[329]. Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. 1 προσέχειν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ἀπὸ μέρους.
[330]. Iren. i. 26. 1 ‘Non a primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a virtute quadam valde separata et distante ab ea principalitate quæ est super universa, et ignorante eum qui est super omnia Deum’; Hippol. Hær. vii. 33 ἔλεγεν οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ πρώτου Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ δυνάμέως τινος κεχωρισμένης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα ἐξουσίας καὶ ἀγνοοῦσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα Θεόν, x. 21 ὑπὸ δυνάμεώς τινος ἀγγελικῆς, πολὺ κεχωρισμένης καὶ διεστώσης τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα αὐθεντίας καὶ ἀγνοουσης τὸν ὑπὲρ πάντα Θεόν.
[331]. Pseudo-Tertull. Hær. 3 ‘Carpocrates præterea hanc tulit sectam: Unam esse dicit virtutem in superioribus principalem, ex hac prolatos angelos atque virtutes, quos distantes longe a superioribus virtutibus mundum istum in inferioribus partibus condidisse.... Post hunc Cerinthus hæreticus erupit, similia docens. Nam et ipse mundum institutum esse ab illis dicit’; Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. 1 ἕνα εἶναι τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκότων; Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3 ἕνα μὲν εἶναι τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργόν, ἀλλὰ δυνάμεις τινὰς κεχωρισμένας καὶ παντελῶς αὐτὸν ἀγνοούσας; Augustin. Hær. 8. The one statement is quite reconcilable with the other. Among those angels by whose instrumentality the world was created, Cerinthus appears to have assigned a position of preeminence to one, whom he regarded as the demiurge in a special sense and under whom the others worked; see Neander Church History II. p. 43.
[332]. Pseudo-Tertull. l.c.; Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. 4 τὸν δεδωκότα νόμον ἕνα εἶναι τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν τὸν κόσμον πεποιηκότων.
[333]. I am quite unable to see any reference to the Gnostic conception of an æon in the passages of the New Testament, which are sometimes quoted in support of this view, e.g., by Baur Paulus p. 428, Burton Lectures p. 111 sq.
[334]. Iren. i. 26. 1, Hippol. Hær. vii. 33, x. 21, Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. 1, Theodoret. H. F. ii. 3. The arguments by which Lipsius (Gnosticismus pp. 245, 258, in Ersch u. Gruber; Quellenkritik des Epiphanios p. 118 sq.) attempts to show that Cerinthus did not separate the Christ from Jesus, and that Irenæus (and subsequent authors copying him) have wrongly attributed to this heretic the theories of later Gnostics, seem insufficient to outweigh these direct statements. It is more probable that the system of Cerinthus should have admitted some foreign elements not very consistent with his Judaic standing point, than that these writers should have been misinformed. Inconsistency was a necessary condition of Judaic Gnosticism. The point however is comparatively unimportant as affecting my main purpose.
[335]. Irenæus (iii. 11. 1), after speaking of Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans, proceeds ‘non, quemadmodum illi dicunt, alterum quidem fabricatorem (i.e. demiurgum), alium autem Patrem Domini: et alium quidem fabricatoris filium, alterum vero de superioribus Christum, quem et impassibilem perseverasse, descendentem in Jesum filium fabricatoris, et iterum revolasse in suum pleroma.’ The doctrine is precisely that which he has before ascribed to Cerinthus (i. 26. 1), but the mode of statement may have been borrowed from the Nicolaitans or from some later Gnostics. There is however no improbability in the supposition that Cerinthus used the word pleroma in this way; see the detached note on πλήρωμα [below].
[336]. i. 19, ii. 9. See above p. 102, note [295]. On the force of κατοικεῖν see the note on the earlier of the two passages.
[337]. ii. 6 παρελάβετε τὸν Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν Κύριον.
[338]. i. 20, 22.