Note 1 — BOOK VII BASILIDES, SATURNILUS, AND OTHERS

Of the Basilides with whose doctrines this book opens, little is known. While some would on slender grounds make him a Syrian, there is no doubt that he taught in Egypt and especially in Alexandria, where he seems to have steeped himself in Greek philosophy. This must have been during the reign of Hadrian and some time before the appearance of the far greater heresiarch Valentinus. If we could believe the testimony of Epiphanius, Basilides was a fellow-disciple with Satornilus, to be presently mentioned, of Menander, the immediate successor of Simon Magus; and, according to the more trustworthy witness of Clement of Alexandria (Strom., VII, 17), he himself claimed to be the disciple of Glaucias, “the interpreter” of St. Peter. He had a son Isidore who shared his teaching, and he wrote a treatise in twenty-four books on the Gospels which he called Exegetica. The sect that he founded, although never popular, lingered for some time in Egypt; but there is much probability in Matter’s conjecture (Hist. crit. du Gnost., 2nd ed., III, 36), that most of his followers became the hearers of Valentinus.

Our author’s account of Basilides’ doctrine at first sight differs so widely from that given by Irenæus and his copyists that it was for long supposed that the two accounts were irreconcilable. The late Prof. Hort, however, in his lucid article on the subject in the Dictionary of Christian Biography showed with much skill that this was not so, and that the Basilidian doctrine contained in our text is in all probability that of the Exegetica itself, while the teaching attributed to Basilides by Irenæus and others was the same doctrine largely corrupted by the inconsistent and incoherent superstitions which invariably attach themselves to any faith propagated in secret. The immediate source of Basilides’ own teaching cannot, up to the present time, be satisfactorily traced; but, although its coping-stone, the non-existent Deity, shows some likeness to the Buddhistic ideas which were at any rate known in the Alexandria of his time (Clem. Alex., Strom., I, 15), it is probable that among the relics of the ancient Egyptian religion, then almost extinct, something of the same idea might have been found. His obligation to the Stoic philosophy is well brought out by Hort; and he was doubtless versed in the dialectical methods of Aristotle, which, then as later, formed the universal equipment of the student of philosophy. Hippolytus’ theory that the ground-work of the Basilidian edifice is a conscious or unconscious borrowing from Aristotle derives no support from any Aristotelian writings known to us. Unlike other Gnostics, Basilides displays no animus towards the Jews beyond reducing their Deity to the Ruler of the Hebdomad, or lowest spiritual world, and he accepts as fully as possible the Divinity of Jesus and the authority of the New Testament. Of the Docetism attributed to him by Irenæus and others, there is here no trace, and the Bishop of Lyons’ statement on this point can only be explained by supposing that he here confused Basilides with some other heresiarch.

The distinctive features of Basilides’ teaching as disclosed in our text are, however, plain enough. Rejecting all idea of a pre-existing matter, he derives everything from the Supreme Being, whom he considers to be so unspeakably and inconceivably great that he will not even say of Him that He exists. He it is who from the first decreed not only the foundation of the universe but also the means and agency by which this is to be brought about. Nor do the apparent defects in its constitution involve in Basilides’ system any thwarting of the Divine Will by intermediate agents, or any lapse from duty on their part. All things subsequent to the Supreme Being are in effect His children, and from the Panspermia or Seed-Mass originally let fall by Him emerges the First Sonhood, or purest part of the Sonhood, which, rising from the heap by its own lightness and tenuity, springs upward into the presence of the First Cause, where it remains for the purpose of giving light when needed to the lower parts of creation. This is quickly followed by the Second Sonhood (or Second Part of the Sonhood), which, emerging in like manner, rises not from its own unaided power, but with the assistance of the Boundary Spirit, who must have its origin in the Seed-Mass, and who is left as the Boundary between the visible and the invisible part of the universe when the Second Sonhood passes to the Ogdoad or Eighth Heaven. This Eighth Heaven is under the sway of the Great Ruler, a functionary emitted by the Seed-Mass for the purpose of governing this abode of perfection, from which it may be inferred that the Second Sonhood like the First ultimately returns to the presence of the Supreme Being. In his organization of this Eighth Heaven, the Great Ruler is much helped by the Son whom he calls forth from the Seed-Mass, who is expressly stated to be greater and wiser than his own Father.

There remains in the Seed-Mass two other world-creating powers. The first of these is the maker of the Seven Heavens or Hebdomad, which can here hardly be the planets, because they are expressly said to be sublunary. He, too, produces from the Seed-Mass a Son greater and wiser than himself, who again, it may be supposed, assists his father in the organization of this Hebdomad. What form this organization took we are not told, although there is some talk of 365 beings who are all “Dominions and Powers and Authorities” with a ruler called Habrasax. Below this Hebdomad, however, comes this world of ours called the “Formlessness,” which has, it is said, “no leader nor guardian nor demiurge” (i. e. architect), everything happening in it as decreed by the Supreme Being from the first. Yet this Formlessness contains within it the Third Sonhood (or third part of the Sonhood) whose mission is apparently to guide the souls of men to the place for which they are predestined, which it does by imparting to them some of its own nature. Then, when the time came for the Coming of the Saviour, a light shining from the highest heavens was transmitted through the intermediate places to the Son of the Hebdomad and fell upon “Jesus the son of Mary,” and He after the Passion ascended like the two first parts of the Sonhood to the Divine Presence. In due time the third part of the Sonhood will, it is said, follow Him. When this happens, the soul predestined to the Seven Heavens will pass thither, those more enlightened will be admitted to the Eighth Heaven, and those entitled to the most glorious destiny of all will probably ascend with the third part of the Sonhood to the Highest. On the two inferior classes, there will then fall the “Great Ignorance,” a merciful oblivion which will prevent them from remembering or otherwise being troubled in their beatitude by the knowledge of the still better things above them.

How the salvation of these souls is to be effected there is no indication in Hippolytus, and he leaves us in entire doubt as to whether Basilides allowed any free-will to man in the matter. It is probable that he taught the doctrine of transmigration as a means of purification from sins or faults committed in ignorance. But it is several times asserted that he looked on suffering as a cleansing process for the soul, and that he did not admit the existence of evil (see Hort’s article on Basilides in D.C.B., I, pp. 274, 275 for references). About some of his teaching there was deliberate concealment (ibid., p. 279), and Irenæus (I, xxiv. 6), tells us that his followers were taught to declare that while they were “no longer Jews” they were “not yet” (or perhaps “more than”) Christians. In this we may perhaps see the influence of the rubrics of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and the beginning of that secret propagation of religion which was to find its ripest fruit in Manichæism. For the rest, although Irenæus (I, xxiv. 5) tells us that Basilides, like Simon, Valentinus, and other Gnostics, taught that the body of Jesus was a phantasm, and even that Simon of Cyrene had been crucified in His stead, there appears no trace of this in our text, and it is possible that the Bishop of Lyons is here again confusing Basilides’ doctrines with those of his successors.