[Footnote 90: ὑπὸ γένεσιν, “configuration” or “geniture.” The proper word for a theme or horoscope.] [Footnote 91: It was the Second and not the First Sonhood who left the Holy Spirit at the Boundary.] [Footnote 92: It is plain from this that Basilides taught that the most spiritual part of man’s soul was part of the Sonhood and that it was separated from the rest at death. This is confirmed by what is said later about what happened after the Passion.] [Footnote 93: Εὐαγγέλιον = “good news”? The article is omitted in both these sentences.] [Footnote 94: He of the Ogdoad.] [Footnote 95: ἠγαλλιάσατο, a kind of pun on Ἐὐαγγέλιον, “glad tidings.”] [Footnote 96: ἵνα ἀπαρχὴ τῆς φυλοκρινήσεως γένηται τῶν συγκεχυμένων. So Clem. Alex. (_Strom._, II., 8, 36), quoting from the “followers of Basilides,” says that the Great Ruler’s fear became the ἀρχὴ τῆς σοφίας φυλοκρινητικῆς, “the origin of the wisdom which discriminates.”] [Footnote 97: σωματικὸν μέρος.] [Footnote 98: This flatly contradicts the story attributed to Basilides by Irenæus to the effect that Simon of Cyrene took His place on the Cross. It has long been thought likely that Irenæus was here confusing Basilides with his contemporary Saturninus.] [Footnote 99: So in the _Pistis Sophia_, the incorporeal part of man is said to consist of four parts.] [Footnote 100: ὑπόθεσις.] [Footnote 101: καὶ τὸ πάθος οὐκ ἄλλου τινὸς χάριν γέγονεν [ἢ] ὑπὲρ τοῦ φυλοκρινηθῆναι τὰ συγκεχυμένα.] [Footnote 102: As has been said, there appears no reason to doubt that Hippolytus took his account of Basilides’ doctrines directly from the works of that heresiarch or of his son Isidore. The likeness of the quotations from Basilides or “those about Basilides” in Clement of Alexandria--a far more accurate and critical writer than Hippolytus--to our text leave no doubt on this point, and it is even probable that, as Hort thought, most of Hippolytus’ information is gathered from Basilides’ _Exegetica_. His account of the universe and its creation is largely Stoic, as may be seen by a comparison of this chapter with that on the Universe in Prof. E. V. Arnold’s excellent _Roman Stoicism_ (Cambridge, 1911); but he differs from all the Pagan philosophy of his time by his view of matter which he makes neither pre-existent nor malignant. In this, and in the “happy ending” to his drama of the universe, we may perhaps see the result of the Golden Age of the Antonines, and it is to this, perhaps, that he owed the influence that he, without any great followers or successors, had upon the future theology of orthodox and heretic alike. Many of his ideas, and even a few of his very words, appear in documents like the later parts of the _Pistis Sophia_, and in certain Manichæan writings, although the strict monotheism which distinguishes them is in sharp contrast with the dualism of his successors. This begets a doubt whether these last were conscious borrowers of his opinion, or whether both he and they