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: