FORERUNNERS AND RIVALS OF CHRISTIANITY

                         CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
                            C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
                         London: FETTER LANE, E.C.
                       Edinburgh: 100 PRINCES STREET

                       New York: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS
            Bombay, Calcutta and Madras: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
                     Toronto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.
                    Tokyo: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA


                           _All rights reserved_




                 FORERUNNERS AND RIVALS OF CHRISTIANITY

                                 BEING

                      STUDIES IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY
                       FROM 330 B.C. TO 330 A.D.


                                   BY

                            F. LEGGE, F.S.A.

     (Honorary) Foreign Secretary Society of Biblical Archaeology,
                Member of Council Royal Asiatic Society,
            Member of Committee Egypt Exploration Fund, &c.

                 “The ghosts of words and dusty dreams”
                 “Old memories, faiths infirm and dead”

                          SWINBURNE, _Félise_.

                             IN TWO VOLUMES

                                VOL. II


                               Cambridge:
                        at the University Press
                                  1915

                               Cambridge:
                       PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
                        AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS




                                CONTENTS


CHAPTER VII

POST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS

Expectation of Parusia causes Gnosticism to be ignored by Apostolic
writers—Change in Christian teaching at end of Ist century—Destruction
of Temple of Jerusalem forces Christians to separate from Jews—Some
compromise with heathenism necessary—Coveted position of Christian
bishops—Founders of Gnostic sects—Only evidence of their teaching till
lately, Irenaeus and Epiphanius, both unsatisfactory—Discovery of
_Philosophumena_ of Hippolytus, and Salmon and Stähelin’s attacks on its
credibility—The _Pistis Sophia_ and _Bruce Papyrus_—General features of
Post-Christian Gnostics—Their belief in Divinity and Historicity of
Jesus—Difficulties arising from this and their various solutions—Secrecy
of doctrine common among Gnostics and consequent calumnies—Many Gnostic
doctrines still doubtful—Parallel between the Gnostic and Protestant
sects—Gnosticism bridge between heathenism and Christianity—Effect of
this on Catholic practice and doctrine 1-24


CHAPTER VIII

POST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS:—THE OPHITES

Different accounts of origin of Ophites—Alteration from time to time of
their doctrines—Phrygia first home of Ophites and its history—Its
religion and bi-sexual deity lead to _theocrasia_—Jewish settlements in
Phrygia and their apostasy—Addiction of Phrygian Jews to magic—Their
connection with Cabala uncertain—Ineffable First Cause of the
Ophites—The Great Light or Supreme Being at once Father-and-Son—Female
Deity necessary in Phrygia—Formation of Supreme Triad of Father, Mother,
and Son—Messenger of Triad called Christos—Creation of Universe by
Powers intermediate between God and man, and Legend of Sophia—Sophia’s
son Ialdabaoth the Demiurge, the seven heavens, and their rulers—The
Ophiomorphus or serpent-shaped god, whence derived—Passions of mankind
derived from Ophiomorphus, but latter not bad—Creation of Man by
planetary powers—The seven earthly demons, Talmud, and Cabala—Man’s soul
brought from above by Christos—The soul of the world and the
Mysteries—Ophites followers of Jesus, but believe in salvation through
Mysteries—Scheme of redemption and abstinence from generation—Composite
nature of Jesus, His earthly life, passion, and resurrection—Rites
attributed to Ophites—Naassene Hymn and its explanation—Changes of man’s
soul and _Gospel according to the Egyptians_—Necessity of guide through
next world like _Book of the Dead_—Celsus’ Diagram described and
explained—“Defences” or Apologiae of soul added by Origen—Explanation of
and commentary on Diagram and Defences—Spread and decay of Ophite
sect—Gradual modification of their doctrines and connection with the
_Pistis Sophia_—Apocryphal Gospels used by Ophites: extracts
quoted—Ophites apply fantastic interpretation to all literature 25-82


CHAPTER IX

POST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: VALENTINUS

Early Ophites probably uneducated—General softening of manners under
Julian Emperors and development of morality—Change in ethical ideals of
Gnosticism probably starts in Alexandria—Doctrines of Saturninus and
Basilides—Basilides’ system never intended for public use and probably
merges in that of Valentinus—Links with Simon Magus and Ophites—Success
of Valentinus’ teaching and abuse of him by Fathers—Valentinus’
theology: Bythos either bi-sexual or makes syzygy with Sigê—Emanation of
Ogdoad—Valentinus’ statements as to this possibly metaphors—Emanation of
Decad and Dodecad—Names of Aeons and their explanation—Sophia and her
Fall in Valentinus’ system—Her Ectroma and emanation of Christos, the
Holy Spirit, and the Cross—Sophia Without and Jesus the Joint Fruit of
the Pleroma—Formation of worlds from passions of Sophia Without and
their rulers—The different natures of men and demons—The Heavenly
Banquet—Valentinus’ predestinarian views contrasted with
Ophites’—Salvation of Psychics by Jesus—-Valentinus’ account of
Crucifixion doubtful—Life of Valentinus—His successors—Italic School:
Ptolemy, Secundus, and Heracleon—Anatolic School: Axionicus, Bardesanes,
Theodotus, and Alexander—Life of Bardesanes and his Hymns—Valentinus’
innovations on Christianity and attitude of early Fathers towards
them—His use of metaphor and “God is Love”—Exegesis of Valentinus and
his followers and his pastoral attitude—Did Valentinus ever attempt to
break with Church or to found secret sect?—Valentinus’ compliance with
heathenism attracts rich and learned—Dangers of this for
Church—Proceedings of Marcus—-Spread of sect after Valentinus’
death—Ptolemy’s letter to Flora—Egypt natural home of sect—Its
Decay—Half-way house between earlier Gnosticism and Catholicism 83-133


CHAPTER X

THE SYSTEM OF THE PISTIS SOPHIA AND ITS RELATED TEXTS

Description of the _Pistis Sophia_ MS.—Story of two first
parts—Pre-terrestrial acts of Jesus—Incarnation and Second Ascension
with address of the Powers—Arrangement of Heavenly Worlds and their
occupants: the Powers above and below the Veil: those of the Right,
Middle, and Left—The starry world—Adventures of Jesus’ passage to the
upper worlds—He changes the course of the stars—Meeting of Jesus with
_Pistis Sophia_ and her history—Is the _Pistis Sophia_ the
_Interrogations of Mary_?—Ophite features in _Pistis Sophia_—Valentinian
ones more marked—Joys of elect in next world and places according to
mysteries—Mysteries are sacraments—Eucharistic grace revealed in
book—-Complete union of worshippers with deity confined to few—Egyptian
features in book—Existing MS., Coptic version of Greek text—Original
work probably by Valentinus—_The Texts of the Saviour_: a thaumaturgic
work—Its continuation—_Texts of the Saviour_ later than _Pistis Sophia_
and quotations from them—Are the _Texts_ by Marcus the Magician?—The
Bodleian Papyrus Bruce and its divisions—One fragment must be later than
_Pistis Sophia_—Another connected with the _Texts of the Saviour_—Dr
Karl Schmidt’s views as to date, etc. discussed—Increase of post-mortem
terrors in later books, a peculiarly Egyptian feature—Degeneration of
Gnosticism in Egypt and its magical tendencies—Ill effects of this upon
Egyptian Christianity—Services rendered to Church by Gnosticism
generally 134-202


CHAPTER XI

MARCION

Increase of anti-Jewish feeling in Rome under Antoninus Pius—History of
Marcion—Terror of Church at Marcion’s doctrine—Uncompromising character
of Marcionism—Marcion’s expurgation of Scripture—His _Antitheses_—His
Two Gods—His Docetic views—His anti-Jewish teaching—His treatment of the
Pauline Epistles—His abhorrence of allegory—The original nature of his
system and its resemblance to Protestantism—Puritanism of
Marcionites—History of Marcionism—Rise of sects within it—Marcion’s
follower Apelles leans towards Catholicism—Tatian’s, Encratites’, and
other variations of Marcionism—After Constantine, many Marcionites
rejoin Church—Others coalesce with Manichaeans—Failure of Marcion’s
attempted reform—Interest of Marcion’s heresy for later ages 203-223


CHAPTER XII

THE WORSHIP OF MITHRAS

Reaction of East towards Persia in Roman times—Struggle between Rome and
Persia only closes with Mahommedan Invasion—Rome leans to Persian
fashions and proclaims Mithras protector of Empire—How Mithraism reached
Rome—Its propagation by the soldiery—Mithras may have been originally
god of Western Asia—His place in Persian religion—Magism, its tenets and
connection with magic—And with astrology—Uncertainty as to Mithraic
tenets and Cumont’s theory—Roman ideas as to Ormuzd and
Ahriman—Connection of Mithras with the Sun—The Legend of
Mithras—Explanation of Tauroctony—The Mithraic Eucharist or
Banquet—Mithras probably the only god for his worshippers—His position
midway between heaven and earth—Ahriman in Mithraism—Identified with
Greek Hades—Lord of Destiny—The seven spheres in Mithraism—Eclecticism
of Mithraics as to worship of other gods—Possibly as to Christianity
also—The Mysteries of Mithras—The seven degrees of initiation—Privileges
of higher initiates doubtful—The so-called Mithraic Liturgy—The priests
and ceremonies of Mithraism—Likeness of Mithraism to Freemasonry and its
political uses—Decline of Mithraism on loss of Dacia—Its extinction
under Gratian—Exclusion of women from mysteries drawback to
Mithraism—Not attractive save to soldiers—Survivals of Mithraism in
royal titles—And in magic and astrology 224-276


CHAPTER XIII

MANES AND THE MANICHAEANS

Contrast between Mithraism and Manichaeism—Life and Death of
Manes—Ardeshîr, son of Sassan, finds religion necessary to
State—Restores Zoroastrianism—Manichaeism a Zoroastrian heresy—Christian
account of origin of Manichaeism too late—Manes’ cardinal doctrines
Persian—Conflict between Light and Darkness—Satan and the First
Man—Defeat of latter and creation of Universe—The Redemption of the
Light—Birth and ancestry of Adam—Jesus sent as Saviour to
Adam—Infidelity of Eve and its results—Likeness of these to Mandaite
stories—Rôles of Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus in Manichaeism—The
salvation and transmigration of souls—The death of the perfect
righteous—Of the Hearer—Distinction between Perfect and Hearer peculiar
to Manichaeism—Obligations of Hearers—Hatred of Manes for Jews—Manes
aims at syncretic religion—MSS. found at Turfan prove chameleon-like
character of Manichaeism—Manichaeans are Christians among Christians,
Buddhists among Buddhists—Manichaean Cosmogony and Anthropogony in Bar
Khôni and the Turkestan MSS.—-Organization of Manichaean Church—Ritual
of Manichaeans confined to prayers and hymns—Manichaean prayers from
Mahommedan sources—_Khuastuanift_ or Manichaean Litany from Turkestan
given with commentary—Perfect redeem Light by eating food—Hearers’
fasts help scheme of redemption—Sacrament among Manichaeans
doubtful—Symbolical pictures in Manichaean Churches—Festivals of the
Bema, Christmas, and Sunday—Manichaean Scriptures—Manichaean treatise
found at Tunhuang—The two great archangels and the division of the
sexes—History of Manichaeism 277-357


CONCLUSION

End of Paganism—Supremacy of Christianity in West—Its borrowings from
its defeated rivals—Triumph of Christianity survival of fittest 358-361

Index 362-425




                              CHAPTER VII
                        POST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS


It will be seen, from what has been said in the first volume, that, even
at the beginning of the Christian era, there was no lack of αἵρεσις or
choice of creeds offered to those peoples of the Levant who had outgrown
their national religions; and it may be a surprise to many that more
notice was not taken by the Christians of the Apostolic age of these
early essays at a universal faith. Some writers, indeed, among whom
Bishop Lightfoot is perhaps the most notable, have thought that they
could detect allusions to them in the Canonical writings, and that by
the “worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which man hath
not seen, vainly puffed up by the understanding of his flesh[1]” which
St Paul condemns in the Epistle to the Colossians, must be understood
the teachings of Gnostic sects already in existence[2]. Others have gone
further, and think that the Fourth Gospel was itself written under
Gnostic influence[3], and that the Apocalypse attributed to the same
author vituperates under the name of the Nicolaitans a Christian sect
professing Gnostic tenets[4]. Even if this be so, however, the
comparatively late date assigned to all these documents[5] must prevent
their being received as evidence of what happened in the earliest stage
of the Christian Church; and we find no proof that Gnosticism ever
seriously competed for popular favour with orthodox Christianity until
well into the IInd century[6]. That the first Christians would take
little heed either of organized religions like that of the Alexandrian
divinities, or of the speculations of the Orphic poets and of such sects
as the Simonians is plain, when we consider the way in which their
expectation of the Parusia or Second Coming dominated every moment of
their lives[7]. They believed with the unquestioning faith of children
that their dead Master would presently return to the earth, and that it
would then be destroyed to make way for a new state of things in which,
while the majority of mankind would be condemned to everlasting fire,
His followers should taste all the joys of Paradise. With this before
their eyes, they turned, as has been said, their possessions into a
common fund[8], they bound themselves together in a strict association
for mutual help and comfort, and they set to work to sweep their fellows
into the Christian fold with an earnestness and an energy that was the
fiercer because the time for its exercise was thought to be so short.
“The Lord is at hand and His reward,” a saying which seems to have been
a password among them[9], was an idea never absent from their minds, and
the result was an outburst of proselytism such as the world till then
had never seen.

    “They saw,” says a writer who was under no temptation to exaggerate
    the charity and zeal of the primitive Church, “their fathers and
    mothers, their sisters and their dearest friends, hurrying onward to
    that fearful pit, laughing and singing, lured on by the fiends whom
    they called the gods. They felt as we should feel were we to see a
    blind man walking towards a river bank.... Who that could hope to
    save a soul by tears and supplications would remain quiescent as men
    do now?.... In that age every Christian was a missionary. The
    soldier sought to win recruits for the heavenly host; the prisoner
    of war discoursed to his Persian jailer; the slave girl whispered
    the gospel in the ears of her mistress as she built up the mass of
    towered hair; there stood men in cloak and beard at street corners
    who, when the people, according to the manners of the day, invited
    them to speak, preached, not the doctrines of the Painted Porch, but
    the words of a new and strange philosophy; the young wife threw her
    arms round her husband’s neck and made him agree to be baptised,
    that their souls might not be parted after death[10]....”

How could people thus preoccupied be expected to concern themselves with
theories of the origin of a world about to perish, or with the
philosophic belief that all the gods of the nations were but varying
forms of one supreme and kindly power?

Before the end of the Ist century, however, this belief in the immediate
nearness of the Second Coming had died away[11]. The promise that the
second Gospel puts into the mouth of Jesus that some of His hearers
should not taste of death until they saw the Son of Man come with
power[12], had become incapable of fulfilment by the death of the last
of those who had listened to Him. Nor were all the converts to the faith
which His immediate disciples had left behind them possessed with the
same simple faith and mental equipment as themselves[13]. To the poor
fishermen and peasants of Judaea had succeeded the slaves and freedmen
of great houses—including even Caesar’s own,—some of them professionally
versed in the philosophy of the time, and all with a greater or less
acquaintance with the religious beliefs of the non-Jewish citizens of
the great Roman Empire[14]. The preachings and journeys of St Paul and
other missionaries had also brought into the Christian Church many
believers of other than Jewish blood, together with the foreign
merchants and members of the Jewish communities scattered throughout the
Roman world, who were better able than the Jews of Palestine to
appreciate the stability and the organized strength of the Roman Empire
and to desire an alliance with it. To ask such men, deeply engaged as
many of them were in the pursuit of wealth, to join in the temporary
communism and other-worldliness practised by the first Christian Church
would have been as futile as to expect the great Jewish banking-houses
of the present day to sell all that they have and give it to the poor.

Another cause that profoundly altered the views of the early Christian
communities must have been the catastrophe and final dispersion of the
Jewish nation. Up to the time of the destruction of the Temple of
Jerusalem under Titus, the Christians not only regarded themselves as
Jews[15], but were looked upon by such of the other subjects of Rome as
had happened to have heard of them, as merely one sect the more of a
race always factious and given to internal dissensions. Yet even in St
Paul’s time, the Christians were exposed to a bitter persecution at the
hands of those orthodox Jews who seemed to the Gentile world to be their
co-religionists[16], and it is probable that in the outbreak of
fanaticism attending the first Jewish war, they suffered severely at the
hands of both combatants[17]. The burning of the Temple must also have
been a crushing blow to all who looked for a literal and immediate
fulfilment of the Messianic hope, and its result was to further
accentuate the difference between the Christians and the Jews[18].
Moreover, the hatred and scorn felt by these last for all other members
of the human race had now been recognized by the Gentiles[19], and the
repeated insurrections attempted by the Jews between the time of Titus
and the final war of extermination under Hadrian showed that these
feelings were shared by the Jewish communities outside Palestine[20]. It
was therefore not at all the time which worldly-wise and prudent men, as
many of the later Christian converts were, would choose for identifying
themselves with a race which not only repudiated the relationship in the
most practical way, but had lately exposed themselves on other grounds
to the deserved execration of the civilized world.

It is, then, by no means surprising that some of the new converts should
have begun to look about them for some compromise between their recently
acquired convictions and the religious beliefs of the Graeco-Roman world
in which they had been brought up, and they found this ready to their
hand in the pre-Christian sects which we have ventured above to class
together under the generic name of Gnostic. In the Orphic poems, they
found the doctrine of successive ages of the world, each with its
different characteristics, which coincided well enough with the repeated
declaration of the Christians that the old world was passing away,—as
was indeed the fact since the conquests of Alexander[21]. They found,
too, both in the Orphic poems and in the mixed religions like that of
the Alexandrian divinities which had sprung from the doctrines taught by
these poems, the legend of a god dying and rising again for the
salvation of mankind told in a way which had many analogies with the
Gospel narratives of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus[22]. Among
the Essenes, too, who may have owed, as has been said above, some of
their doctrines to Orphic inspiration, they found all the modest virtues
of sobriety, chastity, and mutual help which had already distinguished
the Christian Church above all the other religious associations of the
time. And among both the Orphics and the Essenes was to be noticed the
strained and fanciful system of interpretation by allegory and figure
which enabled them to put their own construction upon the words not only
of the books of the Jewish Canon, but of those writings which had begun
to circulate among the scattered Christian communities as containing the
authentic teaching of Jesus and His immediate disciples[23]. Add to this
that the Simonians, and no doubt other pre-Christian Gnostic sects of
which we have lost all trace, had already shown the mixed populations of
the Levant how to reconcile the innovations of a teacher of impressive
and commanding personality with their own ancestral traditions[24], and
that the many mysteries then diffused throughout the ancient world
offered a ready means of propagating new doctrines under cover of
secrecy; and it will be seen that most of the sources from which the
founders of the great post-Christian sects afterwards drew their systems
were then lying open and ready to hand.

The prize which awaited success was, moreover, no mean one. It is
sometimes said that the only distinction that awaited a leader of the
Church at this time was the distinction of being burned alive[25]. Yet
the fear of impeachment to be followed by a still more horrible death
never prevented English statesmen in the XVIIth century from struggling
with each other for place and power; while the State had not as yet made
any serious attempt to suppress the propagation of Christianity by
force. On the other hand, a Christian bishop, even at this early date,
occupied a position which was really superior to that of most
functionaries of the secular State. Gifted with almost complete power
over his flock in temporal as well as in spiritual matters, he was at
once their judge and their adviser; and, so long as there were Pagan
emperors on the throne, the faithful were forbidden to come to any
tribunal but his[26]. His judgments, too, had a greater sanction than
those of any temporal judge; for while he could not indeed lawfully
condemn any of his hearers to death, he had in the sentence of
excommunication which he alone could pronounce, the power of cutting
them off from eternal life. The adoration with which he was regarded by
them also surpassed the respect paid to proconsul or legate[27]; and the
literature of the time is full of allusions to the way in which, when
brought before the temporal rulers, he was attended by weeping
multitudes who crowded round him even in prison, imploring his blessing
and kissing his fetters[28]. Hence it is not to be wondered at that such
a position was eagerly sought after, that envy of the episcopate was the
principal sin against which the Christian writers of the sub-Apostolic
age warned their readers[29], and that it is to the disappointment at
failing to attain the highest places in the orthodox Church that they
ascribe the foundation of all the principal post-Christian sects[30].
Without taking this accusation as literally correct, it is plain that
the chance of irresponsible power over those whom they could convince
must have proved a most alluring bait to religious-minded persons who
were also ambitious and intellectual men of the world[31].

Thus it came about that during the IInd and IIIrd centuries, there arose
more than one teacher who set himself to construct a system which should
enable its votaries to retain the Hellenistic culture which Alexander’s
conquests had spread throughout the whole civilized world with the
religious and moral ideas which the enthusiasm and energy of the first
Christians had begun to diffuse among the lower classes of citizens[32].
Alexandria, the natural meeting-place between the East and West, was no
doubt the scene of the first of these attempts, and the writings of
Philo, fortunately still extant, had already shown the way in which the
allegorical system of interpretation could be used to this end. That
many of the founders of post-Christian Gnostic sects were Alexandrian
Jews is the constant tradition of the Christian Church, and is
antecedently probable enough[33]. But other Gnostic leaders were
certainly not Alexandrians and came from centres sufficiently distant
from Egypt to show that the phenomenon was very widely spread, and that
the same causes produced the same results in the most distant places and
entirely outside the Jewish community. Marcion, the founder of the
Marcionite Church, was a native of Pontus. Saturnilus or Saturninus—the
name is spelt differently by Irenaeus and Hippolytus—came from Antioch,
Theodotus from Byzantium, others, such as Cerdo, and probably Prepon the
Syrian, began teaching in Rome, while we hear of a certain Monoimus, who
is said to have been an Arab[34]. Most of these are to us merely names,
only very brief summaries of the different systems founded or professed
by them having been preserved in the heresiologies compiled by the
Fathers of the Church both before and immediately after the alliance of
the Christian Church with the Roman State under Constantine.

Of these treatises, the two, which, up to about sixty years ago, formed
our main sources of information with regard to the Gnostics of the
sub-Apostolic age[35], are the writings of St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons
about the year 177 A.D., and of Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia in
Cyprus, who tells us he wrote in the seventh year of Gratian or 374 A.D.
The first of these is considerably later in date than the heresiarchs in
refutation of whose doctrines he wrote his five books “against
Heresies”; and although he is most probably honest in his account of
their tenets, it is evident that Irenaeus was incapable of
distinguishing between the opinions of the founders of the sects which
he controverts and those of their followers and successors. Epiphanius,
on the other hand, wrote when the Catholic Church was already
triumphant, and his principal object seems to have been to blacken the
memory of those competitors whom she had already outdistanced in the
race for popularity and power. Hence he spares no pains to rake together
every story which theological hatred and unclean imagination had ever
invented against her opponents and rivals; while his contempt for
consistency and the rules of evidence show the intellectual depths to
which the war which orthodox Christianity had from the first waged
against Hellenistic culture had reduced the learning of the age. The
language in which he and the other Catholic writers on heresy describe
the Gnostics is, indeed, the first and most salient instance of that
intolerance for any other opinions than their own, which a recent writer
of great authority declares the Apostles and their successors derived
from their Jewish nationality[36]. “The first-born of Satan,” “seducers
of women,” “savage beasts,” “scorpions,” “ravening wolves,” “demoniacs,”
“sorcerers,” and “atheists” were the mildest terms in which Epiphanius
and his fellow heresiologists can bring themselves to speak of the
sectaries. They afford ample justification for the remark of the
philosophic Emperor Julian that “no wild beasts are so hostile to men as
Christian sects in general are to one another[37].”

From this lack of trustworthy evidence, the discovery in 1842 at a
convent on Mt Athos of eight out of the ten books of the
_Philosophumena_ now generally attributed to Hippolytus, Bishop of
“Portus Romana” in 230 A.D.[38], seemed likely to deliver us. The work
thus recovered bore the title of the _Refutation of all Heresies_, and
did succeed in giving us a fairly clear and coherent account of some
twenty Gnostic sects, the very existence of many of which was previously
unknown to us. Moreover, it went a good way beyond its predecessors in
pointing out that the real origin of all the heretical sects then
existing was to be found, not so much in the diabolic inspiration which
other writers thought sufficient to account for it, as in the
Pythagorean, Platonic, and other philosophies then in vogue, together
with the practice of astrology and magic rites which had come to form an
important part of all the Pagan religions then popular. It also showed a
very extensive and apparently first-hand acquaintance with the works of
the Gnostic leaders, and the lengthy quotations which it gives from
their writings enable us to form a better idea than we had before been
able to do both of what the Gnostic tenets really were and of the
arguments by which they were propagated. Unfortunately the text of the
_Philosophumena_ has not been able to withstand the assaults of those
textual critics who have already reduced the Book of Genesis to a
patchwork of several authors writing at widely separate times and
places, and writers like Dr. Salmon and Prof. Stähelin have laboured to
show that the author of the _Philosophumena_ was taken in by a forger
who had himself concocted all the documents which Hippolytus quotes as
being the work of different heresiarchs[39]. Their conclusions, although
they do not seem to put the matter entirely beyond doubt, have been
accepted by many theological writers, especially in Germany, and in the
course of the discussion the fact has emerged that the documents quoted
can hardly go back to an earlier date than the year 200 A.D.[40] It is
therefore unlikely that Hippolytus had before him the actual words of
the heresiarchs whom he is endeavouring to refute; and if the
_Philosophumena_ were all we had to depend upon, we might despair of
knowing what “the great Gnostics of Hadrian’s time” really taught.

The reason for this paucity of documents is also plain enough. “The
antidote to the scorpion’s bite,” to use a patristic figure of
speech[41], was felt by the early Church to be the actual cautery, and
its leaders spared no pains to rout out and burn the writings of the
heretics pending the time when they could apply the same treatment to
their authors. Even before their alliance with Constantine had put the
resources of the State at their disposal, they had contrived to use the
secular arm for this purpose. In several persecutions, notably that of
Diocletian, which was probably the most severe of them all, the
Christian scriptures were particularly sought for by the Inquisitors of
the State, and many of the orthodox boasted that they had arranged that
the police should find the writings of the heretics in their stead[42].
Later, when it came to the turn of the Christians to dictate imperial
edicts, the possession of heretical writings was made punishable with
severe penalties[43]. Between orthodox Christian and Pagan it is a
wonder that any have survived to us.

A lucky chance, however, has prevented us from being entirely ignorant
of what the Gnostics had to say for themselves. In 1851, a MS. which had
been known to be in the British Museum since 1778, was published with a
translation into a curious mixture of Latin and Greek by the learned
Petermann, and turned out to include a sort of Gospel coming from some
early Gnostic sect[44]. From a note made on it by a writer who seems to
have been nearly contemporary with its scribes, it is known as _Pistis
Sophia_ or “_Faith-Wisdom_”; and the same MS. also contains fragments of
other works coming from a cognate source. In 1891, a papyrus in the
Bodleian Library at Oxford, which had been brought into this country in
1769 by the traveller Bruce, was also published with a French
translation by M. Amélineau, an ex-Abbé who has long made the later
Egyptian language his peculiar study, and proved to contain two
documents connected with the system disclosed in the _Pistis
Sophia_[45]. Both MSS. are in Coptic of the dialect of the Sahid or
Upper Egypt, to which fact they probably owe their escape from the
notice of the Byzantine Inquisitors; and they purport to contain
revelations as to the next world and the means of attaining salvation
therein made by Jesus on His return to earth after the Resurrection.
Although these several documents were evidently not all written at one
time and place, and cannot be assigned to a single author, the notes and
emendations appearing on the MSS. show that most of them must have been
in the possession of members of the same school as their composers; and
that therefore we have here for the first time direct and authentic
evidence of the Gnostic tenets, as put forward by their adherents
instead of by their opponents.

The collation of these documents with the excerpts from other Gnostic
writings appearing in early writers like Clement of Alexandria who were
not professed heresiologists[46], shows that the post-Christian Gnostic
sects had more opinions in common than would be gathered from the
statements of St Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius, and that they
probably fulfilled a real want of the age[47]. All of them seem to have
held that there was one Supreme Being, the source of all good, and that
matter was inherently malignant and opposed to him. All of them, too,
seem to have taught the perfectibility of man’s nature, the salvation of
at any rate the majority of mankind, and the possibility of their rising
in the scale of being; and all of them held that this was to be effected
mainly by means of certain mysteries or sacramental rites which were
assumed to have a magical efficacy. All these fundamental
characteristics find their origin in the beliefs of the pre-Christian
religions and religious associations described above, and doubtless owed
much to their influence. But with these, there was now combined for the
first time the recognition of the divinity of One who, while appearing
upon earth as a man among men, was yet thought by all to be endowed with
a greater share of the Divine nature than they. Orpheus, Moses, Homer,
and the Jewish prophets had in turn been claimed as religious teachers
who were divinely inspired; but Jesus was asserted by every later
Gnostic school of whose teachings we have any evidence to have been
Himself of higher essence and substance than the rest of mankind[48].
How far this assertion was dictated by the necessity for finding a
superhuman authority for the revelation which each Gnostic leader
professed to make to his disciples may be open to question; but in view
of some contemporary controversies it is well to draw attention to the
fact that the Divinity in some shape or other of Jesus, as well as what
is now called His “historicity,” was never for a moment called in
question during the first three centuries by Gnostic or Catholic.
Μονογενής or _Monogenes_[49]—a word which Catholic writers later
confused with Μονογεννητός or “only-begotten,” but which is best
represented by the corresponding Latin expression _unicus_ or “unique”
(_i.e._ one of a kind)—is the word in which the Gnostics summed up their
conceptions of the nature of Jesus[50].

This belief, however, led to consequences which do not at first sight
seem to follow from it. The gods of classical antiquity were indeed
supposed to be of like passions with ourselves, and the Greek of Homer’s
time never thought it shame to attribute to them jealousy or lust or
fear or vanity or any other of the weaknesses which afflict us[51]. But
the one feature besides their beauty that distinguished the Greek gods
from humanity was their immortality or freedom from death; and if
demigods like Heracles were said to have gone through the common
experience of mortals, this was held as proof that their apotheosis or
deification did not take place until they had left the earth[52]. So
much was this the case that the Greeks are said to have been much amused
when they first beheld the Egyptians wailing for the death of Osiris,
declaring that if he were a god he could not be dead, while if he were
not, his death was not to be lamented[53]; and Plutarch, when repeating
the story to his countrymen, thought it necessary to explain that in his
view the protagonists in the Osiris and Set legend were neither gods nor
men, but “great powers” or daemons not yet deified and in the meantime
occupying a place between the two[54]. The same difficulty was, perhaps,
less felt by the other Mediterranean peoples, among whom, as we have
seen, the idea of a god who died and rose again was familiar enough[55];
but the Gnostic leaders must always have had before their eyes the
necessity of making Christianity acceptable to persons in possession of
that Hellenistic culture which then dominated the world, and which still
forms the root of all modern civilization. How, then, were they to
account for the fact that their God Jesus, whether they considered Him
as the Logos or Word of Philo, or the Monogenes or Unique Power of the
Supreme Being, had suffered a shameful death by sentence of the Roman
procurator in Judaea?

The many different answers that they gave to this question showed more
eloquently than anything else the difficulties with which it was
surrounded. Simon, according to Hippolytus, said that Jesus only
appeared on earth as a man, but was not really one, and seemed to have
suffered in Judaea, although he had not really done so[56]. Basilides
the Egyptian, the leader of another sect, held, according to Irenaeus,
that the body of Jesus was a phantasm and had no real existence, Simon
of Cyrene having been crucified in his stead[57]; while Hippolytus, who
seems to have drawn his account of Basilides’ teaching from a different
source from that used by his predecessor, makes him say that only the
body of Jesus suffered and relapsed into “formlessness[58],” but that
His soul returned into the different worlds whence it was drawn.
Saturninus, another heresiarch, held, according to both authors, to the
phantasmal theory of Jesus’ body, which attained such popularity among
other Gnostic sects that “Docetism,” as the opinion was called, came to
be looked upon by later writers as one of the marks of heresy[59], and
Hippolytus imagines that there were in existence sects who attached such
importance to this point that they called themselves simply
Docetics[60]. Valentinus, from whose teaching, as we shall see, the
principal system of the _Pistis Sophia_ was probably derived, also
adhered to this Docetic theory, and said that the body of Jesus was not
made of human flesh, but was constructed “with unspeakable art” so as to
resemble it, the dove-like form which had descended into it at His
baptism leaving it before the Crucifixion[61]. According to Irenaeus,
too, Valentinus held that the Passion of Jesus was not intended as an
atonement or sacrifice for sin, as the Catholics taught, but merely as a
symbol or reflection of something that was taking place in the bosom of
the Godhead[62].

Another point in which the chief post-Christian Gnostic sects seem to
have resembled one another is the secrecy with which their teachings
were surrounded. Following strictly the practice of the various
mysteries—the Eleusinian, the Isiac, Cabiric, and others—in which the
Mediterranean god, whether called Dionysos, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, or by
any other name, was worshipped, none were admitted to a knowledge of
their doctrines without undergoing a long, arduous, and expensive course
of initiation. More than one Gnostic teacher is said to have told his
hearers to conceal from men what they were, or in other words not to let
it be known that they were affiliated to the sect[63], and all the
Fathers bear witness to the way in which in time of persecution the
Gnostics escaped by professing any faith that would satisfy the Roman
authorities. By doing so, they laid themselves open to the accusation
hurled at them with great virulence by the Church, that their secret
rites and doctrines were so filthy as to shock human nature if made
public—an accusation which at the first appearance of Christianity had
been brought against the Catholics, and which the Church has ever since
made use of against any sect which has differed from her, repeating it
even at the present day against the Jews and the Freemasons[64]. There
is, however, no reason why the accusation should be better founded in
one case than in the others; and it is plain in any event that the
practice of secrecy when expedient followed directly from the magical
ideas which have been shown above to be the foundation of the dogmas of
all the pre-Christian Gnostics, besides permeating religions like that
of the Alexandrian divinities. The willingness of the post-Christian
Gnostics to subscribe to any public profession of faith that might be
convenient was no doubt due to the same cause[65]. As has been well
said, to the true Gnostic, Paganism, Christianity, and Mahommedanism are
merely veils[66]. The secret words and formulas delivered, and the
secret rites which the initiate alone knows, are all that is necessary
to assure him a distinguished place in the next world; and, armed with
these, he can contemplate with perfect indifference all outward forms of
worship.

These and other points which the post-Christian Gnostic sects seem to
have had in common[67] can therefore be accounted for by their common
origin, without accepting the theory of the textual critics that the
Fathers had been deceived by an impostor who had made one document do
duty several times over. Yet until we have the writings of the
heresiarchs actually in our hands, we must always be in doubt as to how
far their opinions have been correctly recorded for us. The
post-Christian Gnostic sects have been compared with great aptness to
the Protestant bodies which have sprung up outside the Catholic Church
since the German Reformation[68], and the analogy in most respects seems
to be perfect. Yet it would probably be extremely difficult for a bishop
of the Church of Rome or of that of England to give within the compass
of an heresiology like those quoted above an account of the tenets of
the different sects in England and America, without making grave and
serious mistakes in points of detail. The difficulty would arise from
want of first-hand knowledge, in spite of the invention of printing
having made the dissemination of information on such subjects a thousand
times more general than in sub-Apostolic times, and of the fact that the
modern sects, unlike their predecessors, do not seek to keep their
doctrines secret. But the analogy shows us another cause of error. The
“Free Churches,” as they are called in modern parlance, have from the
outset shown themselves above all things fissiparous, and it is enough
to mention the names of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Socinus, Wesley, and
Chalmers to show how hopelessly at variance the teachings of the
founders of sects at first sight are. But in spite of this, there seems
to have been always a sort of fluidity of doctrine among them, and
hardly any of the Nonconformist sects now profess the dogmas with which
they first came into existence. The changes in this respect, however,
never involve the borrowing of new tenets from sources external to them
all, but seem to be brought about by a sort of interfiltration between
one sect and another. Thus, for example, for many centuries after the
Reformation the majority of the dissident sects which rejected all
connection with the Catholic Church were among the stoutest defenders of
the Divinity of Jesus, and the Socinians who held the contrary opinion
were in an entirely negligible minority. At the present day, however,
the tendency seems to run the other way, and many Nonconformist bodies
are leaning towards Unitarian doctrines, although few of them probably
have ever heard the name of Socinus. A similar tendency to
interpenetration of doctrines early showed itself among the Gnostics;
and there can be little doubt that it sometimes led to a fusion or
amalgamation between sects of widely differing origin. Hence it is not
extraordinary that certain tenets are sometimes recorded by the Fathers
as peculiar to one Gnostic leader and sometimes to another, and to trace
accurately their descent, it would be necessary to know the exact point
in the history of each sect at which such tenets appeared. But the
Fathers seldom thought of distinguishing between the opinions of an
heresiarch and those of his successors, and the literary habits of the
time were not in favour of accurate quotation of documents or even of
names[69]. This forms the chief difficulty in dealing with the history
of the Gnostic teaching, and although the discovery of fresh documents
contemporary with those we now possess would undoubtedly throw
additional light upon the subject, it is probable that it will never be
entirely overcome.

Generally speaking, however, Gnosticism played a most important part in
the history of Christianity. Renan’s view that it was a disease which,
like croup, went near to strangling the infant Church is often
quoted[70]; but in the long run it is probable that Gnosticism was on
the whole favourable to her development. In religion, sentiment often
plays a larger part than reason; and any faith which would enable men of
weight and influence to continue the religious practices in which they
had been brought up, with at the outset but slight modification, was
sure of wide acceptance. There seems no doubt that the earlier Gnostics
continued to attend the mysteries of the Chthonian deities in Greece and
of their Oriental analogues, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and the like
elsewhere, while professing to place upon what they there saw a
Christian interpretation[71]. Here they acted like the little leaven
that leaveneth the whole lump, and this did much to spread the knowledge
of the new faith among those spiritually-minded Gentiles, who would
never have felt any interest in Christianity so long as it remained
merely a branch of Judaism[72]. Most of them, moreover, sooner or later
abandoned their Gnosticism, and became practising members of the
Catholic Church, who sometimes went a long way to meet them. As Renan
has said, none of them ever relapsed into Paganism[73], and in this way
the so-called heresies became at once the feeders of orthodox
Christianity and its richest recruiting-ground[74]. They offered in fact
an easy road by which the wealthy, the learned, and the highly-placed
could pass from Paganism to Christianity without suffering the
inconvenience imposed upon the first followers of the Apostles.

On the other hand, it may be argued that the Church in receiving such
recruits lost much of that simplicity of doctrine and practice to which
it had hitherto owed her rapid and unvarying success. The Gnostics
brought with them into their new faith the use of pictures and statues,
of incense, and of all the paraphernalia of the worship of the heathen
gods. Baptism which, among the Jewish community in which Christianity
was born, was an extremely simple rite, to be performed by anybody and
entirely symbolical in its character[75], became an elaborate ceremony
which borrowed the name as well as many of the adjuncts of initiation
into the Mysteries. So, too, the Agape (love-feast) or common meal,
which in pre-Christian times was, as we have seen, common to all Greek
religious associations unconnected with the State, was transformed by
the Gnostics into a rite surrounded by the same provisions for secrecy
and symbolizing the same kind of sacrifice as those which formed the
central point of the mystic drama at Eleusis and elsewhere. Both these
sacraments, as they now came to be called, were thought to be invested
with a magical efficacy, and to demand for their proper celebration a
priesthood as exclusive as, and a great deal more ambitious than, that
of Eleusis or Alexandria. The daring speculations of the Gnostics as to
the nature of the godhead and the origin of the world also forced upon
the Catholics the necessity of formulating her views on these points and
making adhesion to them a test of membership[76]. To do so was possibly
to choose the smaller of two evils, yet it can hardly be denied that the
result of the differences of opinion thus aroused was to deluge the
world with blood and to stay the progress of human knowledge for more
than a thousand years[77]. It is said that if Gnosticism had not been
forcibly suppressed, as it was directly the Christian priesthood
obtained a share in the government of the State, Christianity would have
been nothing but a battle-ground for warring sects, and must have
perished from its own internal dissensions. It may be so; but it is at
least as possible that, if left unmolested, many of the wilder sects
would soon have withered away from their own absurdity, and that none of
the others would have been able to endure for long. In this respect
also, the history of the post-Reformation sects offers an interesting
parallel.

Be that as it may, it is plain that the Catholic Church, in devoting her
energies to the suppression of the Gnostic heresies, lost much of the
missionary power which till then had seemed all-conquering. During the
two centuries which elapsed between the siege of Jerusalem under
Vespasian and the accession of Aurelian, the Church had raised herself
from the position of a tiny Jewish sect to that of the foremost among
the many religions of the Roman Empire. A brief but bloody persecution
under Diocletian convinced the still Pagan Emperors of the impossibility
of suppressing Christianity by force, and the alliance which they were
thus driven to conclude with it enabled the Church to use successfully
against the Gnostics the arm which had proved powerless against the
Catholics[78]. Yet the triumph was a costly one, and was in its turn
followed by a schism which rent the Church in twain more effectually
than the Gnostic speculations could ever have done. In the West, indeed,
the Latin Church was able to convert the barbarians who extinguished the
Western half of the Roman Empire; but in the East, Christianity had to
give way to a younger and more ardent faith. How far this was due to the
means taken by the Church to suppress Gnosticism must still be a matter
of speculation, but it is certain that after her first triumph over
heresy she gained no more great victories.

Footnote 1:

  Col. ii. 18.

Footnote 2:

  Lightfoot, _St Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians_, pp. 90 _sqq._

Footnote 3:

  So A. Jülicher in _Encyc. Bibl._ _s.v._ Gnosis.

Footnote 4:

  Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 23, p. 214, Harvey. Salmon in _Dict. of
  Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Nicolaitans, thinks this an idea peculiar to
  Irenaeus alone and not to be found in the older source from which he
  drew his account of the other Gnostics.

Footnote 5:

  The Canonical Apocalypse was probably written after the siege of
  Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D., while the first unmistakable mention we
  have of St John’s Gospel is by Theophilus of Antioch a hundred years
  later. Earlier quotations from it are anonymous, _i.e._ they give the
  words of the Gospel as in the A.V. but without referring them to any
  specified author. See Duchesne, _Early Christian Church_, Eng. ed. pp.
  102, 192.

Footnote 6:

  Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 22, says that
  the Church was untroubled by heresy until the reign of Trajan.

Footnote 7:

  Hegesippus (see last note) in his account of the martyrdom of “James
  the Brother of the Lord,” _op. cit._ Bk II. c. 23.

Footnote 8:

  See Schmiedel, _Encyc. Bibl._ _s.v._ Community of Goods. Cf. Lucian,
  _de Mort. Peregrini_, c. XIII, and Mozley’s comments in _Dict.
  Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Lucianus.

Footnote 9:

  _Maran atha._ See _Epistle of Barnabas_, c. XXI.

Footnote 10:

  Winwood Reade, _op. cit._ pp. 237 _sqq._

Footnote 11:

  Eugène de Faye, “Formation d’un Doctrine de Dieu au IIme Siècle,”
  _R.H.R._ t. LXIII. (1911), p. 9. He quotes Harnack in his support.

Footnote 12:

  Mark xi. 1.

Footnote 13:

  On the ignorance of the first Christian writers, see de Faye, _op.
  cit._ p. 4.

Footnote 14:

  Origen, _cont. Celsum_, Bk III. c. 12. Cf. Krüger, _La Grande
  Encyclopédie_, Paris, _s.v._ Gnosticisme.

Footnote 15:

  “Those which say they are Jews, but are not”; Rev. ii. 9; _ibid._ iii.
  9. The _Clementine Homilies_, though of much later date, never speak
  of the Christians otherwise than as Jews. Cf. Duchesne, _Early
  Christian Church_, p. 12.

Footnote 16:

  Acts viii. 1.

Footnote 17:

  Renan (_L’Antéchrist_, p. 511, and note 1) gives a passage, which he
  thinks is from Tacitus, showing that Titus aimed at the suppression of
  the Christians as well as the Jews. Doubtless many Christians perished
  in the punitive measures taken in the Ist century against the Jews in
  Antioch and elsewhere. Cf. Josephus, _Wars of the Jews_, Bk VII. c. 3;
  Eusebius, _H. E._ Bk III. cc. 12, 17, 19, 20. It was the persecution
  by the fanatical Jews that compelled the flight of the Christians to
  Pella shortly before the siege. See Eusebius, Bk III. c. 5; Epiph.
  _Haer._ XXIX. c. 7, p. 239, Oehler. The episode of the “Woman clothed
  with the Sun” of the Canonical Apocalypse is supposed by some to refer
  to this.

Footnote 18:

  So that the members of the little Church of Pella who retained the
  name of Jews gradually ceased to be regarded as orthodox by the other
  Christian communities and were called Ebionites. See Renan,
  _L’Antéchrist_, p. 548. Cf. Fuller in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._
  Ebionites for authorities. The connection that Fuller would find
  between the Essenes and the Ebionites seems to rest on little proof.

Footnote 19:

  Thus Mgr Duchesne, _op. cit._ p. 14, says that “St Paul was a Jew by
  birth, imbued with the exclusiveness and disdainful spirit which
  inspired his race and influenced all their dealings with other
  nations.”

Footnote 20:

  Many of the Sicarii and other fanatics managed to escape before the
  catastrophe of the First Jewish War to Egypt and the Cyrenaica, where
  they continued to commit outrages and make rebellion until they
  brought on themselves and their co-religionists the wrath of the
  Romans. See Josephus, _Wars_, Bk VII. cc. 10, 11. Cf. Renan,
  _L’Antéchrist_, p. 539; _id._, _Les Évangiles_, p. 369.

Footnote 21:

  Abel’s _Orphica_, Frgs. 243-248, especially the quotation from
  Nigidius.

Footnote 22:

  See Chapter II, _supra_.

Footnote 23:

  So Renan, _L’Antéchrist_, p. 300, says that the Synoptic Gospels
  probably first took shape in the Church at Pella. Thus he explains the
  so-called “little Apocalypse” of Matthew xxiv., Mark xiii., and Luke
  xxi. Cf. _ibid._, p. 296 and note. For the symbolic construction
  placed upon them by the Gnostics, see Hatch, _H. L._, p. 75.

Footnote 24:

  Hegesippus, who probably wrote about 150 A.D., speaks of Thebuthis,
  Dositheus, and others as leaders of early sects. Eusebius, _Hist.
  Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 22, and Origen (_cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 11) make this
  last a contemporary of Simon Magus. The _Clementine Homilies_ (Bk II.
  c. 24), from whom both authors may have derived their information,
  have a long story about Dositheus being with Simon a follower of John
  the Baptist, and disputing with Simon the headship of the sect. From
  presumably other sources, Hegesippus speaks of the Essenes, the
  Masbothoeans and the Hemero-baptists, for which last see Chapter XIII,
  _infra_, as pre-Christian sects.

Footnote 25:

  Winwood Reade, _op. cit._ p. 244. Probably this is what is meant by
  Gibbon when he says (_Decline and Fall_, Bury’s ed. III. p. 153, n.
  54) that no future bishop of Avila is likely to imitate Priscillian by
  turning heretic, because the income of the see is 20,000 ducats a
  year.

Footnote 26:

  _Apostolical Constitutions_, Bk II. cc. 45, 46, 47. Harnack,
  _Expansion of Christianity_, Eng. ed. II. p. 98 n. 1, gives the date
  of this work as “middle of the 2nd century.” Duchesne, _op. cit._ p.
  109, thinks it is derived from the _Didache_ which he puts not later
  than Trajan.

Footnote 27:

  _Apost. Const._ Bk II. c. 26: “He (_i.e._ the bishop) is your ruler
  and governor; he is your king and potentate; he is next after God,
  your earthly divinity, who has a right to be honoured by you.”

Footnote 28:

  Lucian, _Proteus Peregrinus_, _passim_; _Acts of Paul and Thekla_;
  _Acts of Peter of Alexandria_.

Footnote 29:

  Clement of Rome, _First Epistle to the Corinthians_, c. 44.

Footnote 30:

  So Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 26, pp. 219, 220, Harvey, says it was
  the desire to become a διδάσκαλος or teacher that drove Tatian, once a
  hearer of Justin Martyr’s, into heresy. Hegesippus, _ubi cit._
  _supra_, says that Thebuthis first corrupted the Church, on account of
  his not being made a bishop. For the same accusation in the cases of
  Valentinus and Marcion, see Chapters IX and XI, _infra_.

Footnote 31:

  Celsus _apud_ Origen (_op. cit._ Bk III. cc. 10, 11) says: “Christians
  at first were few in number, and all held like opinions, but when they
  increased to a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each
  wishing to have his own individual party; for this was their object
  from the beginning”—a contention which Origen rebuts.

Footnote 32:

  Thus in Egypt it was almost exclusively the lower classes which
  embraced Christianity at the outset. See Amélineau, “Les Actes Coptes
  du martyre de St Polycarpe” in _P.S.B.A._ vol. X. (1888), p. 392.
  Julian (_Cyr._ VI. p. 206) says that under Tiberius and Claudius there
  were no converts of rank.

Footnote 33:

  Thus Cerinthus, who is made by tradition the opponent of St John, is
  said to have been a Jew and to have been trained in the doctrines of
  Philo at Alexandria (Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ Bk II. § 3). Cf. Neander,
  _Ch. Hist._ (Eng. ed.) vol. II. pp. 42-47. Neander says the same thing
  about Basilides (_op. cit._ p. 47 and note) and Valentinus (p. 71),
  although it is difficult to discover any authority for the statement
  other than the Jewish features in their doctrines. There is more
  evidence for the statement regarding Marcus, the heresiarch and
  magician whom Irenaeus (_op. cit._ Bk I. c. 7) accuses of the
  seduction of Christian women, apparently in his own time, since the
  words of Marcus’ ritual, which the Bishop of Lyons quotes, are in much
  corrupted Hebrew, and the Jewish Cabala was used by him. Renan’s view
  (_Marc Aurèle_, pp. 139 _sqq._) that Christianity in Egypt never
  passed through the Judaeo-Christian stage may in part account for the
  desire of Jewish converts there to set up schools of their own.

Footnote 34:

  For Marcion, see 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
  Chapter IV, _supra_. The unanimity with which all post-Christian
  Gnostics accepted the superhuman nature of Jesus seems to have struck
  Harnack. See his _What is Christianity?_ Eng. ed. 1904, pp. 209, 210.

Footnote 51:

  _Iliad_ I. ll. 560 _sqq._; IV. ll. 57, 330; XIV. ll. 320 _sqq._

Footnote 52:

  _Odyssey_ XI. ll. 600 _sqq._; Plutarch, _Life of Pelopidas_, c. XVI.

Footnote 53:

  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. LXXI.

Footnote 54:

  _Ibid._ cc. XXV., XXVII., XXX.

Footnote 55:

  Probably this was one of the reasons why the Mysteries which showed
  the death of a god had in Greece to be celebrated in secret. See
  Diodorus’ remark (Bk V. c. 77, § 3) that the things which the Greeks
  only handed down in secret were by the Cretans concealed from no one.

Footnote 56:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 19, p. 265, Cruice.

Footnote 57:

  Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 19, II. p. 200, Harvey.

Footnote 58:

  ἀμορφία. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 27, p. 366, Cruice.

Footnote 59:

  Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 18, p. 197, Harvey. Hippolytus, _op.
  cit._ Bk VII. c. 28, p. 368, Cruice.

Footnote 60:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VIII. c. 8.

Footnote 61:

  Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 1, § 13, pp. cxli and 61, Harvey.

Footnote 62:

  _Ibid._ Bk I. c. 1, § 31, pp. cxli and 62, Harvey.

Footnote 63:

  Irenaeus, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 19, § 3, p. 202, Harvey; Hippolytus,
  _op. cit._ Bk IV. c. 24, p. 225, Cruice; Tertullian, _Scorpiace_, c.
  I.

Footnote 64:

  For the accusation against the Christians, see Athenagoras,
  _Apologia_, cc. III., XXXI.; Justin Martyr, _First Apol._ c. XXVI. For
  that against the Jews, Strack, _Le Sang et la fausse Accusation du
  Meurtre Rituel_, Paris, 1893. For that against the Freemasons, “Devil
  Worship and Freemasonry,” _Contemporary Review_ for 1896.

Footnote 65:

  See n. 1, _supra_. So Eusebius speaks of the Simonians receiving
  baptism and slipping into the Church without revealing their secret
  tenets, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk II. c. 1.

Footnote 66:

  Revillout, _Vie et Sentences de Secundus_, Paris, 1873, p. 3, n. 1.

Footnote 67:

  Amélineau, _Le Gnosticisme Égyptien_, p. 75, thus enumerates them: the
  doctrine of emanation, an unknown [_i.e._ an inaccessible and
  incomprehensible] God, the resemblance of the three worlds, the
  aeonology of Simon, and a common cosmology. To this may be added the
  inherent malignity of matter and the belief in salvation by knowledge.
  See Krüger, _La Grande Encyclopédie_, _s.v._ Gnosticisme.

Footnote 68:

  Renan, _Mare Aurèle_, p. 114.

Footnote 69:

  Witness the confusion between Ennoia and Epinoia in Chapter VI, vol.
  I. p. 180, n. 4, _supra_, and between Saturnilus and Saturninus in
  this chapter, p. 9. So Irenaeus and others record the opinions of an
  associate of Marcus whom they call “_Colarbasus_,” a name which modern
  criticism has shown to be a mistake for קול ארבע Kol-arba, “The Voice
  of the Four” or the Supreme Tetrad. See Renan, _Mare Aurèle_, p. 129;
  Hort in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.h.v._ So Clement of Alexandria,
  _Protrept._ c. II. mistakes Evoe, the mystic cry of the Bacchantes,
  for the Eve of Genesis.

Footnote 70:

  Renan, _L’Église Chrétienne_, p. 140.

Footnote 71:

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

Footnote 72:

  As in the case of Clement of Alexandria, who seems to have been
  initiated into most of the heathen mysteries then current. It is to be
  noted, too, that Origen, although he speaks of the Ophites as an
  insignificant sect (see Chapter VIII, _infra_), yet professes to know
  all about their secret opinions.

Footnote 73:

  Renan, _Marc Aurèle_, p. 139.

Footnote 74:

  Thus Ambrose of Milan had been before his conversion a Valentinian,
  Epiphanius a Nicolaitan. See Eusebius, _H.E._ Bk VI. c. 18; Epiph.
  _Haer._ XXVI. c. 17, p. 198, Oehler.

Footnote 75:

  It could be even self-administered, as in the _Acts of Paul and
  Thekla_, where Thekla baptizes herself in the arena. See Tischendorf’s
  text. The _Clementine Homilies_ (Bk XIV. c. 1) show that it could be
  immediately followed by the Eucharist without any intermediate rite or
  preparation. Contrast with this the elaborate ceremonies described by
  Cyril of Jerusalem, where the white-robed band of converts after a
  long catechumenate, including fasting and the communication of secret
  doctrines and passwords, approach on Easter Eve the doors of the
  church where the lights turned darkness into day. See Hatch, _H. L._
  pp. 297, 299.

Footnote 76:

  Duchesne, _Hist. Christian Ch._ p. 32; Harnack, _What is
  Christianity?_ Eng. ed. p. 210.

Footnote 77:

  As Hatch, _H. L._ pp. 274-279, has pointed out, the term όμοοὐσιος,
  which led to so much shedding of Christian blood, first occurs among
  the post-Christian Gnostics, and led in turn to most of the wranglings
  about “substance,” “person,” and the other metaphysical distinctions
  and their result in “strife and murder, the devastation of fair
  fields, the flame of fire and sword” (_ibid._ p. 279). For the
  possibilities of Greek science, had it not been opposed by the Church,
  see _ibid._ p. 26.

Footnote 78:

  See the edict of Constantine, which Eusebius (_Vit. Constantini_, cc.
  LXIV., LXV.) quotes with unholy glee, prohibiting the Gnostics from
  presuming to assemble together either publicly or privately, and
  commanding that their “houses of prayer” should be confiscated and
  handed over to the Catholic Church. Eusebius (_ibid._ c. LXVI.) says
  that the result of this was that the “savage beasts crept secretly
  into the Church,” and continued to disseminate their doctrines by
  stealth. Perhaps such a result was to be expected.




                              CHAPTER VIII
                  POST-CHRISTIAN GNOSTICS: THE OPHITES


Although the Ophites were one of the most widely-spread and in some
respects the most interesting of the heretical sects which came to light
after the foundation of the Christian Church, we know nothing at first
hand about their origin. Philastrius, or Philaster of Brescia, writing
about 380 A.D., includes them among those “who taught heresies before
the Coming of Christ[79]”; but the phrase does not perhaps bear its
apparent meaning, and the late date at which he wrote makes it unlikely
that he possessed any exclusive evidence on the point. A more plausible
tradition, which is common to St Augustine[80], to the tractate _Against
All Heresies_ which passes under the name of Tertullian[81], and to the
similar one attributed to St Jerome[82], is that the Ophites derived
their doctrines from Nicolaus or Nicolas of Antioch, the deacon
mentioned in the Acts[83], and that they are therefore alluded to under
the name of Nicolaitans[84] in the address to the Church of Ephesus in
the Canonical Apocalypse. Origen, on the other hand, in his _Discourse
against Celsus_ says that they boasted of one Euphrates as their
founder[85]; while Hippolytus declares that their tenets were said by
themselves to be due to “the very numerous discourses which were handed
down by James the brother of the Lord to Mariamne[86].” From which
contradictory statements we may gather that the “heresy” of the Ophites
was, even as early as 230 A.D., a very old one, which may have appeared
even before Christianity began to show its power, and that it was
probably born in Asia Minor and owed much to the Pagan religions there
practised and little or nothing to any dominant personality as did the
systems of Simon Magus and the heresies treated of in the succeeding
chapters.

It is also probable that between the time when the Canonical Apocalypse
was written and that of Origen and Hippolytus[87], the Ophites altered
their doctrines more than once. We may not be able to go so far as their
historian, Father Giraud, who thinks that he can distinguish between
their earlier opinions, which he would attribute to the Naassenes or
Ophites[88] described by Hippolytus, and those of a later school to
which he would assign the name of Ophites specially[89]. Yet many of the
Fathers confuse their doctrines with those of the Sethians, the
Cainites, and other sects which seem to have had some distinguishing
features[90]; while Hippolytus, who shows a more critical spirit than
the other heresiologists, says expressly that the other heresies just
named were little different in appearance from this one, being united by
the same spirit of error[91]. The confusion is further increased by his
statement that the Naassenes called themselves Gnostics, although
Carpocrates’ followers, who must have been later in time, are elsewhere
said to be the first to adopt this name[92]. For there was at least one
other sect of heretics who did the same thing, and to whom Epiphanius in
his _Panarion_ attributes, together with a theological and cosmological
system not unlike that hereafter described, mysteries of unnameable
obscenity with which the Ophites were never charged[93]. In this respect
it may be as well to remember the words of Tertullian that the heretics

    “know no respect even for their own leaders. Hence it is that
    schisms seldom happen among heretics because, even when they exist,
    they do not appear; for their very unity is schism. I am greatly in
    error,” he continues, “if they do not amongst themselves even
    diverge from their own rules, since every man, as it suits his own
    temper, modifies the traditions he has received after the same
    fashion as did he who handed them down to him, when he moulded them
    according to his own free will.... What was allowed to Valentinus is
    allowable to the Valentinians, and that is lawful for the
    Marcionites which Marcion did, _i.e._ to innovate on the faith
    according to his own judgment. In short, all heresies when
    investigated are found to be in many particulars disagreeing with
    their own authors[94].”

If Tertullian was right, it is idle to expect that after the lapse of
nineteen centuries we can hope to distinguish between the opinions of an
heresiarch and those of his followers who differed from or improved upon
his teaching.

Of the country in which the Ophites first appeared, and where to the
last they had their strongest following, there can, however, be little
doubt. Phrygia, by which is meant the entire central part of Asia Minor
or, to use its modern name, Anatolia, must from its situation have
formed a great meeting-place for different creeds, among which that of
the Jews occupied in the first centuries of our era a prominent place.
Seleucus Nicator had followed the example of Alexander in Egypt in
granting the Jews full rights of citizenship in all his cities, and
Antiochus the Great took even more practical steps towards inducing them
to settle there when he transported thither two thousand Jewish families
from Mesopotamia and Babylon[95]. These Jews of the Eastern Diaspora or
Dispersion had, however, by no means kept whole the faith of their
forefathers, and there seems in consequence to have been less racial
hatred between them and the earlier inhabitants of the country here than
elsewhere[96]. In religious matters, these last, too, seem to have been
little affected by the Euhemerism that had destroyed the faith of the
more sophisticated Greeks, and the orgiastic worship of Cybele, Attis,
and Sabazius found in Phrygia its principal seat. The tendency of the
inhabitants towards religious hysteria was not likely to be lessened by
the settlement in the centre of Asia Minor of the Celtic tribes known as
the Galatae, who had gradually passed under the Roman yoke in the time
of Augustus, but seem long to have retained their Celtic taste for
innovations in religious matters, and to have supplied from the outset
an endless number of heresies to the Church[97]. Moreover, in the Wars
of Succession which followed the death of Alexander, Phrygia had been
bandied about like a shuttlecock between Antigonus and Lysimachus; in
the decadence of the Seleucid house, it had been repeatedly harried by
the pretenders to the Syrian crown; and it had, during the temporary
supremacy of Mithridates and his son-in-law Tigranes, been subject to
the tyranny of the Armenians[98]. Thanks to the policy of these
barbarian kings, it had in great measure been denuded of its
Greek-speaking inhabitants[99], the growth of its towns had been
checked, and the country seems to have been practically divided among a
crowd of dynasts or priest-kings, generally the high-priests of temples
possessing vast landed estates and preserving their importance by the
celebration of yearly festivals. Dr Mahaffy compares these potentates
with the prince-bishops and lordly abbots produced by nearly the same
conditions in mediaeval Europe[100], and Sir William Ramsay’s and Mr
Hogarth’s researches of late years in Anatolia have shown how much truth
there is in the comparison.

The religion practised by these priest-kings throughout the whole of
Asia Minor differed slightly in form, but was one in substance[101]. It
was in effect the worship of the bisexual and mortal gods whom we have
already seen worshipped under varying names in the Eastern basin of the
Mediterranean. These deities, whose alternate appearance as male and
female, infant and adult, could only be explained to Western ears as the
result of incestuous unions, could all on final analysis be reduced to
one great divinity in whom all Nature was contained. The essence of the
Anatolian religion, says Sir William Ramsay, when describing the state
of things that existed in Phrygia immediately before the preaching of St
Paul, was

    “the adoration of the life of Nature—that life apparently subject to
    death, yet never dying, but reproducing itself in new forms,
    different and yet the same. This perpetual self-identity under
    varying forms, this annihilation of death through the power of
    self-reproduction, was the object of an enthusiastic worship,
    characterized by remarkable self-abandonment and immersion in the
    divine, by a mixture of obscene symbolism and sublime truths, by
    negation of the moral distinctions and family ties that exist in a
    more developed society, but do not exist in the free life of Nature.
    The mystery of self-reproduction, of eternal unity amid temporary
    diversity, is the key to explain all the repulsive legends and
    ceremonies that cluster round that worship, and all the manifold
    manifestations or diverse embodiments of the ultimate single divine
    life that are carved on the rocks of Asia Minor[102].”

Whether the Phrygians of Apostolic times actually saw all these sublime
ideas underlying the religion of their country may be doubted; but it is
fairly certain that at the time in question there was worshipped
throughout Anatolia a divine family comprising a goddess known as the
Mother of the Gods, together with a male deity, who was at once her son,
her spouse, her brother, and sometimes her father[103]. The worship of
this pair, who were in the last resort considered as one bisexual being,
was celebrated in the form of festivals and mystery-plays like those of
the Middle Ages, in which the birth, nuptials, death, and resurrection
of the divinities were acted in dramatic form. At these festivals, the
worshippers gave themselves up to religious excitement alternating
between continence sometimes carried to the extent of self-mutilation on
the part of the men, and hysterical or religious prostitution on the
part of the women[104]. The gathering of foreign merchants and slaves in
the Anatolian cities, and the constant shifting of their inhabitants by
their successive masters, had forced on the votaries of these Phrygian
deities a _theocrasia_ of the most complete kind, and the Phrygian god
and goddess were in turn identified with the deities of Eleusis, of whom
indeed they may have been the prototypes, with the Syrian Aphrodite and
Adonis, with the Egypto-Greek Serapis and Isis, and probably with many
Oriental deities as well[105]. At the same time, their fame and their
worship had spread far beyond Phrygia. The primitive statue of the
goddess of Pessinus, a black stone or baetyl dignified by the name of
the Mother of the Gods, was transported to Rome in the stress of the
Second Punic War and there became the centre of a ritual served by
eunuch priests supported by the State[106]; while, later, her analogue,
the Syrian goddess, whose temple at Hierapolis, according to Lucian,
required a _personnel_ of over three hundred ministrants, became the
object of the special devotion of the Emperor Nero[107]. As with the
Alexandrian divinities, the respect paid to these stranger deities by
the legions carried their worship into every part of the Roman
world[108].

The element which the Jews of Asia contributed to Anatolian religion at
this period was probably more important than has been generally
supposed. M. Cumont’s theory that the epithet of the “Highest” (Ὕψιστος)
often applied to the God of Anatolia and Syria really covers the
personality of Yahweh of Israel rests upon little proof at present[109].
It may be conceded that the tendency to monotheism—or to speak strictly
their hatred for the worshippers of many gods—rooted in the Jews from
the Captivity onwards may at first have done much to hasten the progress
of the _theocrasia_ which was welding all the gods of the Mysteries into
one great God of Nature. But the Babylonian or Oriental Jews, called in
the Talmud and elsewhere the Ten Tribes, probably had some inborn
sympathy with the more or less exalted divinities of the West. Even in
the temple of Jerusalem, Ezekiel sees in his vision “women weeping for
Tammuz[110],” while Jeremiah complains of the Jews making cakes to the
Queen of Heaven, which seems to be another name for the Mother of the
Gods[111]. The feminine side of the Anatolian worship can therefore have
come to them as no new thing. Perhaps it was due to this that they so
soon fell away from their ancestral faith, and that, in the words of the
Talmud, “the baths and wines of Phrygia separated the Ten Tribes from
their brethren[112].” That their collection of money for the Temple in
Roman times was due not so much to any religious motive, as to some of
the financial operations in which the Jews were always engaging, Cicero
hints with fair plainness in his Oration in defence of Flaccus[113].
They seem, too, to have intermarried freely with the Greek citizens,
while the sons of these mixed marriages did not undergo the circumcision
which the Jews of the Western Dispersion demanded not only from native
Jews but also from proselytes of alien blood[114].

The Jews also brought with them into Phrygia superstitions or
side-beliefs to which they were probably much more firmly attached than
to their national religion. The practice of magic had always been
popular among the Chosen People as far back as the time of Saul, and the
bowls inscribed with spells against enchantments and evil spirits form
almost the only relics which they have left in the mounds which mark
their settlement at Hilleh on the site of the ancient Babylon[115]. From
this and other evidence, it would seem that the Babylonian Jews had
borrowed from their Chaldaean captors many of their views as to the
importance of the Name in magic, especially when used for the purposes
of exorcism or of spells; that they thought the name of their national
god Yahweh particularly efficacious; and that the different names of God
used in the Old Testament were supposed, according to a well-known rule
in magic, to be of greater efficiency as the memory of their meaning and
actual significance died out among them[116]. The Babylonian Jews,
moreover, as is evident from the Book of Daniel, no sooner found
themselves among the well-to-do citizens of a great city than they
turned to the professional practice of divination and of those curious
arts whereby they could make a living from the credulity of their
Gentile neighbours without the manual labour always dreaded by
them[117]. Hence Phrygia, like the rest of Asia Minor during the
Apostolic Age, was full of strolling Jewish sorcerers who undertook for
money to cast out devils, to effect and destroy enchantments, to send
and interpret dreams, and to manufacture love philtres[118]. That in
doing so they made great use of the name of their national deity seems
plain from Origen’s remark that “not only do those belonging to the
Jewish nation employ in their prayers to God and in the exorcising of
demons the words: God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob, but
so also do most of those who occupy themselves with magical rites. For
there is found in treatises on magic in many countries such an
invocation of God and assumption of the divine name, as implies a
familiar use of it by these men in their dealings with demons[119].”
This is abundantly borne out by the spells preserved for us by the Magic
Papyri before mentioned, where the expressions “God of Abraham,” “God of
Isaac,” “God of Jacob” constantly occur. One spell given above contains,
as we have seen, along with many unfamiliar expressions drawn from
Greek, Persian, Egyptian, and even Sumerian sources, the words “Blessed
be the Lord God of Abraham[120],” and in nearly every one do we find the
Tetragrammaton or four-lettered name of God transliterated in the A.V.
Jehovah, either with or without some of the other Divine names used in
the Old Testament. The names of the angels Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael
given in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha are also common in all this
literature[121].

Did the Babylonian Jews bring with them into Phrygia any theory of the
universe other than the direct and unfettered rule of Jehovah and the
creation of the world from nothing, which they gathered from their
sacred books? There is little evidence on the point, save some
expressions of doubtful import in the Magic Papyri[122] and the
statement of Origen that “the name Sabaoth, and Adonai and the other
names treated with so much reverence among the Hebrews ... belong to a
secret theology which refers to the Framer of all things[123].” It might
be possible to deduce from this that the elaborate system known as the
Cabala or secret tradition of the Jews was already in existence[124].
This system, on its theoretical or speculative side, attempts to explain
the existence of the physical universe by postulating a whole series of
intermediate powers emanating from the Supreme Being of whom they are
the attributes or names; while, on the other or “practical,” it
professes to perform wonders and to reveal mysteries by a childish
juggling with letters in the shape of anagrams and acrostics or with
their numerical values[125]. As has been said above, follies of this
last-named kind were unknown neither to the later Orphics nor to the
primitive Church, and might well be thought to have been acquired by the
Jews during their stay in Babylon, where the Semitic inhabitants seem
from a very early date and for magical reasons to have used numbers
instead of letters in writing the names of their gods[126]. It would not
have been difficult for them to have acquired at the same time from the
Persian masters of Babylon the doctrine of emanation instead of creation
which is to be found in the Zend Avesta as well as in all the
post-Christian Gnostic systems. But there are other channels besides the
Anatolian religion through which these ideas might have come into the
West[127], and it will be better not to lay any stress upon this. That
the Cabala in the complete form in which it appears in the books known
as the _Sepher Jetzirah_ and the _Sepher Zohar_ does not go further back
than the VIth or VIIth century of our era, seems to be the opinion of
all those best qualified to judge in the matter. M. Isidore Loeb, who
has given the most coherent and compact summary of Cabalistic teaching
that has appeared of late years, finds its germs in Babylonian Judaism
at about the same period which saw the blossoming of the Christian
Gnostic sects, without going so far as to derive either of the later
doctrines from the other[128].

However this may be, there is a fair consensus of opinion among the
Fathers of the Church as to the doctrines current among those whom, for
reasons to be presently seen, they called the Ophites or worshippers of
the Serpent. The aim of the sect seems to have been to produce an
eclectic system which should reconcile the religious traditions current
from time immemorial in Western Asia with the worship of the Hellenized
gods of Asia Minor, and the teachings of the already powerful Christian
Church. With this view they went back to what is probably the earliest
philosophical theory of the origin of the universe, and declared that
before anything was, there existed God, but God conceived as an infinite
ocean of divinity, too great and too remote to be apprehended by man’s
intelligence, of whom and of whose attributes nothing could be known or
said, and who could only be likened to a boundless sea. Something like
this was the view of the earliest inhabitants of Babylonia, who declared
that before heaven or earth or the gods came into being there was
nothing but a vast waste of waters[129]. At some time or another, the
same idea passed into Egypt, when the Egyptians attributed the beginning
of things to Nu or the primaeval deep[130]; and it was probably the
spread of this tradition into Ionia which induced Thales of Miletus, the
earliest of the Ionian philosophers, to assert that water was the first
of all things[131]. This unknowable and inaccessible power, the Ophites
declared to be ineffable or impossible to name, and he was only referred
to by them as Bythos or the Deep. The same idea and the same name were
adopted by most of the later Gnostics[132].

From this unknowable principle or Father (Πατὴρ ἄγνωστος) there shone
forth, according to the Ophites, a Primordial Light, infinite and
incorruptible, which is the Father of all things subsequent to him[133].
Here they may have been inspired, not by the Babylonian, but by its
derivative, the Jewish tradition given in the Book of Genesis[134]. But
this Light was in effect, though not in name, the chief god of their
system, and in Asia Minor the gods had never perhaps been imagined as
existing in any but human form. Accordingly they described this Light as
the First Man, meaning thereby no terrestrial creature, but a heavenly
or archetypal man in whose likeness mankind was afterwards made[135].
From him came forth a second Light sometimes called his Ennoia or
Thought, which expression seems to cover the idea that this Second Man
or Son of Man, by both which names he was known to the Ophites, was not
begotten in the ordinary way of mortals, but was produced from the First
Man as a thought or concept is formed in the brain[136]. Or we may, to
take another metaphor, regard this Ennoia as the rays of light which
emanate or flow forth from a lamp or other source of light, but which
have no independent existence and still remain connected with their
parent. Such was the Ophite idea with regard to the two great Lights or
the First and Second Man whom they refused to consider as separate,
giving them both the name of Adamas, or the Unconquered, a classical
epithet of the Hades already identified at Eleusis with Dionysos[137].
They also called them, as will be seen later, the Father-and-Son. In
this, perhaps, they did not go outside the conception of the Anatolian
religion, which always represented the Divine Son as the spouse of the
goddess who gave him birth, and in this way eternally begetting himself.
Thus, the Phrygian goddess Cybele under the name of Agdistis was said to
be violently enamoured of Atys who was in effect her own son[138]. The
same idea was familiar to the Egyptians, among whom more than one god is
described as the “bull (_i.e._ male or husband) of his mother,” and it
may thus have passed into the Alexandrian religion, where Horus was, as
we have seen, often given instead of Osiris as the lover of Isis[139].
At Eleusis it was more modestly concealed under the myth which made
Dionysos or Hades at once the ravisher of Persephone and her son by Zeus
in serpent form—a myth which is summed up in the mystic phrase preserved
by Clement of Alexandria that “The bull is the father of the serpent,
and the serpent the father of the bull[140].”

Thus the Ophites accounted for the divinity who was in effect their
Supreme God, the still higher Bythos, as we have seen, being put in the
background as too awful for human consideration[141]. But it was still
necessary to make manifest the feminine aspect of the deity which was
always very prominent in Asia Minor. The Mother of the Gods, known as Ma
in Lydia, Cybele in Phrygia proper, Artemis at Ephesus, the unnamed
Syrian goddess at Hierapolis, and Aphrodite in Cyprus and
elsewhere[142], was in the early Christian centuries the most prominent
person in the Anatolian pantheon, a fact which Sir William Ramsay would
attribute to the matriarchate, _Mutterrecht_, or custom of descent in
the female line, which he thinks indigenous to Asia Minor. In the
earliest Phrygian religion there seems little doubt that the supreme
goddess was originally considered to be bisexual, and capable of
production without male assistance, as is expressly stated in the legend
of Agdistis or Cybele preserved by Pausanias[143], and perhaps hinted at
in the stories of Amazons spread throughout the whole of Asia Minor. But
it is probable that, as Sir William Ramsay himself says, this idea had
become less prominent with the immigration from Europe of tribes of male
warriors without female companions,[144] while Semitic influence was
always against it. Hence the Ophites found themselves compelled to make
their female deity inferior or posterior to their male. “Below these,
again (_i.e._ below the First and Second Man or Father-and-Son),” says
Irenaeus in reporting their doctrines, “is the Holy Spirit ... whom they
call the First Woman[145].” Neither he nor Hippolytus gives us any
direct evidence of the source whence this feminine Power was thought by
them to have issued. But Hippolytus says without circumlocution that
“this Man,” _i.e._ Adamas or the Father-and-Son, “is both male and
female[146],” and he quotes the words of an Ophite hymn[147] addressed
to him that: “_From_ thee is Father and _through_ thee is Mother, two
names immortal, parents of Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, Man of
mighty name[148]!” Later, he puts in the mouth of the Naassene or Ophite
writer from whom he repeatedly quotes, the phrase:

    “The Spirit is where the Father and the Son are named, from whom and
    from the Father it is there born; and this (that is, the Spirit) is
    the many-named, myriad-eyed Incomprehensible One for whom every
    nature in different ways yearns,”

or in other words the soul or animating principle of Nature[149]. It
therefore seems that the first Ophites made their Supreme God a triad
like the Eleusinian, the Alexandrian, and the Anatolian, consisting of
three persons two of whom were males and the third a female, or a
Father, Mother, and Son, of whom the Son was but another and renewed
form of the Father, while the union of all three was necessary to
express every aspect of the Deity, who was nevertheless one in
essence[150]. This threefold division of things, said the Ophites, ran
through all nature “there being three worlds or universes: the angelic
(that sent directly from God), the psychic, and the earthly or material;
and three Churches: the Chosen, the Called, and the Captive[151].” The
meaning of these names we shall see later when we consider the Ophite
idea of the Apocatastasis[152] or return of the worlds to the Deity.

First, however, another Power had to be produced which should serve as
an intermediary or ambassador from the Supreme Triad to the worlds below
it. This necessity may have arisen from Plato’s view, adopted by Philo
of Alexandria, that God was too high and pure to be contaminated by any
contact with matter[153]. But it may also owe something to the idea
common to all Orientals that a king or great man can only communicate
with his inferiors through a _wakil_ or agent; and that this idea was
then current in Phrygia seems plain from the story in the Acts of the
Apostles that in the Lycaonian province Barnabas, who was of majestic
presence, was adored and nearly sacrificed to as Zeus, while Paul, who
was the principal speaker, was only revered as Hermes[154]. The later
Ophite account of the production of this intermediary power or messenger
which we find in Irenaeus is that the Father-and-Son “delighting in the
beauty of the Spirit”—that is of the First Woman—“shed their light upon
her” and thus brought into existence “an incorruptible light, the third
man, whom they call Christos[155].” With this last addition the Divine
Family was considered complete, and the same author tells us that
Christos and his mother were “immediately drawn up into the
incorruptible aeon which they call the veritable Church[156].” This
seems to be the first appearance in Gnosticism of the use of the word
Church as signifying what was later called the Pleroma or Fulness of the
Godhead; but it may be compared to the “Great Council” apparently used
in the same sense by some unidentified prophet quoted by Origen, of
which Great Council Christ was said by the prophet to be the “Angel” or
messenger[157].

From this perfect Godhead, the Ophites had to show the evolution of a
less perfect universe, a problem which they approached in a way
differing but slightly from that of Simon Magus. This last, as we have
seen, interposed between God and our own world three pairs of “Roots” or
Powers together with an intermediate world of aeons whose angels and
authorities had brought our universe into existence. These angels
purposely fashioned it from existing matter, the substance most removed
from and hostile to God, in order that they might rule over it and thus
possess a dominion of their own. But the Ophites went behind this
conception, and made the first confusion of the Divine light with matter
the result of an accident. The light, in Irenaeus’ account of their
doctrines, shed by the Father-and-Son upon the Holy Spirit was so
abundant that she could not contain it all within herself, and some of
it therefore, as it were, boiled over and fell down[158], when it was
received by that matter which they, like Simon, looked upon as existing
independently[159]. They described this last as separated into four
elements, water, darkness, the abyss, and chaos, which we may suppose to
be different strata of the same substance, the uppermost layer being
apparently the waste of waters mentioned in Genesis. Falling upon these
waters, the superfluity of light of the Holy Spirit stirred them,
although before immovable, to their lowest depths, and took from them a
body formed apparently from the envelope of waters surrounding it. Then,
rising again by a supreme effort from this contact, it made out of this
envelope the visible heaven which has ever since been stretched over the
earth like a canopy[160]. This superfluity of light which thus mingled
with matter, the earlier Ophites called, like the authors of the
Wisdom-literature, Sophia, and also Prunicos (meaning apparently the
“substitute”) and described as bisexual[161]. Another and perhaps a
later modification of their doctrine fabled that it sprang from the left
side of the First Woman while Christos emerged from her right. They
therefore called it Sinistra and declared it to be feminine only[162].
Both traditions agreed that this Sophia or Prunicos put forth a son
without male assistance, that this son in like manner gave birth to
another power and so on, until at last seven powers at seven removes
sprang from Sophia. Each of them fashioned from matter a habitation, and
these are represented as heavens or hemispheres stretched out one under
the other, every one becoming less perfect as it gets further from the
Primordial Light[163]. Irenaeus and Hippolytus are agreed that the first
or immediate son of Sophia was called Ialdabaoth, a name which Origen
says, in speaking of the Ophites, is taken from the art of magic, and
which surely enough appears in nearly all the earlier Magic Papyri[164].
Hippolytus says that this Ialdabaoth was the Demiurge and father of the
visible universe or phenomenal world[165]. Irenaeus also gives the names
of the later “heavens, virtues, powers, angels, and builders” as being
respectively Iao, Sabaoth, Adonai, Eloaeus, Oreus, and Astaphaeus or
Astanpheus, which agrees with the Ophite document or Diagram to be
presently mentioned[166]. The first four of these names are too
evidently the names given in the Old Testament to Yahweh for us to doubt
the assertion of the Fathers that by Ialdabaoth the Ophites meant the
God of the Jews[167]. The last two names, Oreus and Astaphaeus, Origen
also asserts to be taken from the art of magic, and may be supposed to
have some connection with fire and water respectively[168]. It is
probable that the later Ophites identified all these seven heavens with
the seven astrological “planets,” _i.e._ Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun,
Venus, Mercury and the Moon in probably that order[169].

How now did the earth on which we live come into being? The primitive
Babylonians, whose ideas and culture were at a very early date spread
over the whole of Asia Minor, conceived the earth not as a globe but as
a circular boat like the ancient coracle, over which the heavens
stretched like a canopy or hemisphere[170]. Hence we must regard these
heavens of the planetary powers, Ialdabaoth and his progeny, as a series
of covers fitting one within the other like, in the words of the
Fathers, “juggling cups,” or to take another simile, the successive
skins of an onion. The earth stretched below these, but was at the stage
of creation at which we have arrived really without form and void, being
the formless waste of waters which covered the denser darkness and
chaos. The ordered shape which it afterwards assumed and which we now
see, was, in the Ophite story, the result of the fall of no deity,
angel, or heavenly power, but of Man. Irenaeus’ account of this Second
Fall is that the six powers descended from Ialdabaoth began to quarrel
with their progenitor for supremacy—an idea which perhaps is to be
referred either to the Jewish tradition of the revolt of the angels or
with more likelihood to the astrological ideas about the benefic and
malefic planets[171]. This so enraged him that he glared in his wrath
upon the underlying dregs of matter, and his thought (ἔννοια) implanted
there took birth and shape[172]. This fresh son of his was possessed of
a quality of the possession of which he himself had never given any
evidence, and was called Nous or Intelligence like the male of Simon’s
first syzygy or pair of roots. But he was said to be of serpent form
(ὀφιόμορφος) because, as says the Naassene or Ophite author quoted by
Hippolytus, “the serpent is the personification of the watery element,”
and therefore, perhaps, the symbol of that external ocean which the
ancients thought surrounded the inhabited world[173]. It seems more
probable, however, that the Ophites were compelled to introduce this
form because the serpent was worshipped everywhere in Asia Minor as the
type of the paternal aspect of the earth-goddess’ consort[174]. This is
best shown, perhaps, in the Eleusinian legend of Zeus and Persephone;
but Alexander himself was said to have been begotten by Zeus in the form
of a serpent, and no Phrygian goddess seems ever to have been portrayed
without one[175]. So much was this the case that in the Apocryphal _Acta
Philippi_ it is said that sacred serpents were kept in all the heathen
temples in Asia. Hierapolis is, in the same document, called Ophioryma
or the serpent’s stronghold, whence idolatry seems to be spoken of as
the Echidna or Viper[176]. The connection of the serpent with the
Sabazian rites has already been mentioned.

This Ophiomorphus, or god in serpent form, was in the later Ophite
teaching the cause not only of man’s soul but of his passions. The Latin
text of Irenaeus says that from him came “the spirit and the soul and
all earthly things, whence all forgetfulness, and malice, and jealousy,
and envy, and death came into being[177].” This was evidently written
under the influence of the Christian idea that the serpent of Genesis
was Satan or the Devil. But Hippolytus tells us, no doubt truly, that
the Ophiomorphus of the earlier Ophites was in the opinion of his
votaries a benevolent and beneficent power. After saying that they
worship

    “nothing else than Naas, whence they are called Naassenes, and that
    they say that to this Naas (or serpent) alone is dedicated every
    temple, and that he is to be found in every mystery and initiatory
    rite,” he continues, “They say that nothing of the things that are,
    whether deathless or mortal, with or without soul, could exist apart
    from him. And all things are set under him, and he is good and
    contains all things within himself, as in the horn of the unicorn,
    whence beauty and bloom are freely given to all things that exist
    according to their nature and relationship[178].”

It can hardly be doubted that the writer from whom Hippolytus here
quotes is referring to the soul or animating principle of the world,
whom he here and elsewhere identifies with the great God of the Greek
mysteries[179]. Hence it was the casting-down to this earth of
Ophiomorphus which gave it life and shape, and thus stamped upon it the
impress of the First Man[180]. As Ophiomorphus was also the child of
Ialdabaoth son of Sophia, the Soul of the World might therefore properly
be said to be drawn from all the three visible worlds[181].

We come to the creation of man which the Ophites attributed to the act
of Ialdabaoth and the other planetary powers, and represented as
taking place not on the earth, but in some one or other of the heavens
under their sway[182]. According to Irenaeus—here our only
authority—Ialdabaoth boasted that he was God and Father, and that
there was none above him[183]. His mother Sophia or Prunicos,
disgusted at this, cried out that he lied, inasmuch as there was above
him “the Father of all, the First Man and the Son of Man[184]”; and
that Ialdabaoth was thereby led on the counsel of the serpent or
Ophiomorphus to say, “Let us make man in our own image[185]!” Here the
Greek or older text of Irenaeus ends, and our only remaining guide is
the later Latin one, which bears many signs of having been added to
from time to time by some person more zealous for orthodoxy than
accuracy. Such as it is, however, it narrates at a length which
compares very unfavourably with the brevity and concision of the
statements of the Greek text, that Ialdabaoth’s six planetary powers
on his command and at the instigation of Sophia formed an immense man
who could only writhe along the ground until they carried him to
Ialdabaoth who breathed into him the breath of life, thereby parting
with some of the light that was in himself; that man “having thereby
become possessed of intelligence (Nous) and desire (Enthymesis)
abandoned his makers and gave thanks to the First Man”; that
Ialdabaoth on this in order to deprive man of the light he had given
him created Eve out of his own desire; that the other planetary powers
fell in love with her beauty and begot from her sons who are called
angels; and finally, that the serpent induced Adam and Eve to
transgress Ialdabaoth’s command not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of
Knowledge[186]. On their doing so, he cast them out of Paradise, and
threw them down to this world together with the serpent or
Ophiomorphus. All this was done by the secret contrivance of Sophia,
whose object throughout was to win back the light and return it to the
highest world whence it had originally come. Her manner of doing so
seems to have been somewhat roundabout, for it involved the further
mingling of light with matter, and even included the taking away by
her of light from Adam and Eve when turned out of Paradise and the
restoring it to them when they appeared on this earth—a proceeding
which gave them to understand that they had become clothed with
material bodies in which their stay would be only temporary[187].
Cain’s murder of Abel was brought about by the same agency, as was the
begettal of Seth, ancestor of the existing human race. We further
learn that the serpent who was cast down got under him the angels
begotten upon Eve by the planetary powers, and brought into existence
six sons who, with himself, form “the seven earthly demons.” These are
the adversaries of mankind, because it was on account of man that
their father was cast down; and “this serpent is called Michael and
Sammael[188].” Later Ialdabaoth sent the Flood, sought out Abraham,
and gave the Law to the Jews. In this, as in everything, he was
opposed by his mother Sophia, who saved Noah, made the Prophets
prophesy of Christ, and even arranged that John the Baptist and Jesus
should be born, the one from Elizabeth and the other from the Virgin
Mary[189]. In all this, it is difficult not to see a later
interpolation introduced for the purpose of incorporating with the
teaching of the earlier Ophites the Biblical narrative, of which they
were perhaps only fully informed through Apostolic teaching[190]. It
is quite possible that this interpolation may be taken from the
doctrine of the Sethians, which Irenaeus expressly couples in this
chapter with that of the Ophites, and which, as given by Hippolytus,
contains many Jewish but no Christian features[191]. Many of the
stories in this interpolation seem to have found their way into the
Talmud and the later Cabala, as well as into some of the Manichaean
books.

So far, then, the Ophites succeeded in accounting to their satisfaction
for the origin of all things, the nature of the Deity, the origin of the
universe, and for that of man’s body. But they still had to account in
detail for the existence of the soul or incorporeal part of man.
Irenaeus, as we have seen, attributes it to Ophiomorphus, but although
this may have been the belief of the Ophites of his time, the Naassenes
assigned it a more complicated origin. They divided it, as Hippolytus
tells us, into three parts which were nevertheless one, no doubt
corresponding to the threefold division that we have before seen running
through all nature into angelic, psychic, and earthly[192]. The angelic
part is brought by Christos, who is, as we have seen, the angel or
messenger of the triune Deity, into “the form of clay[193],” the psychic
we may suppose to be fashioned with the body by the planetary powers,
and the earthly is possibly thought to be the work of the earthly demons
hostile to man[194]. Of these last two parts, however, we hear nothing
directly, and their existence can only be gathered from the difference
here strongly insisted upon between things “celestial earthly and
infernal.” But the conveyance of the angelic soul to the body
Hippolytus’ Ophite writer illustrates by a bold figure from what Homer
in the _Odyssey_ says concerning Hermes in his character of psychopomp
or leader of souls[195]. As to the soul or animating principle of the
world, Hippolytus tells us that the Ophites did not seek information
concerning it and its nature from the Scriptures, where indeed they
would have some difficulty in finding any, but from the mystic rites
alike of the Greeks and the Barbarians[196]; and he takes us in turns
through the mysteries of the Syrian worshippers of Adonis, of the
Phrygians, the Egyptian (or rather Alexandrian) worshippers of Osiris,
of the Cabiri of Samothrace, and finally those celebrated at Eleusis,
pointing out many things which he considers as indicating the Ophites’
own peculiar doctrine on this point[197]. That he considers the god
worshipped in all these different mysteries to be one and the same
divinity seems plain from a hymn which he quotes as a song of “the great
Mysteries,” and which the late Prof. Conington turned into English
verse[198]. So far as any sense can be read into an explanation made
doubly hard for us by our ignorance of what really took place in the
rites the Ophite writer describes, or of any clear account of his own
tenets, he seems to say that the many apparently obscene and sensual
scenes that he alludes to, cover the doctrine that man’s soul is part of
the universal soul diffused through Nature and eventually to be freed
from all material contact and united to the Deity; whence it is only
those who abstain from the practice of carnal generation who can hope to
be admitted to the highest heaven[199]. All this is illustrated by many
quotations not only from the heathen poets and philosophers, but also
from the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Jewish Prophets, and from the
Canonical Gospels and St Paul’s Epistles.

The connection of such a system with orthodox Christianity seems at
first sight remote enough, but it must be remembered that Hippolytus was
not endeavouring to explain or record the Ophite beliefs as a historian
would have done, but to hold them up to ridicule and, as he describes
it, to “refute” them. Yet there can be no doubt that the Ophites were
Christians or followers of Christ who accepted without question the
Divine Mission of Jesus, and held that only through Him could they
attain salvation. The difference between them and the orthodox in
respect to this was that salvation was not, according to them, offered
freely to all, but was on the contrary a magical result following
automatically upon complete initiation and participation in the
Mysteries[200]. Texts like “Strait is the way and narrow is the gate
that leadeth into eternal life” and “Not every one that saith unto me
Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” were laid hold of by
them as showing that complete salvation was confined to a few highly
instructed persons, who had had the sense to acquire the knowledge of
the nature of the Deity and of the topography of the heavenly places
which underlay the ceremonies of the Mysteries. Such an one, they said
after his death would be born again not with a fleshly but with a
spiritual body and passing through the gate of heaven would become a
god[201]. It does not follow, however, that those who did not obtain
this perfect _gnosis_ would be left, as in some later creeds, to
reprobation. The cry of “all things in heaven, on earth, and below the
earth[202]” that the discord of this world[203] might be made to cease,
which the Naassene author quoted by Hippolytus daringly connects with
the name of Pappas given by the Phrygians to Sabazius or Dionysos, would
one day be heard, and the Apocatastasis or return of the world to the
Deity would then take place[204]. If we may judge from the later
developments of the Ophite teaching this was to be when the last
spiritual man (πνευματικός) or perfect Gnostic had been withdrawn from
it. In the meantime those less gifted would after death pass through the
planetary worlds of Ialdabaoth until they arrived at his heaven or
sphere, and would then be sent down to the earth to be reincarnated in
other bodies. Whether those who had attained some knowledge of the
Divine nature without arriving at perfect Gnosis would or would not be
rewarded with some sort of modified beatitude or opportunity of better
instruction is not distinctly stated, but it is probable that the
Ophites thought that they would[205]. For just as those who have been
admitted into the Lesser Mysteries at Eleusis ought to pause and then be
admitted into the “great and heavenly ones,” the progress of the Ophite
towards the Deity must be progressive. They who participate in these
heavenly mysteries, says the Naassene author, receive greater destinies
than the others[206].

It might seem, therefore, that the Mysteries or secret rites of the
heathens contained in themselves all that was necessary for redemption,
and this was probably the Ophite view so far as the return of the
universe to the bosom of the Deity and the consequent wiping out of the
consequences of the unfortunate fall of Sophia or Prunicos were
concerned. A tradition. preserved by Irenaeus says that Sophia herself
“when she had received a desire for the light above her, laid down the
body she had received from matter—which was, as we have seen, the
visible heaven—-and was freed from it[207].” But this seems to be an
addition which is not found in the Greek version, and is probably taken
from some later developments of the Ophite creed. It is plain, however,
that the whole scheme of nature as set forth in the opinions summarized
above is represented as contrived for the winning-back of the light—for
which we may, if we like, read life—from matter, and this is represented
as the work of Sophia herself. The futile attempt of the arrogant and
jealous Ialdabaoth to prolong his rule by the successive creation of
world after world, of the archetypal or rather protoplasmic Adam, and
finally of Eve, whereby the light is dispersed through matter more
thoroughly but in ever-diminishing portions[208], is turned against him
by his mother Sophia, the beneficent ruler of the planetary worlds, who
even converts acquaintance with the “carnal generation” which he has
invented into a necessary preparation for the higher mysteries[209].
Thus Hippolytus tells us that the Naassenes

    “frequent the so-called mysteries of the Great Mother, thinking that
    through what is performed there, they see clearly the whole mystery.
    For they have no complete advantage from the things there performed
    except that they are not castrated. [Yet] they fully accomplish the
    work of the castrated [_i.e._ the Galli]. For they most strictly and
    carefully preach that one should abstain from all companying with
    woman, as do the castrated. And the rest of the work, as we have
    said at length, they perform like the castrated[210].”

So far, then, as the general scheme of the redemption of light from
matter is concerned, there seems to have been no fundamental necessity
in the Ophite view for the Mission of Jesus. But they assigned to Him a
great and predominant part in hastening the execution of the scheme, and
thus bringing about the near approach of the kingdom of heaven. We have
seen that Sophia provided in spite of Ialdabaoth for the birth of the
man Jesus from the Virgin Mary, and the Naassene author said that

    “into this body of Jesus there withdrew and descended things
    intellectual, and psychic, and earthly: and these three Men (_i.e._
    the First Man, the Son of Man, and Christos) speak together through
    Him each from his proper substance unto those who belong to
    each[211].”

The Latin text of Irenaeus amplifies the statement considerably and says
that Prunicus, as it calls Sophia, finding no rest in heaven or earth,
invoked the aid of her mother the First Woman. This power, having pity
on her repentance, implored the First Man to send Christos to her
assistance. This prayer was granted, and Christos descended from the
Pleroma to his sister Sophia, announced his coming through John the
Baptist, prepared the baptism of repentance, and beforehand fashioned
Jesus, so that when Christos came down he might find a pure vessel, and
that by Ialdabaoth her own son, the “woman” might be announced by
Christ. The author quoted by Irenaeus goes on to say that Christ
descended through each of the seven heavens or planetary worlds in the
likeness of its inhabitants, and thus took away much of their power. For
the sprinkling of light scattered among them rushed to him, and when he
came down into this world he clothed his sister Sophia with it, and they
exulted over each other, which they (the Ophites) “describe as the
[meeting of] the bridegroom and the bride.” But “Jesus being begotten
from the Virgin by the operation of God was wiser, purer, and juster
than all men. Christos united to Sophia descended into Him [in His
baptism] and so Jesus Christ was made[212].”

Jesus then began to heal the sick, to announce the unknown Father, and
to reveal Himself as the Son of the first man. This angered the princes
of the planetary worlds and their progenitor, Ialdabaoth, who contrived
that He should be killed. As He was being led away for this purpose,
Christos with Sophia left Him for the incorruptible aeon[213] or highest
heaven. Jesus was crucified; but Christos did not forget Him and sent a
certain power to Him, who raised Him in both a spiritual and psychic
body, sending the worldly parts back into the world. After His
Resurrection, Jesus remained upon earth eighteen months, and perception
descending into Him taught what was clear. These things He imparted to a
few of his disciples whom He knew to be capable of receiving such great
mysteries, and He was then received into heaven. Christos sate down at
the night hand of Ialdabaoth that he might, unknown to this last, take
to himself the souls of those who have known these mysteries, after they
have put off their worldly flesh. Thus Ialdabaoth cannot in future hold
holy souls that he may send them down again into the age [_i.e._ this
aeon]; but only those which are from his own substance, that is, which
he has himself breathed into bodies. When all the sprinkling of light is
thus collected, it will be taken up into the incorruptible aeon. The
return to Deity will then be complete, and matter will probably be
destroyed. In any case, it will have lost the light which alone gives it
life[214].

What rites or form of worship were practised by these Ophites we do not
know, although Epiphanius preserves a story that they were in the habit
of keeping a tame serpent in a chest which at the moment of the
consecration of their Eucharist was released and twined itself round the
consecrated bread[215]. Probably the very credulous Bishop of Constantia
was misled by some picture or amulet depicting a serpent with his tail
in its mouth surrounding an orb or globe which represents the mundane
egg of the Orphics. In this case the serpent most likely represented the
external ocean which the ancients thought surrounded the habitable world
like a girdle. But the story, though probably untrue, is some evidence
that the later Ophites used, like all post-Christian Gnostics, to
practise a ceremony resembling the Eucharist, and certainly administered
also the rite of baptism which is alluded to above in the tale of the
descent of Christos. Hippolytus also tells us that they used to sing
many hymns to the First Man; and he gives us a “psalm” composed by them
which, as he thinks, “comprehends all the mysteries of their
error[216].” Unfortunately in the one text of the _Philosophumena_ which
we have, it is given in so corrupt a form that the first German editor
declared it to be incapable of restoration. It may perhaps be translated
thus:

    The generic law of the Whole was the first Intelligence of all
    The second [creation?] was the poured-forth Chaos of the First-born
    And the third and labouring soul obtains the law as her portion
        Wherefore clothed in watery form [Behold]
        The loved one subject to toil [and] death
        Now, having lordship, she beholds the Light
        Then cast forth to piteous state, she weeps.
        Now she weeps and now rejoices
        Now she weeps and now is judged
        Now she is judged and now is dying
        Now no outlet is found, the unhappy one
        Into the labyrinth of woes has wandered.
        But Jesus said: Father, behold!
        A strife of woes upon earth
        From thy spirit has fallen
        But he [_i.e._ man?] seeks to fly the malignant chaos
        And knows not how to break it up.
        For his sake, send me, O Father;
        Having the seals, I will go down
        Through entire aeons I will pass,
        All mysteries I will open
        And the forms of the gods I will display,
        The secrets of the holy Way
        Called knowledge [Gnosis], I will hand down.

It is probable that this psalm really did once contain a summary of the
essential parts of the Ophite teaching. In whatever way we may construe
the first three lines, which were probably misunderstood by the scribe
of the text before us, there can hardly be a doubt that they disclose a
triad of three powers engaged in the work of salvation[217]. The fall of
Sophia seems also to be alluded to in unmistakable terms, while the
Mission of Jesus concludes the poem. Jesus, not here distinguished from
the Christos or Heavenly Messenger of the Trinity, is described as sent
to the earth for the purpose of bringing hither certain “mysteries”
which will put man on the sacred path of Gnosis and thus bring about the
redemption of his heavenly part from the bonds of matter. These
“mysteries” were, as appears in Hippolytus and elsewhere, sacraments
comprising baptism, unction, and a ceremony at least outwardly
resembling the Christian Eucharist or Lord’s Supper[218]. These had the
magical effect, already attributed by the Orphics to their own
homophagous feast, of changing the recipient’s place in the scale of
being and transforming him _ipso facto_ into something higher than man.
That the celebration of these mysteries was attended with the deepest
secrecy accounts at once for their being nowhere described in detail by
Hippolytus’ Ophite author, and also for the stories which were current
among all the heresiological writers of filthy and obscene rites[219].
Fortified by these mysteries, and by the abstinences and the continence
which they entailed—at all events theoretically, and as a counsel of
perfection—the Ophite could attend, as we have seen, all the ceremonies
of the still pagan Anatolians or of the Christian Church indifferently,
conscious that he alone understood the inner meaning of either.

Another practice of the Ophites has accidentally come down to us which
deserves some mention. The division of the universe into three parts,
_i.e._ angelic, psychic, and earthly, which we have already seen in germ
in the system of Simon Magus, was by the Ophites carried so much further
than by him that it extended through the whole of nature, and seriously
affected their scheme of redemption. Father Giraud, as we have seen,
goes so far as to say that in the opinion of Naassenes, matter hardly
existed, and that they thought that not only did Adamas, or the first
man, enter into all things, but that in their opinion all things were
contained within him[220]. This pantheistic doctrine may have been
current in Phrygia and traces of it may perhaps be found in the
Anatolian worship of nature; but the words of the Naassene psalm quoted
above show that the Naassenes, like all the post-Christian Gnostics of
whom we know anything, thought that matter not only had an independent
existence, but was essentially malignant and opposed to God. They
divided, as we have seen, the universe which came forth from Him into
three parts of which the angelic, noëtic, or pneumatic included,
apparently, nothing but the Pleroma or Fulness of the Godhead consisting
of the Trinity of Father, Son and Mother with their messenger Christos.
Then followed the second, psychic, or planetary world, containing the
heaven of Sophia with beneath it the holy hebdomad or seven worlds of
Ialdabaoth and his descendants[221]. Below this came, indeed, the choïc,
earthly, or terrestrial world, containing some sparks of the light
bestowed upon it consciously by Sophia and unconsciously by Ialdabaoth,
and inhabited by mortal men. But this world was the worst example of the
“discord” (ὰσυμφωνία), or as it was called later, the “confusion”
(κέρασμος), caused by the mingling of light with matter, and as such was
doomed to extinction and to eternal separation from the Divine.[222] In
like manner, the soul of man consisted of three parts corresponding to
the three worlds, that is to say, the pneumatic, psychic, and earthly;
and of these three, the last was doomed to extinction. Only by laying
aside his earthly part as Jesus had done and becoming entirely
pneumatic, could man attain to the light and become united with the
Godhead. But to do so, his soul must first pass from choïc to psychic
and thence to pneumatic, or, as the Naassene author quoted by Hippolytus
puts it, must be born again and must enter in at the gate of
heaven[223].

This rebirth or passage of the soul from the choïc to the psychic, and
thence to the pneumatic, was, as has been said, the work of the
mysteries, especially of those new ones which the Ophite Jesus or
Christos had brought to earth with Him from above. The process by which
these “changes of the soul” were brought about was, according to the
Naassenes, “set forth in the Gospel according to the Egyptians[224].”
The only quotation pertinent to the matter which we have from this lost
work is one preserved for us by Clement of Alexandria which refers to
the coming of a heavenly age “when the two shall be made one, and the
male with the female neither male nor female[225]”—a saying which seems
to refer to the time when all the light now scattered among the lower
worlds shall return to the androgyne Adamas from whom it once issued.
But it is probable that this gospel only described the upward passage of
the soul in figures and parables probably conveyed in texts of the
Canonical Gospel divorced from their context and their natural meaning,
as in the Naassene author quoted by Hippolytus. Such a gospel might be a
sufficient means of instruction for the living, who could puzzle out its
meaning with the help of their mystagogues or priests[226]; but it must
always have been difficult for the best-instructed to remember the great
complications of worlds, planets, and celestial powers that lay at the
root of it. How difficult then must it have been thought for the
disembodied soul to find its way through the celestial places, and to
confront the “guardians of the gate” of each with proof of his exalted
rank in the scale of being? What was wanted was some guide or clue that
the dead could take with him like the _Book of the Dead_ of the ancient
Egyptians, some memory or survival of which had evidently come down to
the Alexandrian worship[227], or like the gold plates which we have seen
fulfilling the same office among the worshippers of the Orphic
gods[228].

That the Ophites possessed such documents we have proof from the remarks
of the Epicurean Celsus, who may have flourished in the reign of Hadrian
(A.D. 117-138)[229]. In his attack on Christianity called _The True
Discourse_, he charges the Christians generally with possessing a
“diagram” in which the passage of the soul after death through the seven
heavens is portrayed. Origen, in refuting this Epicurean’s arguments
more than a century later, denies that the Church knew anything of such
a diagram, and transfers the responsibility for it to what he calls “a
very insignificant sect called Ophites[230].” He further says that he
has himself seen this diagram and he gives a detailed description of it
sufficient to enable certain modern writers to hazard a guess as to what
it must have looked like[231]. It seems to have been chiefly composed of
circles, those in the uppermost part—which Celsus says were those “above
the heavens”—being two sets of pairs. Each pair consisted of two
concentric circles, one pair being inscribed, according to Origen,
Father-and-Son, and according to Celsus, “a greater and a less” which
Origen declares means the same thing[232]. By the side of this was the
other pair, the outer circle here being coloured yellow and the inner
blue; while between the two pairs was a barrier drawn in the form of a
double-bladed axe[233].

    “Above this last” Origen says “was a smaller circle inscribed
    ‘Love,’ and below it another touching it with the word ‘Life.’ And
    on the second circle, which was intertwined with and included two
    other circles, another figure like a rhomboid ‘The Forethought of
    Sophia.’ And within their (?) point of common section was ‘the
    Nature of Sophia.’ And above their point of common section was a
    circle, on which was inscribed ‘Knowledge,’ and lower down another
    on which was the inscription ‘Comprehension[234].’”

There is also reference made by Origen to “The Gates of Paradise,” and a
flaming sword depicted as the diameter of a flaming circle and guarding
the tree of knowledge and of life; but nothing is said of their
respective places in the diagram.

Jacques Matter, whose _Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme_ appeared in
1843, without its author having the benefit of becoming acquainted with
Hippolytus’ _Philosophumena_, which tells us so much as to the doctrines
of the Naassenes or early Ophites, and Father Giraud, who has on the
contrary drawn largely from it, and whose dissertation on the Ophites
was published in 1884, have both given pictorial representations of the
Ophite diagram. Although they differ somewhat in the arrangement of the
circles, both are agreed that the blue and yellow circles signify the
Holy Spirit and Christos. The Pleroma or Fulness of the Godhead
consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the Christos their
messenger, therefore seems figured in these two pairs of circles. Both
Matter and Father Giraud also arrange four other circles labelled
respectively Knowledge, Nature, Wisdom, and Comprehension (Γνῶσις,
Φύσις, Σοφία, and Σύνεσις) within one large one with a border of
intertwined lines which they call the Forethought of Sophia (Πρόνοια
Σοφίας). This may be the correct rendering, but it is hardly warranted
by Origen’s words given above, nor do we know of any powers, aeons, or
other entities in the Ophite system called Gnosis or Physis[235]. In any
event, however, it is fairly clear that this part of the diagram
represents the Sophia who fell from the Holy Spirit into matter, and
that her natural or first place should be the heaven stretched out above
the seven planetary worlds. Yet Irenaeus tells us that the Ophites he
describes thought that Sophia succeeded finally in struggling free from
the body of matter and that the super-planetary firmament represented
merely the lifeless shell she had abandoned[236]. This is, perhaps, the
view taken by the framers of the diagram.

However that may be, Origen’s discourse agrees with Celsus in describing
a “thick black line marked Gehenna or Tartarus” which cuts, as he says,
the diagram in two. This is specially described by Celsus; and if it
surprises anyone to find it thus placed above the planetary heavens, it
can only be said that later Gnostics, including those who are
responsible for the principal documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ to be
presently mentioned, put one of the places where souls were tortured in
“the Middle Way” which seems _above_, and not, like the classical
Tartarus, _below_ the earth[237]. Below this again, come the seven
spheres of the planets dignified by the names of Horaios, Ailoaios,
Astaphaios, Sabaoth, Iao, Ialdabaoth and Adonai respectively. These
names are, indeed, those given in Irenaeus as the names of the
descendants of Sophia, although the order there given is different. As
to the meaning of them, Origen declares that Ialdabaoth, Horaios, and
Astaphaios are taken from magic and that the others are (the Hebrew)
names of God[238]. But it should be noticed that Origen is in this place
silent as to their situation in the diagram, and that those assigned to
them in Matter’s and Father Giraud’s reconstructions are taken from the
prayers or “defences” which will be given independently of it.

The division which Matter calls “Atmosphère terrestre” and Father Giraud
“The Fence of Wickedness” (Φραγμὸς Κακίας) is also not to be found in
Origen’s description of the diagram, but is taken from another passage
where he defines it as the gates leading to the aeon of the
archons[239]. The remaining sphere, containing within itself ten circles
in Matter’s reconstruction and seven in Father Giraud’s, is however
fully described. The number ten is, as Matter himself admitted to be
probable, a mistake of the copyist for seven[240], and there can be no
doubt that the larger sphere is supposed to represent our world. The
word “Leviathan” which in accordance with Origen’s description is
written both at the circumference and at the centre of the circle[241]
is evidently Ophiomorphus or the serpent-formed son of Ialdabaoth whom
we have seen cast down to earth by his father together with the
protoplasts Adam and Eve[242]. He should according to the later Gnostics
be represented in the shape of a “dragon” or serpent coiled round the
world and having his tail in his mouth, while the seven circles within
the ring thus formed are the seven Archons or ruling spirits created by
him in imitation of Ialdabaoth. These are represented in beast-like form
and are, as we have seen, hostile to man. The first four have the Hebrew
angelic names of Michael, Suriel, Raphael, and Gabriel, perhaps because
the four planetary worlds to which they correspond bear also Hebrew
names of God[243]. The remaining three Thauthabaoth, Erataoth, and
Thartharaoth are probably taken from the peculiar corruption of Hebrew
and Egyptian words to be found in the Magic Papyri. Some of them, at any
rate, we meet again later. The word Behemoth which appears at the foot
of the diagram may be translated “animals[244].” It may either be a
further description of the seven Archons—as seems most likely—or be
taken in its etymological sense as the animal kingdom which in the scale
of being succeeds terrestrial man.

To this diagram, Origen adds the prayers or defences above alluded to,
which he draws from some source not mentioned. He calls them the
“instruction” which they (_i.e._ the Ophites) receive after passing
through the “fence of wickedness,—gates which are subjected to the world
of the Archons[245]”; but we know from other sources that they are the
speeches, “defences” or passwords required to be uttered by the soul of
the initiated when, released from this world by death, she flies upwards
through the planetary spheres[246]. As they contain many instructive
allusions, they can best be given in Origen’s own words, at the same
time remarking that the reading is not in all cases very well settled.
The first power through whose realm the soul had to pass is not here
mentioned by name, but by the process of exhaustion is plainly the one
whom Irenaeus calls Adonaeus or Adonai.

To him the soul of the dead is to say:

    “I salute the one-formed king, the bond of blindness, thoughtless
    oblivion, the first power preserved by the spirit of Pronoia and by
    Sophia; whence I am sent forth pure, being already part of the light
    of the Son and of the Father. Let grace be with me, O Father, yea
    let it be with me[247]!”

In passing through the next mentioned, which is the realm of Ialdabaoth:

    “Thou O First and Seventh, born to command with boldness, Ialdabaoth
    the Ruler (Archon) who hast the word of pure Mind (νοῦς), a perfect
    work to the Son and the Father, I bring the symbol of life in the
    impress of a type, and open the door to the world which in thy aeon
    thou didst close, and pass again free through thy realm. Let grace
    be with me, O Father, yea let it be with me[248]!”

Arrived at Iao, he ought to say:

    “Thou, O Second Iao and first lord of death, who dost rule over the
    hidden mysteries of the Son and the Father, who dost shine by night,
    part of the guiltless one. I bear my own beard as a symbol and am
    ready to pass through thy rule, having been strengthened by that
    which was born from thee by the living word. Let grace be with me, O
    Father, yea let it be with me[249]!”

To Sabaoth:

    “Ruler of the Fifth realm, King Sabaoth, advocate of the law of thy
    creation. I am freed by grace of a mightier Pentad. Admit me, when
    thou beholdest the blameless symbol of thy art preserved by the
    likeness of a type, a body set free by a pentad. Let grace be with
    me, O Father, yea let it be with me[250]!”

To Astaphaios:

    “Ὁ Astaphaios, Ruler of the third gate, overseer of the first
    principle of water, behold me an initiate, admit me who have been
    purified by the spirit of a virgin, thou who seest the substance of
    the Cosmos. Let grace be with me, O Father, yea let it be with
    me[251]!”

To Ailoaios:

    “O Ailoaios, ruler of the second gate, admit me who brings to thee
    the symbol of thy mother, a grace hidden from the powers of the
    authorities. Let grace be with me, O Father, yea let it be with
    me[252]!”

and to Horaios:

    “O Horaios, who didst fearlessly overleap the fence of fire
    receiving the rulership of the first gate, admit me when thou
    beholdest the symbol of thy power, engraved on the type of the Tree
    of Life, and formed by resemblance in the likeness of the Guiltless
    One. Let grace be with me, O Father, yea let it be with me[253]!”

These defences have evidently got out of their proper order, and have
probably been a good deal corrupted as well[254]. But their form and
general purport are mostly intelligible and show undoubted signs of
Egyptian origin. They were therefore probably not the work of the
earlier Ophites or Naassenes, but were most likely introduced when the
Ophite doctrines began to leave their primitive seat in Phrygia and to
spread westward into North Africa and the south-east of Europe. The
diagram itself seems to be fairly expressive of the more ancient
teaching and in particular the division of all things below the Godhead
into three parts. Thus we find in it the “middle space” or heaven of
Sophia, itself perhaps the Paradise whence the protoplasts and
Ophiomorphus were hurled, then the world of seven planets, and finally
this earth under the government of Ophiomorphus’ seven angels. To judge
from Origen’s remark that “they say there is a sympathy (συμπάθεια)
between the Star Phaenon (_i.e._ Saturn) and the lion-like power
(Michael)[255],” it is probable that the Ophites, like the Babylonian
astrologers, looked upon the system of “correspondences,” as it was
afterwards called, as running through all nature in such a way that
every world and every power inhabiting it was a reflection of the one
above it[256]. That each world according to the Naassenes contained a
“Church” or assembly of souls[257] is stated in the text quoted above,
the “Captive” Church there mentioned being evidently composed of the
souls still held in the grip of matter, the “Called” of those who had
passed into the planetary worlds, and the “Chosen” of those who were
purified enough to be admitted into the middle space or Paradise of
Sophia[258]. That these last were thought to be eventually united with
the Deity appears in some later developments of the Ophite faith, but
the doctrine seems also to have been known to the Naassenes, since the
author quoted by Hippolytus speaks of “the perfect gnostics” becoming
“kingless” (that is, subject to no other being) and as appointed to
“share in the Pleroma[259].”

Of the amount of success which the speculations of the Ophites enjoyed
we know very little. Origen, as we have seen, speaks of them as being in
his day “an insignificant sect”; and we have no proof that their numbers
were ever very large[260]. Father Giraud asserts on the faith of some of
the smaller heresiologists and Conciliar Acts that they spread over the
whole of Asia Minor, through Syria and Palestine into Egypt on the one
hand, and, on the other, to Mesopotamia, Armenia, and even to India, and
this is probably more or less correct[261]. But those who had actually
read their writings, as Irenaeus and Hippolytus evidently had done, seem
to have looked upon them more as the source of many later heresies than
as formidable by their own numbers. Whether the Sethians with whom
Irenaeus would identify them were really a subdivision of the Ophite
sect may be doubted, because in Hippolytus’ account of the Sethian
doctrines, the existence of Jesus is never mentioned or referred to, and
there is some reason for thinking them a non-Christian sect[262]. But
the heresies of the Peratae and of Justinus, which Hippolytus describes
as not differing much from the Ophites, certainly resemble that which
has been summarized above too closely for the resemblance to be
accidental; while the same remark applies to those of the Barbeliotae
and Cainites described by Irenaeus, and to the Gnostics, Archontics, and
others of whom we read in Epiphanius’ _Panarion_. Most of these sects
seem to have flourished on the Eastern or Asiatic outskirts of the Roman
Empire, although some of them probably had settlements also in Egypt,
Greece, Crete, and Cyrene. As the first Ophites had contrived to make an
amalgam of the fervent and hysterical worship of nature in Anatolia with
the Jewish and Christian tenets, so no doubt these daughter sects
contrived to fit in with them the legends of the local cults among which
they found themselves. But such compromises were not likely to last long
when the Catholic Church began to define and enforce the orthodox faith,
and the Ophites seem to have been one of the first to succumb. In the
Vth century A.D., there were still Ophite “colleges” to be found in the
province of Bithynia; for Theocritus and Evander, the bishops of
Chalcedon and Nicomedia, “refuted” their leaders publicly with such
effect, says Praedestinatus, that they afterwards broke into their
“secret places” at the head of a furious mob, drove away their priests,
killed the sacred serpents, and “delivered the people from that
danger[263].” This is the last that we hear of them as an organized
sect, and although Justinian in A.D. 530 thought right to include them
by name in his law against heretics, it is probable that by then their
opinions had long since passed into other forms[264].

Probably one of the first changes to take place in the Ophite faith was
the withdrawal into the background of the serpent worship which respect
for the ancient cults of Asia Minor had imposed upon the earlier members
of the sect. In the diagram, Ophiomorphus does not seem to have been
depicted in his proper shape, although he may perhaps be identified with
the Leviathan there shown as surrounding the terrestrial world. Those
Ophites who wished to obtain proselytes among Christian catechumens no
doubt felt the advisability of not insisting upon this conception,
inasmuch as “the serpent” was the figure under which the Oriental
Christians loved to allude to the Pagan worships which still opposed
them in Asia Minor[265]. Hence there arose much confusion among the
Ophites themselves as to the character of the serpent, and while some,
according to Irenaeus, asserted that Sophia the mother of Ialdabaoth
herself became the serpent[266], Theodoret, a very late witness, thinks
that the Ophites of his time held that Ophiomorphus, although originally
the minister of Sophia, had gone over to the other side, and had become
the enemy of mankind[267]. In this we may also, perhaps, see, if we
will, the effect of Egyptian influence upon the earlier Ophite teaching;
for in Egypt, the serpent Apep was always looked upon as the enemy of
Râ, the Sun-god, who was rightly considered the great benefactor of
humanity. It is no doubt due to the same influence that in one of the
documents of the _Pistis Sophia_—one part of which, as will be seen
later, was probably written for the furtherance of a late form of the
Ophite heresy—the serpent, while keeping his place in the Cosmos as the
great ocean which surrounds the earth, is transformed into the outer
darkness of the Canonical Gospels, and described as a huge
torture-chamber for the punishment of souls[268]. The same document
shows us how the Ophites, while adopting all the ideas of their
predecessors the Orphics as to the respective states of the initiated
and uninitiated after death,—including therein their reincarnation, the
draught from the lake of memory and the like—contrived to mix with them
the current astrological ideas of the time which made all these events
happen in an order determined by the motions of the stars[269]. This
tendency, already visible in Hippolytus’ time in the Ophite sect which
he calls the Peratae[270], will, however, be better considered when we
come to deal with the documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ themselves.

There remains to be said that _the Gospel according to the Egyptians_
mentioned above is the only apocryphal document that Hippolytus directly
attributes to the earlier Ophites or Naassenes. The sects derived from
them seem to have made use of a great number of others, among which we
find a _Book of Baruch_ otherwise unknown to us, _The Paraphrase of
Seth_, the _Gospels of Nicodemus_, _Philip_, and _Thomas_, together with
a _Gospel according to the Hebrews_, which may or may not have been
identical with the one which Hippolytus calls that according to the
Egyptians[271]. Of these, the first two are entirely lost, and the
documents which we possess bearing the name of the Gospel of Nicodemus
relate the events of the Crucifixion in much the same way as the
Canonical Gospels, but add thereto the visit of Jesus to Hades. A
_Gospel of Thomas_, which is also extant, contains only the account of
miracles performed by Jesus in His infancy, and therefore goes to
controvert the Ophite theory that Christos and Sophia only descended
upon Him at His baptism, and that up to that period He was as other men.
It is probable, however, that our copies of these Apocryphal Gospels
have been severely edited so as to expunge everything which savoured of
Gnostic teaching and may really have been partly or wholly the work of
Ophites[272]. Of the _Gospel of Philip_, Epiphanius has preserved a
short passage as follows:

    “The Lord has revealed to me what the soul ought to say when she
    goes to heaven, and how she ought to answer each of the Powers on
    high. ‘I have known myself,’ she says, ‘and I have collected myself
    from everywhere, and I have not begotten children for the Archon,
    but I have rooted out his roots, and I have collected the scattered
    members, and I know thee what thou art. For I, she says, am from
    above[273].’ And thus he [_i.e._ Philip] says, she is set free. But
    if, he says, she is found to have begotten a son, she is retained
    below, until she can receive again her own children, and draw them
    up to herself[274].”

Similar expressions are to be found in two of the documents of the
_Pistis Sophia_, and the abstinence from sexual intercourse which they
enjoin is direct and first-hand evidence rebutting the accusation of
promiscuous immorality which Epiphanius brings against the Ophites or
their related sects. Epiphanius attributes to the same sect of
“Gnostici” the use of a _Gospel of Perfection_ which “others”—the
context shows that he means certain Ophites—“are not ashamed to call the
Gospel of Eve.” Of this he also preserves a single passage as follows:

    “I stood upon a high mountain, and I saw a huge man and another who
    was mutilated [or perhaps only smaller, κολοβὸν] and I heard a voice
    of thunder, and I drew near to hearken and he spoke to me and said,
    ‘I am thou and thou art I; and where thou art, there am I, and I am
    scattered through all things. And whencesoever thou dost wish,
    collect me, and in collecting me, thou dost collect thyself[275].’”

Is the greater and lesser man here the Adamas or Father-and-Son of the
Ophites, in which case the latter part of the passage doubtless refers
to the scattering of the light through the world of matter and the
necessity of its collection and return to the Godhead. The “I am thou
and thou art I” phrase is repeated in the _Pistis Sophia_ by the risen
Jesus to His disciples[276], and seems to refer to the final union of
the perfected human soul with the Deity.

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].

The life of Bar Daisan, of which some particulars have been preserved
for us by Bar Hebraeus and other Eastern historians of the Church,
throws considerable light upon the attitude towards Christianity of
Valentinus and that Anatolic School which best represented his
teachings. Bar Daisan was born some fifty years after Valentinus of rich
and noble parents in the town of Edessa in Mesopotamia, where he seems
to have been educated in the company of the future king of the country,
Abgar Bar Manu[421]. He was probably a Christian from his infancy, early
became a Christian teacher, and withstood Apollonius, a Pagan Sophist
who visited Edessa in the train of the Emperor Caracalla, making avowal
of his readiness to suffer martyrdom for the faith. According to
Eusebius, he had the greatest abhorrence of the dualistic doctrine of
Marcion and wrote books against him in his native Syriac which were
afterwards translated into Greek[422]. He, or perhaps his son
Harmonius[423], also composed a great number of hymns which were sung in
the Catholic Churches of Mesopotamia and Syria; and it was not until a
century and a half after his death that Ephrem Syrus, a doctor of the
now triumphant and persecuting Church, found that these abounded in the
errors of Valentinus, and deemed it necessary to substitute for them
hymns of his own composition[424]. Valentinus seems in like manner to
have lived in Rome as a Christian teacher, as we have seen, for at least
sixteen years, and to have composed many psalms, some of which are
quoted by Clement of Alexandria. If Tertullian is to be believed, he was
qualified for the episcopate, which he must have had some chance of
obtaining; and his want of orthodoxy cannot, therefore, have been
manifest at the time or considered an objection to his candidature[425].
Moreover, Irenaeus says that Valentinus was the first who converted the
so-called Gnostic heresy into the peculiar characteristics of his own
school[426]; which agrees with Tertullian’s statement that Valentinus
was “at first a believer in the teaching of the Catholic Church in the
Church of Rome under the episcopate of the Blessed Eleutherus[427].” It
is evident, therefore, that long after his peculiar teaching was
developed, he remained a member of the Church, and that it was not by
his own wish that he left it, if indeed he ever did so.

One is therefore led to examine with some closeness the alleged
differences between his teaching and that of the orthodox Christianity
of his time; and these, although they may have been vitally important,
seem to have been very few. With regard to his views as to the nature of
the Godhead, as given above, they do indeed seem to differ _toto coelo_
from those shadowed forth in the Canonical Gospels and Epistles, and
afterwards defined and emphasized by the many Œcumenical and other
Councils called to regulate the Church’s teaching on the matter. The
long series of aeons constituting his Pleroma or Fulness of the Godhead
seems at first sight to present the most marked contrast with the
Trinity of Three Persons and One God in the Creeds which have come down
to us from the early Church. But is there any reason to suppose that
Valentinus regarded the members of these Tetrads, Decads, and Dodecads
as possessing a separate and individual existence or as having any
practical importance for the Christian? We can hardly suppose so, when
we consider the attitude of his immediate followers with regard to them.
Some, as we have seen, were said to have put as the origin of all
things, not a single principle but two principles of different sexes or,
as Irenaeus says, a “dyad,” thereby splitting the Supreme Being into
two[428]. We can imagine the outcry that this would have caused two
centuries later when the different parties within the Christian Church
were at each other’s throats on the question whether the Son was of the
same or only of like substance with the Father. Yet neither Valentinus,
nor Ptolemy, nor Heracleon, nor any one of the Valentinian leaders seems
to have borne the others any hostility on that account, to have dreamed
of separating from them on such a pretext, or to have ceased to regard
themselves both as Christians and followers of Valentinus. The only
inference to be drawn from this is either that the account of their
teaching has been grossly corrupted or that they considered such
questions as matters of opinion merely, on which all might freely
debate, but which were not to be taken as touchstones of the faith.

This view derives great support from the way in which Clement of
Alexandria, Valentinus’ countryman and the one among the Fathers who
seems best fitted to understand him, regarded similar questions. M.
Courdaveaux has shown with great clearness that Clement sometimes
confounded the Third Person of the Trinity with the Second, and
sometimes made Him His inferior. He also considered the Son as a simple
creature of the Father, and, therefore, necessarily, of lower rank[429].
It was for such “heresies,” as they were afterwards called, that
Photius, who had Clement’s now lost book of the _Hypotyposes_ under his
eyes, condemned him as a heretic, although his judgment in the matter
has never been adopted by the Church. M. Courdaveaux also shows that
Tertullian, even before he left the Church, looked upon both the Son and
the Holy Spirit as only “members” of the Father, whom he considered to
contain within Himself the complete divine substance; and this was
certainly none of the heresies for which his memory was arraigned[430].
It by no means follows that Valentinus’ teaching was the same as that of
the Church in all its details; but it seems possible from these examples
that he did not think it necessary to be more definite than the Church
herself upon such points, and that he did not look upon them in any
other light than as matters of opinion.

It should also be considered whether the language that Valentinus used
regarding the nature and divisions of the Godhead is to be construed in
the same sense and as implying the meaning that it would have done a few
centuries later, when these points had been long discussed and the
reasons for and against them marshalled and weighed. So far as can now
be seen, he, like all Egyptians, never lost sight of allegory in dealing
with matters transcending sense. Thus, when he speaks of the pretended
union of Bythos and Sige, he is careful to say that there is nothing
actually begotten, and that the whole story must be considered in a
figurative sense:

    “The Father [_i.e._ Bythos] alone,” he says, “was unbegotten, not
    subject to conditions of place, nor time, taking no counsel, nor
    having any other being that can be comprehended by any recognized
    trope: but he was alone, and, as it is said, solitary, and resting
    in solitary repose within himself. And when he became fruitful, it
    seemed to him good at a certain time to engender and bring forth the
    most beautiful and perfect thing which he had within him: for he did
    not love solitude. For he was all love, but love is not love unless
    there is something to be loved[431].”

Between this and such Canonical texts as “God is love, and he that
dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him[432],” there may be a
difference of application indeed, but none of language.

It seems, therefore, that in his theology Valentinus treated the Ophitic
ideas on which he worked very much as the Ophites had themselves treated
the legends of Osiris and Attis. Dealing with their stories of aeons and
powers as myths—that is to say as legends which whether true or not were
only to be considered as symbols designed to show the way in which the
world and man came forth from God—he thereby established his cosmology
on a foundation which could be considered satisfactory by those
half-heathen schools which had already contrived to reconcile the Pagan
rites with the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian belief in the Mission
of Jesus. But he went far beyond them in applying the same method of
interpretation to all the acts of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. If
Jesus were crucified upon the Cross, it was because its type the aeon
Stauros had been set as a limit between that which is God and that which
is not God but only godlike[433]. If He is said to go up to Jerusalem,
it means that He went up from the world of matter to the Heaven of
Sophia which is called Jerusalem[434]. If He were sent down to earth, it
was because the higher worlds had already been put in the way of
redemption by the gathering-in of Sophia into the Pleroma, the marriage
of Sophia Without to Jesus the Joint Fruit, and the revelation to the
Demiurge or God of the Jews that he was not the Supreme Being but only
his reflection at several removes[435]. Every world is a copy of the one
above it, every event must take place in every world in its turn, and
all creation is like a chain which hung from the heavens is gradually
drawn up to them, this creation of ours (κτίσις καθ’ ἡμᾶς) being its
last link[436].

In all this, Valentinus wrote like a philosopher of the period, and, in
fact, pretty much as Philo had done. But beyond this, he seems to have
paid great attention to what is called the “pastoral” duty of a
religious teacher or the care of souls, and to have busied himself to
show how religion could be used to console and sustain the heart. All
the fragments that we have left of the writings of himself and his
followers are directed towards this end; and would, from this point of
view, do credit to any doctor of the Church. This is especially the case
with the passage formerly quoted likening the human heart to an inn, of
which Clement of Alexandria gives the actual words as follows:

    “There is one good by whose coming is the manifestation, which is by
    the Son, and by Him alone can the heart become pure, by the
    expulsion of every evil spirit from the heart. For the multitude of
    spirits dwelling in it do not suffer it to be pure; but each of them
    performs his own deeds, insulting it often with unseemly lusts. And
    the heart seems to be treated somewhat like the courtyard of an inn.
    For the latter has holes and ruts in it, and is often filled with
    dung; men living filthily in it, and taking no care for the place
    because it belongs to others. So fares it with the heart as long as
    no thought is taken for it, and it is unclean and many demons dwell
    therein. But when the one good Father visits it, it is sanctified
    and gleams with light. And he who possesses such a heart is so
    blessed, that he shall see God[437].”

It is no wonder that M. Amélineau speaks in terms of admiration of the
eloquence with which Valentinus applies himself to the problem of the
existence of evil, and that Neander should say that he in great measure
realized the idea of Christianity[438].

It seems indeed plain that Valentinus never intended to break with the
Catholic Church and that it is not likely that he would have attempted
during his life to found any organization that would have been in any
way hostile to her[439]. Hence it is in vain to search for any special
rites belonging to the sect; and it is most probable that he and his
immediate followers continued to worship with the orthodox, and to
resort to the priests of the Church at large for the administration of
the Church’s sacraments. Did they however demand any formal initiation
into their own doctrines or, in other words, attempt to keep them in any
sense secret? One can only say that there is no proof that they did so.
Clement of Alexandria and Origen both quote freely from the books
written by Valentinus and his follower Heracleon in which their
doctrines are openly set forth, and do not hint at any special
difficulty they may have had in obtaining them. Irenaeus, Tertullian,
and Hippolytus do the same thing with regard to the writings of
Valentinus and Ptolemy, and Irenaeus tells us that he has obtained his
knowledge of their doctrines not only by reading their commentaries (on
Scripture) but by personal conversation with their disciples[440]. It
does not, therefore, look as if before the legal procedure of the State
or the more summary methods of the Christian mob could be used by the
Catholics for the suppression of opinion and discussion, the
Valentinians ever tried to do what Basilides had recommended to his
followers, and to found what was really a secret society either within
or without the bosom of the Church[441].

It does not follow from this, however, that the Valentinians differed
only in trifling points from the orthodox, or that the Fathers were
wrong when they accused them of working grave injury to the nascent
Church. The compliances with heathenism which they allowed those who
thought with them, such as attendance at the circus and the theatres,
partaking of heathen sacrifices, and flight or even the denial of their
faith in time of persecution[442], although justified by them with
texts, such as: “That which is of the flesh is flesh; and that which is
of the Spirit is Spirit,” must have aroused the most bitter hostility
from those wise governors of the Church who saw clearly whither the
struggle between the Church and the Roman Empire was tending. The reward
most constantly before the eyes of those about to obtain what was called
“the crown” of martyrdom was that by thus giving their lives for the
faith they would immediately after death become united with the Deity,
instead of waiting like other Christians for the Last Judgment[443].
Hence, intending martyrs were regarded even while yet alive with
extraordinary reverence by the rest of the faithful, who, as we know
from heathen as well as Christian writers, were in the habit of flocking
into the prisons after them, weeping over them and kissing their
fetters, and deeming it a privilege to minister in every way to the
necessities of those who might by a sort of anticipation be regarded as
already Divine[444]. It was on this veritable army of martyrs and on the
enthusiasm which their triumphs excited that the Church mainly relied
for victory in her warfare with the State. But how was this army to be
recruited if the ideas of Valentinus once gained the upper hand in the
Christian community, and it came to be thought that the same reward
could be gained by acquaintance with the relative positions of the
heavens and their rulers, and an accurate knowledge of the constitution
of the universe? It was in time of persecution that the Valentinians
oftenest found adherents—“then the Gnostics break out, then the
Valentinians creep forth, then all the opponents of martyrdom bubble
up,” as Tertullian describes it[445]; and it is easy to understand that
those who had most to lose in position or ease of life would grasp
eagerly at any intermediate course which would enable them to keep their
faith in the religion recently revealed to them without going through
the terrible trials to which their orthodox teachers sought to subject
them. Hence, the Valentinians probably in some sort justified Gibbon’s
remark that “the Gnostics were distinguished as the most polite, the
most learned, and the most wealthy of the Christian name[446]”; and this
alone would probably account for the undying hostility which the Church
always exhibited towards them.

It was also the case that the spread of the tenets of Valentinus and his
followers was attended with some peculiar social dangers of its own.
Their division of mankind into the three natural classes of spiritual,
psychical, and hylic, if carried to its logical conclusion, brought with
it some strange results. As the spiritual or pneumatics were saved in
any event, and were, already even in this life, as was expressly said, a
kind of “gods,” it was manifestly not for them to trouble themselves
about obedience to the moral law. The same conclusion applied to the
hylics who were doomed to annihilation in any case, and whose struggles
towards righteousness were bound to be inefficacious. There remained the
psychics or animal men, for whom indeed a certain course of life was
prescribed before they could attain salvation. But with the excessive
freedom of interpretation and the licence of variation that Valentinus
apparently allowed his followers, the exact limits of this course must
always have been a matter of doubt; and it was here that many
corruptions and debasements of his teaching began to show themselves.
For it was an age when religious impostors of all kinds found an easy
market in the credulity of their fellows, and charlatans everywhere
abounded who were ready to support their claims to exclusive knowledge
of holy things by false miracles and juggling tricks. Hippolytus gives
us a long list of such devices including the means of answering
questions in sealed letters, producing an apparition, and the like,
which he declares the heresiarchs learnt from the magicians and used as
proof of their own doctrines[447]. One knows at any rate from Lucian’s
evidence that religious pretenders like Alexander of Abonoteichos were
not negligent of such practices, and charlatans of his kind were perhaps
especially likely to be attracted to the timid and wealthy followers of
Valentinus. A Valentinian impostor of this sort, if the Fathers are to
be believed, was the Jewish magician Marcus, who taught a system
corresponding in most points with that given above, but made use of it
in his own interest as a means of moneymaking and for the corruption of
women. Irenaeus speaks of the doctrine of this Marcus as being an
especial snare to the Christians of Gaul, into which country Marcus or
some follower of his perhaps travelled while Irenaeus was Bishop of
Lyons[448]. By a mode of interpretation which was indeed a caricature of
Valentinus’ own, Marcus found proof of the existence and order of his
aeons in the values of the letters composing Divine names and in words
like Jesus and Christos[449]. He seems, too, to have himself
administered baptism accompanied by exorcisms in the Hebrew language,
and to have profaned the Eucharist with juggling tricks which made the
cup to overflow and turned the water it contained into wine having the
semblance of blood[450]. Thus, says Irenaeus, he contrived to draw away
a great number from the Church and to seduce many of the faithful women.
Valentinus, perhaps, is somewhat unfairly held responsible by the
Fathers for such a perversion of his own teaching which he would,
perhaps, have condemned as loudly as they. Scandals of the kind here
hinted at were not unknown in the Catholic Church itself, and Christian
ministers have been found in all ages, sects, and countries who have
been willing to abuse for their own purposes the power which religion
gives them over the opposite sex. It is true, too, that people, as has
been well said, are seldom either as good or as bad as their creed, and
the doctrine that “God sees no sin in His elect” has been preached in
our own time without being followed by the “wretchlessness of most
unclean living” which the 17th article of the Church of England declares
to be one of the probable consequences of predestinarian teaching. The
later Valentinians certainly did not forbid marriage, as is shown by the
pathetic epitaph from a grave in the Via Nazionale quoted by Renan[451],
and thus avoided some of the moral dangers with which the practice of
celibacy is sometimes reproached.

Of the fortunes of the Valentinian sect after the death of Valentinus,
we have very little precise information. Tertullian speaks of it as
being in his time the most numerous society of heretics
(_frequentissimum plane collegium haereticorum_), and in the West it
extended from Rome, as we have seen, into Gaul and even into Spain,
where it existed at the end of the 4th century[452]. Probably, however,
it here propagated itself sporadically, its opinions appearing now and
then among isolated writers and teachers, who probably drew their
disciples carefully from among the Christian community, and only
disclosed their system to those who showed some aptitude for it. Of such
was doubtless “my fair sister Flora” (ἀδελφή μου καλὴ Φλώρα), to whom
Valentinus’ successor Ptolemy wrote a letter setting out his tenets
which Epiphanius has preserved for us[453]. As the quotations in it
presuppose an acquaintance on her part with Old Testament history as
well as with the Canonical Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, there can
be little doubt that she was already a Christian convert. This mode of
propaganda was the more obnoxious to the episcopate that it was likely
to escape for some time the observation of the overseers of the Church,
and is quite sufficient to explain the pains which bishops like Irenaeus
and Hippolytus took to expose and refute the doctrines of the
Valentinians, as well as what they say with doubtful accuracy about the
secrecy which was observed concerning them[454]. In the East, things
were probably different, and Heracleon’s Commentaries on the Gospels,
from which Origen quotes freely, would on the face of it have been
useless unless addressed to the Christian community at large, and make
no attempt to conceal their heretical teaching. In Egypt, however, the
Gnostic teachers found a soil ready prepared for them. Egyptian
Christianity, whether founded, according to tradition, by St Mark or
not, never seems to have gone through the intermediate stage of
observing the prescriptions of the Jewish Law while preaching its
abrogation, and, in Alexandria especially, so far appealed to those
learned in the Hellenistic and other philosophies as to necessitate the
founding of a Christian school there for their study. The native
Egyptians, too, had for millennia been given to mystic speculation about
the nature of God and the destiny of the soul after death; and
Valentinus, who must be presumed to have understood his own people,
doubtless knew how to suit his teaching to their comprehension, even if
he did not incorporate therein, as M. Amélineau has endeavoured to show,
some of the more abstruse doctrines on these points of the old Egyptian
religion[455]. Moreover, from the time of Hadrian onwards, the Egyptians
were animated by a bitter and restless hatred against their Roman
masters, and this feeling, which was by no means without justification,
disposed them to embrace eagerly any ideas condemned by the bishops and
clergy of Rome and of Constantinople. Hence the Valentinians had in
Egypt their greatest chance of success, and the existence of documents
like those described in the next chapter shows that Egyptian
Christianity must have been largely permeated by their ideas perhaps up
to Mohammedan times. Further East, the same causes produced similar
effects, though in this case they were probably modified by the
necessity of combating the remains of heathen religions which there
lingered. The growing political power of the Catholic Church even before
the conversion of Constantine probably drove the Valentinians to form
separate communities wherever they were in sufficient numbers to do so,
and thus is explained the possession by them of the “houses of prayer”
of which the Constantinian Decree above quoted professes to deprive
them. On the confines of the Empire and in provinces so far distant from
the capital as Mesopotamia, these heretical communities probably
lingered longer than in other places, and may have enjoyed, as in the
case of Bardesanes, the protection and countenance of the native
kinglets. Even here, however, the employment of the secular arm which
its alliance with the State gave to the Church seems to have eventually
forced them into an attitude of hostility towards it, as is shown by the
“rabbling” of one of their conventicles in the way before mentioned. The
accession of Julian brought them a temporary respite[456]; but on his
death in the Persian campaign, the retreat of the Roman eagles probably
gave them their quietus. Only in Egypt, it would seem, did their
doctrines succeed in gaining anything like a permanent resting-place.
Elsewhere, the rise of new heresies and especially of Manichaeism drove
them out of their last strongholds.

Valentinianism, therefore, approved itself a stop-gap or temporary
faith, which for two hundred years[457] acted as a halfway house between
heathenism and Christianity. In this capacity, it was singularly
efficient, and was one of the forces which enabled, as Renan said, the
ancient world to change from Paganism to Christianity without knowing
it. In particular, it seems to have attracted to itself the attention of
the learned and leisured class who were endeavouring, earnestly if
somewhat timidly, to work out a rule of faith and conduct from the
welter of creeds and philosophies with which the Empire was swamped
during the first Christian centuries. Such a class is not that out of
which martyrs are made, and is sure sooner or later to acquiesce in the
opinions of the majority; but we may be certain that the learned and
polite Valentinians would have listened with natural disgust to the
simple and enthusiastic declamations of Jewish fishermen and artizans
which had for their chief theme the coming destruction and overthrow of
the social system in which they had grown up. The brilliant, if
baseless, speculations of Valentinus, which even now have a certain
attraction for the lovers of mysticism[458], gave them exactly the kind
of spiritual _pabulum_ they craved for, and enabled them to wait in hope
and patience until Christianity, forcing its way upward, as religions
generally do, from the lowest class of society, had become the faith of
the governing ranks. In this way, Valentinianism was probably one of the
best recruiting grounds for the Catholic Church, and Renan is doubtless
right when he says that no one who passed from Paganism through the
Gnosticism of Valentinus and his fellows ever reverted to his former
faith. Yet Valentinianism itself was doomed to but a short life, and in
its original form probably did not survive its founder by much more than
a century and a half. One of its later developments we shall see in the
next chapter.

Footnote 282:

  The same may be said of practically all Christians of the Apostolic
  age. See Hatch, _H.L._ p. 124. It was the reproach which Celsus cast
  at the whole Christian community in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. See
  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk III. c. 44. Origen, _op. cit._ Bk III. c. 9,
  retorts that “now” (_i.e. circa_ 230 A.D.) not only rich but
  highly-placed men and well-born ladies are to be found among the
  Christians. The change probably took place during the reign of
  Commodus; Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 21. Origen and Eusebius
  agree that this entry of educated men into the Church brought heresy
  along with it. See Origen, _op. cit._ Bk III. c. 12.

Footnote 283:

  Bréhier, “La Cosmologie Stoicienne,” _R.H.R._ t. LXIV. (1911), pp.
  1-9.

Footnote 284:

  A. W. Benn, _The Philosophy of Greece_, 1898, pp. 246, 255.

Footnote 285:

  Kenyon, _Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N. T._, 1901, p.
  138, says, “Mr Gwilliam, whose opinion, as editor of the Peshitto, is
  entitled to all respect, believes it to be the original translation of
  the Scriptures into Syriac,” but thinks the question not yet decided.

Footnote 286:

  Kenyon, _Greek Papyri_, p. 83.

Footnote 287:

  1 Kings xviii. 40.

Footnote 288:

  See the case of Dr Michael Hudson quoted by Sir Walter Scott from
  Peck’s _Desiderata Curiosa_ in his notes to _Woodstock_; and
  Cromwell’s letter to the Houses on the siege of Drogheda.

Footnote 289:

  M. Cumont’s theory, that the Jewish colonies in Phrygia had introduced
  the worship among the Pagans of Yahweh under the name of “Hypsistos”
  is not convincing; but it is probable that in religious matters these
  colonists gave more than they borrowed. The story of the king of
  Adiabene who wished to turn Jew (see Chapter XII, _infra_) is
  significant. Cf. the princes of the same kingdom who fell while
  fighting valiantly in the Jewish ranks in the Sunday battle of Gabao
  in which Cestius Gallus was defeated. See Josephus, _Bell_. Bk II. c.
  19, § 2.

Footnote 290:

  Tertullian, _de Praescript._ c. VIII.

Footnote 291:

  Dill, _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, p. 346.

Footnote 292:

  _Ibid._ pp. 293, 294.

Footnote 293:

  Like Callias. See Chapter II, vol. I. p. 76, _supra_.

Footnote 294:

  Arrian, _Anabasis_, Bk IV. c. 9.

Footnote 295:

  Tacitus, _Hist._ Bk III. c. 81.

Footnote 296:

  Tacitus, _Annal._ Bk XV. c. 62.

Footnote 297:

  _Ibid._ Bk XVI. c. 34.

Footnote 298:

  Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. I. p. 398.

Footnote 299:

  Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._ Bk IV. c. 6.

Footnote 300:

  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk I. c. 15.

Footnote 301:

  Cf. Hadrian’s letter to Servian, Chapter II, vol. I. p. 86, _supra_.

Footnote 302:

  Amélineau, _Le Gnosticisme Égyptien_, p. 30. Its early shape was
  probably more magical and less ethical than its later developments,
  because, as the same author (_P.S.B.A._ 1888, p. 392) says, for
  several centuries it was only the lowest classes in Egypt that became
  Christians.

Footnote 303:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 18, p. 197, Harvey. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII.
  c. 28, p. 369, Cruice.

Footnote 304:

  So Hippolytus, _loc. cit._, who copies Irenaeus’ statement word for
  word. But something has evidently slipped out of the text. If Christ
  and Satan were both the enemies of Yahweh, we should have the
  συμφώνησις or fellowship declared impossible by St Paul in 2 Cor. vi.
  15.

Footnote 305:

  Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. I. p. 349.

Footnote 306:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 18, p. 197, Harvey; Hippolytus, Bk VII. c. 28, p.
  367, Cruice; Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXIII. c. 1, p. 135, Oehler.

Footnote 307:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 19, § 1, p. 199, Harvey. For the name Abraxas see
  _ibid._ p. 203, and Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 26, p. 361,
  Cruice. As Harvey points out in his note, the passage containing it
  has evidently slipped out of Irenaeus’ text and has been added at the
  foot of the roll.

Footnote 308:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 20, p. 344, Cruice. The revelations
  in question must therefore have been made after the Resurrection.
  Clement of Alexandria says that Basilides was a disciple of Glaucias,
  the interpreter of Peter: _Strom._ Bk VII. c. 17.

Footnote 309:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 21, pp. 345, 346, Cruice.

Footnote 310:

  ἀθελήτως καὶ ἀνοήτως καὶ ἀναισθήτως. Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ This
  στίγμα ἀμέριστον or “indivisible point” from which all things come is
  mentioned in Simon Magus’ Apophasis (see Chapter VI, vol. I. p. 194,
  _supra_) as well as in the Bruce Papyrus of Chapter X, _infra_.

Footnote 311:

  Or like the Orphic egg from which Phanes came forth. See 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 Chapter VI, vol. I. p. 174, _supra_.

Footnote 356:

  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk VII. c. 1.

Footnote 357:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 29, p. 281, Cruice.

Footnote 358:

  _i.e._ Profound.

Footnote 359:

  Not “self-existent,” but maker of his own φύσις or nature.

Footnote 360:

  See n. 2, p. 98 _supra_.

Footnote 361:

  Harvey reads here αἰώνιος “everlasting,” which makes at least as good
  sense as the other.

Footnote 362:

  Some memory of this seems to have enlivened the disputes between the
  Nominalists and Realists of the XIIIth century. Cf. the wrangling of
  the Doctors at the School of Salerno in Longfellow’s _Golden Legend_

         I, with the Doctor Seraphic, maintain
         That the word that’s not spoken, but conceived in the brain,
         Is the type of Eternal Generation,
         The spoken word is the Incarnation.

Footnote 363:

  They are also probably places or receptacles. In the _Pistis Sophia_
  we read repeatedly of the three χωρήματα and of the τόπος ἀληθείας.

Footnote 364:

  Amélineau, _Gnost. Égypt._ pp. 200 _sqq._

Footnote 365:

  So Hope Moulton, _Early Zoroastrianism_, 1913, p. 114, points out that
  half of the Persian Amshaspands or archangels bear names expressing
  “what Mazda is” and the other half “what Mazda gives.” There is much
  likeness, as has been said, between the Amshaspands and the “Roots” of
  Simon Magus.

Footnote 366:

  It is worth noticing that these are the three “theological” virtues,
  Faith, Hope, and Charity.

Footnote 367:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 23, pp. 269-271, Cruice, wishes to
  make out that all this is derived from what he calls the “Pythagorean”
  system of numbers. Anyone wishing to pursue these “silly cabalisms”
  further is recommended to read Harvey’s Introduction to Valentinus’
  system, _op. cit._ pp. cxv-cxvii.

Footnote 368:

  Ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δεκαδύο ὁ δωδέκατος καὶ νεώτατος πάντων τῶν εἰκοσιοκτὼ
  Αἰώνων, θῆλυς ὢν καὶ καλούμενος Σοφία, κατενόησε τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὴν
  δύναμιν τῶν γεγεννηκότων Αἰώνων, καὶ ἀνέδραμεν εἰς τὸ βάθος τὸ τοῦ
  Πατρός. “But the twelfth of the twelve, and the youngest of all the
  eight and twenty aeons, who is a female and called Sophia, considered
  the number and power of those aeons who were begotten (?) and went on
  high to the height of the Father”: Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c.
  30, p. 283, Cruice. The “eight and twenty aeons” shows that
  Valentinus, according to Hippolytus, did _not_ reckon Bythos and Sige
  in the first Ogdoad.

Footnote 369:

  A further proof that the primitive doctrine of Valentinus did not give
  a spouse to Bythos.

Footnote 370:

  Ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ, φησίν, ἔστι πάντα ὁμοῦ· (ὁμοῦ seems here to
  mean “without distinction of time or place.” Cf. the “None is afore or
  after other” of the Athanasian Creed) ἐν δὲ τοῖς γεννητοῖς, τὸ μὲν
  θῆλυ ἔστιν οὐσίας προβλητικόν, τὸ δὲ ἄρρεν μορφωτικὸν τῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ
  θήλεως προβαλλομένης οὐσίας. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 30, p.
  284, Cruice.

Footnote 371:

  Καὶ τοῦτο ἐστί, φησίν, ὃ λέγει Μωϋσῆς· “ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ
  ἀκατασκεύαστος.” “And this, he says, is the saying of Moses. ‘And the
  earth was _invisible_ and unshapen’”—a curious variant of the A.V.,
  Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ He goes on to say that this is “the good and
  heavenly Jerusalem,” the land in which the children of Israel are
  promised milk and honey. It should be noticed, however, that even this
  unshapen being, like all the Sophias, was identified with the Earth.

Footnote 372:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 31, pp. 284, 285. Irenaeus, Bk I. cc.
  1, 4, p. 21, Harvey, says that Monogenes [Nous] put forth (πρόβαλε)
  the pair κατὰ προμήθειαν τοῦ Πατρὸς, apparently without the aid of his
  partner Aletheia. Hippolytus’ account is the simpler, as making all
  the Pleroma thus descend from a single pair, and is therefore,
  probably, the earlier.

Footnote 373:

  Hippolytus, _loc. cit._, says that this new aeon was called Ὅρος
  “Horus,” or “The Limit,” because he separates the Pleroma or Fulness
  from the Hysterema or Deficiency (_i.e._ that which lacks God), which
  is one of those puns which will be familiar to all Egyptologists (see
  Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, Eng. ed. p. 396, for other examples).
  He is also said to have been called Metocheus or the Partaker, because
  he shares in the Deficiency, doubtless as being partly outside the
  Pleroma. His name of Horus was probably suggested by that of the old
  Egyptian god whose figure must have been familiar to every
  Alexandrian. In the IInd century A.D., this last generally appears
  with hawk’s head and human body dressed in the cuirass and boots of a
  Roman gendarme or _stationarius_, which would be appropriate enough
  for a sentinel or guard.

Footnote 374:

  Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ pp. 284, 285, Cruice.

Footnote 375:

  Hippolytus, _loc. cit._ pp. 286, 287, Cruice. Christ and the Holy
  Spirit, having discharged the duty laid upon them, have retired with
  Sophia “the youngest of the aeons” within the Pleroma and cannot again
  issue forth.

Footnote 376:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ c. 32: ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς μὴ μόνον κατὰ συζυγίαν
  δεδοξακέναι τὸν υἵον, δοξάσαι [δὲ] καὶ διὰ προσφορᾶς καρπῶν πρεπόντων
  τῷ Πατρί. “It seemed good to them [the aeons of the Pleroma] not only
  to magnify the Son by conjunction, but also by an offering of pleasing
  fruits to the Father.” So in the mysteries of Isis, Osiris is called
  the fruit of the vine Dionysos. See Athenagoras, _Legatid._ c. XXII.
  Plainly Bythos and Nous or Monogenes are here represented as Father
  and Son as in the Ophite myth. The new projection is necessary to
  accord with the text about the whole Pleroma dwelling together bodily
  in Jesus. Cf. Colossians i. 19.

Footnote 377:

  The expression ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ὁ μέγας is repeated by Clement of
  Alexandria, _Protrept_. c. XII., possibly with reference to this
  passage. It may be noticed, however, that Jesus is here also made the
  Messenger or Ambassador of the Light as with the Ophites. It will be
  seen later that he occupies the same place with the Manichaeans. Cf.
  Chapter XIII, _infra_.

Footnote 378:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 32, p. 289, Cruice.

Footnote 379:

  _Ibid._ p. 290, Cruice. Κατὰ τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ μέρος, θνητή τις ἐστὶν ἡ
  ψυχή, μεσότης τις οὖσα· ἔστι γὰρ Ἑβδομὰς καὶ Κατάπαυσις. “According to
  this, therefore,” [he has just said that fire has a twofold power, for
  there is a fire which devours everything and which cannot be
  extinguished] “part (of the Demiurge) is a certain soul which is
  subject to death, and a certain substance which occupies a middle
  place. For it is a Hebdomad and a laying to rest.” The passage is not
  easy, but seems to mean that some of the souls made by the Demiurge
  are mortal, while others are susceptible of salvation. Cf. n. 1, p.
  109, _infra_. The name Hebdomad evidently refers to the seven
  astronomical heavens under the rule of the Demiurge, and the title
  “Ancient of Days” identifies him, like the Jaldabaoth of the Ophites,
  with the God of the Jews.

Footnote 380:

  Called Ogdoadas or eighth, because it is next above the seven heavens;
  but Sophia, the 28th, was the last of the aeons. We see, therefore,
  that Valentinus, like the Ophites of the diagram, is reckoning
  forwards and backwards in the most confusing way.

Footnote 381:

  So Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 9, pp. 44, 45, Harvey, says that they [the
  Valentinians] say that the seven heavens are endowed with intelligence
  (νοητούς) and that they suppose them to be angels, and that the
  Demiurge is himself an angel like God. Also that Paradise is a heaven
  above the third, and that a fourth angel rules (?) there, and that
  from him Adam took somewhat while talking to him. Whatever this story
  may mean, it is curious to see how readily the Gnostics identified in
  name a heavenly place with its ruler, as in the titles of kings and
  peers.

Footnote 382:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 10, pp. 47, 48, Harvey, says that the Devil or
  Cosmocrator and all the spiritual things of evil (τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς
  πονηρίας) were made out of the pain (λύπη) of Sophia, and that he is
  the creation of the Demiurge, but knows what is above him, because he
  is a spirit, while his creator is ignorant that there is anything
  higher than himself, because he is only ruler of animal things (ψυχικὰ
  ὑπάρχοντα). In this, which is probably the teaching of Ptolemy,
  Valentinus’ successor is seen to be reverting to the Ophite ideas.
  Hippolytus, who here probably gives us Valentinus’ own doctrine, says
  on the other hand (_op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 33, pp. 290, 291, Cruice):
  Ὥσπερ οὖν τῆς ψυχικῆς οὐσίας ἡ πρώτη καὶ μεγίστη δύναμις γέγονεν εἰκὼν
  [the text is here restored by Cruice: τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ, οὕτω τῆς
  ὑλικῆς οὐσίας δύναμις] διάβολος, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμον τούτου· τῆς δὲ τῶν
  δαιμόνων οὐσίας, ἤτις ἐστὶν ἐκ τῆς ἀπορίας, ὁ Βεελζεβούδ. “As
  therefore the first and greatest power of the animal substance (the
  Demiurge) came into being as the image of the unique son (Nous), so
  the power of the material substance is the Devil, the Ruler of this
  world: and Beelzebud [the power] of the substance of demons which came
  into being from the perplexity” (of Sophia). It has been shown
  elsewhere (_P.S.B.A._ 1901, pp. 48, 49) that this Beelzebud or
  Beelzebuth is written in the Magic Papyri Jabezebuth or Yahweh
  Sabaoth, probably in pursuance of the parallelism which gives every
  god or superior power his correspondent personality in the inferior or
  evil world. In all magic, mediaeval or otherwise, Beelzebuth is
  carefully distinguished from Satan.

Footnote 383:

  Matthew x. 25, xii. 24, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15, have
  βεελξεβούλ, while the Peshitto writes the more familiar Beelzebub. See
  _P.S.B.A._ quoted in last note.

Footnote 384:

  Called also the Heavenly Jerusalem. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c.
  32, p. 290, Cruice.

Footnote 385:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 10, p. 49, Harvey: Δημιουργήσαντα δὴ τὸν
  κόσμον, πεποιηκέναι καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν χοϊκόν· οὐκ ἀπὸ ταύτης δὲ τῆς
  ξηρᾶς γῆς, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀοράτου οὐσίας, ἀπὸ τοῦ κεχυμένου καὶ ῥευστοῦ
  τῆς ὕλης λαβόντα· καὶ εἰς τοῦτον ἐμφυσῆσαι τὸν ψυχικὸν διορίζονται.
  “Having indeed fashioned the world, he (the Demiurge) made material
  man; not taking him out of this dry earth, but from the unseen
  substance, from the poured forth and liquid matter, and into him, they
  declare, he breathed that which is of the soul.” Although this might
  be taken for a Ptolemaic elaboration or embroidery of Valentinus’ own
  doctrine, it is repeated in almost identical words in the _Excerpta
  Theodoti_ of Clement of Alexandria, which represent the teaching of
  the Oriental School, and it is therefore possibly the statement of
  Valentinus himself. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 34, p. 293,
  Cruice, is quite in accord with this. Irenaeus says later (Bk I. c. 1,
  § 11) with reference to the body of Jesus: καὶ ὑλικὸν δὲ οὐδ’ ὁτιοῦν
  εἰληφέναι λέγουσιν αὐτόν· μὴ γὰρ εἶναι τὴν ὕλην δεκτικὴν σωτηρίας.
  “And they say that He took on Himself nothing whatever of matter; for
  matter is not susceptible of salvation.” From which it is to be
  inferred that Valentinus rejected the resurrection of the body.

Footnote 386:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 4, p. 23, Harvey, says that when Jesus, the
  Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, was projected, Angels of the same kind as
  himself (ὁμογενεῖς) were projected with him as a guard of honour. That
  these are the spiritual spouses of the souls of men is confirmed by
  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 34, p. 292, according to Cruice’s
  emendation: Ὑποδιῄρηται δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ Ὀγδοάδι, καὶ προβεβήκασιν ἡ
  Σοφία, ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ πάντων τῶν ζώντων κατ’ αὐτούς, καὶ ὁ κοινὸς τοῦ
  Πληρώματος καρπὸς ὁ Λόγος, [καὶ] οἵτινες εἰσὶν ἄγγελοι ἐπουράνιοι,
  πολιτευόμενοι ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ τῇ ἄνω, τῇ ἐν οὐρανοῖς. “The things which
  are in the Ogdoad also are subdivided, and there proceed (from it)
  Sophia who is, according to them, the Mother of All Living, and the
  Joint Fruit of the Pleroma, the Logos, and there are certain heavenly
  angels who are citizens of the Jerusalem which is above, that which is
  in the heavens.” So later (_ibid._ p. 293, Cruice) ... οἵτινές εἰσι
  λόγοι ἄνωθεν κατεσπαρμένοι ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ τοῦ Πληρώματος καρποῦ καὶ
  τῆς Σοφίας εἰς τοῦτον τὸν κόσμον, κατοικοῦντες ἐν [σώμα]τι χοϊκῷ μετὰ
  ψυχῆς, ὅταν δαίμονες μὴ συνοικῶσι τῇ ψύχῃ. “There are certain Logoi
  sown from above in the world by the Joint Fruit of the Pleroma and
  Sophia, which dwell in the material body with the soul, when there are
  no demons dwelling with it.” Clement of Alexandria, in _Strom._ Bk V.
  c. 14, points out that the notion of demons dwelling with the soul is
  to be found in Plato, and quotes the passage from the Vision of Er
  (_Rep._ Bk X. c. 15) about the souls of men between births each
  receiving from the hand of Lachesis a demon as their guides through
  life. It is more likely, however, to have been derived from the
  Zoroastrian belief in the Fravashis or Ferouers, celestial spirits who
  live with Ahura Mazda and the powers of light, until they are sent on
  earth to be joined with the souls of men, and to combat the powers of
  Ahriman (see L. C. Casartelli, _La Philosophie Religieuse du
  Mazdéisme_, Paris, 1884, pp. 76-80, for references). Cf. Hope Moulton,
  _op. cit._ c. VIII. _passim_.

Footnote 387:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 12, p. 59, Harvey: Τοὺς δὲ πνευματικοὺς
  ἀποδυσαμένους τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ πνεύματα νοερὰ γενομένους, ἀκρατήτως καὶ
  ἀοράτως ἐντὸς πληρώματος εἰσελθόντας νύμφας ἀποδοθήσεσθαι τοῖς περὶ
  τὸν Σωτῆρα ἀγγέλοις. “And the Spirituals, or Pneumatis, doffing their
  souls and becoming intelligent spirits, shall enter unperceived and
  unseen within the Pleroma, and shall be given as brides to the angels
  about the Saviour.” This suggestion, which completely shocked the
  modesty of Tertullian, may be connected with the Zoroastrian idea of
  the virgin who appears to the believer as his conductor at the bridge
  Chinvat. See Chapter XII, _infra_.

Footnote 388:

  This appears in the _Excerpta Theodoti_, fr. 63, Migne’s _Patrol.
  Graeci_, t. IX. col. 689: Ἡ μὲν οὖν πνευματικῶν ἀνάπαυσις ἐν Κυριακῇ
  ἐν Ὀγδοάδι ἡ Κυριακὴ ὀνομάζεται· παρὰ τῇ μητρὶ ἔχοντα τὰς ψυχὰς τὰ
  ἐνδύματα ἄχρι συντελείας· αἱ δὲ ἄλλαι πισταὶ ψυχαὶ παρὰ τῷ Δημιονυργῷ·
  περὶ δὲ τὴν συντέλειαν ἀναχώρουσι καὶ αὐτοὶ εἰς Ὀγδοάδας. Εἶτα τὸ
  δεῖπνον τὸν γάμον κοινὸν πάντων τῶν σωζωθέντων, ἄχρις ἂν ἀπισωθῇ πάντα
  καὶ ἄλληλα γνωρίσῃ. “Therefore the repose of the Spirituals in [the
  dwelling] of the Lord, that is, in the Ogdoad, is called the Lord’s
  rest” (cf. Irenaeus, Bk I. cc. 1, 9, p. 46, Harvey): “the garments
  [_i.e._ natures] containing the souls [will remain] with the Mother
  until the Consummation. And the other faithful souls (will remain)
  with the Demiurge; and at the Consummation they will withdraw, and
  they also will go into the Ogdoad. Then will be the Wedding Feast of
  all those who are saved until all things shall be made equal and all
  things mutually made known.” This heavenly banquet, of which we may be
  quite sure Valentinus made the Marriage in Cana a type, will be met
  with again in the worship of Mithras (Chapter XII, _infra_). But it
  was also well known to the Orphics (see Abel’s _Orphica_, Frag. 227,
  etc.), and the question repeats itself: Did the Orphics borrow the
  idea from the Persians, or the Mithraists from the Orphics?

Footnote 389:

  Valentinus may have found this doctrine in Egypt, where as Maspero
  points out (_Ét. Égyptol._ I. p. 398) only the rich and noble were
  thought to enjoy the life beyond the grave.

Footnote 390:

  Valentinus’ remark about the Cosmocrator being superior in knowledge
  to the Demiurge because he is a _spirit_ (see n. 1, p. 108 _supra_)
  much complicates the problem, and brings us pretty near to the Dualism
  of the Avesta. That all matter was in Valentinus’ opinion transitory
  appears from Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 13, where it is said that when
  all the seed scattered by Sophia in the world, _i.e._ the souls of the
  Pneumatici, is gathered in, the fire which is within the Cosmos shall
  blaze forth and after destroying all matter shall be extinguished with
  it.

Footnote 391:

  Clem. Alex., _Strom._ Bk II. c. 8, quotes an epistle of Valentinus in
  which he speaks of the terror of the angels at the sight of man
  because of the things which he spoke: διὰ τὸν ἀοράτως ἐν αὐτῷ σπέρμα
  δεδωκότα τῆς ἄνωθεν οὐσίας, καὶ παρρησιαζόμενον “because of that
  within him which yielded a germ of the substance on high, and spoke
  freely.” So Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 10, p. 51, Harvey: Ἔλαθεν οὖν, ὡς
  φασί, τὸν Δημιουργὸν ὁ συγκατασπαρεὶς τῷ ἐμφυσήματι αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τῆς
  Σοφίας πνευματικὸς ἀνθρώπων [ἄνθρωπος] ἀρρήτῳ [adj. δυνάμει καὶ]
  προνοίᾳ. “It escaped the Demiurge, therefore, as they say, that the
  man whom he had formed by his breath was at the same time made
  spiritual by Sophia with unspeakable power and foresight.” So that, as
  Irenaeus says a few lines later, man has his soul from the Demiurge,
  his body from Chaos, his fleshly part (τὸ σαρκικὸν) from matter, and
  his spiritual man from the Mother, Achamoth [_i.e._ חכמת “Wisdom”].

Footnote 392:

  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk IV. c. 13, quoting “a certain homily” (τις
  ὁμιλία) of Valentinus: Ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ἀθανατοί ἐστε, καὶ τέκνα ζωῆς ἐστε
  αἰωνίας καὶ τὸν θάνατον ἠθέλετε μερίσασθαι εἰς ἑαυτούς, ἵνα δαπανήσητε
  αὐτὸν καὶ ἀναλώσητε καὶ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ θάνατος ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ δι’ ὑμῶν. Ὅταν
  γὰρ τὸν μὲν κόσμον λύητε, ὑμεῖς δὲ καταλύησθε, κυριεύετε τῆς κτίσεως
  καὶ τῆς φθορᾶς ἁπάσης. “You were deathless from the beginning and the
  children of life everlasting, and you wish to share out death among
  you, in order that you may dissipate and destroy it and that death may
  die in and by you; for when you put an end to the world and are
  yourselves put an end to, you have rule over creation and all
  corruption.” So one of the documents of the _Pistis Sophia_ speaks of
  this world being finally consumed by the fire “which the perfect
  wield.” It was doubtless such predictions which gave colour to the
  charge of incendiarism made by the Roman authorities against the
  Christians generally. For the translation of the pneumatics to the
  Ogdoad see next note.

Footnote 393:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 31, p. 290, Cruice: Ἐὰν ἐξομοιωθῇ
  τοῖς ἄνω ἐν Ὀγδοάδι, ἀθάνατος ἐγένετο καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν Ὀγδοάδα ἥτις
  ἐστί, φησίν, Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπουράνιος· ἐὰν δὲ ἐξομοιωθῇ τῇ ὕλῃ, τουτέστι
  τοῖς πάθεσι τοῖς ὑλικοῖς, φθαρτή ἐστι καὶ ἀπώλετο. “If [the soul] be
  of the likeness of those on high in the Ogdoad, it is born deathless
  and goes to the Ogdoad which is, he says, the heavenly Jerusalem; but
  if it be of the likeness of matter, that is, if it belongs to the
  material passions, it is corruptible and is utterly destroyed.”

Footnote 394:

  ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος translated in the A.V. by “natural man” evidently
  means in the Valentinian sense those who are _animated_ or have had
  breathed into them the _breath_ of life merely. It has nothing to do
  with soul as we understand the term.

Footnote 395:

  Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 225.

Footnote 396:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 36, pp. 297, 298, Cruice: Ἔδει οὖν
  διορθωμένων τῶν ἄνω κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀκολουθίαν καὶ τὰ ἐνθάδε τυχεῖν
  διωρθώσεως. “Wherefore when things on high had been put straight, it
  had to be according to the law of sequences that those here below
  should be put straight also.”

Footnote 397:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ p. 297, Cruice: ἐδιδάχθη γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας ὁ
  Δημιουργός, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτὸς Θεὸς μόνος ὡς ἐνόμιζε, καὶ πλὴν αὐτοῦ
  ἕτερος (οὐκ) ἔστιν· ἀλλ’ ἔγνω διδαχθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς Σοφίας τὸν κρείττονα·
  κατηχήθη γὰρ ὑπ’ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐμυήθη καὶ ἐδιδάχθη τὸ μέγα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ
  τῶν Αἰώνων μυστήριον, καὶ ἐξεῖπεν αὐτὸ οὐδενί, κ.τ.λ. “For the
  Demiurge had been taught by Sophia that he was not the only God and
  that beside him there was none other, as he had thought; but through
  Sophia’s teaching he knew better. For he had been instructed and
  initiated by Sophia, and had been taught the great mystery of the
  Father and of the Aeons, and had declared it to none”—in support of
  which the statement in Exodus (vi. 2, 3) about being the God of
  Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but “by my name Jehovah was I not known
  unto them” is quoted. The identification by Valentinus of the Demiurge
  with the God of the Jews is therefore complete.

Footnote 398:

  σφάλματα “stumblings,” Hippolytus, _loc. cit._

Footnote 399:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk vi. c. 35, p. 295, Cruice. I have taken what
  seems on comparison to be the original form of Valentinus’ teaching.
  In the same chapter, Hippolytus tells us that his followers were
  divided on the question of the composition of the body of Jesus—the
  Italic School led by Heracleon and Ptolemy averring that it was
  psychic and that at His baptism only the πνεῦμα came upon Him as a
  dove, while the Oriental School of Axionicus and Bardesanes maintained
  that it was pneumatic from the first. Cf. n. 2, p. 116 _infra_.

Footnote 400:

  Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 226. The _Excerpta Theodoti_, on which he
  relies, says (fr. 78): Μέχρι τοῦ βαπτίσματος οὖν ἡ εἱμαρμένη, φασίν,
  ἀληθής· μετὰ δὲ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔτι ἀληθεύουσιν οἱ ἀστρολόγοι. Ἔστι δὲ οὐ τὸ
  λουτρὸν μόνον τὸ ἐλευθεροῦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ γνῶσις τίνες ἦμεν, τί
  γεγόναμεν, ποῦ ἦμεν, ἢ ποῦ ἐνεβλήθημεν, ποῦ σπεύδομεν, πόθεν
  λυτρούμεθα, τί γέννησις τί ἀναγέννησις. “Until baptism then, they say
  the destiny [he is talking of that which is foretold by the stars]
  holds good; but thereafter the astrologers’ predictions are no longer
  unerring. For the [baptismal] font not only sets us free, but is also
  the _Gnosis_ which teaches us what we are, why we have come into
  being, where we are, or whither we have been cast up, whither we are
  hastening, from what we have been redeemed, why there is birth, and
  why re-birth.” For baptism was to the Valentinian initiation, and a
  mystagogue of Eleusis would have expressed himself no differently.

Footnote 401:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 13, pp. 60-62, Harvey; Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._
  p. 226, and _Excerpta Theodoti_ there quoted.

Footnote 402:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 35, pp. 295, 296, Cruice: Ὁ δὲ
  Ἰησοῦς, ὁ καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, ἀπὸ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου [καὶ τοῦ Ὑψίστου],
  τουτέστι τῆς Σοφίας καὶ τοῦ Δημιουργοῦ, ἵνα τὴν μὲν πλάσιν καὶ
  κατασκευὴν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὁ Δημιουργὸς καταρτίσῃ, τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν
  αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα παράσχῃ τὸ Ἅγιον, καὶ γένηται Λόγος ἐπουράνιος ἀπὸ τῆς
  Ὀγδοάδος γεννηθεὶς διὰ Μαρίας. “But Jesus, the new man, [has come into
  being] by the Holy Spirit and by the Highest, that is by Sophia and
  the Demiurge, so that the Demiurge might put together the mould and
  constitution of His body and that the Holy Spirit might provide its
  substance; and that He might become the Heavenly Logos ... when born
  of Mary.” According to this, the body of Jesus was a “psychic” or
  animal one; yet Hippolytus says immediately afterwards (p. 296,
  Cruice), that it was on this that there was a division between the
  Italic and the Oriental Schools of Valentinians, the former with
  Heracleon and Ptolemy saying that the body of Jesus was an animal one,
  the Holy Spirit coming on Him as a dove at His baptism, while the
  Orientals with Axionicus and Bardesanes maintained that the body of
  the Saviour was pneumatic or spiritual, “the Holy Spirit or Sophia and
  the power of the Highest or Demiurgic art having come upon Mary, in
  order that what was given to Mary might be put into form.” Apparently
  Valentinus was willing to call the God of the Jews Ὕψιστος or
  “Highest,” which M. Cumont thinks was his name in Asia Minor.

Footnote 403:

  With the exception of that of St John, since the part of the _Pistis
  Sophia_ which it is suggested is by Valentinus does not quote it. His
  followers, however, knew of it, as in the _Excerpta Theodoti_ the
  opening verse τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν παρὰ τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ
  Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is quoted with the comments of οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ Οὐαλεντίνου
  on it. Cf. Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 209, where the passage is given
  in n. 4.

Footnote 404:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 13, pp. 60-62, Harvey: Εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ λέγοντες...
  Ἔπαθε δὲ λοιπὸν κατ’ αὐτοὺς ὁ ψυχικὸς Χριστός, καὶ ὁ ἐκ τῆς οἰκονομίας
  κατεσκευασμένος μυστηριωδῶς, ἵν’ ἐπιδείξῃ [δι’] αὐτοῦ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ ἄνω
  Χριστοῦ, ἐκείνου τοῦ ἐπεκταθέντος τῷ Σταυρῷ, καὶ μορφώσαντος τὴν
  Ἀχαμὼθ μόρφωσιν τὴν κατ’ οὐσίαν· πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα τύπους ἐκείνων εἶναι
  λέγουσι. “And there are some” (probably the Anatolic or Oriental
  School is meant) “who say.... And further the animal Christ, He who
  had been mysteriously formed by dispensation, suffered so that the
  Mother might show forth through Him the type of the Christ on high, of
  him who is extended by Stauros, and gave shape to Achamoth as regards
  substance: for they say that all things here are the types of others
  there.”

Footnote 405:

  Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. IV.

Footnote 406:

  That is, not a martyr, but one who had suffered for the faith without
  losing his life.

Footnote 407:

  Irenaeus, Bk III. c. 4, § 1, vol. II. p. 17, Harvey; Eusebius, _Hist.
  Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 11. Cf. Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 170.

Footnote 408:

  Tertullian, _de Praescpt._ c. XXX. Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 175,
  objects to this.

Footnote 409:

  Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 172, n. 1; _ibid._ p. 175.

Footnote 410:

  Epiphanius, _Pan., Haer._ XXXI. c. 2.

Footnote 411:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 35, p. 296, Cruice.

Footnote 412:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 2, p. 13, Harvey.

Footnote 413:

  See n. 2, p. 116 _supra_.

Footnote 414:

  Irenaeus, _Prooem._ p. 4, Harvey.

Footnote 415:

  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk IV. c. 9.

Footnote 416:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 38, p. 302, Cruice. So Irenaeus, Bk
  I. c. 5, § 2, p. 101, Harvey. This appears to be hyperbole rather than
  dualism.

Footnote 417:

  Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 189.

Footnote 418:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 35, p. 296, Cruice.

Footnote 419:

  Albîrûnî, _Chronology of Ancient Nations_, ed. Sachau, 1879, pp. 27,
  189.

Footnote 420:

  De Faye, _Intro._ etc. p. 105, n. 1; Tertullian, _de Carne Christi_,
  c. XVI.

Footnote 421:

  See Hort, Bardaisan, in _Dict. Christian Biog._

Footnote 422:

  Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 30, says that Bar Daisan was first a
  Valentinian and afterwards recanted, “but did not entirely wipe away
  the filth of his old heresy.”

Footnote 423:

  Rather a suspect name for a hymn writer.

Footnote 424:

  Ephrem Syrus’ own date is given as 370 A.D., in _Dict. Christian
  Biog._ _s.h.n._

Footnote 425:

  See n. 3, p. 117 _supra_.

Footnote 426:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 5, § 1, p. 98, Harvey.

Footnote 427:

  See n. 2, p. 118 _supra_.

Footnote 428:

  This may have been due either to their Egyptian extraction, or to the
  necessity of putting the matter in a way that would be intelligible to
  their Egyptian disciples. Cf. Naville, _Old Egyptian Faith_, 1909,
  where he says that the Egyptian way of expressing abstract ideas is by
  metaphors. Their ancestors, the Egyptians of the early Dynasties, when
  they wanted to describe how gods of both sexes came forth from one
  single male deity, did so by means of a very coarse image. See Budge,
  Papyrus of Nesi-Amsu, _Archaeologia_, vol. LII. (1890), pp. 440, 441.
  Cf. same author, _Hieratic Papyri in B.M._

Footnote 429:

  Courdaveaux, _R.H.R._ Jan.-Fev. 1892, p. 293 and n. 7. Mgr Duchesne,
  _op. cit._ pp. 244, 245, agrees that Clement looked upon the Son as a
  creature only. Nor does there seem much difference between Valentinus’
  view of the relation between the Demiurge and the Unknown Father, and
  Clement’s remarks about the Son whom he calls timeless and unbegotten
  and says that it is from Him that we must learn the “remote cause the
  Father of the Universe”: _Strom._ Bk VII. c. 1. Cf. Justin Martyr, _c.
  Trypho._ c. 56.

Footnote 430:

  _R.H.R._ Jan.-Fev. 1891, p. 27. Tertullian’s own heresy was of course
  Montanism. Harnack, _Hist. of Dogma_, Eng. ed., II. pp. 257, 258, says
  indeed that Hippolytus’ own views of the Trinity coincide with those
  of Valentinus and are a relic of polytheism.

Footnote 431:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 29, pp. 280, 281, Cruice.

Footnote 432:

  2 John iv. 16. So Ἀγάπη “Love” is made the summit of the universe in
  the Ophite Diagram. See Chap. VIII _supra_.

Footnote 433:

  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ vol. II. p. 90.

Footnote 434:

  Heracleon, quoted by Origen in _Commentaries on St John_, Bk X. c. 19.

Footnote 435:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 36, pp. 297, 298, Cruice.

Footnote 436:

  _Ibid._ _loc. cit._ p. 298, Cruice.

Footnote 437:

  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk II. c. 20.

Footnote 438:

  Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 230; Neander, _Ch. Hist._ vol. II. p. 94.

Footnote 439:

  Neander, _op. et loc. cit._ p. 150 and note, says Clement of
  Alexandria declares that while Marcion wished to found a Church, the
  other Gnostics endeavoured to found schools (διατριβαί) only. Clem.
  Alex. _Strom._ Bk VII. c. 15, seems to be the passage referred to; but
  in the present state of the text it may be doubted whether it will
  bear the construction Neander puts upon it.

Footnote 440:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. Prooem. p. 4, Harvey.

Footnote 441:

  Cf. Renan, _L’Église Chrétienne_, p. 165. The manner in which the
  Valentinians tried to make converts to their doctrines within the
  Church is described by Irenaeus, Bk III. c. 15, § 2, pp. 78, 80,
  Harvey, and Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 1.

Footnote 442:

  Renan, _L’Église Chrétienne_, pp. 152, 153, for references.

Footnote 443:

  Tertullian, _de Pudicitia_, and Pseudo Cyprian, _de Glor. Martyr._
  _passim_.

Footnote 444:

  See Chap. VII, n. 1, p. 8 _supra_.

Footnote 445:

  Tertullian, _Scorpiace_, c. 1.

Footnote 446:

  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, Bury’s ed. vol. II. p. 13. Cf. what
  Irenaeus, Βk I. c. 1, § 8, p. 36, Harvey, says as to the high price
  charged by the Valentinians for their teaching.

Footnote 447:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk IV. c. 4, §§ 1-15.

Footnote 448:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. cc. 7-8 _passim_, pp. 114-156, Harvey.

Footnote 449:

  Thus he says that the Dove signifies Alpha and Omega, the first and
  the last, because Α and Ω, like περιστερά “dove,” have the numerical
  value of 801.

Footnote 450:

  A similar miracle is performed by the risen Jesus in the Bruce
  Papyrus. See Chap. X _infra_.

Footnote 451:

  Verse:

      _a._

      Φῶς πατρικὸν ποθέουσα, σύναιμε, σύνευνε, σοφή μου,
      λούτροις χρεισαμένη Χ(ρειστο)ῦ μύρον ἄφθιτον, ἁγνὸν,
      Αἰώνων ἔσπευσας ἀθρ[ῆ]σαι θεῖα πρόσωπα,
      βουλῆς τῆς μεγάλης μέγαν ἄγγελον, υἱὸν ἀληθῆ,
      [εἰς ν]υμφῶνα μολοῦσα καὶ εἰς [κόλπ]ους ἀνόρουσα[?]
      [Αἰώνων πα]τρικοὺς κ[αὶ]....

      _b._

      Οὐκ ἔσχεν κοινὸν βιότου [τ]έλος ἥδε θανοῦσα·
      κάτθανε καὶ ζώει καὶ ὁρᾷ φάος ἄφθιτον ὄντως·
      ζώει μὲν ζωοῖσι, θανὲν δὲ θανοῦσιν ἀληθῶς.
      γαῖα, τί θαυμάζεις νέκυος γένος; ὴ πεφόβηται;

      (Boeckh’s) _C. I. G._ 9595_a_, t. I. and p. 594.

      “Longing for the light of the Father, partner of my blood, partner
         of my bed, O my wise one!
      Anointed at the font with the incorruptible and pure myrrh of
         Christ,
      Thou hast hastened to behold the divine faces of the Aeons, [and]
      The Great Angel of the Great Council, the true Son.
      Thou hast gone to the nuptial couch and hast hurried to the
         fatherly bosoms of the Aeons
      And....
      Though dying, she has not suffered the common end of life,
      She is dead, and yet lives and actually beholds the light
         incorruptible,
      To the living she is alive, and dead only to those really dead.
      O Earth, why dost thou wonder at this new kind of shade? or dost
         thou fear it?”

  This was engraved on a _cippus_ of white marble found about three
  miles from Rome in the Via Latina and is now in the Kircher Museum.
  Renan’s translation is given in _Marc Aurèle_, p. 147. That the lady’s
  name was Flavia seems evident from the acrostic contained in the first
  verse. She must also have been a pneumatic or spiritual from her
  husband’s confident expectation that she would be raised to the
  Heavenly Jerusalem and by his assertion of her deathlessness. Hence it
  may be inferred that Valentinus’ disciples even when of the highest
  spiritual rank were allowed to marry. Cf. Clem. Alex. _Strom_. Bk III.
  c. 17. The name “Angel of the Great Council” is applied to Christ by
  Justin Martyr (_c. Tryph._ c. 126) who says that He is so called by
  Ezekiel. The passage does not appear in the Canon.

Footnote 452:

  Matter, _Hist. du Gnosticisme_, t. II. p. 126, quoting St Jerome.

Footnote 453:

  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXXIII. c. 3, pp. 401-413, Oehler. Cf. “the Elect
  Lady” to whom 2 John is addressed.

Footnote 454:

  It should be remembered that Valentinus had been dead some 50 years
  when Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote.

Footnote 455:

  Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ Chap. V., pp. 281-320 _passim_.

Footnote 456:

  Julian, _Ep._ 43, tells Hecebolius that the Arians of Edessa, “puffed
  up by their riches,” have maltreated the Valentinians, and that he has
  therefore ordered the confiscation of the estates and treasure of the
  Church of Edessa. It is doubtful whether the edict can have been
  enforced before the emperor’s death abrogated it.

Footnote 457:

  We get at a sort of minimum date for its persistence from the career
  of St Ambrose, who had been a Valentinian in his youth (see Eusebius,
  _Hist. Eccl._ Bk VI. c. 18), and was made bishop of Milan in 374 A.D.,
  he being then 34 years old. The sect therefore had adherents in Italy
  about 360 A.D.

Footnote 458:

  It may be news to some that an attempt has lately been made to revive
  in Paris the heresy of Valentinus. See the _Contemporary Review_ for
  May, 1897, or Jules Bois’ _Les Petits Religions de Paris_, where a
  full account of the services and hymns of “L’Église Gnostique” is
  given. Its founder, Jules Doinel, was reconverted to Catholicism some
  time before his death. Its present head is M. Fabre des Essarts.




                               CHAPTER X
       THE SYSTEM OF THE PISTIS SOPHIA AND ITS RELATED TEXTS[459]


In 1765, the British Museum purchased from the celebrated antiquarian,
Dr Askew, a parchment MS. written in Coptic[460]. On palaeographic
grounds it is said to be not earlier than the VIth century A.D., which
agrees fairly with its state of preservation and the fact that it is
written on both sides of the skins so as to present the appearance of a
modern book[461]. Woide, then librarian of the Museum and pastor of the
King’s German Chapel at St James’, published some extracts from it in
his _Appendix to the Codex Alexandrinus_ in 1799, and Dulaurier gave
others in the _Journal Asiatique_ in 1847[462]. It remained, however,
untranslated until 1850, when Maurice Schwartze, a young German scholar
who was sent over here to study our MSS. at the expense of the king of
Prussia, turned it into Latin; and he having died soon after, his
translation was published the following year by the learned Petermann.
The British Museum text is written throughout in the Sahidic dialect;
and is the work of more than one scribe; but it seems to be agreed by
those who have studied it with knowledge that the documents it contains
are neither continuous nor necessarily related; and that it is in fact a
series of extracts from earlier MSS.[463] Of these documents, the second
commences with a heading, in a handwriting other than that of the scribe
of this part, reading “the Second Book of Pistis Sophia”; but as such a
heading implies that the foregoing document was the First Book of Pistis
Sophia, the whole MS. is generally known by that name[464].

The story presented in these two documents, although uncompleted, is, so
far as it goes, perfectly consistent, and presupposes belief in a
Gnostic system resembling at once those of the Ophites and of
Valentinus. An introduction in narrative form informs us that Jesus,
after rising from the dead, spent eleven years in teaching His disciples
the arrangement of the heavenly places “only so far as the places” of a
power whom He calls “the First Mystery,” and declares to be “before all
mysteries,” and to be “within the veil,” being “the father of the
likeness of a dove[465].” The result of this limitation was, we are
told, that the disciples were ignorant not only that any power existed
higher than the First Mystery, but also of the origin of the “places” or
worlds of those material and _quasi_-material powers who, here as in the
earlier systems, are responsible for the governance of the world and the
fate of mankind. While the disciples are sitting with Jesus on the Mount
of Olives, however, He is carried away from them into Heaven by a great
“power” or shape of light which descends upon Him. On His return, He
tells them that this shape was “a vesture of light” or His heavenly
nature which He had laid aside before being born into this world[466].
He also informs them that, when He first came into this world before His
Incarnation, He brought with Him twelve powers which He took from “the
Twelve Saviours of the Treasure house of Light[467],” and planted them
in the mothers of the twelve Apostles, so that when these last were born
into the world they were given these powers instead of receiving, like
other men, souls “from the archons (or rulers) of the aeons[468].” He
also describes how He appeared among the archons of the Sphere in the
likeness of the angel Gabriel, and found among them the soul of “Elijah
the Prophet[469].” This He caused to be taken to “the Virgin of Light,”
that it might be planted in Elizabeth, the mother of John the
Baptist[470], and He adds that He bound to it a power which He took from
“the Little Iao the Good, who is in the middle.” The object of this was,
we are told, that John the Baptist might prepare the way of Jesus and
baptize with water for the remission of sins.

Jesus then proceeds to describe His own Incarnation. When speaking,
still in the shape of the angel Gabriel, with Mary His “mother after the
body of matter,” He planted in her the first power he had received from
“Barbelo,” which was the body He had worn “in the height[471]”; and, in
the place of the soul, a power which He received from “the Great Sabaoth
the Good, who is in the place of the right.” After this digression, He
resumes His account of what happened after His receiving the vesture of
light on the Mount of Olives, and declares that He found written in this
vesture five mysterious words “belonging [viz. in the language of] to
the height[472],” which He interprets to His disciples thus:

    “The mystery who is without the world, through whom all things
    exist, he is the giving forth and the lifting up of all and he has
    put forth all the emanations and the things which are in them all.
    And it is through him that all the mysteries exist and all their
    places. Come unto us, for we are thy fellows and thy members[473]!
    We are one with thee, for thou and we are one. This is the First
    Mystery which existed since the beginning in the Ineffable One
    before he [_i.e._ the First Mystery] went forth, and we all are his
    name[474].

    “Now therefore we all await thee at the last boundary which is the
    last mystery from within[475]. This also is part of us. Now
    therefore we have sent to thee thy vesture which is thine from the
    beginning, which thou didst place in the last boundary, which is the
    last boundary from within, until the time should be fulfilled
    according to the commandment of the First Mystery. And now that the
    time is fulfilled, clothe thyself in it! Come unto us, for we all
    stand near to thee that we may clothe thee with all the glory of the
    First Mystery by His command. Which glory is as two vestures,
    besides that which we have sent unto thee. For thou art worthy of
    them since thou art preferred before us and wast made before us.
    Wherefore the First Mystery has sent thee by us the mystery of all
    his glory, which is as two vestures. In the first is the glory of
    all the names of all the mysteries and of all the emanations which
    are in the ranks of the receptacles of the Ineffable One. And in the
    second vesture is the glory of the names of all the mysteries and of
    all the emanations which are in the ranks of the two receptacles of
    the First Mystery. And in this vesture which we have sent thee now,
    is the glory of the name of the Recorder who is the First
    Precept[476], and the mystery of the Five Marks[477], and the
    mystery of the great Legate of the Ineffable One who is the same as
    that Great Light[478], and the mystery of the Five Prohegumeni who
    are the same as the Five Parastatae[479]. And there is also in that
    vesture the glory of the name of the mystery of all the ranks of the
    emanations of the Treasure-house of Light, and of their Saviours,
    and the ranks of those ranks which are the Seven Amen and which are
    the Seven Sounds, and also the Five Trees[480] and also the Three
    Amen, and also the Saviour of the Twins who is the boy of a
    boy[481], and the mystery of the Nine Guards of the Three Gates of
    the Treasure-house of Light. And there is also within it the glory
    of the name which is on the right, and of all those who are in the
    middle. And there also is the glory of the name of the Great Unseen
    One, who is the Great Forefather[482], and the mysteries of the
    Three Triple Powers, and the mystery of all their places, and the
    mystery of all their unseen ones, and of all the dwellers in the
    Thirteenth Aeon, and the name of the Twelve Aeons with all their
    Archons, all their Archangels, all their Angels and all the dwellers
    in the Twelve Aeons, and all the mystery of the name of all the
    dwellers in Heimarmene[483], and all the heavens, and the whole
    mystery of the name of all the dwellers in the Sphere and their
    firmaments with all they contain and their places. Lo, then, we have
    sent unto thee this vesture, which none knoweth from the First
    Precept downward, because that the glory of its light was hidden
    within it, and the Spheres and all the places from the First Precept
    downward knew it not. Hasten, then, do on the vesture, and come unto
    us, for we have remained near thee to clothe thee with these two
    vestures by the command of the First Mystery until the time fixed by
    the Ineffable One should be fulfilled. Now, then, the time is
    fulfilled. Come unto us quickly, that we may clothe thee with them
    until thou hast accomplished the entire ministry of the completion
    of the First Mystery, the ministry which has been laid upon thee by
    the Ineffable One. Come then unto us quickly in order that we may
    clothe thee with them according to the command of the First Mystery.
    For yet a little while, a very little while, and thou wilt cease to
    be in the world. Come then quickly, that thou mayest receive all the
    glory which is the glory of the First Mystery.”

This long address, in which the whole arrangement of the universe as the
author supposes it to exist is set forth, is clearly the utterance of
the heavenly powers belonging to the higher worlds whom Jesus has left
on His descent to earth. Unintelligible as it seems at first sight, it
can be explained to some extent by the tenets of the Ophites described
in Chapter VIII, which formed, as we have seen, the basis on which
Valentinus also constructed his system. The Ineffable One may be assumed
to be the Bythos whom both the Ophites and Valentinus called by that
epithet[484] and held to be the first and final source of all being.
Although something is said here and elsewhere in the book of his
“receptacles” and “places[485],” no particulars of them are given, they
being apparently reserved for a future revelation[486]. The First
Mystery, however, is spoken of later as a “Twin Mystery, looking inward
and outward[487],” which seems to correspond to the Father-and-Son of
the Ophite diagram. Later in the book, Jesus reveals to His disciples
that He Himself is the First Mystery “looking outward[488],” and this
seems to show that the author’s conception of the relations between Him
and the First Person of the Trinity did not differ much from that of the
Catholic Church[489]. The world of this First Mystery extends downwards
as far as what is here, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews[490], called
“the veil,” which is perhaps the veil of sense separating all things
contaminated by mixture with matter from the Divine. This First Mystery
is said to consist of twenty-four “mysteries”; but these do not seem to
be, as in the older systems, places or worlds, but rather attributes or
aspects of the Deity which together go to make up His whole being, as a
number of letters are required to make up a word or name[491]. But from
some words of Jesus given later in the book, it would appear that its
author did not at all discard the view of the earlier Ophites that the
Supreme Being was to be figured as of human form, for we find him
remarking that the First Mystery himself proceeded from the “last limb”
or member of the Ineffable One[492]. For the rest, it need only be
pointed out here that the powers who address Jesus in the quotation just
given also speak of themselves as His “members”; but that
notwithstanding this, they must be looked upon as purely spiritual
entities having no direct connection with any material forms except as
paradigms or patterns[493]. Whatever the worlds which they inhabit may
be thought to be like—and Jesus more than once tells His disciples that
there is nothing on earth to which they can be compared—we can only say
that they are two in number, and that it is the two “vestures of light”
sent to Jesus on the Mount of Olives, or, in other words, His two
natures, which give Him the means of ascending to the heavens of the
Ineffable One and of the First Mystery respectively. If the author ever
intended to discuss them further, he has certainly not done so in the
_Pistis Sophia_ properly so called[494].

On the other hand, the worlds and powers existing “below the veil,” or
within the comprehension of the senses, and symbolized by the third and
inferior “vesture” sent to Jesus, are indicated even in the address
given above with fair particularity. Their names and relative positions
are not easy to identify; but, thanks to some hints given in other parts
of the book, the universe below “the veil” may be reconstructed
thus[495]:—Its upper part contains the Treasure-house of light where, as
its name implies, the light as it is redeemed from matter is stored up.
There are below it five other worlds called the Parastatae or Helpers,
in one of which Jesus is to reign during the millennium, and the ruler
of the last of which arranges the pure spirits who dwell below it[496].
The highest spirit in the Treasure-house is called the First Precept or
the Recorder, and with him is associated the Great Light, who is said to
be the “legate” of the Ineffable One[497]. In the Treasure-house there
are also the orders of spirits set out in the address just quoted, the
only two to which it is necessary to refer here being the Five
Trees[498] and the Twelve Saviours. From the Five Trees emanated the
great “Powers of the Right Hand” to be next mentioned; while, as is
before described, the Twelve Saviours furnished the spotless souls
required for the Twelve Apostles[499]. The lower part of the same
universe is called the Kerasmos or Confusion, because here the light,
which in the upper part is pure, is mingled with matter. It is divided
in the first instance into three parts, the Right-hand, the Middle, and
the Left-hand[500]. Of these, the Right-hand contains the spirits who
emanated from the Five Trees of the Treasure-house. At their head is
Jeû, who has supreme authority over all the Confusion[501]. He is called
the Overseer of the Light, and in his name we may possibly recognize a
corruption of the Hebrew Yahweh. With him and of similar origin is
Melchisedek,[502] the Inheritor, Receiver or Purifier of the Light,
whose office it is to take the portions of light as they are redeemed
into the Treasure-house[503]. Another emanation from the Five Trees is
an otherwise unnamed Guard of the Veil of the Treasure-house[504] which
seems to be the veil dividing the Treasure-house from the Place of the
Right-hand, and there are two others of equal rank who are called simply
the two Prohegumeni or Forerunners[505]. Below these again is the Great
Sabaoth the Good, who supplied, as we have seen, the soul which was in
Jesus at His birth, and who is himself the emanation, not of any of the
Five Trees, but of Jeû[506]. He seems to have a substitute or messenger
called the little Sabaoth the Good, who communicates directly with the
powers of matter. In the Middle come the powers who are set over the
reincarnation of souls and the consequent redemption of mankind. Of
these, the only two named are “the Great Iao the Good[507],” spoken of
in one passage as the Great Hegumen (or Leader) of the Middle[508]. He,
too, has a minister called “the Little Iao” who supplies the “power”
which, with the soul of Elijah, animated the body of John the
Baptist[509]. He also has twelve deacons or ministers under him[510].
The other great Leader of the Middle is the Virgin of Light[511]. She it
is who chooses the bodies into which the souls of men shall be put at
conception, in discharge of which duty she sends the soul of Elijah into
the body of John the Baptist, her colleague Iao’s share in the work
being apparently limited to providing the “power” accompanying it. She
has among her assistants seven other virgins of light[512], after whose
likeness Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene are said to have
been made, and we also read of “receivers” who are under her
orders[513]. The light of the Sun “in its true shape” is said to be in
her place[514], and there is some reason for thinking that she is to be
considered as the power which directs the material Sun, while her
colleague Iao has the same office as regards the Moon[515].

We now come to the places of the left, the highest of which seems to be
that which is called the Thirteenth Aeon. This is a part of the universe
the existence of which Jesus conceals from His disciples until He
receives his “vestures,” and there is much mystery as to its origin. It
seems to have been governed in the first instance by a triad consisting
of an unnamed power referred to as the Great Forefather or the Great
Unseen One, a female power called Barbelo[516], and a second male called
the Authades or Proud God[517] who plays a principal part in the episode
of Pistis Sophia which forms the ostensible theme of the book. Of the
Great Forefather, we are told nothing of importance, but what is said of
the female power Barbelo bears out fully the remark which Hippolytus
attributes to Valentinus that among the lesser powers or aeons the
female merely projects the substance, while it is the male which gives
form to it[518]. It is doubtless for this reason that it is from her
that the body of Jesus is said to have come—i.e. that she provided the
matter out of which it was formed in the first instance, and which had,
as He says later in the present book, to be purged and cleansed by
Himself[519]. She is also spoken of throughout as the origin of all the
matter within the world of sense[520]. This triad, constantly referred
to throughout the book as the Three Tridynami or Triple Powers, have put
forth, before the story opens, twenty-four other powers arranged in
twelve syzygies or pairs who are spoken of as the Twenty-four Unseen
Ones, and who inhabit with them the Thirteenth Aeon. Only one of these
is named and this is the inferior or female member of the last syzygy.
She is named Pistis Sophia, and gives, as we have seen, her name to the
book[521].

We now pass from the unseen world, which can nevertheless be
comprehended as being in part at least material, to the starry world
above us which is plainly within the reach of our organs of sense. The
controlling part in this is taken by the powers called the Twelve Aeons,
who are ruled before the advent of Jesus by a power called, like the
Supreme Being in the Ophite system, Adamas[522]. As they are called in
one passage the 12 hours of the day, it may be concluded that they are
the 12 zodiacal signs or, in other words, the Zodiac or 12
constellations of fixed stars through which the sun appears to pass in
his yearly course[523]. Although nowhere expressly stated, it may be
concluded that they emanated from the last member of the triad of the
Left, _i.e._ the Authades, who is here said to have been disobedient in
refusing “to give up the purity of his light,” no doubt when the earth
was made, and is accused of ambition in wishing to rule the Thirteenth
Aeon. Through his creature, Adamas their king, he induces the rulers of
the Twelve Aeons to delay the redemption of the light from matter. It is
from their matter that are made the souls, not only of men, but of
beasts, birds, and reptiles[524], and if they were allowed to do as they
pleased, the process would go on for ever, as it is the habit of these
Archons “to turn about and devour their own _ejecta_, the breath of
their mouths, the tears of their eyes, and the sweat of their bodies,”
so that the same matter is used over and over again[525]. Below the
starry world comes the Sphere of Heimarmene or Destiny, so called
apparently because both the earthly and heavenly lot of each soul is
determined on its downward passage through it, and below that again the
Sphere simply so called, which is the visible firmament apparently
stretched above us. The Archons of the Aeons, of whom Adamas is the
chief, rule their own and both these lower spheres, and the only
hindrance to their dilatory manoeuvres prior to the advent of Jesus was
caused by Melchizidek the Receiver of the Light[526], who came among
them at stated times, took away their light, and, after having purified
it, stored it up in the Treasure-house. This was apparently done through
the medium of the sun and moon, who seem to have acted in the matter as
the “receivers” of Melchizidek[527].

We can now resume the narrative of the book which has been interrupted
in order that a description of the universe through which Jesus passes
on His ascension might be given. He tells His disciples that clothing
Himself in His third or least glorious “vesture,” He flew up to the
firmament, the gates of which opened spontaneously to give Him
passage[528]. Entering in, the Archons there were all struck with terror
at the light of His vesture, and wondered how the “Lord of the
Universe[529]” passed through them unnoticed on his descent to
earth[530]. The same scenes are repeated when He enters the Sphere of
Destiny, and again when He reaches the Twelve Aeons or Zodiac of fixed
stars. Before leaving the Twelve Aeons, Jesus takes away from its rulers
a third part of their power, and alters their course, so that its
direction is changed every six months. This He does, as He tells His
disciples, for a double reason. He thereby prevents the Aeons from
devouring their own matter, and so delaying the redemption of the light,
and He further hinders their movements from being used by mankind in the
divination and magic which the sinning angels taught when “they came
down”—a clear reference to the story in Genesis of the fall of the
angels as amplified in the _Book of Enoch_. This alteration, He
declares, was foreshadowed by the text “I have shortened the times for
my elect’s sake[531].”

Passing upward to the Thirteenth Aeon, Jesus tells His disciples that he
found Pistis Sophia dwelling alone in a place immediately below it, and
He here makes a long digression to recount her history. She is, as has
been said above, one of the twenty-four invisible but material
emanations projected by the Great Unseen Forefather and his consort
Barbelo, and formerly dwelt with her own partner, whose name is not
mentioned, in the Thirteenth Aeon[532]. But one day happening to look
forth from her place and beholding the light of the Treasure-house, she
longed to ascend towards it and began to sing praises to it. This
angered exceedingly the Authades or Proud God, the Third Triple Power or
chief of the Thirteenth Aeon, who had already, as has been said, shown
his disobedience in refusing to give up his light. Out of envy and
jealousy of Pistis Sophia, he sends forth from himself a great power
with a lion’s face who is “half flame and half darkness” and bears the
name of Jaldabaoth, which we have met with before among the
Ophites[533]. This Jaldabaoth is sent below into the regions of Chaos,
the unformed and shapeless darkness which is either below or surrounds
the earth[534], and when Pistis Sophia sees him shining there, she
mistakes his light for the light of the Treasure-house, and, leaving her
consort, plunges downwards towards it. She is instantly seized by
Jaldabaoth and other wicked powers sent forth by the Proud God, and
grievously tormented with the object of taking from her her light, so
that she may never again be able to return to her own place. In this
plight, she sings several Metanoiae or hymns of penitence to the light,
and after seven of these, Jesus, as He says, “from pity and without
commandment,” raises her to the uppermost parts of Chaos where she is
slightly more at ease[535]. She continues here to sing hymns of
penitence, but is tormented afresh until, after her ninth repentance,
Jesus receives command from the First Mystery to succour her. This he
does in a battle with fresh emanations from the Authades, including one
in the shape of “a flying arrow[536].” Adamas, the king of the wicked
Eons, also sends a power to the assistance of Jaldabaoth, and the other
emanations of the Proud God turn into serpents, a basilisk with seven
heads, and a dragon[537]. The powers of light sent by Jesus, however,
defeat all her enemies, and the archangels Gabriel and Michael bear her
aloft and establish her in the place below the Thirteenth Aeon, where
Jesus finds her on His ascension as here recorded. But this is not the
end. Jesus tells her that when “three times” are fulfilled[538], she
will be tormented again. This happens as predicted immediately before
the descent of the “vesture” on Him on the Mount of Olives. Thereupon,
He delivers her for the last time and restores her to her place in the
13th Aeon, where she sings to him a final hymn of thanksgiving.

This completes the episode of Pistis Sophia, and the rest of the book is
filled with the questionings upon it of Mary Magdalene and the other
disciples, among whom are prominent Mary the Mother of Jesus, Salome,
Martha, St John the Divine, St Philip, St Thomas, and St Matthew, to
which last-named three is said to be entrusted the recording of the
words of Jesus, together with St Peter, St James and St Andrew. This has
led some commentators to think that the work may possibly be the
_Interrogations of Mary_ (Ἐρωτήσεις Μαρίας), concerning which Epiphanius
says that two versions, a greater and a lesser, were used by several
Gnostic sects[539]. These questionings and the answers of Jesus are
extremely tedious, and include the comparison of the hymns of Pistis
Sophia, fourteen in all, with certain named Psalms and Odes of David and
Solomon of which they are said to be the “interpretation[540].” In the
course of this, however, the purpose of the book is disclosed, and
appears as the revelation of the glories awaiting the believer in the
world to come, the coming of the Millennium, and the announcement that
Jesus has brought the “mysteries” to the earth for the salvation of men.
But before describing these, it may be as well to draw attention to the
manifest likeness between the theology and cosmology of the _Pistis
Sophia_ proper and what has been said above of the tenets of the Ophites
and of Valentinus.

At first sight, the _Pistis Sophia_ in this respect seems to be almost
entirely an Ophite book. The Ineffable One, as has been said, is not to
be distinguished from the Ophite Bythos, while “the First Mystery
looking inward and outward” is a fairly close parallel to the First Man
and the Son of Man of the Ophite system. The names Sabaoth, Iao, and
Jaldabaoth also appear both here and with the Ophites, although the
last-named power now occupies a greatly inferior position to that
assigned to him by them, and from a merely ignorant power has now become
an actively malignant one. The work assigned to Sophia Without in the
older system is here taken in the Place of the Middle by the Virgin of
Light, who is throughout the working agent in the salvation of mankind;
but it should be noted that she here operates directly and not through a
grosser power as with the Ophites. The idea of a female divinity
ordering the affairs of men for their good as a mother with her children
had already gained possession of the heathen world in the character of
(the Greek) Isis, and in the hint here given as to the resemblance
between her delegates and the Virgin Mary, we may see, perhaps, the road
by which the Christian world travelled towards that conception of the
Theotokos or Mother of God which played such an important part in its
later creed. Among the powers inferior to her the names and places are
changed, but the general arrangement remains nearly the same as with the
Ophites, especially the Ophites of the diagram. The starry world in
particular here comes much into evidence, and is given more important
functions than in any other Gnostic system except the Ophite[541]. The
“Gates” of the firmaments are met with both here and in the Ophite
prayers or “defences” recorded by Origen[542], and an allusion put by
this last into the mouth of Celsus and not otherwise explained, to
“gates that open of their own accord,” looks as if Origen’s heathen
adversary may himself have come across the story of the _Pistis
Sophia_[543]. The general hostility of this starry world and its rulers
towards mankind is a leading feature in both systems.

On the other hand, the parallels between the theology of the _Pistis
Sophia_ and that of Valentinus are even closer, and are too important to
be merely accidental. The complete identification of Jesus with the
First Mystery strongly recalls the statement of Valentinus, rather
slurred over by the Fathers, that Jesus was Himself the Joint Fruit or
summary of the perfections of the whole Pleroma or Godhead, and is a
much more Christian conception than that of the earlier Ophites as to
His nature[544]. So, too, the curious theory that each of the lower
worlds has its own “saviour” finds expression in both systems, as does
the idea that Jesus received something from all the worlds through which
He passed on His way to earth. One may even find a vivid reminiscence of
the Valentinian nomenclature in the name of Pistis Sophia herself, which
combines the names of the feminine members of the first and last
syzygies of the Valentinian Dodecad[545], Pistis there being the spouse
of Paracletus or the Legate, and Sophia that of Theletus or the Beloved,
while the cause of her fall in the present book is the same as that
assigned in the system of Valentinus. Hence it may appear that the
author of the _Pistis Sophia_, whoever he may have been, was well
acquainted with the Ophite and Valentinian theology, and that he
continued it with modifications of his own after the innovating habit
current among the Gnostics and noticed by Tertullian.

In the cosmology of the _Pistis Sophia_, again, the preference given to
Valentinian rather than to the older Ophitic views is clearly marked.
The cause of the descent of the light into matter in the first instance
is no accident as with the Ophites, but is part of the large scheme for
the evolution or, as the author calls it, the “emanation” of the
universe which was devised and watched over in its smallest details by
the First Mystery[546]. Whether the author accepted the wild story
attributed to Valentinus by Irenaeus concerning the Fall of Sophia and
her Ectroma, it is impossible to say, because, as we have seen, he omits
all detailed description of the way in which the two higher worlds which
we have called the heavens of the Ineffable One and the world of the
First Mystery came into being[547]. But it is plain that both must have
been made by or rather through Jesus, because it is stated in the
mysterious five words written on the vesture of Jesus that it is through
the First Mystery that all things exist, and that it was from him that
all the emanations flowed forth[548]. As the _Pistis Sophia_ also says
that Jesus is Himself the First Mystery, this corresponds to the opening
words of St John’s Gospel, that “by Him all things were made[549].”
Hence the author of the _Pistis Sophia_, if confronted with the story of
the Ectroma, would doubtless have replied that this was merely a myth
designed to teach the danger for the uninstructed of acting on one’s own
initiative instead of waiting for the commands of God, and that in his
book he had told the same story in a slightly different way. This seems
to be the only construction to be placed on the trials of Pistis Sophia
herself, since her desire for light seems not to have been looked upon
as in itself sinful, and the real cause of her downfall was the
mistaking the light of Jaldabaoth for that of the Treasure-house. But
her descent into Chaos, unlike the Fall of her prototype, apparently had
nothing to do with the creation of the universe and its inhabitants,
which in the _Pistis Sophia_ seems to have taken place before the story
opens. If they were supposed by the author to have originated in the
passions of Sophia Without, as Hippolytus tells us Valentinus
taught[550], they were none the less the direct work of Jesus, and the
statement in Hippolytus, that in the Valentinian teaching Jesus made out
of the supplication of Sophia Without a path of repentance, finds a sort
of echo in the _Pistis Sophia_, where it is the “Metanoiae” or hymns of
penitence many times repeated of Pistis Sophia, her antitype or copy,
which bring Jesus to her succour. A further parallel may be found in
Hippolytus’ other statement from Valentinus that Jesus gave this
“supplication” power over the psychic substance which is called the
Demiurge[551]. In the _Pistis Sophia_, the heroine defeats the Authades
with the assistance of Jesus; and there does not seem much doubt that
Pistis Sophia is eventually to receive her adversary the Authades’
place, an event which is foreshadowed by the quotation of the text “His
bishopric let another take” in one of her penitential psalms[552]. It
would also appear that Adamas, the wicked king of the Twelve Aeons, may
be the Adversary or Diabolos described by the Valentinians[553] as the
cosmocrator or ruler of this world, his rule being exercised in the
_Pistis Sophia_ through his servants, the Archons of “Heimarmene and the
Sphere.” The epithet of Adamas or ἀδαμαστὸς given in classical
literature to Hades as the Lord of Hell would seem appropriate enough in
his case. This would only leave Beelzebub, prince of the demons,
unaccounted for; but the author does not here give any detailed
description of Chaos which may be supposed to be his seat. Although the
omission was, as we shall see, amply repaired in other documents put
forth by the sect, it may be here explained by the conviction of the
nearness of the Parusia or Second Advent which marks the _Pistis
Sophia_[554]. On the fulfilment of this hope, the Cosmos was, as we are
informed, to be “caught up,” and all matter to be destroyed[555]. What
need then to elaborate the description of its most malignant ministers?

The joys of the elect in the world to come, on the contrary, receive the
fullest treatment. In the “completion of the Aeon, when the number of
the assembly of perfect souls is made up[556],” or in other words when
all pneumatic or spiritual men have laid aside their material bodies,
they will ascend through all the firmaments and places of the lesser
powers until they come to the last Parastates, where they are to reign
with Jesus over all the worlds below it[557]. This is the place from
which the power, which the Great Light, the legate of the Ineffable One,
took from the First Precept and passed into the Kerasmos or Confusion,
originated; and it was this world, or rather its ruler, who arranged Jeû
and the other Powers of the Right Hand in their Places and thus set
going the whole machinery of salvation. Its “light” or glory is said to
be so tremendous that it can be compared to nothing in this world, and
here Jesus will reign with the disciples for 1000 “years of light” which
are equal to 365,000 of our years[558]. Here the thrones of the twelve
“disciples” (μαθηταί) will depend on His[559], “but Mary Magdalene and
John the Virgin shall be higher than all the disciples[560].” In the
midst of these beatitudes they will apparently receive further
instruction or further mysteries, the effect of which will be that they
will at the conclusion of the Millennium be united with Jesus in so
close a union that, as it is expressly said, they will become one with
Him, and finally they will become members of the Godhead and, as it
were, “the last limb of the Ineffable One[561].” In the meantime they
will be at liberty to visit any of the worlds below them. All those who
have received lesser mysteries,—that is to say, who have received a
lesser degree of instruction and have not become wholly pneumatic or
spiritual—will after death in this world go to the heaven of which they
have received the mystery, or, in cases where their instruction has only
just begun, be brought before the Virgin of Light, who will cause their
souls to be sent back to earth in “righteous” bodies, which will of
themselves seek after the mysteries, and, having obtained them, will, if
time be allowed, achieve a more or less perfect salvation. Here, again,
we meet with a close resemblance to the system of those later Ophites
who possessed the diagram described by Origen; for Jesus tells His
disciples that those who have only taken these lower mysteries will have
to exhibit a seal or token (σύμβολον) and to make an “announcement”
(ἀπόφασις) and a defence (ἀπολογία) in the different regions through
which they pass after death[562]. No such requirements, He says, will be
made from those who have received the higher mysteries, whose souls on
leaving the body will become great streams of light, which will pass
through all the lower places “during the time that a man can shoot an
arrow,” the powers therein falling back terror-stricken from its light
until the soul arrives at its appointed place. As, therefore, these
seals and announcements and defences will be of no use to the disciples,
the Jesus of the _Pistis Sophia_ declares that He will not describe them
in detail, they having been already set out in “the two great Books of
Jeû[563].”

What now are these “mysteries” which have so tremendous an effect on
their recipient as actually to unite him with the Deity after death? The
Greek word μυστήριον, which is that used in the Coptic MS., does not
seem to mean etymologically more than _a secret_, in which sense it was
applied to the ceremonies or secret dramas exhibited, as has been said,
at Eleusis and elsewhere, and later, to the Christian Eucharist[564]. In
the early part of the _Pistis Sophia_ it is the word used to denote the
First Mystery or first and greatest emanation of God, who is withdrawn
from human contemplation and, as it were, concealed behind a veil
impenetrable by the senses of man. But in the part of the book with
which we are now dealing it seems to refer not to hidden persons, but to
secret things. These things seem to fall into two categories, one of
which is spoken of as the Mystery of the Ineffable One, and the other as
the Mysteries of the First Mystery. The Mystery of the Ineffable One is
said to be one, but, with the provoking arithmetic peculiar to the book,
it is immediately added that it “makes” three mysteries and also another
five, while it is still one[565]. The Mysteries of the First Mystery on
the other hand are said to be twelve in number, and these figures may
possibly cover some allusion to the Ogdoad and the Dodecad of
Valentinus[566]. It is also fairly clear that each of these Twelve
Mysteries of the First Mystery must be some kind of ceremony, and a
ceremony which can be performed without much preparation or many
participants. This we may deduce from the following description of the
merits of one of them:

    “For the second mystery of the First Mystery, if it is duly
    accomplished in all its forms, and the man who accomplishes it shall
    speak the mystery over the head of a man on the point of going forth
    from the body, so that he throws it into his two ears:—even when the
    man who is going forth from the body shall have received it
    aforetime, and is a partaker of the word of Truth[567],—verily, I
    say unto you that when that man shall go forth from the body of
    matter, his soul will make a great flash of light, and will pass
    through every Place until it come into the kingdom of that mystery.

    “But and if that man has not [aforetime] received that mystery, and
    is not a partaker of the word of Truth,—verily I say unto you that
    man when he shall go forth from the body shall not be judged in any
    Place whatever, nor shall he be tormented in any Place whatever, and
    no fire shall touch him on account of that great mystery of the
    Ineffable One which is in him; and all shall make haste to pass him
    from one hand to the other, and to guide him into every Place and
    every order, until they shall lead him before the Virgin of Light,
    all the Places being filled with fear before the sign of the mystery
    of the kingdom of that Ineffable One which shall be with him.

    “And the Virgin of Light shall wonder and she shall try him, but he
    will not be led towards the light until he shall have accomplished
    all the service of the light of that mystery, that is to say, the
    purifications of the renunciation of the world and all the matter
    that is therein[568]. But the Virgin of Light shall seal that soul
    with the excellent seal which is this XXXX[569], and she shall have
    it cast in the same month in which it went forth from the body of
    matter into a righteous body which will find the God of Truth and
    the excellent mysteries in order that it may receive them by
    inheritance and also the light for eternity. Which is the gift of
    the second mystery of the First Mystery of that Ineffable One[570].”

The only ceremony to which such grace as is here set forth was likely to
be attributed by any Christian in the early age of the Church was that
of Baptism. It was called by writers like Gregory of Nazianza and
Chrysostom a μυστήριον[571]; while we hear as early as St Paul’s time of
“those who are baptized over [or on behalf of] the dead” (βαπτιξόμενοι
ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν)[572], the theory being, according to Döllinger, that
those who had wished during their lives to receive baptism but had not
done so, could thus obtain the benefit of the prayers of the Church,
which could not be offered for an unbaptized person[573]. So much was
this the case with some sects, that it was an offence charged by writers
like Tertullian against the Valentinians that they were in the habit of
delaying baptism as long as possible and even of putting it off till
they were about to die[574], as in the case in the text. Baptism, too,
was spoken of in sub-Apostolic times as the “seal” (σφραγίς)[575], or
impress, which may be that which the soul has to exhibit, both in the
Ophite system and in that of the _Pistis Sophia_, to the rulers of the
next world. In any event, the rite was looked upon by Catholic and
heretic alike as an initiation or commencement of the process by which
man was united with Christ. The other eleven “mysteries of the First
Mystery” are not specifically described in the _Pistis Sophia_; but it
is said that the receiving of any one of them will free its recipient’s
soul from all necessity to show seals or defences to the lesser powers
and will exalt him after his death to the rank of a king in the kingdom
of light, although it will not make him equal to those who have received
the mystery of the Ineffable One[576]. It therefore seems probable that
these “twelve mysteries of the First Mystery” all refer to the rite of
baptism, and are called twelve instead of one only to accord with some
trifling juggling with words and letters such as was common with the
followers of Valentinus[577]. That baptism was held in the sub-Apostolic
age to be, in the words of Döllinger, “not a mere sign, pledge, or
symbol of grace, but an actual communication of it wrought by the risen
and glorified Christ on the men He would convert and sanctify, and a
bond to unite the body of the Church with its Head[578],” will perhaps
be admitted. According to the same author, St Paul teaches that “by
Baptism man is incorporated with Christ, and puts on Christ, so that the
sacramental washing does away with all natural distinctions or
race;—Greek and Jew, slave and free, men and women, are one in Christ,
members of His body, children of God and of the seed of Abraham[579].”
He tells us also that the same Apostle “not only divides man into body
and spirit, but distinguishes in the bodily nature, the gross, visible,
bodily frame, and a hidden, inner, ‘spiritual’ body not subject to
limits of space or cognizable by the senses; this last, which shall
hereafter be raised, is alone fit for and capable of organic union with
the glorified body of Christ, of substantial incorporation with
it[580].” If Döllinger in the XIXth century could thus interpret St
Paul’s words, is it extraordinary that the author of the _Pistis Sophia_
should put the same construction on similar statements some sixteen
centuries earlier? So the late Dr Hatch, writing of baptism in this
connection, says: “The expressions which the more literary ages have
tended to construe metaphorically were taken literally. It was a real
washing away of sins; it was a real birth into a new life; it was a real
adoption into a divine sonship[581].”

If this be so, it seems to follow that the Mystery of the Ineffable One
must be the other and the greatest of the Christian sacraments. Jesus
tells His disciples that it is the “One and unique word,” and that the
soul of one who has received it “after going forth from the body of
matter of the Archons” will become “a great flood of light” and will fly
into the height, no power being able to restrain it, nor even to know
whither it goes. He continues:

    “It shall pass through all the Places of the Archons and all the
    Places of the emanations of light, nor shall it make any
    announcement nor defence nor give in any symbol; for no Power of the
    Archons nor of the emanations of light can draw nigh to that soul.
    But all the Places of the Archons and of the emanations of light
    shall sing praises, being filled with fear at the flood of light
    which clothes that soul, until it shall have passed through them
    all, and have come into the Place of the inheritance of the mystery
    which it has received, which is the mystery of the sole Ineffable
    One, and shall have become united with his members[582].”

He goes on to explain that the recipient of this mystery shall be higher
than angels, archangels, and than even all the Powers of the
Treasure-house of Light and those which are below it:

    “He is a man in the Cosmos; but he is a king in the light. He is a
    man in the Cosmos, but he is not of the Cosmos, and verily I say
    unto you, that man is myself and I am that man.”

    “And, in the dissolution of the Cosmos, when the universe shall be
    caught up, and when the number of perfect souls shall be caught up,
    and when I am become king in the middle of the last Parastates, and
    when I am king over all the emanations of light, and over the Seven
    Amen, and the Five Trees, and the Three Amen, and the Nine Guards,
    and over the Boy of a Boy, that is to say the Twin Saviours, and
    when I am king over the Twelve Saviours and all the numbers of
    perfect souls who have received the mystery of light, then all the
    men who have received the mystery of that Ineffable One shall be
    kings with me, and shall sit on my right hand and on my left in my
    kingdom. Verily I say unto you, Those men are I and I am those men.
    Wherefore I said unto you aforetime: You shall sit upon thrones on
    my right hand and on my left in my kingdom and shall reign with me.
    Wherefore I have not spared myself, nor have I been ashamed to call
    you my brethren and my companions, seeing that you will be
    fellow-kings with me in my kingdom. These things, therefore, I said
    unto you, knowing that I should give unto you the mystery of that
    Ineffable One, and that mystery is I and I am that mystery[583].”

That this is the supreme revelation up to which the author of the
_Pistis Sophia_ has been leading all through the book, there can hardly
be any doubt. Its position shortly before the close of the book[584],
the rhapsodic and almost rhythmical phrases with which the approach to
it is obscured rather than guarded, and the way in which directly the
revelation is made, the author falls off into merely pastoral matters
relating to the lesser mysteries, all show that the author has here
reached his climax. But does this revelation mean anything else than
that Jesus is Himself the victim which is to be received in the
Sacrament or μυστήριον of the Altar? That the Christians of the first
centuries really thought that in the Eucharist they united themselves to
Christ by receiving His Body and Blood there can be no question, and the
dogma can have come as no novelty to those who, like the Ophites, had
combined with Christianity the ideas which we have seen current among
the Orphics as to the sacramental efficacy of the homophagous feast and
the eating of the quivering flesh of the sacrifice which represented
Dionysos. Döllinger gives the views of the primitive Church concisely
when he says it is “because we all eat of one Eucharistic bread, and so
receive the Lord’s body, that we all become one body, or as St Paul
says, we become members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.”
“We are nourished by communion,” he continues, “with the substance of
His flesh and blood, and so bound to the unity of His body, the Church;
and thus what was begun in Baptism is continued and perfected in the
Eucharist[585].” Thus, Justin Martyr, who lived in the reign of
Antoninus Pius, says “the food which is blessed by the prayer of His
word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,
is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh[586].” That the
same idea was realized by the heretics may be gathered from what has
been said above as to the wonder-working celebration of the Eucharist by
Marcus, when the wine was made to change visibly into blood before the
eyes of the recipient[587].

It is plain also that the _Pistis Sophia_ does not look upon this
perfect union as within the reach of all. Basilides, the first of the
Egyptian Gnostics, had said that not one in a thousand or two in ten
thousand were fit to be admitted to the higher mysteries, and the same
phrase is repeated by Jesus Himself in one of the later documents of the
MS. of which the _Pistis Sophia_ forms part[588]. Those who were worthy
of admission to the mysteries of the Ineffable One and of the First
Mystery were the pneumatics or spiritual men predestined to them from
before their birth. For the others, the psychic or animal men, there
were the mysteries “of the light,” which are, so to speak, the first
step on the ladder of salvation[589]. These are nowhere described in the
_Pistis Sophia_ or first document of the book, the hearer being therein
always referred for their details to the two great Books of Jeû
mentioned above, “which Enoch wrote when I (_i.e._ Jesus) spoke with him
from the tree of knowledge and from the tree of life, which were in the
Paradise of Adam[590].” It is here expressly said that Jesus’ own
disciples have no need of them; but their effect is described as
purifying the body of matter, and transforming their recipient into
“light” of exceeding purity. On the death of one who has taken them all,
his soul traverses the different heavens repeating the passwords, giving
in the defences, and exhibiting the symbols peculiar to each mystery
until it reaches the abode assigned to its particular degree of
spiritual illumination. These mysteries of the light are open to the
whole world and there is some reason for thinking they are the
sacraments of the Catholic Church, the members of which body, Irenaeus
says, the “heretics” (Qy the Valentinians?) held not to be saved but to
be only capable of salvation[591]. If the recipient of these lesser
mysteries dies before complete initiation, he has to undergo a long and
painful series of reincarnations, his soul being sent back into the
Sphere of Destiny and eventually into this world by the Virgin of Light,
who will, however, take care that it is placed in a “righteous” body
which shall strive after the mysteries until it finds them. But the way
to these lower mysteries is the complete renunciation of this world. Man
naturally and normally is entirely hylic or material, being, as Jesus
tells His disciples in the _Pistis Sophia_, “the very dregs of the
Treasure-house, of the Places of those on the Right Hand, in the Middle,
and on the Left Hand, and the dregs of the Unseen Ones and of the
Archons, and, in a word, the dregs of them all[592].” Hence it is only
by the cleansing grace of the mysteries that he can hope to escape the
fate which is coming upon the Kerasmos, and to obtain these, he must
avoid further pollution.

    “Wherefore preach you to the whole race of men, saying: Slacken not
    day and night until ye find the cleansing mysteries. Say unto them:
    Renounce the world and all the matter that is therein; for whoso
    buys and sells in the world and eats and drinks in its matter, and
    lives in all its cares and all its conversations, takes unto himself
    other matter as well as his own matter.... Wherefore I said unto you
    aforetime: Renounce the whole world and all the matter that is
    therein lest ye add other matter to your own matter. Wherefore
    preach ye to the whole race of men ... cease not to seek day and
    night and stay not your hand until ye find the cleansing mysteries
    which will cleanse you so as to make you pure light, that ye may go
    into the heights and inherit the light of my kingdom[593].”

We see, then, that the author of the _Pistis Sophia_ really contemplated
the formation of a Church within a Church, where a group of persons
claiming for themselves special illumination should rule over the great
body of the faithful, these last being voluntarily set apart from all
communion with their fellows[594]. This was so close a parallel to what
actually occurred in Egypt in the IVth century, when the whole male
population was said with some exaggeration to have embraced the monastic
life[595], and submitted themselves to the rule of an ambitious and
grasping episcopate, as to give us a valuable indication as to the
authorship and date of the book. It may be said at the outset that the
conception of the universe which appears throughout is so thoroughly
Egyptian that it must have been written for Egyptian readers, who alone
could have been expected to understand it without instruction. The idea
of the Supreme Being as an unfathomable abyss was, as has been said in
Chapter II, a very old one in Egypt, where one of the oldest cosmogonies
current made Nu or the sea of waters the origin of both gods and
men[596]. So was the peculiar theory that the lesser gods were the limbs
or members of the Supreme[597]. An Ogdoad[598] or assembly of eight gods
arranged in syzygies or couples was also well known in the time of the
early dynasties, as was the Dodecad of twelve gods which Herodotus knew,
and which M. Maspero refers on good evidence to the time of the
Pyramid-Builders[599]. So was the view that men and other material
things were made from the tears of the celestial powers[600], a notion
well known to Proclus the Neo-Platonist, who attributed it to the
legendary Orpheus[601]. Not less Egyptian—perhaps in its origin
exclusively Egyptian—is the view that the knowledge of the places of the
world after death and their rulers was indispensable to the happiness of
the dead. “Whosoever,” says M. Maspero in commenting upon some funerary
texts of the Ramesside period, “knows the names of these (gods) while
still on earth and is acquainted with their places in Amenti, will
arrive at his own place in the other world and will be in all the places
reserved for those who are justified[602].” The resemblance between the
system of the _Pistis Sophia_ and the doctrines of the Egyptian religion
in the days of the Pharaohs has been pointed out in detail by the
veteran Egyptologist the late Prof. Lieblein and has been approved by M.
Maspero[603]. It extends to particular details as well as to general
ideas, as we see from the ritual inscribed on the tombs at Thebes, where
each “circle” or division of the next world is said to have its own song
and its own “mystery,” an idea often met with in the _Pistis
Sophia_[604]. Even the doctrine in the _Pistis Sophia_ that the dead had
to exhibit a “seal” as well as a “defence” to the guardians of the
heavenly places is explained by the Egyptian theory that no spell was
effective without an amulet, which acted as a kind of material support
to it[605]. The greater part of the allusions in the _Pistis Sophia_ are
in fact unintelligible, save to those with some acquaintance with the
religious beliefs of the Pharaonic Egyptians.

At the same time it is evident that the MS. of the _Pistis Sophia_ that
has come down to us is not the original form of the book. All the
scholars who have studied it are agreed that the Coptic version has been
made from a Greek original by a scribe who had no very profound
acquaintance with the first-named tongue[606]. This appears not only
from the frequent appearance in it of Greek words following Coptic ones
of as nearly as possible the same meaning; but from the fact that the
scribe here and there gives us others declined according to the rules
not of Coptic but of Greek accidence. We must therefore look for an
author who, though an Egyptian and acquainted with the native Egyptian
religion, would naturally have written in Greek; and on the whole there
is no one who fulfils these requirements so well as Valentinus himself.
The fact that the author never quotes from the Gospel according to St
John indicates that it had not come to his knowledge; for the opening
chapter of St John’s Gospel contains many expressions that could easily
on the Gnostic system of interpretation be made to accord with the
Valentinian theology, and is in fact so used by later writers of the
same school as the author of the _Pistis Sophia_[607]. Now the first
direct and acknowledged quotation from St John’s Gospel that we have is
that made by Theophilus, who was made bishop of Antioch in A.D. 170, and
the generally received opinion is that this Gospel, whenever written,
was not widely known long before this date[608]. The only founders of
Gnostic sects of Egyptian birth prior to this were Basilides and
Valentinus, and of these two, Valentinus is the more likely author,
because he, unlike his predecessor, evidently taught for general
edification, and possessed, as the Fathers agree, a numerically large
following. We have, moreover, some reason for thinking that Valentinus
actually did write a book with some such title as the _Sophia_.
Tertullian, in his declamation against the Valentinians, quotes a
sentence from “the Wisdom (Lat. Sophia) not of Valentinus but of
Solomon[609].” It has been suggested that he is here referring to some
saying of the Valentinian aeon Sophia; but no writings would in the
nature of things be attributed to her, and, as M. Amélineau points out,
it is more natural to think that he was here comparing a book with a
book[610]. This figure of rhetoric was a favourite one with Tertullian,
for in his treatise _De Carne Christi_ we find him quoting in like
manner the Psalms—“not the Psalms of Valentinus, the apostate, heretic,
and Platonist, but the Psalms of David[611].” The fact that the story in
the British Museum MS. is called _Pistis Sophia_ instead of _Sophia_
only need not hinder us from identifying this with the work presumably
referred to by Tertullian, because this title is, as has been said, the
work of another scribe than those who transcribed the original; and
Pistis Sophia is sometimes spoken of in the MS. itself as Sophia
only[612]. Moreover, there is some reason for thinking that certain of
the Fathers and even their Pagan adversaries had seen and read the story
of _Pistis Sophia_. The allusion quoted above from Origen to gates
opening of their own accord seems to refer to one of its episodes, and
Tertullian, in the treatise in which he says he is exposing the original
tenets of the sect[613], uses many expressions that he can hardly have
borrowed from any other source. Thus, he speaks of Sophia “breaking away
from her spouse[614]” which is the expression used by Pistis Sophia in
her first Metanoia and is in no way applicable to the Valentinian Sophia
of Irenaeus or Hippolytus. He again speaks of the same Sophia as being
all but swallowed up and dissolved in “the substance” evidently of
Chaos, which is the fate which Pistis Sophia anticipates for herself in
the MS. Tertullian, like the _Pistis Sophia_, also assigns to the
psychic substance the place of honour or right hand in the
_quasi_-material world, while the hylic is relegated in both to the left
hand[615]. The Paradise of Adam is said by him to be fixed by Valentinus
“above the third heaven[616]” as it is in the _Pistis Sophia_, if, as we
may suppose, the soul of the protoplast dwelt in the same place as that
of Elijah. The name of _Ecclesia_ or the Church is given not only to a
particular aeon in the Pleroma, but also to the divine power breathed
into man from a higher world in both Tertullian and the _Pistis
Sophia_[617], and, in the treatise _De Carne Christi_, Tertullian
alludes contemptuously to an heretical doctrine that Christ possessed
“any new kind of flesh miraculously obtained from the stars[618],” which
seems to refer to the taking by Jesus in the opening of the _Pistis
Sophia_ of a body from “Barbelo” the goddess or Triple Power set over
matter and inspiring the benefic planet Venus. For all which reasons it
seems probable that in the _Pistis Sophia_ we have the translation of an
authentic work by Valentinus.

The _Pistis Sophia_, however, is not the only work in the British Museum
MS. The first and second books of it, as they are called by the
annotator, come to an end, rather abrupt but evidently intentional, on
the 252nd page of the MS. There then appears the heading in the hand of
the annotator “Part of the Texts of the Saviour[619],” and on this
follow two pages dealing with the “members” of the Ineffable One, as to
which it is expressly said that only a partial revelation is made[620].
These seem to have slipped out of their proper place, and are followed
by two discontinuous extracts from another treatise, the second of which
is also headed by the annotator “Part of the Texts of the Saviour.” This
second part, which we shall venture to take before the other, is
evidently the introduction to or the commencement of a new treatise, for
it begins with the statement that “After they had crucified Our Lord
Jesus He rose from the dead on the third day,” and that His disciples
gathered round Him, reminding Him that they had left all to follow
Him[621]. Jesus “standing on the shore of the sea Ocean,” then makes
invocation to the “Father of every Fatherhood, boundless light,” in a
prayer composed of Egyptian and Hebrew words jumbled together after the
fashion of the spells in the Magic Papyri[622]. He then shows the
disciples the “disk of the sun” as a great dragon with his tail in his
mouth drawn by four white horses and the disk of the moon like a ship
drawn by two white steers[623]. The two steering oars of this last are
depicted as a male and a female dragon who take away the light from the
rulers of the stars among whom they move. Jesus and His disciples are
then translated to the place called the “Middle Way[624].” He there
describes how the Archons of Adamas rebelled and persisted in
engendering and bringing forth “rulers and archangels and angels and
ministers and decans.” We further hear, for the first time, that the
Twelve Aeons, instead of being, as in the _Pistis Sophia_, all under the
rule of Adamas, are divided into two classes, one Jabraoth ruling over
six of them and Sabaoth Adamas over the other six; that Jabraoth and his
subjects repented and practised “the mysteries of the light,” including,
as we have seen, abstinence from generation[625], whereupon they were
taken up by Jeû to the light of the sun between the “places of the
middle and those of the left.” “Sabaoth Adamas,” on the other hand, with
his subjects to the number of 1800, were bound to the sphere, 360 powers
being set over them, the 360 being controlled by the five planets
Saturn, Mars, Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter. Jesus then describes in great
detail the different tortures in the Middle Way and two other hells
called Chaos and Amenti, wherein the souls of uninitiated men who commit
sins are tormented between their incarnations[626], the final punishment
being in the worst cases annihilation. He then affords His disciples a
vision of “fire and water and wine and blood” which He declares He
brought with Him on His Incarnation, and celebrates a sacrament which He
calls “the baptism of the First Oblation,” but which seems to be a
peculiar form of the Eucharist with invocations in the jargon alluded to
above, and a thaumaturgic conversion of the wine used in it into water
and _vice versâ_[627]. There are several _lacunae_ in this part of the
MS., and the tortures for certain specified sins are differently given
in different places, so that it is probable that with the _Part of the
Texts of the Saviour_ has here been mixed extracts from another document
whose title has been lost[628].

The remaining document of the British Museum MS., being the third in
order of place, was probably taken from the same book as that last
described, and was placed out of its natural order to satisfy the
pedantry of the scribes, the rule in such cases being that the longer
document should always come first. Like its successor, it deals largely
with the “punishments” of the souls who have not received the mysteries
of the light, and introduces a new and still more terrible hell in the
shape of the “Dragon of Outer Darkness” which it declares to be a vast
dragon surrounding the world, having his tail in his mouth, and
containing twelve chambers, wherein the souls of the uninitiated dead
are tortured after their transmigrations are ended until they reach the
annihilation reserved for them at the last judgment[629]. There is also
given here a very curious account of man’s invisible part, which is said
to be made up of the “Power” infused into it by the Virgin of Light
which returns to its giver after death[630], and the Moira or Fate which
it derives from the Sphere of Destiny and has as its sole function to
lead the man it inhabits to the death he is predestined to die[631].
Then there is the Counterfeit of the Spirit, which is in effect a
duplicate of the soul proper and is made out of the matter of the wicked
Archons. This not only incites the soul to sin, but follows it about
after death, denouncing to the powers set over the punishments the sins
it has induced the soul to commit[632]. All these punishments, to
describe which is evidently the purpose of all the extracts from the
_Texts of the Saviour_ here given, are escaped by those who have
received the mysteries.

The _Texts of the Saviour_ therefore clearly belong to a later form of
Gnosticism than the _Pistis Sophia_ properly so called. The author’s
intention is evidently to frighten his readers with the fate reserved
for those who do not accept the teaching of the sect. For this purpose
the division of mankind into pneumatic, psychic, and hylic is
ignored[633], and this is especially plain in certain passages where the
torments after death of those who follow “the doctrines of error” are
set forth. Magic, which has been spoken of with horror in the _Pistis
Sophia_, is here made use of in the celebration of the rites described,
and the miraculous power of healing the sick and raising the dead,
though said to be of archontic, _i.e._ diabolic, origin is here
recommended as a means to be employed under certain safeguards for the
purpose of converting “the whole world[634].” Even the duration of the
punishments and the different bodies into which the souls of the men are
to be cast are made to depend upon the relative positions of the stars
and planets which seem to be interpreted according to the rules of the
astrology of the time,—a so-called science, which is spoken of
scornfully in the _Pistis Sophia_ itself[635]. Yet it is evident that
the author or authors of the _Texts of the Saviour_ are acquainted with
the book which precedes it; for in a description of the powers which
Jeû, who appears in both as the angelic arranger of the Kerasmos,
“binds” in the five planets set to rule over it, we learn that he draws
a power from “Pistis Sophia, the daughter of Barbelo” and binds it in
the planet Venus or Aphrodite[636]. As this is the only reference to
her, and receives no further explanation, it is plain that the writer
assumed his readers to be well acquainted with Pistis Sophia’s history,
and Jeû, Melchisidek, Adamas, and Jaldabaoth, now one of the torturers
in Chaos, appear, as we have seen, in both works. The author of the
_Texts of the Saviour_ also shows himself the avowed opponent of the
Pagan deities still worshipped in the early Christian centuries, as is
evidenced by his making not only the Egyptian Typhon, but Adonis,
Persephone, and Hecate, fiends in hell. Oddly enough, however, he gives
an explanation of the myth of the two springs of memory and oblivion
that we have seen in the Orphic gold plates in the following passage,
which may serve as an example of the style of the book:

    “Jesus said: When the time set by the Sphere of Destiny[637] for a
    man that is a persistent slanderer to go forth from the body is
    fulfilled, there come unto him Abiuth and Charmon, the receivers of
    Ariel[638], and lead forth his soul from the body, that they may
    take it about with them for three days, showing it the creatures of
    the world. Thereafter they drag it into Amenti unto Ariel that he
    may torment it in his torments for eleven months and twenty-one
    days. Thereafter they lead it into Chaos unto Jaldabaoth and his
    forty-nine demons, that each of his demons may set upon it for
    eleven months and twenty-one days with whips of smoke. Thereafter
    they lead it into rivers of smoke and seas of fire that they may
    torment it therein eleven months and twenty-one days. Thereafter
    they lead it on high into the Middle Way that each of the Archons of
    the Middle Way may torment it with his own torments another eleven
    months and twenty-one days. And thereafter they lead it unto the
    Virgin of Light who judges the righteous and the sinners, and she
    shall judge it. And when the Sphere is turned round, she delivers it
    to her receivers that they may cast it forth among the Aeons of the
    Sphere. And the servants of the Sphere lead it into the water which
    is below the Sphere, that the boiling steam may eat into it, until
    it cleanse it thoroughly. Then Jaluha the receiver of Sabaoth
    Adamas, bearing the cup of oblivion delivers it to the soul, that it
    may drink therein and forget all the places and the things therein
    through which it has passed[639]. And it is placed in an afflicted
    body wherein it shall spend its appointed time[640].”

The object of the cup of oblivion is obviously that the wicked man may
learn nothing from the torments he has endured. In the case of the
righteous but uninitiated dead, the baleful effect of this cup will be
annulled by “the Little Sabaoth the Good” who will administer to him
another cup “of perception and understanding and wisdom” which will make
the soul seek after the mysteries of light, on finding which it will
inherit light eternal.

It would be easy to see in these features of the _Texts of the Saviour_
the work of Marcus the magician who, as was said in a former chapter,
taught, according to the Fathers, a corrupted form of the doctrine of
Valentinus for his own interested purposes[641]. The distinguishing
feature about his celebration of the Eucharist is the same as that given
in the _Texts of the Saviour_, and as Clement of Alexandria was
acquainted with a sect in his day which substituted water for wine
therein[642], it is probable that Marcosians were to be found during the
latter part of the IInd century in Egypt. It is also to be noted that
the annotator has written upon the blank leaf which separates the first
and second books of the _Pistis Sophia_ a cryptogram concealing,
apparently, the names of the Ineffable One and the other higher powers
worshipped by Valentinus, and this seems to be constructed in much the
same way as the isopsephisms and other word-puzzles attributed by
Irenaeus to Marcus[643]. The mixture of Hebrew names and words with
Egyptian ones in the prayer of Jesus given in the _Texts of the Saviour_
would agree well with what the last-named Father says about Marcus being
a Jew, and a prayer which he represents Marcus as making over the head
of a convert baptized into his sect is couched in a jargon of the same
character[644]. On the other hand, the opening sentence of the book
calls Jesus “our Lord,” which Irenaeus tells us the Valentinians
carefully abstained from doing[645], and the long and detailed
description of the different hells and their tortures is much more
Egyptian than Jewish[646]. The remark attributed to Basilides as to one
in a thousand and two in ten thousand being worthy to take the higher
mysteries is here put into the mouth of Jesus, and perhaps it would be
safer to attribute for the present the _Texts of the Saviour_ not to
Marcus himself, but to some later Gnostic who fused together his
teaching with that of the earlier and more disinterested professors of
Egyptian Gnosticism.

The same remarks apply with but little modification to some other
fragments of Gnostic writings which have come down to us. In the
Bodleian Library at Oxford is to be seen a MS. written on papyrus, which
was brought to this country by the Abyssinian traveller, Bruce. This
also is in the Sahidic dialect of Coptic, and although it has been badly
damaged and the ink is rapidly disappearing in the damp climate of
Oxford, yet a copy taken nearly a century ago by Woide makes its
decipherment possible in most places. The Bruce Papyrus, like the
British Museum parchment MS., contains more than one document.
Unfortunately the arrangement of the leaves is by no means certain, and
the two scholars who have studied it most thoroughly differ almost as
widely as possible as to the order of its contents. M. Amélineau, a
celebrated Egyptologist and Coptic scholar, who published in 1882 a copy
of the text with a French translation in the _Notices et Extraits_ of
the Académie des Inscriptions, considers that the treatises contained in
it are only two in number, the first being called by the author in what
seems to be its heading The _Book of the Knowledge of the Invisible God_
and the second _The Book of the Great Word in Every Mystery_. Dr Carl
Schmidt, of the University of Berlin, on the other hand, who, like M.
Amélineau, has studied the Papyrus at Oxford, thinks that he can
distinguish in the Bruce Papyrus no less than six documents, of which
the first two are according to him the two books of Jeû referred to in
the _Pistis Sophia_, two others, fragments of Gnostic prayers, the fifth
a fragment on the passage of the soul through the Archons of the Middle
Way, and the sixth, an extract from an otherwise unknown Gnostic work
which he does not venture to identify further[647]. To enter into the
controversy raised by this diversity of opinion would take one outside
the limits of the present work; but it may be said that at least one,
and that the most important, of the documents in question must be later
than the _Pistis Sophia_. Not only does this—which M. Amélineau calls
the _Book of the Knowledge of the Invisible God_ and Dr Schmidt
“Unbekanntes Altgnostisches Werk”—quote the opening words of St John’s
Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God without whom nothing was made[648],” which, as has been
said, the author of the _Pistis Sophia_ was unable to do; but it
mentions in briefer form than this last the heavenly origin of the souls
of the Twelve Apostles[649]. There is also in the same document a
description of what appears to be the “emanation of the universe,” in
which the following passage occurs:

    “And He [_i.e._ the Ineffable One] heard them [a prayer by the
    lesser powers is referred to]. He sent them powers capable of
    discernment, and knowing the arrangement of the hidden Eons. He sent
    them according to the arrangement of those who are hidden[650]. He
    established their Orders according to the orders of the Height, and
    according to the hidden arrangement they began from below upward in
    order that the building might unite them. He created the aëry earth
    as a place of habitation for those who had gone forth, in order that
    they might dwell thereon until those which were below them should be
    made strong. Then he created the true habitation within it[651], the
    Place of Repentance (Metanoia) within it, the Place of Repentance
    within it, the antitype of Aerodios[652]. Then [he created] the
    Place of Repentance within it, the antitype of Autogenes
    (Self-begotten or, perhaps, ‘of his own kind’). In this Place is
    purification in the name of Autogenes who is god over them and
    powers were set there over the source of the waters which they make
    to go forth (?). Here are the names of the powers who are set over
    the Water of Life: Michar and Micheu, and they are purified in the
    name of Barpharanges[653]. Within these are the Aeons of Sophia.
    Within these is the true Truth. And in this Place is found Pistis
    Sophia, as also the pre-existent Jesus the Living, Aerodios, and his
    Twelve Aeons[654].”

What is intended to be conveyed by this it is difficult to say in the
absence of the context; but the Pistis Sophia mentioned is evidently the
heroine of the book of that name, and the abrupt mention of her name
without explanation shows, as in the _Texts of the Saviour_, that the
author supposed his readers to be acquainted with her story. While this
part of the Papyrus may possibly be an attempt by some later writer to
fulfil the promise to tell His disciples at some future time the
“emanation of the universe” frequently made by Jesus in the _Pistis
Sophia_, it cannot be earlier in date than this last-named document.

Another large fragment in the Bruce Papyrus is also connected with that
which has been called above the _Texts of the Saviour_, and helps to
link up this with the system of the _Pistis Sophia_ proper. In the first
part of the _Texts of the Saviour_ (_i.e._ the fourth document in the
British Museum book), Jesus, as has been mentioned, celebrates with
prodigies a sacrament which He calls the “Baptism of the first
Oblation”; and He tells them at the same time that there is also a
baptism of perfumes, another baptism of the Holy Spirit of Light, and a
Spiritual Chrism, besides which He promises them “the great mystery of
the Treasure-house of Light and the way to call upon it so as to arrive
thither,” a “baptism of those who belong to the Right Hand,” and of
“those who belong to the Middle” and other matters. These promises are
in some sort fulfilled in that part of the Bruce Papyrus which Dr
Schmidt will have it is “the Second Book of Jeû[655],” where Jesus
celebrates with accompanying prodigies three sacraments which He calls
the Baptism of Fire of the Virgin of the Treasure-house of Light, the
Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and a “mystery” which is said to take away
from His disciples “the wickedness of the archons[656].” The details of
these vary but very slightly from the “Baptism of the First Oblation”
celebrated by Jesus in the _Texts of the Saviour_, and seem to have been
written in continuation and as an amplification of it. But the _Texts of
the Saviour_, as we have seen, also mention Pistis Sophia in such a way
as to presuppose an acquaintance with her history; and the presumption
that the author of the Bruce Papyrus had read the book bearing her name
is confirmed by the repetition in it of the names of Jeû, here called
“the Great Man, King of the great aeon of light,” the Great Sabaoth the
Good, the Great Iao the Good, Barbelo[657], the Great Light, and all the
“Amens,” “Twin Saviours,” “Guardians of Veils” and the rest who are
classed together in the _Pistis Sophia_ as the great emanations of
light, and mentioned in a connection which shows them to have the same
functions in all these documents[658]. When we add to these the
repetition of the tradition, formally stated for the first time in the
_Pistis Sophia_, that Jesus spent twelve years with His disciples
between His Resurrection and His Ascension[659], there can be little
doubt that this part of the Papyrus Bruce also is subsequent to the
_Pistis Sophia_. Similar arguments, which are only omitted here for the
sake of greater clearness, apply to all the rest of Dr Schmidt’s
documents, and it follows that none of the contents of the Papyrus can
be considered as any part of the “Books of Jeû” mentioned in the _Pistis
Sophia_[660], which, therefore, remains the parent document on which all
the others are based. As to their absolute date, it seems impossible to
arrive at any useful conclusion. Both M. Amélineau and Dr Schmidt are
agreed that the Coptic Papyrus is a translation from Greek originals;
and M. Amélineau does not put this too far forward when he suggests that
it was made in the IInd and IIIrd century of our era[661]. Dr Schmidt is
probably nearer the mark when he puts the actual transcription of the
Papyrus as dating in the earliest instance from the Vth century. His
earliest date for any of the Greek originals is the first half of the
IIIrd century[662].

If now we put these later documents—the _Texts of the Saviour_ and those
contained in the Bruce Papyrus—side by side, we notice a marked, if
gradual, change of tendency from the comparatively orthodox Christianity
of the _Pistis Sophia_ proper. In the _Texts of the Saviour_ notably,
the fear of hell and its punishments is, as we have seen, present
throughout, and seems to be the sanction on which the author relies to
compel his readers to accept his teaching. In the documents of the Bruce
Papyrus this is also to be found in more sporadic fashion, nearly the
whole of the book being occupied by the means by which men are to escape
the punishment of their sins. These methods of salvation are all of them
what we have earlier called gnostical or magical, and consist simply in
the utterance of “names” given us in some sort of crypto-grammatic form,
and the exhibition of “seals” or rather impressions (χαρακτῆρες) here
portrayed with great attention to detail, which, however, remain utterly
meaningless for us. Thus to quote again from what Dr Schmidt calls the
Second Book of Jeû, Jesus imparts to His disciples the “mystery” of the
Twelve Aeons in these words:

    “When you have gone forth from the body and come into the First
    Aeon, the Archons of that Aeon will come before you. Then stamp upon
    yourselves this seal AA, the name of which is zôzesê. Utter this
    once only. Take in your two hands this number, 1119. When you have
    stamped upon yourselves this seal and have uttered its name once
    only, speak these defences; ‘Back! Protei Persomphôn Chous, O
    Archons of the First Aeon, for I invoke Êazazêôzazzôzeôz.’ And when
    the Archons of the First Aeon shall hear that name, they will be
    filled with great fear, they will flee away to the West, to the Left
    Hand, and you will enter in[663]”:

and the same process with different names and seals is to be repeated
with the other eleven aeons. This is, of course, not religion, such as
we have seen in the writings of Valentinus, nor even the transcendental
mysticism of the _Pistis Sophia_, but magic, and magic of a peculiarly
Egyptian form. The ancient Egyptian had always an intense fear of the
world after death, and from the first conceived a most gloomy view of
it. The worshippers of Seker or Socharis, a god so ancient that we know
him only as a component part of the triune or syncretic divinity of late
dynastic times called Ptah-Seker-Osiris, depicted it as a subterranean
place deprived of the light of the sun, hot and thirsty, and more dreary
than even the Greek Hades or the Hebrew Sheol.

    “The West is a land of sleep and darkness heavy, a place where those
    who settle in it, slumbering in their forms, never wake to see their
    brethren; they never look any more on their father and their mother,
    their heart leaves hold of their wives and children. The living
    water which earth has for every one there, is foul here where I am;
    though it runs for every one who is on earth, foul is for me the
    water which is with me. I do not know any spot where I would like to
    be, since I reached this valley! Give me water which runs towards
    me, saying to me, ‘Let thy jug never be without water’; bring to me
    the north wind, on the brink of water, that it may fan me, that my
    heart may cool from its pain. The god whose name is _Let Complete
    Death Come_, when he has summoned anybody to him, they come to him,
    their hearts disturbed by the fear of him; for there is nobody dares
    look up to him from amongst gods and men, the great are to him as
    the small and he spares not [those] who love him, but he tears the
    nursling from the mother as he does the old man, and everyone who
    meets him is filled with affright[664].”

The priests took care that such a picture did not fade from want of
reproduction and, true to the genius of their nation, elaborated it
until its main features are almost lost to us under the mass of
details[665]. Especially was this the case with the religion of the
Sun-God Ra, who after his fusion with Amon of Thebes at the
establishment of the New Empire came to overshadow all the Egyptian
cults save that of Osiris. The tombs of the kings at Thebes are full of
pictures of the land of this Amenti or the West, in which horror is
piled upon horror, and book after book was written that there should be
no mistake about the fate lying in wait for the souls of men[666]. In
these we see the dead wandering from one chamber to another, breathing a
heavy and smoke-laden air[667], and confronted at every step by
frightful fiends compounded from the human and bestial forms, whose
office is to mutilate, to burn, and to torture the soul. The means of
escape open to the dead was, under the XXth dynasty, neither the
consciousness of a well-spent life nor the fatherly love of the gods,
but the knowledge of passwords and mysterious names[668]. Every chamber
had a guardian who demanded of the dead his own name, without repeating
which the soul was not allowed to enter[669]. Every fiend had to be
repelled by a special exorcism and talisman[670], and every “circle”
through which the dead passed had its own song and “mystery,” which it
behoved the dead to know[671]. Only thus could he hope to win through to
the Land of Osiris, where he might enjoy a relative beatitude and be
free to go about and visit the other heavenly places[672]. For this
purpose, the map, so to speak, of the route was engraved on the walls of
the tombs of those who could afford it, and the necessary words to be
said written down. Those who were not so rich or so lucky were thought
to be parcelled out, like the _fellahin_ of that day, or the _villeins_
of feudal times, in colonies among the different districts of the lower
world, where they flourished or perished according to the number of
talismans or “protections” that they possessed[673]. “If ever,” says M.
Maspero, “there were in Pharaonic Egypt mysteries and initiates, as
there were in Greece and in Egypt under the Greeks, these books later
than the _Book of the Other World_ and the _Book of the Gates_ are books
of mystery and of initiates[674].” Thereafter, he goes on to say, the
ancient popular religion disappeared more and more from Egypt, to give
place to the overmastering sense of the terrors of death[675] and the
magical means by which it was sought to lighten them.

It is to the survival of these ideas that books like the _Texts of the
Saviour_ and those in the Papyrus Bruce must be attributed. The Gnostic
Christianity of Valentinus, direct descendant as it was of the amalgam
of Christianity with pre-Christian faiths which the Ophites had
compounded, no sooner reached the great mass of the Egyptian people than
it found itself under their influence. In this later Gnostic literature
we hear no more of the Supreme Father of Valentinus, “who alone” in his
words, “is good”; no more weight is laid upon the Faith, Hope, and Love
who were the first three members of his Heavenly Man; and the Jesus in
whom were summed up all the perfections of the Godhead becomes
transformed into a mere mystagogue or revealer of secret words and
things. All expectation of the immediate arrival of the Parusia or
Second Coming, when the world is to be caught up and all wickedness to
be destroyed, has passed into the background, as has also the millennium
in which the faithful were, in accordance with a very early belief in
Egypt, to share the felicity of those who had been kings on earth[676].
Instead we have only appeals to the lowest motives of fear and the
selfish desire to obtain higher privileges than ordinary men. Even the
avoidance of crime has no other sanction, and complete withdrawal from
the world is advocated on merely prudential grounds; while rejection of
the mysteries is the unpardonable sin:

    “When I have gone unto the light” (says the Jesus of the _Texts of
    the Saviour_ to His disciples) “preach unto the whole world, saying:
    Renounce the whole world and the matter that is therein, all its
    cares, its sins, and in a word all its conversation, that ye may be
    worthy of the mysteries of the light, that ye may be saved from all
    the torments which are in the judgments. Renounce murmuring, that ye
    may be worthy of the mysteries of the light, that ye may escape the
    judgment of that dog-faced one.... Renounce wrath, that ye may be
    worthy of the mysteries of the light, that ye may be saved from the
    fire of the seas of the dragon-faced one.... Renounce adultery, that
    ye may be worthy of the mysteries of the kingdom of light, that ye
    may be saved from the seas of sulphur and pitch of the lion-faced
    one.... Say unto them that abandon the doctrines of truth of the
    First Mystery ‘Woe unto you, for your torment shall be worse than
    that of all men, for ye shall dwell in the great ice and frost and
    hail in the midst of the Dragon of the Outer Darkness, and ye shall
    escape no more from the world from that hour unto evermore, but ye
    shall be as stones therein, and in the dissolution of the universe
    ye shall be annihilated, so that ye exist no more for ever[677]’.”

The priests who engraved the horrors of the next world on the walls of
the royal tombs at Thebes would probably have written no differently.

Gnosticism then, in Egypt soon relapsed into the magic from which it was
originally derived; and we can no longer wonder that the Fathers of the
Church strove as fiercely against it as they did. In the age when books
like the _Texts of the Saviour_ and the fragments in the Papyrus Bruce
could be written, the methods of Clement of Alexandria, who treated
Valentinus and his school as Christians bent on the truth though led
into error by a misunderstanding of the purport of heathen philosophy,
were clearly out of place. “Ravening wolves,” “wild beasts,” “serpents,”
and “lying rogues” are some of the terms the Fathers now bestow upon
them[678], and as soon as the conversion of Constantine put the sword of
the civil power into their hands, they used it to such effect that
Gnosticism perished entirely in some places and in others dragged on a
lingering existence under other forms. The compromise that had served
for some time to reconcile the great mass of the unthinking people to
the religion of Christ thus broke down[679]; and Egypt again showed her
power of resisting and transforming all ideas other than those which
thousands of years had made sacred to her people.

Meanwhile, the bridge between Paganism and Christianity which Gnosticism
afforded had been crossed by many. As the Ophites showed the inhabitants
of Asia Minor how to combine the practice of their ancestral worships
with the Christian revelation, so Valentinus and his successors allowed
the rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven without the difficulties
attendant on the passage of the camel through the needle’s eye. The
authors of the _Texts of the Saviour_ and the Bruce Papyrus went further
and made it possible for the Egyptian _fellah_—then as now hating
change, and most tenacious of his own beliefs—to accept the hope of
salvation offered by the new faith while giving up none of his
traditional lore upon the nature of the next world. In this way,
doubtless, many thousands were converted to Christianity who would
otherwise have kept aloof from it, and thus hastened its triumph over
the State. But the law which seems to compel every religion to borrow
the weapons of its adversaries leads sometimes to strange results, and
this was never more plainly marked than in the case of Egypt. The
history of Egyptian Christianity has yet to be written; but it seems
from the first to have been distinguished in many important particulars
from that which conquered the West, and it is impossible to attribute
these differences to any other source than Gnosticism. The Pharaonic
Egyptian had always been fanatical, submissive like all Africans to
priestly influence, and easily absorbed in concern for his own spiritual
welfare. Given the passion for defining the undefinable and the love of
useless detail which marked everything in the old faith, and in systems
like those of the Coptic texts which form the subject of this chapter he
had the religion to his mind. Nor were other and less abstract
considerations wanting. The life of a scribe or temple servant, as the
race began to lose the vigour which at one time had made them the
conquerors of Asia, had come to be looked upon by the mass of the people
as that which was most desirable on earth[680]; and here was a faith
which called upon the Egyptian to withdraw from the world and devote
himself to the care of his own soul. Hence the appeal of Gnosticism to
those who would escape hell to renounce all earthly cares fell upon good
ground, and Egypt was soon full of ignorant ascetics withdrawn from the
life of labour and spending their days in ecstasy or contemplation until
roused to seditious or turbulent action at the bidding of their crafty
and ambitious leaders. For these monks and hermits the Hellenistic
civilization might as well not have existed; but they preserved their
native superstitions without much modification, and the practices of
magic, alchemy, and divination were rife among them[681]. So, too, was
the constant desire to enquire into the nature and activities of the
Deity which they had brought with them from their old faith, and which
nearly rent Christianity in twain when it found expression in the Arian,
the Monophysite, and the Monothelite controversies. In the meantime, the
Catholic Church had profoundly modified her own methods in the
directions which the experience of the Gnostics had shown to be
profitable. The fear of hell came to occupy a larger and larger part in
her exhortations, and apocalypse after apocalypse was put forth in which
its terrors were set out with abundant detail. Ritual necessarily became
of immense importance under the pressure of converts who believed in the
magical efficacy of prayers and sacraments, in which every word and
every gesture was of mysterious import, and the rites of the Church were
regarded more and more as secrets on which only those fully instructed
might look. The use in them of pictures, flowers, incense, music, and
all the externals of the public worship of heathen times, which
according to Gibbon would have shocked a Tertullian or a Lactantius
could they have returned to earth[682], must be attributed in the first
instance to the influence of Gnostic converts. Renan is doubtless right
when he says that it was over the bridge between Paganism and
Christianity formed by Gnosticism that many Pagan practices poured into
the Church[683].

Apart from these external matters, on the other hand, the outbreak of
Gnosticism possibly rendered a real service to Christianity. To the
simple chiliastic faith of Apostolic times, the Gnostics added the
elements which transformed it into a world-religion, fitted to triumph
over all the older creeds and worships; and their stealthy and in part
secret opposition forced the Church to adopt the organization which has
enabled her to survive in unimpaired strength to the present day. Jewish
Christianity, the religion of the few pious and humble souls who thought
they had nothing to do but to wait in prayer and hope for their Risen
Lord, had proved itself unable to conquer the world, and its adherents
under the name of Ebionites were already looked upon by the Gentile
converts as heretics. Gnosticism, so long as it was unchecked, was a
real danger to the Church, but without it Christendom would probably
have broken up into hundreds of small independent communities, and would
thus have dissipated the strength which she eventually found in unity.
Threatened on the one hand by this danger, and on the other with the
loss of popular favour which the attractions of Gnosticism made
probable, the Church was forced to organize herself, to define her
doctrines, to establish a regular and watchful hierarchy[684], and to
strictly regulate the tendency to mystic speculation and arbitrary
exegesis which she could not wholly suppress. Yet these measures could
not come into operation without producing a reaction, the end of which
we have yet to see.

Footnote 459:

  The chapter on Marcion and his doctrines should perhaps in strict
  chronological order follow on here, as Marcion’s teaching was either
  contemporary with, or at most, but a few years later than, that of
  Valentinus. Cf. Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Marcion,
  Valentinus. But the earliest documents in the _Pistis Sophia_ are, as
  will be seen, possibly by Valentinus himself, and, as all of them are
  closely connected with his doctrine, it seemed a pity to postpone
  their consideration.

Footnote 460:

  W. E. Crum, _Catalogue of the Coptic MS. in the Brit. Mus._, 1905, p.
  173, n. 2, says that it was bought at the sale of Askew’s effects for
  £10. 10_s._ 0_d._, and that Askew himself bought it from a bookseller.

Footnote 461:

  H. Hyvernat, _Album de Paléographie Copte_, Paris, 1888.

Footnote 462:

  Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._ t. II. pp. 39-43, 347-348, and t. III. pp.
  368-371.

Footnote 463:

  See the present writer’s article “Some Heretic Gospels” in the
  _Scottish Review_ for July, 1893, where the MSS. treated of in this
  chapter and their divisions are described in detail. Schmidt,
  _Koptisch-gnostische Schriften_, Bd I. p. 14, speaks of this “Codex
  Askewianus” as “eine Miszellenhandschrift.”

Footnote 464:

  Except where otherwise specified, subsequent references here to
  _Pistis Sophia_ (in Italics) are to the first 253 pages of the Coptic
  MS. only.

Footnote 465:

  Cf. the ἐσώτερον τοῦ καταπετάσματος “within the veil” of Heb. vi. 19.
  For other instances of its use in this sense see Crum, _Cat. of the
  Coptic MSS. in the Brit. Mus._ p. 255, n. 1; and Clem. Alex. _Strom._
  Bk V. c. 6. For the _dove_, Mr F. C. Conybeare, in a paper on the
  subject read before the Society of Historical Theology in Dec. 1892
  (see _Academy_ of 3rd Dec. 1892), said that the dove was “the
  recognised symbol of the Holy Spirit or Logos in the allegorizing
  theology of the Alexandrine Jews at the beginning of the 1st century
  A.D.,” and quoted several passages from Philo in support. Cf. Origen,
  _cont. Cels._ Bk I. c. 31. But it was also the emblem, perhaps the
  totem-animal, of the great Asiatic goddess who, under the name of
  Astarte or Aphrodite, was worshipped as the _Mater viventium_ or
  “Mother of all Living,” with whose worship the serpent was also
  connected. It was doubtless to this that the text “Be ye wise as
  serpents, harmless as doves” refers. Both serpents and doves figure
  largely in the Mycenaean and Cretan worship of the goddess. See Ronald
  Burrows, _Discoveries in Crete_, 1907, pp. 137, 138, and _Index_ for
  references. In later Greek symbolism the dove was sacred to the
  infernal Aphrodite or Persephone whose name of Φερρεφάττα or
  Φερσεφάττα has been rendered “she who bears the dove.” See de Chanot,
  “Statues Iconiques de Chypre” in _Gazette Archéologique_, 1878, p.
  109.

Footnote 466:

  _Pistis Sophia_, p. 152, Copt. This metaphor is first met with in
  Philo, _Quaest. in Genesim_, Bk I. c. 53, who declares that the “coats
  of skin” of Gen. iii, 21 are the natural bodies with which the souls
  of the protoplasts were clothed. It was a favourite figure of speech
  with the Alexandrian Jewish writers. So in the _Ascensio Isaiae_, c.
  IV. 16, 17: “But the saints will come with the Lord with their
  garments which are now stored up on high in the seventh heaven: with
  the Lord will they come, whose spirits are clothed.... And afterwards
  they will turn themselves upward in their garments, and their body
  will be left in this world.” Cf. Charles, _Ascension of Isaiah_, pp.
  34, 35, and _Eschatology_ (Jowett Lectures), pp. 399 _sqq._, where he
  says that this was also the teaching of St Paul.

Footnote 467:

  The word Σωτήρ, which here as elsewhere in the book appears without
  any Coptic equivalent, evidently had a peculiar signification to the
  Valentinian Gnostics. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 1, p. 12, Harvey, says
  that it was the name they gave to Jesus oὐδὲ γὰρ κύριον ὀνομάζειν
  αὐτὸν θέλουσι “for they do not choose to call Him Lord.” In the later
  part of the book, the document called Mέρoς τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 253,
  Copt.) says that “he is saviour and ὰχώρητος (_i.e._ not to be
  confined in space), who finds the words of the mysteries and the words
  of the Third Receptacle which is within (_i.e._ the inmost of the
  three) and excelleth them all.” From which it would appear that the
  chief qualification of a saviour in the eyes of the later Valentinians
  was that he was not restricted to his special place in the universe,
  but could visit at will the worlds below him. We seem therefore to be
  already getting near the Manichaean idea of _Burkhans_ (messengers or
  Buddhas) who are sent into the world for its salvation. Cf. Chapter
  XIII _infra_.

Footnote 468:

  So that Judas Iscariot received a super-excellent soul as well as the
  other eleven, unless we are to suppose that his successor and
  substitute Matthias was one of those chosen from the beginning. It is
  curious that neither in this nor in any other Valentinian document is
  there any allusion to the treason of Judas. The phrase “Archons of the
  aeons” means, as will be seen later, the rulers of the twelve signs of
  the Zodiac.

Footnote 469:

  The “Sphere,” here as elsewhere in the book, means the sphere of the
  visible firmament, which is below that of Heimarmene or Destiny.

Footnote 470:

  Τhis παρθένος τοῦ φωτός or Virgin of Light appears here, I think, for
  the first time in any Gnostic document, although she may have been
  known to the Valentinians. See Irenaeus, Bk II. c. 47, § 2, p. 368,
  Harvey. She is, perhaps, a lower analogue of Sophia Without, and is
  represented as seated in or near the material sun which is said to
  give its light in its “true form” only in her τόπος or place, which is
  10,000 times more luminous than that of the Great Propator or
  Forefather mentioned later (_Pistis Sophia_, p. 194, Copt.). Her
  function seems to be the “judging” of the souls of the dead, which
  does not apparently involve any weighing of evidence, but merely the
  examination of them to see what “mysteries” they have received in
  previous incarnations, which will determine the bodies in which they
  are reincarnated or their translation to higher spheres (_ibid._ pp.
  239, 292). She also places in the soul a power which returns to her,
  according to the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, on the death of its possessor
  (_ibid._ p. 284, Copt.), thereby discharging the functions assigned in
  the last book of Plato’s _Republic_ to Lachesis. She is also on the
  same authority (_i.e._ the Μ. τ. Σ.) one of the rulers of the disk of
  the sun and of that of the moon (_ibid._ pp. 340-341, Copt.), and her
  place is one of the “places of the Middle” and is opposite to the
  kingdom of Adamas, which is called the “head of the aeons” (_ibid._ p.
  236, Copt.). She reappears in Manichaeism and it is said in the _Acta
  Archelai_ that at the destruction of the world she will pass into “the
  ship” of the moon along with Jesus and other powers where she will
  remain until the whole earth is burnt up (c. XIII. p. 21 of
  _Hegemonius, Acta Archelai_, Beeson’s ed., Leipzig, 1906, p. 21). In
  the Turfan texts (F. W. K. Müller, _Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo
  Schrift aus Turfan_, III. Teil, Berlin, 1904, p. 77) appears a
  fragment of a prayer in which is invoked _yîšô kanîgrôšanâ_ which Dr
  Müller translates Ἰησοῦς παρθένος τοῦ φωτός, “Jesus, Virgin of Light”;
  but it is possible that there is some mistake in the reading.

Footnote 471:

  Barbelo is a name very frequently met with in the earlier
  heresiologists. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 26, §§ 1, 2, pp. 221-226, Harvey,
  declares that there was a sect of Simonians called Barbeliotae “or
  Naassenes” who suppose “a certain indestructible (the Latin version
  says ‘never-ageing’) Aeon in a living virgin spirit whom they call
  Barbelo (masc.),” and gives an account of a string of other aeons
  issuing not from, but at the prayer of, this Barbelo, which is far
  from clear in the present state of the text. The sect appears, from
  what can be made out of his description, to have resembled the
  Ophites, of which it may have been a branch. Hippolytus, however, says
  nothing of them, and the account of Epiphanius (_Haer._ XXV. and
  XXVI., Vol. II, pt 1, pp. 160, 184), Oehler, is untrustworthy,
  inasmuch as he assigns the worship of Barbelo to two sects, one of
  which he calls Nicolaitans and the other Gnostics simply. To both of
  them he attributes after his manner unimaginably filthy rites, and it
  is plain from his making Barbelo the mother of Jaldabaoth and giving
  her a seat in the eighth heaven that he confuses her wilfully or
  otherwise with the Sophia of the Ophites. Her place in the system of
  the _Pistis Sophia_ will be described in the text. The name is said by
  Harvey to be derived from the Syriac _Barba elo_, the Deity in Four or
  God in Tetrad, and the derivation is approved by Hort (_Dict. of
  Christian Biog._ _s.h.n._). It appears more likely, however, that it
  is to be referred to the Hebrew root בבל “Babel” or confusion, a
  derivation which Hort also mentions. In Irenaeus’ Greek text the name
  is spelt βαρβηλὼ, in the Latin “Barbelo” with an accusative
  “Barbelon,” and in Epiphanius βαρβηλὼ and βαρβήρω. If we might alter
  this last into βαρβαριωθ, we might see it in a great: number of magic
  spells of the period. Cf. Wessely, _Ephesia Grammata_, Wien, 1886, pp.
  26, 28, 33, 34.

Footnote 472:

  _Pistis Sophia_, p. 16, Copt. The five words are _zama_, _zama_,
  _ôzza_, _rachama_, _ôzai_. Whatever they may mean, we may be quite
  sure that they can never contain with their few letters the three
  pages or so of text which are given as their interpretation. It is
  possible that the letters are used acrostically like the A G L A,
  _i.e._ ניבר לעולם אדני (? Ahih ? אהיה) אתה _Ate Gibor Lailam Adonai_,
  “The mighty Adonai for ever” (or “thou art the mighty and eternal
  Lord”) commonly met with in mediaeval magic. Cf. Peter de Abano,
  _Heptameron, seu Elementa Magica_, Paris, 1567, p. 563; or, for other
  examples, F. Barrett, _The Magus_, 1801, Bk II. pp. 39, 40. The
  notable feature in these mysterious words is the quantity of Zetas or
  ζ’s that they contain which points to the use of some sort of table
  like that called by Cabalists _ziruph_, or a cryptogram of the
  _aaaaa_, _aaaab_, kind. It should be noticed that Coptic scribes were
  often afflicted with what has been called Betacism or the avoidance of
  the letter Beta or β by every means, which frequently led to the
  substitution for it of ζ as in the case of Jaldabaoth = Ιαλδαζαω given
  above (Chap. VIII, n. 3, p. 46 _supra_).

Footnote 473:

  This idea of certain powers being the members or “limbs” of him from
  whom they issue recurs all through the _Pistis Sophia_. Cf. especially
  p. 224, Copt., where it is said that the χωρήματα or “receptacles” of
  the Ineffable go forth from his last limb. It is probably to be
  referred to the conception of the Supreme Being as the Man κατ’
  ἐξοχήν, which we have seen current among the Ophites. See Chap. VIII,
  n. 2, p. 38 _supra_. That the ancient Egyptians used the same
  expression concerning their own gods and especially Ra, see Moret, “Le
  Verbe créateur et révélateur,” _R.H.R._, Mai-Juin, 1909, p. 257. Cf.
  Amélineau, _Gnosticisme Égyptien_, p. 288. So Naville, _Old Egyptian
  Faith_, p. 227.

Footnote 474:

  That is to say, their names make up his name as letters do a word. So
  in the system of Marcus referred to in Chap. IX _supra_, Irenaeus (Bk
  I. c. 8, § 11, p. 146, Harvey) explains that the name of Jesus
  (Ἰησοῦς) which might be uttered is composed of six letters, but His
  unutterable name of twenty-four, because the names of the first Tetrad
  of Ἄρρητος (Bythos), Σιγή, Πατὴρ (Monogenes or Nous) and Ἀλήθεια
  contain that number of letters. See also § 5 of same chapter. Those
  who wish to understand the system are recommended to read the whole of
  the chapter quoted. As Irenaeus has the sense to see, there is no
  reason why the construction from one root of names founded on the
  principle given should not go on for ever.

Footnote 475:

  This is probably either the Horos or Stauros that we have seen brought
  into being in the teaching of Valentinus as a guard to the Pleroma,
  or, as is more probable, an antitype of the same power in the world
  immediately above ours. That there was more than one Horos according
  to the later Valentinians appears plain from the words of Irenaeus
  above quoted (see Chap. IX, n. 1, p. 105 _supra_). Probably each world
  had its Horos, or Limit, who acted as guard to it on its completion.
  That in this world, the Cross, personified and made pre-existent,
  fulfils this office seems evident from the Gospel of Peter, where it
  is described as coming forth from the Sepulchre with Jesus (_Mem.
  Miss. Archéol. du Caire_, 1892, t. IX. fasc. 1, v. 10). Cf. too, Clem.
  Alex. _Paedagogus_, Bk III. c. 12, and _Strom._ Bk II. c. 20.

Footnote 476:

  Ὁ μηνευτος. The word is not known in classical Greek (but cf. μηνυτής
  “a revealer”), and appears to have its root in μήν “the moon,” as the
  _measure_ of the month. From the Coptic word here translated
  “Precept,” we may guess it to be a personification of the Jewish Law
  or _Torah_ which, according to the Rabbis, before the creation of the
  world existed in the heavens. Later in the book it is said that it is
  by command of this power that Jeû places the aeons (p. 26, Copt.);
  that the souls of those who receive the mysteries of the light (_i.e._
  the psychics) will have precedence in beatitude over those who belong
  to the places of the First Precept (p. 196, Copt.); that all the
  orders of beings of the Third χὠρημα are below him (p. 203, Copt.);
  and that he is “cut into seven mysteries,” which may mean that his
  name is spelled with seven letters (p. 219, Copt.).

Footnote 477:

  Χάραγμαι. Are these the letters mentioned in last note?

Footnote 478:

  Πρεσβευτής, properly, “ambassador” or “agent.” Doubtless a prototype
  of our sun. Elsewhere in the book, Jesus tells His disciples that He
  brought forth from Himself “at the beginning” power (not _a_ power),
  which He cast into the First Precept, “and the First Precept cast part
  of it into the Great Light, and the Great Light cast part of that
  which he received into the Five Parastatae, the last of whom breathed
  part of that which he received into the Kerasmos or Confusion” (p. 14,
  Copt.). The Great Light is also called the Χάραγμα of the Light, and
  is said to have remained without emanation (p. 219, Copt.).

Footnote 479:

  Παραστάται, “Comrades” or “witnesses” or “helpers.” They can here
  hardly be anything else but the Five Planets. It is said later that it
  was the last Parastates who set Jeû and his five companions in the
  “Place of the Right Hand” (p. 193, Copt.). When the world is
  destroyed, Jesus is to take the perfect souls into this last
  Parastates where they are to reign with him (p. 230, Copt.) for 1000
  years of light which are 365,000 of our years (p. 243, Copt.).
  Προηγούμενος “Forerunner” does not seem to occur in classical Greek.

Footnote 480:

  We hear nothing more definite of these Five Trees, but they appear
  again in Manichaeism, and are mentioned in the Chinese treatise from
  Tun-huang, for which see Chap. XIII _infra_.

Footnote 481:

  This is a most puzzling expression and seems to have baffled the
  scribe, as he speaks of them, when he comes to repeat the phrase (p.
  216, Copt.), as the “Twin Saviours,” which is a classical epithet of
  the Dioscuri. In Pharaonic Egypt, Shu and Tefnut the pair of gods who
  were first brought into being by the Creator were sometimes called
  “The Twins.” See Naville, _Old Egyptian Faith_, p. 120. Cf. p. 171
  _infra_.

Footnote 482:

  It is evident from the context that we here begin the enumeration of
  the Powers of the Left, who are hylic or material and therefore the
  least worthy of the inhabitants of the heavens. According to Irenaeus,
  the Valentinians held that all of them were doomed to destruction.
  Τριῶν ὠν ὄντων, τὸ μὲν ὑλικὸν, ὃ καὶ ἀριστερὸν καλοῦσι, κατὰ ἀνάγκην
  ἀπὸλλυσθαι λέγουσιν, ἅτε μηδεμίαν ἐπιδέξασθαι πνοὴν ἀφθαρσίας
  δυνάμενον (Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 11, p. 51, Harvey). “There being
  three forms of existences, they say that the hylic, which they call
  the left hand, must be destroyed, inasmuch as it cannot receive any
  breath of incorruption.” So in the Bruce Papyrus to be presently
  mentioned, the “part of the left” is called the land of Death. At
  their head stands “the Great Unseen Propator,” who throughout the
  _Pistis Sophia_ proper is called by this title only, and occupies the
  same place with regard to the left that Iao does in respect of the
  middle, and Jeû of the right. In the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 359,
  Copt.) he is called by the name ἀγραμμαχαμαρεχ which frequently
  appears in the Magic Papyri. It is there spelt indifferently
  ακραμνικαμαρι, ακραμμαχαρι, ακραμμαχαμαρει, ακραμμαχαχαχαρι, and in a
  Latin inscription on a gold plate, _acramihamari_ (see Wessely,
  _Ephesia Grammata_, p. 22, for references), which last may be taken to
  be the more usual pronunciation. One is rather tempted to see in the
  name a corruption of ἀγραμματέον in the sense of “which cannot be
  written,” but I can find no authority for such a use of the word. As
  the ruler of the material Cosmos he might be taken for the Cosmocrator
  who, as we have seen, is called by Valentinus Diabolos or the Devil
  (but see n. 1, p. 152 _infra_). Yet he cannot be wholly evil like
  Beelzebuth for it is said in the text (p. 41, Copt.) that he and his
  consort Barbelo sing praises to the Powers of the Light. So in the
  Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 378, Copt.) he is represented as begging for
  purification and holiness when the Great Name of God is uttered. It is
  plain also from the statements in the text (pp. 43, 44, Copt.) that in
  the _Pistis Sophia_ he, Barbelo, and the Αὐθάδης or Arrogant Power
  make up a triad called the great τριδυναμεῖς or “Triple Powers” from
  whom are projected the powers called the “Twenty-four Invisibles.” In
  another document of the same MS. (p. 361, Copt.) a power from him is
  said to be bound in the planet Saturn.

Footnote 483:

  This Εἱμαρμένη or “Destiny” is the sphere immediately above our
  firmament. It is evidently so called, because on passing through it
  the soul on its way to incarnation receives the Moira or impress of
  its own destiny, of which it cannot afterwards rid itself except by
  the grace of the mysteries or Valentinian sacraments. Cf. Chap. IX, n.
  3, p. 115 _supra_.

Footnote 484:

  Ἄρρητος. Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 5, § 1, p. 99, Harvey. _Innominabilis_,
  Tertullian, _adv. Valentinianos_, c. 37. So Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk V.
  c. 10, says that God is ineffable, being incapable of being expressed
  even in His own power.

Footnote 485:

  Χωρηματα: τόποι.

Footnote 486:

  That [_i.e._ the First] mystery knoweth why there emanated all the
  places which are in the receptacle of the Ineffable One and also all
  which is in them, and why they went forth from the last limb of the
  Ineffable One.... These things I will tell you in the emanation of the
  universe. _Pist. Soph._ p. 225, Copt.

Footnote 487:

  _Ibid._ p. 222, Copt.

Footnote 488:

  _Ibid._ p. 127, Copt.

Footnote 489:

  See Chap. IX, pp. 121, 122 _supra_.

Footnote 490:

  Heb. vi. 19.

Footnote 491:

  p. 203, Copt. Why there should be 24, when the dodecad or group of
  Aeons in the world above was only 12, it is difficult to say. But
  Hippolytus supplies a sort of explanation when he says (_op. cit._ Bk
  VI. c. 33, p. 292, Cruice): Ταῦτά ἐστιν ἃ λέγουσιν· ἔτι [δὲ] πρὸς
  τούτοις, ἀριθμητικὴν ποιούμενοι τὴν πᾶσαν αὐτῶν διδασκαλίαν, ὡς
  προεῖπον [τοὺς] ἐντὸς Πληρώματος Αἰῶνας τριάκοντα πάλιν
  ἐπιπροβεβληκέναι αὐτοῖς κατὰ ἀναλογίαν Αἰῶνας ἄλλους, ἵν’ ᾖ τὸ Πλήρωμα
  ἐν ἀριθμῷ τελείῳ συνηθροισμένον. Ὡς γὰρ οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ διεῖλον εἰς
  δώδεκα καὶ τριάκοντα καὶ ἑξήκοντα, καὶ λεπτὰ λεπτῶν εἰσὶν ἐκείνοις,
  δεδήλωται· οὕτως οὗ τοι τὰ ἐντὸς Πληρώματος ὑποδιαιροῦσιν. “This is
  what they say. But besides this, they make their whole teaching
  arithmetical, since they say that the thirty Aeons within the Pleroma
  again projected by analogy other Aeons, so that thereby the Pleroma
  may be gathered together in a perfect number. For the manner in which
  the Pythagoreans divide [the cosmos] into 12, 30, and 60 parts, and
  each of these into yet more minute ones, has been made plain” [see
  _op. cit._ Bk VI. c. 28, p. 279, where Hippolytus tells us how
  Pythagoras divided each Sign of the Zodiac into 30 parts “which are
  days of the month, these last into 60 λεπτὰ, and so on”]. “In this way
  do they [the Valentinians] divide the things within the Pleroma.” Cf.
  Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος p. 364, Copt. In another book of the
  Philosophumena (Bk IV. c. 7 Περὶ τῆς ἀριθμετικῆς τέχνης) he explains
  how the Pythagoreans derived infinity from a single principle by a
  succession of odd and even or male and female numbers, in connection
  with which he quotes Simon Magus (_op. cit._ p. 132, Cruice). The way
  this was applied to names he shows in the chapter Περὶ μαθηματικῶν
  (_op. cit._ Βk IV. c. 11, pp. 77 _sqq._, Cruice) which is in fact a
  description of what in the Middle Ages was called Arithmomancy, or
  divination by numbers.

Footnote 492:

  p. 224, Copt. See also p. 241, Copt.—a very curious passage where the
  Ineffable One is called “the God of Truth without foot” (cf. Osiris as
  a mummy) and is said to live apart from his “members.”

Footnote 493:

  In the beginning of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 252, Copt.) it is
  said of the Ineffable that “there are many members, but one body.” But
  this statement is immediately followed by another that this is only
  said “as a pattern (παράδειγμα) and a likeness and a resemblance, but
  not in truth of shape” (p. 253, Copt.).

Footnote 494:

  What he does say is that the Ineffable One has two χωρήματα or
  receptacles and that the second of these is the χώρημα of the First
  Mystery. It is, I think, probable that an attempt to describe both
  these χωρήματα is made in one of the documents of the Bruce Papyrus.
  See pp. 191, 192 _infra_.

Footnote 495:

  In addition to the enumeration contained in the so-called
  interpretation of the mysterious “Five Words,” there appears in the
  2nd part of the _Pistis Sophia_ (pp. 206 _sqq._ Copt.) a long rhapsody
  in which it is declared that a certain mystery knows why all the
  powers, stars, and heavenly “places” were made. These are here again
  set out _seriatim_, and as the order in the main corresponds with that
  in the five words translated in the text, it serves as a check upon
  this last. The order of the powers in the text was given in the
  article in the _Scottish Review_ before referred to, and, although
  this was written 20 years ago, I see no occasion to alter it.

Footnote 496:

  It is the “last Parastates” who places Jeû and his companion in “the
  place of those who belong to the right hand according to the
  arrangement (_i.e._ οἰκονομία) of the Assembly of the Light which is
  in the Height of the Rulers of the Aeons and in the universes (κοσμοὶ)
  and every race which is therein” (p. 193, Copt.). A later revelation
  is promised as to these, but in the meantime it is said that Jeû
  emanated from the chosen or pure (εἰλικρινής) light of the first of
  the Five Trees (_loc. cit._).

Footnote 497:

  See nn. 1 and 3, p. 141 _supra_. As has been said, it is difficult not
  to see in this “1st Precept” a personification of the Torah or Jewish
  Law.

Footnote 498:

  See n. 3, p. 146 _supra_.

Footnote 499:

  See n. 2, p. 136 _supra_.

Footnote 500:

  So Secundus, Valentinus’ follower, taught according to Hippolytus
  (_v._ Chap. ΙΧ _supra_) “that there is a right and a left tetrad,
  _i.e._ light and darkness.” This may be taken to mean that the
  constitution of the light-world was repeated point for point in the
  world of darkness. The middle world is of course that where light and
  darkness mingle.

Footnote 501:

  Jeû is generally called the ἐπίσκοπος or overseer of the Light. He it
  is who has placed the Rulers of the Aeons so that they always “behold
  the left” (p. 26, Copt.). He is also said to have bound “in the
  beginning” the rulers of the Aeons and of Destiny and of the Sphere in
  their respective places (p. 34, Copt.), and that each and every of
  them will remain in the τάξις or order and walk in the δρόμος or
  course in which he placed them. We also hear in the _Pistis Sophia_
  proper of two “books of Jeû” “which Enoch wrote when the First Mystery
  spoke with him out of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge in
  the Paradise of Adam” (p. 246, Copt.). In the first part of the Μέρος
  τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, however Jeû is described as “the First Man, the
  ἐπίσκοπος of the Light, and the πρεσβευτής or Ambassador of the First
  Precept” (p. 322, Copt.); and it is further said in the same book that
  “the Book of Jeû (not books) which Enoch wrote in Paradise when I
  (Jesus) spoke with him out of the Tree of Life and the Tree of
  Knowledge” was placed by His means in “the rock Ararad.” Jesus goes on
  to say that He placed “Kalapataurôth the ruler who is over Skemmut in
  which is the foot of Jeû, and he surrounds all rulers and destinies—I
  placed that ruler to guard the books of Jeû from the Flood and lest
  any of the rulers should destroy them out of envy” (p. 354, Copt.).

Footnote 502:

  Melchizidek is very seldom mentioned in the _Pistis Sophia_, but when
  he is, it is always as the great παραλήμπτωρ or “inheritor” of the
  Light (p. 34, Copt.). Jesus describes how he comes among the Rulers of
  the Aeons at certain times and takes away their light, which he
  purifies (p. 35, Copt.). He is said to have emanated from the light of
  the 5th Tree of the Treasure House, as Jeû did from that of the 1st
  (p. 193, Copt.). In the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, he is called the great
  παραλημπτής or “receiver” of the Light (p. 292, Copt.). In the 2nd
  part of the last named document he is called Zorocothora Melchizidek,
  an epithet which C. W. King in _The Gnostics and their Remains_
  translates “light-gatherer.” It is also said in the same 2nd part that
  “he and Jeû are the two great lights,” and that he is the πρεσβευτής
  or “Legate” of all the lights which are purified in the Rulers of the
  Aeons (p. 365, Copt.). We may perhaps see in him and Jeû the antitypes
  of which the Great Light and the First Precept are the paradigms.
  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 36, p. 391, Cruice, says that there
  was a sect, the followers of one Theodotus, a τραπεζίτης or
  money-changer, who said that there was “a greatest power named
  Melchizidek who was greater than Christ.” Pseudo-Tertullian repeats
  the same story and adds that Melchizidek is “a celestial virtue of
  great grace,” who does for heavenly angels and virtues what Christ
  does for men, having made himself “their intercessor and advocate.”
  See _auct. cit._ (probably Victorinus of Pettau) _Against all
  Heresies_, c. XXIV. p. 279, Oehl. He doubtless founded his opinion on
  the passage in the Hebrews. The name seems to mean “Holy King” Cf. the
  “King of Glory” of the Manichaeans, see Chap. XIII _infra_.

Footnote 503:

  p. 35, Copt.

Footnote 504:

  He is said to have emanated from the 2nd Tree (p. 193, Copt.) and is
  nowhere distinctly named. But one may perhaps guess from the order in
  which he occurs in the 2nd part of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος that his
  name was Zarazaz, evidently a cryptogram like those mentioned in n. 1,
  p. 139 _supra_. It is also said that the Rulers call him “Maskelli
  after the name of a strong (_i.e._ male) ruler of their own place (p.
  370, Copt.).” This name of Maskelli, sometimes written
  Maskelli-maskellô, is frequently met with in the Magic Papyri. Cf.
  Wessely, _Ephesia Grammata_, p. 28.

Footnote 505:

  They are said to have emanated from the 3rd and 4th Tree respectively
  (p. 193, Copt.).

Footnote 506:

  p. 193, Copt. He is evidently called _the Good_ because there is a
  wicked Sabaoth sometimes called Sabaoth Adamas, and the Great because
  there is a Little Sabaoth the Good who seems to act as his messenger.
  It is this last who takes the power from the Great Sabaoth the Good
  which afterwards becomes the body of Jesus and “casts it into matter
  and Barbelo” (p. 127, Copt.). He seems to be set over or in some way
  identified with what is called the Gate of Life (p. 215, Copt.) both
  in the _Pistis Sophia_ and the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 292, Copt.).

Footnote 507:

  p. 12, Copt., where he is oddly enough called the Little Iao the Good,
  I think by a clerical error. Later he is said to be “the great leader
  of the middle whom the Rulers call the Great Iao after the name of a
  great ruler in their own place” (p. 194, Copt.). He is described in
  the same way in the second part of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 371,
  Copt.).

Footnote 508:

  See last note.

Footnote 509:

  p. 12, Copt. This “power” is evidently the better part of man’s soul
  like the Logoi who dwell therein in the passage quoted above from
  Valentinus, see Chap. IX, p. 112 _supra_.

Footnote 510:

  p. 194, Copt.

Footnote 511:

  See n. 3, p. 137 _supra_.

Footnote 512:

  So the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 321, Copt.).

Footnote 513:

  The likeness of Mary the Mother and Mary Magdalene to the seven
  Virgins appears in the translation of Amélineau (_Pistis Sophia_,
  Paris, 1895, p. 60). Schwartze (p. 75, Lat.) puts it rather
  differently. See also Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ bd. 1, p. 75. The “receivers”
  of the Virgin of Light are mentioned on p. 292, Copt.

Footnote 514:

  p. 184, Copt.

Footnote 515:

  pp. 340, 341, Copt. As ⲒⲞϨ (ioh) is Coptic for the Moon, it is just
  possible that there may be a kind of pun here on this word and the
  name Iao. Osiris, whose name was often equated by the Alexandrian Jews
  with their own divine name Jaho or Jah, as in the Manethonian story of
  Osarsiph = Joseph, was also considered a Moon-god. Cf. the “Hymn of
  the Mysteries” given in Chap. VIII, where he is called “the holy
  horned moon of heaven.”

Footnote 516:

  See note 1, p. 138 _supra_. The Bruce Papyrus (Amélineau, _Notice sur
  le Papyrus Gnostique Bruce_, Paris, 1882, p. 220) speaks of the
  “Thirteenth Aeon, where are the Great Unseen God and the Great Virgin
  of the Spirit (cf. the παρθενική πνεῦμα of Irenaeus) and the
  twenty-four emanations of the unseen God.”

Footnote 517:

  See n. 2, p. 142 _supra_.

Footnote 518:

  See Chapter IX, p. 104 _supra_.

Footnote 519:

  p. 116, Copt.

Footnote 520:

  I suppose it is in view of this maternal aspect of her nature that she
  is alluded to in the latter part of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος as
  βαρβηλω βδελλη “Barbelo who gives suck”? Her place, according to the
  Bruce Papyrus (Amélineau, p. 218), is said to be in the Twelfth Aeon.

Footnote 521:

  There have been many attempts to make this name mean something else
  than merely “Faith-Wisdom.” Dulaurier and Renan both tried to read it
  “πιστὴ Σοφία” “the faithful Wisdom” or “La fidèle Sagesse.” If we had
  more documents of the style of Simon’s _Apophasis_, we should probably
  find that this apposition of two or more nouns in a name was not
  infrequent, and the case of Ptah-Sokar-Osiris will occur to every
  Egyptologist. The fact that the name includes the first and last
  female member of the Dodecad of Valentinus (see p. 101 _supra_) is
  really its most plausible explanation.

Footnote 522:

  This Adamas seems to be an essentially evil power, who wages useless
  war against the Light on the entry of Jesus into his realm (p. 25,
  Copt.). His seat is plainly the Twelve Aeons or Zodiac (p. 157,
  Copt.), and it is said in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος that his “kingdom”
  is in the τοποι κεφαλης αἰωνων or Places of the head of the Aeons and
  is opposite the place of the Virgin of Light (p. 336, Copt.). In the
  second part of the same document (_i.e._ the μ. τ. σ.) it is said that
  the rulers of Adamas rebelled, persisting in the act of copulation
  (συνουσία) and begetting “Rulers and Archangels and Angels and
  Ministers (λειτουργοί) and Decans” (Δεκανοί), and that thereupon Jeû
  went forth from the Place of the Right and “bound them in Heimarmene
  and the Sphere.” We further learn that half the Aeons headed by
  Jabraoth, who is also once mentioned in the _Pistis Sophia_ proper (p.
  128, Copt., and again in the Bruce Papyrus, Amélineau, p. 239), were
  consequently transferred to another place, while Adamas, now for the
  first time called Sabaoth Adamas, with the unrepentant rulers are
  confined in the Sphere to the number of 1800, over whom 360 other
  rulers bear sway, over whom again are set the five planets Saturn,
  Mars, Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter (pp. 360, 361, Copt.). All this
  seems to me to be later than the _Pistis Sophia_ proper, to have been
  written at a time when belief in astrology was more rife than in
  Hadrian’s reign, and to owe something to Manichaean influence. The
  original Adamas, the persecutor of Pistis Sophia herself, seems
  identifiable with the Diabolos or Cosmocrator of Valentinus, in which
  case we may perhaps see in the “Great Propator” a merely stupid and
  ignorant power like the Jaldabaoth of the Ophites and their
  successors. See p. 163 _infra_.

Footnote 523:

  p. 145, Copt. So Irenaeus in his account of the Valentinian doctrines,
  Bk I. c. 1, p. 12 _sqq._ I suppose there is an allusion to this in the
  remark of Jesus to Mary that a year is as a day (p. 243, Copt.). But
  all the astrology of the time seems to have divided the astronomical
  day not into 24, but into 12 hours. It was the same with the
  Manichaeans. See Chavannes and Pelliot, “Un Traité manichéen retrouvé
  en Chine,” _Journal Asiatique_, série X, t. XVIII. (Nov.-Dec. 1911),
  p. 540, n. 4.

Footnote 524:

  But curiously enough, not the “souls” of fish. So in the Middle Ages,
  the Manichaeans of Languedoc did not allow their “Perfects” to partake
  of animal food nor even of eggs, but allowed them fish, because they
  said these creatures were not begotten by copulation. See Schmidt,
  _Hist. des Cathares_, Paris, 1843. Is this one of the reasons why
  Jesus is called Ἰχθύς?

Footnote 525:

  This idea of man being made from the tears of the eyes of the heavenly
  powers is an old one in Egypt. So Maspero explains the well-known sign
  of the _utchat_ or Eye of Horus as that “qui exprime la matière, le
  corps du soleil, d’où tous les êtres découlent sous forme de pleurs,”
  “Les Hypogées Royaux de Thébes,” _Ét. Égyptol._ II. p. 130. Moret, “Le
  verbe créateur et révélateur en Égypte,” _R. H. R._ Mai-Juin, 1909, p.
  386, gives many instances from hymns and other ritual documents. It
  was known to Proclus who transfers it after his manner to Orpheus and
  makes it into hexameters:

          Thy tears are the much-enduring race of men,
          By thy laugh thou hast raised up the sacred race of gods.

  See Abel’s _Orphica_, fr. 236.

Footnote 526:

  See n. 1, p. 148 _supra_.

Footnote 527:

  This is, perhaps, to be gathered from the _Pistis Sophia_, p. 36,
  Copt. Cf. Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, pp. 337-338. In another part of the
  last-named document, the Moon-ship is described as steered by a male
  and female dragon (the caduceus of Hermes?) who snatch away the light
  of the Rulers (p. 360, Copt.).

Footnote 528:

  This seems to be the passage referred to later by Origen. See n. 2, p.
  159 _infra_.

Footnote 529:

  The usual epithet or appellation of Osiris _Neb-er-tcher_ = Lord of
  Totality or the Universe. Cf. Budge, _Book of the Dead_, _passim_.

Footnote 530:

  So in the _Ascensio Isaiae_, of which Mr Charles says that “we cannot
  be sure that it existed earlier than the latter half of the 2nd
  century of our Era,” it is said (Chap. IX, v. 15) “And thus His
  descent, as you will see, will be hidden even from the heavens, so
  that it will not be known who He is.” Charles, _The Ascension of
  Isaiah_, p. 62. Cf. _ibid._ pp. 67, 70, 73 and 79.

Footnote 531:

  pp. 39, 40, Copt. The reference is apparently to the Book of Enoch, c.
  LXXX. (see Charles, _Book of Enoch_, pp. 212, 213, and the _Epistle of
  Barnabas_, N.T. extra can., c. IV. p. 9, Hilgenfeld). In the Latin
  version of the last-quoted book, it is assigned to Daniel, which shows
  perhaps the connection of Enoch with all this quasi-prophetic or
  apocalyptic literature.

Footnote 532:

  According to the Valentinian system, his name was Θελητὸς or “the
  Beloved.” See Chap. IX, p. 101 _supra_.

Footnote 533:

  See Chap. VIII _supra_. Here he occupies a far inferior position to
  that assigned him by the Ophites. In the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος he sinks
  lower still and becomes merely one of the torturers in hell (p. 382,
  Copt., κ.τ.λ.). Thus, as is usual in matters of religion, the gods of
  one age become the fiends of the next. In the Bruce Papyrus
  (Amélineau, p. 212) he appears as one of the chiefs of the Third Aeon.
  It is curious, however, to observe how familiar the name must have
  been to what Origen calls “a certain secret theology,” so that it was
  necessary to give him _some_ place in every system of Gnosticism. His
  bipartite appearance may be taken from Ezekiel viii. 2.

Footnote 534:

  Probably the latter. See what is said about the Outer Darkness in the
  Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, p. 319, Copt. where it is described as “a great
  dragon whose tail is in his mouth who is without the whole κόσμος and
  surrounds it.”

Footnote 535:

  p. 83, Copt. So in the Manichaean legend, the First Man, on being
  taken captive by Satan, prays seven times to the Light and is
  delivered from the Darkness in which he is imprisoned. See Chap. XIII
  _infra_.

Footnote 536:

  This demon in the shape of a flying arrow seems to be well known in
  Rabbinic lore. Mr Whinfield in _J.R.A.S._, April, 1910, pp. 485, 486,
  describes him as having a head like a calf, with one horn rising out
  of his forehead like a cruse or pitcher, while to look upon him is
  certain death to man or beast. His authority seems to be Rapaport’s
  _Tales from the Midrash_.

Footnote 537:

  The basilisk with seven heads seems to be Death. See Gaster, “The
  Apocalypse of Abraham,” _T.S.B.A._ vol. IX. pt 1, p. 222, where this
  is said to be the “true shape” of death. Cf. Kohler, “Pre-Talmudic
  Haggadah,” _J.Q.R._, 1895, p. 590. Death, as we have seen in Chap. IX,
  p. 107, was in the ideas of Valentinus the creature of the Demiurge.
  For the dragon, see Whinfield, _ubi cit._

Footnote 538:

  These “three times” are not years. As the _Pistis Sophia_ opens with
  the announcement that Jesus spent 12 years on earth after the
  Resurrection, we may suppose that He was then—if the author accepted
  the traditional view that He suffered at 33—exactly 45 years old, and
  the “time” would then be a period of 15 years, as was probably the
  indiction. The descent of the “two vestures” upon Jesus is said (p. 4,
  Copt.) to have taken place “on the 15th day of the month Tybi” which
  is the day Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ Bk I. c. 21) gives for the
  birth of Jesus. He says the followers of Basilides gave the same day
  as that of His baptism.

Footnote 539:

  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXVI. t. II. pt 1, p. 181, Oehler.

Footnote 540:

  This doctrine of ἑρμηνεία occurs all through the book. The author is
  trying to make out that well-known passages of both the Old and New
  Testaments were in fact prophetic utterances showing forth in advance
  the marvels he narrates. While the Psalms of David quoted by him are
  Canonical, the Odes of Solomon are the Apocrypha known under that name
  and quoted by Lactantius (_Div. Inst._ Bk IV. c. 12). For some time
  the _Pistis Sophia_ was the only authority for their contents, but in
  1909 Dr Rendel Harris found nearly the whole collection in a Syriac
  MS. of the 16th century. A translation has since been published in
  _Cambridge Texts and Studies_, vol. VIII. No. 3, Cambridge, 1912, by
  the Bishop of Ossory, who shows, as it seems conclusively, that they
  were the hymns sung by the newly-baptized in the Primitive Church.

Footnote 541:

  Astrological doctrine first becomes prominent in Gnostic teaching in
  the _Excerpta Theodoti_ which we owe to Clement of Alexandria. We may
  therefore put their date about the year 200. This would be after the
  time of Valentinus himself, but agrees well with what M. Cumont
  (_Astrology and Religion_, pp. 96 _sqq._) says as to the great vogue
  which astrology attained in Rome under the Severi. Its intrusion into
  the Valentinian doctrines is much more marked in the Μέρος τευχῶν
  Σωτῆρος than in the _Pistis Sophia_, and more in the Bruce Papyrus
  than in either.

Footnote 542:

  See Chap. VIII, pp. 73, 74 _supra_.

Footnote 543:

  Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 34.

Footnote 544:

  Hippolytus (Chap. IX, p. 92), speaks of the Jesus of Valentinus as the
  Joint Fruit of the Pleroma simply. Irenaeus (Bk I. c. 1, p. 23,
  Harvey) goes into more detail: Καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐποιΐας ταύτης βουλῇ μιᾷ
  καὶ γνώμῃ τὸ πᾶν Πλήρωμα τῶν Αἰώνων, συνευδοκοῦντος τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ
  τοῦ Πνεύματος, τοῦ δὲ Πατρὸς αὐτῶν συνεπισφραγιζομένου, ἕνα ἕκαστον
  τῶν Αἰώνων, ὅπερ εἶχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ κάλλιστον καὶ ἀνθηρότατον
  συνενεγκαμένους καὶ ἐρανισαμένους, καὶ ταῦτα ἁρμοδίως πλέξαντας, καὶ
  ἐμμελῶς ἑνώσαντας, προβαλέσθαι προβλήματα εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν τοῦ
  Βυθοῦ, τελειότατον κάλλος τε καὶ ἄστρον τοῦ Πληρώματος, τέλειον καρπὸν
  τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν καὶ Σωτῆρα προσαγορευθῆναι, καὶ Χριστὸν, καὶ Λόγον
  πατρωνομικῶς καὶ κατὰ [καὶ τὰ] Πάντα, διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ πάντων εἶναι. “Αnd
  because of this benefit, with one will and opinion, the whole Pleroma
  of the Aeons, with the consent of Christos and the Spirit, and their
  Father having set his seal upon the motion, brought together and
  combined what each of them had in him which was most beautiful and
  brightest, and wreathing these fittingly together and properly uniting
  them, they projected a projection to the honour and glory of Bythos,
  the most perfect beauty and star of the Pleroma, the perfect Fruit
  Jesus, who is also called Saviour and Christ, and after his Father
  Logos, and Pan, because He is from all.” Compare with these the words
  of Colossians ii. 9: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος
  σωματικῶς. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
  bodily.”

Footnote 545:

  That the Valentinians considered the Dodecad (and _a fortiori_ the
  Decad) as having a collective entity, and as it were a corporate
  existence, seems plain from what Hippolytus says in narrating the
  opinions of Marcus: ταῦτα γὰρ δώδεκα ζώδια φανερώτατα τὴν τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου
  καὶ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας θυγατέρα δωδεκάδα ἀποσκιάζειν λέγουσι. “For they say
  that these 12 signs of the Zodiac most clearly shadow forth the
  Dodecad who is the daughter of Anthropos and Ecclesia” (Hipp. _op.
  cit._ Bk VI. c. 54, p. 329, Cruice). And again (_loc. cit._ p. 331,
  Cruice): ἔτι μὴν καὶ τὴν γῆν εἰς δώδεκα κλίματα διῃρῆσθαι φάσκοντες,
  καὶ καθ’ ἒν ἕκαστον κλίμα, ἀνὰ μίαν δύναμιν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανῶν κατὰ
  κάθετον ὑποδεχομένην, καὶ ὁμοούσια τίκτουσαν τέκνα τῇ καταπεμπούσῃ
  κατὰ τὴν ἀπόρροιαν δυνάμει, τύπον εἶναι τῆς ἄνω δωδεκάδος. “These are
  also they who assert that the earth is divided into twelve climates,
  and receives in each climate one special power from the heavens and
  produces children resembling the power thus sent down by emanation,
  being thus a type of the Dodecad above.” The doctrine of
  correspondences or, as it was called in the Middle Ages, of
  “signatures” is here most clearly stated. In all this the Valentinian
  teaching was doubtless under the influence of the ancient Egyptian
  ideas as to the _paut neteru_ or “company of the gods,” as to which
  see Maspero’s essay _Sur L’Ennéade_ quoted above.

Footnote 546:

  It is said (p. 9, Copt.) that it is by him that the universe was
  created and that it is he who causes the sun to rise.

Footnote 547:

  As has before been said, this is attempted in one of the documents of
  the Bruce Papyrus. See pp. 191, 192 _infra_. In the present state of
  the text this attempt is only difficultly intelligible, and is
  doubtless both later in date than and the work of an author inferior
  to that of the _Pistis Sophia_.

Footnote 548:

  p. 16, Copt. Yet the First Mystery is not the creator of Matter which
  is evil, because Matter does not really exist. See Bruce Papyrus
  (Amélineau, p. 126) and n. 2, p. 190 _infra_.

Footnote 549:

  As mentioned in the _Scottish Review_ article referred to in n. 1, p.
  135 _supra_, there is no passage but one in the _Pistis Sophia_ which
  affords any colour for supposing that the author was acquainted with
  St John’s Gospel. All the quotations set forth by Harnack in his
  treatise _Über das gnostische Buch Pistis-Sophia_, Leipzig, 1891, p.
  27, on which he relies to prove the converse of this proposition, turn
  out on analysis to appear also in one or other of the Synoptics, from
  which the author may well have taken them. The single exception is
  this (_Pistis Sophia_, p. 11, Copt.), “Wherefore I said unto you from
  the beginning, Ye are not from the Cosmos; I likewise am not from it”;
  John xvii. 14: “(O Father) I have given them thy word; and the world
  hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not
  of the world.” The parallel does not seem so close as to make it
  certain that one document is copying from the other. Both may very
  possibly be taken from some collection of Logia now lost, but at one
  time current in Alexandrian circles; or from the _Gospel of the
  Egyptians_, from which the _Pistis Sophia_ afterwards quotes.

Footnote 550:

  See Chap. IX, p. 107 _supra_.

Footnote 551:

  See last note. The _Authades_ or Proud God of the _Pistis Sophia_
  seems to have all the characteristics with which Valentinus endows his
  Demiurge.

Footnote 552:

  So Pistis Sophia sings in her second hymn of praise after her
  deliverance from Chaos (p. 160, Copt.) “I am become pure light,” which
  she certainly was not before that event. Jesus also promises her later
  (p. 168, Copt.) that when the three times are fulfilled and the
  _Authades_ is again wroth with her and tries to stir up Jaldabaoth and
  Adamas against her “I will take away their powers from them and give
  them to thee.” That this promise was supposed to be fulfilled seems
  evident from the low positions which Jaldabaoth and Adamas occupy in
  the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, while Pistis Sophia is said to furnish the
  “power” for the planet Venus.

Footnote 553:

  See Chap. IX, p. 108 and n. 1 _supra_.

Footnote 554:

  All the revelations in the _Pistis Sophia_ are in fact made in
  anticipation of the time “when the universe shall be caught up,” and
  the disciples be set to reign with Jesus in the Last Parastates. Cf.
  especially pp. 193-206 Copt.

Footnote 555:

  The idea may not have been peculiar to Valentinus and his followers.
  So in the _Ascensio Isaiae_ (x. 8-13) the “Most High the Father of my
  Lord” says to “my Lord Christ who will be called Jesus”: “And none of
  the angels of that world shall know that thou art Lord with Me of the
  seven heavens and of their angels. And they shall not know that Thou
  art with Me till with a loud voice I have called to the heavens, and
  their angels, and their lights, even unto the sixth heaven, in order
  that you may judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that
  world, and the world that is dominated by them.” Charles, _Ascension
  of Isaiah_, pp. 70-71.

Footnote 556:

  p. 194, Copt.

Footnote 557:

  p. 230, Copt.

Footnote 558:

  On the belief in the Millennium in the primitive Church, see
  Döllinger, _First Age of Christianity and the Church_, Eng. ed. 1906,
  pp. 119, 123 and 268 and Ffoulkes, _s.v._ Chiliasts, in _Dict.
  Christian Biog._

Footnote 559:

  p. 230, Copt. Cf. Luke xxii. 29, 30.

Footnote 560:

  p. 231, Copt. “disciples” not apostles. So the Manichaeans made Manes
  to be attended by twelve disciples. See Chap. XIII _infra_.

Footnote 561:

  So Jesus says (p. 230, Copt.) of “the man who receives and
  accomplishes the Mystery of the Ineffable One”; “he is a man in the
  Cosmos, but he will reign with me in my kingdom; he is a man in the
  Cosmos, but he is a king in the light; he is a man in the Cosmos, but
  he is not of the Cosmos, and verily I say unto you, that man is I, and
  I am that man.”

Footnote 562:

  p. 246, Copt.

Footnote 563:

  See last note and n. 5, p. 147 _supra_.

Footnote 564:

  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 302 and note.

Footnote 565:

  pp. 236, 237, Copt.

Footnote 566:

  _Loc. cit._ Or they may cover a kind of allegory, as we might say that
  Agape or Love makes Faith, Hope, and Charity. But I believe it to be
  more likely that the “12 mysteries” are letters in a word. So in the
  Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος it is said of the “Dragon of the Outer Darkness,”
  which is in fact the worst of all the hells described in that book:
  “And the Dragon of the Outer Darkness hath twelve true (αὐθέντη) names
  which are in his gates, a name according to each gate of the
  torture-chambers. And these names differ one from the other, but they
  belong to each of the twelve, so that he who saith one name, saith all
  the names. And these I will tell you in the Emanation of the
  Universe”—(p. 323, Copt.). If this be thought too trivial an
  explanation, Irenaeus tells us that the 18 Aeons remaining after
  deducting the Decad or Dodecad (as the case may be) from the rest of
  the Pleroma were, according to the Valentinians, signified by the two
  first letters of the name of Jesus: ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τῶν προηγουμένων τοῦ
  ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ δύο γραμμάτων, τοῦ τε ἰῶτα καὶ τοῦ ἦτα, τοὺς δεκαοκτὼ
  Αἰῶνας εὐσήμως μηνύεσθαι, Irenaeus, Βk I. c. 1, § 5, p. 26, Harvey.
  Equally absurd according to modern ideas are the words of the _Epistle
  of Barnabas_ (c. X., pp. 23, 24, Hilgenfeld), where after quoting a
  verse in Genesis about Abraham circumcising 318 of his slaves (cf.
  Gen. xiv. 14), the author says “What then is the knowledge (γνῶσις)
  given therein? Learn that the 18 were first, and then after a pause,
  he says 300. (In) the 18, I = 10, H = 8, thou hast Jesus (Ἰησοῦν). And
  because the Cross was meant to have grace in the T, he says also 300.
  He expresses therefore Jesus by two letters and the Cross by one. He
  knows who has placed in us the ungrafted gift of teaching. None has
  learned from me a more genuine word. But I know that ye are worthy.”

Footnote 567:

  “The True Word” or the Word of the Place of Truth. The latter
  expression is constantly used in other parts of the book, and seems to
  refer to the χώρημα or “receptacle,” that is the heaven, of the Aeon
  Ἀλήθεια, that is the Decad. Cf. especially the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος
  (pp. 377, 378, Copt.), where it is said that certain baptisms and a
  “spiritual chrism” will lead the souls of the disciples “into the
  Places of Truth and Goodness, to the Place of the Holy of all Holies,
  to the Place in which there is neither female, nor male, nor shape in
  that Place, but there is Light, everlasting, ineffable.”

Footnote 568:

  These ἀποτάγματα are set out in detail in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος
  (pp. 255 _sqq._ Copt.), where the disciples are ordered to “preach to
  the whole world ... renounce (ἀποτασσετε) the whole world and all the
  matter which is therein, and all its cares and all its sins, and in a
  word all its conversation (ὁμιλιαι) which is therein, that ye may be
  worthy of the mysteries of the Light, that ye may be preserved from
  all the punishments which are in the judgments” and so on. It should
  be noted that these are only required of the psychics or animal men.

Footnote 569:

  No doubt in the Greek original the actual seal was here figured. For
  examples, see the Bruce Papyrus, _passim_. The idea is typically
  Egyptian. As M. Maspero says in his essay on “La Table d’Offrandes,”
  _R.H.R._ t. xxxv. No. 3 (1897), p. 325: no spell was in the view of
  the ancient Egyptians efficacious unless accompanied by a talisman or
  amulet which acted as a material support to it, as the body to the
  soul.

Footnote 570:

  p. 238, Copt.

Footnote 571:

  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 296, n. 1, for references.

Footnote 572:

  1 Cor. xv. 29. The practice of “baptizing for the dead,” as the A. V.
  has it, evidently continued into Tertullian’s time. See Tertull. _de
  Resurrectione Carnis_, c. XLVIII. p. 530, Oehler.

Footnote 573:

  Döllinger, _First Age_, p. 327.

Footnote 574:

  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 307. The Emperor Constantine, who was baptized on
  his deathbed, was a case in point. The same story was told later about
  the Cathars or Manichaeans of Languedoc. The motive seems in all these
  cases to have been the same: as baptism washed away all sin, it was as
  well to delay it until the recipient could sin no more.

Footnote 575:

  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 295 and note, for references.

Footnote 576:

  p. 236, Copt.

Footnote 577:

  See n. 2, p. 166 _supra_.

Footnote 578:

  Döllinger, _First Age_, pp. 234, 235.

Footnote 579:

  _Ibid._ p. 235. Rom. vi. 4; Gal. iii. 27, 29, are quoted in support.

Footnote 580:

  _Ibid._ p. 235. Rom. vii. 22; 1 Cor. vi. 14; Eph. iii. 16 and v. 30
  are quoted in support.

Footnote 581:

  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 342.

Footnote 582:

  p. 228, Copt.

Footnote 583:

  pp. 230, 231, Copt.

Footnote 584:

  The _Pistis Sophia_ proper comes to an end twenty pages later.

Footnote 585:

  Döllinger, _First Age_, p. 239. 1 Cor. x. 16 _sqq._; Eph. v. 30,
  quoted in support.

Footnote 586:

  Justin Martyr was probably born 114, and martyred 165 A.D. For the
  passage quoted in text, see his _First Apology_, c. LXVI., where he
  mentions among other things that the devils set on the worshippers of
  Mithras to imitate the Christian Eucharist by celebrating a ceremony
  with bread and a cup of water.

Footnote 587:

  Hatch, _op. cit._ p. 308. This visible change of the contents of the
  cup of water to the semblance of blood is described in the Μέρος
  τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 377, Copt.), and with more detail in the Bruce
  Papyrus. Cf. p. 183 _infra_.

Footnote 588:

  Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος, p. 354, Copt.

Footnote 589:

  Whether the author of the _Pistis Sophia_ really intended to describe
  them may be doubted; but it is to be noted that the sacraments which
  Jesus is represented as celebrating in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος can
  hardly be they, although Jesus calls them in one place (p. 374,
  Copt.), “the mysteries of the light which remit sins, which themselves
  are appellations and names of light.” These are administered to the
  twelve disciples without distinction, and it is evident that the
  author of these books is quite unacquainted with any division into
  pneumatic and psychic, and knows nothing of the higher mysteries
  called in the _Pistis Sophia_ proper “the mysteries of the Ineffable
  One” and “the mysteries of the First Mystery.” We should get over many
  difficulties if we supposed the two later books to be Marcosian in
  origin, but in any event they are later than the _Pistis Sophia_.

Footnote 590:

  p. 246, Copt. So in the Manichaean text described in Chapter XIII,
  Jesus is Himself called “the Tree of Knowledge.”

Footnote 591:

  So Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, § 11, pp. 58, 54, Harvey: Ἐπαιδεύθησαν γὰρ τὰ
  ψυχικὰ οἱ ψυχικοὶ ἄνθρωποι, οἱ δι’ ἔργων καὶ πίστεως ψιλῆς
  βεβαιούμενοι, καὶ μὴ τὴν τελείαν γνῶσιν ἔχοντες· εἶναι δὲ τούτους ἀπὸ
  τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἡμᾶς λέγουσι· διὸ καὶ ἡμῖν μὲν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὴν
  ἀγαθὴν πρᾶξιν ἀποφαίνονται· ἄλλως γὰρ ἀδύνατον σωθῆναι. Αὐτοὺς δὲ μὴ
  διὰ πράξεως, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ φύσει πνευματικοὺς εἶναι, πάντῃ τε καὶ πάντως
  σωθήσεσθαι δογματίζουσιν. “For the psychic (animal) men are taught
  psychic things, they being made safe by works and by mere faith, and
  not having perfect knowledge. And they say that we of the Church are
  these people. Wherefore they declare that good deeds are necessary for
  us: for otherwise we could not be saved. But they decree that they
  themselves are entirely and in every thing saved, not by works, but
  because they are pneumatic (spiritual) by nature.”

Footnote 592:

  p. 249, Copt.

Footnote 593:

  p. 250, Copt. It is to be observed that these “cleansing mysteries”
  will only admit their recipients to the light of the Kingdom of
  Jesus—not to that of the First Mystery or of the Ineffable One.

Footnote 594:

  As did perhaps the Manichaeans afterwards. See _J.R.A.S._ for January,
  1913, and Chap. XIII _infra_.

Footnote 595:

  So Charles Kingsley in _Hypatia_. Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, vol. IV.
  c. 60, n. 15, quotes a statement of Rufinus that there were nearly as
  many monks living in the deserts as citizens in the towns.

Footnote 596:

  Mallet, _Le Culte de Neit à Saïs_, p. 200, points out that the God Nu
  described in the 18th Chapter of the _Book of the Dead_ is “the
  infinite abyss, the Βυθός, the πατὴρ ἄγνωστος of the Gnostics.” So
  Maspero in _Rev. Critique_, 30 Sept. 1909, p. 13, who declares that
  the author of the _Pistis Sophia_ was influenced directly or
  indirectly by Osirian beliefs.

Footnote 597:

  Moret, _Le verbe créateur et révélateur_, p. 286, for references.

Footnote 598:

  Maspero, _Ét. Égyptol._ t. II. p. 187: “L’ogdoade est une conception
  hermopolitaine qui s’est répandue plus tard sur toute l’Égypte à côté
  de l’ennéade d’Heliopolis. Les théologiens d’Hermopolis avaient adopté
  le concept de la neuvaine, seulement ils avaient amoindri les huit
  dieux qui formaient le corps du dieu principal. Ils les avaient
  reduits à n’être plus que des êtres presque abstraits nommés d’après
  la fonction qu’on leur assignait, en agissant en masse sur l’ordre et
  d’après l’impulsion du dieu chef. Leur ennéade se composait donc d’un
  dieu tout-puissant et d’une ogdoade.”

Footnote 599:

  “Son origine (l’ogdoade hermopolitaine subordonné à un corps monade)
  est fort ancienne: on trouve quelques-unes des divinités qui la
  composent mentionnées déjà dans les textes des Pyramides.” Maspero,
  _op. cit._ t. II. p. 383. As he says later the actual number of gods
  in the Ennead or Ogdoad was a matter of indifference to the ancient
  Egyptian: “les dieux comptaient toujours pour neuf, quand même ils
  étaient treize ou quinze,” _ibid._ p. 387. Cf. Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._
  pp. 294, 295.

Footnote 600:

  See n. 5, p. 175 _supra_, and Maspero, “Hypogées Royaux,” _Ét.
  Égyptol._ II. p. 130, n. 2.

Footnote 601:

  See n. 2, p. 153 _supra_.

Footnote 602:

  Maspero, “Hypogées Royaux,” t. II. p. 121.

Footnote 603:

  Maspero, _Rev. Crit._ 30 Sept. 1909, p. 13.

Footnote 604:

  Maspero, “Hypogées Royaux,” t. II. p. 118. Cf. _Pistis Sophia_, p. 84,
  Copt. and elsewhere.

Footnote 605:

  Maspero, “La Table d’Offrandes,” _R.H.R._ t. XXXV. (1897) p. 325. As
  has been said, in the _Ascensio Isaiae_, anyone passing from one
  heaven to another has to give a password, but not to exhibit a seal.

Footnote 606:

  Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 196; Schmidt, _Koptisch-Gnostische
  Schriften_, Bd I. p. xiii.

Footnote 607:

  It is so used in the _Excerpta Theodoti_, and in the Papyrus Bruce.
  See p. 190, _infra_.

Footnote 608:

  Jean Reville, _Le Quatrième Évangile_, Paris, 1901, p. 321. Mgr
  Duchesne, _Early Christian Church_, pp. 102, 192, says in effect that
  St John’s Gospel appeared after the Apostle’s death and was not
  accepted without opposition. He thinks Tatian and Irenaeus the first
  writers who quoted from it with acknowledgement of its authorship. If
  we put the date of Tatian’s birth at 120 (see _Dict. Christian Biog._
  _s.h.n._) and allow a sufficient period for the initiation into
  heathen mysteries which he mentions, for his conversion and for his
  becoming a teacher, we do not get a much earlier date than 170 for his
  acceptance of the Fourth Gospel. Irenaeus was, of course, later in
  date than Tatian.

Footnote 609:

  Tertullian, _Adv. Valentinianos_, c. 2.

Footnote 610:

  Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 180.

Footnote 611:

  Tertullian, _de Carne Christi_, c. 20.

Footnote 612:

  _E.g._ p. 47, Copt. Cf. also _ibid._ pp. 147, 170, 176.

Footnote 613:

  Tertullian, _adv. Val._ c. v.

Footnote 614:

  _Op. cit._ c. 9.

Footnote 615:

  _Op. cit._ c. 18.

Footnote 616:

  _Op. cit._ c. 20.

Footnote 617:

  _Op. cit._ c. 25.

Footnote 618:

  Tertullian, _de Carne Christi_, c. 9. Irenaeus, Bk II. c. 7, § 1, p.
  270, Harvey, seems to have known both of Barbelo and of the Virgin of
  Light, since he speaks of _corpora sursum ... spiritalia et lucida_,
  “spiritual and translucent bodies on high” casting a shadow below _in
  quam Matrem suam descendisse dicunt_ “into which they allege their
  Mother descended.”

Footnote 619:

  ⲞⲨ ⲘⲈⲢⲞⲤ ⲎⲦⲈ Ⲏ ⲦⲈⲨⲬⲞⲤ Ⲙ ⲎⲤⲰⲦⲎⲢ, or (in Greek) Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος.

Footnote 620:

  “This I say to you in paradigm, and likeness and similitude, but not
  in truth of shape, nor have I revealed the word in truth,” p. 253,
  Copt. So in the next page (p. 254, Copt.), Jesus says of the perfect
  initiate that “He also has found the words of the Mysteries, those
  which I have written to you according to similitude—the same are the
  members of the Ineffable One.” From His mention of “writing,” one
  would imagine that the reference here is to documents such as the
  Bruce Papyrus which gives the pictures of “seals” together with
  cryptographically written words.

Footnote 621:

  p. 357, Copt. This opening sentence could not have been written by one
  of the Valentinians of Hadrian’s time, who, as has been said above,
  “did not choose to call Jesus, Lord,” Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 1, I. p. 12,
  Harvey.

Footnote 622:

  In the address of Jesus beginning “O my Father, Father of every
  Fatherhood, boundless light” with which this part of the Μ. τ. σ.
  opens, we can, with a little good will, identify nearly every word of
  the “galimatias” which at first sight seems mere gibberish. Thus, the
  whole invocation reads: αεηιουω, ϊαω, αωϊ, οϊαψινωθερ, θερ[ι]νοψ,
  νωψιθερ, ζαγουρη, παγουρη, νεθμομαωθ, νεψιομαωθ, μαραχαχθα,
  θωβαρραβαυ, θαρναχαχαν, ζοροκοθορα Ιεου Σαβαωθ. The seven vowels to
  which many mystical interpretations have been assigned, and which have
  even been taken for a primitive system of musical notation (C. E.
  Ruelle, “Le Chant des Sept Voyelles Grecques,” _Rev. des Ét.
  Grecques_, Paris, 1889, t. II. p. 43, and pp. 393-395), probably
  express the sound to Greek ears of the Jewish pronunciation of Yahweh
  or Jehovah. The word Iao we have before met with many times both as a
  name of Dionysos and otherwise, and is here written anagrammatically
  from the difficulty which the Greeks found in dealing with Semitic
  languages written the reverse way to their own. The word ψινωθερ which
  follows and is also written as an anagram is evidently an attempt to
  transcribe in Greek letters the Egyptian words _P_, _Shai_, _neter_
  (_P_ = Def. article, _Shai_ = the Egyptian God of Fate whose name
  Revillout, _Rev. Égyptol._ Paris, 1892, pp. 29-38, thinks means “The
  Highest,” and _neter_ or _nuter_ the determinative for “god”), the
  whole reading “Most High God.” The words ζαγουρη παγουρη (better,
  πατουρη) are from the Hebrew roots סגר פטר and seem to be the “he that
  openeth and no man shutteth; and shutteth and no man openeth” of Rev.
  iii. 7. Νεθμομαωθ, which is often found in the Magic Papyri, is
  reminiscent of the Egyptian _neb maat_ “Lord of Truth,” the following
  νεψιομαωθ being probably a variant by a scribe who was uncertain of
  the orthography. Μαραχαχθα I can make nothing of, although as the
  phrase νεφθομαωθ μαραχαχθα appears in the Magic Papyrus of Leyden
  generally called W (Leemans, _Papyri Graeci_, etc. t. II. p. 154) in a
  spell there said to be written by “Thphe the Hierogrammateus” for
  “Ochus the king,” it is evidently intended for Egyptian. In the same
  spell appear the words θαρνμαχαχ ζοροκοθορα and θωβαρραβαυ which are
  evidently the same as those in the Μ. τ. σ., and of which I will only
  say that, while Mr King supposes ζοροκοθορα to mean “light-gatherer,”
  θωβαρραβαυ is in the leaden _tabula devotionis_ of Carthage (Molinier,
  “Imprecation gravée sur plomb,” _Mem. de la Soc. Nat. des Antiquaires
  de France_, série VI. t. VIII. Paris, 1897, pp. 212-216) described as
  τον θεὸν του τῆς παλινγενεσιας “the god of rebirth.” The concluding
  words are of course merely “Yahweh of Hosts.”

Footnote 623:

  The description of the moon-chariot drawn by two white oxen is found
  in Claudian’s _Proserpine_. According to Cumont (_Textes et Monuments
  relatifs aux Mystères de Mithra_, t. I. p. 126 and note) it was not
  until Hadrian’s time that this conception, which seems to have been
  Persian in origin, became fixed in the West.

Footnote 624:

  This “Middle Way” has nothing to do with the τόπος or “place” of the
  middle, where are set in the _Pistis Sophia_ proper the powers who
  preside over incarnation. It is below the visible sphere (p. 364,
  Copt.) and is met with in Rabbinic lore. See Kohler, _op. cit._ p.
  587.

Footnote 625:

  This division of the Twelve Aeons into two halves seems at first sight
  inconsistent with the description in the _Pistis Sophia_ proper which
  always speaks of them as Twelve. Yet it is plain that the author of
  the _Pistis Sophia_ knew the legend here given, as he makes John the
  Divine speak (p. 12, Copt.) of “the rulers who belong to the Aeon of
  Jabraoth” and had made peace with the mysteries of the light. These
  “rulers who repented” are again mentioned on p. 195, Copt. In the
  other part of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος (p. 356, Copt.), it is also
  said that the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are to be placed in
  “the Place of Jabraoth and of all the rulers who repented” until Jesus
  can take them with Him to the light. So the Papyrus Bruce (Amélineau,
  p. 239).

Footnote 626:

  There are seven pages missing between the descriptions of the tortures
  of the Middle Way and those of Amenti and Chaos, the gap occurring at
  p. 379, Copt. It is possible that what follows after this is not from
  the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος but an extract from yet another document.

Footnote 627:

  In the text of the Μ. τ. σ. (p. 377, Copt.), Jesus simply asks His
  father for a sign, and “the sign is made which Jesus had said.” In the
  Papyrus Bruce where the same ceremony is described in almost identical
  words, it is said that the wine of the offering was turned into water
  which leaped forth of the vase which contained it so as to serve for
  baptism. Cf. Amélineau, _Gnost. Ég._ p. 253. That Marcus the magician
  by juggling produced similar prodigies, see Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 7, II.
  pp. 116, 117, Harvey.

Footnote 628:

  The name of Jaldabaoth, which in the whole of the rest of the MS. is
  spelt ⲒⲀⲖⲆⲀⲂⲀⲰⲐ, appears on p. 380 immediately after the _lacuna_ of
  seven pages as ⲒⲀⲖⲦⲀⲂⲀⲰⲐ, Ialtabaoth, which supports the theory of
  another author.

Footnote 629:

  This is also briefly mentioned in the part of the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος
  just described. See pp. 386, _sqq._, Copt.

Footnote 630:

  This appears to contradict the _Pistis Sophia_ proper, where it is
  said that the Virgin of Light gives the soul, and the Great Iao the
  Good the power.

Footnote 631:

  Cf. the speech of the crocodile in the tale of the _Predestined
  Prince_: “Ah, moi, je suis ton destin qui te poursuit; quoi que tu
  fasses, tu seras ramené sur mon chemin.” Maspero, _Contes Populaires
  de l’Égypte Ancienne_, 3rd ed. Paris, n. d. p. 175.

Footnote 632:

  Evidently the Egyptian _ka_ or double. Cf. the “Heart Amulet”
  described by Erman, _Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, pp. 142, 143,
  where the dead says to his heart: “Oh heart that I have from my
  mother! Oh heart that belongs to my spirit, do not appear against me
  as witness, provide no opposition against me before the judges, do not
  contradict me before him who governs the balance, thou art my spirit
  that is in my body....” This seems to be a transcription of the 30th
  Chapter of the _Book of the Dead_, of which there are several
  variants, none of which however directly suggest that the heart is the
  accuser to be dreaded. See Budge, _Book of the Dead_, 1909, vol. II.
  pp. 146-152.

Footnote 633:

  Thus the Μ. τ. σ. says (p. 355, Copt.) “For this I despoiled myself
  (_i.e._ laid aside my heavenly nature) to bring the mysteries into the
  Cosmos, for all are under [the yoke of] sin, and all lack the gifts of
  the mysteries.... Verily, verily I say unto you: until I came into the
  Cosmos, no soul entered into the light.” Contrast this with the words
  of the _Pistis Sophia_ proper (p. 250, Copt.): “Those who are of the
  light have no need of the mysteries, because they are pure light,”
  which are made the “interpretation” of the text: “They that are whole
  have no need of a physician, but they that are sick.” See also the
  _Pistis Sophia_, p. 246, Copt., where it is said of the mysteries
  promised by Jesus that “they lead every race of men inwards into the
  highest places according to the χωρημα of the inheritance, so that ye
  have no need of the rest of the lower mysteries, but you will find
  them in the two books of Jeû which Enoch wrote etc.”

Footnote 634:

  p. 280, Copt.

Footnote 635:

  Μ. τ. σ. p. 388, Copt., where it is said that the soul of the
  righteous but uninitiated man is after death taken into Amenti and
  afterwards into the Middle Way, being shown the tortures in each
  place, “but the breath of the flame of the punishments shall only
  afflict him a little.” Afterwards he is taken to the Virgin of Light,
  who sets him before the Little Sabaoth the Good until the Sphere be
  turned round so that Zeus (♃) and Aphrodite (♀) come into aspect with
  the Virgin of Light and Kronos (♄) and Ares (♂) come after them. She
  then puts the soul into a righteous body, which she plainly could not
  do unless under the favourable influence of the “benefics” ♃ and ♀.
  This seems also to be the dominant idea of the _Excerpta Theodoti_,
  _q.v._ Compare this, however, with the words of the _Pistis Sophia_
  proper (pp. 27, 28, Copt.) where Mary Magdalene explains that the
  alteration made by Jesus in the course of the stars was effected in
  order to baffle those skilled in the mysteries taught by the angels
  “who came down” (as in the Book of Enoch), from predicting the future
  by astrology and magic arts learned from the sinning angels.

Footnote 636:

  p. 361, Copt.

Footnote 637:

  That is the Sphere of Destiny acting through its emissary the Moira or
  Fate described above, p. 184 _supra_.

Footnote 638:

  It is a curious example of the fossilizing, so to speak, of ancient
  names in magic that Shakespeare should preserve for us in the
  _Tempest_ and _Macbeth_ the names of Ariel and Hecate which we find in
  the Μ. τ. σ. No doubt both were taken by him from mediaeval grimoires
  which themselves copied directly from the Graeco-Egyptian Magic Papyri
  mentioned in Chap. III _supra_. Cf. the use of Greek “names of God”
  like _ischiros_ (sic!) _athanatos_, etc. in Reginald Scot’s _Discovery
  of Witchcraft_, _passim_.

Footnote 639:

  So that it could not profit by the knowledge of the awful punishments
  prepared for sinners. I do not know that this idea occurs elsewhere.

Footnote 640:

  p. 380, Copt.

Footnote 641:

  The Marcosian authorship of the whole MS. is asserted by Bunsen,
  _Hippolytus and his Age_, vol. I. p. 47. Köstlin, _Über das gnostische
  System des Buch Pistis Sophia_ in the Theologische Jahrbücher of Baur
  and Zeller, Tübingen, 1854, will have none of it, and declares the
  _Pistis Sophia_ to be an Ophite work. In this, the first commentator
  on the book is followed by Grüber, _Der Ophiten_, Würzburg, 1864, p.
  5, §§ 3, 4.

Footnote 642:

  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk I. c. 19.

Footnote 643:

  Thus, according to Marcus (Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 8, § 11, pp. 145, 146,
  Harvey), “that name of the Saviour which may be pronounced, _i.e._
  Jesus, is composed of six letters, but His ineffable name of 24.” The
  cryptogram in the _Pistis Sophia_ is in these words (p. 125, Copt.):
  “These are the names which I will give thee from the Boundless One
  downwards. Write them with a sign that the sons of God may show them
  forth of this place. This is the name of the Deathless One ααα ωωω,
  and this is the name of the word by which the Perfect Man is moved:
  ιιι. These are the interpretations of the names of the mysteries. The
  first is ααα, the interpretation of which is φφφ. The second which is
  μμμ or which is ωωω, its interpretation is ααα. The third is ψψψ, its
  interpretation is οοο. The fourth is φφφ, its interpretation is ννν.
  The fifth is δδδ, its interpretation is ααα, which above the throne is
  ααα. This is the interpretation of the second αααα, αααα, αααα, which
  is the interpretation of the whole name.” The line drawn above the
  three Alphas and Omegas is used in the body of the text to denote
  words in a foreign (_i.e._ non-Egyptian) language such as Hebrew; but
  in the Papyrus Bruce about to be described, the same letters without
  any line above are given as the name of “the Father of the Pleroma.”
  See Amélineau’s text, p. 113. The “moving” of the image (πλάσμα) of
  the Perfect Man is referred to in Hippolytus (_op. cit._ p. 144,
  Cruice). That the Tetragrammaton was sometimes written by Jewish
  magicians with three Jods or _i.i.i._ see Gaster, _The Oldest Version
  of Midrash Megillah_, in Kohut’s Semitic Studies, Berlin, 1897, p.
  172. So on a magic cup in the Berlin Museum, conjuration is made “in
  the name of Jahve the God of Israel who is enthroned upon the cherubim
  ... and in the name _A A A A_” (Stübe, _Judisch-Babylonische
  Zaubertexte_, Halle, 1895, pp. 23-27). For the meaning of the words
  “above the throne,” see Franck, _La Kabbale_, p. 45, n. 2.

Footnote 644:

  The opening words of the invocation βασεμὰ χαμοσσὴ βαιανορὰ μισταδία
  ῥουαδὰ κουστὰ βαβοφὸρ καλαχθεῖ which Irenaeus (Bk I. c. 14, § 2, pp.
  183, 184, Harvey) quotes in this connection from Marcus certainly
  read, as Renan (_L’Église Chrétienne_, p. 154, n. 3) points out, “In
  the name of Achamoth” (_i.e._ Sophia).

Footnote 645:

  See n. 3, p. 180, _supra_. In the _Pistis Sophia_ proper Jesus is
  never spoken of save as “the Saviour” or as “the First Mystery.”

Footnote 646:

  Cf. Maspero, _Hypogées Royaux_, _passim_, esp. pp. 157 and 163.

Footnote 647:

  Schmidt’s study of the Bruce Papyrus with a full text and translation
  was published in the _Texte und Untersuchungen_ of von Gebhardt and
  Harnack under the title _Gnostische Schriften in Koptischer Sprache
  aus dem Codex Brucianus_, Leipzig, 1892. He republished the
  translation of this together with one of the _Pistis Sophia_ in the
  series of early Greek Christian literature undertaken by the Patristic
  Committee of the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences under the title
  _Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften_, Bd I. Leipzig, 1905. His arrangement
  of the papyrus leaves makes much better sense than that of Amélineau,
  but it is only arrived at by eliminating all passages which seem to be
  inconsequent and attributing them to separate works. The fragments
  which he distinguishes as A and B and describes as “gnostischen
  Gebetes,” certainly appear to form part of those which he describes as
  the two “books of Jeû.”

Footnote 648:

  Amélineau, “Notice sur le Papyrus gnostique Bruce,” _Notices et
  Extraits des MSS. de la Bibl. Nat._ etc. Paris, 1891, p. 106. This
  would seem to make matter the creation of God, but the author gets out
  of the dilemma by affirming (_op. cit._ p. 126) that “that which was
  not was the evil which is manifested in matter” and that while that
  which exists is called αἰώνιος, “everlasting,” that which does not
  exist is called ὕλη, “matter.”

Footnote 649:

  Amélineau, _op. cit._ p. 231.

Footnote 650:

  This word arrangement (οἰκονομία) occurs constantly in the _Pistis
  Sophia_, as when we read (p. 193, Copt.) that the last παραστάτης by
  the command of the First Mystery placed Jeû, Melchisedek, and four
  other powers in the τόπος of those who belong to the right hand πρός
  οἰκονομίας of the Assembly of the Light. There, as here, it doubtless
  means that they were arranged in the same order as the powers above
  them in pursuance of the principle that “that which is above is like
  that which is below,” or, in other words, of the doctrine of
  correspondences. From the Gnostics the word found its way into
  Catholic theology, as when Tertullian (_adv. Praxean_, c. 3) says that
  the majority of simple-minded Christians “not understanding that
  though God be one, he must yet be believed to exist with his
  οἰκονομία, were frightened.” Cf. Hatch, _H.L._ p. 324.

Footnote 651:

  Perhaps the House or Place of Ἀλήθεια or Truth many times alluded to
  in the Μ. τ. σ.

Footnote 652:

  Aerôdios is shortly after spoken of as a person or power, so that
  here, as elsewhere, in this literature, the _place_ is called by the
  name of its ruler.

Footnote 653:

  This word constantly occurs in the Magic Papyri, generally with
  another word prefixed, as σεσενγεν βαρφαραγγης (Papyrus Mimaut, l. 12,
  Wessely’s _Griechische Zauberpapyri_, p. 116), which C. W. King
  (_Gnostics and their Remains_, 2nd ed. p. 289) would translate “they
  who stand before the mount of Paradise” or in other words the Angels
  of the Presence. Amélineau (_Notices_, etc. p. 144, n. 2) will have
  Barpharanges to be “a hybrid word, part Chaldean and part Greek”
  meaning “Son of the Abyss”—which is as unlikely as the other
  interpretation.

Footnote 654:

  p. 143, Amélineau (_Notices_, etc.); p. 361, Schmidt, _K.-G.S._

Footnote 655:

  According to Amélineau, _op. cit._, “The Book of the Great Word in
  Every Mystery.”

Footnote 656:

  pp. 188-199, Amélineau, _op. cit._; Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ pp. 308-314.

Footnote 657:

  pp. 219, 220, Amélineau, _op. cit._; Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ p. 226. She
  seems to be here called “the Great Virgin of the Spirit.” Cf. the
  Ὑπέθεντο γὰρ Αἰῶνα τινὰ ἀνώλεθρον ἐν παρθενικῷ διάγοντι πνεύματι, ὁ
  βαρβηλὼθ ὀνομάζουσι, “For [some of them] suppose a certain
  indestructible Aeon continuing in a Virgin spirit whom they call
  Barbelo” of Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 27, § 1, p. 222, Harvey.

Footnote 658:

  The powers named are thus called in both the _Pistis Sophia_ and the
  Bruce Papyrus. See _Pistis Sophia_, pp. 248, 252 Copt.; Amélineau,
  _op. cit._ p. 177.

Footnote 659:

  According to the _Pistis Sophia_ (p. 1, Copt.), 11 years elapsed
  between the Crucifixion and the descent of the “Vestures” upon Jesus
  on the Mount of Olives. We may imagine another year to have been
  consumed by the revelations made in the book.

Footnote 660:

  If the “Books of Jeû” were ever written we should expect them to bear
  the name of Enoch, who is said to have taken them down in Paradise at
  the dictation of Jesus. See p. 147, n. 5, _supra_. Very possibly the
  expression really does refer to some of the mass of literature once
  passing under the name of Enoch and now lost to us.

Footnote 661:

  Amélineau, _op. cit._ p. 72.

Footnote 662:

  Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ p. 26.

Footnote 663:

  Amélineau, _op. cit._ p. 211; Schmidt, _K.-G.S._ p. 322. The West or
  Amenti is the Egyptian name for Hades.

Footnote 664:

  Maspero, “Egyptian Souls and their Worlds,” _Ét. Égyptol._ t. I. p.
  395.

Footnote 665:

  Maspero, “Hypogées Royaux,” _Ét. Égyptol._ t. II. pp. 148, 165.

Footnote 666:

  _Ibid._ pp. 178, 179.

Footnote 667:

  _Ibid._ p. 31.

Footnote 668:

  _Ibid._ pp. 14-15.

Footnote 669:

  _Ibid._ p. 166. To make things more difficult, the guardian sometimes
  had a different name for every hour. Cf. _ibid._ p. 168.

Footnote 670:

  _Ibid._ pp. 124, n. 2, 163. For the talismans or amulets, see Maspero,
  “La Table d’Offrandes,” _R.H.R._ t. XXXV. (1897), p. 325.

Footnote 671:

  Maspero, “Hyp. Roy.” pp. 113, 118.

Footnote 672:

  _Ibid._ pp. 162, 163.

Footnote 673:

  _Ibid._ pp. 41, 163.

Footnote 674:

  _Ibid._ p. 178.

Footnote 675:

  _Ibid._ p. 179.

Footnote 676:

  The kings, according to a belief which was evidently very old in the
  time of the Pyramid-Builders, were supposed to possess immortality as
  being gods even in their lifetime. Later, the gift was extended to
  rulers of nomes and other rich men, and finally to all those who could
  purchase the spells that would assure it. In Maspero’s words “La vie
  d’au delà n’était pas un droit pour l’Égyptien: il pouvait la gagner
  par la vertu des formules et des pratiques, mais il pouvait aussi bien
  la perdre, et s’il était pauvre ou isolé, les chances étaient qu’il la
  perdit à bref délai” (_op. cit._ p. 174).

Footnote 677:

  p. 254, Copt.

Footnote 678:

  de Faye (_Intro._ etc. p. 110) shows clearly, not only that the aims
  and methods of the school of Valentinus changed materially after its
  founder’s death, but that it was only then that the Catholic Church
  perceived the danger of them, and set to work to combat them
  systematically.

Footnote 679:

  To thinkers like Dean Inge (_Christian Mysticism_, 1899, p. 82) this
  was the natural and appointed end of Gnosticism, which according to
  him was “rotten before it was ripe.” “It presents,” he says, “all the
  features which we shall find to be characteristic of degenerate
  mysticism. Not to speak of its oscillations between fanatical
  austerities and scandalous licence, and its belief in magic and other
  absurdities, we seem, when we read Irenaeus’ description of a
  Valentinian heretic, to hear the voice of Luther venting his contempt
  upon some _Geisterer_ of the sixteenth century.” It may be so; yet,
  after all, Gnosticism in its later developments lasted for a longer
  time than the doctrines of Luther have done, particularly in the land
  of their birth.

Footnote 680:

  Cf. Maspero, _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_, Eng. ed. 1892, pp.
  90-92, for the distaste of the Egyptians of Ramesside times for the
  life of a soldier and their delight in that of a scribe.

Footnote 681:

  All these, especially alchemy, are illustrated in the Magic Papyrus of
  Leyden known as W. See Leemans, _Pap. Gr._ t. II. pp. 83 _sqq._

Footnote 682:

  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, vol. III. p. 214, Bury’s ed.

Footnote 683:

  Renan, _L’Église Chrétienne_, pp. 154, 155, and authorities there
  quoted. Cf. Hatch, _H. L._ pp. 129, 130, 293, 307-309.

Footnote 684:

  Harnack, _What is Christianity?_ p. 210; Duchesne, _Early Christian
  Church_, p. 32.




                               CHAPTER XI
                                MARCION


We have seen that Valentinus left Alexandria to settle in Rome before
promulgating his new doctrine[685], and the Eternal City seems at that
time to have drawn to itself as with a magnet all those Oriental
teachers of Christianity who wished to make innovation in religion. Rome
in the IInd century had become a veritable sink into which poured men of
all nations and creeds whether old or new. Besides the great flood of
Isiacists, Mithraists, and worshippers of the Great Goddess and of the
Syrian Baals, that now began to appear there, Alexander of Abonoteichos
came thither under Marcus Aurelius to celebrate his newly-invented
mysteries[686], and succeeded in gaining a foothold at the Imperial
Court. Moreover in A.D. 140, the terrible war of extermination which
Hadrian had been compelled much against his will to wage against the
Jewish nation was at length over, and the effect of this was to transfer
a great number of Asiatic and African Christians to the world’s
metropolis, while making it more than ever expedient for them to
disclaim connection with the Jews. The slightly contemptuous toleration,
too, which the statesmanlike Hadrian seems to have extended to the
Christians[687], was not likely to be withdrawn without reason by his
philosophic successor, Antoninus Pius; and it was doubtless the
consciousness of this which led to the appearance of the various
“apologies” for, or defences of, Christianity which Quadratus,
Aristides, Justin Martyr, and other persons with some philosophic
training now began to put forth. In such of these as have come down to
us, the desire of their authors to dissociate themselves from the Jews,
then at the nadir of their unpopularity, is plainly manifest, and no
doubt gave the note to the innovators[688]. It is certainly very marked
in the heresy of Marcion, which, unlike those of Valentinus and the
other Gnostics, was to culminate in the setting-up of a schismatic
Church in opposition to that founded on the Apostles.

Marcion was, according to the better account, a wealthy shipowner of
Pontus and probably a convert to Christianity[689]. He seems to have
been born at Sinope, at one time the most important of the Greek towns
on the Southern shore of the Euxine or Black Sea. Mithridates the Great,
who was also born there, had made Sinope his capital, and though it had
no doubt declined in rank since his time, it must still have been, in
the year 100 A.D. (the probable date of Marcion’s birth), a flourishing
and prosperous place[690]. As in all the cities of Asia Minor, the Stoic
philosophy had there obtained a firm hold, and there is some reason for
thinking that Marcion received lessons in this before his
conversion[691]. Of the circumstances which led to this event we have no
knowledge, and it was even said in later times that he was born a
Christian, and that his father had been a bishop of the Church. A better
founded story is that, on his conversion, he brought into the common
fund of the Church a considerable sum of money, which is said to have
been paid out to him on his expulsion[692]. When at the mature age of
forty he went to Rome, it seems reasonable to suppose that he accepted
the orthodox teaching, as it is said that there was some talk of his
being made bishop of what was even then the richest and highest in rank
of all the Christian Churches. At Rome, however, he fell in with one
Cerdo, a Syrian, who seems to have been already domiciled there and to
have taught in secret a pronouncedly dualistic system in which God and
Matter were set in sharp opposition to one another, and in which it was
held that a good God could not have been the author of this wicked
world[693]. This opinion Marcion adopted and elaborated, with the result
that he was expelled from the Catholic Church, and thereupon set to work
to found another, having bishops, priests, deacons, and other officers
in close imitation of the community he had left[694]. It is said that
before his death he wished to be reconciled to the Church, but was told
that he could only be readmitted when he had restored to the fold the
flock that he had led away from it. This, on the authority of
Tertullian, he would have been willing to do; but his rival Church had
by that time so enormously increased in numbers, that he died, probably
in 165 A.D., before he was able to make the restitution required[695].
This story also can only be accepted with a great deal of reserve[696].

It is abundantly plain, however, that Marcion was regarded not only by
the professed heresiologists of the succeeding age, but also by teachers
like Justin Martyr and the learned Clement of Alexandria, as one of the
most formidable enemies of the Church, whose evil influence persisted
even after his death[697]. By the reign of Gratian, his rival Church had
spread over Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, and Persia[698];
and, although the main authority for the increase is the always doubtful
one of Epiphanius, this last was not likely to have unduly magnified the
success of the Church’s rival, and his story has the confirmation of
Tertullian that in his time the Marcionites made churches “as wasps make
nests[699].” Every Father of note seems to have written against the
heresiarch who had thus dared, as was said, to turn away souls from
Christ, and Polycarp, the saint and martyr, when Marcion claimed
acquaintance with him in Rome on the strength of a former meeting in
Smyrna, replied with much heat, “Yes, I know thee! the first-born of
Satan[700].” So late as the Council in Trullo in the VIIth century,
special arrangements had to be made for the reception of Marcionites who
wished to be reconciled to the Church, and forms of abjuration of the
sect are said to have lingered until the Xth[701].

That this longevity was purchased by no willingness to make the best of
both worlds or to enjoy peace by compromising with heathenism in the way
we have seen prevalent among the Alexandrian Gnostics, is at once
evident. Alone among the heretics of the sub-Apostolic Age, the Fathers
declare, the Marcionites held fast their faith in time of persecution,
while they refused to frequent the circus and the theatre and practised
an austerity of life putting to shame even the ascetics among the
orthodox.[702] Marcion himself underwent none of the slanders on his
personal morals which theologians generally heap upon their
opponents[703], and none of his tenets are said by either Tertullian or
Epiphanius, who took his refutation most seriously in hand, to have been
borrowed from those Pagan rites or mysteries which they looked upon as
forming the most shameful source from which to contaminate the pure
doctrine of the Church. Irenaeus, who was his junior by some twenty or
thirty years, and may have known him personally, says indeed that he was
a disciple of Simon Magus[704], but in this he may have alluded merely
to his position as the founder of a rival Church. Hippolytus is silent
about this; but, true to his system of attacking philosophy on account
of its supposed connection with heresy, says that Marcion is a disciple,
not of Christ, but of Empedocles[705]. There is much to be said for the
view that Marcion’s heresy was so well and firmly established before the
end of the IInd century, that those who then denounced it really knew
little of its beginnings[706]. They are, however, unanimous as to the
more than Puritanical attitude adopted by its founders. The Marcionites
were allowed neither to drink wine nor to eat flesh, and those believers
in their tenets who were married had either to separate from their wives
or to remain among the catechumens until about to die, it being unlawful
for them to receive baptism save on their deathbeds[707].

Marcion’s, indeed, seems to have been one of those ruggedly logical and
uncompromising natures, not to be led away by reverence for authority or
tradition, which appear once or twice in the history of most religions;
and it is doubtless this quality which has led Prof. Harnack, as did
Neander in the last century, to claim him as the first reformer of the
Catholic Church[708]. Like another Luther, Marcion declared that the
Church had become corrupted by the additions made by men to the pure
teaching she had received from her Founder, and that only in return to
her primitive faith was safety to be found. For this primitive faith, he
appealed, like the makers of the German Reformation, to the words of
Scripture, but he differed from them most widely in the limitations that
he placed upon them. It was, he declared, impossible to find any
attributes in common between the God of the Old Testament and the
Supreme (and benevolent) Being of whom Jesus announced Himself the Son,
and he therefore rejected the Old Testament entirely. In the same way,
he said that the Canonical Gospels then received among Christians had
become overlaid with Jewish elements introduced by the Asiatic converts
among whom they were first circulated; and that the narrative in the
Gospel according to Luke was alone trustworthy[709]. From this also, he
removed the whole series of traditions concerning the Birth and Infancy
of Jesus; and made it begin in effect with the words of the fourth
chapter in which is described the coming-down of Jesus to “Capernaum, a
city of Galilee.” These he combined with the opening words of Luke iii.,
so that the event was described as taking place in the “fifteenth year
of the reign of Tiberius Caesar[710].” He also excised from the Gospel
everything which could indicate any respect shown by the Founder of
Christianity to the Torah or Law of the Jews, the allusions to the
Jewish traditions concerning Jonah and the Queen of Sheba, the supposed
fulfilment of the Jewish prophecies in the person and acts of Jesus, and
the statement that He took part in the Paschal Feast. He further removed
from it every passage which represents Jesus as drinking wine or taking
part in any festivity, and in the Lord’s Prayer he struck out the
petition for delivery from evil, while modifying the “Hallowed be thy
name!” It has been suggested that in this last case he may have given us
an older version than that of the Canon[711].

With the remainder of the New Testament, Marcion took similar liberties.
He rejected entirely the _Acts of the Apostles_, The Apocalypse of St
John, the _Epistle to the Hebrews_, and the Epistles generally called
“Pastoral,” as well as all those passing under the names of St John, St
James, St Peter and St Jude. For the Apostle Paul, however, Marcion had
a profound admiration, pronouncing him to be the only true follower of
Jesus, and he accepted with some alterations the ten epistles which he
thought could with confidence be attributed to him. These were the
Epistles to the Galatians, the two to the Corinthians, the one to the
Romans, both those to the Thessalonians, that to the Ephesians or, as he
preferred to call it, to the Laodiceans, and those to the Colossians, to
Philemon, and to the Philippians. From these ten epistles, he removed
everything which described the fulfilment of the prophecies of the
Jewish prophets, all allusions to the Parusia or Second Coming, and some
expressions which seemed to him to militate against the asceticism that
he himself favoured[712]. All these alterations seem to have been set
down by Marcion in a book to which he gave the name of the _Antitheses_,
and which contained his statement of the incongruities apparent between
the Old and New Testaments. This book is now lost, and the details of
Marcion’s emendations have in consequence to be picked out from the
treatise of Tertullian against him, the statements of Epiphanius, and
the anonymous discourse _de Recta Fide_ which is sometimes included in
the works of Origen[713].

If these alterations of the Scriptures generally received depended on
any independent tradition, or even upon a rational criticism, they would
be of the greatest use to modern textual critics, who have in
consequence hoped eagerly that some lucky chance might yet give us a
copy of Marcion’s Gospel.[714] But the Fathers make no allusion to any
claim of the kind; and in the absence of Marcion’s own words, it seems
likely that his alterations were merely dictated by the preoccupation
regarding the Divine nature which seems with him to have amounted to a
passion. Never, he said, could the jealous and irascible God of the Jews
be identified with the loving and benevolent Spirit whom Jesus called
His Father. Hence there was not one God; but two Gods. One of these was
the Supreme Being, perfect in power as in goodness, whose name, as
perhaps the Orphics and the Ophites taught, was Love[715]. Too great to
concern Himself with sublunary things, and too pure, as Plato and Philo
had both said, to have any dealings with an impure and sinful world, He
remained seated apart in the third or highest heaven, inaccessible to
and unapproachable by man, like the unknown Father of Valentinus and the
other Gnostic sects[716]. Below Him was the Creator, or rather the
Demiurge or Fashioner of the World, in constant conflict with matter,
which he is always trying unsuccessfully to conquer and subdue in
accordance with his own limited and imperfect ideas. Just, according to
Marcion, was the Demiurge, whom he identified with the God of the Jews;
and it was this attribute of justice which prevented him from being
considered wholly evil in his nature, as was Satan, the active agent of
the matter with which the Demiurge was always striving. Yet the Demiurge
was the creator of evil on his own showing[717], and as such is entitled
to no adoration from man, whom he has brought into a world full of evil.
Man’s rescue from this is due to the Supreme God, who sent His Son Jesus
Christ on earth that He might reveal to mankind His Heavenly Father, and
thus put an end to the sway of the Demiurge.

That Jesus on His coming was seized and slain by the Jews, with at least
the connivance of the Demiurge, Marcion admitted. But as this might seem
like a defeat of the Supreme Being by His inferior, he was forced to
accept the theory called Docetism which was in favour with many other
Gnostics. According to this, the body of Jesus was not real flesh and
blood, and had indeed no actual existence, but was a phantasm which only
appeared to mankind in the likeness of a man[718]. Hence it mattered
nothing that this body, which did not really exist, appeared to suffer,
to be slain, and even to rise again. The Supreme God was not mocked, and
the resurrection of the body was to Marcion a thing unthinkable.

In lesser matters, Marcion’s dislike of the God of the Jews is, perhaps,
more marked. Man’s body, according to him, was made by the Demiurge out
of matter[719], but without any spark from a higher world infused into
it, as the Ophites and Valentinus had taught. Hence man was naturally
inclined to evil, and the Law which the Demiurge delivered to him was
more or less of a snare. Man was sure to give way to the evil desires
inherent in matter, and on doing so became with all his race subject to
the power of matter and the evil spirits inhabiting it. It is true that
the Demiurge had devised a plan of salvation in the shape of the Law of
the Jews delivered to them on Sinai. But this concerned one small people
only, and it was but a fraction of that community which could hope to
observe it in all its forms and ceremonies. Did they do so, the Demiurge
would provide for them a modified felicity in that region of Hades
called the Bosom of Abraham[720]. For those Gentiles, and even for those
Jews who from weakness or obstinacy did not obey the Law, he had
prepared punishment and, apparently, eternal tortures. It is true that
he promised the Jews a Messiah who should lead them to the conquest of
the earth, but this leader certainly was not Jesus[721]; and it is
probable that Marcion thought that His Mission had put it out of the
power of the Demiurge to fulfil any of these promises.

Possibly it was the same dislike of the Jews that led Marcion to
consider St Paul as the only real apostle of Jesus. The others, he said,
had overlaid the faith that they had received with Jewish traditions;
but Paul, chosen by Jesus after His Ascension[722], had resisted their
attempt to reintroduce the Law of the Jews, and was, in his own words,
an apostle sent not from men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God
the Father who raised Him from the dead.[723] Marcion also seems to have
laid stress upon St Paul’s wonder that the Galatians were “so soon
removed from Him who hath called you to His grace to another
Gospel[724],” with the suggestion that this second gospel was the
contrivance of the Demiurge; and generally to have accentuated the
controversy between St Peter and St Paul mentioned in the Epistle
bearing their name[725]. From the same Epistle to the Galatians, Marcion
appears to have erased the name of Abraham where his blessing is said to
have “come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ[726]”; and in like
manner, to have read into the passage in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians[727], where it is said that “the world by wisdom knew not
God,” expressions implying that it was the “Lord of this World,” _i.e._
the Demiurge, who was ignorant of the Supreme Being[728]. As this
ignorance of the Demiurge was a favourite theme of the Ophites and other
Gnostics, it is possible that Marcion was more indebted to these
predecessors of his than modern commentators on his teaching are
inclined to allow; but he perhaps justified his reading by tacking it on
to the passage in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians which says that
“the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of
God, should shine upon them[729].” From the Epistle to the Romans, in
which he seems to have made very large erasures[730], Marcion draws
further arguments in favour of his contention that the Jews were kept in
ignorance of the Supreme God, relying upon texts like:

    “For they [_i.e._ Israel] being ignorant of God’s righteousness and
    going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted
    themselves unto the righteousness of God[731].”

So, too, in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Marcion rejects the
passage which declares that Jesus shall come “in flaming fire taking
vengeance[732],” which he considered inconsistent with the benevolence
of Himself and His Father. We do not know whom he considered to be the
Antichrist there predicted, as Epiphanius leaves us in doubt whether
Marcion accepted the verses which go by the name of the Little
Apocalypse, but Tertullian seems to imply that Marcion may have assigned
this part to the Messiah of the Demiurge[733]. In like manner, he is
said to have altered the passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians which
speaks of “the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been
hid in God[734],” so as to make it appear that the mystery was hid not
_in_ God, but _from_ the god who created all things, meaning thereby the
Demiurge[735].

Until some lucky discovery gives us the text of Marcion’s _Antitheses_
it is difficult to say whether he has been correctly reported by his
adversaries, or whether, which is probable enough, they have suppressed
evidence brought forward by him in support of these erasures and
interpolations. That in putting them forward, he did so in such a way as
to leave many an opening to a skilled controversialist is easy to
believe, and there are many passages in Tertullian’s refutation which
show that his forensically-trained adversary took advantage of these
with more eagerness than generosity. But the noteworthy thing about the
long drawn out dialectic of Tertullian’s treatise _Against Marcion_, is
the way in which Marcion throughout resolutely abstains from any of the
allegorical or figurative interpolations of Scripture which we have seen
so prevalent among all the Gnostic writers from Simon Magus down to the
authors of the _Pistis Sophia_ and its connected texts. Everywhere, it
would seem, he took the Biblical texts that he quotes at their literal
meaning and never seems to have attempted to translate any of them by
trope or figure. In like manner, we find him, so far as his adversaries’
account goes, entirely free from that preoccupation concerning the
divisions and order of the spiritual world which plays so large a part
in the speculations of the systems hitherto described. Nor does he show
any tendency to the deification of abstract ideas which is really at the
root of all Gnostic systems whether before or after Christ. Nowhere does
Marcion let fall an expression which could make us think of the Sophia
or Wisdom of God as a separate entity or personified being, nor is the
Logos of Plato and his Alexandrian admirers ever alluded to by him.
Hence, he in no way contributes to the growth, so luxuriant in his time,
of mythology and allegory[736]. In everything he exhibits the hard and
unimaginative quality of the practical man.

These considerations have great bearing on the question of the source of
his heresy. Had he busied himself, like the Gnostics, with elaborate
descriptions of the invisible universe, one would have thought that he
owed something to the ancient Egyptian theology, in which such
speculations occupied nearly the whole care of its professors. Had he,
on the other hand, studied to personify the attributes and qualities of
the Supreme Being, one would have been able to connect his teaching with
that of the Persian religion, in which, as will be seen in the next
chapter, the idea of such personification took the principal place. This
connection would have been natural enough, because the province of
Pontus, whence Marcion came, had long been subject to the Persian power,
and did not become Roman in name until the reign of Nero. Yet no trace
of such a connection is even hinted at by adversaries perfectly well
informed of the main tenets of the Persian religion[737]. The inference
is therefore unavoidable that Marcion’s views were original, and that
they were formed, as was said by a critic of the last century, by a sort
of centrifugal process, and after rejecting in turn all heathen and
Jewish elements, as well as most of the traditions which had already
grown up in the Catholic Church[738]. That Marcion was aware of this
seems probable from the many efforts made by him to be reconciled to the
Church, or rather to convert the whole Church to his way of thinking. In
this, as in the emphasis which he laid on faith rather than knowledge as
the source of man’s happiness in this world and the next, he again
anticipated in a most striking manner the views of the German Reformers
some fourteen centuries later[739].

A like analogy is to be seen in the practices of the Marcionite
churches, so far at any rate as we may trust to the reports of their
orthodox opponents. True, as it would seem, to his conviction of the
complete failure of the scheme of the Demiurge, Marcion set his face
even more sternly than our own Puritans of Cromwell’s time against
anything that should look like enjoyment of the things of this
world[740]. His followers were enjoined to eat no meat, to abstain from
wine even in the Eucharist, which in the Marcionite churches was
celebrated with water, and to observe perpetually the strictest
continence[741]. The Sabbath was kept by them as a fast and, although
this may look like an obedience to Jewish custom, Epiphanius, who is our
sole authority for the observance, tells us that Marcion expressly
rejected this attribution[742]. Virginity was, according to him, the
only state of life for the true Christian; and although he freely
baptized unmarried men and eunuchs, he refused baptism to married
persons, as has been said, until they were divorced or on the point of
death[743]. To the enticements of the circus, the gladiatorial shows,
and the theatre, the Marcionites used, according to Tertullian, to
return the answer “God forbid!”; and they made the same reply, he tells
us, when invited to save their lives in time of persecution by
sacrificing a few grains of incense to the genius of the Emperor[744].
The reason of all this austerity was apparently their contempt for the
kingdom of the Demiurge and their resolve to do nothing to prolong his
rule.

Of the spread of the Marcionite heresy we have very little more
information than that given above. Prof. Harnack thinks 150-190 A.D. was
the “golden age of the Marcionites[745],” but Tertullian evidently
considered that some thirty years after the last of these dates they
were nearly as numerous as the Valentinians, whom he speaks of as the
largest sect of heretics[746]. An inscription found in a Syrian village
refers to a “synagogue” of Marcionites occupying a site there in 318
A.D.[747], which is, as has been remarked, older than the earliest dated
inscription of the Catholic Church. Theodoret, too, about 440 A.D.,
boasts of having converted more than a thousand of them, a statement
which afterwards swells into eight villages and supposes that they were
pretty thickly clustered together[748]. Yet they must have led a
miserable existence, being persecuted by the Imperial authorities and
their Christian brethren at once, and it is not to be wondered at that
Marcion himself addresses some followers in a letter quoted by
Tertullian as “my partners in hate and wretchedness[749].” It speaks
volumes for their faith that they continued to hold it in spite of
everything.

This was the more to their credit that they were by no means at one in
matters of belief. In a passage quoted in a former chapter, Tertullian
says that the Marcionites thought it fair to do what Marcion had done,
that is, to innovate on the faith according to their own pleasure. This
is a rhetorical way of putting it; for the successors of Marcion seem to
have differed among themselves mainly upon one point, which was, in
fact, the number of “principles” which lay at the beginning of
things[750]. Thanks to his Stoical training, Marcion was forced to
assign a large part in the formation of the cosmos to Matter, which he
nevertheless thought to be essentially evil. But in that case, how did
it come into existence? It surely could not be the creation of the
Supreme and benevolent Being whose name was Love; and if not, how did it
come to exist independently of Him? To these questions it is possible
that the essentially practical genius of Marcion saw no need to return
any answer, and was content to regard them, like Epicurus before him, as
insoluble problems. But his followers apparently refused to do so; and
hence there arose considerable diversity of opinion. According to an
Armenian author of late date, Marcion himself taught that there were
_three_ principles, that is, the Supreme God, the Demiurge or Creator,
and Matter, which he regarded as a sort of spouse to the Demiurge[751].
This, however, is extremely unlikely in view of the unanimous assertion
of the Fathers nearer to him in point of time that he taught the
existence of two principles only; and it is probable that the theory of
three principles, if seriously advanced, must have been the work of one
of his followers. Tertullian, whose sophistry in combating Marcion’s
teaching in this respect is here particularly apparent, points out,
indeed, that if the Creator be held to be self-originated and not
himself the creature of the Supreme God, there must be nine gods instead
of two[752]; but there is no reason to suppose that Marcion ever
troubled himself about such dialectical subtleties.

The case was different with Apelles, who was certainly later in date
than Marcion and perhaps succeeded him in the headship of the sect,
either immediately or at one remove[753]. According to Tertullian,
Apelles left Rome for Alexandria where he no doubt came in contact with
the Gnostic opinions there rife[754]. The slander that Tertullian sets
on foot about him to the effect that he forsook his master’s continence
and was addicted to the company of women is unexpectedly refuted by
Tertullian’s contemporary, Rhodo[755]. But Apelles must have come in
contact in Alexandria with the followers of Valentinus and other Gnostic
teachers, and their arguments no doubt compelled him to modify the
strict dualism of his master. According to Rhodo, Apelles asserted that
there was only one principle of all things, which would imply that the
Demiurge was the creature of the Supreme God, and that Matter, instead
of being essentially evil and independent, must have been also created
by Him. Hippolytus, who was possibly a little later than Rhodo,
amplifies this by the statement that Apelles held the Demiurge to be the
fashioner of things coming into being (subsequent to him)[756], and that
there was a third god or angel of a fiery nature who inspired Moses, and
even a fourth who was the cause of evil. In this the Gnostic idea of
correspondence or reflection of one world in another is manifest; but it
is evident that it also approaches more nearly than does the
uncompromising dualism of Marcion himself to the teaching of the
Catholic Church. The same tendency to compromise is evident in Apelles’
willingness to use the books of both the Old and the New Testament,
quoting with regard to them, if Epiphanius is to be believed, the
apocryphal saying of Jesus “Be ye wise money-changers!” to be found in,
among other works, the _Pistis Sophia_[757]. Apelles seems also to have
modified his master’s teaching with regard to the body of Jesus, which
was, he said, no phantasm, but a real body of flesh and blood assumed by
Him on His descent to the earth, and returned by Him piece by piece on
His Ascension to the different elements whence it was drawn. His
indebtedness in this to the sources from which the author of the _Pistis
Sophia_ drew the same doctrine needs no demonstration. Yet there is no
reason to assert that Apelles considered these “corrections” of
Marcion’s teaching in any way essential or binding on his followers. He
seems, too, to have adopted one of the practices of the primitive Church
in paying attention to the ecstatical visions of “prophets” of both
sexes, his faith in the prophecies of a virgin named Philumene being the
foundation of Tertullian’s slander on his morals. There can be no doubt,
however, that in spite of these tendencies, he remained in essentials a
true follower of Marcion, and that like his master, he deprecated
enquiry into insoluble problems. “One ought not,” he said, as Rhodo
reports, “to examine doctrine, but everyone should be steadfast in the
faith. Those who trust in Him that was crucified will be saved, if only
they do good works[758].” Herein he also, like Marcion himself, seems to
have anticipated by many centuries the teaching of the German Reformers.

Other followers of Marcion there were who, thanks to our lack of
information concerning them, are to us merely names. Thus Tatian, who
was according to tradition a disciple of Justin Martyr but fell away
from orthodoxy after his teacher’s death, seems to have held a kind of
intermediate position between the two great schools of heresy. While
teaching, according to Irenaeus, a system of aeons not unlike that of
Valentinus, he adopted in full the notions of Marcion as to abstinence
from marriage, from the eating of flesh, and from the use of wine, and
may have been the founder of a separate sect called Encratites[759]. We
hear, too, of one Prepon, “an Assyrian” or native of Syria, a follower
of Marcion, whom Hippolytus represents as teaching that Jesus Himself
was intermediate between the good and evil deities and came down to
earth to be freed from all evil[760]. Rhodo also speaks[761] of Potitus
and Basilicus, followers of Marcion, who held fast to his doctrine of
two principles, while Syneros, as he affirms, led a school which
asserted that there were three “natures.” Lucian also, who, according to
Hippolytus and Epiphanius, came in point of time between Marcion and
Apelles[762], may have inclined to the same doctrine, and taught, unlike
Marcion, that there would be a resurrection, not of the body nor of the
soul, but of some part of man which he also defined as being of a “third
nature[763].”

The conversion of Constantine put a violent end to any open propagation
of the doctrines of Marcion or his successors. In the picturesque words
of Eusebius “the lurking-places of the heretics were broken up by the
Emperor’s commands, and the savage beasts which they harboured were put
to flight.” Hence, he goes on to tell us, many of those who had been
“deceived” crept secretly into the Church, and were ready to secure
their own safety by every sort of dissimulation[764]. This practice, as
we have seen, had always been popular among the Gnostics properly so
called, whose religion consisted in part in the knowledge of the
formulas secretly imparted and preserved with jealous care from all but
the initiated. Although there is no distinct proof that the same course
was now adopted by the Marcionites, there is some reason for thinking
that this was the case. The postponement of baptism noticed above must
have early divided the members of the Marcionite churches into grades of
which the largest was in an inferior position to the others. It is
unlikely that these catechumens, who might witness but not share in the
sacraments celebrated for their higher-placed brethren, should have
courted persecution on behalf of a faith with which they were not fully
entrusted. The outbreak of the Arian controversy, which followed so
closely on the conversion of Constantine, also carried within the
Catholic Church those speculations about the Divine nature which had
hitherto formed a fruitful source of dissension among the Marcionites
themselves. With their synagogues and meeting-places taken away from
them and handed over to the Catholics, many of them must have looked
about for some tolerated community which they could join, and of all
that thus offered themselves, the Catholic Church offered the greatest
inducements to them.

Yet another way was open to the convinced Marcionite who could not bring
himself to reject Marcion’s view that the true purport of Jesus’
teaching had been obscured by the additions of Judaizing apostles. The
sect of the followers of Manes, who began to show themselves in the
Western part of the Roman Empire shortly before Constantine’s
conversion, professed a dualism more uncompromising than any that
Marcion had taught, and coupled with it an organization so skilful and
effective that it was able for some ten centuries longer to defy the
efforts of the rest of Christendom for its suppression. In its division
of all Manichaeans into the two great classes of Perfect and Hearers it
drew very close to Marcionite practice; and the liberty which it allowed
the Hearers of outwardly professing any faith they pleased must have
enabled the Marcionite who joined it to keep those articles of his
former creed most dear to him without coming into violent collision with
either Church or State. Hence the tradition seems well founded which
asserts that the majority of those Marcionites, who did not become
reconciled with the Catholic Church after Constantine’s alliance with
it, joined the ranks of the Manichaeans, and so ceased to exist as a
separate community[765].

The direct influence of Marcion’s teaching upon that of the Catholic
Church was probably very small. In spite of the efforts of recent
writers to maintain the contrary[766], it is difficult to see that this
first attempt, honest and sincere as it undoubtedly was, at the
reformation of Christianity ever bore fruit of lasting value. Its main
principle which, as we have seen, was the rejection of the Jewish
scriptures and their bearing upon the Mission of Jesus, has been
ignored, since Marcion’s death as in his lifetime, by every other Church
and sect professing Christian doctrines. His common-sense view, that the
words of the Christian Bible must mean what their authors and their
contemporaries would have naturally taken them to mean, and do not for
the most part contain any deeply hidden or allegorical significance, was
in like manner repudiated by the whole of Christendom, which, up to the
latter part of the XIXth century, continued to construe the greater part
of its sacred books by trope and figure[767]. There remains then only
the asceticism and austerity that Marcion practised which the orthodox
could have borrowed from him. But, we have seen that the religious
abstinence from procreation, and from the use of meat and wine, can be
traced back to the appearance of Orphism in Greece some five hundred
years before the Birth of Christ; and if the Christian Church adopted,
as it partly did, these practices in a modified form, it was by way of
inheritance from a source which was much nearer to it than Marcion’s
heresy. That many of Marcion’s ideas have been revived in our own day is
likely enough, and this opinion has been put forward with much skill and
point by Dr Foakes-Jackson in his Hulsean Lectures. But this is a case
of revival rather than of descent, and a reformer who has to wait some
eighteen centuries before his ideas meet with acceptance, may well be
held to have failed to influence after ages.

Notwithstanding this, the heresy of Marcion will always have great
interest for the student of the History of Religions. The
success—fugitive as such things go, but real enough for a time—with
which Marcion set up a Church over against that tremendous polity which
has been called without much exaggeration “the very master-piece of
human wisdom,” would be alone sufficient to make it precious in the eyes
of those who are not blind to the romance of history. To archaeologists
it is the more interesting that it is only in its direction that we are
likely to receive in future much additional light upon the struggles of
nascent Christianity with one category of its competitors. The very
voluminous writings of the other Gnostics were destroyed by the
triumphant Church with such minute care that the Coptic texts described
in the last chapter form the only relics of this once enormous
literature that have survived to us. The heathen religions which for
some time disputed the ground with the Church have also left few traces
partly for the same reason, and partly because the secrecy to which they
pledged their votaries made it unlikely that many written documents of
these faiths would survive. But the _Antitheses_ of Marcion were in the
hands of Photius in the Xth century; and, although it is dangerous to
prophesy in such matters, it is by no means impossible that some lucky
discovery within the borders of the Turkish Empire may yet give us a MS.
that will enable us to reconstruct them. If that should ever be the
case, we shall be in a far better position than we are now to decide
whether the analogies between Marcionism and Protestantism that have
been detected of late years are essential or superficial.

Footnote 685:

  Chap. IX. p. 118 _supra_.

Footnote 686:

  Renan, _Marc Aurèle_, p. 49. Cf. Dill, _Nero to Marcus_, pp. 473-477.

Footnote 687:

  Renan, _L’Église Chrétienne_, pp. 31-33, and Hadrian’s letter there
  quoted.

Footnote 688:

  Of the defences mentioned in the text the Apology of Quadratus is the
  only one still lost to us. Justin Martyr’s two Apologies are among the
  best known of patristic works. That of Aristides was found by Dr
  Rendel Harris in a Syriac MS. in 1889. For the identification of this
  by Dean Armitage Robinson with the story of Barlaam and Josaphat, see
  _Cambridge Texts and Studies_, vol. 1. No. 1.

Footnote 689:

  The account of Marcion’s life given by Salmon (_s.v._ Marcion) in the
  _Dict. Christian Biog._ is here mostly followed. Abundant references
  to the Fathers and other sources are there given.

Footnote 690:

  Tertullian’s talk (_adv. Marcion._ Bk I. c. 1) about its barbarism and
  the natives living in waggons is mere rhetoric. He probably knew
  nothing about the place.

Footnote 691:

  _Stoicae studiosus._ Tertullian, _de Praescript._ c. XXX.

Footnote 692:

  _Id._ _adv. Marc._ Bk IV. c. 4; and _de Praescript._ c. XXX., where
  the money is said to have been 200 sestertia or nearly £1800.

Footnote 693:

  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk I. c. 2. Cf. Pseudo Tertullianus, _adv.
  omn._ _Haer._ c. XVI.

Footnote 694:

  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 150; cf. Tertullian, _de Praescript._ c.
  XLI.

Footnote 695:

  _Ibid. op. cit._ c. XXX. Salmon (_Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._
  Marcion) wishes to transfer this story to Cerdo.

Footnote 696:

  Neander, _Church Hist._ II. p. 139, disbelieves it.

Footnote 697:

  Justin Martyr, _First Apol._ cc. XXVI., LVIII. He writes as Marcion’s
  contemporary. Cf. Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk III. c. 3.

Footnote 698:

  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XLII. p. 553, Oehler.

Footnote 699:

  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk IV. c. 5.

Footnote 700:

  Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 14.

Footnote 701:

  The council was held 692 A.D. See Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._
  _s.v._ Marcion.

Footnote 702:

  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk I. c. 27.

Footnote 703:

  The story that he seduced a virgin is now generally held to mean
  merely that he corrupted the unsullied faith of the Church. Cf.
  Hegesippus in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 22. So Salmon, _art.
  cit._ _supra_. As Neander points out (_Ch. Hist._ II. p. 136 note),
  Tertullian, had he known the story, would certainly have published it.
  Yet he contrasts Marcion’s chastity with the real or supposed
  incontinence of his follower, Apelles (_de Praescript._ c. XXX.).

Footnote 704:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 25, p. 219, Harvey.

Footnote 705:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 3, p. 370, Cruice.

Footnote 706:

  So Salmon, _art. cit._, Renan, and others. This view, however, cannot
  apply to Justin Martyr who was, as we have seen, his contemporary. See
  n. 5. p. 205 _supra_.

Footnote 707:

  See Salmon (_Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Marcion) for authorities.

Footnote 708:

  See Harnack’s article on _Marcion_ in _Encyc. Brit._ (11th ed.).

Footnote 709:

  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk IV. c. 2. Marcion apparently knew nothing
  of St John’s Gospel, which may not have become public till after his
  death. Had he done so, as Renan says (_L’Égl. Chrétienne_, p. 71), he
  would probably have preferred it to any other, because of its markedly
  anti-Jewish tendency.

Footnote 710:

  According to him, Jesus was not born of woman. Cf. Hippolytus, _op.
  cit._ Bk VII. c. 31, pp. 383-384, Cruice.

Footnote 711:

  The whole controversy is well summed up in Matter, _Hist. du Gnost._
  t. II. pp. 238-242.

Footnote 712:

  See Matter, _op. cit._ t. II. pp. 246-260, where Marcion’s emendations
  are given chapter by chapter and their sources cited.

Footnote 713:

  Hahn, in his _Antitheses Marcionis gnostici_, Königsberg, 1823,
  claimed to have restored this book, while Hilgenfeld has examined the
  extant remains of Marcion’s Gospel in _Das Evangelium Marcions_. He
  attempted to restore Marcion’s _Apostolicon_ in the _Zeitschr. für
  hist. Theol._ 1855.

Footnote 714:

  The _Antitheses_ seem to have been seen by Photius in the Xth century,
  so that we need not despair.

Footnote 715:

  Like the Eros-Phanes of the Orphics and the Ophite Agape. So
  Pausanias, Bk IX. c. 27, says the Lycomidae sang in the Mysteries
  hymns to Eros, which he had read, thanks to a δαδοῦχος or torch-bearer
  at Eleusis.

Footnote 716:

  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk I. c. 2, says that Marcion is obliged to
  admit the existence of a Creator, because his work is manifest; but
  that he will never be able to prove that of a higher God than he—a
  mode of reasoning which might take him further than he intends.

Footnote 717:

  Isaiah, xlv. 7.

Footnote 718:

  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk III. c. 8.

Footnote 719:

  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. pp. 142 _sqq._

Footnote 720:

  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk III. c. 24.

Footnote 721:

  _Op. cit._ Bk III. c. 4. Cf Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 144.

Footnote 722:

  Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 1.

Footnote 723:

  Gal. i. 1. Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk V., contains most of Marcion’s
  dealings with the Pauline Epistles.

Footnote 724:

  Gal. i. 6, 7.

Footnote 725:

  Gal. ii. 11 _sqq._

Footnote 726:

  Gal. iii. 14.

Footnote 727:

  1 Cor. i. 21.

Footnote 728:

  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk V. c. 5.

Footnote 729:

  2 Cor. iv. 4. Cf. Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 11.

Footnote 730:

  Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 14.

Footnote 731:

  Rom. x. 2, 3.

Footnote 732:

  2 Thess. i. 8. Cf. Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 16.

Footnote 733:

  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XLII. p. 676, Oehler; Tertullian, _loc. cit._

Footnote 734:

  Ephes. iii. 8, 9.

Footnote 735:

  Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 18.

Footnote 736:

  But see n. 2, p. 217, _infra_.

Footnote 737:

  As is plain from the words of Plutarch quoting, as is generally
  thought, Theopompus of Chios. See _Is. et Os._ cc. XLVI., XLVII.
  Al-Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, p. 189, says indeed that both Bardesanes and
  Marcion borrowed from Zoroaster. But this was eight centuries after
  Marcion’s death, and we have no evidence as to Al-Bîrûnî’s means of
  knowledge of his tenets.

Footnote 738:

  Harvey’s _Irenaeus_, I. p. cli. There is a curious resemblance to
  Marcion’s Demiurge in the Clementine _Homilies_, XX. c. 2, where the
  king of this world who rules by law and rejoices in the destruction of
  sinners is mentioned. But the _Homilies_ are probably Ebionite and
  certainly, in the form in which they have come down to us, later than
  Marcion.

Footnote 739:

  Neander _Antignostikus_, Eng. ed. vol. II. p. 490, calls him the
  representative of the Protestant spirit. In modern times, it is
  perhaps sufficient to notice Harnack’s predilection, as shown in his
  _Dogmengeschichte_, for Marcion and his works. Foakes-Jackson, _Some
  Christian Difficulties of the Second and Twentieth Centuries_ (Hulsean
  Lectures), Cambridge, 1903, pp. 19 _sqq._, thinks the study of the
  controversy between Marcion and Tertullian should especially appeal to
  Modernists.

Footnote 740:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 29, p. 378, Cruice.

Footnote 741:

  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XLII. p. 556, Oehler.

Footnote 742:

  _Op. et loc. cit._

Footnote 743:

  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk IV. c. 11. Cf. p. 207, _supra_.

Footnote 744:

  Tertullian, _op. cit._ Bk I. c. 27.

Footnote 745:

  Harnack in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (11th ed.) _s.v._ “Marcion.”

Footnote 746:

  He always couples Valentinus and Marcion together. Cf. _de Praescpt._
  cc. XXIX., XXX. Justin Martyr, Marcion’s contemporary, says (_First
  Apolog._ c. XXVI.) that “he is even now teaching men of every nation
  to speak blasphemies.” Renan, _L’Égl. Chrétienne_, p. 363, thinks that
  the Marcionites were “much the most numerous sect before Arius.”

Footnote 747:

  Foakes-Jackson, _Hulsean Lectures_, p. 108. Cf. Sanday, _The Gospels
  in the 2nd Cent._, Oxford, 1876, p. 236.

Footnote 748:

  Theodoret, _Epp._ 113 and 145.

Footnote 749:

  συμμισούμενοι καὶ συνταλαίπωροι: Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk IV. cc.
  9, 30.

Footnote 750:

  See Neander, _Ch. Hist._ vol. II. pp. 151 _sqq._ and Matter, _Hist. du
  Gnost._ t. II. pp. 298, 304.

Footnote 751:

  Eznig of Goghp, from whose History of the Armenian Church quotation
  has been made above. He says that Marcion taught that there were three
  heavens, in the highest of which dwelt the Good God, in the next the
  God of the (Jewish) Law, and in the third his angels. Below this lay
  Hyle or Matter who existed independently and was female. From the
  union of the God of the Law and Hyle, this earth was produced, after
  which its Father retired to his own heaven, leaving the earth to the
  rule of Hyle. When he desired to make man, Hyle supplied the dust of
  which he was formed, into which the God of the Law breathed his own
  spirit. Adam became the adorer of Hyle, upon which the God of the Law
  informed him that, if he worshipped any other God but him, he should
  die. On this Adam withdrew from Hyle, and this last, becoming jealous,
  made a number of gods and filled the world with them. Hence all men
  were cast into hell at death, until the Good God looked down from the
  highest heaven, had pity on them, and sent his Son to deliver the
  “spirits in prison,” which He did directly He went down into hell
  after His own death. After Jesus had revealed Himself to the Creator
  and received his confession of ignorance, Jesus illuminated Paul and
  made him His apostle. It is extremely unlikely that this story should
  have formed part of Marcion’s own teaching, although it may possibly
  have been told by some follower of his of Semitic blood, or, as Salmon
  suggests, by Cerdo. It is to be found in Neumann’s translation of
  Eznig in the _Zeitschr. für hist. Theol._ vol. IV. and in the _Dict.
  Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Marcion.

Footnote 752:

  Tertullian, _adv. Marc._ Bk I. c. 16.

Footnote 753:

  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XLII. p. 688, Oehler, says Marcion was succeeded
  by Lucian, whom Apelles followed. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. cc.
  37, 38, p. 393, Cruice, is probably the source of Epiphanius’
  statement; but he does not seem to have had any first-hand knowledge
  of the Marcionite heresy or its chiefs, and is not here so good a
  witness as Tertullian, or Irenaeus, who mentions neither Lucian nor
  Apelles.

Footnote 754:

  Tertullian, _de Praescript._ c. XXX.

Footnote 755:

  Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk IV. c. 13.

Footnote 756:

  ἐδημιούργησε τὰ γενόμενα. Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 37, p.
  393, Cruice.

Footnote 757:

  Epiphanius, _Haer._ XLII. p. 694, Oehler. The same Logion or saying is
  also found in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk I. c. 28, in the _Apostolical
  Constitutions_, Bk II. c. 37, and in Clem. _Hom._ XVIII. c. 20.

Footnote 758:

  Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 13.

Footnote 759:

  Irenaeus, Bk I. c. 26, § 1, p. 220, Harvey. According to Hippolytus,
  _op. cit._ Bk VIII. c. 16, p. 416, Cruice, he had been a disciple of
  Justin Martyr.

Footnote 760:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 31, p. 382, Cruice.

Footnote 761:

  Eusebius, _op. et loc. cit._ _supra_.

Footnote 762:

  Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk VII. c. 37, p. 393, Cruice; Epiphanius,
  _Haer._ XLIII. p. 688, Oehler.

Footnote 763:

  Tertullian, _de Resurrectione_, c. II.

Footnote 764:

  Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_, Bk III. cc. 64-66.

Footnote 765:

  So Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._ and Harnack in _Encyclopaedia
  Britannica_, both _s.v._ Marcion.

Footnote 766:

  Hatch, _H.L._ p. 77, n. 1, quoting Harnack.

Footnote 767:

  Hatch, _op. cit._ pp. 75, 76, shows that the allegorical method
  introduced by the Gnostics in order to avoid the difficulty of
  reconciling the Old Testament with the New was at first scornfully
  rejected, but was soon adopted by the orthodox, and was pursued by
  both Catholic and Protestant writers up to a few years ago.




                              CHAPTER XII
                         THE WORSHIP OF MITHRAS


Few of us, perhaps, are inclined to recognize that, from its first
establishment down to the Mahommedan Invasion of the VIIth century, the
Roman Empire found itself constantly in the presence of a bitter,
determined, and often victorious enemy. Alexander had conquered but had
not destroyed the Persians; and, although the magic of the hero’s
personality held them faithful to him during his too brief life, he was
no sooner dead than they hastened to prove that they had no intention of
tamely giving up their nationality. Peucestas, the Royal bodyguard who
received the satrapy of Persia itself on his master’s death, and was
confirmed in it at the first shuffling of the cards at Triparadisus,
found it expedient to adopt the Persian language and dress, with the
result that his subjects conceived for him an affection only equal to
that which they afterwards showed for Seleucus[768]. Later, when the
rise of the Parthian power under Arsaces brought about the defeat of
Seleucus II Callinicus, the opposition to European forms of government
found a centre further north[769], whence armies of lightly-equipped
horsemen were able to raid up to the Eastern shores of the
Mediterranean[770]. Thanks probably to the knowledge of this support in
reserve, when Western Asia found the military power of the Greek kings
becoming exhausted by internecine wars, she began to throw off the alien
civilization that she had in part acquired, and to return more and more
to Persian ways[771]. When the Romans in their turn set to work to eat
up the enfeebled Greek kingdoms, they quickly found themselves in
presence of a revived nationality as firmly held and nearly as
aggressive as their own, and henceforth Roman and Parthian were seldom
at peace. The long struggle with Mithridates, who gave himself out as a
descendant of Darius[772], taught the Romans how strong was the reaction
towards Persian nationality even in Asia Minor, and the overthrow of
Crassus by the Parthians convinced his countrymen for a time of the
folly of pushing their arms too far eastwards.

With the establishment of the Empire, the antagonism between Rome and
Persia became still more strongly marked, and a struggle commenced which
lasted with little intermission until the foundation of the Mahommedan
Caliphate. In this struggle the advantage was not always, as we should
like to think, on the side of the Europeans. While Augustus reigns,
Horace boasts, there is no occasion to dread the “dreadful
Parthians[773]”; but Corbulo is perpetually fighting them, and when Nero
commits suicide, the legend immediately springs up that the tyrant is
not dead, but has only betaken himself beyond the Euphrates to return
with an army of Rome’s most dreaded enemies to lay waste his rebellious
country[774]. Towards the close of the first Christian century, Trajan,
fired, according to Gibbon, by the example of Alexander, led an army
into the East and achieved successes which enabled him to add to his
titles that of Parthicus[775]; but the whole of his Oriental conquests
were given back by the prudent Hadrian on his succession to the throne.
During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Avidius Cassius obtained some solid
victories on the frontier; but Macrinus is said to have bought off the
Parthians with a bribe of nearly two millions of money. The rise of the
Sassanian house and the retransfer of the leadership from the Parthians
to their kinsmen in Persia proper brought about the reform of the
Persian religion, and added another impulse to the increasing strength
of Persian national feeling. Alexander Severus may have gained some
successes in the field over Ardeshîr or Artaxerxes, the restorer of the
Persian monarchy[776]; but in the reign of the last named king’s son and
successor Sapor, the capture of the Emperor Valerian with his whole
army, and the subsequent ravaging of the Roman provinces in Asia by the
victors, showed the Republic how terrible was the might of the restored
kingdom[777]. Aurelian, the conqueror of Palmyra, did much to restore
the prestige of Roman arms in the East; and although he was assassinated
when on the march against Persia, the Emperor Carus shortly after led a
successful expedition into the heart of the Persian kingdom[778]. In the
reign of Diocletian, indeed, the Persians lost five provinces to the
Romans[779]; but under Constantine the Great the Romans were again
vanquished in the field, and the Persians were only prevented by the
heroic resistance of the fortified town of Nisibis and an incursion into
their Eastern provinces of tribes from Central Asia from again
overrunning the Asiatic possessions of Rome[780].

Henceforward, the history of the long contest between the two great
empires—“the eyes,” as the Persian ambassador told Galerius, “of the
civilized world[781],” is the record of almost uninterrupted advance on
the part of Persia and of continual retreat on the side of Rome. The
patriotic enthusiasm of a Julian, and the military genius of a
Belisarius, aided by the dynastic revolutions common among Oriental
nations, might for a time arrest the progress of the conquering
Persians; but, bit by bit, the Asiatic provinces slipped out of the
grasp of the European masters of Constantinople. In 603 A.D., it looked
as if Persia were at length in the position to deliver the final blow in
a war which had lasted for more than five centuries. By the invasion of
Chosroes and his successive captures of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Egypt,
it seemed as if the Persians had restored the world-empire of Cambyses
and Darius; but the Persians then discovered, as Xerxes had done a
millennium earlier, how dangerous it is for Orientals, even when flushed
by conquest, to press Europeans too far. The Roman Emperor Heraclius,
who never before or afterwards gave much proof of military or political
capacity, from his besieged capital of Constantinople collected an army
with which he dashed into Persia in a manner worthy of Alexander
himself. After six brilliant campaigns he dictated to the Persians a
triumphant peace in the very heart of their empire[782]. A few years
later, and its shattered and disorganized remains fell an easy prey to
the Mahommedan invaders.

The effect of this long rivalry might have been expected to produce in
the Romans during its continuance a hearty dislike of the customs and
institutions of the nation opposed to them; but almost the exact
contrary was the result. It may be argued that Rome’s proved skill in
government was in no small measure due to her ready adoption of all that
seemed to her admirable in the nations that she overcame. Or it may be
that the influence which the memory of Alexander exercised over all
those who succeeded to his empire led them to imitate him in his
assumption of Persian manners. The fact remains that, long before the
division of the Roman Empire into East and West, the Romans displayed a
taste for Oriental luxury and magnificence which seems entirely at
variance with the simplicity and austerity of the republican conquerors
of Carthage. It is hardly too much to say that while Alexander’s
conscious aim was to make Asia Greek, the Romans, on possessing
themselves of his Asiatic conquests, allowed themselves to become to a
great extent “Medized,” and showed an unexpected admiration for the
habits and culture of Alexander’s Persian subjects.

It may of course be said that this was in external matters only, and
that the “Persian furniture” which excited Horace’s wrath[783] might if
it stood alone be looked upon as merely a passing fashion; but the Court
ceremonial introduced by Diocletian argues a steady tendency towards
Persian customs and forms of government that must have been in operation
for centuries. The household of a Julian Caesar was no differently
arranged from that of a Roman noble of the period, and his title of
Prince of the Senate showed that he was only looked upon as the first of
his equals. But Diocletian was in all respects but language a Persian
emperor or Shah, and his style of “Lord and God,” his diadem, his silken
state dress, the elaborate ritual of his court, and the long hierarchy
of its officials, were all designed to compel his subjects to recognize
the fact[784]. As usual, the official form of religion in the Roman
Empire had for some time given indications of the coming change in the
form of government. The sun had always been the principal natural object
worshipped by the Persians, and a high-priest of the Sun-God had sat
upon the Imperial throne of Rome in the form of the miserable
Heliogabalus. Only 13 years before Diocletian, Aurelian, son of another
Sun-God’s priestess and as virile and rugged as his predecessor was soft
and effeminate, had also made the Sun-God the object of his special
devotion and of an official worship. Hence Diocletian and his colleague
Galerius were assured in advance of the approval of a large part of
their subjects when they took the final plunge in 307 A.D., and
proclaimed Mithras, “the Unconquered Sun-God,” the Protector of their
Empire[785].

In spite of this, however, it is very difficult to say how Mithras
originally became known to the Romans. Plutarch says indeed that his
cult was first introduced by the Cilician pirates who were put down by
Pompey[786]. This is not likely to be literally true; for the summary
methods adopted by these sea-robbers towards their Roman prisoners
hardly gave much time for proselytism, while most of the pirates whom
Pompey spared at the close of his successful operations he deported to
Achaea, which was one of the few places within the Empire where the
Mithraic faith did not afterwards show itself. What Plutarch’s story
probably means is that the worship of Mithras first came to Rome from
Asia Minor, and there are many facts which go to confirm this. M.
Cumont, the historian of Mithraism, has shown that, long before the
Romans set foot in Asia, there were many colonies of emigrants from
Persia who with their _magi_ or priests had settled in Asia Minor,
including in that phrase Galatia, Phrygia, Lydia, and probably
Cilicia[787]. When Rome began to absorb these provinces, slaves,
prisoners, and merchants from them would naturally find their way to
Rome, and in time would no doubt draw together for the worship of their
national deities in the way that we have seen pursued by the worshippers
of the Alexandrian Isis and the Jewish exiles. The _magi_ of Asia Minor
were great supporters of Mithridates, and the Mithridatic wars were no
doubt responsible for a large number of these immigrants.

Once introduced, however, the worship of Mithras spread like wild-fire.
The legions from the first took kindly to it, and this is the less
surprising when we find that many of them were recruited under the
earliest emperors in Anatolian states like Commagene, where the cult
was, if not indigenous, yet of very early growth[788]. Moreover the wars
of the Romans against the Persians kept them constantly in the border
provinces of the two empires, where the native populations not
infrequently changed masters. The enemy’s town that the legions besieged
one year might therefore give them a friendly reception the next; and
there was thus abundant opportunity for the acquaintance of both sides
with each others’ customs. When the Roman troops marched back to Europe,
as was constantly the case during the civil wars which broke out on the
downfall of the Julian house, they took back with them the worship of
the new god whom they had adopted, and he thus became known through
almost the whole of the Roman Empire[789]. “From the shores of the
Euxine to the north of Brittany and to the fringe of the Sahara[790],”
as M. Cumont says, its monuments abound, and, he might have added, they
have been met with also in the Egyptian Delta, in Babylon, and on the
northern frontiers of India. In our own barbarous country we have found
them not only in London and York, but as far west as Gloucester and
Chester and as far north as Carlisle and Newcastle[791]. The Balkan
countries, like Italy, Germany, Southern France, and Spain, are full of
them; but there was one part of the Roman Empire into which they did not
penetrate freely. This was Greece, where the memories of the Persian
Wars long survived the independence of the country, and where the
descendants of those who fought at Salamis, Marathon, and Thermopylae
would have nothing to do with a god coming from the invaders’
fatherland. It is only very lately that the remains of Mithras-worship
have been discovered at the Piraeus and at Patras, in circumstances
which show pretty clearly that it was there practised only by
foreigners[792].

Notwithstanding this popularity, it is not easy to say exactly what god
Mithras’ European worshippers considered him to be. If length of
ancestry went for anything in such matters, he might indeed claim a
greater antiquity than any deity of the later Roman Pantheon, with the
single exception of the Alexandrian gods. Mithras was certainly
worshipped in Vedic India, where his name of Mitra constantly occurs in
the sacred texts as the “shining one,” meaning apparently the material
sun[793]. He is there invoked in company with Varuna, generally
considered the god of the sky, and therefore according to some, the
prototype of the Greek Zeus and the Latin Jupiter[794]. His appearance
in a similar connection in the sacred books of the Persians led the
founders of the comparative study of religion to think that he must have
been one of the primitive gods of their hypothetical Aryan race, and
that his worship must go back to the imaginary time when Persians and
Hindus dwelt side by side in the plains of Cashmere. But this theory is
giving way before proof that the original home of the Indo-European race
was Europe, and has been badly shaken by the discovery at Boghaz Keui of
tablets showing that the gods Mithra and Varuna were gods of the
Mitannians or Hittites[795] at some date earlier than 1500 B.C., and
therefore long before the appearance of the Persians in history. If the
worship of Mithras were not indigenous in Western Asia, it may therefore
well have come there independently of the Persians[796].

There is no doubt, however, that the roots of Mithras-worship went very
far down into the Persian religion. In the Yashts or hymns which are the
earliest evidence of primitive Iranian beliefs, Mithra—to use the
Avestic spelling of his name—frequently appears, not indeed as the
material sun, but as the “genius of the heavenly light” which lightens
the whole universe[797] and is the most beneficent among the powers of
Nature. Mithras is not here, however, the Supreme Being, nor even the
highest among the gods benevolent to man. This last place is occupied in
the Zend Avesta by Ahura Mazda, “the omniscient lord,” who appears to be
the Persian form of Varuna, the god of the sky whom we have seen
associated with Mitra in the Vedas[798]. Nor is Mithras in the Zend
Avesta one of the six Amshaspands, the deified abstractions or
personified attributes of Ahura Mazda, who, in the later developments of
the Persian religion, occupy towards him much the same position that the
“Roots” of Simon Magus and the Aeons of the Pleroma among the Gnostics
do towards the Boundless Power or the Ineffable Bythos[799]. In the
later Avestic literature, he appears as the chief of the Izeds or
Yazatas, a race of genii created by Ahura Mazda, who are the protectors
of his universe and the helpers of mankind in their warfare against the
powers of darkness[800]. In the latest as in the earliest Persian view
of the personality of Mithras, therefore, it is plain that he occupies
an intermediate position between the Creator and man.

It is not, however, in the religion associated with the name of
Zoroaster that we must look for the origin of Mithraism. The date of the
sacred books of Mazdeism and the historical existence of Zoroaster
himself have recently been brought down to as late as the VIIth century
B.C.[801] and the appearance in Asia of the Persian tribes as
conquerors, whereas Mithras was, as we have seen, worshipped in Asia
Minor nearly a millennium earlier. Moreover, the strict dualism which
set Ahriman, the god of darkness and evil, in eternal and perhaps equal
opposition to Ormuzd, the god of light and goodness, seems to have been
unknown before the Sassanid reform in 226 A.D., by which time the
worship of Mithras in Europe was at its apogee[802]. M. Cumont is,
therefore, doubtless right when he thinks that Mithraism was derived not
from Mazdeism, but from Magism or the religion of the Magi, the tribe of
Medes whose domination was put an end to by Darius the son of Hystaspes,
and whose name was afterwards given to a priestly caste and has passed
into our own language as the root of the word “magic.”

That these Magi practised a religion different from that taught in the
Avestic literature is plain enough. The romantic story told by Herodotus
of the Magian who seized the throne of Persia during Cambyses’ absence
in Egypt on the pretence that he was the king’s brother whom Cambyses
had privily put to death[803], is fully confirmed by Darius’ trilingual
inscription on the Rock of Behistun, first copied and deciphered by Sir
Henry Rawlinson and lately published in elaborate form by the British
Museum[804]. Darius here narrates how “a certain man, a Magian, Gaumata
by name ... lied unto the people (saying) ‘I am Smerdis, the son of
Cyrus, the brother of Cambyses.’ Then all the people revolted from
Cambyses and went over to him, even Persia and Media and the other
provinces.” Darius goes on to record that “thereupon Cambyses died by
his own hand[805],” that the seven Persian nobles overthrew the
pretender much in the way described by Herodotus, and that “I rebuilt
the temples of the gods, which that Gaumata, the Magian, had destroyed.
I restored that which had been taken away as it was in the days of
old[806].” This he tells us he did “by the grace of Ahura Mazda,” and
that by this grace he always acted. The memory of these events was kept
up by the festival of the Magophonia or Massacre of the Magi which was
yearly celebrated in Persia and during which no Magus dared show himself
in the streets[807]. Darius’ words show that there was a religious as
well as a dynastic side to the Magian revolt, though whether the false
Smerdis restored the old worship of the land, which he found in danger
of being supplanted by Zoroastrianism or the worship of Ahura Mazda, may
still be doubtful. In any event, the reformation or counter-reformation
made by Darius did not succeed in entirely uprooting the old Magian
faith, for Herodotus speaks of the Magi as still being in his time the
priestly caste among the Persians, and as acting as diviners and
sacrificers to the Achaemenian kings who ruled Persia up to Alexander’s
Conquest[808].

The Magian religion as it appears in Herodotus and other Greek authors,
however, seems to have shown none of the hostility to the powers of
darkness so apparent in the religious literature collected by the
Sassanian kings. “The whole circuit of the firmament” was, according to
Herodotus, their greatest god or Zeus; and he says that they also
“sacrifice to the sun and moon, to the earth, to fire and water, and to
the winds”; but that “they do not, like the Greeks, believe the gods to
have the same nature as men[809].” He also tells us that later they
borrowed from the Arabians and the Assyrians the worship of a goddess
whom he calls Mitra, and although he is probably wrong as to the origin
and sex of this deity, his evidence shows that Semitic admixture counted
for something in the Magian worship. In other respects, the Magian seems
to have been a primitive faith given up to the worship of the powers of
nature or elements, which it did not personify in the anthropomorphic
manner of either the Semites or the Greeks, and to have paid little
attention to public ceremonies or ritual. It follows therefore that,
like the religions of many uncivilized people of the present day, it
would draw no very sharp distinction between good and evil gods, and
would be as ready to propitiate or make use of the evil, that is those
hostile to man, as the good or benevolent. Plutarch, who describes the
religion of the Magi more than three centuries after Herodotus, when the
name of Zoroaster the Persian prophet and the dualistic belief favoured
by his teaching had long been popularly known in the West, says that the
Magi of his time held Mithras to be the “Mediator” or intermediary
between “Oromazes” or Light on the one hand, and “Areimanios” or
Darkness and Ignorance on the other, and that they used to make bloody
sacrifices to the last-named in a place where the sun never comes[810].
It is easy to see how such a cult, without the control of public
ceremonies and with its unabashed traffic with the powers of evil, would
be likely to degenerate into compulsion or magic.

There was, however, another popular superstition or belief which, about
the time when Mithraism made its appearance in Europe, had spread itself
over Western Asia. This was the idea that the positions and changes of
the heavenly bodies exercise an influence over the affairs of the world
and the lot both of kingdoms and individual men. It probably began in
Babylonia, where the inhabitants had from Sumerian times shown
themselves great observers of the stars, and had been accustomed to
record the omens that they drew from their motions for the guidance of
the kings[811]. This kind of divination—or astrology to call it by a
familiar name—received a great impulse after Alexander’s Conquest, in
the first place from the break up of the Euphratean priestly colleges
before referred to, and the driving out of the lesser priests therein to
get their own living, and then from the fact that the scientific enquiry
and mathematical genius of the Greeks had made the calculation of the
positions of the heavenly bodies at any given date and hour a fairly
simple matter to be determined without direct observation[812]. It was
probably no mere coincidence that the Chaldaei and the Mathematici, as
the astrologers called themselves, should have swarmed at Rome under
just those emperors in whose reigns Mithraism began to push itself to
the front[813].

While we may be sure that these factors, the religion of the Magi, the
practice of magic, and the astrological art, all counted in the
composition of the worship of Mithras, we yet know but very little of
its tenets. No work has come down to us from any devotee of Mithras
which will give us the same light on the way his worshippers regarded
him that the romance of Apuleius and the encomium of Aelius Aristides
have cast on the mental attitude of the devotees of the Alexandrian
cult. The extensive books of Eubulus and Pallas on Mithras and the
history of his worship, which Porphyry tells us were extant from the
reign of Hadrian down to his own time[814], are entirely lost, and our
only source of information, except a very few scattered notices in the
Fathers and in profane writers like the Emperor Julian and Porphyry
himself, are the sculptures and inscriptions which have been found in
his ruined chapels. These texts and monuments the scholarly care of M.
Cumont has gathered into two large volumes, which will always remain the
chief source from which later enquirers must draw their materials[815].
From their study he comes to the conclusion that, in the religion of
Mithras, there figured above him the Mazdean gods of good and evil
respectively called in the Zend Avesta Ahura Mazda and Angro Mainyus, or
in more familiar language, Ormuzd and Ahriman. Behind and above these
again, he would place a Supreme Being called Zervan Akerene or Boundless
Time, who seems to be without attributes or qualities, and to have acted
only as the progenitor of the opposing couple. This is at first sight
very probable, because the Orphic doctrine, which, as we have seen, made
Chronos or Time the progenitor of all the gods, was widely spread in
Asia Minor before Alexander’s Conquest, and the Persian colonies formed
there under his successors must therefore have come in frequent contact
with this most accommodating of schools[816]. Traditions of a sect of
Zervanists in Western Asia, who taught that all things came from
Infinite Time, are also to be found[817]. But most of these are recorded
after Mithraism had become extinct; and M. Cumont’s proofs of the
existence of this dogma in the European religion of Mithras can be
reduced on final analysis to a quotation from a treatise by Theodore,
the Christian bishop of Mopsuestia who died in 428 A.D., directed, as it
would seem, against the “Magi” of his time, in which he admits that
their dogmas had never been written, and that the sectaries in question,
whom he calls Magusaeans, said “sometimes one thing and deceived
themselves, and sometimes another and deceived the ignorant[818].” M.
Cumont’s identification of the lion-headed statue often found in
Mithraic chapels with the Supreme God of the system has been shown
elsewhere to be open to serious question, and the figure itself to be
susceptible of another interpretation than that which he would put upon
it[819]. On the whole, therefore, while M. Cumont’s mastery of his
subject makes it very dangerous to differ from him, it seems that his
theory of a Boundless Time as the pinnacle of the Mithraist pantheon
cannot be considered as proved.

Whether Ormuzd and Ahriman played any important part in the Roman
worship of Mithras is also doubtful. With regard to the first-named,
both Greeks and Romans knew him well and identified him unhesitatingly
with Zeus and Jupiter[820]. Hence we should expect to find him, if
represented at all on the Mithraic sculptures, with the well-known
features, the thunderbolt, and the eagle, which long before this time
had become the conventional attributes of the Roman as well as of the
Homeric father of gods and men. We are not entirely disappointed, for we
find in a bas-relief formerly in a chapel of Mithras at Sissek (the
ancient Sissia in Pannonia) and now in the Museum at Agram, the
bull-slaying scene in which Mithras figures and which will be presently
described, surmounted by an arch on which is ranged Jupiter seated on
his throne, grasping the thunderbolt, wielding the sceptre, and
occupying the place of honour in a group of gods among whom we may
distinguish Mars and Mercury[821]. In another bas-relief of the same
scene, now at the Rudolfinum in Klagenfurt, he is depicted in a similar
position in an assembly of the gods, which although much mutilated seems
to show Zeus or Jupiter in the centre with Hera or Juno by his
side[822]. But the most conclusive of these monuments is the great
bas-relief found at Osterburken in the Odenwald, wherein the arch
surmounting the usual bull-slaying scene contains an assembly of twelve
gods with Zeus in the centre armed with thunderbolt and sceptre, while
around him are grouped Apollo, Ares, Heracles, Hera, Athena, Aphrodite,
Nike, Poseidon, Artemis, Hades, and perhaps Persephone[823]. When by the
side of these we put the many inscriptions left by the legionaries to
“the holy gods of the fatherland, to Jupiter best and greatest, and to
the Unconquered One”; to “Jupiter best and greatest, and to the divine
Sun, the Unconquered Sun,” and other well-known names of Mithras, there
can be no doubt that his worshippers used to adore him together with the
head of the Roman Pantheon, and that they considered Mithras in some way
the subordinate of or inferior to Jupiter[824]. Yet there is nothing to
show that the Mithraists as such identified in any way this Jupiter
Optimus Maximus with the Persian Ahura Mazda, Oromasdes, or Ormuzd, or
that they ever knew him by any of these outlandish names.

The case is different with Ormuzd’s enemy Ahriman, who evidently was
known by his Persian name to the Roman worshippers of Mithras. In the
Vatican can be seen a triangular marble altar dedicated by a
_clarissimus_ named Agrestius who was a high-priest of Mithras, to “the
god Arimanius[825],” and altars with similar inscriptions have been
found at Buda-Pesth[826]. At a Mithraic chapel in York also, there was
found a statue, now in the Museum of the Philosophical Society in that
city, which bears an inscription to the same god Arimanius[827]. There
is therefore fairly clear evidence that the Mithraists recognized
Ahriman under his Persian name, and that they sacrificed to him, as
Plutarch said the “magi” of his time did to the god whom he calls
Hades[828], and this agrees with Herodotus’ statement that the Persians
used to do the same to “the god who is said to be beneath the
earth[829].” Although this gave occasion to the Christian Fathers to
accuse the Mithraists of worshipping the devil, we are not thereby bound
to conclude that they looked upon Arimanius as an essentially evil
being. It seems more probable that they considered him, as the Greeks
did their Hades or Pluto, as a chthonian or subterranean power ruling
over a place of darkness and discomfort, where there were punishments
indeed, but not as a deity insusceptible of propitiation by
sacrifice[830], or compulsion by other means such as magic arts[831]. It
has been shown elsewhere that his image in a form which fairly
represents his attributes in this capacity appears with some frequency
in the Mithraic chapels, where a certain amount of mystery attached to
its exhibition[832]. It seems to follow from these considerations that
the worshippers of Mithras attributed to their special god no
inferiority to Ahriman as M. Cumont’s argument supposes, and that the
only power whom they acknowledged as higher than Mithras himself was the
Roman equivalent of Ormuzd, the Jupiter Optimus Maximus adored
throughout the Roman Empire of their time as the head of the
Pantheon[833].

The connection of Mithras with the sun is also by no means easy to
unravel. The Vedic Mitra was, as we have seen, originally the material
sun itself, and the many hundreds of votive inscriptions left by the
worshippers of Mithras to “the unconquered Sun Mithras[834],” to the
unconquered solar divinity (_numen_) Mithras[835], to the unconquered
Sun-God (_deus_) Mithra[836], and allusions in them to the priests
(_sacerdotes_), worshippers (_cultores_), and temples (_templum_) of the
same deity leave no doubt open that he was in Roman times a
sun-god[837]. Yet this does not necessarily mean that he was actually
the day-star visible to mankind, and the Greeks knew well enough how to
distinguish between Apollo the god of light who was once at any rate a
sun-god, and Helios the Sun itself[838]. On the Mithraic sculptures, we
frequently see the unmistakable figure of Mithras riding in the chariot
of the Sun-God driven by the divinity with long hair and a rayed nimbus,
whom we know to be this Helios or his Roman equivalent, going through
some ceremony of consecration with him, receiving messages from him, and
seated side by side with him at a banquet which is evidently a ritual
feast. M. Cumont explains this by the theory that Mithras, while in
Persia and in the earliest Aryan traditions the genius of the celestial
light only[839], no sooner passed into Semitic countries and became
affected by the astrological theories of the Chaldaeans, than he was
identified with their sun-god Shamash[840], and this seems as reasonable
a theory as can be devised. Another way of accounting for what he calls
the “at first sight contradictory proposition” that Mithras at once was
and was not the sun[841], is to suppose that while the Mithraists wished
those who did not belong to their faith to believe that they themselves
worshipped the visible luminary, they yet instructed their votaries in
private that he was a deity superior to it and in fact the power behind
it. As we shall see, the two theories are by no means irreconcilable,
although absolute proof of neither can yet be offered.

One can speak with more certainty about the Legend or mythical history
of Mithras which M. Cumont has contrived with rare acumen to reconstruct
from the monuments found in his chapels. It is comprised in eleven or
twelve scenes or tableaux which we will take in their order[842]. We
first see the birth of the god, not from the head of his father Zeus
like Athena, or from his thigh like Dionysos, but from a rock, which
explains his epithet of “Petrogenes” or rock-born. The god is
represented in this scene as struggling from the rock in which he is
embedded below the waist, and always uplifts in one hand a broad knife
of which we shall afterwards see him make use, and in the other a
lighted torch[843]. He is here represented as a boy, and wears the
Phrygian cap or so-called cap of liberty which is his distinctive
attribute, while the torch is doubtless, as M. Cumont surmises,
symbolical of the light which he is bringing into the world[844]. The
rock is sometimes encircled by the folds of a large serpent, probably
here as elsewhere a symbol of the earth, and is in the Mithraic chapel
discovered at Housesteads in Northumberland represented in the form of
an egg, the upper part remaining on the head of the nascent god like an
egg-shell on that of a newly-hatched chicken[845]. This is probably due
to some confusion or identification with the Orphic legend of the
First-born or Phanes who sprang from the cosmic egg; but the central
idea of the rock-birth seems to be that of the spark, hidden as it were
in the stone and leaping forth when struck. In one or two examples of
the scene, the miraculous birth is watched by a shepherd or shepherds,
which leads M. Cumont to draw a parallel between this and the Adoration
of the Shepherds at the Birth of Christ.

The next two scenes are more difficult to interpret with anything
approaching certainty. In one of them[846], Mithras is represented as
standing upright before a tree from which he cuts or tears a large
branch bearing leaves and fruit. He is here naked, save for the
distinctive cap; but immediately after, he is seen emerging from the
leafage fully clothed in Oriental dress. In the next scene—the relative
order of the scenes seems settled by the places they most often occupy
on different examples of the same sculptures[847]—Mithras in the
Phrygian cap, Persian trousers, and flowing mantle generally worn by
him, kneels on one knee drawing a bow, the arrows from which strike a
rock in the distance and draw from it a stream of water which a kneeling
man receives in his hands and lifts to his mouth[848]. Several variants
of this scene exist, in one of which a suppliant is kneeling before the
archer-god and raising his hands towards him as if in prayer; while in
another, the rock may well be a cloud. M. Cumont can only suggest with
regard to these scenes, that the first may be an allusion to the Fall of
Man and his subsequently clothing himself with leaves as described in
the Book of Genesis, and that the second scene may depict a prolonged
drought upon earth, in which man prays to Mithras and is delivered by
the god’s miraculous production of rain. He admits, however, that this
is pure conjecture, and that he knows no Indian, Persian, or Chaldaean
legend or myth to which the scenes in question can be certainly
attached. It seems therefore useless to discuss them further here.

Passing on, we come to a series of scenes, the meaning of which is more
easily intelligible. In all of these a bull plays a principal part. It
is abundantly clear that this bull is no terrestrial creature, but is
the Goshurun or Heavenly Bull of the Zend Avesta, from whose death come
forth not only man, but beasts, trees, and all the fruits of the
earth[849]. In the Mithraic sculptures, we see the Bull first sailing
over the waters in a cup-shaped boat[850] like the coracles still used
on the Euphrates, or escaping from a burning stable to which Mithras and
a companion have set fire[851]. Then he is depicted grazing peaceably or
raising his head now and then as if alarmed by some sudden noise[852].
Next he is chased by Mithras, who seizes him by the horns, mounts
him[853], and after a furious gallop casts him over his shoulders,
generally holding him by the hind legs so that the horned head dangles
to the ground[854]. In this position, he is taken into the cave which
forms the chapel of Mithras.

Here, if the order in the most complete monuments be followed, we break
off to enter upon another set of scenes which illustrate the relations
between Mithras and the sun[855]. In what again seems to be the first in
order, we see Mithras upright with a person kneeling before him who,
from the rayed nimbus round his head, is evidently the god Helios or
Sol[856]. In one representation of this scene, Mithras extends his left
hand towards this nimbus as if to replace it on the head of its
wearer[857] from which it has been displaced in yet another
monument[858], while in the other, he displays an object not unlike a
Phrygian cap which may, however, be, as M. Cumont suggests, something
like a water-skin[859]. Generally, Mithras is represented as holding
this object over the bared head of the kneeling Sun-God, as if to crown
him with it[860]. Then we find Mithras with the ray-crowned Sun-God
upright beside him, while he grasps his hand in token, as it would seem,
of alliance or friendship[861]. If we accept the hint afforded by the
theory that the rock yielding water on being split by the arrows of
Mithras is really a cloud producing the fertilizing rain, we may imagine
that we have here the unconquered god removing clouds which obscure the
face of the great life-giving luminary and restoring to him the crown of
rays which enables him to shed his kindly light upon the earth. The
earth would thus be made fit for the creation of man and other animals
which, as we shall see, follows; but in any event, the meaning of the
scene which shows the alliance is, as M. Cumont has pointed out, not
doubtful[862]. In one monument, where Mithras grasps the hand of the
person we have identified with the Sun-God before an altar, he at the
same time draws his sword, as if to perform the exchange of blood or
blood-covenant usual in the East on swearing alliance[863]. Possibly the
crowning scene, as M. Cumont also suggests[864], is to be connected with
Tertullian’s statement that in the initiation of the Mithraist to the
degree of _miles_ or soldier, he was offered at the sword’s point a
crown, which he cast away from him saying that Mithras was his crown. If
so, it would afford some proof that the initiate here, as in the
mysteries of Isis, was made to impersonate the sun, which is on other
grounds likely enough.

We return to the scenes with the Bull, which here reach their climax.
This is the sacrifice of the Bull by Mithras, which forms the central
point of the whole legend. Its representation, generally in bas-relief,
was displayed in the most conspicuous position in the apse of the
Mithraic chapel, where it occupied the place of the modern altar-piece,
and such art as the Roman sculptors succeeded in displaying was employed
to make it as impressive and as striking as possible[865]. It shows the
god grasping with his left hand the nostrils of the beast, and kneeling
with his left knee in the middle of the Bull’s back, while with his
right hand he plunges the broad-bladed dagger with which he was armed at
his birth into the Bull’s shoulder[866]. A dog leaps forward to lap the
blood flowing from the wound, while at the same time a scorpion seizes
the Bull by the genitals. A serpent also forms part of the group, but
his position varies in the different monuments, while that of the other
animals does not. Sometimes, he lifts his head towards the blood, as if
to share it with the dog, sometimes he is extended along the ground
beneath the Bull’s belly in apparent indifference to the tragedy enacted
above him[867]. Before the Bull stands generally a youth clothed like
Mithras himself in Phrygian cap, tunic, and mantle, as well as the
anaxyrides or tight trousers in which the Greeks depicted most Easterns,
while another youth similarly attired stands behind the dying victim.
These two human figures are alike in every particular save that one of
them bears a torch upright with the flame pointing upwards, while the
other holds a similar torch reversed so that the flame juts towards the
earth. We know from a Latin inscription that the torch-bearer with
uplifted torch was called Cautes, he with the reversed one Cautopates,
but of neither name has any satisfactory derivation or etymology yet
been discovered[868].

The meaning of the group as a whole can, however, be explained by the
documents of the later Persian religion. The _Bundahish_ tells us that
Ahura Mazda created before all things the Bull Goshurun, who was killed
by Ahriman, the god of evil, and that from his side came forth Gayômort,
first of men, while from his tail there issued useful seed-plants and
trees, from his blood the vine, and from his seed the different kinds of
beasts[869]. Save that the bull-slayer is here not the god of evil but
the lord of light himself, the myth is evidently the same in the
Mithraic bas-reliefs, for in some of the earliest monuments the Bull’s
tail is actually shown sprouting into ears of wheat, while in others the
production of animals as a consequence of the Bull’s death may be
indicated, as well as the birth of the vine[870]. That the dog plays the
part of the guardian of the Bull’s soul is probable from what we know of
later Persian beliefs[871], while the scorpion as the creature of
Ahriman may be here represented as poisoning the seed of future life at
its source[872]. That Mithras is not supposed to kill the Bull from
enmity or other personal reasons, but in obedience to orders from some
higher power, is shown by the listening pose of his head during the
sacrifice. This is M. Cumont’s opinion[873], as also that the serpent
here takes no active part in the affair, but is merely a symbolic
representation of the earth[874]. The whole drama is clearly shown as
taking place in a cave or grotto, as appears from the arch of rocks
which surmounts, and, as it were, acts as a frame to, the Tauroctony or
bull-slaying scene in most Mithraic chapels. This cave, according to
Porphyry, represents the universe.

The Legend, however, does not end with the death of the Bull. In the
chapel at Heddernheim, the great slab on which the Tauroctony is
sculptured in bas-relief is pivoted so as to swing round and display on
its other face another scene which we find repeated in a slightly
different form on many monuments[875]. Mithras and the Sun-God are here
shown as partaking of a ritual feast or banquet in which grapes seem to
figure. At Heddernheim, the grapes are tendered to the two gods over the
body of the dead bull by the two torch-bearing figures Cautes and
Cautopates, while on an arch above them various quadrupeds, dogs, a
boar, a sheep, and a cow, are seen springing into life. In other
monuments, the same scene generally appears as a banquet at which
Mithras and Helios are seated side by side at a table sometimes alone,
but at others in company with different persons who can hardly be any
other than initiates or worshippers[876]. That this represents some sort
of sacrament where a drink giving immortality was administered seems
probable, and its likeness to representations of the Last Supper is
sufficient to explain the complaint of Justin Martyr and other Fathers
that the devil had set on the Mithraists to imitate in this and other
respects the Church of Christ[877]. The final scene of all comes when we
see Mithras arresting the glorious chariot of the Sun-God drawn by four
white horses, and, mounting therein, being driven off by the ray-crowned
Helios himself to the abode of light above the firmament[878]. In this
also, it is easy to see a likeness between representations of the
Ascension of Mithras and that of Elijah or even of Christ[879].

However this may be, the Legend of Mithras, as thus portrayed, shows
with fair closeness the belief of his worshippers as to his place in the
scheme of the universe. Mithras was certainly not the Supreme God, a
rank in the system filled by Ahura Mazda, or his Latin counterpart,
Jupiter Best and Greatest[880]. But this being, like the Platonic Zeus
and the Gnostic Bythos, was considered too great and too remote to
concern himself with the doings of the visible universe, in which
Mithras acts as his vicegerent. Whether Mithras was or was not
considered as in some sort the double or antitype of the Supreme Being
cannot be said; but it is worth noticing that in the Vedas, as among the
Hittites, Varuna and Mitra form an inseparable couple who are always
invoked together, and that the same seems to have been the case with
Ahura Mazda and Mithra in the oldest religious literature of the
Persians[881]. It may therefore well be that the learned doctors of the
Mithraic theology regarded their Supreme Being and Mithras as two
aspects of the same god, an idea that, as we have seen, was current at
about the same period among the Gnostics. It is, however, impossible to
speak with certainty on such a point in the absence of any writings by
persons professing the Mithraic faith, and it is highly improbable that
the rugged soldiers who formed the majority of the god’s worshippers
ever troubled themselves much about such questions. For them, no doubt,
and for all, perhaps, but a few carefully-chosen persons, Mithras was
the Demiurge or Divine Artizan of the universe[882], which he governs in
accordance with the laws of right and justice, protecting and defending
alike man and those animals and plants useful to him which Mithras has
himself created from his own spontaneous goodness. Hence he was the only
god to whom they admitted allegiance, and although the existence of
other heavenly beings was not denied, it is probable that most of them
were looked upon as occupying at the best a position less important to
us than that of Mithras himself.

It is probable, moreover, that all the scenes in the Mithraic sculptures
in which we have seen the god taking part were considered as being
enacted before the creation of man and in some heaven or world midway
between the abode of Infinite Light and this earth. That the grotto into
which Mithras drags the primordial Bull is no earthly cavern is plain
from Porphyry’s remark that the Mithraic cave was an image of the
universe[883], as well as from the band of zodiacal figures or the arch
of rocks which sometimes encloses the bas-reliefs, the sky being looked
upon by the Babylonians as a rocky vault. The sun and moon in their
respective chariots also appear above the principal scene; and a further
hint as to its whereabouts may be found in the fact that the flowing
mantle of Mithras is sometimes depicted as spangled with stars, thereby
indicating that the scenes in which he appears are supposed to take
place in the starry firmament. Hence is explained the epithet of μεσίτης
or Mediator, which Plutarch gives him[884], and which should be
interpreted not as intercessor but as he who occupies a position midway
between two places[885]. That the higher of these in this case was the
Garôtman or abode of Infinite Light of the Avestic literature, there
can, it would seem, be no question; but what was the lower?

Although the statement must be guarded with all the reserves imposed
upon us in all matters relating to the religion of Mithras by the
absence of written documents, it is probable that this lower division of
the universe was our earth. The monuments give us with fair certainty
the Mithraic ideas as to how life was brought thither; but they tell us
little or nothing as to the condition in which the earth was at the
time, nor how it was supposed to have come into existence. Porphyry
tells us that the “elements” (στοιχεῖα) were represented in the Mithraic
chapel[886], and we find in some examples of the bull-slaying scenes,
the figures of a small lion and a crater or mixing-bowl beneath the
belly of the bull, which M. Cumont considers to be the symbols of fire
and water respectively; while the earth may be typified, as has been
said above, by the serpent, and the fourth element or air may be
indicated by the wind which is blowing Mithras’ mantle away from his
body and to the left of the group[887]. If this be so, it is probable
that the Mithraist who thought about such matters looked upon the four
elements, of which the ancients believed the world to be composed, as
already in existence before the sacrifice of the primordial bull brought
life upon the earth; and that the work of Mithras as Demiurge or Artizan
was confined to arranging and moulding them into the form of the cosmos
or ordered world. As to what was the ultimate origin of these elements,
and whether the Mithraists, like the Gnostics, held that Matter had an
existence independent of, and a nature opposed to, the Supreme Being, we
have no indication whatever.

Of Mithraic eschatology or the view that the worshippers of Mithras held
as to the end of the world, we know rather less than we do of their
ideas as to its beginning. The Persian religion, after its reform under
the Sassanid kings, taught that it would be consumed by fire[888]; and,
as this doctrine of the Ecpyrosis, as the ancients called it, was also
held by the Stoics, whose physical doctrines were then fashionable at
Rome, it is probable enough that it entered into Mithraism also. But of
this there is no proof, and M. Cumont’s attempt to show that a similar
conflagration was thought by the Mithraic priests to have taken place
before the Tauroctony, and as a kind of paradigm or forecast of what was
to come, is not very convincing[889]. Yet some glimpse of what was
supposed to happen between the creation of the world and its destruction
seems to be typified by a monstrous figure often found in the ruined
chapels once used for the Mithraic worship, where it seems to have been
carefully guarded from the eyes of the general body of worshippers. This
monster had the body of a man[890] with the head of a lion, while round
his body is twined a huge serpent, whose head either appears on the top
of the lion’s or rests on the human breast. On the monster’s back appear
sometimes two, but generally four wings, and in his hands he bears
upright two large keys, for one of which a sceptre is sometimes
substituted; while his feet are sometimes human, sometimes those of a
crocodile or other reptile. On his body, between the folds of the
serpent, there sometimes appear the signs of the four quarters of the
year, _i.e._ Aries and Libra, Cancer and Capricorn[891], and in other
examples a thunderbolt on the breast or on the right knee[892]. The
figure is often mounted on a globe which bears in one instance the two
crossed bands which show that it is intended for our earth, and in one
curious instance he appears to bear a flaming torch in each hand, while
his breath is kindling a flame which is seen rising from an altar beside
him[893]. It is possible that in this last we have a symbolical
representation of the Ecpyrosis. Lastly, in the Mithraic chapel at
Heddernheim, which is the only one where the figure of the lion-headed
monster was found _in situ_, it was concealed within a deep niche or
cell so fashioned, says M. Cumont, that the statue could only be
perceived through a little conical aperture or peep-hole made in the
slab of basalt closing the niche[894].

M. Cumont’s theory, as given in his magnificent work on the _Mystères de
Mithra_ and elsewhere, is that the figure represents that Zervan Akerene
or Boundless Time whom he would put at the head of the Mithraic
pantheon, and would make the father of both Ormuzd and Ahriman[895]. M.
Cumont’s opinion, on a subject of which he has made himself the master,
must always command every respect, and it may be admitted that the
notion of such a supreme Being, corresponding in many ways to the
Ineffable Bythos of the Gnostics, did appear in the later developments
of the Persian religion, and may even have been known during the time
that the worship of Mithras flourished in the West[896]. It has been
shown elsewhere, however, that this idea only came to the front long
after the cult of Mithras had become extinct, that M. Cumont’s view that
the lion-headed monster was represented as without sex or passions has
been shown to be baseless by later discoveries, and that the figure is
connected in at least one example with an inscription to Arimanes or
Ahriman[897]. M. Cumont has himself noted the confusion which a
Christian, writing before the abolition of the Mithras worship, makes
between the statues of Hecate, goddess of hell and patroness of
sorcerers, and those of the lion-headed monster[898], and Hecate’s
epithet of Περσείη can only be explained by some similar
association[899]. At the same time, M. Cumont makes it plain that the
Mithraists did not regard these infernal powers Ahriman and Hecate with
the horror and loathing which the reformed Zoroastrian religion
afterwards heaped upon the antagonist of Ormuzd[900]. On the contrary
the dedications of several altars and statues show that they paid them
worship and offered them sacrifices, as the Greeks did to Hades and
Persephone, the lord and lady of hell, of whom the Mithraists probably
considered them the Persian equivalents. From all these facts, the
conclusion seems inevitable that the lion-headed monster represents
Ahriman, the consort of Hecate[901].

If we now look at the religious literature of the time when the worship
of Mithras was coming into favour, we find a pretty general consensus of
opinion that the chthonian or infernal god represented in the earlier
Persian religion by this Ahriman, was a power who might be the rival of,
but was not necessarily the mortal enemy of Zeus. Whether Neander be
right or not in asserting that the prevailing tendency of the age was
towards Dualism[902], it is certain that most civilized nations had then
come to the conclusion that on this earth the bad is always mixed up
with the good. Plutarch puts this clearly enough when he says that
nature here below comes not from one, but from two opposed principles
and contending powers, and this opinion, he tells us, is a most ancient
one which has come down from expounders of myths (θεολόγοι) and
legislators to poets and philosophers, and is expressed “not in words
and phrases, but in mysteries and sacrifices, and has been found in many
places among both Barbarians and Greeks[903].” The same idea of
antagonistic powers is, of course, put in a much stronger form in the
reformed Persian religion, where the incursion of Ahriman into the
kingdom of Ormuzd brings upon the earth all evil in the shape of winter,
prolonged drought, storms, disease, and beasts and plants hurtful to
man[904]. But this does not seem to have been the view of Ahriman’s
functions taken by the older Magism, whence the worship of Mithras was
probably derived[905]. In Mithraism, it is not Ahriman, as in the
_Bundahish_, but Mithras, the vicegerent of Ormuzd, who slays the mystic
Bull, and by so doing he brings good and not evil to the earth. Nowhere
do we find in the Mithraic sculptures any allusion to Ahriman as a god
of evil pure and simple, or as one who is for ever opposed to the
heavenly powers. We do, indeed, find in several Mithraea representations
of a Titanomachia where the Titans, represented as men with serpent
legs, are depicted as fleeing before a god like the Greek Zeus who
strikes them with his thunderbolts[906]. But this is not more
necessarily suggestive of two irreconcilable principles than the Greek
story of the Titans, those sons of Earth who were persuaded by their
mother to make war upon their father Uranos, who put their brother
Kronos upon his throne, and who were in their turn hurled from heaven by
Kronos’ son Zeus. Even if we do not accept the later myth which
reconciles Zeus to his adversaries[907], the story does not go further
than to say that the Titans attempted to gain heaven and were thrust
back to their own proper dwelling-place, the earth.

It is in this way, as it would seem, that the lion-headed monster of the
Mithraic chapels must be explained. Ahriman, the god girt with the
serpent which represents the earth, has rebelled against Ormuzd or
Jupiter, and has been marked with the thunderbolt which has cast him
down from heaven. But he remains none the less lord of his own domain,
the earth, his sway over which is shown by the sceptre which he wields
while standing upon it[908]. As for the keys which he bears, they are
doubtless those of the gates behind which he keeps the souls and bodies
of men, as the Orphics said, imprisoned, until he is compelled to
release them by a higher power[909]. In all this, his functions do not
go beyond those of the Greek Hades, with whom Plutarch equates him.

It is however, possible that he was conceived by the Mithraists as
occupying a slightly different place in the material universe from that
of his Greek prototype. The true realm of Hades was generally placed by
the Greeks below the earth, but that of the Mithraic Ahriman may
possibly be just outside it. M. Cumont shows many reasons for supposing
the lion-headed god to be connected with the idea of destiny[910], and
in one of the very few contemporary writings which make distinct
allusion to the Mithraic tenets, there is something which confirms this
view. This occurs in a fragment embedded, as it were, in a Magic Papyrus
or sorcerer’s handbook now in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris[911].
The document itself is probably not, as Prof. Albert Dieterich has too
boldly asserted, a “Mithraic Liturgy”; but it is evidently connected in
some way with the Mithraic worship and begins with a statement that the
writer is a priest who has received inspiration from “the great Sun-God
Mithras.” M. Georges Lafaye is of opinion that it narrates in
apocalyptic fashion the adventures of the soul of a perfect Mithraist on
its way to heaven, and this is probably correct, although it is here
told for no purpose of edification but as a spell or charm[912]. The
soul, if it be indeed she who is speaking, repeatedly complains to the
gods whom she meets—including one in white tunic, crimson mantle and
anaxyrides or Persian trousers who may be Mithras himself—of “the harsh
and inexorable necessity” which has been compelling her so long as she
remained in the “lower nature[913].” But the Sphere of Destiny or
necessity, as we have seen in the _Pistis Sophia_, was thought to be the
one immediately surrounding the earth, and although the document in
which we have before met with this idea belongs to a different set of
religious beliefs than those here treated of, it is probable that both
Gnostic and Mithraist drew it from the astrological theories current at
the time which came into the Hellenistic world from Babylon. It is
therefore extremely probable that the Mithraists figured Ahriman as
ruling the earth from the sphere immediately outside it, and this would
agree well with his position _upon_ the globe in the monuments where he
appears. It is some confirmation of this that, in another part of the
Papyrus just quoted, the “World-ruler” (Cosmocrator) is invoked as “the
Great Serpent, leader of these gods, who holds the source of Egypt [Qy,
The Nile?] and the end of the whole inhabited world [in his hands], who
begets in Ocean Pshoi (_i.e._ Fate) the god of gods[914]”; while the
Great Dragon or Outer Darkness in the _Pistis Sophia_ is said to
surround the earth. That both orthodox Christians and Gnostics like the
Valentinians looked upon the Devil, who, as lord of hell, was sometimes
identified with Hades, as the Cosmocrator or World-Ruler requires no
further demonstration[915], and in this particular as in others the
Mithraists may have drawn from the same source as the Gnostic
teachers[916].

That they did so in a related matter can be shown by direct evidence.
Like the Ophites of the Diagram before described, the Mithraists thought
that the soul descended to the body through seven spheres which were
those of the “planets” Saturn, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, the Moon,
and the Sun in that order, which Origen, who mentions the fact, says
that the Persian theology declared to be symbolized “by the names of the
rest of matter,” and also gave for it “musical reasons[917].” He further
describes the different qualities which the soul in her passage receives
from each sphere, and which it seems fair to conclude she gives back to
them on her reascension. M. Cumont is no doubt right when he attributes
the origin of this tenet to the _mathematici_ or astrologers and says
that it too came originally from Chaldaea[918]. The seven heavens are
also found in many Oriental documents of the time, including the _Book
of the Secrets of Enoch_[919] and the _Apocalypse of Baruch_[920].
According to Origen, they were symbolized in the Mithraic chapels by a
ladder of eight steps, the first seven being of the metals peculiar to
the different planets, _i.e._ lead, tin, copper, iron, an alloy of
several metals, silver, and gold, with the eighth step representing the
heaven of the fixed stars[921]. The Stoics who held similar views,
following therein perhaps the Platonic cosmogony, had already fixed the
gate of the sky through which the souls left the heaven of the fixed
stars on their descent to the earth in Cancer, and that by which they
reascended in Capricorn[922], which probably accounts for the two keys
borne by the lion-headed god on the Mithraic monuments, and for those
two Zodiacal signs being displayed on his body. The other two signs,
_viz._ Aries and Libra, may possibly refer to the places in a horoscope
or genethliacal figure which the astrologers of the time called the
_Porta laboris_ and _Janua Ditis_ respectively, as denoting the gate by
which man “born to labour” enters life, and the “gate of Hades” by which
he leaves it[923]. If, as Porphyry says, the doctrine of metempsychosis
formed part of the Mithraic teaching, the keys would thus have a meaning
analogous to the Orphic release from “the wheel[924].”

The other gods who appear on the Mithraic monuments are those known to
us in classical mythology and are represented under the usual human
forms made familiar by Greek and Roman art. By the side of, but in a
subordinate position to Jupiter, we find, if M. Cumont be justified in
his identifications, nearly all the “great gods” of the Greco-Roman
pantheon. Five of these, that is to say, Jupiter himself, Saturn, Mars,
Venus, and Mercury may be intended as symbols of the planets which, then
as now, bore these names. But there are others such as Juno, Neptune and
Amphitrite, Pluto and Proserpine, Apollo, Vulcan, and Hercules who
cannot by any possibility be considered as planetary signs[925]. M.
Cumont’s theory about these divinities is, if one understands him
rightly, that these are really Persian or Avestic gods, such as
Verethragna, represented under the classic forms of their Greek
counterparts to make them attractive to their Roman worshippers[926].
This does not seem very probable, because the Persians did not figure
their gods in human form[927]. Nor is there any reason to think that the
Mithraists confined themselves to the _theocrasia_ or the practice of
discovering their own gods in the divinities of the peoples around them
which we have seen so rife in Greece, Italy, and Egypt. But in the age
when the worship of Mithras became popular in the Roman Empire, all
paganism was groping its way towards a religion which should include and
conciliate all others, and there is much evidence that the votaries of
Mithras were especially determined that this religion should be their
own. Isis, as we have seen, might proclaim herself as the one divinity
whom under many names and in many forms the whole earth adored; but the
Mithraists apparently went further and tried to show that their religion
contained within itself all the rest. They appear to have first gained
access to Rome under an alliance with the priests of Cybele, whose
image, with its emasculated attendants the Galli, was transported from
Pergamum to the Eternal City during the critical moments of the Second
Punic War[928]. Externally there were many analogies between the two
cults, and Cybele’s consort Attis, like Mithras, was always represented
in a Phrygian cap and anaxyrides. One of the most impressive, if most
disgusting practices in the religion of Cybele—the Taurobolium or
blood-bath in which a bull was slaughtered over a pit covered with
planks pierced with holes through which the blood of the victim dripped
upon the naked votary below—was borrowed by the Mithraists, and many of
them boast on their funereal inscriptions that they have undergone this
ceremony and thereby, as they express it, have been “born again.” The
_clarissimi_ and high officials of the Empire who have left records of
the kind are careful to note that they are worshippers of “the Great
Mother” (Cybele) and Attis, as well as of Mithras[929], and a similar
statement occurs so frequently on the funereal and other inscriptions of
their wives as to lead to the hypothesis that the ceremonies of the
Phrygian Goddess were the natural refuge of Mithras’ female
votaries[930]. So, too, the worship of the Alexandrian divinities, which
that of Mithras in some sort supplanted, and which, as being as popular
in the Greek world as the last-named was in the Latin, might have been
expected to be hostile to it, yet had relations with it not very easy to
be understood. In the assembly of the gods which in some of the
monuments crowns the arch set over the Tauroctony, the central place is
in one instance taken by Sarapis with the distinctive _modius_ on his
head instead of Zeus or Jupiter[931], the same priest often describes
himself as serving the altars of both gods, and “Zeus, Helios, Mithras,
Sarapis, unconquered one!” is invoked in one of those spells in the
Magic Papyri which contain fragments of ritual prayers or hymns[932].
Possibly it is for this reason, that the initiating priest in Apuleius’
story whom the grateful Lucius says he regards as his father, is named
Mithras, as if the initiate had been led to the Mysteries of Isis
through the worship of that god[933].

The same syncretistic tendency is particularly marked in the leaning of
the Mithraists to the worship of the gods of Eleusis. “Consecrated to
Liber [the Latin name of Dionysos] and the Eleusinian [goddesses],”
“Mystes of Ceres,” “priest” or “Chief Herdsman (_archibucolus_) of the
god Liber,” “hierophant of Father Liber and the Hecates,” “Consecrated
at Eleusis to the god Bacchus, Ceres, and Cora” are some of the
distinctions which the devotees of Mithras vaunt on their
tombstones[934]; while we learn that when the last survivors of the two
sacred families who had for centuries furnished priests to the
Eleusinian Mysteries died out, the Athenians sent for a priest of
Mithras from one of the neighbouring islands, and handed over to him the
care of the sacred rites[935]. It is even possible that the complaisance
of the Mithraists for other religions went further than has hitherto
been suspected. Not only does Justin Martyr after describing the
celebration of the Christian Eucharist say,

    “Wherefore also the evil demons in mimicry have handed down that the
    same thing should be done in the Mysteries of Mithras. For that
    bread and a cup of water are in these mysteries set before the
    initiate with certain speeches you either know or can learn[936]”;

but we know from Porphyry that the initiate into the rites of Mithras
underwent a baptism by total immersion which was said to expiate his
sins[937]. Among the worshippers of Mithras, on the same authority, were
also virgins and others vowed to continence[938], and we hear that the
Mithraists used, like the Christians, to call each other “Brother” and
address their priests as “Father[939].” St Augustine tells us that in
his time the priests of Mithras were in the habit of saying, “That One
in the Cap [_i.e._ Mithras] is a Christian too!” and it is not unlikely
that the claim was seriously made[940]. During the reigns of the Second
Flavian Emperors and before Constantine’s pact with the Church, we hear
of hymns sung by the legionaries which could be chanted in common by
Christians, Mithraists, and the worshippers of that Sun-God the
adoration of whom was hereditary or traditional in the Flavian
House[941]. The Mithraists also observed Sunday and kept sacred the 25th
of December as the birthday of the sun[942].

Of the other rites and ceremonies used in the worship of Mithras we know
next to nothing. As appears from the authors last quoted, the whole of
the worship was conducted in “mysteries” or secret ceremonies like the
Eleusinian and the rites of the Alexandrian divinities, although on a
more extended scale. The Mithraic mysteries always took place in a
subterranean vault or “cave,” lighted only by artificial light. The
ruins of many of these have been found, and are generally so small as to
be able to accommodate only a few worshippers[943], whence perhaps it
followed that there were often several Mithraea in the same town or
city[944]. The chief feature seems to have been always the scene of the
Tauroctony or Bull-slaying which was displayed on the apse or further
end of the chapel, and was generally carved in bas-relief although
occasionally rendered in the round. The effect of this was sought to be
heightened by brilliant colouring, perhaps made necessary by the dim
light, and there were certainly altars of the square or triangular
pedestal type, and a well or other source from which water could be
obtained. The benches for the worshippers were of stone and ran at right
angles to and on either side of the Tauroctony, so as to resemble the
choir stalls in the chancel of a modern church[945]. We have seen that
the lion-headed figure was concealed from the eyes of the worshippers,
and we know that they used to kneel during at least part of the service,
which was not in accord with the practice of either the Greeks or
Romans, who were accustomed to stand with upturned palms when praying to
the gods[946]. Sacrifices of animals which, if we may judge from the
débris left in some of the chapels, were generally birds[947], seem to
have been made; but there is no reason to believe the accusation
sometimes brought against the Mithraists that they also slaughtered
human victims in honour of their god. Lampridius tells us, on the other
hand, that the Emperor Commodus on his initiation sullied the temple by
converting a feigned into a real murder[948], and we hear from another
and later source that in consequence of this only a bloody sword was
shown to the candidate[949]. It seems therefore that somebody was
supposed to suffer death during the ceremony, perhaps under the same
circumstances as already suggested in the kindred case of the
Alexandrian Mysteries[950].

We are a little better informed as to the degrees of initiation, which
numbered seven. The initiate ascended from the degree of Crow
(_corax_), which was the first or lowest, to that of Father (_Pater_),
which was the seventh or highest, by passing successively through the
intermediate degrees of Man of the Secret (_Cryphius_), Soldier
(_Miles_), Lion (_Leo_), Persian (_Perses_), and Courier of the Sun
(_Heliodromus_)[951]. It would seem that either he, or the initiating
priests, or perhaps the other assistants, had to assume disguises
consisting of masks corresponding to the animals named in the first
and fourth of these degrees, and to make noises like the croaking of
birds and the roaring of lions[952]. These rightly recall to M. Cumont
the names of animals borne by initiates or priests in other religions
in Greece and Asia Minor and may be referred to totemistic times. We
also know from a chance allusion of Tertullian that on being admitted
to the degree of soldier, the initiate was offered a crown or garland
at the point of a sword, which he put away from him with the speech,
“Mithras is my crown!”, and that never thereafter might he wear a
garland even at a feast[953]. Porphyry, too, tells us that in the
degree of Lion, the initiate’s hands and lips were purified with
honey. It has also been said by the Fathers that before or during
initiation, the candidate had to undergo certain trials or tortures,
to swim rivers, plunge through fire, and to jump from apparently vast
heights[954]; but it is evident from the small size of the Mithraea or
chapels which have come down to us that these experiences would have
demanded much more elaborate preparation than there was space for,
and, if they were ever enacted, were probably as purely “make-believe”
as the supposed murder just mentioned and some of the initiatory
ceremonies in certain societies of the present day[955]. Lastly, there
is no doubt that women were strictly excluded from all the ceremonies
of the cult, thereby justifying in some sort the remark of Renan that
Mithraism was a “Pagan Freemasonry[956].”

It has also been said that the true inwardness and faith of the religion
of Mithras was in these mysteries only gradually and with great caution
revealed to the initiates, whose fitness for them was tested at every
step[957]. It may be so, but it is plain that the Mithraist was informed
at the outset of at least a good many of the tenets of the faith. The
whole Legend of Mithras, so far as we know it, must have been known to
the initiate soon after entering the Mithraic chapel, since we have
ourselves gathered it mainly from the different scenes depicted on the
borders of the great central group of the Tauroctony. So, too, the
mystic banquet or Mithraic Sacrament which, if the Heddernheim monuments
stood alone, we might consider was concealed from the eyes of the lower
initiates until the proper moment came, also forms one of the subsidiary
scenes of the great altar piece in the chapels at Sarmizegetusa, Bononia
and many other places[958]. In a bas-relief at Sarrebourg, moreover, the
two principal persons at the banquet, _i.e._ Mithras and the Sun, are
shown surrounded by other figures wearing the masks of crows and perhaps
lions[959], which looks as if initiates of all grades were admitted to
the sacramental banquet. One can therefore make no profitable conjecture
as to what particular doctrines were taught in the particular degrees,
though there seems much likelihood in M. Cumont’s statement that the
initiates were thought to take rank in the next world according to the
degree that they had received in this[960]. The belief that “those who
have received humble mysteries shall have humble places and those that
have received exalted mysteries exalted places” in the next world was,
we may be sure, too profitable a one for the priests of Mithras to be
neglected by them. It certainly explains the extraordinary order for the
planetary spheres adopted by Origen[961], according to which the souls
which had taken the lowest degree would go to the heaven of Saturn,
slowest and most unlucky of the planets, while those perfected in the
faith would enter the glorious house of the Sun.

Whether they were thought to go further still, we can only guess. It
should be noticed that the mystic ladder of Mithras had _eight_ steps,
and we have seen that when the soul had climbed through the seven
planetary spheres there was still before her the heaven of the fixed
stars. The Sun seems in Origen’s account of the Mithraic faith to have
formed the last world to be traversed before this highest heaven could
be reached; and it was through the disk of the Sun that the ancients
thought the gods descended to and reascended from the earth. This idea
appears plainly in the Papyrus quoted above, where the Mithraist is
represented as an eagle who flies upwards “and alone” to heaven and
there beholds all things[962]. He prays that he may, in spite of his
mortal and corruptible nature, behold with immortal eyes after having
been hallowed with holy hallowings, “the deathless aeon, lord of the
fiery crowns,” and that “the corruptible nature of mortals” which has
been imposed upon him by “inexorable Necessity” may depart from him.
“Then,” says the author of the fragment—which, it will be remembered,
claims to be a revelation given by the archangel of the great Sun-God
Mithras—the initiate “will see the gods who rule each day and hour
ascending to heaven and others descending, and the path of the visible
gods through the disk of the god my father will appear.” He describes
the machinery of nature by which the winds are produced, which seems to
be figured on some of the Mithraic monuments, and which reminds one of
the physics supposed to be revealed in the Enochian literature. Then,
after certain spells have been recited, the initiate sees the disk of
the Sun, which opens, disclosing “doors of fire and the world of the
gods within them.” Then follow more invocations to the gods of the seven
planetary worlds who appear in due course, and presumably give him
admission to their realms. After another invocation, in what may
possibly be some Asianic or Anatolian language very much corrupted, the
initiate beholds “a young god, beautiful, with fiery hair, in white
tunic and purple mantle, and having on his head a crown of fire,” who
seems to be Helios or Sol, the driver of the sun’s chariot on the
Mithraic monuments. He is saluted as “Mighty in strength, mighty ruler,
greatest king of gods! O Sun, lord of heaven and earth, God of Gods!”
Next appear “seven virgins in linen robes having the heads of serpents,”
who are called “the seven Fortunes of heaven” and are, as M. Georges
Lafaye surmises, the seven stars of the constellation of the Great
Bear[963]. They are followed by seven male gods also dressed in linen
robes and with golden crowns, but equipped with the heads of black
bulls, who are called “the rulers of the Pole.” These are they, we are
told, who send upon the impious thunders and lightnings and earthquakes.
And so we are led at last to the apparition of “a god of extraordinary
stature, having a glance of fire, young and golden-haired, in white
tunic and golden crown, clothed in anaxyrides, holding in his right hand
the golden shoulder of a young bull.” This, _i.e._ the shoulder, we are
told, is called “Arctos, who moves the sky, making it to turn forwards
and backwards according to the hour.” But the god appears to be intended
for Mithras, and the shoulder of the bull is probably an allusion to the
bull-slaying scene which may serve to show that there were more
interpretations than one placed upon the Tauroctony. The initiate hails
this god as “Lord of water, consecrator of the earth, ruler of the air,
shining-rayed One, of primeval rays!” and the like, and continues:

    “O Lord, having been born again, I die! Having increased and again
    increasing, I come to an end by life-begotten birth, and coming into
    existence, and having been released unto death, I pursue my way, as
    thou hast ordered from the beginning, as thou hast ordained: And
    having accomplished the mystery, I am _Pheroura miouri_.”

Here the fragment abruptly breaks off, and plunges into directions for
the manufacture of oracles and the other stuff common in Magic Papyri.
One is not much inclined to believe with M. Cumont that the author of
the galimatias knew nothing about Mithraism[964], and merely introduced
Mithras’ name into his opening to impress his readers with a sense of
the value of his recipes. It seems more likely that the writer of the
fragment had really got hold of some part of a Mithraic ritual, which he
had read without understanding it, and that he was trying to work more
or less meaningless extracts from it into his spells on the same
principle that the sorcerers of the European Renaissance used when they
took similar liberties with the words of the Mass. If this view be
adopted, it follows that the concluding words given above confirm the
view that the Mithraists, like the Orphics before them, taught the
metempsychosis or reincarnation of souls[965]. Did the Mithraist think
that his soul, when released from this “dread necessity,” finally
escaped from even the planetary spheres and, raising itself into the
heaven of the fixed stars, became united with the Deity Himself? We can
only ask the question without being able to suggest an answer supported
by any evidence.

With regard to the priests who acted as celebrants in these strange
mysteries, there are instances to be found in the inscriptions which
make it plain that the priestly office was not confined or attached to
any particular degree of initiation. _Pater Patrum_ (Father of Fathers)
is a designation which occurs too frequently on the monuments for it to
mean anything but eldest or president of those who had taken the seventh
or highest degree in one congregation[966]. But _Sacerdos_ or _Antistes_
indifferently is the name by which the priest of Mithras is described by
himself and others, and the holding of the office seems not to have been
inconsistent with the tenure at once of other priesthoods and of high
office in the State. Thus the _clarissimus_ Vettius Agorius
Praetextatus, who was Urban Praetor, Proconsul of Achaea, Prefect of the
City, Prefect of the Praetorians of Italy and Illyricum, and Consul
Designate at the time of his death, was Father of Fathers in the
religion of Mithras besides being Pontiff of the Sun and Pontiff of
Vesta[967]. This was at a very late date, when probably only a man of
high civil rank dared avow on his tombstone, as did Vettius, his
fidelity to the god; but earlier, we find Lucius Septimius, a freedman
of Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, acting as “Father and Priest of the
Unconquered Mithras in the Augustan house”—evidently a Court chaplain—,
and a certain _clarissimus_ Alfenius Julianus Kamenius who is of
consular rank, a quaestor and a praetor, as a “father of the sacred
things of the Highest Unconquered One Mithras[968].” So, too, we find a
veteran of the IVth Flavian Legion acting as _pater sacrorum_, a
decurion as _antistes_ and another as _sacerdos_ of Mithras[969].
Evidently, the cares of the priesthood did not occupy the priest’s whole
time, and he never seems to have lived in the temple as did the clergy
of the Alexandrian divinities. There was, on the faith of Porphyry, a
_summus pontifex_ or Supreme Pontiff of Mithras, who like the Christian
bishop in the Epistle to Timothy was forbidden to marry more than
once[970]; but this was probably a high officer of State appointed
directly by the Emperor. No proof is forthcoming that a fire was kept
perpetually burning on the altar in the European chapels of Mithras, as
perhaps was the case with the temples of the faith in Asia Minor, or
that daily or any other regularly repeated services were held there, and
such services moreover could seldom have been attended by the soldiers
with the colours, who seem to have made up the majority of the god’s
worshippers. Prayers to the Sun-God and other deities were no doubt
offered by Mithraists, possibly at sunrise and sunset, and perhaps
special ones on the first day of the week, which they very likely held
sacred to their god. But the small size of the Mithraea, and the scanty
number of the members of the associations supporting each[971], make it
extremely unlikely that there was anything like regular congregational
worship, or that the faithful assembled there except for initiations or
meetings for conferring the different degrees. The extremely poor
execution of the bas-reliefs and other sculptures found in the majority
of these chapels all points the same way. Most of these, together with
the furniture and what are nowadays called “articles de culte,” were
presented to the chapel by private members of the association[972]. The
fact that the congregations of many chapels must have frequently changed
by the shifting of garrisons from one end of the Empire to the other
caused by the operations of war both external and civil, also helps to
account for their temporary and poverty-stricken appearance when
compared with the great and stately temples reared to rival gods like
Serapis.

Thus the truth of Renan’s comparison of the Mithraic faith with modern
Freemasonry becomes more apparent, and we may picture to ourselves the
Mithraists as a vast society spread over the whole of the Empire,
consisting mainly of soldiers, and entirely confined to the male sex.
The example of the Emperor Julian, himself a devotee of Mithras, but
actively concerned in the propagation of the worship of other
divinities, such as Apollo, Serapis, Mars, and Cybele[973], shows that
its real aim was not so much the conversion of individuals as the
inclusion of all other cults within itself. It was doubtless with this
view that Julian recalled from exile those heresiarchs who had been
banished by the Christian emperors and insisted on equal toleration for
all sects of Jews and Christians[974]. Themistius is no doubt merely
echoing the sentiments of the Mithraist emperor when he writes to his
Christian successor Jovian that no lover of wisdom should bind himself
to any exclusively national worship, but should acquaint himself with
all religions[975]. God, he says, requires no agreement on this subject
among men, and their rivalries in matters of faith are really beneficial
in leading their minds to the contemplation of other than worldly
things. But this highly philosophic temper was not reached all at once;
and it is probable that the worship of Mithras was, on its first
importation into the West, but one foreign superstition the more, as
little enlightened and as exclusively national as the Jewish, the
Egyptian, or any of the others. It was probably its rise to imperial
favour under the Antonines, when Commodus and many of the freedmen of
Caesar’s House were initiated, that first suggested to its votaries the
possibility of using it as an instrument of government; and henceforth
its fortunes were bound up with those of the still Pagan State. Its
strictly monarchical doctrine, using the adjective in its ancient rather
than in its modern connotation, must have always endeared it to the
emperors, who were beginning to see clearly that in a _quasi_-Oriental
despotism lay the only chance of salvation for the Roman Empire. Its
relations with Mazdeism in the strict form which this last assumed after
the religious reforms of the Sassanian Shahs have never been elucidated,
and M. Cumont seems to rely too much upon the later Avestic literature
to explain everything that is obscure in the religion of Mithras. If we
imagine, as there is reason to do, that Western Mithraism was looked
upon by the Sassanian reformers as a dangerous heresy[976], the Roman
Emperors would have an additional reason for supporting it; and it is
significant that it was exactly those rulers whose wars against the
Persians were most successful who seem to have most favoured the worship
of the Persian god. When Trajan conquered Dacia, the great province
between the Carpathians and the Danube now represented by Hungary and
Roumania, he colonized it by a great mass of settlers from every part of
the Roman Empire, including therein many Orientals who brought with them
into their new home the worship of their Syrian and Asianic gods[977].
It was hence an excellent field for the culture of a universal and
syncretic religion such as that of Mithras, and the great number of
Mithraea whose remains have been found in that province, show that this
religion must have received hearty encouragement from the Imperial
Court. From its geographical position, Dacia formed an effective
counterpoise to the growing influence upon Roman policy of the Eastern
provinces, and it might have proved a valuable outpost for a religion
which was always looked upon with hostility by the Greek-speaking
subjects of Rome. Unfortunately, however, a religion which allies itself
with the State must suffer from its ally’s reverses as well as profit by
its good fortunes, and so the Mithraists found. When the Gothic invasion
desolated Dacia, and especially when Valerian’s disaster enabled the
Goths to gain a footing there which not even the military genius of
Claudius could loosen, Mithraism received a blow which was ultimately to
prove fatal. The abandonment of Dacia to the Goths and Vandals by
Aurelian in 255 A.D., led to its replanting by a race whose faces were
turned more to Constantinople than to Rome, and who were before long to
be converted to Christianity _en masse_[978]. Diocletian and his
colleagues did what they could to restore the balance by proclaiming, as
has been said above, the “unconquered” Mithras the protector of their
empire at the great city which is now the capital of the Austrian
Empire; but the accession of Constantine and his alliance with the
Christian Church some twenty years later, definitely turned the scale
against the last god of Paganism. Although the Mithraic worship may have
revived for a moment under the philosophic Julian, who was, as has been
said, peculiarly addicted to it, it possessed no real power of
recuperation, and was perhaps one of the first Pagan religions to be
extinguished by the triumphant Christians[979]. In 377 A.D., Gracchus,
the Urban Prefect of Rome, being desirous of baptism, carried into
effect a promise made, as St Jerome boasts, some time before, and
breaking into a chapel of Mithras, “overturned, broke in pieces and cast
out” the sculptures which had seen the admission of so many
initiates[980]. His example was followed in other parts of the Empire,
and it is probable that some decree was obtained from the Emperor
Gratian legalizing these acts of vandalism[981]. It is in this reign, M.
Cumont finds, that most of the Mithraea were wrecked, and the very few
which have come down to us in more complete state owe their preservation
to the caution of their congregations, who blocked or built up the
entrances to them in the vain hope that a fresh turn of the wheel might
again bring their own cult to the top[982]. A conservative reaction
towards the older faiths did indeed come for a moment under Eugenius;
but it was then too late. The masses had turned from Mithraism to
Christianity, and the only adherents of the “Capped One” were to be
found among the senators and high officials who had long connived at the
evasion of the edicts prohibiting all forms of Pagan worship. The
invasions of Alaric and Attila probably completed what the Christian mob
had begun.

M. Cumont and Sir Samuel Dill are doubtless right when they attribute
the downfall of Mithraism in great measure to its attitude towards
women[983]. Mithraism was from the first essentially a virile faith, and
had little need of the softer emotions. Hence we find in it none of the
gorgeous public ritual, the long hours spent in mystic contemplation
before the altar, or the filial devotion of the flock to the priest,
that we see in the worship of the Alexandrian Gods. In spite of the
great authority of M. Cumont, whose statements on the subject seem to
have been accepted without much enquiry by later writers, it will
probably appear to the impartial student that the priests of Mithras
were more like the churchwardens or elders of Protestant communities at
the present day than the active and highly organized hierarchy of the
Alexandrian divinities and of the Catholic Church. It is, as we have
seen, most probable that they never visited their chapels except in
company with the other devotees when an initiation into one or other of
the seven degrees of the cult was to be performed, and, judging from the
scanty numbers of the congregation, this can only have been at fairly
long intervals. Hence the daily prayers and sacrifices of themselves and
their congregations were probably rendered elsewhere, either in the
privacy of their homes, or in the temples of other gods. In neither case
would they have much need for the assistance of women in their
propaganda, who would, moreover, have probably felt little interest in a
worship from the most solemn and distinctive parts of which they were
excluded. The Mithraists therefore had to dispense with the support of a
very large and important fraction of the community which was easily won
over to the side of their rivals. Exceptional causes such as the
perpetual shifting of the legions from one end of the Empire to the
other at a time when communications between them were many times more
difficult than now, may have prevented such considerations for some time
from having their full weight. When once they did so, the issue could
not long be in doubt.

Nor was the very real, if somewhat vague, monotheism which Mithraism
taught, very likely to attract, at first sight, the enthusiasm of a
large and mixed population engaged in civil pursuits. If the conjecture
made above be correct, the Mithraist in the ordinary way acknowledged no
other god than Mithras, although he would probably have admitted that he
was but the representative and antitype of the supreme Jupiter whom he
recognized as the official head of the State pantheon. As for the other
gods, he probably considered them as mere abstract personifications of
the powers of Nature, who were at the most the creatures and subjects of
Mithras “the friend,” and whom it might please him to propitiate by acts
of worship which the god would know how to appreciate. This is not very
far from the theories of the Stoics, always dear to the nobler spirits
in the Roman Empire, and coupled with the high Stoic ideal of duty,
forms one of the best working philosophies for the soldier ever devised.
But the soldier, removed as he is from care for his daily necessities,
and with instant and ready obedience to another will than his own
constantly required of him, has always held different views on such
subjects to the civilian; and such ideas were rather above the heads of
the crowd, sunk for the most part in abject poverty, utterly absorbed in
the struggle for daily bread, and only anxious to snatch some passing
enjoyment from a life of toil. What they, and even more urgently, their
womenfolk needed was a God, not towering above them like the Eternal
Sun, the eye of Mithras and his earthly representative, shedding his
radiance impartially upon the just and the unjust; but a God who had
walked upon the earth in human form, who had known like themselves pain
and affliction, and to whom they could therefore look for sympathy and
help. Such a god was not to be found in the Mithraic Cave.

For these reasons, probably, Mithraism fell after a reign of little more
than two centuries. Yet for good or ill, few religions have lived in
vain; and some of the ideas which it made popular in Europe have hardly
yet died out. The theory that the emperor, king, or chief of the State
is of a different nature to other men, and is in a peculiar manner the
care of the gods, was first formulated in the West during the time that
Mithraism was in power and is a great deal more the creation of the
Persian religion than of the Egyptian, in which he was said to be the
incarnation of the Sun-God. This is fairly plain from the custom to
which M. Cumont has lately drawn attention of releasing at the funeral
or apotheosis of a Roman emperor a captive eagle, representing the soul
of the dead ruler, the upward flight of the bird being held typical of
the soul’s ascension into heaven[984]. The connection of this practice
with Mithraism is evident, since “eagle” was one of the names given to
the perfect Mithraist, or he who had taken all the seven degrees of
initiation, and had therefore earned the right to be called _pater
sacrorum_[985]. The Christian emperors of Rome continued probably the
practice and certainly the nomenclature associated with it, and
Constantine and his successors were hailed by the Mithraic epithets of
“aeternus,” “invictus,” and “felix” as freely as his Pagan predecessors.
From this period the notion of the “divinity that doth hedge a king”
descended to comparatively modern times, and “Sacred Majesty” was an
epithet of our own kings down to the reign of the last Stuart. Probably,
too, it was the custom of releasing an eagle at a royal funeral which so
impressed the popular imagination that the metaphor became transferred,
as such things generally are sooner or later, to the lower ranks of the
community, and the figure of the soul being borne aloft on wings took
the place that it still occupies in popular Christian literature.

The share that Mithraism had in diffusing the practices of magic and
astrology is by no means so clear. That the Mithraists, like other
pagans of the early centuries, were addicted to magic is one of the most
frequent accusations brought against them by Christian writers, and the
word magic itself, as has been said above, is derived from those Magi
from whom the Mithraists were said to have derived their doctrine. In
support of this, it can certainly be said that the worshippers of
Mithras by rendering a modified cult to Ahriman, whom the Christians
identified with Satan, laid themselves open to the suspicion of
trafficking with devils, and it is quite possible that they, like the
followers of many other religions at the time, looked with favour upon
the compulsion rather than the propitiation of the lower powers. Yet the
strict monotheism of the faith which practically looked to Mithras for
the ultimate control and regulation of all sublunary things, is
certainly against this conclusion; and it should be noticed that the
laws against the practices of magic and astrology, then so intertwined
that it is difficult to separate them[986], were quite as severe under
emperors like Commodus and Diocletian who worshipped Mithras, as under
those of their successors who professed the faith of Christ. The rites
of Hecate, however, were, as we have seen, closely connected with those
of Mithras and were generally in the hands of Mithraists. These Hecatean
rites seem to have been almost entirely magical in their character, and
it is the name of Hecate that was handed down as that of the patroness
of sorcerers through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance[987]. One of
the priests of Mithras also goes out of his way to declare on his
epitaph that he is _studiosus astrologiae_, and on the whole the
Christian accusation was probably not without foundation.

Footnote 768:

  Droysen, _Hist. de l’Hellénisme_, t. II. pp. 33, 289.

Footnote 769:

  _Op. cit._ III. pp. 351, 352; 439, 450. As Droysen points out, in this
  respect there was no practical difference between Parthian and
  Persian.

Footnote 770:

  As in B.C. 41, when the Parthians under Pacorus “rushed” Palestine.
  See Morrison, _The Jews under the Romans_, p. 58, for authorities. Cf.
  Chapter V. Vol. I. p. 101, n. 3, _supra_.

Footnote 771:

  This is shown by, among other things, the claims of the kings of
  Armenia, Cappadocia, and Pontus to be descended from the seven heroes
  who delivered Persia from the Magians after the death of Cambyses. See
  Droysen, _op. cit._ II. p. 519; III. pp. 82, 83.

Footnote 772:

  Droysen, _op. cit._ III. p. 83.

Footnote 773:

  Horace, _Odes_, Bk IV. Ode 5. Cf. his _Carmen Seculare_.

Footnote 774:

  Renan, _L’Antéchrist_, pp. 317, 318, for authorities. A critical essay
  on the Neronic myth and its congeners is to be found in Dr Charles’
  _Ascension of Isaiah_, p. li _sqq._

Footnote 775:

  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_ (Bury’s ed.), vol. I. pp. 5, 205.

Footnote 776:

  Gibbon, _op. cit._ I. p. 209. Severus’ victories are doubted by
  Gibbon; and Prof. Bury apparently supports his author.

Footnote 777:

  _Op. cit._ I. pp. 269, 270. Prof. Bury in his Appendix 17 points out
  that the whole history of Valerian’s capture is still very obscure.

Footnote 778:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 340.

Footnote 779:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 375. See Prof. Bury’s note 83 on page cited.

Footnote 780:

  _Op. cit._ II. pp. 228-231.

Footnote 781:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 373.

Footnote 782:

  Gibbon, _op. cit._ V. pp. 78 sqq. Winwood Reade, _Martyrdom of Man_,
  pp. 249, 250, tells the story excellently and dramatically.

Footnote 783:

  Horace, _Odes_, Bk I. Ode 38.

Footnote 784:

  Gibbon, _op. cit._ I. p. 382. Cf. Cumont, _Religions Orientales_, p.
  171. Lactantius, _de Mort. Persecutor._ c. XXI., says that this was
  the conscious aim of Galerius. Although his authority in such a matter
  is suspect, there can be little doubt of the fact.

Footnote 785:

  The actual decree of the emperors is given in Cumont, _Textes et
  Monuments_, t. II. inscr. 367. The date should probably be 304 A.D.
  See n. on Table of Dates, Vol. I. _supra_.

Footnote 786:

  Plutarch, _Vit. Pomp._ c. XXIV.

Footnote 787:

  Cumont, _Rel. Or._ pp. 167, 168; 173, 174; _id._ _T. et M._ I. pp. 9,
  10. Cf. _P.S.B.A._ 1912, pp. 127, 128.

Footnote 788:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 247.

Footnote 789:

  Dill, _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, pp. 593-597.

Footnote 790:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 248.

Footnote 791:

  For the list see Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 258, n. 7. He thinks the
  worship was first introduced here by the legions from Germany.

Footnote 792:

  Avezou and Picard, “Bas-relief Mithriaque,” _R.H.R._ t. LXIV. (Sept.
  Oct. 1911), pp. 179 _sqq._

Footnote 793:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 223, n. 2.

Footnote 794:

  Herodotus, Bk I. c. 131. Cf. F. Max Müller, _Hibbert Lectures_, p.
  276. The similarity of name between Varuna and the Greek Ouranos is
  fairly obvious. Prof. Hope Moulton, _Early Zoroastrianism_, 1913, pp.
  391, 392, n. 3, argues that the Persian god of the sky was called
  Dyaush or Zeus.

Footnote 795:

  Certainly of the Mitannians, who, according to Prof. Hugo Winckler,
  were one of the two main branches of the Hittites, and a Syrian
  people. See his report on Excavations at Boghaz Keui in the
  _Mitteilungen_ of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft for 1907. The text
  is given in the _J.R.A.S._ for 1910, pp. 723 _sqq._

Footnote 796:

  If we accept the latest theory which makes Russia the original home of
  the Aryan race (see Zaborowski, _Les Peuples Aryens d’Asie et
  d’Europe_, Paris, 1908, p. 424) it may have even had a European
  origin.

Footnote 797:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 225.

Footnote 798:

  James Darmesteter, _Essais Orientaux_, Paris, 1883, p. 113.

Footnote 799:

  Casartelli, _La Philosophie Religieuse du Mazdéisme sous les
  Sassanides_, pp. 17, 18.

Footnote 800:

  _Op. cit._ p. 73.

Footnote 801:

  660-583 B.C. See A. V. Williams Jackson, _Zoroaster_, N.Y. 1901, p. 15
  and Appx II. and III. Cf. D. Menant, “Parsis et Parsisme,”
  _Conférences au Musée Guimet_ (Bibl. de Vulgarisation), 1904, t. XVI.
  1ère Ptie, p. 149.

Footnote 802:

  Darmesteter, _Le Zend Avesta_ (Annales du Musée Guimet), Paris, 1892,
  p. xxvii, for dates. West, _Pahlavi Texts_, pt I. (Sacred Books of the
  East), pp. lxviii-lxix; pt II. p. xxiv. Cf. Hope Moulton, _op. cit._
  pp. 126, 127.

Footnote 803:

  Herodotus, Bk III. c. 61 _sqq._

Footnote 804:

  _The Sculptures and Inscriptions of Darius the Great at Behistun_,
  British Museum Publications, 1907.

Footnote 805:

  _Op. cit._ pp. 8, 9.

Footnote 806:

  _Op. cit._ p. 14.

Footnote 807:

  Maspero, _Hist. Ancienne des Peuples de l’Orient Classique_, Paris,
  1899, t. III. p. 674; Rawlinson, _History of Herodotus_, 1862, vol.
  II. p. 458.

Footnote 808:

  Herodotus, Bk I. c. 140; VII. c. 113.

Footnote 809:

  _Op. cit._ Bk I. c. 131.

Footnote 810:

  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLVI.

Footnote 811:

  As in the book called “The Illumination of Bel” found in
  Assurbanipal’s Library at Kuyunjik. See Sayce, “Astronomy and
  Astrology of the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians,” _T.S.B.A._ vol.
  III. pp. 146 _sqq._ Cf. Chapter III, vol. I. p. 114 _supra_ for
  examples.

Footnote 812:

  That tables were actually used for this purpose, was shown in the
  _Pall Mall Magazine_ for August, 1896 and with more detail in
  _Star-Lore_ for April, 1897.

Footnote 813:

  Dill, _Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, pp. 449, 450, for authorities.

Footnote 814:

  _Circa_ 270 A.D. See Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 26.

Footnote 815:

  See Chap. III, Vol. I. p. 103, n. 4, _supra_.

Footnote 816:

  See Chap. IV, Vol. I. p. 123 _supra_.

Footnote 817:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. pp. 19-20, relies on a passage quoted by
  Damascius from a certain Eudemos who may or may not be Eudemos of
  Rhodes (Alexander’s contemporary) that, “of the Magi and all the
  warrior [or Medic: ἄρειον] race some call the intelligible” [_i.e._
  that which can be apprehended by the mind only and not by the senses]
  “and united universe Topos (place), while others of them call it
  Chronos (Time), and that from this universe are to be distinguished a
  good God and evil demon; or as some say, prior to these, Light and
  Darkness.” “Both the one and the other school therefore,” Damascius
  goes on, “after the undivided Nature, make the double series of the
  higher powers distinct from one another, of one of which they make
  Oromasdes the leader, and of the other Arimanius.” It seems evident
  from the above words, that only a certain sect of the Magi in the time
  of this Eudemos put Time at the head of their pantheon. Cf. Cory’s
  _Ancient Fragments_, 1832, pp. 318, 319.

Footnote 818:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 19.

Footnote 819:

  See “The Lion-headed God of the Mithraic Mysteries,” _P.S.B.A._ 1912,
  pp. 125-142, and p. 251 _infra_.

Footnote 820:

  Darmesteter, _Ormuzd et Ahriman_, Paris, 1877, p. 1, quoting a lost
  book of Aristotle mentioned by Diogenes Laertius.

Footnote 821:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 326 and Fig. 193.

Footnote 822:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 336, reproduced in the article in the _P.S.B.A._
  quoted in n. 2, p. 237 _supra_. In the collection of busts of the gods
  on the arch surrounding the Tauroctony at Bologna, the head of Zeus
  wearing the modius of Serapis appears with six others who, reading
  from left to right, are the Sun, Saturn, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars
  and the Moon. Although Jupiter here occupies the centre and place of
  honour, it is probable that both he and the other gods are here merely
  symbols of the planets. See Cumont, _op. cit._ II. p. 261 and Fig. 99.

Footnote 823:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 349, and Pl. VI. So in the bas-relief of Sarrebourg,
  unfortunately much mutilated (_op. cit._ II. p. 514), a similar
  assembly of gods includes Neptune, Bacchus, and Vulcan, who are
  certainly not gods of the planets.

Footnote 824:

  For these inscriptions, see Cumont, _op. cit._ t. II., Inscriptions 80
  (p. 107), 129 (p. 115), 318 (p. 140), 386 (p. 149), 522 (p. 167), and
  470 (p. 160).

Footnote 825:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 98.

Footnote 826:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 141.

Footnote 827:

  _Op. cit._ II. pp. 160, 392, 393, and article in _P.S.B.A._ quoted in
  n. 2, p. 237 _supra_.

Footnote 828:

  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLVI. Cf. Origen, _adv. Cels._ Bk I. c.
  60.

Footnote 829:

  Herodotus, Bk VII. c. 114.

Footnote 830:

  Clem. Alex. _Strom._ Bk V. c. 11, says Zeus is the same as Hades. He
  quotes Euripides as authority for the statement, but I do not know the
  play in which it appears. He also, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 14, quotes
  Xenocrates as saying that there is an “Upper and Lower” Zeus.

Footnote 831:

  Heracles, of course, applied compulsion to Hades. For the magic
  compulsion of the same power, see the Magic Papyrus of the Bibl. Nat.
  in Wessely’s _Griech. Zauberpap._ p. 38.

Footnote 832:

  _P.S.B.A._ 1912, p. 137, for authorities.

Footnote 833:

  Jean Reville, _La Religion à Rome sous les Sevères_, Paris, 1886, p.
  30.

Footnote 834:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 91, no. 2; p. 99, nos. 30, 34; p. 102, no.
  49; p. 103, no. 53.

Footnote 835:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 99, no. 29.

Footnote 836:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 105, no. 62; p. 116, no. 131.

Footnote 837:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 96, nos. 17, 20; p. 117, no. 139; p. 145, no. 354.

Footnote 838:

  Pindar, _Isthm._ V. 1, where the Sun is said to be the son of Theia.

Footnote 839:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 225, and n. 1; cf. Darmesteter, _Ormuzd et
  Ahriman_, p. 65.

Footnote 840:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 231.

Footnote 841:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 200.

Footnote 842:

  _Op. cit._ I. pp. 304-306. The best and clearest example of these
  scenes is perhaps that given in the bas-reliefs surrounding the
  Tauroctony in the Mithraeum at Osterburken. See _Op. cit._ II. p. 350
  (Monument 246).

Footnote 843:

  _Op. cit._ II. Fig. 1 of Mon. 246 (p. 350).

Footnote 844:

  _Op. cit._ I. pp. 159 _sqq._

Footnote 845:

  Cumont, _op. cit._ II. p. 395, and Fig. 315.

Footnote 846:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 350, f (2) of Osterburken.

Footnote 847:

  It is not invariable, as the sculptor was sometimes evidently governed
  by considerations of space.

Footnote 848:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 350, f (5) of Osterburken. Cf. Mon. 245, Pl. V
  (Neuenheim) and Mon. 251, Pl. VII (Heddernheim).

Footnote 849:

  West, _Pahlavi Texts_, Pt 1, _S.B.E._ p. 20 (Bundahish); Porphyry, _de
  antro nympharum_, c. 18. Cf. Döllinger, _J. und H._ I. p. 419, and
  Tiele, _Religion of the Iranian Peoples_ (Eng. ed.), Bombay, 1912, Pt
  1, p. 113.

Footnote 850:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 298, Fig. 154 (Sarmizegetusa); p. 309, Fig.
  167 (Apulum); p. 326, Fig. 193 (Sissek). Döllinger, _J. und H._ I. p.
  141, thinks this cup-shaped boat represents the Moon. But see against
  this Cumont, _op. cit._ I. pp. 167, 168.

Footnote 851:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 515 and Pl. IX, Mon. 273 _ter_ d (8)
  (Sarrebourg). Cf. _ibid._ II. p. 310, Fig. 168, Mon. 192 _bis_ b (7),
  also I. p. 167 and n. 5.

Footnote 852:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 346, e (1) and Pl. V (Neuenheim); II. p. 350, f (3)
  (Osterburken); II. p. 339, b (6) and Pl. IV (Mauls).

Footnote 853:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 309, a (1) (Apulum); II. p. 326, b (3) and Fig. 193
  (Sissek).

Footnote 854:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 346, e (4) (Neuenheim); II. p. 309, a (2) (Apulum);
  II. p. 515, d (10) (Sarrebourg).

Footnote 855:

  Cumont, _op. cit._ I. p. 304, puts these scenes in a slightly
  different order. That followed here is that adopted in the Mithraeum
  at Heddernheim, _op. cit._ II. Pl. VII, where the sequence is fairly
  plain.

Footnote 856:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 365, d (7) (Heddernheim).

Footnote 857:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 338, c (5) (Klagenfurt).

Footnote 858:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 350, f (8) (Osterburken).

Footnote 859:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 172.

Footnote 860:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 272, c (2) (Serdica); II. pp. 303, 304, c (1)
  (Temesvar); II. p. 326, b (1) (Sissek).

Footnote 861:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 337, c. (4) (Klagenfurt).

Footnote 862:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 173.

Footnote 863:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 201.

Footnote 864:

  Cumont, _op. cit._ I. p. 173, and n. 3.

Footnote 865:

  Most of the monuments show the remains of colour.

Footnote 866:

  Like the thrust of the Spanish bull-fighter which is supposed to split
  the heart.

Footnote 867:

  Sometimes, though very rarely, the serpent is absent, as in the
  Mithraeum discovered at Krotzenburg near Hanau. _Op. cit._ II. p. 353.

Footnote 868:

  Cumont, _op. cit._ I. pp. 207, 208. Following the mention by Dionysius
  the Areopagite of a “threefold Mithras,” M. Cumont thinks that the two
  torch-bearing figures are representations of Mithras himself. The
  theory is ingenious, but not very plausible. See _loc. cit._ pp.
  208-213.

Footnote 869:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 186, for authorities. Cf. Döllinger, _J. und H._ I.
  p. 420. Tiele, _Rel. of Iran. P._ pt 1, p. 118, says that “originally”
  the bull was slain not by Ahriman, but by its creator.

Footnote 870:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 197. Cf. Porphyry, _de antro nymphar._ c. XVIII.

Footnote 871:

  D. Menant, “Les Rites Funéraires,” _Conférences au Musée Guimet_, t.
  XXXV. pp. 181, 182.

Footnote 872:

  Cf. Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLVII.

Footnote 873:

  So Cumont, _T. et M._ I. pp. 182, 305.

Footnote 874:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 192.

Footnote 875:

  _Op. cit._ II. Pl. VIII.

Footnote 876:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 175, Fig. 10, where some of the guests at the banquet
  wear the masks of crows and other animals corresponding to the
  Mithraic degrees.

Footnote 877:

  Justin Martyr, _First Apology_, c. LVI.

Footnote 878:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. Pl VIII, shows this most clearly. Pl. V
  (Neuenheim), Fig 213, opposite p. 337 (Virunum), and p. 278, Fig. 121
  (Orsova), leave no doubt possible.

Footnote 879:

  Cumont, _op. cit._ I. p. 178, and Fig. 11.

Footnote 880:

  The Juppiter Optimus Maximus of the Palazzo Altieri. _Op. cit._ II. p.
  104.

Footnote 881:

  Darmesteter, _Ormuzd et Ahriman_, p. 65.

Footnote 882:

  Porphyry, _de antro nympharum_, c. XXIV.

Footnote 883:

  _Op. cit._ cc. V. VI.

Footnote 884:

  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLVI.

Footnote 885:

  Porphyry, _de antro nymph._ c. XXIV.

Footnote 886:

  _Op. cit._ cc. V. VI.

Footnote 887:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. pp. 198 _sqq._ Damascius (in Cory’s _Ancient
  Fragments_, 1832, p. 319) attributes to the “Sidonians” a theogony
  which would make “Otos,” said by Cory to mean the Night Raven, the
  Νοῦς νοητός born from Aer and Aura. Has this anything to do with the
  symbolism of the crow, found always as the attendant of Mithras at the
  Tauroctony?

Footnote 888:

  Söderblom, _La Vie Future d’après le Mazdéisme_, Paris, 1901, pp. 265,
  266, for authorities. Cf. Casartelli, _La Philosophie Religieuse du
  Mazdéisme_, p. 186.

Footnote 889:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 168. He relies on a fragment of Dion
  Chrysostom which does not appear to have this meaning. See _ibid._ II.
  p. 64.

Footnote 890:

  M. Cumont, _op. cit._ I. p. 82, says that the sex is left undecided,
  so as to show that Infinite Time, the Supreme God according to him of
  the Mithraic pantheon, can produce by himself. This is certainly not
  the case with one of the statues given among his own monuments (_op.
  cit._ II. p. 213, Fig. 44), or that lately recovered from the
  Mithraeum at Sidon, for which see Pottier, “La Collection Louis de
  Clercq,” _Conférences au Musée Guimet_, Bibl. de Vulg. t. XIX. 1906,
  Pl. opp. p. 236, or _P.S.B.A._ 1912, Pl. XIX, Fig. 18, or Cumont, _Les
  Mystères de Mithra_, Bruxelles, 1913, p. 235.

Footnote 891:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 213, Figs. 43, 44.

Footnote 892:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 216, Fig. 47; p. 238, Fig. 68; p. 259, Fig. 96.

Footnote 893:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 196, Fig. 22. A hole in the back of the head, made
  apparently for “fire-breathing” purposes, was found in the Sidon
  statue also. See Cumont, _Les Mystères_, fig. 27.

Footnote 894:

  _T. et M._ II. p. 375.

Footnote 895:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 78.

Footnote 896:

  The only evidence that he produces of this last fact is a quotation
  from Damascius, whose authority seems to be “Eudemus the Peripatetic,”
  given in n. 4, p. 236 _supra_, that some of the Magi call the νοητὸν
  ἅπαν καὶ τὸ ἡνωμένον Topos and others Chronos. A good divinity and an
  evil demon according to the same author descend from this power, one
  of whom he says is called Oromasdes and the other Arimanius. It is not
  very clear how much of this is Eudemus and how much Damascius. No
  other author gives any hint that would allow us to attribute so early
  an age to Zervanism.

Footnote 897:

  _P.S.B.A._ 1912, pp. 139-142.

Footnote 898:

  Firmicus Maternus, _de errore_, c. IV. See Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p.
  140, n. 7.

Footnote 899:

  They are mentioned together in the great Magical Papyrus of the
  Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, Wessely, _Griechische Zauberp._ p.
  73.

Footnote 900:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 141.

Footnote 901:

  The absence of any corresponding statue of the goddess is perhaps
  accounted for by the misogynic character of the Mithraic worship. Yet
  an empty niche corresponding to the one containing the lion-headed
  figure appears in some Mithraea.

Footnote 902:

  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 7 and note.

Footnote 903:

  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLV.

Footnote 904:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 5, quoting West, _Pahlavi Texts_, Pt V. p.
  xxvi, 50.

Footnote 905:

  F. Rosenberg, _Le Livre de Zoroastre_, St Petersburg, I. p. 10, and n.
  3, says that the reform of Zoroaster was specially directed to the
  abolition of the worship of Ahriman.

Footnote 906:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. Monument 246, e (5) Osterburken, and others as
  in t. I. p. 157 and n. 3. Cf. also Pl. XVI, Fig. 7, in _P.S.B.A._
  1912.

Footnote 907:

  The Orphic invocation of the Titans referred to in Chap. IV, vol. I.
  p. 116, n. 3 _supra_ can be thus explained.

Footnote 908:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 215, Fig. 46 (Pl. XVIII, Fig. 13 of
  _P.S.B.A._ 1912); II. p. 238, Fig. 68 (Pl. XVIII, Fig. 15 of
  _P.S.B.A._ 1912).

Footnote 909:

  So in the leaden _dirae_ from Cyprus now in the British Museum the
  Lord of Hell is invoked as “the god who is set over the gate of hell
  and the keys of heaven.” _P.S.B.A._ t. XIII., 1891, p. 177.

Footnote 910:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 294.

Footnote 911:

  Wessely, _Griechische Zauberp._ pp. 32 _sqq._

Footnote 912:

  Georges Lafaye, “L’Initiation Mithriaque,” _Conférences au Musée
  Guimet_, t. XVIII. 1906, pp. 98 _sqq._

Footnote 913:

  Wessely, _Gr. Zauberp._ _Op. cit._ in note 2 _supra_, and Lafaye, _op.
  cit. passim_.

Footnote 914:

  Wessely, _op. cit._ p. 61.

Footnote 915:

  See Chapter IX, p. 108 _supra_.

Footnote 916:

  Lafaye, _L’In. Mith._ pp. 111, 112, goes further and says that both
  Gnostics and Manichaeans derived their doctrine from Mithraism, which
  formed a half-way house between Paganism and Christianity. But see
  Chapter XIII, _infra_.

Footnote 917:

  Origen, _adv. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 22. For “musical” there should probably
  be read mystical, the τ being easily omitted by a copyist.

Footnote 918:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 38.

Footnote 919:

  Charles, _Bk of the Secrets of Enoch_, pp. xxx _sqq._

Footnote 920:

  The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, published by James in _Cambridge Texts
  and Studies_, vol. V. No. 1, p. 44.

Footnote 921:

  _adv. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 22. He has, however, got the order wrong, as
  copper is generally associated with the planet Venus, tin with
  Jupiter, iron with Mars, silver with the Moon, gold with the Sun, and
  lead with Saturn.

Footnote 922:

  Bouché Leclercq, _L’Astrologie Grecque_, p. 23, for authorities.

Footnote 923:

  _Op. cit._ p. 276. Cf. Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 40.

Footnote 924:

  Porphyry, _de Abstinentia_, Bk IV. c. 16.

Footnote 925:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 129, n. 6, for list of monuments.

Footnote 926:

  _Op. et loc. cit._; _id._ _Rel. Or._ p. 179.

Footnote 927:

  See p. 234, _supra_. The figure of the divine archer in the winged
  disk which figured on the coins called darics is, perhaps, the
  exception which proves the rule. Or is this meant for the Fravashi or
  genius of the king? Cf. Hope Moulton, _Early Zoroastrianism_, p. 260.

Footnote 928:

  Somewhere about 204 B.C. See Cumont, _Rel. Or._ p. 58.

Footnote 929:

  Orelli, _Inscpt. Latinar. selectar._ Turin, 1828, vol. I. pp. 406-412.

Footnote 930:

  See Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 95, inscr. 15, p. 98, inscr. 23; p. 100
  inscr. 40; p. 101, inscr. 41. The tomb of Vincentius in the Catacomb
  of Praetextatus at Rome would show an instance of the joint worship of
  Sabazius, the consort of the Great Mother, and of Mithras, if we could
  trust Garrucci’s restoration, for which see his _Les Mystères du
  Syncrétisme Phrygien_, Paris, 1854. It has been quoted in this sense
  by Hatch, _H.L._ p. 290; but Cumont, _T. et M._ II. pp. 173 and 413,
  argues against this construction. For the pictures themselves, see
  Maass, _Orpheus_, München, 1895, pp. 221, 222.

Footnote 931:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 261, Fig. 99.

Footnote 932:

  Kenyon, _Gk. Papyri_, p. 65.

Footnote 933:

  This is the more likely because his second initiator bears the name of
  Asinius, which, as he himself says (Apuleius, _Metamorph._ Bk XI. c.
  27), was not unconnected with his own transformation into the shape of
  an ass. The Emperor Commodus was initiated into both religions
  (Lampricius, _Commodus_, c. IΧ.).

Footnote 934:

  See n. 1, p. 259, _supra_.

Footnote 935:

  Dill, _Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, p. 625, n. 3, quoting Gasquet,
  _Mithras_, p. 137. See also Gibbon, vol. III. p. 498, Bury (Appendix
  15).

Footnote 936:

  Justin Martyr, _First Apology_, c. LXVI.

Footnote 937:

  Porphyry, _de antro nymph._ c. 15. Tertullian, _de Praescpt._ c. 40.

Footnote 938:

  Porphyry, _op. et loc. cit._

Footnote 939:

  See Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 339, for authorities.

Footnote 940:

  Augustine, _In Johann. evang. tractatus_, VII. or Cumont, _T. et M._
  II. p. 59. This last thinks it more probable that the passage refers
  to Attis, as there is an allusion in it to redemption by blood. But
  this would hardly apply to the self-mutilation of the Galli, while it
  would to the blood-bath of the Taurobolium and Criobolium which so
  many high initiates of Mithras boast of undergoing.

Footnote 941:

  J. Maurice, “La Dynastie Solaire des Seconds Flaviens,” _Rev.
  Archeol._ t. XVII. (1911), p. 397 and n. 1.

Footnote 942:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 339, quoting Minucius Felix.

Footnote 943:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 65.

Footnote 944:

  The remains of five Mithraea were found in Ostia alone.

Footnote 945:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 204, Fig. 30, and p. 493, Fig. 430; or
  _P.S.B.A._ 1912, Pl. XIII. Figs. 1 and 2.

Footnote 946:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 62.

Footnote 947:

  The story quoted from Pseudo-Augustine (Cumont, _op. cit._ I. p. 322)
  about the hands of the initiates being bound with chickens’-guts which
  were afterwards severed by a sword might account for the number of
  birds’ bones.

Footnote 948:

  Cumont, _op. cit._ II. p. 21, gives the passage from Lampridius
  mentioned in n. 1, p. 260, _supra_.

Footnote 949:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 322, quoting Zacharius rhetor.

Footnote 950:

  See Chapter II, Vol. I. p. 62, _supra_.

Footnote 951:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 18, for the passage in St Jerome in which
  these degrees are enumerated. They all appear in the inscriptions
  given by Cumont, except that of Miles or Soldier. An inscription by
  two “soldiers” of Mithras has, however, lately been found at Patras
  and published by its discoverers, M. Charles Avezou and M. Charles
  Picard. See _R.H.R._ t. LXIV. (1911), pp. 179-183.

Footnote 952:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. pp. 315 _sqq._

Footnote 953:

  Tertullian, _de Corona_, c. 15.

Footnote 954:

  Porphyry, _de antro nymph._ c. 15.

Footnote 955:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 322. Gregory of Nazianza (A.D. 320-390) is
  the first authority for these tortures (κολάσεις) in point of time.
  Nonnus the Mythographer gives more details, but is three centuries
  later.

Footnote 956:

  Renan, _Marc-Aurèle_, p. 577.

Footnote 957:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 73.

Footnote 958:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 294, Fig. 149; p. 298, Fig. 154; p. 300, Fig. 156;
  p. 304, Fig. 161; p. 488, Fig. 421.

Footnote 959:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 175, Fig. 10.

Footnote 960:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 39, n. 6, quoting the _Arda Viraf namak_. A quotation
  from Arnobius, _adv. gentes_, which follows, merely says that the Magi
  boast of their ability to smooth the believers’ passage to heaven.

Footnote 961:

  See Chap. VIII, p. 74, n. 3, _supra_.

Footnote 962:

  That those who had taken the degree of Pater were called ἀετοί or
  eagles appears from Porphyry, _de Abstinentia_, Bk IV. c. 16. Cumont
  doubts this; see _T. et M._ I. p. 314, n. 8. The idea probably had its
  origin in the belief common to classical antiquity that the eagle
  alone could fly to the sun, from which the Mithraist thought that the
  souls of men came, and to which those of perfect initiates would
  return. Cf. _op. cit._ I. p. 291.

Footnote 963:

  Lafaye, _L’Initiation Mithriaque_, p. 106.

Footnote 964:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 56.

Footnote 965:

  Porphyry, _de Abstinentia_, Bk IV. c. 16 says this was so.

Footnote 966:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 318, n. 1, points out that an initiate might
  become Pater Patrum immediately after being made Pater or Pater
  sacrorum simply. This appears from the two monuments both dated the
  same year of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, _op. cit._ II. p. 95.

Footnote 967:

  See Ammianus Marcellinus Bk XXII. c. 7, for his life under Julian. His
  career is well described by Dill, _Roman Society in the Last Century
  of the Western Empire_, 1899, pp. 17, 18, 30, 154, 155.

Footnote 968:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ II. p. 100, inscr. 35; p. 98, inscr. 24.

Footnote 969:

  _Op. cit._ II. p. 130, inscr. 225; p. 132, inscr. 239; p. 134, inscr.
  257. The two decurions may of course have been decurions of the rite
  only, as to which see _op. cit._ I. p. 326.

Footnote 970:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 324: Tertullian, _Praescpt._ c. 40.

Footnote 971:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 65. Thirty-five seems to be the greatest
  number belonging to any one chapel.

Footnote 972:

  _Op. cit._ I. p. 327.

Footnote 973:

  Amm. Marcell. _passim_.

Footnote 974:

  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ III. p. 136.

Footnote 975:

  Marinus, _vita Procli_, pp. 67, 68; Neander, _op. cit._ III. p. 136.

Footnote 976:

  Witness the reduction of Mitra, who plays such an important part in
  the religion of the Vedas, to the far lower position of chief of the
  Izeds or Yazatas in the Sassanian reform.

Footnote 977:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 250, for authorities.

Footnote 978:

  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_ (Bury’s ed.), I. p. 260 n. 106.

Footnote 979:

  Reville, _Religion sous les Sevères_, p. 102.

Footnote 980:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 347.

Footnote 981:

  Dill, _Last Century_, etc. p. 29, n. 2.

Footnote 982:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 347.

Footnote 983:

  _Op. cit._ I. pp. 329, 330; Dill, _Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, p. 624.

Footnote 984:

  Cumont, “L’aigle funéraire des Syriens et l’apothéose des empereurs.”
  _R.H.R._, 1910, pt ii. pp. 159 _sqq._

Footnote 985:

  Cf. the “solitary eagle” of the Magic Papyrus quoted on p. 265
  _supra_.

Footnote 986:

  Maury, _La Magie et L’Astrologie_, _passim_. The Zend Avesta also
  denounces magic as did the later Manichaeism. See p. 342 _infra_.

Footnote 987:

  As in Shakespeare’s _Macbeth_.




                              CHAPTER XIII
                       MANES AND THE MANICHAEANS


It is generally said that the religion of Mithras ended and was absorbed
in Manichaeism, which may thus be supposed to have inherited some, at
least, of its doctrines[988]. This is one of those statements which are
copied by one author from another until they acquire by mere repetition
the force of an axiom; but its truth is not obvious, nor does it appear
to rest upon any sound foundation. Except in the fact that both
Mithraism and Manichaeism came in the first instance from Persia, there
is little likeness between the two faiths, which are in all essential
respects diametrically opposed to each other. A strict dualism, or the
eternal antagonism of two equal principles, is the distinguishing
feature of the religion of Manes, while the worship of Mithras rested,
as has been said in the last chapter, on an equally uncompromising
monotheism, which made the Supreme Being, whether known as Jupiter or
Ormuzd, at once the creator and the governor of the universe. In this
respect, it drew near to Judaism, which it may have aimed at
incorporating with itself, and was not ashamed to place on its monuments
scenes which can be referred to the Old Testament[989]. Manichaeism, on
the other hand, looked on Judaism with horror, rejected the Old
Testament entirely, and was not improbably born in an outbreak of
anti-Semitic fury[990]. But the discrepancy of doctrine is as nothing
compared to the wide difference in those external matters which in a new
religion most strike the imagination of the crowd, and have therefore
much to do with its success or failure. The Mithraist was accustomed, as
we have seen, to an allegorical and symbolical ritual in which the
material image of his god was for ever before him; but the Manichaean,
as we shall see later, forbade the use of images and his worship
consisted merely of prayers and hymns. The Mithraists made frequent use
in their ceremonies of the sacrifice of animals; but the Manichaeans
looked with displeasure on the taking of the life even of plants. The
worshipper of Mithras not only gloried in the outward profession of his
religion, but by his avoidance of the wearing of garlands forced the
notice of it on those of his fellows who were not of the faith. The
follower of Manes, on the contrary, concealed his religion as carefully
as Basilides wished his followers to conceal theirs, and even went to
the length of outwardly adopting a creed different from his own. It is
not therefore to be wondered at that the rulers of the Roman Empire,
whose acquaintance with the worship of Mithras was a thousand times more
profound than our own, should have favoured Mithraism and have made
every effort to suppress Manichaeism. The very emperors who placed their
reformed State under the protection of Mithras imposed the penalty of
death upon those of their subjects who should venture to teach the
religion of Manes[991].

Not less different were the sanctions with which Mithraism and
Manichaeism appeared in the West. The worship of Mithras came into the
Roman world unobtrusively and without any claim to an exclusive
revelation or special means of propaganda. But Manichaeism had at its
back the personality of one of those wonderful men who appear at rare
intervals in the world’s history, to leave behind them a memorial of
their empire over the minds of their fellows in the shape of a new
creed. Manes was indeed, as the discoveries of the last decade have
taught us, an innovator in religion entirely worthy to rank with
Zoroaster, Buddha, and Muhammad, and when the difficulties in the way of
his missionary activity are considered, his influence upon the religious
ideas of those who came after him was at least as marked as that of any
of them. Manes or Mânî—the first being the Greek form of the name—was
born, according to his own deliberate statement, about the year 216
A.D., in a village of Babylonia called Mardînû situate on the Kutha
canal to the south of Ctesiphon[992]. According to Christian tradition,
his real name was Corbicius or Kubrik and he was a slave of unknown
birth[993]; according to the Mahommedan writers his father was one
Patecius or Fatak, while his mother is sometimes described as the “Lady
Mary,” sometimes as a Parthian princess, and is sometimes named
Karossa[994]. Such legends grow up naturally round the birth of all
founders of religions, and we should believe them the less in this case
that they have been handed down to us by the professors of religions
bitterly opposed to that of Manes. Yet the story about the Parthian
princess seems confirmed by the free access that he seems to have always
possessed to the court of the Persian monarchs of his time. Manes
himself says, according to Al-Bîrûnî, that illumination came to him in
his thirteenth year[995]; but this is contradicted by the _Fihrist_,
which puts the age at which he received revelation as twenty-four[996].
The _Acta Archelai_, a Christian source obviously suspect in the state
it has come down to us, would make him a priest of Mithras[997], a
tradition which may have originated at a date when the Catholic Church
recognized the danger to itself involved in the spread of the Mithraic
religion. Another story would make him a Magus or one of the priestly
caste entrusted by Ardeshîr with the propagation of the reformed
religion of Zoroaster[998], which is discredited by the fact that it was
the Magi who were from the outset his bitterest enemies[999]. A late
Oriental writer says that he was a Christian priest having a cure of
souls at Ahvâz[1000], the capital city of the province of Huzitis, which
again is negatived by the fact that he seems from his writings to have
had little more than a hearsay knowledge of Catholic Christianity,
although they show some acquaintance with the heresies of Bardesanes and
Marcion[1001]. He is said to have acquired great skill in painting which
he used to illustrate his teaching[1002], and to have been a learned
mathematician and astronomer. This is likely enough; but the only events
of his life which seem well attested, are that he began at an early age
to propagate his doctrine and that he succeeded in converting to it
Peroz or Fîrûz the son of Ardeshîr, through whose means he obtained a
formal hearing from Sapor or Shâpûr, the conqueror of Valerian and
Ardeshîr’s successor, shortly after this king’s accession to the
throne[1003]. Sapor seems to have listened to Manes with respect and,
according to an Oriental writer, to have even favoured his propaganda,
until the Magi, to whom the revival of the Zoroastrian religion had been
committed, convinced him of his error[1004]. On this, Manes was exiled
from Persia and retired, says Al-Bîrûnî, to India, China, and Thibet
preaching his gospel[1005]. On Sapor’s death, he returned to Persia
under Hormisdas or Ormuz, and again, it is said, succeeded in converting
to his tenets the reigning monarch[1006]. On Varanes’ or Bahram’s
accession to the throne the following year, however, he was seized and
put to death as a heretic after a disputation with the Chief of the
Magi, in which he failed to support the test of an ordeal by molten
metal proposed to him[1007]. The most likely account of his death
narrates that he was decapitated, and that his skin stuffed with straw
was suspended at the gate of the town where the execution took
place[1008]. This was followed by a great persecution of the Manichaeans
throughout Persia, and it is fairly evident that this, like his own
fate, was due to the hostility he had aroused in the Magi[1009]. The
date of his death is fixed with some accuracy at 275 A.D., so that he
would then have reached the age of sixty years[1010].

The causes underlying this sudden appearance of a new religion are
doubtless to be looked for in the political and religious history of
Persia at the time. Ardeshîr, as has been said above, gave new life to
the feeling of Persian nationality which the Parthian Kings had kept
alive during Greek supremacy in Asia, and succeeded in again founding a
Persian Empire. Like Alexander, Antiochus Epiphanes, and again,
Diocletian, he seems to have been thoroughly alive to the great effect
that a faith common to the whole empire would have in uniting the
peoples under his sway.

    “Never forget,” he says in the supposed testament that he is said to
    have left for the guidance of his son Sapor, “that as a king you are
    at once the protector of religion and of your country. Consider the
    altar and the throne as inseparable and that they must always
    sustain each other. A sovereign without religion is a tyrant, and a
    people which have no religion may be deemed the most monstrous of
    all societies. Religion may exist without a State, but a State
    cannot exist without religion; and it is by holy laws that a
    political association can alone be bound[1011].”

Yet in spite of these sentiments, more pithily expressed perhaps in the
“No bishop, no king” of our own James I, the task of founding a common
religion for the whole of the new Persian empire must have presented
some uncommon difficulties. Apart from the strong Semitic element
dominant in their Babylonian province, the Parthians had always been
eclectic in matters of faith, and Vonones, one of the last kings of
Parthia, had shown himself to be a Philhellene of a type which must have
been peculiarly offensive to a sovereign who was trying to revive the
old Persian nationality[1012]. The worship of Mithras, the god most
favoured by the legions with whom Ardeshîr was soon to be at
death-grips, must have been equally out of the question; and the
knowledge of this is probably to be seen in the low place in the
celestial hierarchy assigned to the old Vedic god in the Avesta of
Ardeshîr’s day[1013]. The Jewish religion in Central Asia had lately
given signs of proselytizing fervour, and it was the going-over of a
Parthian kinglet against the will of his people to the Jewish faith
which first, according to one account, gave the excuse for the
intervention of Vologeses or Valkhash and the subsequent reformation or
revival of the Zoroastrian religion[1014]. At the same time,
Christianity had already begun to share with Mithraism the devotion of
the legions stationed on the Roman frontier, and in the Gnostic form
favoured by the teaching of Marcion and Bardesanes was pushing into
Persia from Armenia and Edessa[1015]. Nor can we doubt that Buddhism,
already perhaps struck with decay in its native country of India[1016],
but flourishing exceedingly further East, was trying to obtain a
foothold in that very Bactria which was afterwards said to have been the
historic scene of Zoroaster’s activity. Other small, but, as the event
was to show, highly vitalized faiths, were current in Western Asia, and
the power of the Magi when Ardeshîr overthrew the Parthian power had
declined so greatly that the statues of the Parthian kings were placed
in the temples of the gods and adored equally with those of the
divinities[1017]. The Persians of Herodotus’ time, who did not believe
in deities who had the same nature as men, would have blushed at such a
profanation.

From this unpromising welter of creeds and cults, Ardeshîr delivered the
State by restoring the worship of Ahura Mazda as the State religion. One
of his first cares was to collect the fragments of the books which we
now know as the Zend Avesta, in which the revelations of the national
prophet Zoroaster were set down in a language not then understanded of
the people. It was afterwards said that the MSS. of these books had
purposely been destroyed or scattered by Alexander; but the fact seems
to be that they had fallen into discredit through the turning-away of
the Persians towards Hellenic and Semitic gods; and that a previous
attempt to restore their authority by Valkhash or Vologeses I, the
Parthian king who reigned from 50 to 75 A.D., had met with little
encouragement from his subjects[1018]. Most modern scholars are now
agreed that the Avesta and the literature that grew up round it contain
many doctrines not to be found in the Persian religion current in
Achaemenian times, and evidently brought into it from foreign sources
under the Hellenistic and Parthian kings. Such as it is, however, the
Avesta formed the Sacred Book of Ardeshîr’s reformation; while, in the
order of the Magi, by him restored to more than their former power, the
reformed Zoroastrian faith possessed an active, established, and
persecuting Church, which reigned in Persia without a serious rival
until the Mahommedan invasion.

Yet the first struggles of the reformation must have been sharp, and
Darmesteter was doubtless justified when he saw in Manichaeism the first
and possibly the strongest expression of the revulsion of Ardeshîr’s
subjects against the rigid orthodoxy which he sought to impose upon
them[1019]. That such a feeling persisted for some time is plain from
the fact that Manes’ “heresy” is said by Al-Bîrûnî to have been followed
by that of Mazdak, who seems to have preached, like the Antinomian sects
of Cromwell’s time, a kind of Socialism including the community of women
and of property[1020]. There arose also about the same time or a little
later the sect of Zervanists referred to in the chapter on Mithras, who
taught that Boundless Time was the origin of all things and was superior
to Ormuzd and Ahriman, to both of whom he was said to have given birth.
They seemed to have gained great power in the reign of Yezdegerd II;
and, if we may trust the Armenian authors, a proclamation commanding
adherence to their doctrines was put forth by Yezdegerd’s general Mihr
Nerses on his invasion of Armenia in 450 A.D.[1021] But the earliest and
most enduring of these heresies or rebellions against the purified and
restored religion of Ahura Mazda appears to have been that of Manes.

Were now the doctrines that Manes preached to his own undoing his
invention, or did he draw them from some pre-existent source? It is
said, in a Christian account which has come down to us, that they were
the work of one Scythianus[1022], a native, as his name implies, of
“Scythia” (which here probably means Turkestan) and a contemporary of
the Apostles, who married an Egyptian slave and learned from her all the
wisdom of the Egyptians[1023]. With the help of this and the tincture of
dualism which he extracted from “the works of Pythagoras,” the story
goes on to say, Scythianus constructed a system which he taught to a
disciple named Terebinthus, otherwise called Buddas or Buddha, before
his own death in Judaea[1024]. This Terebinthus gave out that he was
born of a virgin and had been nursed by an angel on a mountain; and he
also wrote four books in which the doctrines of Scythianus were set
down[1025]. These books he entrusted to an aged widow with whom he
lived, and he was afterwards struck dead while performing a magical
ceremony. On his death, she bought a boy of seven years old named
Corbicius, whom she enfranchised, and to whom she left her property and
Terebinthus’ books some five years later. Thus equipped, Corbicius took
the name of Manes, which may signify “Cup” or “Vessel[1026],” and began
to preach. This history has evidently been much corrupted and by no
means agrees with the account before quoted from Oriental sources which
bears greater marks of authenticity; but it is thought by some to be,
like the 14th chapter of Genesis, a sort of allegory in which the names
of peoples and systems are given as those of individual men[1027]. If
this be so, we should perhaps see in Scythianus the representative of
those non-Aryan tribes of Medes of whom the Magi formed part, while in
the name of Buddha we might find that of one of those Judaean
communities holding a mixture of Magian and Buddhist tenets who
according to one tradition were for long encamped near the Dead
Sea[1028]. Yet there is nothing specifically Buddhist or Egyptian about
the doctrines of Manes as we know them[1029], and if there were any
likeness between the mythology and observances of the cult and those of
its predecessors, it was probably introduced by Manes’ followers rather
than by himself[1030]. As to the doctrines of the Magi, Manes certainly
had no occasion to go to Judaea to find them; for in the Persia of
Ardeshîr and Sapor he must have heard quite as much of them as he
wished.

Probably, therefore, the Christian account of Manes’ sources is untrue,
or rather, as M. Rochat suggests, it was composed at a time and place in
which Manichaeism had become a heresy or alternative creed attached, so
to speak, not to Zoroastrianism but to Christianity, and had picked up
from this and other faiths many accretions[1031]. The doctrine of Manes
which has come down to us from other sources is extremely simple, and
seems to accord better with the Puritanical simplicity of life and
ritual afterwards practised by his followers. Both the Christian and the
Mahommedan traditions agree that he believed that there were two gods,
uncreated and eternal, and everlastingly opposed to each other[1032].
One of these is the God of Light and the other the God of Darkness; but
he does not seem to have given any specific or proper name to
either[1033]. It is possible that this last-named being may have been
identified by him with Matter[1034], although this would seem to be a
remnant of the Platonic philosophy of which there is no other trace in
his teaching. But it is certain that he regarded the God of Darkness as
entirely evil, that is to say, malevolent, and as a power to propitiate
whom man should make no attempt. “I have considered it needful to
despatch this letter to you” says an epistle which there is much reason
to consider expresses the opinions, if not the actual words, of Manes
himself[1035]:

    “first for the salvation of your soul and then to secure you against
    dubious opinions, and especially against notions such as those teach
    who lead astray the more simple (ἁπλούστεροι), alleging that both
    good and evil come from the same Power, and introducing but one
    principle, and neither distinguishing nor separating the darkness
    from the light, and the good from the bad and the evil (φαῦλον), and
    that which is without man from that which is within him, as we have
    said formerly, so that they cease not to confuse and mingle one
    thing with another. But do not thou, O my son, like most men,
    unreasonably and foolishly join the two together nor ascribe them
    both to the God of Goodness. For these teachers attribute to God the
    beginning and the end, and make him the father of these ills _the
    end of which is near a curse_[1036].”

Although this epistle bears evident marks of having been worked over and
amplified by some writer of a later age than that of the founder of
Manichaeism, there cannot be much doubt that it contains his teaching on
the Two Principles of all things. In the Christian account of Manes’
doctrine which M. Rochat thinks earlier than the epistle quoted above,
Manes’ _quondam_ follower Turbo says after recantation that his master
reverences two gods “unbegotten, self-existing (αὐτοφυεῖς), eternal and
set over against each other,” and that “he represents one as good, the
other as wicked, giving to the one the name of Light and to the other
that of Darkness[1037].” So, too, the Mahommedan writers who give what
seems to be an independent account of Manes’ opinions are agreed that he
deduced the origin of the world from “two Original Principles, one of
which is Light and the other Darkness, and which are separated one from
the other[1038].” The absolute opposition from the outset of good and
evil therefore formed the pivot of Manes’ whole system, and was opposed
quite as much to the Christian and Jewish creeds as to the Mithraic and
other modifications of Persian religious ideas then or later in vogue,
which held that evil like good was the creation of the Supreme Being,
and that Ahriman or Pluto was a god having subordinate authority to, but
of the same nature as, Ormuzd or Zeus. This uncompromisingly dualistic
theory gives an origin to evil independent of that of good, and can only
lead logically to the assertion of its eternity. Whether Manes gave
utterance to it for the first time, or derived it from a theology then
current in Persia, there is little evidence to show[1039]. The Zend
Avesta itself in its Sassanian recension does not seem to pronounce
clearly on this point, and has been thought by some high authorities to
teach the subordinate origin and ultimate extinction of evil[1040], and
by others exactly the reverse. It does, however, seem to be clear that
unless Manes invented _de novo_ the doctrine above quoted, it must have
been from Persia that he obtained it. No other country with which he can
have become acquainted has yet been shown to possess it[1041].

Exclusively Oriental, too, in its origin must be the history of the
conflict between these two Principles which follows. Each of them
apparently dwelt in his own domain for countless ages untroubled by the
existence of the other. The Light is the uppermost and is, according to
the Mahommedan version of Manes’ doctrine, without bounds in height and
on each side. The Darkness lies below it, and is in like manner
boundless in depth and in lateral extent[1042]. Hence there is a long
frontier at which they touch, and this spot was filled from the
beginning by the celestial air and the celestial earth. If we may read
into the tradition something which is not expressed there, but which
seems to follow logically from it, this atmosphere and this earth were
the heavier parts of the Divine substance, which sinking down formed a
kind of sediment or deposit[1043]. Each of these Two Principles has five
“members” or components, and this partition into five seems in the
Manichaean teaching to run through all things. Thus, the Mahommedan
tradition tells us that the “members” of the God of Light are
Gentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion, and Discernment, those
of the Air the same five, of the (celestial) earth, the Breeze or Ether,
Wind, Light, Water, and Fire, and of the Darkness Smoke, Flame, Hot
Wind, Poison or Pestilence, and Gloom or Fog[1044]. In this, and
especially in its deification of abstract principles, we may see a
reflection of Gnostic teaching which may easily have reached Manes from
Valentinus by way of Bardesanes and the Oriental or Edessan School. On
the other hand, the borrowing may have been the other way, and Simon
Magus may have obtained these notions from the Persian Magi and have
handed them on to Valentinus and his successors. This does not seem so
likely as the other, but the point can hardly be settled until we know
more than we do at present of the state of the Persian religion from the
time of the Achaemenian kings to the Sassanian reform.

However that may be, both the Christian and Mahommedan traditions are
agreed that the aggressor in the struggle between the good God and the
bad was the Evil One. The Mahommedan source, here fuller than the
Christian, tells us that the Darkness remained in an unorganized
condition for ages, although consisting of the five members enumerated
above. These parts, however, seem to have sunk down and produced another
Earth called the Darker Earth, from which in course of time came forth
Satan. Satan was not, like the King of the Paradise of Light, without
beginning, but came into being from the union of these five members of
Darkness, having the head of a lion, the body of a serpent, the wings of
a bird, the tail of a fish, and four feet like those of crawling
animals[1045], in which figure we may see a kind of reflection of the
Mithraic Ahriman[1046]. Satan, on his emergence on the Darker Earth,
perceived the rays of light from the upper world, piercing as we may
suppose through the gloomy atmosphere of his own world, and conceived a
hatred for them. Seeing, too, that these rays gained much in strength by
their combination and mutual support, he withdrew within himself so as
to unite himself more closely with his members[1047]. Then again
springing upwards, he invaded the realms of Light with the intention of
there spreading calamity and destruction. The aeon—or world as the
_Fihrist_ calls it—of Discernment was the first to be aware of this
invasion[1048], and reported it to the aeon Knowledge, from whom it
passed to the others in turn until it at last reached the ear of the
Good God, here, as elsewhere in the _Fihrist_, called the King of the
Paradise of Light. With the aid of the Spirit of his Right Hand, of his
five worlds or members before mentioned, and of his twelve elements, of
which we have before heard nothing[1049], he made the First Man,
clothing him by way of armour with the five “species” or powers of the
celestial earth, the Breeze, Wind, Light, Water and Fire as before
enumerated[1050]. With these He despatched him to fight Satan, who in
his turn did on his armour in the shape of _his_ five “species,” Smoke,
Flame, Poison, Hot Wind, and Gloom[1051]. The fight lasted long, but in
the end Satan triumphed, and dragged the First Man down into the Realm
of Darkness, where he took from him his light[1052]. During the fight,
too, the elements had become mingled, so that the Ether henceforth was
mixed with the Smoke, the Fire with the Flame, the Light with the
Darkness, the Wind with the Hot Wind, and the Cloud with the Water. This
it is which brings about the confusion or mixture seen in the present
world, wherein everything which is beautiful, pure, or useful, such as
gold and silver, comes from the armour of the First Man, and everything
foul, impure, and gross, from that of his infernal opponent[1053]. After
the fight, the King of the Paradise of Light descended with another
Power called the Friend of the Lights, who overthrew Satan, and the
Spirit of the Right Hand or Mother of Life recalled, either by her voice
or by another power called the Living Spirit, the First Man from his
prison in the lowest Darkness. The First Man, on his deliverance, in
this account mounts again to the Realms of Light, but before doing so
“cuts the roots” of the Five Infernal Elements so that they can no more
increase[1054]. Then the King of the Paradise of Light orders an angel
to draw the Confusion or Mixture of the Elements to that part of the
Realm of Darkness which touches the Realm of Light, and to create out of
it the present world, so as to deliver the imprisoned elements of Light
from the Darkness with which they are contaminated. This is done, and a
Universe having six heavens and eight earths is formed, each heaven
having twelve gates, together with terraces, corridors, and places in
such profusion as to point to some confusion in the translation into the
Syriac which has come down to us. The only thing that concerns us in
this, perhaps, is that the visible world, presumably the lowest of the
eight, has a ditch dug round it in which is thrown the Matter of
Darkness as it is separated from the Light, and outside this a wall so
that it cannot escape. This is in view of the End of the World[1055].

So far there is no great difference—at all events, no irreconcilable
difference—between the Christian and the Mahommedan accounts of Manes’
doctrines. The machinery set up for the process of the redemption of the
light, however, differs somewhat conspicuously in the two traditions.
The Mahommedan writers declare that in Manes’ teaching the Sun and Moon
were created for the purification of the Light, the Sun drawing to
itself those light-elements which had become contaminated by the demons
of heat and flame and the Moon exercising a like attraction on those
which had suffered from the embrace of Satan’s other powers. Both
luminaries bear these elements into the Column of Praises or Glory which
is perpetually mounting from the Sun to the World of Light, bearing with
it the praises of men, their hymns of gratitude, and their pure words
and good works[1056]. This will continue until none but a feeble
fragment of the Light remains in this world, when the angels charged
with its maintenance will abandon their task, and return to the World of
Light. A fire will then break out, which will burn for 1468 years and
will set free the remainder of the Light imprisoned in matter by
consuming its envelope. Satan or Hummâma, the Spirit of Darkness, will
then acknowledge his defeat, and will be driven into the tomb prepared
for him, the entrance to which will be closed with a stone the size of
the world[1057]. In the Christian tradition these matters are more
complicated, and Manes is said to have taught that there exists a great
wheel bearing twelve vases or buckets after the fashion of an Egyptian
_sakiyeh_, which raise the redeemed portions of Light to the Sun, who
gives them to the Moon, who in her turn delivers them to the Aeons of
the Light, who place them in the Column of Glory here called the Perfect
Air[1058]. The Christian account is also more detailed with regard to
the functions of the angels charged with the conduct of the world,
making out that one of them supports this earth on his shoulders and is
therefore called Omophorus, great earthquakes and commotions taking
place when from weariness he shifts his burthen from one shoulder to the
other, while another, called Splenditenens, holds the heavens by their
backs[1059]. The stars are also in the Christian tradition fashioned out
of the purer part of the Light which was _not_ captured by the Satanic
powers, whereas the Mahommedan tradition says nothing about their
origin[1060]. The Christian writers also make the Manichaeans tell a
story about the appearance of a beautiful virgin who appears to the male
and female devils who were crucified or fixed in this world on the
deliverance of the First Man. She appears to the male fiends as a
beautiful woman and to the female as a desirable young man; and when
they covet and pursue her, she flies from them and disappears. The anger
of the Great Archon or Satan on this causes the appearance of clouds in
this world and thereby obscures the Sun’s light, whilst his sweat
becomes rain[1061].

On the origin of terrestrial man, there is also considerable discrepancy
between the two streams of tradition. The Mahommedan tells us that Adam
was born from the conjunction of one of “these Archons” or Princes, and
a star. Nothing is said to tell us what is meant by “these” princes, but
as the phrase is used in other passages by the same writer to denote the
Satanic hierarchy one can but suppose that it is one of the rulers of
darkness who is here indicated[1062]. The same writer goes on to say
that the conjunction was “beheld” [or aided?] by a pair of Archons, one
male and the other female, and that a second similar conjunction
resulted in the birth of Eve. There is evidently a reference here to
some legend of which we have lost the trace[1063], and the Christian
tradition assigns to Adam an entirely different origin and declares that
he was made by all the “princes” or archons on the advice of one of
their number, who persuaded the others to give up some of the light they
had received which they knew would otherwise be taken from them and to
make from it man in their own image and after the form of the “First
Man” against whom they had fought with temporary success[1064]. This
story is clearly the same as that which we have already seen current
among the Ophites, and it now seems most probable that it here appears
not—as was once thought—as an interpolation foisted into the teaching of
Manes by the Christian writer, but because both Ophite and Manichaean
derived the story independently of each other from legends current in
Western Asia[1065].

The Mahommedan writer then plunges into a long and elaborate account of
how the “Five Angels,” meaning thereby apparently the “members”
Gentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion and Discernment, on
beholding Adam and Eve, prayed to certain powers which seem to be those
which descended with the King of the Paradise of Light after the defeat
of the First Man properly so called. These Powers include the First Man
himself and the Mother of Life[1066], and the Living Spirit[1067], and
were besought by the Five to send to earth a Saviour who should give
Adam and Eve Knowledge and Goodness and deliver them from the devils.
Their prayer was heard, and Jesus was sent upon earth “accompanied by a
god,” with whose aid the Archons were again overthrown and imprisoned,
while Adam and Eve were set free[1068]. Jesus then addressed Adam and
revealed to him the whole secret of the cosmogony, enlightening him upon
the origin and functions of the different heavenly worlds or paradises,
of the gods, of hell, of the devils, of the earth and sky, and of the
sun and moon. He then showed him, continues the Mahommedan tradition,
the seductive power of Eve, put him on his guard against it, and
breathed into him the fear of yielding to it. Adam, it is said, listened
to these commands obediently.

The result of this abstinence on Adam’s part—we are still pursuing the
Mahommedan account of the Manichaean teaching—was seen in the sequel.
The Archon or Demon who was practically the father of the present race
of mankind became enamoured of Eve, and engendering with her begot a son
“ugly and of a reddish colour,” who was named Cain. Cain in turn had
relations with his mother Eve, and from this incest was born a son of
white colour who was named Abel. From the further intercourse of Cain
and Eve were born two daughters, one called “the Wisdom of the World,”
and the other “the Daughter of Pleasure.” Cain took the last-named to
wife and gave the other in marriage to Abel; but he did not know that
the Wisdom of the World was filled with Light and divine wisdom, while
the Daughter of Pleasure possessed nothing of the kind. In the sequel,
one of the Angels had relations with the Wisdom of the World and begot
two daughters, called Help (Farjâd) and Bringer of Help (Barfarjâd).
Abel accused Cain of being the father of these girls, whereupon Cain
killed him and took the “Wisdom of the World” as his own second wife.
The Rulers of Darkness were annoyed at this, and the “Great Devil,” here
called Sindîd, taught Eve magical formulas by the aid of which she again
enticed Adam to intercourse. The result was a son “beautiful and of an
agreeable countenance,” whom Eve wished to kill as having nothing of the
Archons in him. Adam arranged to have the child fed exclusively on milk
and fruits, and drew three magic circles round him bearing the names of
the King of the Paradise of Light, the First Man, and the Spirit of Life
respectively, to protect him against the devils. He then went to a high
place and entreated God for him, whereupon one of the Three Powers last
named appeared and gave him a Crown of Glory, at the sight of which
Sindîd and the Archons fled away. Then a tree appeared to Adam called
the Lotus, from which he drew milk with which to nourish his son whom he
called first after the tree, and then Seth (Schâthîl). Eve, on the
instigation of Sindîd, again persuaded Adam to intercourse, which so
disgusted Seth that he took with him the Wisdom of the World, her two
daughters Help and Bringer of Help, and “Siddikût,” which seems to be
the community of the elect or Perfect Manichaeans, and journeyed to the
East in search of the Divine Light and Wisdom. At their death all these
entered into Paradise, while Eve, Cain, and the daughters of Desire went
to hell[1069].

The story about the protoplasts of the Book of Genesis has been given in
more detail than it perhaps deserves because of its manifest connection
with the doctrines of the extant sect of Mandaites, Hemerobaptists, or
Disciples of St John still to be found in certain villages near the
Shât-el-Arab and even in considerable towns like Bussora. These
sectaries declare themselves to have inherited the faith of John the
Baptist, and have a sacred book called the Sidra Rabba, which has been
known to Europeans since the XVIIth century, and contains, among other
things, many stories like those given above. The Mandaites are a
violently anti-Christian sect, and say that the historical Jesus was a
fiend who obtained baptism from St John the Baptist by means of a trick,
and they display a similar hatred of the religions of both the Jews and
the Mahommedans. Nevertheless, most modern writers consider them related
to, and perhaps the modern representatives of, the Mughtasilah or
“Washers[1070].” This last sect is certainly very ancient, and its
history can in fact be traced as far back as the beginning of the reign
of Trajan[1071], while the Mahommedan author, from whom the traditional
account of Manes’ doctrines has been quoted above, says that Manes was
in his youth one of the Mughtasilah. From this Prof. Kessler, who
perhaps devoted more attention to the Manichaean religion than any
living scholar, built up the theory that the doctrines of the
Mughtasilah were one of the principal sources from which Manes formed
his system. He even says that the Fatak or Patecius whom tradition gives
as a father to Manes must be identified with that Scythianus or
Terebinthus whom the Christian tradition makes Fatak’s predecessor, was
one of the Mughtasilah, and helped Manes both in the construction of his
system and in its propagation[1072]. This may be so, but very little
evidence is available in support of the theory; and the points which the
Mandaites and the Manichaeans undoubtedly possess in common do not seem
to be more than can be explained by the contact which must necessarily
have taken place between two neighbouring sects both persecuted
successively by Persian Shahs, Christian Emperors, and Mahommedan
Caliphs. The Christian tradition of Manes’ teaching concerning the
protoplasts says merely that “he who said ‘Let us make man in our own
image’” was the same Prince of Darkness who thereby counselled the other
Archons to give up their light in order to make man in the likeness

    “of the form that we have seen, that is to say, of the First Man.
    And in that manner,” it continues, “he created the man. They created
    Eve also after the like fashion, imparting to her of their own lust,
    with a view to the deceiving of Adam. And by these means the
    construction of the world proceeded from the operations of the
    Prince[1073].”

The teaching of Manes with regard to Jesus is not very clear in the
Christian tradition, no doubt because the writers who recorded it were
careful to remove from it as much as possible everything which in their
view savoured of blasphemy. Yet the Christian author before quoted makes
Manes say that the God of Light whom he calls “the Good Father” sent his
well-beloved son upon earth for the salvation of man’s soul and “because
of Omophorus” or the world-sustaining angel. This son, by whom he can
hardly mean any other than the historical Jesus, “came and transformed
himself into the semblance of a man and showed himself to men as a man,
although he was not a man, and men imagined that he had been
begotten[1074].” It is also to Him that is attributed the construction
of the wonderful wheel before alluded to as equipped with twelve vases
which the sphere causes to revolve, and which thus scoops up, as it
were, the souls of the dying[1075]. The Christian account also narrates
that in

    “the Paradise which is called the Cosmos [Qy the ‘heavenly’ earth or
    the Sun?], there are trees such as Desire and other deceits, whereby
    the minds of those men [those who reach it?] are corrupted. But the
    tree in Paradise, whereby they know the good, is Jesus and the
    knowledge of Him which is in the Cosmos. And whoso receives it,
    distinguishes between good and evil. Yet the Cosmos itself is not of
    God, but it was made from portions of matter, and therefore all
    things in it will disappear[1076].”

There is not really any very great difference between this and the
Mahommedan tradition quoted above which makes Jesus the messenger sent
from above to give knowledge to Adam, especially if we consider that
Manes probably, like most of the Gnostics, placed Paradise not upon the
earth but in one of the heavens intermediate between us and the abode of
the Supreme Being[1077]. That Manes supposed Jesus to have descended to
this earth also is plain from his own words quoted by Al Bîrûnî from the
_Shapurakan_ or book written by Manes for King Sapor:

    “Wisdom and deeds have always from time to time been brought to
    mankind by the messenger of God. So in one age they have been
    brought by the messenger called Buddha to India, in another by
    Zaradusht [_i.e._ Zoroaster] to Persia, in another by Jesus to the
    West. Thereupon this revelation has come down, this prophecy in this
    last age through me, Mânî, the messenger of the God of Truth to
    Babylonia[1078].”

Manes’ ideas as to the salvation of man’s soul again differ little in
the two streams of tradition. The Christian, here perhaps the fuller of
the two, describes him as teaching that the soul of man, as also that of
beasts, birds, other animals, and plants, is part of the light which was
won by the demons from the First Man, while all bodies are of that
matter which is the same as darkness. Man’s body, we are told, is called
a cosmos by parallelism with the great Cosmos, and all men have roots
here below bound to things which are above[1079]. It is the cutting of
these roots by the demons which causes death. On the death of a man who
has attained the knowledge of the truth during this life, his soul is
taken up in the wheel to the Sun, by whom after it has been purified it
is passed over to the Moon, the two luminaries being represented as
ships or ferry-boats sailing to-and-fro in the upper air. When the Moon
is full, she ferries the souls with which she is filled towards the
East, and then delivers them to the Aeons of Light who place them in the
Pillar of Glory before described. She then returns for a fresh supply
greatly reduced in circumference, whereby her waxing and waning is
explained[1080]. In the case of a man who has not attained the knowledge
of the truth, a small portion of the soul only is purified and is then
reincarnated in the body of a dog, a camel, or some other animal,
according to the sins which it has committed. Thus, if he has killed a
mouse, he will become a mouse, if a chicken a chicken, and so on, while
those who have been employed in the reaping of corn will themselves
become corn or some other kind of plant in order that they may be reaped
and cut in turn. The soul of the homicide will, it is said, go to
inhabit the body of a leper[1081]. There will, apparently, be five of
these reincarnations[1082], and between them the soul which has not
found knowledge of the truth is given over to the demons in order that
they may subdue it in the “Gehennas” of fire. This, like its
transference into other bodies, is for the sake of teaching it better;
but if it still remains without knowledge, it is cast into the great
fire until the Consummation of the World[1083].

The Mahommedan tradition as to what occurs at death goes into more
details, and it is here that we catch the first glimpse of that doctrine
of predestination which plays so prominent a part in the later teaching
of the Manichaean Church. When a just or perfect or “true” Manichaean is
on the point of death, the First Man sends to him a “shining god of
light” in the form of “the Wise Guide” accompanied by three other gods
and with them “the bowl of water, the garment, the fillet for the head,
the circlet and the crown of light[1084].” With them comes the virgin
who is like to the soul of the just one. There also appear to him the
devil of greed, that of pleasure, and others with them. Directly the
just one who is dying sees them, he calls to his help the goddess[1085]
who has taken the form of the Wise Guide and the three gods her
companions. They draw near to him, and at the sight of them the devils
turn and flee. Then the gods take the just one, do on him the crowns and
the garment, put in his hand the bowl of water, and mount with him to
the Column of Praises in the sphere of the Moon, to the First Man and to
Nahnaha the Mother of Life, until they reach the place in the Paradise
of Light he occupied in the beginning[1086]. His body remains stretched
(upon the earth) in order that the Sun, the Moon, and the Gods of Light
may take from it its powers, _i.e._ the Water, the Fire, the gentle
Breeze, which are then borne upwards to the Sun and become a god. The
rest of the body, which is all darkness, is cast into hell[1087].

This description of the lot of the blessed after death is certainly
taken from no other source than that from which the Zoroastrian books
put forth by the Sassanian kings are drawn.

    “At the end of the third night,” says the Hatoxt Nask[1088], one of
    the earliest Zoroastrian documents that have come down to us, “at
    the dawn of day, the soul of the faithful thinks that it is in a
    garden and smells its perfumes. Towards it a wind seems to blow from
    the region of the South perfumed, more perfumed than any other wind.
    Then the soul of the faithful thinks that he breathes this wind with
    his nostrils. ‘Whence blows this wind, the most perfumed that I have
    breathed with my nostrils?’ While encountering this breeze, his
    religion (conscience, _daena_, spiritual life), appears to him in
    the form of a beautiful young girl, shining, with white arms,
    robust, of fair growth, of fair aspect, tall, high-bosomed, of fair
    body, noble, of shining race, with the figure of one who is 15 years
    old, as fair in form as the fairest creatures that exist. Then the
    soul of the faithful speaks to her, and asks ‘What virgin art thou,
    thou the most beautiful in form of the virgins that I have ever
    seen?’ Then she who is his religion answers: ‘O youth of good mind,
    of good words, of good deeds, of good religion, I am thine own
    religion incarnate[1089].’”

So, too, the Vendidad, which may be a little later in date than the
document just quoted, represents Ahura Mazda as saying in answer to
Zarathustra himself:

    “After a man has disappeared, after a man dies, the impious and
    malevolent demons make their attack. When the dawn of the third
    night shines forth and the day begins to lighten, the well-armed
    Mithra arrives at the mountains giving forth holy radiance and the
    Sun rises. Then, O Spitama Zarathustra ... she comes, the beautiful,
    the well-made, the strong, of fair growth, with her dogs, full of
    discernment, rich in children [_i.e._ fruitful], the longed-for,
    virtuous one. She leads the souls of the faithful above the Hara
    Berezaiti; she sustains them across the bridge Chinvat in the road
    of the spiritual divinities. Vohu Mano rises from his golden throne.
    Vohu Mano says, ‘O faithful one, how hast thou come hither from the
    perishable world to the imperishable?’ Rejoicing, the faithful pass
    before Ahura Mazda, before the beneficent Immortals, before golden
    thrones, before the house of hymns, the dwelling of Ahura Mazda, the
    dwelling of the beneficent Immortals, the dwelling of the other
    faithful ones. When the faithful is purified, the wicked and
    malevolent demons tremble by reason of the perfume after his
    departure as a sheep pursued by a wolf trembles at the [scent of
    the?] wolf[1090].”

To return, however, to the Mahommedan account of Manes’ doctrine. This
last by no means confined his survey of the state of man’s soul after
death to the single case of the justified dead.

    “When death draws nigh to a man who has fought for religion and
    justice, [he is represented as saying,] and who has protected them
    by protecting the Just, the gods whom I have mentioned appear and
    the devils are there also. Then he calls the gods to his help and
    seeks to win them by showing to them his works of piety, and that
    which he has done to protect the religion and the Just. The gods
    deliver him from the devils, while leaving him in the condition of a
    man in this world, who sees fearful shapes in his dreams, and who is
    plunged in dirt and mud[1091]. He remains in this state until his
    Light and his Spirit are freed [evidently by transmigration] when he
    arrives at the meeting-place of the Just. Then, after having
    wandered for long, he dons their vesture. But when death appears to
    the sinful man, to him who has been ruled by greed and desire, the
    devils draw near to him, they seize him, torment him, and put
    fearful shapes before his eyes. The gods are there also with the
    vesture, so that the sinful one thinks they have come to deliver
    him. But they have only appeared to him to reproach him, to remind
    him of his actions, and to convince him of his guilt in having
    neglected the support of the Just. He wanders unceasingly throughout
    the world, and is tortured until the coming of the End of the World,
    when he will be thrown into hell. Thus, Manes teaches,” continues
    the tradition, “that there are three paths for the soul of man. One
    leads to Paradise, which is the path of the Just. Another leads back
    to the world and its terrors, which is the path of the protectors of
    the faith and the helpers of the Just. The third leads to hell,
    which is the path of the sinful man[1092].”

Yet there is nothing to show that the sins which thus doom a man to hell
are within his choice to commit or to leave alone as he chooses. Rather
does it appear that his freedom from sin depends on the admixture of
light which enters into his composition at his birth. Of all this the
Christian tradition says nothing.

It is, nevertheless, in the division here set forth of the adherents of
the religion into the Just and the protectors of the Just, that the
great distinction between the Manichaean religion and all its
contemporaries appears. Both traditions are agreed that those who listen
to the teaching of Manes are to be divided into five classes, viz. the
Masters who are the sons of Gentleness; those who are enlightened by the
Sun, who are the sons of Knowledge or the Priests; the Elders who are
the sons of Intelligence; the Just who are the sons of Discretion; and
the Hearers who are the sons of Discernment[1093]. The first three
classes we may safely neglect for the present, as they evidently
correspond to the three superior or directing orders of the Manichaean
Church to which we shall have to return later; but the last two, the
Just and the Hearers, give us the key to the organization of the sect,
and explain how it was able to maintain itself for so long against its
numerous enemies. He who would enter into the religion, says the
Mahommedan tradition, must examine himself that he may see whether he is
strong enough to conquer desire and greed, to abstain from meats, from
wine, and from marriage, to avoid all that can be hurtful in (to?) water
or fire, and to shun magic and hypocrisy[1094]. These abstinences are
those that are demanded of the perfect Manichaeans, who have been called
above the Just or the Sons of Discretion, and who with their superiors
constitute the Manichaean Church. These are they whom the Christian
tradition speaks of as the Elect, and for whom, as we have seen, there
is reserved after death a glorious ascension and an immediate return to
the Paradise of Light. So Valentinus, like many other Gnostics, divided
Christians into the two classes of pneumatics and psychics, the
first-named of whom were to occupy a more distinguished position in the
world to come than the other. There is nothing to show, however, that
Valentinus or any other Gnostic ever imposed any discipline on the
pneumatics than that prescribed for the psychics, or that he thought
that those who were going to take a higher rank in the next world should
observe a stricter mode of life in this. The Catholics, indeed, had
already adopted the view that the celibate member of the Church
possessed “a higher calling” than his married brethren; but there is no
reason to suppose that they therefore assigned to them a higher place in
the next world, or thought that those who had not the gift of continence
were to be permitted any relaxation of the moral law imposed upon
celibate and married alike. It is therefore probable that it was from
Buddhism, with which Manes must have made himself well acquainted during
his journeys into India, that he borrowed the scheme by which those who
believed in the truth of his teaching could delay subjecting themselves
to the austerities necessary for salvation until their next incarnation.

However this may be, there can be little doubt that this is the meaning
of the position he assigned to the Hearers.

    “If,” he says according to the Mahommedan author, “he who would
    enter into the religion does _not_ feel strong enough to practise
    the abstinences before enumerated, let him renounce the attempt. If,
    however, he is filled with love for the faith, yet cannot conquer
    desire and greed, let him seek to progress by protecting the faith
    and the Just, and let him fight against evil actions on the
    occasions when he can give himself to labour[1095], piety,
    vigilance, prayer and humility. This will fill him with contentment
    both in this ephemeral world, and in the eternal world to come, and
    he will put on the body of the second degree in the state which
    follows after death[1096].”

Unless they are greatly belied, some of his later followers looked upon
this as a licence to the Hearers to commit such sins as they chose[1097]
in this life, yet it is evident that this formed no part of Manes’
original teaching. He imposed upon the Hearers, says the Mahommedan
tradition, ten commandments, which were: to abstain from prayers offered
to idols, from lying, from avarice, from murder, from adultery, from
false teaching, from magic, from double dealing, from doubt in religion
and from slackness and want of energy in action. They also had to recite
certain prayers which will be mentioned in their place, and to fast two
days when the Moon is new as when she is full, as also when the Sun
enters the sign of Sagittary. A three days’ fast was also obligatory on
the first appearance of the Moon after the entry of the Sun into the
signs of Capricorn and of Libra. But they were to feast on Sunday, a day
which the Perfect, according to the Mahommedans, kept as a fast, their
own weekly feast being held on Monday[1098].

The attitude of Manes to other religions was also without precedent or
parallel. Of the Jews and of their religion he seems to have had a
detestation so strong and so deeply rooted that it is difficult not to
see in it some connection with political events of which we have lost
the record. The war of extermination which Hadrian had been forced to
wage against the Jews of Palestine must have been over nearly a century
before Manes began to teach; but the Babylonian Jews can hardly have
been affected by this, and the story of the king of Adiabene quoted
above shows that shortly before the time of Ardeshîr they actively
pursued the proselytizing policy which their countrymen in the West had
been forced to abandon. In doing so, they doubtless contrived, after
their manner, to offend the national prejudices of their hosts, while
showing themselves greedy, as ever, of political power[1099]. This
probably provoked reprisals, and it is quite possible that Manes’
teaching derived some of its strength from the revulsion felt by
Ardeshîr’s Aryan subjects to the borrowings from Judaism to be found
both in Mithraism and the Avestic literature. But whatever its cause,
there can be no doubt about the hatred felt by Manes for the Jewish
religion, which is prominent in every tradition of his teaching. The
earlier Gnostics, like Marcion, had made the God of the Old Testament a
harsh but just and well-meaning tyrant; but Manes would have none of
this, and declared that he was a fiend.

    “It is the Prince of Darkness,” the Christian tradition makes him
    say, “who spoke with Moses, the Jews, and their priests. Thus the
    Christians, the Jews, and the Pagans are involved in the same error
    when they worship this God. For he led them astray in the lusts that
    he taught them, since he was not the God of Truth. Whence those who
    put their hope in that God who spoke with Moses and the Prophets
    will be bound with him, because they have not put their trust in the
    God of Truth. For he, the God of the Jews, spoke with them according
    to their lusts[1100].”

In a very different spirit, however, Manes dealt with all the other
religions that he knew. He acknowledged the Divine origin of the
teachings of Zoroaster, of Buddha, and of Jesus alike, with the
reservation that he should himself be regarded as the Paraclete, which
here seems to mean nothing more than the Legate or Ambassador, sent by
the Good God to complete their teaching. “Mânî, the messenger of the God
of Truth to Babylonia[1101]” is the title which, as we have seen, he
gives himself in the most authentic record of his teaching. He aimed, in
short, at establishing a universal religion which should include within
its scope the three faiths that between them commanded the allegiance of
the whole civilized world, and should acknowledge him as its founder and
chief. Had his plans come to fruition in his lifetime, he would have
attained an empire over the minds of men far greater and wider than any
ever claimed or dreamed of by the most ambitious of the Roman pontiffs.

The full details of the way in which he proposed to establish this new
faith we shall probably never know; but discoveries made during the last
decade have shown us that his plans were well fitted to their purpose.
The successive expeditions of Drs Grünwedel and von Le Coq to Turfan
have shown that up to as late as the XIth century A.D., there was still
a strong body of Manichaeans probably belonging to the Ouigur nation in
Chinese Turkestan, living apparently in complete amity with their
Buddhist countrymen[1102]. The writings that were there discovered, to
which we shall have to refer more in detail later, are mostly written in
a script resembling the Estranghelo or Syriac but with an alphabet
peculiar to the Manichaean religious documents, and which cannot, one
would think, have been adopted by those who used it for any other
purpose than that of concealment[1103]. Judging from this and the
practice of the sect in Europe from the time of Diocletian onward, it
seems highly probable that among Buddhists, the Manichaean hearers
professed Buddhism, and among Zoroastrians, Zoroastrianism, hoping that
thus they might be able to turn their fellows to their way of thinking
without openly dissenting from the reigning religion. The persecution
that Bahram I instituted against them immediately upon Manes’ execution
was perhaps less a reason than a pretext for this.

This is certainly borne out by their proceedings when they found
themselves among Christians.

    “You ask me if I believe the gospel,” said the Manichaean Prefect,
    Faustus, in his dispute with St Augustine (himself for nine years
    before his conversion a Manichaean Hearer). “My obedience to its
    commands shows that I do. I should rather ask you if you believe it,
    since you give no proof of your belief. I have left my father,
    brother, wife and children and all else that the gospel requires;
    and you ask me if I believe the gospel. Perhaps you do not know what
    is called the gospel. The gospel is nothing else than the teaching
    and the precept of Christ. I have parted with all gold and silver. I
    have left off carrying money in my purse; content with food obtained
    from day to day; without anxiety for the morrow and without care as
    to how I shall be fed or wherewithal I shall be clothed; and you ask
    if I believe the gospel? You see in me the blessings of the gospel;
    and yet you ask if I believe the gospel. You see me poor, meek, a
    peacemaker, pure in heart, mourning, hungering, thirsting, bearing
    persecutions and hatred for righteousness’ sake; and do you doubt if
    I believe in the gospel[1104]?”

So, too, Manes in the epistle to Marcellus which, although much altered
and corrupted by its Catholic transcribers, is probably a genuine
document, is careful to begin in language which seems imitated from the
Epistles of St Paul:

    “Manes, an apostle of Jesus Christ, and all the saints who are with
    me, and the virgins, to Marcellus, my beloved son; Grace, mercy, and
    peace be with you from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus
    Christ; and may the right hand of light preserve you from the
    present evil world and from its calamities, and from the snares of
    the wicked one, Amen[1105].”

While in the Disputation which follows and which is certainly a later
interpolation, or possibly a concoction of some later author, he is
represented as saying “My brother, I am indeed a disciple of Christ,
and, moreover, an apostle of Jesus.” Yet in spite of this and a few
other passages of the same kind, it is plain that neither Manes, nor any
of those who believed on his teaching, were Christians in any sense in
which the term could not be applied to the followers of Mahommed or many
another professedly anti-Christian teacher. Manes entirely rejected the
account of the Incarnation given in the Gospels, alleging, as a modern
critic might do, that it was not the account of eyewitnesses, but a mass
of fables which had grown up after the memory of the events recorded had
faded away[1106]. Jesus, he said, was not born of woman, but came forth
from the Father or First Man, and descended from heaven in the form of a
man about thirty years of age[1107]. But the body in which He appeared
was an illusion only and was no more that of a real man than the dove
which descended upon Him at the baptism in Jordan was a real dove, and
it was not true to say that He was put to death by the Romans and
suffered on the cross[1108]. So far from that being the case, he
declared that Jesus, the mortal or suffering Jesus, was nothing but the
universal soul diffused throughout Nature and thus tormented by its
association with matter. Thus, he said, the Jesus _patibilis_ may be
said to be hanging from every tree[1109].

To say that such teaching was likely to alter in the course of a
generation or two is merely to assert that it followed the course of
evolution which can be traced in all religions, and it is possible that
in what has been said in the last paragraph concerning Jesus, we have
rather the opinions of the Manichaeans of the fourth century than those
of Manes himself. Yet even in this we see exemplified the chameleon-like
habit peculiar to the Manichaeans of modifying their tenets in outward
appearance so as to make them coincide as nearly as possible with the
views of those whom they wished to win over to them. Thus when the
Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, the Three Persons and One God, began
to take shape under the pressure of the Arian controversy, the
Manichaeans were not long in matching it with a Trinity of their
own[1110]:

    “We worship,” said Faustus the Manichaean Perfect, “under the triple
    appellation of Almighty God, the Father and His Son Christ and the
    Holy Spirit. While these are one and the same, we believe also that
    the Father properly dwells in the highest or chief light, which Paul
    calls ‘light inaccessible,’ and the Son in the second or visible
    light. And as the Son is himself two-fold according to the apostle,
    who speaks of Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God, so
    we believe that His power dwells in the Sun and His wisdom in the
    Moon[1111]. We also believe that the Holy Spirit, the third majesty,
    has His seat and His home in the whole circle of the
    atmosphere.[1112] By His influence and inpouring of the spirit, the
    Earth conceives and brings forth the suffering Jesus, who, as
    hanging from every tree, is the life and salvation of man[1113].”

In like manner, while not denying them in terms, the Manichaeans
attempted to refine away all the significance of the Crucifixion and the
Atonement, by representing them as merely symbolical. In one Apocryphal
book called the _Wanderings of the Apostles_, which seems to be of
Manichaean origin, Jesus appears to St John, who is sunk in grief at the
supposed sufferings of his Master, and tells him that His Crucifixion
was a mere phantasmagoria or miracle-play performed to impress the
plebeian crowd at Jerusalem. Then He vanishes and in His stead appears a
cross of pure light, surrounded by a multitude of other forms
representing the same shape and image. From this cross comes a Divine
voice saying sweetly:

    “The cross of light is, for your sakes, sometimes called the Word,
    sometimes Christ; sometimes the Door, sometimes the Way; sometimes
    the Bread, sometimes the Sun; sometimes the Resurrection, sometimes
    Jesus; sometimes the Father, sometimes the Spirit; sometimes the
    Life, sometimes the Truth; sometimes Faith and sometimes
    Grace[1114].”

As will presently be seen, now that we have under our hands the writings
of Manichaean communities domiciled in Persian and Chinese territory, we
find in them similar compromises with the faiths of Zoroaster and
Buddha.

Yet after the Mahommedan conquest of Asia, and in regions where they
were free, as it would seem, from the pressure of their Zoroastrian and
Christian competitors, the Manichaeans appear to have evolved a theology
as formal and as detailed as any of the Gnostic systems which we have
examined. This is in the main set out by Theodore Bar Khôni, the
Nestorian Bishop of Kashgar, in his _Book of Scholia_ written in Syriac
and Mandaean which has been in part translated by the scholarly care of
M. Pognon, late Consul of France at Aleppo, and has lately been
commentated by M. Cumont. M. Pognon at first identified Bar Khôni with
the nephew of the Nestorian Patriarch Iwannis (Johannes or John), whose
reign began in 893 A.D., and he quoted Assemani’s _Bibliotheca
Orientalis_ in his support[1115]. Later, however, he withdrew this, and
put him a century earlier[1116]. M. Cumont, on the other hand, thinks
that Bar Khôni lived at the end of the VIth century or the beginning of
the VIIth, and therefore before the Mahommedan invasion[1117]. In any
event, the _Scholia_ describe a body of Manichaean doctrine considerably
later in date than any of the Christian sources hitherto referred to,
and probably formed in an atmosphere where the necessity for outward
conformity to either the Zoroastrian or the Christian faith was a good
deal less cogent than it was further west. Its agreement with the
Mahommedan tradition drawn from above is also well marked, and it
derives much support from the Manichaean MSS. lately recovered from the
oasis of Turfan in Turkestan, and in that of Tun-huang in China. It is
possible, although no proofs are yet forthcoming, that it was this
Neo-Manichaeism, as it has been called, that inspired the Manichaean
sectaries who were imported in the IXth and Xth centuries into Bulgaria,
whence their missionaries found their way later into Italy, France, and
other countries of Southern Europe.

The system disclosed in these documents begins, as does nearly every
Manichaean writing, with the assertion of the existence of two gods,
that is to say, the God of Light and the God of Darkness. As the Kingdom
of Darkness, whenever and wherever described, is the exact opposite and
counterpart of that of the Light, we shall not return to it again, but
assume that in describing the one we are _mutatis mutandis_ describing
the other. The God of Light has one substance of which all the powers of
light were made, but three forms or hypostases, called in the Greek
Formula of abjuration “faces” or persons, which added to his own
personality make a supreme tetrad. These three hypostases are his
wisdom, power, and goodness, by which is probably meant that he operates
in the lower powers through these qualities, while remaining himself
remote in the “inaccessible light[1118].” He possesses also five houses
or dwellings, which are also called his worlds and even his members.
Their names according to Bar Khôni are Intelligence, Knowledge, Thought,
Reflexion, and Feeling[1119]. These seem to be ranged in this order
below the dwelling of the inaccessible light, so as to cut off all
approach to it by a fivefold wall. On the attack of the powers of
darkness before mentioned, the God of Light, called by Bar Khôni the
Father of Greatness, that is to say, the Very Great or Greatest[1120],
creates by his word the Mother of Life, who in her turn evokes the First
Man as already described. Thus is constituted, if M. Cumont be right,
the First Triad of Father, Mother, and Son[1121]. From the Turfan
documents, we know that the Father was called, in Turkestan at any rate,
by the name of Azrua or Zervan, and the Son Khormizta or Ormuzd[1122].
As for the appellation of the Mother we are still in ignorance[1123].

When the First Man or Ormuzd marched against his enemy, he also evoked
five elements called sometimes his sons and sometimes his members. These
are the Ether, the Wind, the Light, the Water, and the Fire before
mentioned, which together compose the soul of the world, and hence of
man, who is in every respect its image. When he was conquered by Satan
and dragged down to the lowest pit of hell, he prayed, says Bar Khôni,
seven times to the Very Great Father, and he in compassion created,
again by his word, the Friend of the Lights[1124], who evoked the Great
Ban[1125], who evoked the Living Spirit. Here we have the second triad
or “second creation,” of which, as has been said, only the last member
takes any active part in what follows. As we have already seen, the
Living Spirit speaks a word like a sharp sword, and the image of the
First Man answers[1126] and is drawn up out of hell. These two, the
sword or Appellant and the image or Respondent, together mount towards
the Mother of Life and the Living Spirit, and the Mother of Life
“clothes” the Image—no doubt with a form or “nature,”—while the Living
Spirit does the same with the compelling word[1127]. Then they return to
the earth of darkness where remains the soul of the First Man in the
shape of his five sons.

In the meantime, the Living Spirit has also given birth to five sons.
He, like the Very Great Father of whom he is perhaps the reflexion, has
five worlds named like those of his paradigm from which he draws certain
other powers. From his Intelligence, says Bar Khôni, he produces The
Ornament of Splendour, who is none other than the Splenditenens we have
seen drawing the heavens after him; from his Reason, the Great King of
Honour, who is described as sitting in the midst of the celestial
armies; from his Thought, Adamas of the Light armed with shield and
spear; from his Reflexion the King of Glory whose function is to set in
motion the three wheels of the fire, the water, and the wind, which
apparently raise to the upper spheres the portions of those elements
still left below; and finally from his Feeling the great Omophorus or
Atlas who bears the earths on his shoulders[1128]. Immediately on
evocation, three of these powers were set to work to kill and flay the
rulers of darkness, and to carry their skins to the Mother of Life. She
stretches out the skins to make the sky, thereby fashioning ten or
eleven or even twelve heavens. She throws their bodies on to the Earth
of Darkness, thereby forming eight earths[1129]. Thus the soul or sons
of the First Man are rescued from the Powers of Darkness, and the
machinery of the redemption of the Light is set on foot.

There is, however, a third act to the drama. Again, the lesser Powers of
Light, this time the Mother of Life, the First Man, and the Living
Spirit, cry to the Very Great Father. Satan, or, as the Mahommedan
tradition calls him, Hummâma, is still in existence, although his
“sons,” the Rulers of Darkness, the Hot Wind, the Smoke, and the others
have been crucified or fixed in the firmament, and he is still actively
working with his remaining powers against the Light. The Light-Powers
feel themselves contaminated and oppressed by the contact, and perhaps
even in some fear lest they should again have the worst in a renewal of
the conflict. Again, the Very Great Father hears them and sends to their
assistance a third creation, called this time simply the Messenger.

Who this Messenger is, is the main puzzle of the new documents. The
author of the _Acta_ knew something of him, for he speaks of a “Third
Legate,” who, when the world is burning in the great conflagration which
will mark the redemption of the last particles of light, will be found
in the Ship of the Moon with Jesus, the Mother of Life, the Virgin of
Light and the twelve other powers to be presently mentioned[1130]. M.
Cumont, in his able analysis of Bar Khôni’s system, thinks that this
“Third Legate” resembles the Neryôsang of the Persians, who in the later
Mazdean literature is made the herald of Ormuzd, and has also features
in common with Gayômort the First Man, and Mithras[1131]. But it is
plain from the Tun-huang treatise lately discovered, as well as from the
fragments found at Turfan, that the Third Legate corresponds most
closely to the Mazdean genius or divinity Sraôsha, the angel of
Obedience[1132]. Sraôsha is described in the Srôsh Yashts as the “Holy
and Strong Srôsh,” “the Incarnate Word, a mighty-speared and lordly
god.” He it is who is called the “fiend-smiter,” who is said to watch
over the world and to defend it from the demons, especially at night, to
fight for the souls of the good after death, and, in the older Mazdean
traditions, to judge the dead with Mithra and Rashnu as his assessors,
like Rhadamanthos, Minos, and Eacus among the Greeks[1133]. In the
Turfan texts he is called the mighty, and in the Tun-huang treatise is
likened to a judge, while in both sets of documents he has his proper
appellation of Srôsh[1134].

This third creation was no more content than his two predecessors to
enter upon the task allotted to him without further help. His first act
upon arriving hither, according to Bar Khôni, was to evoke or call into
existence twelve virgins with their vestures, their crowns, and their
guards. The Turfan texts give us the names of these powers, four of whom
seem to be attributes of sovereignty, and eight of them virtues. Their
names in the order of the new texts are respectively, Dominion, Wisdom,
Victory, Persuasion, Purity, Truth, Faith, Patience, Uprightness,
Goodness, Justice and Light, and they are probably the twelve “pilots”
whom the _Acta_ describe as being at the Ecpyrosis in the Moon-ship with
their father, with Jesus, and with the other powers[1135]. But there is
much plausibility in M. Cumont’s theory that this Third Legate or Srôsh
is supposed until that event to inhabit the Sun, and that his 12
“daughters” are the signs of the Zodiac among whom he moves[1136].
According to Bar Khôni, it is the same Legate who is ordered by the
Great Ban to create a new earth and to set the whole celestial
machinery—the Sun and Moon-ships and the three wheels of fire, air, and
water—in motion[1137]. Yet we hear nothing in any other document of any
addition to the number of eight earths already created, and we can only
therefore suppose that Bar Khôni’s phrase refers to the gradual
purification of this world of ours by Srôsh.

Bar Khôni also makes the appearance of this last Legate responsible for
the appearance of man upon the earth, as to which he recites a story
which seems at first sight to be an elaboration of the Gnostic and
Manichaean tradition preserved by the Christians and mentioned above.
The Legate, he makes Manes say, was of both sexes, and on his appearance
in the Sun-ship, both the male and female rulers of Darkness became so
filled with desire that they began to give up the light which they had
taken from the sons of the First Man. With this was mingled their own
sin, half of which fell into the sea and there gave birth to a horrible
monster like the King of Darkness. This was conquered and slain by
Adamas of the Light, but that which fell upon the land fructified as the
five kinds of trees[1138]. Moreover, the female demons, who were
pregnant at the time, miscarried and their untimely births ate of the
buds of the trees. Yet these females remembered the beauty of the Legate
whom they had seen, and Asaqlun or Saclas[1139], son of the King of
Darkness, persuaded them to give him their sons and daughters, in order
that he might make from them an image of the Legate. This they did, when
he ate the male children and his wife Namraël consumed the female. In
consequence Namraël gave birth to a son and a daughter who were called
Adam and Eve. Jesus was sent to Adam and found him sleeping a sleep of
death, but awoke him, made him stand upright, and gave him to eat of the
Tree of Life, while he separated him from his too seductive companion.
This story is not confirmed by any of the new documents; and in the
present state of our knowledge it is impossible to say whether it
contains an old Asiatic tradition, of which the Biblical accounts of the
protoplasts and of the Sons of God making love to the daughters of men
are the only remnants which have till now come down to us, or whether—as
is at least as likely—the whole story is a blend by the Manichaeans of
Jewish, Mandaite, and Pagan legends. The main point in it for our
consideration is its introduction of a Jesus who is certainly not the
same as the Jesus _patibilis_ whom St Augustine and the other Christian
Fathers make Manes describe as born of the Living Spirit and the Earth,
and as hanging on every tree. This other Jesus, who came to the earth in
the time of Adam, is a fourth emissary or Saviour put forth by the
second and third creations according to the _Fihrist_ and called by Bar
Khôni “Jesus the shining one.” In the Turfan texts he is, as has been
said, perhaps equated with the Virgin of Light, and in the Tun-huang
treatise he is spoken of as “Jesus the Victorious[1140].” Evidently he
is conceived as one of the Burkhans or Buddhas who fight against the
Powers of Darkness, and the Jesus _patibilis_ is but another name for
the fragments of light or “armour” of the First Man left on this earth.
The borrowing of the name revered among Christians is but one of the
compromises by which the Manichaeans hoped to draw those of other faiths
into their net.

A like plasticity is shown in the organization of the Manichaean Church.
The first disciples of Manes, to whom he gave special commandments,
were, according to Christian tradition, only seven in number, in which
if anywhere in the system we may see a reflexion of the seven
Amshaspands of the Avesta[1141]. But later there seems to have been
instituted a band of twelve Apostles in manifest imitation of the
Apostles of Jesus, who perhaps corresponded to the Masters or highest
degree that we have seen called the Sons of Gentleness. These were
presided over by a Manichaean Pope who figured as the representative and
Vicegerent of Manes himself. There were also seventy-two bishops
answering to the seventy-two disciples of Christ, who are perhaps to be
identified with the Sons of Knowledge. Then came the Presbyters or Sons
of Intelligence whose functions were chiefly those of missionaries and
who were perpetually, like Faustus, travelling for the propagation of
the faith[1142]. This seems to have been the organization generally
adopted for Christian countries, and we meet with it there up to a very
late date. Yet there is no reason to suppose that it was necessarily
copied by the Manichaeans of Central Asia or India, or that the
Manichaeans always obeyed some central authority. What organization they
did adopt outside Europe and Africa we shall probably have to wait to
discover when more of the documents coming from Turkestan have been
deciphered.

The extreme simplicity of the Manichaean ritual also made easy to them
all such adaptations to the ways of their neighbours. Hating images with
as much energy, perhaps, as Zoroaster himself, they had neither statues
nor lights nor incense in their meeting-places, which must in the West
have been as bare and as unadorned as a Scottish conventicle. The whole
service seems to have consisted of hymns and prayers, in the first of
which the mythology of the sect doubtless found expression, while the
second mainly consisted of those praises of the Powers of Light, which
praises were thought, as has been said, to have an actual and objective
existence and thus to fulfil a considerable part in the scheme of
redemption. Up to the present we have very few examples of the hymns.
The _Hymn of the Soul_, of which Prof. Bevan has published an English
translation, is probably Manichaean in origin[1143], and St Augustine
tells of a “love song” in which the Father, meaning thereby probably
Srôsh, the third legate[1144], is represented as presiding at a banquet
crowned with flowers and bearing a sceptre, while twelve gods, three
from each quarter of the globe, are grouped round him “clothed in
flowers” singing praises and laying flowers at his feet. These are said
to represent the seasons[1145]; and we hear also of myths doubtless
expressed in song describing the great angel Splenditenens, whose care
is the portions of Light still imprisoned in matter and who is always
bewailing their captivity[1146]; and of his fellow angel Omophorus who,
as has been said, bears the world on his shoulders like the classical
Atlas[1147]. Doubtless, too, some of these hymns described that last
conflagration, which seems to have occupied so great a place in the
speculations of the early Manichaeans, when the justified faithful,
secure in the two great ships which sail about on the ocean of the upper
air, shall behold the world in flames and the last portion of the
imprisoned Light mounting in the Column of Praises, while Satan and his
hosts are confined for ever in the gross and dark matter which is
henceforth to be their portion[1148]. Possibly the Turfan discoveries
may yet recover for us some important fragments of this lost literature.

With regard to the prayers, we are a little better informed. “Free us by
thy skill, for we suffer here oppression and torture and pollution, only
that thou (the First Man?) mayest mourn unmolested in thy kingdom,” is
one of those which St Augustine has preserved for us[1149]. So, too, the
Mahommedan tradition has handed down a series of six doxologies or hymns
of praise out of a total of twelve which seem to have been obligatory,
perhaps on all Manichaeans, but certainly on the Perfect. The suppliant
is, we are told, to stand upright, to wash in running water or something
else, in which we may perhaps see either the origin or an imitation of
the ceremonial ablutions of the Mussulman, then to turn towards the
Great Light, to prostrate himself and to say:

“Blessed be our guide, the Paraclete, the Messenger of the Light.
Blessed be his angels, his guards, and highly praised his shining
troops.”

Then he is to rise and, prostrating himself again, to say:

    “Thou highly-esteemed one, O thou shining Mânî our guide, thou the
    root of illumination, branch of uprightness, thou the great tree,
    thou who art the sovereign Remedy.”

A third prostration, and the praise runs:

    “I prostrate myself and praise with a pure heart and a sincere
    tongue, the Great God, the Father of the Lights and of their
    elements, the most highly praised, the glorified, thee and all thy
    Majesty and thy blessed worlds that thou hast called forth! To
    praise thee is to praise equally thy troops, thy justified ones, thy
    word, thy majesty, thy good pleasure. For thou art the God who is
    all Truth, all Life, and all Justice.”

Then comes a fourth prostration and the sentence:

    “I praise all the gods, all the shining angels, all the lights, and
    all the troops who are from the Great God, and I prostrate myself
    before them.”

The speech after the fifth prostration is:

    “I prostrate myself and I praise the great troops, and the shining
    gods who, with their Wisdom spread over the Darkness, pursue it and
    conquer it.”

While the sixth, and last given in full, is simply:

    “I prostrate myself and I praise the Father of Majesty, the eminent
    one, the shining one who has come forth from the two
    sciences[1150].”

It seems fairly plain that these praises are addressed not so much to
the “King of the Paradise of Light” or Highest God of Goodness as to the
lesser Powers of Light. The recent expeditions of European scholars to
Central Asia have succeeded in recovering for us almost in full the
Confession-Prayer repeated ritually by the Manichaean Hearers or laymen
which, besides confirming the Christian and Mahommedan accounts of
Manes’ teaching summarized above, shows a greater belief in the efficacy
of repentance and the enforcement of a stricter morality upon all
classes of Manichaeans than we should have imagined from the accounts of
their adversaries[1151]. We are fortunate in possessing more than one
text of this Confession-Prayer, that found by the energy of our English
emissary, Dr (now Sir Marc Aurel) Stein, in the “Cave of the Thousand
Buddhas” at Tun-huang, proving almost identical with the one discovered
in Turfan by the Russian Expedition and now in St Petersburg, while both
can be checked and supplemented by fragments also found at Turfan by
Profs. Grünwedel’s and von Le Coq’s expeditions to the same place and
taken to Berlin[1152]. The title and first few lines of this prayer have
been lost, owing to the fact that the Chinese plan of writing on a
continuous sheet of paper many yards in length, which was then rolled up
with the last lines innermost, was adopted by its transcribers. All the
specimens yet found are in Turkish, the Russian MS. being in the dialect
called after the nation using it, Ouigour or Uighur, and like that found
by Dr Stein and the Berlin fragments, in the Manichaean modification of
the Estranghelo or Syriac script. The prayer or litany is in 15 sections
or classes, the number having doubtless a mystical reference[1153], and
is followed in the Russian and English examples by a recapitulation
which is not without value. The version which follows is a compound of
all the three sources mentioned above, and has been here divided into
three parts, although it is not so in the original, for convenience of
commentary.


    KHUASTUANIFT.


    Sect. I. “[The Son of?] the God Khormuzta even the Fivefold God
    descended from the heavens with the purity of all the gods, to war
    against the Demon; he (the Fivefold God) battled against the
    Shimnus[1154] of evil deeds, and against the five species of the
    Kingdom of the Demons. God and the Devil, Light and Darkness then
    intermingled. The youth of the Divine Khormuzta even the Fivefold
    God, and our souls, joined battle with Sin and the Demon-world and
    became ensnared and entangled with it. All the princes of the Demons
    came with the insatiable and shameless Demon of Envy and a hundred
    and forty myriads of demons banded together in evil intent,
    ignorance, and folly. He himself, the Born and Created (_i.e._ the
    Fivefold God or son of Khormuzta) forgot the eternal heaven of the
    Gods and became separated from the Gods of Light. Hence, O my God!
    if the Shimnu (Great Devil) of evil intent has led astray our
    thoughts and inclined us to devilish deeds.—If, becoming thereby
    foolish and without understanding, we have sinned and erred against
    the foundation and root of all bright spirits, even against the pure
    and bright Azrua the Lord[1155].—If thereby Light and Darkness, God
    and the Devil have intermingled ...

here follows a lacuna of several pages which Prof. von Le Coq suggests
was filled with “an explanation of the allegorical story of the combat”
and its practical application.

    “... If we have said ... is its foundation and root.—If we have said
    if anyone animates a body it is God; or that if anyone kills, it is
    God.—If we have said Good and Evil have alike been created by God.
    If we have said it is He [God] who has created the eternal Gods. If
    we have said the Divine Khormuzta and the Shimnu (Great Devil) are
    brethren[1156]. O my God, if in our sin we have spoken such awful
    blasphemies, having unwittingly become false to God. If we have thus
    committed this unpardonable sin. O my God, I N.N.[1157] now repent.
    To cleanse myself from sin, I pray: _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_ (My sin
    remit!)”


    Sect. II. “When because of the God of the Sun and Moon and of the
    Gods enthroned in the two resplendent Palaces, the foundation and
    root of the light of all the Burkhans[1158] of Earth and Water go to
    the heaven prepared for their assembly (foundation and root), the
    first gate they reach is the God of the Sun and Moon. In order to
    deliver the Fivefold God and to sever the Light from the Darkness he
    rolls along the lower part of the heavens in fulness and lights up
    the four corners of the earth. O my God, if in our sin we have
    unwittingly sinned against the God of the Sun and Moon, the Gods
    enthroned in the two resplendent Palaces. If, although calling him
    the True, Mighty, and Powerful God, we have not believed in him. If
    we have uttered many spoken blasphemies. If we have said the God of
    the Sun and Moon dies, and his rise and setting comes [?] not by
    [his own?] strength, and that should he [trust to his?] own
    strength, he will not rise [?]. If we have said, our own bodies were
    created before the Sun and Moon. To cleanse ourselves from this
    unwitting sin also, we pray: _Manâstâr hîrzâ_ (Our sin remit).”


    Sect. III. “Since, in defence of the Fivefold God, even the youth of
    the Divine Khormuzta, his five members, that is to say, First, the
    God of the Ether; Secondly, the God of the Wind; Thirdly, the God of
    the Light; Fourthly, the God of the Water; Fifthly, the God of the
    Fire, having battled against Sin and the Demon-world were ensnared
    and entangled[1159], and have intermingled with the Darkness. Since
    they were unable to go to the heaven of God and are now upon the
    earth. Since the ten heavens above, the eight earths beneath, exist
    on account of the Fivefold God. Since of everything that is upon the
    earth the Fivefold God is the Majesty, the Radiance [?], the
    Likeness, the Body, the Soul, the Strength, the Light, the
    Foundation and the Root. O my God, if in our sin we have unwittingly
    offended against or caused grief to the Fivefold God by an evil and
    wicked mind. If we have allowed our fourteen members to gain
    domination over us. If by taking animated beings with our ten
    snake-headed fingers and our thirty-two teeth, we have fed upon them
    and have thus angered and grieved the Gods [?][1160]. If we have in
    any way sinned against the dry and wet earth, against the five kinds
    of animals, and against the five kinds of herbs and trees. O my God,
    to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_
    (Our sin remit!)”


    Sect. IV. “If we have unwittingly sinned against the divine Burkhans
    of the hosts (of the Messenger God[1161]) and against the
    merit-attaining pure Elect. If although we have called them the true
    and divine Burkhans and the well-doing and pure Elect, we have not
    believed on them. If although we have uttered the word of God, we
    have through folly acted against it and not performed it [?]. If
    instead of spreading the decrees and commandments, we have impeded
    them. O my God, we now repent and to cleanse ourselves from sin, we
    pray: _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_ (Our sin remit!)”


    Sect. V. “If we have wandered into sin against the five kinds of
    animated beings, that is to say, First, against two-footed man;
    Secondly, against the four-footed animals; Thirdly, against the
    flying animals; Fourthly, against the animals in the water; Fifthly,
    against the animals upon earth which creep on their bellies. O my
    God, if in our sin against these five kinds of animated and moving
    beings from the great to the small, we have beaten and wounded,
    abused, and injured, and pained, or even put them to death. If thus
    we have become the tormentors of so many animated and moving beings.
    O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Manâstâr
    hîrzâ!_ (Our sin remit!)”

It will be seen that in these first five sections or clauses of the
Confession, we have a confirmation in all essential points of the
version of the faith taught by Manes as it has been preserved for us by
the Mahommedan authors quoted above. It is even possible that it was
from this source that the author of the _Fihrist_ and Al-Bîrûnî derived
some of their information concerning the Manichaeans, and although it is
impossible as yet to fix any date for the Confession except within very
wide limits, it may be said that it is probably earlier than either of
the Mahommedan writers. It is certainly earlier than 1035 A.D., the date
at which the grotto at Tun-huang in which one of the copies was bricked
up[1162]. But it seems plain that it must have long before been used in
the Manichaean worship from the fact that copies differing little, if at
all, from each other have been found in two different scripts. As two of
these are in the Turkish language, it seems likely that they were
translated for proselytizing purposes into this from the earlier Syriac
version shortly after the conquest of the Tou-kiue or Turks by the
Ouigours, which some authors put as far back as the VIIth century
A.D.[1163] The tenets of the Manichaeans must have been well settled for
this to be possible, and we have here, therefore, an account at first
hand of Manichaean teaching at a date much earlier than the Mahommedan
authors quoted above, and first reduced to writing between the earliest
promulgation of Manes’ own teaching and the Mahommedan conquest of
Persia. It is, therefore, contemporary, or nearly so, with the period of
activity of the Zoroastrianism revived by the Sassanides, and it is
interesting to find how much nearer in appearance to the cosmology and
theology of the Avesta are those of the _Khuastuanift_ than is the
Christianized form of Manichaeism introduced into Europe and Africa and
combated by St Augustine. Khormuzta, the First Man, is certainly Ahura
Mazda, Oromazes, or Ormuzd, while the Fivefold God here spoken of as the
“youth” is clearly to be identified with his five sons or the armour
left below on his defeat[1164]. Hence it is probable that the
Manichaeans in Upper Asia did not wish to appear as the worshippers of
any other deities than those of the Persian nation[1165], although where
Christianity was the religion of the State, they were willing to call
these deities by other names[1166]. Yet the dualism which is the real
characteristic of the faith of Manes here as elsewhere admits of no
compromise, and the sin against which the Section II is directed is
plainly that Zervanist heresy which would make _Zervan akerene_ or
Boundless Time the author of all things, and Ormuzd and Ahriman alike
his sons. The part played by the Sun and Moon in the redemption of the
Light is here the same as that assigned to them in both the Christian
and the Mahommedan accounts of Manes’ own teaching, but nothing is here
said of the wheel which appears in the former[1167]. The Divine
“Burkhans” mentioned in Section III are, as we shall see later, the
Divine Messengers sent from time to time into the present world to
assist in the redemption of the Light. The sinfulness of feeding upon,
injuring, or even angering the lower animals is here much more strongly
insisted upon than in the other documents and demands repentance even in
the case of the Hearers, and this points directly to a closer connection
with Buddhism than hitherto has been thought possible. It is plainly
opposed to the later Zoroastrian teaching, which makes the killing of
certain animals belonging to the creation of Ahriman a religious duty;
and may therefore have only been adopted by the Manichaeans when they
found themselves in contact with a large community of professed
Buddhists.

The next five sections of the _Khuastuanift_ run thus:

    Sect. VI. “If, O my God, we have wandered into sin, and have
    committed the ten kinds of sin in thoughts, words, and deeds. If we
    have made up fraudulent lies; if we have sworn false oaths; if we
    have borne false witness; if we have treated as guilty guiltless
    men; if by fetching and carrying tales we have set men at variance,
    and thereby have perverted their minds; if we have practised magic;
    if we have killed many animated and moving beings; if we have given
    way to wanton pleasures; if we have wasted the hard-earned gains of
    industrious men; if we have sinned against the God of the Sun and
    Moon[1168]. If in our past and present lives since we have become
    Manichaeans [_i.e._ Hearers] we have sinned and gone astray, thereby
    bringing confusion and discord upon so many animated beings, O my
    God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now, _Manâstâr
    hîrzâ!_ (Our sin remit!)”


    Sect. VII. “Who is he who wandering in sin comes to the entry of the
    two poison-laden ways, and to the road which leads astray to the
    Gate of Hell? The first is he who holds to false doctrines; the
    second is he who invokes the Demon as God and falls down before him.
    O my God, if wandering in sin, we have failed to recognize and
    understand the true God and his pure faith, and have not believed
    what the Burkhans and the pure Elect have preached[1169], and have
    instead believed on those who preach falsely, saying ‘I preach the
    true God, and I expound the faith rightly.’ If we have accepted the
    words of such a one and have unwittingly kept wrongful fasts, and
    have unwittingly bowed ourselves wrongfully, and wrongfully given
    alms; or if we have said ‘We will acquire merit’ and thereby have
    unwittingly committed evil deeds; or if, invoking the Demon and the
    Fiend as God, we have sacrificed to them animated and moving beings;
    or if, saying, ‘this is the precept of the Burkhan,’ we have put
    ourselves under a false law and have bowed ourselves, blessing it.
    If, thus sinning against God, we have prayed to the Demon. O my God,
    to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_
    (Our sin remit!)”


    Sect. VIII. “When we came to the knowledge of the true God and the
    pure Law, we knew the Two Principles and the Law of the Three
    Ages[1170]. The Light Principle we knew to be the Paradise of God
    and the Dark Principle to be the Land of Hell. We knew what existed
    before Heaven and Earth, the Earth of God, was. We knew how God and
    the Demon fought with one another, and how Light and Darkness became
    mingled together, and how Heaven and Earth were created. We knew how
    the Earth of the Rulers and its Heaven will disappear, and how the
    Light will be freed from the Darkness, and what will then happen to
    all things. We believed in and put our faith in the God Azrua, in
    the God of the Sun and Moon, in the Mighty God[1171], and in the
    Burkhans, and thus we became Hearers. Four bright seals have we
    carved upon our hearts. One is Love which is the seal of the God
    Azrua[1172]; the second is Faith, which is the seal of the God of
    the Sun and Moon; the third is the Fear of God which is the seal of
    the Fivefold God; and the fourth is the wise Wisdom, which is the
    seal of the Burkhans. If, O my God, we have turned away our spirits
    and minds from these four (categories of) Gods; if we have spurned
    them from their rightful place, and the Divine Seals have thus been
    broken, O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now:
    _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_ (Our sin remit!)”


    Sect. IX. “In the Ten Commandments, we have been ordered to keep
    three with the mouth, three with the heart, three with the hand, and
    one with the whole self. If, O my God, we have wittingly or
    unwittingly by cleaving to the love of the body, or by listening to
    the words of wicked companions and friends, of associates and
    fellows; or by reason of our having much cattle and other
    possessions; or by our foolish attachment to the things of this
    world, we have broken these ten commandments, and have been found
    wanting and of no avail: O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so
    pray we now: _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_ (Our sin remit!)”


    Sect. X. “We have been ordered to render every day, with a whole
    mind and a pure heart, four praises to the God Azrua, to the God of
    the Sun and Moon, to the Mighty God, and to the Burkhans. If from
    lack of the fear of God or from slackness our praises have been
    offered unseemly, or if in offering them we have not turned our
    hearts and minds towards God, so that our praises and prayers have
    not reached God in pure wise, but have remained in another place: O
    my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Manâstâr
    hîrzâ!_ (Our sin remit!)”

This second part of the Confession, perhaps, deals with errors of
conduct as the first does with errors of belief. The ten sins given in
the VIth Section do not agree exactly with the list given in the
_Fihrist_ which says that the Manichaean Hearers were enjoined to
abstain from prayers offered to idols, from lying, from greed, from
murder, adultery, theft, from false teaching, from magic, from doubt in
religion, and from slackness in action[1173]; but perhaps all these
prohibitions could be read into the list in the _Khuastuanift_. The
VIIth Section seems to be directed not so much against other religions
as against schisms within the Manichaean Church[1174], and it is evident
that its authors knew of bloody sacrifices offered to the Powers of
Darkness as described by Plutarch apart from the magic or sorcery
condemned in the preceding section. In the VIIIth Section, we have also
for the second time a new name for God in the word Azrua, which Prof.
von Le Coq leaves unexplained; but which M. Gauthiot considers to be the
same as, or rather the equivalent in Soghdian of Zervan[1175]. Zervan,
however, can hardly be here the Supreme God worshipped by Yezdegerd,
especially as the _Khuastuanift_ has just, as we have seen, formally
condemned as blasphemers those who say that Ormuzd and Ahriman are
brethren, and therefore by implication those who give both Powers Zervan
for a father. It seems more likely that the name is either a corruption
of Ahura Mazda or perhaps of the Sanskrit Asura; but in any event, there
can be no doubt that it denotes the King of the Paradise of Light, as
the Highest Good God is called in the _Fihrist_. The division of the Ten
Commandments of Manes into three of the mouth, three of the hand, three
of the heart, and one of the whole being recalls St Augustine’s
description of the three seals, the _signaculum oris_, _signaculum
manus_, and _signaculum sinus_, observed by the Manichaeans[1176]; while
the description in Section X of the four praises (or hymns) to be
rendered daily bears out what is said above as to the praises of man
being of importance for the actual redemption of the Light.

The remaining sections of the _Khuastuanift_ are:

    Sect. XI. “We have been ordered to give reverently seven kinds of
    alms for the sake of the pure Law. It has also been ordered that
    when the angels of the Light of the Five Gods and the two Appellant
    and Respondent Gods bring to us the Light of the Five Gods which is
    to go to the Gods to be purified, we should in all things order
    ourselves [or, ‘dress ourselves,’ according to Le Coq] according to
    the Law. If, through necessity or because of our foolishness, we
    have not given the seven kinds of alms according to the Law, but
    have bound the Light of the Five Gods, which should go to the Gods
    to be purified, in our houses and dwellings, or if we should have
    given it to evil men or to evil animals, and have thereby wasted it
    and sent it to the Land of Evil, O my God, to cleanse ourselves from
    sin, so pray we now: _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_ (Our sin remit!)”


    Sect. XII. “We have been ordered to keep every year 50 days of
    _Vusanti_[1177] after the manner of the pure Elect, and thereon [?]
    to please God by observing pure fasts. If, by reason of the care of
    our houses and dwellings or of our cattle and other possessions; or
    by reason of our need and poverty [foolish attachments, _apud_ Le
    Coq]; or because of the greedy and shameless Demon of Envy; or of
    our irreverent hearts, we have broken the fast, either wittingly or
    by foolishness; or having begun it have not fasted according to the
    Rite and the Law. O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray
    we now: _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_ (Our sin remit!)”


    Sect. XIII. “We have been ordered to pray every Full Moon
    [literally, every day of the Moon-God], to acknowledge before God,
    the Law, and the pure Elect, our sins and transgressions in prayer
    for the cleansing of ourselves from sin. If now wittingly, or by
    feebleness of mind, or from idleness of body, or because our minds
    were set on the cares and business of this world, we have not thus
    gone to prayer for the cleansing of ourselves from sin. O my God, to
    cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_ (Our
    sin remit!)”


    Sect. XIV. “We have been ordered to keep each year seven
    _Yimki_[1178] [Days of Atonement?] and one month’s rigid fast[?]. We
    have also been ordered when meeting together in the House of Prayer
    to keep the _Yimki_ and to observe the fast, to acknowledge in
    prayer with a whole mind to the Divine Burkhans the sins which we
    have committed during the year and which we know through our senses.
    O my God, if we have not kept the _Yimki_ seemly; if we have not
    observed the month’s rigid fast perfectly and seemly; if we have
    failed to acknowledge in prayer the sins of the year which we know
    through our senses, and have thus failed in so many of our duties. O
    my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Manâstâr
    hîrzâ!_ (Our sins remit!)”


    Sect. XV. “How many evil thoughts do we not think every day! How
    many deceitful and unseemly words do we not speak! How many unseemly
    deeds do we not do! Thus do we prepare torments for ourselves by
    crimes and frauds. Since we have walked body and soul in the love of
    the greedy and shameless Demon of Envy, and the Light of the Five
    Gods which we absorb in our food every day thereby goes to the Land
    of Evil. Wherefore, O my God, to cleanse ourselves from sin, so pray
    we now: _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_ (Our sins remit!)”

Here follows a lacuna of four lines, after which the Confession resumes:

    “O my God. We are full of defects and sins! We are thine adversaries
    and grieve thee by thoughts, words and deeds, for the sake of the
    greedy and shameless Demon of Envy. Gazing with our eyes, hearing
    with our ears, seizing with our hands, and trampling with our feet,
    we ever torture and impede the Light of the Five Gods, the dry and
    wet earth, the five kinds of animals, and the five kinds of plants
    and trees. So full are we of defects and sins! On account of the Ten
    Commandments, the seven kinds of Alms, the three seals, we are
    called Hearers; yet we cannot perform what these claim of us. If,
    wandering in sin, we have sinned against the Gods of Light, against
    the pure Law, against the Herald God[1179] and the Preacher, the Men
    of God [the Preachers, according to Le Coq], against the pure Elect.
    If we have not walked according to the letter and spirit of the
    spoken words of God. If we have grieved the hearts of the Gods. If
    we have been unable to keep the Days of Atonement, the rigid fast,
    to offer the Praises and the Blessings according to the Law and the
    Rite. If we have been found lacking and unprofitable, and have day
    by day and month by month committed sins and trespasses—to the Gods
    of Light, to the Majesty of the Law, to the pure Elect, to cleanse
    ourselves from sin, so pray we now: _Manâstâr hîrzâ!_ (Our sin
    remit!)”

These last five sections of the _Khuastuanift_ give us a glimpse of the
religious observances of the Manichaeans which alters somewhat the
picture of them which we should have formed from the account of St
Augustine and other Christian writers. The seven kinds of alms referred
to in Section XI, are not, as might be thought, the gifts to necessitous
or helpless persons prescribed alike by the Christian and the Mahommedan
religions. It is apparent both from the context and from other sources
of information that they are the offerings of food made by the lay or
lowest members of the Manichaean community to the Elect or Perfect, who
are spoken of in the subsequent sections as being already a species of
Gods. This practice was certainly known to St Augustine, and was not
likely to sink into oblivion in a community in contact with Buddhists,
among whom monks living upon food given in alms by the faithful were a
common sight. But the reason assigned by St Augustine for the practice,
which was before obscure, here receives full explanation. The particles
of light diffused through matter, and therefore inhabiting the bodies of
animals and plants, could only, in Manichaean opinion, be set free by
passing into the bodies of the semi-divine Elect. Thus says St Augustine
in his treatise against the Manichaean Perfect, Faustus[1180]:

    “This foolish notion of making your disciples bring you food, that
    your teeth and stomach may be the means of relieving Christ who is
    bound up in it, is a consequence of your profane fancies. You
    declare that Christ is liberated in this way—not, however, entirely;
    for you hold that some tiny particles of no value still remain in
    the excrement, to be mixed up and compounded again in various
    material forms, and to be released and purified at any rate by the
    fire in which the world will be burned up, if not before.”

With the substitution of the “Light of the Fivefold God” for Christ—the
use of this last name being probably either the gloss of St Augustine
himself, or else the concession made by the Manichaean missionaries
after their manner to the religious prepossessions of those among whom
they hoped to gain converts—we have here the doctrine more plainly
stated in the _Khuastuanift_. The Hearers are to labour perpetually,
idleness being one of the Manichaean deadly sins, and to present the
fruits of their labour in the shape of food to the Perfect. Not only
will the particles of Light imprisoned in this last thus be conveyed to
the Land of the Gods; but it will be prevented from going to the Land of
Evil, which it would do if it were consumed by the bodies of the Hearers
or, _a fortiori_, of those profane persons who belonged to other faiths
than the Manichaean. Thus is explained the inhumanity of which many
writers accuse the Manichaean community, which led them to refuse food
to their neighbours in time of famine, alleging that all that they
produced must be reserved for those of the Faith[1181].

This explains also the merit assigned to the observance of the many
fasts enjoined in the concluding sections of the _Khuastuanift_. The
fifty _Vusanti_ fasts together with the month’s rigid fast to be kept by
the Hearers would all have the effect of diminishing their consumption
of food in the shape of animals and plants, which hinders the liberation
of the particles of Light imprisoned therein. In the choice of the days
set apart for these fasts we see another instance of the Manichaean
practice as assimilating the outward observances of other religions. The
fifty _Vusanti_ fasts would give an average of very nearly one a week,
and were probably kept on Sunday, the distinction between the Elect and
the Hearers in this respect noted by the Mahommedan writer being
probably due to some misconception. The month’s rigid fast possibly
accorded with the Arab Ramadan and must have been very useful in
preventing the Hearers from appearing singular when among Mahommedans;
and the seven _Yimki_ or Days of Atonement seem to have been copied from
the observances of the Jews. So possibly was the ritual practice alluded
to in the XIVth section of meeting together at certain times to confess
their sins, and as this is here said to take place in the House of
Prayer, it entirely disposes of the theory set up by earlier writers
that the Manichaeans had no temples, synagogues, or churches of their
own[1182]. The confession and prayer enjoined in Section XIII were
doubtless to be repeated privately and in whatever place the Hearer
found himself at the fortnightly periods there specified, and this
Litany was very probably the _Khuastuanift_ itself[1183].

What other ritual was performed in these Manichaean meeting-places is
still doubtful. The Christian writers declare that the Manichaeans
celebrated a sacrament resembling the Eucharist with the horrible
accompaniments before alluded to in the case of the followers of Simon
Magus[1184]. The same accusation was made, as has been many times said
above, by nearly all the sects of the period against each other, and we
have no means of determining its truth. It is however fairly certain
from the silence observed on the subject by the _Khuastuanift_ that no
sacramental feast of any kind was either celebrated by or in the
presence of the Hearers or general body of Manichaeans. If the Perfect
or Elect partook of any such meal among themselves, it possibly
consisted of bread and water only and was probably a survival of some
custom traditional in Western Asia of which we have already seen the
traces in the Mysteries of Mithras[1185]. The pronounced Docetism which
led the Manichaeans to regard the body of the historical Jesus as a
phantom shows that they could not have attributed to this meal any
sacramental efficacy like that involved in the doctrines either of the
Real Presence or of the Atonement.

The case is different with regard to pictures. The Manichaeans forbade
the use of statues or probably of any representations of the higher
spiritual powers, no doubt in recollection of the idea current among the
Persians even in Herodotus’ time, that the gods had not the nature of
men. Yet the Jewish and later the Mahommedan prohibition against making
likenesses of anything had evidently no weight with them, and even
before the recent discoveries there was a tradition that Manes himself
was in the habit of using symbolical pictures called Ertenki-Mani as a
means of propaganda[1186]. The truth of this is now amply confirmed by
the German discoveries at Turfan, where Prof. von Le Coq found frescoes
representing possibly Manes himself, together with paintings on silk
showing the souls of the faithful dead in the Moon-ship[1187]. Sir Marc
Stein seems to have secured similar relics at Tun-huang, and when these
are more thoroughly examined it is possible that they may throw light
upon many points of Manichaean symbolism yet obscure to us. The fact
that the Manichaean meeting-houses were decorated with symbolical
pictures seems thereby already established.

Of their fasts, the principal ones have been already indicated in the
_Khuastuanift_, and their feasts seem to have been few, almost the only
one of which any mention has come down to us being that which was called
the Festival of the Bema or pulpit, when an empty chair on five steps
was placed in a conspicuous position in the meeting-house and adored by
all present. This was said to have been done in commemoration of Manes
as their founder and on the date preserved as the anniversary of his
death[1188]. If it be really true that any Manichaeans whether Hearers
or otherwise kept Sunday as a holiday, it must have been, as Neander
suggests, not because it was the day of the Resurrection, in which their
Docetic doctrines prevented them from believing, but as the day of the
Sun. In like manner they probably observed Christmas as the birthday not
of Jesus, but of the Sun-god in accordance with the traditions preserved
by the worshippers of Mithras[1189]. St Augustine speaks, too, of their
keeping Easter[1190]. It seems possible that this was only done in
Christian countries, in accordance with their usual custom of conforming
in outward matters, and we have no evidence of their doing anything of
the sort in Turkestan.

Of the sacred books of the Manichaeans we hear much, although only one
has survived to us in anything like completeness. Thus we hear from
Al-Bîrûnî that the Manichaeans have a gospel of their own “the contents
of which from the first to the last are opposed to the doctrine of the
Christians,” and this he says was called “the Gospel of the
Seventy[1191].” He also tells us of a book written by Manes himself
called _Shaburkan_ or Shapurakhan which was doubtless written for the
edification of King Shâpûr or Sapor, the son of Ardeshîr, whose name it
bears[1192]. In this Manes seems to have described his own birth and his
assumption of the office of heavenly messenger or “Burkhan,” besides the
saying as to the Burkhans before him, Zoroaster, Buddha, and Jesus, as
described above[1193]. We also hear from Al-Bîrûnî that he wrote a
gospel arranged according to the 22 letters of the alphabet, which does
not seem to be the same as the Gospel of the Seventy[1194], and we hear
from other sources of a Book of the Giants, a Book of Secrets, a Book of
Precepts, a Book of Lifegiving, and others, together with many letters
or epistles all supposed to be by Manes’ own hand[1195]. As has been
said, he and his followers rejected the Old Testament entirely, not
indeed denying its inspiration, but declaring this to have come from the
Evil Principle. Of the New Testament, Faustus, the Manichaean Perfect
who disputed with St Augustine, puts the matter very clearly when he
says:

    “We receive only so much of the New Testament as says anything to
    the honour of the Son of Glory, either by Himself or by His
    apostles; and by the latter only after they had become perfect and
    believers. As for the rest, anything that was said by them either in
    their simplicity and ignorance, while they were yet inexperienced in
    the truth, or with malicious design was inserted by the enemy among
    the statements of truth, or was incautiously asserted by other
    writers and thus handed down to later generations—of all this we
    desire to know nothing. I mean all such statements as these—that He
    was shamefully born of a woman; that as a Jew He was circumcised;
    that He offered sacrifices like a heathen; that He was meanly
    baptized, led into the wilderness, and miserably tempted[1196].”

Thus it seems that the Manichaeans accepted only such facts of the
Gospel narrative as did not conflict with their own doctrines, and
although they are said to have had an especial veneration for St Paul,
there is no reason to think that this extended to the writings of the
Apostle to the Gentiles, or had any other motive than that of external
conformity with the religion of those whom they were endeavouring to
convert. As himself the Paraclete announced in the New Testament, Manes
claimed for himself an authority superior to that of all apostles, and
if he made use of any of the writings attributed to them, it was
probably only in the shape of isolated passages divorced from their
context. On the other hand, his followers seem to have made free use of
apocryphal or pseudepigraphical books written in the names of the
apostles and containing statements which could be explained as
confirming Manes’ teaching. A great number of these had as their common
authors the names of St Thomas and St Andrew, and the Fathers declare
that they were for the most part the work of one Leucius, whom they
assert was a Manichaean[1197]. It may be so; but, as all the copies of
these works which have come down to us have been expurgated or, in the
language of the time, “made orthodox,” by the removal of heretical
matter, there is little proof of the fact.

More authentic, however, than these pseudepigrapha and much fuller than
the extracts preserved by Christian or Mahommedan writers is a treatise
found in the cave of the Thousand Buddhas at Tun-huang which has been
published only last year. It seems by an extraordinary chance to have
nearly escaped us, having been apparently missed by all the European
expeditions because it was written in Chinese characters. Hence it was
removed to Pekin by orders of the Chinese Government under the
impression that it was Buddhist in its nature, and has since been
published in a Chinese publication founded for the purpose of preserving
the Tun-huang MSS. by Mr Lo Tchen-yu, a Chinese scholar of great
philosophical and archaeological attainments[1198]. It is written on a
continuous roll of paper over six metres in length, which has led
unfortunately to the disappearance of the title and the first few words
of the treatise. The remainder shows, however, that it purports to be a
sort of allocution addressed by Manes, here as in the _Khuastuanift_
called the “Legate of the Light,” to Adda or Addas, whom we know from
the Christian documents before quoted to have been one of the three
great missionaries said to have been dispatched by Manes into foreign
countries to propagate his doctrine[1199]. Of these three, Thomas,
Hermas, and Addas, the last-named is said to have been allotted
“Scythia,” which here as elsewhere doubtless means Turkestan, and his
name therefore gives a reasonable air of authenticity to the text. The
whole document is written in the form of a Buddhist _sutra_, and has
been translated with an excellent commentary by the French Sinologist,
M. Edouard Chavannes, with the help of M. Paul Pelliot, the leader of
the French Expedition to Turkestan which probably first discovered
it[1200]. It entirely confirms the Mahommedan account of the teaching of
Manes given above as well as that appearing in the _Khuastuanift_, and
shows that St Augustine, alike in his authentic writings and in the
tract _de Haeresibus_ generally, although perhaps wrongfully, attributed
to him, was drawing from well-informed sources. There are many grounds
for thinking that it may originally have been written in Pahlavi, in
which case it may have been contemporary with Manes himself; but it
frequently makes use of Buddhist phrases often derived from the
Sanskrit[1201]. If the view here taken of the date of the original
treatise is well founded, these may have been introduced by Manes during
the time that the tradition mentioned above says that he spent in
Turkestan for the elaboration of his doctrine. At all events they show
that the practice of adapting his religion, as far as might be, to
accord with that previously held by those among whom he was trying to
make proselytes, goes back to the very origin of the sect.

This treatise was evidently written for edification rather than for
instruction, and gives us a curious idea of the imagery by which the
Manichaean teachers sought to enforce their teaching. The theory of the
macrocosm and the microcosm, which teaches that the body of man is in
itself a copy of the great world or universe, is here carried to
excess[1202], and we hear much of the “trees” which certain demons,
previously sticking to the elements, says the treatise, “like a fly to
honey, a bird to bird-lime, or a fish to the hook[1203],” plant in the
soul to the corruption and ultimate death of the better desires there
implanted by the Light. The combat waged against the diabolic vices by
the virtues is also described with great minuteness, but in language in
which it is sometimes difficult to discover whether the author is
consciously using allegory or not. Thus he says that the Devil, to whom
he attributes the formation of the body of man, “shut up the Pure Ether”
(one of the five light elements)

    “in the city of the bones. He established (there) the dark thought
    in which he planted a tree of death. Then he shut up the Excellent
    Wind in the city of the nerves. He established (there) the dark
    feeling in which he planted a tree of death. Then he shut up the
    strength of the Light in the city of the veins. He established
    (there) the dark reflection in which he planted a tree of death.
    Then he shut up the Excellent Water in the city of the flesh. He
    established there the dark intellect, in which he planted a tree of
    death. Then he shut up the Excellent Fire in the city of the skin.
    He established there the dark reasoning in which he planted a tree
    of death. The Demon of Envy [the name generally used in the treatise
    for the Devil] planted these five poisonous trees of death in the
    five kinds of ruined places. He made them on every occasion deceive
    and trouble the original luminous nature, to draw in from without
    the nature which is stranger to it, and to produce poisonous fruit.
    Thus the tree of the dark thought grows within the city of the
    bones; its fruit is hatred: the tree of the dark feeling grows
    within the city of the nerves; its fruit is irritation: the tree of
    the dark reflection grows within the city of the veins; its fruit is
    luxury [wantonness]: the tree of the dark intellect grows within the
    city of the flesh; its fruit is anger: the tree of the dark
    reasoning grows within the city of the skin; its fruit is folly. It
    is thus then that of the five kinds of things which are the bones,
    the nerves, the veins, the flesh, and the skin, he made a prison and
    shut up there the five divisions of the First Principle of
    Light....[1204]”

and so on. One might sometimes think one was reading John Bunyan and his
Holy War with its defence of the town of Mansoul.

Most of the information contained in this Pekin Treatise has been dealt
with in its place, but there are one or two matters concerning the
cosmology of Manes which are of importance as showing the connection of
his system with that of his predecessors. One regards the two great
angels, here called Khrostag and Padvaktag[1205] or the Appellant and
Respondent, who are mentioned in the _Khuastuanift_ (p. 343 _supra_) as
bringing the light to be purified[1206]. As has been said above, they
show a great likeness to the two last Amshaspands of Zoroastrianism
called Haurvetât and Ameretât; and like them are never mentioned
separately, but always together[1207]. Another point, already referred
to, is that the Zoroastrian Sraôsha, the strong archangel who guards the
world at night from the demons, is here mentioned several times by
name[1208]. Yet another point is that the two sexes are here said to
have been formed by the devil out of jealousy and rage at beholding the
sun and moon, and in imitation of the two luminaries. This is an
entirely different story not only from those given above as Manichaean
but from that given in the _Great Announcement_ attributed to Simon
Magus, and both differ from that told in the _Pistis Sophia_. It seems
plain therefore that in attributing these various origins to the
division of mankind into sexes, none of the three teachers was drawing
upon tradition, but was merely inventing _ad hoc_.

There remains to be considered the history of the sect, as to which we
have become better informed during the last few decades than at one time
seemed possible[1209]. Prohibited in the Roman Empire from the outset,
they nevertheless made their way along both shores of the Mediterranean,
and all the efforts of the Imperial authorities proved powerless to
suppress them. Constantine directed an enquiry into their tenets, it is
said, with some idea of making them into the religion of the State, and
although he found this impracticable or unsafe, he seems to have been at
first inclined to extend to them toleration[1210]. His successors,
however, quickly reverted to the earlier policy of Diocletian, and law
after law of gradually increasing severity was passed until adherence to
Manichaeism was finally punished with death and confiscation[1211].
Pagans like the Emperor Julian and his friend and teacher Libanius were
able occasionally to intervene in their favour; but no sect was ever
more relentlessly persecuted, and the institution of the Dominican
Inquisition can be traced back to the _Quaestiones_ set up by Justinian
and Theodora for their routing out and suppression[1212]. In the case of
what was practically a secret society, it would be difficult to say
whether the Imperial measures would have availed to entirely destroy
their propaganda, and it is possible that the Manichaean Church always
maintained a sporadic existence in Europe[1213] until events to be
presently mentioned led to its revival in the Xth century. Meanwhile in
the East, they remained on the confines of what was, up to the
Mahommedan conquest in 642 A.D., the Persian Empire, and no doubt after
their manner professed outward adherence to the Zoroastrian faith, while
at the same time propagating their own doctrines in secret[1214]. It was
probably the Arab conquest which drove them to make their headquarters
on the very borders of the civilized world as known to the ancients and
in what is now Turkestan. Here a large part of the population seems to
have been Buddhist, doubtless by reason of its dealings with China, and
in the presence of that gentle faith—whose adherents boast that they
have never yet shed blood to make a convert—the Manichaeans enjoyed
complete toleration for perhaps the first time in their history[1215].
They made use of it, as always, to send out missionaries into the
neighbouring countries, and certainly obtained a foothold in China,
where the Chinese seem to have confused them with the Christians. Their
hatred of images doubtless caused the iconoclastic Emperors of the East
to enter into relation with them, and we hear that Leo the Isaurian
induced many of them to enter the Imperial armies. It was possibly these
last whom the Emperor John Tzimiskes settled in what is now Bulgaria,
whence, under the names of Paulicians, Bogomiles, and other aliases,
they promoted that movement against the Catholic Church which provoked
the Albigensian Crusades and the establishment of the Dominican
Inquisition in the West[1216]. To follow them there would be to travel
beyond the scope of this book; and it need only be said in conclusion
that they formed the bitterest and the most dangerous enemies that the
Catholic Church in Europe ever had to face. It was possibly this which
has led the rulers of the Church of Rome to brand nearly all later
heresy with the name of Manichaean; yet it may be doubted whether some
of their doctrines did not survive in Europe until the German
Reformation, when they may have helped to inspire some of the wilder
Protestant sects of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries. With the suppression
of the Albigenses, however, the existence of Manichaeism as an organized
faith comes to an end.

Footnote 988:

  So Cumont, _T. et M._ I. pp. 45, 349, 350. He seems to rely, however,
  entirely on the passage in the _Acta Archelai_ (as to which see n. 1,
  p. 280 _infra_), wherein the supposed bishop Archelaus addresses the
  equally imaginary Manes as “Savage priest and accomplice of
  Mithras!”—possibly a mere term of abuse. See Hegemonius, _Acta
  Archelai_, ed. Beeson, Leipzig, 1906, c. XL. p. 59.

Footnote 989:

  Cumont, _T. et M._ I. p. 41. He sees in the scenes which border the
  Tauroctony references or parallels to the fig-leaves of Genesis, the
  striking of the rock by Moses, and the ascension of Elijah. In the
  so-called Mithraic Ritual of the Magic Papyrus of Paris, there are
  certain Hebrew words introduced, such as πιπι (a well-known perversion
  of the Tetragrammaton), σανχερωβ and σεμες ιλαμ (The “Eternal Sun”).

Footnote 990:

  See the story which Josephus, _Antiq._ XX. cc. 2, 3, 4, tells about
  Izates, king of Adiabene, who wanted to turn Jew and thereby so
  offended his people that they called in against him Vologeses or
  Valkash, the first reforming Zoroastrian king and collector of the
  books of the Zend Avesta. Cf. Darmesteter, _The Zend Avesta_ (Sacred
  Books of the East), Oxford, 1895, p. xl. Cf. Ém. de Stoop _La
  Diffusion du Manichéisme dans l’Empire romain_, Gand, 1909, p. 10.

Footnote 991:

  _Circa_ 296, A.D. See Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 195, where the
  authenticity of the decree is defended. For the provocation given to
  the Empire by the anti-militarism of Manes see de Stoop, _op. cit._
  pp. 36, 37.

Footnote 992:

  Al-Bîrûnî, _Chronology of Ancient Nations_, p. 190. The date he gives
  is twelve years before the accession of Ardeshîr. E. Rochat, _Essai
  sur Mani et sa Doctrine_, Genève, 1897, p. 81, examines all the
  different accounts and makes the date from 214 to 218 A.D.

Footnote 993:

  Epiphanius, _Haer._ LXVI. c. 1, p. 399, Oehler; Socrates, _Hist.
  Eccl._ Bk I. c. 22; Hegemonius, _Acta Archelai_, c. LXIV.

Footnote 994:

  Muhammed ben Ishak, commonly called En-Nadîm, in the book known as the
  _Fihrist_, translated by Flügel, _Mani, seine Lehre und seine
  Schriften_, Leipzig, 1862, pp. 83, 116, 118, 119. Cf. Rochat, _op.
  cit._ p. 75.

Footnote 995:

  Al-Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, p. 190.

Footnote 996:

  Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 84; Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 83.

Footnote 997:

  Hegemonius, _Acta Arch._ c. XL., p. 59, Beeson. Rochat, _op. cit._ pp.
  9-49, discusses the authenticity of the _Acta_ chapter by chapter. He
  thinks the pretended discussion between Archelaus and Manes
  unhistorical, and the account of it possibly modelled on that between
  St Augustine and Faustus the Manichaean. The remainder of the _Acta_
  he considers fairly trustworthy as an account of Manes’ own tenets.
  This may well be, as Epiphanius, _Haer._ LXVI. cc. 6-7, 25-31,
  transcribes the epistle to Marcellus, its answer, and the exposition
  of Turbo, and could scarcely have heard, as early as 375 A.D., about
  which time he wrote, of St Augustine’s discussion. The _Acta_ owe much
  to the care of the American scholar, Mr Beeson of Chicago, who has
  given us the careful edition of them mentioned in n. 1, p. 277
  _supra_. It is a pity that he did not see his way to keep the old
  numeration of the chapters.

Footnote 998:

  Beausobre, _Hist. du Manichéisme_, Paris, 1734, Pt I. Bk II. cc. 1-4.
  Cf. Stokes in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Manes; Rochat, _op. cit._
  p. 83.

Footnote 999:

  Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 89.

Footnote 1000:

  Abulfarag in Kessler, _Forschungen über die Manichäische Religion_,
  Berlin, 1889, Bd I. p. 335; Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 84; Neander, _Ch.
  Hist._ II. p. 168.

Footnote 1001:

  Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 85. Cf. Al-Bîrûnî, _India_ (ed. Sachau), p. 55,
  where Manes quotes the opinion of Bardesanes’ “partizans.” There are
  many words put into the mouth of Manes in the work quoted which argue
  acquaintance with the _Pistis Sophia_.

Footnote 1002:

  Abulmaali in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 371; Firdaûsi, _ibid._ p. 375;
  Mirkhônd, _ibid._ p. 379. Cf. Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 81. He is said to
  have painted his pictures in a cave in Turkestan (Stokes in _Dict.
  Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Manes), which would agree well enough with the
  late German discoveries at Turfan, for which see A. von Le Coq in
  _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 299 _sqq._

Footnote 1003:

  Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 85.

Footnote 1004:

  Al-Jakûbi in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 328, 329; cf. Rochat, _op. cit._
  p. 88.

Footnote 1005:

  Al-Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, pp. 191, 192.

Footnote 1006:

  Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 89. Al-Bîrûnî, whom he quotes, however, says
  merely that the Manichaeans increased under Ormuz, and also that Ormuz
  “killed a number of them.” See last note.

Footnote 1007:

  Al-Jakûbi in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 330. But Darmesteter (see passage
  quoted in n. 2, p. 284 _infra_) puts this event as happening after
  Ormuz’ death and under Shapur II.

Footnote 1008:

  Al-Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, p. 191. The town is called Djundi-sâbur or
  Gundisabur.

Footnote 1009:

  Al-Jakûbi, _ubi cit. supra_; Eutychius quoted by Stokes, _Dict.
  Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Manes.

Footnote 1010:

  Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 93, examines all the evidence for this and comes
  to the conclusion given in the text.

Footnote 1011:

  Malcolm, _History of Persia_, London, 1821, Vol. I. pp. 95, 96.

Footnote 1012:

  G. Rawlinson, _The 6th Oriental Monarchy_, 1873, p. 222; Rochat, _op.
  cit._ p. 53.

Footnote 1013:

  See Chap. XII _supra_, p. 232.

Footnote 1014:

  See n. 1, p. 278 _supra_.

Footnote 1015:

  Al-Bîrûnî, _Chron._ p. 187, makes Manes the successor or continuator
  of Bardesanes and Marcion. This was certainly not so; but it was
  probably only from their followers that he derived any acquaintance
  with Christianity. See n. 7, p. 280 _supra_. So Muhammad or Mahommed,
  four centuries later, drew his ideas of the same faith from the
  heretics of his day.

Footnote 1016:

  Rhys Davids, _Buddhist India_, 1903, p. 318, says that after 300 A.D.
  Buddhism was everywhere in decay in India.

Footnote 1017:

  Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 58.

Footnote 1018:

  Darmesteter, _Zend Avesta_, pp. xl, xli.

Footnote 1019:

  _Op. cit._ pp. xlvii _sqq._

Footnote 1020:

  Al-Bîrûnî, _Chron._ p. 192.

Footnote 1021:

  Elisaeus Vartabed in Langlois’ _Collection des Hist. de l’Arménie_,
  Paris, 1868, t. II. p. 190. The story is repeated almost word for word
  by Eznig of Goghp, _ibid._ p. 875. Cf. Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p.
  171.

Footnote 1022:

  Rochat, _op. cit._, following Kessler, shows, it seems, conclusively,
  that this is another name for Manes’ father, Fatak or Patecius.

Footnote 1023:

  She was a courtezan at Hypselis in the Thebaid according to
  Epiphanius, _Haer._ LXVI. c. 11, p. 400, Oehler. As Baur, _Die
  Manichäische Religionssystem_, Tübingen, 1831, p. 468 _sqq._ has
  pointed out, this is probably an imitation of the story told about
  Simon Magus and his Helena (see Chap. VI _supra_). It seems to have
  arisen as an embroidery, quite in Epiphanius’ manner, upon the story
  in the _Acta_, that Scythianus married a captive from the Upper
  Thebaid (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. LXII. p. 90, Beeson).

Footnote 1024:

  Many guesses have been made as to the allusions concealed under these
  names, as to which see Rochat, _op. cit._ pp. 64-73. Neander (_Ch.
  Hist._ II. p. 16) quotes from Ritter the suggestion that Terebinthus
  may come from an epithet of Buddha, _Tere-hintu_ “Lord of the Hindus.”
  One wonders whether it might not have been as fitly given to a Jewish
  slave sold at the Fair of the Terebinth with which Hadrian closed his
  war of extermination.

Footnote 1025:

  These four books may have been intended for the _Shapurakhan_, the
  _Treasure_, the _Gospel_ and the _Capitularies_, which Al-Bîrûnî,
  _Chron._ p. 171, attributes to Mani. Cf. Epiphanius, _Haer._ LXVI. c.
  2, p. 402, Oehler, and the _Scholia_ of Théodore bar Khôni in Pognon,
  _Inscriptions Mandaïtes des Coupes de Khouabir_, pp. 182, 183.

Footnote 1026:

  Epiphanius, _op. cit._ c. 1, p. 398, Oehler.

Footnote 1027:

  Colditz in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 15, 16. Cf. Rochat, _op. cit._ pp.
  65, 66.

Footnote 1028:

  Morrison, _Jews under Romans_, p. 325 for authorities. Philo, _de Vit.
  Contempl._ etc. c. III. says that similar communities existed in his
  time near the Mareotic lake in Egypt. But the date of the treatise and
  its attribution to Philo are alike uncertain. The first mention of
  Buddha in Greek literature is said to be that by Clem. Alex. _Strom._
  Bk I. c. 15.

Footnote 1029:

  Harnack in _Encyc. Britann._ 9th edition, _s.v._ Manichaeans, p. 48,
  says “There is not a single point in Manichaeism which demands for its
  explanation an appeal to Buddhism.” This may be, but the discoveries
  at Turfan and Tun-huang have made a connection between the two more
  probable than appeared at the time he wrote. See also Kessler as
  quoted by Rochat, _op. cit._ pp. 192, 193.

Footnote 1030:

  This appears from the Chinese Treatise at Pekin mentioned later. See
  p. 293, n. 2.

Footnote 1031:

  Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 194. So Socrates, _Eccl. Hist._ Bk I. c. 22,
  calls Manichaeism “a sort of heathen (Ἑλληνίζων) Christianity.”

Footnote 1032:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VII. p. 91, Beeson; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 86.

Footnote 1033:

  Certainly none is recorded in the Christian accounts, where Darkness
  is called Hyle or Matter. En Nadîm (Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 86) makes
  Manes call the good God “the King of the Paradise of Light” and (p.
  90) the Spirit of Darkness, Hummâma. Schahrastâni, as quoted in
  Flügel’s note (p. 240), makes this word mean “mirk” or “smoke”
  (_Qualm_). It would be curious if Hummâma had any connection with the
  Elamite Khumbaba, the opponent of the Babylonian hero Gilgamesh,
  because this personage already figures in Ctesias’ story about
  Nannaros, which has been recognized as a myth relating to the
  Moon-god.

Footnote 1034:

  τὸ τῆς ὕλης δημιούργημα Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VIII. p. 9, Beeson. Cf.
  Alexander of Lycopolis, _adv. Manichaeos_, c. II.

Footnote 1035:

  Epiph. _Haer._ LXVI. c. 6, p. 408, Oehler; Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. V.
  pp. 5-7, Beeson. The authenticity of the letter is defended by
  Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 166. Cf. Rochat, _op. cit._ p. 94 _contra_.

Footnote 1036:

  τῶν κακῶν ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν ἀναφέρουσιν, ὧν τὸ τέλος κατάρας ἐγγύς. It is
  evidently intended for a quotation from Heb. vi. 8, which however puts
  it rather differently as ἐκφέρουσα δὲ ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους ἀδόκιμος
  καὶ κατάρας ἐγγύς, ἧς τὸ τέλος εἰς καῦσιν. “But that which beareth
  thorns and briers is to be rejected and is nigh unto cursing; whose
  end is to be burned.” The _Khuastuanîft_ or Manichaean confession
  mentioned later repeats this phrase about God not being the creator of
  evil as well as of good. See p. 335 _infra_.

Footnote 1037:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VII. p. 9, Beeson.

Footnote 1038:

  En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 386, _sqq._ Kessler’s translation
  of En Nadîm, which is given in the first Appendix to the work quoted,
  differs slightly from that of Flügel and depends on a somewhat better
  text than the last-named. It is therefore used when possible in the
  remaining notes to this chapter. Flügel’s book, however, has the
  advantage of a commentary of some 300 pages marked with great
  erudition, and must still be consulted by anyone wishing to be
  acquainted with its subject.

Footnote 1039:

  Plutarch, _de Is. et Os._ c. XLV., says, however, that “evil must have
  a principle of its own,” so that it cannot be the work of a benevolent
  being. As he is generally supposed to have taken his account of the
  Persian teaching from Theopompos of Chios, who was at the Court of
  Ptolemy about 305 B.C., his evidence is against those who, like M.
  Cumont, would make the “Zervanist” opinion, which assumes a common
  principle for good and evil, pre-Christian. Yet the point does not yet
  seem capable of decision, as Plutarch _may_ here be only giving us his
  own opinion.

Footnote 1040:

  Casartelli, _op. cit._ p. 44.

Footnote 1041:

  This is really the _crux_ of the whole question. If the idea could be
  traced back to the philosophers of Ionia (_e.g._ Heraclitus of
  Ephesus) and their theory of eternal strife and discord being the
  cause of all mundane phenomena, it is difficult to say whence the
  Ionians themselves derived it, save from Persia. We can, of course,
  suppose, if we please, that the Persians did not invent it _de novo_,
  but took it over from some of their subjects. Among these, the
  Babylonians, for instance, from the earliest times portrayed their
  demons as not only attempting to invade the heaven of the gods, but as
  being in perpetual warfare with one another. But the very little we
  know of Babylonian philosophy would lead us to think that it inclined
  towards pantheism of a materialistic kind rather than to dualism.

Footnote 1042:

  En Nadîm, in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 387; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 86.

Footnote 1043:

  The likeness of this to the cosmogony of the Ophites and their
  successor Valentinus is of course marked (cf. Chaps. VIII and IX
  _supra_). Manes may have borrowed it directly from Valentinus’
  follower Bardesanes, whose doctrines were powerful in Edessa and
  Mesopotamia in his time, or he may have taken it at first-hand from
  Persian or Babylonian tradition. That Manes was acquainted with
  Bardesanes’ doctrines, see n. 7, p. 280 _supra_.

Footnote 1044:

  En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 387; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 86.
  Flügel’s text adds to these members other “souls” which he names Love,
  Belief, Faith, Generosity, and Wisdom. Kessler substitutes Courage for
  Generosity and seems to make these “souls” the members’ derivatives.

Footnote 1045:

  See last note.

Footnote 1046:

  See Chapter XII, p. 251 _supra_. Here, again, the traditional and
  monstrous figure of Satan may have been copied from the sculptured
  representations of the composite demons of Babylonia (_e.g._ Rogers,
  _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, Frontispiece and Figs. 1 and 13).
  Yet if we take the Mithraic lion, as M. Cumont would have us do, as
  the symbol of fire and the serpent as that of the earth, we have in
  the five sorts of animals the five στοιχεῖα or elements of Aristotle.
  Cf. Aetius, _de Placitis Philosophorum_, ed. Didot, Bk I. c. iii. § 38
  (Plutarch, _Moralia_, II.), p. 1069. Yet the nearest source from which
  Manes could have borrowed the idea is certainly Bardesanes, who,
  according to Bar Khôni and another Syriac author, taught that the
  world was made from five substances, _i.e._ fire, air, water, light
  and darkness. See Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 178; Cumont, _La Cosmogonie
  Manichéenne d’après Théodore bar Khôni_, Bruxelles, 1908, p. 13, n. 2.

Footnote 1047:

  En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 388; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 87. As
  the ancients were unacquainted with the properties of gases, it is
  singular that they should have formed such a conception as that of the
  compressibility and expansibility of spirits. Yet the idea is a very
  old one, and the Arabian Nights story of the Genius imprisoned in a
  brass bottle has its parallel in the bowls with magical inscriptions
  left by the Jews on the site of Babylon (Layard, _Nineveh and
  Babylon_, 1853, pp. 509 _sqq._), between pairs of which demons were
  thought to be imprisoned. Cf. Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 3. Something of
  the kind seems indicated in the “Little Point,” from which all
  material powers spring, referred to by Hippolytus and the Bruce
  Papyrus.

Footnote 1048:

  So in the _Pistis Sophia_, it is the “last Parastates” or assistant
  world who breathes light into the Kerasmos, and thus sets on foot the
  scheme of redemption. Cf. Chapter X, p. 146 _supra_.

Footnote 1049:

  Yet the Fundamental Epistle speaks of the twelve “members” of God,
  which seem to convey the same idea See _Aug. c. Ep. Fund._ c. 13.

Footnote 1050:

  Thus En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 388, 389; Flügel, _op. cit._
  p. 87. But here the Christian tradition gives more details than the
  Mahommedan. Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VII., p. 10, Beeson, and Bar Khôni
  (Pognon, p. 185), are in accord that the God of Light produced from
  himself a new Power called the Μήτηρ τῆς Ζωῆς or Mother of Life, that
  this Mother of Life projected the First Man, and that the First Man
  produced the five elements called also his “sons,” to wit, wind,
  light, water, fire and air, with which he clothed himself as with
  armour. See Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 16, n. 4, for the harmonizing
  of the texts [N.B. the omission of πῦρ from his quotation from the
  _Acta_ is doubtless a clerical error]. The identification of the
  Mother of Life with the “Spirit of the Right [Hand]” is accepted by
  Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_, pp. 177, 178, and may be accounted for by
  the crude figure by which the Egyptians explained the coming-forth of
  the universe from a single male power. See Budge, _Hieratic Papyri in
  the Brit. Mus._ p. 17.

Footnote 1051:

  These were also the “sons” of Darkness or Satan. See Bar Khôni
  (Pognon, p. 186). The reason that led the God of Light to send a
  champion into the lists was, according to Bar Khôni (Pognon, p. 185),
  that the five worlds of his creation were made for peace and
  tranquillity and could therefore not help him directly in the matter.
  Cf. St Augustine, _de Natura Boni_, c. XLII. But Manes doubtless found
  it necessary to work into his system the figure of the First Man which
  we have already seen prominent in the Ophite system. Cumont, _Cosmog.
  Manich._ p. 16, says few conceptions were more widely spread
  throughout the East. It is fully examined by Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_,
  in his IVth chapter, “Der Urmensch.” The First Man is, in the Chinese
  treatise lately found at Tun-huang in circumstances to be presently
  mentioned, identified with the Persian Ormuzd and the five elements
  are there declared to be his sons. See Chavannes and Pelliot, _Un
  Traité Manichéen retrouvé en Chine_, pt 1, _Journal Asiatique_, série
  X., t. XVIII. (1911), pp. 512, 513. The 12 elements which helped in
  his formation seem to be mentioned by no other author than En Nadîm.
  St Augustine, however, _Contra Epistulam Fundamenti_, c. 13, speaks of
  the “12 members of light.” The Tun-huang treatise also mentions “the
  12 great kings of victorious form” whom it seems to liken to the 12
  hours of the day. As the _Pistis Sophia_ does the same with the “12
  Aeons” who are apparently the signs of the Zodiac, it is possible that
  we here have a sort of super-celestial Zodiac belonging to the
  Paradise of Light, of which that in our sky is a copy. It should be
  remembered that in the Asiatic cosmogonies the fixed stars belong to
  the realm of good as the representatives of order, while the planets
  or “wanderers” are generally evil.

Footnote 1052:

  En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 389; Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 87, 88.
  According to the Christian tradition, the Powers of Darkness devoured
  only the soul of the First Man which was left below when his body, as
  will presently be seen, returned to the upper world. See Hegemonius,
  _Acta_, c. VII., p. 10, Beeson.

Footnote 1053:

  Both the Christian and the Mahommedan traditions agree as to this
  result of the fight, which is paralleled not only by the more or leas
  successful attempt of Jaldabaoth and his powers to _eat_ the light of
  Pistis Sophia, but also by a similar case in orthodox Zoroastrianism.
  For all these see Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 18, n. 4. Bar Khôni
  (Pognon, p. 186), goes further and describes the surrender of the
  First Man as a tactical effort on his part, “as a man who having an
  enemy puts poison in a cake and gives it to him.” Alexander of
  Lycopolis (_adv. Manich._ c. III.), on the other hand declares that
  God could not avenge himself upon matter (as he calls Darkness) as he
  wished, because he had no evil at hand to help him, “since evil does
  not exist in the house and abode of God”; that he therefore sent the
  soul into matter which will eventually permeate it and be the death of
  it; but that in the meantime the soul is changed for the worse and
  participates in the evil of matter, “as in a dirty vessel the contents
  suffer change.” These, however, are more likely to be the ideas of the
  Christian accusers than the defences of the Manichaean teachers.

Footnote 1054:

  En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 389, 390; Flügel, _op. cit._ p.
  87. As Kessler points out, En Nadîm gives two accounts doubtless taken
  from different Manichaean sources. In one, he says simply that the
  King of the Paradise of Light followed with other gods and delivered
  the First Man, the actual victor over Darkness being called “the
  Friend” of the Lights (like Mithras). He then goes on to say that Joy
  (_i.e._ the Mother of Life) and the Spirit of Life went to the
  frontier, looked into the abyss of hell and saw the First Man and his
  powers were held enlaced by Satan, “the Presumptuous Oppressor and the
  Life of Darkness”; then she called him in a loud and clear voice, and
  he became a god, after which he returned and “cut the roots of the
  Dark Powers.” For Bar Khôni’s amplification of this story see p. 302,
  n. 1, and p. 324 _infra_. The whole of this, together with the cutting
  of the roots, is strongly reminiscent of the _Pistis Sophia_.

Footnote 1055:

  En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 391, 392; Flügel, _op. cit._ p.
  98. The _Acta_ (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. VIII., p. 11, Beeson) say
  that the “Living Spirit” before mentioned “created the Cosmos,
  descended clothed with three other powers, drew forth the rulers (οἱ
  ἄρχοντες) and crucified them in the firmament which is their body the
  Sphere.” “Then he created the lights (φωστῆρες) which are the remnants
  of the soul, caused the firmament to encompass them, and again created
  the earth [not the Cosmos] with its eight aspects.” The Latin version
  after “earth” adds “they (_sic!_) are eight.” which if it refers to
  the aspects would agree with En Nadîm. Alexander of Lycopolis (_adv.
  Manich._ c. III.), who had been a follower of Manes and was a
  Christian bishop some 25 years after Manes’ death, says that “God sent
  forth another power which we call the Demiurge or creator of all
  things; that this Demiurge in creating the Cosmos separated from
  matter as much power as was unstained, and from it made the Sun and
  Moon; and that the slightly stained matter became the stars and the
  expanse of heaven.” “The matter from which the Sun and Moon were
  taken,” he goes on to say, “was cast out of the Cosmos and resembles
  night” [Qy the Outer Darkness?], while the rest of the “elements”
  consists of light and matter unequally mingled. Bar Khôni (Pognon,
  _op. cit._ p. 188), as will presently be seen, says that the Living
  Spirit with the Mother of Life and two other powers called the
  Appellant and Respondent [evidently the “three other powers” of the
  _Acta_] descended to earth, caused the Rulers or Princes to be killed
  and flayed, and that out of their skins the Mother of Life made 11
  heavens, while their bodies were cast on to the earth of darkness and
  made 8 earths. The Living Spirit then made the Sun, the Moon, and
  “thousands of Lights” (_i.e._ Stars) out of the light he took from the
  Rulers. That this last story is an elaboration of the earlier ones
  seems likely, and the flaying of the Rulers seems to be reminiscent of
  the Babylonian legend of Bel and Tiamat, an echo of which is also to
  be found in the later Avestic literature. See West, _Pahlavi Texts_
  (S.B.E.), pt iii. p. 243. Cf. Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 27, n. 2.

Footnote 1056:

  En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 392; Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 89-90.
  This would agree perfectly with the system of the _Pistis Sophia_,
  where it is said that the “receivers of the Sun and Moon” give the
  particles of the light as it is won from matter to Melchizedek, the
  purifier, who purifies it before taking it into the Treasure-house
  (pp. 36, 37, Copt.). The idea that the Sun’s rays had a purifying
  effect shows shrewd observation of nature before his bactericidal
  power was discovered by science. So does the association of the Moon
  with water, which doubtless came from the phenomenon of the tides. Is
  the Column of Glory the Milky Way?

Footnote 1057:

  The Ecpyrosis or final conflagration is always present in orthodox
  Mazdeism, where it inspires its Apocalypses, and is in effect the
  necessary conclusion to the drama which begins with the assault on the
  world of light by Ahriman. For references, see Söderblom, _op. cit._
  chap. IV. From the Persians it probably passed to the Stoics and thus
  reached the Western world slightly in advance of Christianity. “The
  day when the Great Dragon shall be judged” is continually on the lips
  of the authors of the _Pistis Sophia_ and the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος,
  and the conception may therefore have reached Manes from two sources
  at once. The angels maintaining the world as mentioned in the text are
  of course the Splenditenens and Omophorus about to be described.

Footnote 1058:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VIII. p. 12, Beeson. St Augustine (_contra
  Faustum_, Bk XX. c. 10) mentions the Wheel briefly and rather
  obscurely. It seems to have fallen out of the account of Bar Khôni.
  But see the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._
  1^{ère} partie, pp. 515, n. 2, 516, 517, n. 3). There can be little
  doubt that it is to be referred to the Zodiac. The Aeons of the Light
  seem to be the five worlds who here play the part of the Parastatae in
  the _Pistis Sophia_.

Footnote 1059:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. VIII. pp. 11, 12, Beeson, mentions Omophorus,
  but not Splenditenens. Splenditenens is, however, well known to St
  Augustine, who describes him (_contra Faustum_, Bk XV. c. 7) as
  _Splenditenentem magnum, sex vultus et ora ferentem, micantemque
  lumine_, “Great Splenditenens, bearing six faces and mouths, and
  glittering with light.” So later (_op. cit._ Bk XX. c. 9) he says,
  _Splenditenentem, reliquias eorumdem membrorum Dei vestri in manu
  habentem, et cetera omnia capta, oppressa, inquinata plangentem, et
  Atlantem maximum subter humeris suis cum eo ferentem, ne totum ille
  fatigatus abjiciat_. “Splenditenens, who has in his hand the remains
  of these members of your God [_i.e._ the five elements or ‘sons’ of
  the First Man] and who mourns the capture and oppression and
  defilement of all the rest; and huge Atlas, who bears everything with
  him on his shoulders, lest he should be wearied and cast it away.” Bar
  Khôni (Pognon, pp. 188, 189) describes them both, and calls
  Splenditenens “the Ornament of Splendour,” while he makes the pair two
  of the five sons of the Living Spirit, as more clearly appears in the
  Tunhuang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p. 549, and notes
  2 and 5). Where Manes found the figure of Splenditenens is not
  apparent, but the world-bearing angel is an old conception in Western
  Asia, as M. Cumont has shown in his before-quoted _Cosmogonie
  Manichéenne_, App. II. He appears prominently on the Mithraic
  monuments and was no doubt the original of the Greek Atlas.

Footnote 1060:

  Alexander of Lycopolis, _op. cit._ c. III., says plainly that the Sun
  and Moon were formed out of that part of the light (here called
  δύναμις “power”), which, although it had been captured by the powers
  of matter, had not been contaminated, while that which had suffered
  some slight and moderate stain became the stars and sky. The _Acta_
  (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. VIII. p. 11, Beeson), as we have seen, says
  that the Living Spirit created the lights (φωστῆρες, luminaria), which
  are the remnants of the soul (_i.e._ the armour of the First Man) and
  caused the firmament to surround them. The author here evidently
  refers to the Sun and Moon only.

Footnote 1061:

  The whole of this story, which is the reverse of edifying, is studied
  by M. Cumont, with the fullest references to the authorities, in his
  _Cosmogonie Manichéenne_ before quoted, to which it forms Appendix I,
  under the heading “La Séduction des Archontes.” To this I must refer
  the reader, only remarking that, while I fully agree that the goddess
  in question is probably derived from the Mother of the Gods who under
  the name (_inter alia_) of Atargatis was worshipped throughout Asia
  Minor, I do not see that she had any connection with the “Virgin of
  Light” of the _Pistis Sophia_. This Virgin of Light did, indeed, pass
  into Manichaeism, but she had there a very different name and
  attributes from the Mother of the Gods. See p. 323, n. 4 _infra_.

Footnote 1062:

  En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 393; Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 90, 91.

Footnote 1063:

  Kessler, _op. et pag. cit._ n. 1, says it has dropped out of the text,
  which seems likely.

Footnote 1064:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XII. pp. 19, 20, Beeson. The story is given
  _verbatim_ later, p. 306 _infra_.

Footnote 1065:

  The Mandaeans or Disciples of St John described on p. 305 seem a
  likely source, as they have many traditions about the protoplasts,
  some of which clearly go back to before the Christian Era. None of
  those mentioned by Brandt, _Die Mandäische Religion_, Leipzig, 1889,
  pp. 34-39, however, seem to be exactly similar to the story in the
  text.

Footnote 1066:

  This Mother of Life is one of the most prominent, though not one of
  the most active figures in the Manichaean pantheon. Her identification
  with the Spirit of the Right Hand or first Power created by the
  Supreme God of Light has been mentioned above (note 1, p. 293
  _supra_). She doubtless has her immediate origin in the great mother
  goddess worshipped throughout Western Asia, whose most familiar name
  is Cybele, but whom we have seen (Chap. II _supra_) identified with
  Isis, Demeter, and all the goddesses of the Hellenistic pantheon. See
  as to this, Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_, pp. 58 _sqq._, although he, too,
  falls into the error of identifying with her the Virgin of Light of
  the _Pistis Sophia_. That the name “Mother of Life” at least passed to
  all these goddesses is certain; but it also found its way into
  Egyptian Christianity; for in the Coptic spell or amulet known as the
  _Prayer of the Virgin in Bartos_ (_i.e._ Parthia), studied by Mr W. E.
  Crum (_P.S.B.A._ vol. XIX. 1897, p. 216), the Virgin Mary is
  represented as saying “I am Mariham (Μαριάμ), I am Maria, I am the
  Mother of the Life of the whole World!”, and the popularity of the
  “Prayer” is shown by its frequent appearance in Ethiopic and Arabic
  versions (_op. cit._ p. 211). So, too, in the evidently Christian
  _Trattato Gnostico_ of F. Rossi (_Memorie della Reale Accademia di
  Torino_, ser. II. t. xliii. p. 16) the magician says “I entreat thee,
  O God, by the great revered Virgin (παρθένος) in whom the Father was
  concealed from the beginning before He had created anything.” Bar
  Khôni, again (Pognon, pp. 209-211), speaks of the Kukeans, who seem to
  have been a semi-Christian sect, and who taught that the coming of
  Jesus to earth had for its object the redemption of His bride, the
  Mother of Life, who was detained here below, like the Helena of Simon
  Magus. Mother of Life is mentioned in all the Mahommedan and Christian
  writers who have treated of Manichaeism (for the references, see
  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} partie, p. 511, n. 1), in the
  Pahlavi MS. discovered by the Germans at Turfan (F. W. K. Muller,
  _Handschriften-Reste in Estrangelo-Schrift_, pp. 47, 55), and in the
  Chinese treatise from Tun-huang (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p.
  511 _et al._). In this last, she is called Chan-mou, which is
  translated “the Excellent Mother,” and En Nadîm in one passage
  (Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 399; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 100) calls her
  Nahnaha, which Flügel would translate “The Aversion of the Evil Ones.”
  It should be noticed, however, that her part in the cosmogony is
  small, and that she acts upon the world, like all these supercelestial
  powers, only through her descendants or “sons.” These are treated of
  later (see p. 323 and n. 1, p. 302 _infra_). Titus of Bostra as quoted
  by Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 210, speaks of her as δύναμις τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ
  οὐκέτι φῶς αἰσθητὸν ἀλλ’ ὡς ἂν φαίη προβολὴ τοῦ θεοῦ. “[The] Power of
  the Good One, no longer a perceptible light, but as if one should say,
  an emanation of God.” Some years ago, we could hardly have looked for
  her prototype or first appearance in the history of religions in any
  other direction than Babylonia, where the worship of Ishtar, her
  Babylonian counterpart, goes back as far as we can trace Babylonian
  religion. Now, however, it is plain that other races than the
  Babylonians may have been concerned in the spread of the worship of
  the Great Mother throughout Western Asia. In the Zoroastrian faith,
  she seems to appear as Spenta Armaiti, the one certainly female power
  among the seven Amshaspands, who in the Pahlavi texts is set over the
  earth, as Vohu Mano is made protector of the beasts, Asha Vahishta of
  the fire, and Khshathra Vairya is set over metals. But besides this,
  she is identified in the Gâthâs with the Wisdom of God (for references
  see pp. 136-137 of M. Carnoy’s article in the _Muséon_ mentioned
  below), an identification which Plutarch (_de Is. et Os._ c. XLVII.)
  admits by translating her name as σοφία, and like the Sophia of the
  Gnostics is given as a spouse to her creator Ahura Mazda, to whom she
  bears the First Man Gayômort (Darmesteter, _Le Zend-Avesta_, t. I. pp.
  128-129). Yet we now know that this figure may have come into the
  Zoroastrian pantheon neither from Semitic sources nor, as Darmesteter
  thought, from Plato. M. A. Carnoy in a study called _Armaiti-Ârmatay_
  (_Muséon_, n.s. vol. XIII. (1912), pp. 127-146) shows the identity of
  the Persian Amshaspand with the Vedic goddess Aramati. We have already
  seen that the Vedic gods Varuna and Mitra were worshipped by Hittites
  in Asia Minor before the XIIth century B.C., and Prof. Garstang
  believes that the Earth-Mother was the great goddess of the Hittites,
  and was the one worshipped in Roman times at Hierapolis or Mabug as
  the _Dea Syria_ or Atargatis, a name that he equates with Derceto, the
  mother of Semiramis in classic legend, and declares to be compounded
  of Ishtar or Astarte and the Aramaic “Athar or Athe.” See Strong and
  Garstang, _The Syrian Goddess_, pp. 1-8, and notes 24, 25, and 30, on
  pp. 52, 53 and 30 _op. cit._ Zoroaster and Manes may therefore have
  taken their mother goddess from an Aryan rather than from a Semitic
  original.

Footnote 1067:

  This Living Spirit is the most active agent of the Light in the
  Manichaean system, and seems to have held his place unaltered through
  all the changes of Manichaean teaching. Alexander of Lycopolis
  (_contra Manich._ c. III.) speaks of him as the Δημιουργός or
  Architect of the Universe. The earliest part of the _Acta_
  (Hegemonius, c. VII. p. 10, Beeson) says that he was put forth from
  the Father (or Supreme God of Light) in consequence of the prayers of
  the First Man after his defeat, that he delivered this last, crucified
  or bound the Archons in the firmament (as Jeû is said to have done in
  the _Pistis Sophia_), made the Sun and Moon and appointed their
  courses, and further made the eight earths. St Augustine, _contra
  Faustum_, Bk XX. c. 1, makes the Manichaean Faustus call him the
  “Third Majesty whom we acknowledge to have his seat and his
  lodging-place in the whole circle of the atmosphere. From whose powers
  and spiritual inpouring also, the earth conceived and brought forth
  the suffering Jesus who is the life and salvation of men and is
  hanging on every tree.” St Augustine further speaks (_op. cit._ Bk XX.
  c. 9) of “your mighty (_potentem_ for _viventem_) Spirit, who
  constructs the world from the captive bodies of the race of darkness
  or rather from the members of your God held in subjection and
  bondage.” St Augustine (see _contra Faustum_, Bk XV. c. 6) also knows
  that the Living Spirit has, like the First Man, five sons, to whom we
  shall return later. The Mahommedan writers have much less to say on
  the subject. En Nadîm (Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 390; Flügel, _op. cit._
  p. 88) says abruptly that “Joy [_i.e._ the Mother of Life] and the
  Spirit of Life went to the frontier, looked into the abyss of hell and
  saw there the First Man and his angels,” whereupon the Spirit of Life
  called the First Man with a voice of thunder and the latter “became a
  god.” This story is so without connection with the context that
  Kessler is probably right in attributing it to another source from
  that from which the _Fihrist_ has drawn up to this point. The source
  in question was probably a late one; for Bar Khôni (_op. cit._ pp.
  186-188) supplies many more details which will be given in the text.
  Bar Khôni also amplifies the story in the _Fihrist_ into a description
  of how the Living Spirit, on seeing the First Man in the Darkness,
  spoke “a word which took the appearance of a pointed sword” (cf.
  Revelation i. 16), and how this word caused to appear the image of the
  First Man. A dialogue then ensues between apparently the sword and the
  image, which appear to be here identified with the Appellant and
  Respondent of later Manichaeism, and the pair are drawn up out of
  hell. See Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 24, and note 5. Al Bîrûnî,
  _Chronology_, p. 190, also knows of the Spirit of Life and says that
  Manes “preached” of him. In the Turfan texts there is occasional
  mention of the “Spirit” together with the Father and the Son (Müller,
  _Handschriften-Reste_, pp. 26, 28), and also of the “commands” of the
  Holy Spirit to the Hearers, which are plainly allusions to the Living
  Spirit or Ζῶν Πνεῦμα of the Christian Fathers. In the Tun-huang
  treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ pp. 510, 556) he is
  repeatedly mentioned, and although nothing is said of his demiurgic or
  world-creating powers, the part which he and the Mother of Life play
  in the rescue of the First Man after his defeat is recognized, and he
  is spoken of as forming the third person of a Trinity of which the two
  other members are the Father or highest God of Light and the “Son of
  the Light.” Finally (_op. cit._ p. 557), he is said to be “a white
  dove,” whereby his likeness to the Holy Spirit of the Christian
  Trinity already noted by Faustus is emphasized (see Augustine, _ubi
  cit. supra_ and Bk XX. c. 6).

Footnote 1068:

  This conception of Jesus as a warrior has already been seen in the
  _Pistis Sophia_, see p. 156 _supra_. So we read of “Jesus the
  victorious” in the Tun-huang treatise, p. 566, n. 3.

Footnote 1069:

  En Nadîm in Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 393 _sqq._; Flügel, _op. cit._ pp.
  90 _sqq._ Theodore bar Khôni (Pognon, _op. cit._ pp. 189 _sqq._),
  gives a much more elaborate account of the creation of man and the
  other animals, for which and for its explanation the reader must be
  referred to the elaborate analysis of M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ pp.
  34-49, and App. II., “La Séduction des Archontes”). It should be
  noted, however, that some part of this story was known to St
  Augustine. See especially _contra Faustum_, Bk VI. c. 8.

Footnote 1070:

  So Rochat, _op. cit._ pp. 157, 158.

Footnote 1071:

  Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 72, 80; Brandt, _Mandäische Religion_, p. 178.

Footnote 1072:

  Rochat, _op. cit._ pp. 156-178, has carefully examined the
  resemblances between the system of Manes and that of the Mandaites and
  declares that it is at present impossible to say which of them has
  borrowed from the other.

Footnote 1073:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XII., pp. 19, 20, Beeson.

Footnote 1074:

  _Op. cit._ c. VIII., p. 12, Beeson.

Footnote 1075:

  Chavannes et Pelliot (_op. cit._ p. 517, n. 3) make this the work of
  the Living Spirit, but they are clearly wrong. The text of the _Acta_
  referred to in the last note leaves no doubt that it is that of the
  “Son.”

Footnote 1076:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XI., p. 18, Beeson.

Footnote 1077:

  This is the tradition evidently known to the author of the Μέρος
  τευχῶν Σωτῆρος when he makes Jesus say “When I spoke with Enoch out of
  the Tree of Knowledge in the Paradise of Adam.” (See Chap. X, p. 173
  _supra_.)

Footnote 1078:

  Al Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, p. 190.

Footnote 1079:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. IX., p. 14, Beeson. This idea of the macrocosm
  and microcosm according to which the body of man is a _replica_ of the
  universe is found in nearly all later mysticism—also in the Cabala and
  in the later Zoroastrian treatises. In the Tun-huang treatise it forms
  the chief theme of the homiletic part of the work.

Footnote 1080:

  _Op. cit._ c. VIII., pp. 12, 13, Beeson. The Latin version has _vir_
  “man” for _aer_ “air” in its description of the Column of Glory.
  Probably a clerical error.

Footnote 1081:

  _Op. cit._ c. X., pp. 15, 16, Beeson. The word used is κέλεφος; but
  the Latin texts all read “elephant.”

Footnote 1082:

  Ἐρῶ ... πῶς μεταγγίζεται ἡ ψυχὴ εἰς πέντε σώματα, _op. et cap. cit._
  p. 15, Beeson.

Footnote 1083:

  The soul of the rich man is in the same chapter said to pass into the
  body of a beggar and thereafter εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον “to everlasting
  punishment.” Is it from this source that the Calvinists took their
  doctrine of eternal damnation? The reprobation of the rich as such and
  without regard to the use they might make of their wealth perhaps
  accounts for the levelling and republican politics of the mediaeval
  sectaries.

Footnote 1084:

  The Bowl of water reminds one of the cup of soberness and reflection
  administered to just souls by the little Sabaoth the Good in the Μέρος
  τευχῶν Σωτῆρος. See Chap. X, p. 187 _supra_. The garment was probably
  the “heavenly nature” with which the soul had to be clothed before it
  could ascend to the upper spheres of light (cf. the _Pistis Sophia_).
  That the crown was designed as a protection against the spirits of
  evil, there are many indications in the last-mentioned document.

Footnote 1085:

  Kessler would here read “gods” for “goddess.”

Footnote 1086:

  That is to say, the particular world of light, whether Gentleness,
  Knowledge, Intelligence, Discretion, or Discernment, from which the
  soul descended. As the “armour” of the First Man, from which the souls
  of men are formed, was made with the aid of these five worlds, it is
  reasonable to suppose that one or other predominates in the soul of
  everyone. Hence probably the degree in the Manichaean hierarchy to
  which any hearer might attain was thought to be decided for him before
  his birth, and governed his destination after death. Thus it is said
  in the _Pistis Sophia_: “Those who have received exalted mysteries
  shall be in exalted places, and those who have received humble
  mysteries in humble places in the light of my kingdom.” Cf. Chavannes
  et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} partie, p. 533, n. 1 and St Augustine
  as there quoted.

Footnote 1087:

  The words given in the text are almost _verbatim_ from En Nadîm. See
  Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 398-399; Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 100.

Footnote 1088:

  One of the 21 Nasks of the Sassanian Avesta.

Footnote 1089:

  Söderblom, _op. cit._ p. 83.

Footnote 1090:

  _Op. cit._ pp. 89 _sqq._

Footnote 1091:

  See the Orphic belief about the uninitiated being plunged in mud, Vol.
  I. chap. IV. p. 131 _supra_.

Footnote 1092:

  Kessler, _op. cit._ pp. 399-400; Flügel, pp. 100-101.

Footnote 1093:

  This is, I think, the only construction to be put on the words of the
  _Acta_: τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς ἐστι τὰ ὀνόματα ταῦτα, νοῦς, ἔννοια, φρόνησις,
  ἐνθύμησις, λογισμός. Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. X., p. 15, Beeson. For the
  Mahommedan tradition, see En Nadîm in Flügel, _op. cit._ p. 95. The
  whole question of the organization of the Manichaean Church is
  elaborately discussed by Flügel in n. 225 on this passage, _op. cit._
  pp. 293-299.

Footnote 1094:

  Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 398; Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 94, 95.

Footnote 1095:

  This is perhaps the first instance in antiquity of the Gospel of Work.
  That these virtues of the believer are made five in number, so as to
  accord with the five worlds of light, needs no demonstration.

Footnote 1096:

  See passages from Kessler and Flügel quoted in n. 1, p. 313 _supra_.

Footnote 1097:

  Rainerio Saccone, a Manichaean Perfect in Languedoc, who afterwards
  turned Inquisitor, said that he had often heard the Elect lamenting
  that they had not taken the opportunity of committing more sins before
  receiving the “Baptism of the Spirit” which was thought to wash them
  away. See H. C. Lea, _History of the Inquisition_, vol. I., p. 94.

Footnote 1098:

  Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 95-97. See, however, n. 4, p. 349 _infra_.

Footnote 1099:

  Josephus, _Antiquities_, Bk XX. cc. 2-4, breaks off his history at the
  critical point. The Book of Esther is, perhaps, sufficient proof of
  the capacity of the Oriental Jews for provoking periodical _pogroms_
  at least as freely as their co-religionists in modern Russia. Johnson
  (Oriental Religions), _Persia_, 1885, p. 410, quotes, apparently from
  Firdûsi, that the “old Persian nobles” were driven by Ardeshîr’s
  reforms into Seistan, where they were the ancestors of the present
  Afghan clans. As some of these clans call themselves the Beni Israel,
  it is possible that the Jews rather than the nobles were expelled on
  this occasion, as happened before under Cyrus.

Footnote 1100:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XII. pp. 20-21, Beeson; Ephraem Syrus in
  Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 302. For Mahommedan confirmation, see
  Schahrastâni in _op. cit._ p. 339.

Footnote 1101:

  Al Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, p. 190.

Footnote 1102:

  See Le Coq’s _Short Account_ in _J.R.A.S._ 1909, pp. 299-322. Another
  and more popularly written one by the same author appeared in the
  _Conférences au Musée Guimet_, Paris, 1910 (Bibl. de Vulgarisation, t.
  XXXV.).

Footnote 1103:

  The Marcionites, another much hated sect, also used a secret script.

Footnote 1104:

  St Augustine, _contra Faustum_, Bk V. c. 1.

Footnote 1105:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. V., pp. 5, 6.

Footnote 1106:

  Augustine, _contra Faust._ Bk VII. c. 1.

Footnote 1107:

  _Op. cit._ Bk XXIII. c. 2; _ibid._ Bk XXXII. c. 7.

Footnote 1108:

  _Op. cit._ Bk XXVI. cc. 6, 8; _ibid._ Bk XXIX. c. 1.

Footnote 1109:

  _Op. cit._ Bk XX. c. 2.

Footnote 1110:

  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 15, points out that the Manichaeans had
  already figured to themselves their King of the Paradise of Light as
  existing in the three Persons of Father, Mother, and Son in the shape
  of the Light, the Mother of Life and the First Man. This Trinity
  corresponds in every particular with that worshipped in Asia Minor
  under the names of Zeus (or Hadad), Cybele, and Atys, at Eleusis as
  Dionysos, Demeter, and Iacchos, in Greek Egypt as Osiris, Isis, and
  Horus, and in Persia, according to M. Cumont, as Ormuzd, Spenta
  Armaiti, and Gayômort. Cf. Bousset, _Hauptprobleme_, pp. 333-337. That
  its origin can be traced, as the last-named author seems to think, to
  the Babylonian Triad, Ea, Damkina, and Marduk, is more doubtful. The
  Manichaeans really acknowledged, as they were never tired of
  affirming, only two gods, Light and Darkness, and considered all the
  lesser powers of Light, including man’s soul, as formed from God’s
  “substance.” When, therefore, they spoke of trinities, tetrads, and so
  on, it was in all probability for the purpose of producing that show
  of outward conformity with other religions which was one of the most
  marked features of their system.

Footnote 1111:

  This is a reversal of the position in the _Pistis Sophia_, where the
  female power or Virgin of Light is placed in the Sun and the male Iao
  in the Moon.

Footnote 1112:

  Compare the statement of Herodotus (Bk I. c. 131) that Zeus (or
  Ormuzd) in the opinion of the ancient Persians was the name of “the
  whole circle of air.”

Footnote 1113:

  Augustine, _contra Faust._ Bk XX. c. 2.

Footnote 1114:

  This is to be found in Harduin’s _Acta Consilii_. The quotation in the
  text is taken from Matter, _Hist. de Gnost._ t. III. p. 89, and
  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 187.

Footnote 1115:

  Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 5; Assemani, _Bibl. Orient._ t. III. p. 198
  _cit._

Footnote 1116:

  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 106. It seems probable that the Kashgar
  in question is the country in Chinese Turkestan still called by that
  name. M. Pelliot, however, will have none of this and insists that Bar
  Khôni’s Kashgar was Al Wasit near Bagdad. For the controversy, see
  _J.R.A.S._ 1913, pp. 434 _sqq._, 696 _sqq._ and 1914, pp. 421-427.

Footnote 1117:

  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 1, n. 2, and authorities there quoted.

Footnote 1118:

  Ἀναθεματίζω πάντας οὓς ὁ Μάνης ἀνέπλασε θεοὺς, ἤτοι τὸν τετραπρόσωπον
  Πατέρα τοῦ Μεγέθους καὶ τὸν λεγόμενον Πρῶτον Ἄνθρωπον ... καὶ τὸν
  ὀνομαζόμενον Παρθένον τοῦ φωτὸς κ.τ.λ. “I anathematize all those whom
  Manes lyingly makes gods, to wit, the Father of Greatness in four
  Persons, and the so-called First Man ... and the famous Virgin of
  Light,” etc., Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 403. His quotation of the Formula
  is from the works of the Apostolic Fathers edited by Cotelerius in
  1724 (Amsterdam). It seems to have been administered to converts from
  Manichaeism to Catholicism down to a very late date. See Beausobre,
  _Hist. du Manichéisme_, t. I. pp. 66-67.

Footnote 1119:

  Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 184. Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ pp. 9, 10, would
  substitute Reason for Knowledge and Will for Feeling. The Greek names
  as given in the _Acta_ (Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. X. p. 15, Beeson)
  are νοῦς, ἔννοια, φρόνησις, ἐνθύμησις, λογισμός which the Latin
  translator makes into _mens_, _sensus_, _prudentia_, _intellectus_,
  _cogitatio_. The first of these may pass as correct, since Nous
  appears as the first emanation of the Highest God in all the systems
  which preceded that of Manes and from which he is likely to have
  copied. Of the rest, it can only be said that they are the
  translations by scribes of Syriac or Mandaite words which were ill
  calculated to express metaphysical abstractions, and that their
  copyists were seldom well acquainted with the etymology of any of the
  three languages. Hence they generally made use of what they thought
  were the corresponding expressions in the works of great
  heresiologists like Irenaeus and Hippolytus without troubling
  themselves much as to their appropriateness. In the passage from the
  _Acta_ above quoted, the five qualities named are said to be the
  “names of the soul,” which is explained by what is said later (_op.
  cit._ c. X. p. 17, Beeson) that “the air (ἀήρ) is the soul of men and
  beasts and birds and fish and creeping things.” En Nadîm (Kessler,
  _op. cit._ p. 387; Flügel, p. 86), as has been said on p. 291 _supra_,
  gives the “members of the air” as Gentleness, Knowledge, Intelligence,
  Discretion and Discernment, which are the same as those which he has
  just attributed to the King of the Paradise of Light. St Augustine
  (_c. Faust._ Bk XX. c. 15) says in like manner that the Manichaeans
  thought their souls “members of God,” which seems to refer to the same
  belief. Bar Khôni (Pognon, _op. cit._ p. 186), as has been said, not
  only assigns the five dwellings of Intelligence, Knowledge, Thought,
  Reflexion and Feeling to the Living Spirit, but makes him draw his
  five sons from them, and M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ p. 10, n. 3)
  quotes the _Acta Thomae_ as saying that the Third Legate or Srôsh is
  “the Legate of the five members, Nous, Ennoia, Phronesis, Enthymesis
  and Logismos.” From all which we may gather that the Supreme God of
  Light and his “Second” and “Third” creations were each alike thought
  to have the same five dwellings or hypostases consisting of abstract
  qualities, although the exact significance of the names given to them
  for the present escapes us.

Footnote 1120:

  This is the usual Oriental and Semitic figure of speech which leads
  Arabs at the present day to nickname any European with a large beard
  “the Father of Hair,” and makes the Sphinx of Ghizeh the “Father of
  Terrors.” In the same way, the Mother of Life means doubtless the Very
  Great Life or Source of Life.

Footnote 1121:

  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 15.

Footnote 1122:

  See the _Khuastuanift_, pp. 335, 342 _infra_, and the Tun-huang
  treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p. 513, and n. 1). Cf. also
  Müller, _Handschriften-Reste_, p. 102.

Footnote 1123:

  She cannot possibly be the Virgin of Light, as in the _Acta_ she is
  said to retire at the Ecpyrosis into the Moon-ship along with that
  personage. See Hegemonius, _op. cit._ c. XIII. p. 21, Beeson. The name
  “Virgin of Light” also appears in the Turfan texts as an epithet of
  Jesus, if the words are not wrongly translated. See Müller,
  _Handschriften-Reste_, pp. 75, 77. The name Nahnaha given her by En
  Nadîm has been referred to in n. 2, p. 300 _supra_.

Footnote 1124:

  Probably Mithras, who is in the Vedas and elsewhere called “Mithra the
  Friend.” Mithras is invoked under his own name in the Turfan texts
  (Müller, _Handschriften-Reste_, p. 77), but the fragment is too
  mutilated to be able to deduce from it his place in the pantheon.

Footnote 1125:

  This name, to be found nowhere but in Bar Khôni, cannot be explained.
  Pognon says it may be written the Great Laban, which gets us no nearer
  to its meaning.

Footnote 1126:

  The image is probably his body or substance, which is of the substance
  of the Very Great Father. So Satan is in the Coptic _Trattato
  gnostico_ of Rossi quoted in n. 2, p. 300 _supra_ described as the
  ἀρχηπλάσμα, probably as being the very substance of darkness as the
  Very Great Father is of the Light.

Footnote 1127:

  This is the conjecture of M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ pp. 24, 25). As
  he says in note 5 on the first-mentioned page, the passage as it
  stands is inconsistent. The Appellant and Respondent under the names
  of Kroshtag and Padwakhtag appear in the _Khuastuanift_ and also in
  the Tun-huang treatise (pp. 521 _sqq._) without the part they play in
  the world being immediately apparent. The former document, however
  (see p. 343 _infra_), speaks of them as being concerned in the
  purification of the Light. MM. Chavannes and Pelliot (_op. cit._ p.
  521, n. 1) think it possible that they may represent the portions of
  the “armour” of the First Man which were not sullied by contact with
  matter, and compare them to the last two Amshaspands, Haurvetât and
  Ameretât. See also their _Traité Manicheen_, etc. 2^{me} ptie, in the
  _Journal Asiatique_, XI série, t. I. (1913), p. 101. One might liken
  them to the Cautes and Cautopates appearing in the Mithraic monuments,
  as to which see Chapter XII, p. 246 _supra_.

Footnote 1128:

  All these subordinate deities were known to St Augustine. Cf. _id. c.
  Faust._ Bk XV. c. 6.

Footnote 1129:

  Evidently Manes accepted the dictum of Valentinus quoted above (Chap.
  IX, p. 104 _supra_), that with celestial powers it is always the
  female who gives the form.

Footnote 1130:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XIII, p. 21, Beeson. Αἱ δὲ προβολαὶ πᾶσαι, ὁ
  Ἰησοῦς ὁ ἐν τῷ μικρῷ πλοίῳ, καὶ ἡ μήτηρ τῆς ζωῆς, καὶ οἱ δώδεκα
  κυβερνῆται, καὶ ἡ παρθένος τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτης ὁ τρίτος ὁ ἐν τῷ
  μεγάλῳ πλοίῳ, καὶ τὸ ζῶν πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ τεῖχος τοῦ μεγάλου πυρὸς καὶ τὸ
  τεῖχος τοῦ ἀνέμου, καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος, καὶ τοῦ ὕδατος, καὶ τοῦ ἔσωθεν πυρὸς
  τοῦ ζῶντος πρὸς τὸν μικρὸν φωστῆρα οἰκοῦσιν, ἄχρις ἂν τὸ πῦρ
  κατανελώσῃ τὸν κόσμον ὅλον· ἐν ποσοῖς πότε ἔτεσιν, ὧν οὐκ ἔμαθον τὴν
  ποσότητα. “But all the emanations [_i.e._], Jesus who is in the small
  ship, and the Mother of Life and the 12 pilots, and the Virgin of
  Light, and the Third Legate who is in the large ship, and the Living
  Spirit and the wall [it should be ‘guardian,’ as MM. Chavannes and
  Pelliot explain] of the great fire, and the guardian of the Ether, and
  of the air, and of the water, and of the inner living fire, abide near
  the lesser light until the fire has consumed the whole Cosmos. But for
  how many years I have not learned.” The Latin version runs:
  _Prolationes autem omnes Jesus in modica navi, et mater vitae et
  duodecim gubernatores et virgo lucis et senior tertius. Unde et majori
  in navi vivens spiritus adhibetur, et murus ignis illius magni, et
  murus venti et aeris et aquae et interioris ignis vivi, quae omnia in
  luna habitabunt usquequo totum mundum ignis absumat; in quot autem
  annis numerum non didici_:—which appears to be nonsense. The number of
  years which Turbo, who is here speaking, had not learned, is said by
  En Nadîm to be 1468.

Footnote 1131:

  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ pp. 58 _sqq._ and Appendix I.

Footnote 1132:

  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ (1^{ère} ptie), p. 522, and n. 1. For
  the part played by him in the Chinese treatise see _op. cit._ p. 536,
  and n. 2. He is called “Mighty Srôsh” in the Turfan texts (Müller,
  _Handschriften-Reste_, p. 75).

Footnote 1133:

  J. Darmesteter, _The Zend Avesta_, part I. (S. B. E. vol. 4, pp. 87,
  99) and part II. (S. B. E. vol. 23, pp. 159-167). All the passages in
  which he is referred to come from the Vendidad, but he is also
  mentioned in the Bundahish. See West, _Pahlavi Texts_, part I. (S. B.
  E. vol. 5, p. 128).

Footnote 1134:

  See n. 2 _supra_. M. Cumont (_Cosmog. Manich._ p. 34) thinks that this
  Messenger was added to the two triads (of Father, Mother, and Son, and
  the Friend of the Lights, Great Ban, and Living Spirit, respectively)
  in order to make up “the sacred number of seven.” But seven is a
  number singularly neglected by the Manichaeans, who paid the greatest
  reverence to five, and preferred to seven the three and the twelve.
  Nor do I think that there is any real parallel in Manichaeism to the
  Seven Amshaspands of Zoroastrianism. The actual word _amshaspand_ is
  used in the Tun-huang treatise (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._
  1^{ère} ptie, p. 544), but with an entirely different signification
  from that of archangel or divinity. It seems there to mean simply
  “element.” Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 2^{me} partie, p. 101.

Footnote 1135:

  I can find no parallel to these powers in any other system, save that
  of the _Pistis Sophia_, where appear twelve Saviours of the
  Treasure-house of Light, from whom the souls of the Twelve Apostles of
  Jesus were said to be drawn. If, therefore, they are not the signs of
  the Zodiac, they may be an invention of the Manichaeans to accord with
  the _magistri_ or highest order of their Church (see p. 330 _infra_).

Footnote 1136:

  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 36.

Footnote 1137:

  Pognon, _op. cit._ pp. 189, 190. He says it was the Messenger (or
  Srôsh) who ordered the Great Ban to create a new world. M. Kugener,
  however (Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 37, n. 4), says that the passage
  can be read as in the text, and this avoids the improbability of the
  younger power or Third Legate giving orders to one of the “second
  creation.” The three wheels, fire, water, and earth, may possibly have
  been conceived as surrounding the earth, as with the Ophites of the
  Diagram. Cf. Chap. VIII, n. 3, p. 74 _supra_.

Footnote 1138:

  I read this, perhaps wrongly, thus instead of Five Trees as does
  Pognon (_op. cit._ p. 191). The five kinds of trees are often referred
  to in the Tun-huang treatise and in the _Khuastuanift_.

Footnote 1139:

  This Saclas, who appears many times in Greek heresiology with his wife
  Nebrod, called in the text Namraël (for references, see Cumont,
  _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 73, and notes 3, 4, and 5), was known to
  Hippolytus, who uses both names in his description of the tenets of
  the Peratae, a name which may be equivalent to that of the Medes. See
  Hipp. _Philosoph._ Bk V. c. 14, pp. 194, 195, Cruice.

Footnote 1140:

  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, p. 566, and n. 3.

Footnote 1141:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XI. p. 18, Beeson.

Footnote 1142:

  Augustine, _de Haeresibus_, c. 46, p. 210, Oehler. See also Chavannes
  et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, p. 569, and n. 2; p. 572, and nn.
  2, 3; and p. 581, and n. 4. MM. Chavannes and Pelliot discuss the
  question of the organization of the Manichaean Church in the second
  part of their memoir. See _op. cit._ 2^{me} ptie, pp. 193, 196 and n.
  2. They also give a dissertation on the common life of the Elect. It
  remains to be seen whether this was anything more than a copy of the
  monastic institutions of the Buddhists. For obvious reasons, such an
  organization was not adopted in lands where they had outwardly to
  conform to other religions.

Footnote 1143:

  So Professor Harnack and Mr Conybeare in the _Encyc. Brit._ (XIth
  ed.), vol. XVII. p. 576, _s.v._ Manichaeism.

Footnote 1144:

  “_Beatus pater_” is the name given to the _Tertius legatus_ by
  Evodius, _de recta fide_, _passim_.

Footnote 1145:

  Augustine, _c. Faust._ Bk XV. c. 5.

Footnote 1146:

  _Op. cit._ Bk XX. c. 9.

Footnote 1147:

  Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ App. 2, “L’Omophore.” He shows that this
  belief in an angel who supports the world on his shoulders goes back
  to the Assyrian cylinder-seals, where is found a world-bearing
  divinity in exactly the same pose as that reproduced in the Mithraic
  bas-reliefs.

Footnote 1148:

  One of the silk banners obtained by the German expedition seems to
  have depicted this scene. See A. von Le Coq, _Chotscho_:
  Facsimile-Wiedergaben der Wichtigerer Funde der Ersten Kgl. Preuss.
  Expedition nach Turfan, Berlin, 1913, Bd 1, p. 1 and Pl. IV. 6.

Footnote 1149:

  Augustine, _c. Faust._ Bk XX. c. 17. Is the prayer addressed to the
  First Man or to Splenditenens, whom St Augustine represents as
  mourning over the pollution of the Light?

Footnote 1150:

  The praises in the text are all given by En Nadîm. See Flügel, _op.
  cit._ p. 96. Are “the two sciences” the Living Spirit and his
  Intelligence or Reason? If so the “Father of Majesty” probably means
  the _Beatus Pater_ of note 2, p. 331 _supra_.

Footnote 1151:

  The Mediaeval Inquisitors were in especial never tired of denouncing
  the immorality of the Manichaean Hearers. See H. C. Lea, _History of
  the Inquisition_, index.

Footnote 1152:

  The original documents are described by Prof. A. von Le Coq in
  “Turkish Khuastuanift from Tun-huang,” _J.R.A.S._ 1911, pp. 277-279.

Footnote 1153:

  There are many allusions in Manichaean literature to three worlds of
  light, which seem to be (1) the light inaccessible, or heaven of God;
  (2) the light intelligible, _i.e._ that can be comprehended by the
  mind only, which is inhabited by the First Man; and (3) the
  perceptible light, of which the Sun and Moon are the rulers. See
  especially Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 564 and
  586, and 2^{me} ptie, p. 102, n. 2. The Manichaeans’ addiction to the
  number five needs no insistence. Fifteen, _i.e._ 3 × 5, is therefore a
  number which came naturally to them.

Footnote 1154:

  Shimnu seems to be the Buddhist word for “devil.” Cf. Neander, _Ch.
  Hist._ vol. II. p. 181. Prof. von Le Coq (_J.R.A.S._ 1911, p. 300)
  says it is of Soghdian origin. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._
  1^{ère} ptie, p. 523, n. 3, seek to show that it is the equivalent of
  Ahriman.

Footnote 1155:

  On this word see p. 323 _supra_; cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._
  1^{ère} ptie, p. 542, n. 2, which seems to summarize all that there is
  to be said about it, and p. 342 _infra_.

Footnote 1156:

  This was of course the exact statement of Zervanism, which the
  _Khuastuanift_ implicitly condemns. Cf. Mihr Nerses’ proclamation in
  450 A.D. quoted on p. 285 _supra_.

Footnote 1157:

  This was the name of the owner, which was _Raimast Parzind_ in the
  Tun-huang text of Sir Marc Stein.

Footnote 1158:

  This was the name given to the incarnate, as distinguished from the
  spiritual, messengers of the God of Light to man. Thus Zoroaster is
  always spoken of in Manichaean literature as a Burkhan, and doubtless
  the historical Buddha and Jesus were included in the same category.
  Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, p. 572, n. 2.

Footnote 1159:

  Obviously the authors of the _Khuastuanift_ knew nothing of the
  doctrine put forth by the Manichaeans in Christian lands that the
  First Man offered himself as a sacrifice to destroy the sons of
  Darkness. Cf. n. 2, p. 294 _supra_.

Footnote 1160:

  Because by so doing the existence of the diabolic creation would be
  prolonged.

Footnote 1161:

  The words “of the Messenger” [God] are not in Prof. von Le Coq’s
  version.

Footnote 1162:

  Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 503, n. 1. On
  this being mentioned in a paper in the _J.R.A.S._ 1913, Dr F. Denison
  Ross said that he thought the date should be put 300 years later, _J.
  cit._ p. 81. He has since withdrawn this (_J.R.A.S._ 1913, pp.
  434-436).

Footnote 1163:

  See the luminous historical study by M. Henri Cordier, “Les Fouilles
  en Asie Centrale,” _Journal des Savans._, Paris, 1910, pp. 219 _sqq._,
  especially pp. 249, 250.

Footnote 1164:

  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, p. 513, n. 1. Müller,
  _Handschriften-Reste_, pp. 20, 22. Von Le Coq, _J.R.A.S._ 1911, p.
  301.

Footnote 1165:

  Ormuzd, “the whole circuit of the sky,” although he calls him, _more
  Graecorum_, Zeus, “the sun and moon, the earth, fire, water and the
  winds,” were “the only gods whose worship had come down to the
  Persians from ancient times” in the days of Herodotus. Cf. Herodotus,
  Bk I. c. 131.

Footnote 1166:

  Faustus (Aug. _v. Faust._ Bk II. c. 4) distinctly says “Jesus Christ
  is the son of the First Man.” Cf. also c. 5.

Footnote 1167:

  It is very doubtful whether it is referred to or not in the Tun-huang
  treatise. Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 515,
  n. 2, and p. 516, n. 3.

Footnote 1168:

  The Power whom Faustus (Aug. _c. Faust._ Bk XX. c. 2) calls “God the
  Son.”

Footnote 1169:

  Evidently the incarnate or human messengers, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus,
  and Manes. The heavenly “legates” are never depicted as “preaching” to
  men.

Footnote 1170:

  The Past, Present and Future, called the “Three Moments” in the
  Tun-huang treatise. See Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 11^{me} ptie,
  pp. 114, 116.

Footnote 1171:

  Probably the strong or mighty Srôsh or _Tertius Legatus_.

Footnote 1172:

  This may be compared to the Ophite Diagram in which Agape or Love is
  made the summit of the Pantheon. See Chap. VIII p. 68 _supra_. See
  also the same dogma in Valentinus, Chap. IX p. 123 _supra_.

Footnote 1173:

  Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 95, 96.

Footnote 1174:

  As to these, see En Nadîm in Flügel, _op. cit._ pp. 97-100.

Footnote 1175:

  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, p. 543, n. 2.

Footnote 1176:

  Augustine, _de Moribus Manichaeorum_, c. X. Cf. Baur, _Das
  Manichäische Religionssystem_, pp. 248 _sqq._ Chavannes et Pelliot,
  _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, p. 547, n. 1, examine the question whether
  these are borrowed from Buddhism as F. W. K. Müller and Cumont assert,
  and incline to the view that Manes took them from Zoroastrianism.

Footnote 1177:

  The word _vusanti_ does not seem to be explained by Prof. von Le Coq.
  Has it any connection with the Sanskrit _vasanta_ “spring”? In that
  case, the 50 days fast may have been continuous like the Christian
  Lent and the Mahommedan Ramadan. But it seems more likely that it
  refers to the weekly fast on Sunday which, the _Fihrist_
  notwithstanding, seems to have been incumbent on all the Manichaeans,
  Elect and Hearers alike. So Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 2^{me}
  ptie, p. 111, n. 2. See n. 4, p. 349 _infra_.

Footnote 1178:

  Prof. von Le Coq says (_J.R.A.S._ 1911, p. 307) that this word is as
  yet unexplained and may belong to another language than Turkish. One
  is almost tempted to see in it a corruption of the Yom Kippur or Day
  of Atonement of the Jews. Judaism is the last religion from which the
  Manichaeans would have consciously borrowed; but the Jews have always
  taken their goods where they found them, and it may well be that both
  Jews and Manichaeans were here drawing from a common source.

Footnote 1179:

  Is this the _Tertius Legatus_ or another?

Footnote 1180:

  Augustine, _c. Faust._ Bk II. c. 5. Cf. Chavannes et Pelliot, _op.
  cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, p. 539, and n. 1.

Footnote 1181:

  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, p. 573, n. 3.

Footnote 1182:

  So Baur, _op. cit._ This was doubtless true in the West and in lands
  where they were exposed to severe persecution.

Footnote 1183:

  This explains its translation from its original Pahlavi into the
  language of the converts and each copy bearing the name of the owner.

Footnote 1184:

  See Cumont, _Cosmog. Manich._ p. 56, for authorities. Cf. also de
  Stoop, _op. cit._ p. 22. As has been many times said above, every
  religion and sect at the time accused the others of these filthy
  practices, without our being able to discern any proof of the justice
  of the accusation in one case more than in another. In any case, St
  Augustine, here the chief authority, could not have known of it at
  first hand, as he had never been more than a Hearer, and he himself
  says (_contra Fortunatum_, Bk I. App.) that while he had heard that
  the Elect celebrated the Eucharist, he knew nothing of the mode of
  celebration. Cf. Neander, _Ch. Hist._ II. p. 193.

Footnote 1185:

  All contemporary authorities are agreed that they were forbidden to
  drink wine.

Footnote 1186:

  Neander, _op. cit._ II. p. 170.

Footnote 1187:

  Le Coq, _Chotscho_, Vol. I. Pl. I. and IV.

Footnote 1188:

  Aug. _c. Ep. Fundamenti_, c. 8.

Footnote 1189:

  Augustine, _c. Faust._ Bk XVIII. c. 5, whom he quotes, does not say
  however that they kept Sunday as a festival, but merely that they then
  worshipped the Sun: _Vos in die, quem dicunt solis, solem colitis_.

Footnote 1190:

  Aug. _c. Ep. Fundamenti_, c. 8 and de Stoop, _op. cit._ p. 27.

Footnote 1191:

  Al-Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, p. 27.

Footnote 1192:

  _Ib._ pp. 121, 190.

Footnote 1193:

  A few other undoubted extracts from the Shapurakhan are to be found in
  Müller, _Handschriften-Reste_, _passim_, and others quoted at second
  hand from Mahommedan writers in Kessler, _op. cit._, as to which see
  _ib._ pp. 180-191.

Footnote 1194:

  Al-Bîrûnî, _op. cit._ p. 225.

Footnote 1195:

  See Kessler, _op. cit._ p. 191 _sqq._

Footnote 1196:

  Aug. _c. Faust._ Bk XXXII. c. 7.

Footnote 1197:

  See Albert Dufourcq, _De Manichaeismo apud Latinos_, Paris, 1900,
  where all these apocrypha are carefully examined. The _Quo vadis_
  story appears on p. 40.

Footnote 1198:

  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ p. 508, and n. 1.

Footnote 1199:

  Hegemonius, _Acta_, c. XIII. p. 22, Beeson.

Footnote 1200:

  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 399, 400.

Footnote 1201:

  _Op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 509, n. 5, 510, n. 2, 533, nn. 2 and 4.

Footnote 1202:

  Nowhere is this curious theory, which forms the base of most Mediaeval
  Cabala and magic, more clearly stated. Thus the Tun-huang treatise
  says in describing the fashioning of the body of man by the devils (as
  in the Μέρος τευχῶν Σωτῆρος), “there is not a single formation of the
  universe (or cosmos) which they did not imitate in the carnal body”
  (Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, p. 527); and in the
  next page “The demon ... shut up the five natures of Light in the
  carnal body of which he made a little universe (microcosm).”

Footnote 1203:

  Chavannes et Pelliot, _op. cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, p. 514.

Footnote 1204:

  _Op. cit._ pp. 528, 529.

Footnote 1205:

  Their Chinese names are discussed by MM. Chavannes and Pelliot (_op.
  cit._ 1^{ère} ptie, pp. 521, n. 1, 542, n. 1, 543, nn. 1, 2, and 544,
  n. 1), wherein are gathered nearly all that can be said about them.
  The learned commentators decide that their functions still remain
  mysterious. But see next note _infra_.

Footnote 1206:

  W. Radloff, _Chuastuanift, das Bussgebet der Manichäer_, St
  Petersburg, 1909, pt I. pp. 19, 20. Von Le Coq, _J.R.A.S._ 1911, p.
  294: “when the Gods Kroshtag and Padwakhtag, the Appellant and
  Respondent, should have brought to us that part of the light of the
  Fivefold God that, going to God, is there to be purified.” One is
  inclined to compare this with Jeû and Melchizidek receiving and
  purifying the light won from this world, or with Gabriel and Michael
  in the _Pistis Sophia_ bearing the heroine upward out of Chaos; but
  the parallel may be accidental and is easily pushed too far.

Footnote 1207:

  Like the “Twin Saviours” of the _Pistis Sophia_, whose functions are
  never even alluded to in that document.

Footnote 1208:

  See notes 2 and 3, p. 327 _supra_.

Footnote 1209:

  M. de Stoop’s _Essai sur la Diffusion du Manichéisme_ is most
  informing on this head. See also A. Dufourcq’s Thesis quoted in n. 2,
  p. 351 _supra_. A very brief summary of the history of the sect was
  given by the present writer in _J.R.A.S._ 1913, pp. 69-94.

Footnote 1210:

  For the enquiry by Strategius, afterwards called Musonianus, and
  Prefect of the East under Constantius, see Ammianus Marcellinus, Bk
  XV. c. 13. Cf. Neander, _Ch. Hist._ IV. 488 _sqq._ That the
  persecution instituted against them by Diocletian slackened under
  Constantine and Constantius, see de Stoop, _op. cit._ pp. 40, 41.

Footnote 1211:

  See the Laws of Theodosius and Valentinian II, quoted by de Stoop,
  _op. cit._ pp. 41, 42.

Footnote 1212:

  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, III. p. 153. Justinian put to death not
  only convicted Manichaeans, but those who being acquainted with
  members of the sect, did not denounce them. See de Stoop, _op. cit._
  p. 43.

Footnote 1213:

  The Manichaeans seem always to have been favoured by the better
  classes and high officials of the Empire who maintained for some
  time a secret leaning towards Paganism. See de Stoop, _op. cit._ p.
  84. The case of Barsymès, the banker or money-changer whom Theodora
  made Praetorian Prefect, and who was allowed according to Procopius
  (_Anecdota_, c. XXII. 7) to profess Manichaeism openly, was
  doubtless only one of many. It is apparently this Barsymès who is
  invoked in the Turfan texts as “the Lord Bar Simus,” see Müller,
  _Handschriften-Reste_, pp. 45, 59.

Footnote 1214:

  That this was the professed policy of the sect seems plain from the
  words they attributed to Manes himself: “I am not inhuman like Christ
  who said: Whoso denieth me, him will I deny. I say unto you: Whoso
  denieth me before man and saves himself by this falsehood, him will I
  receive with joy, as if he had not denied me.” Cf. de Stoop, _op.
  cit._ p. 46, quoting Cedrenus; Al Bîrûnî, _Chronology_, p. 191.

Footnote 1215:

  Von Le Coq, _Exploration Archéologique à Tourfan_, Confces au Musée
  Guimet (Bibl. de Vulg. t. XXXV.), 1910, p. 278.

Footnote 1216:

  de Stoop, _op. cit._ pp. 86, 144.




                               CONCLUSION


Constantine’s accession proved to be, like the coming of Alexander, a
turning-point in the history of the world. His so-called conversion put
into the hands of the Catholic Church a weapon for the suppression of
all rivalry, of which she was not slow to make use. Already in his reign
many of the heathen temples were torn down[1217], and under the rule of
his morose and gloomy successor, Constantius, the work of demolition
went on apace[1218]. The accession of the philosophic Julian gave the
worshippers of other gods than Christ a short respite, and even allowed
some of the temples destroyed in the former reigns to be restored by or
at the expense of the Christians[1219]. Julian’s heroic death in Persia
again threw the crown into the hands of a Christian emperor, whose reign
of seven months gave him little time, as he perhaps had small
inclination, for persecution[1220]; but under his successors Valentinian
and Valens, heathen sacrifices were forbidden under severe penalties.
The end came under Gratian, when the temple estates were confiscated,
the priests and vestals deprived of the stipends which they had hitherto
received from the public treasury, and the heathen confraternities or
colleges were declared incapable of receiving legacies[1221]. Only a few
rich men like the Vettius Agorius Praetextatus whom we have seen among
the worshippers of Mithras, or the Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, whose
learned and patriotic life has been so well described by Sir Samuel
Dill[1222], could henceforth venture to practise, even with maimed
rites, the faiths condemned by the Court and the Church.

As for the Gnostic sects, which since Hadrian’s time had striven with
such success as we have seen to combine magic and other ancient beliefs
with Christianity, they found but short shrift at the hands of the
triumphant Church. By an edict issued by Constantine before his own
reception into the Church, all their “houses of prayer” were confiscated
for the benefit of the Catholic Church, their meeting even in private
forbidden, and their books seized and burned[1223].

    “Thus,” says Eusebius, “were the lurking places of the heretics
    broken up by the emperor’s command, and the savage beasts they have
    harboured (I mean the chief authors of their impious doctrines)
    driven to flight. Of those whom they had deceived, some, intimidated
    by the emperor’s threats, disguising their real feelings, crept
    secretly into the Church. For since the law directed that search
    should be made for their books, those of them who practised evil and
    forbidden arts were detected, and these were ready to secure their
    own safety by dissimulation of every kind[1224].”

Throughout the length and breadth of the Roman Empire all but a very few
Roman nobles thus professed the faith of Christ. In the words of the
dying Julian, the Galilaean had conquered.

From this time until our own, Christianity has reigned in the West with
no serious rival. In the VIIth century, when Mahommed’s Arabs, flushed
with the enthusiasm of a new faith which owed something at least to the
relics of Gnosticism, poured in upon an Empire wearied out alike by
perpetual war against the barbarians and by its own civil and religious
dissensions, the Church was compelled to abandon to them her conquests
in Africa and the East. In Europe, however, she continued in unchecked
supremacy, gathering to herself and assimilating the barbarians who at
one time seemed likely to extinguish all civilization; and she thus
became a bond uniting many nations and languages in one community of
faith and thought. She even succeeded in keeping alive the remains of
that Greek art and learning which still form our best and proudest
intellectual possession, and if during her reign many of the precious
monuments of antiquity perished, the fault was not entirely hers. In
every respect, her rule was supreme; and such enemies as she had in
Europe were those of her own household. The Manichaeans who, as has been
said, once bid fair to deprive her of some of her fairest provinces,
never dared to make open war upon her, and their secret defection was
punished by an unsparing use of the secular arm. The German Reformation
of the XVIth century has probably left her stronger than before, and the
few losses that she has suffered in the Old World have been more than
compensated by the number of lieges she has succeeded in attaching to
herself in the New.

In the days of her infancy, and before she thus came into her
inheritance, Christianity borrowed much from the rivals over which she
was in the long run to reign supreme. Her outward observances, her
ritual, and the organization of her hierarchy, are perhaps all due to
the associations that she finally overcame. The form of her sacraments,
the periods of her fasts and festivals, and institutions like monachism,
cannot be explained without reference to those religions from whose
rivalry she so long suffered. That, in such matters, the Church should
take what was useful to her was, as said above, part of her consciously
expressed policy, and doubtless had much to do with her speedy triumph.
To show that her dogmas also took many things from the same source would
involve an invasion into the domain of professional theology, for which
I have neither authority nor desire. But if, at some future time,
investigation should show that in this respect also Christianity owes
something to her forerunners and rivals, the argument against her Divine
origin would not thereby be necessarily strengthened. That, in the
course of her development, she acquired characteristics which fitted her
to her environment would be in strict conformity with the laws which
appear to govern the evolution of all institutions; and if the Power
ruling the universe chooses to work by law rather than by what seems to
us like caprice, such a choice does not show Him to be lacking either in
wisdom or benevolence.

As was said at the outset, everyone must be left to place his own
interpretation on the facts here attempted to be set forth. But if, _per
impossibile_, we could approach the study of the origins of Christianity
with the same mental detachment and freedom from prejudice with which we
might examine the worship of the Syrian Jupiter Dolichenus or the
Scandinavian Odin, we should probably find that the Primitive Church had
no need of the miraculous powers which were once assigned as the reason
for her gradual and steady advance to all but universal dominion. On the
contrary, it may be that Christianity would then appear as a
link—although a most important and necessary link—in a regular chain of
events which began more than three centuries before she emerged from her
birthplace in Palestine into that Roman world which in three centuries
more was to be hers of right. No sooner had Alexander’s conquests made a
world-religion possible, than there sprang up, as we have seen, in his
own city of Alexandria, a faith with a far higher and purer idea of
Divinity than any that had until then been known in the West. Then the
germs already present in small fraternities like those of the Orphics
and the Essenes blossomed forth into the fantastic and unwholesome
growths, as we must needs think them, of that Gnosticism which marked
the transition of the ancient world from Paganism to Christianity.
Lastly there came in from the countries under the influence of Rome’s
secular enemy, Persia, the heresy of Marcion, the religion of Mithras,
and the syncretistic policy of Manes and his continuators. Against all
these in turn, Christianity had to struggle in a contest where the
victory was not always on her side: and if in time she overthrew them
all, it can only be because she was better fitted to the needs of the
world than any of her predecessors or contemporaries.

Footnote 1217:

  Neander, _Ch. Hist._ III. pp. 34, 35.

Footnote 1218:

  _Op. cit._ III. p. 46.

Footnote 1219:

  Sozomen, _Hist. Eccl._ Bk V. c. 5, for instances. Cf. Neander, _op.
  cit._ III. pp. 66, 67.

Footnote 1220:

  Neander, _op. cit._ III. p. 96.

Footnote 1221:

  _Op. cit._ III. p. 100.

Footnote 1222:

  S. Dill, _Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire_,
  pp. 143-166.

Footnote 1223:

  Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_, Bk III. cc. 64, 65.

Footnote 1224:

  _Op. cit._ c. 66.




                                 INDEX


 Abel, Ophite story of, ii. 52;
   and Manichaean, ii. 304


 Aberamenthôu, name used in Magic Papyri and _Pistis Sophia_, i. 102.
   _See_ Jesus, _Texts of Saviour_

 Abiuth, receiver of Ariel in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186

 Abraham, named in Mag. Pap., i. 106 _n._ 6; ii. 34;
   an astrologer _apud_ Artapanus, i. 173;
   inspired by Ialdabaoth, ii. 53;
   Bosom of, in Marcion’s system, ii. 211

 Abraxas, in system of Basilides, ii. 90, 92

 Abydos, gods of, i. 33 _n._ 1;
   excavations at, i. 36

 Achaea, worship of Goddesses Twain in, i. 135;
   Cilician pirates deported to, ii. 229

 Achaemenides, Persian religion under, i. 122; ii. 234


 Achamoth, Sophia of Ophites, ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   called the Mother by Valentinus, ii. 112 _n._ 3;
   the Sophia Without of Valentinus, ii. 117 _n._ 2;
   baptism in name of, by Marcus, ii. 189 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Sophia (2)

 Acheron, Isis shining in, i. 60

 Achilles, his horror of Hades, i. 59, 150;
   his flattery of Zeus, i. 95;
   his purification by Ulysses, i. 121 _n._ 4

 Achrammachamari, name of Great Propator in _Texts of Saviour_ and Mag.
    Pap., ii. 142 _n._ 2

 Acropolis, sacred things of Eleusis lodged in, i. 39;
   Serapeum built opposite, i. 52


 Acrostics, use of, in Jewish, Greek and Christian literature, i. 169
    _n._ 1;
   in Valentinian epitaph, ii. 129 _n._ 3

 Adam, the protoplast, Ophite story of, ii. 52, 58, 70;
   and Manichaean, ii. 299;
   and neo-Manichaean, ii. 329

 Adam or Adamos, god of Samothrace, i. 139 _n._ 1; ii. 54 _n._ 6


 Adamas, the Ophite, the First Man or Great Light, ii. 38;
   gives birth to Second Man or Son, _ibid._;
   called Father-and-Son, ii. 39;
   androgyne, ii. 40;
   forms triad with Holy Spirit, ii. 41 _nn._ 2, 3;
   all things except matter contained in, ii. 44 _n._ 2, 64;
   all light returns to, ii. 65, 80;
   called Caulacau, ii. 94 _n._ 3.
   _See_ First Man, Caulacau, Hades

 Adamas, king of the Twelve Aeons in _Pistis Sophia_, his rebellion, ii.
    48 _n._ 4, 152 _n._ 1;
   place of, ii. 137 _n._ 3;
   ruler of Zodiac, ii. 152;
   delays redemption of souls, ii. 153;
   sends demon in shape of flying arrow, ii. 156;
   probably Diabolos or Cosmocrator of Valentinus, ii. 163.
   _See_ Sabaoth Adamas

 Adamas of the Light, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325;
   slayer of monster, ii. 329

 Adonai, epithet of Zeus in Mag. Pap., i. 106;
   in Coptic, ii. 46 _n._ 3;
   son of Ophite Sophia, ii. 47;
   ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 69;
   meaning of name of, ii. 71 _n._ 1;
   address of soul to, ii. 72

 Adonis, wailed for in Athens, _temp._ Alcibiades, i. 16;
   Dying God of Mediterranean, i. 37;
   Asiatic form of Dionysos, i. 47;
   identified with Osiris, i. 55;
   identified with Dionysos by Orphics, i. 137, 145;
   identified with Dionysos at Eleusis, i. 139 _n._ 1;
   androgyne, i. 185;
   Ophites attend mysteries of, ii. 21, 54;
   identified with Phrygian god, ii. 31;
   fiend in hell in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186

 Advent, the. _See_ Parusia

 Aegean, islands of, birthplace of gods, i. 16, 52;
   early worship of Alexandrian gods in, i. 52;
   and of Eleusinian, ii. 135

 Aeinous or Aionios (Everlasting), member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii.
    101


 Aelius Aristides, quoted, i. 55 _n._ 2, 58, 60, 64 _n._ 3; ii. 66 _n._
    2

 Aeon, Thirteenth, highest place of Left in _P.S._, ii. 143, 150;
   Authades would-be ruler of, ii. 151, 153;
   first dwelling-place of Pistis Sophia, ii. 155;
   place below it made for Pistis Sophia, ii. 155, 156;
   Pistis Sophia restored to, ii. 157

 Aeons, the Twelve, described, ii. 143, 152, 153;
   souls made from tears of rulers of, ii. 153;
   Jesus takes away part of their power, ii. 154;
   divided into repentant and unrepentant, ii. 182;
   the mystery of, in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 195.
   _See_ Zodiac

 Aerodios, power mentioned in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 191

 Aeschines, son of Glaucothea, i. 22;
   Demosthenes’ invective against, quoted, i. 138.
   _See_ Sabazius

 Aeschylus, quoted, i. 48, 55, 123

 Aether, offspring of Time _ap._ Orphics, i. 123

 Afghanistan, included in Persian Empire, i. 1

 Africa, political power of priesthoods in, i. 31;
   Mithraism in Northern, ii. 230;
   christianized Manichaeism of, ii. 339


 Agape or Love, supreme God of Diagram, ii. 68, 123 _n._ 3;
   supreme God of Valentinus, ii. 98 _n._ 1;
   feminine member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101;
   supreme God of Marcion, ii. 210;
   seal of Azrua in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 341.
   _See_ Eros

 Agdistis, name of androgyne Cybele, ii. 39, 40

 Ageratos or Never-ageing, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

 Agla, cabalistic word used in mediaeval magic, ii. 139 _n._ 1

 Agra on the Ilissus, mysteries of, i. 41

 Agrestius, a _clarissimus_ and high priest of Mithras, ii. 239

 Ahnas-el-Medineh or Heracleopolis, mentioned in magic spell, i. 98

 Ahriman, Areimanios, or Arimanius, in _Bundahish_ slayer of Gayômort,
    i. 126 _n._ 3;
   not entirely evil till Sassanid times, ii. 232, 253;
   Magi sacrifice to, ii. 234;
   son of Zervan Akerene (Cumont), ii. 236, 252;
   altars dedicated to, ii. 239;
   Mithras superior to, ii. 240;
   in _Bundahish_ slayer of bull Goshurun, ii. 246, 254;
   ruler of earth in Mithraism, ii, 255, 256;
   modified worship of, in Mithraism, ii. 278;
   likeness of representation of, to Manichaean Satan, ii. 291.
   _See_ Goshurun

 Ahura Mazda, the Omniscient Lord, i. liii;
   father of Gayômort, i. lxi;
   Supreme Being of Yashts, ii. 231;
   his relations to Amshaspands, ii. 232;
   in Behistun inscription, ii. 233;
   not mentioned in Mithraic monuments, ii. 239;
   in _Bundahish_, ii. 246;
   replaced by Jupiter O.M. in Mithraism, ii. 246;
   worship of, restored by Ardeshîr, ii. 284


 Ailoaios or Eloaeus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 69, 70
    _n._ 2, 74 _n._ 3;
   address to, ii. 73;
   sphere of Venus, 74 _n._ 1


 Akae, cryptographic name in _Book of Enoch_, i. 169, 170

 Akinetos or Immovable, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

 Albigenses, successors of Manichaeans, ii. 357

 Al-Bîrûnî, quoted, ii. 279, 280, 283, 284, 286 _n._ 1, 307

 Alcibiades, goes to Susa, i. 7;
   Adonis wailed for when Sicilian expedition of, sails, i. 16

 Alcmaeon of Crotona, calls stars gods, i. 186 _n._ 2

 Aldabeim, name of sun in Mag. Pap., ii. 46 _n._ 3

 Aletheia, member of 1st Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98


 Alexander of Abonoteichos, his impostures, i. 24;
   comes to Rome under Marcus Aurelius, ii. 203

 Alexander, King of Epirus, Asoka’s mission to, i. 20

 Alexander the Great, his conquests hellenize Mediterranean Basin, i.
    lviii;
   the world before and after, i. 1 _sqq._;
   greatest individual in history, i. 4, 12 _sqq._;
   his aims and achievements, i. 5-8, 26-27;
   his deification explained, i. 18;
   religious associations follow conquests of, i. 22-26 _sqq._;
   his work in Egypt, i. 29, 44;
   his probable plans for universal religion, i. 30;
   breaks down national barriers, i. 54, 107;
   makes world-religions possible, i. 111;
   his conduct towards Jews, i. 150;
   re-settles Samaria, i. 177;
   son of Zeus in serpent form, ii. 49;
   his effect on cosmology and ethics, ii. 86;
   consoled by Anaxarchus for death of Clitus, ii. 87.
   _See_ India

 Alexander, bishop of Lycopolis, quoted, ii. 294 _n._ 2, 295 _n._ 2.

 Alexander Severus, the Emperor, gods in _lararium_ of, i. 82;
   his success against Persians, ii. 226

 Alexander the Valentinian, leader of Anatolic School, ii. 119

 Alexandria, its foundation by Alexander, i. 5;
   its importance not at first recognized, i. 28;
   Sema of Alexander at, i. 30;
   a Greek city, i. 44;
   Serapeum of, i. 48, 51, 58 _n._ 1;
   oracle of Serapis at, i. 77;
   worship of Serapis at, i. 82 _n._ 2, 86;
   destruction of temples at, by Theodosius, i. 83, 84;
   Hadrian’s opinion of, i. 86;
   early Gnostics start from, i. 111; ii. 8;
   Orphics plentiful at, i. 156;
   Simon Magus’ doctrines at, i. 198; ii. 89;
   intellectual centre of Roman world, ii. 88;
   Basilides teaches at, ii. 90

 Alfenius Julianus Kumenius, _clarissimus_ and priest of Mithras, ii.
    268

 Allat, the goddess, Ereshkigal an epithet of, i. 100

 Alleius Craeonius, author on magic, i. 105

 Amazons, the story of, suggests bisexual deity, ii. 40

 Ambrose of Milan, convert from Valentinianism, i. 112 _n._ 1; ii. 21
    _n._ 5;
   his date, ii. 132 _n._ 2

 Amélineau, E., translates _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 13;
   translates Bruce Papyrus, ii, 190;
   his date for Bruce Papyrus, ii. 194;
   quoted, ii. 178, 191, 192, 193, 195


 Amen of Thebes, the god, father of Alexander, i. 18;
   priesthood of, i. 23, 31 _sqq._;
   Ptolemies raise temples to, i. 52

 Amenhotep IV, King of Egypt, failure of monotheistic teaching of, i.
    11;
   priests of Amen crush heresy of, i. 31

 Amens, the Three, powers mentioned in _P.S._, ii. 142;
   and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193

 Amens, the Seven, powers mentioned in _P.S._, ii. 141;
   and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193

 Amenti, the god called Lord of, i. 33;
   Osiris the bull of, i. 45, 102;
   Jesus the conqueror of, i. 102 _n._ 1;
   a hell in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 182, 186;
   horrors of Egyptian, ii. 196.
   _See_ Aberamenthôu, Jesus, Khent-Amentit

 Ameretât or Immortality, one of the Amshaspands, i. 181 _n._ 1; ii. 324
    _n._ 4, 355.
   _See_ Appellant and Respondent

 Amitrochates, son of Chandragupta, his desire for Greek learning, i. 8
    _n._ 3

 Amon. _See_ Amen of Thebes

 Amos, the Prophet, inspired by Ialdabaoth _ap._ Ophites, ii. 81 _n._ 2

 Amshaspands, the Seven, and the Seven Planets, i. 117;
   names of, i. 181, _n._ 1; ii. 103 _n._ 3;
   likeness of, to “roots” of Simon Magus, ii. 103 _n._ 3;
   and to Aeons of Valentinus, ii. 103 _n._ 3;
   in Avesta, ii. 232;
   absent from early Manichaeism, ii. 327 _n._ 4;
   mention of, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 330, 355

 Anat, the goddess, assessor of Yahweh, ii. 32 _n._ 4

 Anatolia, its religious peculiarities _temp._ Christ, ii. 28 _sqq._,
    77;
   its worship of double axe, 67 _n._ 3

 Anaxarchus the Atomist philosopher, consoles Alexander after death of
    Clitus, ii. 87

 Ancient of Days, name of Valentinian Ialdabaoth, ii. 107 _n._ 2

 Andrew the Apostle, Saint, name of, shows predilection of Jews for
    Greek names, i. 173 _n._ 2;
   mentioned in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 157

 Anebo, letter of Porphyry to, for threats of Egyptian magicians to
    gods, i. 104 _n._ 3

 Angels, Essenes sworn to preserve the names of, i. 153, 157;
   no names of, in _O.T._, until Daniel, i. 158;
   rulers over tribes of demons, _ibid._;
   sinning, cast into abyss of fire (Baruch), i. 165;
   Ennoia produces world-making, _ap._ Simon M., i. 187;
   patterns after which worlds made (Philo), i. 187 _n._ 3;
   world to be freed from rule of, _ap._ Simon, i. 196;
   Simonians say God of Jews one of world-making (Epiphanius), i. 199;
   seven heavens are also, _ap._ Valentinians (Irenaeus), ii. 107 _n._
      4;
   are Logoi sent into soul by Jesus and Sophia, ii. 110;
   souls after death, brides of, _ibid._;
   terror of angels at speech of man (Valentinus), ii. 112 _n._ 3;
   Archons of Adamas in _Texts of Saviour_ beget, ii, 152 _n._ 1;
   Splenditenens and Atlas of Manichaeism, ii. 297, 298.
   _See_ Enoch, Gabriel, Great Council, Michael, Tertullian


 Annu or On, Egyptian name of Heliopolis and chief seat of worship of
    Râ, i. 31

 Anthesteria, ceremonies of, show resurrection and marriage of Dionysos,
    i. 42

 Anthropos, member of 3rd Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98

 Antigonus Monophthalmos, King of Syria, his retort when hailed as a
    god, i. 19;
   Phrygia occupied alternately by him and Lysimachus, ii. 29

 Antigonus Gonatas, King of Macedonia, mission of Asoka to, i. 20.
   _See_ Tarn

 Antinous, death of, fixes date of Hadrian’s letter to Servian, i. 86
    _n._ 5

 Antioch, worship of Serapis at, i. 35;
   birthplace of Carpocrates, i. 111;
   and of Saturninus, ii. 9, 89

 Antiochus I Soter, King of Syria, mission of Asoka to, i. 20

 Antiochus III the Great, King of Syria, seizes Palestine, i. 151;
   transports Jewish families to Anatolia, ii. 28


 Antiochus IV Epiphanes, King of Syria, attempts to hellenize Jews, i.
    151, 156, 162, 163;
   Book of Daniel written _temp._, i. 158;
   caught between Romans and Parthians, i. 160;
   his mystic antagonist Taxo, i. 170;
   Samaritans accept reforms of, i. 177

 _Antitheses_, the. _See_ Marcion

 Antonines, the, Isis-worship at its apogee _temp._, i. 54, 81

 Antoninus Pius, the Emperor, Simonians in Rome _temp._, i. 199

 Anubis, the god, son of Osiris and Nephthys, i. 35;
   tribal deity of jackal totem, i. 36;
   his seeking for Osiris in Rome, i. 70;
   in procession at Cenchreae, i. 72;
   mask of, used as disguise, i. 78.
   _See_ Marcus Volusius

 Apelles, the Marcionite, his tenets, ii. 218

 Apep, the serpent, enemy of the sun-god Ra, ii. 78


 Aphrodite, the goddess, worshipped under other names by
    confraternities, i. 25;
   and Adonis, i. 37; ii. 31;
   daughter of Zeus, i. 124 _n._ 3;
   identified by Orphics with Isis and others, i. 137 _n._ 1;
   Orphic hymn to, i. 142 _n._ 2;
   called Cytheraea, i. 143;
   the Mother of the Gods in Cyprus, ii. 40;
   called Mother of All Living in Asia, ii. 135 _n._ 3;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.
   _See_ Venus

 Apis, the “life” of Osiris, i. 32, 45, 49


 _Apocalypse_ of St John, the, its date, ii. 26 _n._ 3;
   quoted, i. 145 _n._ 1, 158, 169, 182 _n._ 4; ii. 4 _n._ 1, 25

 Apocatastasis, return of the worlds to God, an Ophite doctrine, ii. 42,
    57

 Apollo, the god, his birthplace, i. 16;
   identified with Horus, i. 48, 63;
   his contempt for mankind, i. 57;
   his place in Orphic legend, i. 125, 147;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238;
   distinct from Helios, i. 240;
   worship of, under Julian, i. 269

 Apollonius of Tyana, image of, in Alexander Severus’ _lararium_, i. 82


 _Apophasis_ of Simon Magus, the, described, i. 179;
   quoted, i. 182, 188, 189, 193, 194; ii. 90 _n._ 5

 Apostles, demand only faith from converts, i. lvii;
   do not borrow from earlier creeds, i. 88;
   their meeting with Simon Magus, i. 176, 177;
   in _Clementines_, i. 178;
   intolerance of, due to Jewish origin (Bouché-Leclercq), ii. 10;
   souls of, in _P.S._ drawn from Treasure-house, ii. 137, 147

 _Apostolical Constitutions_, their date, ii. 7 _n._ 2;
   quoted, i. 87 _n._ 1; ii. 7 _nn._ 2, 3, 219 _n._ 2


 Appellant and Respondent gods, the, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 302 _n._ 1,
    324, 343, 354, 355

 Apuat, the god, “opener of the ways,” i. 33

 Apuleius of Madaura, quoted, i. 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
    68, 71, 73-74, 75, 77, 86 _n._ 3, 101 _n._ 2

 Aramati, the Vedic goddess, identified with Spenta Armaiti of the
    Avesta, ii. 45 _n._ 1, 300 _n._ 2

 Ararat or Ararad, Mt, Books of Jeû hidden in, ii. 147 _n._ 5

 Arbela, Greek troops on Persian side at, i. 7;
   Alexander’s pursuit after, i. 13

 Arcadia, Eleusinian triad worshipped in, i. 135

 Arcadius, the Emperor, Church dedicated to, in place of Serapeum, i. 84

 _Archelai Acta._ _See_ Hegemonius

 Archimedes, his calculation of places of stars sinful (Hippolytus), i.
    112 _n._ 2

 Architect of the Universe. _See_ Demiurge

 Archon, the Great, of Basilides, the Demiurge, ii. 91;
   likeness of, to Ialdabaoth, ii. 94

 Archontics, the, a sect related to the Ophites, ii. 77

 Arctinus of Miletus, first Greek author to mention purification, i. 121
    _n._ 4

 Arctos, the Great Bear, in Mithraism, ii. 266

 _Arda viraf namak_, the, quoted, ii. 264 _n._ 5

 Ardeshîr, the Shah, restorer of Persian nationality, ii. 226, 282;
   his son Peroz converted to Manichaeism, ii. 281;
   restores worship of Ahura Mazda, ii. 284


 Ares, the god, identified with Roman Mars, i. 17;
   Homeric or Orphic hymn to, i. 141 _n._ 2, 142 _n._ 2;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238

 Argolis, the, Eleusinian triad worshipped in, i. 135

 Ariel, a fiend in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186

 Arimaspi, the, fables concerning, i. 2 _n._ 1

 Aristaeus, pro-Jewish writer, i. 173

 Aristides. _See_ Aelius Aristides

 Aristides, Christian apologist, ii. 203, 204 _n._ 1

 Aristion, Athenian courtezan member of religious confraternity, i. 22

 Aristophanes, quoted, i. 17 _n._ 1, 40 _n._ 4, 124, 137;
   scholiast on, i. 17 _n._ 1

 Aristotle, his monotheism, i. 10;
   says that religion follows form of government, i. 12, 15;
   that Orpheus did not exist, i. 121 _n._ 1

 Armageddon, covers name of Rome, i. 170 _n._ 5

 Armenia, Ophites in, ii. 76;
   kings of, claim descent from Persian heroes, ii. 225 _n._ 1;
   Marcionites and Bardesanites in, ii. 283;
   invasion of, by Mihr Nerses, ii. 285

 Arnobius, _adv. Gentes_, quoted, i. 124 _n._ 3; ii. 39 _nn._ 2, 4, 264
    _n._ 5

 Arrian, _Anabasis_, quoted, i. 4 _n._ 1

 Arsaces, founder of Parthian kingdom, ii. 224

 Arsinoe, wife of Ptolemy Philadelphus, i. 18

 Artapanus, _On the Jews_, quoted, i. 173

 Artemis, the goddess, the Ephesian, i. lvi, 40;
   birthplace of Greek, i. 16;
   Indian worship of, i. 17;
   Orthia, i. 100 _n._ 2;
   priestesses of Ephesian, called bees, i. 143 _n._ 4;
   Phrygian, ii. 67 _n._ 3;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.
   _See_ Diana

 Aryans, their dealings with lower races, i. 3, 92

 Asar-hapi, Osiris as Apis, i. 49

 Asha Vashishta or Truth, the Amshaspand, i. 181 _n._ 1

 Asia, before Alexander, i. 1;
   made Greek by Alexander, i. 5;
   rush of Greeks to, i. 7;
   Greek spoken throughout, i. 8;
   cruelty of Assyrian domination in, i. 12;
   returns to Persian ways, ii. 225

 Asia Minor, native religions of, i. lviii, 37, 126; ii. 29, 36, 49, 67
    _n._ 3;
   gods of, coalesce with Greek, i. 17;
   home of Dionysos worship, i. 43 _n._ 3;
   Alexandrian gods worshipped in, i. 53;
   Vedic gods worshipped in, i. 122 _n._ 3;
   Eleusinian gods worshipped in, i. 136;
   Orphics in, i. 141, 156; ii. 236;
   priestesses called bees in, i. 143 _n._ 4;
   Jewish atrocities in, _temp._ Trajan, i. 173 _n._ 1;
   Ophite heresy probably native to, ii. 26, 76;
   Jewish settlements in, ii. 28;
   Jewish magicians in, _temp._ Apostles, ii. 33;
   matriarchate in, ii. 40;
   Babylonian culture in, ii. 48;
   serpent worship in, ii. 49, 77, 78;
   reverts to Persian ways, ii. 225;
   Mithraism in, ii. 229, 232, 268

 Askew, Dr, sells _Pistis Sophia_ to British Museum, ii. 134


 Asklepios or Aesculapius, the god, Alexander of Abonoteichos priest of,
    i. 24;
   Serapis statue that of, i. 48 _n._ 3, 78 _n._ 2;
   identified with Serapis, i. 78, 87

 Aso, the Ethiopian queen, enemy of Osiris, i. 33, 37 _n._ 1

 Asoka, his missions to Greek kings, i. 20

 Assur-bani-pal, King of Assyria, his library at Kuyunjik, i. 94, 114

 Assyria, penitential psalms of, i. 115;
   Jews tributary to, i. 160 _n._ 4

 Assyrians, the, tyranny of, i. 3;
   suzerains of Hebrews, i. 150;
   name used for Syrians in Christian times, ii. 53 _n._ 4, 54 _n._ 6;
   worship of Mylitta by (Herodotus), ii. 234

 Astaphaios or Astaphaeus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47;
   name derived from magic (Origen), ii. 47, 48;
   once called Astanpheus, ii. 47, 69 _n._
   lord of third gate, ii. 70 _n._ 2, 73, 74 _n._ 3;
   address to, ii. 73

 Astarte, the goddess, worship of, brought into Greece, i. 17;
   worshipped by Greek confraternity, i. 25;
   Phoenician form of earth goddess, i. 126;
   dove, totem-animal of, ii. 135 _n._ 3;
   _Mater Viventium_, _ibid._

 Astrampsuchos, name of Roman writer on magic, i. 107;
   name of celestial guard in Bruce Papyrus, i. 107 _n._ 1;
   power worshipped by the Peratae, _ibid._

 Astrology, origin of, in Chaldaea, i. 113;
   fundamental idea of, i. 114;
   system of correspondences results from, i. 115, 116;
   impulse given to, by Greek mathematics, i. 116, 117;
   all religions in Graeco-Roman world take note of, i. 117, 118;
   gives new life to Gnosticism, i. 119;
   Ophites mix astrological ideas with Orphic teaching, ii. 78;
   first prominent in Gnosticism in _Excerpta Theodoti_, ii. 158 _n._ 1;
   its great vogue in Rome under Severi, _ibid._;
   reprobated in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 185;
   part of scheme of punishments and salvation in _Texts of Saviour_,
      ii. 185 _n._ 2;
   its importance in Mithraism, ii. 235, 276.
   _See_ Babylonia


 Atargatis or _Dea Syria_, favourite deity of Nero, ii. 31;
   her Anatolian name and identification with other goddesses, ii. 31
      _n._ 1;
   homonym of Derketo (Garstang), ii. 40 _n._ 1;
   her identity with the Mother of the Gods, ii. 299 _n._ 1;
   Manichaean Mother of Life derived from, ii. 300 _n._ 2

 Athamas the Pythagorean, his doctrine of “roots,” i. 197


 Athanasius, Saint, creed of, i. 89


 Athena, the goddess, identified with Minerva, i. 17;
   her part in Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 39;
   the Homeric, i. 57, 95, 124 _n._ 3;
   statue of Helena of Tyre as, i. 198;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.
   _See_ Minerva, Pallas

 Athenagoras, quoted, i. lvii _n._ 1, 63 _n._ 5, 64 _n._ 3; ii. 18 _n._
    2

 Athens, foreign worships in, i. 16, 17 _n._ 1, 137;
   accepts deification of Alexander, i. 18;
   gathering in, for Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 38-41;
   Alexandrian religion in, i. 52, 76;
   Orphic myths brought into, by Epimenides, i, 121;
   Orphic gold plates in Museum at, i. 132

 Athos Mt, _Philosophumena_ discovered at, ii. 11

 Atlas. _See_ Corybas, Omophorus

 Attis or Atys, the god, his worship brought into Greece, i. 17, 136;
   his legend, i. 37; ii. 39;
   identified with Sun, i. 118;
   and with Dionysos, Adonis and Osiris, i. 137 _n._ 1, 145; ii. 17;
   and with Sabazius, i. 138, 139;
   androgyne, i. 185;
   Gnostics attend mysteries of, ii. 21;
   Phrygia, home of worship of, ii. 28, 67 _n._ 3;
   to Ophites, type of world-soul, ii. 65 _n._ 3

 Augustine of Hippo, Saint, convert from Manichaeism, i. 112 _n._ 1;
   well informed about Manichaeans, ii. 352;
   quoted, i. 103 _n._ 4; ii. 10 _n._ 1, 12 _n._ 4, 25, 261, 298 _n._ 1,
      317, 319, 331, 332, 343, 346, 349 _n._ 4, 350

 Augustus, the Emperor, Samaria’s capital named Sebaste in honour of, i.
    177;
   Galatians become Roman _temp._, ii. 28;
   Parthians’ terror of (Horace), ii. 225


 Aurelian, the Emperor, his worship of sun-god, i. 119 _n._ 1; ii. 228;
   position of Christianity under, ii. 23;
   restores Roman arms in the East, ii. 226;
   gives up Dacia to Goths, ii. 271

 Authades, the Proud God of the _Pistis Sophia_, last member of Triad of
    the Left, ii. 151;
   his disobedience, ii. 152;
   his envy of Pistis Sophia, ii. 155;
   sends demon in shape of flying arrow, ii. 156;
   his place given to Pistis Sophia, ii. 162

 Autogenes, power mentioned in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 192

 Autophyes or Self-produced, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

 Avebury, Lord, quoted, i. 91, 99 _n._ 1


 Avesta, the Zend, Seven Amshaspands of, i. 117;
   emanation doctrine in, ii. 35;
   First Man in, ii. 38 _n._ 3;
   Supreme Being in, ii. 231;
   Ormuzd and Ahriman in, ii. 236;
   bull Goshurun in, ii. 243;
   denounces magic, ii. 275 _n._ 2;
   doubtful about eternity of evil, ii. 289;
   quoted, ii. 310, 311.


 Avidius Cassius, his victories over Parthians, ii. 225.

 Axe, Double. _See_ Bacchus, Caria, Crete, Cybele, Cyranides, Labrys,
    Mycenae, Ramsay, Simon Magus

 Axionicus the Valentinian, member of Anatolic School, ii. 119

 Azrua, name of God of Light in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323, 341, 342.
   _See_ Zervan


 Baalzephon, name in magic spell, i. 106 _n._ 4

 Babylon, break up of priesthoods of, i. 122;
   rich Jews remain in, after captivity, i. 172;
   Jewish families from, transported to Phrygia, ii. 28;
   its site marked by Hilleh, ii. 33;
   Jewish taste for cryptograms derived from, ii. 35


 Babylonia, Zoroastrian borrowings from, i. lxi;
   original home of Dying God, i. 38 _n._ 1;
   relics of Sumerian beliefs in, i. 100;
   astral theory originates in, i. 115 _n._ 1, 116;
   and primaeval deep theory, ii. 36;
   and Western astrology, ii. 235

 Babylonians, astronomy of, i. 114;
   isopsephism first used by, i. 69 _n._ 3;
   figure earth like boat, ii. 48;
   think sky a rocky vault, ii. 249

 Bacchanals, orgies of, from Thrace, i. 136


 Bacchus, concealed object in Corybantic rites of, i. 73 _n._ 1;
   Mithraic dignitary Chief Herdsman of, i. 83;
   Orphic initiate called, i. 128;
   identified with Attis, Adonis, Osiris, etc., i. 139 _n._ 1;
   Orphic hymns to, i. 142 _nn._ 2, 5, 143;
   wine called, i. 168;
   and worship of double axe, ii. 67 _n._ 3.
   _See_ Dionysos

 Bacchylides, quoted, i. 40 _n._ 1

 Bactria, home of Roxana, i. 5;
   tale of Possessed Princess of, i. 10;
   Alexander’s massacres in, i. 13;
   its struggles against Alexander, i. 28;
   Buddhism and Zoroastrianism in, ii. 283

 Bahram. _See_ Varanes.

 Baillet, M. Auguste, quoted, i. 65

 Baluchistan, included in Persian Empire, i. 1


 Ban or Laban, the Great, a power mentioned by Bar Khôni, ii. 324

 Banquet, the, Valentinian wedding of souls, ii. 111;
   scene in Mithraic monuments, ii. 247

 Baptism, used by Ophites, ii. 61;
   teaching of Primitive Church as to, ii. 168;
   subverts influence of stars (Theodotus), ii. 115 _n._ 3;
   Marcus adds Hebrew exorcisms to, ii. 129, 189 _n._ 1;
   one of the Mysteries in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 169;
   postponed until death by married Marcionites, ii. 215, 221;
   Mithraists use total immersion in, ii. 260.
   _See_ Oblation, Dead


 Barbeliotae, Barbelitae or Borboriani, apparently an Ophite sect, ii.
    27 _n._ 1;
   described by Irenaeus, ii. 77, 138 _n._ 1;
   identified with Naassenes and called Simonians (Irenaeus), ii. 138
      _n._ 1

 Barbelo, mother of Pistis Sophia, ii. 74 _n._ 1;
   names and place of, ii. 138 _n._ 1, 151 _n._ 4;
   Jesus in _Pistis Sophia_ takes material body from, ii. 151, 179;
   in _P.S._ consort of Great Propator, ii. 150, 155;
   mentioned in _Texts of Saviour_ as mother of Pistis Sophia, ii. 186


 Barcochebas, Bar Cochba or Bar Coziba, the Jewish Messiah called
    Monogenes, i. 124 _n._ 3

 Bardesanes or Bar Daisan the Valentinian, ii. 119;
   his life, ii. 120;
   protected by King of Edessa, ii. 132;
   borrows from Zoroaster (Al-Bîrûnî), ii. 214 _n._ 2;
   Manes knows doctrines of, ii. 280, 290 _n._ 4;
   his doctrines enter Persia, ii. 283

 Barnabas, hailed as Zeus, i. 191 _n._ 3; ii. 42;
   with Paul summarizes Hebrew history for Phrygians, ii. 53 _n._ 2;
   _Epistle of_, quoted, ii. 166 _n._ 2

 Barpharanges, magic word used in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 192

 Baruch, Apocalyptic literature attributed to, i. 163, 164;
   _Book of_, used by Ophites, ii. 79;
   _Apocalypse of_, quoted, ii. 257

 Basilides, the heresiarch, a Jew (Neander), ii. 9 _n._ 1;
   says body of Jesus a phantasm, ii. 16, 17;
   contemporary with Carpocrates, ii. 27 _n._ 3;
   disciple of Menander, ii. 89;
   his teaching, ii. 89 _sqq._;
   his doctrine, comes through Matthias, ii. 90;
   his borrowings from Egyptian religion, ii. 92;
   his followers go over to Valentinus, ii. 93;
   his relations with Buddhism, ii. 96;
   words of, repeated in _Texts of Saviour_, 189;
   quoted, ii. 172.
   _See_ Buddhism

 Basilidians, their relative date, ii. 25 _n._ 5

 Baubo, the goddess, a form of Persephone, i. 100

 Baur, F. C., of Tübingen, says Simon Magus is St Paul, i. 179 _n._ 3

 Beast, Number of. _See_ Number

 Bedouins, introduce horse into Egypt, i. 36

 Beelzebub, Beelzebud, or Beelzebuth, chief of demons in Valentinian
    system, ii. 108;
   his name a parody of Jabezebuth, ii. 108 _n._ 1;
   Lord of Chaos, ii. 109;
   his possible place in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 163

 Behemoth (animals), in Diagram, ii. 71


 Bel, the god, his fight with Tiamat, ii. 44 _n._ 3;
   reappears in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 295 _n._ 2

 Belisarius, his victories over Persians, ii. 226

 Bellerophon, appears in procession of Isis at Cenchreae, i. 71

 Bellona, the goddess, identified with Isis, i. 56.
   _See_ Ma

 Bendis, the moon-goddess of Thrace, i. 16;
   identified with Persephone, i. 137


 Bêqâ, cryptogram for Tetragrammaton, i. 169, 170


 Berossos or Berossus, legend about Zervan attributed to, i. lx;
   our indebtedness to, i. 9;
   quotes instance of isopsephism from Babylonians, i. 169 _n._ 3

 Bes, the god, dance of, on Herculaneum fresco, i. 69 _n._ 1

 Bethel, the god, assessor of Yahweh at Elephantine, ii. 32 _n._ 4

 Bhils, sorcerers to higher races, i. 92

 Bissing, Freiherr von, quoted, i. 68 _n._ 1, 69 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Herculaneum

 Bithynia, seat of Glycon worship, i. 24;
   inscriptions from, i. 55 _n._ 3;
   Ophite colleges in, in 5th cent. A.D., ii. 77

 Boeotia, native country of Dionysos, i. 52;
   Orphic teaching in, i. 135;
   worship of Bacchus comes from Thrace to, i. 136

 Boghaz-keui, Vedic gods worshipped at, i. lxii _n._ 2, 122 _n._ 3; ii.
    231

 Bogomiles, successors of Manichaeans, ii. 357

 Bologna, Mithraic group at, ii. 238 _n._ 2

 _Book of the Dead._ _See_ Dead

 Borboriani. _See_ Barbeliotae

 Bosphorus, Isis-worship at Thracian, i. 53

 Bouché-Leclercq, M. A., thinks Timotheos and Manetho only typical
    names, i. 44 _n._ 1;
   and Bryaxis’ statue that of Asklepios, i. 48 _n._ 3;
   says Apostolic and sub-Apostolic intolerance for heresy due to Jewish
      nationality, ii. 10;
   quoted, i. 14 _n._ 3, 27 _n._ 1, 28 _nn._ 1, 2, 29 _nn._ 1, 3, 30
      _nn._ 2, 3, 44 _nn._ 1, 2, 48 _n._ 3, 52 _n._ 1, 55 _n._ 1, 78
      _n._ 2, 80 _n._ 1, 87 _n._ 2; ii. 10 _n._ 2, 257 _n._ 5

 Brimo, name given to Demeter in Mysteries, i. 124 _n._ 3


 Bruce Papyrus, thaumaturgic sacraments in, i. 87 _n._ 1; ii. 63 _n._ 1,
    172 _n._ 3; 183 _n._ 1, 193;
   Astrampsuchos, name of “guard” in, i. 107 _n._ 1;
   creation from indivisible point, i. 194 _n._ 3; ii. 90 _n._ 5;
   discovery of, by Bruce, ii. 13, 189;
   its god Sitheus, ii. 76 _n._ 4;
   its addiction to astrology, ii. 158 _n._ 1;
   describes higher worlds than _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 161 _n._ 2;
   makes matter non-existent, ii. 161 _n._ 3;
   pictures like those in, perhaps referred to in _P.S._, ii. 180 _n._
      2;
   author of, acquainted with story of Iabraoth, ii. 182 _n._ 2;
   variety of documents in, ii. 189, 190;
   links of, with _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 193;
   with _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 194;
   probable date of, _ibid._;
   quoted, ii. 191, 195

 Bryaxis, his statue of Serapis, i. 48, 49, 78 _n._ 2, 84

 Buda-Pesth, altars to Ahriman found at, ii. 239

 Buddha, Mani teaches divine mission of, i. lviii; ii. 316;
   Greek statues of, in India, i. 8;
   called Terebinthus, ii. 285;
   first mentioned in Greek by Clem. Alex., ii. 286


 Buddhas, Cave of the Thousand, MS. found in, ii. 352.
   _See_ Tun-huang


 Buddhism, study of, i. li;
   its slow growth in India, i. 20;
   unknown to Onomacritos, i. 135 _n._ 1;
   its dates, i. 156 _n._ 1; ii. 283;
   Basilides’ supposed borrowings from, ii. 96;
   in Bactria, ii. 283;
   Manichaean borrowings from, ii. 313, 340, 346;
   its toleration of Manichaeans, ii. 357.

 Budge, Dr E. A. T. Wallis, quoted, i. 31 _n._ 1, 32 _nn._ 3, 4, 33
    _nn._ 1, 2, 35 _n._ 1, 38 _n._ 2, 61 _n._ 1, 88 _n._ 2, 126 _n._ 3,
    182 _n._ 6; ii. 49 _n._ 3, 72 _n._ 3, 121 _n._ 3, 154 _n._ 3, 184
    _n._ 3, 293 _n._ 1

 Bulgaria, Manichaeans settled in, ii. 357

 _Bundahish_, the, quoted, i. 126 _n._ 3, 134 _n._ 1; ii. 246, 254

 Burkhans, divine messengers in Manichaeism, ii. 336, 339, 341.
   _See_ Shapurakhan

 Bury, Prof. J. B., quoted, i. 86

 Buto, the city of Isis, i. 34

 Byblus in Phoenicia, body of Osiris washed ashore at, i. 34

 Bythios or Deep, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

 Bythos, Supreme God of Ophites, ii. 37, 39;
   Supreme God of Valentinus, ii. 96, 97;
   his consort, _ibid._;
   identified with Ineffable of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 144;
   resembles Ahura Mazda, ii. 232

 Byzantium, birthplace of Theodotus, ii. 9



 Cabala, the Jewish, system of correspondences in, i. 115;
   its Mystery of Chariot and Mystery of Creation, i. 157;
   processes of “Practical,” i. 158 _n._ 1, 170 _nn._ 2, 5;
   its system of Sephiroth, i. 202;
   Marcus uses system like that of, ii. 9 _n._ 1;
   indicated in Talmud, ii. 35;
   likeness of, to Gnosticism, ii. 36 _n._ 1;
   its Adam Cadmon or First Man, ii. 52 _n._ 1;
   Ophite stories of protoplasts revived in, ii. 53

 Cabiri of Samothrace, Hermes in worship of, i. 99;
   mentioned in Hymn to Attis, ii. 54

 Cabul, importance of, foreseen by Alexander, i. 5

 Caecilia Secundina, name on Orphic gold plate, i. 133, 169 _n._ 1

 Cain, Ophite story of, ii. 52;
   Manichaean story of, ii. 303;
   in neo-Manichaeism father of Wisdom and Pleasure, _ibid._

 Cainites, an Ophite sect, ii. 27, 77

 Calabria, Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131

 Callias, Torchbearer at Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 76, ii. 87 _n._ 3

 Callinicum, Valentinian conventicle at, burned by orthodox, ii. 96

 Callisthenes, life of Alexander attributed to, i. 18 _n._ 1

 Calvin, John, founder of sect, i. 54; ii. 19

 Cambyses, Shah of Persia, conquers Egypt, i. 28;
   in Behistun inscription, ii. 233

 Campus Martius, Isiac temple in, i. 53;
   death of Simon Magus in, i. 178

 Candahar, named after Alexander, i. 5

 Canidia or Gratidia, witch of Horace’s _Epodes_, i. 108

 Canopus, decrees of, i. 52 _n._ 1;
   sanctuary of Isis at, i. 86 _n._ 1

 Cappadocia, Kings of, claim descent from Persian heroes, ii. 225 _n._ 1

 Capua, inscription to Isis found at, i. 75 _n._ 2


 Caria, worship of double axe in, ii. 67 _n._ 3

 Carpocrates the heresiarch, magic rites attributed to, i. 111;
   called first of Gnostics, ii. 27

 Carthage, outside Persian Empire, i. 1;
   Alexander’s plans concerning, i. 6;
   Roman conquest of, i. 15; ii. 227

 Carus, the Emperor, his victories over Persians, ii. 226

 Cassander, patron of Euhemerus, i. 19


 Caulacau, mystic name common to Ophites and Basilidians, ii. 94

 Cautes and Cautopates, torch-bearers of Mithras, ii. 245, 246, 247

 Celeus, legendary King of Eleusis, i. 40, 41

 Celsus the Epicurean, quoted, i. lvii, 73, 200; ii. 66, 67, 69

 Cenchreae, Isiac festival at, described, i. 71

 Cephisus, the, bridge over, its part in Eleusinian procession, i. 39

 Cerberus, resemblance of triple monster of Serapis to, i. 49

 Cerdo the heresiarch, teaches at Rome, ii. 9;
   his doctrines, ii. 205


 Ceres, god of Nature as Earth _ap._ Cicero, i. lvi;
   identified with Isis by Apuleius, i. 56.
   _See_ Demeter

 Cerinthus the heresiarch, opponent of St John, ii. 9 _n._ 1;
   sent to have been pupil of Philo, _ibid._

 Chaeremon, says Egyptian magician threatens gods, i. 104 _n._ 3

 Chaldaea, birthplace of astrology, i. 113;
   captivity of Jews in, i. 150;
   Jews tributaries to, i. 160 _n._ 4

 Chaldaeans, oppressive rule of, i. 3;
   suzerains of Jews, i. 150;
   their influence on Mithraism, ii. 241

 Chalmers, Thomas, founder of sect, ii. 19


 Chandragupta or Sandracottus, father of Amitrochates, i. 8 _n._ 3;
   grandfather of Asoka, i. 20

 Chaos, child of Orphic Chronos, i. 123;
   known to Aristophanes, i. 124;
   egg formed from, i. 123, 144;
   Ialdabaoth and, ii. 46 _n._ 3, 155;
   Valentinians make Beelzebub ruler of, ii. 109;
   Pistis Sophia raised from, ii. 156;
   Pistis Sophia’s descent into, ii. 156, 162;
   _Pistis Sophia_ does not describe, ii. 163;
   described in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 182, 186

 Charcot, Dr, his hypnotic experiments at Salpêtrière, i. 110

 Charles, Dr R. H., quoted, i. 159 _n._ 1, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168,
    169, 170; ii. 60 _n._ 1

 Charmôn, receiver of Ariel in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186

 Chavannes, Ed. M., translates _Traité Manichéen_, ii. 352.
   See Pelliot, _Tun-huang MS._

 China, Manichaean documents discovered in, i. lix;
   Manichaeans in, ii. 357

 Chinese, their god Thian, i. 73 _n._ 4

 Chinvat, the Bridge, in Zoroastrianism, ii. 110 _n._ 2, 311

 Chosroes, the Shah, his defeat by Heraclius, ii. 227


 Christ, Manes tries to include religion of, in his own, i. lviii;
   statue of, in Alexander Severus’ _lararium_, i. 82;
   bishops of, worship Serapis _ap._ Hadrian, i. 86;
   name of, has hidden meaning (Justin Martyr), i. 170 _n._ 5;
   “heresies before the Coming of,” ii. 25;
   angel of Great Council, ii. 43;
   Ophite Sophia makes Prophets prophesy of, ii. 53, 59;
   descent of Ophite, through seven heavens, ii. 59;
   Ophite Christ raises Jesus after Crucifixion, ii. 60;
   Ophites turn figure of, from teacher to messenger, ii. 82;
   Saturninus says He was sent to destroy Judaism, ii. 89;
   of Basilides makes Him son of Great Archon, ii. 91;
   ascension of, imitated on Mithraic monuments, ii. 248.
   _See_ Archon Jesus

 Christianity, importance of study of its origins, i. xlix;
   dislike of its comparative study, i. li, liv;
   inspirational view of its history, i. liii;
   Judaism not its rival, i. liv;
   early competitors with, i. lv-lviii;
   spread of Greek language favours, i. 9;
   Alexander the Great’s services to, i. 27;
   its rise brings about decline of Alexandrian religion, i. 81;
   Isis-worshippers converted to, _en bloc_, i. 84;
   its cardinal tenets preserved at Reformation, i. 88;
   said to be mere episode in history of Gnosticism, i. 111;
   most bitter enemy of Gnosticism, i. 112, 120; ii. 23, 359 _sqq._;
   system of correspondences and, i. 115;
   its concessions to Sun-worshippers, i. 118;
   Gnosticism does not compete with, until IInd cent., ii. 2;
   state does not at first persecute, ii. 7;
   lower classes in Egypt first converts to, ii. 8 _n._ 5, 89 _n._ 1;
   never Judaeo-Christian in Egypt, ii. 9 _n._ 1, 131;
   wars against Hellenistic culture, ii. 10;
   accuses sects of obscene rites, ii. 18;
   converts wealthy and learned Gnostics, ii. 21;
   persecutes Gnostics, ii. 23;
   Ophites earlier than, ii. 26;
   its relations with Ophites in post-Christian times, ii. 56, 82;
   history of Egyptian, obscure, ii. 200;
   attraction of Rome for innovators on, ii. 203;
   Marcion’s attempt to reform, fruitless, ii. 222;
   Manes’ imperfect acquaintance with, ii. 280;
   shares with Mithraism devotion of legions, ii. 283;
   compromises of Manichaeism with, ii. 317, 319, 320, 339, 350, 351;
   Manichaeism really opposed to, ii. 318, 357;
   relations of neo-Manichaeism with, ii. 339;
   obligations of, to rivals, ii. 360;
   triumph of, ii. 361


 Christians, political, not religious, offenders against Roman state, i.
    lvi;
   expect catastrophes at destruction of Serapeum, i. 84;
   said to worship Serapis (Hadrian), i. 86;
   formulate doctrine of Trinity, i. 89 _n._ 2;
   accusations of immorality by and against, i. 179;
   considered Jews until reign of Vespasian, ii. 4;
   say old world passing away, ii. 5;
   proscribe heretical writings, ii. 12;
   apostolic, uneducated men, ii. 83 _n._ 1;
   obliged to recognize Greek philosophy, ii. 88;
   good position of, in Alexandria, ii. 94;
   belief of, early, as to Eucharist, ii. 171;
   oriental, flock into Rome under Hadrian, ii. 203;
   use of “Brother” and “Father” by, ii. 261;
   extinguish Mithraism before other heathen religions, ii. 272;
   condemned by Manichaeans for adherence to Old Testament, ii. 315;
   Manichaeans not, ii. 318, 350;
   Manichaeans confused with, by Chinese, ii. 357;
   Julian repairs heathen temples at cost of, ii. 358

 Christos the Ophite, Third Man in Ophite system, ii. 42, 59;
   drawn up with his mother into incorruptible aeon, ii. 43;
   springs from right side of First Woman, ii. 46;
   angel or messenger of triune Deity, ii. 54, 63, 64, 65;
   his two visits to earth, ii. 59;
   descends with Sophia into Jesus, ii. 60, 61, 79;
   brings Mysteries to earth, ii. 65;
   represented by yellow circle in Diagram, ii. 68;
   likeness of Third Sonhood of Basilides to, ii. 94

 Christos, the Valentinian, projected by Nous and Aletheia, ii. 105;
   draws Sophia within the Pleroma, ii. 105, 114;
   prayer of Sophia Without to, and its result, ii. 106;
   Marcus’ juggling with name of, ii. 129;
   consents to projection of Jesus the Great Fruit of Pleroma, ii. 159
      _n._ 3

 Chronos, First Being of Orphics, i. 123; ii. 236

 Church, the Catholic, early dislike of, for science of religion, i.
    liv;
   destroys traces of religions which she supersedes, i. lix;
   likeness of Alexandrian festivals to those of, i. 75;
   Alexandrian clergy divided into seculars and regulars like that of,
      i. 79;
   preserves or revives features of Isis-worship, i. 84;
   worship of Virgin introduced into, at destruction of Serapeum, i. 85;
   celebration of Eucharist in, _temp._ Justin, i. 87 _n._ 1;
   Simon Magus’ aerial flight the tradition of, i. 178;
   resemblance of Gnostic sects to Protestant bodies outside, ii. 19;
   Protestant opponents of, lean to Unitarianism, ii. 20;
   most Gnostics eventually join, ii. 21;
   makes no great conquests after suppressing Gnosticism, ii. 23, 24;
   begins to define and enforce orthodoxy, ii. 77;
   Valentinus first serious competitor of, ii. 93;
   Valentinian houses of prayer confiscated for use of, ii. 96;
   accuses Valentinus of polytheism, ii. 100;
   Valentinus expects to become bishop of (Tertullian), ii. 117;
   Valentinus member of, in papacy of Eleutherus, ii. 121;
   Valentinus never hostile to, ii. 125;
   seduction scandals not unknown in, ii. 129;
   growing power of, before Constantine, ii. 132;
   Valentinianism good recruiting-ground for, ii. 133;
   Christology of _Pistis Sophia_ not different from that of, ii. 144;
   Mysteries of the Light of _P.S._ probably sacraments of, ii. 173;
   modifies her eschatology and ritual, ii. 201;
   Marcion claimed as first reformer of, ii. 207;
   Marcion rejects most traditions of, ii. 214;
   Marcionite dated inscription earlier than any of, ii. 216;
   Apelles nearer to doctrine of, than Marcion, ii. 219;
   Arian controversy brings speculations about Divine Nature within, ii.
      221;
   priests of Mithras not like those of, ii. 273;
   Manichaeans worst European enemies of, ii. 357;
   Constantine’s accession leads to forcible suppression of heathenism
      by, ii. 358

 Church, the Manichaean, its predestinarian teaching, ii. 309;
   consists of Perfects and Superiors only, ii. 313;
   its _magistri_, ii. 328 _n._ 1;
   its constitution, ii. 330;
   its schisms, ii. 342;
   its suppression and revival, ii. 356, 357

 Church, the Primitive, its miracles, i. li; ii. 361;
   its rivals, i. lvii, lxii;
   its germ in Greek religious confraternities, i. 21;
   its borrowings from Alexandrian religion, i. 84, 85;
   its fundamental doctrines not borrowed, i. 88;
   its heresies, i. 119;
   its belief as to martyrdom, i. 145 _n._ 1; ii. 127;
   its community of goods, i. 162;
   its angelology, i. 201;
   its proselytizing zeal, ii. 2, 8;
   its tradition as to early Gnostics, ii. 8, 9;
   its destruction of Gnostic books, ii. 12;
   Asiatic Celts great source of heresy in, ii. 29;
   acrostics and word-puzzles used by, ii. 35;
   Ophites attend services of, ii. 63;
   Ophites connect sacraments of, with heathen mysteries, ii. 82;
   Trinitarian views of, ii. 121;
   Valentinians attend services of, ii. 125;
   baptismal theories of, ii. 168;
   Eucharistic theories of, ii. 172;
   Gnosticism both danger and help to, ii. 202;
   Marcion’s relation to, ii. 204 _sqq._;
   addiction of, to visions of prophets, ii. 219;
   Fathers say Mithraists copy its sacraments, ii. 247, 260;
   its alliance with Constantine, ii. 261, 271

 Cicero, quoted, i. lvi, lvii _n._ 1, 129; ii. 32

 Cilicia, settlement of Persians in, ii. 229

 Circus Maximus, resort of vagabond magicians, _temp._ Tiberius, i. 108

 Claudius I, the Emperor, no Christian converts of rank in reign of
    (Julian), ii. 8 _n._ 5


 Claudius II, the Emperor, cannot expel Goths from Dacia, ii. 271

 Cleanthes of Assos, Ophite silence as to, ii. 83


 Clement of Alexandria, accused of heresy, ii. 14 _n._ 1;
   initiated into heathen mysteries, ii. 21 _n._ 3;
   his fairness to Gnostics, ii. 76 _n._ 2, 95 _n._ 2, 199;
   says angels dwelling in soul, Platonic, ii. 110 _n._ 1;
   first Greek author to mention Buddha, ii. 286 _n._ 4;
   quoted, i. 40 _n._ 1, 47 _n._ 3, 61 _n._ 1, 73 _n._ 1, 89 _n._ 2, 122
      _n._ 2, 124 _n._ 3, 125 _n._ 1, 127 _n._ 1, 142 _n._ 4, 184 _n._
      3, 186 _nn._ 2, 3, 190 _n._ 1, 194 _n._ 1; ii. 14, 20 _n._ 1, 37
      _n._ 1, 39 _n._ 4, 45 _n._ 1, 50 _n._ 2, 65 _n._ 3, 88 _n._ 3, 93
      _n._ 4, 95 _n._ 2, 100 _nn._ 2-6, 101 _n._ 2, 106 _n._ 3, 110 _n._
      1, 112 _n._ 3, 113 _n._ 1, 118, 119, 122 _n._ 1, 125 _n._ 3, 129
      _n._ 3, 135 _n._ 3, 140 _n._ 2, 144 _n._ 1, 177 _n._ 4, 188, 205
      _n._ 5, 219 _n._ 2, 239 _n._ 6, 286 _n._ 4.
   _See Theodoti, Excerpta_

 Clement of Rome, quoted, i. 8 _n._ 2; ii. 65 _n._ 3

 _Clementines_, the, a religious romance, i. 178;
   Tübingen theory as to, i. 179;
   quoted, i. 158 _n._ 4, 178, 181 _n._ 3, 182 _nn._ 3, 6, 198; ii. 4
      _n._ 1, 82 _n._ 2, 219 _n._ 2

 Cleomenes, Satrap of Egypt under Alexander, i. 29

 Cleopatra, last of Ptolemies, i. 30

 Clitus, death of, i. 13

 Coddiani, an Ophite sect, ii. 27 _n._ 1

 Colarbasus, confusion as to name of, ii. 20 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Marcus

 Commagene, favourite recruiting-ground of legions, ii. 229

 Commodus, the Emperor, appears in procession of Isis, i. 54;
   defiles temple of Mithras with real murder, ii. 262;
   initiated into Mysteries of Mithras, ii. 270

 Confessors. _See_ Martyrs

 Confraternities, religious, among pre-Christian Greeks, i. 21;
   hymns composed by, i. 21 _n._ 1;
   frequented by courtezans, i. 22;
   superstitious practices of, i. 23;
   contrast between Persian and Egyptian priests and those of Greek, i.
      25;
   propaganda of, i. 26;
   Alexandrian religion first spread by, i. 52, 77;
   Greek Orphics not formed into, i. 139 _n._ 3, 141;
   secret, among Jews, _temp._ Christ, i. 175

 Conington, Prof. John, his version of Hymn of Great Mysteries, quoted,
    ii. 54

 Constantine, the Emperor, his pact with the Church, i. lvii, lxii; ii.
    9, 12, 261, 271;
   his edict as to heresy, i. lix _n._ 1; ii. 359;
   his conversion leaves Alexandrian religion still powerful, i. 83;
   many Simonians in reign of, i. 200;
   only baptized on his deathbed, ii. 168 _n._ 6;
   his conversion enables Christians to suppress Gnosticism, ii. 199;
   and puts stop to spread of Marcionism, ii. 220;
   his failure against Persians, ii. 226;
   his family religion Sun-worship, ii. 261;
   his enquiry into Manichaeism, ii. 355;
   persecution of Manichaeans slackens in reign of, ii. 356

 Copernicus, i. 117

 Corbicius or Kubrik, name of Manes in Christian tradition, ii. 279, 286

 Corbulo, his wars with Persians, ii. 225

 Cora or Kore, inseparable from Demeter, i. 127 _n._ 3; ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   called Mise at Pergamum, i. 143 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Persephone, Proserpine


 Correspondences, doctrine of, i. 115 _sqq._;
   in system of Simon Magus, i. 183;
   in that of Ophites, ii. 75;
   in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 191 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Maspero

 Corybantes, the, hide _pudendum_ of Bacchus in box, i. 73 _n._ 1


 Corybas, identified with Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1

 Cosmocrator, epithet of Valentinian Devil, ii. 108, 256

 Courdaveaux, M. Victor, quoted, ii. 14 _n._ 1, 122.
   _See_ Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian

 Crassus, his defeat by Persians, i. 8; ii. 225

 Cretans, call Isis, Diana Dictynna, i. 56


 Crete, birthplace of Zeus, i. 16;
     and of Zagreus, i. 37;
   scene of Rape of Persephone, i. 40 _n._ 1;
   Orphic myths early known in, i. 121, 122;
   Orphic gold plates found in, i. 131;
   Great Goddess of Asia worshipped in, ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   double axe in, ii. 67 _n._ 3;
   Ophites in, ii. 77

 Creuzer, Georg Fritz, quoted, i. 130 _n._ 1


 Cross, the. _See_ Stauros; Eli, Eli

 Crucifixion, the, in appearance only _ap._ Basilides, ii. 17;
     and _ap._ Manichaeans, ii. 320;
   _Gospel of Nicodemus_ confirms Gospel account of, ii. 79;
   Valentinian teaching on, ii. 116;
   Jesus teaches for 20 years after (Irenaeus), ii. 61 _n._ 1;
   for 12 (Pistis Sophia and Bruce Papyrus), ii. 194.
   _See_ Simon of Cyrene

 Cruice, the Abbé, quoted, i. 180 _n._ 4

 Cryptogram. _See_ Akae, Armageddon, Bega, _Pistis Sophia_, Taxo

 Cumont, Prof. Franz, his work on Mithras described, ii. 236;
   quoted, i. 22, 119; ii. 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244,
      245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258,
      259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 274, 277,
      289 _n._ 3, 293 _nn._ 1, 2, 294 _n._ 2, 295 _n._ 2, 298 _n._ 1,
      299 _n._ 1, 302 _n._ 1, 304 _n._ 1, 319 _n._ 1, 321, 322 _n._ 2,
      323 _n._ 2, 324 _n._ 4, 327 _nn._ 1, 4, 328 _nn._ 2, 3, 329 _n._
      2, 332 _n._ 2, 348 _n._ 2

 Curetes, the, their connection with Orphism, i. 128, 142 _n._ 2;
   and with Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1


 Cybele, her worship in Athenian associations, i. 17, 25;
   her legend in Asia Minor, i. 37;
   identified with Isis, i. 55, 56;
   and with Demeter and Rhea, i. 124, 126;
   the Mother of the Gods, i. 136;
   Sabazius her son, i. 137;
   feminine form of Dionysos, i. 137 _n._ 1;
   in Orphic hymns, 139 _n._ 1, 143;
   Phrygia chief seat of worship of, ii. 28;
   her eunuch-priests, ii. 30 _n._ 3;
   alluded to in Jeremiah, ii. 32;
   called Agdistis, ii. 39;
   identified with Ma, Artemis, Aphrodite, etc., ii. 39, 40;
   always an earth-goddess, ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   associated with double axe, ii. 67 _n._ 3;
   her connection with Mithras, ii. 258;
   adored by Julian, ii. 269;
   worshipped in Manichaeism as Mother of Life, ii. 300 _n._ 1

 Cylon, Athens purified for murder of, i. 121

 Cypriotes, the, call Isis, Venus, i. 56

 Cyprus, Adonis worship in, i. 37; ii. 40;
   Alexandrian divinities in, i. 52;
   and Orphic, i. 143


 _Cyranides, Le Livre des_, quoted by M. de Mély as to “Mystery of Axe,”
    ii. 67 _n._ 3

 Cyrenaica, the, Jewish atrocities in, ii. 5 _n._ 3

 Cyrene, Buddhist mission to King of, i. 20;
   Ptolemy Soter annexes, i. 29;
   Ophites in, ii. 77.

 Cyril of Alexandria, replaces Isis by two medical saints, i. 86 _n._ 1

 Cyril of Jerusalem, describes elaborate rite of baptism in IVth cent.,
    ii. 22 _n._ 1

 Cytheraea. _See_ Aphrodite

 Cyzicus, worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 53;
   and of Eleusinian Triad, i. 136


 Dacia, its settlement by Trajan, ii. 271.
   _See_ Aurelian; Claudius II

 Dactyli, the Idaean, first of men, i. 106 _n._ 3

 Damascius, the neo-Platonist, quoted, i. 55 _n._ 4, 135; ii. 236 _n._
    4, 250 _n._ 1, 252 _n._ 2

 Damascus, Perdiccas attacks Egypt from, i. 30


 _Daniel, Book of_, first gives personal names of angels, i. 158;
   assumes nations divided among angels, i. 199;
   addiction of Babylonian Jews to curious arts in, ii. 33.
   _See_ Antiochus Epiphanes

 Danube Provinces, the, worship of Alexandrian divinities in, i. 53

 Darius, son of Hystaspes, ii. 225, 227;
   his inscription at Behistun quoted, ii. 233

 Darkness, the Dragon of Outer, the most terrible hell in _Texts of
    Saviour_, ii. 166 _n._ 2;
   its 12 torture-chambers, ii. 183;
   surrounds the earth, ii. 256

 Darmesteter, James, quoted, ii. 232 _nn._ 1, 5, 237 _n._ 3, 241 _n._ 1,
    248 _n._ 3, 278 _n._ 1, 284, 300 _n._ 2, 327 _n._ 3

 Darwin, Charles, his doctrine of survival of the fittest, i. li _sqq._,
    117

 David, King of Israel, vassal of Philistines, i. 160 _n._ 4;
   _Psalms of_, in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 157


 Dead, Baptism for, ii. 168;
   _Book of the_, quoted, i. 31, 32, 55, 132, 134; ii. 66, 72 _n._ 3

 Death, Valentinian theories about, ii. 107, 110, 113, 129 _n._ 3;
   in _Pistis Sophia_ a serpent with 7 heads, ii. 156 _n._ 3;
   of initiates in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 167 _sqq._;
   in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 195;
   of sinner in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186 _sq._;
   of worshipper of Mithras, ii. 266;
   of Manichaean Perfect, ii. 309;
   of Manichaean Hearer, ii. 311

 Decad, of Valentinus, described, ii. 101;
   meaning of names of, ii. 102, 103

 _Deisidaimon_, the, of Theophrastus, quoted, i. 140

 Delos, worship of Alexandrian gods, i. 53

 Delphi, its oracle used to legitimize foreign deities, i. 16;
   oracle of Serapis at Alexandria competes with, i. 77;
   no public worship at temple of, i. 85;
   remains of Dionysos buried at, i. 125


 Demeter, scene of her trials, i. 16, 40 _n._ 1;
   her wanderings shown to initiates, i. 40;
   her part in Anthesteria, i. 42;
   likeness of legend of, to that of Isis, i. 43;
   identified with Persephone, i. 46;
   Homeric hymn to, quoted, i. 59;
   mystic marriage with Zeus, i. 61 _n._ 1, 133, 142 _n._ 4, 144;
   consecrations to, in reign of Valentinian and Valens, i. 83;
   swine sacrificed to, i. 95;
   mother of Persephone _ap._ Orphics, i. 124;
   and of Iacchos, i. 125;
   an earth goddess with many names, i. 126; ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   Orphics in mysteries of, i. 127 _n._ 3;
   assessor of Dionysos in Pindar, i. 129 _n._ 3;
   alterations in legend of, introduced by Orphics, i. 130;
   her widespread worship, i. 135;
   in mysteries of Samothrace, i. 136 _n._ 2;
   associated with god of double axe, ii. 67 _n._ 3;
   appears as Mother of Life in Manichaeism, ii. 300 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Ceres, Rayet

 Demetrius of Phalerum, takes charge of Ptolemy’s Museum, i. 44 _n._ 2

 Demetrius Poliorcetes, his deification, i. 18 _n._ 4, 19;
   his attack on Egypt fails, i. 29 _n._ 2


 Demiurge, the, or Architect of the Universe, in Justinus’ system, ii.
    82;
   called the Great Archon by Basilides, ii. 91;
   identified with God of the Jews by Valentinus, ii. 107 _n._ 2, 109,
      114;
   author of psychic or animal souls, ii. 112;
   in Marcion’s system, ii. 210, 211, 212, 214 _n._ 3;
   Messiah of, ii. 211, 213;
   identified with Mithras, ii. 248

 Demophoon, Celeus’ son and nursling of Demeter, i. 40

 Demosthenes, his oration against Aeschines, quoted, i. 138

 Dendera, union of Osiris and Isis depicted at, i. 61 _n._ 1

 Deo, name of Demeter in Orphic hymn, i. 142

 Derenbourg, Hartwig, quoted, i. 163 _n._ 3

 Derketo, homonym of Atargatis or _Dea Syria_ (Garstang), ii. 40 _n._ 1,
    300 _n._ 2

 Despoena, epithet of Persephone, i. 133


 Destiny or Heimarmene, the sphere of, in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 137 _n._
    2, 143 _n._ 1, 153, 154;
   in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 174, 184;
   in Mithraism, ii. 255 _sq._
   _See_ Moira

 Diadochi, the, or Successors of Alexander, i. 14, 52

 Diagram, the Ophites’, ii. 66-71;
   prayers to powers depicted in, ii. 71-74;
   place of Ophiomorphus in, ii. 77


 Diana Dictynna, Cretan goddess identified with Isis, i. 56

 _Didache_, the, source of _Apostolical Constitutions_ (Duchesne), ii. 7
    _n._ 2

 Dieterich, Prof. Albert, quoted, i. 141, 142; ii. 255.
   _See_ Mithraism, Orpheus

 Dill, Sir Samuel, quoted, i. lvii, lix, 24, 54 _n._ 3; ii. 87, 272, 359

 _Dinkard_, the, quoted, i. 134 _n._ 1

 Diocletian, the Emperor, makes Mithraism state religion, i. 81, 119
    _n._ 1, 228, 271;
   his persecution of Christians, ii. 12, 23;
   his victories over Persians, ii. 226;
   his adoption of Persian ways, ii. 228

 Diodorus Siculus, authority for Oriental religions, i. 9;
   quoted, i. 31 _n._ 1, 43 _n._ 3

 Diogenes, the Cynic, his saying about Patecion quoted, i. 131

 Dionysia, the, peculiarly popular in Northern Greece, i. 136

 Dionysion, temple of Dionysos at Athens, i. 42

 Dionysius, the Areopagite, his orders of angels, i. 188 _n._ 1


 Dionysos, a Thracian or Thessalian god, i. 17;
   legend of Cretan, i. 37, 46;
   diaspasm or tearing to pieces of, i. 37, 125;
   identified with Iacchos, i. 39, 40;
     and with Zagreus, i. 42, 125;
   legend of, told in Little Mysteries, i. 42;
   identified with Osiris, i. 43, 48;
   his relations with Demeter and Persephone, i. 47; ii. 39;
   identified with Hades, i. 47, 48, 130;
     with Apollo, i. 48;
   god of dead to Alexandrians, i. 49;
   Boeotian worship of, i. 52;
   his mystic marriage with Demeter, i. 61 _n._ 1;
   called the Vine, i. 64 _n._ 3;
   his temple at Alexandria demolished by Theophilus, i. 83;
   the Liberator, i. 90 _n._ 1;
   sacrifices to, i. 95;
   his likeness to Tammuz, i. 122 _n._ 3;
   his legend centre of Orphic teaching, i. 123;
   identified with Orphic Phanes, i. 124, 144;
     with Zeus, i. 125 _n._ 2;
   Orphics connect his death with man’s creation and rebirth, i. 126;
   soul of man part of, i. 127, 133;
   omophagy chief rite of worship of, i. 128; ii. 112;
   soul of man united with, i. 129, 144;
   called Eubuleus, i. 133;
   widespread worship of, i. 135;
   identified with Adonis, i. 137;
     and Sabazius, i. 138;
     and Attis, i. 139;
   Orphic hymns to, i. 142 _n._ 3, 143;
   son of Semele, i. 145;
   an androgyne deity, 145, 185;
   all Graeco-Roman gods tend to merge in, i. 146, 147;
   will succeed Zeus, i. 186;
   jealousy of, cause of diaspasm, i. 190 _n._ 2;
   spouse of Persephone and her son, ii. 39;
   the soul of the world, ii. 50 _n._ 2;
   called Pappas, ii. 57;
   and Iao, ii. 71 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Bacchus, Iao

 Diotima, gives traditional view of Platonic affinity, i. 195 _n._ 1

 _Discourse, The True_, of Celsus, probable date of, ii. 66

 Docetism, a mark of heresy, ii. 17;
   Marcion’s adherence to, ii. 210;
   Manichaeans profess, ii. 318, 348

 Dodecad, the, of Valentinus, ii. 101 _sqq._;
   its duplication explained, ii. 145 _n._ 8;
   Egyptian parallel to, 176

 Doinel, Jules, founder of modern Valentinianism, ii. 133 _n._ 1

 Döllinger, Dr, quoted, i. 140 _nn._ 2, 3; ii. 164 _n._ 3, 168, 169, 172

 Dositheus the heresiarch, founder of sect (Eusebius), ii. 6 _n._ 3


 Dove, in _Pistis Sophia_, emblem of Holy Spirit, ii. 135 _n._ 3;
     and of Great Goddess, _ibid._;
   in Manichaeism, 302 _n._ 1

 Drexler, Prof. Anton, quoted, i. 85

 Drogheda, Cromwell’s letter after Siege of, ii. 85 _n._ 2

 Dualism, distinguishing feature of Manichaeism, ii. 289

 Duchesne, Mgr Louis, quoted, i. 89 _n._ 1; ii. 1 _n._ 5, 4, 5 _n._ 2, 7
    _n._ 2, 11 _n._ 2, 14 _n._ 1, 22 _n._ 2, 122 _n._ 1, 178 _n._ 1, 202
    _n._ 2

 Dyaus, the god, worshipped in Vedas and by Persians, i. 73 _n._ 4; ii.
    231 _n._ 1


 Ebionites, the, their connection with the Church at Pella, ii. 5 _n._
    1;
   with the _Clementines_, ii. 82

 Ecbatana, one of the four Persian capitals, i. 3

 Ecclesia or Church, the incorruptible aeon or Pleroma of the Ophites,
    ii. 43, 60;
   used for assembly of souls, ii. 75;
   member of third Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98, 100, 102;
   Italic school make her mother of Dodecad, ii. 119;
   power breathed into man in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 179

 Ecclesiasticus, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

 Ecpyrosis or Destruction of the world by fire, doctrine common to
    Stoics and Persians, ii. 250;
   symbolized by lion-headed figure in Mithraism, ii. 251;
   in Manichaeism, ii. 297;
   in Mazdeism, _Pistis Sophia_, and _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 297 _n._ 1

 Ectroma or Abortion. _See_ Sophia (2)

 Edessa, King of, protects Bardesanes, ii. 120;
   Valentinians of, persecuted by Arians, _temp._ Julian, ii. 132;
   Gnosticism comes into Persia from, ii. 283

 Edfu, Horus worshipped at, i. 45;
   Ptolemies restore temple of, i. 52

 Egypt, Greek gods derived from (Herodotus), i. 16;
   assigned to Ptolemy on Alexander’s death, i. 28 _sqq._;
   priestly character of religion of, i. 31 _sq._;
   totemistic character of early religion of, i. 37;
   its influence on its conquerors, i. 51;
   religion of, degenerates into sorcery, i. 57;
   inspires Alexandrian views on next world, i. 60;
   Osiris-worship in, _temp._ Pharaohs, i. 64 _n._ 3;
   daily services in temples, i. 66;
   early cosmogonies of, i. 73; ii. 36, 175;
   Ptolemy endows Alexandrian religion in, i. 76;
   Alexandrian religion in, _temp._ Julian, i. 83;
   pre-Christian features surviving in, i. 85 _sq._;
   triune god worshipped in Pharaonic, i. 88;
   magicians of, use foreign words, i. 93;
   Magic Papyri found in, i. 97 _sqq._;
   Gnosticism in, quickly decays, i. 111;
   earth goddess worshipped in, i. 126;
   Orphic hymns perhaps composed in, i. 141;
   suzerain of Solomon, i. 160 _n._ 4;
   lower classes in, first become Christian, ii. 8 _n._ 5;
   Ophites in, ii. 76 _sqq._
   _See_ Christians, Eleusis, Enoch, Jews


 Egyptians, the, sacred books of, translated into Greek, i. 9;
   opposed to monotheism before Alexander, i. 11;
   priests of, oppose innovations, i. 24;
   theocrasia known to earliest, i. 33, 46, 54;
   their Osiris-worship bond with Greeks, i. 38;
   their worship of animals, i. 45;
   most superstitious and fanatic of men in Philhellenic times, i. 50;
   oppose Alexandrian religion, ii. 51;
   respect paid to, in Alexandrian religion, i. 56, 73, 74;
   use foreign words in magic, i. 93;
   think earthly Nile copy of heavenly river, i. 116 _n._ 1;
   their idea of eating gods to get powers, i. 125 _n._ 3;
   their obligation to Hebrews _ap._ Artapanus, i. 173;
   their worship of mortal gods absurd to Greeks, ii. 16;
   gods of, husbands of their mothers, ii. 39;
   their addiction to mapping-out invisible world, ii. 109;
   think only rich happy after death, ii. 112 _n._ 1;
   origin of their triune god, ii. 121 _n._ 3;
   their use of allegory, ii. 123;
   their anxiety about nature of god and future of soul, ii. 131;
   embrace monastic life in great numbers, ii. 175;
   _Pistis Sophia_ unintelligible without knowledge of religion of
      Pharaonic, ii. 177;
   their horror of Amenti, ii. 195, 196;
   their enthusiasm for life of priest, ii. 200;
   degradation of Christianity and Gnosticism by, ii. 201;
   the wisdom of, taught to Manes’ predecessor, ii. 285.
   _See_ First Man, Jews

 _Egyptians, Gospel according to_, said to contain Ophite doctrine of
    transmigration, ii. 65, 79;
   possible source of passage in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 161 _n._ 4

 Eieazareie, a word used in magic, ii. 33 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Yahweh of Israel

 Elephantine, mixed religion of Jews at, ii. 32 _n._ 4, 43 _n._ 2

 Eleusinia, the Festivals following Mysteries, i. 136

 Eleusinion, the Athenian, sacred things deposited in, i. 39


 Eleusis, scene of goddesses’ trials, i. 16;
   Mysteries of, described, i. 38-41;
   initiation at, preceded by Little Mysteries, i. 41 _sq._;
   likeness of Legend of, to that of Osiris, i. 43;
   date of reformation of Mysteries of, _ibid._;
   theocrasia result of, i. 46;
   Calathos or basket-crown of Serapis borrowed from, i. 49;
   Mysteries of, rob death of its terrors, i. 59;
   mystic marriage of god and goddess crowning scene at, i. 61 _n._ 1;
   formula repeated by initiates at, i. 62 _n._ 2;
   Alexandrian mysteries more popular than those of, i. 66;
   initiates at, carry rods, i. 68 _n._ 2;
   hereditary priesthood of, i. 76;
   worshippers of other gods consecrated to those of, i. 83;
   Baubo a personage in Mysteries of, i. 100;
   the God and the Goddess of, i. 126; ii. 39;
   entry of Dionysos into, i. 130;
   gods of, worshipped outside Attica, i. 135;
   reason for secrecy of Mysteries of, i. 139 _n._ 2;
   priestesses of, called bees, i. 143 _n._ 4;
   part of Dionysos at, after Orphic reform, i. 145;
   sacramental grace of Mysteries of, i. 147;
   baptism among Gnostics borrows features from, ii. 22;
   Phrygian deities identified with those of, ii. 31;
   Ophites borrow doctrines from, ii. 54;
   Ophites’ opinion of Mysteries of, i. 57

 Eleutherna, Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131, 132


 Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, called names of God in magic, ii. 33 _n._ 2

 Elijah, the Prophet, his soul in _Pistis Sophia_ placed in St John
    Baptist, ii. 137, 149, 150;
   in Paradise of Adam, ii. 179;
   ascension of, inspires Mithraic monuments, ii. 248


 Elizabeth, mother of St John Baptist, her conception arranged by Sophia
    _ap._ Ophites, ii. 53;
   by Virgin of Light in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 137

 Eloaeus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47, 73;
   corresponds to Hebrew Elohe, ii. 71 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Ailoaios

 Elpis or Hope, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

 Emanation, defined, i. 181 _n._ 2;
   doctrine common to all post-Christian Gnostics, ii. 19 _n._ 1

 Empedocles, derives everything from four roots or elements, i. 197

 Encratites, the, sect said to be founded by Tatian, ii. 220

 En-ki or Ea, the god, creator of pattern man, i. lxiii _n._ 1

 Ennead, the Egyptian, its irregular number of gods, ii. 92


 Ennoia, second of Simon Magus’ six “Roots,” i. 180;
   Simon Magus’ called Epinoia by Hippolytus, i. 180 _n._ 4; ii. 20 _n._
      1;
   in _Great Announcement_ first female power, i. 182;
   her Orphic and Jewish analogues, i. 185;
   produces angels who make universe, i. 187, 195;
   seized by world-making angels and condemned to transmigration, i.
      190, 196;
   identified with Helen of Tyre, _ibid._;
   redeemed by Simon, i. 191;
   inconsistency of stories regarding, i. 193;
   in Ophite system, name of Second Man, ii. 38;
   Ophiomorphus called, ii. 49;
   spouse of Bythos according to some Valentinians, ii. 97


 Enoch, mass of Apocrypha connected with name of, i. 159, 160, 164;
   dates of same, i. 162 _n._ 1, 163, 164 _n._ 1;
   connection of Essenes with, i. 168;
   in _Pistis Sophia_, author of books written in Paradise, ii. 147 _n._
      5, 194 _n._ 2

 _Enoch, Book of_, fall of angels in, i. 191 _n._ 1; ii. 154;
   quoted in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 155;
   quoted, i. 160, 161, 162 _n._ 2, 165, 169; ii. 155

 _Enoch, Book of the Secrets of_, seven heavens arranged as in
    Mithraism, ii. 257

 Epaminondas, suffers in Hades because not initiated, i. 131

 Ephesus, many-breasted goddess of, i. lvi, 17; ii. 40;
   worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 53;
   Nicolaitans at, ii. 25

 Ephrem Syrus, finds Valentinianism in Bardesanes’ hymns, ii. 120;
   his date, _ibid._;
   quoted, ii. 316 _n._ 1

 Epicurus, his statement of the problem of evil, ii. 217

 Epimenides, introduces Orphic myths into Athens, i. 121

 Epinoia. _See_ Ennoia


 Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia, a Nicolaitan in his youth, i. 112
    _n._ 1; ii. 21 _n._ 5;
   his ignorance about the Essenes, i. 155;
   his date and work, ii. 10, 77;
   quoted, i. 190, 191, 193, 197, 198, 199; ii. 10, 11, 14, 27, 46 _n._
      3, 61, 79, 80, 81, 90 _n._ 1, 92 _n._ 3, 93 _nn._ 1, 2, 95, 205,
      213, 215, 219, 279 _n._ 2

 Epitaph, Valentinian, in Via Nazionale, ii. 129

 Erataoth, name of power in Diagram, ii. 71

 Eratosthenes, studies at Museum of Alexandria, i. 45

 Ergamenes, King of Ethiopia, his massacre of priests of Amen, i. 31
    _n._ 1

 Eris-ki-gal or Ereshchigal, the goddess, Sumerian counterpart of
    Persephone, i. 100


 Eros, Horus takes attributes of, i. 50;
   first-born god of Orphics, i. 123;
   Orphic, known to Aristophanes, i. 124;
   his likeness to Valentinian Agape, ii. 98 _n._ 1;
   and to Marcion’s Supreme Being, ii. 210;
   hymns to, sung by Lycomidae, ii. 210 _n._ 1

 Esaldaios, variant of Ialdabaoth or El Shaddai, ii. 46 _n._ 3

 Esculapius. _See_ Asklepios

 Essarts, M. Fabre des, head of L’Église Gnostique, ii. 133 _n._ 1


 Essenes, the, third party among Jews, _temp._ Josephus, i. lv, 152;
   perhaps borrow from Buddhism, i. 20;
   a “philosophic” sect, i. 151;
   meaning of name, i. 152;
   Josephus’ account of, i. 152-154;
   Philo’s, i. 154, 155;
   girdle used by them like Parsis’ _kosti_, i. 153 _nn._ 1, 4;
   description of, by Pliny, Hippolytus, and Porphyry, i. 155;
   wild theories about, i. 155, 156;
   their connection with Orphics, i. 156, 168;
   essentially Gnostics, i. 157;
   use of Cabala by, i. 157, 158, 169;
   names of angels kept secret by, i. 158;
   Enochian literature due to, i. 159, 167;
   peculiar interpretation of Scripture, i. 168, 171;
   probably extinct after Hadrian, i. 170;
   divisions among, possible, i. 175 _n._ 3;
   Simon Magus’ teaching opposite to that of, i. 202;
   connection with Ebionites doubtful, ii. 5 _n._ 1;
   points in common with Christians, ii. 6.
   _See_ Ritschl

 Ethiopia, priests of Amen flee to, i. 31;
   Thueris the hippopotamus goddess called “Cat of,” i. 37 _n._ 1

 Ethiopians, their rule in Egypt, i. 31, 51;
   worship Isis, i. 56;
   Psammetichos expels them, i. 101

 _Etymologicum Magnum._ _See_ Gaisford

 Eubouleus or Eubuleus, a name of Dionysos, i. 133, 137 _n._ 1, 142,
    143;
   identified with Adonis by Orphics, i. 137.
   _See_ Zeus Chthonios

 Eubulus, author of lost work on Mithras, ii. 236

 Eucharist, the, rite resembling it among Serapiasts, i. 87;
   simple mode of celebration in Primitive Church, i. 87 _n._ 1;
   thaumaturgic accompaniments among heretics, _ibid._, and ii. 129,
      187;
   obscene parody of, i. 198;
   magical efficacy of, among Gnostics, ii. 22, 63;
   in Apostolic times follows baptism immediately, ii. 22 _n._ 1;
   Ophite additions to, doubtful, ii. 61;
   Ophite ideas concerning, i. 63;
   Marcus’ profanation of, ii. 129;
   called a mystery, ii. 165;
   views of Primitive Church as to, ii. 171;
   Döllinger’s remarks on, ii. 172;
   rite described in _Texts of Saviour_ and Bruce Papyrus probably
      Marcosian, ii. 187;
   celebrated with water among certain sects, ii. 188, 215;
   ceremony resembling, in Mithraism, ii. 247, 260;
   in Manichaeism probably confined to Elect, ii. 348.
   _See_ _Pistis Sophia_, Bruce Papyrus, Huysmans

 Eudemos of Rhodes, earliest authority for Zervanism among Magi, ii. 236
    _n._ 4, 252 _n._ 2

 Eudoxos of Cnidos, his use of acrostics in astronomical work, i. 169

 Euhemerus of Messene, his theory that gods were deified men, i. 19

 Eukles, name of god in Orphic gold plate, i. 133

 Eumenides, the, said by Orphics to be children of Persephone, i. 142

 Eumolpidae, exegetes attached to, i. 44 _n._ 1;
   hereditary priests of Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 76

 Euphrates, the heresiarch, founder of Ophites _ap._ Origen, ii. 25;
   called the “Peratic” or Mede, ii. 26 _n._ 1

 Euripides, Parthians act plays of, i. 8;
   represents Dionysos as androgyne, i. 47 _n._ 4;
   supports identification of Dionysos and Apollo, i. 48;
   Orphic doctrines well known to, i. 123;
   quoted, i. 39, 128, 149 _n._ 1

 Europe, Alexander’s marriage of, with Asia, i. lviii;
   Oriental religions pass into, i. 20;
   after Alexander, Egypt becomes granary of, i. 28;
   Alexandrian religion passes into, i. 77;
   Phrygia invaded by celibate warriors from, ii. 40


 Eusebius of Caesarea, quoted, i. 199, 200; ii. 4 _n._ 3, 6 _n._ 4, 10
    _n._ 1, 12 _n._ 5, 18 _n._ 3, 23 _n._ 2, 83 _n._ 1, 88 _n._ 2, 96
    _n._ 2, 120 _n._ 2, 132 _n._ 2, 206 _nn._ 2, 5, 220 _n._ 3, 221 _n._
    1, 359

 Euxitheus, the Pythagoric, authority for Orphic doctrine of burial of
    soul in body, i. 127 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Philolaos


 Evander, bishop of Nicomedia, rabbles Ophites, ii. 77

 Eve, the protoplast, confusion of name of, with Evoe, ii. 20 _n._ 1;
   Ophite legend of, ii. 52, 58, 70;
   and Manichaean, ii. 299, 306

 Evoe, word used in Mysteries of Sabazius, i. 138;
   in those of Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1; ii. 54 _n._ 6;
   Clement of Alexandria connects it with Eve, ii. 20 _n._ 1


 Ezekiel, the Prophet, shows hatred of Jews for Gentiles, i. 167 _n._ 4;
   quoted, i. 186 _n._ 2; ii. 32, 43 _n._ 2

 Eznig of Goghp, quoted, ii. 217, 285

 Ezra, the Prophet, Apocalypse attributed to, quoted, i. 163, 164, 165,
    167 _nn._ 3, 4; ii. 81



 Farrah (Seistan), probably Prophthasia of Arrian, i. 4 _n._ 1

 Fatak. _See_ Patecius

 Father, Mithraic priests addressed as, ii. 261;
   name of highest Mithraic degree, ii. 262, 267

 Father-and-Son, Dionysos the double of his father, i. 47;
   name of Ophite Supreme God, ii. 38, 39, 67;
   First Mystery of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 144;
   Mithras may be, ii. 248

 Fathers of the Church, their writings neglected till lately, i. 1;
   call all early heretics Gnostics, i. lviii, 171;
   say Simon Magus parent of Gnosticism, i. 176, 200;
   know little of many heresies, i. 200; ii. 9;
   agree as to Ophites, ii. 36;
   their account of Marcus the magician, ii. 128, 167;
   their hostility to Gnosticism justified, ii. 199;
   say devil inspires Mithraists to imitate Church, ii. 247;
   ascribe Apocrypha of Thomas and Andrew to Manichaean Leucius, ii. 351

 Faventinus, Ulpius Egnatius, priest of Isis and other deities, i. 83

 _Fihrist_, the, of Muhammad ben Ishak or En-Nadîm, quoted, ii. 279 _n._
    3, 280, 287 _n._ 4, 289 _n._ 2, 290 _n._ 3, 291 _n._ 1, 292, 293
    _n._ 1, 294 _n._ 1, 295 _n._ 1, 296 _n._ 1, 299 _n._ 2, 300 _n._ 2,
    302 _n._ 1, 304 _n._ 1, 309, 310, 312 _nn._ 1, 2, 313, 314, 322 _n._
    2, 332, 333, 342 _nn._ 1, 2

 Fîrûz. _See_ Peroz

 Foakes-Jackson, Canon, quoted, ii. 215 _n._ 1, 216 _n._ 4, 223

 Forefather, the Great Unseen or Propator, member of ruling Triad of
    Left or material powers in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 142, 150, 155

 Foucart, M. George. quoted, i. 91

 Foucart, M. Paul, his works on Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 38 _n._ 3;
   quoted, i. 17 _n._ 1, 21 _nn._ 1, 2, 22 _n._ 2, 23 _n._ 2, 25 _nn._
      2, 3, 39 _nn._ 1-3, 40 _nn._ 3, 4, 41 _nn._ 1-3, 42 _nn._ 1, 2,
      43, 44 _n._ 1, 47 _n._ 1, 48 _n._ 2, 52 _n._ 3, 59 _n._ 4, 61 _n._
      1, 65 _n._ 6, 130 _n._ 1, 133 _n._ 1, 137 _n._ 5, 143 _n._ 4

 France, Isiac monuments found in, i. 53;
   and Mithraic, ii. 230

 Fravashis, the, or Ferouers in Mazdeism, ii. 110 _n._ 1

 Frazer, Sir James G., quoted, i. 43, 91, 96 _n._ 4, 158 _n._ 2

 Freemasonry, Catholic accusation of obscene rites against, ii. 18 _n._
    2;
   Mithraism a Pagan (Renan), ii. 264


 Gabinius, Proconsul of Syria, rebuilds Samaria after destruction by
    Jews, i. 177


 Gabriel, the angel, in _Book of Daniel_, i. 158;
   named in Magic Papyri, ii. 34;
   name of sphere in Diagram, ii. 70;
   in _Pistis Sophia_, Jesus assumes shape of, at Annunciation, ii. 137,
      138;
   with Michael bears Pistis Sophia out of Chaos, ii. 156, 355 _n._ 1

 Gaea or Gê, the Orphic earth goddess, i. 123, 133, 185; ii. 45 _n._ 1


 Gaisford, Dean, his notes to _Etymologicum Magnum_ quoted, i. 137 _n._
    3

 Galatae, the, their settlement in Asia Minor, ii. 28

 Galerius, the Emperor, speech of Persian ambassador to, ii. 226;
   affects state of Persian Shah, ii. 228 _n._ 2

 Galli, the, eunuch priests of Cybele, ii. 30 _n._ 3

 Ganymede, burlesqued in procession of Isis, i. 71

 Garôtman, abode of Infinite Light in Mazdeism, ii. 249


 Gaumata, the Magian pseudo-Smerdis in Behistun inscription, ii. 233


 Gayômort, the First Man in Mazdeism, i. lxi;
   slain by Ahriman, i. 126 _n._ 3;
   his legend in _Bundahish_, ii. 246

 Geb, the Egyptian earth-god, father of Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephthys,
    i. 33, 133 _n._ 1


 Gehenna, in Enochian literature, i. 165, 167;
   in Diagram, ii. 69

 Genghiz Khan, his invasion and conquests, i. 5 _n._ 1, 14

 Gentiles, the, their relations with Jews in earliest Christian
    centuries, i. lv, lvi;
   hostility of Jews against, partly due to Roman taxation, i. 163 _n._
      1;
   final fate of, _ap._ Jews, i. 164, 165, 166, 167;
   rebellion of Jews against, i. 172;
   Jewish hatred recognized by, after Titus, ii. 5;
   non-Jewish Christianity necessary for conversion of, ii. 21

 George the Syncellus, quoted, i. 124 _n._ 3.
   _See_ Monogenes

 Gerizim, Mount, temple of, rival to that of Jerusalem, i. 177

 Germany, i. 7;
   Isiac monuments found in, i. 53;
     and Mithraic, ii. 230

 Gibbon, Edward, the historian, his _Decline and Fall_ (Bury’s ed.),
    quoted, i. 1, 85, 86 _n._ 2; ii. 7 _n._ 1, 12 _n._ 5, 96 _n._ 3, 127
    _n._ 4, 226 _nn._ 1-6, 227 _n._ 1, 228 _n._ 2, 271 _n._ 2

 Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero, ii. 287 _n._ 4

 Giraud, Father François, his _Ophitae_ quoted, i. 100 _n._ 1; ii. 26
    _n._ 5, 41 _n._ 2, 44 _n._ 2, 64, 68, 70, 71 _n._ 2, 79 _n._ 2

 Gladstone, Mr, his controversy with Huxley, i. liii

 Glaucias, the interpreter of St Peter and teacher of Basilides, ii. 90
    _n._ 3.
   _See_ Ptolemy, son of Glaucias

 Glaucothea, mother of Aeschines and priestess of Sabazius, i. 22, 138

 Glory, the Column of, in Manichaeism, ii. 296, 308, 309, 332

 Glory, the King of, in Manichaeism, ii. 148 _n._ 3;
   in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325

 Glycon, the god worshipped at Nicomedia, _temp._ Gordian, i. 24.
   _See_ Alexander of Abonoteichos

 Gnosticism, ideas at root of, opposed to religion, i. 90;
   the importance of knowledge of the spiritual world, i. 111;
   Christianity may be only episode in history of, _ibid._;
   impulse given to, by rise of astrology, i. 119;
   earliest pre-Christian form of, i. 120;
   Simon Magus said to be parent of all later, i. 176;
   a hydra, i. 200;
   does not compete with orthodox Christianity till IInd cent., ii. 2;
   early converts from, ii. 21;
   its services to Church, ii. 21, 202;
   alleged necessity for forcible suppression of, ii. 23;
   Montanism and, only formidable heresies in early centuries, ii. 29
      _n._ 1;
   likeness of, to Cabala, ii. 36 _n._ 1;
   becomes ethical after contact with philosophers, ii. 87;
   first form of Egyptian, unknown, ii. 89;
   Valentinus transforms Christian, ii. 93;
   degenerates into magic in Egypt, ii. 199;
   rotten before it was ripe (Inge), ii. 199 _n._ 3;
   bridge between Paganism and Christianity, ii. 200;
   its suppression by Church, ii. 359

 Gnostics, generic name for many different sects, i. lviii, 171;
   worship of Greek confraternities resembles that of, i. 21;
   form of Christian sacraments borrowed from, i. 87 _n._ 1;
   Tertullian’s views on Trinity influenced by, i. 89 _n._ 2;
   their use of magic (Hippolytus), i. 109;
   points common to Orphics and post-Christian, i. 148;
   Essenes, Gnostics in larger sense, i. 157;
   conceal themselves during persecution, i. 200;
   symbolic construction of Gospels by, ii. 6;
   our sources of information as to, ii. 10;
   “the great Gnostics of Hadrian’s time,” ii. 12;
   writings of, ii. 13;
   call Jesus Monogenes, ii. 15;
   magical ideas of pre-Christian, ii. 18;
   exchange of doctrines among, ii. 20;
   introduce statues, incense, etc., ii. 22;
   term Homoousios first used by, ii. 23 _n._ 1;
   Barbeliotae etc. so called by Epiphanius, ii. 27, 77;
   Carpocratians first call themselves, ii. 27;
   the “perfect Gnostics” of the Naassenes, ii. 56 _n._ 1;
   become active after St Paul’s preaching in Asia Minor, ii. 85;
   Mithraists perhaps copy certain doctrines of, ii. 248;
   may get ideas of destiny from Babylon, ii. 256

 Gonds, the, sorcerers of Aryan races, i. 92

 Gordian III, the Emperor, Glycon worship in reign of, i. 24


 Goshurun or Goshurvan, the Heavenly Bull of the Avesta, ii. 243;
   in _Bundahish_, slain by Ahriman, ii. 246


 Gospel, the Fourth, its date, ii. 178;
   not quoted in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 177;
   nor by Marcion, ii. 208 _n._ 1;
   quoted, i. 177 _n._ 5; ii. 117 _n._ 1, 123 _n._ 3, 161 _n._ 4, 177,
      190

 Goths, of Dacia, converted _en masse_, ii. 271

 Gracchus, Urban Prefect of Rome, _temp._ Gratian, ii. 272

 Graecia, Magna, overthrow of Pythagoreans in, i. 122;
   Orphic gold plates found in, i. 169

 Granicus, the, Greek troops on Persian side at, i. 7

 Gratian, the Emperor, Epiphanius’ Panarion written in his 7th year, ii.
    10;
   spread of Marcionism in his reign, ii. 205;
   Mithraea wrecked with his sanction, ii. 272;
   financial measures against Paganism, ii. 358

 Gratidia or Canidia of Horace, her sister witch a Thessalian, i. 108

 Great Britain, Isiac monuments found in, i. 53;
   and Mithraic, ii. 230

 Greece, Persians repulsed in their attack on, i. 1;
   Alexander in Seistan receives grapes from, i. 4 _n._ 1;
   theocrasia in, i. 15, 16;
   gods of, coalesce with those of Asia Minor, i. 17;
   its religious confraternities, i. 21;
   Dionysos-worship brought into, from Egypt, i. 43;
   Orphic teaching first appears in, i. 112;
   comes into, from Thrace, i. 122;
   Dionysos youngest of gods of, i. 123;
   popular theology of, i. 124;
   propagation of Orphic ideas in, i. 135;
   no regular association called Orphic in, i. 139 _n._ 3, 141;
   mysteries of Chthonian deities in, attended by Gnostics, ii. 21;
   great goddess worshipped in, ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   Ophites have settlements in, ii. 77;
   Mithraism keeps out of, ii. 230.
   _See_ Hellas


 Greeks, the, rush of, to Asia after Alexander’s conquests, i. 7;
   adopt foreign gods in IVth cent. B.C., i. 15, 16;
   Alexander’s deification a shock to, i. 18;
   rise of Euhemerism among, i. 19; ii. 28;
   no priestly caste among, i. 24, 76;
   theocrasia popular among, i. 33, 54, 56;
   Osiris myth common to Egyptians and, i. 38;
   Alexandrian religion careful of susceptibilities of, i. 44;
   think Demeter and Persephone one, i. 46;
   Apollo always a sun-god among, i. 48;
   mistake of, as to Harpocrates, i. 50;
   their fear of gods _temp._ Homer, i. 57;
   Homeric flattery of gods, i. 95;
   turn to magic rites Vth cent. B.C., i. 121;
   asceticism of Orphics foreign to, i. 127;
   their view of Mysteries changes after Orphic reform, i. 130;
   Orphism greatest religious movement among pre-Christian, i. 145;
   religion of, and Jews contrasted, i. 149;
   adoption of acrostics and word-puzzles among, i. 168, 169 _n._ 1;
   Jews forge works of well-known authors among, i. 173;
   Simon Magus uses religious traditions of, i. 185, 186;
   laugh at wailing for Dying God, ii. 16;
   Ophites take doctrines from Mysteries of, ii. 54;
   unlike Persians, think gods have nature of men, ii. 234;
   make astrology popular, ii. 235

 Gregory the Great, Saint, his advice to assimilate heathen practices,
    i. 85

 Grünwedel, Dr, his expedition to Turfan, ii. 316

 Guards, the Nine of Treasure-house in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 142, 193

 Gundisabur or Djundi-sâbur, place of Mani’s execution, ii. 281 _n._ 7



 Habakkuk, the Prophet, inspired by Jaldabaoth according to Ophites, ii.
    81 _n._ 2


 Hades, the god, his temple at Eleusis, i. 39;
   his Rape of Persephone shown in Mysteries, i. 40;
   in Homer shares universe with Zeus, i. 46;
   identified with Zeus Chthonios and Dionysos, i. 47, 130, 144, 147;
      ii. 39;
   his name perhaps ineffable, i. 47 _n._ 1;
   called Eubuleus, i. 47, 133, 142;
   identified with Osiris, i. 48;
   his epithet of Adamas, ii. 39 _n._ 1;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238;
   identified with Ahriman, ii. 239, 253

 Hades, the place or House of, passwords through, taught in Mysteries,
    i. 41;
   happy lot of initiates in, i. 59;
   Amenti, the Egyptian, i. 102 _n._ 1, 104;
   in Orphic gold plate, i. 132;
   pains of uninitiated in, i. 140;
   like Jewish Sheol, i. 150

 Hadrian, the Emperor, his letter to Servian, i. 86;
   the great Gnostics of his reign, i. 111; ii. 12;
   his war of extermination against the Jews, i. 163, 170, 172 _n._ 1;
      ii. 5, 203;
   Celsus a contemporary of, ii. 66;
   reign of Roman Law begins _temp._, ii. 86;
   Gnosticism enters Alexandria _temp._, ii. 89;
   gives back Trajan’s Persian conquests, ii. 225;
   books on Mithras worship written _temp._, ii. 236


 Haggai, the Prophet, hatred of Jews for Gentiles shown in, i. 167 _n._
    4

 Halicarnassus, Alexandrian worship in, i. 52

 Ham, the patriarch, identified with Titan, i. lx

 Harnack, Prof. Adolf, quoted, i. xlix _n._ 1; ii. 161 _n._ 4, 207, 215
    _n._ 1, 216, 286 _n._ 5

 Har-pa-khrat or Harpocrates, the Alexandrian Horus the Child, i. 50

 Harris, Dr Rendel, his discovery of the _Odes of Solomon_, i. 164 _n._
    1; ii. 157 _n._ 2;
   and of the _Apology_ of Aristides, ii. 204 _n._ 1

 Hartland, Mr E. S., his theory of _mana_, i. 91 _n._ 2

 Harvey, W. W., editor of Irenaeus, quoted, i. 181 _n._ 1; ii. 138 _n._
    1

 Hasis-adra. _See_ Xisuthros

 Hatch, Dr Edwin, quoted, i. lvii, lviii _n._ 1, 47 _n._ 4, 87 _n._ 1,
    168 _n._ 3, 174 _n._ 2; ii. 23 _n._ 1, 37 _n._ 1, 83 _n._ 1, 165
    _n._ 3, 168 _n._ 6, 169 _n._ 1, 170, 172 _n._ 3, 191 _n._ 2, 202
    _n._ 1, 222 _nn._ 2, 3

 Haurvetât, the Amshaspand, i. 181 _n._ 1;
   his and Ameretât’s possible analogues in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 355

 Hebdomad, the, in system of Simon Magus and _Clementines_, i. 181;
   among Ophites, ii. 64;
   Valentinus’ name for the Demiurge or god of the Jews, ii. 107, 109,
      114 _n._ 3

 Hebrews, the, i. 173, 185.
   _See_ Jews

 _Hebrews, the Gospel according to the_, perhaps identical with that
    _according to the Egyptians_, ii. 79

 Hecataeus of Abdera, Jewish forgery in name of, i. 173

 Hecate, the goddess, identified with Isis, i. 56;
   priest of Isis also hierophant of, i. 83;
   Orphic hymns to, i. 142 _n._ 2, 147 _n._ 1;
   patron saint of sorcerers till Renaissance, i. 147;
   ii. 186 _n._ 3, 276;
   her relation to lion-headed god of Mithraism, ii. 252

 Heddernheim, revolving bas-reliefs in Mithraeum at, ii. 247;
   concealment of lion-headed statue in same, ii. 251

 Hedone or Pleasure, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101


 Hegemonius, his _Acta Archelai_, Beeson’s edition of, ii. 280 _n._ 3;
   quoted, i. 178 _n._ 2; ii. 277 _n._ 1, 279 _n._ 2, 280 _n._ 3, 287
      _n._ 3, 288 _nn._ 1, 2, 3, 289 _n._ 1, 293 _n._ 1, 294 _n._ 1, 295
      _n._ 2, 297 _n._ 2, 298 _nn._ 1, 2, 299 _n._ 4, 302 _n._ 1, 306
      _nn._ 1, 2, 307 _n._ 1, 308 _nn._ 1-4, 312 _n._ 2, 316 _n._ 1, 318
      _n._ 1, 322 _n._ 2, 323 _n._ 4, 326 _n._ 1, 330 _n._ 2, 352 _n._ 2

 Hegesander, quoted from Athenaeus, i. 8 _n._ 3

 Hegesippus, his date, ii. 6 _n._ 4;
   quoted, ii. 2 _nn._ 1, 2, 6 _n._ 4, 8 _n._ 3.
   _See_ Eusebius

 Heimarmene. _See_ Destiny

 Helen of Troy, Simon Magus’ mistress said to be reincarnation of, i.
    178, 190, 196

 Helena of Tyre, name of Simon’s mistress, i. 190;
   redeemed by Simon, i. 191;
   inconsistency of patristic story about, i. 193;
   typifies the soul in transmigration, i. 196;
   image of, as Athena, i. 198;
   said to have been called Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1

 Heliogabalus, the Emperor, a high-priest of the sun-god, ii. 228

 Heliopolis. _See_ Annu or On

 Helios, classical type of, represented on Indian coins, i. 17 _n._ 2;
   Serapis identified with, i. 56;
   distinguished by Greeks from Apollo, ii. 240;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 244;
   with Mithras at banquet, ii. 247;
   invoked in Mithraic liturgy, ii. 266


 Hellas, i. 24, 44

 Hellespont, the, limit of Persian Empire, i. 1


 Hemerobaptists, the, a pre-Christian sect, ii. 6 _n._ 4;
   called Mandaites or Disciples of St John, ii. 305;
   their history and tenets, _ibid._

 Henosis or Oneness, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101


 Hera, her contempt for man in Homer, i. 57;
   her jealousy cause of Diaspasm _ap._ Orphics, i. 125;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.
   _See_ Juno

 Heracleon, the Valentinian, quoted by Origen, ii. 95 _n._ 2;
   most distinguished of Valentinus’ successors, ii. 119;
   his Commentaries on the Gospels not secret, ii. 131

 Heracleopolis or Ahnas el-Medineh, mentioned in Magic Papyrus, i. 98,
    109

 Heracles, becomes immortal because of divine birth, i. 18; ii. 16;
   rams sacrificed to, i. 95;
   story of, in Herodotus used by Justinus, ii. 81;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238;
   his compulsion of Hades, ii. 239 _n._ 7.
   _See_ Hercules

 Heraclitus of Ephesus, identifies Dionysos with Hades, i. 47;
   probably unknown to Hippolytus’ Naassene, ii. 83

 Heraclius, the Emperor, his overthrow of Persia, ii. 227

 Herat, a foundation of Alexander, i. 5


 Herculaneum, scenes of Alexandrian worship in frescoes found at, i. 66
    _n._ 3, 67-69, 73, 87


 Hercules, classical type of, on Indian coins, i. 17 _n._ 2

 Hermas’ _Pastor_, Trinitarian views of, i. 89 _n._ 2


 Hermes, the god, worship of, perhaps brought into Greece from Egypt, i.
    17;
   Greek analogue of Anubis, i. 35;
   as psychopomp in Mysteries of Eleusis, i. 41;
   image of, used in magic, i. 98;
   hymn to, in Magic Papyrus, i. 98, 99;
   appears in Mysteries of Samothrace, i. 136 _n._ 2;
   Terms of, in Athenian streets, i. 139 _n._ 2;
   St Paul hailed as, in Phrygia, i. 191 _n._ 3; ii. 42;
   leader of souls in Homer, ii. 54;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 258

 Hermopolis, ogdoad of four syzygies of gods under early Pharaohs at, i.
    197; ii. 175, 176

 Hero of Alexandria, invents first steam-engine, i. 45

 Herod the Great, rebuilds and restores Samaria, i. 177

 Herodotus, quoted, i. 16, 43, 48, 60, 81, 123, 136; ii. 176, 233 _n._
    1, 234, 239, 320 _n._ 1

 Hesiod, scholiast on, quoted, i. 40 _n._ 1;
   popular theology given in, i. 124;
   calls God and Goddess of Eleusis Zeus Chthonios and Demeter, i. 126;
   his successive ages of the world, i. 186

 Hierapolis, called Ophiorhyma in _Acta Philippi_, ii. 50.
   _See_ Atargatis

 Hiero II, King of Syracuse, introduces Alexandrian gods into Sicily, i.
    53

 Hild, M. J. A., quoted, i. 134 _n._ 2, 149 _n._ 1

 Hilleh, magic bowls of Jews found at, ii. 32, 33

 Hinduism, i. li

 Hippa, Orphic hymn to, i. 138 _n._ 2

 Hipparchus, studies at Museum, i. 45;
   makes systematic astrology possible, i. 117


 Hippolytus, bishop of Porta Romana, discovery of his Philosophumena, i.
    lix; ii. 11;
   Salmon’s theory about, i. lxi _n._ 1; ii. 11, 12;
   tricks of magicians described by, i. 99, 100;
   condemns astrology and astronomy alike, i. 112 _n._ 2;
   his “hymn of Great Mysteries,” i. 137 _n._ 1, 139 _n._ 1; ii. 54 _n._
      6;
   thinks system of Sethiani derived from Orphics, i. 175;
   his account of Simon Magus’ doctrines inconsistent, i. 193;
   doctrines of heresiarchs described by, ii. 11, 12;
   exaggerates diversity of Gnostic teaching, ii. 14;
   attributes Ophite doctrines to discourses of St James to Mariamne,
      ii. 26;
   contemporary of Origen _circa_ 200 A.D., ii 26 _n._ 3;
   identifies Ophiomorphus with great god of Greek Mysteries, ii. 50;
   his Ophite psalm, ii. 61, 62, 68 _n._ 2;
   his later Ophite sacraments, ii. 63;
   says Naassenes have priests, ii. 66;
   attributes _Gospel of Egyptians_ to Naassenes, ii. 79;
   gives most space to Valentinus’ doctrine, ii. 95;
   his views on Trinity polytheistic, ii. 123 _n._ 1;
   accuses heresiarchs of magical imposture, ii. 128;
   writes 50 years after Valentinus’ death, ii. 131 _n._ 2;
   quoted, i. lix, lxi _n._ 1, 68 _n._ 3, 73, 99, 100 _n._ 4, 107 _n._
      1, 109, 110, 112 _n._ 2, 137 _n._ 1, 139 _n._ 1, 175, 179, 187,
      191, 193, 194, 196, 198; ii. 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 26, 27, 40, 41
      _n._ 1, 46, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66 _n._ 1,
      73 _n._ 2, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 89 _nn._ 3, 4, 90, 91, 94 _nn._
      1-3, 95, 97, 98, 99, 101, 103 _n._ 5, 104, 105, 106 _nn._ 1, 2,
      107, 108 _n._ 1, 109, 110 _n._ 1, 113 _n._ 2, 114 _nn._ 2, 3, 115
      _n._ 2, 116 _n._ 2, 118 _n._ 5, 119, 123, 124 _n._ 3, 128, 131,
      144 _n._ 8, 147 _n._ 4, 148 _n._ 1, 159 _n._ 3, 160 _n._ 1, 207,
      208 _n._ 2, 215 _n._ 2, 219 _n._ 1, 220

 Hittites, the, Mithras worshipped by, 1272 B.C., i. lxii;
   mentioned in Sargon’s omen-tablets, i. 114;
   Mithras linked with Varuna among, ii. 248

 Hogarth, D. G., quoted, i. 14, 18 _n._ 4, 27; ii. 29

 Homer, reading-book of Asiatics _post_ Alexander, i. 8 _n._ 1;
   gods of, worshipped by Graeco-Indian kings, i. 17;
   their indifference to mortals, i. 57;
   shows forth Christian doctrine of Father and Son, i. 47 _n._ 3;
   purificatory rites unknown to, i. 121;
   the popular theology of, i. 124;
   the father of gods and men in, i. 185;
   claimed as divinely inspired, ii. 15;
   writings of, used by Ophites, ii. 54;
   quoted, i. 57 _nn._ 1, 2, 59, 95, 96 _n._ 1;
   ii. 15 _n._ 4, 16 _n._ 1

 Homeric Hymns, publicly recited and perhaps displaced by Orphic, i.
    135;
   quoted, i. 16 _n._ 5, 40 _n._ 2, 59, 124 _n._ 3

 Homoousios, word first used by Gnostics, ii. 23 _n._ 1, 91 _n._ 2

 Honour, King of, in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325

 Horace, perhaps known to Basilides, ii. 91 _n._ 5;
   quoted, i. 108; ii. 225, 228


 Horaios, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 69, 70;
   address to, ii. 74.
   _See_ Oreus


 Hormisdas or Ormuz, the Shah, ii. 281

 Horus, the god, king of Egypt incarnation of, i. 18, 19, 51;
   in Alexandrian legend of Isis and Osiris, i. 34, 35;
   originally totem of royal tribe, i. 36, 37, 45;
   analogue of Iacchos, i. 43, 189 _n._ 5;
   identified with Apollo, i. 48;
   child form of, in Alexandrian religion, i. 50;
   Ptolemies raise temples to Egyptian form of, i. 52;
   Athenian dandies swear by, i. 54;
   Egyptian sun-god, i. 63;
   in Alexandrian religion, Osiris reborn, i. 70 _n._ 3; ii. 39, 63;
   festival of birth of, i. 71;
   a triune god, i. 88, 189 _n._ 5;
   symbolizes perceptible world image of ideal, i. 198

 Horus, the Limit of the Pleroma, a Valentinian Aeon, ii. 105 _n._ 2;
   in system of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 140 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Stauros

 Horus-Râ, the god, composite deity who replaces Horus in Middle Empire,
    i. 63 _n._ 3

 Housesteads (Northumberland), Mithraic monuments at, ii. 242

 Huesemigadôn, name of Pluto in Magic Papyri, i. 99, 100


 Hummâma, name of Manichaean Satan, ii. 287 _n._ 4

 Huxley, the late Prof., his controversy about Genesis, i. liii


 Huysmans, J. K., revives patristic stories of profanation of Eucharist,
    i. 198

 Hyades, in Chaldaean astrology, i. 113

 _Hymn of the Soul_, said to be Manichaean, ii. 331

 Hymns, sung by Athenians to Demetrius Poliorcetes, i. 19;
   Greek confraternities compose, i. 21 _n._ 1;
   to Iacchos sung by procession of initiates, i. 39;
   used in Alexandrian worship, i. 66, 72, 75;
   to Hermes and other gods in Magic Papyri, i. 99;
   to Attis and others, i. 137 _n._ 1; ii. 54;
   the collection of Orphic, i. 141;
   to Eros sung by Lycomidae in Mysteries, i. 141 _n._ 2; ii. 210 _n._
      1;
   of Synesius, quoted, ii. 37 _n._ 1;
   Ophites’, addressed to First Man, ii. 61;
   Bardesanes’, used in Catholic Church, ii. 120;
   the penitential, of Pistis Sophia, ii. 156;
   sung by legionaries to both Christ and Mithras, ii. 261;
   used by Manichaeans, ii. 331

 Hypsistos or the Highest, name of Yahweh in Asia Minor (Cumont), ii.
    31, 85 _n._ 3;
   applied by Valentinus to Demiurge, ii. 116 _n._ 2

 Hyrcanus, John, high-priest of Jews, invades Samaria and destroys it,
    i. 177


 Iaccheion, the, at Athens, starting-point of procession to Eleusis, i.
    39

 Iacchos, the god, leader of procession to Eleusis, i. 39;
   his identity with Dionysos, i. 39 _n._ 2, 40 _n._ 4, 130, 145;
   son of Zeus and Demeter, i. 40;
   analogy of his birth with that of Horus, i. 43, 125;
   Orphics identify him with Hades, Zeus Chthonios and Zagreus, i. 130;
   and with Eubuleus, Cybele, Aphrodite and Isis, i. 137 _n._ 1, 143;
   and with Sabazius, i. 138 _n._ 2;
   the father, son, and spouse of Persephone, i. 189 _n._ 5


 Ialdabaoth or Jaldabaoth, the Ophite Demiurge and a “fourth number,” i.
    100 _n._ 4; ii. 46, 47, 70 _n._ 2, 71 _n._ 1;
   his name, variants, attributes, and places, ii. 46, 69;
   the god of the Jews, ii. 47;
   ruler of planetary spheres _ap._ Ophites, ii. 48, 64;
   father of Ophiomorphus, ii. 49;
   creator and tempter of man, ii. 51, 52;
   his commands disobeyed by protoplasts, ii. 52;
   lawgiver of Jews, ii. 53;
   souls of “animal” men pass through his realms between incarnations,
      ii. 57;
   his attempts to prolong his rule defeated by Sophia, ii. 58, 59;
   birth of Jesus arranged without knowledge of, ii. 59;
   contrives death of Jesus, ii. 60;
   his seven heavens called the holy hebdomad (Irenaeus), ii. 64;
   fragments of light pass into the terrestrial world without knowledge
      of, _ibid._;
   creator of world of form, ii. 64 _n._ 3;
   name taken from magic _ap._ Origen, ii. 69;
   his seven worlds copied by Ophiomorphus as in Ophite Diagram, ii. 70;
   address to, ii. 72;
   uncertain place of, ii, 74 _n._ 3, 75 _n._ 1;
   inspires Hexateuch, Amos and Habakkuk _ap._ Ophites, ii. 81 _n._ 2;
   corresponds to the Great Archon of Basilides, ii. 94;
   and to Valentinus’ Demiurge, ii. 107 _n._ 2;
   in _Pistis Sophia_ degraded into evil power sent into Chaos, ii. 155,
      158;
   in Bruce Papyrus a chief of Third Aeon, ii. 155 _n._ 3;
   in _Texts of Saviour_ a torturer in hell, _ibid._ and 186;
   Adamas helps him to torment Pistis Sophia, ii. 156;
   his light deceives her, ii. 162;
   his place given to Pistis Sophia, ii. 162 _n._ 3;
   various spellings of name of, in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 183 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Habakkuk, Irenaeus

 Ialdazao, either a variant of name of Ialdabaoth or El Shaddai, ii. 46
    _n._ 3

 Iamblichus, the neo-Platonist, says Egyptian magicians threaten their
    gods, i. 104

 Iaô, in Magic Papyri, corruption of name Jehovah, i. 105, 106;
   ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47, 69;
   a Hebrew name of God (Origen), ii. 69, 71 _n._ 1;
   name of Dionysos in late classical writers, ii. 71 _n._ 1;
   address to, ii. 72;
   connection with moon, ii. 72 _n._ 3, 74 _n._ 2;
   used as acrostic in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 180 _n._ 4


 Iao, the Good, in _Pistis Sophia_, the Little, supplies power for soul
    of St John Baptist, ii. 138, 149;
   the Great, a ruler of the Middle and colleague of Virgin of Light,
      ii. 150;
   his connection with moon, ii. 150 _n._ 5

 Iapetus, brother of Saturn, identified by Christian writer with Japhet,
    i. lx


 India, Alexander’s exploits in, i. 5, 13;
   sorcerers in modern, i. 92, 99 _n._ 1;
   Ophites spread to, ii. 76;
   Mithraic monuments in, ii. 230;
   Mithras worshipped in Vedic, _ibid._;
   Manes said to have preached in, ii. 281;
   Manes says Buddha sent to, ii. 307;
   becomes acquainted with Buddhism in, ii. 313

 Ineffable One, the, of the _Pistis Sophia_ contains the First Mystery,
    ii. 139;
   his “receptacles” issue from his last limb, ii. 139 _n._ 2, 144 _n._
      3;
   lesser powers make up his name, ii. 140;
   Great Light his Legate, ii. 141;
   the Bythos of the Ophites and Valentinus, ii. 144, 158;
   First Mystery proceeds from last limb of, ii. 145;
   the footless God of Truth, ii. 145 _n._ 2;
   his heaven, ii. 146;
   perfect initiates will eventually become members of, ii. 164, 170;
   the Mystery or Sacrament of, ii. 166;
   its saving grace, 164 _n._ 6, 167, 169, 170, 171;
   confined to Pneumatics only, ii. 173;
   an Egyptian conception, ii. 175;
   fragmentary attempt to describe members of, ii. 180.
   _See_ Name


 Ionia, philosophic teaching in, tends to theocrasia, i. 15;
   probable source of Orphic legends, i. 124;
   tradition of, that water origin of all things, ii. 36;
   dualism of, probably derived from Persia, ii. 290 _n._ 2


 Irenaeus, Saint, bishop of Lyons, his Trinitarian views unorthodox, i.
    89 _n._ 1;
   explains number of beast as Nero Caesar, i. 169 _n._ 3;
   his garbled account of Simon’s teaching, i. 187-191, 193;
   makes Menander immediate successor of Simon, i. 199;
   his account of Marcus the magician, i. 202; ii. 9 _n._ 1, 129, 183
      _n._ 1;
   makes Nicolaitans of Apocalypse Gnostics, ii. 1;
   his work against heresies, ii. 10;
   exaggerates diversity of Gnostics, ii. 14;
   authority for Docetism of Basilides, Saturnius and Valentinus, ii.
      17;
   his mistake regarding “Colarbasus,” ii. 20 _n._ 1;
   his account of Ophite doctrines, ii. 26 _n._ 5, 40, 42, 43, 46-51,
      53;
   identifies Sethians with Ophites, ii. 27 _n._ 1, 76;
   calls highest heaven of Ophites the true Church, ii. 43;
   sole authority for Jaldabaoth’s boasting, ii. 51;
   his interpolations in primitive Ophite doctrine, ii. 53, 57, 58, 60
      _n._ 1, 61 _n._ 1;
   says Jesus lived on earth for 20 years after Resurrection, ii. 61
      _n._ 1;
   makes Ophites source of most later heresies, ii. 76;
   authority for division of Ophites as to character of serpent, ii. 78;
   Ophites of, ascribe Old Testament to planetary powers, ii. 81 _n._ 2;
   notes connection of heresiarchs with each other, ii. 89;
   writes to refute Valentinians, ii. 95;
   his mockery of Valentinus’ system of Aeons, ii. 99;
   his account of Valentinian doctrines, ii. 107-112, 117, 119, 126;
   writes after death of Valentinus, ii. 131;
   with Tatian, first to quote from St John’s Gospel by name, ii. 178
      _n._ 1;
   says Valentinians will not call Jesus Lord, ii. 180 _n._ 3, 189;
   says Marcion disciple of Simon Magus, ii. 207;
   his account of Tatian’s doctrines, ii. 220;
   quoted, i. 176 _n._ 1, 178 _n._ 4, 187, 190, 191, 198, 199; ii. 1
      _n._ 4, 8 _n._ 3, 9 _n._ 1, 15 _n._ 2, 17, 18 _n._ 1, 20 _n._ 1,
      27 _n._ 1, 38 _n._ 1, _n._ 2, 42 _n._ 5, 43 _n._ 1, 44, 45 _n._ 1,
      46 _nn._ 1, 2, 47 _nn._ 2, 3, 48, 49 _n._ 1, 50 _n._ 2, 51, 52
      _nn._ 1, 3; 53 _n._ 1, 58 _nn._ 1, 2, 59, 60, 61, 64 _n._ 2, 78,
      81 _n._ 2, 89 _n._ 3, 90, 92 _n._ 3, 93 _n._ 1, 94 _n._ 1, 96, 98
      _nn._ 3-5, 99, 107 _n._ 4, 108 _n._ 1, 109 _n._ 1, 110 nn. 1, 2;
      111 _n._ 1, 112 _nn._ 2, 3, 116 _n._ 1, 117 _n._ 2, 118, 119 _nn._
      1, 3, 120, 121, 126, 127 _n._ 4, 128, 138 _n._ 1, 140 _n._ 1, 144
      _n._ 1, 152 _n._ 1, 159 _n._ 3, 166 _n._ 2, 173 _n._ 3, 179 _n._
      7, 180 _n._ 3, 183 _n._ 1, 189 _n._ 1, 207, 214 _n._ 3, 220

 Isaac, God of, invoked by magicians, ii. 34


 Isaiah, the Prophet, hostility to Gentiles in post-Exilic passages of,
    i. 165, 167 _n._ 4

 _Isaiah, Ascension_, of Sammael name of Satan in, ii. 75 _n._ 1
   vestures used for heavenly nature in, ii. 136 _n._ 1;
   its date, ii. 154 _n._ 4;
   ecpyrosis in, ii. 163 _n._ 3;
   souls passing from one heaven to another must give password, ii. 177
      _n._ 2;
   quoted, ii. 154 _n._ 4, 163 _n._ 3


 Ishtar, the goddess, legend of her Descent into Hell, i. 100;
   analogies of her lover Tammuz with Orphic Dionysos, i. 122 _n._ 3;
   name of Atargatis derived from (Garstang), ii. 31 _n._ 1, 45 _n._ 1;
   personification of Earth, _ibid._;
   identified with Ophite Sophia, _ibid._;
   and with Manichaean Mother of Life, ii. 300 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Cybele

 Isidore, son of Basilides, his doctrine derived from Matthias the
    Apostle (Hippolytus), ii. 90


 Isis, the goddess, worship of the Greek, an ethical religion, i. xlix
    _n._ 1;
   her wanderings in search of the murdered Osiris, i. 34;
   Nephthys, twin sister and reflection of, i. 35;
   in early Pharaonic Egypt only a magician, i. 38;
   in Phrygia and Syria, mother of all living, _ibid._;
   analogy of her wanderings with those of Demeter, i. 40, 43;
   in Pharaonic Egypt wears cow’s head, i. 45;
   the Greek, identified with Demeter, i. 48;
   her breast-knot and _sistrum_, i. 49;
   Isis suckling Horus, i. 50;
   Marcus Volusius disguised as priest of, i. 53;
   oaths by, fashionable in Athens _temp._ Menander, i. 54;
   her names and titles in address to Lucius, i. 56;
   the haven of peace and altar of pity, i. 57; ii. 158;
   initiation into Mysteries of, i. 61-63;
   her child the Sun, i. 63; ii. 245;
   Osiris sometimes called her son, i. 63;
   both mother and father of other gods, i. 65, 143;
   statue of, dressed like Catholic Madonna, i. 66;
   silent adoration of image of, i. 67;
   frescoes of scenes in worship of, i. 67-69;
   her connection with moon, i. 68 _n._ 3;
   her seeking for Osiris acted publicly, i. 70;
   the festival of the ship of, i. 71-74;
   the great earth-goddess, i. 73, 126; ii. 45 _n._ 1, 300 _n._ 1;
   “one, who art all things,” i. 75;
   seven temples of, in Rome, i. 79;
   statue of, in _lararium_ of Alexander Severus, i. 82;
   her last Roman worshippers, i. 83;
   emblems of virility used in worship of, i. 83;
   conversion of worshippers of, to Christianity, i. 84;
   entry of features of ritual of, into Catholic Church, i. 84, 85, 87;
   tonsure of priests, etc., derived from, i. 84;
   Trinitarian doctrine of, i. 88;
   Horus at once son and spouse of, i. 189 _n._ 5; ii. 39;
   Simon Magus may derive some of his doctrines from religion of, i.
      198;
   Phrygian Mother of Gods identified with, ii. 31;
   Egyptian legend of Ra and, i. 38 _n._ 2;
   analogy of, with Ophite Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Menander, Menuthis

 Isium of Pompeii built 150 B.C., i. 53

 Isopsephism. _See_ Berossos, Iao, Number (of Beast)

 Israel, to enslave Gentiles, i. 165, 166, 167 _n._ 4;
   her monotheism, i. 184

 Issus, the battle of, i. 7

 Italy, break-up of Pythagorean school in, i. 122

 Izates, King of Adiabene, his Jewish proclivities, ii. 278 _n._ 1


 Izeds, the, or Yazatas of the Avesta, Mithras made chief of, in
    Sassanian reform, ii. 232, 270 _n._ 3


 Jabezebuth, name of Beelzebuth in Magic Papyri, ii. 108 _n._ 1

 Jabraôth, ruler of the obedient Aeons in _Pistis Sophia_ and Bruce
    Papyrus, ii. 152 _n._ 1, 182

 Jackson, Prof. A. V. Williams, authority for late date of Avesta, i.
    lxii

 Jacob, Apocrypha attributed to sons of, i. 163;
   contrasted with Esau, i. 164 _n._ 2;
   the seed of, oppressed, i. 166;
   god of, invoked by magicians, ii. 34


 Jaldabaoth. _See_ Ialdabaoth

 Jaluha, “receiver” of Sabaoth Adamas in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 187

 James, “the brother of the Lord,” said to transmit Ophite doctrines to
    Mariamne, ii. 26

 Janet, M. Pierre, quoted, i. 110

 Japan, instance of Oriental nation Europeanized, i. 8

 Japhet, the Patriarch, confused with Iapetus, i. lx

 Jason of Tralles, acts Euripides’ _Bacchus_ to Parthian audience
    _temp._ Crassus, i. 8 _n._ 1

 Jehovah, seven vowels cover name of, i. 103 _n._ 2;
   name used in Magic Papyrus, i. 106; ii. 34;
   Iao perhaps represents, ii. 71 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Tetragrammaton, Yahweh of Israel

 Jéquier, M. Gustave, quoted, i. lxi _n._ 3


 Jeremiah, the Prophet, says Jerusalem worships stars, i. 186 _n._ 2;
   says Jews sacrifice to Mother of Gods, ii. 32;
   quoted, ii. 32 _n._ 2

 Jeremias, Dr Alfred, his astral theory, i. 115 _n._ 1

 Jerome, St, _Indiculus de Heresibus_ attributed to, ii. 25

 Jerusalem, Ptolemy Soter captures, i. 151;
   in Enochian literature repels final assault of Gentiles, i. 161;
   prophecy that Gentiles shall rebuild, i. 165;
   rivalry between temple of, and Mt Gerizim, i. 177;
   destruction of same _temp._ Titus, ii. 4;
   idolatry in, ii. 32;
   heaven of Ophite Sophia called the Heavenly, ii. 108 _n._ 3, 109,
      114, 124;
   angel spouses of human souls citizens of (Valentinus), ii. 110 _n._ 1

 Jesuits. _See_ Loyola, Ignatius


 Jesus, said to have been Essene (Jülicher), i. 156;
   acrostic name of, i. 169 _n._ 1;
   Alpha and Omega name of, i. 171 _n._ 1;
   Simon Magus appears to suffer in likeness of, i. 192; ii. 16;
   Apocryphal sayings of, in _Gospel of Egyptians_, etc., i. 196 _n._ 2;
      ii. 219;
   His unfulfilled promise of Second Advent, ii. 3;
   analogy of His Passion and that of Osiris, ii. 6;
   tradition of revelations by, after Resurrection, ii. 13, 90 _n._ 3;
   historicity of, never doubted by Gnostics, ii. 15;
   Gnostics’ difficulties as to Passion of, ii. 16;
   Docetic view as to body of, ii. 17;
   Unitarian views of, among modern Nonconformists, ii. 20;
   called the Angel of the Great Council, ii. 43 _n._ 2;
   tradition as to prolonged earthly life of, ii. 61 _n._ 1;
   Sethians of Hippolytus do not mention, ii. 76;
   _Gospel of Nicodemus_ describes visit to Hades of, ii. 90.
   _See_ Christ

 Jesus, the Ophite, birth of, from Virgin Mary arranged by Sophia, ii.
    53, 59, 60;
   salvation only attainable through, ii. 56;
   body of, contains parts from all three worlds, ii. 59;
   Christos and Sophia descend into, ii. 60;
   teaches on earth for 18 months after Resurrection, _ibid._;
   in Naassene psalm, brings mysteries to earth, ii. 62, 63, 65;
   abandons earthly body at Ascension, ii. 65;
   the True Gate, ii. 73 _n._ 3;
   identified with great god of Greek Mysteries, ii. 82

 Jesus, the Valentinian, the Joint Fruit of Pleroma and Great High
    Priest, ii. 106, 159;
   spouse of Sophia Without, ii. 106, 113, 114;
   matter made through, ii. 107;
   transforms passions of Sophia Without, _ibid._;
   a third deity sent for salvation of psychics, ii. 113-115;
   Valentinians disagree as to body of, ii. 115 _n._ 2, 116, 119;
   earthly actions of, mere symbols, ii. 124;
   never called Lord, ii. 136 _n._ 2, 180 _n._ 3;
   name of, includes Pleroma, ii. 166 _n._ 2

 Jesus, the, of the _Pistis Sophia_, finds rulers of stars devouring
    their own matter, i. 196 _n._ 1; ii. 154;
   one with his disciples, ii. 80, 164;
   teaches on earth for 11 years after Crucifixion, ii. 135;
   his ascent into firmament and return, ii. 136;
   describes births of Himself, St John Baptist, and Apostles, ii.
      137-139;
   address of powers to, ii. 139-143;
   the First Mystery, ii. 144, 159, 161, 171;
   other powers His members, ii. 145;
   rule of, during Millennium, ii. 146, 164, 171;
   body of, comes from Barbelo, ii. 151;
   shortens times for elect’s sake, ii. 155;
   defeats Pistis Sophia’s enemies and takes her from Chaos, ii. 156;
   words of, recorded by Philip, Thomas, and Matthew, ii. 157;
   brings mysteries to earth for man’s salvation, ii. 158;
   all worlds made through, ii. 161, 162;
   the victim in the Eucharist, ii. 171, 172

 Jesus, the, of the _Texts of the Saviour_, called Aberamenthô, i. 102
    _n._ 1;
   repeats words of Basilides, ii. 92 _n._ 3, 189;
   his magical invocation of his father, ii. 180;
   shows Middle Way and its tortures, ii. 182;
   celebrates thaumaturgic sacrament, ii. 183;
   merely a mystagogue, ii. 198;
   appeals to fears and cupidity of disciples, _ibid._

 Jesus, the, of the Bruce Papyrus, celebrates thaumaturgic sacraments,
    ii. 193;
   teaches on earth for 12 years after Crucifixion, _ibid._;
   merely a mystagogue, ii. 198

 Jesus, the, of Marcion, son of Supreme Being, but not of Mary, ii. 208,
    210;
   Paul only real apostle of, 209, 211;
   slain with connivance of Demiurge, ii. 210;
   Docetic view as to body of, ii. 211;
   Marcionites differ as to body of, ii. 219;
     and as to His nature, ii. 220

 Jesus, the, of Manichaeism, Saviour sent to Adam, ii. 303;
   maker of Great Wheel, ii. 306;
   sent for man’s salvation and relief of Omophorus, _ibid._;
   the Tree of Knowledge in Paradise, ii. 307;
   messenger of God like Zoroaster, Buddha, and Mani, ii. 316;
   Docetic view as to body of, ii. 318;
   _J. Patibilis_ is the soul diffused through nature, ii. 318;
   perhaps equated with Virgin of Light in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323 _n._
      4, 330;
   rôle in same of him and of the Burkhans or Buddhas, ii. 330;
   Son of First Man, ii. 339 _n._ 3


 Jeû, in _Pistis Sophia_, the First Man and arranger of the Cosmos i.
    lxi;
   takes power from the last Purastates, ii. 146 _n._ 3, 164;
   the overseer of the Light, ii. 147;
   Father of Sabaoth the Good, ii. 149;
   in Texts of Saviour, binds rebellious aeons in sphere, ii. 152 _n._
      1;
   transfers repentant aeons to places between the Middle and Left, ii.
      182;
   binds power from Pistis Sophia in planet Venus, ii. 186;
   in Bruce Papyrus appears with Melchisidek and other powers, _ibid._
      186;
   he and his followers arranged in similar order to higher powers, ii.
      191 _n._ 2;
   called the Great Man, King of the Aeon, ii. 193

 _Jeu, the Books of_, written by Enoch in Paradise, ii. 147 _n._ 5;
   seals and defences for inferior initiates said to be described in,
      ii. 165;
   mysteries of the Light described in, ii. 173;
   Schmidt’s theory that these are included in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 190;
   this theory refuted, ii. 190-194

 Jevons, Dr F. B., his Hartford Lecture quoted, i. liv


 Jews, the, their division into three sects, i. lv, 151;
   their sacred books translated into Greek, _post_ Alexander, i. 9;
   their resistance to Antiochus Epiphanes, i. 51;
   their pronounced monotheism, i. 89, 149;
   the magicians of the poorer classes in Rome, i. 108;
   their Sabbath influenced by astrological ideas, i. 117;
   only clergy, paupers and fanatics among, return from Captivity, i.
      149 _n._ 2, 172;
   their critical position _post_ Alexander, i. 150;
   conquered by Ptolemy Soter, go over later to Antiochus the Great, i.
      151;
   Old Testament made familiar to, by Septuagint, i. 157;
   their belief in power of name, i. 158; ii. 33;
   Messianic hopes of, and their result, i. 159-163;
   Apocrypha inspired by same, i. 163-167;
   fanaticism of Palestinian, i. 172;
   Jews of Dispersion inclined to compromise with Hellenism, i. 173;
   secret Hellenizing among, i. 175; ii. 32;
   their hatred of Samaritans, i. 177;
   astrolatry of, before Captivity, i. 186 _n._ 2;
   Simon Magus’ doctrines appeal to, i. 202;
   first Christians regarded as, ii. 4;
   unpopularity of, leads to Christian separation from, ii. 5;
   their influence on Gnosticism doubtful, ii. 9;
   accused by Church of filthy rites, ii. 18;
   privileges of, under Diadochi, ii. 28;
   their influence on Anatolian religion, ii. 31;
   Oriental, given to magic, ii. 33;
   Anatolian, bring method of exegesis from Babylon, ii. 34, 35;
   Egyptian, give male and female assessor to Yahweh, ii. 43 _n._ 2;
   unpopularity of, in Rome, _temp._ Hadrian, ii. 203, 204;
   Marcion’s dislike of, ii. 210, 211;
   Hemerobaptists’ dislike of, ii. 305;
   Manes’ dislike of, ii. 315.
   _See_ Cabala, Demiurge, Jaldabaoth, Yahweh of Israel

 Job, all apocrypha of, said to be Essene (Kohler), ii. 153 _n._ 4, 163


 Joel, the Prophet, shows hatred of Jews for Gentiles, i. 167 _n._ 4

 John Baptist, St, said to be Essene, i. 156;
   Simon Magus follower of (_Clementines_), i. 179; ii. 6 _n._ 4;
   birth of, _ap._ Ophites, ii. 53;
   _ap. Pistis Sophia_, ii. 137:
   body of, contains soul of Elijah (_P.S._), ii. 137, 149, 150.
   _See_ Elizabeth, Hemerobaptists

 John the Divine, St, Cerinthus, traditional opponent of, ii. 9 _n._ 1;
   pre-eminent place of, in next world, ii. 164;
   speaks of repentant aeons (_P.S._), ii. 182 _n._ 2.
   _See_ _Apocalypse_, Gospel, the Fourth, Millennium

 Jôk, Supreme Being of the Shilluks, ii. 39 _n._ 5

 Josephus, quoted, i. lv _n._ 2, 151, 152 _n._ 2, 153, 154, 155, 163
    _n._ 1, 168 _n._ 2, 170, 177; ii. 4 _n._ 3, 5 _n._ 3, 28, 85 _n._ 3,
    278 _n._ 1, 315 _n._ 1

 Jovian, the Emperor, not a persecutor, ii. 270

 Judaism, never a rival of Christianity, i. lv;
   not a world-religion, i. lvi;
   entry of astrological ideas into, i. 117;
   Samaritans retain little of, i. 177;
   resemblance between it and Zoroastrianism (Cheyne), i. 181 _n._ 1;
   attempts to reconcile it with Hellenic culture, i. 200;
   Gentiles ignore Christianity while still a branch of, ii. 21;
   Saturninus’ hatred of, ii. 89;
   approach of Mithraism to, ii. 277

 Judas Iscariot, in _Pistis Sophia_ apparently receives super-excellent
    soul, ii. 137 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Matthias

 Julian, the Emperor, thinks Alexandrians worship Serapis in his time,
    i. 82 _n._ 2, 83;
   notes hatred of Christian sects for each other, ii. 11;
   authority for religion of Mithras, ii. 236;
   his eclecticism, ii. 269;
   Mithraism revives temporarily under, ii. 271;
   favours Manichaeism, ii. 356


 Juno, the goddess, identified with Isis, i. 56;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.
   _See_ Hera


 Jupiter, the god, image of Simon Magus worshipped as, i. 198;
   Varuna his prototype, ii. 231;
   identified with Ormuzd, ii. 237;
   on Mithraic monument presides over assembly of gods, ii. 238;
   invoked as superior of Mithras, _ibid._;
   Jupiter Optimus Maximus not called Ormuzd, ii. 239;
     but probably his Roman equivalent, ii. 240, 248, 277

 Jupiter, the planet, god of good winds to Babylonians, i. 113;
   its place in astrology, i. 116, 118 _n._ 1;
   one of Ophites’ seven heavens, ii. 48, 73 _n._ 1;
   ruler of lesser astral powers in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 182

 Justin Martyr, celebration of Eucharist simple, _temp._, i. 87 _n._ 1;
   finds hidden meanings in Pentateuch and name of Christ, i. 170 _n._
      5;
   makes Simon the heresiarch Simon Magus of Acts, i. 179 _n._ 5;
   says Simon tells followers he will never die, i. 192 _n._ 2;
   authority for Menander’s succession to Simon Magus, i. 199 _n._ 7;
   Tatian a disciple of, ii. 8 _n._ 3, 220;
   his _dictum_ on Real Presence, ii. 172;
   his date, _ibid._;
   his Apologies, ii. 203, 204 _n._ 1;
   thinks his contemporary Marcion most formidable enemy of Church, ii.
      205, 216 _n._ 3;
   says devils set on Mithraists to imitate Church’s sacraments, ii.
      247;
   quoted, i. 170 n. 5, 192 n. 2, ii. 18 n. 2, 122 _n._ 1, 205, 216 _n._
      3, 247

 Justinian I, the Emperor, makes laws against Ophites, ii. 77;
   and against Manichaeans, ii. 356

 Justinus the heresiarch, teaches system resembling Ophites’, ii. 77;
   his symbolical use of story from Herodotus, ii. 81

 Juvenal, satirizes Alexandrian religion, i. 20, 54;
   describes finding of Osiris, i. 70.


 Karossa, alleged name of Manes’ mother, ii. 279


 Kashgar, limit of Persian Empire, i. 1;
   Bar Khôni’s bishopric, ii. 321


 Kenyon, Sir Frederic, gives story of Ptolemy son of Glaucias, i. 79,
    80;
   doubts identification of Serapis and Esculapius, i. 87 _n._ 2;
   thinks relative age of Peshitto version still undecided, ii. 84 _n._
      2;
   quoted, i. 56 _n._ 2, 80 _n._ 1, 87 _n._ 2, 93 _n._ 3, 98 _n._ 1, 142
      _n._ 1, 169 _n._ 2; ii. 34 _n._ 3, 84 _nn._ 2, 3

 Kerasmos, the, or Confusion, in _Pistis Sophia_ name given to mixture
    of Light and Matter, ii. 147, 164, 174, 292 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Jeû

 Kern, Prof. Otto, quoted, i. 141 _n._ 4

 Kesbeêl, the “number” of, i. 169

 Kessler, Dr Konrad, thinks Mughtasilah a source of Manes’ doctrine, ii.
    305;
   his _Mani_ quoted, ii. 280, 281 _nn._ 1, 3, 6, 282 _n._ 1, 285 _n._
      2, 286 _nn._ 3, 5, 288 _n._ 2, 289 _n._ 2, 290 _n._ 3, 291 _n._ 1,
      292 _n._ 1, 294 _n._ 1, 295 _nn._ 1, 2, 296 _n._ 1, 299 _nn._ 2,
      3, 302 _n._ 1, 304 _n._ 1, 305 _n._ 2, 310 _n._ 1, 312 _n._ 2, 313
      _n._ 1, 314 _n._ 2, 316 _n._ 1, 322 _n._ 1, 350 _nn._ 4, 5, 6

 Khasekhmui, King of Egypt, makes peace between factions of Horus and
    Set, i. 36


 Khent-Amentit, the god, absorbed in Osiris, i. 33

 Khepera, the god, mankind comes from tears of, i. 126 _n._ 3

 Khojend, probable site of Alexandria _eschata_, i. 5 _n._ 3

 Khonsu, the god, story of the Possessed Princess and, i. 10

 Khorassan, Alexander’s fame preserved in, in XVIIth cent., i. 14 _n._ 2

 Khormizta or Khormuzta. _See_ Ormuzd

 Khrostag and Padvaktag, ii. 354, 355.
   _See_ Appellant and Respondent

 Khshathra Vairya or Right Law, the Amshaspand, i. 181 _n._ 1;
   set over metals, ii. 301

 _Khuastuanift_, the, confession-prayer of Manichaeans, ii. 288 _n._ 3;
   its discovery, ii. 334;
   quoted with commentary, 335-346

 Khumbaba, King of Elam, his name perhaps reappears in Manichaeism, ii.
    287 _n._ 4.
   _See_ Hummama

 King, C. W., thinks strings of vowels in Magic Papyri cover name of
    Jehovah, i. 103 _n._ 2;
   his translation of names of Simon’s “Roots,” i. 180 _n._ 4

 Kios in Bithynia, inscription identifying Serapis and Zeus, i. 55 _n._
    3

 Kohler, Dr, his views on Essene literature, i. 153 _n._ 4;
   sees Cabala in Philo, i. 157

 _Koran_, the, plenary inspiration of, i. liii;
   connection of, with teaching of Simon Magus, i. 201

 Kronos, the god, in Homeric myths successor of Uranos, i. 46;
   called in Orphic hymns Son of Earth and Heaven, i. 132 _n._ 1;
   age of, in Orphic myths, i. 186

 Krotzenburg, Mithraic monuments at, ii. 245 n. 4

 Kubrik or Corbicius, name given to Manes by Christians, ii. 279

 Kuner Valley, the, cattle of, said to be sent by Alexander to
    Macedonia, i. 4 _n._ 1



 Labrys or Double Axe, suggested explanation of its symbolism, ii. 67
    _n._ 3

 Lactantius, quoted, i. 70, 143 _n._ 4; ii. 157 _n._ 2, 228

 Lafaye, M. Georges, his views on Herculaneum frescoes, i. 68, 69;
   and on Mithraic fragment in Magic Papyrus, ii. 255, 256;
   quoted, i. 48 _n._ 2, 49 _n._ 2, 50 _n._ 1, 52 _n._ 4, 53 _nn._ 1-6,
      54 _n._ 2, 55 _n._ 3, 67 _n._ 3, 68, 69, 70 _n._ 6, 71 _n._ 1, 73
      _n._ 2, 79 _nn._ 1-3, 88 _n._ 1; ii. 255, 266


 Lairbenos, name of Sabazius in Phrygia, ii. 67 _n._ 3

 Lampridius, says Commodus on initiation into Mithraism commits real
    murder, ii. 262

 Langdon, Dr Stephen, new Creation Tablet, i. lxiii _n._ 1

 Lecoq, Prof. A. von, his expedition to Turfan, ii. 316;
   quoted, ii. 316 _n._ 3, 332 _n._ 2, 334 _n._ 2, 335 _n._ 1, 339 _n._
      1, 342, 343 _n._ 2, 344 _n._ 1, 349 _n._ 2, 357 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Grunwedel

 Lenormant, François, his identification of Dionysos with Iacchos, i.
    130 _n._ 2

 Leo the Zodiacal sign, in magical ceremony, i. 98

 Leo the Isaurian, the Emperor, enlists Manichaeans in Imperial armies,
    ii. 357

 Leto, the goddess, identified with Demeter in Asia Minor, ii. 67 _n._ 3

 Leucius, author of Manichaean apocrypha, ii. 351

 Leviathan, in Diagram perhaps equivalent to Ophiomorphus, ii. 70, 77

 Lévy, Isidore M., his work on Serapis, i. 48

 Libanus, in Enochian literature, northern frontier of Palestine, i. 165

 Light, shed by Ophite Father-and-Son on Holy Spirit, ii. 42, 44;
   the Primordial, of Ophites, ii. 46;
   taken from Ialdabaoth to make protoplasts, ii. 51;
   redemption of, from matter (Naassene writer), ii. 58, 59, 61, 64, 65;
   in _Pistis Sophia_ years of, equal to days, ii. 164;
   in _Pistis Sophia_ term equivalent to divine, ii. 143, 146, 148, 153,
      154, 156, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 173, 175 _n._ 1, 191 _n._ 2;
     and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193;
   the heavenly in Persian religion, ii. 231;
   name of Ormuzd, ii. 234, 236 _n._ 4;
   in Manichaeism, name of god of goodness, ii. 287, 289;
   its realm described, ii. 290;
   how mixed with Darkness, ii. 294, 295, 335;
   redemption of, 296, 297, 336, 339;
   Faustus’ account of three worlds of, ii. 319;
   in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 321, 324;
   powers of, described, ii. 325-328;
   praises sung to, ii. 331;
   redeemed through food eaten by elect, ii. 343, 346.
   _See_ Adamas

 Light, the Great, in _Pistis Sophia_, Legate of the Ineffable One, ii.
    141, 164


 Linus, explains mysteries and is a source of doctrines of Sethians, i.
    175

 Lion-headed god of Mithraea, described, ii. 251-253;
   represents Ahriman, ii. 254;
   his place, ii. 255, 256

 Livy, quoted, i. 6 _n._ 5, 41 _n._ 3

 Lobeck, his _Aglaophamus_ quoted, i. 121 _n._ 1, 127 _n._ 2

 Loeb, Isidore, attributes Babylonian origin to Jewish Cabala, ii. 35,
    36

 Logos, in Philo chief and source of all powers of God, i. 174;
   not God, but his reflection, i. 180 _n._ 3;
   member of 2nd Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98;
   parent of Dodecad, ii. 101, 102;
   Jesus also called the, by Valentinus, ii. 110 _n._ 1

 Loret, M. Victor, says earliest Egyptian gods totemistic, i. 37 _n._ 2

 Love. _See_ Agape, Eros


 Loyola, Ignatius, compelling power of prayer of, i. 94

 Lucian the Marcionite, Marcion’s successor at one or two removes, ii.
    218 _n._ 2;
   his teaching, ii. 220

 Lucian of Samosata, his story of Alexander of Abonoteichos, i. 24, 199,
    202; ii. 128;
   quoted, i. 24, 199; ii. 30 _n._ 3, 31, 40 _n._ 1, 45 _n._ 1, 300 _n._
      2

 Lucius, hero of the _Golden Ass_, apparition of Isis to, i. 56;
   his prayer to Isis, i. 57, 58;
   promise of Isis’ protection in next world to, i. 59, 60;
   his first initiation into Mysteries, i. 62, 63;
   his second and third, i. 64;
   his adoration of statue of Isis, i. 67;
   his monotheistic conception of her, i. 75;
   his complete devotion to her service, i. 83;
   his metamorphosis by ointment, i. 101 _n._ 2

 Lucius, German theological writer, quoted, i. 156 _n._ 1

 Lucius Septimius, freedman of Caesar and Mithraist Court chaplain, ii.
    268

 Luebbert, his work on Pindaric doctrine of transmigration, quoted, i.
    127 _n._ 3

 Luther, Martin, as reformer and founder of sect, i. 54; ii. 19, 199
    _n._ 3

 Lyall, Sir Alfred, his _dictum_ on magic and religion, i. 94;
   open dealing of Indian sorcerers, i. 99 _n._ 1

 Lycomidae, the, hereditary priests of Eleusis, i. 76;
   sing hymns of Orpheus in Mysteries, i. 141 _n._ 2;
   Pausanias reads their hymns to Eros, ii. 210 _n._ 1

 Lydia, name of Mother of Gods in, ii. 40, 45 _n._ 1

 Lysimachus, King of Thrace, his wars in Phrygia, ii. 29



 Ma, the goddess, Lydian equivalent of Demeter, i. 126;
   Lydian name of Mother of Gods, ii. 40

 Macaria or Blessedness, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

 Macariotes, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

 Macaulay, Lord, his simile as to religions borrowing from their rivals,
    i. 84

 Macedonia, its distance from Karachi, i. 4;
   temples to Alexandrian gods in, i. 53

 Macedonians, inhabitants of Thrace called, i. 136;
   term used for subjects of Syrian Empire, i. 177

 Macrinus, the Emperor, buys off Persians, ii. 226

 Macrobius, quoted, i. 48 _n._ 1, 49 _n._ 1, 52, 55 _n._ 1, 118

 Macrocosm and Microcosm, possible origin of theory, ii. 51 _n._ 1;
   in Cabala, Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, ii. 308 _n._ 1;
   mentioned by name in Tun-huang MS., ii. 353

 Maenads, the, reproduce rites of savage Thracians, i. 136

 Magas, King of Cyrene, Asoka’s mission to, i. 20


 Magi, the, Simon Magus’ system said to be derived from (Franck), i.
    197;
   Mithraism derived from religion of (Cumont), ii. 232, 275;
   tribe of Medes defeated by Darius Hystaspes, ii. 233, 286;
   priestly caste among Persians, _temp._ Herodotus, ii. 234;
   religion of, described, _ibid._;
   called Magusaeans by Theodore of Mopsuestia, ii. 237;
   sacrifice to Ahriman, ii. 239;
   relations of Manes with, ii. 280;
   his most bitter opponents, ii. 280, 281, 282;
   power of, declines under Parthians, ii. 283;
   is restored by Ardeshîr, ii. 284

 Magic, its practice by Greek confraternities, i. 23;
   words used in, generally taken from dying religions, i. 87, 92;
   relations between religion and, i. 91;
   practice of, increases as religion decays, i. 92;
   never entirely separated from religion, i. 93;
   prayer in, used to show knowledge, i. 95;
   leads to manufacture of theogonies, cosmogonies, etc., i. 96, 97;
   ceremonial magic described, i. 97;
   examples of spells used in, i. 98-107;
   spread of, in Rome and Asia Minor under Empire, i. 108;
   phenomena of, partly hypnotic, i. 109;
   diffusion of, leads to Gnosticism, i. 110;
   Egyptian Gnosticism reverts to, i. 111; ii. 199;
   astrology connected with, in practice, i. 113;
   effect of astrology upon, i. 117, 118;
   magical ideas in Orphism, i. 128;
   Orphics’ magical theory of initiation, i. 131-134, 139;
   magical practices of Orpheotelestae, i. 140, 146;
   Essenes probably practised, i. 158;
     so Simon Magus and his successors, i. 176, 198, 202;
   Gnostic secrecy due to magical ideas, ii. 18;
   Phrygian Jews much addicted to, ii. 33, 34;
   salvation through magical effect of Ophite initiation, ii. 56;
   Marcus’ magical sacraments, ii. 129;
   practice of, condemned in _Pistis Sophia_ but taught in _Texts of
      Saviour_, ii. 180, 183, 185;
   and in Papyrus Bruce, ii. 192, 193, 195;
   common among Coptic monks, ii. 201;
   word derived from Magi, ii. 233, 275;
   religion of Magi apt to degenerate into, ii. 235;
   Ahriman of Magi compellable by, ii. 239;
   practice of, by Mithraists doubtful, ii. 275;
   expressly condemned by Mithraist Emperors, _ibid._;
     and by Zend Avesta and Manichaeism, ii. 275 _n._ 2;
   its connection with worship of Hecate, ii. 276;
   its appearance in Mandaite story of protoplasts, ii. 304;
   condemned by Manes and his successors, ii. 313, 314, 342

 Magic Papyri, in European Museums enumerated, i. 93 _n._ 3; ii. 34;
   described, i. 97;
   examples of spells from, i. 98-107;
   probably written in good faith, i. 109;
   names in Diagram like those in, ii. 71;
   name of Seth in, ii. 76 _n._ 4;
   acrostics in, ii. 84;
   name of Maskelli in, ii. 148 _n._ 3;
   Egyptian words in, ii. 180;
   mediaeval _grimoires_ copied from, ii. 186 _n._ 3;
   Mithraic fragment in, ii. 267

 Magophonia, the Persian festival of, ii. 233

 Magusaeans, the, mentioned by Theodore of Mopsuestia, probably Magi,
    ii. 237

 Mahaffy, Dr J. P., thinks Alexandria not the natural centre of trade
    between East and West, i. 28 _n._ 1;
   compares Dynasts of Asia Minor to mediaeval bishops and abbots, ii.
      29;
   quoted, i. 6 _n._ 5, 28 _n._ 1, 44 _n._ 2, 45 _n._ 1, 49 _n._ 2, 52
      _n._ 1, 150 _n._ 2, 173 _nn._ 1, 2; ii. 29 _nn._ 2, 3, 4

 Malays, magic of, mainly taken from Arabs, i. 92

 Mallet, D., quoted, i. 181 _n._ 2; ii. 92 _n._ 1, 175 _n._ 4


 Man, the First, in _Pistis Sophia_, Zoroastrianism, and Manichaeism, i.
    lxi;
   legend of, possibly Sumerian in origin, i. lxiii _n._ 1;
   Ophites call their second god by this name, ii. 38;
   wide spread of legend of, ii. 38 _n._ 3;
   the Father of all, ii. 51;
   invoked by Holy Spirit to send Christos to Sophia, ii. 59;
   hymns to, sung by Ophites, ii. 61;
   name of Jeû in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 147 _n._ 5;
   Pistis Sophia delivered after seven prayers like Manichaean, ii. 156
      _n._ 1;
   First Mystery of _Pistis Sophia_ compared to Ophite, ii. 158;
   name of Jeû in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193;
   in Manichaeism, ii. 292, 293 _n._ 1;
   his defeat by Satan, ii. 294;
   delivered by Friend of the Lights, ii. 294, 295 _n._ 1;
   his armour called the soul, ii. 298 _n._ 2;
   Adam and Eve made after image of, ii. 299;
   sends Saviour to Adam and Eve, ii. 300, 302, 303;
   son of Ahura Mazda by Spenta Armaiti, ii. 300 _n._ 2;
   Bar Khôni’s account of, ii. 302 _n._ 1;
   magic circle with name of, ii. 304;
   his light forms souls of man, beasts, birds, etc., ii. 307;
   sends Wise Guide to Manichaean Perfect at death, ii. 309;
   Jesus comes forth from, _ap._ Manes, ii. 318;
   Third Person of Manichaean Trinity, ii. 319 _n._ 1;
   in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323.
   _See_ Gayômort, Ormuzd

 Mandaites, the, or Disciples of St John, possible source of Manichaean
    stories of protoplasts, ii. 305;
   their hatred of Christians, Jews, and Mahommedans, _ibid._
   _See_ Hemerobaptists, Mughtasilah

 Manes or Mânî, the heresiarch, aims of religion of, i. lviii;
   uncompromising dualism of, ii. 221, 277, 289;
   life and death of, ii. 279-281;
   his connection with Bardesanes, ii. 280 _n._ 7, 283;
   heresy of, followed by that of Mazdak, ii. 284;
   originality of doctrines of, discussed, ii. 285-287, 289;
   his two principles, ii. 287-290;
   said to have been one of the Mughtasilah, ii. 305;
   his hatred of Jews and their Law, ii. 315;
   his epistle to Marcellus, ii. 317, 318;
   his gospel and other writings, ii. 350.
   _See_ Manichaeans, Manichaeism, Thibet


 Manetho, writes his Egyptian history in Greek, i. 9;
   entrusted by Ptolemy with foundation of Alexandrian religion, i. 44;
   said to have taught astrology to Greeks, i. 78


 Manichaeans, the, confusion with Ophites possible, i. lx;
   Orphic prohibitions observed by, i. 128 _n._ 1;
   heavens made from evil powers according to, ii. 44 _n._ 3;
   their King of Glory compared to Melchizidek of _P.S._, ii. 148 _n._
      3;
   influence of, perhaps perceptible in later documents of _Pistis
      Sophia_, ii. 152 _n._ 1;
   divide day into 12 hours, not 24, ii. 152 _n._ 2;
   Languedoc perfects may eat only fish, ii. 153 _n._ 1;
   hearers of Languedoc put off baptism till deathbed, ii. 168 _n._ 6;
   oligarchy in Church the aim of, ii. 175 _n._ 2;
   their relations with Marcionites, ii. 221, 222;
   and with Mandaites, ii. 305;
   their division of everything into five categories, ii. 312, 323
      _sqq._;
   duties of Hearer among, ii. 314;
   secret script of, ii. 317;
   pretend Trinitarian views among Christians, ii. 319;
   take symbolical view of Crucifixion, ii. 320;
   hymns of, ii. 333;
   Churches of, ii. 347, 349;
   Apocrypha of, ii. 351;
   Imperial laws against, ii. 356


 Manichaeism, prominence of First Man in, i. lxi;
   and of Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   Virgin of Light in, ii. 137 _n._ 3;
   like Avesta, condemns magic, ii. 275 _n._ 2;
   contrasted with Mithraism, ii. 277, 278;
   opposed to Judaism, ii. 278;
   first rebellion against Ardeshîr’s religious reform, ii. 284, 285;
   owes little to Egypt or Buddhism, ii. 286;
   simplicity of teaching of, ii. 287;
   its quinary system, ii. 290, 291, 330;
   its cosmology like that of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 295 _n._ 1, 296 _n._
      1;
   its androgyne virgin, ii. 298, 299 _n._ 1, 328, 329;
   its system of transmigration, ii. 308;
   teaches eternal punishment, ii. 309;
   its Ten Commandments, ii. 314, 341, 342;
   its _Burkhans_ or Messengers, ii. 336;
   its fasts and alms, ii. 314, 344-347;
   Constantine’s enquiry into, ii. 356;
   favoured by Julian and the philosophers, _ibid._;
   ends with Albigenses, ii. 357

 Marathon, Iacchos-song heard before Battle of, i. 65 _n._ 6. _See_
    Callias


 Marcion, the heresiarch, groundless accusations of immorality against,
    i. 179 _n._ 2; ii. 206;
   differs from other Gnostics as to aeons, i. 187 _n._ 2;
   accusation of ambition against, ii. 8 _n._ 3;
   native of Pontus, ii. 9, 204;
   his followers alter his doctrines (Tertullian), ii. 27, 216, 217;
   ignores Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1, 214;
   contemporary of Valentinus, ii. 134 _n._ 1;
   his life and date, ii. 204, 205;
   his relations with Stoics, _ibid._;
   wide-spread and longevity of heresy of, ii. 205, 206, 216;
   compared to Luther, ii. 207, 208;
   his alterations of Scripture, ii. 208, 209;
   his _Antitheses_, ii. 209, 213, 223;
   his Supreme Being, ii. 210;
   his Docetism, ii. 210, 211;
   his Demiurge the God of the Jews, ii. 211;
   his dislike of Judaism, 211, 212;
   his rejection of allegory, ii. 213;
   original nature of his teaching, ii. 214;
   anticipation of Protestant doctrines and practices, ii. 215, 216;
   his views as to matter, ii. 217;
   his influence on Church slight, ii. 222;
   Manes acquainted with his tenets, ii. 280, 283

 Marcionites, the, endure till Xth cent., ii. 206;
   their practices, ii. 207;
   golden age of, last half of IInd cent., ii. 216;
   their divisions, ii. 216, 217;
   their relations with Manichaeism, ii. 221, 222


 Marcus, the heresiarch, his Cabalisms, i. 171 _n._ 1; ii. 9 _n._ 1,
    129;
   accusations of immorality against, i. 179 _n._ 2; ii. 9 _n._ 1, 99,
      128;
   his conjuring tricks, i. 202; ii. 129, 183 _n._ 1;
   a Jew, ii. 9 _n._ 1;
   his supposed companion Colarbasus, ii. 20 _n._ 1;
   a Valentinian (Irenaeus), ii. 99, 128;
   his life and practices, ii. 128, 129;
   possible connection of, with _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 187-189;
   and with Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193

 Marcus Aurelius, the Emperor, Alexander of Abonoteichos at Court of, i.
    24; ii. 202;
   his generals’ victories over Persians, ii. 225, 226.
   _See_ Avidius Cassius


 Marcus Volusius, the aedile, his escape in dress of priest of Isis, i.
    53

 Marduk, the god, called by number 50, ii. 35 _n._ 4;
   name of, ineffable, ii. 37 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Bel, Merodach

 Mariamne, sister of Philip the Apostle, source of Ophite tradition
    (Hippolytus), ii. 26;
   mentioned in _Acta Philippi_, ii. 26 _n._ 2;
   a sect named after her, _ibid._

 Marks, the Five, the mystery of, in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 141

 Marriage, rejected by Orphics, i. 128;
   and by Essenes, i. 152;
   admitted by Simon Magus, i. 196, 202;
   rejected by Ophites, ii. 79, 80;
     and by Saturninus, ii. 89;
   admitted by Valentinus, ii. 129;
   rejected by _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 174;
     by Marcion, ii. 207, 215;
     by certain Mithraists, ii. 260;
     by Manichaean Elect, ii. 313

 Mars, the god, why identified with Ares, i. 17;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238;
   devotion of Julian to, ii. 269.
   _See_ Ares

 Mars, the planet, presides over a seventh part of terrestrial things,
    i. 116;
   a malefic in astrology, i. 118 _n._ 1;
   one of the seven heavens of Ophites, ii. 48, 74 _n._ 2;
   a ruler of the sidereal world in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 182.
   _See_ Correspondences

 Martha, the sister of Mary, interlocutor of Jesus in _Pistis Sophia_,
    ii. 157

 Martial, the poet, quoted, i. 54, 66, 67


 Martyrs, position of, in Primitive Church, i. 145 _n._ 1; ii. 126, 127;
   distinguished from confessors, ii. 117 _n._ 4

 Mary Magdalene, St, in _Pistis Sophia_ made after likeness of seven
    virgins of light, ii. 150;
   chief interlocutor of Jesus in _P.S._, ii. 157;
   her pre-eminent rank in next world, ii. 164.
   _See_ Millennium

 Mary, the Virgin, statues of Isis re-used for, i. 85;
   her worship like that of Isis, i. 61, 62, 84, 85, 88;
   birth of Jesus from, due to Sophia _ap._ Ophites, ii. 53, 59;
   Sophia descends into, _ap._ Valentines, ii. 115;
   in _Pistis Sophia_ Jesus speaks to, in likeness of Gabriel, ii. 138;
   made after likeness of seven virgins of light, ii. 150;
   interlocutor of Jesus in, ii. 157;
   suggested origin of worship of, by Church, ii. 158;
   Gnostics call her Mother of Life, ii. 300 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Theotokos

 _Mary, The Interrogations of_, attempted identification of _Pistis
    Sophia_ with, ii. 157

 Masbotheans, early sect mentioned by Hegesippus, ii. 6 _n._ 4

 Maskelli, a ruler of demons in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 75 _n._ 1;
   and in Magic Papyri, ii. 148 _n._ 3


 Maspero, Sir Gaston, says Alexander’s deification common form in Egypt,
    i. 18;
   thinks Apuat originally only assessor of Osiris, i. 33 _n._ 2;
   doubts existence of mysteries in Pharaonic Egypt, i. 60 _n._ 5;
   Nu originally the Celestial Ocean, i. 73 _n._ 4; ii. 36, 175;
   would identify Ostanes with Thoth, i. 108 _n._ 1;
   Egyptian belief in three worlds reflecting one another, i. 197;
   Egyptian Ennead varies in number, ii. 92, 176 _n._ 1;
   no Egyptian spell without amulet, ii, 168 _n._ 1;
   says Osirian beliefs reproduced in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 175 _n._ 4;
   life in next world confined to privileged few in Egypt, ii. 198 _n._
      1;
   quoted, i. lxi _n._ 3, 2 _n._ 3, 3 _nn._ 3, 4, 10 _n._ 3, 18 _n._ 3,
      32 _n._ 2, 35 _n._ 1, 57 _n._ 3, 60 _n._ 5, 63 _nn._ 3, 5, 65 _n._
      1, 73 _n._ 4, 95 _n._ 3, 104 _n._ 3, 108 _n._ 1, 125 _n._ 3, 134
      _n._ 3, 160 _n._ 4, 197; ii. 36 _n._ 3, 48 _n._ 3, 75 _n._ 2, 92
      _n._ 2, 153 _n._ 2, 160 _n._ 1, 168 _n._ 1, 175 _nn._ 4, 6, 176
      _n._ 1, 177 _n._ 2, 184 _n._ 2, 189 _n._ 3, 196 _nn._ 1-5, 197
      _nn._ 1-7, 198 _n._ 1, 201 _n._ 1, 233 _n._ 5

 Matter, Jacques, his reproduction of Ophite Diagram, ii. 68, 70;
   says Basilides’ followers came over to Valentinus, ii. 93;
   dates death of Basilides 135 A.D., ii. 93 _n._ 3;
   quoted, ii. 77 _n._ 2, 88 _n._ 1, 89 _n._ 5, 93 _n._ 3, 130 _n._ 1,
      134 _n._ 4, 208 _n._ 3, 209 _n._ 1, 320 _n._ 3

 Matter, Orphic views as to, i. 128, 147, 148;
   Philo’s, i. 174;
   Simon Magus’, i. 195, 201;
   the Ophites’, ii. 44 _n._ 2, 49;
   the post-Christian Gnostics’, ii. 64;
   Valentinus’, ii. 107, 112 _n._ 2, 113;
   the _Pistis Sophia’s_, ii. 151, 153, 161 _n._ 2;
   _The Texts of the Saviour’s_, ii. 167 _n._ 2;
   Cerdo’s, ii. 205;
   Marcion’s, ii. 210, 217;
   the Mithraists’, ii. 250;
   the Manichaeans’, ii. 294, 346

 Matthew, Saint, the Apostle, one of the three recorders of words of
    Jesus in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 157


 Matthias, the Apostle, Basilides’ doctrines said to be handed down
    from, ii. 90;
   in _Pistis Sophia_ perhaps destined from beginning to supersede
      Judas, ii. 137 _n._ 1

 Maury, L. F. Alfred, thinks Orphic cosmogony taken from Ionian
    philosophers, i. 124;
   quoted, i. 16 _n._ 1, 17 _n._ 1, 21 _n._ 1, 25 _n._ 1, 40 _nn._ 1, 4,
      42 _n._ 1, 46. _n._ 1, 51 _n._ 1, 95 _n._ 4, 123 _n._ 2, 124 _n._
      2, 125 _n._ 3, 135 _nn._ 3, 4, 136 _nn._ 1, 2, 4, 147 _n._ 1, ii.
      275 _n._ 2

 Mazdak, antinomian heresy of, ii. 284

 Mazdeism, its influence on Simon Magus, i. 197;
   Mithraism not derived from, ii. 232;
   opposed to Mithraism, ii. 270.
   _See_ Zoroastrianism

 Medes, angels to, stir them up against Jerusalem (Enoch), i. 161;
   Magi tribe of non-Aryan, ii. 286

 Mediterranean, the, religions of eastern basin of, i. lviii;
   the Dying God of, i. 37, 43 _n._ 3, 123; ii. 16, 29;
   gods of, tend to merge in Serapis, i. 55;
   Orphic legends current in islands of, i. 122;
   religions of eastern, before Orphics, i. 126 _n._ 3;
   god of, always worshipped in mysteries, ii. 17;
   and often bisexual, ii. 29, 97

 Megalopolis in Arcadia, statue of Dionysos with attributes of Zeus at,
    i. 125 _n._ 2

 Megasthenes, his story of gold-digging ants, i. 2 _n._ 1

 Melchizidek, purifier or receiver of the Light in _Pistis Sophia_, ii.
    148, 153;
   receiver of, in _Texts of Saviour_, ii, 148, 186;
   sect of worshippers of, ii. 148 _n._ 1;
   Sun and Moon act as “receivers” of (_P.S._), ii 154;
   placed by last Parastates according to arrangement, ii. 191 _n._ 2

 Melissae or Bees, priestesses of Great Goddess and Demeter so called, i
    143 _n._ 4

 Memphis, religious capital of Egypt after Ethiopian conquest, i. 32;
   Osiris worshipped as bull Apis at, i. 45;
   Greek Serapeum at, divided from native, i. 51;
   Asklepios worshipped at, i. 78 _n._ 2, 87;
   recluse in Serapeum at, i. 79, 80

 Men, the god, in Orphic hymn, i. 139 _n._ 1;
   identified with Attis in Asia Minor, ii. 67 _n._ 3


 Menander, comic poet, notes fashion for Isis-worship in Athens, i. 54

 Menander, the heresiarch, successor of Simon Magus, i. 111, 199;
   Basilides and Saturninus disciples of, ii. 89, 93

 Menant, Mdlle D., quoted, i. lxii _n._ 2; ii. 232 _n._ 4

 Mendes, Osiris worshipped as ram or goat at, i. 45


 Menuthis, medical saints succeed Isis at, i. 86 _n._ 1

 Mercury, the god, why Hermes called, i. 17;
   caduceus of, in procession of Isis, i. 72;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238, 258.
   _See_ Hermes

 Mercury, the planet, presides over category of earthly things, i. 116;
   one of the Ophite heavens, ii. 48;
   the sphere of, in Diagram, ii. 73 _n._ 2;
   ruler of stars in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 182


 Merodach or Marduk, absorbs all gods in himself, i. 15 _n._ 1

 Merv, may be Alexandria Margiana, i. 5 _n._ 3

 Mesopotamia, Mazdeism in, before Homer, i. lxiii;
   Antiochus the Great transports Jews from, into Anatolia, ii. 28;
   Ophites in, ii. 76

 Messenia, worship of Eleusinian triad in, i. 135

 Messiah, Jewish expectation of, i. 164, 165, 166.
   _See_ Barcochebas

 Metricos or Motherly, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

 Metropator, the word, i. 190 _n._ 1


 Michael, the Archangel, he and Gabriel only angels named in O.T., i.
    158;
   in _Book of Enoch_, i. 169;
   in Magic Papyri, ii. 34;
   name of Ophiomorphus among Ophites, ii. 52;
   connected with planet Saturn, ii. 75;
   with Gabriel delivers Pistis Sophia from Chaos, ii. 156.
   _See_ Sammael

 Michar and Micheu, powers set over Waters of Life in Papyrus Bruce, ii.
    192

 Mihr Nerses, conqueror of Armenia for Yezdegerd II, ii. 285, 336 _n._ 1

 Milk, kid bathed in, Orphic password, i. 134


 Millennium, the, in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 164

 Mincopies, the, of Andamans, their compulsion of spirits, i. 93


 Minerva, the goddess, why Athena called, i. 17;
   identified with Isis, i. 56.
   _See_ Athena

 Minucius, Felix, naturalistic explanation of Graeco-Roman pantheon, i.
    lvii _n._ 1;
   makes Osiris son and not spouse of Isis, i. 63 _n._ 5, 70 _n._ 1;
   his _Octavius_ quoted i. 70

 Miracles, of Primitive Church and success of Christianity, i. li; ii.
    361

 Mise, Orphic name of androgyne Dionysos, i. 47, 137 _n._ 1;
   Orphic hymn to, i. 143;
   Persephone called Mise Kore, i. 143 _n._ 1

 Mitannians, the, Mithras worshipped by, i. lxii; ii. 231;
   a branch of Hittites (Winckler), ii. 231 _n._ 2


 Mithraism, its use of the number seven, i. 117;
   its origin, ii. 232;
   its connection with astrology, ii. 235;
   extinct before rise of Zervanism, ii. 236;
   Stoic influence upon, ii, 250, 274;
   half-way house between Paganism and Christianity (Lafaye), ii. 256
      _n._ 3;
   its seven heavens or spheres, ii. 256, 257;
   aims at universal religion, ii. 258, 269;
   its ceremonies, ii. 259-262, 268, 269;
   its degrees of initiation, ii. 262, 263;
   a Pagan Freemasonry (Renan), ii. 264, 269;
   its mystic banquet, ii. 264, 265;
   ritual fragment in Magic Papyrus connected with, ii. 265-267;
   its priesthood, ii. 268;
   its relations with the State, ii. 270, 271;
   its connection with Mazdeism obscure, ii. 270;
   its decline and suppression, ii. 271-274;
   its survivals, ii. 274, 275;
   its use of magic and astrology, ii. 275, 276;
   its contrasts with Manichaeism, ii. 277, 278;
   its attitude towards Judaism, _ibid._


 Mithras, worship of, pre-Christian and ethical, i. xlix _n._ 1;
   most dangerous Pagan rival to Christian Church, i. lxii;
   worshipped by Hittites or Mitannians, i. lxii; ii. 231;
   small beginnings of worship of, in West, i. 24;
   equated with Serapis, i. 56;
   supplants Alexandrian religion in Imperial favour, i. 81;
   devotees of, worship other gods, i. 83; ii. 269;
   identified with Sun (Pliny and Macrobius), i. 118;
   Orphic and Valentinian analogies of banquet of, ii. 111 _n._ 1;
   arrival of worship of, in West, ii. 228, 229;
   monuments of, where found, ii. 230;
   who Mithras was, ii. 230, 231;
   his place in Zend Avesta, ii. 231, 232;
   in Herodotus and Plutarch, ii. 234;
   lost books on, ii. 235, 236;
   Zervanist theory of (Cumont), ii. 236, 237, 252;
   Jupiter O. M. his only superior in pantheon, ii. 238-240;
   his relations with the Sun, ii. 240-241, 243, 244;
   his birth from a rock, ii. 241, 242;
   as the bringer of rain, ii. 242, 243;
   scenes with Bull, ii. 243;
   his alliance with Sun, ii. 243, 244;
   “Mithras my crown” (Tertullian), ii. 245, 263;
   in Tauroctony, ii. 245-247;
   the Banquet, and creation of animals, ii. 247, 248;
   the Demiurge, ii. 248, 249;
   the μεσίτης or Mediator, ii. 249;
   his relations with Ahriman and Hecate, ii. 250-254;
     and with Cybele, ii. 258, 259, 269;
   Taurobolium taken into worship of, ii. 259;
   his relations with Alexandrian religion, ii. 259, 260;
     and with the Mysteries of Eleusis, ii. 260;
     and with Christianity, ii. 261;
   his chapels and rites, ii. 261, 262, 268, 269;
   monotheism of religion of, ii. 273;
   name of, reappears in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 324 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Izeds

 Mithridates, King of Pontus, his temporary power in Asia Minor, ii. 29;
   Sinope his capital, ii. 204;
   reaction towards Persian nationality during his wars with Rome, ii.
      225;
   Magi of Asia Minor his supporters, ii. 229

 Mixis or Mixture, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

 Mohammed or Muhammad, receives Koran from Allah, i. liii;
   religion of, admittedly propagated by human means, i. liv;
   commanding personality of, i. 54;
   his Arabs aim at universal dominion, i. 160

 Mohammedanism, scientific study of, and its results, i. li;
   to Gnostic, merely veil, ii. 18;
   takes its ideas of Christianity from heretics, ii. 283 _n._ 4


 Moira, individual fate or cause of death in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 184

 Monceaux, M. Paul, quoted, i. 121 _n._ 1, 123 _nn._ 2, 4, 125 _n._ 3,
    131 _n._ 4, 137 _n._ 5, 139 _n._ 3


 Monogenes, confusion with μονογέννητος, i. 124 _n._ 3; ii. 15, 98 _n._
    2;
   Bar Coziba called, i. 124 _n._ 1;
   expresses Gnostic conception of nature of Jesus, ii. 15, 16;
   name of Nous, first offspring of Bythos in system of Valentinus, ii.
      98;
   member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101;
   Christ and Holy Spirit put forth by (Irenaeus), ii. 105 _n._ 1

 Monoimus Arabs, the heresiarch, ii. 9;
   uses words found in Naassene or Ophite writer, ii. 41 _n._ 1

 Montanist heresy, the, most formidable to Church save Gnosticism, ii.
    29 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Tertullian

 Moret, M. Alexandre, description of daily rites in Egyptian temples, i.
    66;
   quoted, i. 66 _n._ 1; ii. 139 _n._ 2, 153 _n._ 2, 175 _n._ 5

 Morocco, monuments of Alexandrian religion found in, i. 53


 Moses, the patriarch, religion of, i. liv;
   Law of, broken by magicians, i. 107;
   pseudepigraphical books of, i. 163;
   devotion of Essenes to, i. 168 _n._ 2;
   writings of, not intelligible without mystic insight (Justin Martyr),
      i, 170 _n._ 5;
   adherence of rich Jews of Dispersion to Law of, i. 173;
   reverence of Essenes for, i. 168;
     and of Samaritans, i. 177;
     and of Simon Magus, i. 188;
   divine inspiration claimed for, ii. 15;
   magical book ascribed to, ii. 46 _n._ 3

 _Moses, The Assumption of_, edited by Dr Charles, i. 164;
   comes from Essene School, i. 167 _n._ 6;
   quoted, i. 166, 168 _n._ 1, 170 _n._ 2

 Moses of Chorene, mentions Zervan as equivalent of Shem, i. lx

 Mother of the Gods. _See_ Aphrodite, Atargatis, Cybele, Ishtar, Isis,
    Mother of Life, Ramsay, Sophia


 Mother of Life, the, the Great Goddess of Western Asia, ii. 45 _n._ 1,
    299 _n._ 1, 300 _n._ 2;
   _Mater viventium_, ii. 135 _n._ 3;
   in Manichaeism, ii. 293 _n._ 1, 302 _n._ 1;;
   rescues First Man, ii. 294, 295 _n._ 1;
   forms link with many systems, ii. 300 _n._ 2;
   with other powers sends Jesus to Adam, ii. 303;
   anonymous in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323.
   _See_ Nahnaha

 Moulton, Prof. Hope, his Hibbert Lectures quoted, i. lxii _n._ 2; ii.
    110 _n._ 1, 231 _n._ 1, 258 _n._ 3

 Mount of Olives, the, place of Ascension in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 136,
    139, 146, 157


 Mughtasilah, the, Mandaites, Hemerobaptists or Disciples of St John
    described, ii. 305;
   an extant sect, _ibid._;
   go back to reign of Trajan, _ibid._;
   their hatred of Christians, Jesus, and Mahommedans, _ibid._;
   possible source of some of Manes’ doctrines, _ibid._

 Murray, Prof. Gilbert, his translation of Orphic gold plates quoted, i.
    132, 133

 Musaeus, address to, in Orphic hymns, i. 139 _n._ 1, 142;
   associated with Orpheus, the expounder of Mysteries, i. 175

 Musonius, Rufus, exercises care of souls, ii. 87


 Mycenae, Double Axe in worship of, ii. 67 _n._ 3

 Mystery, the First, the Great Power of the _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 135;
   the origin of all things, ii. 139;
   all other good powers his “names,” ii. 140;
   his “completion” to be fulfilled by Jesus, ii. 143;
   a Twin Mystery, ii. 144;
   Jesus the, looking outwards, ii. 144, 161;
   proceeds from last limb of Ineffable One, ii. 145;
   his “receptacle” or heaven, ii. 146;
   commands Jesus to help Pistis Sophia, ii. 156;
   corresponds to Father-and-Son of Ophites, ii. 158;
   sees to emanation of universe, ii. 161;
   the “mysteries” (_i.e._ sacraments) of, ii. 166, 167, 169, 173, 175
      _n._ 1

 Mysteries of Eleusis. _See_ Dionysos, Demeter, Eleusis, Eumolpidae,
    Foucart, Iacchos, Mithras Persephone



 Naassenes, the, name of early Ophites (Giraud), ii. 26, 74;
   borrow from Simon Magus (Salmon), ii. 41 _n._ 1;
   explanation of name as serpent worshippers, ii. 50;
   their triple nature of soul, ii. 53;
   frequent Mysteries of Great Mother, ii. 58;
   believe in malignity and independence of matter, ii. 64;
   set forth changes of soul in _Gospel of Egyptians_, ii. 65;
   their priests, ii. 66 _n._ 1;
   _Philosophumena_ chief authority for doctrines of, ii. 68;
   the assembly of souls in each world of, ii. 75;
   _Gospel of Egyptians_ only work attributed to (Hippolytus), ii. 79;
   their allegorical interpretation of all literature, ii. 81;
   quote Homer, Pindar etc., ii. 83;
   treat poets as Puritans do Scripture, ii. 85

 Nabonidus, King of Chaldaea, his date for inscription of Sargon of
    Accad, i. 114 _n._ 1


 Nahnaha, name of Manichaean Mother of Life, ii. 300 _n._ 2, 309, 323
    _n._ 4


 Name, of Alexander still famous in East, i. 14;
   Hawk or Horus name of Egyptian kings, i. 36;
   of Dionysos at Eleusis ineffable, i. 47 _n._ 1;
   of Osiris in _Book of Dead_, i. 55;
   many names of Greek Isis, i. 56;
   of Pluto used in magic, i. 99;
     the like of Persephone, i. 100;
   Babylonians use number instead of, i. 100; ii. 35;
   Typhon’s 100 lettered, i. 104;
   carved on scarab and used in spell, i. 106;
   names of angels kept secret by Essenes, i. 157;
   knowledge of, gives power over spirit, i. 158;
   one of Simon Magus’ Roots, i. 180, 183, 185;
   more powerful in magic if meaning forgotten, ii. 33;
   names of Yahweh used by Jewish sorcerers, ii. 34;
   name of Ophite Bythos ineffable, ii. 37;
   instances of ineffable names, ii. 37 _n._ 1;
   meaning of names of Valentinian aeons, ii. 99, 103;
   lesser powers names of First Mystery in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 140,
      144;
   of good powers copied from those of evil in _Texts of Saviour_, ii.
      148 _n._ 3;
   of Dragon of Outer Darkness, ii. 166 _n._ 2;
   mysteries called names of light, ii. 173 _n._ 1;
   names in Jesus’ address to His Father explained, ii. 180 _n._ 4;
   Greek names of God used in mediaeval magic, ii. 186 _n._ 3;
   cryptographic names in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 195;
   of Mithras in Vedas, ii. 230;
     and in Zend Avesta, ii. 231;
   of Supreme God in Mithraism, ii. 236-239;
   of lion-headed god, ii. 252, 253;
   of Manes, Corbicius or Kubrik, ii. 279;
   names of Good and Evil Principles in Manichaeism, ii. 289;
   names of Satan in same, ii. 297, 304;
   of Cross, ii. 320;
   of Zervan and Ormuzd in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 323, 339;
   of Third Legate in same, ii. 327.
   _See_ Adamas, Caulacau, Essenes, Saboï, Tetragrammaton

 Namrael or Nebrod, wife of Saclas a Manichaean fiend, ii. 329

 Nannar, the god, Babylonian moon-god and No. 30, ii. 35 _n._ 4, 287
    _n._ 4

 Naples Museum, copy of Bryaxis’ statue of Serapis at, i. 49 _n._ 2;
   frescoes of Isis-worship at, i. 67;
   Orphic gold plates at, i. 133, 134

 Naville, Prof. Edouard, quoted, i. 33 _n._ 1, 57 _n._ 3; ii. 92 _n._ 2,
    121 _n._ 3, 142 _n._ 1

 Neander, J. A. W., quoted, i. lvi _n._ 2, 145 _n._ 1; ii. 9 _n._ 1, 124
    _n._ 1, 125 _nn._ 2, 3, 205 _nn._ 2, 4, 206 _n._ 5, 207, 211 _nn._
    2, 4, 215 _n._ 1, 217 _n._ 1, 253 _n._ 2, 270 _nn._ 1, 2, 278 _n._
    2, 285 _nn._ 1, 4, 320 _n._ 3, 335 _n._ 1, 348 _n._ 2, 349 _n._ 1,
    356 _n._ 1, 358 _nn._ 1-4

 Nearchus, Alexander’s admiral, i. 6

 Nectanebo, King of Egypt, last of Pharaohs, i. 32

 Nemesis, Orphic hymn to, i. 142 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Rhamnusia

 Neo-Manichaeism, doctrine of Bar Khôni and Turfan MSS., ii. 321;
   its organization and hierarchy, ii. 330;
   its settlement in Turkestan, ii. 357;
   origin of Bogomiles, Albigenses, etc., _ibid._

 Neo-Platonists, mainly _post_ Constantine, i. lvii;
   tendency of, to merge all gods in Dionysos, i. 146 _n._ 1

 Neo-Pythagoreans, their influence on Valentinianism, ii. 97

 Nephotes, alleged letter of, to King Psammetichus, i. 101

 Nephthys, the goddess, wife of Set, sister of Isis, and mother of
    Anubis, i. 35


 Neptune, the god, name of God of Nature as sea, i. lvii.
   _See_ Poseidon

 Neptune, the planet, unknown in classic times, i. 116

 Nero, the Emperor, state recognition of Alexandrian gods _temp._, i.
    53;
   his name and Number of the Beast, i. 105 _n._ 2, 169;
   magic and astrology most rife at Rome in reign of (Renan), i. 108;
   Simon Magus’ fatal flight before, i. 178, 192 _n._ 2;
   his favourite deity _Dea Syria_, ii. 31;
   legend of his return from among the Parthians, ii. 225

 Nestor, his flattery of Athena in _Odyssey_, i. 95

 Nicaea, Trinitarian doctrine formulated at, i. 89.
   _See_ Athanasius

 Nicocreon, King of Cyprus, answer of oracle of Serapis to, i. 55

 _Nicodemus, The Gospel of_, used by Ophites, ii. 79

 Nicolaitans, the, of Apocalypse a Gnostic sect (Irenaeus), ii. 1;
   Ophites derive their doctrine from (St Augustine), ii. 25;
   named after Nicolaus the Deacon, ii. 27 _n._ 1;
   Ialdabaoth appears in system of, ii. 46 _n._ 3.
   _See_ Epiphanius

 Nicomedia, seat of Alexander of Abonoteichos’ worship of Glycon, i. 24

 Nike, the goddess, on coins of Indo-Greek kings, i. 17 _n._ 2;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238


 Nile, Pelusiac mouth of, i. 29;
   body of Osiris thrown into, i. 33, 34;
   water of, in Alexandrian religion, i. 68;
   allegory of Osiris as, i. 73;
   water of, used in magic, i. 103

 Nineveh, omen tablets from, i. 114

 Nin-harsag, the goddess, makes two creatures as patterns of mankind, i.
    lxiii _n._ 1.
   _See_ Man, First

 Ninos, priestess of confraternity convicted of poisoning, i. 23 _n._ 2

 Nippur, Sumerian tablet from, and legend of First Man, i. lxiii _n._ 1

 Noah, the Patriarch, interference of the Ophite Sophia in favour of,
    ii. 53

 Nomos, the god, Orphic hymn to, i. 142 _n._ 2

 Nous, first of Simon Magus’ “Roots,” i. 180;
   name of Ophite Ophiomorphus, ii. 49;
   member of First Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98;
   in Manichaeism, ii. 322 _n._ 2

 Nu, the god, in Egypt origin of all (Maspero), i. 73; ii. 36, 175;
   perhaps identifiable with Khepera the creator of man, i. 126 _n._ 3


 Number, Ialdabaoth a “fourth,” i. 100 _n._ 4;
   used for name of gods in Babylonia, i. 100; ii. 35;
   of Beast in Apocalypse, i. 105 _n._ 3, 169;
   neo-Pythagorean theory of sexes of, ii. 97, 103 _n._ 5

 Nut, the goddess, mother of Osiris and goddess of sky, i. 33, 133 _n._
    1

 Nyakang, secondary god of Shilluks, ii. 39 _n._ 5



 Oblation, baptism of the First, in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 183, 192;
   its analogues in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193


 Odysseus, speech of the dead Achilles to, i. 59.
   _See_ Ulysses

 Ogdoad, the, of Valentinus, composed of Bythos, Sige and first three
    syzygies, ii. 98;
   aeons of, merely names of God, ii. 99, 100;
   heaven of Sophia called, ii. 107, 111 _n._ 1, 113 _n._ 2;
   Egyptian parallel to (Maspero), ii. 175

 Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great, i. 12;
   first meets Philip at Mysteries of Cabiri, i. 23, 136 _n._ 2

 Olympius, the philosopher, defends Serapeum of Alexandria against
    Christians, _temp._ Theodosius, i. 84

 Olympus, gods of, not rivals of Christianity, i. lvii;
   Gnosticism a heresy of religion of, i. lviii


 Omophorus, world-supporting angel in Manichaeism, ii. 297, 325, 332;
   Babylonian prototype and classical Atlas, ii. 298 _n._ 1, 332;
   Jesus comes to earth for relief of, ii. 306;
   in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 325

 Onomacritos, earliest author of Orphic poems, i. 121;
   possibly inspired by Persian legends, i. 122 _n._ 3, 126 _n._ 3;
   Buddhism reaches West after death of, i. 135 _n._ 1

 Ophiomorphus, serpent-shaped power of Ophites, and son of Ialdabaoth,
    ii. 49;
   cause of man’s soul, passions, and death (Irenaeus), ii. 50;
   Soul of the World, _ibid._;
   counsels creation of man, ii. 51;
   cast down to earth by Ialdabaoth, ii. 52, 75;
   with his six sons forms seven earthly demons, ii. 52, 70;
   called Leviathan in Diagram, ii. 70, 77;
   this world under his government, ii. 75;
   obliteration of, among later Ophites, ii. 77, 78

 Ophites, tenets of, confused with others by late writers, i. lx;
   First Man legend among, i. lxi;
   may have drawn their ideas from same source as Manichaeans, i. 128
      _n._ 1;
   Origen calls them insignificant sect, ii. 21 _n._ 3;
   pre-Christian (Philastrius), ii. 25;
   different founders assigned to, by Fathers, ii. 25, 26;
   teaching of changes with time, ii. 26;
   many different sects of, ii. 26, 27, 28;
   aim at combining Anatolian religion with Hellenic and Christian, ii.
      36;
   their Ineffable Supreme God or Bythos, ii. 37;
   their Second God, Light, First Man, Father-and-Son or Adamas, ii. 38,
      39;
   their Holy Spirit or First Woman, ii. 40;
   their Supreme Triad of Father, Mother and Son, ii. 41;
   their threefold division of all things, ii. 42;
   accidental origin of world, ii. 44;
   mingling of light with matter called Sophia, ii. 45;
   Sophia’s Seven Heavens, ii. 46;
     their names and connection with Judaism, ii. 46, 47;
     with later Ophites the seven planetary spheres, ii. 48;
   their Ophiomorphus or serpent-shaped god, ii. 49-51;
   Adam and Eve made at suggestion of Sophia, ii. 51;
   Fall of Man and expulsion from Paradise to Earth, ii. 52;
   their teaching as to soul of man taken from heathen Mysteries, ii.
      54;
   of Fathers essentially Christians, ii. 56;
   teach return of world to Deity, ii. 57;
   their view of Mission of Jesus, ii. 59, 60, 61;
   use sacraments of baptism and Eucharist, ii. 61;
   Ophite psalm and its meaning, ii. 62, 63;
   their salvation through rebirth of soul, ii. 64, 65;
   their Diagram and its use, ii. 66-70;
   defences of soul in passing from sphere to sphere, ii. 71-74;
   their doctrine of correspondences, ii. 75;
   their divisions and end, ii. 76, 77;
   their influence on _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 78;
   their use of Apocrypha, ii. 79;
   and of Canonical Books, ii. 81;
   mode of interpretation of all literature, ii. 82;
   first Ophites probably uneducated, ii. 83;
   anti-Jewish, and reverence for Jewish Scriptures probably due to
      their magical use, ii. 84, 85;
   analogies of their teaching with Saturninus’, ii. 89;
     and with Valentinus’, ii. 96, 100, 109;
   differences between their teaching and Valentinus’ as to soul of man
      and its salvation, ii. 111-115;
   that of _Pistis Sophia_ resembles both Ophite system and Valentinus’,
      ii. 135;
   Ophite cosmology explains “Five Words” of _P.S._, ii. 143;
   Supreme Being of _P.S._ like those of Ophites, ii. 143, 144, 145;
   degradation of lower Ophite powers in _P.S._, ii. 155 _n._ 3, 158;
   cosmologies of _P.S._ and Ophites contrasted, ii. 160, 161;
   lower initiates in _P.S._ must exhibit seal like, ii. 165;
   resemblance of Eucharistic ideas in _P.S._ with Ophites’, ii. 171;
   Ophites’ ideas as to descent of soul through planetary spheres in
      Mithraism, ii. 256;
   cosmogony of Manes like that of Ophites, ii. 290 _n._ 4.
   _See_ Evander, Naassenes


 Oreus, ruler of planetary sphere in Diagram, ii. 47.
   _See_ Horaios

 Origen, his unorthodox views of Trinity, i. 89 _n._ 2;
   no Simonians in his time, i. 200;
   professes knowledge of all Ophite secrets, ii. 21 _n._ 3;
   says Euphrates “the Peratic” founder of Ophites, ii. 25;
   says all magicians use “God of Abraham” formula, ii. 33, 34;
   calls Christ Angel of Great Council, ii. 43;
   says names of Ialdabaoth, Horaios and Astaphaios taken from magic,
      ii. 47, 48;
   authority for Ophite use of Diagram, ii. 66;
   his description of Diagram, ii. 67-70;
   gives “defences” of soul from unmentioned source, ii. 71-74;
   sympathy between planet Saturn and Michael, ii. 75;
   he and Clement of Alexandria only patristic writers fair to Gnostics,
      ii. 76 _n._ 2;
   had he or Celsus read _Pistis Sophia_?, ii. 154 _n._ 2, 159, 179;
   says Persian theology gives mystical reasons for order of planetary
      spheres, ii. 256, 265;
   Mithraic ladder described by, ii. 257;
   quoted, i. 73, 199; ii. 8 _n._ 4, 25, 26, 34, 43, 46, 48, 66, 67, 69,
      70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 159, 256, 257

 Ormuz. _See_ Hormisdas


 Ormuzd or Oromazes, antagonism of, to Ahriman not defined till Sassanid
    reform, ii. 232;
   called Light (Plutarch), ii. 234;
   Zervan Akerene above both him and Ahriman (Cumont), ii. 236, 252;
   doubtful part of, in Mithraic religion, ii. 237;
   Romans identify him with Zeus, ii. 237, 240;
   no evidence that Mithraists called Jupiter, Ormuzd, ii. 239;
   incursion of Ahriman into Kingdom of Ormuzd cause of all evil to man,
      _ap._ Manichaeans, ii. 253;
   identified with First Man in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 293 _n._ 2, 323;
   in earlier Manichaeism, Father of First Man, ii. 335

 Orpheotelestae, strolling charlatans with Orphic books, i. 140;
   addicted to magic and poisoning, i. 146


 Orpheus, Christian doctrine attributed to (Clem. Alex.), i. 47 _n._ 3;
   never existed, i. 121;
   religious teaching attributed to him probably Phrygian, i. 122;
   said to be founder of Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 123;
   identity of Zeus and Dionysos said to be his teaching, i. 125 _n._ 2;
   transmigration doctrine of, i. 127 _n._ 3;
   mentioned in Pindar, i. 129 _n._ 3;
   poems attributed to, i. 135, 140;
   said to have been a Thracian, i. 136;
   hymns attributed to, i. 141;
   Musaeus called son of, i. 142;
   tendency of poems of, to fuse all other gods in Dionysos, i. 146 _n._
      1;
   Jews forge writings in name of, i. 173;
   explains Mysteries of Eleusis and their rites (Hippolytus), i. 175;
   respect paid to “Orpheus and other theologists,” i. 184 _n._ 3;
   parallel between Simon’s Silence and Night of, i. 185;
   expression “metropator” attributed to, i. 190 _n._ 1;
   quotations from verses attributed to, i. 40 _n._ 1, 47 _nn._ 3, 4, 65
      _n._ 5, 90 _n._ 1, 123 _n._ 4, 125 _n._ 1, 127 _n._ 3, 129, 132
      _n._ 1, 133 _n._ 2, 137 _nn._ 1, 4, 138 _n._ 2, 139 _n._ 1, 142,
      143, 144 _nn._ 1, 2, 146 _nn._ 1, 3, 147 _n._ 1, 157 _n._ 1, 168
      _n._ 3, 169 _n._ 1, 185 _n._ 2, 186 _n._ 1, 190 _n._ 1; ii. 6 _n._
      1, 45 _n._ 1, 80 _n._ 1, 111 _n._ 1, 153 _n._ 2, 254 _n._ 2, 311
      _n._ 2

 Orphics, the, cosmogony of, taken from Ionian philosophers, i. 124;
   their exaltation of Dionysos, i. 124, 125 _n._ 2;
   take Dying God into their system, i. 126;
   take transmigration from Pythagoreans, i. 127;
   attribute sacramental grace to Eleusinian mysteries, i. 131;
   enjoin mortification of flesh, i. 133 _n._ 1;
   “kid in milk” a password among, i. 134;
   teach superior worth of next life, i. 136;
   identify Adonis and Sabazius with Eubuleus and Zagreus, i. 137;
   no association or brotherhood of, i. 139, 140;
   invocation to all gods worshipped by, i. 142;
   make Dionysos both male and female, i. 145;
   their services to religion few, i. 146, 147;
   all their peculiar features reproduced by Gnostics, i. 148;
   Essenes’ obligations to, i. 150, 156, 157, 168;
   egg of, reappears in Book of Enoch, i. 159;
   Simon Magus’ successive ages of world due to, i. 186;
   analogy of chain of being of Simon Magus with that of, i. 188;
   jealousy of Simon’s angels and of Titans of, i. 190 _n._ 2;
   escape from transmigration desired both by Simon and by, i. 194 _n._
      3.
   _See_ Acrostics

 Orphism, earliest form of pre-Christian Gnosticism, i. 120;
   Eleusinian Mysteries secret before, i. 130 _n._ 1;
   destroys idea of nationality of gods, i. 145;
   Essene views as to pre-existence of soul taken from, i. 156;
   abstinence for religious reasons begins with, ii. 222

 Ortho, in Magic Papyri probably Artemis Orthia, i. 100 _n._ 2

 Osiris, the First Man (Maspero), i. lxi;
   fusion of, with other Egyptian gods, i. 32, 33;
   legend of, i. 33, 34, 35;
   two-fold origin of Osiris legend, i. 36, 37, 38;
   resemblance of Osiris myth to that of Eleusis and Egyptian origin of
      latter (Foucart), i. 43, 44;
   his animal forms in Egypt, i. 45;
   identified with Hades in Alexandrian religion, i. 48;
   his Alexandrian name of Serapis, i. 49;
   typical statue of, by Bryaxis, _ibid._;
   Ptolemies continue to raise temples to Egyptian, i. 52;
   his Egyptian title of Neb-er-tcher, i. 55; ii. 154 _n._ 3;
   Alexandrian “highest of godheads,” i. 56, 64;
   Eleusinian beatitude of dead borrowed from Egyptian worship of
      (Foucart), i. 59;
   scenes in earthly life of, not kept secret in Egypt, i. 60, 61;
   initiate in Alexandrian religion enacts Passion of, i. 62;
   Alexandrian Horus, Osiris re-born, i. 63;
   “god of the great gods,” etc., i. 64;
   identified with Dionysos, i. 64 _n._ 1, 65, 137 _n._ 1, 145;
   in Alexandrian religion, water the emblem of, i. 68, 73;
     in same, Passion and Resurrection of, openly celebrated, i. 69, 70;
   _pudendum_ of, processionally carried in chest, i. 73 _n._ 1, 84;
   wine the blood of, i. 87;
   asked to grant “cooling water” to dead, i. 88;
   magician identifies himself with, i. 92 _n._ 2;
   distinguished from Serapis in magic ceremony, i. 103;
   the god-man first of those who rose from the dead (Budge), i. 126
      _n._ 3;
   in Orphic gold plate dead an Osiris (Foucart), i. 133 _n._ 1;
     so in religion of Pharaonic Egypt, i. 134 _n._ 3;
   the Cosmos the “emanation and displayed image of” (Plutarch), i. 181
      _n._ 2;
   Simon’s god, like Osiris, his own spouse, son, etc., i. 189 _n._ 5;
      ii. 39;
   Greeks say death of Osiris should not be wailed for, ii. 16;
   post-Christian Gnostics imitate secrecy of mysteries of, ii. 17;
   post-Christian Gnostics attend mysteries of, ii. 21, 54;
   name of, ineffable in Egypt, ii. 37 _n._ 1;
   “the holy horned moon of heaven,” ii. 72 _n._ 3;
   epithet of, applied to Jesus in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 154 _n._ 3.
   _See_ Aberamenthou

 Ostanes, writer on magic identified with god Thoth (Maspero), i. 108

 Osterburken, Tauroctony of, with assembly of twelve great gods, ii.
    238;
   best example of scenes from legend of Mithras found at, ii. 241 _n._
      4

 Ouranos, in Cretan legend first link in succession
    Ouranos-Kronos-Zeus-Dionysos, i. 46;
   compared to Egyptian god Nu (Maspero), i. 73 _n._ 4.
   _See_ Uranus

 Ovid, quoted, i. 67, 78

 Oxyrhynchus Papyri, logion of Jesus quoted from, ii. 80 _n._ 3


 Pachomius, inventor of monachism a recluse of Serapis, i. 86

 Pacorus, Prince of Parthia, invades and subdues Palestine in 40 B.C.,
    i. 161 _n._ 3; ii. 224 _n._ 3

 Paganism, erroneous views as to relations of, with Christianity, i.
    lvi;
   merely veil for true Gnostic, ii. 18;
   Gnosticism road from, to Christianity, ii. 21;
   suppression of, by Gratian, ii. 358

 Palestine, Pharisees small minority of population of, i. lv;
   return of undesirables to, after Captivity, i. 149;
   disappearance of its independence after Alexander, i. 151;
   seizure of, by Ptolemy Soter and Antiochus the Great successively,
      _ibid._;
   Essenes scattered through villages of, not towns, i. 152;
   rapid Hellenization of, under Seleucides, i. 156;
   Pacorus’ raid upon, i. 161 _n._ 3; ii. 224 _n._ 3;
   Romans’ forced conquest of, i. 163;
   Essenes of, survive war of Titus, but not that of Hadrian, i. 170;
   Jews outside, cling to Law of Moses, i. 173;
   charlatanism common among lower classes of, _temp._ Apostles, i. 202;
   hatred of Gentiles shared by Jews outside, ii. 5;
   Ophites spread through (Giraud), ii. 76


 Pallas, the goddess, classic type of, on Indo-Greek coins, i. 17 _n._
    2;
   in Orphic legend saves heart of Dionysos, i. 125.
   _See_ Athena, Minerva

 Pallas, writer on Mysteries of Mithras, quoted by Porphyry, ii. 236

 Pamirs, the, included in Persian Empire, i. 1

 Pan, the god, identified with Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1

 _Panarion_, the, of Epiphanius, ii. 77

 Pantaenus, founder of Christian school of Alexandria, ii. 88

 Pappas, the god, identified with Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1;
   play upon name of, by Naassene author, ii. 57

 Paraclete, Manes called the, ii. 316, 332, 351;
   means probably legate or ambassador, ii. 316

 Paracletos, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

 Paradise, the Gates of, in Diagram, ii. 68;
   the Middle Space or Paradise of Sophia, ii. 75;
   of Adam perhaps 4th of Ophite planetary worlds, ii. 107;
   _Books of Jeû_ in _Pistis Sophia_ dictated to Enoch in P. of Adam,
      ii. 147 _n._ 5;
   P. of Adam set by Valentinus above the third heaven, ii. 179

 Parastatae, the Five, of _Pistis Sophia_ probably the five planets, ii.
    141, 146;
   reappear in Manichaeism, ii. 292 _n._ 2, 297 _n._ 2

 Parastates, the last, sets Jeû and other powers in their places, ii.
    141 _n._ 4, 164;
   scene of Millennium in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 141 _n._ 4, 163 _n._ 2,
      164.
   _See_ Jeû

 Paris or Alexandros, wrath of goddesses with, cause of Trojan war, i.
    57

 Parsis, the, modern representatives of Zoroastrianism, i. lxii;
   their _kosti_ or sacred girdle perhaps used by Essenes, i. 153 _n._ 1

 Parthians, the, perform Greek plays, _temp._ Crassus, i. 8;
   struggles of Syrian Empire against, i. 160; ii. 224;
   _Book of Enoch_ and raid of, upon Jerusalem, i. 161;
   rise of, under Arsaces, ii. 224;
   their age-long war against Romans, ii. 225, 226;
   leadership of, transferred to Persia, ii. 226;
   their eclectic religion, ii. 282;
   decline of power of Magi under, ii. 283


 Parusia or Second Advent, the, immediate expectation of, among
    primitive Christians, i. lviii; ii. 2, 3;
   belief in, leads to community of goods, i. 162;
   fading of belief in nearness of, ii. 3;
   revives in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 163;
   declines again in _Texts of Saviour_ and Bruce Papyrus, ii. 198;
   all allusions to, excised from N.T. by Marcion, ii. 209

 Passion, of Dying God of Mediterranean basin, i. 37;
   of Osiris, publicly celebrated in Imperial Rome, i. 69, 70;
   of Dionysos, i. 125;
   of Jesus, Docetic account of, ii. 17;
   Ophite account of, ii. 60;
   occurs when Jesus 30 years old (Irenaeus), ii. 61 _n._ 1;
   Valentinian account of, ii. 17, 117 _n._ 1;
   referred to in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 180;
   Marcion’s Docetic view of, ii, 210, 211;
   similar view of Manes, ii. 302 _n._ 1, 318, 320

 Pastophori, college of priests of Greek Isis established in Corinth,
    _temp._ Sulla, i. 74 _n._ 2

 Patecion, the brigand, saved by initiation at Eleusis, i. 131


 Patecius or Fatak, alleged father of Manes, ii. 279;
   one of the Mughtasilah, ii. 305

 Pater, Walter, his view of Socrates’ monotheism quoted, i. 10

 Patras, Mithraic monument at, ii. 263 _n._ 1

 Patricos or Fatherly, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

 Paul, Saint, the Apostle, Simon Magus baptized before conversion of, i.
    176;
   German theory of identity of Simon Magus with, i. 179;
   exclusiveness and disdainful spirit of (Duchesne), ii. 5 _n._ 2;
   Anatolian religion _temp._ (Ramsay), ii. 29, 30;
   in Phrygia treated as Barnabas’ _wakil_, ii. 42;
   O.T. history probably unknown to Phrygians in his time, ii. 53 _n._
      2;
   success of his preaching to Gentiles and its result, ii. 85;
   Marcion’s respect for, ii. 209;
   Marcion thinks him only real apostle, ii. 211;
   Marcion exaggerates controversy between St Peter and, ii. 212.
   _See_ Hermes

 Paulicians, successors of Manichaeans, ii. 357


 Paullina, Fabia Aeonia, initiate of Eleusis, hierophantis of Hecate and
    worshipper of Isis, i. 83

 Pausanias, his account of the legend of Cybele quoted, ii. 39 _n._ 2,
    40

 Pella, flight of Christians to, before siege of Jerusalem, ii. 4 _n._
    3;
   Christians of, called Ebionites, ii. 5 _n._ 1;
   Synoptic Gospels first put into shape at (Renan), ii. 6 _n._ 3


 Pelliot, M. Paul, discovers Tun-huang MS., ii. 352

 Pelusium. _See_ Nile, Perdiccas

 Pentateuch, Samaritan reverence for, i. 177;
   Ophite or Naassene writer quotes from, ii. 55.
   _See_ Moses, Old Testament

 Perabsen, King of Egypt, uses totems of both Horus and Set as his
    cognizance, i. 36

 Peratae, the, worship Power called Astrampsuchos (Hippolytus), i. 107
    _n._ 1;
   an Ophite sect, ii. 76;
   mix Orphic with astrological teaching, ii. 79;
   use names which appear in Manichaeism, ii. 329 _n._ 2;
   may mean Medes, _ibid._


 Perdiccas, defeated by Ptolemy Soter at Pelusium and afterwards
    murdered, i. 30;
   Nicocreon of Cyprus helps Ptolemy against, i. 55 _n._ 1

 _Perfection, The Gospel of_, used by Ophites and called _Gospel of
    Eve_, ii. 80;
   quoted, _ibid._

 Pergamum. _See_ Persephone


 Peroz or Firûz, son of Ardeshîr and patron of Manes, ii. 281


 Persephone, scene of trials of, Eleusis and Asia, i. 16;
   mother of Zagreus by Zeus, i. 37, 42, 124, 125, 138, 145; ii. 39;
   her temple at Eleusis, i. 39;
   her Rape or capture by Hades shown in Mysteries, i. 40; ii. 39;
   her deliverance by Hermes, i. 41;
   her identification with Demeter, i. 46;
     and with Dionysos, i. 47, 144;
   worshipped with Isis and Hecate by latest Pagans, i. 83;
   Baubo confused with, in Magic Papyri, i. 100;
   Eres-ki-gal used as name of, _ibid._;
   called the “twelfth,” _ibid._;
     and unique, i. 124, 142 _n._ 3; ii. 15 _n._ 3;
   Dionysos added to Mysteries of, by Orphics, i. 130;
   Orphic gold plate addressed to, i. 133;
   worship of, with other Chthonians outside Eleusis, i. 135;
   in Mysteries of Samothrace, i. 136 _n._ 2;
   Adonis made spouse of, i. 137;
   Bendis identified with, _ibid._;
   allusion to, in Sabazian rites, i. 138;
   Orphic hymn to, i. 142, 143;
   identified with Aphrodite, Cybele, and Isis, i. 143;
   daughter of Zeus and Demeter, i, 144;
   her relations with Iacchos, i. 145, 189 _n._ 5;
   serpent present in all Asiatic legends of, ii. 49;
   a fiend in hell in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 186;
   on Mithraic monument, ii. 238;
   Hecate perhaps equated with, by Mithraists, ii. 253

 Persepolis, one of the four capitals of Persian Empire, i. 3

 Persia, religions of, come westward after Alexander, i. lvii;
   First Man legend appears in religion of, i. lxi;
   obscurity of dates of religion of, i. lxii;
   description of, before Alexander, i. 1-4;
   rush of Greeks to, i. 7, 8;
   emigrants from, settle in Asia Minor, ii. 229;
   difficulty about religion of, _temp._ Manes, ii. 289

 Persians, the, their good government of subject peoples, i. 3, 12;
   priests of, officers of state, i. 24;
   Egyptian policy under, i. 51;
   astrology comes westward after Asiatic conquests of, i. 113;
   religion of, _temp._ Achaemenides, still doubtful, i. 122;
   suzerains of Jews, i. 150;
   revival of nationality of, under Roman Empire, ii. 224, 225;
   wars between Romans and, ii. 225-227;
   Roman Court adopts manners and institutions of, ii. 228;
   worship of Mithras may have come to Asia before, ii. 231.
   _See_ Magi


 Peshitto, the, version, used by Ophites and Valentinians, ii. 81 _n._
    1, 84;
   oldest Syriac translation of Scriptures (Gwilliam), ii. 84 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Kenyon

 Pessinuntica, name of Cybele used by Apuleius, i. 56

 Pessinus, Cybele worshipped by Greek confraternities as goddess of, i.
    17;
   Black Stone of, transported to Rome, ii. 31

 Petelia, Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131, 132

 Peter, St, the Apostle, his dealing with Simon Magus, i. 176;
   Simon follows and opposes him (_Clementines_), i. 178;
   causes death of Simon Magus by prayer, _ibid._;
   his controversy with St Paul, i. 179; ii. 212;
   denies that Jesus proclaimed himself God (_Clementines_), ii. 82 _n._
      2;
   in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 157

 _Peter, The Gospel of_, its description of Cross in Sepulchre of Jesus,
    quoted, ii. 140 _n._ 2

 _Peter and Paul_, Apocryphal Acts of, i. 178


 Petermann, J. H., edits _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 13, 134

 Petersen, says date of Orphic hymns Ist to IIIrd cent., i. 141

 Petosiris, name of Roman writer on magic, i. 107

 Peucestas, Greek satrap of Persia, adopts native customs, ii. 224

 Phalerum, lustration of initiates in harbour of, i. 39

 Phanes, the god, born from egg and called Eros and Protogonos, i. 123;
    ii. 98 _n._ 1, 210 _n._ 1;
   swallowed by Zeus, i. 123, 128;
   Father by Night of Uranos and Ge, i. 123, 185;
   an androgyne, i. 123, 185;
   identified by Orphics with Dionysos, i. 124;
   ruler of First Age of World, i. 186;
   resemblance of Basilides’ Seed of the World to, ii. 91 _n._ 1;
   and of Mithras, ii. 242

 Phanodemus, puts scene of Rape of Persephone in Attica, i. 40 _n._ 1

 Pharisees, few in number among Jews, i. lv;
   one of the three “philosophic” sects of Jews (Josephus), i. 151;
   Ecpyrosis taught by (Hippolytus), i. 155 _n._ 2;
   aim at universal supremacy for Jews, i. 162

 Pherecydes of Syros, probable source of Orphic doctrines and
    Pythagoras’ teacher (Maury), i. 124

 Phibionitae, the, sect of Gnostics derived from Nicolas the Deacon
    (Epiphanius), ii. 27 _n._ 1

 Philae, temple of, built by Ptolemies to Egyptian Isis, i. 52

 Philastrius or Philaster of Brescia, makes Menander successor of Simon
    Magus, i. 199;
   copies from Irenaeus and Epiphanius, ii. 10 _n._ 1;
   classes Ophites among pre-Christian sects, ii. 25

 Philip, St, the Apostle, instance of Greek name borne by Jew, i. 173
    _n._ 2;
   baptizes Simon Magus, i. 176;
   one of the three recorders of the words of Jesus in _Pistis Sophia_,
      ii. 157

 _Philip, The Gospel of_, quotation from, ii. 79

 Philip, King of Macedon, first meets Olympias at Samothrace, i. 22, 136
    _n._ 2;
   banishes Alexander with Ptolemy and others, i. 30

 Philistines, the, think ark of Yahweh affects place where it is, i. 10;
   Hebrews subject to, i. 150;
   Kings of, suzerains of David, i. 160 _n._ 4

 Philo of Alexandria or Philo Judaeus, acquainted with Cicero’s
    mythoplasms, i. lvii _n._ 1;
   his account of Essenes, i. 154;
   sole authority for secret doctrine of same, i. 157, 168;
   gives number of same at 4000, i. 170 _n._ 3;
   his own beliefs and system, i. 174;
   his views on eternal punishment, i. 175 _n._ 1;
   makes lower world reflection of higher (Hatch), i. 183 _n._ 3;
   borrows less from Greek mythology than Simon Magus, i. 185;
   makes stars rulers of earthly things, i. 186, 187;
   angels the patterns after which worlds made, i. 187 _n._ 3;
   his system contrasted with Simon Magus’, i. 202;
   uses allegorical exegesis as propaganda of Hellenistic culture, ii.
      9;
   Cerinthus said to have been a pupil of, ii. 9 _n._ 1;
   some Gnostic leaders make Jesus Logos of, ii. 16;
   distinguishes between First Man and protoplast, ii. 38 _n._ 3;
   takes Platonic view that God too high to touch matter, ii. 42;
   allegorical interpretation of, ii. 82;
   forced to harmonize Plato with Jewish traditions, ii. 88;
   describes coenobite communities in Egypt, ii. 286 _n._ 4;
   quoted, i. 154, 157, 174, 175, 187; ii. 38 _n._ 3, 42 _n._ 3, 286
      _n._ 4

 Philo of Byblus, makes Phoenician traditions accessible to Greeks, i. 9


 Philolaos, the Pythagorean, “soul buried in body as in a
    charnel-house,” i. 127 _n._ 1

 _Philosophumena_, the, Stähelin’s theory of imposition on author of,
    doubted, i. 175 _n._ 5;
   what its quotation of _Great Announcement_ proves, i. 179 _n._ 5;
   discovery of MS. of, at Mt Athos, ii. 11;
   documents quoted in, not earlier than 200 A.D., ii. 12;
   corrupt text of Naassene psalm in, ii. 62;
   Matter did not and Giraud did know it, when they reconstructed
      Diagram, ii. 68

 Philumena, prophetess believed in by Apelles the Marcionite, ii. 219

 Phoenicia, body of Osiris washed ashore in, i. 34;
   Adonis worshipped in, i. 37;
   so the earth-goddess, i. 126

 Photius, finds heresy in Clement of Alexandria, ii. 14 _n._ 1;
   Marcion’s _Antitheses_ seen by, ii. 209 _n._ 3, 223

 Phrygia, home of Ophites, i. lx; ii. 28;
   birthplace of most legends of Dying God, i. 38;
   worship of Orphic Sabazius comes from, i. 137; ii. 28;
   “Mysteries of the Mother” in, i. 143;
   Simonians scattered through (Theodoret), i. 199;
   meeting-place of different creeds, ii. 28;
   its government by priest-kings, ii. 29;
   worship of androgyne deity in, ii. 30, 67 _n._ 3;
   defection from Judaism of Ten Tribes in, ii. 32;
   prevalence of Jewish magicians in, _temp._ Apostles, ii. 33;
   is Jewish tradition responsible for Phrygian cosmogony?, ii. 34, 35;
   mother of gods called Cybele in, ii. 40;
   great goddess of, perhaps derived from Ishtar, ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   traces of pantheism in, ii. 64;
   double axe used by gods of (Ramsay), ii. 67 _n._ 3;
   Ophites spread southward from, ii. 74;
   Stoic philosophy has a seat in, ii. 83

 Phrygians, the, “first-born of men” (Apuleius), i. 56;
   why St Paul gives them summary of O.T. history, ii. 53 _n._ 2;
   Ophite interpretation of their mysteries, ii. 54;
   their belief in deification of man, ii. 56 _n._ 2;
   call Dionysos or Sabazius, Pappas, ii. 57

 Phryne, belongs to Greek confraternity for foreign worship, i. 22

 Piankhi, King of Egypt, abandons Egypt for Ethiopia after conquest, i.
    31

 Pindar, knows identification of Dionysos with Apollo, i. 48;
   describes blessedness of initiates into Mysteries, i. 59;
   supporter of Orphism, i. 122;
   his doctrine of transmigration, i. 129;
   his poems recited at games, i. 135;
   quoted, i. 48, 59, 123 _n._ 1, 129 _n._ 3, 134 _n._ 2

 Piraeus, the, confraternities for foreign worships cluster in, i. 21;
   early confraternity of Serapiasts in, i. 52;
   courtezans principal members of confraternities in, i. 137;
   Mithraic monuments at, ii. 230

 Pisistratids, the, date of flight of, and reform of Mysteries, i. 43
    _n._ 2;
   Onomacritos flees with them to Persia, i. 121;
   some Orphic elements come into Greece, _temp._, i. 122

 Pistis or Faith, member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101


 Pistis Sophia, probable origin of name of, ii. 151 _n._ 5, 160;
   found by Jesus alone in place below 13th Aeon, ii. 155;
   her history, ii. 155-157;
   meaning of allegory of, ii. 162;
   receives her adversary’s place, _ibid._;
   sometimes called Sophia only, ii. 179;
   reappears in _Texts of Saviour_ as “the daughter of Barbelo,” ii.
      186;
   and in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 192

 _Pistis Sophia_ (the book), Jeû the First Man appears in, i. lxi;
   written in Greek, translated into Coptic, i. lxii, ii. 177;
   as in other apocrypha, Jesus changes his shape according to heavens
      he traverses, i. 191 _n._ 4, ii. 60 _n._ 1, 154;
   texts, translations, and summaries of, ii. 13;
   principal document of, Valentinian, ii. 17, 159-163;
   like Babylonians, makes heavens formed from powers of evil, ii. 44
      _n._ 3;
   Ialdabaoth in, projection of ruler of material world, ii. 46 _n._ 3;
   features in common with _Ascensio Isaiae_, ii. 60 _n._ 1;
   puts stay of Jesus on earth after Resurrection at 12 years, ii. 61
      _n._ 1;
   Eucharistic ceremony of, ii. 63 _n._ 1, 192;
   powers mentioned in Diagram and in, ii. 72 _nn._ 1, 3, 73 _n._ 2, 74
      _n._ 1;
   “Receptacles” and Place of Truth in, ii. 103 _n._ 1;
   Valentinian document in, does not quote Fourth Gospel, ii. 117 _n._
      1, 177;
   MS. of, and its provenance, ii. 134, 135;
   heavens of Ineffable One and First Mystery not described in, ii. 146;
   Melchizidek seldom mentioned in, ii. 148 _n._ 1;
   thought by some the _Interrogations of Mary_, ii. 157;
   doctrine of interpretation in, ii. 157 _n._ 2;
   appears at first sight entirely Ophite, ii. 158;
   but more clearly Valentinian, ii. 159, 160, 161;
   Authades of, compared to Valentinus’ Demiurge, ii. 162 _n._ 2;
   Adamas of, compared to Valentinus’ Diabolos, ii. 163;
   nearness of Parusia dominant in part of, _ibid._;
   description of Millennium in, ii. 164;
   lesser initiates must give passwords and seals, ii. 165, 169;
   mystery of the First Mystery is Baptism, ii. 168-170;
   mystery of the Ineffable One is the Eucharist, ii. 170-171;
   supreme revelation of book union with Jesus, ii. 171;
   “Mysteries of Light” not described in _P.S._ proper, ii. 173;
   open to all the world, ii. 174;
   Egyptian character of book (Maspero), ii. 175-177;
   probably by Valentinus, ii. 178;
   read by Fathers?, ii. 179;
   astrology condemned in, ii. 185;
   cryptogram between 1st and 2nd vols of, ii. 188 _n._ 2;
   fragment in Bruce Papyrus links _P.S._ with _Texts of Saviour_, ii.
      192, 193;
   parent work on which all the others based, ii. 194;
   Apelles’ teaching as to body of Jesus from same source as, ii. 219;
   twelve hours theory of, like that of Tun-huang treatise, ii. 293 _n._
      2;
   quoted, i. 195 _n._ 1; ii, 54 _n._ 2, 78, 92 _n._ 3, 144 _nn._ 3, 4,
      5, 8, 145 _n._ 1, 146 _nn._ 2, 3, 147 _n._ 5, 148 _nn._ 1, 2, 3,
      149 _nn._ 1-5, 151 _n._ 3, 152 _nn._ 1, 2, 154 _n._ 1, 155 _nn._
      1, 4, 156 _nn._ 1, 4, 161 _nn._ 1, 3, 4, 162 _n._ 3, 163 _n._ 2,
      164 _nn._ 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 165 _n._ 1, 167, 168, 169 _n._ 2, 170,
      171, 173, 174, 175, 182 _n._ 2, 184 _nn._ 1, 4, 185 _nn._ 1, 2,
      188, 193 _n._ 4, 194 _n._ 1, 292 _n._ 2, 293 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Petermann, Schwartze

 Plato, alone of ancients sees Socrates’ monotheism, i. 11;
   says few real initiates in mysteries, i. 65;
   chief authority for charlatanism of Orpheotelestae, i. 140;
   creator of, not jealous, i. 149 _n._ 1;
   his ideas the paradigms of perceptible things, i. 198;
   God of, too high to touch matter, ii. 42;
   says souls given daemons as guides through life, ii. 110 _n._ 1;
   Marcion never alludes to Logos of, ii. 214;
   quoted, i. 65, 140, 149 _n._ 1; ii. 110 _n._ 1

 Pleroma, the, word Church apparently used by Ophite writer for, ii. 43;
   Ophite Christos descends from, to Sophia, ii. 59;
   Ophite, consists of Father, Son, Mother, and Christos, ii. 64;
   the same in Diagram, ii. 68;
   perfect Ophites share in, ii. 76;
   Valentinus’, originally consists of twenty-eight members, ii. 104
      _n._ 1;
   Christos and Holy Spirit added to, after Fall of Sophia (Valentinus),
      ii. 105;
   Stauros partly within and partly without (_id._), ii. 105 _n._ 2;
   Ectroma called Sophia Without (_id._), ii. 106;
   Jesus the Joint Fruit of (_id._), ii. 106 _n._ 2, 110, 113, 117, 159
      _n._ 3;
   four “places” outside (_id._), ii. 108;
   Pneumatics to enter into (_id._), ii. 110 _n._ 2;
   Christos and Holy Spirit remain within (_id._), ii. 114;
   projects another thirty aeons (_id._), ii. 144 _n._ 8

 Pliny, solar monotheism of, i. 118;
   his account of Essenes, i. 155;
   quoted, i. 155 _n._ 1

 Plutarch, his monotheism (Dill), i. lvii;
   makes Zoroaster 5000 years before Trojan War, i. lxii;
   a chief source of our knowledge of Eastern religions, i. 9;
   authority for meeting of Philip and Olympias, i. 22;
   his contempt for oracles of foreign gods, i. 23;
   legend of Osiris and his _de Iside et Osiride_, i. 33-35, 43, 48;
   does not conceal identification of Dionysos with Osiris, ii. 65 _n._
      4;
   says water the emblem of Osiris, i. 68;
   gives episode of Isis as swallow, i. 70 _n._ 1;
   puts festival of Birth of Horus at spring equinox, i. 71;
   identifies Greek Typhon with Egyptian Set, i. 105;
   Dionysos of, once human, but deified for merit, i. 144 _n._ 3;
   Osiris and Set neither gods nor men but great daemons, ii. 16;
   acquainted with Persian religion, ii. 214 _n._ 2;
   says worship of Mithras first introduced into Rome by Cilician
      pirates, ii. 228, 229;
   describes Persians as sacrificing to Hades, ii. 239;
   calls Mithras μεσίτης, ii. 249;
   equates Hades with Ahriman, ii. 255;
   thinks evil must have separate principle of its own, ii. 289 _n._ 3;
   quoted, i. 22, 23, 48, 70 _n._ 2, 144 _n._ 3; ii. 16, 214 _n._ 2,
      228, 229, 249, 255, 289 _n._ 3.
   _See_ Dionysos, Hades, Theopompos of Chios

 Pluto, name of Hades, i. 40, 47, 48;
   ruler of Hades, called in magic Huesimigadôn, i. 99, 100;
   one of the gods of Samothrace, i. 136 _n._ 2;
   in Orphic hymn to Persephone, i. 142, 143.
   _See_ Hades

 Pneuma, name of Valentinian Sophia, ii. 109

 Point, the Little or Indivisible, source of everything in universe
    _ap._ Simonians, i. 194 _n._ 3;
     and _ap._ Basilides, ii. 90 _n._ 5;
   referred to in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 292 _n._ 1


 Polycleitos, his statue of Dionysos with attributes of Zeus, i. 125
    _n._ 2

 Pomoerium, Alexandrian gods expelled from, _temp._ Tiberius, i. 78

 Pompeii, Isium at, when founded, i. 53

 Pompey the Great, suppression of Cilician pirates by, ii. 229

 Pontus, birthplace of Marcion, ii. 9, 204;
   and of Mithridates, ii. 204;
   Tertullian’s rhetorical exaggeration as to, ii. 204 _n._ 3;
   its kings claim descent from Persian heroes, ii. 225 _n._ 1

 Porphyry, the neo-Platonist, says Egyptian magicians threaten gods, i.
    104 _n._ 3;
   his account of Essenes copied from Josephus, i. 155;
   describes books on Mithras worship, ii. 236;
   says Mithraic cave represents universe, ii. 247, 249;
   says Mithraists teach metempsychosis, 257;
   gives “eagles” as name of Mithraist Fathers, ii. 265 _n._ 2;
   says High Priest of Mithras may only marry once, ii. 268;
   quoted, i. 104 _n._ 3, 155; ii. 236, 249, 265 _n._ 2, 268


 Poseidon, the god, Greek type of, on Indian coins, i. 17 _n._ 2;
   of Homer, shares empire with Zeus, i. 46;
   cattle and horses sacrificed to, i. 95;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238.
   _See_ Neptune

 Powers, the Three Triple. _See_ Tridynami

 Praedestinatus, heresiology of, its sources, ii. 10 _n._ 1;
   describes “rabbling” of Ophites by Christian bishops and mob, ii. 77

 Praetextatus, Vettius Agorius, his rank in Mithraism, ii. 268;
   one of the last Pagan noblemen, ii. 358.
   _See_ Paullina

 Praxidice, Orphic epithet or variant of Persephone, i. 142

 Precept, the First, in _Pistis Sophia_ perhaps personification of
    Jewish _Torah_, ii. 141;
   highest spirit in Treasure-house, ii. 147;
   power passed into Confusion originates in, ii. 164

 Preller, says that Orpheus is a “collective” person, i. 121 _n._ 1

 Prepon, the heresiarch, a Syrian teaching in Rome, ii. 9;
   follower of Marcion who thinks Jesus intermediate between good and
      evil, ii. 220

 Priests, state officials in Persia and Egypt, i. 24;
   of Greek confraternities, i. 25;
   greed of Egyptian, i. 28;
   always powerful in Africa, i. 31;
   their disastrous rule in Egypt, i. 31, 32;
   hereditary, of Mysteries, i. 39;
   native Egyptian, keep aloof from Alexandrian, i. 51;
   of Isis on Herculaneum frescoes, i. 68, 69;
   importance of, in Alexandrian religion, i. 76, 77;
   secular and regular, in same, i. 79, 80;
   break up of Asiatic and Egyptian colleges of, spreads magic, i. 107;
   necessity of, among Gnostics, ii. 22;
   temporal power of Anatolian, ii. 29;
   Cybele’s eunuch, ii. 31;
   high priests of Magic Papyri, ii. 34 _n._ 4;
   mention of, among Naassenes, ii. 66;
   among other Ophites, ii. 77;
   Valentinians probably frequent orthodox, ii. 125;
   of Marcionites, ii. 205;
   of Persians, the Magi, ii. 233, 234;
   of Cybele, ally themselves with Mithraists, ii. 258;
   of Mithras called “Father,” ii. 261;
   qualifications and duties of Mithraic, ii. 267, 268;
   like modern churchwardens, ii. 273;
   Manichaean, called sons of knowledge, ii. 312;
   organization of neo-Manichaean, ii. 330

 Proclus, the neo-Platonist, gives Isis’ assertion of eternity and
    virginity, i. 63;
   identifies Bendis with Persephone, i. 137;
   makes all gods contained in Dionysos, i. 146 _n._ 1;
   makes man come from tears of gods, ii. 153 _n._ 2, 176;
   quoted, i. 63, 137 _n._ 2; ii. 153 _n._ 2

 Prohegumeni, the Two Forerunners of the Treasure-house in the _Pistis
    Sophia_, ii. 149

 Prophthasia, Alexander at, said to receive grapes from Greece, i. 4
    _n._ 1.
   _See_ Farrah


 Proserpine, Isis called Stygian P. by the Sicilians, i. 56;
   Lucius at initiation treads threshold of, i. 62.
   _See_ Persephone


 Prunicos, or the Substitute, name of Sophia among early Ophites, ii.
    45, 59.
   _See_ Achamoth, Sophia

 Psammetichos, King of Egypt, letter of Nephotes to, on lecanomancy, i.
    101

 Psyche, name of Valentinus’ Demiurge, ii. 109

 Ptah, the god, one of oldest gods of Egypt, i. 32;
   priesthood of, in early times, i. 33;
   Ptolemy Epiphanes called the beloved of, i. 51

 Ptah-Seker-Osiris, the god, triune deity of Saitic period, i. 33; ii.
    195

 Ptolemy I Soter, called Saviour-god, i. 18;
   his wisdom in choosing and ruling Egypt, i. 28, 29;
   his preparationsfor its defence, i. 29, 30;
   decides to found syncretic religion uniting Egyptians and Greeks, i.
      30;
   his court and capital both Greek, i. 44;
   his Museum and its “stuffed capons,” i. 45;
   his dream as to Serapis-statue, i. 48, 77;
   Egyptians reject his religious schemes, i. 51;
   success of his religion outside Egypt, i. 52, 53, 54;
   five centuries between him and Apuleius, i. 76;
   seizes Jerusalem, i. 151;
   colonizes Samaria with “Macedonians,” i. 177

 Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Asoka’s mission to, i. 20;
   attribution of foundation of Museum to, erroneous (Bouché-Leclercq),
      i. 44 _n._ 2

 Ptolemy IV Philopator, decline of Egyptian power after, i. 151

 Ptolemy V Epiphanes, his coronation at Memphis (Rosetta Stone), i. 51

 Ptolemy VI Philometor, petitions to, of Ptolemy son of Glaucias, i. 79

 Ptolemy IX Physcon, expels philosophers from Museum, ii. 88


 Ptolemy, the son of Glaucias, recluse in Serapeum, i. 79. _See_ Kenyon

 Ptolemy, the Valentinian, his theory of the Cosmocrator as the creation
    of the Demiurge, ii. 108 _n._ 1;
   a leader of the Italic School, ii. 119;
   his letter to Flora, ii. 131

 Punjab, part of, in Persian Empire, i. 1

 Purser, Louis Charles, collects authorities on Orpheus, i. 121 _n._ 1

 Puteoli, temple to Serapis at, 100 B.C., i. 53

 Pythagoras, pupil of Pherecydes of Syros, i. 124;
   says our souls part of world-soul, i. 129;
   his theory of transmigration, _ibid._

 Pythagoreans, the, all early Orphic poems ascribed to, i. 122;
   Orphics take transmigration from, i. 127;
   find withdrawal from world necessary to salvation, i. 129;
   Jews take Ecpyrosis from (Hippolytus), i. 155 _n._ 2


 Quadratus, his lost Apology for Christianity, ii. 202, 203 _n._ 1


 Ra, the god, corporation of priests of, earliest in Egypt, i. 31;
   the sun-god, i. 31, 63;
   Osiris invoked with him in _Book of Dead_, i. 32;
   legend of, and Isis, i. 38 _n._ 2; ii. 37 _n._ 1;
   increase of power of, with XIIth Dynasty, i. 63 _n._ 1;
   the serpent Apep his enemy, ii. 78

 Ramsay, Sir William, F.R.S., has revived Alexandrian alchemist’s dream
    of transmutation, i. 45


 Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell, says name of Christians not mentioned by
    classic writers, i. 1 _n._ 1;
   all gods of mysteries forms of One, i. 56 _n._ 4;
   date of Hadrian’s visit to Egypt, i. 86 _n._ 5;
   thinks Anatolian Jews coalesce with natives, ii. 28;
   state of Phrygia in Ist cent., ii. 29;
   characteristics of Anatolian religion, _temp._ Apostles, ii. 29, 30,
      67 _n._ 3;
   importance of Mother of Gods due to matriarchate, ii. 40;
   many names of divine pair worshipped in Phrygia, ii. 67 _n._ 1;
   androgyne nature of same and symbol of double axe, _ibid._;
   quoted, i. 1 _n._ 1, 56 _n._ 4, 86 _n._ 5; ii. 28 _n._ 3, 29 _n._ 5,
      30 _nn._ 1, 2, 3, 31 _n._ 1, 40 _n._ 3, 67 _n._ 3

 Raphael, the archangel, name of, in Magic Papyri and O.T. Apocrypha,
    ii. 34;
   in Diagram name of terrestrial daemon, ii. 70;
   planet Mars connected with, ii. 75 _n._ 1

 Rawlinson, Canon George, on government of Persian Empire, i. 2 _n._ 2,
    3 _nn._ 2, 3

 Rawlinson, Sir Henry, Omen Tablets in _Cuneiform Inscriptions of W.A._,
    i. 114 _n._ 1


 Rayet, M. Octave, shows identification of Demeter and Persephone from
    inscription and vases, i. 46 _n._ 1

 Reade, Winwood, his _Martyrdom of Man_ quoted, i. 11 _n._ 3, 149 _n._
    2;
   ii. 2, 3, 227 _n._ 1

 Reformation, the German, sects of, compared to Gnostics, ii. 19;
   dissidents near to, strictly Christian, ii. 20;
   like makers of, Marcion appeals to Scripture, ii. 207;
   Manichaeism may have survived till, ii. 357;
   leaves Church stronger than before, ii. 360

 Reinach, M. Salomon, Orphic password discussed by, i. 134 _n._ 1

 Renaissance, the, Hecate still goddess of sorcerers through Middle Ages
    and, i. 147;
   sorcerers of, use words of Mass, ii. 267

 Renan, Joseph Ernest, warlike characteristics of great goddesses, i.
    58;
   describes policy of Church of Rome as to Pagan customs, i. 85;
   abundance of diviners and sorcerers in Rome of Nero, i. 108;
   says Bar Coziba called Monogenes (George the Syncellus), i. 124 _n._
      3;
   account of War of Extermination (Derenbourg), i. 163 _n._ 1;
   revolt of Jews under Trajan, i. 172 _n._ 1;
   says Gnosticism attacks infant Church like croup, ii. 21;
   his interpretation of Caulacau, ii. 94 _n._ 3;
   quoted, i. 83 _n._ 1, 85 _n._ 1, 124 _n._ 3, 163 _n._ 1; ii. 21 _n._
      1, 94 _n._ 3

 Réville, Albert, his controversy with Gladstone on _Genesis_, i. liii;
   quoted, i. 93 _n._ 4

 Revillout, Eugène, thinks words in Egyptian spell, adaptation of those
    of the Mass, i. 87;
   to true Gnostic all religions merely veils, ii. 18;
   quoted, i. 87 _n._ 3; ii. 18 _n._ 4

 Rhacotis, Egyptian name of site of Alexandria, i. 44


 Rhamnusia, a name of Nemesis identified with Isis, i. 56

 Rhapsodists, the, their theogony, i. 123;
   Orphic poems recited by, at games, i. 135, 136;
   Ophites probably get lines of Homer and Pindar from, ii. 83

 Rhea, the goddess, the earth-goddess sometimes called Cybele, Demeter
    etc., i. 124, 126;
   mother of Attis, i. 139 _n._ 1; ii. 54

 Rhodes, worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 52

 Rhodo, refutes Tertullian’s slanders against Marcion, ii. 218;
   his quotation from Apelles the Marcionite, ii. 219;
   other Marcionite leaders mentioned by, ii. 220


 Ritschl, his theory that both St John Baptist and Jesus were Essenes,
    i. 156 _n._ 1

 Rochat, E., on dates of birth and death of Manes, ii. 279 _n._ 1, 282
    _n._ 2;
   on authenticity of _Acta Archelai_, ii. 280 _n._ 3;
   on Manes’ father Fatak or Patecius, ii. 285 _n._ 2;
   on authenticity of letter to Marcellus, ii. 288 _n._ 2, 289;
   on Mandaites as descendants of Mughtasilah, ii. 305 _n._ 1;
   quoted, ii. 279 _nn._ 1, 3, 280 _n._ 2-6, 281 _nn._ 1, 3, 5, 282 _n._
      2, 283 _nn._ 1, 6, 285 _nn._ 2, 4, 286 _nn._ 3, 5, 287 _n._ 2,
      289, 305 _nn._ 1, 3

 Rogers, Dr Robert William, exposes Winckler’s and Jeremias’ astral
    theory, i. 115 _n._ 1

 Romans, the, take over Greek pantheon _en bloc_, i. 17;
   frustrate Antiochus Epiphanes’ attack on Egypt, i. 151;
   their toleration for Jewish religion and customs fruitless, i. 163;
   punish Palestinian towns for rebellion, _temp._ Vespasian, i. 170;
   receive orgiastic worship of Cybele, ii. 30 _n._ 3;
   their long struggle with Persians, ii. 225-227;
   their severe laws against Manichaeism, ii. 278, 356

 Rome, becomes monarchical as she acquires world-power, i. 15;
   welcomes Euhemeristic theory, i. 19;
   Alexandrian gods obtain a foothold in, i. 53;
   their worship becomes an established church in, i. 79;
   gathering of charlatans in, _temp._ Nero, i. 108;
   Orphic gold plates found at, i. 131;
   Simonians numerous in, i. 199;
   all heretics attracted to, ii. 203

 Roots, the six of Simon Magus, i. 180;
   expression used by Empedocles and Athamas the Pythagorean, i. 197

 Rosetta Stone, the, marks turning of Ptolemies to ancient Egyptian
    gods, i. 51

 Roxana, wife of Alexander the Great, i. 5, 12

 Rutilianus, accomplice and dupe of Alexander of Abonoteichos, i. 24



 Sabaoth, used in Hebrew spell identifying Yahweh with Zeus and Serapis,
    i. 106;
   name belonging to a secret theology (Origen), ii. 34, 35;
   Ophite ruler of planetary sphere (Irenaeus), ii. 47;
   the same in Diagram, ii. 69;
   address to, ii. 73;
   name recurs in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 158

 Sabaoth the Good, the Great, soul of Jesus on Incarnation received from
    (_Pistis Sophia_), ii. 139, 149;
   the emanation of Jeû and acts through messenger (_P.S._), ii. 149;
   why so called, ii. 149 _n._ 2;
   appears in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193

 Sabaoth the Good, the Little, messenger or substitute of Great Sabaoth,
    ii. 149;
   his action at Incarnation, ii. 149 _n._ 2;
   identified with Gate of Life, _ibid._;
   appears in _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 149 _n._ 2, 187;
   gives cup of perception to righteous soul in same, ii. 187, 309 _n._
      2

 Sabaoth Adamas, in _Pistis Sophia_ a wicked power, ii. 149 _n._ 2;
   in _Texts of Saviour_ ruler of Wicked Aeons, ii. 182;
   in same bound with his subjects to Sphere, ii. 182;
   his “receiver” Jaluha gives cup of oblivion to soul, ii. 187


 Sabazius, the god, comes into Greece before Alexander, i. 17, 137;
   a Phrygian god called “Lord of all” and son of Cybele, i. 137;
   rites of, described by Demosthenes, i. 138;
   identified with Attis and Adonis, i. 139 _n._ 1;
   for Orphics, a form of Dionysos, i. 145;
   Phrygia seat of worship of, ii. 28;
   called Pappas, ii. 57;
   male aspect of androgyne deity of Anatolia (Ramsay), ii. 67 _n._ 3


 Saboï, cry of initiates in Sabazian mysteries, i. 138

 Sabos, in Orphic hymn possibly name of Iacchos, i. 138 _n._ 2

 Saclas or Asaqlun, son of King of Darkness among Peratae and
    Manichaeans, ii. 329

 Sadducees, dominant party among Jews, i. lv, 162;
   a “philosophic” sect (Josephus), i. 151;
   their sympathy with Hellenism, i. 162

 _Salathiel, The Apocalypse of_, part of Fourth Esdras called, i. 167

 Salmon, Dr George, his theory of forgery of Gnostic documents, i. lxi
    _n._ 1; ii. 11 _n._ 2;
   on authorship of _Clementines_, i. 178 _n._ 1;
   on discovery of _Philosophumena_, ii. 11 _n._ 2;
   thinks return of worlds to Deity rather than salvation of mankind aim
      of Gnosticism, ii. 42 _n._ 2;
   his interpretation of name of Ialdabaoth, ii. 46 _n._ 3;
   and of Caulacau, ii. 94 _n._ 3;
   Marcion’s life described by, ii. 204;
   on early establishment of Marcion’s heresy, ii. 207;
   quoted, i. 178 _n._ 1; ii. 11 _n._ 2, 41 _n._ 1, 42 _n._ 2, 94 _n._
      3, 204 _n._ 2, 205 _n._ 3, 206 _nn._ 3, 5, 207 _nn._ 3, 4, 222
      _n._ 1

 Salome, speech of Jesus to, in _Gospel of Egyptians_, i. 196 _n._ 2;
   questions of, in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 157

 Samarcand, modern name of Maracanda, a foundation of Alexander’s, i. 5
    _n._ 3

 Samaria, Simon Magus’ deeds in, i. 176, 178, 191 _n._ 3;
   re-colonized by Alexander and Ptolemy Soter, i. 177;
   destroyed by John Hyrcanus, and rebuilt by Gabinius and Herod the
      Great, _ibid._;
   its mixed population of Semites and Persians, i. 197

 Samaritans, the, hatred between Jews and, i. 177;
   religion of, _temp._ Christ, _ibid._;
   reverence of, for Pentateuch, i. 184 _n._ 2;
   Simon said to appear to, as the Father, i. 192;
   appeal of Simon’s doctrines to, i. 202


 Sammael, a name of Ophite Ophiomorphus, ii. 52;
   identified with Satan in _Ascension of Isaiah_, ii. 69 _n._ 2, 75
      _n._ 1

 Samothrace, seat of Cabiric Mysteries, i. 61, 136 _n._ 2;
   the god of, called Adam, i. 137 _n._ 1, 139 _n._ 1; ii. 54 _n._ 6

 Sandracottus. _See_ Chandragupta


 Sapor or Shâpûr I, the Shah, exiles Manes from Persia, ii. 281


 Sarapis or (_Lat._) Serapis, the god, his recluses or monks, i. 20, 80,
    86;
   charlatans round altars of (Plutarch), i. 23;
   purification of religion of, i. 24;
   typical statue of, i. 49;
   _Modius_ distinctive attribute of, i. 50;
   Ptolemy compels Egyptians to take him into their temples (Macrobius),
      i. 52;
   early temple to, at Puteoli, i. 53;
   “Sarapis alone is Zeus,” i. 55;
   all Greek and foreign gods included in, i. 56;
   merciful and compassionate to man, i. 58;
   friend of man in next world, i. 59, 60;
   initiation into “nocturnal orgies” of (Apuleius), i. 64;
   special hymn and air addressed to, i. 68, 72;
   identified with Osiris (Minucius Felix), i. 70;
   April festival of, i. 71;
   Oracle of, at Alexandria, i. 77;
   identified with Asklepios, i. 78, 87;
   statue of, in Alexander Severus’ _lararium_, i. 82;
   statue and temple of, at Alexandria destroyed by Christians, i. 84;
   ritual of, adapted to Christian use, i. 85;
   joint worship of, and Christ (Hadrian), i. 86;
   trinity of, Sarapis, Isis, and Horus, i. 88;
   the “Great God” (Mag. Pap.), i. 101, 104, 125 _n._ 3;
   representation of, on scarab used in Jewish spell, i. 106, 107;
   identified with Sun, i. 118;
   books buried in tombs of worshippers of (Ael. Aristides), i. 132 _n._
      3;
   Simon Magus may have borrowed from religion of, i. 198;
   Phrygian deities identified with, ii. 31;
   appears as Zeus on Mithraic monument, ii. 238 _n._ 2;
   splendour of worship of, contrasted with that of Mithras, ii. 269

 Sargon, King of Akkad, astrological tablets going back to reign of, i.
    113, 114

 Sarmizegetusa, Mithraic monument at, ii. 264

 Sarrebourg, Mithraic monument at, ii. 264

 Satan, cosmocrator or world-ruler to Essene initiates (Kohler), i. 153
    _n._ 4;
   Marcion called the first-born of, ii. 10;
   maker of the body in Gnosticism, ii. 54 _n._ 2;
   enemy of world-creating angels and god of Jews (Saturninus), ii. 89;
   cosmocrator in system of Valentinus, ii. 108;
   active agent of matter in that of Marcion, ii. 210;
   composite form of, in that of Manes, ii. 291;
   antagonist of Manichaean First Man, ii. 293;
   imprisonment of Manichaean, after Ecpyrosis, ii. 297;
   called Hummâma by later Manichaeans, _ibid._;
     and Great Archon, ii. 298;
     and Sindîd, ii. 304.
   _See_ Sammael

 Saturn, the planet, presides over category of terrestrial things, i.
    116;
   soul of dead reincarnated when S. in certain position (_Texts of
      Saviour_), i. 118 _n._ 1;
   one of seven heavens in Ophite system, ii. 48;
   connection in Diagram between S. and demon Michael, ii. 75;
   set over 360 rulers of wicked powers (_Texts of Saviour_), ii. 182;
   in Mithraism soul descends through sphere of, ii. 256;
   lead associated with, ii. 257 _n._ 4;
   in same, lowest initiate’s soul will return to sphere of, ii. 265

 Saturninus or Saturnilus, the heresiarch, a native of Antioch, ii. 9;
   his Docetism, ii. 17;
   confusion as to name of, ii. 20 _n._ 1;
   a follower of Simon Magus and predecessor of Basilides and the
      Nicolaitans (Epiphanius), ii. 25 _n._ 5;
   makes god of Jews one of the seven world-creating angels (Irenaeus),
      ii. 47 _n._ 3;
   denounces marriage and procreation as work of Satan, ii. 89;
   Valentinus later than (Epiphanius), ii. 93 _n._ 3

 Saulasau, mystic name of secondary world used by Ophites, ii. 94 _n._ 3

 _Saviour, The Texts of the_, time of reincarnation dependent on
    planetary motions, i. 118 _n._ 1; ii. 185 _n._ 2;
   affinity of male and female soul explained, i. 195;
   sexes united at the length, i. 196 _n._ 2;
   rebellion of half the Twelve Aeons in, ii. 48 _n._ 4, 152 _n._ 1;
   body of man made by evil daemons, ii. 54 _n._ 2;
   place of punishment of wicked souls above the earth, ii. 69, 182 _n._
      1;
   planet Jupiter ruler of the Five Planets, ii. 73 _n._ 1;
   the angel Zarazaz called by name of demon Maskelli, ii. 75 _n._ 1,
      148 _n._ 3;
   the Serpent of Outer Darkness the Outer Ocean, ii. 78, 155 _n._ 4,
      166 _n._ 2;
   repeats Basilides “one in 1000 and 2 in 10,000,” ii. 92 _n._ 3, 172;
   many members of the Ineffable One, but one body, ii. 145 _n._ 2;
   Jeû the First Man overseer of the Light and Legate of First Precept,
      ii. 147 _n._ 5;
   the Books of Jeû written by Enoch in Paradise, _ibid._;
   Melchizidek Great Receiver of the Light, ii. 148 _n._ 2, 154 _n._ 1;
   Great Sabaoth the Good and Gate of Life, ii. 149 _n._ 2;
   Great Iao the Good, leader of Middle, ii. 149 _n._ 3;
   Virgin of Light has seven virgins for assistants, ii. 150;
   Barbelo called βδελλη in, ii. 151 _n._ 4;
   the Kingdom of Adamas opposite the place of the Virgin of Light, ii.
      152 _n._ 1;
   Ialdabaoth in, one of the torturers in hell, ii. 155 _n._ 3;
   says Baptisms and Chrism lead soul into Place of Light, ii. 167 _n._
      1;
   renunciation of the world leads to Mysteries of the Light, ii. 167
      _n._ 2;
   thaumaturgic Eucharist of, ii. 172 _n._ 3, 192;
   sacraments called Mysteries of Light, etc., ii. 173 _n._ 1;
   the MS. of, described, ii. 180;
   cannot be Valentinian, ii. 180 _n._ 3;
   gives prayer of Jesus in unknown tongue, _ibid._;
   puts souls of Patriarchs in Place of Jabraoth, ii. 182 _n._ 2;
   extracts from other documents probably mixed with, ii. 182 _n._ 3,
      183 _n._ 2;
   threefold division of soul into Power, Moira and Counterfeit of the
      Spirit, ii. 184;
   no division of mankind into pneumatic, psychics and hylics in,
      _ibid._;
   magic recommended for conversion of heathen, ii. 185;
   Pistis Sophia mentioned in, as daughter of Barbelo, ii. 186;
   Orphics’ cups of oblivion and memory reappear in, _ibid._;
   unknown words of prayer of Jesus in, like those of Marcus’ baptismal
      formula, ii. 189;
   sacraments of Bruce Papyrus resemble those of, ii. 193;
   degradation of belief in, ii. 194;
   returns to native Egyptian ideas, ii. 195-198;
   fear of hell sanction of belief in, ii. 198;
   quoted, i. 118 _n._ 1, 195 _n._ 1, 196 _n._ 2; ii. 54 _n._ 2, 75 _n._
      1, 78 _nn._ 4, 5, 92 _n._ 3, 145 _n._ 2, 147 _n._ 5, 148 _nn._ 1,
      3, 149 _n._ 2, 150 _nn._ 2, 3, 5, 152 _n._ 1, 154 _n._ 1, 155
      _nn._ 3, 4, 166 _n._ 2, 167 _nn._ 1, 2, 172 _nn._ 3, 4, 173 _n._
      1, 180 _nn._ 1-4, 182 _nn._ 1-3, 183 _nn._ 1-3, 184 _n._ 4, 185
      _nn._ 1, 2, 186, 187, 198, 199

 Saviours, the Twelve, furnish spotless souls for the Twelve Apostles
    (_Pistis Sophia_), ii. 136, 147

 Saviours, the Twin, “the boy of a boy” (_Pistis Sophia_), ii. 142, 171;
   reappear in _Texts of Saviour_ and Bruce Papyrus, ii. 193;
   functions of, never alluded to, ii. 355 _n._ 2

 Sayce, Prof. A. H., his translation of omen or astrological tablets
    from Nineveh, i. 114

 Sches-Hor, the, royal tribe of earliest invaders of Egypt, i. 36

 Schmidt, Dr Carl, his text and translation of _Pistis Sophia_ and Bruce
    Papyrus, ii. 13 _n._ 2, 190

 Schmiedel, Dr P. W., revives Tübingen theory that Simon Magus is St
    Paul, i. 179 _n._ 3;
   his mistake about Menander, i. 199 _n._ 7;
   on community of goods, ii. 2 _n._ 3


 Schwartze, Maurice G., transcriber and translator of _Pistis Sophia_,
    ii. 18, 134

 Scythia, in story of Manes probably means Turkestan, ii. 285;
   Addas disciple of Manes missionary to, ii. 352

 Scythianus, father of Manes in Christian tradition, ii. 285;
   identified with Patecius or Fatak (Kessler), ii. 285 _n._ 2;
   may represent non-Aryan Medes, ii. 286

 Sebaste, name of Samaria when rebuilt by Herod, i. 177

 Secrecy, of Mysteries of Eleusis very strict, i. 41;
   as to burial of Dionysos at Delphi, i. 47;
   as to names of God and Goddess of Eleusis (Foucart), i. 47 _n._ 1;
   of initiation into Mysteries of Isis, i. 62;
   of Alexandrian doctrine that Osiris god of dead, i. 64 _n._ 3;
   observed as to contents of chest carried in procession of Isis, i.
      73;
   reason for, as to Mysteries of Eleusis, their foreign origin
      (Foucart), i. 130 _n._ 1;
   or jealousy, i. 139 _n._ 2;
   of tenets of Hellenizing Jews, i. 175 _n._ 2;
   as to Dying God not observed by Cretans, ii. 16:
   of Gnostics as to their opinions, ii. 18;
   of Basilides’ followers, ii. 92, 189;
   of Manichaeans, ii. 356

 Secunderabad, preserves name of Alexander, i. 5

 Secundus, the Valentinian, a leader of the Italic School, ii. 119;
   imagines “a right and left tetrad, _i.e._ light and darkness”
      (Hippolytus), ii. 147 _n._ 4

 Seistan, part of Persian Empire, i. 1;
   Alexander when in, said to receive grapes from Greece, i. 4 _n._ 1

 Seker or Socharis, the god, a very ancient deity in Egypt, i. 32;
   dreary life in next world of his worshippers, ii. 195

 Seleucus I Nicator, grants privileges of citizenship to Jews in all
    cities of his Empire, ii. 28;
   affection of Persians for, ii. 224

 Seleucus II Callinicus, defeated by Parthians under Arsaces, ii. 224

 Semele, mother of Dionysos on his second or third incarnation, i. 40
    _n._ 4, 42, 145;
   in Alexandrian religion Dionysos called the fruit of the vine S.., i.
      64 _n._ 3;
   Dionysos son of S., Zagreus re-born, i. 125

 Seneca, last speech of, ii. 87

 _Sepher Jetzirah_ and _Sepher Zohar_, books of VIth or VIIth century
    A.D., ii. 35.
   _See_ Cabala

 Septuagint, the, familiarizes Jews with Old Testament, i. 157;
   belongs to Western Diaspora, ii. 53 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Peshitto

 Serapeum, the, Egyptian, at Memphis separated from Greek, i. 51;
   Athenian, facing the Acropolis, i. 52;
   oracle of Serapis at Alexandrian, i. 55;
   represented on Herculaneum fresco (von Bissing), i. 68 _n._ 1;
   Bryaxis’ statue in, i. 78 _n._ 2;
   recluse in S. of Memphis, i. 79, 80;
   destruction of Alexandrian, i. 83-85

 Serapis. _See_ Sarapis

 Serpent, Dionysos begotten by Zeus in form of, i. 42;
   live, used in Sabazian rites, i. 138;
   in Orphic poems represents earth, i. 145 _n._ 2;
   Ophites = worshippers of, ii. 26 _n._ 4;
   “Bull father of serpent,” etc., ii. 39;
   external Ocean figured as, ii. 49;
   in Asia Minor emblem of goddess’ husband, ii. 49. _n._ 3;
   emblem of Dionysos and soul of world, ii. 50, 55;
   called “Michael and Sammael” (Ophites), ii. 52;
   taught to coil round Eucharistic bread (Ophites), ii. 61;
   called Leviathan in Diagram, ii. 70, 77;
   Christian mob kill Ophite, ii. 77;
   drops out of Ophite teaching, ii. 78;
   enemy of sun-god in Egypt, _ibid._;
   “serpent and dove,” ii. 135 _n._ 3;
   death figured as seven-headed, ii. 156 _n._ 3;
   Outer Darkness s. with tail in mouth, ii. 183;
   part of, in Mithraic Tauroctony, ii. 245;
   represents earth on Mithraic monuments, ii. 247, 250;
   “the World-ruler, the Great S.” in Magic Papyrus, ii. 256.
   _See_ Tarentum

 Set, the god, murderer of Osiris, i. 33;
   defeated by Horus, i. 34;
   his wife Nephthys comes over to Osiris, i. 35;
   Perabsen returns to worship of, i. 36;
   aided in war by Ethiopians, i. 37;
   the “Osiris whom S. murdered” in Magic Papyrus, i. 92 _n._ 2;
   Typhon Greek equivalent of (Plutarch), i. 105;
   magician threatens to tear S. limb from limb, i. 125 _n._ 3;
   like Osiris, a great power or daemon (Plutarch), ii. 16;
   sect of Sethiani possibly named after him, ii. 74 _n._ 4

 Seth, Ophites accept Genesis’ account of, ii. 52;
   of Sethiani may be Sitheus of Bruce Papyrus, ii. 76 _n._ 4;
   Manichaean or Mandaite story of, ii. 304

 _Seth, The Paraphrase of_, Apocrypha used by Sethiani, i. 175; ii. 53
    _n._ 3;
   and by Ophites, ii. 79

 Sethiani, the, sect derived from Orphics (Hippolytus), i. 175;
   Simonians and they, only Gnostic sects not admitting Jesus’ divinity,
      ii. 15 _n._ 1;
   their connection with Ophites, ii. 27, 76;
   Ialdabaoth appears in system of (Theodoret), ii. 46 _n._ 3;
   a Jewish but apparently non-Christian sect, ii. 53, 76.
   _See_ Linus

 Severus, Caius Julius, Hadrian’s general, lays waste Palestine, i. 170

 Severus, the Emperor Septimius, imitation of Alexander _temp._, i. 14
    _n._ 1

 Shamash, the god, sun-god of Chaldaeans identified with Mithras, ii.
    241

 Shâpûr. _See_ Sapor


 _Shapurakan_, the, of Manes quoted, ii. 307

 Shem, identified by Moses of Chorene with Zervan, i. lx

 Sheol, dreariness of Jewish, i. 58, 150;
   Gentiles to be swallowed up by (Enoch), i. 161


 Sheshonq or Shishak, King of Egypt, suzerain of Solomon, i. 31

 Shilluks, the, Nilotic tribe who worship secondary god, but not Supreme
    Being, ii. 39 _n._ 5

 Shimnu, Buddhist Devil appearing in _Khuastuanift_, ii. 335 _n._ 1

 Shishak. _See_ Sheshonq

 Sibyl, the, announces decline of worship of Serapis and Isis, i. 86;
   Jewish forgeries in name of, i. 173

 Sicarii or Zealots, escape before Fall of Temple to Africa and commit
    outrages, ii. 5 _n._ 3

 Sicilians, the, call Isis “Stygian Proserpine,” i. 56

 Sicily, scene of Rape of Proserpine (scholiast on Hesiod), i. 40;
   Isis-worship brought into, by Hiero II, i. 53;
   Orphic gold plates found in, i. 131;
   Demeter and Persephone tutelary deities of, i. 135

 Sidon, Mithraic monuments at, ii. 261 _nn._ 1, 4

 Sige or Silence, female consort of Bythos in Valentinian system, ii.
    96, 98;
   called also Charis or Grace, ii. 96 _n._ 5


 Simon of Cyrene, crucified instead of Jesus (Basilides), ii. 17


 Simon Magus, accused of magic by Hippolytus, i. 110;
   thinks souls attracted into bodies by sexual desire, i. 153 _n._ 3;
   founder of pre-Christian sect, i. 176;
   traditional account of Simon’s life and death, i. 178;
   German theory that S. was St Paul, i. 179;
   his _Great Announcement_, i. 179, 180;
   his borrowings from Zoroastrianism, i. 181; ii. 232, 291;
   his succession of similar worlds, i. 183;
   his aeons, androgyne, i. 184; ii. 38 _n._ 4;
   his system compound of Greek and Hebrew traditions, i. 184, 185;
   his aeons places as well as persons and periods, i. 187;
   his account of creation of man, i. 188, 189;
   teaches transmigration of souls, i. 190;
   Simon’s “redemption” of Helena of Tyre, i. 191;
   discrepant accounts of his death, i. 192;
   his theory as to division of sexes, i. 193-196; ii. 355;
   sources of his doctrine, i. 197, 198;
   history of sect, i. 198, 199;
   his heresy source of all subsequent Gnosticism, i. 200-202;
   allegorical interpretation of Scripture by, i. 201 _n._ 1; ii. 82,
      213;
   said to be follower of St John Baptist, ii. 6 _n._ 4;
   does not admit divinity of Jesus, ii. 15;
   his Docetic teaching, ii. 16;
   Saturninus’ heresy derived from, ii. 25 _n._ 5;
   system of, owes much to his personality, ii. 26;
   borrowings of later heresies from, ii. 41 _n._ 1, 49;
   analogy of Ophite cosmogony with that of, ii. 43;
   gives independent origin to matter, ii. 44;
   calls Helena Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   connection between story of, and _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 60 _n._ 1;
   triple division of nature common to system of, and that of Ophites,
      ii. 63, 64;
   his “flaming sword” and double axe, ii. 67 _n._ 3;
   did his doctrines reach Alexandria?, ii. 89;
   Basilides a link between him and Valentinus, ii. 93;
   Valentinian name of Ennoia possibly taken from system of, ii. 97;
   aeonology of Valentinus resembles that of, ii. 99, 100;
   Marcion a disciple of (Irenaeus), ii. 207;
   story of Helena reproduced in Christian account of Manes’
      predecessor, ii. 285 _n._ 3.
   _See_ Apophasis, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Irenaeus

 Simonians, the, enter Church in secret after Constantine (Eusebius), i.
    200 _n._ 3; ii. 18 _n._ 3;
   why the first Christians neglected, ii. 2;
   headship of sect of, ii. 6

 Sinai, Mt., law proclaimed on, i. liii; ii. 211;
   Messiah of Jews to appear on (Enoch), i. 160

 Sinope, Bryaxis’ statue of Serapis comes from, i. 48;
   birthplace of Mithridates the Great and of Marcion, ii. 204

 Sissek, in Croatia, Mithraic monuments found at, ii. 237

 Sistrum, still used in Abyssinian Church, i. 86 _n._ 4

 Sitheus, power or aeon mentioned in Bruce Papyrus, ii. 76 _n._ 4

 Siut or Assiut, Apuat originally god of (Maspero), i. 33 _n._ 1

 Skin, coats of, metaphor for material body (Philo), ii. 52 _n._ 2;
   (Valentinus), ii. 111 _n._ 1;
   (_Pistis Sophia_), ii. 136 _n._ 1

 Smerdis, the false. _See_ Gaumata

 Smyrna, inscription identifying Demeter and Persephone found at, i. 46
    _n._ 1;
   statue of female Dionysos from, i. 47 _n._ 4;
   Serapeum at, i. 52

 Socinians, alone of XVIth cent. reformers deny divinity of Jesus, ii.
    20

 Socinus, founder of sect of Socinians, ii. 19, 20

 Socrates, the philosopher, his monotheism (Pater), i. 10;
   conceals his doctrines from everybody but Plato, i. 11;
   convicted of bringing new gods into Athens, i. 15;
   image of, in _lararium_ of Alexander Severus, i. 82

 Solomon, King of Israel, believes in other gods than Yahweh, i. 11 _n._
    3;
   vassal to Sheshonq, King of Egypt, i. 31, 160 _n._ 4

 _Solomon, The Odes of_, quoted by Lactantius and the _Pistis Sophia_,
    ii. 157 _n._ 2

 _Solomon, The Psalms of_, Greek text and translation of, by Viteau and
    Martin noticed, i. 164 _n._ 1

 Sonhoods of Basilides, ii. 91;
   correspondence of, with Ophite system, ii. 93


 Sophia, the Ophite called Prunicos, ii. 45;
   mother of Ialdabaoth, ii. 46;
   advises creation of man, ii. 51;
   brings about Fall of Man, ii. 52;
   arranges births of John Baptist and Jesus, ii. 53;
   lays aside her material body (Irenaeus), ii. 57;
   chief agent in redemption of the light, ii. 58;
   Christos sent to her assistance, ii. 59;
   descends with Christos into Jesus, ii. 60, 79;
   leaves Jesus at Crucifixion, ii. 60;
   her Fall referred to in Naassene Psalm, ii. 62;
   her world above hebdomad of planets, ii. 64;
   her place in Diagram, ii. 68, 69, 75;
   connected with Barbelo, ii. 74 _n._ 1;
   her “middle space,” ii. 75;
   becomes serpent (Irenaeus), ii. 78, 82 _n._ 1;
   Justinus finds type of, in Herodotus, ii. 81, 82;
   the Holy Spirit of Basilides, ii. 94;
   replaced in _Pistis Sophia_ by Virgin of Light, ii. 158;
   absent from Marcion’s system, ii. 214.
   _See_ Achamoth, Mother of Life, Prunicos

 Sophias, the Valentinian, (1) Sophia, the youngest of the Aeons and
    last of Dodecad, ii. 101;
   her Fall, ii. 104;
   she gives birth to Ectroma, _ibid._;
   Christ and the Holy Spirit draw her within Pleroma, ii. 105;
   (2) Sophia Without, the Ectroma or abortion of foregoing, ii. 104,
      114;
   her identification with the Earth, ii. 104 _n._ 4;
   form given to her by Christos and the Holy Spirit, ii. 106;
   Jesus sent as spouse to, _ibid._;
   matter, the soul, the spirit, and the substance of demons made from
      her passions, ii. 107;
   her heaven called the Ogdoad, ii. 108;
   called the Mother of All Living, ii. 110. _n._ 1;
   her heaven the heavenly Jerusalem, ii. 110;
   sends angels into chosen souls, ii. 110, 112;
   pneumatic souls belong to, ii. 112;
   Demiurge learns from, ii. 114;
   psychic souls receive instruction in heaven of, ii. 115;
   descended into Virgin Mary, _ibid._;
   at Crucifixion soul of Jesus returns to, ii. 116;
   identified with Achamoth, ii. 117 _n._ 2;
   story of, omitted from _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 161;
   mentioned in Gâthâs, ii. 300 _n._ 2;
   called Mother of Life in Manichaeism, _ibid._
   _See_ Victorinus

 Sophocles, Orphic legends known to, i. 123

 Soul, the, Serapis called the Saviour of, i. 60;
   pre-ordained destiny of, comes in with astrology, i. 119;
   soul buried in body as in charnel-house, i. 127;
   transmigration and final fusion with Dionysos of, i. 129, 148;
   Essene belief in pre-existence of, derived from Orphics, i. 156;
   an angel or daemon imprisoned in body (Philo), i. 174;
   division of, into male and female which seek each other (Simon
      Magus), i. 195, 196;
   of Jesus returns to the different worlds whence drawn (Basilides),
      ii. 17;
   of the world, the god of the Greek mysteries, ii. 50, 51;
   three-fold division of man’s (Ophites), ii. 53;
   man’s soul, part of soul of world, ii. 55;
   Christos unknown to Ialdabaoth receives souls of initiates, ii. 60;
   the righteous soul must change from choïc to psychic and from psychic
      to pneumatic, ii. 65;
   defences of, in passage through planetary spheres, ii. 71-74;
   Demiurge sends souls of men into bodies (Valentinus), ii. 109, 112
      _n._ 3;
   men’s souls one of three classes, ii. 112;
   souls of psychics receive further instruction in Heaven of Sophia,
      ii. 115;
   Apostles receive souls from Twelve Saviours instead of from Archons
      (_Pistis Sophia_), ii. 136;
   St John Baptist born with soul of Elijah, ii. 137, 149, 150;
   soul of Jesus taken from Great Sabaoth the Good, ii. 139, 149;
   souls of men during Millennium and after death, ii. 164, 165;
   effect of mystery of First Mystery upon soul of dying, ii. 167;
   effect of mystery of Ineffable upon man’s soul after death, ii. 170,
      171;
   punishment of sinning souls (_Texts of Saviour_), ii. 182, 183, 186,
      199;
   the Counterfeit of the Spirit duplicate of soul proper, ii. 184;
   cup of oblivion given to soul after punishment, ii. 187;
   fate of the soul in Pharaonic Egypt, ii. 196, 197;
   passage of soul to sun in Mithraism, ii. 264, 265;
   all lights fragments of soul of world (Manichaeans), ii. 295 _n._ 2;
   soul of man according to Manes, ii. 307;
   fate at death of soul of Perfect Manichaean, ii. 309;
   of soul of Zoroastrian in Avesta, ii. 310, 311;
   fate at death of souls of Manichaean Hearer and of sinner, ii. 311,
      312

 Spain, monuments of Alexandrian gods found in, i. 53, 66 _n._ 2;
   Mithraic monuments found in, ii. 230

 Spencer, Herbert, applies survival of fittest theory to religions, i.
    lii;
   his Euhemerism, i. 19

 Spenta-Armaiti, mother of Gayômort in Avesta, i. lxi;
   one of the Amshaspands and identified with Wisdom (Sophia), i. 181
      _n._ 1; ii. 45 _n._ 1, 300 _n._ 2;
   identified with Vedic Aramati, ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   and with Mother of Life in Manichaeism, ii. 300 _n._ 2

 Sphinx, the, dream of Thothmes IV concerning, i. 77 _n._ 2

 Spirit, the Holy, called the First Woman by the Ophites, ii. 40;
   forms Trinity with Father and Son, ii. 41;
   Christos son of, by the Father-and-Son, ii. 42;
   birth of Sophia from, ii. 44, 45;
   blue circle in Diagram, ii. 68;
   with Christos emanates from Nous and Aletheia (Valentinus), ii. 105;
   with Christos, makes the Ectroma into perfect aeon, ii. 106;
   retires within Pleroma, ii. 106, 114

 Spirit, the Living, in Manichaeism, recalls the First Man from Darkness
    after his defeat, ii. 294;
   discrepancy as to part played by him in deliverance of First Man, ii.
      295 _n._ 1;
   creator of the lights in _Acta Archelai_, ii. 298 _n._ 2;
   Demiurge or Architect of Universe (Alex. of Lycopolis), ii. 302 _n._
      1;
   speaks word like pointed sword, ii. 302 _n._ 1, 324;
   called “a white dove” in Tun-huang MS., ii. 302 _n._ 1;
   the Third Person of Manichaean Trinity (Faustus), ii. 319;
   member of second not first triad in neo-Manichaeism, ii. 324

 Splenditenens, great Angel in Manichaeism who holds heavens by their
    backs, ii. 298;
   son of Living Spirit in Tun-huang MS., ii. 298 _n._ 1;
     and in Bar Khôni, ii. 325;
   bewails captivity of the Light, ii. 332


 Srôsh or Sraôsha, the Angel of Obedience in Mazdeism and the Tertius
    Legatus of Manichaeism, ii. 327;
   probably the “Father” of St Augustine’s “love song,” ii. 331;
   the “Mighty God” of the _Khuastuanift_, ii. 341 _n._ 2;
   mentioned by name in Tun-huang MS., ii. 355

 Stähelin, Prof. H., his theory of forgery in documents used by
    Hippolytus, i. 175 _n._ 5; ii. 11, 12 _n._ 1

 Stanley, Arthur Penrhyn, Roman nobles and the Jewish synagogue, i. lv
    _n._ 1.

 Statira, daughter of Darius and Alexander’s second wife, i. 6, 12


 Stauros or The Cross, Valentinian aeon projected by Bythos as guard to
    the Pleroma, ii. 105, 124;
   referred to in _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 140;
   personified in _Gospel of Peter_, ii. 140 _n._ 2.
   _See_ Cross

 Stoics, the, not popular in Rome of early Empire, i. 19;
   say all gods different forms of one Divine energy, i. 56;
   Alexandrian religion may owe something to, i. 60;
   Essenes take doctrine of Ecpyrosis from (Hippolytus), i. 155 _n._ 2;
   Tarsus one of principal seats of, ii. 83;
   Marcion educated in philosophy of, ii. 204;
   their Ecpyrosis may pass into Mithraism, ii. 250;
   their philosophy dear to best Roman minds, ii. 274;
   their Ecpyrosis may have come to them from Persians, ii. 297 _n._ 1

 Strabo, quotes Megasthenes’ story of gold-digging ants, i. 2 _n._ 1;
   mentions Candace Queen of Ethiopians, i. 37 _n._ 1;
   gives Iacchos important place in Mysteries, i. 40 _n._ 4

 Stratiotici, a sect connected with the Ophites (Epiphanius), ii. 27
    _n._ 1

 Sulayman Shah, XVIIth century inscription likening him to Alexander, i.
    14 _n._ 2

 Sulla, worship of Alexandrian gods in Rome, _temp._, i. 53;
   college of Pastophori at Cenchreae dates from, i. 74 _n._ 2;
   Chaldaeans in Rome, _temp._, i. 108 _n._ 2

 Sumer, probable source of First Man legend, i. lxiii _n._ 1;
   astrology first practised in, i. 113

 Sunday, compromise of Church as to coincidence of, with Lord’s Day, i.
    118;
   kept as fast by Manichaeans, ii. 343 _n._ 2, 349;
   Manichaeans worship Sun on (St Augustine), ii. 349 _n._ 4

 Suriel, name of planetary world in Diagram, ii. 70

 Susa, one of the four capitals of Persian Empire, i. 3;
   Alexander’s marriage of Europe and Asia at, i. 5;
   Greeks flock to, i. 7;
   Onomacritos flees with Pisistratids to, i. 121;
   Orphic legends possibly learned by Greeks at, i. 122 _n._ 3, 126 _n._
      3

 Swedenborg, Emanuel, ideas of Simon Magus revived by, i. 202

 Sykes, Major P. H., inscription in Khorassan discovered by, i. 14 _n._
    2

 Symmachus, Quintus Aurelius, life of, described by Sir Samuel Dill, ii.
    359

 Syncrasis or Blending, member of Valentinian Decad, ii. 101

 Synesis, in Diagram, ii. 68;
   member of Valentinian Dodecad, ii. 101

 Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais, his hymn to the Ineffable Bythos quoted,
    ii. 37 _n._ 1

 Syria, Buddhist mission to, i. 20;
   only road of attack on Egypt, i. 29;
   Adonis legend in, i. 37;
   Hadrian’s visit to, i. 86 _n._ 5;
   earth-goddess worshipped throughout, i. 126;
   Palestine buffer State between Egypt and, i. 151;
   Antiochus Epiphanes’ attempt to consolidate power of, _ibid._;
   Jews call in Romans against, i. 163;
   proconsul of, rebuilds cities destroyed by Jews, i. 177;
   spread of Simonians in, i. 199;
   name of Highest applied to god of, ii. 31;
   the great goddess of, called Atargatis and other names, ii. 45 _n._
      1;
   Ophites spread throughout, ii. 76

 _Syria Dea._ _See_ Atargatis


 Tacitus, the historian, on foundation of Alexandrian religion, i. 44
    _n._ 1;
   describes bringing of Bryaxis’ statue to Alexandria, i. 48 _n._ 3;
   calls Jews enemies of the human race, i. 167.
   _See_ Manetho, Timotheos

 Talmud, the, calls Babylonian Jews the Ten Tribes, ii. 32;
   existence of Cabala indicated in (Kuenen), ii. 35 _n._ 2;
   Yahweh’s Council or _familia_ (Taylor), ii. 43 _n._ 2;
   First Man in (Harvey), ii. 52 _n._ 1;
   Ophite stories find their way into, ii. 53

 Tammuz, analogy of Dionysos with, i. 122 _n._ 3;
   women weeping for, in Temple of Jerusalem, ii. 32


 Tarentum, unnamed poet of, author of “serpent father of bull” verse,
    ii. 39 _n._ 4


 Tarn, Mr W. W., attributes story of Antigonos’ deification to Antigonos
    Gonatas, i. 19 _n._ 1

 Tarsus, a centre of Stoic teaching, ii. 83

 Tartarus. _See_ Gehenna

 Tatian, the heresiarch, a disciple of Justin Martyr, becomes heretic
    from ambition, ii. 8 _n._ 3;
   his opinions and connection with Marcion, ii. 220

 Taurobolium, the (or blood bath), adopted by Mithraists from worship of
    Cybele, ii. 259;
   allusion to, in St Augustine, ii. 261 _n._ 2

 Taxo, mystic name of Antiochus Epiphanes’ opponent in _Assumption of
    Moses_, i. 170

 Taylor, Thomas, the Platonist, first translator of Orphic hymns, i. 141
    _n._ 2

 Telesterion, the, Hall of Initiations at Eleusis used for torchlight
    meeting, i. 39;
   no entry into, for uninitiated, i. 41;
   could not have held more than 3000, i. 65

 Tenedos, temple of Alexandrian gods at, i. 53

 Terebinthus, name of Manes’ teacher, ii. 285, 286;
   also called Buddha, ii. 285;
   suggested meaning of name, ii. 285 _n._ 4

 Termessus, worship of Alexandrian gods at, i. 53


 Tertullian, interest of heathen in early centuries in ethical
    questions, i. xlix _n._ 1; ii. 86;
   supposed astonishment of, at _post_-Constantinian ritual (Gibbon), i.
      85;
   first to formulate doctrine of Trinity (Harnack), i. 89 _n._ 2;
   accuses Gnostics of magic and astrology, i. 109 _n._ 1;
   says Valentinians give heavens reason and make angels of them, i. 187
      _n._ 2;
   tract _Adversus omnes Haereses_ wrongly ascribed to, ii. 10 _n._ 1,
      25;
   accuses Gnostics of concealing their opinions, ii. 18 _n._ 1;
   the like of innovating on doctrines of their leaders, ii. 27, 28;
   makes Valentinus give a consort to Bythos, ii. 96;
   his jests on piled-up heavens of Valentinians, ii. 99;
   his explanation of names of Valentinian Ogdoad, ii. 99, 100;
   says Valentinus becomes heretic because not made bishop, ii. 117;
   date of Valentinus’ separation from Church, ii. 118;
   his own heretical views on Trinity, ii. 122;
   his formal heresy Montanism, ii. 123 _n._ 1;
   describes respect paid by primitive Church to martyrs, ii. 127;
   says Gnostics make adherents in time of persecution, _ibid._;
   refers to baptism for dead, ii. 168 _n._ 4;
   “the Sophia not of Valentinus, but of Solomon,” ii. 178;
   had probably read the _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 179;
   his account of Marcion’s life, ii. 204;
   of Marcion’s repentance and death, ii. 205;
   “Marcionites make Churches as wasps make nests,” ii. 206;
   his testimony to good morals of Marcion and Marcionites, _ibid._;
   on Marcion’s rejection of all Gospels but Luke’s, ii. 208;
   _Antitheses_ of Marcion can be reconstructed from refutation of, ii.
      209;
   his _dictum_ that Marcion can never prove existence of highest God,
      ii. 210 _n._ 2;
   on Marcion’s anti-Jewish views, ii. 211;
   on Marcion’s dealings with Pauline Epistles, ii. 212;
   controversy between Marcion and T. recommended to Modernists
      (Foakes-Jackson), ii. 215 _n._ 1;
   says Marcionites sect largest but one, ii. 216;
   his sophistry in refutation of Marcion, ii. 218;
   quotes Lucian the Marcionite’s doctrine on resurrection, ii. 220;
   “Mithras is my crown,” ii. 245, 253 _n._ 3;
   says initiate into Mithraic mysteries baptized for remission of sins,
      ii. 260;
   says Supreme Pontiff of Mithras may only marry once, ii. 268 _n._ 4;
   quoted, i. xlix _n._ 1, 109 _n._ 1, 187 _n._ 2; ii. 18 _n._ 1, 27,
      28, 86 _n._ 1, 96 _n._ 5, 99 _n._ 1, 100 _n._ 1, 117 _n._ 3, 118
      _n._ 2, 127 _nn._ 1, 3, 168 _n._ 4, 178 _nn._ 2, 4, 179 _nn._ 2-7,
      204 _nn._ 3, 4, 5, 205 _nn._ 1, 2, 206 _nn._ 1, 4, 5, 208 _n._ 1,
      210 _n._ 2, 211 _nn._ 1, 3, 4, 5, 212 _nn._ 1, 6, 7, 8, 213 _nn._
      1, 2, 4, 215 _n._ 5, 216 _nn._ 1, 3, 6, 218 _nn._ 1, 3, 220 _n._
      5, 260 _n._ 5, 263 _n._ 3, 268 _n._ 4


 Testament, the Old, names of God in, used for magical purposes, ii. 33;
   Greek version of, belongs to Western Diaspora, ii. 53 _n._ 2;
   Ophites quote freely from, ii. 81;
   known to Ophites in Peshitto version, ii. 84;
   rejected by Marcion, ii. 208;
   used by Marcion’s follower Apelles, ii. 219;
   scenes from, on Mithraic monuments (Cumont), ii. 277;
   rejected by Manes, ii. 278, 350;
   quoted, i. 10 _nn._ 1, 2, 96 _n._ 3, 156 _n._ 4, 165 _nn._ 1, 6, 180
      _n._ 1; ii. 32 _nn._ 1, 2, 33 _n._ 1, 43 _n._ 2, 45 _n._ 1, 85, 94
      _n._ 3, 114 _n._ 3, 136 _n._ 1, 155 _n._ 3, 210 _n._ 3.
   _See_ Daniel, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, Haggai, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel,
      Zachariah

 Testament, the New, frequent mention of magicians in, i. 108;
   account of Simon Magus in, i. 176;
   Ophites quote from all the Gospels and most of the Pauline Epistles,
      ii. 81;
   Marcion’s treatment of, ii. 208;
   Manes calls himself Paraclete announced in, ii. 351;
   quoted, i. 108 _n._ 6, 145 _n._ 1, 176, 177 _n._ 5, 182 _n._ 4, 188
      _n._ 1, 191 _n._ 3; ii. 3 _n._ 3, 4 _n_ 1, 6 _n._ 3, 25 _nn._ 5,
      6, 28 _n._ 3, 29 _n._ 1, 32 _n._ 5, 42 _n._ 4, 53 _n._ 2, 57 _n._
      2, 64 _n._ 3, 89 _n._ 4, 117 _n._ 1, 123 _n._ 3, 131 _n._ 1, 135
      _n._ 3, 159 _n._ 3, 161 _n._ 4, 169 _n._ 5, 170 _n._ 1, 172 _n._
      1, 180 _n._ 4, 212 _nn._ 1-5, 7, 9, 213 _nn._ 1, 3, 288 _n._ 3.
   _See_ Apocalypse, Gospel the Fourth


 Tetragrammaton, the four-lettered name of Yahweh, i. 100 _n._ 4; ii. 47
    _n._ 3;
   used in most spells, ii. 34;
   Adonai substituted for original name in O.T., ii. 71 _n._ 1.
   _See_ Akâe, Bêqâ

 Thales of Miletus, his doctrine that water is the beginning of all
    things, ii. 36

 Thartharaoth, magic word used in Diagram, ii. 71

 Thauthabaoth, the like, _ibid._

 Thebes, the Greek, i. 6, 13;
   the Egyptian, succeeded by Memphis as religious capital, i. 51

 Thebuthis, leader of early sect mentioned by Hegesippus, ii. 6 _n._ 4;
   said to be first who corrupted the Church because not made bishop,
      ii. 8 _n._ 3

 Thekla, relations between her and St Paul in Pagan eyes, i. 179 _n._ 2

 Theletos or Desired, member of Valentinian Dodecad and spouse of
    Sophia, ii. 101

 Themistius, the neo-Platonist, says philosopher should know all
    religions, but belong to none, ii. 270

 Themistocles, goes to Susa when banished, i. 7

 Theocrasia. _See_ Egyptians, Greeks, Ionia


 Theocritus, the poet, shows Adonis worshipped as form of Osiris, i. 55;
   like Apuleius makes Thessaly home of sorcerers, i. 108

 Theocritus, Bishop of Chalcedon, rabbles Ophites in Vth century, ii. 77

 Theodore bar Khôni, gives number of Ophite planetary heavens as ten,
    ii. 70 _n._ 2;
   says Bardesanes teaches that world made from five substances, ii. 291
      _n._ 3;
   makes surrender of First Man to Satan tactical, ii. 294 _n._ 2;
   amplifies earlier account of deliverance of First Man, ii. 295 _nn._
      1, 2, 302 _n._ 1;
   does not mention Wheel, ii. 297 _n._ 2;
   his elaborate account of creation of man and other animals, ii. 304
      _n._ 1;
   his Book of _Scholia_, its date and authorship, ii. 321.
   _See_ Appellant and Respondent, Ban, Kashgar, Manichaeism

 Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, writes against Magi, ii. 237

 Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, for spread of Simonians, i. 199;
   on Third Person of Ophite Trinity, ii. 42 _n._ 5;
   says Ophiomorphus changes from good to evil, ii. 78;
   boasts conversion of 100 Marcionites, ii. 216

 Theodosius, the Emperor, sanctions demolition of heathen temples in
    Alexandria, i. 83


 _Theodoti, Excerpta_, preserved by Clement of Alexandria, ii. 10 _n._
    1;
   represent teaching of Anatolic School, ii. 109 _n._ 1;
   describe repose of spiritual and psychic souls until Consummation,
      ii. 111 _n._ 1;
   astrological destiny of man modified by baptism, ii. 115 _n._ 3;
   Jesus receives tincture from planetary worlds in His descent, ii. 116
      _n._ 1;
   quote opening words of Fourth Gospel, ii. 117 _n._ 1, 177 _n._ 4;
   date of, ii. 158 _n._ 1;
   astrological doctrine among Gnostics first prominent in, _ibid._;
   quoted, ii. 109 _n._ 1, 111 _n._ 1, 115 _n._ 3, 116 _n._ 1, 117 _n._
      1, 177 _n._ 4

 Theodotus the Valentinian, a native of Byzantium, ii. 9;
   a leader of the Anatolic School of Valentinians, ii. 119;
   followers of, worship Melchizidek (Hippolytus), ii. 148 _n._ 1

 Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, “the perpetual enemy of peace and
    virtue” (Gibbon), i. 83;
   procures destruction of the Alexandrian Serapeum, i. 84

 Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, first to mention by name St John’s
    Gospel, ii. 178

 Theophrastus, mentions in his _Characters_ the Orpheotelestae, i. 140


 Theopompos of Chios, Plutarch’s authority for statements about
    Zoroaster, i. lxii;
   ii. 214 _n._ 2, 289 _n._ 3;
   gives independent principle to evil, ii. 289 _n._ 3

 Theoris, priestess of Athenian confraternity convicted of sale of
    poisons, i. 23 _n._ 2


 Theotokos, the, worship of Virgin Mary as, introduced at destruction of
    Serapeum, i. 85

 Thersites, murder of, by Achilles leads to first instance of
    purification among Greeks, i. 121 _n._ 4

 Theseus, made immortal because son of divine father, i. 18

 Thessaly, inhabitants of, called Thracians, i. 136.
   _See_ Theocritus, Thracians

 Thian, Chinese god compared to Egyptian Nu (Maspero), i. 73 _n._ 4


 Thibet, Manes retires to, when exiled, ii. 281

 Thomas, the Apostle, in _Pistis Sophia_ one of the three recorders of
    the words of Jesus, ii. 157;
   all apocrypha attributed to, probably Manichaean (Dufourcq), ii. 351

 Thomas, missionary despatched by Manes into Syria, ii. 352

 _Thomas, The Gospel of_, used by Ophites, probably not that now extant,
    ii. 79

 Thoth, the god, the ibis-totem brought into legend of Osiris, i. 35,
    36;
   epithet of, made name of Roman writer on magic (Maspero), i. 108 _n._
      1

 Thothmes IV, King of Egypt, dream of, regarding Sphinx of Gizeh, i. 77
    _n._ 2

 Thrace, gods of, early brought into Athens, i. 16;
   Orphic teaching comes into Greece through, i. 122, 136;
   worship of Theban Dionysos comes from, i. 136


 Thracians, the, to Greek writers, inhabitants of Macedonia and
    Thessaly, i. 136;
   their horror of birth and delight at death (Herodotus), _ibid._

 Thrasea, the “Stoic saint” (Dill), ii. 87

 Thueris, the goddess, called “great of sorcery, cat of Ethiopia” in
    Magic Papyrus, i. 37 _n._ 1

 Tiamat, the goddess, heaven and earth made out of her dead body in
    Babylonian legend, ii. 44 _n._ 3;
   story of, perhaps reproduced by Ophites, _ibid._;
     and by Manichaeans, ii. 295 _n._ 2

 Tiberius, the Emperor, exiles worshippers of Isis to Sardinia, i. 53,
    78;
   no Christian converts of rank in reign of, ii. 8 _n._ 5

 Tiele, Cornelius Petrus, on dislike of Hellenists for comparative
    method, i. l _n._ 2;
   says science of religions long looked on with suspicion, i. liv

 Tigranes, King of Armenia, his tyranny in Phrygia, ii. 29

 Timon of Phlya, his contempt for philosophers of Museum, i. 45


 Timotheos, the Eumolpid, with Manetho founds Alexandrian religion, i.
    44;
   name may be typical only (Bouché-Leclercq), i. 44 _n._ 1;
   his use of Eleusinian Mysteries, i. 61

 Timothy, son of Eunice, of Jewish descent, but not circumcised
    (Ramsay), ii. 28 _n._ 3

 Titan, name equated with Ham by Moses of Chorene, i. lx

 Titans, the, murderers of Zagreus, i. 37;
   tear Zagreus in pieces from jealousy, i. 42, 125;
   sons of Heaven and Earth, i. 125;
   in Orphic myth entrap infant Zagreus, i. _ibid._;
   blasted with lightning by Zeus, _ibid._;
   introduced into Zagreus legend by Onomacritos, i. 126 _n._ 3;
   man in Orphic teaching made out of ashes of, i. 127;
   Orphic contempt for body which belongs to, i. 128;
   disguise of, recalled in Sabazian rites, i. 138;
   the second Dionysos torn to pieces and eaten by, i. 144;
   Orphic hymns invoke, i. 146;
   parallel to jealousy of, in system of Simon Magus, i. 190 _n._ 2;
   representation of blasting of, on Mithraic monument, ii. 254

 Titus, the Emperor, repeated rebellions of Jews after destruction of
    Temple by, i. 163; ii. 5;
   Essenes survive capture of Jerusalem by, i. 170;
   Christians regarded as Jews till time of, ii. 4

 _Tobit, The Book of_, Ophites quote from, ii. 81

 Trajan, the Emperor, in his time knowledge of Latin not necessary at
    Rome, i. 9;
   atrocities committed by Jews throughout East, _temp._, i. 172 _n._ 1;
   the _Didache_ not later than (Duchesne), ii. 7 _n._ 2;
   earns title of Parthicus by his Eastern victories, ii. 225;
   conquers Dacia and colonizes it with Orientals, ii. 271

 Tranquillina, wife of Gordian III, i. 24

 Transmigration of Souls, doctrine of Pythagoreans taken over by
    Orphics, i. 127;
   origin of belief in, i. 129;
   doctrine of, in Pindar, _ibid._;
   initiation into Mysteries frees from, i. 130, 134;
   taught by Simon Magus, i. 196;
   variations of doctrines in the Ophite system, ii. 65, 75;
   in that of Valentinus, ii. 115;
   in that of the _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 164, 165, 173;
   in that of the _Texts of the Saviour_, ii. 183, 187;
   in the worship of Mithras, ii. 264, 265;
   in Manichaeism, ii. 308

 Trees, the Five, of the _Pistis Sophia_, powers of the Treasure-house,
    ii. 141;
   the Great Powers of the Right emanate from, ii. 147


 Tridynami, or Triple Powers of the _Pistis Sophia_ mentioned in the
    address of the powers to Jesus, ii. 143;
   the Great Propator, Barbelo and the Authades, ii. 150, 151;
   give birth to 24 Invisible Powers of whom Pistis Sophia is the last,
      _ibid._

 Triparadeisos, treaty of, confirms Ptolemy Soter in possession of
    Egypt, i. 30

 Triptolemus, shown at Eleusis as setting out to spread knowledge of
    agriculture through world, i. 41

 Tryphera, Athenian courtezan who was member of confraternity, i. 22


 Tun-huang, Manichaean treatise discovered at, ii. 352;
   quoted, ii. 323 _n._ 3, 327 _nn._ 2, 4, 329 _n._ 1, 330 _nn._ 1, 3,
      339 _n._ 1, 341 _n._ 1, 346 _n._ 1, 352, 353, 354.
   _See_ Buddhas, Dove

 Turfan, Manichaean texts discovered at, ii. 316, 317;
   quoted, 323 _nn._ 3, 4, 324 _nn._ 1, 4, 327 _n._ 2, 329 _n._ 1, 350
      _n._ 4, 356 _n._ 4.
   _See_ Jesus, Mithras, Srôsh, Virgin of Light, Zervan

 Tzimiskes, the Emperor John, settles Manichaeans in Bulgaria, ii. 357


 Ulpian, the jurist, his maxim that all men are equal before the law,
    ii. 86


 Ulysses, purifies Achilles for murder of Thersites, i. 121 _n._ 4.
   _See_ Odysseus

 Unas, King of Egypt, represented as eating gods to obtain their power,
    i. 125 _n._ 3


 Uranus or Ouranos, the god, emasculated by Kronos his successor, i.
    123;
   Dionysos descendant of, i. 133;
   never represented with stars, _ibid._;
   with his wife Gê corresponds to Simonian syzygy, i. 185;
   presides over Third Age of Orphics, i. 186;
   his wife Gê type of all earth-goddesses, ii. 45 _n._ 1

 Uranus, the planet, not known in classical times, i. 116


 Valens, the Emperor, syncretism of Pagan religion, _temp._, i. 83

 Valentinian I, the Emperor, Mithraic inscriptions in reign of Valens
    and, i. 83

 Valentinians, the, grow up in atmosphere of Orphic teaching, i. 128
    _n._ 1;
   like Simonians, make heavens persons as well as worlds, i. 187 _n._
      2;
   Docetism of, i. 191 _n._ 4;
   probably quote from Peshitto version of O.T., ii. 81 _n._ 1;
   persecuted by orthodox, ii. 96;
   divide into two schools, ii. 118, 119;
   views of, as to Devil, ii. 108, 256;
   not a secret sect like Basilidians, ii. 126;
   their compliances with heathenism, ii. 126, 127;
   high price of their mysteries, ii. 127 _n._ 4;
   their success in Egypt, ii. 132;
   protected by Julian, _ibid._;
   superseded by Manichaeism, _ibid._;
   assign corporate existence to Decad etc., ii. 160 _n._ 1;
   sometimes delay baptism till deathbed (Tertullian), ii. 168;
   say Catholics only capable of salvation, ii. 173;
   of Hadrian’s time, not responsible for _Texts of Saviour_, ii. 180
      _n._ 3;
   most numerous of heretics, ii. 216

 Valentinus, the heresiarch, accusation of disappointed ambition
    against, ii. 8 _n._ 3;
   said to have been a Jew (Neander), ii. 9 _n._ 1;
   Docetism of, ii. 17;
   followers of, innovate on his doctrines (Tertullian), ii. 27, 28;
   connection between systems of V. and of Simon, ii. 45 _n._ 1, 93;
   first makes Gnosticism workable form of Christianity, ii. 93;
   importance of system of, in eyes of Fathers, ii. 95;
   his Supreme Being, ii. 96, 97;
   his system of aeons, ii. 98-103;
   its possible explanation, ii. 99, 100;
   his Fall of Sophia and its consequences, ii. 104-108;
   his Four Worlds or “Places,” ii. 108, 109;
   his three species of souls, ii. 112;
   his Christology, ii. 113, 114;
   his life, followers and successors, ii. 117-121;
   his religion contrasted with that of Church, ii. 121-124;
   his obligation to Ophites, ii. 124, 143;
   moral dangers of teaching of, ii. 127, 128, 129;
   services of, to Christianity, ii. 132, 133;
   revival in Paris of religion of, ii. 133 _n._ 1;
   system of _Pistis Sophia_ resembles that of, ii. 135, 158, 159;
   boundary Powers common to both, ii. 140 _n._ 2;
   the Power of _P.S._ and the Logoi of, ii. 149 _n._ 5;
   verbal juggling common to both systems, ii. 169;
   V. probable author of first two books of _P.S._, ii. 177, 178, 179;
   religion of, derived from Ophites, but degenerates under Egyptian
      influence, ii. 197, 198;
   heresy of, contrasted with Marcion’s, ii. 204;
   links with Manichaeism through Bardesanes, ii. 291;
   quoted, ii. 110, 112 _n._ 3, 113 _n._ 1, 125

 Valerian, the Emperor, captured by Sapor I, ii. 226, 281;
   his defeat lets Goths into Dacia, ii. 271


 Varanes or Bahram I, the Shah, puts Manes to death, ii. 281;
   institutes persecution against Manichaeans, ii. 317

 Varuna, the god, invoked in Vedas with Mithras, ii. 230-232, 248;
   god of sky and prototype of Zeus, ii. 231;
   a god of Mitannians or Hittites, _ibid._

 Vatican, monument of Isis-worship in, i. 73;
   papyri of recluse of Serapeum in Library of, i. 80 _n._ 1

 Vedas, the, religion of, may have come from Asia Minor, i. 122 _n._ 3;
   associate Varuna with Mitra, ii. 232, 248

 Veil, “within the,” of Hebrews and _P. S._, ii. 135;
   guardian of, ii. 148 _n._ 3

 Vellay, M. Charles, shows fusion in first centuries of legends of
    Osiris, Attis and Adonis, i. 55 _n._ 4

 Ventidiu Bassus, Publius, drives Parthians out of Palestine, i. 161
    _n._ 3


 Venus, the goddess, identified with Greek Isis, i. 56.
   _See_ Aphrodite

 Venus, the planet, omen of distress among Assyrians, i. 114;
   a benefic to Chaldaeans, i. 116;
     and in _Texts of Saviour_, i. 118 _n._ 1;
   one of the Ophite hebdomad, ii. 48;
   her sphere in Diagram, ii. 74 _n._ 1;
   ruled by power from Pistis Sophia, ii. 162 _n._ 3, 180, 186;
   one of the five which control the stars of Adamas, ii. 182

 Verethragna, the god, represented as Hercules on Mithraic monuments
    (Cumont), ii. 258

 Vespasian, the Emperor, dream sent to, by Serapis in Temple at
    Alexandria, i. 77;
   siege of Temple of Jerusalem by, ii. 23


 Victorinus of Pettau, probable author of pseudo-Tertullian’s tract
    against heresies, ii. 25 _n._ 3;
   his story that Simon calls Helena, Sophia, ii. 45 _n._ 1

 Vincentius, tomb of, in Catacomb of Praetextatus at Rome shows links
    between Sabazius and Mithras, ii. 259 _n._ 2


 Virgin of Light, the, perhaps mentioned in Ophite address to
    Astaphaeus, ii. 73 _n._ 2;
   causes soul of Elijah to be planted in St John Baptist, ii. 137, 150;
   her place and office, ii. 137 _n._ 3;
   one of the two Leaders of the Middle, ii. 150;
   working agent in salvation of souls, ii. 158;
   her dealing with soul which has received lesser mysteries, ii. 165,
      174;
   the like with second mystery of First Mystery, ii. 167;
   in _Texts of Saviour_ gives the “Power,” ii. 184;
   sends soul of slanderer into afflicted body, ii. 187;
   reappears in Manichaeism, ii. 299 _n._ 1;
   in Manichaeism retires into Moon at end of world, ii. 323 _n._ 4

 Vohu Mano, the Amshaspand, reference to, in _Apocalypse of Salathiel_,
    i. 167 _n._ 2;
   first of Amshaspands in Avesta, i. 181 _n._ 1;
   receives faithful soul at death, ii. 311

 Vologeses or Valkash, King of Parthia, collects books of Avesta, ii.
    278, 283;
   his attempt at reformation of Zoroastrianism unsuccessful, ii. 284

 Vonones, King of Parthia, his philhellenism offends his subjects, ii.
    282

 Vulcan, the god, on Mithraic monument, ii. 238 _n._ 3


 Way, the Middle, in _Texts of Saviour_ Jesus transfers himself and his
    disciples to, ii. 182;
   a place of torment, ii. 187

 Wesley, John, founder of a “Free Church,” ii. 19

 Wessely, Dr Karl, edits Magic Papyri, i. 101

 Wheel of Salvation, in Manichaeism, ii. 297, 306, 308.
   _See_ Zodiac

 Winckler, Dr Hugo, his astral theory of Oriental religion, i. 115 _n._
    1;
   his discovery of worship of Vedic gods in Asia Minor, ii. 45 _n._ 1,
      231

 Williams-Jackson, Prof. A. V., puts date of Zoroaster at 700 B.C., i.
    lxii

 Woide, librarian of British Museum, first draws attention to _Pistis
    Sophia_, ii. 134

 Woman, the First, the Holy Spirit of the Ophites, ii. 40;
   at first female form of Ophite Supreme Being, later proceeds from
      Father and Son, ii. 41 _n._ 2;
   story of superfluous Light which falls from, ii. 44;
   Sophia springs from left side of, Christos from right, ii. 46;
   not mentioned by Sophia when undeceiving Ialdabaoth, ii. 51 _n._ 5


 Xenocrates of Chalcedon, his date, i. 47 _n._ 1;
   speaks of a supernal and infernal Zeus, i. 47 _n._ 1; ii. 239 _n._ 6;
   makes Zeus both male and female, i. 47 _n._ 4;
   calls stars and planets, gods, i. 186 _n._ 2

 Xenophanes of Colophon, says Demeter and Persephone the same goddess,
    i. 46

 Xenophon, authority for visits of the King’s Eye to satraps, i. 2 _n._
    1;
   treats Socrates as polytheist, i. 11


 Xisuthros, the Babylonian Noah, i. lx



 Yahweh of Israel, a mountain god to Syrians, i. 10;
   Hebrew Prophets’ and Psalmists’ monotheistic conception of, i. 11;
   associated in magic with Zeus and Serapis, i. 107;
   according to Jews, promises them exclusive temporal advantages, i.
      150;
     on same authority, makes world for sake of Jews, i. 165;
   stars the viceroys of (Philo), i. 187;
   the “Father” of second or intermediate world of Simon, i. 188;
   called Hypsistos in Asia Minor (Cumont), ii. 31, 85 _n._ 3;
   Anat and Bethel assessors of, at Elephantine, ii. 32 _n._ 4, 43 _n._
      2;
   name of, specially used in magic, ii. 33;
   name of, ineffable after Alexander, ii. 37 _n._ 1;
   Sophia his delight and instrument, ii. 45 _n._ 1;
   called Ialdabaoth by Ophites, ii. 47;
   in Ophite system, power below the Supreme God, ii. 84;
   called the Great Archon by Basilides, ii. 94;
   probably the Jeû of _Pistis Sophia_, ii. 148

 Yazatas, the. _See_ Izeds

 Yezdegerd II, the Shah, Zervanist sect dominant in Persia, _temp._, ii.
    285

 York, Mithraic monuments at, ii. 239

 Yung, Dr Émile, his views on hypnotism and crystal-gazing, i. 110


 Zacchaei, the, Gnostic sect mentioned by Epiphanius, ii. 27 _n._ 1


 Zachariah, the Prophet, shows hatred of Gentiles, i. 167 _n._ 4

 Zagreus, the god, secret worship of, in Greece in early times, i. 17;
   Cretan legend of, i. 37;
   the same as taught at Eleusis, i. 42;
     and by Orphics, i. 124, 125;
   Orphics connect Passion and Resurrection of, with history of man, i.
      126;
   Orphics teach that man’s soul is part of, i. 127;
   initiate becomes identified with Zagreus by eating raw flesh of
      victim, i. 128;
   identified with Iacchos at Eleusis, i. 130;
     and with Sabazius, i. 137;
   called “Highest of All” (Aeschylus), i. 137 _n._ 3;
   rites of Sabazius explained by legend of, i. 138;
   sewing of heart of, in thigh of Zeus and its result, i. 145

 Zarazaz, cryptographic name of power in Texts of Saviour otherwise
    Maskelli, ii. 75 _n._ 1, 148 _n._ 3;
   perhaps Guardian of Veil of Treasure-house, ii. 148 _n._ 3

 Zeesar, cryptographic name of heavenly river among Ophites, ii. 94 _n._
    3

 Zeller, his view of Philo’s powers of God, i. 174

 Zend Avesta. _See_ Avesta

 Zeno of Cyprus, why not quoted by Ophite writers, ii. 83


 Zervan, said by Moses of Chorene to be the Patriarch Shem, i. lx;
   Supreme God of Light in Tun-huang and Turfan texts, ii. 323, 342, 343

 Zervan Akerene, supreme divinity of sect of Zoroastrian heretics, ii.
    236;
   head of Mithraic pantheon and father of Ormuzd and Ahriman (Cumont),
      ii. 252;
   Mihr Nerses’ proclamation concerning, ii. 285;
   belief in, denounced in _Khuastuanift_, ii. 339

 Zeus, Crete or Asia Minor birthplace of, i. 16;
   identified with many gods of Asia and Europe, i. 17;
   father of Zagreus by Persephone, i. 37, 42, 138;
   union with Demeter shown in Mysteries, i. 40, 61 _n._ 1;
   Hermes sent by, to Hades for deliverance of Persephone, i. 41;
   father of Dionysos his destined successor, i. 46;
   the Z. of Phidias model for Serapis, i. 49;
   “Serapis is Z.”, i. 55;
   Achilles’ flattery of, i. 95;
   identified in magic spell with Serapis and Yahweh, i. 106, 107;
   Orphic, swallows Phanes and becomes father of gods and men, i. 123;
   his relations with Orphic Dionysos, i. 124;
   blasts Titans after murder of Zagreus, i. 125;
   Orphic “an initiate of Idaean Z.” (Euripides), i. 128;
   man’s soul a descendant of, according to Orphics, i. 133;
   relations of Orphic, with Demeter and Persephone, i. 142, 144, 145;
   Titans enemies of, ii. 146;
   identified by Orphics with Dionysos, ii. 147;
   Samaritans offer Antiochus Epiphanes to dedicate Mt Gerizim temple
      to, i. 177;
   Orphics assign last age of world but one to, i. 186;
   called Metropator by Orphics, i. 190 _n._ 1;
   Barnabas hailed as, in Phrygia, i. 191 _n._ 3; ii. 42;
   legend of Z. and Persephone referred to Asia Minor, ii. 49;
   Varuna perhaps prototype of, ii. 231;
   “the whole circuit of the sky” to Persians (Herodotus), ii. 234;
   identified with Ormuzd, ii. 237;
   on Mithraic monuments, ii. 238, 254.
   _See_ Jupiter, Polycleitos


 Zeus Chthonios, “the God” of Eleusis, i. 47;
   mentioned by Hesiod, i. 126;
   identified with Hades and Dionysos, i. 130;
     and with Adonis, i. 137;
   the serpent lover of Persephone, i. 145 _n._ 2

 Zeus Labrandos, double axe symbol of, ii. 67 _n._ 3.
   _See_ Lairbenos


 Zodiac, the, in _Texts of Saviour_ salvation determined by entry of
    benefic planet into certain signs of, i. 118;
   in _Pistis Sophia_ Twelve Aeons means, ii. 137 _n._ 1, 154;
   Pythagoras’ division of, ii. 144 _n._ 8;
   the Twelve “members of Light” in Manichaeism, ii. 293 _n._ 2;
   the Wheel with twelve buckets in same, ii. 297 _n._ 2;
   the twelve daughters of the Third Legate, ii. 328

 Zoë or Life, member of second Valentinian syzygy, ii. 98

 Zoroaster, Parsi belief in special inspiration of, i. liii;
   religion of, once shared with Buddhism and Christianity belief of
      civilized world, i. lviii;
   Plutarch’s date for, i. lxii;
   religion reformed by, may be pre-Homeric, i. lxiii;
   date of, 700 B.C., i. 126 _n._ 3; ii. 232;
   both Bardesanes and Marcion borrow from (Al-Bîrûnî), ii. 214 _n._ 2;
   name and doctrine of, known in West long before Plutarch, ii. 234;
   reform of, directed against worship of Ahriman (Rosenberg), ii. 253
      _n._ 5;
   Ardeshîr entrusts Magi with propagation of reformed religion of, ii.
      280;
   divine origin of teaching of, acknowledged by Manes, ii. 316


 Zoroastrianism, borrows from Babylonia, i. lxi;
   our ignorance of origin and dates of, i. lxii;
   adopts theory of seven planetary spheres surrounding earth, i. 117;
   Orphic poems seem reminiscent of reformed, i. 122;
   late form of, derives origin of man from death of Gayômort, i. 126
      _n._ 3;
   fire which burns wicked like warm milk to just, i, 134 _n._ 1;
   doctrine of Essenes said to be derived from, i. 156;
   doctrine of Amshaspands in, i. 181;
   likeness between post-Exilic Judaism and (Cheyne), i. 181 _n._ 1;
   Simon Magus’ ideas in part derived from (Franck), i. 197;
   revolt of Gaumata perhaps directed against, ii. 233;
   its restoration and reform by Ardeshîr, ii. 284;
   Manes’ description of lot of justified taken from, ii. 310

 Zwingli, founder of a “Free Church,” ii. 19


CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS




 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
    ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are
      referenced.
    ○ Superscripts which are a single character, such as “4” with a
      superscript “a”, are shown by the caret “^” character before the
      superscript, such as 4^a. Longer superscripts are wrapped in curly
      brackets, such as p^{tle}.