[Footnote 42: Thus the tractate makes Simon Magus call his Helena Sophia, and says that Basilides named his Supreme God Abraxas. It knows nothing of the God-who-is-not and the three Sonhoods of our text: and it gives an entirely different account of the Sethians, whom it calls Sethitæ, and says that they identified Christ with Seth. In this heresy, too, it introduces Sophia, and makes her the author of the Flood.]
[Footnote 43: Euseb., _Hist. Eccles._ IV, c. 22. He is quoting Hegesippus. See also Origen _contra Celsum_, VI, c. 11.]
[Footnote 46: pp. 103, 119; II, pp. 1, 57, 148, 149 _infra_.]
[Footnote 53: II, p. 20. In II, p. 49, it is mentioned in connection with the heresy of Marcus, and on p. 104 the same theory is attributed to the “Egyptians.”]
[Footnote 54: p. 66; II, pp. 21, 64 _infra_.]
[Footnote 55: ἀγαπητοί, p. 113 and p. 180 _infra_. It also occurs on p. 125 of Vol. II in the same connection.]
[Footnote 56: λόγος, pp. 107 and 120 _infra_. He uses the word in the same sense on p. 113.]
[Footnote 59: Pseudo-Hieronymus, Isidorus Hispalensis, and Honorius Augustodunensis, like Epiphanius, begin their catalogues of heresies with the Jewish and Samaritan sects. Philastrius leads off with the Ophites and Sethians whom he declares to be pre-Christian, and then goes on to Dositheus, and the Jewish “heresies” before coming to Simon Magus. Pseudo-Augustine and Prædestinatus begin with Simon Magus and include no pre-Christian sects. See Oehler, _Corpus Hæreseologicus_, Berlin, 1866, t. i.]
[Footnote 62: So Origen, _Cont. Cels._, VI, 24, speaks of “the very insignificant sect called Ophites.”]
[Footnote 63: II, p. 116 _infra_, where he says that he did not think them worth refuting.]
[Footnote 64: For the search made both by pagan and Christian inquisitors for their opponents’ books, see _Forerunners_, II, 12.]
[Footnote 66: Cf. Salmon in _D.C.B._, s.v. “Hippolytus Romanus.”]
[Footnote 67: Hippolytus’ denial of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews probably appeared in some work other than our text. Or it may have been cut out by the scribe as offensive to orthodoxy.]
[Footnote 68: A flagrant case is to be found in p. 81 Cr. where Π (P) has, according to Schneidewin, been written for R, a mistake that could only be made by one used to Roman letters. Cf. _Serpens_ and _serviens_, p. 487 Cr.]