Chapter 13
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 Ennœa, 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. Ennœa,
again, which arises from him, is any sort of emotion concerning any subject. It
cannot be, therefore, that Nous was produced by Bythus and Ennœa; it would be
more like the truth for them to maintain that Ennœa was produced as the
daughter of the Propator and this Nous. For Ennœa is not the daughter of Nous,
as they assert, but Nous becomes the father of Ennœa. 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 Ennœa, 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 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 Ennœa; 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. 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 Ennœa was sent forth from God, and Nous from Ennœa,
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 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. Isaiah 55:8 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, 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 [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 Æons 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 within 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 Æons] 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 Æons]. 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. 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 behooved
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 [Æons 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 you shall find," Matthew 7:7 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.
Chapter 14
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, 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 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 Æons; 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 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, 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 Æons. 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, 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 (στοὰ), and indeed all that
are ignorant of God, poets and historians alike, make the same affirmation.
Those [heretics] who hold the same [system of] infidelity have ascribed, no
doubt, their own proper region to spiritual beings — that, namely, which is
within the Pleroma, but to animal beings the intermediate space, while to
corporeal they assign that which is material. And they assert that God Himself
can do no otherwise, but that every one of the [different kinds of substance]
mentioned passes away to those things which are of the same nature [with
itself].
5. Moreover, as to their saying that the Saviour
was formed out of all the Æons, 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 Æons 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 and immaterial derived their origin. And [they held] that one set of
first principles 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 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, you 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 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." 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, 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 is truth), then on their theory the Saviour
spoke falsely when He said, "No one knows the Father but the Son,"
Matthew 11:27 unless indeed they maintain that their seed or Mother is No-one.
8. Thus far, then, by means of [ascribing to their
Æons] 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 bondage, and drag them
along with violence wherever 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] Æons 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
Æons, 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 Æons, Paracletus 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 Æons who were formed within the Pleroma. 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 Æons 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, and even these they will have to be images of their
twelve Æons. 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].
Chapter 15
No account can be given of these
productions.
1. But let us return to the fore-mentioned
question as to the production [of the Æons]. And, in the first place, let them
tell us the reason of the production of the Æons 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 Æons,
and the day twelve hours, and the year twelve months, on account of the twelve
Æons 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 Æons, 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 Æons, 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 as belong to creation?
For they describe those [Æons above] as being more ancient than these [created
things below], and it behooves 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. 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 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.
Chapter 16
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 Æons, 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 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 Æons, 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 of Æons, and thus, in
opposition to Him who is above all things Father, conceiving himself more
perfect than all [others], he will bring the same charge against all, inasmuch
as they are not capable of rising to the conception of such a multitude of
heavens or Æons as he has announced, but are either so deficient as to remain
among those things which are below, or continue in the intermediate space.
Chapter 17
Inquiry into the production of
the Æons: whatever its supposed nature, it is in every respect inconsistent;
and on the hypothesis of the heretics, even Nous and the Father Himself would
be stained with ignorance.
1. That system, then, which has respect to their
Pleroma, and especially that part of it which refers to the primary Ogdoad
being thus burdened with so great contradictions and perplexities, let me now
go on to examine the remainder of their scheme. [In doing so] on account of
their madness, I shall be making inquiry respecting things which have no real
existence; yet it is necessary to do this, since the treatment of this subject
has been entrusted to me, and since I desire all men to come to the knowledge
of the truth, as well as because you yourself have asked to receive from me
full and complete means for overturning [the views of] these men.
2. I ask, then, in what manner were the rest of
the Æons produced? Was it so as to be united with Him who produced them, even
as the solar rays are with the sun; or was it actually and separately, so that
each of them possessed an independent existence and his own special form, just
as has a man from another man, and one herd of cattle from another? Or was it
after the manner of germination, as branches from a tree? And were they of the
same substance with those who produced them, or did they derive their substance
from some other [kind of] substance? Also, were they produced at the same time,
so as to be contemporaries; or after a certain order, so that some of them were
older, and others younger? And, again, are they uncompounded and uniform, and
altogether equal and similar among themselves, as spirit and light are produced;
or are they compounded and different, unlike [to each other] in their members?
3. If each of them was produced, after the manner
of men, actually and according to its own generation, then either those thus
generated by the Father will be of the same substance with Him, and similar to
their Author; or if they appear dissimilar, then it must of necessity be
acknowledged that they are [formed] of some different substance. Now, if the
beings generated by the Father be similar to their Author, then those who have
been produced must remain for ever impassible, even as is He who produced them;
but if, on the other hand, they are of a different substance, which is capable
of passion, then whence came this dissimilar substance to find a place within
the incorruptible Pleroma? Further, too, according to this principle, each one
of them must be understood as being completely separated from every other, even
as men are not mixed with nor united the one to the other, but each having a
distinct shape of his own, and a definite sphere of action, while each one of
them, too, is formed of a particular size, — qualities characteristic of a
body, and not of a spirit. Let them therefore no longer speak of the Pleroma as
being spiritual, or of themselves as "spiritual," if indeed their
Æons sit feasting with the Father, just as if they were men, and He Himself is
of such a configuration as those reveal Him to be who were produced by Him.
4. If, again, the Æons were derived from Logos,
Logos from Nous, and Nous from Bythus, just as lights are kindled from a light
— as, for example, torches are from a torch — then they may no doubt differ in
generation and size from one another; but since they are of the same substance
with the Author of their production, they must either all remain for ever
impassible, or their Father Himself must participate in passion. For the torch
which has been kindled subsequently cannot be possessed of a different kind of
light from that which preceded it. Wherefore also their lights, when blended in
one, return to the original identity, since that one light is then formed which
has existed even from the beginning. But we cannot speak, with respect to light
itself, of some part being more recent in its origin, and another being more
ancient (for the whole is but one light); nor can we so speak even in regard to
those torches which have received the light (for these are all contemporary as
respects their material substance, for the substance of torches is one and the
same), but simply as to [the time of] its being kindled, since one was lighted
a little while ago, and another has just now been kindled.
5. The defect, therefore, of that passion which
has regard to ignorance, will either attach alike to their whole Pleroma, since
[all its members] are of the same substance; and the Propator will share in
this defect of ignorance— that is, will be ignorant of Himself; or, on the
other hand, all those lights which are within the Pleroma will alike remain for
ever impassible. Whence, then, comes the passion of the youngest Æon, if the
light of the Father is that from which all other lights have been formed, and
which is by nature impassible? And how can one Æon be spoken of as either
younger or older among themselves, since there is but one light in the entire
Pleroma? And if any one calls them stars, they will all nevertheless appear to
participate in the same nature. For if "one star differs from another star
in glory," 1 Corinthians 15:41 but not in qualities, nor substance, nor in
the fact of being passible or impassible; so all these, since they are alike
derived from the light of the Father, must either be naturally impassible and
immutable, or they must all, in common with the light of the Father, be
passible, and are capable of the varying phases of corruption.
6. The same conclusion will follow, although they
affirm that the production of Æons sprang from Logos, as branches from a tree,
since Logos has his generation from their Father. For all [the Æons] are formed
of the same substance with the Father, differing from one another only in size,
and not in nature, and filling up the greatness of the Father, even as the
fingers complete the hand. If therefore He exists in passion and ignorance, so
must also those Æons who have been generated by Him. But if it is impious to
ascribe ignorance and passion to the Father of all, how can they describe an
Æon produced by Him as being passible; and while they ascribe the same impiety
to the very wisdom (Sophia) of God, how can they still call themselves
religious men?
7. If, again, they declare that their Æons were
sent forth just as rays are from the sun, then, since all are of the same
substance and sprung from the same source, all must either be capable of
passion along with Him who produced them, or all will remain impassible
forever. For they can no longer maintain that, of beings so produced, some are
impassible and others passible. If, then, they declare all impassible, they do
themselves destroy their own argument. For how could the youngest Æon have
suffered passion if all were impassible? If, on the other hand, they declare
that all partook of this passion, as indeed some of them venture to maintain,
then, inasmuch as it originated with Logos, but flowed onwards to Sophia, they
will thus be convicted of tracing back the passion to Logos, who is the Nous of
this Propator, and so acknowledging the Nous of the Propator and the Father
Himself to have experienced passion. For the Father of all is not to be
regarded as a kind of compound Being, who can be separated from his Nous
(mind), as I have already shown; but Nous is the Father, and the Father Nous.
It necessarily follows, therefore, both that he who springs from Him as Logos,
or rather that Nous himself, since he is Logos, must be perfect and impassible,
and that those productions which proceed from him, seeing that they are of the
same substance with himself, should be perfect and impassible, and should ever
remain similar to him who produced them.
8. It cannot therefore longer be held, as these
men teach, that Logos, as occupying the third place in generation, was ignorant
of the Father. Such a thing might indeed perhaps be deemed probable in the case
of the generation of human beings, inasmuch as these frequently know nothing of
their parents; but it is altogether impossible in the case of the Logos of the
Father. For if, existing in the Father, he knows Him in whom he exists — that
is, is not ignorant of himself — then those productions which issue from him
being his powers (faculties), and always present with him, will not be ignorant
of him who emitted them, any more than rays [may be supposed to be] of the sun.
It is impossible, therefore, that the Sophia (wisdom) of God, she who is within
the Pleroma, inasmuch as she has been produced in such a manner, should have
fallen under the influence of passion, and conceived such ignorance. But it is
possible that that Sophia (wisdom) who pertains to [the scheme] of Valentinus,
inasmuch as she is a production of the devil, should fall into every kind of
passion, and exhibit the profoundest ignorance. For when they themselves bear
testimony concerning their mother, to the effect that she was the offspring of
an erring Æon, we need no longer search for a reason why the sons of such a
mother should be ever swimming in the depths of ignorance.
9. I am not aware that, besides these productions
[which have been mentioned], they are able to speak of any other; indeed, they
have not been known to me (although I have had very frequent discussions with
them concerning forms of this kind) as ever setting forth any other peculiar
kind of being as produced [in the manner under consideration]. This only they maintain,
that each one of these was so produced as to know merely that one who produced
him, while he was ignorant of the one who immediately preceded. But they do not
in this matter go forward [in their account] with any kind of demonstration as
to the manner in which these were produced, or how such a thing could take
place among spiritual beings. For, in whatsoever way they may choose to go
forward, they will feel themselves bound (while, as regards the truth, they
depart entirely from right reason) to proceed so far as to maintain that their
Word, who springs from the Nous of the Propator, — to maintain, I say, that he
was produced in a state of degeneracy. For [they hold] that perfect Nous,
previously begotten by the perfect Bythus, was not capable of rendering that
production which issued from him perfect, but [could only bring it forth]
utterly blind to the knowledge and greatness of the Father. They also maintain
that the Saviour exhibited an emblem of this mystery in the case of that man
who was blind from his birth, John 9:1, etc. since the Æon was in this manner
produced by Monogenes blind, that is, in ignorance, thus falsely ascribing
ignorance and blindness to the Word of God, who, according to their own theory,
holds the second [place of] production from the Propator. Admirable sophists,
and explorers of the sublimities of the unknown Father, and rehearsers of those
super-celestial mysteries "which the angels desire to look into!" 1
Peter 1:12 — that they may learn that from the Nous of that Father who is above
all, the Word was produced blind, that is, ignorant of the Father who produced
him!
10. But, you miserable sophists, how could the
Nous of the Father, or rather the very Father Himself, since He is Nous and
perfect in all things, have produced his own Logos as an imperfect and blind
Æon, when He was able also to produce along with him the knowledge of the
Father? As you affirm that Christ was generated after the rest, and yet declare
that he was produced perfect, much more then should Logos, who is anterior to
him in age, be produced by the same Nous, unquestionably perfect, and not
blind; nor could he, again, have produced Æons still blinder than himself,
until at last your Sophia, always utterly blinded, gave birth to so vast a body
of evils. And your Father is the cause of all this mischief; for you declare
the magnitude and power of your Father to be the causes of ignorance,
assimilating Him to Bythus, and assigning this as a name to Him who is the unnameable
Father. But if ignorance is an evil, and you declare all evils to have derived
their strength from it, while you maintain that the greatness and power of the
Father is the cause of this ignorance, you do thus set Him forth as the author
of [all] evils. For you state as the cause of evil this fact, that [no one]
could contemplate His greatness. But if it was really impossible for the Father
to make Himself known from the beginning to those [beings] that were formed by
Him, He must in that case be held free from blame, inasmuch as He could not
remove the ignorance of those who came after Him. But if, at a subsequent
period, when He so willed it, He could take away that ignorance which had
increased with the successive productions as they followed each other, and thus
become deeply seated in the Æons, much more, had He so willed it might He
formerly have prevented that ignorance, which as yet was not, from coming into
existence.
11. Since therefore, as soon as He so pleased, He
did become known not only to the Æons, but also to these men who lived in these
latter times; but, as He did not so please to be known from the beginning, He
remained unknown — the cause of ignorance is, according to you, the will of the
Father. For if He foreknew that these things would in future happen in such a
manner, why then did He not guard against the ignorance of these beings before
it had obtained a place among them, rather than afterwards, as if under the
influence of repentance, deal with it through the production of Christ? For the
knowledge which through Christ He conveyed to all, He might long before have
imparted through Logos, who was also the first-begotten of Monogenes. Or if,
knowing them beforehand, He willed that these things should happen [as they
have done], then the works of ignorance must endure for ever, and never pass
away. For the things which have been made in accordance with the will of your
Propator must continue along with the will of Him who willed them; or if they
pass away, the will of Him also who decreed that they should have a being will
pass away along with them. And why did the Æons find rest and attain perfect
knowledge through learning [at last] that the Father is altogether
incomprehensible? They might surely have possessed this knowledge before they
became involved in passion; for the greatness of the Father did not suffer
diminution from the beginning, so that these might know that He was altogether
incomprehensible. For if, on account of His infinite greatness, He remained
unknown, He ought also on account of His infinite love to have preserved those
impassible who were produced by Him, since nothing hindered, and expediency
rather required, that they should have known from the beginning that the Father
was altogether incomprehensible.
Chapter 18
Sophia was never really in
ignorance or passion; her Enthymesis could not have been separated from
herself, or exhibited special tendencies of its own.
1. How can it be regarded as otherwise than
absurd, that they also affirm this Sophia (wisdom) to have been involved in
ignorance, and degeneracy, and passion? For these things are alien and contrary
to wisdom, nor can they ever be qualities belonging to it. For wherever there
is a want of foresight, and an ignorance of the course of utility, there wisdom
does not exist. Let them therefore no longer call this suffering Æon, Sophia,
but let them give up either her name or her sufferings. And let them, moreover,
not call their entire Pleroma spiritual, if this Æon had a place within it when
she was involved in such a tumult of passion. For even a vigorous soul, not to
say a spiritual substance, would not pass through any such experience.
2. And, again, how could her Enthymesis, going
forth [from her] along with the passion, have become a separate existence? For
Enthymesis (thought) is understood in connection with some person, and can
never have an isolated existence by itself. For a bad Enthymesis is destroyed
and absorbed by a good one, even as a state of disease is by health. What,
then, was the sort of Enthymesis which preceded that of passion? [It was this]:
to investigate the [nature of] the Father, and to consider His greatness. But
what did she afterwards become persuaded of, and so was restored to health?
[This, viz.], that the Father is incomprehensible, and that He is past finding
out. It was not, then, a proper feeling that she wished to know the Father, and
on this account she became passible; but when she became persuaded that He is
unsearchable, she was restored to health. And even Nous himself, who was
inquiring into the [nature of] the Father, ceased, according to them, to
continue his researches, on learning that the Father is incomprehensible.
3. How then could the Enthymesis separately
conceive passions, which themselves also were her affections? For affection is
necessarily connected with an individual: it cannot come into being or exist
apart by itself. This opinion [of theirs], however, is not only untenable, but
also opposed to that which was spoken by our Lord: "Seek, and you shall find."
Matthew 7:7 For the Lord renders His disciples perfect by their seeking after
and finding the Father; but that Christ of theirs, who is above, has rendered
them perfect, by the fact that He has commanded the Æons not to seek after the
Father, persuading them that, though they should labour hard, they would not
find Him. And they declare that they themselves are perfect, by the fact that
they maintain they have found their Bythus; while the Æons [have been made
perfect] through means of this, that He is unsearchable who was inquired after
by them.
4. Since, therefore, the Enthymesis herself could
not exist separately, apart from the Æon, [it is obvious that] they bring
forward still greater falsehood concerning her passion, when they further
proceed to divide and separate it from her, while they declare that it was the
substance of matter. As if God were not light, and as if no Word existed who
could convict them, and overthrow their wickedness. For it is certainly true,
that whatsoever the Æon thought, that she also suffered; and what she suffered,
that she also thought. And her Enthymesis was, according to them, nothing else
than the passion of one thinking how she might comprehend the incomprehensible.
And thus Enthymesis (thought) was the passion; for she was thinking of things
impossible. How then could affection and passion be separated and set apart
from the Enthymesis, so as to become the substance of so vast a material
creation, when Enthymesis herself was the passion, and the passion Enthymesis?
Neither, therefore, can Enthymesis apart from the Æon, nor the affections apart
from Enthymesis, separately possess substance; and thus once more their system
breaks down and is destroyed.
5. But how did it come to pass that the Æon was
both dissolved [into her component parts], and became subject to passion? She
was undoubtedly of the same substance as the Pleroma; but the entire Pleroma
was of the Father. Now, any substance, when brought in contact with what is of
a similar nature, will not be dissolved into nothing, nor will be in danger of
perishing, but will rather continue and increase, such as fire in fire, spirit
in spirit, and water in water; but those which are of a contrary nature to each
other do, [when they meet,] suffer and are changed and destroyed. And, in like
manner, if there had been a production of light, it would not suffer passion,
or recur any danger in light like itself, but would rather glow with the
greater brightness, and increase, as the day does from [the increasing
brilliance of] the sun; for they maintain that Bythus [himself] was the image
of their father (Sophia). Whatever animals are alien [in habits] and strange to
each other, or are mutually opposed in nature, fall into danger [on meeting
together], and are destroyed; whereas, on the other hand, those who are
accustomed to each other, and of a harmonious disposition, suffer no peril from
being together in the same place, but rather secure both safety and life by
such a fact. If, therefore, this Æon was produced by the Pleroma of the same
substance as the whole of it, she could never have undergone change, since she
was consorting with beings similar to and familiar with herself, a spiritual
essence among those that were spiritual. For fear, terror, passion,
dissolution, and such like, may perhaps occur through the struggle of
contraries among such beings as we are, who are possessed of bodies; but among
spiritual beings, and those that have the light diffused among them, no such
calamities can possibly happen. But these men appear to me to have endowed
their Æon with the [same sort of] passion as belongs to that character in the
comic poet Menander, who was himself deeply in love, but an object of hatred
[to his beloved]. For those who have invented such opinions have rather had an
idea and mental conception of some unhappy lover among men, than of a spiritual
and divine substance.
6. Moreover, to meditate how to search into [the
nature of] the perfect Father, and to have a desire to exist within Him, and to
have a comprehension of His [greatness], could not entail the stain of
ignorance or passion, and that upon a spiritual Æon; but would rather [give
rise to] perfection, and impassibility, and truth. For they do not say that
even they, though they be but men, by meditating on Him who was before them —
and while now, as it were, comprehending the perfect, and being placed within
the knowledge of Him, — are thus involved in a passion of perplexity, but
rather attain to the knowledge and apprehension of truth. For they affirm that
the Saviour said, "Seek, and you shall find," to His disciples with
this view, that they should seek after Him who, by means of imagination, has
been conceived of by them as being above the Maker of all — the ineffable
Bythus; and they desire themselves to be regarded as "the perfect;"
because they have sought and found the perfect One, while they are still on
earth. Yet they declare that that Æon who was within the Pleroma, a wholly
spiritual being, by seeking after the Propator, and endeavouring to find a
place within His greatness, and desiring to have a comprehension of the truth
of the Father, fell down into [the endurance of] passion, and such a passion
that, unless she had met with that Power who upholds all things, she would have
been dissolved into the general substance [of the Æons], and thus come to an
end of her [personal] existence.
7. Absurd is such presumption, and truly an
opinion of men totally destitute of the truth. For, that this Æon is superior
to themselves, and of greater antiquity, they themselves acknowledge, according
to their own system, when they affirm that they are the fruit of the Enthymesis
of that Æon who suffered passion, so that this Æon is the father of their
mother, that is, their own grandfather. And to them, the later grandchildren,
the search after the Father brings, as they maintain, truth, and perfection,
and establishment, and deliverance from unstable matter, and reconciliation to
the Father; but on their grandfather this same search entailed ignorance, and
passion, and terror, and perplexity, from which [disturbances] they also
declare that the substance of matter was formed. To say, therefore, that the
search after and investigation of the perfect Father, and the desire for
communion and union with Him, were things quite beneficial to them, but to an
Æon, from whom also they derive their origin, these things were the cause of
dissolution and destruction, how can such assertions be otherwise viewed than
as totally inconsistent, foolish, and irrational? Those, too, who listen to
these teachers, truly blind themselves, while they possess blind guides, justly
[are left to] fall along with them into the gulf of ignorance which lies below
them.
