In addition to these books, the Ophites whom Irenaeus and Hippolytus

describe quoted freely from the Canonical books of the Old Testament,

from one of the apocryphal books of Ezra and from the Book of Tobit, as

also from such books of the Canonical New Testament as the Gospels,

including that of St John, and most of the Pauline Epistles, including

that to the Hebrews[277]. But it would be going too far to say that they

“accepted” these or attributed to them a Divine origin, or thought them

inspired in the sense in which the word was used by the Catholic Church.

On the contrary, Epiphanius complains that they thought many of the

contents of the Old Testament Books at any rate were inspired only by

Ialdabaoth and the creators of the world of matter for the purpose of

misleading mankind[278]; and throughout they seem to have considered all

the Canonical Scriptures that they quote as on an equality with the

writings of Homer, Hesiod, the legendary Orpheus, and other heathen

writers such as Herodotus. Without attempting to deny or question the

historical truth of the facts or legends recorded by all these authors,

they regarded them merely as figures having an allegorical or typical

meaning, which they could interpret in any manner they pleased, so as to

make them accord with their own preconceived theories. Thus the

Naassenes when they found St Luke quoting from the Proverbs of Solomon

that “the just will fall seven times and rise again,” declared that this

referred to the downward passage of man’s soul through the planetary

heavens[279]; and Justinus, one of the Ophite teachers, finding a story

in Herodotus about Heracles and the serpent-tailed girl whom he met in

Scythia, said that it was a type of the generation of the universe by

the combination of the invisible and unforeseeing Demiurge and the

female principle or Sophia[280]. The same dialectic had already been

made use of by the Orphics, by Philo of Alexandria, and by Simon Magus;

but the Ophites seem to have been the first to apply it to all

literature. The full effect of this method of interpretation we shall

see later.

Generally speaking, it may be said that the Ophites seem to have been

the first to bring about any kind of amalgamation between the popular

religions of the Near East and the rising faith of Christianity. By

interpreting the “mysteries” or secret rites of Asia Minor and elsewhere

in their own sense, they supplied Christianity with a mythology which it

would otherwise have lacked and the absence of which must always have

proved a bar to its propagation among other than Semitic peoples. At the

same time they greatly exalted the figure of Christ, who in their system

became much less the personal teacher and master of the Jewish-Christian

communities[281] than the angel or messenger of the Supreme Being sent

from above in pursuance of a vast scheme for the redemption of the human

race. In this capacity it went some way towards identifying the

historical Jesus with the great god of the Mysteries and towards giving

the sacraments of the newly-founded Church the secular authority of the

rites practised in them. The influence of the Ophite system or systems

upon the sects which succeeded them is at present hard to define, but

there can be little doubt that some of the documents, which have come

down to us in the Coptic MSS. before mentioned and will be more fully

described in Chapter X, can only be explained by reference to them.

Footnote 79:

“Eorum qui ante adventum Christi Haereseos arguuntur.” Philastrius,

Ep. Brixiensis, _de Haeresibus Liber_, c. I. vol. I. p. 5, Oehler.

Footnote 80:

Augustinus, _de Haeresibus_ (cf. _ad Quod vult deum_) _Liber_, c.

XVII. I. p. 200, Oehler.

Footnote 81:

Pseudo-Tertullianus, _Adversus omnes Haereses_, cc. V., VI. p. 273,

Oehler. The writer was probably Victorinus of Pettau.

Footnote 82:

Pseudo-Hieronymus, _Indiculus de Haeresibus_, c. III., vol. I. p. 285,

Oehler.

Footnote 83:

Acts vi. 5. It will be noted that Epiphanius, who himself belonged to

the sect in his youth, interposes only the Basilidians between them

and the followers of Saturninus, the “heresy” of which last he derives

directly from that of Simon Magus.

Footnote 84:

Rev. ii. 6, 15.

Footnote 85:

Origen, _cont. Celsum_, Bk VI. c. 28. Possibly the Euphrates called

“the Peratic” or Mede by Hippolytus (_op. cit._ Bk IV. c. 2, p. 54,

Cruice).

Footnote 86:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 141, Cruice. This Mariamne is

doubtless the sister of Philip mentioned in the Apocryphal _Acta

Philippi_ (c. XXXII., Tischendorf), which have, as is said later, a

strong Gnostic or Manichaean tinge. Celsus knew a sect which took its

name from her. See Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk V. c. 62.

Footnote 87:

The Canonical Apocalypse is not earlier than 70 A.D., and was probably

written soon after the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem. Hippolytus and

Origen wrote 130 years later.

Footnote 88:

Naassene is evidently derived from the Hebrew or Aramaean נחש

“Serpent,” cf. Hipp. _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 6, p. 139, Cruice, and

exactly corresponds to the Greek ὀφίτης and the Latin _serpentinus_

(Low Latin _serpentarius_). “Worshipper of the Serpent” seems to be

the patristic gloss on the meaning of the word.

Footnote 89:

Giraud, _Ophitae_, c. 4, § 65, p. 89. The question really depends upon

Hippolytus’ sources, as to which see last chapter, pp. 11, 12. Cf. De

Faye, _Introduction_, etc., p. 41. Hippolytus’ Naassene author cannot

be much earlier than 170 A.D. since he quotes from St John’s Gospel,

and probably later than the work of Irenaeus written in 180-185. Yet

the Ophite system described by Irenaeus is evidently not a primitive

one and has been added to by his Latin translator. See n. 3, p. 47,

_infra_.

Footnote 90:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 27, § 1, p. 226, Harvey, says that the Ophites are

the same as the Sethians; Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 11, p. 184,

Cruice, that they are connected with the Peratae, the Sethians, and

the system of Justinus. Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXXVII. c. 1, p. 494,

Oehler, while deriving them from Nicolaus the Deacon, gives them a

common origin with those whom he calls Gnostics simply, and identifies

these last with the Borboriani, Coddiani, Stratiotici, Phibionitae,

Zacchaei, and Barbelitae (see _Haer._ XXVI. c. 3).

Footnote 91:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 11, p. 184, Cruice.

Footnote 92:

ἑαυτοὺς γνωστικοὺς ὀνομάζοντες. Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ Eusebius, _H.

E._ Bk IV. c. 7, says that Carpocrates was the father of the heresy of

the Gnostics and contemporary with Basilides.

Footnote 93:

Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXVI. c. 7, pp. 174, 176, Oehler.

Footnote 94:

Tertullian, _de Praescript. Haer._ c. XLII.

Footnote 95:

Josephus, _Antiq._ Bk XII. c. 3.

Footnote 96:

Ramsay, _Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia_, II. pp. 667 _sqq._; _St

Paul_, pp. 142 _sqq._; _Commentary on Galatians_, pp. 189 _sqq._ The

fact that Timothy, the son of the Jewess Eunice by a Greek father, was

not circumcised (see Acts xvi. 1) is quoted in support.

Footnote 97:

_E.g._ the Montanist, the most formidable of the heresies which

attacked the primitive Church, apart from Gnosticism. Cf. also

Galatians i. 6.

Footnote 98:

Mahaffy, _Greek World under Roman Sway_, p. 168. For the tyranny of

the Armenians, see Plutarch, _Lucullus_, cc. XIV., XXI.

Footnote 99:

Mahaffy, _Gk. World_, p. 100.

Footnote 100:

Mahaffy, _ibid._ p. 225.

Footnote 101:

Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. p. 9.

Footnote 102:

Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. p. 87.

Footnote 103:

Ramsay, _ibid._ I. p. 92.

Footnote 104:

Ramsay, _ibid._ I. pp. 93, 94. The Galli or priests of Cybele, who

mutilated themselves in religious ecstasy, seem to have been the

feature of Anatolian religion which most struck the Romans, when the

statue of the Mother of the Gods first appeared among them. Cf. next

page. For the other side of the religion, see Lucian, _de Dea Syria_,

cc. VI., XLIII., and Apuleius, _Metamorph._ Bk VIII. c. 29.

Footnote 105:

As in the hymn to Attis said to have been sung in the Great Mysteries,

given in the _Philosophumena_ (see p. 54, _infra_). Cf. Ramsay,

_Cities_, etc., I. pp. 132, 263, 264, for other identifications. The

Anatolian name of the _Dea Syria_ to whose cult Nero was addicted, was

Atargatis, which Prof. Garstang would derive from the Babylonian

Ishtar (Strong, _Syrian Goddess_, 1913, p. vii); see Cumont, _Les

Religions Orientales dans le Paganisme Romain_, Paris, 1906, p. 126.

The whole of Cumont’s chapters on Syria and Asia Minor (_op. cit._ pp.

57-89) can be consulted with advantage. The American edition, 1911,

contains some additional notes. See, too, Decharme’s article on Cybele

in Daremberg and Saglio’s _Dict. des Antiq._

Footnote 106:

Dill, _Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, pp. 548 _sqq._

Footnote 107:

See n. 1, _supra_; Suetonius, _Nero_, c. LVI.

Footnote 108:

Dill, _loc. cit._, and authorities there quoted.

Footnote 109:

Cumont, _Rel. Or._ p. 77, and see index to American edition, 1911.

Footnote 110:

Ezekiel viii. 14.

Footnote 111:

Jeremiah vii. 18; lxiv. 17-19.

Footnote 112:

Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., II. p. 674, quoting _Neubauer, Géographie du

Talmud_.

Footnote 113:

Cicero, _pro Flacc._ c. XXVIII. The Jews of the Dispersion in Egypt

had temples of their own, in one at least of which Yahweh had for

assessors a goddess Anat and a subordinate god Bethel. See René

Dussaud, “Les Papyrus judéo-araméens d’Elephantiné,” _R.H.R._ t. LXIV.

(1911) p. 350.

Footnote 114:

Acts xvi. 2, 3. See n. 3, p. 28, _supra_.

Footnote 115:

Layard, _Nineveh and Babylon_, 1853, pp. 509 _sqq._ Was this why

Daniel was called “Master of the Magicians”? Dan. iv. 9; v. 11.

Footnote 116:

Thus, in a Coptic spell, the Words from the Cross: “Eli, eli, lama

sabachthani,” are described as “the revered names of God.” See Rossi,

_“Trattato gnostico”_ in _Mem. della Real. Accad. di Torino_, Ser. B,

XLII. fol. 9. So in mediaeval magic the word “Eieazareie” or

“Escherie” is frequently used, apparently without any suspicion that

it covers the אהיה אשר אהיה ’Ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh—“I am that I am” of

Exodus.

Footnote 117:

Hausrath, _Hist. of New Testament Times_, Eng. ed. 1878, I. pp. 126,

127, and authorities there quoted.

Footnote 118:

See last note. In the Acts, Bar-jesus or Elymas the sorcerer, the

seven sons of Sceva, and some of those who burned their magical books

at Ephesus, are said to be Jews. Harnack, _Expansion of Christianity_,

Eng. ed. I. pp. 156, 157, says the Jews were known as exorcisers of

demons throughout the Roman Empire.

Footnote 119:

Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk IV. c. 33. Cf. _ibid._ c. 34, and Bk I. c.

22. Also Justin Martyr’s _Dial. c. Tryph._ c. LXXXV.

Footnote 120:

See Chapter III, vol. I. n. 6, p. 106, _supra_.

Footnote 121:

Karl Wessely, in _Expositor_, Series III, vol. IV. (1886), pp. 194

_sqq._, gives many specimens of these spells. The papyri from which

they are taken are printed in full in his _Griechische Zauberpapyrus

von Paris und London_, Wien, 1888, and his _Neue Griechische

Zauberpapyri_, Wien, 1893. See also Parthey, _Zwei griechische

Zauberpapyri des Berliner Museums_, Berlin, 1866; Leemans, _Papyri

Graeci Mus. Ant. Publ. Lugduni Batavi_, t. II., Leyden, 1885, and

Kenyon, _Gk. Papyri in B.M._ before quoted.

Footnote 122:

They sometimes speak of certain expressions being used by the

ἀρχιερεῖς “high priests,” Leemans, _op. cit._ t. II. p. 29. Does this

mean the adepts in magic or the heads of a sect?

Footnote 123:

Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk. I. c. 24.

Footnote 124:

So Kuenen, _Religion of Israel_ (Eng. ed.), III. p. 314, says that the

existence of the Cabala is indicated in the Talmud.

Footnote 125:

See Chapter V, vol. I. pp. 169, 170, _supra_.

Footnote 126:

The Sumerian moon-god, Nannar, was denoted by the number 30, Marduk

called 50 and so on. See King, _Seven Tablets of Creation_, 1902, I.

p. 66.

Footnote 127:

See Chapter VII, _supra_.

Footnote 128:

Isidore Loeb, _La Grande Encyclopédie_, _s.v._ La Cabbale juive;

_ibid._ F. Herman Krüger, _s.v._ Gnosticisme, and Franck, _La

Kabbale_, Paris, 1843, p. 203, both notice the likeness between

Gnosticism and the Cabala and say that they are derived from the same

source.

Footnote 129:

See the Sumerian Hymn of Creation translated by Sayce, _Religions of

Ancient Egypt and Babylonia_ (Gifford Lectures), Edinburgh, 1902, p.

380; Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, Boston, U.S.A.

1898, p. 490; King, _Seven Tablets_, p. 3; Rogers, _Rel. of Bab._, p.

108.

Footnote 130:

“Au commencement était le Nun, l’océan primordial, dans les

profondeurs infinies duquel flottaient les germes des choses. De toute

éternité Dieu s’engendra et s’enfanta lui-même au sein de cette masse

liquide sans forme encore et sans usage.” Maspero, _Hist. Ancienne des

Peuples de l’Orient_, p. 326.

Footnote 131:

Diogenes Laertius, _Vit. Philosoph._ Bk I. c. 6.

Footnote 132:

Including in that name some who attained to high office in the

Catholic Church. Thus Hatch, _H. L._ p. 255, says with apparent truth

that Clement of Alexandria “anticipated Plotinus in conceiving of God

as being ‘beyond the One and higher than the Monad itself,’ which was

the highest abstraction of current philosophy.” The passage he here

relies on is in Clement’s _Paedagogus_, Bk I. c. 8. Hatch goes on to

say, “There is no name that can properly be named of Him: ‘Neither the

One nor the Good, nor Mind, nor Absolute Being, nor Father, nor

Creator, nor Lord’”—expressions to be found in Clement’s _Stromata_,

Bk V. c. 12. Clement’s orthodoxy may be called in question; but no

fault has been found in that respect with Synesius, Bishop of

Ptolemais and the friend of Hypatia. Yet in his Hymns he uses

expressions which would have come naturally to the lips of any Ophite.

Thus:

Σὺ δ’ ἄρρην, σὺ δὲ θῆλυς,

Σὺ δὲ φωνά, σὺ δὲ σιγά,

Φύσεως φύσις γονῶσα,

Σὺ δ’ ἄναξ, αἰῶνος αἰών,

Τὸ μέν, ᾗ θέμις βοᾶσαι;

“Male thou and female,

Voice thou and silence,

Nature engendered of Nature,

Thou King, Aeon of Aeons,

What is it lawful to call thee?”

and again

Πατέρων πάντων

Πάτερ, αὐτοπάτωρ,

Προπάτωρ, ἀπάτωρ,

Υἱὲ σεαυτοῦ....

Μύστας δὲ νόος

Τά τε καὶ τὰ λέγει,

Βυθὸν ἄρρητον

Ἀμφιχορεύων.

“Father of all Fathers,

Father of thyself,

Propator [Forefather] who hast no father,

O Son of thyself....

But the initiated mind

Says this and that,

Celebrating with dances

The Ineffable Bythos.“

(Hymn III)

The ineffability of divine names was an old idea in Egypt, especially

in the Osirian religion, where it forms the base of the story of Ra

and Isis. So the name of Osiris himself was said to be ineffable. See

Eug. Lefébure in _Sphinx_, Stockholm, vol. I. pp. 99-102. The name of

Marduk of Babylon is in the same way declared ineffable in an

inscription of Neriglissar, _Trans. Roy. Soc. Litt._ 2nd series, vol.

VIII. p. 276. The name of Yahweh became ineffable directly after

Alexander. See Halévy, _Revue des Études juives_, t. ix. (1884), p.

172. In every case, the magical idea that the god might be compelled

by utterance of his secret name seems to be at the root of the

practice. Cf. Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, Eng. ed. p. 354.

Footnote 133:

The whole account of Ophite doctrine as to the origin of things is

here taken from Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 226 _sqq._, Harvey.

Footnote 134:

Genesis i. 8.

Footnote 135:

Philo explains that there is a vast difference between man as now made

and the first man who was made according to the image of God, _De

opificio mundi_, c. 46. This idea of an archetypal man was widely

spread over Eastern Europe and Asia, and Bousset, _Hauptprobleme der

Gnosis_, Göttingen, 1907, Kap. IV., “Der Urmensch,” has collected all

or nearly all the references to it in the literature of the period

that could be produced up to that date. As to its origin, the issue is

still very doubtful. While we should naturally expect to find it in

the Babylonian legends, the Tablets of Creation contain no certain

allusion to it, while it is certainly to be traced in the Zend Avesta

and its related books. Until we are able to compare the dates of these

two sources it seems idle to speculate as to which is the original one

and which the derived. But see Introduction (pp. lxi-lxiii and note on

last page quoted) _supra_.

Footnote 136:

This is a less primitive and therefore probably later way of

accounting for the birth of one spiritual or superhuman being from

another, than that of Simon Magus who made his Supreme Being

androgyne.

Footnote 137:

Theocritus, _Idyll_, II. l. 34. For the identity of Hades and Dionysos

see Chapter II. vol. I. _supra_.

Footnote 138:

Pausanias, _Descpt. Graec._ Bk VIII. cc. 17, 20; Arnobius, _adv.

Gentes_, Bk V. cc. 5, 7. Cf. Decharme in Daremberg and Saglio’s _Dict.

des Antiq._ _s.v._ Cybele.

Footnote 139:

See Chapter II. vol. I. _supra_.

Footnote 140:

Clem. Alex. _Protrept_. c. II.; Arnobius, _op. cit_. Bk VI. c. 21,

calls it “the well-known senarian verse of a poet of Tarentum,” and

connects it with the Sabazian rites, whence it probably found its way

to Eleusis.

Footnote 141:

This relegation of the really Supreme God to an unregarded place in

the pantheon is common enough in the history of religions. Thus the

Shilluks of the Upper Nile take little notice of their great god Jôk,

to whom they only sacrifice once a year, reserving all the rest of

their worship for a being intermediate between God and man called

Nyakang. See Gleichen, _The Anglo-Egyptian Soudan_, vol. I. pp. 162,

197, and _R.H.R._ 1911, Juillet-Août.

Footnote 142:

See n. 1, p. 31, _supra_. The _Dea Syria_ was otherwise called

Atargatis, of which Derketo was, _teste_ Prof. Garstang, a homonym.

See Strong, _The Syrian Goddess_, p. 52 and n. 25.

Footnote 143:

See n. 1, p. 31, _supra_.

Footnote 144:

Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. p. 9.

Footnote 145:

Irenaeus, _op. cit_. Bk I. c. 28, p. 227, Harvey.

Footnote 146:

ἀρσενόθηλυς, Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1, p. 139, Cruice.

Footnote 147:

See next note.

Footnote 148:

Ἀπὸ σοῦ πατὴρ καὶ διά σε μήτηρ, τὰ δύο ἀθάνατα ὀνόματα, Αἰώνων γονεῖς,

πολῖτα οὐρανοῦ, μεγαλώνυμε ἄνθρωπε, Ηiρροlytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1,

p. 140, Cruice. Salmon points out that almost the same words occur in

Hippolytus’ account of the heresy of Monoimus the Arab, where he

describes the monad as being among other things: Αὕτη μήτηρ, αὕτη

πατήρ, τὰ δύο ἀθάνατα ὀνόματα, _op. cit._ Bk VIII. c. 12, p. 410,

Cruice. He is inclined to attribute this to the real or supposed fact

that both the Naassenes and Monoimus borrowed from the _Apophasis_ of

Simon. See Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Monoimus.

Footnote 149:

Τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐκεῖ [ἐστιν] ὅπου καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ὀνομάζεται καὶ ὁ Υἱός, ἐκ

τούτου [καὶ ἐκ] τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκεῖ γεννώμενον; κ.τ.λ., Ηippolytus, _op.

cit._ Βk V. c. 9, pp. 174, 185, Cruice. The words in brackets are

Cruice’s emendation. Duncker and Schneidewin omit them and read

γεννώμενος for γεννώμενον. Giraud, _op. cit._ pp. 92, 93, agrees with

Cruice’s reading, and points out that both the Spirit and the Son are

here put forward as the masculine and feminine forms respectively of

the great Adamas. It is evident, however, that among the earlier

Ophites represented by Irenaeus’ Greek text, the Spirit or First Woman

was thought to come into being _after_ the First Man and the Son of

Man. See Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 227, Harvey.

Footnote 150:

Thus after saying that “he who says all things are composed

(συνεστάναι) from one (substance) errs, but that he who says they are

framed from three speaks the truth,” he goes on to say Mία γάρ ἐστι

φησιν, ἡ μακαρία φύσις τοῦ μακαρίou ἄνθρωπου τοῦ ἄνω, τοῦ Ἀδάμαντος·

μία δὲ ἡ θνητὴ κάτω· μία δὲ ἡ ἀβασίλευτος γενεὰ ἡ ἄνω γενομένη,

κ.τ.λ., “For one is the blessed nature of the blessed Man above, viz.:

Adamas, and one is the nature below which is subject to death, and one

is the kingless race which is begotten above,” etc. Hippolytus, _op.

cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 157, Cruice.

Footnote 151:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1, p. 140, Cruice.

Footnote 152:

ὰποκατάστασις (see p. 57 _infra_). As Salmon has shown with great

clearness, this, rather than the redemption of individual souls, is

the aim of all post-Christian Gnostic systems, _Dict. Christian Biog._

_s.v._ Gnosticism.

Footnote 153:

Philo, _de Sacrificantibus_, c. 13; II. p. 261, Mangey.

Footnote 154:

Acts xiv. 11-18.

Footnote 155:

Postea, dicunt, exultante primo homine cum filio suo super formositate

Spiritus, hoc est foeminae, et illuminante eam, generavit ex ea lumen

incorruptibile, tertium masculum, quem Christum vocant. So the Latin

version of Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 227, Harvey. The Greek text,

which should contain Irenaeus’ own words, only says: Ἐρασθῆναι δέ φασι

τὸν πρῶτον Ἄνθρωπον, καὶ τὸν δεύτερον, τῆς ὥpas τoῦ Πveύμaτoς ... καὶ

παιδοποιῆσαι φῶς ... ὁ καλοῦσι Χριστόν. Something, however, has

evidently been expunged from the earlier version of the story, and it

is possible that the later interpolation is due to the desire of the

translator to make the teaching of the heretics as repulsive as

possible. Theodoret merely copies the Latin text of Irenaeus.

Footnote 156:

εἰς τὸν ἄφθαρτον ἀνασπασθῆναι Αἰῶνα, ἣν καὶ ἀληθινὴν ἐκκλησίαν

καλοῦσι. Irenaeus, _loc. cit._ p. 228, Harvey.

Footnote 157:

This Divine Family or Council must have been an old idea in

post-exilic Judaism. Justin Martyr, _Dial. c. Tryph._ c. 126, says

that Christ is called the “Angel of the Great Council” by Ezekiel, but

the expression is not to be found in the A.V. Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk

V. c. 53, also speaks of a prophecy in which Jesus was described as

the “Angel of the Great Council, because he announced to men the great

counsel of God”—a pun which curiously enough is the same in Greek as

in English. The Jews of Elephantine worshipped in their temple a god

and a goddess who were looked upon as the assessors, if the inferiors,

of Yahweh (see n. 4, p. 32, _supra_). In the Talmud, it is said that

God has an upper or celestial _familia_ or tribunal without consulting

which he does nothing, and which is indicated by the “holy ones” of

Dan. iv. 17. See Taylor, _Pirke-Aboth_, Cambridge, 1877, II. p. 43, n.

7. The expression “Angel of the Great Council” recurs in the Gnostic

epitaph from the Via Latina given later (Chapter IX).

Footnote 158:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 227, 228, Harvey.

Footnote 159:

Giraud, _op. cit._ p. 95, thinks that in the Naassene teaching matter

does not really exist, all things being contained in Adamas. The

absolute antagonism of God and matter is, however, too strongly marked

a feature of nearly all the sources from which the Ophites can have

drawn their doctrine for his theory to be entertained. Berger, _Études

des Documents nouveaux fournis sur les Ophites par les

Philosophumena_, Nancy, 1873, p. 25, puts forward the same idea as a

mere figure of speech and in order apparently to reconcile the Ophite

doctrine with St John’s statement that without the Word “nothing” was

made. Later he (_ibid._ pp. 61, 104, 105) points out that the tendency

of the Ophite like all other Gnostic doctrine is to widen rather than

to narrow the abyss between Spirit and Matter.

Footnote 160:

This is a variant, and an important one, of the Babylonian myth which

makes Bel, after defeating Tiamat the Dragon of Chaos, cut her in two

halves and make out of them the visible heaven and earth. See Rogers,

_op. cit._ p. 126. The heaven which there is fashioned from the powers

of evil, is here at any rate half divine. In later systems, such as

one of those in the _Pistis Sophia_ and especially that of the

Manichaeans, the older Babylonian idea is returned to. It would

therefore seem that for the modification here introduced, the Ophites

were indebted to Jewish influence and forced it to agree with the

story of Genesis. See Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 28, p. 229,

Harvey.

Footnote 161:

Irenaeus, _loc. cit._ p. 228, Harvey. This is the first unmistakable

allusion to the figure of the Sophia which is so prominent in most of

the Gnostic systems and reappears in Manichaeism. There can, I think,

be no doubt that she is in effect the Great Goddess worshipped

throughout Western Asia, who appears under different names in Lydia,

Phrygia, Syria, Ionia, Crete, and Greece, and who is to be identified

on etymological grounds, if Prof. Garstang (n. 1, p. 31, _supra_) is

correct, with the Babylonian Ishtar. That the Alexandrians saw her in

their goddess Isis has already been shown in Chap. II. Her most

prominent characteristics show her to be a personification of the

Earth, the mother of all living, ever bringing forth and ever a

virgin, as is shown in the “Goddesses Twain,” Demeter and Cora. The

dove was throughout Asia her symbol and perhaps her totem animal

(Strong, _The Syrian Goddess_, pp. 22-24 for authority), as the

serpent was that of her spouse or male counterpart (Justin Martyr,

_First Apol._ c. XXVII.; Clem. Alex. _Protrept._ c. II.). In the

Orphic cosmogonies she appears under her name of Gaia or Ge as the

“first bride” (Abel’s _Orphica_, fr. 91) spouse of Uranos, as well as

under all her subsequent personifications. She seems, too, to bear

much analogy with the Persian Amshaspand, Spenta Armaiti, who is also

identified with the earth, and is called Sophia or Wisdom (Tiele,

_Religion of the Iranian Peoples_, Eng. ed. Bombay, 1912, pp. 130,

131). Whether the Persians also drew this conception from the

Babylonian Ishtar is a question which some years ago might have been

answered in the affirmative. Now, however, it has been complicated by

the identification of this Spenta Armaiti with the Aramati of the

Vedas—for which see M. Carnoy’s article _Aramati-Armatay_ in _Le

Muséon_, Louvain, vol. XIII. (1912), pp. 127-146—and the discovery of

Winckler that the Vedic gods were worshipped in Asia Minor before 1272

B.C. Her appearance in the cosmology of the Gnostics under the name of

Sophia is, however, probably due to the necessity of effecting by hook

or by crook a harmony between Gentile and Jewish ideas, and is

doubtless due in the first instance to the passage in the Book of

Proverbs VIII., IX., where Wisdom חָכְמָה or Ἀχαμώθ (in both languages

feminine) is described as existing from the beginning and the daily

delight of Yahweh, rejoicing always before him and his instrument in

making the universe (Clem. _Hom._ XVI. c. 12). It is said that Simon

Magus called his mistress Helena by the name of Sophia, but the story

only occurs in Victorinus of Pettau and is probably due to a confusion

with the Sophia of later sects like that of Valentinus. In all these,

with the single exception of that of Marcion, she plays a predominant

part in the destiny of mankind.

Footnote 162:

This appears in the Latin version of Irenaeus only.

Footnote 163:

Ὑφ’ ἑκάστου δὲ τούτων ἕνα οὐρανὸν δημιουργηθῆναι, καὶ ἕκαστον οἰκεῖν

τὸν οἰκεῖον. Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 28, p. 230, Harvey.

Footnote 164:

Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 32. This Ialdabaoth or Jaldabaoth

appears in the systems or heresies of the Nicolaitans and of those

whom Epiphanius calls “Gnostics” _par excellence_. See Epiphanius,

_op. cit._ Bk I. t. ii., _Haer._ 25, p. 160, and _Haer._ 26, p. 184.

Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ Bk V. c. 9, makes him belong also to the

system of the Sethians. In all these he is the son of Sophia and

presides over one or more of the super-terrestrial heavens, although

the particular place assigned to him differs in the different sects.

In the _Pistis Sophia_ he is described (in the story of Pistis Sophia

proper) as a power “half flame and half darkness” (cf. Ezekiel viii.

2) projected by one of the “triple-powered” gods of our universe and

sent down into Chaos for the destruction of the heroine; in one of the

later documents of the book we see him as lord of a particular portion

of Chaos, where he presides over the punishment of a certain class of

sinning souls. His name offers many difficulties. Gieseler reads it

ילדא בהות, “son of Chaos,” and this Salmon, _Dict. Christian Biog._

s.h.v., considers the most probable derivation, although Harvey’s

reading of יה־אל־דאבהות “Lord (or Jah) God of the Fathers,” is

certainly more appropriate. In the great Magic Papyrus of Paris, the

name appears as ⲁⲗⲑⲁⲂⲱⲧ, which can hardly be anything else that

Aldabôt or Adabôt, since we have ⲁⲗⲑⲱⲛⲁⲓ for Adonai in the next line

(Griffith, _The Old Coptic magical texts of Paris_, p. 3; extract from

the _Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache_, Bd. XXXVIII.). In Papyrus

XLVI. of the British Museum (Kenyon, _Gk. Pap._ p. 69), we find

βαλβναβαωθ, probably a clerical error for Jaldabaoth, which is again

followed as before by the name Αδωναι. In the Leyden Papyrus which

calls itself the “8th Book of Moses,” we have a god invoked as

Aldabeim, which is there said to be an Egyptian name, and to be the

φυσικὸν ὄνομα “natural name” of the sun and the boat in which he rises

when he dawns upon the world (Leemans, _op. cit._ pp. 87, 119, 127).

It is not at all certain, however, which of these is the right

spelling, for the German editors of Hippolytus read in one place

Esaldaios for Ialdabaoth, and the Magic Papyrus last quoted has a name

Aldazaô which is said to be quoted from a book of Moses called

_Archangelicus_ (Leemans, _op. cit._ p. 157). The name Ialdazaô (“El

Shaddai”?) is used as that of the “God of Gods” in the great Magic

Papyrus of Paris, with whose name that of the aeon Sophia is mentioned

(Wessely, _Griech. Zauberpap._ p. 50). The most probable conclusion is

that Jaldabaoth represents some name or epithet of God current among

the Semitic Babylonians which had fallen into disuse and had been much

corrupted by being turned into and out of demotic. So Revillout

(_Revue Égyptologique_) gives an instance where the invocation ἐπίσχες

ἐπί με “Come unto me!” by a like process became transmogrified into

“_episkhesepimme_” without being recognized by the scribe as Greek.

Footnote 165:

εἰδικὸς κόσμος, Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 153, Cruice. By

the expression Demiurge he means that he fashioned it from

pre-existent matter, as a workman builds a house.

Footnote 166:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 230, Harvey.

Footnote 167:

Thus Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 18, p. 198, Harvey, in summarizing the

teaching of Saturninus says that the god of the Jews was one of the

(world-creating) angels. That Saturninus’ opinion was derived from or

coincided with that of the Ophites, see Salmon, _Dict. Christian

Biog._ _s.v._ Saturninus. Hippolytus Naassene also calls Jaldabaoth “a

fiery god” and “a fourth number,” _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 153,

Cruice, in allusion to the text about God being a consuming fire and

to his Tetragrammaton or four-lettered name. Epiphanius, _Haer._

XXXVII. c. 4, p. 500, Oehler, says Κaὶ οὗτός ἐστι, φασίν, ὁ θεὸς τῶν

Ἰουδαίων ὁ Ἰαλδαβαώθ, “And this Ialdabaoth is, they [the Ophites] say,

the God of the Jews.”

Footnote 168:

Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 32.

Footnote 169:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk IV. c. 11.

Footnote 170:

See the picture by Faucher Gudin of the universe according to the

Babylonians in Maspero, _Hist. Ancienne des Peuples de l’ Orient

Classique_, Paris, 1895, t. I. p. 543.

Footnote 171:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 231, 232, Harvey. A sort of echo or perhaps

a more detailed repetition of the story is found in one of the latest

documents of the _Pistis Sophia_, where Jesus tells His disciples that

the ἀρχοντες or rulers of Adamas once rebelled and persisted in

begetting “archons and archangels and angels and serving spirits and

decans”; that the 12 aeons, who are evidently the Signs of the Zodiac,

divided into two companies of six, half of them under the rule of one

Jabraôth repenting and being translated into a higher sphere, while

the others were “bound” in our firmament under the rule of the five

planets. Perhaps the origin of the whole story is the battle of the

Gods and the serpent-footed giants, which appears on the Mithraic

bas-reliefs, for which see _P.S.B.A._ 1912, p. 134, and Pl. XVI, 7. It

is certainly of Asiatic or Anatolian origin, and seems to be connected

with volcanic phenomena. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 13, p. 192,

Cruice, says this rebellion is a “Chaldaean” doctrine.

Footnote 172:

τὸν δὲ ἀθυμήσαντα, εἰς τὴν τρύγα τῆς ὕλης ἐρεῖσθαι τὴν ἔννοιαν, καὶ

γεννῆσαι υἱὸν ὀφιόμορφον ἐξ αὐτῆς, “and [they say that] he being

enraged, beheld his thought in the dregs of matter, and a

serpent-formed son was born from it,” Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 232,

Harvey. Perhaps this explains how the Ennoia or Thought of God was

supposed to take definite shape. Other editors wish to read ἐρείδεσθαι

“fixed” for ἐρεῖσθαι.

Footnote 173:

Hippolytus, Bk V. c. 9, p. 178, Cruice.

Footnote 174:

See n. 1, p. 45, _supra_. So Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p.

178, Cruice, when speaking of the Ophites frequenting the mysteries of

the Magna Mater, says that there is no temple anywhere [he means in

Phrygia] without a serpent. See Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. pp. 51, 87.

As King, _Gnostics and their Remains_, p. 225, noted, all the

principal cities of Asia Minor, Ephesus, Apamea and Pergamum depicted

serpents on their coins. For the story of Alexander’s birth, see

Budge, _Alexander the Great_ (Pseudo-Callisthenes), p. 8.

Footnote 175:

See Ramsay in last note.

Footnote 176:

_Acta Philippi_ (ed. Tischendorf), _passim_.

Footnote 177:

dehinc et Spiritum, et animam et omnia mundialia; inde generatum omnem

oblivionem, et malitiam, et zelum, et invidiam, et mortem. Irenaeus,

Bk I. c. 28, p. 232, Harvey. So Dionysos, whose emblem (Clem. Alex.

_Protrept._ c. II.) was the serpent, is identified with the soul of

the world. Cf. Berger, _Études sur la Philosophumena_, Nancy, 1873,

pp. 39 _sqq._

Footnote 178:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 178, Cruice.

Footnote 179:

_Ibid._ Bk V. c. 7, pp. 144, 145, Cruice.

Footnote 180:

Is this the origin of the ideas on the Macrocosm and the Microcosm?

See Chapter XIII, _infra_.

Footnote 181:

See n. 3, p. 41, _supra_.

Footnote 182:

Cf. Charles, _Book of the Secrets of Enoch_, pp. 7, 57.

Footnote 183:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 232, Harvey.

Footnote 184:

It is curious that she did not also mention herself or the First

Woman.

Footnote 185:

This is the story of the earliest or Greek text; the Latin says that

he said it to divert the minds of his rebellious sons.

Footnote 186:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 232-234, Harvey. This Adam is of course not

to be confused with Adamas. Neither did he resemble the Adam of

Genesis, for he is described as being _immensum latitudine et

longitudine_. Harvey, _ubi cit._, gives many parallels to this from

the Talmud and Cabala, which must be either taken directly from the

Ophite author or borrowed from a common source. For Eve’s creation,

see n. 2, p. 58, _supra_.

Footnote 187:

Cf. the vestures of light belonging to Jesus in the _Pistis Sophia_,

Chapter X, _infra_. So Philo, _Quaest. et Sol. in Gen._ c. 53,

explains that the coats of skin made by God for Adam and Eve are a

“figure of speech” for a material body. Origen, in like manner (_cont.

Cels._ Bk IV. c. 40), says that the clothing of the protoplasts in

tunics of skin covers “a certain secret and mystic doctrine far

exceeding Plato’s of the soul losing its wings and being borne to

earth.”

Footnote 188:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, pp. 234-236, Harvey. The idea of the seven evil

demons is a very old one in the East. See the Babylonian story of the

assault of the seven evil spirits on the Moon. Sayce, _Gifford

Lectures_, 1902, p. 430, in which those who like to rationalize

ancient myths can see a lunar eclipse. We meet again with Sammael and

Michael as names of one of them in the diagram to be described later.

Footnote 189:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, p. 237, Harvey.

Footnote 190:

The LXX or Greek version of the Old Testament belongs to the Western

Diaspora rather than to the Eastern. Perhaps this was why Paul and

Barnabas in addressing the Phrygians were careful to give them a

summary of Old Testament history. See Acts xiii. 16 _sqq._

Footnote 191:

The Sethians had a book called the _Paraphrase of Seth_ now lost,

which from its name may easily have been a heretical version of the

Book of Genesis. See Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 21, p. 223,

Cruice.

Footnote 192:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 145, Cruice, says that this was

first taught by the “Assyrians,” by which he evidently means the

Syrians.

Footnote 193:

πλάσμα τὸ πήλινον, Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 153, Cruice.

Footnote 194:

This is certainly the opinion of the sect responsible for one of the

later documents of the _Pistis Sophia_. See _Pistis Sophia_, pp. 346,

347, Copt. So Rossi’s _Trattato gnostico_, before quoted, speaks

throughout of Satan or the chief of the powers of evil as the

_ἀρχηπλασμα_ “originator of the form”?

Footnote 195:

Hippolytus, see n. 1, _supra_.

Footnote 196:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 144, Cruice.

Footnote 197:

_Ibid._ Bk V. c. 8, pp. 157-173, Cruice.

Footnote 198:

A verse:

Son of Saturn, son of Jove

Or born of mighty Rhea’s love.

Holy name, that sounds so dear

To that ancient Rhea’s ear.

Thee the old Assyrians [read Syrians] all

The thrice-wept Adonis call.

To thee for name has Egypt given

The holy horned moon of heaven [Osiris].

Thou the serpent-god of Greece

The all reverenced Adam thou of Samothrace.

Thee the Lydians, Phrygians thee,

Invoke, the Corybantic deity.

Thee Pappas now and now the dead,

Now lifting up reborn the god-like head.

Unfruitful now or barren desert brown,

Now the rich golden harvest mowing down.

Or whom the blossoming almond-tree

Brought forth on the free hills the piper wild to be.

Attis, old Rhea’s son I sing

Not with the wild bell’s clashing ring

Nor Ida’s fife, in whose shrill noise

The old Curetae still rejoice;

But with the mingling descant sweet

Of Phoebus’ harp, so soft, so sweet,

Evan! Evan! Pan, I call!

Evan the wild Bacchanal:

Or that bright Shepherd that on high

Folds the white stars up in the silent sky.

_Quarterly Review_, June, 1851.

Footnote 199:

πάνυ yὰp πικρῶς καὶ πεφυλαγμένως παραγγέλλουσιν ἀπέχεσθαι ὡς

ἀποκεκομμένοι τῆς πρὸς γυναῖκα ὁμιλίας. “For they very strictly enjoin

that their followers should abstain, as if they were castrated, from

companying with women,” Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 177,

Cruice.

Footnote 200:

Τουτέστι, φησίν, οὐδεὶς τούτων τῶν μυστηρίων ἀκροατὴς γέγονεν εἰ μὴ

μόνοι οἱ γνωστικοὶ τελειοι. “This he (the Naassene writer) says

signifies that none was a hearer of these mysteries save only the

perfect Gnostics,” Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 144, Cruice.

The “this” refers to the text: “He that hath ears to hear, let him

hear.”

Footnote 201:

ἐκ τῶν σωμάτων τῶν χοϊκῶν ἀναγεννηθέντες πνευματικοὶ οὐ σαρκικοί

“being born again from the earthly body, not as fleshly but as

spiritual men”.... Οἱ δὲ αὐτοί, φησί, Φρύγες τὸν αὐτὸν πάλιν ἐκ

μεταβολῆς λέγουσι θεόν. “Fοr the Phrygians themselves declare, he

says, that he who is thus reborn is by reason of the change a god,”

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, pp. 165, 166, Cruice. Cf. Berger,

_Études_, etc. p. 27.

Footnote 202:

τῶν ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων.

Footnote 203:

τὴν ἀσυμφωνίαν τοῦ κόσμον.

Footnote 204:

Hippolytus, _op. et loc. cit._ p. 165, Cruice.

Footnote 205:

The Naassene writer says that the peace preached “to those that are

afar off” of Ephesians ii. 17, refers to τοῖς ὑλικοῖς καὶ χοϊκοῖς “to

the material and earthly,” and that “to those that are near” to τοῖς

πνευματικοῖς καὶ νοεροῖς τελείοις ἀνθρώποις “to the spiritual and

understanding perfect men.” Hippolytus, _op. et loc. cit._

Footnote 206:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, pp. 172, 173, Cruice.

Footnote 207:

_Cum accepisset concupiscentiam superioris luminis, et virtutem

sumpsisset per omnia, deposuisse corpus et liberatam ab eo._ Irenaeus,

Bk I. c. 28, p. 229, Harvey. As he goes on to say: _Corpus autem hoc

exuisse dicunt eam, foeminam a foemina nominant_, it is plain that he

is here referring to the Third or Lower Sophia who was one of the

personages in the Valentinian drama and unknown, so far as we can

tell, to the Ophites. The Latin translator is no doubt responsible for

this confusion.

Footnote 208:

That this was the object of Ialdabaoth in creating Eve is plain from

Irenaeus’ Latin text (Bk I. c. 28, p. 233, Harvey): _Zelantem autem

Ialdabaoth voluisse excogitare evacuare hominem per foeminam, et de

sua Enthymesi eduxisse foeminam, quam illa Prunicos suscipiens

invisibiliter evacuavit a virtute_. He then goes on to relate the

seduction of the archons which plays so large a part in the Enochian

literature, and which is made Sophia’s contrivance for nullifying the

command to “Increase and multiply” in Genesis.

Footnote 209:

τὰ μικρὰ μυστήρια τὰ τῆς σαρκικῆς γενέσεως: Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk

V. c. 8, p. 172, Cruice.

Footnote 210:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 177, Cruice.

Footnote 211:

_Ibid._ Bk V. c. 6, p. 140, Cruice.

Footnote 212:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, § 6, p. 238, Harvey. The section is given

almost word for word as in Irenaeus; but it is manifestly taken from

some other source than that of the Greek text, and is inconsistent

with the rest of the story. If the Lower Sophia or Prunicos (the

Substitute) were born from the mere boiling over of the light shed

upon her mother, of what had she to “repent”? In the _Pistis Sophia_,

indeed, the heroine wins her way back to her former estate by

repentance, but _her_ fall has been occasioned by disobedience and

ambition. So, too, the story about Jesus changing His form on His

descent through the seven heavens is common to the story of Pistis

Sophia and the legend of Simon Magus, which two it therefore connects

(see Chapter VI, vol. I. p. 191, n. 4). It also appears in the

_Ascension of Isaiah_ which Mr Charles thinks may be dated about 150

A.D. (see Charles, _Ascension of Isaiah_, 1900, pp. xi and 62), but

which is probably of much later date. There are other features to be

noted in their place common to the _Pistis Sophia_ and the last named

work.

Footnote 213:

That is to say, that which does not perish and return to the Deity.

Footnote 214:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, § 7, pp. 238-241, Harvey. This again is given

almost _verbatim_. The stay of Jesus on earth after His Resurrection,

and His teaching His disciples “quod liquidum est,” that is, without

parable, is also told in the _Pistis Sophia_, but His

post-Resurrection life is there put at 12 years. Irenaeus’ Latin

translator has, as has been said, evidently here got hold of some

later developments of Ophitism not known to his author at the time

that the Greek text was written. Yet some tradition of a long interval

between the Resurrection and the Ascension was evidently current in

the sub-Apostolic age. Irenaeus himself says on the authority of

“those who met with John the Disciple of the Lord in Asia” that Jesus’

ministry only lasted for one year from His Baptism, He being then 30

years old, and that He suffered on completing his 30th year; yet that

He taught until He was 40 or 50 years old. See Irenaeus, Bk II. c. 33,

§ 3, p. 331, Harvey. Some part of this statement appears in the Greek

text.

Footnote 215:

Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXXVII. c. 5, p. 502, Oehler. Epiphanius, although

generally untrustworthy, had been, as M. de Faye reminds us, a

Nicolaitan in his youth. See de Faye, _Introd._ p. 116.

Footnote 216:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 10, pp. 182-184, Cruice.

Footnote 217:

Cruice, _op. et loc. cit._ p. 152, n. 3, remarks that the Supreme

Triad here shown is τὸ νοερόν, τὸ χοϊκόν, τὸ ψυχικόν “the

intellectual, the earthly, and the psychic or animal.” This may be;

but there is no proof that the Ophites ever gave Chaos or unformed

Matter a place in it, or made it the next principle to their Supreme

Being. Probably for the supposed “Chaos” in the second line of the

Psalm should be substituted some words like “the projected Thought” of

the Father. Miller has some curious remarks quoted in the same note on

the metre of the Psalm, which he points out is the same as in a poem

of Lucian’s, and in the hymns of Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais,

already mentioned.

Footnote 218:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 148; _ibid._ c. 9, p. 181,

Cruice. They probably resembled the ceremonies described at length in

the _Pistis Sophia_ and the _Bruce Papyrus._ See Chapter X, _infra_.

Footnote 219:

See p. 18 _supra_.

Footnote 220:

Giraud, _op. cit._ p. 95.

Footnote 221:

Sanctam autem hebdomadam septem stellas, quas dicunt planetas, esse

volunt. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, § 5, p. 236, Harvey.

Footnote 222:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 159, Cruice, says that the

“nothing” said in John i. 3, 4 to have been made without the Word is

in fact this world. Τὸ δὲ “οὐδέν, ὃ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ γέγονεν, ὁ κόσμος

ἰδικός ἐστιν · γέγονεν γὰρ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τρίτου καὶ τετάρτον.” “But

the ‘nothing’ which came into being without Him is the world of form;

for it came into being without Him by the Third and Fourth”—these last

being evidently Sophia and Jaldabaoth respectively.

Footnote 223:

Οὐ δύναται οὖν, φησι, σωθῆναι ὁ τέλειος ἄνθρωπος, ἐὰν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῇ

διὰ ταύτης εἰσελθὼν τῆς πύλης. “The perfect [or initiated] man, he

says, therefore cannot be saved unless he be born again, entering in

through this gate.” Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 165, Cruice.

Footnote 224:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 144, Cruice.

Footnote 225:

Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk III. c. 13, and n. 2, p. 196, Chapter VI, vol.

I. The οὔτε ἄρρεν οὔτε θῆλυ of this passage and of Clement’s Second

Epistle to the Romans (Hilgenfeld, _N.T. extra canon._ pt I., p. 79)

is compared by the Naassene author (Hipp. _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p.

146, Cruice) with the emasculation of Attis, which is made a type of

the soul “passing from the material parts of the lower creation to the

eternal substance above.”

Footnote 226:

The Naassenes had priests. Οἱ οὖν ἱερεῖς καὶ προστάται τοῦ δόγματος

γεγένηνται πρῶτοι οἱ ἐπικληθέντες Ναασσηνοί. “The priests and chiefs

of the doctrine have been the first who were called Naassenes.”

Hippolytus, _op. cit_. Bk V. c. 6, p. 139, Cruice. Cf. also p. 77,

_infra_.

Footnote 227:

As we have seen, Aelius Aristides says the devotees of the Alexandrian

gods used to bury holy books in their tombs. See Chapter II, vol. I.

p. 60, _supra_.

Footnote 228:

See Chapter IV, _supra_.

Footnote 229:

I have taken the earliest date for which there is any probability,

because it was in Hadrian’s time that most of the great Gnostics

taught, and their speculations would therefore have been most likely

to come to heathen ears. Keim, _Celsus Wahres Wort_, Zürich, 1873,

however, makes the date of the book 177-178 A.D., and this seems

supported by the latest critics. See Patrick, _Apology of Origen_,

1892, p. 9, where the question is thoroughly examined.

Footnote 230:

Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 24.

Footnote 231:

See Matter, _Histoire du Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1843, Pl. III, and

Giraud, _op. cit._ Pl. facing p. 238.

Footnote 232:

Origen, _cont. Cels_. Bk VI. c. 38. The fact is significant as showing

that the Ophites considered the Son as contained _within_ the Father.

Footnote 233:

ἐπιγεγραμμένον διάφραγμα πελεκοιειδεῖ σχήματι, Origen, _op. et loc.

cit._ The πέλεκυς or double-bladed axe was the symbol of Zeus

Labrandos of Caria, and is often met with on the coins of Asia Minor,

while it seems to have played a prominent part in the worship of

Minoan Crete and in Mycenae. See Arthur Evans, _Mycenaean Tree and

Pillar Cult_, 1901, pp. 8-12. Ramsay, _Cities_, etc., I. c. 91, thinks

that Savazos or Sabazios was called in Phrygia Lairbenos, which may be

connected with the word _Labrys_ said to be the name of the double

axe. He found a god with this weapon worshipped together with Demeter

or Cybele in the Milyan country, _op. cit._ pp. 263, 264, and he

thinks the pair appear under the different names of Leto, Artemis,

Cybele, and Demeter on the one hand, and Apollo, Lairbenos, Sabazios,

Men, and Attis on the other throughout Asia Minor. He points out,

however, that they were only the male and female aspects of a single

divinity (_op. cit._ 93, 94). Is it possible that this is the

explanation of the double axe as a divine symbol? The axe with one

blade was the ordinary Egyptian word-sign for a god (see _P.S.B.A_.

1899, pp. 310, 311) and the double axe might easily mean a god with a

double nature. If this idea were at all prevalent in Anatolia at the

beginning of our era, it would explain Simon Magus’ mysterious

allusion to the flaming sword of Genesis iii. 24, “which turns both

ways to guard the Tree of Life,” and is somehow connected with the

division of mankind into sexes. See Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c.

17, p. 260, Cruice. A very obscure Coptic text which its discoverer,

M. de Mély, calls “Le Livre des Cyranides” (_C. R. de l’Acad. des

Inscriptions_, Mai-Juin, 1904, p. 340) gives a hymn to the vine said

to be sung in the Mysteries of Bacchus in which the “mystery of the

axe” is mentioned.

Footnote 234:

Origen, _op. et loc. cit._ The names of the circles, etc., in the

original are from above downwards: Ἀγάπη, Ζωή, Πρόνοια, Σοφίας,

Γνῶσις, Σοφία, Φύσις, and Σύνεσις.

Footnote 235:

Gnosis does appear in the Naassene Psalm given in this Chapter, but

only as the name of the “Holy Way.”

Footnote 236:

See n. 1, p. 58 _supra_.

Footnote 237:

In this it is following strictly the tradition of the Enochian

literature. “And we ascended to the firmament, I and he, and there I

saw Sammael and his hosts, and there was great fighting therein and

the angels of Satan were envying one another.” Charles, _Ascension of

Isaiah_, c. VII. v. 9, p. 48, and Editor’s notes for other references.

Footnote 238:

Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 32. Horaios is probably connected with

the root אור “light”; Astaphaios appears in the earliest texts as

Astanpheus. which may be an anagram for στέφανος “crown.” Or it may be

חשטפה “inundation” which would agree with Origen’s statement as to

this being the principle of water, for which see p. 73 _infra_.

Footnote 239:

_Op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 31.

Footnote 240:

Unless we take the ten circles as including the three gates of

Horaios, Ailoaios, and Astaphaios. In this case, Jaldabaoth and his

first three sons would alone form the higher part of the planetary

world. This is unlikely, but if it were so, there would be an

additional reason for calling Jaldabaoth, as does Irenaeus, a “fourth

number.” Theodore Bar Khôni, who wrote in the viiith century (see

Chapter XIII, _infra_), in his notice of the Ophites gives the number

of these heavens as ten. See Pognon, _Coupes de Khouabir_, Paris,

1898, p. 213.

Footnote 241:

ἐπὶ τοῦ κύκλου καὶ τοῦ κέντρου αὐτοῦ κατέγραψε, Origen, _οp. cit._ Bk

VI. c. 25.

Footnote 242:

Origen says, _loc. cit._, that Leviathan is Hebrew for “Dragon.” Cf.

Ps. civ. 26.

Footnote 243:

That is to say: Jaldabaoth; Iao, which is probably one of the many

attempts to represent in Greek the Tetragrammaton יהוה called in

English Jehovah; Ailoaios or Eloaios, the singular of the well-known

plural name of God in Genesis אלהים “Elohim”; and Adonai, אדני, “the

Lord,” which in many parts of the O.T. replaces the Tetragrammaton.

Harvey, however, _op. cit._ p. 33, n. 3, thinks Iao may simply

represent the initial of the name of Yahweh coupled with Alpha and

Omega to show His eternal nature. He connects this with “I am the

first and the last” of Isaiah xliv. 6, and Rev. i. 11. Yet the later

Greeks called Dionysos Iao. See the (probably spurious) oracle of

Apollo Clarius quoted by Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, Bk I. c. 18, II. 19

_sqq._

Footnote 244:

Giraud, _op. cit._ p. 230.

Footnote 245:

πύλας ἀρχόντων αἰῶνι δεδεμένας: Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 31.

Perhaps we should read διδομένας, “Gates which belong to the age of

the Archons,” _i.e._ while their rule lasts.

Footnote 246:

See the quotation from the Gospel of Philip later in this chapter, p.

79, _infra_.

Footnote 247:

This appears to be the sphere of the Sun to which the epithet

μονότροπον “one-formed” is not inappropriate. Why he should be called

δεσμὸν ἀβλεψίας “bond of blindness,” and λήθην ἀπερίσκεπτον

“thoughtless oblivion,” does not appear. πρώτην δύναμιν πνεύματι

προνοίας καὶ σοφίᾳ τηρουμένην “the first power preserved,” etc.

coincides curiously with what is said in the _Pistis Sophia_ as to the

Ship of the Sun and the “Virgin of Light.”

Footnote 248:

This seems to be the sphere of Saturn, the furthest or 7th reckoning

from the earth and therefore according to the astronomy of the time

the nearest to the upper heavens. Was the symbol of life the Egyptian

♀ or _ankh_? It was of course the jealous Jaldabaoth’s or Ialdabaoth’s

wish that no human souls should penetrate beyond his realm.

Footnote 249:

So the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks repeatedly of the “Little Iao the Good.”

This should be the sphere of the Moon. In the hymn to Attis given in

this chapter, see n. 6, p. 54 _supra_, Attis-Dionysos-Osiris is

identified with “the holy horned moon of heaven.” and the name Iao may

be connected with the Coptic ⲒⲞϨ _ioh_ or “moon.” He may be called the

πρῶτος δεσπότης θανάτου “first lord of death,” because Osiris, like

Dionysos, was the first to return to life after being torn in pieces.

The φέρων ἤδη τὴν ἰδίαν σύμβολον “bearing my own beard as a symbol”

seems to refer to the attitude of the Egyptian dead, who is

represented as holding his beard in his right hand when introduced

into the presence of Osiris. See Budge, _Book of the Dead_, 1898

(translation volume), frontispiece, or _Papyrus of Ani_, _ibi cit._

Footnote 250:

This may be the sphere of Jupiter, who in one of the later documents

of the _Pistis Sophia_ is made ruler of the _five_ planets. Sabaoth is

probably the Divine Name צבאות “[Lord of] Hosts” which the Greeks took

for a proper name. It, like Iao, appears often in the later documents.

The πεντὰς δυνατωτέρα “mightier Pentad” may refer to the Three Men

(Adamas, his son, and Christos), and the Two Women (the First Woman

and Sophia) placed at the head of the universe by the Ophites.

Footnote 251:

This should be the sphere of Mercury, the messenger of the gods and

leader of souls, who, unlike the higher powers, sees the earth from

anigh and without veils. The παρθένου πνεῦμα “spirit of a Virgin” may

be the Virgin of Light of the _Pistis Sophia_, who plays such an

important part in the redemption of souls. Hippolytus’ Naassene writer

(Hipp. _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 9, p. 181, Cruice) speaks of Jesus as the

true gate and talks in this connection of “Life-giving water” and of

“we Christians celebrating the mystery in the third gate”—an allusion

which is unintelligible at present, unless it refers to the waters of

baptism.

Footnote 252:

The sphere of Venus? The planet is said in one of the later documents

of the _Pistis Sophia_ to be ruled by a power from “Pistis Sophia, the

daughter of Barbelo,” another name for the material antitype of the

heavenly Sophia or Mother of Life, whom we shall meet with later.

Footnote 253:

The sphere of Mars? No allusion is made elsewhere to the φραγμὸν πυρὸς

“fence of fire”; but we do of course often hear of an empyrean or

heaven of fire stretching over the earth. The ζωῆς ξύλον is, according

to both Origen and Celsus, the Cross; Origen, _op. cit._ Bk VI. cc.

34, 37.

Footnote 254:

The proper order would appear to be:

(1) Horaios ♂ the guardian of the First Gate, _i.e._ that of Fire.

(2) Ailoaios ♀ the guardian of the Second Gate, _i.e._ that of Air.

(3) Astaphaios ☿ the guardian of the Third Gate, _i.e._ that of Water.

Above these we have (4) Adonai the ☉ the first power as distinguished

from mere porters or guardians of gates, (5) Iao the ☽ called in the

password the second, and (6) and (7) Sabaoth ♃ and Jaldabaoth ♄ above

all. This would about correspond with the astronomy of the time, which

tried to put the sun in the centre of our system. But the relative

places of Sabaoth, Jaldabaoth, and Ailoaios are very uncertain, and

Epiphanius in describing the Ophite sect whom he calls “Gnostics” says

that some wished to make Ialdabaoth occupy the 6th heaven, and others

Ailoaios, called by him Elilaios, while giving the 7th to Sabaoth.

Epiph. _Haer._ XXVI. c. 10, p. 174, Oehler.

Footnote 255:

Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 31. If ♄ corresponds to Michael and

also to Jaldabaoth, ♃ ought to do the like to Suriel and Iao, ♂ to

Sabaoth (which would be appropriate enough) and to Raphael, the sun to

Adonai and Gabriel, and so on. No system of correspondences, however,

can be devised that does not break down on scrutiny. Sammael, which is

here Michael’s other name, is used in the _Ascensio Isaiae_ (see

Charles, _Ascension of Isaiah_, p. 6) as a name of Satan. But it may

well be that good and bad spirits occupying corresponding places in

the universe were sometimes called by the same names. So one of the

documents of the Pistis Sophia speaks of an angel cryptically named

Zarazaz “who is called by the demons after a strong demon of their own

place, Maskelli”: _Pistis Sophia_, p. 370, Copt.

Footnote 256:

Though Babylonian in origin it must early have found its way into

Egypt. See Maspero, _Ét. Égyptol._ II. p. 385 and Chapter VI, _supra_,

vol. I. p. 183 and n. 3.

Footnote 257:

Soul, perhaps, does not here mean anything more than animating

principle, spark, or breath of life.

Footnote 258:

See p. 42, _supra_.

Footnote 259:

τοὺς τελείους ἀβασιλεύτοὐς γενέσθαι καὶ μετασχεῖν τοῦ πληρώματος,

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 168, Cruice. See also the same

expression in n. 3, p. 41, _supra_.

Footnote 260:

Origen’s testimony on this point can be the better relied on, because

his good faith, unlike that of writers like Epiphanius, is above

suspicion. He and Clement of Alexandria are the only two writers on

Gnosticism among the Fathers to whom M. de Faye (_Introd._ p. 1) will

allow “intelligence” and “impartialité.”

Footnote 261:

He gives, _op. cit._ p. 79, a map showing their chief seats from the

head of the Persian Gulf on the one hand to Crete and the Adriatic on

the other.

Footnote 262:

In the _Bruce Papyrus_ mentioned in Chapter X, there is much said

about a god called Sitheus, so that it is by no means certain that the

Seth after whom they were named was the patriarch of Genesis. He might

be the Egyptian Set, whose name is transliterated in the Magic Papyri

as Σηϊθ. His appearance in Egypt first as the brother and then as the

enemy of Osiris has never been fully accounted for. See “The Legend of

Osiris,” _P.S.B.A._ for 1911, pp. 145 _sqq._ Epiphanius’ attempt in

the _Panarion_ (_Haer._ XXXIX. c. 3, p. 524, Oehler) to connect the

genealogy of Jesus with the Seth of Genesis is not even said to depend

on the doctrines of the sect, and the whole chapter reads like an

interpolation. Cf. Friedländer, _Vorchristliche jüdische Gnosticismus,

Göttingen_, 1898, p. 25.

Footnote 263:

Praedestinatus, _de Haeresibus_, Bk I. c. 17, p. 237, Oehler.

Footnote 264:

Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. II. p. 176.

Footnote 265:

See _Acta Philippi_ before quoted _passim_.

Footnote 266:

Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 28, § 8, p. 241, Harvey. King, _Gnostics_, etc. p.

101, quotes from Tertullian, _de Praescript._, “Serpentem magnificant

in tantum ut etiam Christo praeferant,” which sounds like an Ophite

doctrine; but I have failed to verify the quotation.

Footnote 267:

Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ I. 24.

Footnote 268:

_Pistis Sophia_, pp. 319, 320, Copt.

Footnote 269:

_Ibid._ p. 384, Copt.

Footnote 270:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 13, pp. 188 _sqq._, Cruice.

Footnote 271:

See Giraud, _op. cit._ pp. 250 _sqq._ for references and editions.

English translations of some of them have appeared in the “Apocryphal

Acts” etc. of Clark’s _Ante-Nicene Library_, and in _Cambridge Texts

and Studies_.

Footnote 272:

This is the opinion of Lipsius. See _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._

Gospels, Apocryphal.

Footnote 273:

Cf. the similar expressions in the speech of the soul on the Orphic

Gold Plates, Chapter IV, vol. I. pp. 131 _sqq._

Footnote 274:

Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXVI. c. 13, p. 190, Oehler.

Footnote 275:

_Ibid._ p. 172, Oehler. Cf. the “Logia Jesu” published by the Egypt

Exploration Fund in _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_, 1898, p. 3. “Wherever there

are two, they are not without God, and wherever there is one alone, I

say I am with him. Raise the stone, and there thou shalt find me,

cleave the wood and there am I.”

Footnote 276:

_Pistis Sophia_, pp. 206, 230, Copt.

Footnote 277:

Grüber, _Die Ophiten_, Würzburg, 1864, pp. 173 _sqq._, points out that

the Ophites, like the Valentinians, seem to have used the Peshitto or

Syriac version of the Canonical Books for their quotations. He says

the fact had been already noticed by Harvey. It is, of course, another

indication of the Anatolian or Syrian origin of the sect.

Footnote 278:

Irenaeus, I. 28, c. 5, p. 237, Harvey, gives a list of the books which

they assigned to each planetary power, Jaldabaoth taking the lion’s

share with the Hexateuch, Amos and Habbakuk.

Footnote 279:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 7, p. 150, Cruice. Proverbs xxiv. 16

seems the text referred to.

Footnote 280:

Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 25, pp. 226, 227, Cruice. Sophia is

evidently the serpent in this combination.

Footnote 281:

The Ebionites, or whatever other Judaeo-Christian sect is responsible

for the _Clementines_, make St Peter affirm that Jesus “did not

proclaim Himself to be God,” and that “that which is begotten cannot

be compared with that which is unbegotten or self-begotten.” See

_Clem. Hom._ XVI. cc. 15, 16.

CHAPTER IX

POST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: VALENTINUS

It seems fairly plain that the originators of the Ophite teaching were

uneducated men[282]. A few quotations from Homer and Pindar, probably

familiar to anyone who listened to the Rhapsodists, are indeed to be

found in the anonymous author whom Hippolytus quotes under the name of

“the Naassene.” But the reading of the learned of that day consisted not

of poetry but of philosophy; and there is no trace in his speculations

of direct acquaintance with the works of any philosopher whatever. This

is the more striking because Heraclitus of Ephesus, Zeno of Cyprus, and

Cleanthes of Assos might have been brought into court in support of his

cosmogonical ideas; and the Stoic philosophy was especially an Asiatic

one, having one of its principal homes in Tarsus, and therefore not very

far from Phrygia proper. Its cosmology as taught in Rome at the period

now under discussion[283], differed very little from that of the earlier

Ophites, and its theory of “seminal reasons” (λόγοι σπερματικοὶ) or

particles of fiery matter descending from heaven to earth and there

becoming formative principles, together with its belief in

metensomatosis or transmigration has many resemblances with the Ophite

scheme of redemption[284]. Yet the Naassene author in an age when

philosophy was most in fashion never appeals to the authority of the

founders of the Stoic school or of those followers of theirs who must

have been his contemporaries and countrymen; and Hippolytus, whose own

acquaintance with Greek philosophy was superficial and hardly

first-hand, in his summary of the Naassene doctrine draws no parallel

between the two. On the other hand, the Naassene author perpetually

refers to the Old Testament which he seems to have known in the Peshitto

or Syrian version, although, as will have been seen, he by no means

regards it from the Jewish standpoint as a divinely inspired rule of

life, and pushes down Yahweh, its God, into a very inferior position in

the scale of being. As the date of the Peshitto has not yet been put

further back than the second century A.D.[285], this would lead one to

suppose that it had only recently come to the notice of the Naassene

writer, who probably welcomed it as a valuable source from which to draw

materials for spells and exorcisms. This excessive reverence for the

letter as apart from the spirit of a document is characteristic of the

magician of the early Christian centuries, and is further exemplified in

a magic papyrus of the IIIrd century A.D., now in the British Museum,

where “a number of single lines taken without any regard to sense or on

any discernible principle from the Iliad and Odyssey” are arranged in a

certain order for use as a fortune-telling book, and appear in company

with magical recipes for obtaining dreams, compounding love philtres,

and all the usual paraphernalia of a wizard of the period[286]. Such a

use of writings venerable for their antiquity would never enter into the

head of anyone endowed with any literary sense, but seems natural enough

to persons of limited reading, to whom they form their sole material for

study. In reading into the lives of the Jewish patriarchs hidden

allusions to the theories of the origin of the universe and the destiny

of man then current over the whole Hellenistic world, the Naassenes did

not behave differently from our own Puritans of Cromwell’s time, who

discovered in texts like “Take the prophets of Baal, Let not one of them

escape[287]!” a justification for “knocking on the head out of hand,”

the clergy of the opposing party[288]. We may, if we please, picture to

ourselves the earlier Ophites as a handful of merchants, artizans,

freedmen, and slaves inclined by inherited custom to magical practices

and to ecstatic or hysterical forms of religion, and, as it were,

intoxicated by the new field of speculation which the translation of the

Hebrew Scriptures into their own tongue had opened to them. At the same

time, their anti-Semitic feeling, dating perhaps from the time of the

Maccabaean resistance which had materially contributed to the downfall

of the Syrian Empire, and considerably exacerbated by the atrocities

committed by the Jewish rebels at the close of the Ist century A.D.,

must have forced them into an attitude in every way opposed to Jewish

national pretensions; while it is easy to understand that such persons

must have caught eagerly at any _via media_ which enabled them to

reconcile the Jewish traditions, long familiar to them through spells

and charms, with the legends of the Greek Mysteries, and at the same

time protected them against the social and moral obloquy attaching to

open adherence to the Jewish rites. Such considerations, perhaps,

explain alike the immediate success of St Paul’s preaching in Asia

Minor, and the outburst of activity among the Gnostics which followed

close upon it[289].

The Gnostic speculations were, however, destined to pass out of the

hands of unlearned men. Although it was hardly likely to have been

noticed at the time, the day was past for national or particularist

religions having for their object the well-being of one nation or city;

and men’s relations to the Divine world were coming to be looked upon as

a matter concerning the individual rather than the State. Alexander’s

work in breaking down the barriers between people and people was

beginning to bear fruit in the intellectual as it had already done in

the political world, and the thoughtful were everywhere asking

themselves, as Tertullian tells us, not only whence man and the world

had come, but what was the meaning of the evil within the world[290].

Along with this, too, had come a general softening of manners which was

extremely favourable to speculation on such subjects, and to which the

vagaries of the Caesars of the Julian house have made us somewhat blind.

A reign of terror might often exist among the great families in the

capital under a jealous or suspicious Emperor, and the majority of the

proletariat might there as in other large towns be entirely given up to

the brutal or obscene amusements of the arena or the theatre. But in the

provinces these things had little effect on the working of the system

set up under the Empire; and the civilized world was for the first time,

perhaps, in its history, beginning to feel the full benefits of good

government and freedom from foreign invasion. It is quite true that the

population were then, as at the present day, leaving the country and

flocking into the towns, thereby acquiring new vices in addition to

their old ones; but this also led, as town life must always do, to

increased respect for the rights of their neighbours, and to the

extension of the idea of law and order rather than of the right of the

strongest as the governing principle of the universe. The Roman law,

upon which the jurisprudence of every civilized country is still based,

first took coherent shape in the reign of Hadrian; and Ulpian’s

fundamental maxim that before the law all men are free and equal was

founded on a conception of the rights of the individual very different

from the Oriental notion that all subjects high and low were the

chattels of the king.

In these circumstances, new ethical ideals had arisen which affected all

classes in the State. As Sir Samuel Dill has said in his charming sketch

of Roman manners under the Julian, Flavian and Antonine emperors, “It

has perhaps been too little recognized that in the first and second

centuries there was a great propaganda of pagan morality running

parallel to the evangelism of the Church[291].” But this ethical

propaganda was an entirely lay affair, and the work not of the priests

but of the philosophers[292]. It had, indeed, always been so in the

Hellenic world, and while we find it exciting no surprise that a priest

of the most sacred mysteries should be worse instead of better than

other men[293], it was the philosophers to whom was committed what was

later called the care of souls. Thus Alexander had recourse, when

prostrated by self-reproach after the killing of Clitus, to the

ministrations of Anaxarchus, who endeavoured to console him with the

sophism that kings are not to be judged like other men[294]. So, too, we

hear of the Stoic philosopher, Musonius Rufus, when the army of

Vespasian was besieging Rome, accompanying the Senate’s embassy to the

troops of Antonius, and preaching to them at the risk of his life upon

the blessings of peace and the horrors of war[295]. Seneca, also, when

about to die, endeavours to stay his friends’ lamentations by reminding

them of the “rules of conduct” by which alone they may expect

consolation, and bequeaths to them the example of his life[296]; while

the “Stoic saint,” Thrasea, when the sentence of death reaches him, is

occupied in listening to a discourse of Demetrius the Cynic on the

nature of the soul and its separation from the body[297]. This shows an

attitude of mind very different from the merely magical or, as we should

say, superstitious belief in the efficacy of spells and ceremonies; and

the example of Epictetus bears witness that it was that of slaves as

well as of senators.

Gnosticism, therefore, was bound to become ethical as well as gnostical,

or, in other words, to insist on the efficacy of conduct as well as of

knowledge, so soon as it came into contact with thinkers trained in

philosophy. Where it did so, in the first instance, cannot be told with

any degree of certainty; but all probability points to Alexandria as one

of the places where the post-Christian Gnosticism first made alliance

with philosophic learning. Not only was Alexandra the natural

meeting-place of Greeks and Orientals, but it was at the early part of

the IInd century a great deal more the centre of the intellectual world

than either Athens or Rome. Although Ptolemy IX Physcon is said to have

expelled from it the philosophers and scholars of the Museum, they seem

to have returned shortly afterwards, and in the meantime their

dispersion in the neighbouring cities and islands, where most of them

must have supported themselves by teaching, probably did a good deal

towards diffusing the taste for philosophy over a wider area than

before. In Philo’s time, in particular, the Platonic philosophy had

gained such a hold in the city that he, though a leader of the Jews, had

had to assimilate it as best he might[298], and, as we have seen, to

bring it more or less into harmony with the traditional beliefs of his

own people. A century later we see the same thing occurring with the now

rising sect of Christians; and a school of Christian philosophy was

founded in Alexandria under the leadership of Pantaenus, the predecessor

in office of the famous Clement of Alexandria[299]. If we may judge from

the writings of this last, the expressed object of this school was to

instil a knowledge of Greek literature and philosophy into Christian

teachers, to bring about which it attempted to show that, while both

philosophy and Christian theology alike aimed at the discovery of truth,

the valuable parts of the philosophic doctrines were borrowed or derived

from the writings held sacred by Jews and Christians[300]. Nor were the

Alexandrians in the least likely to refuse a hearing to any new faith

however wild. The leading place which Alexandria had gained among the

markets of the world brought within its gates the adherents of every

religion then known, and Jewish merchants and Christian artizans there

mixed with Buddhist monks and fetish-worshippers from Central Asia,

while the terms on which they met compelled a wide tolerance for one

another’s opinions, and predisposed its citizens to a practical amalgam

of several apparently conflicting creeds[301].

It was into this atmosphere that Gnosticism entered at least as early as

the reign of Hadrian. Who was answerable for its first introduction

there we have no means of knowing, nor do we even know with any

certainty what form Egyptian Gnosticism first took[302]. One would

imagine that the Hellenizing tendency of the Samaritans might have

brought to Alexandria the doctrines of Simon Magus, but there is no

direct evidence to that effect. The case is different with Antioch,

where one Saturninus or Satornilus—the name is spelt differently by

Irenaeus and Hippolytus—seems to have put forth, at the period referred

to, a _quasi_-Christian system having some likeness to that of the

Ophites, its chief distinguishing feature being its hatred of Judaism

and its God, for whose overthrow it declared Christ to have been

sent[303]. Like the Ophites, Saturninus rigidly opposed the commerce of

the sexes, declaring marriage and generation to be alike the work of

Satan, the declared enemy of the world-creating angels, and of their

leader the God of the Jews[304]. But the followers of this Saturninus

seem to have been few in number, and although all the later

heresiologists preserved the memory of his teaching, it is probable that

the sect itself did not long survive its founder[305]. Basilides, whose

name is associated with that of Saturninus by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and

Epiphanius, who all make him a fellow disciple with Saturninus of

Menander, the continuator or successor of Simon Magus[306], certainly

flourished under the same reign at Alexandria, where he taught an

extremely complicated doctrine, declaring that between the unknown

Father of All and this world there was interposed a series of 365

heavens corresponding in number to the days of the year, the chief of

them being called Abraxas, the letters of which word have that numerical

value[307]. This is the account of Irenaeus, not materially varied by

any of the other early writers on heresy, with the exception of

Hippolytus, who gives us a long account of the doctrine of Basilides and

his son Isidore, which according to their own account they derived from

Matthias, the Apostle who replaced Judas and who received it secretly

from Jesus Himself[308]. From Hippolytus, we learn that Basilides’

complete or final teaching declared that there was a time when nothing

existed—

“neither matter, nor substance, nor the Unsubstantial, nor simple,

nor compound, nor the Intelligible, nor the Unintelligible, nor that

which can be comprehended by the senses, nor that which cannot be so

comprehended, nor man, nor angel, nor god, nor anything which can be

named”—

and that this God-Who-Was-Not willed to make a world[309]. This act of

volition, exercised in Hippolytus’ words “without will or mind or

consciousness[310],” produced the Seed of the World which contained

within itself all the future universe, as the grain of mustard-seed

contains the roots, stem, branches, leaves, and innumerable other seeds

of the future plant[311]. In this Seed was “a Sonhood, threefold in all

things, of the same substance with the God-Who-Was-Not and generated

from non-existing things[312].” Of this threefold Sonhood, one part was

subtle or finely divided like aether or air, one coarser, and one which

needed purification; and he goes on to describe how the finer part

immediately upon the projection of the Seed, burst forth and flew

upwards until it reached the Non-Existent-One, towards whom, Hippolytus

says, “every nature strains,” on account of “its beauty and

majesty[313].” The coarser part of the Sonhood attempted to imitate the

first, but failed to do so until helped by the Holy Spirit who served it

as the wing does the bird; but although the second Sonhood thereby

attained beatitude, the Holy Spirit could not enter into the Godhead

along with him “because it (or she) was of a different substance from

him and had nothing of his nature[314].” She was therefore left near it,

purified and sanctified by her contact with the Sonhood as a jar which

has once contained perfume still preserves its savour[315]. As for the

third Sonhood, it remained in the Seed of the World, which thereafter

gave birth to the Great Archon or Ruler, who is the Demiurge or

Architect of the Universe and fashions all cosmic things. This Archon

makes out of the things below him a Son who by the arrangement of the

God-Who-Was-Not is greater and wiser than himself, whence the Archon

causes him to sit at his right hand[316]. This Son is in effect Christ,

who reveals to the Archon the existence of the worlds above him, and

sends the Gospel (here personified) into the world so that by it the

third Sonhood might be purified and thus raised to union with the

God-Who-Was-Not.

There is no need to follow further the system of Basilides, nor to

describe the extremely complicated tangle of worlds, principalities,

powers, and rulers, including the 365 heavens and their Archon or ruler

Abraxas, which Basilides interposes between this earth and the Godhead.

M. Amélineau has endeavoured to show that, in this, Basilides was

borrowing from the ancient Egyptian religion which he imagines to have

been still flourishing in the Egypt of the second Christian

century[317]. It may be so; and, although M. Amélineau’s proofs seem

hardly strong enough to bear the weight of the conclusions he would draw

from them, it may be conceded that in the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad of

which we hear so much in Hippolytus’ account of Basilides’ teaching, we

have a distinct echo of the extraordinary arithmetic of the Pharaonic or

old Egyptian theology, wherein we are constantly meeting with an Ennead

or “company” of nine gods which, as M. Maspero has shown, sometimes

consists of eight, sometimes of ten, and sometimes of a still more

discrepant number of individuals[318]. But Basilides’ system was never

intended for popular use; for he himself said, according to Irenaeus,

that only one out of a thousand or two out of ten thousand could

understand it, and that his disciples should keep their adherence to it

strictly secret, seeking to know all things, but themselves remaining

unknown[319]. Its interest for us here lies in the fact that Valentinus

who transformed post-Christian Gnosticism, as will presently be seen,

from an esoteric or mystical explanation of Pagan beliefs[320] into a

form of Christianity able to compete seriously with the Catholic Church,

was himself a native of Egypt, that he studied the Platonic philosophy

in Alexandria[321], and that he must have resided there at the same time

as Basilides, who was slightly older than he, and died before

Valentinus’ doctrine was promulgated[322]. It is therefore hardly

possible that Valentinus should not have known of Basilides’ teaching

and have borrowed from it, even without the internal evidence of

borrowing afforded by a comparison of the two systems[323]. The almost

total silence of the Fathers as to Basilides’ school after that of

Valentinus became famous is to be accounted for, as Matter points out,

by supposing that the hearers of Basilides, probably few in number, came

over to him in a body[324].

Basilides, therefore, forms a very important link between Simon Magus

and the pre-Christian Gnostics—with whom Basilides was connected, as we

have seen, through his master and Simon Magus’ successor Menander—on the

one hand, and Valentinus on the other. But his teaching also explains to

us why so many of the features of the Ophite doctrines also reappear in

the Valentinian heresy. For the three Sonhoods of Basilides, although

described in a fantastic and almost unintelligible way by Hippolytus,

seem to correspond in idea with the First and Second Man and the

Christos of the Naassene writer; while the Holy Spirit, who is of

inferior essence and therefore remains below the Supreme Godhead, can

hardly be distinguished from the Sophia or Prunicos who in the Ophite

scheme plays so large a part in the work of the redemption of the light.

The power of the Great Archon or Ruler of this World is also said in

Hippolytus’ account of the Basilidean teaching, to rise no higher than

the firmament, which was placed between the hypercosmic spaces where

soared the Boundary Spirit, and the ordered universe[325],—a statement

which strictly corresponds to the limit placed on the power and

authority of the Ophite Ialdabaoth. The Archon of Basilides who must, I

think, be intended for Yahweh the God of the Jews is, like Ialdabaoth,

ignorant that there is anything above him[326]; and although he differs

from his prototype in being better taught by his Son, this is easily

explained by the higher position occupied by both Jews and Christians in

Alexandria than in Phrygia. It is significant also that the mystic and

probably cryptogrammatic name Caulacau which the Naassene writer uses

for the Saviour of his system is applied to the corresponding person in

the system of Basilides[327].

The popularity and success that attended Valentinus’ own teaching may be

judged from the pains that the Fathers took to oppose it. The five books

_Against Heresies_ so often quoted above were written by Irenaeus with

the avowed intention of refuting Valentinus’ disciples. Hippolytus, who

aimed at a more encyclopaedic account of the heresies of his time,

devotes more space to the Valentinian sect than to any other. Tertullian

not only repeatedly gibes at them after his manner when treating of

other matters, but composed a special book against them still extant,

from which we learn of the existence of other treatises against them

written by Justin Martyr, Miltiades a Christian sophist, and one

Proculus, all which are now lost[328]. Those near to Valentinus in date

seem hardly to have considered him an enemy of Christianity. Clement of

Alexandria quotes several passages from the writings of him and his

followers, and although it is always with the view of contradicting the

statements of his fellow-countryman, he yet does so without any of the

heat displayed by other controversialists[329]. On the other hand, the

orthodox who wrote long after Valentinus was in his grave are most

bitter against him. Epiphanius, who seldom had a good word for any one,

calls him, with some justice, the chief of heretics[330]; Philaster of

Brescia says he was more a follower of Pythagoras than of Christ, and

that he led captive the souls of many[331]; Praedestinatus, that he and

his followers throughout the East severely wounded the Church of

God[332]; while Eusebius in his _Life of Constantine_ produces an

Imperial edict against the Valentinians and other heretics, issued,

according to him, some time before the baptism of its promulgator, and

ordering that they shall no longer be allowed to assemble together and

that their “houses of prayer” shall be confiscated to the use of the

Catholic Church[333]. It was probably in pursuance of some such law,

which also enjoined, as Eusebius tells us, the search for and

destruction of their writings, that a conventicle of the Valentinians at

Callinicum on the Eastern frontier of the Empire was burned by the

Christian mob headed by their bishop and monks in A.D. 388[334]. The

same scenes were no doubt enacted in other parts of the Empire; and we

may, perhaps, see in the fury of the persecutors the measure of their

fear.

Yet there is little in the Valentinian doctrine as described by the

Fathers to account for the popularity that it evidently attained.

Valentinus, like all the Gnostics, believed in one Supreme Source of all

things; but he from the first threw over the extremely philosophical

idea of Basilides, which some writers would derive from Buddhism[335],

of a non-existent God as the pinnacle of his system. To fill the gap

thus left, he returned to the older conception of the Ophites, and

postulated a Bythos or Deep as the origin of all. But this “Unknowable

Father” was by no means the mere abstraction without direct action upon

the world or man that he was in the systems of the Ophites and of

Basilides. As to the mode of his action, however, a schism—or rather, a

difference of opinion—early manifested itself among his followers. Some

of them gave to Bythos a female consort called, as Irenaeus, and,

following him, Tertullian, tell us, Silence (Σιγή) and Grace (Χάρις),

from whom all the subsequent aeons or manifestations of the Godhead

descended[336]. Irenaeus partly explains away this by the statement that

Bythos or the Perfect Aeon dwelt for boundless ages in rest and solitude

(ἡσυχίᾳ), but that there existed with him Ennoia or Thought. Whether

this last part of the statement was or was not thrown in so as to force

a parallel between the system of Valentinus and that of Simon Magus from

whom the orthodox insisted all later heresiarchs derived their teaching,

cannot now be said. But Hippolytus, who, while not disputing this

derivation, is just as anxious to show that Valentinus was also much

indebted to the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy learned by him at

Alexandria, tells us that there were other Valentinians who insisted

that the Father (or Bythos) was without spouse (ἀσύζυγος) not feminine

(ἄθηλυς) and lacking nothing (ἀπροσδεής); and that Valentinus himself

said that Bythos was “unbegotten (ἀγέννητος) not subject to conditions

of space or time, having no counsellor, nor any substance that could be

comprehended by any figure of speech[337].” Herein either Hippolytus or

Valentinus seems to have been attracted by the ideas of the

Neo-Pythagorean school of Alexandria, who indulged in many arithmetical

theories about the Monad or Final Unity which went on producing male and

female (_i.e._ odd and even) numbers alternately until it arrived at the

perfect harmony of ten[338]. Yet those who study ancient religions by

the comparative method will be more inclined to see in this diversity of

opinion among the Valentinians a hesitation between the old idea

current, as we have seen, in the Eastern Mediterranean, that a god may

be bisexual and therefore capable of producing descendants without

female assistance and the ancient Semitic view (due perhaps to the fact

that Semitic languages know only two genders) which divided the Godhead

like everything else into male and female[339].

However this may be, all the Valentinian schools seem to have agreed

upon the emanation which immediately proceeded from the Deep or the

Father of All. From Bythos, either alone or with the help of Sige[340],

there proceeded Mind or Nous (Νοῦς), called also Monogenes[341] and the

Father, the beginning of all subsequent things. This Nous is said to be

“equal and like” to him from whom he had emanated, and by himself

capable of comprehending the greatness of Bythos[342]. With Nous there

also came forth a female Power named Aletheia or Truth (Ἀλήθεια), and

this pair gave birth to a second syzygy, viz. Logos or the Word (Λόγος)

and Zoe or Life (Ζωὴ), who in their turn produced a third pair, namely:

Anthropos, Man (Ἄνθρωπος) and Ecclesia, the Church (Ἐκκλησία)[343]. The

later Valentinians, from whom Irenaeus quotes, added to these six aeons,

Bythos and his spouse Sige, thus making up the originating Ogdoad or

eightfold Godhead again called the root and substance of all

[subsequent] things[344]. Valentinus himself, however, probably did not

give Bythos a spouse and held that he remained apart from and uplifted

above his six principal emanations[345].

This subdivision of the Divine, resembling as it does the system of

Simon Magus before described, may seem at first sight incredibly foolish

and complicated, especially when it is considered that these “aeons,” as

Valentinus calls them, might be considered not only as powers but as

worlds. So it did to the Fathers, who are never tired of pouring

contempt upon it. Tertullian makes merry over the Valentinian conception

of a universe with an endless series of heavens piled one over the

other, as he says, like the “Lodgings to let” of a Roman _insula_ or

tenement house, or, had he ever seen one, of a New York skyscraper[346].

Irenaeus jokes cumbrously, comparing the Valentinian aeons to vegetables

as if, he says, a gourd should bring forth a cucumber and this in its

turn a melon[347]. Hippolytus, indeed, cannot indulge in such jeers

because to do so would have stamped him in the opinion of all the

learned of his time as an uneducated barbarian, his pet theory of

Gnosticism being that all its doctrine was a plagiarism from the Greek

philosophers and notably from Plato. Yet he never loses an opportunity

of calling Valentinus’ opinions “worthless”; and goes out of his way to

tack on to them the system of the Jewish magician Marcus, who, if we can

believe the statements of the Fathers, exploited the rising sense of

religion of the age for his own immoral or interested purpose[348].

Yet a statement that Tertullian lets drop, as if accidentally, may teach

us to beware of taking Valentinus’ supposed opinions on the nature of

these hypostases or Persons of the Godhead more literally than he did

himself. In his treatise against the Valentinians the “furious African

barrister” is led away by the exigencies of his own rhetoric to tell us

that there were some among them who looked upon all this elaborate

description of the emanations of the Ogdoad as a figure of speech. All

the aeons of the Ogdoad were according to them merely attributes or

names of God. When, they said, God _thought_ of producing offspring, He

thereby acquired the name of _Father_; and because his offspring was

true, that of _Truth_; and because He wished to appear in human form, he

was called _Man_; and because He assembled His attributes in His mind

and selected from them those most proper for His purpose, they were

called the _Church_; and as His only (or unique) Son was, as it were,

uttered or sent forth to mankind, He was called the _Word_; and from His

powers of salvation, _Life_; and so on[349]. As we have seen, Valentinus

did not invent _de novo_ his conception of the Godhead, which bears

besides evident marks of having been adopted with slight modification

from that of Simon Magus and the Ophites. This statement of Tertullian

gives us ground therefore for supposing that he may really have held the

same views respecting the Divine Nature as the Catholic Church, merely

giving an allegorical explanation of the earlier opinions to convince

his hearers that the teaching of the Apostles was not so subversive of

or inconsistent with the way of thinking of the ancient theologians and

philosophers as some of them thought. Clement of Alexandria shows

similar comprehensiveness when he said that in the Christian faith there

are some mysteries more excellent than others—or, in other words,

degrees in knowledge and grace[350]—, that the Hellenic philosophy fits

him who studies it for the reception of the truth[351], and that the

Christian should rejoice in the name of Gnostic, so long as he

understands that the true Gnostic is he who imitates God as far as

possible[352]. He even goes further, and himself uses the Gnostic method

of personification of abstract qualities, as when he says that Reverence

is the daughter of Law[353], and Simplicity, Innocence, Decorum, and

Love, the daughters of Faith[354]. If Valentinus used similar metaphors,

it by no means follows that he was thereby advocating the worship of

many gods, which was the accusation most frequently brought against him

by the Catholic Church. The same accusation might with equal propriety

be made against John Bunyan on account of his Interpreter and his Mr

Greatheart.

But whatever Valentinus’ own views with regard to the Supreme Being may

have been, he could no more escape than did Philo or any other Platonist

from the difficulty of explaining the connection of this Perfect God

with imperfect matter[355], and this had to be the work in his system of

an intermediate Power. This Power was that Nous or Monogenes whom we

have seen was the first and unique being produced from the Unknowable

Father, to whom he seems to have stood in much the same relation as the

Dionysos of the Orphics did to the supreme Zeus[356]. Yet although it

was through this lieutenant of the Unknown Father that all things were

made, he also was too great to act directly upon matter. Seeing, says

Hippolytus in this connection, that their own offspring, Logos and Zoe,

had brought forth descendants capable of transmission, Nous and his

partner Aletheia returned thanks to the Father of All and offered to him

a perfect number in the shape of ten aeons[357]. These ten aeons were

projected like the direct emanations of the Godhead in syzygies or

pairs, their names being respectively Bythios or Deep (Βυθιὸς[358]) and

Mixis or Mixture (Μίξις), Ageratos or Who Grows not Old (Ἀγήρατος) and

Henosis or Oneness (Ἕνωσις), Autophyes or Self-Produced (Αὐτοφύης[359])

and Hedone or Pleasure (Ἡδονή), Akinetos or Who Cannot Be Moved

(Ἀκίνητος) and Syncrasis or Blending (Σύγκρασις), Monogenes or the

Unique (Μονογενὴς)[360] and Macaria or Bliss (Μακαρία). In like manner,

Logos and Zoe wishing to give thanks to their progenitors Nous and

Aletheia, put forth another set, this time an imperfect number, or

twelve aeons, also arranged in syzygies and called Paraclete

(Παράκλητος) and Faith (Πίστις), Fatherly (Πατρικὸς) and Hope (Ἐλπίς),

Motherly (Μητρικὸς) and Love (Ἀγάπη), Ever-Thinking (Ἀείνους[361]) and

Comprehension (Σύνεσις), Of the Church (Ἐκκλησιαστικὸς) and Blessedness

(Μακαριότης), Longed-for (Θελητὸς) and Wisdom (Σοφία). It was through

this last, as through her namesake in the system of the Ophites, that

the Divine came to mingle with Matter.

Before coming to this, however, it will be well to say something here

about the ideas that seem to lie behind the names of this series of

aeons numbering, with the first six, twenty-eight in all, which thus

made up what was known as the Pleroma or Fulness of the Godhead. If we

arrange them in three families or groups according to their parentage,

thus:

_Children of Bythos_ (either alone or with Sige).

Nous—Aletheia.

_Children of Nous and Aletheia._

Logos—Zoe.

Bythios—Mixis.

Ageratos—Henosis.

Autophyes—Syncrasis.

Monogenes—Macaria.

_Children of Logos and Zoe._

Anthropos—Ecclesia.

Paracletos—Pistis.

Patricos—Elpis.

Metricos—Agape.

Ecclesiasticus—Macariotes.

Theletas—Sophia,

it will be seen that among the elder members of each group, that is, the

three first syzygies, Nous-Aletheia, Logos-Zoe, and Anthropos-Ecclesia,

the name of the male member of each syzygy is always that of an actual

and concrete concept—the Mind, the Word, and Man,—showing perhaps how

thought and speech all marked different stages in the evolution of the

being called the Perfect Man[362]; while the appellatives of the females

of each syzygy—Truth, Life, and the Church—all connote abstract

ideas[363]. With the Decad put forth by Nous and Aletheia, _i.e._

Bythios-Mixis, Ageratos-Henosis, Autophyes-Hedone, Acinetos-Syncrasis,

and Monogenes-Macaria, every male aeon, as M. Amélineau has pointed out,

has for name an adjective, while the females are all described by

substantives[364]. But the names of the male aeons are all epithets or

attributes peculiar to their father Nous, who is thus said to be the

abysmal, never-ageing, creator of his own nature, immovable, and unique,

and those of the female aeons are descriptive of different states or

conditions arising from his action[365]. M. Amélineau thinks that the

names of these last describe a successive degradation of the Divine

Nature; but this does not seem to have been Valentinus’ intention, and

it is hard to see for instance why Syncrasis or blending should be more

unworthy than Mixis or simple mixture. Moreover, this group of aeons,

unlike the six preceding them, are not reproductive and no direct

descendants follow from their conjugation. Perhaps then we may best

understand Valentinus’ nomenclature as a statement that the coming

together of Mind and Truth produced Profound Admixture, Never-ageing

Union, Self-created Pleasure, Unshakeable Combination, and Unique Bliss.

In like manner, the names of the members of the Dodecad or group of

twelve aeons proceeding from Logos and Zoe may be read as describing the

Comforting Faith, the Fatherly Hope, the Motherly Love[366], the

Everlasting Comprehension, the Elect Blessedness, and the Longed-for

Wisdom arising from the conjugation of the Word and Life or, in one

word, from the Incarnation[367].

To return now to the fall of Sophia which, in the system of Valentinus,

as in that of the Ophites, brought about the creation of the universe.

All the accounts of Valentinus’ teaching that have reached us seem to

agree that Sophia’s lapse was caused, according to him, not by accident

as with the Ophites, but by her own ignorance and emulation. Leaving the

Dodecad, “this twelfth and youngest of the aeons,” as Hippolytus

describes her[368], soared on high to the Height of the Father, and

perceived that he, the Unknowable Father, was alone able to bring forth

without a partner[369]. Wishing to imitate him, she gave birth by

herself and apart from her spouse, “being ignorant that only the

Ungenerated Supreme Principle and Root and Height and Depth of the

Universes can bring forth alone.” “For,” says he (_i.e._ Valentinus),

“in the ungenerated (or unbegotten) all things exist together. But among

generated (or begotten) things, it is the female who projects the

substance, while the male gives form to the substance which the female

has projected[370].” Hence the substance which Sophia put forth was

without form and unshapen—an expression which Valentinus seems to have

copied, after his manner, from the “without form and void” (ἄμορφος καὶ

ἀκατασκεύαστος) of Genesis[371].

This Ectroma or abortion of Sophia, however, caused great alarm to the

other members of the Pleroma, who feared that they might themselves be

led into similar lapses, and thus bring about the destruction of the

whole system. They accordingly importuned Bythos, who ordered that two

new aeons, viz. Christos or Christ and the Holy Spirit, should be put

forth by Nous and Aletheia to give form and direction to the Ectroma and

to alleviate the distress of Sophia[372]. This was accordingly done, and

this new pair of aeons separated Sophia from her Ectroma and drew her

with them within the Pleroma, which was thereupon closed by the

projection by Bythos of yet another aeon named the Cross (Σταυρός)[373],

whose sole function was apparently to preserve the Pleroma or Divine

World from all contamination from the imperfection which was

outside[374]. This last aeon being, says Hippolytus, born great, as

brought into existence by a great and perfect father, was put forth as a

guard and circumvallation for the aeons, and became the boundary of the

Pleroma, containing within him all the thirty aeons together. Outside

this boundary remained Sophia’s Ectroma, whom Christ and the Holy Spirit

had fashioned into an aeon as perfect as any within the Pleroma; and

she, like her mother, is now called Sophia, being generally

distinguished from “the last and youngest of the aeons” as the Sophia

Without[375].

This Sophia Without the Pleroma was by no means at peace within herself.

She is represented as having been afflicted with great terror at the

departure of Christos and the Holy Spirit from her, when they left her

to take their places within the Pleroma, and as grieving over her

solitude and “in great perplexity” as to the nature of the Holy Spirit.

Hence she turned herself to prayers and supplications to Christos, the

being who had given her form, and these prayers were heard. Meanwhile,

the thirty aeons within the Pleroma had resolved, on finding themselves

safe within the guard of Stauros, to glorify the Father or Bythos by

offering to him one aeon who should partake of the nature of each, and

was therefore called the “Joint Fruit of the Pleroma[376].” This was

Jesus “the Great High Priest,” who, on coming into existence was sent

outside the Pleroma at the instance of Christos in order that he might

be a spouse to the Sophia Without and deliver her from her

afflictions[377]. This he did, but the four passions of Sophia, namely,

fear, grief, perplexity, and supplication, having once been created

could not be destroyed, but became separate and independent beings. Thus

it was that matter came into being, and was itself the creation of the

Deity, instead of being, as in the earlier systems, of independent

origin. For Jesus “changed her fear into the substance which is psychic

or animal (οὐσία ψυχικὴ), her grief into that which is hylic or

material, and her perplexity into the substance of demons[378].” Of her

supplication, however, Jesus made a path of repentance (ὁδὸν ἐπὶ

μετάνοιαν) and gave it power over the psychic substance. This psychic

substance is, says Valentinus, a “consuming fire” like the God of Moses,

and the Demiurge or Architect of the Cosmos, and is called the “Place”

(τόπος) and the Hebdomad or Sevenfold Power, and the Ancient of Days,

and is, if Hippolytus has really grasped Valentinus’ opinions on the

point, the author of death[379]. He and his realm come immediately below

that of Sophia Without, here somewhat unexpectedly called the Ogdoad,

where Sophia dwells with her spouse Jesus[380]. His sevenfold realm is,

it would seem, the seven astronomical heavens, of which perhaps the

Paradise of Adam is the fourth[381]. Below this again comes this world,

the Cosmos, ruled by a hylic or material Power called the Devil

(Διάβολος) or Cosmocrator, not further described by Valentinus but

apparently resembling the Satan of the New Testament[382]. Lowest of all

is unformed and unarranged matter, inhabited by the demons, of whom

Beelzebub, as in the Gospels, is said to be the chief[383]. We have then

four “places” outside the Pleroma or Godhead, arranged in a succession

which reckoning from above downwards may be thus summed up:

1. The Heaven of Sophia called the Ogdoad, wherein dwell Sophia Without

and her spouse Jesus[384].

2. The Sevenfold World called the Hebdomad created and ruled by the

Demiurge or Ancient of Days.

3. Our own ordered world or Cosmos created by the Demiurge but ruled by

the Devil.

4. Chaos or unarranged Matter ruled by Beelzebub, Prince of the Demons.

Much of this may be due to the desire apparently inborn in natives of

Egypt to define with excessive minuteness the topography of the

invisible world; but the disposition of these different Rulers was by no

means a matter of indifference to mankind. The Demiurge, as in the

Ophite system, was not, indeed, bad, but foolish and blind, not knowing

what he did, nor why he created man. Yet it is he who sends forth the

souls of men which reach them at their birth and leave them at their

death. Hence, says Hippolytus, he is called Psyche or Soul as Sophia is

called Pneuma or Spirit. But this soul of man is little else than what

we call the life, and here as in all else the Demiurge is controlled

without knowing it by his mother Sophia, who from her place in the

Heavenly Jerusalem directs his operations. The bodies of men the

Demiurge makes from that hylic and diabolic substance which is

matter[385], and the soul which comes from him dwells within it as in an

inn, into which all may enter. Sometimes, says Valentinus—and in this

instance at least we know it is he, not one of his followers, who is

speaking—the soul dwells alone and sometimes with demons, but sometimes

with Logoi or “words,” who are heavenly angels sent by Sophia Without

and her spouse the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma into this world, and who

dwell with the soul in the earthly body, when it has no demons living

with it.[386] After leaving the body of matter, the soul will even be

united with its especial angel in a still more perfect manner, as is a

bridegroom with his bride[387], a state which is sometimes spoken of as

“the Banquet,” and seems connected with what has been said above about

the meeting of Jesus the Joint Fruit with the Sophia Without[388]. Yet

this is not a question of conduct or free will, but of predestination,

and seems to mark the chief practical difference between Valentinus on

the one hand and the Ophites and the pre-Christian Gnostics on the

other. The Ophites, as we have seen, believed in the threefold nature of

the soul, or its composition from the pneumatic or spiritual, the

psychical or animal, and the choic or earthly, all which elements were

thought to be present in everyone. But they held, following their

predecessors the Orphici, that these divisions corresponded to what may

be called degrees of grace, and that it was possible for man to pass

from one category to the other, and become wholly pneumatic or psychic

or earthly. Valentinus, however, introduces a different idea and makes

the distinction between the three different categories of human souls

one not of degree, but of essence[389]. Men have not a threefold soul,

but belong to one of three classes, according to the source of their

souls. Either they are pneumatic, _i.e._ spiritual, belonging wholly to

Sophia, or psychic, that is animated by the Demiurge alone and therefore

like him foolish and ignorant although capable of improvement, or hylic,

that is formed wholly of matter and therefore subject to the power of

the demons[390]. Nothing is said explicitly by Hippolytus as to how this

division into classes is made; but we know by other quotations from

Valentinus himself that this is the work of Sophia who sends the Logoi

or Words into such souls as she chooses, or rather into those which she

has created specially and without the knowledge of the Demiurge[391].

The consequences of this division upon the future of mankind generally

also differed materially from that of the Ophitic scheme. Only the

pneumatics or spiritual men are by nature immortal or deathless, and

when they leave the material body go on high to the Ogdoad or Heaven of

Sophia, where she sits with Jesus the “Joint Fruit” of the Pleroma[392].

The hylics or men who are wholly material perish utterly at death,

because their souls like their bodies are corruptible[393]. There remain

the psychic—the “natural men” of the New Testament[394]—who are not so

to speak “saved”; but are yet capable of salvation. How was this

salvation to be brought about?

Valentinus seems to have answered this by saying, as any Catholic

Christian would have done at the time, that it was through the Divine

Mission of Jesus. Yet this Jesus, according to Valentinus or the

Valentinian author from whom Hippolytus draws his account, was neither

Jesus the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, who according to them remained

with his spouse Sophia in the Heavenly Jerusalem, nor Christos who with

his consort the Holy Spirit was safe within the Pleroma. He was in

effect a third saviour brought into being especially for the salvation

of all that is worth saving in this devil-ruled and material world, in

the same way that Christos and his consort had saved the first Sophia

after she had given birth to the monstrous Ectroma, and as Jesus the

Joint Fruit had saved this Ectroma itself. It is very probable, as M.

Amélineau has shown with great attention to detail, that every system,

perhaps every universe, had according to Valentinus its own saviour, the

whole arrangement being part of one vast scheme for the ordering and

purifying of all things[395]. Hence Valentinus explains, as the Ophites

had failed to do, that salvation spreads from above downwards and that

the redemption of this world was not undertaken until that of the

universe of the Demiurge had been effected[396]. The Demiurge—and the

statement has peculiar significance if we consider him the God of the

Jews—had been taught by Sophia Without that he was not the sole God, as

he had imagined, and had been instructed and “initiated into the great

mystery of the Father and the Aeons[397].” Although it is nowhere

distinctly stated, it seems a natural inference that the same lot will

fall to the psychic men who are, like the Demiurge, “soul” rather than

“spirit,” and that they will receive further instruction in the Heaven

of Sophia. Thus, he continues, the lapses[398] of the Demiurge had been

set straight and it was necessary that those here below should go

through the same process. Jesus was accordingly born of the Virgin Mary;

He was entirely pneumatic, that is His body was endowed with a spiritual

soul, for Sophia Without herself descended into Mary and the germ thus

sown by her was formed into a visible shape by the operation of the

Demiurge[399]. As for His Mission, it seems to have consisted in

revealing to man the constitution of the worlds above him, the course to

be pursued by him to attain immortality, and to sum up the whole matter

in one word, the _Gnosis_ or knowledge that was necessary to

salvation[400].

Here the account of the teaching of Valentinus, which has been taken

almost entirely from the _Philosophumena_ or from quotations from his

own words in trustworthy writers like Clement of Alexandria, abruptly

ends, and we are left to conjecture. We cannot therefore say directly

what Valentinus himself taught about the Crucifixion. Jesus, the

historical Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, though purely pneumatic or

spiritual at the outset, received according to one account some tincture

of the nature of all the worlds through which He had descended, and must

therefore, probably, have had to abandon successive parts of His nature,

as He reascended[401]. Probably, therefore, Valentinus thought that the

Spiritual or Divine part of Him left Him before the Passion, and that it

was only His material body that suffered[402]. As we shall see later,

this idea was much elaborated by the later Gnostics, who thought that

all those redeemed from this world would in that respect have to imitate

their Great Exemplar. If this be so, it is plain that it was only that

part of the soul of Jesus which He had received from Sophia which

returned to her, and was doubtless re-absorbed in her being. Yet there

is nothing to make us believe that Valentinus did not accept the

narrative of the Canonical Gospels in full[403], or to doubt that he

taught that Jesus really suffered on the Cross, although he doubtless

interpreted this in his usual fashion, by making it a symbol of the

self-sacrifice of Jesus the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, when He left

that celestial abode to give form and salvation to the miserable Ectroma

of Sophia[404]. Here again we can but gather Valentinus’ opinions from

those of his followers, who may have altered them materially to fit them

to the exigencies of a situation of which we can form no very precise

idea.

Of these followers we know rather more than in the case of any other of

the early heresiarchs. According to Tertullian, Valentinus was brought

up as a Christian, and expected to become a bishop of the Catholic

Church, “because he was an able man both in genius and eloquence[405].”

Finding, Tertullian goes on to say, that a confessor[406] was preferred

to him, he broke with the Church and “finding the track of a certain old

opinion” (doubtless, the Ophite) “marked out a path for himself.” The

same accusation of disappointed ambition was levelled against nearly

every other heresiarch at the time, and may serve to show how greatly

the place of bishop was coveted; but we have no means of judging its

truth in this particular instance, and it is repeated neither by

Irenaeus, Hippolytus, nor Clement of Alexandria who was in an

exceptionally good position for knowing the truth of the case. Irenaeus,

however, says that Valentinus came to Rome during the papacy of Hyginus,

flourished (ἤκμασε) under that of Pius, and dwelt there until that of

Anicetus; and this is confirmed by Eusebius, who connects Valentinus’

stay in Rome with the reign of Hadrian’s successor, Antoninus Pius[407].

Tertullian further declares that Valentinus did not separate from the

Church until the papacy of Eleutherus[408], which did not commence until

A.D. 174, and M. Amélineau seems therefore well-founded in his inference

that Valentinus elaborated his system in Egypt while yet in the Church,

and that he went to Rome in order to impose it upon the rest of the

faithful[409]. If this be so, it would abundantly account for its far

closer approximation to the orthodox faith than that of the Ophites,

from which it appears to have been derived. Epiphanius tells us further

that after quitting Rome, Valentinus died in Cyprus, where he made “a

last shipwreck of his faith[410].” Could we place implicit faith in

Epiphanius’ highly-coloured statements, we might gather from this that

Valentinus gave a fresh turn to his doctrines after finding himself away

from the great cities in which he had hitherto spent his life.

However that may be, the time which, on the shortest computation,

Valentinus passed in Rome was quite sufficient for him to set up a

school there, and we are not surprised to hear that thereafter there was

a body of Valentinians in the West, which was called the “Italic

school.” Innovating, as Tertullian said all heretics did, upon the

system of their founder, they taught, as before mentioned, that Sige or

Silence was a real spouse to the Ineffable Bythos or the Supreme Being

and existed side by side with Him from eternity[411]. They further said

that the Dodecad or group of twelve aeons, of whom Sophia was the last,

emanated not from Logos and Zoe, but from the third syzygy of Anthropos

and Ecclesia[412]; and that the body of the historical Jesus was not

material but psychic or from the world of the Demiurge[413], which seems

to include the view held by other Gnostics that it was a phantasm which

only appeared to suffer on the Cross, but did not do so in reality. We

know the names of several of the leaders of this Italic school, among

whom were Ptolemy, Secundus, and Heracleon. It was the doctrine of the

first of these apparently flourishing in Gaul in his time, which spurred

on Irenaeus to write against them[414]; while Heracleon was called by

Clement of Alexandria the most distinguished of the school of Valentinus

and taught in the last-named city[415]. Ptolemy’s doctrine as described

by Irenaeus seems to have materially differed from that of his master

only in the particulars just given; while Secundus is said by the same

heresiologist to have divided the First Ogdoad into two tetrads, a right

hand and a left, one of which he called light and the other

darkness[416]. Over against this, we hear from Hippolytus of an Eastern

school (Διδασκαλία ἀνατολικὴ), which M. Amélineau shows satisfactorily

to have most closely represented the teaching of Valentinus

himself[417], and which was carried on after his death by Axionicus and

Bardesanes[418]. Of these, Axionicus is said to have taught in his

native city of Antioch; while Bardesanes was evidently the same as the

person called by the Syrians Bar Daisan of Edessa, whose name was still

great in the time of Albiruni[419]. Theodotus, whose writings are quoted

at some length by Clement of Alexandria, and Alexander, whose arguments

as to the body of Jesus are rebutted by Tertullian, probably continued

their teaching[420].