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: