of “substance.” No such substances are mentioned in Book IV as it has
come down to us.]
[Footnote 187: The wine used in the Marcosian Eucharist was evidently
_mixtum_, not _merum_. Some effervescent powder is indicated.]
[Footnote 188: ἐξαφανίσας; Cr. translates _seduxit_.]
[Footnote 189: εὐκόλους ... πρὸς τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν. Cf. the doctrine of
certain Antinomian sects that “God sees no sin in His elect.”]
[Footnote 190: Ἀπολύτρωσις, perhaps “Ransom.”]
[Footnote 191: πανούργημα.]
[Footnote 192: In one of the documents of the _Pistis Sophia_, (p.
238, Copt) a “mystery” to be spoken “into the two ears” of an initiate
about to die is described. The idea was evidently to provide him with
a password which would enable him to escape the “punishments” of the
intermediate state, and is to be traced to Egyptian beliefs.]
[Footnote 193: ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων, perhaps “to the utmost.”]
[Footnote 194: ἀφορμαί. In the _Philosophumena_, the word nearly always
bears this construction.]
[Footnote 195: οἱ ἐντυχόντες.]
[Footnote 196: ἀεὶ ἀρνεῖσθαι. Cf. the “_Geist der stets verneint_” of
Goethe.]
[Footnote 197: συγκεχωρήσθω.]
[Footnote 198: “His attempted heresy.”]
[Footnote 199: Like the rest of this section and most of this chapter,
Hippolytus here follows Irenæus _verbatim_. Why the apparition of the
Tetrad should be more supportable in female than in male shape can only
be guessed; but the frequent personification of the Great Goddess of
Western Asia may have had something to do with it.]
[Footnote 200: οὗ πατὴρ οὐδεὶς ἦν, “whose father was no one”--a curious
expression in place of the more concise ἀπάτωρ.]
[Footnote 201: καὶ ἦν ἡ συλλαβὴ αὐτοῦ στοιχείων τεσσάρων, “and taken
together it was of four letters.” He is punning here on the double
sense of στοιχεῖον as meaning both “letter” and “element.” In the Magic
Papyrus of Leyden which calls itself “Monas, the 8th (book?) of Moses,”
there is a curious account of how the light and the rest of creation
were brought into being by the successive words or rather the laughter
of the Creator. Cf. Leemans, _Papyri Græci_, etc., Leyden, 1885, II,
pp. 83 ff.]
[Footnote 202: γράμματα.]
[Footnote 203: χαρακτῆρα, “impress,” or character as we might say Greek
characters or script. The different meanings of στοιχεῖα, γράμματα, and
χαρακτήρ are here well marked.]
[Footnote 204: So Irenæus.]
[Footnote 205: τὴν ἀποκατάστασιν. This Return to the Deity was, as has
been shown above, the great preoccupation of all these Gnostic sects.
They may have borrowed it from the Stoic philosophy. Cf. Arnold, _Roman
Stoicism_, p. 193.]
[Footnote 206: The primitive Church attributed great power to the
ritual utterance of the word Amen. Thus Ignatius’ second Epistle to the
Ephesians: “There was hidden from the ruler of this world the virginity
of Mary, and the birth of our Lord, and the three mysteries of the
shout ... and hereby ... magic began to be dissolved and all bonds to
be loosed and the ancient kingdom and the error of evil, is destroyed”
(Cureton’s translation, London, 1845, p. 15); but Lightfoot would read
κήροξις, “proclamation,” for κραυγή, “shout.” In the _Pistis Sophia_
the word Amen is used to denote a class of Powers concerned apparently
with the organization of the Kerasmos or semi-material world and called
sometimes “the Three” and sometimes “the Seven Amens.”]
[Footnote 207: τοὺς [φθόγγους]. The word in brackets is not in the
Codex, but is supplied from the corresponding passage in Irenæus.]
[Footnote 208: πρόσωπον, a word which, as Hatch noted, is used for the
character or part played by an actor in a drama. Matt. xviii. 10 is
here evidently alluded to.]
[Footnote 209: Cf. the Stoic theory of λόγοι σπερματικοί or
“seed-Powers,” for which, see Arnold, _op. cit._, p. 161.]
[Footnote 210: προήκατο.]
[Footnote 211: That is to say, before Chaos was organized and the Aeons
brought into existence.]
[Footnote 212: A plain reference to the Ectroma or Sophia Without.]
[Footnote 213: ἰδίᾳ τῶν γραμμάτων γραφέντων (Miller). The Codex has διὰ
for ἰδίᾳ and γραφέντος for γραφέντων. Cruice bungles the passage and
Macmahon omits it. It is not found in Irenæus.]
[Footnote 214: _e. g._ the δ can be written δ, ε, λ, τ, α.]
[Footnote 215: ὑπόστασις.]
[Footnote 216: A pun on the name of the Supreme Father, Bythos or the
Deep.]
[Footnote 217: φιλοπονία and ματαιοπονία.]
[Footnote 218: Or Truth.]
[Footnote 219: _i. e._ Man.]
[Footnote 220: It would seem from this that Marcus, following perhaps
in this the Anatolic School of Valentinus, made Sige not the spouse of
Bythos but merely another name for Aletheia.]
[Footnote 221: τῆς διανοίας νόημα. As if he were trying to avoid
writing the word Nous.]
[Footnote 222: Hippolytus or Marcus here plays upon the identity of
the ἐπίσημον or digamma, the name of the sixth letter in the Greek
alphabet, which was used for numeration only, and the adjective
ἐπίσημον, “illustrious.”]
[Footnote 223: The word in brackets supplied from Irenæus.]
[Footnote 224: ὧν τὰ μεγέθη. The allusion seems to be again to Matt.
xviii. 10. The angels might well be considered on the Valentinian
theory the greater parts or counterparts of their terrestrial spouses.
In Epiphanius τὸ Μέγεθος seems to be used for the Supreme Being. Cf.
_Panar. Haer._, XXXI, p. 314, Oehl. The passage is said to be suspect.]
[Footnote 225: One of the later documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks
repeatedly of certain τριδυναμεις or τριδυναμοι (both spellings are
used) which seem to hold a very exalted rank in the scale of beings,
alike in the spiritual and the material parts of the universe.]
[Footnote 226: φ, χ, θ, η, κ, τ, β, γ, δ.]
[Footnote 227: λ, μ, ν, ρ, ς, ζ, ξ, ψ.]
[Footnote 228: τὰ φωνήεντα.]
[Footnote 229: α, ε, η, ι, ο, υ, ω.]
[Footnote 230: μορφὴν αὐτοῖς περιεποίησεν, “has put shape round them.”]
[Footnote 231: Reading Ἐπειδὴ with Irenæus instead of the Ἐπὶ δὲ of
Hippolytus.]
[Footnote 232: So that the “ineffable” name of Christ consisted of 30
letters. So Epiphanius, _Haer._, XXXIV, p. 448, Oehl. No guess hitherto
made as to its transliteration into Greek letters seems entirely
satisfactory; but Harvey (_Iren._, I, p. 146, nn. 1, 2), shows that χὶ,
ρὼ, εἴψιλον (for which spelling Nigidius Figulus and Aulus Gellius are
quoted), ἰῶτα, σῖγμα, ταῦ, οὐ (for ὀμικρόν), and, again, σῖγμα, can be
made to count 30.]
[Footnote 233: The text has ἀναλογίας, for which Miller rightly
restores οἰκονομίας from Irenæus. Cf. p. 318 Cr. _infra_.]
[Footnote 234: πεφηνέναι. Irenæus has πεφυκέναι, “grew.”]
[Footnote 235: See the Transfiguration according to Matt. xvii. and
Mark ix.]
[Footnote 236: Or “the Episemon.”]
[Footnote 237: π = 80, ε 5, ρ 100, ι 10, σ 200, τ 300, ε 5, ρ 100, α 1
= 801. So Α 1 + Ω 800 = 801.]
[Footnote 238: Ἡ παρασκευή. “The Preparation” (for the Passover) _i.
e._ Friday.]
[Footnote 239: τὸν τῶν ἕξ ἀριθμὸν, δύναμιν ποιήσεως κτλ. So Irenæus’
Latin translation, “_Scientem eum numerum qui est sex virtutem
fabricationis et regenerationem habentem_.”]
[Footnote 240: 6 + 24 = 30.]
[Footnote 241: τῆς αὐτοβουλήτου βουλῆς ... ὁ καρπός, “the Fruit of the
self-counselled Council,” Irenæus.]
[Footnote 242: μιμήσει τὴς Ἑβδομάδος δυνάμεως ἐψύχωσε κόσμον, “imparted
in imitation of the seven powers animation to this world,” (Macmahon);
but see Irenæus in _loc. cit._]
[Footnote 243: As before, this probably means “Desire.”]
[Footnote 244: This seems the first time we meet with the idea of “The
Column of Praises” of the Manichæans which mounting from the earth and
bearing with it the prayers and praises of mankind plays with them a
considerable part in the redemption of Light from Matter.]
[Footnote 245: Ps. viii. 2.]
[Footnote 246: Ps. xix. 1.]
[Footnote 247: Irenæus puts what follows into the mouth of “the
all-wise Sige.” A section dealing with the name of Aletheia is omitted
by Hippolytus.]
[Footnote 248: Or perhaps “Unity in Solitude.”]
[Footnote 249: _i. e._ “Ineffable.”]
[Footnote 250: Four, unless we spell the word as he apparently does,
Σειγή.]
[Footnote 251: In the section omitted (see n. 2 _supra_) the “body of
Aletheia” is said to be δωδεκάμελος or “of 12 members,” which points to
some different notation.]
[Footnote 252: Cf. Rev. xix. 11-13.]
[Footnote 253: As Harvey (_Iren._, I, p. 145, n. 3) points out, this
forced isopsephism is only reached by spelling Eta ηι and the Iota in
Χριστός εἶ. He quotes Aulus Gellius in support.]
[Footnote 254: The words in brackets ( ) are not in Irenæus and are
probably the addition of some commentator.]
[Footnote 255: The Codex has χρι.]
[Footnote 256: π = 80, ε = 5, ρ = 100, ι = 10, σ = 200, τ = 300, ε =
5, ρ = 100, α = 1: total 801. It is evident, therefore that Marcus
considered Christ and the Holy Spirit to be the same Person.]
[Footnote 257: ἄρῥητον γένεσιν, “unspoken derivation”?]
[Footnote 258: δεκαοκτώ, an unusual word, unknown to classical Greek.]
[Footnote 259: Words in square brackets [ ] supplied from Irenæus.]
[Footnote 260: δημιουργία. Here, as elsewhere, the word implies
construction from previously existing matter.]
[Footnote 261: τὸν τόπον ἀναπεπληρωκέναι.]
[Footnote 262: Cf. Luke i. 35.]
[Footnote 263: κατ’ οἰκονομίαν. This seems here the meaning of the
word. See Döllinger, _First Age of Christianity_, Eng. ed., p. 170,
n. 2, Hatch; _Influence of Greek Ideas upon the Christian Church_, p.
131; Tollinton, _Clement of Alexandria_, II, p. 13, and n. 1, for other
meanings.]
[Footnote 264: This seems unintelligible unless we suppose the “body of
Aletheia,” said above to be the number 12, to be the heaven known as
“the Place of Truth.” Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 128, Copt.]
[Footnote 265: The same expression is used in the _Pistis Sophia_ where
Jesus “sows” a power of light in Elizabeth the mother of John the
Baptist. Cf. p. 12, Copt.]
[Footnote 266: Or “Arrangement.” Marcus, perhaps here imitating
Valentinus, postulates several Saviours, one of whom restores order in
the arrangement of the Aeons before coming to this earth.]
[Footnote 267: In Irenæus there follows here a lengthy “refutation”
of Marcus’ doctrines and a poem condemning him and his teaching which
some think to be the work of Pothinus, Irenæus’ martyred predecessor at
Lyons.]
[Footnote 268: With this sentence, Hippolytus again picks up his
quotations from Irenæus.]
[Footnote 269: πάθος, “a passion” or “The Passion”?]
[Footnote 270: πεπλανῆσθαι.]
[Footnote 271: Irenæus’ Latin version here makes better
sense:--_Similiter et a duodecade abscedentum unam virtutem perisse
divinant et hanc esse mulierem quae perdiderit drachmam, et accenderit
lucernam, et invenerit eam._]
[Footnote 272: α = 1, μ 40, η 8, ν 50, total 99. Writers of the
sub-Apostolic age seem to have laid much stress on the miraculous power
of the word Amen when uttered in unison. Cf. the Epistle of Ignatius to
the Ephesians (Cureton’s translation), p. 15, as to the “mysteries of
the shout.”]
[Footnote 273: Thus α = 1, β 2, γ 3, δ 4, ε 5, ζ 7, η 8 = 30.]
[Footnote 274: εἰς ὁλόκληρον. Because the decad is a “perfect” number.]
[Footnote 275: ἐπισυμπλέκοντες καὶ δεκαπλασιάσαντες.]
[Footnote 276: τῆς ἄνω οἰκονομίας. The word can here mean nothing else.]
[Footnote 277: α = 1, β 2, γ 3, δ 4, ε 5, ζ 7, η 8, θ 9, ι 10, κ 20, λ
30 = 99.]
[Footnote 278: Because the Episemon has no τόπος.]
[Footnote 279: στοιχεῖον here used for “character.”]
[Footnote 280: ΛΛ = M.]
[Footnote 281: ὑστέρημα; the usual Gnostic name for the Void.]
[Footnote 282: This section passes over Irenæus’ refutation of the
last, and forms the beginning of the Xth Chap. (p. 164, H.).]
[Footnote 283: There must be some mistake here, as the Sun and Moon
were included among the seven planetary heavens.]
[Footnote 284: Not of course the Egyptian god, but the Gnostic “Limit”
or Cross. The passage is not very clear.]
[Footnote 285: Irenæus has φαεινῆς, “radiant,” and the text κενῆς,
“empty”; Irenæus’ Latin version “_non apparentes_” or invisible.
Probably μεγάλης was the original word.]
[Footnote 286: κατὰ κάθετον. Macmahon thinks this refers to the
position of the sun, which is unnecessary.]
[Footnote 287: Irenæus omits the words “of the Ogdoad.”]
[Footnote 288: κατάλυσιν λαβεῖν, “receive dissolution.”]
[Footnote 289: καινότερα. The text has κενώτερα, “more inane.”]
[Footnote 290: περιεργίας, “bye-work.”]
[Footnote 291: Κολάρβασος. The name which is repeated by Tertullian,
Philaster and Theodoret can be traced back to the single passage in
Irenæus, where it appears in connection with the name Σιγή as “the
Sige of Colarbasus.” A German commentator long since suggested that
it was not the name of a brother heretic or follower of Marcus, but a
corruption of the words קל־ארבע Qol-Arba, or the “Voice of the Four,”
and this seems now generally accepted. As most if not all of Marcus’
pretended revelations are said to have been dictated to him by an
apparition of the Supreme Tetrad, he may well have called the book in
which they were written and which seems to have been known to Irenæus,
by some such name.]
[Footnote 292: It seems needless to point out that the whole of these
chapters dealing with the real or supposed successors of Valentinus is
taken direct from Irenæus, and that they have no relation to any other
author.]
[Sidenote: p. 333.] BOOK VII
BASILIDES, SATURNILUS, AND OTHERS
1. These are the contents of the 7th (Book) of the _Refutation of All
Heresies_.
2. What is the opinion of Basilides, and that he, having been struck
with the doctrines of Aristotle, constructed his heresy from them.
3. And what things Satornilus, who flourished at the same time as
Basilides, says.
4. How Menander set himself to declare that the world came into being
by angels.
5. What was the madness of Marcion, and that his doctrine is neither
new nor (taken) from the Holy Scriptures, but comes from Empedocles.
6. How Carpocrates talks foolishness, and thinks existing things to
have been produced by angels.
7. That Cerinthus in no way framed his opinion from Scripture, but out
of the teachings of the Egyptians.
[Sidenote: p. 334.] 8. What are the Ebionites’ opinions, and that they
prefer to cleave to the Jewish customs.
9. How Theodotus also erred, having borrowed some things from the
Ebionites [but others from the Gnostics].
10. And what was taught by Cerdo, who both declared things (taken) from
Empedocles and wickedly put forward Marcion.
11. And how Lucian, becoming a disciple of Marcion, did not blush to
blaspheme God.
12. Of whom Apelles becoming a disciple, did not teach the same things
as (the rest of) the school, but being moved by the doctrines of the
physicists, supposed an essence for the universe.
1. _About Basilides._[1]
[Sidenote: p. 335.] 13. Seeing that the doctrines of the heretics are
like a sea lashed into waves by the force of the winds, their hearers
ought to sail through them in quest of the calm harbour. For such a
sea is both wild and hard to overpass, as the Sicilian (sea) is said
to be, wherein are fabled to be Cyclops and Charybdis and Scylla
and ... the Sirens’ rock.[2] Which sea the Greek poets make out that
Odysseus sailed through, skilfully availing himself of the terror of
those fierce beasts: for their cruelty to those sailing among them
was notorious. But the Sirens, singing clearly and musically for the
beguiling of those sailing past, persuaded with their sweet voices
those who listened to approach them. And they say that Odysseus,
hearing this, stopped with wax his companions’ ears, but having had
himself bound to the mast sailed without danger past the Sirens while
listening to their song. Which I advise those who meet with them to
do, and either having on account of weakness stopped their ears with
wax to sail through the teachings of the heretics without listening to
what, like the shrill song of the Sirens, might easily persuade them to
pleasure; or else to bind themselves to the Cross of Christ, hearkening
faithfully (to Him) and (thus) not to be harassed, being persuaded
(only) by Him to whom they [Sidenote: p. 336.] are bound and standing
upright.[3]
14. Since now we have set forth in the six Books before this, the
(opinions) which have gone before, it seems now that we should not
keep silent about those of Basilides which are those of Aristotle the
Stagirite, and not of Christ. But although the doctrines of Aristotle
have been before expounded, we shall not shrink from now setting them
forth in epitome, so that the teacher by their closer comparison may
readily perceive that the sophisms of Basilides are those of Aristotle.
15. Aristotle, then, divides being[4] into three. For one part of
it is genus, another, as he says, species,[5] and another something
undivided.[6] But the atom is so called, not because [Sidenote: p.
337.] of the smallness of its body, but because by its nature it can in
no way be cut. But the genus is, as it were, a heap composed of many
different seeds. From which heap-resembling genus, all the species
of existent things are severed;[7] and it is (one) genus which is
sufficient for all things which have come into being. In order that
this may be clear, I will point out an example whereby the whole theory
of the Peripatetic can be retraced.
16. Let us say that there exists simply “animal,”[8] not any particular
animal. This “animal” is neither ox, nor horse, nor man, nor god, nor
anything else that can anyhow be apparent, but simply “animal.” From
this “animal” the species of all animals have their substance.[9] And
the undifferentiated[10] “animal” is the substance of the animals who
have been produced in species[11] but is yet none of them. For an
animal is man, who takes his beginning [Sidenote: p. 338.] from that
“animal,” and an animal is horse who does likewise. The horse and ox
and dog and each of the other animals takes its beginning from the
simple “animal” which is none of them.
17. But if that “animal” is not one of these, (then) the substance of
the things which have been produced has, according to Aristotle, come
into being from the things which are not: for the “animal” whence these
have severally received it is not one (of them). But, while being none
(of them), it has become the one beginning of things which are. But who
it is who has sent down this beginning[12] of the things which have
been produced later, we shall see when we come to its proper place.
18. Since the threefold essence is, as he says, genus, species and
atom, and we have granted[13] “animal” to be genus, and man to be
species already differentiated from the multitude of animals, but at
the same time commingled with them and not yet transformed into a
species of substantial being,[14]--I, when I give form to the man taken
apart from the genus, call him by the name of Socrates [Sidenote: p.
339.] or of Diogenes or any one of the many names (there are), and
when I (thus) restrict with a name the man who from genus has become
species, I call such being an individual.[15] For the genus is divided
into species and the species into an atom; but the atom when restricted
by a name cannot by its nature be divided into anything else, as we
have divided each of the things aforesaid.
This Aristotle calls essence in its first, chief, and strictest sense,
nor is it said of any subject nor as existing in any subject.[16] But
he speaks of the subject as if it were genus when he said “animal” of
all the animals severally ranged under it, such as an ox, a horse, and
the rest, describing them by a common name. For it is true to say that
man is an animal, and a horse is an animal and an ox is an animal and
all the rest. This is subjective, the one (name) being likewise capable
of being said of many [Sidenote: p. 340.] and different species.[17]
For neither a horse nor an ox differs from man _quâ_ animal; for the
definition of animal fits all the aforesaid animals alike. For what
is an animal? If we define it, a common definition will include all
the animals. For an animal is a living,[18] feeling being, such as a
man, a horse and all the rest. But, “in the Subject,” he says, is that
which exists in anything, not as part of it, but as being incapable
of existing apart from that wherein it is, (and is) each[19] of the
accidents of being. The which is called Quality because by it we say
_what_ certain things are, as, for instance, white, green, black,
just, unjust, prudent and such like. But none of these (qualities) can
come into being by itself, but must needs be in[20] something. But, if
neither the “animal,” which is the word I use for all living beings
taken severally, nor the “accidents” which are found to occur in all
of them, can come into being of themselves, then from those things
which do not exist, the individual things[21] are developed and the
triply-divided essence is not compounded[22] from other things. Hence
Being[23] so called in its first and chiefest and strictest sense,
[Sidenote: p. 341.] exists according to Aristotle from those things
which do not exist.[24]
19. About Being[25] then enough has been said. But Being is called
not only genus, species and individual; but also matter, form and
privation. But there is no difference among these while the division
stands. And Being being such as it is, the ordering of the cosmos
came about automatically in the same way. The cosmos is according to
Aristotle divided into many [and different] parts; [and] the part of
the cosmos which exists from the earth as far as the moon is without
providence or governance and has its rise only in its own nature.
But that which is beyond the moon, is ordered with all order and
providence and is (so) governed up to the surface of heaven. But the
(same) surface is a certain fifth essence renewed from all the elements
of nature wherefrom the cosmos is made up, and this is Aristotle’s
“Quintessence,” being as it were a hypercosmic essence. And his system
of philosophy is [Sidenote: p. 342.] divided so as to agree with the
division of the cosmos. For there is by him a treatise on physics
called _Acroasis_, wherein he has treated of the doings of Nature,
not of Providence, from the Earth to the Moon. And there is also his
_Metaphysics_, another special work thus entitled, concerning the
things which take place beyond the Moon. And there is also his work _On
the Quintessence_, wherein he theologizes.[26] Like this also is the
division of the universals as they are defined by type in Aristotle’s
philosophy. But his work _On the Soul_ is puzzling; for it would be
impossible in three whole books to say what Aristotle thinks about the
soul. For what he gives as the definition of the soul is easy to say;
but what is explained by the definition is hard to find. For, he says,
the soul is an entelechy of the physical organism. What this is would
need many words and great enquiry. But the God who is the cause of all
these fair beings [Sidenote: p. 343.] is one, even to one speculating
for a very long time, more difficult to be known than is the soul. Yet
the definition which Aristotle gives of God, is not hard to be known,
but impossible to be understood. For He, he says, is a conception
of conception which is altogether non-existent. But the cosmos is
according to Aristotle imperishable and eternal; for it contains
nothing faulty and is governed by Nature and Providence. And Aristotle
has not only put forth books on Nature and the Cosmos and Providence
and God,[27] but there is also a certain treatise by him on ethics
which is called _The Ethical Books_ wherein he builds up a good ethics
for his hearers out of a poor one. If, then, Basilides be found not
only potentially but in the very words and names to have transferred
the doctrines of Aristotle to our evangelical and soul-saving teaching,
what remains but by restoring these extraneous matters to their
(proper) authors to prove to Basilides’ disciples that, as they are
heathenish, Christ will profit them nothing?
[Sidenote: p. 344.] 20. Now Basilides and Isidore, Basilides’ true son
and disciple, say that Matthias recounted to them secret[28] discourses
which he had heard from the Saviour in private teaching.[29] We see
then how plainly Basilides together with Isidore and their whole band
belie not only Matthias but also the Saviour. There was, he says,
[a time] when Nothing was, not even the nothing of existing things,
but baldly and unreservedly and without any sophism, nothing at all.
But when I say, says he, that [this] _was_, I do not say that this
existed, but I speak thus to signify what I wish to indicate. I say
then that nothing at all existed. For, says he, that which is named is
plainly not ineffable; for at any rate we call one thing ineffable,
but another not ineffable. For truly that which is not even ineffable
is not named ineffable, but is, he says, above every name which is
named. For neither are there names enough for the cosmos, he says, so
diverse is it, but there is a lack of them. Nor do [Sidenote: p. 345.]
I undertake, says he, to find proper names for everything; but one must
silently understand in the mind not their names, but the properties of
the things named. For identity of names has made confusion and error
concerning things[30] among those who hear them. And they who first
made this appropriation and theft from the Peripatetic lead astray the
folly of those who herd with them. For Aristotle who was born many
generations earlier than Basilides, was the first to set forth in the
_Categories_ a system of homonyms which these men expound as their own
and as a novelty [derived] from the secret discourses of Matthias.
21. When nothing [existed], neither matter, nor essence, nor the
simple nor the compound, nor [that which is conceived by the mind]
nor that which cannot be [so] conceived, [nor that which is perceived
by the senses][31] nor that which cannot be [so] perceived, nor
man, nor angel, nor God, nor generally any of the things which are
named or apprehended by sensation, or of things[32] which can be
[Sidenote: p. 346.] conceived by the mind but can be thus and even
more minutely described by all:--(then) [the] God-who-was-Not--whom
Aristotle calls Concept of Concept, but (Basilides) Him-who-is-Not,
without conception, perception, counsel, choice, passion or desire
willed to create a cosmos. But I say (only) for the sake of clearness,
says he, that He willed. I signify that he did this without will or
conception or perception; and [the] cosmos was not that which later
became established in its expanse and diversity,[33] but a Seed of a
cosmos. And the Seed of the cosmos contained all things within itself,
as the grain of mustard (seed) collects into the smallest space and
contains within itself all things at once:--the roots, stem, branches
and the numberless leaves, with the seeds begotten by the plant, and
often again those grown by many other plants. Thus the God-who-was-Not
made the cosmos from things which were not,[34] casting [Sidenote: p.
347.] down and planting[35] a certain single seed containing within
itself the whole seed-mass[36] of the cosmos. But in order that I
may make clearer what these (men) say, it was even as an egg of some
gorgeous and parti-coloured bird such as a peacock of some other yet
more variegated and many-coloured, contains within it, though one, many
patterns[37] of multiform and many-coloured and diversely-constructed
beings[38]--so, says he, the non-existent seed of the cosmos cast down
by the God-who-was-Not contained (a Seed-mass) at once multiform and
(the source) of many beings.[39]
22. All things, then, which are to be described, and those which not
having yet been discovered must be left out of the account, were
destined to be fitted for the cosmos which was to come into being
at the proper time by the help given to it by such and so great a
God, whose quality[40] the creature can neither conceive nor define.
And these things existed stored within the seed, as, in a new-born
[Sidenote: p. 348.] child, we see teeth and the power of fatherhood
and brains accrue later; and those things which belong to the man but
do not at first exist, evolve gradually out of the child. For it would
be impossible to say that any projection by the God-who-was-Not became
something non-existent,--since Basilides entirely shuns and has in
horror [the notion of] substances of things begotten [arising] by way
of projection.[41] For what, says he, is the need of projection or of
any substructure of matter in order that God may fashion a cosmos as
the spider makes webs, or mortal man takes brass or wood or some other
portion of matter to work with?).--But He spoke, says he, and it came
to pass; and this is, as these [heretics] say, what Moses spake:--“Let
there be light and there was light.”[42] Whence, says he, came the
light? From nothing. For it is not written says he, whence it came, but
only that it came forth from the word of the speaker. For the speaker,
says he, was not, nor did that which was spoken [formerly] exist. The
seed of the cosmos, he says, came into being from non-existent things
[and this seed is] the word which was spoken: “Let there be light.”
And this, says he, is the saying in the Gospels: “This is [Sidenote:
p. 349.] the true light which lighteneth every man who cometh into the
world.”[43] It takes its beginnings[44] from that seed and gives light.
This is the seed which contains within itself all the Seed-Mass which
Aristotle says is the genus divided into boundless species, since we
divide from the non-existent animal ox, horse [and] man. Further, of
the underlying cosmic seed, they say, “whatever I may say came into
being after this, seek not to know whence it came.” For it contained
all seeds stored and shut up within itself, as it were things which
were not, but which were foreordained to exist by the God-who-was-Not.
Let us see then what they say came into being in the first, second
or third place from the cosmic seed. There existed (Basilides) says
within the seed itself, a Sonhood, threefold throughout, of the same
essence[45] with the God-who-was-Not and begotten of the things that
were not. Of this triple divided Sonhood, one part was subtle, (one
coarse) and one wanting purification. Now the subtle (part) [Sidenote:
p. 350.] straightway and as it became the first emission of the seed by
the One-who-was-Not, escaped and ascended and went on high from below
with the speed described by the poet--
“like wing or thought,”[46]
and came, he says, before the One-who-was-Not. For towards him every
nature strains on account of his exceeding beauty and bloom,[47] but
each differently. But the coarser part still remaining in the seed,
although resembling the other,[48] could not go on high, for it lacked
the fineness of division which the ascending Sonhood had of itself,
and was (therefore) left behind. Then the coarser Sonhood wings itself
with some such wing as that wherewith Plato, Aristotle’s teacher,
equips the soul in the _Phaedrus_,[49] and Basilides calls the same
not a wing but Holy Spirit, clothed wherewith the Sonhood both gives
and receives benefit. It gives it because a bird’s wing taken by
itself and severed from the bird would neither become uplifted nor
high in [Sidenote: p. 351.] air, nor would the bird be uplifted and
high in air if deprived of the wing. This then is the relation which
the Sonhood bears to the Spirit and the Spirit to the Sonhood. For
the Sonhood borne aloft by the Spirit as by a wing bears aloft the
wing, (that is the Spirit) and draws nigh to the subtler Sonhood and
to the God-who-was-Not and fashions all things from the non-existent.
But [the Spirit] cannot abide with the Sonhood for it is not of the
same essence,[50] nor has it the same nature as the Sonhood. But just
as dry and pure air is naturally fatal to fishes, so naturally to the
Holy Spirit was that place, more ineffable than the ineffable ones and
higher than all names, which is the seat at once of the God-who-was-Not
and of the [first] Sonhood. Therefore the Sonhood left the Spirit near
that blessed place which cannot be conceived nor characterized[51] by
any speech, [yet] not altogether alone nor [completely] severed from
the Sonhood. For just as when a sweet perfume is poured into a jar,
even if the jar is carefully emptied a certain fragrance of the perfume
still remains and is left behind, and although [Sidenote: p. 352.] the
perfume be removed from the jar, the jar retains the fragrance, but not
the perfume--so the Holy Spirit remained bereft of and severed from the
Sonhood. And this is the saying: “As the perfume on Aaron’s head ran
down to his beard.”[52] This is the savour carried down by the Holy
Spirit from on high into the Formlessness[53] and Space of this world
of ours, whence the Sonhood first went on high as on the wings of an
eagle and borne on his loins. For all things, he says, strain upward
from below, from the worse to the better. But there is thus nothing of
those things which are among the better which is immovable, so that it
cannot come below. But the third Sonhood, he says, which is in need of
purification, remains in the great heap of the Seed-mass giving and
receiving benefits. And in what manner it does this, we shall see later
in the fitting place.[54]
[Sidenote: p. 353.] 23. Now when the first and second ascensions of the
Sonhood[55] had come to pass, and the Holy Spirit remained by itself in
the way described, being set midway between the hypercosmic firmaments
and the cosmos--for Basilides divides the things that are into two
first made and primary divisions, one of which is called by him an
ordered world,[56] and the other hypercosmic things--and between these
two [he places] the Boundary Spirit,[57] which same is at once Holy and
holds abiding in it the savour of the Sonhood, it being the firmament
which is above the heaven.[58] [When these ascensions had taken place],
there escaped from and was engendered from the cosmical seed and the
Seed-mass, the Great Ruler, the head of the cosmos, a certain beauty
and greatness and power which cannot be spoken.[59] For he is, says
[Basilides], more ineffable than the ineffable ones, mightier than the
mighty, and better than all the fair ones you can describe. He, when
engendered, burst through, soared aloft, and was borne right up on high
as far as the firmament, but stayed there thinking that the firmament
was the end of all ascension [Sidenote: p. 354.] and uplifting and
not imagining that there was anything at all beyond this. And he
became wiser, mightier, more eminent, and more luminous and everything
which you can describe as excelling in beauty all the other cosmic
things which lay before him, save only the Sonhood left behind in the
Seed-mass. For he knew not that [this Sonhood] was wiser and mightier
and better than he. Therefore he deemed himself Lord and King[60] and
wise architect, and set about the creation in detail[61] of the ordered
world. And in the first place he did not think it meet for him to be
alone, but created for himself and engendered from the things which
lay below him a Son much better and wiser than himself. For all this
the God-who-was-Not had foreordained when he let fall the Seed-mass.
When, therefore, [the Great Ruler] beheld his Son, he wondered, and was
filled with love and astounded: for so [splendid] did the beauty of the
son appear to the Great Ruler. And the Ruler seated him at his right
hand. This is what is called by Basilides the Ogdoad where sits the
Great Ruler. Then the Great Wise Demiurge fashioned the whole of the
[Sidenote: p. 355.] heavenly, that is, the aethereal creation. But the
Son begotten by him set it working and established it, being much wiser
than the Demiurge himself.[62]
24. This [creation] is according to Aristotle, the “entelechy”[63]
of the organic natural body, the soul activating the body, without
which the body can effect nothing, a something greater and more
manifest and wiser than the body. The theory therefore which Aristotle
first taught regarding the soul and the body, Basilides explained as
referring to the Great Ruler and his so-called son. For the Ruler
according to Basilides begat a son; and Aristotle says that the soul
is an entelechy, the work and result[64] of the organic natural body.
As, then, the entelechy controls the body, so the son, according to
Basilides, controls the more ineffable God of the Ineffables. All
things soever then which are in the aether up to the Moon are foreseen
and controlled by the majesty[65] of the Great Ruler; for here [_i.e._
at the Moon] the air is divided from the aether. Now when all aethereal
things had been set in order, yet [Sidenote: p. 356.] another Ruler
ascends from the Seed-Mass, greater than all the things which are below
him, save only the Sonhood which is left behind, but much inferior to
the first Ruler. And this one is called by them “able to be named.”[66]
And his place is called Hebdomad, and he is the controller and Demiurge
of all things lying below him, and he has created to himself from the
Seed-Mass a Son who is more foreseeing and wiser than he in the same
way as has been said about the first [Ruler]. And in this space,[67]
he says, are the heap and the Seed-Mass, and events naturally happen
as they were (ordained) to be produced in advance by Him who has
calculated that which will come to pass and when and what and how it
will be.[68] And of these there is no leader nor guardian nor demiurge.
For that calculation which the Non-Existent One made when he created
them suffices for them.
25. When, then, according to them, the whole cosmos and the hypercosmic
things were completed, and nothing [Sidenote: p. 357.] was lacking,
there still remained in the Seed-Mass the third Sonhood which had been
left behind to give and receive benefits in the Seed. And the Sonhood
left behind had to be revealed and again established on high above the
Boundary Spirit in the presence of the subtler Sonhood and the one that
resembles it and the Non-Existent One, as, says he, it is written, “All
creation groans and is in travail in expectation of the revelation of
the sons of God.”[69] We spiritual men, he say, left here below for the
arrangement and perfect formation and rectification and completion of
the souls which by nature have to remain in this [Middle] Space, are
the “sons [of God].” “Now from Adam to Moses sin reigned”[70] as it is
written. For the Great Ruler reigned who held sway up to the firmament,
thinking that he alone was God, and that there was nothing higher than
he. For all things were kept hidden in silence. This, says he, is the
mystery which was not known to the earlier generations; but in those
times the King and Lord, as it seemed to him, of the universals was
[Sidenote: p. 358.] the Great Ruler, the Ogdoad. Yet of this [Middle]
Space the Hebdomad was King and Lord, and the Ogdoad is ineffable but
the Hebdomad may be named. This Ruler of the Hebdomad, says he, it was
who spoke to Moses, saying, “I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob and the name of God was not made known to them:”[71] for thus
they will have it to have been written--that is to say [the name] of
the Ineffable Ogdoad, Ruler, God. All the prophets therefore who were
before the Saviour, spoke from that place.[72] When then, he says, the
sons of God had to be revealed to us, about whom, he says, creation
groaned and travailed in expectation of the revelation, the Gospel came
into the cosmos and passed through every Dominion[73] and Authority and
Lordship and every name which is named. And it came indeed, although
nothing descended from on high, nor did the Blessed Sonhood come forth
from that Incomprehensible and Blessed God-who-was-Not. But as the
Indian naphtha, when only kindled from afar off, takes fire, so from
the Formlessness of the heap below do [Sidenote: p. 359.] the powers of
the Sonhood extend upward. For as if he were something of naphtha, the
son of the Great Ruler of the Ogdoad catches and receives the concepts
from the Blessed Sonhood which is beyond the Holy Spirit. For the
Power in the midst of the Holy Spirit in the Boundary of the Sonhood
distributes the rushing and flowing concepts to the Son of the Great
Ruler.[74]
26. Therefore the Gospel came first from the Sonhood, he says to the
Ruler, through his Son who sits beside him, and the Ruler learned that
he was not the God of the universals, but was a generated [being]
and had above him the outstretched Treasure-house of the Ineffable
and Unnameable God-who-was-Not and of the Sonhood.[75] And he was
astounded and terrified when he perceived in what ignorance he had
been, and this, says [Basilides] is the saying: “The fear of [the]
Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”[76] For he began to be wise when
instructed by the Christ seated beside him, and learned what was the
Non-Existent One, what the Sonhood, what the Holy Spirit, and what was
the constitution[77] of the universals and [Sidenote: p. 360.] how
these will be restored.[78] This is the wisdom spoken of in mystery,
as to which, says he, the Scripture declares: “Not in the words taught
by human wisdom, but in the teachings of [the] Spirit.”[79] Then, says
he, the Ruler when he had been instructed and made to fear, confessed
thoroughly the sin he had committed in magnifying himself. This, says
he, is the saying: “I acknowledge my sin and I know my transgression;
upon this I will make full confession for ever.”[80]
Now when the Great Ruler had been instructed, and every creature of
the Ogdoad had been taught and had learned, and the mystery had been
made known to those above the heavens, it was still necessary that
the Gospel should come to the Hebdomad also, so that the Ruler of the
Hebdomad might be instructed in like manner and be evangelized.[81] The
Son of the Great Ruler [therefore] enlightened the Son of the Ruler of
the Hebdomad, having caught the light which he had from the Sonhood
on high, and the Son of the Ruler of the Hebdomad was enlightened,
and the Gospel was announced to the Ruler of the Hebdomad, and he in
like manner as has been said was both terrified and made confession.
When then all things in the [Sidenote: p. 361.] Hebdomad had been
enlightened, and the Gospel had been announced to them--for according
to them, the creatures belonging to these spaces are boundless and are
Dominions and Powers and Authorities, concerning whom they have a very
long story told by many [authors]. [And] they imagine that there are
there 365 heavens, and Habrasax is their Great Ruler, because his name
comprises the cipher 365, wherefore the year consists of that number
of days[82]--but when, says he, these things had come to pass, it was
still necessary that our Formlessness should be enlightened and that
the mystery unknown to the earlier generations should be revealed to
the Sonhood left behind in the Formlessness as if he were an abortion.
As, says he, it is written: “By revelation was made known to me the
mystery;”[83] and again, “I heard unspeakable words which it is not
lawful for man to utter.”[84] [Thus] the light came down from the
[Sidenote: p. 362.] Hebdomad, which had come down from the Ogdoad on
high to the Son of the Hebdomad, upon Jesus the son of Mary, and He,
having caught it, was enlightened by the light shining upon Him.[85]
This, says he, is the saying:--“The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,”
[that is], that which passed from the Sonhood through the Boundary
Spirit into the Ogdoad and Hebdomad down to Mary, “and the Power of
the Highest shall overshadow thee,”[86] [that is] the power of the
unction[87] from the Height of the Demiurge on high unto the creation
which is of the Son. But, he says, up till that [time] the cosmos was
thus constituted, until [the time] when the whole Sonhood left behind
in the Formlessness to benefit souls and [itself] to receive benefits
should be transformed and follow Jesus, and should go on high and
come forth purified, and should become most subtle as it might do by
ascension like the First [Sonhood]. For it possesses all the power of
attaching itself naturally to the light which shines downward from on
high.
27. When therefore, he says, every Sonhood shall have come [forth] and
shall be established above the Boundary [Sidenote: p. 363.] Spirit, the
creation shall then receive pity. For up till now, he says it wails and
is tortured and awaits the revelation of the sons of God, so that all
the men of the Sonhood shall ascend from this place. When this shall
have come to pass, he says, God shall bring upon the whole cosmos the
Great Ignorance, so that all things shall remain as they are by nature,
and none shall desire any of those things beyond [its] nature. For
all the souls of this space which possess a nature enabling them to
remain immortal in this [space] alone, will remain convinced that there
is nothing different from nor better than this [space]. Nor will any
tidings or knowledge of higher things abide in those below, so that the
lower souls shall not be tormented by yearning after the impossible,
as if a fish should desire to feed with the sheep on the hills. For,
says he, such a desire should it happen to them[88] would be [their]
destruction. Therefore, he says, all things which remain in their own
place are imperishable; but perishable if they wish to overleap and
rise above [the limits] of their nature. Thus the Ruler of the Hebdomad
will know nothing of the things above him. For the Great [Sidenote:
p. 364.] Ignorance will lay hold of him, so that grief and pain and
sighing will stand off from him, for he will neither desire anything
impossible nor will he grieve. And in like manner this Ignorance will
lay hold of the Great Ruler of the Ogdoad, and similarly all the
creatures subject to him, so that none of them shall grieve and mourn
for anything outside his own nature. And this shall be the Restoration
of all things established according to nature in the seed of the
universals at the beginning, but they shall be restored [each] in their
proper season. But [to prove] that everything has its proper season,
it is enough to mention the saying of the Saviour:--“Mine hour is not
yet come”[89] and the Magi observing the star. For, says [Basilides]
He himself was foretold by the nativity[90] of the stars and of the
return of the hours into the great heap. This is according to them, the
spiritual inner man conceived in the natural man--which is the Sonhood
who leaves the soul, not to die but to remain as it is by nature, just
as the first Sonhood[91] [Sidenote: p. 365.] left the Holy Spirit
which is the Boundary in its appropriate place and then did on his own
special soul.[92]
In order that we may omit nothing of their [doctrines], I will set
forth what they say also about (a) Gospel.[93] Gospel is according
to them the knowledge of hypercosmic things, as has been made plain,
which the Great Ruler[94] did not understand. When then there was
manifested to him what are the Holy Spirit that is the Boundary, and
the Sonhood and the God-who-is-Not the cause of all these, he rejoiced
at the words and exulted,[95] and this according to them is the Gospel.
But Jesus according to them was born as we have before said. And He
having come into being by the Birth before explained, all those things
likewise came to pass with regard to the Saviour as it is written in
the Gospels. And these things came to pass [Basilides] says, so that
Jesus might become the first-fruits of the sorting-out of the things
of the Confusion.[96] For when the Cosmos was divided into an Ogdoad
which is the head of the whole ordered world, [the head whereof is] the
Great Ruler, and into a Hebdomad which is the head of the Hebdomad, the
[Sidenote: p. 366.] Demiurge of the things below him, and into this
space of ours, which is the Formlessness, it was necessary that the
things of the Confusion should be sorted out by the discrimination of
Jesus.
That which was His bodily part[97] which was from the Formlessness,
therefore suffered[98] and returned to the Formlessness. And that which
was His psychic part which was from the Hebdomad also returned to the
Hebdomad. But that which was peculiar to the Height of the Great Ruler
ascended and remained with the Great Ruler. And He bore aloft as far
as the Boundary Spirit that which was from the Boundary Spirit and it
remained with the Boundary Spirit. But the third Sonhood which had
been left behind to give and receive benefits was purified by Him, and
traversing all these places went on high to the Blessed Sonhood.[99]
For this is the whole theory,[100] as it were a Confusion of the
Seed-Mass and the discrimination [into classes] and the Restoration of
the things confused into their proper places. Therefore Jesus became
the first-fruits of the discrimination, and the Passion came to pass
for no other reason than this discrimination.[101] For in this manner,
he says, all the Sonhood left behind in the Formlessness to [Sidenote:
p. 367.] give and receive benefits separated into its components in the
same way as [the person] of Jesus was separated. This is what Basilides
fables after having lingered in Egypt, and having learned from them [of
Egypt] such great wisdom, he brought forth such fruits.[102]
2. _Satornilus._[103]
28. And a certain Satornilus who flourished at the same time as
Basilides, but passed his life in Antioch of Syria, taught the same
things as Menander.[104] He says that one father exists unknown to all,
who made Angels, Archangels, Powers [and] Authorities. And that from a
certain seven angels the cosmos and all things therein came into being.
And that man was [the] creation of angels, there having [Sidenote:
p. 368.] appeared on high from the Absolute One[105] a shining image
which they could not detain, says Saturnilus, because of its immediate
return on high. [Wherefore] they exhorted one another, saying: “Let
us make man according to image and resemblance.”[106] Which, he says,
having come to pass, the image could not stand upright by reason of
the lack of power among the angels, but grovelled like a worm. Then
the Power on high having pity on it, because it had come into being
in his likeness, sent forth a spark of life which raised up the man
and made him live.[107] Therefore, says he, the spark of life returns
at death to its own kindred and the rest of [man’s] compound parts is
resolved into its original elements.[108] And he supposed the unknown
Father[109] to be unbegotten, bodiless, and formless. But he says that
He showed Himself as a phantom in human shape, and that the God of the
Jews is one of the angels. And, because the Father wished to depose
all the angels, Christ came for the putting-down of the God of the
Jews and for the salvation of those who believe on him; and that these
[believers] [Sidenote: p. 369.] have the spark of life within them.
For he says that two races of men were formed by the angels, one bad
and one good. And that since the demons help the bad, the Saviour came
for the destruction of the bad men and demons, but for the salvation
of the good. And he says that to marry and beget [children] is from
Satan. Many of this man’s adherents abstain from things that have had
life, through this pretended abstinence (leading astray many).[110] And
they say that the Prophecies were uttered, some by the world-creators,
some by Satan whom he supposes to be an angel who works against the
world-creators and especially (against) the God of the Jews.[111] Thus
then Satornilus.
3. _Concerning Marcion._[112]
[Sidenote: p. 370.] 29. Marcion of Pontus, much madder than these,
passing over many opinions of the majority and pressing on to the more
shameless, supposed that there were two principles of the All,[113] one
good and the other bad. And he, thinking that he was bringing in some
new [doctrine], manufactured a school filled with folly and of Cynic
life, being himself a lewd one.[114] He thought that the multitude
would not notice that he chanced to be a disciple not of Christ, but of
Empedocles, who was very much earlier, and he laid down and taught that
there were two causes of the All, [_i. e._] Strife and Love.[115] For
what says Empedocles on the conduct of the cosmos? If we have said it
before,[116] yet I will not now keep silence, if only for the sake of
comparing [Sidenote: p. 371.] the heresy of this plagiarist[117] [with
the source]. He says that all the elements of which the cosmos was
compounded and consists are six, to wit:--two material, [viz.] Air and
Water; two instruments, whereby the material elements are arranged[118]
and changed about, [viz.] Fire and Air; and two which work with the
instruments and fashion matter, [viz.] Strife and Love. He says
something like this:--
Hear first the four roots of all things:
Shining Zeus and life-bearing Here and Aïdoneus.
And Nestis who wets with tears the source of mortals.[119]
Zeus is fire and life-bearing Here the earth which bears fruits for
the support of life. But Aïdoneus is the air, because while beholding
all things through it, it alone we do not see. And Nestis is water,
since it is the only vehicle of food, and therefore the becoming cause
of all growing things,[120] yet cannot nourish them by itself. For
if it could so give nourishment, he says, living things[121] could
never die of hunger, for there is always abundance of water in the
cosmos.[122] Whence he calls water Nestis, because it is a becoming
cause of nourishment, yet cannot itself nourish growing things. These
things then are, to sum them up in outline, those which comprise the
foundation[123] of the cosmos [_i. e._] water and Earth from which all
things come, [Sidenote: p. 372.] Fire and Spirit[124] the tools and
agents, and Strife and Love which fashion all things with skill. And
Love is a certain peace and even mindedness and natural affection,[125]
which determines that the cosmos shall be perfect and complete; but
Strife ever rends asunder that which is one and divides it and makes
many things out of one. Therefore the cause of the whole creation is
Strife, which [cause] he calls baneful, that is deadly.[126] For it
takes care that through every aeon, its creation persists. And Strife
the deadly is the Demiurge and maker of all things which have come into
being by birth; but Love, of their leading-forth from the cosmos and
transformation and return to unity.[127] Concerning which, Empedocles
[says] that there are two immortal and unbegotten things which have
never yet had a source of existence. He speaks, however, somehow like
this:--
For it was aforetime and will be; never, I ween,
Will the unquenchable aeon lack these two.[128]
[Sidenote: p. 373.] But what are these two? Strife and Love. For they
had no source of existence, but pre-existed and ever were, being
through their unbegotten nature incorruptible. But Fire [and Water] and
Earth and Air die and again come to life. For when the things which
have come into being through Strife die, Love takes them and leads them
and adds and attaches them to the All,[129] so that the All may remain
_One_, being ever marshalled by Love in one fashion and form. Yet when
Love creates the One from many things, and arranges the things which
have been scattered in the One, Strife again rends them away from the
One, and makes them [into] many, that is, Fire, Water, Earth [and] Air,
whence are produced animals and plants and whatever parts of the cosmos
we perceive. And concerning the form[130] of the cosmos as ordered by
Love, he speaks somehow like this:--
For not from the back do two arms[131] spring
[Sidenote: p. 374.] Nor feet nor active knees, nor hairy genitals.
But it was a sphere and everywhere alike.[132]
Such things [does] Love, and turns out the most beautiful form of the
world as One from many; but Strife rends gradually from that One the
principle of its arrangement, and again makes it [into] many. This is
what Empedocles says of his own birth:--
Of whom I also am now a fugitive and an exile from the gods.[133]
That is, he calls the One divine, and says that the unity formerly
existing in the One was rent asunder by Strife and came into being in
these many things, existing according to Strife’s ordering. For, says
he, Strife is the furious and troublous and unresting Demiurge of this
cosmos, whose [Sidenote: p. 375.] [fashioner] Empedocles calls it. For
this is the judgment and compulsion of the souls which Strife rends
away from the One and fashions and works up, which process [Empedocles]
describes somehow like this:--
Who having sinned swore falsely
And demons are allotted long-drawn out life.[134]
calling the long-lived souls “demons” because they are immortal and
live through long ages.
For three myriad seasons they wandered from the blessed,[135]
calling “blessed” those whom Love has made from the many into the
oneness of the intelligible[136] cosmos. Therefore, says [Empedocles]
they wandered
Putting on in time all mortal forms[137]
[Sidenote: p. 376.]Interchanging the hard ways of life.[138]
He says that the transmigrations and transmutations of the souls into
bodies are “hard ways.” This is what he says:--
Interchanging the hard ways of life.
For [the souls pass from body to body] being changed about and punished
by Strife and are not allowed to remain in the One, but are punished in
all punishments by Strife. This is what he says:--
For aetherial might drives souls seawards.
And sea spits them upon Earth’s surface; and Earth into the beams
Of the radiant Sun, and he casts them into the whirls of aether
Each takes them from the other, but all hate them.[139]
[Sidenote: p. 377.] This is the punishment wherewith the Demiurge
punishes, just as a smith forging iron, taking it from the fire, dips
it in water. For Fire is the aether, whence the Demiurge casts the
souls into the Sea; and the Earth is the ground. Whence he says, from
water to Earth, from Earth to Air. This is what he says:--
into the beams
Of the radiant Sun, and he casts them into the whirls of aether
Each takes them from the other, but all hate them.
Therefore, according to Empedocles, Love gathers the hated and tortured
and punished souls together into this world. For [Love] is good and
has pity on their wailing and the disorder and wickedness created by
furious Strife. And she hastens and toils to lead them forth quickly
out of the world and to settle them in the One, so that all things
brought together by her may come to oneness. It [Sidenote: p. 378.] is
then by reason of this arrangement of this much-divided[140] world by
deadly Strife, that Empedocles exhorts his disciples to abstain from
all things which have life. For he says that the bodies of animals
which are eaten are the dwellings of punished souls, and he teaches
those who hear such [his] words to refrain[141] from companying with
women, so that they may not cooperate and help in the deeds which
Strife effects, ever undoing and rending asunder the work of Love.
Empedocles says that this is the greatest law of the government of the
All, speaking somehow thus:--
There is a thing of Necessity, an ancient decree of the gods.
Eternal and sealed with broad oaths.[142]
thus calling Necessity the change by Strife of the One into many and
that by Love of many into the One. He says, indeed, that there are four
mortal gods, Fire, Water, Earth and Air; and two immortal unbegotten
and enemies one to the other for ever [viz.] Strife and Love; and that
Strife is ever unjust and grasping and rends asunder what belongs
[Sidenote: p. 379.] to Love and takes it to itself; and that Love is
ever good and anxious for unity and calls back to herself and leads
and makes one the things rent asunder from the All and tortured and
punished in creation by the Demiurge. In some such way does Empedocles
philosophize for us on the genesis of the Cosmos and its destruction
and its constitution established from good and evil.
And he says that there is a certain conceivable[143] third power which
may be conceived[144] from these, speaking somehow like this:--
For if having fixed these things with knowing mind[145]
You behold them favourably with pure attention
They all will be present with you throughout the age
But many others will come forth from these. For they will increase
Each into a habit as is the nature of each.[146]
And if you desire such other things as are among men
A myriad woes arise and dull the edge of care
[Sidenote: p. 380.] Take heed lest they leave you suddenly as time rolls on.
Yearning to join their own beloved race
For know that all things have perception and an allotted share of mind.[147]
30. When therefore Marcion or any of his dogs shall bay against the
Demiurge, bringing forward arguments from the comparison of good and
evil, they should be told that neither the Apostle Paul nor Mark of
the maimed finger[148] reported these things. For none of them is
written in the Gospel [according] to Mark; [and] Marcion, having stolen
them from Empedocles of Agrigentum, the son of Meto, thought until
now to conceal the fact that he had taken the whole arrangement of
his heresy from Sicily, [after] having transferred the actual words
of Empedocles to the Gospel discourses. For now, O Marcion, since you
have [Sidenote: p. 381.] made antithesis[149] of good and evil, I also
to-day, following up the teachings you have secretly borrowed[150] set
them over against [the originals]. Thou sayest that the Demiurge of the
cosmos is wicked.[151] Dost thou not then feel shame in teaching to the
Church the words of Empedocles? Thou sayest that there is a good God
who destroys the creations of the Demiurge. Dost thou not then clearly
preach as good news[152] to thy hearers the good Love of Empedocles?
Thou dost forbid marriage and the begetting of children and [dost order
thy hearers] to abstain from the meats which God has created for the
participation of the faithful and of those who know the truth,[153]
having purposely forgotten that thou art teaching the purifications of
Empedocles. For, following him as you truly do throughout, you teach
your own disciples[154] to avoid meats, lest they should eat some
body covering a soul punished by the Demiurge. You dissolve marriages
joined by God, [thus] following the teachings of Empedocles so that you
may preserve the work of Love undissevered. For marriage according to
Empedocles dissevers the One and creates many as we have shown.[155]
[Sidenote: p. 382.] 31. The earliest and least altered[156] heresy of
Marcion, comprising the mingling of good and evil, has been shown by us
to be that of Empedocles. But since in our own time, a certain Prepon
the Assyrian,[157] a Marcionite, in a book addressed to Bardesianes the
Armenian, has undertaken discourses on this heresy, I will not keep
silence about this either. Considering that there is a third principle,
just and set between good and evil, Prepon also does not thus succeed
in escaping the teaching of Empedocles. For Empedocles says that the
cosmos is governed by wicked Strife, and the other conceivable [world]
by Love, while between the two opposed[158] principles is a just Logos,
by whom the things severed by Strife are brought together and are
attached by Love to the One. But this same just Logos, [Sidenote: p.
383.] who fights on the side of Love, Empedocles proclaims as a Muse
and invokes her to fight on his side, speaking somehow thus:--
If for creatures of a day, O deathless Muse,
Thou art pleased to relieve our cares by thought,
Be propitious once more to my prayer, Calliope!
For I show forth a pious discourse of [the] blessed gods.[159]
Following this up, Marcion repudiates altogether our Saviour’s Birth,
thinking it out of the question that a creature[160] of destructive
Strife should become the Logos fighting on the side of Love, that is
of the Good. But he said that without birth, in the 15th year of the
reign of Tiberius Cæsar, He came down from on high to teach in the
synagogues, being between evil and good. For if He is [Sidenote: p.
384.] a Mediator,[161] he says, He is freed from all nature of evil,
for evil, as he says, is the Demiurge and all his works. But He was
freed also, he says, from the nature of good, so that He might be a
Mediator, as Paul says,[162] which he himself confessed [in the saying]
“Why callest thou me good? there is one Good.”
These then are Marcion’s doctrines, whereby he has caused many to
err by making use of the words of Empedocles and transferring the
philosophy stolen from that person to his own teaching. [Thus] he
has compounded a godless heresy which I think has been sufficiently
refuted by us. Nor [do we think] that we have omitted anything of
those who, having stolen [opinions] from the Greeks, insolently
oppose the disciples of Christ, as if these last had become their
teachers of these things. But since it seems to us that the opinions
of this [Marcion] have been sufficiently exposed,[163] let us see what
Carpocrates says.
[Sidenote: p. 385.] 4. _Carpocrates._[164]
32. Carpocrates says that the cosmos and the things which are therein,
came into being by angels much below the unbegotten Father, but that
Jesus was begotten by Joseph and was born like other men, though more
just than the rest. And that His soul having been born strong and pure
remembered what it had seen in the sphere of the unbegotten God;[165]
and that therefore a power was sent down to it from that [Deity], so
that by its means it might escape from the world-making angels. And
that this [soul][166] having passed through them all and having been
freed from them went on high to the presence of the unbegotten Father,
and so will the souls[167] [go] who cleave to similar things. And
they say that the soul of Jesus, although lawfully trained in Jewish
customs, disdained them and therefore received the powers whereby
He made of none effect[168] the passions attached to men for their
punishment. [Sidenote: p. 386.] And that therefore the soul which like
that of Christ can disdain the world-making rulers, receives in the
same way power to do like things. Whence also they reach such [a pitch
of] vanity as to say they are like unto Jesus, and even that they are
mightier than man, and some of them more excellent than His disciples,
such as Peter and Paul and the rest of the Apostles, and that they are
in nothing behind Jesus. But that their souls having come from the
Transcendent Authority[169] and therefore similarly disdaining the
world-makers, are worthy of the same power [as He] and will go to the
same place. But that if anyone should disdain more than He the things
below, he might become more excellent than He.
[Sidenote: p. 387.] They practise, then, magic arts, and incantations
and [use] philtres and love-feasts, and familiar spirits and
dream-senders and other evil works, thinking that they already have
authority to lord it over the rulers and makers of this world, nay even
over all created in it. Who have themselves been sent forth by Satan
for the dishonour[170] of the divine name of the Church before the
Gentiles, so that men hearing in one way or another of their doctrines
and thinking that we are all even as they, may turn away their ears
from the preaching of the Truth, [or] beholding their deeds, may speak
evil of us all.
And they consider that [their] souls will change their bodies until
they have fulfilled all their transgressions; but that when nothing
is left undone, they will be set free to depart to the presence of
the God who is above the world-making angels, and that thus all souls
will be saved. But if any anticipating matters should combine all
transgressions [Sidenote: p. 388.] in one advent,[171] they will no
longer change their bodies, but as having paid all penalties at once,
will be freed from further birth in a body. Some of them also brand
their disciples in the back part of the lobe of the right ear. And they
make [172] images of Christ saying that they were made [in the time] of
Pilate.[173]
5. _Cerinthus._[174]
33. But a certain Cerinthus, having been trained in the schooling of
the Egyptians, said that the cosmos did not come into being by the
First God, but by a certain Power derived from the Authority set over
the universals, which is yet ignorant of the God who is over all. And
he supposed Jesus not to have been begotten from a virgin, but to have
been born the son of Joseph and Mary like all other men, [Sidenote:
p. 389.] and to have been more wise and just than they. And that, at
the Baptism, the Christ in the form of a dove descended upon Him from
the Absolute Power[175] which is over the universals. And that then He
announced[176] the unknown Father and perfected His own powers; but
that in the end the Christ stood away from Jesus, and Jesus suffered
and rose again;[177] but that the Christ being spiritual remained
impassible.
6. _Ebionæi._[178]
34. But the Ebionæi admit that the cosmos came into being by the
God who is; and concerning Christ they invent[179] the same things
as Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live according to Jewish customs,
thinking that they will be justified by the Law and saying that Jesus
was justified in practising[180] the Law. Wherefore He was named by God
Christ and Jesus, since none of them has fulfilled [Sidenote: p. 390.]
the Law. For if any other had practised the commandments which are in
the Law, he would be the Christ. And they say it is possible for them
if they do likewise to become Christs; and that He was a man like unto
all [men].
7. _Theodotus the Byzantian._[181]
35. But a certain Byzantine named Theodotus brought in a new heresy,
asserting things about the beginning of the All which partly agree with
[the account of] the True Church, since he admits that all things came
into being by God. But having taken[182] his [idea of] Christ from the
school of the Gnostics and from Cerinthus and Ebion,[183] he considers
He appeared in some such fashion as this:--Jesus was a man begotten
from a virgin according to the Father’s will, living the common life of
all men. And having become most pious,[184] He at length on His baptism
in Jordan received the Christ from on high, who descended in the
[Sidenote: p. 391.] form of a dove. Wherefore the powers within Him did
not become active, until the Spirit which came down was manifested in
Him, which [Spirit] declared Him to be the Christ. But some will have
it that He did not become God on the descent of the Spirit; and others
that [this took place] on His resurrection from the dead.
8. _Another Theodotus._
36. But while different enquiries were taking place among them[185] a
certain man who was also called Theodotus, a money-changer by trade,
undertook to say that a certain Melchizedek was the greatest power, and
that he was greater than Christ. After the image of whom they allege
that Christ happened [to come]. And they like the Theodotians before
mentioned say that Jesus was a man, and in the same words [declare]
that the Christ descended upon Him.
[Sidenote: p. 392.] But the opinions[186] of Gnostics are varied,
and we do not deem it worth while to recount in detail their foolish
doctrines, composed of much absurdity and charged with blasphemy,
the most respectable of which those Greeks who philosophized on the
Divine have refuted. But one cause of the great conspiracy of these
wicked ones was Nicolaus, one of the seven appointed to the diaconate
by the Apostles.[187] He, having fallen away from the right doctrine,
taught that it was indifferent how men lived and ate: whose disciples
having waxed insolent, the Holy Spirit exposed in the Apocalypse as
fornicators and eaters of things offered to idols.[188]
9. _Cerdo and Lucian._[189]
37. But a certain Cerdo taking in like manner his starting-point from
these [heretics] and from Simon, says that the [Sidenote: p. 393.]
God announced by Moses and [the] Prophets was not the Father of Jesus
Christ. For that this God was known, but the Father of the Christ
unknowable; and that the first-named was [only] just, but the other,
good. The doctrine of this [Cerdo] Marcion confirmed when he took in
hand the _Antitheses_[190] and everything which seemed to him to speak
against the Demiurge of all things. And so did Lucian his disciple.
10. _Apelles._[191]
38. Now Apelles who [sprang] from among these men, says thus:--There is
a certain good God as Marcion supposed; but he who created all things
is [only] just; and there is a third [God] who spoke to Moses, and
yet a fourth, a cause of evil. And he names these angels and speaks
ill of the Law and the Prophets, deeming the Scriptures of human
authorship and false. And he picks out of the Gospels and Epistles
the things favourable to him. Yet he clings to the discourses of a
certain Philumena as the manifestations[192] [Sidenote: p. 394.] of a
prophetess. And he says that the Christ came down from the powers on
high, _i. e._ from the Good One and was the son of that One, and was
not begotten from a virgin, nor did He appear bodiless;[193] but that
taking parts from every substance[194] of the All, He made a body, that
is from hot and cold and wet and dry. And that in this body He lived
unnoticed by the cosmic authorities during the time that He spent in
the cosmos. And moreover that having been crucified[195] by the Jews
He died, and after three days rose again and appeared to the disciples
showing the marks of the nails and [the wound] in his side, and thereby
convinced them that He existed and was not a phantom but was incarnate.
The flesh [Apelles] says, which He showed, He gave back to the earth
whence was its substance, and He desired nothing of others, but merely
used [the flesh] for a season. He gave back to each its own, having
loosed again the bond of the body, _i. e._ the hot to the hot, the cold
to the cold, the wet to the wet and the dry to the dry,[196] and thus
passed to the presence of the good Father, leaving the seed of life to
the world to those who believe through the disciples.[197]
[Sidenote: p. 395.] 39. It seems to us that we have set forth
sufficiently these things also. But since we have decided to leave
unrefuted no doctrines taught by any [heretic], let us see what has
been excogitated by the Docetae.
FOOTNOTES
[Footnote 1: Of the Basilides with whose doctrines this book opens,
little is known. While some would on slender grounds make him a
Syrian, there is no doubt that he taught in Egypt and especially in
Alexandria, where he seems to have steeped himself in Greek philosophy.
This must have been during the reign of Hadrian and some time before
the appearance of the far greater heresiarch Valentinus. If we could
believe the testimony of Epiphanius, Basilides was a fellow-disciple
with Satornilus, to be presently mentioned, of Menander, the immediate
successor of Simon Magus; and, according to the more trustworthy
witness of Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._, VII, 17), he himself
claimed to be the disciple of Glaucias, “the interpreter” of St. Peter.
He had a son Isidore who shared his teaching, and he wrote a treatise
in twenty-four books on the Gospels which he called _Exegetica_. The
sect that he founded, although never popular, lingered for some time
in Egypt; but there is much probability in Matter’s conjecture (_Hist.
crit. du Gnost._, 2nd ed., III, 36), that most of his followers became
the hearers of Valentinus.
Our author’s account of Basilides’ doctrine at first sight differs
so widely from that given by Irenæus and his copyists that it was
for long supposed that the two accounts were irreconcilable. The
late Prof. Hort, however, in his lucid article on the subject in the
_Dictionary of Christian Biography_ showed with much skill that this
was not so, and that the Basilidian doctrine contained in our text is
in all probability that of the _Exegetica_ itself, while the teaching
attributed to Basilides by Irenæus and others was the same doctrine
largely corrupted by the inconsistent and incoherent superstitions
which invariably attach themselves to any faith propagated in secret.
The immediate source of Basilides’ own teaching cannot, up to the
present time, be satisfactorily traced; but, although its coping-stone,
the non-existent Deity, shows some likeness to the Buddhistic ideas
which were at any rate known in the Alexandria of his time (Clem.
Alex., _Strom._, I, 15), it is probable that among the relics of
the ancient Egyptian religion, then almost extinct, something of
the same idea might have been found. His obligation to the Stoic
philosophy is well brought out by Hort; and he was doubtless versed
in the dialectical methods of Aristotle, which, then as later, formed
the universal equipment of the student of philosophy. Hippolytus’
theory that the ground-work of the Basilidian edifice is a conscious
or unconscious borrowing from Aristotle derives no support from any
Aristotelian writings known to us. Unlike other Gnostics, Basilides
displays no animus towards the Jews beyond reducing their Deity to
the Ruler of the Hebdomad, or lowest spiritual world, and he accepts
as fully as possible the Divinity of Jesus and the authority of the
New Testament. Of the Docetism attributed to him by Irenæus and
others, there is here no trace, and the Bishop of Lyons’ statement on
this point can only be explained by supposing that he here confused
Basilides with some other heresiarch.
The distinctive features of Basilides’ teaching as disclosed in our
text are, however, plain enough. Rejecting all idea of a pre-existing
matter, he derives everything from the Supreme Being, whom he considers
to be so unspeakably and inconceivably great that he will not even
say of Him that He exists. He it is who from the first decreed not
only the foundation of the universe but also the means and agency by
which this is to be brought about. Nor do the apparent defects in its
constitution involve in Basilides’ system any thwarting of the Divine
Will by intermediate agents, or any lapse from duty on their part. All
things subsequent to the Supreme Being are in effect His children, and
from the Panspermia or Seed-Mass originally let fall by Him emerges the
First Sonhood, or purest part of the Sonhood, which, rising from the
heap by its own lightness and tenuity, springs upward into the presence
of the First Cause, where it remains for the purpose of giving light
when needed to the lower parts of creation. This is quickly followed
by the Second Sonhood (or Second Part of the Sonhood), which, emerging
in like manner, rises not from its own unaided power, but with the
assistance of the Boundary Spirit, who must have its origin in the
Seed-Mass, and who is left as the Boundary between the visible and the
invisible part of the universe when the Second Sonhood passes to the
Ogdoad or Eighth Heaven. This Eighth Heaven is under the sway of the
Great Ruler, a functionary emitted by the Seed-Mass for the purpose of
governing this abode of perfection, from which it may be inferred that
the Second Sonhood like the First ultimately returns to the presence of
the Supreme Being. In his organization of this Eighth Heaven, the Great
Ruler is much helped by the Son whom he calls forth from the Seed-Mass,
who is expressly stated to be greater and wiser than his own Father.
There remains in the Seed-Mass two other world-creating powers. The
first of these is the maker of the Seven Heavens or Hebdomad, which
can here hardly be the planets, because they are expressly said to
be sublunary. He, too, produces from the Seed-Mass a Son greater and
wiser than himself, who again, it may be supposed, assists his father
in the organization of this Hebdomad. What form this organization took
we are not told, although there is some talk of 365 beings who are all
“Dominions and Powers and Authorities” with a ruler called Habrasax.
Below this Hebdomad, however, comes this world of ours called the
“Formlessness,” which has, it is said, “no leader nor guardian nor
demiurge” (_i.e._ architect), everything happening in it as decreed
by the Supreme Being from the first. Yet this Formlessness contains
within it the Third Sonhood (or third part of the Sonhood) whose
mission is apparently to guide the souls of men to the place for which
they are predestined, which it does by imparting to them some of its
own nature. Then, when the time came for the Coming of the Saviour,
a light shining from the highest heavens was transmitted through the
intermediate places to the Son of the Hebdomad and fell upon “Jesus
the son of Mary,” and He after the Passion ascended like the two first
parts of the Sonhood to the Divine Presence. In due time the third part
of the Sonhood will, it is said, follow Him. When this happens, the
soul predestined to the Seven Heavens will pass thither, those more
enlightened will be admitted to the Eighth Heaven, and those entitled
to the most glorious destiny of all will probably ascend with the third
part of the Sonhood to the Highest. On the two inferior classes, there
will then fall the “Great Ignorance,” a merciful oblivion which will
prevent them from remembering or otherwise being troubled in their
beatitude by the knowledge of the still better things above them.
How the salvation of these souls is to be effected there is no
indication in Hippolytus, and he leaves us in entire doubt as to
whether Basilides allowed any free-will to man in the matter. It is
probable that he taught the doctrine of transmigration as a means of
purification from sins or faults committed in ignorance. But it is
several times asserted that he looked on suffering as a cleansing
process for the soul, and that he did not admit the existence of
evil (see Hort’s article on Basilides in _D.C.B._, I, pp. 274, 275
for references). About some of his teaching there was deliberate
concealment (_ibid._, p. 279), and Irenæus (I, xxiv. 6), tells us that
his followers were taught to declare that while they were “no longer
Jews” they were “not yet” (or perhaps “more than”) Christians. In
this we may perhaps see the influence of the rubrics of the Egyptian
_Book of the Dead_, and the beginning of that secret propagation of
religion which was to find its ripest fruit in Manichæism. For the
rest, although Irenæus (I, xxiv. 5) tells us that Basilides, like
Simon, Valentinus, and other Gnostics, taught that the body of Jesus
was a phantasm, and even that Simon of Cyrene had been crucified in His
stead, there appears no trace of this in our text, and it is possible
that the Bishop of Lyons is here again confusing Basilides’ doctrines
with those of his successors.]
[Footnote 2: ὄρος, “hill”; possibly a copyist’s error for ὅρος,
“boundary” or “shore.”]
[Footnote 3: This exordium was evidently intended to be spoken.]
[Footnote 4: οὐσία, Cruice and others translate this by “substance.”
Here it evidently means “essence” in the sense of “being.”]
[Footnote 5: εἶδος, _i.e._ appearance = that which is seen.]
[Footnote 6: ἄτομος, “which cannot be cut or divided,” = “atom.”]
[Footnote 7: ἀναδέξασθαι τομήν, “receive cutting.”]
[Footnote 8: ζῷον ἁπλῶς. See Aristotle, _Categor._, c. 3. The “living
creature” of the A. V. would here make better sense; but I keep the
word “animal” in the text out of respect for my predecessors.]
[Footnote 9: ὑπόστασις, literally _substantia_, with no meaning as has
οὐσία of “being.” See Hatch, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 275.]
[Footnote 10: ἀνείδεον, “abstract,” or “non-specific”?]
[Footnote 11: εἴδεσιν.]
[Footnote 12: The text has ταύτην .... [τὴν οὐσίαν], the words in
brackets being rightly deleted, as Cruice notes.]
[Footnote 13: ἐθέμεθα, “posited.”]
[Footnote 14: εἰς εἶδος οὐσίας ὑποστατικῆς, which shows the distinction
made by the author between ὀυσία and ὑπόστασις.]
[Footnote 15: ἄτομον, “undivided.”]
[Footnote 16: The text is here corrupt and has to be restored from
Aristotle’s, the word I have translated “essence” being as before
οὐσία while subject is ὑποκειμένον. Cf. Aristotle _Cat._, c. 5, and
_Metaphysica_, IV, c. 8.]
[Footnote 17: Or “of many animals although they differ in species.”]
[Footnote 18: ἔμψυχος, “animated” or “ensouled.”]
[Footnote 19: ἕκαστον [sic]. _One_ of the accidents would make better
sense. Cf. vol. I, p. 56 _supra_.]
[Footnote 20: _i.e._ “inherent.”]
[Footnote 21: τὰ ἄτομα.]
[Footnote 22: συμπληροῦται.]
[Footnote 23: οὐσία, which here as elsewhere in the text may be
translated “essence.” “Being,” perhaps, is better here as more familiar
to the English reader.]
[Footnote 24: These definitions of “accident” and the like are not to
be found in the _Categories_ of Aristotle as we have them in the work
known as the _Organon_, nor in any other of his extant works. But they
correspond with those given in Book VI, and are there attributed to
Pythagoras. Cf. p. 21 _supra_.]
[Footnote 25: οὐσία throughout.]
[Footnote 26: That is, makes fables or myths about the gods.]
[Footnote 27: Macmahon remarks that these must be among Aristotle’s
lost works. This is doubtful.]
[Footnote 28: ἀποκρύφους. Is Matthias a corruption of Glaucias? See n.
on p. 59 _supra_.]
[Footnote 29: Basilides and his son must therefore have been
contemporaries of the Apostles. Even if we treat the word αὐτοῖς here
as a copyist’s interpolation, it is evident that Basilides must have
been considerably anterior in time to Valentinus.]
[Footnote 30: πραγμάτων, “transactions.”]
[Footnote 31: The words in this sentence in square brackets are
emendations in the text made by different editors.]
[Footnote 32: πραγμάτων, as in last note but one.]
[Footnote 33: κατὰ πλάτος καὶ διαίρεσιν.]
[Footnote 34: Basilides is thus the first Gnostic to teach the doctrine
of creation _e nihilo_.]
[Footnote 35: ὑποστήσας. Cf. the legend of Cybele, Vol. I, p. 118, n. 1
_supra_.]
[Footnote 36: πανσπερμίαν. The word is found in the fragments of
Anaxagoras and Democritus as well as in Plato. Its use has been revived
by Darwin and Weissmann.]
[Footnote 37: ἰδέας.]
[Footnote 38: οὐσιῶν. Nothing is here got by translating the word
“substances.”]
[Footnote 39: πολυούσιον. Galen uses it as equivalent to “very
wealthy.”]
[Footnote 40: ὁποῖον. As in Aristotle, _Cate._, c. 5.]
[Footnote 41: This with Hippolytus’ interpolated remark emphasizes the
great difference between Basilides’ doctrine with its assertion of the
creation _e nihilo_ and the emanation theory of all other Gnostics. It
does away with the necessity for a pre-existent matter.]
[Footnote 42: Gen. 1. 3.]
[Footnote 43: John 1. 9. This and “Mine hour is not yet come” are the
only undoubted references to the Fourth Gospel made by Basilides.]
[Footnote 44: ἀρχάς.]
[Footnote 45: ὁμοούσιος. The first occurrence, so far as it can be
traced, of this too-famous word. If I am right, the interpretation of
οὐσία by “substance” came later. The nature of the Sonhood (Υἱότης,
Lat., _filietas_, which I translate “Sonhood” by analogy with
_paternitas_ = Fatherhood) is peculiar to Basilides, the idea being
apparently that within the Panspermia was concealed a germ which was
more closely related to its Divine Parent than the rest. The same idea
_mutatis mutandis_ reappears in Weissmann’s theory of the germ-plasm.]
[Footnote 46: Homer, _Odyssey_, VII, 36.]
[Footnote 47: δι’ ὑπερβολὴν κάλλους καὶ ὡραιότητος. The longing of
all nature for something higher is also mentioned in the Book on the
Ophites (See Book V, Vol. I, pp. 123, 140 _supra_). The phrase was
evidently a favourite one with Hippolytus, and he therefore uses it in
regard to several heresies, as he has done with the magnet simile.]
[Footnote 48: μιμητική τις οὖσα, “being an imitative thing.”]
[Footnote 49: Plato, _Phaedrus_, cc. 55, 56.]
[Footnote 50: ὁμοούσιον.]
[Footnote 51: χαρακτηρισθῆναι.]
[Footnote 52: Ps. cxxxiii. 2.]
[Footnote 53: ἀμορφίας καὶ τοῦ διαστήματος τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς. The ἀμορφία
corresponds exactly to the Chaos of the other Gnostics, as contrasted
with the Cosmos or ordered world which in this case is above it. In
it, as we see later (p. 356 Cr.) there is neither “leader nor guardian
nor demiurge,” and everything happens by predestination. The διάστημα
we have already met with in the teaching of Simon Magus (p. 261
Cr.). Although in classical Greek it means an “interval,” it is here
evidently intended to signify something uncultivated, or, as we should
say, a “waste.”]
[Footnote 54: It gives benefit by passing into the souls of certain
chosen men and thus enabling them to obtain the highest beatitude. It
receives it by thus purifying itself and so working out in turn its own
salvation.]
[Footnote 55: He evidently regards the three persons of the Sonhood as
one being.]
[Footnote 56: “Cosmos.”]
[Footnote 57: Τὸ Μεθόριον Πνεῦμα.]
[Footnote 58: The likeness of this to the Egyptian Horus who was at
once the sky-god and the ruler of the sublunary world, whose earthly
representative was the Pharaoh, is manifest. So, too, is its connection
with Horos, the Limit, of the Pleroma in Book VI.]
[Footnote 59: So in the _Pistis Sophia_ the great ruler of the material
world is only spoken of as the Great Propatôr or Forefather, but his
personal name is never mentioned. The word Ἄρχων here applied to this
power is never used by later Gnostics except in a bad sense.]
[Footnote 60: δεσπότης = autocrat or ruler having unlimited power.]
[Footnote 61: καθ’ ἕκαστα.]
[Footnote 62: This idea of a Power bringing into being a son greater
than himself seems peculiar to Basilides among Gnostic teachers. Its
origin may, perhaps, be sought among Pagan religions like the Greek
worship of Isis. See _Forerunners_, I, p. 63.]
[Footnote 63: This ἐντελεχεία or Quintessence Aristotle defines
(_Metaphys._, X, 9, 2) as actuality or the property of a thing _in
posse_ which lends to its motion or activity _in esse_.]
[Footnote 64: ἀποτέλεσμα. The word is much used in astrology.]
[Footnote 65: μεγαλειότητος. The word is post-classical and used in its
modern sense as an epithet of the Emperor in Byzantine times. Cf. LXX,
Jer. xxxiii. 9; Luke ix. 43; Acts xix. 27.]
[Footnote 66: ῥητός as opposed to ἄρῥητος, “ineffable.”]
[Footnote 67: That is to say, our world.]
[Footnote 68: ὡς φθάσαντα τεχθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ τὰ μέλλοντα γενέσθαι ὁτε δεῖ
καὶ οἷα δεῖ καὶ ὡς δεῖ λελογισμένου. The reading is very uncertain. Cf.
Cruice, p. 356 nn. 9, 10.]
[Footnote 69: Rom. viii. 22.]
[Footnote 70: Rom. v. 13, 14. In the Greek not ἁμαρτία as in the text,
but θάνατος, “death.”]
[Footnote 71: Cf. Exod. vi. 2, 3. Basilides has twisted the last
sentence, “By my name Jehovah was I not known to them,” as Hippolytus
notes.]
[Footnote 72: ἐκεῖθεν, _i. e._ from the Hebdomad. Cruice will have it
from the Ogdoad, but is clearly wrong.]
[Footnote 73: Ἀρχή, “Rule.” Cf. Milton’s “Thrones, Dominations,
Princedoms, Virtues, Powers.”]
[Footnote 74: The simile of the vapour of naphtha rising and catching
fire from a light above it is apt. As Prof. A. S. Peake points out
in his article on “Basilides” in Hastings’ _Dictionary of Religion
and Ethics_, Basilides throughout his system asserts in opposition to
Gnostics like Valentinus that salvation comes from the uplifting of the
lower powers rather than by the degradation of the higher.]
[Footnote 75: There are many conjectural readings of this passage, for
which see Cruice.]
[Footnote 76: Prov. i. 7. So Clem. Alex. (_Strom._, II, 8, 36), who
clearly quotes this passage from Basilides.]
[Footnote 77: κατασκευή. Cf. LXX, Gen. i. 1.]
[Footnote 78: ἀποκατασταθήσεται. This Apocatastasis, or return of the
worlds to the Deity from whom they came forth, is a favourite source of
speculation with all Gnostics.]
[Footnote 79: 1 Cor. ii. 13.]
[Footnote 80: A conflation of Ps. xxxii. 5, and Ps. li. 3.]
[Footnote 81: εὐαγγελισθήσεται, “have the good news announced to him”?]
[Footnote 82: It is the words in brackets which connect the system of
the text with that attributed to Basilides by Irenæus and Epiphanius.
Cf. Iren., I, xxiv. 5, pp. 202, 203, and n. 6, H., and Epiph., _Haer._,
XXIV.]
[Footnote 83: Eph. iii. 3, 5.]
[Footnote 84: 2 Cor. xii. 4.]
[Footnote 85: As at the Baptism in Jordan where, according to the
almost universal tradition, the water was lighted up.]
[Footnote 86: Luke i. 35.]
[Footnote 87: δύναμις τῆς χρίσεως. Thus in Cruice. Miller would read
κρίσεως, and Roeper Ὀγδοάδος. Perhaps the correct reading is χριστός,
according to the idea common to nearly all Gnostics that the Christos
only came upon Jesus at His Baptism.]
[Footnote 88: ἐγένετο ἄν.]
[Footnote 89: John iffi. 5.]
[Footnote 90: ὑπὸ γένεσιν, “configuration” or “geniture.” The proper
word for a theme or horoscope.]
[Footnote 91: It was the Second and not the First Sonhood who left the
Holy Spirit at the Boundary.]
[Footnote 92: It is plain from this that Basilides taught that the most
spiritual part of man’s soul was part of the Sonhood and that it was
separated from the rest at death. This is confirmed by what is said
later about what happened after the Passion.]
[Footnote 93: Εὐαγγέλιον = “good news”? The article is omitted in both
these sentences.]
[Footnote 94: He of the Ogdoad.]
[Footnote 95: ἠγαλλιάσατο, a kind of pun on Ἐὐαγγέλιον, “glad tidings.”]
[Footnote 96: ἵνα ἀπαρχὴ τῆς φυλοκρινήσεως γένηται τῶν συγκεχυμένων.
So Clem. Alex. (_Strom._, II., 8, 36), quoting from the “followers of
Basilides,” says that the Great Ruler’s fear became the ἀρχὴ τῆς σοφίας
φυλοκρινητικῆς, “the origin of the wisdom which discriminates.”]
[Footnote 97: σωματικὸν μέρος.]
[Footnote 98: This flatly contradicts the story attributed to Basilides
by Irenæus to the effect that Simon of Cyrene took His place on the
Cross. It has long been thought likely that Irenæus was here confusing
Basilides with his contemporary Saturninus.]
[Footnote 99: So in the _Pistis Sophia_, the incorporeal part of man is
said to consist of four parts.]
[Footnote 100: ὑπόθεσις.]
[Footnote 101: καὶ τὸ πάθος οὐκ ἄλλου τινὸς χάριν γέγονεν [ἢ] ὑπὲρ τοῦ
φυλοκρινηθῆναι τὰ συγκεχυμένα.]
[Footnote 102: As has been said, there appears no reason to doubt that
Hippolytus took his account of Basilides’ doctrines directly from the
works of that heresiarch or of his son Isidore. The likeness of the
quotations from Basilides or “those about Basilides” in Clement of
Alexandria--a far more accurate and critical writer than Hippolytus--to
our text leave no doubt on this point, and it is even probable that,
as Hort thought, most of Hippolytus’ information is gathered from
Basilides’ _Exegetica_. His account of the universe and its creation
is largely Stoic, as may be seen by a comparison of this chapter with
that on the Universe in Prof. E. V. Arnold’s excellent _Roman Stoicism_
(Cambridge, 1911); but he differs from all the Pagan philosophy of
his time by his view of matter which he makes neither pre-existent
nor malignant. In this, and in the “happy ending” to his drama of
the universe, we may perhaps see the result of the Golden Age of the
Antonines, and it is to this, perhaps, that he owed the influence that
he, without any great followers or successors, had upon the future
theology of orthodox and heretic alike. Many of his ideas, and even
a few of his very words, appear in documents like the later parts of
the _Pistis Sophia_, and in certain Manichæan writings, although the
strict monotheism which distinguishes them is in sharp contrast with
the dualism of his successors. This begets a doubt whether these last
were conscious borrowers of his opinion, or whether both he and they
took their doctrines from some common source of Eastern tradition not
now recognizable; but on the whole, the first-named hypothesis seems
the more probable.]
[Footnote 103: Σατορνεῖλος. So Epiph., _Haer._ XXIII, and Theodoret,
_Haer. Fab._, I, 3, spell the name. Iren., I, 22; Eusebius, _H.E._, IV,
7, and later writers spell it Σατορνῖνος. All these accounts, however,
together with that in our text, are in effect copies of the chapter in
Iren., which is the earliest in time that has remained to us. Salmon
in _D.C.B._, s.v. “Saturninus,” thinks that this last is itself copied
from Justin Martyr, which is likely enough, but remains without proof.]
[Footnote 104: Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXIII, p. 124, Oehl. adds to this
that Saturninus and Basilides were co-disciples, which, if true, would
connect their systems with Menander’s teacher, Simon Magus. Nothing
further is, however, known about Saturnilus or Saturninus or his
heresy, which Epiphanius makes the third after Christ, nor is there any
mention in any of the heresiologies of any writings by him. His story
of a First or Pattern Man made in the image of the Supreme Being is
common, as has been said, to many of the early heresies, and reappears
in Manichæism. It is probably to be referred to some tradition current
in Western Asia. See Bousset’s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, cap. “Der
Urmensch.”]
[Footnote 105: τῆς αὐθεντίας, “one who holds absolute rule.” _Summa
potestas_, Cr.]
[Footnote 106: Cf. Gen. i. 26.]
[Footnote 107: This story is also met with among the Ophites. See
Iren. (I, xxx. 5), where life is given to the grovelling figure by
Jaldabaoth, the chief of the seven powers. Epiphanius adds to it that
the world-makers divided the cosmos among them by lot, and that it was
a spark of his own Power that the “Power on high” sent down for the
vivification of the First Man, “which spark, he says, they fancy to be
the human soul.”]
[Footnote 108: καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐξ ὧν ἐγένετο, εἰς ἐκεῖνα ἀναλύεσθαι.]
[Footnote 109: So Miller. Theodoret has Σωτῆρα, “Saviour,” for Father.]
[Footnote 110: Words in ( ) restored from Epiphanius.]
[Footnote 111: No necessary mistake or confusion, as has been thought.
The “deposition” might be merely that of an unsuccessful general, as in
Manichæism.]
[Footnote 112: Marcion of Pontus was the heresiarch most dreaded by the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, and is said to have led away from the Primitive
Church a greater number of adherents than any teacher of that age,
with the doubtful exception of Valentinus. He also differed from all
other heretics of the time in setting up a Church fully equipped with
bishops, priests, and deacons over against the Catholic, and in seeing
that his followers openly avowed their faith in times of persecution.
He rejected the Old Testament entirely, and reduced the New to a
shorter edition of the Gospel of St. Luke and ten of the Epistles of
St. Paul. This has led to his heresy receiving more attention than
any other of its contemporaries at the hands of modern scholars,
especially in Germany. Hence it is to be regretted that the chapter in
our text which is devoted to him adds nothing to our knowledge of his
history or tenets, while its statement that Marcion called the Demiurge
πονηρός (wicked) shows either that Hippolytus was ignorant of Marcion’s
opinions, or that he misread his authority. The first is the more
likely theory, as his master Irenæus gives a more scanty account of
Marcion than of any other heretic, while promising to write a special
treatise against him. This intention does not seem to have been carried
out, and it is probable that while the Marcionite heresy flourished at
an early date in the Eastern provinces of the Empire, it had too slight
a hold in the West to have given such writers as Irenæus and Hippolytus
much first-hand knowledge concerning it. It is also noted that in the
so-called “epitome of heresies” in Book X, Hippolytus does not, after
his manner with the other heresies, quote from this chapter.]
[Footnote 113: τοῦ παντός. This expression, as has been many times said
above, means the universe without the Void. It does not therefore,
exclude the collateral existence of Chaos or unformed matter.]
[Footnote 114: This accusation of incontinence against Marcion is
disproved by Tertullian, _de Præscript_, c. 30. Cf. _Forerunners_, II,
206, n. 5.]
[Footnote 115: Φιλία, Cr., “_Amicitia_,” Macm., “Friendship.” The
stronger word Love seems to express better Hippolytus’ meaning. It is,
of course, distinct from the ἀγάπη or “charity” of the A. V.]
[Footnote 116: He refers to the scanty account of Empedocles’ doctrines
in Book I, _q.v._]
[Footnote 117: κλεψιλόγος, “word-stealer.”]
[Footnote 118: κοσμεῖται, “set in order.”]
[Footnote 119: κρούνωμα βρότειον, ll. 55-57, Karsten; 33-35, Stein. Cr.
translates these words _humanam scaturiginem_, and Macm., “the mortal
font.” It is difficult to assign any meaning to them in the absence of
the context.]
[Footnote 120: τρεφομένοις, “things in course of nurture.”]
[Footnote 121: ζῷα, “animals.”]
[Footnote 122: He appears to ignore the desert, or perhaps thinks this
no part of the _ordered_ world.]
[Footnote 123: ὑπόθεσιν, lit., “substructure.”]
[Footnote 124: πνεῦμα, a manifest slip for Ἀήρ as before.]
[Footnote 125: στοργή, as in the N. T.]
[Footnote 126: ὀλέθριον.]
[Footnote 127: εἰς τὸ ἓν ἀποκαταστάσεως. The Codex has τὸν ἕνα. That
the meaning is as given above, see p. 373 Cr., where we find ἐκ πολλῶν
ποιήσῃ τὸ ἕν κ.τ.λ.]
[Footnote 128: ll. 110, 111, Stein. In p. 274 Cr., _supra_, these lines
are quoted as the opinions of “the Pythagoreans.”]
[Footnote 129: τὸ πᾶν, not τὸ ὅλον. See n. on I, p. 35 _supra_.]
[Footnote 130: ἰδέα, “species”; so Cruice.]
[Footnote 131: κλάδοι, lit., “branches.”]
[Footnote 132: ll. 107, 205, Karsten.]
[Footnote 133: l. 7, Karsten; 381, Stein.]
[Footnote 134: ll. 4, Karsten; 372, 373, Stein.]
[Footnote 135: l. 5, Karsten; 374, Stein.]
[Footnote 136: νοητός, “that which can be understood by the mind rather
than by the senses.”]
[Footnote 137: εἴδεα θνητῶν, “forms of mortals.”]
[Footnote 138: ll. 6, Karsten; 375, 376, Stein.]
[Footnote 139: ll. 15-19, Karsten; 377-380, Stein.]
[Footnote 140: μεμερισμένου, _minutatim divisi_, Cr.]
[Footnote 141: ἐγκρατεῖς εἶναι, “to be abstainers.”]
[Footnote 142: ll. 1, 2, Karsten; 369, 370, Stein.]
[Footnote 143: νοητήν, as before.]
[Footnote 144: ἐπινοεῖσθαι.]
[Footnote 145: Reading for ἀδινῇσιν ... πραπίδεσσιν, ἰδυιῄσι
πραπίδεσσιν, as in Hom., _Il._, I, 608.]
[Footnote 146: Φύσις ἑκάστῳ, “the nature of each one”?]
[Footnote 147: Cf. ll. 313 _sqq._, Karsten, and 222 _sqq._, Stein.
Schneidewin has restored the very bad text in _Philologus_, VI, 166.
But the lines are still obscure--even for Empedocles. They seem to hint
at a hidden meaning, to be got by study.]
[Footnote 148: κολοβοδάκτυλος. See _Journal of Classical and Sacred
Philology_ (Cambridge), March 1855, p. 87. The story of St. Mark
cutting off his thumb to make himself ineligible for the priesthood is
quoted by Cruice from St. Jerome.]
[Footnote 149: ἀντιπαράθεσιν, “the setting over against.”]
[Footnote 150: ὑπολαμβάνεις. Cr. and Macm. both translate, “as you
suppose them to be.” But Marcion could have been in no doubt as to his
own opinions.]
[Footnote 151: Marcion did not say that the Demiurge, whom he probably
identified with the God of the Jews, was wicked. On the contrary, he
said that he was just, though harsh. See _Forerunners_, II, xi.]
[Footnote 152: εὐαγγελίζῃ.]
[Footnote 153: Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, as quoted in Book VIII, p. 422 Cr.]
[Footnote 154: Reading τοὺς σεαυτοῦ μαθητάς for the τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητάς
of the text.]
[Footnote 155: All this argument is a _petitio principii_ of the most
flagrant kind. There is nothing in the quotations here given from
Empedocles to show that that philosopher made Love and Strife the two
ἀρχαί of the universe, as Empedocles associates with them the four
“elements” of Fire, Earth, Water and Air, and Ἀνάγκη or Fate seems,
according to his teaching, to be superior to them all. The quotations
prove, however, that Empedocles taught metempsychosis, unless
Hippolytus is here confusing him with Pythagoras. Marcion did not, and
the reason that he gave for abstinence from animal food is different
from that attributed to Empedocles. The quotations themselves are much
corrupted, and Hippolytus seems to have taken them from memory only, as
he is careful to say that these are “something like this.” All of them
appear in Karsten’s or Stein’s collections, which were made before the
discovery of our text, and are, therefore, an argument against Salmon’s
theory of forgery.]
[Footnote 156: καθαριωτάτη, “purest.”]
[Footnote 157: This Prepon, probably a Syrian, is mentioned by no
other writer except Theodoret, who doubtless borrowed from our text.
The “Bardesianes” was probably the famous Bardaisan or Ibn Daisan who
taught at Edessa and was a follower of Valentinus. It is noteworthy
that the Armenian author, Eznig of Goghp, gives a different account of
Marcion’s teaching from any of the Western heresiologists and makes him
admit the independent existence of a third principle in the shape of
malignant matter. For this, see _Forerunners_, II, p. 217, n. 2.]
[Footnote 158: διαφερούσας, “differentiated”?]
[Footnote 159: ll. 338-341, Stein. Schneidewin has restored the lines
as far as is possible.]
[Footnote 160: ὑπόπλασμα, “that which has been moulded.”]
[Footnote 161: Μεσίτης. Not intercessor, but something placed between
two others.]
[Footnote 162: Not St. Paul, but Luke xvii. 19.]
[Footnote 163: There is no indication of the source from which
Hippolytus drew the material for this chapter. It does not seem to have
been the writings of Irenæus, for his remarks in I, xxv tell us even
less about Marcion than our text. Possibly Hippolytus was here indebted
to the work of Justin Martyr, which seems to have been extant in the
time of Photius. With the exception of the notice of Prepon, our text
contains nothing that was not known otherwise.]
[Footnote 164: This Carpocrates, whom Epiphanius calls Carpocras, seems
to have been another of “the great Gnostics of Hadrian’s time,” and to
have been learned in the Platonic philosophy. He is mentioned by all
the heresiologists, but there is little that is distinctive about his
tenets as they have come down to us, and his followers were probably
few. They are accused by Irenæus, from whose chapter on the subject
Hippolytus’ account is condensed, of a kind of Antinomianism having its
origin in the contention that all actions are indifferent.]
[Footnote 165: μετὰ τοῦ ἀγενήτου Θεοῦ περιφορᾷ.]
[Footnote 166: χωρήσασαν can only apply to ψυχή. The return of the
Power to the Deity could not be supposed to affect other souls.]
[Footnote 167: ὁμοίως.]
[Footnote 168: κατήργησε.]
[Footnote 169: τῆς ὑπερκειμένης ἐξουσίας. Cruice points out that these
words have slipped into the text from the margin. Irenæus has ex _eadem
circumlatione devenientes_, “descending from the same sphere,” which is
doubtless correct.]
[Footnote 170: εἰς διαβολήν, probably a play on διάβολος.]
[Footnote 171: ἐν μιᾷ παρουσίᾳ, “in one appearance.”]
[Footnote 172: κατασκευάζουσι, “mould or cast.”]
[Footnote 173: This chapter is in effect a condensation of Irenæus
I, xx, which it follows closely. Hippolytus omits mention of the
obscenities attributed to the sect which are hinted at by Irenæus
and described fully by Epiphanius. Irenæus also mentions that they
claimed to get their doctrine from the secret teaching of Jesus to
the Apostles, that one Marcellina taught their heresy in Rome under
Pope Anicetus, and that the images of Christ were worshipped by them,
_more Gentilium_, along with those of Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle.
Epiphanius derives the heresy from Simon Magus. It is suggested that
the branding by which they knew each other was due to a “baptism by
fire.”]
[Footnote 174: This chapter also is practically identical with Irenæus
I, xxi, which is extant in the Latin version. Cerinthus was one of the
earliest of the Gnostics and tradition makes him contemporary with St.
John. He was probably a member of the Jewish-Alexandrian school of
Philo, and Epiphanius (_Haer._ XXVIII) adds to Irenæus’ account that he
taught in Asia, and especially in Galatia.]
[Footnote 175: αὐθεντίας, as before.]
[Footnote 176: κηρύξας, perhaps “preached.”]
[Footnote 177: Does this amount to an admission of the resurrection of
the body? If so it is in marked contrast to the Docetism of Marcion and
others.]
[Footnote 178: Ἐβιοναῖοι, Latin [Iren.] _qui dicuntur Ebionæi_, as
if they were followers of a mythical leader Ebion. The existence of
any founder of this name is now generally given up, and the word is
more probably a mere transliteration of the Hebrew אביון, “poor.” The
Ebionites were in all likelihood Judaizing Christians who had remained
behind in Palestine through the wars of Titus and Hadrian, and still
kept to the observance of the Mosaic Law. The brief statement in our
text is probably derived from Hippolytus’ recollection of Irenæus,
I, c. 21, the first sentence being in nearly the same words in both
authors. Irenæus adds to it that they used the gospel of St. Matthew
only and did not consider St. Paul as an apostle, because he did not
keep the Law; also that they adored Jerusalem as the “house of God.”]
[Footnote 179: μυθεύουσιν, “fable.” Irenæus’ Latin version here inserts
a _non_, evidently a clerical error.]
[Footnote 180: ποιήσαντα, Cruice, _servare_, Macm., “fulfilled.” In
either case a curious meaning for ποιέω. Cf. the ποιέω τὴν μουσικήν of
Plato, _Phaedo_, 60. E.]
[Footnote 181: In the accounts of the two Theodoti, which may here be
taken together, Hippolytus leaves Irenæus, from whom he has hitherto
been content to copy his account of the smaller heresies, and draws
from some source not yet identified, but which may be the _Little
Labyrinth_ of Caius (see Salmon in _D.C.B._, s.v. “Theodotus.”). His
description of the heresy of Theodotus of Byzantium corresponds with
that of Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._, V, 28). The Melchizedekian theory of
the “other” Theodotus is mentioned by Philaster (c. 53, p. 54, Oehl.)
without reference to Theodotus, although on the preceding page he has
given the Byzantine heresy as in our text. Pseudo-Tertullian in _Adv.
Omn. Haer._ (II, p. 764, Oehl.) gives the story of both Theodoti much
as here, which may give support to the theory that this tract is a
summary of the lost _Syntagma_ of Hippolytus. Epiphanius (_Haer._
XXXIV, XXXV) divides the Melchizedekians from the Theodotians, and says
the first were ἀποσπασθέντες from the second, but without naming the
banker. He also gives some particulars about the first Theodotus, which
he does not seem to have taken from Hippolytus. He quotes one Hierax as
saying that Melchizedek was the Holy Spirit, and says that “some” say
that Heracles was his father and Astaroth or Asteria his mother, while
Melchizedek plays a great part in the earliest part of the _Pistis
Sophia_ as the “Receiver of the Light.”]
[Footnote 182: ἀποσπάσας, lit., “torn away.”]
[Footnote 183: So that Hippolytus believed in the mythical founder of
the Ebionites.]
[Footnote 184: εὐσεβέστατον.]
[Footnote 185: _i. e._ the heretics.]
[Footnote 186: γνῶμαι.]
[Footnote 187: Acts vi. 5.]
[Footnote 188: Rev. ii. 6.]
[Footnote 189: This Cerdo is only known to us as a predecessor of
Marcion, whose teaching he appears to have influenced, although in
what measure cannot now be ascertained. His date seems to be fairly
well settled as about the year 135 (see _D.C.B._, s.h.v.), which is
that of his coming to Rome, and it was doubtless here that Marcion
met him. According to Irenæus, his teaching was mainly in secret and
he was always ready to make submission to the Church and recant his
errors when publicly arraigned. His doctrine, so far as it has come
down to us, does not seem to differ from that of Marcion, Tertullian
(_adv. Marcion_) and the tractate _Adv. Omn. Haer._ giving the best
account of it. Of Lucian, we know nothing, save that, while Epiphanius
(_Haer._ XLII, p. 688, Oehl.) makes him out the immediate successor
of Marcion and to have been succeeded by Apelles, Tertullian (_de
Resurrectione_, c. 2) speaks of him--if he be the person there referred
to as Lucanus--as an independent teacher with no apparent connection
with Marcion’s heresy. He adds that he taught a resurrection neither
of the body nor of the soul, but of some part of man which he calls a
“third nature.” See _Forerunners_, II, p. 218, n. 2, and 220.]
[Footnote 190: Ἀντιπαραθέσεις. See n. on p. 88 _supra_.]
[Footnote 191: Of this Apelles, our knowledge is mainly derived from
Tertullian, for references to whom see Hort’s article “Apelles” in
_D.C.B._ He was certainly later than Marcion, for Rhodo (see Euseb.,
_Hist. Eccl._, V, c. 13), writing at the end of the second century,
A.D., speaks of him as still alive, though an “old man.” The same
author seems to consider that on Marcion’s death he founded a sect
of his own, in which he “corrected” Marcion’s teaching in some
particulars. This is doubtful, but Rhodo’s statements go to show that
he quoted from the Old Testament and did not hold the body of Jesus to
be a phantasm. Tertullian also mentions several times the connection of
Apelles with the “possessed” Philumene, on which he puts a construction
negatived by the evidence of Rhodo. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, pp. 218-220.]
[Footnote 192: Hippolytus here accepts the statement of Tertullian (_de
Præscript._, c. 30) that Apelles wrote a book called Φανερώσεις, or
_Manifestations_, containing the prophecies of Philumene. He repeats
this with more distinctness in Book X, c. 20, _q. v._]
[Footnote 193: ἄσαρκον.]
[Footnote 194: οὐσία.]
[Footnote 195: ἀνασκολοπισθέντα, lit., “impaled.” It is, however, used
by both Philo and Lucian as equivalent to “crucified.”]
[Footnote 196: This “giving back” of the component parts of man’s being
to the different powers from which they are derived is a frequent
theme among the later Gnostics, and is fully described in the _Pistis
Sophia_. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, p. 184.]
[Footnote 197: The source of this chapter is certainly the tractate
_Adv. Omn. Haer._, formerly attributed to Tertullian and to be found
in the second volume of that author’s works in Oehler’s edition. No
other author mentions Apelles with such particularity, and all those
subsequent to Tertullian appear to have taken their information either
from Tertullian’s other works, from this tractate, or from our text.
This tractate has been discussed in the Introduction (see Vol. I,
pp. 12 and 23 _supra_) and perhaps all difficulties may be solved by
supposing it to be, not indeed the actual _Syntagma_ of Hippolytus, but
a summary of it.]
BOOK VIII
THE DOCETAE, MONOIMUS, AND OTHERS
[Sidenote: p. 396.] 1. These are the contents of the 8th [Book] of the
Refutation of all Heresies.
2. What are the opinions of the Docetae,[1] and that they teach things
which they say are from the Physicist Philosophy.[2]
3. How Monoimus speaks foolishly, giving heed to poets and
geometricians and arithmeticians.
4. How Tatian’s [heresy] sprang from the opinions of Valentinus and
Marcion wherefrom he compounded his own. And that Hermogenes has made
use of the teachings of Socrates, not of Christ.
5. How those err who contend that Easter should be celebrated on the
14th day [of the month].
6. What is the error of the Phrygians, who think Montanus and Priscilla
and Maximilla to be prophets.
[Sidenote: p. 397.] 7. What is the vain doctrine of the Encratites, and
that their teachings are compounded not out of the Holy Scriptures, but
from their own [views] and from those of the Gymnosophists among the
Indians.[3]
1. _The Docetae._
8. Since the many, making no use of the Lord’s counsel, while having
the beam[4] in their eye, yet give out that they can see, it seems to
us that we should not be silent as to their doctrines. So that they,
being brought to shame by our forthcoming refutation, shall recognize
how the Saviour counselled them to take away the beam from their own
eye, and then to see clearly the straw which was in their brother’s
eye. Now, therefore, having set forth sufficiently and adequately
the opinions of most of the heretics in the seven books before this,
we shall not now be silent upon those which follow. Exhibiting the
ungrudging grace of the Holy Spirit, we shall also refute those
who seem to have [Sidenote: p. 398.] attained security, They call
themselves Docetae and teach thus:--The first God[5] is as it were
the seed of a fig, in size altogether of the smallest, but in power
boundless, a magnitude unreckoned in quantity, lacking nothing for
bringing forth, a refuge for the fearful, a covering for the naked, or
veil for shame, a fruit sought for, whereto, he says, the Seeker came
thrice and found not.[6] Wherefore, he says, He cursed the fig-tree,[7]
so that that sweet fruit was not found on it, [_i. e._] the fruit that
was sought for. And [the seed] being, so to speak briefly, of such a
nature and so old [yet] small and without magnitude, the cosmos came
into being from God, as they think, in some such way as this:--The
branches of the tree becoming tender, put forth leaves, as is seen,
and fruit follows, wherein is preserved the innumerable [Sidenote: p.
399.] [and] stored-up seed of the fig. We think, therefore, that three
things first come into being from the seed of the fig, the stem which
is the fig-tree, leaves, and the fruit or fig, as we have before said.
Thus, says he, three Aeons came into being as principles from the
First Principle of the universals.[8] And on this, he says, Moses was
not silent, when he said that the words of God were three: “Darkness,
cloud and whirlwind and he added no more.”[9] For, he says, God added
nothing to the Three Aeons, but they sufficed and do suffice for all
things which come into being. But God Himself abides by Himself and far
removed from all the Aeons.[10]
When, therefore, each of these Aeons, he says, had received a principle
of generation, as has been said, it little by little increased and
grew great and became perfect. Now they think that the perfect number
[is] ten.[11] Then the Aeons having come into being equal in number
and perfection, as they think, they were thirty Aeons in all,[12] each
of them being complete in a decad. But they are divided and the three
having equal honour among themselves, differ in position only, because
one of them is first, [Sidenote: p. 400.] another second, and another
third. But this position produced a difference of power. For he who
is nearest to the First God--to the seed as it were--chances to have
a power more fruitful than the others, he who is the Immeasureable
One having measured himself ten times in magnitude. And the
Incomprehensible One, who has become second in position to the first,
comprehended himself six times. And the third in position, becoming
removed to an infinite distance by reason of his brethren’s dilatation,
conceived[13] himself three times and, as it were, bound himself by a
certain eternal bond of unity.[14]