took their doctrines from some common source of Eastern tradition not now recognizable; but on the whole, the first-named hypothesis seems the more probable.] [Footnote 103: Σατορνεῖλος. So Epiph., _Haer._ XXIII, and Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._, I, 3, spell the name. Iren., I, 22; Eusebius, _H.E._, IV, 7, and later writers spell it Σατορνῖνος. All these accounts, however, together with that in our text, are in effect copies of the chapter in Iren., which is the earliest in time that has remained to us. Salmon in _D.C.B._, s.v. “Saturninus,” thinks that this last is itself copied from Justin Martyr, which is likely enough, but remains without proof.] [Footnote 104: Epiphanius, _Haer._ XXIII, p. 124, Oehl. adds to this that Saturninus and Basilides were co-disciples, which, if true, would connect their systems with Menander’s teacher, Simon Magus. Nothing further is, however, known about Saturnilus or Saturninus or his heresy, which Epiphanius makes the third after Christ, nor is there any mention in any of the heresiologies of any writings by him. His story of a First or Pattern Man made in the image of the Supreme Being is common, as has been said, to many of the early heresies, and reappears in Manichæism. It is probably to be referred to some tradition current in Western Asia. See Bousset’s _Hauptprobleme der Gnosis_, cap. “Der Urmensch.”] [Footnote 105: τῆς αὐθεντίας, “one who holds absolute rule.” _Summa potestas_, Cr.] [Footnote 106: Cf. Gen. i. 26.] [Footnote 107: This story is also met with among the Ophites. See Iren. (I, xxx. 5), where life is given to the grovelling figure by Jaldabaoth, the chief of the seven powers. Epiphanius adds to it that the world-makers divided the cosmos among them by lot, and that it was a spark of his own Power that the “Power on high” sent down for the vivification of the First Man, “which spark, he says, they fancy to be the human soul.”] [Footnote 108: καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐξ ὧν ἐγένετο, εἰς ἐκεῖνα ἀναλύεσθαι.] [Footnote 109: So Miller. Theodoret has Σωτῆρα, “Saviour,” for Father.] [Footnote 110: Words in ( ) restored from Epiphanius.] [Footnote 111: No necessary mistake or confusion, as has been thought. The “deposition” might be merely that of an unsuccessful general, as in Manichæism.]