Book VII. (Cont.)
Chap. XVII. – Marcion; His Dualism; Derives His System from Empedocles; Sketch of the Doctrine of Empedocles.
But Marcion,51 a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one. And himself imagining that he was introducing some novel (opinion), founded a school full of folly, and attended by men of a sensual mode of life, inasmuch as he himself was one of lustful propensities.52 This (heretic) having thought that the multitude would forget that he did not happen to be a disciple of Christ, but of Empedocles,53 who was far anterior to himself, framed and formed the same opinions, – namely, that there are two causes of the universe, discord and friendship. For what does Empedocles say respecting the plan of the world? Even though we have previously spoken (on this subject), yet even now also, for the purpose, at all events, of comparing the heresy of this plagiarist (with its source), we shall not be silent.
This (philosopher) affirms that all the elements out of which the world consists and derives its being, are six: two of them material, (viz.,) earth and water; and two of them instruments by which material objects are arranged and altered, (viz.,) fire and air; and two of them, by means of the instruments, operating upon matter and fashioning it, viz., discord and friendship. (Empedocles) expresses himself somehow thus: –
“The four roots of all things hear thou first:
Brilliant Jove, and life-giving Juno and Aidoneus,
And Nestis, who with tears bedews the mortal font.”54
Jupiter is fire, and life-giving Juno earth, which produces fruits for the support of existence; and Aidoneus air, because although through him we behold all things, yet himself alone we do not see. But Nestis is water, for this is a sole vehicle of (food), and thus becomes a cause of sustenance to all those that are being nourished; (but) this of itself is not able to afford nutriment to those that are being nourished. For if it did possess the power of affording nutriment, animal life, he says, could never be destroyed by famine, inasmuch as water is always superabundant in the world. For this reason he denominates Nestis water, because, (though indirectly) being a cause of nutriment, it is not (of itself) competent to afford nutriment to those things that are being nourished. These, therefore – to delineate them as by way of outline – are the principles that comprise (Empedocles’) entire theory of the world: (viz.,) water and earth, out of which (proceed) generated entities; fire and spirit, (which are) instruments and efficient (causes), but discord and friendship, which are (principles) artistically fabricating (the universe). And friendship is a certain peace, and unanimity, and love, whose entire effort is, that there should be one finished and complete world. Discord, however, invariably separates that one (world), and subdivides it, or makes many things out of one. Therefore discord is of the entire creation a cause which he styles “oulomenon,” that is, destructive. For it is the concern of this (discord), that throughout every age the creation itself should continue to preserve its existing condition. And ruinous discord has been (thus) a fabricator and an efficient cause of the production of all generated entities; whereas friendship (is the cause) of the eduction, and alteration, and restoration of existing things into one system. And in regard of these (causes), Empedocles asserts that they are two immortal and unbegotten principles, and such as have not as yet received an originating cause of existence. (Empedocles) somewhere or other (expresses himself) in the following manner: –
“For if both once it was, and will be; never, I think,
Will be the age eternal void of both of these.”55
(But) what are these (two)? Discord and Friendship; for they did not begin to come into being, but pre-existed and always will exist, because, from the fact of their being unbegotten, they are not able to undergo corruption. But fire, (and water,) and earth, and air, are (entities) that perish and revive. For when these generated (bodies), by reason of Discord, cease to exist, Friendship, laying hold on them, brings them forward, and attaches and associates them herself with the universe. (And this takes place) in order that the Universe may continue one, being always ordered by Friendship in a manner one and the same, and with (uninterrupted) uniformity.
When, however, Friendship makes unity out of plurality, and associates with unity separated entities, Discord, again, forcibly severs them from unity, and makes them many, that is, fire, water, earth, air, (as well as) the animals and plants produced from these, and whatever portions of the world we observe. And in regard of the form of the world, what sort it is, (as) arranged by Friendship, (Empedocles) expresses himself in the following terms: –
“For not from back two arms arise,
Not feet, not nimble knees, not genital groin,
But a globe it was, and equal to itself it is.”56
An operation of this description Friendship maintains, and makes (one) most beautiful form of the world out of plurality. Discord, however, the cause of the arrangement of each of the parts (of the universe), forcibly severs and makes many things out of that one (form). And this is what Empedocles affirms respecting his own generation: –
“Of these I also am from God a wandering exile.”57
That is, (Empedocles) denominates as God the unity and unification of that (one form) in which (the world) existed antecedent to the separation and production (introduced) by Discord among the majority of those things (that subsisted) in accordance with the disposition (effected) by Discord. For Empedocles affirms Discord to be a furious, and perturbed, and unstable Demiurge, (thus) denominating Discord the creator of the world. For this constitutes the condemnation and necessity of souls which Discord forcibly severs from unity, and (which it) fashions and operates upon, (according to Empedocles,) who expresses himself after some such mode as, the following: –
“Who perjury piles on sin,
While demons gain a life prolonged;”58
meaning by demons long-lived souls, because they are immortal, and live for lengthened ages: –
“For thrice ten thousand years banished from bliss;”59
denominating as blissful, those that have been collected by Friendship from the majority of entities into the process of unification (arising out) of the intelligible world. He asserts that those are exiles, and that
“In lapse of time all sorts of mortal men are born,
Changing the irksome ways of life”60
He asserts the irksome ways to be the alterations and transfigurations of souls into (successive) bodies. This is what he says: –
“Changing the irksome ways of life.”
For souls “change,” body after body being altered, and punished by Discord, and not permitted to continue in the one (frame), but that the souls are involved in all descriptions of punishment by Discord being changed from body to body. He says: –
“Ethereal force to ocean drives the souls,
And ocean spurts them forth on earth’s expanse,
And earth on beams of blazing sun, who flings
(The souls) on aether’s depths, and each from each
(A spirit) takes, and all with hatred burn.”61
This is the punishment which the Demiurge inflicts, just as some brazier moulding (a piece of) iron, and dipping it successively from fire into water. For fire is the aether whence the Demiurge transfers the souls into the sea; and land is the earth: whence he uses the words, from water into earth, and from earth into air. This is what (Empedocles) says: –
“And earth on beams
Of blazing sun, who flings (the souls)
On aether’s depths, and each from each
A (spirit) takes, and all with hatred burn.”
The souls, then, thus detested, and tormented, and punished in this world, are, according to Empedocles, collected by Friendship as being a certain good (power), and (one) that pities the groaning of these, and the disorderly and wicked device of furious Discord. And (likewise Friendship is) eager, and toils to lead forth little by little the souls from the world, and to domesticate them with unity, in order that all things, being conducted by herself, may attain unto unification. Therefore on account of such an arrangement on the part of destructive Discord of this divided world, Empedocles admonishes his disciples to abstain from all sorts of animal food. For he asserts that the bodies of animals are such as feed on the habitations of punished souls. And he teaches those who are hearers of such doctrines (as his), to refrain from intercourse with women. (And he issues this precept) in order that (his disciples) may not co-operate with and assist those works which Discord fabricates, always dissolving and forcibly severing the work of Friendship. Empedocles asserts that this is the greatest law of the management of the universe, expressing himself somehow thus: –
“There’s something swayed by Fate, the ancient,
Endless law of gods, and sealed by potent oaths.”62
He thus calls Fate the alteration from unity into plurality, according to Discord, and from plurality into unity, according to Friendship. And, as I stated, (Empedocles asserts) that there are four perishable gods, (viz.,) fire, water, earth, (and) air. (He maintains,) however, that there are two (gods) which are immortal, unbegotten, (and) continually hostile one to the other, (namely) Discord and Friendship. And (he asserts) that Discord always is guilty of injustice and covetousness, and forcible abduction of the things of Friendship, and of appropriation of them to itself. (He alleges,) however, that Friendship, inasmuch as it is always and invariably a certain good (power), and intent on union, recalls and brings towards (itself), and reduces to unity, the parts of the universe that have been forcibly severed, and tormented, and punished in the creation by the Demiurge. Some such system of philosophy as the foregoing is advanced for us by Empedocles concerning the generation of the world, and its destruction, and its constitution, as one consisting of what is good and bad. And he says that there is likewise a certain third power which is cognised by intellect, and that this can be understood from these, (viz., Discord and Friendship,) expressing himself somehow thus: –
“For if, ‘neath hearts of oak, these truths you fix,
And view them kindly in meditations pure,
Each one of these, in lapse of time, will haunt you,
And many others, sprung of these, descend.
For into every habit these will grow, as Nature prompts;
But if for other things you sigh, which, countless, linger
Undisguised ‘mid men, and blunt the edge of care,
As years roll on they’ll leave you fleetly,
Since they yearn to reach their own beloved race;
For know that all possess perception and a share of mind.”63
Chap. XVIII. – Source of Marcionism; Empedocles Reasserted as the Suggester of the Heresy.
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger,64 announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. For bear with me, O Marcion: as you have instituted a comparison of what is good and evil, I also to-day will institute a comparison following up your own tenets, as you suppose them to be. You affirm that the Demiurge of the world is evil – why not hide your countenance in shame, (as thus) teaching to the Church the doctrines of Empedocles? You say that there is a good Deity who destroys the works of the Demiurge: then do not you plainly preach to your pupils, as the good Deity, the Friendship of Empedocles. You forbid marriage, the procreation of children, (and) the abstaining from meats which God has created for participation by the faithful, and those that know the truth. (1Ti_4:3) (Thinkest thou, then,) that thou canst escape detection, (while thus) enjoining the purificatory rites of Empedocles? For in point of fact you follow in every respect this (philosopher of paganism), while you instruct your own disciples to refuse meats, in order not to eat any body (that might be) a remnant of a soul which has been punished by the Demiurge. You dissolve marriages that have been cemented by the Deity. And here again you conform to the tenets of Empedocles, in order that for you the work of Friendship may be perpetuated as one (and) indivisible. For, according to Empedocles, matrimony separates unity, and makes (out of it) plurality, as we have proved.
Chap. XIX. – The Heresy of Prepon; Follows Empedocles; Marcion Rejects the Generation of the Saviour.
The principal heresy of Marcion, and (the one of his) which is most free from admixture (with other heresies), is that which has its system formed out of the theory concerning the good and bad (God). Now this, it has been manifested by us, belongs to Empedocles. But since at present, in our times, a certain follower of Marcion, (namely) Prepon, an Assyrian,65 has endeavoured to introduce something more novel, and has given an account of his heresy in a work inscribed to Bardesanes, an Armenian, neither of this will I be silent. In alleging that what is just constitutes a third principle, and that it is placed intermediate between what is good and bad, Prepon of course is not able to avoid (the imputation of inculcating) the opinion of Empedocles. For Empedocles asserts that the world is managed by wicked Discord, and that the other (world) which (is managed) by Friendship, is cognisable by intellect. And (he asserts) that these are the two different principles of good and evil, and that intermediate between these diverse principles is impartial reason, in accordance with which are united the things that have been separated by Discord, (and which,) in accordance with the influence of Friendship, are accommodated to unity. The impartial reason itself, that which is an auxiliary to Friendship, Empedocles denominates “Musa.” And he himself likewise entreats her to assist him, and expresses himself somehow thus: –
“For if on fleeting mortals, deathless Muse,
Thy care it be that thoughts our mind engross,
Calliope, again befriend my present prayer,
As I disclose a pure account of happy gods.”66
Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship – that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He67 is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, (Gal_3:19) and as Himself acknowledges: “Why call ye me good? there is one good,” (Mat_19:17; Mar_10:18; Luk_18:19) These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles. And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy. But I consider that this has been sufficiently refuted by us, and that I have not omitted any opinion of those who purloin their opinions from the Greeks, and act despitefully towards the disciples of Christ, as if they had become teachers to them of these (tenets). But since it seems that we have sufficiently explained the doctrines of this (heretic), let us see what Carpocrates says.
Chap. XX. – The Heresy of Carpocrates; Wicked Doctrines Concerning Jesus Christ; Practise Magical Arts; Adopt a Metempsychosis.
Carpocrates68 affirms that the world and the things in it were made by angels, far inferior to the unbegotten Father; and that Jesus was generated of Joseph, and that, having been born similar to (other) men, He was more just than the rest (of the human race). And (Carpocrates asserts) that the soul (of Jesus), inasmuch as it was made vigorous and undefiled, remembered the things seen by it in its converse with the unbegotten God. And (Carpocrates maintains) that on this account there was sent down upon (Jesus) by that (God) a power, in order that through it He might be enabled to escape the world-making (angels). And (he says) that this power, having passed through all, and having obtained liberty in all, again ascended69 to God (Himself). And (he alleges) that in the same condition with (the soul of Jesus are all the souls) that embrace similar objects of desire with the (power just alluded to). And they assert that the soul of Jesus, (though,) according to law, it was disciplined in Jewish customs, (in reality) despised them. And (he says) that on this account (Jesus) received powers whereby, He rendered null and void the passions incidental to men for their punishment. And (he argues), therefore, that the (soul), which, similarly with that soul of Christ, is able to despise the world-making Archons, receives in like man-her power for the performance of similar acts. Wherefore, also, (according to Carpocrates, there are persons who) have attained unto such a degree of pride as to affirm some of themselves to be equal to Jesus Himself, whereas others among them to be even still more powerful. But (they also contend) that some enjoy an excellence above the disciples of that (Redeemer), for instance Peter and Paul, and the rest of the Apostles, and that these are in no respect inferior to Jesus. And (Carpocrates asserts) that the souls of these have originated from that supernal power, and that consequently they, as equally despising the world-making (angels), have been deemed worthy of the same power, and (of the privilege) to ascend to the same (place). If, however, any one would despise earthly concerns more than did that (Saviour, Carpocrates says) that such a one world he able to become superior to (Jesus, The followers of this heretic) practise their magical arts and incantations, and spells and voluptuous feasts. And (they are in the habit of invoking the aid of) subordinate demons and dream-senders, and (of resorting to) the rest of the tricks (of sorcery), alleging that they possess power for now acquiring sway over the Archons and makers of this world, nay, even over all the works that are in it.
(Now these heretics) have themselves been sent forth by Satan, for the purpose of slandering before the Gentiles the divine name of the Church. (And the devil’s object is,) that men hearing, now after one fashion and now after another, the doctrines of those (heretics), and thinking that all of us are people of the same stamp, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth, or that they also, looking, (without abjuring,) upon all the tenets of those (heretics), may speak hurtfully of us. (The followers of Carpocrates) allege that the souls are transferred from body to body, so far as that they may fill up (the measure of) all their sins. When, however, not one (of these sins) is left, (the Carpocratians affirm that the soul) is then emancipated, and departs unto that God above of the world-making angels, and that in this way all souls will be saved. If, however, some (souls), during the presence of the soul in the body for one life, may by anticipation become involved in the full measure of transgressions, they, (according to these heretics,) no longer undergo metempsychosis. (Souls of this sort,) however, on paying off at once all trespasses, will, (the Carpocratians say,) be emancipated from dwelling any more in a body. Certain, likewise, of these (heretics) brand70 their own disciples in the back parts of the lobe of the right ear. And they make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time (during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned) by Pilate.71
Chap. XXI. – The System of Cerinthus Concerning Christ.
But a certain Cerinthus,72 himself being disciplined in the teaching of the Egyptians, asserted that the world was not made by the primal Deity, but by some virtue which was an offshoot from that Power which is above all things, and which (yet) is ignorant of the God that is above all. And he supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that (Jesus) was more just and more wise (than all the human race). And (Cerinthus alleges) that, after the baptism (of our Lord), Christ in form of a dove came down upon him, from that absolute sovereignty which is above all things. And then, (according to this heretic,) Jesus proceeded to preach the unknown Father, (Act_17:23) and in attestation (of his mission) to work miracles. It was, however, (the opinion of Cerinthus,) that ultimately Christ departed from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again; whereas that Christ, being spiritual,73 remained beyond the possibility of suffering.
Chap. XXII. – Doctrine of the Ebionaeans.
The Ebionaeans,74 however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified, according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus,75 since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).
Chap. XXIII. – The Heresy of Theodotus.
But there was a certain Theodotus,76 a native of Byzantium, who introduced a novel heresy. He announces tenets concerning the originating cause of the universe, which are partly in keeping with the doctrines of the true Church, in so far as he acknowledges that all things were created by God. Forcibly appropriating, however, (his notions of) Christ from the school of the Gnostics, and of Cerinthus and Ebion, he alleges that (our Lord) appeared in some such manner as I shall now describe. (According to this, Theodotus maintains) that Jesus was a (mere) man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, and that after he had lived promiscuously with all men, and had become pre-eminently religious, he subsequently at his baptism in Jordan received Christ, who came from above and descended (upon him) in form of a dove. And this was the reason, (according to Theodotus,) why (miraculous) powers did not operate within him prior to the manifestation in him of that Spirit which descended, (and) which proclaims him to be the Christ. But (among the followers of Theodotus) some are disposed (to think) that never was this man made God, (even) at the descent of the Spirit; whereas others (maintain that he was made God) after the resurrection from the dead.
Chap. XXIV. – The Melchisedecians; the Nicolaitans.
While, however, different questions have arisen among them, a certain (heretic), who himself also was styled Theodotus, and who was by trade a banker,77 attempted to establish (the doctrine), that a certain Melchisedec constitutes the greatest power, and that this one is greater than Christ. And they allege that Christ happens to be according to the likeness (of this Melchisedec). And they themselves, similarly with those who have been previously spoken of as adherents of Theodotus, assert that Jesus is a (mere) man, and that, in conformity with the same account (already given), Christ descended upon him.
There are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion; but we have decided that it would not be worth while to enumerate the silly doctrines of these (heretics), inasmuch as they are (too) numerous and devoid of reason, and full of blasphemy. Now, even those (of the heretics) who are of a more serious turn in regard of78 the Divinity, and have derived their systems of speculation from the Greeks, must stand convicted79 (of these charges). But Nicolaus80 has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate,81 was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food.82 And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols. (Rev_2:6)
Chap. XXV. – The Heresy of Cerdon.
But one Cerdon83 himself also, taking occasion in like manner from these (heretics) and Simon, affirms that the God preached by Moses and the prophets was not Father of Jesus Christ. For (he contends) that this (Father) had been known, whereas that the Father of Christ84 was unknown, and that the former was just, but the latter good. And Marcion corroborated the tenet of this (heretic) in the work which he attempted to write, and which he styled Antitheses.85 And he was in the habit, (in this book,) of uttering whatever slanders suggested themselves to his mind against the Creator of the universe. In a similar manner likewise (acted) Lucian,86 the disciple of this (heretic).
Chap. XXVI. – The Doctrines of Apelles; Philumene, His Prophetess.
But Apelles,87 sprung from these, thus expresses himself, (saying) that there is a certain good Deity, as also Marcion supposed, and that he who created all things is just. Now he, (according to Apelles,) was the Demiurge of generated entities. And (this heretic also main-rains) that there is a third (Deity), the one who was in the habit of speaking to Moses, and that this (god) was of a fiery nature, and that there was another fourth god, a cause of evils. But these he denominates angels. He utters, however, slanders against law and prophets, by alleging that the things that have been written are (of) human (origin), and are false. And (Apelles) selects from the Gospels or (from the writings of) the Apostle (Paul) whatever pleases himself, But he devotes himself to the discourses of a certain Philumene as to the revelations88 of a prophetess. He affirms, however, that Christ descended from the power above; that is, from the good (Deity), and that he is the son of that good (Deity). And (he asserts that Jesus) was not born of a virgin, and that when he did appear he was not devoid of flesh. (He maintains,) however, that (Christ) formed his booty by taking portions of it from the substance of the universe: that is, hot and cold, and moist and dry. And (he says that Christ), on receiving in this body cosmical powers, lived for the time he did in (this) world. But (he held that Jesus) was subsequently crucified by the Jews, and expired, and that, being raised Up after three days, he appeared to his disciples. And (the Saviour) showed them, (so Apelles taught,) the prints of the nails and (the wound) in his side, desirous of persuading them that he was in truth no phantom, but was present in the flesh. After, says (Apelles), he had shown them his flesh, (the Saviour) restored it to earth, from which substance it was (derived. And this he did because) he coveted nothing that belonged to another. (Though indeed Jesus) might use for the time being (what belonged to another), he yet in due course rendered to each (of the elements) what peculiarly belonged to them. And so it was, that after he had once more loosed the chains of his body, he gave back heat to what is hot, cold to what is cold, moisture to what is moist, (and) dryness to what is dry. And in this condition (our Lord) departed to the good Father, leaving the seed of life in the world for those who through his disciples should believe in him.
It appears to us that these (tenets) have been sufficiently explained. Since, however, we have determined to leave unrefuted not one of those opinions that have been advanced by any (of the heretics), let us see what (system) also has been invented by the Docetae.
51 See Irenaeus, i. 27; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., and Praescript., xxx.; Epiphanius, Haer., xlii.; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 24; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., v. 13, 16; and St. Augustine, Haer., xxii.
52 Or, “quarrelsome,” or “frantic.”
53 Hippolytus’ discussion respecting the heresy of Marcion is chiefly interesting from the light which it throws on the philosophy of Empedocles.
54 These are lines 55-57 in Karsten’s edition of a collection of the Empedoclean verses.
55 These are lines 110, 111, in Stein’s edition of Empedocles.
56 Lines 360-362 (ed. Karst.).
57 Line 7 (Karsten), 381 (Stein).
58 Line 4 (Karsten), 372, 373 (Stein).
59 Line 5 (Karsten), 374 (Stein).
60 Line 6 (Karsten), 375 (Stein).
61 Line 16-19 (Karsten), 377-380 (Stein).
62 Line 1, 2 (Karsten), 370 (Stein).
63 The text of these verses, as given by Hippolytus, is obviously corrupt, and therefore obscure. Schneidewin has furnished an emended copy of them (Philol., vi. 166), which the translator has mostly adopted. (See Stein’s edition of the Empedoclean Verses, line 222 et seq.)
64 ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος. Bunsen [more suo, vol. i., p. 89] considers this a corrupt reading, and suggests καλῶν λόγων διδάσκαλος, i.e., “a teacher of good words,” i.e., an evangelist, which word, as just used, he does not wish to repeat. The Abbe Cruise denies the necessity for any such emendation, and refers us to an article in the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology (Cambridge, March, 1855), the writer of which maintains, on the authority of St. Jerome, that St. Mark has amputated his thumb, in order that he might be disqualified for the priesthood.
65 What Hippolytus communicates concerning Prepon is quite new. The only writer who mentions him is Theodoret (Haer. Fab., i. 25). in his article on Apelles.
66 Schneidewin gives a restored version of these lines. They are found (at lines 338-341) in Stein’s edition of the Empedoclean Verses.
67 Tertullian combats these heretical notions in his De Carne Christi [vol. 3. p. 521, this series].
68 See Irenaeus, i. 25; Tertullian, De Anima, c. xxiii.-xxv., and Praescript., c. xlviii.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 7, Epiphanius, Haer., xxvii. sec. 2; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 5; and St. Augustine, Haer., c. vii. The entire of this article is taken from Irenaeus, and equally coincides with the account given of Carpocrates by Epiphanius.
69 Or, “came.”
70 Literally, “cauterize.”
71 Epiphanius alludes in the same manner to these images.
72 See Irenaeus, i. 26, iii. 2, 3; Tertullian, Praescript. c. xlviii.; Eusebius, Hist Ecclesiast., iii. 28, vii 25; Epiphanius, Haer. xviii. Theodoret, Haer. Fab., ii. 3, St. Augustine, Haer., c. viii.; and St. Jerome, Ep. lxxxix. We have here, as in the preceding articles, Irenaeus in the Greek, as Hippolytus’ text corresponds with the Latin version of this portion of Irenaeus’ work.
73 Or, “paternal.”
74 See Irenaeus, i. 26; Tertullian, Praescript., c. xlviii.; Origen, Contr. Cels., ii. 1; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iii. 27; Epiphanius, Haer., xxx., and Theodoret, Haer. Fab., ii. 2. Hippolytus is indebted in this article partly to Irenaeus, and partly to original sources.
75 Or, “that the Christ of God was named Jesus” (Bunsen).
76 See Tertullian, Praescript., c. liii.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast, v. 27; Epiphanius, Haer., liv.; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab., ii. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus seems to have been greatly indebted to Theodotus, whose system he has explained and commented upon.
77 Concerning the younger Theodotus, see [vol. 3. p. 654] Tertullian, Praescript., c. liii.; Epiphanius, Haer., lv.; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab., ii. 6.
78 Or, “in reference to” (Bunsen).
79 Or, “have been adduced” (Miller).
80 See Irenaeus, i. 26; [ut supra] Tertullian, Praescript., c. xlv.; Epiphanius, Haer., c. xxv.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iii. 29; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 15; and St. Augustine, Haer. c. v. [But see Clement, vol. 2. p. 373, this series.]
81 [He understands that the seven (Act_6:5) were deacons. Bunsen, i. p. 97.]
82 Or, “knowledge.” Bunsen suggests βρώσεως, as translated above.
83 Irenaeus, i. 27; Eusebius (who here gives Irenaeus’ Greek), Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 2; Epiphanius, c. xli.; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 24; and Philastrius, c. xliv.
84 Hippolytus follows Irenaeus, but introduces some alterations.
85 Ἀντιθέσεις. This is the emendation proposed by the Abbe Cruice. The textual reading is ἀντιπαραθέσεις (comparisons).
86 See [ut supra, p. 353] Tertullian, Praescript., c. li.; and Epiphanius, Haer., c. xliii.
87 See Tertullian, Praescript., c. xxx.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., v. 13; Epiphanius, Haer., c. xliv.; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 25; and St. Augustine, Haer. c. xxiv.
88 φανερώσεσι. Miller’s text reads φανερῶς, the error of which is obvious from Tertullian’s Praescript., c. xxx. Cruice considers the word to signify the title of a work written by Apelles.