfect Gnosis would or would not be\nrewarded with some sort of modified beatitude or opportunity of better\ninstruction is not distinctly stated, but it is probable that the\nOphites thought that they would[205]. For just as those who have been\nadmitted into the Lesser Mysteries at Eleusis ought to pause and then be\nadmitted into the \u201cgreat and heavenly ones,\u201d the progress of the Ophite\ntowards the Deity must be progressive. They who participate in these\nheavenly mysteries, says the Naassene author, receive greater destinies\nthan the others[206].\n\nIt might seem, therefore, that the Mysteries or secret rites of the\nheathens contained in themselves all that was necessary for redemption,\nand this was probably the Ophite view so far as the return of the\nuniverse to the bosom of the Deity and the consequent wiping out of the\nconsequences of the unfortunate fall of Sophia or Prunicos were\nconcerned. A tradition. preserved by Irenaeus says that Sophia herself\n\u201cwhen she had received a desire for the light above her, laid down the\nbody she had received from matter\u2014which was, as we have seen, the\nvisible heaven\u2014-and was freed from it[207].\u201d But this seems to be an\naddition which is not found in the Greek version, and is probably taken\nfrom some later developments of the Ophite creed. It is plain, however,\nthat the whole scheme of nature as set forth in the opinions summarized\nabove is represented as contrived for the winning-back of the light\u2014for\nwhich we may, if we like, read life\u2014from matter, and this is represented\nas the work of Sophia herself. The futile attempt of the arrogant and\njealous Ialdabaoth to prolong his rule by the successive creation of\nworld after world, of the archetypal or rather protoplasmic Adam, and\nfinally of Eve, whereby the light is dispersed through matter more\nthoroughly but in ever-diminishing portions[208], is turned against him\nby his mother Sophia, the beneficent ruler of the planetary worlds, who\neven converts acquaintance with the \u201ccarnal generation\u201d which he has\ninvented into a necessary preparation for the higher mysteries[209].\nThus Hippolytus tells us that the Naassenes\n\n    \u201cfrequent the so-called mysteries of the Great Mother, thinking that\n    through what is performed there, they see clearly the whole mystery.\n    For they have no complete advantage from the things there performed\n    except that they are not castrated. [Yet] they fully accomplish the\n    work of the castrated [_i.e._ the Galli]. For they most strictly and\n    carefully preach that one should abstain from all companying with\n    woman, as do the castrated. And the rest of the work, as we have\n    said at length, they perform like the castrated[210].\u201d\n\nSo far, then, as the general scheme of the redemption of light from\nmatter is concerned, there seems to have been no fundamental necessity\nin the Ophite view for the Mission of Jesus. But they assigned to Him a\ngreat and predominant part in hastening the execution of the scheme, and\nthus bringing about the near approach of the kingdom of heaven. We have\nseen that Sophia provided in spite of Ialdabaoth for the birth of the\nman Jesus from the Virgin Mary, and the Naassene author said that\n\n    \u201cinto this body of Jesus there withdrew and descended things\n    intellectual, and psychic, and earthly: and these three Men (_i.e._\n    the First Man, the Son of Man, and Christos) speak together through\n    Him each from his proper substance unto those who belong to\n    each[211].\u201d\n\nThe Latin text of Irenaeus amplifies the statement considerably and says\nthat Prunicus, as it calls Sophia, finding no rest in heaven or earth,\ninvoked the aid of her mother the First Woman. This power, having pity\non her repentance, implored the First Man to send Christos to her\nassistance. This prayer was granted, and Christos descended from the\nPleroma to his sister Sophia, announced his coming through John the\nBaptist, prepared the baptism of repentance, and beforehand fashioned\nJesus, so that when Christos came down he might find a pure vessel, and\nthat by Ialdabaoth her own son, the \u201cwoman\u201d might be announced by\nChrist. The author quoted by Irenaeus goes on to say that Christ\ndescended through each of the seven heavens or planetary worlds in the\nlikeness of its inhabitants, and thus took away much of their power. For\nthe sprinkling of light scattered among them rushed to him, and when he\ncame down into this world he clothed his sister Sophia with it, and they\nexulted over each other, which they (the Ophites) \u201cdescribe as the\n[meeting of] the bridegroom and the bride.\u201d But \u201cJesus being begotten\nfrom the Virgin by the operation of God was wiser, purer, and juster\nthan all men. Christos united to Sophia descended into Him [in His\nbaptism] and so Jesus Christ was made[212].\u201d\n\nJesus then began to heal the sick, to announce the unknown Father, and\nto reveal Himself as the Son of the first man. This angered the princes\nof the planetary worlds and their progenitor, Ialdabaoth, who contrived\nthat He should be killed. As He was being led away for this purpose,\nChristos with Sophia left Him for the incorruptible aeon[213] or highest\nheaven. Jesus was crucified; but Christos did not forget Him and sent a\ncertain power to Him, who raised Him in both a spiritual and psychic\nbody, sending the worldly parts back into the world. After His\nResurrection, Jesus remained upon earth eighteen months, and perception\ndescending into Him taught what was clear. These things He imparted to a\nfew of his disciples whom He knew to be capable of receiving such great\nmysteries, and He was then received into heaven. Christos sate down at\nthe night hand of Ialdabaoth that he might, unknown to this last, take\nto himself the souls of those who have known these mysteries, after they\nhave put off their worldly flesh. Thus Ialdabaoth cannot in future hold\nholy souls that he may send them down again into the age [_i.e._ this\naeon]; but only those which are from his own substance, that is, which\nhe has himself breathed into bodies. When all the sprinkling of light is\nthus collected, it will be taken up into the incorruptible aeon. The\nreturn to Deity will then be complete, and matter will probably be\ndestroyed. In any case, it will have lost the light which alone gives it\nlife[214].\n\nWhat rites or form of worship were practised by these Ophites we do not\nknow, although Epiphanius preserves a story that they were in the habit\nof keeping a tame serpent in a chest which at the moment of the\nconsecration of their Eucharist was released and twined itself round the\nconsecrated bread[215]. Probably the very credulous Bishop of Constantia\nwas misled by some picture or amulet depicting a serpent with his tail\nin its mouth surrounding an orb or globe which represents the mundane\negg of the Orphics. In this case the serpent most likely represented the\nexternal ocean which the ancients thought surrounded the habitable world\nlike a girdle. But the story, though probably untrue, is some evidence\nthat the later Ophites used, like all post-Christian Gnostics, to\npractise a ceremony resembling the Eucharist, and certainly administered\nalso the rite of baptism which is alluded to above in the tale of the\ndescent of Christos. Hippolytus also tells us that they used to sing\nmany hymns to the First Man; and he gives us a \u201cpsalm\u201d composed by them\nwhich, as he thinks, \u201ccomprehends all the mysteries of their\nerror[216].\u201d Unfortunately in the one text of the _Philosophumena_ which\nwe have, it is given in so corrupt a form that the first German editor\ndeclared it to be incapable of restoration. It may perhaps be translated\nthus:\n\n    The generic law of the Whole was the first Intelligence of all\n    The second [creation?] was the poured-forth Chaos of the First-born\n    And the third and labouring soul obtains the law as her portion\n        Wherefore clothed in watery form [Behold]\n        The loved one subject to toil [and] death\n        Now, having lordship, she beholds the Light\n        Then cast forth to piteous state, she weeps.\n        Now she weeps and now rejoices\n        Now she weeps and now is judged\n        Now she is judged and now is dying\n        Now no outlet is found, the unhappy one\n        Into the labyrinth of woes has wandered.\n        But Jesus said: Father, behold!\n        A strife of woes upon earth\n        From thy spirit has fallen\n        But he [_i.e._ man?] seeks to fly the malignant chaos\n        And knows not how to break it up.\n        For his sake, send me, O Father;\n        Having the seals, I will go down\n        Through entire aeons I will pass,\n        All mysteries I will open\n        And the forms of the gods I will display,\n        The secrets of the holy Way\n        Called knowledge [Gnosis], I will hand down.\n\nIt is probable that this psalm really did once contain a summary of the\nessential parts of the Ophite teaching. In whatever way we may construe\nthe first three lines, which were probably misunderstood by the scribe\nof the text before us, there can hardly be a doubt that they disclose a\ntriad of three powers engaged in the work of salvation[217]. The fall of\nSophia seems also to be alluded to in unmistakable terms, while the\nMission of Jesus concludes the poem. Jesus, not here distinguished from\nthe Christos or Heavenly Messenger of the Trinity, is described as sent\nto the earth for the purpose of bringing hither certain \u201cmysteries\u201d\nwhich will put man on the sacred path of Gnosis and thus bring about the\nredemption of his heavenly part from the bonds of matter. These\n\u201cmysteries\u201d were, as appears in Hippolytus and elsewhere, sacraments\ncomprising baptism, unction, and a ceremony at least outwardly\nresembling the Christian Eucharist or Lord\u2019s Supper[218]. These had the\nmagical effect, already attributed by the Orphics to their own\nhomophagous feast, of changing the recipient\u2019s place in the scale of\nbeing and transforming him _ipso facto_ into something higher than man.\nThat the celebration of these mysteries was attended with the deepest\nsecrecy accounts at once for their being nowhere described in detail by\nHippolytus\u2019 Ophite author, and also for the stories which were current\namong all the heresiological writers of filthy and obscene rites[219].\nFortified by these mysteries, and by the abstinences and the continence\nwhich they entailed\u2014at all events theoretically, and as a counsel of\nperfection\u2014the Ophite could attend, as we have seen, all the ceremonies\nof the still pagan Anatolians or of the Christian Church indifferently,\nconscious that he alone understood the inner meaning of either.\n\nAnother practice of the Ophites has accidentally come down to us which\ndeserves some mention. The division of the universe into three parts,\n_i.e._ angelic, psychic, and earthly, which we have already seen in germ\nin the system of Simon Magus, was by the Ophites carried so much further\nthan by him that it extended through the whole of nature, and seriously\naffected their scheme of redemption. Father Giraud, as we have seen,\ngoes so far as to say that in the opinion of Naassenes, matter hardly\nexisted, and that they thought that not only did Adamas, or the first\nman, enter into all things, but that in their opinion all things were\ncontained within him[220]. This pantheistic doctrine may have been\ncurrent in Phrygia and traces of it may perhaps be found in the\nAnatolian worship of nature; but the words of the Naassene psalm quoted\nabove show that the Naassenes, like all the post-Christian Gnostics of\nwhom we know anything, thought that matter not only had an independent\nexistence, but was essentially malignant and opposed to God. They\ndivided, as we have seen, the universe which came forth from Him into\nthree parts of which the angelic, no\u00ebtic, or pneumatic included,\napparently, nothing but the Pleroma or Fulness of the Godhead consisting\nof the Trinity of Father, Son and Mother with their messenger Christos.\nThen followed the second, psychic, or planetary world, containing the\nheaven of Sophia with beneath it the holy hebdomad or seven worlds of\nIaldabaoth and his descendants[221]. Below this came, indeed, the cho\u00efc,\nearthly, or terrestrial world, containing some sparks of the light\nbestowed upon it consciously by Sophia and unconsciously by Ialdabaoth,\nand inhabited by mortal men. But this world was the worst example of the\n\u201cdiscord\u201d (\u1f70\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1), or as it was called later, the \u201cconfusion\u201d\n(\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2), caused by the mingling of light with matter, and as such was\ndoomed to extinction and to eternal separation from the Divine.[222] In\nlike manner, the soul of man consisted of three parts corresponding to\nthe three worlds, that is to say, the pneumatic, psychic, and earthly;\nand of these three, the last was doomed to extinction. Only by laying\naside his earthly part as Jesus had done and becoming entirely\npneumatic, could man attain to the light and become united with the\nGodhead. But to do so, his soul must first pass from cho\u00efc to psychic\nand thence to pneumatic, or, as the Naassene author quoted by Hippolytus\nputs it, must be born again and must enter in at the gate of\nheaven[223].\n\nThis rebirth or passage of the soul from the cho\u00efc to the psychic, and\nthence to the pneumatic, was, as has been said, the work of the\nmysteries, especially of those new ones which the Ophite Jesus or\nChristos had brought to earth with Him from above. The process by which\nthese \u201cchanges of the soul\u201d were brought about was, according to the\nNaassenes, \u201cset forth in the Gospel according to the Egyptians[224].\u201d\nThe only quotation pertinent to the matter which we have from this lost\nwork is one preserved for us by Clement of Alexandria which refers to\nthe coming of a heavenly age \u201cwhen the two shall be made one, and the\nmale with the female neither male nor female[225]\u201d\u2014a saying which seems\nto refer to the time when all the light now scattered among the lower\nworlds shall return to the androgyne Adamas from whom it once issued.\nBut it is probable that this gospel only described the upward passage of\nthe soul in figures and parables probably conveyed in texts of the\nCanonical Gospel divorced from their context and their natural meaning,\nas in the Naassene author quoted by Hippolytus. Such a gospel might be a\nsufficient means of instruction for the living, who could puzzle out its\nmeaning with the help of their mystagogues or priests[226]; but it must\nalways have been difficult for the best-instructed to remember the great\ncomplications of worlds, planets, and celestial powers that lay at the\nroot of it. How difficult then must it have been thought for the\ndisembodied soul to find its way through the celestial places, and to\nconfront the \u201cguardians of the gate\u201d of each with proof of his exalted\nrank in the scale of being? What was wanted was some guide or clue that\nthe dead could take with him like the _Book of the Dead_ of the ancient\nEgyptians, some memory or survival of which had evidently come down to\nthe Alexandrian worship[227], or like the gold plates which we have seen\nfulfilling the same office among the worshippers of the Orphic\ngods[228].\n\nThat the Ophites possessed such documents we have proof from the remarks\nof the Epicurean Celsus, who may have flourished in the reign of Hadrian\n(A.D. 117-138)[229]. In his attack on Christianity called _The True\nDiscourse_, he charges the Christians generally with possessing a\n\u201cdiagram\u201d in which the passage of the soul after death through the seven\nheavens is portrayed. Origen, in refuting this Epicurean\u2019s arguments\nmore than a century later, denies that the Church knew anything of such\na diagram, and transfers the responsibility for it to what he calls \u201ca\nvery insignificant sect called Ophites[230].\u201d He further says that he\nhas himself seen this diagram and he gives a detailed description of it\nsufficient to enable certain modern writers to hazard a guess as to what\nit must have looked like[231]. It seems to have been chiefly composed of\ncircles, those in the uppermost part\u2014which Celsus says were those \u201cabove\nthe heavens\u201d\u2014being two sets of pairs. Each pair consisted of two\nconcentric circles, one pair being inscribed, according to Origen,\nFather-and-Son, and according to Celsus, \u201ca greater and a less\u201d which\nOrigen declares means the same thing[232]. By the side of this was the\nother pair, the outer circle here being coloured yellow and the inner\nblue; while between the two pairs was a barrier drawn in the form of a\ndouble-bladed axe[233].\n\n    \u201cAbove this last\u201d Origen says \u201cwas a smaller circle inscribed\n    \u2018Love,\u2019 and below it another touching it with the word \u2018Life.\u2019 And\n    on the second circle, which was intertwined with and included two\n    other circles, another figure like a rhomboid \u2018The Forethought of\n    Sophia.\u2019 And within their (?) point of common section was \u2018the\n    Nature of Sophia.\u2019 And above their point of common section was a\n    circle, on which was inscribed \u2018Knowledge,\u2019 and lower down another\n    on which was the inscription \u2018Comprehension[234].\u2019\u201d\n\nThere is also reference made by Origen to \u201cThe Gates of Paradise,\u201d and a\nflaming sword depicted as the diameter of a flaming circle and guarding\nthe tree of knowledge and of life; but nothing is said of their\nrespective places in the diagram.\n\nJacques Matter, whose _Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme_ appeared in\n1843, without its author having the benefit of becoming acquainted with\nHippolytus\u2019 _Philosophumena_, which tells us so much as to the doctrines\nof the Naassenes or early Ophites, and Father Giraud, who has on the\ncontrary drawn largely from it, and whose dissertation on the Ophites\nwas published in 1884, have both given pictorial representations of the\nOphite diagram. Although they differ somewhat in the arrangement of the\ncircles, both are agreed that the blue and yellow circles signify the\nHoly Spirit and Christos. The Pleroma or Fulness of the Godhead\nconsisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the Christos their\nmessenger, therefore seems figured in these two pairs of circles. Both\nMatter and Father Giraud also arrange four other circles labelled\nrespectively Knowledge, Nature, Wisdom, and Comprehension (\u0393\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u03a6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, and \u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) within one large one with a border of\nintertwined lines which they call the Forethought of Sophia (\u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2). This may be the correct rendering, but it is hardly warranted\nby Origen\u2019s words given above, nor do we know of any powers, aeons, or\nother entities in the Ophite system called Gnosis or Physis[235]. In any\nevent, however, it is fairly clear that this part of the diagram\nrepresents the Sophia who fell from the Holy Spirit into matter, and\nthat her natural or first place should be the heaven stretched out above\nthe seven planetary worlds. Yet Irenaeus tells us that the Ophites he\ndescribes thought that Sophia succeeded finally in struggling free from\nthe body of matter and that the super-planetary firmament represented\nmerely the lifeless shell she had abandoned[236]. This is, perhaps, the\nview taken by the framers of the diagram.\n\nHowever that may be, Origen\u2019s discourse agrees with Celsus in describing\na \u201cthick black line marked Gehenna or Tartarus\u201d which cuts, as he says,\nthe diagram in two. This is specially described by Celsus; and if it\nsurprises anyone to find it thus placed above the planetary heavens, it\ncan only be said that later Gnostics, including those who are\nresponsible for the principal documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ to be\npresently mentioned, put one of the places where souls were tortured in\n\u201cthe Middle Way\u201d which seems _above_, and not, like the classical\nTartarus, _below_ the earth[237]. Below this again, come the seven\nspheres of the planets dignified by the names of Horaios, Ailoaios,\nAstaphaios, Sabaoth, Iao, Ialdabaoth and Adonai respectively. These\nnames are, indeed, those given in Irenaeus as the names of the\ndescendants of Sophia, although the order there given is different. As\nto the meaning of them, Origen declares that Ialdabaoth, Horaios, and\nAstaphaios are taken from magic and that the others are (the Hebrew)\nnames of God[238]. But it should be noticed that Origen is in this place\nsilent as to their situation in the diagram, and that those assigned to\nthem in Matter\u2019s and Father Giraud\u2019s reconstructions are taken from the\nprayers or \u201cdefences\u201d which will be given independently of it.\n\nThe division which Matter calls \u201cAtmosph\u00e8re terrestre\u201d and Father Giraud\n\u201cThe Fence of Wickedness\u201d (\u03a6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u039a\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) is also not to be found in\nOrigen\u2019s description of the diagram, but is taken from another passage\nwhere he defines it as the gates leading to the aeon of the\narchons[239]. The remaining sphere, containing within itself ten circles\nin Matter\u2019s reconstruction and seven in Father Giraud\u2019s, is however\nfully described. The number ten is, as Matter himself admitted to be\nprobable, a mistake of the copyist for seven[240], and there can be no\ndoubt that the larger sphere is supposed to represent our world. The\nword \u201cLeviathan\u201d which in accordance with Origen\u2019s description is\nwritten both at the circumference and at the centre of the circle[241]\nis evidently Ophiomorphus or the serpent-formed son of Ialdabaoth whom\nwe have seen cast down to earth by his father together with the\nprotoplasts Adam and Eve[242]. He should according to the later Gnostics\nbe represented in the shape of a \u201cdragon\u201d or serpent coiled round the\nworld and having his tail in his mouth, while the seven circles within\nthe ring thus formed are the seven Archons or ruling spirits created by\nhim in imitation of Ialdabaoth. These are represented in beast-like form\nand are, as we have seen, hostile to man. The first four have the Hebrew\nangelic names of Michael, Suriel, Raphael, and Gabriel, perhaps because\nthe four planetary worlds to which they correspond bear also Hebrew\nnames of God[243]. The remaining three Thauthabaoth, Erataoth, and\nThartharaoth are probably taken from the peculiar corruption of Hebrew\nand Egyptian words to be found in the Magic Papyri. Some of them, at any\nrate, we meet again later. The word Behemoth which appears at the foot\nof the diagram may be translated \u201canimals[244].\u201d It may either be a\nfurther description of the seven Archons\u2014as seems most likely\u2014or be\ntaken in its etymological sense as the animal kingdom which in the scale\nof being succeeds terrestrial man.\n\nTo this diagram, Origen adds the prayers or defences above alluded to,\nwhich he draws from some source not mentioned. He calls them the\n\u201cinstruction\u201d which they (_i.e._ the Ophites) receive after passing\nthrough the \u201cfence of wickedness,\u2014gates which are subjected to the world\nof the Archons[245]\u201d; but we know from other sources that they are the\nspeeches, \u201cdefences\u201d or passwords required to be uttered by the soul of\nthe initiated when, released from this world by death, she flies upwards\nthrough the planetary spheres[246]. As they contain many instructive\nallusions, they can best be given in Origen\u2019s own words, at the same\ntime remarking that the reading is not in all cases very well settled.\nThe first power through whose realm the soul had to pass is not here\nmentioned by name, but by the process of exhaustion is plainly the one\nwhom Irenaeus calls Adonaeus or Adonai.\n\nTo him the soul of the dead is to say:\n\n    \u201cI salute the one-formed king, the bond of blindness, thoughtless\n    oblivion, the first power preserved by the spirit of Pronoia and by\n    Sophia; whence I am sent forth pure, being already part of the light\n    of the Son and of the Father. Let grace be with me, O Father, yea\n    let it be with me[247]!\u201d\n\nIn passing through the next mentioned, which is the realm of Ialdabaoth:\n\n    \u201cThou O First and Seventh, born to command with boldness, Ialdabaoth\n    the Ruler (Archon) who hast the word of pure Mind (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2), a perfect\n    work to the Son and the Father, I bring the symbol of life in the\n    impress of a type, and open the door to the world which in thy aeon\n    thou didst close, and pass again free through thy realm. Let grace\n    be with me, O Father, yea let it be with me[248]!\u201d\n\nArrived at Iao, he ought to say:\n\n    \u201cThou, O Second Iao and first lord of death, who dost rule over the\n    hidden mysteries of the Son and the Father, who dost shine by night,\n    part of the guiltless one. I bear my own beard as a symbol and am\n    ready to pass through thy rule, having been strengthened by that\n    which was born from thee by the living word. Let grace be with me, O\n    Father, yea let it be with me[249]!\u201d\n\nTo Sabaoth:\n\n    \u201cRuler of the Fifth realm, King Sabaoth, advocate of the law of thy\n    creation. I am freed by grace of a mightier Pentad. Admit me, when\n    thou beholdest the blameless symbol of thy art preserved by the\n    likeness of a type, a body set free by a pentad. Let grace be with\n    me, O Father, yea let it be with me[250]!\u201d\n\nTo Astaphaios:\n\n    \u201c\u1f49 Astaphaios, Ruler of the third gate, overseer of the first\n    principle of water, behold me an initiate, admit me who have been\n    purified by the spirit of a virgin, thou who seest the substance of\n    the Cosmos. Let grace be with me, O Father, yea let it be with\n    me[251]!\u201d\n\nTo Ailoaios:\n\n    \u201cO Ailoaios, ruler of the second gate, admit me who brings to thee\n    the symbol of thy mother, a grace hidden from the powers of the\n    authorities. Let grace be with me, O Father, yea let it be with\n    me[252]!\u201d\n\nand to Horaios:\n\n    \u201cO Horaios, who didst fearlessly overleap the fence of fire\n    receiving the rulership of the first gate, admit me when thou\n    beholdest the symbol of thy power, engraved on the type of the Tree\n    of Life, and formed by resemblance in the likeness of the Guiltless\n    One. Let grace be with me, O Father, yea let it be with me[253]!\u201d\n\nThese defences have evidently got out of their proper order, and have\nprobably been a good deal corrupted as well[254]. But their form and\ngeneral purport are mostly intelligible and show undoubted signs of\nEgyptian origin. They were therefore probably not the work of the\nearlier Ophites or Naassenes, but were most likely introduced when the\nOphite doctrines began to leave their primitive seat in Phrygia and to\nspread westward into North Africa and the south-east of Europe. The\ndiagram itself seems to be fairly expressive of the more ancient\nteaching and in particular the division of all things below the Godhead\ninto three parts. Thus we find in it the \u201cmiddle space\u201d or heaven of\nSophia, itself perhaps the Paradise whence the protoplasts and\nOphiomorphus were hurled, then the world of seven planets, and finally\nthis earth under the government of Ophiomorphus\u2019 seven angels. To judge\nfrom Origen\u2019s remark that \u201cthey say there is a sympathy (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1)\nbetween the Star Phaenon (_i.e._ Saturn) and the lion-like power\n(Michael)[255],\u201d it is probable that the Ophites, like the Babylonian\nastrologers, looked upon the system of \u201ccorrespondences,\u201d as it was\nafterwards called, as running through all nature in such a way that\nevery world and every power inhabiting it was a reflection of the one\nabove it[256]. That each world according to the Naassenes contained a\n\u201cChurch\u201d or assembly of souls[257] is stated in the text quoted above,\nthe \u201cCaptive\u201d Church there mentioned being evidently composed of the\nsouls still held in the grip of matter, the \u201cCalled\u201d of those who had\npassed into the planetary worlds, and the \u201cChosen\u201d of those who were\npurified enough to be admitted into the middle space or Paradise of\nSophia[258]. That these last were thought to be eventually united with\nthe Deity appears in some later developments of the Ophite faith, but\nthe doctrine seems also to have been known to the Naassenes, since the\nauthor quoted by Hippolytus speaks of \u201cthe perfect gnostics\u201d becoming\n\u201ckingless\u201d (that is, subject to no other being) and as appointed to\n\u201cshare in the Pleroma[259].\u201d\n\nOf the amount of success which the speculations of the Ophites enjoyed\nwe know very little. Origen, as we have seen, speaks of them as being in\nhis day \u201can insignificant sect\u201d; and we have no proof that their numbers\nwere ever very large[260]. Father Giraud asserts on the faith of some of\nthe smaller heresiologists and Conciliar Acts that they spread over the\nwhole of Asia Minor, through Syria and Palestine into Egypt on the one\nhand, and, on the other, to Mesopotamia, Armenia, and even to India, and\nthis is probably more or less correct[261]. But those who had actually\nread their writings, as Irenaeus and Hippolytus evidently had done, seem\nto have looked upon them more as the source of many later heresies than\nas formidable by their own numbers. Whether the Sethians with whom\nIrenaeus would identify them were really a subdivision of the Ophite\nsect may be doubted, because in Hippolytus\u2019 account of the Sethian\ndoctrines, the existence of Jesus is never mentioned or referred to, and\nthere is some reason for thinking them a non-Christian sect[262]. But\nthe heresies of the Peratae and of Justinus, which Hippolytus describes\nas not differing much from the Ophites, certainly resemble that which\nhas been summarized above too closely for the resemblance to be\naccidental; while the same remark applies to those of the Barbeliotae\nand Cainites described by Irenaeus, and to the Gnostics, Archontics, and\nothers of whom we read in Epiphanius\u2019 _Panarion_. Most of these sects\nseem to have flourished on the Eastern or Asiatic outskirts of the Roman\nEmpire, although some of them probably had settlements also in Egypt,\nGreece, Crete, and Cyrene. As the first Ophites had contrived to make an\namalgam of the fervent and hysterical worship of nature in Anatolia with\nthe Jewish and Christian tenets, so no doubt these daughter sects\ncontrived to fit in with them the legends of the local cults among which\nthey found themselves. But such compromises were not likely to last long\nwhen the Catholic Church began to define and enforce the orthodox faith,\nand the Ophites seem to have been one of the first to succumb. In the\nVth century A.D., there were still Ophite \u201ccolleges\u201d to be found in the\nprovince of Bithynia; for Theocritus and Evander, the bishops of\nChalcedon and Nicomedia, \u201crefuted\u201d their leaders publicly with such\neffect, says Praedestinatus, that they afterwards broke into their\n\u201csecret places\u201d at the head of a furious mob, drove away their priests,\nkilled the sacred serpents, and \u201cdelivered the people from that\ndanger[263].\u201d This is the last that we hear of them as an organized\nsect, and although Justinian in A.D. 530 thought right to include them\nby name in his law against heretics, it is probable that by then their\nopinions had long since passed into other forms[264].\n\nProbably one of the first changes to take place in the Ophite faith was\nthe withdrawal into the background of the serpent worship which respect\nfor the ancient cults of Asia Minor had imposed upon the earlier members\nof the sect. In the diagram, Ophiomorphus does not seem to have been\ndepicted in his proper shape, although he may perhaps be identified with\nthe Leviathan there shown as surrounding the terrestrial world. Those\nOphites who wished to obtain proselytes among Christian catechumens no\ndoubt felt the advisability of not insisting upon this conception,\ninasmuch as \u201cthe serpent\u201d was the figure under which the Oriental\nChristians loved to allude to the Pagan worships which still opposed\nthem in Asia Minor[265]. Hence there arose much confusion among the\nOphites themselves as to the character of the serpent, and while some,\naccording to Irenaeus, asserted that Sophia the mother of Ialdabaoth\nherself became the serpent[266], Theodoret, a very late witness, thinks\nthat the Ophites of his time held that Ophiomorphus, although originally\nthe minister of Sophia, had gone over to the other side, and had become\nthe enemy of mankind[267]. In this we may also, perhaps, see, if we\nwill, the effect of Egyptian influence upon the earlier Ophite teaching;\nfor in Egypt, the serpent Apep was always looked upon as the enemy of\nR\u00e2, the Sun-god, who was rightly considered the great benefactor of\nhumanity. It is no doubt due to the same influence that in one of the\ndocuments of the _Pistis Sophia_\u2014one part of which, as will be seen\nlater, was probably written for the furtherance of a late form of the\nOphite heresy\u2014the serpent, while keeping his place in the Cosmos as the\ngreat ocean which surrounds the earth, is transformed into the outer\ndarkness of the Canonical Gospels, and described as a huge\ntorture-chamber for the punishment of souls[268]. The same document\nshows us how the Ophites, while adopting all the ideas of their\npredecessors the Orphics as to the respective states of the initiated\nand uninitiated after death,\u2014including therein their reincarnation, the\ndraught from the lake of memory and the like\u2014contrived to mix with them\nthe current astrological ideas of the time which made all these events\nhappen in an order determined by the motions of the stars[269]. This\ntendency, already visible in Hippolytus\u2019 time in the Ophite sect which\nhe calls the Peratae[270], will, however, be better considered when we\ncome to deal with the documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ themselves.\n\nThere remains to be said that _the Gospel according to the Egyptians_\nmentioned above is the only apocryphal document that Hippolytus directly\nattributes to the earlier Ophites or Naassenes. The sects derived from\nthem seem to have made use of a great number of others, among which we\nfind a _Book of Baruch_ otherwise unknown to us, _The Paraphrase of\nSeth_, the _Gospels of Nicodemus_, _Philip_, and _Thomas_, together with\na _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, which may or may not have been\nidentical with the one which Hippolytus calls that according to the\nEgyptians[271]. Of these, the first two are entirely lost, and the\ndocuments which we possess bearing the name of the Gospel of Nicodemus\nrelate the events of the Crucifixion in much the same way as the\nCanonical Gospels, but add thereto the visit of Jesus to Hades. A\n_Gospel of Thomas_, which is also extant, contains only the account of\nmiracles performed by Jesus in His infancy, and therefore goes to\ncontrovert the Ophite theory that Christos and Sophia only descended\nupon Him at His baptism, and that up to that period He was as other men.\nIt is probable, however, that our copies of these Apocryphal Gospels\nhave been severely edited so as to expunge everything which savoured of\nGnostic teaching and may really have been partly or wholly the work of\nOphites[272]. Of the _Gospel of Philip_, Epiphanius has preserved a\nshort passage as follows:\n\n    \u201cThe Lord has revealed to me what the soul ought to say when she\n    goes to heaven, and how she ought to answer each of the Powers on\n    high. \u2018I have known myself,\u2019 she says, \u2018and I have collected myself\n    from everywhere, and I have not begotten children for the Archon,\n    but I have rooted out his roots, and I have collected the scattered\n    members, and I know thee what thou art. For I, she says, am from\n    above[273].\u2019 And thus he [_i.e._ Philip] says, she is set free. But\n    if, he says, she is found to have begotten a son, she is retained\n    below, until she can receive again her own children, and draw them\n    up to herself[274].\u201d\n\nSimilar expressions are to be found in two of the documents of the\n_Pistis Sophia_, and the abstinence from sexual intercourse which they\nenjoin is direct and first-hand evidence rebutting the accusation of\npromiscuous immorality which Epiphanius brings against the Ophites or\ntheir related sects. Epiphanius attributes to the same sect of\n\u201cGnostici\u201d the use of a _Gospel of Perfection_ which \u201cothers\u201d\u2014the\ncontext shows that he means certain Ophites\u2014\u201care not ashamed to call the\nGospel of Eve.\u201d Of this he also preserves a single passage as follows:\n\n    \u201cI stood upon a high mountain, and I saw a huge man and another who\n    was mutilated [or perhaps only smaller, \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b2\u1f78\u03bd] and I heard a voice\n    of thunder, and I drew near to hearken and he spoke to me and said,\n    \u2018I am thou and thou art I; and where thou art, there am I, and I am\n    scattered through all things. And whencesoever thou dost wish,\n    collect me, and in collecting me, thou dost collect thyself[275].\u2019\u201d\n\nIs the greater and lesser man here the Adamas or Father-and-Son of the\nOphites, in which case the latter part of the passage doubtless refers\nto the scattering of the light through the world of matter and the\nnecessity of its collection and return to the Godhead. The \u201cI am thou\nand thou art I\u201d phrase is repeated in the _Pistis Sophia_ by the risen\nJesus to His disciples[276], and seems to refer to the final union of\nthe perfected human soul with the Deity.\n\nIn addition to these books, the Ophites whom Irenaeus and Hippolytus\ndescribe quoted freely from the Canonical books of the Old Testament,\nfrom one of the apocryphal books of Ezra and from the Book of Tobit, as\nalso from such books of the Canonical New Testament as the Gospels,\nincluding that of St John, and most of the Pauline Epistles, including\nthat to the Hebrews[277]. But it would be going too far to say that they\n\u201caccepted\u201d these or attributed to them a Divine origin, or thought them\ninspired in the sense in which the word was used by the Catholic Church.\nOn the contrary, Epiphanius complains that they thought many of the\ncontents of the Old Testament Books at any rate were inspired only by\nIaldabaoth and the creators of the world of matter for the purpose of\nmisleading mankind[278]; and throughout they seem to have considered all\nthe Canonical Scriptures that they quote as on an equality with the\nwritings of Homer, Hesiod, the legendary Orpheus, and other heathen\nwriters such as Herodotus. Without attempting to deny or question the\nhistorical truth of the facts or legends recorded by all these authors,\nthey regarded them merely as figures having an allegorical or typical\nmeaning, which they could interpret in any manner they pleased, so as to\nmake them accord with their own preconceived theories. Thus the\nNaassenes when they found St Luke quoting from the Proverbs of Solomon\nthat \u201cthe just will fall seven times and rise again,\u201d declared that this\nreferred to the downward passage of man\u2019s soul through the planetary\nheavens[279]; and Justinus, one of the Ophite teachers, finding a story\nin Herodotus about Heracles and the serpent-tailed girl whom he met in\nScythia, said that it was a type of the generation of the universe by\nthe combination of the invisible and unforeseeing Demiurge and the\nfemale principle or Sophia[280]. The same dialectic had already been\nmade use of by the Orphics, by Philo of Alexandria, and by Simon Magus;\nbut the Ophites seem to have been the first to apply it to all\nliterature. The full effect of this method of interpretation we shall\nsee later.\n\nGenerally speaking, it may be said that the Ophites seem to have been\nthe first to bring about any kind of amalgamation between the popular\nreligions of the Near East and the rising faith of Christianity. By\ninterpreting the \u201cmysteries\u201d or secret rites of Asia Minor and elsewhere\nin their own sense, they supplied Christianity with a mythology which it\nwould otherwise have lacked and the absence of which must always have\nproved a bar to its propagation among other than Semitic peoples. At the\nsame time they greatly exalted the figure of Christ, who in their system\nbecame much less the personal teacher and master of the Jewish-Christian\ncommunities[281] than the angel or messenger of the Supreme Being sent\nfrom above in pursuance of a vast scheme for the redemption of the human\nrace. In this capacity it went some way towards identifying the\nhistorical Jesus with the great god of the Mysteries and towards giving\nthe sacraments of the newly-founded Church the secular authority of the\nrites practised in them. The influence of the Ophite system or systems\nupon the sects which succeeded them is at present hard to define, but\nthere can be little doubt that some of the documents, which have come\ndown to us in the Coptic MSS. before mentioned and will be more fully\ndescribed in Chapter X, can only be explained by reference to them.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  \u201cEorum qui ante adventum Christi Haereseos arguuntur.\u201d Philastrius,\n  Ep. Brixiensis, _de Haeresibus Liber_, c. I. vol. I. p. 5, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  Augustinus, _de Haeresibus_ (cf. _ad Quod vult deum_) _Liber_, c.\n  XVII. I. p. 200, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  Pseudo-Tertullianus, _Adversus omnes Haereses_, cc. V., VI. p. 273,\n  Oehler. The writer was probably Victorinus of Pettau.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  Pseudo-Hieronymus, _Indiculus de Haeresibus_, c. III., vol. I. p. 285,\n  Oehler.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  Acts vi. 5. It will be noted that Epiphanius, who himself belonged to\n  the sect in his youth, interposes only the Basilidians between them\n  and the followers of Saturninus, the \u201cheresy\u201d of which last he derives\n  directly from that of Simon Magus.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Rev. ii. 6, 15.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Celsum_, Bk VI. c. 28. Possibly the Euphrates called\n  \u201cthe Peratic\u201d or Mede by Hippolytus (_op. cit._ Bk IV. c. 2, p. 54,\n  Cruice).\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 141, Cruice. This Mariamne is\n  doubtless the sister of Philip mentioned in the Apocryphal _Acta\n  Philippi_ (c. XXXII., Tischendorf), which have, as is said later, a\n  strong Gnostic or Manichaean tinge. Celsus knew a sect which took its\n  name from her. See Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk V. c. 62.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  The Canonical Apocalypse is not earlier than 70 A.D., and was probably\n  written soon after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem. Hippolytus and\n  Origen wrote 130 years later.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  Naassene is evidently derived from the Hebrew or Aramaean \u05e0\u05d7\u05e9\n  \u201cSerpent,\u201d cf. Hipp. _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 6, p. 139, Cruice, and\n  exactly corresponds to the Greek \u1f40\u03c6\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 and the Latin _serpentinus_\n  (Low Latin _serpentarius_). \u201cWorshipper of the Serpent\u201d seems to be\n  the patristic gloss on the meaning of the word.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  Giraud, _Ophitae_, c. 4, \u00a7 65, p. 89. The question really depends upon\n  Hippolytus\u2019 sources, as to which see last chapter, pp. 11, 12. Cf. De\n  Faye, _Introduction_, etc., p. 41. Hippolytus\u2019 Naassene author cannot\n  be much earlier than 170 A.D. since he quotes from St John\u2019s Gospel,\n  and probably later than the work of Irenaeus written in 180-185. Yet\n  the Ophite system described by Irenaeus is evidently not a primitive\n  one and has been added to by his Latin translator. See n. 3, p. 47,\n  _infra_.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 27, \u00a7 1, p. 226, Harvey, says that the Ophites are\n  the same as the Sethians; Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 11, p. 184,\n  Cruice, that they are connected with the Peratae, the Sethians, and\n  the system of Justinus. Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXXVII. c. 1, p. 494,\n  Oehler, while deriving them from Nicolaus the Deacon, gives them a\n  common origin with those whom he calls Gnostics simply, and identifies\n  these last with the Borboriani, Coddiani, Stratiotici, Phibionitae,\n  Zacchaei, and Barbelitae (see _Haer._ XXVI. c. 3).\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 11, p. 184, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ Eusebius, _H.\n  E._ Bk IV. c. 7, says that Carpocrates was the father of the heresy of\n  the Gnostics and contemporary with Basilides.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXVI. c. 7, pp. 174, 176, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  Tertullian, _de Praescript. Haer._ c. XLII.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  Josephus, _Antiq._ Bk XII. c. 3.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  Ramsay, _Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia_, II. pp. 667 _sqq._; _St\n  Paul_, pp. 142 _sqq._; _Commentary on Galatians_, pp. 189 _sqq._ The\n  fact that Timothy, the son of the Jewess Eunice by a Greek father, was\n  not circumcised (see Acts xvi. 1) is quoted in support.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  _E.g._ the Montanist, the most formidable of the heresies which\n  attacked the primitive Church, apart from Gnosticism. Cf. also\n  Galatians i. 6.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  Mahaffy, _Greek World under Roman Sway_, p. 168. For the tyranny of\n  the Armenians, see Plutarch, _Lucullus_, cc. XIV., XXI.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  Mahaffy, _Gk. World_, p. 100.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  Mahaffy, _ibid._ p. 225.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. p. 9.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. p. 87.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  Ramsay, _ibid._ I. p. 92.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  Ramsay, _ibid._ I. pp. 93, 94. The Galli or priests of Cybele, who\n  mutilated themselves in religious ecstasy, seem to have been the\n  feature of Anatolian religion which most struck the Romans, when the\n  statue of the Mother of the Gods first appeared among them. Cf. next\n  page. For the other side of the religion, see Lucian, _de Dea Syria_,\n  cc. VI., XLIII., and Apuleius, _Metamorph._ Bk VIII. c. 29.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  As in the hymn to Attis said to have been sung in the Great Mysteries,\n  given in the _Philosophumena_ (see p. 54, _infra_). Cf. Ramsay,\n  _Cities_, etc., I. pp. 132, 263, 264, for other identifications. The\n  Anatolian name of the _Dea Syria_ to whose cult Nero was addicted, was\n  Atargatis, which Prof. Garstang would derive from the Babylonian\n  Ishtar (Strong, _Syrian Goddess_, 1913, p. vii); see Cumont, _Les\n  Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain_, Paris, 1906, p. 126.\n  The whole of Cumont\u2019s chapters on Syria and Asia Minor (_op. cit._ pp.\n  57-89) can be consulted with advantage. The American edition, 1911,\n  contains some additional notes. See, too, Decharme\u2019s article on Cybele\n  in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s _Dict. des Antiq._\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  Dill, _Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, pp. 548 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  See n. 1, _supra_; Suetonius, _Nero_, c. LVI.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  Dill, _loc. cit._, and authorities there quoted.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Cumont, _Rel. Or._ p. 77, and see index to American edition, 1911.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  Ezekiel viii. 14.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  Jeremiah vii. 18; lxiv. 17-19.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., II. p. 674, quoting _Neubauer, G\u00e9ographie du\n  Talmud_.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  Cicero, _pro Flacc._ c. XXVIII. The Jews of the Dispersion in Egypt\n  had temples of their own, in one at least of which Yahweh had for\n  assessors a goddess Anat and a subordinate god Bethel. See Ren\u00e9\n  Dussaud, \u201cLes Papyrus jud\u00e9o-aram\u00e9ens d\u2019Elephantin\u00e9,\u201d _R.H.R._ t. LXIV.\n  (1911) p. 350.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  Acts xvi. 2, 3. See n. 3, p. 28, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  Layard, _Nineveh and Babylon_, 1853, pp. 509 _sqq._ Was this why\n  Daniel was called \u201cMaster of the Magicians\u201d? Dan. iv. 9; v. 11.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  Thus, in a Coptic spell, the Words from the Cross: \u201cEli, eli, lama\n  sabachthani,\u201d are described as \u201cthe revered names of God.\u201d See Rossi,\n  _\u201cTrattato gnostico\u201d_ in _Mem. della Real. Accad. di Torino_, Ser. B,\n  XLII. fol. 9. So in mediaeval magic the word \u201cEieazareie\u201d or\n  \u201cEscherie\u201d is frequently used, apparently without any suspicion that\n  it covers the \u05d0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u2019Ehyeh \u2019asher \u2019ehyeh\u2014\u201cI am that I am\u201d of\n  Exodus.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  Hausrath, _Hist. of New Testament Times_, Eng. ed. 1878, I. pp. 126,\n  127, and authorities there quoted.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  See last note. In the Acts, Bar-jesus or Elymas the sorcerer, the\n  seven sons of Sceva, and some of those who burned their magical books\n  at Ephesus, are said to be Jews. Harnack, _Expansion of Christianity_,\n  Eng. ed. I. pp. 156, 157, says the Jews were known as exorcisers of\n  demons throughout the Roman Empire.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk IV. c. 33. Cf. _ibid._ c. 34, and Bk I. c.\n  22. Also Justin Martyr\u2019s _Dial. c. Tryph._ c. LXXXV.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  See Chapter III, vol. I. n. 6, p. 106, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  Karl Wessely, in _Expositor_, Series III, vol. IV. (1886), pp. 194\n  _sqq._, gives many specimens of these spells. The papyri from which\n  they are taken are printed in full in his _Griechische Zauberpapyrus\n  von Paris und London_, Wien, 1888, and his _Neue Griechische\n  Zauberpapyri_, Wien, 1893. See also Parthey, _Zwei griechische\n  Zauberpapyri des Berliner Museums_, Berlin, 1866; Leemans, _Papyri\n  Graeci Mus. Ant. Publ. Lugduni Batavi_, t. II., Leyden, 1885, and\n  Kenyon, _Gk. Papyri in B.M._ before quoted.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  They sometimes speak of certain expressions being used by the\n  \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u201chigh priests,\u201d Leemans, _op. cit._ t. II. p. 29. Does this\n  mean the adepts in magic or the heads of a sect?\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk. I. c. 24.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  So Kuenen, _Religion of Israel_ (Eng. ed.), III. p. 314, says that the\n  existence of the Cabala is indicated in the Talmud.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  See Chapter V, vol. I. pp. 169, 170, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  The Sumerian moon-god, Nannar, was denoted by the number 30, Marduk\n  called 50 and so on. See King, _Seven Tablets of Creation_, 1902, I.\n  p. 66.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  See Chapter VII, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  Isidore Loeb, _La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_, _s.v._ La Cabbale juive;\n  _ibid._ F. Herman Kr\u00fcger, _s.v._ Gnosticisme, and Franck, _La\n  Kabbale_, Paris, 1843, p. 203, both notice the likeness between\n  Gnosticism and the Cabala and say that they are derived from the same\n  source.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  See the Sumerian Hymn of Creation translated by Sayce, _Religions of\n  Ancient Egypt and Babylonia_ (Gifford Lectures), Edinburgh, 1902, p.\n  380; Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, Boston, U.S.A.\n  1898, p. 490; King, _Seven Tablets_, p. 3; Rogers, _Rel. of Bab._, p.\n  108.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  \u201cAu commencement \u00e9tait le Nun, l\u2019oc\u00e9an primordial, dans les\n  profondeurs infinies duquel flottaient les germes des choses. De toute\n  \u00e9ternit\u00e9 Dieu s\u2019engendra et s\u2019enfanta lui-m\u00eame au sein de cette masse\n  liquide sans forme encore et sans usage.\u201d Maspero, _Hist. Ancienne des\n  Peuples de l\u2019Orient_, p. 326.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  Diogenes Laertius, _Vit. Philosoph._ Bk I. c. 6.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  Including in that name some who attained to high office in the\n  Catholic Church. Thus Hatch, _H. L._ p. 255, says with apparent truth\n  that Clement of Alexandria \u201canticipated Plotinus in conceiving of God\n  as being \u2018beyond the One and higher than the Monad itself,\u2019 which was\n  the highest abstraction of current philosophy.\u201d The passage he here\n  relies on is in Clement\u2019s _Paedagogus_, Bk I. c. 8. Hatch goes on to\n  say, \u201cThere is no name that can properly be named of Him: \u2018Neither the\n  One nor the Good, nor Mind, nor Absolute Being, nor Father, nor\n  Creator, nor Lord\u2019\u201d\u2014expressions to be found in Clement\u2019s _Stromata_,\n  Bk V. c. 12. Clement\u2019s orthodoxy may be called in question; but no\n  fault has been found in that respect with Synesius, Bishop of\n  Ptolemais and the friend of Hypatia. Yet in his Hymns he uses\n  expressions which would have come naturally to the lips of any Ophite.\n  Thus:\n\n                       \u03a3\u1f7a \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5\u03c2,\n                       \u03a3\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ac, \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ac,\n                       \u03a6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1,\n                       \u03a3\u1f7a \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd,\n                       \u03a4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, \u1f97 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9;\n\n                       \u201cMale thou and female,\n                       Voice thou and silence,\n                       Nature engendered of Nature,\n                       Thou King, Aeon of Aeons,\n                       What is it lawful to call thee?\u201d\n\n  and again\n\n                  \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n                  \u03a0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1,\n                  \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1, \u1f00\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1,\n                  \u03a5\u1f31\u1f72 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6....\n                  \u039c\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bf\u03c2\n                  \u03a4\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9,\n                  \u0392\u03c5\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n                  \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n                  \u201cFather of all Fathers,\n                  Father of thyself,\n                  Propator [Forefather] who hast no father,\n                  O Son of thyself....\n                  But the initiated mind\n                  Says this and that,\n                  Celebrating with dances\n                  The Ineffable Bythos.\u201c\n\n  (Hymn III)\n\n  The ineffability of divine names was an old idea in Egypt, especially\n  in the Osirian religion, where it forms the base of the story of Ra\n  and Isis. So the name of Osiris himself was said to be ineffable. See\n  Eug. Lef\u00e9bure in _Sphinx_, Stockholm, vol. I. pp. 99-102. The name of\n  Marduk of Babylon is in the same way declared ineffable in an\n  inscription of Neriglissar, _Trans. Roy. Soc. Litt._ 2nd series, vol.\n  VIII. p. 276. The name of Yahweh became ineffable directly after\n  Alexander. See Hal\u00e9vy, _Revue des \u00c9tudes juives_, t. ix. (1884), p.\n  172. In every case, the magical idea that the god might be compelled\n  by utterance of his secret name seems to be at the root of the\n  practice. Cf. Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, Eng. ed. p. 354.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  The whole account of Ophite doctrine as to the origin of things is\n  here taken from Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 226 _sqq._, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  Genesis i. 8.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  Philo explains that there is a vast difference between man as now made\n  and the first man who was made according to the image of God, _De\n  opificio mundi_, c. 46. This idea of an archetypal man was widely\n  spread over Eastern Europe and Asia, and Bousset, _Hauptprobleme der\n  Gnosis_, G\u00f6ttingen, 1907, Kap. IV., \u201cDer Urmensch,\u201d has collected all\n  or nearly all the references to it in the literature of the period\n  that could be produced up to that date. As to its origin, the issue is\n  still very doubtful. While we should naturally expect to find it in\n  the Babylonian legends, the Tablets of Creation contain no certain\n  allusion to it, while it is certainly to be traced in the Zend Avesta\n  and its related books. Until we are able to compare the dates of these\n  two sources it seems idle to speculate as to which is the original one\n  and which the derived. But see Introduction (pp. lxi-lxiii and note on\n  last page quoted) _supra_.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  This is a less primitive and therefore probably later way of\n  accounting for the birth of one spiritual or superhuman being from\n  another, than that of Simon Magus who made his Supreme Being\n  androgyne.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  Theocritus, _Idyll_, II. l. 34. For the identity of Hades and Dionysos\n  see Chapter II. vol. I. _supra_.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  Pausanias, _Descpt. Graec._ Bk VIII. cc. 17, 20; Arnobius, _adv.\n  Gentes_, Bk V. cc. 5, 7. Cf. Decharme in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s _Dict.\n  des Antiq._ _s.v._ Cybele.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  See Chapter II. vol. I. _supra_.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Protrept_. c. II.; Arnobius, _op. cit_. Bk VI. c. 21,\n  calls it \u201cthe well-known senarian verse of a poet of Tarentum,\u201d and\n  connects it with the Sabazian rites, whence it probably found its way\n  to Eleusis.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  This relegation of the really Supreme God to an unregarded place in\n  the pantheon is common enough in the history of religions. Thus the\n  Shilluks of the Upper Nile take little notice of their great god J\u00f4k,\n  to whom they only sacrifice once a year, reserving all the rest of\n  their worship for a being intermediate between God and man called\n  Nyakang. See Gleichen, _The Anglo-Egyptian Soudan_, vol. I. pp. 162,\n  197, and _R.H.R._ 1911, Juillet-Ao\u00fbt.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  See n. 1, p. 31, _supra_. The _Dea Syria_ was otherwise called\n  Atargatis, of which Derketo was, _teste_ Prof. Garstang, a homonym.\n  See Strong, _The Syrian Goddess_, p. 52 and n. 25.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  See n. 1, p. 31, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. p. 9.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  Irenaeus, _op. cit_. Bk I. c. 28, p. 227, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  \u1f00\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03c2, Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1, p. 139, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  See next note.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  \u1f08\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac \u03c3\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2,\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5, \u0397i\u03c1\u03c1\u03bflytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1,\n  p. 140, Cruice. Salmon points out that almost the same words occur in\n  Hippolytus\u2019 account of the heresy of Monoimus the Arab, where he\n  describes the monad as being among other things: \u0391\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1, \u03b1\u1f55\u03c4\u03b7\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, _op. cit._ Bk VIII. c. 12, p. 410,\n  Cruice. He is inclined to attribute this to the real or supposed fact\n  that both the Naassenes and Monoimus borrowed from the _Apophasis_ of\n  Simon. See Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Monoimus.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  \u03a4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 [\u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd] \u1f45\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba] \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., \u0397ippolytus, _op.\n  cit._ \u0392k V. c. 9, pp. 174, 185, Cruice. The words in brackets are\n  Cruice\u2019s emendation. Duncker and Schneidewin omit them and read\n  \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 for \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Giraud, _op. cit._ pp. 92, 93, agrees with\n  Cruice\u2019s reading, and points out that both the Spirit and the Son are\n  here put forward as the masculine and feminine forms respectively of\n  the great Adamas. It is evident, however, that among the earlier\n  Ophites represented by Irenaeus\u2019 Greek text, the Spirit or First Woman\n  was thought to come into being _after_ the First Man and the Son of\n  Man. See Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 227, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  Thus after saying that \u201che who says all things are composed\n  (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9) from one (substance) errs, but that he who says they are\n  framed from three speaks the truth,\u201d he goes on to say M\u03af\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\n  \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03afou \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7\n  \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u00b7 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f21 \u1f00\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1f70 \u1f21 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7,\n  \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb., \u201cFor one is the blessed nature of the blessed Man above, viz.:\n  Adamas, and one is the nature below which is subject to death, and one\n  is the kingless race which is begotten above,\u201d etc. Hippolytus, _op.\n  cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 157, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1, p. 140, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  \u1f70\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (see p. 57 _infra_). As Salmon has shown with great\n  clearness, this, rather than the redemption of individual souls, is\n  the aim of all post-Christian Gnostic systems, _Dict. Christian Biog._\n  _s.v._ Gnosticism.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  Philo, _de Sacrificantibus_, c. 13; II. p. 261, Mangey.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  Acts xiv. 11-18.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  Postea, dicunt, exultante primo homine cum filio suo super formositate\n  Spiritus, hoc est foeminae, et illuminante eam, generavit ex ea lumen\n  incorruptibile, tertium masculum, quem Christum vocant. So the Latin\n  version of Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 227, Harvey. The Greek text,\n  which should contain Irenaeus\u2019 own words, only says: \u1f18\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f65pas \u03c4o\u1fe6 \u03a0ve\u03cd\u03bca\u03c4o\u03c2 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 ... \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. Something, however, has\n  evidently been expunged from the earlier version of the story, and it\n  is possible that the later interpolation is due to the desire of the\n  translator to make the teaching of the heretics as repulsive as\n  possible. Theodoret merely copies the Latin text of Irenaeus.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u0391\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f23\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9. Irenaeus, _loc. cit._ p. 228, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  This Divine Family or Council must have been an old idea in\n  post-exilic Judaism. Justin Martyr, _Dial. c. Tryph._ c. 126, says\n  that Christ is called the \u201cAngel of the Great Council\u201d by Ezekiel, but\n  the expression is not to be found in the A.V. Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk\n  V. c. 53, also speaks of a prophecy in which Jesus was described as\n  the \u201cAngel of the Great Council, because he announced to men the great\n  counsel of God\u201d\u2014a pun which curiously enough is the same in Greek as\n  in English. The Jews of Elephantine worshipped in their temple a god\n  and a goddess who were looked upon as the assessors, if the inferiors,\n  of Yahweh (see n. 4, p. 32, _supra_). In the Talmud, it is said that\n  God has an upper or celestial _familia_ or tribunal without consulting\n  which he does nothing, and which is indicated by the \u201choly ones\u201d of\n  Dan. iv. 17. See Taylor, _Pirke-Aboth_, Cambridge, 1877, II. p. 43, n.\n  7. The expression \u201cAngel of the Great Council\u201d recurs in the Gnostic\n  epitaph from the Via Latina given later (Chapter IX).\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 227, 228, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  Giraud, _op. cit._ p. 95, thinks that in the Naassene teaching matter\n  does not really exist, all things being contained in Adamas. The\n  absolute antagonism of God and matter is, however, too strongly marked\n  a feature of nearly all the sources from which the Ophites can have\n  drawn their doctrine for his theory to be entertained. Berger, _\u00c9tudes\n  des Documents nouveaux fournis sur les Ophites par les\n  Philosophumena_, Nancy, 1873, p. 25, puts forward the same idea as a\n  mere figure of speech and in order apparently to reconcile the Ophite\n  doctrine with St John\u2019s statement that without the Word \u201cnothing\u201d was\n  made. Later he (_ibid._ pp. 61, 104, 105) points out that the tendency\n  of the Ophite like all other Gnostic doctrine is to widen rather than\n  to narrow the abyss between Spirit and Matter.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  This is a variant, and an important one, of the Babylonian myth which\n  makes Bel, after defeating Tiamat the Dragon of Chaos, cut her in two\n  halves and make out of them the visible heaven and earth. See Rogers,\n  _op. cit._ p. 126. The heaven which there is fashioned from the powers\n  of evil, is here at any rate half divine. In later systems, such as\n  one of those in the _Pistis Sophia_ and especially that of the\n  Manichaeans, the older Babylonian idea is returned to. It would\n  therefore seem that for the modification here introduced, the Ophites\n  were indebted to Jewish influence and forced it to agree with the\n  story of Genesis. See Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 28, p. 229,\n  Harvey.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  Irenaeus, _loc. cit._ p. 228, Harvey. This is the first unmistakable\n  allusion to the figure of the Sophia which is so prominent in most of\n  the Gnostic systems and reappears in Manichaeism. There can, I think,\n  be no doubt that she is in effect the Great Goddess worshipped\n  throughout Western Asia, who appears under different names in Lydia,\n  Phrygia, Syria, Ionia, Crete, and Greece, and who is to be identified\n  on etymological grounds, if Prof. Garstang (n. 1, p. 31, _supra_) is\n  correct, with the Babylonian Ishtar. That the Alexandrians saw her in\n  their goddess Isis has already been shown in Chap. II. Her most\n  prominent characteristics show her to be a personification of the\n  Earth, the mother of all living, ever bringing forth and ever a\n  virgin, as is shown in the \u201cGoddesses Twain,\u201d Demeter and Cora. The\n  dove was throughout Asia her symbol and perhaps her totem animal\n  (Strong, _The Syrian Goddess_, pp. 22-24 for authority), as the\n  serpent was that of her spouse or male counterpart (Justin Martyr,\n  _First Apol._ c. XXVII.; Clem. Alex. _Protrept._ c. II.). In the\n  Orphic cosmogonies she appears under her name of Gaia or Ge as the\n  \u201cfirst bride\u201d (Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, fr. 91) spouse of Uranos, as well as\n  under all her subsequent personifications. She seems, too, to bear\n  much analogy with the Persian Amshaspand, Spenta Armaiti, who is also\n  identified with the earth, and is called Sophia or Wisdom (Tiele,\n  _Religion of the Iranian Peoples_, Eng. ed. Bombay, 1912, pp. 130,\n  131). Whether the Persians also drew this conception from the\n  Babylonian Ishtar is a question which some years ago might have been\n  answered in the affirmative. Now, however, it has been complicated by\n  the identification of this Spenta Armaiti with the Aramati of the\n  Vedas\u2014for which see M. Carnoy\u2019s article _Aramati-Armatay_ in _Le\n  Mus\u00e9on_, Louvain, vol. XIII. (1912), pp. 127-146\u2014and the discovery of\n  Winckler that the Vedic gods were worshipped in Asia Minor before 1272\n  B.C. Her appearance in the cosmology of the Gnostics under the name of\n  Sophia is, however, probably due to the necessity of effecting by hook\n  or by crook a harmony between Gentile and Jewish ideas, and is\n  doubtless due in the first instance to the passage in the Book of\n  Proverbs VIII., IX., where Wisdom \u05d7\u05b8\u05db\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4 or \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03b8 (in both languages\n  feminine) is described as existing from the beginning and the daily\n  delight of Yahweh, rejoicing always before him and his instrument in\n  making the universe (Clem. _Hom._ XVI. c. 12). It is said that Simon\n  Magus called his mistress Helena by the name of Sophia, but the story\n  only occurs in Victorinus of Pettau and is probably due to a confusion\n  with the Sophia of later sects like that of Valentinus. In all these,\n  with the single exception of that of Marcion, she plays a predominant\n  part in the destiny of mankind.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  This appears in the Latin version of Irenaeus only.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  \u1f59\u03c6\u2019 \u1f11\u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd. Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 28, p. 230, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 32. This Ialdabaoth or Jaldabaoth\n  appears in the systems or heresies of the Nicolaitans and of those\n  whom Epiphanius calls \u201cGnostics\u201d _par excellence_. See Epiphanius,\n  _op. cit._ Bk I. t. ii., _Haer._ 25, p. 160, and _Haer._ 26, p. 184.\n  Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ Bk V. c. 9, makes him belong also to the\n  system of the Sethians. In all these he is the son of Sophia and\n  presides over one or more of the super-terrestrial heavens, although\n  the particular place assigned to him differs in the different sects.\n  In the _Pistis Sophia_ he is described (in the story of Pistis Sophia\n  proper) as a power \u201chalf flame and half darkness\u201d (cf. Ezekiel viii.\n  2) projected by one of the \u201ctriple-powered\u201d gods of our universe and\n  sent down into Chaos for the destruction of the heroine; in one of the\n  later documents of the book we see him as lord of a particular portion\n  of Chaos, where he presides over the punishment of a certain class of\n  sinning souls. His name offers many difficulties. Gieseler reads it\n  \u05d9\u05dc\u05d3\u05d0 \u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u05ea, \u201cson of Chaos,\u201d and this Salmon, _Dict. Christian Biog._\n  s.h.v., considers the most probable derivation, although Harvey\u2019s\n  reading of \u05d9\u05d4\u05be\u05d0\u05dc\u05be\u05d3\u05d0\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u05ea \u201cLord (or Jah) God of the Fathers,\u201d is\n  certainly more appropriate. In the great Magic Papyrus of Paris, the\n  name appears as \u2c81\u2c97\u2c91\u2c81\u2c82\u2cb1\u2ca7, which can hardly be anything else that\n  Aldab\u00f4t or Adab\u00f4t, since we have \u2c81\u2c97\u2c91\u2cb1\u2c9b\u2c81\u2c93 for Adonai in the next line\n  (Griffith, _The Old Coptic magical texts of Paris_, p. 3; extract from\n  the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr \u00c4gyptische Sprache_, Bd. XXXVIII.). In Papyrus\n  XLVI. of the British Museum (Kenyon, _Gk. Pap._ p. 69), we find\n  \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b2\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c9\u03b8, probably a clerical error for Jaldabaoth, which is again\n  followed as before by the name \u0391\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. In the Leyden Papyrus which\n  calls itself the \u201c8th Book of Moses,\u201d we have a god invoked as\n  Aldabeim, which is there said to be an Egyptian name, and to be the\n  \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1 \u201cnatural name\u201d of the sun and the boat in which he rises\n  when he dawns upon the world (Leemans, _op. cit._ pp. 87, 119, 127).\n  It is not at all certain, however, which of these is the right\n  spelling, for the German editors of Hippolytus read in one place\n  Esaldaios for Ialdabaoth, and the Magic Papyrus last quoted has a name\n  Aldaza\u00f4 which is said to be quoted from a book of Moses called\n  _Archangelicus_ (Leemans, _op. cit._ p. 157). The name Ialdaza\u00f4 (\u201cEl\n  Shaddai\u201d?) is used as that of the \u201cGod of Gods\u201d in the great Magic\n  Papyrus of Paris, with whose name that of the aeon Sophia is mentioned\n  (Wessely, _Griech. Zauberpap._ p. 50). The most probable conclusion is\n  that Jaldabaoth represents some name or epithet of God current among\n  the Semitic Babylonians which had fallen into disuse and had been much\n  corrupted by being turned into and out of demotic. So Revillout\n  (_Revue \u00c9gyptologique_) gives an instance where the invocation \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03c2\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u201cCome unto me!\u201d by a like process became transmogrified into\n  \u201c_episkhesepimme_\u201d without being recognized by the scribe as Greek.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  \u03b5\u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 153, Cruice. By\n  the expression Demiurge he means that he fashioned it from\n  pre-existent matter, as a workman builds a house.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 230, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  Thus Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 18, p. 198, Harvey, in summarizing the\n  teaching of Saturninus says that the god of the Jews was one of the\n  (world-creating) angels. That Saturninus\u2019 opinion was derived from or\n  coincided with that of the Ophites, see Salmon, _Dict. Christian\n  Biog._ _s.v._ Saturninus. Hippolytus Naassene also calls Jaldabaoth \u201ca\n  fiery god\u201d and \u201ca fourth number,\u201d _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 153,\n  Cruice, in allusion to the text about God being a consuming fire and\n  to his Tetragrammaton or four-lettered name. Epiphanius, _Haer._\n  XXXVII. c. 4, p. 500, Oehler, says \u039aa\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f38\u03b1\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03ce\u03b8, \u201cAnd this Ialdabaoth is, they [the Ophites] say,\n  the God of the Jews.\u201d\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 32.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk IV. c. 11.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  See the picture by Faucher Gudin of the universe according to the\n  Babylonians in Maspero, _Hist. Ancienne des Peuples de l\u2019 Orient\n  Classique_, Paris, 1895, t. I. p. 543.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 231, 232, Harvey. A sort of echo or perhaps\n  a more detailed repetition of the story is found in one of the latest\n  documents of the _Pistis Sophia_, where Jesus tells His disciples that\n  the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 or rulers of Adamas once rebelled and persisted in\n  begetting \u201carchons and archangels and angels and serving spirits and\n  decans\u201d; that the 12 aeons, who are evidently the Signs of the Zodiac,\n  divided into two companies of six, half of them under the rule of one\n  Jabra\u00f4th repenting and being translated into a higher sphere, while\n  the others were \u201cbound\u201d in our firmament under the rule of the five\n  planets. Perhaps the origin of the whole story is the battle of the\n  Gods and the serpent-footed giants, which appears on the Mithraic\n  bas-reliefs, for which see _P.S.B.A._ 1912, p. 134, and Pl. XVI, 7. It\n  is certainly of Asiatic or Anatolian origin, and seems to be connected\n  with volcanic phenomena. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 13, p. 192,\n  Cruice, says this rebellion is a \u201cChaldaean\u201d doctrine.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, \u201cand [they say that] he being\n  enraged, beheld his thought in the dregs of matter, and a\n  serpent-formed son was born from it,\u201d Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 232,\n  Harvey. Perhaps this explains how the Ennoia or Thought of God was\n  supposed to take definite shape. Other editors wish to read \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u201cfixed\u201d for \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  Hippolytus, Bk V. c. 9, p. 178, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  See n. 1, p. 45, _supra_. So Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p.\n  178, Cruice, when speaking of the Ophites frequenting the mysteries of\n  the Magna Mater, says that there is no temple anywhere [he means in\n  Phrygia] without a serpent. See Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. pp. 51, 87.\n  As King, _Gnostics and their Remains_, p. 225, noted, all the\n  principal cities of Asia Minor, Ephesus, Apamea and Pergamum depicted\n  serpents on their coins. For the story of Alexander\u2019s birth, see\n  Budge, _Alexander the Great_ (Pseudo-Callisthenes), p. 8.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  See Ramsay in last note.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  _Acta Philippi_ (ed. Tischendorf), _passim_.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  dehinc et Spiritum, et animam et omnia mundialia; inde generatum omnem\n  oblivionem, et malitiam, et zelum, et invidiam, et mortem. Irenaeus,\n  Bk I. c. 28, p. 232, Harvey. So Dionysos, whose emblem (Clem. Alex.\n  _Protrept._ c. II.) was the serpent, is identified with the soul of\n  the world. Cf. Berger, _\u00c9tudes sur la Philosophumena_, Nancy, 1873,\n  pp. 39 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 178, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  _Ibid._ Bk V. c. 7, pp. 144, 145, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  Is this the origin of the ideas on the Macrocosm and the Microcosm?\n  See Chapter XIII, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  See n. 3, p. 41, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  Cf. Charles, _Book of the Secrets of Enoch_, pp. 7, 57.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 232, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  It is curious that she did not also mention herself or the First\n  Woman.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  This is the story of the earliest or Greek text; the Latin says that\n  he said it to divert the minds of his rebellious sons.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 232-234, Harvey. This Adam is of course not\n  to be confused with Adamas. Neither did he resemble the Adam of\n  Genesis, for he is described as being _immensum latitudine et\n  longitudine_. Harvey, _ubi cit._, gives many parallels to this from\n  the Talmud and Cabala, which must be either taken directly from the\n  Ophite author or borrowed from a common source. For Eve\u2019s creation,\n  see n. 2, p. 58, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  Cf. the vestures of light belonging to Jesus in the _Pistis Sophia_,\n  Chapter X, _infra_. So Philo, _Quaest. et Sol. in Gen._ c. 53,\n  explains that the coats of skin made by God for Adam and Eve are a\n  \u201cfigure of speech\u201d for a material body. Origen, in like manner (_cont.\n  Cels._ Bk IV. c. 40), says that the clothing of the protoplasts in\n  tunics of skin covers \u201ca certain secret and mystic doctrine far\n  exceeding Plato\u2019s of the soul losing its wings and being borne to\n  earth.\u201d\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 234-236, Harvey. The idea of the seven evil\n  demons is a very old one in the East. See the Babylonian story of the\n  assault of the seven evil spirits on the Moon. Sayce, _Gifford\n  Lectures_, 1902, p. 430, in which those who like to rationalize\n  ancient myths can see a lunar eclipse. We meet again with Sammael and\n  Michael as names of one of them in the diagram to be described later.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 237, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  The LXX or Greek version of the Old Testament belongs to the Western\n  Diaspora rather than to the Eastern. Perhaps this was why Paul and\n  Barnabas in addressing the Phrygians were careful to give them a\n  summary of Old Testament history. See Acts xiii. 16 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  The Sethians had a book called the _Paraphrase of Seth_ now lost,\n  which from its name may easily have been a heretical version of the\n  Book of Genesis. See Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 21, p. 223,\n  Cruice.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 145, Cruice, says that this was\n  first taught by the \u201cAssyrians,\u201d by which he evidently means the\n  Syrians.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ae\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 153, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  This is certainly the opinion of the sect responsible for one of the\n  later documents of the _Pistis Sophia_. See _Pistis Sophia_, pp. 346,\n  347, Copt. So Rossi\u2019s _Trattato gnostico_, before quoted, speaks\n  throughout of Satan or the chief of the powers of evil as the\n  _\u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1_ \u201coriginator of the form\u201d?\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  Hippolytus, see n. 1, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 144, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  _Ibid._ Bk V. c. 8, pp. 157-173, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  A verse:\n\n            Son of Saturn, son of Jove\n            Or born of mighty Rhea\u2019s love.\n            Holy name, that sounds so dear\n            To that ancient Rhea\u2019s ear.\n            Thee the old Assyrians [read Syrians] all\n            The thrice-wept Adonis call.\n            To thee for name has Egypt given\n            The holy horned moon of heaven [Osiris].\n            Thou the serpent-god of Greece\n            The all reverenced Adam thou of Samothrace.\n            Thee the Lydians, Phrygians thee,\n            Invoke, the Corybantic deity.\n            Thee Pappas now and now the dead,\n            Now lifting up reborn the god-like head.\n            Unfruitful now or barren desert brown,\n            Now the rich golden harvest mowing down.\n            Or whom the blossoming almond-tree\n            Brought forth on the free hills the piper wild to be.\n\n            Attis, old Rhea\u2019s son I sing\n            Not with the wild bell\u2019s clashing ring\n            Nor Ida\u2019s fife, in whose shrill noise\n            The old Curetae still rejoice;\n            But with the mingling descant sweet\n            Of Phoebus\u2019 harp, so soft, so sweet,\n            Evan! Evan! Pan, I call!\n            Evan the wild Bacchanal:\n            Or that bright Shepherd that on high\n            Folds the white stars up in the silent sky.\n\n            _Quarterly Review_, June, 1851.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5 y\u1f70p \u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. \u201cFor they very strictly enjoin\n  that their followers should abstain, as if they were castrated, from\n  companying with women,\u201d Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 177,\n  Cruice.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  \u03a4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74\n  \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9. \u201cThis he (the Naassene writer) says\n  signifies that none was a hearer of these mysteries save only the\n  perfect Gnostics,\u201d Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 144, Cruice.\n  The \u201cthis\u201d refers to the text: \u201cHe that hath ears to hear, let him\n  hear.\u201d\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\n  \u201cbeing born again from the earthly body, not as fleshly but as\n  spiritual men\u201d.... \u039f\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af, \u03a6\u03c1\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. \u201cF\u03bfr the Phrygians themselves declare, he\n  says, that he who is thus reborn is by reason of the change a god,\u201d\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, pp. 165, 166, Cruice. Cf. Berger,\n  _\u00c9tudes_, etc. p. 27.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. et loc. cit._ p. 165, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  The Naassene writer says that the peace preached \u201cto those that are\n  afar off\u201d of Ephesians ii. 17, refers to \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u201cto\n  the material and earthly,\u201d and that \u201cto those that are near\u201d to \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u201cto the spiritual and\n  understanding perfect men.\u201d Hippolytus, _op. et loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, pp. 172, 173, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  _Cum accepisset concupiscentiam superioris luminis, et virtutem\n  sumpsisset per omnia, deposuisse corpus et liberatam ab eo._ Irenaeus,\n  Bk I. c. 28, p. 229, Harvey. As he goes on to say: _Corpus autem hoc\n  exuisse dicunt eam, foeminam a foemina nominant_, it is plain that he\n  is here referring to the Third or Lower Sophia who was one of the\n  personages in the Valentinian drama and unknown, so far as we can\n  tell, to the Ophites. The Latin translator is no doubt responsible for\n  this confusion.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  That this was the object of Ialdabaoth in creating Eve is plain from\n  Irenaeus\u2019 Latin text (Bk I. c. 28, p. 233, Harvey): _Zelantem autem\n  Ialdabaoth voluisse excogitare evacuare hominem per foeminam, et de\n  sua Enthymesi eduxisse foeminam, quam illa Prunicos suscipiens\n  invisibiliter evacuavit a virtute_. He then goes on to relate the\n  seduction of the archons which plays so large a part in the Enochian\n  literature, and which is made Sophia\u2019s contrivance for nullifying the\n  command to \u201cIncrease and multiply\u201d in Genesis.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2: Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk\n  V. c. 8, p. 172, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 177, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  _Ibid._ Bk V. c. 6, p. 140, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, \u00a7 6, p. 238, Harvey. The section is given\n  almost word for word as in Irenaeus; but it is manifestly taken from\n  some other source than that of the Greek text, and is inconsistent\n  with the rest of the story. If the Lower Sophia or Prunicos (the\n  Substitute) were born from the mere boiling over of the light shed\n  upon her mother, of what had she to \u201crepent\u201d? In the _Pistis Sophia_,\n  indeed, the heroine wins her way back to her former estate by\n  repentance, but _her_ fall has been occasioned by disobedience and\n  ambition. So, too, the story about Jesus changing His form on His\n  descent through the seven heavens is common to the story of Pistis\n  Sophia and the legend of Simon Magus, which two it therefore connects\n  (see Chapter VI, vol. I. p. 191, n. 4). It also appears in the\n  _Ascension of Isaiah_ which Mr Charles thinks may be dated about 150\n  A.D. (see Charles, _Ascension of Isaiah_, 1900, pp. xi and 62), but\n  which is probably of much later date. There are other features to be\n  noted in their place common to the _Pistis Sophia_ and the last named\n  work.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  That is to say, that which does not perish and return to the Deity.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, \u00a7 7, pp. 238-241, Harvey. This again is given\n  almost _verbatim_. The stay of Jesus on earth after His Resurrection,\n  and His teaching His disciples \u201cquod liquidum est,\u201d that is, without\n  parable, is also told in the _Pistis Sophia_, but His\n  post-Resurrection life is there put at 12 years. Irenaeus\u2019 Latin\n  translator has, as has been said, evidently here got hold of some\n  later developments of Ophitism not known to his author at the time\n  that the Greek text was written. Yet some tradition of a long interval\n  between the Resurrection and the Ascension was evidently current in\n  the sub-Apostolic age. Irenaeus himself says on the authority of\n  \u201cthose who met with John the Disciple of the Lord in Asia\u201d that Jesus\u2019\n  ministry only lasted for one year from His Baptism, He being then 30\n  years old, and that He suffered on completing his 30th year; yet that\n  He taught until He was 40 or 50 years old. See Irenaeus, Bk II. c. 33,\n  \u00a7 3, p. 331, Harvey. Some part of this statement appears in the Greek\n  text.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXXVII. c. 5, p. 502, Oehler. Epiphanius, although\n  generally untrustworthy, had been, as M. de Faye reminds us, a\n  Nicolaitan in his youth. See de Faye, _Introd._ p. 116.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 10, pp. 182-184, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  Cruice, _op. et loc. cit._ p. 152, n. 3, remarks that the Supreme\n  Triad here shown is \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c7\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd \u201cthe\n  intellectual, the earthly, and the psychic or animal.\u201d This may be;\n  but there is no proof that the Ophites ever gave Chaos or unformed\n  Matter a place in it, or made it the next principle to their Supreme\n  Being. Probably for the supposed \u201cChaos\u201d in the second line of the\n  Psalm should be substituted some words like \u201cthe projected Thought\u201d of\n  the Father. Miller has some curious remarks quoted in the same note on\n  the metre of the Psalm, which he points out is the same as in a poem\n  of Lucian\u2019s, and in the hymns of Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais,\n  already mentioned.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 148; _ibid._ c. 9, p. 181,\n  Cruice. They probably resembled the ceremonies described at length in\n  the _Pistis Sophia_ and the _Bruce Papyrus._ See Chapter X, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  See p. 18 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  Giraud, _op. cit._ p. 95.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  Sanctam autem hebdomadam septem stellas, quas dicunt planetas, esse\n  volunt. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, \u00a7 5, p. 236, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 159, Cruice, says that the\n  \u201cnothing\u201d said in John i. 3, 4 to have been made without the Word is\n  in fact this world. \u03a4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u201c\u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd, \u1f43 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u00b7 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\u201d \u201cBut\n  the \u2018nothing\u2019 which came into being without Him is the world of form;\n  for it came into being without Him by the Third and Fourth\u201d\u2014these last\n  being evidently Sophia and Jaldabaoth respectively.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  \u039f\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc7\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2. \u201cThe perfect [or initiated] man, he\n  says, therefore cannot be saved unless he be born again, entering in\n  through this gate.\u201d Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 165, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 144, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk III. c. 13, and n. 2, p. 196, Chapter VI, vol.\n  I. The \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5 of this passage and of Clement\u2019s Second\n  Epistle to the Romans (Hilgenfeld, _N.T. extra canon._ pt I., p. 79)\n  is compared by the Naassene author (Hipp. _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p.\n  146, Cruice) with the emasculation of Attis, which is made a type of\n  the soul \u201cpassing from the material parts of the lower creation to the\n  eternal substance above.\u201d\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  The Naassenes had priests. \u039f\u1f31 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u039d\u03b1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03af. \u201cThe priests and chiefs\n  of the doctrine have been the first who were called Naassenes.\u201d\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit_. Bk V. c. 6, p. 139, Cruice. Cf. also p. 77,\n  _infra_.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  As we have seen, Aelius Aristides says the devotees of the Alexandrian\n  gods used to bury holy books in their tombs. See Chapter II, vol. I.\n  p. 60, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  See Chapter IV, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  I have taken the earliest date for which there is any probability,\n  because it was in Hadrian\u2019s time that most of the great Gnostics\n  taught, and their speculations would therefore have been most likely\n  to come to heathen ears. Keim, _Celsus Wahres Wort_, Z\u00fcrich, 1873,\n  however, makes the date of the book 177-178 A.D., and this seems\n  supported by the latest critics. See Patrick, _Apology of Origen_,\n  1892, p. 9, where the question is thoroughly examined.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 24.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  See Matter, _Histoire du Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1843, Pl. III, and\n  Giraud, _op. cit._ Pl. facing p. 238.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Cels_. Bk VI. c. 38. The fact is significant as showing\n  that the Ophites considered the Son as contained _within_ the Father.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c3\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, Origen, _op. et loc.\n  cit._ The \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c5\u03c2 or double-bladed axe was the symbol of Zeus\n  Labrandos of Caria, and is often met with on the coins of Asia Minor,\n  while it seems to have played a prominent part in the worship of\n  Minoan Crete and in Mycenae. See Arthur Evans, _Mycenaean Tree and\n  Pillar Cult_, 1901, pp. 8-12. Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. c. 91, thinks\n  that Savazos or Sabazios was called in Phrygia Lairbenos, which may be\n  connected with the word _Labrys_ said to be the name of the double\n  axe. He found a god with this weapon worshipped together with Demeter\n  or Cybele in the Milyan country, _op. cit._ pp. 263, 264, and he\n  thinks the pair appear under the different names of Leto, Artemis,\n  Cybele, and Demeter on the one hand, and Apollo, Lairbenos, Sabazios,\n  Men, and Attis on the other throughout Asia Minor. He points out,\n  however, that they were only the male and female aspects of a single\n  divinity (_op. cit._ 93, 94). Is it possible that this is the\n  explanation of the double axe as a divine symbol? The axe with one\n  blade was the ordinary Egyptian word-sign for a god (see _P.S.B.A_.\n  1899, pp. 310, 311) and the double axe might easily mean a god with a\n  double nature. If this idea were at all prevalent in Anatolia at the\n  beginning of our era, it would explain Simon Magus\u2019 mysterious\n  allusion to the flaming sword of Genesis iii. 24, \u201cwhich turns both\n  ways to guard the Tree of Life,\u201d and is somehow connected with the\n  division of mankind into sexes. See Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c.\n  17, p. 260, Cruice. A very obscure Coptic text which its discoverer,\n  M. de M\u00e9ly, calls \u201cLe Livre des Cyranides\u201d (_C. R. de l\u2019Acad. des\n  Inscriptions_, Mai-Juin, 1904, p. 340) gives a hymn to the vine said\n  to be sung in the Mysteries of Bacchus in which the \u201cmystery of the\n  axe\u201d is mentioned.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  Origen, _op. et loc. cit._ The names of the circles, etc., in the\n  original are from above downwards: \u1f08\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7, \u0396\u03c9\u03ae, \u03a0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1, \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\n  \u0393\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, \u03a6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, and \u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  Gnosis does appear in the Naassene Psalm given in this Chapter, but\n  only as the name of the \u201cHoly Way.\u201d\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  See n. 1, p. 58 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  In this it is following strictly the tradition of the Enochian\n  literature. \u201cAnd we ascended to the firmament, I and he, and there I\n  saw Sammael and his hosts, and there was great fighting therein and\n  the angels of Satan were envying one another.\u201d Charles, _Ascension of\n  Isaiah_, c. VII. v. 9, p. 48, and Editor\u2019s notes for other references.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 32. Horaios is probably connected with\n  the root \u05d0\u05d5\u05e8 \u201clight\u201d; Astaphaios appears in the earliest texts as\n  Astanpheus. which may be an anagram for \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u201ccrown.\u201d Or it may be\n  \u05d7\u05e9\u05d8\u05e4\u05d4 \u201cinundation\u201d which would agree with Origen\u2019s statement as to\n  this being the principle of water, for which see p. 73 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  _Op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 31.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  Unless we take the ten circles as including the three gates of\n  Horaios, Ailoaios, and Astaphaios. In this case, Jaldabaoth and his\n  first three sons would alone form the higher part of the planetary\n  world. This is unlikely, but if it were so, there would be an\n  additional reason for calling Jaldabaoth, as does Irenaeus, a \u201cfourth\n  number.\u201d Theodore Bar Kh\u00f4ni, who wrote in the viiith century (see\n  Chapter XIII, _infra_), in his notice of the Ophites gives the number\n  of these heavens as ten. See Pognon, _Coupes de Khouabir_, Paris,\n  1898, p. 213.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5, Origen, _\u03bfp. cit._ Bk\n  VI. c. 25.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  Origen says, _loc. cit._, that Leviathan is Hebrew for \u201cDragon.\u201d Cf.\n  Ps. civ. 26.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  That is to say: Jaldabaoth; Iao, which is probably one of the many\n  attempts to represent in Greek the Tetragrammaton \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 called in\n  English Jehovah; Ailoaios or Eloaios, the singular of the well-known\n  plural name of God in Genesis \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd \u201cElohim\u201d; and Adonai, \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9, \u201cthe\n  Lord,\u201d which in many parts of the O.T. replaces the Tetragrammaton.\n  Harvey, however, _op. cit._ p. 33, n. 3, thinks Iao may simply\n  represent the initial of the name of Yahweh coupled with Alpha and\n  Omega to show His eternal nature. He connects this with \u201cI am the\n  first and the last\u201d of Isaiah xliv. 6, and Rev. i. 11. Yet the later\n  Greeks called Dionysos Iao. See the (probably spurious) oracle of\n  Apollo Clarius quoted by Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, Bk I. c. 18, II. 19\n  _sqq._\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  Giraud, _op. cit._ p. 230.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  \u03c0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2: Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 31.\n  Perhaps we should read \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cGates which belong to the age of\n  the Archons,\u201d _i.e._ while their rule lasts.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  See the quotation from the Gospel of Philip later in this chapter, p.\n  79, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  This appears to be the sphere of the Sun to which the epithet\n  \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u201cone-formed\u201d is not inappropriate. Why he should be called\n  \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03b2\u03bb\u03b5\u03c8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u201cbond of blindness,\u201d and \u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u201cthoughtless oblivion,\u201d does not appear. \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u201cthe first power preserved,\u201d etc.\n  coincides curiously with what is said in the _Pistis Sophia_ as to the\n  Ship of the Sun and the \u201cVirgin of Light.\u201d\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  This seems to be the sphere of Saturn, the furthest or 7th reckoning\n  from the earth and therefore according to the astronomy of the time\n  the nearest to the upper heavens. Was the symbol of life the Egyptian\n  \u2640 or _ankh_? It was of course the jealous Jaldabaoth\u2019s or Ialdabaoth\u2019s\n  wish that no human souls should penetrate beyond his realm.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  So the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks repeatedly of the \u201cLittle Iao the Good.\u201d\n  This should be the sphere of the Moon. In the hymn to Attis given in\n  this chapter, see n. 6, p. 54 _supra_, Attis-Dionysos-Osiris is\n  identified with \u201cthe holy horned moon of heaven.\u201d and the name Iao may\n  be connected with the Coptic \u2c92\u2c9e\u03e8 _ioh_ or \u201cmoon.\u201d He may be called the\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u201cfirst lord of death,\u201d because Osiris, like\n  Dionysos, was the first to return to life after being torn in pieces.\n  The \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u201cbearing my own beard as a symbol\u201d\n  seems to refer to the attitude of the Egyptian dead, who is\n  represented as holding his beard in his right hand when introduced\n  into the presence of Osiris. See Budge, _Book of the Dead_, 1898\n  (translation volume), frontispiece, or _Papyrus of Ani_, _ibi cit._\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  This may be the sphere of Jupiter, who in one of the later documents\n  of the _Pistis Sophia_ is made ruler of the _five_ planets. Sabaoth is\n  probably the Divine Name \u05e6\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5\u05ea \u201c[Lord of] Hosts\u201d which the Greeks took\n  for a proper name. It, like Iao, appears often in the later documents.\n  The \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u201cmightier Pentad\u201d may refer to the Three Men\n  (Adamas, his son, and Christos), and the Two Women (the First Woman\n  and Sophia) placed at the head of the universe by the Ophites.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  This should be the sphere of Mercury, the messenger of the gods and\n  leader of souls, who, unlike the higher powers, sees the earth from\n  anigh and without veils. The \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u201cspirit of a Virgin\u201d may\n  be the Virgin of Light of the _Pistis Sophia_, who plays such an\n  important part in the redemption of souls. Hippolytus\u2019 Naassene writer\n  (Hipp. _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 181, Cruice) speaks of Jesus as the\n  true gate and talks in this connection of \u201cLife-giving water\u201d and of\n  \u201cwe Christians celebrating the mystery in the third gate\u201d\u2014an allusion\n  which is unintelligible at present, unless it refers to the waters of\n  baptism.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  The sphere of Venus? The planet is said in one of the later documents\n  of the _Pistis Sophia_ to be ruled by a power from \u201cPistis Sophia, the\n  daughter of Barbelo,\u201d another name for the material antitype of the\n  heavenly Sophia or Mother of Life, whom we shall meet with later.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  The sphere of Mars? No allusion is made elsewhere to the \u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n  \u201cfence of fire\u201d; but we do of course often hear of an empyrean or\n  heaven of fire stretching over the earth. The \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03be\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd is, according\n  to both Origen and Celsus, the Cross; Origen, _op. cit._ Bk VI. cc.\n  34, 37.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  The proper order would appear to be:\n\n  (1) Horaios \u2642 the guardian of the First Gate, _i.e._ that of Fire.\n\n  (2) Ailoaios \u2640 the guardian of the Second Gate, _i.e._ that of Air.\n\n  (3) Astaphaios \u263f the guardian of the Third Gate, _i.e._ that of Water.\n\n  Above these we have (4) Adonai the \u2609 the first power as distinguished\n  from mere porters or guardians of gates, (5) Iao the \u263d called in the\n  password the second, and (6) and (7) Sabaoth \u2643 and Jaldabaoth \u2644 above\n  all. This would about correspond with the astronomy of the time, which\n  tried to put the sun in the centre of our system. But the relative\n  places of Sabaoth, Jaldabaoth, and Ailoaios are very uncertain, and\n  Epiphanius in describing the Ophite sect whom he calls \u201cGnostics\u201d says\n  that some wished to make Ialdabaoth occupy the 6th heaven, and others\n  Ailoaios, called by him Elilaios, while giving the 7th to Sabaoth.\n  Epiph. _Haer._ XXVI. c. 10, p. 174, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 31. If \u2644 corresponds to Michael and\n  also to Jaldabaoth, \u2643 ought to do the like to Suriel and Iao, \u2642 to\n  Sabaoth (which would be appropriate enough) and to Raphael, the sun to\n  Adonai and Gabriel, and so on. No system of correspondences, however,\n  can be devised that does not break down on scrutiny. Sammael, which is\n  here Michael\u2019s other name, is used in the _Ascensio Isaiae_ (see\n  Charles, _Ascension of Isaiah_, p. 6) as a name of Satan. But it may\n  well be that good and bad spirits occupying corresponding places in\n  the universe were sometimes called by the same names. So one of the\n  documents of the Pistis Sophia speaks of an angel cryptically named\n  Zarazaz \u201cwho is called by the demons after a strong demon of their own\n  place, Maskelli\u201d: _Pistis Sophia_, p. 370, Copt.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  Though Babylonian in origin it must early have found its way into\n  Egypt. See Maspero, _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ II. p. 385 and Chapter VI, _supra_,\n  vol. I. p. 183 and n. 3.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  Soul, perhaps, does not here mean anything more than animating\n  principle, spark, or breath of life.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  See p. 42, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u1f50\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 168, Cruice. See also the same\n  expression in n. 3, p. 41, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  Origen\u2019s testimony on this point can be the better relied on, because\n  his good faith, unlike that of writers like Epiphanius, is above\n  suspicion. He and Clement of Alexandria are the only two writers on\n  Gnosticism among the Fathers to whom M. de Faye (_Introd._ p. 1) will\n  allow \u201cintelligence\u201d and \u201cimpartialit\u00e9.\u201d\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  He gives, _op. cit._ p. 79, a map showing their chief seats from the\n  head of the Persian Gulf on the one hand to Crete and the Adriatic on\n  the other.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  In the _Bruce Papyrus_ mentioned in Chapter X, there is much said\n  about a god called Sitheus, so that it is by no means certain that the\n  Seth after whom they were named was the patriarch of Genesis. He might\n  be the Egyptian Set, whose name is transliterated in the Magic Papyri\n  as \u03a3\u03b7\u03ca\u03b8. His appearance in Egypt first as the brother and then as the\n  enemy of Osiris has never been fully accounted for. See \u201cThe Legend of\n  Osiris,\u201d _P.S.B.A._ for 1911, pp. 145 _sqq._ Epiphanius\u2019 attempt in\n  the _Panarion_ (_Haer._ XXXIX. c. 3, p. 524, Oehler) to connect the\n  genealogy of Jesus with the Seth of Genesis is not even said to depend\n  on the doctrines of the sect, and the whole chapter reads like an\n  interpolation. Cf. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Vorchristliche j\u00fcdische Gnosticismus,\n  G\u00f6ttingen_, 1898, p. 25.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  Praedestinatus, _de Haeresibus_, Bk I. c. 17, p. 237, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. II. p. 176.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  See _Acta Philippi_ before quoted _passim_.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, \u00a7 8, p. 241, Harvey. King, _Gnostics_, etc. p.\n  101, quotes from Tertullian, _de Praescript._, \u201cSerpentem magnificant\n  in tantum ut etiam Christo praeferant,\u201d which sounds like an Ophite\n  doctrine; but I have failed to verify the quotation.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ I. 24.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  _Pistis Sophia_, pp. 319, 320, Copt.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 384, Copt.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 13, pp. 188 _sqq._, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  See Giraud, _op. cit._ pp. 250 _sqq._ for references and editions.\n  English translations of some of them have appeared in the \u201cApocryphal\n  Acts\u201d etc. of Clark\u2019s _Ante-Nicene Library_, and in _Cambridge Texts\n  and Studies_.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  This is the opinion of Lipsius. See _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._\n  Gospels, Apocryphal.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  Cf. the similar expressions in the speech of the soul on the Orphic\n  Gold Plates, Chapter IV, vol. I. pp. 131 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXVI. c. 13, p. 190, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 172, Oehler. Cf. the \u201cLogia Jesu\u201d published by the Egypt\n  Exploration Fund in _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, 1898, p. 3. \u201cWherever there\n  are two, they are not without God, and wherever there is one alone, I\n  say I am with him. Raise the stone, and there thou shalt find me,\n  cleave the wood and there am I.\u201d\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  _Pistis Sophia_, pp. 206, 230, Copt.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  Gr\u00fcber, _Die Ophiten_, W\u00fcrzburg, 1864, pp. 173 _sqq._, points out that\n  the Ophites, like the Valentinians, seem to have used the Peshitto or\n  Syriac version of the Canonical Books for their quotations. He says\n  the fact had been already noticed by Harvey. It is, of course, another\n  indication of the Anatolian or Syrian origin of the sect.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  Irenaeus, I. 28, c. 5, p. 237, Harvey, gives a list of the books which\n  they assigned to each planetary power, Jaldabaoth taking the lion\u2019s\n  share with the Hexateuch, Amos and Habbakuk.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 150, Cruice. Proverbs xxiv. 16\n  seems the text referred to.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 25, pp. 226, 227, Cruice. Sophia is\n  evidently the serpent in this combination.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  The Ebionites, or whatever other Judaeo-Christian sect is responsible\n  for the _Clementines_, make St Peter affirm that Jesus \u201cdid not\n  proclaim Himself to be God,\u201d and that \u201cthat which is begotten cannot\n  be compared with that which is unbegotten or self-begotten.\u201d See\n  _Clem. Hom._ XVI. cc. 15, 16.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IX\n                  POST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: VALENTINUS\n\n\nIt seems fairly plain that the originators of the Ophite teaching were\nuneducated men[282]. A few quotations from Homer and Pindar, probably\nfamiliar to anyone who listened to the Rhapsodists, are indeed to be\nfound in the anonymous author whom Hippolytus quotes under the name of\n\u201cthe Naassene.\u201d But the reading of the learned of that day consisted not\nof poetry but of philosophy; and there is no trace in his speculations\nof direct acquaintance with the works of any philosopher whatever. This\nis the more striking because Heraclitus of Ephesus, Zeno of Cyprus, and\nCleanthes of Assos might have been brought into court in support of his\ncosmogonical ideas; and the Stoic philosophy was especially an Asiatic\none, having one of its principal homes in Tarsus, and therefore not very\nfar from Phrygia proper. Its cosmology as taught in Rome at the period\nnow under discussion[283], differed very little from that of the earlier\nOphites, and its theory of \u201cseminal reasons\u201d (\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76) or\nparticles of fiery matter descending from heaven to earth and there\nbecoming formative principles, together with its belief in\nmetensomatosis or transmigration has many resemblances with the Ophite\nscheme of redemption[284]. Yet the Naassene author in an age when\nphilosophy was most in fashion never appeals to the authority of the\nfounders of the Stoic school or of those followers of theirs who must\nhave been his contemporaries and countrymen; and Hippolytus, whose own\nacquaintance with Greek philosophy was superficial and hardly\nfirst-hand, in his summary of the Naassene doctrine draws no parallel\nbetween the two. On the other hand, the Naassene author perpetually\nrefers to the Old Testament which he seems to have known in the Peshitto\nor Syrian version, although, as will have been seen, he by no means\nregards it from the Jewish standpoint as a divinely inspired rule of\nlife, and pushes down Yahweh, its God, into a very inferior position in\nthe scale of being. As the date of the Peshitto has not yet been put\nfurther back than the second century A.D.[285], this would lead one to\nsuppose that it had only recently come to the notice of the Naassene\nwriter, who probably welcomed it as a valuable source from which to draw\nmaterials for spells and exorcisms. This excessive reverence for the\nletter as apart from the spirit of a document is characteristic of the\nmagician of the early Christian centuries, and is further exemplified in\na magic papyrus of the IIIrd century A.D., now in the British Museum,\nwhere \u201ca number of single lines taken without any regard to sense or on\nany discernible principle from the Iliad and Odyssey\u201d are arranged in a\ncertain order for use as a fortune-telling book, and appear in company\nwith magical recipes for obtaining dreams, compounding love philtres,\nand all the usual paraphernalia of a wizard of the period[286]. Such a\nuse of writings venerable for their antiquity would never enter into the\nhead of anyone endowed with any literary sense, but seems natural enough\nto persons of limited reading, to whom they form their sole material for\nstudy. In reading into the lives of the Jewish patriarchs hidden\nallusions to the theories of the origin of the universe and the destiny\nof man then current over the whole Hellenistic world, the Naassenes did\nnot behave differently from our own Puritans of Cromwell\u2019s time, who\ndiscovered in texts like \u201cTake the prophets of Baal, Let not one of them\nescape[287]!\u201d a justification for \u201cknocking on the head out of hand,\u201d\nthe clergy of the opposing party[288]. We may, if we please, picture to\nourselves the earlier Ophites as a handful of merchants, artizans,\nfreedmen, and slaves inclined by inherited custom to magical practices\nand to ecstatic or hysterical forms of religion, and, as it were,\nintoxicated by the new field of speculation which the translation of the\nHebrew Scriptures into their own tongue had opened to them. At the same\ntime, their anti-Semitic feeling, dating perhaps from the time of the\nMaccabaean resistance which had materially contributed to the downfall\nof the Syrian Empire, and considerably exacerbated by the atrocities\ncommitted by the Jewish rebels at the close of the Ist century A.D.,\nmust have forced them into an attitude in every way opposed to Jewish\nnational pretensions; while it is easy to understand that such persons\nmust have caught eagerly at any _via media_ which enabled them to\nreconcile the Jewish traditions, long familiar to them through spells\nand charms, with the legends of the Greek Mysteries, and at the same\ntime protected them against the social and moral obloquy attaching to\nopen adherence to the Jewish rites. Such considerations, perhaps,\nexplain alike the immediate success of St Paul\u2019s preaching in Asia\nMinor, and the outburst of activity among the Gnostics which followed\nclose upon it[289].\n\nThe Gnostic speculations were, however, destined to pass out of the\nhands of unlearned men. Although it was hardly likely to have been\nnoticed at the time, the day was past for national or particularist\nreligions having for their object the well-being of one nation or city;\nand men\u2019s relations to the Divine world were coming to be looked upon as\na matter concerning the individual rather than the State. Alexander\u2019s\nwork in breaking down the barriers between people and people was\nbeginning to bear fruit in the intellectual as it had already done in\nthe political world, and the thoughtful were everywhere asking\nthemselves, as Tertullian tells us, not only whence man and the world\nhad come, but what was the meaning of the evil within the world[290].\nAlong with this, too, had come a general softening of manners which was\nextremely favourable to speculation on such subjects, and to which the\nvagaries of the Caesars of the Julian house have made us somewhat blind.\nA reign of terror might often exist among the great families in the\ncapital under a jealous or suspicious Emperor, and the majority of the\nproletariat might there as in other large towns be entirely given up to\nthe brutal or obscene amusements of the arena or the theatre. But in the\nprovinces these things had little effect on the working of the system\nset up under the Empire; and the civilized world was for the first time,\nperhaps, in its history, beginning to feel the full benefits of good\ngovernment and freedom from foreign invasion. It is quite true that the\npopulation were then, as at the present day, leaving the country and\nflocking into the towns, thereby acquiring new vices in addition to\ntheir old ones; but this also led, as town life must always do, to\nincreased respect for the rights of their neighbours, and to the\nextension of the idea of law and order rather than of the right of the\nstrongest as the governing principle of the universe. The Roman law,\nupon which the jurisprudence of every civilized country is still based,\nfirst took coherent shape in the reign of Hadrian; and Ulpian\u2019s\nfundamental maxim that before the law all men are free and equal was\nfounded on a conception of the rights of the individual very different\nfrom the Oriental notion that all subjects high and low were the\nchattels of the king.\n\nIn these circumstances, new ethical ideals had arisen which affected all\nclasses in the State. As Sir Samuel Dill has said in his charming sketch\nof Roman manners under the Julian, Flavian and Antonine emperors, \u201cIt\nhas perhaps been too little recognized that in the first and second\ncenturies there was a great propaganda of pagan morality running\nparallel to the evangelism of the Church[291].\u201d But this ethical\npropaganda was an entirely lay affair, and the work not of the priests\nbut of the philosophers[292]. It had, indeed, always been so in the\nHellenic world, and while we find it exciting no surprise that a priest\nof the most sacred mysteries should be worse instead of better than\nother men[293], it was the philosophers to whom was committed what was\nlater called the care of souls. Thus Alexander had recourse, when\nprostrated by self-reproach after the killing of Clitus, to the\nministrations of Anaxarchus, who endeavoured to console him with the\nsophism that kings are not to be judged like other men[294]. So, too, we\nhear of the Stoic philosopher, Musonius Rufus, when the army of\nVespasian was besieging Rome, accompanying the Senate\u2019s embassy to the\ntroops of Antonius, and preaching to them at the risk of his life upon\nthe blessings of peace and the horrors of war[295]. Seneca, also, when\nabout to die, endeavours to stay his friends\u2019 lamentations by reminding\nthem of the \u201crules of conduct\u201d by which alone they may expect\nconsolation, and bequeaths to them the example of his life[296]; while\nthe \u201cStoic saint,\u201d Thrasea, when the sentence of death reaches him, is\noccupied in listening to a discourse of Demetrius the Cynic on the\nnature of the soul and its separation from the body[297]. This shows an\nattitude of mind very different from the merely magical or, as we should\nsay, superstitious belief in the efficacy of spells and ceremonies; and\nthe example of Epictetus bears witness that it was that of slaves as\nwell as of senators.\n\nGnosticism, therefore, was bound to become ethical as well as gnostical,\nor, in other words, to insist on the efficacy of conduct as well as of\nknowledge, so soon as it came into contact with thinkers trained in\nphilosophy. Where it did so, in the first instance, cannot be told with\nany degree of certainty; but all probability points to Alexandria as one\nof the places where the post-Christian Gnosticism first made alliance\nwith philosophic learning. Not only was Alexandra the natural\nmeeting-place of Greeks and Orientals, but it was at the early part of\nthe IInd century a great deal more the centre of the intellectual world\nthan either Athens or Rome. Although Ptolemy IX Physcon is said to have\nexpelled from it the philosophers and scholars of the Museum, they seem\nto have returned shortly afterwards, and in the meantime their\ndispersion in the neighbouring cities and islands, where most of them\nmust have supported themselves by teaching, probably did a good deal\ntowards diffusing the taste for philosophy over a wider area than\nbefore. In Philo\u2019s time, in particular, the Platonic philosophy had\ngained such a hold in the city that he, though a leader of the Jews, had\nhad to assimilate it as best he might[298], and, as we have seen, to\nbring it more or less into harmony with the traditional beliefs of his\nown people. A century later we see the same thing occurring with the now\nrising sect of Christians; and a school of Christian philosophy was\nfounded in Alexandria under the leadership of Pantaenus, the predecessor\nin office of the famous Clement of Alexandria[299]. If we may judge from\nthe writings of this last, the expressed object of this school was to\ninstil a knowledge of Greek literature and philosophy into Christian\nteachers, to bring about which it attempted to show that, while both\nphilosophy and Christian theology alike aimed at the discovery of truth,\nthe valuable parts of the philosophic doctrines were borrowed or derived\nfrom the writings held sacred by Jews and Christians[300]. Nor were the\nAlexandrians in the least likely to refuse a hearing to any new faith\nhowever wild. The leading place which Alexandria had gained among the\nmarkets of the world brought within its gates the adherents of every\nreligion then known, and Jewish merchants and Christian artizans there\nmixed with Buddhist monks and fetish-worshippers from Central Asia,\nwhile the terms on which they met compelled a wide tolerance for one\nanother\u2019s opinions, and predisposed its citizens to a practical amalgam\nof several apparently conflicting creeds[301].\n\nIt was into this atmosphere that Gnosticism entered at least as early as\nthe reign of Hadrian. Who was answerable for its first introduction\nthere we have no means of knowing, nor do we even know with any\ncertainty what form Egyptian Gnosticism first took[302]. One would\nimagine that the Hellenizing tendency of the Samaritans might have\nbrought to Alexandria the doctrines of Simon Magus, but there is no\ndirect evidence to that effect. The case is different with Antioch,\nwhere one Saturninus or Satornilus\u2014the name is spelt differently by\nIrenaeus and Hippolytus\u2014seems to have put forth, at the period referred\nto, a _quasi_-Christian system having some likeness to that of the\nOphites, its chief distinguishing feature being its hatred of Judaism\nand its God, for whose overthrow it declared Christ to have been\nsent[303]. Like the Ophites, Saturninus rigidly opposed the commerce of\nthe sexes, declaring marriage and generation to be alike the work of\nSatan, the declared enemy of the world-creating angels, and of their\nleader the God of the Jews[304]. But the followers of this Saturninus\nseem to have been few in number, and although all the later\nheresiologists preserved the memory of his teaching, it is probable that\nthe sect itself did not long survive its founder[305]. Basilides, whose\nname is associated with that of Saturninus by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and\nEpiphanius, who all make him a fellow disciple with Saturninus of\nMenander, the continuator or successor of Simon Magus[306], certainly\nflourished under the same reign at Alexandria, where he taught an\nextremely complicated doctrine, declaring that between the unknown\nFather of All and this world there was interposed a series of 365\nheavens corresponding in number to the days of the year, the chief of\nthem being called Abraxas, the letters of which word have that numerical\nvalue[307]. This is the account of Irenaeus, not materially varied by\nany of the other early writers on heresy, with the exception of\nHippolytus, who gives us a long account of the doctrine of Basilides and\nhis son Isidore, which according to their own account they derived from\nMatthias, the Apostle who replaced Judas and who received it secretly\nfrom Jesus Himself[308]. From Hippolytus, we learn that Basilides\u2019\ncomplete or final teaching declared that there was a time when nothing\nexisted\u2014\n\n    \u201cneither matter, nor substance, nor the Unsubstantial, nor simple,\n    nor compound, nor the Intelligible, nor the Unintelligible, nor that\n    which can be comprehended by the senses, nor that which cannot be so\n    comprehended, nor man, nor angel, nor god, nor anything which can be\n    named\u201d\u2014\n\nand that this God-Who-Was-Not willed to make a world[309]. This act of\nvolition, exercised in Hippolytus\u2019 words \u201cwithout will or mind or\nconsciousness[310],\u201d produced the Seed of the World which contained\nwithin itself all the future universe, as the grain of mustard-seed\ncontains the roots, stem, branches, leaves, and innumerable other seeds\nof the future plant[311]. In this Seed was \u201ca Sonhood, threefold in all\nthings, of the same substance with the God-Who-Was-Not and generated\nfrom non-existing things[312].\u201d Of this threefold Sonhood, one part was\nsubtle or finely divided like aether or air, one coarser, and one which\nneeded purification; and he goes on to describe how the finer part\nimmediately upon the projection of the Seed, burst forth and flew\nupwards until it reached the Non-Existent-One, towards whom, Hippolytus\nsays, \u201cevery nature strains,\u201d on account of \u201cits beauty and\nmajesty[313].\u201d The coarser part of the Sonhood attempted to imitate the\nfirst, but failed to do so until helped by the Holy Spirit who served it\nas the wing does the bird; but although the second Sonhood thereby\nattained beatitude, the Holy Spirit could not enter into the Godhead\nalong with him \u201cbecause it (or she) was of a different substance from\nhim and had nothing of his nature[314].\u201d She was therefore left near it,\npurified and sanctified by her contact with the Sonhood as a jar which\nhas once contained perfume still preserves its savour[315]. As for the\nthird Sonhood, it remained in the Seed of the World, which thereafter\ngave birth to the Great Archon or Ruler, who is the Demiurge or\nArchitect of the Universe and fashions all cosmic things. This Archon\nmakes out of the things below him a Son who by the arrangement of the\nGod-Who-Was-Not is greater and wiser than himself, whence the Archon\ncauses him to sit at his right hand[316]. This Son is in effect Christ,\nwho reveals to the Archon the existence of the worlds above him, and\nsends the Gospel (here personified) into the world so that by it the\nthird Sonhood might be purified and thus raised to union with the\nGod-Who-Was-Not.\n\nThere is no need to follow further the system of Basilides, nor to\ndescribe the extremely complicated tangle of worlds, principalities,\npowers, and rulers, including the 365 heavens and their Archon or ruler\nAbraxas, which Basilides interposes between this earth and the Godhead.\nM. Am\u00e9lineau has endeavoured to show that, in this, Basilides was\nborrowing from the ancient Egyptian religion which he imagines to have\nbeen still flourishing in the Egypt of the second Christian\ncentury[317]. It may be so; and, although M. Am\u00e9lineau\u2019s proofs seem\nhardly strong enough to bear the weight of the conclusions he would draw\nfrom them, it may be conceded that in the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad of\nwhich we hear so much in Hippolytus\u2019 account of Basilides\u2019 teaching, we\nhave a distinct echo of the extraordinary arithmetic of the Pharaonic or\nold Egyptian theology, wherein we are constantly meeting with an Ennead\nor \u201ccompany\u201d of nine gods which, as M. Maspero has shown, sometimes\nconsists of eight, sometimes of ten, and sometimes of a still more\ndiscrepant number of individuals[318]. But Basilides\u2019 system was never\nintended for popular use; for he himself said, according to Irenaeus,\nthat only one out of a thousand or two out of ten thousand could\nunderstand it, and that his disciples should keep their adherence to it\nstrictly secret, seeking to know all things, but themselves remaining\nunknown[319]. Its interest for us here lies in the fact that Valentinus\nwho transformed post-Christian Gnosticism, as will presently be seen,\nfrom an esoteric or mystical explanation of Pagan beliefs[320] into a\nform of Christianity able to compete seriously with the Catholic Church,\nwas himself a native of Egypt, that he studied the Platonic philosophy\nin Alexandria[321], and that he must have resided there at the same time\nas Basilides, who was slightly older than he, and died before\nValentinus\u2019 doctrine was promulgated[322]. It is therefore hardly\npossible that Valentinus should not have known of Basilides\u2019 teaching\nand have borrowed from it, even without the internal evidence of\nborrowing afforded by a comparison of the two systems[323]. The almost\ntotal silence of the Fathers as to Basilides\u2019 school after that of\nValentinus became famous is to be accounted for, as Matter points out,\nby supposing that the hearers of Basilides, probably few in number, came\nover to him in a body[324].\n\nBasilides, therefore, forms a very important link between Simon Magus\nand the pre-Christian Gnostics\u2014with whom Basilides was connected, as we\nhave seen, through his master and Simon Magus\u2019 successor Menander\u2014on the\none hand, and Valentinus on the other. But his teaching also explains to\nus why so many of the features of the Ophite doctrines also reappear in\nthe Valentinian heresy. For the three Sonhoods of Basilides, although\ndescribed in a fantastic and almost unintelligible way by Hippolytus,\nseem to correspond in idea with the First and Second Man and the\nChristos of the Naassene writer; while the Holy Spirit, who is of\ninferior essence and therefore remains below the Supreme Godhead, can\nhardly be distinguished from the Sophia or Prunicos who in the Ophite\nscheme plays so large a part in the work of the redemption of the light.\nThe power of the Great Archon or Ruler of this World is also said in\nHippolytus\u2019 account of the Basilidean teaching, to rise no higher than\nthe firmament, which was placed between the hypercosmic spaces where\nsoared the Boundary Spirit, and the ordered universe[325],\u2014a statement\nwhich strictly corresponds to the limit placed on the power and\nauthority of the Ophite Ialdabaoth. The Archon of Basilides who must, I\nthink, be intended for Yahweh the God of the Jews is, like Ialdabaoth,\nignorant that there is anything above him[326]; and although he differs\nfrom his prototype in being better taught by his Son, this is easily\nexplained by the higher position occupied by both Jews and Christians in\nAlexandria than in Phrygia. It is significant also that the mystic and\nprobably cryptogrammatic name Caulacau which the Naassene writer uses\nfor the Saviour of his system is applied to the corresponding person in\nthe system of Basilides[327].\n\nThe popularity and success that attended Valentinus\u2019 own teaching may be\njudged from the pains that the Fathers took to oppose it. The five books\n_Against Heresies_ so often quoted above were written by Irenaeus with\nthe avowed intention of refuting Valentinus\u2019 disciples. Hippolytus, who\naimed at a more encyclopaedic account of the heresies of his time,\ndevotes more space to the Valentinian sect than to any other. Tertullian\nnot only repeatedly gibes at them after his manner when treating of\nother matters, but composed a special book against them still extant,\nfrom which we learn of the existence of other treatises against them\nwritten by Justin Martyr, Miltiades a Christian sophist, and one\nProculus, all which are now lost[328]. Those near to Valentinus in date\nseem hardly to have considered him an enemy of Christianity. Clement of\nAlexandria quotes several passages from the writings of him and his\nfollowers, and although it is always with the view of contradicting the\nstatements of his fellow-countryman, he yet does so without any of the\nheat displayed by other controversialists[329]. On the other hand, the\northodox who wrote long after Valentinus was in his grave are most\nbitter against him. Epiphanius, who seldom had a good word for any one,\ncalls him, with some justice, the chief of heretics[330]; Philaster of\nBrescia says he was more a follower of Pythagoras than of Christ, and\nthat he led captive the souls of many[331]; Praedestinatus, that he and\nhis followers throughout the East severely wounded the Church of\nGod[332]; while Eusebius in his _Life of Constantine_ produces an\nImperial edict against the Valentinians and other heretics, issued,\naccording to him, some time before the baptism of its promulgator, and\nordering that they shall no longer be allowed to assemble together and\nthat their \u201chouses of prayer\u201d shall be confiscated to the use of the\nCatholic Church[333]. It was probably in pursuance of some such law,\nwhich also enjoined, as Eusebius tells us, the search for and\ndestruction of their writings, that a conventicle of the Valentinians at\nCallinicum on the Eastern frontier of the Empire was burned by the\nChristian mob headed by their bishop and monks in A.D. 388[334]. The\nsame scenes were no doubt enacted in other parts of the Empire; and we\nmay, perhaps, see in the fury of the persecutors the measure of their\nfear.\n\nYet there is little in the Valentinian doctrine as described by the\nFathers to account for the popularity that it evidently attained.\nValentinus, like all the Gnostics, believed in one Supreme Source of all\nthings; but he from the first threw over the extremely philosophical\nidea of Basilides, which some writers would derive from Buddhism[335],\nof a non-existent God as the pinnacle of his system. To fill the gap\nthus left, he returned to the older conception of the Ophites, and\npostulated a Bythos or Deep as the origin of all. But this \u201cUnknowable\nFather\u201d was by no means the mere abstraction without direct action upon\nthe world or man that he was in the systems of the Ophites and of\nBasilides. As to the mode of his action, however, a schism\u2014or rather, a\ndifference of opinion\u2014early manifested itself among his followers. Some\nof them gave to Bythos a female consort called, as Irenaeus, and,\nfollowing him, Tertullian, tell us, Silence (\u03a3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae) and Grace (\u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2),\nfrom whom all the subsequent aeons or manifestations of the Godhead\ndescended[336]. Irenaeus partly explains away this by the statement that\nBythos or the Perfect Aeon dwelt for boundless ages in rest and solitude\n(\u1f21\u03c3\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u1fb3), but that there existed with him Ennoia or Thought. Whether\nthis last part of the statement was or was not thrown in so as to force\na parallel between the system of Valentinus and that of Simon Magus from\nwhom the orthodox insisted all later heresiarchs derived their teaching,\ncannot now be said. But Hippolytus, who, while not disputing this\nderivation, is just as anxious to show that Valentinus was also much\nindebted to the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy learned by him at\nAlexandria, tells us that there were other Valentinians who insisted\nthat the Father (or Bythos) was without spouse (\u1f00\u03c3\u03cd\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2) not feminine\n(\u1f04\u03b8\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03c2) and lacking nothing (\u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5\u03ae\u03c2); and that Valentinus himself\nsaid that Bythos was \u201cunbegotten (\u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) not subject to conditions\nof space or time, having no counsellor, nor any substance that could be\ncomprehended by any figure of speech[337].\u201d Herein either Hippolytus or\nValentinus seems to have been attracted by the ideas of the\nNeo-Pythagorean school of Alexandria, who indulged in many arithmetical\ntheories about the Monad or Final Unity which went on producing male and\nfemale (_i.e._ odd and even) numbers alternately until it arrived at the\nperfect harmony of ten[338]. Yet those who study ancient religions by\nthe comparative method will be more inclined to see in this diversity of\nopinion among the Valentinians a hesitation between the old idea\ncurrent, as we have seen, in the Eastern Mediterranean, that a god may\nbe bisexual and therefore capable of producing descendants without\nfemale assistance and the ancient Semitic view (due perhaps to the fact\nthat Semitic languages know only two genders) which divided the Godhead\nlike everything else into male and female[339].\n\nHowever this may be, all the Valentinian schools seem to have agreed\nupon the emanation which immediately proceeded from the Deep or the\nFather of All. From Bythos, either alone or with the help of Sige[340],\nthere proceeded Mind or Nous (\u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2), called also Monogenes[341] and the\nFather, the beginning of all subsequent things. This Nous is said to be\n\u201cequal and like\u201d to him from whom he had emanated, and by himself\ncapable of comprehending the greatness of Bythos[342]. With Nous there\nalso came forth a female Power named Aletheia or Truth (\u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1), and\nthis pair gave birth to a second syzygy, viz. Logos or the Word (\u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2)\nand Zoe or Life (\u0396\u03c9\u1f74), who in their turn produced a third pair, namely:\nAnthropos, Man (\u1f0c\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) and Ecclesia, the Church (\u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1)[343]. The\nlater Valentinians, from whom Irenaeus quotes, added to these six aeons,\nBythos and his spouse Sige, thus making up the originating Ogdoad or\neightfold Godhead again called the root and substance of all\n[subsequent] things[344]. Valentinus himself, however, probably did not\ngive Bythos a spouse and held that he remained apart from and uplifted\nabove his six principal emanations[345].\n\nThis subdivision of the Divine, resembling as it does the system of\nSimon Magus before described, may seem at first sight incredibly foolish\nand complicated, especially when it is considered that these \u201caeons,\u201d as\nValentinus calls them, might be considered not only as powers but as\nworlds. So it did to the Fathers, who are never tired of pouring\ncontempt upon it. Tertullian makes merry over the Valentinian conception\nof a universe with an endless series of heavens piled one over the\nother, as he says, like the \u201cLodgings to let\u201d of a Roman _insula_ or\ntenement house, or, had he ever seen one, of a New York skyscraper[346].\nIrenaeus jokes cumbrously, comparing the Valentinian aeons to vegetables\nas if, he says, a gourd should bring forth a cucumber and this in its\nturn a melon[347]. Hippolytus, indeed, cannot indulge in such jeers\nbecause to do so would have stamped him in the opinion of all the\nlearned of his time as an uneducated barbarian, his pet theory of\nGnosticism being that all its doctrine was a plagiarism from the Greek\nphilosophers and notably from Plato. Yet he never loses an opportunity\nof calling Valentinus\u2019 opinions \u201cworthless\u201d; and goes out of his way to\ntack on to them the system of the Jewish magician Marcus, who, if we can\nbelieve the statements of the Fathers, exploited the rising sense of\nreligion of the age for his own immoral or interested purpose[348].\n\nYet a statement that Tertullian lets drop, as if accidentally, may teach\nus to beware of taking Valentinus\u2019 supposed opinions on the nature of\nthese hypostases or Persons of the Godhead more literally than he did\nhimself. In his treatise against the Valentinians the \u201cfurious African\nbarrister\u201d is led away by the exigencies of his own rhetoric to tell us\nthat there were some among them who looked upon all this elaborate\ndescription of the emanations of the Ogdoad as a figure of speech. All\nthe aeons of the Ogdoad were according to them merely attributes or\nnames of God. When, they said, God _thought_ of producing offspring, He\nthereby acquired the name of _Father_; and because his offspring was\ntrue, that of _Truth_; and because He wished to appear in human form, he\nwas called _Man_; and because He assembled His attributes in His mind\nand selected from them those most proper for His purpose, they were\ncalled the _Church_; and as His only (or unique) Son was, as it were,\nuttered or sent forth to mankind, He was called the _Word_; and from His\npowers of salvation, _Life_; and so on[349]. As we have seen, Valentinus\ndid not invent _de novo_ his conception of the Godhead, which bears\nbesides evident marks of having been adopted with slight modification\nfrom that of Simon Magus and the Ophites. This statement of Tertullian\ngives us ground therefore for supposing that he may really have held the\nsame views respecting the Divine Nature as the Catholic Church, merely\ngiving an allegorical explanation of the earlier opinions to convince\nhis hearers that the teaching of the Apostles was not so subversive of\nor inconsistent with the way of thinking of the ancient theologians and\nphilosophers as some of them thought. Clement of Alexandria shows\nsimilar comprehensiveness when he said that in the Christian faith there\nare some mysteries more excellent than others\u2014or, in other words,\ndegrees in knowledge and grace[350]\u2014, that the Hellenic philosophy fits\nhim who studies it for the reception of the truth[351], and that the\nChristian should rejoice in the name of Gnostic, so long as he\nunderstands that the true Gnostic is he who imitates God as far as\npossible[352]. He even goes further, and himself uses the Gnostic method\nof personification of abstract qualities, as when he says that Reverence\nis the daughter of Law[353], and Simplicity, Innocence, Decorum, and\nLove, the daughters of Faith[354]. If Valentinus used similar metaphors,\nit by no means follows that he was thereby advocating the worship of\nmany gods, which was the accusation most frequently brought against him\nby the Catholic Church. The same accusation might with equal propriety\nbe made against John Bunyan on account of his Interpreter and his Mr\nGreatheart.\n\nBut whatever Valentinus\u2019 own views with regard to the Supreme Being may\nhave been, he could no more escape than did Philo or any other Platonist\nfrom the difficulty of explaining the connection of this Perfect God\nwith imperfect matter[355], and this had to be the work in his system of\nan intermediate Power. This Power was that Nous or Monogenes whom we\nhave seen was the first and unique being produced from the Unknowable\nFather, to whom he seems to have stood in much the same relation as the\nDionysos of the Orphics did to the supreme Zeus[356]. Yet although it\nwas through this lieutenant of the Unknown Father that all things were\nmade, he also was too great to act directly upon matter. Seeing, says\nHippolytus in this connection, that their own offspring, Logos and Zoe,\nhad brought forth descendants capable of transmission, Nous and his\npartner Aletheia returned thanks to the Father of All and offered to him\na perfect number in the shape of ten aeons[357]. These ten aeons were\nprojected like the direct emanations of the Godhead in syzygies or\npairs, their names being respectively Bythios or Deep (\u0392\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2[358]) and\nMixis or Mixture (\u039c\u03af\u03be\u03b9\u03c2), Ageratos or Who Grows not Old (\u1f08\u03b3\u03ae\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) and\nHenosis or Oneness (\u1f1d\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), Autophyes or Self-Produced (\u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cd\u03b7\u03c2[359])\nand Hedone or Pleasure (\u1f29\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae), Akinetos or Who Cannot Be Moved\n(\u1f08\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) and Syncrasis or Blending (\u03a3\u03cd\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), Monogenes or the\nUnique (\u039c\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2)[360] and Macaria or Bliss (\u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1). In like manner,\nLogos and Zoe wishing to give thanks to their progenitors Nous and\nAletheia, put forth another set, this time an imperfect number, or\ntwelve aeons, also arranged in syzygies and called Paraclete\n(\u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) and Faith (\u03a0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2), Fatherly (\u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2) and Hope (\u1f18\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03c2),\nMotherly (\u039c\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2) and Love (\u1f08\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7), Ever-Thinking (\u1f08\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2[361]) and\nComprehension (\u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), Of the Church (\u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2) and Blessedness\n(\u039c\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2), Longed-for (\u0398\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2) and Wisdom (\u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1). It was through\nthis last, as through her namesake in the system of the Ophites, that\nthe Divine came to mingle with Matter.\n\nBefore coming to this, however, it will be well to say something here\nabout the ideas that seem to lie behind the names of this series of\naeons numbering, with the first six, twenty-eight in all, which thus\nmade up what was known as the Pleroma or Fulness of the Godhead. If we\narrange them in three families or groups according to their parentage,\nthus:\n\n             _Children of Bythos_ (either alone or with Sige).\n\n             Nous\u2014Aletheia.\n\n             _Children of Nous and Aletheia._\n\n             Logos\u2014Zoe.\n             Bythios\u2014Mixis.\n             Ageratos\u2014Henosis.\n             Autophyes\u2014Syncrasis.\n             Monogenes\u2014Macaria.\n\n             _Children of Logos and Zoe._\n\n             Anthropos\u2014Ecclesia.\n             Paracletos\u2014Pistis.\n             Patricos\u2014Elpis.\n             Metricos\u2014Agape.\n             Ecclesiasticus\u2014Macariotes.\n             Theletas\u2014Sophia,\n\nit will be seen that among the elder members of each group, that is, the\nthree first syzygies, Nous-Aletheia, Logos-Zoe, and Anthropos-Ecclesia,\nthe name of the male member of each syzygy is always that of an actual\nand concrete concept\u2014the Mind, the Word, and Man,\u2014showing perhaps how\nthought and speech all marked different stages in the evolution of the\nbeing called the Perfect Man[362]; while the appellatives of the females\nof each syzygy\u2014Truth, Life, and the Church\u2014all connote abstract\nideas[363]. With the Decad put forth by Nous and Aletheia, _i.e._\nBythios-Mixis, Ageratos-Henosis, Autophyes-Hedone, Acinetos-Syncrasis,\nand Monogenes-Macaria, every male aeon, as M. Am\u00e9lineau has pointed out,\nhas for name an adjective, while the females are all described by\nsubstantives[364]. But the names of the male aeons are all epithets or\nattributes peculiar to their father Nous, who is thus said to be the\nabysmal, never-ageing, creator of his own nature, immovable, and unique,\nand those of the female aeons are descriptive of different states or\nconditions arising from his action[365]. M. Am\u00e9lineau thinks that the\nnames of these last describe a successive degradation of the Divine\nNature; but this does not seem to have been Valentinus\u2019 intention, and\nit is hard to see for instance why Syncrasis or blending should be more\nunworthy than Mixis or simple mixture. Moreover, this group of aeons,\nunlike the six preceding them, are not reproductive and no direct\ndescendants follow from their conjugation. Perhaps then we may best\nunderstand Valentinus\u2019 nomenclature as a statement that the coming\ntogether of Mind and Truth produced Profound Admixture, Never-ageing\nUnion, Self-created Pleasure, Unshakeable Combination, and Unique Bliss.\nIn like manner, the names of the members of the Dodecad or group of\ntwelve aeons proceeding from Logos and Zoe may be read as describing the\nComforting Faith, the Fatherly Hope, the Motherly Love[366], the\nEverlasting Comprehension, the Elect Blessedness, and the Longed-for\nWisdom arising from the conjugation of the Word and Life or, in one\nword, from the Incarnation[367].\n\nTo return now to the fall of Sophia which, in the system of Valentinus,\nas in that of the Ophites, brought about the creation of the universe.\nAll the accounts of Valentinus\u2019 teaching that have reached us seem to\nagree that Sophia\u2019s lapse was caused, according to him, not by accident\nas with the Ophites, but by her own ignorance and emulation. Leaving the\nDodecad, \u201cthis twelfth and youngest of the aeons,\u201d as Hippolytus\ndescribes her[368], soared on high to the Height of the Father, and\nperceived that he, the Unknowable Father, was alone able to bring forth\nwithout a partner[369]. Wishing to imitate him, she gave birth by\nherself and apart from her spouse, \u201cbeing ignorant that only the\nUngenerated Supreme Principle and Root and Height and Depth of the\nUniverses can bring forth alone.\u201d \u201cFor,\u201d says he (_i.e._ Valentinus),\n\u201cin the ungenerated (or unbegotten) all things exist together. But among\ngenerated (or begotten) things, it is the female who projects the\nsubstance, while the male gives form to the substance which the female\nhas projected[370].\u201d Hence the substance which Sophia put forth was\nwithout form and unshapen\u2014an expression which Valentinus seems to have\ncopied, after his manner, from the \u201cwithout form and void\u201d (\u1f04\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) of Genesis[371].\n\nThis Ectroma or abortion of Sophia, however, caused great alarm to the\nother members of the Pleroma, who feared that they might themselves be\nled into similar lapses, and thus bring about the destruction of the\nwhole system. They accordingly importuned Bythos, who ordered that two\nnew aeons, viz. Christos or Christ and the Holy Spirit, should be put\nforth by Nous and Aletheia to give form and direction to the Ectroma and\nto alleviate the distress of Sophia[372]. This was accordingly done, and\nthis new pair of aeons separated Sophia from her Ectroma and drew her\nwith them within the Pleroma, which was thereupon closed by the\nprojection by Bythos of yet another aeon named the Cross (\u03a3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2)[373],\nwhose sole function was apparently to preserve the Pleroma or Divine\nWorld from all contamination from the imperfection which was\noutside[374]. This last aeon being, says Hippolytus, born great, as\nbrought into existence by a great and perfect father, was put forth as a\nguard and circumvallation for the aeons, and became the boundary of the\nPleroma, containing within him all the thirty aeons together. Outside\nthis boundary remained Sophia\u2019s Ectroma, whom Christ and the Holy Spirit\nhad fashioned into an aeon as perfect as any within the Pleroma; and\nshe, like her mother, is now called Sophia, being generally\ndistinguished from \u201cthe last and youngest of the aeons\u201d as the Sophia\nWithout[375].\n\nThis Sophia Without the Pleroma was by no means at peace within herself.\nShe is represented as having been afflicted with great terror at the\ndeparture of Christos and the Holy Spirit from her, when they left her\nto take their places within the Pleroma, and as grieving over her\nsolitude and \u201cin great perplexity\u201d as to the nature of the Holy Spirit.\nHence she turned herself to prayers and supplications to Christos, the\nbeing who had given her form, and these prayers were heard. Meanwhile,\nthe thirty aeons within the Pleroma had resolved, on finding themselves\nsafe within the guard of Stauros, to glorify the Father or Bythos by\noffering to him one aeon who should partake of the nature of each, and\nwas therefore called the \u201cJoint Fruit of the Pleroma[376].\u201d This was\nJesus \u201cthe Great High Priest,\u201d who, on coming into existence was sent\noutside the Pleroma at the instance of Christos in order that he might\nbe a spouse to the Sophia Without and deliver her from her\nafflictions[377]. This he did, but the four passions of Sophia, namely,\nfear, grief, perplexity, and supplication, having once been created\ncould not be destroyed, but became separate and independent beings. Thus\nit was that matter came into being, and was itself the creation of the\nDeity, instead of being, as in the earlier systems, of independent\norigin. For Jesus \u201cchanged her fear into the substance which is psychic\nor animal (\u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74), her grief into that which is hylic or\nmaterial, and her perplexity into the substance of demons[378].\u201d Of her\nsupplication, however, Jesus made a path of repentance (\u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd) and gave it power over the psychic substance. This psychic\nsubstance is, says Valentinus, a \u201cconsuming fire\u201d like the God of Moses,\nand the Demiurge or Architect of the Cosmos, and is called the \u201cPlace\u201d\n(\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) and the Hebdomad or Sevenfold Power, and the Ancient of Days,\nand is, if Hippolytus has really grasped Valentinus\u2019 opinions on the\npoint, the author of death[379]. He and his realm come immediately below\nthat of Sophia Without, here somewhat unexpectedly called the Ogdoad,\nwhere Sophia dwells with her spouse Jesus[380]. His sevenfold realm is,\nit would seem, the seven astronomical heavens, of which perhaps the\nParadise of Adam is the fourth[381]. Below this again comes this world,\nthe Cosmos, ruled by a hylic or material Power called the Devil\n(\u0394\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) or Cosmocrator, not further described by Valentinus but\napparently resembling the Satan of the New Testament[382]. Lowest of all\nis unformed and unarranged matter, inhabited by the demons, of whom\nBeelzebub, as in the Gospels, is said to be the chief[383]. We have then\nfour \u201cplaces\u201d outside the Pleroma or Godhead, arranged in a succession\nwhich reckoning from above downwards may be thus summed up:\n\n1. The Heaven of Sophia called the Ogdoad, wherein dwell Sophia Without\nand her spouse Jesus[384].\n\n2. The Sevenfold World called the Hebdomad created and ruled by the\nDemiurge or Ancient of Days.\n\n3. Our own ordered world or Cosmos created by the Demiurge but ruled by\nthe Devil.\n\n4. Chaos or unarranged Matter ruled by Beelzebub, Prince of the Demons.\n\nMuch of this may be due to the desire apparently inborn in natives of\nEgypt to define with excessive minuteness the topography of the\ninvisible world; but the disposition of these different Rulers was by no\nmeans a matter of indifference to mankind. The Demiurge, as in the\nOphite system, was not, indeed, bad, but foolish and blind, not knowing\nwhat he did, nor why he created man. Yet it is he who sends forth the\nsouls of men which reach them at their birth and leave them at their\ndeath. Hence, says Hippolytus, he is called Psyche or Soul as Sophia is\ncalled Pneuma or Spirit. But this soul of man is little else than what\nwe call the life, and here as in all else the Demiurge is controlled\nwithout knowing it by his mother Sophia, who from her place in the\nHeavenly Jerusalem directs his operations. The bodies of men the\nDemiurge makes from that hylic and diabolic substance which is\nmatter[385], and the soul which comes from him dwells within it as in an\ninn, into which all may enter. Sometimes, says Valentinus\u2014and in this\ninstance at least we know it is he, not one of his followers, who is\nspeaking\u2014the soul dwells alone and sometimes with demons, but sometimes\nwith Logoi or \u201cwords,\u201d who are heavenly angels sent by Sophia Without\nand her spouse the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma into this world, and who\ndwell with the soul in the earthly body, when it has no demons living\nwith it.[386] After leaving the body of matter, the soul will even be\nunited with its especial angel in a still more perfect manner, as is a\nbridegroom with his bride[387], a state which is sometimes spoken of as\n\u201cthe Banquet,\u201d and seems connected with what has been said above about\nthe meeting of Jesus the Joint Fruit with the Sophia Without[388]. Yet\nthis is not a question of conduct or free will, but of predestination,\nand seems to mark the chief practical difference between Valentinus on\nthe one hand and the Ophites and the pre-Christian Gnostics on the\nother. The Ophites, as we have seen, believed in the threefold nature of\nthe soul, or its composition from the pneumatic or spiritual, the\npsychical or animal, and the choic or earthly, all which elements were\nthought to be present in everyone. But they held, following their\npredecessors the Orphici, that these divisions corresponded to what may\nbe called degrees of grace, and that it was possible for man to pass\nfrom one category to the other, and become wholly pneumatic or psychic\nor earthly. Valentinus, however, introduces a different idea and makes\nthe distinction between the three different categories of human souls\none not of degree, but of essence[389]. Men have not a threefold soul,\nbut belong to one of three classes, according to the source of their\nsouls. Either they are pneumatic, _i.e._ spiritual, belonging wholly to\nSophia, or psychic, that is animated by the Demiurge alone and therefore\nlike him foolish and ignorant although capable of improvement, or hylic,\nthat is formed wholly of matter and therefore subject to the power of\nthe demons[390]. Nothing is said explicitly by Hippolytus as to how this\ndivision into classes is made; but we know by other quotations from\nValentinus himself that this is the work of Sophia who sends the Logoi\nor Words into such souls as she chooses, or rather into those which she\nhas created specially and without the knowledge of the Demiurge[391].\n\nThe consequences of this division upon the future of mankind generally\nalso differed materially from that of the Ophitic scheme. Only the\npneumatics or spiritual men are by nature immortal or deathless, and\nwhen they leave the material body go on high to the Ogdoad or Heaven of\nSophia, where she sits with Jesus the \u201cJoint Fruit\u201d of the Pleroma[392].\nThe hylics or men who are wholly material perish utterly at death,\nbecause their souls like their bodies are corruptible[393]. There remain\nthe psychic\u2014the \u201cnatural men\u201d of the New Testament[394]\u2014who are not so\nto speak \u201csaved\u201d; but are yet capable of salvation. How was this\nsalvation to be brought about?\n\nValentinus seems to have answered this by saying, as any Catholic\nChristian would have done at the time, that it was through the Divine\nMission of Jesus. Yet this Jesus, according to Valentinus or the\nValentinian author from whom Hippolytus draws his account, was neither\nJesus the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, who according to them remained\nwith his spouse Sophia in the Heavenly Jerusalem, nor Christos who with\nhis consort the Holy Spirit was safe within the Pleroma. He was in\neffect a third saviour brought into being especially for the salvation\nof all that is worth saving in this devil-ruled and material world, in\nthe same way that Christos and his consort had saved the first Sophia\nafter she had given birth to the monstrous Ectroma, and as Jesus the\nJoint Fruit had saved this Ectroma itself. It is very probable, as M.\nAm\u00e9lineau has shown with great attention to detail, that every system,\nperhaps every universe, had according to Valentinus its own saviour, the\nwhole arrangement being part of one vast scheme for the ordering and\npurifying of all things[395]. Hence Valentinus explains, as the Ophites\nhad failed to do, that salvation spreads from above downwards and that\nthe redemption of this world was not undertaken until that of the\nuniverse of the Demiurge had been effected[396]. The Demiurge\u2014and the\nstatement has peculiar significance if we consider him the God of the\nJews\u2014had been taught by Sophia Without that he was not the sole God, as\nhe had imagined, and had been instructed and \u201cinitiated into the great\nmystery of the Father and the Aeons[397].\u201d Although it is nowhere\ndistinctly stated, it seems a natural inference that the same lot will\nfall to the psychic men who are, like the Demiurge, \u201csoul\u201d rather than\n\u201cspirit,\u201d and that they will receive further instruction in the Heaven\nof Sophia. Thus, he continues, the lapses[398] of the Demiurge had been\nset straight and it was necessary that those here below should go\nthrough the same process. Jesus was accordingly born of the Virgin Mary;\nHe was entirely pneumatic, that is His body was endowed with a spiritual\nsoul, for Sophia Without herself descended into Mary and the germ thus\nsown by her was formed into a visible shape by the operation of the\nDemiurge[399]. As for His Mission, it seems to have consisted in\nrevealing to man the constitution of the worlds above him, the course to\nbe pursued by him to attain immortality, and to sum up the whole matter\nin one word, the _Gnosis_ or knowledge that was necessary to\nsalvation[400].\n\nHere the account of the teaching of Valentinus, which has been taken\nalmost entirely from the _Philosophumena_ or from quotations from his\nown words in trustworthy writers like Clement of Alexandria, abruptly\nends, and we are left to conjecture. We cannot therefore say directly\nwhat Valentinus himself taught about the Crucifixion. Jesus, the\nhistorical Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, though purely pneumatic or\nspiritual at the outset, received according to one account some tincture\nof the nature of all the worlds through which He had descended, and must\ntherefore, probably, have had to abandon successive parts of His nature,\nas He reascended[401]. Probably, therefore, Valentinus thought that the\nSpiritual or Divine part of Him left Him before the Passion, and that it\nwas only His material body that suffered[402]. As we shall see later,\nthis idea was much elaborated by the later Gnostics, who thought that\nall those redeemed from this world would in that respect have to imitate\ntheir Great Exemplar. If this be so, it is plain that it was only that\npart of the soul of Jesus which He had received from Sophia which\nreturned to her, and was doubtless re-absorbed in her being. Yet there\nis nothing to make us believe that Valentinus did not accept the\nnarrative of the Canonical Gospels in full[403], or to doubt that he\ntaught that Jesus really suffered on the Cross, although he doubtless\ninterpreted this in his usual fashion, by making it a symbol of the\nself-sacrifice of Jesus the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, when He left\nthat celestial abode to give form and salvation to the miserable Ectroma\nof Sophia[404]. Here again we can but gather Valentinus\u2019 opinions from\nthose of his followers, who may have altered them materially to fit them\nto the exigencies of a situation of which we can form no very precise\nidea.\n\nOf these followers we know rather more than in the case of any other of\nthe early heresiarchs. According to Tertullian, Valentinus was brought\nup as a Christian, and expected to become a bishop of the Catholic\nChurch, \u201cbecause he was an able man both in genius and eloquence[405].\u201d\nFinding, Tertullian goes on to say, that a confessor[406] was preferred\nto him, he broke with the Church and \u201cfinding the track of a certain old\nopinion\u201d (doubtless, the Ophite) \u201cmarked out a path for himself.\u201d The\nsame accusation of disappointed ambition was levelled against nearly\nevery other heresiarch at the time, and may serve to show how greatly\nthe place of bishop was coveted; but we have no means of judging its\ntruth in this particular instance, and it is repeated neither by\nIrenaeus, Hippolytus, nor Clement of Alexandria who was in an\nexceptionally good position for knowing the truth of the case. Irenaeus,\nhowever, says that Valentinus came to Rome during the papacy of Hyginus,\nflourished (\u1f24\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5) under that of Pius, and dwelt there until that of\nAnicetus; and this is confirmed by Eusebius, who connects Valentinus\u2019\nstay in Rome with the reign of Hadrian\u2019s successor, Antoninus Pius[407].\nTertullian further declares that Valentinus did not separate from the\nChurch until the papacy of Eleutherus[408], which did not commence until\nA.D. 174, and M. Am\u00e9lineau seems therefore well-founded in his inference\nthat Valentinus elaborated his system in Egypt while yet in the Church,\nand that he went to Rome in order to impose it upon the rest of the\nfaithful[409]. If this be so, it would abundantly account for its far\ncloser approximation to the orthodox faith than that of the Ophites,\nfrom which it appears to have been derived. Epiphanius tells us further\nthat after quitting Rome, Valentinus died in Cyprus, where he made \u201ca\nlast shipwreck of his faith[410].\u201d Could we place implicit faith in\nEpiphanius\u2019 highly-coloured statements, we might gather from this that\nValentinus gave a fresh turn to his doctrines after finding himself away\nfrom the great cities in which he had hitherto spent his life.\n\nHowever that may be, the time which, on the shortest computation,\nValentinus passed in Rome was quite sufficient for him to set up a\nschool there, and we are not surprised to hear that thereafter there was\na body of Valentinians in the West, which was called the \u201cItalic\nschool.\u201d Innovating, as Tertullian said all heretics did, upon the\nsystem of their founder, they taught, as before mentioned, that Sige or\nSilence was a real spouse to the Ineffable Bythos or the Supreme Being\nand existed side by side with Him from eternity[411]. They further said\nthat the Dodecad or group of twelve aeons, of whom Sophia was the last,\nemanated not from Logos and Zoe, but from the third syzygy of Anthropos\nand Ecclesia[412]; and that the body of the historical Jesus was not\nmaterial but psychic or from the world of the Demiurge[413], which seems\nto include the view held by other Gnostics that it was a phantasm which\nonly appeared to suffer on the Cross, but did not do so in reality. We\nknow the names of several of the leaders of this Italic school, among\nwhom were Ptolemy, Secundus, and Heracleon. It was the doctrine of the\nfirst of these apparently flourishing in Gaul in his time, which spurred\non Irenaeus to write against them[414]; while Heracleon was called by\nClement of Alexandria the most distinguished of the school of Valentinus\nand taught in the last-named city[415]. Ptolemy\u2019s doctrine as described\nby Irenaeus seems to have materially differed from that of his master\nonly in the particulars just given; while Secundus is said by the same\nheresiologist to have divided the First Ogdoad into two tetrads, a right\nhand and a left, one of which he called light and the other\ndarkness[416]. Over against this, we hear from Hippolytus of an Eastern\nschool (\u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74), which M. Am\u00e9lineau shows satisfactorily\nto have most closely represented the teaching of Valentinus\nhimself[417], and which was carried on after his death by Axionicus and\nBardesanes[418]. Of these, Axionicus is said to have taught in his\nnative city of Antioch; while Bardesanes was evidently the same as the\nperson called by the Syrians Bar Daisan of Edessa, whose name was still\ngreat in the time of Albiruni[419]. Theodotus, whose writings are quoted\nat some length by Clement of Alexandria, and Alexander, whose arguments\nas to the body of Jesus are rebutted by Tertullian, probably continued\ntheir teaching[420].\n\nThe life of Bar Daisan, of which some particulars have been preserved\nfor us by Bar Hebraeus and other Eastern historians of the Church,\nthrows considerable light upon the attitude towards Christianity of\nValentinus and that Anatolic School which best represented his\nteachings. Bar Daisan was born some fifty years after Valentinus of rich\nand noble parents in the town of Edessa in Mesopotamia, where he seems\nto have been educated in the company of the future king of the country,\nAbgar Bar Manu[421]. He was probably a Christian from his infancy, early\nbecame a Christian teacher, and withstood Apollonius, a Pagan Sophist\nwho visited Edessa in the train of the Emperor Caracalla, making avowal\nof his readiness to suffer martyrdom for the faith. According to\nEusebius, he had the greatest abhorrence of the dualistic doctrine of\nMarcion and wrote books against him in his native Syriac which were\nafterwards translated into Greek[422]. He, or perhaps his son\nHarmonius[423], also composed a great number of hymns which were sung in\nthe Catholic Churches of Mesopotamia and Syria; and it was not until a\ncentury and a half after his death that Ephrem Syrus, a doctor of the\nnow triumphant and persecuting Church, found that these abounded in the\nerrors of Valentinus, and deemed it necessary to substitute for them\nhymns of his own composition[424]. Valentinus seems in like manner to\nhave lived in Rome as a Christian teacher, as we have seen, for at least\nsixteen years, and to have composed many psalms, some of which are\nquoted by Clement of Alexandria. If Tertullian is to be believed, he was\nqualified for the episcopate, which he must have had some chance of\nobtaining; and his want of orthodoxy cannot, therefore, have been\nmanifest at the time or considered an objection to his candidature[425].\nMoreover, Irenaeus says that Valentinus was the first who converted the\nso-called Gnostic heresy into the peculiar characteristics of his own\nschool[426]; which agrees with Tertullian\u2019s statement that Valentinus\nwas \u201cat first a believer in the teaching of the Catholic Church in the\nChurch of Rome under the episcopate of the Blessed Eleutherus[427].\u201d It\nis evident, therefore, that long after his peculiar teaching was\ndeveloped, he remained a member of the Church, and that it was not by\nhis own wish that he left it, if indeed he ever did so.\n\nOne is therefore led to examine with some closeness the alleged\ndifferences between his teaching and that of the orthodox Christianity\nof his time; and these, although they may have been vitally important,\nseem to have been very few. With regard to his views as to the nature of\nthe Godhead, as given above, they do indeed seem to differ _toto coelo_\nfrom those shadowed forth in the Canonical Gospels and Epistles, and\nafterwards defined and emphasized by the many \u0152cumenical and other\nCouncils called to regulate the Church\u2019s teaching on the matter. The\nlong series of aeons constituting his Pleroma or Fulness of the Godhead\nseems at first sight to present the most marked contrast with the\nTrinity of Three Persons and One God in the Creeds which have come down\nto us from the early Church. But is there any reason to suppose that\nValentinus regarded the members of these Tetrads, Decads, and Dodecads\nas possessing a separate and individual existence or as having any\npractical importance for the Christian? We can hardly suppose so, when\nwe consider the attitude of his immediate followers with regard to them.\nSome, as we have seen, were said to have put as the origin of all\nthings, not a single principle but two principles of different sexes or,\nas Irenaeus says, a \u201cdyad,\u201d thereby splitting the Supreme Being into\ntwo[428]. We can imagine the outcry that this would have caused two\ncenturies later when the different parties within the Christian Church\nwere at each other\u2019s throats on the question whether the Son was of the\nsame or only of like substance with the Father. Yet neither Valentinus,\nnor Ptolemy, nor Heracleon, nor any one of the Valentinian leaders seems\nto have borne the others any hostility on that account, to have dreamed\nof separating from them on such a pretext, or to have ceased to regard\nthemselves both as Christians and followers of Valentinus. The only\ninference to be drawn from this is either that the account of their\nteaching has been grossly corrupted or that they considered such\nquestions as matters of opinion merely, on which all might freely\ndebate, but which were not to be taken as touchstones of the faith.\n\nThis view derives great support from the way in which Clement of\nAlexandria, Valentinus\u2019 countryman and the one among the Fathers who\nseems best fitted to understand him, regarded similar questions. M.\nCourdaveaux has shown with great clearness that Clement sometimes\nconfounded the Third Person of the Trinity with the Second, and\nsometimes made Him His inferior. He also considered the Son as a simple\ncreature of the Father, and, therefore, necessarily, of lower rank[429].\nIt was for such \u201cheresies,\u201d as they were afterwards called, that\nPhotius, who had Clement\u2019s now lost book of the _Hypotyposes_ under his\neyes, condemned him as a heretic, although his judgment in the matter\nhas never been adopted by the Church. M. Courdaveaux also shows that\nTertullian, even before he left the Church, looked upon both the Son and\nthe Holy Spirit as only \u201cmembers\u201d of the Father, whom he considered to\ncontain within Himself the complete divine substance; and this was\ncertainly none of the heresies for which his memory was arraigned[430].\nIt by no means follows that Valentinus\u2019 teaching was the same as that of\nthe Church in all its details; but it seems possible from these examples\nthat he did not think it necessary to be more definite than the Church\nherself upon such points, and that he did not look upon them in any\nother light than as matters of opinion.\n\nIt should also be considered whether the language that Valentinus used\nregarding the nature and divisions of the Godhead is to be construed in\nthe same sense and as implying the meaning that it would have done a few\ncenturies later, when these points had been long discussed and the\nreasons for and against them marshalled and weighed. So far as can now\nbe seen, he, like all Egyptians, never lost sight of allegory in dealing\nwith matters transcending sense. Thus, when he speaks of the pretended\nunion of Bythos and Sige, he is careful to say that there is nothing\nactually begotten, and that the whole story must be considered in a\nfigurative sense:\n\n    \u201cThe Father [_i.e._ Bythos] alone,\u201d he says, \u201cwas unbegotten, not\n    subject to conditions of place, nor time, taking no counsel, nor\n    having any other being that can be comprehended by any recognized\n    trope: but he was alone, and, as it is said, solitary, and resting\n    in solitary repose within himself. And when he became fruitful, it\n    seemed to him good at a certain time to engender and bring forth the\n    most beautiful and perfect thing which he had within him: for he did\n    not love solitude. For he was all love, but love is not love unless\n    there is something to be loved[431].\u201d\n\nBetween this and such Canonical texts as \u201cGod is love, and he that\ndwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him[432],\u201d there may be a\ndifference of application indeed, but none of language.\n\nIt seems, therefore, that in his theology Valentinus treated the Ophitic\nideas on which he worked very much as the Ophites had themselves treated\nthe legends of Osiris and Attis. Dealing with their stories of aeons and\npowers as myths\u2014that is to say as legends which whether true or not were\nonly to be considered as symbols designed to show the way in which the\nworld and man came forth from God\u2014he thereby established his cosmology\non a foundation which could be considered satisfactory by those\nhalf-heathen schools which had already contrived to reconcile the Pagan\nrites with the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian belief in the Mission\nof Jesus. But he went far beyond them in applying the same method of\ninterpretation to all the acts of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. If\nJesus were crucified upon the Cross, it was because its type the aeon\nStauros had been set as a limit between that which is God and that which\nis not God but only godlike[433]. If He is said to go up to Jerusalem,\nit means that He went up from the world of matter to the Heaven of\nSophia which is called Jerusalem[434]. If He were sent down to earth, it\nwas because the higher worlds had already been put in the way of\nredemption by the gathering-in of Sophia into the Pleroma, the marriage\nof Sophia Without to Jesus the Joint Fruit, and the revelation to the\nDemiurge or God of the Jews that he was not the Supreme Being but only\nhis reflection at several removes[435]. Every world is a copy of the one\nabove it, every event must take place in every world in its turn, and\nall creation is like a chain which hung from the heavens is gradually\ndrawn up to them, this creation of ours (\u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2) being its\nlast link[436].\n\nIn all this, Valentinus wrote like a philosopher of the period, and, in\nfact, pretty much as Philo had done. But beyond this, he seems to have\npaid great attention to what is called the \u201cpastoral\u201d duty of a\nreligious teacher or the care of souls, and to have busied himself to\nshow how religion could be used to console and sustain the heart. All\nthe fragments that we have left of the writings of himself and his\nfollowers are directed towards this end; and would, from this point of\nview, do credit to any doctor of the Church. This is especially the case\nwith the passage formerly quoted likening the human heart to an inn, of\nwhich Clement of Alexandria gives the actual words as follows:\n\n    \u201cThere is one good by whose coming is the manifestation, which is by\n    the Son, and by Him alone can the heart become pure, by the\n    expulsion of every evil spirit from the heart. For the multitude of\n    spirits dwelling in it do not suffer it to be pure; but each of them\n    performs his own deeds, insulting it often with unseemly lusts. And\n    the heart seems to be treated somewhat like the courtyard of an inn.\n    For the latter has holes and ruts in it, and is often filled with\n    dung; men living filthily in it, and taking no care for the place\n    because it belongs to others. So fares it with the heart as long as\n    no thought is taken for it, and it is unclean and many demons dwell\n    therein. But when the one good Father visits it, it is sanctified\n    and gleams with light. And he who possesses such a heart is so\n    blessed, that he shall see God[437].\u201d\n\nIt is no wonder that M. Am\u00e9lineau speaks in terms of admiration of the\neloquence with which Valentinus applies himself to the problem of the\nexistence of evil, and that Neander should say that he in great measure\nrealized the idea of Christianity[438].\n\nIt seems indeed plain that Valentinus never intended to break with the\nCatholic Church and that it is not likely that he would have attempted\nduring his life to found any organization that would have been in any\nway hostile to her[439]. Hence it is in vain to search for any special\nrites belonging to the sect; and it is most probable that he and his\nimmediate followers continued to worship with the orthodox, and to\nresort to the priests of the Church at large for the administration of\nthe Church\u2019s sacraments. Did they however demand any formal initiation\ninto their own doctrines or, in other words, attempt to keep them in any\nsense secret? One can only say that there is no proof that they did so.\nClement of Alexandria and Origen both quote freely from the books\nwritten by Valentinus and his follower Heracleon in which their\ndoctrines are openly set forth, and do not hint at any special\ndifficulty they may have had in obtaining them. Irenaeus, Tertullian,\nand Hippolytus do the same thing with regard to the writings of\nValentinus and Ptolemy, and Irenaeus tells us that he has obtained his\nknowledge of their doctrines not only by reading their commentaries (on\nScripture) but by personal conversation with their disciples[440]. It\ndoes not, therefore, look as if before the legal procedure of the State\nor the more summary methods of the Christian mob could be used by the\nCatholics for the suppression of opinion and discussion, the\nValentinians ever tried to do what Basilides had recommended to his\nfollowers, and to found what was really a secret society either within\nor without the bosom of the Church[441].\n\nIt does not follow from this, however, that the Valentinians differed\nonly in trifling points from the orthodox, or that the Fathers were\nwrong when they accused them of working grave injury to the nascent\nChurch. The compliances with heathenism which they allowed those who\nthought with them, such as attendance at the circus and the theatres,\npartaking of heathen sacrifices, and flight or even the denial of their\nfaith in time of persecution[442], although justified by them with\ntexts, such as: \u201cThat which is of the flesh is flesh; and that which is\nof the Spirit is Spirit,\u201d must have aroused the most bitter hostility\nfrom those wise governors of the Church who saw clearly whither the\nstruggle between the Church and the Roman Empire was tending. The reward\nmost constantly before the eyes of those about to obtain what was called\n\u201cthe crown\u201d of martyrdom was that by thus giving their lives for the\nfaith they would immediately after death become united with the Deity,\ninstead of waiting like other Christians for the Last Judgment[443].\nHence, intending martyrs were regarded even while yet alive with\nextraordinary reverence by the rest of the faithful, who, as we know\nfrom heathen as well as Christian writers, were in the habit of flocking\ninto the prisons after them, weeping over them and kissing their\nfetters, and deeming it a privilege to minister in every way to the\nnecessities of those who might by a sort of anticipation be regarded as\nalready Divine[444]. It was on this veritable army of martyrs and on the\nenthusiasm which their triumphs excited that the Church mainly relied\nfor victory in her warfare with the State. But how was this army to be\nrecruited if the ideas of Valentinus once gained the upper hand in the\nChristian community, and it came to be thought that the same reward\ncould be gained by acquaintance with the relative positions of the\nheavens and their rulers, and an accurate knowledge of the constitution\nof the universe? It was in time of persecution that the Valentinians\noftenest found adherents\u2014\u201cthen the Gnostics break out, then the\nValentinians creep forth, then all the opponents of martyrdom bubble\nup,\u201d as Tertullian describes it[445]; and it is easy to understand that\nthose who had most to lose in position or ease of life would grasp\neagerly at any intermediate course which would enable them to keep their\nfaith in the religion recently revealed to them without going through\nthe terrible trials to which their orthodox teachers sought to subject\nthem. Hence, the Valentinians probably in some sort justified Gibbon\u2019s\nremark that \u201cthe Gnostics were distinguished as the most polite, the\nmost learned, and the most wealthy of the Christian name[446]\u201d; and this\nalone would probably account for the undying hostility which the Church\nalways exhibited towards them.\n\nIt was also the case that the spread of the tenets of Valentinus and his\nfollowers was attended with some peculiar social dangers of its own.\nTheir division of mankind into the three natural classes of spiritual,\npsychical, and hylic, if carried to its logical conclusion, brought with\nit some strange results. As the spiritual or pneumatics were saved in\nany event, and were, already even in this life, as was expressly said, a\nkind of \u201cgods,\u201d it was manifestly not for them to trouble themselves\nabout obedience to the moral law. The same conclusion applied to the\nhylics who were doomed to annihilation in any case, and whose struggles\ntowards righteousness were bound to be inefficacious. There remained the\npsychics or animal men, for whom indeed a certain course of life was\nprescribed before they could attain salvation. But with the excessive\nfreedom of interpretation and the licence of variation that Valentinus\napparently allowed his followers, the exact limits of this course must\nalways have been a matter of doubt; and it was here that many\ncorruptions and debasements of his teaching began to show themselves.\nFor it was an age when religious impostors of all kinds found an easy\nmarket in the credulity of their fellows, and charlatans everywhere\nabounded who were ready to support their claims to exclusive knowledge\nof holy things by false miracles and juggling tricks. Hippolytus gives\nus a long list of such devices including the means of answering\nquestions in sealed letters, producing an apparition, and the like,\nwhich he declares the heresiarchs learnt from the magicians and used as\nproof of their own doctrines[447]. One knows at any rate from Lucian\u2019s\nevidence that religious pretenders like Alexander of Abonoteichos were\nnot negligent of such practices, and charlatans of his kind were perhaps\nespecially likely to be attracted to the timid and wealthy followers of\nValentinus. A Valentinian impostor of this sort, if the Fathers are to\nbe believed, was the Jewish magician Marcus, who taught a system\ncorresponding in most points with that given above, but made use of it\nin his own interest as a means of moneymaking and for the corruption of\nwomen. Irenaeus speaks of the doctrine of this Marcus as being an\nespecial snare to the Christians of Gaul, into which country Marcus or\nsome follower of his perhaps travelled while Irenaeus was Bishop of\nLyons[448]. By a mode of interpretation which was indeed a caricature of\nValentinus\u2019 own, Marcus found proof of the existence and order of his\naeons in the values of the letters composing Divine names and in words\nlike Jesus and Christos[449]. He seems, too, to have himself\nadministered baptism accompanied by exorcisms in the Hebrew language,\nand to have profaned the Eucharist with juggling tricks which made the\ncup to overflow and turned the water it contained into wine having the\nsemblance of blood[450]. Thus, says Irenaeus, he contrived to draw away\na great number from the Church and to seduce many of the faithful women.\nValentinus, perhaps, is somewhat unfairly held responsible by the\nFathers for such a perversion of his own teaching which he would,\nperhaps, have condemned as loudly as they. Scandals of the kind here\nhinted at were not unknown in the Catholic Church itself, and Christian\nministers have been found in all ages, sects, and countries who have\nbeen willing to abuse for their own purposes the power which religion\ngives them over the opposite sex. It is true, too, that people, as has\nbeen well said, are seldom either as good or as bad as their creed, and\nthe doctrine that \u201cGod sees no sin in His elect\u201d has been preached in\nour own time without being followed by the \u201cwretchlessness of most\nunclean living\u201d which the 17th article of the Church of England declares\nto be one of the probable consequences of predestinarian teaching. The\nlater Valentinians certainly did not forbid marriage, as is shown by the\npathetic epitaph from a grave in the Via Nazionale quoted by Renan[451],\nand thus avoided some of the moral dangers with which the practice of\ncelibacy is sometimes reproached.\n\nOf the fortunes of the Valentinian sect after the death of Valentinus,\nwe have very little precise information. Tertullian speaks of it as\nbeing in his time the most numerous society of heretics\n(_frequentissimum plane collegium haereticorum_), and in the West it\nextended from Rome, as we have seen, into Gaul and even into Spain,\nwhere it existed at the end of the 4th century[452]. Probably, however,\nit here propagated itself sporadically, its opinions appearing now and\nthen among isolated writers and teachers, who probably drew their\ndisciples carefully from among the Christian community, and only\ndisclosed their system to those who showed some aptitude for it. Of such\nwas doubtless \u201cmy fair sister Flora\u201d (\u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 \u03a6\u03bb\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1), to whom\nValentinus\u2019 successor Ptolemy wrote a letter setting out his tenets\nwhich Epiphanius has preserved for us[453]. As the quotations in it\npresuppose an acquaintance on her part with Old Testament history as\nwell as with the Canonical Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, there can\nbe little doubt that she was already a Christian convert. This mode of\npropaganda was the more obnoxious to the episcopate that it was likely\nto escape for some time the observation of the overseers of the Church,\nand is quite sufficient to explain the pains which bishops like Irenaeus\nand Hippolytus took to expose and refute the doctrines of the\nValentinians, as well as what they say with doubtful accuracy about the\nsecrecy which was observed concerning them[454]. In the East, things\nwere probably different, and Heracleon\u2019s Commentaries on the Gospels,\nfrom which Origen quotes freely, would on the face of it have been\nuseless unless addressed to the Christian community at large, and make\nno attempt to conceal their heretical teaching. In Egypt, however, the\nGnostic teachers found a soil ready prepared for them. Egyptian\nChristianity, whether founded, according to tradition, by St Mark or\nnot, never seems to have gone through the intermediate stage of\nobserving the prescriptions of the Jewish Law while preaching its\nabrogation, and, in Alexandria especially, so far appealed to those\nlearned in the Hellenistic and other philosophies as to necessitate the\nfounding of a Christian school there for their study. The native\nEgyptians, too, had for millennia been given to mystic speculation about\nthe nature of God and the destiny of the soul after death; and\nValentinus, who must be presumed to have understood his own people,\ndoubtless knew how to suit his teaching to their comprehension, even if\nhe did not incorporate therein, as M. Am\u00e9lineau has endeavoured to show,\nsome of the more abstruse doctrines on these points of the old Egyptian\nreligion[455]. Moreover, from the time of Hadrian onwards, the Egyptians\nwere animated by a bitter and restless hatred against their Roman\nmasters, and this feeling, which was by no means without justification,\ndisposed them to embrace eagerly any ideas condemned by the bishops and\nclergy of Rome and of Constantinople. Hence the Valentinians had in\nEgypt their greatest chance of success, and the existence of documents\nlike those described in the next chapter shows that Egyptian\nChristianity must have been largely permeated by their ideas perhaps up\nto Mohammedan times. Further East, the same causes produced similar\neffects, though in this case they were probably modified by the\nnecessity of combating the remains of heathen religions which there\nlingered. The growing political power of the Catholic Church even before\nthe conversion of Constantine probably drove the Valentinians to form\nseparate communities wherever they were in sufficient numbers to do so,\nand thus is explained the possession by them of the \u201chouses of prayer\u201d\nof which the Constantinian Decree above quoted professes to deprive\nthem. On the confines of the Empire and in provinces so far distant from\nthe capital as Mesopotamia, these heretical communities probably\nlingered longer than in other places, and may have enjoyed, as in the\ncase of Bardesanes, the protection and countenance of the native\nkinglets. Even here, however, the employment of the secular arm which\nits alliance with the State gave to the Church seems to have eventually\nforced them into an attitude of hostility towards it, as is shown by the\n\u201crabbling\u201d of one of their conventicles in the way before mentioned. The\naccession of Julian brought them a temporary respite[456]; but on his\ndeath in the Persian campaign, the retreat of the Roman eagles probably\ngave them their quietus. Only in Egypt, it would seem, did their\ndoctrines succeed in gaining anything like a permanent resting-place.\nElsewhere, the rise of new heresies and especially of Manichaeism drove\nthem out of their last strongholds.\n\nValentinianism, therefore, approved itself a stop-gap or temporary\nfaith, which for two hundred years[457] acted as a halfway house between\nheathenism and Christianity. In this capacity, it was singularly\nefficient, and was one of the forces which enabled, as Renan said, the\nancient world to change from Paganism to Christianity without knowing\nit. In particular, it seems to have attracted to itself the attention of\nthe learned and leisured class who were endeavouring, earnestly if\nsomewhat timidly, to work out a rule of faith and conduct from the\nwelter of creeds and philosophies with which the Empire was swamped\nduring the first Christian centuries. Such a class is not that out of\nwhich martyrs are made, and is sure sooner or later to acquiesce in the\nopinions of the majority; but we may be certain that the learned and\npolite Valentinians would have listened with natural disgust to the\nsimple and enthusiastic declamations of Jewish fishermen and artizans\nwhich had for their chief theme the coming destruction and overthrow of\nthe social system in which they had grown up. The brilliant, if\nbaseless, speculations of Valentinus, which even now have a certain\nattraction for the lovers of mysticism[458], gave them exactly the kind\nof spiritual _pabulum_ they craved for, and enabled them to wait in hope\nand patience until Christianity, forcing its way upward, as religions\ngenerally do, from the lowest class of society, had become the faith of\nthe governing ranks. In this way, Valentinianism was probably one of the\nbest recruiting grounds for the Catholic Church, and Renan is doubtless\nright when he says that no one who passed from Paganism through the\nGnosticism of Valentinus and his fellows ever reverted to his former\nfaith. Yet Valentinianism itself was doomed to but a short life, and in\nits original form probably did not survive its founder by much more than\na century and a half. One of its later developments we shall see in the\nnext chapter.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  The same may be said of practically all Christians of the Apostolic\n  age. See Hatch, _H.L._ p. 124. It was the reproach which Celsus cast\n  at the whole Christian community in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. See\n  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk III. c. 44. Origen, _op. cit._ Bk III. c. 9,\n  retorts that \u201cnow\u201d (_i.e. circa_ 230 A.D.) not only rich but\n  highly-placed men and well-born ladies are to be found among the\n  Christians. The change probably took place during the reign of\n  Commodus; Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 21. Origen and Eusebius\n  agree that this entry of educated men into the Church brought heresy\n  along with it. See Origen, _op. cit._ Bk III. c. 12.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  Br\u00e9hier, \u201cLa Cosmologie Stoicienne,\u201d _R.H.R._ t. LXIV. (1911), pp.\n  1-9.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  A. W. Benn, _The Philosophy of Greece_, 1898, pp. 246, 255.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  Kenyon, _Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N. T._, 1901, p.\n  138, says, \u201cMr Gwilliam, whose opinion, as editor of the Peshitto, is\n  entitled to all respect, believes it to be the original translation of\n  the Scriptures into Syriac,\u201d but thinks the question not yet decided.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  Kenyon, _Greek Papyri_, p. 83.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  1 Kings xviii. 40.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  See the case of Dr Michael Hudson quoted by Sir Walter Scott from\n  Peck\u2019s _Desiderata Curiosa_ in his notes to _Woodstock_; and\n  Cromwell\u2019s letter to the Houses on the siege of Drogheda.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  M. Cumont\u2019s theory, that the Jewish colonies in Phrygia had introduced\n  the worship among the Pagans of Yahweh under the name of \u201cHypsistos\u201d\n  is not convincing; but it is probable that in religious matters these\n  colonists gave more than they borrowed. The story of the king of\n  Adiabene who wished to turn Jew (see Chapter XII, _infra_) is\n  significant. Cf. the princes of the same kingdom who fell while\n  fighting valiantly in the Jewish ranks in the Sunday battle of Gabao\n  in which Cestius Gallus was defeated. See Josephus, _Bell_. Bk II. c.\n  19, \u00a7 2.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  Tertullian, _de Praescript._ c. VIII.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  Dill, _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, p. 346.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  _Ibid._ pp. 293, 294.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  Like Callias. See Chapter II, vol. I. p. 76, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  Arrian, _Anabasis_, Bk IV. c. 9.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n  Tacitus, _Hist._ Bk III. c. 81.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n  Tacitus, _Annal._ Bk XV. c. 62.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n  _Ibid._ Bk XVI. c. 34.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n  Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. I. p. 398.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n  Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._ Bk IV. c. 6.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk I. c. 15.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n  Cf. Hadrian\u2019s letter to Servian, Chapter II, vol. I. p. 86, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Le Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien_, p. 30. Its early shape was\n  probably more magical and less ethical than its later developments,\n  because, as the same author (_P.S.B.A._ 1888, p. 392) says, for\n  several centuries it was only the lowest classes in Egypt that became\n  Christians.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 18, p. 197, Harvey. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII.\n  c. 28, p. 369, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n  So Hippolytus, _loc. cit._, who copies Irenaeus\u2019 statement word for\n  word. But something has evidently slipped out of the text. If Christ\n  and Satan were both the enemies of Yahweh, we should have the\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03ce\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or fellowship declared impossible by St Paul in 2 Cor. vi.\n  15.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n  Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. I. p. 349.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 18, p. 197, Harvey; Hippolytus, Bk VII. c. 28, p.\n  367, Cruice; Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXIII. c. 1, p. 135, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 19, \u00a7 1, p. 199, Harvey. For the name Abraxas see\n  _ibid._ p. 203, and Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 26, p. 361,\n  Cruice. As Harvey points out in his note, the passage containing it\n  has evidently slipped out of Irenaeus\u2019 text and has been added at the\n  foot of the roll.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 20, p. 344, Cruice. The revelations\n  in question must therefore have been made after the Resurrection.\n  Clement of Alexandria says that Basilides was a disciple of Glaucias,\n  the interpreter of Peter: _Strom._ Bk VII. c. 17.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 21, pp. 345, 346, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n  \u1f00\u03b8\u03b5\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2. Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ This\n  \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd or \u201cindivisible point\u201d from which all things come is\n  mentioned in Simon Magus\u2019 Apophasis (see Chapter VI, vol. I. p. 194,\n  _supra_) as well as in the Bruce Papyrus of Chapter X, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n  Or like the Orphic egg from which Phanes came forth. See Chapter IV,\n  vol. I. p. 123, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n  \u1f2e\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1f74\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n  \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff7 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, Hippolytus, _op. cit_, Bk\n  VII. c. 22, p. 349, Cruice. If these are Basilides\u2019 actual words, he\n  would seem to have been the first author to make use of the expression\n  Homoousios.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. et loc. cit._ p. 350, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n  \u1f1c\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u00b7 \u1f26\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f40\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72\n  \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Hippolytus, _op. et loc. cit._ p. 351,\n  Cruice.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n  Had Basilides or Hippolytus read Horace?\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 23, p. 353, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Le Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien_, pp. 139-152. So Mallet, _Culte\n  de Neith \u00e0 Sais_, Paris, 1888, pp. 213, 214, says that both Basilides\n  and Valentinus drew their doctrines from the late form of Egyptian\n  religion which he describes.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n  _Paut neteru._ Maspero, _\u00c9tudes \u00c9gyptol._, II. pp. 244, 245. Cf. the\n  whole of the luminous essay _Sur l\u2019Enn\u00e9ade_ in the same volume and\n  especially pp. 385, 386. Cf. Naville, _Old Egyptian Faith_, p. 117;\n  Erman, _Hist. Egyptian Religion_, p. 78.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n  _Tu enim, aiunt, omnes cognosce, te autem nemo cognoscat.... Non autem\n  multos scire posse haec, sed unum a mille, et duo a myriadibus._\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 19, \u00a7 3, p. 202, Harvey. Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXIV.\n  c. 5, p. 152, Oehler, while copying Irenaeus\u2019 account puts it rather\n  differently, \u1f59\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9, which\n  probably represents Irenaeus\u2019 own expression. One of the authors of\n  the _Pistis Sophia_ had evidently heard of Basilides\u2019 remark about 1\n  in 1000. Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 354, Copt.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n  So Irenaeus, _loc. cit._, p. 203, Harvey, makes the Basilidians say\n  that they were neither Jews nor Christians: _Et Judaeos quidem jam non\n  esse dicunt, Christianos autem nondum_\u2014or, as Epiphanius, _loc. cit._,\n  more strongly puts it: \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9,\n  \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Pan. Haer._ XXXI. c. 2, p. 306, Oehler. Am\u00e9lineau,\n  _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 168, defends Epiphanius\u2019 statement.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n  Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. II. p. 37, says that Basilides died about\n  134 A.D. and that Valentinus\u2019 teaching began to make itself heard\n  about the year following; but he gives no authorities for the\n  statement. Epiphanius, _loc. cit._, does say, however, that Valentinus\n  was later in time than Basilides and \u201cSatornilus\u201d (Saturninus). There\n  seems no authority for Matter\u2019s statement that he was of Jewish\n  origin.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 176, and Clement of Alexandria as there\n  quoted. Cf. King, _Gnostics_, p. 263.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n  Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. II. p. 36.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n  \u1f18\u03c0\u03b5\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f0d\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd: Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c.\n  23, p. 353, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n  Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ p. 354, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, pp. 158, 159, Cruice, says simply\n  in speaking of the Naassene writer: \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\n  \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u201c\u039a\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u1fe6, \u03a3\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u1fe6, \u0396\u03b5\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1.\u201d \u201c\u039a\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u1fe6\u201d \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n  \u201c\u03a3\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u1fe6,\u201d \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u201c\u0396\u03b5\u03b7\u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u201d \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u1fe5\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u1f38\u03bf\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5. \u201cThese are the three weighty words: Caulacau [the name] of\n  him who is above, [_i.e._] Adamas; Saulasau of the mortal one who is\n  beneath; Zeesar of the Jordan which flows on high.\u201d Epiphanius,\n  _Haer._ XXV. c. 4, pp. 162, 164, Oehler, says that they are taken from\n  the words of Isaiah xxviii. 10, \u05e6\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e6\u05d5 \u05e7\u05d5 \u05dc\u05e7\u05d5 \u05d6\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dd translated in\n  the A.V. \u201cprecept upon precept, line upon line, here a little\u201d; but\n  the resemblance is not very close, and it is more probable that the\n  barbarous words of the text cover some sort of cryptogram. Irenaeus,\n  Bk \u0399. c. 19, \u00a7 3, p. 201, Harvey, says of the Basilidians:\n  _Quemadmodum et mundus nomen esse, in quo dicunt descendisse et\n  ascendisse Salvatorem, esse Caulacau_, which Harvey says is\n  unintelligible. See Salmon, _s.h.v._ in _Dict. of Christian Biog._,\n  where he tries hard to explain the name and its use. Cheyne,\n  _Prophecies of Isaiah_, 2nd ed. vol. I. p. 162, would make this\n  Caulacau, however, equivalent to the \u201cword of Jehovah\u201d or Logos. Cf.\n  Renan, _Hist. du Peuple d\u2019Israel_, Eng. ed. 1897, II. pp. 436, 437.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 5.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk II. c. 20; Bk IV. cc. 9, 138; Bk VI. c. 6. So\n  Origen, to whose frequent quotations from the Valentinian Heracleon we\n  owe all that we know of that shrewd Biblical critic. See A. E. Brooke,\n  _Fragments of Heracleon_, Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. \u0399. p. 4.\n  De Faye\u2019s opinion that Clement and Origen were the only Fathers who\n  treated Gnosticism with intelligence and sometimes judicially has been\n  quoted above.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n  Epiphanius, Pan. _Haer._ XXXI. c. 1, p. 306, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n  _Valentinus._... _Pythagoricus magis quam Christianus, vanam quandam\n  ac perniciosam doctrinam eructans, et velut arithmeticam, id est\n  numerositatis, novam fallaciam praedicans, multorumque animas\n  ignorantium captivavit_, Philastrius, _de Haeresibus liber_, c. 38, p.\n  43, Oehler, vol. I.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n  [_Valentiniani et Valentinus_] _Hi per orientem dispersi graviter dei\n  ecclesiam vulnerarunt_, Praedestinatus, Bk \u0399. c. 11, p. 235, Oehler,\n  vol. \u0399.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n  Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_, Bk III. cc. 64, 65.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, vol. III. c. 27, p. 174, Bury.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n  King, _Gnostics_, p. 13.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk \u0399. c. 1, \u00a7 1, pp. 8, 9, Harvey; Tertullian, _adv. Val._\n  c. VII. Is this the \u201cGrace\u201d for whose presence the soul prays in the\n  _apologiae_ of the Ophites? See last chapter.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n  \u1f4d\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd, \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f26\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd: Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 29, p.\n  280, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n  Diogenes Laertius, _Vit. Philosoph._ Bk VIII. c. 19.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n  Philippe Berger, \u201cLes St\u00e8les Puniques de la Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale,\u201d\n  _Gazette Arch\u00e9ologique_, 11me ann. Paris, 1876, p. 123, says that the\n  Aryan genius sees atmospheric phenomena where the Semite imagines\n  persons who unite and give birth (personnes qui s\u2019unissent et\n  s\u2019engendrent les unes les autres). Renan, _Hist. du Peuple d\u2019Israel_,\n  Paris, 1887, t. I. p. 49, shows that all Semites are naturally\n  euhemerists and therefore anthropomorphists.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ pp. 198 _sqq._, shows that Sige appears not\n  only in the \u201cItalic School\u201d of Valentinus\u2019 followers, but also in the\n  Oriental School which is more likely to represent the teaching of\n  Valentinus himself. This may in fact be deduced from the words which\n  Hippolytus puts into his mouth (_op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 29, p. 281,\n  Cruice): \u1f08\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f26\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7, \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f96\n  \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. \u201cHe, he says, is all Love, and Love is not Love, unless\n  there is something to love.\u201d Thus the Orphics called their Phanes or\n  firstborn god Eros.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n  As has been many times said, not \u201cOnly-begotten,\u201d but \u201cunique.\u201d See\n  Badham in _Academy_, 5 Sept. 1896.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n  \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd [Sige] \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd,\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c5\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f36\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n  \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2: Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 1, p. 9, Harvey: \u201cand\n  she having received this seed and becoming pregnant, brought forth\n  Nous, like and equal to him who had projected him, and alone\n  containing the greatness of the Father.\u201d\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n  _Id._ Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 1, pp. 9, 10, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 10, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 29, p. 280, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 7.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 5, \u00a7 2, p. 106, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n  See p. 128 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 36.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk I. c. 1.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n  _Ibid._ Bk I. cc. 7, 16.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n  _Ibid._ Bk II. c. 19.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n  _Ibid._ Bk II. c. 20.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n  _Ibid._ Bk II. c. 12.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n  See Chapter VI, vol. I. p. 174, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk VII. c. 1.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 29, p. 281, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n  _i.e._ Profound.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n  Not \u201cself-existent,\u201d but maker of his own \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 or nature.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n  See n. 2, p. 98 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n  Harvey reads here \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u201ceverlasting,\u201d which makes at least as good\n  sense as the other.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n  Some memory of this seems to have enlivened the disputes between the\n  Nominalists and Realists of the XIIIth century. Cf. the wrangling of\n  the Doctors at the School of Salerno in Longfellow\u2019s _Golden Legend_\n\n         I, with the Doctor Seraphic, maintain\n         That the word that\u2019s not spoken, but conceived in the brain,\n         Is the type of Eternal Generation,\n         The spoken word is the Incarnation.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n  They are also probably places or receptacles. In the _Pistis Sophia_\n  we read repeatedly of the three \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 and of the \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9gypt._ pp. 200 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n  So Hope Moulton, _Early Zoroastrianism_, 1913, p. 114, points out that\n  half of the Persian Amshaspands or archangels bear names expressing\n  \u201cwhat Mazda is\u201d and the other half \u201cwhat Mazda gives.\u201d There is much\n  likeness, as has been said, between the Amshaspands and the \u201cRoots\u201d of\n  Simon Magus.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n  It is worth noticing that these are the three \u201ctheological\u201d virtues,\n  Faith, Hope, and Charity.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 23, pp. 269-271, Cruice, wishes to\n  make out that all this is derived from what he calls the \u201cPythagorean\u201d\n  system of numbers. Anyone wishing to pursue these \u201csilly cabalisms\u201d\n  further is recommended to read Harvey\u2019s Introduction to Valentinus\u2019\n  system, _op. cit._ pp. cxv-cxvii.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n  \u1f08\u03c0\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f41 \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c\n  \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. \u201cBut the twelfth of the twelve, and the youngest of all the\n  eight and twenty aeons, who is a female and called Sophia, considered\n  the number and power of those aeons who were begotten (?) and went on\n  high to the height of the Father\u201d: Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c.\n  30, p. 283, Cruice. The \u201ceight and twenty aeons\u201d shows that\n  Valentinus, according to Hippolytus, did _not_ reckon Bythos and Sige\n  in the first Ogdoad.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n  A further proof that the primitive doctrine of Valentinus did not give\n  a spouse to Bythos.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n  \u1f18\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 seems here to\n  mean \u201cwithout distinction of time or place.\u201d Cf. the \u201cNone is afore or\n  after other\u201d of the Athanasian Creed) \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n  \u03b8\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03b8\u03ae\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 30, p.\n  284, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n  \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f43 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u039c\u03c9\u03cb\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c2\u00b7 \u201c\u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1fc6 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f00\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f00\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03cd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\u201d \u201cAnd this, he says, is the saying of Moses. \u2018And the\n  earth was _invisible_ and unshapen\u2019\u201d\u2014a curious variant of the A.V.,\n  Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ He goes on to say that this is \u201cthe good and\n  heavenly Jerusalem,\u201d the land in which the children of Israel are\n  promised milk and honey. It should be noticed, however, that even this\n  unshapen being, like all the Sophias, was identified with the Earth.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 31, pp. 284, 285. Irenaeus, Bk I. cc.\n  1, 4, p. 21, Harvey, says that Monogenes [Nous] put forth (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5)\n  the pair \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, apparently without the aid of his\n  partner Aletheia. Hippolytus\u2019 account is the simpler, as making all\n  the Pleroma thus descend from a single pair, and is therefore,\n  probably, the earlier.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n  Hippolytus, _loc. cit._, says that this new aeon was called \u1f4d\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u201cHorus,\u201d or \u201cThe Limit,\u201d because he separates the Pleroma or Fulness\n  from the Hysterema or Deficiency (_i.e._ that which lacks God), which\n  is one of those puns which will be familiar to all Egyptologists (see\n  Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, Eng. ed. p. 396, for other examples).\n  He is also said to have been called Metocheus or the Partaker, because\n  he shares in the Deficiency, doubtless as being partly outside the\n  Pleroma. His name of Horus was probably suggested by that of the old\n  Egyptian god whose figure must have been familiar to every\n  Alexandrian. In the IInd century A.D., this last generally appears\n  with hawk\u2019s head and human body dressed in the cuirass and boots of a\n  Roman gendarme or _stationarius_, which would be appropriate enough\n  for a sentinel or guard.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n  Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ pp. 284, 285, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n  Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ pp. 286, 287, Cruice. Christ and the Holy\n  Spirit, having discharged the duty laid upon them, have retired with\n  Sophia \u201cthe youngest of the aeons\u201d within the Pleroma and cannot again\n  issue forth.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ c. 32: \u1f14\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b6\u03c5\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c5\u1f35\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 [\u03b4\u1f72] \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03af. \u201cIt seemed good to them [the aeons of the Pleroma] not only\n  to magnify the Son by conjunction, but also by an offering of pleasing\n  fruits to the Father.\u201d So in the mysteries of Isis, Osiris is called\n  the fruit of the vine Dionysos. See Athenagoras, _Legatid._ c. XXII.\n  Plainly Bythos and Nous or Monogenes are here represented as Father\n  and Son as in the Ophite myth. The new projection is necessary to\n  accord with the text about the whole Pleroma dwelling together bodily\n  in Jesus. Cf. Colossians i. 19.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n  The expression \u1f41 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 is repeated by Clement of\n  Alexandria, _Protrept_. c. XII., possibly with reference to this\n  passage. It may be noticed, however, that Jesus is here also made the\n  Messenger or Ambassador of the Light as with the Ophites. It will be\n  seen later that he occupies the same place with the Manichaeans. Cf.\n  Chapter XIII, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 32, p. 289, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 290, Cruice. \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21\n  \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f19\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. \u201cAccording to\n  this, therefore,\u201d [he has just said that fire has a twofold power, for\n  there is a fire which devours everything and which cannot be\n  extinguished] \u201cpart (of the Demiurge) is a certain soul which is\n  subject to death, and a certain substance which occupies a middle\n  place. For it is a Hebdomad and a laying to rest.\u201d The passage is not\n  easy, but seems to mean that some of the souls made by the Demiurge\n  are mortal, while others are susceptible of salvation. Cf. n. 1, p.\n  109, _infra_. The name Hebdomad evidently refers to the seven\n  astronomical heavens under the rule of the Demiurge, and the title\n  \u201cAncient of Days\u201d identifies him, like the Jaldabaoth of the Ophites,\n  with the God of the Jews.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n  Called Ogdoadas or eighth, because it is next above the seven heavens;\n  but Sophia, the 28th, was the last of the aeons. We see, therefore,\n  that Valentinus, like the Ophites of the diagram, is reckoning\n  forwards and backwards in the most confusing way.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n  So Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 9, pp. 44, 45, Harvey, says that they [the\n  Valentinians] say that the seven heavens are endowed with intelligence\n  (\u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2) and that they suppose them to be angels, and that the\n  Demiurge is himself an angel like God. Also that Paradise is a heaven\n  above the third, and that a fourth angel rules (?) there, and that\n  from him Adam took somewhat while talking to him. Whatever this story\n  may mean, it is curious to see how readily the Gnostics identified in\n  name a heavenly place with its ruler, as in the titles of kings and\n  peers.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 10, pp. 47, 48, Harvey, says that the Devil or\n  Cosmocrator and all the spiritual things of evil (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) were made out of the pain (\u03bb\u03cd\u03c0\u03b7) of Sophia, and that he is\n  the creation of the Demiurge, but knows what is above him, because he\n  is a spirit, while his creator is ignorant that there is anything\n  higher than himself, because he is only ruler of animal things (\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70\n  \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1). In this, which is probably the teaching of Ptolemy,\n  Valentinus\u2019 successor is seen to be reverting to the Ophite ideas.\n  Hippolytus, who here probably gives us Valentinus\u2019 own doctrine, says\n  on the other hand (_op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 33, pp. 290, 291, Cruice):\n  \u1f6d\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd\n  [the text is here restored by Cruice: \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n  \u1f51\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2] \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f24\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f41 \u0392\u03b5\u03b5\u03bb\u03b6\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4. \u201cAs\n  therefore the first and greatest power of the animal substance (the\n  Demiurge) came into being as the image of the unique son (Nous), so\n  the power of the material substance is the Devil, the Ruler of this\n  world: and Beelzebud [the power] of the substance of demons which came\n  into being from the perplexity\u201d (of Sophia). It has been shown\n  elsewhere (_P.S.B.A._ 1901, pp. 48, 49) that this Beelzebud or\n  Beelzebuth is written in the Magic Papyri Jabezebuth or Yahweh\n  Sabaoth, probably in pursuance of the parallelism which gives every\n  god or superior power his correspondent personality in the inferior or\n  evil world. In all magic, mediaeval or otherwise, Beelzebuth is\n  carefully distinguished from Satan.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n  Matthew x. 25, xii. 24, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15, have\n  \u03b2\u03b5\u03b5\u03bb\u03be\u03b5\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb, while the Peshitto writes the more familiar Beelzebub. See\n  _P.S.B.A._ quoted in last note.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n  Called also the Heavenly Jerusalem. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c.\n  32, p. 290, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 10, p. 49, Harvey: \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n  \u03be\u03b7\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1fe5\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n  \u201cHaving indeed fashioned the world, he (the Demiurge) made material\n  man; not taking him out of this dry earth, but from the unseen\n  substance, from the poured forth and liquid matter, and into him, they\n  declare, he breathed that which is of the soul.\u201d Although this might\n  be taken for a Ptolemaic elaboration or embroidery of Valentinus\u2019 own\n  doctrine, it is repeated in almost identical words in the _Excerpta\n  Theodoti_ of Clement of Alexandria, which represent the teaching of\n  the Oriental School, and it is therefore possibly the statement of\n  Valentinus himself. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 34, p. 293,\n  Cruice, is quite in accord with this. Irenaeus says later (Bk I. c. 1,\n  \u00a7 11) with reference to the body of Jesus: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f41\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\n  \u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b7\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n  \u201cAnd they say that He took on Himself nothing whatever of matter; for\n  matter is not susceptible of salvation.\u201d From which it is to be\n  inferred that Valentinus rejected the resurrection of the body.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 4, p. 23, Harvey, says that when Jesus, the\n  Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, was projected, Angels of the same kind as\n  himself (\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2) were projected with him as a guard of honour. That\n  these are the spiritual spouses of the souls of men is confirmed by\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 34, p. 292, according to Cruice\u2019s\n  emendation: \u1f59\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u1fc4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f48\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21\n  \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b6\u03ce\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03a0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9,\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9, \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2. \u201cThe things which\n  are in the Ogdoad also are subdivided, and there proceed (from it)\n  Sophia who is, according to them, the Mother of All Living, and the\n  Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, the Logos, and there are certain heavenly\n  angels who are citizens of the Jerusalem which is above, that which is\n  in the heavens.\u201d So later (_ibid._ p. 293, Cruice) ... \u03bf\u1f35\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\n  \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd [\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1]\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c7\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n  \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u1fc3. \u201cThere are certain Logoi\n  sown from above in the world by the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma and\n  Sophia, which dwell in the material body with the soul, when there are\n  no demons dwelling with it.\u201d Clement of Alexandria, in _Strom._ Bk V.\n  c. 14, points out that the notion of demons dwelling with the soul is\n  to be found in Plato, and quotes the passage from the Vision of Er\n  (_Rep._ Bk X. c. 15) about the souls of men between births each\n  receiving from the hand of Lachesis a demon as their guides through\n  life. It is more likely, however, to have been derived from the\n  Zoroastrian belief in the Fravashis or Ferouers, celestial spirits who\n  live with Ahura Mazda and the powers of light, until they are sent on\n  earth to be joined with the souls of men, and to combat the powers of\n  Ahriman (see L. C. Casartelli, _La Philosophie Religieuse du\n  Mazd\u00e9isme_, Paris, 1884, pp. 76-80, for references). Cf. Hope Moulton,\n  _op. cit._ c. VIII. _passim_.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 12, p. 59, Harvey: \u03a4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. \u201cAnd the Spirituals, or Pneumatis, doffing their\n  souls and becoming intelligent spirits, shall enter unperceived and\n  unseen within the Pleroma, and shall be given as brides to the angels\n  about the Saviour.\u201d This suggestion, which completely shocked the\n  modesty of Tertullian, may be connected with the Zoroastrian idea of\n  the virgin who appears to the believer as his conductor at the bridge\n  Chinvat. See Chapter XII, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n  This appears in the _Excerpta Theodoti_, fr. 63, Migne\u2019s _Patrol.\n  Graeci_, t. IX. col. 689: \u1f29 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc7\n  \u1f10\u03bd \u1f48\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9 \u1f21 \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1f74 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70\n  \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff7\u00b7\n  \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f48\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2. \u0395\u1f36\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\n  \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03b6\u03c9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u1fc3. \u201cTherefore the repose of the Spirituals in [the\n  dwelling] of the Lord, that is, in the Ogdoad, is called the Lord\u2019s\n  rest\u201d (cf. Irenaeus, Bk I. cc. 1, 9, p. 46, Harvey): \u201cthe garments\n  [_i.e._ natures] containing the souls [will remain] with the Mother\n  until the Consummation. And the other faithful souls (will remain)\n  with the Demiurge; and at the Consummation they will withdraw, and\n  they also will go into the Ogdoad. Then will be the Wedding Feast of\n  all those who are saved until all things shall be made equal and all\n  things mutually made known.\u201d This heavenly banquet, of which we may be\n  quite sure Valentinus made the Marriage in Cana a type, will be met\n  with again in the worship of Mithras (Chapter XII, _infra_). But it\n  was also well known to the Orphics (see Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, Frag. 227,\n  etc.), and the question repeats itself: Did the Orphics borrow the\n  idea from the Persians, or the Mithraists from the Orphics?\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n  Valentinus may have found this doctrine in Egypt, where as Maspero\n  points out (_\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ I. p. 398) only the rich and noble were\n  thought to enjoy the life beyond the grave.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n  Valentinus\u2019 remark about the Cosmocrator being superior in knowledge\n  to the Demiurge because he is a _spirit_ (see n. 1, p. 108 _supra_)\n  much complicates the problem, and brings us pretty near to the Dualism\n  of the Avesta. That all matter was in Valentinus\u2019 opinion transitory\n  appears from Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 13, where it is said that when\n  all the seed scattered by Sophia in the world, _i.e._ the souls of the\n  Pneumatici, is gathered in, the fire which is within the Cosmos shall\n  blaze forth and after destroying all matter shall be extinguished with\n  it.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n  Clem. Alex., _Strom._ Bk II. c. 8, quotes an epistle of Valentinus in\n  which he speaks of the terror of the angels at the sight of man\n  because of the things which he spoke: \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\n  \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u201cbecause of that\n  within him which yielded a germ of the substance on high, and spoke\n  freely.\u201d So Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 10, p. 51, Harvey: \u1f1c\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2\n  \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03bd \u1f41 \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n  \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd [\u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2] \u1f00\u03c1\u03c1\u03ae\u03c4\u1ff3 [adj. \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76]\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u1fb3. \u201cIt escaped the Demiurge, therefore, as they say, that the\n  man whom he had formed by his breath was at the same time made\n  spiritual by Sophia with unspeakable power and foresight.\u201d So that, as\n  Irenaeus says a few lines later, man has his soul from the Demiurge,\n  his body from Chaos, his fleshly part (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd) from matter, and\n  his spiritual man from the Mother, Achamoth [_i.e._ \u05d7\u05db\u05de\u05ea \u201cWisdom\u201d].\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk IV. c. 13, quoting \u201ca certain homily\u201d (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03b1) of Valentinus: \u1f08\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\n  \u03b1\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u1fc3 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f51\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd. \u1f4d\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\n  \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03cd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5, \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2. \u201cYou were deathless from the beginning and the\n  children of life everlasting, and you wish to share out death among\n  you, in order that you may dissipate and destroy it and that death may\n  die in and by you; for when you put an end to the world and are\n  yourselves put an end to, you have rule over creation and all\n  corruption.\u201d So one of the documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks of\n  this world being finally consumed by the fire \u201cwhich the perfect\n  wield.\u201d It was doubtless such predictions which gave colour to the\n  charge of incendiarism made by the Roman authorities against the\n  Christians generally. For the translation of the pneumatics to the\n  Ogdoad see next note.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 31, p. 290, Cruice: \u1f18\u1f70\u03bd \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f48\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9, \u1f00\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f48\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f25\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2\n  \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03af, \u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03bd, \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bc \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f55\u03bb\u1fc3, \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03ae \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. \u201cIf [the soul] be\n  of the likeness of those on high in the Ogdoad, it is born deathless\n  and goes to the Ogdoad which is, he says, the heavenly Jerusalem; but\n  if it be of the likeness of matter, that is, if it belongs to the\n  material passions, it is corruptible and is utterly destroyed.\u201d\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n  \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 translated in the A.V. by \u201cnatural man\u201d evidently\n  means in the Valentinian sense those who are _animated_ or have had\n  breathed into them the _breath_ of life merely. It has nothing to do\n  with soul as we understand the term.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 225.\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 36, pp. 297, 298, Cruice: \u1f1c\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c1\u03b8\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. \u201cWherefore when things on high had been put straight, it\n  had to be according to the law of sequences that those here below\n  should be put straight also.\u201d\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ p. 297, Cruice: \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41\n  \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (\u03bf\u1f50\u03ba) \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f14\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u00b7\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c7\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c5\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd\u03af, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u201cFor the\n  Demiurge had been taught by Sophia that he was not the only God and\n  that beside him there was none other, as he had thought; but through\n  Sophia\u2019s teaching he knew better. For he had been instructed and\n  initiated by Sophia, and had been taught the great mystery of the\n  Father and of the Aeons, and had declared it to none\u201d\u2014in support of\n  which the statement in Exodus (vi. 2, 3) about being the God of\n  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but \u201cby my name Jehovah was I not known\n  unto them\u201d is quoted. The identification by Valentinus of the Demiurge\n  with the God of the Jews is therefore complete.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n  \u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u201cstumblings,\u201d Hippolytus, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk vi. c. 35, p. 295, Cruice. I have taken what\n  seems on comparison to be the original form of Valentinus\u2019 teaching.\n  In the same chapter, Hippolytus tells us that his followers were\n  divided on the question of the composition of the body of Jesus\u2014the\n  Italic School led by Heracleon and Ptolemy averring that it was\n  psychic and that at His baptism only the \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 came upon Him as a\n  dove, while the Oriental School of Axionicus and Bardesanes maintained\n  that it was pneumatic from the first. Cf. n. 2, p. 116 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 226. The _Excerpta Theodoti_, on which he\n  relies, says (fr. 78): \u039c\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7, \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd,\n  \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03ae\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9. \u1f1c\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f78\n  \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c4\u03af\n  \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f26\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f22 \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03c0\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n  \u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03c4\u03af \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. \u201cUntil baptism then, they say\n  the destiny [he is talking of that which is foretold by the stars]\n  holds good; but thereafter the astrologers\u2019 predictions are no longer\n  unerring. For the [baptismal] font not only sets us free, but is also\n  the _Gnosis_ which teaches us what we are, why we have come into\n  being, where we are, or whither we have been cast up, whither we are\n  hastening, from what we have been redeemed, why there is birth, and\n  why re-birth.\u201d For baptism was to the Valentinian initiation, and a\n  mystagogue of Eleusis would have expressed himself no differently.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 13, pp. 60-62, Harvey; Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._\n  p. 226, and _Excerpta Theodoti_ there quoted.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 35, pp. 295, 296, Cruice: \u1f49 \u03b4\u1f72\n  \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f09\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f59\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5],\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f41 \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u1fc3, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f0d\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n  \u1f48\u03b3\u03b4\u03bf\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. \u201cBut Jesus, the new man, [has come into\n  being] by the Holy Spirit and by the Highest, that is by Sophia and\n  the Demiurge, so that the Demiurge might put together the mould and\n  constitution of His body and that the Holy Spirit might provide its\n  substance; and that He might become the Heavenly Logos ... when born\n  of Mary.\u201d According to this, the body of Jesus was a \u201cpsychic\u201d or\n  animal one; yet Hippolytus says immediately afterwards (p. 296,\n  Cruice), that it was on this that there was a division between the\n  Italic and the Oriental Schools of Valentinians, the former with\n  Heracleon and Ptolemy saying that the body of Jesus was an animal one,\n  the Holy Spirit coming on Him as a dove at His baptism, while the\n  Orientals with Axionicus and Bardesanes maintained that the body of\n  the Saviour was pneumatic or spiritual, \u201cthe Holy Spirit or Sophia and\n  the power of the Highest or Demiurgic art having come upon Mary, in\n  order that what was given to Mary might be put into form.\u201d Apparently\n  Valentinus was willing to call the God of the Jews \u1f5d\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 or\n  \u201cHighest,\u201d which M. Cumont thinks was his name in Asia Minor.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n  With the exception of that of St John, since the part of the _Pistis\n  Sophia_ which it is suggested is by Valentinus does not quote it. His\n  followers, however, knew of it, as in the _Excerpta Theodoti_ the\n  opening verse \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is quoted with the comments of \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039f\u1f50\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\n  on it. Cf. Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 209, where the passage is given\n  in n. 4.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 13, pp. 60-62, Harvey: \u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2...\n  \u1f1c\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b4\u1ff6\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03be\u1fc3 [\u03b4\u03b9\u2019] \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f21 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\n  \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6, \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u1ff7, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u1f7c\u03b8 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9. \u201cAnd there are some\u201d (probably the Anatolic or Oriental\n  School is meant) \u201cwho say.... And further the animal Christ, He who\n  had been mysteriously formed by dispensation, suffered so that the\n  Mother might show forth through Him the type of the Christ on high, of\n  him who is extended by Stauros, and gave shape to Achamoth as regards\n  substance: for they say that all things here are the types of others\n  there.\u201d\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. IV.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n  That is, not a martyr, but one who had suffered for the faith without\n  losing his life.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk III. c. 4, \u00a7 1, vol. II. p. 17, Harvey; Eusebius, _Hist.\n  Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 11. Cf. Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 170.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n  Tertullian, _de Praescpt._ c. XXX. Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 175,\n  objects to this.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 172, n. 1; _ibid._ p. 175.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Pan., Haer._ XXXI. c. 2.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 35, p. 296, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 2, p. 13, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n  See n. 2, p. 116 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n  Irenaeus, _Prooem._ p. 4, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk IV. c. 9.\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 38, p. 302, Cruice. So Irenaeus, Bk\n  I. c. 5, \u00a7 2, p. 101, Harvey. This appears to be hyperbole rather than\n  dualism.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 189.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 35, p. 296, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n  Alb\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chronology of Ancient Nations_, ed. Sachau, 1879, pp. 27,\n  189.\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n  De Faye, _Intro._ etc. p. 105, n. 1; Tertullian, _de Carne Christi_,\n  c. XVI.\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n  See Hort, Bardaisan, in _Dict. Christian Biog._\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n  Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 30, says that Bar Daisan was first a\n  Valentinian and afterwards recanted, \u201cbut did not entirely wipe away\n  the filth of his old heresy.\u201d\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n  Rather a suspect name for a hymn writer.\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n  Ephrem Syrus\u2019 own date is given as 370 A.D., in _Dict. Christian\n  Biog._ _s.h.n._\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n  See n. 3, p. 117 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 5, \u00a7 1, p. 98, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n  See n. 2, p. 118 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n  This may have been due either to their Egyptian extraction, or to the\n  necessity of putting the matter in a way that would be intelligible to\n  their Egyptian disciples. Cf. Naville, _Old Egyptian Faith_, 1909,\n  where he says that the Egyptian way of expressing abstract ideas is by\n  metaphors. Their ancestors, the Egyptians of the early Dynasties, when\n  they wanted to describe how gods of both sexes came forth from one\n  single male deity, did so by means of a very coarse image. See Budge,\n  Papyrus of Nesi-Amsu, _Archaeologia_, vol. LII. (1890), pp. 440, 441.\n  Cf. same author, _Hieratic Papyri in B.M._\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n  Courdaveaux, _R.H.R._ Jan.-Fev. 1892, p. 293 and n. 7. Mgr Duchesne,\n  _op. cit._ pp. 244, 245, agrees that Clement looked upon the Son as a\n  creature only. Nor does there seem much difference between Valentinus\u2019\n  view of the relation between the Demiurge and the Unknown Father, and\n  Clement\u2019s remarks about the Son whom he calls timeless and unbegotten\n  and says that it is from Him that we must learn the \u201cremote cause the\n  Father of the Universe\u201d: _Strom._ Bk VII. c. 1. Cf. Justin Martyr, _c.\n  Trypho._ c. 56.\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n  _R.H.R._ Jan.-Fev. 1891, p. 27. Tertullian\u2019s own heresy was of course\n  Montanism. Harnack, _Hist. of Dogma_, Eng. ed., II. pp. 257, 258, says\n  indeed that Hippolytus\u2019 own views of the Trinity coincide with those\n  of Valentinus and are a relic of polytheism.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 29, pp. 280, 281, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n  2 John iv. 16. So \u1f08\u03b3\u03ac\u03c0\u03b7 \u201cLove\u201d is made the summit of the universe in\n  the Ophite Diagram. See Chap. VIII _supra_.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ vol. II. p. 90.\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n  Heracleon, quoted by Origen in _Commentaries on St John_, Bk X. c. 19.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 36, pp. 297, 298, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n  _Ibid._ _loc. cit._ p. 298, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk II. c. 20.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 230; Neander, _Ch. Hist._ vol. II. p. 94.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n  Neander, _op. et loc. cit._ p. 150 and note, says Clement of\n  Alexandria declares that while Marcion wished to found a Church, the\n  other Gnostics endeavoured to found schools (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b1\u03af) only. Clem.\n  Alex. _Strom._ Bk VII. c. 15, seems to be the passage referred to; but\n  in the present state of the text it may be doubted whether it will\n  bear the construction Neander puts upon it.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. Prooem. p. 4, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n  Cf. Renan, _L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne_, p. 165. The manner in which the\n  Valentinians tried to make converts to their doctrines within the\n  Church is described by Irenaeus, Bk III. c. 15, \u00a7 2, pp. 78, 80,\n  Harvey, and Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 1.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n  Renan, _L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne_, pp. 152, 153, for references.\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n  Tertullian, _de Pudicitia_, and Pseudo Cyprian, _de Glor. Martyr._\n  _passim_.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n  See Chap. VII, n. 1, p. 8 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n  Tertullian, _Scorpiace_, c. 1.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, Bury\u2019s ed. vol. II. p. 13. Cf. what\n  Irenaeus, \u0392k I. c. 1, \u00a7 8, p. 36, Harvey, says as to the high price\n  charged by the Valentinians for their teaching.\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk IV. c. 4, \u00a7\u00a7 1-15.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. cc. 7-8 _passim_, pp. 114-156, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n  Thus he says that the Dove signifies Alpha and Omega, the first and\n  the last, because \u0391 and \u03a9, like \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac \u201cdove,\u201d have the numerical\n  value of 801.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n  A similar miracle is performed by the risen Jesus in the Bruce\n  Papyrus. See Chap. X _infra_.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n  Verse:\n\n      _a._\n\n      \u03a6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1, \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b5, \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5, \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\n      \u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03a7(\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf)\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f01\u03b3\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd,\n      \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b8\u03c1[\u1fc6]\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1,\n      \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1fc6,\n      [\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bd]\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 [\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0]\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1[?]\n      [\u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1]\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba[\u03b1\u1f76]....\n\n      _b._\n\n      \u039f\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 [\u03c4]\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f25\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u00b7\n      \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03ce\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03c6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\u00b7\n      \u03b6\u03ce\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9, \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u1f72\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u1ff6\u03c2.\n      \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1, \u03c4\u03af \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03ad\u03ba\u03c5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; \u1f74 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03cc\u03b2\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9;\n\n      (Boeckh\u2019s) _C. I. G._ 9595_a_, t. I. and p. 594.\n\n      \u201cLonging for the light of the Father, partner of my blood, partner\n         of my bed, O my wise one!\n      Anointed at the font with the incorruptible and pure myrrh of\n         Christ,\n      Thou hast hastened to behold the divine faces of the Aeons, [and]\n      The Great Angel of the Great Council, the true Son.\n      Thou hast gone to the nuptial couch and hast hurried to the\n         fatherly bosoms of the Aeons\n      And....\n      Though dying, she has not suffered the common end of life,\n      She is dead, and yet lives and actually beholds the light\n         incorruptible,\n      To the living she is alive, and dead only to those really dead.\n      O Earth, why dost thou wonder at this new kind of shade? or dost\n         thou fear it?\u201d\n\n  This was engraved on a _cippus_ of white marble found about three\n  miles from Rome in the Via Latina and is now in the Kircher Museum.\n  Renan\u2019s translation is given in _Marc Aur\u00e8le_, p. 147. That the lady\u2019s\n  name was Flavia seems evident from the acrostic contained in the first\n  verse. She must also have been a pneumatic or spiritual from her\n  husband\u2019s confident expectation that she would be raised to the\n  Heavenly Jerusalem and by his assertion of her deathlessness. Hence it\n  may be inferred that Valentinus\u2019 disciples even when of the highest\n  spiritual rank were allowed to marry. Cf. Clem. Alex. _Strom_. Bk III.\n  c. 17. The name \u201cAngel of the Great Council\u201d is applied to Christ by\n  Justin Martyr (_c. Tryph._ c. 126) who says that He is so called by\n  Ezekiel. The passage does not appear in the Canon.\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n  Matter, _Hist. du Gnosticisme_, t. II. p. 126, quoting St Jerome.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXXIII. c. 3, pp. 401-413, Oehler. Cf. \u201cthe Elect\n  Lady\u201d to whom 2 John is addressed.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n  It should be remembered that Valentinus had been dead some 50 years\n  when Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ Chap. V., pp. 281-320 _passim_.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n  Julian, _Ep._ 43, tells Hecebolius that the Arians of Edessa, \u201cpuffed\n  up by their riches,\u201d have maltreated the Valentinians, and that he has\n  therefore ordered the confiscation of the estates and treasure of the\n  Church of Edessa. It is doubtful whether the edict can have been\n  enforced before the emperor\u2019s death abrogated it.\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n  We get at a sort of minimum date for its persistence from the career\n  of St Ambrose, who had been a Valentinian in his youth (see Eusebius,\n  _Hist. Eccl._ Bk VI. c. 18), and was made bishop of Milan in 374 A.D.,\n  he being then 34 years old. The sect therefore had adherents in Italy\n  about 360 A.D.\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n  It may be news to some that an attempt has lately been made to revive\n  in Paris the heresy of Valentinus. See the _Contemporary Review_ for\n  May, 1897, or Jules Bois\u2019 _Les Petits Religions de Paris_, where a\n  full account of the services and hymns of \u201cL\u2019\u00c9glise Gnostique\u201d is\n  given. Its founder, Jules Doinel, was reconverted to Catholicism some\n  time before his death. Its present head is M. Fabre des Essarts.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X\n       THE SYSTEM OF THE PISTIS SOPHIA AND ITS RELATED TEXTS[459]\n\n\nIn 1765, the British Museum purchased from the celebrated antiquarian,\nDr Askew, a parchment MS. written in Coptic[460]. On palaeographic\ngrounds it is said to be not earlier than the VIth century A.D., which\nagrees fairly with its state of preservation and the fact that it is\nwritten on both sides of the skins so as to present the appearance of a\nmodern book[461]. Woide, then librarian of the Museum and pastor of the\nKing\u2019s German Chapel at St James\u2019, published some extracts from it in\nhis _Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus_ in 1799, and Dulaurier gave\nothers in the _Journal Asiatique_ in 1847[462]. It remained, however,\nuntranslated until 1850, when Maurice Schwartze, a young German scholar\nwho was sent over here to study our MSS. at the expense of the king of\nPrussia, turned it into Latin; and he having died soon after, his\ntranslation was published the following year by the learned Petermann.\nThe British Museum text is written throughout in the Sahidic dialect;\nand is the work of more than one scribe; but it seems to be agreed by\nthose who have studied it with knowledge that the documents it contains\nare neither continuous nor necessarily related; and that it is in fact a\nseries of extracts from earlier MSS.[463] Of these documents, the second\ncommences with a heading, in a handwriting other than that of the scribe\nof this part, reading \u201cthe Second Book of Pistis Sophia\u201d; but as such a\nheading implies that the foregoing document was the First Book of Pistis\nSophia, the whole MS. is generally known by that name[464].\n\nThe story presented in these two documents, although uncompleted, is, so\nfar as it goes, perfectly consistent, and presupposes belief in a\nGnostic system resembling at once those of the Ophites and of\nValentinus. An introduction in narrative form informs us that Jesus,\nafter rising from the dead, spent eleven years in teaching His disciples\nthe arrangement of the heavenly places \u201conly so far as the places\u201d of a\npower whom He calls \u201cthe First Mystery,\u201d and declares to be \u201cbefore all\nmysteries,\u201d and to be \u201cwithin the veil,\u201d being \u201cthe father of the\nlikeness of a dove[465].\u201d The result of this limitation was, we are\ntold, that the disciples were ignorant not only that any power existed\nhigher than the First Mystery, but also of the origin of the \u201cplaces\u201d or\nworlds of those material and _quasi_-material powers who, here as in the\nearlier systems, are responsible for the governance of the world and the\nfate of mankind. While the disciples are sitting with Jesus on the Mount\nof Olives, however, He is carried away from them into Heaven by a great\n\u201cpower\u201d or shape of light which descends upon Him. On His return, He\ntells them that this shape was \u201ca vesture of light\u201d or His heavenly\nnature which He had laid aside before being born into this world[466].\nHe also informs them that, when He first came into this world before His\nIncarnation, He brought with Him twelve powers which He took from \u201cthe\nTwelve Saviours of the Treasure house of Light[467],\u201d and planted them\nin the mothers of the twelve Apostles, so that when these last were born\ninto the world they were given these powers instead of receiving, like\nother men, souls \u201cfrom the archons (or rulers) of the aeons[468].\u201d He\nalso describes how He appeared among the archons of the Sphere in the\nlikeness of the angel Gabriel, and found among them the soul of \u201cElijah\nthe Prophet[469].\u201d This He caused to be taken to \u201cthe Virgin of Light,\u201d\nthat it might be planted in Elizabeth, the mother of John the\nBaptist[470], and He adds that He bound to it a power which He took from\n\u201cthe Little Iao the Good, who is in the middle.\u201d The object of this was,\nwe are told, that John the Baptist might prepare the way of Jesus and\nbaptize with water for the remission of sins.\n\nJesus then proceeds to describe His own Incarnation. When speaking,\nstill in the shape of the angel Gabriel, with Mary His \u201cmother after the\nbody of matter,\u201d He planted in her the first power he had received from\n\u201cBarbelo,\u201d which was the body He had worn \u201cin the height[471]\u201d; and, in\nthe place of the soul, a power which He received from \u201cthe Great Sabaoth\nthe Good, who is in the place of the right.\u201d After this digression, He\nresumes His account of what happened after His receiving the vesture of\nlight on the Mount of Olives, and declares that He found written in this\nvesture five mysterious words \u201cbelonging [viz. in the language of] to\nthe height[472],\u201d which He interprets to His disciples thus:\n\n    \u201cThe mystery who is without the world, through whom all things\n    exist, he is the giving forth and the lifting up of all and he has\n    put forth all the emanations and the things which are in them all.\n    And it is through him that all the mysteries exist and all their\n    places. Come unto us, for we are thy fellows and thy members[473]!\n    We are one with thee, for thou and we are one. This is the First\n    Mystery which existed since the beginning in the Ineffable One\n    before he [_i.e._ the First Mystery] went forth, and we all are his\n    name[474].\n\n    \u201cNow therefore we all await thee at the last boundary which is the\n    last mystery from within[475]. This also is part of us. Now\n    therefore we have sent to thee thy vesture which is thine from the\n    beginning, which thou didst place in the last boundary, which is the\n    last boundary from within, until the time should be fulfilled\n    according to the commandment of the First Mystery. And now that the\n    time is fulfilled, clothe thyself in it! Come unto us, for we all\n    stand near to thee that we may clothe thee with all the glory of the\n    First Mystery by His command. Which glory is as two vestures,\n    besides that which we have sent unto thee. For thou art worthy of\n    them since thou art preferred before us and wast made before us.\n    Wherefore the First Mystery has sent thee by us the mystery of all\n    his glory, which is as two vestures. In the first is the glory of\n    all the names of all the mysteries and of all the emanations which\n    are in the ranks of the receptacles of the Ineffable One. And in the\n    second vesture is the glory of the names of all the mysteries and of\n    all the emanations which are in the ranks of the two receptacles of\n    the First Mystery. And in this vesture which we have sent thee now,\n    is the glory of the name of the Recorder who is the First\n    Precept[476], and the mystery of the Five Marks[477], and the\n    mystery of the great Legate of the Ineffable One who is the same as\n    that Great Light[478], and the mystery of the Five Prohegumeni who\n    are the same as the Five Parastatae[479]. And there is also in that\n    vesture the glory of the name of the mystery of all the ranks of the\n    emanations of the Treasure-house of Light, and of their Saviours,\n    and the ranks of those ranks which are the Seven Amen and which are\n    the Seven Sounds, and also the Five Trees[480] and also the Three\n    Amen, and also the Saviour of the Twins who is the boy of a\n    boy[481], and the mystery of the Nine Guards of the Three Gates of\n    the Treasure-house of Light. And there is also within it the glory\n    of the name which is on the right, and of all those who are in the\n    middle. And there also is the glory of the name of the Great Unseen\n    One, who is the Great Forefather[482], and the mysteries of the\n    Three Triple Powers, and the mystery of all their places, and the\n    mystery of all their unseen ones, and of all the dwellers in the\n    Thirteenth Aeon, and the name of the Twelve Aeons with all their\n    Archons, all their Archangels, all their Angels and all the dwellers\n    in the Twelve Aeons, and all the mystery of the name of all the\n    dwellers in Heimarmene[483], and all the heavens, and the whole\n    mystery of the name of all the dwellers in the Sphere and their\n    firmaments with all they contain and their places. Lo, then, we have\n    sent unto thee this vesture, which none knoweth from the First\n    Precept downward, because that the glory of its light was hidden\n    within it, and the Spheres and all the places from the First Precept\n    downward knew it not. Hasten, then, do on the vesture, and come unto\n    us, for we have remained near thee to clothe thee with these two\n    vestures by the command of the First Mystery until the time fixed by\n    the Ineffable One should be fulfilled. Now, then, the time is\n    fulfilled. Come unto us quickly, that we may clothe thee with them\n    until thou hast accomplished the entire ministry of the completion\n    of the First Mystery, the ministry which has been laid upon thee by\n    the Ineffable One. Come then unto us quickly in order that we may\n    clothe thee with them according to the command of the First Mystery.\n    For yet a little while, a very little while, and thou wilt cease to\n    be in the world. Come then quickly, that thou mayest receive all the\n    glory which is the glory of the First Mystery.\u201d\n\nThis long address, in which the whole arrangement of the universe as the\nauthor supposes it to exist is set forth, is clearly the utterance of\nthe heavenly powers belonging to the higher worlds whom Jesus has left\non His descent to earth. Unintelligible as it seems at first sight, it\ncan be explained to some extent by the tenets of the Ophites described\nin Chapter VIII, which formed, as we have seen, the basis on which\nValentinus also constructed his system. The Ineffable One may be assumed\nto be the Bythos whom both the Ophites and Valentinus called by that\nepithet[484] and held to be the first and final source of all being.\nAlthough something is said here and elsewhere in the book of his\n\u201creceptacles\u201d and \u201cplaces[485],\u201d no particulars of them are given, they\nbeing apparently reserved for a future revelation[486]. The First\nMystery, however, is spoken of later as a \u201cTwin Mystery, looking inward\nand outward[487],\u201d which seems to correspond to the Father-and-Son of\nthe Ophite diagram. Later in the book, Jesus reveals to His disciples\nthat He Himself is the First Mystery \u201clooking outward[488],\u201d and this\nseems to show that the author\u2019s conception of the relations between Him\nand the First Person of the Trinity did not differ much from that of the\nCatholic Church[489]. The world of this First Mystery extends downwards\nas far as what is here, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews[490], called\n\u201cthe veil,\u201d which is perhaps the veil of sense separating all things\ncontaminated by mixture with matter from the Divine. This First Mystery\nis said to consist of twenty-four \u201cmysteries\u201d; but these do not seem to\nbe, as in the older systems, places or worlds, but rather attributes or\naspects of the Deity which together go to make up His whole being, as a\nnumber of letters are required to make up a word or name[491]. But from\nsome words of Jesus given later in the book, it would appear that its\nauthor did not at all discard the view of the earlier Ophites that the\nSupreme Being was to be figured as of human form, for we find him\nremarking that the First Mystery himself proceeded from the \u201clast limb\u201d\nor member of the Ineffable One[492]. For the rest, it need only be\npointed out here that the powers who address Jesus in the quotation just\ngiven also speak of themselves as His \u201cmembers\u201d; but that\nnotwithstanding this, they must be looked upon as purely spiritual\nentities having no direct connection with any material forms except as\nparadigms or patterns[493]. Whatever the worlds which they inhabit may\nbe thought to be like\u2014and Jesus more than once tells His disciples that\nthere is nothing on earth to which they can be compared\u2014we can only say\nthat they are two in number, and that it is the two \u201cvestures of light\u201d\nsent to Jesus on the Mount of Olives, or, in other words, His two\nnatures, which give Him the means of ascending to the heavens of the\nIneffable One and of the First Mystery respectively. If the author ever\nintended to discuss them further, he has certainly not done so in the\n_Pistis Sophia_ properly so called[494].\n\nOn the other hand, the worlds and powers existing \u201cbelow the veil,\u201d or\nwithin the comprehension of the senses, and symbolized by the third and\ninferior \u201cvesture\u201d sent to Jesus, are indicated even in the address\ngiven above with fair particularity. Their names and relative positions\nare not easy to identify; but, thanks to some hints given in other parts\nof the book, the universe below \u201cthe veil\u201d may be reconstructed\nthus[495]:\u2014Its upper part contains the Treasure-house of light where, as\nits name implies, the light as it is redeemed from matter is stored up.\nThere are below it five other worlds called the Parastatae or Helpers,\nin one of which Jesus is to reign during the millennium, and the ruler\nof the last of which arranges the pure spirits who dwell below it[496].\nThe highest spirit in the Treasure-house is called the First Precept or\nthe Recorder, and with him is associated the Great Light, who is said to\nbe the \u201clegate\u201d of the Ineffable One[497]. In the Treasure-house there\nare also the orders of spirits set out in the address just quoted, the\nonly two to which it is necessary to refer here being the Five\nTrees[498] and the Twelve Saviours. From the Five Trees emanated the\ngreat \u201cPowers of the Right Hand\u201d to be next mentioned; while, as is\nbefore described, the Twelve Saviours furnished the spotless souls\nrequired for the Twelve Apostles[499]. The lower part of the same\nuniverse is called the Kerasmos or Confusion, because here the light,\nwhich in the upper part is pure, is mingled with matter. It is divided\nin the first instance into three parts, the Right-hand, the Middle, and\nthe Left-hand[500]. Of these, the Right-hand contains the spirits who\nemanated from the Five Trees of the Treasure-house. At their head is\nJe\u00fb, who has supreme authority over all the Confusion[501]. He is called\nthe Overseer of the Light, and in his name we may possibly recognize a\ncorruption of the Hebrew Yahweh. With him and of similar origin is\nMelchisedek,[502] the Inheritor, Receiver or Purifier of the Light,\nwhose office it is to take the portions of light as they are redeemed\ninto the Treasure-house[503]. Another emanation from the Five Trees is\nan otherwise unnamed Guard of the Veil of the Treasure-house[504] which\nseems to be the veil dividing the Treasure-house from the Place of the\nRight-hand, and there are two others of equal rank who are called simply\nthe two Prohegumeni or Forerunners[505]. Below these again is the Great\nSabaoth the Good, who supplied, as we have seen, the soul which was in\nJesus at His birth, and who is himself the emanation, not of any of the\nFive Trees, but of Je\u00fb[506]. He seems to have a substitute or messenger\ncalled the little Sabaoth the Good, who communicates directly with the\npowers of matter. In the Middle come the powers who are set over the\nreincarnation of souls and the consequent redemption of mankind. Of\nthese, the only two named are \u201cthe Great Iao the Good[507],\u201d spoken of\nin one passage as the Great Hegumen (or Leader) of the Middle[508]. He,\ntoo, has a minister called \u201cthe Little Iao\u201d who supplies the \u201cpower\u201d\nwhich, with the soul of Elijah, animated the body of John the\nBaptist[509]. He also has twelve deacons or ministers under him[510].\nThe other great Leader of the Middle is the Virgin of Light[511]. She it\nis who chooses the bodies into which the souls of men shall be put at\nconception, in discharge of which duty she sends the soul of Elijah into\nthe body of John the Baptist, her colleague Iao\u2019s share in the work\nbeing apparently limited to providing the \u201cpower\u201d accompanying it. She\nhas among her assistants seven other virgins of light[512], after whose\nlikeness Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene are said to have\nbeen made, and we also read of \u201creceivers\u201d who are under her\norders[513]. The light of the Sun \u201cin its true shape\u201d is said to be in\nher place[514], and there is some reason for thinking that she is to be\nconsidered as the power which directs the material Sun, while her\ncolleague Iao has the same office as regards the Moon[515].\n\nWe now come to the places of the left, the highest of which seems to be\nthat which is called the Thirteenth Aeon. This is a part of the universe\nthe existence of which Jesus conceals from His disciples until He\nreceives his \u201cvestures,\u201d and there is much mystery as to its origin. It\nseems to have been governed in the first instance by a triad consisting\nof an unnamed power referred to as the Great Forefather or the Great\nUnseen One, a female power called Barbelo[516], and a second male called\nthe Authades or Proud God[517] who plays a principal part in the episode\nof Pistis Sophia which forms the ostensible theme of the book. Of the\nGreat Forefather, we are told nothing of importance, but what is said of\nthe female power Barbelo bears out fully the remark which Hippolytus\nattributes to Valentinus that among the lesser powers or aeons the\nfemale merely projects the substance, while it is the male which gives\nform to it[518]. It is doubtless for this reason that it is from her\nthat the body of Jesus is said to have come\u2014i.e. that she provided the\nmatter out of which it was formed in the first instance, and which had,\nas He says later in the present book, to be purged and cleansed by\nHimself[519]. She is also spoken of throughout as the origin of all the\nmatter within the world of sense[520]. This triad, constantly referred\nto throughout the book as the Three Tridynami or Triple Powers, have put\nforth, before the story opens, twenty-four other powers arranged in\ntwelve syzygies or pairs who are spoken of as the Twenty-four Unseen\nOnes, and who inhabit with them the Thirteenth Aeon. Only one of these\nis named and this is the inferior or female member of the last syzygy.\nShe is named Pistis Sophia, and gives, as we have seen, her name to the\nbook[521].\n\nWe now pass from the unseen world, which can nevertheless be\ncomprehended as being in part at least material, to the starry world\nabove us which is plainly within the reach of our organs of sense. The\ncontrolling part in this is taken by the powers called the Twelve Aeons,\nwho are ruled before the advent of Jesus by a power called, like the\nSupreme Being in the Ophite system, Adamas[522]. As they are called in\none passage the 12 hours of the day, it may be concluded that they are\nthe 12 zodiacal signs or, in other words, the Zodiac or 12\nconstellations of fixed stars through which the sun appears to pass in\nhis yearly course[523]. Although nowhere expressly stated, it may be\nconcluded that they emanated from the last member of the triad of the\nLeft, _i.e._ the Authades, who is here said to have been disobedient in\nrefusing \u201cto give up the purity of his light,\u201d no doubt when the earth\nwas made, and is accused of ambition in wishing to rule the Thirteenth\nAeon. Through his creature, Adamas their king, he induces the rulers of\nthe Twelve Aeons to delay the redemption of the light from matter. It is\nfrom their matter that are made the souls, not only of men, but of\nbeasts, birds, and reptiles[524], and if they were allowed to do as they\npleased, the process would go on for ever, as it is the habit of these\nArchons \u201cto turn about and devour their own _ejecta_, the breath of\ntheir mouths, the tears of their eyes, and the sweat of their bodies,\u201d\nso that the same matter is used over and over again[525]. Below the\nstarry world comes the Sphere of Heimarmene or Destiny, so called\napparently because both the earthly and heavenly lot of each soul is\ndetermined on its downward passage through it, and below that again the\nSphere simply so called, which is the visible firmament apparently\nstretched above us. The Archons of the Aeons, of whom Adamas is the\nchief, rule their own and both these lower spheres, and the only\nhindrance to their dilatory manoeuvres prior to the advent of Jesus was\ncaused by Melchizidek the Receiver of the Light[526], who came among\nthem at stated times, took away their light, and, after having purified\nit, stored it up in the Treasure-house. This was apparently done through\nthe medium of the sun and moon, who seem to have acted in the matter as\nthe \u201creceivers\u201d of Melchizidek[527].\n\nWe can now resume the narrative of the book which has been interrupted\nin order that a description of the universe through which Jesus passes\non His ascension might be given. He tells His disciples that clothing\nHimself in His third or least glorious \u201cvesture,\u201d He flew up to the\nfirmament, the gates of which opened spontaneously to give Him\npassage[528]. Entering in, the Archons there were all struck with terror\nat the light of His vesture, and wondered how the \u201cLord of the\nUniverse[529]\u201d passed through them unnoticed on his descent to\nearth[530]. The same scenes are repeated when He enters the Sphere of\nDestiny, and again when He reaches the Twelve Aeons or Zodiac of fixed\nstars. Before leaving the Twelve Aeons, Jesus takes away from its rulers\na third part of their power, and alters their course, so that its\ndirection is changed every six months. This He does, as He tells His\ndisciples, for a double reason. He thereby prevents the Aeons from\ndevouring their own matter, and so delaying the redemption of the light,\nand He further hinders their movements from being used by mankind in the\ndivination and magic which the sinning angels taught when \u201cthey came\ndown\u201d\u2014a clear reference to the story in Genesis of the fall of the\nangels as amplified in the _Book of Enoch_. This alteration, He\ndeclares, was foreshadowed by the text \u201cI have shortened the times for\nmy elect\u2019s sake[531].\u201d\n\nPassing upward to the Thirteenth Aeon, Jesus tells His disciples that he\nfound Pistis Sophia dwelling alone in a place immediately below it, and\nHe here makes a long digression to recount her history. She is, as has\nbeen said above, one of the twenty-four invisible but material\nemanations projected by the Great Unseen Forefather and his consort\nBarbelo, and formerly dwelt with her own partner, whose name is not\nmentioned, in the Thirteenth Aeon[532]. But one day happening to look\nforth from her place and beholding the light of the Treasure-house, she\nlonged to ascend towards it and began to sing praises to it. This\nangered exceedingly the Authades or Proud God, the Third Triple Power or\nchief of the Thirteenth Aeon, who had already, as has been said, shown\nhis disobedience in refusing to give up his light. Out of envy and\njealousy of Pistis Sophia, he sends forth from himself a great power\nwith a lion\u2019s face who is \u201chalf flame and half darkness\u201d and bears the\nname of Jaldabaoth, which we have met with before among the\nOphites[533]. This Jaldabaoth is sent below into the regions of Chaos,\nthe unformed and shapeless darkness which is either below or surrounds\nthe earth[534], and when Pistis Sophia sees him shining there, she\nmistakes his light for the light of the Treasure-house, and, leaving her\nconsort, plunges downwards towards it. She is instantly seized by\nJaldabaoth and other wicked powers sent forth by the Proud God, and\ngrievously tormented with the object of taking from her her light, so\nthat she may never again be able to return to her own place. In this\nplight, she sings several Metanoiae or hymns of penitence to the light,\nand after seven of these, Jesus, as He says, \u201cfrom pity and without\ncommandment,\u201d raises her to the uppermost parts of Chaos where she is\nslightly more at ease[535]. She continues here to sing hymns of\npenitence, but is tormented afresh until, after her ninth repentance,\nJesus receives command from the First Mystery to succour her. This he\ndoes in a battle with fresh emanations from the Authades, including one\nin the shape of \u201ca flying arrow[536].\u201d Adamas, the king of the wicked\nEons, also sends a power to the assistance of Jaldabaoth, and the other\nemanations of the Proud God turn into serpents, a basilisk with seven\nheads, and a dragon[537]. The powers of light sent by Jesus, however,\ndefeat all her enemies, and the archangels Gabriel and Michael bear her\naloft and establish her in the place below the Thirteenth Aeon, where\nJesus finds her on His ascension as here recorded. But this is not the\nend. Jesus tells her that when \u201cthree times\u201d are fulfilled[538], she\nwill be tormented again. This happens as predicted immediately before\nthe descent of the \u201cvesture\u201d on Him on the Mount of Olives. Thereupon,\nHe delivers her for the last time and restores her to her place in the\n13th Aeon, where she sings to him a final hymn of thanksgiving.\n\nThis completes the episode of Pistis Sophia, and the rest of the book is\nfilled with the questionings upon it of Mary Magdalene and the other\ndisciples, among whom are prominent Mary the Mother of Jesus, Salome,\nMartha, St John the Divine, St Philip, St Thomas, and St Matthew, to\nwhich last-named three is said to be entrusted the recording of the\nwords of Jesus, together with St Peter, St James and St Andrew. This has\nled some commentators to think that the work may possibly be the\n_Interrogations of Mary_ (\u1f18\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2), concerning which Epiphanius\nsays that two versions, a greater and a lesser, were used by several\nGnostic sects[539]. These questionings and the answers of Jesus are\nextremely tedious, and include the comparison of the hymns of Pistis\nSophia, fourteen in all, with certain named Psalms and Odes of David and\nSolomon of which they are said to be the \u201cinterpretation[540].\u201d In the\ncourse of this, however, the purpose of the book is disclosed, and\nappears as the revelation of the glories awaiting the believer in the\nworld to come, the coming of the Millennium, and the announcement that\nJesus has brought the \u201cmysteries\u201d to the earth for the salvation of men.\nBut before describing these, it may be as well to draw attention to the\nmanifest likeness between the theology and cosmology of the _Pistis\nSophia_ proper and what has been said above of the tenets of the Ophites\nand of Valentinus.\n\nAt first sight, the _Pistis Sophia_ in this respect seems to be almost\nentirely an Ophite book. The Ineffable One, as has been said, is not to\nbe distinguished from the Ophite Bythos, while \u201cthe First Mystery\nlooking inward and outward\u201d is a fairly close parallel to the First Man\nand the Son of Man of the Ophite system. The names Sabaoth, Iao, and\nJaldabaoth also appear both here and with the Ophites, although the\nlast-named power now occupies a greatly inferior position to that\nassigned to him by them, and from a merely ignorant power has now become\nan actively malignant one. The work assigned to Sophia Without in the\nolder system is here taken in the Place of the Middle by the Virgin of\nLight, who is throughout the working agent in the salvation of mankind;\nbut it should be noted that she here operates directly and not through a\ngrosser power as with the Ophites. The idea of a female divinity\nordering the affairs of men for their good as a mother with her children\nhad already gained possession of the heathen world in the character of\n(the Greek) Isis, and in the hint here given as to the resemblance\nbetween her delegates and the Virgin Mary, we may see, perhaps, the road\nby which the Christian world travelled towards that conception of the\nTheotokos or Mother of God which played such an important part in its\nlater creed. Among the powers inferior to her the names and places are\nchanged, but the general arrangement remains nearly the same as with the\nOphites, especially the Ophites of the diagram. The starry world in\nparticular here comes much into evidence, and is given more important\nfunctions than in any other Gnostic system except the Ophite[541]. The\n\u201cGates\u201d of the firmaments are met with both here and in the Ophite\nprayers or \u201cdefences\u201d recorded by Origen[542], and an allusion put by\nthis last into the mouth of Celsus and not otherwise explained, to\n\u201cgates that open of their own accord,\u201d looks as if Origen\u2019s heathen\nadversary may himself have come across the story of the _Pistis\nSophia_[543]. The general hostility of this starry world and its rulers\ntowards mankind is a leading feature in both systems.\n\nOn the other hand, the parallels between the theology of the _Pistis\nSophia_ and that of Valentinus are even closer, and are too important to\nbe merely accidental. The complete identification of Jesus with the\nFirst Mystery strongly recalls the statement of Valentinus, rather\nslurred over by the Fathers, that Jesus was Himself the Joint Fruit or\nsummary of the perfections of the whole Pleroma or Godhead, and is a\nmuch more Christian conception than that of the earlier Ophites as to\nHis nature[544]. So, too, the curious theory that each of the lower\nworlds has its own \u201csaviour\u201d finds expression in both systems, as does\nthe idea that Jesus received something from all the worlds through which\nHe passed on His way to earth. One may even find a vivid reminiscence of\nthe Valentinian nomenclature in the name of Pistis Sophia herself, which\ncombines the names of the feminine members of the first and last\nsyzygies of the Valentinian Dodecad[545], Pistis there being the spouse\nof Paracletus or the Legate, and Sophia that of Theletus or the Beloved,\nwhile the cause of her fall in the present book is the same as that\nassigned in the system of Valentinus. Hence it may appear that the\nauthor of the _Pistis Sophia_, whoever he may have been, was well\nacquainted with the Ophite and Valentinian theology, and that he\ncontinued it with modifications of his own after the innovating habit\ncurrent among the Gnostics and noticed by Tertullian.\n\nIn the cosmology of the _Pistis Sophia_, again, the preference given to\nValentinian rather than to the older Ophitic views is clearly marked.\nThe cause of the descent of the light into matter in the first instance\nis no accident as with the Ophites, but is part of the large scheme for\nthe evolution or, as the author calls it, the \u201cemanation\u201d of the\nuniverse which was devised and watched over in its smallest details by\nthe First Mystery[546]. Whether the author accepted the wild story\nattributed to Valentinus by Irenaeus concerning the Fall of Sophia and\nher Ectroma, it is impossible to say, because, as we have seen, he omits\nall detailed description of the way in which the two higher worlds which\nwe have called the heavens of the Ineffable One and the world of the\nFirst Mystery came into being[547]. But it is plain that both must have\nbeen made by or rather through Jesus, because it is stated in the\nmysterious five words written on the vesture of Jesus that it is through\nthe First Mystery that all things exist, and that it was from him that\nall the emanations flowed forth[548]. As the _Pistis Sophia_ also says\nthat Jesus is Himself the First Mystery, this corresponds to the opening\nwords of St John\u2019s Gospel, that \u201cby Him all things were made[549].\u201d\nHence the author of the _Pistis Sophia_, if confronted with the story of\nthe Ectroma, would doubtless have replied that this was merely a myth\ndesigned to teach the danger for the uninstructed of acting on one\u2019s own\ninitiative instead of waiting for the commands of God, and that in his\nbook he had told the same story in a slightly different way. This seems\nto be the only construction to be placed on the trials of Pistis Sophia\nherself, since her desire for light seems not to have been looked upon\nas in itself sinful, and the real cause of her downfall was the\nmistaking the light of Jaldabaoth for that of the Treasure-house. But\nher descent into Chaos, unlike the Fall of her prototype, apparently had\nnothing to do with the creation of the universe and its inhabitants,\nwhich in the _Pistis Sophia_ seems to have taken place before the story\nopens. If they were supposed by the author to have originated in the\npassions of Sophia Without, as Hippolytus tells us Valentinus\ntaught[550], they were none the less the direct work of Jesus, and the\nstatement in Hippolytus, that in the Valentinian teaching Jesus made out\nof the supplication of Sophia Without a path of repentance, finds a sort\nof echo in the _Pistis Sophia_, where it is the \u201cMetanoiae\u201d or hymns of\npenitence many times repeated of Pistis Sophia, her antitype or copy,\nwhich bring Jesus to her succour. A further parallel may be found in\nHippolytus\u2019 other statement from Valentinus that Jesus gave this\n\u201csupplication\u201d power over the psychic substance which is called the\nDemiurge[551]. In the _Pistis Sophia_, the heroine defeats the Authades\nwith the assistance of Jesus; and there does not seem much doubt that\nPistis Sophia is eventually to receive her adversary the Authades\u2019\nplace, an event which is foreshadowed by the quotation of the text \u201cHis\nbishopric let another take\u201d in one of her penitential psalms[552]. It\nwould also appear that Adamas, the wicked king of the Twelve Aeons, may\nbe the Adversary or Diabolos described by the Valentinians[553] as the\ncosmocrator or ruler of this world, his rule being exercised in the\n_Pistis Sophia_ through his servants, the Archons of \u201cHeimarmene and the\nSphere.\u201d The epithet of Adamas or \u1f00\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 given in classical\nliterature to Hades as the Lord of Hell would seem appropriate enough in\nhis case. This would only leave Beelzebub, prince of the demons,\nunaccounted for; but the author does not here give any detailed\ndescription of Chaos which may be supposed to be his seat. Although the\nomission was, as we shall see, amply repaired in other documents put\nforth by the sect, it may be here explained by the conviction of the\nnearness of the Parusia or Second Advent which marks the _Pistis\nSophia_[554]. On the fulfilment of this hope, the Cosmos was, as we are\ninformed, to be \u201ccaught up,\u201d and all matter to be destroyed[555]. What\nneed then to elaborate the description of its most malignant ministers?\n\nThe joys of the elect in the world to come, on the contrary, receive the\nfullest treatment. In the \u201ccompletion of the Aeon, when the number of\nthe assembly of perfect souls is made up[556],\u201d or in other words when\nall pneumatic or spiritual men have laid aside their material bodies,\nthey will ascend through all the firmaments and places of the lesser\npowers until they come to the last Parastates, where they are to reign\nwith Jesus over all the worlds below it[557]. This is the place from\nwhich the power, which the Great Light, the legate of the Ineffable One,\ntook from the First Precept and passed into the Kerasmos or Confusion,\noriginated; and it was this world, or rather its ruler, who arranged Je\u00fb\nand the other Powers of the Right Hand in their Places and thus set\ngoing the whole machinery of salvation. Its \u201clight\u201d or glory is said to\nbe so tremendous that it can be compared to nothing in this world, and\nhere Jesus will reign with the disciples for 1000 \u201cyears of light\u201d which\nare equal to 365,000 of our years[558]. Here the thrones of the twelve\n\u201cdisciples\u201d (\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03af) will depend on His[559], \u201cbut Mary Magdalene and\nJohn the Virgin shall be higher than all the disciples[560].\u201d In the\nmidst of these beatitudes they will apparently receive further\ninstruction or further mysteries, the effect of which will be that they\nwill at the conclusion of the Millennium be united with Jesus in so\nclose a union that, as it is expressly said, they will become one with\nHim, and finally they will become members of the Godhead and, as it\nwere, \u201cthe last limb of the Ineffable One[561].\u201d In the meantime they\nwill be at liberty to visit any of the worlds below them. All those who\nhave received lesser mysteries,\u2014that is to say, who have received a\nlesser degree of instruction and have not become wholly pneumatic or\nspiritual\u2014will after death in this world go to the heaven of which they\nhave received the mystery, or, in cases where their instruction has only\njust begun, be brought before the Virgin of Light, who will cause their\nsouls to be sent back to earth in \u201crighteous\u201d bodies, which will of\nthemselves seek after the mysteries, and, having obtained them, will, if\ntime be allowed, achieve a more or less perfect salvation. Here, again,\nwe meet with a close resemblance to the system of those later Ophites\nwho possessed the diagram described by Origen; for Jesus tells His\ndisciples that those who have only taken these lower mysteries will have\nto exhibit a seal or token (\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd) and to make an \u201cannouncement\u201d\n(\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) and a defence (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1) in the different regions through\nwhich they pass after death[562]. No such requirements, He says, will be\nmade from those who have received the higher mysteries, whose souls on\nleaving the body will become great streams of light, which will pass\nthrough all the lower places \u201cduring the time that a man can shoot an\narrow,\u201d the powers therein falling back terror-stricken from its light\nuntil the soul arrives at its appointed place. As, therefore, these\nseals and announcements and defences will be of no use to the disciples,\nthe Jesus of the _Pistis Sophia_ declares that He will not describe them\nin detail, they having been already set out in \u201cthe two great Books of\nJe\u00fb[563].\u201d\n\nWhat now are these \u201cmysteries\u201d which have so tremendous an effect on\ntheir recipient as actually to unite him with the Deity after death? The\nGreek word \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, which is that used in the Coptic MS., does not\nseem to mean etymologically more than _a secret_, in which sense it was\napplied to the ceremonies or secret dramas exhibited, as has been said,\nat Eleusis and elsewhere, and later, to the Christian Eucharist[564]. In\nthe early part of the _Pistis Sophia_ it is the word used to denote the\nFirst Mystery or first and greatest emanation of God, who is withdrawn\nfrom human contemplation and, as it were, concealed behind a veil\nimpenetrable by the senses of man. But in the part of the book with\nwhich we are now dealing it seems to refer not to hidden persons, but to\nsecret things. These things seem to fall into two categories, one of\nwhich is spoken of as the Mystery of the Ineffable One, and the other as\nthe Mysteries of the First Mystery. The Mystery of the Ineffable One is\nsaid to be one, but, with the provoking arithmetic peculiar to the book,\nit is immediately added that it \u201cmakes\u201d three mysteries and also another\nfive, while it is still one[565]. The Mysteries of the First Mystery on\nthe other hand are said to be twelve in number, and these figures may\npossibly cover some allusion to the Ogdoad and the Dodecad of\nValentinus[566]. It is also fairly clear that each of these Twelve\nMysteries of the First Mystery must be some kind of ceremony, and a\nceremony which can be performed without much preparation or many\nparticipants. This we may deduce from the following description of the\nmerits of one of them:\n\n    \u201cFor the second mystery of the First Mystery, if it is duly\n    accomplished in all its forms, and the man who accomplishes it shall\n    speak the mystery over the head of a man on the point of going forth\n    from the body, so that he throws it into his two ears:\u2014even when the\n    man who is going forth from the body shall have received it\n    aforetime, and is a partaker of the word of Truth[567],\u2014verily, I\n    say unto you that when that man shall go forth from the body of\n    matter, his soul will make a great flash of light, and will pass\n    through every Place until it come into the kingdom of that mystery.\n\n    \u201cBut and if that man has not [aforetime] received that mystery, and\n    is not a partaker of the word of Truth,\u2014verily I say unto you that\n    man when he shall go forth from the body shall not be judged in any\n    Place whatever, nor shall he be tormented in any Place whatever, and\n    no fire shall touch him on account of that great mystery of the\n    Ineffable One which is in him; and all shall make haste to pass him\n    from one hand to the other, and to guide him into every Place and\n    every order, until they shall lead him before the Virgin of Light,\n    all the Places being filled with fear before the sign of the mystery\n    of the kingdom of that Ineffable One which shall be with him.\n\n    \u201cAnd the Virgin of Light shall wonder and she shall try him, but he\n    will not be led towards the light until he shall have accomplished\n    all the service of the light of that mystery, that is to say, the\n    purifications of the renunciation of the world and all the matter\n    that is therein[568]. But the Virgin of Light shall seal that soul\n    with the excellent seal which is this XXXX[569], and she shall have\n    it cast in the same month in which it went forth from the body of\n    matter into a righteous body which will find the God of Truth and\n    the excellent mysteries in order that it may receive them by\n    inheritance and also the light for eternity. Which is the gift of\n    the second mystery of the First Mystery of that Ineffable One[570].\u201d\n\nThe only ceremony to which such grace as is here set forth was likely to\nbe attributed by any Christian in the early age of the Church was that\nof Baptism. It was called by writers like Gregory of Nazianza and\nChrysostom a \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd[571]; while we hear as early as St Paul\u2019s time of\n\u201cthose who are baptized over [or on behalf of] the dead\u201d (\u03b2\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03be\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n\u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd)[572], the theory being, according to D\u00f6llinger, that\nthose who had wished during their lives to receive baptism but had not\ndone so, could thus obtain the benefit of the prayers of the Church,\nwhich could not be offered for an unbaptized person[573]. So much was\nthis the case with some sects, that it was an offence charged by writers\nlike Tertullian against the Valentinians that they were in the habit of\ndelaying baptism as long as possible and even of putting it off till\nthey were about to die[574], as in the case in the text. Baptism, too,\nwas spoken of in sub-Apostolic times as the \u201cseal\u201d (\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03c2)[575], or\nimpress, which may be that which the soul has to exhibit, both in the\nOphite system and in that of the _Pistis Sophia_, to the rulers of the\nnext world. In any event, the rite was looked upon by Catholic and\nheretic alike as an initiation or commencement of the process by which\nman was united with Christ. The other eleven \u201cmysteries of the First\nMystery\u201d are not specifically described in the _Pistis Sophia_; but it\nis said that the receiving of any one of them will free its recipient\u2019s\nsoul from all necessity to show seals or defences to the lesser powers\nand will exalt him after his death to the rank of a king in the kingdom\nof light, although it will not make him equal to those who have received\nthe mystery of the Ineffable One[576]. It therefore seems probable that\nthese \u201ctwelve mysteries of the First Mystery\u201d all refer to the rite of\nbaptism, and are called twelve instead of one only to accord with some\ntrifling juggling with words and letters such as was common with the\nfollowers of Valentinus[577]. That baptism was held in the sub-Apostolic\nage to be, in the words of D\u00f6llinger, \u201cnot a mere sign, pledge, or\nsymbol of grace, but an actual communication of it wrought by the risen\nand glorified Christ on the men He would convert and sanctify, and a\nbond to unite the body of the Church with its Head[578],\u201d will perhaps\nbe admitted. According to the same author, St Paul teaches that \u201cby\nBaptism man is incorporated with Christ, and puts on Christ, so that the\nsacramental washing does away with all natural distinctions or\nrace;\u2014Greek and Jew, slave and free, men and women, are one in Christ,\nmembers of His body, children of God and of the seed of Abraham[579].\u201d\nHe tells us also that the same Apostle \u201cnot only divides man into body\nand spirit, but distinguishes in the bodily nature, the gross, visible,\nbodily frame, and a hidden, inner, \u2018spiritual\u2019 body not subject to\nlimits of space or cognizable by the senses; this last, which shall\nhereafter be raised, is alone fit for and capable of organic union with\nthe glorified body of Christ, of substantial incorporation with\nit[580].\u201d If D\u00f6llinger in the XIXth century could thus interpret St\nPaul\u2019s words, is it extraordinary that the author of the _Pistis Sophia_\nshould put the same construction on similar statements some sixteen\ncenturies earlier? So the late Dr Hatch, writing of baptism in this\nconnection, says: \u201cThe expressions which the more literary ages have\ntended to construe metaphorically were taken literally. It was a real\nwashing away of sins; it was a real birth into a new life; it was a real\nadoption into a divine sonship[581].\u201d\n\nIf this be so, it seems to follow that the Mystery of the Ineffable One\nmust be the other and the greatest of the Christian sacraments. Jesus\ntells His disciples that it is the \u201cOne and unique word,\u201d and that the\nsoul of one who has received it \u201cafter going forth from the body of\nmatter of the Archons\u201d will become \u201ca great flood of light\u201d and will fly\ninto the height, no power being able to restrain it, nor even to know\nwhither it goes. He continues:\n\n    \u201cIt shall pass through all the Places of the Archons and all the\n    Places of the emanations of light, nor shall it make any\n    announcement nor defence nor give in any symbol; for no Power of the\n    Archons nor of the emanations of light can draw nigh to that soul.\n    But all the Places of the Archons and of the emanations of light\n    shall sing praises, being filled with fear at the flood of light\n    which clothes that soul, until it shall have passed through them\n    all, and have come into the Place of the inheritance of the mystery\n    which it has received, which is the mystery of the sole Ineffable\n    One, and shall have become united with his members[582].\u201d\n\nHe goes on to explain that the recipient of this mystery shall be higher\nthan angels, archangels, and than even all the Powers of the\nTreasure-house of Light and those which are below it:\n\n    \u201cHe is a man in the Cosmos; but he is a king in the light. He is a\n    man in the Cosmos, but he is not of the Cosmos, and verily I say\n    unto you, that man is myself and I am that man.\u201d\n\n    \u201cAnd, in the dissolution of the Cosmos, when the universe shall be\n    caught up, and when the number of perfect souls shall be caught up,\n    and when I am become king in the middle of the last Parastates, and\n    when I am king over all the emanations of light, and over the Seven\n    Amen, and the Five Trees, and the Three Amen, and the Nine Guards,\n    and over the Boy of a Boy, that is to say the Twin Saviours, and\n    when I am king over the Twelve Saviours and all the numbers of\n    perfect souls who have received the mystery of light, then all the\n    men who have received the mystery of that Ineffable One shall be\n    kings with me, and shall sit on my right hand and on my left in my\n    kingdom. Verily I say unto you, Those men are I and I am those men.\n    Wherefore I said unto you aforetime: You shall sit upon thrones on\n    my right hand and on my left in my kingdom and shall reign with me.\n    Wherefore I have not spared myself, nor have I been ashamed to call\n    you my brethren and my companions, seeing that you will be\n    fellow-kings with me in my kingdom. These things, therefore, I said\n    unto you, knowing that I should give unto you the mystery of that\n    Ineffable One, and that mystery is I and I am that mystery[583].\u201d\n\nThat this is the supreme revelation up to which the author of the\n_Pistis Sophia_ has been leading all through the book, there can hardly\nbe any doubt. Its position shortly before the close of the book[584],\nthe rhapsodic and almost rhythmical phrases with which the approach to\nit is obscured rather than guarded, and the way in which directly the\nrevelation is made, the author falls off into merely pastoral matters\nrelating to the lesser mysteries, all show that the author has here\nreached his climax. But does this revelation mean anything else than\nthat Jesus is Himself the victim which is to be received in the\nSacrament or \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of the Altar? That the Christians of the first\ncenturies really thought that in the Eucharist they united themselves to\nChrist by receiving His Body and Blood there can be no question, and the\ndogma can have come as no novelty to those who, like the Ophites, had\ncombined with Christianity the ideas which we have seen current among\nthe Orphics as to the sacramental efficacy of the homophagous feast and\nthe eating of the quivering flesh of the sacrifice which represented\nDionysos. D\u00f6llinger gives the views of the primitive Church concisely\nwhen he says it is \u201cbecause we all eat of one Eucharistic bread, and so\nreceive the Lord\u2019s body, that we all become one body, or as St Paul\nsays, we become members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.\u201d\n\u201cWe are nourished by communion,\u201d he continues, \u201cwith the substance of\nHis flesh and blood, and so bound to the unity of His body, the Church;\nand thus what was begun in Baptism is continued and perfected in the\nEucharist[585].\u201d Thus, Justin Martyr, who lived in the reign of\nAntoninus Pius, says \u201cthe food which is blessed by the prayer of His\nword, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,\nis the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh[586].\u201d That the\nsame idea was realized by the heretics may be gathered from what has\nbeen said above as to the wonder-working celebration of the Eucharist by\nMarcus, when the wine was made to change visibly into blood before the\neyes of the recipient[587].\n\nIt is plain also that the _Pistis Sophia_ does not look upon this\nperfect union as within the reach of all. Basilides, the first of the\nEgyptian Gnostics, had said that not one in a thousand or two in ten\nthousand were fit to be admitted to the higher mysteries, and the same\nphrase is repeated by Jesus Himself in one of the later documents of the\nMS. of which the _Pistis Sophia_ forms part[588]. Those who were worthy\nof admission to the mysteries of the Ineffable One and of the First\nMystery were the pneumatics or spiritual men predestined to them from\nbefore their birth. For the others, the psychic or animal men, there\nwere the mysteries \u201cof the light,\u201d which are, so to speak, the first\nstep on the ladder of salvation[589]. These are nowhere described in the\n_Pistis Sophia_ or first document of the book, the hearer being therein\nalways referred for their details to the two great Books of Je\u00fb\nmentioned above, \u201cwhich Enoch wrote when I (_i.e._ Jesus) spoke with him\nfrom the tree of knowledge and from the tree of life, which were in the\nParadise of Adam[590].\u201d It is here expressly said that Jesus\u2019 own\ndisciples have no need of them; but their effect is described as\npurifying the body of matter, and transforming their recipient into\n\u201clight\u201d of exceeding purity. On the death of one who has taken them all,\nhis soul traverses the different heavens repeating the passwords, giving\nin the defences, and exhibiting the symbols peculiar to each mystery\nuntil it reaches the abode assigned to its particular degree of\nspiritual illumination. These mysteries of the light are open to the\nwhole world and there is some reason for thinking they are the\nsacraments of the Catholic Church, the members of which body, Irenaeus\nsays, the \u201cheretics\u201d (Qy the Valentinians?) held not to be saved but to\nbe only capable of salvation[591]. If the recipient of these lesser\nmysteries dies before complete initiation, he has to undergo a long and\npainful series of reincarnations, his soul being sent back into the\nSphere of Destiny and eventually into this world by the Virgin of Light,\nwho will, however, take care that it is placed in a \u201crighteous\u201d body\nwhich shall strive after the mysteries until it finds them. But the way\nto these lower mysteries is the complete renunciation of this world. Man\nnaturally and normally is entirely hylic or material, being, as Jesus\ntells His disciples in the _Pistis Sophia_, \u201cthe very dregs of the\nTreasure-house, of the Places of those on the Right Hand, in the Middle,\nand on the Left Hand, and the dregs of the Unseen Ones and of the\nArchons, and, in a word, the dregs of them all[592].\u201d Hence it is only\nby the cleansing grace of the mysteries that he can hope to escape the\nfate which is coming upon the Kerasmos, and to obtain these, he must\navoid further pollution.\n\n    \u201cWherefore preach you to the whole race of men, saying: Slacken not\n    day and night until ye find the cleansing mysteries. Say unto them:\n    Renounce the world and all the matter that is therein; for whoso\n    buys and sells in the world and eats and drinks in its matter, and\n    lives in all its cares and all its conversations, takes unto himself\n    other matter as well as his own matter.... Wherefore I said unto you\n    aforetime: Renounce the whole world and all the matter that is\n    therein lest ye add other matter to your own matter. Wherefore\n    preach ye to the whole race of men ... cease not to seek day and\n    night and stay not your hand until ye find the cleansing mysteries\n    which will cleanse you so as to make you pure light, that ye may go\n    into the heights and inherit the light of my kingdom[593].\u201d\n\nWe see, then, that the author of the _Pistis Sophia_ really contemplated\nthe formation of a Church within a Church, where a group of persons\nclaiming for themselves special illumination should rule over the great\nbody of the faithful, these last being voluntarily set apart from all\ncommunion with their fellows[594]. This was so close a parallel to what\nactually occurred in Egypt in the IVth century, when the whole male\npopulation was said with some exaggeration to have embraced the monastic\nlife[595], and submitted themselves to the rule of an ambitious and\ngrasping episcopate, as to give us a valuable indication as to the\nauthorship and date of the book. It may be said at the outset that the\nconception of the universe which appears throughout is so thoroughly\nEgyptian that it must have been written for Egyptian readers, who alone\ncould have been expected to understand it without instruction. The idea\nof the Supreme Being as an unfathomable abyss was, as has been said in\nChapter II, a very old one in Egypt, where one of the oldest cosmogonies\ncurrent made Nu or the sea of waters the origin of both gods and\nmen[596]. So was the peculiar theory that the lesser gods were the limbs\nor members of the Supreme[597]. An Ogdoad[598] or assembly of eight gods\narranged in syzygies or couples was also well known in the time of the\nearly dynasties, as was the Dodecad of twelve gods which Herodotus knew,\nand which M. Maspero refers on good evidence to the time of the\nPyramid-Builders[599]. So was the view that men and other material\nthings were made from the tears of the celestial powers[600], a notion\nwell known to Proclus the Neo-Platonist, who attributed it to the\nlegendary Orpheus[601]. Not less Egyptian\u2014perhaps in its origin\nexclusively Egyptian\u2014is the view that the knowledge of the places of the\nworld after death and their rulers was indispensable to the happiness of\nthe dead. \u201cWhosoever,\u201d says M. Maspero in commenting upon some funerary\ntexts of the Ramesside period, \u201cknows the names of these (gods) while\nstill on earth and is acquainted with their places in Amenti, will\narrive at his own place in the other world and will be in all the places\nreserved for those who are justified[602].\u201d The resemblance between the\nsystem of the _Pistis Sophia_ and the doctrines of the Egyptian religion\nin the days of the Pharaohs has been pointed out in detail by the\nveteran Egyptologist the late Prof. Lieblein and has been approved by M.\nMaspero[603]. It extends to particular details as well as to general\nideas, as we see from the ritual inscribed on the tombs at Thebes, where\neach \u201ccircle\u201d or division of the next world is said to have its own song\nand its own \u201cmystery,\u201d an idea often met with in the _Pistis\nSophia_[604]. Even the doctrine in the _Pistis Sophia_ that the dead had\nto exhibit a \u201cseal\u201d as well as a \u201cdefence\u201d to the guardians of the\nheavenly places is explained by the Egyptian theory that no spell was\neffective without an amulet, which acted as a kind of material support\nto it[605]. The greater part of the allusions in the _Pistis Sophia_ are\nin fact unintelligible, save to those with some acquaintance with the\nreligious beliefs of the Pharaonic Egyptians.\n\nAt the same time it is evident that the MS. of the _Pistis Sophia_ that\nhas come down to us is not the original form of the book. All the\nscholars who have studied it are agreed that the Coptic version has been\nmade from a Greek original by a scribe who had no very profound\nacquaintance with the first-named tongue[606]. This appears not only\nfrom the frequent appearance in it of Greek words following Coptic ones\nof as nearly as possible the same meaning; but from the fact that the\nscribe here and there gives us others declined according to the rules\nnot of Coptic but of Greek accidence. We must therefore look for an\nauthor who, though an Egyptian and acquainted with the native Egyptian\nreligion, would naturally have written in Greek; and on the whole there\nis no one who fulfils these requirements so well as Valentinus himself.\nThe fact that the author never quotes from the Gospel according to St\nJohn indicates that it had not come to his knowledge; for the opening\nchapter of St John\u2019s Gospel contains many expressions that could easily\non the Gnostic system of interpretation be made to accord with the\nValentinian theology, and is in fact so used by later writers of the\nsame school as the author of the _Pistis Sophia_[607]. Now the first\ndirect and acknowledged quotation from St John\u2019s Gospel that we have is\nthat made by Theophilus, who was made bishop of Antioch in A.D. 170, and\nthe generally received opinion is that this Gospel, whenever written,\nwas not widely known long before this date[608]. The only founders of\nGnostic sects of Egyptian birth prior to this were Basilides and\nValentinus, and of these two, Valentinus is the more likely author,\nbecause he, unlike his predecessor, evidently taught for general\nedification, and possessed, as the Fathers agree, a numerically large\nfollowing. We have, moreover, some reason for thinking that Valentinus\nactually did write a book with some such title as the _Sophia_.\nTertullian, in his declamation against the Valentinians, quotes a\nsentence from \u201cthe Wisdom (Lat. Sophia) not of Valentinus but of\nSolomon[609].\u201d It has been suggested that he is here referring to some\nsaying of the Valentinian aeon Sophia; but no writings would in the\nnature of things be attributed to her, and, as M. Am\u00e9lineau points out,\nit is more natural to think that he was here comparing a book with a\nbook[610]. This figure of rhetoric was a favourite one with Tertullian,\nfor in his treatise _De Carne Christi_ we find him quoting in like\nmanner the Psalms\u2014\u201cnot the Psalms of Valentinus, the apostate, heretic,\nand Platonist, but the Psalms of David[611].\u201d The fact that the story in\nthe British Museum MS. is called _Pistis Sophia_ instead of _Sophia_\nonly need not hinder us from identifying this with the work presumably\nreferred to by Tertullian, because this title is, as has been said, the\nwork of another scribe than those who transcribed the original; and\nPistis Sophia is sometimes spoken of in the MS. itself as Sophia\nonly[612]. Moreover, there is some reason for thinking that certain of\nthe Fathers and even their Pagan adversaries had seen and read the story\nof _Pistis Sophia_. The allusion quoted above from Origen to gates\nopening of their own accord seems to refer to one of its episodes, and\nTertullian, in the treatise in which he says he is exposing the original\ntenets of the sect[613], uses many expressions that he can hardly have\nborrowed from any other source. Thus, he speaks of Sophia \u201cbreaking away\nfrom her spouse[614]\u201d which is the expression used by Pistis Sophia in\nher first Metanoia and is in no way applicable to the Valentinian Sophia\nof Irenaeus or Hippolytus. He again speaks of the same Sophia as being\nall but swallowed up and dissolved in \u201cthe substance\u201d evidently of\nChaos, which is the fate which Pistis Sophia anticipates for herself in\nthe MS. Tertullian, like the _Pistis Sophia_, also assigns to the\npsychic substance the place of honour or right hand in the\n_quasi_-material world, while the hylic is relegated in both to the left\nhand[615]. The Paradise of Adam is said by him to be fixed by Valentinus\n\u201cabove the third heaven[616]\u201d as it is in the _Pistis Sophia_, if, as we\nmay suppose, the soul of the protoplast dwelt in the same place as that\nof Elijah. The name of _Ecclesia_ or the Church is given not only to a\nparticular aeon in the Pleroma, but also to the divine power breathed\ninto man from a higher world in both Tertullian and the _Pistis\nSophia_[617], and, in the treatise _De Carne Christi_, Tertullian\nalludes contemptuously to an heretical doctrine that Christ possessed\n\u201cany new kind of flesh miraculously obtained from the stars[618],\u201d which\nseems to refer to the taking by Jesus in the opening of the _Pistis\nSophia_ of a body from \u201cBarbelo\u201d the goddess or Triple Power set over\nmatter and inspiring the benefic planet Venus. For all which reasons it\nseems probable that in the _Pistis Sophia_ we have the translation of an\nauthentic work by Valentinus.\n\nThe _Pistis Sophia_, however, is not the only work in the British Museum\nMS. The first and second books of it, as they are called by the\nannotator, come to an end, rather abrupt but evidently intentional, on\nthe 252nd page of the MS. There then appears the heading in the hand of\nthe annotator \u201cPart of the Texts of the Saviour[619],\u201d and on this\nfollow two pages dealing with the \u201cmembers\u201d of the Ineffable One, as to\nwhich it is expressly said that only a partial revelation is made[620].\nThese seem to have slipped out of their proper place, and are followed\nby two discontinuous extracts from another treatise, the second of which\nis also headed by the annotator \u201cPart of the Texts of the Saviour.\u201d This\nsecond part, which we shall venture to take before the other, is\nevidently the introduction to or the commencement of a new treatise, for\nit begins with the statement that \u201cAfter they had crucified Our Lord\nJesus He rose from the dead on the third day,\u201d and that His disciples\ngathered round Him, reminding Him that they had left all to follow\nHim[621]. Jesus \u201cstanding on the shore of the sea Ocean,\u201d then makes\ninvocation to the \u201cFather of every Fatherhood, boundless light,\u201d in a\nprayer composed of Egyptian and Hebrew words jumbled together after the\nfashion of the spells in the Magic Papyri[622]. He then shows the\ndisciples the \u201cdisk of the sun\u201d as a great dragon with his tail in his\nmouth drawn by four white horses and the disk of the moon like a ship\ndrawn by two white steers[623]. The two steering oars of this last are\ndepicted as a male and a female dragon who take away the light from the\nrulers of the stars among whom they move. Jesus and His disciples are\nthen translated to the place called the \u201cMiddle Way[624].\u201d He there\ndescribes how the Archons of Adamas rebelled and persisted in\nengendering and bringing forth \u201crulers and archangels and angels and\nministers and decans.\u201d We further hear, for the first time, that the\nTwelve Aeons, instead of being, as in the _Pistis Sophia_, all under the\nrule of Adamas, are divided into two classes, one Jabraoth ruling over\nsix of them and Sabaoth Adamas over the other six; that Jabraoth and his\nsubjects repented and practised \u201cthe mysteries of the light,\u201d including,\nas we have seen, abstinence from generation[625], whereupon they were\ntaken up by Je\u00fb to the light of the sun between the \u201cplaces of the\nmiddle and those of the left.\u201d \u201cSabaoth Adamas,\u201d on the other hand, with\nhis subjects to the number of 1800, were bound to the sphere, 360 powers\nbeing set over them, the 360 being controlled by the five planets\nSaturn, Mars, Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter. Jesus then describes in great\ndetail the different tortures in the Middle Way and two other hells\ncalled Chaos and Amenti, wherein the souls of uninitiated men who commit\nsins are tormented between their incarnations[626], the final punishment\nbeing in the worst cases annihilation. He then affords His disciples a\nvision of \u201cfire and water and wine and blood\u201d which He declares He\nbrought with Him on His Incarnation, and celebrates a sacrament which He\ncalls \u201cthe baptism of the First Oblation,\u201d but which seems to be a\npeculiar form of the Eucharist with invocations in the jargon alluded to\nabove, and a thaumaturgic conversion of the wine used in it into water\nand _vice vers\u00e2_[627]. There are several _lacunae_ in this part of the\nMS., and the tortures for certain specified sins are differently given\nin different places, so that it is probable that with the _Part of the\nTexts of the Saviour_ has here been mixed extracts from another document\nwhose title has been lost[628].\n\nThe remaining document of the British Museum MS., being the third in\norder of place, was probably taken from the same book as that last\ndescribed, and was placed out of its natural order to satisfy the\npedantry of the scribes, the rule in such cases being that the longer\ndocument should always come first. Like its successor, it deals largely\nwith the \u201cpunishments\u201d of the souls who have not received the mysteries\nof the light, and introduces a new and still more terrible hell in the\nshape of the \u201cDragon of Outer Darkness\u201d which it declares to be a vast\ndragon surrounding the world, having his tail in his mouth, and\ncontaining twelve chambers, wherein the souls of the uninitiated dead\nare tortured after their transmigrations are ended until they reach the\nannihilation reserved for them at the last judgment[629]. There is also\ngiven here a very curious account of man\u2019s invisible part, which is said\nto be made up of the \u201cPower\u201d infused into it by the Virgin of Light\nwhich returns to its giver after death[630], and the Moira or Fate which\nit derives from the Sphere of Destiny and has as its sole function to\nlead the man it inhabits to the death he is predestined to die[631].\nThen there is the Counterfeit of the Spirit, which is in effect a\nduplicate of the soul proper and is made out of the matter of the wicked\nArchons. This not only incites the soul to sin, but follows it about\nafter death, denouncing to the powers set over the punishments the sins\nit has induced the soul to commit[632]. All these punishments, to\ndescribe which is evidently the purpose of all the extracts from the\n_Texts of the Saviour_ here given, are escaped by those who have\nreceived the mysteries.\n\nThe _Texts of the Saviour_ therefore clearly belong to a later form of\nGnosticism than the _Pistis Sophia_ properly so called. The author\u2019s\nintention is evidently to frighten his readers with the fate reserved\nfor those who do not accept the teaching of the sect. For this purpose\nthe division of mankind into pneumatic, psychic, and hylic is\nignored[633], and this is especially plain in certain passages where the\ntorments after death of those who follow \u201cthe doctrines of error\u201d are\nset forth. Magic, which has been spoken of with horror in the _Pistis\nSophia_, is here made use of in the celebration of the rites described,\nand the miraculous power of healing the sick and raising the dead,\nthough said to be of archontic, _i.e._ diabolic, origin is here\nrecommended as a means to be employed under certain safeguards for the\npurpose of converting \u201cthe whole world[634].\u201d Even the duration of the\npunishments and the different bodies into which the souls of the men are\nto be cast are made to depend upon the relative positions of the stars\nand planets which seem to be interpreted according to the rules of the\nastrology of the time,\u2014a so-called science, which is spoken of\nscornfully in the _Pistis Sophia_ itself[635]. Yet it is evident that\nthe author or authors of the _Texts of the Saviour_ are acquainted with\nthe book which precedes it; for in a description of the powers which\nJe\u00fb, who appears in both as the angelic arranger of the Kerasmos,\n\u201cbinds\u201d in the five planets set to rule over it, we learn that he draws\na power from \u201cPistis Sophia, the daughter of Barbelo\u201d and binds it in\nthe planet Venus or Aphrodite[636]. As this is the only reference to\nher, and receives no further explanation, it is plain that the writer\nassumed his readers to be well acquainted with Pistis Sophia\u2019s history,\nand Je\u00fb, Melchisidek, Adamas, and Jaldabaoth, now one of the torturers\nin Chaos, appear, as we have seen, in both works. The author of the\n_Texts of the Saviour_ also shows himself the avowed opponent of the\nPagan deities still worshipped in the early Christian centuries, as is\nevidenced by his making not only the Egyptian Typhon, but Adonis,\nPersephone, and Hecate, fiends in hell. Oddly enough, however, he gives\nan explanation of the myth of the two springs of memory and oblivion\nthat we have seen in the Orphic gold plates in the following passage,\nwhich may serve as an example of the style of the book:\n\n    \u201cJesus said: When the time set by the Sphere of Destiny[637] for a\n    man that is a persistent slanderer to go forth from the body is\n    fulfilled, there come unto him Abiuth and Charmon, the receivers of\n    Ariel[638], and lead forth his soul from the body, that they may\n    take it about with them for three days, showing it the creatures of\n    the world. Thereafter they drag it into Amenti unto Ariel that he\n    may torment it in his torments for eleven months and twenty-one\n    days. Thereafter they lead it into Chaos unto Jaldabaoth and his\n    forty-nine demons, that each of his demons may set upon it for\n    eleven months and twenty-one days with whips of smoke. Thereafter\n    they lead it into rivers of smoke and seas of fire that they may\n    torment it therein eleven months and twenty-one days. Thereafter\n    they lead it on high into the Middle Way that each of the Archons of\n    the Middle Way may torment it with his own torments another eleven\n    months and twenty-one days. And thereafter they lead it unto the\n    Virgin of Light who judges the righteous and the sinners, and she\n    shall judge it. And when the Sphere is turned round, she delivers it\n    to her receivers that they may cast it forth among the Aeons of the\n    Sphere. And the servants of the Sphere lead it into the water which\n    is below the Sphere, that the boiling steam may eat into it, until\n    it cleanse it thoroughly. Then Jaluha the receiver of Sabaoth\n    Adamas, bearing the cup of oblivion delivers it to the soul, that it\n    may drink therein and forget all the places and the things therein\n    through which it has passed[639]. And it is placed in an afflicted\n    body wherein it shall spend its appointed time[640].\u201d\n\nThe object of the cup of oblivion is obviously that the wicked man may\nlearn nothing from the torments he has endured. In the case of the\nrighteous but uninitiated dead, the baleful effect of this cup will be\nannulled by \u201cthe Little Sabaoth the Good\u201d who will administer to him\nanother cup \u201cof perception and understanding and wisdom\u201d which will make\nthe soul seek after the mysteries of light, on finding which it will\ninherit light eternal.\n\nIt would be easy to see in these features of the _Texts of the Saviour_\nthe work of Marcus the magician who, as was said in a former chapter,\ntaught, according to the Fathers, a corrupted form of the doctrine of\nValentinus for his own interested purposes[641]. The distinguishing\nfeature about his celebration of the Eucharist is the same as that given\nin the _Texts of the Saviour_, and as Clement of Alexandria was\nacquainted with a sect in his day which substituted water for wine\ntherein[642], it is probable that Marcosians were to be found during the\nlatter part of the IInd century in Egypt. It is also to be noted that\nthe annotator has written upon the blank leaf which separates the first\nand second books of the _Pistis Sophia_ a cryptogram concealing,\napparently, the names of the Ineffable One and the other higher powers\nworshipped by Valentinus, and this seems to be constructed in much the\nsame way as the isopsephisms and other word-puzzles attributed by\nIrenaeus to Marcus[643]. The mixture of Hebrew names and words with\nEgyptian ones in the prayer of Jesus given in the _Texts of the Saviour_\nwould agree well with what the last-named Father says about Marcus being\na Jew, and a prayer which he represents Marcus as making over the head\nof a convert baptized into his sect is couched in a jargon of the same\ncharacter[644]. On the other hand, the opening sentence of the book\ncalls Jesus \u201cour Lord,\u201d which Irenaeus tells us the Valentinians\ncarefully abstained from doing[645], and the long and detailed\ndescription of the different hells and their tortures is much more\nEgyptian than Jewish[646]. The remark attributed to Basilides as to one\nin a thousand and two in ten thousand being worthy to take the higher\nmysteries is here put into the mouth of Jesus, and perhaps it would be\nsafer to attribute for the present the _Texts of the Saviour_ not to\nMarcus himself, but to some later Gnostic who fused together his\nteaching with that of the earlier and more disinterested professors of\nEgyptian Gnosticism.\n\nThe same remarks apply with but little modification to some other\nfragments of Gnostic writings which have come down to us. In the\nBodleian Library at Oxford is to be seen a MS. written on papyrus, which\nwas brought to this country by the Abyssinian traveller, Bruce. This\nalso is in the Sahidic dialect of Coptic, and although it has been badly\ndamaged and the ink is rapidly disappearing in the damp climate of\nOxford, yet a copy taken nearly a century ago by Woide makes its\ndecipherment possible in most places. The Bruce Papyrus, like the\nBritish Museum parchment MS., contains more than one document.\nUnfortunately the arrangement of the leaves is by no means certain, and\nthe two scholars who have studied it most thoroughly differ almost as\nwidely as possible as to the order of its contents. M. Am\u00e9lineau, a\ncelebrated Egyptologist and Coptic scholar, who published in 1882 a copy\nof the text with a French translation in the _Notices et Extraits_ of\nthe Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions, considers that the treatises contained in\nit are only two in number, the first being called by the author in what\nseems to be its heading The _Book of the Knowledge of the Invisible God_\nand the second _The Book of the Great Word in Every Mystery_. Dr Carl\nSchmidt, of the University of Berlin, on the other hand, who, like M.\nAm\u00e9lineau, has studied the Papyrus at Oxford, thinks that he can\ndistinguish in the Bruce Papyrus no less than six documents, of which\nthe first two are according to him the two books of Je\u00fb referred to in\nthe _Pistis Sophia_, two others, fragments of Gnostic prayers, the fifth\na fragment on the passage of the soul through the Archons of the Middle\nWay, and the sixth, an extract from an otherwise unknown Gnostic work\nwhich he does not venture to identify further[647]. To enter into the\ncontroversy raised by this diversity of opinion would take one outside\nthe limits of the present work; but it may be said that at least one,\nand that the most important, of the documents in question must be later\nthan the _Pistis Sophia_. Not only does this\u2014which M. Am\u00e9lineau calls\nthe _Book of the Knowledge of the Invisible God_ and Dr Schmidt\n\u201cUnbekanntes Altgnostisches Werk\u201d\u2014quote the opening words of St John\u2019s\nGospel: \u201cIn the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and\nthe Word was God without whom nothing was made[648],\u201d which, as has been\nsaid, the author of the _Pistis Sophia_ was unable to do; but it\nmentions in briefer form than this last the heavenly origin of the souls\nof the Twelve Apostles[649]. There is also in the same document a\ndescription of what appears to be the \u201cemanation of the universe,\u201d in\nwhich the following passage occurs:\n\n    \u201cAnd He [_i.e._ the Ineffable One] heard them [a prayer by the\n    lesser powers is referred to]. He sent them powers capable of\n    discernment, and knowing the arrangement of the hidden Eons. He sent\n    them according to the arrangement of those who are hidden[650]. He\n    established their Orders according to the orders of the Height, and\n    according to the hidden arrangement they began from below upward in\n    order that the building might unite them. He created the a\u00ebry earth\n    as a place of habitation for those who had gone forth, in order that\n    they might dwell thereon until those which were below them should be\n    made strong. Then he created the true habitation within it[651], the\n    Place of Repentance (Metanoia) within it, the Place of Repentance\n    within it, the antitype of Aerodios[652]. Then [he created] the\n    Place of Repentance within it, the antitype of Autogenes\n    (Self-begotten or, perhaps, \u2018of his own kind\u2019). In this Place is\n    purification in the name of Autogenes who is god over them and\n    powers were set there over the source of the waters which they make\n    to go forth (?). Here are the names of the powers who are set over\n    the Water of Life: Michar and Micheu, and they are purified in the\n    name of Barpharanges[653]. Within these are the Aeons of Sophia.\n    Within these is the true Truth. And in this Place is found Pistis\n    Sophia, as also the pre-existent Jesus the Living, Aerodios, and his\n    Twelve Aeons[654].\u201d\n\nWhat is intended to be conveyed by this it is difficult to say in the\nabsence of the context; but the Pistis Sophia mentioned is evidently the\nheroine of the book of that name, and the abrupt mention of her name\nwithout explanation shows, as in the _Texts of the Saviour_, that the\nauthor supposed his readers to be acquainted with her story. While this\npart of the Papyrus may possibly be an attempt by some later writer to\nfulfil the promise to tell His disciples at some future time the\n\u201cemanation of the universe\u201d frequently made by Jesus in the _Pistis\nSophia_, it cannot be earlier in date than this last-named document.\n\nAnother large fragment in the Bruce Papyrus is also connected with that\nwhich has been called above the _Texts of the Saviour_, and helps to\nlink up this with the system of the _Pistis Sophia_ proper. In the first\npart of the _Texts of the Saviour_ (_i.e._ the fourth document in the\nBritish Museum book), Jesus, as has been mentioned, celebrates with\nprodigies a sacrament which He calls the \u201cBaptism of the first\nOblation\u201d; and He tells them at the same time that there is also a\nbaptism of perfumes, another baptism of the Holy Spirit of Light, and a\nSpiritual Chrism, besides which He promises them \u201cthe great mystery of\nthe Treasure-house of Light and the way to call upon it so as to arrive\nthither,\u201d a \u201cbaptism of those who belong to the Right Hand,\u201d and of\n\u201cthose who belong to the Middle\u201d and other matters. These promises are\nin some sort fulfilled in that part of the Bruce Papyrus which Dr\nSchmidt will have it is \u201cthe Second Book of Je\u00fb[655],\u201d where Jesus\ncelebrates with accompanying prodigies three sacraments which He calls\nthe Baptism of Fire of the Virgin of the Treasure-house of Light, the\nBaptism of the Holy Spirit, and a \u201cmystery\u201d which is said to take away\nfrom His disciples \u201cthe wickedness of the archons[656].\u201d The details of\nthese vary but very slightly from the \u201cBaptism of the First Oblation\u201d\ncelebrated by Jesus in the _Texts of the Saviour_, and seem to have been\nwritten in continuation and as an amplification of it. But the _Texts of\nthe Saviour_, as we have seen, also mention Pistis Sophia in such a way\nas to presuppose an acquaintance with her history; and the presumption\nthat the author of the Bruce Papyrus had read the book bearing her name\nis confirmed by the repetition in it of the names of Je\u00fb, here called\n\u201cthe Great Man, King of the great aeon of light,\u201d the Great Sabaoth the\nGood, the Great Iao the Good, Barbelo[657], the Great Light, and all the\n\u201cAmens,\u201d \u201cTwin Saviours,\u201d \u201cGuardians of Veils\u201d and the rest who are\nclassed together in the _Pistis Sophia_ as the great emanations of\nlight, and mentioned in a connection which shows them to have the same\nfunctions in all these documents[658]. When we add to these the\nrepetition of the tradition, formally stated for the first time in the\n_Pistis Sophia_, that Jesus spent twelve years with His disciples\nbetween His Resurrection and His Ascension[659], there can be little\ndoubt that this part of the Papyrus Bruce also is subsequent to the\n_Pistis Sophia_. Similar arguments, which are only omitted here for the\nsake of greater clearness, apply to all the rest of Dr Schmidt\u2019s\ndocuments, and it follows that none of the contents of the Papyrus can\nbe considered as any part of the \u201cBooks of Je\u00fb\u201d mentioned in the _Pistis\nSophia_[660], which, therefore, remains the parent document on which all\nthe others are based. As to their absolute date, it seems impossible to\narrive at any useful conclusion. Both M. Am\u00e9lineau and Dr Schmidt are\nagreed that the Coptic Papyrus is a translation from Greek originals;\nand M. Am\u00e9lineau does not put this too far forward when he suggests that\nit was made in the IInd and IIIrd century of our era[661]. Dr Schmidt is\nprobably nearer the mark when he puts the actual transcription of the\nPapyrus as dating in the earliest instance from the Vth century. His\nearliest date for any of the Greek originals is the first half of the\nIIIrd century[662].\n\nIf now we put these later documents\u2014the _Texts of the Saviour_ and those\ncontained in the Bruce Papyrus\u2014side by side, we notice a marked, if\ngradual, change of tendency from the comparatively orthodox Christianity\nof the _Pistis Sophia_ proper. In the _Texts of the Saviour_ notably,\nthe fear of hell and its punishments is, as we have seen, present\nthroughout, and seems to be the sanction on which the author relies to\ncompel his readers to accept his teaching. In the documents of the Bruce\nPapyrus this is also to be found in more sporadic fashion, nearly the\nwhole of the book being occupied by the means by which men are to escape\nthe punishment of their sins. These methods of salvation are all of them\nwhat we have earlier called gnostical or magical, and consist simply in\nthe utterance of \u201cnames\u201d given us in some sort of crypto-grammatic form,\nand the exhibition of \u201cseals\u201d or rather impressions (\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2) here\nportrayed with great attention to detail, which, however, remain utterly\nmeaningless for us. Thus to quote again from what Dr Schmidt calls the\nSecond Book of Je\u00fb, Jesus imparts to His disciples the \u201cmystery\u201d of the\nTwelve Aeons in these words:\n\n    \u201cWhen you have gone forth from the body and come into the First\n    Aeon, the Archons of that Aeon will come before you. Then stamp upon\n    yourselves this seal AA, the name of which is z\u00f4zes\u00ea. Utter this\n    once only. Take in your two hands this number, 1119. When you have\n    stamped upon yourselves this seal and have uttered its name once\n    only, speak these defences; \u2018Back! Protei Persomph\u00f4n Chous, O\n    Archons of the First Aeon, for I invoke \u00caazaz\u00ea\u00f4zazz\u00f4ze\u00f4z.\u2019 And when\n    the Archons of the First Aeon shall hear that name, they will be\n    filled with great fear, they will flee away to the West, to the Left\n    Hand, and you will enter in[663]\u201d:\n\nand the same process with different names and seals is to be repeated\nwith the other eleven aeons. This is, of course, not religion, such as\nwe have seen in the writings of Valentinus, nor even the transcendental\nmysticism of the _Pistis Sophia_, but magic, and magic of a peculiarly\nEgyptian form. The ancient Egyptian had always an intense fear of the\nworld after death, and from the first conceived a most gloomy view of\nit. The worshippers of Seker or Socharis, a god so ancient that we know\nhim only as a component part of the triune or syncretic divinity of late\ndynastic times called Ptah-Seker-Osiris, depicted it as a subterranean\nplace deprived of the light of the sun, hot and thirsty, and more dreary\nthan even the Greek Hades or the Hebrew Sheol.\n\n    \u201cThe West is a land of sleep and darkness heavy, a place where those\n    who settle in it, slumbering in their forms, never wake to see their\n    brethren; they never look any more on their father and their mother,\n    their heart leaves hold of their wives and children. The living\n    water which earth has for every one there, is foul here where I am;\n    though it runs for every one who is on earth, foul is for me the\n    water which is with me. I do not know any spot where I would like to\n    be, since I reached this valley! Give me water which runs towards\n    me, saying to me, \u2018Let thy jug never be without water\u2019; bring to me\n    the north wind, on the brink of water, that it may fan me, that my\n    heart may cool from its pain. The god whose name is _Let Complete\n    Death Come_, when he has summoned anybody to him, they come to him,\n    their hearts disturbed by the fear of him; for there is nobody dares\n    look up to him from amongst gods and men, the great are to him as\n    the small and he spares not [those] who love him, but he tears the\n    nursling from the mother as he does the old man, and everyone who\n    meets him is filled with affright[664].\u201d\n\nThe priests took care that such a picture did not fade from want of\nreproduction and, true to the genius of their nation, elaborated it\nuntil its main features are almost lost to us under the mass of\ndetails[665]. Especially was this the case with the religion of the\nSun-God Ra, who after his fusion with Amon of Thebes at the\nestablishment of the New Empire came to overshadow all the Egyptian\ncults save that of Osiris. The tombs of the kings at Thebes are full of\npictures of the land of this Amenti or the West, in which horror is\npiled upon horror, and book after book was written that there should be\nno mistake about the fate lying in wait for the souls of men[666]. In\nthese we see the dead wandering from one chamber to another, breathing a\nheavy and smoke-laden air[667], and confronted at every step by\nfrightful fiends compounded from the human and bestial forms, whose\noffice is to mutilate, to burn, and to torture the soul. The means of\nescape open to the dead was, under the XXth dynasty, neither the\nconsciousness of a well-spent life nor the fatherly love of the gods,\nbut the knowledge of passwords and mysterious names[668]. Every chamber\nhad a guardian who demanded of the dead his own name, without repeating\nwhich the soul was not allowed to enter[669]. Every fiend had to be\nrepelled by a special exorcism and talisman[670], and every \u201ccircle\u201d\nthrough which the dead passed had its own song and \u201cmystery,\u201d which it\nbehoved the dead to know[671]. Only thus could he hope to win through to\nthe Land of Osiris, where he might enjoy a relative beatitude and be\nfree to go about and visit the other heavenly places[672]. For this\npurpose, the map, so to speak, of the route was engraved on the walls of\nthe tombs of those who could afford it, and the necessary words to be\nsaid written down. Those who were not so rich or so lucky were thought\nto be parcelled out, like the _fellahin_ of that day, or the _villeins_\nof feudal times, in colonies among the different districts of the lower\nworld, where they flourished or perished according to the number of\ntalismans or \u201cprotections\u201d that they possessed[673]. \u201cIf ever,\u201d says M.\nMaspero, \u201cthere were in Pharaonic Egypt mysteries and initiates, as\nthere were in Greece and in Egypt under the Greeks, these books later\nthan the _Book of the Other World_ and the _Book of the Gates_ are books\nof mystery and of initiates[674].\u201d Thereafter, he goes on to say, the\nancient popular religion disappeared more and more from Egypt, to give\nplace to the overmastering sense of the terrors of death[675] and the\nmagical means by which it was sought to lighten them.\n\nIt is to the survival of these ideas that books like the _Texts of the\nSaviour_ and those in the Papyrus Bruce must be attributed. The Gnostic\nChristianity of Valentinus, direct descendant as it was of the amalgam\nof Christianity with pre-Christian faiths which the Ophites had\ncompounded, no sooner reached the great mass of the Egyptian people than\nit found itself under their influence. In this later Gnostic literature\nwe hear no more of the Supreme Father of Valentinus, \u201cwho alone\u201d in his\nwords, \u201cis good\u201d; no more weight is laid upon the Faith, Hope, and Love\nwho were the first three members of his Heavenly Man; and the Jesus in\nwhom were summed up all the perfections of the Godhead becomes\ntransformed into a mere mystagogue or revealer of secret words and\nthings. All expectation of the immediate arrival of the Parusia or\nSecond Coming, when the world is to be caught up and all wickedness to\nbe destroyed, has passed into the background, as has also the millennium\nin which the faithful were, in accordance with a very early belief in\nEgypt, to share the felicity of those who had been kings on earth[676].\nInstead we have only appeals to the lowest motives of fear and the\nselfish desire to obtain higher privileges than ordinary men. Even the\navoidance of crime has no other sanction, and complete withdrawal from\nthe world is advocated on merely prudential grounds; while rejection of\nthe mysteries is the unpardonable sin:\n\n    \u201cWhen I have gone unto the light\u201d (says the Jesus of the _Texts of\n    the Saviour_ to His disciples) \u201cpreach unto the whole world, saying:\n    Renounce the whole world and the matter that is therein, all its\n    cares, its sins, and in a word all its conversation, that ye may be\n    worthy of the mysteries of the light, that ye may be saved from all\n    the torments which are in the judgments. Renounce murmuring, that ye\n    may be worthy of the mysteries of the light, that ye may escape the\n    judgment of that dog-faced one.... Renounce wrath, that ye may be\n    worthy of the mysteries of the light, that ye may be saved from the\n    fire of the seas of the dragon-faced one.... Renounce adultery, that\n    ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the kingdom of light, that ye\n    may be saved from the seas of sulphur and pitch of the lion-faced\n    one.... Say unto them that abandon the doctrines of truth of the\n    First Mystery \u2018Woe unto you, for your torment shall be worse than\n    that of all men, for ye shall dwell in the great ice and frost and\n    hail in the midst of the Dragon of the Outer Darkness, and ye shall\n    escape no more from the world from that hour unto evermore, but ye\n    shall be as stones therein, and in the dissolution of the universe\n    ye shall be annihilated, so that ye exist no more for ever[677]\u2019.\u201d\n\nThe priests who engraved the horrors of the next world on the walls of\nthe royal tombs at Thebes would probably have written no differently.\n\nGnosticism then, in Egypt soon relapsed into the magic from which it was\noriginally derived; and we can no longer wonder that the Fathers of the\nChurch strove as fiercely against it as they did. In the age when books\nlike the _Texts of the Saviour_ and the fragments in the Papyrus Bruce\ncould be written, the methods of Clement of Alexandria, who treated\nValentinus and his school as Christians bent on the truth though led\ninto error by a misunderstanding of the purport of heathen philosophy,\nwere clearly out of place. \u201cRavening wolves,\u201d \u201cwild beasts,\u201d \u201cserpents,\u201d\nand \u201clying rogues\u201d are some of the terms the Fathers now bestow upon\nthem[678], and as soon as the conversion of Constantine put the sword of\nthe civil power into their hands, they used it to such effect that\nGnosticism perished entirely in some places and in others dragged on a\nlingering existence under other forms. The compromise that had served\nfor some time to reconcile the great mass of the unthinking people to\nthe religion of Christ thus broke down[679]; and Egypt again showed her\npower of resisting and transforming all ideas other than those which\nthousands of years had made sacred to her people.\n\nMeanwhile, the bridge between Paganism and Christianity which Gnosticism\nafforded had been crossed by many. As the Ophites showed the inhabitants\nof Asia Minor how to combine the practice of their ancestral worships\nwith the Christian revelation, so Valentinus and his successors allowed\nthe rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven without the difficulties\nattendant on the passage of the camel through the needle\u2019s eye. The\nauthors of the _Texts of the Saviour_ and the Bruce Papyrus went further\nand made it possible for the Egyptian _fellah_\u2014then as now hating\nchange, and most tenacious of his own beliefs\u2014to accept the hope of\nsalvation offered by the new faith while giving up none of his\ntraditional lore upon the nature of the next world. In this way,\ndoubtless, many thousands were converted to Christianity who would\notherwise have kept aloof from it, and thus hastened its triumph over\nthe State. But the law which seems to compel every religion to borrow\nthe weapons of its adversaries leads sometimes to strange results, and\nthis was never more plainly marked than in the case of Egypt. The\nhistory of Egyptian Christianity has yet to be written; but it seems\nfrom the first to have been distinguished in many important particulars\nfrom that which conquered the West, and it is impossible to attribute\nthese differences to any other source than Gnosticism. The Pharaonic\nEgyptian had always been fanatical, submissive like all Africans to\npriestly influence, and easily absorbed in concern for his own spiritual\nwelfare. Given the passion for defining the undefinable and the love of\nuseless detail which marked everything in the old faith, and in systems\nlike those of the Coptic texts which form the subject of this chapter he\nhad the religion to his mind. Nor were other and less abstract\nconsiderations wanting. The life of a scribe or temple servant, as the\nrace began to lose the vigour which at one time had made them the\nconquerors of Asia, had come to be looked upon by the mass of the people\nas that which was most desirable on earth[680]; and here was a faith\nwhich called upon the Egyptian to withdraw from the world and devote\nhimself to the care of his own soul. Hence the appeal of Gnosticism to\nthose who would escape hell to renounce all earthly cares fell upon good\nground, and Egypt was soon full of ignorant ascetics withdrawn from the\nlife of labour and spending their days in ecstasy or contemplation until\nroused to seditious or turbulent action at the bidding of their crafty\nand ambitious leaders. For these monks and hermits the Hellenistic\ncivilization might as well not have existed; but they preserved their\nnative superstitions without much modification, and the practices of\nmagic, alchemy, and divination were rife among them[681]. So, too, was\nthe constant desire to enquire into the nature and activities of the\nDeity which they had brought with them from their old faith, and which\nnearly rent Christianity in twain when it found expression in the Arian,\nthe Monophysite, and the Monothelite controversies. In the meantime, the\nCatholic Church had profoundly modified her own methods in the\ndirections which the experience of the Gnostics had shown to be\nprofitable. The fear of hell came to occupy a larger and larger part in\nher exhortations, and apocalypse after apocalypse was put forth in which\nits terrors were set out with abundant detail. Ritual necessarily became\nof immense importance under the pressure of converts who believed in the\nmagical efficacy of prayers and sacraments, in which every word and\nevery gesture was of mysterious import, and the rites of the Church were\nregarded more and more as secrets on which only those fully instructed\nmight look. The use in them of pictures, flowers, incense, music, and\nall the externals of the public worship of heathen times, which\naccording to Gibbon would have shocked a Tertullian or a Lactantius\ncould they have returned to earth[682], must be attributed in the first\ninstance to the influence of Gnostic converts. Renan is doubtless right\nwhen he says that it was over the bridge between Paganism and\nChristianity formed by Gnosticism that many Pagan practices poured into\nthe Church[683].\n\nApart from these external matters, on the other hand, the outbreak of\nGnosticism possibly rendered a real service to Christianity. To the\nsimple chiliastic faith of Apostolic times, the Gnostics added the\nelements which transformed it into a world-religion, fitted to triumph\nover all the older creeds and worships; and their stealthy and in part\nsecret opposition forced the Church to adopt the organization which has\nenabled her to survive in unimpaired strength to the present day. Jewish\nChristianity, the religion of the few pious and humble souls who thought\nthey had nothing to do but to wait in prayer and hope for their Risen\nLord, had proved itself unable to conquer the world, and its adherents\nunder the name of Ebionites were already looked upon by the Gentile\nconverts as heretics. Gnosticism, so long as it was unchecked, was a\nreal danger to the Church, but without it Christendom would probably\nhave broken up into hundreds of small independent communities, and would\nthus have dissipated the strength which she eventually found in unity.\nThreatened on the one hand by this danger, and on the other with the\nloss of popular favour which the attractions of Gnosticism made\nprobable, the Church was forced to organize herself, to define her\ndoctrines, to establish a regular and watchful hierarchy[684], and to\nstrictly regulate the tendency to mystic speculation and arbitrary\nexegesis which she could not wholly suppress. Yet these measures could\nnot come into operation without producing a reaction, the end of which\nwe have yet to see.\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n  The chapter on Marcion and his doctrines should perhaps in strict\n  chronological order follow on here, as Marcion\u2019s teaching was either\n  contemporary with, or at most, but a few years later than, that of\n  Valentinus. Cf. Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Marcion,\n  Valentinus. But the earliest documents in the _Pistis Sophia_ are, as\n  will be seen, possibly by Valentinus himself, and, as all of them are\n  closely connected with his doctrine, it seemed a pity to postpone\n  their consideration.\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n  W. E. Crum, _Catalogue of the Coptic MS. in the Brit. Mus._, 1905, p.\n  173, n. 2, says that it was bought at the sale of Askew\u2019s effects for\n  \u00a310. 10_s._ 0_d._, and that Askew himself bought it from a bookseller.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n  H. Hyvernat, _Album de Pal\u00e9ographie Copte_, Paris, 1888.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n  Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. II. pp. 39-43, 347-348, and t. III. pp.\n  368-371.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n  See the present writer\u2019s article \u201cSome Heretic Gospels\u201d in the\n  _Scottish Review_ for July, 1893, where the MSS. treated of in this\n  chapter and their divisions are described in detail. Schmidt,\n  _Koptisch-gnostische Schriften_, Bd I. p. 14, speaks of this \u201cCodex\n  Askewianus\u201d as \u201ceine Miszellenhandschrift.\u201d\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n  Except where otherwise specified, subsequent references here to\n  _Pistis Sophia_ (in Italics) are to the first 253 pages of the Coptic\n  MS. only.\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n  Cf. the \u1f10\u03c3\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u201cwithin the veil\u201d of Heb. vi. 19.\n  For other instances of its use in this sense see Crum, _Cat. of the\n  Coptic MSS. in the Brit. Mus._ p. 255, n. 1; and Clem. Alex. _Strom._\n  Bk V. c. 6. For the _dove_, Mr F. C. Conybeare, in a paper on the\n  subject read before the Society of Historical Theology in Dec. 1892\n  (see _Academy_ of 3rd Dec. 1892), said that the dove was \u201cthe\n  recognised symbol of the Holy Spirit or Logos in the allegorizing\n  theology of the Alexandrine Jews at the beginning of the 1st century\n  A.D.,\u201d and quoted several passages from Philo in support. Cf. Origen,\n  _cont. Cels._ Bk I. c. 31. But it was also the emblem, perhaps the\n  totem-animal, of the great Asiatic goddess who, under the name of\n  Astarte or Aphrodite, was worshipped as the _Mater viventium_ or\n  \u201cMother of all Living,\u201d with whose worship the serpent was also\n  connected. It was doubtless to this that the text \u201cBe ye wise as\n  serpents, harmless as doves\u201d refers. Both serpents and doves figure\n  largely in the Mycenaean and Cretan worship of the goddess. See Ronald\n  Burrows, _Discoveries in Crete_, 1907, pp. 137, 138, and _Index_ for\n  references. In later Greek symbolism the dove was sacred to the\n  infernal Aphrodite or Persephone whose name of \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1 or\n  \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1 has been rendered \u201cshe who bears the dove.\u201d See de Chanot,\n  \u201cStatues Iconiques de Chypre\u201d in _Gazette Arch\u00e9ologique_, 1878, p.\n  109.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n  _Pistis Sophia_, p. 152, Copt. This metaphor is first met with in\n  Philo, _Quaest. in Genesim_, Bk I. c. 53, who declares that the \u201ccoats\n  of skin\u201d of Gen. iii, 21 are the natural bodies with which the souls\n  of the protoplasts were clothed. It was a favourite figure of speech\n  with the Alexandrian Jewish writers. So in the _Ascensio Isaiae_, c.\n  IV. 16, 17: \u201cBut the saints will come with the Lord with their\n  garments which are now stored up on high in the seventh heaven: with\n  the Lord will they come, whose spirits are clothed.... And afterwards\n  they will turn themselves upward in their garments, and their body\n  will be left in this world.\u201d Cf. Charles, _Ascension of Isaiah_, pp.\n  34, 35, and _Eschatology_ (Jowett Lectures), pp. 399 _sqq._, where he\n  says that this was also the teaching of St Paul.\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n  The word \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, which here as elsewhere in the book appears without\n  any Coptic equivalent, evidently had a peculiar signification to the\n  Valentinian Gnostics. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 1, p. 12, Harvey, says\n  that it was the name they gave to Jesus o\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u201cfor they do not choose to call Him Lord.\u201d In the later\n  part of the book, the document called M\u03ad\u03c1o\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 253,\n  Copt.) says that \u201che is saviour and \u1f70\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (_i.e._ not to be\n  confined in space), who finds the words of the mysteries and the words\n  of the Third Receptacle which is within (_i.e._ the inmost of the\n  three) and excelleth them all.\u201d From which it would appear that the\n  chief qualification of a saviour in the eyes of the later Valentinians\n  was that he was not restricted to his special place in the universe,\n  but could visit at will the worlds below him. We seem therefore to be\n  already getting near the Manichaean idea of _Burkhans_ (messengers or\n  Buddhas) who are sent into the world for its salvation. Cf. Chapter\n  XIII _infra_.\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n  So that Judas Iscariot received a super-excellent soul as well as the\n  other eleven, unless we are to suppose that his successor and\n  substitute Matthias was one of those chosen from the beginning. It is\n  curious that neither in this nor in any other Valentinian document is\n  there any allusion to the treason of Judas. The phrase \u201cArchons of the\n  aeons\u201d means, as will be seen later, the rulers of the twelve signs of\n  the Zodiac.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n  The \u201cSphere,\u201d here as elsewhere in the book, means the sphere of the\n  visible firmament, which is below that of Heimarmene or Destiny.\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n  \u03a4his \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 or Virgin of Light appears here, I think, for\n  the first time in any Gnostic document, although she may have been\n  known to the Valentinians. See Irenaeus, Bk II. c. 47, \u00a7 2, p. 368,\n  Harvey. She is, perhaps, a lower analogue of Sophia Without, and is\n  represented as seated in or near the material sun which is said to\n  give its light in its \u201ctrue form\u201d only in her \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 or place, which is\n  10,000 times more luminous than that of the Great Propator or\n  Forefather mentioned later (_Pistis Sophia_, p. 194, Copt.). Her\n  function seems to be the \u201cjudging\u201d of the souls of the dead, which\n  does not apparently involve any weighing of evidence, but merely the\n  examination of them to see what \u201cmysteries\u201d they have received in\n  previous incarnations, which will determine the bodies in which they\n  are reincarnated or their translation to higher spheres (_ibid._ pp.\n  239, 292). She also places in the soul a power which returns to her,\n  according to the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, on the death of its possessor\n  (_ibid._ p. 284, Copt.), thereby discharging the functions assigned in\n  the last book of Plato\u2019s _Republic_ to Lachesis. She is also on the\n  same authority (_i.e._ the \u039c. \u03c4. \u03a3.) one of the rulers of the disk of\n  the sun and of that of the moon (_ibid._ pp. 340-341, Copt.), and her\n  place is one of the \u201cplaces of the Middle\u201d and is opposite to the\n  kingdom of Adamas, which is called the \u201chead of the aeons\u201d (_ibid._ p.\n  236, Copt.). She reappears in Manichaeism and it is said in the _Acta\n  Archelai_ that at the destruction of the world she will pass into \u201cthe\n  ship\u201d of the moon along with Jesus and other powers where she will\n  remain until the whole earth is burnt up (c. XIII. p. 21 of\n  _Hegemonius, Acta Archelai_, Beeson\u2019s ed., Leipzig, 1906, p. 21). In\n  the Turfan texts (F. W. K. M\u00fcller, _Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo\n  Schrift aus Turfan_, III. Teil, Berlin, 1904, p. 77) appears a\n  fragment of a prayer in which is invoked _y\u00ee\u0161\u00f4 kan\u00eegr\u00f4\u0161an\u00e2_ which Dr\n  M\u00fcller translates \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u201cJesus, Virgin of Light\u201d;\n  but it is possible that there is some mistake in the reading.\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n  Barbelo is a name very frequently met with in the earlier\n  heresiologists. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 26, \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2, pp. 221-226, Harvey,\n  declares that there was a sect of Simonians called Barbeliotae \u201cor\n  Naassenes\u201d who suppose \u201ca certain indestructible (the Latin version\n  says \u2018never-ageing\u2019) Aeon in a living virgin spirit whom they call\n  Barbelo (masc.),\u201d and gives an account of a string of other aeons\n  issuing not from, but at the prayer of, this Barbelo, which is far\n  from clear in the present state of the text. The sect appears, from\n  what can be made out of his description, to have resembled the\n  Ophites, of which it may have been a branch. Hippolytus, however, says\n  nothing of them, and the account of Epiphanius (_Haer._ XXV. and\n  XXVI., Vol. II, pt 1, pp. 160, 184), Oehler, is untrustworthy,\n  inasmuch as he assigns the worship of Barbelo to two sects, one of\n  which he calls Nicolaitans and the other Gnostics simply. To both of\n  them he attributes after his manner unimaginably filthy rites, and it\n  is plain from his making Barbelo the mother of Jaldabaoth and giving\n  her a seat in the eighth heaven that he confuses her wilfully or\n  otherwise with the Sophia of the Ophites. Her place in the system of\n  the _Pistis Sophia_ will be described in the text. The name is said by\n  Harvey to be derived from the Syriac _Barba elo_, the Deity in Four or\n  God in Tetrad, and the derivation is approved by Hort (_Dict. of\n  Christian Biog._ _s.h.n._). It appears more likely, however, that it\n  is to be referred to the Hebrew root \u05d1\u05d1\u05dc \u201cBabel\u201d or confusion, a\n  derivation which Hort also mentions. In Irenaeus\u2019 Greek text the name\n  is spelt \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b7\u03bb\u1f7c, in the Latin \u201cBarbelo\u201d with an accusative\n  \u201cBarbelon,\u201d and in Epiphanius \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b7\u03bb\u1f7c and \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9. If we might alter\n  this last into \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03b8, we might see it in a great: number of magic\n  spells of the period. Cf. Wessely, _Ephesia Grammata_, Wien, 1886, pp.\n  26, 28, 33, 34.\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n  _Pistis Sophia_, p. 16, Copt. The five words are _zama_, _zama_,\n  _\u00f4zza_, _rachama_, _\u00f4zai_. Whatever they may mean, we may be quite\n  sure that they can never contain with their few letters the three\n  pages or so of text which are given as their interpretation. It is\n  possible that the letters are used acrostically like the A G L A,\n  _i.e._ \u05e0\u05d9\u05d1\u05e8 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9 (? Ahih ? \u05d0\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4) \u05d0\u05ea\u05d4 _Ate Gibor Lailam Adonai_,\n  \u201cThe mighty Adonai for ever\u201d (or \u201cthou art the mighty and eternal\n  Lord\u201d) commonly met with in mediaeval magic. Cf. Peter de Abano,\n  _Heptameron, seu Elementa Magica_, Paris, 1567, p. 563; or, for other\n  examples, F. Barrett, _The Magus_, 1801, Bk II. pp. 39, 40. The\n  notable feature in these mysterious words is the quantity of Zetas or\n  \u03b6\u2019s that they contain which points to the use of some sort of table\n  like that called by Cabalists _ziruph_, or a cryptogram of the\n  _aaaaa_, _aaaab_, kind. It should be noticed that Coptic scribes were\n  often afflicted with what has been called Betacism or the avoidance of\n  the letter Beta or \u03b2 by every means, which frequently led to the\n  substitution for it of \u03b6 as in the case of Jaldabaoth = \u0399\u03b1\u03bb\u03b4\u03b1\u03b6\u03b1\u03c9 given\n  above (Chap. VIII, n. 3, p. 46 _supra_).\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n  This idea of certain powers being the members or \u201climbs\u201d of him from\n  whom they issue recurs all through the _Pistis Sophia_. Cf. especially\n  p. 224, Copt., where it is said that the \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 or \u201creceptacles\u201d of\n  the Ineffable go forth from his last limb. It is probably to be\n  referred to the conception of the Supreme Being as the Man \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019\n  \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, which we have seen current among the Ophites. See Chap. VIII,\n  n. 2, p. 38 _supra_. That the ancient Egyptians used the same\n  expression concerning their own gods and especially Ra, see Moret, \u201cLe\n  Verbe cr\u00e9ateur et r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur,\u201d _R.H.R._, Mai-Juin, 1909, p. 257. Cf.\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnosticisme \u00c9gyptien_, p. 288. So Naville, _Old Egyptian\n  Faith_, p. 227.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n  That is to say, their names make up his name as letters do a word. So\n  in the system of Marcus referred to in Chap. IX _supra_, Irenaeus (Bk\n  I. c. 8, \u00a7 11, p. 146, Harvey) explains that the name of Jesus\n  (\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) which might be uttered is composed of six letters, but His\n  unutterable name of twenty-four, because the names of the first Tetrad\n  of \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (Bythos), \u03a3\u03b9\u03b3\u03ae, \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 (Monogenes or Nous) and \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\n  contain that number of letters. See also \u00a7 5 of same chapter. Those\n  who wish to understand the system are recommended to read the whole of\n  the chapter quoted. As Irenaeus has the sense to see, there is no\n  reason why the construction from one root of names founded on the\n  principle given should not go on for ever.\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n  This is probably either the Horos or Stauros that we have seen brought\n  into being in the teaching of Valentinus as a guard to the Pleroma,\n  or, as is more probable, an antitype of the same power in the world\n  immediately above ours. That there was more than one Horos according\n  to the later Valentinians appears plain from the words of Irenaeus\n  above quoted (see Chap. IX, n. 1, p. 105 _supra_). Probably each world\n  had its Horos, or Limit, who acted as guard to it on its completion.\n  That in this world, the Cross, personified and made pre-existent,\n  fulfils this office seems evident from the Gospel of Peter, where it\n  is described as coming forth from the Sepulchre with Jesus (_Mem.\n  Miss. Arch\u00e9ol. du Caire_, 1892, t. IX. fasc. 1, v. 10). Cf. too, Clem.\n  Alex. _Paedagogus_, Bk III. c. 12, and _Strom._ Bk II. c. 20.\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n  \u1f49 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. The word is not known in classical Greek (but cf. \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2\n  \u201ca revealer\u201d), and appears to have its root in \u03bc\u03ae\u03bd \u201cthe moon,\u201d as the\n  _measure_ of the month. From the Coptic word here translated\n  \u201cPrecept,\u201d we may guess it to be a personification of the Jewish Law\n  or _Torah_ which, according to the Rabbis, before the creation of the\n  world existed in the heavens. Later in the book it is said that it is\n  by command of this power that Je\u00fb places the aeons (p. 26, Copt.);\n  that the souls of those who receive the mysteries of the light (_i.e._\n  the psychics) will have precedence in beatitude over those who belong\n  to the places of the First Precept (p. 196, Copt.); that all the\n  orders of beings of the Third \u03c7\u1f60\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 are below him (p. 203, Copt.);\n  and that he is \u201ccut into seven mysteries,\u201d which may mean that his\n  name is spelled with seven letters (p. 219, Copt.).\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n  \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9. Are these the letters mentioned in last note?\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n  \u03a0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, properly, \u201cambassador\u201d or \u201cagent.\u201d Doubtless a prototype\n  of our sun. Elsewhere in the book, Jesus tells His disciples that He\n  brought forth from Himself \u201cat the beginning\u201d power (not _a_ power),\n  which He cast into the First Precept, \u201cand the First Precept cast part\n  of it into the Great Light, and the Great Light cast part of that\n  which he received into the Five Parastatae, the last of whom breathed\n  part of that which he received into the Kerasmos or Confusion\u201d (p. 14,\n  Copt.). The Great Light is also called the \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 of the Light, and\n  is said to have remained without emanation (p. 219, Copt.).\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n  \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cComrades\u201d or \u201cwitnesses\u201d or \u201chelpers.\u201d They can here\n  hardly be anything else but the Five Planets. It is said later that it\n  was the last Parastates who set Je\u00fb and his five companions in the\n  \u201cPlace of the Right Hand\u201d (p. 193, Copt.). When the world is\n  destroyed, Jesus is to take the perfect souls into this last\n  Parastates where they are to reign with him (p. 230, Copt.) for 1000\n  years of light which are 365,000 of our years (p. 243, Copt.).\n  \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u201cForerunner\u201d does not seem to occur in classical Greek.\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n  We hear nothing more definite of these Five Trees, but they appear\n  again in Manichaeism, and are mentioned in the Chinese treatise from\n  Tun-huang, for which see Chap. XIII _infra_.\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n  This is a most puzzling expression and seems to have baffled the\n  scribe, as he speaks of them, when he comes to repeat the phrase (p.\n  216, Copt.), as the \u201cTwin Saviours,\u201d which is a classical epithet of\n  the Dioscuri. In Pharaonic Egypt, Shu and Tefnut the pair of gods who\n  were first brought into being by the Creator were sometimes called\n  \u201cThe Twins.\u201d See Naville, _Old Egyptian Faith_, p. 120. Cf. p. 171\n  _infra_.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n  It is evident from the context that we here begin the enumeration of\n  the Powers of the Left, who are hylic or material and therefore the\n  least worthy of the inhabitants of the heavens. According to Irenaeus,\n  the Valentinians held that all of them were doomed to destruction.\n  \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f60\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f51\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f43 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\n  \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b4\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n  \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 11, p. 51, Harvey). \u201cThere being\n  three forms of existences, they say that the hylic, which they call\n  the left hand, must be destroyed, inasmuch as it cannot receive any\n  breath of incorruption.\u201d So in the Bruce Papyrus to be presently\n  mentioned, the \u201cpart of the left\u201d is called the land of Death. At\n  their head stands \u201cthe Great Unseen Propator,\u201d who throughout the\n  _Pistis Sophia_ proper is called by this title only, and occupies the\n  same place with regard to the left that Iao does in respect of the\n  middle, and Je\u00fb of the right. In the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 359,\n  Copt.) he is called by the name \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7 which frequently\n  appears in the Magic Papyri. It is there spelt indifferently\n  \u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9, \u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9, \u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9, and in a\n  Latin inscription on a gold plate, _acramihamari_ (see Wessely,\n  _Ephesia Grammata_, p. 22, for references), which last may be taken to\n  be the more usual pronunciation. One is rather tempted to see in the\n  name a corruption of \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd in the sense of \u201cwhich cannot be\n  written,\u201d but I can find no authority for such a use of the word. As\n  the ruler of the material Cosmos he might be taken for the Cosmocrator\n  who, as we have seen, is called by Valentinus Diabolos or the Devil\n  (but see n. 1, p. 152 _infra_). Yet he cannot be wholly evil like\n  Beelzebuth for it is said in the text (p. 41, Copt.) that he and his\n  consort Barbelo sing praises to the Powers of the Light. So in the\n  \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 378, Copt.) he is represented as begging for\n  purification and holiness when the Great Name of God is uttered. It is\n  plain also from the statements in the text (pp. 43, 44, Copt.) that in\n  the _Pistis Sophia_ he, Barbelo, and the \u0391\u1f50\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 or Arrogant Power\n  make up a triad called the great \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 or \u201cTriple Powers\u201d from\n  whom are projected the powers called the \u201cTwenty-four Invisibles.\u201d In\n  another document of the same MS. (p. 361, Copt.) a power from him is\n  said to be bound in the planet Saturn.\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n  This \u0395\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 or \u201cDestiny\u201d is the sphere immediately above our\n  firmament. It is evidently so called, because on passing through it\n  the soul on its way to incarnation receives the Moira or impress of\n  its own destiny, of which it cannot afterwards rid itself except by\n  the grace of the mysteries or Valentinian sacraments. Cf. Chap. IX, n.\n  3, p. 115 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n  \u1f0c\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 5, \u00a7 1, p. 99, Harvey. _Innominabilis_,\n  Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 37. So Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk V.\n  c. 10, says that God is ineffable, being incapable of being expressed\n  even in His own power.\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n  \u03a7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1: \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n  That [_i.e._ the First] mystery knoweth why there emanated all the\n  places which are in the receptacle of the Ineffable One and also all\n  which is in them, and why they went forth from the last limb of the\n  Ineffable One.... These things I will tell you in the emanation of the\n  universe. _Pist. Soph._ p. 225, Copt.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 222, Copt.\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 127, Copt.\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n  See Chap. IX, pp. 121, 122 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n  Heb. vi. 19.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n  p. 203, Copt. Why there should be 24, when the dodecad or group of\n  Aeons in the world above was only 12, it is difficult to say. But\n  Hippolytus supplies a sort of explanation when he says (_op. cit._ Bk\n  VI. c. 33, p. 292, Cruice): \u03a4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f03 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 [\u03b4\u1f72] \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd [\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2] \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u0391\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u1f35\u03bd\u2019 \u1f96 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\n  \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u1ff7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. \u1f69\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n  \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f11\u03be\u03ae\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n  \u03b4\u03b5\u03b4\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u201cThis is\n  what they say. But besides this, they make their whole teaching\n  arithmetical, since they say that the thirty Aeons within the Pleroma\n  again projected by analogy other Aeons, so that thereby the Pleroma\n  may be gathered together in a perfect number. For the manner in which\n  the Pythagoreans divide [the cosmos] into 12, 30, and 60 parts, and\n  each of these into yet more minute ones, has been made plain\u201d [see\n  _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 28, p. 279, where Hippolytus tells us how\n  Pythagoras divided each Sign of the Zodiac into 30 parts \u201cwhich are\n  days of the month, these last into 60 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70, and so on\u201d]. \u201cIn this way\n  do they [the Valentinians] divide the things within the Pleroma.\u201d Cf.\n  \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 p. 364, Copt. In another book of the\n  Philosophumena (Bk IV. c. 7 \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2) he explains\n  how the Pythagoreans derived infinity from a single principle by a\n  succession of odd and even or male and female numbers, in connection\n  with which he quotes Simon Magus (_op. cit._ p. 132, Cruice). The way\n  this was applied to names he shows in the chapter \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n  (_op. cit._ \u0392k IV. c. 11, pp. 77 _sqq._, Cruice) which is in fact a\n  description of what in the Middle Ages was called Arithmomancy, or\n  divination by numbers.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n  p. 224, Copt. See also p. 241, Copt.\u2014a very curious passage where the\n  Ineffable One is called \u201cthe God of Truth without foot\u201d (cf. Osiris as\n  a mummy) and is said to live apart from his \u201cmembers.\u201d\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n  In the beginning of the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 252, Copt.) it is\n  said of the Ineffable that \u201cthere are many members, but one body.\u201d But\n  this statement is immediately followed by another that this is only\n  said \u201cas a pattern (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1) and a likeness and a resemblance, but\n  not in truth of shape\u201d (p. 253, Copt.).\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n  What he does say is that the Ineffable One has two \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 or\n  receptacles and that the second of these is the \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 of the First\n  Mystery. It is, I think, probable that an attempt to describe both\n  these \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 is made in one of the documents of the Bruce Papyrus.\n  See pp. 191, 192 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n  In addition to the enumeration contained in the so-called\n  interpretation of the mysterious \u201cFive Words,\u201d there appears in the\n  2nd part of the _Pistis Sophia_ (pp. 206 _sqq._ Copt.) a long rhapsody\n  in which it is declared that a certain mystery knows why all the\n  powers, stars, and heavenly \u201cplaces\u201d were made. These are here again\n  set out _seriatim_, and as the order in the main corresponds with that\n  in the five words translated in the text, it serves as a check upon\n  this last. The order of the powers in the text was given in the\n  article in the _Scottish Review_ before referred to, and, although\n  this was written 20 years ago, I see no occasion to alter it.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n  It is the \u201clast Parastates\u201d who places Je\u00fb and his companion in \u201cthe\n  place of those who belong to the right hand according to the\n  arrangement (_i.e._ \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1) of the Assembly of the Light which is\n  in the Height of the Rulers of the Aeons and in the universes (\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76)\n  and every race which is therein\u201d (p. 193, Copt.). A later revelation\n  is promised as to these, but in the meantime it is said that Je\u00fb\n  emanated from the chosen or pure (\u03b5\u1f30\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2) light of the first of\n  the Five Trees (_loc. cit._).\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n  See nn. 1 and 3, p. 141 _supra_. As has been said, it is difficult not\n  to see in this \u201c1st Precept\u201d a personification of the Torah or Jewish\n  Law.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n  See n. 3, p. 146 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n  See n. 2, p. 136 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n  So Secundus, Valentinus\u2019 follower, taught according to Hippolytus\n  (_v._ Chap. \u0399\u03a7 _supra_) \u201cthat there is a right and a left tetrad,\n  _i.e._ light and darkness.\u201d This may be taken to mean that the\n  constitution of the light-world was repeated point for point in the\n  world of darkness. The middle world is of course that where light and\n  darkness mingle.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n  Je\u00fb is generally called the \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 or overseer of the Light. He it\n  is who has placed the Rulers of the Aeons so that they always \u201cbehold\n  the left\u201d (p. 26, Copt.). He is also said to have bound \u201cin the\n  beginning\u201d the rulers of the Aeons and of Destiny and of the Sphere in\n  their respective places (p. 34, Copt.), and that each and every of\n  them will remain in the \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 or order and walk in the \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 or\n  course in which he placed them. We also hear in the _Pistis Sophia_\n  proper of two \u201cbooks of Je\u00fb\u201d \u201cwhich Enoch wrote when the First Mystery\n  spoke with him out of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge in\n  the Paradise of Adam\u201d (p. 246, Copt.). In the first part of the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, however Je\u00fb is described as \u201cthe First Man, the\n  \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 of the Light, and the \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 or Ambassador of the First\n  Precept\u201d (p. 322, Copt.); and it is further said in the same book that\n  \u201cthe Book of Je\u00fb (not books) which Enoch wrote in Paradise when I\n  (Jesus) spoke with him out of the Tree of Life and the Tree of\n  Knowledge\u201d was placed by His means in \u201cthe rock Ararad.\u201d Jesus goes on\n  to say that He placed \u201cKalapataur\u00f4th the ruler who is over Skemmut in\n  which is the foot of Je\u00fb, and he surrounds all rulers and destinies\u2014I\n  placed that ruler to guard the books of Je\u00fb from the Flood and lest\n  any of the rulers should destroy them out of envy\u201d (p. 354, Copt.).\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n  Melchizidek is very seldom mentioned in the _Pistis Sophia_, but when\n  he is, it is always as the great \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 or \u201cinheritor\u201d of the\n  Light (p. 34, Copt.). Jesus describes how he comes among the Rulers of\n  the Aeons at certain times and takes away their light, which he\n  purifies (p. 35, Copt.). He is said to have emanated from the light of\n  the 5th Tree of the Treasure House, as Je\u00fb did from that of the 1st\n  (p. 193, Copt.). In the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, he is called the great\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 or \u201creceiver\u201d of the Light (p. 292, Copt.). In the 2nd\n  part of the last named document he is called Zorocothora Melchizidek,\n  an epithet which C. W. King in _The Gnostics and their Remains_\n  translates \u201clight-gatherer.\u201d It is also said in the same 2nd part that\n  \u201che and Je\u00fb are the two great lights,\u201d and that he is the \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2\n  or \u201cLegate\u201d of all the lights which are purified in the Rulers of the\n  Aeons (p. 365, Copt.). We may perhaps see in him and Je\u00fb the antitypes\n  of which the Great Light and the First Precept are the paradigms.\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 36, p. 391, Cruice, says that there\n  was a sect, the followers of one Theodotus, a \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b6\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 or\n  money-changer, who said that there was \u201ca greatest power named\n  Melchizidek who was greater than Christ.\u201d Pseudo-Tertullian repeats\n  the same story and adds that Melchizidek is \u201ca celestial virtue of\n  great grace,\u201d who does for heavenly angels and virtues what Christ\n  does for men, having made himself \u201ctheir intercessor and advocate.\u201d\n  See _auct. cit._ (probably Victorinus of Pettau) _Against all\n  Heresies_, c. XXIV. p. 279, Oehl. He doubtless founded his opinion on\n  the passage in the Hebrews. The name seems to mean \u201cHoly King\u201d Cf. the\n  \u201cKing of Glory\u201d of the Manichaeans, see Chap. XIII _infra_.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n  p. 35, Copt.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n  He is said to have emanated from the 2nd Tree (p. 193, Copt.) and is\n  nowhere distinctly named. But one may perhaps guess from the order in\n  which he occurs in the 2nd part of the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 that his\n  name was Zarazaz, evidently a cryptogram like those mentioned in n. 1,\n  p. 139 _supra_. It is also said that the Rulers call him \u201cMaskelli\n  after the name of a strong (_i.e._ male) ruler of their own place (p.\n  370, Copt.).\u201d This name of Maskelli, sometimes written\n  Maskelli-maskell\u00f4, is frequently met with in the Magic Papyri. Cf.\n  Wessely, _Ephesia Grammata_, p. 28.\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n  They are said to have emanated from the 3rd and 4th Tree respectively\n  (p. 193, Copt.).\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n  p. 193, Copt. He is evidently called _the Good_ because there is a\n  wicked Sabaoth sometimes called Sabaoth Adamas, and the Great because\n  there is a Little Sabaoth the Good who seems to act as his messenger.\n  It is this last who takes the power from the Great Sabaoth the Good\n  which afterwards becomes the body of Jesus and \u201ccasts it into matter\n  and Barbelo\u201d (p. 127, Copt.). He seems to be set over or in some way\n  identified with what is called the Gate of Life (p. 215, Copt.) both\n  in the _Pistis Sophia_ and the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 292, Copt.).\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n  p. 12, Copt., where he is oddly enough called the Little Iao the Good,\n  I think by a clerical error. Later he is said to be \u201cthe great leader\n  of the middle whom the Rulers call the Great Iao after the name of a\n  great ruler in their own place\u201d (p. 194, Copt.). He is described in\n  the same way in the second part of the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 371,\n  Copt.).\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n  See last note.\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n  p. 12, Copt. This \u201cpower\u201d is evidently the better part of man\u2019s soul\n  like the Logoi who dwell therein in the passage quoted above from\n  Valentinus, see Chap. IX, p. 112 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n  p. 194, Copt.\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n  See n. 3, p. 137 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n  So the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 321, Copt.).\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n  The likeness of Mary the Mother and Mary Magdalene to the seven\n  Virgins appears in the translation of Am\u00e9lineau (_Pistis Sophia_,\n  Paris, 1895, p. 60). Schwartze (p. 75, Lat.) puts it rather\n  differently. See also Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ bd. 1, p. 75. The \u201creceivers\u201d\n  of the Virgin of Light are mentioned on p. 292, Copt.\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n  p. 184, Copt.\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n  pp. 340, 341, Copt. As \u2c92\u2c9e\u03e8 (ioh) is Coptic for the Moon, it is just\n  possible that there may be a kind of pun here on this word and the\n  name Iao. Osiris, whose name was often equated by the Alexandrian Jews\n  with their own divine name Jaho or Jah, as in the Manethonian story of\n  Osarsiph = Joseph, was also considered a Moon-god. Cf. the \u201cHymn of\n  the Mysteries\u201d given in Chap. VIII, where he is called \u201cthe holy\n  horned moon of heaven.\u201d\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n  See note 1, p. 138 _supra_. The Bruce Papyrus (Am\u00e9lineau, _Notice sur\n  le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce_, Paris, 1882, p. 220) speaks of the\n  \u201cThirteenth Aeon, where are the Great Unseen God and the Great Virgin\n  of the Spirit (cf. the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 of Irenaeus) and the\n  twenty-four emanations of the unseen God.\u201d\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n  See n. 2, p. 142 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n  See Chapter IX, p. 104 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n  p. 116, Copt.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n  I suppose it is in view of this maternal aspect of her nature that she\n  is alluded to in the latter part of the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 as\n  \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9 \u03b2\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7 \u201cBarbelo who gives suck\u201d? Her place, according to the\n  Bruce Papyrus (Am\u00e9lineau, p. 218), is said to be in the Twelfth Aeon.\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n  There have been many attempts to make this name mean something else\n  than merely \u201cFaith-Wisdom.\u201d Dulaurier and Renan both tried to read it\n  \u201c\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u201d \u201cthe faithful Wisdom\u201d or \u201cLa fid\u00e8le Sagesse.\u201d If we had\n  more documents of the style of Simon\u2019s _Apophasis_, we should probably\n  find that this apposition of two or more nouns in a name was not\n  infrequent, and the case of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris will occur to every\n  Egyptologist. The fact that the name includes the first and last\n  female member of the Dodecad of Valentinus (see p. 101 _supra_) is\n  really its most plausible explanation.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n  This Adamas seems to be an essentially evil power, who wages useless\n  war against the Light on the entry of Jesus into his realm (p. 25,\n  Copt.). His seat is plainly the Twelve Aeons or Zodiac (p. 157,\n  Copt.), and it is said in the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 that his \u201ckingdom\u201d\n  is in the \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd or Places of the head of the Aeons and\n  is opposite the place of the Virgin of Light (p. 336, Copt.). In the\n  second part of the same document (_i.e._ the \u03bc. \u03c4. \u03c3.) it is said that\n  the rulers of Adamas rebelled, persisting in the act of copulation\n  (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1) and begetting \u201cRulers and Archangels and Angels and\n  Ministers (\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03af) and Decans\u201d (\u0394\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03af), and that thereupon Je\u00fb\n  went forth from the Place of the Right and \u201cbound them in Heimarmene\n  and the Sphere.\u201d We further learn that half the Aeons headed by\n  Jabraoth, who is also once mentioned in the _Pistis Sophia_ proper (p.\n  128, Copt., and again in the Bruce Papyrus, Am\u00e9lineau, p. 239), were\n  consequently transferred to another place, while Adamas, now for the\n  first time called Sabaoth Adamas, with the unrepentant rulers are\n  confined in the Sphere to the number of 1800, over whom 360 other\n  rulers bear sway, over whom again are set the five planets Saturn,\n  Mars, Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter (pp. 360, 361, Copt.). All this\n  seems to me to be later than the _Pistis Sophia_ proper, to have been\n  written at a time when belief in astrology was more rife than in\n  Hadrian\u2019s reign, and to owe something to Manichaean influence. The\n  original Adamas, the persecutor of Pistis Sophia herself, seems\n  identifiable with the Diabolos or Cosmocrator of Valentinus, in which\n  case we may perhaps see in the \u201cGreat Propator\u201d a merely stupid and\n  ignorant power like the Jaldabaoth of the Ophites and their\n  successors. See p. 163 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n  p. 145, Copt. So Irenaeus in his account of the Valentinian doctrines,\n  Bk I. c. 1, p. 12 _sqq._ I suppose there is an allusion to this in the\n  remark of Jesus to Mary that a year is as a day (p. 243, Copt.). But\n  all the astrology of the time seems to have divided the astronomical\n  day not into 24, but into 12 hours. It was the same with the\n  Manichaeans. See Chavannes and Pelliot, \u201cUn Trait\u00e9 manich\u00e9en retrouv\u00e9\n  en Chine,\u201d _Journal Asiatique_, s\u00e9rie X, t. XVIII. (Nov.-Dec. 1911),\n  p. 540, n. 4.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n  But curiously enough, not the \u201csouls\u201d of fish. So in the Middle Ages,\n  the Manichaeans of Languedoc did not allow their \u201cPerfects\u201d to partake\n  of animal food nor even of eggs, but allowed them fish, because they\n  said these creatures were not begotten by copulation. See Schmidt,\n  _Hist. des Cathares_, Paris, 1843. Is this one of the reasons why\n  Jesus is called \u1f38\u03c7\u03b8\u03cd\u03c2?\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n  This idea of man being made from the tears of the eyes of the heavenly\n  powers is an old one in Egypt. So Maspero explains the well-known sign\n  of the _utchat_ or Eye of Horus as that \u201cqui exprime la mati\u00e8re, le\n  corps du soleil, d\u2019o\u00f9 tous les \u00eatres d\u00e9coulent sous forme de pleurs,\u201d\n  \u201cLes Hypog\u00e9es Royaux de Th\u00e9bes,\u201d _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ II. p. 130. Moret, \u201cLe\n  verbe cr\u00e9ateur et r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur en \u00c9gypte,\u201d _R. H. R._ Mai-Juin, 1909, p.\n  386, gives many instances from hymns and other ritual documents. It\n  was known to Proclus who transfers it after his manner to Orpheus and\n  makes it into hexameters:\n\n          Thy tears are the much-enduring race of men,\n          By thy laugh thou hast raised up the sacred race of gods.\n\n  See Abel\u2019s _Orphica_, fr. 236.\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n  See n. 1, p. 148 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n  This is, perhaps, to be gathered from the _Pistis Sophia_, p. 36,\n  Copt. Cf. \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, pp. 337-338. In another part of the\n  last-named document, the Moon-ship is described as steered by a male\n  and female dragon (the caduceus of Hermes?) who snatch away the light\n  of the Rulers (p. 360, Copt.).\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n  This seems to be the passage referred to later by Origen. See n. 2, p.\n  159 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n  The usual epithet or appellation of Osiris _Neb-er-tcher_ = Lord of\n  Totality or the Universe. Cf. Budge, _Book of the Dead_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n  So in the _Ascensio Isaiae_, of which Mr Charles says that \u201cwe cannot\n  be sure that it existed earlier than the latter half of the 2nd\n  century of our Era,\u201d it is said (Chap. IX, v. 15) \u201cAnd thus His\n  descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so\n  that it will not be known who He is.\u201d Charles, _The Ascension of\n  Isaiah_, p. 62. Cf. _ibid._ pp. 67, 70, 73 and 79.\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n  pp. 39, 40, Copt. The reference is apparently to the Book of Enoch, c.\n  LXXX. (see Charles, _Book of Enoch_, pp. 212, 213, and the _Epistle of\n  Barnabas_, N.T. extra can., c. IV. p. 9, Hilgenfeld). In the Latin\n  version of the last-quoted book, it is assigned to Daniel, which shows\n  perhaps the connection of Enoch with all this quasi-prophetic or\n  apocalyptic literature.\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n  According to the Valentinian system, his name was \u0398\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 or \u201cthe\n  Beloved.\u201d See Chap. IX, p. 101 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n  See Chap. VIII _supra_. Here he occupies a far inferior position to\n  that assigned him by the Ophites. In the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 he sinks\n  lower still and becomes merely one of the torturers in hell (p. 382,\n  Copt., \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.). Thus, as is usual in matters of religion, the gods of\n  one age become the fiends of the next. In the Bruce Papyrus\n  (Am\u00e9lineau, p. 212) he appears as one of the chiefs of the Third Aeon.\n  It is curious, however, to observe how familiar the name must have\n  been to what Origen calls \u201ca certain secret theology,\u201d so that it was\n  necessary to give him _some_ place in every system of Gnosticism. His\n  bipartite appearance may be taken from Ezekiel viii. 2.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n  Probably the latter. See what is said about the Outer Darkness in the\n  \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, p. 319, Copt. where it is described as \u201ca great\n  dragon whose tail is in his mouth who is without the whole \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 and\n  surrounds it.\u201d\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n  p. 83, Copt. So in the Manichaean legend, the First Man, on being\n  taken captive by Satan, prays seven times to the Light and is\n  delivered from the Darkness in which he is imprisoned. See Chap. XIII\n  _infra_.\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n  This demon in the shape of a flying arrow seems to be well known in\n  Rabbinic lore. Mr Whinfield in _J.R.A.S._, April, 1910, pp. 485, 486,\n  describes him as having a head like a calf, with one horn rising out\n  of his forehead like a cruse or pitcher, while to look upon him is\n  certain death to man or beast. His authority seems to be Rapaport\u2019s\n  _Tales from the Midrash_.\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n  The basilisk with seven heads seems to be Death. See Gaster, \u201cThe\n  Apocalypse of Abraham,\u201d _T.S.B.A._ vol. IX. pt 1, p. 222, where this\n  is said to be the \u201ctrue shape\u201d of death. Cf. Kohler, \u201cPre-Talmudic\n  Haggadah,\u201d _J.Q.R._, 1895, p. 590. Death, as we have seen in Chap. IX,\n  p. 107, was in the ideas of Valentinus the creature of the Demiurge.\n  For the dragon, see Whinfield, _ubi cit._\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n  These \u201cthree times\u201d are not years. As the _Pistis Sophia_ opens with\n  the announcement that Jesus spent 12 years on earth after the\n  Resurrection, we may suppose that He was then\u2014if the author accepted\n  the traditional view that He suffered at 33\u2014exactly 45 years old, and\n  the \u201ctime\u201d would then be a period of 15 years, as was probably the\n  indiction. The descent of the \u201ctwo vestures\u201d upon Jesus is said (p. 4,\n  Copt.) to have taken place \u201con the 15th day of the month Tybi\u201d which\n  is the day Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ Bk I. c. 21) gives for the\n  birth of Jesus. He says the followers of Basilides gave the same day\n  as that of His baptism.\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXVI. t. II. pt 1, p. 181, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n  This doctrine of \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 occurs all through the book. The author is\n  trying to make out that well-known passages of both the Old and New\n  Testaments were in fact prophetic utterances showing forth in advance\n  the marvels he narrates. While the Psalms of David quoted by him are\n  Canonical, the Odes of Solomon are the Apocrypha known under that name\n  and quoted by Lactantius (_Div. Inst._ Bk IV. c. 12). For some time\n  the _Pistis Sophia_ was the only authority for their contents, but in\n  1909 Dr Rendel Harris found nearly the whole collection in a Syriac\n  MS. of the 16th century. A translation has since been published in\n  _Cambridge Texts and Studies_, vol. VIII. No. 3, Cambridge, 1912, by\n  the Bishop of Ossory, who shows, as it seems conclusively, that they\n  were the hymns sung by the newly-baptized in the Primitive Church.\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n  Astrological doctrine first becomes prominent in Gnostic teaching in\n  the _Excerpta Theodoti_ which we owe to Clement of Alexandria. We may\n  therefore put their date about the year 200. This would be after the\n  time of Valentinus himself, but agrees well with what M. Cumont\n  (_Astrology and Religion_, pp. 96 _sqq._) says as to the great vogue\n  which astrology attained in Rome under the Severi. Its intrusion into\n  the Valentinian doctrines is much more marked in the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd\n  \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 than in the _Pistis Sophia_, and more in the Bruce Papyrus\n  than in either.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n  See Chap. VIII, pp. 73, 74 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 34.\n\nFootnote 544:\n\n  Hippolytus (Chap. IX, p. 92), speaks of the Jesus of Valentinus as the\n  Joint Fruit of the Pleroma simply. Irenaeus (Bk I. c. 1, p. 23,\n  Harvey) goes into more detail: \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u0390\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u1fc7 \u03bc\u03b9\u1fb7\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03a0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, \u1f15\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u0391\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f01\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u1f10\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f11\u03bd\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u0392\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6, \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f43\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 [\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70] \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. \u201c\u0391nd\n  because of this benefit, with one will and opinion, the whole Pleroma\n  of the Aeons, with the consent of Christos and the Spirit, and their\n  Father having set his seal upon the motion, brought together and\n  combined what each of them had in him which was most beautiful and\n  brightest, and wreathing these fittingly together and properly uniting\n  them, they projected a projection to the honour and glory of Bythos,\n  the most perfect beauty and star of the Pleroma, the perfect Fruit\n  Jesus, who is also called Saviour and Christ, and after his Father\n  Logos, and Pan, because He is from all.\u201d Compare with these the words\n  of Colossians ii. 9: \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2. \u201cFor in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead\n  bodily.\u201d\n\nFootnote 545:\n\n  That the Valentinians considered the Dodecad (and _a fortiori_ the\n  Decad) as having a collective entity, and as it were a corporate\n  existence, seems plain from what Hippolytus says in narrating the\n  opinions of Marcus: \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b6\u03ce\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9. \u201cFor they say\n  that these 12 signs of the Zodiac most clearly shadow forth the\n  Dodecad who is the daughter of Anthropos and Ecclesia\u201d (Hipp. _op.\n  cit._ Bk VI. c. 54, p. 329, Cruice). And again (_loc. cit._ p. 331,\n  Cruice): \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1fc3\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f12\u03bd \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f00\u03bd\u1f70 \u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70\n  \u03ba\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9 \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. \u201cThese are\n  also they who assert that the earth is divided into twelve climates,\n  and receives in each climate one special power from the heavens and\n  produces children resembling the power thus sent down by emanation,\n  being thus a type of the Dodecad above.\u201d The doctrine of\n  correspondences or, as it was called in the Middle Ages, of\n  \u201csignatures\u201d is here most clearly stated. In all this the Valentinian\n  teaching was doubtless under the influence of the ancient Egyptian\n  ideas as to the _paut neteru_ or \u201ccompany of the gods,\u201d as to which\n  see Maspero\u2019s essay _Sur L\u2019Enn\u00e9ade_ quoted above.\n\nFootnote 546:\n\n  It is said (p. 9, Copt.) that it is by him that the universe was\n  created and that it is he who causes the sun to rise.\n\nFootnote 547:\n\n  As has before been said, this is attempted in one of the documents of\n  the Bruce Papyrus. See pp. 191, 192 _infra_. In the present state of\n  the text this attempt is only difficultly intelligible, and is\n  doubtless both later in date than and the work of an author inferior\n  to that of the _Pistis Sophia_.\n\nFootnote 548:\n\n  p. 16, Copt. Yet the First Mystery is not the creator of Matter which\n  is evil, because Matter does not really exist. See Bruce Papyrus\n  (Am\u00e9lineau, p. 126) and n. 2, p. 190 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 549:\n\n  As mentioned in the _Scottish Review_ article referred to in n. 1, p.\n  135 _supra_, there is no passage but one in the _Pistis Sophia_ which\n  affords any colour for supposing that the author was acquainted with\n  St John\u2019s Gospel. All the quotations set forth by Harnack in his\n  treatise _\u00dcber das gnostische Buch Pistis-Sophia_, Leipzig, 1891, p.\n  27, on which he relies to prove the converse of this proposition, turn\n  out on analysis to appear also in one or other of the Synoptics, from\n  which the author may well have taken them. The single exception is\n  this (_Pistis Sophia_, p. 11, Copt.), \u201cWherefore I said unto you from\n  the beginning, Ye are not from the Cosmos; I likewise am not from it\u201d;\n  John xvii. 14: \u201c(O Father) I have given them thy word; and the world\n  hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not\n  of the world.\u201d The parallel does not seem so close as to make it\n  certain that one document is copying from the other. Both may very\n  possibly be taken from some collection of Logia now lost, but at one\n  time current in Alexandrian circles; or from the _Gospel of the\n  Egyptians_, from which the _Pistis Sophia_ afterwards quotes.\n\nFootnote 550:\n\n  See Chap. IX, p. 107 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 551:\n\n  See last note. The _Authades_ or Proud God of the _Pistis Sophia_\n  seems to have all the characteristics with which Valentinus endows his\n  Demiurge.\n\nFootnote 552:\n\n  So Pistis Sophia sings in her second hymn of praise after her\n  deliverance from Chaos (p. 160, Copt.) \u201cI am become pure light,\u201d which\n  she certainly was not before that event. Jesus also promises her later\n  (p. 168, Copt.) that when the three times are fulfilled and the\n  _Authades_ is again wroth with her and tries to stir up Jaldabaoth and\n  Adamas against her \u201cI will take away their powers from them and give\n  them to thee.\u201d That this promise was supposed to be fulfilled seems\n  evident from the low positions which Jaldabaoth and Adamas occupy in\n  the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, while Pistis Sophia is said to furnish the\n  \u201cpower\u201d for the planet Venus.\n\nFootnote 553:\n\n  See Chap. IX, p. 108 and n. 1 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 554:\n\n  All the revelations in the _Pistis Sophia_ are in fact made in\n  anticipation of the time \u201cwhen the universe shall be caught up,\u201d and\n  the disciples be set to reign with Jesus in the Last Parastates. Cf.\n  especially pp. 193-206 Copt.\n\nFootnote 555:\n\n  The idea may not have been peculiar to Valentinus and his followers.\n  So in the _Ascensio Isaiae_ (x. 8-13) the \u201cMost High the Father of my\n  Lord\u201d says to \u201cmy Lord Christ who will be called Jesus\u201d: \u201cAnd none of\n  the angels of that world shall know that thou art Lord with Me of the\n  seven heavens and of their angels. And they shall not know that Thou\n  art with Me till with a loud voice I have called to the heavens, and\n  their angels, and their lights, even unto the sixth heaven, in order\n  that you may judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that\n  world, and the world that is dominated by them.\u201d Charles, _Ascension\n  of Isaiah_, pp. 70-71.\n\nFootnote 556:\n\n  p. 194, Copt.\n\nFootnote 557:\n\n  p. 230, Copt.\n\nFootnote 558:\n\n  On the belief in the Millennium in the primitive Church, see\n  D\u00f6llinger, _First Age of Christianity and the Church_, Eng. ed. 1906,\n  pp. 119, 123 and 268 and Ffoulkes, _s.v._ Chiliasts, in _Dict.\n  Christian Biog._\n\nFootnote 559:\n\n  p. 230, Copt. Cf. Luke xxii. 29, 30.\n\nFootnote 560:\n\n  p. 231, Copt. \u201cdisciples\u201d not apostles. So the Manichaeans made Manes\n  to be attended by twelve disciples. See Chap. XIII _infra_.\n\nFootnote 561:\n\n  So Jesus says (p. 230, Copt.) of \u201cthe man who receives and\n  accomplishes the Mystery of the Ineffable One\u201d; \u201che is a man in the\n  Cosmos, but he will reign with me in my kingdom; he is a man in the\n  Cosmos, but he is a king in the light; he is a man in the Cosmos, but\n  he is not of the Cosmos, and verily I say unto you, that man is I, and\n  I am that man.\u201d\n\nFootnote 562:\n\n  p. 246, Copt.\n\nFootnote 563:\n\n  See last note and n. 5, p. 147 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 564:\n\n  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 302 and note.\n\nFootnote 565:\n\n  pp. 236, 237, Copt.\n\nFootnote 566:\n\n  _Loc. cit._ Or they may cover a kind of allegory, as we might say that\n  Agape or Love makes Faith, Hope, and Charity. But I believe it to be\n  more likely that the \u201c12 mysteries\u201d are letters in a word. So in the\n  \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 it is said of the \u201cDragon of the Outer Darkness,\u201d\n  which is in fact the worst of all the hells described in that book:\n  \u201cAnd the Dragon of the Outer Darkness hath twelve true (\u03b1\u1f50\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7) names\n  which are in his gates, a name according to each gate of the\n  torture-chambers. And these names differ one from the other, but they\n  belong to each of the twelve, so that he who saith one name, saith all\n  the names. And these I will tell you in the Emanation of the\n  Universe\u201d\u2014(p. 323, Copt.). If this be thought too trivial an\n  explanation, Irenaeus tells us that the 18 Aeons remaining after\n  deducting the Decad or Dodecad (as the case may be) from the rest of\n  the Pleroma were, according to the Valentinians, signified by the two\n  first letters of the name of Jesus: \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03b5 \u1f30\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f26\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u1f7c\n  \u0391\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, Irenaeus, \u0392k I. c. 1, \u00a7 5, p. 26, Harvey.\n  Equally absurd according to modern ideas are the words of the _Epistle\n  of Barnabas_ (c. X., pp. 23, 24, Hilgenfeld), where after quoting a\n  verse in Genesis about Abraham circumcising 318 of his slaves (cf.\n  Gen. xiv. 14), the author says \u201cWhat then is the knowledge (\u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)\n  given therein? Learn that the 18 were first, and then after a pause,\n  he says 300. (In) the 18, I = 10, H = 8, thou hast Jesus (\u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd). And\n  because the Cross was meant to have grace in the T, he says also 300.\n  He expresses therefore Jesus by two letters and the Cross by one. He\n  knows who has placed in us the ungrafted gift of teaching. None has\n  learned from me a more genuine word. But I know that ye are worthy.\u201d\n\nFootnote 567:\n\n  \u201cThe True Word\u201d or the Word of the Place of Truth. The latter\n  expression is constantly used in other parts of the book, and seems to\n  refer to the \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 or \u201creceptacle,\u201d that is the heaven, of the Aeon\n  \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, that is the Decad. Cf. especially the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  (pp. 377, 378, Copt.), where it is said that certain baptisms and a\n  \u201cspiritual chrism\u201d will lead the souls of the disciples \u201cinto the\n  Places of Truth and Goodness, to the Place of the Holy of all Holies,\n  to the Place in which there is neither female, nor male, nor shape in\n  that Place, but there is Light, everlasting, ineffable.\u201d\n\nFootnote 568:\n\n  These \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 are set out in detail in the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  (pp. 255 _sqq._ Copt.), where the disciples are ordered to \u201cpreach to\n  the whole world ... renounce (\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5) the whole world and all the\n  matter which is therein, and all its cares and all its sins, and in a\n  word all its conversation (\u1f41\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9) which is therein, that ye may be\n  worthy of the mysteries of the Light, that ye may be preserved from\n  all the punishments which are in the judgments\u201d and so on. It should\n  be noted that these are only required of the psychics or animal men.\n\nFootnote 569:\n\n  No doubt in the Greek original the actual seal was here figured. For\n  examples, see the Bruce Papyrus, _passim_. The idea is typically\n  Egyptian. As M. Maspero says in his essay on \u201cLa Table d\u2019Offrandes,\u201d\n  _R.H.R._ t. xxxv. No. 3 (1897), p. 325: no spell was in the view of\n  the ancient Egyptians efficacious unless accompanied by a talisman or\n  amulet which acted as a material support to it, as the body to the\n  soul.\n\nFootnote 570:\n\n  p. 238, Copt.\n\nFootnote 571:\n\n  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 296, n. 1, for references.\n\nFootnote 572:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 29. The practice of \u201cbaptizing for the dead,\u201d as the A. V.\n  has it, evidently continued into Tertullian\u2019s time. See Tertull. _de\n  Resurrectione Carnis_, c. XLVIII. p. 530, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 573:\n\n  D\u00f6llinger, _First Age_, p. 327.\n\nFootnote 574:\n\n  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 307. The Emperor Constantine, who was baptized on\n  his deathbed, was a case in point. The same story was told later about\n  the Cathars or Manichaeans of Languedoc. The motive seems in all these\n  cases to have been the same: as baptism washed away all sin, it was as\n  well to delay it until the recipient could sin no more.\n\nFootnote 575:\n\n  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 295 and note, for references.\n\nFootnote 576:\n\n  p. 236, Copt.\n\nFootnote 577:\n\n  See n. 2, p. 166 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 578:\n\n  D\u00f6llinger, _First Age_, pp. 234, 235.\n\nFootnote 579:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 235. Rom. vi. 4; Gal. iii. 27, 29, are quoted in support.\n\nFootnote 580:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 235. Rom. vii. 22; 1 Cor. vi. 14; Eph. iii. 16 and v. 30\n  are quoted in support.\n\nFootnote 581:\n\n  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 342.\n\nFootnote 582:\n\n  p. 228, Copt.\n\nFootnote 583:\n\n  pp. 230, 231, Copt.\n\nFootnote 584:\n\n  The _Pistis Sophia_ proper comes to an end twenty pages later.\n\nFootnote 585:\n\n  D\u00f6llinger, _First Age_, p. 239. 1 Cor. x. 16 _sqq._; Eph. v. 30,\n  quoted in support.\n\nFootnote 586:\n\n  Justin Martyr was probably born 114, and martyred 165 A.D. For the\n  passage quoted in text, see his _First Apology_, c. LXVI., where he\n  mentions among other things that the devils set on the worshippers of\n  Mithras to imitate the Christian Eucharist by celebrating a ceremony\n  with bread and a cup of water.\n\nFootnote 587:\n\n  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 308. This visible change of the contents of the\n  cup of water to the semblance of blood is described in the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 377, Copt.), and with more detail in the Bruce\n  Papyrus. Cf. p. 183 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 588:\n\n  \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, p. 354, Copt.\n\nFootnote 589:\n\n  Whether the author of the _Pistis Sophia_ really intended to describe\n  them may be doubted; but it is to be noted that the sacraments which\n  Jesus is represented as celebrating in the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 can\n  hardly be they, although Jesus calls them in one place (p. 374,\n  Copt.), \u201cthe mysteries of the light which remit sins, which themselves\n  are appellations and names of light.\u201d These are administered to the\n  twelve disciples without distinction, and it is evident that the\n  author of these books is quite unacquainted with any division into\n  pneumatic and psychic, and knows nothing of the higher mysteries\n  called in the _Pistis Sophia_ proper \u201cthe mysteries of the Ineffable\n  One\u201d and \u201cthe mysteries of the First Mystery.\u201d We should get over many\n  difficulties if we supposed the two later books to be Marcosian in\n  origin, but in any event they are later than the _Pistis Sophia_.\n\nFootnote 590:\n\n  p. 246, Copt. So in the Manichaean text described in Chapter XIII,\n  Jesus is Himself called \u201cthe Tree of Knowledge.\u201d\n\nFootnote 591:\n\n  So Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, \u00a7 11, pp. 58, 54, Harvey: \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u1f70\n  \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2\n  \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n  \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f18\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u00b7 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. \u0391\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f74\n  \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2\n  \u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u201cFor the psychic (animal) men are taught\n  psychic things, they being made safe by works and by mere faith, and\n  not having perfect knowledge. And they say that we of the Church are\n  these people. Wherefore they declare that good deeds are necessary for\n  us: for otherwise we could not be saved. But they decree that they\n  themselves are entirely and in every thing saved, not by works, but\n  because they are pneumatic (spiritual) by nature.\u201d\n\nFootnote 592:\n\n  p. 249, Copt.\n\nFootnote 593:\n\n  p. 250, Copt. It is to be observed that these \u201ccleansing mysteries\u201d\n  will only admit their recipients to the light of the Kingdom of\n  Jesus\u2014not to that of the First Mystery or of the Ineffable One.\n\nFootnote 594:\n\n  As did perhaps the Manichaeans afterwards. See _J.R.A.S._ for January,\n  1913, and Chap. XIII _infra_.\n\nFootnote 595:\n\n  So Charles Kingsley in _Hypatia_. Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, vol. IV.\n  c. 60, n. 15, quotes a statement of Rufinus that there were nearly as\n  many monks living in the deserts as citizens in the towns.\n\nFootnote 596:\n\n  Mallet, _Le Culte de Neit \u00e0 Sa\u00efs_, p. 200, points out that the God Nu\n  described in the 18th Chapter of the _Book of the Dead_ is \u201cthe\n  infinite abyss, the \u0392\u03c5\u03b8\u03cc\u03c2, the \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f04\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 of the Gnostics.\u201d So\n  Maspero in _Rev. Critique_, 30 Sept. 1909, p. 13, who declares that\n  the author of the _Pistis Sophia_ was influenced directly or\n  indirectly by Osirian beliefs.\n\nFootnote 597:\n\n  Moret, _Le verbe cr\u00e9ateur et r\u00e9v\u00e9lateur_, p. 286, for references.\n\nFootnote 598:\n\n  Maspero, _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ t. II. p. 187: \u201cL\u2019ogdoade est une conception\n  hermopolitaine qui s\u2019est r\u00e9pandue plus tard sur toute l\u2019\u00c9gypte \u00e0 c\u00f4t\u00e9\n  de l\u2019enn\u00e9ade d\u2019Heliopolis. Les th\u00e9ologiens d\u2019Hermopolis avaient adopt\u00e9\n  le concept de la neuvaine, seulement ils avaient amoindri les huit\n  dieux qui formaient le corps du dieu principal. Ils les avaient\n  reduits \u00e0 n\u2019\u00eatre plus que des \u00eatres presque abstraits nomm\u00e9s d\u2019apr\u00e8s\n  la fonction qu\u2019on leur assignait, en agissant en masse sur l\u2019ordre et\n  d\u2019apr\u00e8s l\u2019impulsion du dieu chef. Leur enn\u00e9ade se composait donc d\u2019un\n  dieu tout-puissant et d\u2019une ogdoade.\u201d\n\nFootnote 599:\n\n  \u201cSon origine (l\u2019ogdoade hermopolitaine subordonn\u00e9 \u00e0 un corps monade)\n  est fort ancienne: on trouve quelques-unes des divinit\u00e9s qui la\n  composent mentionn\u00e9es d\u00e9j\u00e0 dans les textes des Pyramides.\u201d Maspero,\n  _op. cit._ t. II. p. 383. As he says later the actual number of gods\n  in the Ennead or Ogdoad was a matter of indifference to the ancient\n  Egyptian: \u201cles dieux comptaient toujours pour neuf, quand m\u00eame ils\n  \u00e9taient treize ou quinze,\u201d _ibid._ p. 387. Cf. Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._\n  pp. 294, 295.\n\nFootnote 600:\n\n  See n. 5, p. 175 _supra_, and Maspero, \u201cHypog\u00e9es Royaux,\u201d _\u00c9t.\n  \u00c9gyptol._ II. p. 130, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 601:\n\n  See n. 2, p. 153 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 602:\n\n  Maspero, \u201cHypog\u00e9es Royaux,\u201d t. II. p. 121.\n\nFootnote 603:\n\n  Maspero, _Rev. Crit._ 30 Sept. 1909, p. 13.\n\nFootnote 604:\n\n  Maspero, \u201cHypog\u00e9es Royaux,\u201d t. II. p. 118. Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 84,\n  Copt. and elsewhere.\n\nFootnote 605:\n\n  Maspero, \u201cLa Table d\u2019Offrandes,\u201d _R.H.R._ t. XXXV. (1897) p. 325. As\n  has been said, in the _Ascensio Isaiae_, anyone passing from one\n  heaven to another has to give a password, but not to exhibit a seal.\n\nFootnote 606:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 196; Schmidt, _Koptisch-Gnostische\n  Schriften_, Bd I. p. xiii.\n\nFootnote 607:\n\n  It is so used in the _Excerpta Theodoti_, and in the Papyrus Bruce.\n  See p. 190, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 608:\n\n  Jean Reville, _Le Quatri\u00e8me \u00c9vangile_, Paris, 1901, p. 321. Mgr\n  Duchesne, _Early Christian Church_, pp. 102, 192, says in effect that\n  St John\u2019s Gospel appeared after the Apostle\u2019s death and was not\n  accepted without opposition. He thinks Tatian and Irenaeus the first\n  writers who quoted from it with acknowledgement of its authorship. If\n  we put the date of Tatian\u2019s birth at 120 (see _Dict. Christian Biog._\n  _s.h.n._) and allow a sufficient period for the initiation into\n  heathen mysteries which he mentions, for his conversion and for his\n  becoming a teacher, we do not get a much earlier date than 170 for his\n  acceptance of the Fourth Gospel. Irenaeus was, of course, later in\n  date than Tatian.\n\nFootnote 609:\n\n  Tertullian, _Adv. Valentinianos_, c. 2.\n\nFootnote 610:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 180.\n\nFootnote 611:\n\n  Tertullian, _de Carne Christi_, c. 20.\n\nFootnote 612:\n\n  _E.g._ p. 47, Copt. Cf. also _ibid._ pp. 147, 170, 176.\n\nFootnote 613:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Val._ c. v.\n\nFootnote 614:\n\n  _Op. cit._ c. 9.\n\nFootnote 615:\n\n  _Op. cit._ c. 18.\n\nFootnote 616:\n\n  _Op. cit._ c. 20.\n\nFootnote 617:\n\n  _Op. cit._ c. 25.\n\nFootnote 618:\n\n  Tertullian, _de Carne Christi_, c. 9. Irenaeus, Bk II. c. 7, \u00a7 1, p.\n  270, Harvey, seems to have known both of Barbelo and of the Virgin of\n  Light, since he speaks of _corpora sursum ... spiritalia et lucida_,\n  \u201cspiritual and translucent bodies on high\u201d casting a shadow below _in\n  quam Matrem suam descendisse dicunt_ \u201cinto which they allege their\n  Mother descended.\u201d\n\nFootnote 619:\n\n  \u2c9e\u2ca8 \u2c98\u2c88\u2ca2\u2c9e\u2ca4 \u2c8e\u2ca6\u2c88 \u2c8e \u2ca6\u2c88\u2ca8\u2cac\u2c9e\u2ca4 \u2c98 \u2c8e\u2ca4\u2cb0\u2ca6\u2c8e\u2ca2, or (in Greek) \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 620:\n\n  \u201cThis I say to you in paradigm, and likeness and similitude, but not\n  in truth of shape, nor have I revealed the word in truth,\u201d p. 253,\n  Copt. So in the next page (p. 254, Copt.), Jesus says of the perfect\n  initiate that \u201cHe also has found the words of the Mysteries, those\n  which I have written to you according to similitude\u2014the same are the\n  members of the Ineffable One.\u201d From His mention of \u201cwriting,\u201d one\n  would imagine that the reference here is to documents such as the\n  Bruce Papyrus which gives the pictures of \u201cseals\u201d together with\n  cryptographically written words.\n\nFootnote 621:\n\n  p. 357, Copt. This opening sentence could not have been written by one\n  of the Valentinians of Hadrian\u2019s time, who, as has been said above,\n  \u201cdid not choose to call Jesus, Lord,\u201d Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, I. p. 12,\n  Harvey.\n\nFootnote 622:\n\n  In the address of Jesus beginning \u201cO my Father, Father of every\n  Fatherhood, boundless light\u201d with which this part of the \u039c. \u03c4. \u03c3.\n  opens, we can, with a little good will, identify nearly every word of\n  the \u201cgalimatias\u201d which at first sight seems mere gibberish. Thus, the\n  whole invocation reads: \u03b1\u03b5\u03b7\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c9, \u03ca\u03b1\u03c9, \u03b1\u03c9\u03ca, \u03bf\u03ca\u03b1\u03c8\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1, \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1[\u03b9]\u03bd\u03bf\u03c8,\n  \u03bd\u03c9\u03c8\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1, \u03b6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7, \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7, \u03bd\u03b5\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c9\u03b8, \u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c9\u03b8, \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1,\n  \u03b8\u03c9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c5, \u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd, \u03b6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1 \u0399\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c9\u03b8. The seven vowels to\n  which many mystical interpretations have been assigned, and which have\n  even been taken for a primitive system of musical notation (C. E.\n  Ruelle, \u201cLe Chant des Sept Voyelles Grecques,\u201d _Rev. des \u00c9t.\n  Grecques_, Paris, 1889, t. II. p. 43, and pp. 393-395), probably\n  express the sound to Greek ears of the Jewish pronunciation of Yahweh\n  or Jehovah. The word Iao we have before met with many times both as a\n  name of Dionysos and otherwise, and is here written anagrammatically\n  from the difficulty which the Greeks found in dealing with Semitic\n  languages written the reverse way to their own. The word \u03c8\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1 which\n  follows and is also written as an anagram is evidently an attempt to\n  transcribe in Greek letters the Egyptian words _P_, _Shai_, _neter_\n  (_P_ = Def. article, _Shai_ = the Egyptian God of Fate whose name\n  Revillout, _Rev. \u00c9gyptol._ Paris, 1892, pp. 29-38, thinks means \u201cThe\n  Highest,\u201d and _neter_ or _nuter_ the determinative for \u201cgod\u201d), the\n  whole reading \u201cMost High God.\u201d The words \u03b6\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7 (better,\n  \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b7) are from the Hebrew roots \u05e1\u05d2\u05e8 \u05e4\u05d8\u05e8 and seem to be the \u201che that\n  openeth and no man shutteth; and shutteth and no man openeth\u201d of Rev.\n  iii. 7. \u039d\u03b5\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c9\u03b8, which is often found in the Magic Papyri, is\n  reminiscent of the Egyptian _neb maat_ \u201cLord of Truth,\u201d the following\n  \u03bd\u03b5\u03c8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c9\u03b8 being probably a variant by a scribe who was uncertain of\n  the orthography. \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1 I can make nothing of, although as the\n  phrase \u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c9\u03b8 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b1 appears in the Magic Papyrus of Leyden\n  generally called W (Leemans, _Papyri Graeci_, etc. t. II. p. 154) in a\n  spell there said to be written by \u201cThphe the Hierogrammateus\u201d for\n  \u201cOchus the king,\u201d it is evidently intended for Egyptian. In the same\n  spell appear the words \u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03c7 \u03b6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1 and \u03b8\u03c9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c5 which are\n  evidently the same as those in the \u039c. \u03c4. \u03c3., and of which I will only\n  say that, while Mr King supposes \u03b6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u03b8\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1 to mean \u201clight-gatherer,\u201d\n  \u03b8\u03c9\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c5 is in the leaden _tabula devotionis_ of Carthage (Molinier,\n  \u201cImprecation grav\u00e9e sur plomb,\u201d _Mem. de la Soc. Nat. des Antiquaires\n  de France_, s\u00e9rie VI. t. VIII. Paris, 1897, pp. 212-216) described as\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u201cthe god of rebirth.\u201d The concluding\n  words are of course merely \u201cYahweh of Hosts.\u201d\n\nFootnote 623:\n\n  The description of the moon-chariot drawn by two white oxen is found\n  in Claudian\u2019s _Proserpine_. According to Cumont (_Textes et Monuments\n  relatifs aux Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_, t. I. p. 126 and note) it was not\n  until Hadrian\u2019s time that this conception, which seems to have been\n  Persian in origin, became fixed in the West.\n\nFootnote 624:\n\n  This \u201cMiddle Way\u201d has nothing to do with the \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 or \u201cplace\u201d of the\n  middle, where are set in the _Pistis Sophia_ proper the powers who\n  preside over incarnation. It is below the visible sphere (p. 364,\n  Copt.) and is met with in Rabbinic lore. See Kohler, _op. cit._ p.\n  587.\n\nFootnote 625:\n\n  This division of the Twelve Aeons into two halves seems at first sight\n  inconsistent with the description in the _Pistis Sophia_ proper which\n  always speaks of them as Twelve. Yet it is plain that the author of\n  the _Pistis Sophia_ knew the legend here given, as he makes John the\n  Divine speak (p. 12, Copt.) of \u201cthe rulers who belong to the Aeon of\n  Jabraoth\u201d and had made peace with the mysteries of the light. These\n  \u201crulers who repented\u201d are again mentioned on p. 195, Copt. In the\n  other part of the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 356, Copt.), it is also\n  said that the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are to be placed in\n  \u201cthe Place of Jabraoth and of all the rulers who repented\u201d until Jesus\n  can take them with Him to the light. So the Papyrus Bruce (Am\u00e9lineau,\n  p. 239).\n\nFootnote 626:\n\n  There are seven pages missing between the descriptions of the tortures\n  of the Middle Way and those of Amenti and Chaos, the gap occurring at\n  p. 379, Copt. It is possible that what follows after this is not from\n  the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 but an extract from yet another document.\n\nFootnote 627:\n\n  In the text of the \u039c. \u03c4. \u03c3. (p. 377, Copt.), Jesus simply asks His\n  father for a sign, and \u201cthe sign is made which Jesus had said.\u201d In the\n  Papyrus Bruce where the same ceremony is described in almost identical\n  words, it is said that the wine of the offering was turned into water\n  which leaped forth of the vase which contained it so as to serve for\n  baptism. Cf. Am\u00e9lineau, _Gnost. \u00c9g._ p. 253. That Marcus the magician\n  by juggling produced similar prodigies, see Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 7, II.\n  pp. 116, 117, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 628:\n\n  The name of Jaldabaoth, which in the whole of the rest of the MS. is\n  spelt \u2c92\u2c80\u2c96\u2c86\u2c80\u2c82\u2c80\u2cb0\u2c90, appears on p. 380 immediately after the _lacuna_ of\n  seven pages as \u2c92\u2c80\u2c96\u2ca6\u2c80\u2c82\u2c80\u2cb0\u2c90, Ialtabaoth, which supports the theory of\n  another author.\n\nFootnote 629:\n\n  This is also briefly mentioned in the part of the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  just described. See pp. 386, _sqq._, Copt.\n\nFootnote 630:\n\n  This appears to contradict the _Pistis Sophia_ proper, where it is\n  said that the Virgin of Light gives the soul, and the Great Iao the\n  Good the power.\n\nFootnote 631:\n\n  Cf. the speech of the crocodile in the tale of the _Predestined\n  Prince_: \u201cAh, moi, je suis ton destin qui te poursuit; quoi que tu\n  fasses, tu seras ramen\u00e9 sur mon chemin.\u201d Maspero, _Contes Populaires\n  de l\u2019\u00c9gypte Ancienne_, 3rd ed. Paris, n. d. p. 175.\n\nFootnote 632:\n\n  Evidently the Egyptian _ka_ or double. Cf. the \u201cHeart Amulet\u201d\n  described by Erman, _Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, pp. 142, 143,\n  where the dead says to his heart: \u201cOh heart that I have from my\n  mother! Oh heart that belongs to my spirit, do not appear against me\n  as witness, provide no opposition against me before the judges, do not\n  contradict me before him who governs the balance, thou art my spirit\n  that is in my body....\u201d This seems to be a transcription of the 30th\n  Chapter of the _Book of the Dead_, of which there are several\n  variants, none of which however directly suggest that the heart is the\n  accuser to be dreaded. See Budge, _Book of the Dead_, 1909, vol. II.\n  pp. 146-152.\n\nFootnote 633:\n\n  Thus the \u039c. \u03c4. \u03c3. says (p. 355, Copt.) \u201cFor this I despoiled myself\n  (_i.e._ laid aside my heavenly nature) to bring the mysteries into the\n  Cosmos, for all are under [the yoke of] sin, and all lack the gifts of\n  the mysteries.... Verily, verily I say unto you: until I came into the\n  Cosmos, no soul entered into the light.\u201d Contrast this with the words\n  of the _Pistis Sophia_ proper (p. 250, Copt.): \u201cThose who are of the\n  light have no need of the mysteries, because they are pure light,\u201d\n  which are made the \u201cinterpretation\u201d of the text: \u201cThey that are whole\n  have no need of a physician, but they that are sick.\u201d See also the\n  _Pistis Sophia_, p. 246, Copt., where it is said of the mysteries\n  promised by Jesus that \u201cthey lead every race of men inwards into the\n  highest places according to the \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 of the inheritance, so that ye\n  have no need of the rest of the lower mysteries, but you will find\n  them in the two books of Je\u00fb which Enoch wrote etc.\u201d\n\nFootnote 634:\n\n  p. 280, Copt.\n\nFootnote 635:\n\n  \u039c. \u03c4. \u03c3. p. 388, Copt., where it is said that the soul of the\n  righteous but uninitiated man is after death taken into Amenti and\n  afterwards into the Middle Way, being shown the tortures in each\n  place, \u201cbut the breath of the flame of the punishments shall only\n  afflict him a little.\u201d Afterwards he is taken to the Virgin of Light,\n  who sets him before the Little Sabaoth the Good until the Sphere be\n  turned round so that Zeus (\u2643) and Aphrodite (\u2640) come into aspect with\n  the Virgin of Light and Kronos (\u2644) and Ares (\u2642) come after them. She\n  then puts the soul into a righteous body, which she plainly could not\n  do unless under the favourable influence of the \u201cbenefics\u201d \u2643 and \u2640.\n  This seems also to be the dominant idea of the _Excerpta Theodoti_,\n  _q.v._ Compare this, however, with the words of the _Pistis Sophia_\n  proper (pp. 27, 28, Copt.) where Mary Magdalene explains that the\n  alteration made by Jesus in the course of the stars was effected in\n  order to baffle those skilled in the mysteries taught by the angels\n  \u201cwho came down\u201d (as in the Book of Enoch), from predicting the future\n  by astrology and magic arts learned from the sinning angels.\n\nFootnote 636:\n\n  p. 361, Copt.\n\nFootnote 637:\n\n  That is the Sphere of Destiny acting through its emissary the Moira or\n  Fate described above, p. 184 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 638:\n\n  It is a curious example of the fossilizing, so to speak, of ancient\n  names in magic that Shakespeare should preserve for us in the\n  _Tempest_ and _Macbeth_ the names of Ariel and Hecate which we find in\n  the \u039c. \u03c4. \u03c3. No doubt both were taken by him from mediaeval grimoires\n  which themselves copied directly from the Graeco-Egyptian Magic Papyri\n  mentioned in Chap. III _supra_. Cf. the use of Greek \u201cnames of God\u201d\n  like _ischiros_ (sic!) _athanatos_, etc. in Reginald Scot\u2019s _Discovery\n  of Witchcraft_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 639:\n\n  So that it could not profit by the knowledge of the awful punishments\n  prepared for sinners. I do not know that this idea occurs elsewhere.\n\nFootnote 640:\n\n  p. 380, Copt.\n\nFootnote 641:\n\n  The Marcosian authorship of the whole MS. is asserted by Bunsen,\n  _Hippolytus and his Age_, vol. I. p. 47. K\u00f6stlin, _\u00dcber das gnostische\n  System des Buch Pistis Sophia_ in the Theologische Jahrb\u00fccher of Baur\n  and Zeller, T\u00fcbingen, 1854, will have none of it, and declares the\n  _Pistis Sophia_ to be an Ophite work. In this, the first commentator\n  on the book is followed by Gr\u00fcber, _Der Ophiten_, W\u00fcrzburg, 1864, p.\n  5, \u00a7\u00a7 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 642:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk I. c. 19.\n\nFootnote 643:\n\n  Thus, according to Marcus (Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 8, \u00a7 11, pp. 145, 146,\n  Harvey), \u201cthat name of the Saviour which may be pronounced, _i.e._\n  Jesus, is composed of six letters, but His ineffable name of 24.\u201d The\n  cryptogram in the _Pistis Sophia_ is in these words (p. 125, Copt.):\n  \u201cThese are the names which I will give thee from the Boundless One\n  downwards. Write them with a sign that the sons of God may show them\n  forth of this place. This is the name of the Deathless One \u03b1\u03b1\u03b1 \u03c9\u03c9\u03c9,\n  and this is the name of the word by which the Perfect Man is moved:\n  \u03b9\u03b9\u03b9. These are the interpretations of the names of the mysteries. The\n  first is \u03b1\u03b1\u03b1, the interpretation of which is \u03c6\u03c6\u03c6. The second which is\n  \u03bc\u03bc\u03bc or which is \u03c9\u03c9\u03c9, its interpretation is \u03b1\u03b1\u03b1. The third is \u03c8\u03c8\u03c8, its\n  interpretation is \u03bf\u03bf\u03bf. The fourth is \u03c6\u03c6\u03c6, its interpretation is \u03bd\u03bd\u03bd.\n  The fifth is \u03b4\u03b4\u03b4, its interpretation is \u03b1\u03b1\u03b1, which above the throne is\n  \u03b1\u03b1\u03b1. This is the interpretation of the second \u03b1\u03b1\u03b1\u03b1, \u03b1\u03b1\u03b1\u03b1, \u03b1\u03b1\u03b1\u03b1, which\n  is the interpretation of the whole name.\u201d The line drawn above the\n  three Alphas and Omegas is used in the body of the text to denote\n  words in a foreign (_i.e._ non-Egyptian) language such as Hebrew; but\n  in the Papyrus Bruce about to be described, the same letters without\n  any line above are given as the name of \u201cthe Father of the Pleroma.\u201d\n  See Am\u00e9lineau\u2019s text, p. 113. The \u201cmoving\u201d of the image (\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1) of\n  the Perfect Man is referred to in Hippolytus (_op. cit._ p. 144,\n  Cruice). That the Tetragrammaton was sometimes written by Jewish\n  magicians with three Jods or _i.i.i._ see Gaster, _The Oldest Version\n  of Midrash Megillah_, in Kohut\u2019s Semitic Studies, Berlin, 1897, p.\n  172. So on a magic cup in the Berlin Museum, conjuration is made \u201cin\n  the name of Jahve the God of Israel who is enthroned upon the cherubim\n  ... and in the name _A A A A_\u201d (St\u00fcbe, _Judisch-Babylonische\n  Zaubertexte_, Halle, 1895, pp. 23-27). For the meaning of the words\n  \u201cabove the throne,\u201d see Franck, _La Kabbale_, p. 45, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 644:\n\n  The opening words of the invocation \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u1f70 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u1f74 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\n  \u1fe5\u03bf\u03c5\u03b1\u03b4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c6\u1f78\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6 which Irenaeus (Bk I. c. 14, \u00a7 2, pp.\n  183, 184, Harvey) quotes in this connection from Marcus certainly\n  read, as Renan (_L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne_, p. 154, n. 3) points out, \u201cIn\n  the name of Achamoth\u201d (_i.e._ Sophia).\n\nFootnote 645:\n\n  See n. 3, p. 180, _supra_. In the _Pistis Sophia_ proper Jesus is\n  never spoken of save as \u201cthe Saviour\u201d or as \u201cthe First Mystery.\u201d\n\nFootnote 646:\n\n  Cf. Maspero, _Hypog\u00e9es Royaux_, _passim_, esp. pp. 157 and 163.\n\nFootnote 647:\n\n  Schmidt\u2019s study of the Bruce Papyrus with a full text and translation\n  was published in the _Texte und Untersuchungen_ of von Gebhardt and\n  Harnack under the title _Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache\n  aus dem Codex Brucianus_, Leipzig, 1892. He republished the\n  translation of this together with one of the _Pistis Sophia_ in the\n  series of early Greek Christian literature undertaken by the Patristic\n  Committee of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences under the title\n  _Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften_, Bd I. Leipzig, 1905. His arrangement\n  of the papyrus leaves makes much better sense than that of Am\u00e9lineau,\n  but it is only arrived at by eliminating all passages which seem to be\n  inconsequent and attributing them to separate works. The fragments\n  which he distinguishes as A and B and describes as \u201cgnostischen\n  Gebetes,\u201d certainly appear to form part of those which he describes as\n  the two \u201cbooks of Je\u00fb.\u201d\n\nFootnote 648:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, \u201cNotice sur le Papyrus gnostique Bruce,\u201d _Notices et\n  Extraits des MSS. de la Bibl. Nat._ etc. Paris, 1891, p. 106. This\n  would seem to make matter the creation of God, but the author gets out\n  of the dilemma by affirming (_op. cit._ p. 126) that \u201cthat which was\n  not was the evil which is manifested in matter\u201d and that while that\n  which exists is called \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u201ceverlasting,\u201d that which does not\n  exist is called \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7, \u201cmatter.\u201d\n\nFootnote 649:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _op. cit._ p. 231.\n\nFootnote 650:\n\n  This word arrangement (\u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1) occurs constantly in the _Pistis\n  Sophia_, as when we read (p. 193, Copt.) that the last \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 by\n  the command of the First Mystery placed Je\u00fb, Melchisedek, and four\n  other powers in the \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 of those who belong to the right hand \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2\n  \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 of the Assembly of the Light. There, as here, it doubtless\n  means that they were arranged in the same order as the powers above\n  them in pursuance of the principle that \u201cthat which is above is like\n  that which is below,\u201d or, in other words, of the doctrine of\n  correspondences. From the Gnostics the word found its way into\n  Catholic theology, as when Tertullian (_adv. Praxean_, c. 3) says that\n  the majority of simple-minded Christians \u201cnot understanding that\n  though God be one, he must yet be believed to exist with his\n  \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, were frightened.\u201d Cf. Hatch, _H.L._ p. 324.\n\nFootnote 651:\n\n  Perhaps the House or Place of \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 or Truth many times alluded to\n  in the \u039c. \u03c4. \u03c3.\n\nFootnote 652:\n\n  Aer\u00f4dios is shortly after spoken of as a person or power, so that\n  here, as elsewhere, in this literature, the _place_ is called by the\n  name of its ruler.\n\nFootnote 653:\n\n  This word constantly occurs in the Magic Papyri, generally with\n  another word prefixed, as \u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b7\u03c2 (Papyrus Mimaut, l. 12,\n  Wessely\u2019s _Griechische Zauberpapyri_, p. 116), which C. W. King\n  (_Gnostics and their Remains_, 2nd ed. p. 289) would translate \u201cthey\n  who stand before the mount of Paradise\u201d or in other words the Angels\n  of the Presence. Am\u00e9lineau (_Notices_, etc. p. 144, n. 2) will have\n  Barpharanges to be \u201ca hybrid word, part Chaldean and part Greek\u201d\n  meaning \u201cSon of the Abyss\u201d\u2014which is as unlikely as the other\n  interpretation.\n\nFootnote 654:\n\n  p. 143, Am\u00e9lineau (_Notices_, etc.); p. 361, Schmidt, _K.-G.S._\n\nFootnote 655:\n\n  According to Am\u00e9lineau, _op. cit._, \u201cThe Book of the Great Word in\n  Every Mystery.\u201d\n\nFootnote 656:\n\n  pp. 188-199, Am\u00e9lineau, _op. cit._; Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ pp. 308-314.\n\nFootnote 657:\n\n  pp. 219, 220, Am\u00e9lineau, _op. cit._; Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ p. 226. She\n  seems to be here called \u201cthe Great Virgin of the Spirit.\u201d Cf. the\n  \u1f59\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u0391\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f41\n  \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b7\u03bb\u1f7c\u03b8 \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u201cFor [some of them] suppose a certain\n  indestructible Aeon continuing in a Virgin spirit whom they call\n  Barbelo\u201d of Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 27, \u00a7 1, p. 222, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 658:\n\n  The powers named are thus called in both the _Pistis Sophia_ and the\n  Bruce Papyrus. See _Pistis Sophia_, pp. 248, 252 Copt.; Am\u00e9lineau,\n  _op. cit._ p. 177.\n\nFootnote 659:\n\n  According to the _Pistis Sophia_ (p. 1, Copt.), 11 years elapsed\n  between the Crucifixion and the descent of the \u201cVestures\u201d upon Jesus\n  on the Mount of Olives. We may imagine another year to have been\n  consumed by the revelations made in the book.\n\nFootnote 660:\n\n  If the \u201cBooks of Je\u00fb\u201d were ever written we should expect them to bear\n  the name of Enoch, who is said to have taken them down in Paradise at\n  the dictation of Jesus. See p. 147, n. 5, _supra_. Very possibly the\n  expression really does refer to some of the mass of literature once\n  passing under the name of Enoch and now lost to us.\n\nFootnote 661:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _op. cit._ p. 72.\n\nFootnote 662:\n\n  Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ p. 26.\n\nFootnote 663:\n\n  Am\u00e9lineau, _op. cit._ p. 211; Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ p. 322. The West or\n  Amenti is the Egyptian name for Hades.\n\nFootnote 664:\n\n  Maspero, \u201cEgyptian Souls and their Worlds,\u201d _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ t. I. p.\n  395.\n\nFootnote 665:\n\n  Maspero, \u201cHypog\u00e9es Royaux,\u201d _\u00c9t. \u00c9gyptol._ t. II. pp. 148, 165.\n\nFootnote 666:\n\n  _Ibid._ pp. 178, 179.\n\nFootnote 667:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 31.\n\nFootnote 668:\n\n  _Ibid._ pp. 14-15.\n\nFootnote 669:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 166. To make things more difficult, the guardian sometimes\n  had a different name for every hour. Cf. _ibid._ p. 168.\n\nFootnote 670:\n\n  _Ibid._ pp. 124, n. 2, 163. For the talismans or amulets, see Maspero,\n  \u201cLa Table d\u2019Offrandes,\u201d _R.H.R._ t. XXXV. (1897), p. 325.\n\nFootnote 671:\n\n  Maspero, \u201cHyp. Roy.\u201d pp. 113, 118.\n\nFootnote 672:\n\n  _Ibid._ pp. 162, 163.\n\nFootnote 673:\n\n  _Ibid._ pp. 41, 163.\n\nFootnote 674:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 178.\n\nFootnote 675:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 179.\n\nFootnote 676:\n\n  The kings, according to a belief which was evidently very old in the\n  time of the Pyramid-Builders, were supposed to possess immortality as\n  being gods even in their lifetime. Later, the gift was extended to\n  rulers of nomes and other rich men, and finally to all those who could\n  purchase the spells that would assure it. In Maspero\u2019s words \u201cLa vie\n  d\u2019au del\u00e0 n\u2019\u00e9tait pas un droit pour l\u2019\u00c9gyptien: il pouvait la gagner\n  par la vertu des formules et des pratiques, mais il pouvait aussi bien\n  la perdre, et s\u2019il \u00e9tait pauvre ou isol\u00e9, les chances \u00e9taient qu\u2019il la\n  perdit \u00e0 bref d\u00e9lai\u201d (_op. cit._ p. 174).\n\nFootnote 677:\n\n  p. 254, Copt.\n\nFootnote 678:\n\n  de Faye (_Intro._ etc. p. 110) shows clearly, not only that the aims\n  and methods of the school of Valentinus changed materially after its\n  founder\u2019s death, but that it was only then that the Catholic Church\n  perceived the danger of them, and set to work to combat them\n  systematically.\n\nFootnote 679:\n\n  To thinkers like Dean Inge (_Christian Mysticism_, 1899, p. 82) this\n  was the natural and appointed end of Gnosticism, which according to\n  him was \u201crotten before it was ripe.\u201d \u201cIt presents,\u201d he says, \u201call the\n  features which we shall find to be characteristic of degenerate\n  mysticism. Not to speak of its oscillations between fanatical\n  austerities and scandalous licence, and its belief in magic and other\n  absurdities, we seem, when we read Irenaeus\u2019 description of a\n  Valentinian heretic, to hear the voice of Luther venting his contempt\n  upon some _Geisterer_ of the sixteenth century.\u201d It may be so; yet,\n  after all, Gnosticism in its later developments lasted for a longer\n  time than the doctrines of Luther have done, particularly in the land\n  of their birth.\n\nFootnote 680:\n\n  Cf. Maspero, _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_, Eng. ed. 1892, pp.\n  90-92, for the distaste of the Egyptians of Ramesside times for the\n  life of a soldier and their delight in that of a scribe.\n\nFootnote 681:\n\n  All these, especially alchemy, are illustrated in the Magic Papyrus of\n  Leyden known as W. See Leemans, _Pap. Gr._ t. II. pp. 83 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 682:\n\n  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, vol. III. p. 214, Bury\u2019s ed.\n\nFootnote 683:\n\n  Renan, _L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne_, pp. 154, 155, and authorities there\n  quoted. Cf. Hatch, _H. L._ pp. 129, 130, 293, 307-309.\n\nFootnote 684:\n\n  Harnack, _What is Christianity?_ p. 210; Duchesne, _Early Christian\n  Church_, p. 32.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER XI\n                                MARCION\n\n\nWe have seen that Valentinus left Alexandria to settle in Rome before\npromulgating his new doctrine[685], and the Eternal City seems at that\ntime to have drawn to itself as with a magnet all those Oriental\nteachers of Christianity who wished to make innovation in religion. Rome\nin the IInd century had become a veritable sink into which poured men of\nall nations and creeds whether old or new. Besides the great flood of\nIsiacists, Mithraists, and worshippers of the Great Goddess and of the\nSyrian Baals, that now began to appear there, Alexander of Abonoteichos\ncame thither under Marcus Aurelius to celebrate his newly-invented\nmysteries[686], and succeeded in gaining a foothold at the Imperial\nCourt. Moreover in A.D. 140, the terrible war of extermination which\nHadrian had been compelled much against his will to wage against the\nJewish nation was at length over, and the effect of this was to transfer\na great number of Asiatic and African Christians to the world\u2019s\nmetropolis, while making it more than ever expedient for them to\ndisclaim connection with the Jews. The slightly contemptuous toleration,\ntoo, which the statesmanlike Hadrian seems to have extended to the\nChristians[687], was not likely to be withdrawn without reason by his\nphilosophic successor, Antoninus Pius; and it was doubtless the\nconsciousness of this which led to the appearance of the various\n\u201capologies\u201d for, or defences of, Christianity which Quadratus,\nAristides, Justin Martyr, and other persons with some philosophic\ntraining now began to put forth. In such of these as have come down to\nus, the desire of their authors to dissociate themselves from the Jews,\nthen at the nadir of their unpopularity, is plainly manifest, and no\ndoubt gave the note to the innovators[688]. It is certainly very marked\nin the heresy of Marcion, which, unlike those of Valentinus and the\nother Gnostics, was to culminate in the setting-up of a schismatic\nChurch in opposition to that founded on the Apostles.\n\nMarcion was, according to the better account, a wealthy shipowner of\nPontus and probably a convert to Christianity[689]. He seems to have\nbeen born at Sinope, at one time the most important of the Greek towns\non the Southern shore of the Euxine or Black Sea. Mithridates the Great,\nwho was also born there, had made Sinope his capital, and though it had\nno doubt declined in rank since his time, it must still have been, in\nthe year 100 A.D. (the probable date of Marcion\u2019s birth), a flourishing\nand prosperous place[690]. As in all the cities of Asia Minor, the Stoic\nphilosophy had there obtained a firm hold, and there is some reason for\nthinking that Marcion received lessons in this before his\nconversion[691]. Of the circumstances which led to this event we have no\nknowledge, and it was even said in later times that he was born a\nChristian, and that his father had been a bishop of the Church. A better\nfounded story is that, on his conversion, he brought into the common\nfund of the Church a considerable sum of money, which is said to have\nbeen paid out to him on his expulsion[692]. When at the mature age of\nforty he went to Rome, it seems reasonable to suppose that he accepted\nthe orthodox teaching, as it is said that there was some talk of his\nbeing made bishop of what was even then the richest and highest in rank\nof all the Christian Churches. At Rome, however, he fell in with one\nCerdo, a Syrian, who seems to have been already domiciled there and to\nhave taught in secret a pronouncedly dualistic system in which God and\nMatter were set in sharp opposition to one another, and in which it was\nheld that a good God could not have been the author of this wicked\nworld[693]. This opinion Marcion adopted and elaborated, with the result\nthat he was expelled from the Catholic Church, and thereupon set to work\nto found another, having bishops, priests, deacons, and other officers\nin close imitation of the community he had left[694]. It is said that\nbefore his death he wished to be reconciled to the Church, but was told\nthat he could only be readmitted when he had restored to the fold the\nflock that he had led away from it. This, on the authority of\nTertullian, he would have been willing to do; but his rival Church had\nby that time so enormously increased in numbers, that he died, probably\nin 165 A.D., before he was able to make the restitution required[695].\nThis story also can only be accepted with a great deal of reserve[696].\n\nIt is abundantly plain, however, that Marcion was regarded not only by\nthe professed heresiologists of the succeeding age, but also by teachers\nlike Justin Martyr and the learned Clement of Alexandria, as one of the\nmost formidable enemies of the Church, whose evil influence persisted\neven after his death[697]. By the reign of Gratian, his rival Church had\nspread over Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, and Persia[698];\nand, although the main authority for the increase is the always doubtful\none of Epiphanius, this last was not likely to have unduly magnified the\nsuccess of the Church\u2019s rival, and his story has the confirmation of\nTertullian that in his time the Marcionites made churches \u201cas wasps make\nnests[699].\u201d Every Father of note seems to have written against the\nheresiarch who had thus dared, as was said, to turn away souls from\nChrist, and Polycarp, the saint and martyr, when Marcion claimed\nacquaintance with him in Rome on the strength of a former meeting in\nSmyrna, replied with much heat, \u201cYes, I know thee! the first-born of\nSatan[700].\u201d So late as the Council in Trullo in the VIIth century,\nspecial arrangements had to be made for the reception of Marcionites who\nwished to be reconciled to the Church, and forms of abjuration of the\nsect are said to have lingered until the Xth[701].\n\nThat this longevity was purchased by no willingness to make the best of\nboth worlds or to enjoy peace by compromising with heathenism in the way\nwe have seen prevalent among the Alexandrian Gnostics, is at once\nevident. Alone among the heretics of the sub-Apostolic Age, the Fathers\ndeclare, the Marcionites held fast their faith in time of persecution,\nwhile they refused to frequent the circus and the theatre and practised\nan austerity of life putting to shame even the ascetics among the\northodox.[702] Marcion himself underwent none of the slanders on his\npersonal morals which theologians generally heap upon their\nopponents[703], and none of his tenets are said by either Tertullian or\nEpiphanius, who took his refutation most seriously in hand, to have been\nborrowed from those Pagan rites or mysteries which they looked upon as\nforming the most shameful source from which to contaminate the pure\ndoctrine of the Church. Irenaeus, who was his junior by some twenty or\nthirty years, and may have known him personally, says indeed that he was\na disciple of Simon Magus[704], but in this he may have alluded merely\nto his position as the founder of a rival Church. Hippolytus is silent\nabout this; but, true to his system of attacking philosophy on account\nof its supposed connection with heresy, says that Marcion is a disciple,\nnot of Christ, but of Empedocles[705]. There is much to be said for the\nview that Marcion\u2019s heresy was so well and firmly established before the\nend of the IInd century, that those who then denounced it really knew\nlittle of its beginnings[706]. They are, however, unanimous as to the\nmore than Puritanical attitude adopted by its founders. The Marcionites\nwere allowed neither to drink wine nor to eat flesh, and those believers\nin their tenets who were married had either to separate from their wives\nor to remain among the catechumens until about to die, it being unlawful\nfor them to receive baptism save on their deathbeds[707].\n\nMarcion\u2019s, indeed, seems to have been one of those ruggedly logical and\nuncompromising natures, not to be led away by reverence for authority or\ntradition, which appear once or twice in the history of most religions;\nand it is doubtless this quality which has led Prof. Harnack, as did\nNeander in the last century, to claim him as the first reformer of the\nCatholic Church[708]. Like another Luther, Marcion declared that the\nChurch had become corrupted by the additions made by men to the pure\nteaching she had received from her Founder, and that only in return to\nher primitive faith was safety to be found. For this primitive faith, he\nappealed, like the makers of the German Reformation, to the words of\nScripture, but he differed from them most widely in the limitations that\nhe placed upon them. It was, he declared, impossible to find any\nattributes in common between the God of the Old Testament and the\nSupreme (and benevolent) Being of whom Jesus announced Himself the Son,\nand he therefore rejected the Old Testament entirely. In the same way,\nhe said that the Canonical Gospels then received among Christians had\nbecome overlaid with Jewish elements introduced by the Asiatic converts\namong whom they were first circulated; and that the narrative in the\nGospel according to Luke was alone trustworthy[709]. From this also, he\nremoved the whole series of traditions concerning the Birth and Infancy\nof Jesus; and made it begin in effect with the words of the fourth\nchapter in which is described the coming-down of Jesus to \u201cCapernaum, a\ncity of Galilee.\u201d These he combined with the opening words of Luke iii.,\nso that the event was described as taking place in the \u201cfifteenth year\nof the reign of Tiberius Caesar[710].\u201d He also excised from the Gospel\neverything which could indicate any respect shown by the Founder of\nChristianity to the Torah or Law of the Jews, the allusions to the\nJewish traditions concerning Jonah and the Queen of Sheba, the supposed\nfulfilment of the Jewish prophecies in the person and acts of Jesus, and\nthe statement that He took part in the Paschal Feast. He further removed\nfrom it every passage which represents Jesus as drinking wine or taking\npart in any festivity, and in the Lord\u2019s Prayer he struck out the\npetition for delivery from evil, while modifying the \u201cHallowed be thy\nname!\u201d It has been suggested that in this last case he may have given us\nan older version than that of the Canon[711].\n\nWith the remainder of the New Testament, Marcion took similar liberties.\nHe rejected entirely the _Acts of the Apostles_, The Apocalypse of St\nJohn, the _Epistle to the Hebrews_, and the Epistles generally called\n\u201cPastoral,\u201d as well as all those passing under the names of St John, St\nJames, St Peter and St Jude. For the Apostle Paul, however, Marcion had\na profound admiration, pronouncing him to be the only true follower of\nJesus, and he accepted with some alterations the ten epistles which he\nthought could with confidence be attributed to him. These were the\nEpistles to the Galatians, the two to the Corinthians, the one to the\nRomans, both those to the Thessalonians, that to the Ephesians or, as he\npreferred to call it, to the Laodiceans, and those to the Colossians, to\nPhilemon, and to the Philippians. From these ten epistles, he removed\neverything which described the fulfilment of the prophecies of the\nJewish prophets, all allusions to the Parusia or Second Coming, and some\nexpressions which seemed to him to militate against the asceticism that\nhe himself favoured[712]. All these alterations seem to have been set\ndown by Marcion in a book to which he gave the name of the _Antitheses_,\nand which contained his statement of the incongruities apparent between\nthe Old and New Testaments. This book is now lost, and the details of\nMarcion\u2019s emendations have in consequence to be picked out from the\ntreatise of Tertullian against him, the statements of Epiphanius, and\nthe anonymous discourse _de Recta Fide_ which is sometimes included in\nthe works of Origen[713].\n\nIf these alterations of the Scriptures generally received depended on\nany independent tradition, or even upon a rational criticism, they would\nbe of the greatest use to modern textual critics, who have in\nconsequence hoped eagerly that some lucky chance might yet give us a\ncopy of Marcion\u2019s Gospel.[714] But the Fathers make no allusion to any\nclaim of the kind; and in the absence of Marcion\u2019s own words, it seems\nlikely that his alterations were merely dictated by the preoccupation\nregarding the Divine nature which seems with him to have amounted to a\npassion. Never, he said, could the jealous and irascible God of the Jews\nbe identified with the loving and benevolent Spirit whom Jesus called\nHis Father. Hence there was not one God; but two Gods. One of these was\nthe Supreme Being, perfect in power as in goodness, whose name, as\nperhaps the Orphics and the Ophites taught, was Love[715]. Too great to\nconcern Himself with sublunary things, and too pure, as Plato and Philo\nhad both said, to have any dealings with an impure and sinful world, He\nremained seated apart in the third or highest heaven, inaccessible to\nand unapproachable by man, like the unknown Father of Valentinus and the\nother Gnostic sects[716]. Below Him was the Creator, or rather the\nDemiurge or Fashioner of the World, in constant conflict with matter,\nwhich he is always trying unsuccessfully to conquer and subdue in\naccordance with his own limited and imperfect ideas. Just, according to\nMarcion, was the Demiurge, whom he identified with the God of the Jews;\nand it was this attribute of justice which prevented him from being\nconsidered wholly evil in his nature, as was Satan, the active agent of\nthe matter with which the Demiurge was always striving. Yet the Demiurge\nwas the creator of evil on his own showing[717], and as such is entitled\nto no adoration from man, whom he has brought into a world full of evil.\nMan\u2019s rescue from this is due to the Supreme God, who sent His Son Jesus\nChrist on earth that He might reveal to mankind His Heavenly Father, and\nthus put an end to the sway of the Demiurge.\n\nThat Jesus on His coming was seized and slain by the Jews, with at least\nthe connivance of the Demiurge, Marcion admitted. But as this might seem\nlike a defeat of the Supreme Being by His inferior, he was forced to\naccept the theory called Docetism which was in favour with many other\nGnostics. According to this, the body of Jesus was not real flesh and\nblood, and had indeed no actual existence, but was a phantasm which only\nappeared to mankind in the likeness of a man[718]. Hence it mattered\nnothing that this body, which did not really exist, appeared to suffer,\nto be slain, and even to rise again. The Supreme God was not mocked, and\nthe resurrection of the body was to Marcion a thing unthinkable.\n\nIn lesser matters, Marcion\u2019s dislike of the God of the Jews is, perhaps,\nmore marked. Man\u2019s body, according to him, was made by the Demiurge out\nof matter[719], but without any spark from a higher world infused into\nit, as the Ophites and Valentinus had taught. Hence man was naturally\ninclined to evil, and the Law which the Demiurge delivered to him was\nmore or less of a snare. Man was sure to give way to the evil desires\ninherent in matter, and on doing so became with all his race subject to\nthe power of matter and the evil spirits inhabiting it. It is true that\nthe Demiurge had devised a plan of salvation in the shape of the Law of\nthe Jews delivered to them on Sinai. But this concerned one small people\nonly, and it was but a fraction of that community which could hope to\nobserve it in all its forms and ceremonies. Did they do so, the Demiurge\nwould provide for them a modified felicity in that region of Hades\ncalled the Bosom of Abraham[720]. For those Gentiles, and even for those\nJews who from weakness or obstinacy did not obey the Law, he had\nprepared punishment and, apparently, eternal tortures. It is true that\nhe promised the Jews a Messiah who should lead them to the conquest of\nthe earth, but this leader certainly was not Jesus[721]; and it is\nprobable that Marcion thought that His Mission had put it out of the\npower of the Demiurge to fulfil any of these promises.\n\nPossibly it was the same dislike of the Jews that led Marcion to\nconsider St Paul as the only real apostle of Jesus. The others, he said,\nhad overlaid the faith that they had received with Jewish traditions;\nbut Paul, chosen by Jesus after His Ascension[722], had resisted their\nattempt to reintroduce the Law of the Jews, and was, in his own words,\nan apostle sent not from men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God\nthe Father who raised Him from the dead.[723] Marcion also seems to have\nlaid stress upon St Paul\u2019s wonder that the Galatians were \u201cso soon\nremoved from Him who hath called you to His grace to another\nGospel[724],\u201d with the suggestion that this second gospel was the\ncontrivance of the Demiurge; and generally to have accentuated the\ncontroversy between St Peter and St Paul mentioned in the Epistle\nbearing their name[725]. From the same Epistle to the Galatians, Marcion\nappears to have erased the name of Abraham where his blessing is said to\nhave \u201ccome on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ[726]\u201d; and in like\nmanner, to have read into the passage in the First Epistle to the\nCorinthians[727], where it is said that \u201cthe world by wisdom knew not\nGod,\u201d expressions implying that it was the \u201cLord of this World,\u201d _i.e._\nthe Demiurge, who was ignorant of the Supreme Being[728]. As this\nignorance of the Demiurge was a favourite theme of the Ophites and other\nGnostics, it is possible that Marcion was more indebted to these\npredecessors of his than modern commentators on his teaching are\ninclined to allow; but he perhaps justified his reading by tacking it on\nto the passage in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians which says that\n\u201cthe God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,\nlest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of\nGod, should shine upon them[729].\u201d From the Epistle to the Romans, in\nwhich he seems to have made very large erasures[730], Marcion draws\nfurther arguments in favour of his contention that the Jews were kept in\nignorance of the Supreme God, relying upon texts like:\n\n    \u201cFor they [_i.e._ Israel] being ignorant of God\u2019s righteousness and\n    going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted\n    themselves unto the righteousness of God[731].\u201d\n\nSo, too, in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Marcion rejects the\npassage which declares that Jesus shall come \u201cin flaming fire taking\nvengeance[732],\u201d which he considered inconsistent with the benevolence\nof Himself and His Father. We do not know whom he considered to be the\nAntichrist there predicted, as Epiphanius leaves us in doubt whether\nMarcion accepted the verses which go by the name of the Little\nApocalypse, but Tertullian seems to imply that Marcion may have assigned\nthis part to the Messiah of the Demiurge[733]. In like manner, he is\nsaid to have altered the passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians which\nspeaks of \u201cthe mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been\nhid in God[734],\u201d so as to make it appear that the mystery was hid not\n_in_ God, but _from_ the god who created all things, meaning thereby the\nDemiurge[735].\n\nUntil some lucky discovery gives us the text of Marcion\u2019s _Antitheses_\nit is difficult to say whether he has been correctly reported by his\nadversaries, or whether, which is probable enough, they have suppressed\nevidence brought forward by him in support of these erasures and\ninterpolations. That in putting them forward, he did so in such a way as\nto leave many an opening to a skilled controversialist is easy to\nbelieve, and there are many passages in Tertullian\u2019s refutation which\nshow that his forensically-trained adversary took advantage of these\nwith more eagerness than generosity. But the noteworthy thing about the\nlong drawn out dialectic of Tertullian\u2019s treatise _Against Marcion_, is\nthe way in which Marcion throughout resolutely abstains from any of the\nallegorical or figurative interpolations of Scripture which we have seen\nso prevalent among all the Gnostic writers from Simon Magus down to the\nauthors of the _Pistis Sophia_ and its connected texts. Everywhere, it\nwould seem, he took the Biblical texts that he quotes at their literal\nmeaning and never seems to have attempted to translate any of them by\ntrope or figure. In like manner, we find him, so far as his adversaries\u2019\naccount goes, entirely free from that preoccupation concerning the\ndivisions and order of the spiritual world which plays so large a part\nin the speculations of the systems hitherto described. Nor does he show\nany tendency to the deification of abstract ideas which is really at the\nroot of all Gnostic systems whether before or after Christ. Nowhere does\nMarcion let fall an expression which could make us think of the Sophia\nor Wisdom of God as a separate entity or personified being, nor is the\nLogos of Plato and his Alexandrian admirers ever alluded to by him.\nHence, he in no way contributes to the growth, so luxuriant in his time,\nof mythology and allegory[736]. In everything he exhibits the hard and\nunimaginative quality of the practical man.\n\nThese considerations have great bearing on the question of the source of\nhis heresy. Had he busied himself, like the Gnostics, with elaborate\ndescriptions of the invisible universe, one would have thought that he\nowed something to the ancient Egyptian theology, in which such\nspeculations occupied nearly the whole care of its professors. Had he,\non the other hand, studied to personify the attributes and qualities of\nthe Supreme Being, one would have been able to connect his teaching with\nthat of the Persian religion, in which, as will be seen in the next\nchapter, the idea of such personification took the principal place. This\nconnection would have been natural enough, because the province of\nPontus, whence Marcion came, had long been subject to the Persian power,\nand did not become Roman in name until the reign of Nero. Yet no trace\nof such a connection is even hinted at by adversaries perfectly well\ninformed of the main tenets of the Persian religion[737]. The inference\nis therefore unavoidable that Marcion\u2019s views were original, and that\nthey were formed, as was said by a critic of the last century, by a sort\nof centrifugal process, and after rejecting in turn all heathen and\nJewish elements, as well as most of the traditions which had already\ngrown up in the Catholic Church[738]. That Marcion was aware of this\nseems probable from the many efforts made by him to be reconciled to the\nChurch, or rather to convert the whole Church to his way of thinking. In\nthis, as in the emphasis which he laid on faith rather than knowledge as\nthe source of man\u2019s happiness in this world and the next, he again\nanticipated in a most striking manner the views of the German Reformers\nsome fourteen centuries later[739].\n\nA like analogy is to be seen in the practices of the Marcionite\nchurches, so far at any rate as we may trust to the reports of their\northodox opponents. True, as it would seem, to his conviction of the\ncomplete failure of the scheme of the Demiurge, Marcion set his face\neven more sternly than our own Puritans of Cromwell\u2019s time against\nanything that should look like enjoyment of the things of this\nworld[740]. His followers were enjoined to eat no meat, to abstain from\nwine even in the Eucharist, which in the Marcionite churches was\ncelebrated with water, and to observe perpetually the strictest\ncontinence[741]. The Sabbath was kept by them as a fast and, although\nthis may look like an obedience to Jewish custom, Epiphanius, who is our\nsole authority for the observance, tells us that Marcion expressly\nrejected this attribution[742]. Virginity was, according to him, the\nonly state of life for the true Christian; and although he freely\nbaptized unmarried men and eunuchs, he refused baptism to married\npersons, as has been said, until they were divorced or on the point of\ndeath[743]. To the enticements of the circus, the gladiatorial shows,\nand the theatre, the Marcionites used, according to Tertullian, to\nreturn the answer \u201cGod forbid!\u201d; and they made the same reply, he tells\nus, when invited to save their lives in time of persecution by\nsacrificing a few grains of incense to the genius of the Emperor[744].\nThe reason of all this austerity was apparently their contempt for the\nkingdom of the Demiurge and their resolve to do nothing to prolong his\nrule.\n\nOf the spread of the Marcionite heresy we have very little more\ninformation than that given above. Prof. Harnack thinks 150-190 A.D. was\nthe \u201cgolden age of the Marcionites[745],\u201d but Tertullian evidently\nconsidered that some thirty years after the last of these dates they\nwere nearly as numerous as the Valentinians, whom he speaks of as the\nlargest sect of heretics[746]. An inscription found in a Syrian village\nrefers to a \u201csynagogue\u201d of Marcionites occupying a site there in 318\nA.D.[747], which is, as has been remarked, older than the earliest dated\ninscription of the Catholic Church. Theodoret, too, about 440 A.D.,\nboasts of having converted more than a thousand of them, a statement\nwhich afterwards swells into eight villages and supposes that they were\npretty thickly clustered together[748]. Yet they must have led a\nmiserable existence, being persecuted by the Imperial authorities and\ntheir Christian brethren at once, and it is not to be wondered at that\nMarcion himself addresses some followers in a letter quoted by\nTertullian as \u201cmy partners in hate and wretchedness[749].\u201d It speaks\nvolumes for their faith that they continued to hold it in spite of\neverything.\n\nThis was the more to their credit that they were by no means at one in\nmatters of belief. In a passage quoted in a former chapter, Tertullian\nsays that the Marcionites thought it fair to do what Marcion had done,\nthat is, to innovate on the faith according to their own pleasure. This\nis a rhetorical way of putting it; for the successors of Marcion seem to\nhave differed among themselves mainly upon one point, which was, in\nfact, the number of \u201cprinciples\u201d which lay at the beginning of\nthings[750]. Thanks to his Stoical training, Marcion was forced to\nassign a large part in the formation of the cosmos to Matter, which he\nnevertheless thought to be essentially evil. But in that case, how did\nit come into existence? It surely could not be the creation of the\nSupreme and benevolent Being whose name was Love; and if not, how did it\ncome to exist independently of Him? To these questions it is possible\nthat the essentially practical genius of Marcion saw no need to return\nany answer, and was content to regard them, like Epicurus before him, as\ninsoluble problems. But his followers apparently refused to do so; and\nhence there arose considerable diversity of opinion. According to an\nArmenian author of late date, Marcion himself taught that there were\n_three_ principles, that is, the Supreme God, the Demiurge or Creator,\nand Matter, which he regarded as a sort of spouse to the Demiurge[751].\nThis, however, is extremely unlikely in view of the unanimous assertion\nof the Fathers nearer to him in point of time that he taught the\nexistence of two principles only; and it is probable that the theory of\nthree principles, if seriously advanced, must have been the work of one\nof his followers. Tertullian, whose sophistry in combating Marcion\u2019s\nteaching in this respect is here particularly apparent, points out,\nindeed, that if the Creator be held to be self-originated and not\nhimself the creature of the Supreme God, there must be nine gods instead\nof two[752]; but there is no reason to suppose that Marcion ever\ntroubled himself about such dialectical subtleties.\n\nThe case was different with Apelles, who was certainly later in date\nthan Marcion and perhaps succeeded him in the headship of the sect,\neither immediately or at one remove[753]. According to Tertullian,\nApelles left Rome for Alexandria where he no doubt came in contact with\nthe Gnostic opinions there rife[754]. The slander that Tertullian sets\non foot about him to the effect that he forsook his master\u2019s continence\nand was addicted to the company of women is unexpectedly refuted by\nTertullian\u2019s contemporary, Rhodo[755]. But Apelles must have come in\ncontact in Alexandria with the followers of Valentinus and other Gnostic\nteachers, and their arguments no doubt compelled him to modify the\nstrict dualism of his master. According to Rhodo, Apelles asserted that\nthere was only one principle of all things, which would imply that the\nDemiurge was the creature of the Supreme God, and that Matter, instead\nof being essentially evil and independent, must have been also created\nby Him. Hippolytus, who was possibly a little later than Rhodo,\namplifies this by the statement that Apelles held the Demiurge to be the\nfashioner of things coming into being (subsequent to him)[756], and that\nthere was a third god or angel of a fiery nature who inspired Moses, and\neven a fourth who was the cause of evil. In this the Gnostic idea of\ncorrespondence or reflection of one world in another is manifest; but it\nis evident that it also approaches more nearly than does the\nuncompromising dualism of Marcion himself to the teaching of the\nCatholic Church. The same tendency to compromise is evident in Apelles\u2019\nwillingness to use the books of both the Old and the New Testament,\nquoting with regard to them, if Epiphanius is to be believed, the\napocryphal saying of Jesus \u201cBe ye wise money-changers!\u201d to be found in,\namong other works, the _Pistis Sophia_[757]. Apelles seems also to have\nmodified his master\u2019s teaching with regard to the body of Jesus, which\nwas, he said, no phantasm, but a real body of flesh and blood assumed by\nHim on His descent to the earth, and returned by Him piece by piece on\nHis Ascension to the different elements whence it was drawn. His\nindebtedness in this to the sources from which the author of the _Pistis\nSophia_ drew the same doctrine needs no demonstration. Yet there is no\nreason to assert that Apelles considered these \u201ccorrections\u201d of\nMarcion\u2019s teaching in any way essential or binding on his followers. He\nseems, too, to have adopted one of the practices of the primitive Church\nin paying attention to the ecstatical visions of \u201cprophets\u201d of both\nsexes, his faith in the prophecies of a virgin named Philumene being the\nfoundation of Tertullian\u2019s slander on his morals. There can be no doubt,\nhowever, that in spite of these tendencies, he remained in essentials a\ntrue follower of Marcion, and that like his master, he deprecated\nenquiry into insoluble problems. \u201cOne ought not,\u201d he said, as Rhodo\nreports, \u201cto examine doctrine, but everyone should be steadfast in the\nfaith. Those who trust in Him that was crucified will be saved, if only\nthey do good works[758].\u201d Herein he also, like Marcion himself, seems to\nhave anticipated by many centuries the teaching of the German Reformers.\n\nOther followers of Marcion there were who, thanks to our lack of\ninformation concerning them, are to us merely names. Thus Tatian, who\nwas according to tradition a disciple of Justin Martyr but fell away\nfrom orthodoxy after his teacher\u2019s death, seems to have held a kind of\nintermediate position between the two great schools of heresy. While\nteaching, according to Irenaeus, a system of aeons not unlike that of\nValentinus, he adopted in full the notions of Marcion as to abstinence\nfrom marriage, from the eating of flesh, and from the use of wine, and\nmay have been the founder of a separate sect called Encratites[759]. We\nhear, too, of one Prepon, \u201can Assyrian\u201d or native of Syria, a follower\nof Marcion, whom Hippolytus represents as teaching that Jesus Himself\nwas intermediate between the good and evil deities and came down to\nearth to be freed from all evil[760]. Rhodo also speaks[761] of Potitus\nand Basilicus, followers of Marcion, who held fast to his doctrine of\ntwo principles, while Syneros, as he affirms, led a school which\nasserted that there were three \u201cnatures.\u201d Lucian also, who, according to\nHippolytus and Epiphanius, came in point of time between Marcion and\nApelles[762], may have inclined to the same doctrine, and taught, unlike\nMarcion, that there would be a resurrection, not of the body nor of the\nsoul, but of some part of man which he also defined as being of a \u201cthird\nnature[763].\u201d\n\nThe conversion of Constantine put a violent end to any open propagation\nof the doctrines of Marcion or his successors. In the picturesque words\nof Eusebius \u201cthe lurking-places of the heretics were broken up by the\nEmperor\u2019s commands, and the savage beasts which they harboured were put\nto flight.\u201d Hence, he goes on to tell us, many of those who had been\n\u201cdeceived\u201d crept secretly into the Church, and were ready to secure\ntheir own safety by every sort of dissimulation[764]. This practice, as\nwe have seen, had always been popular among the Gnostics properly so\ncalled, whose religion consisted in part in the knowledge of the\nformulas secretly imparted and preserved with jealous care from all but\nthe initiated. Although there is no distinct proof that the same course\nwas now adopted by the Marcionites, there is some reason for thinking\nthat this was the case. The postponement of baptism noticed above must\nhave early divided the members of the Marcionite churches into grades of\nwhich the largest was in an inferior position to the others. It is\nunlikely that these catechumens, who might witness but not share in the\nsacraments celebrated for their higher-placed brethren, should have\ncourted persecution on behalf of a faith with which they were not fully\nentrusted. The outbreak of the Arian controversy, which followed so\nclosely on the conversion of Constantine, also carried within the\nCatholic Church those speculations about the Divine nature which had\nhitherto formed a fruitful source of dissension among the Marcionites\nthemselves. With their synagogues and meeting-places taken away from\nthem and handed over to the Catholics, many of them must have looked\nabout for some tolerated community which they could join, and of all\nthat thus offered themselves, the Catholic Church offered the greatest\ninducements to them.\n\nYet another way was open to the convinced Marcionite who could not bring\nhimself to reject Marcion\u2019s view that the true purport of Jesus\u2019\nteaching had been obscured by the additions of Judaizing apostles. The\nsect of the followers of Manes, who began to show themselves in the\nWestern part of the Roman Empire shortly before Constantine\u2019s\nconversion, professed a dualism more uncompromising than any that\nMarcion had taught, and coupled with it an organization so skilful and\neffective that it was able for some ten centuries longer to defy the\nefforts of the rest of Christendom for its suppression. In its division\nof all Manichaeans into the two great classes of Perfect and Hearers it\ndrew very close to Marcionite practice; and the liberty which it allowed\nthe Hearers of outwardly professing any faith they pleased must have\nenabled the Marcionite who joined it to keep those articles of his\nformer creed most dear to him without coming into violent collision with\neither Church or State. Hence the tradition seems well founded which\nasserts that the majority of those Marcionites, who did not become\nreconciled with the Catholic Church after Constantine\u2019s alliance with\nit, joined the ranks of the Manichaeans, and so ceased to exist as a\nseparate community[765].\n\nThe direct influence of Marcion\u2019s teaching upon that of the Catholic\nChurch was probably very small. In spite of the efforts of recent\nwriters to maintain the contrary[766], it is difficult to see that this\nfirst attempt, honest and sincere as it undoubtedly was, at the\nreformation of Christianity ever bore fruit of lasting value. Its main\nprinciple which, as we have seen, was the rejection of the Jewish\nscriptures and their bearing upon the Mission of Jesus, has been\nignored, since Marcion\u2019s death as in his lifetime, by every other Church\nand sect professing Christian doctrines. His common-sense view, that the\nwords of the Christian Bible must mean what their authors and their\ncontemporaries would have naturally taken them to mean, and do not for\nthe most part contain any deeply hidden or allegorical significance, was\nin like manner repudiated by the whole of Christendom, which, up to the\nlatter part of the XIXth century, continued to construe the greater part\nof its sacred books by trope and figure[767]. There remains then only\nthe asceticism and austerity that Marcion practised which the orthodox\ncould have borrowed from him. But, we have seen that the religious\nabstinence from procreation, and from the use of meat and wine, can be\ntraced back to the appearance of Orphism in Greece some five hundred\nyears before the Birth of Christ; and if the Christian Church adopted,\nas it partly did, these practices in a modified form, it was by way of\ninheritance from a source which was much nearer to it than Marcion\u2019s\nheresy. That many of Marcion\u2019s ideas have been revived in our own day is\nlikely enough, and this opinion has been put forward with much skill and\npoint by Dr Foakes-Jackson in his Hulsean Lectures. But this is a case\nof revival rather than of descent, and a reformer who has to wait some\neighteen centuries before his ideas meet with acceptance, may well be\nheld to have failed to influence after ages.\n\nNotwithstanding this, the heresy of Marcion will always have great\ninterest for the student of the History of Religions. The\nsuccess\u2014fugitive as such things go, but real enough for a time\u2014with\nwhich Marcion set up a Church over against that tremendous polity which\nhas been called without much exaggeration \u201cthe very master-piece of\nhuman wisdom,\u201d would be alone sufficient to make it precious in the eyes\nof those who are not blind to the romance of history. To archaeologists\nit is the more interesting that it is only in its direction that we are\nlikely to receive in future much additional light upon the struggles of\nnascent Christianity with one category of its competitors. The very\nvoluminous writings of the other Gnostics were destroyed by the\ntriumphant Church with such minute care that the Coptic texts described\nin the last chapter form the only relics of this once enormous\nliterature that have survived to us. The heathen religions which for\nsome time disputed the ground with the Church have also left few traces\npartly for the same reason, and partly because the secrecy to which they\npledged their votaries made it unlikely that many written documents of\nthese faiths would survive. But the _Antitheses_ of Marcion were in the\nhands of Photius in the Xth century; and, although it is dangerous to\nprophesy in such matters, it is by no means impossible that some lucky\ndiscovery within the borders of the Turkish Empire may yet give us a MS.\nthat will enable us to reconstruct them. If that should ever be the\ncase, we shall be in a far better position than we are now to decide\nwhether the analogies between Marcionism and Protestantism that have\nbeen detected of late years are essential or superficial.\n\nFootnote 685:\n\n  Chap. IX. p. 118 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 686:\n\n  Renan, _Marc Aur\u00e8le_, p. 49. Cf. Dill, _Nero to Marcus_, pp. 473-477.\n\nFootnote 687:\n\n  Renan, _L\u2019\u00c9glise Chr\u00e9tienne_, pp. 31-33, and Hadrian\u2019s letter there\n  quoted.\n\nFootnote 688:\n\n  Of the defences mentioned in the text the Apology of Quadratus is the\n  only one still lost to us. Justin Martyr\u2019s two Apologies are among the\n  best known of patristic works. That of Aristides was found by Dr\n  Rendel Harris in a Syriac MS. in 1889. For the identification of this\n  by Dean Armitage Robinson with the story of Barlaam and Josaphat, see\n  _Cambridge Texts and Studies_, vol. 1. No. 1.\n\nFootnote 689:\n\n  The account of Marcion\u2019s life given by Salmon (_s.v._ Marcion) in the\n  _Dict. Christian Biog._ is here mostly followed. Abundant references\n  to the Fathers and other sources are there given.\n\nFootnote 690:\n\n  Tertullian\u2019s talk (_adv. Marcion._ Bk I. c. 1) about its barbarism and\n  the natives living in waggons is mere rhetoric. He probably knew\n  nothing about the place.\n\nFootnote 691:\n\n  _Stoicae studiosus._ Tertullian, _de Praescript._ c. XXX.\n\nFootnote 692:\n\n  _Id._ _adv. Marc._ Bk IV. c. 4; and _de Praescript._ c. XXX., where\n  the money is said to have been 200 sestertia or nearly \u00a31800.\n\nFootnote 693:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk I. c. 2. Cf. Pseudo Tertullianus, _adv.\n  omn._ _Haer._ c. XVI.\n\nFootnote 694:\n\n  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 150; cf. Tertullian, _de Praescript._ c.\n  XLI.\n\nFootnote 695:\n\n  _Ibid. op. cit._ c. XXX. Salmon (_Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._\n  Marcion) wishes to transfer this story to Cerdo.\n\nFootnote 696:\n\n  Neander, _Church Hist._ II. p. 139, disbelieves it.\n\nFootnote 697:\n\n  Justin Martyr, _First Apol._ cc. XXVI., LVIII. He writes as Marcion\u2019s\n  contemporary. Cf. Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk III. c. 3.\n\nFootnote 698:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XLII. p. 553, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 699:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk IV. c. 5.\n\nFootnote 700:\n\n  Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 14.\n\nFootnote 701:\n\n  The council was held 692 A.D. See Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._\n  _s.v._ Marcion.\n\nFootnote 702:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk I. c. 27.\n\nFootnote 703:\n\n  The story that he seduced a virgin is now generally held to mean\n  merely that he corrupted the unsullied faith of the Church. Cf.\n  Hegesippus in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 22. So Salmon, _art.\n  cit._ _supra_. As Neander points out (_Ch. Hist._ II. p. 136 note),\n  Tertullian, had he known the story, would certainly have published it.\n  Yet he contrasts Marcion\u2019s chastity with the real or supposed\n  incontinence of his follower, Apelles (_de Praescript._ c. XXX.).\n\nFootnote 704:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 25, p. 219, Harvey.\n\nFootnote 705:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 3, p. 370, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 706:\n\n  So Salmon, _art. cit._, Renan, and others. This view, however, cannot\n  apply to Justin Martyr who was, as we have seen, his contemporary. See\n  n. 5. p. 205 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 707:\n\n  See Salmon (_Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Marcion) for authorities.\n\nFootnote 708:\n\n  See Harnack\u2019s article on _Marcion_ in _Encyc. Brit._ (11th ed.).\n\nFootnote 709:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk IV. c. 2. Marcion apparently knew nothing\n  of St John\u2019s Gospel, which may not have become public till after his\n  death. Had he done so, as Renan says (_L\u2019\u00c9gl. Chr\u00e9tienne_, p. 71), he\n  would probably have preferred it to any other, because of its markedly\n  anti-Jewish tendency.\n\nFootnote 710:\n\n  According to him, Jesus was not born of woman. Cf. Hippolytus, _op.\n  cit._ Bk VII. c. 31, pp. 383-384, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 711:\n\n  The whole controversy is well summed up in Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._\n  t. II. pp. 238-242.\n\nFootnote 712:\n\n  See Matter, _op. cit._ t. II. pp. 246-260, where Marcion\u2019s emendations\n  are given chapter by chapter and their sources cited.\n\nFootnote 713:\n\n  Hahn, in his _Antitheses Marcionis gnostici_, K\u00f6nigsberg, 1823,\n  claimed to have restored this book, while Hilgenfeld has examined the\n  extant remains of Marcion\u2019s Gospel in _Das Evangelium Marcions_. He\n  attempted to restore Marcion\u2019s _Apostolicon_ in the _Zeitschr. f\u00fcr\n  hist. Theol._ 1855.\n\nFootnote 714:\n\n  The _Antitheses_ seem to have been seen by Photius in the Xth century,\n  so that we need not despair.\n\nFootnote 715:\n\n  Like the Eros-Phanes of the Orphics and the Ophite Agape. So\n  Pausanias, Bk IX. c. 27, says the Lycomidae sang in the Mysteries\n  hymns to Eros, which he had read, thanks to a \u03b4\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 or torch-bearer\n  at Eleusis.\n\nFootnote 716:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk I. c. 2, says that Marcion is obliged to\n  admit the existence of a Creator, because his work is manifest; but\n  that he will never be able to prove that of a higher God than he\u2014a\n  mode of reasoning which might take him further than he intends.\n\nFootnote 717:\n\n  Isaiah, xlv. 7.\n\nFootnote 718:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk III. c. 8.\n\nFootnote 719:\n\n  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. pp. 142 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 720:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk III. c. 24.\n\nFootnote 721:\n\n  _Op. cit._ Bk III. c. 4. Cf Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 144.\n\nFootnote 722:\n\n  Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1.\n\nFootnote 723:\n\n  Gal. i. 1. Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk V., contains most of Marcion\u2019s\n  dealings with the Pauline Epistles.\n\nFootnote 724:\n\n  Gal. i. 6, 7.\n\nFootnote 725:\n\n  Gal. ii. 11 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 726:\n\n  Gal. iii. 14.\n\nFootnote 727:\n\n  1 Cor. i. 21.\n\nFootnote 728:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk V. c. 5.\n\nFootnote 729:\n\n  2 Cor. iv. 4. Cf. Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 11.\n\nFootnote 730:\n\n  Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 14.\n\nFootnote 731:\n\n  Rom. x. 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 732:\n\n  2 Thess. i. 8. Cf. Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 16.\n\nFootnote 733:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XLII. p. 676, Oehler; Tertullian, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 734:\n\n  Ephes. iii. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 735:\n\n  Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 18.\n\nFootnote 736:\n\n  But see n. 2, p. 217, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 737:\n\n  As is plain from the words of Plutarch quoting, as is generally\n  thought, Theopompus of Chios. See _Is. et Os._ cc. XLVI., XLVII.\n  Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chronology_, p. 189, says indeed that both Bardesanes and\n  Marcion borrowed from Zoroaster. But this was eight centuries after\n  Marcion\u2019s death, and we have no evidence as to Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee\u2019s means of\n  knowledge of his tenets.\n\nFootnote 738:\n\n  Harvey\u2019s _Irenaeus_, I. p. cli. There is a curious resemblance to\n  Marcion\u2019s Demiurge in the Clementine _Homilies_, XX. c. 2, where the\n  king of this world who rules by law and rejoices in the destruction of\n  sinners is mentioned. But the _Homilies_ are probably Ebionite and\n  certainly, in the form in which they have come down to us, later than\n  Marcion.\n\nFootnote 739:\n\n  Neander _Antignostikus_, Eng. ed. vol. II. p. 490, calls him the\n  representative of the Protestant spirit. In modern times, it is\n  perhaps sufficient to notice Harnack\u2019s predilection, as shown in his\n  _Dogmengeschichte_, for Marcion and his works. Foakes-Jackson, _Some\n  Christian Difficulties of the Second and Twentieth Centuries_ (Hulsean\n  Lectures), Cambridge, 1903, pp. 19 _sqq._, thinks the study of the\n  controversy between Marcion and Tertullian should especially appeal to\n  Modernists.\n\nFootnote 740:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 29, p. 378, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 741:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XLII. p. 556, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 742:\n\n  _Op. et loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 743:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk IV. c. 11. Cf. p. 207, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 744:\n\n  Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 27.\n\nFootnote 745:\n\n  Harnack in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (11th ed.) _s.v._ \u201cMarcion.\u201d\n\nFootnote 746:\n\n  He always couples Valentinus and Marcion together. Cf. _de Praescpt._\n  cc. XXIX., XXX. Justin Martyr, Marcion\u2019s contemporary, says (_First\n  Apolog._ c. XXVI.) that \u201che is even now teaching men of every nation\n  to speak blasphemies.\u201d Renan, _L\u2019\u00c9gl. Chr\u00e9tienne_, p. 363, thinks that\n  the Marcionites were \u201cmuch the most numerous sect before Arius.\u201d\n\nFootnote 747:\n\n  Foakes-Jackson, _Hulsean Lectures_, p. 108. Cf. Sanday, _The Gospels\n  in the 2nd Cent._, Oxford, 1876, p. 236.\n\nFootnote 748:\n\n  Theodoret, _Epp._ 113 and 145.\n\nFootnote 749:\n\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c0\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9: Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk IV. cc.\n  9, 30.\n\nFootnote 750:\n\n  See Neander, _Ch. Hist._ vol. II. pp. 151 _sqq._ and Matter, _Hist. du\n  Gnost._ t. II. pp. 298, 304.\n\nFootnote 751:\n\n  Eznig of Goghp, from whose History of the Armenian Church quotation\n  has been made above. He says that Marcion taught that there were three\n  heavens, in the highest of which dwelt the Good God, in the next the\n  God of the (Jewish) Law, and in the third his angels. Below this lay\n  Hyle or Matter who existed independently and was female. From the\n  union of the God of the Law and Hyle, this earth was produced, after\n  which its Father retired to his own heaven, leaving the earth to the\n  rule of Hyle. When he desired to make man, Hyle supplied the dust of\n  which he was formed, into which the God of the Law breathed his own\n  spirit. Adam became the adorer of Hyle, upon which the God of the Law\n  informed him that, if he worshipped any other God but him, he should\n  die. On this Adam withdrew from Hyle, and this last, becoming jealous,\n  made a number of gods and filled the world with them. Hence all men\n  were cast into hell at death, until the Good God looked down from the\n  highest heaven, had pity on them, and sent his Son to deliver the\n  \u201cspirits in prison,\u201d which He did directly He went down into hell\n  after His own death. After Jesus had revealed Himself to the Creator\n  and received his confession of ignorance, Jesus illuminated Paul and\n  made him His apostle. It is extremely unlikely that this story should\n  have formed part of Marcion\u2019s own teaching, although it may possibly\n  have been told by some follower of his of Semitic blood, or, as Salmon\n  suggests, by Cerdo. It is to be found in Neumann\u2019s translation of\n  Eznig in the _Zeitschr. f\u00fcr hist. Theol._ vol. IV. and in the _Dict.\n  Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Marcion.\n\nFootnote 752:\n\n  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk I. c. 16.\n\nFootnote 753:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XLII. p. 688, Oehler, says Marcion was succeeded\n  by Lucian, whom Apelles followed. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. cc.\n  37, 38, p. 393, Cruice, is probably the source of Epiphanius\u2019\n  statement; but he does not seem to have had any first-hand knowledge\n  of the Marcionite heresy or its chiefs, and is not here so good a\n  witness as Tertullian, or Irenaeus, who mentions neither Lucian nor\n  Apelles.\n\nFootnote 754:\n\n  Tertullian, _de Praescript._ c. XXX.\n\nFootnote 755:\n\n  Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 13.\n\nFootnote 756:\n\n  \u1f10\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 37, p.\n  393, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 757:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XLII. p. 694, Oehler. The same Logion or saying is\n  also found in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk I. c. 28, in the _Apostolical\n  Constitutions_, Bk II. c. 37, and in Clem. _Hom._ XVIII. c. 20.\n\nFootnote 758:\n\n  Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 13.\n\nFootnote 759:\n\n  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 26, \u00a7 1, p. 220, Harvey. According to Hippolytus,\n  _op. cit._ Bk VIII. c. 16, p. 416, Cruice, he had been a disciple of\n  Justin Martyr.\n\nFootnote 760:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 31, p. 382, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 761:\n\n  Eusebius, _op. et loc. cit._ _supra_.\n\nFootnote 762:\n\n  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 37, p. 393, Cruice; Epiphanius,\n  _Haer._ XLIII. p. 688, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 763:\n\n  Tertullian, _de Resurrectione_, c. II.\n\nFootnote 764:\n\n  Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_, Bk III. cc. 64-66.\n\nFootnote 765:\n\n  So Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._ and Harnack in _Encyclopaedia\n  Britannica_, both _s.v._ Marcion.\n\nFootnote 766:\n\n  Hatch, _H.L._ p. 77, n. 1, quoting Harnack.\n\nFootnote 767:\n\n  Hatch, _op. cit._ pp. 75, 76, shows that the allegorical method\n  introduced by the Gnostics in order to avoid the difficulty of\n  reconciling the Old Testament with the New was at first scornfully\n  rejected, but was soon adopted by the orthodox, and was pursued by\n  both Catholic and Protestant writers up to a few years ago.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XII\n                         THE WORSHIP OF MITHRAS\n\n\nFew of us, perhaps, are inclined to recognize that, from its first\nestablishment down to the Mahommedan Invasion of the VIIth century, the\nRoman Empire found itself constantly in the presence of a bitter,\ndetermined, and often victorious enemy. Alexander had conquered but had\nnot destroyed the Persians; and, although the magic of the hero\u2019s\npersonality held them faithful to him during his too brief life, he was\nno sooner dead than they hastened to prove that they had no intention of\ntamely giving up their nationality. Peucestas, the Royal bodyguard who\nreceived the satrapy of Persia itself on his master\u2019s death, and was\nconfirmed in it at the first shuffling of the cards at Triparadisus,\nfound it expedient to adopt the Persian language and dress, with the\nresult that his subjects conceived for him an affection only equal to\nthat which they afterwards showed for Seleucus[768]. Later, when the\nrise of the Parthian power under Arsaces brought about the defeat of\nSeleucus II Callinicus, the opposition to European forms of government\nfound a centre further north[769], whence armies of lightly-equipped\nhorsemen were able to raid up to the Eastern shores of the\nMediterranean[770]. Thanks probably to the knowledge of this support in\nreserve, when Western Asia found the military power of the Greek kings\nbecoming exhausted by internecine wars, she began to throw off the alien\ncivilization that she had in part acquired, and to return more and more\nto Persian ways[771]. When the Romans in their turn set to work to eat\nup the enfeebled Greek kingdoms, they quickly found themselves in\npresence of a revived nationality as firmly held and nearly as\naggressive as their own, and henceforth Roman and Parthian were seldom\nat peace. The long struggle with Mithridates, who gave himself out as a\ndescendant of Darius[772], taught the Romans how strong was the reaction\ntowards Persian nationality even in Asia Minor, and the overthrow of\nCrassus by the Parthians convinced his countrymen for a time of the\nfolly of pushing their arms too far eastwards.\n\nWith the establishment of the Empire, the antagonism between Rome and\nPersia became still more strongly marked, and a struggle commenced which\nlasted with little intermission until the foundation of the Mahommedan\nCaliphate. In this struggle the advantage was not always, as we should\nlike to think, on the side of the Europeans. While Augustus reigns,\nHorace boasts, there is no occasion to dread the \u201cdreadful\nParthians[773]\u201d; but Corbulo is perpetually fighting them, and when Nero\ncommits suicide, the legend immediately springs up that the tyrant is\nnot dead, but has only betaken himself beyond the Euphrates to return\nwith an army of Rome\u2019s most dreaded enemies to lay waste his rebellious\ncountry[774]. Towards the close of the first Christian century, Trajan,\nfired, according to Gibbon, by the example of Alexander, led an army\ninto the East and achieved successes which enabled him to add to his\ntitles that of Parthicus[775]; but the whole of his Oriental conquests\nwere given back by the prudent Hadrian on his succession to the throne.\nDuring the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Avidius Cassius obtained some solid\nvictories on the frontier; but Macrinus is said to have bought off the\nParthians with a bribe of nearly two millions of money. The rise of the\nSassanian house and the retransfer of the leadership from the Parthians\nto their kinsmen in Persia proper brought about the reform of the\nPersian religion, and added another impulse to the increasing strength\nof Persian national feeling. Alexander Severus may have gained some\nsuccesses in the field over Ardesh\u00eer or Artaxerxes, the restorer of the\nPersian monarchy[776]; but in the reign of the last named king\u2019s son and\nsuccessor Sapor, the capture of the Emperor Valerian with his whole\narmy, and the subsequent ravaging of the Roman provinces in Asia by the\nvictors, showed the Republic how terrible was the might of the restored\nkingdom[777]. Aurelian, the conqueror of Palmyra, did much to restore\nthe prestige of Roman arms in the East; and although he was assassinated\nwhen on the march against Persia, the Emperor Carus shortly after led a\nsuccessful expedition into the heart of the Persian kingdom[778]. In the\nreign of Diocletian, indeed, the Persians lost five provinces to the\nRomans[779]; but under Constantine the Great the Romans were again\nvanquished in the field, and the Persians were only prevented by the\nheroic resistance of the fortified town of Nisibis and an incursion into\ntheir Eastern provinces of tribes from Central Asia from again\noverrunning the Asiatic possessions of Rome[780].\n\nHenceforward, the history of the long contest between the two great\nempires\u2014\u201cthe eyes,\u201d as the Persian ambassador told Galerius, \u201cof the\ncivilized world[781],\u201d is the record of almost uninterrupted advance on\nthe part of Persia and of continual retreat on the side of Rome. The\npatriotic enthusiasm of a Julian, and the military genius of a\nBelisarius, aided by the dynastic revolutions common among Oriental\nnations, might for a time arrest the progress of the conquering\nPersians; but, bit by bit, the Asiatic provinces slipped out of the\ngrasp of the European masters of Constantinople. In 603 A.D., it looked\nas if Persia were at length in the position to deliver the final blow in\na war which had lasted for more than five centuries. By the invasion of\nChosroes and his successive captures of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Egypt,\nit seemed as if the Persians had restored the world-empire of Cambyses\nand Darius; but the Persians then discovered, as Xerxes had done a\nmillennium earlier, how dangerous it is for Orientals, even when flushed\nby conquest, to press Europeans too far. The Roman Emperor Heraclius,\nwho never before or afterwards gave much proof of military or political\ncapacity, from his besieged capital of Constantinople collected an army\nwith which he dashed into Persia in a manner worthy of Alexander\nhimself. After six brilliant campaigns he dictated to the Persians a\ntriumphant peace in the very heart of their empire[782]. A few years\nlater, and its shattered and disorganized remains fell an easy prey to\nthe Mahommedan invaders.\n\nThe effect of this long rivalry might have been expected to produce in\nthe Romans during its continuance a hearty dislike of the customs and\ninstitutions of the nation opposed to them; but almost the exact\ncontrary was the result. It may be argued that Rome\u2019s proved skill in\ngovernment was in no small measure due to her ready adoption of all that\nseemed to her admirable in the nations that she overcame. Or it may be\nthat the influence which the memory of Alexander exercised over all\nthose who succeeded to his empire led them to imitate him in his\nassumption of Persian manners. The fact remains that, long before the\ndivision of the Roman Empire into East and West, the Romans displayed a\ntaste for Oriental luxury and magnificence which seems entirely at\nvariance with the simplicity and austerity of the republican conquerors\nof Carthage. It is hardly too much to say that while Alexander\u2019s\nconscious aim was to make Asia Greek, the Romans, on possessing\nthemselves of his Asiatic conquests, allowed themselves to become to a\ngreat extent \u201cMedized,\u201d and showed an unexpected admiration for the\nhabits and culture of Alexander\u2019s Persian subjects.\n\nIt may of course be said that this was in external matters only, and\nthat the \u201cPersian furniture\u201d which excited Horace\u2019s wrath[783] might if\nit stood alone be looked upon as merely a passing fashion; but the Court\nceremonial introduced by Diocletian argues a steady tendency towards\nPersian customs and forms of government that must have been in operation\nfor centuries. The household of a Julian Caesar was no differently\narranged from that of a Roman noble of the period, and his title of\nPrince of the Senate showed that he was only looked upon as the first of\nhis equals. But Diocletian was in all respects but language a Persian\nemperor or Shah, and his style of \u201cLord and God,\u201d his diadem, his silken\nstate dress, the elaborate ritual of his court, and the long hierarchy\nof its officials, were all designed to compel his subjects to recognize\nthe fact[784]. As usual, the official form of religion in the Roman\nEmpire had for some time given indications of the coming change in the\nform of government. The sun had always been the principal natural object\nworshipped by the Persians, and a high-priest of the Sun-God had sat\nupon the Imperial throne of Rome in the form of the miserable\nHeliogabalus. Only 13 years before Diocletian, Aurelian, son of another\nSun-God\u2019s priestess and as virile and rugged as his predecessor was soft\nand effeminate, had also made the Sun-God the object of his special\ndevotion and of an official worship. Hence Diocletian and his colleague\nGalerius were assured in advance of the approval of a large part of\ntheir subjects when they took the final plunge in 307 A.D., and\nproclaimed Mithras, \u201cthe Unconquered Sun-God,\u201d the Protector of their\nEmpire[785].\n\nIn spite of this, however, it is very difficult to say how Mithras\noriginally became known to the Romans. Plutarch says indeed that his\ncult was first introduced by the Cilician pirates who were put down by\nPompey[786]. This is not likely to be literally true; for the summary\nmethods adopted by these sea-robbers towards their Roman prisoners\nhardly gave much time for proselytism, while most of the pirates whom\nPompey spared at the close of his successful operations he deported to\nAchaea, which was one of the few places within the Empire where the\nMithraic faith did not afterwards show itself. What Plutarch\u2019s story\nprobably means is that the worship of Mithras first came to Rome from\nAsia Minor, and there are many facts which go to confirm this. M.\nCumont, the historian of Mithraism, has shown that, long before the\nRomans set foot in Asia, there were many colonies of emigrants from\nPersia who with their _magi_ or priests had settled in Asia Minor,\nincluding in that phrase Galatia, Phrygia, Lydia, and probably\nCilicia[787]. When Rome began to absorb these provinces, slaves,\nprisoners, and merchants from them would naturally find their way to\nRome, and in time would no doubt draw together for the worship of their\nnational deities in the way that we have seen pursued by the worshippers\nof the Alexandrian Isis and the Jewish exiles. The _magi_ of Asia Minor\nwere great supporters of Mithridates, and the Mithridatic wars were no\ndoubt responsible for a large number of these immigrants.\n\nOnce introduced, however, the worship of Mithras spread like wild-fire.\nThe legions from the first took kindly to it, and this is the less\nsurprising when we find that many of them were recruited under the\nearliest emperors in Anatolian states like Commagene, where the cult\nwas, if not indigenous, yet of very early growth[788]. Moreover the wars\nof the Romans against the Persians kept them constantly in the border\nprovinces of the two empires, where the native populations not\ninfrequently changed masters. The enemy\u2019s town that the legions besieged\none year might therefore give them a friendly reception the next; and\nthere was thus abundant opportunity for the acquaintance of both sides\nwith each others\u2019 customs. When the Roman troops marched back to Europe,\nas was constantly the case during the civil wars which broke out on the\ndownfall of the Julian house, they took back with them the worship of\nthe new god whom they had adopted, and he thus became known through\nalmost the whole of the Roman Empire[789]. \u201cFrom the shores of the\nEuxine to the north of Brittany and to the fringe of the Sahara[790],\u201d\nas M. Cumont says, its monuments abound, and, he might have added, they\nhave been met with also in the Egyptian Delta, in Babylon, and on the\nnorthern frontiers of India. In our own barbarous country we have found\nthem not only in London and York, but as far west as Gloucester and\nChester and as far north as Carlisle and Newcastle[791]. The Balkan\ncountries, like Italy, Germany, Southern France, and Spain, are full of\nthem; but there was one part of the Roman Empire into which they did not\npenetrate freely. This was Greece, where the memories of the Persian\nWars long survived the independence of the country, and where the\ndescendants of those who fought at Salamis, Marathon, and Thermopylae\nwould have nothing to do with a god coming from the invaders\u2019\nfatherland. It is only very lately that the remains of Mithras-worship\nhave been discovered at the Piraeus and at Patras, in circumstances\nwhich show pretty clearly that it was there practised only by\nforeigners[792].\n\nNotwithstanding this popularity, it is not easy to say exactly what god\nMithras\u2019 European worshippers considered him to be. If length of\nancestry went for anything in such matters, he might indeed claim a\ngreater antiquity than any deity of the later Roman Pantheon, with the\nsingle exception of the Alexandrian gods. Mithras was certainly\nworshipped in Vedic India, where his name of Mitra constantly occurs in\nthe sacred texts as the \u201cshining one,\u201d meaning apparently the material\nsun[793]. He is there invoked in company with Varuna, generally\nconsidered the god of the sky, and therefore according to some, the\nprototype of the Greek Zeus and the Latin Jupiter[794]. His appearance\nin a similar connection in the sacred books of the Persians led the\nfounders of the comparative study of religion to think that he must have\nbeen one of the primitive gods of their hypothetical Aryan race, and\nthat his worship must go back to the imaginary time when Persians and\nHindus dwelt side by side in the plains of Cashmere. But this theory is\ngiving way before proof that the original home of the Indo-European race\nwas Europe, and has been badly shaken by the discovery at Boghaz Keui of\ntablets showing that the gods Mithra and Varuna were gods of the\nMitannians or Hittites[795] at some date earlier than 1500 B.C., and\ntherefore long before the appearance of the Persians in history. If the\nworship of Mithras were not indigenous in Western Asia, it may therefore\nwell have come there independently of the Persians[796].\n\nThere is no doubt, however, that the roots of Mithras-worship went very\nfar down into the Persian religion. In the Yashts or hymns which are the\nearliest evidence of primitive Iranian beliefs, Mithra\u2014to use the\nAvestic spelling of his name\u2014frequently appears, not indeed as the\nmaterial sun, but as the \u201cgenius of the heavenly light\u201d which lightens\nthe whole universe[797] and is the most beneficent among the powers of\nNature. Mithras is not here, however, the Supreme Being, nor even the\nhighest among the gods benevolent to man. This last place is occupied in\nthe Zend Avesta by Ahura Mazda, \u201cthe omniscient lord,\u201d who appears to be\nthe Persian form of Varuna, the god of the sky whom we have seen\nassociated with Mitra in the Vedas[798]. Nor is Mithras in the Zend\nAvesta one of the six Amshaspands, the deified abstractions or\npersonified attributes of Ahura Mazda, who, in the later developments of\nthe Persian religion, occupy towards him much the same position that the\n\u201cRoots\u201d of Simon Magus and the Aeons of the Pleroma among the Gnostics\ndo towards the Boundless Power or the Ineffable Bythos[799]. In the\nlater Avestic literature, he appears as the chief of the Izeds or\nYazatas, a race of genii created by Ahura Mazda, who are the protectors\nof his universe and the helpers of mankind in their warfare against the\npowers of darkness[800]. In the latest as in the earliest Persian view\nof the personality of Mithras, therefore, it is plain that he occupies\nan intermediate position between the Creator and man.\n\nIt is not, however, in the religion associated with the name of\nZoroaster that we must look for the origin of Mithraism. The date of the\nsacred books of Mazdeism and the historical existence of Zoroaster\nhimself have recently been brought down to as late as the VIIth century\nB.C.[801] and the appearance in Asia of the Persian tribes as\nconquerors, whereas Mithras was, as we have seen, worshipped in Asia\nMinor nearly a millennium earlier. Moreover, the strict dualism which\nset Ahriman, the god of darkness and evil, in eternal and perhaps equal\nopposition to Ormuzd, the god of light and goodness, seems to have been\nunknown before the Sassanid reform in 226 A.D., by which time the\nworship of Mithras in Europe was at its apogee[802]. M. Cumont is,\ntherefore, doubtless right when he thinks that Mithraism was derived not\nfrom Mazdeism, but from Magism or the religion of the Magi, the tribe of\nMedes whose domination was put an end to by Darius the son of Hystaspes,\nand whose name was afterwards given to a priestly caste and has passed\ninto our own language as the root of the word \u201cmagic.\u201d\n\nThat these Magi practised a religion different from that taught in the\nAvestic literature is plain enough. The romantic story told by Herodotus\nof the Magian who seized the throne of Persia during Cambyses\u2019 absence\nin Egypt on the pretence that he was the king\u2019s brother whom Cambyses\nhad privily put to death[803], is fully confirmed by Darius\u2019 trilingual\ninscription on the Rock of Behistun, first copied and deciphered by Sir\nHenry Rawlinson and lately published in elaborate form by the British\nMuseum[804]. Darius here narrates how \u201ca certain man, a Magian, Gaumata\nby name ... lied unto the people (saying) \u2018I am Smerdis, the son of\nCyrus, the brother of Cambyses.\u2019 Then all the people revolted from\nCambyses and went over to him, even Persia and Media and the other\nprovinces.\u201d Darius goes on to record that \u201cthereupon Cambyses died by\nhis own hand[805],\u201d that the seven Persian nobles overthrew the\npretender much in the way described by Herodotus, and that \u201cI rebuilt\nthe temples of the gods, which that Gaumata, the Magian, had destroyed.\nI restored that which had been taken away as it was in the days of\nold[806].\u201d This he tells us he did \u201cby the grace of Ahura Mazda,\u201d and\nthat by this grace he always acted. The memory of these events was kept\nup by the festival of the Magophonia or Massacre of the Magi which was\nyearly celebrated in Persia and during which no Magus dared show himself\nin the streets[807]. Darius\u2019 words show that there was a religious as\nwell as a dynastic side to the Magian revolt, though whether the false\nSmerdis restored the old worship of the land, which he found in danger\nof being supplanted by Zoroastrianism or the worship of Ahura Mazda, may\nstill be doubtful. In any event, the reformation or counter-reformation\nmade by Darius did not succeed in entirely uprooting the old Magian\nfaith, for Herodotus speaks of the Magi as still being in his time the\npriestly caste among the Persians, and as acting as diviners and\nsacrificers to the Achaemenian kings who ruled Persia up to Alexander\u2019s\nConquest[808].\n\nThe Magian religion as it appears in Herodotus and other Greek authors,\nhowever, seems to have shown none of the hostility to the powers of\ndarkness so apparent in the religious literature collected by the\nSassanian kings. \u201cThe whole circuit of the firmament\u201d was, according to\nHerodotus, their greatest god or Zeus; and he says that they also\n\u201csacrifice to the sun and moon, to the earth, to fire and water, and to\nthe winds\u201d; but that \u201cthey do not, like the Greeks, believe the gods to\nhave the same nature as men[809].\u201d He also tells us that later they\nborrowed from the Arabians and the Assyrians the worship of a goddess\nwhom he calls Mitra, and although he is probably wrong as to the origin\nand sex of this deity, his evidence shows that Semitic admixture counted\nfor something in the Magian worship. In other respects, the Magian seems\nto have been a primitive faith given up to the worship of the powers of\nnature or elements, which it did not personify in the anthropomorphic\nmanner of either the Semites or the Greeks, and to have paid little\nattention to public ceremonies or ritual. It follows therefore that,\nlike the religions of many uncivilized people of the present day, it\nwould draw no very sharp distinction between good and evil gods, and\nwould be as ready to propitiate or make use of the evil, that is those\nhostile to man, as the good or benevolent. Plutarch, who describes the\nreligion of the Magi more than three centuries after Herodotus, when the\nname of Zoroaster the Persian prophet and the dualistic belief favoured\nby his teaching had long been popularly known in the West, says that the\nMagi of his time held Mithras to be the \u201cMediator\u201d or intermediary\nbetween \u201cOromazes\u201d or Light on the one hand, and \u201cAreimanios\u201d or\nDarkness and Ignorance on the other, and that they used to make bloody\nsacrifices to the last-named in a place where the sun never comes[810].\nIt is easy to see how such a cult, without the control of public\nceremonies and with its unabashed traffic with the powers of evil, would\nbe likely to degenerate into compulsion or magic.\n\nThere was, however, another popular superstition or belief which, about\nthe time when Mithraism made its appearance in Europe, had spread itself\nover Western Asia. This was the idea that the positions and changes of\nthe heavenly bodies exercise an influence over the affairs of the world\nand the lot both of kingdoms and individual men. It probably began in\nBabylonia, where the inhabitants had from Sumerian times shown\nthemselves great observers of the stars, and had been accustomed to\nrecord the omens that they drew from their motions for the guidance of\nthe kings[811]. This kind of divination\u2014or astrology to call it by a\nfamiliar name\u2014received a great impulse after Alexander\u2019s Conquest, in\nthe first place from the break up of the Euphratean priestly colleges\nbefore referred to, and the driving out of the lesser priests therein to\nget their own living, and then from the fact that the scientific enquiry\nand mathematical genius of the Greeks had made the calculation of the\npositions of the heavenly bodies at any given date and hour a fairly\nsimple matter to be determined without direct observation[812]. It was\nprobably no mere coincidence that the Chaldaei and the Mathematici, as\nthe astrologers called themselves, should have swarmed at Rome under\njust those emperors in whose reigns Mithraism began to push itself to\nthe front[813].\n\nWhile we may be sure that these factors, the religion of the Magi, the\npractice of magic, and the astrological art, all counted in the\ncomposition of the worship of Mithras, we yet know but very little of\nits tenets. No work has come down to us from any devotee of Mithras\nwhich will give us the same light on the way his worshippers regarded\nhim that the romance of Apuleius and the encomium of Aelius Aristides\nhave cast on the mental attitude of the devotees of the Alexandrian\ncult. The extensive books of Eubulus and Pallas on Mithras and the\nhistory of his worship, which Porphyry tells us were extant from the\nreign of Hadrian down to his own time[814], are entirely lost, and our\nonly source of information, except a very few scattered notices in the\nFathers and in profane writers like the Emperor Julian and Porphyry\nhimself, are the sculptures and inscriptions which have been found in\nhis ruined chapels. These texts and monuments the scholarly care of M.\nCumont has gathered into two large volumes, which will always remain the\nchief source from which later enquirers must draw their materials[815].\nFrom their study he comes to the conclusion that, in the religion of\nMithras, there figured above him the Mazdean gods of good and evil\nrespectively called in the Zend Avesta Ahura Mazda and Angro Mainyus, or\nin more familiar language, Ormuzd and Ahriman. Behind and above these\nagain, he would place a Supreme Being called Zervan Akerene or Boundless\nTime, who seems to be without attributes or qualities, and to have acted\nonly as the progenitor of the opposing couple. This is at first sight\nvery probable, because the Orphic doctrine, which, as we have seen, made\nChronos or Time the progenitor of all the gods, was widely spread in\nAsia Minor before Alexander\u2019s Conquest, and the Persian colonies formed\nthere under his successors must therefore have come in frequent contact\nwith this most accommodating of schools[816]. Traditions of a sect of\nZervanists in Western Asia, who taught that all things came from\nInfinite Time, are also to be found[817]. But most of these are recorded\nafter Mithraism had become extinct; and M. Cumont\u2019s proofs of the\nexistence of this dogma in the European religion of Mithras can be\nreduced on final analysis to a quotation from a treatise by Theodore,\nthe Christian bishop of Mopsuestia who died in 428 A.D., directed, as it\nwould seem, against the \u201cMagi\u201d of his time, in which he admits that\ntheir dogmas had never been written, and that the sectaries in question,\nwhom he calls Magusaeans, said \u201csometimes one thing and deceived\nthemselves, and sometimes another and deceived the ignorant[818].\u201d M.\nCumont\u2019s identification of the lion-headed statue often found in\nMithraic chapels with the Supreme God of the system has been shown\nelsewhere to be open to serious question, and the figure itself to be\nsusceptible of another interpretation than that which he would put upon\nit[819]. On the whole, therefore, while M. Cumont\u2019s mastery of his\nsubject makes it very dangerous to differ from him, it seems that his\ntheory of a Boundless Time as the pinnacle of the Mithraist pantheon\ncannot be considered as proved.\n\nWhether Ormuzd and Ahriman played any important part in the Roman\nworship of Mithras is also doubtful. With regard to the first-named,\nboth Greeks and Romans knew him well and identified him unhesitatingly\nwith Zeus and Jupiter[820]. Hence we should expect to find him, if\nrepresented at all on the Mithraic sculptures, with the well-known\nfeatures, the thunderbolt, and the eagle, which long before this time\nhad become the conventional attributes of the Roman as well as of the\nHomeric father of gods and men. We are not entirely disappointed, for we\nfind in a bas-relief formerly in a chapel of Mithras at Sissek (the\nancient Sissia in Pannonia) and now in the Museum at Agram, the\nbull-slaying scene in which Mithras figures and which will be presently\ndescribed, surmounted by an arch on which is ranged Jupiter seated on\nhis throne, grasping the thunderbolt, wielding the sceptre, and\noccupying the place of honour in a group of gods among whom we may\ndistinguish Mars and Mercury[821]. In another bas-relief of the same\nscene, now at the Rudolfinum in Klagenfurt, he is depicted in a similar\nposition in an assembly of the gods, which although much mutilated seems\nto show Zeus or Jupiter in the centre with Hera or Juno by his\nside[822]. But the most conclusive of these monuments is the great\nbas-relief found at Osterburken in the Odenwald, wherein the arch\nsurmounting the usual bull-slaying scene contains an assembly of twelve\ngods with Zeus in the centre armed with thunderbolt and sceptre, while\naround him are grouped Apollo, Ares, Heracles, Hera, Athena, Aphrodite,\nNike, Poseidon, Artemis, Hades, and perhaps Persephone[823]. When by the\nside of these we put the many inscriptions left by the legionaries to\n\u201cthe holy gods of the fatherland, to Jupiter best and greatest, and to\nthe Unconquered One\u201d; to \u201cJupiter best and greatest, and to the divine\nSun, the Unconquered Sun,\u201d and other well-known names of Mithras, there\ncan be no doubt that his worshippers used to adore him together with the\nhead of the Roman Pantheon, and that they considered Mithras in some way\nthe subordinate of or inferior to Jupiter[824]. Yet there is nothing to\nshow that the Mithraists as such identified in any way this Jupiter\nOptimus Maximus with the Persian Ahura Mazda, Oromasdes, or Ormuzd, or\nthat they ever knew him by any of these outlandish names.\n\nThe case is different with Ormuzd\u2019s enemy Ahriman, who evidently was\nknown by his Persian name to the Roman worshippers of Mithras. In the\nVatican can be seen a triangular marble altar dedicated by a\n_clarissimus_ named Agrestius who was a high-priest of Mithras, to \u201cthe\ngod Arimanius[825],\u201d and altars with similar inscriptions have been\nfound at Buda-Pesth[826]. At a Mithraic chapel in York also, there was\nfound a statue, now in the Museum of the Philosophical Society in that\ncity, which bears an inscription to the same god Arimanius[827]. There\nis therefore fairly clear evidence that the Mithraists recognized\nAhriman under his Persian name, and that they sacrificed to him, as\nPlutarch said the \u201cmagi\u201d of his time did to the god whom he calls\nHades[828], and this agrees with Herodotus\u2019 statement that the Persians\nused to do the same to \u201cthe god who is said to be beneath the\nearth[829].\u201d Although this gave occasion to the Christian Fathers to\naccuse the Mithraists of worshipping the devil, we are not thereby bound\nto conclude that they looked upon Arimanius as an essentially evil\nbeing. It seems more probable that they considered him, as the Greeks\ndid their Hades or Pluto, as a chthonian or subterranean power ruling\nover a place of darkness and discomfort, where there were punishments\nindeed, but not as a deity insusceptible of propitiation by\nsacrifice[830], or compulsion by other means such as magic arts[831]. It\nhas been shown elsewhere that his image in a form which fairly\nrepresents his attributes in this capacity appears with some frequency\nin the Mithraic chapels, where a certain amount of mystery attached to\nits exhibition[832]. It seems to follow from these considerations that\nthe worshippers of Mithras attributed to their special god no\ninferiority to Ahriman as M. Cumont\u2019s argument supposes, and that the\nonly power whom they acknowledged as higher than Mithras himself was the\nRoman equivalent of Ormuzd, the Jupiter Optimus Maximus adored\nthroughout the Roman Empire of their time as the head of the\nPantheon[833].\n\nThe connection of Mithras with the sun is also by no means easy to\nunravel. The Vedic Mitra was, as we have seen, originally the material\nsun itself, and the many hundreds of votive inscriptions left by the\nworshippers of Mithras to \u201cthe unconquered Sun Mithras[834],\u201d to the\nunconquered solar divinity (_numen_) Mithras[835], to the unconquered\nSun-God (_deus_) Mithra[836], and allusions in them to the priests\n(_sacerdotes_), worshippers (_cultores_), and temples (_templum_) of the\nsame deity leave no doubt open that he was in Roman times a\nsun-god[837]. Yet this does not necessarily mean that he was actually\nthe day-star visible to mankind, and the Greeks knew well enough how to\ndistinguish between Apollo the god of light who was once at any rate a\nsun-god, and Helios the Sun itself[838]. On the Mithraic sculptures, we\nfrequently see the unmistakable figure of Mithras riding in the chariot\nof the Sun-God driven by the divinity with long hair and a rayed nimbus,\nwhom we know to be this Helios or his Roman equivalent, going through\nsome ceremony of consecration with him, receiving messages from him, and\nseated side by side with him at a banquet which is evidently a ritual\nfeast. M. Cumont explains this by the theory that Mithras, while in\nPersia and in the earliest Aryan traditions the genius of the celestial\nlight only[839], no sooner passed into Semitic countries and became\naffected by the astrological theories of the Chaldaeans, than he was\nidentified with their sun-god Shamash[840], and this seems as reasonable\na theory as can be devised. Another way of accounting for what he calls\nthe \u201cat first sight contradictory proposition\u201d that Mithras at once was\nand was not the sun[841], is to suppose that while the Mithraists wished\nthose who did not belong to their faith to believe that they themselves\nworshipped the visible luminary, they yet instructed their votaries in\nprivate that he was a deity superior to it and in fact the power behind\nit. As we shall see, the two theories are by no means irreconcilable,\nalthough absolute proof of neither can yet be offered.\n\nOne can speak with more certainty about the Legend or mythical history\nof Mithras which M. Cumont has contrived with rare acumen to reconstruct\nfrom the monuments found in his chapels. It is comprised in eleven or\ntwelve scenes or tableaux which we will take in their order[842]. We\nfirst see the birth of the god, not from the head of his father Zeus\nlike Athena, or from his thigh like Dionysos, but from a rock, which\nexplains his epithet of \u201cPetrogenes\u201d or rock-born. The god is\nrepresented in this scene as struggling from the rock in which he is\nembedded below the waist, and always uplifts in one hand a broad knife\nof which we shall afterwards see him make use, and in the other a\nlighted torch[843]. He is here represented as a boy, and wears the\nPhrygian cap or so-called cap of liberty which is his distinctive\nattribute, while the torch is doubtless, as M. Cumont surmises,\nsymbolical of the light which he is bringing into the world[844]. The\nrock is sometimes encircled by the folds of a large serpent, probably\nhere as elsewhere a symbol of the earth, and is in the Mithraic chapel\ndiscovered at Housesteads in Northumberland represented in the form of\nan egg, the upper part remaining on the head of the nascent god like an\negg-shell on that of a newly-hatched chicken[845]. This is probably due\nto some confusion or identification with the Orphic legend of the\nFirst-born or Phanes who sprang from the cosmic egg; but the central\nidea of the rock-birth seems to be that of the spark, hidden as it were\nin the stone and leaping forth when struck. In one or two examples of\nthe scene, the miraculous birth is watched by a shepherd or shepherds,\nwhich leads M. Cumont to draw a parallel between this and the Adoration\nof the Shepherds at the Birth of Christ.\n\nThe next two scenes are more difficult to interpret with anything\napproaching certainty. In one of them[846], Mithras is represented as\nstanding upright before a tree from which he cuts or tears a large\nbranch bearing leaves and fruit. He is here naked, save for the\ndistinctive cap; but immediately after, he is seen emerging from the\nleafage fully clothed in Oriental dress. In the next scene\u2014the relative\norder of the scenes seems settled by the places they most often occupy\non different examples of the same sculptures[847]\u2014Mithras in the\nPhrygian cap, Persian trousers, and flowing mantle generally worn by\nhim, kneels on one knee drawing a bow, the arrows from which strike a\nrock in the distance and draw from it a stream of water which a kneeling\nman receives in his hands and lifts to his mouth[848]. Several variants\nof this scene exist, in one of which a suppliant is kneeling before the\narcher-god and raising his hands towards him as if in prayer; while in\nanother, the rock may well be a cloud. M. Cumont can only suggest with\nregard to these scenes, that the first may be an allusion to the Fall of\nMan and his subsequently clothing himself with leaves as described in\nthe Book of Genesis, and that the second scene may depict a prolonged\ndrought upon earth, in which man prays to Mithras and is delivered by\nthe god\u2019s miraculous production of rain. He admits, however, that this\nis pure conjecture, and that he knows no Indian, Persian, or Chaldaean\nlegend or myth to which the scenes in question can be certainly\nattached. It seems therefore useless to discuss them further here.\n\nPassing on, we come to a series of scenes, the meaning of which is more\neasily intelligible. In all of these a bull plays a principal part. It\nis abundantly clear that this bull is no terrestrial creature, but is\nthe Goshurun or Heavenly Bull of the Zend Avesta, from whose death come\nforth not only man, but beasts, trees, and all the fruits of the\nearth[849]. In the Mithraic sculptures, we see the Bull first sailing\nover the waters in a cup-shaped boat[850] like the coracles still used\non the Euphrates, or escaping from a burning stable to which Mithras and\na companion have set fire[851]. Then he is depicted grazing peaceably or\nraising his head now and then as if alarmed by some sudden noise[852].\nNext he is chased by Mithras, who seizes him by the horns, mounts\nhim[853], and after a furious gallop casts him over his shoulders,\ngenerally holding him by the hind legs so that the horned head dangles\nto the ground[854]. In this position, he is taken into the cave which\nforms the chapel of Mithras.\n\nHere, if the order in the most complete monuments be followed, we break\noff to enter upon another set of scenes which illustrate the relations\nbetween Mithras and the sun[855]. In what again seems to be the first in\norder, we see Mithras upright with a person kneeling before him who,\nfrom the rayed nimbus round his head, is evidently the god Helios or\nSol[856]. In one representation of this scene, Mithras extends his left\nhand towards this nimbus as if to replace it on the head of its\nwearer[857] from which it has been displaced in yet another\nmonument[858], while in the other, he displays an object not unlike a\nPhrygian cap which may, however, be, as M. Cumont suggests, something\nlike a water-skin[859]. Generally, Mithras is represented as holding\nthis object over the bared head of the kneeling Sun-God, as if to crown\nhim with it[860]. Then we find Mithras with the ray-crowned Sun-God\nupright beside him, while he grasps his hand in token, as it would seem,\nof alliance or friendship[861]. If we accept the hint afforded by the\ntheory that the rock yielding water on being split by the arrows of\nMithras is really a cloud producing the fertilizing rain, we may imagine\nthat we have here the unconquered god removing clouds which obscure the\nface of the great life-giving luminary and restoring to him the crown of\nrays which enables him to shed his kindly light upon the earth. The\nearth would thus be made fit for the creation of man and other animals\nwhich, as we shall see, follows; but in any event, the meaning of the\nscene which shows the alliance is, as M. Cumont has pointed out, not\ndoubtful[862]. In one monument, where Mithras grasps the hand of the\nperson we have identified with the Sun-God before an altar, he at the\nsame time draws his sword, as if to perform the exchange of blood or\nblood-covenant usual in the East on swearing alliance[863]. Possibly the\ncrowning scene, as M. Cumont also suggests[864], is to be connected with\nTertullian\u2019s statement that in the initiation of the Mithraist to the\ndegree of _miles_ or soldier, he was offered at the sword\u2019s point a\ncrown, which he cast away from him saying that Mithras was his crown. If\nso, it would afford some proof that the initiate here, as in the\nmysteries of Isis, was made to impersonate the sun, which is on other\ngrounds likely enough.\n\nWe return to the scenes with the Bull, which here reach their climax.\nThis is the sacrifice of the Bull by Mithras, which forms the central\npoint of the whole legend. Its representation, generally in bas-relief,\nwas displayed in the most conspicuous position in the apse of the\nMithraic chapel, where it occupied the place of the modern altar-piece,\nand such art as the Roman sculptors succeeded in displaying was employed\nto make it as impressive and as striking as possible[865]. It shows the\ngod grasping with his left hand the nostrils of the beast, and kneeling\nwith his left knee in the middle of the Bull\u2019s back, while with his\nright hand he plunges the broad-bladed dagger with which he was armed at\nhis birth into the Bull\u2019s shoulder[866]. A dog leaps forward to lap the\nblood flowing from the wound, while at the same time a scorpion seizes\nthe Bull by the genitals. A serpent also forms part of the group, but\nhis position varies in the different monuments, while that of the other\nanimals does not. Sometimes, he lifts his head towards the blood, as if\nto share it with the dog, sometimes he is extended along the ground\nbeneath the Bull\u2019s belly in apparent indifference to the tragedy enacted\nabove him[867]. Before the Bull stands generally a youth clothed like\nMithras himself in Phrygian cap, tunic, and mantle, as well as the\nanaxyrides or tight trousers in which the Greeks depicted most Easterns,\nwhile another youth similarly attired stands behind the dying victim.\nThese two human figures are alike in every particular save that one of\nthem bears a torch upright with the flame pointing upwards, while the\nother holds a similar torch reversed so that the flame juts towards the\nearth. We know from a Latin inscription that the torch-bearer with\nuplifted torch was called Cautes, he with the reversed one Cautopates,\nbut of neither name has any satisfactory derivation or etymology yet\nbeen discovered[868].\n\nThe meaning of the group as a whole can, however, be explained by the\ndocuments of the later Persian religion. The _Bundahish_ tells us that\nAhura Mazda created before all things the Bull Goshurun, who was killed\nby Ahriman, the god of evil, and that from his side came forth Gay\u00f4mort,\nfirst of men, while from his tail there issued useful seed-plants and\ntrees, from his blood the vine, and from his seed the different kinds of\nbeasts[869]. Save that the bull-slayer is here not the god of evil but\nthe lord of light himself, the myth is evidently the same in the\nMithraic bas-reliefs, for in some of the earliest monuments the Bull\u2019s\ntail is actually shown sprouting into ears of wheat, while in others the\nproduction of animals as a consequence of the Bull\u2019s death may be\nindicated, as well as the birth of the vine[870]. That the dog plays the\npart of the guardian of the Bull\u2019s soul is probable from what we know of\nlater Persian beliefs[871], while the scorpion as the creature of\nAhriman may be here represented as poisoning the seed of future life at\nits source[872]. That Mithras is not supposed to kill the Bull from\nenmity or other personal reasons, but in obedience to orders from some\nhigher power, is shown by the listening pose of his head during the\nsacrifice. This is M. Cumont\u2019s opinion[873], as also that the serpent\nhere takes no active part in the affair, but is merely a symbolic\nrepresentation of the earth[874]. The whole drama is clearly shown as\ntaking place in a cave or grotto, as appears from the arch of rocks\nwhich surmounts, and, as it were, acts as a frame to, the Tauroctony or\nbull-slaying scene in most Mithraic chapels. This cave, according to\nPorphyry, represents the universe.\n\nThe Legend, however, does not end with the death of the Bull. In the\nchapel at Heddernheim, the great slab on which the Tauroctony is\nsculptured in bas-relief is pivoted so as to swing round and display on\nits other face another scene which we find repeated in a slightly\ndifferent form on many monuments[875]. Mithras and the Sun-God are here\nshown as partaking of a ritual feast or banquet in which grapes seem to\nfigure. At Heddernheim, the grapes are tendered to the two gods over the\nbody of the dead bull by the two torch-bearing figures Cautes and\nCautopates, while on an arch above them various quadrupeds, dogs, a\nboar, a sheep, and a cow, are seen springing into life. In other\nmonuments, the same scene generally appears as a banquet at which\nMithras and Helios are seated side by side at a table sometimes alone,\nbut at others in company with different persons who can hardly be any\nother than initiates or worshippers[876]. That this represents some sort\nof sacrament where a drink giving immortality was administered seems\nprobable, and its likeness to representations of the Last Supper is\nsufficient to explain the complaint of Justin Martyr and other Fathers\nthat the devil had set on the Mithraists to imitate in this and other\nrespects the Church of Christ[877]. The final scene of all comes when we\nsee Mithras arresting the glorious chariot of the Sun-God drawn by four\nwhite horses, and, mounting therein, being driven off by the ray-crowned\nHelios himself to the abode of light above the firmament[878]. In this\nalso, it is easy to see a likeness between representations of the\nAscension of Mithras and that of Elijah or even of Christ[879].\n\nHowever this may be, the Legend of Mithras, as thus portrayed, shows\nwith fair closeness the belief of his worshippers as to his place in the\nscheme of the universe. Mithras was certainly not the Supreme God, a\nrank in the system filled by Ahura Mazda, or his Latin counterpart,\nJupiter Best and Greatest[880]. But this being, like the Platonic Zeus\nand the Gnostic Bythos, was considered too great and too remote to\nconcern himself with the doings of the visible universe, in which\nMithras acts as his vicegerent. Whether Mithras was or was not\nconsidered as in some sort the double or antitype of the Supreme Being\ncannot be said; but it is worth noticing that in the Vedas, as among the\nHittites, Varuna and Mitra form an inseparable couple who are always\ninvoked together, and that the same seems to have been the case with\nAhura Mazda and Mithra in the oldest religious literature of the\nPersians[881]. It may therefore well be that the learned doctors of the\nMithraic theology regarded their Supreme Being and Mithras as two\naspects of the same god, an idea that, as we have seen, was current at\nabout the same period among the Gnostics. It is, however, impossible to\nspeak with certainty on such a point in the absence of any writings by\npersons professing the Mithraic faith, and it is highly improbable that\nthe rugged soldiers who formed the majority of the god\u2019s worshippers\never troubled themselves much about such questions. For them, no doubt,\nand for all, perhaps, but a few carefully-chosen persons, Mithras was\nthe Demiurge or Divine Artizan of the universe[882], which he governs in\naccordance with the laws of right and justice, protecting and defending\nalike man and those animals and plants useful to him which Mithras has\nhimself created from his own spontaneous goodness. Hence he was the only\ngod to whom they admitted allegiance, and although the existence of\nother heavenly beings was not denied, it is probable that most of them\nwere looked upon as occupying at the best a position less important to\nus than that of Mithras himself.\n\nIt is probable, moreover, that all the scenes in the Mithraic sculptures\nin which we have seen the god taking part were considered as being\nenacted before the creation of man and in some heaven or world midway\nbetween the abode of Infinite Light and this earth. That the grotto into\nwhich Mithras drags the primordial Bull is no earthly cavern is plain\nfrom Porphyry\u2019s remark that the Mithraic cave was an image of the\nuniverse[883], as well as from the band of zodiacal figures or the arch\nof rocks which sometimes encloses the bas-reliefs, the sky being looked\nupon by the Babylonians as a rocky vault. The sun and moon in their\nrespective chariots also appear above the principal scene; and a further\nhint as to its whereabouts may be found in the fact that the flowing\nmantle of Mithras is sometimes depicted as spangled with stars, thereby\nindicating that the scenes in which he appears are supposed to take\nplace in the starry firmament. Hence is explained the epithet of \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\nor Mediator, which Plutarch gives him[884], and which should be\ninterpreted not as intercessor but as he who occupies a position midway\nbetween two places[885]. That the higher of these in this case was the\nGar\u00f4tman or abode of Infinite Light of the Avestic literature, there\ncan, it would seem, be no question; but what was the lower?\n\nAlthough the statement must be guarded with all the reserves imposed\nupon us in all matters relating to the religion of Mithras by the\nabsence of written documents, it is probable that this lower division of\nthe universe was our earth. The monuments give us with fair certainty\nthe Mithraic ideas as to how life was brought thither; but they tell us\nlittle or nothing as to the condition in which the earth was at the\ntime, nor how it was supposed to have come into existence. Porphyry\ntells us that the \u201celements\u201d (\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1) were represented in the Mithraic\nchapel[886], and we find in some examples of the bull-slaying scenes,\nthe figures of a small lion and a crater or mixing-bowl beneath the\nbelly of the bull, which M. Cumont considers to be the symbols of fire\nand water respectively; while the earth may be typified, as has been\nsaid above, by the serpent, and the fourth element or air may be\nindicated by the wind which is blowing Mithras\u2019 mantle away from his\nbody and to the left of the group[887]. If this be so, it is probable\nthat the Mithraist who thought about such matters looked upon the four\nelements, of which the ancients believed the world to be composed, as\nalready in existence before the sacrifice of the primordial bull brought\nlife upon the earth; and that the work of Mithras as Demiurge or Artizan\nwas confined to arranging and moulding them into the form of the cosmos\nor ordered world. As to what was the ultimate origin of these elements,\nand whether the Mithraists, like the Gnostics, held that Matter had an\nexistence independent of, and a nature opposed to, the Supreme Being, we\nhave no indication whatever.\n\nOf Mithraic eschatology or the view that the worshippers of Mithras held\nas to the end of the world, we know rather less than we do of their\nideas as to its beginning. The Persian religion, after its reform under\nthe Sassanid kings, taught that it would be consumed by fire[888]; and,\nas this doctrine of the Ecpyrosis, as the ancients called it, was also\nheld by the Stoics, whose physical doctrines were then fashionable at\nRome, it is probable enough that it entered into Mithraism also. But of\nthis there is no proof, and M. Cumont\u2019s attempt to show that a similar\nconflagration was thought by the Mithraic priests to have taken place\nbefore the Tauroctony, and as a kind of paradigm or forecast of what was\nto come, is not very convincing[889]. Yet some glimpse of what was\nsupposed to happen between the creation of the world and its destruction\nseems to be typified by a monstrous figure often found in the ruined\nchapels once used for the Mithraic worship, where it seems to have been\ncarefully guarded from the eyes of the general body of worshippers. This\nmonster had the body of a man[890] with the head of a lion, while round\nhis body is twined a huge serpent, whose head either appears on the top\nof the lion\u2019s or rests on the human breast. On the monster\u2019s back appear\nsometimes two, but generally four wings, and in his hands he bears\nupright two large keys, for one of which a sceptre is sometimes\nsubstituted; while his feet are sometimes human, sometimes those of a\ncrocodile or other reptile. On his body, between the folds of the\nserpent, there sometimes appear the signs of the four quarters of the\nyear, _i.e._ Aries and Libra, Cancer and Capricorn[891], and in other\nexamples a thunderbolt on the breast or on the right knee[892]. The\nfigure is often mounted on a globe which bears in one instance the two\ncrossed bands which show that it is intended for our earth, and in one\ncurious instance he appears to bear a flaming torch in each hand, while\nhis breath is kindling a flame which is seen rising from an altar beside\nhim[893]. It is possible that in this last we have a symbolical\nrepresentation of the Ecpyrosis. Lastly, in the Mithraic chapel at\nHeddernheim, which is the only one where the figure of the lion-headed\nmonster was found _in situ_, it was concealed within a deep niche or\ncell so fashioned, says M. Cumont, that the statue could only be\nperceived through a little conical aperture or peep-hole made in the\nslab of basalt closing the niche[894].\n\nM. Cumont\u2019s theory, as given in his magnificent work on the _Myst\u00e8res de\nMithra_ and elsewhere, is that the figure represents that Zervan Akerene\nor Boundless Time whom he would put at the head of the Mithraic\npantheon, and would make the father of both Ormuzd and Ahriman[895]. M.\nCumont\u2019s opinion, on a subject of which he has made himself the master,\nmust always command every respect, and it may be admitted that the\nnotion of such a supreme Being, corresponding in many ways to the\nIneffable Bythos of the Gnostics, did appear in the later developments\nof the Persian religion, and may even have been known during the time\nthat the worship of Mithras flourished in the West[896]. It has been\nshown elsewhere, however, that this idea only came to the front long\nafter the cult of Mithras had become extinct, that M. Cumont\u2019s view that\nthe lion-headed monster was represented as without sex or passions has\nbeen shown to be baseless by later discoveries, and that the figure is\nconnected in at least one example with an inscription to Arimanes or\nAhriman[897]. M. Cumont has himself noted the confusion which a\nChristian, writing before the abolition of the Mithras worship, makes\nbetween the statues of Hecate, goddess of hell and patroness of\nsorcerers, and those of the lion-headed monster[898], and Hecate\u2019s\nepithet of \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03af\u03b7 can only be explained by some similar\nassociation[899]. At the same time, M. Cumont makes it plain that the\nMithraists did not regard these infernal powers Ahriman and Hecate with\nthe horror and loathing which the reformed Zoroastrian religion\nafterwards heaped upon the antagonist of Ormuzd[900]. On the contrary\nthe dedications of several altars and statues show that they paid them\nworship and offered them sacrifices, as the Greeks did to Hades and\nPersephone, the lord and lady of hell, of whom the Mithraists probably\nconsidered them the Persian equivalents. From all these facts, the\nconclusion seems inevitable that the lion-headed monster represents\nAhriman, the consort of Hecate[901].\n\nIf we now look at the religious literature of the time when the worship\nof Mithras was coming into favour, we find a pretty general consensus of\nopinion that the chthonian or infernal god represented in the earlier\nPersian religion by this Ahriman, was a power who might be the rival of,\nbut was not necessarily the mortal enemy of Zeus. Whether Neander be\nright or not in asserting that the prevailing tendency of the age was\ntowards Dualism[902], it is certain that most civilized nations had then\ncome to the conclusion that on this earth the bad is always mixed up\nwith the good. Plutarch puts this clearly enough when he says that\nnature here below comes not from one, but from two opposed principles\nand contending powers, and this opinion, he tells us, is a most ancient\none which has come down from expounders of myths (\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9) and\nlegislators to poets and philosophers, and is expressed \u201cnot in words\nand phrases, but in mysteries and sacrifices, and has been found in many\nplaces among both Barbarians and Greeks[903].\u201d The same idea of\nantagonistic powers is, of course, put in a much stronger form in the\nreformed Persian religion, where the incursion of Ahriman into the\nkingdom of Ormuzd brings upon the earth all evil in the shape of winter,\nprolonged drought, storms, disease, and beasts and plants hurtful to\nman[904]. But this does not seem to have been the view of Ahriman\u2019s\nfunctions taken by the older Magism, whence the worship of Mithras was\nprobably derived[905]. In Mithraism, it is not Ahriman, as in the\n_Bundahish_, but Mithras, the vicegerent of Ormuzd, who slays the mystic\nBull, and by so doing he brings good and not evil to the earth. Nowhere\ndo we find in the Mithraic sculptures any allusion to Ahriman as a god\nof evil pure and simple, or as one who is for ever opposed to the\nheavenly powers. We do, indeed, find in several Mithraea representations\nof a Titanomachia where the Titans, represented as men with serpent\nlegs, are depicted as fleeing before a god like the Greek Zeus who\nstrikes them with his thunderbolts[906]. But this is not more\nnecessarily suggestive of two irreconcilable principles than the Greek\nstory of the Titans, those sons of Earth who were persuaded by their\nmother to make war upon their father Uranos, who put their brother\nKronos upon his throne, and who were in their turn hurled from heaven by\nKronos\u2019 son Zeus. Even if we do not accept the later myth which\nreconciles Zeus to his adversaries[907], the story does not go further\nthan to say that the Titans attempted to gain heaven and were thrust\nback to their own proper dwelling-place, the earth.\n\nIt is in this way, as it would seem, that the lion-headed monster of the\nMithraic chapels must be explained. Ahriman, the god girt with the\nserpent which represents the earth, has rebelled against Ormuzd or\nJupiter, and has been marked with the thunderbolt which has cast him\ndown from heaven. But he remains none the less lord of his own domain,\nthe earth, his sway over which is shown by the sceptre which he wields\nwhile standing upon it[908]. As for the keys which he bears, they are\ndoubtless those of the gates behind which he keeps the souls and bodies\nof men, as the Orphics said, imprisoned, until he is compelled to\nrelease them by a higher power[909]. In all this, his functions do not\ngo beyond those of the Greek Hades, with whom Plutarch equates him.\n\nIt is however, possible that he was conceived by the Mithraists as\noccupying a slightly different place in the material universe from that\nof his Greek prototype. The true realm of Hades was generally placed by\nthe Greeks below the earth, but that of the Mithraic Ahriman may\npossibly be just outside it. M. Cumont shows many reasons for supposing\nthe lion-headed god to be connected with the idea of destiny[910], and\nin one of the very few contemporary writings which make distinct\nallusion to the Mithraic tenets, there is something which confirms this\nview. This occurs in a fragment embedded, as it were, in a Magic Papyrus\nor sorcerer\u2019s handbook now in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale at Paris[911].\nThe document itself is probably not, as Prof. Albert Dieterich has too\nboldly asserted, a \u201cMithraic Liturgy\u201d; but it is evidently connected in\nsome way with the Mithraic worship and begins with a statement that the\nwriter is a priest who has received inspiration from \u201cthe great Sun-God\nMithras.\u201d M. Georges Lafaye is of opinion that it narrates in\napocalyptic fashion the adventures of the soul of a perfect Mithraist on\nits way to heaven, and this is probably correct, although it is here\ntold for no purpose of edification but as a spell or charm[912]. The\nsoul, if it be indeed she who is speaking, repeatedly complains to the\ngods whom she meets\u2014including one in white tunic, crimson mantle and\nanaxyrides or Persian trousers who may be Mithras himself\u2014of \u201cthe harsh\nand inexorable necessity\u201d which has been compelling her so long as she\nremained in the \u201clower nature[913].\u201d But the Sphere of Destiny or\nnecessity, as we have seen in the _Pistis Sophia_, was thought to be the\none immediately surrounding the earth, and although the document in\nwhich we have before met with this idea belongs to a different set of\nreligious beliefs than those here treated of, it is probable that both\nGnostic and Mithraist drew it from the astrological theories current at\nthe time which came into the Hellenistic world from Babylon. It is\ntherefore extremely probable that the Mithraists figured Ahriman as\nruling the earth from the sphere immediately outside it, and this would\nagree well with his position _upon_ the globe in the monuments where he\nappears. It is some confirmation of this that, in another part of the\nPapyrus just quoted, the \u201cWorld-ruler\u201d (Cosmocrator) is invoked as \u201cthe\nGreat Serpent, leader of these gods, who holds the source of Egypt [Qy,\nThe Nile?] and the end of the whole inhabited world [in his hands], who\nbegets in Ocean Pshoi (_i.e._ Fate) the god of gods[914]\u201d; while the\nGreat Dragon or Outer Darkness in the _Pistis Sophia_ is said to\nsurround the earth. That both orthodox Christians and Gnostics like the\nValentinians looked upon the Devil, who, as lord of hell, was sometimes\nidentified with Hades, as the Cosmocrator or World-Ruler requires no\nfurther demonstration[915], and in this particular as in others the\nMithraists may have drawn from the same source as the Gnostic\nteachers[916].\n\nThat they did so in a related matter can be shown by direct evidence.\nLike the Ophites of the Diagram before described, the Mithraists thought\nthat the soul descended to the body through seven spheres which were\nthose of the \u201cplanets\u201d Saturn, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, the Moon,\nand the Sun in that order, which Origen, who mentions the fact, says\nthat the Persian theology declared to be symbolized \u201cby the names of the\nrest of matter,\u201d and also gave for it \u201cmusical reasons[917].\u201d He further\ndescribes the different qualities which the soul in her passage receives\nfrom each sphere, and which it seems fair to conclude she gives back to\nthem on her reascension. M. Cumont is no doubt right when he attributes\nthe origin of this tenet to the _mathematici_ or astrologers and says\nthat it too came originally from Chaldaea[918]. The seven heavens are\nalso found in many Oriental documents of the time, including the _Book\nof the Secrets of Enoch_[919] and the _Apocalypse of Baruch_[920].\nAccording to Origen, they were symbolized in the Mithraic chapels by a\nladder of eight steps, the first seven being of the metals peculiar to\nthe different planets, _i.e._ lead, tin, copper, iron, an alloy of\nseveral metals, silver, and gold, with the eighth step representing the\nheaven of the fixed stars[921]. The Stoics who held similar views,\nfollowing therein perhaps the Platonic cosmogony, had already fixed the\ngate of the sky through which the souls left the heaven of the fixed\nstars on their descent to the earth in Cancer, and that by which they\nreascended in Capricorn[922], which probably accounts for the two keys\nborne by the lion-headed god on the Mithraic monuments, and for those\ntwo Zodiacal signs being displayed on his body. The other two signs,\n_viz._ Aries and Libra, may possibly refer to the places in a horoscope\nor genethliacal figure which the astrologers of the time called the\n_Porta laboris_ and _Janua Ditis_ respectively, as denoting the gate by\nwhich man \u201cborn to labour\u201d enters life, and the \u201cgate of Hades\u201d by which\nhe leaves it[923]. If, as Porphyry says, the doctrine of metempsychosis\nformed part of the Mithraic teaching, the keys would thus have a meaning\nanalogous to the Orphic release from \u201cthe wheel[924].\u201d\n\nThe other gods who appear on the Mithraic monuments are those known to\nus in classical mythology and are represented under the usual human\nforms made familiar by Greek and Roman art. By the side of, but in a\nsubordinate position to Jupiter, we find, if M. Cumont be justified in\nhis identifications, nearly all the \u201cgreat gods\u201d of the Greco-Roman\npantheon. Five of these, that is to say, Jupiter himself, Saturn, Mars,\nVenus, and Mercury may be intended as symbols of the planets which, then\nas now, bore these names. But there are others such as Juno, Neptune and\nAmphitrite, Pluto and Proserpine, Apollo, Vulcan, and Hercules who\ncannot by any possibility be considered as planetary signs[925]. M.\nCumont\u2019s theory about these divinities is, if one understands him\nrightly, that these are really Persian or Avestic gods, such as\nVerethragna, represented under the classic forms of their Greek\ncounterparts to make them attractive to their Roman worshippers[926].\nThis does not seem very probable, because the Persians did not figure\ntheir gods in human form[927]. Nor is there any reason to think that the\nMithraists confined themselves to the _theocrasia_ or the practice of\ndiscovering their own gods in the divinities of the peoples around them\nwhich we have seen so rife in Greece, Italy, and Egypt. But in the age\nwhen the worship of Mithras became popular in the Roman Empire, all\npaganism was groping its way towards a religion which should include and\nconciliate all others, and there is much evidence that the votaries of\nMithras were especially determined that this religion should be their\nown. Isis, as we have seen, might proclaim herself as the one divinity\nwhom under many names and in many forms the whole earth adored; but the\nMithraists apparently went further and tried to show that their religion\ncontained within itself all the rest. They appear to have first gained\naccess to Rome under an alliance with the priests of Cybele, whose\nimage, with its emasculated attendants the Galli, was transported from\nPergamum to the Eternal City during the critical moments of the Second\nPunic War[928]. Externally there were many analogies between the two\ncults, and Cybele\u2019s consort Attis, like Mithras, was always represented\nin a Phrygian cap and anaxyrides. One of the most impressive, if most\ndisgusting practices in the religion of Cybele\u2014the Taurobolium or\nblood-bath in which a bull was slaughtered over a pit covered with\nplanks pierced with holes through which the blood of the victim dripped\nupon the naked votary below\u2014was borrowed by the Mithraists, and many of\nthem boast on their funereal inscriptions that they have undergone this\nceremony and thereby, as they express it, have been \u201cborn again.\u201d The\n_clarissimi_ and high officials of the Empire who have left records of\nthe kind are careful to note that they are worshippers of \u201cthe Great\nMother\u201d (Cybele) and Attis, as well as of Mithras[929], and a similar\nstatement occurs so frequently on the funereal and other inscriptions of\ntheir wives as to lead to the hypothesis that the ceremonies of the\nPhrygian Goddess were the natural refuge of Mithras\u2019 female\nvotaries[930]. So, too, the worship of the Alexandrian divinities, which\nthat of Mithras in some sort supplanted, and which, as being as popular\nin the Greek world as the last-named was in the Latin, might have been\nexpected to be hostile to it, yet had relations with it not very easy to\nbe understood. In the assembly of the gods which in some of the\nmonuments crowns the arch set over the Tauroctony, the central place is\nin one instance taken by Sarapis with the distinctive _modius_ on his\nhead instead of Zeus or Jupiter[931], the same priest often describes\nhimself as serving the altars of both gods, and \u201cZeus, Helios, Mithras,\nSarapis, unconquered one!\u201d is invoked in one of those spells in the\nMagic Papyri which contain fragments of ritual prayers or hymns[932].\nPossibly it is for this reason, that the initiating priest in Apuleius\u2019\nstory whom the grateful Lucius says he regards as his father, is named\nMithras, as if the initiate had been led to the Mysteries of Isis\nthrough the worship of that god[933].\n\nThe same syncretistic tendency is particularly marked in the leaning of\nthe Mithraists to the worship of the gods of Eleusis. \u201cConsecrated to\nLiber [the Latin name of Dionysos] and the Eleusinian [goddesses],\u201d\n\u201cMystes of Ceres,\u201d \u201cpriest\u201d or \u201cChief Herdsman (_archibucolus_) of the\ngod Liber,\u201d \u201chierophant of Father Liber and the Hecates,\u201d \u201cConsecrated\nat Eleusis to the god Bacchus, Ceres, and Cora\u201d are some of the\ndistinctions which the devotees of Mithras vaunt on their\ntombstones[934]; while we learn that when the last survivors of the two\nsacred families who had for centuries furnished priests to the\nEleusinian Mysteries died out, the Athenians sent for a priest of\nMithras from one of the neighbouring islands, and handed over to him the\ncare of the sacred rites[935]. It is even possible that the complaisance\nof the Mithraists for other religions went further than has hitherto\nbeen suspected. Not only does Justin Martyr after describing the\ncelebration of the Christian Eucharist say,\n\n    \u201cWherefore also the evil demons in mimicry have handed down that the\n    same thing should be done in the Mysteries of Mithras. For that\n    bread and a cup of water are in these mysteries set before the\n    initiate with certain speeches you either know or can learn[936]\u201d;\n\nbut we know from Porphyry that the initiate into the rites of Mithras\nunderwent a baptism by total immersion which was said to expiate his\nsins[937]. Among the worshippers of Mithras, on the same authority, were\nalso virgins and others vowed to continence[938], and we hear that the\nMithraists used, like the Christians, to call each other \u201cBrother\u201d and\naddress their priests as \u201cFather[939].\u201d St Augustine tells us that in\nhis time the priests of Mithras were in the habit of saying, \u201cThat One\nin the Cap [_i.e._ Mithras] is a Christian too!\u201d and it is not unlikely\nthat the claim was seriously made[940]. During the reigns of the Second\nFlavian Emperors and before Constantine\u2019s pact with the Church, we hear\nof hymns sung by the legionaries which could be chanted in common by\nChristians, Mithraists, and the worshippers of that Sun-God the\nadoration of whom was hereditary or traditional in the Flavian\nHouse[941]. The Mithraists also observed Sunday and kept sacred the 25th\nof December as the birthday of the sun[942].\n\nOf the other rites and ceremonies used in the worship of Mithras we know\nnext to nothing. As appears from the authors last quoted, the whole of\nthe worship was conducted in \u201cmysteries\u201d or secret ceremonies like the\nEleusinian and the rites of the Alexandrian divinities, although on a\nmore extended scale. The Mithraic mysteries always took place in a\nsubterranean vault or \u201ccave,\u201d lighted only by artificial light. The\nruins of many of these have been found, and are generally so small as to\nbe able to accommodate only a few worshippers[943], whence perhaps it\nfollowed that there were often several Mithraea in the same town or\ncity[944]. The chief feature seems to have been always the scene of the\nTauroctony or Bull-slaying which was displayed on the apse or further\nend of the chapel, and was generally carved in bas-relief although\noccasionally rendered in the round. The effect of this was sought to be\nheightened by brilliant colouring, perhaps made necessary by the dim\nlight, and there were certainly altars of the square or triangular\npedestal type, and a well or other source from which water could be\nobtained. The benches for the worshippers were of stone and ran at right\nangles to and on either side of the Tauroctony, so as to resemble the\nchoir stalls in the chancel of a modern church[945]. We have seen that\nthe lion-headed figure was concealed from the eyes of the worshippers,\nand we know that they used to kneel during at least part of the service,\nwhich was not in accord with the practice of either the Greeks or\nRomans, who were accustomed to stand with upturned palms when praying to\nthe gods[946]. Sacrifices of animals which, if we may judge from the\nd\u00e9bris left in some of the chapels, were generally birds[947], seem to\nhave been made; but there is no reason to believe the accusation\nsometimes brought against the Mithraists that they also slaughtered\nhuman victims in honour of their god. Lampridius tells us, on the other\nhand, that the Emperor Commodus on his initiation sullied the temple by\nconverting a feigned into a real murder[948], and we hear from another\nand later source that in consequence of this only a bloody sword was\nshown to the candidate[949]. It seems therefore that somebody was\nsupposed to suffer death during the ceremony, perhaps under the same\ncircumstances as already suggested in the kindred case of the\nAlexandrian Mysteries[950].\n\nWe are a little better informed as to the degrees of initiation, which\nnumbered seven. The initiate ascended from the degree of Crow\n(_corax_), which was the first or lowest, to that of Father (_Pater_),\nwhich was the seventh or highest, by passing successively through the\nintermediate degrees of Man of the Secret (_Cryphius_), Soldier\n(_Miles_), Lion (_Leo_), Persian (_Perses_), and Courier of the Sun\n(_Heliodromus_)[951]. It would seem that either he, or the initiating\npriests, or perhaps the other assistants, had to assume disguises\nconsisting of masks corresponding to the animals named in the first\nand fourth of these degrees, and to make noises like the croaking of\nbirds and the roaring of lions[952]. These rightly recall to M. Cumont\nthe names of animals borne by initiates or priests in other religions\nin Greece and Asia Minor and may be referred to totemistic times. We\nalso know from a chance allusion of Tertullian that on being admitted\nto the degree of soldier, the initiate was offered a crown or garland\nat the point of a sword, which he put away from him with the speech,\n\u201cMithras is my crown!\u201d, and that never thereafter might he wear a\ngarland even at a feast[953]. Porphyry, too, tells us that in the\ndegree of Lion, the initiate\u2019s hands and lips were purified with\nhoney. It has also been said by the Fathers that before or during\ninitiation, the candidate had to undergo certain trials or tortures,\nto swim rivers, plunge through fire, and to jump from apparently vast\nheights[954]; but it is evident from the small size of the Mithraea or\nchapels which have come down to us that these experiences would have\ndemanded much more elaborate preparation than there was space for,\nand, if they were ever enacted, were probably as purely \u201cmake-believe\u201d\nas the supposed murder just mentioned and some of the initiatory\nceremonies in certain societies of the present day[955]. Lastly, there\nis no doubt that women were strictly excluded from all the ceremonies\nof the cult, thereby justifying in some sort the remark of Renan that\nMithraism was a \u201cPagan Freemasonry[956].\u201d\n\nIt has also been said that the true inwardness and faith of the religion\nof Mithras was in these mysteries only gradually and with great caution\nrevealed to the initiates, whose fitness for them was tested at every\nstep[957]. It may be so, but it is plain that the Mithraist was informed\nat the outset of at least a good many of the tenets of the faith. The\nwhole Legend of Mithras, so far as we know it, must have been known to\nthe initiate soon after entering the Mithraic chapel, since we have\nourselves gathered it mainly from the different scenes depicted on the\nborders of the great central group of the Tauroctony. So, too, the\nmystic banquet or Mithraic Sacrament which, if the Heddernheim monuments\nstood alone, we might consider was concealed from the eyes of the lower\ninitiates until the proper moment came, also forms one of the subsidiary\nscenes of the great altar piece in the chapels at Sarmizegetusa, Bononia\nand many other places[958]. In a bas-relief at Sarrebourg, moreover, the\ntwo principal persons at the banquet, _i.e._ Mithras and the Sun, are\nshown surrounded by other figures wearing the masks of crows and perhaps\nlions[959], which looks as if initiates of all grades were admitted to\nthe sacramental banquet. One can therefore make no profitable conjecture\nas to what particular doctrines were taught in the particular degrees,\nthough there seems much likelihood in M. Cumont\u2019s statement that the\ninitiates were thought to take rank in the next world according to the\ndegree that they had received in this[960]. The belief that \u201cthose who\nhave received humble mysteries shall have humble places and those that\nhave received exalted mysteries exalted places\u201d in the next world was,\nwe may be sure, too profitable a one for the priests of Mithras to be\nneglected by them. It certainly explains the extraordinary order for the\nplanetary spheres adopted by Origen[961], according to which the souls\nwhich had taken the lowest degree would go to the heaven of Saturn,\nslowest and most unlucky of the planets, while those perfected in the\nfaith would enter the glorious house of the Sun.\n\nWhether they were thought to go further still, we can only guess. It\nshould be noticed that the mystic ladder of Mithras had _eight_ steps,\nand we have seen that when the soul had climbed through the seven\nplanetary spheres there was still before her the heaven of the fixed\nstars. The Sun seems in Origen\u2019s account of the Mithraic faith to have\nformed the last world to be traversed before this highest heaven could\nbe reached; and it was through the disk of the Sun that the ancients\nthought the gods descended to and reascended from the earth. This idea\nappears plainly in the Papyrus quoted above, where the Mithraist is\nrepresented as an eagle who flies upwards \u201cand alone\u201d to heaven and\nthere beholds all things[962]. He prays that he may, in spite of his\nmortal and corruptible nature, behold with immortal eyes after having\nbeen hallowed with holy hallowings, \u201cthe deathless aeon, lord of the\nfiery crowns,\u201d and that \u201cthe corruptible nature of mortals\u201d which has\nbeen imposed upon him by \u201cinexorable Necessity\u201d may depart from him.\n\u201cThen,\u201d says the author of the fragment\u2014which, it will be remembered,\nclaims to be a revelation given by the archangel of the great Sun-God\nMithras\u2014the initiate \u201cwill see the gods who rule each day and hour\nascending to heaven and others descending, and the path of the visible\ngods through the disk of the god my father will appear.\u201d He describes\nthe machinery of nature by which the winds are produced, which seems to\nbe figured on some of the Mithraic monuments, and which reminds one of\nthe physics supposed to be revealed in the Enochian literature. Then,\nafter certain spells have been recited, the initiate sees the disk of\nthe Sun, which opens, disclosing \u201cdoors of fire and the world of the\ngods within them.\u201d Then follow more invocations to the gods of the seven\nplanetary worlds who appear in due course, and presumably give him\nadmission to their realms. After another invocation, in what may\npossibly be some Asianic or Anatolian language very much corrupted, the\ninitiate beholds \u201ca young god, beautiful, with fiery hair, in white\ntunic and purple mantle, and having on his head a crown of fire,\u201d who\nseems to be Helios or Sol, the driver of the sun\u2019s chariot on the\nMithraic monuments. He is saluted as \u201cMighty in strength, mighty ruler,\ngreatest king of gods! O Sun, lord of heaven and earth, God of Gods!\u201d\nNext appear \u201cseven virgins in linen robes having the heads of serpents,\u201d\nwho are called \u201cthe seven Fortunes of heaven\u201d and are, as M. Georges\nLafaye surmises, the seven stars of the constellation of the Great\nBear[963]. They are followed by seven male gods also dressed in linen\nrobes and with golden crowns, but equipped with the heads of black\nbulls, who are called \u201cthe rulers of the Pole.\u201d These are they, we are\ntold, who send upon the impious thunders and lightnings and earthquakes.\nAnd so we are led at last to the apparition of \u201ca god of extraordinary\nstature, having a glance of fire, young and golden-haired, in white\ntunic and golden crown, clothed in anaxyrides, holding in his right hand\nthe golden shoulder of a young bull.\u201d This, _i.e._ the shoulder, we are\ntold, is called \u201cArctos, who moves the sky, making it to turn forwards\nand backwards according to the hour.\u201d But the god appears to be intended\nfor Mithras, and the shoulder of the bull is probably an allusion to the\nbull-slaying scene which may serve to show that there were more\ninterpretations than one placed upon the Tauroctony. The initiate hails\nthis god as \u201cLord of water, consecrator of the earth, ruler of the air,\nshining-rayed One, of primeval rays!\u201d and the like, and continues:\n\n    \u201cO Lord, having been born again, I die! Having increased and again\n    increasing, I come to an end by life-begotten birth, and coming into\n    existence, and having been released unto death, I pursue my way, as\n    thou hast ordered from the beginning, as thou hast ordained: And\n    having accomplished the mystery, I am _Pheroura miouri_.\u201d\n\nHere the fragment abruptly breaks off, and plunges into directions for\nthe manufacture of oracles and the other stuff common in Magic Papyri.\nOne is not much inclined to believe with M. Cumont that the author of\nthe galimatias knew nothing about Mithraism[964], and merely introduced\nMithras\u2019 name into his opening to impress his readers with a sense of\nthe value of his recipes. It seems more likely that the writer of the\nfragment had really got hold of some part of a Mithraic ritual, which he\nhad read without understanding it, and that he was trying to work more\nor less meaningless extracts from it into his spells on the same\nprinciple that the sorcerers of the European Renaissance used when they\ntook similar liberties with the words of the Mass. If this view be\nadopted, it follows that the concluding words given above confirm the\nview that the Mithraists, like the Orphics before them, taught the\nmetempsychosis or reincarnation of souls[965]. Did the Mithraist think\nthat his soul, when released from this \u201cdread necessity,\u201d finally\nescaped from even the planetary spheres and, raising itself into the\nheaven of the fixed stars, became united with the Deity Himself? We can\nonly ask the question without being able to suggest an answer supported\nby any evidence.\n\nWith regard to the priests who acted as celebrants in these strange\nmysteries, there are instances to be found in the inscriptions which\nmake it plain that the priestly office was not confined or attached to\nany particular degree of initiation. _Pater Patrum_ (Father of Fathers)\nis a designation which occurs too frequently on the monuments for it to\nmean anything but eldest or president of those who had taken the seventh\nor highest degree in one congregation[966]. But _Sacerdos_ or _Antistes_\nindifferently is the name by which the priest of Mithras is described by\nhimself and others, and the holding of the office seems not to have been\ninconsistent with the tenure at once of other priesthoods and of high\noffice in the State. Thus the _clarissimus_ Vettius Agorius\nPraetextatus, who was Urban Praetor, Proconsul of Achaea, Prefect of the\nCity, Prefect of the Praetorians of Italy and Illyricum, and Consul\nDesignate at the time of his death, was Father of Fathers in the\nreligion of Mithras besides being Pontiff of the Sun and Pontiff of\nVesta[967]. This was at a very late date, when probably only a man of\nhigh civil rank dared avow on his tombstone, as did Vettius, his\nfidelity to the god; but earlier, we find Lucius Septimius, a freedman\nof Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, acting as \u201cFather and Priest of the\nUnconquered Mithras in the Augustan house\u201d\u2014evidently a Court chaplain\u2014,\nand a certain _clarissimus_ Alfenius Julianus Kamenius who is of\nconsular rank, a quaestor and a praetor, as a \u201cfather of the sacred\nthings of the Highest Unconquered One Mithras[968].\u201d So, too, we find a\nveteran of the IVth Flavian Legion acting as _pater sacrorum_, a\ndecurion as _antistes_ and another as _sacerdos_ of Mithras[969].\nEvidently, the cares of the priesthood did not occupy the priest\u2019s whole\ntime, and he never seems to have lived in the temple as did the clergy\nof the Alexandrian divinities. There was, on the faith of Porphyry, a\n_summus pontifex_ or Supreme Pontiff of Mithras, who like the Christian\nbishop in the Epistle to Timothy was forbidden to marry more than\nonce[970]; but this was probably a high officer of State appointed\ndirectly by the Emperor. No proof is forthcoming that a fire was kept\nperpetually burning on the altar in the European chapels of Mithras, as\nperhaps was the case with the temples of the faith in Asia Minor, or\nthat daily or any other regularly repeated services were held there, and\nsuch services moreover could seldom have been attended by the soldiers\nwith the colours, who seem to have made up the majority of the god\u2019s\nworshippers. Prayers to the Sun-God and other deities were no doubt\noffered by Mithraists, possibly at sunrise and sunset, and perhaps\nspecial ones on the first day of the week, which they very likely held\nsacred to their god. But the small size of the Mithraea, and the scanty\nnumber of the members of the associations supporting each[971], make it\nextremely unlikely that there was anything like regular congregational\nworship, or that the faithful assembled there except for initiations or\nmeetings for conferring the different degrees. The extremely poor\nexecution of the bas-reliefs and other sculptures found in the majority\nof these chapels all points the same way. Most of these, together with\nthe furniture and what are nowadays called \u201carticles de culte,\u201d were\npresented to the chapel by private members of the association[972]. The\nfact that the congregations of many chapels must have frequently changed\nby the shifting of garrisons from one end of the Empire to the other\ncaused by the operations of war both external and civil, also helps to\naccount for their temporary and poverty-stricken appearance when\ncompared with the great and stately temples reared to rival gods like\nSerapis.\n\nThus the truth of Renan\u2019s comparison of the Mithraic faith with modern\nFreemasonry becomes more apparent, and we may picture to ourselves the\nMithraists as a vast society spread over the whole of the Empire,\nconsisting mainly of soldiers, and entirely confined to the male sex.\nThe example of the Emperor Julian, himself a devotee of Mithras, but\nactively concerned in the propagation of the worship of other\ndivinities, such as Apollo, Serapis, Mars, and Cybele[973], shows that\nits real aim was not so much the conversion of individuals as the\ninclusion of all other cults within itself. It was doubtless with this\nview that Julian recalled from exile those heresiarchs who had been\nbanished by the Christian emperors and insisted on equal toleration for\nall sects of Jews and Christians[974]. Themistius is no doubt merely\nechoing the sentiments of the Mithraist emperor when he writes to his\nChristian successor Jovian that no lover of wisdom should bind himself\nto any exclusively national worship, but should acquaint himself with\nall religions[975]. God, he says, requires no agreement on this subject\namong men, and their rivalries in matters of faith are really beneficial\nin leading their minds to the contemplation of other than worldly\nthings. But this highly philosophic temper was not reached all at once;\nand it is probable that the worship of Mithras was, on its first\nimportation into the West, but one foreign superstition the more, as\nlittle enlightened and as exclusively national as the Jewish, the\nEgyptian, or any of the others. It was probably its rise to imperial\nfavour under the Antonines, when Commodus and many of the freedmen of\nCaesar\u2019s House were initiated, that first suggested to its votaries the\npossibility of using it as an instrument of government; and henceforth\nits fortunes were bound up with those of the still Pagan State. Its\nstrictly monarchical doctrine, using the adjective in its ancient rather\nthan in its modern connotation, must have always endeared it to the\nemperors, who were beginning to see clearly that in a _quasi_-Oriental\ndespotism lay the only chance of salvation for the Roman Empire. Its\nrelations with Mazdeism in the strict form which this last assumed after\nthe religious reforms of the Sassanian Shahs have never been elucidated,\nand M. Cumont seems to rely too much upon the later Avestic literature\nto explain everything that is obscure in the religion of Mithras. If we\nimagine, as there is reason to do, that Western Mithraism was looked\nupon by the Sassanian reformers as a dangerous heresy[976], the Roman\nEmperors would have an additional reason for supporting it; and it is\nsignificant that it was exactly those rulers whose wars against the\nPersians were most successful who seem to have most favoured the worship\nof the Persian god. When Trajan conquered Dacia, the great province\nbetween the Carpathians and the Danube now represented by Hungary and\nRoumania, he colonized it by a great mass of settlers from every part of\nthe Roman Empire, including therein many Orientals who brought with them\ninto their new home the worship of their Syrian and Asianic gods[977].\nIt was hence an excellent field for the culture of a universal and\nsyncretic religion such as that of Mithras, and the great number of\nMithraea whose remains have been found in that province, show that this\nreligion must have received hearty encouragement from the Imperial\nCourt. From its geographical position, Dacia formed an effective\ncounterpoise to the growing influence upon Roman policy of the Eastern\nprovinces, and it might have proved a valuable outpost for a religion\nwhich was always looked upon with hostility by the Greek-speaking\nsubjects of Rome. Unfortunately, however, a religion which allies itself\nwith the State must suffer from its ally\u2019s reverses as well as profit by\nits good fortunes, and so the Mithraists found. When the Gothic invasion\ndesolated Dacia, and especially when Valerian\u2019s disaster enabled the\nGoths to gain a footing there which not even the military genius of\nClaudius could loosen, Mithraism received a blow which was ultimately to\nprove fatal. The abandonment of Dacia to the Goths and Vandals by\nAurelian in 255 A.D., led to its replanting by a race whose faces were\nturned more to Constantinople than to Rome, and who were before long to\nbe converted to Christianity _en masse_[978]. Diocletian and his\ncolleagues did what they could to restore the balance by proclaiming, as\nhas been said above, the \u201cunconquered\u201d Mithras the protector of their\nempire at the great city which is now the capital of the Austrian\nEmpire; but the accession of Constantine and his alliance with the\nChristian Church some twenty years later, definitely turned the scale\nagainst the last god of Paganism. Although the Mithraic worship may have\nrevived for a moment under the philosophic Julian, who was, as has been\nsaid, peculiarly addicted to it, it possessed no real power of\nrecuperation, and was perhaps one of the first Pagan religions to be\nextinguished by the triumphant Christians[979]. In 377 A.D., Gracchus,\nthe Urban Prefect of Rome, being desirous of baptism, carried into\neffect a promise made, as St Jerome boasts, some time before, and\nbreaking into a chapel of Mithras, \u201coverturned, broke in pieces and cast\nout\u201d the sculptures which had seen the admission of so many\ninitiates[980]. His example was followed in other parts of the Empire,\nand it is probable that some decree was obtained from the Emperor\nGratian legalizing these acts of vandalism[981]. It is in this reign, M.\nCumont finds, that most of the Mithraea were wrecked, and the very few\nwhich have come down to us in more complete state owe their preservation\nto the caution of their congregations, who blocked or built up the\nentrances to them in the vain hope that a fresh turn of the wheel might\nagain bring their own cult to the top[982]. A conservative reaction\ntowards the older faiths did indeed come for a moment under Eugenius;\nbut it was then too late. The masses had turned from Mithraism to\nChristianity, and the only adherents of the \u201cCapped One\u201d were to be\nfound among the senators and high officials who had long connived at the\nevasion of the edicts prohibiting all forms of Pagan worship. The\ninvasions of Alaric and Attila probably completed what the Christian mob\nhad begun.\n\nM. Cumont and Sir Samuel Dill are doubtless right when they attribute\nthe downfall of Mithraism in great measure to its attitude towards\nwomen[983]. Mithraism was from the first essentially a virile faith, and\nhad little need of the softer emotions. Hence we find in it none of the\ngorgeous public ritual, the long hours spent in mystic contemplation\nbefore the altar, or the filial devotion of the flock to the priest,\nthat we see in the worship of the Alexandrian Gods. In spite of the\ngreat authority of M. Cumont, whose statements on the subject seem to\nhave been accepted without much enquiry by later writers, it will\nprobably appear to the impartial student that the priests of Mithras\nwere more like the churchwardens or elders of Protestant communities at\nthe present day than the active and highly organized hierarchy of the\nAlexandrian divinities and of the Catholic Church. It is, as we have\nseen, most probable that they never visited their chapels except in\ncompany with the other devotees when an initiation into one or other of\nthe seven degrees of the cult was to be performed, and, judging from the\nscanty numbers of the congregation, this can only have been at fairly\nlong intervals. Hence the daily prayers and sacrifices of themselves and\ntheir congregations were probably rendered elsewhere, either in the\nprivacy of their homes, or in the temples of other gods. In neither case\nwould they have much need for the assistance of women in their\npropaganda, who would, moreover, have probably felt little interest in a\nworship from the most solemn and distinctive parts of which they were\nexcluded. The Mithraists therefore had to dispense with the support of a\nvery large and important fraction of the community which was easily won\nover to the side of their rivals. Exceptional causes such as the\nperpetual shifting of the legions from one end of the Empire to the\nother at a time when communications between them were many times more\ndifficult than now, may have prevented such considerations for some time\nfrom having their full weight. When once they did so, the issue could\nnot long be in doubt.\n\nNor was the very real, if somewhat vague, monotheism which Mithraism\ntaught, very likely to attract, at first sight, the enthusiasm of a\nlarge and mixed population engaged in civil pursuits. If the conjecture\nmade above be correct, the Mithraist in the ordinary way acknowledged no\nother god than Mithras, although he would probably have admitted that he\nwas but the representative and antitype of the supreme Jupiter whom he\nrecognized as the official head of the State pantheon. As for the other\ngods, he probably considered them as mere abstract personifications of\nthe powers of Nature, who were at the most the creatures and subjects of\nMithras \u201cthe friend,\u201d and whom it might please him to propitiate by acts\nof worship which the god would know how to appreciate. This is not very\nfar from the theories of the Stoics, always dear to the nobler spirits\nin the Roman Empire, and coupled with the high Stoic ideal of duty,\nforms one of the best working philosophies for the soldier ever devised.\nBut the soldier, removed as he is from care for his daily necessities,\nand with instant and ready obedience to another will than his own\nconstantly required of him, has always held different views on such\nsubjects to the civilian; and such ideas were rather above the heads of\nthe crowd, sunk for the most part in abject poverty, utterly absorbed in\nthe struggle for daily bread, and only anxious to snatch some passing\nenjoyment from a life of toil. What they, and even more urgently, their\nwomenfolk needed was a God, not towering above them like the Eternal\nSun, the eye of Mithras and his earthly representative, shedding his\nradiance impartially upon the just and the unjust; but a God who had\nwalked upon the earth in human form, who had known like themselves pain\nand affliction, and to whom they could therefore look for sympathy and\nhelp. Such a god was not to be found in the Mithraic Cave.\n\nFor these reasons, probably, Mithraism fell after a reign of little more\nthan two centuries. Yet for good or ill, few religions have lived in\nvain; and some of the ideas which it made popular in Europe have hardly\nyet died out. The theory that the emperor, king, or chief of the State\nis of a different nature to other men, and is in a peculiar manner the\ncare of the gods, was first formulated in the West during the time that\nMithraism was in power and is a great deal more the creation of the\nPersian religion than of the Egyptian, in which he was said to be the\nincarnation of the Sun-God. This is fairly plain from the custom to\nwhich M. Cumont has lately drawn attention of releasing at the funeral\nor apotheosis of a Roman emperor a captive eagle, representing the soul\nof the dead ruler, the upward flight of the bird being held typical of\nthe soul\u2019s ascension into heaven[984]. The connection of this practice\nwith Mithraism is evident, since \u201ceagle\u201d was one of the names given to\nthe perfect Mithraist, or he who had taken all the seven degrees of\ninitiation, and had therefore earned the right to be called _pater\nsacrorum_[985]. The Christian emperors of Rome continued probably the\npractice and certainly the nomenclature associated with it, and\nConstantine and his successors were hailed by the Mithraic epithets of\n\u201caeternus,\u201d \u201cinvictus,\u201d and \u201cfelix\u201d as freely as his Pagan predecessors.\nFrom this period the notion of the \u201cdivinity that doth hedge a king\u201d\ndescended to comparatively modern times, and \u201cSacred Majesty\u201d was an\nepithet of our own kings down to the reign of the last Stuart. Probably,\ntoo, it was the custom of releasing an eagle at a royal funeral which so\nimpressed the popular imagination that the metaphor became transferred,\nas such things generally are sooner or later, to the lower ranks of the\ncommunity, and the figure of the soul being borne aloft on wings took\nthe place that it still occupies in popular Christian literature.\n\nThe share that Mithraism had in diffusing the practices of magic and\nastrology is by no means so clear. That the Mithraists, like other\npagans of the early centuries, were addicted to magic is one of the most\nfrequent accusations brought against them by Christian writers, and the\nword magic itself, as has been said above, is derived from those Magi\nfrom whom the Mithraists were said to have derived their doctrine. In\nsupport of this, it can certainly be said that the worshippers of\nMithras by rendering a modified cult to Ahriman, whom the Christians\nidentified with Satan, laid themselves open to the suspicion of\ntrafficking with devils, and it is quite possible that they, like the\nfollowers of many other religions at the time, looked with favour upon\nthe compulsion rather than the propitiation of the lower powers. Yet the\nstrict monotheism of the faith which practically looked to Mithras for\nthe ultimate control and regulation of all sublunary things, is\ncertainly against this conclusion; and it should be noticed that the\nlaws against the practices of magic and astrology, then so intertwined\nthat it is difficult to separate them[986], were quite as severe under\nemperors like Commodus and Diocletian who worshipped Mithras, as under\nthose of their successors who professed the faith of Christ. The rites\nof Hecate, however, were, as we have seen, closely connected with those\nof Mithras and were generally in the hands of Mithraists. These Hecatean\nrites seem to have been almost entirely magical in their character, and\nit is the name of Hecate that was handed down as that of the patroness\nof sorcerers through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance[987]. One of\nthe priests of Mithras also goes out of his way to declare on his\nepitaph that he is _studiosus astrologiae_, and on the whole the\nChristian accusation was probably not without foundation.\n\nFootnote 768:\n\n  Droysen, _Hist. de l\u2019Hell\u00e9nisme_, t. II. pp. 33, 289.\n\nFootnote 769:\n\n  _Op. cit._ III. pp. 351, 352; 439, 450. As Droysen points out, in this\n  respect there was no practical difference between Parthian and\n  Persian.\n\nFootnote 770:\n\n  As in B.C. 41, when the Parthians under Pacorus \u201crushed\u201d Palestine.\n  See Morrison, _The Jews under the Romans_, p. 58, for authorities. Cf.\n  Chapter V. Vol. I. p. 101, n. 3, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 771:\n\n  This is shown by, among other things, the claims of the kings of\n  Armenia, Cappadocia, and Pontus to be descended from the seven heroes\n  who delivered Persia from the Magians after the death of Cambyses. See\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ II. p. 519; III. pp. 82, 83.\n\nFootnote 772:\n\n  Droysen, _op. cit._ III. p. 83.\n\nFootnote 773:\n\n  Horace, _Odes_, Bk IV. Ode 5. Cf. his _Carmen Seculare_.\n\nFootnote 774:\n\n  Renan, _L\u2019Ant\u00e9christ_, pp. 317, 318, for authorities. A critical essay\n  on the Neronic myth and its congeners is to be found in Dr Charles\u2019\n  _Ascension of Isaiah_, p. li _sqq._\n\nFootnote 775:\n\n  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_ (Bury\u2019s ed.), vol. I. pp. 5, 205.\n\nFootnote 776:\n\n  Gibbon, _op. cit._ I. p. 209. Severus\u2019 victories are doubted by\n  Gibbon; and Prof. Bury apparently supports his author.\n\nFootnote 777:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. pp. 269, 270. Prof. Bury in his Appendix 17 points out\n  that the whole history of Valerian\u2019s capture is still very obscure.\n\nFootnote 778:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 340.\n\nFootnote 779:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 375. See Prof. Bury\u2019s note 83 on page cited.\n\nFootnote 780:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. pp. 228-231.\n\nFootnote 781:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 373.\n\nFootnote 782:\n\n  Gibbon, _op. cit._ V. pp. 78 sqq. Winwood Reade, _Martyrdom of Man_,\n  pp. 249, 250, tells the story excellently and dramatically.\n\nFootnote 783:\n\n  Horace, _Odes_, Bk I. Ode 38.\n\nFootnote 784:\n\n  Gibbon, _op. cit._ I. p. 382. Cf. Cumont, _Religions Orientales_, p.\n  171. Lactantius, _de Mort. Persecutor._ c. XXI., says that this was\n  the conscious aim of Galerius. Although his authority in such a matter\n  is suspect, there can be little doubt of the fact.\n\nFootnote 785:\n\n  The actual decree of the emperors is given in Cumont, _Textes et\n  Monuments_, t. II. inscr. 367. The date should probably be 304 A.D.\n  See n. on Table of Dates, Vol. I. _supra_.\n\nFootnote 786:\n\n  Plutarch, _Vit. Pomp._ c. XXIV.\n\nFootnote 787:\n\n  Cumont, _Rel. Or._ pp. 167, 168; 173, 174; _id._ _T. et M._ I. pp. 9,\n  10. Cf. _P.S.B.A._ 1912, pp. 127, 128.\n\nFootnote 788:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 247.\n\nFootnote 789:\n\n  Dill, _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, pp. 593-597.\n\nFootnote 790:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 248.\n\nFootnote 791:\n\n  For the list see Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 258, n. 7. He thinks the\n  worship was first introduced here by the legions from Germany.\n\nFootnote 792:\n\n  Avezou and Picard, \u201cBas-relief Mithriaque,\u201d _R.H.R._ t. LXIV. (Sept.\n  Oct. 1911), pp. 179 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 793:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 223, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 794:\n\n  Herodotus, Bk I. c. 131. Cf. F. Max M\u00fcller, _Hibbert Lectures_, p.\n  276. The similarity of name between Varuna and the Greek Ouranos is\n  fairly obvious. Prof. Hope Moulton, _Early Zoroastrianism_, 1913, pp.\n  391, 392, n. 3, argues that the Persian god of the sky was called\n  Dyaush or Zeus.\n\nFootnote 795:\n\n  Certainly of the Mitannians, who, according to Prof. Hugo Winckler,\n  were one of the two main branches of the Hittites, and a Syrian\n  people. See his report on Excavations at Boghaz Keui in the\n  _Mitteilungen_ of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft for 1907. The text\n  is given in the _J.R.A.S._ for 1910, pp. 723 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 796:\n\n  If we accept the latest theory which makes Russia the original home of\n  the Aryan race (see Zaborowski, _Les Peuples Aryens d\u2019Asie et\n  d\u2019Europe_, Paris, 1908, p. 424) it may have even had a European\n  origin.\n\nFootnote 797:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 225.\n\nFootnote 798:\n\n  James Darmesteter, _Essais Orientaux_, Paris, 1883, p. 113.\n\nFootnote 799:\n\n  Casartelli, _La Philosophie Religieuse du Mazd\u00e9isme sous les\n  Sassanides_, pp. 17, 18.\n\nFootnote 800:\n\n  _Op. cit._ p. 73.\n\nFootnote 801:\n\n  660-583 B.C. See A. V. Williams Jackson, _Zoroaster_, N.Y. 1901, p. 15\n  and Appx II. and III. Cf. D. Menant, \u201cParsis et Parsisme,\u201d\n  _Conf\u00e9rences au Mus\u00e9e Guimet_ (Bibl. de Vulgarisation), 1904, t. XVI.\n  1\u00e8re Ptie, p. 149.\n\nFootnote 802:\n\n  Darmesteter, _Le Zend Avesta_ (Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet), Paris, 1892,\n  p. xxvii, for dates. West, _Pahlavi Texts_, pt I. (Sacred Books of the\n  East), pp. lxviii-lxix; pt II. p. xxiv. Cf. Hope Moulton, _op. cit._\n  pp. 126, 127.\n\nFootnote 803:\n\n  Herodotus, Bk III. c. 61 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 804:\n\n  _The Sculptures and Inscriptions of Darius the Great at Behistun_,\n  British Museum Publications, 1907.\n\nFootnote 805:\n\n  _Op. cit._ pp. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 806:\n\n  _Op. cit._ p. 14.\n\nFootnote 807:\n\n  Maspero, _Hist. Ancienne des Peuples de l\u2019Orient Classique_, Paris,\n  1899, t. III. p. 674; Rawlinson, _History of Herodotus_, 1862, vol.\n  II. p. 458.\n\nFootnote 808:\n\n  Herodotus, Bk I. c. 140; VII. c. 113.\n\nFootnote 809:\n\n  _Op. cit._ Bk I. c. 131.\n\nFootnote 810:\n\n  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLVI.\n\nFootnote 811:\n\n  As in the book called \u201cThe Illumination of Bel\u201d found in\n  Assurbanipal\u2019s Library at Kuyunjik. See Sayce, \u201cAstronomy and\n  Astrology of the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians,\u201d _T.S.B.A._ vol.\n  III. pp. 146 _sqq._ Cf. Chapter III, vol. I. p. 114 _supra_ for\n  examples.\n\nFootnote 812:\n\n  That tables were actually used for this purpose, was shown in the\n  _Pall Mall Magazine_ for August, 1896 and with more detail in\n  _Star-Lore_ for April, 1897.\n\nFootnote 813:\n\n  Dill, _Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, pp. 449, 450, for authorities.\n\nFootnote 814:\n\n  _Circa_ 270 A.D. See Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 26.\n\nFootnote 815:\n\n  See Chap. III, Vol. I. p. 103, n. 4, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 816:\n\n  See Chap. IV, Vol. I. p. 123 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 817:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. pp. 19-20, relies on a passage quoted by\n  Damascius from a certain Eudemos who may or may not be Eudemos of\n  Rhodes (Alexander\u2019s contemporary) that, \u201cof the Magi and all the\n  warrior [or Medic: \u1f04\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd] race some call the intelligible\u201d [_i.e._\n  that which can be apprehended by the mind only and not by the senses]\n  \u201cand united universe Topos (place), while others of them call it\n  Chronos (Time), and that from this universe are to be distinguished a\n  good God and evil demon; or as some say, prior to these, Light and\n  Darkness.\u201d \u201cBoth the one and the other school therefore,\u201d Damascius\n  goes on, \u201cafter the undivided Nature, make the double series of the\n  higher powers distinct from one another, of one of which they make\n  Oromasdes the leader, and of the other Arimanius.\u201d It seems evident\n  from the above words, that only a certain sect of the Magi in the time\n  of this Eudemos put Time at the head of their pantheon. Cf. Cory\u2019s\n  _Ancient Fragments_, 1832, pp. 318, 319.\n\nFootnote 818:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 19.\n\nFootnote 819:\n\n  See \u201cThe Lion-headed God of the Mithraic Mysteries,\u201d _P.S.B.A._ 1912,\n  pp. 125-142, and p. 251 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 820:\n\n  Darmesteter, _Ormuzd et Ahriman_, Paris, 1877, p. 1, quoting a lost\n  book of Aristotle mentioned by Diogenes Laertius.\n\nFootnote 821:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 326 and Fig. 193.\n\nFootnote 822:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 336, reproduced in the article in the _P.S.B.A._\n  quoted in n. 2, p. 237 _supra_. In the collection of busts of the gods\n  on the arch surrounding the Tauroctony at Bologna, the head of Zeus\n  wearing the modius of Serapis appears with six others who, reading\n  from left to right, are the Sun, Saturn, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars\n  and the Moon. Although Jupiter here occupies the centre and place of\n  honour, it is probable that both he and the other gods are here merely\n  symbols of the planets. See Cumont, _op. cit._ II. p. 261 and Fig. 99.\n\nFootnote 823:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 349, and Pl. VI. So in the bas-relief of Sarrebourg,\n  unfortunately much mutilated (_op. cit._ II. p. 514), a similar\n  assembly of gods includes Neptune, Bacchus, and Vulcan, who are\n  certainly not gods of the planets.\n\nFootnote 824:\n\n  For these inscriptions, see Cumont, _op. cit._ t. II., Inscriptions 80\n  (p. 107), 129 (p. 115), 318 (p. 140), 386 (p. 149), 522 (p. 167), and\n  470 (p. 160).\n\nFootnote 825:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 98.\n\nFootnote 826:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 141.\n\nFootnote 827:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. pp. 160, 392, 393, and article in _P.S.B.A._ quoted in\n  n. 2, p. 237 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 828:\n\n  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLVI. Cf. Origen, _adv. Cels._ Bk I. c.\n  60.\n\nFootnote 829:\n\n  Herodotus, Bk VII. c. 114.\n\nFootnote 830:\n\n  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk V. c. 11, says Zeus is the same as Hades. He\n  quotes Euripides as authority for the statement, but I do not know the\n  play in which it appears. He also, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 14, quotes\n  Xenocrates as saying that there is an \u201cUpper and Lower\u201d Zeus.\n\nFootnote 831:\n\n  Heracles, of course, applied compulsion to Hades. For the magic\n  compulsion of the same power, see the Magic Papyrus of the Bibl. Nat.\n  in Wessely\u2019s _Griech. Zauberpap._ p. 38.\n\nFootnote 832:\n\n  _P.S.B.A._ 1912, p. 137, for authorities.\n\nFootnote 833:\n\n  Jean Reville, _La Religion \u00e0 Rome sous les Sev\u00e8res_, Paris, 1886, p.\n  30.\n\nFootnote 834:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 91, no. 2; p. 99, nos. 30, 34; p. 102, no.\n  49; p. 103, no. 53.\n\nFootnote 835:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 99, no. 29.\n\nFootnote 836:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 105, no. 62; p. 116, no. 131.\n\nFootnote 837:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 96, nos. 17, 20; p. 117, no. 139; p. 145, no. 354.\n\nFootnote 838:\n\n  Pindar, _Isthm._ V. 1, where the Sun is said to be the son of Theia.\n\nFootnote 839:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 225, and n. 1; cf. Darmesteter, _Ormuzd et\n  Ahriman_, p. 65.\n\nFootnote 840:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 231.\n\nFootnote 841:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 200.\n\nFootnote 842:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. pp. 304-306. The best and clearest example of these\n  scenes is perhaps that given in the bas-reliefs surrounding the\n  Tauroctony in the Mithraeum at Osterburken. See _Op. cit._ II. p. 350\n  (Monument 246).\n\nFootnote 843:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. Fig. 1 of Mon. 246 (p. 350).\n\nFootnote 844:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. pp. 159 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 845:\n\n  Cumont, _op. cit._ II. p. 395, and Fig. 315.\n\nFootnote 846:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 350, f (2) of Osterburken.\n\nFootnote 847:\n\n  It is not invariable, as the sculptor was sometimes evidently governed\n  by considerations of space.\n\nFootnote 848:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 350, f (5) of Osterburken. Cf. Mon. 245, Pl. V\n  (Neuenheim) and Mon. 251, Pl. VII (Heddernheim).\n\nFootnote 849:\n\n  West, _Pahlavi Texts_, Pt 1, _S.B.E._ p. 20 (Bundahish); Porphyry, _de\n  antro nympharum_, c. 18. Cf. D\u00f6llinger, _J. und H._ I. p. 419, and\n  Tiele, _Religion of the Iranian Peoples_ (Eng. ed.), Bombay, 1912, Pt\n  1, p. 113.\n\nFootnote 850:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 298, Fig. 154 (Sarmizegetusa); p. 309, Fig.\n  167 (Apulum); p. 326, Fig. 193 (Sissek). D\u00f6llinger, _J. und H._ I. p.\n  141, thinks this cup-shaped boat represents the Moon. But see against\n  this Cumont, _op. cit._ I. pp. 167, 168.\n\nFootnote 851:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 515 and Pl. IX, Mon. 273 _ter_ d (8)\n  (Sarrebourg). Cf. _ibid._ II. p. 310, Fig. 168, Mon. 192 _bis_ b (7),\n  also I. p. 167 and n. 5.\n\nFootnote 852:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 346, e (1) and Pl. V (Neuenheim); II. p. 350, f (3)\n  (Osterburken); II. p. 339, b (6) and Pl. IV (Mauls).\n\nFootnote 853:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 309, a (1) (Apulum); II. p. 326, b (3) and Fig. 193\n  (Sissek).\n\nFootnote 854:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 346, e (4) (Neuenheim); II. p. 309, a (2) (Apulum);\n  II. p. 515, d (10) (Sarrebourg).\n\nFootnote 855:\n\n  Cumont, _op. cit._ I. p. 304, puts these scenes in a slightly\n  different order. That followed here is that adopted in the Mithraeum\n  at Heddernheim, _op. cit._ II. Pl. VII, where the sequence is fairly\n  plain.\n\nFootnote 856:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 365, d (7) (Heddernheim).\n\nFootnote 857:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 338, c (5) (Klagenfurt).\n\nFootnote 858:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 350, f (8) (Osterburken).\n\nFootnote 859:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 172.\n\nFootnote 860:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 272, c (2) (Serdica); II. pp. 303, 304, c (1)\n  (Temesvar); II. p. 326, b (1) (Sissek).\n\nFootnote 861:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 337, c. (4) (Klagenfurt).\n\nFootnote 862:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 173.\n\nFootnote 863:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 201.\n\nFootnote 864:\n\n  Cumont, _op. cit._ I. p. 173, and n. 3.\n\nFootnote 865:\n\n  Most of the monuments show the remains of colour.\n\nFootnote 866:\n\n  Like the thrust of the Spanish bull-fighter which is supposed to split\n  the heart.\n\nFootnote 867:\n\n  Sometimes, though very rarely, the serpent is absent, as in the\n  Mithraeum discovered at Krotzenburg near Hanau. _Op. cit._ II. p. 353.\n\nFootnote 868:\n\n  Cumont, _op. cit._ I. pp. 207, 208. Following the mention by Dionysius\n  the Areopagite of a \u201cthreefold Mithras,\u201d M. Cumont thinks that the two\n  torch-bearing figures are representations of Mithras himself. The\n  theory is ingenious, but not very plausible. See _loc. cit._ pp.\n  208-213.\n\nFootnote 869:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 186, for authorities. Cf. D\u00f6llinger, _J. und H._ I.\n  p. 420. Tiele, _Rel. of Iran. P._ pt 1, p. 118, says that \u201coriginally\u201d\n  the bull was slain not by Ahriman, but by its creator.\n\nFootnote 870:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 197. Cf. Porphyry, _de antro nymphar._ c. XVIII.\n\nFootnote 871:\n\n  D. Menant, \u201cLes Rites Fun\u00e9raires,\u201d _Conf\u00e9rences au Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, t.\n  XXXV. pp. 181, 182.\n\nFootnote 872:\n\n  Cf. Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLVII.\n\nFootnote 873:\n\n  So Cumont, _T. et M._ I. pp. 182, 305.\n\nFootnote 874:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 192.\n\nFootnote 875:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. Pl. VIII.\n\nFootnote 876:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 175, Fig. 10, where some of the guests at the banquet\n  wear the masks of crows and other animals corresponding to the\n  Mithraic degrees.\n\nFootnote 877:\n\n  Justin Martyr, _First Apology_, c. LVI.\n\nFootnote 878:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. Pl VIII, shows this most clearly. Pl. V\n  (Neuenheim), Fig 213, opposite p. 337 (Virunum), and p. 278, Fig. 121\n  (Orsova), leave no doubt possible.\n\nFootnote 879:\n\n  Cumont, _op. cit._ I. p. 178, and Fig. 11.\n\nFootnote 880:\n\n  The Juppiter Optimus Maximus of the Palazzo Altieri. _Op. cit._ II. p.\n  104.\n\nFootnote 881:\n\n  Darmesteter, _Ormuzd et Ahriman_, p. 65.\n\nFootnote 882:\n\n  Porphyry, _de antro nympharum_, c. XXIV.\n\nFootnote 883:\n\n  _Op. cit._ cc. V. VI.\n\nFootnote 884:\n\n  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLVI.\n\nFootnote 885:\n\n  Porphyry, _de antro nymph._ c. XXIV.\n\nFootnote 886:\n\n  _Op. cit._ cc. V. VI.\n\nFootnote 887:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. pp. 198 _sqq._ Damascius (in Cory\u2019s _Ancient\n  Fragments_, 1832, p. 319) attributes to the \u201cSidonians\u201d a theogony\n  which would make \u201cOtos,\u201d said by Cory to mean the Night Raven, the\n  \u039d\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 born from Aer and Aura. Has this anything to do with the\n  symbolism of the crow, found always as the attendant of Mithras at the\n  Tauroctony?\n\nFootnote 888:\n\n  S\u00f6derblom, _La Vie Future d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Mazd\u00e9isme_, Paris, 1901, pp. 265,\n  266, for authorities. Cf. Casartelli, _La Philosophie Religieuse du\n  Mazd\u00e9isme_, p. 186.\n\nFootnote 889:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 168. He relies on a fragment of Dion\n  Chrysostom which does not appear to have this meaning. See _ibid._ II.\n  p. 64.\n\nFootnote 890:\n\n  M. Cumont, _op. cit._ I. p. 82, says that the sex is left undecided,\n  so as to show that Infinite Time, the Supreme God according to him of\n  the Mithraic pantheon, can produce by himself. This is certainly not\n  the case with one of the statues given among his own monuments (_op.\n  cit._ II. p. 213, Fig. 44), or that lately recovered from the\n  Mithraeum at Sidon, for which see Pottier, \u201cLa Collection Louis de\n  Clercq,\u201d _Conf\u00e9rences au Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, Bibl. de Vulg. t. XIX. 1906,\n  Pl. opp. p. 236, or _P.S.B.A._ 1912, Pl. XIX, Fig. 18, or Cumont, _Les\n  Myst\u00e8res de Mithra_, Bruxelles, 1913, p. 235.\n\nFootnote 891:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 213, Figs. 43, 44.\n\nFootnote 892:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 216, Fig. 47; p. 238, Fig. 68; p. 259, Fig. 96.\n\nFootnote 893:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 196, Fig. 22. A hole in the back of the head, made\n  apparently for \u201cfire-breathing\u201d purposes, was found in the Sidon\n  statue also. See Cumont, _Les Myst\u00e8res_, fig. 27.\n\nFootnote 894:\n\n  _T. et M._ II. p. 375.\n\nFootnote 895:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 78.\n\nFootnote 896:\n\n  The only evidence that he produces of this last fact is a quotation\n  from Damascius, whose authority seems to be \u201cEudemus the Peripatetic,\u201d\n  given in n. 4, p. 236 _supra_, that some of the Magi call the \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f21\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd Topos and others Chronos. A good divinity and an\n  evil demon according to the same author descend from this power, one\n  of whom he says is called Oromasdes and the other Arimanius. It is not\n  very clear how much of this is Eudemus and how much Damascius. No\n  other author gives any hint that would allow us to attribute so early\n  an age to Zervanism.\n\nFootnote 897:\n\n  _P.S.B.A._ 1912, pp. 139-142.\n\nFootnote 898:\n\n  Firmicus Maternus, _de errore_, c. IV. See Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p.\n  140, n. 7.\n\nFootnote 899:\n\n  They are mentioned together in the great Magical Papyrus of the\n  Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale at Paris, Wessely, _Griechische Zauberp._ p.\n  73.\n\nFootnote 900:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 141.\n\nFootnote 901:\n\n  The absence of any corresponding statue of the goddess is perhaps\n  accounted for by the misogynic character of the Mithraic worship. Yet\n  an empty niche corresponding to the one containing the lion-headed\n  figure appears in some Mithraea.\n\nFootnote 902:\n\n  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 7 and note.\n\nFootnote 903:\n\n  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLV.\n\nFootnote 904:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 5, quoting West, _Pahlavi Texts_, Pt V. p.\n  xxvi, 50.\n\nFootnote 905:\n\n  F. Rosenberg, _Le Livre de Zoroastre_, St Petersburg, I. p. 10, and n.\n  3, says that the reform of Zoroaster was specially directed to the\n  abolition of the worship of Ahriman.\n\nFootnote 906:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. Monument 246, e (5) Osterburken, and others as\n  in t. I. p. 157 and n. 3. Cf. also Pl. XVI, Fig. 7, in _P.S.B.A._\n  1912.\n\nFootnote 907:\n\n  The Orphic invocation of the Titans referred to in Chap. IV, vol. I.\n  p. 116, n. 3 _supra_ can be thus explained.\n\nFootnote 908:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 215, Fig. 46 (Pl. XVIII, Fig. 13 of\n  _P.S.B.A._ 1912); II. p. 238, Fig. 68 (Pl. XVIII, Fig. 15 of\n  _P.S.B.A._ 1912).\n\nFootnote 909:\n\n  So in the leaden _dirae_ from Cyprus now in the British Museum the\n  Lord of Hell is invoked as \u201cthe god who is set over the gate of hell\n  and the keys of heaven.\u201d _P.S.B.A._ t. XIII., 1891, p. 177.\n\nFootnote 910:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 294.\n\nFootnote 911:\n\n  Wessely, _Griechische Zauberp._ pp. 32 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 912:\n\n  Georges Lafaye, \u201cL\u2019Initiation Mithriaque,\u201d _Conf\u00e9rences au Mus\u00e9e\n  Guimet_, t. XVIII. 1906, pp. 98 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 913:\n\n  Wessely, _Gr. Zauberp._ _Op. cit._ in note 2 _supra_, and Lafaye, _op.\n  cit. passim_.\n\nFootnote 914:\n\n  Wessely, _op. cit._ p. 61.\n\nFootnote 915:\n\n  See Chapter IX, p. 108 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 916:\n\n  Lafaye, _L\u2019In. Mith._ pp. 111, 112, goes further and says that both\n  Gnostics and Manichaeans derived their doctrine from Mithraism, which\n  formed a half-way house between Paganism and Christianity. But see\n  Chapter XIII, _infra_.\n\nFootnote 917:\n\n  Origen, _adv. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 22. For \u201cmusical\u201d there should probably\n  be read mystical, the \u03c4 being easily omitted by a copyist.\n\nFootnote 918:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 38.\n\nFootnote 919:\n\n  Charles, _Bk of the Secrets of Enoch_, pp. xxx _sqq._\n\nFootnote 920:\n\n  The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, published by James in _Cambridge Texts\n  and Studies_, vol. V. No. 1, p. 44.\n\nFootnote 921:\n\n  _adv. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 22. He has, however, got the order wrong, as\n  copper is generally associated with the planet Venus, tin with\n  Jupiter, iron with Mars, silver with the Moon, gold with the Sun, and\n  lead with Saturn.\n\nFootnote 922:\n\n  Bouch\u00e9 Leclercq, _L\u2019Astrologie Grecque_, p. 23, for authorities.\n\nFootnote 923:\n\n  _Op. cit._ p. 276. Cf. Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 40.\n\nFootnote 924:\n\n  Porphyry, _de Abstinentia_, Bk IV. c. 16.\n\nFootnote 925:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 129, n. 6, for list of monuments.\n\nFootnote 926:\n\n  _Op. et loc. cit._; _id._ _Rel. Or._ p. 179.\n\nFootnote 927:\n\n  See p. 234, _supra_. The figure of the divine archer in the winged\n  disk which figured on the coins called darics is, perhaps, the\n  exception which proves the rule. Or is this meant for the Fravashi or\n  genius of the king? Cf. Hope Moulton, _Early Zoroastrianism_, p. 260.\n\nFootnote 928:\n\n  Somewhere about 204 B.C. See Cumont, _Rel. Or._ p. 58.\n\nFootnote 929:\n\n  Orelli, _Inscpt. Latinar. selectar._ Turin, 1828, vol. I. pp. 406-412.\n\nFootnote 930:\n\n  See Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 95, inscr. 15, p. 98, inscr. 23; p. 100\n  inscr. 40; p. 101, inscr. 41. The tomb of Vincentius in the Catacomb\n  of Praetextatus at Rome would show an instance of the joint worship of\n  Sabazius, the consort of the Great Mother, and of Mithras, if we could\n  trust Garrucci\u2019s restoration, for which see his _Les Myst\u00e8res du\n  Syncr\u00e9tisme Phrygien_, Paris, 1854. It has been quoted in this sense\n  by Hatch, _H.L._ p. 290; but Cumont, _T. et M._ II. pp. 173 and 413,\n  argues against this construction. For the pictures themselves, see\n  Maass, _Orpheus_, M\u00fcnchen, 1895, pp. 221, 222.\n\nFootnote 931:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 261, Fig. 99.\n\nFootnote 932:\n\n  Kenyon, _Gk. Papyri_, p. 65.\n\nFootnote 933:\n\n  This is the more likely because his second initiator bears the name of\n  Asinius, which, as he himself says (Apuleius, _Metamorph._ Bk XI. c.\n  27), was not unconnected with his own transformation into the shape of\n  an ass. The Emperor Commodus was initiated into both religions\n  (Lampricius, _Commodus_, c. I\u03a7.).\n\nFootnote 934:\n\n  See n. 1, p. 259, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 935:\n\n  Dill, _Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, p. 625, n. 3, quoting Gasquet,\n  _Mithras_, p. 137. See also Gibbon, vol. III. p. 498, Bury (Appendix\n  15).\n\nFootnote 936:\n\n  Justin Martyr, _First Apology_, c. LXVI.\n\nFootnote 937:\n\n  Porphyry, _de antro nymph._ c. 15. Tertullian, _de Praescpt._ c. 40.\n\nFootnote 938:\n\n  Porphyry, _op. et loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 939:\n\n  See Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 339, for authorities.\n\nFootnote 940:\n\n  Augustine, _In Johann. evang. tractatus_, VII. or Cumont, _T. et M._\n  II. p. 59. This last thinks it more probable that the passage refers\n  to Attis, as there is an allusion in it to redemption by blood. But\n  this would hardly apply to the self-mutilation of the Galli, while it\n  would to the blood-bath of the Taurobolium and Criobolium which so\n  many high initiates of Mithras boast of undergoing.\n\nFootnote 941:\n\n  J. Maurice, \u201cLa Dynastie Solaire des Seconds Flaviens,\u201d _Rev.\n  Archeol._ t. XVII. (1911), p. 397 and n. 1.\n\nFootnote 942:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 339, quoting Minucius Felix.\n\nFootnote 943:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 65.\n\nFootnote 944:\n\n  The remains of five Mithraea were found in Ostia alone.\n\nFootnote 945:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 204, Fig. 30, and p. 493, Fig. 430; or\n  _P.S.B.A._ 1912, Pl. XIII. Figs. 1 and 2.\n\nFootnote 946:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 62.\n\nFootnote 947:\n\n  The story quoted from Pseudo-Augustine (Cumont, _op. cit._ I. p. 322)\n  about the hands of the initiates being bound with chickens\u2019-guts which\n  were afterwards severed by a sword might account for the number of\n  birds\u2019 bones.\n\nFootnote 948:\n\n  Cumont, _op. cit._ II. p. 21, gives the passage from Lampridius\n  mentioned in n. 1, p. 260, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 949:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 322, quoting Zacharius rhetor.\n\nFootnote 950:\n\n  See Chapter II, Vol. I. p. 62, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 951:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 18, for the passage in St Jerome in which\n  these degrees are enumerated. They all appear in the inscriptions\n  given by Cumont, except that of Miles or Soldier. An inscription by\n  two \u201csoldiers\u201d of Mithras has, however, lately been found at Patras\n  and published by its discoverers, M. Charles Avezou and M. Charles\n  Picard. See _R.H.R._ t. LXIV. (1911), pp. 179-183.\n\nFootnote 952:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. pp. 315 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 953:\n\n  Tertullian, _de Corona_, c. 15.\n\nFootnote 954:\n\n  Porphyry, _de antro nymph._ c. 15.\n\nFootnote 955:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 322. Gregory of Nazianza (A.D. 320-390) is\n  the first authority for these tortures (\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2) in point of time.\n  Nonnus the Mythographer gives more details, but is three centuries\n  later.\n\nFootnote 956:\n\n  Renan, _Marc-Aur\u00e8le_, p. 577.\n\nFootnote 957:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 73.\n\nFootnote 958:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 294, Fig. 149; p. 298, Fig. 154; p. 300, Fig. 156;\n  p. 304, Fig. 161; p. 488, Fig. 421.\n\nFootnote 959:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 175, Fig. 10.\n\nFootnote 960:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 39, n. 6, quoting the _Arda Viraf namak_. A quotation\n  from Arnobius, _adv. gentes_, which follows, merely says that the Magi\n  boast of their ability to smooth the believers\u2019 passage to heaven.\n\nFootnote 961:\n\n  See Chap. VIII, p. 74, n. 3, _supra_.\n\nFootnote 962:\n\n  That those who had taken the degree of Pater were called \u1f00\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03af or\n  eagles appears from Porphyry, _de Abstinentia_, Bk IV. c. 16. Cumont\n  doubts this; see _T. et M._ I. p. 314, n. 8. The idea probably had its\n  origin in the belief common to classical antiquity that the eagle\n  alone could fly to the sun, from which the Mithraist thought that the\n  souls of men came, and to which those of perfect initiates would\n  return. Cf. _op. cit._ I. p. 291.\n\nFootnote 963:\n\n  Lafaye, _L\u2019Initiation Mithriaque_, p. 106.\n\nFootnote 964:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 56.\n\nFootnote 965:\n\n  Porphyry, _de Abstinentia_, Bk IV. c. 16 says this was so.\n\nFootnote 966:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 318, n. 1, points out that an initiate might\n  become Pater Patrum immediately after being made Pater or Pater\n  sacrorum simply. This appears from the two monuments both dated the\n  same year of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, _op. cit._ II. p. 95.\n\nFootnote 967:\n\n  See Ammianus Marcellinus Bk XXII. c. 7, for his life under Julian. His\n  career is well described by Dill, _Roman Society in the Last Century\n  of the Western Empire_, 1899, pp. 17, 18, 30, 154, 155.\n\nFootnote 968:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 100, inscr. 35; p. 98, inscr. 24.\n\nFootnote 969:\n\n  _Op. cit._ II. p. 130, inscr. 225; p. 132, inscr. 239; p. 134, inscr.\n  257. The two decurions may of course have been decurions of the rite\n  only, as to which see _op. cit._ I. p. 326.\n\nFootnote 970:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 324: Tertullian, _Praescpt._ c. 40.\n\nFootnote 971:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 65. Thirty-five seems to be the greatest\n  number belonging to any one chapel.\n\nFootnote 972:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. p. 327.\n\nFootnote 973:\n\n  Amm. Marcell. _passim_.\n\nFootnote 974:\n\n  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ III. p. 136.\n\nFootnote 975:\n\n  Marinus, _vita Procli_, pp. 67, 68; Neander, _op. cit._ III. p. 136.\n\nFootnote 976:\n\n  Witness the reduction of Mitra, who plays such an important part in\n  the religion of the Vedas, to the far lower position of chief of the\n  Izeds or Yazatas in the Sassanian reform.\n\nFootnote 977:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 250, for authorities.\n\nFootnote 978:\n\n  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_ (Bury\u2019s ed.), I. p. 260 n. 106.\n\nFootnote 979:\n\n  Reville, _Religion sous les Sev\u00e8res_, p. 102.\n\nFootnote 980:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 347.\n\nFootnote 981:\n\n  Dill, _Last Century_, etc. p. 29, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 982:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 347.\n\nFootnote 983:\n\n  _Op. cit._ I. pp. 329, 330; Dill, _Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, p. 624.\n\nFootnote 984:\n\n  Cumont, \u201cL\u2019aigle fun\u00e9raire des Syriens et l\u2019apoth\u00e9ose des empereurs.\u201d\n  _R.H.R._, 1910, pt ii. pp. 159 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 985:\n\n  Cf. the \u201csolitary eagle\u201d of the Magic Papyrus quoted on p. 265\n  _supra_.\n\nFootnote 986:\n\n  Maury, _La Magie et L\u2019Astrologie_, _passim_. The Zend Avesta also\n  denounces magic as did the later Manichaeism. See p. 342 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 987:\n\n  As in Shakespeare\u2019s _Macbeth_.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIII\n                       MANES AND THE MANICHAEANS\n\n\nIt is generally said that the religion of Mithras ended and was absorbed\nin Manichaeism, which may thus be supposed to have inherited some, at\nleast, of its doctrines[988]. This is one of those statements which are\ncopied by one author from another until they acquire by mere repetition\nthe force of an axiom; but its truth is not obvious, nor does it appear\nto rest upon any sound foundation. Except in the fact that both\nMithraism and Manichaeism came in the first instance from Persia, there\nis little likeness between the two faiths, which are in all essential\nrespects diametrically opposed to each other. A strict dualism, or the\neternal antagonism of two equal principles, is the distinguishing\nfeature of the religion of Manes, while the worship of Mithras rested,\nas has been said in the last chapter, on an equally uncompromising\nmonotheism, which made the Supreme Being, whether known as Jupiter or\nOrmuzd, at once the creator and the governor of the universe. In this\nrespect, it drew near to Judaism, which it may have aimed at\nincorporating with itself, and was not ashamed to place on its monuments\nscenes which can be referred to the Old Testament[989]. Manichaeism, on\nthe other hand, looked on Judaism with horror, rejected the Old\nTestament entirely, and was not improbably born in an outbreak of\nanti-Semitic fury[990]. But the discrepancy of doctrine is as nothing\ncompared to the wide difference in those external matters which in a new\nreligion most strike the imagination of the crowd, and have therefore\nmuch to do with its success or failure. The Mithraist was accustomed, as\nwe have seen, to an allegorical and symbolical ritual in which the\nmaterial image of his god was for ever before him; but the Manichaean,\nas we shall see later, forbade the use of images and his worship\nconsisted merely of prayers and hymns. The Mithraists made frequent use\nin their ceremonies of the sacrifice of animals; but the Manichaeans\nlooked with displeasure on the taking of the life even of plants. The\nworshipper of Mithras not only gloried in the outward profession of his\nreligion, but by his avoidance of the wearing of garlands forced the\nnotice of it on those of his fellows who were not of the faith. The\nfollower of Manes, on the contrary, concealed his religion as carefully\nas Basilides wished his followers to conceal theirs, and even went to\nthe length of outwardly adopting a creed different from his own. It is\nnot therefore to be wondered at that the rulers of the Roman Empire,\nwhose acquaintance with the worship of Mithras was a thousand times more\nprofound than our own, should have favoured Mithraism and have made\nevery effort to suppress Manichaeism. The very emperors who placed their\nreformed State under the protection of Mithras imposed the penalty of\ndeath upon those of their subjects who should venture to teach the\nreligion of Manes[991].\n\nNot less different were the sanctions with which Mithraism and\nManichaeism appeared in the West. The worship of Mithras came into the\nRoman world unobtrusively and without any claim to an exclusive\nrevelation or special means of propaganda. But Manichaeism had at its\nback the personality of one of those wonderful men who appear at rare\nintervals in the world\u2019s history, to leave behind them a memorial of\ntheir empire over the minds of their fellows in the shape of a new\ncreed. Manes was indeed, as the discoveries of the last decade have\ntaught us, an innovator in religion entirely worthy to rank with\nZoroaster, Buddha, and Muhammad, and when the difficulties in the way of\nhis missionary activity are considered, his influence upon the religious\nideas of those who came after him was at least as marked as that of any\nof them. Manes or M\u00e2n\u00ee\u2014the first being the Greek form of the name\u2014was\nborn, according to his own deliberate statement, about the year 216\nA.D., in a village of Babylonia called Mard\u00een\u00fb situate on the Kutha\ncanal to the south of Ctesiphon[992]. According to Christian tradition,\nhis real name was Corbicius or Kubrik and he was a slave of unknown\nbirth[993]; according to the Mahommedan writers his father was one\nPatecius or Fatak, while his mother is sometimes described as the \u201cLady\nMary,\u201d sometimes as a Parthian princess, and is sometimes named\nKarossa[994]. Such legends grow up naturally round the birth of all\nfounders of religions, and we should believe them the less in this case\nthat they have been handed down to us by the professors of religions\nbitterly opposed to that of Manes. Yet the story about the Parthian\nprincess seems confirmed by the free access that he seems to have always\npossessed to the court of the Persian monarchs of his time. Manes\nhimself says, according to Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, that illumination came to him in\nhis thirteenth year[995]; but this is contradicted by the _Fihrist_,\nwhich puts the age at which he received revelation as twenty-four[996].\nThe _Acta Archelai_, a Christian source obviously suspect in the state\nit has come down to us, would make him a priest of Mithras[997], a\ntradition which may have originated at a date when the Catholic Church\nrecognized the danger to itself involved in the spread of the Mithraic\nreligion. Another story would make him a Magus or one of the priestly\ncaste entrusted by Ardesh\u00eer with the propagation of the reformed\nreligion of Zoroaster[998], which is discredited by the fact that it was\nthe Magi who were from the outset his bitterest enemies[999]. A late\nOriental writer says that he was a Christian priest having a cure of\nsouls at Ahv\u00e2z[1000], the capital city of the province of Huzitis, which\nagain is negatived by the fact that he seems from his writings to have\nhad little more than a hearsay knowledge of Catholic Christianity,\nalthough they show some acquaintance with the heresies of Bardesanes and\nMarcion[1001]. He is said to have acquired great skill in painting which\nhe used to illustrate his teaching[1002], and to have been a learned\nmathematician and astronomer. This is likely enough; but the only events\nof his life which seem well attested, are that he began at an early age\nto propagate his doctrine and that he succeeded in converting to it\nPeroz or F\u00eer\u00fbz the son of Ardesh\u00eer, through whose means he obtained a\nformal hearing from Sapor or Sh\u00e2p\u00fbr, the conqueror of Valerian and\nArdesh\u00eer\u2019s successor, shortly after this king\u2019s accession to the\nthrone[1003]. Sapor seems to have listened to Manes with respect and,\naccording to an Oriental writer, to have even favoured his propaganda,\nuntil the Magi, to whom the revival of the Zoroastrian religion had been\ncommitted, convinced him of his error[1004]. On this, Manes was exiled\nfrom Persia and retired, says Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, to India, China, and Thibet\npreaching his gospel[1005]. On Sapor\u2019s death, he returned to Persia\nunder Hormisdas or Ormuz, and again, it is said, succeeded in converting\nto his tenets the reigning monarch[1006]. On Varanes\u2019 or Bahram\u2019s\naccession to the throne the following year, however, he was seized and\nput to death as a heretic after a disputation with the Chief of the\nMagi, in which he failed to support the test of an ordeal by molten\nmetal proposed to him[1007]. The most likely account of his death\nnarrates that he was decapitated, and that his skin stuffed with straw\nwas suspended at the gate of the town where the execution took\nplace[1008]. This was followed by a great persecution of the Manichaeans\nthroughout Persia, and it is fairly evident that this, like his own\nfate, was due to the hostility he had aroused in the Magi[1009]. The\ndate of his death is fixed with some accuracy at 275 A.D., so that he\nwould then have reached the age of sixty years[1010].\n\nThe causes underlying this sudden appearance of a new religion are\ndoubtless to be looked for in the political and religious history of\nPersia at the time. Ardesh\u00eer, as has been said above, gave new life to\nthe feeling of Persian nationality which the Parthian Kings had kept\nalive during Greek supremacy in Asia, and succeeded in again founding a\nPersian Empire. Like Alexander, Antiochus Epiphanes, and again,\nDiocletian, he seems to have been thoroughly alive to the great effect\nthat a faith common to the whole empire would have in uniting the\npeoples under his sway.\n\n    \u201cNever forget,\u201d he says in the supposed testament that he is said to\n    have left for the guidance of his son Sapor, \u201cthat as a king you are\n    at once the protector of religion and of your country. Consider the\n    altar and the throne as inseparable and that they must always\n    sustain each other. A sovereign without religion is a tyrant, and a\n    people which have no religion may be deemed the most monstrous of\n    all societies. Religion may exist without a State, but a State\n    cannot exist without religion; and it is by holy laws that a\n    political association can alone be bound[1011].\u201d\n\nYet in spite of these sentiments, more pithily expressed perhaps in the\n\u201cNo bishop, no king\u201d of our own James I, the task of founding a common\nreligion for the whole of the new Persian empire must have presented\nsome uncommon difficulties. Apart from the strong Semitic element\ndominant in their Babylonian province, the Parthians had always been\neclectic in matters of faith, and Vonones, one of the last kings of\nParthia, had shown himself to be a Philhellene of a type which must have\nbeen peculiarly offensive to a sovereign who was trying to revive the\nold Persian nationality[1012]. The worship of Mithras, the god most\nfavoured by the legions with whom Ardesh\u00eer was soon to be at\ndeath-grips, must have been equally out of the question; and the\nknowledge of this is probably to be seen in the low place in the\ncelestial hierarchy assigned to the old Vedic god in the Avesta of\nArdesh\u00eer\u2019s day[1013]. The Jewish religion in Central Asia had lately\ngiven signs of proselytizing fervour, and it was the going-over of a\nParthian kinglet against the will of his people to the Jewish faith\nwhich first, according to one account, gave the excuse for the\nintervention of Vologeses or Valkhash and the subsequent reformation or\nrevival of the Zoroastrian religion[1014]. At the same time,\nChristianity had already begun to share with Mithraism the devotion of\nthe legions stationed on the Roman frontier, and in the Gnostic form\nfavoured by the teaching of Marcion and Bardesanes was pushing into\nPersia from Armenia and Edessa[1015]. Nor can we doubt that Buddhism,\nalready perhaps struck with decay in its native country of India[1016],\nbut flourishing exceedingly further East, was trying to obtain a\nfoothold in that very Bactria which was afterwards said to have been the\nhistoric scene of Zoroaster\u2019s activity. Other small, but, as the event\nwas to show, highly vitalized faiths, were current in Western Asia, and\nthe power of the Magi when Ardesh\u00eer overthrew the Parthian power had\ndeclined so greatly that the statues of the Parthian kings were placed\nin the temples of the gods and adored equally with those of the\ndivinities[1017]. The Persians of Herodotus\u2019 time, who did not believe\nin deities who had the same nature as men, would have blushed at such a\nprofanation.\n\nFrom this unpromising welter of creeds and cults, Ardesh\u00eer delivered the\nState by restoring the worship of Ahura Mazda as the State religion. One\nof his first cares was to collect the fragments of the books which we\nnow know as the Zend Avesta, in which the revelations of the national\nprophet Zoroaster were set down in a language not then understanded of\nthe people. It was afterwards said that the MSS. of these books had\npurposely been destroyed or scattered by Alexander; but the fact seems\nto be that they had fallen into discredit through the turning-away of\nthe Persians towards Hellenic and Semitic gods; and that a previous\nattempt to restore their authority by Valkhash or Vologeses I, the\nParthian king who reigned from 50 to 75 A.D., had met with little\nencouragement from his subjects[1018]. Most modern scholars are now\nagreed that the Avesta and the literature that grew up round it contain\nmany doctrines not to be found in the Persian religion current in\nAchaemenian times, and evidently brought into it from foreign sources\nunder the Hellenistic and Parthian kings. Such as it is, however, the\nAvesta formed the Sacred Book of Ardesh\u00eer\u2019s reformation; while, in the\norder of the Magi, by him restored to more than their former power, the\nreformed Zoroastrian faith possessed an active, established, and\npersecuting Church, which reigned in Persia without a serious rival\nuntil the Mahommedan invasion.\n\nYet the first struggles of the reformation must have been sharp, and\nDarmesteter was doubtless justified when he saw in Manichaeism the first\nand possibly the strongest expression of the revulsion of Ardesh\u00eer\u2019s\nsubjects against the rigid orthodoxy which he sought to impose upon\nthem[1019]. That such a feeling persisted for some time is plain from\nthe fact that Manes\u2019 \u201cheresy\u201d is said by Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee to have been followed\nby that of Mazdak, who seems to have preached, like the Antinomian sects\nof Cromwell\u2019s time, a kind of Socialism including the community of women\nand of property[1020]. There arose also about the same time or a little\nlater the sect of Zervanists referred to in the chapter on Mithras, who\ntaught that Boundless Time was the origin of all things and was superior\nto Ormuzd and Ahriman, to both of whom he was said to have given birth.\nThey seemed to have gained great power in the reign of Yezdegerd II;\nand, if we may trust the Armenian authors, a proclamation commanding\nadherence to their doctrines was put forth by Yezdegerd\u2019s general Mihr\nNerses on his invasion of Armenia in 450 A.D.[1021] But the earliest and\nmost enduring of these heresies or rebellions against the purified and\nrestored religion of Ahura Mazda appears to have been that of Manes.\n\nWere now the doctrines that Manes preached to his own undoing his\ninvention, or did he draw them from some pre-existent source? It is\nsaid, in a Christian account which has come down to us, that they were\nthe work of one Scythianus[1022], a native, as his name implies, of\n\u201cScythia\u201d (which here probably means Turkestan) and a contemporary of\nthe Apostles, who married an Egyptian slave and learned from her all the\nwisdom of the Egyptians[1023]. With the help of this and the tincture of\ndualism which he extracted from \u201cthe works of Pythagoras,\u201d the story\ngoes on to say, Scythianus constructed a system which he taught to a\ndisciple named Terebinthus, otherwise called Buddas or Buddha, before\nhis own death in Judaea[1024]. This Terebinthus gave out that he was\nborn of a virgin and had been nursed by an angel on a mountain; and he\nalso wrote four books in which the doctrines of Scythianus were set\ndown[1025]. These books he entrusted to an aged widow with whom he\nlived, and he was afterwards struck dead while performing a magical\nceremony. On his death, she bought a boy of seven years old named\nCorbicius, whom she enfranchised, and to whom she left her property and\nTerebinthus\u2019 books some five years later. Thus equipped, Corbicius took\nthe name of Manes, which may signify \u201cCup\u201d or \u201cVessel[1026],\u201d and began\nto preach. This history has evidently been much corrupted and by no\nmeans agrees with the account before quoted from Oriental sources which\nbears greater marks of authenticity; but it is thought by some to be,\nlike the 14th chapter of Genesis, a sort of allegory in which the names\nof peoples and systems are given as those of individual men[1027]. If\nthis be so, we should perhaps see in Scythianus the representative of\nthose non-Aryan tribes of Medes of whom the Magi formed part, while in\nthe name of Buddha we might find that of one of those Judaean\ncommunities holding a mixture of Magian and Buddhist tenets who\naccording to one tradition were for long encamped near the Dead\nSea[1028]. Yet there is nothing specifically Buddhist or Egyptian about\nthe doctrines of Manes as we know them[1029], and if there were any\nlikeness between the mythology and observances of the cult and those of\nits predecessors, it was probably introduced by Manes\u2019 followers rather\nthan by himself[1030]. As to the doctrines of the Magi, Manes certainly\nhad no occasion to go to Judaea to find them; for in the Persia of\nArdesh\u00eer and Sapor he must have heard quite as much of them as he\nwished.\n\nProbably, therefore, the Christian account of Manes\u2019 sources is untrue,\nor rather, as M. Rochat suggests, it was composed at a time and place in\nwhich Manichaeism had become a heresy or alternative creed attached, so\nto speak, not to Zoroastrianism but to Christianity, and had picked up\nfrom this and other faiths many accretions[1031]. The doctrine of Manes\nwhich has come down to us from other sources is extremely simple, and\nseems to accord better with the Puritanical simplicity of life and\nritual afterwards practised by his followers. Both the Christian and the\nMahommedan traditions agree that he believed that there were two gods,\nuncreated and eternal, and everlastingly opposed to each other[1032].\nOne of these is the God of Light and the other the God of Darkness; but\nhe does not seem to have given any specific or proper name to\neither[1033]. It is possible that this last-named being may have been\nidentified by him with Matter[1034], although this would seem to be a\nremnant of the Platonic philosophy of which there is no other trace in\nhis teaching. But it is certain that he regarded the God of Darkness as\nentirely evil, that is to say, malevolent, and as a power to propitiate\nwhom man should make no attempt. \u201cI have considered it needful to\ndespatch this letter to you\u201d says an epistle which there is much reason\nto consider expresses the opinions, if not the actual words, of Manes\nhimself[1035]:\n\n    \u201cfirst for the salvation of your soul and then to secure you against\n    dubious opinions, and especially against notions such as those teach\n    who lead astray the more simple (\u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9), alleging that both\n    good and evil come from the same Power, and introducing but one\n    principle, and neither distinguishing nor separating the darkness\n    from the light, and the good from the bad and the evil (\u03c6\u03b1\u1fe6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd), and\n    that which is without man from that which is within him, as we have\n    said formerly, so that they cease not to confuse and mingle one\n    thing with another. But do not thou, O my son, like most men,\n    unreasonably and foolishly join the two together nor ascribe them\n    both to the God of Goodness. For these teachers attribute to God the\n    beginning and the end, and make him the father of these ills _the\n    end of which is near a curse_[1036].\u201d\n\nAlthough this epistle bears evident marks of having been worked over and\namplified by some writer of a later age than that of the founder of\nManichaeism, there cannot be much doubt that it contains his teaching on\nthe Two Principles of all things. In the Christian account of Manes\u2019\ndoctrine which M. Rochat thinks earlier than the epistle quoted above,\nManes\u2019 _quondam_ follower Turbo says after recantation that his master\nreverences two gods \u201cunbegotten, self-existing (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03c5\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2), eternal and\nset over against each other,\u201d and that \u201che represents one as good, the\nother as wicked, giving to the one the name of Light and to the other\nthat of Darkness[1037].\u201d So, too, the Mahommedan writers who give what\nseems to be an independent account of Manes\u2019 opinions are agreed that he\ndeduced the origin of the world from \u201ctwo Original Principles, one of\nwhich is Light and the other Darkness, and which are separated one from\nthe other[1038].\u201d The absolute opposition from the outset of good and\nevil therefore formed the pivot of Manes\u2019 whole system, and was opposed\nquite as much to the Christian and Jewish creeds as to the Mithraic and\nother modifications of Persian religious ideas then or later in vogue,\nwhich held that evil like good was the creation of the Supreme Being,\nand that Ahriman or Pluto was a god having subordinate authority to, but\nof the same nature as, Ormuzd or Zeus. This uncompromisingly dualistic\ntheory gives an origin to evil independent of that of good, and can only\nlead logically to the assertion of its eternity. Whether Manes gave\nutterance to it for the first time, or derived it from a theology then\ncurrent in Persia, there is little evidence to show[1039]. The Zend\nAvesta itself in its Sassanian recension does not seem to pronounce\nclearly on this point, and has been thought by some high authorities to\nteach the subordinate origin and ultimate extinction of evil[1040], and\nby others exactly the reverse. It does, however, seem to be clear that\nunless Manes invented _de novo_ the doctrine above quoted, it must have\nbeen from Persia that he obtained it. No other country with which he can\nhave become acquainted has yet been shown to possess it[1041].\n\nExclusively Oriental, too, in its origin must be the history of the\nconflict between these two Principles which follows. Each of them\napparently dwelt in his own domain for countless ages untroubled by the\nexistence of the other. The Light is the uppermost and is, according to\nthe Mahommedan version of Manes\u2019 doctrine, without bounds in height and\non each side. The Darkness lies below it, and is in like manner\nboundless in depth and in lateral extent[1042]. Hence there is a long\nfrontier at which they touch, and this spot was filled from the\nbeginning by the celestial air and the celestial earth. If we may read\ninto the tradition something which is not expressed there, but which\nseems to follow logically from it, this atmosphere and this earth were\nthe heavier parts of the Divine substance, which sinking down formed a\nkind of sediment or deposit[1043]. Each of these Two Principles has five\n\u201cmembers\u201d or components, and this partition into five seems in the\nManichaean teaching to run through all things. Thus, the Mahommedan\ntradition tells us that the \u201cmembers\u201d of the God of Light are\nGentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion, and Discernment, those\nof the Air the same five, of the (celestial) earth, the Breeze or Ether,\nWind, Light, Water, and Fire, and of the Darkness Smoke, Flame, Hot\nWind, Poison or Pestilence, and Gloom or Fog[1044]. In this, and\nespecially in its deification of abstract principles, we may see a\nreflection of Gnostic teaching which may easily have reached Manes from\nValentinus by way of Bardesanes and the Oriental or Edessan School. On\nthe other hand, the borrowing may have been the other way, and Simon\nMagus may have obtained these notions from the Persian Magi and have\nhanded them on to Valentinus and his successors. This does not seem so\nlikely as the other, but the point can hardly be settled until we know\nmore than we do at present of the state of the Persian religion from the\ntime of the Achaemenian kings to the Sassanian reform.\n\nHowever that may be, both the Christian and Mahommedan traditions are\nagreed that the aggressor in the struggle between the good God and the\nbad was the Evil One. The Mahommedan source, here fuller than the\nChristian, tells us that the Darkness remained in an unorganized\ncondition for ages, although consisting of the five members enumerated\nabove. These parts, however, seem to have sunk down and produced another\nEarth called the Darker Earth, from which in course of time came forth\nSatan. Satan was not, like the King of the Paradise of Light, without\nbeginning, but came into being from the union of these five members of\nDarkness, having the head of a lion, the body of a serpent, the wings of\na bird, the tail of a fish, and four feet like those of crawling\nanimals[1045], in which figure we may see a kind of reflection of the\nMithraic Ahriman[1046]. Satan, on his emergence on the Darker Earth,\nperceived the rays of light from the upper world, piercing as we may\nsuppose through the gloomy atmosphere of his own world, and conceived a\nhatred for them. Seeing, too, that these rays gained much in strength by\ntheir combination and mutual support, he withdrew within himself so as\nto unite himself more closely with his members[1047]. Then again\nspringing upwards, he invaded the realms of Light with the intention of\nthere spreading calamity and destruction. The aeon\u2014or world as the\n_Fihrist_ calls it\u2014of Discernment was the first to be aware of this\ninvasion[1048], and reported it to the aeon Knowledge, from whom it\npassed to the others in turn until it at last reached the ear of the\nGood God, here, as elsewhere in the _Fihrist_, called the King of the\nParadise of Light. With the aid of the Spirit of his Right Hand, of his\nfive worlds or members before mentioned, and of his twelve elements, of\nwhich we have before heard nothing[1049], he made the First Man,\nclothing him by way of armour with the five \u201cspecies\u201d or powers of the\ncelestial earth, the Breeze, Wind, Light, Water and Fire as before\nenumerated[1050]. With these He despatched him to fight Satan, who in\nhis turn did on his armour in the shape of _his_ five \u201cspecies,\u201d Smoke,\nFlame, Poison, Hot Wind, and Gloom[1051]. The fight lasted long, but in\nthe end Satan triumphed, and dragged the First Man down into the Realm\nof Darkness, where he took from him his light[1052]. During the fight,\ntoo, the elements had become mingled, so that the Ether henceforth was\nmixed with the Smoke, the Fire with the Flame, the Light with the\nDarkness, the Wind with the Hot Wind, and the Cloud with the Water. This\nit is which brings about the confusion or mixture seen in the present\nworld, wherein everything which is beautiful, pure, or useful, such as\ngold and silver, comes from the armour of the First Man, and everything\nfoul, impure, and gross, from that of his infernal opponent[1053]. After\nthe fight, the King of the Paradise of Light descended with another\nPower called the Friend of the Lights, who overthrew Satan, and the\nSpirit of the Right Hand or Mother of Life recalled, either by her voice\nor by another power called the Living Spirit, the First Man from his\nprison in the lowest Darkness. The First Man, on his deliverance, in\nthis account mounts again to the Realms of Light, but before doing so\n\u201ccuts the roots\u201d of the Five Infernal Elements so that they can no more\nincrease[1054]. Then the King of the Paradise of Light orders an angel\nto draw the Confusion or Mixture of the Elements to that part of the\nRealm of Darkness which touches the Realm of Light, and to create out of\nit the present world, so as to deliver the imprisoned elements of Light\nfrom the Darkness with which they are contaminated. This is done, and a\nUniverse having six heavens and eight earths is formed, each heaven\nhaving twelve gates, together with terraces, corridors, and places in\nsuch profusion as to point to some confusion in the translation into the\nSyriac which has come down to us. The only thing that concerns us in\nthis, perhaps, is that the visible world, presumably the lowest of the\neight, has a ditch dug round it in which is thrown the Matter of\nDarkness as it is separated from the Light, and outside this a wall so\nthat it cannot escape. This is in view of the End of the World[1055].\n\nSo far there is no great difference\u2014at all events, no irreconcilable\ndifference\u2014between the Christian and the Mahommedan accounts of Manes\u2019\ndoctrines. The machinery set up for the process of the redemption of the\nlight, however, differs somewhat conspicuously in the two traditions.\nThe Mahommedan writers declare that in Manes\u2019 teaching the Sun and Moon\nwere created for the purification of the Light, the Sun drawing to\nitself those light-elements which had become contaminated by the demons\nof heat and flame and the Moon exercising a like attraction on those\nwhich had suffered from the embrace of Satan\u2019s other powers. Both\nluminaries bear these elements into the Column of Praises or Glory which\nis perpetually mounting from the Sun to the World of Light, bearing with\nit the praises of men, their hymns of gratitude, and their pure words\nand good works[1056]. This will continue until none but a feeble\nfragment of the Light remains in this world, when the angels charged\nwith its maintenance will abandon their task, and return to the World of\nLight. A fire will then break out, which will burn for 1468 years and\nwill set free the remainder of the Light imprisoned in matter by\nconsuming its envelope. Satan or Humm\u00e2ma, the Spirit of Darkness, will\nthen acknowledge his defeat, and will be driven into the tomb prepared\nfor him, the entrance to which will be closed with a stone the size of\nthe world[1057]. In the Christian tradition these matters are more\ncomplicated, and Manes is said to have taught that there exists a great\nwheel bearing twelve vases or buckets after the fashion of an Egyptian\n_sakiyeh_, which raise the redeemed portions of Light to the Sun, who\ngives them to the Moon, who in her turn delivers them to the Aeons of\nthe Light, who place them in the Column of Glory here called the Perfect\nAir[1058]. The Christian account is also more detailed with regard to\nthe functions of the angels charged with the conduct of the world,\nmaking out that one of them supports this earth on his shoulders and is\ntherefore called Omophorus, great earthquakes and commotions taking\nplace when from weariness he shifts his burthen from one shoulder to the\nother, while another, called Splenditenens, holds the heavens by their\nbacks[1059]. The stars are also in the Christian tradition fashioned out\nof the purer part of the Light which was _not_ captured by the Satanic\npowers, whereas the Mahommedan tradition says nothing about their\norigin[1060]. The Christian writers also make the Manichaeans tell a\nstory about the appearance of a beautiful virgin who appears to the male\nand female devils who were crucified or fixed in this world on the\ndeliverance of the First Man. She appears to the male fiends as a\nbeautiful woman and to the female as a desirable young man; and when\nthey covet and pursue her, she flies from them and disappears. The anger\nof the Great Archon or Satan on this causes the appearance of clouds in\nthis world and thereby obscures the Sun\u2019s light, whilst his sweat\nbecomes rain[1061].\n\nOn the origin of terrestrial man, there is also considerable discrepancy\nbetween the two streams of tradition. The Mahommedan tells us that Adam\nwas born from the conjunction of one of \u201cthese Archons\u201d or Princes, and\na star. Nothing is said to tell us what is meant by \u201cthese\u201d princes, but\nas the phrase is used in other passages by the same writer to denote the\nSatanic hierarchy one can but suppose that it is one of the rulers of\ndarkness who is here indicated[1062]. The same writer goes on to say\nthat the conjunction was \u201cbeheld\u201d [or aided?] by a pair of Archons, one\nmale and the other female, and that a second similar conjunction\nresulted in the birth of Eve. There is evidently a reference here to\nsome legend of which we have lost the trace[1063], and the Christian\ntradition assigns to Adam an entirely different origin and declares that\nhe was made by all the \u201cprinces\u201d or archons on the advice of one of\ntheir number, who persuaded the others to give up some of the light they\nhad received which they knew would otherwise be taken from them and to\nmake from it man in their own image and after the form of the \u201cFirst\nMan\u201d against whom they had fought with temporary success[1064]. This\nstory is clearly the same as that which we have already seen current\namong the Ophites, and it now seems most probable that it here appears\nnot\u2014as was once thought\u2014as an interpolation foisted into the teaching of\nManes by the Christian writer, but because both Ophite and Manichaean\nderived the story independently of each other from legends current in\nWestern Asia[1065].\n\nThe Mahommedan writer then plunges into a long and elaborate account of\nhow the \u201cFive Angels,\u201d meaning thereby apparently the \u201cmembers\u201d\nGentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion and Discernment, on\nbeholding Adam and Eve, prayed to certain powers which seem to be those\nwhich descended with the King of the Paradise of Light after the defeat\nof the First Man properly so called. These Powers include the First Man\nhimself and the Mother of Life[1066], and the Living Spirit[1067], and\nwere besought by the Five to send to earth a Saviour who should give\nAdam and Eve Knowledge and Goodness and deliver them from the devils.\nTheir prayer was heard, and Jesus was sent upon earth \u201caccompanied by a\ngod,\u201d with whose aid the Archons were again overthrown and imprisoned,\nwhile Adam and Eve were set free[1068]. Jesus then addressed Adam and\nrevealed to him the whole secret of the cosmogony, enlightening him upon\nthe origin and functions of the different heavenly worlds or paradises,\nof the gods, of hell, of the devils, of the earth and sky, and of the\nsun and moon. He then showed him, continues the Mahommedan tradition,\nthe seductive power of Eve, put him on his guard against it, and\nbreathed into him the fear of yielding to it. Adam, it is said, listened\nto these commands obediently.\n\nThe result of this abstinence on Adam\u2019s part\u2014we are still pursuing the\nMahommedan account of the Manichaean teaching\u2014was seen in the sequel.\nThe Archon or Demon who was practically the father of the present race\nof mankind became enamoured of Eve, and engendering with her begot a son\n\u201cugly and of a reddish colour,\u201d who was named Cain. Cain in turn had\nrelations with his mother Eve, and from this incest was born a son of\nwhite colour who was named Abel. From the further intercourse of Cain\nand Eve were born two daughters, one called \u201cthe Wisdom of the World,\u201d\nand the other \u201cthe Daughter of Pleasure.\u201d Cain took the last-named to\nwife and gave the other in marriage to Abel; but he did not know that\nthe Wisdom of the World was filled with Light and divine wisdom, while\nthe Daughter of Pleasure possessed nothing of the kind. In the sequel,\none of the Angels had relations with the Wisdom of the World and begot\ntwo daughters, called Help (Farj\u00e2d) and Bringer of Help (Barfarj\u00e2d).\nAbel accused Cain of being the father of these girls, whereupon Cain\nkilled him and took the \u201cWisdom of the World\u201d as his own second wife.\nThe Rulers of Darkness were annoyed at this, and the \u201cGreat Devil,\u201d here\ncalled Sind\u00eed, taught Eve magical formulas by the aid of which she again\nenticed Adam to intercourse. The result was a son \u201cbeautiful and of an\nagreeable countenance,\u201d whom Eve wished to kill as having nothing of the\nArchons in him. Adam arranged to have the child fed exclusively on milk\nand fruits, and drew three magic circles round him bearing the names of\nthe King of the Paradise of Light, the First Man, and the Spirit of Life\nrespectively, to protect him against the devils. He then went to a high\nplace and entreated God for him, whereupon one of the Three Powers last\nnamed appeared and gave him a Crown of Glory, at the sight of which\nSind\u00eed and the Archons fled away. Then a tree appeared to Adam called\nthe Lotus, from which he drew milk with which to nourish his son whom he\ncalled first after the tree, and then Seth (Sch\u00e2th\u00eel). Eve, on the\ninstigation of Sind\u00eed, again persuaded Adam to intercourse, which so\ndisgusted Seth that he took with him the Wisdom of the World, her two\ndaughters Help and Bringer of Help, and \u201cSiddik\u00fbt,\u201d which seems to be\nthe community of the elect or Perfect Manichaeans, and journeyed to the\nEast in search of the Divine Light and Wisdom. At their death all these\nentered into Paradise, while Eve, Cain, and the daughters of Desire went\nto hell[1069].\n\nThe story about the protoplasts of the Book of Genesis has been given in\nmore detail than it perhaps deserves because of its manifest connection\nwith the doctrines of the extant sect of Mandaites, Hemerobaptists, or\nDisciples of St John still to be found in certain villages near the\nSh\u00e2t-el-Arab and even in considerable towns like Bussora. These\nsectaries declare themselves to have inherited the faith of John the\nBaptist, and have a sacred book called the Sidra Rabba, which has been\nknown to Europeans since the XVIIth century, and contains, among other\nthings, many stories like those given above. The Mandaites are a\nviolently anti-Christian sect, and say that the historical Jesus was a\nfiend who obtained baptism from St John the Baptist by means of a trick,\nand they display a similar hatred of the religions of both the Jews and\nthe Mahommedans. Nevertheless, most modern writers consider them related\nto, and perhaps the modern representatives of, the Mughtasilah or\n\u201cWashers[1070].\u201d This last sect is certainly very ancient, and its\nhistory can in fact be traced as far back as the beginning of the reign\nof Trajan[1071], while the Mahommedan author, from whom the traditional\naccount of Manes\u2019 doctrines has been quoted above, says that Manes was\nin his youth one of the Mughtasilah. From this Prof. Kessler, who\nperhaps devoted more attention to the Manichaean religion than any\nliving scholar, built up the theory that the doctrines of the\nMughtasilah were one of the principal sources from which Manes formed\nhis system. He even says that the Fatak or Patecius whom tradition gives\nas a father to Manes must be identified with that Scythianus or\nTerebinthus whom the Christian tradition makes Fatak\u2019s predecessor, was\none of the Mughtasilah, and helped Manes both in the construction of his\nsystem and in its propagation[1072]. This may be so, but very little\nevidence is available in support of the theory; and the points which the\nMandaites and the Manichaeans undoubtedly possess in common do not seem\nto be more than can be explained by the contact which must necessarily\nhave taken place between two neighbouring sects both persecuted\nsuccessively by Persian Shahs, Christian Emperors, and Mahommedan\nCaliphs. The Christian tradition of Manes\u2019 teaching concerning the\nprotoplasts says merely that \u201che who said \u2018Let us make man in our own\nimage\u2019\u201d was the same Prince of Darkness who thereby counselled the other\nArchons to give up their light in order to make man in the likeness\n\n    \u201cof the form that we have seen, that is to say, of the First Man.\n    And in that manner,\u201d it continues, \u201che created the man. They created\n    Eve also after the like fashion, imparting to her of their own lust,\n    with a view to the deceiving of Adam. And by these means the\n    construction of the world proceeded from the operations of the\n    Prince[1073].\u201d\n\nThe teaching of Manes with regard to Jesus is not very clear in the\nChristian tradition, no doubt because the writers who recorded it were\ncareful to remove from it as much as possible everything which in their\nview savoured of blasphemy. Yet the Christian author before quoted makes\nManes say that the God of Light whom he calls \u201cthe Good Father\u201d sent his\nwell-beloved son upon earth for the salvation of man\u2019s soul and \u201cbecause\nof Omophorus\u201d or the world-sustaining angel. This son, by whom he can\nhardly mean any other than the historical Jesus, \u201ccame and transformed\nhimself into the semblance of a man and showed himself to men as a man,\nalthough he was not a man, and men imagined that he had been\nbegotten[1074].\u201d It is also to Him that is attributed the construction\nof the wonderful wheel before alluded to as equipped with twelve vases\nwhich the sphere causes to revolve, and which thus scoops up, as it\nwere, the souls of the dying[1075]. The Christian account also narrates\nthat in\n\n    \u201cthe Paradise which is called the Cosmos [Qy the \u2018heavenly\u2019 earth or\n    the Sun?], there are trees such as Desire and other deceits, whereby\n    the minds of those men [those who reach it?] are corrupted. But the\n    tree in Paradise, whereby they know the good, is Jesus and the\n    knowledge of Him which is in the Cosmos. And whoso receives it,\n    distinguishes between good and evil. Yet the Cosmos itself is not of\n    God, but it was made from portions of matter, and therefore all\n    things in it will disappear[1076].\u201d\n\nThere is not really any very great difference between this and the\nMahommedan tradition quoted above which makes Jesus the messenger sent\nfrom above to give knowledge to Adam, especially if we consider that\nManes probably, like most of the Gnostics, placed Paradise not upon the\nearth but in one of the heavens intermediate between us and the abode of\nthe Supreme Being[1077]. That Manes supposed Jesus to have descended to\nthis earth also is plain from his own words quoted by Al B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee from the\n_Shapurakan_ or book written by Manes for King Sapor:\n\n    \u201cWisdom and deeds have always from time to time been brought to\n    mankind by the messenger of God. So in one age they have been\n    brought by the messenger called Buddha to India, in another by\n    Zaradusht [_i.e._ Zoroaster] to Persia, in another by Jesus to the\n    West. Thereupon this revelation has come down, this prophecy in this\n    last age through me, M\u00e2n\u00ee, the messenger of the God of Truth to\n    Babylonia[1078].\u201d\n\nManes\u2019 ideas as to the salvation of man\u2019s soul again differ little in\nthe two streams of tradition. The Christian, here perhaps the fuller of\nthe two, describes him as teaching that the soul of man, as also that of\nbeasts, birds, other animals, and plants, is part of the light which was\nwon by the demons from the First Man, while all bodies are of that\nmatter which is the same as darkness. Man\u2019s body, we are told, is called\na cosmos by parallelism with the great Cosmos, and all men have roots\nhere below bound to things which are above[1079]. It is the cutting of\nthese roots by the demons which causes death. On the death of a man who\nhas attained the knowledge of the truth during this life, his soul is\ntaken up in the wheel to the Sun, by whom after it has been purified it\nis passed over to the Moon, the two luminaries being represented as\nships or ferry-boats sailing to-and-fro in the upper air. When the Moon\nis full, she ferries the souls with which she is filled towards the\nEast, and then delivers them to the Aeons of Light who place them in the\nPillar of Glory before described. She then returns for a fresh supply\ngreatly reduced in circumference, whereby her waxing and waning is\nexplained[1080]. In the case of a man who has not attained the knowledge\nof the truth, a small portion of the soul only is purified and is then\nreincarnated in the body of a dog, a camel, or some other animal,\naccording to the sins which it has committed. Thus, if he has killed a\nmouse, he will become a mouse, if a chicken a chicken, and so on, while\nthose who have been employed in the reaping of corn will themselves\nbecome corn or some other kind of plant in order that they may be reaped\nand cut in turn. The soul of the homicide will, it is said, go to\ninhabit the body of a leper[1081]. There will, apparently, be five of\nthese reincarnations[1082], and between them the soul which has not\nfound knowledge of the truth is given over to the demons in order that\nthey may subdue it in the \u201cGehennas\u201d of fire. This, like its\ntransference into other bodies, is for the sake of teaching it better;\nbut if it still remains without knowledge, it is cast into the great\nfire until the Consummation of the World[1083].\n\nThe Mahommedan tradition as to what occurs at death goes into more\ndetails, and it is here that we catch the first glimpse of that doctrine\nof predestination which plays so prominent a part in the later teaching\nof the Manichaean Church. When a just or perfect or \u201ctrue\u201d Manichaean is\non the point of death, the First Man sends to him a \u201cshining god of\nlight\u201d in the form of \u201cthe Wise Guide\u201d accompanied by three other gods\nand with them \u201cthe bowl of water, the garment, the fillet for the head,\nthe circlet and the crown of light[1084].\u201d With them comes the virgin\nwho is like to the soul of the just one. There also appear to him the\ndevil of greed, that of pleasure, and others with them. Directly the\njust one who is dying sees them, he calls to his help the goddess[1085]\nwho has taken the form of the Wise Guide and the three gods her\ncompanions. They draw near to him, and at the sight of them the devils\nturn and flee. Then the gods take the just one, do on him the crowns and\nthe garment, put in his hand the bowl of water, and mount with him to\nthe Column of Praises in the sphere of the Moon, to the First Man and to\nNahnaha the Mother of Life, until they reach the place in the Paradise\nof Light he occupied in the beginning[1086]. His body remains stretched\n(upon the earth) in order that the Sun, the Moon, and the Gods of Light\nmay take from it its powers, _i.e._ the Water, the Fire, the gentle\nBreeze, which are then borne upwards to the Sun and become a god. The\nrest of the body, which is all darkness, is cast into hell[1087].\n\nThis description of the lot of the blessed after death is certainly\ntaken from no other source than that from which the Zoroastrian books\nput forth by the Sassanian kings are drawn.\n\n    \u201cAt the end of the third night,\u201d says the Hatoxt Nask[1088], one of\n    the earliest Zoroastrian documents that have come down to us, \u201cat\n    the dawn of day, the soul of the faithful thinks that it is in a\n    garden and smells its perfumes. Towards it a wind seems to blow from\n    the region of the South perfumed, more perfumed than any other wind.\n    Then the soul of the faithful thinks that he breathes this wind with\n    his nostrils. \u2018Whence blows this wind, the most perfumed that I have\n    breathed with my nostrils?\u2019 While encountering this breeze, his\n    religion (conscience, _daena_, spiritual life), appears to him in\n    the form of a beautiful young girl, shining, with white arms,\n    robust, of fair growth, of fair aspect, tall, high-bosomed, of fair\n    body, noble, of shining race, with the figure of one who is 15 years\n    old, as fair in form as the fairest creatures that exist. Then the\n    soul of the faithful speaks to her, and asks \u2018What virgin art thou,\n    thou the most beautiful in form of the virgins that I have ever\n    seen?\u2019 Then she who is his religion answers: \u2018O youth of good mind,\n    of good words, of good deeds, of good religion, I am thine own\n    religion incarnate[1089].\u2019\u201d\n\nSo, too, the Vendidad, which may be a little later in date than the\ndocument just quoted, represents Ahura Mazda as saying in answer to\nZarathustra himself:\n\n    \u201cAfter a man has disappeared, after a man dies, the impious and\n    malevolent demons make their attack. When the dawn of the third\n    night shines forth and the day begins to lighten, the well-armed\n    Mithra arrives at the mountains giving forth holy radiance and the\n    Sun rises. Then, O Spitama Zarathustra ... she comes, the beautiful,\n    the well-made, the strong, of fair growth, with her dogs, full of\n    discernment, rich in children [_i.e._ fruitful], the longed-for,\n    virtuous one. She leads the souls of the faithful above the Hara\n    Berezaiti; she sustains them across the bridge Chinvat in the road\n    of the spiritual divinities. Vohu Mano rises from his golden throne.\n    Vohu Mano says, \u2018O faithful one, how hast thou come hither from the\n    perishable world to the imperishable?\u2019 Rejoicing, the faithful pass\n    before Ahura Mazda, before the beneficent Immortals, before golden\n    thrones, before the house of hymns, the dwelling of Ahura Mazda, the\n    dwelling of the beneficent Immortals, the dwelling of the other\n    faithful ones. When the faithful is purified, the wicked and\n    malevolent demons tremble by reason of the perfume after his\n    departure as a sheep pursued by a wolf trembles at the [scent of\n    the?] wolf[1090].\u201d\n\nTo return, however, to the Mahommedan account of Manes\u2019 doctrine. This\nlast by no means confined his survey of the state of man\u2019s soul after\ndeath to the single case of the justified dead.\n\n    \u201cWhen death draws nigh to a man who has fought for religion and\n    justice, [he is represented as saying,] and who has protected them\n    by protecting the Just, the gods whom I have mentioned appear and\n    the devils are there also. Then he calls the gods to his help and\n    seeks to win them by showing to them his works of piety, and that\n    which he has done to protect the religion and the Just. The gods\n    deliver him from the devils, while leaving him in the condition of a\n    man in this world, who sees fearful shapes in his dreams, and who is\n    plunged in dirt and mud[1091]. He remains in this state until his\n    Light and his Spirit are freed [evidently by transmigration] when he\n    arrives at the meeting-place of the Just. Then, after having\n    wandered for long, he dons their vesture. But when death appears to\n    the sinful man, to him who has been ruled by greed and desire, the\n    devils draw near to him, they seize him, torment him, and put\n    fearful shapes before his eyes. The gods are there also with the\n    vesture, so that the sinful one thinks they have come to deliver\n    him. But they have only appeared to him to reproach him, to remind\n    him of his actions, and to convince him of his guilt in having\n    neglected the support of the Just. He wanders unceasingly throughout\n    the world, and is tortured until the coming of the End of the World,\n    when he will be thrown into hell. Thus, Manes teaches,\u201d continues\n    the tradition, \u201cthat there are three paths for the soul of man. One\n    leads to Paradise, which is the path of the Just. Another leads back\n    to the world and its terrors, which is the path of the protectors of\n    the faith and the helpers of the Just. The third leads to hell,\n    which is the path of the sinful man[1092].\u201d\n\nYet there is nothing to show that the sins which thus doom a man to hell\nare within his choice to commit or to leave alone as he chooses. Rather\ndoes it appear that his freedom from sin depends on the admixture of\nlight which enters into his composition at his birth. Of all this the\nChristian tradition says nothing.\n\nIt is, nevertheless, in the division here set forth of the adherents of\nthe religion into the Just and the protectors of the Just, that the\ngreat distinction between the Manichaean religion and all its\ncontemporaries appears. Both traditions are agreed that those who listen\nto the teaching of Manes are to be divided into five classes, viz. the\nMasters who are the sons of Gentleness; those who are enlightened by the\nSun, who are the sons of Knowledge or the Priests; the Elders who are\nthe sons of Intelligence; the Just who are the sons of Discretion; and\nthe Hearers who are the sons of Discernment[1093]. The first three\nclasses we may safely neglect for the present, as they evidently\ncorrespond to the three superior or directing orders of the Manichaean\nChurch to which we shall have to return later; but the last two, the\nJust and the Hearers, give us the key to the organization of the sect,\nand explain how it was able to maintain itself for so long against its\nnumerous enemies. He who would enter into the religion, says the\nMahommedan tradition, must examine himself that he may see whether he is\nstrong enough to conquer desire and greed, to abstain from meats, from\nwine, and from marriage, to avoid all that can be hurtful in (to?) water\nor fire, and to shun magic and hypocrisy[1094]. These abstinences are\nthose that are demanded of the perfect Manichaeans, who have been called\nabove the Just or the Sons of Discretion, and who with their superiors\nconstitute the Manichaean Church. These are they whom the Christian\ntradition speaks of as the Elect, and for whom, as we have seen, there\nis reserved after death a glorious ascension and an immediate return to\nthe Paradise of Light. So Valentinus, like many other Gnostics, divided\nChristians into the two classes of pneumatics and psychics, the\nfirst-named of whom were to occupy a more distinguished position in the\nworld to come than the other. There is nothing to show, however, that\nValentinus or any other Gnostic ever imposed any discipline on the\npneumatics than that prescribed for the psychics, or that he thought\nthat those who were going to take a higher rank in the next world should\nobserve a stricter mode of life in this. The Catholics, indeed, had\nalready adopted the view that the celibate member of the Church\npossessed \u201ca higher calling\u201d than his married brethren; but there is no\nreason to suppose that they therefore assigned to them a higher place in\nthe next world, or thought that those who had not the gift of continence\nwere to be permitted any relaxation of the moral law imposed upon\ncelibate and married alike. It is therefore probable that it was from\nBuddhism, with which Manes must have made himself well acquainted during\nhis journeys into India, that he borrowed the scheme by which those who\nbelieved in the truth of his teaching could delay subjecting themselves\nto the austerities necessary for salvation until their next incarnation.\n\nHowever this may be, there can be little doubt that this is the meaning\nof the position he assigned to the Hearers.\n\n    \u201cIf,\u201d he says according to the Mahommedan author, \u201che who would\n    enter into the religion does _not_ feel strong enough to practise\n    the abstinences before enumerated, let him renounce the attempt. If,\n    however, he is filled with love for the faith, yet cannot conquer\n    desire and greed, let him seek to progress by protecting the faith\n    and the Just, and let him fight against evil actions on the\n    occasions when he can give himself to labour[1095], piety,\n    vigilance, prayer and humility. This will fill him with contentment\n    both in this ephemeral world, and in the eternal world to come, and\n    he will put on the body of the second degree in the state which\n    follows after death[1096].\u201d\n\nUnless they are greatly belied, some of his later followers looked upon\nthis as a licence to the Hearers to commit such sins as they chose[1097]\nin this life, yet it is evident that this formed no part of Manes\u2019\noriginal teaching. He imposed upon the Hearers, says the Mahommedan\ntradition, ten commandments, which were: to abstain from prayers offered\nto idols, from lying, from avarice, from murder, from adultery, from\nfalse teaching, from magic, from double dealing, from doubt in religion\nand from slackness and want of energy in action. They also had to recite\ncertain prayers which will be mentioned in their place, and to fast two\ndays when the Moon is new as when she is full, as also when the Sun\nenters the sign of Sagittary. A three days\u2019 fast was also obligatory on\nthe first appearance of the Moon after the entry of the Sun into the\nsigns of Capricorn and of Libra. But they were to feast on Sunday, a day\nwhich the Perfect, according to the Mahommedans, kept as a fast, their\nown weekly feast being held on Monday[1098].\n\nThe attitude of Manes to other religions was also without precedent or\nparallel. Of the Jews and of their religion he seems to have had a\ndetestation so strong and so deeply rooted that it is difficult not to\nsee in it some connection with political events of which we have lost\nthe record. The war of extermination which Hadrian had been forced to\nwage against the Jews of Palestine must have been over nearly a century\nbefore Manes began to teach; but the Babylonian Jews can hardly have\nbeen affected by this, and the story of the king of Adiabene quoted\nabove shows that shortly before the time of Ardesh\u00eer they actively\npursued the proselytizing policy which their countrymen in the West had\nbeen forced to abandon. In doing so, they doubtless contrived, after\ntheir manner, to offend the national prejudices of their hosts, while\nshowing themselves greedy, as ever, of political power[1099]. This\nprobably provoked reprisals, and it is quite possible that Manes\u2019\nteaching derived some of its strength from the revulsion felt by\nArdesh\u00eer\u2019s Aryan subjects to the borrowings from Judaism to be found\nboth in Mithraism and the Avestic literature. But whatever its cause,\nthere can be no doubt about the hatred felt by Manes for the Jewish\nreligion, which is prominent in every tradition of his teaching. The\nearlier Gnostics, like Marcion, had made the God of the Old Testament a\nharsh but just and well-meaning tyrant; but Manes would have none of\nthis, and declared that he was a fiend.\n\n    \u201cIt is the Prince of Darkness,\u201d the Christian tradition makes him\n    say, \u201cwho spoke with Moses, the Jews, and their priests. Thus the\n    Christians, the Jews, and the Pagans are involved in the same error\n    when they worship this God. For he led them astray in the lusts that\n    he taught them, since he was not the God of Truth. Whence those who\n    put their hope in that God who spoke with Moses and the Prophets\n    will be bound with him, because they have not put their trust in the\n    God of Truth. For he, the God of the Jews, spoke with them according\n    to their lusts[1100].\u201d\n\nIn a very different spirit, however, Manes dealt with all the other\nreligions that he knew. He acknowledged the Divine origin of the\nteachings of Zoroaster, of Buddha, and of Jesus alike, with the\nreservation that he should himself be regarded as the Paraclete, which\nhere seems to mean nothing more than the Legate or Ambassador, sent by\nthe Good God to complete their teaching. \u201cM\u00e2n\u00ee, the messenger of the God\nof Truth to Babylonia[1101]\u201d is the title which, as we have seen, he\ngives himself in the most authentic record of his teaching. He aimed, in\nshort, at establishing a universal religion which should include within\nits scope the three faiths that between them commanded the allegiance of\nthe whole civilized world, and should acknowledge him as its founder and\nchief. Had his plans come to fruition in his lifetime, he would have\nattained an empire over the minds of men far greater and wider than any\never claimed or dreamed of by the most ambitious of the Roman pontiffs.\n\nThe full details of the way in which he proposed to establish this new\nfaith we shall probably never know; but discoveries made during the last\ndecade have shown us that his plans were well fitted to their purpose.\nThe successive expeditions of Drs Gr\u00fcnwedel and von Le Coq to Turfan\nhave shown that up to as late as the XIth century A.D., there was still\na strong body of Manichaeans probably belonging to the Ouigur nation in\nChinese Turkestan, living apparently in complete amity with their\nBuddhist countrymen[1102]. The writings that were there discovered, to\nwhich we shall have to refer more in detail later, are mostly written in\na script resembling the Estranghelo or Syriac but with an alphabet\npeculiar to the Manichaean religious documents, and which cannot, one\nwould think, have been adopted by those who used it for any other\npurpose than that of concealment[1103]. Judging from this and the\npractice of the sect in Europe from the time of Diocletian onward, it\nseems highly probable that among Buddhists, the Manichaean hearers\nprofessed Buddhism, and among Zoroastrians, Zoroastrianism, hoping that\nthus they might be able to turn their fellows to their way of thinking\nwithout openly dissenting from the reigning religion. The persecution\nthat Bahram I instituted against them immediately upon Manes\u2019 execution\nwas perhaps less a reason than a pretext for this.\n\nThis is certainly borne out by their proceedings when they found\nthemselves among Christians.\n\n    \u201cYou ask me if I believe the gospel,\u201d said the Manichaean Prefect,\n    Faustus, in his dispute with St Augustine (himself for nine years\n    before his conversion a Manichaean Hearer). \u201cMy obedience to its\n    commands shows that I do. I should rather ask you if you believe it,\n    since you give no proof of your belief. I have left my father,\n    brother, wife and children and all else that the gospel requires;\n    and you ask me if I believe the gospel. Perhaps you do not know what\n    is called the gospel. The gospel is nothing else than the teaching\n    and the precept of Christ. I have parted with all gold and silver. I\n    have left off carrying money in my purse; content with food obtained\n    from day to day; without anxiety for the morrow and without care as\n    to how I shall be fed or wherewithal I shall be clothed; and you ask\n    if I believe the gospel? You see in me the blessings of the gospel;\n    and yet you ask if I believe the gospel. You see me poor, meek, a\n    peacemaker, pure in heart, mourning, hungering, thirsting, bearing\n    persecutions and hatred for righteousness\u2019 sake; and do you doubt if\n    I believe in the gospel[1104]?\u201d\n\nSo, too, Manes in the epistle to Marcellus which, although much altered\nand corrupted by its Catholic transcribers, is probably a genuine\ndocument, is careful to begin in language which seems imitated from the\nEpistles of St Paul:\n\n    \u201cManes, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and all the saints who are with\n    me, and the virgins, to Marcellus, my beloved son; Grace, mercy, and\n    peace be with you from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus\n    Christ; and may the right hand of light preserve you from the\n    present evil world and from its calamities, and from the snares of\n    the wicked one, Amen[1105].\u201d\n\nWhile in the Disputation which follows and which is certainly a later\ninterpolation, or possibly a concoction of some later author, he is\nrepresented as saying \u201cMy brother, I am indeed a disciple of Christ,\nand, moreover, an apostle of Jesus.\u201d Yet in spite of this and a few\nother passages of the same kind, it is plain that neither Manes, nor any\nof those who believed on his teaching, were Christians in any sense in\nwhich the term could not be applied to the followers of Mahommed or many\nanother professedly anti-Christian teacher. Manes entirely rejected the\naccount of the Incarnation given in the Gospels, alleging, as a modern\ncritic might do, that it was not the account of eyewitnesses, but a mass\nof fables which had grown up after the memory of the events recorded had\nfaded away[1106]. Jesus, he said, was not born of woman, but came forth\nfrom the Father or First Man, and descended from heaven in the form of a\nman about thirty years of age[1107]. But the body in which He appeared\nwas an illusion only and was no more that of a real man than the dove\nwhich descended upon Him at the baptism in Jordan was a real dove, and\nit was not true to say that He was put to death by the Romans and\nsuffered on the cross[1108]. So far from that being the case, he\ndeclared that Jesus, the mortal or suffering Jesus, was nothing but the\nuniversal soul diffused throughout Nature and thus tormented by its\nassociation with matter. Thus, he said, the Jesus _patibilis_ may be\nsaid to be hanging from every tree[1109].\n\nTo say that such teaching was likely to alter in the course of a\ngeneration or two is merely to assert that it followed the course of\nevolution which can be traced in all religions, and it is possible that\nin what has been said in the last paragraph concerning Jesus, we have\nrather the opinions of the Manichaeans of the fourth century than those\nof Manes himself. Yet even in this we see exemplified the chameleon-like\nhabit peculiar to the Manichaeans of modifying their tenets in outward\nappearance so as to make them coincide as nearly as possible with the\nviews of those whom they wished to win over to them. Thus when the\nCatholic doctrine of the Trinity, the Three Persons and One God, began\nto take shape under the pressure of the Arian controversy, the\nManichaeans were not long in matching it with a Trinity of their\nown[1110]:\n\n    \u201cWe worship,\u201d said Faustus the Manichaean Perfect, \u201cunder the triple\n    appellation of Almighty God, the Father and His Son Christ and the\n    Holy Spirit. While these are one and the same, we believe also that\n    the Father properly dwells in the highest or chief light, which Paul\n    calls \u2018light inaccessible,\u2019 and the Son in the second or visible\n    light. And as the Son is himself two-fold according to the apostle,\n    who speaks of Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God, so\n    we believe that His power dwells in the Sun and His wisdom in the\n    Moon[1111]. We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the third majesty,\n    has His seat and His home in the whole circle of the\n    atmosphere.[1112] By His influence and inpouring of the spirit, the\n    Earth conceives and brings forth the suffering Jesus, who, as\n    hanging from every tree, is the life and salvation of man[1113].\u201d\n\nIn like manner, while not denying them in terms, the Manichaeans\nattempted to refine away all the significance of the Crucifixion and the\nAtonement, by representing them as merely symbolical. In one Apocryphal\nbook called the _Wanderings of the Apostles_, which seems to be of\nManichaean origin, Jesus appears to St John, who is sunk in grief at the\nsupposed sufferings of his Master, and tells him that His Crucifixion\nwas a mere phantasmagoria or miracle-play performed to impress the\nplebeian crowd at Jerusalem. Then He vanishes and in His stead appears a\ncross of pure light, surrounded by a multitude of other forms\nrepresenting the same shape and image. From this cross comes a Divine\nvoice saying sweetly:\n\n    \u201cThe cross of light is, for your sakes, sometimes called the Word,\n    sometimes Christ; sometimes the Door, sometimes the Way; sometimes\n    the Bread, sometimes the Sun; sometimes the Resurrection, sometimes\n    Jesus; sometimes the Father, sometimes the Spirit; sometimes the\n    Life, sometimes the Truth; sometimes Faith and sometimes\n    Grace[1114].\u201d\n\nAs will presently be seen, now that we have under our hands the writings\nof Manichaean communities domiciled in Persian and Chinese territory, we\nfind in them similar compromises with the faiths of Zoroaster and\nBuddha.\n\nYet after the Mahommedan conquest of Asia, and in regions where they\nwere free, as it would seem, from the pressure of their Zoroastrian and\nChristian competitors, the Manichaeans appear to have evolved a theology\nas formal and as detailed as any of the Gnostic systems which we have\nexamined. This is in the main set out by Theodore Bar Kh\u00f4ni, the\nNestorian Bishop of Kashgar, in his _Book of Scholia_ written in Syriac\nand Mandaean which has been in part translated by the scholarly care of\nM. Pognon, late Consul of France at Aleppo, and has lately been\ncommentated by M. Cumont. M. Pognon at first identified Bar Kh\u00f4ni with\nthe nephew of the Nestorian Patriarch Iwannis (Johannes or John), whose\nreign began in 893 A.D., and he quoted Assemani\u2019s _Bibliotheca\nOrientalis_ in his support[1115]. Later, however, he withdrew this, and\nput him a century earlier[1116]. M. Cumont, on the other hand, thinks\nthat Bar Kh\u00f4ni lived at the end of the VIth century or the beginning of\nthe VIIth, and therefore before the Mahommedan invasion[1117]. In any\nevent, the _Scholia_ describe a body of Manichaean doctrine considerably\nlater in date than any of the Christian sources hitherto referred to,\nand probably formed in an atmosphere where the necessity for outward\nconformity to either the Zoroastrian or the Christian faith was a good\ndeal less cogent than it was further west. Its agreement with the\nMahommedan tradition drawn from above is also well marked, and it\nderives much support from the Manichaean MSS. lately recovered from the\noasis of Turfan in Turkestan, and in that of Tun-huang in China. It is\npossible, although no proofs are yet forthcoming, that it was this\nNeo-Manichaeism, as it has been called, that inspired the Manichaean\nsectaries who were imported in the IXth and Xth centuries into Bulgaria,\nwhence their missionaries found their way later into Italy, France, and\nother countries of Southern Europe.\n\nThe system disclosed in these documents begins, as does nearly every\nManichaean writing, with the assertion of the existence of two gods,\nthat is to say, the God of Light and the God of Darkness. As the Kingdom\nof Darkness, whenever and wherever described, is the exact opposite and\ncounterpart of that of the Light, we shall not return to it again, but\nassume that in describing the one we are _mutatis mutandis_ describing\nthe other. The God of Light has one substance of which all the powers of\nlight were made, but three forms or hypostases, called in the Greek\nFormula of abjuration \u201cfaces\u201d or persons, which added to his own\npersonality make a supreme tetrad. These three hypostases are his\nwisdom, power, and goodness, by which is probably meant that he operates\nin the lower powers through these qualities, while remaining himself\nremote in the \u201cinaccessible light[1118].\u201d He possesses also five houses\nor dwellings, which are also called his worlds and even his members.\nTheir names according to Bar Kh\u00f4ni are Intelligence, Knowledge, Thought,\nReflexion, and Feeling[1119]. These seem to be ranged in this order\nbelow the dwelling of the inaccessible light, so as to cut off all\napproach to it by a fivefold wall. On the attack of the powers of\ndarkness before mentioned, the God of Light, called by Bar Kh\u00f4ni the\nFather of Greatness, that is to say, the Very Great or Greatest[1120],\ncreates by his word the Mother of Life, who in her turn evokes the First\nMan as already described. Thus is constituted, if M. Cumont be right,\nthe First Triad of Father, Mother, and Son[1121]. From the Turfan\ndocuments, we know that the Father was called, in Turkestan at any rate,\nby the name of Azrua or Zervan, and the Son Khormizta or Ormuzd[1122].\nAs for the appellation of the Mother we are still in ignorance[1123].\n\nWhen the First Man or Ormuzd marched against his enemy, he also evoked\nfive elements called sometimes his sons and sometimes his members. These\nare the Ether, the Wind, the Light, the Water, and the Fire before\nmentioned, which together compose the soul of the world, and hence of\nman, who is in every respect its image. When he was conquered by Satan\nand dragged down to the lowest pit of hell, he prayed, says Bar Kh\u00f4ni,\nseven times to the Very Great Father, and he in compassion created,\nagain by his word, the Friend of the Lights[1124], who evoked the Great\nBan[1125], who evoked the Living Spirit. Here we have the second triad\nor \u201csecond creation,\u201d of which, as has been said, only the last member\ntakes any active part in what follows. As we have already seen, the\nLiving Spirit speaks a word like a sharp sword, and the image of the\nFirst Man answers[1126] and is drawn up out of hell. These two, the\nsword or Appellant and the image or Respondent, together mount towards\nthe Mother of Life and the Living Spirit, and the Mother of Life\n\u201cclothes\u201d the Image\u2014no doubt with a form or \u201cnature,\u201d\u2014while the Living\nSpirit does the same with the compelling word[1127]. Then they return to\nthe earth of darkness where remains the soul of the First Man in the\nshape of his five sons.\n\nIn the meantime, the Living Spirit has also given birth to five sons.\nHe, like the Very Great Father of whom he is perhaps the reflexion, has\nfive worlds named like those of his paradigm from which he draws certain\nother powers. From his Intelligence, says Bar Kh\u00f4ni, he produces The\nOrnament of Splendour, who is none other than the Splenditenens we have\nseen drawing the heavens after him; from his Reason, the Great King of\nHonour, who is described as sitting in the midst of the celestial\narmies; from his Thought, Adamas of the Light armed with shield and\nspear; from his Reflexion the King of Glory whose function is to set in\nmotion the three wheels of the fire, the water, and the wind, which\napparently raise to the upper spheres the portions of those elements\nstill left below; and finally from his Feeling the great Omophorus or\nAtlas who bears the earths on his shoulders[1128]. Immediately on\nevocation, three of these powers were set to work to kill and flay the\nrulers of darkness, and to carry their skins to the Mother of Life. She\nstretches out the skins to make the sky, thereby fashioning ten or\neleven or even twelve heavens. She throws their bodies on to the Earth\nof Darkness, thereby forming eight earths[1129]. Thus the soul or sons\nof the First Man are rescued from the Powers of Darkness, and the\nmachinery of the redemption of the Light is set on foot.\n\nThere is, however, a third act to the drama. Again, the lesser Powers of\nLight, this time the Mother of Life, the First Man, and the Living\nSpirit, cry to the Very Great Father. Satan, or, as the Mahommedan\ntradition calls him, Humm\u00e2ma, is still in existence, although his\n\u201csons,\u201d the Rulers of Darkness, the Hot Wind, the Smoke, and the others\nhave been crucified or fixed in the firmament, and he is still actively\nworking with his remaining powers against the Light. The Light-Powers\nfeel themselves contaminated and oppressed by the contact, and perhaps\neven in some fear lest they should again have the worst in a renewal of\nthe conflict. Again, the Very Great Father hears them and sends to their\nassistance a third creation, called this time simply the Messenger.\n\nWho this Messenger is, is the main puzzle of the new documents. The\nauthor of the _Acta_ knew something of him, for he speaks of a \u201cThird\nLegate,\u201d who, when the world is burning in the great conflagration which\nwill mark the redemption of the last particles of light, will be found\nin the Ship of the Moon with Jesus, the Mother of Life, the Virgin of\nLight and the twelve other powers to be presently mentioned[1130]. M.\nCumont, in his able analysis of Bar Kh\u00f4ni\u2019s system, thinks that this\n\u201cThird Legate\u201d resembles the Nery\u00f4sang of the Persians, who in the later\nMazdean literature is made the herald of Ormuzd, and has also features\nin common with Gay\u00f4mort the First Man, and Mithras[1131]. But it is\nplain from the Tun-huang treatise lately discovered, as well as from the\nfragments found at Turfan, that the Third Legate corresponds most\nclosely to the Mazdean genius or divinity Sra\u00f4sha, the angel of\nObedience[1132]. Sra\u00f4sha is described in the Sr\u00f4sh Yashts as the \u201cHoly\nand Strong Sr\u00f4sh,\u201d \u201cthe Incarnate Word, a mighty-speared and lordly\ngod.\u201d He it is who is called the \u201cfiend-smiter,\u201d who is said to watch\nover the world and to defend it from the demons, especially at night, to\nfight for the souls of the good after death, and, in the older Mazdean\ntraditions, to judge the dead with Mithra and Rashnu as his assessors,\nlike Rhadamanthos, Minos, and Eacus among the Greeks[1133]. In the\nTurfan texts he is called the mighty, and in the Tun-huang treatise is\nlikened to a judge, while in both sets of documents he has his proper\nappellation of Sr\u00f4sh[1134].\n\nThis third creation was no more content than his two predecessors to\nenter upon the task allotted to him without further help. His first act\nupon arriving hither, according to Bar Kh\u00f4ni, was to evoke or call into\nexistence twelve virgins with their vestures, their crowns, and their\nguards. The Turfan texts give us the names of these powers, four of whom\nseem to be attributes of sovereignty, and eight of them virtues. Their\nnames in the order of the new texts are respectively, Dominion, Wisdom,\nVictory, Persuasion, Purity, Truth, Faith, Patience, Uprightness,\nGoodness, Justice and Light, and they are probably the twelve \u201cpilots\u201d\nwhom the _Acta_ describe as being at the Ecpyrosis in the Moon-ship with\ntheir father, with Jesus, and with the other powers[1135]. But there is\nmuch plausibility in M. Cumont\u2019s theory that this Third Legate or Sr\u00f4sh\nis supposed until that event to inhabit the Sun, and that his 12\n\u201cdaughters\u201d are the signs of the Zodiac among whom he moves[1136].\nAccording to Bar Kh\u00f4ni, it is the same Legate who is ordered by the\nGreat Ban to create a new earth and to set the whole celestial\nmachinery\u2014the Sun and Moon-ships and the three wheels of fire, air, and\nwater\u2014in motion[1137]. Yet we hear nothing in any other document of any\naddition to the number of eight earths already created, and we can only\ntherefore suppose that Bar Kh\u00f4ni\u2019s phrase refers to the gradual\npurification of this world of ours by Sr\u00f4sh.\n\nBar Kh\u00f4ni also makes the appearance of this last Legate responsible for\nthe appearance of man upon the earth, as to which he recites a story\nwhich seems at first sight to be an elaboration of the Gnostic and\nManichaean tradition preserved by the Christians and mentioned above.\nThe Legate, he makes Manes say, was of both sexes, and on his appearance\nin the Sun-ship, both the male and female rulers of Darkness became so\nfilled with desire that they began to give up the light which they had\ntaken from the sons of the First Man. With this was mingled their own\nsin, half of which fell into the sea and there gave birth to a horrible\nmonster like the King of Darkness. This was conquered and slain by\nAdamas of the Light, but that which fell upon the land fructified as the\nfive kinds of trees[1138]. Moreover, the female demons, who were\npregnant at the time, miscarried and their untimely births ate of the\nbuds of the trees. Yet these females remembered the beauty of the Legate\nwhom they had seen, and Asaqlun or Saclas[1139], son of the King of\nDarkness, persuaded them to give him their sons and daughters, in order\nthat he might make from them an image of the Legate. This they did, when\nhe ate the male children and his wife Namra\u00ebl consumed the female. In\nconsequence Namra\u00ebl gave birth to a son and a daughter who were called\nAdam and Eve. Jesus was sent to Adam and found him sleeping a sleep of\ndeath, but awoke him, made him stand upright, and gave him to eat of the\nTree of Life, while he separated him from his too seductive companion.\nThis story is not confirmed by any of the new documents; and in the\npresent state of our knowledge it is impossible to say whether it\ncontains an old Asiatic tradition, of which the Biblical accounts of the\nprotoplasts and of the Sons of God making love to the daughters of men\nare the only remnants which have till now come down to us, or whether\u2014as\nis at least as likely\u2014the whole story is a blend by the Manichaeans of\nJewish, Mandaite, and Pagan legends. The main point in it for our\nconsideration is its introduction of a Jesus who is certainly not the\nsame as the Jesus _patibilis_ whom St Augustine and the other Christian\nFathers make Manes describe as born of the Living Spirit and the Earth,\nand as hanging on every tree. This other Jesus, who came to the earth in\nthe time of Adam, is a fourth emissary or Saviour put forth by the\nsecond and third creations according to the _Fihrist_ and called by Bar\nKh\u00f4ni \u201cJesus the shining one.\u201d In the Turfan texts he is, as has been\nsaid, perhaps equated with the Virgin of Light, and in the Tun-huang\ntreatise he is spoken of as \u201cJesus the Victorious[1140].\u201d Evidently he\nis conceived as one of the Burkhans or Buddhas who fight against the\nPowers of Darkness, and the Jesus _patibilis_ is but another name for\nthe fragments of light or \u201carmour\u201d of the First Man left on this earth.\nThe borrowing of the name revered among Christians is but one of the\ncompromises by which the Manichaeans hoped to draw those of other faiths\ninto their net.\n\nA like plasticity is shown in the organization of the Manichaean Church.\nThe first disciples of Manes, to whom he gave special commandments,\nwere, according to Christian tradition, only seven in number, in which\nif anywhere in the system we may see a reflexion of the seven\nAmshaspands of the Avesta[1141]. But later there seems to have been\ninstituted a band of twelve Apostles in manifest imitation of the\nApostles of Jesus, who perhaps corresponded to the Masters or highest\ndegree that we have seen called the Sons of Gentleness. These were\npresided over by a Manichaean Pope who figured as the representative and\nVicegerent of Manes himself. There were also seventy-two bishops\nanswering to the seventy-two disciples of Christ, who are perhaps to be\nidentified with the Sons of Knowledge. Then came the Presbyters or Sons\nof Intelligence whose functions were chiefly those of missionaries and\nwho were perpetually, like Faustus, travelling for the propagation of\nthe faith[1142]. This seems to have been the organization generally\nadopted for Christian countries, and we meet with it there up to a very\nlate date. Yet there is no reason to suppose that it was necessarily\ncopied by the Manichaeans of Central Asia or India, or that the\nManichaeans always obeyed some central authority. What organization they\ndid adopt outside Europe and Africa we shall probably have to wait to\ndiscover when more of the documents coming from Turkestan have been\ndeciphered.\n\nThe extreme simplicity of the Manichaean ritual also made easy to them\nall such adaptations to the ways of their neighbours. Hating images with\nas much energy, perhaps, as Zoroaster himself, they had neither statues\nnor lights nor incense in their meeting-places, which must in the West\nhave been as bare and as unadorned as a Scottish conventicle. The whole\nservice seems to have consisted of hymns and prayers, in the first of\nwhich the mythology of the sect doubtless found expression, while the\nsecond mainly consisted of those praises of the Powers of Light, which\npraises were thought, as has been said, to have an actual and objective\nexistence and thus to fulfil a considerable part in the scheme of\nredemption. Up to the present we have very few examples of the hymns.\nThe _Hymn of the Soul_, of which Prof. Bevan has published an English\ntranslation, is probably Manichaean in origin[1143], and St Augustine\ntells of a \u201clove song\u201d in which the Father, meaning thereby probably\nSr\u00f4sh, the third legate[1144], is represented as presiding at a banquet\ncrowned with flowers and bearing a sceptre, while twelve gods, three\nfrom each quarter of the globe, are grouped round him \u201cclothed in\nflowers\u201d singing praises and laying flowers at his feet. These are said\nto represent the seasons[1145]; and we hear also of myths doubtless\nexpressed in song describing the great angel Splenditenens, whose care\nis the portions of Light still imprisoned in matter and who is always\nbewailing their captivity[1146]; and of his fellow angel Omophorus who,\nas has been said, bears the world on his shoulders like the classical\nAtlas[1147]. Doubtless, too, some of these hymns described that last\nconflagration, which seems to have occupied so great a place in the\nspeculations of the early Manichaeans, when the justified faithful,\nsecure in the two great ships which sail about on the ocean of the upper\nair, shall behold the world in flames and the last portion of the\nimprisoned Light mounting in the Column of Praises, while Satan and his\nhosts are confined for ever in the gross and dark matter which is\nhenceforth to be their portion[1148]. Possibly the Turfan discoveries\nmay yet recover for us some important fragments of this lost literature.\n\nWith regard to the prayers, we are a little better informed. \u201cFree us by\nthy skill, for we suffer here oppression and torture and pollution, only\nthat thou (the First Man?) mayest mourn unmolested in thy kingdom,\u201d is\none of those which St Augustine has preserved for us[1149]. So, too, the\nMahommedan tradition has handed down a series of six doxologies or hymns\nof praise out of a total of twelve which seem to have been obligatory,\nperhaps on all Manichaeans, but certainly on the Perfect. The suppliant\nis, we are told, to stand upright, to wash in running water or something\nelse, in which we may perhaps see either the origin or an imitation of\nthe ceremonial ablutions of the Mussulman, then to turn towards the\nGreat Light, to prostrate himself and to say:\n\n\u201cBlessed be our guide, the Paraclete, the Messenger of the Light.\nBlessed be his angels, his guards, and highly praised his shining\ntroops.\u201d\n\nThen he is to rise and, prostrating himself again, to say:\n\n    \u201cThou highly-esteemed one, O thou shining M\u00e2n\u00ee our guide, thou the\n    root of illumination, branch of uprightness, thou the great tree,\n    thou who art the sovereign Remedy.\u201d\n\nA third prostration, and the praise runs:\n\n    \u201cI prostrate myself and praise with a pure heart and a sincere\n    tongue, the Great God, the Father of the Lights and of their\n    elements, the most highly praised, the glorified, thee and all thy\n    Majesty and thy blessed worlds that thou hast called forth! To\n    praise thee is to praise equally thy troops, thy justified ones, thy\n    word, thy majesty, thy good pleasure. For thou art the God who is\n    all Truth, all Life, and all Justice.\u201d\n\nThen comes a fourth prostration and the sentence:\n\n    \u201cI praise all the gods, all the shining angels, all the lights, and\n    all the troops who are from the Great God, and I prostrate myself\n    before them.\u201d\n\nThe speech after the fifth prostration is:\n\n    \u201cI prostrate myself and I praise the great troops, and the shining\n    gods who, with their Wisdom spread over the Darkness, pursue it and\n    conquer it.\u201d\n\nWhile the sixth, and last given in full, is simply:\n\n    \u201cI prostrate myself and I praise the Father of Majesty, the eminent\n    one, the shining one who has come forth from the two\n    sciences[1150].\u201d\n\nIt seems fairly plain that these praises are addressed not so much to\nthe \u201cKing of the Paradise of Light\u201d or Highest God of Goodness as to the\nlesser Powers of Light. The recent expeditions of European scholars to\nCentral Asia have succeeded in recovering for us almost in full the\nConfession-Prayer repeated ritually by the Manichaean Hearers or laymen\nwhich, besides confirming the Christian and Mahommedan accounts of\nManes\u2019 teaching summarized above, shows a greater belief in the efficacy\nof repentance and the enforcement of a stricter morality upon all\nclasses of Manichaeans than we should have imagined from the accounts of\ntheir adversaries[1151]. We are fortunate in possessing more than one\ntext of this Confession-Prayer, that found by the energy of our English\nemissary, Dr (now Sir Marc Aurel) Stein, in the \u201cCave of the Thousand\nBuddhas\u201d at Tun-huang, proving almost identical with the one discovered\nin Turfan by the Russian Expedition and now in St Petersburg, while both\ncan be checked and supplemented by fragments also found at Turfan by\nProfs. Gr\u00fcnwedel\u2019s and von Le Coq\u2019s expeditions to the same place and\ntaken to Berlin[1152]. The title and first few lines of this prayer have\nbeen lost, owing to the fact that the Chinese plan of writing on a\ncontinuous sheet of paper many yards in length, which was then rolled up\nwith the last lines innermost, was adopted by its transcribers. All the\nspecimens yet found are in Turkish, the Russian MS. being in the dialect\ncalled after the nation using it, Ouigour or Uighur, and like that found\nby Dr Stein and the Berlin fragments, in the Manichaean modification of\nthe Estranghelo or Syriac script. The prayer or litany is in 15 sections\nor classes, the number having doubtless a mystical reference[1153], and\nis followed in the Russian and English examples by a recapitulation\nwhich is not without value. The version which follows is a compound of\nall the three sources mentioned above, and has been here divided into\nthree parts, although it is not so in the original, for convenience of\ncommentary.\n\n\n    KHUASTUANIFT.\n\n\n    Sect. I. \u201c[The Son of?] the God Khormuzta even the Fivefold God\n    descended from the heavens with the purity of all the gods, to war\n    against the Demon; he (the Fivefold God) battled against the\n    Shimnus[1154] of evil deeds, and against the five species of the\n    Kingdom of the Demons. God and the Devil, Light and Darkness then\n    intermingled. The youth of the Divine Khormuzta even the Fivefold\n    God, and our souls, joined battle with Sin and the Demon-world and\n    became ensnared and entangled with it. All the princes of the Demons\n    came with the insatiable and shameless Demon of Envy and a hundred\n    and forty myriads of demons banded together in evil intent,\n    ignorance, and folly. He himself, the Born and Created (_i.e._ the\n    Fivefold God or son of Khormuzta) forgot the eternal heaven of the\n    Gods and became separated from the Gods of Light. Hence, O my God!\n    if the Shimnu (Great Devil) of evil intent has led astray our\n    thoughts and inclined us to devilish deeds.\u2014If, becoming thereby\n    foolish and without understanding, we have sinned and erred against\n    the foundation and root of all bright spirits, even against the pure\n    and bright Azrua the Lord[1155].\u2014If thereby Light and Darkness, God\n    and the Devil have intermingled ...\n\nhere follows a lacuna of several pages which Prof. von Le Coq suggests\nwas filled with \u201can explanation of the allegorical story of the combat\u201d\nand its practical application.\n\n    \u201c... If we have said ... is its foundation and root.\u2014If we have said\n    if anyone animates a body it is God; or that if anyone kills, it is\n    God.\u2014If we have said Good and Evil have alike been created by God.\n    If we have said it is He [God] who has created the eternal Gods. If\n    we have said the Divine Khormuzta and the Shimnu (Great Devil) are\n    brethren[1156]. O my God, if in our sin we have spoken such awful\n    blasphemies, having unwittingly become false to God. If we have thus\n    committed this unpardonable sin. O my God, I N.N.[1157] now repent.\n    To cleanse myself from sin, I pray: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (My sin\n    remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. II. \u201cWhen because of the God of the Sun and Moon and of the\n    Gods enthroned in the two resplendent Palaces, the foundation and\n    root of the light of all the Burkhans[1158] of Earth and Water go to\n    the heaven prepared for their assembly (foundation and root), the\n    first gate they reach is the God of the Sun and Moon. In order to\n    deliver the Fivefold God and to sever the Light from the Darkness he\n    rolls along the lower part of the heavens in fulness and lights up\n    the four corners of the earth. O my God, if in our sin we have\n    unwittingly sinned against the God of the Sun and Moon, the Gods\n    enthroned in the two resplendent Palaces. If, although calling him\n    the True, Mighty, and Powerful God, we have not believed in him. If\n    we have uttered many spoken blasphemies. If we have said the God of\n    the Sun and Moon dies, and his rise and setting comes [?] not by\n    [his own?] strength, and that should he [trust to his?] own\n    strength, he will not rise [?]. If we have said, our own bodies were\n    created before the Sun and Moon. To cleanse ourselves from this\n    unwitting sin also, we pray: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2_ (Our sin remit).\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. III. \u201cSince, in defence of the Fivefold God, even the youth of\n    the Divine Khormuzta, his five members, that is to say, First, the\n    God of the Ether; Secondly, the God of the Wind; Thirdly, the God of\n    the Light; Fourthly, the God of the Water; Fifthly, the God of the\n    Fire, having battled against Sin and the Demon-world were ensnared\n    and entangled[1159], and have intermingled with the Darkness. Since\n    they were unable to go to the heaven of God and are now upon the\n    earth. Since the ten heavens above, the eight earths beneath, exist\n    on account of the Fivefold God. Since of everything that is upon the\n    earth the Fivefold God is the Majesty, the Radiance [?], the\n    Likeness, the Body, the Soul, the Strength, the Light, the\n    Foundation and the Root. O my God, if in our sin we have unwittingly\n    offended against or caused grief to the Fivefold God by an evil and\n    wicked mind. If we have allowed our fourteen members to gain\n    domination over us. If by taking animated beings with our ten\n    snake-headed fingers and our thirty-two teeth, we have fed upon them\n    and have thus angered and grieved the Gods [?][1160]. If we have in\n    any way sinned against the dry and wet earth, against the five kinds\n    of animals, and against the five kinds of herbs and trees. O my God,\n    to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_\n    (Our sin remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. IV. \u201cIf we have unwittingly sinned against the divine Burkhans\n    of the hosts (of the Messenger God[1161]) and against the\n    merit-attaining pure Elect. If although we have called them the true\n    and divine Burkhans and the well-doing and pure Elect, we have not\n    believed on them. If although we have uttered the word of God, we\n    have through folly acted against it and not performed it [?]. If\n    instead of spreading the decrees and commandments, we have impeded\n    them. O my God, we now repent and to cleanse ourselves from sin, we\n    pray: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sin remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. V. \u201cIf we have wandered into sin against the five kinds of\n    animated beings, that is to say, First, against two-footed man;\n    Secondly, against the four-footed animals; Thirdly, against the\n    flying animals; Fourthly, against the animals in the water; Fifthly,\n    against the animals upon earth which creep on their bellies. O my\n    God, if in our sin against these five kinds of animated and moving\n    beings from the great to the small, we have beaten and wounded,\n    abused, and injured, and pained, or even put them to death. If thus\n    we have become the tormentors of so many animated and moving beings.\n    O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r\n    h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sin remit!)\u201d\n\nIt will be seen that in these first five sections or clauses of the\nConfession, we have a confirmation in all essential points of the\nversion of the faith taught by Manes as it has been preserved for us by\nthe Mahommedan authors quoted above. It is even possible that it was\nfrom this source that the author of the _Fihrist_ and Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee derived\nsome of their information concerning the Manichaeans, and although it is\nimpossible as yet to fix any date for the Confession except within very\nwide limits, it may be said that it is probably earlier than either of\nthe Mahommedan writers. It is certainly earlier than 1035 A.D., the date\nat which the grotto at Tun-huang in which one of the copies was bricked\nup[1162]. But it seems plain that it must have long before been used in\nthe Manichaean worship from the fact that copies differing little, if at\nall, from each other have been found in two different scripts. As two of\nthese are in the Turkish language, it seems likely that they were\ntranslated for proselytizing purposes into this from the earlier Syriac\nversion shortly after the conquest of the Tou-kiue or Turks by the\nOuigours, which some authors put as far back as the VIIth century\nA.D.[1163] The tenets of the Manichaeans must have been well settled for\nthis to be possible, and we have here, therefore, an account at first\nhand of Manichaean teaching at a date much earlier than the Mahommedan\nauthors quoted above, and first reduced to writing between the earliest\npromulgation of Manes\u2019 own teaching and the Mahommedan conquest of\nPersia. It is, therefore, contemporary, or nearly so, with the period of\nactivity of the Zoroastrianism revived by the Sassanides, and it is\ninteresting to find how much nearer in appearance to the cosmology and\ntheology of the Avesta are those of the _Khuastuanift_ than is the\nChristianized form of Manichaeism introduced into Europe and Africa and\ncombated by St Augustine. Khormuzta, the First Man, is certainly Ahura\nMazda, Oromazes, or Ormuzd, while the Fivefold God here spoken of as the\n\u201cyouth\u201d is clearly to be identified with his five sons or the armour\nleft below on his defeat[1164]. Hence it is probable that the\nManichaeans in Upper Asia did not wish to appear as the worshippers of\nany other deities than those of the Persian nation[1165], although where\nChristianity was the religion of the State, they were willing to call\nthese deities by other names[1166]. Yet the dualism which is the real\ncharacteristic of the faith of Manes here as elsewhere admits of no\ncompromise, and the sin against which the Section II is directed is\nplainly that Zervanist heresy which would make _Zervan akerene_ or\nBoundless Time the author of all things, and Ormuzd and Ahriman alike\nhis sons. The part played by the Sun and Moon in the redemption of the\nLight is here the same as that assigned to them in both the Christian\nand the Mahommedan accounts of Manes\u2019 own teaching, but nothing is here\nsaid of the wheel which appears in the former[1167]. The Divine\n\u201cBurkhans\u201d mentioned in Section III are, as we shall see later, the\nDivine Messengers sent from time to time into the present world to\nassist in the redemption of the Light. The sinfulness of feeding upon,\ninjuring, or even angering the lower animals is here much more strongly\ninsisted upon than in the other documents and demands repentance even in\nthe case of the Hearers, and this points directly to a closer connection\nwith Buddhism than hitherto has been thought possible. It is plainly\nopposed to the later Zoroastrian teaching, which makes the killing of\ncertain animals belonging to the creation of Ahriman a religious duty;\nand may therefore have only been adopted by the Manichaeans when they\nfound themselves in contact with a large community of professed\nBuddhists.\n\nThe next five sections of the _Khuastuanift_ run thus:\n\n    Sect. VI. \u201cIf, O my God, we have wandered into sin, and have\n    committed the ten kinds of sin in thoughts, words, and deeds. If we\n    have made up fraudulent lies; if we have sworn false oaths; if we\n    have borne false witness; if we have treated as guilty guiltless\n    men; if by fetching and carrying tales we have set men at variance,\n    and thereby have perverted their minds; if we have practised magic;\n    if we have killed many animated and moving beings; if we have given\n    way to wanton pleasures; if we have wasted the hard-earned gains of\n    industrious men; if we have sinned against the God of the Sun and\n    Moon[1168]. If in our past and present lives since we have become\n    Manichaeans [_i.e._ Hearers] we have sinned and gone astray, thereby\n    bringing confusion and discord upon so many animated beings, O my\n    God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now, _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r\n    h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sin remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. VII. \u201cWho is he who wandering in sin comes to the entry of the\n    two poison-laden ways, and to the road which leads astray to the\n    Gate of Hell? The first is he who holds to false doctrines; the\n    second is he who invokes the Demon as God and falls down before him.\n    O my God, if wandering in sin, we have failed to recognize and\n    understand the true God and his pure faith, and have not believed\n    what the Burkhans and the pure Elect have preached[1169], and have\n    instead believed on those who preach falsely, saying \u2018I preach the\n    true God, and I expound the faith rightly.\u2019 If we have accepted the\n    words of such a one and have unwittingly kept wrongful fasts, and\n    have unwittingly bowed ourselves wrongfully, and wrongfully given\n    alms; or if we have said \u2018We will acquire merit\u2019 and thereby have\n    unwittingly committed evil deeds; or if, invoking the Demon and the\n    Fiend as God, we have sacrificed to them animated and moving beings;\n    or if, saying, \u2018this is the precept of the Burkhan,\u2019 we have put\n    ourselves under a false law and have bowed ourselves, blessing it.\n    If, thus sinning against God, we have prayed to the Demon. O my God,\n    to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_\n    (Our sin remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. VIII. \u201cWhen we came to the knowledge of the true God and the\n    pure Law, we knew the Two Principles and the Law of the Three\n    Ages[1170]. The Light Principle we knew to be the Paradise of God\n    and the Dark Principle to be the Land of Hell. We knew what existed\n    before Heaven and Earth, the Earth of God, was. We knew how God and\n    the Demon fought with one another, and how Light and Darkness became\n    mingled together, and how Heaven and Earth were created. We knew how\n    the Earth of the Rulers and its Heaven will disappear, and how the\n    Light will be freed from the Darkness, and what will then happen to\n    all things. We believed in and put our faith in the God Azrua, in\n    the God of the Sun and Moon, in the Mighty God[1171], and in the\n    Burkhans, and thus we became Hearers. Four bright seals have we\n    carved upon our hearts. One is Love which is the seal of the God\n    Azrua[1172]; the second is Faith, which is the seal of the God of\n    the Sun and Moon; the third is the Fear of God which is the seal of\n    the Fivefold God; and the fourth is the wise Wisdom, which is the\n    seal of the Burkhans. If, O my God, we have turned away our spirits\n    and minds from these four (categories of) Gods; if we have spurned\n    them from their rightful place, and the Divine Seals have thus been\n    broken, O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now:\n    _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sin remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. IX. \u201cIn the Ten Commandments, we have been ordered to keep\n    three with the mouth, three with the heart, three with the hand, and\n    one with the whole self. If, O my God, we have wittingly or\n    unwittingly by cleaving to the love of the body, or by listening to\n    the words of wicked companions and friends, of associates and\n    fellows; or by reason of our having much cattle and other\n    possessions; or by our foolish attachment to the things of this\n    world, we have broken these ten commandments, and have been found\n    wanting and of no avail: O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so\n    pray we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sin remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. X. \u201cWe have been ordered to render every day, with a whole\n    mind and a pure heart, four praises to the God Azrua, to the God of\n    the Sun and Moon, to the Mighty God, and to the Burkhans. If from\n    lack of the fear of God or from slackness our praises have been\n    offered unseemly, or if in offering them we have not turned our\n    hearts and minds towards God, so that our praises and prayers have\n    not reached God in pure wise, but have remained in another place: O\n    my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r\n    h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sin remit!)\u201d\n\nThis second part of the Confession, perhaps, deals with errors of\nconduct as the first does with errors of belief. The ten sins given in\nthe VIth Section do not agree exactly with the list given in the\n_Fihrist_ which says that the Manichaean Hearers were enjoined to\nabstain from prayers offered to idols, from lying, from greed, from\nmurder, adultery, theft, from false teaching, from magic, from doubt in\nreligion, and from slackness in action[1173]; but perhaps all these\nprohibitions could be read into the list in the _Khuastuanift_. The\nVIIth Section seems to be directed not so much against other religions\nas against schisms within the Manichaean Church[1174], and it is evident\nthat its authors knew of bloody sacrifices offered to the Powers of\nDarkness as described by Plutarch apart from the magic or sorcery\ncondemned in the preceding section. In the VIIIth Section, we have also\nfor the second time a new name for God in the word Azrua, which Prof.\nvon Le Coq leaves unexplained; but which M. Gauthiot considers to be the\nsame as, or rather the equivalent in Soghdian of Zervan[1175]. Zervan,\nhowever, can hardly be here the Supreme God worshipped by Yezdegerd,\nespecially as the _Khuastuanift_ has just, as we have seen, formally\ncondemned as blasphemers those who say that Ormuzd and Ahriman are\nbrethren, and therefore by implication those who give both Powers Zervan\nfor a father. It seems more likely that the name is either a corruption\nof Ahura Mazda or perhaps of the Sanskrit Asura; but in any event, there\ncan be no doubt that it denotes the King of the Paradise of Light, as\nthe Highest Good God is called in the _Fihrist_. The division of the Ten\nCommandments of Manes into three of the mouth, three of the hand, three\nof the heart, and one of the whole being recalls St Augustine\u2019s\ndescription of the three seals, the _signaculum oris_, _signaculum\nmanus_, and _signaculum sinus_, observed by the Manichaeans[1176]; while\nthe description in Section X of the four praises (or hymns) to be\nrendered daily bears out what is said above as to the praises of man\nbeing of importance for the actual redemption of the Light.\n\nThe remaining sections of the _Khuastuanift_ are:\n\n    Sect. XI. \u201cWe have been ordered to give reverently seven kinds of\n    alms for the sake of the pure Law. It has also been ordered that\n    when the angels of the Light of the Five Gods and the two Appellant\n    and Respondent Gods bring to us the Light of the Five Gods which is\n    to go to the Gods to be purified, we should in all things order\n    ourselves [or, \u2018dress ourselves,\u2019 according to Le Coq] according to\n    the Law. If, through necessity or because of our foolishness, we\n    have not given the seven kinds of alms according to the Law, but\n    have bound the Light of the Five Gods, which should go to the Gods\n    to be purified, in our houses and dwellings, or if we should have\n    given it to evil men or to evil animals, and have thereby wasted it\n    and sent it to the Land of Evil, O my God, to cleanse ourselves from\n    sin, so pray we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sin remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. XII. \u201cWe have been ordered to keep every year 50 days of\n    _Vusanti_[1177] after the manner of the pure Elect, and thereon [?]\n    to please God by observing pure fasts. If, by reason of the care of\n    our houses and dwellings or of our cattle and other possessions; or\n    by reason of our need and poverty [foolish attachments, _apud_ Le\n    Coq]; or because of the greedy and shameless Demon of Envy; or of\n    our irreverent hearts, we have broken the fast, either wittingly or\n    by foolishness; or having begun it have not fasted according to the\n    Rite and the Law. O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray\n    we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sin remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. XIII. \u201cWe have been ordered to pray every Full Moon\n    [literally, every day of the Moon-God], to acknowledge before God,\n    the Law, and the pure Elect, our sins and transgressions in prayer\n    for the cleansing of ourselves from sin. If now wittingly, or by\n    feebleness of mind, or from idleness of body, or because our minds\n    were set on the cares and business of this world, we have not thus\n    gone to prayer for the cleansing of ourselves from sin. O my God, to\n    cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our\n    sin remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. XIV. \u201cWe have been ordered to keep each year seven\n    _Yimki_[1178] [Days of Atonement?] and one month\u2019s rigid fast[?]. We\n    have also been ordered when meeting together in the House of Prayer\n    to keep the _Yimki_ and to observe the fast, to acknowledge in\n    prayer with a whole mind to the Divine Burkhans the sins which we\n    have committed during the year and which we know through our senses.\n    O my God, if we have not kept the _Yimki_ seemly; if we have not\n    observed the month\u2019s rigid fast perfectly and seemly; if we have\n    failed to acknowledge in prayer the sins of the year which we know\n    through our senses, and have thus failed in so many of our duties. O\n    my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r\n    h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sins remit!)\u201d\n\n\n    Sect. XV. \u201cHow many evil thoughts do we not think every day! How\n    many deceitful and unseemly words do we not speak! How many unseemly\n    deeds do we not do! Thus do we prepare torments for ourselves by\n    crimes and frauds. Since we have walked body and soul in the love of\n    the greedy and shameless Demon of Envy, and the Light of the Five\n    Gods which we absorb in our food every day thereby goes to the Land\n    of Evil. Wherefore, O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray\n    we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sins remit!)\u201d\n\nHere follows a lacuna of four lines, after which the Confession resumes:\n\n    \u201cO my God. We are full of defects and sins! We are thine adversaries\n    and grieve thee by thoughts, words and deeds, for the sake of the\n    greedy and shameless Demon of Envy. Gazing with our eyes, hearing\n    with our ears, seizing with our hands, and trampling with our feet,\n    we ever torture and impede the Light of the Five Gods, the dry and\n    wet earth, the five kinds of animals, and the five kinds of plants\n    and trees. So full are we of defects and sins! On account of the Ten\n    Commandments, the seven kinds of Alms, the three seals, we are\n    called Hearers; yet we cannot perform what these claim of us. If,\n    wandering in sin, we have sinned against the Gods of Light, against\n    the pure Law, against the Herald God[1179] and the Preacher, the Men\n    of God [the Preachers, according to Le Coq], against the pure Elect.\n    If we have not walked according to the letter and spirit of the\n    spoken words of God. If we have grieved the hearts of the Gods. If\n    we have been unable to keep the Days of Atonement, the rigid fast,\n    to offer the Praises and the Blessings according to the Law and the\n    Rite. If we have been found lacking and unprofitable, and have day\n    by day and month by month committed sins and trespasses\u2014to the Gods\n    of Light, to the Majesty of the Law, to the pure Elect, to cleanse\n    ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Man\u00e2st\u00e2r h\u00eerz\u00e2!_ (Our sin\n    remit!)\u201d\n\nThese last five sections of the _Khuastuanift_ give us a glimpse of the\nreligious observances of the Manichaeans which alters somewhat the\npicture of them which we should have formed from the account of St\nAugustine and other Christian writers. The seven kinds of alms referred\nto in Section XI, are not, as might be thought, the gifts to necessitous\nor helpless persons prescribed alike by the Christian and the Mahommedan\nreligions. It is apparent both from the context and from other sources\nof information that they are the offerings of food made by the lay or\nlowest members of the Manichaean community to the Elect or Perfect, who\nare spoken of in the subsequent sections as being already a species of\nGods. This practice was certainly known to St Augustine, and was not\nlikely to sink into oblivion in a community in contact with Buddhists,\namong whom monks living upon food given in alms by the faithful were a\ncommon sight. But the reason assigned by St Augustine for the practice,\nwhich was before obscure, here receives full explanation. The particles\nof light diffused through matter, and therefore inhabiting the bodies of\nanimals and plants, could only, in Manichaean opinion, be set free by\npassing into the bodies of the semi-divine Elect. Thus says St Augustine\nin his treatise against the Manichaean Perfect, Faustus[1180]:\n\n    \u201cThis foolish notion of making your disciples bring you food, that\n    your teeth and stomach may be the means of relieving Christ who is\n    bound up in it, is a consequence of your profane fancies. You\n    declare that Christ is liberated in this way\u2014not, however, entirely;\n    for you hold that some tiny particles of no value still remain in\n    the excrement, to be mixed up and compounded again in various\n    material forms, and to be released and purified at any rate by the\n    fire in which the world will be burned up, if not before.\u201d\n\nWith the substitution of the \u201cLight of the Fivefold God\u201d for Christ\u2014the\nuse of this last name being probably either the gloss of St Augustine\nhimself, or else the concession made by the Manichaean missionaries\nafter their manner to the religious prepossessions of those among whom\nthey hoped to gain converts\u2014we have here the doctrine more plainly\nstated in the _Khuastuanift_. The Hearers are to labour perpetually,\nidleness being one of the Manichaean deadly sins, and to present the\nfruits of their labour in the shape of food to the Perfect. Not only\nwill the particles of Light imprisoned in this last thus be conveyed to\nthe Land of the Gods; but it will be prevented from going to the Land of\nEvil, which it would do if it were consumed by the bodies of the Hearers\nor, _a fortiori_, of those profane persons who belonged to other faiths\nthan the Manichaean. Thus is explained the inhumanity of which many\nwriters accuse the Manichaean community, which led them to refuse food\nto their neighbours in time of famine, alleging that all that they\nproduced must be reserved for those of the Faith[1181].\n\nThis explains also the merit assigned to the observance of the many\nfasts enjoined in the concluding sections of the _Khuastuanift_. The\nfifty _Vusanti_ fasts together with the month\u2019s rigid fast to be kept by\nthe Hearers would all have the effect of diminishing their consumption\nof food in the shape of animals and plants, which hinders the liberation\nof the particles of Light imprisoned therein. In the choice of the days\nset apart for these fasts we see another instance of the Manichaean\npractice as assimilating the outward observances of other religions. The\nfifty _Vusanti_ fasts would give an average of very nearly one a week,\nand were probably kept on Sunday, the distinction between the Elect and\nthe Hearers in this respect noted by the Mahommedan writer being\nprobably due to some misconception. The month\u2019s rigid fast possibly\naccorded with the Arab Ramadan and must have been very useful in\npreventing the Hearers from appearing singular when among Mahommedans;\nand the seven _Yimki_ or Days of Atonement seem to have been copied from\nthe observances of the Jews. So possibly was the ritual practice alluded\nto in the XIVth section of meeting together at certain times to confess\ntheir sins, and as this is here said to take place in the House of\nPrayer, it entirely disposes of the theory set up by earlier writers\nthat the Manichaeans had no temples, synagogues, or churches of their\nown[1182]. The confession and prayer enjoined in Section XIII were\ndoubtless to be repeated privately and in whatever place the Hearer\nfound himself at the fortnightly periods there specified, and this\nLitany was very probably the _Khuastuanift_ itself[1183].\n\nWhat other ritual was performed in these Manichaean meeting-places is\nstill doubtful. The Christian writers declare that the Manichaeans\ncelebrated a sacrament resembling the Eucharist with the horrible\naccompaniments before alluded to in the case of the followers of Simon\nMagus[1184]. The same accusation was made, as has been many times said\nabove, by nearly all the sects of the period against each other, and we\nhave no means of determining its truth. It is however fairly certain\nfrom the silence observed on the subject by the _Khuastuanift_ that no\nsacramental feast of any kind was either celebrated by or in the\npresence of the Hearers or general body of Manichaeans. If the Perfect\nor Elect partook of any such meal among themselves, it possibly\nconsisted of bread and water only and was probably a survival of some\ncustom traditional in Western Asia of which we have already seen the\ntraces in the Mysteries of Mithras[1185]. The pronounced Docetism which\nled the Manichaeans to regard the body of the historical Jesus as a\nphantom shows that they could not have attributed to this meal any\nsacramental efficacy like that involved in the doctrines either of the\nReal Presence or of the Atonement.\n\nThe case is different with regard to pictures. The Manichaeans forbade\nthe use of statues or probably of any representations of the higher\nspiritual powers, no doubt in recollection of the idea current among the\nPersians even in Herodotus\u2019 time, that the gods had not the nature of\nmen. Yet the Jewish and later the Mahommedan prohibition against making\nlikenesses of anything had evidently no weight with them, and even\nbefore the recent discoveries there was a tradition that Manes himself\nwas in the habit of using symbolical pictures called Ertenki-Mani as a\nmeans of propaganda[1186]. The truth of this is now amply confirmed by\nthe German discoveries at Turfan, where Prof. von Le Coq found frescoes\nrepresenting possibly Manes himself, together with paintings on silk\nshowing the souls of the faithful dead in the Moon-ship[1187]. Sir Marc\nStein seems to have secured similar relics at Tun-huang, and when these\nare more thoroughly examined it is possible that they may throw light\nupon many points of Manichaean symbolism yet obscure to us. The fact\nthat the Manichaean meeting-houses were decorated with symbolical\npictures seems thereby already established.\n\nOf their fasts, the principal ones have been already indicated in the\n_Khuastuanift_, and their feasts seem to have been few, almost the only\none of which any mention has come down to us being that which was called\nthe Festival of the Bema or pulpit, when an empty chair on five steps\nwas placed in a conspicuous position in the meeting-house and adored by\nall present. This was said to have been done in commemoration of Manes\nas their founder and on the date preserved as the anniversary of his\ndeath[1188]. If it be really true that any Manichaeans whether Hearers\nor otherwise kept Sunday as a holiday, it must have been, as Neander\nsuggests, not because it was the day of the Resurrection, in which their\nDocetic doctrines prevented them from believing, but as the day of the\nSun. In like manner they probably observed Christmas as the birthday not\nof Jesus, but of the Sun-god in accordance with the traditions preserved\nby the worshippers of Mithras[1189]. St Augustine speaks, too, of their\nkeeping Easter[1190]. It seems possible that this was only done in\nChristian countries, in accordance with their usual custom of conforming\nin outward matters, and we have no evidence of their doing anything of\nthe sort in Turkestan.\n\nOf the sacred books of the Manichaeans we hear much, although only one\nhas survived to us in anything like completeness. Thus we hear from\nAl-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee that the Manichaeans have a gospel of their own \u201cthe contents\nof which from the first to the last are opposed to the doctrine of the\nChristians,\u201d and this he says was called \u201cthe Gospel of the\nSeventy[1191].\u201d He also tells us of a book written by Manes himself\ncalled _Shaburkan_ or Shapurakhan which was doubtless written for the\nedification of King Sh\u00e2p\u00fbr or Sapor, the son of Ardesh\u00eer, whose name it\nbears[1192]. In this Manes seems to have described his own birth and his\nassumption of the office of heavenly messenger or \u201cBurkhan,\u201d besides the\nsaying as to the Burkhans before him, Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus, as\ndescribed above[1193]. We also hear from Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee that he wrote a\ngospel arranged according to the 22 letters of the alphabet, which does\nnot seem to be the same as the Gospel of the Seventy[1194], and we hear\nfrom other sources of a Book of the Giants, a Book of Secrets, a Book of\nPrecepts, a Book of Lifegiving, and others, together with many letters\nor epistles all supposed to be by Manes\u2019 own hand[1195]. As has been\nsaid, he and his followers rejected the Old Testament entirely, not\nindeed denying its inspiration, but declaring this to have come from the\nEvil Principle. Of the New Testament, Faustus, the Manichaean Perfect\nwho disputed with St Augustine, puts the matter very clearly when he\nsays:\n\n    \u201cWe receive only so much of the New Testament as says anything to\n    the honour of the Son of Glory, either by Himself or by His\n    apostles; and by the latter only after they had become perfect and\n    believers. As for the rest, anything that was said by them either in\n    their simplicity and ignorance, while they were yet inexperienced in\n    the truth, or with malicious design was inserted by the enemy among\n    the statements of truth, or was incautiously asserted by other\n    writers and thus handed down to later generations\u2014of all this we\n    desire to know nothing. I mean all such statements as these\u2014that He\n    was shamefully born of a woman; that as a Jew He was circumcised;\n    that He offered sacrifices like a heathen; that He was meanly\n    baptized, led into the wilderness, and miserably tempted[1196].\u201d\n\nThus it seems that the Manichaeans accepted only such facts of the\nGospel narrative as did not conflict with their own doctrines, and\nalthough they are said to have had an especial veneration for St Paul,\nthere is no reason to think that this extended to the writings of the\nApostle to the Gentiles, or had any other motive than that of external\nconformity with the religion of those whom they were endeavouring to\nconvert. As himself the Paraclete announced in the New Testament, Manes\nclaimed for himself an authority superior to that of all apostles, and\nif he made use of any of the writings attributed to them, it was\nprobably only in the shape of isolated passages divorced from their\ncontext. On the other hand, his followers seem to have made free use of\napocryphal or pseudepigraphical books written in the names of the\napostles and containing statements which could be explained as\nconfirming Manes\u2019 teaching. A great number of these had as their common\nauthors the names of St Thomas and St Andrew, and the Fathers declare\nthat they were for the most part the work of one Leucius, whom they\nassert was a Manichaean[1197]. It may be so; but, as all the copies of\nthese works which have come down to us have been expurgated or, in the\nlanguage of the time, \u201cmade orthodox,\u201d by the removal of heretical\nmatter, there is little proof of the fact.\n\nMore authentic, however, than these pseudepigrapha and much fuller than\nthe extracts preserved by Christian or Mahommedan writers is a treatise\nfound in the cave of the Thousand Buddhas at Tun-huang which has been\npublished only last year. It seems by an extraordinary chance to have\nnearly escaped us, having been apparently missed by all the European\nexpeditions because it was written in Chinese characters. Hence it was\nremoved to Pekin by orders of the Chinese Government under the\nimpression that it was Buddhist in its nature, and has since been\npublished in a Chinese publication founded for the purpose of preserving\nthe Tun-huang MSS. by Mr Lo Tchen-yu, a Chinese scholar of great\nphilosophical and archaeological attainments[1198]. It is written on a\ncontinuous roll of paper over six metres in length, which has led\nunfortunately to the disappearance of the title and the first few words\nof the treatise. The remainder shows, however, that it purports to be a\nsort of allocution addressed by Manes, here as in the _Khuastuanift_\ncalled the \u201cLegate of the Light,\u201d to Adda or Addas, whom we know from\nthe Christian documents before quoted to have been one of the three\ngreat missionaries said to have been dispatched by Manes into foreign\ncountries to propagate his doctrine[1199]. Of these three, Thomas,\nHermas, and Addas, the last-named is said to have been allotted\n\u201cScythia,\u201d which here as elsewhere doubtless means Turkestan, and his\nname therefore gives a reasonable air of authenticity to the text. The\nwhole document is written in the form of a Buddhist _sutra_, and has\nbeen translated with an excellent commentary by the French Sinologist,\nM. Edouard Chavannes, with the help of M. Paul Pelliot, the leader of\nthe French Expedition to Turkestan which probably first discovered\nit[1200]. It entirely confirms the Mahommedan account of the teaching of\nManes given above as well as that appearing in the _Khuastuanift_, and\nshows that St Augustine, alike in his authentic writings and in the\ntract _de Haeresibus_ generally, although perhaps wrongfully, attributed\nto him, was drawing from well-informed sources. There are many grounds\nfor thinking that it may originally have been written in Pahlavi, in\nwhich case it may have been contemporary with Manes himself; but it\nfrequently makes use of Buddhist phrases often derived from the\nSanskrit[1201]. If the view here taken of the date of the original\ntreatise is well founded, these may have been introduced by Manes during\nthe time that the tradition mentioned above says that he spent in\nTurkestan for the elaboration of his doctrine. At all events they show\nthat the practice of adapting his religion, as far as might be, to\naccord with that previously held by those among whom he was trying to\nmake proselytes, goes back to the very origin of the sect.\n\nThis treatise was evidently written for edification rather than for\ninstruction, and gives us a curious idea of the imagery by which the\nManichaean teachers sought to enforce their teaching. The theory of the\nmacrocosm and the microcosm, which teaches that the body of man is in\nitself a copy of the great world or universe, is here carried to\nexcess[1202], and we hear much of the \u201ctrees\u201d which certain demons,\npreviously sticking to the elements, says the treatise, \u201clike a fly to\nhoney, a bird to bird-lime, or a fish to the hook[1203],\u201d plant in the\nsoul to the corruption and ultimate death of the better desires there\nimplanted by the Light. The combat waged against the diabolic vices by\nthe virtues is also described with great minuteness, but in language in\nwhich it is sometimes difficult to discover whether the author is\nconsciously using allegory or not. Thus he says that the Devil, to whom\nhe attributes the formation of the body of man, \u201cshut up the Pure Ether\u201d\n(one of the five light elements)\n\n    \u201cin the city of the bones. He established (there) the dark thought\n    in which he planted a tree of death. Then he shut up the Excellent\n    Wind in the city of the nerves. He established (there) the dark\n    feeling in which he planted a tree of death. Then he shut up the\n    strength of the Light in the city of the veins. He established\n    (there) the dark reflection in which he planted a tree of death.\n    Then he shut up the Excellent Water in the city of the flesh. He\n    established there the dark intellect, in which he planted a tree of\n    death. Then he shut up the Excellent Fire in the city of the skin.\n    He established there the dark reasoning in which he planted a tree\n    of death. The Demon of Envy [the name generally used in the treatise\n    for the Devil] planted these five poisonous trees of death in the\n    five kinds of ruined places. He made them on every occasion deceive\n    and trouble the original luminous nature, to draw in from without\n    the nature which is stranger to it, and to produce poisonous fruit.\n    Thus the tree of the dark thought grows within the city of the\n    bones; its fruit is hatred: the tree of the dark feeling grows\n    within the city of the nerves; its fruit is irritation: the tree of\n    the dark reflection grows within the city of the veins; its fruit is\n    luxury [wantonness]: the tree of the dark intellect grows within the\n    city of the flesh; its fruit is anger: the tree of the dark\n    reasoning grows within the city of the skin; its fruit is folly. It\n    is thus then that of the five kinds of things which are the bones,\n    the nerves, the veins, the flesh, and the skin, he made a prison and\n    shut up there the five divisions of the First Principle of\n    Light....[1204]\u201d\n\nand so on. One might sometimes think one was reading John Bunyan and his\nHoly War with its defence of the town of Mansoul.\n\nMost of the information contained in this Pekin Treatise has been dealt\nwith in its place, but there are one or two matters concerning the\ncosmology of Manes which are of importance as showing the connection of\nhis system with that of his predecessors. One regards the two great\nangels, here called Khrostag and Padvaktag[1205] or the Appellant and\nRespondent, who are mentioned in the _Khuastuanift_ (p. 343 _supra_) as\nbringing the light to be purified[1206]. As has been said above, they\nshow a great likeness to the two last Amshaspands of Zoroastrianism\ncalled Haurvet\u00e2t and Ameret\u00e2t; and like them are never mentioned\nseparately, but always together[1207]. Another point, already referred\nto, is that the Zoroastrian Sra\u00f4sha, the strong archangel who guards the\nworld at night from the demons, is here mentioned several times by\nname[1208]. Yet another point is that the two sexes are here said to\nhave been formed by the devil out of jealousy and rage at beholding the\nsun and moon, and in imitation of the two luminaries. This is an\nentirely different story not only from those given above as Manichaean\nbut from that given in the _Great Announcement_ attributed to Simon\nMagus, and both differ from that told in the _Pistis Sophia_. It seems\nplain therefore that in attributing these various origins to the\ndivision of mankind into sexes, none of the three teachers was drawing\nupon tradition, but was merely inventing _ad hoc_.\n\nThere remains to be considered the history of the sect, as to which we\nhave become better informed during the last few decades than at one time\nseemed possible[1209]. Prohibited in the Roman Empire from the outset,\nthey nevertheless made their way along both shores of the Mediterranean,\nand all the efforts of the Imperial authorities proved powerless to\nsuppress them. Constantine directed an enquiry into their tenets, it is\nsaid, with some idea of making them into the religion of the State, and\nalthough he found this impracticable or unsafe, he seems to have been at\nfirst inclined to extend to them toleration[1210]. His successors,\nhowever, quickly reverted to the earlier policy of Diocletian, and law\nafter law of gradually increasing severity was passed until adherence to\nManichaeism was finally punished with death and confiscation[1211].\nPagans like the Emperor Julian and his friend and teacher Libanius were\nable occasionally to intervene in their favour; but no sect was ever\nmore relentlessly persecuted, and the institution of the Dominican\nInquisition can be traced back to the _Quaestiones_ set up by Justinian\nand Theodora for their routing out and suppression[1212]. In the case of\nwhat was practically a secret society, it would be difficult to say\nwhether the Imperial measures would have availed to entirely destroy\ntheir propaganda, and it is possible that the Manichaean Church always\nmaintained a sporadic existence in Europe[1213] until events to be\npresently mentioned led to its revival in the Xth century. Meanwhile in\nthe East, they remained on the confines of what was, up to the\nMahommedan conquest in 642 A.D., the Persian Empire, and no doubt after\ntheir manner professed outward adherence to the Zoroastrian faith, while\nat the same time propagating their own doctrines in secret[1214]. It was\nprobably the Arab conquest which drove them to make their headquarters\non the very borders of the civilized world as known to the ancients and\nin what is now Turkestan. Here a large part of the population seems to\nhave been Buddhist, doubtless by reason of its dealings with China, and\nin the presence of that gentle faith\u2014whose adherents boast that they\nhave never yet shed blood to make a convert\u2014the Manichaeans enjoyed\ncomplete toleration for perhaps the first time in their history[1215].\nThey made use of it, as always, to send out missionaries into the\nneighbouring countries, and certainly obtained a foothold in China,\nwhere the Chinese seem to have confused them with the Christians. Their\nhatred of images doubtless caused the iconoclastic Emperors of the East\nto enter into relation with them, and we hear that Leo the Isaurian\ninduced many of them to enter the Imperial armies. It was possibly these\nlast whom the Emperor John Tzimiskes settled in what is now Bulgaria,\nwhence, under the names of Paulicians, Bogomiles, and other aliases,\nthey promoted that movement against the Catholic Church which provoked\nthe Albigensian Crusades and the establishment of the Dominican\nInquisition in the West[1216]. To follow them there would be to travel\nbeyond the scope of this book; and it need only be said in conclusion\nthat they formed the bitterest and the most dangerous enemies that the\nCatholic Church in Europe ever had to face. It was possibly this which\nhas led the rulers of the Church of Rome to brand nearly all later\nheresy with the name of Manichaean; yet it may be doubted whether some\nof their doctrines did not survive in Europe until the German\nReformation, when they may have helped to inspire some of the wilder\nProtestant sects of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries. With the suppression\nof the Albigenses, however, the existence of Manichaeism as an organized\nfaith comes to an end.\n\nFootnote 988:\n\n  So Cumont, _T. et M._ I. pp. 45, 349, 350. He seems to rely, however,\n  entirely on the passage in the _Acta Archelai_ (as to which see n. 1,\n  p. 280 _infra_), wherein the supposed bishop Archelaus addresses the\n  equally imaginary Manes as \u201cSavage priest and accomplice of\n  Mithras!\u201d\u2014possibly a mere term of abuse. See Hegemonius, _Acta\n  Archelai_, ed. Beeson, Leipzig, 1906, c. XL. p. 59.\n\nFootnote 989:\n\n  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 41. He sees in the scenes which border the\n  Tauroctony references or parallels to the fig-leaves of Genesis, the\n  striking of the rock by Moses, and the ascension of Elijah. In the\n  so-called Mithraic Ritual of the Magic Papyrus of Paris, there are\n  certain Hebrew words introduced, such as \u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03b9 (a well-known perversion\n  of the Tetragrammaton), \u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c7\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03b2 and \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc (The \u201cEternal Sun\u201d).\n\nFootnote 990:\n\n  See the story which Josephus, _Antiq._ XX. cc. 2, 3, 4, tells about\n  Izates, king of Adiabene, who wanted to turn Jew and thereby so\n  offended his people that they called in against him Vologeses or\n  Valkash, the first reforming Zoroastrian king and collector of the\n  books of the Zend Avesta. Cf. Darmesteter, _The Zend Avesta_ (Sacred\n  Books of the East), Oxford, 1895, p. xl. Cf. \u00c9m. de Stoop _La\n  Diffusion du Manich\u00e9isme dans l\u2019Empire romain_, Gand, 1909, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 991:\n\n  _Circa_ 296, A.D. See Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 195, where the\n  authenticity of the decree is defended. For the provocation given to\n  the Empire by the anti-militarism of Manes see de Stoop, _op. cit._\n  pp. 36, 37.\n\nFootnote 992:\n\n  Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chronology of Ancient Nations_, p. 190. The date he gives\n  is twelve years before the accession of Ardesh\u00eer. E. Rochat, _Essai\n  sur Mani et sa Doctrine_, Gen\u00e8ve, 1897, p. 81, examines all the\n  different accounts and makes the date from 214 to 218 A.D.\n\nFootnote 993:\n\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ LXVI. c. 1, p. 399, Oehler; Socrates, _Hist.\n  Eccl._ Bk I. c. 22; Hegemonius, _Acta Archelai_, c. LXIV.\n\nFootnote 994:\n\n  Muhammed ben Ishak, commonly called En-Nad\u00eem, in the book known as the\n  _Fihrist_, translated by Fl\u00fcgel, _Mani, seine Lehre und seine\n  Schriften_, Leipzig, 1862, pp. 83, 116, 118, 119. Cf. Rochat, _op.\n  cit._ p. 75.\n\nFootnote 995:\n\n  Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chronology_, p. 190.\n\nFootnote 996:\n\n  Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 84; Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 83.\n\nFootnote 997:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta Arch._ c. XL., p. 59, Beeson. Rochat, _op. cit._ pp.\n  9-49, discusses the authenticity of the _Acta_ chapter by chapter. He\n  thinks the pretended discussion between Archelaus and Manes\n  unhistorical, and the account of it possibly modelled on that between\n  St Augustine and Faustus the Manichaean. The remainder of the _Acta_\n  he considers fairly trustworthy as an account of Manes\u2019 own tenets.\n  This may well be, as Epiphanius, _Haer._ LXVI. cc. 6-7, 25-31,\n  transcribes the epistle to Marcellus, its answer, and the exposition\n  of Turbo, and could scarcely have heard, as early as 375 A.D., about\n  which time he wrote, of St Augustine\u2019s discussion. The _Acta_ owe much\n  to the care of the American scholar, Mr Beeson of Chicago, who has\n  given us the careful edition of them mentioned in n. 1, p. 277\n  _supra_. It is a pity that he did not see his way to keep the old\n  numeration of the chapters.\n\nFootnote 998:\n\n  Beausobre, _Hist. du Manich\u00e9isme_, Paris, 1734, Pt I. Bk II. cc. 1-4.\n  Cf. Stokes in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Manes; Rochat, _op. cit._\n  p. 83.\n\nFootnote 999:\n\n  Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 89.\n\nFootnote 1000:\n\n  Abulfarag in Kessler, _Forschungen \u00fcber die Manich\u00e4ische Religion_,\n  Berlin, 1889, Bd I. p. 335; Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 84; Neander, _Ch.\n  Hist._ II. p. 168.\n\nFootnote 1001:\n\n  Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 85. Cf. Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _India_ (ed. Sachau), p. 55,\n  where Manes quotes the opinion of Bardesanes\u2019 \u201cpartizans.\u201d There are\n  many words put into the mouth of Manes in the work quoted which argue\n  acquaintance with the _Pistis Sophia_.\n\nFootnote 1002:\n\n  Abulmaali in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 371; Firda\u00fbsi, _ibid._ p. 375;\n  Mirkh\u00f4nd, _ibid._ p. 379. Cf. Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 81. He is said to\n  have painted his pictures in a cave in Turkestan (Stokes in _Dict.\n  Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Manes), which would agree well enough with the\n  late German discoveries at Turfan, for which see A. von Le Coq in\n  _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 299 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 1003:\n\n  Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 85.\n\nFootnote 1004:\n\n  Al-Jak\u00fbbi in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 328, 329; cf. Rochat, _op. cit._\n  p. 88.\n\nFootnote 1005:\n\n  Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chronology_, pp. 191, 192.\n\nFootnote 1006:\n\n  Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 89. Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, whom he quotes, however, says\n  merely that the Manichaeans increased under Ormuz, and also that Ormuz\n  \u201ckilled a number of them.\u201d See last note.\n\nFootnote 1007:\n\n  Al-Jak\u00fbbi in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 330. But Darmesteter (see passage\n  quoted in n. 2, p. 284 _infra_) puts this event as happening after\n  Ormuz\u2019 death and under Shapur II.\n\nFootnote 1008:\n\n  Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chronology_, p. 191. The town is called Djundi-s\u00e2bur or\n  Gundisabur.\n\nFootnote 1009:\n\n  Al-Jak\u00fbbi, _ubi cit. supra_; Eutychius quoted by Stokes, _Dict.\n  Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Manes.\n\nFootnote 1010:\n\n  Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 93, examines all the evidence for this and comes\n  to the conclusion given in the text.\n\nFootnote 1011:\n\n  Malcolm, _History of Persia_, London, 1821, Vol. I. pp. 95, 96.\n\nFootnote 1012:\n\n  G. Rawlinson, _The 6th Oriental Monarchy_, 1873, p. 222; Rochat, _op.\n  cit._ p. 53.\n\nFootnote 1013:\n\n  See Chap. XII _supra_, p. 232.\n\nFootnote 1014:\n\n  See n. 1, p. 278 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1015:\n\n  Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chron._ p. 187, makes Manes the successor or continuator\n  of Bardesanes and Marcion. This was certainly not so; but it was\n  probably only from their followers that he derived any acquaintance\n  with Christianity. See n. 7, p. 280 _supra_. So Muhammad or Mahommed,\n  four centuries later, drew his ideas of the same faith from the\n  heretics of his day.\n\nFootnote 1016:\n\n  Rhys Davids, _Buddhist India_, 1903, p. 318, says that after 300 A.D.\n  Buddhism was everywhere in decay in India.\n\nFootnote 1017:\n\n  Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 58.\n\nFootnote 1018:\n\n  Darmesteter, _Zend Avesta_, pp. xl, xli.\n\nFootnote 1019:\n\n  _Op. cit._ pp. xlvii _sqq._\n\nFootnote 1020:\n\n  Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chron._ p. 192.\n\nFootnote 1021:\n\n  Elisaeus Vartabed in Langlois\u2019 _Collection des Hist. de l\u2019Arm\u00e9nie_,\n  Paris, 1868, t. II. p. 190. The story is repeated almost word for word\n  by Eznig of Goghp, _ibid._ p. 875. Cf. Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p.\n  171.\n\nFootnote 1022:\n\n  Rochat, _op. cit._, following Kessler, shows, it seems, conclusively,\n  that this is another name for Manes\u2019 father, Fatak or Patecius.\n\nFootnote 1023:\n\n  She was a courtezan at Hypselis in the Thebaid according to\n  Epiphanius, _Haer._ LXVI. c. 11, p. 400, Oehler. As Baur, _Die\n  Manich\u00e4ische Religionssystem_, T\u00fcbingen, 1831, p. 468 _sqq._ has\n  pointed out, this is probably an imitation of the story told about\n  Simon Magus and his Helena (see Chap. VI _supra_). It seems to have\n  arisen as an embroidery, quite in Epiphanius\u2019 manner, upon the story\n  in the _Acta_, that Scythianus married a captive from the Upper\n  Thebaid (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. LXII. p. 90, Beeson).\n\nFootnote 1024:\n\n  Many guesses have been made as to the allusions concealed under these\n  names, as to which see Rochat, _op. cit._ pp. 64-73. Neander (_Ch.\n  Hist._ II. p. 16) quotes from Ritter the suggestion that Terebinthus\n  may come from an epithet of Buddha, _Tere-hintu_ \u201cLord of the Hindus.\u201d\n  One wonders whether it might not have been as fitly given to a Jewish\n  slave sold at the Fair of the Terebinth with which Hadrian closed his\n  war of extermination.\n\nFootnote 1025:\n\n  These four books may have been intended for the _Shapurakhan_, the\n  _Treasure_, the _Gospel_ and the _Capitularies_, which Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee,\n  _Chron._ p. 171, attributes to Mani. Cf. Epiphanius, _Haer._ LXVI. c.\n  2, p. 402, Oehler, and the _Scholia_ of Th\u00e9odore bar Kh\u00f4ni in Pognon,\n  _Inscriptions Manda\u00eftes des Coupes de Khouabir_, pp. 182, 183.\n\nFootnote 1026:\n\n  Epiphanius, _op. cit._ c. 1, p. 398, Oehler.\n\nFootnote 1027:\n\n  Colditz in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 15, 16. Cf. Rochat, _op. cit._ pp.\n  65, 66.\n\nFootnote 1028:\n\n  Morrison, _Jews under Romans_, p. 325 for authorities. Philo, _de Vit.\n  Contempl._ etc. c. III. says that similar communities existed in his\n  time near the Mareotic lake in Egypt. But the date of the treatise and\n  its attribution to Philo are alike uncertain. The first mention of\n  Buddha in Greek literature is said to be that by Clem. Alex. _Strom._\n  Bk I. c. 15.\n\nFootnote 1029:\n\n  Harnack in _Encyc. Britann._ 9th edition, _s.v._ Manichaeans, p. 48,\n  says \u201cThere is not a single point in Manichaeism which demands for its\n  explanation an appeal to Buddhism.\u201d This may be, but the discoveries\n  at Turfan and Tun-huang have made a connection between the two more\n  probable than appeared at the time he wrote. See also Kessler as\n  quoted by Rochat, _op. cit._ pp. 192, 193.\n\nFootnote 1030:\n\n  This appears from the Chinese Treatise at Pekin mentioned later. See\n  p. 293, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 1031:\n\n  Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 194. So Socrates, _Eccl. Hist._ Bk I. c. 22,\n  calls Manichaeism \u201ca sort of heathen (\u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd) Christianity.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1032:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VII. p. 91, Beeson; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 86.\n\nFootnote 1033:\n\n  Certainly none is recorded in the Christian accounts, where Darkness\n  is called Hyle or Matter. En Nad\u00eem (Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 86) makes\n  Manes call the good God \u201cthe King of the Paradise of Light\u201d and (p.\n  90) the Spirit of Darkness, Humm\u00e2ma. Schahrast\u00e2ni, as quoted in\n  Fl\u00fcgel\u2019s note (p. 240), makes this word mean \u201cmirk\u201d or \u201csmoke\u201d\n  (_Qualm_). It would be curious if Humm\u00e2ma had any connection with the\n  Elamite Khumbaba, the opponent of the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh,\n  because this personage already figures in Ctesias\u2019 story about\n  Nannaros, which has been recognized as a myth relating to the\n  Moon-god.\n\nFootnote 1034:\n\n  \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VIII. p. 9, Beeson. Cf.\n  Alexander of Lycopolis, _adv. Manichaeos_, c. II.\n\nFootnote 1035:\n\n  Epiph. _Haer._ LXVI. c. 6, p. 408, Oehler; Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. V.\n  pp. 5-7, Beeson. The authenticity of the letter is defended by\n  Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 166. Cf. Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 94 _contra_.\n\nFootnote 1036:\n\n  \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f67\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03c2. It is\n  evidently intended for a quotation from Heb. vi. 8, which however puts\n  it rather differently as \u1f10\u03ba\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03cd\u03c2, \u1f27\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u201cBut that which beareth\n  thorns and briers is to be rejected and is nigh unto cursing; whose\n  end is to be burned.\u201d The _Khuastuan\u00eeft_ or Manichaean confession\n  mentioned later repeats this phrase about God not being the creator of\n  evil as well as of good. See p. 335 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 1037:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VII. p. 9, Beeson.\n\nFootnote 1038:\n\n  En Nad\u00eem in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 386, _sqq._ Kessler\u2019s translation\n  of En Nad\u00eem, which is given in the first Appendix to the work quoted,\n  differs slightly from that of Fl\u00fcgel and depends on a somewhat better\n  text than the last-named. It is therefore used when possible in the\n  remaining notes to this chapter. Fl\u00fcgel\u2019s book, however, has the\n  advantage of a commentary of some 300 pages marked with great\n  erudition, and must still be consulted by anyone wishing to be\n  acquainted with its subject.\n\nFootnote 1039:\n\n  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLV., says, however, that \u201cevil must have\n  a principle of its own,\u201d so that it cannot be the work of a benevolent\n  being. As he is generally supposed to have taken his account of the\n  Persian teaching from Theopompos of Chios, who was at the Court of\n  Ptolemy about 305 B.C., his evidence is against those who, like M.\n  Cumont, would make the \u201cZervanist\u201d opinion, which assumes a common\n  principle for good and evil, pre-Christian. Yet the point does not yet\n  seem capable of decision, as Plutarch _may_ here be only giving us his\n  own opinion.\n\nFootnote 1040:\n\n  Casartelli, _op. cit._ p. 44.\n\nFootnote 1041:\n\n  This is really the _crux_ of the whole question. If the idea could be\n  traced back to the philosophers of Ionia (_e.g._ Heraclitus of\n  Ephesus) and their theory of eternal strife and discord being the\n  cause of all mundane phenomena, it is difficult to say whence the\n  Ionians themselves derived it, save from Persia. We can, of course,\n  suppose, if we please, that the Persians did not invent it _de novo_,\n  but took it over from some of their subjects. Among these, the\n  Babylonians, for instance, from the earliest times portrayed their\n  demons as not only attempting to invade the heaven of the gods, but as\n  being in perpetual warfare with one another. But the very little we\n  know of Babylonian philosophy would lead us to think that it inclined\n  towards pantheism of a materialistic kind rather than to dualism.\n\nFootnote 1042:\n\n  En Nad\u00eem, in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 387; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 86.\n\nFootnote 1043:\n\n  The likeness of this to the cosmogony of the Ophites and their\n  successor Valentinus is of course marked (cf. Chaps. VIII and IX\n  _supra_). Manes may have borrowed it directly from Valentinus\u2019\n  follower Bardesanes, whose doctrines were powerful in Edessa and\n  Mesopotamia in his time, or he may have taken it at first-hand from\n  Persian or Babylonian tradition. That Manes was acquainted with\n  Bardesanes\u2019 doctrines, see n. 7, p. 280 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1044:\n\n  En Nad\u00eem in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 387; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 86.\n  Fl\u00fcgel\u2019s text adds to these members other \u201csouls\u201d which he names Love,\n  Belief, Faith, Generosity, and Wisdom. Kessler substitutes Courage for\n  Generosity and seems to make these \u201csouls\u201d the members\u2019 derivatives.\n\nFootnote 1045:\n\n  See last note.\n\nFootnote 1046:\n\n  See Chapter XII, p. 251 _supra_. Here, again, the traditional and\n  monstrous figure of Satan may have been copied from the sculptured\n  representations of the composite demons of Babylonia (_e.g._ Rogers,\n  _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, Frontispiece and Figs. 1 and 13).\n  Yet if we take the Mithraic lion, as M. Cumont would have us do, as\n  the symbol of fire and the serpent as that of the earth, we have in\n  the five sorts of animals the five \u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 or elements of Aristotle.\n  Cf. Aetius, _de Placitis Philosophorum_, ed. Didot, Bk I. c. iii. \u00a7 38\n  (Plutarch, _Moralia_, II.), p. 1069. Yet the nearest source from which\n  Manes could have borrowed the idea is certainly Bardesanes, who,\n  according to Bar Kh\u00f4ni and another Syriac author, taught that the\n  world was made from five substances, _i.e._ fire, air, water, light\n  and darkness. See Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 178; Cumont, _La Cosmogonie\n  Manich\u00e9enne d\u2019apr\u00e8s Th\u00e9odore bar Kh\u00f4ni_, Bruxelles, 1908, p. 13, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 1047:\n\n  En Nad\u00eem in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 388; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 87. As\n  the ancients were unacquainted with the properties of gases, it is\n  singular that they should have formed such a conception as that of the\n  compressibility and expansibility of spirits. Yet the idea is a very\n  old one, and the Arabian Nights story of the Genius imprisoned in a\n  brass bottle has its parallel in the bowls with magical inscriptions\n  left by the Jews on the site of Babylon (Layard, _Nineveh and\n  Babylon_, 1853, pp. 509 _sqq._), between pairs of which demons were\n  thought to be imprisoned. Cf. Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 3. Something of\n  the kind seems indicated in the \u201cLittle Point,\u201d from which all\n  material powers spring, referred to by Hippolytus and the Bruce\n  Papyrus.\n\nFootnote 1048:\n\n  So in the _Pistis Sophia_, it is the \u201clast Parastates\u201d or assistant\n  world who breathes light into the Kerasmos, and thus sets on foot the\n  scheme of redemption. Cf. Chapter X, p. 146 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1049:\n\n  Yet the Fundamental Epistle speaks of the twelve \u201cmembers\u201d of God,\n  which seem to convey the same idea See _Aug. c. Ep. Fund._ c. 13.\n\nFootnote 1050:\n\n  Thus En Nad\u00eem in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 388, 389; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._\n  p. 87. But here the Christian tradition gives more details than the\n  Mahommedan. Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VII., p. 10, Beeson, and Bar Kh\u00f4ni\n  (Pognon, p. 185), are in accord that the God of Light produced from\n  himself a new Power called the \u039c\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u0396\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2 or Mother of Life, that\n  this Mother of Life projected the First Man, and that the First Man\n  produced the five elements called also his \u201csons,\u201d to wit, wind,\n  light, water, fire and air, with which he clothed himself as with\n  armour. See Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 16, n. 4, for the harmonizing\n  of the texts [N.B. the omission of \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 from his quotation from the\n  _Acta_ is doubtless a clerical error]. The identification of the\n  Mother of Life with the \u201cSpirit of the Right [Hand]\u201d is accepted by\n  Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_, pp. 177, 178, and may be accounted for by\n  the crude figure by which the Egyptians explained the coming-forth of\n  the universe from a single male power. See Budge, _Hieratic Papyri in\n  the Brit. Mus._ p. 17.\n\nFootnote 1051:\n\n  These were also the \u201csons\u201d of Darkness or Satan. See Bar Kh\u00f4ni\n  (Pognon, p. 186). The reason that led the God of Light to send a\n  champion into the lists was, according to Bar Kh\u00f4ni (Pognon, p. 185),\n  that the five worlds of his creation were made for peace and\n  tranquillity and could therefore not help him directly in the matter.\n  Cf. St Augustine, _de Natura Boni_, c. XLII. But Manes doubtless found\n  it necessary to work into his system the figure of the First Man which\n  we have already seen prominent in the Ophite system. Cumont, _Cosmog.\n  Manich._ p. 16, says few conceptions were more widely spread\n  throughout the East. It is fully examined by Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_,\n  in his IVth chapter, \u201cDer Urmensch.\u201d The First Man is, in the Chinese\n  treatise lately found at Tun-huang in circumstances to be presently\n  mentioned, identified with the Persian Ormuzd and the five elements\n  are there declared to be his sons. See Chavannes and Pelliot, _Un\n  Trait\u00e9 Manich\u00e9en retrouv\u00e9 en Chine_, pt 1, _Journal Asiatique_, s\u00e9rie\n  X., t. XVIII. (1911), pp. 512, 513. The 12 elements which helped in\n  his formation seem to be mentioned by no other author than En Nad\u00eem.\n  St Augustine, however, _Contra Epistulam Fundamenti_, c. 13, speaks of\n  the \u201c12 members of light.\u201d The Tun-huang treatise also mentions \u201cthe\n  12 great kings of victorious form\u201d whom it seems to liken to the 12\n  hours of the day. As the _Pistis Sophia_ does the same with the \u201c12\n  Aeons\u201d who are apparently the signs of the Zodiac, it is possible that\n  we here have a sort of super-celestial Zodiac belonging to the\n  Paradise of Light, of which that in our sky is a copy. It should be\n  remembered that in the Asiatic cosmogonies the fixed stars belong to\n  the realm of good as the representatives of order, while the planets\n  or \u201cwanderers\u201d are generally evil.\n\nFootnote 1052:\n\n  En Nad\u00eem in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 389; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ pp. 87, 88.\n  According to the Christian tradition, the Powers of Darkness devoured\n  only the soul of the First Man which was left below when his body, as\n  will presently be seen, returned to the upper world. See Hegemonius,\n  _Acta_, c. VII., p. 10, Beeson.\n\nFootnote 1053:\n\n  Both the Christian and the Mahommedan traditions agree as to this\n  result of the fight, which is paralleled not only by the more or leas\n  successful attempt of Jaldabaoth and his powers to _eat_ the light of\n  Pistis Sophia, but also by a similar case in orthodox Zoroastrianism.\n  For all these see Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 18, n. 4. Bar Kh\u00f4ni\n  (Pognon, p. 186), goes further and describes the surrender of the\n  First Man as a tactical effort on his part, \u201cas a man who having an\n  enemy puts poison in a cake and gives it to him.\u201d Alexander of\n  Lycopolis (_adv. Manich._ c. III.), on the other hand declares that\n  God could not avenge himself upon matter (as he calls Darkness) as he\n  wished, because he had no evil at hand to help him, \u201csince evil does\n  not exist in the house and abode of God\u201d; that he therefore sent the\n  soul into matter which will eventually permeate it and be the death of\n  it; but that in the meantime the soul is changed for the worse and\n  participates in the evil of matter, \u201cas in a dirty vessel the contents\n  suffer change.\u201d These, however, are more likely to be the ideas of the\n  Christian accusers than the defences of the Manichaean teachers.\n\nFootnote 1054:\n\n  En Nad\u00eem in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 389, 390; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p.\n  87. As Kessler points out, En Nad\u00eem gives two accounts doubtless taken\n  from different Manichaean sources. In one, he says simply that the\n  King of the Paradise of Light followed with other gods and delivered\n  the First Man, the actual victor over Darkness being called \u201cthe\n  Friend\u201d of the Lights (like Mithras). He then goes on to say that Joy\n  (_i.e._ the Mother of Life) and the Spirit of Life went to the\n  frontier, looked into the abyss of hell and saw the First Man and his\n  powers were held enlaced by Satan, \u201cthe Presumptuous Oppressor and the\n  Life of Darkness\u201d; then she called him in a loud and clear voice, and\n  he became a god, after which he returned and \u201ccut the roots of the\n  Dark Powers.\u201d For Bar Kh\u00f4ni\u2019s amplification of this story see p. 302,\n  n. 1, and p. 324 _infra_. The whole of this, together with the cutting\n  of the roots, is strongly reminiscent of the _Pistis Sophia_.\n\nFootnote 1055:\n\n  En Nad\u00eem in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 391, 392; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p.\n  98. The _Acta_ (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. VIII., p. 11, Beeson) say\n  that the \u201cLiving Spirit\u201d before mentioned \u201ccreated the Cosmos,\n  descended clothed with three other powers, drew forth the rulers (\u03bf\u1f31\n  \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2) and crucified them in the firmament which is their body the\n  Sphere.\u201d \u201cThen he created the lights (\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2) which are the remnants\n  of the soul, caused the firmament to encompass them, and again created\n  the earth [not the Cosmos] with its eight aspects.\u201d The Latin version\n  after \u201cearth\u201d adds \u201cthey (_sic!_) are eight.\u201d which if it refers to\n  the aspects would agree with En Nad\u00eem. Alexander of Lycopolis (_adv.\n  Manich._ c. III.), who had been a follower of Manes and was a\n  Christian bishop some 25 years after Manes\u2019 death, says that \u201cGod sent\n  forth another power which we call the Demiurge or creator of all\n  things; that this Demiurge in creating the Cosmos separated from\n  matter as much power as was unstained, and from it made the Sun and\n  Moon; and that the slightly stained matter became the stars and the\n  expanse of heaven.\u201d \u201cThe matter from which the Sun and Moon were\n  taken,\u201d he goes on to say, \u201cwas cast out of the Cosmos and resembles\n  night\u201d [Qy the Outer Darkness?], while the rest of the \u201celements\u201d\n  consists of light and matter unequally mingled. Bar Kh\u00f4ni (Pognon,\n  _op. cit._ p. 188), as will presently be seen, says that the Living\n  Spirit with the Mother of Life and two other powers called the\n  Appellant and Respondent [evidently the \u201cthree other powers\u201d of the\n  _Acta_] descended to earth, caused the Rulers or Princes to be killed\n  and flayed, and that out of their skins the Mother of Life made 11\n  heavens, while their bodies were cast on to the earth of darkness and\n  made 8 earths. The Living Spirit then made the Sun, the Moon, and\n  \u201cthousands of Lights\u201d (_i.e._ Stars) out of the light he took from the\n  Rulers. That this last story is an elaboration of the earlier ones\n  seems likely, and the flaying of the Rulers seems to be reminiscent of\n  the Babylonian legend of Bel and Tiamat, an echo of which is also to\n  be found in the later Avestic literature. See West, _Pahlavi Texts_\n  (S.B.E.), pt iii. p. 243. Cf. Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 27, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 1056:\n\n  En Nad\u00eem in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 392; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ pp. 89-90.\n  This would agree perfectly with the system of the _Pistis Sophia_,\n  where it is said that the \u201creceivers of the Sun and Moon\u201d give the\n  particles of the light as it is won from matter to Melchizedek, the\n  purifier, who purifies it before taking it into the Treasure-house\n  (pp. 36, 37, Copt.). The idea that the Sun\u2019s rays had a purifying\n  effect shows shrewd observation of nature before his bactericidal\n  power was discovered by science. So does the association of the Moon\n  with water, which doubtless came from the phenomenon of the tides. Is\n  the Column of Glory the Milky Way?\n\nFootnote 1057:\n\n  The Ecpyrosis or final conflagration is always present in orthodox\n  Mazdeism, where it inspires its Apocalypses, and is in effect the\n  necessary conclusion to the drama which begins with the assault on the\n  world of light by Ahriman. For references, see S\u00f6derblom, _op. cit._\n  chap. IV. From the Persians it probably passed to the Stoics and thus\n  reached the Western world slightly in advance of Christianity. \u201cThe\n  day when the Great Dragon shall be judged\u201d is continually on the lips\n  of the authors of the _Pistis Sophia_ and the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\n  and the conception may therefore have reached Manes from two sources\n  at once. The angels maintaining the world as mentioned in the text are\n  of course the Splenditenens and Omophorus about to be described.\n\nFootnote 1058:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VIII. p. 12, Beeson. St Augustine (_contra\n  Faustum_, Bk XX. c. 10) mentions the Wheel briefly and rather\n  obscurely. It seems to have fallen out of the account of Bar Kh\u00f4ni.\n  But see the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._\n  1^{\u00e8re} partie, pp. 515, n. 2, 516, 517, n. 3). There can be little\n  doubt that it is to be referred to the Zodiac. The Aeons of the Light\n  seem to be the five worlds who here play the part of the Parastatae in\n  the _Pistis Sophia_.\n\nFootnote 1059:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VIII. pp. 11, 12, Beeson, mentions Omophorus,\n  but not Splenditenens. Splenditenens is, however, well known to St\n  Augustine, who describes him (_contra Faustum_, Bk XV. c. 7) as\n  _Splenditenentem magnum, sex vultus et ora ferentem, micantemque\n  lumine_, \u201cGreat Splenditenens, bearing six faces and mouths, and\n  glittering with light.\u201d So later (_op. cit._ Bk XX. c. 9) he says,\n  _Splenditenentem, reliquias eorumdem membrorum Dei vestri in manu\n  habentem, et cetera omnia capta, oppressa, inquinata plangentem, et\n  Atlantem maximum subter humeris suis cum eo ferentem, ne totum ille\n  fatigatus abjiciat_. \u201cSplenditenens, who has in his hand the remains\n  of these members of your God [_i.e._ the five elements or \u2018sons\u2019 of\n  the First Man] and who mourns the capture and oppression and\n  defilement of all the rest; and huge Atlas, who bears everything with\n  him on his shoulders, lest he should be wearied and cast it away.\u201d Bar\n  Kh\u00f4ni (Pognon, pp. 188, 189) describes them both, and calls\n  Splenditenens \u201cthe Ornament of Splendour,\u201d while he makes the pair two\n  of the five sons of the Living Spirit, as more clearly appears in the\n  Tunhuang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p. 549, and notes\n  2 and 5). Where Manes found the figure of Splenditenens is not\n  apparent, but the world-bearing angel is an old conception in Western\n  Asia, as M. Cumont has shown in his before-quoted _Cosmogonie\n  Manich\u00e9enne_, App. II. He appears prominently on the Mithraic\n  monuments and was no doubt the original of the Greek Atlas.\n\nFootnote 1060:\n\n  Alexander of Lycopolis, _op. cit._ c. III., says plainly that the Sun\n  and Moon were formed out of that part of the light (here called\n  \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u201cpower\u201d), which, although it had been captured by the powers\n  of matter, had not been contaminated, while that which had suffered\n  some slight and moderate stain became the stars and sky. The _Acta_\n  (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. VIII. p. 11, Beeson), as we have seen, says\n  that the Living Spirit created the lights (\u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, luminaria), which\n  are the remnants of the soul (_i.e._ the armour of the First Man) and\n  caused the firmament to surround them. The author here evidently\n  refers to the Sun and Moon only.\n\nFootnote 1061:\n\n  The whole of this story, which is the reverse of edifying, is studied\n  by M. Cumont, with the fullest references to the authorities, in his\n  _Cosmogonie Manich\u00e9enne_ before quoted, to which it forms Appendix I,\n  under the heading \u201cLa S\u00e9duction des Archontes.\u201d To this I must refer\n  the reader, only remarking that, while I fully agree that the goddess\n  in question is probably derived from the Mother of the Gods who under\n  the name (_inter alia_) of Atargatis was worshipped throughout Asia\n  Minor, I do not see that she had any connection with the \u201cVirgin of\n  Light\u201d of the _Pistis Sophia_. This Virgin of Light did, indeed, pass\n  into Manichaeism, but she had there a very different name and\n  attributes from the Mother of the Gods. See p. 323, n. 4 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 1062:\n\n  En Nad\u00eem in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 393; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ pp. 90, 91.\n\nFootnote 1063:\n\n  Kessler, _op. et pag. cit._ n. 1, says it has dropped out of the text,\n  which seems likely.\n\nFootnote 1064:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XII. pp. 19, 20, Beeson. The story is given\n  _verbatim_ later, p. 306 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 1065:\n\n  The Mandaeans or Disciples of St John described on p. 305 seem a\n  likely source, as they have many traditions about the protoplasts,\n  some of which clearly go back to before the Christian Era. None of\n  those mentioned by Brandt, _Die Mand\u00e4ische Religion_, Leipzig, 1889,\n  pp. 34-39, however, seem to be exactly similar to the story in the\n  text.\n\nFootnote 1066:\n\n  This Mother of Life is one of the most prominent, though not one of\n  the most active figures in the Manichaean pantheon. Her identification\n  with the Spirit of the Right Hand or first Power created by the\n  Supreme God of Light has been mentioned above (note 1, p. 293\n  _supra_). She doubtless has her immediate origin in the great mother\n  goddess worshipped throughout Western Asia, whose most familiar name\n  is Cybele, but whom we have seen (Chap. II _supra_) identified with\n  Isis, Demeter, and all the goddesses of the Hellenistic pantheon. See\n  as to this, Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_, pp. 58 _sqq._, although he, too,\n  falls into the error of identifying with her the Virgin of Light of\n  the _Pistis Sophia_. That the name \u201cMother of Life\u201d at least passed to\n  all these goddesses is certain; but it also found its way into\n  Egyptian Christianity; for in the Coptic spell or amulet known as the\n  _Prayer of the Virgin in Bartos_ (_i.e._ Parthia), studied by Mr W. E.\n  Crum (_P.S.B.A._ vol. XIX. 1897, p. 216), the Virgin Mary is\n  represented as saying \u201cI am Mariham (\u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bc), I am Maria, I am the\n  Mother of the Life of the whole World!\u201d, and the popularity of the\n  \u201cPrayer\u201d is shown by its frequent appearance in Ethiopic and Arabic\n  versions (_op. cit._ p. 211). So, too, in the evidently Christian\n  _Trattato Gnostico_ of F. Rossi (_Memorie della Reale Accademia di\n  Torino_, ser. II. t. xliii. p. 16) the magician says \u201cI entreat thee,\n  O God, by the great revered Virgin (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) in whom the Father was\n  concealed from the beginning before He had created anything.\u201d Bar\n  Kh\u00f4ni, again (Pognon, pp. 209-211), speaks of the Kukeans, who seem to\n  have been a semi-Christian sect, and who taught that the coming of\n  Jesus to earth had for its object the redemption of His bride, the\n  Mother of Life, who was detained here below, like the Helena of Simon\n  Magus. Mother of Life is mentioned in all the Mahommedan and Christian\n  writers who have treated of Manichaeism (for the references, see\n  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} partie, p. 511, n. 1), in the\n  Pahlavi MS. discovered by the Germans at Turfan (F. W. K. Muller,\n  _Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo-Schrift_, pp. 47, 55), and in the\n  Chinese treatise from Tun-huang (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p.\n  511 _et al._). In this last, she is called Chan-mou, which is\n  translated \u201cthe Excellent Mother,\u201d and En Nad\u00eem in one passage\n  (Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 399; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 100) calls her\n  Nahnaha, which Fl\u00fcgel would translate \u201cThe Aversion of the Evil Ones.\u201d\n  It should be noticed, however, that her part in the cosmogony is\n  small, and that she acts upon the world, like all these supercelestial\n  powers, only through her descendants or \u201csons.\u201d These are treated of\n  later (see p. 323 and n. 1, p. 302 _infra_). Titus of Bostra as quoted\n  by Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 210, speaks of her as \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\n  \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. \u201c[The] Power of\n  the Good One, no longer a perceptible light, but as if one should say,\n  an emanation of God.\u201d Some years ago, we could hardly have looked for\n  her prototype or first appearance in the history of religions in any\n  other direction than Babylonia, where the worship of Ishtar, her\n  Babylonian counterpart, goes back as far as we can trace Babylonian\n  religion. Now, however, it is plain that other races than the\n  Babylonians may have been concerned in the spread of the worship of\n  the Great Mother throughout Western Asia. In the Zoroastrian faith,\n  she seems to appear as Spenta Armaiti, the one certainly female power\n  among the seven Amshaspands, who in the Pahlavi texts is set over the\n  earth, as Vohu Mano is made protector of the beasts, Asha Vahishta of\n  the fire, and Khshathra Vairya is set over metals. But besides this,\n  she is identified in the G\u00e2th\u00e2s with the Wisdom of God (for references\n  see pp. 136-137 of M. Carnoy\u2019s article in the _Mus\u00e9on_ mentioned\n  below), an identification which Plutarch (_de Is. et Os._ c. XLVII.)\n  admits by translating her name as \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1, and like the Sophia of the\n  Gnostics is given as a spouse to her creator Ahura Mazda, to whom she\n  bears the First Man Gay\u00f4mort (Darmesteter, _Le Zend-Avesta_, t. I. pp.\n  128-129). Yet we now know that this figure may have come into the\n  Zoroastrian pantheon neither from Semitic sources nor, as Darmesteter\n  thought, from Plato. M. A. Carnoy in a study called _Armaiti-\u00c2rmatay_\n  (_Mus\u00e9on_, n.s. vol. XIII. (1912), pp. 127-146) shows the identity of\n  the Persian Amshaspand with the Vedic goddess Aramati. We have already\n  seen that the Vedic gods Varuna and Mitra were worshipped by Hittites\n  in Asia Minor before the XIIth century B.C., and Prof. Garstang\n  believes that the Earth-Mother was the great goddess of the Hittites,\n  and was the one worshipped in Roman times at Hierapolis or Mabug as\n  the _Dea Syria_ or Atargatis, a name that he equates with Derceto, the\n  mother of Semiramis in classic legend, and declares to be compounded\n  of Ishtar or Astarte and the Aramaic \u201cAthar or Athe.\u201d See Strong and\n  Garstang, _The Syrian Goddess_, pp. 1-8, and notes 24, 25, and 30, on\n  pp. 52, 53 and 30 _op. cit._ Zoroaster and Manes may therefore have\n  taken their mother goddess from an Aryan rather than from a Semitic\n  original.\n\nFootnote 1067:\n\n  This Living Spirit is the most active agent of the Light in the\n  Manichaean system, and seems to have held his place unaltered through\n  all the changes of Manichaean teaching. Alexander of Lycopolis\n  (_contra Manich._ c. III.) speaks of him as the \u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2 or\n  Architect of the Universe. The earliest part of the _Acta_\n  (Hegemonius, c. VII. p. 10, Beeson) says that he was put forth from\n  the Father (or Supreme God of Light) in consequence of the prayers of\n  the First Man after his defeat, that he delivered this last, crucified\n  or bound the Archons in the firmament (as Je\u00fb is said to have done in\n  the _Pistis Sophia_), made the Sun and Moon and appointed their\n  courses, and further made the eight earths. St Augustine, _contra\n  Faustum_, Bk XX. c. 1, makes the Manichaean Faustus call him the\n  \u201cThird Majesty whom we acknowledge to have his seat and his\n  lodging-place in the whole circle of the atmosphere. From whose powers\n  and spiritual inpouring also, the earth conceived and brought forth\n  the suffering Jesus who is the life and salvation of men and is\n  hanging on every tree.\u201d St Augustine further speaks (_op. cit._ Bk XX.\n  c. 9) of \u201cyour mighty (_potentem_ for _viventem_) Spirit, who\n  constructs the world from the captive bodies of the race of darkness\n  or rather from the members of your God held in subjection and\n  bondage.\u201d St Augustine (see _contra Faustum_, Bk XV. c. 6) also knows\n  that the Living Spirit has, like the First Man, five sons, to whom we\n  shall return later. The Mahommedan writers have much less to say on\n  the subject. En Nad\u00eem (Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 390; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._\n  p. 88) says abruptly that \u201cJoy [_i.e._ the Mother of Life] and the\n  Spirit of Life went to the frontier, looked into the abyss of hell and\n  saw there the First Man and his angels,\u201d whereupon the Spirit of Life\n  called the First Man with a voice of thunder and the latter \u201cbecame a\n  god.\u201d This story is so without connection with the context that\n  Kessler is probably right in attributing it to another source from\n  that from which the _Fihrist_ has drawn up to this point. The source\n  in question was probably a late one; for Bar Kh\u00f4ni (_op. cit._ pp.\n  186-188) supplies many more details which will be given in the text.\n  Bar Kh\u00f4ni also amplifies the story in the _Fihrist_ into a description\n  of how the Living Spirit, on seeing the First Man in the Darkness,\n  spoke \u201ca word which took the appearance of a pointed sword\u201d (cf.\n  Revelation i. 16), and how this word caused to appear the image of the\n  First Man. A dialogue then ensues between apparently the sword and the\n  image, which appear to be here identified with the Appellant and\n  Respondent of later Manichaeism, and the pair are drawn up out of\n  hell. See Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 24, and note 5. Al B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee,\n  _Chronology_, p. 190, also knows of the Spirit of Life and says that\n  Manes \u201cpreached\u201d of him. In the Turfan texts there is occasional\n  mention of the \u201cSpirit\u201d together with the Father and the Son (M\u00fcller,\n  _Handschriften-Reste_, pp. 26, 28), and also of the \u201ccommands\u201d of the\n  Holy Spirit to the Hearers, which are plainly allusions to the Living\n  Spirit or \u0396\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 of the Christian Fathers. In the Tun-huang\n  treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ pp. 510, 556) he is\n  repeatedly mentioned, and although nothing is said of his demiurgic or\n  world-creating powers, the part which he and the Mother of Life play\n  in the rescue of the First Man after his defeat is recognized, and he\n  is spoken of as forming the third person of a Trinity of which the two\n  other members are the Father or highest God of Light and the \u201cSon of\n  the Light.\u201d Finally (_op. cit._ p. 557), he is said to be \u201ca white\n  dove,\u201d whereby his likeness to the Holy Spirit of the Christian\n  Trinity already noted by Faustus is emphasized (see Augustine, _ubi\n  cit. supra_ and Bk XX. c. 6).\n\nFootnote 1068:\n\n  This conception of Jesus as a warrior has already been seen in the\n  _Pistis Sophia_, see p. 156 _supra_. So we read of \u201cJesus the\n  victorious\u201d in the Tun-huang treatise, p. 566, n. 3.\n\nFootnote 1069:\n\n  En Nad\u00eem in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 393 _sqq._; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ pp.\n  90 _sqq._ Theodore bar Kh\u00f4ni (Pognon, _op. cit._ pp. 189 _sqq._),\n  gives a much more elaborate account of the creation of man and the\n  other animals, for which and for its explanation the reader must be\n  referred to the elaborate analysis of M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ pp.\n  34-49, and App. II., \u201cLa S\u00e9duction des Archontes\u201d). It should be\n  noted, however, that some part of this story was known to St\n  Augustine. See especially _contra Faustum_, Bk VI. c. 8.\n\nFootnote 1070:\n\n  So Rochat, _op. cit._ pp. 157, 158.\n\nFootnote 1071:\n\n  Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 72, 80; Brandt, _Mand\u00e4ische Religion_, p. 178.\n\nFootnote 1072:\n\n  Rochat, _op. cit._ pp. 156-178, has carefully examined the\n  resemblances between the system of Manes and that of the Mandaites and\n  declares that it is at present impossible to say which of them has\n  borrowed from the other.\n\nFootnote 1073:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XII., pp. 19, 20, Beeson.\n\nFootnote 1074:\n\n  _Op. cit._ c. VIII., p. 12, Beeson.\n\nFootnote 1075:\n\n  Chavannes et Pelliot (_op. cit._ p. 517, n. 3) make this the work of\n  the Living Spirit, but they are clearly wrong. The text of the _Acta_\n  referred to in the last note leaves no doubt that it is that of the\n  \u201cSon.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1076:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XI., p. 18, Beeson.\n\nFootnote 1077:\n\n  This is the tradition evidently known to the author of the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 when he makes Jesus say \u201cWhen I spoke with Enoch out of\n  the Tree of Knowledge in the Paradise of Adam.\u201d (See Chap. X, p. 173\n  _supra_.)\n\nFootnote 1078:\n\n  Al B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chronology_, p. 190.\n\nFootnote 1079:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. IX., p. 14, Beeson. This idea of the macrocosm\n  and microcosm according to which the body of man is a _replica_ of the\n  universe is found in nearly all later mysticism\u2014also in the Cabala and\n  in the later Zoroastrian treatises. In the Tun-huang treatise it forms\n  the chief theme of the homiletic part of the work.\n\nFootnote 1080:\n\n  _Op. cit._ c. VIII., pp. 12, 13, Beeson. The Latin version has _vir_\n  \u201cman\u201d for _aer_ \u201cair\u201d in its description of the Column of Glory.\n  Probably a clerical error.\n\nFootnote 1081:\n\n  _Op. cit._ c. X., pp. 15, 16, Beeson. The word used is \u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2; but\n  the Latin texts all read \u201celephant.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1082:\n\n  \u1f18\u03c1\u1ff6 ... \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, _op. et cap. cit._\n  p. 15, Beeson.\n\nFootnote 1083:\n\n  The soul of the rich man is in the same chapter said to pass into the\n  body of a beggar and thereafter \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u201cto everlasting\n  punishment.\u201d Is it from this source that the Calvinists took their\n  doctrine of eternal damnation? The reprobation of the rich as such and\n  without regard to the use they might make of their wealth perhaps\n  accounts for the levelling and republican politics of the mediaeval\n  sectaries.\n\nFootnote 1084:\n\n  The Bowl of water reminds one of the cup of soberness and reflection\n  administered to just souls by the little Sabaoth the Good in the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. See Chap. X, p. 187 _supra_. The garment was probably\n  the \u201cheavenly nature\u201d with which the soul had to be clothed before it\n  could ascend to the upper spheres of light (cf. the _Pistis Sophia_).\n  That the crown was designed as a protection against the spirits of\n  evil, there are many indications in the last-mentioned document.\n\nFootnote 1085:\n\n  Kessler would here read \u201cgods\u201d for \u201cgoddess.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1086:\n\n  That is to say, the particular world of light, whether Gentleness,\n  Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion, or Discernment, from which the\n  soul descended. As the \u201carmour\u201d of the First Man, from which the souls\n  of men are formed, was made with the aid of these five worlds, it is\n  reasonable to suppose that one or other predominates in the soul of\n  everyone. Hence probably the degree in the Manichaean hierarchy to\n  which any hearer might attain was thought to be decided for him before\n  his birth, and governed his destination after death. Thus it is said\n  in the _Pistis Sophia_: \u201cThose who have received exalted mysteries\n  shall be in exalted places, and those who have received humble\n  mysteries in humble places in the light of my kingdom.\u201d Cf. Chavannes\n  et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} partie, p. 533, n. 1 and St Augustine\n  as there quoted.\n\nFootnote 1087:\n\n  The words given in the text are almost _verbatim_ from En Nad\u00eem. See\n  Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 398-399; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 100.\n\nFootnote 1088:\n\n  One of the 21 Nasks of the Sassanian Avesta.\n\nFootnote 1089:\n\n  S\u00f6derblom, _op. cit._ p. 83.\n\nFootnote 1090:\n\n  _Op. cit._ pp. 89 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 1091:\n\n  See the Orphic belief about the uninitiated being plunged in mud, Vol.\n  I. chap. IV. p. 131 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1092:\n\n  Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 399-400; Fl\u00fcgel, pp. 100-101.\n\nFootnote 1093:\n\n  This is, I think, the only construction to be put on the words of the\n  _Acta_: \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f40\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1, \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2,\n  \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2. Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. X., p. 15, Beeson. For the\n  Mahommedan tradition, see En Nad\u00eem in Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ p. 95. The\n  whole question of the organization of the Manichaean Church is\n  elaborately discussed by Fl\u00fcgel in n. 225 on this passage, _op. cit._\n  pp. 293-299.\n\nFootnote 1094:\n\n  Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 398; Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ pp. 94, 95.\n\nFootnote 1095:\n\n  This is perhaps the first instance in antiquity of the Gospel of Work.\n  That these virtues of the believer are made five in number, so as to\n  accord with the five worlds of light, needs no demonstration.\n\nFootnote 1096:\n\n  See passages from Kessler and Fl\u00fcgel quoted in n. 1, p. 313 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1097:\n\n  Rainerio Saccone, a Manichaean Perfect in Languedoc, who afterwards\n  turned Inquisitor, said that he had often heard the Elect lamenting\n  that they had not taken the opportunity of committing more sins before\n  receiving the \u201cBaptism of the Spirit\u201d which was thought to wash them\n  away. See H. C. Lea, _History of the Inquisition_, vol. I., p. 94.\n\nFootnote 1098:\n\n  Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ pp. 95-97. See, however, n. 4, p. 349 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 1099:\n\n  Josephus, _Antiquities_, Bk XX. cc. 2-4, breaks off his history at the\n  critical point. The Book of Esther is, perhaps, sufficient proof of\n  the capacity of the Oriental Jews for provoking periodical _pogroms_\n  at least as freely as their co-religionists in modern Russia. Johnson\n  (Oriental Religions), _Persia_, 1885, p. 410, quotes, apparently from\n  Fird\u00fbsi, that the \u201cold Persian nobles\u201d were driven by Ardesh\u00eer\u2019s\n  reforms into Seistan, where they were the ancestors of the present\n  Afghan clans. As some of these clans call themselves the Beni Israel,\n  it is possible that the Jews rather than the nobles were expelled on\n  this occasion, as happened before under Cyrus.\n\nFootnote 1100:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XII. pp. 20-21, Beeson; Ephraem Syrus in\n  Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 302. For Mahommedan confirmation, see\n  Schahrast\u00e2ni in _op. cit._ p. 339.\n\nFootnote 1101:\n\n  Al B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chronology_, p. 190.\n\nFootnote 1102:\n\n  See Le Coq\u2019s _Short Account_ in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 299-322. Another\n  and more popularly written one by the same author appeared in the\n  _Conf\u00e9rences au Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, Paris, 1910 (Bibl. de Vulgarisation, t.\n  XXXV.).\n\nFootnote 1103:\n\n  The Marcionites, another much hated sect, also used a secret script.\n\nFootnote 1104:\n\n  St Augustine, _contra Faustum_, Bk V. c. 1.\n\nFootnote 1105:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. V., pp. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 1106:\n\n  Augustine, _contra Faust._ Bk VII. c. 1.\n\nFootnote 1107:\n\n  _Op. cit._ Bk XXIII. c. 2; _ibid._ Bk XXXII. c. 7.\n\nFootnote 1108:\n\n  _Op. cit._ Bk XXVI. cc. 6, 8; _ibid._ Bk XXIX. c. 1.\n\nFootnote 1109:\n\n  _Op. cit._ Bk XX. c. 2.\n\nFootnote 1110:\n\n  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 15, points out that the Manichaeans had\n  already figured to themselves their King of the Paradise of Light as\n  existing in the three Persons of Father, Mother, and Son in the shape\n  of the Light, the Mother of Life and the First Man. This Trinity\n  corresponds in every particular with that worshipped in Asia Minor\n  under the names of Zeus (or Hadad), Cybele, and Atys, at Eleusis as\n  Dionysos, Demeter, and Iacchos, in Greek Egypt as Osiris, Isis, and\n  Horus, and in Persia, according to M. Cumont, as Ormuzd, Spenta\n  Armaiti, and Gay\u00f4mort. Cf. Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_, pp. 333-337. That\n  its origin can be traced, as the last-named author seems to think, to\n  the Babylonian Triad, Ea, Damkina, and Marduk, is more doubtful. The\n  Manichaeans really acknowledged, as they were never tired of\n  affirming, only two gods, Light and Darkness, and considered all the\n  lesser powers of Light, including man\u2019s soul, as formed from God\u2019s\n  \u201csubstance.\u201d When, therefore, they spoke of trinities, tetrads, and so\n  on, it was in all probability for the purpose of producing that show\n  of outward conformity with other religions which was one of the most\n  marked features of their system.\n\nFootnote 1111:\n\n  This is a reversal of the position in the _Pistis Sophia_, where the\n  female power or Virgin of Light is placed in the Sun and the male Iao\n  in the Moon.\n\nFootnote 1112:\n\n  Compare the statement of Herodotus (Bk I. c. 131) that Zeus (or\n  Ormuzd) in the opinion of the ancient Persians was the name of \u201cthe\n  whole circle of air.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1113:\n\n  Augustine, _contra Faust._ Bk XX. c. 2.\n\nFootnote 1114:\n\n  This is to be found in Harduin\u2019s _Acta Consilii_. The quotation in the\n  text is taken from Matter, _Hist. de Gnost._ t. III. p. 89, and\n  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 187.\n\nFootnote 1115:\n\n  Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 5; Assemani, _Bibl. Orient._ t. III. p. 198\n  _cit._\n\nFootnote 1116:\n\n  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 106. It seems probable that the Kashgar\n  in question is the country in Chinese Turkestan still called by that\n  name. M. Pelliot, however, will have none of this and insists that Bar\n  Kh\u00f4ni\u2019s Kashgar was Al Wasit near Bagdad. For the controversy, see\n  _J.R.A.S._ 1913, pp. 434 _sqq._, 696 _sqq._ and 1914, pp. 421-427.\n\nFootnote 1117:\n\n  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 1, n. 2, and authorities there quoted.\n\nFootnote 1118:\n\n  \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u1f41 \u039c\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2, \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03a0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f0c\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u1f40\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03a0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. \u201cI anathematize all those whom\n  Manes lyingly makes gods, to wit, the Father of Greatness in four\n  Persons, and the so-called First Man ... and the famous Virgin of\n  Light,\u201d etc., Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 403. His quotation of the Formula\n  is from the works of the Apostolic Fathers edited by Cotelerius in\n  1724 (Amsterdam). It seems to have been administered to converts from\n  Manichaeism to Catholicism down to a very late date. See Beausobre,\n  _Hist. du Manich\u00e9isme_, t. I. pp. 66-67.\n\nFootnote 1119:\n\n  Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 184. Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ pp. 9, 10, would\n  substitute Reason for Knowledge and Will for Feeling. The Greek names\n  as given in the _Acta_ (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. X. p. 15, Beeson)\n  are \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b8\u03cd\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 which the Latin\n  translator makes into _mens_, _sensus_, _prudentia_, _intellectus_,\n  _cogitatio_. The first of these may pass as correct, since Nous\n  appears as the first emanation of the Highest God in all the systems\n  which preceded that of Manes and from which he is likely to have\n  copied. Of the rest, it can only be said that they are the\n  translations by scribes of Syriac or Mandaite words which were ill\n  calculated to express metaphysical abstractions, and that their\n  copyists were seldom well acquainted with the etymology of any of the\n  three languages. Hence they generally made use of what they thought\n  were the corresponding expressions in the works of great\n  heresiologists like Irenaeus and Hippolytus without troubling\n  themselves much as to their appropriateness. In the passage from the\n  _Acta_ above quoted, the five qualities named are said to be the\n  \u201cnames of the soul,\u201d which is explained by what is said later (_op.\n  cit._ c. X. p. 17, Beeson) that \u201cthe air (\u1f00\u03ae\u03c1) is the soul of men and\n  beasts and birds and fish and creeping things.\u201d En Nad\u00eem (Kessler,\n  _op. cit._ p. 387; Fl\u00fcgel, p. 86), as has been said on p. 291 _supra_,\n  gives the \u201cmembers of the air\u201d as Gentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence,\n  Discretion and Discernment, which are the same as those which he has\n  just attributed to the King of the Paradise of Light. St Augustine\n  (_c. Faust._ Bk XX. c. 15) says in like manner that the Manichaeans\n  thought their souls \u201cmembers of God,\u201d which seems to refer to the same\n  belief. Bar Kh\u00f4ni (Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 186), as has been said, not\n  only assigns the five dwellings of Intelligence, Knowledge, Thought,\n  Reflexion and Feeling to the Living Spirit, but makes him draw his\n  five sons from them, and M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ p. 10, n. 3)\n  quotes the _Acta Thomae_ as saying that the Third Legate or Sr\u00f4sh is\n  \u201cthe Legate of the five members, Nous, Ennoia, Phronesis, Enthymesis\n  and Logismos.\u201d From all which we may gather that the Supreme God of\n  Light and his \u201cSecond\u201d and \u201cThird\u201d creations were each alike thought\n  to have the same five dwellings or hypostases consisting of abstract\n  qualities, although the exact significance of the names given to them\n  for the present escapes us.\n\nFootnote 1120:\n\n  This is the usual Oriental and Semitic figure of speech which leads\n  Arabs at the present day to nickname any European with a large beard\n  \u201cthe Father of Hair,\u201d and makes the Sphinx of Ghizeh the \u201cFather of\n  Terrors.\u201d In the same way, the Mother of Life means doubtless the Very\n  Great Life or Source of Life.\n\nFootnote 1121:\n\n  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 15.\n\nFootnote 1122:\n\n  See the _Khuastuanift_, pp. 335, 342 _infra_, and the Tun-huang\n  treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p. 513, and n. 1). Cf. also\n  M\u00fcller, _Handschriften-Reste_, p. 102.\n\nFootnote 1123:\n\n  She cannot possibly be the Virgin of Light, as in the _Acta_ she is\n  said to retire at the Ecpyrosis into the Moon-ship along with that\n  personage. See Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. XIII. p. 21, Beeson. The name\n  \u201cVirgin of Light\u201d also appears in the Turfan texts as an epithet of\n  Jesus, if the words are not wrongly translated. See M\u00fcller,\n  _Handschriften-Reste_, pp. 75, 77. The name Nahnaha given her by En\n  Nad\u00eem has been referred to in n. 2, p. 300 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1124:\n\n  Probably Mithras, who is in the Vedas and elsewhere called \u201cMithra the\n  Friend.\u201d Mithras is invoked under his own name in the Turfan texts\n  (M\u00fcller, _Handschriften-Reste_, p. 77), but the fragment is too\n  mutilated to be able to deduce from it his place in the pantheon.\n\nFootnote 1125:\n\n  This name, to be found nowhere but in Bar Kh\u00f4ni, cannot be explained.\n  Pognon says it may be written the Great Laban, which gets us no nearer\n  to its meaning.\n\nFootnote 1126:\n\n  The image is probably his body or substance, which is of the substance\n  of the Very Great Father. So Satan is in the Coptic _Trattato\n  gnostico_ of Rossi quoted in n. 2, p. 300 _supra_ described as the\n  \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1, probably as being the very substance of darkness as the\n  Very Great Father is of the Light.\n\nFootnote 1127:\n\n  This is the conjecture of M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ pp. 24, 25). As\n  he says in note 5 on the first-mentioned page, the passage as it\n  stands is inconsistent. The Appellant and Respondent under the names\n  of Kroshtag and Padwakhtag appear in the _Khuastuanift_ and also in\n  the Tun-huang treatise (pp. 521 _sqq._) without the part they play in\n  the world being immediately apparent. The former document, however\n  (see p. 343 _infra_), speaks of them as being concerned in the\n  purification of the Light. MM. Chavannes and Pelliot (_op. cit._ p.\n  521, n. 1) think it possible that they may represent the portions of\n  the \u201carmour\u201d of the First Man which were not sullied by contact with\n  matter, and compare them to the last two Amshaspands, Haurvet\u00e2t and\n  Ameret\u00e2t. See also their _Trait\u00e9 Manicheen_, etc. 2^{me} ptie, in the\n  _Journal Asiatique_, XI s\u00e9rie, t. I. (1913), p. 101. One might liken\n  them to the Cautes and Cautopates appearing in the Mithraic monuments,\n  as to which see Chapter XII, p. 246 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1128:\n\n  All these subordinate deities were known to St Augustine. Cf. _id. c.\n  Faust._ Bk XV. c. 6.\n\nFootnote 1129:\n\n  Evidently Manes accepted the dictum of Valentinus quoted above (Chap.\n  IX, p. 104 _supra_), that with celestial powers it is always the\n  female who gives the form.\n\nFootnote 1130:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XIII, p. 21, Beeson. \u0391\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f41\n  \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u1ff3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b6\u03c9\u1fc6\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\n  \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n  \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u1ff3, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n  \u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f55\u03b4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c6\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f67\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1. \u201cBut all the emanations [_i.e._], Jesus who is in the small\n  ship, and the Mother of Life and the 12 pilots, and the Virgin of\n  Light, and the Third Legate who is in the large ship, and the Living\n  Spirit and the wall [it should be \u2018guardian,\u2019 as MM. Chavannes and\n  Pelliot explain] of the great fire, and the guardian of the Ether, and\n  of the air, and of the water, and of the inner living fire, abide near\n  the lesser light until the fire has consumed the whole Cosmos. But for\n  how many years I have not learned.\u201d The Latin version runs:\n  _Prolationes autem omnes Jesus in modica navi, et mater vitae et\n  duodecim gubernatores et virgo lucis et senior tertius. Unde et majori\n  in navi vivens spiritus adhibetur, et murus ignis illius magni, et\n  murus venti et aeris et aquae et interioris ignis vivi, quae omnia in\n  luna habitabunt usquequo totum mundum ignis absumat; in quot autem\n  annis numerum non didici_:\u2014which appears to be nonsense. The number of\n  years which Turbo, who is here speaking, had not learned, is said by\n  En Nad\u00eem to be 1468.\n\nFootnote 1131:\n\n  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ pp. 58 _sqq._ and Appendix I.\n\nFootnote 1132:\n\n  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ (1^{\u00e8re} ptie), p. 522, and n. 1. For\n  the part played by him in the Chinese treatise see _op. cit._ p. 536,\n  and n. 2. He is called \u201cMighty Sr\u00f4sh\u201d in the Turfan texts (M\u00fcller,\n  _Handschriften-Reste_, p. 75).\n\nFootnote 1133:\n\n  J. Darmesteter, _The Zend Avesta_, part I. (S. B. E. vol. 4, pp. 87,\n  99) and part II. (S. B. E. vol. 23, pp. 159-167). All the passages in\n  which he is referred to come from the Vendidad, but he is also\n  mentioned in the Bundahish. See West, _Pahlavi Texts_, part I. (S. B.\n  E. vol. 5, p. 128).\n\nFootnote 1134:\n\n  See n. 2 _supra_. M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ p. 34) thinks that this\n  Messenger was added to the two triads (of Father, Mother, and Son, and\n  the Friend of the Lights, Great Ban, and Living Spirit, respectively)\n  in order to make up \u201cthe sacred number of seven.\u201d But seven is a\n  number singularly neglected by the Manichaeans, who paid the greatest\n  reverence to five, and preferred to seven the three and the twelve.\n  Nor do I think that there is any real parallel in Manichaeism to the\n  Seven Amshaspands of Zoroastrianism. The actual word _amshaspand_ is\n  used in the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._\n  1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 544), but with an entirely different signification\n  from that of archangel or divinity. It seems there to mean simply\n  \u201celement.\u201d Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 2^{me} partie, p. 101.\n\nFootnote 1135:\n\n  I can find no parallel to these powers in any other system, save that\n  of the _Pistis Sophia_, where appear twelve Saviours of the\n  Treasure-house of Light, from whom the souls of the Twelve Apostles of\n  Jesus were said to be drawn. If, therefore, they are not the signs of\n  the Zodiac, they may be an invention of the Manichaeans to accord with\n  the _magistri_ or highest order of their Church (see p. 330 _infra_).\n\nFootnote 1136:\n\n  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 36.\n\nFootnote 1137:\n\n  Pognon, _op. cit._ pp. 189, 190. He says it was the Messenger (or\n  Sr\u00f4sh) who ordered the Great Ban to create a new world. M. Kugener,\n  however (Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 37, n. 4), says that the passage\n  can be read as in the text, and this avoids the improbability of the\n  younger power or Third Legate giving orders to one of the \u201csecond\n  creation.\u201d The three wheels, fire, water, and earth, may possibly have\n  been conceived as surrounding the earth, as with the Ophites of the\n  Diagram. Cf. Chap. VIII, n. 3, p. 74 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1138:\n\n  I read this, perhaps wrongly, thus instead of Five Trees as does\n  Pognon (_op. cit._ p. 191). The five kinds of trees are often referred\n  to in the Tun-huang treatise and in the _Khuastuanift_.\n\nFootnote 1139:\n\n  This Saclas, who appears many times in Greek heresiology with his wife\n  Nebrod, called in the text Namra\u00ebl (for references, see Cumont,\n  _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 73, and notes 3, 4, and 5), was known to\n  Hippolytus, who uses both names in his description of the tenets of\n  the Peratae, a name which may be equivalent to that of the Medes. See\n  Hipp. _Philosoph._ Bk V. c. 14, pp. 194, 195, Cruice.\n\nFootnote 1140:\n\n  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 566, and n. 3.\n\nFootnote 1141:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XI. p. 18, Beeson.\n\nFootnote 1142:\n\n  Augustine, _de Haeresibus_, c. 46, p. 210, Oehler. See also Chavannes\n  et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 569, and n. 2; p. 572, and nn.\n  2, 3; and p. 581, and n. 4. MM. Chavannes and Pelliot discuss the\n  question of the organization of the Manichaean Church in the second\n  part of their memoir. See _op. cit._ 2^{me} ptie, pp. 193, 196 and n.\n  2. They also give a dissertation on the common life of the Elect. It\n  remains to be seen whether this was anything more than a copy of the\n  monastic institutions of the Buddhists. For obvious reasons, such an\n  organization was not adopted in lands where they had outwardly to\n  conform to other religions.\n\nFootnote 1143:\n\n  So Professor Harnack and Mr Conybeare in the _Encyc. Brit._ (XIth\n  ed.), vol. XVII. p. 576, _s.v._ Manichaeism.\n\nFootnote 1144:\n\n  \u201c_Beatus pater_\u201d is the name given to the _Tertius legatus_ by\n  Evodius, _de recta fide_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 1145:\n\n  Augustine, _c. Faust._ Bk XV. c. 5.\n\nFootnote 1146:\n\n  _Op. cit._ Bk XX. c. 9.\n\nFootnote 1147:\n\n  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ App. 2, \u201cL\u2019Omophore.\u201d He shows that this\n  belief in an angel who supports the world on his shoulders goes back\n  to the Assyrian cylinder-seals, where is found a world-bearing\n  divinity in exactly the same pose as that reproduced in the Mithraic\n  bas-reliefs.\n\nFootnote 1148:\n\n  One of the silk banners obtained by the German expedition seems to\n  have depicted this scene. See A. von Le Coq, _Chotscho_:\n  Facsimile-Wiedergaben der Wichtigerer Funde der Ersten Kgl. Preuss.\n  Expedition nach Turfan, Berlin, 1913, Bd 1, p. 1 and Pl. IV. 6.\n\nFootnote 1149:\n\n  Augustine, _c. Faust._ Bk XX. c. 17. Is the prayer addressed to the\n  First Man or to Splenditenens, whom St Augustine represents as\n  mourning over the pollution of the Light?\n\nFootnote 1150:\n\n  The praises in the text are all given by En Nad\u00eem. See Fl\u00fcgel, _op.\n  cit._ p. 96. Are \u201cthe two sciences\u201d the Living Spirit and his\n  Intelligence or Reason? If so the \u201cFather of Majesty\u201d probably means\n  the _Beatus Pater_ of note 2, p. 331 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1151:\n\n  The Mediaeval Inquisitors were in especial never tired of denouncing\n  the immorality of the Manichaean Hearers. See H. C. Lea, _History of\n  the Inquisition_, index.\n\nFootnote 1152:\n\n  The original documents are described by Prof. A. von Le Coq in\n  \u201cTurkish Khuastuanift from Tun-huang,\u201d _J.R.A.S._ 1911, pp. 277-279.\n\nFootnote 1153:\n\n  There are many allusions in Manichaean literature to three worlds of\n  light, which seem to be (1) the light inaccessible, or heaven of God;\n  (2) the light intelligible, _i.e._ that can be comprehended by the\n  mind only, which is inhabited by the First Man; and (3) the\n  perceptible light, of which the Sun and Moon are the rulers. See\n  especially Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, pp. 564 and\n  586, and 2^{me} ptie, p. 102, n. 2. The Manichaeans\u2019 addiction to the\n  number five needs no insistence. Fifteen, _i.e._ 3 \u00d7 5, is therefore a\n  number which came naturally to them.\n\nFootnote 1154:\n\n  Shimnu seems to be the Buddhist word for \u201cdevil.\u201d Cf. Neander, _Ch.\n  Hist._ vol. II. p. 181. Prof. von Le Coq (_J.R.A.S._ 1911, p. 300)\n  says it is of Soghdian origin. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._\n  1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 523, n. 3, seek to show that it is the equivalent of\n  Ahriman.\n\nFootnote 1155:\n\n  On this word see p. 323 _supra_; cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._\n  1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 542, n. 2, which seems to summarize all that there is\n  to be said about it, and p. 342 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 1156:\n\n  This was of course the exact statement of Zervanism, which the\n  _Khuastuanift_ implicitly condemns. Cf. Mihr Nerses\u2019 proclamation in\n  450 A.D. quoted on p. 285 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1157:\n\n  This was the name of the owner, which was _Raimast Parzind_ in the\n  Tun-huang text of Sir Marc Stein.\n\nFootnote 1158:\n\n  This was the name given to the incarnate, as distinguished from the\n  spiritual, messengers of the God of Light to man. Thus Zoroaster is\n  always spoken of in Manichaean literature as a Burkhan, and doubtless\n  the historical Buddha and Jesus were included in the same category.\n  Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 572, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 1159:\n\n  Obviously the authors of the _Khuastuanift_ knew nothing of the\n  doctrine put forth by the Manichaeans in Christian lands that the\n  First Man offered himself as a sacrifice to destroy the sons of\n  Darkness. Cf. n. 2, p. 294 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1160:\n\n  Because by so doing the existence of the diabolic creation would be\n  prolonged.\n\nFootnote 1161:\n\n  The words \u201cof the Messenger\u201d [God] are not in Prof. von Le Coq\u2019s\n  version.\n\nFootnote 1162:\n\n  Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, pp. 503, n. 1. On\n  this being mentioned in a paper in the _J.R.A.S._ 1913, Dr F. Denison\n  Ross said that he thought the date should be put 300 years later, _J.\n  cit._ p. 81. He has since withdrawn this (_J.R.A.S._ 1913, pp.\n  434-436).\n\nFootnote 1163:\n\n  See the luminous historical study by M. Henri Cordier, \u201cLes Fouilles\n  en Asie Centrale,\u201d _Journal des Savans._, Paris, 1910, pp. 219 _sqq._,\n  especially pp. 249, 250.\n\nFootnote 1164:\n\n  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 513, n. 1. M\u00fcller,\n  _Handschriften-Reste_, pp. 20, 22. Von Le Coq, _J.R.A.S._ 1911, p.\n  301.\n\nFootnote 1165:\n\n  Ormuzd, \u201cthe whole circuit of the sky,\u201d although he calls him, _more\n  Graecorum_, Zeus, \u201cthe sun and moon, the earth, fire, water and the\n  winds,\u201d were \u201cthe only gods whose worship had come down to the\n  Persians from ancient times\u201d in the days of Herodotus. Cf. Herodotus,\n  Bk I. c. 131.\n\nFootnote 1166:\n\n  Faustus (Aug. _v. Faust._ Bk II. c. 4) distinctly says \u201cJesus Christ\n  is the son of the First Man.\u201d Cf. also c. 5.\n\nFootnote 1167:\n\n  It is very doubtful whether it is referred to or not in the Tun-huang\n  treatise. Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, pp. 515,\n  n. 2, and p. 516, n. 3.\n\nFootnote 1168:\n\n  The Power whom Faustus (Aug. _c. Faust._ Bk XX. c. 2) calls \u201cGod the\n  Son.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1169:\n\n  Evidently the incarnate or human messengers, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus,\n  and Manes. The heavenly \u201clegates\u201d are never depicted as \u201cpreaching\u201d to\n  men.\n\nFootnote 1170:\n\n  The Past, Present and Future, called the \u201cThree Moments\u201d in the\n  Tun-huang treatise. See Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 11^{me} ptie,\n  pp. 114, 116.\n\nFootnote 1171:\n\n  Probably the strong or mighty Sr\u00f4sh or _Tertius Legatus_.\n\nFootnote 1172:\n\n  This may be compared to the Ophite Diagram in which Agape or Love is\n  made the summit of the Pantheon. See Chap. VIII p. 68 _supra_. See\n  also the same dogma in Valentinus, Chap. IX p. 123 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1173:\n\n  Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ pp. 95, 96.\n\nFootnote 1174:\n\n  As to these, see En Nad\u00eem in Fl\u00fcgel, _op. cit._ pp. 97-100.\n\nFootnote 1175:\n\n  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 543, n. 2.\n\nFootnote 1176:\n\n  Augustine, _de Moribus Manichaeorum_, c. X. Cf. Baur, _Das\n  Manich\u00e4ische Religionssystem_, pp. 248 _sqq._ Chavannes et Pelliot,\n  _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 547, n. 1, examine the question whether\n  these are borrowed from Buddhism as F. W. K. M\u00fcller and Cumont assert,\n  and incline to the view that Manes took them from Zoroastrianism.\n\nFootnote 1177:\n\n  The word _vusanti_ does not seem to be explained by Prof. von Le Coq.\n  Has it any connection with the Sanskrit _vasanta_ \u201cspring\u201d? In that\n  case, the 50 days fast may have been continuous like the Christian\n  Lent and the Mahommedan Ramadan. But it seems more likely that it\n  refers to the weekly fast on Sunday which, the _Fihrist_\n  notwithstanding, seems to have been incumbent on all the Manichaeans,\n  Elect and Hearers alike. So Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 2^{me}\n  ptie, p. 111, n. 2. See n. 4, p. 349 _infra_.\n\nFootnote 1178:\n\n  Prof. von Le Coq says (_J.R.A.S._ 1911, p. 307) that this word is as\n  yet unexplained and may belong to another language than Turkish. One\n  is almost tempted to see in it a corruption of the Yom Kippur or Day\n  of Atonement of the Jews. Judaism is the last religion from which the\n  Manichaeans would have consciously borrowed; but the Jews have always\n  taken their goods where they found them, and it may well be that both\n  Jews and Manichaeans were here drawing from a common source.\n\nFootnote 1179:\n\n  Is this the _Tertius Legatus_ or another?\n\nFootnote 1180:\n\n  Augustine, _c. Faust._ Bk II. c. 5. Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op.\n  cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 539, and n. 1.\n\nFootnote 1181:\n\n  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 573, n. 3.\n\nFootnote 1182:\n\n  So Baur, _op. cit._ This was doubtless true in the West and in lands\n  where they were exposed to severe persecution.\n\nFootnote 1183:\n\n  This explains its translation from its original Pahlavi into the\n  language of the converts and each copy bearing the name of the owner.\n\nFootnote 1184:\n\n  See Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 56, for authorities. Cf. also de\n  Stoop, _op. cit._ p. 22. As has been many times said above, every\n  religion and sect at the time accused the others of these filthy\n  practices, without our being able to discern any proof of the justice\n  of the accusation in one case more than in another. In any case, St\n  Augustine, here the chief authority, could not have known of it at\n  first hand, as he had never been more than a Hearer, and he himself\n  says (_contra Fortunatum_, Bk I. App.) that while he had heard that\n  the Elect celebrated the Eucharist, he knew nothing of the mode of\n  celebration. Cf. Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 193.\n\nFootnote 1185:\n\n  All contemporary authorities are agreed that they were forbidden to\n  drink wine.\n\nFootnote 1186:\n\n  Neander, _op. cit._ II. p. 170.\n\nFootnote 1187:\n\n  Le Coq, _Chotscho_, Vol. I. Pl. I. and IV.\n\nFootnote 1188:\n\n  Aug. _c. Ep. Fundamenti_, c. 8.\n\nFootnote 1189:\n\n  Augustine, _c. Faust._ Bk XVIII. c. 5, whom he quotes, does not say\n  however that they kept Sunday as a festival, but merely that they then\n  worshipped the Sun: _Vos in die, quem dicunt solis, solem colitis_.\n\nFootnote 1190:\n\n  Aug. _c. Ep. Fundamenti_, c. 8 and de Stoop, _op. cit._ p. 27.\n\nFootnote 1191:\n\n  Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chronology_, p. 27.\n\nFootnote 1192:\n\n  _Ib._ pp. 121, 190.\n\nFootnote 1193:\n\n  A few other undoubted extracts from the Shapurakhan are to be found in\n  M\u00fcller, _Handschriften-Reste_, _passim_, and others quoted at second\n  hand from Mahommedan writers in Kessler, _op. cit._, as to which see\n  _ib._ pp. 180-191.\n\nFootnote 1194:\n\n  Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _op. cit._ p. 225.\n\nFootnote 1195:\n\n  See Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 191 _sqq._\n\nFootnote 1196:\n\n  Aug. _c. Faust._ Bk XXXII. c. 7.\n\nFootnote 1197:\n\n  See Albert Dufourcq, _De Manichaeismo apud Latinos_, Paris, 1900,\n  where all these apocrypha are carefully examined. The _Quo vadis_\n  story appears on p. 40.\n\nFootnote 1198:\n\n  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p. 508, and n. 1.\n\nFootnote 1199:\n\n  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XIII. p. 22, Beeson.\n\nFootnote 1200:\n\n  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, pp. 399, 400.\n\nFootnote 1201:\n\n  _Op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, pp. 509, n. 5, 510, n. 2, 533, nn. 2 and 4.\n\nFootnote 1202:\n\n  Nowhere is this curious theory, which forms the base of most Mediaeval\n  Cabala and magic, more clearly stated. Thus the Tun-huang treatise\n  says in describing the fashioning of the body of man by the devils (as\n  in the \u039c\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2), \u201cthere is not a single formation of the\n  universe (or cosmos) which they did not imitate in the carnal body\u201d\n  (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 527); and in the\n  next page \u201cThe demon ... shut up the five natures of Light in the\n  carnal body of which he made a little universe (microcosm).\u201d\n\nFootnote 1203:\n\n  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, p. 514.\n\nFootnote 1204:\n\n  _Op. cit._ pp. 528, 529.\n\nFootnote 1205:\n\n  Their Chinese names are discussed by MM. Chavannes and Pelliot (_op.\n  cit._ 1^{\u00e8re} ptie, pp. 521, n. 1, 542, n. 1, 543, nn. 1, 2, and 544,\n  n. 1), wherein are gathered nearly all that can be said about them.\n  The learned commentators decide that their functions still remain\n  mysterious. But see next note _infra_.\n\nFootnote 1206:\n\n  W. Radloff, _Chuastuanift, das Bussgebet der Manich\u00e4er_, St\n  Petersburg, 1909, pt I. pp. 19, 20. Von Le Coq, _J.R.A.S._ 1911, p.\n  294: \u201cwhen the Gods Kroshtag and Padwakhtag, the Appellant and\n  Respondent, should have brought to us that part of the light of the\n  Fivefold God that, going to God, is there to be purified.\u201d One is\n  inclined to compare this with Je\u00fb and Melchizidek receiving and\n  purifying the light won from this world, or with Gabriel and Michael\n  in the _Pistis Sophia_ bearing the heroine upward out of Chaos; but\n  the parallel may be accidental and is easily pushed too far.\n\nFootnote 1207:\n\n  Like the \u201cTwin Saviours\u201d of the _Pistis Sophia_, whose functions are\n  never even alluded to in that document.\n\nFootnote 1208:\n\n  See notes 2 and 3, p. 327 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 1209:\n\n  M. de Stoop\u2019s _Essai sur la Diffusion du Manich\u00e9isme_ is most\n  informing on this head. See also A. Dufourcq\u2019s Thesis quoted in n. 2,\n  p. 351 _supra_. A very brief summary of the history of the sect was\n  given by the present writer in _J.R.A.S._ 1913, pp. 69-94.\n\nFootnote 1210:\n\n  For the enquiry by Strategius, afterwards called Musonianus, and\n  Prefect of the East under Constantius, see Ammianus Marcellinus, Bk\n  XV. c. 13. Cf. Neander, _Ch. Hist._ IV. 488 _sqq._ That the\n  persecution instituted against them by Diocletian slackened under\n  Constantine and Constantius, see de Stoop, _op. cit._ pp. 40, 41.\n\nFootnote 1211:\n\n  See the Laws of Theodosius and Valentinian II, quoted by de Stoop,\n  _op. cit._ pp. 41, 42.\n\nFootnote 1212:\n\n  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, III. p. 153. Justinian put to death not\n  only convicted Manichaeans, but those who being acquainted with\n  members of the sect, did not denounce them. See de Stoop, _op. cit._\n  p. 43.\n\nFootnote 1213:\n\n  The Manichaeans seem always to have been favoured by the better\n  classes and high officials of the Empire who maintained for some\n  time a secret leaning towards Paganism. See de Stoop, _op. cit._ p.\n  84. The case of Barsym\u00e8s, the banker or money-changer whom Theodora\n  made Praetorian Prefect, and who was allowed according to Procopius\n  (_Anecdota_, c. XXII. 7) to profess Manichaeism openly, was\n  doubtless only one of many. It is apparently this Barsym\u00e8s who is\n  invoked in the Turfan texts as \u201cthe Lord Bar Simus,\u201d see M\u00fcller,\n  _Handschriften-Reste_, pp. 45, 59.\n\nFootnote 1214:\n\n  That this was the professed policy of the sect seems plain from the\n  words they attributed to Manes himself: \u201cI am not inhuman like Christ\n  who said: Whoso denieth me, him will I deny. I say unto you: Whoso\n  denieth me before man and saves himself by this falsehood, him will I\n  receive with joy, as if he had not denied me.\u201d Cf. de Stoop, _op.\n  cit._ p. 46, quoting Cedrenus; Al B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, _Chronology_, p. 191.\n\nFootnote 1215:\n\n  Von Le Coq, _Exploration Arch\u00e9ologique \u00e0 Tourfan_, Confces au Mus\u00e9e\n  Guimet (Bibl. de Vulg. t. XXXV.), 1910, p. 278.\n\nFootnote 1216:\n\n  de Stoop, _op. cit._ pp. 86, 144.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONCLUSION\n\n\nConstantine\u2019s accession proved to be, like the coming of Alexander, a\nturning-point in the history of the world. His so-called conversion put\ninto the hands of the Catholic Church a weapon for the suppression of\nall rivalry, of which she was not slow to make use. Already in his reign\nmany of the heathen temples were torn down[1217], and under the rule of\nhis morose and gloomy successor, Constantius, the work of demolition\nwent on apace[1218]. The accession of the philosophic Julian gave the\nworshippers of other gods than Christ a short respite, and even allowed\nsome of the temples destroyed in the former reigns to be restored by or\nat the expense of the Christians[1219]. Julian\u2019s heroic death in Persia\nagain threw the crown into the hands of a Christian emperor, whose reign\nof seven months gave him little time, as he perhaps had small\ninclination, for persecution[1220]; but under his successors Valentinian\nand Valens, heathen sacrifices were forbidden under severe penalties.\nThe end came under Gratian, when the temple estates were confiscated,\nthe priests and vestals deprived of the stipends which they had hitherto\nreceived from the public treasury, and the heathen confraternities or\ncolleges were declared incapable of receiving legacies[1221]. Only a few\nrich men like the Vettius Agorius Praetextatus whom we have seen among\nthe worshippers of Mithras, or the Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, whose\nlearned and patriotic life has been so well described by Sir Samuel\nDill[1222], could henceforth venture to practise, even with maimed\nrites, the faiths condemned by the Court and the Church.\n\nAs for the Gnostic sects, which since Hadrian\u2019s time had striven with\nsuch success as we have seen to combine magic and other ancient beliefs\nwith Christianity, they found but short shrift at the hands of the\ntriumphant Church. By an edict issued by Constantine before his own\nreception into the Church, all their \u201chouses of prayer\u201d were confiscated\nfor the benefit of the Catholic Church, their meeting even in private\nforbidden, and their books seized and burned[1223].\n\n    \u201cThus,\u201d says Eusebius, \u201cwere the lurking places of the heretics\n    broken up by the emperor\u2019s command, and the savage beasts they have\n    harboured (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines)\n    driven to flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated\n    by the emperor\u2019s threats, disguising their real feelings, crept\n    secretly into the Church. For since the law directed that search\n    should be made for their books, those of them who practised evil and\n    forbidden arts were detected, and these were ready to secure their\n    own safety by dissimulation of every kind[1224].\u201d\n\nThroughout the length and breadth of the Roman Empire all but a very few\nRoman nobles thus professed the faith of Christ. In the words of the\ndying Julian, the Galilaean had conquered.\n\nFrom this time until our own, Christianity has reigned in the West with\nno serious rival. In the VIIth century, when Mahommed\u2019s Arabs, flushed\nwith the enthusiasm of a new faith which owed something at least to the\nrelics of Gnosticism, poured in upon an Empire wearied out alike by\nperpetual war against the barbarians and by its own civil and religious\ndissensions, the Church was compelled to abandon to them her conquests\nin Africa and the East. In Europe, however, she continued in unchecked\nsupremacy, gathering to herself and assimilating the barbarians who at\none time seemed likely to extinguish all civilization; and she thus\nbecame a bond uniting many nations and languages in one community of\nfaith and thought. She even succeeded in keeping alive the remains of\nthat Greek art and learning which still form our best and proudest\nintellectual possession, and if during her reign many of the precious\nmonuments of antiquity perished, the fault was not entirely hers. In\nevery respect, her rule was supreme; and such enemies as she had in\nEurope were those of her own household. The Manichaeans who, as has been\nsaid, once bid fair to deprive her of some of her fairest provinces,\nnever dared to make open war upon her, and their secret defection was\npunished by an unsparing use of the secular arm. The German Reformation\nof the XVIth century has probably left her stronger than before, and the\nfew losses that she has suffered in the Old World have been more than\ncompensated by the number of lieges she has succeeded in attaching to\nherself in the New.\n\nIn the days of her infancy, and before she thus came into her\ninheritance, Christianity borrowed much from the rivals over which she\nwas in the long run to reign supreme. Her outward observances, her\nritual, and the organization of her hierarchy, are perhaps all due to\nthe associations that she finally overcame. The form of her sacraments,\nthe periods of her fasts and festivals, and institutions like monachism,\ncannot be explained without reference to those religions from whose\nrivalry she so long suffered. That, in such matters, the Church should\ntake what was useful to her was, as said above, part of her consciously\nexpressed policy, and doubtless had much to do with her speedy triumph.\nTo show that her dogmas also took many things from the same source would\ninvolve an invasion into the domain of professional theology, for which\nI have neither authority nor desire. But if, at some future time,\ninvestigation should show that in this respect also Christianity owes\nsomething to her forerunners and rivals, the argument against her Divine\norigin would not thereby be necessarily strengthened. That, in the\ncourse of her development, she acquired characteristics which fitted her\nto her environment would be in strict conformity with the laws which\nappear to govern the evolution of all institutions; and if the Power\nruling the universe chooses to work by law rather than by what seems to\nus like caprice, such a choice does not show Him to be lacking either in\nwisdom or benevolence.\n\nAs was said at the outset, everyone must be left to place his own\ninterpretation on the facts here attempted to be set forth. But if, _per\nimpossibile_, we could approach the study of the origins of Christianity\nwith the same mental detachment and freedom from prejudice with which we\nmight examine the worship of the Syrian Jupiter Dolichenus or the\nScandinavian Odin, we should probably find that the Primitive Church had\nno need of the miraculous powers which were once assigned as the reason\nfor her gradual and steady advance to all but universal dominion. On the\ncontrary, it may be that Christianity would then appear as a\nlink\u2014although a most important and necessary link\u2014in a regular chain of\nevents which began more than three centuries before she emerged from her\nbirthplace in Palestine into that Roman world which in three centuries\nmore was to be hers of right. No sooner had Alexander\u2019s conquests made a\nworld-religion possible, than there sprang up, as we have seen, in his\nown city of Alexandria, a faith with a far higher and purer idea of\nDivinity than any that had until then been known in the West. Then the\ngerms already present in small fraternities like those of the Orphics\nand the Essenes blossomed forth into the fantastic and unwholesome\ngrowths, as we must needs think them, of that Gnosticism which marked\nthe transition of the ancient world from Paganism to Christianity.\nLastly there came in from the countries under the influence of Rome\u2019s\nsecular enemy, Persia, the heresy of Marcion, the religion of Mithras,\nand the syncretistic policy of Manes and his continuators. Against all\nthese in turn, Christianity had to struggle in a contest where the\nvictory was not always on her side: and if in time she overthrew them\nall, it can only be because she was better fitted to the needs of the\nworld than any of her predecessors or contemporaries.\n\nFootnote 1217:\n\n  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ III. pp. 34, 35.\n\nFootnote 1218:\n\n  _Op. cit._ III. p. 46.\n\nFootnote 1219:\n\n  Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 5, for instances. Cf. Neander, _op.\n  cit._ III. pp. 66, 67.\n\nFootnote 1220:\n\n  Neander, _op. cit._ III. p. 96.\n\nFootnote 1221:\n\n  _Op. cit._ III. p. 100.\n\nFootnote 1222:\n\n  S. Dill, _Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire_,\n  pp. 143-166.\n\nFootnote 1223:\n\n  Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_, Bk III. cc. 64, 65.\n\nFootnote 1224:\n\n  _Op. cit._ c. 66.\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX\n\n\n Abel, Ophite story of, ii. 52;\n   and Manichaean, ii. 304\n\n\n Aberamenth\u00f4u, name used in Magic Papyri and _Pistis Sophia_, i. 102.\n   _See_ Jesus, _Texts of Saviour_\n\n Abiuth, receiver of Ariel in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186\n\n Abraham, named in Mag. Pap., i. 106 _n._ 6; ii. 34;\n   an astrologer _apud_ Artapanus, i. 173;\n   inspired by Ialdabaoth, ii. 53;\n   Bosom of, in Marcion\u2019s system, ii. 211\n\n Abraxas, in system of Basilides, ii. 90, 92\n\n Abydos, gods of, i. 33 _n._ 1;\n   excavations at, i. 36\n\n Achaea, worship of Goddesses Twain in, i. 135;\n   Cilician pirates deported to, ii. 229\n\n Achaemenides, Persian religion under, i. 122; ii. 234\n\n\n Achamoth, Sophia of Ophites, ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   called the Mother by Valentinus, ii. 112 _n._ 3;\n   the Sophia Without of Valentinus, ii. 117 _n._ 2;\n   baptism in name of, by Marcus, ii. 189 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Sophia (2)\n\n Acheron, Isis shining in, i. 60\n\n Achilles, his horror of Hades, i. 59, 150;\n   his flattery of Zeus, i. 95;\n   his purification by Ulysses, i. 121 _n._ 4\n\n Achrammachamari, name of Great Propator in _Texts of Saviour_ and Mag.\n    Pap., ii. 142 _n._ 2\n\n Acropolis, sacred things of Eleusis lodged in, i. 39;\n   Serapeum built opposite, i. 52\n\n\n Acrostics, use of, in Jewish, Greek and Christian literature, i. 169\n    _n._ 1;\n   in Valentinian epitaph, ii. 129 _n._ 3\n\n Adam, the protoplast, Ophite story of, ii. 52, 58, 70;\n   and Manichaean, ii. 299;\n   and neo-Manichaean, ii. 329\n\n Adam or Adamos, god of Samothrace, i. 139 _n._ 1; ii. 54 _n._ 6\n\n\n Adamas, the Ophite, the First Man or Great Light, ii. 38;\n   gives birth to Second Man or Son, _ibid._;\n   called Father-and-Son, ii. 39;\n   androgyne, ii. 40;\n   forms triad with Holy Spirit, ii. 41 _nn._ 2, 3;\n   all things except matter contained in, ii. 44 _n._ 2, 64;\n   all light returns to, ii. 65, 80;\n   called Caulacau, ii. 94 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ First Man, Caulacau, Hades\n\n Adamas, king of the Twelve Aeons in _Pistis Sophia_, his rebellion, ii.\n    48 _n._ 4, 152 _n._ 1;\n   place of, ii. 137 _n._ 3;\n   ruler of Zodiac, ii. 152;\n   delays redemption of souls, ii. 153;\n   sends demon in shape of flying arrow, ii. 156;\n   probably Diabolos or Cosmocrator of Valentinus, ii. 163.\n   _See_ Sabaoth Adamas\n\n Adamas of the Light, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325;\n   slayer of monster, ii. 329\n\n Adonai, epithet of Zeus in Mag. Pap., i. 106;\n   in Coptic, ii. 46 _n._ 3;\n   son of Ophite Sophia, ii. 47;\n   ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 69;\n   meaning of name of, ii. 71 _n._ 1;\n   address of soul to, ii. 72\n\n Adonis, wailed for in Athens, _temp._ Alcibiades, i. 16;\n   Dying God of Mediterranean, i. 37;\n   Asiatic form of Dionysos, i. 47;\n   identified with Osiris, i. 55;\n   identified with Dionysos by Orphics, i. 137, 145;\n   identified with Dionysos at Eleusis, i. 139 _n._ 1;\n   androgyne, i. 185;\n   Ophites attend mysteries of, ii. 21, 54;\n   identified with Phrygian god, ii. 31;\n   fiend in hell in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186\n\n Advent, the. _See_ Parusia\n\n Aegean, islands of, birthplace of gods, i. 16, 52;\n   early worship of Alexandrian gods in, i. 52;\n   and of Eleusinian, ii. 135\n\n Aeinous or Aionios (Everlasting), member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii.\n    101\n\n\n Aelius Aristides, quoted, i. 55 _n._ 2, 58, 60, 64 _n._ 3; ii. 66 _n._\n    2\n\n Aeon, Thirteenth, highest place of Left in _P.S._, ii. 143, 150;\n   Authades would-be ruler of, ii. 151, 153;\n   first dwelling-place of Pistis Sophia, ii. 155;\n   place below it made for Pistis Sophia, ii. 155, 156;\n   Pistis Sophia restored to, ii. 157\n\n Aeons, the Twelve, described, ii. 143, 152, 153;\n   souls made from tears of rulers of, ii. 153;\n   Jesus takes away part of their power, ii. 154;\n   divided into repentant and unrepentant, ii. 182;\n   the mystery of, in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 195.\n   _See_ Zodiac\n\n Aerodios, power mentioned in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 191\n\n Aeschines, son of Glaucothea, i. 22;\n   Demosthenes\u2019 invective against, quoted, i. 138.\n   _See_ Sabazius\n\n Aeschylus, quoted, i. 48, 55, 123\n\n Aether, offspring of Time _ap._ Orphics, i. 123\n\n Afghanistan, included in Persian Empire, i. 1\n\n Africa, political power of priesthoods in, i. 31;\n   Mithraism in Northern, ii. 230;\n   christianized Manichaeism of, ii. 339\n\n\n Agape or Love, supreme God of Diagram, ii. 68, 123 _n._ 3;\n   supreme God of Valentinus, ii. 98 _n._ 1;\n   feminine member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101;\n   supreme God of Marcion, ii. 210;\n   seal of Azrua in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 341.\n   _See_ Eros\n\n Agdistis, name of androgyne Cybele, ii. 39, 40\n\n Ageratos or Never-ageing, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101\n\n Agla, cabalistic word used in mediaeval magic, ii. 139 _n._ 1\n\n Agra on the Ilissus, mysteries of, i. 41\n\n Agrestius, a _clarissimus_ and high priest of Mithras, ii. 239\n\n Ahnas-el-Medineh or Heracleopolis, mentioned in magic spell, i. 98\n\n Ahriman, Areimanios, or Arimanius, in _Bundahish_ slayer of Gay\u00f4mort,\n    i. 126 _n._ 3;\n   not entirely evil till Sassanid times, ii. 232, 253;\n   Magi sacrifice to, ii. 234;\n   son of Zervan Akerene (Cumont), ii. 236, 252;\n   altars dedicated to, ii. 239;\n   Mithras superior to, ii. 240;\n   in _Bundahish_ slayer of bull Goshurun, ii. 246, 254;\n   ruler of earth in Mithraism, ii, 255, 256;\n   modified worship of, in Mithraism, ii. 278;\n   likeness of representation of, to Manichaean Satan, ii. 291.\n   _See_ Goshurun\n\n Ahura Mazda, the Omniscient Lord, i. liii;\n   father of Gay\u00f4mort, i. lxi;\n   Supreme Being of Yashts, ii. 231;\n   his relations to Amshaspands, ii. 232;\n   in Behistun inscription, ii. 233;\n   not mentioned in Mithraic monuments, ii. 239;\n   in _Bundahish_, ii. 246;\n   replaced by Jupiter O.M. in Mithraism, ii. 246;\n   worship of, restored by Ardesh\u00eer, ii. 284\n\n\n Ailoaios or Eloaeus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 69, 70\n    _n._ 2, 74 _n._ 3;\n   address to, ii. 73;\n   sphere of Venus, 74 _n._ 1\n\n\n Akae, cryptographic name in _Book of Enoch_, i. 169, 170\n\n Akinetos or Immovable, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101\n\n Albigenses, successors of Manichaeans, ii. 357\n\n Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee, quoted, ii. 279, 280, 283, 284, 286 _n._ 1, 307\n\n Alcibiades, goes to Susa, i. 7;\n   Adonis wailed for when Sicilian expedition of, sails, i. 16\n\n Alcmaeon of Crotona, calls stars gods, i. 186 _n._ 2\n\n Aldabeim, name of sun in Mag. Pap., ii. 46 _n._ 3\n\n Aletheia, member of 1st Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98\n\n\n Alexander of Abonoteichos, his impostures, i. 24;\n   comes to Rome under Marcus Aurelius, ii. 203\n\n Alexander, King of Epirus, Asoka\u2019s mission to, i. 20\n\n Alexander the Great, his conquests hellenize Mediterranean Basin, i.\n    lviii;\n   the world before and after, i. 1 _sqq._;\n   greatest individual in history, i. 4, 12 _sqq._;\n   his aims and achievements, i. 5-8, 26-27;\n   his deification explained, i. 18;\n   religious associations follow conquests of, i. 22-26 _sqq._;\n   his work in Egypt, i. 29, 44;\n   his probable plans for universal religion, i. 30;\n   breaks down national barriers, i. 54, 107;\n   makes world-religions possible, i. 111;\n   his conduct towards Jews, i. 150;\n   re-settles Samaria, i. 177;\n   son of Zeus in serpent form, ii. 49;\n   his effect on cosmology and ethics, ii. 86;\n   consoled by Anaxarchus for death of Clitus, ii. 87.\n   _See_ India\n\n Alexander, bishop of Lycopolis, quoted, ii. 294 _n._ 2, 295 _n._ 2.\n\n Alexander Severus, the Emperor, gods in _lararium_ of, i. 82;\n   his success against Persians, ii. 226\n\n Alexander the Valentinian, leader of Anatolic School, ii. 119\n\n Alexandria, its foundation by Alexander, i. 5;\n   its importance not at first recognized, i. 28;\n   Sema of Alexander at, i. 30;\n   a Greek city, i. 44;\n   Serapeum of, i. 48, 51, 58 _n._ 1;\n   oracle of Serapis at, i. 77;\n   worship of Serapis at, i. 82 _n._ 2, 86;\n   destruction of temples at, by Theodosius, i. 83, 84;\n   Hadrian\u2019s opinion of, i. 86;\n   early Gnostics start from, i. 111; ii. 8;\n   Orphics plentiful at, i. 156;\n   Simon Magus\u2019 doctrines at, i. 198; ii. 89;\n   intellectual centre of Roman world, ii. 88;\n   Basilides teaches at, ii. 90\n\n Alfenius Julianus Kumenius, _clarissimus_ and priest of Mithras, ii.\n    268\n\n Allat, the goddess, Ereshkigal an epithet of, i. 100\n\n Alleius Craeonius, author on magic, i. 105\n\n Amazons, the story of, suggests bisexual deity, ii. 40\n\n Ambrose of Milan, convert from Valentinianism, i. 112 _n._ 1; ii. 21\n    _n._ 5;\n   his date, ii. 132 _n._ 2\n\n Am\u00e9lineau, E., translates _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 13;\n   translates Bruce Papyrus, ii, 190;\n   his date for Bruce Papyrus, ii. 194;\n   quoted, ii. 178, 191, 192, 193, 195\n\n\n Amen of Thebes, the god, father of Alexander, i. 18;\n   priesthood of, i. 23, 31 _sqq._;\n   Ptolemies raise temples to, i. 52\n\n Amenhotep IV, King of Egypt, failure of monotheistic teaching of, i.\n    11;\n   priests of Amen crush heresy of, i. 31\n\n Amens, the Three, powers mentioned in _P.S._, ii. 142;\n   and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193\n\n Amens, the Seven, powers mentioned in _P.S._, ii. 141;\n   and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193\n\n Amenti, the god called Lord of, i. 33;\n   Osiris the bull of, i. 45, 102;\n   Jesus the conqueror of, i. 102 _n._ 1;\n   a hell in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 182, 186;\n   horrors of Egyptian, ii. 196.\n   _See_ Aberamenth\u00f4u, Jesus, Khent-Amentit\n\n Ameret\u00e2t or Immortality, one of the Amshaspands, i. 181 _n._ 1; ii. 324\n    _n._ 4, 355.\n   _See_ Appellant and Respondent\n\n Amitrochates, son of Chandragupta, his desire for Greek learning, i. 8\n    _n._ 3\n\n Amon. _See_ Amen of Thebes\n\n Amos, the Prophet, inspired by Ialdabaoth _ap._ Ophites, ii. 81 _n._ 2\n\n Amshaspands, the Seven, and the Seven Planets, i. 117;\n   names of, i. 181, _n._ 1; ii. 103 _n._ 3;\n   likeness of, to \u201croots\u201d of Simon Magus, ii. 103 _n._ 3;\n   and to Aeons of Valentinus, ii. 103 _n._ 3;\n   in Avesta, ii. 232;\n   absent from early Manichaeism, ii. 327 _n._ 4;\n   mention of, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 330, 355\n\n Anat, the goddess, assessor of Yahweh, ii. 32 _n._ 4\n\n Anatolia, its religious peculiarities _temp._ Christ, ii. 28 _sqq._,\n    77;\n   its worship of double axe, 67 _n._ 3\n\n Anaxarchus the Atomist philosopher, consoles Alexander after death of\n    Clitus, ii. 87\n\n Ancient of Days, name of Valentinian Ialdabaoth, ii. 107 _n._ 2\n\n Andrew the Apostle, Saint, name of, shows predilection of Jews for\n    Greek names, i. 173 _n._ 2;\n   mentioned in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 157\n\n Anebo, letter of Porphyry to, for threats of Egyptian magicians to\n    gods, i. 104 _n._ 3\n\n Angels, Essenes sworn to preserve the names of, i. 153, 157;\n   no names of, in _O.T._, until Daniel, i. 158;\n   rulers over tribes of demons, _ibid._;\n   sinning, cast into abyss of fire (Baruch), i. 165;\n   Ennoia produces world-making, _ap._ Simon M., i. 187;\n   patterns after which worlds made (Philo), i. 187 _n._ 3;\n   world to be freed from rule of, _ap._ Simon, i. 196;\n   Simonians say God of Jews one of world-making (Epiphanius), i. 199;\n   seven heavens are also, _ap._ Valentinians (Irenaeus), ii. 107 _n._\n      4;\n   are Logoi sent into soul by Jesus and Sophia, ii. 110;\n   souls after death, brides of, _ibid._;\n   terror of angels at speech of man (Valentinus), ii. 112 _n._ 3;\n   Archons of Adamas in _Texts of Saviour_ beget, ii, 152 _n._ 1;\n   Splenditenens and Atlas of Manichaeism, ii. 297, 298.\n   _See_ Enoch, Gabriel, Great Council, Michael, Tertullian\n\n\n Annu or On, Egyptian name of Heliopolis and chief seat of worship of\n    R\u00e2, i. 31\n\n Anthesteria, ceremonies of, show resurrection and marriage of Dionysos,\n    i. 42\n\n Anthropos, member of 3rd Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98\n\n Antigonus Monophthalmos, King of Syria, his retort when hailed as a\n    god, i. 19;\n   Phrygia occupied alternately by him and Lysimachus, ii. 29\n\n Antigonus Gonatas, King of Macedonia, mission of Asoka to, i. 20.\n   _See_ Tarn\n\n Antinous, death of, fixes date of Hadrian\u2019s letter to Servian, i. 86\n    _n._ 5\n\n Antioch, worship of Serapis at, i. 35;\n   birthplace of Carpocrates, i. 111;\n   and of Saturninus, ii. 9, 89\n\n Antiochus I Soter, King of Syria, mission of Asoka to, i. 20\n\n Antiochus III the Great, King of Syria, seizes Palestine, i. 151;\n   transports Jewish families to Anatolia, ii. 28\n\n\n Antiochus IV Epiphanes, King of Syria, attempts to hellenize Jews, i.\n    151, 156, 162, 163;\n   Book of Daniel written _temp._, i. 158;\n   caught between Romans and Parthians, i. 160;\n   his mystic antagonist Taxo, i. 170;\n   Samaritans accept reforms of, i. 177\n\n _Antitheses_, the. _See_ Marcion\n\n Antonines, the, Isis-worship at its apogee _temp._, i. 54, 81\n\n Antoninus Pius, the Emperor, Simonians in Rome _temp._, i. 199\n\n Anubis, the god, son of Osiris and Nephthys, i. 35;\n   tribal deity of jackal totem, i. 36;\n   his seeking for Osiris in Rome, i. 70;\n   in procession at Cenchreae, i. 72;\n   mask of, used as disguise, i. 78.\n   _See_ Marcus Volusius\n\n Apelles, the Marcionite, his tenets, ii. 218\n\n Apep, the serpent, enemy of the sun-god Ra, ii. 78\n\n\n Aphrodite, the goddess, worshipped under other names by\n    confraternities, i. 25;\n   and Adonis, i. 37; ii. 31;\n   daughter of Zeus, i. 124 _n._ 3;\n   identified by Orphics with Isis and others, i. 137 _n._ 1;\n   Orphic hymn to, i. 142 _n._ 2;\n   called Cytheraea, i. 143;\n   the Mother of the Gods in Cyprus, ii. 40;\n   called Mother of All Living in Asia, ii. 135 _n._ 3;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.\n   _See_ Venus\n\n Apis, the \u201clife\u201d of Osiris, i. 32, 45, 49\n\n\n _Apocalypse_ of St John, the, its date, ii. 26 _n._ 3;\n   quoted, i. 145 _n._ 1, 158, 169, 182 _n._ 4; ii. 4 _n._ 1, 25\n\n Apocatastasis, return of the worlds to God, an Ophite doctrine, ii. 42,\n    57\n\n Apollo, the god, his birthplace, i. 16;\n   identified with Horus, i. 48, 63;\n   his contempt for mankind, i. 57;\n   his place in Orphic legend, i. 125, 147;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238;\n   distinct from Helios, i. 240;\n   worship of, under Julian, i. 269\n\n Apollonius of Tyana, image of, in Alexander Severus\u2019 _lararium_, i. 82\n\n\n _Apophasis_ of Simon Magus, the, described, i. 179;\n   quoted, i. 182, 188, 189, 193, 194; ii. 90 _n._ 5\n\n Apostles, demand only faith from converts, i. lvii;\n   do not borrow from earlier creeds, i. 88;\n   their meeting with Simon Magus, i. 176, 177;\n   in _Clementines_, i. 178;\n   intolerance of, due to Jewish origin (Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq), ii. 10;\n   souls of, in _P.S._ drawn from Treasure-house, ii. 137, 147\n\n _Apostolical Constitutions_, their date, ii. 7 _n._ 2;\n   quoted, i. 87 _n._ 1; ii. 7 _nn._ 2, 3, 219 _n._ 2\n\n\n Appellant and Respondent gods, the, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 302 _n._ 1,\n    324, 343, 354, 355\n\n Apuat, the god, \u201copener of the ways,\u201d i. 33\n\n Apuleius of Madaura, quoted, i. 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,\n    68, 71, 73-74, 75, 77, 86 _n._ 3, 101 _n._ 2\n\n Aramati, the Vedic goddess, identified with Spenta Armaiti of the\n    Avesta, ii. 45 _n._ 1, 300 _n._ 2\n\n Ararat or Ararad, Mt, Books of Je\u00fb hidden in, ii. 147 _n._ 5\n\n Arbela, Greek troops on Persian side at, i. 7;\n   Alexander\u2019s pursuit after, i. 13\n\n Arcadia, Eleusinian triad worshipped in, i. 135\n\n Arcadius, the Emperor, Church dedicated to, in place of Serapeum, i. 84\n\n _Archelai Acta._ _See_ Hegemonius\n\n Archimedes, his calculation of places of stars sinful (Hippolytus), i.\n    112 _n._ 2\n\n Architect of the Universe. _See_ Demiurge\n\n Archon, the Great, of Basilides, the Demiurge, ii. 91;\n   likeness of, to Ialdabaoth, ii. 94\n\n Archontics, the, a sect related to the Ophites, ii. 77\n\n Arctinus of Miletus, first Greek author to mention purification, i. 121\n    _n._ 4\n\n Arctos, the Great Bear, in Mithraism, ii. 266\n\n _Arda viraf namak_, the, quoted, ii. 264 _n._ 5\n\n Ardesh\u00eer, the Shah, restorer of Persian nationality, ii. 226, 282;\n   his son Peroz converted to Manichaeism, ii. 281;\n   restores worship of Ahura Mazda, ii. 284\n\n\n Ares, the god, identified with Roman Mars, i. 17;\n   Homeric or Orphic hymn to, i. 141 _n._ 2, 142 _n._ 2;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238\n\n Argolis, the, Eleusinian triad worshipped in, i. 135\n\n Ariel, a fiend in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186\n\n Arimaspi, the, fables concerning, i. 2 _n._ 1\n\n Aristaeus, pro-Jewish writer, i. 173\n\n Aristides. _See_ Aelius Aristides\n\n Aristides, Christian apologist, ii. 203, 204 _n._ 1\n\n Aristion, Athenian courtezan member of religious confraternity, i. 22\n\n Aristophanes, quoted, i. 17 _n._ 1, 40 _n._ 4, 124, 137;\n   scholiast on, i. 17 _n._ 1\n\n Aristotle, his monotheism, i. 10;\n   says that religion follows form of government, i. 12, 15;\n   that Orpheus did not exist, i. 121 _n._ 1\n\n Armageddon, covers name of Rome, i. 170 _n._ 5\n\n Armenia, Ophites in, ii. 76;\n   kings of, claim descent from Persian heroes, ii. 225 _n._ 1;\n   Marcionites and Bardesanites in, ii. 283;\n   invasion of, by Mihr Nerses, ii. 285\n\n Arnobius, _adv. Gentes_, quoted, i. 124 _n._ 3; ii. 39 _nn._ 2, 4, 264\n    _n._ 5\n\n Arrian, _Anabasis_, quoted, i. 4 _n._ 1\n\n Arsaces, founder of Parthian kingdom, ii. 224\n\n Arsinoe, wife of Ptolemy Philadelphus, i. 18\n\n Artapanus, _On the Jews_, quoted, i. 173\n\n Artemis, the goddess, the Ephesian, i. lvi, 40;\n   birthplace of Greek, i. 16;\n   Indian worship of, i. 17;\n   Orthia, i. 100 _n._ 2;\n   priestesses of Ephesian, called bees, i. 143 _n._ 4;\n   Phrygian, ii. 67 _n._ 3;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.\n   _See_ Diana\n\n Aryans, their dealings with lower races, i. 3, 92\n\n Asar-hapi, Osiris as Apis, i. 49\n\n Asha Vashishta or Truth, the Amshaspand, i. 181 _n._ 1\n\n Asia, before Alexander, i. 1;\n   made Greek by Alexander, i. 5;\n   rush of Greeks to, i. 7;\n   Greek spoken throughout, i. 8;\n   cruelty of Assyrian domination in, i. 12;\n   returns to Persian ways, ii. 225\n\n Asia Minor, native religions of, i. lviii, 37, 126; ii. 29, 36, 49, 67\n    _n._ 3;\n   gods of, coalesce with Greek, i. 17;\n   home of Dionysos worship, i. 43 _n._ 3;\n   Alexandrian gods worshipped in, i. 53;\n   Vedic gods worshipped in, i. 122 _n._ 3;\n   Eleusinian gods worshipped in, i. 136;\n   Orphics in, i. 141, 156; ii. 236;\n   priestesses called bees in, i. 143 _n._ 4;\n   Jewish atrocities in, _temp._ Trajan, i. 173 _n._ 1;\n   Ophite heresy probably native to, ii. 26, 76;\n   Jewish settlements in, ii. 28;\n   Jewish magicians in, _temp._ Apostles, ii. 33;\n   matriarchate in, ii. 40;\n   Babylonian culture in, ii. 48;\n   serpent worship in, ii. 49, 77, 78;\n   reverts to Persian ways, ii. 225;\n   Mithraism in, ii. 229, 232, 268\n\n Askew, Dr, sells _Pistis Sophia_ to British Museum, ii. 134\n\n\n Asklepios or Aesculapius, the god, Alexander of Abonoteichos priest of,\n    i. 24;\n   Serapis statue that of, i. 48 _n._ 3, 78 _n._ 2;\n   identified with Serapis, i. 78, 87\n\n Aso, the Ethiopian queen, enemy of Osiris, i. 33, 37 _n._ 1\n\n Asoka, his missions to Greek kings, i. 20\n\n Assur-bani-pal, King of Assyria, his library at Kuyunjik, i. 94, 114\n\n Assyria, penitential psalms of, i. 115;\n   Jews tributary to, i. 160 _n._ 4\n\n Assyrians, the, tyranny of, i. 3;\n   suzerains of Hebrews, i. 150;\n   name used for Syrians in Christian times, ii. 53 _n._ 4, 54 _n._ 6;\n   worship of Mylitta by (Herodotus), ii. 234\n\n Astaphaios or Astaphaeus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47;\n   name derived from magic (Origen), ii. 47, 48;\n   once called Astanpheus, ii. 47, 69 _n._\n   lord of third gate, ii. 70 _n._ 2, 73, 74 _n._ 3;\n   address to, ii. 73\n\n Astarte, the goddess, worship of, brought into Greece, i. 17;\n   worshipped by Greek confraternity, i. 25;\n   Phoenician form of earth goddess, i. 126;\n   dove, totem-animal of, ii. 135 _n._ 3;\n   _Mater Viventium_, _ibid._\n\n Astrampsuchos, name of Roman writer on magic, i. 107;\n   name of celestial guard in Bruce Papyrus, i. 107 _n._ 1;\n   power worshipped by the Peratae, _ibid._\n\n Astrology, origin of, in Chaldaea, i. 113;\n   fundamental idea of, i. 114;\n   system of correspondences results from, i. 115, 116;\n   impulse given to, by Greek mathematics, i. 116, 117;\n   all religions in Graeco-Roman world take note of, i. 117, 118;\n   gives new life to Gnosticism, i. 119;\n   Ophites mix astrological ideas with Orphic teaching, ii. 78;\n   first prominent in Gnosticism in _Excerpta Theodoti_, ii. 158 _n._ 1;\n   its great vogue in Rome under Severi, _ibid._;\n   reprobated in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 185;\n   part of scheme of punishments and salvation in _Texts of Saviour_,\n      ii. 185 _n._ 2;\n   its importance in Mithraism, ii. 235, 276.\n   _See_ Babylonia\n\n\n Atargatis or _Dea Syria_, favourite deity of Nero, ii. 31;\n   her Anatolian name and identification with other goddesses, ii. 31\n      _n._ 1;\n   homonym of Derketo (Garstang), ii. 40 _n._ 1;\n   her identity with the Mother of the Gods, ii. 299 _n._ 1;\n   Manichaean Mother of Life derived from, ii. 300 _n._ 2\n\n Athamas the Pythagorean, his doctrine of \u201croots,\u201d i. 197\n\n\n Athanasius, Saint, creed of, i. 89\n\n\n Athena, the goddess, identified with Minerva, i. 17;\n   her part in Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 39;\n   the Homeric, i. 57, 95, 124 _n._ 3;\n   statue of Helena of Tyre as, i. 198;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.\n   _See_ Minerva, Pallas\n\n Athenagoras, quoted, i. lvii _n._ 1, 63 _n._ 5, 64 _n._ 3; ii. 18 _n._\n    2\n\n Athens, foreign worships in, i. 16, 17 _n._ 1, 137;\n   accepts deification of Alexander, i. 18;\n   gathering in, for Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 38-41;\n   Alexandrian religion in, i. 52, 76;\n   Orphic myths brought into, by Epimenides, i, 121;\n   Orphic gold plates in Museum at, i. 132\n\n Athos Mt, _Philosophumena_ discovered at, ii. 11\n\n Atlas. _See_ Corybas, Omophorus\n\n Attis or Atys, the god, his worship brought into Greece, i. 17, 136;\n   his legend, i. 37; ii. 39;\n   identified with Sun, i. 118;\n   and with Dionysos, Adonis and Osiris, i. 137 _n._ 1, 145; ii. 17;\n   and with Sabazius, i. 138, 139;\n   androgyne, i. 185;\n   Gnostics attend mysteries of, ii. 21;\n   Phrygia, home of worship of, ii. 28, 67 _n._ 3;\n   to Ophites, type of world-soul, ii. 65 _n._ 3\n\n Augustine of Hippo, Saint, convert from Manichaeism, i. 112 _n._ 1;\n   well informed about Manichaeans, ii. 352;\n   quoted, i. 103 _n._ 4; ii. 10 _n._ 1, 12 _n._ 4, 25, 261, 298 _n._ 1,\n      317, 319, 331, 332, 343, 346, 349 _n._ 4, 350\n\n Augustus, the Emperor, Samaria\u2019s capital named Sebaste in honour of, i.\n    177;\n   Galatians become Roman _temp._, ii. 28;\n   Parthians\u2019 terror of (Horace), ii. 225\n\n\n Aurelian, the Emperor, his worship of sun-god, i. 119 _n._ 1; ii. 228;\n   position of Christianity under, ii. 23;\n   restores Roman arms in the East, ii. 226;\n   gives up Dacia to Goths, ii. 271\n\n Authades, the Proud God of the _Pistis Sophia_, last member of Triad of\n    the Left, ii. 151;\n   his disobedience, ii. 152;\n   his envy of Pistis Sophia, ii. 155;\n   sends demon in shape of flying arrow, ii. 156;\n   his place given to Pistis Sophia, ii. 162\n\n Autogenes, power mentioned in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 192\n\n Autophyes or Self-produced, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101\n\n Avebury, Lord, quoted, i. 91, 99 _n._ 1\n\n\n Avesta, the Zend, Seven Amshaspands of, i. 117;\n   emanation doctrine in, ii. 35;\n   First Man in, ii. 38 _n._ 3;\n   Supreme Being in, ii. 231;\n   Ormuzd and Ahriman in, ii. 236;\n   bull Goshurun in, ii. 243;\n   denounces magic, ii. 275 _n._ 2;\n   doubtful about eternity of evil, ii. 289;\n   quoted, ii. 310, 311.\n\n\n Avidius Cassius, his victories over Parthians, ii. 225.\n\n Axe, Double. _See_ Bacchus, Caria, Crete, Cybele, Cyranides, Labrys,\n    Mycenae, Ramsay, Simon Magus\n\n Axionicus the Valentinian, member of Anatolic School, ii. 119\n\n Azrua, name of God of Light in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323, 341, 342.\n   _See_ Zervan\n\n\n Baalzephon, name in magic spell, i. 106 _n._ 4\n\n Babylon, break up of priesthoods of, i. 122;\n   rich Jews remain in, after captivity, i. 172;\n   Jewish families from, transported to Phrygia, ii. 28;\n   its site marked by Hilleh, ii. 33;\n   Jewish taste for cryptograms derived from, ii. 35\n\n\n Babylonia, Zoroastrian borrowings from, i. lxi;\n   original home of Dying God, i. 38 _n._ 1;\n   relics of Sumerian beliefs in, i. 100;\n   astral theory originates in, i. 115 _n._ 1, 116;\n   and primaeval deep theory, ii. 36;\n   and Western astrology, ii. 235\n\n Babylonians, astronomy of, i. 114;\n   isopsephism first used by, i. 69 _n._ 3;\n   figure earth like boat, ii. 48;\n   think sky a rocky vault, ii. 249\n\n Bacchanals, orgies of, from Thrace, i. 136\n\n\n Bacchus, concealed object in Corybantic rites of, i. 73 _n._ 1;\n   Mithraic dignitary Chief Herdsman of, i. 83;\n   Orphic initiate called, i. 128;\n   identified with Attis, Adonis, Osiris, etc., i. 139 _n._ 1;\n   Orphic hymns to, i. 142 _nn._ 2, 5, 143;\n   wine called, i. 168;\n   and worship of double axe, ii. 67 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Dionysos\n\n Bacchylides, quoted, i. 40 _n._ 1\n\n Bactria, home of Roxana, i. 5;\n   tale of Possessed Princess of, i. 10;\n   Alexander\u2019s massacres in, i. 13;\n   its struggles against Alexander, i. 28;\n   Buddhism and Zoroastrianism in, ii. 283\n\n Bahram. _See_ Varanes.\n\n Baillet, M. Auguste, quoted, i. 65\n\n Baluchistan, included in Persian Empire, i. 1\n\n\n Ban or Laban, the Great, a power mentioned by Bar Kh\u00f4ni, ii. 324\n\n Banquet, the, Valentinian wedding of souls, ii. 111;\n   scene in Mithraic monuments, ii. 247\n\n Baptism, used by Ophites, ii. 61;\n   teaching of Primitive Church as to, ii. 168;\n   subverts influence of stars (Theodotus), ii. 115 _n._ 3;\n   Marcus adds Hebrew exorcisms to, ii. 129, 189 _n._ 1;\n   one of the Mysteries in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 169;\n   postponed until death by married Marcionites, ii. 215, 221;\n   Mithraists use total immersion in, ii. 260.\n   _See_ Oblation, Dead\n\n\n Barbeliotae, Barbelitae or Borboriani, apparently an Ophite sect, ii.\n    27 _n._ 1;\n   described by Irenaeus, ii. 77, 138 _n._ 1;\n   identified with Naassenes and called Simonians (Irenaeus), ii. 138\n      _n._ 1\n\n Barbelo, mother of Pistis Sophia, ii. 74 _n._ 1;\n   names and place of, ii. 138 _n._ 1, 151 _n._ 4;\n   Jesus in _Pistis Sophia_ takes material body from, ii. 151, 179;\n   in _P.S._ consort of Great Propator, ii. 150, 155;\n   mentioned in _Texts of Saviour_ as mother of Pistis Sophia, ii. 186\n\n\n Barcochebas, Bar Cochba or Bar Coziba, the Jewish Messiah called\n    Monogenes, i. 124 _n._ 3\n\n Bardesanes or Bar Daisan the Valentinian, ii. 119;\n   his life, ii. 120;\n   protected by King of Edessa, ii. 132;\n   borrows from Zoroaster (Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee), ii. 214 _n._ 2;\n   Manes knows doctrines of, ii. 280, 290 _n._ 4;\n   his doctrines enter Persia, ii. 283\n\n Barnabas, hailed as Zeus, i. 191 _n._ 3; ii. 42;\n   with Paul summarizes Hebrew history for Phrygians, ii. 53 _n._ 2;\n   _Epistle of_, quoted, ii. 166 _n._ 2\n\n Barpharanges, magic word used in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 192\n\n Baruch, Apocalyptic literature attributed to, i. 163, 164;\n   _Book of_, used by Ophites, ii. 79;\n   _Apocalypse of_, quoted, ii. 257\n\n Basilides, the heresiarch, a Jew (Neander), ii. 9 _n._ 1;\n   says body of Jesus a phantasm, ii. 16, 17;\n   contemporary with Carpocrates, ii. 27 _n._ 3;\n   disciple of Menander, ii. 89;\n   his teaching, ii. 89 _sqq._;\n   his doctrine, comes through Matthias, ii. 90;\n   his borrowings from Egyptian religion, ii. 92;\n   his followers go over to Valentinus, ii. 93;\n   his relations with Buddhism, ii. 96;\n   words of, repeated in _Texts of Saviour_, 189;\n   quoted, ii. 172.\n   _See_ Buddhism\n\n Basilidians, their relative date, ii. 25 _n._ 5\n\n Baubo, the goddess, a form of Persephone, i. 100\n\n Baur, F. C., of T\u00fcbingen, says Simon Magus is St Paul, i. 179 _n._ 3\n\n Beast, Number of. _See_ Number\n\n Bedouins, introduce horse into Egypt, i. 36\n\n Beelzebub, Beelzebud, or Beelzebuth, chief of demons in Valentinian\n    system, ii. 108;\n   his name a parody of Jabezebuth, ii. 108 _n._ 1;\n   Lord of Chaos, ii. 109;\n   his possible place in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 163\n\n Behemoth (animals), in Diagram, ii. 71\n\n\n Bel, the god, his fight with Tiamat, ii. 44 _n._ 3;\n   reappears in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 295 _n._ 2\n\n Belisarius, his victories over Persians, ii. 226\n\n Bellerophon, appears in procession of Isis at Cenchreae, i. 71\n\n Bellona, the goddess, identified with Isis, i. 56.\n   _See_ Ma\n\n Bendis, the moon-goddess of Thrace, i. 16;\n   identified with Persephone, i. 137\n\n\n B\u00eaq\u00e2, cryptogram for Tetragrammaton, i. 169, 170\n\n\n Berossos or Berossus, legend about Zervan attributed to, i. lx;\n   our indebtedness to, i. 9;\n   quotes instance of isopsephism from Babylonians, i. 169 _n._ 3\n\n Bes, the god, dance of, on Herculaneum fresco, i. 69 _n._ 1\n\n Bethel, the god, assessor of Yahweh at Elephantine, ii. 32 _n._ 4\n\n Bhils, sorcerers to higher races, i. 92\n\n Bissing, Freiherr von, quoted, i. 68 _n._ 1, 69 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Herculaneum\n\n Bithynia, seat of Glycon worship, i. 24;\n   inscriptions from, i. 55 _n._ 3;\n   Ophite colleges in, in 5th cent. A.D., ii. 77\n\n Boeotia, native country of Dionysos, i. 52;\n   Orphic teaching in, i. 135;\n   worship of Bacchus comes from Thrace to, i. 136\n\n Boghaz-keui, Vedic gods worshipped at, i. lxii _n._ 2, 122 _n._ 3; ii.\n    231\n\n Bogomiles, successors of Manichaeans, ii. 357\n\n Bologna, Mithraic group at, ii. 238 _n._ 2\n\n _Book of the Dead._ _See_ Dead\n\n Borboriani. _See_ Barbeliotae\n\n Bosphorus, Isis-worship at Thracian, i. 53\n\n Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, M. A., thinks Timotheos and Manetho only typical\n    names, i. 44 _n._ 1;\n   and Bryaxis\u2019 statue that of Asklepios, i. 48 _n._ 3;\n   says Apostolic and sub-Apostolic intolerance for heresy due to Jewish\n      nationality, ii. 10;\n   quoted, i. 14 _n._ 3, 27 _n._ 1, 28 _nn._ 1, 2, 29 _nn._ 1, 3, 30\n      _nn._ 2, 3, 44 _nn._ 1, 2, 48 _n._ 3, 52 _n._ 1, 55 _n._ 1, 78\n      _n._ 2, 80 _n._ 1, 87 _n._ 2; ii. 10 _n._ 2, 257 _n._ 5\n\n Brimo, name given to Demeter in Mysteries, i. 124 _n._ 3\n\n\n Bruce Papyrus, thaumaturgic sacraments in, i. 87 _n._ 1; ii. 63 _n._ 1,\n    172 _n._ 3; 183 _n._ 1, 193;\n   Astrampsuchos, name of \u201cguard\u201d in, i. 107 _n._ 1;\n   creation from indivisible point, i. 194 _n._ 3; ii. 90 _n._ 5;\n   discovery of, by Bruce, ii. 13, 189;\n   its god Sitheus, ii. 76 _n._ 4;\n   its addiction to astrology, ii. 158 _n._ 1;\n   describes higher worlds than _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 161 _n._ 2;\n   makes matter non-existent, ii. 161 _n._ 3;\n   pictures like those in, perhaps referred to in _P.S._, ii. 180 _n._\n      2;\n   author of, acquainted with story of Iabraoth, ii. 182 _n._ 2;\n   variety of documents in, ii. 189, 190;\n   links of, with _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 193;\n   with _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 194;\n   probable date of, _ibid._;\n   quoted, ii. 191, 195\n\n Bryaxis, his statue of Serapis, i. 48, 49, 78 _n._ 2, 84\n\n Buda-Pesth, altars to Ahriman found at, ii. 239\n\n Buddha, Mani teaches divine mission of, i. lviii; ii. 316;\n   Greek statues of, in India, i. 8;\n   called Terebinthus, ii. 285;\n   first mentioned in Greek by Clem. Alex., ii. 286\n\n\n Buddhas, Cave of the Thousand, MS. found in, ii. 352.\n   _See_ Tun-huang\n\n\n Buddhism, study of, i. li;\n   its slow growth in India, i. 20;\n   unknown to Onomacritos, i. 135 _n._ 1;\n   its dates, i. 156 _n._ 1; ii. 283;\n   Basilides\u2019 supposed borrowings from, ii. 96;\n   in Bactria, ii. 283;\n   Manichaean borrowings from, ii. 313, 340, 346;\n   its toleration of Manichaeans, ii. 357.\n\n Budge, Dr E. A. T. Wallis, quoted, i. 31 _n._ 1, 32 _nn._ 3, 4, 33\n    _nn._ 1, 2, 35 _n._ 1, 38 _n._ 2, 61 _n._ 1, 88 _n._ 2, 126 _n._ 3,\n    182 _n._ 6; ii. 49 _n._ 3, 72 _n._ 3, 121 _n._ 3, 154 _n._ 3, 184\n    _n._ 3, 293 _n._ 1\n\n Bulgaria, Manichaeans settled in, ii. 357\n\n _Bundahish_, the, quoted, i. 126 _n._ 3, 134 _n._ 1; ii. 246, 254\n\n Burkhans, divine messengers in Manichaeism, ii. 336, 339, 341.\n   _See_ Shapurakhan\n\n Bury, Prof. J. B., quoted, i. 86\n\n Buto, the city of Isis, i. 34\n\n Byblus in Phoenicia, body of Osiris washed ashore at, i. 34\n\n Bythios or Deep, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101\n\n Bythos, Supreme God of Ophites, ii. 37, 39;\n   Supreme God of Valentinus, ii. 96, 97;\n   his consort, _ibid._;\n   identified with Ineffable of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 144;\n   resembles Ahura Mazda, ii. 232\n\n Byzantium, birthplace of Theodotus, ii. 9\n\n\n\n Cabala, the Jewish, system of correspondences in, i. 115;\n   its Mystery of Chariot and Mystery of Creation, i. 157;\n   processes of \u201cPractical,\u201d i. 158 _n._ 1, 170 _nn._ 2, 5;\n   its system of Sephiroth, i. 202;\n   Marcus uses system like that of, ii. 9 _n._ 1;\n   indicated in Talmud, ii. 35;\n   likeness of, to Gnosticism, ii. 36 _n._ 1;\n   its Adam Cadmon or First Man, ii. 52 _n._ 1;\n   Ophite stories of protoplasts revived in, ii. 53\n\n Cabiri of Samothrace, Hermes in worship of, i. 99;\n   mentioned in Hymn to Attis, ii. 54\n\n Cabul, importance of, foreseen by Alexander, i. 5\n\n Caecilia Secundina, name on Orphic gold plate, i. 133, 169 _n._ 1\n\n Cain, Ophite story of, ii. 52;\n   Manichaean story of, ii. 303;\n   in neo-Manichaeism father of Wisdom and Pleasure, _ibid._\n\n Cainites, an Ophite sect, ii. 27, 77\n\n Calabria, Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131\n\n Callias, Torchbearer at Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 76, ii. 87 _n._ 3\n\n Callinicum, Valentinian conventicle at, burned by orthodox, ii. 96\n\n Callisthenes, life of Alexander attributed to, i. 18 _n._ 1\n\n Calvin, John, founder of sect, i. 54; ii. 19\n\n Cambyses, Shah of Persia, conquers Egypt, i. 28;\n   in Behistun inscription, ii. 233\n\n Campus Martius, Isiac temple in, i. 53;\n   death of Simon Magus in, i. 178\n\n Candahar, named after Alexander, i. 5\n\n Canidia or Gratidia, witch of Horace\u2019s _Epodes_, i. 108\n\n Canopus, decrees of, i. 52 _n._ 1;\n   sanctuary of Isis at, i. 86 _n._ 1\n\n Cappadocia, Kings of, claim descent from Persian heroes, ii. 225 _n._ 1\n\n Capua, inscription to Isis found at, i. 75 _n._ 2\n\n\n Caria, worship of double axe in, ii. 67 _n._ 3\n\n Carpocrates the heresiarch, magic rites attributed to, i. 111;\n   called first of Gnostics, ii. 27\n\n Carthage, outside Persian Empire, i. 1;\n   Alexander\u2019s plans concerning, i. 6;\n   Roman conquest of, i. 15; ii. 227\n\n Carus, the Emperor, his victories over Persians, ii. 226\n\n Cassander, patron of Euhemerus, i. 19\n\n\n Caulacau, mystic name common to Ophites and Basilidians, ii. 94\n\n Cautes and Cautopates, torch-bearers of Mithras, ii. 245, 246, 247\n\n Celeus, legendary King of Eleusis, i. 40, 41\n\n Celsus the Epicurean, quoted, i. lvii, 73, 200; ii. 66, 67, 69\n\n Cenchreae, Isiac festival at, described, i. 71\n\n Cephisus, the, bridge over, its part in Eleusinian procession, i. 39\n\n Cerberus, resemblance of triple monster of Serapis to, i. 49\n\n Cerdo the heresiarch, teaches at Rome, ii. 9;\n   his doctrines, ii. 205\n\n\n Ceres, god of Nature as Earth _ap._ Cicero, i. lvi;\n   identified with Isis by Apuleius, i. 56.\n   _See_ Demeter\n\n Cerinthus the heresiarch, opponent of St John, ii. 9 _n._ 1;\n   sent to have been pupil of Philo, _ibid._\n\n Chaeremon, says Egyptian magician threatens gods, i. 104 _n._ 3\n\n Chaldaea, birthplace of astrology, i. 113;\n   captivity of Jews in, i. 150;\n   Jews tributaries to, i. 160 _n._ 4\n\n Chaldaeans, oppressive rule of, i. 3;\n   suzerains of Jews, i. 150;\n   their influence on Mithraism, ii. 241\n\n Chalmers, Thomas, founder of sect, ii. 19\n\n\n Chandragupta or Sandracottus, father of Amitrochates, i. 8 _n._ 3;\n   grandfather of Asoka, i. 20\n\n Chaos, child of Orphic Chronos, i. 123;\n   known to Aristophanes, i. 124;\n   egg formed from, i. 123, 144;\n   Ialdabaoth and, ii. 46 _n._ 3, 155;\n   Valentinians make Beelzebub ruler of, ii. 109;\n   Pistis Sophia raised from, ii. 156;\n   Pistis Sophia\u2019s descent into, ii. 156, 162;\n   _Pistis Sophia_ does not describe, ii. 163;\n   described in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 182, 186\n\n Charcot, Dr, his hypnotic experiments at Salp\u00eatri\u00e8re, i. 110\n\n Charles, Dr R. H., quoted, i. 159 _n._ 1, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168,\n    169, 170; ii. 60 _n._ 1\n\n Charm\u00f4n, receiver of Ariel in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186\n\n Chavannes, Ed. M., translates _Trait\u00e9 Manich\u00e9en_, ii. 352.\n   See Pelliot, _Tun-huang MS._\n\n China, Manichaean documents discovered in, i. lix;\n   Manichaeans in, ii. 357\n\n Chinese, their god Thian, i. 73 _n._ 4\n\n Chinvat, the Bridge, in Zoroastrianism, ii. 110 _n._ 2, 311\n\n Chosroes, the Shah, his defeat by Heraclius, ii. 227\n\n\n Christ, Manes tries to include religion of, in his own, i. lviii;\n   statue of, in Alexander Severus\u2019 _lararium_, i. 82;\n   bishops of, worship Serapis _ap._ Hadrian, i. 86;\n   name of, has hidden meaning (Justin Martyr), i. 170 _n._ 5;\n   \u201cheresies before the Coming of,\u201d ii. 25;\n   angel of Great Council, ii. 43;\n   Ophite Sophia makes Prophets prophesy of, ii. 53, 59;\n   descent of Ophite, through seven heavens, ii. 59;\n   Ophite Christ raises Jesus after Crucifixion, ii. 60;\n   Ophites turn figure of, from teacher to messenger, ii. 82;\n   Saturninus says He was sent to destroy Judaism, ii. 89;\n   of Basilides makes Him son of Great Archon, ii. 91;\n   ascension of, imitated on Mithraic monuments, ii. 248.\n   _See_ Archon Jesus\n\n Christianity, importance of study of its origins, i. xlix;\n   dislike of its comparative study, i. li, liv;\n   inspirational view of its history, i. liii;\n   Judaism not its rival, i. liv;\n   early competitors with, i. lv-lviii;\n   spread of Greek language favours, i. 9;\n   Alexander the Great\u2019s services to, i. 27;\n   its rise brings about decline of Alexandrian religion, i. 81;\n   Isis-worshippers converted to, _en bloc_, i. 84;\n   its cardinal tenets preserved at Reformation, i. 88;\n   said to be mere episode in history of Gnosticism, i. 111;\n   most bitter enemy of Gnosticism, i. 112, 120; ii. 23, 359 _sqq._;\n   system of correspondences and, i. 115;\n   its concessions to Sun-worshippers, i. 118;\n   Gnosticism does not compete with, until IInd cent., ii. 2;\n   state does not at first persecute, ii. 7;\n   lower classes in Egypt first converts to, ii. 8 _n._ 5, 89 _n._ 1;\n   never Judaeo-Christian in Egypt, ii. 9 _n._ 1, 131;\n   wars against Hellenistic culture, ii. 10;\n   accuses sects of obscene rites, ii. 18;\n   converts wealthy and learned Gnostics, ii. 21;\n   persecutes Gnostics, ii. 23;\n   Ophites earlier than, ii. 26;\n   its relations with Ophites in post-Christian times, ii. 56, 82;\n   history of Egyptian, obscure, ii. 200;\n   attraction of Rome for innovators on, ii. 203;\n   Marcion\u2019s attempt to reform, fruitless, ii. 222;\n   Manes\u2019 imperfect acquaintance with, ii. 280;\n   shares with Mithraism devotion of legions, ii. 283;\n   compromises of Manichaeism with, ii. 317, 319, 320, 339, 350, 351;\n   Manichaeism really opposed to, ii. 318, 357;\n   relations of neo-Manichaeism with, ii. 339;\n   obligations of, to rivals, ii. 360;\n   triumph of, ii. 361\n\n\n Christians, political, not religious, offenders against Roman state, i.\n    lvi;\n   expect catastrophes at destruction of Serapeum, i. 84;\n   said to worship Serapis (Hadrian), i. 86;\n   formulate doctrine of Trinity, i. 89 _n._ 2;\n   accusations of immorality by and against, i. 179;\n   considered Jews until reign of Vespasian, ii. 4;\n   say old world passing away, ii. 5;\n   proscribe heretical writings, ii. 12;\n   apostolic, uneducated men, ii. 83 _n._ 1;\n   obliged to recognize Greek philosophy, ii. 88;\n   good position of, in Alexandria, ii. 94;\n   belief of, early, as to Eucharist, ii. 171;\n   oriental, flock into Rome under Hadrian, ii. 203;\n   use of \u201cBrother\u201d and \u201cFather\u201d by, ii. 261;\n   extinguish Mithraism before other heathen religions, ii. 272;\n   condemned by Manichaeans for adherence to Old Testament, ii. 315;\n   Manichaeans not, ii. 318, 350;\n   Manichaeans confused with, by Chinese, ii. 357;\n   Julian repairs heathen temples at cost of, ii. 358\n\n Christos the Ophite, Third Man in Ophite system, ii. 42, 59;\n   drawn up with his mother into incorruptible aeon, ii. 43;\n   springs from right side of First Woman, ii. 46;\n   angel or messenger of triune Deity, ii. 54, 63, 64, 65;\n   his two visits to earth, ii. 59;\n   descends with Sophia into Jesus, ii. 60, 61, 79;\n   brings Mysteries to earth, ii. 65;\n   represented by yellow circle in Diagram, ii. 68;\n   likeness of Third Sonhood of Basilides to, ii. 94\n\n Christos, the Valentinian, projected by Nous and Aletheia, ii. 105;\n   draws Sophia within the Pleroma, ii. 105, 114;\n   prayer of Sophia Without to, and its result, ii. 106;\n   Marcus\u2019 juggling with name of, ii. 129;\n   consents to projection of Jesus the Great Fruit of Pleroma, ii. 159\n      _n._ 3\n\n Chronos, First Being of Orphics, i. 123; ii. 236\n\n Church, the Catholic, early dislike of, for science of religion, i.\n    liv;\n   destroys traces of religions which she supersedes, i. lix;\n   likeness of Alexandrian festivals to those of, i. 75;\n   Alexandrian clergy divided into seculars and regulars like that of,\n      i. 79;\n   preserves or revives features of Isis-worship, i. 84;\n   worship of Virgin introduced into, at destruction of Serapeum, i. 85;\n   celebration of Eucharist in, _temp._ Justin, i. 87 _n._ 1;\n   Simon Magus\u2019 aerial flight the tradition of, i. 178;\n   resemblance of Gnostic sects to Protestant bodies outside, ii. 19;\n   Protestant opponents of, lean to Unitarianism, ii. 20;\n   most Gnostics eventually join, ii. 21;\n   makes no great conquests after suppressing Gnosticism, ii. 23, 24;\n   begins to define and enforce orthodoxy, ii. 77;\n   Valentinus first serious competitor of, ii. 93;\n   Valentinian houses of prayer confiscated for use of, ii. 96;\n   accuses Valentinus of polytheism, ii. 100;\n   Valentinus expects to become bishop of (Tertullian), ii. 117;\n   Valentinus member of, in papacy of Eleutherus, ii. 121;\n   Valentinus never hostile to, ii. 125;\n   seduction scandals not unknown in, ii. 129;\n   growing power of, before Constantine, ii. 132;\n   Valentinianism good recruiting-ground for, ii. 133;\n   Christology of _Pistis Sophia_ not different from that of, ii. 144;\n   Mysteries of the Light of _P.S._ probably sacraments of, ii. 173;\n   modifies her eschatology and ritual, ii. 201;\n   Marcion claimed as first reformer of, ii. 207;\n   Marcion rejects most traditions of, ii. 214;\n   Marcionite dated inscription earlier than any of, ii. 216;\n   Apelles nearer to doctrine of, than Marcion, ii. 219;\n   Arian controversy brings speculations about Divine Nature within, ii.\n      221;\n   priests of Mithras not like those of, ii. 273;\n   Manichaeans worst European enemies of, ii. 357;\n   Constantine\u2019s accession leads to forcible suppression of heathenism\n      by, ii. 358\n\n Church, the Manichaean, its predestinarian teaching, ii. 309;\n   consists of Perfects and Superiors only, ii. 313;\n   its _magistri_, ii. 328 _n._ 1;\n   its constitution, ii. 330;\n   its schisms, ii. 342;\n   its suppression and revival, ii. 356, 357\n\n Church, the Primitive, its miracles, i. li; ii. 361;\n   its rivals, i. lvii, lxii;\n   its germ in Greek religious confraternities, i. 21;\n   its borrowings from Alexandrian religion, i. 84, 85;\n   its fundamental doctrines not borrowed, i. 88;\n   its heresies, i. 119;\n   its belief as to martyrdom, i. 145 _n._ 1; ii. 127;\n   its community of goods, i. 162;\n   its angelology, i. 201;\n   its proselytizing zeal, ii. 2, 8;\n   its tradition as to early Gnostics, ii. 8, 9;\n   its destruction of Gnostic books, ii. 12;\n   Asiatic Celts great source of heresy in, ii. 29;\n   acrostics and word-puzzles used by, ii. 35;\n   Ophites attend services of, ii. 63;\n   Ophites connect sacraments of, with heathen mysteries, ii. 82;\n   Trinitarian views of, ii. 121;\n   Valentinians attend services of, ii. 125;\n   baptismal theories of, ii. 168;\n   Eucharistic theories of, ii. 172;\n   Gnosticism both danger and help to, ii. 202;\n   Marcion\u2019s relation to, ii. 204 _sqq._;\n   addiction of, to visions of prophets, ii. 219;\n   Fathers say Mithraists copy its sacraments, ii. 247, 260;\n   its alliance with Constantine, ii. 261, 271\n\n Cicero, quoted, i. lvi, lvii _n._ 1, 129; ii. 32\n\n Cilicia, settlement of Persians in, ii. 229\n\n Circus Maximus, resort of vagabond magicians, _temp._ Tiberius, i. 108\n\n Claudius I, the Emperor, no Christian converts of rank in reign of\n    (Julian), ii. 8 _n._ 5\n\n\n Claudius II, the Emperor, cannot expel Goths from Dacia, ii. 271\n\n Cleanthes of Assos, Ophite silence as to, ii. 83\n\n\n Clement of Alexandria, accused of heresy, ii. 14 _n._ 1;\n   initiated into heathen mysteries, ii. 21 _n._ 3;\n   his fairness to Gnostics, ii. 76 _n._ 2, 95 _n._ 2, 199;\n   says angels dwelling in soul, Platonic, ii. 110 _n._ 1;\n   first Greek author to mention Buddha, ii. 286 _n._ 4;\n   quoted, i. 40 _n._ 1, 47 _n._ 3, 61 _n._ 1, 73 _n._ 1, 89 _n._ 2, 122\n      _n._ 2, 124 _n._ 3, 125 _n._ 1, 127 _n._ 1, 142 _n._ 4, 184 _n._\n      3, 186 _nn._ 2, 3, 190 _n._ 1, 194 _n._ 1; ii. 14, 20 _n._ 1, 37\n      _n._ 1, 39 _n._ 4, 45 _n._ 1, 50 _n._ 2, 65 _n._ 3, 88 _n._ 3, 93\n      _n._ 4, 95 _n._ 2, 100 _nn._ 2-6, 101 _n._ 2, 106 _n._ 3, 110 _n._\n      1, 112 _n._ 3, 113 _n._ 1, 118, 119, 122 _n._ 1, 125 _n._ 3, 129\n      _n._ 3, 135 _n._ 3, 140 _n._ 2, 144 _n._ 1, 177 _n._ 4, 188, 205\n      _n._ 5, 219 _n._ 2, 239 _n._ 6, 286 _n._ 4.\n   _See Theodoti, Excerpta_\n\n Clement of Rome, quoted, i. 8 _n._ 2; ii. 65 _n._ 3\n\n _Clementines_, the, a religious romance, i. 178;\n   T\u00fcbingen theory as to, i. 179;\n   quoted, i. 158 _n._ 4, 178, 181 _n._ 3, 182 _nn._ 3, 6, 198; ii. 4\n      _n._ 1, 82 _n._ 2, 219 _n._ 2\n\n Cleomenes, Satrap of Egypt under Alexander, i. 29\n\n Cleopatra, last of Ptolemies, i. 30\n\n Clitus, death of, i. 13\n\n Coddiani, an Ophite sect, ii. 27 _n._ 1\n\n Colarbasus, confusion as to name of, ii. 20 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Marcus\n\n Commagene, favourite recruiting-ground of legions, ii. 229\n\n Commodus, the Emperor, appears in procession of Isis, i. 54;\n   defiles temple of Mithras with real murder, ii. 262;\n   initiated into Mysteries of Mithras, ii. 270\n\n Confessors. _See_ Martyrs\n\n Confraternities, religious, among pre-Christian Greeks, i. 21;\n   hymns composed by, i. 21 _n._ 1;\n   frequented by courtezans, i. 22;\n   superstitious practices of, i. 23;\n   contrast between Persian and Egyptian priests and those of Greek, i.\n      25;\n   propaganda of, i. 26;\n   Alexandrian religion first spread by, i. 52, 77;\n   Greek Orphics not formed into, i. 139 _n._ 3, 141;\n   secret, among Jews, _temp._ Christ, i. 175\n\n Conington, Prof. John, his version of Hymn of Great Mysteries, quoted,\n    ii. 54\n\n Constantine, the Emperor, his pact with the Church, i. lvii, lxii; ii.\n    9, 12, 261, 271;\n   his edict as to heresy, i. lix _n._ 1; ii. 359;\n   his conversion leaves Alexandrian religion still powerful, i. 83;\n   many Simonians in reign of, i. 200;\n   only baptized on his deathbed, ii. 168 _n._ 6;\n   his conversion enables Christians to suppress Gnosticism, ii. 199;\n   and puts stop to spread of Marcionism, ii. 220;\n   his failure against Persians, ii. 226;\n   his family religion Sun-worship, ii. 261;\n   his enquiry into Manichaeism, ii. 355;\n   persecution of Manichaeans slackens in reign of, ii. 356\n\n Copernicus, i. 117\n\n Corbicius or Kubrik, name of Manes in Christian tradition, ii. 279, 286\n\n Corbulo, his wars with Persians, ii. 225\n\n Cora or Kore, inseparable from Demeter, i. 127 _n._ 3; ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   called Mise at Pergamum, i. 143 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Persephone, Proserpine\n\n\n Correspondences, doctrine of, i. 115 _sqq._;\n   in system of Simon Magus, i. 183;\n   in that of Ophites, ii. 75;\n   in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 191 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Maspero\n\n Corybantes, the, hide _pudendum_ of Bacchus in box, i. 73 _n._ 1\n\n\n Corybas, identified with Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1\n\n Cosmocrator, epithet of Valentinian Devil, ii. 108, 256\n\n Courdaveaux, M. Victor, quoted, ii. 14 _n._ 1, 122.\n   _See_ Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian\n\n Crassus, his defeat by Persians, i. 8; ii. 225\n\n Cretans, call Isis, Diana Dictynna, i. 56\n\n\n Crete, birthplace of Zeus, i. 16;\n     and of Zagreus, i. 37;\n   scene of Rape of Persephone, i. 40 _n._ 1;\n   Orphic myths early known in, i. 121, 122;\n   Orphic gold plates found in, i. 131;\n   Great Goddess of Asia worshipped in, ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   double axe in, ii. 67 _n._ 3;\n   Ophites in, ii. 77\n\n Creuzer, Georg Fritz, quoted, i. 130 _n._ 1\n\n\n Cross, the. _See_ Stauros; Eli, Eli\n\n Crucifixion, the, in appearance only _ap._ Basilides, ii. 17;\n     and _ap._ Manichaeans, ii. 320;\n   _Gospel of Nicodemus_ confirms Gospel account of, ii. 79;\n   Valentinian teaching on, ii. 116;\n   Jesus teaches for 20 years after (Irenaeus), ii. 61 _n._ 1;\n   for 12 (Pistis Sophia and Bruce Papyrus), ii. 194.\n   _See_ Simon of Cyrene\n\n Cruice, the Abb\u00e9, quoted, i. 180 _n._ 4\n\n Cryptogram. _See_ Akae, Armageddon, Bega, _Pistis Sophia_, Taxo\n\n Cumont, Prof. Franz, his work on Mithras described, ii. 236;\n   quoted, i. 22, 119; ii. 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244,\n      245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258,\n      259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 274, 277,\n      289 _n._ 3, 293 _nn._ 1, 2, 294 _n._ 2, 295 _n._ 2, 298 _n._ 1,\n      299 _n._ 1, 302 _n._ 1, 304 _n._ 1, 319 _n._ 1, 321, 322 _n._ 2,\n      323 _n._ 2, 324 _n._ 4, 327 _nn._ 1, 4, 328 _nn._ 2, 3, 329 _n._\n      2, 332 _n._ 2, 348 _n._ 2\n\n Curetes, the, their connection with Orphism, i. 128, 142 _n._ 2;\n   and with Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1\n\n\n Cybele, her worship in Athenian associations, i. 17, 25;\n   her legend in Asia Minor, i. 37;\n   identified with Isis, i. 55, 56;\n   and with Demeter and Rhea, i. 124, 126;\n   the Mother of the Gods, i. 136;\n   Sabazius her son, i. 137;\n   feminine form of Dionysos, i. 137 _n._ 1;\n   in Orphic hymns, 139 _n._ 1, 143;\n   Phrygia chief seat of worship of, ii. 28;\n   her eunuch-priests, ii. 30 _n._ 3;\n   alluded to in Jeremiah, ii. 32;\n   called Agdistis, ii. 39;\n   identified with Ma, Artemis, Aphrodite, etc., ii. 39, 40;\n   always an earth-goddess, ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   associated with double axe, ii. 67 _n._ 3;\n   her connection with Mithras, ii. 258;\n   adored by Julian, ii. 269;\n   worshipped in Manichaeism as Mother of Life, ii. 300 _n._ 1\n\n Cylon, Athens purified for murder of, i. 121\n\n Cypriotes, the, call Isis, Venus, i. 56\n\n Cyprus, Adonis worship in, i. 37; ii. 40;\n   Alexandrian divinities in, i. 52;\n   and Orphic, i. 143\n\n\n _Cyranides, Le Livre des_, quoted by M. de M\u00e9ly as to \u201cMystery of Axe,\u201d\n    ii. 67 _n._ 3\n\n Cyrenaica, the, Jewish atrocities in, ii. 5 _n._ 3\n\n Cyrene, Buddhist mission to King of, i. 20;\n   Ptolemy Soter annexes, i. 29;\n   Ophites in, ii. 77.\n\n Cyril of Alexandria, replaces Isis by two medical saints, i. 86 _n._ 1\n\n Cyril of Jerusalem, describes elaborate rite of baptism in IVth cent.,\n    ii. 22 _n._ 1\n\n Cytheraea. _See_ Aphrodite\n\n Cyzicus, worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 53;\n   and of Eleusinian Triad, i. 136\n\n\n Dacia, its settlement by Trajan, ii. 271.\n   _See_ Aurelian; Claudius II\n\n Dactyli, the Idaean, first of men, i. 106 _n._ 3\n\n Damascius, the neo-Platonist, quoted, i. 55 _n._ 4, 135; ii. 236 _n._\n    4, 250 _n._ 1, 252 _n._ 2\n\n Damascus, Perdiccas attacks Egypt from, i. 30\n\n\n _Daniel, Book of_, first gives personal names of angels, i. 158;\n   assumes nations divided among angels, i. 199;\n   addiction of Babylonian Jews to curious arts in, ii. 33.\n   _See_ Antiochus Epiphanes\n\n Danube Provinces, the, worship of Alexandrian divinities in, i. 53\n\n Darius, son of Hystaspes, ii. 225, 227;\n   his inscription at Behistun quoted, ii. 233\n\n Darkness, the Dragon of Outer, the most terrible hell in _Texts of\n    Saviour_, ii. 166 _n._ 2;\n   its 12 torture-chambers, ii. 183;\n   surrounds the earth, ii. 256\n\n Darmesteter, James, quoted, ii. 232 _nn._ 1, 5, 237 _n._ 3, 241 _n._ 1,\n    248 _n._ 3, 278 _n._ 1, 284, 300 _n._ 2, 327 _n._ 3\n\n Darwin, Charles, his doctrine of survival of the fittest, i. li _sqq._,\n    117\n\n David, King of Israel, vassal of Philistines, i. 160 _n._ 4;\n   _Psalms of_, in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 157\n\n\n Dead, Baptism for, ii. 168;\n   _Book of the_, quoted, i. 31, 32, 55, 132, 134; ii. 66, 72 _n._ 3\n\n Death, Valentinian theories about, ii. 107, 110, 113, 129 _n._ 3;\n   in _Pistis Sophia_ a serpent with 7 heads, ii. 156 _n._ 3;\n   of initiates in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 167 _sqq._;\n   in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 195;\n   of sinner in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186 _sq._;\n   of worshipper of Mithras, ii. 266;\n   of Manichaean Perfect, ii. 309;\n   of Manichaean Hearer, ii. 311\n\n Decad, of Valentinus, described, ii. 101;\n   meaning of names of, ii. 102, 103\n\n _Deisidaimon_, the, of Theophrastus, quoted, i. 140\n\n Delos, worship of Alexandrian gods, i. 53\n\n Delphi, its oracle used to legitimize foreign deities, i. 16;\n   oracle of Serapis at Alexandria competes with, i. 77;\n   no public worship at temple of, i. 85;\n   remains of Dionysos buried at, i. 125\n\n\n Demeter, scene of her trials, i. 16, 40 _n._ 1;\n   her wanderings shown to initiates, i. 40;\n   her part in Anthesteria, i. 42;\n   likeness of legend of, to that of Isis, i. 43;\n   identified with Persephone, i. 46;\n   Homeric hymn to, quoted, i. 59;\n   mystic marriage with Zeus, i. 61 _n._ 1, 133, 142 _n._ 4, 144;\n   consecrations to, in reign of Valentinian and Valens, i. 83;\n   swine sacrificed to, i. 95;\n   mother of Persephone _ap._ Orphics, i. 124;\n   and of Iacchos, i. 125;\n   an earth goddess with many names, i. 126; ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   Orphics in mysteries of, i. 127 _n._ 3;\n   assessor of Dionysos in Pindar, i. 129 _n._ 3;\n   alterations in legend of, introduced by Orphics, i. 130;\n   her widespread worship, i. 135;\n   in mysteries of Samothrace, i. 136 _n._ 2;\n   associated with god of double axe, ii. 67 _n._ 3;\n   appears as Mother of Life in Manichaeism, ii. 300 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Ceres, Rayet\n\n Demetrius of Phalerum, takes charge of Ptolemy\u2019s Museum, i. 44 _n._ 2\n\n Demetrius Poliorcetes, his deification, i. 18 _n._ 4, 19;\n   his attack on Egypt fails, i. 29 _n._ 2\n\n\n Demiurge, the, or Architect of the Universe, in Justinus\u2019 system, ii.\n    82;\n   called the Great Archon by Basilides, ii. 91;\n   identified with God of the Jews by Valentinus, ii. 107 _n._ 2, 109,\n      114;\n   author of psychic or animal souls, ii. 112;\n   in Marcion\u2019s system, ii. 210, 211, 212, 214 _n._ 3;\n   Messiah of, ii. 211, 213;\n   identified with Mithras, ii. 248\n\n Demophoon, Celeus\u2019 son and nursling of Demeter, i. 40\n\n Demosthenes, his oration against Aeschines, quoted, i. 138\n\n Dendera, union of Osiris and Isis depicted at, i. 61 _n._ 1\n\n Deo, name of Demeter in Orphic hymn, i. 142\n\n Derenbourg, Hartwig, quoted, i. 163 _n._ 3\n\n Derketo, homonym of Atargatis or _Dea Syria_ (Garstang), ii. 40 _n._ 1,\n    300 _n._ 2\n\n Despoena, epithet of Persephone, i. 133\n\n\n Destiny or Heimarmene, the sphere of, in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 137 _n._\n    2, 143 _n._ 1, 153, 154;\n   in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 174, 184;\n   in Mithraism, ii. 255 _sq._\n   _See_ Moira\n\n Diadochi, the, or Successors of Alexander, i. 14, 52\n\n Diagram, the Ophites\u2019, ii. 66-71;\n   prayers to powers depicted in, ii. 71-74;\n   place of Ophiomorphus in, ii. 77\n\n\n Diana Dictynna, Cretan goddess identified with Isis, i. 56\n\n _Didache_, the, source of _Apostolical Constitutions_ (Duchesne), ii. 7\n    _n._ 2\n\n Dieterich, Prof. Albert, quoted, i. 141, 142; ii. 255.\n   _See_ Mithraism, Orpheus\n\n Dill, Sir Samuel, quoted, i. lvii, lix, 24, 54 _n._ 3; ii. 87, 272, 359\n\n _Dinkard_, the, quoted, i. 134 _n._ 1\n\n Diocletian, the Emperor, makes Mithraism state religion, i. 81, 119\n    _n._ 1, 228, 271;\n   his persecution of Christians, ii. 12, 23;\n   his victories over Persians, ii. 226;\n   his adoption of Persian ways, ii. 228\n\n Diodorus Siculus, authority for Oriental religions, i. 9;\n   quoted, i. 31 _n._ 1, 43 _n._ 3\n\n Diogenes, the Cynic, his saying about Patecion quoted, i. 131\n\n Dionysia, the, peculiarly popular in Northern Greece, i. 136\n\n Dionysion, temple of Dionysos at Athens, i. 42\n\n Dionysius, the Areopagite, his orders of angels, i. 188 _n._ 1\n\n\n Dionysos, a Thracian or Thessalian god, i. 17;\n   legend of Cretan, i. 37, 46;\n   diaspasm or tearing to pieces of, i. 37, 125;\n   identified with Iacchos, i. 39, 40;\n     and with Zagreus, i. 42, 125;\n   legend of, told in Little Mysteries, i. 42;\n   identified with Osiris, i. 43, 48;\n   his relations with Demeter and Persephone, i. 47; ii. 39;\n   identified with Hades, i. 47, 48, 130;\n     with Apollo, i. 48;\n   god of dead to Alexandrians, i. 49;\n   Boeotian worship of, i. 52;\n   his mystic marriage with Demeter, i. 61 _n._ 1;\n   called the Vine, i. 64 _n._ 3;\n   his temple at Alexandria demolished by Theophilus, i. 83;\n   the Liberator, i. 90 _n._ 1;\n   sacrifices to, i. 95;\n   his likeness to Tammuz, i. 122 _n._ 3;\n   his legend centre of Orphic teaching, i. 123;\n   identified with Orphic Phanes, i. 124, 144;\n     with Zeus, i. 125 _n._ 2;\n   Orphics connect his death with man\u2019s creation and rebirth, i. 126;\n   soul of man part of, i. 127, 133;\n   omophagy chief rite of worship of, i. 128; ii. 112;\n   soul of man united with, i. 129, 144;\n   called Eubuleus, i. 133;\n   widespread worship of, i. 135;\n   identified with Adonis, i. 137;\n     and Sabazius, i. 138;\n     and Attis, i. 139;\n   Orphic hymns to, i. 142 _n._ 3, 143;\n   son of Semele, i. 145;\n   an androgyne deity, 145, 185;\n   all Graeco-Roman gods tend to merge in, i. 146, 147;\n   will succeed Zeus, i. 186;\n   jealousy of, cause of diaspasm, i. 190 _n._ 2;\n   spouse of Persephone and her son, ii. 39;\n   the soul of the world, ii. 50 _n._ 2;\n   called Pappas, ii. 57;\n   and Iao, ii. 71 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Bacchus, Iao\n\n Diotima, gives traditional view of Platonic affinity, i. 195 _n._ 1\n\n _Discourse, The True_, of Celsus, probable date of, ii. 66\n\n Docetism, a mark of heresy, ii. 17;\n   Marcion\u2019s adherence to, ii. 210;\n   Manichaeans profess, ii. 318, 348\n\n Dodecad, the, of Valentinus, ii. 101 _sqq._;\n   its duplication explained, ii. 145 _n._ 8;\n   Egyptian parallel to, 176\n\n Doinel, Jules, founder of modern Valentinianism, ii. 133 _n._ 1\n\n D\u00f6llinger, Dr, quoted, i. 140 _nn._ 2, 3; ii. 164 _n._ 3, 168, 169, 172\n\n Dositheus the heresiarch, founder of sect (Eusebius), ii. 6 _n._ 3\n\n\n Dove, in _Pistis Sophia_, emblem of Holy Spirit, ii. 135 _n._ 3;\n     and of Great Goddess, _ibid._;\n   in Manichaeism, 302 _n._ 1\n\n Drexler, Prof. Anton, quoted, i. 85\n\n Drogheda, Cromwell\u2019s letter after Siege of, ii. 85 _n._ 2\n\n Dualism, distinguishing feature of Manichaeism, ii. 289\n\n Duchesne, Mgr Louis, quoted, i. 89 _n._ 1; ii. 1 _n._ 5, 4, 5 _n._ 2, 7\n    _n._ 2, 11 _n._ 2, 14 _n._ 1, 22 _n._ 2, 122 _n._ 1, 178 _n._ 1, 202\n    _n._ 2\n\n Dyaus, the god, worshipped in Vedas and by Persians, i. 73 _n._ 4; ii.\n    231 _n._ 1\n\n\n Ebionites, the, their connection with the Church at Pella, ii. 5 _n._\n    1;\n   with the _Clementines_, ii. 82\n\n Ecbatana, one of the four Persian capitals, i. 3\n\n Ecclesia or Church, the incorruptible aeon or Pleroma of the Ophites,\n    ii. 43, 60;\n   used for assembly of souls, ii. 75;\n   member of third Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98, 100, 102;\n   Italic school make her mother of Dodecad, ii. 119;\n   power breathed into man in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 179\n\n Ecclesiasticus, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101\n\n Ecpyrosis or Destruction of the world by fire, doctrine common to\n    Stoics and Persians, ii. 250;\n   symbolized by lion-headed figure in Mithraism, ii. 251;\n   in Manichaeism, ii. 297;\n   in Mazdeism, _Pistis Sophia_, and _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 297 _n._ 1\n\n Ectroma or Abortion. _See_ Sophia (2)\n\n Edessa, King of, protects Bardesanes, ii. 120;\n   Valentinians of, persecuted by Arians, _temp._ Julian, ii. 132;\n   Gnosticism comes into Persia from, ii. 283\n\n Edfu, Horus worshipped at, i. 45;\n   Ptolemies restore temple of, i. 52\n\n Egypt, Greek gods derived from (Herodotus), i. 16;\n   assigned to Ptolemy on Alexander\u2019s death, i. 28 _sqq._;\n   priestly character of religion of, i. 31 _sq._;\n   totemistic character of early religion of, i. 37;\n   its influence on its conquerors, i. 51;\n   religion of, degenerates into sorcery, i. 57;\n   inspires Alexandrian views on next world, i. 60;\n   Osiris-worship in, _temp._ Pharaohs, i. 64 _n._ 3;\n   daily services in temples, i. 66;\n   early cosmogonies of, i. 73; ii. 36, 175;\n   Ptolemy endows Alexandrian religion in, i. 76;\n   Alexandrian religion in, _temp._ Julian, i. 83;\n   pre-Christian features surviving in, i. 85 _sq._;\n   triune god worshipped in Pharaonic, i. 88;\n   magicians of, use foreign words, i. 93;\n   Magic Papyri found in, i. 97 _sqq._;\n   Gnosticism in, quickly decays, i. 111;\n   earth goddess worshipped in, i. 126;\n   Orphic hymns perhaps composed in, i. 141;\n   suzerain of Solomon, i. 160 _n._ 4;\n   lower classes in, first become Christian, ii. 8 _n._ 5;\n   Ophites in, ii. 76 _sqq._\n   _See_ Christians, Eleusis, Enoch, Jews\n\n\n Egyptians, the, sacred books of, translated into Greek, i. 9;\n   opposed to monotheism before Alexander, i. 11;\n   priests of, oppose innovations, i. 24;\n   theocrasia known to earliest, i. 33, 46, 54;\n   their Osiris-worship bond with Greeks, i. 38;\n   their worship of animals, i. 45;\n   most superstitious and fanatic of men in Philhellenic times, i. 50;\n   oppose Alexandrian religion, ii. 51;\n   respect paid to, in Alexandrian religion, i. 56, 73, 74;\n   use foreign words in magic, i. 93;\n   think earthly Nile copy of heavenly river, i. 116 _n._ 1;\n   their idea of eating gods to get powers, i. 125 _n._ 3;\n   their obligation to Hebrews _ap._ Artapanus, i. 173;\n   their worship of mortal gods absurd to Greeks, ii. 16;\n   gods of, husbands of their mothers, ii. 39;\n   their addiction to mapping-out invisible world, ii. 109;\n   think only rich happy after death, ii. 112 _n._ 1;\n   origin of their triune god, ii. 121 _n._ 3;\n   their use of allegory, ii. 123;\n   their anxiety about nature of god and future of soul, ii. 131;\n   embrace monastic life in great numbers, ii. 175;\n   _Pistis Sophia_ unintelligible without knowledge of religion of\n      Pharaonic, ii. 177;\n   their horror of Amenti, ii. 195, 196;\n   their enthusiasm for life of priest, ii. 200;\n   degradation of Christianity and Gnosticism by, ii. 201;\n   the wisdom of, taught to Manes\u2019 predecessor, ii. 285.\n   _See_ First Man, Jews\n\n _Egyptians, Gospel according to_, said to contain Ophite doctrine of\n    transmigration, ii. 65, 79;\n   possible source of passage in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 161 _n._ 4\n\n Eieazareie, a word used in magic, ii. 33 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Yahweh of Israel\n\n Elephantine, mixed religion of Jews at, ii. 32 _n._ 4, 43 _n._ 2\n\n Eleusinia, the Festivals following Mysteries, i. 136\n\n Eleusinion, the Athenian, sacred things deposited in, i. 39\n\n\n Eleusis, scene of goddesses\u2019 trials, i. 16;\n   Mysteries of, described, i. 38-41;\n   initiation at, preceded by Little Mysteries, i. 41 _sq._;\n   likeness of Legend of, to that of Osiris, i. 43;\n   date of reformation of Mysteries of, _ibid._;\n   theocrasia result of, i. 46;\n   Calathos or basket-crown of Serapis borrowed from, i. 49;\n   Mysteries of, rob death of its terrors, i. 59;\n   mystic marriage of god and goddess crowning scene at, i. 61 _n._ 1;\n   formula repeated by initiates at, i. 62 _n._ 2;\n   Alexandrian mysteries more popular than those of, i. 66;\n   initiates at, carry rods, i. 68 _n._ 2;\n   hereditary priesthood of, i. 76;\n   worshippers of other gods consecrated to those of, i. 83;\n   Baubo a personage in Mysteries of, i. 100;\n   the God and the Goddess of, i. 126; ii. 39;\n   entry of Dionysos into, i. 130;\n   gods of, worshipped outside Attica, i. 135;\n   reason for secrecy of Mysteries of, i. 139 _n._ 2;\n   priestesses of, called bees, i. 143 _n._ 4;\n   part of Dionysos at, after Orphic reform, i. 145;\n   sacramental grace of Mysteries of, i. 147;\n   baptism among Gnostics borrows features from, ii. 22;\n   Phrygian deities identified with those of, ii. 31;\n   Ophites borrow doctrines from, ii. 54;\n   Ophites\u2019 opinion of Mysteries of, i. 57\n\n Eleutherna, Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131, 132\n\n\n Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, called names of God in magic, ii. 33 _n._ 2\n\n Elijah, the Prophet, his soul in _Pistis Sophia_ placed in St John\n    Baptist, ii. 137, 149, 150;\n   in Paradise of Adam, ii. 179;\n   ascension of, inspires Mithraic monuments, ii. 248\n\n\n Elizabeth, mother of St John Baptist, her conception arranged by Sophia\n    _ap._ Ophites, ii. 53;\n   by Virgin of Light in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 137\n\n Eloaeus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47, 73;\n   corresponds to Hebrew Elohe, ii. 71 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Ailoaios\n\n Elpis or Hope, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101\n\n Emanation, defined, i. 181 _n._ 2;\n   doctrine common to all post-Christian Gnostics, ii. 19 _n._ 1\n\n Empedocles, derives everything from four roots or elements, i. 197\n\n Encratites, the, sect said to be founded by Tatian, ii. 220\n\n En-ki or Ea, the god, creator of pattern man, i. lxiii _n._ 1\n\n Ennead, the Egyptian, its irregular number of gods, ii. 92\n\n\n Ennoia, second of Simon Magus\u2019 six \u201cRoots,\u201d i. 180;\n   Simon Magus\u2019 called Epinoia by Hippolytus, i. 180 _n._ 4; ii. 20 _n._\n      1;\n   in _Great Announcement_ first female power, i. 182;\n   her Orphic and Jewish analogues, i. 185;\n   produces angels who make universe, i. 187, 195;\n   seized by world-making angels and condemned to transmigration, i.\n      190, 196;\n   identified with Helen of Tyre, _ibid._;\n   redeemed by Simon, i. 191;\n   inconsistency of stories regarding, i. 193;\n   in Ophite system, name of Second Man, ii. 38;\n   Ophiomorphus called, ii. 49;\n   spouse of Bythos according to some Valentinians, ii. 97\n\n\n Enoch, mass of Apocrypha connected with name of, i. 159, 160, 164;\n   dates of same, i. 162 _n._ 1, 163, 164 _n._ 1;\n   connection of Essenes with, i. 168;\n   in _Pistis Sophia_, author of books written in Paradise, ii. 147 _n._\n      5, 194 _n._ 2\n\n _Enoch, Book of_, fall of angels in, i. 191 _n._ 1; ii. 154;\n   quoted in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 155;\n   quoted, i. 160, 161, 162 _n._ 2, 165, 169; ii. 155\n\n _Enoch, Book of the Secrets of_, seven heavens arranged as in\n    Mithraism, ii. 257\n\n Epaminondas, suffers in Hades because not initiated, i. 131\n\n Ephesus, many-breasted goddess of, i. lvi, 17; ii. 40;\n   worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 53;\n   Nicolaitans at, ii. 25\n\n Ephrem Syrus, finds Valentinianism in Bardesanes\u2019 hymns, ii. 120;\n   his date, _ibid._;\n   quoted, ii. 316 _n._ 1\n\n Epicurus, his statement of the problem of evil, ii. 217\n\n Epimenides, introduces Orphic myths into Athens, i. 121\n\n Epinoia. _See_ Ennoia\n\n\n Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia, a Nicolaitan in his youth, i. 112\n    _n._ 1; ii. 21 _n._ 5;\n   his ignorance about the Essenes, i. 155;\n   his date and work, ii. 10, 77;\n   quoted, i. 190, 191, 193, 197, 198, 199; ii. 10, 11, 14, 27, 46 _n._\n      3, 61, 79, 80, 81, 90 _n._ 1, 92 _n._ 3, 93 _nn._ 1, 2, 95, 205,\n      213, 215, 219, 279 _n._ 2\n\n Epitaph, Valentinian, in Via Nazionale, ii. 129\n\n Erataoth, name of power in Diagram, ii. 71\n\n Eratosthenes, studies at Museum of Alexandria, i. 45\n\n Ergamenes, King of Ethiopia, his massacre of priests of Amen, i. 31\n    _n._ 1\n\n Eris-ki-gal or Ereshchigal, the goddess, Sumerian counterpart of\n    Persephone, i. 100\n\n\n Eros, Horus takes attributes of, i. 50;\n   first-born god of Orphics, i. 123;\n   Orphic, known to Aristophanes, i. 124;\n   his likeness to Valentinian Agape, ii. 98 _n._ 1;\n   and to Marcion\u2019s Supreme Being, ii. 210;\n   hymns to, sung by Lycomidae, ii. 210 _n._ 1\n\n Esaldaios, variant of Ialdabaoth or El Shaddai, ii. 46 _n._ 3\n\n Esculapius. _See_ Asklepios\n\n Essarts, M. Fabre des, head of L\u2019\u00c9glise Gnostique, ii. 133 _n._ 1\n\n\n Essenes, the, third party among Jews, _temp._ Josephus, i. lv, 152;\n   perhaps borrow from Buddhism, i. 20;\n   a \u201cphilosophic\u201d sect, i. 151;\n   meaning of name, i. 152;\n   Josephus\u2019 account of, i. 152-154;\n   Philo\u2019s, i. 154, 155;\n   girdle used by them like Parsis\u2019 _kosti_, i. 153 _nn._ 1, 4;\n   description of, by Pliny, Hippolytus, and Porphyry, i. 155;\n   wild theories about, i. 155, 156;\n   their connection with Orphics, i. 156, 168;\n   essentially Gnostics, i. 157;\n   use of Cabala by, i. 157, 158, 169;\n   names of angels kept secret by, i. 158;\n   Enochian literature due to, i. 159, 167;\n   peculiar interpretation of Scripture, i. 168, 171;\n   probably extinct after Hadrian, i. 170;\n   divisions among, possible, i. 175 _n._ 3;\n   Simon Magus\u2019 teaching opposite to that of, i. 202;\n   connection with Ebionites doubtful, ii. 5 _n._ 1;\n   points in common with Christians, ii. 6.\n   _See_ Ritschl\n\n Ethiopia, priests of Amen flee to, i. 31;\n   Thueris the hippopotamus goddess called \u201cCat of,\u201d i. 37 _n._ 1\n\n Ethiopians, their rule in Egypt, i. 31, 51;\n   worship Isis, i. 56;\n   Psammetichos expels them, i. 101\n\n _Etymologicum Magnum._ _See_ Gaisford\n\n Eubouleus or Eubuleus, a name of Dionysos, i. 133, 137 _n._ 1, 142,\n    143;\n   identified with Adonis by Orphics, i. 137.\n   _See_ Zeus Chthonios\n\n Eubulus, author of lost work on Mithras, ii. 236\n\n Eucharist, the, rite resembling it among Serapiasts, i. 87;\n   simple mode of celebration in Primitive Church, i. 87 _n._ 1;\n   thaumaturgic accompaniments among heretics, _ibid._, and ii. 129,\n      187;\n   obscene parody of, i. 198;\n   magical efficacy of, among Gnostics, ii. 22, 63;\n   in Apostolic times follows baptism immediately, ii. 22 _n._ 1;\n   Ophite additions to, doubtful, ii. 61;\n   Ophite ideas concerning, i. 63;\n   Marcus\u2019 profanation of, ii. 129;\n   called a mystery, ii. 165;\n   views of Primitive Church as to, ii. 171;\n   D\u00f6llinger\u2019s remarks on, ii. 172;\n   rite described in _Texts of Saviour_ and Bruce Papyrus probably\n      Marcosian, ii. 187;\n   celebrated with water among certain sects, ii. 188, 215;\n   ceremony resembling, in Mithraism, ii. 247, 260;\n   in Manichaeism probably confined to Elect, ii. 348.\n   _See_ _Pistis Sophia_, Bruce Papyrus, Huysmans\n\n Eudemos of Rhodes, earliest authority for Zervanism among Magi, ii. 236\n    _n._ 4, 252 _n._ 2\n\n Eudoxos of Cnidos, his use of acrostics in astronomical work, i. 169\n\n Euhemerus of Messene, his theory that gods were deified men, i. 19\n\n Eukles, name of god in Orphic gold plate, i. 133\n\n Eumenides, the, said by Orphics to be children of Persephone, i. 142\n\n Eumolpidae, exegetes attached to, i. 44 _n._ 1;\n   hereditary priests of Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 76\n\n Euphrates, the heresiarch, founder of Ophites _ap._ Origen, ii. 25;\n   called the \u201cPeratic\u201d or Mede, ii. 26 _n._ 1\n\n Euripides, Parthians act plays of, i. 8;\n   represents Dionysos as androgyne, i. 47 _n._ 4;\n   supports identification of Dionysos and Apollo, i. 48;\n   Orphic doctrines well known to, i. 123;\n   quoted, i. 39, 128, 149 _n._ 1\n\n Europe, Alexander\u2019s marriage of, with Asia, i. lviii;\n   Oriental religions pass into, i. 20;\n   after Alexander, Egypt becomes granary of, i. 28;\n   Alexandrian religion passes into, i. 77;\n   Phrygia invaded by celibate warriors from, ii. 40\n\n\n Eusebius of Caesarea, quoted, i. 199, 200; ii. 4 _n._ 3, 6 _n._ 4, 10\n    _n._ 1, 12 _n._ 5, 18 _n._ 3, 23 _n._ 2, 83 _n._ 1, 88 _n._ 2, 96\n    _n._ 2, 120 _n._ 2, 132 _n._ 2, 206 _nn._ 2, 5, 220 _n._ 3, 221 _n._\n    1, 359\n\n Euxitheus, the Pythagoric, authority for Orphic doctrine of burial of\n    soul in body, i. 127 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Philolaos\n\n\n Evander, bishop of Nicomedia, rabbles Ophites, ii. 77\n\n Eve, the protoplast, confusion of name of, with Evoe, ii. 20 _n._ 1;\n   Ophite legend of, ii. 52, 58, 70;\n   and Manichaean, ii. 299, 306\n\n Evoe, word used in Mysteries of Sabazius, i. 138;\n   in those of Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1; ii. 54 _n._ 6;\n   Clement of Alexandria connects it with Eve, ii. 20 _n._ 1\n\n\n Ezekiel, the Prophet, shows hatred of Jews for Gentiles, i. 167 _n._ 4;\n   quoted, i. 186 _n._ 2; ii. 32, 43 _n._ 2\n\n Eznig of Goghp, quoted, ii. 217, 285\n\n Ezra, the Prophet, Apocalypse attributed to, quoted, i. 163, 164, 165,\n    167 _nn._ 3, 4; ii. 81\n\n\n\n Farrah (Seistan), probably Prophthasia of Arrian, i. 4 _n._ 1\n\n Fatak. _See_ Patecius\n\n Father, Mithraic priests addressed as, ii. 261;\n   name of highest Mithraic degree, ii. 262, 267\n\n Father-and-Son, Dionysos the double of his father, i. 47;\n   name of Ophite Supreme God, ii. 38, 39, 67;\n   First Mystery of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 144;\n   Mithras may be, ii. 248\n\n Fathers of the Church, their writings neglected till lately, i. 1;\n   call all early heretics Gnostics, i. lviii, 171;\n   say Simon Magus parent of Gnosticism, i. 176, 200;\n   know little of many heresies, i. 200; ii. 9;\n   agree as to Ophites, ii. 36;\n   their account of Marcus the magician, ii. 128, 167;\n   their hostility to Gnosticism justified, ii. 199;\n   say devil inspires Mithraists to imitate Church, ii. 247;\n   ascribe Apocrypha of Thomas and Andrew to Manichaean Leucius, ii. 351\n\n Faventinus, Ulpius Egnatius, priest of Isis and other deities, i. 83\n\n _Fihrist_, the, of Muhammad ben Ishak or En-Nad\u00eem, quoted, ii. 279 _n._\n    3, 280, 287 _n._ 4, 289 _n._ 2, 290 _n._ 3, 291 _n._ 1, 292, 293\n    _n._ 1, 294 _n._ 1, 295 _n._ 1, 296 _n._ 1, 299 _n._ 2, 300 _n._ 2,\n    302 _n._ 1, 304 _n._ 1, 309, 310, 312 _nn._ 1, 2, 313, 314, 322 _n._\n    2, 332, 333, 342 _nn._ 1, 2\n\n F\u00eer\u00fbz. _See_ Peroz\n\n Foakes-Jackson, Canon, quoted, ii. 215 _n._ 1, 216 _n._ 4, 223\n\n Forefather, the Great Unseen or Propator, member of ruling Triad of\n    Left or material powers in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 142, 150, 155\n\n Foucart, M. George. quoted, i. 91\n\n Foucart, M. Paul, his works on Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 38 _n._ 3;\n   quoted, i. 17 _n._ 1, 21 _nn._ 1, 2, 22 _n._ 2, 23 _n._ 2, 25 _nn._\n      2, 3, 39 _nn._ 1-3, 40 _nn._ 3, 4, 41 _nn._ 1-3, 42 _nn._ 1, 2,\n      43, 44 _n._ 1, 47 _n._ 1, 48 _n._ 2, 52 _n._ 3, 59 _n._ 4, 61 _n._\n      1, 65 _n._ 6, 130 _n._ 1, 133 _n._ 1, 137 _n._ 5, 143 _n._ 4\n\n France, Isiac monuments found in, i. 53;\n   and Mithraic, ii. 230\n\n Fravashis, the, or Ferouers in Mazdeism, ii. 110 _n._ 1\n\n Frazer, Sir James G., quoted, i. 43, 91, 96 _n._ 4, 158 _n._ 2\n\n Freemasonry, Catholic accusation of obscene rites against, ii. 18 _n._\n    2;\n   Mithraism a Pagan (Renan), ii. 264\n\n\n Gabinius, Proconsul of Syria, rebuilds Samaria after destruction by\n    Jews, i. 177\n\n\n Gabriel, the angel, in _Book of Daniel_, i. 158;\n   named in Magic Papyri, ii. 34;\n   name of sphere in Diagram, ii. 70;\n   in _Pistis Sophia_, Jesus assumes shape of, at Annunciation, ii. 137,\n      138;\n   with Michael bears Pistis Sophia out of Chaos, ii. 156, 355 _n._ 1\n\n Gaea or G\u00ea, the Orphic earth goddess, i. 123, 133, 185; ii. 45 _n._ 1\n\n\n Gaisford, Dean, his notes to _Etymologicum Magnum_ quoted, i. 137 _n._\n    3\n\n Galatae, the, their settlement in Asia Minor, ii. 28\n\n Galerius, the Emperor, speech of Persian ambassador to, ii. 226;\n   affects state of Persian Shah, ii. 228 _n._ 2\n\n Galli, the, eunuch priests of Cybele, ii. 30 _n._ 3\n\n Ganymede, burlesqued in procession of Isis, i. 71\n\n Gar\u00f4tman, abode of Infinite Light in Mazdeism, ii. 249\n\n\n Gaumata, the Magian pseudo-Smerdis in Behistun inscription, ii. 233\n\n\n Gay\u00f4mort, the First Man in Mazdeism, i. lxi;\n   slain by Ahriman, i. 126 _n._ 3;\n   his legend in _Bundahish_, ii. 246\n\n Geb, the Egyptian earth-god, father of Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephthys,\n    i. 33, 133 _n._ 1\n\n\n Gehenna, in Enochian literature, i. 165, 167;\n   in Diagram, ii. 69\n\n Genghiz Khan, his invasion and conquests, i. 5 _n._ 1, 14\n\n Gentiles, the, their relations with Jews in earliest Christian\n    centuries, i. lv, lvi;\n   hostility of Jews against, partly due to Roman taxation, i. 163 _n._\n      1;\n   final fate of, _ap._ Jews, i. 164, 165, 166, 167;\n   rebellion of Jews against, i. 172;\n   Jewish hatred recognized by, after Titus, ii. 5;\n   non-Jewish Christianity necessary for conversion of, ii. 21\n\n George the Syncellus, quoted, i. 124 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Monogenes\n\n Gerizim, Mount, temple of, rival to that of Jerusalem, i. 177\n\n Germany, i. 7;\n   Isiac monuments found in, i. 53;\n     and Mithraic, ii. 230\n\n Gibbon, Edward, the historian, his _Decline and Fall_ (Bury\u2019s ed.),\n    quoted, i. 1, 85, 86 _n._ 2; ii. 7 _n._ 1, 12 _n._ 5, 96 _n._ 3, 127\n    _n._ 4, 226 _nn._ 1-6, 227 _n._ 1, 228 _n._ 2, 271 _n._ 2\n\n Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero, ii. 287 _n._ 4\n\n Giraud, Father Fran\u00e7ois, his _Ophitae_ quoted, i. 100 _n._ 1; ii. 26\n    _n._ 5, 41 _n._ 2, 44 _n._ 2, 64, 68, 70, 71 _n._ 2, 79 _n._ 2\n\n Gladstone, Mr, his controversy with Huxley, i. liii\n\n Glaucias, the interpreter of St Peter and teacher of Basilides, ii. 90\n    _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Ptolemy, son of Glaucias\n\n Glaucothea, mother of Aeschines and priestess of Sabazius, i. 22, 138\n\n Glory, the Column of, in Manichaeism, ii. 296, 308, 309, 332\n\n Glory, the King of, in Manichaeism, ii. 148 _n._ 3;\n   in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325\n\n Glycon, the god worshipped at Nicomedia, _temp._ Gordian, i. 24.\n   _See_ Alexander of Abonoteichos\n\n Gnosticism, ideas at root of, opposed to religion, i. 90;\n   the importance of knowledge of the spiritual world, i. 111;\n   Christianity may be only episode in history of, _ibid._;\n   impulse given to, by rise of astrology, i. 119;\n   earliest pre-Christian form of, i. 120;\n   Simon Magus said to be parent of all later, i. 176;\n   a hydra, i. 200;\n   does not compete with orthodox Christianity till IInd cent., ii. 2;\n   early converts from, ii. 21;\n   its services to Church, ii. 21, 202;\n   alleged necessity for forcible suppression of, ii. 23;\n   Montanism and, only formidable heresies in early centuries, ii. 29\n      _n._ 1;\n   likeness of, to Cabala, ii. 36 _n._ 1;\n   becomes ethical after contact with philosophers, ii. 87;\n   first form of Egyptian, unknown, ii. 89;\n   Valentinus transforms Christian, ii. 93;\n   degenerates into magic in Egypt, ii. 199;\n   rotten before it was ripe (Inge), ii. 199 _n._ 3;\n   bridge between Paganism and Christianity, ii. 200;\n   its suppression by Church, ii. 359\n\n Gnostics, generic name for many different sects, i. lviii, 171;\n   worship of Greek confraternities resembles that of, i. 21;\n   form of Christian sacraments borrowed from, i. 87 _n._ 1;\n   Tertullian\u2019s views on Trinity influenced by, i. 89 _n._ 2;\n   their use of magic (Hippolytus), i. 109;\n   points common to Orphics and post-Christian, i. 148;\n   Essenes, Gnostics in larger sense, i. 157;\n   conceal themselves during persecution, i. 200;\n   symbolic construction of Gospels by, ii. 6;\n   our sources of information as to, ii. 10;\n   \u201cthe great Gnostics of Hadrian\u2019s time,\u201d ii. 12;\n   writings of, ii. 13;\n   call Jesus Monogenes, ii. 15;\n   magical ideas of pre-Christian, ii. 18;\n   exchange of doctrines among, ii. 20;\n   introduce statues, incense, etc., ii. 22;\n   term Homoousios first used by, ii. 23 _n._ 1;\n   Barbeliotae etc. so called by Epiphanius, ii. 27, 77;\n   Carpocratians first call themselves, ii. 27;\n   the \u201cperfect Gnostics\u201d of the Naassenes, ii. 56 _n._ 1;\n   become active after St Paul\u2019s preaching in Asia Minor, ii. 85;\n   Mithraists perhaps copy certain doctrines of, ii. 248;\n   may get ideas of destiny from Babylon, ii. 256\n\n Gonds, the, sorcerers of Aryan races, i. 92\n\n Gordian III, the Emperor, Glycon worship in reign of, i. 24\n\n\n Goshurun or Goshurvan, the Heavenly Bull of the Avesta, ii. 243;\n   in _Bundahish_, slain by Ahriman, ii. 246\n\n\n Gospel, the Fourth, its date, ii. 178;\n   not quoted in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 177;\n   nor by Marcion, ii. 208 _n._ 1;\n   quoted, i. 177 _n._ 5; ii. 117 _n._ 1, 123 _n._ 3, 161 _n._ 4, 177,\n      190\n\n Goths, of Dacia, converted _en masse_, ii. 271\n\n Gracchus, Urban Prefect of Rome, _temp._ Gratian, ii. 272\n\n Graecia, Magna, overthrow of Pythagoreans in, i. 122;\n   Orphic gold plates found in, i. 169\n\n Granicus, the, Greek troops on Persian side at, i. 7\n\n Gratian, the Emperor, Epiphanius\u2019 Panarion written in his 7th year, ii.\n    10;\n   spread of Marcionism in his reign, ii. 205;\n   Mithraea wrecked with his sanction, ii. 272;\n   financial measures against Paganism, ii. 358\n\n Gratidia or Canidia of Horace, her sister witch a Thessalian, i. 108\n\n Great Britain, Isiac monuments found in, i. 53;\n   and Mithraic, ii. 230\n\n Greece, Persians repulsed in their attack on, i. 1;\n   Alexander in Seistan receives grapes from, i. 4 _n._ 1;\n   theocrasia in, i. 15, 16;\n   gods of, coalesce with those of Asia Minor, i. 17;\n   its religious confraternities, i. 21;\n   Dionysos-worship brought into, from Egypt, i. 43;\n   Orphic teaching first appears in, i. 112;\n   comes into, from Thrace, i. 122;\n   Dionysos youngest of gods of, i. 123;\n   popular theology of, i. 124;\n   propagation of Orphic ideas in, i. 135;\n   no regular association called Orphic in, i. 139 _n._ 3, 141;\n   mysteries of Chthonian deities in, attended by Gnostics, ii. 21;\n   great goddess worshipped in, ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   Ophites have settlements in, ii. 77;\n   Mithraism keeps out of, ii. 230.\n   _See_ Hellas\n\n\n Greeks, the, rush of, to Asia after Alexander\u2019s conquests, i. 7;\n   adopt foreign gods in IVth cent. B.C., i. 15, 16;\n   Alexander\u2019s deification a shock to, i. 18;\n   rise of Euhemerism among, i. 19; ii. 28;\n   no priestly caste among, i. 24, 76;\n   theocrasia popular among, i. 33, 54, 56;\n   Osiris myth common to Egyptians and, i. 38;\n   Alexandrian religion careful of susceptibilities of, i. 44;\n   think Demeter and Persephone one, i. 46;\n   Apollo always a sun-god among, i. 48;\n   mistake of, as to Harpocrates, i. 50;\n   their fear of gods _temp._ Homer, i. 57;\n   Homeric flattery of gods, i. 95;\n   turn to magic rites Vth cent. B.C., i. 121;\n   asceticism of Orphics foreign to, i. 127;\n   their view of Mysteries changes after Orphic reform, i. 130;\n   Orphism greatest religious movement among pre-Christian, i. 145;\n   religion of, and Jews contrasted, i. 149;\n   adoption of acrostics and word-puzzles among, i. 168, 169 _n._ 1;\n   Jews forge works of well-known authors among, i. 173;\n   Simon Magus uses religious traditions of, i. 185, 186;\n   laugh at wailing for Dying God, ii. 16;\n   Ophites take doctrines from Mysteries of, ii. 54;\n   unlike Persians, think gods have nature of men, ii. 234;\n   make astrology popular, ii. 235\n\n Gregory the Great, Saint, his advice to assimilate heathen practices,\n    i. 85\n\n Gr\u00fcnwedel, Dr, his expedition to Turfan, ii. 316\n\n Guards, the Nine of Treasure-house in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 142, 193\n\n Gundisabur or Djundi-s\u00e2bur, place of Mani\u2019s execution, ii. 281 _n._ 7\n\n\n\n Habakkuk, the Prophet, inspired by Jaldabaoth according to Ophites, ii.\n    81 _n._ 2\n\n\n Hades, the god, his temple at Eleusis, i. 39;\n   his Rape of Persephone shown in Mysteries, i. 40;\n   in Homer shares universe with Zeus, i. 46;\n   identified with Zeus Chthonios and Dionysos, i. 47, 130, 144, 147;\n      ii. 39;\n   his name perhaps ineffable, i. 47 _n._ 1;\n   called Eubuleus, i. 47, 133, 142;\n   identified with Osiris, i. 48;\n   his epithet of Adamas, ii. 39 _n._ 1;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238;\n   identified with Ahriman, ii. 239, 253\n\n Hades, the place or House of, passwords through, taught in Mysteries,\n    i. 41;\n   happy lot of initiates in, i. 59;\n   Amenti, the Egyptian, i. 102 _n._ 1, 104;\n   in Orphic gold plate, i. 132;\n   pains of uninitiated in, i. 140;\n   like Jewish Sheol, i. 150\n\n Hadrian, the Emperor, his letter to Servian, i. 86;\n   the great Gnostics of his reign, i. 111; ii. 12;\n   his war of extermination against the Jews, i. 163, 170, 172 _n._ 1;\n      ii. 5, 203;\n   Celsus a contemporary of, ii. 66;\n   reign of Roman Law begins _temp._, ii. 86;\n   Gnosticism enters Alexandria _temp._, ii. 89;\n   gives back Trajan\u2019s Persian conquests, ii. 225;\n   books on Mithras worship written _temp._, ii. 236\n\n\n Haggai, the Prophet, hatred of Jews for Gentiles shown in, i. 167 _n._\n    4\n\n Halicarnassus, Alexandrian worship in, i. 52\n\n Ham, the patriarch, identified with Titan, i. lx\n\n Harnack, Prof. Adolf, quoted, i. xlix _n._ 1; ii. 161 _n._ 4, 207, 215\n    _n._ 1, 216, 286 _n._ 5\n\n Har-pa-khrat or Harpocrates, the Alexandrian Horus the Child, i. 50\n\n Harris, Dr Rendel, his discovery of the _Odes of Solomon_, i. 164 _n._\n    1; ii. 157 _n._ 2;\n   and of the _Apology_ of Aristides, ii. 204 _n._ 1\n\n Hartland, Mr E. S., his theory of _mana_, i. 91 _n._ 2\n\n Harvey, W. W., editor of Irenaeus, quoted, i. 181 _n._ 1; ii. 138 _n._\n    1\n\n Hasis-adra. _See_ Xisuthros\n\n Hatch, Dr Edwin, quoted, i. lvii, lviii _n._ 1, 47 _n._ 4, 87 _n._ 1,\n    168 _n._ 3, 174 _n._ 2; ii. 23 _n._ 1, 37 _n._ 1, 83 _n._ 1, 165\n    _n._ 3, 168 _n._ 6, 169 _n._ 1, 170, 172 _n._ 3, 191 _n._ 2, 202\n    _n._ 1, 222 _nn._ 2, 3\n\n Haurvet\u00e2t, the Amshaspand, i. 181 _n._ 1;\n   his and Ameret\u00e2t\u2019s possible analogues in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 355\n\n Hebdomad, the, in system of Simon Magus and _Clementines_, i. 181;\n   among Ophites, ii. 64;\n   Valentinus\u2019 name for the Demiurge or god of the Jews, ii. 107, 109,\n      114 _n._ 3\n\n Hebrews, the, i. 173, 185.\n   _See_ Jews\n\n _Hebrews, the Gospel according to the_, perhaps identical with that\n    _according to the Egyptians_, ii. 79\n\n Hecataeus of Abdera, Jewish forgery in name of, i. 173\n\n Hecate, the goddess, identified with Isis, i. 56;\n   priest of Isis also hierophant of, i. 83;\n   Orphic hymns to, i. 142 _n._ 2, 147 _n._ 1;\n   patron saint of sorcerers till Renaissance, i. 147;\n   ii. 186 _n._ 3, 276;\n   her relation to lion-headed god of Mithraism, ii. 252\n\n Heddernheim, revolving bas-reliefs in Mithraeum at, ii. 247;\n   concealment of lion-headed statue in same, ii. 251\n\n Hedone or Pleasure, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101\n\n\n Hegemonius, his _Acta Archelai_, Beeson\u2019s edition of, ii. 280 _n._ 3;\n   quoted, i. 178 _n._ 2; ii. 277 _n._ 1, 279 _n._ 2, 280 _n._ 3, 287\n      _n._ 3, 288 _nn._ 1, 2, 3, 289 _n._ 1, 293 _n._ 1, 294 _n._ 1, 295\n      _n._ 2, 297 _n._ 2, 298 _nn._ 1, 2, 299 _n._ 4, 302 _n._ 1, 306\n      _nn._ 1, 2, 307 _n._ 1, 308 _nn._ 1-4, 312 _n._ 2, 316 _n._ 1, 318\n      _n._ 1, 322 _n._ 2, 323 _n._ 4, 326 _n._ 1, 330 _n._ 2, 352 _n._ 2\n\n Hegesander, quoted from Athenaeus, i. 8 _n._ 3\n\n Hegesippus, his date, ii. 6 _n._ 4;\n   quoted, ii. 2 _nn._ 1, 2, 6 _n._ 4, 8 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Eusebius\n\n Heimarmene. _See_ Destiny\n\n Helen of Troy, Simon Magus\u2019 mistress said to be reincarnation of, i.\n    178, 190, 196\n\n Helena of Tyre, name of Simon\u2019s mistress, i. 190;\n   redeemed by Simon, i. 191;\n   inconsistency of patristic story about, i. 193;\n   typifies the soul in transmigration, i. 196;\n   image of, as Athena, i. 198;\n   said to have been called Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1\n\n Heliogabalus, the Emperor, a high-priest of the sun-god, ii. 228\n\n Heliopolis. _See_ Annu or On\n\n Helios, classical type of, represented on Indian coins, i. 17 _n._ 2;\n   Serapis identified with, i. 56;\n   distinguished by Greeks from Apollo, ii. 240;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 244;\n   with Mithras at banquet, ii. 247;\n   invoked in Mithraic liturgy, ii. 266\n\n\n Hellas, i. 24, 44\n\n Hellespont, the, limit of Persian Empire, i. 1\n\n\n Hemerobaptists, the, a pre-Christian sect, ii. 6 _n._ 4;\n   called Mandaites or Disciples of St John, ii. 305;\n   their history and tenets, _ibid._\n\n Henosis or Oneness, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101\n\n\n Hera, her contempt for man in Homer, i. 57;\n   her jealousy cause of Diaspasm _ap._ Orphics, i. 125;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.\n   _See_ Juno\n\n Heracleon, the Valentinian, quoted by Origen, ii. 95 _n._ 2;\n   most distinguished of Valentinus\u2019 successors, ii. 119;\n   his Commentaries on the Gospels not secret, ii. 131\n\n Heracleopolis or Ahnas el-Medineh, mentioned in Magic Papyrus, i. 98,\n    109\n\n Heracles, becomes immortal because of divine birth, i. 18; ii. 16;\n   rams sacrificed to, i. 95;\n   story of, in Herodotus used by Justinus, ii. 81;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238;\n   his compulsion of Hades, ii. 239 _n._ 7.\n   _See_ Hercules\n\n Heraclitus of Ephesus, identifies Dionysos with Hades, i. 47;\n   probably unknown to Hippolytus\u2019 Naassene, ii. 83\n\n Heraclius, the Emperor, his overthrow of Persia, ii. 227\n\n Herat, a foundation of Alexander, i. 5\n\n\n Herculaneum, scenes of Alexandrian worship in frescoes found at, i. 66\n    _n._ 3, 67-69, 73, 87\n\n\n Hercules, classical type of, on Indian coins, i. 17 _n._ 2\n\n Hermas\u2019 _Pastor_, Trinitarian views of, i. 89 _n._ 2\n\n\n Hermes, the god, worship of, perhaps brought into Greece from Egypt, i.\n    17;\n   Greek analogue of Anubis, i. 35;\n   as psychopomp in Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 41;\n   image of, used in magic, i. 98;\n   hymn to, in Magic Papyrus, i. 98, 99;\n   appears in Mysteries of Samothrace, i. 136 _n._ 2;\n   Terms of, in Athenian streets, i. 139 _n._ 2;\n   St Paul hailed as, in Phrygia, i. 191 _n._ 3; ii. 42;\n   leader of souls in Homer, ii. 54;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 258\n\n Hermopolis, ogdoad of four syzygies of gods under early Pharaohs at, i.\n    197; ii. 175, 176\n\n Hero of Alexandria, invents first steam-engine, i. 45\n\n Herod the Great, rebuilds and restores Samaria, i. 177\n\n Herodotus, quoted, i. 16, 43, 48, 60, 81, 123, 136; ii. 176, 233 _n._\n    1, 234, 239, 320 _n._ 1\n\n Hesiod, scholiast on, quoted, i. 40 _n._ 1;\n   popular theology given in, i. 124;\n   calls God and Goddess of Eleusis Zeus Chthonios and Demeter, i. 126;\n   his successive ages of the world, i. 186\n\n Hierapolis, called Ophiorhyma in _Acta Philippi_, ii. 50.\n   _See_ Atargatis\n\n Hiero II, King of Syracuse, introduces Alexandrian gods into Sicily, i.\n    53\n\n Hild, M. J. A., quoted, i. 134 _n._ 2, 149 _n._ 1\n\n Hilleh, magic bowls of Jews found at, ii. 32, 33\n\n Hinduism, i. li\n\n Hippa, Orphic hymn to, i. 138 _n._ 2\n\n Hipparchus, studies at Museum, i. 45;\n   makes systematic astrology possible, i. 117\n\n\n Hippolytus, bishop of Porta Romana, discovery of his Philosophumena, i.\n    lix; ii. 11;\n   Salmon\u2019s theory about, i. lxi _n._ 1; ii. 11, 12;\n   tricks of magicians described by, i. 99, 100;\n   condemns astrology and astronomy alike, i. 112 _n._ 2;\n   his \u201chymn of Great Mysteries,\u201d i. 137 _n._ 1, 139 _n._ 1; ii. 54 _n._\n      6;\n   thinks system of Sethiani derived from Orphics, i. 175;\n   his account of Simon Magus\u2019 doctrines inconsistent, i. 193;\n   doctrines of heresiarchs described by, ii. 11, 12;\n   exaggerates diversity of Gnostic teaching, ii. 14;\n   attributes Ophite doctrines to discourses of St James to Mariamne,\n      ii. 26;\n   contemporary of Origen _circa_ 200 A.D., ii 26 _n._ 3;\n   identifies Ophiomorphus with great god of Greek Mysteries, ii. 50;\n   his Ophite psalm, ii. 61, 62, 68 _n._ 2;\n   his later Ophite sacraments, ii. 63;\n   says Naassenes have priests, ii. 66;\n   attributes _Gospel of Egyptians_ to Naassenes, ii. 79;\n   gives most space to Valentinus\u2019 doctrine, ii. 95;\n   his views on Trinity polytheistic, ii. 123 _n._ 1;\n   accuses heresiarchs of magical imposture, ii. 128;\n   writes 50 years after Valentinus\u2019 death, ii. 131 _n._ 2;\n   quoted, i. lix, lxi _n._ 1, 68 _n._ 3, 73, 99, 100 _n._ 4, 107 _n._\n      1, 109, 110, 112 _n._ 2, 137 _n._ 1, 139 _n._ 1, 175, 179, 187,\n      191, 193, 194, 196, 198; ii. 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 26, 27, 40, 41\n      _n._ 1, 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66 _n._ 1,\n      73 _n._ 2, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 89 _nn._ 3, 4, 90, 91, 94 _nn._\n      1-3, 95, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103 _n._ 5, 104, 105, 106 _nn._ 1, 2,\n      107, 108 _n._ 1, 109, 110 _n._ 1, 113 _n._ 2, 114 _nn._ 2, 3, 115\n      _n._ 2, 116 _n._ 2, 118 _n._ 5, 119, 123, 124 _n._ 3, 128, 131,\n      144 _n._ 8, 147 _n._ 4, 148 _n._ 1, 159 _n._ 3, 160 _n._ 1, 207,\n      208 _n._ 2, 215 _n._ 2, 219 _n._ 1, 220\n\n Hittites, the, Mithras worshipped by, 1272 B.C., i. lxii;\n   mentioned in Sargon\u2019s omen-tablets, i. 114;\n   Mithras linked with Varuna among, ii. 248\n\n Hogarth, D. G., quoted, i. 14, 18 _n._ 4, 27; ii. 29\n\n Homer, reading-book of Asiatics _post_ Alexander, i. 8 _n._ 1;\n   gods of, worshipped by Graeco-Indian kings, i. 17;\n   their indifference to mortals, i. 57;\n   shows forth Christian doctrine of Father and Son, i. 47 _n._ 3;\n   purificatory rites unknown to, i. 121;\n   the popular theology of, i. 124;\n   the father of gods and men in, i. 185;\n   claimed as divinely inspired, ii. 15;\n   writings of, used by Ophites, ii. 54;\n   quoted, i. 57 _nn._ 1, 2, 59, 95, 96 _n._ 1;\n   ii. 15 _n._ 4, 16 _n._ 1\n\n Homeric Hymns, publicly recited and perhaps displaced by Orphic, i.\n    135;\n   quoted, i. 16 _n._ 5, 40 _n._ 2, 59, 124 _n._ 3\n\n Homoousios, word first used by Gnostics, ii. 23 _n._ 1, 91 _n._ 2\n\n Honour, King of, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325\n\n Horace, perhaps known to Basilides, ii. 91 _n._ 5;\n   quoted, i. 108; ii. 225, 228\n\n\n Horaios, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 69, 70;\n   address to, ii. 74.\n   _See_ Oreus\n\n\n Hormisdas or Ormuz, the Shah, ii. 281\n\n Horus, the god, king of Egypt incarnation of, i. 18, 19, 51;\n   in Alexandrian legend of Isis and Osiris, i. 34, 35;\n   originally totem of royal tribe, i. 36, 37, 45;\n   analogue of Iacchos, i. 43, 189 _n._ 5;\n   identified with Apollo, i. 48;\n   child form of, in Alexandrian religion, i. 50;\n   Ptolemies raise temples to Egyptian form of, i. 52;\n   Athenian dandies swear by, i. 54;\n   Egyptian sun-god, i. 63;\n   in Alexandrian religion, Osiris reborn, i. 70 _n._ 3; ii. 39, 63;\n   festival of birth of, i. 71;\n   a triune god, i. 88, 189 _n._ 5;\n   symbolizes perceptible world image of ideal, i. 198\n\n Horus, the Limit of the Pleroma, a Valentinian Aeon, ii. 105 _n._ 2;\n   in system of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 140 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Stauros\n\n Horus-R\u00e2, the god, composite deity who replaces Horus in Middle Empire,\n    i. 63 _n._ 3\n\n Housesteads (Northumberland), Mithraic monuments at, ii. 242\n\n Huesemigad\u00f4n, name of Pluto in Magic Papyri, i. 99, 100\n\n\n Humm\u00e2ma, name of Manichaean Satan, ii. 287 _n._ 4\n\n Huxley, the late Prof., his controversy about Genesis, i. liii\n\n\n Huysmans, J. K., revives patristic stories of profanation of Eucharist,\n    i. 198\n\n Hyades, in Chaldaean astrology, i. 113\n\n _Hymn of the Soul_, said to be Manichaean, ii. 331\n\n Hymns, sung by Athenians to Demetrius Poliorcetes, i. 19;\n   Greek confraternities compose, i. 21 _n._ 1;\n   to Iacchos sung by procession of initiates, i. 39;\n   used in Alexandrian worship, i. 66, 72, 75;\n   to Hermes and other gods in Magic Papyri, i. 99;\n   to Attis and others, i. 137 _n._ 1; ii. 54;\n   the collection of Orphic, i. 141;\n   to Eros sung by Lycomidae in Mysteries, i. 141 _n._ 2; ii. 210 _n._\n      1;\n   of Synesius, quoted, ii. 37 _n._ 1;\n   Ophites\u2019, addressed to First Man, ii. 61;\n   Bardesanes\u2019, used in Catholic Church, ii. 120;\n   the penitential, of Pistis Sophia, ii. 156;\n   sung by legionaries to both Christ and Mithras, ii. 261;\n   used by Manichaeans, ii. 331\n\n Hypsistos or the Highest, name of Yahweh in Asia Minor (Cumont), ii.\n    31, 85 _n._ 3;\n   applied by Valentinus to Demiurge, ii. 116 _n._ 2\n\n Hyrcanus, John, high-priest of Jews, invades Samaria and destroys it,\n    i. 177\n\n\n Iaccheion, the, at Athens, starting-point of procession to Eleusis, i.\n    39\n\n Iacchos, the god, leader of procession to Eleusis, i. 39;\n   his identity with Dionysos, i. 39 _n._ 2, 40 _n._ 4, 130, 145;\n   son of Zeus and Demeter, i. 40;\n   analogy of his birth with that of Horus, i. 43, 125;\n   Orphics identify him with Hades, Zeus Chthonios and Zagreus, i. 130;\n   and with Eubuleus, Cybele, Aphrodite and Isis, i. 137 _n._ 1, 143;\n   and with Sabazius, i. 138 _n._ 2;\n   the father, son, and spouse of Persephone, i. 189 _n._ 5\n\n\n Ialdabaoth or Jaldabaoth, the Ophite Demiurge and a \u201cfourth number,\u201d i.\n    100 _n._ 4; ii. 46, 47, 70 _n._ 2, 71 _n._ 1;\n   his name, variants, attributes, and places, ii. 46, 69;\n   the god of the Jews, ii. 47;\n   ruler of planetary spheres _ap._ Ophites, ii. 48, 64;\n   father of Ophiomorphus, ii. 49;\n   creator and tempter of man, ii. 51, 52;\n   his commands disobeyed by protoplasts, ii. 52;\n   lawgiver of Jews, ii. 53;\n   souls of \u201canimal\u201d men pass through his realms between incarnations,\n      ii. 57;\n   his attempts to prolong his rule defeated by Sophia, ii. 58, 59;\n   birth of Jesus arranged without knowledge of, ii. 59;\n   contrives death of Jesus, ii. 60;\n   his seven heavens called the holy hebdomad (Irenaeus), ii. 64;\n   fragments of light pass into the terrestrial world without knowledge\n      of, _ibid._;\n   creator of world of form, ii. 64 _n._ 3;\n   name taken from magic _ap._ Origen, ii. 69;\n   his seven worlds copied by Ophiomorphus as in Ophite Diagram, ii. 70;\n   address to, ii. 72;\n   uncertain place of, ii, 74 _n._ 3, 75 _n._ 1;\n   inspires Hexateuch, Amos and Habakkuk _ap._ Ophites, ii. 81 _n._ 2;\n   corresponds to the Great Archon of Basilides, ii. 94;\n   and to Valentinus\u2019 Demiurge, ii. 107 _n._ 2;\n   in _Pistis Sophia_ degraded into evil power sent into Chaos, ii. 155,\n      158;\n   in Bruce Papyrus a chief of Third Aeon, ii. 155 _n._ 3;\n   in _Texts of Saviour_ a torturer in hell, _ibid._ and 186;\n   Adamas helps him to torment Pistis Sophia, ii. 156;\n   his light deceives her, ii. 162;\n   his place given to Pistis Sophia, ii. 162 _n._ 3;\n   various spellings of name of, in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 183 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Habakkuk, Irenaeus\n\n Ialdazao, either a variant of name of Ialdabaoth or El Shaddai, ii. 46\n    _n._ 3\n\n Iamblichus, the neo-Platonist, says Egyptian magicians threaten their\n    gods, i. 104\n\n Ia\u00f4, in Magic Papyri, corruption of name Jehovah, i. 105, 106;\n   ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47, 69;\n   a Hebrew name of God (Origen), ii. 69, 71 _n._ 1;\n   name of Dionysos in late classical writers, ii. 71 _n._ 1;\n   address to, ii. 72;\n   connection with moon, ii. 72 _n._ 3, 74 _n._ 2;\n   used as acrostic in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 180 _n._ 4\n\n\n Iao, the Good, in _Pistis Sophia_, the Little, supplies power for soul\n    of St John Baptist, ii. 138, 149;\n   the Great, a ruler of the Middle and colleague of Virgin of Light,\n      ii. 150;\n   his connection with moon, ii. 150 _n._ 5\n\n Iapetus, brother of Saturn, identified by Christian writer with Japhet,\n    i. lx\n\n\n India, Alexander\u2019s exploits in, i. 5, 13;\n   sorcerers in modern, i. 92, 99 _n._ 1;\n   Ophites spread to, ii. 76;\n   Mithraic monuments in, ii. 230;\n   Mithras worshipped in Vedic, _ibid._;\n   Manes said to have preached in, ii. 281;\n   Manes says Buddha sent to, ii. 307;\n   becomes acquainted with Buddhism in, ii. 313\n\n Ineffable One, the, of the _Pistis Sophia_ contains the First Mystery,\n    ii. 139;\n   his \u201creceptacles\u201d issue from his last limb, ii. 139 _n._ 2, 144 _n._\n      3;\n   lesser powers make up his name, ii. 140;\n   Great Light his Legate, ii. 141;\n   the Bythos of the Ophites and Valentinus, ii. 144, 158;\n   First Mystery proceeds from last limb of, ii. 145;\n   the footless God of Truth, ii. 145 _n._ 2;\n   his heaven, ii. 146;\n   perfect initiates will eventually become members of, ii. 164, 170;\n   the Mystery or Sacrament of, ii. 166;\n   its saving grace, 164 _n._ 6, 167, 169, 170, 171;\n   confined to Pneumatics only, ii. 173;\n   an Egyptian conception, ii. 175;\n   fragmentary attempt to describe members of, ii. 180.\n   _See_ Name\n\n\n Ionia, philosophic teaching in, tends to theocrasia, i. 15;\n   probable source of Orphic legends, i. 124;\n   tradition of, that water origin of all things, ii. 36;\n   dualism of, probably derived from Persia, ii. 290 _n._ 2\n\n\n Irenaeus, Saint, bishop of Lyons, his Trinitarian views unorthodox, i.\n    89 _n._ 1;\n   explains number of beast as Nero Caesar, i. 169 _n._ 3;\n   his garbled account of Simon\u2019s teaching, i. 187-191, 193;\n   makes Menander immediate successor of Simon, i. 199;\n   his account of Marcus the magician, i. 202; ii. 9 _n._ 1, 129, 183\n      _n._ 1;\n   makes Nicolaitans of Apocalypse Gnostics, ii. 1;\n   his work against heresies, ii. 10;\n   exaggerates diversity of Gnostics, ii. 14;\n   authority for Docetism of Basilides, Saturnius and Valentinus, ii.\n      17;\n   his mistake regarding \u201cColarbasus,\u201d ii. 20 _n._ 1;\n   his account of Ophite doctrines, ii. 26 _n._ 5, 40, 42, 43, 46-51,\n      53;\n   identifies Sethians with Ophites, ii. 27 _n._ 1, 76;\n   calls highest heaven of Ophites the true Church, ii. 43;\n   sole authority for Jaldabaoth\u2019s boasting, ii. 51;\n   his interpolations in primitive Ophite doctrine, ii. 53, 57, 58, 60\n      _n._ 1, 61 _n._ 1;\n   says Jesus lived on earth for 20 years after Resurrection, ii. 61\n      _n._ 1;\n   makes Ophites source of most later heresies, ii. 76;\n   authority for division of Ophites as to character of serpent, ii. 78;\n   Ophites of, ascribe Old Testament to planetary powers, ii. 81 _n._ 2;\n   notes connection of heresiarchs with each other, ii. 89;\n   writes to refute Valentinians, ii. 95;\n   his mockery of Valentinus\u2019 system of Aeons, ii. 99;\n   his account of Valentinian doctrines, ii. 107-112, 117, 119, 126;\n   writes after death of Valentinus, ii. 131;\n   with Tatian, first to quote from St John\u2019s Gospel by name, ii. 178\n      _n._ 1;\n   says Valentinians will not call Jesus Lord, ii. 180 _n._ 3, 189;\n   says Marcion disciple of Simon Magus, ii. 207;\n   his account of Tatian\u2019s doctrines, ii. 220;\n   quoted, i. 176 _n._ 1, 178 _n._ 4, 187, 190, 191, 198, 199; ii. 1\n      _n._ 4, 8 _n._ 3, 9 _n._ 1, 15 _n._ 2, 17, 18 _n._ 1, 20 _n._ 1,\n      27 _n._ 1, 38 _n._ 1, _n._ 2, 42 _n._ 5, 43 _n._ 1, 44, 45 _n._ 1,\n      46 _nn._ 1, 2, 47 _nn._ 2, 3, 48, 49 _n._ 1, 50 _n._ 2, 51, 52\n      _nn._ 1, 3; 53 _n._ 1, 58 _nn._ 1, 2, 59, 60, 61, 64 _n._ 2, 78,\n      81 _n._ 2, 89 _n._ 3, 90, 92 _n._ 3, 93 _n._ 1, 94 _n._ 1, 96, 98\n      _nn._ 3-5, 99, 107 _n._ 4, 108 _n._ 1, 109 _n._ 1, 110 nn. 1, 2;\n      111 _n._ 1, 112 _nn._ 2, 3, 116 _n._ 1, 117 _n._ 2, 118, 119 _nn._\n      1, 3, 120, 121, 126, 127 _n._ 4, 128, 138 _n._ 1, 140 _n._ 1, 144\n      _n._ 1, 152 _n._ 1, 159 _n._ 3, 166 _n._ 2, 173 _n._ 3, 179 _n._\n      7, 180 _n._ 3, 183 _n._ 1, 189 _n._ 1, 207, 214 _n._ 3, 220\n\n Isaac, God of, invoked by magicians, ii. 34\n\n\n Isaiah, the Prophet, hostility to Gentiles in post-Exilic passages of,\n    i. 165, 167 _n._ 4\n\n _Isaiah, Ascension_, of Sammael name of Satan in, ii. 75 _n._ 1\n   vestures used for heavenly nature in, ii. 136 _n._ 1;\n   its date, ii. 154 _n._ 4;\n   ecpyrosis in, ii. 163 _n._ 3;\n   souls passing from one heaven to another must give password, ii. 177\n      _n._ 2;\n   quoted, ii. 154 _n._ 4, 163 _n._ 3\n\n\n Ishtar, the goddess, legend of her Descent into Hell, i. 100;\n   analogies of her lover Tammuz with Orphic Dionysos, i. 122 _n._ 3;\n   name of Atargatis derived from (Garstang), ii. 31 _n._ 1, 45 _n._ 1;\n   personification of Earth, _ibid._;\n   identified with Ophite Sophia, _ibid._;\n   and with Manichaean Mother of Life, ii. 300 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Cybele\n\n Isidore, son of Basilides, his doctrine derived from Matthias the\n    Apostle (Hippolytus), ii. 90\n\n\n Isis, the goddess, worship of the Greek, an ethical religion, i. xlix\n    _n._ 1;\n   her wanderings in search of the murdered Osiris, i. 34;\n   Nephthys, twin sister and reflection of, i. 35;\n   in early Pharaonic Egypt only a magician, i. 38;\n   in Phrygia and Syria, mother of all living, _ibid._;\n   analogy of her wanderings with those of Demeter, i. 40, 43;\n   in Pharaonic Egypt wears cow\u2019s head, i. 45;\n   the Greek, identified with Demeter, i. 48;\n   her breast-knot and _sistrum_, i. 49;\n   Isis suckling Horus, i. 50;\n   Marcus Volusius disguised as priest of, i. 53;\n   oaths by, fashionable in Athens _temp._ Menander, i. 54;\n   her names and titles in address to Lucius, i. 56;\n   the haven of peace and altar of pity, i. 57; ii. 158;\n   initiation into Mysteries of, i. 61-63;\n   her child the Sun, i. 63; ii. 245;\n   Osiris sometimes called her son, i. 63;\n   both mother and father of other gods, i. 65, 143;\n   statue of, dressed like Catholic Madonna, i. 66;\n   silent adoration of image of, i. 67;\n   frescoes of scenes in worship of, i. 67-69;\n   her connection with moon, i. 68 _n._ 3;\n   her seeking for Osiris acted publicly, i. 70;\n   the festival of the ship of, i. 71-74;\n   the great earth-goddess, i. 73, 126; ii. 45 _n._ 1, 300 _n._ 1;\n   \u201cone, who art all things,\u201d i. 75;\n   seven temples of, in Rome, i. 79;\n   statue of, in _lararium_ of Alexander Severus, i. 82;\n   her last Roman worshippers, i. 83;\n   emblems of virility used in worship of, i. 83;\n   conversion of worshippers of, to Christianity, i. 84;\n   entry of features of ritual of, into Catholic Church, i. 84, 85, 87;\n   tonsure of priests, etc., derived from, i. 84;\n   Trinitarian doctrine of, i. 88;\n   Horus at once son and spouse of, i. 189 _n._ 5; ii. 39;\n   Simon Magus may derive some of his doctrines from religion of, i.\n      198;\n   Phrygian Mother of Gods identified with, ii. 31;\n   Egyptian legend of Ra and, i. 38 _n._ 2;\n   analogy of, with Ophite Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Menander, Menuthis\n\n Isium of Pompeii built 150 B.C., i. 53\n\n Isopsephism. _See_ Berossos, Iao, Number (of Beast)\n\n Israel, to enslave Gentiles, i. 165, 166, 167 _n._ 4;\n   her monotheism, i. 184\n\n Issus, the battle of, i. 7\n\n Italy, break-up of Pythagorean school in, i. 122\n\n Izates, King of Adiabene, his Jewish proclivities, ii. 278 _n._ 1\n\n\n Izeds, the, or Yazatas of the Avesta, Mithras made chief of, in\n    Sassanian reform, ii. 232, 270 _n._ 3\n\n\n Jabezebuth, name of Beelzebuth in Magic Papyri, ii. 108 _n._ 1\n\n Jabra\u00f4th, ruler of the obedient Aeons in _Pistis Sophia_ and Bruce\n    Papyrus, ii. 152 _n._ 1, 182\n\n Jackson, Prof. A. V. Williams, authority for late date of Avesta, i.\n    lxii\n\n Jacob, Apocrypha attributed to sons of, i. 163;\n   contrasted with Esau, i. 164 _n._ 2;\n   the seed of, oppressed, i. 166;\n   god of, invoked by magicians, ii. 34\n\n\n Jaldabaoth. _See_ Ialdabaoth\n\n Jaluha, \u201creceiver\u201d of Sabaoth Adamas in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 187\n\n James, \u201cthe brother of the Lord,\u201d said to transmit Ophite doctrines to\n    Mariamne, ii. 26\n\n Janet, M. Pierre, quoted, i. 110\n\n Japan, instance of Oriental nation Europeanized, i. 8\n\n Japhet, the Patriarch, confused with Iapetus, i. lx\n\n Jason of Tralles, acts Euripides\u2019 _Bacchus_ to Parthian audience\n    _temp._ Crassus, i. 8 _n._ 1\n\n Jehovah, seven vowels cover name of, i. 103 _n._ 2;\n   name used in Magic Papyrus, i. 106; ii. 34;\n   Iao perhaps represents, ii. 71 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Tetragrammaton, Yahweh of Israel\n\n J\u00e9quier, M. Gustave, quoted, i. lxi _n._ 3\n\n\n Jeremiah, the Prophet, says Jerusalem worships stars, i. 186 _n._ 2;\n   says Jews sacrifice to Mother of Gods, ii. 32;\n   quoted, ii. 32 _n._ 2\n\n Jeremias, Dr Alfred, his astral theory, i. 115 _n._ 1\n\n Jerome, St, _Indiculus de Heresibus_ attributed to, ii. 25\n\n Jerusalem, Ptolemy Soter captures, i. 151;\n   in Enochian literature repels final assault of Gentiles, i. 161;\n   prophecy that Gentiles shall rebuild, i. 165;\n   rivalry between temple of, and Mt Gerizim, i. 177;\n   destruction of same _temp._ Titus, ii. 4;\n   idolatry in, ii. 32;\n   heaven of Ophite Sophia called the Heavenly, ii. 108 _n._ 3, 109,\n      114, 124;\n   angel spouses of human souls citizens of (Valentinus), ii. 110 _n._ 1\n\n Jesuits. _See_ Loyola, Ignatius\n\n\n Jesus, said to have been Essene (J\u00fclicher), i. 156;\n   acrostic name of, i. 169 _n._ 1;\n   Alpha and Omega name of, i. 171 _n._ 1;\n   Simon Magus appears to suffer in likeness of, i. 192; ii. 16;\n   Apocryphal sayings of, in _Gospel of Egyptians_, etc., i. 196 _n._ 2;\n      ii. 219;\n   His unfulfilled promise of Second Advent, ii. 3;\n   analogy of His Passion and that of Osiris, ii. 6;\n   tradition of revelations by, after Resurrection, ii. 13, 90 _n._ 3;\n   historicity of, never doubted by Gnostics, ii. 15;\n   Gnostics\u2019 difficulties as to Passion of, ii. 16;\n   Docetic view as to body of, ii. 17;\n   Unitarian views of, among modern Nonconformists, ii. 20;\n   called the Angel of the Great Council, ii. 43 _n._ 2;\n   tradition as to prolonged earthly life of, ii. 61 _n._ 1;\n   Sethians of Hippolytus do not mention, ii. 76;\n   _Gospel of Nicodemus_ describes visit to Hades of, ii. 90.\n   _See_ Christ\n\n Jesus, the Ophite, birth of, from Virgin Mary arranged by Sophia, ii.\n    53, 59, 60;\n   salvation only attainable through, ii. 56;\n   body of, contains parts from all three worlds, ii. 59;\n   Christos and Sophia descend into, ii. 60;\n   teaches on earth for 18 months after Resurrection, _ibid._;\n   in Naassene psalm, brings mysteries to earth, ii. 62, 63, 65;\n   abandons earthly body at Ascension, ii. 65;\n   the True Gate, ii. 73 _n._ 3;\n   identified with great god of Greek Mysteries, ii. 82\n\n Jesus, the Valentinian, the Joint Fruit of Pleroma and Great High\n    Priest, ii. 106, 159;\n   spouse of Sophia Without, ii. 106, 113, 114;\n   matter made through, ii. 107;\n   transforms passions of Sophia Without, _ibid._;\n   a third deity sent for salvation of psychics, ii. 113-115;\n   Valentinians disagree as to body of, ii. 115 _n._ 2, 116, 119;\n   earthly actions of, mere symbols, ii. 124;\n   never called Lord, ii. 136 _n._ 2, 180 _n._ 3;\n   name of, includes Pleroma, ii. 166 _n._ 2\n\n Jesus, the, of the _Pistis Sophia_, finds rulers of stars devouring\n    their own matter, i. 196 _n._ 1; ii. 154;\n   one with his disciples, ii. 80, 164;\n   teaches on earth for 11 years after Crucifixion, ii. 135;\n   his ascent into firmament and return, ii. 136;\n   describes births of Himself, St John Baptist, and Apostles, ii.\n      137-139;\n   address of powers to, ii. 139-143;\n   the First Mystery, ii. 144, 159, 161, 171;\n   other powers His members, ii. 145;\n   rule of, during Millennium, ii. 146, 164, 171;\n   body of, comes from Barbelo, ii. 151;\n   shortens times for elect\u2019s sake, ii. 155;\n   defeats Pistis Sophia\u2019s enemies and takes her from Chaos, ii. 156;\n   words of, recorded by Philip, Thomas, and Matthew, ii. 157;\n   brings mysteries to earth for man\u2019s salvation, ii. 158;\n   all worlds made through, ii. 161, 162;\n   the victim in the Eucharist, ii. 171, 172\n\n Jesus, the, of the _Texts of the Saviour_, called Aberamenth\u00f4, i. 102\n    _n._ 1;\n   repeats words of Basilides, ii. 92 _n._ 3, 189;\n   his magical invocation of his father, ii. 180;\n   shows Middle Way and its tortures, ii. 182;\n   celebrates thaumaturgic sacrament, ii. 183;\n   merely a mystagogue, ii. 198;\n   appeals to fears and cupidity of disciples, _ibid._\n\n Jesus, the, of the Bruce Papyrus, celebrates thaumaturgic sacraments,\n    ii. 193;\n   teaches on earth for 12 years after Crucifixion, _ibid._;\n   merely a mystagogue, ii. 198\n\n Jesus, the, of Marcion, son of Supreme Being, but not of Mary, ii. 208,\n    210;\n   Paul only real apostle of, 209, 211;\n   slain with connivance of Demiurge, ii. 210;\n   Docetic view as to body of, ii. 211;\n   Marcionites differ as to body of, ii. 219;\n     and as to His nature, ii. 220\n\n Jesus, the, of Manichaeism, Saviour sent to Adam, ii. 303;\n   maker of Great Wheel, ii. 306;\n   sent for man\u2019s salvation and relief of Omophorus, _ibid._;\n   the Tree of Knowledge in Paradise, ii. 307;\n   messenger of God like Zoroaster, Buddha, and Mani, ii. 316;\n   Docetic view as to body of, ii. 318;\n   _J. Patibilis_ is the soul diffused through nature, ii. 318;\n   perhaps equated with Virgin of Light in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323 _n._\n      4, 330;\n   r\u00f4le in same of him and of the Burkhans or Buddhas, ii. 330;\n   Son of First Man, ii. 339 _n._ 3\n\n\n Je\u00fb, in _Pistis Sophia_, the First Man and arranger of the Cosmos i.\n    lxi;\n   takes power from the last Purastates, ii. 146 _n._ 3, 164;\n   the overseer of the Light, ii. 147;\n   Father of Sabaoth the Good, ii. 149;\n   in Texts of Saviour, binds rebellious aeons in sphere, ii. 152 _n._\n      1;\n   transfers repentant aeons to places between the Middle and Left, ii.\n      182;\n   binds power from Pistis Sophia in planet Venus, ii. 186;\n   in Bruce Papyrus appears with Melchisidek and other powers, _ibid._\n      186;\n   he and his followers arranged in similar order to higher powers, ii.\n      191 _n._ 2;\n   called the Great Man, King of the Aeon, ii. 193\n\n _Jeu, the Books of_, written by Enoch in Paradise, ii. 147 _n._ 5;\n   seals and defences for inferior initiates said to be described in,\n      ii. 165;\n   mysteries of the Light described in, ii. 173;\n   Schmidt\u2019s theory that these are included in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 190;\n   this theory refuted, ii. 190-194\n\n Jevons, Dr F. B., his Hartford Lecture quoted, i. liv\n\n\n Jews, the, their division into three sects, i. lv, 151;\n   their sacred books translated into Greek, _post_ Alexander, i. 9;\n   their resistance to Antiochus Epiphanes, i. 51;\n   their pronounced monotheism, i. 89, 149;\n   the magicians of the poorer classes in Rome, i. 108;\n   their Sabbath influenced by astrological ideas, i. 117;\n   only clergy, paupers and fanatics among, return from Captivity, i.\n      149 _n._ 2, 172;\n   their critical position _post_ Alexander, i. 150;\n   conquered by Ptolemy Soter, go over later to Antiochus the Great, i.\n      151;\n   Old Testament made familiar to, by Septuagint, i. 157;\n   their belief in power of name, i. 158; ii. 33;\n   Messianic hopes of, and their result, i. 159-163;\n   Apocrypha inspired by same, i. 163-167;\n   fanaticism of Palestinian, i. 172;\n   Jews of Dispersion inclined to compromise with Hellenism, i. 173;\n   secret Hellenizing among, i. 175; ii. 32;\n   their hatred of Samaritans, i. 177;\n   astrolatry of, before Captivity, i. 186 _n._ 2;\n   Simon Magus\u2019 doctrines appeal to, i. 202;\n   first Christians regarded as, ii. 4;\n   unpopularity of, leads to Christian separation from, ii. 5;\n   their influence on Gnosticism doubtful, ii. 9;\n   accused by Church of filthy rites, ii. 18;\n   privileges of, under Diadochi, ii. 28;\n   their influence on Anatolian religion, ii. 31;\n   Oriental, given to magic, ii. 33;\n   Anatolian, bring method of exegesis from Babylon, ii. 34, 35;\n   Egyptian, give male and female assessor to Yahweh, ii. 43 _n._ 2;\n   unpopularity of, in Rome, _temp._ Hadrian, ii. 203, 204;\n   Marcion\u2019s dislike of, ii. 210, 211;\n   Hemerobaptists\u2019 dislike of, ii. 305;\n   Manes\u2019 dislike of, ii. 315.\n   _See_ Cabala, Demiurge, Jaldabaoth, Yahweh of Israel\n\n Job, all apocrypha of, said to be Essene (Kohler), ii. 153 _n._ 4, 163\n\n\n Joel, the Prophet, shows hatred of Jews for Gentiles, i. 167 _n._ 4\n\n John Baptist, St, said to be Essene, i. 156;\n   Simon Magus follower of (_Clementines_), i. 179; ii. 6 _n._ 4;\n   birth of, _ap._ Ophites, ii. 53;\n   _ap. Pistis Sophia_, ii. 137:\n   body of, contains soul of Elijah (_P.S._), ii. 137, 149, 150.\n   _See_ Elizabeth, Hemerobaptists\n\n John the Divine, St, Cerinthus, traditional opponent of, ii. 9 _n._ 1;\n   pre-eminent place of, in next world, ii. 164;\n   speaks of repentant aeons (_P.S._), ii. 182 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ _Apocalypse_, Gospel, the Fourth, Millennium\n\n J\u00f4k, Supreme Being of the Shilluks, ii. 39 _n._ 5\n\n Josephus, quoted, i. lv _n._ 2, 151, 152 _n._ 2, 153, 154, 155, 163\n    _n._ 1, 168 _n._ 2, 170, 177; ii. 4 _n._ 3, 5 _n._ 3, 28, 85 _n._ 3,\n    278 _n._ 1, 315 _n._ 1\n\n Jovian, the Emperor, not a persecutor, ii. 270\n\n Judaism, never a rival of Christianity, i. lv;\n   not a world-religion, i. lvi;\n   entry of astrological ideas into, i. 117;\n   Samaritans retain little of, i. 177;\n   resemblance between it and Zoroastrianism (Cheyne), i. 181 _n._ 1;\n   attempts to reconcile it with Hellenic culture, i. 200;\n   Gentiles ignore Christianity while still a branch of, ii. 21;\n   Saturninus\u2019 hatred of, ii. 89;\n   approach of Mithraism to, ii. 277\n\n Judas Iscariot, in _Pistis Sophia_ apparently receives super-excellent\n    soul, ii. 137 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Matthias\n\n Julian, the Emperor, thinks Alexandrians worship Serapis in his time,\n    i. 82 _n._ 2, 83;\n   notes hatred of Christian sects for each other, ii. 11;\n   authority for religion of Mithras, ii. 236;\n   his eclecticism, ii. 269;\n   Mithraism revives temporarily under, ii. 271;\n   favours Manichaeism, ii. 356\n\n\n Juno, the goddess, identified with Isis, i. 56;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.\n   _See_ Hera\n\n\n Jupiter, the god, image of Simon Magus worshipped as, i. 198;\n   Varuna his prototype, ii. 231;\n   identified with Ormuzd, ii. 237;\n   on Mithraic monument presides over assembly of gods, ii. 238;\n   invoked as superior of Mithras, _ibid._;\n   Jupiter Optimus Maximus not called Ormuzd, ii. 239;\n     but probably his Roman equivalent, ii. 240, 248, 277\n\n Jupiter, the planet, god of good winds to Babylonians, i. 113;\n   its place in astrology, i. 116, 118 _n._ 1;\n   one of Ophites\u2019 seven heavens, ii. 48, 73 _n._ 1;\n   ruler of lesser astral powers in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 182\n\n Justin Martyr, celebration of Eucharist simple, _temp._, i. 87 _n._ 1;\n   finds hidden meanings in Pentateuch and name of Christ, i. 170 _n._\n      5;\n   makes Simon the heresiarch Simon Magus of Acts, i. 179 _n._ 5;\n   says Simon tells followers he will never die, i. 192 _n._ 2;\n   authority for Menander\u2019s succession to Simon Magus, i. 199 _n._ 7;\n   Tatian a disciple of, ii. 8 _n._ 3, 220;\n   his _dictum_ on Real Presence, ii. 172;\n   his date, _ibid._;\n   his Apologies, ii. 203, 204 _n._ 1;\n   thinks his contemporary Marcion most formidable enemy of Church, ii.\n      205, 216 _n._ 3;\n   says devils set on Mithraists to imitate Church\u2019s sacraments, ii.\n      247;\n   quoted, i. 170 n. 5, 192 n. 2, ii. 18 n. 2, 122 _n._ 1, 205, 216 _n._\n      3, 247\n\n Justinian I, the Emperor, makes laws against Ophites, ii. 77;\n   and against Manichaeans, ii. 356\n\n Justinus the heresiarch, teaches system resembling Ophites\u2019, ii. 77;\n   his symbolical use of story from Herodotus, ii. 81\n\n Juvenal, satirizes Alexandrian religion, i. 20, 54;\n   describes finding of Osiris, i. 70.\n\n\n Karossa, alleged name of Manes\u2019 mother, ii. 279\n\n\n Kashgar, limit of Persian Empire, i. 1;\n   Bar Kh\u00f4ni\u2019s bishopric, ii. 321\n\n\n Kenyon, Sir Frederic, gives story of Ptolemy son of Glaucias, i. 79,\n    80;\n   doubts identification of Serapis and Esculapius, i. 87 _n._ 2;\n   thinks relative age of Peshitto version still undecided, ii. 84 _n._\n      2;\n   quoted, i. 56 _n._ 2, 80 _n._ 1, 87 _n._ 2, 93 _n._ 3, 98 _n._ 1, 142\n      _n._ 1, 169 _n._ 2; ii. 34 _n._ 3, 84 _nn._ 2, 3\n\n Kerasmos, the, or Confusion, in _Pistis Sophia_ name given to mixture\n    of Light and Matter, ii. 147, 164, 174, 292 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Je\u00fb\n\n Kern, Prof. Otto, quoted, i. 141 _n._ 4\n\n Kesbe\u00eal, the \u201cnumber\u201d of, i. 169\n\n Kessler, Dr Konrad, thinks Mughtasilah a source of Manes\u2019 doctrine, ii.\n    305;\n   his _Mani_ quoted, ii. 280, 281 _nn._ 1, 3, 6, 282 _n._ 1, 285 _n._\n      2, 286 _nn._ 3, 5, 288 _n._ 2, 289 _n._ 2, 290 _n._ 3, 291 _n._ 1,\n      292 _n._ 1, 294 _n._ 1, 295 _nn._ 1, 2, 296 _n._ 1, 299 _nn._ 2,\n      3, 302 _n._ 1, 304 _n._ 1, 305 _n._ 2, 310 _n._ 1, 312 _n._ 2, 313\n      _n._ 1, 314 _n._ 2, 316 _n._ 1, 322 _n._ 1, 350 _nn._ 4, 5, 6\n\n Khasekhmui, King of Egypt, makes peace between factions of Horus and\n    Set, i. 36\n\n\n Khent-Amentit, the god, absorbed in Osiris, i. 33\n\n Khepera, the god, mankind comes from tears of, i. 126 _n._ 3\n\n Khojend, probable site of Alexandria _eschata_, i. 5 _n._ 3\n\n Khonsu, the god, story of the Possessed Princess and, i. 10\n\n Khorassan, Alexander\u2019s fame preserved in, in XVIIth cent., i. 14 _n._ 2\n\n Khormizta or Khormuzta. _See_ Ormuzd\n\n Khrostag and Padvaktag, ii. 354, 355.\n   _See_ Appellant and Respondent\n\n Khshathra Vairya or Right Law, the Amshaspand, i. 181 _n._ 1;\n   set over metals, ii. 301\n\n _Khuastuanift_, the, confession-prayer of Manichaeans, ii. 288 _n._ 3;\n   its discovery, ii. 334;\n   quoted with commentary, 335-346\n\n Khumbaba, King of Elam, his name perhaps reappears in Manichaeism, ii.\n    287 _n._ 4.\n   _See_ Hummama\n\n King, C. W., thinks strings of vowels in Magic Papyri cover name of\n    Jehovah, i. 103 _n._ 2;\n   his translation of names of Simon\u2019s \u201cRoots,\u201d i. 180 _n._ 4\n\n Kios in Bithynia, inscription identifying Serapis and Zeus, i. 55 _n._\n    3\n\n Kohler, Dr, his views on Essene literature, i. 153 _n._ 4;\n   sees Cabala in Philo, i. 157\n\n _Koran_, the, plenary inspiration of, i. liii;\n   connection of, with teaching of Simon Magus, i. 201\n\n Kronos, the god, in Homeric myths successor of Uranos, i. 46;\n   called in Orphic hymns Son of Earth and Heaven, i. 132 _n._ 1;\n   age of, in Orphic myths, i. 186\n\n Krotzenburg, Mithraic monuments at, ii. 245 n. 4\n\n Kubrik or Corbicius, name given to Manes by Christians, ii. 279\n\n Kuner Valley, the, cattle of, said to be sent by Alexander to\n    Macedonia, i. 4 _n._ 1\n\n\n\n Labrys or Double Axe, suggested explanation of its symbolism, ii. 67\n    _n._ 3\n\n Lactantius, quoted, i. 70, 143 _n._ 4; ii. 157 _n._ 2, 228\n\n Lafaye, M. Georges, his views on Herculaneum frescoes, i. 68, 69;\n   and on Mithraic fragment in Magic Papyrus, ii. 255, 256;\n   quoted, i. 48 _n._ 2, 49 _n._ 2, 50 _n._ 1, 52 _n._ 4, 53 _nn._ 1-6,\n      54 _n._ 2, 55 _n._ 3, 67 _n._ 3, 68, 69, 70 _n._ 6, 71 _n._ 1, 73\n      _n._ 2, 79 _nn._ 1-3, 88 _n._ 1; ii. 255, 266\n\n\n Lairbenos, name of Sabazius in Phrygia, ii. 67 _n._ 3\n\n Lampridius, says Commodus on initiation into Mithraism commits real\n    murder, ii. 262\n\n Langdon, Dr Stephen, new Creation Tablet, i. lxiii _n._ 1\n\n Lecoq, Prof. A. von, his expedition to Turfan, ii. 316;\n   quoted, ii. 316 _n._ 3, 332 _n._ 2, 334 _n._ 2, 335 _n._ 1, 339 _n._\n      1, 342, 343 _n._ 2, 344 _n._ 1, 349 _n._ 2, 357 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Grunwedel\n\n Lenormant, Fran\u00e7ois, his identification of Dionysos with Iacchos, i.\n    130 _n._ 2\n\n Leo the Zodiacal sign, in magical ceremony, i. 98\n\n Leo the Isaurian, the Emperor, enlists Manichaeans in Imperial armies,\n    ii. 357\n\n Leto, the goddess, identified with Demeter in Asia Minor, ii. 67 _n._ 3\n\n Leucius, author of Manichaean apocrypha, ii. 351\n\n Leviathan, in Diagram perhaps equivalent to Ophiomorphus, ii. 70, 77\n\n L\u00e9vy, Isidore M., his work on Serapis, i. 48\n\n Libanus, in Enochian literature, northern frontier of Palestine, i. 165\n\n Light, shed by Ophite Father-and-Son on Holy Spirit, ii. 42, 44;\n   the Primordial, of Ophites, ii. 46;\n   taken from Ialdabaoth to make protoplasts, ii. 51;\n   redemption of, from matter (Naassene writer), ii. 58, 59, 61, 64, 65;\n   in _Pistis Sophia_ years of, equal to days, ii. 164;\n   in _Pistis Sophia_ term equivalent to divine, ii. 143, 146, 148, 153,\n      154, 156, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 173, 175 _n._ 1, 191 _n._ 2;\n     and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193;\n   the heavenly in Persian religion, ii. 231;\n   name of Ormuzd, ii. 234, 236 _n._ 4;\n   in Manichaeism, name of god of goodness, ii. 287, 289;\n   its realm described, ii. 290;\n   how mixed with Darkness, ii. 294, 295, 335;\n   redemption of, 296, 297, 336, 339;\n   Faustus\u2019 account of three worlds of, ii. 319;\n   in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 321, 324;\n   powers of, described, ii. 325-328;\n   praises sung to, ii. 331;\n   redeemed through food eaten by elect, ii. 343, 346.\n   _See_ Adamas\n\n Light, the Great, in _Pistis Sophia_, Legate of the Ineffable One, ii.\n    141, 164\n\n\n Linus, explains mysteries and is a source of doctrines of Sethians, i.\n    175\n\n Lion-headed god of Mithraea, described, ii. 251-253;\n   represents Ahriman, ii. 254;\n   his place, ii. 255, 256\n\n Livy, quoted, i. 6 _n._ 5, 41 _n._ 3\n\n Lobeck, his _Aglaophamus_ quoted, i. 121 _n._ 1, 127 _n._ 2\n\n Loeb, Isidore, attributes Babylonian origin to Jewish Cabala, ii. 35,\n    36\n\n Logos, in Philo chief and source of all powers of God, i. 174;\n   not God, but his reflection, i. 180 _n._ 3;\n   member of 2nd Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98;\n   parent of Dodecad, ii. 101, 102;\n   Jesus also called the, by Valentinus, ii. 110 _n._ 1\n\n Loret, M. Victor, says earliest Egyptian gods totemistic, i. 37 _n._ 2\n\n Love. _See_ Agape, Eros\n\n\n Loyola, Ignatius, compelling power of prayer of, i. 94\n\n Lucian the Marcionite, Marcion\u2019s successor at one or two removes, ii.\n    218 _n._ 2;\n   his teaching, ii. 220\n\n Lucian of Samosata, his story of Alexander of Abonoteichos, i. 24, 199,\n    202; ii. 128;\n   quoted, i. 24, 199; ii. 30 _n._ 3, 31, 40 _n._ 1, 45 _n._ 1, 300 _n._\n      2\n\n Lucius, hero of the _Golden Ass_, apparition of Isis to, i. 56;\n   his prayer to Isis, i. 57, 58;\n   promise of Isis\u2019 protection in next world to, i. 59, 60;\n   his first initiation into Mysteries, i. 62, 63;\n   his second and third, i. 64;\n   his adoration of statue of Isis, i. 67;\n   his monotheistic conception of her, i. 75;\n   his complete devotion to her service, i. 83;\n   his metamorphosis by ointment, i. 101 _n._ 2\n\n Lucius, German theological writer, quoted, i. 156 _n._ 1\n\n Lucius Septimius, freedman of Caesar and Mithraist Court chaplain, ii.\n    268\n\n Luebbert, his work on Pindaric doctrine of transmigration, quoted, i.\n    127 _n._ 3\n\n Luther, Martin, as reformer and founder of sect, i. 54; ii. 19, 199\n    _n._ 3\n\n Lyall, Sir Alfred, his _dictum_ on magic and religion, i. 94;\n   open dealing of Indian sorcerers, i. 99 _n._ 1\n\n Lycomidae, the, hereditary priests of Eleusis, i. 76;\n   sing hymns of Orpheus in Mysteries, i. 141 _n._ 2;\n   Pausanias reads their hymns to Eros, ii. 210 _n._ 1\n\n Lydia, name of Mother of Gods in, ii. 40, 45 _n._ 1\n\n Lysimachus, King of Thrace, his wars in Phrygia, ii. 29\n\n\n\n Ma, the goddess, Lydian equivalent of Demeter, i. 126;\n   Lydian name of Mother of Gods, ii. 40\n\n Macaria or Blessedness, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101\n\n Macariotes, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101\n\n Macaulay, Lord, his simile as to religions borrowing from their rivals,\n    i. 84\n\n Macedonia, its distance from Karachi, i. 4;\n   temples to Alexandrian gods in, i. 53\n\n Macedonians, inhabitants of Thrace called, i. 136;\n   term used for subjects of Syrian Empire, i. 177\n\n Macrinus, the Emperor, buys off Persians, ii. 226\n\n Macrobius, quoted, i. 48 _n._ 1, 49 _n._ 1, 52, 55 _n._ 1, 118\n\n Macrocosm and Microcosm, possible origin of theory, ii. 51 _n._ 1;\n   in Cabala, Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, ii. 308 _n._ 1;\n   mentioned by name in Tun-huang MS., ii. 353\n\n Maenads, the, reproduce rites of savage Thracians, i. 136\n\n Magas, King of Cyrene, Asoka\u2019s mission to, i. 20\n\n\n Magi, the, Simon Magus\u2019 system said to be derived from (Franck), i.\n    197;\n   Mithraism derived from religion of (Cumont), ii. 232, 275;\n   tribe of Medes defeated by Darius Hystaspes, ii. 233, 286;\n   priestly caste among Persians, _temp._ Herodotus, ii. 234;\n   religion of, described, _ibid._;\n   called Magusaeans by Theodore of Mopsuestia, ii. 237;\n   sacrifice to Ahriman, ii. 239;\n   relations of Manes with, ii. 280;\n   his most bitter opponents, ii. 280, 281, 282;\n   power of, declines under Parthians, ii. 283;\n   is restored by Ardesh\u00eer, ii. 284\n\n Magic, its practice by Greek confraternities, i. 23;\n   words used in, generally taken from dying religions, i. 87, 92;\n   relations between religion and, i. 91;\n   practice of, increases as religion decays, i. 92;\n   never entirely separated from religion, i. 93;\n   prayer in, used to show knowledge, i. 95;\n   leads to manufacture of theogonies, cosmogonies, etc., i. 96, 97;\n   ceremonial magic described, i. 97;\n   examples of spells used in, i. 98-107;\n   spread of, in Rome and Asia Minor under Empire, i. 108;\n   phenomena of, partly hypnotic, i. 109;\n   diffusion of, leads to Gnosticism, i. 110;\n   Egyptian Gnosticism reverts to, i. 111; ii. 199;\n   astrology connected with, in practice, i. 113;\n   effect of astrology upon, i. 117, 118;\n   magical ideas in Orphism, i. 128;\n   Orphics\u2019 magical theory of initiation, i. 131-134, 139;\n   magical practices of Orpheotelestae, i. 140, 146;\n   Essenes probably practised, i. 158;\n     so Simon Magus and his successors, i. 176, 198, 202;\n   Gnostic secrecy due to magical ideas, ii. 18;\n   Phrygian Jews much addicted to, ii. 33, 34;\n   salvation through magical effect of Ophite initiation, ii. 56;\n   Marcus\u2019 magical sacraments, ii. 129;\n   practice of, condemned in _Pistis Sophia_ but taught in _Texts of\n      Saviour_, ii. 180, 183, 185;\n   and in Papyrus Bruce, ii. 192, 193, 195;\n   common among Coptic monks, ii. 201;\n   word derived from Magi, ii. 233, 275;\n   religion of Magi apt to degenerate into, ii. 235;\n   Ahriman of Magi compellable by, ii. 239;\n   practice of, by Mithraists doubtful, ii. 275;\n   expressly condemned by Mithraist Emperors, _ibid._;\n     and by Zend Avesta and Manichaeism, ii. 275 _n._ 2;\n   its connection with worship of Hecate, ii. 276;\n   its appearance in Mandaite story of protoplasts, ii. 304;\n   condemned by Manes and his successors, ii. 313, 314, 342\n\n Magic Papyri, in European Museums enumerated, i. 93 _n._ 3; ii. 34;\n   described, i. 97;\n   examples of spells from, i. 98-107;\n   probably written in good faith, i. 109;\n   names in Diagram like those in, ii. 71;\n   name of Seth in, ii. 76 _n._ 4;\n   acrostics in, ii. 84;\n   name of Maskelli in, ii. 148 _n._ 3;\n   Egyptian words in, ii. 180;\n   mediaeval _grimoires_ copied from, ii. 186 _n._ 3;\n   Mithraic fragment in, ii. 267\n\n Magophonia, the Persian festival of, ii. 233\n\n Magusaeans, the, mentioned by Theodore of Mopsuestia, probably Magi,\n    ii. 237\n\n Mahaffy, Dr J. P., thinks Alexandria not the natural centre of trade\n    between East and West, i. 28 _n._ 1;\n   compares Dynasts of Asia Minor to mediaeval bishops and abbots, ii.\n      29;\n   quoted, i. 6 _n._ 5, 28 _n._ 1, 44 _n._ 2, 45 _n._ 1, 49 _n._ 2, 52\n      _n._ 1, 150 _n._ 2, 173 _nn._ 1, 2; ii. 29 _nn._ 2, 3, 4\n\n Malays, magic of, mainly taken from Arabs, i. 92\n\n Mallet, D., quoted, i. 181 _n._ 2; ii. 92 _n._ 1, 175 _n._ 4\n\n\n Man, the First, in _Pistis Sophia_, Zoroastrianism, and Manichaeism, i.\n    lxi;\n   legend of, possibly Sumerian in origin, i. lxiii _n._ 1;\n   Ophites call their second god by this name, ii. 38;\n   wide spread of legend of, ii. 38 _n._ 3;\n   the Father of all, ii. 51;\n   invoked by Holy Spirit to send Christos to Sophia, ii. 59;\n   hymns to, sung by Ophites, ii. 61;\n   name of Je\u00fb in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 147 _n._ 5;\n   Pistis Sophia delivered after seven prayers like Manichaean, ii. 156\n      _n._ 1;\n   First Mystery of _Pistis Sophia_ compared to Ophite, ii. 158;\n   name of Je\u00fb in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193;\n   in Manichaeism, ii. 292, 293 _n._ 1;\n   his defeat by Satan, ii. 294;\n   delivered by Friend of the Lights, ii. 294, 295 _n._ 1;\n   his armour called the soul, ii. 298 _n._ 2;\n   Adam and Eve made after image of, ii. 299;\n   sends Saviour to Adam and Eve, ii. 300, 302, 303;\n   son of Ahura Mazda by Spenta Armaiti, ii. 300 _n._ 2;\n   Bar Kh\u00f4ni\u2019s account of, ii. 302 _n._ 1;\n   magic circle with name of, ii. 304;\n   his light forms souls of man, beasts, birds, etc., ii. 307;\n   sends Wise Guide to Manichaean Perfect at death, ii. 309;\n   Jesus comes forth from, _ap._ Manes, ii. 318;\n   Third Person of Manichaean Trinity, ii. 319 _n._ 1;\n   in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323.\n   _See_ Gay\u00f4mort, Ormuzd\n\n Mandaites, the, or Disciples of St John, possible source of Manichaean\n    stories of protoplasts, ii. 305;\n   their hatred of Christians, Jews, and Mahommedans, _ibid._\n   _See_ Hemerobaptists, Mughtasilah\n\n Manes or M\u00e2n\u00ee, the heresiarch, aims of religion of, i. lviii;\n   uncompromising dualism of, ii. 221, 277, 289;\n   life and death of, ii. 279-281;\n   his connection with Bardesanes, ii. 280 _n._ 7, 283;\n   heresy of, followed by that of Mazdak, ii. 284;\n   originality of doctrines of, discussed, ii. 285-287, 289;\n   his two principles, ii. 287-290;\n   said to have been one of the Mughtasilah, ii. 305;\n   his hatred of Jews and their Law, ii. 315;\n   his epistle to Marcellus, ii. 317, 318;\n   his gospel and other writings, ii. 350.\n   _See_ Manichaeans, Manichaeism, Thibet\n\n\n Manetho, writes his Egyptian history in Greek, i. 9;\n   entrusted by Ptolemy with foundation of Alexandrian religion, i. 44;\n   said to have taught astrology to Greeks, i. 78\n\n\n Manichaeans, the, confusion with Ophites possible, i. lx;\n   Orphic prohibitions observed by, i. 128 _n._ 1;\n   heavens made from evil powers according to, ii. 44 _n._ 3;\n   their King of Glory compared to Melchizidek of _P.S._, ii. 148 _n._\n      3;\n   influence of, perhaps perceptible in later documents of _Pistis\n      Sophia_, ii. 152 _n._ 1;\n   divide day into 12 hours, not 24, ii. 152 _n._ 2;\n   Languedoc perfects may eat only fish, ii. 153 _n._ 1;\n   hearers of Languedoc put off baptism till deathbed, ii. 168 _n._ 6;\n   oligarchy in Church the aim of, ii. 175 _n._ 2;\n   their relations with Marcionites, ii. 221, 222;\n   and with Mandaites, ii. 305;\n   their division of everything into five categories, ii. 312, 323\n      _sqq._;\n   duties of Hearer among, ii. 314;\n   secret script of, ii. 317;\n   pretend Trinitarian views among Christians, ii. 319;\n   take symbolical view of Crucifixion, ii. 320;\n   hymns of, ii. 333;\n   Churches of, ii. 347, 349;\n   Apocrypha of, ii. 351;\n   Imperial laws against, ii. 356\n\n\n Manichaeism, prominence of First Man in, i. lxi;\n   and of Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   Virgin of Light in, ii. 137 _n._ 3;\n   like Avesta, condemns magic, ii. 275 _n._ 2;\n   contrasted with Mithraism, ii. 277, 278;\n   opposed to Judaism, ii. 278;\n   first rebellion against Ardesh\u00eer\u2019s religious reform, ii. 284, 285;\n   owes little to Egypt or Buddhism, ii. 286;\n   simplicity of teaching of, ii. 287;\n   its quinary system, ii. 290, 291, 330;\n   its cosmology like that of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 295 _n._ 1, 296 _n._\n      1;\n   its androgyne virgin, ii. 298, 299 _n._ 1, 328, 329;\n   its system of transmigration, ii. 308;\n   teaches eternal punishment, ii. 309;\n   its Ten Commandments, ii. 314, 341, 342;\n   its _Burkhans_ or Messengers, ii. 336;\n   its fasts and alms, ii. 314, 344-347;\n   Constantine\u2019s enquiry into, ii. 356;\n   favoured by Julian and the philosophers, _ibid._;\n   ends with Albigenses, ii. 357\n\n Marathon, Iacchos-song heard before Battle of, i. 65 _n._ 6. _See_\n    Callias\n\n\n Marcion, the heresiarch, groundless accusations of immorality against,\n    i. 179 _n._ 2; ii. 206;\n   differs from other Gnostics as to aeons, i. 187 _n._ 2;\n   accusation of ambition against, ii. 8 _n._ 3;\n   native of Pontus, ii. 9, 204;\n   his followers alter his doctrines (Tertullian), ii. 27, 216, 217;\n   ignores Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1, 214;\n   contemporary of Valentinus, ii. 134 _n._ 1;\n   his life and date, ii. 204, 205;\n   his relations with Stoics, _ibid._;\n   wide-spread and longevity of heresy of, ii. 205, 206, 216;\n   compared to Luther, ii. 207, 208;\n   his alterations of Scripture, ii. 208, 209;\n   his _Antitheses_, ii. 209, 213, 223;\n   his Supreme Being, ii. 210;\n   his Docetism, ii. 210, 211;\n   his Demiurge the God of the Jews, ii. 211;\n   his dislike of Judaism, 211, 212;\n   his rejection of allegory, ii. 213;\n   original nature of his teaching, ii. 214;\n   anticipation of Protestant doctrines and practices, ii. 215, 216;\n   his views as to matter, ii. 217;\n   his influence on Church slight, ii. 222;\n   Manes acquainted with his tenets, ii. 280, 283\n\n Marcionites, the, endure till Xth cent., ii. 206;\n   their practices, ii. 207;\n   golden age of, last half of IInd cent., ii. 216;\n   their divisions, ii. 216, 217;\n   their relations with Manichaeism, ii. 221, 222\n\n\n Marcus, the heresiarch, his Cabalisms, i. 171 _n._ 1; ii. 9 _n._ 1,\n    129;\n   accusations of immorality against, i. 179 _n._ 2; ii. 9 _n._ 1, 99,\n      128;\n   his conjuring tricks, i. 202; ii. 129, 183 _n._ 1;\n   a Jew, ii. 9 _n._ 1;\n   his supposed companion Colarbasus, ii. 20 _n._ 1;\n   a Valentinian (Irenaeus), ii. 99, 128;\n   his life and practices, ii. 128, 129;\n   possible connection of, with _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 187-189;\n   and with Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193\n\n Marcus Aurelius, the Emperor, Alexander of Abonoteichos at Court of, i.\n    24; ii. 202;\n   his generals\u2019 victories over Persians, ii. 225, 226.\n   _See_ Avidius Cassius\n\n\n Marcus Volusius, the aedile, his escape in dress of priest of Isis, i.\n    53\n\n Marduk, the god, called by number 50, ii. 35 _n._ 4;\n   name of, ineffable, ii. 37 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Bel, Merodach\n\n Mariamne, sister of Philip the Apostle, source of Ophite tradition\n    (Hippolytus), ii. 26;\n   mentioned in _Acta Philippi_, ii. 26 _n._ 2;\n   a sect named after her, _ibid._\n\n Marks, the Five, the mystery of, in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 141\n\n Marriage, rejected by Orphics, i. 128;\n   and by Essenes, i. 152;\n   admitted by Simon Magus, i. 196, 202;\n   rejected by Ophites, ii. 79, 80;\n     and by Saturninus, ii. 89;\n   admitted by Valentinus, ii. 129;\n   rejected by _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 174;\n     by Marcion, ii. 207, 215;\n     by certain Mithraists, ii. 260;\n     by Manichaean Elect, ii. 313\n\n Mars, the god, why identified with Ares, i. 17;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238;\n   devotion of Julian to, ii. 269.\n   _See_ Ares\n\n Mars, the planet, presides over a seventh part of terrestrial things,\n    i. 116;\n   a malefic in astrology, i. 118 _n._ 1;\n   one of the seven heavens of Ophites, ii. 48, 74 _n._ 2;\n   a ruler of the sidereal world in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 182.\n   _See_ Correspondences\n\n Martha, the sister of Mary, interlocutor of Jesus in _Pistis Sophia_,\n    ii. 157\n\n Martial, the poet, quoted, i. 54, 66, 67\n\n\n Martyrs, position of, in Primitive Church, i. 145 _n._ 1; ii. 126, 127;\n   distinguished from confessors, ii. 117 _n._ 4\n\n Mary Magdalene, St, in _Pistis Sophia_ made after likeness of seven\n    virgins of light, ii. 150;\n   chief interlocutor of Jesus in _P.S._, ii. 157;\n   her pre-eminent rank in next world, ii. 164.\n   _See_ Millennium\n\n Mary, the Virgin, statues of Isis re-used for, i. 85;\n   her worship like that of Isis, i. 61, 62, 84, 85, 88;\n   birth of Jesus from, due to Sophia _ap._ Ophites, ii. 53, 59;\n   Sophia descends into, _ap._ Valentines, ii. 115;\n   in _Pistis Sophia_ Jesus speaks to, in likeness of Gabriel, ii. 138;\n   made after likeness of seven virgins of light, ii. 150;\n   interlocutor of Jesus in, ii. 157;\n   suggested origin of worship of, by Church, ii. 158;\n   Gnostics call her Mother of Life, ii. 300 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Theotokos\n\n _Mary, The Interrogations of_, attempted identification of _Pistis\n    Sophia_ with, ii. 157\n\n Masbotheans, early sect mentioned by Hegesippus, ii. 6 _n._ 4\n\n Maskelli, a ruler of demons in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 75 _n._ 1;\n   and in Magic Papyri, ii. 148 _n._ 3\n\n\n Maspero, Sir Gaston, says Alexander\u2019s deification common form in Egypt,\n    i. 18;\n   thinks Apuat originally only assessor of Osiris, i. 33 _n._ 2;\n   doubts existence of mysteries in Pharaonic Egypt, i. 60 _n._ 5;\n   Nu originally the Celestial Ocean, i. 73 _n._ 4; ii. 36, 175;\n   would identify Ostanes with Thoth, i. 108 _n._ 1;\n   Egyptian belief in three worlds reflecting one another, i. 197;\n   Egyptian Ennead varies in number, ii. 92, 176 _n._ 1;\n   no Egyptian spell without amulet, ii, 168 _n._ 1;\n   says Osirian beliefs reproduced in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 175 _n._ 4;\n   life in next world confined to privileged few in Egypt, ii. 198 _n._\n      1;\n   quoted, i. lxi _n._ 3, 2 _n._ 3, 3 _nn._ 3, 4, 10 _n._ 3, 18 _n._ 3,\n      32 _n._ 2, 35 _n._ 1, 57 _n._ 3, 60 _n._ 5, 63 _nn._ 3, 5, 65 _n._\n      1, 73 _n._ 4, 95 _n._ 3, 104 _n._ 3, 108 _n._ 1, 125 _n._ 3, 134\n      _n._ 3, 160 _n._ 4, 197; ii. 36 _n._ 3, 48 _n._ 3, 75 _n._ 2, 92\n      _n._ 2, 153 _n._ 2, 160 _n._ 1, 168 _n._ 1, 175 _nn._ 4, 6, 176\n      _n._ 1, 177 _n._ 2, 184 _n._ 2, 189 _n._ 3, 196 _nn._ 1-5, 197\n      _nn._ 1-7, 198 _n._ 1, 201 _n._ 1, 233 _n._ 5\n\n Matter, Jacques, his reproduction of Ophite Diagram, ii. 68, 70;\n   says Basilides\u2019 followers came over to Valentinus, ii. 93;\n   dates death of Basilides 135 A.D., ii. 93 _n._ 3;\n   quoted, ii. 77 _n._ 2, 88 _n._ 1, 89 _n._ 5, 93 _n._ 3, 130 _n._ 1,\n      134 _n._ 4, 208 _n._ 3, 209 _n._ 1, 320 _n._ 3\n\n Matter, Orphic views as to, i. 128, 147, 148;\n   Philo\u2019s, i. 174;\n   Simon Magus\u2019, i. 195, 201;\n   the Ophites\u2019, ii. 44 _n._ 2, 49;\n   the post-Christian Gnostics\u2019, ii. 64;\n   Valentinus\u2019, ii. 107, 112 _n._ 2, 113;\n   the _Pistis Sophia\u2019s_, ii. 151, 153, 161 _n._ 2;\n   _The Texts of the Saviour\u2019s_, ii. 167 _n._ 2;\n   Cerdo\u2019s, ii. 205;\n   Marcion\u2019s, ii. 210, 217;\n   the Mithraists\u2019, ii. 250;\n   the Manichaeans\u2019, ii. 294, 346\n\n Matthew, Saint, the Apostle, one of the three recorders of words of\n    Jesus in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 157\n\n\n Matthias, the Apostle, Basilides\u2019 doctrines said to be handed down\n    from, ii. 90;\n   in _Pistis Sophia_ perhaps destined from beginning to supersede\n      Judas, ii. 137 _n._ 1\n\n Maury, L. F. Alfred, thinks Orphic cosmogony taken from Ionian\n    philosophers, i. 124;\n   quoted, i. 16 _n._ 1, 17 _n._ 1, 21 _n._ 1, 25 _n._ 1, 40 _nn._ 1, 4,\n      42 _n._ 1, 46. _n._ 1, 51 _n._ 1, 95 _n._ 4, 123 _n._ 2, 124 _n._\n      2, 125 _n._ 3, 135 _nn._ 3, 4, 136 _nn._ 1, 2, 4, 147 _n._ 1, ii.\n      275 _n._ 2\n\n Mazdak, antinomian heresy of, ii. 284\n\n Mazdeism, its influence on Simon Magus, i. 197;\n   Mithraism not derived from, ii. 232;\n   opposed to Mithraism, ii. 270.\n   _See_ Zoroastrianism\n\n Medes, angels to, stir them up against Jerusalem (Enoch), i. 161;\n   Magi tribe of non-Aryan, ii. 286\n\n Mediterranean, the, religions of eastern basin of, i. lviii;\n   the Dying God of, i. 37, 43 _n._ 3, 123; ii. 16, 29;\n   gods of, tend to merge in Serapis, i. 55;\n   Orphic legends current in islands of, i. 122;\n   religions of eastern, before Orphics, i. 126 _n._ 3;\n   god of, always worshipped in mysteries, ii. 17;\n   and often bisexual, ii. 29, 97\n\n Megalopolis in Arcadia, statue of Dionysos with attributes of Zeus at,\n    i. 125 _n._ 2\n\n Megasthenes, his story of gold-digging ants, i. 2 _n._ 1\n\n Melchizidek, purifier or receiver of the Light in _Pistis Sophia_, ii.\n    148, 153;\n   receiver of, in _Texts of Saviour_, ii, 148, 186;\n   sect of worshippers of, ii. 148 _n._ 1;\n   Sun and Moon act as \u201creceivers\u201d of (_P.S._), ii 154;\n   placed by last Parastates according to arrangement, ii. 191 _n._ 2\n\n Melissae or Bees, priestesses of Great Goddess and Demeter so called, i\n    143 _n._ 4\n\n Memphis, religious capital of Egypt after Ethiopian conquest, i. 32;\n   Osiris worshipped as bull Apis at, i. 45;\n   Greek Serapeum at, divided from native, i. 51;\n   Asklepios worshipped at, i. 78 _n._ 2, 87;\n   recluse in Serapeum at, i. 79, 80\n\n Men, the god, in Orphic hymn, i. 139 _n._ 1;\n   identified with Attis in Asia Minor, ii. 67 _n._ 3\n\n\n Menander, comic poet, notes fashion for Isis-worship in Athens, i. 54\n\n Menander, the heresiarch, successor of Simon Magus, i. 111, 199;\n   Basilides and Saturninus disciples of, ii. 89, 93\n\n Menant, Mdlle D., quoted, i. lxii _n._ 2; ii. 232 _n._ 4\n\n Mendes, Osiris worshipped as ram or goat at, i. 45\n\n\n Menuthis, medical saints succeed Isis at, i. 86 _n._ 1\n\n Mercury, the god, why Hermes called, i. 17;\n   caduceus of, in procession of Isis, i. 72;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238, 258.\n   _See_ Hermes\n\n Mercury, the planet, presides over category of earthly things, i. 116;\n   one of the Ophite heavens, ii. 48;\n   the sphere of, in Diagram, ii. 73 _n._ 2;\n   ruler of stars in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 182\n\n\n Merodach or Marduk, absorbs all gods in himself, i. 15 _n._ 1\n\n Merv, may be Alexandria Margiana, i. 5 _n._ 3\n\n Mesopotamia, Mazdeism in, before Homer, i. lxiii;\n   Antiochus the Great transports Jews from, into Anatolia, ii. 28;\n   Ophites in, ii. 76\n\n Messenia, worship of Eleusinian triad in, i. 135\n\n Messiah, Jewish expectation of, i. 164, 165, 166.\n   _See_ Barcochebas\n\n Metricos or Motherly, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101\n\n Metropator, the word, i. 190 _n._ 1\n\n\n Michael, the Archangel, he and Gabriel only angels named in O.T., i.\n    158;\n   in _Book of Enoch_, i. 169;\n   in Magic Papyri, ii. 34;\n   name of Ophiomorphus among Ophites, ii. 52;\n   connected with planet Saturn, ii. 75;\n   with Gabriel delivers Pistis Sophia from Chaos, ii. 156.\n   _See_ Sammael\n\n Michar and Micheu, powers set over Waters of Life in Papyrus Bruce, ii.\n    192\n\n Mihr Nerses, conqueror of Armenia for Yezdegerd II, ii. 285, 336 _n._ 1\n\n Milk, kid bathed in, Orphic password, i. 134\n\n\n Millennium, the, in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 164\n\n Mincopies, the, of Andamans, their compulsion of spirits, i. 93\n\n\n Minerva, the goddess, why Athena called, i. 17;\n   identified with Isis, i. 56.\n   _See_ Athena\n\n Minucius, Felix, naturalistic explanation of Graeco-Roman pantheon, i.\n    lvii _n._ 1;\n   makes Osiris son and not spouse of Isis, i. 63 _n._ 5, 70 _n._ 1;\n   his _Octavius_ quoted i. 70\n\n Miracles, of Primitive Church and success of Christianity, i. li; ii.\n    361\n\n Mise, Orphic name of androgyne Dionysos, i. 47, 137 _n._ 1;\n   Orphic hymn to, i. 143;\n   Persephone called Mise Kore, i. 143 _n._ 1\n\n Mitannians, the, Mithras worshipped by, i. lxii; ii. 231;\n   a branch of Hittites (Winckler), ii. 231 _n._ 2\n\n\n Mithraism, its use of the number seven, i. 117;\n   its origin, ii. 232;\n   its connection with astrology, ii. 235;\n   extinct before rise of Zervanism, ii. 236;\n   Stoic influence upon, ii, 250, 274;\n   half-way house between Paganism and Christianity (Lafaye), ii. 256\n      _n._ 3;\n   its seven heavens or spheres, ii. 256, 257;\n   aims at universal religion, ii. 258, 269;\n   its ceremonies, ii. 259-262, 268, 269;\n   its degrees of initiation, ii. 262, 263;\n   a Pagan Freemasonry (Renan), ii. 264, 269;\n   its mystic banquet, ii. 264, 265;\n   ritual fragment in Magic Papyrus connected with, ii. 265-267;\n   its priesthood, ii. 268;\n   its relations with the State, ii. 270, 271;\n   its connection with Mazdeism obscure, ii. 270;\n   its decline and suppression, ii. 271-274;\n   its survivals, ii. 274, 275;\n   its use of magic and astrology, ii. 275, 276;\n   its contrasts with Manichaeism, ii. 277, 278;\n   its attitude towards Judaism, _ibid._\n\n\n Mithras, worship of, pre-Christian and ethical, i. xlix _n._ 1;\n   most dangerous Pagan rival to Christian Church, i. lxii;\n   worshipped by Hittites or Mitannians, i. lxii; ii. 231;\n   small beginnings of worship of, in West, i. 24;\n   equated with Serapis, i. 56;\n   supplants Alexandrian religion in Imperial favour, i. 81;\n   devotees of, worship other gods, i. 83; ii. 269;\n   identified with Sun (Pliny and Macrobius), i. 118;\n   Orphic and Valentinian analogies of banquet of, ii. 111 _n._ 1;\n   arrival of worship of, in West, ii. 228, 229;\n   monuments of, where found, ii. 230;\n   who Mithras was, ii. 230, 231;\n   his place in Zend Avesta, ii. 231, 232;\n   in Herodotus and Plutarch, ii. 234;\n   lost books on, ii. 235, 236;\n   Zervanist theory of (Cumont), ii. 236, 237, 252;\n   Jupiter O. M. his only superior in pantheon, ii. 238-240;\n   his relations with the Sun, ii. 240-241, 243, 244;\n   his birth from a rock, ii. 241, 242;\n   as the bringer of rain, ii. 242, 243;\n   scenes with Bull, ii. 243;\n   his alliance with Sun, ii. 243, 244;\n   \u201cMithras my crown\u201d (Tertullian), ii. 245, 263;\n   in Tauroctony, ii. 245-247;\n   the Banquet, and creation of animals, ii. 247, 248;\n   the Demiurge, ii. 248, 249;\n   the \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 or Mediator, ii. 249;\n   his relations with Ahriman and Hecate, ii. 250-254;\n     and with Cybele, ii. 258, 259, 269;\n   Taurobolium taken into worship of, ii. 259;\n   his relations with Alexandrian religion, ii. 259, 260;\n     and with the Mysteries of Eleusis, ii. 260;\n     and with Christianity, ii. 261;\n   his chapels and rites, ii. 261, 262, 268, 269;\n   monotheism of religion of, ii. 273;\n   name of, reappears in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 324 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Izeds\n\n Mithridates, King of Pontus, his temporary power in Asia Minor, ii. 29;\n   Sinope his capital, ii. 204;\n   reaction towards Persian nationality during his wars with Rome, ii.\n      225;\n   Magi of Asia Minor his supporters, ii. 229\n\n Mixis or Mixture, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101\n\n Mohammed or Muhammad, receives Koran from Allah, i. liii;\n   religion of, admittedly propagated by human means, i. liv;\n   commanding personality of, i. 54;\n   his Arabs aim at universal dominion, i. 160\n\n Mohammedanism, scientific study of, and its results, i. li;\n   to Gnostic, merely veil, ii. 18;\n   takes its ideas of Christianity from heretics, ii. 283 _n._ 4\n\n\n Moira, individual fate or cause of death in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 184\n\n Monceaux, M. Paul, quoted, i. 121 _n._ 1, 123 _nn._ 2, 4, 125 _n._ 3,\n    131 _n._ 4, 137 _n._ 5, 139 _n._ 3\n\n\n Monogenes, confusion with \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, i. 124 _n._ 3; ii. 15, 98 _n._\n    2;\n   Bar Coziba called, i. 124 _n._ 1;\n   expresses Gnostic conception of nature of Jesus, ii. 15, 16;\n   name of Nous, first offspring of Bythos in system of Valentinus, ii.\n      98;\n   member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101;\n   Christ and Holy Spirit put forth by (Irenaeus), ii. 105 _n._ 1\n\n Monoimus Arabs, the heresiarch, ii. 9;\n   uses words found in Naassene or Ophite writer, ii. 41 _n._ 1\n\n Montanist heresy, the, most formidable to Church save Gnosticism, ii.\n    29 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Tertullian\n\n Moret, M. Alexandre, description of daily rites in Egyptian temples, i.\n    66;\n   quoted, i. 66 _n._ 1; ii. 139 _n._ 2, 153 _n._ 2, 175 _n._ 5\n\n Morocco, monuments of Alexandrian religion found in, i. 53\n\n\n Moses, the patriarch, religion of, i. liv;\n   Law of, broken by magicians, i. 107;\n   pseudepigraphical books of, i. 163;\n   devotion of Essenes to, i. 168 _n._ 2;\n   writings of, not intelligible without mystic insight (Justin Martyr),\n      i, 170 _n._ 5;\n   adherence of rich Jews of Dispersion to Law of, i. 173;\n   reverence of Essenes for, i. 168;\n     and of Samaritans, i. 177;\n     and of Simon Magus, i. 188;\n   divine inspiration claimed for, ii. 15;\n   magical book ascribed to, ii. 46 _n._ 3\n\n _Moses, The Assumption of_, edited by Dr Charles, i. 164;\n   comes from Essene School, i. 167 _n._ 6;\n   quoted, i. 166, 168 _n._ 1, 170 _n._ 2\n\n Moses of Chorene, mentions Zervan as equivalent of Shem, i. lx\n\n Mother of the Gods. _See_ Aphrodite, Atargatis, Cybele, Ishtar, Isis,\n    Mother of Life, Ramsay, Sophia\n\n\n Mother of Life, the, the Great Goddess of Western Asia, ii. 45 _n._ 1,\n    299 _n._ 1, 300 _n._ 2;\n   _Mater viventium_, ii. 135 _n._ 3;\n   in Manichaeism, ii. 293 _n._ 1, 302 _n._ 1;;\n   rescues First Man, ii. 294, 295 _n._ 1;\n   forms link with many systems, ii. 300 _n._ 2;\n   with other powers sends Jesus to Adam, ii. 303;\n   anonymous in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323.\n   _See_ Nahnaha\n\n Moulton, Prof. Hope, his Hibbert Lectures quoted, i. lxii _n._ 2; ii.\n    110 _n._ 1, 231 _n._ 1, 258 _n._ 3\n\n Mount of Olives, the, place of Ascension in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 136,\n    139, 146, 157\n\n\n Mughtasilah, the, Mandaites, Hemerobaptists or Disciples of St John\n    described, ii. 305;\n   an extant sect, _ibid._;\n   go back to reign of Trajan, _ibid._;\n   their hatred of Christians, Jesus, and Mahommedans, _ibid._;\n   possible source of some of Manes\u2019 doctrines, _ibid._\n\n Murray, Prof. Gilbert, his translation of Orphic gold plates quoted, i.\n    132, 133\n\n Musaeus, address to, in Orphic hymns, i. 139 _n._ 1, 142;\n   associated with Orpheus, the expounder of Mysteries, i. 175\n\n Musonius, Rufus, exercises care of souls, ii. 87\n\n\n Mycenae, Double Axe in worship of, ii. 67 _n._ 3\n\n Mystery, the First, the Great Power of the _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 135;\n   the origin of all things, ii. 139;\n   all other good powers his \u201cnames,\u201d ii. 140;\n   his \u201ccompletion\u201d to be fulfilled by Jesus, ii. 143;\n   a Twin Mystery, ii. 144;\n   Jesus the, looking outwards, ii. 144, 161;\n   proceeds from last limb of Ineffable One, ii. 145;\n   his \u201creceptacle\u201d or heaven, ii. 146;\n   commands Jesus to help Pistis Sophia, ii. 156;\n   corresponds to Father-and-Son of Ophites, ii. 158;\n   sees to emanation of universe, ii. 161;\n   the \u201cmysteries\u201d (_i.e._ sacraments) of, ii. 166, 167, 169, 173, 175\n      _n._ 1\n\n Mysteries of Eleusis. _See_ Dionysos, Demeter, Eleusis, Eumolpidae,\n    Foucart, Iacchos, Mithras Persephone\n\n\n\n Naassenes, the, name of early Ophites (Giraud), ii. 26, 74;\n   borrow from Simon Magus (Salmon), ii. 41 _n._ 1;\n   explanation of name as serpent worshippers, ii. 50;\n   their triple nature of soul, ii. 53;\n   frequent Mysteries of Great Mother, ii. 58;\n   believe in malignity and independence of matter, ii. 64;\n   set forth changes of soul in _Gospel of Egyptians_, ii. 65;\n   their priests, ii. 66 _n._ 1;\n   _Philosophumena_ chief authority for doctrines of, ii. 68;\n   the assembly of souls in each world of, ii. 75;\n   _Gospel of Egyptians_ only work attributed to (Hippolytus), ii. 79;\n   their allegorical interpretation of all literature, ii. 81;\n   quote Homer, Pindar etc., ii. 83;\n   treat poets as Puritans do Scripture, ii. 85\n\n Nabonidus, King of Chaldaea, his date for inscription of Sargon of\n    Accad, i. 114 _n._ 1\n\n\n Nahnaha, name of Manichaean Mother of Life, ii. 300 _n._ 2, 309, 323\n    _n._ 4\n\n\n Name, of Alexander still famous in East, i. 14;\n   Hawk or Horus name of Egyptian kings, i. 36;\n   of Dionysos at Eleusis ineffable, i. 47 _n._ 1;\n   of Osiris in _Book of Dead_, i. 55;\n   many names of Greek Isis, i. 56;\n   of Pluto used in magic, i. 99;\n     the like of Persephone, i. 100;\n   Babylonians use number instead of, i. 100; ii. 35;\n   Typhon\u2019s 100 lettered, i. 104;\n   carved on scarab and used in spell, i. 106;\n   names of angels kept secret by Essenes, i. 157;\n   knowledge of, gives power over spirit, i. 158;\n   one of Simon Magus\u2019 Roots, i. 180, 183, 185;\n   more powerful in magic if meaning forgotten, ii. 33;\n   names of Yahweh used by Jewish sorcerers, ii. 34;\n   name of Ophite Bythos ineffable, ii. 37;\n   instances of ineffable names, ii. 37 _n._ 1;\n   meaning of names of Valentinian aeons, ii. 99, 103;\n   lesser powers names of First Mystery in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 140,\n      144;\n   of good powers copied from those of evil in _Texts of Saviour_, ii.\n      148 _n._ 3;\n   of Dragon of Outer Darkness, ii. 166 _n._ 2;\n   mysteries called names of light, ii. 173 _n._ 1;\n   names in Jesus\u2019 address to His Father explained, ii. 180 _n._ 4;\n   Greek names of God used in mediaeval magic, ii. 186 _n._ 3;\n   cryptographic names in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 195;\n   of Mithras in Vedas, ii. 230;\n     and in Zend Avesta, ii. 231;\n   of Supreme God in Mithraism, ii. 236-239;\n   of lion-headed god, ii. 252, 253;\n   of Manes, Corbicius or Kubrik, ii. 279;\n   names of Good and Evil Principles in Manichaeism, ii. 289;\n   names of Satan in same, ii. 297, 304;\n   of Cross, ii. 320;\n   of Zervan and Ormuzd in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323, 339;\n   of Third Legate in same, ii. 327.\n   _See_ Adamas, Caulacau, Essenes, Sabo\u00ef, Tetragrammaton\n\n Namrael or Nebrod, wife of Saclas a Manichaean fiend, ii. 329\n\n Nannar, the god, Babylonian moon-god and No. 30, ii. 35 _n._ 4, 287\n    _n._ 4\n\n Naples Museum, copy of Bryaxis\u2019 statue of Serapis at, i. 49 _n._ 2;\n   frescoes of Isis-worship at, i. 67;\n   Orphic gold plates at, i. 133, 134\n\n Naville, Prof. Edouard, quoted, i. 33 _n._ 1, 57 _n._ 3; ii. 92 _n._ 2,\n    121 _n._ 3, 142 _n._ 1\n\n Neander, J. A. W., quoted, i. lvi _n._ 2, 145 _n._ 1; ii. 9 _n._ 1, 124\n    _n._ 1, 125 _nn._ 2, 3, 205 _nn._ 2, 4, 206 _n._ 5, 207, 211 _nn._\n    2, 4, 215 _n._ 1, 217 _n._ 1, 253 _n._ 2, 270 _nn._ 1, 2, 278 _n._\n    2, 285 _nn._ 1, 4, 320 _n._ 3, 335 _n._ 1, 348 _n._ 2, 349 _n._ 1,\n    356 _n._ 1, 358 _nn._ 1-4\n\n Nearchus, Alexander\u2019s admiral, i. 6\n\n Nectanebo, King of Egypt, last of Pharaohs, i. 32\n\n Nemesis, Orphic hymn to, i. 142 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Rhamnusia\n\n Neo-Manichaeism, doctrine of Bar Kh\u00f4ni and Turfan MSS., ii. 321;\n   its organization and hierarchy, ii. 330;\n   its settlement in Turkestan, ii. 357;\n   origin of Bogomiles, Albigenses, etc., _ibid._\n\n Neo-Platonists, mainly _post_ Constantine, i. lvii;\n   tendency of, to merge all gods in Dionysos, i. 146 _n._ 1\n\n Neo-Pythagoreans, their influence on Valentinianism, ii. 97\n\n Nephotes, alleged letter of, to King Psammetichus, i. 101\n\n Nephthys, the goddess, wife of Set, sister of Isis, and mother of\n    Anubis, i. 35\n\n\n Neptune, the god, name of God of Nature as sea, i. lvii.\n   _See_ Poseidon\n\n Neptune, the planet, unknown in classic times, i. 116\n\n Nero, the Emperor, state recognition of Alexandrian gods _temp._, i.\n    53;\n   his name and Number of the Beast, i. 105 _n._ 2, 169;\n   magic and astrology most rife at Rome in reign of (Renan), i. 108;\n   Simon Magus\u2019 fatal flight before, i. 178, 192 _n._ 2;\n   his favourite deity _Dea Syria_, ii. 31;\n   legend of his return from among the Parthians, ii. 225\n\n Nestor, his flattery of Athena in _Odyssey_, i. 95\n\n Nicaea, Trinitarian doctrine formulated at, i. 89.\n   _See_ Athanasius\n\n Nicocreon, King of Cyprus, answer of oracle of Serapis to, i. 55\n\n _Nicodemus, The Gospel of_, used by Ophites, ii. 79\n\n Nicolaitans, the, of Apocalypse a Gnostic sect (Irenaeus), ii. 1;\n   Ophites derive their doctrine from (St Augustine), ii. 25;\n   named after Nicolaus the Deacon, ii. 27 _n._ 1;\n   Ialdabaoth appears in system of, ii. 46 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Epiphanius\n\n Nicomedia, seat of Alexander of Abonoteichos\u2019 worship of Glycon, i. 24\n\n Nike, the goddess, on coins of Indo-Greek kings, i. 17 _n._ 2;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238\n\n\n Nile, Pelusiac mouth of, i. 29;\n   body of Osiris thrown into, i. 33, 34;\n   water of, in Alexandrian religion, i. 68;\n   allegory of Osiris as, i. 73;\n   water of, used in magic, i. 103\n\n Nineveh, omen tablets from, i. 114\n\n Nin-harsag, the goddess, makes two creatures as patterns of mankind, i.\n    lxiii _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Man, First\n\n Ninos, priestess of confraternity convicted of poisoning, i. 23 _n._ 2\n\n Nippur, Sumerian tablet from, and legend of First Man, i. lxiii _n._ 1\n\n Noah, the Patriarch, interference of the Ophite Sophia in favour of,\n    ii. 53\n\n Nomos, the god, Orphic hymn to, i. 142 _n._ 2\n\n Nous, first of Simon Magus\u2019 \u201cRoots,\u201d i. 180;\n   name of Ophite Ophiomorphus, ii. 49;\n   member of First Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98;\n   in Manichaeism, ii. 322 _n._ 2\n\n Nu, the god, in Egypt origin of all (Maspero), i. 73; ii. 36, 175;\n   perhaps identifiable with Khepera the creator of man, i. 126 _n._ 3\n\n\n Number, Ialdabaoth a \u201cfourth,\u201d i. 100 _n._ 4;\n   used for name of gods in Babylonia, i. 100; ii. 35;\n   of Beast in Apocalypse, i. 105 _n._ 3, 169;\n   neo-Pythagorean theory of sexes of, ii. 97, 103 _n._ 5\n\n Nut, the goddess, mother of Osiris and goddess of sky, i. 33, 133 _n._\n    1\n\n Nyakang, secondary god of Shilluks, ii. 39 _n._ 5\n\n\n\n Oblation, baptism of the First, in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 183, 192;\n   its analogues in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193\n\n\n Odysseus, speech of the dead Achilles to, i. 59.\n   _See_ Ulysses\n\n Ogdoad, the, of Valentinus, composed of Bythos, Sige and first three\n    syzygies, ii. 98;\n   aeons of, merely names of God, ii. 99, 100;\n   heaven of Sophia called, ii. 107, 111 _n._ 1, 113 _n._ 2;\n   Egyptian parallel to (Maspero), ii. 175\n\n Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, i. 12;\n   first meets Philip at Mysteries of Cabiri, i. 23, 136 _n._ 2\n\n Olympius, the philosopher, defends Serapeum of Alexandria against\n    Christians, _temp._ Theodosius, i. 84\n\n Olympus, gods of, not rivals of Christianity, i. lvii;\n   Gnosticism a heresy of religion of, i. lviii\n\n\n Omophorus, world-supporting angel in Manichaeism, ii. 297, 325, 332;\n   Babylonian prototype and classical Atlas, ii. 298 _n._ 1, 332;\n   Jesus comes to earth for relief of, ii. 306;\n   in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325\n\n Onomacritos, earliest author of Orphic poems, i. 121;\n   possibly inspired by Persian legends, i. 122 _n._ 3, 126 _n._ 3;\n   Buddhism reaches West after death of, i. 135 _n._ 1\n\n Ophiomorphus, serpent-shaped power of Ophites, and son of Ialdabaoth,\n    ii. 49;\n   cause of man\u2019s soul, passions, and death (Irenaeus), ii. 50;\n   Soul of the World, _ibid._;\n   counsels creation of man, ii. 51;\n   cast down to earth by Ialdabaoth, ii. 52, 75;\n   with his six sons forms seven earthly demons, ii. 52, 70;\n   called Leviathan in Diagram, ii. 70, 77;\n   this world under his government, ii. 75;\n   obliteration of, among later Ophites, ii. 77, 78\n\n Ophites, tenets of, confused with others by late writers, i. lx;\n   First Man legend among, i. lxi;\n   may have drawn their ideas from same source as Manichaeans, i. 128\n      _n._ 1;\n   Origen calls them insignificant sect, ii. 21 _n._ 3;\n   pre-Christian (Philastrius), ii. 25;\n   different founders assigned to, by Fathers, ii. 25, 26;\n   teaching of changes with time, ii. 26;\n   many different sects of, ii. 26, 27, 28;\n   aim at combining Anatolian religion with Hellenic and Christian, ii.\n      36;\n   their Ineffable Supreme God or Bythos, ii. 37;\n   their Second God, Light, First Man, Father-and-Son or Adamas, ii. 38,\n      39;\n   their Holy Spirit or First Woman, ii. 40;\n   their Supreme Triad of Father, Mother and Son, ii. 41;\n   their threefold division of all things, ii. 42;\n   accidental origin of world, ii. 44;\n   mingling of light with matter called Sophia, ii. 45;\n   Sophia\u2019s Seven Heavens, ii. 46;\n     their names and connection with Judaism, ii. 46, 47;\n     with later Ophites the seven planetary spheres, ii. 48;\n   their Ophiomorphus or serpent-shaped god, ii. 49-51;\n   Adam and Eve made at suggestion of Sophia, ii. 51;\n   Fall of Man and expulsion from Paradise to Earth, ii. 52;\n   their teaching as to soul of man taken from heathen Mysteries, ii.\n      54;\n   of Fathers essentially Christians, ii. 56;\n   teach return of world to Deity, ii. 57;\n   their view of Mission of Jesus, ii. 59, 60, 61;\n   use sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, ii. 61;\n   Ophite psalm and its meaning, ii. 62, 63;\n   their salvation through rebirth of soul, ii. 64, 65;\n   their Diagram and its use, ii. 66-70;\n   defences of soul in passing from sphere to sphere, ii. 71-74;\n   their doctrine of correspondences, ii. 75;\n   their divisions and end, ii. 76, 77;\n   their influence on _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 78;\n   their use of Apocrypha, ii. 79;\n   and of Canonical Books, ii. 81;\n   mode of interpretation of all literature, ii. 82;\n   first Ophites probably uneducated, ii. 83;\n   anti-Jewish, and reverence for Jewish Scriptures probably due to\n      their magical use, ii. 84, 85;\n   analogies of their teaching with Saturninus\u2019, ii. 89;\n     and with Valentinus\u2019, ii. 96, 100, 109;\n   differences between their teaching and Valentinus\u2019 as to soul of man\n      and its salvation, ii. 111-115;\n   that of _Pistis Sophia_ resembles both Ophite system and Valentinus\u2019,\n      ii. 135;\n   Ophite cosmology explains \u201cFive Words\u201d of _P.S._, ii. 143;\n   Supreme Being of _P.S._ like those of Ophites, ii. 143, 144, 145;\n   degradation of lower Ophite powers in _P.S._, ii. 155 _n._ 3, 158;\n   cosmologies of _P.S._ and Ophites contrasted, ii. 160, 161;\n   lower initiates in _P.S._ must exhibit seal like, ii. 165;\n   resemblance of Eucharistic ideas in _P.S._ with Ophites\u2019, ii. 171;\n   Ophites\u2019 ideas as to descent of soul through planetary spheres in\n      Mithraism, ii. 256;\n   cosmogony of Manes like that of Ophites, ii. 290 _n._ 4.\n   _See_ Evander, Naassenes\n\n\n Oreus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47.\n   _See_ Horaios\n\n Origen, his unorthodox views of Trinity, i. 89 _n._ 2;\n   no Simonians in his time, i. 200;\n   professes knowledge of all Ophite secrets, ii. 21 _n._ 3;\n   says Euphrates \u201cthe Peratic\u201d founder of Ophites, ii. 25;\n   says all magicians use \u201cGod of Abraham\u201d formula, ii. 33, 34;\n   calls Christ Angel of Great Council, ii. 43;\n   says names of Ialdabaoth, Horaios and Astaphaios taken from magic,\n      ii. 47, 48;\n   authority for Ophite use of Diagram, ii. 66;\n   his description of Diagram, ii. 67-70;\n   gives \u201cdefences\u201d of soul from unmentioned source, ii. 71-74;\n   sympathy between planet Saturn and Michael, ii. 75;\n   he and Clement of Alexandria only patristic writers fair to Gnostics,\n      ii. 76 _n._ 2;\n   had he or Celsus read _Pistis Sophia_?, ii. 154 _n._ 2, 159, 179;\n   says Persian theology gives mystical reasons for order of planetary\n      spheres, ii. 256, 265;\n   Mithraic ladder described by, ii. 257;\n   quoted, i. 73, 199; ii. 8 _n._ 4, 25, 26, 34, 43, 46, 48, 66, 67, 69,\n      70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 159, 256, 257\n\n Ormuz. _See_ Hormisdas\n\n\n Ormuzd or Oromazes, antagonism of, to Ahriman not defined till Sassanid\n    reform, ii. 232;\n   called Light (Plutarch), ii. 234;\n   Zervan Akerene above both him and Ahriman (Cumont), ii. 236, 252;\n   doubtful part of, in Mithraic religion, ii. 237;\n   Romans identify him with Zeus, ii. 237, 240;\n   no evidence that Mithraists called Jupiter, Ormuzd, ii. 239;\n   incursion of Ahriman into Kingdom of Ormuzd cause of all evil to man,\n      _ap._ Manichaeans, ii. 253;\n   identified with First Man in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 293 _n._ 2, 323;\n   in earlier Manichaeism, Father of First Man, ii. 335\n\n Orpheotelestae, strolling charlatans with Orphic books, i. 140;\n   addicted to magic and poisoning, i. 146\n\n\n Orpheus, Christian doctrine attributed to (Clem. Alex.), i. 47 _n._ 3;\n   never existed, i. 121;\n   religious teaching attributed to him probably Phrygian, i. 122;\n   said to be founder of Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 123;\n   identity of Zeus and Dionysos said to be his teaching, i. 125 _n._ 2;\n   transmigration doctrine of, i. 127 _n._ 3;\n   mentioned in Pindar, i. 129 _n._ 3;\n   poems attributed to, i. 135, 140;\n   said to have been a Thracian, i. 136;\n   hymns attributed to, i. 141;\n   Musaeus called son of, i. 142;\n   tendency of poems of, to fuse all other gods in Dionysos, i. 146 _n._\n      1;\n   Jews forge writings in name of, i. 173;\n   explains Mysteries of Eleusis and their rites (Hippolytus), i. 175;\n   respect paid to \u201cOrpheus and other theologists,\u201d i. 184 _n._ 3;\n   parallel between Simon\u2019s Silence and Night of, i. 185;\n   expression \u201cmetropator\u201d attributed to, i. 190 _n._ 1;\n   quotations from verses attributed to, i. 40 _n._ 1, 47 _nn._ 3, 4, 65\n      _n._ 5, 90 _n._ 1, 123 _n._ 4, 125 _n._ 1, 127 _n._ 3, 129, 132\n      _n._ 1, 133 _n._ 2, 137 _nn._ 1, 4, 138 _n._ 2, 139 _n._ 1, 142,\n      143, 144 _nn._ 1, 2, 146 _nn._ 1, 3, 147 _n._ 1, 157 _n._ 1, 168\n      _n._ 3, 169 _n._ 1, 185 _n._ 2, 186 _n._ 1, 190 _n._ 1; ii. 6 _n._\n      1, 45 _n._ 1, 80 _n._ 1, 111 _n._ 1, 153 _n._ 2, 254 _n._ 2, 311\n      _n._ 2\n\n Orphics, the, cosmogony of, taken from Ionian philosophers, i. 124;\n   their exaltation of Dionysos, i. 124, 125 _n._ 2;\n   take Dying God into their system, i. 126;\n   take transmigration from Pythagoreans, i. 127;\n   attribute sacramental grace to Eleusinian mysteries, i. 131;\n   enjoin mortification of flesh, i. 133 _n._ 1;\n   \u201ckid in milk\u201d a password among, i. 134;\n   teach superior worth of next life, i. 136;\n   identify Adonis and Sabazius with Eubuleus and Zagreus, i. 137;\n   no association or brotherhood of, i. 139, 140;\n   invocation to all gods worshipped by, i. 142;\n   make Dionysos both male and female, i. 145;\n   their services to religion few, i. 146, 147;\n   all their peculiar features reproduced by Gnostics, i. 148;\n   Essenes\u2019 obligations to, i. 150, 156, 157, 168;\n   egg of, reappears in Book of Enoch, i. 159;\n   Simon Magus\u2019 successive ages of world due to, i. 186;\n   analogy of chain of being of Simon Magus with that of, i. 188;\n   jealousy of Simon\u2019s angels and of Titans of, i. 190 _n._ 2;\n   escape from transmigration desired both by Simon and by, i. 194 _n._\n      3.\n   _See_ Acrostics\n\n Orphism, earliest form of pre-Christian Gnosticism, i. 120;\n   Eleusinian Mysteries secret before, i. 130 _n._ 1;\n   destroys idea of nationality of gods, i. 145;\n   Essene views as to pre-existence of soul taken from, i. 156;\n   abstinence for religious reasons begins with, ii. 222\n\n Ortho, in Magic Papyri probably Artemis Orthia, i. 100 _n._ 2\n\n Osiris, the First Man (Maspero), i. lxi;\n   fusion of, with other Egyptian gods, i. 32, 33;\n   legend of, i. 33, 34, 35;\n   two-fold origin of Osiris legend, i. 36, 37, 38;\n   resemblance of Osiris myth to that of Eleusis and Egyptian origin of\n      latter (Foucart), i. 43, 44;\n   his animal forms in Egypt, i. 45;\n   identified with Hades in Alexandrian religion, i. 48;\n   his Alexandrian name of Serapis, i. 49;\n   typical statue of, by Bryaxis, _ibid._;\n   Ptolemies continue to raise temples to Egyptian, i. 52;\n   his Egyptian title of Neb-er-tcher, i. 55; ii. 154 _n._ 3;\n   Alexandrian \u201chighest of godheads,\u201d i. 56, 64;\n   Eleusinian beatitude of dead borrowed from Egyptian worship of\n      (Foucart), i. 59;\n   scenes in earthly life of, not kept secret in Egypt, i. 60, 61;\n   initiate in Alexandrian religion enacts Passion of, i. 62;\n   Alexandrian Horus, Osiris re-born, i. 63;\n   \u201cgod of the great gods,\u201d etc., i. 64;\n   identified with Dionysos, i. 64 _n._ 1, 65, 137 _n._ 1, 145;\n   in Alexandrian religion, water the emblem of, i. 68, 73;\n     in same, Passion and Resurrection of, openly celebrated, i. 69, 70;\n   _pudendum_ of, processionally carried in chest, i. 73 _n._ 1, 84;\n   wine the blood of, i. 87;\n   asked to grant \u201ccooling water\u201d to dead, i. 88;\n   magician identifies himself with, i. 92 _n._ 2;\n   distinguished from Serapis in magic ceremony, i. 103;\n   the god-man first of those who rose from the dead (Budge), i. 126\n      _n._ 3;\n   in Orphic gold plate dead an Osiris (Foucart), i. 133 _n._ 1;\n     so in religion of Pharaonic Egypt, i. 134 _n._ 3;\n   the Cosmos the \u201cemanation and displayed image of\u201d (Plutarch), i. 181\n      _n._ 2;\n   Simon\u2019s god, like Osiris, his own spouse, son, etc., i. 189 _n._ 5;\n      ii. 39;\n   Greeks say death of Osiris should not be wailed for, ii. 16;\n   post-Christian Gnostics imitate secrecy of mysteries of, ii. 17;\n   post-Christian Gnostics attend mysteries of, ii. 21, 54;\n   name of, ineffable in Egypt, ii. 37 _n._ 1;\n   \u201cthe holy horned moon of heaven,\u201d ii. 72 _n._ 3;\n   epithet of, applied to Jesus in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 154 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Aberamenthou\n\n Ostanes, writer on magic identified with god Thoth (Maspero), i. 108\n\n Osterburken, Tauroctony of, with assembly of twelve great gods, ii.\n    238;\n   best example of scenes from legend of Mithras found at, ii. 241 _n._\n      4\n\n Ouranos, in Cretan legend first link in succession\n    Ouranos-Kronos-Zeus-Dionysos, i. 46;\n   compared to Egyptian god Nu (Maspero), i. 73 _n._ 4.\n   _See_ Uranus\n\n Ovid, quoted, i. 67, 78\n\n Oxyrhynchus Papyri, logion of Jesus quoted from, ii. 80 _n._ 3\n\n\n Pachomius, inventor of monachism a recluse of Serapis, i. 86\n\n Pacorus, Prince of Parthia, invades and subdues Palestine in 40 B.C.,\n    i. 161 _n._ 3; ii. 224 _n._ 3\n\n Paganism, erroneous views as to relations of, with Christianity, i.\n    lvi;\n   merely veil for true Gnostic, ii. 18;\n   Gnosticism road from, to Christianity, ii. 21;\n   suppression of, by Gratian, ii. 358\n\n Palestine, Pharisees small minority of population of, i. lv;\n   return of undesirables to, after Captivity, i. 149;\n   disappearance of its independence after Alexander, i. 151;\n   seizure of, by Ptolemy Soter and Antiochus the Great successively,\n      _ibid._;\n   Essenes scattered through villages of, not towns, i. 152;\n   rapid Hellenization of, under Seleucides, i. 156;\n   Pacorus\u2019 raid upon, i. 161 _n._ 3; ii. 224 _n._ 3;\n   Romans\u2019 forced conquest of, i. 163;\n   Essenes of, survive war of Titus, but not that of Hadrian, i. 170;\n   Jews outside, cling to Law of Moses, i. 173;\n   charlatanism common among lower classes of, _temp._ Apostles, i. 202;\n   hatred of Gentiles shared by Jews outside, ii. 5;\n   Ophites spread through (Giraud), ii. 76\n\n\n Pallas, the goddess, classic type of, on Indo-Greek coins, i. 17 _n._\n    2;\n   in Orphic legend saves heart of Dionysos, i. 125.\n   _See_ Athena, Minerva\n\n Pallas, writer on Mysteries of Mithras, quoted by Porphyry, ii. 236\n\n Pamirs, the, included in Persian Empire, i. 1\n\n Pan, the god, identified with Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1\n\n _Panarion_, the, of Epiphanius, ii. 77\n\n Pantaenus, founder of Christian school of Alexandria, ii. 88\n\n Pappas, the god, identified with Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1;\n   play upon name of, by Naassene author, ii. 57\n\n Paraclete, Manes called the, ii. 316, 332, 351;\n   means probably legate or ambassador, ii. 316\n\n Paracletos, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101\n\n Paradise, the Gates of, in Diagram, ii. 68;\n   the Middle Space or Paradise of Sophia, ii. 75;\n   of Adam perhaps 4th of Ophite planetary worlds, ii. 107;\n   _Books of Je\u00fb_ in _Pistis Sophia_ dictated to Enoch in P. of Adam,\n      ii. 147 _n._ 5;\n   P. of Adam set by Valentinus above the third heaven, ii. 179\n\n Parastatae, the Five, of _Pistis Sophia_ probably the five planets, ii.\n    141, 146;\n   reappear in Manichaeism, ii. 292 _n._ 2, 297 _n._ 2\n\n Parastates, the last, sets Je\u00fb and other powers in their places, ii.\n    141 _n._ 4, 164;\n   scene of Millennium in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 141 _n._ 4, 163 _n._ 2,\n      164.\n   _See_ Je\u00fb\n\n Paris or Alexandros, wrath of goddesses with, cause of Trojan war, i.\n    57\n\n Parsis, the, modern representatives of Zoroastrianism, i. lxii;\n   their _kosti_ or sacred girdle perhaps used by Essenes, i. 153 _n._ 1\n\n Parthians, the, perform Greek plays, _temp._ Crassus, i. 8;\n   struggles of Syrian Empire against, i. 160; ii. 224;\n   _Book of Enoch_ and raid of, upon Jerusalem, i. 161;\n   rise of, under Arsaces, ii. 224;\n   their age-long war against Romans, ii. 225, 226;\n   leadership of, transferred to Persia, ii. 226;\n   their eclectic religion, ii. 282;\n   decline of power of Magi under, ii. 283\n\n\n Parusia or Second Advent, the, immediate expectation of, among\n    primitive Christians, i. lviii; ii. 2, 3;\n   belief in, leads to community of goods, i. 162;\n   fading of belief in nearness of, ii. 3;\n   revives in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 163;\n   declines again in _Texts of Saviour_ and Bruce Papyrus, ii. 198;\n   all allusions to, excised from N.T. by Marcion, ii. 209\n\n Passion, of Dying God of Mediterranean basin, i. 37;\n   of Osiris, publicly celebrated in Imperial Rome, i. 69, 70;\n   of Dionysos, i. 125;\n   of Jesus, Docetic account of, ii. 17;\n   Ophite account of, ii. 60;\n   occurs when Jesus 30 years old (Irenaeus), ii. 61 _n._ 1;\n   Valentinian account of, ii. 17, 117 _n._ 1;\n   referred to in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 180;\n   Marcion\u2019s Docetic view of, ii, 210, 211;\n   similar view of Manes, ii. 302 _n._ 1, 318, 320\n\n Pastophori, college of priests of Greek Isis established in Corinth,\n    _temp._ Sulla, i. 74 _n._ 2\n\n Patecion, the brigand, saved by initiation at Eleusis, i. 131\n\n\n Patecius or Fatak, alleged father of Manes, ii. 279;\n   one of the Mughtasilah, ii. 305\n\n Pater, Walter, his view of Socrates\u2019 monotheism quoted, i. 10\n\n Patras, Mithraic monument at, ii. 263 _n._ 1\n\n Patricos or Fatherly, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101\n\n Paul, Saint, the Apostle, Simon Magus baptized before conversion of, i.\n    176;\n   German theory of identity of Simon Magus with, i. 179;\n   exclusiveness and disdainful spirit of (Duchesne), ii. 5 _n._ 2;\n   Anatolian religion _temp._ (Ramsay), ii. 29, 30;\n   in Phrygia treated as Barnabas\u2019 _wakil_, ii. 42;\n   O.T. history probably unknown to Phrygians in his time, ii. 53 _n._\n      2;\n   success of his preaching to Gentiles and its result, ii. 85;\n   Marcion\u2019s respect for, ii. 209;\n   Marcion thinks him only real apostle, ii. 211;\n   Marcion exaggerates controversy between St Peter and, ii. 212.\n   _See_ Hermes\n\n Paulicians, successors of Manichaeans, ii. 357\n\n\n Paullina, Fabia Aeonia, initiate of Eleusis, hierophantis of Hecate and\n    worshipper of Isis, i. 83\n\n Pausanias, his account of the legend of Cybele quoted, ii. 39 _n._ 2,\n    40\n\n Pella, flight of Christians to, before siege of Jerusalem, ii. 4 _n._\n    3;\n   Christians of, called Ebionites, ii. 5 _n._ 1;\n   Synoptic Gospels first put into shape at (Renan), ii. 6 _n._ 3\n\n\n Pelliot, M. Paul, discovers Tun-huang MS., ii. 352\n\n Pelusium. _See_ Nile, Perdiccas\n\n Pentateuch, Samaritan reverence for, i. 177;\n   Ophite or Naassene writer quotes from, ii. 55.\n   _See_ Moses, Old Testament\n\n Perabsen, King of Egypt, uses totems of both Horus and Set as his\n    cognizance, i. 36\n\n Peratae, the, worship Power called Astrampsuchos (Hippolytus), i. 107\n    _n._ 1;\n   an Ophite sect, ii. 76;\n   mix Orphic with astrological teaching, ii. 79;\n   use names which appear in Manichaeism, ii. 329 _n._ 2;\n   may mean Medes, _ibid._\n\n\n Perdiccas, defeated by Ptolemy Soter at Pelusium and afterwards\n    murdered, i. 30;\n   Nicocreon of Cyprus helps Ptolemy against, i. 55 _n._ 1\n\n _Perfection, The Gospel of_, used by Ophites and called _Gospel of\n    Eve_, ii. 80;\n   quoted, _ibid._\n\n Pergamum. _See_ Persephone\n\n\n Peroz or Fir\u00fbz, son of Ardesh\u00eer and patron of Manes, ii. 281\n\n\n Persephone, scene of trials of, Eleusis and Asia, i. 16;\n   mother of Zagreus by Zeus, i. 37, 42, 124, 125, 138, 145; ii. 39;\n   her temple at Eleusis, i. 39;\n   her Rape or capture by Hades shown in Mysteries, i. 40; ii. 39;\n   her deliverance by Hermes, i. 41;\n   her identification with Demeter, i. 46;\n     and with Dionysos, i. 47, 144;\n   worshipped with Isis and Hecate by latest Pagans, i. 83;\n   Baubo confused with, in Magic Papyri, i. 100;\n   Eres-ki-gal used as name of, _ibid._;\n   called the \u201ctwelfth,\u201d _ibid._;\n     and unique, i. 124, 142 _n._ 3; ii. 15 _n._ 3;\n   Dionysos added to Mysteries of, by Orphics, i. 130;\n   Orphic gold plate addressed to, i. 133;\n   worship of, with other Chthonians outside Eleusis, i. 135;\n   in Mysteries of Samothrace, i. 136 _n._ 2;\n   Adonis made spouse of, i. 137;\n   Bendis identified with, _ibid._;\n   allusion to, in Sabazian rites, i. 138;\n   Orphic hymn to, i. 142, 143;\n   identified with Aphrodite, Cybele, and Isis, i. 143;\n   daughter of Zeus and Demeter, i, 144;\n   her relations with Iacchos, i. 145, 189 _n._ 5;\n   serpent present in all Asiatic legends of, ii. 49;\n   a fiend in hell in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186;\n   on Mithraic monument, ii. 238;\n   Hecate perhaps equated with, by Mithraists, ii. 253\n\n Persepolis, one of the four capitals of Persian Empire, i. 3\n\n Persia, religions of, come westward after Alexander, i. lvii;\n   First Man legend appears in religion of, i. lxi;\n   obscurity of dates of religion of, i. lxii;\n   description of, before Alexander, i. 1-4;\n   rush of Greeks to, i. 7, 8;\n   emigrants from, settle in Asia Minor, ii. 229;\n   difficulty about religion of, _temp._ Manes, ii. 289\n\n Persians, the, their good government of subject peoples, i. 3, 12;\n   priests of, officers of state, i. 24;\n   Egyptian policy under, i. 51;\n   astrology comes westward after Asiatic conquests of, i. 113;\n   religion of, _temp._ Achaemenides, still doubtful, i. 122;\n   suzerains of Jews, i. 150;\n   revival of nationality of, under Roman Empire, ii. 224, 225;\n   wars between Romans and, ii. 225-227;\n   Roman Court adopts manners and institutions of, ii. 228;\n   worship of Mithras may have come to Asia before, ii. 231.\n   _See_ Magi\n\n\n Peshitto, the, version, used by Ophites and Valentinians, ii. 81 _n._\n    1, 84;\n   oldest Syriac translation of Scriptures (Gwilliam), ii. 84 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Kenyon\n\n Pessinuntica, name of Cybele used by Apuleius, i. 56\n\n Pessinus, Cybele worshipped by Greek confraternities as goddess of, i.\n    17;\n   Black Stone of, transported to Rome, ii. 31\n\n Petelia, Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131, 132\n\n Peter, St, the Apostle, his dealing with Simon Magus, i. 176;\n   Simon follows and opposes him (_Clementines_), i. 178;\n   causes death of Simon Magus by prayer, _ibid._;\n   his controversy with St Paul, i. 179; ii. 212;\n   denies that Jesus proclaimed himself God (_Clementines_), ii. 82 _n._\n      2;\n   in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 157\n\n _Peter, The Gospel of_, its description of Cross in Sepulchre of Jesus,\n    quoted, ii. 140 _n._ 2\n\n _Peter and Paul_, Apocryphal Acts of, i. 178\n\n\n Petermann, J. H., edits _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 13, 134\n\n Petersen, says date of Orphic hymns Ist to IIIrd cent., i. 141\n\n Petosiris, name of Roman writer on magic, i. 107\n\n Peucestas, Greek satrap of Persia, adopts native customs, ii. 224\n\n Phalerum, lustration of initiates in harbour of, i. 39\n\n Phanes, the god, born from egg and called Eros and Protogonos, i. 123;\n    ii. 98 _n._ 1, 210 _n._ 1;\n   swallowed by Zeus, i. 123, 128;\n   Father by Night of Uranos and Ge, i. 123, 185;\n   an androgyne, i. 123, 185;\n   identified by Orphics with Dionysos, i. 124;\n   ruler of First Age of World, i. 186;\n   resemblance of Basilides\u2019 Seed of the World to, ii. 91 _n._ 1;\n   and of Mithras, ii. 242\n\n Phanodemus, puts scene of Rape of Persephone in Attica, i. 40 _n._ 1\n\n Pharisees, few in number among Jews, i. lv;\n   one of the three \u201cphilosophic\u201d sects of Jews (Josephus), i. 151;\n   Ecpyrosis taught by (Hippolytus), i. 155 _n._ 2;\n   aim at universal supremacy for Jews, i. 162\n\n Pherecydes of Syros, probable source of Orphic doctrines and\n    Pythagoras\u2019 teacher (Maury), i. 124\n\n Phibionitae, the, sect of Gnostics derived from Nicolas the Deacon\n    (Epiphanius), ii. 27 _n._ 1\n\n Philae, temple of, built by Ptolemies to Egyptian Isis, i. 52\n\n Philastrius or Philaster of Brescia, makes Menander successor of Simon\n    Magus, i. 199;\n   copies from Irenaeus and Epiphanius, ii. 10 _n._ 1;\n   classes Ophites among pre-Christian sects, ii. 25\n\n Philip, St, the Apostle, instance of Greek name borne by Jew, i. 173\n    _n._ 2;\n   baptizes Simon Magus, i. 176;\n   one of the three recorders of the words of Jesus in _Pistis Sophia_,\n      ii. 157\n\n _Philip, The Gospel of_, quotation from, ii. 79\n\n Philip, King of Macedon, first meets Olympias at Samothrace, i. 22, 136\n    _n._ 2;\n   banishes Alexander with Ptolemy and others, i. 30\n\n Philistines, the, think ark of Yahweh affects place where it is, i. 10;\n   Hebrews subject to, i. 150;\n   Kings of, suzerains of David, i. 160 _n._ 4\n\n Philo of Alexandria or Philo Judaeus, acquainted with Cicero\u2019s\n    mythoplasms, i. lvii _n._ 1;\n   his account of Essenes, i. 154;\n   sole authority for secret doctrine of same, i. 157, 168;\n   gives number of same at 4000, i. 170 _n._ 3;\n   his own beliefs and system, i. 174;\n   his views on eternal punishment, i. 175 _n._ 1;\n   makes lower world reflection of higher (Hatch), i. 183 _n._ 3;\n   borrows less from Greek mythology than Simon Magus, i. 185;\n   makes stars rulers of earthly things, i. 186, 187;\n   angels the patterns after which worlds made, i. 187 _n._ 3;\n   his system contrasted with Simon Magus\u2019, i. 202;\n   uses allegorical exegesis as propaganda of Hellenistic culture, ii.\n      9;\n   Cerinthus said to have been a pupil of, ii. 9 _n._ 1;\n   some Gnostic leaders make Jesus Logos of, ii. 16;\n   distinguishes between First Man and protoplast, ii. 38 _n._ 3;\n   takes Platonic view that God too high to touch matter, ii. 42;\n   allegorical interpretation of, ii. 82;\n   forced to harmonize Plato with Jewish traditions, ii. 88;\n   describes coenobite communities in Egypt, ii. 286 _n._ 4;\n   quoted, i. 154, 157, 174, 175, 187; ii. 38 _n._ 3, 42 _n._ 3, 286\n      _n._ 4\n\n Philo of Byblus, makes Phoenician traditions accessible to Greeks, i. 9\n\n\n Philolaos, the Pythagorean, \u201csoul buried in body as in a\n    charnel-house,\u201d i. 127 _n._ 1\n\n _Philosophumena_, the, St\u00e4helin\u2019s theory of imposition on author of,\n    doubted, i. 175 _n._ 5;\n   what its quotation of _Great Announcement_ proves, i. 179 _n._ 5;\n   discovery of MS. of, at Mt Athos, ii. 11;\n   documents quoted in, not earlier than 200 A.D., ii. 12;\n   corrupt text of Naassene psalm in, ii. 62;\n   Matter did not and Giraud did know it, when they reconstructed\n      Diagram, ii. 68\n\n Philumena, prophetess believed in by Apelles the Marcionite, ii. 219\n\n Phoenicia, body of Osiris washed ashore in, i. 34;\n   Adonis worshipped in, i. 37;\n   so the earth-goddess, i. 126\n\n Photius, finds heresy in Clement of Alexandria, ii. 14 _n._ 1;\n   Marcion\u2019s _Antitheses_ seen by, ii. 209 _n._ 3, 223\n\n Phrygia, home of Ophites, i. lx; ii. 28;\n   birthplace of most legends of Dying God, i. 38;\n   worship of Orphic Sabazius comes from, i. 137; ii. 28;\n   \u201cMysteries of the Mother\u201d in, i. 143;\n   Simonians scattered through (Theodoret), i. 199;\n   meeting-place of different creeds, ii. 28;\n   its government by priest-kings, ii. 29;\n   worship of androgyne deity in, ii. 30, 67 _n._ 3;\n   defection from Judaism of Ten Tribes in, ii. 32;\n   prevalence of Jewish magicians in, _temp._ Apostles, ii. 33;\n   is Jewish tradition responsible for Phrygian cosmogony?, ii. 34, 35;\n   mother of gods called Cybele in, ii. 40;\n   great goddess of, perhaps derived from Ishtar, ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   traces of pantheism in, ii. 64;\n   double axe used by gods of (Ramsay), ii. 67 _n._ 3;\n   Ophites spread southward from, ii. 74;\n   Stoic philosophy has a seat in, ii. 83\n\n Phrygians, the, \u201cfirst-born of men\u201d (Apuleius), i. 56;\n   why St Paul gives them summary of O.T. history, ii. 53 _n._ 2;\n   Ophite interpretation of their mysteries, ii. 54;\n   their belief in deification of man, ii. 56 _n._ 2;\n   call Dionysos or Sabazius, Pappas, ii. 57\n\n Phryne, belongs to Greek confraternity for foreign worship, i. 22\n\n Piankhi, King of Egypt, abandons Egypt for Ethiopia after conquest, i.\n    31\n\n Pindar, knows identification of Dionysos with Apollo, i. 48;\n   describes blessedness of initiates into Mysteries, i. 59;\n   supporter of Orphism, i. 122;\n   his doctrine of transmigration, i. 129;\n   his poems recited at games, i. 135;\n   quoted, i. 48, 59, 123 _n._ 1, 129 _n._ 3, 134 _n._ 2\n\n Piraeus, the, confraternities for foreign worships cluster in, i. 21;\n   early confraternity of Serapiasts in, i. 52;\n   courtezans principal members of confraternities in, i. 137;\n   Mithraic monuments at, ii. 230\n\n Pisistratids, the, date of flight of, and reform of Mysteries, i. 43\n    _n._ 2;\n   Onomacritos flees with them to Persia, i. 121;\n   some Orphic elements come into Greece, _temp._, i. 122\n\n Pistis or Faith, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101\n\n\n Pistis Sophia, probable origin of name of, ii. 151 _n._ 5, 160;\n   found by Jesus alone in place below 13th Aeon, ii. 155;\n   her history, ii. 155-157;\n   meaning of allegory of, ii. 162;\n   receives her adversary\u2019s place, _ibid._;\n   sometimes called Sophia only, ii. 179;\n   reappears in _Texts of Saviour_ as \u201cthe daughter of Barbelo,\u201d ii.\n      186;\n   and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 192\n\n _Pistis Sophia_ (the book), Je\u00fb the First Man appears in, i. lxi;\n   written in Greek, translated into Coptic, i. lxii, ii. 177;\n   as in other apocrypha, Jesus changes his shape according to heavens\n      he traverses, i. 191 _n._ 4, ii. 60 _n._ 1, 154;\n   texts, translations, and summaries of, ii. 13;\n   principal document of, Valentinian, ii. 17, 159-163;\n   like Babylonians, makes heavens formed from powers of evil, ii. 44\n      _n._ 3;\n   Ialdabaoth in, projection of ruler of material world, ii. 46 _n._ 3;\n   features in common with _Ascensio Isaiae_, ii. 60 _n._ 1;\n   puts stay of Jesus on earth after Resurrection at 12 years, ii. 61\n      _n._ 1;\n   Eucharistic ceremony of, ii. 63 _n._ 1, 192;\n   powers mentioned in Diagram and in, ii. 72 _nn._ 1, 3, 73 _n._ 2, 74\n      _n._ 1;\n   \u201cReceptacles\u201d and Place of Truth in, ii. 103 _n._ 1;\n   Valentinian document in, does not quote Fourth Gospel, ii. 117 _n._\n      1, 177;\n   MS. of, and its provenance, ii. 134, 135;\n   heavens of Ineffable One and First Mystery not described in, ii. 146;\n   Melchizidek seldom mentioned in, ii. 148 _n._ 1;\n   thought by some the _Interrogations of Mary_, ii. 157;\n   doctrine of interpretation in, ii. 157 _n._ 2;\n   appears at first sight entirely Ophite, ii. 158;\n   but more clearly Valentinian, ii. 159, 160, 161;\n   Authades of, compared to Valentinus\u2019 Demiurge, ii. 162 _n._ 2;\n   Adamas of, compared to Valentinus\u2019 Diabolos, ii. 163;\n   nearness of Parusia dominant in part of, _ibid._;\n   description of Millennium in, ii. 164;\n   lesser initiates must give passwords and seals, ii. 165, 169;\n   mystery of the First Mystery is Baptism, ii. 168-170;\n   mystery of the Ineffable One is the Eucharist, ii. 170-171;\n   supreme revelation of book union with Jesus, ii. 171;\n   \u201cMysteries of Light\u201d not described in _P.S._ proper, ii. 173;\n   open to all the world, ii. 174;\n   Egyptian character of book (Maspero), ii. 175-177;\n   probably by Valentinus, ii. 178;\n   read by Fathers?, ii. 179;\n   astrology condemned in, ii. 185;\n   cryptogram between 1st and 2nd vols of, ii. 188 _n._ 2;\n   fragment in Bruce Papyrus links _P.S._ with _Texts of Saviour_, ii.\n      192, 193;\n   parent work on which all the others based, ii. 194;\n   Apelles\u2019 teaching as to body of Jesus from same source as, ii. 219;\n   twelve hours theory of, like that of Tun-huang treatise, ii. 293 _n._\n      2;\n   quoted, i. 195 _n._ 1; ii, 54 _n._ 2, 78, 92 _n._ 3, 144 _nn._ 3, 4,\n      5, 8, 145 _n._ 1, 146 _nn._ 2, 3, 147 _n._ 5, 148 _nn._ 1, 2, 3,\n      149 _nn._ 1-5, 151 _n._ 3, 152 _nn._ 1, 2, 154 _n._ 1, 155 _nn._\n      1, 4, 156 _nn._ 1, 4, 161 _nn._ 1, 3, 4, 162 _n._ 3, 163 _n._ 2,\n      164 _nn._ 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 165 _n._ 1, 167, 168, 169 _n._ 2, 170,\n      171, 173, 174, 175, 182 _n._ 2, 184 _nn._ 1, 4, 185 _nn._ 1, 2,\n      188, 193 _n._ 4, 194 _n._ 1, 292 _n._ 2, 293 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Petermann, Schwartze\n\n Plato, alone of ancients sees Socrates\u2019 monotheism, i. 11;\n   says few real initiates in mysteries, i. 65;\n   chief authority for charlatanism of Orpheotelestae, i. 140;\n   creator of, not jealous, i. 149 _n._ 1;\n   his ideas the paradigms of perceptible things, i. 198;\n   God of, too high to touch matter, ii. 42;\n   says souls given daemons as guides through life, ii. 110 _n._ 1;\n   Marcion never alludes to Logos of, ii. 214;\n   quoted, i. 65, 140, 149 _n._ 1; ii. 110 _n._ 1\n\n Pleroma, the, word Church apparently used by Ophite writer for, ii. 43;\n   Ophite Christos descends from, to Sophia, ii. 59;\n   Ophite, consists of Father, Son, Mother, and Christos, ii. 64;\n   the same in Diagram, ii. 68;\n   perfect Ophites share in, ii. 76;\n   Valentinus\u2019, originally consists of twenty-eight members, ii. 104\n      _n._ 1;\n   Christos and Holy Spirit added to, after Fall of Sophia (Valentinus),\n      ii. 105;\n   Stauros partly within and partly without (_id._), ii. 105 _n._ 2;\n   Ectroma called Sophia Without (_id._), ii. 106;\n   Jesus the Joint Fruit of (_id._), ii. 106 _n._ 2, 110, 113, 117, 159\n      _n._ 3;\n   four \u201cplaces\u201d outside (_id._), ii. 108;\n   Pneumatics to enter into (_id._), ii. 110 _n._ 2;\n   Christos and Holy Spirit remain within (_id._), ii. 114;\n   projects another thirty aeons (_id._), ii. 144 _n._ 8\n\n Pliny, solar monotheism of, i. 118;\n   his account of Essenes, i. 155;\n   quoted, i. 155 _n._ 1\n\n Plutarch, his monotheism (Dill), i. lvii;\n   makes Zoroaster 5000 years before Trojan War, i. lxii;\n   a chief source of our knowledge of Eastern religions, i. 9;\n   authority for meeting of Philip and Olympias, i. 22;\n   his contempt for oracles of foreign gods, i. 23;\n   legend of Osiris and his _de Iside et Osiride_, i. 33-35, 43, 48;\n   does not conceal identification of Dionysos with Osiris, ii. 65 _n._\n      4;\n   says water the emblem of Osiris, i. 68;\n   gives episode of Isis as swallow, i. 70 _n._ 1;\n   puts festival of Birth of Horus at spring equinox, i. 71;\n   identifies Greek Typhon with Egyptian Set, i. 105;\n   Dionysos of, once human, but deified for merit, i. 144 _n._ 3;\n   Osiris and Set neither gods nor men but great daemons, ii. 16;\n   acquainted with Persian religion, ii. 214 _n._ 2;\n   says worship of Mithras first introduced into Rome by Cilician\n      pirates, ii. 228, 229;\n   describes Persians as sacrificing to Hades, ii. 239;\n   calls Mithras \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, ii. 249;\n   equates Hades with Ahriman, ii. 255;\n   thinks evil must have separate principle of its own, ii. 289 _n._ 3;\n   quoted, i. 22, 23, 48, 70 _n._ 2, 144 _n._ 3; ii. 16, 214 _n._ 2,\n      228, 229, 249, 255, 289 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Dionysos, Hades, Theopompos of Chios\n\n Pluto, name of Hades, i. 40, 47, 48;\n   ruler of Hades, called in magic Huesimigad\u00f4n, i. 99, 100;\n   one of the gods of Samothrace, i. 136 _n._ 2;\n   in Orphic hymn to Persephone, i. 142, 143.\n   _See_ Hades\n\n Pneuma, name of Valentinian Sophia, ii. 109\n\n Point, the Little or Indivisible, source of everything in universe\n    _ap._ Simonians, i. 194 _n._ 3;\n     and _ap._ Basilides, ii. 90 _n._ 5;\n   referred to in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 292 _n._ 1\n\n\n Polycleitos, his statue of Dionysos with attributes of Zeus, i. 125\n    _n._ 2\n\n Pomoerium, Alexandrian gods expelled from, _temp._ Tiberius, i. 78\n\n Pompeii, Isium at, when founded, i. 53\n\n Pompey the Great, suppression of Cilician pirates by, ii. 229\n\n Pontus, birthplace of Marcion, ii. 9, 204;\n   and of Mithridates, ii. 204;\n   Tertullian\u2019s rhetorical exaggeration as to, ii. 204 _n._ 3;\n   its kings claim descent from Persian heroes, ii. 225 _n._ 1\n\n Porphyry, the neo-Platonist, says Egyptian magicians threaten gods, i.\n    104 _n._ 3;\n   his account of Essenes copied from Josephus, i. 155;\n   describes books on Mithras worship, ii. 236;\n   says Mithraic cave represents universe, ii. 247, 249;\n   says Mithraists teach metempsychosis, 257;\n   gives \u201ceagles\u201d as name of Mithraist Fathers, ii. 265 _n._ 2;\n   says High Priest of Mithras may only marry once, ii. 268;\n   quoted, i. 104 _n._ 3, 155; ii. 236, 249, 265 _n._ 2, 268\n\n\n Poseidon, the god, Greek type of, on Indian coins, i. 17 _n._ 2;\n   of Homer, shares empire with Zeus, i. 46;\n   cattle and horses sacrificed to, i. 95;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.\n   _See_ Neptune\n\n Powers, the Three Triple. _See_ Tridynami\n\n Praedestinatus, heresiology of, its sources, ii. 10 _n._ 1;\n   describes \u201crabbling\u201d of Ophites by Christian bishops and mob, ii. 77\n\n Praetextatus, Vettius Agorius, his rank in Mithraism, ii. 268;\n   one of the last Pagan noblemen, ii. 358.\n   _See_ Paullina\n\n Praxidice, Orphic epithet or variant of Persephone, i. 142\n\n Precept, the First, in _Pistis Sophia_ perhaps personification of\n    Jewish _Torah_, ii. 141;\n   highest spirit in Treasure-house, ii. 147;\n   power passed into Confusion originates in, ii. 164\n\n Preller, says that Orpheus is a \u201ccollective\u201d person, i. 121 _n._ 1\n\n Prepon, the heresiarch, a Syrian teaching in Rome, ii. 9;\n   follower of Marcion who thinks Jesus intermediate between good and\n      evil, ii. 220\n\n Priests, state officials in Persia and Egypt, i. 24;\n   of Greek confraternities, i. 25;\n   greed of Egyptian, i. 28;\n   always powerful in Africa, i. 31;\n   their disastrous rule in Egypt, i. 31, 32;\n   hereditary, of Mysteries, i. 39;\n   native Egyptian, keep aloof from Alexandrian, i. 51;\n   of Isis on Herculaneum frescoes, i. 68, 69;\n   importance of, in Alexandrian religion, i. 76, 77;\n   secular and regular, in same, i. 79, 80;\n   break up of Asiatic and Egyptian colleges of, spreads magic, i. 107;\n   necessity of, among Gnostics, ii. 22;\n   temporal power of Anatolian, ii. 29;\n   Cybele\u2019s eunuch, ii. 31;\n   high priests of Magic Papyri, ii. 34 _n._ 4;\n   mention of, among Naassenes, ii. 66;\n   among other Ophites, ii. 77;\n   Valentinians probably frequent orthodox, ii. 125;\n   of Marcionites, ii. 205;\n   of Persians, the Magi, ii. 233, 234;\n   of Cybele, ally themselves with Mithraists, ii. 258;\n   of Mithras called \u201cFather,\u201d ii. 261;\n   qualifications and duties of Mithraic, ii. 267, 268;\n   like modern churchwardens, ii. 273;\n   Manichaean, called sons of knowledge, ii. 312;\n   organization of neo-Manichaean, ii. 330\n\n Proclus, the neo-Platonist, gives Isis\u2019 assertion of eternity and\n    virginity, i. 63;\n   identifies Bendis with Persephone, i. 137;\n   makes all gods contained in Dionysos, i. 146 _n._ 1;\n   makes man come from tears of gods, ii. 153 _n._ 2, 176;\n   quoted, i. 63, 137 _n._ 2; ii. 153 _n._ 2\n\n Prohegumeni, the Two Forerunners of the Treasure-house in the _Pistis\n    Sophia_, ii. 149\n\n Prophthasia, Alexander at, said to receive grapes from Greece, i. 4\n    _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Farrah\n\n\n Proserpine, Isis called Stygian P. by the Sicilians, i. 56;\n   Lucius at initiation treads threshold of, i. 62.\n   _See_ Persephone\n\n\n Prunicos, or the Substitute, name of Sophia among early Ophites, ii.\n    45, 59.\n   _See_ Achamoth, Sophia\n\n Psammetichos, King of Egypt, letter of Nephotes to, on lecanomancy, i.\n    101\n\n Psyche, name of Valentinus\u2019 Demiurge, ii. 109\n\n Ptah, the god, one of oldest gods of Egypt, i. 32;\n   priesthood of, in early times, i. 33;\n   Ptolemy Epiphanes called the beloved of, i. 51\n\n Ptah-Seker-Osiris, the god, triune deity of Saitic period, i. 33; ii.\n    195\n\n Ptolemy I Soter, called Saviour-god, i. 18;\n   his wisdom in choosing and ruling Egypt, i. 28, 29;\n   his preparationsfor its defence, i. 29, 30;\n   decides to found syncretic religion uniting Egyptians and Greeks, i.\n      30;\n   his court and capital both Greek, i. 44;\n   his Museum and its \u201cstuffed capons,\u201d i. 45;\n   his dream as to Serapis-statue, i. 48, 77;\n   Egyptians reject his religious schemes, i. 51;\n   success of his religion outside Egypt, i. 52, 53, 54;\n   five centuries between him and Apuleius, i. 76;\n   seizes Jerusalem, i. 151;\n   colonizes Samaria with \u201cMacedonians,\u201d i. 177\n\n Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Asoka\u2019s mission to, i. 20;\n   attribution of foundation of Museum to, erroneous (Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq),\n      i. 44 _n._ 2\n\n Ptolemy IV Philopator, decline of Egyptian power after, i. 151\n\n Ptolemy V Epiphanes, his coronation at Memphis (Rosetta Stone), i. 51\n\n Ptolemy VI Philometor, petitions to, of Ptolemy son of Glaucias, i. 79\n\n Ptolemy IX Physcon, expels philosophers from Museum, ii. 88\n\n\n Ptolemy, the son of Glaucias, recluse in Serapeum, i. 79. _See_ Kenyon\n\n Ptolemy, the Valentinian, his theory of the Cosmocrator as the creation\n    of the Demiurge, ii. 108 _n._ 1;\n   a leader of the Italic School, ii. 119;\n   his letter to Flora, ii. 131\n\n Punjab, part of, in Persian Empire, i. 1\n\n Purser, Louis Charles, collects authorities on Orpheus, i. 121 _n._ 1\n\n Puteoli, temple to Serapis at, 100 B.C., i. 53\n\n Pythagoras, pupil of Pherecydes of Syros, i. 124;\n   says our souls part of world-soul, i. 129;\n   his theory of transmigration, _ibid._\n\n Pythagoreans, the, all early Orphic poems ascribed to, i. 122;\n   Orphics take transmigration from, i. 127;\n   find withdrawal from world necessary to salvation, i. 129;\n   Jews take Ecpyrosis from (Hippolytus), i. 155 _n._ 2\n\n\n Quadratus, his lost Apology for Christianity, ii. 202, 203 _n._ 1\n\n\n Ra, the god, corporation of priests of, earliest in Egypt, i. 31;\n   the sun-god, i. 31, 63;\n   Osiris invoked with him in _Book of Dead_, i. 32;\n   legend of, and Isis, i. 38 _n._ 2; ii. 37 _n._ 1;\n   increase of power of, with XIIth Dynasty, i. 63 _n._ 1;\n   the serpent Apep his enemy, ii. 78\n\n Ramsay, Sir William, F.R.S., has revived Alexandrian alchemist\u2019s dream\n    of transmutation, i. 45\n\n\n Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell, says name of Christians not mentioned by\n    classic writers, i. 1 _n._ 1;\n   all gods of mysteries forms of One, i. 56 _n._ 4;\n   date of Hadrian\u2019s visit to Egypt, i. 86 _n._ 5;\n   thinks Anatolian Jews coalesce with natives, ii. 28;\n   state of Phrygia in Ist cent., ii. 29;\n   characteristics of Anatolian religion, _temp._ Apostles, ii. 29, 30,\n      67 _n._ 3;\n   importance of Mother of Gods due to matriarchate, ii. 40;\n   many names of divine pair worshipped in Phrygia, ii. 67 _n._ 1;\n   androgyne nature of same and symbol of double axe, _ibid._;\n   quoted, i. 1 _n._ 1, 56 _n._ 4, 86 _n._ 5; ii. 28 _n._ 3, 29 _n._ 5,\n      30 _nn._ 1, 2, 3, 31 _n._ 1, 40 _n._ 3, 67 _n._ 3\n\n Raphael, the archangel, name of, in Magic Papyri and O.T. Apocrypha,\n    ii. 34;\n   in Diagram name of terrestrial daemon, ii. 70;\n   planet Mars connected with, ii. 75 _n._ 1\n\n Rawlinson, Canon George, on government of Persian Empire, i. 2 _n._ 2,\n    3 _nn._ 2, 3\n\n Rawlinson, Sir Henry, Omen Tablets in _Cuneiform Inscriptions of W.A._,\n    i. 114 _n._ 1\n\n\n Rayet, M. Octave, shows identification of Demeter and Persephone from\n    inscription and vases, i. 46 _n._ 1\n\n Reade, Winwood, his _Martyrdom of Man_ quoted, i. 11 _n._ 3, 149 _n._\n    2;\n   ii. 2, 3, 227 _n._ 1\n\n Reformation, the German, sects of, compared to Gnostics, ii. 19;\n   dissidents near to, strictly Christian, ii. 20;\n   like makers of, Marcion appeals to Scripture, ii. 207;\n   Manichaeism may have survived till, ii. 357;\n   leaves Church stronger than before, ii. 360\n\n Reinach, M. Salomon, Orphic password discussed by, i. 134 _n._ 1\n\n Renaissance, the, Hecate still goddess of sorcerers through Middle Ages\n    and, i. 147;\n   sorcerers of, use words of Mass, ii. 267\n\n Renan, Joseph Ernest, warlike characteristics of great goddesses, i.\n    58;\n   describes policy of Church of Rome as to Pagan customs, i. 85;\n   abundance of diviners and sorcerers in Rome of Nero, i. 108;\n   says Bar Coziba called Monogenes (George the Syncellus), i. 124 _n._\n      3;\n   account of War of Extermination (Derenbourg), i. 163 _n._ 1;\n   revolt of Jews under Trajan, i. 172 _n._ 1;\n   says Gnosticism attacks infant Church like croup, ii. 21;\n   his interpretation of Caulacau, ii. 94 _n._ 3;\n   quoted, i. 83 _n._ 1, 85 _n._ 1, 124 _n._ 3, 163 _n._ 1; ii. 21 _n._\n      1, 94 _n._ 3\n\n R\u00e9ville, Albert, his controversy with Gladstone on _Genesis_, i. liii;\n   quoted, i. 93 _n._ 4\n\n Revillout, Eug\u00e8ne, thinks words in Egyptian spell, adaptation of those\n    of the Mass, i. 87;\n   to true Gnostic all religions merely veils, ii. 18;\n   quoted, i. 87 _n._ 3; ii. 18 _n._ 4\n\n Rhacotis, Egyptian name of site of Alexandria, i. 44\n\n\n Rhamnusia, a name of Nemesis identified with Isis, i. 56\n\n Rhapsodists, the, their theogony, i. 123;\n   Orphic poems recited by, at games, i. 135, 136;\n   Ophites probably get lines of Homer and Pindar from, ii. 83\n\n Rhea, the goddess, the earth-goddess sometimes called Cybele, Demeter\n    etc., i. 124, 126;\n   mother of Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1; ii. 54\n\n Rhodes, worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 52\n\n Rhodo, refutes Tertullian\u2019s slanders against Marcion, ii. 218;\n   his quotation from Apelles the Marcionite, ii. 219;\n   other Marcionite leaders mentioned by, ii. 220\n\n\n Ritschl, his theory that both St John Baptist and Jesus were Essenes,\n    i. 156 _n._ 1\n\n Rochat, E., on dates of birth and death of Manes, ii. 279 _n._ 1, 282\n    _n._ 2;\n   on authenticity of _Acta Archelai_, ii. 280 _n._ 3;\n   on Manes\u2019 father Fatak or Patecius, ii. 285 _n._ 2;\n   on authenticity of letter to Marcellus, ii. 288 _n._ 2, 289;\n   on Mandaites as descendants of Mughtasilah, ii. 305 _n._ 1;\n   quoted, ii. 279 _nn._ 1, 3, 280 _n._ 2-6, 281 _nn._ 1, 3, 5, 282 _n._\n      2, 283 _nn._ 1, 6, 285 _nn._ 2, 4, 286 _nn._ 3, 5, 287 _n._ 2,\n      289, 305 _nn._ 1, 3\n\n Rogers, Dr Robert William, exposes Winckler\u2019s and Jeremias\u2019 astral\n    theory, i. 115 _n._ 1\n\n Romans, the, take over Greek pantheon _en bloc_, i. 17;\n   frustrate Antiochus Epiphanes\u2019 attack on Egypt, i. 151;\n   their toleration for Jewish religion and customs fruitless, i. 163;\n   punish Palestinian towns for rebellion, _temp._ Vespasian, i. 170;\n   receive orgiastic worship of Cybele, ii. 30 _n._ 3;\n   their long struggle with Persians, ii. 225-227;\n   their severe laws against Manichaeism, ii. 278, 356\n\n Rome, becomes monarchical as she acquires world-power, i. 15;\n   welcomes Euhemeristic theory, i. 19;\n   Alexandrian gods obtain a foothold in, i. 53;\n   their worship becomes an established church in, i. 79;\n   gathering of charlatans in, _temp._ Nero, i. 108;\n   Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131;\n   Simonians numerous in, i. 199;\n   all heretics attracted to, ii. 203\n\n Roots, the six of Simon Magus, i. 180;\n   expression used by Empedocles and Athamas the Pythagorean, i. 197\n\n Rosetta Stone, the, marks turning of Ptolemies to ancient Egyptian\n    gods, i. 51\n\n Roxana, wife of Alexander the Great, i. 5, 12\n\n Rutilianus, accomplice and dupe of Alexander of Abonoteichos, i. 24\n\n\n\n Sabaoth, used in Hebrew spell identifying Yahweh with Zeus and Serapis,\n    i. 106;\n   name belonging to a secret theology (Origen), ii. 34, 35;\n   Ophite ruler of planetary sphere (Irenaeus), ii. 47;\n   the same in Diagram, ii. 69;\n   address to, ii. 73;\n   name recurs in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 158\n\n Sabaoth the Good, the Great, soul of Jesus on Incarnation received from\n    (_Pistis Sophia_), ii. 139, 149;\n   the emanation of Je\u00fb and acts through messenger (_P.S._), ii. 149;\n   why so called, ii. 149 _n._ 2;\n   appears in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193\n\n Sabaoth the Good, the Little, messenger or substitute of Great Sabaoth,\n    ii. 149;\n   his action at Incarnation, ii. 149 _n._ 2;\n   identified with Gate of Life, _ibid._;\n   appears in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 149 _n._ 2, 187;\n   gives cup of perception to righteous soul in same, ii. 187, 309 _n._\n      2\n\n Sabaoth Adamas, in _Pistis Sophia_ a wicked power, ii. 149 _n._ 2;\n   in _Texts of Saviour_ ruler of Wicked Aeons, ii. 182;\n   in same bound with his subjects to Sphere, ii. 182;\n   his \u201creceiver\u201d Jaluha gives cup of oblivion to soul, ii. 187\n\n\n Sabazius, the god, comes into Greece before Alexander, i. 17, 137;\n   a Phrygian god called \u201cLord of all\u201d and son of Cybele, i. 137;\n   rites of, described by Demosthenes, i. 138;\n   identified with Attis and Adonis, i. 139 _n._ 1;\n   for Orphics, a form of Dionysos, i. 145;\n   Phrygia seat of worship of, ii. 28;\n   called Pappas, ii. 57;\n   male aspect of androgyne deity of Anatolia (Ramsay), ii. 67 _n._ 3\n\n\n Sabo\u00ef, cry of initiates in Sabazian mysteries, i. 138\n\n Sabos, in Orphic hymn possibly name of Iacchos, i. 138 _n._ 2\n\n Saclas or Asaqlun, son of King of Darkness among Peratae and\n    Manichaeans, ii. 329\n\n Sadducees, dominant party among Jews, i. lv, 162;\n   a \u201cphilosophic\u201d sect (Josephus), i. 151;\n   their sympathy with Hellenism, i. 162\n\n _Salathiel, The Apocalypse of_, part of Fourth Esdras called, i. 167\n\n Salmon, Dr George, his theory of forgery of Gnostic documents, i. lxi\n    _n._ 1; ii. 11 _n._ 2;\n   on authorship of _Clementines_, i. 178 _n._ 1;\n   on discovery of _Philosophumena_, ii. 11 _n._ 2;\n   thinks return of worlds to Deity rather than salvation of mankind aim\n      of Gnosticism, ii. 42 _n._ 2;\n   his interpretation of name of Ialdabaoth, ii. 46 _n._ 3;\n   and of Caulacau, ii. 94 _n._ 3;\n   Marcion\u2019s life described by, ii. 204;\n   on early establishment of Marcion\u2019s heresy, ii. 207;\n   quoted, i. 178 _n._ 1; ii. 11 _n._ 2, 41 _n._ 1, 42 _n._ 2, 94 _n._\n      3, 204 _n._ 2, 205 _n._ 3, 206 _nn._ 3, 5, 207 _nn._ 3, 4, 222\n      _n._ 1\n\n Salome, speech of Jesus to, in _Gospel of Egyptians_, i. 196 _n._ 2;\n   questions of, in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 157\n\n Samarcand, modern name of Maracanda, a foundation of Alexander\u2019s, i. 5\n    _n._ 3\n\n Samaria, Simon Magus\u2019 deeds in, i. 176, 178, 191 _n._ 3;\n   re-colonized by Alexander and Ptolemy Soter, i. 177;\n   destroyed by John Hyrcanus, and rebuilt by Gabinius and Herod the\n      Great, _ibid._;\n   its mixed population of Semites and Persians, i. 197\n\n Samaritans, the, hatred between Jews and, i. 177;\n   religion of, _temp._ Christ, _ibid._;\n   reverence of, for Pentateuch, i. 184 _n._ 2;\n   Simon said to appear to, as the Father, i. 192;\n   appeal of Simon\u2019s doctrines to, i. 202\n\n\n Sammael, a name of Ophite Ophiomorphus, ii. 52;\n   identified with Satan in _Ascension of Isaiah_, ii. 69 _n._ 2, 75\n      _n._ 1\n\n Samothrace, seat of Cabiric Mysteries, i. 61, 136 _n._ 2;\n   the god of, called Adam, i. 137 _n._ 1, 139 _n._ 1; ii. 54 _n._ 6\n\n Sandracottus. _See_ Chandragupta\n\n\n Sapor or Sh\u00e2p\u00fbr I, the Shah, exiles Manes from Persia, ii. 281\n\n\n Sarapis or (_Lat._) Serapis, the god, his recluses or monks, i. 20, 80,\n    86;\n   charlatans round altars of (Plutarch), i. 23;\n   purification of religion of, i. 24;\n   typical statue of, i. 49;\n   _Modius_ distinctive attribute of, i. 50;\n   Ptolemy compels Egyptians to take him into their temples (Macrobius),\n      i. 52;\n   early temple to, at Puteoli, i. 53;\n   \u201cSarapis alone is Zeus,\u201d i. 55;\n   all Greek and foreign gods included in, i. 56;\n   merciful and compassionate to man, i. 58;\n   friend of man in next world, i. 59, 60;\n   initiation into \u201cnocturnal orgies\u201d of (Apuleius), i. 64;\n   special hymn and air addressed to, i. 68, 72;\n   identified with Osiris (Minucius Felix), i. 70;\n   April festival of, i. 71;\n   Oracle of, at Alexandria, i. 77;\n   identified with Asklepios, i. 78, 87;\n   statue of, in Alexander Severus\u2019 _lararium_, i. 82;\n   statue and temple of, at Alexandria destroyed by Christians, i. 84;\n   ritual of, adapted to Christian use, i. 85;\n   joint worship of, and Christ (Hadrian), i. 86;\n   trinity of, Sarapis, Isis, and Horus, i. 88;\n   the \u201cGreat God\u201d (Mag. Pap.), i. 101, 104, 125 _n._ 3;\n   representation of, on scarab used in Jewish spell, i. 106, 107;\n   identified with Sun, i. 118;\n   books buried in tombs of worshippers of (Ael. Aristides), i. 132 _n._\n      3;\n   Simon Magus may have borrowed from religion of, i. 198;\n   Phrygian deities identified with, ii. 31;\n   appears as Zeus on Mithraic monument, ii. 238 _n._ 2;\n   splendour of worship of, contrasted with that of Mithras, ii. 269\n\n Sargon, King of Akkad, astrological tablets going back to reign of, i.\n    113, 114\n\n Sarmizegetusa, Mithraic monument at, ii. 264\n\n Sarrebourg, Mithraic monument at, ii. 264\n\n Satan, cosmocrator or world-ruler to Essene initiates (Kohler), i. 153\n    _n._ 4;\n   Marcion called the first-born of, ii. 10;\n   maker of the body in Gnosticism, ii. 54 _n._ 2;\n   enemy of world-creating angels and god of Jews (Saturninus), ii. 89;\n   cosmocrator in system of Valentinus, ii. 108;\n   active agent of matter in that of Marcion, ii. 210;\n   composite form of, in that of Manes, ii. 291;\n   antagonist of Manichaean First Man, ii. 293;\n   imprisonment of Manichaean, after Ecpyrosis, ii. 297;\n   called Humm\u00e2ma by later Manichaeans, _ibid._;\n     and Great Archon, ii. 298;\n     and Sind\u00eed, ii. 304.\n   _See_ Sammael\n\n Saturn, the planet, presides over category of terrestrial things, i.\n    116;\n   soul of dead reincarnated when S. in certain position (_Texts of\n      Saviour_), i. 118 _n._ 1;\n   one of seven heavens in Ophite system, ii. 48;\n   connection in Diagram between S. and demon Michael, ii. 75;\n   set over 360 rulers of wicked powers (_Texts of Saviour_), ii. 182;\n   in Mithraism soul descends through sphere of, ii. 256;\n   lead associated with, ii. 257 _n._ 4;\n   in same, lowest initiate\u2019s soul will return to sphere of, ii. 265\n\n Saturninus or Saturnilus, the heresiarch, a native of Antioch, ii. 9;\n   his Docetism, ii. 17;\n   confusion as to name of, ii. 20 _n._ 1;\n   a follower of Simon Magus and predecessor of Basilides and the\n      Nicolaitans (Epiphanius), ii. 25 _n._ 5;\n   makes god of Jews one of the seven world-creating angels (Irenaeus),\n      ii. 47 _n._ 3;\n   denounces marriage and procreation as work of Satan, ii. 89;\n   Valentinus later than (Epiphanius), ii. 93 _n._ 3\n\n Saulasau, mystic name of secondary world used by Ophites, ii. 94 _n._ 3\n\n _Saviour, The Texts of the_, time of reincarnation dependent on\n    planetary motions, i. 118 _n._ 1; ii. 185 _n._ 2;\n   affinity of male and female soul explained, i. 195;\n   sexes united at the length, i. 196 _n._ 2;\n   rebellion of half the Twelve Aeons in, ii. 48 _n._ 4, 152 _n._ 1;\n   body of man made by evil daemons, ii. 54 _n._ 2;\n   place of punishment of wicked souls above the earth, ii. 69, 182 _n._\n      1;\n   planet Jupiter ruler of the Five Planets, ii. 73 _n._ 1;\n   the angel Zarazaz called by name of demon Maskelli, ii. 75 _n._ 1,\n      148 _n._ 3;\n   the Serpent of Outer Darkness the Outer Ocean, ii. 78, 155 _n._ 4,\n      166 _n._ 2;\n   repeats Basilides \u201cone in 1000 and 2 in 10,000,\u201d ii. 92 _n._ 3, 172;\n   many members of the Ineffable One, but one body, ii. 145 _n._ 2;\n   Je\u00fb the First Man overseer of the Light and Legate of First Precept,\n      ii. 147 _n._ 5;\n   the Books of Je\u00fb written by Enoch in Paradise, _ibid._;\n   Melchizidek Great Receiver of the Light, ii. 148 _n._ 2, 154 _n._ 1;\n   Great Sabaoth the Good and Gate of Life, ii. 149 _n._ 2;\n   Great Iao the Good, leader of Middle, ii. 149 _n._ 3;\n   Virgin of Light has seven virgins for assistants, ii. 150;\n   Barbelo called \u03b2\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7 in, ii. 151 _n._ 4;\n   the Kingdom of Adamas opposite the place of the Virgin of Light, ii.\n      152 _n._ 1;\n   Ialdabaoth in, one of the torturers in hell, ii. 155 _n._ 3;\n   says Baptisms and Chrism lead soul into Place of Light, ii. 167 _n._\n      1;\n   renunciation of the world leads to Mysteries of the Light, ii. 167\n      _n._ 2;\n   thaumaturgic Eucharist of, ii. 172 _n._ 3, 192;\n   sacraments called Mysteries of Light, etc., ii. 173 _n._ 1;\n   the MS. of, described, ii. 180;\n   cannot be Valentinian, ii. 180 _n._ 3;\n   gives prayer of Jesus in unknown tongue, _ibid._;\n   puts souls of Patriarchs in Place of Jabraoth, ii. 182 _n._ 2;\n   extracts from other documents probably mixed with, ii. 182 _n._ 3,\n      183 _n._ 2;\n   threefold division of soul into Power, Moira and Counterfeit of the\n      Spirit, ii. 184;\n   no division of mankind into pneumatic, psychics and hylics in,\n      _ibid._;\n   magic recommended for conversion of heathen, ii. 185;\n   Pistis Sophia mentioned in, as daughter of Barbelo, ii. 186;\n   Orphics\u2019 cups of oblivion and memory reappear in, _ibid._;\n   unknown words of prayer of Jesus in, like those of Marcus\u2019 baptismal\n      formula, ii. 189;\n   sacraments of Bruce Papyrus resemble those of, ii. 193;\n   degradation of belief in, ii. 194;\n   returns to native Egyptian ideas, ii. 195-198;\n   fear of hell sanction of belief in, ii. 198;\n   quoted, i. 118 _n._ 1, 195 _n._ 1, 196 _n._ 2; ii. 54 _n._ 2, 75 _n._\n      1, 78 _nn._ 4, 5, 92 _n._ 3, 145 _n._ 2, 147 _n._ 5, 148 _nn._ 1,\n      3, 149 _n._ 2, 150 _nn._ 2, 3, 5, 152 _n._ 1, 154 _n._ 1, 155\n      _nn._ 3, 4, 166 _n._ 2, 167 _nn._ 1, 2, 172 _nn._ 3, 4, 173 _n._\n      1, 180 _nn._ 1-4, 182 _nn._ 1-3, 183 _nn._ 1-3, 184 _n._ 4, 185\n      _nn._ 1, 2, 186, 187, 198, 199\n\n Saviours, the Twelve, furnish spotless souls for the Twelve Apostles\n    (_Pistis Sophia_), ii. 136, 147\n\n Saviours, the Twin, \u201cthe boy of a boy\u201d (_Pistis Sophia_), ii. 142, 171;\n   reappear in _Texts of Saviour_ and Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193;\n   functions of, never alluded to, ii. 355 _n._ 2\n\n Sayce, Prof. A. H., his translation of omen or astrological tablets\n    from Nineveh, i. 114\n\n Sches-Hor, the, royal tribe of earliest invaders of Egypt, i. 36\n\n Schmidt, Dr Carl, his text and translation of _Pistis Sophia_ and Bruce\n    Papyrus, ii. 13 _n._ 2, 190\n\n Schmiedel, Dr P. W., revives T\u00fcbingen theory that Simon Magus is St\n    Paul, i. 179 _n._ 3;\n   his mistake about Menander, i. 199 _n._ 7;\n   on community of goods, ii. 2 _n._ 3\n\n\n Schwartze, Maurice G., transcriber and translator of _Pistis Sophia_,\n    ii. 18, 134\n\n Scythia, in story of Manes probably means Turkestan, ii. 285;\n   Addas disciple of Manes missionary to, ii. 352\n\n Scythianus, father of Manes in Christian tradition, ii. 285;\n   identified with Patecius or Fatak (Kessler), ii. 285 _n._ 2;\n   may represent non-Aryan Medes, ii. 286\n\n Sebaste, name of Samaria when rebuilt by Herod, i. 177\n\n Secrecy, of Mysteries of Eleusis very strict, i. 41;\n   as to burial of Dionysos at Delphi, i. 47;\n   as to names of God and Goddess of Eleusis (Foucart), i. 47 _n._ 1;\n   of initiation into Mysteries of Isis, i. 62;\n   of Alexandrian doctrine that Osiris god of dead, i. 64 _n._ 3;\n   observed as to contents of chest carried in procession of Isis, i.\n      73;\n   reason for, as to Mysteries of Eleusis, their foreign origin\n      (Foucart), i. 130 _n._ 1;\n   or jealousy, i. 139 _n._ 2;\n   of tenets of Hellenizing Jews, i. 175 _n._ 2;\n   as to Dying God not observed by Cretans, ii. 16:\n   of Gnostics as to their opinions, ii. 18;\n   of Basilides\u2019 followers, ii. 92, 189;\n   of Manichaeans, ii. 356\n\n Secunderabad, preserves name of Alexander, i. 5\n\n Secundus, the Valentinian, a leader of the Italic School, ii. 119;\n   imagines \u201ca right and left tetrad, _i.e._ light and darkness\u201d\n      (Hippolytus), ii. 147 _n._ 4\n\n Seistan, part of Persian Empire, i. 1;\n   Alexander when in, said to receive grapes from Greece, i. 4 _n._ 1\n\n Seker or Socharis, the god, a very ancient deity in Egypt, i. 32;\n   dreary life in next world of his worshippers, ii. 195\n\n Seleucus I Nicator, grants privileges of citizenship to Jews in all\n    cities of his Empire, ii. 28;\n   affection of Persians for, ii. 224\n\n Seleucus II Callinicus, defeated by Parthians under Arsaces, ii. 224\n\n Semele, mother of Dionysos on his second or third incarnation, i. 40\n    _n._ 4, 42, 145;\n   in Alexandrian religion Dionysos called the fruit of the vine S.., i.\n      64 _n._ 3;\n   Dionysos son of S., Zagreus re-born, i. 125\n\n Seneca, last speech of, ii. 87\n\n _Sepher Jetzirah_ and _Sepher Zohar_, books of VIth or VIIth century\n    A.D., ii. 35.\n   _See_ Cabala\n\n Septuagint, the, familiarizes Jews with Old Testament, i. 157;\n   belongs to Western Diaspora, ii. 53 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Peshitto\n\n Serapeum, the, Egyptian, at Memphis separated from Greek, i. 51;\n   Athenian, facing the Acropolis, i. 52;\n   oracle of Serapis at Alexandrian, i. 55;\n   represented on Herculaneum fresco (von Bissing), i. 68 _n._ 1;\n   Bryaxis\u2019 statue in, i. 78 _n._ 2;\n   recluse in S. of Memphis, i. 79, 80;\n   destruction of Alexandrian, i. 83-85\n\n Serapis. _See_ Sarapis\n\n Serpent, Dionysos begotten by Zeus in form of, i. 42;\n   live, used in Sabazian rites, i. 138;\n   in Orphic poems represents earth, i. 145 _n._ 2;\n   Ophites = worshippers of, ii. 26 _n._ 4;\n   \u201cBull father of serpent,\u201d etc., ii. 39;\n   external Ocean figured as, ii. 49;\n   in Asia Minor emblem of goddess\u2019 husband, ii. 49. _n._ 3;\n   emblem of Dionysos and soul of world, ii. 50, 55;\n   called \u201cMichael and Sammael\u201d (Ophites), ii. 52;\n   taught to coil round Eucharistic bread (Ophites), ii. 61;\n   called Leviathan in Diagram, ii. 70, 77;\n   Christian mob kill Ophite, ii. 77;\n   drops out of Ophite teaching, ii. 78;\n   enemy of sun-god in Egypt, _ibid._;\n   \u201cserpent and dove,\u201d ii. 135 _n._ 3;\n   death figured as seven-headed, ii. 156 _n._ 3;\n   Outer Darkness s. with tail in mouth, ii. 183;\n   part of, in Mithraic Tauroctony, ii. 245;\n   represents earth on Mithraic monuments, ii. 247, 250;\n   \u201cthe World-ruler, the Great S.\u201d in Magic Papyrus, ii. 256.\n   _See_ Tarentum\n\n Set, the god, murderer of Osiris, i. 33;\n   defeated by Horus, i. 34;\n   his wife Nephthys comes over to Osiris, i. 35;\n   Perabsen returns to worship of, i. 36;\n   aided in war by Ethiopians, i. 37;\n   the \u201cOsiris whom S. murdered\u201d in Magic Papyrus, i. 92 _n._ 2;\n   Typhon Greek equivalent of (Plutarch), i. 105;\n   magician threatens to tear S. limb from limb, i. 125 _n._ 3;\n   like Osiris, a great power or daemon (Plutarch), ii. 16;\n   sect of Sethiani possibly named after him, ii. 74 _n._ 4\n\n Seth, Ophites accept Genesis\u2019 account of, ii. 52;\n   of Sethiani may be Sitheus of Bruce Papyrus, ii. 76 _n._ 4;\n   Manichaean or Mandaite story of, ii. 304\n\n _Seth, The Paraphrase of_, Apocrypha used by Sethiani, i. 175; ii. 53\n    _n._ 3;\n   and by Ophites, ii. 79\n\n Sethiani, the, sect derived from Orphics (Hippolytus), i. 175;\n   Simonians and they, only Gnostic sects not admitting Jesus\u2019 divinity,\n      ii. 15 _n._ 1;\n   their connection with Ophites, ii. 27, 76;\n   Ialdabaoth appears in system of (Theodoret), ii. 46 _n._ 3;\n   a Jewish but apparently non-Christian sect, ii. 53, 76.\n   _See_ Linus\n\n Severus, Caius Julius, Hadrian\u2019s general, lays waste Palestine, i. 170\n\n Severus, the Emperor Septimius, imitation of Alexander _temp._, i. 14\n    _n._ 1\n\n Shamash, the god, sun-god of Chaldaeans identified with Mithras, ii.\n    241\n\n Sh\u00e2p\u00fbr. _See_ Sapor\n\n\n _Shapurakan_, the, of Manes quoted, ii. 307\n\n Shem, identified by Moses of Chorene with Zervan, i. lx\n\n Sheol, dreariness of Jewish, i. 58, 150;\n   Gentiles to be swallowed up by (Enoch), i. 161\n\n\n Sheshonq or Shishak, King of Egypt, suzerain of Solomon, i. 31\n\n Shilluks, the, Nilotic tribe who worship secondary god, but not Supreme\n    Being, ii. 39 _n._ 5\n\n Shimnu, Buddhist Devil appearing in _Khuastuanift_, ii. 335 _n._ 1\n\n Shishak. _See_ Sheshonq\n\n Sibyl, the, announces decline of worship of Serapis and Isis, i. 86;\n   Jewish forgeries in name of, i. 173\n\n Sicarii or Zealots, escape before Fall of Temple to Africa and commit\n    outrages, ii. 5 _n._ 3\n\n Sicilians, the, call Isis \u201cStygian Proserpine,\u201d i. 56\n\n Sicily, scene of Rape of Proserpine (scholiast on Hesiod), i. 40;\n   Isis-worship brought into, by Hiero II, i. 53;\n   Orphic gold plates found in, i. 131;\n   Demeter and Persephone tutelary deities of, i. 135\n\n Sidon, Mithraic monuments at, ii. 261 _nn._ 1, 4\n\n Sige or Silence, female consort of Bythos in Valentinian system, ii.\n    96, 98;\n   called also Charis or Grace, ii. 96 _n._ 5\n\n\n Simon of Cyrene, crucified instead of Jesus (Basilides), ii. 17\n\n\n Simon Magus, accused of magic by Hippolytus, i. 110;\n   thinks souls attracted into bodies by sexual desire, i. 153 _n._ 3;\n   founder of pre-Christian sect, i. 176;\n   traditional account of Simon\u2019s life and death, i. 178;\n   German theory that S. was St Paul, i. 179;\n   his _Great Announcement_, i. 179, 180;\n   his borrowings from Zoroastrianism, i. 181; ii. 232, 291;\n   his succession of similar worlds, i. 183;\n   his aeons, androgyne, i. 184; ii. 38 _n._ 4;\n   his system compound of Greek and Hebrew traditions, i. 184, 185;\n   his aeons places as well as persons and periods, i. 187;\n   his account of creation of man, i. 188, 189;\n   teaches transmigration of souls, i. 190;\n   Simon\u2019s \u201credemption\u201d of Helena of Tyre, i. 191;\n   discrepant accounts of his death, i. 192;\n   his theory as to division of sexes, i. 193-196; ii. 355;\n   sources of his doctrine, i. 197, 198;\n   history of sect, i. 198, 199;\n   his heresy source of all subsequent Gnosticism, i. 200-202;\n   allegorical interpretation of Scripture by, i. 201 _n._ 1; ii. 82,\n      213;\n   said to be follower of St John Baptist, ii. 6 _n._ 4;\n   does not admit divinity of Jesus, ii. 15;\n   his Docetic teaching, ii. 16;\n   Saturninus\u2019 heresy derived from, ii. 25 _n._ 5;\n   system of, owes much to his personality, ii. 26;\n   borrowings of later heresies from, ii. 41 _n._ 1, 49;\n   analogy of Ophite cosmogony with that of, ii. 43;\n   gives independent origin to matter, ii. 44;\n   calls Helena Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   connection between story of, and _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 60 _n._ 1;\n   triple division of nature common to system of, and that of Ophites,\n      ii. 63, 64;\n   his \u201cflaming sword\u201d and double axe, ii. 67 _n._ 3;\n   did his doctrines reach Alexandria?, ii. 89;\n   Basilides a link between him and Valentinus, ii. 93;\n   Valentinian name of Ennoia possibly taken from system of, ii. 97;\n   aeonology of Valentinus resembles that of, ii. 99, 100;\n   Marcion a disciple of (Irenaeus), ii. 207;\n   story of Helena reproduced in Christian account of Manes\u2019\n      predecessor, ii. 285 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Apophasis, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Irenaeus\n\n Simonians, the, enter Church in secret after Constantine (Eusebius), i.\n    200 _n._ 3; ii. 18 _n._ 3;\n   why the first Christians neglected, ii. 2;\n   headship of sect of, ii. 6\n\n Sinai, Mt., law proclaimed on, i. liii; ii. 211;\n   Messiah of Jews to appear on (Enoch), i. 160\n\n Sinope, Bryaxis\u2019 statue of Serapis comes from, i. 48;\n   birthplace of Mithridates the Great and of Marcion, ii. 204\n\n Sissek, in Croatia, Mithraic monuments found at, ii. 237\n\n Sistrum, still used in Abyssinian Church, i. 86 _n._ 4\n\n Sitheus, power or aeon mentioned in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 76 _n._ 4\n\n Siut or Assiut, Apuat originally god of (Maspero), i. 33 _n._ 1\n\n Skin, coats of, metaphor for material body (Philo), ii. 52 _n._ 2;\n   (Valentinus), ii. 111 _n._ 1;\n   (_Pistis Sophia_), ii. 136 _n._ 1\n\n Smerdis, the false. _See_ Gaumata\n\n Smyrna, inscription identifying Demeter and Persephone found at, i. 46\n    _n._ 1;\n   statue of female Dionysos from, i. 47 _n._ 4;\n   Serapeum at, i. 52\n\n Socinians, alone of XVIth cent. reformers deny divinity of Jesus, ii.\n    20\n\n Socinus, founder of sect of Socinians, ii. 19, 20\n\n Socrates, the philosopher, his monotheism (Pater), i. 10;\n   conceals his doctrines from everybody but Plato, i. 11;\n   convicted of bringing new gods into Athens, i. 15;\n   image of, in _lararium_ of Alexander Severus, i. 82\n\n Solomon, King of Israel, believes in other gods than Yahweh, i. 11 _n._\n    3;\n   vassal to Sheshonq, King of Egypt, i. 31, 160 _n._ 4\n\n _Solomon, The Odes of_, quoted by Lactantius and the _Pistis Sophia_,\n    ii. 157 _n._ 2\n\n _Solomon, The Psalms of_, Greek text and translation of, by Viteau and\n    Martin noticed, i. 164 _n._ 1\n\n Sonhoods of Basilides, ii. 91;\n   correspondence of, with Ophite system, ii. 93\n\n\n Sophia, the Ophite called Prunicos, ii. 45;\n   mother of Ialdabaoth, ii. 46;\n   advises creation of man, ii. 51;\n   brings about Fall of Man, ii. 52;\n   arranges births of John Baptist and Jesus, ii. 53;\n   lays aside her material body (Irenaeus), ii. 57;\n   chief agent in redemption of the light, ii. 58;\n   Christos sent to her assistance, ii. 59;\n   descends with Christos into Jesus, ii. 60, 79;\n   leaves Jesus at Crucifixion, ii. 60;\n   her Fall referred to in Naassene Psalm, ii. 62;\n   her world above hebdomad of planets, ii. 64;\n   her place in Diagram, ii. 68, 69, 75;\n   connected with Barbelo, ii. 74 _n._ 1;\n   her \u201cmiddle space,\u201d ii. 75;\n   becomes serpent (Irenaeus), ii. 78, 82 _n._ 1;\n   Justinus finds type of, in Herodotus, ii. 81, 82;\n   the Holy Spirit of Basilides, ii. 94;\n   replaced in _Pistis Sophia_ by Virgin of Light, ii. 158;\n   absent from Marcion\u2019s system, ii. 214.\n   _See_ Achamoth, Mother of Life, Prunicos\n\n Sophias, the Valentinian, (1) Sophia, the youngest of the Aeons and\n    last of Dodecad, ii. 101;\n   her Fall, ii. 104;\n   she gives birth to Ectroma, _ibid._;\n   Christ and the Holy Spirit draw her within Pleroma, ii. 105;\n   (2) Sophia Without, the Ectroma or abortion of foregoing, ii. 104,\n      114;\n   her identification with the Earth, ii. 104 _n._ 4;\n   form given to her by Christos and the Holy Spirit, ii. 106;\n   Jesus sent as spouse to, _ibid._;\n   matter, the soul, the spirit, and the substance of demons made from\n      her passions, ii. 107;\n   her heaven called the Ogdoad, ii. 108;\n   called the Mother of All Living, ii. 110. _n._ 1;\n   her heaven the heavenly Jerusalem, ii. 110;\n   sends angels into chosen souls, ii. 110, 112;\n   pneumatic souls belong to, ii. 112;\n   Demiurge learns from, ii. 114;\n   psychic souls receive instruction in heaven of, ii. 115;\n   descended into Virgin Mary, _ibid._;\n   at Crucifixion soul of Jesus returns to, ii. 116;\n   identified with Achamoth, ii. 117 _n._ 2;\n   story of, omitted from _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 161;\n   mentioned in G\u00e2th\u00e2s, ii. 300 _n._ 2;\n   called Mother of Life in Manichaeism, _ibid._\n   _See_ Victorinus\n\n Sophocles, Orphic legends known to, i. 123\n\n Soul, the, Serapis called the Saviour of, i. 60;\n   pre-ordained destiny of, comes in with astrology, i. 119;\n   soul buried in body as in charnel-house, i. 127;\n   transmigration and final fusion with Dionysos of, i. 129, 148;\n   Essene belief in pre-existence of, derived from Orphics, i. 156;\n   an angel or daemon imprisoned in body (Philo), i. 174;\n   division of, into male and female which seek each other (Simon\n      Magus), i. 195, 196;\n   of Jesus returns to the different worlds whence drawn (Basilides),\n      ii. 17;\n   of the world, the god of the Greek mysteries, ii. 50, 51;\n   three-fold division of man\u2019s (Ophites), ii. 53;\n   man\u2019s soul, part of soul of world, ii. 55;\n   Christos unknown to Ialdabaoth receives souls of initiates, ii. 60;\n   the righteous soul must change from cho\u00efc to psychic and from psychic\n      to pneumatic, ii. 65;\n   defences of, in passage through planetary spheres, ii. 71-74;\n   Demiurge sends souls of men into bodies (Valentinus), ii. 109, 112\n      _n._ 3;\n   men\u2019s souls one of three classes, ii. 112;\n   souls of psychics receive further instruction in Heaven of Sophia,\n      ii. 115;\n   Apostles receive souls from Twelve Saviours instead of from Archons\n      (_Pistis Sophia_), ii. 136;\n   St John Baptist born with soul of Elijah, ii. 137, 149, 150;\n   soul of Jesus taken from Great Sabaoth the Good, ii. 139, 149;\n   souls of men during Millennium and after death, ii. 164, 165;\n   effect of mystery of First Mystery upon soul of dying, ii. 167;\n   effect of mystery of Ineffable upon man\u2019s soul after death, ii. 170,\n      171;\n   punishment of sinning souls (_Texts of Saviour_), ii. 182, 183, 186,\n      199;\n   the Counterfeit of the Spirit duplicate of soul proper, ii. 184;\n   cup of oblivion given to soul after punishment, ii. 187;\n   fate of the soul in Pharaonic Egypt, ii. 196, 197;\n   passage of soul to sun in Mithraism, ii. 264, 265;\n   all lights fragments of soul of world (Manichaeans), ii. 295 _n._ 2;\n   soul of man according to Manes, ii. 307;\n   fate at death of soul of Perfect Manichaean, ii. 309;\n   of soul of Zoroastrian in Avesta, ii. 310, 311;\n   fate at death of souls of Manichaean Hearer and of sinner, ii. 311,\n      312\n\n Spain, monuments of Alexandrian gods found in, i. 53, 66 _n._ 2;\n   Mithraic monuments found in, ii. 230\n\n Spencer, Herbert, applies survival of fittest theory to religions, i.\n    lii;\n   his Euhemerism, i. 19\n\n Spenta-Armaiti, mother of Gay\u00f4mort in Avesta, i. lxi;\n   one of the Amshaspands and identified with Wisdom (Sophia), i. 181\n      _n._ 1; ii. 45 _n._ 1, 300 _n._ 2;\n   identified with Vedic Aramati, ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   and with Mother of Life in Manichaeism, ii. 300 _n._ 2\n\n Sphinx, the, dream of Thothmes IV concerning, i. 77 _n._ 2\n\n Spirit, the Holy, called the First Woman by the Ophites, ii. 40;\n   forms Trinity with Father and Son, ii. 41;\n   Christos son of, by the Father-and-Son, ii. 42;\n   birth of Sophia from, ii. 44, 45;\n   blue circle in Diagram, ii. 68;\n   with Christos emanates from Nous and Aletheia (Valentinus), ii. 105;\n   with Christos, makes the Ectroma into perfect aeon, ii. 106;\n   retires within Pleroma, ii. 106, 114\n\n Spirit, the Living, in Manichaeism, recalls the First Man from Darkness\n    after his defeat, ii. 294;\n   discrepancy as to part played by him in deliverance of First Man, ii.\n      295 _n._ 1;\n   creator of the lights in _Acta Archelai_, ii. 298 _n._ 2;\n   Demiurge or Architect of Universe (Alex. of Lycopolis), ii. 302 _n._\n      1;\n   speaks word like pointed sword, ii. 302 _n._ 1, 324;\n   called \u201ca white dove\u201d in Tun-huang MS., ii. 302 _n._ 1;\n   the Third Person of Manichaean Trinity (Faustus), ii. 319;\n   member of second not first triad in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 324\n\n Splenditenens, great Angel in Manichaeism who holds heavens by their\n    backs, ii. 298;\n   son of Living Spirit in Tun-huang MS., ii. 298 _n._ 1;\n     and in Bar Kh\u00f4ni, ii. 325;\n   bewails captivity of the Light, ii. 332\n\n\n Sr\u00f4sh or Sra\u00f4sha, the Angel of Obedience in Mazdeism and the Tertius\n    Legatus of Manichaeism, ii. 327;\n   probably the \u201cFather\u201d of St Augustine\u2019s \u201clove song,\u201d ii. 331;\n   the \u201cMighty God\u201d of the _Khuastuanift_, ii. 341 _n._ 2;\n   mentioned by name in Tun-huang MS., ii. 355\n\n St\u00e4helin, Prof. H., his theory of forgery in documents used by\n    Hippolytus, i. 175 _n._ 5; ii. 11, 12 _n._ 1\n\n Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn, Roman nobles and the Jewish synagogue, i. lv\n    _n._ 1.\n\n Statira, daughter of Darius and Alexander\u2019s second wife, i. 6, 12\n\n\n Stauros or The Cross, Valentinian aeon projected by Bythos as guard to\n    the Pleroma, ii. 105, 124;\n   referred to in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 140;\n   personified in _Gospel of Peter_, ii. 140 _n._ 2.\n   _See_ Cross\n\n Stoics, the, not popular in Rome of early Empire, i. 19;\n   say all gods different forms of one Divine energy, i. 56;\n   Alexandrian religion may owe something to, i. 60;\n   Essenes take doctrine of Ecpyrosis from (Hippolytus), i. 155 _n._ 2;\n   Tarsus one of principal seats of, ii. 83;\n   Marcion educated in philosophy of, ii. 204;\n   their Ecpyrosis may pass into Mithraism, ii. 250;\n   their philosophy dear to best Roman minds, ii. 274;\n   their Ecpyrosis may have come to them from Persians, ii. 297 _n._ 1\n\n Strabo, quotes Megasthenes\u2019 story of gold-digging ants, i. 2 _n._ 1;\n   mentions Candace Queen of Ethiopians, i. 37 _n._ 1;\n   gives Iacchos important place in Mysteries, i. 40 _n._ 4\n\n Stratiotici, a sect connected with the Ophites (Epiphanius), ii. 27\n    _n._ 1\n\n Sulayman Shah, XVIIth century inscription likening him to Alexander, i.\n    14 _n._ 2\n\n Sulla, worship of Alexandrian gods in Rome, _temp._, i. 53;\n   college of Pastophori at Cenchreae dates from, i. 74 _n._ 2;\n   Chaldaeans in Rome, _temp._, i. 108 _n._ 2\n\n Sumer, probable source of First Man legend, i. lxiii _n._ 1;\n   astrology first practised in, i. 113\n\n Sunday, compromise of Church as to coincidence of, with Lord\u2019s Day, i.\n    118;\n   kept as fast by Manichaeans, ii. 343 _n._ 2, 349;\n   Manichaeans worship Sun on (St Augustine), ii. 349 _n._ 4\n\n Suriel, name of planetary world in Diagram, ii. 70\n\n Susa, one of the four capitals of Persian Empire, i. 3;\n   Alexander\u2019s marriage of Europe and Asia at, i. 5;\n   Greeks flock to, i. 7;\n   Onomacritos flees with Pisistratids to, i. 121;\n   Orphic legends possibly learned by Greeks at, i. 122 _n._ 3, 126 _n._\n      3\n\n Swedenborg, Emanuel, ideas of Simon Magus revived by, i. 202\n\n Sykes, Major P. H., inscription in Khorassan discovered by, i. 14 _n._\n    2\n\n Symmachus, Quintus Aurelius, life of, described by Sir Samuel Dill, ii.\n    359\n\n Syncrasis or Blending, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101\n\n Synesis, in Diagram, ii. 68;\n   member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101\n\n Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais, his hymn to the Ineffable Bythos quoted,\n    ii. 37 _n._ 1\n\n Syria, Buddhist mission to, i. 20;\n   only road of attack on Egypt, i. 29;\n   Adonis legend in, i. 37;\n   Hadrian\u2019s visit to, i. 86 _n._ 5;\n   earth-goddess worshipped throughout, i. 126;\n   Palestine buffer State between Egypt and, i. 151;\n   Antiochus Epiphanes\u2019 attempt to consolidate power of, _ibid._;\n   Jews call in Romans against, i. 163;\n   proconsul of, rebuilds cities destroyed by Jews, i. 177;\n   spread of Simonians in, i. 199;\n   name of Highest applied to god of, ii. 31;\n   the great goddess of, called Atargatis and other names, ii. 45 _n._\n      1;\n   Ophites spread throughout, ii. 76\n\n _Syria Dea._ _See_ Atargatis\n\n\n Tacitus, the historian, on foundation of Alexandrian religion, i. 44\n    _n._ 1;\n   describes bringing of Bryaxis\u2019 statue to Alexandria, i. 48 _n._ 3;\n   calls Jews enemies of the human race, i. 167.\n   _See_ Manetho, Timotheos\n\n Talmud, the, calls Babylonian Jews the Ten Tribes, ii. 32;\n   existence of Cabala indicated in (Kuenen), ii. 35 _n._ 2;\n   Yahweh\u2019s Council or _familia_ (Taylor), ii. 43 _n._ 2;\n   First Man in (Harvey), ii. 52 _n._ 1;\n   Ophite stories find their way into, ii. 53\n\n Tammuz, analogy of Dionysos with, i. 122 _n._ 3;\n   women weeping for, in Temple of Jerusalem, ii. 32\n\n\n Tarentum, unnamed poet of, author of \u201cserpent father of bull\u201d verse,\n    ii. 39 _n._ 4\n\n\n Tarn, Mr W. W., attributes story of Antigonos\u2019 deification to Antigonos\n    Gonatas, i. 19 _n._ 1\n\n Tarsus, a centre of Stoic teaching, ii. 83\n\n Tartarus. _See_ Gehenna\n\n Tatian, the heresiarch, a disciple of Justin Martyr, becomes heretic\n    from ambition, ii. 8 _n._ 3;\n   his opinions and connection with Marcion, ii. 220\n\n Taurobolium, the (or blood bath), adopted by Mithraists from worship of\n    Cybele, ii. 259;\n   allusion to, in St Augustine, ii. 261 _n._ 2\n\n Taxo, mystic name of Antiochus Epiphanes\u2019 opponent in _Assumption of\n    Moses_, i. 170\n\n Taylor, Thomas, the Platonist, first translator of Orphic hymns, i. 141\n    _n._ 2\n\n Telesterion, the, Hall of Initiations at Eleusis used for torchlight\n    meeting, i. 39;\n   no entry into, for uninitiated, i. 41;\n   could not have held more than 3000, i. 65\n\n Tenedos, temple of Alexandrian gods at, i. 53\n\n Terebinthus, name of Manes\u2019 teacher, ii. 285, 286;\n   also called Buddha, ii. 285;\n   suggested meaning of name, ii. 285 _n._ 4\n\n Termessus, worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 53\n\n\n Tertullian, interest of heathen in early centuries in ethical\n    questions, i. xlix _n._ 1; ii. 86;\n   supposed astonishment of, at _post_-Constantinian ritual (Gibbon), i.\n      85;\n   first to formulate doctrine of Trinity (Harnack), i. 89 _n._ 2;\n   accuses Gnostics of magic and astrology, i. 109 _n._ 1;\n   says Valentinians give heavens reason and make angels of them, i. 187\n      _n._ 2;\n   tract _Adversus omnes Haereses_ wrongly ascribed to, ii. 10 _n._ 1,\n      25;\n   accuses Gnostics of concealing their opinions, ii. 18 _n._ 1;\n   the like of innovating on doctrines of their leaders, ii. 27, 28;\n   makes Valentinus give a consort to Bythos, ii. 96;\n   his jests on piled-up heavens of Valentinians, ii. 99;\n   his explanation of names of Valentinian Ogdoad, ii. 99, 100;\n   says Valentinus becomes heretic because not made bishop, ii. 117;\n   date of Valentinus\u2019 separation from Church, ii. 118;\n   his own heretical views on Trinity, ii. 122;\n   his formal heresy Montanism, ii. 123 _n._ 1;\n   describes respect paid by primitive Church to martyrs, ii. 127;\n   says Gnostics make adherents in time of persecution, _ibid._;\n   refers to baptism for dead, ii. 168 _n._ 4;\n   \u201cthe Sophia not of Valentinus, but of Solomon,\u201d ii. 178;\n   had probably read the _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 179;\n   his account of Marcion\u2019s life, ii. 204;\n   of Marcion\u2019s repentance and death, ii. 205;\n   \u201cMarcionites make Churches as wasps make nests,\u201d ii. 206;\n   his testimony to good morals of Marcion and Marcionites, _ibid._;\n   on Marcion\u2019s rejection of all Gospels but Luke\u2019s, ii. 208;\n   _Antitheses_ of Marcion can be reconstructed from refutation of, ii.\n      209;\n   his _dictum_ that Marcion can never prove existence of highest God,\n      ii. 210 _n._ 2;\n   on Marcion\u2019s anti-Jewish views, ii. 211;\n   on Marcion\u2019s dealings with Pauline Epistles, ii. 212;\n   controversy between Marcion and T. recommended to Modernists\n      (Foakes-Jackson), ii. 215 _n._ 1;\n   says Marcionites sect largest but one, ii. 216;\n   his sophistry in refutation of Marcion, ii. 218;\n   quotes Lucian the Marcionite\u2019s doctrine on resurrection, ii. 220;\n   \u201cMithras is my crown,\u201d ii. 245, 253 _n._ 3;\n   says initiate into Mithraic mysteries baptized for remission of sins,\n      ii. 260;\n   says Supreme Pontiff of Mithras may only marry once, ii. 268 _n._ 4;\n   quoted, i. xlix _n._ 1, 109 _n._ 1, 187 _n._ 2; ii. 18 _n._ 1, 27,\n      28, 86 _n._ 1, 96 _n._ 5, 99 _n._ 1, 100 _n._ 1, 117 _n._ 3, 118\n      _n._ 2, 127 _nn._ 1, 3, 168 _n._ 4, 178 _nn._ 2, 4, 179 _nn._ 2-7,\n      204 _nn._ 3, 4, 5, 205 _nn._ 1, 2, 206 _nn._ 1, 4, 5, 208 _n._ 1,\n      210 _n._ 2, 211 _nn._ 1, 3, 4, 5, 212 _nn._ 1, 6, 7, 8, 213 _nn._\n      1, 2, 4, 215 _n._ 5, 216 _nn._ 1, 3, 6, 218 _nn._ 1, 3, 220 _n._\n      5, 260 _n._ 5, 263 _n._ 3, 268 _n._ 4\n\n\n Testament, the Old, names of God in, used for magical purposes, ii. 33;\n   Greek version of, belongs to Western Diaspora, ii. 53 _n._ 2;\n   Ophites quote freely from, ii. 81;\n   known to Ophites in Peshitto version, ii. 84;\n   rejected by Marcion, ii. 208;\n   used by Marcion\u2019s follower Apelles, ii. 219;\n   scenes from, on Mithraic monuments (Cumont), ii. 277;\n   rejected by Manes, ii. 278, 350;\n   quoted, i. 10 _nn._ 1, 2, 96 _n._ 3, 156 _n._ 4, 165 _nn._ 1, 6, 180\n      _n._ 1; ii. 32 _nn._ 1, 2, 33 _n._ 1, 43 _n._ 2, 45 _n._ 1, 85, 94\n      _n._ 3, 114 _n._ 3, 136 _n._ 1, 155 _n._ 3, 210 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Daniel, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, Haggai, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel,\n      Zachariah\n\n Testament, the New, frequent mention of magicians in, i. 108;\n   account of Simon Magus in, i. 176;\n   Ophites quote from all the Gospels and most of the Pauline Epistles,\n      ii. 81;\n   Marcion\u2019s treatment of, ii. 208;\n   Manes calls himself Paraclete announced in, ii. 351;\n   quoted, i. 108 _n._ 6, 145 _n._ 1, 176, 177 _n._ 5, 182 _n._ 4, 188\n      _n._ 1, 191 _n._ 3; ii. 3 _n._ 3, 4 _n_ 1, 6 _n._ 3, 25 _nn._ 5,\n      6, 28 _n._ 3, 29 _n._ 1, 32 _n._ 5, 42 _n._ 4, 53 _n._ 2, 57 _n._\n      2, 64 _n._ 3, 89 _n._ 4, 117 _n._ 1, 123 _n._ 3, 131 _n._ 1, 135\n      _n._ 3, 159 _n._ 3, 161 _n._ 4, 169 _n._ 5, 170 _n._ 1, 172 _n._\n      1, 180 _n._ 4, 212 _nn._ 1-5, 7, 9, 213 _nn._ 1, 3, 288 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Apocalypse, Gospel the Fourth\n\n\n Tetragrammaton, the four-lettered name of Yahweh, i. 100 _n._ 4; ii. 47\n    _n._ 3;\n   used in most spells, ii. 34;\n   Adonai substituted for original name in O.T., ii. 71 _n._ 1.\n   _See_ Ak\u00e2e, B\u00eaq\u00e2\n\n Thales of Miletus, his doctrine that water is the beginning of all\n    things, ii. 36\n\n Thartharaoth, magic word used in Diagram, ii. 71\n\n Thauthabaoth, the like, _ibid._\n\n Thebes, the Greek, i. 6, 13;\n   the Egyptian, succeeded by Memphis as religious capital, i. 51\n\n Thebuthis, leader of early sect mentioned by Hegesippus, ii. 6 _n._ 4;\n   said to be first who corrupted the Church because not made bishop,\n      ii. 8 _n._ 3\n\n Thekla, relations between her and St Paul in Pagan eyes, i. 179 _n._ 2\n\n Theletos or Desired, member of Valentinian Dodecad and spouse of\n    Sophia, ii. 101\n\n Themistius, the neo-Platonist, says philosopher should know all\n    religions, but belong to none, ii. 270\n\n Themistocles, goes to Susa when banished, i. 7\n\n Theocrasia. _See_ Egyptians, Greeks, Ionia\n\n\n Theocritus, the poet, shows Adonis worshipped as form of Osiris, i. 55;\n   like Apuleius makes Thessaly home of sorcerers, i. 108\n\n Theocritus, Bishop of Chalcedon, rabbles Ophites in Vth century, ii. 77\n\n Theodore bar Kh\u00f4ni, gives number of Ophite planetary heavens as ten,\n    ii. 70 _n._ 2;\n   says Bardesanes teaches that world made from five substances, ii. 291\n      _n._ 3;\n   makes surrender of First Man to Satan tactical, ii. 294 _n._ 2;\n   amplifies earlier account of deliverance of First Man, ii. 295 _nn._\n      1, 2, 302 _n._ 1;\n   does not mention Wheel, ii. 297 _n._ 2;\n   his elaborate account of creation of man and other animals, ii. 304\n      _n._ 1;\n   his Book of _Scholia_, its date and authorship, ii. 321.\n   _See_ Appellant and Respondent, Ban, Kashgar, Manichaeism\n\n Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, writes against Magi, ii. 237\n\n Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, for spread of Simonians, i. 199;\n   on Third Person of Ophite Trinity, ii. 42 _n._ 5;\n   says Ophiomorphus changes from good to evil, ii. 78;\n   boasts conversion of 100 Marcionites, ii. 216\n\n Theodosius, the Emperor, sanctions demolition of heathen temples in\n    Alexandria, i. 83\n\n\n _Theodoti, Excerpta_, preserved by Clement of Alexandria, ii. 10 _n._\n    1;\n   represent teaching of Anatolic School, ii. 109 _n._ 1;\n   describe repose of spiritual and psychic souls until Consummation,\n      ii. 111 _n._ 1;\n   astrological destiny of man modified by baptism, ii. 115 _n._ 3;\n   Jesus receives tincture from planetary worlds in His descent, ii. 116\n      _n._ 1;\n   quote opening words of Fourth Gospel, ii. 117 _n._ 1, 177 _n._ 4;\n   date of, ii. 158 _n._ 1;\n   astrological doctrine among Gnostics first prominent in, _ibid._;\n   quoted, ii. 109 _n._ 1, 111 _n._ 1, 115 _n._ 3, 116 _n._ 1, 117 _n._\n      1, 177 _n._ 4\n\n Theodotus the Valentinian, a native of Byzantium, ii. 9;\n   a leader of the Anatolic School of Valentinians, ii. 119;\n   followers of, worship Melchizidek (Hippolytus), ii. 148 _n._ 1\n\n Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, \u201cthe perpetual enemy of peace and\n    virtue\u201d (Gibbon), i. 83;\n   procures destruction of the Alexandrian Serapeum, i. 84\n\n Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, first to mention by name St John\u2019s\n    Gospel, ii. 178\n\n Theophrastus, mentions in his _Characters_ the Orpheotelestae, i. 140\n\n\n Theopompos of Chios, Plutarch\u2019s authority for statements about\n    Zoroaster, i. lxii;\n   ii. 214 _n._ 2, 289 _n._ 3;\n   gives independent principle to evil, ii. 289 _n._ 3\n\n Theoris, priestess of Athenian confraternity convicted of sale of\n    poisons, i. 23 _n._ 2\n\n\n Theotokos, the, worship of Virgin Mary as, introduced at destruction of\n    Serapeum, i. 85\n\n Thersites, murder of, by Achilles leads to first instance of\n    purification among Greeks, i. 121 _n._ 4\n\n Theseus, made immortal because son of divine father, i. 18\n\n Thessaly, inhabitants of, called Thracians, i. 136.\n   _See_ Theocritus, Thracians\n\n Thian, Chinese god compared to Egyptian Nu (Maspero), i. 73 _n._ 4\n\n\n Thibet, Manes retires to, when exiled, ii. 281\n\n Thomas, the Apostle, in _Pistis Sophia_ one of the three recorders of\n    the words of Jesus, ii. 157;\n   all apocrypha attributed to, probably Manichaean (Dufourcq), ii. 351\n\n Thomas, missionary despatched by Manes into Syria, ii. 352\n\n _Thomas, The Gospel of_, used by Ophites, probably not that now extant,\n    ii. 79\n\n Thoth, the god, the ibis-totem brought into legend of Osiris, i. 35,\n    36;\n   epithet of, made name of Roman writer on magic (Maspero), i. 108 _n._\n      1\n\n Thothmes IV, King of Egypt, dream of, regarding Sphinx of Gizeh, i. 77\n    _n._ 2\n\n Thrace, gods of, early brought into Athens, i. 16;\n   Orphic teaching comes into Greece through, i. 122, 136;\n   worship of Theban Dionysos comes from, i. 136\n\n\n Thracians, the, to Greek writers, inhabitants of Macedonia and\n    Thessaly, i. 136;\n   their horror of birth and delight at death (Herodotus), _ibid._\n\n Thrasea, the \u201cStoic saint\u201d (Dill), ii. 87\n\n Thueris, the goddess, called \u201cgreat of sorcery, cat of Ethiopia\u201d in\n    Magic Papyrus, i. 37 _n._ 1\n\n Tiamat, the goddess, heaven and earth made out of her dead body in\n    Babylonian legend, ii. 44 _n._ 3;\n   story of, perhaps reproduced by Ophites, _ibid._;\n     and by Manichaeans, ii. 295 _n._ 2\n\n Tiberius, the Emperor, exiles worshippers of Isis to Sardinia, i. 53,\n    78;\n   no Christian converts of rank in reign of, ii. 8 _n._ 5\n\n Tiele, Cornelius Petrus, on dislike of Hellenists for comparative\n    method, i. l _n._ 2;\n   says science of religions long looked on with suspicion, i. liv\n\n Tigranes, King of Armenia, his tyranny in Phrygia, ii. 29\n\n Timon of Phlya, his contempt for philosophers of Museum, i. 45\n\n\n Timotheos, the Eumolpid, with Manetho founds Alexandrian religion, i.\n    44;\n   name may be typical only (Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq), i. 44 _n._ 1;\n   his use of Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 61\n\n Timothy, son of Eunice, of Jewish descent, but not circumcised\n    (Ramsay), ii. 28 _n._ 3\n\n Titan, name equated with Ham by Moses of Chorene, i. lx\n\n Titans, the, murderers of Zagreus, i. 37;\n   tear Zagreus in pieces from jealousy, i. 42, 125;\n   sons of Heaven and Earth, i. 125;\n   in Orphic myth entrap infant Zagreus, i. _ibid._;\n   blasted with lightning by Zeus, _ibid._;\n   introduced into Zagreus legend by Onomacritos, i. 126 _n._ 3;\n   man in Orphic teaching made out of ashes of, i. 127;\n   Orphic contempt for body which belongs to, i. 128;\n   disguise of, recalled in Sabazian rites, i. 138;\n   the second Dionysos torn to pieces and eaten by, i. 144;\n   Orphic hymns invoke, i. 146;\n   parallel to jealousy of, in system of Simon Magus, i. 190 _n._ 2;\n   representation of blasting of, on Mithraic monument, ii. 254\n\n Titus, the Emperor, repeated rebellions of Jews after destruction of\n    Temple by, i. 163; ii. 5;\n   Essenes survive capture of Jerusalem by, i. 170;\n   Christians regarded as Jews till time of, ii. 4\n\n _Tobit, The Book of_, Ophites quote from, ii. 81\n\n Trajan, the Emperor, in his time knowledge of Latin not necessary at\n    Rome, i. 9;\n   atrocities committed by Jews throughout East, _temp._, i. 172 _n._ 1;\n   the _Didache_ not later than (Duchesne), ii. 7 _n._ 2;\n   earns title of Parthicus by his Eastern victories, ii. 225;\n   conquers Dacia and colonizes it with Orientals, ii. 271\n\n Tranquillina, wife of Gordian III, i. 24\n\n Transmigration of Souls, doctrine of Pythagoreans taken over by\n    Orphics, i. 127;\n   origin of belief in, i. 129;\n   doctrine of, in Pindar, _ibid._;\n   initiation into Mysteries frees from, i. 130, 134;\n   taught by Simon Magus, i. 196;\n   variations of doctrines in the Ophite system, ii. 65, 75;\n   in that of Valentinus, ii. 115;\n   in that of the _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 164, 165, 173;\n   in that of the _Texts of the Saviour_, ii. 183, 187;\n   in the worship of Mithras, ii. 264, 265;\n   in Manichaeism, ii. 308\n\n Trees, the Five, of the _Pistis Sophia_, powers of the Treasure-house,\n    ii. 141;\n   the Great Powers of the Right emanate from, ii. 147\n\n\n Tridynami, or Triple Powers of the _Pistis Sophia_ mentioned in the\n    address of the powers to Jesus, ii. 143;\n   the Great Propator, Barbelo and the Authades, ii. 150, 151;\n   give birth to 24 Invisible Powers of whom Pistis Sophia is the last,\n      _ibid._\n\n Triparadeisos, treaty of, confirms Ptolemy Soter in possession of\n    Egypt, i. 30\n\n Triptolemus, shown at Eleusis as setting out to spread knowledge of\n    agriculture through world, i. 41\n\n Tryphera, Athenian courtezan who was member of confraternity, i. 22\n\n\n Tun-huang, Manichaean treatise discovered at, ii. 352;\n   quoted, ii. 323 _n._ 3, 327 _nn._ 2, 4, 329 _n._ 1, 330 _nn._ 1, 3,\n      339 _n._ 1, 341 _n._ 1, 346 _n._ 1, 352, 353, 354.\n   _See_ Buddhas, Dove\n\n Turfan, Manichaean texts discovered at, ii. 316, 317;\n   quoted, 323 _nn._ 3, 4, 324 _nn._ 1, 4, 327 _n._ 2, 329 _n._ 1, 350\n      _n._ 4, 356 _n._ 4.\n   _See_ Jesus, Mithras, Sr\u00f4sh, Virgin of Light, Zervan\n\n Tzimiskes, the Emperor John, settles Manichaeans in Bulgaria, ii. 357\n\n\n Ulpian, the jurist, his maxim that all men are equal before the law,\n    ii. 86\n\n\n Ulysses, purifies Achilles for murder of Thersites, i. 121 _n._ 4.\n   _See_ Odysseus\n\n Unas, King of Egypt, represented as eating gods to obtain their power,\n    i. 125 _n._ 3\n\n\n Uranus or Ouranos, the god, emasculated by Kronos his successor, i.\n    123;\n   Dionysos descendant of, i. 133;\n   never represented with stars, _ibid._;\n   with his wife G\u00ea corresponds to Simonian syzygy, i. 185;\n   presides over Third Age of Orphics, i. 186;\n   his wife G\u00ea type of all earth-goddesses, ii. 45 _n._ 1\n\n Uranus, the planet, not known in classical times, i. 116\n\n\n Valens, the Emperor, syncretism of Pagan religion, _temp._, i. 83\n\n Valentinian I, the Emperor, Mithraic inscriptions in reign of Valens\n    and, i. 83\n\n Valentinians, the, grow up in atmosphere of Orphic teaching, i. 128\n    _n._ 1;\n   like Simonians, make heavens persons as well as worlds, i. 187 _n._\n      2;\n   Docetism of, i. 191 _n._ 4;\n   probably quote from Peshitto version of O.T., ii. 81 _n._ 1;\n   persecuted by orthodox, ii. 96;\n   divide into two schools, ii. 118, 119;\n   views of, as to Devil, ii. 108, 256;\n   not a secret sect like Basilidians, ii. 126;\n   their compliances with heathenism, ii. 126, 127;\n   high price of their mysteries, ii. 127 _n._ 4;\n   their success in Egypt, ii. 132;\n   protected by Julian, _ibid._;\n   superseded by Manichaeism, _ibid._;\n   assign corporate existence to Decad etc., ii. 160 _n._ 1;\n   sometimes delay baptism till deathbed (Tertullian), ii. 168;\n   say Catholics only capable of salvation, ii. 173;\n   of Hadrian\u2019s time, not responsible for _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 180\n      _n._ 3;\n   most numerous of heretics, ii. 216\n\n Valentinus, the heresiarch, accusation of disappointed ambition\n    against, ii. 8 _n._ 3;\n   said to have been a Jew (Neander), ii. 9 _n._ 1;\n   Docetism of, ii. 17;\n   followers of, innovate on his doctrines (Tertullian), ii. 27, 28;\n   connection between systems of V. and of Simon, ii. 45 _n._ 1, 93;\n   first makes Gnosticism workable form of Christianity, ii. 93;\n   importance of system of, in eyes of Fathers, ii. 95;\n   his Supreme Being, ii. 96, 97;\n   his system of aeons, ii. 98-103;\n   its possible explanation, ii. 99, 100;\n   his Fall of Sophia and its consequences, ii. 104-108;\n   his Four Worlds or \u201cPlaces,\u201d ii. 108, 109;\n   his three species of souls, ii. 112;\n   his Christology, ii. 113, 114;\n   his life, followers and successors, ii. 117-121;\n   his religion contrasted with that of Church, ii. 121-124;\n   his obligation to Ophites, ii. 124, 143;\n   moral dangers of teaching of, ii. 127, 128, 129;\n   services of, to Christianity, ii. 132, 133;\n   revival in Paris of religion of, ii. 133 _n._ 1;\n   system of _Pistis Sophia_ resembles that of, ii. 135, 158, 159;\n   boundary Powers common to both, ii. 140 _n._ 2;\n   the Power of _P.S._ and the Logoi of, ii. 149 _n._ 5;\n   verbal juggling common to both systems, ii. 169;\n   V. probable author of first two books of _P.S._, ii. 177, 178, 179;\n   religion of, derived from Ophites, but degenerates under Egyptian\n      influence, ii. 197, 198;\n   heresy of, contrasted with Marcion\u2019s, ii. 204;\n   links with Manichaeism through Bardesanes, ii. 291;\n   quoted, ii. 110, 112 _n._ 3, 113 _n._ 1, 125\n\n Valerian, the Emperor, captured by Sapor I, ii. 226, 281;\n   his defeat lets Goths into Dacia, ii. 271\n\n\n Varanes or Bahram I, the Shah, puts Manes to death, ii. 281;\n   institutes persecution against Manichaeans, ii. 317\n\n Varuna, the god, invoked in Vedas with Mithras, ii. 230-232, 248;\n   god of sky and prototype of Zeus, ii. 231;\n   a god of Mitannians or Hittites, _ibid._\n\n Vatican, monument of Isis-worship in, i. 73;\n   papyri of recluse of Serapeum in Library of, i. 80 _n._ 1\n\n Vedas, the, religion of, may have come from Asia Minor, i. 122 _n._ 3;\n   associate Varuna with Mitra, ii. 232, 248\n\n Veil, \u201cwithin the,\u201d of Hebrews and _P. S._, ii. 135;\n   guardian of, ii. 148 _n._ 3\n\n Vellay, M. Charles, shows fusion in first centuries of legends of\n    Osiris, Attis and Adonis, i. 55 _n._ 4\n\n Ventidiu Bassus, Publius, drives Parthians out of Palestine, i. 161\n    _n._ 3\n\n\n Venus, the goddess, identified with Greek Isis, i. 56.\n   _See_ Aphrodite\n\n Venus, the planet, omen of distress among Assyrians, i. 114;\n   a benefic to Chaldaeans, i. 116;\n     and in _Texts of Saviour_, i. 118 _n._ 1;\n   one of the Ophite hebdomad, ii. 48;\n   her sphere in Diagram, ii. 74 _n._ 1;\n   ruled by power from Pistis Sophia, ii. 162 _n._ 3, 180, 186;\n   one of the five which control the stars of Adamas, ii. 182\n\n Verethragna, the god, represented as Hercules on Mithraic monuments\n    (Cumont), ii. 258\n\n Vespasian, the Emperor, dream sent to, by Serapis in Temple at\n    Alexandria, i. 77;\n   siege of Temple of Jerusalem by, ii. 23\n\n\n Victorinus of Pettau, probable author of pseudo-Tertullian\u2019s tract\n    against heresies, ii. 25 _n._ 3;\n   his story that Simon calls Helena, Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1\n\n Vincentius, tomb of, in Catacomb of Praetextatus at Rome shows links\n    between Sabazius and Mithras, ii. 259 _n._ 2\n\n\n Virgin of Light, the, perhaps mentioned in Ophite address to\n    Astaphaeus, ii. 73 _n._ 2;\n   causes soul of Elijah to be planted in St John Baptist, ii. 137, 150;\n   her place and office, ii. 137 _n._ 3;\n   one of the two Leaders of the Middle, ii. 150;\n   working agent in salvation of souls, ii. 158;\n   her dealing with soul which has received lesser mysteries, ii. 165,\n      174;\n   the like with second mystery of First Mystery, ii. 167;\n   in _Texts of Saviour_ gives the \u201cPower,\u201d ii. 184;\n   sends soul of slanderer into afflicted body, ii. 187;\n   reappears in Manichaeism, ii. 299 _n._ 1;\n   in Manichaeism retires into Moon at end of world, ii. 323 _n._ 4\n\n Vohu Mano, the Amshaspand, reference to, in _Apocalypse of Salathiel_,\n    i. 167 _n._ 2;\n   first of Amshaspands in Avesta, i. 181 _n._ 1;\n   receives faithful soul at death, ii. 311\n\n Vologeses or Valkash, King of Parthia, collects books of Avesta, ii.\n    278, 283;\n   his attempt at reformation of Zoroastrianism unsuccessful, ii. 284\n\n Vonones, King of Parthia, his philhellenism offends his subjects, ii.\n    282\n\n Vulcan, the god, on Mithraic monument, ii. 238 _n._ 3\n\n\n Way, the Middle, in _Texts of Saviour_ Jesus transfers himself and his\n    disciples to, ii. 182;\n   a place of torment, ii. 187\n\n Wesley, John, founder of a \u201cFree Church,\u201d ii. 19\n\n Wessely, Dr Karl, edits Magic Papyri, i. 101\n\n Wheel of Salvation, in Manichaeism, ii. 297, 306, 308.\n   _See_ Zodiac\n\n Winckler, Dr Hugo, his astral theory of Oriental religion, i. 115 _n._\n    1;\n   his discovery of worship of Vedic gods in Asia Minor, ii. 45 _n._ 1,\n      231\n\n Williams-Jackson, Prof. A. V., puts date of Zoroaster at 700 B.C., i.\n    lxii\n\n Woide, librarian of British Museum, first draws attention to _Pistis\n    Sophia_, ii. 134\n\n Woman, the First, the Holy Spirit of the Ophites, ii. 40;\n   at first female form of Ophite Supreme Being, later proceeds from\n      Father and Son, ii. 41 _n._ 2;\n   story of superfluous Light which falls from, ii. 44;\n   Sophia springs from left side of, Christos from right, ii. 46;\n   not mentioned by Sophia when undeceiving Ialdabaoth, ii. 51 _n._ 5\n\n\n Xenocrates of Chalcedon, his date, i. 47 _n._ 1;\n   speaks of a supernal and infernal Zeus, i. 47 _n._ 1; ii. 239 _n._ 6;\n   makes Zeus both male and female, i. 47 _n._ 4;\n   calls stars and planets, gods, i. 186 _n._ 2\n\n Xenophanes of Colophon, says Demeter and Persephone the same goddess,\n    i. 46\n\n Xenophon, authority for visits of the King\u2019s Eye to satraps, i. 2 _n._\n    1;\n   treats Socrates as polytheist, i. 11\n\n\n Xisuthros, the Babylonian Noah, i. lx\n\n\n\n Yahweh of Israel, a mountain god to Syrians, i. 10;\n   Hebrew Prophets\u2019 and Psalmists\u2019 monotheistic conception of, i. 11;\n   associated in magic with Zeus and Serapis, i. 107;\n   according to Jews, promises them exclusive temporal advantages, i.\n      150;\n     on same authority, makes world for sake of Jews, i. 165;\n   stars the viceroys of (Philo), i. 187;\n   the \u201cFather\u201d of second or intermediate world of Simon, i. 188;\n   called Hypsistos in Asia Minor (Cumont), ii. 31, 85 _n._ 3;\n   Anat and Bethel assessors of, at Elephantine, ii. 32 _n._ 4, 43 _n._\n      2;\n   name of, specially used in magic, ii. 33;\n   name of, ineffable after Alexander, ii. 37 _n._ 1;\n   Sophia his delight and instrument, ii. 45 _n._ 1;\n   called Ialdabaoth by Ophites, ii. 47;\n   in Ophite system, power below the Supreme God, ii. 84;\n   called the Great Archon by Basilides, ii. 94;\n   probably the Je\u00fb of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 148\n\n Yazatas, the. _See_ Izeds\n\n Yezdegerd II, the Shah, Zervanist sect dominant in Persia, _temp._, ii.\n    285\n\n York, Mithraic monuments at, ii. 239\n\n Yung, Dr \u00c9mile, his views on hypnotism and crystal-gazing, i. 110\n\n\n Zacchaei, the, Gnostic sect mentioned by Epiphanius, ii. 27 _n._ 1\n\n\n Zachariah, the Prophet, shows hatred of Gentiles, i. 167 _n._ 4\n\n Zagreus, the god, secret worship of, in Greece in early times, i. 17;\n   Cretan legend of, i. 37;\n   the same as taught at Eleusis, i. 42;\n     and by Orphics, i. 124, 125;\n   Orphics connect Passion and Resurrection of, with history of man, i.\n      126;\n   Orphics teach that man\u2019s soul is part of, i. 127;\n   initiate becomes identified with Zagreus by eating raw flesh of\n      victim, i. 128;\n   identified with Iacchos at Eleusis, i. 130;\n     and with Sabazius, i. 137;\n   called \u201cHighest of All\u201d (Aeschylus), i. 137 _n._ 3;\n   rites of Sabazius explained by legend of, i. 138;\n   sewing of heart of, in thigh of Zeus and its result, i. 145\n\n Zarazaz, cryptographic name of power in Texts of Saviour otherwise\n    Maskelli, ii. 75 _n._ 1, 148 _n._ 3;\n   perhaps Guardian of Veil of Treasure-house, ii. 148 _n._ 3\n\n Zeesar, cryptographic name of heavenly river among Ophites, ii. 94 _n._\n    3\n\n Zeller, his view of Philo\u2019s powers of God, i. 174\n\n Zend Avesta. _See_ Avesta\n\n Zeno of Cyprus, why not quoted by Ophite writers, ii. 83\n\n\n Zervan, said by Moses of Chorene to be the Patriarch Shem, i. lx;\n   Supreme God of Light in Tun-huang and Turfan texts, ii. 323, 342, 343\n\n Zervan Akerene, supreme divinity of sect of Zoroastrian heretics, ii.\n    236;\n   head of Mithraic pantheon and father of Ormuzd and Ahriman (Cumont),\n      ii. 252;\n   Mihr Nerses\u2019 proclamation concerning, ii. 285;\n   belief in, denounced in _Khuastuanift_, ii. 339\n\n Zeus, Crete or Asia Minor birthplace of, i. 16;\n   identified with many gods of Asia and Europe, i. 17;\n   father of Zagreus by Persephone, i. 37, 42, 138;\n   union with Demeter shown in Mysteries, i. 40, 61 _n._ 1;\n   Hermes sent by, to Hades for deliverance of Persephone, i. 41;\n   father of Dionysos his destined successor, i. 46;\n   the Z. of Phidias model for Serapis, i. 49;\n   \u201cSerapis is Z.\u201d, i. 55;\n   Achilles\u2019 flattery of, i. 95;\n   identified in magic spell with Serapis and Yahweh, i. 106, 107;\n   Orphic, swallows Phanes and becomes father of gods and men, i. 123;\n   his relations with Orphic Dionysos, i. 124;\n   blasts Titans after murder of Zagreus, i. 125;\n   Orphic \u201can initiate of Idaean Z.\u201d (Euripides), i. 128;\n   man\u2019s soul a descendant of, according to Orphics, i. 133;\n   relations of Orphic, with Demeter and Persephone, i. 142, 144, 145;\n   Titans enemies of, ii. 146;\n   identified by Orphics with Dionysos, ii. 147;\n   Samaritans offer Antiochus Epiphanes to dedicate Mt Gerizim temple\n      to, i. 177;\n   Orphics assign last age of world but one to, i. 186;\n   called Metropator by Orphics, i. 190 _n._ 1;\n   Barnabas hailed as, in Phrygia, i. 191 _n._ 3; ii. 42;\n   legend of Z. and Persephone referred to Asia Minor, ii. 49;\n   Varuna perhaps prototype of, ii. 231;\n   \u201cthe whole circuit of the sky\u201d to Persians (Herodotus), ii. 234;\n   identified with Ormuzd, ii. 237;\n   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238, 254.\n   _See_ Jupiter, Polycleitos\n\n\n Zeus Chthonios, \u201cthe God\u201d of Eleusis, i. 47;\n   mentioned by Hesiod, i. 126;\n   identified with Hades and Dionysos, i. 130;\n     and with Adonis, i. 137;\n   the serpent lover of Persephone, i. 145 _n._ 2\n\n Zeus Labrandos, double axe symbol of, ii. 67 _n._ 3.\n   _See_ Lairbenos\n\n\n Zodiac, the, in _Texts of Saviour_ salvation determined by entry of\n    benefic planet into certain signs of, i. 118;\n   in _Pistis Sophia_ Twelve Aeons means, ii. 137 _n._ 1, 154;\n   Pythagoras\u2019 division of, ii. 144 _n._ 8;\n   the Twelve \u201cmembers of Light\u201d in Manichaeism, ii. 293 _n._ 2;\n   the Wheel with twelve buckets in same, ii. 297 _n._ 2;\n   the twelve daughters of the Third Legate, ii. 328\n\n Zo\u00eb or Life, member of second Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98\n\n Zoroaster, Parsi belief in special inspiration of, i. liii;\n   religion of, once shared with Buddhism and Christianity belief of\n      civilized world, i. lviii;\n   Plutarch\u2019s date for, i. lxii;\n   religion reformed by, may be pre-Homeric, i. lxiii;\n   date of, 700 B.C., i. 126 _n._ 3; ii. 232;\n   both Bardesanes and Marcion borrow from (Al-B\u00eer\u00fbn\u00ee), ii. 214 _n._ 2;\n   name and doctrine of, known in West long before Plutarch, ii. 234;\n   reform of, directed against worship of Ahriman (Rosenberg), ii. 253\n      _n._ 5;\n   Ardesh\u00eer entrusts Magi with propagation of reformed religion of, ii.\n      280;\n   divine origin of teaching of, acknowledged by Manes, ii. 316\n\n\n Zoroastrianism, borrows from Babylonia, i. lxi;\n   our ignorance of origin and dates of, i. lxii;\n   adopts theory of seven planetary spheres surrounding earth, i. 117;\n   Orphic poems seem reminiscent of reformed, i. 122;\n   late form of, derives origin of man from death of Gay\u00f4mort, i. 126\n      _n._ 3;\n   fire which burns wicked like warm milk to just, i, 134 _n._ 1;\n   doctrine of Essenes said to be derived from, i. 156;\n   doctrine of Amshaspands in, i. 181;\n   likeness between post-Exilic Judaism and (Cheyne), i. 181 _n._ 1;\n   Simon Magus\u2019 ideas in part derived from (Franck), i. 197;\n   revolt of Gaumata perhaps directed against, ii. 233;\n   its restoration and reform by Ardesh\u00eer, ii. 284;\n   Manes\u2019 description of lot of justified taken from, ii. 310\n\n Zwingli, founder of a \u201cFree Church,\u201d ii. 19\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\n      referenced.\n    \u25cb Superscripts which are a single character, such as \u201c4\u201d with a\n      superscript \u201ca\u201d, are shown by the caret \u201c^\u201d character before the\n      superscript, such as 4^a. Longer superscripts are wrapped in curly\n      brackets, such as p^{tle}.","title":"Forerunners and rivals of Christianity : $b being studies in religious history from 330 B.C. to 330 A.D., Vol. 2 (of 2)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":198435}