Chapter XIV: Book V: The Ophite Heresies (3)

From that time vices bore sway over men, and the good things came from a single source, the Father. For he, having gone up to the presence of the Good One showed the way to those who wished to go on high; but his having withdrawn from Edem made a source of ills to the spirit of [Sidenote: p. 235.] the Father which is in men. Therefore Baruch was sent to Moses, and through him spoke to the sons of Israel that he might turn them towards the Good One. But the third[316] (angel Naas) by means of the soul which came from Edem to Moses as also to all men, darkened the commandments of Baruch and made them listen to his own. Therefore the soul is arrayed against the spirit and the spirit against the soul.[317] For the soul is Edem and the spirit Elohim, each of them being in all mankind, both females and males. Again after this, Baruch was sent to the Prophets, so that by their means the spirit which dwells in man might hearken and flee from Edem and the device of wickedness[318] as the Father Elohim had fled. And in like manner and by the same contrivance, Naas by the soul which inhabits man along with the spirit of the Father seduced the Prophets, and they were all led astray and did not follow the words of Baruch which Elohim had commanded.

[Sidenote: p. 236.] In the sequel, Elohim chose Heracles as a prophet out of the uncircumcision and sent him that he might fight against the twelve angels of the creation of the wicked ones. These are the twelve contests of Heracles which he fought in their order from the first to the last against the lion, the bear, the wild boar,[319] and the rest. For these are the names of the nations which have been changed, they say, by the action of the angels of the Mother. But when he seemed to have prevailed, Omphale, who is Babel or Aphrodite[320] becomes connected with him and leads astray Heracles, strips him of his power (which is) the commands of Baruch which Elohim commanded, and puts other clothes on him, her own robe, which is the power of Edem who is below. And thus the power of prophecy[321] of Heracles and his works become imperfect.

Last of all in the days of Herod the king, Baruch is again sent below by Elohim and coming to Nazareth finds Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary,[322] a boy of twelve years old, feeding sheep, and teaches Him all things from the beginning which came about from Edem and Elohim and the things [Sidenote: p. 237.] which shall be hereafter, and he said: “All the prophets before thee were led astray. Strive, therefore, O Jesus, Son of Man, that thou be not led astray, but preach this word unto men. And proclaim to them the things touching the Father and the Good One, and go on high to the Good One and sit there with Elohim the Father of us all.” And Jesus hearkened to the angel, saying: “Lord, I will do all (these) things,” and He preached. Then Naas wished to lead astray this one also (but Jesus did not wish to hearken to him)[323] for He remained faithful to Baruch. Then Naas, angered because he could not lead Him astray, made Him to be crucified. But He, leaving the body of Edem on the Cross, went on high to the Good One. But He said to Edem: “Woman, receive thy Son,”[324] that is the natural and earthly man, and commending[325] the spirit into the hands of the Father went on high to the presence of the Good One.

But the Good One is Priapus, who before anything was, was created. Whence he is called Priapus because he previously made[326] all things. Wherefore he says he is set up before every temple[327] being honoured by the whole creation and in the streets bears the blossoms of creation on his head, that is the fruits of creation of which he is the [Sidenote: p. 238.] cause having first made the creation which before did not exist. When therefore you hear men say that a swan came upon Leda and begot children from her, the swan is Elohim and Leda is Edem. And when men say that an eagle came upon Ganymede, the eagle is Naas and Ganymede is Adam. And when they say that the gold came upon Danae and begot children from her, the gold is Elohim and Danae is Edem. And likewise they making parallels in the same way teach all such words as bring in myths. When then the Prophets say: “Hear O Heaven and give ear O Earth, the Lord has spoken,”[328] Heaven means, he says, the spirit which is in man from Elohim and Earth the soul which is in man (together) with the spirit, and the Lord means Baruch, and Israel, Edem. For Edem is also called Israel the spouse of Elohim. “Israel,” he says, “knew me not; for if she had known that I was with the Good One, she would not have punished the spirit which is in man through the Father’s ignorance.”

27. Afterwards ... is written also the oath in the first [Sidenote: p. 239.] book which is inscribed Baruch which those swear who are about to hear these mysteries and to be perfected[329] by the Good One. Which oath, he says, our Father Elohim swore when in the presence of the Good One and having sworn did not repent, touching which, he says, it is written: “The Lord sware and did not repent.” This is that oath: “I swear by Him who is above all, the Good One, to preserve these mysteries and to utter them to none, nor to turn away from the Good One to creation.” And when he has sworn that oath he enters into the presence of the Good One and sees “what eye hath not seen nor ear heard and it has not entered into the heart of man,” and he drinks from the living water, which is their font, as they think, the well of living, sparkling water. For there is a distinction, he says, between water and water; and there is the water below the firmament of the bad creation, wherein are baptized[330] the earthly and natural men, and there is the living water [Sidenote: p. 240.] above the firmament of the Good One in which Elohim was baptized and having been baptized did not repent. And when the prophet declares, he says, to take unto himself a wife of whoredom because the earth whoring has committed whoredom from behind the Lord,[331] that is Edem from Elohim. In these words, he says, the prophet speaks clearly the whole mystery, but he was not hearkened to by the wickedness of Naas. In that same fashion also they hand down other prophetic sayings in many books. But pre-eminent among them is the book inscribed Baruch in which he who reads will know the whole management of their myth.

Now, though I have met with many heresies, beloved, I have met with none worse than this. But truly, as the saying is, we ought, imitating his Heracles, to cleanse the Augean dunghill or rather trench, having fallen into which his followers will never be washed clean nor indeed be able to come up out of it.

28. Since then we have set forth the designs of Justinus the Gnostic falsely so called, it seems fitting to set forth also [Sidenote: p. 241.] in the succeeding books the tenets of the heresies which follow him[332] and to leave none of them unrefuted; the things said by them being quite sufficient when exposed to make an example of them, if and only their hidden and unspeakable (mysteries) would leap to light into which the senseless are hardly and with much toil initiated.[333] Let us see now what Simon says.

END OF VOL. I.

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: In this chapter, Hippolytus treats of what is probably a late form of the Ophite heresy, certainly one of the first to enter into rivalry with the Catholic Church. For its doctrines and practices, the reader must be referred to the chapter on the Ophites in the translator’s _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_, vol. II; but it may be said here that it seems to have sprung from a combination of the corrupt Judaism then practised in Asia Minor with the Pagan myths or legends prevalent all over Western Asia, which may some day be traced back to the Sumerians and the earliest civilization of which we have any record. Yet the Ophites admitted the truth of the Gospel narrative, and asserted the existence of a Supreme Being endowed with the attributes of both sexes and manifesting Himself to man by means of a Deity called His son, who was nevertheless identified with both the masculine and feminine aspects of his Father. This triad, which the Ophites called the First Man, the Second Man, and the First Woman or Holy Spirit, they represented as creating the planetary worlds as well as the “world of form,” by the intermediary of an inferior power called Sophia or Wisdom and her son Jaldabaoth, who is expressly stated to be the God of the Jews.

All this we knew before the discovery of our text from the statements of heresiologists like St. Irenæus and Epiphanius; but Hippolytus goes further than any other author by connecting these Ophite theories with the worship of the Mother of the Gods or Cybele, the form under which the triune deity of Western Asia was best known in Europe. The unnamed Naassene or Ophite author from whom he quotes without intermission throughout the chapter, seems to have got hold of a hymn to Attis used in the festivals of Cybele, in which Attis is, after the syncretistic fashion of post-Alexandrian paganism, identified with the Syrian Adonis, the Egyptian Osiris, the Greek Dionysos and Hermes, and the Samothracian or Cabiric gods Adamna and Corybas; and the chapter is in substance a commentary on this hymn, the order of the lines of which it follows closely. This commentary tries to explain or “interpret” the different myths there referred to by passages from the Old and New Testaments and from the Greek poets dragged in against their manifest sense and in the wildest fashion. Most of these supposed allusions, indeed, can only be justified by the most outrageous play upon words, and it may be truly said that not a single one of them when naturally construed bears the slightest reference to the matter in hand. Yet they serve not only to elucidate the Ophite beliefs, but give, as it were accidentally, much information as to the scenes enacted in the Eleusinian and other heathen mysteries which was before lacking. The author also quotes two hymns used apparently in the Ophite worship which are not only the sole relics of a once extensive literature, but are a great deal better evidence as to Gnostic tenets than his own loose and equivocal statements.

As the legend of Attis and Cybele may not be familiar to all, it may be well to give a brief abstract of it as found in Pausanias, Diodorus Siculus, Ovid, and the Christian writer Arnobius. Cybele, called also Agdistis, Rhea, Gê, or the Great Mother, was said to have been born from a rock accidentally fecundated by Zeus. On her first appearance she was hermaphrodite, but on the gods depriving her of her virility it passed into an almond-tree. The fruit of this was plucked by the virgin daughter of the river Sangarios, who, placing it in her bosom, became by it the mother of Attis, fairest of mankind. Attis at his birth was exposed on the river-bank, but was rescued, brought up as a goatherd, and was later chosen as a husband by the king’s daughter. At the marriage feast, Cybele, fired by jealousy, broke into the palace and, according to one version of the story, emasculated Attis who died of the hurt. Then Cybele repented and prayed to Zeus to restore him to life, which prayer was granted by making him a god. The ceremonies of the Megalesia celebrating the Death and Resurrection of Attis as held in Rome during the late Republic and early Empire, and their likeness to the Easter rites of the Christian Church are described in the _Journal_ of the Royal Asiatic Society for October 1917.]

[Footnote 2: (οὗ) χάριν, “thanks to which.”]

[Footnote 3: μετέχιο τὰς ἀφορμὰς, a phrase frequent in Plato.]

[Footnote 4: נָחָשׁ]

[Footnote 5: Cf. Rev. ii. 24.]

[Footnote 6: ἀρσενόθηλυς.]

[Footnote 7: Cruice thinks the name derived from the Adam Cadmon of the Jewish Cabala. But Adamas “the unsubdued” is an epithet of Hades who was equated with Dionysos, the analogue of Attis. Cf. Irenæus, I, 1.]

[Footnote 8: Salmon and Stähelin in maintaining their theory that Hippolytus’ documents were contemporary forgeries make the point that something like this hymn is repeated later in the account of Monoimus the Arabian’s heresy. The likeness is not very close. Cf. II, p. 107 _infra_.]

[Footnote 9: Origen (_cont. Celsum_, VI, 30) says the Ophites used to curse the name of Christ. Hence Origen cannot be the author of the _Philosophumena_.]

[Footnote 10: τὰ ὅλα. I am doubtful whether he is here using the word in its philosophic or Aristotelian sense as “entities necessarily differing from one another in kind,” or as “things of the universe.” On the whole the former construction seems here to be right.]

[Footnote 11: “That which has been sent”?]

[Footnote 12: Doubtless as being still confined in matter.]

[Footnote 13: Both Origen and Celsus knew of this Mariamne, after whom a sect is said to have been named. See Orig. _cont. Cels._, VI, 30.]

[Footnote 14: τῶν ἐθνῶν. The usual expression for Gentiles or Goyim.]

[Footnote 15: Isa. liii. 8.]

[Footnote 16: διάφορον. Miller reads ἀδιάφορον: “undistinguished.”]

[Footnote 17: This hymn is in metre and is said to be from a lost Pindaric ode. It has been restored by Bergk, the restoration being given in the notes to Cruice’s text, p. 142, and it was translated into English verse by the late Professor Conington. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, p. 54, n. 6.]

[Footnote 18: ἰχθυοφάγον. Doubtless a mistake for ἰχθυοφόρον. The Oannes of Berossus’ story wore a fish on his back.]

[Footnote 19: Adam the protoplast according to the Ophites (_Irenæus_, I, xviii, p. 197, Harvey) and Epiphanius (_Hær._ xxxvii, c. 4, p. 501, Oehler) was made by Jaldabaoth and his six sons. The same story was current among the followers of Saturninus (_Irenæus_, I, xviii, p. 197, Harvey) and other Gnostic sects, who agree with the text as to his helplessness when first created, and its cause.]

[Footnote 20: So in the Bruce Papyrus, “Jeû,” which name I have suggested is an abbreviation of Jehovah, is called “the great Man, King of the great Aeon of light.” See _Forerunners_, II, 193.]

[Footnote 21: Eph. iii. 15. Cf. the address of Jesus to His Father in the last document of the _Pistis Sophia_, _Forerunners_, II, p. 180, n. 4.]

[Footnote 22: Why is he to be punished? In the Manichæan story (for which see _Forerunners_, II, pp. 292 ff.) the First Man is taken prisoner by the powers of darkness. Both this and that in the text are doubtless survivals of some legend current throughout Western Asia at a very early date. Cf. Bousset’s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, Leipzig, 1907, c. 4, _Der Urmensch_.]

[Footnote 23: So the cryptogram in the _Pistis Sophia_ professes to give “the word by which the Perfect Man is moved.” _Forerunners_, II, 188, n. 2.]

[Footnote 24: οὐσία: perhaps “essence” or “being.” It is the word for which _hypostasis_ was later substituted according to Hatch. See his _Hibbert Lectures_, pp. 269 ff.]

[Footnote 25: So Miller, Cruice, and Schneidewin. I should be inclined to read φάος, “light,” as in the Naassene hymn at the end of this chapter. No Gnostic sect can have taught that the soul came from Chaos.]

[Footnote 26: This, as always at this period, means “Syrians.” See Maury, _Rev. Archéol._, lviii, p. 242.]

[Footnote 27: ἔμψυχοι. He is punning on the likeness between this and ψυχή, “soul.”]

[Footnote 28: And between “nourished” and “reared.”]

[Footnote 29: τὸ τοιοῦτον. Not φύσις or ψυχή. At this point the author begins his commentary on the Hymn of the Mysteries of Cybele, for which see p. 141 _infra_.]

[Footnote 30: γένεσις, perhaps “birth.”]

[Footnote 31: An allusion to the myth which makes Aphrodite and Persephone share the company of Adonis between them.]

[Footnote 32: These words are added in the margin.]

[Footnote 33: A prominent feature in the imposture of Alexander of Abonoteichus. See Lucian’s _Pseudomantis_, _passim_.]

[Footnote 34: In the better-known story Attis castrates himself; but this version explains the allusion in the hymn on p. 141 _infra_.]

[Footnote 35: _i. e._ restores to her the virility of which they had deprived her when she was hermaphrodite. See n. on p. 119 _supra_.]

[Footnote 36: λελεγμένη. Miller and Schneidewin read δεδαιγμένη, “open,” or “displayed.”]

[Footnote 37: Gal. iii. 28. So Clemens Romanus, _Ep._ ii. 12; Clem. Alex. _Strom._, III, 13. Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 378 (Copt).]

[Footnote 38: 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15.]

[Footnote 39: _i. e._ masculo-feminine. That Rhea, Cybele and Gê are but different names of the earth-goddess, see Maury, _Rèl. de la Grèce Antique_, I, 78 ff. For their androgyne character, see _J.R.A.S._ for Oct. 1917.]

[Footnote 40: Rom. i. 20 ff. The text omits several sentences to be found in the A.V.]

[Footnote 41: _Ibid._, v. 27.]

[Footnote 42: _Ibid._, v. 28.]

[Footnote 43: ἐπαγγελία τοῦ λουτροῦ, _pollicetur iis qui lavantur_, Cr. But “the font” is the regular patristic expression for the rite.]

[Footnote 44: The text has ἄλλῳ, “other,” which makes no sense. Cruice, following Schneidewin, alters it to ἀλάλῳ on the strength of p. 144 _infra_, and renders it _ineffabilis_; but ἀλάλος cannot mean anything but “dumb” or “silent.” That baptism in the early heretical sects was followed by a “chrism” or anointing, see _Forerunners_, II, 129, n. 2; _ibid._, 192.]

[Footnote 45: Luke xvii. 21.]

[Footnote 46: This does not appear in the severely expurgated fragments of the Gospel of Thomas which have come down to us. Epiphanius (_Hær._ xxxvii.) includes this gospel in a list of works especially favoured by the Ophites.]

[Footnote 47: λόγος, Cr. _disciplina_, Macmahon, “Logos.” But see Arnold, _Roman Stoicism_, p. 161.]

[Footnote 48: ὄργια. In Hippolytus it always has this meaning.]

[Footnote 49: Isis. See _Forerunners_, I, p. 34.]

[Footnote 50: ἡ μεταβλητὴ γένεσις. The expression is repeated in the account of Simon Magus’ heresy (II, p. 13 _infra_) and refers to the transmigration of souls.]

[Footnote 51: ἀνεξεικονίστος, “He of whom no image can be made.”]

[Footnote 52: Prov. xxiv. 16.]

[Footnote 53: Some qualification like “originally” or “at the beginning” seems wanting. Cf. Arnold, _op. cit._, n. on p. 58 _supra_.]

[Footnote 54: Matt. v. 45.]

[Footnote 55: He has apparently mistaken Min of Coptos or Nesi-Amsu for Osiris who is, I think, never represented thus. At Denderah, he is supine.]

[Footnote 56: The “terms” of Hermes which Alcibiades and his friends mutilated.]

[Footnote 57: δημιουργός. Here as always the “architect,” or he who creates not _ex nihilo_, but from existing material.]

[Footnote 58: For this name which is said by all the early heresiologists to mean “the God of the Jews,” see _Forerunners_, II, 46, n. 3. He is called a “fiery God” apparently from Deut. iv. 24, and a fourth number, either because in the Ophite theogony he comes next after the Supreme Triad of Father, Son, and Mother or, more probably, from his name covering the Tetragrammaton, or name of God in four letters.]

[Footnote 59: Ps. ii. 9.]

[Footnote 60: Cr. supplies “virtutem”; but the adjective is in the neuter.]

[Footnote 61: Eph. v. 14.]

[Footnote 62: κεχαρακτηρισμένος ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀχαρακτηρίστου Λόγου. These expressions repeated up to the end of the chapter are most difficult to render in English. The allusion is clearly to a coin stamped with the image of a king. Afterwards I translate ἀχαρακτηρίστος by “unportrayable,” for brevity’s sake.]

[Footnote 63: The famous words which tradition assigns to the Eleusinian Mysteries. One version is “Rain! conceive!” and probably refers to the fecundation or tillage of the earth. Cf. Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._, c. xxxiv.]

[Footnote 64: Rom. x. 18.]

[Footnote 65: Ps. cxviii. 22. Cf. Isa. xxviii. 16.]

[Footnote 66: See n. on p. 123 _supra_.]

[Footnote 67: Isa. xxviii. 16.]

[Footnote 68: Something is here omitted before ὀδόντες. Cf. _Iliad_, IV, 350.]

[Footnote 69: ἀρχανθρώπος, a curious expression meaning evidently First Man. It appears nowhere but in this chapter of the _Philosophumena_.]

[Footnote 70: Dan. ii. 45, “cut from the mountain without hands.”]

[Footnote 71: The Power called Adonæus or Adon-ai by the Ophites is also addressed as λήθη, “oblivion,” in the “defence” made to him by the ascending soul. See Origen, _cont Cels._ VI, c. 30 ff. or _Forerunners_, II, 72.]

[Footnote 72: A compound of _Iliad_, XIV, 201 and 246.]

[Footnote 73: Ps. lxxxii. 6; Luke vi. 35; John x. 34; Gal. iv. 26.]

[Footnote 74: John iii, 6.]

[Footnote 75: Joshua iii, 16.]

[Footnote 76: So the Cabbalists call one of their word-juggling processes _gematria_, which is said to be a corruption of γραμματεία.]

[Footnote 77: ἀρρήτως, _i. e._, “by implication,” or “not in words.”]

[Footnote 78: Play upon προφαίνω and προφήτης.]

[Footnote 79: Mariam was Moses’ aunt, Sephora his wife, and Jothor Sephora’s father, according to some fragments of Ezekiel quoted by Eusebius. So Cruice.]

[Footnote 80: Matt. xiii. 13.]

[Footnote 81: Isa. xxviii, 10. In A. V., “Precept upon precept; line upon line; here a little, there a little.” Irenæus (I, xix, 3, I, p. 201, Harvey) says, Caulacau is the name in which the Saviour descended according to Basilides, and the word seems to have been used in this sense by other Gnostic sects, See _Forerunners_, II, 94, n. 3.]

[Footnote 82: ἐκ γῆς ῥέοντα!]

[Footnote 83: A direct quotation from the Hymn of the Great Mysteries given later, p. 141 _infra_. Also a pun between κεράννυμι and κέρας.]

[Footnote 84: John 1. 34.]

[Footnote 85: Sophia, the third person of the Ophite Triad and Jaldabaoth her son.]

[Footnote 86: Something omitted after “cup.”]

[Footnote 87: τρία σάτα. A Jewish measure equivalent to 1½ _modius_. Cf. Matt. xiii. 33.]

[Footnote 88: The famous ὁμοούσιος.]

[Footnote 89: A compound of John vi. 53 and Mk. x. 38.]

[Footnote 90: Μαθητὰς, “disciples,” not apostles.]

[Footnote 91: The κατὰ may mean either “against” or “according to” nature.]

[Footnote 92: For this Corybas and his murder by his two brothers see Clem. Alex. _Protrept._, II. A pun here follows between Corybas and κορυφή, “head.”]

[Footnote 93: John v. 3.]

[Footnote 94: κεχαρακτηρισμένος.]

[Footnote 95: Ps. xxix. 3, 10.]

[Footnote 96: Ps. xxii. 20, A. V., “My darling from the power of the dog.”]

[Footnote 97: Isa. xci. 8; xliii. 1, 2.]

[Footnote 98: _Ibid._, xlix. 15; slightly altered.]

[Footnote 99: _Ibid._, xlix. 16.]

[Footnote 100: Ps. xxiv. 7. A. V. omits “rulers” or archons.]

[Footnote 101: Ps. xxiv. 8; xxii. 6.]

[Footnote 102: Job xl. 2.]

[Footnote 103: A pun like that on Geryon or Corybas.]

[Footnote 104: Gen. xxviii. 17.]

[Footnote 105: John x. 7, 9, “I am the door.”]

[Footnote 106: _i. e._ the worshippers of Cybele. For Attis’ name of Pappas, see Graillot, _Le Culte de Cybèle_, p. 15. It seems to mean “Father.”]

[Footnote 107: παῦε, παῦε!!!]

[Footnote 108: Eph. ii. 17.]

[Footnote 109: This was an Orphic doctrine. See _Forerunners_, I, 127, n. 1 for authorities.]

[Footnote 110: Matt. xxiii. 27.]

[Footnote 111: 1 Cor. xv. 52.]

[Footnote 112: 2 Cor. xii. 3, 4. A. V. omits “second heaven” and the sights seen.]

[Footnote 113: ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος. The “natural man” of the A. V.]

[Footnote 114: 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14.]

[Footnote 115: John vi. 44, “draw _him_ unto me.”]

[Footnote 116: Matt. vii. 21.]

[Footnote 117: Matt. xxi. 31, “Kingdom of God.”]

[Footnote 118: 1 Cor. x. 11. A pun on τέλη, “taxes,” and τέλη, “ends.”]

[Footnote 119: Cf. the Stoic doctrine of λόγοι σπερματικοί, Arnold, _Roman Stoicism_, p. 161.]

[Footnote 120: Lit., “brought to an end.”]

[Footnote 121: A condensation of Matt. xiii. 3-9.]

[Footnote 122: Deut. xxxi. 20.]

[Footnote 123: _i. e._ become united with the Godhead. The newly-baptized were given milk and honey. Cf. Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, above quoted, p. 300.]

[Footnote 124: Matt. iii. 10.]

[Footnote 125: This “third gate” is evidently baptism. For the reason see _Forerunners_, II, p. 73, n. 2.]

[Footnote 126: This seems to be a quotation from the Naassene author.]

[Footnote 127: Perhaps an allusion to the λόγοι σπερματικοί.]

[Footnote 128: Matt. vii. 6.]

[Footnote 129: The derivation to be tolerable should be *ἀειπόλος!]

[Footnote 130: _i. e._ Proteus.]

[Footnote 131: Gal. iv. 27.]

[Footnote 132: Jerem. xxxi. 15.]

[Footnote 133: The mistake in geography shows that Hippolytus was not a Jew.]

[Footnote 134: Jerem. xviii. 9.]

[Footnote 135: ἐποπτικὸν ... μυστήριον.]

[Footnote 136: This is in effect the first real information we have as to the final secret of the Eleusinian Mysteries.]

[Footnote 137: Hesychius also translates Brimos by ἰσχυρός.]

[Footnote 138: Hades or Pluto.]

[Footnote 139: Schleiermacher attributes this saying to Heraclitus.]

[Footnote 140: Meineke (_ap._ Cr.) attributes these lines to Parmenides.]

[Footnote 141: Cf. Justinus later, p. 175 _infra_.]

[Footnote 142: Schneidewin and Cruice both read λαβεῖν, “receive” (their vestures) for βαλεῖν.]

[Footnote 143: Cr. translates ἀπηρσενωμένους, _exuta virilitate_; but it seems to be a participle of ἀπαρρενόω = ἀπανδρόω. The idea that the Gnostic _pneumatics_ or spirituals would finally be united in marriage with the angels or λόγοι σπερματικοί was current in Gnosticism. See _Forerunners_, II, 110. The “virgin spirit” was probably that Barbelo whom Irenæus, I, 26, 1 f. (pp. 221 ff., Harvey), describes under that name as reverenced by the “Barbeliotae or Naassenes”; in any case, probably, some analogue of the earth-goddess, ever bringing forth and yet ever a virgin.]

[Footnote 144: Matt. vii. 13, 14. The A. V. has εἰσέρχομαι for διέρχομαι.]

[Footnote 145: See n. on p. 119 _supra_.]

[Footnote 146: _i. e._ Attis.]

[Footnote 147: ἀμύσσω is rather to “scratch,” or “scarify,” than as in the text.]

[Footnote 148: Cf. John iv. 21.]

[Footnote 149: Cruice’s restoration. Schneidewin’s would read: “The Spirit is there where also the Father is named, and the Son is there born from the Father.”]

[Footnote 150: Cf. Ezekiel x. 12.]

[Footnote 151: ῥῆμα, not λόγος.]

[Footnote 152: Here we see the interpretation put by Hippolytus an the Aristotelian τὰ ὅλα.]

[Footnote 153: θεμελιόω. The whole of this sentence singularly resembles that in the _Great Announcement_ ascribed to Simon Magus, for which see II, p. 12 _infra_.]

[Footnote 154: This idea of the Indivisible Point, which recurs in several Gnostic writings, including those of Simon and Basilides, seems founded on the mathematical axiom that the line and therefore all solid bodies spring from the point, which itself has “neither parts nor magnitude.”]

[Footnote 155: Ἐπινοίᾳ. This also is used by Simon as the equivalent of Ἔννοια.]

[Footnote 156: Ps. xix. 3.]

[Footnote 157: ἀπρονοήτως, Cr., _sine numine quidquam_; Macmahon, “without premeditation.”]

[Footnote 158: Performances in the theatres formed part of the Megalesia or Festival of the Great Mother.]

[Footnote 159: I should be inclined to read τῆς Μεγάλης μυστήρια, “Mysteries of the Great Mother.”]

[Footnote 160: An allusion to the variant of the Cybele legend which makes her the emasculator of Attis.]

[Footnote 161: So Conington, who translated the hymns into English verse, and Schneidewin. Hippolytus, however, evidently gave this invocation to the Greeks. See p. 132 _supra_.]

[Footnote 162: δ’ ὀφίαν, according to Schneidewin’s restoration (for which see p. 176 Cr.), seems better sense, if we can suppose that the Sabazian serpent was so called.]

[Footnote 163: The whole hymn with the next fragment is given as restored to metrical form where quoted in last note.]

[Footnote 164: That is of the _Galli_, or eunuch-priests of Attis and Cybele.]

[Footnote 165: Thales only said, so far as we know, that water was the beginning of all things.]

[Footnote 166: The cornucopia: horn of the goat (not bull) Amalthea seems to have been intended. I see no likeness between this and the passage in Deut. xxxiii. 17, to which Macmahon refers it.]

[Footnote 167: Gen. ii. 10.]

[Footnote 168: This and the three following quotations are from Gen. ii. 10-14 and follow the Septuagint version.]

[Footnote 169: Play upon Euphrates and εὐφραίνει, “rejoices.”]

[Footnote 170: χαρακτηρίζει. “Stamps” would be more correct, but singularly incongruous with water.]

[Footnote 171: John iv. 10. No substantial difference from A. V.]

[Footnote 172: οὐσίαι, but not in the theological sense.]

[Footnote 173: This simile, repeated often later, has been the chief support of Salmon and Stähelin’s forgery theory. Yet Clement of Alexandria (Book VII, c. 2, _Stromateis_) also uses it, and the turning of swords into ploughshares and spears into pruning-hooks appears in Micah iv. 3, as well as in Isaiah ii. 4, without arguing a common origin.]

[Footnote 174: John 1. 9.]

[Footnote 175: Isa. xl. 15.]

[Footnote 176: Play upon χριόμενοι, “anointed,” and χριστιανοί.]

[Footnote 177: 1 Sam. x. 1; xvi. 13, 14.]

[Footnote 178: The hymn which follows is so corrupt that Schneidewin declared it beyond hope of restoration. Miller shows that the original metre was anapæstic, the number of feet diminishing regularly from 6 to 4. He likens this to that of the hymns of Synesius and the _Tragopodagra_ of Lucian.]

[Footnote 179: Reading φάος for χάος.]

[Footnote 180: This seems to correspond with the Ophite description of Sophia or the third Person of their Triad in Chaos. Cf. Irenæus, I, 28.]

[Footnote 181: The source of this chapter on the Naassenes is so far undiscoverable. Contrary to his usual practice, Hippolytus here mentions the name of no heretical author as he does in the following chapters of this Book. It is probable, therefore, that he may have taken down his account of “Naassene” doctrines from the lips of some convert, which would account for the extreme wildness of the quotations and to the incoherence with which he jumps about from one subject to another. This would also account for the heresy here described being far more Christian in tone than the other forms of Ophitism which follow it in the text, and the quotations from Scripture, especially the N.T., being more numerous and on the whole more apposite than in the succeeding chapters. The style, such as it is, is maintained throughout and its continuity should perhaps forbid us to see in it a plurality of authors. Little prominence in it is given to the Serpent which gives its name to the sect, although it is here said that he is good, and this seems to point to the Naassene being more familiar with the Western than with the Eastern forms of Cybele-worship.]

[Footnote 182: No mention of this sect is made by Irenæus or Epiphanius, and Theodoret’s statements concerning it correspond so closely with those of our text as to make it certain either that they were drawn from it or that both he and Hippolytus drew from a common source. Yet Clement of Alexandria knew of the Peratics (see _Stromateis_ VII, 16), and Origen (_cont. Cels._ VI, 28) speaks of the Ophites generally as boasting Euphrates as their founder. The name given to them in our text is said by Clement (_ubi cit._) to be a place-name, and the better opinion seems to be that it means “Mede” or one who lives on the further side of the Euphrates. The main point of their doctrine seems to be the great prominence given in it to the Serpent, whom they call the Son, and make an intermediate power between the Father of All and Matter. In this they are perhaps following the lead of some of the Græco-Oriental worships like that of Sabazius, one of the many forms of Attis, or that of Dionysos whose symbol was the serpent. The proof of their doctrines, however, they sought for not, like the Naassenes, in the mystic rites, but in a kind of astral theology which looked for religious truths in the grouping of the stars; and it was in pursuit of this that they identified the Saviour Serpent with the constellation Draco. Yet they were ostensibly Christians, being apparently perfectly willing to accept the historical Christ as their great intermediary. Their attitude to Judaism is more difficult to grasp because, while they quoted freely from the Old Testament, they apparently considered its God as an evil, or at all events, an unnecessarily harsh, power, in which they anticipated Manes and probably Marcion. Had we more of their writings we should probably find in them the embodiment of a good deal of early Babylonian tradition, to which most of these astrological heresies paid great attention.]

[Footnote 183: πηγή.]

[Footnote 184: τὸ μὲν ἓν μέρος. Cruice thinks these words should be added here instead of in the description of the “great source” just above. See Book X, II, p. 481 _infra_.]

[Footnote 185: Probably “Great Father.”]

[Footnote 186: This is entirely contradictory of Hippolytus’ own statement later of their doctrine that the universe consists of Father, Son, and Matter. Αὐτογενής, for which αὐτογέννητος is substituted a page later, is the last epithet to be applied to a _son_. Is it a mistake for μονογέννητος, “only begotten?” For the three worlds, see the Naassene author also, p. 121 _supra_.]

[Footnote 187: The cause assigned a little later is the salvation of the _three_ worlds.]

[Footnote 188: τριδύναμος probably means with powers from all three worlds. The phrase is frequent in the _Pistis Sophia_.]

[Footnote 189: συγκρίματα, _concretiones_, Cr. and Macmahon. It might mean “decrees” and is used in the Septuagint version of Daniel for “interpretations” of dreams.]

[Footnote 190: Coloss. i. 19, and ii. 9.]

[Footnote 191: From the starry influences?]

[Footnote 192: John iii. 17.]

[Footnote 193: 1. Cor. xi. 32.]

[Footnote 194: But see n. 4 on last page and text three sentences earlier.]

[Footnote 195: It was not the world, but the Zodiac that the astrologers divided into dodecatemories. See Bouché-Leclercq, _L’Astrologie Gr._, _passim_.]

[Footnote 196: There must be some mistake here. The planetary world, according to the astronomy of the time, only began at the Moon.]

[Footnote 197: The words which follow, down to the end of this paragraph, with the exception of one sentence, are taken, not from the astrologers, but from the opponent Sextus Empiricus. They correspond to pp. 339 ff. of the Leipzig edition of Sextus and the restorations from this are shown by round brackets. The whole passage doubtless once formed the beginning of Book IV of our text, the opening words of which they repeat. For the probable cause of this needless repetition see the Introduction, p. 20 _supra_.]

[Footnote 198: Sextus’ comment, not Hippolytus’.]

[Footnote 199: The personal followers of Pythagoras were called Pythagorics, those who later gave a general assent to his doctrines Pythagoreans.]

[Footnote 200: An echo of a tradition which seems widespread in Asia. In the _Pistis Sophia_ it is said that half the signs of the Zodiac rebelled against the order to give up “the purity of their light” and joined the wicked Adamas, while the other half remained faithful under the rule of Jabraoth. Cf. Rev. xii. 7, and the Babylonian legend of the assault of the seven evil spirits on the Moon.]

[Footnote 201: “Toparch” = ruler of a place. Proastius, “suburban,” or a dweller in the environs of a town. It here probably means the ruler of a part of the heavens near or under the influence of a planet.]

[Footnote 202: The bombastic phrases which follow seem to have been much corrupted and to have been translated from some language other than Greek. Νυκτόχροος and ὑδατόχροος are not, I think, met with elsewhere, and the genders are much confused throughout the whole quotation, Poseidon being made a female deity and Isis a male one. The more outlandish names have some likeness to the “Munichuaphor,” “Chremaor,” etc., of the _Pistis Sophia_. There seems some logical connection between the name of the powers and those born under them, the lovers being assigned to Eros, and so on.]

[Footnote 203: Cruice points out that “eyes” are here probably written for “wells,” the Hebrew for both being the same, and refers us to the twelve wells of Elim in Exod. xv. 27.]

[Footnote 204: Schneidewin here quotes from Berossos the well-known passage about the woman Omoroca, Thalatth, or Thalassa, who presided over the chaos of waters and its monstrous inhabitants. See Cory’s _Ancient Fragments_, p. 25. The name has been generally taken to cover that of Tiamat whom Bel-Merodach defeated. See Rogers, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 107.]

[Footnote 205: All Titans, like Kronos himself.]

[Footnote 206: Macmahon reads here Ino, but this name appears later.]

[Footnote 207: There is some confusion here. The Platonists, following Philolaos, attributed singular properties to the twelve-angled figure made out of pentagons and declared it to have been the model after which the Zodiac was made.]

[Footnote 208: νυκτόχροος. It seems to be a translation of the Latin _nocticolor_.]

[Footnote 209: So the Codex. Schneidewin and Cruice would read Κρόνος, but that name has already occurred.]

[Footnote 210: Here again Schneidewin would read ἀστέρος, “star”; but the next sentence makes it plain that it is the wind which is meant.]

[Footnote 211: Ariel is in one of the later documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ made one of the torturers in hell.]

[Footnote 212: Probably Saclan or Asaqlan whom the Manichæans made the Son of the King of Darkness and the husband of the Nebrod or Nebroe mentioned above.]

[Footnote 213: πρωτοκαμάρον. Macmahon translates it the “star Protocamarus,” for which I can see no authority. It seems to me to be an inversion of πρωτομακάρος, “first-best,” very likely to happen in turning a Semitic language into Greek and back again.]

[Footnote 214: The dogstar, Sothis, or Sirius, was identified with Isis.]

[Footnote 215: Μύγδων. In a magic spell, Pluto, who has many analogies with Attis, is saluted as “Huesemigadon,” perhaps “Hye, Cye, Mygdon.” Has this Mygdon any analogy with _amygdalon_ the almond?]

[Footnote 216: Qy. Mise, the hermaphrodite Dionysos?]

[Footnote 217: Βουμέγας, “great ox”? All the other names which follow are those of magicians or diviners.]

[Footnote 218: Two of the seven “angels of the presence.” Their appearance in a list mainly of Greek heroes is inexplicable.]

[Footnote 219: τῆς ἄνω. Perhaps we should insert δυνάμεως, “the Power on High.”]

[Footnote 220: See _Sibyll. Orac._, III. But the Sibyl says the exact opposite. Cf. Charles, _Apocrypha and Psuedepigrapha of the O.T._, II, 377.]

[Footnote 221: περᾶσαι. The derivation is too much even for Theodoret, who says that the name of the sect is taken from “Euphrates the Peratic” (or Mede).]

[Footnote 222: So modern astrologers make him the “greater malefic.”]

[Footnote 223: A fragment from Heraclitus according to Schleiermacher.]

[Footnote 224: So the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks repeatedly of “the Pleroma of all Pleromas.”]

[Footnote 225: Many magical books bore the name of Moses. See _Forerunners_, II, 46, and n.]

[Footnote 226: Is this why one Ophite sect was called the Cainites? The hostility here shown to the God of the Jews is common to many other sects such as that of Saturninus, of Marcion and later of Manes. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, under these names.]

[Footnote 227: Gen. x. 9. Nimrod, who is sometimes identified with the hero Gilgames, plays a large part in all this Eastern tradition.]

[Footnote 228: John iii. 13, 14.]

[Footnote 229: _Ibid._, i. 1-4.]

[Footnote 230: For this identification of Eve with the Mother of Life or Great Goddess of Asia, see _Forerunners_, II, 300, and n.]

[Footnote 231: ἄκραν. Cruice and Macmahon both read ἀρχή, “beginning,” but see ταύτην τὴν ἄκραν later.]

[Footnote 232: All this is, of course, quite different to the meaning assigned to these stars by the unnamed heretics of Book IV.]

[Footnote 233: If we could be sure that Hippolytus was here summarizing fairly Ophite doctrines, it would appear that the Ophites rejected the Platonic theory that matter was essentially evil. What is here said presents a curious likeness to Stoic doctrines of the universe, as of man’s being. Hippolytus, however, never quotes a Stoic author and seems throughout to ignore Stoicism save in Book I.]

[Footnote 234: πρόσωπον. The word used to denote the “character” or part or a person on the stage.]

[Footnote 235: ἰδέαι. So throughout this passage.]

[Footnote 236: Gen. xxx. 37 ff.]

[Footnote 237: χαρακτῆρες. See n. on p. 143 _supra_.]

[Footnote 238: Not “ring-straked” like Jacob’s sheep.]

[Footnote 239: ὁμοούσιος.]

[Footnote 240: Matt. vii. 11. Note the change of “Your” for “Our.”]

[Footnote 241: John viii. 44.]

[Footnote 242: Here again he dwells upon the supposed evil nature of the Demiurge.]

[Footnote 243: Or as Macmahon translates, “the substantial from the Unsubstantial one.”]

[Footnote 244: A lacuna in the text is thus filled by Cruice.]

[Footnote 245: Again this simile is not necessarily by the Peratic author, but seems to be introduced by Hippolytus. For the supposed conduct of naphtha in the presence of fire, see Plutarch, _vit Alex._]

[Footnote 246: ἐξεικονισμένον. A different metaphor from the “type.” We shall meet with this one frequently in the work attributed to Simon Magus.]

[Footnote 247: The text has ἐκ καμαρίου. Here Schneidewin agrees that the proper reading is μακαρίου, there being no reason why any “life-giving substance” should exist in the brain-pan. He thus confirms the reading in n. on p. 152 _supra_.]

[Footnote 248: This chapter on the Peratæ is evidently drawn from more sources than one. The author’s first statement of their doctrines, which occupies pp. 146-149 _supra_, represents probably his first impression of them and contains at least one glaring contradiction, duly noted in its place. Then comes a long extract from Sextus Empiricus which is to all appearance a repetition of the earliest part of Book IV, only pardonable if it be allowed that the present Book was delivered in lecture form. There follows a quotation longer and more sustained than any other in the whole work from a Peratic book which he says was called _Proastii_, with a bombastic prelude much resembling the language of Simon Magus’ _Great Announcement_ in Book VI, followed by a catalogue of starry “influences” which reads much as if it were taken from some astrological manual. There follows in its turn a dissertation on the Ophite Serpent showing how this object of their adoration, identified with the Brazen Serpent of Exodus, was made to prefigure or typify in the most incongruous manner many personages in the Old and New Testaments, including Christ Himself. After this he announces an “epitome” of the Peratic doctrine which turns out to be perfectly different from anything before said, divides the universe, which he has previously said the Peratics divided into unbegotten, self-begotten and begotten, into a new triad of Father, Son (_i. e._ Serpent), and Matter, and gives a fairly consistent statement of the Peratic scheme of salvation based on this hypothesis. One can only suppose here that this last is an afterthought added when revising the book and inspired by some fresh evidence of Peratic beliefs probably coloured by Stoic or Marcionite doctrine. In those parts of the chapter which appear to have been taken from genuinely Peratic sources, the reference to some Western Asiatic tradition concerning cosmogony and the protoplasts and differing considerably from the narrative of Genesis, is plainly apparent.]

[Footnote 249: This chapter is the most difficult of the whole book to account for, with the doubtful exception of the much later one on the Docetæ. A sect of Sethians is mentioned by Irenæus, who does not attempt to separate their doctrines from those of the Ophites. Pseudo-Tertullian in his tractate _Against All Heresies_ also connects with the Ophites a sect called Sethites or Sethoites, the main dogma he attributes to them being an attempt to identify Christ with the Seth of Genesis. Epiphanius follows this last author in this identification and calls them Sethians, but does not expressly connect them with the Ophites, makes them an Egyptian sect, and does not attribute to them serpent-worship. The sectaries of this chapter are called in the rubric Sithiani, altered to Sēthiani in the Summary of Book X, and the name is not necessarily connected with that of the Patriarch. In the Bruce Papyrus, a Power, good but subordinate to the Supreme God, is mentioned, called “the Sitheus,” which may possibly, by analogy with the late-Egyptian Si-Osiris and Si-Ammon, be construed “Son of God.” Of their doctrines little can be made from Hippolytus’ brief but confused description. Their division of the cosmos into three parts does not seem to differ much from that of the Peratæ, although they make a sharper distinction than this last between the world of light and that of darkness, which has led Salmon (_D.C.B._ s.v., Ophites) to conjecture for them a Zoroastrian origin. This is unlikely, and more attention is due to Hippolytus’ own statement that they derived their doctrines from Musæus, Linus, and Orpheus. In _Forerunners_ it is sought to show that the Orphic teaching was one of the foundations on which the fabric of Gnosticism was reared, and the image of the earth as a matrix was certainly familiar to the Greeks, who made Delphi its ὀμφαλός or navel. Hence the imagery of the text, offensive as it is to our ideas, would not have been so to them, and Epiphanius (_Hær._, XXXVIII, p. 510, Oehl.) knew of several writings, κατὰ τῆς Ὑστέρας, or the Womb, which he says the sister sect of Cainites called the maker of heaven and earth. In this case, we need not take the story in the text about the generation by the bad or good serpent as necessarily referring to the Incarnation. One of the scenes in the Mysteries of Attis-Sabazius, and perhaps of those of Eleusis also, seems to have shown the seduction by Zeus in serpent-form of his virgin daughter Persephone and the birth therefrom of the Saviour Dionysos who was but his father re-born. This story of the fecundation of the earth-goddess by a higher power in serpent shape seems to have been present in all the religions of Western Asia, and was therefore extremely likely to be caught hold of by an early form of Gnosticism. In no other respect does this so-called “Sethian” heresy seem to have anything in common with Christianity, and it may therefore represent a pre-Christian form of Ophitism. The serpent in it is, perhaps, neither bad nor good.]

[Footnote 250: τούτοις δοκεῖ, “it seems to them.”]

[Footnote 251: Cruice and Macmahon both translate this “into the same nature with the spirit.”]

[Footnote 252: This anxiety of the higher powers to redeem from matter darkness or chaos, the scintilla of their own being which has slipped into it, is the theme of all Gnosticism from the Ophites to the _Pistis Sophia_ and the Manichæan writings. See _Forerunners_, II, _passim_.]

[Footnote 253: Or “the substances brought up to the sealer.”]

[Footnote 254: ἰδέαι. And so throughout.]

[Footnote 255: Schneidewin, Cruice, and Macmahon would here and elsewhere read ὁ φαλλὸς. But see the next sentence about pregnancy.]

[Footnote 256: ἐξετύπωσεν, “struck off.”]

[Footnote 257: πρωτόγονος. The others were “unbegotten” like the highest world of the Peratæ and Naassenes.]

[Footnote 258: εἴδεσιν.]

[Footnote 259: Is this Ps. xxix. 3, 10 already quoted by the Naassene author? Cf. p. 133 _supra_.]

[Footnote 260: This idea of a divine son superior to his father is common to the whole Orphic cosmogony and leads to the dethroning of Uranus by Kronos, Kronos by Zeus and finally of Zeus by Dionysos. It is met with again in Basilides (see Book VII _infra_).]

[Footnote 261: A lacuna here which Cruice thus fills.]

[Footnote 262: This has not been previously described. Is the narrative of the Fall alluded to?]

[Footnote 263: Cruice and Macmahon would translate “any other than man’s.”]

[Footnote 264: Phil. ii. 7. The only quotation from the N.T. other than that from Matt. used by the Sethians, if it be not, as I believe it is, the interpolation of Hippolytus.]

[Footnote 265: ἀπελούσατο. Yet it may refer to baptism which preceded initiation in nearly all the secret rites of the Pagan gods. Cf. _Forerunners_, 1, c. 2.]

[Footnote 266: The whole of this paragraph reads like an interpolation, or rather as something which had got out of its place. The statement about the physicists is directly at variance with the opening of the next which attributes the Sethian teaching to the Orphics. The triads he quotes are all of three “good” powers and therefore would belong much more appropriately to the system of the Peratæ. The quotation from Deut. iv. 11, he attributes to several other heresiarchs.]

[Footnote 267: The codex has ὀμφαλός for ὁ φαλλὸς which is Schneidewin’s emendation. No book attributed to Orpheus called “Bacchica” has come down to us, but the Rape of Persephone was a favourite theme with Orphic poets. Cf. Abel’s _Orphica_, pp. 209-219.]

[Footnote 268: This is not improbable; but Hippolytus gives us no evidence that this is the case, as Plutarch, from whom he quotes, certainly did not connect the frescoes of Phlium in the Peloponnesus (not Attica as he says) with the Sethians, nor does the light in their story _desire_ the water.]

[Footnote 269: This too is a stock quotation which has already done duty for the Naassene author. Cf. p. 131 _supra_.]

[Footnote 270: So has this with the “Peratic.” Cf. p. 154 _supra_.]

[Footnote 271: κράσις ... μίξις.]

[Footnote 272: καταμεμῖχθαι λεπτῶς.]

[Footnote 273: τέχνη.]

[Footnote 274: Matt. x. 34.]

[Footnote 275: This again seems to be Hippolytus’ own repetition of a simile which he met with in the Naassene author and which so pleased him that he made use of it in his account of the Peratic heresy as well as here. Cf. pp. 144 and 159 _supra_.]

[Footnote 276: ἅλας πηγνύμενον.]

[Footnote 277: Herodotus VI, 20, mentions the City of Ampe, but says nothing there about the well which is described in c. 119 as at Ardericca in Cissia.]

[Footnote 278: The title of the book is given in the text as Παράφρασις Σήθ, which is a well-nigh impossible phrase.]

[Footnote 279: On the whole it may be said that this is the most suspect of all the chapters in the _Philosophumena_, and that, if ever Hippolytus was deceived into purchasing forged documents according to Salmon and Stähelin’s theory, one of them appears here. Much of it is mere verbiage as when, after having identified Mind or Nous with the fragrance of the spirit, he again explains that it is a ray of light sent from the perfect light, or when he explains the difference between the three different kinds of law. The quotations too are seldom new, nearly all of them appearing in other chapters and are, if it were possible, more than usually inapposite, while almost the only new one is inaccurate. The sentence about the Paraphrase (of) Seth, if that is the actual title of the book, does not suggest that Hippolytus is quoting from that work, nor does the phrase, “he says,” occur with anything like the frequency of its use in _e. g._, the Naassene chapter. On the whole, then, it seems probable that in this Hippolytus was not copying or extracting from any written document, but was writing down, to the best of his recollection the statements of some convert who professed to be able to reveal its teaching. It is significant in this respect that when the summary in Book X had to be made, the summarizer makes no attempt to abbreviate the statement of the supposed tenets of the Sethians, but merely copies out the part of the chapter in which they are described, entirely omitting the stories of the frescoed porch at Phlium and the oil-well at Ampa.]