But Euripides says from earth and aether, as he lets us see from his

saying:--

“I sing aether and earth, mother of all.”[12]

But Empedocles from four, saying thus:--

[Sidenote: p. 478.] “Hear first the four roots of all things;

Shining Zeus and life-bearing Here and Aïdoneus

And Nestis who wets with tears the human source.”

But from five, Ocellus the Lucanian[13] and Aristotle. For with the

four elements they include the fifth and rotating body whence, they

say, are all heavenly things. But from six, the followers of Empedocles

derived the birth of all things. For in the verses where he says:--

“Hear first the four roots of all things”

he makes everything come from four. But when he adds to this:--

“And baleful Strife apart from these [and] equal everywhere,

And Love with them equal in length and breadth,”[14]

he is handing down six things as sources of the universals [_i. e._]

four material: earth, water, fire, [and] air and two, [Sidenote: p.

479.] the agents Love and Strife. But the followers of Anaxagoras the

Clazomenian and Democritus and Epicurus and very many others whose

[opinions] we have before recorded in part, taught that the genesis

of all things was from the boundless. But Anaxagoras says they came

from things like those produced; but the followers of Democritus and

Epicurus, from those unlike and impassible, that is from the atoms;

and those of Heraclides the Pontian[15] and Asclepiades[16] from those

which are unlike, but passible, such as disconnected corpuscles.

But the followers of Plato say that they came from three, and that

these are God, Matter and Exemplar; but he divides matter into four

principles: fire, water, earth, air; and says that God is the Demiurge

of Matter, but Exemplar the Mind.

8. Now, having been persuaded that the system of Natural Science[17] is

confessedly found unworkable by all these [philosophers], we ourselves

shall unhesitatingly say concerning the examples of the Truth what they

are and how we believe in them. But in addition we will first set forth

in epitome the [opinions] of the heresiarchs, so that [Sidenote: p.

480.] the opinions of all being thereby easy to discern, we may display

the Truth as clear and easy to discern also.

1. _Naassenes._

9. But since this seems fitting, we will begin first with the

ministers of the serpent. The Naassenes call the first principle of

the universals a man and also Son of Man,[18] and him they divide into

three. For part of him, they say, is intellectual, part psychic, and

part earthly. And they call him Adamas and think the knowledge of him

is the beginning of the power to know God. And they say that all these

intellectual and psychic and earthly [parts] came into Jesus, and that

the three substances spoke together through Him to the three races of

the All. Thus they declare that there are three races, [the] angelic,

psychic [and] earthly, and that there are three Churches, angelic,

psychic and earthly; but that their names are [the] Called, Chosen,

[and] Captive. These are the heads of their doctrine in so far as it

can be briefly comprehended. They [Sidenote: p. 481.] say that they

were handed down by James the Brother of the Lord to Mariamne, thereby

belying both.[19]

2. _Peratæ._

10. But the Peratæ, Ademes the Carystian and Euphrates the Peratic[20]

say that a certain cosmos--this is what they call it--is one divided

into three. But of this threefold division of theirs, there is a single

source, as it were a great fountain, capable of being cut by the reason

into boundless sections. And the first and most excellent section is

according to them the triad and the one part of it is called Perfect

Good [and] Fatherly Greatness. But the second part of the Triad is, as

it were a certain boundless multitude of powers, and the third is that

of form. And the first [of the Triad] is unbegotten (since it is good:

but the second good and self-begotten and the third, begotten).[21]

Whence they say explicitly that there are three gods, three words,

[Sidenote: p. 482.] three minds [and] three men. For to each part of

the cosmos when the division was made, they assign Gods and Words and

Men and the rest. But from on high, from the unbegotten state and from

the first section of the cosmos, when the cosmos had already been

brought to completion, there came down in the time of Herod a certain

triple-natured and triple-bodied and triple-powered man called Christ,

having within Him all the compounds and powers from the three parts of

the cosmos. And this they will have to be the saying: “In Him dwells

all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily.” For [they say that] there came

down from the two overlying worlds, namely from the unbegotten and the

self-begotten, to this world in which we are, all sorts of seeds of

powers. And that Christ came down from the Unbegottenness in order that

through His descent all the things triply divided may be saved. For the

things, he says, brought down from on high shall ascend through Him;

but those who take counsel together against those brought down shall be

ruthlessly rejected and having been punished shall be sent away. And

he says that those [worlds] which will be saved are two, the overlying

ones [Sidenote: p. 483.] released from corruption. But the third will

be destroyed, which is the world of form.[22] And thus the Peratæ.

3. _The Sethiani._

11. But to the Sethians it appears that there are three definite

principles of the universals. And that each of these principles (has

boundless powers ... everything which you perceive by your mind or

which you pass over for lack of thought)[23] is formed by nature to

become [each of the principles] as in the human soul every art is to be

learned. As if [they say] there should come to a boy spending some time

with a pipe-player, the power of pipe-playing, or with a geometrician

the power of measurement, or in like manner with any other art. But the

substances of the principles, they say, are light and darkness. And

between them is pure spirit. But the spirit which is set between the

darkness which is below and the light which is above is, they say, not

spirit like a gust of wind or any small breeze which may be perceived,

but resembles some faint fragrance of balsam or [Sidenote: p. 484.]

of incense artificially compounded as a power penetrating by force of

fragrance and better than words can say. But because the light is above

and the darkness below and the spirit between them, the light, like

a ray of the sun on high, shines on the underlying darkness, and the

fragrance of the spirit holding the middle place is borne and spread

abroad as the odour of incense on the fire is borne. And as the power

of the triply divided is such, the power of the spirit and the light

together are below in the darkness beneath. But, they say, the darkness

is a fearful water into which the light is drawn down with the spirit

and changed into a similar nature. Now the darkness is sensible, and

knows that if the light is taken away from it, the darkness will remain

desolate, viewless, without light, powerless, idle and weak. In this

way by all its wit and foresight it is forced to retain within itself

the brilliance and scintillation of the light along with the fragrance

of the spirit.

And with regard to this, they bring in this image, saying that as

the pupil of the eye appears dark because of the [Sidenote: p. 485.]

waters underneath it, but it is made light by the spirit, thus the

light seeks after the spirit and retains for itself all the powers

which wish to withdraw and to depart. But these are ever boundless,

wherefrom all things are modelled and become like mingled seals. For,

as the seal coming into conjunction with the wax, makes the impress,

while itself remains by itself whatever it was, so the powers coming

into conjunction with each other elaborate all the boundless races of

living things. Therefore [they say] came into being from the first

conjunction of the three principles, the form of a great seal [_i.e._]

of heaven and earth, which had a shape like a womb with the navel in

the midst. Thus also the rest of the models of all things were modelled

resembling a womb like heaven and earth. But they say that from the

water came into being the first born principle, a violent and rushing

wind the cause of all generation, which sets in action a certain heat

and movement in the cosmos from the movement of the waters. And [they

say] [Sidenote: p. 486.] that this was changed into a complete form

like the hissing of a serpent, beholding which the cosmos is driven to

generation, being excited like a womb, and therefrom they will have

it the generation of the universals is established. And they say that

this wind is a spirit and that a perfect god came into being from the

waters and from the fragrance of the spirit and from the brilliance of

the light. And that there is also the begetting of a female, Mind, the

spark from on high which is mingled with the accretions of the body and

hastens to flee away so that it may escape and not find dissolution

through being enchained in the waters. Whence it cries aloud from the

mingling of the waters according to the Psalmist, as they say. “Thus

the whole care of the light on high is how it shall draw the spark

beneath from the Father who is below,” [that is], from the wind which

puts in action heat and disturbance and creates for himself Mind (a

perfect son) who is not (peculiar) to himself, [whom] they declare,

beholding the [Sidenote: p. 487.] perfect Word of the light from on

high, changed Himself into the form of a serpent and entered into a

womb, so that He might take again that mind which is a spark of the

light. And this, [they say] is the saying: “Who, being in the form of

God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself,

taking the form of a servant.” And this the unhappy and wicked Sethians

will have to be the [servile] form.[24] This then is what they say.

4. _Simon._

12. And the all-wise Simon says thus. There is a boundless power and

this is the root of the universals. The boundless power is, he says,

fire. According to him, it is not simple, as the many say the four

elements are simple and therefore think fire is simple; but [he says]

that the nature of the fire is double, and of this double [nature] he

calls one part hidden and the other manifest. And [Sidenote: p. 488.]

that the hidden parts are concealed within the manifest parts of the

fire, and the manifest parts of the fire are produced by the hidden.

But, he says, that all the seen and unseen parts of the fire are to be

considered as having sense.[25] Therefore, he says, the begotten world

came into being from the unbegotten fire. But it began to come into

being, he says, thus. The begotten [cosmos] took from the principle

of that fire the first six roots of the principle of generation. For

these six roots were born from the fire by pairs, which he calls

Nous and Epinoia, Phonê and Onoma, Logismos and Enthymesis. And [he

says] that in these six roots [taken] together, the Boundless Power

exists (potentially but not actively, which Boundless Power) he says

is the “He who Stands, Stood, and will Stand,” which if it be exactly

reflected will be within the six powers in substance, powers, greatness

and influence, being one and the same as the Unbegotten and Boundless

Power, and in no way inferior to that Unbegotten and Unchangeable and

Boundless Power. But if it remains only potentially in the Six Powers

and is not exactly [Sidenote: p. 489.] reflected, it, he says, vanishes

and will die away like the grammatical or geometrical power in the mind

of a man, when he does not receive technical teaching in addition. And

Simon says that himself is the He Who Stands, Stood, and will Stand,

being the Power which is above all.[26] Thus, then, Simon.

5. _Valentinus._

13. But Valentinus and those from his school say the Source of the All

is a Father and yet are carried into conflicting opinions [about him].

For some of them [think] that he is alone and capable of generation,

while others hold that he is incapable of bringing forth without a

female, and give him as a spouse Sigê, calling him Bythos. From whom

and from his spouse some say that six projections came into being,

[viz.] Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoë, Anthropos and Ecclesia, and

that this is the first Ogdoad which brings forth.[27] And, again, [they

say] that the projections which were first born within the Limit[28]

are called the things within the Pleroma; but those second, those

[Sidenote: p. 490.] without the Pleroma; and those third, those without

the Limit, the offspring of which last exists as the Hysterema.[29]

But he says that there was born from that which was projected in the

Hysterema, an Aeon, and that this is the Demiurge, for he does not

wish him to be the First God, but speaks ill both of him and of what

came into being by him. And [he says] that Christ came down from that

which was within the Pleroma for the salvation of the Spirit that went

astray, which dwells in our inner man, which they say will be saved for

the sake of the indwelling one. But [Valentinus] will not have it that

the flesh will be saved, calling it a “coat of skin” and a corrupter

of mankind. I have described this in epitome, as one meets with much

matter [concerning it] and differing opinions among them. This then is

what Valentinus’ school thinks.[30]

6. _Basilides._

14. But Basilides also says that there is a God-Who-Is-Not who, being

non-existent [made] the created world out [Sidenote: p. 491.] of the

things that are not. [He says] that a certain seed, like a grain of

mustard-seed was cast down, which contained within itself the stem,

the leaves, the branches [and] the fruit; or, like a peacock’s egg,

contains within itself a varied multitude of colours, and they say

that this is the seed of the cosmos, from which all things were

produced. For [he says] the seed contained all things within itself,

inasmuch as thus the things that were not were preordained to come

into being by the God-Who-Is-Not. Then there was, they say, in that

seed a Sonhood, tripartite and in all things of the same substance

with the God-Who-Is-Not, being begotten from the things that were not.

And of this tripartite Sonhood, one part was [itself] finely divided,

another coarsely so, while the other part needed purification. But the

finely-divided part, straightway and concurrently with the happening

of the first casting-down of the seed by the God-Who-Is-Not, escaped

and went on high and came into the presence of Him-Who-Is-Not. For

every nature yearns for Him because of His superabundance of beauty,

but each in a different way. But the more coarsely divided [part] abode

in the Seed and being merely imitative could not go on high, for it

was much inferior [Sidenote: p. 492.] to the finer part.[31] And it

was given wings by the Holy Spirit, for the Sonhood putting them on,

both gives and receives benefit.[32] But the third Sonhood has need of

purification. It remains in the heap of the Panspermia and it gives and

receives benefit. And [he says] that there is something called [the]

Cosmos and something hypercosmic for (the things that are) are divided

by him into these two primary divisions. And what is between them, he

calls [the] Boundary Holy Spirit, having the fragrance of the Sonhood.

From the Panspermia of the heap of the cosmic seed, there escaped and

was brought forth the Great Ruler, the chief of the Cosmos, [a being]

of unspeakable beauty and greatness. And he, uplifting himself to

the firmament thought there was none other above him. And he became

brighter and mightier than all below him, save the Sonhood left behind

whom he did not know to be wiser than he. This [Ruler] having turned to

the fashioning of the Cosmos, first begat for himself a Son better than

he, and made him sit at his right hand. And this [place of the Ruler]

they declare the Ogdoad. He then builds the whole [Sidenote: p. 493.]

heavenly creation. But another Ruler ascended from the Panspermia,

greater than all those lying beneath save the Sonhood left behind,

but much inferior to the first, and he is called Hebdomad. He is the

Creator and Demiurge and Controller of all below him; and he also made

for himself a son more foresighted and wiser than he. But all these,

they say, are according to the predetermination of that One-Who-Is-Not,

and are worlds and boundless spaces.[33] And [Basilides] says that

on Jesus who was born of Mary the power of [the] Gospel came, which

descended and illumined the Son of the Ogdoad and the Son of the

Hebdomad for the illumination and separation and purification of the

Sonhood left behind that he might benefit and receive benefits from

the souls. And they say that themselves are sons [of God], who for

this purpose are in the world, [viz.] that they may purify the souls

by their teaching and go on high together with the [third] Sonhood

to the presence of the Father above, from whom the first Sonhood

proceeded.[34] And they declare that the cosmos shall endure until

all the souls together with the Sonhood shall withdraw [from it]. And

Basilides is not ashamed to narrate these portents.[35]

[Sidenote: p. 494.] 7. _Justinus._[36]

15. Justinus also daring to [advance] things like these, says thus:

“There are three unbegotten principles of the universals, two male

[and] one female.” Of the male, one is a certain principle called the

Good, and is alone thus called, having foreknowledge of the universals.

But the other [male] is the Father of all begotten ones, and has no

foreknowledge and is unknown and unseen and is called, they say,

Elohim. [But] the female is without foreknowledge, inclined to passion,

double-minded, double-bodied, as in the stories about her[37] which we

have above related in detail, the upper parts of her down to the groin

being a virgin and those [below] a viper. The same is called Edem and

Israel. And he declares that these are the principles of the universals

wherefrom all things came into being. And [he says] that Elohim

came without foreknowledge to desire for the composite virgin, and,

companying with her, begat [Sidenote: p. 495.] twelve angels. The names

of these are....[38] And of these the paternal ones take sides with

the (father); but the maternal ones with the mother. The same are (the

trees of Paradise)[39] whereof Moses, speaking allegorically, wrote in

the Law. And all things were made by Elohim and Edem; and the animals

together with the rest of [creation] come from the beast-like parts,

but man from those above the groin. And Edem deposited in [man] the

soul which is her power (but Elohim the spirit). But he declares that

Elohim having learned [of the light above him] ascended to the presence

of the Good One and left Edem behind. Whereat she being angered makes

every plot against the spirit of Elohim which is deposited in man. And

for his sake, the Father sent Baruch and commanded the Prophets (to

speak) so that he might set free the spirit of Elohim and draw all

men away from Edem. But he [Sidenote: p. 496.] declares that Heracles

became a prophet and that he was worsted by Omphale, that is by Babel,

whom they name Aphrodite. And at last in the days of Herod Jesus became

the son of Mary and Joseph, to Whom he declares Baruch to have spoken.

And that Edem plotted against Him, but could not beguile Him, and

therefore made Him to be crucified. Whose spirit [Justinus] says went

on high to the Good One. And thus (the spirits) of all who believe

these silly and feeble stories will be saved; but the body and soul

belonging to Edem, whom the foolish Justinus calls the Earth,[40] will

be left behind.[41]

8. _The Docetae._

16. But the Docetae say things like this: That the first God is as

the seed of the fig-tree from whom have come three Aeons, like the

stem and the leaves and [Sidenote: p. 497.] the fruit. And that these

have projected thirty Aeons, each of them (ten). But all are linked

together in tens and only differ in arrangement by some being before

others.[42] And they projected infinitely boundless Aeons and are all

masculo-feminine. And having taken counsel they all came together into

one and from this intermediate Aeon was begotten from the Virgin Mary

the Saviour of all, like in all things to the seed of the fig-tree,

but inferior to it in that He was begotten. For the seed whence the

fig-tree [comes] is unbegotten.[43] This then was the great light of

the Aeons, complete, receiving no setting in order,[44] containing

within itself the forms of all the animals. And [they say] that this

[light] shining into the underlying chaos provided a cause to the

things which have been and are, and descending from on high impressed

[on the] chaos below the forms of the Aeonic exemplars.[45] For the

third Aeon which had tripled itself, seeing that all his types were

drawn down into the darkness below and not being ignorant of the

terrible nature of the darkness and the simplicity of the light,

created heaven and having fixed it between, divided in twain the

darkness and the light.[46] Then all the forms of the third Aeon

having been overcome, [Sidenote: p. 498.] they say, by the darkness,

his likeness[47] subsisted as a living fire coming into being by the

light. From which, they say, the Great Ruler came to be, of whom Moses

talks when he says that this God is a fiery God and a Demiurge who ever

transfers the forms[48] of all (Aeons) into bodies. But they declare

that it is these souls for whose sake the Saviour came,[49] and showed

the way whereby those that had been overcome may escape. And [they

say] that Jesus did on that unique power, wherefore He could not be

gazed upon by any by reason of the overpowering greatness of His glory.

And they say that all things happened to Him as is written in the

Gospels.[50]

9. _Monoimus._

17. But the followers of Monoimus the Arab say that [Sidenote: p. 499.]

the principle of the All is a First Man[51] and Son of Man, and that

the things which have come to pass as Moses says, came into being not

by the First Man but by the Son of Man, and not from the whole, but

from part of him. And that the Son of Man is Iota, which is the Decad,

a dominant number wherein is the substance of all number, whereby

every number subsists, and is the birth of the All [viz.] Fire, Air,

Water [and] Earth. But this being so, Iota is one and one tittle, a

perfect thing from the Perfect, a tittle flowing from on high, having

within itself whatever also has the Man the Father of the Son of Man.

Therefore [Monoimus] says that the world of Moses came into being in

six days, that is, in six powers, from which the cosmos came forth from

the one tittle. For cubes and octahedrons and pyramids and all the

equal-sided figures like these, whence are made up Fire, Air, Water

[and] Earth, have came into being from the numbers left behind in that

simple tittle of the Iota which is the Son of Man. When therefore, he

says, Moses speaks of a rod turning [Sidenote: p. 500.] towards Egypt

he is attributing allegorically the woes[52] of the world to the Iota,

nor does he figure more than the ten woes. But if, he says, you wish

to understand the All, enquire within thyself who it is who says, “My

soul, my flesh, my mind,”[53] and who within thee makes each thing his

own as another does to him. Understand that this is a perfect thing

from the Perfect who considers all the so-called non-existent and all

the existent as peculiar to himself.[54] This then is what Monoimus

thinks.

10. _Tatian._

18. But Tatian, like Valentinus and the others, says that there are

certain unseen Aeons, by one of whom below the cosmos and the things

that are, were fashioned. And he practises a very cynical mode of life,

and hardly differs from Marcion in his blasphemies and his rules about

marriage.[55]

[Sidenote: p. 501.] 11. _Marcion._[56]

19. Marcion the Pontian, and Cerdo his teacher, also determined that

there are three principles of the All, a Good One, a Just One, and

Matter. But certain disciples of theirs add to this, saying that there

are a Good One, a Just One, a Wicked One, and Matter. But all [agree]

that the Good One created nothing wholly;[57] but they say that the

Just One, whom some name the Wicked One, but others merely the Just,

made all things out of the underlying Matter. For he made them not well

but absurdly.[58] For things must need be like their creator. Wherefore

they make use of the parable in the Gospels, saying, “A good tree

cannot make evil fruits,”[59] and so on, declaring that in this it is

said that things were devised wickedly by [the Just One]. And he says

that Christ is the son of the Good One and was sent for the salvation

of souls. Whom he calls [the] inner man, saying that He appeared as a

man, [Sidenote: p. 502.] but was not man, and as incarnate, but was

not incarnate, and was manifested in appearance [only], but underwent

neither birth nor suffering, but seemed [to do so]. And [Marcion] does

not wish that [the] flesh shall rise again. And, saying that marriage

is destruction, he leads his disciples to a very Cynical life, thinking

thereby to vex the Demiurge by abstaining from the things brought into

being or laid down by him.[60]

12. _Apelles._

20. But Apelles, the disciple of [Marcion] displeased with what was

said by his teacher, as we have before said, proposed by another

theory that there are four Gods, declaring that one is (good) whom the

Prophets knew not, but of whom Christ is the Son. And that another is

the Demiurge of the All, whom he does not wish to be a god, and another

a fiery one who is manifest, and yet another a wicked one: [all of]

whom he calls angels. And adding Christ to these, he says that He is

the fifth. But he gives heed to a book which he calls _Manifestations_

of a certain Philumene whom he thinks a prophetess. And he says

[Sidenote: p. 503.] that Christ did not receive the flesh from the

Virgin, but from the adjacent substance of the cosmos. Thus he has

written treatises[61] against the Law and the Prophets attempting to

discredit them as false speakers and ignorant of God. And he says, like

Marcion, that [all] flesh will be destroyed.[62]

13. _Cerinthus._

21. But Cerinthus, who had been trained in Egypt, would have it that

the cosmos did not come into being by the First God, but by a certain

angelic power far removed and standing apart from the Authority [set]

over the universals and ignorant of the God over all things. And he

says that Jesus was not begotten from a Virgin, but was the son of

Joseph and Mary in the same way as the rest of mankind, and that He

excelled all other men in righteousness, moderation and intelligence.

And that at the Baptism, there descended upon Him from the Authority

over the universals, the Christ in the form of a dove, and that He

then preached the unknown God and perfected his powers;[63] [Sidenote:

p. 504.] but that at the end of the passion the Christ fell away from

Jesus. And Jesus suffered, but the Christ remained passionless, being a

spirit of [the] Lord.[64]

14. _Ebionæi._

22. But the Ebionæi say that the cosmos came into being from the true

God; but speak of the Christ as does Cerinthus. And they live in

all things according to the Law of Moses, thus declaring themselves

justified.[65]

15. _Theodotus._

23. Theodotus the Byzantian brought in another heresy such as this,

declaring that the universals came into being by the true God. But he

says, like the Gnostics before described, that the Christ appeared in

some such fashion [as this]. He said that the Christ was a man akin to

all, but He differed [from others] in that He by the will of God was

born from a Virgin who had been overshadowed by the [Sidenote: p. 505.]

Holy Spirit. And that he was not incarnate in the Virgin, but at length

at the Baptism the Christ descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove,

whence they say He did not before then exercise powers. But he will not

have the Christ to be God. And so Theodotus.[66]

16. _Other Theodotians._

24. And others of them say all things like those aforesaid, altering

one single thing only in that they accept Melchizedek as some very

great power, declaring him to exist above every power. After whose

likeness they will have the Christ to be.[67]

17. _Phrygians._

25. But the Phrygians take the beginnings of their heresy from one

Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla, thinking the wenches prophetesses

and Montanus a prophet. But [Sidenote: p. 506.] they are considered to

speak rightly in what they say about the beginning and the fashioning

of the All, and they receive not otherwise the things about the Christ.

But they stumble with those aforesaid to whose words they erringly give

heed rather than to the Gospels, and they prescribe new and unusual

fasts.

26. But others of them approaching the heresy of the Noetians think

in like manner concerning the wenches and Montanus, but blaspheme the

Father of the universals saying that He is at once Son and Father, seen

and unseen, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These take

their starting-points from one Noetus.[68]

18. _Noetus._

27. And in the same way Noetus, being a Smyrnæan by birth, a garrulous

and versatile man, brought in this heresy, which from one Epigonus

reached Cleomenes and has so remained with his successors until now.

It says that the [Sidenote: p. 507.] Father and God of the universals

is one and that He made all things, and became invisible to the things

which are when He willed, and then appeared when he wished. And that

He is invisible when He is not seen; but visible when He is seen; and

unbegotten when He is not begotten, but begotten when He is begotten

from a Virgin; and passionless and immortal when He does not suffer

and die, but that when [the] Passion comes, He suffers and dies.

They think this Father is Himself called Son according to times and

circumstances.[69] The heresy of these persons Callistus confirmed,

whose life we have faithfully set forth. Who himself gave birth to a

heresy, taking starting-points from them, while himself confessing that

this Fashioner the All is the Father and God; but that He is spoken

of by name and named Son, while in substance He is (one Spirit). For

God, he says is a Spirit not other than the Logos nor the Logos than

God, and therefore this Person is divided in name indeed, but not in

substance. And he names this one God, and says that He was incarnated.

And he wishes the Son to be He who was seen and overcome according to

[Sidenote: p. 508.] the flesh, but the Father to be He who dwelt within

[Him]. He sometimes branches off to the heresy of Noetus and sometimes

to that of Theodotus, but holds nothing steadfastly. This now Callistus.

19. _Hermogenes._

28. But one Hermogenes having also wished to say something [new] said

that God made all things out of co-existent and underlying matter. For

that it is impossible to hold that God created existing things from

those which are not.[70]

20. _Elchasaitae._

29. But certain others, as if bringing in something new [and]

collecting things from all heresies, prepared a foreign book bearing

the name of one Elchasai. These in the same way [as their predecessors]

confess that the principles of the All came into being by God, but do

not confess Christ to be one. But they say that there is one on high

[Sidenote: p. 509.] who is often transferred[71] into [many] bodies,

and that he is now in Jesus. Likewise that at one time, this one was

born from God, and at another became [the] Spirit, and sometimes was

born from a Virgin and sometimes not. And that thereafter he is ever

transferred into [many] bodies, and is manifested in many according

to [the] times. And they use incantations and baptisms for their

confession of the elements.[72] And they are excited about astrology

and mathematics and (give heed) to magic (acts). And they say they

foreknow the future.[73]

21. [_Title lacking_].[74]

30. (Abraham being commanded) by God, migrates from Mesopotamia and

the city of Harran to the part now called Palestine and Judæa but then

Canaanitis, concerning which we have in part but not without care

handed down the [Sidenote: p. 510.] account in other discourses.[75]

Through this occurred the beginning of [the] increase [of population]

in Judæa, which got the name from Judah the fourth son of Jacob, of

whom it was also called the kingdom, through the royal race being from

him. (Abraham)[76] migrates from Mesopotamia (being 75 years old) and

being in his hundredth year (begat Isaac). (And Isaac being) 60 years

old begat Jacob. And Jacob [when] 87 years old begat Levi. But Levi

when 40 years old begat Kohath.[77] And Kohath [was 4] years old when

he went down with Jacob into Egypt. Therefore the whole time which

Abraham and all his race by Isaac dwelt in the land then called [the]

Canaanitis was 215 years.[78] And his (father) was Terah. This, one’s

[father] was Nahor, his Serug (his Zeu, his Peleg, his Eber) whence

(the Jews) are [Sidenote: p. 511.] called Hebrews. There were 72 (sons

of Abraham from whom also were 72) nations, whose names also we have

set forth in other books.[79] Nor did we omit this in its place as we

wished to show to the learned[80] our affection concerning the Divine

and the accurate knowledge concerning the Truth which we have painfully

acquired. But the father of this Eber was Shelah, and his Canaan,

and his Arphaxad, who was born to Shem; and his father was Noah in

whose time the flood over the whole world came to pass, which neither

Egyptians, nor Chaldæans, nor Greeks record. For to them the floods in

the time of Ogyges and Deacalion were [only] in places. Now in their

time[81] were 5 generations, or 435 years.[82] This [Noah] being a most

pious man and one who loved God, alone with [his] wife and children

and their three wives escaped the coming flood, being saved in an

ark, the measurements and remains of which, as we have set forth[83]

[elsewhere], are shown to this day in the [Sidenote: p. 512.] mountains

called Ararat which are near the land of the Adiabeni. It is then to be

observed by those who wish to give a painstaking account how plainly

it is shown that the God fearing race are older than all Chaldæans,

Egyptians, [or] Greeks. But what need is there to name here those

before Noah who both feared and spake with God, when to what has gone

before the witness of antiquity is sufficient?

31. But since it seems not unreasonable to show that those nations who

occupy themselves with philosophy[84] are later in date than they who

feared God, it is right to say both where their race came from, and

that when they migrated to these countries, they did not take a name

from them, but themselves gained [one] from those who first ruled[85]

and dwelt [there]. The three sons of Noah were Shem, Ham and Japhet.

From them the whole race of men multiplied and dwelt in every country.

For the word of God[86] was confirmed by them which said, “Increase

and multiply and fill the earth.”[87] So mighty was this one saying,

that 72 children were begotten by the 3 sons, family [Sidenote: p.

513.] by family, of whom 25 were Shem’s, 15 Japhet’s, and 32 Ham’s.

And the sons of Ham were, as has been said 32:--his were Canaan, from

whom the Canaanites, Misraim, from whom the Egyptians, Cush, from

whom the Ethiopians, Phut, from whom the Libyans. These in their own

speech unto this day are called by the common name of their ancestors

and even in the Greek are named by the names by which they have just

been called. But if it were shown that there were formerly none to

inhabit their countries, nor a beginning of [any] race[88] of men, yet

there are still these sons of Noah, a God-fearing man who was himself

a disciple of God-fearing men, thanks to which he escaped the great

although temporary threat of [the] waters. How then can it be denied

that there were God-fearing men earlier than all Chaldæans, Egyptians

[and] Greeks,[89] the father of which [last] was born to that Japhet

[and had the] name Jovan, whence [the] Greeks and Ionians? And if the

nations who occupy themselves with matters of philosophy are shown to

be altogether of much later date than the God-fearing race and the

Flood, will not the Barbarian [Sidenote: p. 514.] and whatever races

in the world are known and unknown, appear later than these? Wherefore

now, do ye Greeks, Egyptians and Chaldæans and every race of men master

this argument and learn what is the Divine and what His well-ordered

creation from us, the friends of God, who have not been trained in

dainty phrase, but in the knowledge of Truth and the practice of

moderation find words for His demonstration.[90]

32. One God is the First and Only One and Creator and Ruler of all. He

has no coæval, neither boundless chaos, nor immeasureable water, nor

solid earth, nor compact air, nor hot fire, nor subtle spirit, nor the

blue canopy of great heaven.[91] But He was One, alone with Himself,

who when He willed created the things which are, which at first were

not, save that He willed to create them as knowing of what they would

be. For foreknowledge also is present with Him. He fashioned first the

different principles of things to come--fire and spirit,[92] water and

earth,--from which different [principles] He made His creation. And

some [Sidenote: p. 515.] things He [made of] one substance and some

he bound together out of two, others of three and yet others of four.

And those that are of one were immortal, for dissolution does not dog

them, for that which is one will never be dissolved. But those [made]

from two or three or four [substances] are dissoluble, wherefore they

are called mortal. For death is called this, the dissolution of what

is bound together. We think we have now answered sufficiently those

who have sound perception, who, if for love of learning they will

enquire further into these substances and the causes of the fashioning

of all things, they will learn them by reading our book, treating of

“the Substance of the All.”[93] And I think that it is here enough

to set forth the causes from ignorance whereof the Greeks glorified

with dainty phrase the parts of the creation, but ignored the Creator.

Starting wherefrom the heresiarchs, transfiguring into like expressions

what was formerly said by [the Greeks] have composed laughable heresies.

33. This God, then, One and Over All having first conceived [Sidenote:

p. 516.] in His mind begat [the] Word, not a word in the sense of a

voice, but the indwelling Reason[94] of the All. He begot Him alone

from the things which are. For the Father Himself was what is, from

Whom was the Word, the cause of the begetting of things coming into

being, bearing within Himself the will of His begetter, not ignorant

of the thought of the Father. For from the time[95] of His coming

forth from Him who begat Him, becoming His first-born voice, He holds

within Himself the ideas conceived in His Father’s mind. Whence, on the

Father ordering the world to come into being, the Word completed it

in detail,[96] [thus] pleasing God. And the things which multiply by

generation, He formed male and female; but all those for service and

ministry he made either males who have no need of females or neither

male nor female. For when the first substances [Sidenote: p. 517.]

of these came into being [namely] Fire and Spirit, Earth and Water,

from the things that were not, neither male nor female things existed.

Nor could male and female have come forth from each of these, unless

the God who gave the command had willed that the Word should do this

service.[97] I confess that angels are [formed] of fire and I say that

no females are present with them. But I consider that Sun and Moon and

stars were in like manner [formed] of fire and spirit and are neither

male nor female. But I say that swimming animals were [formed] of water

and that winged ones are male and female.[98] For thus God willed and

commanded that the watery substance should be fruitful. In like manner,

serpents and wild beasts and all sorts of animals were [formed] from

earth and are male and female; for this the nature of begotten things

allowed. For whatever things He willed, those God created. These

He fashioned by the Word, for they could not have come into being

otherwise than they did. But when as He had willed He also created, He

called and designated them by name. Thereafter He fashioned the ruler

of them all, and equipped him from all substances brought together. Nor

did He wish to make a God and fail, nor an angel--be not deceived--but

[Sidenote: p. 518.] a man. For had God willed to make thee a God, He

could: thou hast the example of the Word. But He willed a man and

created thee a man. But if thou dost wish also to become a God, hearken

to the Creator and withstand Him not now, so that being found faithful

over a little, thou mayest be entrusted with much.[99]

Only the Word of this [God] is from Him. Wherefore He also is God,

being the substance of God. But the world is from nothing. Wherefore it

is not God and it will be dissolved[100] when the Creator wills. But

God who created makes nothing evil; but he creates it fair and good.

For He who creates is good. But man when he came into being was an

animal with free-will,[101] not having a ruling mind, nor dominating

all things by reflection and authority and power, but a slave[102]

and full of all contrary [desires].[103] Who, in that he is free to

choose produces evil, which when it is completed by accident is nothing

unless thou dost make [it].[104] For it is by the thinking and willing

something [Sidenote: p. 519.] evil, that it is named evil; which was

not from the beginning, but came into being later. [And] as man was

free to choose, a Law was laid down by God, not vainly. For if man were

not free to will or not to will, what need of a Law?[105] For the Law

is not decreed for a dumb beast, but a bridle and a whip; but to man

was appointed a commandment and a penalty in respect of what he was to

do and not to do. And [the] Law as to this was laid down of old through

righteous men. Nearer to our own times, a Law full of majesty and

justice was laid down through the Moses aforesaid, a steadfast man and

one who loved God.

All these things, the Word of God directs, the First-born Son of

[the] Father, the light-bringing voice before dawn.[106] Thereafter

there came into being righteous men who loved God. These were called

prophets from their showing beforehand the things to come.[107] To whom

word came not at one season [only], but through all generations the

utterances of things foretold was most clearly brought forward.[108]

[Sidenote: p. 520.] Nor did they merely give an answer to those present

there at the time, but through several generations also the things to

come were foreshadowed. [And this] because speaking of things past

they recalled them to mankind; but by showing what was then happening

they put away carelessness, and by foretelling the future have made

every one of us fearful by the sight of the fulfilment of prophecies

and the expectation of the future. Such is our faith, O all ye men who

are not persuaded by vain speeches, nor captured by sudden movings of

the heart, nor enchanted by plausible and eloquent words, but have not

been obdurate to words uttered by Divine power. And these things God

commanded [the] Word; and the Word speaking through [the prophets],

uttered them for the turning of man from disobedience and emancipating

him from the force of Fate, but calling him to liberty by his free

choice.[109]

The Father in the last days sent forth this Word, not speaking through

a prophet, and not wishing that the Word when proclaimed should be

darkly guessed at, but that He should be manifested to the very eyes

of all. He, I say, [Sidenote: p. 521.] (sent Him forth) that the

world when it beheld Him should be put to shame. For He did not give

commandment through the person of prophets, nor affright [the] soul by

an angel, but was Himself present and spake. Him we know to have taken

body from a Virgin and to have moulded[110] the old man through a new

formation. [We know] that He passed in life through every age,[111]

so that He might become a law for every age, and that His presence

might show forth His manhood as an example[112] to all men; and that

through Him it might be proved that God makes nothing evil, and that

man as master of himself can will or not will [evil], being capable

of both. We know, too, that this man came into being out of the same

material[113] as ourselves; for were He not of the same [matter] it

would be vain to order that the Teacher be imitated. For had that Man

chanced to be of another substance [than ours] why should he order me

who am weak by nature to do things like Himself? And [in that case]

how is He good and just? But in order that He might not be thought

different from us, He underwent toil, and was willing to hunger, and

denied not thirst,[114] and was stilled in sleep, and renounced not

suffering, and [Sidenote: p. 522.] submitted to death, and manifested

resurrection, sacrificing in all this His own manhood, so that thou

when suffering may not be faint-hearted, but mayst confess thyself a

man and expect also what the Father promised Him.

34. Such is the true word about the Divine.[115] O all ye men, Greeks

and Barbarians, Chaldæans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans,

Indians and Ethiopians, Celts and ye army-leading Latins,[116] and

all ye dwellers in Europe, Asia and Libya.[117] To you I am become a

counsellor, being a disciple of the Word who loves man and myself a

lover of mankind, so that you may hasten to be taught by us who is

the real God and what His well-ordered creation. And that you give

not heed to the sophistries of artificial discourses,[118] nor to the

crazy promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the august simplicity

of unboastful truth. Through the knowledge of which, you shall escape

the coming menace of the judgment of fire, and the unlighted vision of

gloomy Tartarus unillumined by the voice of the Word, and [Sidenote: p.

523.] the boiling of the Lake of the eternal Gehenna of flame, and the

ever-threatening eye of the angels punished in Tartarus,[119] and the

worm which through the filth of the body turns towards the body which

threw it forth as for food. And these things thou shalt escape when

thou hast been taught the God Who Is. And thou shalt have an immortal

body together with an incorruptible soul. And thou shalt receive the

kingdom of the heavens, who whilst on earth didst also recognize the

heavenly King. But thou shall speak with God and be joint heir with

Christ, not enslaved by desires nor sufferings nor diseases.[120] For

thou [wilt] have become God. For whatever sufferings thou underwent as

man, thou hast shown that thou art a man; but whatever is appurtenant

to a God, that God has promised to bestow, because thou hast been made

divine, since thou hast been begotten immortal. This is the [true]

“Know Thyself,” the knowledge of the Creator God. For to him who knows

himself has occurred the being known to Him by whom [Sidenote: p.

524.] he is called. Wherefore now, O men, be not your own enemies,

nor hesitate to turn again. For Christ is the God over all, Who has

arranged to wash away iniquity from among men, and to make anew the old

man who from the beginning was called His image, thus showing forth

His love towards thee. Having hearkened to Whose august precepts, and

having become a good imitator of the Good One, thou wilt be like unto

and be honoured by Him. For God asks no alms,[121] and has made thee

God for His own glory.

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: The promises before noted at the end of Books VIII and IX

to declare the Doctrine of Truth says nothing of these epitomes, nor

do they always accord with the earlier Books which may be supposed to

be here epitomized. For a suggested explanation of this discrepancy

see Introduction, Vol. I, pp. 18, 19 _supra_. It should also be noted

that, while the author omits here any detailed mention of the contents

of Books II, III, and IV, he can hardly have had Book I before his

eyes at the time of writing, or he would have referred to it directly

instead of quoting as he does from Sextus Empiricus. As has been

said in the Introduction, the “epitome of the heresies” bears closer

relation to Books V-IX, although it omits several heresies included in

the epitomized books. That the writer, if not Hippolytus himself, is

at any rate writing in his name, is plain from the wording of chap.

5, _infra_, and we can hardly suppose a forger so reckless as not to

have read the earlier Books before attempting to epitomize them. On

the other hand, it is perfectly conceivable that Hippolytus had in his

possession notes from which his earlier Books were written, and that

of these only a part remained when he set to work to write Book X. It

would seem, therefore, that only some such hypothesis as that given in

the Introduction really fits the case.

As to the style of the Book it does not differ materially from that

of the others, save in one particular. This is the frequent omission

of the definite article, which is so frequent as to arouse suspicion

that the scribe may have been here translating from a Latin rather than

copying from a Greek original.]

[Footnote 2: This is the main reason for supposing that this Book is

that called the _Labyrinth_ which Photius says was by the author of

the work _On the Universe_, attributed by the list on the chair to

Hippolytus. Cf. Salmon in _D.C.B._, “Hippolytus Romanus.”]

[Footnote 3: All these were probably described in the missing Books II

and III, together with Book IV, _supra_.]

[Footnote 4: ἀκαλλώπιστος.]

[Footnote 5: Book I only is concerned with the teachings of the Greek

philosophers; but Books II and III must, according to the promise in

Vol. I, pp. 63, 64, have contained an exposition of the mystic rites

and astrological doctrine, and Book IV is entirely taken up with magic

and divination. This is confirmed by the statement in Vol. I, p. 119.

Hippolytus must therefore have forgotten this when writing Book X, or

at any rate did not have the earlier Books before him.]

[Footnote 6: From here to the end of the section on p. 479 Cr., is a

copy from Sextus Empiricus’ work, _Adversus Physicos_, c. 10. So close

is this that we are able by its aid to correct by it the faulty text of

Sextus, and _vice versâ_. Sextus, as a sceptic, was of course as much

opposed to the study of nature as Hippolytus, and was therefore only

interested in showing the discrepancies among its teachers. But how

does this make the quotation from him an “epitome”?]

[Footnote 7: Not mentioned in Book I.]

[Footnote 8: Karsten, VIII, p. 45.]

[Footnote 9: _Il._, XIV, 201.]

[Footnote 10: _Il._, VII, 99.]

[Footnote 11: Karsten, IX, p. 49.]

[Footnote 12: Said to be a quotation from Euripides’ _Hymns_.]

[Footnote 13: Not mentioned in Book I.]

[Footnote 14: Cf. pp. 83, 84 _supra_.]

[Footnote 15: Not mentioned in Book I.]

[Footnote 16: Not mentioned in Book I.]

[Footnote 17: φυσιολογία.]

[Footnote 18: Cf. p. 371 Cr.]

[Footnote 19: In this chapter on the Naassenes, Hippolytus may be

supposed to have had before him either the whole of Book V or the

notes from which it was written. We may see, therefore, from this,

what his idea of an epitome is. He does not try to condense his former

statements so as to give us a bird’s-eye view of the whole heresy,

but picks out from them a few sentences which seem to him of special

importance. Hence it is only useful to us as a means of checking the

text, and brings us no nearer to an appreciation of the doctrines of

the sect.]

[Footnote 20: Cf. Vol. I, p. 69 _supra_, where this Ademes is called

Akembes and both he and Euphrates are mentioned as astrologers only. In

Vol. I, p. 149 also the order is reversed and Ademes is called Celbes.

Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._, I, 17, quotes this chapter almost _verbatim_,

thereby showing that it was Book X and not Book V which he copied.]

[Footnote 21: Words in ( ) added from Theodoret, _ubi cit._]

[Footnote 22: Cf. Vol. I, pp. 146-148 _supra_, which this chapter

follows closely.]

[Footnote 23: Words in ( ) added from Vol. I, p. 161 _supra_. Nearly

four lines are wanting here which can be filled from the page quoted.]

[Footnote 24: Throughout this chapter, the summarizer copies closely

the former account of the Sethians, for which see Vol. I, pp. 160-169

_supra_. I have not thought it worth while to draw attention to the

slight differences in readings, but it is plain that the meaning in

both cases was as obscure to the summarizer as it is to us.]

[Footnote 25: φρόνησις. This is evidently taken from the account of

Simon’s doctrine in Book VI, c. 12 (p. 6 _supra_), which says that

the unseen parts of the fire have φρόνησις “and a share of mind,”

without mention of the seen parts. The rest of this chapter, with the

exception of the last sentence attributing supreme power to Simon, is

substantially, but not exactly word for word, identical with c. 12 of

Book VI. Cf. pp. 247, 250 and 259 Cr.]

[Footnote 26: The only ground for this assertion seems to be Simon’s

statement to Helen of Tyre (see p. 15 _supra_), that he was the “Power

over all things,” which seems to be explained by that on p. 12 _supra_,

that the Power which Stands, etc., is _potentially_ in all things.]

[Footnote 27: πρωτογενέτειραν. While in Book VI, of which these

chapters profess to be a summary, the author describes Nous and

Aletheia with their projectors as the descendants of Bythos alone, he

here gives an account of the rival opinion that Bythos had a spouse

called Sigê, and he reckons her in with her descendants so as to make

up the number of eight.]

[Footnote 28: This is, of course, the Horos of Book VI.]

[Footnote 29: This word is also used in Book VI (see p. 286 Cr.), as

the exact converse of the Pleroma or Fulness.]

[Footnote 30: It is curious that throughout this chapter there is no

attempt to quote directly from Book VI, and that it is evidently the

opinions of the Italic school of Valentinus and not the Anatolic that

the author is here summarizing. In the next chapter, as will be seen,

he resumes direct quotations.]

[Footnote 31: So far, the author is transcribing almost _verbatim_ the

statements in Book VII, cf. pp. 346-350 Cr.]

[Footnote 32: This is not said of the Holy Spirit in Book VII, cf. pp.

70, 71 _supra_.]

[Footnote 33: This, too, is a new statement, although it may perhaps be

implied from what is said on pp. 72, 73 and 76 _supra_.]

[Footnote 34: So p. 76 _supra_.]

[Footnote 35: Save as before noted, everything in this chapter is

to be found in the account of Basilides given in Book VII. The few

exceptions show that the summarizer had assimilated its contents and

an intelligent knowledge of Basilides’ teaching. He entirely omits,

however, the prediction of the Great Ignorance.]

[Footnote 36: The summarizer here takes Justinus from among the Ophites

of Book V, where he is to be found in the earlier part of the text, and

puts him after Basilides.]

[Footnote 37: Reading αὐτῇς for αὐτοῦ.]

[Footnote 38: These are omitted from the text, possibly because the

summarizer did not wish to repeat names which might be used in magic.

Cruice supplies them in his text from Book V, Vol. I, p. 173 _supra_,

which see.]

[Footnote 39: The words in round brackets ( ) are as elsewhere in this

chapter supplied by Cruice from Book V.]

[Footnote 40: Cf. Vol. I, p. 175 _supra_.]

[Footnote 41: There is nothing in this chapter which is not taken from

the account of Justinus’ doctrines in Book V, nor anything to show that

the summarizer had any knowledge of these except from this.]

[Footnote 42: τινὰς τινῶν πρώτους!]

[Footnote 43: So the Codex. Cruice has γεννητόν, “begotten,” but I see

no reason for the alteration.]

[Footnote 44: κόσμησιν. Perhaps “adornment.”]

[Footnote 45: ἰδέαι.]

[Footnote 46: Cf. p. 102 _supra_.]

[Footnote 47: ἐκτύπωμα.]

[Footnote 48: ἰδέαι. As before he means “patterns” or “exemplars.”]

[Footnote 49: παραγεννηθῆναι.]

[Footnote 50: Here again there is nothing which cannot be found in Book

VIII (see pp. 99-105 _supra_), from which this chapter is evidently

taken. As has before been said, the summarizer to arrive at this has

omitted all mention of Satornilus, Menander and Carpocrates, while the

other systems mentioned in Book VII, he has placed after the Docetae

instead of before them.]

[Footnote 51: The summarizer here uses for the first time in our text

the expression “First Man,” which plays so large a part in later

heresies such as Manichæism. For its early appearance in Western Asia

and its influence see Bousset’s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, c. 4, “Der

Urmensch,” and _Forerunners_, I, p. lxi, and II, pp. 292, 293.]

[Footnote 52: πάθη. He evidently refers to the ten plagues as on p. 109

_supra_.]

[Footnote 53: He omits the “My God ... my understanding” of the letter

to Theophrastus, on p. 110 _supra_.]

[Footnote 54: He alters the ἐξιδιοποιούμενος (cf. p. 415 Cr.) to

κατιδιοποιούμενος--a fair proof of the inaccuracy of the scribe. Except

for the inaccuracies noted, however, there is no statement in this

summary which cannot be found in Book VIII, pp. 106-111 _supra_.]

[Footnote 55: For these few lines, the summarizer has evidently not

taken the trouble to refer to the author’s statements about Tatian in

Book VIII, p. 111 _supra_. He now omits all reference to Justin Martyr,

there said to be Tatian’s teacher, and to Tatian’s peculiar ideas about

the salvation of Adam; while he introduces a special world-creating

aeon not mentioned elsewhere.]

[Footnote 56: Here he omits the heresies of the Quartodecimans and

the Encratites, which receive notice in Book VIII, pp. 113, 115,

116 _supra_, and passes on to Marcion, who was a contemporary of

Valentinus. It is plain, therefore, that he does not attempt in the

summary to keep either to order of date or to that of the earlier

books.]

[Footnote 57: οὐδὲν ὅλως πεποιηκέναι. So the Codex. Some word seems to

be missing; but perhaps the passage should read οὐδὲν τῶν ὅλων, “none

of the universals.”]

[Footnote 58: ἀλόγως, “unreasonably.”]

[Footnote 59: Matt. vii. 18.]

[Footnote 60: This also is certainly not taken from the chapters on

Marcion in Book VII, pp. 82-90 _supra_, which are mainly devoted to an

attempt to prove Marcion to have plagiarized from Empedocles. Nor is it

from Irenæus or from the tractate _Adversus omnes hæreses_.]

[Footnote 61: συντάγματα, “summaries”?]

[Footnote 62: The substance of this can be found in the account of

Apelles in Book VII, pp. 96-97 _supra_; but the summarizer does not use

the phrases of the earlier book, and he can hardly have had it before

him.]

[Footnote 63: As before (p. 389 Cr.), Macmahon here translates καὶ

δυνάμεις ἐπιτελέσαι, “he wrought miracles.”]

[Footnote 64: This, on the other hand, is taken almost _verbatim_ from

c. 33 of Book VII (pp. 92, 93 _supra_), the few slight differences

between the two chapters being not other than a careless scribe might

be expected to make.]

[Footnote 65: This also from Book VII, p. 93 _supra_, but slightly

condensed.]

[Footnote 66: This also appears to be condensed from the account of

Theodotus in Book VII, pp. 93, 94 _supra_. The summarizer adds to it

the alleged denial by Theodotus of Christ’s divinity, which does not

appear in Book VII.]

[Footnote 67: This, too, is not inconsistent with the account of “other

Theodotians” in Book VII, pp 94, 95 _supra_, but omits all reference to

the Nicolaitans.]

[Footnote 68: Here the summarizer reverts to Book VIII, pp. 113, 114

_supra_, from which his account of the Phrygians or Montanists appears

to be taken. The phrases used are not identical, and while Book VIII

merely says that the Montanist heresy agrees with the Patripassianism

of the Noetian, the Summary declares that the first was absolutely

derived from the second.]

[Footnote 69: κατὰ καιροὺς καλούμενον πρὸς τὰ συμβαίνοντα. Cf. the

καλούμενον κατὰ χρόνων τροπήν, p. 434 Cr. Otherwise this chapter seems

to be a condensed paraphrase rather than a series of extracts from

Book IX, the summarizer having here added together the “heresies” so

called of Noetus and Callistus. As mentioned in the Introduction, he

is careful not to mention that Callistus was a Pope, and in the last

sentence but one, he omits the name of Sabellius which is mentioned in

the earlier book. Cf. p. 130 _supra_.]

[Footnote 70: He now reverts to Hermogenes, against whom Tertullian

wrote, and who must therefore in the time of Callistus have long been

dead. The few lines given here correspond to the opening sentences of

the chapter on this heretic in Book VIII, p. 112 _supra_, which see.]

[Footnote 71: μεταγγιζόμενον, lit., “poured” as from one vessel into

another--a considerable amplification of the statement in Book IX, p.

134 _supra_.]

[Footnote 72: Water and Earth are the only two “elements” mentioned in

the exorcisms attributed to the Elchesaites in Book IX, p. 135 _supra_.]

[Footnote 73: The statements in this account of the Elchesaites are all

to be found in the description of them in Book IX, pp. 132-138 _supra_;

but the same words are not used, and there is nothing to show that the

summarizer had the earlier book before him at the time of writing.]

[Footnote 74: Cruice suggests that the considerable lacuna that there

evidently is here was filled by a summary of the chapters on the Jewish

sects with which Book IX ends (see pp. 455-472 Cr.). This hardly seems

to correspond with the form of what is left; but it is not impossible

that we have here excerpts from the book on chronology which we know

Hippolytus to have written. Another suggestion is that what follows is

from his _Commentary on Genesis_, of which a few fragments survive.]

[Footnote 75: Were these ἑτέροι λόγοι the treatise “On the All” which

Hippolytus wrote?]

[Footnote 76: As throughout the words in round brackets ( ) are

supplied by Cruice. In this chapter they are mainly taken from Gen.

xi., which see.]

[Footnote 77: Καὰθ. In all these names I have used the spelling of the

A. V. as being more familiar to the general reader than that of the

LXX.]

[Footnote 78: If Abraham did not beget Isaac until he had been

twenty-five years in Canaan, the figures would be for Abraham

twenty-five, for Isaac sixty, for Jacob eighty-seven, for Levi forty,

for Kohath four. But this makes 216 at least.]

[Footnote 79: So the fragment of the _Chronicon_ attributed to

Hippolytus in Fabricius, S. Hippolyt. _Opera_, p. 50, which perhaps

goes to show the authorship of the Summary.]

[Footnote 80: φιλομαθέσιν.]

[Footnote 81: ἐπὶ τούτων, that is reckoning from Noah to Eber.]

[Footnote 82: Cruice would read 495 years.]

[Footnote 83: ἐκτεθείμεθα. The phrase that he uses everywhere in the

book for statements in _this_ work. See n. on previous page.]

[Footnote 84: σοφία. This is in pursuance of Hippolytus’ favourite

theory that philosophy was the source of all heresy.]

[Footnote 85: ἀρξάντων. Macmahon translates “were born,” but I think

the word is never used in that sense by Hippolytus.]

[Footnote 86: ῥῆμα Θεοῦ. An unusual phrase here.]

[Footnote 87: Gen. i, 23.]

[Footnote 88: Reading γένους with the Codex instead of the γένος of

Cruice.]

[Footnote 89: Because these “God-fearing men” were before the Flood,

and the others could only have descended from Shem, Ham or Japhet.]

[Footnote 90: This seems to be the author’s meaning, but the reading is

not very well settled. Cruice translates _qui non elegantibus verbis

divina coluimus_, which Macmahon follows.]

[Footnote 91: This is, of course, an allusion to the theories of the

“Barbarians” on the Deity set out in Book IV. Cf. Vol. I, p. 104

_supra_.]

[Footnote 92: It is curious that throughout this chapter he uses

“spirit” as the fourth element instead of “air.” So Photius, quoting

from the work “On the All,” which is attributed to Hippolytus.]

[Footnote 93: This work is known to us by the list on the chair

mentioned in the Introduction, and by a notice by Photius, who seems

to have read the work under the name of Josephus. Cf. Salmon in _D. C.

B._, s.n. “Hippolytus Romanus.”]

[Footnote 94: This Λόγος ἐνδιάθετος which Philo distinguishes from

the Λόγος προφορικός seems to have been a phrase first adopted into

Christian theology by Theophilus of Antioch.]

[Footnote 95: ἅμα.]

[Footnote 96: τὸ κατὰ ἕν.]

[Footnote 97: ὑπουργῇ.]

[Footnote 98: Like most of the ancients, Hippolytus does not know that

fish have sex.]

[Footnote 99: Cf. Matt. xxv. 21, 23; Luke xix. 17.]

[Footnote 100: ἐπιδέχεται λύσιν, “receives dissolution.”]

[Footnote 101: αὐτεξούσιον, “his own authority”?]

[Footnote 102: _i. e._ to his passions. See p. 178 _infra_.]

[Footnote 103: πάντα ἔχον τὰ ἐναντία.]

[Footnote 104: So Cruice. Macmahon says, “which evil is not consummated

except you actually commit some piece of wickedness,” But the reading

is very uncertain.]

[Footnote 105: τί καὶ νόμος ὡρίζετο, “why was the Law enacted?”]

[Footnote 106: πρὸ ἑωσφόρου, “Before the Morning Star.” Cf. 2 Peter i.

18, 19.]

[Footnote 107: διὰ τὸ προφαίνειν. The real derivation is from πρόφημι.]

[Footnote 108: Cruice points out the likeness between this doctrine

of the Word speaking through the Prophets, and that with which Origen

begins his treatise, Περὶ Ἀρχῶν (I, § 1), that before the Incarnation

“Christ, the Word of God, was in Moses and the prophets.” It was

doubtless this, and the likeness between the theory of the origin of

evil as given on pp. 518, 519 Cr. of our text, and that of Origen

_in Joann_, II, 7, 8, which caused some commentator to write in the

margin of the Codex, Ὠριγένης καὶ Ὠριγένους δόξα: “Origen and Origen’s

opinions.” The words used in the two cases are too unlike to suggest

any identity of authorship or conscious borrowing; but it is perfectly

probable that Origen when in Rome communicated with Hippolytus as head

of the Greek-speaking community there, and that they had many ideas

in common. This would account at once for the likeness between the

passages noted and for the confusion between Hippolytus and Origen

as the author of the _Philosophumena_, while it throws new light on

Origen’s condemnation for heresy.]

[Footnote 109: ἑκουσίῳ προαιρέσει.]

[Footnote 110: Reading with Cruice πεφυρακότα for the πεφορηκότα of

Miller. Although Miller’s reading accords with the Scriptural “put on

the old man,” the allusion is evidently to the φυράμα of a few lines

lower down.]

[Footnote 111: This is evidently an allusion to the extraordinary

theory of Hippolytus’ master, Irenæus (Book II, c. 33, § 3, p. 331,

Harvey), that Christ having suffered at 30 years old lived and taught

after the Resurrection until He was “40 or 50,” thus “passing through

every age.” Cf. _Forerunners_, II, p. 61 and note.]

[Footnote 112: σκόπον, “arm” or “goal.”]

[Footnote 113: φυράμα, lit., “dough” or plastic substance.]

[Footnote 114: An allusion to the Word on the Cross.]

[Footnote 115: περὶ τὸν Θεῖον.]

[Footnote 116: It is curious that he does not call them Romans.]

[Footnote 117: The Greek name for the province called by the Romans

Africa.]

[Footnote 118: He is here repeating the phrase used on p. 150, with

which he begins this Book. Its repetition shows the continuity of this

last and that it was all written at the same time and by the same

author.]

[Footnote 119: Ταρταρούχων ἀγγέλων κολαστῶν. Tartaruchian is a Coptic

form. See Budge’s _Miscellaneous Texts of Upper Egypt_, 1915, p. 590.]

[Footnote 120: ὁμιλητης Θεοῦ, Cr. _familiaris_, Macm., “companion of.”]

[Footnote 121: οὐ πτωχεύει. The phrase has given much concern to

commentators. Cruice suggests δὲ γὰρ πολυωρεῖ, “has a great esteem

for thee.” Wordsworth translates “has a longing for thee.” Macmahon

“(by such signal condescension) does not diminish aught of the dignity

of His divine perfection.” The phrase is probably an allusion to the

heathen notion formally stated by Aelius Aristides and others that the

gods _had need_ of the sacrifices of mortals.]

INDEX

Adam of Cabala, i. 120 _n._ 6;

the first man, _ap._ Chaldæans, i. 122;

arch-man of Samothrace, i. 132;

made by Jaldabaoth and his sons, _ap._ Ophites, i. 122 _n._ 3.

_See_ Tatian

Adamas, supreme god of Naassenes, i. 120;

the “unsubdued,” epithet of Hades, Dionysos and Attis, i. 120 _n._ 6;

called the arch-man, i. 128, 129;

Isaiah’s words attributed to, i. 134

Adonis, Assyrian name of Attis, i. 124

Aetius, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 5;

his _de Placitis Philosoph._ quoted, i. 39 _n._ 3, 43 _n._ 1, 56 _n._ 1

Aipolos = goatherd according to Phrygians, i. 137

Akembes, the Carystian, joint founder of Peratic heresy, i. 69, 149; ii.

154.

_See_ Euphrates

Alcibiades, of Apamea. _See_ Elchesaites

Alcinous, chief source of Hippolytus for Plato’s doctrines, i. 51 _n._ 3

Alés, Adhémar d’, his _Théologie de St. Hippolyte_ quoted, i. 66 _n._ 1

Amygdalus, Phrygian name of Attis, i. 140

Anaxagoras, his teaching, i. 44-46

Anaximander, his teaching, i. 42, 43

Anaximenes, his teaching, i. 43, 44

Andronicus the Peripatetic, quoted by Sethiani, i. 167

Apelles, follower of Marcion. His tenets, ii. 96, 97;

his prophetess Philumena, ii. 96;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 166

Apocatastasis, return of worlds to Deity, ii. 75 _n._ 4

Apparitions of gods, how produced by magicians, i. 97, 100

Apsethus the Libyan, story of, ii. 3, 4

Archelaus, his teaching, i. 46, 47

Aristotle, i. 16;

his teaching, i. 55-57;

his _Categories_, i. 55 _n._ 5;

his Quintessence, i. 56 _n._ 1; ii. 72 _n._ 4;

phrase of, used by Simon M., ii. 11 _n._ 4;

Basilides’ tenets attributed to, ii. 62-66. _See_ Plato

Arithmomancy, i. 83-87

Armellini attributes _Philosophumena_ to Novatian, i. 6

Arnold, Prof. E. V., his _Roman Stoicism_ quoted, i. 57 _n._ 3, 127

_n._ 3, 136 _n._ 5; ii. 45 _n._ 7, 79 _n._ 6

Asclepiades, i. 19; ii. 152

Assyrians = Syrians, i. 123 _n._ 6;

teach triune nature of Deity, _ib._

Astrology, source of heresy, i. 34;

the Chaldæan system of, i. 67-69;

folly of, i. 70-75, 113;

zodiacal types of, i. 88-91

Astronomers, calculations of, i. 76-83;

Hippolytus’ contempt for, i. 82

Athenæus, his _Deipnosophistæ_ quoted, i. 108 _n._ 3

Attis, legend of, i. 118 _n._ 1;

hymns to, sung in Mysteries of great Mother, i. 141, 142;

names of: Adonis, Osiris, Moon, Sophia, Adamna, Corybas, Papas,

Aipolos, Amygdalus, Syrictas, _ib._

Babylonians, say god is Darkness, _ap._ Hippolytus, i. 104

Baptism, in primitive Church followed by milk and honey, i. 136 _n._ 9

Barbelo, the earth-goddess, of Gnostics, i. 139 _n._ 5

_Baruch_, book of. _See_ Justinus

Basilides, i. 13, 14, 16;

his tenets, ii. 59-79;

hearer of Glaucias, ii. 59 _n._ 1;

of Matthias, ii. 66;

his son Isidore, _ib._;

his God-who-is-Not, ii. 67.

The Panspermia, ii. 68;

Ascension of First Sonhood, ii. 69;

of Second Sonhood, ii. 70;

the Boundary Spirit, _ib._;

the Great Ruler and his greater Son, ii. 71, 72;

the second ruler or Hebdomad, ii. 73;

descent of the Gospel, ii. 75;

the 365 heavens and Habrasax, ii. 76;

light which shines upon Jesus and His Passion, _ib._;

Apocatastasis of Formlessness and Mission of Jesus, ii. 77-79;

the great ignorance, ii. 77;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 159-161.

_See_ Simon of Cyrene, Aristotle

Baubo. _See_ Hecate

Baur, Chr. F., attributes _Philosophumena_ to Caius the presbyter, i. 6

Beelzebuth, made from perplexity of Sophia, _ap._ Valentinus, ii. 31;

name parody of Jabezebuth, ii. 31 _n._ 2

Benn, Alfred W., his _Philosophy of Greece_ quoted, i. 37 _n._ 6, 43

_n._ 1

Bigourdan, G., his _L’Astronomie: Evolution des Idées_, etc., quoted,

i. 80 _n._ 3

Blastus, heretic mentioned by pseudo-Tertullian, i. 13

Bouché-Leclercq, A., his _L’Astrologie Grecque_ quoted, i. 67 _n._ 1, 74

_n._ 5; 108 _n._ 2, 148 _n._ 4

Bousset, Prof. Wilhelm, his _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_ quoted, i. 123

_n._ 2; ii. 80 _n._ 2, 163 _n._ 7

Brachmans, their lives and teaching, i. 60-61; ii. 99 _n._ 1

Brandt, Prof. A. S. H. W. _See_ Elchesaites

Brimo, name of Demeter in Mysteries, i. 138

Bruce, the, Papyrus, i. 3 _n._ 1;

quoted, ii. 12 _n._ 2

Buddhism, known to Clement of Alexandria, ii. 59 _n._ 1

Budge, Sir Ernest A. W. T., his _Miscellaneous Coptic Texts_ quoted, i.

30; ii. 178 _n._ 1

Bunsen, Baron von, his _Hippolytus and his Age_, i. 5

Cabala, the Jewish process of _gematria_, i. 131 _n._ 1;

explanation of, ii. 40 _n._ 3;

measurements in, ii. 133 _n._ 4

Caius the presbyter, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 6

Callistus, Pope (218-223 A.D.), i. 3, 5, 7, 13, 17, 19, 29;

leans towards heresy of Noetus, ii. 118;

his life and tenets, ii. 124-132;

fails with Sabellius, ii. 124;

calls Hippolytus’ party ditheists, ii. 125, 129;

formerly slave to Carpophorus, ii. 125;

his misdeeds and flight, ii. 126;

condemned to mill by Carpophorus, _ib._;

makes riot in synagogue and sent to mines by Fuscianus, ii. 127;

released by Victor and Marcia, ii. 128, 129;

promoted to charge of cemetery by Zephyrinus, ii. 128;

excommunicates Sabellius, ii. 129;

his leanings towards Sabellius and Theodotus, ii. 130;

favours laxity of morals in Church, ii. 130-132;

and second baptism, ii. 132

Carpocrates, i. 17;

his tenets, ii. 90-92;

assigns sinless soul to Jesus, ii. 91;

says all men may be Christs, _ib._;

lawlessness of followers of, ii. 91-92.

_See_ Magic

Carpophorus. _See_ Callistus

Caulacau, used with Saulasau and Zeesar by Naassenes, i. 131;

Adamas identified with, _ib._;

name in which Saviour descended, _ib._ _n._ 6

Cerdo, i. 16;

teacher of Marcion, ii. 95, 96

Cerinthus, i. 17;

his tenets, ii. 92, 93;

adoptionist views of, ii. 93;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 166

Chaldæans, horoscopy of, described, i. 67-76

Charles, R. H., his _Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of O. T._ quoted, i.

154

Cicero, quoted, i. 68 _n._ 1, 107 _n._ 2

Clement of Alexandria, i. 11;

quoted, i. 144 _n._ 2, 146 _n._ 1; ii. 12 _n._ 5, 20 _n._ 1, 78 _n._

8, 105 _n._ 4, 122 _n._ 3

Cleomenes, preacher of Noetian heresy, ii. 118, 123

Colarbasus, his arithmetical heresy, i. 83;

name of, ii. 57 _n._ 4

Constellation figures, interpretation of, i. 107-114

Corybas, god of Phrygians, i. 133;

his legend, _ib._ _n._ 5

Cruice, Abbé Patrice M., _Philosophumena_, etc., i. 4 _n._ 5;

_Études sur les P._, i. 12 _n._ 2

Cumont, Franz, his _Textes et Monuments de Mithra_ quoted, i. 98 _n._ 5;

_Les Mystères de Mithra_, _ib._;

_Recherches sur le Manichéisme_, i. 110 _n._ 2;

_Cosmogonie Manichéenne_, i. 176 _n._ 5

Cybele, or Great Mother, worship of, i. 3;

legend of, i. 118 _n._ 1.

_See_ Attis, Naassenes, Ophites, Rhea

Cyphi, Egyptian incense used in magic, i. 92

Demiurge, or architect of Universe;

fiery god of Naassenes, i. 128;

made from fear of Sophia, _ap._ Valentinus, ii. 30

Democritus, his teaching, i. 48, 49

Devil, ruler of this world made from grief of Sophia, _ap._ Valentinus,

ii. 31

Didymus of Alexandria, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 5

Diels, Hermann, edits Book I. of _Philosophumena_, i. 31 _n._ 1

Diodorus of Eretria, mentioned by no other author, i. 38 _n._ 6

Diogenes Laertius, source of Hippolytus’ summary of philosophies,

i. 64 _n._ 2;

quoted, i. 35 _n._ 7, 36 _nn._ 2, 3; 37 _n._ 6; 40 _nn._ 2, 3; 41

_nn._ 2, 3; 42 _n._ 1; 44 _nn._ 1, 3; 48 _nn._ 3, 4; 54 _n._ 1; 56

_nn._ 1, 2; 58 _n._ 1; 59 _nn._ 1, 3;

mentions Gymnosophists and Druids, 60 _n._ 1

Docetae, i. 15, 17;

their tenets, ii. 99-105;

interpretation of story of fig-tree, ii. 99, 100.

And of Parable of Sower, ii. 101;

views on Annunciation and Passion of Jesus, ii. 104;

probably Valentinian, ii. 105 _n._ 4;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 162, 163

Döllinger, Dr. Ignaz, i. 6, 7;

his Hippolytus and Callistus quoted, ii. 124 _n._ 1; 125 _n._ 3; 126

_nn._ 4, 6; 127 _nn._ 1, 2, 4; 128 _nn._ 4, 5; 129 _n._ 4; 130

_nn._ 1, 7; 131 _n._ 6

Dositheus, a Samaritan heretic, i. 13, 14

Druids, Pythagoreans, i. 61, 62.

_See_ Diogenes Laertius

Duchesne, Mgr. Louis, his _Histoire Ancienne de l’Église_ quoted, i.

6, 7; ii. 124 _n._ 1; 125 _n._ 7

Duncker, Ludwig, _Philosophumena_, etc., i. 4

Ebionites, their tenets, ii. 93;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 167.

_See_ Mughtasila

Ecphantus, his teaching, i. 50

Edem (Eden), garden of, compared to brain, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 143;

river of, compared to serpent, _ap._ Peratæ, i. 155;

to four senses of man, _ap._ Simon Magus, ii. 10;

name of Israel wife of Elohim, _ap._ Justinus, i. 175

Egypt = the body, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 130;

and Peratæ, i. 155

Egyptians, used for Alexandrians, i. 40 _n._ 1;

astrology of, 48 n. 4;

“Wisdom” of, i. 104-107;

_Gospel accdg. to_, quoted, i. 123

Elchesaites, i. 14, 17;

Brandt’s _Elchesai_, ii. 132 _n._ 3;

Alcibiades introduces heresy of, into Rome, ii. 133;

the _Book of Elchesai_ quoted, _ib._;

their belief in transmigration, ii. 134;

repeated baptisms and spells used by, ii. 135, 136;

prophecies of, ii. 137;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 169, 170.

_See_ Mughtasila

Eleusis (Mysteries of), words used in, i. 129;

rites of, described, i. 138, 139

Empedocles, i. 9, 16;

his teaching, i. 40, 41

Encratites, their tenets, ii. 114, 115;

their connection with Tatian, ii. 114 _n._ 5;

extreme asceticism of, ii. 115

Epicurus, his teaching, i. 58, 59

Epiphanes (supposed follower of Valentinus), his tenets, ii. 38

Epiphanius, quoted, i. 5, 11, 122 _n._ 3; ii. 39 _n._ 7, 48 _n._ 2,

49 _n._ 1, 76 _n._ 1, 80 _nn._ 2, 3; 90 _n._ 4, 92 _nn._ 3, 4; 93

_n._ 7, 95 _n._ 4, 113 _n._ 6, 118 _n._ 1, 132 _n._ 3

Essenes, Book of Job attributed to, i. 109 _n._ 2;

Ebionites and, 110 _n._ 3.

_See_ Jews, Mughtasila, Zealots

Euphrates (the Peratic), his story of war in heaven, i. 69;

meaning of name of, i. 146 _n._ 1;

founder of Ophite heresy, _ib._;

and with Akembes of Peratæ, i. 149

Eusebius, quoted, i. 7, 14 _n._ 1; ii. 96 _n._ 2, 111 _n._ 2, 112

_n._ 6, 132 _n._ 3

Fabricius, edits Book I of _Philosophumena_, i. 1

Faye, Eugène de, his _Introduction_, etc., and _Gnostiques et

Gnosticisme_ quoted, i. 8 _n._ 3

Fessler, Prof., attributes _Philosophumena_ to Caius, i. 6

Firmicus, J. Maternus, his _Matheseos_ quoted, i. 68 _n._ 1

Flora. _See_ Ptolemy, follower of V.

Flügel, Prof., his _Mani_ quoted, ii. 132 _n._ 3

Fuscianus, prefect of city (188-193 A.D.), sentences Callistus to

mines, ii. 127

Ganschinietz, Richard, his _Hippolytus’ Kapitel gegen die Magier_

quoted, i. 92 _n._ 2

Geryon, the triple-bodied, pervades everything, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 131

Gnostics, Mysteries of, i. 32, 33;

derive tenets from Greeks and barbarians, i. 119.

_See_ Naassenes, Philo

Graillot, L., his _Le Culte de Cybèle_ quoted, i. 135 _n._ 1

Greeks, Phœnician origin of, attributed to Herodotus, i. 111;

tenets of Physicists among, taken from Sextus Empiricus, ii. 150-153

Gronovius, annotates Book I of _Philosophumena_, i. 1

Hatch, Edwin, Dr., his _Hibbert Lectures_ quoted, i. 38 _n._ 1, 123

_n._ 4, 136 _n._ 9; ii. 45 _n._ 6, 52 _n._ 8, 62 _n._ 7.

Hebrew words used by magicians, i. 92, 93.

Hecate, hymn to, i. 100, 101;

identified with Baubo, Gorgo, Mormo and Mene, i. 101;

also with Artemis, Persephone and Eriskigal, _ib._ _n._ 1

Hemerobaptists, i. 18; ii. 132 _n._ 3.

_See_ Mughtasila

Heracleon, follower of Valentinus, his tenets not described by

Hippolytus, ii. 38 _n._ 2

Heraclides of Pontus, i. 19; ii. 152

Heraclitus of Ephesus, i. 10, 16, 17;

his teaching, i. 41; ii. 119.

_See_ Noetus

Hermes, street statues of, i. 127

Hermogenes, i. 16;

his tenets, ii. 111-112;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 169

Hesiod (the poet), his _Theogony_ quoted, i. 62, 63

Hippasus, i. 19; ii. 151

Hippo, his teaching, i. 50, 51

Hippocrates, quoted, i. 126

Hippolytus, schismatic Pope (218-235 A.D.), i. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

16;

denies Pauline authorship of _Hebrews_, i. 23 _n._ 1;

calls himself guardian of the Church, i. 34;

heterodoxy of, ii. 125 _n._ 3, 129 _n._ 4;

_Chronicon_ of, ii. 171;

his own doctrine stated, ii. 172 to end;

his _Substance of the All_, ii. 173

Homoousios, first used by Hippolytus, ii. 69 _n._ 1

Hyacinthus. _See_ Marcia

Irenæus, St., Hippolytus’ indebtedness to, i. 11, 12, 13;

his _Five Books Against Heresies_ quoted, i. 122 _n._ 3, 139 _n._ 5,

160 _n._ 1; ii. 15 _n._ 2, 17 _n._ 4, 25 _n._ 6, 27 _n._ 2, 38

_n._ 2, 39 _nn._ 3, 4; 40 _n._ 2, 44 _n._ 2, 45 _n._ 5, 48 _n._

1, 49 _nn._ 2, 3, 6; 50 _n._ 2, 51 _nn._ 2, 8; 53 _n._ 3, 54 _n._

1, 56 _n._ 2, 57 _nn._ 4, 5; 59 _n._ 1, 76 _n._ 1, 79 _n._ 2, 80

_n._ 2, 90 _n._ 4, 91 _n._ 5, 92 _nn._ 3, 4; 93 _nn._ 4, 5; 111

_nn._ 2, 3.

_See_ Jesus

Isidore. _See_ Basilides

Isis identified with the Earth, i. 105 _n._ 4;

Mysteries of, i. 126

Jacobi, Prof., first to declare Hippolytus author of _Philosophumena_,

i. 5

Jaldabaoth, a fiery god, i. 128, 132 _n._ 3; ii. 102 _n._ 9;

a “fourth number,” _ib._

_See_ Adam, Sophia

James, the brother of the Lord, alleged transmitter of Naassene

doctrines, i. 121; ii. 153

Jerusalem, the heavenly, mother of all living, i. 130;

the city in Phœnicia, i. 138

Jesus, His triple nature, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 121;

the Perfect Man, i. 134;

reason of His Incarnation, i. 145;

His triple powers, _ap._ Peratæ, i. 147;

Intermediate between the Father and matter, i. 158;

Son of Joseph and Mary, _ap._ Justinus and Carpocrates, i. 178; ii.

96;

the great High Priest, ii. 29;

mystic name of, _ap._ Irenæus, ii. 47;

self-generated, _ap._ Marcus, ii. 52;

His Illumination Mission and Passion, _ap._ Basilides, ii. 78, 79;

the One God of Zephyrinus, ii. 123;

so of Callistus, ii. 129.

_See_ Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebionites, Docetae, Justinus

Jeû of Bruce Papyrus, called the Great Man, i. 122 _n._ 4

Jews, history of, from Josephus and others, ii. 138-148;

divided into Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, ii. 139;

tenets of Essenes, ii. 139-145;

the like of Pharisees, ii. 145;

the like of Sadducees, ii. 145-147;

all expect Messiah, ii. 147;

chronology of history of, ii. 170-172

Josephus, i. 10 _n._ 3; i. 17.

_See_ Jews

Jothor, father-in-law of Moses, i. 131

Justin Martyr, says Simon Magus claimed divinity, i. 14

Justinus, the Gnostic, i. 3;

perhaps not Ophite, i. 28 _n._ 2;

his tenets, i. 169-180;

probably one of the later Gnostics, i. 169 _n._ 4;

his oath of secrecy, i. 171, 179;

his _Baruch_ quoted, i. 171;

allegorizes Herodotus’ Scythian story, i. 172;

his Triad of the Good One, Elohim and Edem, i. 172, 173;

the twenty-four angels of, and their names, i. 173;

likeness of these to Bar Khôni’s Ophites, _ib._ _nn._ 3, 4;

angels of, called Trees, i. 174;

creation of protoplasts, i. 174;

ascent of Elohim, i. 175, 176;

sin of Eve and Naas, i. 176;

origin of evil, i. 177;

Heracles a Saviour, _ib._;

Jesus called by Baruch when twelve years old, i. 178;

explanation of Pagan myths, i. 179;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 161, 162;

put by summarizer after Basilides, i. 161 _n._ 2

Kessler, Konrad, his _Mani_ quoted, i. 82 _n._ 2

King, C. W., his _Gnostics and their Remains_ quoted, ii. 17 _n._ 2

Lane, E. W., his _Modern Egyptians_ quoted, i. 97 _n._ 2

Langdon, Dr. Stephen, his _Tammuz and Ishtar_ quoted, i. 105 _n._ 3

Latinisms in text of _Philosophumena_, i. 23

Leemans, Prof. C., his _Papyri Græci_ quoted, ii. 44 _n._ 4

Legge, F., his _Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity_ quoted, i. 2

_n._ 2, 9 _n._ 1, 27 _n._ 1, 39 _n._ 1, 40 _n._ 1, 94 _n._ 1, 105

_nn._ 3, 4; 109 _n._ 2, 114 _n._ 2, 122 _n._ 1, 123 _nn._ 1, 2, 3;

128 _n._ 2, 130 _n._ 1, 135 _n._ 4, 137 _n._ 2, 139 _n._ 5, 155

_nn._ 2, 3; 156 n. 4, 160 _n._ 1, 162 _n._ 2, 165 _n._ 2, 169

_n._ 5, 173 _n._ 4, 174 _n._ 2, 175 _n._ 2; ii. 7 _nn._ 1, 3; 25

_n._ 3, 34 _n._ 5, 72 _n._ 3, 82 _n._ 3, 88 _n._ 3, 89 _n._ 2, 95

_n._ 4, 97 _n._ 1, 103 _n._ 6, 163 _n._ 7

Leucippus, his teaching, i. 48

Lipsius, R. A., opposes Hippolytus’ authorship, i. 6;

his articles in _D.C.B._ quoted, ii. 38 _nn._ 1, 2

Lucian of Samosata, his _Alexander_ quoted, i. 92 _n._ 2, 99 n. 4;

follower of Cerdo, ii. 96

Macmahon, J. H., translates _Philosophumena_, i. 5

Magic, its connection with astrology, i. 91 _n._ 4;

practised by Simon’s disciples, ii. 16;

and Carpocratians, ii. 91

Magicians, tricks of, described, i. 92-103

Man, Perfect, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 123, 134, 138;

in _Pistis Sophia_, i. 123 _n._ 3;

_ap._ Sethiani, i. 165;

First, _ap._ Manichæans, i. 27, 123 _n._ 2;

expression used in Summary, ii. 163.

_See_ Adam, Adamas, Monoimus, Pindar

Manichæism, the Atlas or Omophorus of, i. 110 _n._ 2;

First Man of, captured by powers of darkness, i. 123 _n._ 2; ii. 7

_n._ 3;

hostility of, to Jews, i. 165 _n._ 3;

Justinus’s anticipation of, i. 169 _n._ 4, 176 _n._ 5;

Valentinus’s, ii. 17 _n._ 5;

evocation of First Man in, ii. 34 _n._ 5;

our earth worst of all worlds, ii. 35 _n._ 3;

column of praises in, ii. 50 _n._ 5;

secrecy of, ii. 59 _n._ 1.

_See_ Cumont, Flügel, Kessler

Marcia, concubine of Commodus, ii. 127;

takes counsel with Pope Victor, _ib._;

her foster brother Hyacinthus, _ib._

Marcion, i. 10, 16, 17;

his tenets, ii. 82-90;

compared with those of Empedocles, ii. 82-88;

Prepon’s address to Bardesanes, ii. 89;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 165

Marcus, follower of Valentinus, i. 12;

his tenets, ii. 40-57;

his frauds and juggling tricks, ii. 41-43;

vision of the Tetrad, ii. 45-48;

his cabalistic system of numbers, ii. 48-56

Mariam, aunt of Moses, i. 131

Mariamne, said to have received Naassene tradition from St. James,

i. 121; ii. 153;

known to Origen and Celsus, i. 121 _n._ 5

Mark, St., story of self-mutilation to avoid orders, ii. 87

Maspero, Sir Gaston Charles, his _Hist. anc^{me} de l’Orient_ quoted,

i. 47 _n._ 1

Matter, Jacques, _Hist. du Gnosticisme_ quoted, ii. 59 _n._ 1

Maximilla. _See_ Phrygians

Melchizidek. _See_ Theodotus the Banker

Menander, successor of Simon Magus, i. 17; ii. 59 _n._ 1

Metoposcopy, divination by physiognomy, i. 87-92

Michael, scribe of MS., i. 4

Miller, Bénigne Emanuel, first editor of _Philosophumena_, i. 4, 5;

his _Mélanges de Litt. Grecque_ quoted, i. 100, _n._ 5

Monarchia, doctrine of one supreme source of all things, ii. 123

Monoimus Arabs, i. 17;

his tenets, ii. 106-111;

not Christian, ii. 106 _n._ 1;

his heavenly man, ii. 107, 163;

cabalistic theory of numbers, ii. 109;

letter to Theophrastus quoted, ii. 110;

summary of doctrines of, 163, 164

Montanus. _See_ Phrygians.

Mughtasila, washers or Hemerobaptists, Elchesaites derived from, ii.

132 _n._ 3;

make converts among Essenes and Ebionites, _ib._

Mynas, Mynoïdes, discoverer of MS. of _Philosophumena_, i. 2, 3, 5

Mysteries of the heretics, i. 23, 33, 125, 180;

promise to describe, i. 63;

probably described in missing Books, i. 65;

source of Naassene heresy, i. 121;

M. of Assyrians, i. 123;

of Phrygians, i. 126, 133, 135-138, 140;

ineffable M. of Isis, i. 126;

M. of Greeks, i. 127;

_Hye Cye_ in Eleusinian, i. 129;

M. of Samothrace, i. 132;

great secret of Eleusinian, i. 138;

Lesser and Great, i. 139;

M. of the Great Mother, i. 141, 142;

Phliasian, older than Eleusinian, i. 166;

M. of Justinus, i. 171

Naas, the serpent, i. 120, 142;

one of Justinus’ maternal angels, i. 173

Naassenes, i. 3;

their tenets, i. 118-146;

call themselves Gnostics, i. 120, 142;

their supreme deity Adamas, i. 120;

all his powers in Jesus, i. 121;

the names of the Three Churches, _ib._;

the first man, i. 122;

their connection with the Mysteries, i. 123;

with the _Gospel of the Egyptians_, _ib._;

the myth of Attis, i. 124;

their interpretation of the mysteries of Isis, i. 126, 127;

the demiurge Jaldabaoth, i. 128;

their interpretation of Homer, i. 130;

of the Cabiric mysteries, i. 132;

the myths of Corybas and Pappas, i. 133-135;

other names of Attis, i. 135-140;

N. mentioned by Irenæus, i. 139 _n._ 5;

why so called, i. 142;

hymns of, i. 142, 144, 145;

interpretation of anatomy of brain, i. 143, 144;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 153.

_See_ Adamas, Eleusis, Geryon, Serpent

Neologisms used by Hippolytus, i. 24

Noetus, i. 3, 13, 15, 17;

his tenets, ii. 118-123;

his heresy, derived

from Heraclitus, ii. 118-123;

his followers, ii. 118;

identifies Father and Son, ii. 123;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 168, 169.

_See_ Cleomenes, Phrygians

Novatian, _Philosophumena_ attributed to, i. 6;

Hippolytus said to follow, i. 7 _n._ 4.

Oannes, the fist man, _ap._ Assyrians, i. 122

Ocellus Lucanus, i. 19; ii. 152

Ophites, i. 16, 17;

heresy derived from worship of Cybele or Great Mother, i. 118 _n._ 1;

curse Christ, _ap._ Origen, i. 121 _n._ 1;

comparative, insignificance of, i. 20 _n._ 1; ii. 116.

_See_ Attis, Euphrates, Naassenes

Origen, _Philosophumena_ attributed

to, i. 5, 6;

_Contra Celsum_ quoted, i, 20 _n._ 1, 121 _nn._ 1, 5; 130 _n._ 1; 146

_n._ 1

Orpheus, a theologist, i. 103 _n._ 4;

discloser of mysteries, i. 166;

his _Bacchica_ quoted, but otherwise unknown, _ib._;

Sethian heresy derived from, _ib._

Osiris, his mutilation, i. 126;

signifies water, i. 105 _n._ 4;

his statue in the temple of Isis, i. 127

Papas, god of Phrygians, i. 135;

name of Attis, _ib._ _n._ 1;

means Father, _ib._

Parmenides, his teaching, i. 47, 48

Parthey, Gustav, his _Zwei griechische Zauberpapyri_ quoted, i. 93

_n._ 5

Patripassianism, heresy of, ii. 118 _n._ 1, 168 _n._ 1

Paul, St., _Acts of, and Thekla_, quoted, i. 30 _n._ 1

Peratæ, i. 3;

mentioned by Clem, Alex., i. 146 _n._ 1;

their teaching, i. 146-159;

their triple division of the cosmos, i. 146; ii. 154;

their Christology, i. 147;

their astrological theories, i. 148, 149;

their book _Proastii_ quoted, i. 50-153;

why called Peratæ, i. 154;

their saviour Serpent, i. 155;

Serpent is type of Christ, Joseph and Nimrod, i. 155, 156;

the constellation Draco, i. 157;

anatomy of brain typifies Father and Son, i. 159;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 154, 155.

_See_ Edem, Euphrates

Persephone, as lover of Adonis, i. 124.

_See_ Hecate

Persians say God is Light, i. 104

Pharisees. _See_ Jews

Philo, his Logos and Gnostic ideas, ii. 7 _n._ 3, 8 _n._ 2, 173

_n._ 4

Philumena. _See_ Apelles

Photius, his _Bibliotheca_ quoted, i. 12, 13 _n._ 1.

Phrên. _See_ Râ

Phrygians (Montanists), their tenets, ii. 113, 114;

followers of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla, ii. 113;

lean towards Noetian and Patripassian heresies, ii. 114;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 167, 168.

_See_ Mysteries, Naassenes

Pindar, ode on first man assigned to, i. 122

_Pistis Sophia_, The, quoted, i. 3 n. 1, 9 _n._ 1, 123 _nn._ 1, 3, 124

_n._ 11, 150 _nn._ 1, 3, 152 _n._ 2, 155 _n._ 1, 162 _n._ 2, 173

_n._ 1, 177 _n._ 5; ii. 5 _n._ 4, 16 _n._ 4, 43 _n._ 2, 45 _n._ 4,

48 _n._ 3, 52 _n._ 9, 53 _n._ 2, 71 _n._ 6, 79 _n._ 3, 93 _n._ 7,

97 _n._ 1, 102 _n._ 2

Plato, i. 16;

his teaching, i, 51-55;

passages from Aristotle ascribed by Hippolytus to, i. 53, 54;

his _Clitopho_ quoted as _Republic_, i. 55 _n._ 7;

analogy between his teaching and Simon M.’s, ii. 5;

and Valentinus’, ii. 18, 19, 25;

quoted, ii. 23, 36, 37.

_See_ Alcinous

Plutarch, his _de Iside et Osiride_ quoted, i. 129 _n._ 3;

_de Exilio_, ii, 23 _n._ 1

Point, indivisible, from which all things spring, i. 115, 141; ii. 9

Pontianus, Pope (230-235 A.D.), i. 7

Praxeas, a heretic refuted by Tertullian and mentioned by pseudo-Tert.,

but not by Irenæus or Hippolytus, i. 13

Prepon the Assyrian. _See_ Marcion

Priscilla. _See_ Phrygians

Proastii. _See_ Peratæ

Proteus, identified with Attis, i. 137

Prudentius quoted, i. 7

Ptolemy, Claudius, the astronomer, mentioned, i. 82;

his _Tetrabiblos_ quoted, i. 88 _n._ 2

---- follower of Valentinus, his tenets, ii. 39, 40;

his letter to his “fair sister Flora,” ii. 39 _n._ 7

Pyrrho, wrongly called an Academic by Hippolytus, i. 32;

his teaching, i. 59

Pythagoras, i. 15, 16, 17;

his life and followers, i. 36-39;

his theory of numbers, i. 37, 115 _n._ 6, 116; ii. 20;

Accidents attributed to, ii. 21;

his theory of metempsychosis, ii. 23;

gnomic sayings of, ii. 23, 24;

solar theory of, ii. 24

Quartodecimans, i. 17;

their tenets, ii. 112, 113;

Irenæus their advocate, ii. 112 _n._ 6

Râ, Egyptian Sun-God, invoked by magicians, i. 92 _n._ 7

Rhea, an androgyne deity, i. 125;

identified with Gê and Cybele, _ib._ _n._ 1

Rogers, Dr. R. W., _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ quoted, i. 151

_n._ 2

Sabellius. _See_ Callistus

Sadducees. _See_ Jews

Salmon, Dr. George, his _Cross-references in Philosophumena_ quoted,

i. 8; ii. 38 _n._ 1.;

his articles in _D.C.B._ i. 6 _n._ 1, 7 _n._ 4, 22 _n._ 1, 69 _n._

6; ii. 38 _n._ 2, 40 _n._ 3, 80 _n._ 1, 98 _n._ 1, 100 _n._ 1, 105

_n._ 4, 108 _n._ 3, 109 _n._ 6, 113 _n._ 2, 118 _n._ 1, 149 _n._ 2,

173 _n._ 3

Saturnilus, i. 16;

his tenets, ii. 80, 81;

his Unknown Father, ii. 81;

angels make man in His image, _ib._;

Christ sent to depose God of Jews, _ib._

_See_ Simon of Cyrene

Saulasau. _See_ Caulacau.

Schneidewin, F. G., with Duncker edits part of _Philosophumena_, i. 4

Schürer, Prof., his _History of Jewish People_ quoted, ii. 7 _n._ 3, 8

_n._ 2

Secundus, follower of Valentinus, his tenets, ii. 38

Sephora, wife of Moses, i. 131

Serpent, inspirer of Naassene doctrine, i. 120, 142;

identified with substance of water, i. 142;

the constellation Draco, i. 146 _n._ 1;

the brazen, _ap._ Peratæ, i. 155, 156;

the Son and the Word, i. 157;

wind of darkness _ap._ Sethiani, i. 164, 165;

of Justinus wholly evil, i. 169 _n._ 5

_Seth, Paraphrase of._ _See_ Sethiani.

Sethiani, their tenets, i. 160-169;

authors who mention, i. 160 _n._ 1;

the Sitheus of Bruce Papyrus, _ib._;

their triad of Light, Darkness and Spirit, i. 161;

Light and Spirit caught by Darkness, i. 162;

impregnation of Darkness, i. 163;

analogy with other triads, i. 165, 166;

system of, derived from Orphic, i. 166;

Phliasian Mysteries of Great Mother, _ib._;

simile of oil-well at Ampe, i. 168, 169;

their _Paraphrase of Seth_, i. 169;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 155-157.

_See_ Andronicus, Man

Sextus Empiricus, Hippolytus’ borrowings from, i. 10, 69 _n._ 1; ii.

150.

_See_ Greek

Simon of Cyrene, story of his substitution for Jesus on the Cross

probably Saturnilian, not Basilidian, ii. 59 _n._ 1, 79 _n._ 2

Simon Magus, i. 3, 13, 14;

his system derived from art of arithmetic, i. 115, 116;

his six roots, i. 116; ii. 7;

his _Great Announcement_ quoted, i. 115, 140, 141; ii. 4-14;

his life and tenets, ii. 2-17;

his supreme God, fire, ii. 4;

his account of the creation of Man, ii. 9;

his Epinoia Helen of Tyre, ii. 15;

his death, ii. 17;

source of Valentinian heresy, ii. 17, 40 _n._ 3;

summary of doctrines of, 157, 158.

_See_ Edem, Justin, Magic, Menander

Socrates, i. 16;

his teaching, i. 51

Sophia, name given to Helen of Tyre by Simon M., i. 13 _n._ 3;

Sethians make her cause of Flood, _ib._;

identified with Earth, i. 105 _n._ 3; ii. 27 _n._ 4;

mother of Jaldabaoth, _ap._ Naassenes, i. 118 _n._ 1, 132 _n._ 3;

in Naassene hymn, i. 145 _n._ 3;

her name of Achamoth, i. 173 _n._ 4;

fall of, _ap._ Valentinus, ii. 7 _n._ 3, 27;

decides fate of men, ii. 17 _n._ 5;

her adventures, ii. 28-36;

the heaven of, ii. 31 _n._ 1;

identified with Holy Spirit, ii. 33

Sotion of Alexandria, Hippolytus’ borrowings from, i. 49 _n._ 3; 64

_n._ 2

Stähelin, Heinrich, his _Die Gnostischen Quellen Hippolyts_ quoted,

i. 8 _n._ 2

Stoics, their teaching, i. 57, 58;

Hippolytus’ reluctance to mention, i. 157 _n._ 2

Syrictas, the pipe-player, name of Attis, i. 142

Tatian the Gnostic, i. 17;

his tenets, ii. 111;

holds Adam not saved, _ib._;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 164.

_See_ Encratites

Tertullian, _Philosophumena_ assigned to, i. 6;

quoted, ii. 82 _n._ 3, 96 _nn._ 2, 3, 111 _n._ 3.

_See_ Praxeas

Tertullian, Pseudo-, _Adversus Omnes Hæreses_, i. 11-13;

quoted, i. 160 _n._ 1; ii. 95 _n._ 4, 97 _n._ 2.

_See_ Praxeas

Thales, i. 9, his teaching, i. 35, 36;

quoted, i. 142

Theodore bar Khôni, his _Book of Scholia_ quoted, i. 169 _n._ 4, 173

_n._ 3

Theodoret calls Hippolytus Bishop and Martyr, i. 7, 11, 12;

his account of Peratæ, i. 146 _n._ 1;

quotes summary and not text of _Philosophumena_, ii. 154 _n._ 1

Theodotus the Banker, his tenets, ii. 94, 95;

holds Melchizidek greater than Christ, ii. 94;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 167

Theodotus of Byzantium, his tenets, ii. 93, 94;

adoptionist views of, ii. 94;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 167

Theophrastus. _See_ Monoimus

Thomas, Gospel according to, quoted, i. 126

Urbanus, Pope (223-230 A.D.), i. 7

Valentinus, his system derived from arithmetical art, i. 15;

from Pythagoras and Plato, ii. 17-19;

Zoroastrian and Egyptian features of, ii. 17 _n._ 1;

division of followers as to Supreme Being, ii. 25;

his system of Aeons, ii. 26, 27;

Sophia and her Ectroma, ii. 28;

projection of Horos, ii. 29;

Jesus the Common Friend of the Pleroma, _ib._;

salvation of Ectroma and result of her passions, ii. 30;

fourfold division of world, ii. 31, and of man, ii. 32;

analogies of myths of, with Manichæism, ii. 34 _n._ 5, 35 _n._ 3;

Anatolic and Italiote schools of, ii. 34;

purpose of Incarnation, _ap._ ii. 35;

summary of doctrines of, ii. 158, 159.

_See_ Beelzebuth, Demiurge, Devil, Pleroma and Sophia

Victor, Pope (189-202 A.D.). _See_ Callistus

Wessely, his _Griechische Zauberpapyri_ quoted, i. 93 _n._ 5

Wilson, James, his _Complete Dictionary of Astrology_ quoted, i. 67

_n._ 1

Wordsworth, Bishop Christopher, his _Hippolytus and the Church of

Rome_ quoted, i. 4 _n._ 2; i. 6; i. 12 _n._ 1; ii. 119 _n._ 2,

129 _n._ 5

Xenophanes, his teaching, i. 49, 50

Zaratas (Zoroaster) quoted, i. 9, 104 _n._ 3; ii. 20;

Amshaspands

of, and Simon Magus’ roots, ii. 2 _n._ 2;

the like and Aeons of Valentinus, ii. 17 _n._ 5

Zealots, said by Hippolytus to be a sect of Essenes, ii. 143, 144 _n._

1

Zeesar. _See_ Caulacau

Zephyrinus, Pope (202-218 A.D.), i. 3;

said by Hippolytus to be ignorant and unskilled, ii. 118, 124;

leans towards heresy, ii. 118

THE END

Transcriber’s Notes

The notes in the left and right margins, indicating page numbers in the

original Greek, have been converted to e.g. [Sidenote: p. 216] in this

version. Obvious typographical errors and variable spelling were

corrected. The following corrections have been made to the text:

Page Original New

-------------------------------------------

7 takeing taking

13 ἀ πέραντον ἀπέραντον

26 ό ὁ

27 Σύγκοασις Σύγκρασις

27 κὰι καὶ

33 λελαλημέαν λελαλημένα

43 αεὶ ἀεὶ

44 Papypi Papyri

55 ᾶνω ἄνω

57 ףל־ארבע קל־ארבע

62 εἰδεσιν εἴδεσιν

80 des der

80 firstfruits first-fruits

87 κολοδάκτυλος κολοβοδάκτυλος

91 χωρησάσαν χωρήσασαν

98 φυσικὴς φυσικῆς

99 εῖναι εἶναι

114 ράφανοφαγίας ῥάφανοφαγίας

114 ἐγκρατε͂ις ἐγκρατεῖς

119 φιλοσοφυμένοις φιλοσοφουμένοις

119 Φιλοσοφυμένους Φιλοσοφουμένους

139 εἰδη εἴδη

145 κυριόις κυρίοις

150 ἀκαλώπιστος ἀκαλλώπιστος

164 octohedrons octahedrons

178 phase phrase

181 Manichéisine Manichéisme

183 Theogomy Theogony