IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES
BOOK II
PREFACE.
1. IN the first book, which immediately precedes this, exposing "knowledge falsely
so called,"(1) I showed thee, my very dear friend, that the whole system devised, in
many and opposite ways, by those who are of the school of Valentinus, was false and
baseless. I also set forth the tenets of their predecessors, proving that they not only
differed among themselves, but had long previously swerved from the truth itself. I
further explained, with all diligence, the doctrine as well as practice of Marcus the
magician, since he, too, belongs to these persons; and I carefully noticed(2) the passages
which they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own
fictions. Moreover, I minutely narrated the manner in which, by means of numbers, and by
the twenty-four letters of the alphabet, they boldly endeavour to establish [what they
regard as] truth. I have also related how they think and teach that creation at large was
formed after the image of their invisible Pleroma, and what they hold respecting the
Demiurge, declaring at the same time the doctrine of Simon Magus of Samaria, their
progenitor, and of all those who succeeded him. I mentioned, too, the multitude of those
Gnostics who are sprung from him, and noticed(2) the points of difference between them,
their several doctrines, and the order of their succession, while I set forth all those
heresies which have been originated by them. I showed, moreover, that all these heretics,
taking their rise from Simon, have introduced impious and irreligious doctrines into this
life; and I explained the nature of their "redemption," and their method of
initiating those who are rendered "perfect," along with their invocations and
their mysteries. I proved also that there is one God, the Creator, and that He is not the
fruit of any defect, nor is there anything either above Him, or after Him.
2. In the present book, I shall establish those points which fit in with my design, so
far as time permits, and overthrow, by means of lengthened treatment under distinct heads,
their whole system; for which reason, since it is an exposure and subversion of their
opinions, I have so entitled the composition of this work. For it is fitting, by a plain
revelation and overthrow of their conjunctions, to put an end to these hidden
alliances,(3) and to Bythus himself, and thus to obtain a demonstration that he never
existed at any previous time, nor now has any existence.
CHAP. I.--THERE IS BUT ONE GOD: THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ITS BEING OTHERWISE.
1. IT is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that
is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein
(whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there
is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own
free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only
Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things
into existence.
2. For how can there be any other Fulness, or Principle, or Power, or God, above Him,
since it is matter of necessity that God, the Pleroma (Fulness) of all these, should
contain all things in His immensity, and should be contained by no one? But if there is
anything beyond Him, He is not then the Pleroma of all, nor does He contain all. For that
which they declare to be beyond Him will be wanting to the Pleroma, or, [in other words,]
to that God who is above all things. But that which is wanting, and falls in any way
short, is not the
360
Pleroma of all things. In such a case, He would have both beginning, middle, and end,
with respect to those who are beyond Him. And if He has an end in regard to those things
which are below, He has also a beginning with respect to those things which are above. In
like manner, there is an absolute necessity that He should experience the very same thing
at all other points, and should be held in, bounded, and enclosed by those existences that
are outside of Him. For that being who is the end downwards, necessarily circumscribes and
surrounds him who finds his end in it. And thus, according to them, the Father of all
(that is, He whom they call Proon and Proarche), with their Pleroma, and the good God of
Marcion, is established and enclosed in some other, and is surrounded from without by
another mighty Being, who must of necessity be greater, inasmuch as that which contains is
greater than that which is contained. But then that which is greater is also stronger, and
in a greater degree Lord; and that which is greater, and stronger, and in a greater degree
Lord--must be God.
3. Now, since there exists, according to them, also something else which they declare
to be outside of the Pleroma, into which they further hold there descended that higher
power who went astray, it is in every way necessary that the Pleroma either contains that
which is beyond, yet is contained (for otherwise, it will not be beyond the Pleroma; for
if there is anything beyond the Pleroma, there will be a Pleroma within this very Pleroma
which they declare to be outside of the Pleroma, and the Pleroma will be contained by that
which is beyond: and with the Pleroma is understood also the first God); or, again, they
must be an infinite distance separated from each other--the Pleroma [I mean], and that
which is beyond it. But if they maintain this, there will then be a third kind of
existence, which separates by immensity the Pleroma and that which is beyond it. This
third kind of existence will therefore bound and contain both the others, and will be
greater both than the Pleroma, and than that which is beyond it, inasmuch as it contains
both in its bosom. In this way, talk might go on for ever concerning those things which
are contained, and those which contain. For if this third existence has its beginning
above, and its end beneath, there is an absolute necessity that it be also bounded on the
sides, either beginning or ceasing at certain other points, [where new existences begin.]
These, again, and others which are above and below, will have their beginnings at certain
other points, and so on ad infinitum; so that their thoughts would never rest in one God,
but, in consequence of seeking after more than exists,
would wander away to that which has no existence, and depart from the true God.
4. These remarks are, in like manner, applicable against the followers of Marcion. For
his two gods will also be contained and circumscribed by an immense interval which
separates them from one another. But then there is a necessity to suppose a multitude of
gods separated by an immense distance from each other on every side, beginning with one
another, and ending in one another. Thus, by that very process of reasoning on which they
depend for teaching that there is a certain Pleroma or God above the Creator of heaven and
earth, any one who chooses to employ it may maintain that there is another Pleroma above
the Pleroma, above that again another, and above Bythus another ocean of Deity, while in
like manner the same successions hold with respect to the sides; and thus, their doctrine
flowing out into immensity, there will always be a necessity to conceive of other Pleroma,
and other Bythi, so as never at any time to stop, but always to continue seeking for
others besides those already mentioned. Moreover, it will be uncertain whether these which
we conceive of are below, or are, in fact, themselves the things which are above; and, in
like manner, will be doubtful] respecting those things which are said by them to be above,
whether they are really above or below; and thus our opinions will have no fixed
conclusion or certainty, but will of necessity wander forth after worlds without limits,
and gods that cannot be numbered.
5. These things, then, being so, each deity will be contented with his own possessions,
and will not be moved with any curiosity respecting the affairs of others; otherwise he
would be unjust, and rapacious, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation, too,
will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other;
otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would receive
a richly-deserved punishment. For it must be either that there is one Being who contains
all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created,
according to His own will; or, again, that there are numerous unlimited creators and gods,
who begin from each other, and end in each other on every side; and it will then be
necessary to allow that all the rest are contained from without by some one who is
greater, and that they are each of them shut up within their own territory, and remain in
it. No one of them all, therefore, is God. For there will be [much] wanting to every one
of them, possessing [as he will do] only a very small part when compared with all the
rest. The name of the Omnipotent will thus be brought to an end, and such an opinion will
of necessity fall to impiety.
361
CHAP. II--THE WORLD WAS NOT FORMED BY ANGELS, OR BY ANY OTHER BEING, CONTRARY TO THE
WILL OF THE MOST HIGH GOD, BUT WAS MADE BY THE FATHER THROUGH THE WORD.(1)
1. Those, moreover, who say that the world was formed by angels, or by any other maker
of it, contrary to the will of Him who is the Supreme Father, err first of all in this
very point, that they maintain that angels formed such and so mighty a creation, contrary
to the will of the Most High God. This would imply that angels were more powerful than
God; or if not so, that He was either careless, or inferior, or paid no regard to those
things which took place among His own possessions, whether they turned out ill or well, so
that He might drive away and prevent the one, while He praised and rejoiced over the
other. But if one would not ascribe such conduct even to a man of any ability, how much
less to God
2. Next let them tell us whether these things have been formed within the limits which
are contained by Him, and in His proper territory, or in regions belonging to others, and
lying beyond Him? But if they say [that these things were done] beyond Him, then all the
absurdities already mentioned will face them, and the Supreme God will be enclosed by that
which is beyond Him, in which also it will be necessary that He should find His end. If,
on the other hand, [these things were done] within His own proper territory, it will be
very idle to say that the world was thus formed within His proper territory against His
will by angels who are themselves under His power, or by any other being, as if either He
Himself did not behold all things which take place among His own possessions, or(2) was
not aware of the things to be done by angels.
3. If, however, [the things referred to were done] not against His will, but with His
concurrence and knowledge, as some [of these men] think, the angels, or the Former of the
world [whoever that may have been], will no longer be the causes of that formation, but
the will of God. For if He is the Former of the world, He too made the angels, or at least
was the cause of their creation; and He will be regarded as having made the world who
prepared the causes of its formation. Although they maintain that the angels were made by
a long succession downwards, or that the Former of the world [sprang] from the Supreme
Father, as Basilides asserts; nevertheless that which is the cause of those things which
have been made will still be traced to Him who was the Author of such a succession. [The
case stands] just as regards success in war,
which is ascribed to the king who prepared those things which are the cause of victory;
and, in like manner, the creation of any state, or of any work, is referred to him who
prepared materials for the accomplishment of those results which were afterwards brought
about. Wherefore, we do not say that it was the axe which cut the wood, or the saw which
divided it; but one would very properly say that the man cut and divided it who formed the
axe and the saw for this purpose, and [who also formed] at a much earlier date all the
tools by which the axe and the saw themselves were formed. With justice, therefore,
according to an analogous process of reasoning, the Father of all will be declared the
Former of this world, and not the angels, nor any other [so-called] former of the world,
other than He who was its Author, and had formerly(3) been the cause of the preparation
for a creation of this kind.
4. This manner of speech may perhaps be plausible or persuasive to those who know not
God, and who liken Him to needy human beings, and to those who cannot immediately and
without assistance form anything, but require many instrumentalities to produce what they
intend. But it will not be regarded as at all probable by those who know that God stands
in need of nothing, and that He created and made all things by His Word, while He neither
required angels to assist Him in the production of those things which are made, nor of any
power greatly inferior to Himself, and ignorant of the Father, nor of any defect or
ignorance, in order that he who should know Him might become man.(4) But He Himself in
Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, predestinating all
things, formed them as He pleased, bestowing harmony on all things, and assigning them
their own place, and the beginning of their creation. In this way He conferred on
spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, on super-celestial things a celestial,
on angels an angelical, on animals an animal, on beings that swim a nature suited to the
water, and on those that live on the land one fitted for the land--on all, in short, a
nature suitable to the character of the life assigned them--while He formed all things
that were made by His Word that never wearies.
5. For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other
instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into existence. His own
Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things, even as John, the
disciple of the Lord,
362
declares regarding Him: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing
made."(1) Now, among the "all things" our world must be embraced. It too,
therefore, was made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in the book of Genesis that He made
all things connected with our world by His Word. David also expresses the same truth [when
he says] "For He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were
created."(2) Whom, therefore, shall we believe as to the creation of the world--these
heretics who have been mentioned that prate so foolishly and inconsistently on the
subject, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, who was both a faithful servant of God
and a prophet? He at first narrated the formation of the world in these words: "In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,"(3) and all other things in
succession; but neither gods nor angels [had any share in the work].
Now, that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has
declared, [saying,] "There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all
things, and in us all."(4) I have indeed proved already that there is only one God;
but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the discourses
of the Lord. For what sort of conduct would it be, were we to forsake the utterances of
the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, that we might give heed to these persons,
who speak not a word of sense?
CHAP. III.--THE BYTHUS AND PLEROMA OF THE VALENTINIANS, AS WELL AS THE GOD OF MAR-CION,
SHOWN TO BE ABSURD; THE WORLD WAS ACTUALLY CREATED BY THE SAME BEING WHO HAD CONCEIVED THE
IDEA OF IT, AND WAS NOT THE FRUIT OF DEFECT OR IGNORANCE.
1. The Bythus, therefore, whom they conceive of with his Pleroma, and the God of
Marcion, are inconsistent. If indeed, as they affirm, he has something subjacent and
beyond himself, which they style vacuity and shadow, this vacuum is then proved to be
greater than their Pleroma. But it is inconsistent even to make this statement, that while
he contains all things within himself, the creation was formed by some other. For it is
absolutely necessary that they acknowledge a certain void and chaotic kind of existence
(below the spiritual Pleroma) in which this universe was formed, and that the Propator
purposely left this chaos as it was, either(5) knowing beforehand what things were to
happen in it, or
being ignorant of them. If he was really ignorant, then God will not be prescient of
all things. But they will not even [in that case] be able to assign a reason on what
account He thus left this place void during so long a period of time. If, again, He is
prescient, and contemplated mentally that creation which was about to have a being in that
place, then He Himself created it who also formed it beforehand [ideally] in Himself.
2. Let them cease, therefore, to affirm that the world was made by any other; for as
soon as God formed a conception in His mind, that was also done which He had thus mentally
conceived. For it was not possible that one Being should mentally form the conception, and
another actually produce the things which had been conceived by Him in His mind. But God,
according to these heretics, mentally conceived either an eternal world or a temporal one,
both of which suppositions cannot be true. Yet if He had mentally conceived of it as
eternal, spiritual,(6) and visible, it would also have been formed such. But if it was
formed such as it really is, then He made it such who had mentally conceived of it as
such; or He willed it to exist in the ideality(7) of the Father, according to the
conception of His mind, such as it now is, compound, mutable, and transient. Since, then,
it is just such as the Father had [ideally] formed in counsel with Himself, it must be
worthy of the Father. But to affirm that what was mentally conceived and pre-created by
the Father of all, just as it has been actually formed, is the fruit of defect, and the
production of ignorance, is to be guilty of great blasphemy. For, according to them, the
Father of all will thus be [regarded as] generating in His breast, according to His own
mental conception, the emanations of defect and the fruits of ignorance, since the things
which He had conceived in His mind have actually been produced.
CHAP. IV.--THE ABSURDITY OF THE SUPPOSED VACUUM AND DEFECT OF THE HERETICS IS
DEMONSTRATED.
1. The cause, then, of such a dispensation on the part of God, is to be inquired after;
but the formation of the world is not to be ascribed to any other. And all things are to
be spoken of as having been so prepared by God beforehand, that they should be made as
they have been
363
made; but shadow and vacuity are not to be conjured into existence. But whence, let me
ask, came this vacuity [of which they speak]? If it was indeed produced by Him who,
according to them, is the Father and Author of oil things, then it is both equal in honour
and related to the rest of the AEons, perchance even more ancient than they are. Moreover,
if it proceeded from the same source [as they did], it must be similar in nature to Him
who produced it, as well as to those along with whom it was produced. There will therefore
be an absolute necessity, both that the Bythus of whom they speak, along with Sige, be
similar in nature to a vacuum, that is, that He really is a vacuum; and that the rest of
the AEons, since they are the brothers of vacuity, should also be devoid(1) of substance.
If, on the other hand, it has not been thus produced, it must have sprang from and been
generated by itself, and in that case it will be equal in point of age to that Bythus who
is, according to them, the Father of oil; and thus vacuity will be of the same nature and
of the same honour with Him who is, according to them, the universal Father. For it must
of necessity have been either produced by some one, or generated by itself, and sprung
from itself. But if, in truth, vacuity was produced, then its producer Valentinus is also
a vacuum, as are likewise his followers. If, again, it was not produced, but was generated
by itself, then that which is really a vacuum is similar to, and the brother of, and of
the same honour with, that Father who has been proclaimed by Valentinus; while it is more
ancient, and dating its existence from a period greatly anterior, and more exalted in
honour than the remaining AEons of Ptolemy himself, and Heracleon, and all the rest(2) who
hold the same opinions.
2. But if, driven to despair in regard to these points, they confess that the Father of
all contains all things, and that there is nothing whatever outside of the Heroma (for it
is an absolute necessity that, [if there be anything outside of it,] it should be bounded
and circumscribed by something greater than itself), and that they speak of what is
without and what within in reference to knowledge and ignorance, and not with respect to
local distance; but that, in the Pleroma, or in those things which are contained by the
Father, the whole creation which we know to have been formed, having been made by the
Demiurge, or by the angels, is contained by the unspeakable greatness, as the centre is in
a circle, or as a spot is in a garment,--then, in the first place, what sort of a being
must that
Bythus be, who allows a stain to have place in His own bosom, and permits another one
to create or produce within His territory, contrary to His own will? Such a mode of acting
would truly entail [the charge of] degeneracy upon the entire Pleroma, since it might from
the first have cut off that defect, and those emanations which derived their origin from
it,(3) and not have agreed to permit the formation of creation either in ignorance, or
passion, or in defect. For he who can afterwards rectify a defect, and does, as it were,
wash away a stain,(4) could at a much earlier date have taken care that no such stain
should, even at first, be found among his possessions. Or if at the first he allowed that
the things which were made [should be as they are], since they could not, in fact, be
formed otherwise, then it follows that they must always continue in the same condition.
For how is it possible, that those things which cannot at the first obtain rectification,
should subsequently receive it? Or how can men say that they are called to perfection,
when those very beings who are the causes from which men derive their origin--either the
Demiurge himself, or the angels --are declared to exist in defect? And if, as is
maintained, [the Supreme Being,] inasmuch as He is benignant, did at last take pity upon
men, and bestow on them perfection, He ought at first to have pitied those who were the
creators of man, and to have conferred on them perfection. In this way, men too would
verily have shared in His compassion, being formed. perfect by those that were perfect.
For if He pitied the work of these beings, He ought long before to have pitied themselves,
and not to have allowed them to fall into such awful blindness.
3. Their talk also about shadow and vacuity, in which they maintain that the creation
with which we are concerned was formed, will be brought to nothing, if the things referred
to were created within the territory which is contained by the Father. For if they hold
that the light of their Father is such that it fills all things which are inside of Him,
and illuminates them all, how can any vacuum or shadow possibly exist within that
territory which is contained by the Pleroma, and by the light of the Father? For, in that
case, it behoves them to point out some place within the Propator, or within the Pleroma,
which is not illuminated, nor kept possession of by any one, and in which either the
angels or the Demiurge formed whatever they pleased. Nor will it be a small amount of
space in which such and so great a creation can be
364
conceived of as having been formed. There will therefore be an absolute necessity that,
within the Pleroma, or within the Father of whom they speak, they should conceive(1) of
some place, void, formless, and full of darkness, in which those things were formed which
have been formed. By such a supposition, however, the light of their Father would incur a
reproach, as if He could not illuminate and fill those things which are within Himself.
Thus, then, when they maintain that these things were the fruit of defect and the work of
error, they do moreover introduce defect and error within the Pleroma, and into the bosom
of the Father.
CHAP. V.--THIS WORLD WAS NOT FORMED BY ANY OTHER BEINGS WITHIN THE TERRITORY WHICH IS
CONTAINED BY THE FATHER.
1. The remarks, therefore, which I made a little while ago(2) are suitable in answer to
those who assert that this world was formed outside of the Pleroma, or under a "good
God; "and such persons, with the Father they speak of, will be quite cut off from
that which is outside the Pleroma, in which, at the same time, it is necessary that they
should finally rest.(3) In answer to those, again, who maintain that this world was formed
by certain other beings within that territory which is contained by the Father, all those
points which have now(4) been noticed will present themselves [as exhibiting their]
absurdities and incoherencies; and they will be compelled either to acknowledge all those
things which are within the Father, lucid, full, and energetic, or to accuse the light of
the Father as if He could not illuminate all things; or, as a portion of their Pleroma [is
so described], the whole of it must be confessed to be void, chaotic, and full of
darkness. And they accuse all other created things as if these were merely temporal, or
[at the best], if eternal,(5) yet material. But(6) these (the AEons) ought to be regarded
as beyond the reach of such accusations, since they are within the Pleroma, or the charges
in question will equally fall against the entire Pleroma; and thus the Christ of whom they
speak is discovered to be the author of ignorance. For, according to their statements,
when He had given a form so far as substance was concerned to the Mother they conceive of,
He cast her outside of the Pleroma; that is, He cut her off from knowledge. He, therefore,
who separated her from knowledge, did in reality produce ignorance in her. How then could
the very same person bestow the gift of knowledge on the rest of the AEons, those who were
anterior to Him [in production], and yet be the author of ignorance to His Mother? For He
placed her beyond the pale of knowledge, when He cast her outside of the Pleroma.
2. Moreover, if they explain being within and without the Pleroma as implying knowledge
and ignorance respectively, as certain of them do (since he who has knowledge is within
that which knows), then they must of necessity grant that the Saviour Himself (whom they
designate All Things) was in a state of ignorance. For they maintain that, on His coming
forth outside of the Pleroma, He imparted form to their Mother [Achamoth]. If, then, they
assert that whatever is outside [the Pleroma] is ignorant of all things, and if the
Saviour went forth to impart form to their Mother, then He was situated beyond the pale of
the knowledge of all things; that is, He was in ignorance. How then could He communicate
knowledge to her, when He Himself was beyond the pale of knowledge? For we, too, they
declare to be outside the Pleroma, inasmuch as we are outside of the knowledge which they
possess. And once more: If the Saviour really went forth beyond the Pleroma to seek after
the sheep which was lost, but the Pleroma is [co-extensive with] knowledge, then He placed
Himself beyond the pale of knowledge, that is, in ignorance. For it is necessary either
that they grant that what is outside the Pleroma is so in a local sense, in which case all
the remarks formerly made will rise up against them; or if they speak of that which is
within in regard to knowledge, and of that which is without in respect to ignorance, then
their Saviour, and Christ long before Him, must have been formed in ignorance, inasmuch as
they went forth beyond the Pleroma, that is, beyond the pale of knowledge, in order to
impart form to their Mother.
3. These arguments may, in like manner, be adapted to meet the case of all those who,
in any way, maintain that the world was formed either by angels or by any other one than
the true God. For the charges which they bring against the Demiurge, and those things
which were made material and temporal, will in truth fall back on the Father; if indeed
the(7) very things which
365
were formed in the bosom of the Pleroma began by and by in fact to be dissolved, in
accordance with the permission and good-will of the Father. The [immediate] Creator, then,
is not the [real] Author of this work, thinking, as He did, that He formed it very good,
but He who allows and approves of the productions of defect, and the works of error having
a place among his own possessions, and that temporal things should be mixed up with
eternal, corruptible with incorruptible, and those which partake of error with those which
belong to truth. If, however, these things were formed without the permission or
approbation of the Father of all, then that Being must be more powerful, stronger, and
more kingly, who made these things within a territory which properly belongs to Him (the
Father), and did so without His permission. If again, as some say, their Father permitted
these things without approving of them, then He gave the permission on account of some
necessity, being either able to prevent [such procedure], or not able. But if indeed He
could not [hinder it], then He is weak and powerless; while, if He could, He is a seducer,
a hypocrite, and a slave of necessity, inasmuch as He does not consent [to such a course],
and yet allows it as if He did consent. And allowing error to arise at the first, and to
go on increasing, He endeavours in later times to destroy it, when already many have
miserably perished on account of the [original] defect.
4. It is not seemly, however, to say of Him who is God over all, since He is free and
independent, that He was a slave to necessity, or that anything takes place with His
permission, yet against His desire; otherwise they will make necessity greater and more
kingly than God, since that which has the most power is superior(1) to all [others]. And
He ought at the very beginning to have cut off the causes of [the fancied] necessity, and
not to have allowed Himself to be shut up to yielding to that necessity, by permitting
anything besides that which became Him. For it would have been much better, more
consistent, and more God-like, to cut off at the beginning the principle of this kind of
necessity, than afterwards, as if moved by repentance, to endeavour to extirpate the
results of necessity when they had reached such a development. And if the Father of all be
a slave to necessity, and must yield to fate, while He unwillingly tolerates the things
which are done, but is at the same time powerless to do anything in opposition to
necessity and fate (like the Homeric Jupiter, who says of necessity, "I have
willingly given thee, yet with unwilling mind"), then, according to this reasoning,
the Bythus of whom they speak will be found to be the slave of necessity and fate.
CHAP. VI. --THE ANGELS AND THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IGNORANT OF THE
SUPREME GOD.
1. How, again, could either the angels, or the Creator of the world, have been ignorant
of the Supreme God, seeing they were His property, and His creatures, and were contained
by Him? He might indeed have been invisible to them on account of His superiority, but He
could by no means have been unknown to them on account of His providence. For though it is
true, as they declare, that they were very far separated from Him through their
inferiority [of nature], yet, as His dominion extended over all of them, it behoved them
to know their Ruler, and to be aware of this in particular, that He who created them is
Lord of all. For since His invisible essence is mighty, it confers on all a profound
mental intuition and perception of His most powerful, yea, omnipotent greatness.
Wherefore, although "no one knows the Father, except the Son, nor the Son except the
Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him,"(2) yet all [beings] do know this
one fact at least, because reason, implanted in their minds, moves them, and reveals to
them [the truth] that there is one God, the Lord of all.
2. And on this account all things have been [by general consent] placed under the sway
of Him who is styled the Most High, and the Almighty. By calling upon Him, even before the
coming of our Lord, men were saved both from most wicked spirits, and from all kinds of
demons, and from every sort of apostate power. This was the case, not as if earthly
spirits or demons had seen Him, but because they knew of the existence of Him who is God
over all, at whose invocation they trembled, as there does tremble every creature, and
principality, and power, and every being endowed with energy under His government. By way
of parallel, shall not those who live under the empire of the Romans, although they have
never seen the emperor, but are far separated from him both by land and sea, know very
well, as they experience his rule, who it is that possesses the principal power in the
state? How then could it be, that those angels who were superior to us [in nature], or
even He whom they call the Creator of the world, did not know the Almighty, when even dumb
animals tremble and yield at the invocation of His name? And as, although they have not
seen Him, yet all things are subject to the name of our Lord,(3) so must they also be to
His who made and established all things by His word, since it was no other than He who
formed the world. And for this reason do the Jews even now put demons to flight by means
366
of this very adjuration, inasmuch as all beings fear the invocation of Him who created
them.
3. If, then, they shrink from affirming that the angels are more irrational than the
dumb animals, they will find that it behoved these, although they had not seen Him who is
God over all, to know His power and sovereignty. For it will appear truly ridiculous, if
they maintain that they themselves indeed, who dwell upon the earth, know Him who is God
over all whom they have never seen, but will not allow Him who, according to their
opinion, formed them and the whole world, although He dwells in the heights and above the
heavens, to know those things with which they themselves, though they dwell below, are
acquainted. [This is the case], unless perchance they maintain that Bythus lives in
Tartarus below the earth, and that on this account they have attained to a knowledge of
Him before those angels who have their abode on high. Thus do they rush into such an abyss
of madness as to pronounce the Creator of the world void of understanding. They are truly
deserving of pity, since with such utter folly they affirm that He (the Creator of the
world) neither knew His Mother, nor her seed, nor the Pleroma of the AEons, nor the
Propator, nor what the things were which He made; but that these are images of those
things which are within the Pleroma, the Saviour having secretly laboured that they should
be so formed ['by the unconscious Demiurge], in honour of those things which are above.
CHAP. VII.--CREATED THINGS ARE NOT THE IMAGES OF THOSE AEONS WHO ARE WITHIN THE
PLEROMA.
1. While the Demiurge was thus ignorant of all things, they tell us that the Saviour
conferred honour upon the Pleroma by the creation [which he summoned into existence]
through means of his Mother, inasmuch as he produced similitudes and images of those
things which are above. But I have already shown that it was impossible that anything
should exist beyond the Pleroma (in which external region they tell us that images were
made of those things which are within the Pleroma), or that this world was formed by any
other one than the Supreme God. But if it is a pleasant thing to overthrow them on every
side, and to prove them vendors of falsehood; let us say, in opposition to them, that if
these things were made by the Saviour to the honour of those which are above, after their
likeness, then it behoved them always to endure, that those things which have been
honoured should perpetually continue in honour. But if they do in fact pass away, what is
the use of this very brief period of honour,--an honour which at one time had no
existence, and which shall again come to nothing? In that case I shall prove that the
Saviour
is rather an aspirant after vainglory, than(1) one who honours those things which are
above, For what honour can those things which are temporal confer on such as are eternal
and endure for ever? or those which pass away on such as remain? or those which are
corruptible on such as are incorruptible?--since, even among men who are themselves
mortal, there is no value attached to that honour which speedily passes away, but to that
which endures as long as it possibly can. But those things which, as soon as they are
made, come to an end, may justly be said rather to have been formed for the contempt of
such as are thought to be honoured by them; and that that which is eternal is
contumeliously treated when its image is corrupted and dissolved. But what if their Mother
had not wept, and laughed, and been involved in despair? The Saviour would not then have
possessed any means of honouring the Fulness, inasmuch as her last state of confusion(2)
did not have substance of its own by which it might honour the Propator.
2. Alas for the honour of vainglory which at once passes away, and no longer appears!
There will be some(3) AEon, in whose case such honour will not be thought at all to have
had an existence, and then the things which are above will be unhonoured; or it will be
necessary to produce once more another Mother weeping, and in despair, in order to the
honour of the Pleroma. What a dissimilar, and at the same time blasphemous image! Do you
tell me that an image of the Only-begotten was produced by the former(4) of the world,
whom(5) again ye wish to be considered the Nous (mind) of the Father of all, and [yet
maintain] that this image was ignorant of itself, ignorant of creation,--ignorant, too, of
the Mother,--ignorant of everything that exists, and of those things which were made by
it; and are you not ashamed while, in opposition to yourselves, you ascribe ignorance even
to the Only-begotten Himself? For if these things [below] were made by the Saviour after
the similitude of those which are above, while He (the Demiurge) who was made after such
similitude was in so great ignorance, it necessarily follows that around Him, and in
accordance with Him, after whose likeness be that is thus ignorant was formed, ignorance
of the kind in question spiritually exists.
367
For it is not possible, since both were produced spiritually, and neither fashioned nor
composed, that in some the likeness was preserved, while in others the likeness of the
image was spoiled, that image which was here produced that it might be according to the
image of that production which is above. But if it is not similar, the charge will then
attach to the Saviour, who produced a dissimilar image,--of being, so to speak, an
incompetent workman. For it is out of their power to affirm that the Saviour had not the
faculty of production, since they style Him All Things. If, then, the image is dissimilar,
he is a poor workman, and the blame lies, according to their hypothesis, with the Saviour.
If, on the other hand, it is similar, then the same ignorance will be found to exist in
the Nous (mind) of their Propator, that is, in the Only-begotten. The Nous of the Father,
in that case, was ignorant of Himself; ignorant, too, of the Father; ignorant, moreover,
of those very things which were formed by Him. But if He has knowledge, it necessarily
follows also that he who was formed after his likeness by the Saviour should know the
things which are like; and thus, according to their own principles, their monstrous
blasphemy is overthrown.
3. Apart from this, however, how can those things which belong to creation, various,
manifold, and innumerable as they are, be the images of those thirty AEons which are
within the Pleroma, whose names, as these men fix them, I have set forth in the book which
precedes this? And not only will they be unable to adapt the [vast] variety of creation at
large to the [comparative] smallness of their Pleroma, but they cannot do this even with
respect to any one part of it, whether [that possessed by] celestial or terrestrial
beings, or those that live in the waters. For they themselves testify that their Pleroma
consists of thirty AEons; but any one will undertake to show that, in a single department
of those [created beings] which have been mentioned, they reckon that there are not
thirty, but many thousands of species. How then can those things, which constitute such a
multiform creation, which are opposed in nature to each other, and disagree among
themselves, and destroy the one the other, be the images and likenesses of the thirty
AEons of the Pleroma, if indeed, as they declare, these being possessed of one nature, are
of equal and similar properties, and exhibit no differences [among themselves]? For it was
incumbent, if these things are images of those AEons,--inasmuch as they declare that some
men are wicked by nature, and some, on the other hand, naturally good,--to point out such
differences also among their AEons, and to maintain that some of them were produced
naturally good, while some were naturally evil, so that the
supposition of the likeness of those things might harmonize with the AEons. Moreover,
since there are in the world some creatures that are gentle, and others that are fierce,
some that are innocuous, while others are hurtful and destroy the rest; some have their
abode on the earth, others in the water, others in the air, and others in the heaven; in
like manner, they are bound to show that the AEons possess such properties, if indeed the
one are the images of the others. And besides; "the eternal fire which the Father has
prepared for the devil and his angels,"(2)-- they ought to show of which of those
AEons that are above it is the image; for it, too, is reckoned part of the creation.
4. If, however, they say that these things are the images of the Enthymesis of that
AEon who fell into passion, then, first of all, they will act impiously against their
Mother, by declaring her to be the first cause of evil and corruptible images. And then,
again, how can those things which are manifold, and dissimilar, and contrary in their
nature, be the images of one and the same Being? And if they say that the angels of the
Pleroma are numerous, and that those things which are many are the images of these--not in
this way either will the account they give be satisfactory. For, in the first place, they
are then bound to point out differences among the angels of the Pleroma, which are
mutually opposed to each other, even as the images existing below are of a contrary nature
among themselves. And then, again, since there are many, yea, innumerable angels who
surround the Creator, as all the prophets acknowledge,--[saying, for instance,] "Ten
thousand times ten thousand stood beside Him, and many thousands of thousands ministered
unto Him,"(2)--then, according(3) to them, the angels of the Pleroma will have as
images the angels of the Creator, and the entire creation remains in the image of the
Pleroma, but so that the thirty AEons no longer correspond to the manifold variety of the
creation.
5. Still further, if these things [below] were made after the similitude of those
[above], after the likeness of which again will those then be made? For if the Creator of
the world did not form these things directly from His own(4) conception, but, like an
architect of no ability, or a boy receiving his first lesson, copied them from archetypes
furnished by others, then whence did their Bythus obtain the forms of that creation which
He at first produced? It clearly follows
368
that He must have received the model from some other one who is above Him, and that
one, in turn, from another. And none the less [for these suppositions], the talk about
images, as about gods, will extend to infinity, if we do not at once fix our mind on one
Artificer, and on one God, who of Himself formed those things which have been created. Or
is it really the case that, in regard to mere men, one will allow that they have of
themselves invented what is useful for the purposes of life, but will not grant to that
God who formed the world, that of Himself He created the forms of those things which have
been made, and imparted to it its orderly arrangement?
6. But, again, how can these things [below] be images of those [above], since they are
really contrary to them, and can in no respect have sympathy with them? For those things
which are contrary to each other may indeed be destructive of those to which they are
contrary, but can by no means be their images--as, for instance, water and fire; or,
again, light and darkness, and other such things, can never be the images of one another.
In like manner, neither can those things which are corruptible and earthly, and of a
compound nature, and transitory, be the images of those which, according to these men, are
spiritual; unless these very things themselves be allowed to be compound, limited in
space, and of a definite shape, and thus no longer spiritual, and diffused, and spreading
into vast extent, and incomprehensible. For they must of necessity be possessed of a
definite figure, and confined within certain limits, that they may be true images; and
then it is decided that they are not spiritual. If, however, these men maintain that they
are spiritual, and diffused, and incomprehensible, how can those things which are
possessed of figure, and confined within certain limits, be the images of such as are
destitute of figure and incomprehensible?
7. If, again, they affirm that neither according to configuration nor formation, but
according to number and the order of production, those things [above] are the images [of
these below], then, in the first place, these things [below] ought not to be spoken of as
images and likenesses of those AEons that are above. For how can the things which have
neither the fashion nor shape of those [above] be their images? And, in the next place,
they would adapt both the numbers and productions of the AEons above, so as to render them
identical with and similar to thoseth at belong to the creation [below]. But now, since
they refer to only thirty AEons, and declare that the vast multitude of things which are
embraced within the creation [below] are images of those that are but thirty, we may
justly condemn them as utterly destitute of sense.
CHAP. VIII.--CREATED THINGS ARE NOT A SHADOW
OF THE PLEROMA.
1. If, again, they declare that these things [below] are a shadow of those [above], as
some of them are bold enough to maintain, so that in this respect they are images, then it
will be necessary for them to allow that those things which are above are possessed of
bodies. For those bodies which are above do cast a shadow, but spiritual substances do
not, since they can in no degree darken others. If, however, we also grant them this point
(though it is, in fact, an impossibility), that there is a shadow belonging to those
essences which are spiritual and lucent, into which they declare their Mother descended;
yet, since those things [which are above] are eternal, and that shadow which is cast by
them endures for ever, [it follows that] these things [below] are also not transitory, but
endure along with those which cast their shadow over them. If, on the other hand, these
things [below] are transitory, it is a necessary consequence that those [above] also, of
which these are the shadow, pass away; while; if they endure, their shadow likewise
endures.
2. If, however, they maintain that the shadow spoken of does not exist as being
produced by the shade of [those above], but simply in this respect, that [the things
below] are far separated from those [above], they will then charge the light of their
Father with weakness and insufficiency, as if it cannot extend so far as these things, but
fails to fill that which is empty, and to dispel the shadow, and that when no one is
offering any hindrance. For, according to them, the light of their Father will be changed
into darkness and buried in obscurity, and will come to an end in those places which are
characterized by emptiness, since it cannot penetrate and fill all things. Let them then
no longer declare that their Bythus is the fulness of all things, if indeed he has neither
filled nor illuminated that which is vacuum and shadow; or, on the other hand, let them
cease talking of vacuum and shadow, if the light of their Father does in truth fill all
things.
3. Beyond the primary Father, then--that is, the God who is over all--there can neither
be any Pleroma into which they declare the Enthymesis of that AEon who suffered passion,
descended (so that the Pleroma itself, or the primary God, should not be limited and
circumscribed by that which is beyond, and should, in fact, be contained by it); nor can
vacuum or shadow have any existence, since the Father exists beforehand, so that His light
cannot fail, and find end in a vacuum. It is, moreover, irrational and impious to conceive
of a place in which He who is, according to them, Propator, and Proarche, and Father of
all, and of this
369
Pleroma, ceases and has an end. Nor, again, is it allowable, for the reasons(1) already
stated, to allege that some other being formed so vast a creation in the bosom of the
Father, either with or without His consent. For it is equally impious and infatuated to
affirm that so great a creation was(2) formed by angels, or by some particular production
ignorant of the true God in that territory which is His own. Nor is it possible that those
things which are earthly and material could have been formed within their Pleroma, since
that is wholly spiritual. And further, it is not even possible that those things which
belong to a multiform creation, and have been formed with mutually opposite qualities
[could have been created] after the image of the things above, since these (i.e., the
AEons) are said to be few, and of a like formation, and homogeneous. Their talk, too,
about the shadow of kenoma--that is, of a vacuum--has in all points turned out false.
Their figment, then, [in what way soever viewed,] has been proved groundless,(3) and their
doctrines untenable. Empty, too, are those who listen to them, and are verily descending
into the abyss of perdition.
CHAP. IX.--THERE IS BUT ONE CREATOR OF THE WORLD, GOD THE FATHER: THIS THE CONSTANT
BELIEF OF THE CHURCH.
1. That God is the Creator of the world is accepted even by those very persons who in
many ways speak against Him, and yet acknowledge Him, styling Him the Creator, and an
angel, not to mention that all the Scriptures call out [to the same effect], and the Lord
teaches us of this Father(4) who is in heaven, and no other, as I shall show in the sequel
of this work. For the present, however, that proof which is derived from those who allege
doctrines opposite to ours, is of itself sufficient,--all men, in fact, consenting to this
truth: the ancients on their part preserving with special care, from the tradition of the
first-formed man, this persuasion, while they celebrate the praises of one God, the Maker
of heaven and earth; others, again, after them, being reminded of this fact by the
prophets of God, while the very heathen learned it from creation itself. For even creation
reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world
manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal Church, moreover, through the whole world, has
received this tradition from the apostles.
2. This God, then, being acknowledged, as I have said, and receiving testimony from all
to the fact of His existence, that Father whom they conjure into existence is beyond doubt
untenable, and has no witnesses [to his existence]. Simon Magus was the first who said
that he himself was God over all, and that the world was formed by his angels. Then those
who succeeded him, as I have shown in the first book,(5) by their several opinions, still
further depraved [his teaching] through their impious and irreligious doctrines against
the Creator. These [heretics now referred to],(6) being the disciples of those mentioned,
render such as assent to them worse than the heathen. For the former "serve the
creature rather than the Creator,"(7) and "those which are not gods,"(8)
notwithstanding that they ascribe the first place in Deity to that God who was the Maker
of this universe. But the latter maintain that He, [i.e., the Creator of this world,] is
the fruit of a defect, and describe Him as being of an animal nature, and as not knowing
that Power which is above Him, while He also exclaims, "I am God, and besides Me
there is no other God."(9) Affirming that He lies, they are themselves liars,
attributing all sorts of wickedness to Him; and conceiving of one who is not above this
Being as really having an existence, they are thus convicted by their own views of
blasphemy against that God who really exists, while they conjure into existence a god who
has no existence, to their own condemnation. And thus those who declare themselves
"perfect," and as being possessed of the knowledge of all things, are found to
be worse than the heathen, and to entertain more blasphemous opinions even against their
own Creator.
CHAP. X.--PERVERSE INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE BY THE HERETICS: GOD CREATED ALL THINGS
OUT OF NOTHING, AND NOT FROM PRE-EXISTENT MATTER.
1. It is therefore in the highest degree irrational, that we should take no account of
Him who is truly God, and who receives testimony from all, while we inquire whether there
is above Him that [other being] who really has no existence, and has never been proclaimed
by any one. For that nothing has been clearly spoken regarding Him, they themselves
furnish testimony; for since they, with wretched success, transfer to that being who has
been conceived of by them, those parables [of Scripture] which, whatever the form in which
they have been spoken, are sought after [for this purpose], it is manifest that they now
generate another [god], who was
370
never previously sought after. For by the fact that they thus endeavour to explain
ambiguous passages of Scripture (ambiguous, however, not as if referring to another god,
but as regards the dispensations of [the true] God), they have constructed another god,
weaving, as I said before, ropes of sand, and affixing a more important to a less
important question. For no question can be solved by means of another which itself awaits
solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense, can an ambiguity be explained
by means of another ambiguity, or enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things
of such character receive their solution from those which are manifest, and consistent and
clear.
2. But these [heretics], while striving to explain passages of Scripture and parables,
bring forward another more important, and indeed impious question, to this effect,
"Whether there be really another god above that God who was the Creator of the
world?" They are not in the way of solving the questions [which they propose]; for
how could they find means of doing so? But they append an important question to one of
less consequence, and thus insert [in their speculations] a difficulty incapable of
solution. For in order that they may(1) know "knowledge" itself (yet not
learning this fact, that the Lord, when thirty years old, came to the baptism of truth),
they do impiously despise that God who was the Creator, and who sent Him for the salvation
of men. And that they may be deemed capable of informing us whence is the substance of
matter, while they believe not that God, according to His pleasure, in the exercise of His
own will and power, formed all things (so that those things which now are should have an
existence) out of what did not previously exist, they have collected [a multitute of] vain
discourses. They thus truly reveal their infidelity; they do not believe in that which
really exists, and they have fallen away into [the belief of] that which has, in fact, no
existence.
3. For, when they tell us that all moist substance proceeded from the tears of
Achamoth, all lucid substance from her smile, all solid substance from her sadness, all
mobile substance from her terror, and that thus they have sublime knowledge on account of
which they are superior to others,--how can these things fail to be regarded as worthy of
contempt, and truly ridiculous? They do not believe that God (being powerful, and rich in
all resources) created matter itself, inasmuch as they know not how much a spiritual and
divine essence can accomplish. But they do believe that their Mother, whom they style a
female from a female, produced from
her passions aforesaid the so vast material substance of creation. They inquire, too,
whence the substance of creation was supplied to the Creator; but they do not inquire
whence [were supplied] to their Mother (whom they call the Enthymesis and impulse of the
AEon that went astray) so great an amount of tears, or perspiration, or sadness, or that
which produced the remainder of matter.
4. For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who
is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable [to reason],
and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that "the things which are
impossible with men are possible with God."(2) While men, indeed, cannot make
anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point
proeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His
creation, when previously it had no existence. But the assertion that matter was produced
from the Enthymesis of an AEon going astray, and that the AEon [referred to] was far
separated from her Enthymesis, and that, again, her passion and feeling, apart from
herself, became matter--is incredible, infatuated, impossible, and untenable.
CHAP. XI.--THE HERETICS, FROM THEIR DISBELIEF OF THE TRUTH, HAVE FALLEN INTO AN ABYSS
OF ERROR: REASONS FOR INVESTIGATING THEIR SYSTEMS.
1. They do not believe that He, who is God above all, formed by His Word, in His own
territory, as He Himself pleased, the various and diversified [works of creation which
exist], inasmuch as He is the former of all things, like a wise architect, and a most
powerful monarch. But they believe that angels, or some power separate from God, and who
was ignorant of Him, formed this universe. By this course, therefore, not yielding credit
to the truth, but wallowing in falsehood, they have lost the bread of true life, and have
fallen into vacuity(3) and an abyss of shadow. They are like the dog of AEsop, which
dropped the bread, and made an attempt at seizing its Shadow, thus losing the [real] food.
It is easy to prove from the very words of the Lord, that He acknowledges one Father and
Creator of the world, and Fashioner of man, who was proclaimed by the law and the
prophets, while He knows no other, and that this One is really God over all; and that He
teaches that that adoption of sons pertaining to the Father, which is eternal life, takes
place through Himself, conferring it [as He does] on all the righteous.
371
2. But since these men delight in attacking us, and in their true character of
cavillers assail us with points which really tell not at all against us, bringing forward
in opposition to us a multitude of parables and [captious] questions, I have thought it
well, on the other side, first of all to put to them the following inquiries concerning
their own doctrines, to exhibit their improbability, and to put an end to their audacity.
After this has been done, [I intend] to bring forward the discourses of the Lord, so that
they may not only be rendered destitute of the means of attacking us, but that, since they
will be unable reasonably to reply to those questions which are put, they may see that
their plan of argument is destroyed; so that, either returning to the truth, and humbling
themselves, and ceasing from their multifarious phantasies, they may propitiate God for
those. blasphemies they have uttered against Him, and obtain salvation; or that, if they
still persevere in that system of vainglory which has taken possession of their minds,
they may at least find it necessary to change their kind of argument against us.
CHAP. XII.--THE TRIACONTAD OF THE HERETICS ERRS BOTH BY DEFECT AND EXCESS: SOPHIA COULD
NEVER HAVE PRODUCED ANYTHING APART FROM HER CONSORT; LOGOS AND SIGE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN
CONTEMPORARIES.
1. We may(1) remark, in the first place, regarding their Triacontad, that the whole of
it marvellously falls to ruin on both sides, that is, both as respects defect and excess.
They say that to indicate it the Lord came to be baptized at the age of thirty years. But
this assertion really amounts to a manifest subversion of their entire argument. As to
defect, this happens as follows: first of all, because they reckon the Propator among the
other AEons. For the Father of all ought not to be counted with other productions; He who
was not produced with that which was produced; He who was unbegotten with that which was
born; He whom no one comprehends with that which is comprehended by Him, and who is on
this account [Himself] incomprehensible; and He who is without figure with that which has
a definite shape. For inasmuch as He is superior to the rest, He ought not to be numbered
with them, and that so that He who is impassible and not in error should be reckoned with
an AEon subject to passion, and actually in error. For I have shown in the book which
immediately precedes this, that, beginning with Bythus, they reckon up the Tricontad to
Sophia, whom they describe as the erring AEon; and I have also there set forth the names
of their [AEons]; but if He be not reckoned,
there are no longer, on their own showing, thirty productions of AEons, but these then
become only twenty-nine.
2. Next, with respect to the first production Ennoea, whom they also term Sige, from
whom again they describe Nous and Aletheia as having been sent forth, they err in both
particulars. For it is impossible that the thought (Ennoea) of any one, or his silence
(Sige), should be understood apart from himself; and that, being sent forth beyond him, it
should possess a special figure of its own. But if they assert that the (Ennoea) was not
sent forth beyond Him, but continued one with the Propator, why then do they reckon her
with the other AEons--with those who were not one [with the Father], and are on this
account ignorant of His greatness? If, however, she was so united (let us take this also
into consideration), there is then an absolute necessity, that from this united and
inseparable conjunction, which constitutes but one being, there(2) should proceed an
unseparated and united production, so that it should not be dissimilar to Him who sent it
forth. But if this be so, then just as Bythus and Sige, so also Nous and Aletheia will
form one and the same being, ever cleaving mutually together. And inasmuch as the one
cannot be conceived of without the other, just as water cannot [be conceived of] without
[the thought of] moisture, or fire without [the thought of] heat, or a stone without [the
thought] of hardness (for these things are mutually bound together, and the one cannot be
separated from the other, but always co-exists with it), so it behoves Bythus to be united
in the same way with Ennoea, and Nous with Aletheia. Logos and Zoe again, as being sent
forth by those that are thus united, ought themselves to be united, and to constitute only
one being. But, according to such a process of reasoning, Homo and Ecclesia too, and
indeed all the remaining conjunctions of the AEons produced, ought to be united, and
always to coexist, the one with the other. For there is a necessity in their opinion, that
a female AEon should exist side by side with a male one, inasmuch as she is, so to speak,
[the forthputting of] his affection.
3. These things being so, and such opinions being proclaimed by them, they again
venture, without a blush, to teach that the younger AEon of the Duodecad, whom they also
style Sophia, did, apart from union with her consort, whom they call Theletus, endure
passion, and separately, without any assistance from him, gave birth to a production which
they name "a female from a female." They thus rush into such utter frenzy, as to
form two most clearly opposite opinions respecting the same point. For if
372
Bythus is ever one with Sige, Nous with Aletheia, Logos with Zoe, and so on, as
respects the rest, how could Sophia, without union with her consort, either suffer or
generate anything? And if, again, she did really. suffer passion apart from him, it
necessarily follows that the other conjunctions also admit of disjunction and separation
among themselves,--a thing which I have already shown to be impossible. It is also
impossible, therefore, that Sophia suffered passion apart from Theletus; and thus, again,
their whole system of argument is overthrown. For they have yet(1) again derived the whole
of remaining [material substance], like the composition of a tragedy, from that passion
which they affirm she experienced apart from union with her consort.
4. If, however, they impudently maintain, in order to preserve from ruin their vain
imaginations, that the rest of the conjunctions also were disjoined and separated from one
another on account of this latest conjunction, then [I reply that], in the first place,
they rest upon a thing which is impossible. For how can they separate the Propator from
his Ennoea, or Nous from Aletheia, or Logos from Zoe, and so on with the rest? And how can
they themselves maintain that they tend again to unity, and are, in fact, all at one, if
indeed these very conjunctions, which are within the Pleroma, do not preserve unity, but
are separate from one another; and that to such a degree, that they both endure passion
and perform the work of generation without union one with another, just as hens do apart
from intercourse with cocks.
5. Then, again, their first and first-begotten Ogdoad will be overthrown as follows:
They must admit that Bythus and Sige, Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and
Ecclesia, do individually dwell in the same Pleroma. But it is impossible that Sige
(silence) can exist in the presence of Logos (speech), or again, that Logos can manifest
himself in the presence of Sige. For these are mutually destructive of each other, even as
light and darkness can by no possibility exist in the same place: for if light prevails,
there cannot be darkness; and if darkness, there cannot be light, since, where light
appears, darkness is put to flight. In like manner, where Sige is, there cannot be Logos;
and where Logos is, there certainly cannot be Sige. But if they say that Logos simply
exists within(2) (unexpressed), Sige also will exist within, and will not the less be
destroyed by the Logos within. But that he really is not merely conceived of in the mind,
the very order of the production of their (AEons) shows.
6. Let them not then declare that the first and principal Ogdoad consists of Logos and
Sige, but let them [as a matter of necessity] exclude either Sige or Logos; and then their
first and principal Ogdoad is at an end. For if they describe the conjunctions [of the
AEons] as united, then their whole argument fails to pieces. Since, if they were united,
how could Sophia have generated a defect without union with her consort? If, on the other
hand, they maintain that, as in production, each of the AEons possesses his own peculiar
substance, then how can Sige and Logos manifest themselves in the same place? So far,
then, with respect to defect.
7. But again, their Triacontad is overthrown as to excess by the following
considerations. They represent Horos (whom they call by a variety of names which I have
mentioned in the preceding book) as having been produced by Monogenes just like the other
AEons. Some of them maintain that this Horos was produced by Monogenes, while others
affirm that he was sent forth by the Propator himself in His own image. They affirm
further, that a production was formed by Monogenes--Christ and the Holy Spirit; and they
do not reckon these in the number of the Pleroma, nor the Saviour either, whom they also
declare to be Totum(3) (all things). Now, it is evident even to a blind man, that not
merely thirty productions, as they maintain, were sent forth, but four more along with
these thirty. For they reckon the Propator himself in the Pleroma, and those too, who in
succession were produced by one another. Why is it, then, that those [other beings] are
not reckoned as existing with these in the same Pleroma, since they were produced in the
same manner? For what just reason can they assign for not reckoning along with the other
AEons, either Christ, whom they describe as having, according to the Father's will, been
produced by Monogenes, or the Holy Spirit, or Horos, whom they also call Soter(4)
(Saviour), and not even the Saviour Himself, who came to impart assistance and form to
their Mother? Whether is this as if these latter were weaker than the former, and
therefore unworthy of the name of AEons, or of being numbered among them, or as if they
were superior and more excellent? But how could they be weaker, since they were produced
for the establishment and rectification of the others? And then, again, they cannot
possibly be superior to the first and principal Tetrad, by which they were also produced;
for it, too, is reckoned in the number above men-
373
tioned. These latter beings, then, ought also to have been numbered in the Pleroma of
the
or that should be deprived of the honour of those AEons which bear this appellation
(the Tetrad).
8. Since, therefore, their Triacontad is thus brought to nought, as I have shown, both
with respect to defect and excess (for in dealing with such a number, either excess or
defect [to any extent] will render the number untenable, and how much more so great
variations?), it follows that what they maintain respecting their Ogdoad and Duodecad is a
mere fable which cannot stand. Their whole system, moreover, falls to the ground, when
their very foundation is destroyed and dissolved into Bythus,(1) that is, into what has no
existence. Let them, then, henceforth seek to set forth some other reasons why the Lord
came to be baptized at the age of thirty years, and [explain in some other way] the
Duodecad of the apostles; and [the fact stated regarding] her who suffered from an issue
of blood; and all the other points respecting which they so madly labour in vain.
CHAP. XIII.--THE FIRST ORDER OF PRODUCTION MAINTAINED BY THE HERETICS IS ALTOGETHER
INDEFENSIBLE.
1. I now proceed to show, as follows, that the first order of production, as conceived
of by them, must be rejected. For they maintain that Nous and Aletheia were produced from
Bythus and his Ennoea, which is proved to be a contradiction. For Nous is that which is
itself chief, and highest, and, as it were, the principle and source of all understanding.
Ennoea, again, which arises from him, is any sort of emotion concerning any subject. It
cannot be, therefore, that Nous was produced by Bythus and Ennoea; it would be more like
the truth for them to maintain that Ennoea was produced as the daughter of the Propator
and this Nous. For Ennoea not the daughter of Nous, as they assert, but Nous becomes the
father of Ennoea. For how can Nous have been produced by the Propator, when he holds the
chief and primary place of that hidden and invisible affection which is within Him? By
this affection sense is produced, and Ennoea, and Enthymesis, and other things which are
simply synonyms for Nous himself. As I have said already, they are merely certain definite
exercises in thought of that very power concerning some particular subject. We understand
the [several] terms according to their(2) length
and breadth of meaning, not according to any [fundamental] change [of signification];
and the [various exercises of thought] are limited by [the same sphere of] knowledge, and
are expressed together by [the same] term, the [very same] sense remaining within, and
creating, and administering, and freely governing even by its own power, and as it
pleases, the things which have been previously mentioned.
2. For the first exercise of that [power] respecting anything, is styled Ennoea; but
when it continues, and gathers strength, and takes possession of the whole soul, it is
called Enthymesis. This Enthymesis, again, when it exercises itself a long time on the
same point, and has, as it were, been proved, is named Sensation. And this Sensation, when
it is much developed, becomes
Counsel. The increase, again, and greatly developed exercise of this Counsel becomes
the Examination of thought (Judgment); and this remaining in the mind is most properly
termed Logos (reason), from which the spoken Logos (word) proceeds.(3) But all the
[exercises of thought] which have been mentioned are [fundamentally] one and the same,
receiving their origin from Nous, and obtaining [different] appellation according to their
increase. Just as the human body, which is at one time young, then in the prime of life,
and then old, has received [different] appellations according to its increase and
continuance, but not according to any change of substance, or on account of any [real]
loss of body, so is it with those [mental exercises]. For, when one [mentally]
contemplates anything, he also thinks of it; and when he thinks of it, he has also
knowledge regarding it; and when he knows it, he also considers it; and when he considers
it, he also mentally handles it; and when he mentally handles it, he also speaks of it.
But, as I have already said, it is Nous who governs all these [mental processes], while He
is himself invisible, and utters speech of himself by means of those processes which have
been mentioned, as it were by rays [proceeding from Him], but He himself is not sent forth
by any other.
3. These things may properly be said to hold good in men, since they are compound by
nature, and consist of a body and a soul. But those who affirm that Ennoea was sent forth
from God, and Nous from Ennoea, and then, in succession, Logos from these, are, in the
first place, to be blamed as having improperly used these productions; and, in the next
place, as describing the affections, and passions, and mental tendencies of men, while
they [thus prove them-
374
selves] ignorant of God. By their manner of speaking, they ascribe those things which
apply to men to the Father of all, whom they also declare to be unknown to all; and they
deny that He himself made the world, to guard against attributing want of power(1) to Him;
while, at the same time, they endow Him with human affections and passions. But if they
had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond
doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of
men.(2) For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions
which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members,(3)
and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly
spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly
intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly
light, and the whole source of all that is good--even as the religious and pious are wont
to speak concerning God.
4. He is, however, above [all] these properties, and therefore indescribable. For He
may well and properly be called an Understanding which comprehends all things, but He is
not [on that account] like the understanding of men; and He may most properly be termed
Light, but He is nothing like that light with which we are acquainted. And so, in all
other particulars, the Father of all is in no degree similar to human weakness. He is
spoken of in these terms according to the love [we bear Him]; but in point of greatness,
our thoughts regarding Him transcend these expressions. If then, even in the case of human
beings, understanding itself does not arise from emission, nor is that intelligence which
produces other things separated from the living man, while its motions and affections come
into manifestation, much more will the mind of God, who is all understanding, never by any
means be separated from Himself; nor can anything(4) [in His case] be produced as if by a
different Being.
5. For if He produced intelligence, then He who did thus produce intelligence must be
understood, in accordance with their views, as a compound and corporeal Being; so that
God, who sent forth [the intelligence referred to], is separate from it, and the
intelligence which was sent forth separate [from Him]. But if they affirm that
intelligence was sent forth from intelligence, they then cut asunder the intelligence of
God, and divide it into parts. And whither has it gone? Whence was it sent forth? For
whatever is sent forth from any place, passes of necessity into some other. But what
existence was there more ancient than the intelligence of God, into which they maintain it
was sent forth? And what a vast region that must have been which was capable of receiving
and containing the intelligence of God! If, however, they affirm [that this emission took
place] just as a ray proceeds from the sun, then, as the subjacent air which receives the
ray must have had an existence prior to it, so [by such reasoning] they will indicate that
there was something in existence, into which the intelligence of God was sent forth,
capable of containing it, and more ancient than itself. Following upon this, we must hold
that, as we see the sun, which is less than all things, sending forth rays from himself to
a great distance, so likewise we say that the Propator sent forth a ray beyond, and to a
great distance from, Himself. But what can be conceived of beyond, or at a distance from,
God, into which He sent forth this ray?
6. If, again, they affirm that that [intelligence] was not sent forth beyond the
Father, but within the Father Himself, then, in the first place, it becomes superfluous to
say that it was sent forth at all. For how could it have been sent forth if it continued
within the Father? For an emission is the manifestation of that which is emitted, beyond
him who emits it. In the next place, this [intelligence] being sent forth, both that Logos
who springs from Him will still be within the Father, as will also be the future emissions
proceeding from Logos. These, then, cannot in such a case be ignorant of the Father, since
they are within Him; nor, being all equally surrounded by the Father, can any one know Him
less [than another] according to the descending order of their emission. And all of them
must also in an equal measure continue impassible, since they exist in the bosom of their
Father, and none of them can ever sink into a state of degeneracy or degradation. For with
the Father there is no degeneracy, unless perchance as in a great circle a smaller is
contained, and within this one again a smaller; or unless they affirm of the Father, that,
after the manner of a sphere or a square, He contains within Himself on all sides the
likeness of a sphere, or the production of the rest of the AEons in the form of a square,
each one of these being surrounded by that one who is above him in greatness, and
surrounding in turn that one who is after him in smallness; and that on this account, the
smallest and the last of all, having its place in the centre, and thus being far separated
from the Father, was really ignorant of the Propator. But if they maintain any such
hypothesis, they must shut up their Bythus with.
375
in a definite form and space, while He both surrounds others, and is surrounded by
them; for they must of necessity acknowledge that there is something outside of Him which
surrounds Him. And none the less will the talk concerning those that contain, and those
that are contained, flow on into infinitude; and all [the AEons] will most clearly appear
to be bodies enclosed [by one another].
7. Further, they must also confess either that He is mere vacuity, or that the entire
universe is within Him; and in that case all will in like degree partake of the Father.
Just as, if one forms circles in water, or round or square figures, all these will equally
partake of water; just as those, again, which are framed in the air, must necessarily
partake of air, and those which [are formed] in light, of light; so must those also who
are within Him all equally partake of the Father, ignorance having no place among them.
Where, then, is this partaking of the Father who fills [all things]? If, indeed, He has
filled [all things], there will be no ignorance among them. On this ground, then, their
work of [supposed] degeneracy is brought to nothing, and the production of matter with the
formation of the rest of the world; which things they maintain to have derived their
substance from passion and ignorance. If, on the other hand, they acknowledge that He is
vacuity, then they fall into the greatest blasphemy; they deny His spiritual nature. For
how can He be a spiritual being, who cannot fill even those things which are within Him?
8. Now, these remarks which have been made concerning the emission of intelligence are
in like manner applicable in opposition to those who belong to the school of Basilides, as
well as in opposition to the rest of the Gnostics, from whom these also (the Valentinians)
have adopted the ideas about emissions, and were refuted in the first book. But I have now
plainly shown that the first production of Nous, that is, of the intelligence they speak
of, is an untenable and impossible opinion. And let us see how the matter stands with
respect to the rest [of the AEons]. For they maintain that Logos and Zoe were sent forth
by him (i.e., Nous) as fashioners of this Pleroma; while they conceive of an emission of
Logos, that is, the Word after the analogy of human feelings, and rashly form conjectures
respecting God, as if they had discovered something wonderful in their assertion that
Logos was I produced by Nous. All indeed have a clear perception that this may be
logically affirmed with respect to men.(1) But in Him who is God over all, since He is all
Nous, and all Logos, as I have said before, and has in Himself nothing more ancient or
late than another, and nothing
at variance with another, but continues altogether equal, and similar, and homogeneous,
there is no longer ground for conceiving of such production in the order which has been
mentioned. Just as he does not err who declares that God is all vision, and all hearing
(for in what manner He sees, in that also He hears; and in what manner He hears, in that
also He sees), so also he who affirms that He is all intelligence, and all word, and that,
in whatever respect He is intelligence, in that also He is word, and that this Nous is His
Logos, will still indeed have only an inadequate conception of the Father of all, but will
entertain far more becoming [thoughts regarding Him] than do those who transfer the
generation of the word to which men gave utterance to the eternal Word of God, assigning a
beginning and course of production [to Him], even as they do to their own word. And in
what respect will the Word of God--yea, rather God Himself, since He is the Word--differ
from the word of men, if He follows the same order and process of generation?
9. They have fallen into error, too, respecting Zoe, by maintaining that she was
produced in the sixth place, when it behoved her to take precedence of all [the rest],
since God is life, and incorruption, and truth. And these and such like attributes have
not been produced according to a gradual scale of descent, but they are names of those
perfections which always exist in God, so far as it is possible and proper for men to hear
and to speak of God. For with the name of God the following words will harmonize:
intelligence, word, life, incorruption, truth, wisdom, goodness, and such like. And
neither can any one maintain that intelligence is more ancient than life, for intelligence
itself is life; nor that life is later than intelligence, so that He who is the intellect
of all, that is God, should at one time have been destitute of life. But if they affirm
that life was indeed [previously] in the Father, but was produced in the sixth place in
order that the Word might live, surely it ought long before, [according to such
reasoning,] to have been sent forth, in the fourth place, that Nous might have life; and
still further, even before Him, [it should have been] with Bythus, that their Bythus might
live. For to reckon Sige, indeed, along with their Propator, and to assign her to Him as
His consort, while they do not join Zoe to the number,--is not this to surpass all other
madness?
10. Again, as to the second production which proceeds from these [AEons who have been
mentioned],--that, namely, of Homo and Ecclesia,--their very fathers, falsely styled
Gnostics, strive among themselves, each one seeking to make good his own opinions, and
thus convicting themselves of being wicked thieves.
376
They maintain that it is more suitable to [the theory of] production--as being, in
fact, truth-like--that the Word was produced by man, and not man by the Word; and that man
existed prior to the Word, and that this is really He who is God over all. And thus it is,
as I have previously remarked, that heaping together with a kind of plausibility all human
feelings, and mental exercises, and formation of intentions, and utterances of words, they
have lied with no plausibility at all against God. For while they ascribe the things which
happen to men, and whatsoever they recognise themselves as experiencing, to the divine
reason, they seem to those who are ignorant of God to make statements suitable enough. And
by these human passions, drawing away their intelligence, while they describe the origin
and production of the Word of God in the fifth place, they assert that thus they teach
wonderful mysteries, unspeakable and sublime, known to no one but themselves. It was,
[they affirm,] concerning these that the Lord said, "Seek, and ye shall
find,"(1) that is, that they should inquire how Nous and Aletheia proceeded from
Bythus and Sage; whether Logos and Zoe again derive their origin from these and then,
whether Anthropos and Ecclesia proceed from Logos and Zoe.
CHAP. XIV.-- VALENTINUS AND HIS FOLLOWERS DERIVED THE PRINCIPLES OF THEIR SYSTEM FROM
THE HEATHEN; THE NAMES ONLY ARE CHANGED.
1. Much more like the truth, and more pleasing, is the account which Antiphanes,(2) one
of the ancient comic poets, gives in his Theogony as to the origin of all things. For he
speaks Chaos as being produced from Night and Silence; relates that then Love(3) sprang
from Chaos and Night; from this again, Light; and that from this, in his opinion, were
derived all the rest of the first generation of the gods. After these he next introduces a
second generation of gods, and the creation of the world; then he narrates the formation
of mankind by the second order of the gods. These men (the heretics), adopting this fable
as their own, have ranged their opinions round it, as if by a sort of natural process,
changing only the names of the things referred to, and setting forth the very same
beginning of the generation of all things, and their production. In place of Night and
Silence they substitute Bythus and Sige; instead of Chaos, they put Nous; and for Love (by
whom, says the comic poet, all other things were
set in order) they have brought forward the Word; while for the primary and greatest
gods they have formed the AEons; and in place of the secondary gods, they tell us of that
creation by their mother which is outside of the Pleroma, calling it the second Ogdoad.
They proclaim to us, like the writer referred to, that from this (Ogdoad) came the
creation of the world and the formation of man, maintaining that they alone are acquainted
with these ineffable and unknown mysteries. Those things which are everywhere acted in the
theatres by comedians with the clearest voices they transfer to their own system, teaching
them undoubtedly through means of the same arguments, and merely changing the names.
2. And not only are they convicted of bringing forward, as if their own [original
ideas], those things which are to be found among the comic poets, but they also bring
together the things which have been said by all those who were ignorant of God, and who
are termed philosophers; and sewing together, as it were, a motley garment out of a heap
of miserable rags, they have, by their subtle manner of expression, furnished themselves
with a cloak which is really not their own. They do, it is true, introduce a new kind of
doctrine, inasmuch as by a new sort of art it has been substituted [for the old]. Yet it
is in reality both old and useless, since these very opinions have been sewed together out
of ancient dogmas redolent of ignorance and irreligion. For instance, Thales(4) of Miletus
affirmed that water was the generative and initial principle of all things. Now it is just
the same thing whether we say water or Bythus. The poet Homer,(5) again, held the opinion
that Oceanus, along with mother Tethys, was the origin of the gods: this idea these men
have transferred to Bythus and Sige. Anaximander laid it down that infinitude is the first
principle of all things, having seminally in itself the generation of them all, and from
this he declares the immense worlds [which exist] were formed: this, too, they have
dressed up anew, and referred to Bythus and their AEons. Anaxagoras, again, who has also
been surnamed "Atheist," gave it as his opinion that animals were formed from
seeds falling down from heaven upon earth. This thought, too, these men have transferred
to "the seed" of their Mother, which they maintain to be themselves; thus
acknowledging at once, in the judgment of such as are possessed of sense, that they
themselves are the offspring of the irreligious Anaxagoras.
3. Again, adopting the [ideas of] shade and vacuity from Democritus and Epicurus, they
377
have fitted these to their own views, following upon those [teachers] who had already
talked a great deal about a vacuum and atoms, the one of which they called that which is,
and the other that which is not. In like manner, these men call those things which are
within the Pleroma real existences, just as those philosophers did the atoms; while they
maintain that those which are without the Pleroma have no true existence, even as those
did respecting the vacuum. They have thus banished themselves in this world (since they
are here outside of the Pleroma) into a place which has no existence. Again, when they
maintain that these things [below] are images of those which have a true existence
[above], they again most manifestly rehearse the doctrine of Democritus and Plato. For
Democritus was the first who maintained that numerous and diverse figures were stamped, as
it were, with the forms [of things above], and descended from universal space into this
world. But Plato, for his part, speaks of matter, and exemplar,(1) and God. These men,
following those distinctions, have styled what he calls ideas, and exemplar, the images of
those things which are above; while, through a mere change of name, they boast themselves
as being discoverers and contrivers of this kind of imaginary fiction.
4. This opinion, too, that they hold the Creator formed the world out of previously
existing matter, both Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Plato expressed before them; as,
forsooth, we learn they also do under the inspiration of their Mother. Then again, as to
the opinion that everything of necessity passes away to those things out of which they
maintain it was also formed, and that God is the slave of this necessity, so that He
cannot impart immortality to what is mortal, or bestow incorruption on what is
corruptible, but every one passes into a substance similar in nature to itself, both those
who are named Stoics from the portico (<greek>stoa</greek>), and indeed all
that are ignorant of God, poets and historians alike, make the same affirmation.(2) Those
[heretics] who hold the same [system of] infidelity have ascribed, no doubt, their own
proper region to spiritual beings,--that, namely, which is within the Pleroma, but to
animal beings the intermediate space, while to corporeal they assign that which is
material. And they assert that God Himself can do no otherwise, but that every one of the
[different kinds of substance] mentioned passes
away to those things which are of the same nature. [with itself].
5. Moreover, as to their saying that the Saviour was formed out of all the AEons, by
every one of them depositing, so to speak, in Him his own special flower, they bring
forward nothing new that may not be found in the Pandora of Hesiod. For what he says
respecting her, these men insinuate concerning the Saviour, bringing Him before us as
Pandoros (All-gifted), as if each of the AEons had bestowed on Him what He possessed in
the greatest perfection. Again, their opinion as to the indifference of [eating of] meats
and other actions, and as to their thinking that, from the nobility of their nature, they
can in no degree at all contract pollution, whatever they eat or perform, they have
derived it from the Cynics, since they do in fact belong to the same society as do these
[philosophers]. They also strive to transfer to [the treatment of matters of] faith that
hairsplitting and subtle mode of handling questions which is, in fact, a copying of
Aristotle.
6. Again, as to the desire they exhibit to refer this whole universe to numbers, they
have learned it from the Pythagoreans. For these were the first who set forth numbers as
the initial principle of all things, and [described] that initial principle of theirs as
being both equal and unequal, out of which [two properties] they conceived that both
things sensible(3) and immaterial derived their origin. And [they held] that one set of
first principles(4) gave rise to the matter [of things], and another to their form. They
affirm that from these first principles all things have been made, just as a statue is of
its metal and its special form. Now, the heretics have adapted this to the things which
are outside of the Pleroma. The [Pythagoreans] maintained that the(5) principle of
intellect is proportionate to the energy wherewith mind, as a recipient of the
comprehensible, pursues its inquiries, until, worn out, it is resolved at length in the
Indivisible and One. They further affirm that Hen--that is, One--is the first principle of
all things, and the substance of all that has been formed. From this again proceeded the
Dyad, the Tetrad, the Pentad, and the manifold generation of the others. These things the
heretics repeat, word for word, with a reference to their Pleroma and Bythus.
378
From the same source, too, they strive to bring into vogue those conjunctions which
proceed from unity. Marcus boasts of such views as if they were his own, and as if he were
seen to have discovered something more novel than others, while he simply sets forth the
Tetrad of Pythagoras as the originating principle and mother of all things.
7. But I will merely say, in opposition to these men--Did all those who have been
mentioned, with whom you have been proved to coincide in expression, know, or not know,
the truth? If they knew it, then the descent of the Saviour into this world was
superfluous. For why [in that case] did He descend? Was it that He might bring that truth
which was [already] known to the knowledge of those who knew it? If, on the other hand,
these men did not know it, then how is it that, while you express yourselves in the same
terms as do those who knew not the truth, ye boast that yourselves alone possess that
knowledge which is above all things, although they who are ignorant of God [likewise]
possess it? Thus, then, by a complete perversion(1) of language, they style ignorance of
the truth knowledge: and Paul well says [of them, that [they make use of] "novelties
of words of false knowledge."(2) For that knowledge of theirs is truly found to be
false. If, however, taking an impudent course with respect to these points, they declare
that men indeed did not know the truth, but that their Mother,(3) the seed of the Father,
proclaimed the mysteries of truth through such men, even as also through the prophets,
while the Demiurge was ignorant [of the proceeding], then I answer, in the first place,
that the things which were predicted were not of such a nature as to be intelligible to no
one; for the men themselves knew what they were saying, as did also their disciples, and
those again succeeded these. And, in the next place, if either the Mother or her seed knew
and proclaimed those things which were of the truth (and the Father(4) is truth), then on
their theory the Saviour spoke falsely when He said, "No one knoweth the Father but
the Son,"(5) unless indeed they maintain that their seed or Mother is No-one.
8. Thus far, then, by means of [ascribing to their AEons] human feelings, and by the
fact that they largely coincide in their language with many of those who are ignorant of
God, they have been seen plausibly drawing a certain number away [from the truth]. They
lead them on
by the use of those [expressions] with which they have been familiar, to that sort of
discourse which treats of all things, setting forth the production of the Word of God, and
of Zoe, and of Nous, and bringing into the world, as it were, the [successive] emanations
of the Deity. The views, again, which they propound, without either plausibility or
parade, are simply lies from beginning to end. Just as those who, in order to lure and
capture any kind of animals, place their accustomed food before them, gradually drawing
them on by means of the familiar aliment, until at length they seize it, but, when they
have taken them captive, they subject them to the bitterest of bendage, and drag them
along with violence whithersoever they please; so also do these men gradually and gently
persuading [others], by means of their plausible speeches, to accept of the emission which
has been mentioned, then bring forward things which are not consistent, and forms of the
remaining emissions which are not such as might have been expected. They declare, for
instance, that [ten](6) AEons were sent forth by Logos and Zoe, while from Anthropos and
Ecclesia there proceeded twelve, although they have neither proof, nor testimony, nor
probability, nor anything whatever of such a nature [to support these assertions]; and
with equal folly and audacity do they wish it to be believed that from Logos and Zoe,
being AEons, were sent forth Bythus and Mixis, Ageratos and Henosis, Autophyes and Hedone,
Acinetos and Syncrasis, Monogenes and Macaria. Moreover, [as they affirm,] there were sent
forth, in a similar way, from Anthropos and Ecclesia, being AEons, Paracletas and Pistis,
Patricos and Elpis, Metricos and Agape, Ainos and Synesis, Ecclesiasticus and Macariotes,
Theletos and Sophia.
9. The passions and error of this Sophia, and how she ran the risk of perishing through
her investigation [of the nature] of the Father, as they relate, and what took place
outside of the Pleroma, and from what sort of a defect they teach that the Maker of the
world was produced, I have set forth in the preceding book, describing in it, with all
diligence, the opinions of these heretics. [I have also detailed their views] respecting
Christ, whom they describe as having been produced subsequently to all these, and also
regarding Soter, who, [according to them,] derived his being from those AEons who were
formed within the Pleroma.(7) But I have of necessity mentioned their names at present,
that from these the absurdity of their falsehood may be made manifest, and also the
confused nature of the nomenclature they have devised. For
379
they themselves detract from [the dignity of] their AEons by a multitude of names of
this sort. They give out names plausible and credible to the heathen, [as being similar]
to those who are called their twelve gods,(1) and even these they will have to be images
of their twelve AEons. But the images [so called] can produce names [of their own] much
more seemly, and more powerful through their etymology to indicate divinity [than are
those of their fancied prototypes].
CHAP. XV.--NO ACCOUNT CAN BE GIVEN OF THESE
PRODUCTIONS.
1. But let us return to the fore-mentioned question as to the production [of the
AEons]. And, in the first place, let them tell us the reason of the production of the
AEons being of such a kind that they do not come in contact with any of those things which
belong to creation. For they maintain that those things [above] were not made on account
of creation, but creation on account of them; and that the former are not images of the
latter, but the latter of the former. As, therefore, they render a reason for the images,
by saying that the month has thirty days on account of the thirty AEons, and the day
twelve hours, and the year twelve months, on account of the twelve AEons which are within
the Pleroma, with other such nonsense of the same kind, let them now tell us also the
reason for that production of the AEons, why it was of such a nature, for what reason the
first and first-begotten Ogdoad was sent forth, and not a Pentad, or a Triad, or a
Septenad, or any one of those which are defined by a different number? Moreover, how did
it come to pass, that from Logos and Zoe were sent forth ten AEons, and neither more nor
less; while again from Anthropos and Ecclesia proceeded twelve, although these might have
been either more or less numerous?
2. And then, again, with reference to the entire Pleroma, what reason is there that it
should be divided into these three--an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad--and not into some
other number different from these? Moreover, with respect to the division itself, why has
it been made into three parts, and not into four, or five, or six, or into some other
number among those which have no connection with such numbers(2) as belong to creation?
For they describe those [AEons above] as being more ancient than these [created things
below], and it behoves them to possess their principle [of being] in themselves, one which
existed before creation, and
not after the pattern of creation, all exactly agreeing as to the point.(3)
3. The account which we give of creation is one harmonious with that regular order [of
things prevailing in the world], for this scheme of ours is adapted to the(4) things which
have [actually] been made; but it is a matter of necessity that they, being unable to
assign any reason belonging to the things themselves, with regard to those beings that
existed before [creation], and were perfected by themselves, should fall into the greatest
perplexity. For, as to the points on which they interrogate us as knowing nothing of
creation, they themselves, when questioned in turn respecting the Pleroma, either make
mention of mere human feelings, or have recourse to that sort of speech which bears only
upon that harmony observable in creation, improperly giving us replies concerning things
which are secondary, and not concerning those which, as they maintain, are primary. For we
do not question them concerning that harmony which belongs to creation, nor concerning
human feelings; but because they must acknowledge, as to their octiform, deciform, and
duodeciform Pleroma (the image of which they declare creation to be), that their Father
formed it of that figure vainly and thoughtlessly, and must ascribe to Him deformity, if
He made anything without a reason. Or, again, if they declare that the Pleroma was so
produced in accordance with the foresight of the Father, for the sake of creation, as if
He had thus symmetrically arranged its very essence, then it follows that the Pleroma can
no longer be regarded as having been formed on its own account, but for the sake of that
[creation] which was to be its image as possessing its likeness (just as the clay model is
not moulded for its own sake, but for the sake of the statue in brass, or gold, or silver
about to be formed), then creation will have greater honour than the Pleroma, if, for its
sake, those things [above] were produced.
CHAP. XVI.--THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD EITHER PRODUCED OF HIMSELF THE IMAGES OF THINGS TO
BE MADE, OR THE PLEROMA WAS FORMED AFTER THE IMAGE OF SOME PREVIOUS SYSTEM; AND SO ON AD
INFINITUM.
1. But if they will not yield assent to any one of these conclusions, since in that
case they would be proved by us as incapable of rendering any reason for such a production
of their Pleroma, they will of necessity be shut up to this--that they confess that, above
the Pleroma, there was some other system more spiritual and more powerful, after the image
of which their Pleroma was
380
formed. For if the Demiurge did not of himself construct that figure of creation which
exists, but made it after the form of those things which are above, then from whom did
their Bythus--who, to be sure, brought it about that the Pleroma should be possessed of a
configuration of this kind--receive the figure of those things which existed before
Himself? For it must needs be, either that the intention [of creating] dwelt in that god
who made the world, so that of his own power, and from himself, he obtained the model of
its formation; or, if any departure is made from this being, then there will arise a
necessity for constantly asking whence there came to that one who is above him the
configuration of those things which have been made; what, too, was the number of the
productions; and what the substance of the model itself? If, however, it was in the power
of Bythus to impart of himself such a configuration to the Pleroma, then why may it not
have been in the power of the Demiurge to form of himself such a world as exists? And
then, again, if creation be an image of those things [above], why should we not affirm
that those are, in turn, images of others above them, and those above these again, of
others, and thus go on supposing innumerable images of images?
2. This difficulty presented itself to Basilides after he had utterly missed the truth,
and was conceiving that, by an infinite succession of those beings that were formed from
one another, he might escape such perplexity. When he had proclaimed that three hundred
and sixty-five heavens were formed through succession and similitude by one another, and
that a manifest proof [of the existence] of these was found in the number of the days of
the year, as I stated before; and that above these there was a power which they also style
Unnameable, and its dispensation--he did not even in this way escape such perplexity. For,
when asked whence came the image of its configuration to that heaven which is above all,
and from which he wishes the rest to be regarded as having been formed by means of
succession, he will say, from that dispensation which belongs to the Unnameable. He must
then say, either that the Unspeakable formed it of himself, or he will find it necessary
to acknowledge that there is some other power above this being, from whom his unnameable
One derived such vast numbers of configurations as do, according to him, exist.
3. How much safer and more accurate a course is it, then, to confess at once that which
is true: that this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there
is no other God besides Him--He Himself receiving from Himself the model and figure of
those things which have been made--than that, after wearying ourselves with such an
impious and circuitous description, we should be compelled, at some point or another, to
fix the mind on some One, and to confess that from Him proceeded the configuration of
things created.
4. As to the accusation brought against us by the followers of Valentinus, when they
declare that we continue in that Hebdomad which is below, as if we could not lift our
minds on high, nor understand those things which are above, because we do not accept their
monstrous assertions: this very charge do the followers of Basilides bring in turn against
them, inasmuch as they (the Valentinians) keep circling about those things which are
below, [going] as far as the first and second Ogdoad, and because they unskilfully imagine
that, immediately after the thirty AEons, they have discovered Him who is above all things
Father, not following out in thought their investigations to that Pleroma which is above
the three hundred and sixty-five heavens, which(1) is above forty-five Ogdoads. And any
one, again, might bring against them the same charge, by imagining four thousand three
hundred and eighty heavens, or AEons, since the days of the year contain that number of
hours. If, again, some one adds also the nights, thus doubling the hours which have been
mentioned, imagining that [in this way] he has discovered a great multitude of Ogdoads,
and a kind of innumerable company(2) of AEons, and thus, in opposition to Him who is above
all things Father, conceiving himself more perfect than all [others], he will bring the
same char |
