Chapter VI: Book VI: Simon Magus, Valentinus, and Their Followers (5)

38. Now Apelles who [sprang] from among these men, says thus:--There is a certain good God as Marcion supposed; but he who created all things is [only] just; and there is a third [God] who spoke to Moses, and yet a fourth, a cause of evil. And he names these angels and speaks ill of the Law and the Prophets, deeming the Scriptures of human authorship and false. And he picks out of the Gospels and Epistles the things favourable to him. Yet he clings to the discourses of a certain Philumena as the manifestations[192] [Sidenote: p. 394.] of a prophetess. And he says that the Christ came down from the powers on high, _i. e._ from the Good One and was the son of that One, and was not begotten from a virgin, nor did He appear bodiless;[193] but that taking parts from every substance[194] of the All, He made a body, that is from hot and cold and wet and dry. And that in this body He lived unnoticed by the cosmic authorities during the time that He spent in the cosmos. And moreover that having been crucified[195] by the Jews He died, and after three days rose again and appeared to the disciples showing the marks of the nails and [the wound] in his side, and thereby convinced them that He existed and was not a phantom but was incarnate. The flesh [Apelles] says, which He showed, He gave back to the earth whence was its substance, and He desired nothing of others, but merely used [the flesh] for a season. He gave back to each its own, having loosed again the bond of the body, _i. e._ the hot to the hot, the cold to the cold, the wet to the wet and the dry to the dry,[196] and thus passed to the presence of the good Father, leaving the seed of life to the world to those who believe through the disciples.[197]

[Sidenote: p. 395.] 39. It seems to us that we have set forth sufficiently these things also. But since we have decided to leave unrefuted no doctrines taught by any [heretic], let us see what has been excogitated by the Docetae.

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: Of the Basilides with whose doctrines this book opens, little is known. While some would on slender grounds make him a Syrian, there is no doubt that he taught in Egypt and especially in Alexandria, where he seems to have steeped himself in Greek philosophy. This must have been during the reign of Hadrian and some time before the appearance of the far greater heresiarch Valentinus. If we could believe the testimony of Epiphanius, Basilides was a fellow-disciple with Satornilus, to be presently mentioned, of Menander, the immediate successor of Simon Magus; and, according to the more trustworthy witness of Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._, VII, 17), he himself claimed to be the disciple of Glaucias, “the interpreter” of St. Peter. He had a son Isidore who shared his teaching, and he wrote a treatise in twenty-four books on the Gospels which he called _Exegetica_. The sect that he founded, although never popular, lingered for some time in Egypt; but there is much probability in Matter’s conjecture (_Hist. crit. du Gnost._, 2nd ed., III, 36), that most of his followers became the hearers of Valentinus.

Our author’s account of Basilides’ doctrine at first sight differs so widely from that given by Irenæus and his copyists that it was for long supposed that the two accounts were irreconcilable. The late Prof. Hort, however, in his lucid article on the subject in the _Dictionary of Christian Biography_ showed with much skill that this was not so, and that the Basilidian doctrine contained in our text is in all probability that of the _Exegetica_ itself, while the teaching attributed to Basilides by Irenæus and others was the same doctrine largely corrupted by the inconsistent and incoherent superstitions which invariably attach themselves to any faith propagated in secret. The immediate source of Basilides’ own teaching cannot, up to the present time, be satisfactorily traced; but, although its coping-stone, the non-existent Deity, shows some likeness to the Buddhistic ideas which were at any rate known in the Alexandria of his time (Clem. Alex., _Strom._, I, 15), it is probable that among the relics of the ancient Egyptian religion, then almost extinct, something of the same idea might have been found. His obligation to the Stoic philosophy is well brought out by Hort; and he was doubtless versed in the dialectical methods of Aristotle, which, then as later, formed the universal equipment of the student of philosophy. Hippolytus’ theory that the ground-work of the Basilidian edifice is a conscious or unconscious borrowing from Aristotle derives no support from any Aristotelian writings known to us. Unlike other Gnostics, Basilides displays no animus towards the Jews beyond reducing their Deity to the Ruler of the Hebdomad, or lowest spiritual world, and he accepts as fully as possible the Divinity of Jesus and the authority of the New Testament. Of the Docetism attributed to him by Irenæus and others, there is here no trace, and the Bishop of Lyons’ statement on this point can only be explained by supposing that he here confused Basilides with some other heresiarch.

The distinctive features of Basilides’ teaching as disclosed in our text are, however, plain enough. Rejecting all idea of a pre-existing matter, he derives everything from the Supreme Being, whom he considers to be so unspeakably and inconceivably great that he will not even say of Him that He exists. He it is who from the first decreed not only the foundation of the universe but also the means and agency by which this is to be brought about. Nor do the apparent defects in its constitution involve in Basilides’ system any thwarting of the Divine Will by intermediate agents, or any lapse from duty on their part. All things subsequent to the Supreme Being are in effect His children, and from the Panspermia or Seed-Mass originally let fall by Him emerges the First Sonhood, or purest part of the Sonhood, which, rising from the heap by its own lightness and tenuity, springs upward into the presence of the First Cause, where it remains for the purpose of giving light when needed to the lower parts of creation. This is quickly followed by the Second Sonhood (or Second Part of the Sonhood), which, emerging in like manner, rises not from its own unaided power, but with the assistance of the Boundary Spirit, who must have its origin in the Seed-Mass, and who is left as the Boundary between the visible and the invisible part of the universe when the Second Sonhood passes to the Ogdoad or Eighth Heaven. This Eighth Heaven is under the sway of the Great Ruler, a functionary emitted by the Seed-Mass for the purpose of governing this abode of perfection, from which it may be inferred that the Second Sonhood like the First ultimately returns to the presence of the Supreme Being. In his organization of this Eighth Heaven, the Great Ruler is much helped by the Son whom he calls forth from the Seed-Mass, who is expressly stated to be greater and wiser than his own Father.

There remains in the Seed-Mass two other world-creating powers. The first of these is the maker of the Seven Heavens or Hebdomad, which can here hardly be the planets, because they are expressly said to be sublunary. He, too, produces from the Seed-Mass a Son greater and wiser than himself, who again, it may be supposed, assists his father in the organization of this Hebdomad. What form this organization took we are not told, although there is some talk of 365 beings who are all “Dominions and Powers and Authorities” with a ruler called Habrasax. Below this Hebdomad, however, comes this world of ours called the “Formlessness,” which has, it is said, “no leader nor guardian nor demiurge” (_i.e._ architect), everything happening in it as decreed by the Supreme Being from the first. Yet this Formlessness contains within it the Third Sonhood (or third part of the Sonhood) whose mission is apparently to guide the souls of men to the place for which they are predestined, which it does by imparting to them some of its own nature. Then, when the time came for the Coming of the Saviour, a light shining from the highest heavens was transmitted through the intermediate places to the Son of the Hebdomad and fell upon “Jesus the son of Mary,” and He after the Passion ascended like the two first parts of the Sonhood to the Divine Presence. In due time the third part of the Sonhood will, it is said, follow Him. When this happens, the soul predestined to the Seven Heavens will pass thither, those more enlightened will be admitted to the Eighth Heaven, and those entitled to the most glorious destiny of all will probably ascend with the third part of the Sonhood to the Highest. On the two inferior classes, there will then fall the “Great Ignorance,” a merciful oblivion which will prevent them from remembering or otherwise being troubled in their beatitude by the knowledge of the still better things above them.

How the salvation of these souls is to be effected there is no indication in Hippolytus, and he leaves us in entire doubt as to whether Basilides allowed any free-will to man in the matter. It is probable that he taught the doctrine of transmigration as a means of purification from sins or faults committed in ignorance. But it is several times asserted that he looked on suffering as a cleansing process for the soul, and that he did not admit the existence of evil (see Hort’s article on Basilides in _D.C.B._, I, pp. 274, 275 for references). About some of his teaching there was deliberate concealment (_ibid._, p. 279), and Irenæus (I, xxiv. 6), tells us that his followers were taught to declare that while they were “no longer Jews” they were “not yet” (or perhaps “more than”) Christians. In this we may perhaps see the influence of the rubrics of the Egyptian _Book of the Dead_, and the beginning of that secret propagation of religion which was to find its ripest fruit in Manichæism. For the rest, although Irenæus (I, xxiv. 5) tells us that Basilides, like Simon, Valentinus, and other Gnostics, taught that the body of Jesus was a phantasm, and even that Simon of Cyrene had been crucified in His stead, there appears no trace of this in our text, and it is possible that the Bishop of Lyons is here again confusing Basilides’ doctrines with those of his successors.]

[Footnote 2: ὄρος, “hill”; possibly a copyist’s error for ὅρος, “boundary” or “shore.”]

[Footnote 3: This exordium was evidently intended to be spoken.]

[Footnote 4: οὐσία, Cruice and others translate this by “substance.” Here it evidently means “essence” in the sense of “being.”]

[Footnote 5: εἶδος, _i.e._ appearance = that which is seen.]

[Footnote 6: ἄτομος, “which cannot be cut or divided,” = “atom.”]

[Footnote 7: ἀναδέξασθαι τομήν, “receive cutting.”]

[Footnote 8: ζῷον ἁπλῶς. See Aristotle, _Categor._, c. 3. The “living creature” of the A. V. would here make better sense; but I keep the word “animal” in the text out of respect for my predecessors.]

[Footnote 9: ὑπόστασις, literally _substantia_, with no meaning as has οὐσία of “being.” See Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 275.]

[Footnote 10: ἀνείδεον, “abstract,” or “non-specific”?]

[Footnote 11: εἴδεσιν.]

[Footnote 12: The text has ταύτην .... [τὴν οὐσίαν], the words in brackets being rightly deleted, as Cruice notes.]

[Footnote 13: ἐθέμεθα, “posited.”]

[Footnote 14: εἰς εἶδος οὐσίας ὑποστατικῆς, which shows the distinction made by the author between ὀυσία and ὑπόστασις.]

[Footnote 15: ἄτομον, “undivided.”]

[Footnote 16: The text is here corrupt and has to be restored from Aristotle’s, the word I have translated “essence” being as before οὐσία while subject is ὑποκειμένον. Cf. Aristotle _Cat._, c. 5, and _Metaphysica_, IV, c. 8.]

[Footnote 17: Or “of many animals although they differ in species.”]

[Footnote 18: ἔμψυχος, “animated” or “ensouled.”]

[Footnote 19: ἕκαστον [sic]. _One_ of the accidents would make better sense. Cf. vol. I, p. 56 _supra_.]

[Footnote 20: _i.e._ “inherent.”]

[Footnote 21: τὰ ἄτομα.]

[Footnote 22: συμπληροῦται.]

[Footnote 23: οὐσία, which here as elsewhere in the text may be translated “essence.” “Being,” perhaps, is better here as more familiar to the English reader.]

[Footnote 24: These definitions of “accident” and the like are not to be found in the _Categories_ of Aristotle as we have them in the work known as the _Organon_, nor in any other of his extant works. But they correspond with those given in Book VI, and are there attributed to Pythagoras. Cf. p. 21 _supra_.]

[Footnote 25: οὐσία throughout.]

[Footnote 26: That is, makes fables or myths about the gods.]

[Footnote 27: Macmahon remarks that these must be among Aristotle’s lost works. This is doubtful.]

[Footnote 28: ἀποκρύφους. Is Matthias a corruption of Glaucias? See n. on p. 59 _supra_.]

[Footnote 29: Basilides and his son must therefore have been contemporaries of the Apostles. Even if we treat the word αὐτοῖς here as a copyist’s interpolation, it is evident that Basilides must have been considerably anterior in time to Valentinus.]

[Footnote 30: πραγμάτων, “transactions.”]

[Footnote 31: The words in this sentence in square brackets are emendations in the text made by different editors.]

[Footnote 32: πραγμάτων, as in last note but one.]

[Footnote 33: κατὰ πλάτος καὶ διαίρεσιν.]

[Footnote 34: Basilides is thus the first Gnostic to teach the doctrine of creation _e nihilo_.]

[Footnote 35: ὑποστήσας. Cf. the legend of Cybele, Vol. I, p. 118, n. 1 _supra_.]

[Footnote 36: πανσπερμίαν. The word is found in the fragments of Anaxagoras and Democritus as well as in Plato. Its use has been revived by Darwin and Weissmann.]

[Footnote 37: ἰδέας.]

[Footnote 38: οὐσιῶν. Nothing is here got by translating the word “substances.”]

[Footnote 39: πολυούσιον. Galen uses it as equivalent to “very wealthy.”]

[Footnote 40: ὁποῖον. As in Aristotle, _Cate._, c. 5.]

[Footnote 41: This with Hippolytus’ interpolated remark emphasizes the great difference between Basilides’ doctrine with its assertion of the creation _e nihilo_ and the emanation theory of all other Gnostics. It does away with the necessity for a pre-existent matter.]

[Footnote 42: Gen. 1. 3.]

[Footnote 43: John 1. 9. This and “Mine hour is not yet come” are the only undoubted references to the Fourth Gospel made by Basilides.]

[Footnote 44: ἀρχάς.]

[Footnote 45: ὁμοούσιος. The first occurrence, so far as it can be traced, of this too-famous word. If I am right, the interpretation of οὐσία by “substance” came later. The nature of the Sonhood (Υἱότης, Lat., _filietas_, which I translate “Sonhood” by analogy with _paternitas_ = Fatherhood) is peculiar to Basilides, the idea being apparently that within the Panspermia was concealed a germ which was more closely related to its Divine Parent than the rest. The same idea _mutatis mutandis_ reappears in Weissmann’s theory of the germ-plasm.]

[Footnote 46: Homer, _Odyssey_, VII, 36.]

[Footnote 47: δι’ ὑπερβολὴν κάλλους καὶ ὡραιότητος. The longing of all nature for something higher is also mentioned in the Book on the Ophites (See Book V, Vol. I, pp. 123, 140 _supra_). The phrase was evidently a favourite one with Hippolytus, and he therefore uses it in regard to several heresies, as he has done with the magnet simile.]

[Footnote 48: μιμητική τις οὖσα, “being an imitative thing.”]

[Footnote 49: Plato, _Phaedrus_, cc. 55, 56.]

[Footnote 50: ὁμοούσιον.]

[Footnote 51: χαρακτηρισθῆναι.]

[Footnote 52: Ps. cxxxiii. 2.]

[Footnote 53: ἀμορφίας καὶ τοῦ διαστήματος τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς. The ἀμορφία corresponds exactly to the Chaos of the other Gnostics, as contrasted with the Cosmos or ordered world which in this case is above it. In it, as we see later (p. 356 Cr.) there is neither “leader nor guardian nor demiurge,” and everything happens by predestination. The διάστημα we have already met with in the teaching of Simon Magus (p. 261 Cr.). Although in classical Greek it means an “interval,” it is here evidently intended to signify something uncultivated, or, as we should say, a “waste.”]

[Footnote 54: It gives benefit by passing into the souls of certain chosen men and thus enabling them to obtain the highest beatitude. It receives it by thus purifying itself and so working out in turn its own salvation.]

[Footnote 55: He evidently regards the three persons of the Sonhood as one being.]

[Footnote 56: “Cosmos.”]

[Footnote 57: Τὸ Μεθόριον Πνεῦμα.]

[Footnote 58: The likeness of this to the Egyptian Horus who was at once the sky-god and the ruler of the sublunary world, whose earthly representative was the Pharaoh, is manifest. So, too, is its connection with Horos, the Limit, of the Pleroma in Book VI.]

[Footnote 59: So in the _Pistis Sophia_ the great ruler of the material world is only spoken of as the Great Propatôr or Forefather, but his personal name is never mentioned. The word Ἄρχων here applied to this power is never used by later Gnostics except in a bad sense.]

[Footnote 60: δεσπότης = autocrat or ruler having unlimited power.]

[Footnote 61: καθ’ ἕκαστα.]

[Footnote 62: This idea of a Power bringing into being a son greater than himself seems peculiar to Basilides among Gnostic teachers. Its origin may, perhaps, be sought among Pagan religions like the Greek worship of Isis. See _Forerunners_, I, p. 63.]

[Footnote 63: This ἐντελεχεία or Quintessence Aristotle defines (_Metaphys._, X, 9, 2) as actuality or the property of a thing _in posse_ which lends to its motion or activity _in esse_.]

[Footnote 64: ἀποτέλεσμα. The word is much used in astrology.]

[Footnote 65: μεγαλειότητος. The word is post-classical and used in its modern sense as an epithet of the Emperor in Byzantine times. Cf. LXX, Jer. xxxiii. 9; Luke ix. 43; Acts xix. 27.]

[Footnote 66: ῥητός as opposed to ἄρῥητος, “ineffable.”]

[Footnote 67: That is to say, our world.]

[Footnote 68: ὡς φθάσαντα τεχθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ τὰ μέλλοντα γενέσθαι ὁτε δεῖ καὶ οἷα δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ λελογισμένου. The reading is very uncertain. Cf. Cruice, p. 356 nn. 9, 10.]

[Footnote 69: Rom. viii. 22.]

[Footnote 70: Rom. v. 13, 14. In the Greek not ἁμαρτία as in the text, but θάνατος, “death.”]

[Footnote 71: Cf. Exod. vi. 2, 3. Basilides has twisted the last sentence, “By my name Jehovah was I not known to them,” as Hippolytus notes.]

[Footnote 72: ἐκεῖθεν, _i. e._ from the Hebdomad. Cruice will have it from the Ogdoad, but is clearly wrong.]

[Footnote 73: Ἀρχή, “Rule.” Cf. Milton’s “Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, Powers.”]

[Footnote 74: The simile of the vapour of naphtha rising and catching fire from a light above it is apt. As Prof. A. S. Peake points out in his article on “Basilides” in Hastings’ _Dictionary of Religion and Ethics_, Basilides throughout his system asserts in opposition to Gnostics like Valentinus that salvation comes from the uplifting of the lower powers rather than by the degradation of the higher.]

[Footnote 75: There are many conjectural readings of this passage, for which see Cruice.]

[Footnote 76: Prov. i. 7. So Clem. Alex. (_Strom._, II, 8, 36), who clearly quotes this passage from Basilides.]

[Footnote 77: κατασκευή. Cf. LXX, Gen. i. 1.]

[Footnote 78: ἀποκατασταθήσεται. This Apocatastasis, or return of the worlds to the Deity from whom they came forth, is a favourite source of speculation with all Gnostics.]

[Footnote 79: 1 Cor. ii. 13.]

[Footnote 80: A conflation of Ps. xxxii. 5, and Ps. li. 3.]

[Footnote 81: εὐαγγελισθήσεται, “have the good news announced to him”?]

[Footnote 82: It is the words in brackets which connect the system of the text with that attributed to Basilides by Irenæus and Epiphanius. Cf. Iren., I, xxiv. 5, pp. 202, 203, and n. 6, H., and Epiph., _Haer._, XXIV.]

[Footnote 83: Eph. iii. 3, 5.]

[Footnote 84: 2 Cor. xii. 4.]

[Footnote 85: As at the Baptism in Jordan where, according to the almost universal tradition, the water was lighted up.]

[Footnote 86: Luke i. 35.]

[Footnote 87: δύναμις τῆς χρίσεως. Thus in Cruice. Miller would read κρίσεως, and Roeper Ὀγδοάδος. Perhaps the correct reading is χριστός, according to the idea common to nearly all Gnostics that the Christos only came upon Jesus at His Baptism.]

[Footnote 88: ἐγένετο ἄν.]

[Footnote 89: John iffi. 5.]

[Footnote 90: ὑπὸ γένεσιν, “configuration” or “geniture.” The proper word for a theme or horoscope.]

[Footnote 91: It was the Second and not the First Sonhood who left the Holy Spirit at the Boundary.]

[Footnote 92: It is plain from this that Basilides taught that the most spiritual part of man’s soul was part of the Sonhood and that it was separated from the rest at death. This is confirmed by what is said later about what happened after the Passion.]

[Footnote 93: Εὐαγγέλιον = “good news”? The article is omitted in both these sentences.]

[Footnote 94: He of the Ogdoad.]

[Footnote 95: ἠγαλλιάσατο, a kind of pun on Ἐὐαγγέλιον, “glad tidings.”]

[Footnote 96: ἵνα ἀπαρχὴ τῆς φυλοκρινήσεως γένηται τῶν συγκεχυμένων. So Clem. Alex. (_Strom._, II., 8, 36), quoting from the “followers of Basilides,” says that the Great Ruler’s fear became the ἀρχὴ τῆς σοφίας φυλοκρινητικῆς, “the origin of the wisdom which discriminates.”]

[Footnote 97: σωματικὸν μέρος.]

[Footnote 98: This flatly contradicts the story attributed to Basilides by Irenæus to the effect that Simon of Cyrene took His place on the Cross. It has long been thought likely that Irenæus was here confusing Basilides with his contemporary Saturninus.]

[Footnote 99: So in the _Pistis Sophia_, the incorporeal part of man is said to consist of four parts.]

[Footnote 100: ὑπόθεσις.]

[Footnote 101: καὶ τὸ πάθος οὐκ ἄλλου τινὸς χάριν γέγονεν [ἢ] ὑπὲρ τοῦ φυλοκρινηθῆναι τὰ συγκεχυμένα.]

[Footnote 102: As has been said, there appears no reason to doubt that Hippolytus took his account of Basilides’ doctrines directly from the works of that heresiarch or of his son Isidore. The likeness of the quotations from Basilides or “those about Basilides” in Clement of Alexandria--a far more accurate and critical writer than Hippolytus--to our text leave no doubt on this point, and it is even probable that, as Hort thought, most of Hippolytus’ information is gathered from Basilides’ _Exegetica_. His account of the universe and its creation is largely Stoic, as may be seen by a comparison of this chapter with that on the Universe in Prof. E. V. Arnold’s excellent _Roman Stoicism_ (Cambridge, 1911); but he differs from all the Pagan philosophy of his time by his view of matter which he makes neither pre-existent nor malignant. In this, and in the “happy ending” to his drama of the universe, we may perhaps see the result of the Golden Age of the Antonines, and it is to this, perhaps, that he owed the influence that he, without any great followers or successors, had upon the future theology of orthodox and heretic alike. Many of his ideas, and even a few of his very words, appear in documents like the later parts of the _Pistis Sophia_, and in certain Manichæan writings, although the strict monotheism which distinguishes them is in sharp contrast with the dualism of his successors. This begets a doubt whether these last were conscious borrowers of his opinion, or whether both he and they took their doctrines from some common source of Eastern tradition not now recognizable; but on the whole, the first-named hypothesis seems the more probable.]

[Footnote 103: Σατορνεῖλος. So Epiph., _Haer._ XXIII, and Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._, I, 3, spell the name. Iren., I, 22; Eusebius, _H.E._, IV, 7, and later writers spell it Σατορνῖνος. All these accounts, however, together with that in our text, are in effect copies of the chapter in Iren., which is the earliest in time that has remained to us. Salmon in _D.C.B._, s.v. “Saturninus,” thinks that this last is itself copied from Justin Martyr, which is likely enough, but remains without proof.]

[Footnote 104: Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXIII, p. 124, Oehl. adds to this that Saturninus and Basilides were co-disciples, which, if true, would connect their systems with Menander’s teacher, Simon Magus. Nothing further is, however, known about Saturnilus or Saturninus or his heresy, which Epiphanius makes the third after Christ, nor is there any mention in any of the heresiologies of any writings by him. His story of a First or Pattern Man made in the image of the Supreme Being is common, as has been said, to many of the early heresies, and reappears in Manichæism. It is probably to be referred to some tradition current in Western Asia. See Bousset’s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, cap. “Der Urmensch.”]

[Footnote 105: τῆς αὐθεντίας, “one who holds absolute rule.” _Summa potestas_, Cr.]

[Footnote 106: Cf. Gen. i. 26.]

[Footnote 107: This story is also met with among the Ophites. See Iren. (I, xxx. 5), where life is given to the grovelling figure by Jaldabaoth, the chief of the seven powers. Epiphanius adds to it that the world-makers divided the cosmos among them by lot, and that it was a spark of his own Power that the “Power on high” sent down for the vivification of the First Man, “which spark, he says, they fancy to be the human soul.”]

[Footnote 108: καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐξ ὧν ἐγένετο, εἰς ἐκεῖνα ἀναλύεσθαι.]

[Footnote 109: So Miller. Theodoret has Σωτῆρα, “Saviour,” for Father.]

[Footnote 110: Words in ( ) restored from Epiphanius.]

[Footnote 111: No necessary mistake or confusion, as has been thought. The “deposition” might be merely that of an unsuccessful general, as in Manichæism.]

[Footnote 112: Marcion of Pontus was the heresiarch most dreaded by the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and is said to have led away from the Primitive Church a greater number of adherents than any teacher of that age, with the doubtful exception of Valentinus. He also differed from all other heretics of the time in setting up a Church fully equipped with bishops, priests, and deacons over against the Catholic, and in seeing that his followers openly avowed their faith in times of persecution. He rejected the Old Testament entirely, and reduced the New to a shorter edition of the Gospel of St. Luke and ten of the Epistles of St. Paul. This has led to his heresy receiving more attention than any other of its contemporaries at the hands of modern scholars, especially in Germany. Hence it is to be regretted that the chapter in our text which is devoted to him adds nothing to our knowledge of his history or tenets, while its statement that Marcion called the Demiurge πονηρός (wicked) shows either that Hippolytus was ignorant of Marcion’s opinions, or that he misread his authority. The first is the more likely theory, as his master Irenæus gives a more scanty account of Marcion than of any other heretic, while promising to write a special treatise against him. This intention does not seem to have been carried out, and it is probable that while the Marcionite heresy flourished at an early date in the Eastern provinces of the Empire, it had too slight a hold in the West to have given such writers as Irenæus and Hippolytus much first-hand knowledge concerning it. It is also noted that in the so-called “epitome of heresies” in Book X, Hippolytus does not, after his manner with the other heresies, quote from this chapter.]

[Footnote 113: τοῦ παντός. This expression, as has been many times said above, means the universe without the Void. It does not therefore, exclude the collateral existence of Chaos or unformed matter.]

[Footnote 114: This accusation of incontinence against Marcion is disproved by Tertullian, _de Præscript_, c. 30. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, 206, n. 5.]

[Footnote 115: Φιλία, Cr., “_Amicitia_,” Macm., “Friendship.” The stronger word Love seems to express better Hippolytus’ meaning. It is, of course, distinct from the ἀγάπη or “charity” of the A. V.]

[Footnote 116: He refers to the scanty account of Empedocles’ doctrines in Book I, _q.v._]

[Footnote 117: κλεψιλόγος, “word-stealer.”]

[Footnote 118: κοσμεῖται, “set in order.”]

[Footnote 119: κρούνωμα βρότειον, ll. 55-57, Karsten; 33-35, Stein. Cr. translates these words _humanam scaturiginem_, and Macm., “the mortal font.” It is difficult to assign any meaning to them in the absence of the context.]

[Footnote 120: τρεφομένοις, “things in course of nurture.”]

[Footnote 121: ζῷα, “animals.”]

[Footnote 122: He appears to ignore the desert, or perhaps thinks this no part of the _ordered_ world.]

[Footnote 123: ὑπόθεσιν, lit., “substructure.”]

[Footnote 124: πνεῦμα, a manifest slip for Ἀήρ as before.]

[Footnote 125: στοργή, as in the N. T.]

[Footnote 126: ὀλέθριον.]

[Footnote 127: εἰς τὸ ἓν ἀποκαταστάσεως. The Codex has τὸν ἕνα. That the meaning is as given above, see p. 373 Cr., where we find ἐκ πολλῶν ποιήσῃ τὸ ἕν κ.τ.λ.]

[Footnote 128: ll. 110, 111, Stein. In p. 274 Cr., _supra_, these lines are quoted as the opinions of “the Pythagoreans.”]

[Footnote 129: τὸ πᾶν, not τὸ ὅλον. See n. on I, p. 35 _supra_.]

[Footnote 130: ἰδέα, “species”; so Cruice.]

[Footnote 131: κλάδοι, lit., “branches.”]

[Footnote 132: ll. 107, 205, Karsten.]

[Footnote 133: l. 7, Karsten; 381, Stein.]

[Footnote 134: ll. 4, Karsten; 372, 373, Stein.]

[Footnote 135: l. 5, Karsten; 374, Stein.]

[Footnote 136: νοητός, “that which can be understood by the mind rather than by the senses.”]

[Footnote 137: εἴδεα θνητῶν, “forms of mortals.”]

[Footnote 138: ll. 6, Karsten; 375, 376, Stein.]

[Footnote 139: ll. 15-19, Karsten; 377-380, Stein.]

[Footnote 140: μεμερισμένου, _minutatim divisi_, Cr.]

[Footnote 141: ἐγκρατεῖς εἶναι, “to be abstainers.”]

[Footnote 142: ll. 1, 2, Karsten; 369, 370, Stein.]

[Footnote 143: νοητήν, as before.]

[Footnote 144: ἐπινοεῖσθαι.]

[Footnote 145: Reading for ἀδινῇσιν ... πραπίδεσσιν, ἰδυιῄσι πραπίδεσσιν, as in Hom., _Il._, I, 608.]

[Footnote 146: Φύσις ἑκάστῳ, “the nature of each one”?]

[Footnote 147: Cf. ll. 313 _sqq._, Karsten, and 222 _sqq._, Stein. Schneidewin has restored the very bad text in _Philologus_, VI, 166. But the lines are still obscure--even for Empedocles. They seem to hint at a hidden meaning, to be got by study.]

[Footnote 148: κολοβοδάκτυλος. See _Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology_ (Cambridge), March 1855, p. 87. The story of St. Mark cutting off his thumb to make himself ineligible for the priesthood is quoted by Cruice from St. Jerome.]

[Footnote 149: ἀντιπαράθεσιν, “the setting over against.”]

[Footnote 150: ὑπολαμβάνεις. Cr. and Macm. both translate, “as you suppose them to be.” But Marcion could have been in no doubt as to his own opinions.]

[Footnote 151: Marcion did not say that the Demiurge, whom he probably identified with the God of the Jews, was wicked. On the contrary, he said that he was just, though harsh. See _Forerunners_, II, xi.]

[Footnote 152: εὐαγγελίζῃ.]

[Footnote 153: Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, as quoted in Book VIII, p. 422 Cr.]

[Footnote 154: Reading τοὺς σεαυτοῦ μαθητάς for the τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητάς of the text.]

[Footnote 155: All this argument is a _petitio principii_ of the most flagrant kind. There is nothing in the quotations here given from Empedocles to show that that philosopher made Love and Strife the two ἀρχαί of the universe, as Empedocles associates with them the four “elements” of Fire, Earth, Water and Air, and Ἀνάγκη or Fate seems, according to his teaching, to be superior to them all. The quotations prove, however, that Empedocles taught metempsychosis, unless Hippolytus is here confusing him with Pythagoras. Marcion did not, and the reason that he gave for abstinence from animal food is different from that attributed to Empedocles. The quotations themselves are much corrupted, and Hippolytus seems to have taken them from memory only, as he is careful to say that these are “something like this.” All of them appear in Karsten’s or Stein’s collections, which were made before the discovery of our text, and are, therefore, an argument against Salmon’s theory of forgery.]

[Footnote 156: καθαριωτάτη, “purest.”]

[Footnote 157: This Prepon, probably a Syrian, is mentioned by no other writer except Theodoret, who doubtless borrowed from our text. The “Bardesianes” was probably the famous Bardaisan or Ibn Daisan who taught at Edessa and was a follower of Valentinus. It is noteworthy that the Armenian author, Eznig of Goghp, gives a different account of Marcion’s teaching from any of the Western heresiologists and makes him admit the independent existence of a third principle in the shape of malignant matter. For this, see _Forerunners_, II, p. 217, n. 2.]

[Footnote 158: διαφερούσας, “differentiated”?]

[Footnote 159: ll. 338-341, Stein. Schneidewin has restored the lines as far as is possible.]

[Footnote 160: ὑπόπλασμα, “that which has been moulded.”]

[Footnote 161: Μεσίτης. Not intercessor, but something placed between two others.]

[Footnote 162: Not St. Paul, but Luke xvii. 19.]

[Footnote 163: There is no indication of the source from which Hippolytus drew the material for this chapter. It does not seem to have been the writings of Irenæus, for his remarks in I, xxv tell us even less about Marcion than our text. Possibly Hippolytus was here indebted to the work of Justin Martyr, which seems to have been extant in the time of Photius. With the exception of the notice of Prepon, our text contains nothing that was not known otherwise.]

[Footnote 164: This Carpocrates, whom Epiphanius calls Carpocras, seems to have been another of “the great Gnostics of Hadrian’s time,” and to have been learned in the Platonic philosophy. He is mentioned by all the heresiologists, but there is little that is distinctive about his tenets as they have come down to us, and his followers were probably few. They are accused by Irenæus, from whose chapter on the subject Hippolytus’ account is condensed, of a kind of Antinomianism having its origin in the contention that all actions are indifferent.]

[Footnote 165: μετὰ τοῦ ἀγενήτου Θεοῦ περιφορᾷ.]

[Footnote 166: χωρήσασαν can only apply to ψυχή. The return of the Power to the Deity could not be supposed to affect other souls.]

[Footnote 167: ὁμοίως.]

[Footnote 168: κατήργησε.]

[Footnote 169: τῆς ὑπερκειμένης ἐξουσίας. Cruice points out that these words have slipped into the text from the margin. Irenæus has ex _eadem circumlatione devenientes_, “descending from the same sphere,” which is doubtless correct.]

[Footnote 170: εἰς διαβολήν, probably a play on διάβολος.]

[Footnote 171: ἐν μιᾷ παρουσίᾳ, “in one appearance.”]

[Footnote 172: κατασκευάζουσι, “mould or cast.”]

[Footnote 173: This chapter is in effect a condensation of Irenæus I, xx, which it follows closely. Hippolytus omits mention of the obscenities attributed to the sect which are hinted at by Irenæus and described fully by Epiphanius. Irenæus also mentions that they claimed to get their doctrine from the secret teaching of Jesus to the Apostles, that one Marcellina taught their heresy in Rome under Pope Anicetus, and that the images of Christ were worshipped by them, _more Gentilium_, along with those of Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. Epiphanius derives the heresy from Simon Magus. It is suggested that the branding by which they knew each other was due to a “baptism by fire.”]

[Footnote 174: This chapter also is practically identical with Irenæus I, xxi, which is extant in the Latin version. Cerinthus was one of the earliest of the Gnostics and tradition makes him contemporary with St. John. He was probably a member of the Jewish-Alexandrian school of Philo, and Epiphanius (_Haer._ XXVIII) adds to Irenæus’ account that he taught in Asia, and especially in Galatia.]

[Footnote 175: αὐθεντίας, as before.]

[Footnote 176: κηρύξας, perhaps “preached.”]

[Footnote 177: Does this amount to an admission of the resurrection of the body? If so it is in marked contrast to the Docetism of Marcion and others.]

[Footnote 178: Ἐβιοναῖοι, Latin [Iren.] _qui dicuntur Ebionæi_, as if they were followers of a mythical leader Ebion. The existence of any founder of this name is now generally given up, and the word is more probably a mere transliteration of the Hebrew אביון, “poor.” The Ebionites were in all likelihood Judaizing Christians who had remained behind in Palestine through the wars of Titus and Hadrian, and still kept to the observance of the Mosaic Law. The brief statement in our text is probably derived from Hippolytus’ recollection of Irenæus, I, c. 21, the first sentence being in nearly the same words in both authors. Irenæus adds to it that they used the gospel of St. Matthew only and did not consider St. Paul as an apostle, because he did not keep the Law; also that they adored Jerusalem as the “house of God.”]

[Footnote 179: μυθεύουσιν, “fable.” Irenæus’ Latin version here inserts a _non_, evidently a clerical error.]

[Footnote 180: ποιήσαντα, Cruice, _servare_, Macm., “fulfilled.” In either case a curious meaning for ποιέω. Cf. the ποιέω τὴν μουσικήν of Plato, _Phaedo_, 60. E.]

[Footnote 181: In the accounts of the two Theodoti, which may here be taken together, Hippolytus leaves Irenæus, from whom he has hitherto been content to copy his account of the smaller heresies, and draws from some source not yet identified, but which may be the _Little Labyrinth_ of Caius (see Salmon in _D.C.B._, s.v. “Theodotus.”). His description of the heresy of Theodotus of Byzantium corresponds with that of Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._, V, 28). The Melchizedekian theory of the “other” Theodotus is mentioned by Philaster (c. 53, p. 54, Oehl.) without reference to Theodotus, although on the preceding page he has given the Byzantine heresy as in our text. Pseudo-Tertullian in _Adv. Omn. Haer._ (II, p. 764, Oehl.) gives the story of both Theodoti much as here, which may give support to the theory that this tract is a summary of the lost _Syntagma_ of Hippolytus. Epiphanius (_Haer._ XXXIV, XXXV) divides the Melchizedekians from the Theodotians, and says the first were ἀποσπασθέντες from the second, but without naming the banker. He also gives some particulars about the first Theodotus, which he does not seem to have taken from Hippolytus. He quotes one Hierax as saying that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit, and says that “some” say that Heracles was his father and Astaroth or Asteria his mother, while Melchizedek plays a great part in the earliest part of the _Pistis Sophia_ as the “Receiver of the Light.”]

[Footnote 182: ἀποσπάσας, lit., “torn away.”]

[Footnote 183: So that Hippolytus believed in the mythical founder of the Ebionites.]

[Footnote 184: εὐσεβέστατον.]

[Footnote 185: _i. e._ the heretics.]

[Footnote 186: γνῶμαι.]

[Footnote 187: Acts vi. 5.]

[Footnote 188: Rev. ii. 6.]

[Footnote 189: This Cerdo is only known to us as a predecessor of Marcion, whose teaching he appears to have influenced, although in what measure cannot now be ascertained. His date seems to be fairly well settled as about the year 135 (see _D.C.B._, s.h.v.), which is that of his coming to Rome, and it was doubtless here that Marcion met him. According to Irenæus, his teaching was mainly in secret and he was always ready to make submission to the Church and recant his errors when publicly arraigned. His doctrine, so far as it has come down to us, does not seem to differ from that of Marcion, Tertullian (_adv. Marcion_) and the tractate _Adv. Omn. Haer._ giving the best account of it. Of Lucian, we know nothing, save that, while Epiphanius (_Haer._ XLII, p. 688, Oehl.) makes him out the immediate successor of Marcion and to have been succeeded by Apelles, Tertullian (_de Resurrectione_, c. 2) speaks of him--if he be the person there referred to as Lucanus--as an independent teacher with no apparent connection with Marcion’s heresy. He adds that he taught a resurrection neither of the body nor of the soul, but of some part of man which he calls a “third nature.” See _Forerunners_, II, p. 218, n. 2, and 220.]

[Footnote 190: Ἀντιπαραθέσεις. See n. on p. 88 _supra_.]

[Footnote 191: Of this Apelles, our knowledge is mainly derived from Tertullian, for references to whom see Hort’s article “Apelles” in _D.C.B._ He was certainly later than Marcion, for Rhodo (see Euseb., _Hist. Eccl._, V, c. 13), writing at the end of the second century, A.D., speaks of him as still alive, though an “old man.” The same author seems to consider that on Marcion’s death he founded a sect of his own, in which he “corrected” Marcion’s teaching in some particulars. This is doubtful, but Rhodo’s statements go to show that he quoted from the Old Testament and did not hold the body of Jesus to be a phantasm. Tertullian also mentions several times the connection of Apelles with the “possessed” Philumene, on which he puts a construction negatived by the evidence of Rhodo. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, pp. 218-220.]

[Footnote 192: Hippolytus here accepts the statement of Tertullian (_de Præscript._, c. 30) that Apelles wrote a book called Φανερώσεις, or _Manifestations_, containing the prophecies of Philumene. He repeats this with more distinctness in Book X, c. 20, _q. v._]

[Footnote 193: ἄσαρκον.]

[Footnote 194: οὐσία.]

[Footnote 195: ἀνασκολοπισθέντα, lit., “impaled.” It is, however, used by both Philo and Lucian as equivalent to “crucified.”]

[Footnote 196: This “giving back” of the component parts of man’s being to the different powers from which they are derived is a frequent theme among the later Gnostics, and is fully described in the _Pistis Sophia_. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, p. 184.]

[Footnote 197: The source of this chapter is certainly the tractate _Adv. Omn. Haer._, formerly attributed to Tertullian and to be found in the second volume of that author’s works in Oehler’s edition. No other author mentions Apelles with such particularity, and all those subsequent to Tertullian appear to have taken their information either from Tertullian’s other works, from this tractate, or from our text. This tractate has been discussed in the Introduction (see Vol. I, pp. 12 and 23 _supra_) and perhaps all difficulties may be solved by supposing it to be, not indeed the actual _Syntagma_ of Hippolytus, but a summary of it.]