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 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.
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, 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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.
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 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 mentioned. 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 themselves] 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.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.
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
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 (stoa), 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.
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.
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 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 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 oppositio | | |
