Chapter IV
, vol. I. p. 123, _supra_.
Footnote 312:
Ἦν, φησίν, ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ σπέρματι Υἱότης, τριμερὴς κατὰ πάντα, τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος, γενητὴ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, Hippolytus, _op. cit_, Bk VII. c. 22, p. 349, Cruice. If these are Basilides’ actual words, he would seem to have been the first author to make use of the expression Homoousios.
Footnote 313:
Hippolytus, _op. et loc. cit._ p. 350, Cruice.
Footnote 314:
Ἔχειν μὲν αὐτὸ μετ’ αὐτῆς οὐκ ἠδύνατο· ἦν γὰρ οὐχ ὀμοούσιον· οὐδὲ φύσιν εἶχε μετὰ τῆς Υἱότητος. Hippolytus, _op. et loc. cit._ p. 351, Cruice.
Footnote 315:
Had Basilides or Hippolytus read Horace?
Footnote 316:
Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 23, p. 353, Cruice.
Footnote 317:
Amélineau, _Le Gnosticisme Égyptien_, pp. 139-152. So Mallet, _Culte de Neith à Sais_, Paris, 1888, pp. 213, 214, says that both Basilides and Valentinus drew their doctrines from the late form of Egyptian religion which he describes.
Footnote 318:
_Paut neteru._ Maspero, _Études Égyptol._, II. pp. 244, 245. Cf. the whole of the luminous essay _Sur l’Ennéade_ in the same volume and especially pp. 385, 386. Cf. Naville, _Old Egyptian Faith_, p. 117; Erman, _Hist. Egyptian Religion_, p. 78.
Footnote 319:
_Tu enim, aiunt, omnes cognosce, te autem nemo cognoscat.... Non autem multos scire posse haec, sed unum a mille, et duo a myriadibus._ Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 19, § 3, p. 202, Harvey. Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXIV. c. 5, p. 152, Oehler, while copying Irenaeus’ account puts it rather differently, Ὑμεῖς πάντα γινώσκετε, ὑμᾶς δὲ μηδεὶς γινωσκέτω, which probably represents Irenaeus’ own expression. One of the authors of the _Pistis Sophia_ had evidently heard of Basilides’ remark about 1 in 1000. Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 354, Copt.
Footnote 320:
So Irenaeus, _loc. cit._, p. 203, Harvey, makes the Basilidians say that they were neither Jews nor Christians: _Et Judaeos quidem jam non esse dicunt, Christianos autem nondum_—or, as Epiphanius, _loc. cit._, more strongly puts it: Ἰουδαίους μὲν ἑαυτοὺς μηκέτι εἶναι φάσκουσι, Χριστιανοὺς δὲ μηκέτι γεγενῆσθαι.
Footnote 321:
Epiphanius, _Pan. Haer._ XXXI. c. 2, p. 306, Oehler. Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 168, defends Epiphanius’ statement.
Footnote 322:
Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. II. p. 37, says that Basilides died about 134 A.D. and that Valentinus’ teaching began to make itself heard about the year following; but he gives no authorities for the statement. Epiphanius, _loc. cit._, does say, however, that Valentinus was later in time than Basilides and “Satornilus” (Saturninus). There seems no authority for Matter’s statement that he was of Jewish origin.
Footnote 323:
Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 176, and Clement of Alexandria as there quoted. Cf. King, _Gnostics_, p. 263.
Footnote 324:
Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. II. p. 36.
Footnote 325:
Ἐπεὶ οὖν γέγονε πρώτη καὶ δευτέρα ἀναδρομὴ τῆς Υἱότητος, καὶ μεμένηκεν αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον, στερεωμάτων ὑπερκοσμίων καὶ τοῦ κόσμου μεταξὺ τεταγμένον: Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 23, p. 353, Cruice.
Footnote 326:
Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ p. 354, Cruice.
Footnote 327:
Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, pp. 158, 159, Cruice, says simply in speaking of the Naassene writer: οὗτοι εἰσὶν οἱ τρεὶς ὑπέρογκοι λόγοι “Καυλακαῦ, Σαυλασαῦ, Ζεησάρ.” “Καυλακαῦ” τοῦ ἄνω, τοῦ Ἀδάμαντος, “Σαυλασαῦ,” τοῦ κάτω θνητοῦ, “Ζεησάρ” τοῦ ἐπὶ τὰ ἄνω ῥεύσαντος Ἰορδάνου. “These are the three weighty words: Caulacau [the name] of him who is above, [_i.e._] Adamas; Saulasau of the mortal one who is beneath; Zeesar of the Jordan which flows on high.” Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXV. c. 4, pp. 162, 164, Oehler, says that they are taken from the words of Isaiah xxviii. 10, צו לצו קו לקו זעיר שם translated in the A.V. “precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little”; but the resemblance is not very close, and it is more probable that the barbarous words of the text cover some sort of cryptogram. Irenaeus, Bk Ι. c. 19, § 3, p. 201, Harvey, says of the Basilidians: _Quemadmodum et mundus nomen esse, in quo dicunt descendisse et ascendisse Salvatorem, esse Caulacau_, which Harvey says is unintelligible. See Salmon, _s.h.v._ in _Dict. of Christian Biog._, where he tries hard to explain the name and its use. Cheyne, _Prophecies of Isaiah_, 2nd ed. vol. I. p. 162, would make this Caulacau, however, equivalent to the “word of Jehovah” or Logos. Cf. Renan, _Hist. du Peuple d’Israel_, Eng. ed. 1897, II. pp. 436, 437.
Footnote 328:
Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 5.
Footnote 329:
Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk II. c. 20; Bk IV. cc. 9, 138; Bk VI. c. 6. So Origen, to whose frequent quotations from the Valentinian Heracleon we owe all that we know of that shrewd Biblical critic. See A. E. Brooke, _Fragments of Heracleon_, Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. Ι. p. 4. De Faye’s opinion that Clement and Origen were the only Fathers who treated Gnosticism with intelligence and sometimes judicially has been quoted above.
Footnote 330:
Epiphanius, Pan. _Haer._ XXXI. c. 1, p. 306, Oehler.
Footnote 331:
_Valentinus._... _Pythagoricus magis quam Christianus, vanam quandam ac perniciosam doctrinam eructans, et velut arithmeticam, id est numerositatis, novam fallaciam praedicans, multorumque animas ignorantium captivavit_, Philastrius, _de Haeresibus liber_, c. 38, p. 43, Oehler, vol. I.
Footnote 332:
[_Valentiniani et Valentinus_] _Hi per orientem dispersi graviter dei ecclesiam vulnerarunt_, Praedestinatus, Bk Ι. c. 11, p. 235, Oehler, vol. Ι.
Footnote 333:
Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_, Bk III. cc. 64, 65.
Footnote 334:
Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, vol. III. c. 27, p. 174, Bury.
Footnote 335:
King, _Gnostics_, p. 13.
Footnote 336:
Irenaeus, Bk Ι. c. 1, § 1, pp. 8, 9, Harvey; Tertullian, _adv. Val._ c. VII. Is this the “Grace” for whose presence the soul prays in the _apologiae_ of the Ophites? See last chapter.
Footnote 337:
Ὅλως, φησί, γεννητὸν οὐδέν, Πατὴρ δὲ ἦν μόνος ἀγέννητος, οὐ τόπον ἔχων, οὐ χρόνον, οὐ σύμβουλον, οὐκ ἄλλην τινὰ κατ’ οὐδένα τῶν τρόπων νοηθῆναι δυναμένην οὐσίαν: Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 29, p. 280, Cruice.
Footnote 338:
Diogenes Laertius, _Vit. Philosoph._ Bk VIII. c. 19.
Footnote 339:
Philippe Berger, “Les Stèles Puniques de la Bibliothèque Nationale,” _Gazette Archéologique_, 11me ann. Paris, 1876, p. 123, says that the Aryan genius sees atmospheric phenomena where the Semite imagines persons who unite and give birth (personnes qui s’unissent et s’engendrent les unes les autres). Renan, _Hist. du Peuple d’Israel_, Paris, 1887, t. I. p. 49, shows that all Semites are naturally euhemerists and therefore anthropomorphists.
Footnote 340:
Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ pp. 198 _sqq._, shows that Sige appears not only in the “Italic School” of Valentinus’ followers, but also in the Oriental School which is more likely to represent the teaching of Valentinus himself. This may in fact be deduced from the words which Hippolytus puts into his mouth (_op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 29, p. 281, Cruice): Ἀγάπη, φησίν, ἦν ὅλος, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγάπη, ἐὰν μὴ ᾖ τὸ ἀγαπώμενον. “He, he says, is all Love, and Love is not Love, unless there is something to love.” Thus the Orphics called their Phanes or firstborn god Eros.
Footnote 341:
As has been many times said, not “Only-begotten,” but “unique.” See Badham in _Academy_, 5 Sept. 1896.
Footnote 342:
ταύτην [Sige] δὲ ὑποδεξαμένην τὸ σπέρμα τοῦτο καὶ ἐγκύμονα γενομένην, ἀποκυῆσαι Νοῦν, ὅμοιόν τε καὶ ἶσον τῷ προβαλόντι, καὶ μόνον χωροῦντα τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ Πατρός: Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 1, p. 9, Harvey: “and she having received this seed and becoming pregnant, brought forth Nous, like and equal to him who had projected him, and alone containing the greatness of the Father.”
Footnote 343:
_Id._ Bk I. c. 1, § 1, pp. 9, 10, Harvey.
Footnote 344:
_Ibid._ p. 10, Harvey.
Footnote 345:
Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 29, p. 280, Cruice.
Footnote 346:
Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 7.
Footnote 347:
Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 5, § 2, p. 106, Harvey.
Footnote 348:
See p. 128 _infra_.
Footnote 349:
Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 36.
Footnote 350:
Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk I. c. 1.
Footnote 351:
_Ibid._ Bk I. cc. 7, 16.
Footnote 352:
_Ibid._ Bk II. c. 19.
Footnote 353:
_Ibid._ Bk II. c. 20.
Footnote 354:
_Ibid._ Bk II. c. 12.
Footnote 355:
See