 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 a scent 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 there bith us, who to be sure brought it about that the Pleroma should be possessed of a configuration of this kind, received 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 bith us 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, 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. Three. How much safer and more accurate a course it is 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 wearing ourselves with such an impious and circuitous description, we should be compelled at some point or another to fix the mind on someone, and to confess that from him proceeded the configuration of things created. Four. 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 Basilite's brain in turn against them, in as much as the Valentinians keep circling about those things which are below, going as far as the first and second Ogdoad, and because they unskillfully imagine that, immediately after the thirty Ions, they have discovered him who is above all things father, not following out in their thought, their investigations to that pleroma, which is above the 365 heavens, which is above 45 Ogdoads, and anyone, again, might bring against them the same charge, by imagining 4,380 heavens, or Ions, since the days of the year contain that number of hours. If again, someone 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 Ions, 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, in as much as they are not capable of rising to the conception of such a multitude of heavens, or Ions, as he has announced, but are either so deficient as to remain among those things which are below, or to continue in the intermediate space. Chapter 17 Inquiry into the production of the Ions Whatever its supposed nature, it is in every respect inconsistent, and on the hypothesis of the heretics, even Naus, 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 thou thyself hast 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 Ions 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, or 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 forever impassable, even as he who produced them. But if, on the other hand, they are of a different substance which is capable of passion, and 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 ions 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 ions were derived from Logos, Logos from Naus, and Naus from Bithos, 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 forever impassable, or their Father himself must participate in passion, for the torch which has been kindled subsequently cannot be possessed of a different 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 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 forever impassable. 6. Once then comes the passion of the youngest ion, if the light of the Father is that from which all other lights have been formed, and which is by nature impassable, and how can one ion be spoken of as either younger or older among themselves, since there is but one light in the entire pleroma? And if anyone calls them stars, they will all nevertheless appear to participate in the same nature, for if one star differs from another star in glory, but not in qualities nor substance, nor in the fact of being passable or impassable, so all these, since they are alike, derived from the light of the Father, must either be naturally impassable or immutable, or they must all, in common with the light of the Father, be passable, and are capable of the varying phases of corruption. 6. The same conclusion will follow, although they affirm that the production of the ions sprain from logos as branches from a tree, since logos has his generation from their Father. For all the ions 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 ions 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 ion produced by him as being passable? And, while they ascribe the same impiety to the very wisdom or Sophia of God, how can they still call themselves religious men? 7. If again they declare that their ions 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 impassable forever. For they can no longer maintain that, of beings so produced, some are impassable and others passable. If then, they declare all impassable, they do themselves destroy their own argument. For how could the youngest ion have suffered passion if all were impassable? If, on the other hand, they declare that all part took of this passion, as indeed some of them venture to maintain, then, inasmuch as it originated with Logos, but flowed on towards to Sophia, they will thus be convicted of tracing back the passion to Logos, who is the naus of this propator, and so acknowledging the naus 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 naus or mind, as I have already shown, but naus is the father and the father naus. It necessarily follows, therefore, both that he who springs from him has Logos, or rather, that naus himself, since he is Logos, must be perfect and impassable, and that those productions which proceed from him, seeing that they are of the same substance with himself, should be perfect and impassable, 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 or 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 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 of ignorance. But it is possible that that Sophia, 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 airing ion, 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 manner 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 they may choose to go forward, they will feel themselves bound, while, as regards the truth, they depart entirely from right to reason. To proceed so far as to maintain that their word, who springs from the naus of the propator, to maintain, I say, that he was produced in a state of degeneracy. For they hold that perfect naus, previously begotten by the perfect bithos, 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 Savior exhibited an emblem of this mystery in the case of that man who was blind from his birth, since the Ion 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, that they may learn that, from the naus of that father who is above all, the Word was produced blind, that is, ignorant of the father who produced him. 10. But, ye miserable sophists, how could the naus of the father, or rather the very father himself, since he is naus and perfect in all things, have produced his own logos as an imperfect and blind Ion, when he was able also to produce along with him the knowledge of the father? 11. As he affirmed that Christ was generated after the rest, and yet declared that he was produced perfect, much more than should logos, who is anterior to him in age, be produced by the same naus, unquestionably perfect and not blind? Nor could he again have produced Ions 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 ye declare the magnitude and power of your father to be the causes of ignorance, assimilating him to Bethus, and assigning this as a name to him who is the unnameable father. But if ignorance is an evil, and ye declare all evils to have derived their strength from it, while ye maintain that the greatness and power of the father is the cause of this ignorance, ye do thus set him forth as the author of all evils. For ye 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 of those beings that were formed by him, he must in that case be held free from blame, in as much 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 became deeply seated in the ions, much more had he so willed it, might he formally 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 ions, but also to these men who lived in these latter times. But, as he did not so pleased to be known from the beginning, he remained unknown, the cause of ignorance, 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 forever 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 Iones 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 impassable 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 enthymeses 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, or 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 Ione Sophia, but let them give up either her name or her sufferings. And let them, moreover, not call their entire pleroma spiritual, if this Ione 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, could not pass through any such experience. 2. And again, how could her enthymeses, going forth from her along with the passion, have become a separate existence? For enthymeses, or thought, is understood in connection with some person, and can never have an isolated existence by itself. For a bad enthymeses is destroyed and absorbed by a good one, even as a state of diseases by health. What, then, was the sort of enthymeses 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, these, 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 passable. But when she became persuaded that he is unsearchable, she was restored to health. And even Naus 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 enthymeses 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 ye shall find. 4. 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 Ions not to seek after the Father, persuading them that, though they should labor hard, they would not find him. And they declare that they themselves are perfect, by the fact that they maintain they have found their bithos, while the Ions have been made perfect through means of this. That he is unsearchable, who was inquired after by them. 4. Since, therefore, the enthymeses herself could not exist separately apart from the Ion, 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 the matter. As if God were not light, and as if no word existed who could convict them and overthrow their wickedness. 4. For it is certainly true that whatsoever the Ion thought, that she also suffered, and what she suffered that she also thought, and her enthymeses was, according to them, nothing else than the passion of one thinking how she might comprehend the incomprehensible. 5. And thus enthymeses was the passion, for she was thinking of things impossible. 6. How, then, could affection and passion be separated and set apart from the enthymeses, so as to become the substance of so vast a material creation, when enthymeses herself was the passion and the passion enthymeses? 5. Neither, therefore, can enthymeses, apart from the Ion, nor the affections, apart from enthymeses, separately possess substance, and thus once more their system breaks down and is destroyed. 5. But how did it come to pass that the Ion 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. 6. Now any substance, when brought into 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 incur 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 maintained that Bithos himself was the image of the Father. 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 Ion 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, disillusion, 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 Ion 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 Ion, 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 ye 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 Bithos, 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 Ion who was within the Pleroma, a holy spiritual being, by seeking after the propatore, 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 Ions, and thus come to an end of her personal existence. Seven. Absurd is such presumption, and truly an opinion of men totally destitute of the truth. Four. That this Ion 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 anthymesies of that Ion who suffered passion, so that this Ion is the Father of their Mother, that is, their own grandfather. And to them, the latter-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 Ion, from whom they also 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. Chapter 19 Absurdities of the heretics as to their own origin. Their opinions respecting the demiurge shown to be equally untenable and ridiculous. 1 But what sort of talk also is this concerning their seed, that it was conceived by the Mother according to the configuration of those angels who wait upon the Saviour? Shapeless, without form, and imperfect, and that it was deposited in the demiurge without his knowledge, in order that, through his instrumentality, it might attain to perfection, and form in that soul which he had, so to speak, filled with seed? This is to affirm, in the first place, that those angels who wait upon their Saviour are imperfect, and without figure or form, if indeed that which was conceived according to their appearance was generated by any such kind of being as has been described. 2 Then, in the next place, as to their saying that the Creator was ignorant of that deposit of seed which took place into him, and again, of that impartation of seed which was made by him to man, their words are futile and vain, and are in no way susceptible to proof. For how could we have been ignorant of it, if that seed had possessed any substance and peculiar properties? If, on the other hand, it was without substance and without quality, and so was really nothing, then, as a matter of course, he was ignorant of it. For those things which have a certain motion of their own, and quality, either of heat or swiftness or sweetness, or which differ from others in brilliance, do not escape the notice even of men, since they mingle in the sphere of human action. Far less can they be hidden from God, the maker of this universe. With reason, however, is it said that their seed was not known to him, since it is without any quality of general utility, and without the substance requisite for any action, and is, in fact, a pure non-entity. It really seems to me that, with a view to such opinions, the Lord expressed himself thus, for every idle word that men speak, they shall give account on the day of judgment. For all teachers of a like character to these who fill men's ears with idle talk shall, when they stand at the throne of judgment, render an account for those things which they have vainly imagined, and falsely uttered against the Lord. Proceeding, as they have done, to such a height of audacity, as to declare of themselves that, on account of the substance of their seed, they are acquainted with the spiritual Pleroma, because that man who dwells within reveals to them the true Father, for the animal nature required to be disciplined by means of the senses. But they hold that the demiurge, while receiving into himself the whole of this seed, through its being deposited in him by the mother, still remained utterly ignorant of all things, and had no understanding of anything connected with the Pleroma. 3. And that they are truly spiritual, inasmuch as a certain particle of the Father of the universe has been deposited in their souls, since, according to their assertions, they have souls formed of the same substance as the demiurge himself, yet that he, although he received from the mother, once for all, the whole of the divine seed, and possessed it in himself, still remained of an animal nature, and had not the slightest understanding of those things which are above, which things they boast that they themselves understand, while they are still on earth, does not this crown all possible absurdity? 4. For to imagine that the very same seed conveyed knowledge and perfection to the souls of these men, while it only gave rise to ignorance in the God who made them, is an opinion that can be held only by those utterly frantic and totally destitute of common sense. 4. Further, it is also a most absurd and groundless thing for them to say that the seed was, by being thus deposited, reduced to form and increased, and so was prepared for the reception of perfect rationality. For there will be in it an admixture of matter, that substance which they hold to have been derived from ignorance and defect. And this will prove itself more apt and useful than was the light of their Father, if indeed when born, according to the contemplation of that light, it was without form or figure, but derived from this matter form and appearance and increase and perfection. For if that light which proceeds from the pleroma was the cause to a spiritual being, that it possessed neither form nor appearance nor its own special magnitude, while its descent to this world added all these things to it, and brought it to perfection, then a sojourn here, which they also termed darkness, would seem much more efficacious and useful than was the light of their Father. But how can it be regarded as other than ridiculous, to affirm that their mother ran the risk of being almost extinguished in matter, and was almost on the point of being destroyed by it? Had she not, then, with difficulty, stretched herself outwards, and leapt, as it were, out of herself, receiving assistance from the Father? But that her seed increased in this same matter, and received a form, and was fit for the reception of perfect rationality. And this too, while bubbling up among substances dissimilar and unfamiliar to itself, according to their own declaration that the earthly is opposed to the spiritual, and the spiritual to the earthly, how, then, could a little particle, as they say, increase and receive shape and reach perfection in the midst of substances contrary to and unfamiliar to itself? Five. But further, and in addition to what has been said, the question occurs. Did their mother, when she beheld the angels, bring forth the seed all at once, or only one by one in succession? If she brought forth the whole simultaneously and at once, that which was thus produced cannot now be of an infantile character. Its descent, therefore, into those men who now exist, must be superfluous. But if one by one, then she did not form her conception according to the figure of those angels whom she beheld. For contemplating them all together, and once for all, so as to conceive by them, she ought to have brought forth once for all the offspring of those from whose forms she had once for all conceived. Six. Why was it, too, that, beholding the angels along with the Savior, she did indeed conceive their images, but not that of the Savior, who is far more beautiful than they? Did he not please her? And did she not, on that account, conceive after his likeness? How was it, too, that the demiurge, whom they call an animal being, having, as they maintain, his own special magnitude and figure, was produced perfect as respects his substance, while that which is spiritual, which also ought to be more effective than that which is animal, was sent forth imperfect, and he required to descend into a soul, that in it he might obtain form, and thus becoming perfect might be rendered fit for the reception of perfect reason. If, then, he obtains form in mere earthly and animal men, he can no longer be said to be after the likeness of angels whom they call lights, but after the likeness of those men who are here below. For he will not possess, in that case, the likeness and appearance of angels, but of those souls in whom also he receives shape, just as water, when poured into a vessel, takes the form of that vessel. And if on any occasion it happens to congeal in it, it will acquire the form of the vessel in which it has thus been frozen, since souls themselves possess the figure of the body in which they dwell, for they themselves have been adapted to the vessel in which they exist, as I have said before. If, then, that seed referred to is here solidified and formed into a definite shape, it will possess the figure of a man, and not the form of the angels. How is it possible, therefore, that that seed should be after images of the angels, seeing it has obtained a form after the likeness of men? Why, again, since it was of a spiritual nature, had it any need of descending into flesh? For what is carnal stands in need of that which is spiritual, if indeed it is to be saved, that in it it may be sanctified and cleared from all impurity, and that what is mortal may be swallowed up by immortality, but that which is spiritual has no need, whatever, of those things which are here below. For it is not we who benefit it, but it that improves us. 7. Still more manifestly is that talk of theirs concerning their seed proved to be false, and that in a way which must be evident to everyone, by the fact that they declare those souls which have received seed from the mother to be superior to all others, wherefore also they have been honored by the Demiurge and constituted princes and kings and priests. For if this were true, the High Priest Caiaphas and Annas, and the rest of the Chief Priests, and the doctors of the law and rulers of the people, would have been the first to believe in the Lord, agreeing as they did with respect to that relationship, and even before them should have been Herod the King. But since neither he, nor the Chief Priests, nor the rulers, nor the eminent of the people turned to him in faith, but on the contrary, those who sat begging by the highway, the deaf and the blind, while he was rejected and despised by others, according to what Paul declares, For ye see your calling, brethren, that there are not many wise men among you, not many noble, not many mighty, but those things of the world which were despised hath God chosen. Such souls, therefore, were not superior to others on account of the seed deposited in them, nor on this account were they honored by the Demiurge. As to the point, then, that their system is weak and untenable, as well as utterly chai miracle, enough has been said. For it is not needful, to use a common proverb, that one should drink up the whole ocean who wishes to learn that its water is salt. But just as in the case of a statue which is made of clay, but colored on the outside that it may be thought of to be gold, while it really is of clay, anyone who takes out of it a small particle, and thus laying it open reveals the clay, will set free those who seek the truth from a false opinion. In the same way have I, by exposing not a small part only, but the several heads of their system which are of the greatest importance, shown to as many as do not wish wittingly to be led astray, what is wicked, deceitful, seductive, and pernicious, connected with the school of the Valentinians, and all those other heretics who promulgate wicked opinions respecting the Demiurge, that is, the fashioner and former of this universe, and who is in fact the only true God, exhibiting as I have done how easily their views are overthrown. 9. For who that has any intelligence, and possesses only a small proportion of truth, can tolerate them, while they affirm that there is another God above their Creator, and that there is another monogenes as well as another word of God, whom also they describe as having been produced in a state of degeneracy, and another Christ whom they assert to have been formed, along with the Holy Spirit, later than the rest of the Ions, and another Savior, whom they say, did not proceed from the Father of all, but was a kind of joint production of those Ions who were formed in a state of degeneracy, and that he was produced of necessity on account of this very degeneracy. It is thus their opinion that, unless the Ions had been made in a state of ignorance and degeneracy, neither Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, nor Horos, nor the Savior, nor the Angels, nor their Mother, nor Her seed, nor the rest of the fabric of the world would have been produced at all, but the universe would have been a desert and destitute of the many good things which exist in it. They are therefore not only chargeable with impiety against the Creator, declaring Him the fruit of a defect, but also against Christ and the Holy Spirit, affirming that they were produced on account of that defect, and, in like manner, that the Savior was produced subsequently to the existence of that defect. And who will tolerate the remainder of their vain talk, which they cunningly endeavor to accommodate to the parables, and have in this way plunged both themselves and those who give credit to them in the profoundest depths of impiety? End of Book 2, chapters 18 through 19, chapters 20 through 22 of Irenaeus against Heresies, Book 2. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Irenaeus against Heresies, Book 2. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William H. Rombo. Chapter 20. Futility of the arguments adduced to demonstrate the sufferings of the 12th Ion, from the parables, the treachery of Judas, and the passion of our Savior. 1. That they improperly and illogically apply both the parables and the actions of the Lord to their falsely devised system, I prove as follows. They endeavor, for instance, to demonstrate that passion which, they say, happened in the case of the 12th Ion, from this fact that the passion of the Savior was brought about by the 12th Apostle, and happened in the 12th month. For they hold that he preached only for one year after his baptism. They maintain also that the same thing was clearly set forth in the case of her who suffered from the issue of blood. For the woman suffered during 12 years, and through touching the hem of the Savior's garment, she was made whole by that power which went forth from the Savior, and which, they affirm, had a previous existence. For that power who suffered was stretching herself outwards and flowing into immensity, so that she was in danger of being dissolved into the general substance of the Ions. But then, touching the primary tetrad which is typified by the hem of the garment, she was arrested and ceased from her passion. 2. Then, again as to their assertion, that the passion of the 12th Ion was proved through the conduct of Judas. How is it possible that Judas can be compared with this Ion as being an emblem of her? He who is expelled from the number of the twelve and never restored to his place? 3. For that Ion, whose type they declared Judas to be, after being separated from her in Thymises, was restored or recalled to her former position. But Judas was deprived of his office and cast out, while Matthias was ordained in his place, according to what is written, and his bishopric let another take. They ought, therefore, to maintain that the 12th Ion was cast out of the Pleroma, and that another was produced, or sent forth to fill her place, if, that is to say, she is pointed at in Judas. Moreover, they tell us that it was the Ion herself who suffered. But Judas was the betrayer and not the sufferer. Even they themselves acknowledge that it was the suffering Christ and not Judas who came to the endurance of passion. How, then, could Judas, the betrayer of him who had to suffer for our salvation, be the type and image of that Ion who suffered? 3. But in truth, the passion of Christ was neither similar to the passion of the Ion, nor did it take place in similar circumstances. For the Ion underwent a passion of dissolution and destruction, so that she who suffered was in danger also of being destroyed. For the Lord, our Christ, underwent a valid and not a merely accidental passion. Not only was he himself not in danger of being destroyed, but he also established fallen man by his own strength, and recalled him to incorruption. The Ion, again, underwent passion while she was seeking after the Father, and was not able to find him. But the Lord suffered that he might bring those who have wandered from the Father back to knowledge and to his fellowship. The search into the greatness of the Father became to her a passion leading to destruction. But the Lord, having suffered and bestowing the knowledge of the Father, conferred on us salvation. Her passion, as they declare, gave origin to a female offspring, weak, infirm, unformed, and ineffective. But his passion gave rise to strength and power. For the Lord, through means of suffering, ascending into the lofty place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men, and conferred on those that believe in him the power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of the enemy, that is, of the leader of apostasy. Our Lord, also by his passion, destroyed death, and dispersed error, and put an end to corruption, and destroyed ignorance, while he manifested life, and revealed truth, and bestowed the gift of incorruption. But there I own, when she had suffered, established ignorance, and brought forth a substance without shape, out of which all material works have been produced, death, corruption, error, and such like. 4. Judas, then, the twelfth in order of the disciples, was not a type of the suffering I own, nor again was the passion of the Lord, for these two things have been shown to be in every respect, mutually dissimilar and inharmonious. This is the case, not only as respects the points which I have already mentioned, but with regard to the very number, for that Judas the traitor is the twelfth in order, is agreed upon by all, there being twelve apostles mentioned by name in the gospel. But this I own is not the twelfth, but the thirteenth, for according to the views under consideration, there were not twelve I owns only produced by the will of the Father, nor was she sent forth the twelfth in order. They reckon her, on the contrary, as having been produced in the thirteenth place. How, then, can Judas the twelfth in order be the type and image of that I own who occupies the thirteenth place? 5. But if they say that Judas in perishing was the image of her enthymesis, neither in this way will the image bear any analogy to the truth which, by hypothesis, corresponds to it. For the enthymesis, having been separated from the I own, and itself afterwards receiving a shape from Christ, then being made a partaker of intelligence by the Saviour, and having formed all the things which are outside of the pleroma, after the image of those which are within the pleroma, is said at last to have been received by them into the pleroma, and, according to the principle of conjunction, to have been united to that Saviour who was formed out of all. But Judas, having been once for all cast away, never returns into the number of the disciples, otherwise a different person would not have been chosen to fill his place. Besides, the Lord also declared regarding him, Woe to any man by whom the Son of Man shall be betrayed, and it were better for him if he had never been born, and he was called the Son of Perdition by him. If, however, they say that Judas was a type of the enthymesis, not as separated from the I own, but of the passion entwined with her, neither in this way can the number twelve be regarded as a fitting type of the number three. For in the one case, Judas was cast away, and Matthias was ordained instead of him, but in the other case, the I own is said to have been in danger of dissolution and destruction, and there are also her enthymesis and passion, for they markedly distinguish enthymesis from the passion, and they represent the I own as being restored, and enthymesis as acquiring form, but the passion, when separated from these, as becoming matter. Since, therefore, there are thus these three, the I own, her enthymesis, and her passion, Judas and Matthias, being only two, cannot be the types of them. Chapter 21. The twelve apostles were not a type of the I owns. One. If, again, they maintain that the twelve apostles were a type only of that group of twelve I owns, which Anthropos, in conjunction with Ecclesia, produced, then let them produce ten other apostles as a type of those ten remaining I owns, who, as they declare, were produced by Logos and Zoe. For it is unreasonable to suppose that the junior, and for that reason inferior I owns, were set forth by the Savior through the election of the apostles, while their seniors, and on this account their superiors, were not thus foreshown. Since the Savior, if that is to say, he chose the apostles with a view that by means of them he might show forth the I owns, who are in the Pleroma, might have chosen other ten apostles also, and likewise, other eight before these, that thus he might set forth the original and primary Ogdoad. He could not, in regard to the second Duo Decad, show forth any emblem of it through the number of the apostles being already constituted a type. For he made choice of no such other number of disciples, but after the twelve apostles, our Lord is found to have sent forth seventy others before him. Now seventy cannot possibly be the type either of an Ogdoad, a Decad, or a Triocontad. What is the reason, then, that the inferior I owns are, as I have said, represented by means of the apostles, but the superior, from whom, too, the former derived their being, are not prefigured at all? But if the twelve apostles were chosen with this object, that the number of the twelve I owns might be indicated by means of them, then the seventy also ought to have been chosen to be the type of seventy I owns. And in that case, they must affirm that the I owns are no longer thirty, but eighty-two in number. For he who made the choice of the apostles, that they might be a type of those I owns existing in the Pleroma, would never have constituted them types of some and not of others. But, by means of the apostles, he would have tried to preserve an image and to exhibit a type of those I owns that existed in the Pleroma. Two. Moreover, we must not keep silence respecting Paul, but demand from them after the type of what I own that apostle has been handed down to us. Unless, per chance, they affirm that he is a representative of the Savior compounded of them all, who derived his being from the collected gifts of the whole, and whom they term all things, as having been formed out of them all. Respecting this being, the poet Hesiod has strikingly expressed himself, styling him Pandora, that is, the gift of all, for this reason, that the best gift in the possession of all was centered in him. In describing these gifts, the following account is given. Hermes implanted words of fraud and deceit in their minds and thievish habits for the purpose of leading foolish men astray, that such should believe their falsehoods. For their mother, that is, Leto, secretly stirred them up. Whence also she is called Leto, according to the meaning of the Greek word, because she secretly stirred up men. Without the knowledge of the demiurge, to give forth profound and unspeakable mysteries to itching ears. And not only did their mother bring it about that this mystery should be declared by Hesiod, but very skillfully, also by means of the lyric poet Pindar, when he describes to the demiurge the case of Pelops, whose flesh was cut in pieces by the Father, and then collected, and brought together, and compacted anew by all the gods. Did she in this way indicate Pandora? And these men, having their consciences seared by her, declaring, as they maintain, the very same things are proved of the same family and spirit as the others. Chapter 22 The 30 Ions are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in his thirtieth year. He did not suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but was more than fifty years old when he died. 1. I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every respect, too few Ions, as they represent them, being at one time found within the Pluralma, and then again, too many to correspond with that number. There are not, therefore, thirty Ions, nor did the Saviour come to be baptized when he was thirty years old for this reason, that he might show forth the thirty silent Ions of their system. Otherwise, they must first of all separate and eject the Saviour himself from the Pluralma of all. Moreover, they affirmed that he suffered in the twelfth month, so that he continued to preach for one year after his baptism, and they endeavored to establish this point out of the prophet, for it is written, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of retribution. Being totally blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bithos, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year, the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and are not to be understood according to the mere sound of the words. 2. That then was called the day of retribution, on which the Lord will render to everyone according to his works, that is, the judgment. The acceptable year of the Lord, again, is this present time in which those who believe him are called by him, and become acceptable to God, that is, the whole time from his advent onwards to the consummation of all things, during which he acquires to himself as fruits of the scheme of mercy those who are saved. For according to the phraseology of the prophet, the day of retribution follows the acceptable year, and the prophet will be proved guilty of falsehood if the Lord preached only for a year and if he speaks of it. For where is the day of retribution? For the year has passed, and the day of retribution has not yet come, but he still makes his Son to rise upon the good and upon the evil, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust. And the righteous suffer persecution, are afflicted, and are slain, while sinners are possessed of abundance, and drink with the sound of the harp and sultry, but do not regard the works of the Lord. But according to the language used by the prophet, they ought to be combined, and the day of retribution to follow the acceptable year. For the words are, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution. This present time, therefore, in which men are called and saved by the Lord, is properly understood to be denoted by the acceptable year of the Lord, and there follows on this the day of retribution, that is, the judgment. And the time thus referred to is not called a year only, but is also named a day, both by the prophet and by Paul, of whom the apostle, calling to mind the scripture, says in the epistle addressed to the Romans, As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. But here the expression, all the day long, is put, for all this time during which we suffer persecution, and are killed as sheep. As then, this day does not signify one which consists of twelve hours, but the whole time, during which believers in Christ suffer, and are put to death for his sake. So also the year, there mentioned, does not denote one which consists of twelve months, but the whole time of faith, during which men hear and believe the preaching of the gospel, and those become acceptable to God who unite themselves to him. Three. But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after his baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the Passover to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every land, and every year that they should assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the Passover. First of all, after he had made the water wine at Cana of Galilee, he went up to the festival day of the Passover, on which occasion it is written, for many believed in him when they saw the signs which he did. As John, the disciple of the Lord records. Then again, withdrawing himself from Judea, he is found in Samaria, on which occasion too he conversed with the Samaritan woman, and while at a distance cured the son of the Centurion by a word saying, Go thy way, thy son liveth. Afterwards, he went up the second time to observe the festival day of the Passover in Jerusalem, on which occasion he cured the paralytic man, who had lain beside the pool thirty-eight years, bidding him rise, take up his couch, and depart. Again, withdrawing from thence to the other side of the Sea of Tiberias, he there, seeing a great crowd had followed him, fed all that multitude with five loaves of bread, and twelve baskets of fragments remained over and above. Then, when he had raised Lazarus from the dead, and plots were formed against him by the Pharisees, he withdrew to a city called Ephraim, and from that place, as it is written, he came to Bethany six days before the Passover, and going up from Bethany to Jerusalem, he there ate the Passover, and suffered on the day following. Now that these three occasions of the Passover are not included within one year, every person whatever must acknowledge, and that the special month in which the Passover was celebrated, and in which also the Lord suffered, was not the twelfth, but the first, those men who boast that they know all things, if they know not this, may learn it from Moses. Their explanation, therefore, both of the year and of the twelfth month, have been proved false, and they ought to reject either their explanation or the gospel. Otherwise, this unanswerable question forces itself upon them. How is it possible that the Lord preached for only one year? For, being thirty years old when he came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a master, he came to Jerusalem, so that he might be properly acknowledged by all as a master, for he did not seem one thing while he was another, as those affirm who describe him as being man only in appearance. But what he was, that he also appeared to be. Being a master, therefore, he also possessed the age of a master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in himself that law which he had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age by that period corresponding to it which belonged to himself. For he came to save all through means of himself, all, I say, who through him are born again to God, infants and children, and boys and youths and old men. He, therefore, passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants, a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission. A youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise he was an old man for old men, that he might be a perfect master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then at last he came on to death itself, that he might be the first born from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence, the prince of life existing before all, and going before all. 5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, maintain that he preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. In speaking thus, they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying his whole work, and robbing him of that age which is both necessary and more honorable than any other, that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher he excelled all others. For how could he have had disciples if he did not teach, and how could he have taught unless he had reached the age of a master? 6. For when he came to be baptized he had not yet completed his thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age, for thus Luke who has mentioned his years has expressed it, now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old when he came to receive baptism. And, according to these men, he preached only one year reckoning from his baptism. On completing his thirtieth year he suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, everyone will admit. But from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify. Those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirming that John conveyed to them that information, and he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the validity of the statement. Whom, then, should we rather believe, whether men such as these, or Ptolemaus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle? Six. But besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad, they answered him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Now such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old, it would unquestionably be said, Thou art not yet forty years old. For those who wished to convict him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of his years far beyond the age which they saw he had attained. But they mentioned a period near his real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that he was above forty years old, and that he was certainly not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed, and he whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old, and in accordance with that fact they said to him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did he suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year, can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their ions, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with bithos in the pleroma, of which beings Homer the poet too has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the mother of their system of error. The gods sat round, while Jove presided over, and converse held upon the golden floor. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Translated by Alexander Roberts and William H. Rombo Chapter 23 The Woman Who Suffered from an Issue of Blood was no type of the suffering I own. Moreover, their ignorance comes out in a clear light with respect to the case of that woman who, suffering from an issue of blood, touched the hem of the Lord's garment, and was made whole, for they maintain that through her was shown forth that twelfth power who suffered passion, and flowed out towards immensity, that is, the twelfth ion. This ignorance of theirs appears first, because, as I have shown, according to their own system, that this was not the twelfth ion. But even granting them this point, in the meantime, there being twelve ions, eleven of these are said to have continued impassable, while the twelfth suffered passion. But the woman, on the other hand, being healed in the twelfth year, it is manifest that she had continued to suffer during eleven years, and was healed in the twelfth. If indeed they were to say that eleven ions were involved in passion, but the twelfth one was healed, it would then be a plausible thing to say that the woman was a type of these. But since she suffered during eleven years, and all that time obtained no cure, but was healed in the twelfth year, in what way can she be a type of the twelfth of the ions, eleven of whom, according to the hypothesis, did not suffer at all, but the twelfth alone participated in suffering. For a type and emblem is, no doubt, sometimes diverse from the truth signified as to matter and substance. But it ought, as to the general form and features, to maintain a likeness to what is typified, and in this way to shadow forth by means of things present, those which are yet to come. 2. And not only in the case of this woman have the years of her infirmity, which they affirm to fit in with their figment, been mentioned, but lo, another woman was also healed, after suffering in a like manner for eighteen years, concerning whom our Lord said, and ought not this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound during eighteen years, to be set free on the Sabbath day? If then, the former was a type of the twelfth ion that suffered, the latter should also be a type of the eighteenth ion in suffering. But they cannot maintain this, otherwise their primary and original ogdoad will be included in the number of ions who suffered together. Moreover, there was also a certain other person healed by the Lord, after he had suffered for eight and thirty years. They ought therefore to affirm that the ion who occupies the thirty-eighth place suffered. For if they assert that the things which were done by the Lord were types of what took place in the Pleroma, the type ought to be preserved throughout. But they can neither adapt to their fictitious system the case of her who was cured after eighteen years, nor of him who was cured after thirty-eight years. Now it is in every way absurd and inconsistent to declare that the Savior preserved the type in certain cases, while he did not do so in others. The type of the woman, therefore, with the issue of blood, is shown to have no analogy to their system of ions. Chapter 24 Folly of the Arguments Derived by the Heretics from Numbers, Letters, and Syllables 1. This very thing, too, still further demonstrates their opinion false and their fictitious system untenable, that they endeavor to bring forward proofs of it, sometimes through means of numbers and of syllables of names, sometimes also through the letters of syllables, and yet again through those numbers which are, according to the practice followed by the Greeks, contained in different letters. This, I say, demonstrates in the clearest manner their overthrow or confusion, as well as the untenable and perverse character of their professed knowledge. For, transferring the name Jesus, which belongs to another language, to the numeration of the Greeks, they sometimes call it Episemon, as having six letters, and at other times, the plentitude of the Ogdoads, as containing the number 888. But his corresponding Greek name, which is Soter, that is, Saviour, because it does not fit in with their system, either with respect to numerical value, or as regards its letters, they pass over in silence. Yet, surely, if they regard the names of the Lord as in accordance with the preconceived purpose of the Father, by means of their numerical value and letters, indicating number in the pleroma, Soter, as being a Greek name, ought by means of its letters, and the numbers expressed by these, in virtue of its being Greek, to show forth the mystery of the pleroma. But the case is not so, because it is a word of five letters, and its numerical value is 1408. But these things do not in any way correspond with their pleroma. The account, therefore, which they give of transactions in the pleroma, cannot be true. 2. Moreover, Jesus, which is a word belonging to the proper tongue of the Hebrews, contains, as the learned among them declare, two letters and a half, and signifies that Lord who contains heaven and earth. For Jesus, in the ancient Hebrew tongue means heaven, while again, earth is expressed by the words Surah Usair. The word, therefore, which contains heaven and earth is just Jesus. Their explanation, then, of the Episemon is false, and their numerical calculation is also manifestly overthrown. 4. In their own language, Soter is a Greek word of five letters, but, on the other hand, in the Hebrew tongue, Jesus contains only two letters and a half. The total, which they reckon up, these 888, therefore falls to the ground. And throughout, the Hebrew letters do not correspond in number with the Greek. Although, these especially, as being the more ancient and unchanging, ought to uphold the reckoning connected with the names. For these ancient, original, and generally called sacred letters of the Hebrews are ten in number, but they are written by means of fifteen, the last letter being joined to the first. And thus, they write some of these letters according to their natural sequence, just as we do, but others in a reverse direction, from the right hand towards the left, thus tracing the letters backwards. The name Christ, too, ought to be capable of being reckoned up in harmony with the ions of their pluroma, in as much as, according to their statements, He was produced for the establishment and rectification of their pluroma. The Father, too, in the same way, ought, both by means of letters and numerical value, to contain the number of those ions who were produced by Him, bithos, in like manner, and not less monogenes, but preeminently the name which is above all others, by which God is called, and which, in the Hebrew tongue, is expressed by baruch, a word which also contains two and a half letters. From this fact, therefore, that the more important names, both in the Hebrew and Greek languages, do not conform to their system, either as respects the number of letters or the reckoning brought out of them, the forced character of their calculations respecting the rest becomes clearly manifest. 3. For choosing out of the law whatever things agree with the number adopted in their system, they thus violently strive to obtain proofs of its validity. But if it was really the purpose of their mother, or the Saviour, to set forth, by means of the demi-urge, types of those things which are in the pluroma, they should have taken care that the types were found in things more exactly correspondent, and more holy, and above all, in the case of the Ark of the Covenant, on account of which the whole tabernacle of witness was formed. Now it was constructed thus, its length was two cubits and a half, its breadth one cubit and a half, its height one cubit and a half, but such a number of cubits in no respect corresponds with their system. Yet by it the type ought to have been, beyond anything else, clearly set forth. The mercy-seat also does in like manner not at all harmonize with their expositions. Moreover, the table of showbread was two cubits in length, while its height was a cubit and a half. These stood before the Holy of Holies, and yet in them not a single number is of such an amount as contains an indication of the tetrad, or the ogdoad, or of the rest of their pluroma. What of the candlestick, too, which had seven branches and seven lamps? While if these had been made according to the type, it ought to have had eight branches, and a like number of lamps, after the type of the primary ogdoad, which shines preeminently among the ions, and illuminates the whole pluroma. They have carefully enumerated the curtains as being ten, declaring these a type of the ten ions, but they have forgotten to count the coverings of skin which were eleven in number. Nor again have they measured the size of these very curtains, each curtain being eight and twenty cubits in length, and they set forth the length of the pillars as being ten cubits, with a reference to the decad of ions. But the breadth of each pillar was a cubit and a half, and this they do not explain any more than they do the entire number of the pillars, or of their bars, because that does not suit the argument. But what of the anointing oil which sanctified the whole tabernacle? Perhaps it escaped the notice of the Saviour, or, while their mother was sleeping, the demiurge of himself gave instructions as to its weight, and on this account it is out of harmony with the pluroma, consisting, as it did, of five hundred shekels of myrrh, five hundred of cassia, two hundred and fifty of cinnamon, two hundred and fifty of kalamus, and oil in addition, so that it was composed of five ingredients. The incense also, in like manner, was compounded of stacti, onica, galbanum, mint, and frankincense, all which do in no respect, either as to their mixture or weight, harmonize with their argument. It is therefore unreasonable and altogether absurd to maintain that the types were not preserved in the sublime and more imposing enactments of the law. But in other points, when any number coincides with their assertions, to affirm that it was a type of the things in the pluroma, while the truth is that every number occurs with the utmost variety in the scriptures, so that, should any one desire it, he might form not only an ogdoad and a deccad and a duodeccad, but any sort of number from the scriptures, and then maintain that this was a type of the system of error devised by himself. Four. But that this point is true, that that number which is called five, which agrees in no respect with their argument, and does not harmonize with their system, nor is suitable for a typical manifestation of the things in the pluroma, yet has a wide prevalence will be proved as follows from the scriptures. Sotère is a name of five letters. Patère, too, contains five letters. Agape, too, consists of five letters, and our Lord, after blessing the five loaves, fed with them five thousand men. Five virgins were called wise by the Lord, and in like manner five were styled foolish. Again, five men are said to have been with the Lord when he obtained testimony from the Father, namely Peter and James and John and Moses and Elias. The Lord, also, as the fifth person entered into the apartment of the dead maiden, and raised her up again, four says the scripture, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter and James, and the father and mother of the maiden. The rich man in hell declared that he had five brothers, to whom he desired that one rising from the dead should go. The pool from which the Lord commanded the paralytic man to go into his house had five porches. The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which, last, the person rests who is fixed by the nails. Each of our hands has five fingers. We have also five senses. Our internal organs may also be reckoned as five, these the heart, the liver, the lungs, the spleen, and the kidneys. Moreover, even the whole person may be divided into this number of parts, the head, the breast, the belly, the thighs, and the feet. The human race passes through five ages, first infancy, then boyhood, then youth, then maturity, and then old age. Moses delivered the law to the people in five books. Each table which he received from God contained five commandments. The veil covering the holy of holies had five pillars. The altar of burnt offering also was five cubits in breadth. Five priests were chosen in the wilderness, namely Aaron, Nadab, Abayud, Eliezar, Ithemar. The ephod and the breastplate, and other sacerdotal vestments, were formed out of five materials, for they combined in themselves gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen. And there were five kings of the Amorites, whom Joshua, the son of Noon, shut up in a cave, and directed the people to trample upon their heads. Anyone, in fact, may collect many thousand other things of the same kind, both in respect to this number and any other he chose to fix upon, either from the scriptures, or from the works of nature lying under his observation. But although such is the case, we do not therefore affirm that there are five ions above the demi-urge, nor do we concentrate the pentad, as if it were some divine thing, nor do we strive to establish things which are untenable, nor ratings, such as they indulge in, by means of that vain kind of labor, nor do we perversely force a creation well adapted by God, for the ends intended to be served, to change itself into types of things which have no real existence, nor do we seek to bring forward impious and abominable doctrines, the detection and overthrow of which are easy to all possessive intelligence. Five. For who can concede to them that the year has 365 days only, in order that there may be twelve months of thirty days each after the type of the twelve ions, when the type is in fact altogether out of harmony with the anti-type? For in one case each of the ions is a thirtieth part of the entire pleuroma, while in the other they declare that a month is the twelfth part of a year. If indeed the year were divided into thirty parts and the month into twelve, then a fitting type might be regarded as having been found for their fictitious system. But on the contrary, as the case really stands, their pleuroma is divided into thirty parts and a portion of it into twelve, while again the whole year is divided into twelve parts and a certain portion of it into thirty. The Savior therefore acted unwisely in constituting the month a type of the entire pleuroma, but the year a type only of that duo-decade which exists in the pleuroma, for it was more fitting to divide the year into thirty parts, even as the whole pleuroma is divided, but the month into twelve, just as the ions are in their pleuroma. Moreover, they divide the entire pleuroma into three portions, namely into an ogdoad, a decad, and a duo-decade. But our year is divided into four parts, namely spring, summer, autumn, and winter. And again, not even do the months, which they maintain to be a type of the triacontad, consist precisely of thirty days, but some have more and some less, in as much as five days remain to them as an over-plus. The day, too, does not always consist precisely of twelve hours, but rises from nine to fifteen, and then falls again from fifteen to nine. It cannot, therefore, beheld that months of thirty days each were so formed for the sake of typifying the ions, for in that case they would have consisted precisely of thirty days, nor again the days of these months, that by means of twelve hours they might symbolize the twelve ions, for in that case they would always have consisted precisely of twelve hours. Six. But further, as to their calling material substances on the left hand, and maintaining that those things which are thus on the left hand of necessity fall into corruption, while they also affirm that the Saviour came to the lost sheep in order to transfer it to the right hand, that is, to the ninety and nine sheep which were in safety and perished not, but continued within the fold, yet were of the left hand, it follows that they must acknowledge that the enjoyment of the rest did not imply salvation, and that which has not in like manner the same number, they will be compelled to acknowledge as belonging to the left hand, that is, to corruption. This Greek word agape, then, according to the letters of the Greeks, by means of which reckoning is carried on among them, having a numerical value of ninety-three, is in like manner assigned to the place of rest on the left hand. Alletheia, too, having in like manner, according to the principle indicated above, a numerical value of sixty-four, exists among material substances. And thus, in fine, they will be compelled to acknowledge that all those sacred names which do not reach a numerical value of one hundred, but only contain the numbers summed by the left hand, are corruptible and material. End of book two, chapters twenty-three through twenty-four.