Chapter XI

, _infra_. Summary accounts of the doctrines of other Gnostics mentioned are given by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the works quoted. See also the _Dict. of Christian Biog._, under their respective names.

Footnote 35:

The lesser heresiologists, such as Philaster of Brescia, St Augustine, the writer who is known as Praedestinatus, the author of the tract _Adversus omnes Haereses_ wrongly ascribed to Tertullian, and the other writers included in the first volume of Oehler’s _Corpus Haereseologici_, Berlin, 1856, as well as writers like Eusebius, all copy from one or other of these sources. The _Excerpta Theodoti_ appended to the works of Clement of Alexandria are on a different footing, but their effect at the time spoken of in the text was not appreciated. Cf. Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Valentinus.

Footnote 36:

Bouché-Leclercq, _L’Intolérance Religieuse et Politique_, Paris, 1912, p. 140.

Footnote 37:

Ammianus Marcellinus, Bk XXII. c. 5, § 4.

Footnote 38:

An excellent and concise account of the discovery and the subsequent controversy as to the authorship of the book is given by Salmon in the _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Hippolytus Romanus. For Mgr Duchesne’s theory that Hippolytus was a schismatic Pope, see his _Hist. Christian Church_, pp. 227-233.

Footnote 39:

Salmon’s position is set out by him in _Hermathena_, Dublin, 1885, pp. 389 _sqq._ For Stähelin’s, see his tractate _Die Gnostische Quellen Hippolyts_, Leipzig, 1890, in Harnack’s _Texte und Untersuchungen_. Both are skilfully summarized by de Faye in his _Introduction à l’Étude du Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1903, pp. 25 _sqq._

Footnote 40:

De Faye does not accept Stähelin’s contention as to the forgery, but his conclusion as to the date is as stated in the text. See _Introduction_, etc. pp. 68, 71.

Footnote 41:

Tertullian, _Scorpiace_, c. 1.

Footnote 42:

Neander, _Ch. Hist._ (Eng. ed.), I. p. 208, quotes a case from St Augustine which I have not been able to verify.

Footnote 43:

Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, II. p. 110 and note 144 (Bury’s ed.). For the search which the Christian emperors directed to be made for the heretics’ books, see Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_, Bk III. cc. 64, 65.

Footnote 44:

The actual transcription and translation were made by Maurice Schwartze, a young German who was sent over here to study the documents in the British Museum at the expense of the King of Prussia. He died after the completion of his task, and before the book could be printed.

Footnote 45:

Amélineau’s transcription and translation appeared in the _Notices et Extraits_, etc. of the Académie des Inscriptions, t. XXIX. pt 2 (Paris, 1891). He has also published a translation into French without text of the _Pistis Sophia_ (Paris, 1895). Dr Carl Schmidt, of the University of Berlin, has published translations into German of both works under the title _Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften_, Bd I., Leipzig, 1905. None of these versions are entirely satisfactory, and it is much to be wished that an authoritative edition of the two works could be put forward by English scholars. The present writer gave a short history and analysis of them in the _Scottish Review_ for 1893 under the title “Some Heretic Gospels.”

Footnote 46:

Clement was so far from being a heresiologist that he has not escaped the reproach of being himself a heretic. He repeatedly speaks in praise of the “true Gnostic,” meaning thereby the perfect Christian, and although this is probably a mere matter of words, it seems to have induced Photius in the IXth century to examine his writings with a jealous eye. The result was that, as M. Courdaveaux points out (_R.H.R._ 1892, p. 293 and note), he found him guilty of teaching that matter was eternal, the Son a simple creature of the Father, the Incarnation only an appearance, that man’s soul entered several bodies in succession, and that several worlds were created before that of Adam. All these are Gnostic opinions, and it may be that if we had all Clement’s books in our hands, as had Photius, we might confirm M. Courdaveaux’s judgment, as does apparently Mgr Duchesne. Cf. his _Hist. of Christian Ch._ pp. 244, 245.

Footnote 47:

Cf. A. C. McGiffert, _Prolegomena to the Church History of Eusebius_ (Schaff and Wace’s Nicene Library), Oxford, 1890, vol. I. p. 179 and note.

Footnote 48:

Of the heresies mentioned in the _Philosophumena_ only two, viz. that of Simon Magus and that of those whom Hippolytus calls the Sethiani, do not admit, either expressly or by implication, the divinity of Jesus. This may be accounted for by what has been said above as to both being pre-Christian in origin.

Footnote 49:

_E.g._ Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 1, I. p. 9, Harvey. Here he is called ὅμοιος τε καὶ ἴσος τῷ προβαλόντι, “like and equal to him who had sent him forth.” There is certainly here no allusion to “begetting” in the ordinary sense of the word.

Footnote 50:

As in the epithet of Persephone in the Orphic Hymn quoted above. See

##