PG 7 · cols. 23–174

R. Massuet, O.S.B., Dissertationes praeviae in Irenaei libros, Dissertatio I (Art. I De Valentino, Art. II De Valentini discipulis, Art. III De Valentini magistris)

Editors' preface

quibus labor ejus minuatur, sic exsecutus sum. Praeter tres superius memoratas Dissertationes, easque omnes notas et observationes, quibus difficilia Irenaei loca elucidare conatus sum; ac novam capitum sectionem, novaque lemmata et summulas, quibus auctoris scopus et argumentum oculis exhibetur, in quibus omnibus forte nonnihil opis quibusdam fuerit; praeter haec, inquam, accessere quatuor ampliores locupletioresque quam hactenus prodierint, Indices. Primus est Graecarum vocum Glossarium, seu Lexicon; secundus Latinarum difficiliorum, et ab usu communi remotiorum, quarum significata vel Irenaeo, seu ejus interpreti propria, vel non adeo obvia sunt. Tertius est, eorum quaecunque profert Irenaeus, Scripturae sacrae testimoniorum; adnotata etiam, si quae interdum occurrat, in citando uno et eodem testimonio, diversitate, ut ea ratione Scripturae sacrae studiosi Irenaei codices sacros cum nostris comparare facile possint, quidve discriminis (levissimi certe) inter utrosque intercedat, observare. Quartus denique, rerum omnium praecipuarum, quae tum apud ipsum Irenaeum, tum in nostris Dissertationibus et notis occurrunt; addito etiam in fine altero pro aliorum notis Indice.

whereby his labour might be lessened, I have executed thus. Besides the three Dissertations mentioned above, and all those notes and observations whereby I have endeavoured to elucidate the difficult passages of Irenaeus, and the new division of chapters, and the new headings and short summaries whereby the scope and argument of the author are set before the eyes—in all of which there will perhaps be some help to some—besides these things, I say, there have been added four larger and fuller Indexes than have hitherto appeared. The first is a Glossary, or Lexicon, of Greek words; the second, of the more difficult Latin words, further removed from common use, whose meanings are either peculiar to Irenaeus or his translator, or not so obvious. The third is of all the testimonies of Sacred Scripture which Irenaeus brings forward, noting also whatever diversity sometimes occurs in citing one and the same testimony, so that in this way students of Sacred Scripture may easily compare the sacred codices of Irenaeus with ours, or observe what difference (very slight, certainly) intervenes between the two. The fourth, finally, is of all the chief matters which occur both in Irenaeus himself and in our Dissertations and notes, with another Index added at the end for the notes of others.

Haec sunt quae de nova hac Irenaei editione praefari visum est. Exposita jam totius consilii mei ratione, caeterum deinceps lectorem non morabor, quin ipse dispiciat, an opus votis et conatis respondeat. Quod si ita sit, unam hanc esse velim laboris mercedem, de Ecclesia quidpiam meruisse; cujus judicio quaecunque a me prodierunt, libenter subjicio, ea omnia emendare ac revocare paratus, quae emendare ac revocare jusserit.

These are the things which it seemed good to say by way of preface concerning this new edition of Irenaeus. Having now set forth the plan of my whole design, for the rest I shall not delay the reader hereafter from discerning for himself whether the work answers to my wishes and endeavours. And if it be so, I would wish this alone to be the reward of my labour, to have deserved somewhat of the Church; to whose judgement I gladly submit whatever has come forth from me, prepared to emend and recall all those things which she commands me to emend and recall.

DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.

Preliminary Dissertations on the Books of Irenaeus.

DISSERTATIO PRIMA.

First Dissertation.

De haereticis quos libro primo recenset Irenaeus eorumque actibus, scriptis et doctrina.

On the heretics whom Irenaeus recounts in the first book, and their deeds, writings, and doctrine.

ARTICULUS PRIMUS.

First Article.

DE VALENTINO.

On Valentinus.

I. Valentini patria.

I. The native land of Valentinus.

De Valentini patria et stirpe nihil certum, Epiphanio teste, e veteribus exsculpi potest. Quamvis hujus haeresim fuse exagitaverit Irenaeus, haec tamen alto premit silentio. Accepisse se ait Epiphanius, sed auditione sola, et fama, non tamen, inquit, usque adeo certa, ut dubium levet, illum Phrebonitem esse, ex Aegypti quadam ora. Ubi pro Phrebonitem, cujus loci nulla apud veteres occurrit mentio, legendum contendit Lambertus Danaeus ad August. De haeres., cap. 11, Pharbaethitem, cujus sententiae calculum adjicit Petavius in suis ad Epiphanium notis. Exstat quidem Pharbaethites inferioris Aegypti nomus, cujus caput urbs Pharbaetus, Bubastico et Busiritico fluminibus conclusus, in meridiem vergens, cujus meminere Herodotus, lib. II, cap. 166; Strabo, lib. XVII; Plinius, lib. V, cap. 9. Sed vereor ut hujus nomi situs cum Epiphanio consentiat, qui Φρεβονίτην τῆς Αἰγύπτου παραλιώτην, Phrebonitem ad maritimam Aegypti oram esse scribit. Longius enim a mari distat Pharbaethites nomus, ac, ne propius accedat, intercedunt Tanites et Neut nomi. Quare si quid et mihi conjicere liceat, libentius apud Epiphanium legerem Phtenotitem vel Ptenetitem. Phtenotes enim Ptolemaeo nomus erat in Aegypti Delta, supra Meteliten, in Austrum vergens, nec procul a mari, cujus caput erat Βοῦτος, Butus. Doctissimo Harduino idem esse videtur, qui Plinii Ptenethu, lib. V, cap. 9, idque verum nomen esse credit vir in geographicis peritissimus Christophorus Cellarius, quia in Chalcedonensi synodo, act. I, Heraclius Ptenethensis memoratur. Quidquid sit, Alexandriam profectus Valentinus, ibi Graecorum artibus non mediocriter institutus est. Doctissimum enim fuisse scribit Hieronymus in Osee, cap.

Concerning the native land and stock of Valentinus nothing certain, as Epiphanius witnesses, can be elicited from the ancients. Although Irenaeus criticized his heresy at length, yet he buries these matters in deep silence. Epiphanius says that he received, though by hearsay alone and rumour—not, however, says he, so certain as to remove doubt—that he was a Phrebonite, from a certain coast of Egypt. Where instead of Phrebonite, of which place no mention occurs among the ancients, Lambert Daneau on Augustine's On Heresies, Chapter 11, contends that we should read Pharbaethite, to whose opinion Petau adds his vote in his notes on Epiphanius. There exists indeed the Pharbaethite nome of Lower Egypt, whose capital is the city of Pharbaetus, enclosed by the Bubastic and Busiritic rivers, tending towards the south, which is mentioned by Herodotus, Book II, Chapter 166; Strabo, Book XVII; and Pliny, Book V, Chapter 9. But I fear that the position of this nome may not agree with Epiphanius, who writes that he was Φρεβονίτην τῆς Αἰγύπτου παραλιώτην, a Phrebonite on the maritime coast of Egypt. For the Pharbaethite nome is further distant from the sea, and, lest it approach nearer, the Tanite and Neut nomes intervene. Wherefore, if I too may be permitted to make some conjecture, I would more gladly read in Epiphanius Phtenotite or Ptenetite. For to Ptolemy Phtenotes was a nome in the Delta of Egypt, above Metelites, tending towards the south, and not far from the sea, whose capital was Βοῦτος, Butus. To the most learned Hardouin it seems to be the same as Pliny's Ptenethu, Book V, Chapter 9, and that man most skilled in geographical matters, Christoph Cellarius, believes that this is the true name, because in the Synod of Chalcedon, Act I, Heraclius of Ptenethu is mentioned. Whatever be the case, having set out for Alexandria, Valentinus was there instructed in no moderate degree in the arts of the Greeks. For Jerome writes that he was most learned, in his commentary on Hosea, Chapter

Editors' notes and page, col. 23

Footnotes

(a) ‹anchor: Epiphanio teste› · call in col 23

Epiphan., Haer. 31, § 2.

Epiphanius, Heresy 31, § 2.

(printed under page 18)

(b) ‹anchor: Ptenethensis memoratur› · call in col 23

Epiph., ibid.

Epiphanius, in the same place.

(printed under page 18)

Footnotes

(b) ‹anchor: Ptenethensis memoratur› · call in col 24

Epiph., ibid.

Epiphanius, in the same place.

(printed under page 18)

Page

other: col 24 is the right-hand number of a full-width page, set whole under col 23 (corpus full_width rule); nothing of its own: pointer only

PG 7:25

x, et in Dialogo contra Marcionitas, qui Origeni vulgo ascribitur, οὐκ εὐτελὴς ἀνήρ, vir minime vulgaris dicitur. Quin saltem ingenio peracri, et in lectione veterum philosophorum ac poetarum non parum versatus esset, non negabit quisquis ad ejus systema ex tam multis tamque abstrusis ideis, partim a se excogitatis, partim aliunde haustis, sed secum invicem utcunque aptatis fabricatum attenderit. In primis philosophiae Platonicae, ad quam potissimum mentem appellebant Gnostici omnes, operam dedisse, testis est Tertullianus, pluraque ab ea accepta dogmata demonstrant. Cùm in Aegypto, et praesertim Alexandriae, plurimi Judaeorum eo tempore vixerint, hinc verosimile putat Joannes Franciscus Buddaeus, in Dissertat. de haeresi Valentin. ad calcem Introductionis ad Historiam philosophiae Hebraeorum, excusae Halae Saxonum an. 1702, Valentinum eorum philosophia, qualis eo tempore erat, fuisse imbutum. Auctor quidem est Clemens Alexandrinus, discipulos ejus, ut magistrum commendarent, gloriatos fuisse, eum praeceptorem habuisse Theodadem, seu Theudadem quemdam, B. Pauli apostoli discipulum. Sed quis et qualis fuerit ille Theodades, et quanta fides suspectorum hominum narrationi debeatur, non satis constat.

10, and in the Dialogue against the Marcionites, which is commonly ascribed to Origen, he is called οὐκ εὐτελὴς ἀνήρ, no ordinary man. Indeed, that he was at least of a very sharp intellect, and no little versed in the reading of the ancient philosophers and poets, no one will deny who attends to his system, constructed out of so many and such abstruse ideas, partly devised by himself, partly drawn from elsewhere, yet fitted together with one another as best might be. That he devoted attention above all to the Platonic philosophy, to which all the Gnostics chiefly directed their minds, Tertullian is witness, and the many doctrines received from it demonstrate. Since in Egypt, and especially at Alexandria, very many of the Jews lived at that time, hence Johann Franz Buddeus considers it probable, in his Dissertation on the Heresy of Valentinus at the end of his Introduction to the History of the Philosophy of the Hebrews, printed at Halle in Saxony in the year 1702, that Valentinus was imbued with their philosophy, such as it was at that time. Clement of Alexandria is indeed the authority that his disciples, in order to commend their master, boasted that he had had as his teacher a certain Theodades, or Theudades, a disciple of the blessed Apostle Paul. But who and what sort of man that Theodades was, and how much credit is owed to the narrative of suspected men, is not sufficiently established.

II. Valentini aetas.

II. The age of Valentinus.

2. De tempore quo vixerit, aut errores suos disseminaverit Valentinus, paulo acrior est inter eruditos disputatio. Dallaeus, ut epistolas Ignatianas, Puritanis omnibus molestissimas, suppositionis argueret, e re sua arbitratus Valentinum juniorem facere, nullum lapidem non movit, ut Ignatio posteriorem probaret. Nempe cum in epistola ad Magnesianos Verbum Dei dicatur ἀΐδιος, οὐκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθεῖν, aeternum, non a silentio progrediens, his verbis feriri vult Dallaeus Valentinianorum Σιγήν. Atqui Sige haec, inquit, ante Ignatii martyrium nondum nata. Primus, enim, Irenaeo teste, ab ea quae dicitur Gnostica haeresis, antiquas in suum characterem doctrinas transferens Valentinus, sic definivit : Dualitatem quamdam innominabilem, cujus quidem aliquid vocari inenarrabile, aliud autem Sigen. At Valentinus usque ad Eleutherii pontificatum vitam protraxit, id est, usque ad annum Christi saltem 177, quo hic Ecclesiam regere coepit. Cum vero passus sit Ignatius anno Christi 107, quis credat Valentinum tunc juniorem, si tamen natus esset, dogmata sua cudere, vel saltem spargere sic potuisse, ut sanctissimo martyri in notitiam venire quiverint? Sic Dallaeus. At quod veluti certum ex Irenaeo assumit, Valentinum primum omnium Sigen definivisse, falsissimum esse demonstravi in notis ad cit. cap. 11. Et quisquis id asserit, in veterum Gnosticorum historia peregrinus sit necesse est; apud hos enim Bythi et Siges copulatione nihil frequentius, ut fuse et invicte

2. Concerning the time at which Valentinus lived or disseminated his errors, the dispute among the learned is somewhat sharper. Daillé, in order to convict of forgery the Ignatian epistles, which are most troublesome to all Puritans, judging it to his advantage to make Valentinus more recent, left no stone unturned to prove him later than Ignatius. For since in the Epistle to the Magnesians the Word of God is said to be ἀΐδιος, οὐκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθεῖν, eternal, not proceeding from silence, Daillé will have it that the Σιγή of the Valentinians is struck at by these words. And yet this Sige, says he, was not yet born before the martyrdom of Ignatius. For Valentinus first, according to the testimony of Irenaeus, transferring the ancient doctrines from what is called the Gnostic heresy to his own peculiar character, defined it thus: a certain unnameable Dyad, of which one part indeed is called unutterable, and the other Sige. Now Valentinus prolonged his life down to the pontificate of Eleutherius, that is, at least down to the year of Christ 177, in which the latter began to rule the Church. But since Ignatius suffered in the year of Christ 107, who would believe that Valentinus, then a young man, if indeed he had been born, could have forged or at least spread his doctrines in such a way that they were able to come to the knowledge of the most holy martyr? Thus Daillé. Yet what he assumes as certain from Irenaeus, that Valentinus first of all defined Sige, I have demonstrated to be utterly false in the notes on the cited Chapter 11. And whoever asserts that must needs be a stranger in the history of the ancient Gnostics; for among them nothing is more frequent than the copulation of Bythus and Sige, as at length and irrefutably

Editors' notes and page, col. 25

Footnotes

(10) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 25 (inferred from note order)

Tertull., De praescr., cap. 7, 30

Tertullian, On the Prescription [of Heretics], ch. 7, 30.

(printed under page 19)

(11) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 25 (inferred from note order)

Clem. Alex., lib. VII, p. 764, edit. Paris. 1641.

Clement of Alexandria, book VII, p. 764, Paris edition of 1641.

(printed under page 19)

(12) ‹anchor: Irenaeo teste› · call in col 25

Iren., lib. I, cap. 11.

Irenaeus, book I, ch. 11.

(printed under page 19)

Page

running head: 25 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A x, et in Dialogo; B calcem Introductionis; C Puritanis omnibus; D annum Christi
old-edition numerals: [XIV] after definivisse,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:26

probavit doctissimus Pearsonius part. II VIndic. epist. S. Ignatii. Nec illud verius quod supponit Dallaeus, auctorem epistolae ad Magnesianos ad haereticorum Sigen respexisse : σιγὴν pro simplici silentio accipit, hancque vocem τῷ ἀΐδιος opponit. Vult nempe Verbum Patris aeternum esse, quod nunquam siluerit, nec silentium, ut homines, aliquando ruperit Pater; sed semper locutus, Verbum sibi consubstantiale, aeternum proinde, proferre nec coeperit, nec destiterit. Sed missis hisce controversiis, quae nostri non sunt instituti, Valentinum citius, quam putant Dallaeus et Blondellus, prima saltem pestiferorum dogmatum rudimenta protulisse, certissima demonstrant argumenta.

the most learned Pearson has proved in Part II of his Vindiciae Epistolarum S. Ignatii. Nor is that any truer which Daillé supposes, that the author of the Epistle to the Magnesians looked to the Sige of the heretics: he takes σιγὴν for simple silence, and opposes this word to τῷ ἀΐδιος. For he means that the Word of the Father is eternal, because the Father was never silent, nor ever broke silence as men do; but having always spoken, He neither began nor ceased to utter the Word consubstantial with Himself, and therefore eternal. But setting aside these controversies, which do not belong to our design, the most certain arguments demonstrate that Valentinus brought forth at least the first rudiments of his pestiferous doctrines earlier than Daillé and Blondel think.

3. Scribit Irenaeus, Valentinum Romam venisse sub Hygino, increvisse vero sub Pio, ἤκμασε δὲ ἐπὶ Πίου, et prorogasse tempus usque ad Anicetum, καὶ παρέμεινεν ἕως Ἀνικήτου. Consentit et Eusebius in Chronico, ubi certam temporum epocham assignat. Nam ad annum Antonini Pii 3, Christi vero 141, Sub Hygino, inquit, Romanae urbis episcopo Valentinus haeresiarches, et Cerdo magister Marcionis Romam venerunt. Tum ad annum Antonini Pii 6, Christi vero 144, Pio jam summo pontifice : Valentinus haereticus agnoscitur, et permanet usque ad Anicetum. At in Graeco Eusebii paulo aliter : Κατὰ ΥΓΕΙΝΟΝ Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον Οὐαλεντῖνος ἰδίας αἱρέσεως εἰσηγητὴς, καὶ Κέρδων τῆς κατὰ Μαρκίωνα πλάνης ἀρχηγὸς, ἄμφω ἐπὶ τῆς Ῥώμης ἐγνωρίζοντο. Sub Hygino Romae episcopo Valentinus propriae haereseos conditor, et Cerdon Marcionis erroris architectus, ambo Romae agniti sunt. Quae tamen non adeo difficile conciliari possunt. Existimo enim Valentinum, cum primum Romam advenit sub initio pontificatus Hygini, catholicam fidem simulasse; nam ea erat, ut observat Irenaeus in Praefatione libri primi, et alibi, istiusmodi hominum malitia, ut dissimilia nobis sentientes, similia tamen loquerentur, quo facilius abriperent incautos. At vergente ad finem Hygini pontificatu, mentita iniquitas sibi caput attollere coepit, adhuc tamen timidius; donec audacior facta, sub Pio palam erupit. Hinc agnitus haereticus, et ab Ecclesia pulsus, in Cyprum insulam, ut ait Epiphanius, fugit, ubi ad extremum impietatis prolapsus est, seque in eam, quam tuetur, flagitiorum disciplinam altius immersit. Ibi exitiosae hypothesi supremam manum admovisse, ac demum e vivis excessisse satis probabile. Quo praecise anno diem obierit, non liquet. Ex Irenaei tamen et Eusebii verbis certo colligitur, ad tempora Aniceti pervenisse, nec diutius vixisse. Haec enim, παρέμεινεν ἕως Ἀνικήτου, quae vertit Irenaei Interpres, prorogavit tempus usque ad Anicetum, non ulterius prorogasse aperte significant. Quemadmodum idem

3. Irenaeus writes that Valentinus came to Rome under Hyginus, grew strong under Pius, ἤκμασε δὲ ἐπὶ Πίου, and prolonged his time down to Anicetus, καὶ παρέμεινεν ἕως Ἀνικήτου. Eusebius also agrees in his Chronicle, where he assigns a definite epoch of the times. For at the 3rd year of Antoninus Pius, and the 141st of Christ, Under Hyginus, says he, bishop of the city of Rome, Valentinus the heresiarch and Cerdo the master of Marcion came to Rome. Then at the 6th year of Antoninus Pius, and the 144th of Christ, when Pius was now supreme pontiff: Valentinus is recognized as a heretic, and remains down to Anicetus. Yet in the Greek of Eusebius it stands a little otherwise: Κατὰ ΥΓΕΙΝΟΝ Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον Οὐαλεντῖνος ἰδίας αἱρέσεως εἰσηγητὴς, καὶ Κέρδων τῆς κατὰ Μαρκίωνα πλάνης ἀρχηγὸς, ἄμφω ἐπὶ τῆς Ῥώμης ἐγνωρίζοντο. Under Hyginus bishop of Rome, Valentinus the founder of his own heresy, and Cerdon the architect of the error of Marcion, were both recognized at Rome. Yet these statements can be reconciled without much difficulty. For I think that Valentinus, when he first arrived at Rome near the beginning of the pontificate of Hyginus, feigned the Catholic faith; for such, as Irenaeus observes in the Preface of the first book and elsewhere, was the malice of men of that sort, that while thinking things unlike ours, they nevertheless spoke things like ours, so that they might more easily carry away the unwary. But as the pontificate of Hyginus drew towards its close, feigned iniquity began to lift up its head, yet still somewhat timidly; until, grown bolder, it broke out openly under Pius. Hence, recognized as a heretic and driven from the Church, he fled to the island of Cyprus, as Epiphanius says, where he slipped to the uttermost pitch of impiety, and plunged himself deeper into that discipline of enormities which he upholds. That there he put the final hand to his pernicious hypothesis, and at length departed from among the living, is sufficiently probable. In what precise year he died is not clear. Yet from the words of Irenaeus and Eusebius it is gathered with certainty that he reached the times of Anicetus, and did not live longer. For these words, παρέμεινεν ἕως Ἀνικήτου, which the translator of Irenaeus renders, he prolonged his time down to Anicetus, clearly signify that he did not prolong it further. Just as the same

Editors' notes and page, col. 26

Footnotes

(13) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 26 (inferred from note order)

Id., lib. III, c. 3, 4.

The same, book III, chs. 3, 4.

(printed under page 19)

(14) ‹anchor: ait Epiphanius› · call in col 26

Epiph., Haer. 31, § 7.

Epiphanius, Heresy 31, § 7.

(printed under page 19)

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 26
marginal letters: A probavit doctissimus; B 3. Scribit Irenaeus; C κατὰ Μαρκίωνα; D cus, et ab Ecclesia
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:27

Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 3, ut diu vixisse Polycarpum indicet, eodem verbo παρέμεινε utitur : ἐπὶ πολὺ γὰρ παρέμεινε, multum enim perseveravit, id est, diu vixit. Emendandus ergo Tertullianus scribens lib. De praescript. haer., cap. 30, Marcionem et Valentinum neque adeo olim fuisse, Antonini fere principatu, et in Catholicae primo doctrinam credidisse apud Ecclesiam Romanensem, sub episcopatu Eleutherii benedicti; donec ob inquietam semper eorum curiositatem, quam fratres quoque vitabant, semel et iterum ejecti, Marcion quidem cum ducentis sestertiis, quae Ecclesiae intulerat, novissime in perpetuum discidium relegati, venena doctrinarum suarum disseminaverunt. Si enim usque ad Eleutherii aetatem pervenisset Valentinus, id procul dubio non omisisset Irenaeus, qui sub hoc pontifice tertium librum suum scribebat; cum maxime novum hinc robur accessisset argumento, quod a novitate haereticorum doctrinae petebat, quos apostolis multo posterius, mediantibus jam Ecclesiae temporibus, insurrexisse in suam sententiam demonstrabat. Quae etiam ait in Praefatione libri primi, se Valentini discipulorum sententiam, de qua dicturus erat, exploratam habere tum a commentariis, tum a congressibus eorum, qui nunc aliud docent, Ptolemaei videlicet asseclarum, jam tum Valentinum in vivis superstitem non fuisse demonstrant. Sed demum quin Tertullianus gravi anachronismi culpa teneatur, dubitare nos non sinit, quod Antonini principatum cum Eleutherii episcopatu componat; cum tamen constet Antoninum vivere desiisse annis saltem quatuordecim antequam Romanam sedem conscenderit Eleutherius. Vereor ergo ut Septimius memoria lapsus Valentinum pro Cerdone scripserit. Quae enim illi tribuit, eadem isti ascribit Irenaeus, lib. III, c. 4. Nec veterum quisquam alius memoriae prodidit, Valentinum Romae plus semel Ecclesia pulsum fuisse; quod Cerdoni contigisse certum est. Quanquam tamen si quis Tertulliani verbis religiosius adhaerens, Valentinum bis ex Ecclesia Romana ejectum fuisse contenderet, semel scilicet sub pontificatus Hygini finem, iterum vero sub Pio, non adeo repugnarem. At eum in catholicae primo doctrinam credidisse apud Ecclesiam Romanensem, ibique deinde prima haereseos fundamenta jecisse, quasi a catholica fide nondum recessisset cum Romam advenit, nec alibi terrarum antea agnitus fuisset haereticus; quisquis ex Tertulliano, vel cum Tertulliano intulerit, ea asserat necesse est quae cum historiae veritate pugnent.

Irenaeus in Book III, Chapter 3, to indicate that Polycarp lived a long time, uses the same verb παρέμεινε: ἐπὶ πολὺ γὰρ παρέμεινε, for he remained a long time, that is, lived long. Tertullian therefore must be corrected when he writes in the book De praescriptione haereticorum, Chapter 30, that Marcion and Valentinus existed not so long ago, roughly in the reign of Antoninus, and at first believed in the doctrine of the Catholic Church in the Roman Church, under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius; until, on account of their ever-restless curiosity, which the brethren also shunned, having been cast out once and a second time—Marcion indeed with the two hundred sestertia which he had brought into the Church—and finally banished into perpetual schism, they disseminated the poisons of their doctrines. For if Valentinus had reached the age of Eleutherius, Irenaeus, who was writing his third book under this pontiff, would without doubt not have omitted that fact; especially since new strength would hence have accrued to the argument which he drew from the novelty of the doctrine of the heretics, whom he demonstrated to have risen up for their own opinion long after the apostles, in the middle times of the Church. What he also says in the Preface of the first book, that he has ascertained the opinion of the disciples of Valentinus, of which he was about to speak, both from their commentaries and from meetings with those who now teach otherwise, namely the followers of Ptolemaeus, demonstrates that already at that time Valentinus was no longer surviving among the living. But finally, that Tertullian is guilty of a grave fault of anachronism we are not permitted to doubt by the fact that he joins the reign of Antoninus with the episcopate of Eleutherius; whereas it is established that Antoninus ceased to live at least fourteen years before Eleutherius ascended the Roman see. I fear therefore that Septimius, slipping in memory, wrote Valentinus instead of Cerdo. For the things that he attributes to the former, Irenaeus in Book III, Chapter 4, ascribes to the latter. Nor has any other of the ancients handed down to memory that Valentinus was driven from the Church at Rome more than once, which it is certain happened to Cerdo. Although nevertheless, if anyone, cleaving more scrupulously to the words of Tertullian, should contend that Valentinus was twice cast out of the Roman Church, namely once towards the end of the pontificate of Hyginus, and a second time under Pius, I would not greatly oppose him. But that he at first believed in the doctrine of the Catholic Church in the Roman Church, and thereafter laid the first foundations of his heresy there, as though he had not yet departed from the Catholic faith when he arrived at Rome, nor had previously been recognized as a heretic anywhere else in the world—whoever infers this from Tertullian, or with Tertullian, must needs assert things that conflict with the truth of history.

4. Epiphanius expositis Valentini dogmatibus subjungit § 7, hunc ea in Aegypto propagasse, tum Romam profectum errorem suum in ea urbe dissipasse, ac demum ad Cyprum delatum, ultimum fidei naufragium ibidem passum, animum omnino depravasse. Diu ergo antequam Romam proficisceretur,

4. Epiphanius, after setting forth the doctrines of Valentinus, subjoins in § 7 that he propagated them in Egypt, then having set out for Rome spread abroad his error in that city, and finally, having been carried over to Cyprus, suffered there the final shipwreck of faith and utterly corrupted his mind. Long before he set out for Rome, therefore,

Editors' notes and page, col. 27

Page

running head: 27 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A Irenaeus lib. III; B dubio non omisisset; C quod Antonini principatum; D disse apud Ecclesiam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: proficisce-
other: the word proficisceretur, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 28

PG 7:28

catholicam fidem abjecerat, si tamen abjecisse dicendus est, quod forte nunquam suscepit. Crediderim enim illius animum Gnosticorum fabulis jam ab initio Alexandriae imbutum, de nova hypothesi, qua sibi nomen faceret, fabricanda citius cogitasse, quam de veteri religione profitenda. Saltem Epiphanius jam eum ab Aegypto, ubi natus et educatus fuit, haereticum exhibet, Catholicum nusquam. Quam igitur haeresim ibi animo conceperat, ibi et spargere coepit, licet forte tum rudiori penicillo delineatam. Nec Aegypti finibus conclusa stetit venenata doctrina : manavit statim per vicinas regiones, multasque Orientis et Asiae provincias occupavit, sive a Valentino ipso, cum Romam proficisceretur, sive a discipulis ejus disseminata. Constat siquidem, cum Justinus martyr Dialogum suum cum Tryphone scriberet, jam tum exstitisse in Asiae provinciis certam et constitutam Valentinianorum sectam, auctoris nomine conspicuam. Disputationem illam cum Tryphone Judaeo, quae scribendi Dialogi occasionem dedit, Ephesi habitam fuisse, testatur ipse Justinus initio. Cum in decursu sermonis objecisset Trypho, audisse se, plures eorum qui se Jesum profiteri dicunt, et Christiani nominantur, simulacris mactata manducare, et nihil se ex eo capere detrimenti dicere, non negat Justinus, imo fatetur tales esse apud Christianos, qui ita sentirent et agerent. Et sunt eorum quidam, inquit, qui vocantur Marcionitae; quidam vero Valentiniani, Basilidiani, Saturniliani, et alii alio praediti nomine, a principe sententiae quisque nomen obtinens. Utquid Valentinianos coram homine Judaeo Ephesi tum commorante, in Graecia autem, et Corinthi, ut ipse ait, plerumque agente, protulisset Justinus, nisi in iis regionibus aeque noti fuissent, et in sectam coaluissent, ac caeteri quos nominat? Paucos ex notioribus Gnosticis appellare satis ad institutum fuisset. Porro habitum ac scriptum fuisse Dialogum anno circiter Christi 155, paucis annis postquam priorem Apologiam Antonino Pio obtulisset, vulgata opinio est. Monuisse siquidem se affirmat, in laudato Dialogo, Caesarem, Samaritanos imposturis seduci in errorem, qui Simoni gentis suae mago parerent : quem deum esse supra principatum et potestatem et virtutem omnem dicunt. Haec vero cum in citata Apologia occurrant, nemini dubium esse potest, quin post Apologiam oblatam scriptus sit Dialogus. Hanc autem oblatam volunt anno Christi 150. Asserit enim Justinus, tum cum scriberet, ante annos centum quinquaginta Christianos asseverare Christum sub Cyrenio natum esse. Sed cum ea loquendi formula non adeo certum annorum numerum exprimat, quin addi quidpiam aut detrahi possit, nec aliunde constet quo Augusti imperii anno natum Christum vellet SS. martyr, scriptam Apologiam anno aerae vulgaris 150, hinc liquido concludi posse non

he had cast off the Catholic faith, if indeed he is to be said to have cast off what perhaps he never embraced. For I would believe that his mind, imbued from the very beginning at Alexandria with the fables of the Gnostics, thought sooner of fabricating a new hypothesis whereby he might make a name for himself than of professing the ancient religion. At all events Epiphanius already presents him as a heretic from Egypt, where he was born and brought up, and nowhere as a Catholic. The heresy, therefore, which he had conceived in his mind there, he also began to spread there, though perhaps at that time sketched with a ruder brush. Nor did the poisoned doctrine remain confined within the borders of Egypt: it flowed forthwith through the neighbouring regions, and occupied many provinces of the East and of Asia, disseminated either by Valentinus himself when he was setting out for Rome, or by his disciples. Since indeed it is established that when Justin Martyr was writing his Dialogue with Trypho, there already existed at that time in the provinces of Asia a definite and established sect of the Valentinians, conspicuous by the name of its author. That that disputation with Trypho the Jew, which gave occasion to the writing of the Dialogue, was held at Ephesus, Justin himself testifies at the beginning. When in the course of the discussion Trypho had objected that he had heard that many of those who say that they profess Jesus, and are called Christians, eat things sacrificed to idols, and say that they take no harm therefrom, Justin does not deny it, nay, he confesses that there are such among the Christians who think and act thus. And there are some of them, says he, who are called Marcionites; and some Valentinians, Basilidians, Saturnilians, and others bearing another name, each obtaining his name from the founder of the opinion. Why would Justin have brought forward the Valentinians before a Jewish man then sojourning at Ephesus, and living for the most part, as he himself says, in Greece and at Corinth, unless in those regions they had been equally well known, and had coalesced into a sect, like the others whom he names? To name a few of the better-known Gnostics would have been sufficient for his purpose. Furthermore, that the Dialogue was held and written about the year of Christ 155, a few years after he had presented his first Apology to Antoninus Pius, is the received opinion. Since indeed he affirms in the aforesaid Dialogue that he had warned Caesar that the Samaritans were seduced into error by impostures, obeying Simon the magician of their nation, whom they say to be God above every principality and power and virtue. And since these things occur in the cited Apology, no one can doubt that the Dialogue was written after the presentation of the Apology. Now they will have it that the latter was presented in the year of Christ 150. For Justin asserts, at the time when he was writing, that Christians affirm that Christ was born under Cyrenius one hundred and fifty years before. Yet since that manner of speaking does not express so exact a number of years that something may not be added or subtracted, nor is it established from elsewhere in what year of the reign of Augustus the most holy martyr held Christ to have been born, that the Apology was written in the year 150 of the common era cannot hence be clearly concluded, as I

Editors' notes and page, col. 28

Footnotes

(15) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 28 (inferred: the note cites Justin, quoted at the head of col 28)

Justin., Dial. pag. 253, ed. Paris. 1636.

Justin, Dialogue, p. 253, Paris edition of 1636.

(printed under page 20)

(16) ‹anchor: siquidem se affirmat› · call in col 28

Pag. 349.

Page 349.

(printed under page 20)

(17) ‹anchor: enim Justinus› · call in col 28

Pag. 83.

Page 83.

(printed under page 20)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 28
marginal letters: A retur, catholicam fidem; B Constat siquidem; C lentiniani, Basilidiani; D supra principatum
old-edition numerals: [XV] before Disputationem
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: retur (from proficisce-)

PG 7:29

video : cum maxime verum Christi natalem annis quatuor solidis aeram vulgarem antevertere, jam certum sit apud eruditos.

see: especially since it is now certain among the learned that the true nativity of Christ precedes the common era by four full years.

5. Citius ergo scriptam Apologiam arbitror, non quidem anno 141, ut vult Eusebius in Chronico, sed anno circiter 145. Plura siquidem hanc nostram conjecturam firmare videntur. Primum quod Antinoi recens in deorum numerum relati, Ἀντινόου τοῦ νῦν γεγενημένου, meminerit. Porro Antinoi apotheosis ab Adriano facta est anno Christi 130, si Eusebii Chronico, vel 131, aut 132, si aliis fides ; recentis proinde memoriae, si Justinum anno 145 scripsisse supponamus. Denique quod in Dialogo, post Apologiam, ut diximus, edito, Trypho nomen et genus exponens, Trypho inquit, vocor. Sum autem ex circumcisione Hebraeus, ex nupero bello profugus, φυγὼν τὸν νῦν γενόμενον πόλεμον. Et postea refert Justinus, quod Tryphonis sodales in stadio quod in xysto medium erat, sedentes, de bello Judaico agebant, περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γενομένου πολέμου διελάλουν. Quin bellum ab Adriano sub imperii finem Judaeis, Barcocheba duce, rebellibus, illatum, annoque circiter 136 confectum hic intelligatur, dubitari non potest. Ut enim ad aliud quidpiam, quo Judaeos iterum rebelles petierit Antoninus Pius haec referam, quod innuit doctissimus Tillemontius in notis ad Marcionitarum haeresim, obtinere a me non possum. Et quamvis Capitolinus asserat Antonium per duces suos Judaeorum rebellium audaciam contudisse, haec de inquietorum quorumdam hominum motibus statim repressis, potius quam de pugnato bello quo flagrarit Judaea, intelligenda sunt : hujus siquidem, utpote incelebris, vix alios reperias qui meminerint. Non tamen ex citati Dialogi verbis inferri velim, tunc temporis, cum Ephesi degerent Justinus et Trypho, bello arsisse Judaeam, ut hinc cum Scaligero concludam scriptum Dialogum sub Adriano : editum hunc post Apologiam, ac proinde sub Antonino, jam demonstravi. Nec necesse putem, pro γενόμενον et γενομένου, apud Justinum legere γεγενημένον et γεγενημένου, quod vult clarissimus Tillemontius. Participium γενόμενος non praesentis modo, sed et praeteriti temporis saepe saepius significationem habere, et particulam νῦν pro nuper interdum accipi, notum est, et exemplis probari facile posset. Igitur τὸν νῦν κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γενόμενον πόλεμον, bellum significat, non quod tunc temporis gereretur, sed nuper in Judaeam gestum, jamque confectum ; quodque cum Judaeis adeo fatale exstitisset, eo altius illorum animis infixum haerebat et frequentius in ore versabatur, quo recentior erat plaga.

5. I judge, therefore, that the Apology was written earlier—not indeed in the year 141, as Eusebius will have it in his Chronicle, but about the year 145. For several considerations seem to confirm this conjecture of ours. First, that he makes mention of Antinous as recently enrolled in the number of the gods, Ἀντινόου τοῦ νῦν γεγενημένου. Now the apotheosis of Antinous was made by Hadrian in the year of Christ 130, if credit is given to the Chronicle of Eusebius, or 131, or 132, if to others; of recent memory, therefore, if we suppose Justin to have written in the year 145. Finally, that in the Dialogue, published, as we have said, after the Apology, Trypho, setting forth his name and race, says: I am called Trypho. And I am a Hebrew of the circumcision, a refugee from the late war, φυγὼν τὸν νῦν γενόμενον πόλεμον. And afterwards Justin relates that the companions of Trypho, sitting in the stadium which was in the middle of the xystus, were discoursing about the Jewish war, περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γενομένου πολέμου διελάλουν. That the war waged by Hadrian near the end of his reign against the rebellious Jews under the leadership of Barcocheba, and brought to an end about the year 136, is here understood, cannot be doubted. For I cannot prevail upon myself to refer these things to some other affair in which Antoninus Pius attacked the Jews when again rebellious, as the most learned Tillemont hints in his notes on the heresy of the Marcionites. And although Capitolinus asserts that Antoninus crushed the audacity of the rebellious Jews through his generals, these words are to be understood of the disturbances of certain restless men immediately repressed, rather than of a pitched war wherewith Judaea blazed: since of this latter, as being uncelebrated, you could scarcely find others who make mention. Yet I would not have it inferred from the words of the cited Dialogue that at that time, when Justin and Trypho were staying at Ephesus, Judaea was ablaze with war, so as hence to conclude with Scaliger that the Dialogue was written under Hadrian: that it was published after the Apology, and therefore under Antoninus, I have already demonstrated. Nor would I think it necessary, instead of γενόμενον and γενομένου, to read in Justin γεγενημένον and γεγενημένου, as the most illustrious Tillemont wishes. That the participle γενόμενος very often has the signification not only of the present, but also of the past tense, and that the particle νῦν is sometimes taken for lately, is well known, and could easily be proved by examples. Therefore τὸν νῦν κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γενόμενον πόλεμον signifies the war, not which was being waged at that time, but which had lately been waged against Judaea and was now finished; and which, since it had proved so fatal to the Jews, clung all the deeper fixed in their minds and was all the more frequently on their lips, the more recent the blow was.

6. Haec si anno circiter 145 editam priorem Justini Apologiam, ac paulo post Dialogum conscriptum fuisse diserte non probant, demonstrant saltem, utriusque tempus quam propius fieri poterit ad belli Barchochebaeani tempora revocandum esse ; ac

6. If these considerations do not expressly prove that the first Apology of Justin was published about the year 145, and that the Dialogue was composed shortly afterwards, they demonstrate at least that the date of both must be brought back as near as possible to the times of the Barcochebaean war; and

Editors' notes and page, col. 29

Footnotes

(18) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 29 (inferred from note order)

Pag. 217.

Page 217.

(printed under page 21)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 29 (inferred from note order)

Pag. 227.

Page 227.

(printed under page 21)

(19) ‹anchor: Tillemontius in› · call in col 29 [numeral printed as 19, seemingly repeating the preceding note's number; small type, reading not certain]

Tom. II Comm. in Hist. eccl.

Volume II, Commentaries on Church History.

(printed under page 21)

(20) ‹anchor: Et quamvis Capitolinus› · call in col 29 [call printed with an asterisk-like mark after the numeral]

In Antonino.

In his Antoninus [the Life of Antoninus Pius].

(printed under page 21)

Page

running head: 29 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A video : cum maxime; B autem ex circumcisione; C rebellium audaciam; D bere, et particulam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:30

proinde cum vix citius scribi potuerit Apologia, eo saltem anno scriptam fuisse par esse credere. Cum ergo Valentinianorum sectae meminerit Justinus in Dialogo, hinc sequitur jam ante annum Christi 150 celebrem fuisse, ac longe lateque diffusam eorum haeresim. Quid si his addamus librum quem adversus haereses omnes composuisse se profitetur Justinus in Apologia ? Hunc autem ipsum esse, in quo Valentinianorum dogmata prodidisse et retudisse ait Tertullianus cap. 5 libri adversus Valentinianos, dubitare nos non sinit Hieronymi auctoritas in Catalogo. Quo vero anno, et quo in loco compositus fuerit, dici non potest : at scriptum fuisse ante Apologiam certum est ; nec proinde probabilitate vacat, sub imperii Adriani finem, ut tradit Cedrenus. His itaque temporibus a radice adeo pullularat Valentiniana haeresis, ut, ne latius serperet, hanc scriptis exagitare necesse habuerit Justinus.

accordingly, since the Apology could scarcely have been written earlier, it is reasonable to believe that it was written at least in that year. Since therefore Justin makes mention of the sect of the Valentinians in the Dialogue, it follows hence that already before the year of Christ 150 their heresy was famous and spread far and wide. What if to these considerations we add the book which Justin professes in his Apology to have composed against all heresies? And that this is the very one in which Tertullian, in Chapter 5 of his book Against the Valentinians, says that he exposed and refuted the doctrines of the Valentinians, the authority of Jerome in his Catalogue does not permit us to doubt. In what year, indeed, and in what place it was composed cannot be said: yet that it was written before the Apology is certain; and accordingly it is not lacking in probability that it was near the end of the reign of Hadrian, as Cedrenus relates. In these times, therefore, the Valentinian heresy had sprouted so vigorously from its root that, lest it should creep further abroad, Justin found it necessary to assail it in writing.

7. Eo autem spectant hactenus dicta, ut liquido concludamus, Valentinum Romae quidem Pii temporibus agnitum fuisse haereticum; haeresim autem ejus nec ibi nasci, nec adolescere potuisse ; utpote quae jam antea alibi terrarum nota (imo et forte Romae, quamvis auctor ibi minus notus) doctorum catholicorum stylo confixa fuerat. In Aegypto primum efformatam, dudum antequam Romam proficisceretur (nec enim ex ea urbe in Aegyptum, hanc veneno suo infecturum rediisse, ullibi legitur) superius ex Epiphanio vidimus. Et quamvis quo tempore factum sit, haud ille tradiderit, a vero procul, mea quidem sententia, non recesserit qui prima haereseos exordia cum saeculi secundi initiis colligaverit. Hancque conjecturam mire confirmat Theodoretus. Scribit enim lib. I, c. 5, Epiphanem Carpocratis filium, patris fabulas amplificasse ; Adriano autem imperante, utrumque nefarias suas haereses confirmasse ; ac proinde ante annum 138, quo vivendi finem fecit Adrianus. Constat vero ex Clemente Alex. et Epiphanio, Epiphanem ad Secundianorum, Valentini discipulorum, sectam sese applicasse ; quod quidem fieri debuit sub extremis Adriani temporibus, aut saltem sub ipsa initia Antonini Pii, nec tardius; cum anno aetatis 17 exstinctus sit Epiphanes. Jam ergo Adriano imperante tam late sparsa erat Valentini secta, tamque famosa, ut Secundus, imo et Ptolemaeus, ac Colorbasus, ejus discipuli, accepta a magistro materia proprias sibi sectas condidissent. Quae liquido probant, Valentini dogmata, diu antequam Romam proficisceretur, alibi terrarum et nota et latius disseminata fuisse : quae cum non simul et semel, sed paulatim obtinuerint, necesse est ineunte circiter saeculo secundo coeperint. Et certe, cum Irenaeo, apostolicorum temporum viro, antiquior esset Valentinus, ad apostolorum aevum propius accessisse necesse est. Hunc, ut dixi, a Theodade quodam, Pauli apostoli discipulo, institutum

7. Now what has been said thus far tends to this point, that we may clearly conclude that Valentinus was indeed recognized as a heretic at Rome in the times of Pius, but that his heresy could neither be born nor grow up there, inasmuch as it had already previously been known elsewhere in the world (nay, perhaps even at Rome, although its author was less known there) and had been pierced through by the pen of Catholic doctors. That it was first fashioned in Egypt, long before he set out for Rome (for nowhere is it read that he returned from that city into Egypt to infect it with his poison), we have seen above from Epiphanius. And although at what time this took place he has by no means handed down, in my opinion at least he will not have departed far from the truth who connects the first beginnings of the heresy with the opening of the second century. And Theodoret wonderfully confirms this conjecture. For he writes in Book I, Chapter 5, that Epiphanes the son of Carpocrates amplified his father's fables, and that under the reign of Hadrian both of them established their nefarious heresies, and therefore before the year 138, in which Hadrian made an end of living. Moreover, it is established from Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius that Epiphanes attached himself to the sect of the Secundians, the disciples of Valentinus; which indeed must have taken place under the last times of Hadrian, or at least at the very beginning of Antoninus Pius, and not later, since Epiphanes died in the 17th year of his age. Already, therefore, under the reign of Hadrian the sect of Valentinus was so widely spread and so famous that Secundus, nay, and Ptolemaeus, and Colorbasus, his disciples, having received the material from their master, had founded sects of their own for themselves. Which facts clearly prove that the doctrines of Valentinus, long before he set out for Rome, were both known and widely disseminated elsewhere in the world; and since these did not prevail all at once, but gradually, they must needs have begun about the opening of the second century. And certainly, since Valentinus was older than Irenaeus, a man of the apostolic times, he must needs have approached nearer to the age of the apostles. That he, as I have said, was instructed by a certain Theodades, a disciple of the Apostle Paul,

Editors' notes and page, col. 30

Footnotes

(21) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 30 (inferred from note order)

Pag. 70.

Page 70.

(printed under page 21)

Page

running head: I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 30
marginal letters: A proinde cum vix; B nus. His itaque; C quo tempore factum; D Adriano imperante
old-edition numerals: [XVI] after Adriano autem
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: insti-
other: the word institutum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 31

PG 7:31

jactitabant ejus discipuli. Vana forte, quod Theodadem illum, obscuri nominis hominem, spectat, vesanorum hominum gloriatio ; non adeo tamen, ut hinc antiquissimum fuisse blasphemae haereseos principem inferri non possit. Quis enim credat priores Valentinianos, mendaces licet, tam perfrictae frontis exstitisse, ut magistrum suum a Pauli discipulis institutum jactare ausi fuissent, ea praesertim aetate qua mendacium ab apostolicis viris non paucis in vivis superstitibus facile coargui potuisset, nisi saltem apostolorum discipulis coaevus fuisset ? Nec, ut id asseramus, necesse est Valentini vitam diutius quam par sit protrahamus. Cum enim diem obiisse sub Aniceto certum sit, si anno circiter 158 mortuum, natum vero anno plus minus 85 dicamus, septuagenario majorem e vivis decessisse asseremus ; quod fidem non superat. Viderint nunc Dallaeus et Blondellus, an tantum, quantum ipsi putant, abhorreat a verosimili, Valentinum, qui vicenario major esse potuit, cum martyrii palmam adeptus est Ignatius, jam prima sententiae suae rudimenta ponere potuisse. Sed de Valentini aetate jam satis.

his disciples used to boast. Vain perhaps, as regards that Theodades, a man of obscure name, was the boasting of madmen; yet not so vain that the founder of the blasphemous heresy cannot hence be inferred to have been very ancient. For who would believe that the earlier Valentinians, liars though they were, were of so brazen a brow that they would have dared to boast that their master was instructed by the disciples of Paul, especially in that age in which the falsehood could easily have been refuted by no few apostolic men still surviving among the living, unless he had been at least contemporary with the disciples of the apostles? Nor, in order to assert that, is it necessary for us to prolong the life of Valentinus longer than is reasonable. For since it is certain that he died under Anicetus, if we say that he died about the year 158, and was born about the year 85 more or less, we shall assert that he departed from among the living at over seventy years of age; which does not exceed belief. Let Daillé and Blondel now see whether it is as far removed from probability as they themselves think, that Valentinus, who could have been over twenty years of age when Ignatius won the palm of martyrdom, could already have laid the first rudiments of his opinion. But concerning the age of Valentinus enough has now been said.

III. Effundendae haereseos occasio.

III. The occasion of pouring forth his heresy.

8. Huic, ut et multis aliis haereticis, effrenis ambitio, si Tertulliano fides, ruinae occasio fuit. Speraverat, inquit, episcopatum Valentinus, quia et ingenio poterat et eloquio ; sed alium ex martyrii praerogativa loci potitum indignatus, de Ecclesia authenticae regulae abrupit, ad expugnandam conversus veritatem. Hoc Romae factum conjicit nuperus auctor conjecturarum ferax ; sed sicubi factum, alibi quam Romae fieri debuisse demonstrant quae hactenus diximus. Ut vero ex Tertulliani verbis elici utcunque posse putem, vafrum hominem cum spe adipiscendi episcopatus, larvam, qua Catholicos fallebat, deposuisse ; sic catholicam fidem usquam sincero animo tenuisse, hinc certo probari posse non censeam. Ut ut sit, exasperatus ob repulsam Valentinus, si quem antea modum tenuisset, minus deinceps tenuit, venenumque quod in corde latebat, paulo apertius effudit ; ita tamen ut huic plerumque ementitam catholicorum verborum speciem induceret ; nisi forte in eos incideret qui vel simpliciores, vel auribus prurientes, vel captiosis quaestionibus jam seducti, quoslibet fabularum ventos captare parati erant ; quibus seorsim omni remoto fuco mysterium iniquitatis pandebat. Is enim erat istiusmodi hominum, artibus callidae simulationis eruditorum dolus, ut vanam spem perfectioris scientiae, quam pollicebantur, catholicorumque verborum corticem objicientes, curiosos ac incautos allicerent, iisque lethale venenum paulatim instillarent. Nefarias eorum artes passim describit ac retegit Irenaeus, et post eum atque ex eo Tertullianus.

8. To him, as also to many other heretics, unbridled ambition, if credit is to be given to Tertullian, was the occasion of ruin. Valentinus, says he, had hoped for the episcopate, because he was able both in intellect and in eloquence; but indignant that another had obtained the place by the prerogative of martyrdom, he broke away from the Church of the authentic rule, turning to assault the truth. A recent author fertile in conjectures guesses that this took place at Rome; but if it took place anywhere, what we have said thus far demonstrates that it must have taken place elsewhere than at Rome. Yet while I might think that it can somehow be elicited from the words of Tertullian that the crafty man, along with the hope of obtaining the episcopate, laid aside the mask wherewith he deceived Catholics, I would nevertheless not judge that it can hence be proved with certainty that he ever held the Catholic faith with a sincere mind. However that may be, Valentinus, exasperated on account of his repulse, if he had observed any moderation before, observed less thereafter, and poured forth somewhat more openly the poison that lay hidden in his heart; yet in such a way that he generally clothed it with a counterfeit appearance of Catholic words, unless perhaps he fell in with those who, either simpler, or itching in their ears, or already seduced by captious questions, were ready to catch at any winds of fables; to whom apart, with all disguise removed, he laid open the mystery of iniquity. For such was the guile of men of that sort, skilled in the arts of cunning dissimulation, that holding out the vain hope of a more perfect knowledge, which they promised, and the outer bark of Catholic words, they enticed the curious and unwary, and gradually instilled into them the lethal poison. Irenaeus everywhere describes and uncovers their nefarious arts, and after him and from him Tertullian.

Editors' notes and page, col. 31

Footnotes

(22) ‹anchor: si Tertulliano fides› · call in col 31

Tertull., adv. Val., c. 4.

Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, ch. 4.

(printed under page 22)

(23) ‹anchor: ac retegit Irenaeus› · call in col 31

Iren., Praef. lib. I et lib. III, c. 15 et 17.

Irenaeus, Preface to book I, and book III, chs. 15 and 17.

(printed under page 22)

(24) ‹anchor: ex eo Tertullianus› · call in col 31

Tertull., in Val., c. 1.

Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, ch. 1.

(printed under page 22)

Page

running head: 31 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A tutum jactitabant; B minus 85 dicamus; C thenticae regulae; D ciem induceret
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: tutum (from insti-)

PG 7:32

IV. Valentini scripta.

IV. The writings of Valentinus.

9. Nec dictis modo, sed et scriptis dogmata sua sparsit Valentinus. Plures ab eo scriptas epistolas memorat Clemens Alexandrinus, quarum et fragmenta refert. Quibus inscriptae essent, dicere praetermisit, una excepta, quam ad Agathopodem quemdam scriptam asserit. Duarum etiam ejusdem Homiliarum fragmenta refert, alterius scilicet in qua supra modum vesaniens immortalitatem suis pollicetur ; alterius de amicitia. Psalmorum Valentini meminit Tertullianus lib. I De carne Christi, cap. 20. Horum vero nullum jam superest fragmentum. At partem Dissertationis de origine mali ab haeresiarcha editae habes in Dialogo contra Marcionitas, qui Origeni vulgo ascribitur, sect. IV. Sunt qui putant scriptum ab eo librum sub hoc titulo, Sophia, nixi his Tertulliani verbis adv. Valent., cap. 2 : Docet ipsa Sophia, non quidem Valentini, sed Salomonis. Sed haec perperam explicant. Alludit enim Tertullianus, non ad aliquem Valentini librum, sed ad Sophiam, novissimum eorum quos excogitavit, Aeonum, ut legenti patebit. Nec verius, quod alii contendunt, novum ab haeretico editum Evangelium. Id quidem legitur apud Tertullianum cap. 49 libri De praescript : Legis et prophetarum quaedam probat, quaedam improbat... Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra. Sed jam constat inter eruditos, posteriora novem capita libri De praescriptionibus ascititia esse, auctorisque Tertulliano junioris opus videri. Certe, ne longius a proposito deflectam, genuinus Tertullianus hujus libri cap. 38 Valentinum a crimine suppositionis novi Evangelii palam absolvit. Id enim discriminis inter hunc et Marcionem statuit, quod hic manu Scripturas, ille sensu expositiones palam interverterit : et quamvis Valentinus integro instrumento uti videatur ; callidiore tamen ingenio, quam Marcionem, manus intulisse veritati. Marcion enim, addit, exerte et palam machaera, non stylo usus est ; quoniam ad materiam suam caedem Scripturarum confecit : Valentinus autem pepercit ; quoniam non ad materiam Scripturas, sed materiam ad Scripturas excogitavit : et tamen plus abstulit, plus adjecit, auferens proprietates singulorum quoque verborum, et adjiciens dispositiones non comparentium rerum. Quae quidem ut probant Valentinum pravis expositionibus Scripturas ad argumentum suum obtorto collo traxisse ; sic Canoni nihil addidisse, aut detraxisse palam ostendunt. Discipulos quidem Valentini exsistentes extra omnem timorem, suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura habere gloriari, quam sint ipsa Evangelia, narrat Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 11, n. 8. In tantum siquidem processerant audaciae, ut novum Evangelium, quod veritatis nuncupabant, confinxissent. At ipsi Valentino nihil simile usquam ascribit. Imo tum loco mox cit., tum lib. I, cap. 8 et 9, et alibi passim, satis

9. Nor was it only by spoken words, but also by writings that Valentinus spread his doctrines. Clement of Alexandria mentions several epistles written by him, of which he also quotes fragments. To whom they were addressed he omitted to state, with the exception of one, which he asserts was written to a certain Agathopus. He also quotes fragments of two Homilies of the same author, namely of one in which, raving beyond measure, he promises immortality to his followers; and of another on friendship. Tertullian makes mention of the Psalms of Valentinus in Book I of De carne Christi, Chapter 20. Of these, however, no fragment now survives. But you have part of a Dissertation on the origin of evil published by the heresiarch in the Dialogue against the Marcionites, which is commonly ascribed to Origen, Section IV. There are some who think that a book was written by him under this title, Sophia, relying on these words of Tertullian Against the Valentinians, Chapter 2: Sophia herself teaches, not indeed that of Valentinus, but that of Solomon. But they explain these words wrongly. For Tertullian alludes, not to any book of Valentinus, but to Sophia, the last of the Aeons whom he devised, as will be clear to the reader. Nor is what others contend any truer, that a new Gospel was published by the heretic. That indeed is read in Tertullian, Chapter 49 of the book De praescriptionibus: Of the Law and the Prophets he approves some things, and disapproves others... He has also a Gospel of his own, beside these of ours. But it is now agreed among the learned that the last nine chapters of the book De praescriptionibus are spurious, and appear to be the work of an author younger than Tertullian. Certainly, not to digress too far from my purpose, the genuine Tertullian in Chapter 38 of this book openly absolves Valentinus from the charge of forging a new Gospel. For he establishes this difference between him and Marcion, that the latter openly subverted the Scriptures with his hand, the former their expositions by his sense; and that although Valentinus seems to use the whole instrument, yet with a more cunning intellect than Marcion he laid violent hands upon the truth. For Marcion, he adds, openly and publicly used a sword, not a pen, since he made a slaughter of the Scriptures to suit his matter; whereas Valentinus spared them, since he did not devise the Scriptures to suit his matter, but his matter to suit the Scriptures; and yet he took away more and added more, taking away the proper meanings of each single word as well, and adding arrangements of things that do not appear. And just as these words prove that Valentinus by perverse expositions dragged the Scriptures by the neck to his own argument, so they openly show that he added nothing to the Canon and took nothing away from it. That the disciples of Valentinus, indeed, being beyond all fear, bringing forward their own compositions, boast that they have more than there are Gospels themselves, Irenaeus relates in Book III, Chapter 11, n. 8. For they had advanced to such a pitch of audacity that they had fabricated a new Gospel, which they called the Gospel of Truth. Yet to Valentinus himself he nowhere ascribes anything of the kind. Nay, both in the passage just cited, and in Book I, Chapters 8 and 9, and everywhere else, he sufficiently

Editors' notes and page, col. 32

Footnotes

(25) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 32 (inferred from note order)

Clem. Alex., l. II Strom., ed. Paris., p. 375, 409, l. III, p. 450; lib. IV Strom., p. 509; lib. VI Strom., p. 641

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata book II, Paris edition, pp. 375, 409; book III, p. 450; Stromata book IV, p. 509; Stromata book VI, p. 641.

(printed under page 22)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 32
marginal letters: A 9. Nec dictis; B Sunt qui putant; C ctorisque Tertulliano; D verborum, et adjiciens
old-edition numerals: [XVII] after narrat
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:33

significat Valentinianos sibi coaevos sic canonem Scripturarum novo Evangelio auxisse, ut nihil quidquam, nullum librum integrum, nullam ejusdem partem (quod Marcioni non semel exprobrat), ab eo abjecissent ; sed vel paravolas Dominicas, vel dictiones propheticas, aut sermones apostolicos, ad hypothesim suam aptare conatos, calumniam intulisse Scripturis. Falsa igitur quae scribit auctor citatus additamenti, quod ad calcem libri De praescriptionibus legitur : Legis et Prophetarum quaedam probat, quaedam improbat... Evangelium habet etiam suum, praeter haec nostra ; si haec ad Valentinum referantur, vera forte, si de Valentini discipulis, non prioribus quidem, quibuscum egit Irenaeus, sed posterioribus. Et eodem modo explicanda putem, quae apud Chrysostomum leguntur lib. IV De sacerd., cap. 4 : Τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δοθέντα τῷ Μωϋσῇ νόμον οἱ τὴν Οὐαλεντίνου καὶ Μαρκίωνος διαδεξάμενοι φρενοβλάβειαν, καὶ ὅσοι τὰ αὐτὰ νοσοῦσιν ἐκείνοις, τοῦ καταλόγου τῶν θείων ἐκβάλλουσι Γραφῶν : Legem quam Moysi dedit Deus, qui in Valentini ac Marcionis insanum dogma successerunt, et quicunque eadem cum ipsis insania laborant, e divinarum Scripturarum catalogo delent. Haec, ex Chrysostomi mente, ad posteriores Valentinianos spectare perspicue demonstrant voces, quibus utitur, τὴν Οὐαλεντίνου διαδεξάμενοι φρενοβλάβειαν, qui in Valentini insanum dogma successerunt.

indicates that the Valentinians contemporary with himself had so augmented the canon of the Scriptures with a new Gospel that they had cast away nothing whatever, no entire book, no part of the same (which he more than once reproaches Marcion with doing), from it; but that striving to adapt either the parables of the Lord, or the prophetic sayings, or the apostolic discourses to their own hypothesis, they had brought calumny upon the Scriptures. False, therefore, are the things which the cited author of the addition read at the end of the book De praescriptionibus writes: Of the Law and the Prophets he approves some things, and disapproves others... He has also a Gospel of his own, beside these of ours—if these words are referred to Valentinus; though true perhaps, if understood of the disciples of Valentinus, not indeed the earlier ones with whom Irenaeus dealt, but the later ones. And in the same way I should think must be explained the things that are read in Chrysostom, Book IV of De sacerdotio, Chapter 4: Τὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ δοθέντα τῷ Μωϋσῇ νόμον οἱ τὴν Οὐαλεντίνου καὶ Μαρκίωνος διαδεξάμενοι φρενοβλάβειαν, καὶ ὅσοι τὰ αὐτὰ νοσοῦσιν ἐκείνοις, τοῦ καταλόγου τῶν θείων ἐκβάλλουσι Γραφῶν: The law which God gave to Moses, those who have succeeded to the mad dogma of Valentinus and Marcion, and all who labour under the same madness with them, blot out from the catalogue of the divine Scriptures. That these words, according to the mind of Chrysostom, refer to the later Valentinians is clearly demonstrated by the expressions which he uses, τὴν Οὐαλεντίνου διαδεξάμενοι φρενοβλάβειαν, those who have succeeded to the mad dogma of Valentinus.

10. Exstat apud Epiphanium, § 5, Fragmentum quoddam, quod ex aliquo Valentini libro decerptum existimat Blondellus. Sed aperte repugnat Epiphanius tum initio, tum fine, depromptum asserens e Valentinianorum, id est e quorumdam Valentini discipulorum libris, τῆς αὐτῶν βίβλου, τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν Οὐαλεντίνων. Repugnat et tota orationis series, ex qua Fragmenti istius auctoris sententiam, ab ea quam paulo ante Valentino tribuit, et explicuit Epiphanius, diversam esse liquet. Ut enim alia taceam, certum est, secundum Valentini et Ptolemaitarum hypothesim, a Logo et Zoe emissum esse Hominem et Ecclesiam ; at in Fragmento, inverso ordine, Homini et Ecclesiae Logos et Zoe subjiciuntur ; quod quorumdam Valentini discipulorum dogma fuit. Hi enim, ut in notis ad cap. 11 libri I Irenaei observavimus, a Gnosticis allis moniti, in hoc a magistro defecerunt ; absurdum rati a Verbo Hominem emitti, rationique magis consentaneum esse ut ab Homine prodeat Verbum. Et hinc etiam Dodwellum redarguas, qui hoc Fragmentum ad Ptolemaici Valentinianismi characterem propius quam ad alias Valentinianae sectae disciplinas accedere putat. Non enim Ptolemaici ab Homine et Ecclesia Logon et Zoen, sed potius Hominem et Ecclesiam a Logo et Zoe produci asserebant.

10. There is extant in Epiphanius, § 5, a certain Fragment, which Blondel thinks was plucked from some book of Valentinus. But Epiphanius openly contradicts this both at the beginning and at the end, asserting that it was drawn from the books of the Valentinians, that is, of certain disciples of Valentinus, τῆς αὐτῶν βίβλου, τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν Οὐαλεντίνων. The whole tenor of the discourse also contradicts it, from which it is clear that the opinion of the author of that Fragment is different from that which Epiphanius a little before attributed to Valentinus and explained. For to pass over other points in silence, it is certain that according to the hypothesis of Valentinus and the Ptolemaites, Man and Church were emitted by Logos and Zoe; whereas in the Fragment, in inverted order, Logos and Zoe are subordinated to Man and Church, which was the dogma of certain disciples of Valentinus. For these, as we have observed in the notes on Chapter 11 of Book I of Irenaeus, admonished by other Gnostics, departed in this respect from their master, thinking it absurd that Man should be emitted by the Word, and more agreeable to reason that the Word should proceed from Man. And hence also you may refute Dodwell, who thinks that this Fragment approaches nearer to the character of Ptolemaic Valentinianism than to the other schools of the Valentinian sect. For the Ptolemaics did not assert that Logos and Zoe were produced from Man and Church, but rather Man and Church from Logos and Zoe.

V. Valentini et discipulorum ejus dogmata et hypothesis.

V. The doctrines and hypothesis of Valentinus and his disciples.

11. His vero quae ad Valentini personam, aetatem,

11. Now having set forth these things which pertain to the person, age,

Editors' notes and page, col. 33

Footnotes

(26) ‹anchor: etiam Dodwellum› · call in col 33

Dodwel., Dissert. IV in Iren., § 6.

Dodwell, Dissertation IV on Irenaeus, § 6.

(printed under page 23)

Page

running head: 33 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, D
marginal letters: A significat Valentinianos; B sterioribus. Et eodem; C quoddam, quod ex aliquo; D I Irenaei observavimus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: aeta-
other: the word aetatem, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 34
misprints kept as printed: allis (for aliis), in a Gnosticis allis moniti; paravolas (for parabolas), in vel paravolas Dominicas (italic b/v uncertain at this zoom; check)

PG 7:34

mores et libros attinent, quantum ex veteribus monimentis eruere licuit, expositis ; ad alterum Dissertationis nostrae caput, idque longe molestius, hominis nimirum hypothesim atque dogmata, sermo jam convertendus. Si quidem haec historico more simpliciter describere satis esset, res non adeo operosa ; summatim enim relatis quae fusiori stylo prosequuntur Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Theodoretus et alii, jam officio functi discederemus. At periculosioris aleae plenum opus tractandum ; Valentinianorum ματαιολογίαι ad originem unde promanarunt, revocandae, et quidquid male feriatum caput parturire potuit deliriorum, arte quadam et methodo discutiendum, faxque lectoribus antiquitatis ecclesiasticae studiosis praeferenda, ut facilior iis evadat auctoris nostri lectio. Nec tamen est quod quisquam in obscuris et intricatis adeo rebus a nobis certas hic exigat demonstrationes ; satis erit si dubiis et ipsi manibus viam praetentantes, conjecturas afferamus, quarum omnium collectio eum forte probabilitatis gradum attigerit, qui a vero et certo non adeo procul discedet.

character, and books of Valentinus, so far as could be dug out from ancient monuments, our discourse must now be turned to the second head of our Dissertation, and that a far more troublesome one, namely the man's hypothesis and doctrines. If indeed it were enough simply to describe these in historical fashion, the matter would not be so laborious; for having summarily related what Irenaeus, Tertullian, Theodoret, and others set forth in fuller style, we should already have discharged our duty and depart. But a work full of more perilous hazard must be handled: the ματαιολογίαι of the Valentinians must be traced back to the source whence they flowed forth, and whatever ravings an ill-employed head could bring to birth must be discussed with some art and method, and a torch must be held before readers studious of ecclesiastical antiquity, so that the reading of our author may become easier for them. Yet no one has reason to demand certain demonstrations from us here in matters so obscure and intricate; it will be enough if, groping our own way with hesitant hands, we bring forward conjectures, the collection of all of which may perhaps reach that degree of probability which will not depart so very far from what is true and certain.

12. Totam Valentini ac discipulorum ejus hypothesim tribus niti capitibus, notum est. Primum Pleromatis, seu Plenitudinis rerum divinarum explicationem complectitur. Alterum circa ea versatur quae extra Pleroma contigerunt. Tertium denique mundi hujus aspectabilis originem et constitutionem exponit. In prima parte res superiores ac divinae pertractantur ; in postrema res infimae et corporales ; in secunda res inter utrasque mediae. Prima triginta Aeonum, quorum quindecim masculi et totidem feminae, seriem exhibet, in varias veluti stirpes divisam, quarum omnium caput sit unus Deus, invisibilis, sempiternus, ingenitus et incomprehensibilis, quem Proarchen, Propatora, et Bython, seu primum principium, primum Patrem, et Profunditatem vocabant ; cui conjugis loco sociabant Ennoeam, seu Cogitationem, quam etiam Sigen et Charin, Silentium et Gratiam nuncupabant. Haec suscepto a Bytho semine gravida genuit Nun, id est Mentem, Unigenitum, et Patrem et Principium omnium, et una cum eo Alethiam, hoc est Veritatem. Haec primigena quaternitas, radix omnium. Ex hac erupit altera tetras, Logi et Zoes, id est Verbi et Vitae, et Anthropi seu Hominis, ac Ecclesiae ; ex Unigenito quidem Verbum et Vita, ex his vero Homo et Ecclesia ; quanquam alii ab Unigenito primum Hominem et Ecclesiam, tum ab Homine et Ecclesia Verbum et Vitam derivarent. Ex utraque tetrade ogdoada conflabant, quam et ipsam primigenam ogdoada, radicem et substantiam omnium dicebant. Uti enim prima tetras secundam effuderat ; sic secunda caeteris deinceps Aeonibus ortum praebuit. Et hinc Logos postremae caput, Pater omnium eorum qui post se futuri essent, et initium et formatio universi Pleromatis vocabatur.

12. That the whole hypothesis of Valentinus and his disciples rests upon three heads is well known. The first embraces the explanation of the Pleroma, or Fullness of divine things. The second is concerned with those things which happened outside the Pleroma. Finally, the third sets forth the origin and constitution of this visible world. In the first part higher and divine things are treated; in the last, lowest and corporeal things; in the second, things intermediate between both. The first presents a series of thirty Aeons, of whom fifteen are male and as many female, divided as it were into various stocks, the head of all of which is one God, invisible, eternal, unbegotten, and incomprehensible, whom they called Proarche, Propator, and Bythus, or First Beginning, First Father, and Depth; with whom in the place of a consort they associated Ennoea, or Thought, whom they also named Sige and Charis, Silence and Grace. She, having received seed from Bythus and become pregnant, bore Nous, that is, Mind, the Only-begotten, the Father and Beginning of all things, and together with him Aletheia, that is, Truth. This is the primigenial quaternary, the root of all things. From this burst forth a second tetrad, of Logos and Zoe, that is, Word and Life, and of Anthropos or Man, and Ecclesia or Church; from the Only-begotten indeed Word and Life, and from these Man and Church; although others derived first Man and Church from the Only-begotten, and then Word and Life from Man and Church. Out of both tetrads they compounded the ogdoad, which itself also they called the primigenial ogdoad, the root and substance of all things. For just as the first tetrad had poured forth the second, so the second gave rise in turn to the rest of the Aeons. And hence Logos, the head of the latter, was called the Father of all those who were to be after him, and the beginning and formation of the entire Pleroma.

Editors' notes and page, col. 34

Footnotes

(27) ‹anchor: Logos postremae caput› · call in col 34

Iren., lib. I, c. 1, n. 1.

Irenaeus, book I, ch. 1, no. 1.

(printed under page 23)

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 34
marginal letters: A tem, mores et libros; B ut facilior iis; C divinae pertractantur; D nium. Ex hac
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; words split at column breaks: tem (from aeta-), vo-
other: the word vocabatur. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 35

PG 7:35

A Logo siquidem pullulavit nova Aeonum decas, Bythius videlicet et Mixis, Ageratos et Henosis, Autophyes et Hedone, Acinetus et Syncrasis, Monogenes et Macaria : ab Homine et Ecclesia dodecas, Paracletus et Pistis, Patricos et Elpis, Metricos et Agape, Aenus et Synesis, Ecclesiasticos et Macariotes, Theletos et Sophia ; totidem nomina Graeca, quorum significata reperies in Glossariis nostris ad calcem operis. Hi triginta Aeones adeo decantati ; hoc Valentinianorum Pleroma in tria velut agmina divisum, in ogdoada, decada et dodecada, quorum prius ducebat Bythus cum Sige, secundum Logos cum Zoe, posterius Homo cum Ecclesia.

For from Logos sprouted a new decade of Aeons, namely Bythius and Mixis, Ageratos and Henosis, Autophyes and Hedone, Acinetus and Syncrasis, Monogenes and Macaria; and from Man and Church a dodecade, Paracletus and Pistis, Patricos and Elpis, Metricos and Agape, Aenus and Synesis, Ecclesiasticos and Macariotes, Theletos and Sophia—so many Greek names, whose meanings you will find in our Glossaries at the end of the work. These are the thirty Aeons so much chanted of; this is the Pleroma of the Valentinians divided as it were into three bands, into the ogdoad, the decade, and the dodecade, the first of which Bythus led with Sige, the second Logos with Zoe, the last Man with Church.

13. Quamvis autem uni et eidem stipiti, Bytho nimirum, originem acceptam referrent Aeones omnes, non una tamen et eadem fuit omnium conditio, sed dispar. Soli No, utpote primogenito, indulta perfecta cum Bytho communio ; soli pervia hujus magnitudo, caeteris inaccessa. Hinc in aliis omnibus cognoscendi Patris aestus, ac propemodum in Nun invidiae livor ; major vero in novissima Aeonum Sophia, quae praecipiti exquisitionis impetu lata, absorpta fere fuisset, et in universam substantiam dissipata, nisi tempestive occurrisset Horo, id est Termino, Virtuti illi ab omni conjugio liberae, quae omnia fulcit, et extra ineffabilem magnitudinem custodit ; a qua demum repressa, suffulta, et ad se ipsam revocata, priorem cogitationem simul cum ea passione, quae ex stupendo illo miraculo orta erat, abjecit. At desiderio rei impossibilis gravidae vix potis erat, quin impetus abortum afferret. Attulit vero, immaturumque fetum abegit, substantiam videlicet informem ; cujus generis ? haud satis inter fabulae architectos conveniebat, nec Matri ipsi constabat. Inde miserae moestitiae, timor, summaque perplexitas, pristinae cogitationis appendices, necessariaque veluti consectaria : a quibus Hori, quem diximus, opera perpurgata, conjugio demum ac Pleromati restituta fuit ; ipsa ejus Enthymesi, abortivo illo fetu formae ac figurae experte, et appendice passione extra Pleroma relegatis.

13. Now although all the Aeons owed their origin to one and the same stock, namely Bythus, yet the condition of all was not one and the same, but unequal. To Nous alone, as firstborn, was granted perfect communion with Bythus; to him alone was His greatness accessible, which was unapproachable to the rest. Hence in all the others there arose a fervent desire of knowing the Father, and almost a livid envy against Nous; but greatest of all in Sophia, the last of the Aeons, who, carried away by a headlong impulse of inquiry, would almost have been swallowed up and dissolved into universal substance, had she not seasonably met with Horus, that is, Limit, that Power free from all consort, which props up all things and keeps guard outside the ineffable greatness; by which at length checked, supported, and recalled to herself, she cast away her former thought together with that passion which had arisen from that stupendous wonder. Yet for her, pregnant with the desire of an impossible thing, it was scarcely possible that the impulse should not bring on an abortion. And bring it on it did, and she cast forth an untimely fetus, namely a formless substance—of what sort? It was not sufficiently agreed among the architects of the fable, nor was it clear to the Mother herself. Thence came upon the wretched one sorrows, fear, and utter perplexity, the appendages and as it were necessary corollaries of her former thought; having been thoroughly purged from these by the aid of Horus, whom we have mentioned, she was at length restored to her consort and to the Pleroma, while her Enthymesis itself, that abortive fetus devoid of form and figure, and its appendage the passion, were banished outside the Pleroma.

14. Ne vero similem casum subirent caeteri Aeones, alterum par Aeonum per Unigenitum supremus Pater emittit, Christum et Spiritum sanctum, a quibus alii numeris omnibus absolverentur. Christi enim officium erat Aeones immensam Patris altitudinem edocere, quod nempe nec percipi, nec intelligi, nec denique cerni aut audiri, nisi Monogenis beneficio, posset. Spiritus vero sanctus eos omnes inter se exaequatos, gratias agere docuit, ac veram requiem induxit. Sicque Aeones omnes tum forma, tum voluntate ac sententia pares constituti sunt ; facti omnes quod unusquisque, omnes in Noas, Sermones, Homines et Christos transformati, et quae feminae, in Veritates, Vitas, Spiritus et Ecclesias. Tum tanta metamorphosi gaudentes, in Propatoris laudes erumpunt, acceptique beneficii memores, communi consilio, consentientibus

14. Moreover, lest the rest of the Aeons should undergo a similar mishap, the supreme Father emits through the Only-begotten another pair of Aeons, Christ and the Holy Spirit, by whom the others might be perfected in all respects. For the office of Christ was to teach the Aeons the immense depth of the Father, namely that He could neither be perceived, nor understood, nor finally seen or heard, save by the favour of Monogenes. And the Holy Spirit taught them all, now made equal among themselves, to give thanks, and introduced true rest. And thus all the Aeons were rendered equal both in form and in will and mind; all became what each one was, all were transformed into Minds, Words, Men, and Christs, and the females into Truths, Lives, Spirits, and Churches. Then, rejoicing in so great a metamorphosis, they burst forth into praises of the Propator, and mindful of the benefit received, by common counsel, with the consent of

Editors' notes and page, col. 35

Page

running head: 35 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A cabatur. A Logo; B nimirum, originem; C ea passione, quae; D Pater emittit
old-edition numerals: [XVII] after dodecada,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: cabatur (from vo-)

PG 7:36

Christo et Spiritu sancto, Patre quoque calculum adjiciente, quidquid optimum ac florentissimum habebant singuli conferentes, apteque compingentes, Jesum in Bythi gloriam et honorem emittunt, ceu perfectissimum Pleromatis sidus et fructum, Salvatorem etiam, et Verbum, et Christum, ac Omnia denique nuncupatum, quem angelis quoque satellitibus stipant. Christi et Spiritus sancti ortum aliter explicabat Valentinus. Hunc quidem ab Ecclesia productum fuisse, ad Aeonum examinationem et fecunditatem dicebat ; illum vero non ab iis Aeonibus qui in Pleromate sedem habent, sed a Matre illinc exclusa, secundum recordationem meliorum procreatum fuisse, nec sine quadam umbra. Verum ingratum, cum masculus esset, excisa a se umbra, ad Pleroma recurrisse, Matre una cum umbra relicta ac spiritali substantia orbata. Jesum autem interdum ex Theleto, interdum ex Christo, nonnunquam ex Homine et Ecclesia ortum asserebat. Has de rebus divinis nugas venditabant veteratores isti ; et haec prima fabulae pars.

Christ and the Holy Spirit, the Father also adding His vote, each contributing whatever was best and most flourishing that they had, and fittingly joining it together, they emit Jesus to the glory and honour of Bythus, as the most perfect star and fruit of the Pleroma, called also Saviour, and Word, and Christ, and finally All Things, whom they also surround with attendant angels. Valentinus explained the origin of Christ and the Holy Spirit otherwise. The latter indeed he said was produced by Ecclesia for the examination and fruitfulness of the Aeons; the former, however, was begotten not by those Aeons who have their seat in the Pleroma, but by the Mother excluded thence, according to the remembrance of better things, and not without a certain shadow. Yet being ungrateful, since he was male, having cut off the shadow from himself, he hastened back to the Pleroma, leaving his Mother behind together with the shadow and bereft of spiritual substance. And Jesus he asserted to have sprung sometimes from Theletos, sometimes from Christ, occasionally from Man and Church. Such trifles concerning divine things did those old impostors vend; and this is the first part of the fable.

15. Altera in iis, quae extra Pleroma gesta sunt, referendis versatur. Superioris nempe Sophiae Enthymesis (Achamoth ab Hebraica voce חכמה, Sapientia vocabant), quam extra Pleroma cum appendice passione relegatam diximus, in umbra et vacuo, formae, figurae ac luminis expers, misere jacebat. Ipsius calamitate commotus superior Christus, vi sua formam quidem ei indidit, sed secundum substantiam tantum, non secundum scientiam : statimque subtracta virtute ad supera recedens, infelicem deseruit, nonnullo tamen incorruptibilitatis odore perfusam. Ea vero jam formata ac mentis compos effecta, acriori desiderio exquirendi luminis, quod eam defecerat, incenditur. Sed ecce, festinanti importunus intercedit Horus, temerariumque coercet impetum. Hinc animum despondet illa, omnique perturbationis generi succumbit ; moerori quidem, quod votis frustrata ; metui, ne quemadmodum lux, ita et vita eam deficeret ; animi denique anxietati ac lacrymis ; parum id, nisi omnis rerum ignoratio tot perturbationibus mista, pondus auxisset. Interdum tamen, priorum oblita, luminisque, quod eam deseruerat, pulchritudinem mente revolvens, laetitia diffundebatur ac ridebat. Sed momentaneus risus, quem cito excipiunt perturbationes consuetae. His sibi per vices succedentibus jactata, tandem seipsam colligens, ad lumen quod jam delibaverat, hoc est, ad Christum rogandum convertitur. Quorsum, inquis, tot perturbationum fluctibus aestuantis, nec quiescere valentis animi motus? Hoc fabulae exordium. Hinc enim materiae, ex qua mundus hic conflatus est, substantia ortum cepit. Nam ex conversione, et mundi, et Demiurgi, rerum conditoris, et denique omnis alia anima originem sumpsit ; ex metu autem et moerore, reliqua omnia. Ex ipsius siquidem lacrymis liquida omnis substantia initium habuit,

15. The second is occupied with relating those things which took place outside the Pleroma. Namely, the Enthymesis of the higher Sophia (they called her Achamoth from the Hebrew word חכמה, Wisdom), whom we have said was banished outside the Pleroma with her appendage the passion, lay wretchedly in shadow and void, devoid of form, figure, and light. Moved by her calamity, the higher Christ by his power imparted form to her indeed, yet according to substance only, not according to knowledge; and forthwith withdrawing his power and retiring to the regions above, he forsook the unhappy one, though steeped in some fragrance of incorruptibility. Now she, being already formed and made mistress of her mind, is kindled with a sharper desire of seeking out the light which had failed her. But lo, as she hastens, Horus importunately steps in between, and checks her rash impulse. Hence she loses heart, and succumbs to every kind of perturbation: to grief indeed, because frustrated of her desires; to fear, lest just as the light, so also life should fail her; and finally to anguish of mind and tears; and that were little, had not an utter ignorance of all things, mingled with so many perturbations, increased the weight. Sometimes, however, forgetting what had gone before, and revolving in her mind the beauty of the light which had forsaken her, she was overspread with joy and laughed. Yet momentary was the laughter, which the accustomed perturbations quickly follow. Tossed by these succeeding one another by turns, at length collecting herself, she turns to entreat the light which she had already tasted, that is, Christ. To what purpose, you ask, are the movements of a mind seething with so many waves of perturbations and unable to rest? This is the beginning of the fable. For hence the substance of the matter out of which this world was compounded took its rise. For from her conversion the soul both of the world and of the Demiurge, the founder of things, and finally every other soul took its origin; and from her fear and grief, all things else. Since indeed from her tears every liquid substance had its beginning,

Editors' notes and page, col. 36

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 36
marginal letters: A Christo et Spiritu; B umbra. Verum ingratum; C stus, vi sua formam; D luminisque, quod eam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:37

ex risu lucida, ex moerore tandem et stupore corporea mundi elementa. Nempe cum Achamoth supplex ad Christum se convertisset, hic Paracletum, hoc est Salvatorem ad eam misit, satellitibus angelis stipatum, qui scientiae formam ei indidit, et a perturbationibus liberavit. Nec tamen has ab ea ita secrevit, ut curam omnem earum abjiceret : imò secretas fixit, condensavit, et in materiam transformavit, ex qua fieret duplex substantia ; altera mala, quae ex passionibus exstitisset ; altera passionibus obnoxia, quae ex conversione orta esset. Sic malis omnibus expedita Achamoth, jam gaudio gestiens, in angelos Salvatoris comites defigit obtutus, quorum splendore capta, aspectuque fecundata, concipit paritque fructum spiritalem, ad eorum imaginem effictum. Jam ergo triplicem habemus substantiam, Achamothae fetum ; materialem ex passione, animalem ex conversione et spiritalem ex imaginatione. Nec satis erat rerum materiam ministrasse, nisi etiam formam afferret ; haec prima Achamothae cura. Et cum nulla ei esset substantiae spiritalis informandae copia, quoniam ejusdem cum ea essentiae erat, in animalis formationem se confert, ex qua Demiurgum efficit, caeterarum deinceps rerum conditorem, parentem, regem et Deum. Et hic alterius fabulae partis finis.

from her laughter every luminous substance, and finally from her grief and stupor the corporeal elements of the world. For when Achamoth had turned as a suppliant to Christ, he sent to her the Paraclete, that is, the Saviour, surrounded by attendant angels, who imparted to her the form of knowledge, and freed her from the perturbations. Yet he did not separate these from her in such a way as to cast off all care of them; nay rather, having separated them, he fixed, condensed, and transformed them into matter, out of which a twofold substance should be made: the one evil, which had arisen from the passions; the other subject to passions, which had sprung from her conversion. Thus freed from all evils, Achamoth, now exulting with joy, fixes her gaze upon the angels, the companions of the Saviour, and captivated by their splendour and fertilized by the sight, she conceives and brings forth a spiritual fruit, fashioned after their image. Now therefore we have a threefold substance, the offspring of Achamoth: the material from passion, the animal from conversion, and the spiritual from imagination. Nor was it enough to have furnished the matter of things, unless she also brought form; this was the first care of Achamoth. And since she had no power of forming the spiritual substance, because it was of the same essence with herself, she betakes herself to the formation of the animal substance, out of which she fashions the Demiurge, the founder, parent, king, and God of the remaining things in turn. And this is the end of the second part of the fable.

16. Sequitur aspectabilis hujus mundi constitutio et origo, quam sic exponebant : Conditus Demiurgus ad opus se accingit, in idque totus incumbit ; caecus tamen (hoc stupeas), et quid ageret nescius. At clam regebat Mater, sub Salvatoris moderamine, quo instigante superioris Pleromatis imaginem et hic exprimi curavit. Achamoth siquidem Demiurgo ignota Bythum, Demiurgus Unigenitum, angeli et archangeli a Demiurgo conditi caeteros Aeones referebant. Sic itaque tantum opus molitur inscius ille Demiurgus. Separatis atque distinctis, hactenus confuse permistis, animali et materiali essentia, ex iis coelestia simul et terrena condidit ; fabricatisque septem coelis (quos intelligentia praeditos, imo et angelos esse volebant), sedem sibi supra septimum delegit, Matre superiorem locum occupante, medium inter Pleroma et Mundum. Eapropter ille dictus est Hebdomas, haec Ogdoas : quo suprema illa ac primigena Pleromatis ogdoas exprimeretur. At supina Demiurgi ignoratio immanem peperit errorem. Cum enim tanta condidisset, nec spiritalia attingere valeret, sui ipsius ac matris, multo magis superioris Pleromatis ignarus, se solum esse Deum existimavit, ac per prophetas dixit : Ego Deus, et praeter me non est alius. Sed ad rem redeamus.

16. There follows the constitution and origin of this visible world, which they set forth thus: Once founded, the Demiurge girds himself for the work, and bends his whole strength to it; yet blind (you may marvel at this), and ignorant of what he was doing. But in secret the Mother guided him, under the direction of the Saviour, at whose instigation she took care that the image of the higher Pleroma should be expressed here also. For Achamoth, unknown to the Demiurge, represented Bythus, the Demiurge the Only-begotten, and the angels and archangels founded by the Demiurge the rest of the Aeons. Thus, accordingly, that ignorant Demiurge labours at so great a work. Having separated and distinguished the animal and material essences, hitherto confusedly mingled together, out of them he founded things heavenly and earthly alike; and having framed seven heavens (which they held to be endowed with intelligence, nay, even to be angels), he chose a seat for himself above the seventh, while the Mother occupied a higher place, midway between the Pleroma and the World. On that account he was called the Hebdomad, and she the Ogdoad, whereby that supreme and primigenial ogdoad of the Pleroma might be expressed. Yet the supine ignorance of the Demiurge begot a monstrous error. For since he had founded such great things, and was unable to attain to spiritual things, ignorant of himself and of his mother, and much more of the higher Pleroma, he supposed that he alone was God, and said through the prophets: I am God, and beside me there is no other (Isa. 45:22). But let us return to the subject.

17. Quoniam materialis essentia ex tribus affectibus conflata erat, ex metu, moerore et anxietate ; ex metu et conversione ea omnia, quae anima praedita sunt, coagmentata fuerunt ; Demiurgus nempe ex conversione, ex metu quidquid reliquum est animalis

17. Since the material essence had been compounded out of three affections, out of fear, grief, and anguish; out of fear and conversion all those things which are endowed with soul were framed together—namely, the Demiurge out of conversion, and out of fear whatever else there is of

Editors' notes and page, col. 37

Footnotes

(28) ‹anchor: me non est alius› · call in col 37

Isa. XLV, 22.

Isaiah 45:22.

(printed under page 25)

Page

running head: 37 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A ex risu lucida; B eorum imaginem; C bit ; caecus tamen; D Ogdoas : quo suprema
old-edition numerals: [XIX] after parentem,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: ani-
other: the word animalis was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 38

PG 7:38

substantiae, ut animae brutorum animantium, ferarum et hominum ; ex tristitia spiritales nequitiae, angeli mali et daemones, quorum princeps diabolus, Cosmocrator dictus, cui sedes assignata subtus Demiurgum in hoc mundo ; in eo tamen proprio conditore potior, quod quae supra eum sunt perspecta habeat, quia spiritalis nequitia est ; Demiurgus autem ignoret quia animalis est. Postremo ex stupore et anxietate, ceu ex ignobiliori stirpe, corporea mundi elementa prodierunt. Omnibus vero insitus ignis mortifer et exitiosus ; ut et ignorantia praedictis tribus perturbationibus abdita et occultata.

animal substance, such as the souls of brute animals, wild beasts, and men; out of sadness the spiritual wickednesses, evil angels and demons, whose prince is the devil, called Cosmocrator, to whom a seat is assigned beneath the Demiurge in this world; yet superior therein to his own founder, in that he has a clear view of the things that are above him, because he is spiritual wickedness, whereas the Demiurge is ignorant of them because he is animal. Finally, out of stupor and anguish, as from a more ignoble stock, came forth the corporeal elements of the world. And in all of them is implanted a deadly and destructive fire, just as ignorance also lies hidden and concealed in the aforesaid three perturbations.

18. Condendus supererat homo, mundi hujus inferioris pars nobilior. Fabricavit hunc Demiurgus ex fusili ac fluida substantia ; et hic homo choicus seu terrenus, in quem insufflatus animalis ut similitudinem et imaginem Creatoris exhiberet. Circumposita dein terreno pellicea tunica, hoc est, corpus quod in sensum cadit. Parum erat, nisi spiritalis homo, inscio Demiurgo, una cum ipsius insufflatione inspersus a Matre fuisset. Semen illud spiritale est, quod ex angelorum contemplatione protulit Achamoth, dictum alias Ecclesia, speculum superioris Ecclesiae. Triplex igitur in uno homine homo, seu tres unius ejusdemque hominis partes, materialis, animalis et spiritalis, quarum dispar sors et exitus. Prior omni incorruptibilitatis afflatu destitutus, necessario perit ; posterior quibuscunque tandem flagitiis ac sceleribus sese mancipet, certam salutem recipit ; animalis, inter utrumque medius, vel materialis, vel spiritalis exitum sortitur, prout vel in hanc, vel in illam partem declinaverit. Ut autem hic salutem adipisceretur, sensibilibus disciplinis indigebat, ac proinde Salvatore hic opus erat. Sed quali ? Qui sibi accommodatus esset, animali nimirum et spiritali, corpore tamen induto, ut sensibus pateret. Materiale autem nihil suscepit, ea enim duntaxat assumpsit, quibus salutem impertiturus erat : at materia salutis incapax. Per Mariam ille, perinde atque aqua per tubum, transmeavit, ab ea nihil quidquam accipiens ; atque in ipsum, cum baptismi aqua tingeretur, Jesus ille seu Salvator, qui de Pleromate erat, et ex omnibus ortum traxerat, sub columbae forma descendit. Ut adeo Dominus noster ex quatuor hisce conflatus esset, ex spiritali, quod ab Achamoth erat : ex animali, quod a Demiurgo ; ex corpore, quod a dispensatione ; ex Salvatore demum, quod erat ea quae descendit in illum columba. Ex quibus solus psychicus passus est Christus, et is qui ex dispensatione mystico modo conditus fuerat : perpessionis expertibus manentibus Salvatore, et spiritali Christo, et a Domino avolantibus cum Pilato sisteretur. Sic tota salutis nostrae oeconomia, et quodcunque de Verbi divini Incarnatione, Christique meritis, morte et satisfactione fides docet, in aniles

18. Man remained to be founded, the nobler part of this lower world. Him the Demiurge fashioned out of fusible and fluid substance; and this is the choic or earthly man, into whom the animal man was breathed so that he might exhibit the likeness and image of the Creator. Next, around the earthly man was placed a tunic of skin, that is, the body which falls under sense. That were little, had not the spiritual man, without the knowledge of the Demiurge, been sprinkled in by the Mother together with his breathing. That is the spiritual seed which Achamoth brought forth from the contemplation of the angels, called elsewhere Ecclesia, the mirror of the higher Ecclesia. There is therefore a threefold man in one man, or three parts of one and the same man, the material, the animal, and the spiritual, whose lot and issue are unequal. The first, destitute of every breath of incorruptibility, necessarily perishes; the last, to whatever enormities and crimes soever he may enslave himself, receives certain salvation; the animal, midway between both, obtains the issue either of the material or of the spiritual, according as he inclines to the one side or to the other. Now in order that the latter might obtain salvation, he stood in need of sensible instructions, and accordingly there was need here of a Saviour. But of what sort? One who should be adapted to him, namely animal and spiritual, yet clothed with a body, so that he might be manifest to the senses. Of the material, however, he took nothing, for he assumed those things only to which he was about to impart salvation; whereas matter is incapable of salvation. Through Mary he passed just like water through a pipe, receiving nothing whatever from her; and upon him, when he was dipped in the water of baptism, that Jesus or Saviour who was from the Pleroma, and had drawn his origin from all, descended under the form of a dove. So that our Lord was compounded out of these four: out of the spiritual, which was from Achamoth; out of the animal, which was from the Demiurge; out of the body, which was from the dispensation; and finally out of the Saviour, which was that dove which descended upon him. Of these the psychic Christ alone suffered, together with him who had been fashioned in a mystical manner by the dispensation, while the Saviour and the spiritual Christ remained free from suffering, and flew away from the Lord when He was brought before Pilate. Thus the whole economy of our salvation, and whatever faith teaches concerning the Incarnation of the divine Word, and the merits, death, and satisfaction of Christ, vanishes wholly into old wives'

Editors' notes and page, col. 38

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 38
marginal letters: A malis substantiae; B ex fusili ac fluida; C que tandem flagitiis; D ortum traxerat
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: malis (from ani-)

PG 7:39

fabulas ridiculaque commenta totum abit. Sed audi caetera.

fables and ridiculous figments. But hear the rest.

19. Triplex hominum genus Valentinianos distinxisse jam notavimus : choicum, quod salutem percipere nullo modo valet ; animale, quod percipere potest, vel non potest, prout bonis vel malis adhaeserit ; spiritale denique, quod a salute excidere nunquam potest. Ad secundum genus Catholicos revocabant. His fidem et bona opera, ut salutem adipiscerentur, necessaria esse dicebant ; sibi vero, qui ad tertium genus pertinebant, spiritalibus et perfectis, utpote spiritali semine Achamoth fecundatis, haec superflua esse jactabant ; eam enim esse spiritalium hominum naturam, ut, quidquid agant, in corruptionem et interitum cedere nullo modo possint : neque enim actiones aditum ad Pleroma munire, sed solum spiritale semen. Et hinc confractis omnibus claustris, ad scelera quaevis, omniaque vitiorum genera latissima facta via. In cumulum accessit et illud principium non minus exitiosum, animas quasdam natura bonas esse, quasdam natura malas. Bonas quidem eas esse, quae seminis capaces effectae sint ; eas autem quae natura malae sunt, ita esse comparatas, ut semen illud nunquam recipiant. Quod gentilium fatum inducebat. Et inde etiam latissimum intervallum quod Catholicos ab iis Pseudospiritalibus disjungebat, non tantum quod illos animales, se vero perfectos, spiritales ac semina electionis superbe vocarent ; sed quod vellent nos in ancipiti usu gratiam sic accipere, ut ea nobis adimeretur ; se vero illam proprio veluti jure ita possidere, ut semper accresceret, decresceret nunquam, aut efflueret. At quaenam spiritalium istorum gratia? quid spiritale illud semen? aliud nihil quam spiritalis agnitio, supernorum Pleromatis arcanorum scientia, qua tantopere gloriabantur, et qua sibi Gnosticorum nomen ascribebant. Haec a Matre sibi indita, pusilla quidem e supernis initio emittitur, hic autem paulatim adolescat et perficiatur necesse est. Cum autem numeris omnibus absoluta fuerit, consummationem futuram asserebant ; tuncque Achamoth e medietatis loco in Pleroma migraturam, sponso suo Salvatori nupturam : spiritales autem, animis animalibus exutos, spiritusque intelligentes factos, Pleroma itidem subeuntes, in sponsas assignatum iri angelis Salvatoris satellitibus ; Demiurgum vero, cum justorum animalibus animis in locum Matris Achamoth, medietatem videlicet, migraturum, ibi perenni quiete donandum. Neque enim psychici quidquam intra Pleroma admitti. Tum vero ignem eum, qui in mundo latet, erupturum, confectaque omni materia, mundo simul et ludicrae huic Valentinianorum fabulae finem impositurum.

19. That the Valentinians distinguished a threefold race of men we have already noted: the choic, which is in no way able to obtain salvation; the animal, which can obtain it or not obtain it, according as it cleaves to good or to evil things; and finally the spiritual, which can never fall from salvation. To the second race they referred Catholics. For these, they said, faith and good works were necessary in order that they might obtain salvation; whereas for themselves, who belonged to the third race, being spiritual and perfect, inasmuch as they were fertilized by the spiritual seed of Achamoth, they boasted that these things were superfluous; for such, they said, is the nature of spiritual men that, whatever they do, they can in no way pass into corruption and destruction, since it is not actions that pave the way to the Pleroma, but the spiritual seed alone. And hence, with all barriers broken down, a most wide road was opened to any crimes whatsoever and all kinds of vices. To crown all, there was added also that principle no less pernicious, that some souls are good by nature, and some evil by nature: that those indeed are good which have been made capable of the seed, whereas those which are evil by nature are so constituted that they never receive that seed—which introduced the fate of the Gentiles. And thence also came the widest gulf that separated Catholics from those counterfeit spirituals, not only because they proudly called the former animal, and themselves perfect, spiritual, and the seeds of election; but because they held that we receive grace in precarious use in such a way that it may be taken away from us, whereas they themselves possess it as if by their own right in such a way that it always increases, and never decreases or flows away. Yet what is the grace of those spiritual ones? What is that spiritual seed? Nothing else than spiritual knowledge, the science of the supernal secrets of the Pleroma, wherein they gloried so greatly, and whereby they arrogated to themselves the name of Gnostics. This, imparted to them by the Mother, is sent forth at the beginning from above as a tiny thing indeed, but here must needs gradually grow up and be perfected. And when it has been perfected in all respects, they asserted that the consummation will take place; and that then Achamoth will migrate from the place of the midst into the Pleroma, to be wedded to her bridegroom the Saviour; and that the spirituals, stripped of their animal souls and made intelligent spirits, likewise entering the Pleroma, will be assigned as brides to the angels that attend the Saviour; while the Demiurge, with the animal souls of the righteous, will migrate into the place of the Mother Achamoth, namely the midst, there to be gifted with perennial rest—for nothing psychic is admitted within the Pleroma. And then that fire which lies hidden in the world will burst forth, and having consumed all matter, will put an end at once to the world and to this ludicrous fable of the Valentinians.

20. Paucis haec complexi sumus; idque satis pro instituto fuit. Fusiori stylo prosequitur Irenaeus lib. I, cap. 1 et seqq. Si quid vero difficultatis in verbis occurrerit, hoc in notis explicare conati sumus. Quo iam tendant portentosa illa deliria, et

20. We have embraced these things in few words, and that has been sufficient for our purpose. Irenaeus sets them forth in fuller style in Book I, Chapter 1 and following. And if any difficulty has occurred in the words, we have endeavoured to explain this in the notes. To what point those portentous ravings now tend, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 39

Page

running head: 39 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A fabulas ridiculaque; B possint : neque enim; C sed quod vellent; D libus exutos
old-edition numerals: [XX] after sponso
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:40

unde profluxerint, inquirendum superest. Ac primo quidem vanas Galli cujusdam recentioris conjectationes non moror, qui ut Valentinum ejusque discipulos in plerisque doctrinae suae capitibus ab haeresi vindicet, mysticos quosdam sensus sub aenigmatico verborum cortice delitescentes, sibique soli revelatos extrahere conatur, ac mendacii probrum veteribus omnibus Patribus in os ingerere, imo et eos interdum imposturae arguere, absurdaque Valentini de Verbi generatione commenta aureis Athanasii et Hilarii expressionibus longe anteponere non veretur. Nae ! sagacissimum hominem, qui, post quindecim circiter saecula, id sibi notissimum putet, quod Patres haereticis illis aut coaevos aut suppares fugit. Haec forte Achamotha quaepiam Mater e sepulto dudum Valentini Pleromate rediviva ad neoterici illius aures insusurravit, quae soli illi ferant qui ejusdem Matris semine inspersi fuerint ; explodant vero quicunque sobrii veneranda Historiae simul ac traditionis ecclesiasticae fundamenta concussa non velint.

whence they have flowed forth, remains to be inquired into. And first indeed I do not detain myself with the vain conjectures of a certain modern Frenchman, who, in order to vindicate Valentinus and his disciples from heresy in most heads of their doctrine, endeavours to draw out certain mystical senses lurking beneath the enigmatic outer bark of the words and revealed to himself alone, and does not shrink from flinging the reproach of falsehood into the face of all the ancient Fathers, nay, even accusing them at times of imposture, and setting the absurd figments of Valentinus concerning the generation of the Word far above the golden expressions of Athanasius and Hilary. Truly a most sagacious man, who after some fifteen centuries thinks that to be thoroughly known to himself which escaped the Fathers who were either contemporary or nearly contemporary with those heretics! Perhaps some Mother Achamoth, risen again from the long-buried Pleroma of Valentinus, whispered into the ears of that modern writer these things, which those alone may brook who have been sprinkled with the seed of the same Mother, but which all sober men will hiss off the stage who do not wish the venerable foundations of ecclesiastical history and tradition alike to be shaken.

21. Nec magis audiendi qui, ut Joannes Franciscus Buddaeus, jam citatus, in sua de haeresi Valentiniana Dissertatione, Valentinianorum placita ex philosophia Hebraeorum Kabbalistica derivant ; eaque, ut emolliant, ad reconditos nescio quos sensus detorquent, veterum scriptis vim inferentes, imo invidiam temere facientes. Iis enim auctoribus id gratis supponere placuit, quod ab ipso limine probandum erat, Kabbalam primo et secundo post Christum natum saeculo notam fuisse. Quamvis a Christi aetate Judaei a vera patrum suorum simplicitate degeneres, jam fabulis mentem pascerent, nondum tamen eo usque delusa fuerat, ut Sephiroticas chimaeras, Kabbalisticos mundos, insanasque potius quam mysticas litterarum ac numerorum copulationes, peperisset, quibus ludificati recentiores, alios postmodum ludificati sunt. Certe Justino martyri, Origeni, Hieronymo, Epiphanio, aliisque Patribus antiquis, pro eo quod cum Judaeis intercessit ipsis commercio, perspecta et explorata erat illorum doctrina ; de nominibus Dei secundum Hebraeos interdum disseruerunt : vanas Judaeorum traditiones, anilesque fabulas non semel insectati sunt ; de Kabbalisticis vero nugis, et Dei nomine per duodecim, per 42, per 72 litteras explicato, aliisque ejusmodi naeniis, ne verbo quidem meminerunt, aut aliquid audivisse se significarunt. Invicto argumento nondum excogitatas esse. Et certe quisquis de Kabbala mystica conscriptos libros adierit, aut peritiores e Rabbinis consuluerit, evestigio deprehendet admodum recentes esse, vixque ante annos quingentos aut sexcentos exarari potuisse. Non me quidem latet Philonem Judaeum subtiliori et argutiori, quam par erat, methodo divina rimari ac pertractare coepisse ; sed quam procul ab arcanis Sephirarum mysteriis, norunt qui perlegerunt. Ille pro Aegyptiorum more, apud quos vitam agebat, ad Platonicam et Pythagoricam philosophiam,

21. Nor are those any more to be listened to who, like Johann Franz Buddeus, already cited, in his Dissertation on the Valentinian Heresy, derive the tenets of the Valentinians from the Kabbalistic philosophy of the Hebrews, and in order to soften them twist them to I know not what recondite senses, doing violence to the writings of the ancients, nay, rashly bringing odium upon them. For it has pleased those authors gratuitously to suppose what ought to have been proved on the very threshold, that the Kabbalah was known in the first and second centuries after the birth of Christ. Although from the age of Christ the Jews, degenerate from the true simplicity of their fathers, already fed their minds on fables, yet their mind had not yet been deluded to such a point as to have brought forth Sephirotic chimeras, Kabbalistic worlds, and insane rather than mystical couplings of letters and numbers, wherewith modern writers, having been duped themselves, have afterwards duped others. Certainly to Justin Martyr, Origen, Jerome, Epiphanius, and the other ancient Fathers, in proportion to the intercourse which they had with the Jews, their doctrine was well known and ascertained; they sometimes discoursed concerning the names of God according to the Hebrews; more than once they inveighed against the vain traditions of the Jews and their old wives' fables; yet of Kabbalistic trifles, and the name of God explained through twelve, through 42, and through 72 letters, and other dirges of that sort, they have not made mention by so much as a word, or indicated that they had heard anything of them—an unanswerable argument that they had not yet been devised. And certainly whoever approaches the books written concerning the mystical Kabbalah, or consults the more learned among the Rabbis, will immediately discover that they are very recent, and could scarcely have been penned before five hundred or six hundred years ago. It does not indeed escape me that Philo the Jew began to pry into and treat of divine things by a subtler and more ingenious method than was fitting; yet how far removed he was from the secret mysteries of the Sephiroth, those know who have read him through. After the custom of the Egyptians, among whom he spent his life, he applied himself to the Platonic and Pythagorean

Editors' notes and page, col. 40

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 40
marginal letters: A unde profluxerint; B ter e sepulto; C mine probandum; D insectati sunt
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: phi-
other: the word philosophiam, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 41

PG 7:41

Eusebio et Hieronymo testibus, totum se contulerat (unde tritum, ut vulgo creditur, de eo proverbium, ἢ Φίλων πλατονίζει, ἢ Πλάτων φιλονίζει), ad cujus proinde principia res divinas exigens, opinionesque philosophicas certis librorum sacrorum dogmatibus, et ancipitibus Judaeorum traditionibus admiscens, compagem evanidam, maleque sibi cohaerentem struxit : adeo ut patriorum rituum minus, quam allegoriarum studiosus, in vulgaribus et tritis non semel offensus, offensionem incautis attulerit. At insulsam Kabbalistarum farraginem incassum apud eum quaesieris. Nec Kabbalae antiquitatis propugnatores juvat Paulus Timotheo mandans, ut quibusdam denuntiet, ne intenderent fabulis et genealogiis interminatis. His enim, interprete Chrysostomo, theophylacto, aliisque, digitum intendit Apostolus vel in stultam Judaeorum vanitatem, qui ut generis sui nobilitatem ostentarent, longam stemmatum seriem summa cum contentione ac fastu ab Abrahamo accersebant, gentilesque ad fidem conversos superba avorum suorum enumeratione vexantes, Ecclesiam conturbabant ; vel in eos e Graecis, qui licet Christo nomen dedissent, in fabulosae ethnicorum Theogoniae gradibus percensendis operam ponere, simul et ludere non destiterant. Quanquam probabilitate non vacet, his Apostoli verbis Gnosticos feriri, ut postea dicemus, quorum haeresis Aeonumque ματαιολογία a Simone Mago, et Menandro propagata, apostolorum aevo altas jam radices egerat. Sed de Kabbala ne quidem cogitasse Paulum pro comperto haberi debet. Aliunde ergo repetenda Valentinianae haereseos principia.

philosophy, as Eusebius and Jerome testify, with his whole heart (whence the proverb worn threadbare, as is commonly believed, concerning him, ἢ Φίλων πλατονίζει, ἢ Πλάτων φιλονίζει, either Philo Platonizes, or Plato Philonizes), and accordingly measuring divine things by its principles, and mingling philosophical opinions with the certain dogmas of the sacred books and the doubtful traditions of the Jews, he built an unsubstantial and ill-coherent structure; so that, less studious of his ancestral rites than of allegories, stumbling more than once in common and familiar matters, he brought a stumbling-block to the unwary. Yet the insipid medley of the Kabbalists you will seek in vain in him. Nor does Paul aid the champions of the antiquity of the Kabbalah when he charges Timothy to command certain men not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies (1 Tim. 1:4). For by these words, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others interpret them, the Apostle points his finger either at the foolish vanity of the Jews, who in order to display the nobility of their race fetched a long series of pedigrees with the utmost contention and pride from Abraham, and harassing the Gentiles converted to the faith with a haughty enumeration of their ancestors, troubled the Church; or at those of the Greeks who, although they had given their names to Christ, had not ceased to spend pains and at the same time to sport in recounting the degrees of the fabulous Theogony of the pagans. Although it is not lacking in probability that the Gnostics are struck at by these words of the Apostle, as we shall say hereafter, whose heresy and ματαιολογία of Aeons, propagated by Simon Magus and Menander, had already struck deep roots in the age of the apostles. But that Paul did not even think of the Kabbalah must be held for certain. From elsewhere, therefore, must the beginnings of the Valentinian heresy be sought.

22. Valentino quidem viam stravisse priores Gnosticos, primaque male constituti systematis lineamenta exarasse, perspicue tradit Irenaeus : Qui est primus, inquit lib. I, cap. 11, ab ea quae dicitur Gnostica haeresis, antiquas in suum characterem doctrinas transferens Valentinus, sic definivit. Non ergo prima haereseos suae fundamenta jecerat Valentinus, sed a veteribus Gnosticis jacta repererat ; quibus novam aedificii molem superimponens, ea sibi propria fecit, et ad proprium institutum accommodavit. Hinc lib. II, cap. 13, postquam emissionem Νοῦ et Ἀληθείας a Bytho et Ennoea evertisset Irenaeus, rationique e diametro adversam demonstrasset, concludit num. 8, hactenus dicta, non adversus Valentinianos modo, sed et adversus eos qui a Basilide sunt, et adversus reliquos Gnosticos valere ; ab his siquidem illos initia emissionum accepisse, demonstratum libro primo fuisse. Communis itaque et his et illis primus ordo emissionis, quem impugnat, communis utrisque prima tetras. Nec haec tantum, sed et secunda. Istam enim ubi similiter excussit Irenaeus, subnectit num. 10, de secunda emissione Hominis et Ecclesiae Valentinianorum patres falso cognominatos Gnosticos cum filiis

22. That the earlier Gnostics indeed paved the way for Valentinus, and sketched the first outlines of his ill-constructed system, Irenaeus clearly hands down: Valentinus, who is the first, says he in Book I, Chapter 11, transferring the ancient doctrines from what is called the Gnostic heresy to his own peculiar character, defined it thus. Valentinus, therefore, had not laid the first foundations of his heresy, but had found them laid by the ancient Gnostics; and superimposing upon them a new mass of building, he made them his own and adapted them to his own design. Hence in Book II, Chapter 13, after Irenaeus had overthrown the emission of Νοῦς and Ἀλήθεια from Bythus and Ennoea, and demonstrated it to be diametrically opposed to reason, he concludes in num. 8 that the things said thus far avail not only against the Valentinians, but also against those who are from Basilides, and against the rest of the Gnostics, since it had been demonstrated in the first book that the former had received from the latter the beginnings of the emissions. Common, therefore, both to these and to those is the first order of emission which he impugns, and common to both is the first tetrad. Nor this only, but the second also. For when Irenaeus has similarly examined that one, he subjoins in num. 10 that concerning the second emission of Man and Church the fathers of the Valentinians, falsely surnamed Gnostics, contend with their sons,

Editors' notes and page, col. 41

Footnotes

(29) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 41 (inferred from note order)

Euseb., lib. II Hist. eccl., cap. 4.

Eusebius, Church History book II, ch. 4.

(printed under page 27)

(30) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 41 (inferred from note order)

Hieron., epist. 83 ad Mag. orat. Rom., t. IV nov. edit.

Jerome, Letter 83, to Magnus, Roman orator, vol. IV of the new edition.

(printed under page 27)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot; the note cites the Apostle's words referred to in col 41)› · call in col 41 (inferred)

1 Tim. I, 4.

1 Timothy 1:4.

(printed under page 27)

Page

running head: 41 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A losophiam, Eusebio; B His enim, interprete; C apostolorum aevo; D nem Νοῦ et Ἀληθείας
old-edition numerals: [XXI] after Irenaeus,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: losophiam (from phi-)

PG 7:42

pugnare, sua propria vindicantes, et malos fures eos convincentes ; aptabile esse magis emissioni dicentes, uti verisimile, ex Homine Verbum, sed non ex Verbo Hominem esse emissum, et esse Hominem Verbo anteriorem. Haec proinde certaminis causa : secundam tetradem Verbi et Vitae, Hominis et Ecclesiae furati fuerant a Gnosticis Valentiniani ; nec hoc prioribus grave : sed id ferendum minime videbatur, quod clam subductorum hi ordinem invertissent, Verbum et Vitam Homini et Ecclesiae praemittentes ; in hoc mali fures, quod furto haud contenti, ablata pessum dedissent. His moti, plures e Valentini discipulis, magistri sui ordine immutato, hanc tetradem in integrum restituerunt, Hominem et Ecclesiam ante Verbum et Vitam reponentes.

claiming what is their own, and convicting them as evil thieves, saying that it is more suitable to the emission, as being probable, that the Word was emitted from Man, and not Man from the Word, and that Man is prior to the Word. This, accordingly, was the cause of the strife: the Valentinians had stolen the second tetrad of Word and Life, Man and Church, from the Gnostics; nor was this grievous to the earlier ones, but what seemed by no means to be borne was that these men had inverted the order of the things secretly filched, setting Word and Life before Man and Church—evil thieves in this, that not content with the theft, they had ruined what they carried off. Moved by these arguments, several of the disciples of Valentinus, changing the order of their master, restored this tetrad to its original state, placing Man and Church back before Word and Life.

23. Merito igitur Theodoretus, cum haereses Simonis, Menandri, Saturnini, Basilidis, Carpocratis, Prodicique explicatas dedisset, infert : ex his omnibus haeresibus Valentinum materiam accipientem, λαβὼν ἀφορμὰς, interminabiles fabulas composuisse. Merito et Irenaeus cum eorumdem haereticorum opinationes ordine percurrisset, concludit lib. I, cap. ult., n. 3 : A talibus matribus et patribus et proavis eos qui a Valentino sunt, sicut et ipsae sententiae et regulae ostendunt eos, necessarium fuit manifeste arguere. Adeo certum, easdem utrisque fuisse sententias et regulas. Et eapropter in Praefatione libri secundi spondet, eversurum se Gnosticorum omnium sententiam, dissoluturumque absconditas ipsorum conjugationes, a Bytho capite facto initio. Merito et Epiphanius ait, Valentini doctrinam a speciosa illa Gnosticorum professione prodiisse, τὴν αὐτοῦ διδασκαλίαν τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς μεγάλης ταύτης γνωστικῆς ἐπαγγελίας ὑπάρχουσαν. Et hinc quinque libris adversus Valentinianos ab auctore nostro conscriptis praefixus titulus, Ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, Detectionis et eversionis falso nominatae agnitionis ; quia omnes Gnosticos, id est intelligentes seu scientes, se venditabant, ac mysticae cujusdam scientiae titulo gloriabantur. Idem omnibus Pleroma, eaedem primae Aeonum syzygiae, eadem fidei ac morum corruptio, eadem supremi Patris a mundi opifice distinctio ac separatio. ut ex toto Irenaeo patet. Hinc Gregorius Nazianzenus, orat. 23, Simoni, Marcioni, Valentino, Basilidi, Cerdoni, Cerintho et Carpocrati ex aequo exprobrat, quod rerum omnium Deum secarent, bellumque pro Bono adversus Creatorem gererent. Ad quem locum observat Elias Cretensis, octonarium summo in honore a Simonianis (idem de caeteris Gnosticis dicendum) habitum fuisse, ob octo illos magistri sui Aeones, Bythum et Sigen, Mentem et Veritatem, Sermonem et Vitam, Hominem demum et Ecclesiam, quos colebant, et a quibus mundi opificem distinguebant. Quae eadem adnotat Nicetas ad orat. 44. Et his omnibus id, quod volumus, liquido conficitur, Valentinum systematis, quod ab eo nomen accepit, primum

23. Rightly therefore Theodoret, when he had given an explanation of the heresies of Simon, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, and Prodicus, infers that Valentinus, taking material from all these heresies, λαβὼν ἀφορμὰς, composed interminable fables. Rightly also Irenaeus, when he had run through the opinions of the same heretics in order, concludes in Book I, last chapter, n. 3: From such mothers and fathers and great-grandfathers it was necessary manifestly to convict those who are from Valentinus, just as their very opinions and rules show them to be. So certain is it that both had the same opinions and rules. And on that account in the Preface of the second book he promises that he will overthrow the opinion of all the Gnostics, and dissolve their hidden conjugations, making a beginning from Bythus the head. Rightly also Epiphanius says that the doctrine of Valentinus came forth from that specious profession of the Gnostics, τὴν αὐτοῦ διδασκαλίαν τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς μεγάλης ταύτης γνωστικῆς ἐπαγγελίας ὑπάρχουσαν. And hence the title prefixed to the five books written by our author against the Valentinians, Ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, Of the Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called; because they all vended themselves as Gnostics, that is, intelligent or knowing, and gloried in the title of a certain mystical science. All had the same Pleroma, the same first syzygies of Aeons, the same corruption of faith and morals, the same distinction and separation of the supreme Father from the artificer of the world, as is clear from the whole of Irenaeus. Hence Gregory of Nazianzus, in Oration 23, reproaches Simon, Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdo, Cerinthus, and Carpocrates alike with cutting asunder the God of all things, and waging war on behalf of the Good against the Creator. On which passage Elias of Crete observes that the number eight was held in the highest honour by the Simonians (the same must be said of the rest of the Gnostics), on account of those eight Aeons of their master—Bythus and Sige, Mind and Truth, Word and Life, and finally Man and Church—whom they worshipped, and from whom they distinguished the artificer of the world. The same things Nicetas notes on Oration 44. And by all these things what we wish is clearly established, that Valentinus was not the first

Editors' notes and page, col. 42

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 42
marginal letters: A pugnare, sua propria; B 23. Merito igitur; C conjugationes, a Bytho; D Simoni, Marcioni
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:43

auctorem ac inventorem non fuisse, sed iis quae jam adinvenerant Gnostici priores addidisse, ac supremam manum admovisse. Nempe prima Pleromatis ogdoas omnibus communis : huic vero aliquantulum immutatae, decada et dodecada de suo addidit ; sicque vetus Pleroma viginti et duobus Aeonibus auxit ac locupletavit. Totam etiam Achamothae fabulam, cum spiritalis seminis origine, huic propriam puto ; caeteras hypotheseos partes, mutatis interdum nominibus, hausit e putido Gnosticorum fonte.

author and inventor of the system which received its name from him, but added to the things which the earlier Gnostics had already devised, and put the final hand to them. For the first ogdoad of the Pleroma was common to all; to this, however, slightly altered, he added of his own the decade and the dodecade, and thus augmented and enriched the old Pleroma by twenty-two Aeons. The whole fable of Achamoth also, together with the origin of the spiritual seed, I consider peculiar to him; the remaining parts of the hypothesis, changing the names at times, he drew from the fetid fountain of the Gnostics.

24. Nec movere quemquam debet, quod Irenaeus veterum Gnosticorum sententias recensens, primae Aeonum ogdoadis ab iis traditae haud expresse meminerit. Neque enim, ut recte notat doctissimus Pearsonius, part. II Vindic., cap. 6 (ubi fusiori stylo exsequitur, quod nos breviori complectimur), integras omnium genealogias singulatim enumerare omniaque Aeonum nomina recitare Irenaeo animus erat, nec esse debebat. Explicata jam a primis capitibus Ptolemaitarum, qui primas in Valentini schola tenebant, sententia, et summa eorum doctrinae, cum omnibus ipsorum Aeonibus et Aeonum nominibus, reliquisque quae ad eorum haeresim pertinebant, simul et sub uno quasi aspectu positis ; postea Gnosticorum, a quibus sua hauserant, et Valentini ipsius et illius discipulorum singulares sententias, et quid cuique proprium esset, quo ab aliis discreparet, breviter exponere satis erat ; nec opus erat singula attingere, et quae antea dixerat repetere. Certe Basilidis integram genealogiam ab Irenaeo non describi, vel ex eo liquet, quod Basilides, teste Clemente Alexand., Strom. lib. IV, Δικαιοσύνην τε καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα αὐτῆς τὴν Εἰρήνην ὑπολαμβάνει ἐν ὀγδοάδι μένειν διατεταγμένας, tum Justitiam, tum filiam ejus Pacem putat in ogdoade manere dispositas : quas apud Irenaeum frustra quaesieris.

24. Nor ought it to disturb anyone that Irenaeus, in reviewing the opinions of the ancient Gnostics, has not expressly made mention of the first ogdoad of Aeons handed down by them. For, as the most learned Pearson rightly notes in Part II of his Vindiciae, Chapter 6 (where he pursues in fuller style what we embrace more briefly), it neither was nor ought to have been the intention of Irenaeus to enumerate one by one the entire genealogies of all and to recite all the names of the Aeons. Having already from the first chapters explained the opinion of the Ptolemaites, who held the foremost place in the school of Valentinus, and having set down at once and as it were under a single view the sum of their doctrine, together with all their Aeons and the names of the Aeons, and the remaining things that pertained to their heresy, afterwards it was enough briefly to set forth the particular opinions of the Gnostics from whom they had drawn their own, and of Valentinus himself and his disciples, and what was peculiar to each whereby he differed from the others; nor was there any need to touch upon each single point and repeat what he had said before. Certainly that the entire genealogy of Basilides is not described by Irenaeus is clear even from the fact that Basilides, according to the testimony of Clement of Alexandria in Book IV of the Stromata, Δικαιοσύνην τε καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα αὐτῆς τὴν Εἰρήνην ὑπολαμβάνει ἐν ὀγδοάδι μένειν διατεταγμένας, thinks that both Justice and her daughter Peace remain arranged in the ogdoad—whom you will seek in vain in Irenaeus.

25. Ut vero a Gnosticis maximam dogmatum partem acceperunt Valentiniani, sic utrisque, his potissimum, rudem veluti telam, quam variis coloribus ex Christiana religione ductis distinxerunt, ministrarunt ethnici philosophi, Pythagorici praesertim ac Platonici, Aegyptiique et Chaldaei mystagogi : adeo ut tota ea hypothesis sit purus putusque ethnicismus varie interpolatus, et novis accessionibus ex Christiana religione auctus. Ipsae haereses, ait Tertullianus, a philosophia subornantur. Inde et Aeones et formae, nescio quae, et trinitas hominis apud Valentinum : Platonicus fuerat. Et alibi : Vult enim Plato esse quasdam substantias invisibiles, incorporales, supermundiales, divinas et aeternas : quas appellat ideas, id est formas exemplares et causas naturalium istorum manifestorum, et subjacentium corporalibus sensibus ; et illas quidem esse veritates, haec autem imagines illarum. Relucentne jam haeretica semina Gnosticorum et Valentinianorum ? Hinc enim arripiunt differentiam corporalium sensuum et intellectualium

25. Now just as the Valentinians received the greatest part of their doctrines from the Gnostics, so to both, and above all to the Valentinians, the pagan philosophers, chiefly the Pythagoreans and Platonists, and the Egyptian and Chaldaean mystagogues, furnished as it were the rough web which they embroidered with various colours drawn from the Christian religion; so that the whole of that hypothesis is pure and unmixed paganism variously interpolated, and augmented with new additions from the Christian religion. Heresies themselves, says Tertullian, are suborned by philosophy. Thence come both the Aeons and I know not what forms, and the trinity of man in Valentinus: he had been a Platonist. And elsewhere: For Plato holds that there are certain invisible, incorporeal, supermundane, divine, and eternal substances, which he calls ideas, that is, exemplary forms and causes of these natural things that are manifest and subject to the bodily senses; and that the former indeed are truths, whereas the latter are images of them. Do not the heretical seeds of the Gnostics and Valentinians already shine forth here? For hence they snatch up the difference between the bodily senses and the

Editors' notes and page, col. 43

Footnotes

(32) ‹anchor: ait Tertullianus› · call in col 43

Lib. de Praescrip., cap. 6.

Book On the Prescription [of Heretics], ch. 6.

(printed under page 28)

(33) ‹anchor: Et alibi› · call in col 43

Lib. de Anim., cap. 17.

Book On the Soul, ch. 17.

(printed under page 28)

Page

running head: 43 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A auctorem ac inventorem; B stylo exsequitur; C Certe Basilidis; D ex Christiana religione
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: intel-
other: the word intellectualium was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 44

PG 7:44

virium, quam etiam parabolae decem virginum attemperant : ut quinque stultae sensus corporales figuraverint, stultos videlicet, quia deceptui faciles, sapientes autem intellectualium notam virium expresserint, sapientiam scilicet, quia contingentium veritatem illam arcanam, et supernam, et apud Pleroma constitutam ; haereticarum idearum sacramenta : hoc enim sunt et Αἰῶνες, et genealogiae illorum. Idipsum ante Tertullianum monuerat Irenaeus, Valentinianos ex ethnicis poetis systematis formam, e philosophis materiam eruisse ; horum quippe dicta congregantes, et quasi centonem ex multis et pessimis panniculis consarcientes, finctum superficium subtili eloquio sibi ipsis praeparavisse. Inter eos philosophos enumerat Thaletem Milesium, Anaximandrum, Anaxagoram, Democritum, Epicurum, Platonem, Empedoclem, et Pythagoram. Et hinc Philastrius notat, Valentinum Pythagoricum magis fuisse quam Christianum. Porphyrius vero in Vita Plotini scribit, Gnosticos ex antiqua philosophia emersisse. Qui quidem Alexandri Libyci, Philocomi, Demostrati, Lydi, plurimos libros circumferentes, et revelatiques quasdam Zoroastris (cujus librum ab iis confictum esse contendit), Zostriani, Nicothei, Allogenis, Mosi, aliorumque ejusmodi palam ostendentes, deceperunt multos, priores ipsi decepti ; asserentes Platonem intelligibilis essentiae profundum minime penetrasse. Quos Plotinus scriptis, quae adhuc supersunt, palam confutavit ; probavitque totam eorum doctrinam, additis duntaxat vocibus quibusdam novis, falsisque sententiis, a Platone desumptam fuisse. Quibus mire confirmantur quae mox diximus, Valentinianam hypothesim aliud nihil esse quam inconditam Chaldaicorum, Pythagoricorum, Platonicorumque placitorum farraginem, Christianis dogmatibus intermistam. Sed haec paulo enucleatius explicare juvat, remque a capite repetere.

intellectual powers, which they also adapt to the parable of the ten virgins: so that the five foolish ones figured the bodily senses—foolish, namely, because easy to be deceived—whereas the wise expressed the mark of the intellectual powers, namely wisdom, because attaining to that secret and supernal truth established in the Pleroma: the mysteries of heretical ideas; for this is what both the Αἰῶνες and their genealogies are. This very thing Irenaeus had pointed out before Tertullian, that the Valentinians had dug out the form of their system from the pagan poets, and its matter from the philosophers; for gathering together their sayings, and patching together as it were a cento out of many and worst shreds, they had prepared for themselves a feigned surface with subtle speech. Among those philosophers he enumerates Thales of Miletus, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Plato, Empedocles, and Pythagoras. And hence Philastrius notes that Valentinus was a Pythagorean rather than a Christian. Moreover, Porphyry writes in his Life of Plotinus that the Gnostics emerged from the ancient philosophy. And these, carrying about very many books of Alexander the Libyan, Philocomus, Demostratus, and Lydus, and openly displaying certain revelations of Zoroaster (whose book he contends was forged by them), of Zostrianus, Nicotheus, Allogenes, Mesus, and others of that sort, deceived many, having first been deceived themselves, asserting that Plato had by no means penetrated the depth of intelligible essence. These men Plotinus openly refuted in writings which still survive, and proved that the whole of their doctrine, with the mere addition of certain new words and false opinions, had been taken from Plato. By which facts what we have just said is wonderfully confirmed, that the Valentinian hypothesis is nothing else than a confused medley of Chaldaean, Pythagorean, and Platonic tenets mingled with Christian doctrines. But it is worthwhile to explain these things a little more distinctly, and to trace the matter back from the head.

26. Philosophorum omnium antiquissimi memorantur a Cicerone Chaldaei, a quibus ad barbaras primum nationes (sic extra Graeciam et Italiam sitae vocabantur), tum ad Graecos et Latinos transmissa philosophia est. A Chaldaeis enim ad Babylonios et Assyrios manavit, ut auctor est Aristoteles, vel alius quisquis scripsit librum, qui inscribitur Μαγικόν, et Sotion in libris τῆς διαδοχῆς, teste Laertio. Sive vero a Chaldaeis philosophiam edoctus fuerit Abrahamus, sive, quod longe probabilius cum Josepho censemus, ab Abrahamo acceperint Chaldaei ; certum est per Abrahamum ad Palaestinos, sive Chananaeos, postea etiam ad Aegyptios devenisse. Abrahamum siquidem rerum astronomicarum peritissimum fuisse, fatebantur ipsimet gentilium antiquissimi, Berosus in primis a Josepho mox citato laudatus. Nec dubium quin iisdem scientiis quas apprime callebat, gentium apud quas diversatus est, animos imbuerit. Cumque a Chananaeis ad Aegyptios, urgente

26. As the most ancient of all philosophers Cicero mentions the Chaldaeans, from whom philosophy was transmitted first to the barbarian nations (so those situated outside Greece and Italy were called), and then to the Greeks and Latins. For from the Chaldaeans it flowed to the Babylonians and Assyrians, as Aristotle is authority, or whoever else wrote the book entitled Μαγικόν, and Sotion in the books τῆς διαδοχῆς, as Laertius testifies. And whether Abraham was taught philosophy by the Chaldaeans, or whether, as we judge far more probable with Josephus, the Chaldaeans received it from Abraham, it is certain that through Abraham it came down to the Palestinians or Canaanites, and afterwards also to the Egyptians. For that Abraham was most skilled in astronomical matters the most ancient of the Gentiles themselves confessed, above all Berosus, praised by Josephus just cited. Nor is there any doubt that he imbued the minds of the nations among whom he sojourned with the same sciences in which he was pre-eminently skilled. And when he passed over from the Canaanites to the Egyptians under the pressure of

Editors' notes and page, col. 44

Footnotes

(34) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 44 (inferred from note order)

Lib. II, cap. 14

Book II, ch. 14.

(printed under page 28)

(35) ‹anchor: a Cicerone› · call in col 44

Lib. I De divinat.

Book I On Divination.

(printed under page 28)

(36) ‹anchor: cum Josepho censemus› · call in col 44 [numeral small and indistinct in the note line; read from the order of calls]

Lib. I Antiq., cap. 7.

Book I of the Antiquities, ch. 7.

(printed under page 28)

Page

running head: PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 44
marginal letters: A lectualium virium; B Anaxagoram, Democritum; C additis duntaxat; D et Sotion in libris
old-edition numerals: [XXII] after Anaximandrum,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; words split at column breaks: lectualium (from intel-), ur-
other: the word urgente was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 45

PG 7:45

fame, ut refert Historia sacra, transierit, hos iisdem disciplinis, Josepho teste, informavit. Et hinc philosophiam traductam a Chaldaeis ad Aegyptios, ante Josephum, scripsit Diodorus : a Chaldaeis quippe ortum ducebat Abraham. Phoenices, scientiarum fama tota antiquitate celebres, nihil moror, utpote qui a Chananaeis prognati, Abrahaeque posteris contermini, tum a parentibus, tum a vicinis, quidquid scirent derivare facile potuerunt. Nec improbabile, quod eruditorum plerique sentiunt, Persarum magos a Zoroastre institutos, ex iis Chaldaeorum fontibus, naturales disciplinas, imo et theologiam hausisse. Id si non persuadere, suadere saltem videtur maximus utriusque gentis in praecipuis doctrinae capitibus consensus. Adeo ut Chaldaica philosophia fons uberrimus exstiterit, ex quo primum poculum sibi haurientes Babylonii, Assyrii, Chananaei, Phoenices, Aegyptii et Persae, Graecis postmodum infudere. Hoc ipsimet e Graecis cordatiores, Laertio teste in Prooem. non diffitebantur ; philosophiae suae initia barbaris accepta memores referebant : nec quidquam efficacius ad caeterorum superbiam frangendam prioribus Ecclesiae Patribus, Tatiano, Theophilo, Clementi Alexandrino, Eusebio, aliisque visum est, quam ut eos ad scientiarum, quibus tumidius efferebantur, primordia revocarent.

famine, as Sacred History relates (Gen. 12:10), he instructed them in the same disciplines, as Josephus testifies. And hence Diodorus before Josephus wrote that philosophy was brought over from the Chaldaeans to the Egyptians, inasmuch as Abraham traced his origin from the Chaldaeans. Upon the Phoenicians, famous throughout all antiquity for the renown of their sciences, I do not dwell, since, being sprung from the Canaanites and bordering upon the posterity of Abraham, they could easily derive whatever they knew both from their forefathers and from their neighbours. Nor is that improbable which most of the learned hold, that the Magi of the Persians, instituted by Zoroaster, drew their natural disciplines, nay, even their theology, from those fountains of the Chaldaeans. If the very great agreement of both nations in the chief heads of doctrine does not prove this, at least it seems to recommend it. So that the Chaldaean philosophy was a most abundant fountain, from which the Babylonians, Assyrians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Persians, drawing the first cup for themselves, afterwards poured it out for the Greeks. This the more sensible among the Greeks themselves, as Laertius testifies in his Prooemium, did not deny; mindful of the fact, they set down the beginnings of their philosophy as received from the barbarians; nor did anything seem to the earlier Fathers of the Church—Tatian, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and others—more effectual for breaking the pride of the rest than to recall them to the first beginnings of the sciences whereby they were too haughtily puffed up.

27. Et certe ne plures e veteribus philosophis Graecis in medium proferam ; quantum Pythagoras, a quo philosophia nomen apud Graecos cepit, barbaris debeat, omnibus notum. Pherecydem Syrum, Pythagoram et Thaletem, qui primi de rebus coelestibus et divinis disseruerunt, seipsos Chaldaeorum, Aegyptiorumque discipulos in hoc agnovisse, tradit Josephus in primo contr. Appion. Consentit Isocrates in Busiride scribens, Pythagoram in Aegyptum profectum, ab Aegyptiis philosophiae, sacrificiorum ac cultus deorum disciplinam accepisse, quam dein ad Graecos traduxit. Πυθαγόρας ὁ ἀφικόμενος εἰς Αἴγυπτον, καὶ μαθητὴς ἐκείνων γενόμενος, τήν τε ἄλλην φιλοσοφίαν πρῶτος εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐκόμισε , καὶ περὶ τὰς θυσίας τε καὶ τὰς ἁγιστείας, τὰς ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς, ἐπιφανέστερον τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπούδασε. Ibi Sonchedi archipropheta praeceptore usus, teste Clemente Alexandr., lib. I Strom., symbolicam docendi rationem didicit, ut auctor est Jamblichus lib. I De Vita ejus, cap. 5. Imo et μετεμψυχώσεως errorem inde hausisse, haud obscure colligitur. Herodotus enim in Euterpe dicit, eam ab Aegyptiis primum excogitatam, a Graecis postea susceptam fuisse. Cum vero apud Aegyptios viginti et duos annos, si Jamblicho citato fides, egisset, sacris eorum omnibus initiatus, inde Babylonem a Cambysis militibus abductus, cum Chaldaeorum Persarumque magis conversatus est, in ipsorumque mysteriis haud segniter eruditus fuit. Jam antea, inquit idem Jamblichus cap. 3, Sidonem, Tyrum, Byblum aliasque

27. And certainly, not to bring forward more of the ancient Greek philosophers, how much Pythagoras, from whom philosophy took its name among the Greeks, owes to the barbarians is known to all. That Pherecydes of Syros, Pythagoras, and Thales, who first discoursed concerning heavenly and divine things, acknowledged themselves disciples of the Chaldaeans and Egyptians in this, Josephus relates in his first book Against Apion. Isocrates agrees in his Busiris, writing that Pythagoras, having set out for Egypt, received from the Egyptians the discipline of philosophy, of sacrifices, and of the worship of the gods, which he thereafter brought over to the Greeks: Πυθαγόρας ὁ ἀφικόμενος εἰς Αἴγυπτον, καὶ μαθητὴς ἐκείνων γενόμενος, τήν τε ἄλλην φιλοσοφίαν πρῶτος εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐκόμισε, καὶ περὶ τὰς θυσίας τε καὶ τὰς ἁγιστείας, τὰς ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς, ἐπιφανέστερον τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπούδασε. There, having had Sonchedes the archprophet as his teacher, as Clement of Alexandria testifies in Book I of the Stromata, he learned the symbolic method of teaching, as Iamblichus is the authority in Book I of his Life, Chapter 5. Nay, that he also drew thence the error of μετεμψύχωσις is gathered without obscurity. For Herodotus says in Euterpe that it was first devised by the Egyptians, and afterwards taken up by the Greeks. And when he had spent twenty-two years among the Egyptians, if credit is to be given to the cited Iamblichus, having been initiated into all their sacred rites, and having been carried off thence to Babylon by the soldiers of Cambyses, he conversed with the Magi of the Chaldaeans and Persians, and was no little instructed in their mysteries. Already before that, says the same Iamblichus in Chapter 3, he had visited Sidon, Tyre, Byblus, and other

Editors' notes and page, col. 45

Footnotes

(37) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 45 (inferred from note order)

Genes. XII, 10.

Genesis 12:10.

(printed under page 29)

(38) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 45 (inferred from note order)

Antiq. I, 8.

Antiquities I, 8.

(printed under page 29)

Page

running head: 45 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, D
marginal letters: A gente fame, ut refert; B daica philosophia; C baris debeat, omnibus; D rationem didicit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: gente (from ur-)

PG 7:46

Phoeniciae ac Syriae partes inviserat : ubi prophetarum Mochi successorum, aliorumque Phoeniciae hierophantarum factus auditor, sacra omnia diligenter investigarat, ac pro more gentis perfecerat ; nec quidquam scitu et observatu dignum in deorum arcanis et sacrificiis ipsum fugerat.

parts of Phoenicia and Syria; where, having become a hearer of the prophets who were the successors of Mochus, and of the other hierophants of Phoenicia, he had diligently investigated all their sacred rites, and performed them after the custom of the nation; nor had anything worthy of being known and observed in the secrets and sacrifices of the gods escaped him.

28. Eadem fere de Platone dixerim, qui cum esset Atheniensis, ut scribit Augustinus, honesto apud suos loco natus, et ingenio mirabili longe suos condiscipulos anteiret, parum tamen putans perficiendae philosophiae sufficere seipsum, ac Socraticam disciplinam, quam longe lateque potuit peregrinatus est, quaquaversum eum alicujus nobilitate scientiae fama rapiebat. Itaque et in Aegypto quaecunque illic magna habebantur atque docebantur, et inde in eas Italiae partes veniens, ubi Pythagoraeorum fama celebrabatur, quidquid Italicae philosophiae tunc florebat, auditis eminentioribus in ea doctoribus, facillime comprehendit. Ita Augustinus, qui secum consentientes habet Diogenem Laertium, Apuleium, aliosque qui Platonis acta scriptis tradiderunt. Hic itaque auditis Socrate, tum Cratylo Heracliti discipulo, deinde Hermogene Parmenidis sectatore, demum Euclide seniore a quo Megarica secta initium sumpsit, inde Cyrenem profectus a Theodoro mathematico institutus est. Sed Pythagoricae philosophiae, quae tum caeteras sectas fama superabat, ob sublimiorem res divinas tractandi methodum amore captus, ad eam Italiae regionem, quae Magna Graecia dicebatur, appellens, Archytae senioris, Eurici, Timaei, Philolai, Epicharmi, aliorumque Pythagoricorum disciplinae seipsum tradidit. Cui quidem philosophiae cum diutinam diligentemque operam navasset, Pythagoram magistrum imitatus, Aegypti quoque sacerdotes adiit, atque eorum arcana perdidicit. Communis est etiam, nec improbabilis veterum Patrum sententia, Judaeos a Platone non neglectos, sive Judaeam ipse adierit, sive Judaeos tum in Aegypto frequentes consuluerit, et ab iis haud poenitendam divinae scientiae copiam accepisse, qua libros suos dein exornarit. Sic omnigenis philosophorum exuviis affatim locupletatus, domum reversus veteris Academiae fundamenta jecit, novamque sectam condidit, toto orbe celebrem deinceps futuram, aliasque omnes pene obscuraturam. Hic porro novae istius sectae character, ut commistis invicem, ut ait Laertius, Heracliteorum, Pythagoricorum et Stoicorum opinionibus, novum doctrinae corpus ex omnibus solerter conflatum traderet. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ αισθητὰ, καθ' Ἡράκλειτον · τὰ δὲ νοητὰ, κατὰ Πυθαγόραν · τὰ δὲ πολιτικὰ κατὰ Σωκράτην ἐφιλοσόφει. Atque in iis quidem quae sensibus subjacent, Heracliti partes tuebatur ; ea quae mente comprehenduntur, ex Pythagorae sententia tractavit, in rebus autem civilibus, philosophabatur ex mente Socratis. Huic vero philosophiae prae caeteris pretium addidit, quod de Deo

28. Almost the same things I might say of Plato, who, though he was an Athenian, as Augustine writes, born in an honourable station among his own people, and by his marvellous intellect far surpassed his fellow disciples, yet thinking that he himself and the Socratic discipline were little sufficient for perfecting philosophy, travelled as far and wide as he could, whithersoever the fame of any noble science carried him. And so both in Egypt he learned whatever great things were held and taught there, and coming thence into those parts of Italy where the fame of the Pythagoreans was celebrated, having heard the more eminent teachers in it, he most easily grasped whatever of Italian philosophy then flourished. Thus Augustine, who has agreeing with him Diogenes Laertius, Apuleius, and others who have handed down the deeds of Plato in writing. He therefore, having heard Socrates, then Cratylus the disciple of Heraclitus, next Hermogenes the follower of Parmenides, and finally the elder Euclid from whom the Megarian sect took its beginning, having set out thence for Cyrene was instructed by Theodorus the mathematician. But captivated with love of the Pythagorean philosophy, which then surpassed the other sects in renown on account of its sublimer method of treating divine things, putting in at that region of Italy which was called Magna Graecia, he gave himself up to the discipline of the elder Archytas, Eurytus, Timaeus, Philolaus, Epicharmus, and the other Pythagoreans. And when he had devoted long and diligent labour to this philosophy, imitating his master Pythagoras, he also visited the priests of Egypt and thoroughly learned their secrets. It is also the common and not improbable opinion of the ancient Fathers that the Jews were not neglected by Plato, whether he himself visited Judaea or consulted the Jews who were then numerous in Egypt, and that he received from them no mean store of divine science, wherewith he thereafter adorned his books. Thus abundantly enriched with spoils of every kind from the philosophers, returning home he laid the foundations of the Old Academy, and founded a new sect, destined thereafter to be famous throughout the whole world and almost to eclipse all others. Now this was the character of that new sect, that having mingled together with one another, as Laertius says, the opinions of the Heracliteans, the Pythagoreans, and the Stoics, he handed down a new body of doctrine skilfully compounded out of all: Τὰ μὲν γὰρ αισθητὰ, καθ' Ἡράκλειτον · τὰ δὲ νοητὰ, κατὰ Πυθαγόραν · τὰ δὲ πολιτικὰ κατὰ Σωκράτην ἐφιλοσόφει. And in those things indeed which fall under the senses, he upheld the part of Heraclitus; those things which are grasped by the mind he treated according to the opinion of Pythagoras; while in civil matters he philosophized according to the mind of Socrates. Moreover, it added value to this philosophy above the rest that concerning God

Editors' notes and page, col. 46

Footnotes

(39) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 46 (inferred from note order)

Lib. VIII De civit., cap. 4

Book VIII of The City [of God], ch. 4.

(printed under page 29)

(40) ‹anchor: magistrum imitatus› · call in col 46

Quintil., lib. I, cap. 19.

Quintilian, book I, ch. 19.

(printed under page 29)

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 46
marginal letters: A Phoeniciae ac Syriae; B partes veniens; C pellens, Archytae; D omnes pene obscuraturam
old-edition numerals: [XXIII] after Pythagoricorum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:47

ejusque proprietatibus, ac iis quibus informandi essent hominum mores, aliis sublimius disseruit. Agnovit enim Plato unum esse Deum, summum opificem universi, et rerum auctorem et veritatis illustratorem, et beatitudinis largitorem ; ac proinde finem boni esse, secundum virtutem vivere, et ei soli evenire posse qui notitiam Dei habeat et imitationem, nec esse aliam ob causam beatum. Haec itaque causa fuit cur istos caeteris praetulerint Judaei atque Christiani ; quia cum alii philosophi ingenia sua studiaque contriverint in requirendis rerum causis, et quinam modus esset discendi atque vivendi ; isti Deo cognito repererunt ubi esset causa constitutae universitatis et lux percipiendae veritatis, et fons bibendae felicitatis. In hoc tamen caeteris gravius peccavit Plato, quod licet unum verum Deum agnosceret, diis tamen plurimis esse sacra facienda putaret. Nam praeter eum statuit deos alios inferiores, quos et sacris coli jussit. Sicque variis gentium superstitionibus, sacrificiis, sceleratis mysteriis, artibusque magicis, Platonicorum non minus quam caeterorum defoedata mansit philosophia.

and His attributes, and those things whereby the morals of men ought to be formed, he discoursed more sublimely than others. For Plato recognized that there is one God, the supreme artificer of the universe, the author of things, the illuminator of truth, and the bestower of blessedness; and that accordingly the end of good is to live according to virtue, and can fall to the lot of him alone who has the knowledge and imitation of God, and that a man is blessed for no other cause. This, therefore, was the reason why Jews and Christians preferred those philosophers to the rest: because while other philosophers wore out their intellects and studies in seeking the causes of things, and what the manner of learning and living might be, these, having known God, found where was the cause of the established universe, and the light of perceiving truth, and the fountain of drinking happiness. Yet in this Plato sinned more grievously than the rest, that although he recognized the one true God, he nevertheless thought that sacred rites ought to be performed to very many gods. For beside Him he set up other inferior gods, whom he also commanded to be worshipped with sacred rites. And thus the philosophy of the Platonists remained no less defiled than that of the rest with the various superstitions of the Gentiles, sacrifices, wicked mysteries, and magical arts.

29. Ex veteri Platonis Academia prodiere nova et media, quibus addunt nonnulli quartam et quintam, quarum omnium discrimina omnibus nota nihil ad scopum nostrum conferunt. Sed demum post varias quas experta est Academia vicissitudines, qui Platonis dogmatibus strictius adhaerebant, spreto Academicorum nomine, quod Arcesilae sectatoribus relictum, illud Platonicorum sibi vindicarunt, novumque splendorem jam in unum coalescenti, quae prius scissa erat, scholae Platonis addiderunt. Effloruisse videntur novi illi Platonici e schola Alexandrina, quam Ptolemaeus Philadelphus φιλογράμματος instituerat. Ut enim litterarum studia promoveret, scholamque suam toto orbe celebrem redderet, totam Aegyptiorum sapientiam hactenus hierophantis, Aegyptiacoque idiomati duntaxat concreditam, cum sacris Judaeorum libris, ut vulgo creditur, in Graecum (quo plurimis innotescere ac prodesse possent) converti curaverat ; bibliothecam non poenitenda librorum supellectile instruxerat ; viros totius orbis doctissimos, Judaeos, Graecos, Romanos, etc., advocarat, amplissimae mercedis spe allectos. Eo confluxere variarum gentium philosophi, doctrinae specimina daturi. Sed primas facile tenuere Platonici, Aegyptiis maxima cum dogmatibus eorum affinitate prae caeteris commendati ; utpote quae Plato tum ex frequentibus quos habuerat cum mystagogis eorum congressibus, tum ex iis, quos audierat, Pythagoricis, sedulo edidicerat. In divinis siquidem pertractandis Pythagoricam docendi rationem, eamdem pene cum Aegyptiaca, sequebatur, ut mox ex Laertio diximus. Hincque factum ut Aegyptiis tanto in pretio fuerit Platonica philosophia, qualem docebant novi illi Platonici, indeque longe lateque apud alias nationes propagata fuerit.

29. From the Old Academy of Plato came forth the New and the Middle, to which some add a fourth and a fifth, the differences of all of which, known to everyone, contribute nothing to our aim. But at length, after the various vicissitudes which the Academy experienced, those who cleaved more strictly to the doctrines of Plato, spurning the name of Academics, which was left to the followers of Arcesilaus, claimed for themselves that of Platonists, and added a new splendour to the school of Plato, which had previously been rent asunder and was now coalescing into one. Those new Platonists appear to have blossomed forth from the Alexandrian school, which Ptolemy Philadelphus φιλογράμματος had instituted. For in order to promote the study of letters and render his school famous throughout the whole world, he had taken care that the whole wisdom of the Egyptians, hitherto entrusted solely to the hierophants and the Egyptian tongue, together with the sacred books of the Jews, as is commonly believed, should be translated into Greek (whereby they might become known and useful to very many); he had furnished a library with no mean store of books; and he had summoned the most learned men of the whole world—Jews, Greeks, Romans, etc.—allured by the hope of a most ample reward. Thither flocked philosophers of various nations to give specimens of their learning. But the Platonists easily held the foremost place, commended above the rest to the Egyptians by the very great affinity with their doctrines; inasmuch as Plato had sedulously learned them both from the frequent meetings which he had had with their mystagogues and from the Pythagoreans whom he had heard. For in treating of divine things he followed the Pythagorean method of teaching, which was almost the same as the Egyptian, as we have just said from Laertius. And hence it came to pass that the Platonic philosophy, such as those new Platonists taught it, was held in so great esteem by the Egyptians, and was propagated thence far and wide among other nations.

Editors' notes and page, col. 47

Footnotes

(41) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 47 (inferred; call not seen)

Aug., lib. VIII De civit., cap. 5.

Augustine, The City [of God] book VIII, ch. 5.

(printed under page 30)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 47 (inferred; call not seen)

Ibid., cap. 8.

The same, ch. 8.

(printed under page 30)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 47 (inferred; call not seen)

Ibid., cap. 10

The same, ch. 10.

(printed under page 30)

(44) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 47 (inferred; call not seen)

Ibid., cap. 12.

The same, ch. 12.

(printed under page 30)

Page

running head: 47 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A ejusque proprietatibus; B Plato, quod licet; C dicarunt, novumque; D allectos. Eo confluxere
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:48

30. Primus qui in Alexandrina schola famam obtinuisse memoratur, Potamon, Caesaris Augusti et Tiberii temporibus, Suida teste, florebat : Ποτάμων Ἀλεξανδρεὺς φιλόσοφος γεγονὼς κατ' Αὔγουστον, καὶ μετ' αὐτόν. Hic, si eidem Suidae fides, reliquit εἰς τὰς Πλάτωνος πολιτείας ὑπόμνημα, Commentarios in libros Platonis de Republica. Si quid aliud scripserit, tempus edax rerum vel ipsam memoriam posteritati invidit. Quamvis autem Potamon potissimum sibi ducem elegisset Platonem, cujus vestigia premeret, non temere tamen in magistri verba quaelibet jurandum sibi duxit. Imo cauto pede sic secutus est, ut libere ab illius sententia, melioribus perspectis, discederet. Novum proinde, liberiusque quam hactenus fuerat, in scholam Alexandrinam philosophandi genus introduxit : quo perpurgatis Platonis opinionibus, ablegatis improbabilibus, resectisque nugis, quibus luxuriantia discipulorum ingenia magistri doctrinam obliverant ; quaecunque veriora aut vero similiora videbantur, nullo auctorum discrimine habito, ascivit substituitque. Ἐκλεκτικὸν, Latinis electivum, dictum est hoc philosophandi genus ; sectatores vero ἐκλεκτικοὶ, electivi seu electores ; ut optimum et laudatissimum, sic omnium certe difficillimum, quo dogmatum omnium philosophicorum delectu facto, id duntaxat probabatur, quod ad rationis normam exactum, melius quadrabat. Hanc iniere viam quotquot deinceps e schola Alexandrina nomen sibi compararunt, ut Ammonius, Neroni et Vespasiano σύγχρονος, non ille Origenis et Plotini, sed Plutarchi praeceptor, cujus meminit Eunapius in Prooemio. Sed majores in ea progressus fecit, novumque decus restauratae Platonis Academiae, admistis aliorum philosophorum, Pythagoraeorum in primis, placitis, addidit celebris Ammonius τῆς ἱερᾶς γενεᾶς, sacrae Platonicae successionis caput dictus : ex cujus ore perpurgatam hanc philosophiam hauserunt Herennius, Origenes et Plotinus ; quos deinde Porphyrius, Jamblichus, Hierocles, Syrianus et Proclus, κατ' ἐξοχὴν vocatus διάδοχος, exceperunt, quibus Maximum Tyrium, Alcinoum, Damascium, Apuleium, Chalcidium et alios adjungere possumus.

30. The first who is recorded to have won fame in the Alexandrian school, Potamon, flourished in the times of Caesar Augustus and Tiberius, as Suidas testifies: Ποτάμων Ἀλεξανδρεὺς φιλόσοφος γεγονὼς κατ' Αὔγουστον, καὶ μετ' αὐτόν. He, if credit is to be given to the same Suidas, left εἰς τὰς Πλάτωνος πολιτείας ὑπόμνημα, Commentaries on the Books of Plato's Republic. If he wrote anything else, time, the devourer of things, has grudged even the very memory of it to posterity. Now although Potamon had chosen Plato above all as his guide, in whose footsteps he trod, yet he did not think that he ought rashly to swear by every word of his master. Nay, he followed him with cautious foot in such a way as freely to depart from his opinion when better views presented themselves. Accordingly, he introduced into the Alexandrian school a new and freer kind of philosophizing than had hitherto existed; whereby, having thoroughly purged the opinions of Plato, banished what was improbable, and cut away the trifles wherewith the luxuriant wits of disciples had bedaubed the master's doctrine, he adopted and substituted whatever seemed truer or more probable, without making any distinction of authors. This kind of philosophizing was called Ἐκλεκτικὸν, by the Latins electivum; and its followers ἐκλεκτικοὶ, electivi or electores—as the best and most praiseworthy, so certainly the most difficult of all, wherein, a choice having been made of all philosophical doctrines, that alone was approved which, when tested by the rule of reason, squared better with it. This path was entered upon by all who thereafter acquired a name for themselves from the Alexandrian school, such as Ammonius, σύγχρονος with Nero and Vespasian—not the teacher of Origen and Plotinus, but of Plutarch, whom Eunapius mentions in his Prooemium. Yet greater progress in it was made, and new lustre added to the restored Academy of Plato through the admixture of the tenets of other philosophers, and of the Pythagoreans above all, by the celebrated Ammonius, called the head τῆς ἱερᾶς γενεᾶς, of the sacred Platonic succession; from whose lips Herennius, Origen, and Plotinus drew this purged philosophy; whom thereafter Porphyry, Iamblichus, Hierocles, Syrianus, and Proclus, called κατ' ἐξοχὴν the διάδοχος, succeeded, to whom we may add Maximus of Tyre, Alcinous, Damascius, Apuleius, Chalcidius, and others.

31. Si quid vero splendoris novae huic Platonicae scholae additum ex aliarum sectarum opinionibus, quas proprias sibi fecit ; longe major accessit ex sublimiori theologia, quam ex Judaeorum ac Christianorum tum libris, tum sermonibus deprompsit. Cum enim Judaei jam a primis scholae illius exordiis frequentes apud Alexandriam agerent, librique sacri in Graecum sermonem conversi, gentilium manibus teri coepissent, non potuerunt ex utrorumque verbis, sannis, dicteriis, et invictis argumentis recentiores illi Platonici non colligere, quam eorum polytheismus, portentosaque gentilitatis sacra et mysteria a sana ratione abhorrerent;

31. Yet if some splendour was added to this new Platonic school from the opinions of other sects which it made its own, a far greater accrued from the sublimer theology which it drew both from the books and from the discourses of the Jews and Christians. For since the Jews already from the first beginnings of that school lived in great numbers at Alexandria, and the sacred books, translated into the Greek tongue, had begun to be thumbed by the hands of the Gentiles, those newer Platonists could not fail to gather from the words, gibes, taunts, and unanswerable arguments of both how abhorrent to sound reason were their polytheism and the monstrous sacred rites and mysteries of paganism;

Editors' notes and page, col. 48

Page

running head: PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 48
marginal letters: A 30. Primus qui; B fuerat, in scholam; C na nomen sibi; D 31. Si quid vero
old-edition numerals: [XXIV] after Judaeorum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:49

et quam econtrario ea quae ex libris sacris percipitur divinorum notitia, sublimis sit, augusta, pura rationique consentanea. Felices, si micantes inde radii obductas animo nebulas dispulissent, umbrisque discussis ad solem ipsum oculos convertissent ! Sed maluere plerique anticipatis opinionibus obcaecati, divinae lucis igniculos mendaciorum fumo et tenebris obscurare : et cum theologiam suam ex oraculis divinis metiri debuissent, haec potius ordine praepostero ad Pythagorae, Platonisque placita revocare studuerunt. Eapropter iis omnibus, quaecunque ex sacris libris, Judaeorumque dogmatibus subripere potuerunt, Pythagoricam Platonicamque speciem inducentes, novum doctrinae corpus coagmentarunt, a crassiori quidem gentilitatis faece secretum, sordibus tamen adhuc non paucis lutulentum. Jam quidem Plato unum supremum mundi opificem, inferioresque daemones agnoverat ; at de angelis, archangelis, eorum ordinibus et officiis, de mystica nescio qua Triade, aliisque sexcentis, de quibus subtiliori disputatione disseruerunt recentiores illi discipuli, ne κατ' ὄναρ cogitaverat magister : adeo ut haec iis solis auctoribus prodierint : si tamen auctores dicendi, qui a Judaeis accepta ementitis coloribus infuscarunt. At si quid a Judaeis acceperint Platonici isti, id postmodum Judaeis cum fenore reddiderunt. Nam cum hi novam eam philosophandi rationem dogmatibus sacris, allegoriis et symbolis intermistam, caeterisque puriorem, nec adeo divinioris scientiae principiis repugnantem animadvertissent, in illius admirationem pertracti, in ejus studium incumbere coeperunt ; rati non difficili negotio purgandam a sordibus, quas intulerat ethnica superstitio, utilem fore ad explicanda, accuratiorique methodo pertractanda sacrae religionis mysteria. Itaque huc animum appellentes, divinamque scientiam subtilius quam par erat eliquantes, cum Platonicis πλατωνίζειν, ac purissimos veritatis rivulos in Pythagorae ac Platonis lacunas derivare coeperunt : magno sane cum religionis detrimento, quae tota deinceps argutiis, numeris, numerorumque copulationibus, symbolis et allegoriis referta prodiit. Quantum vero in eo disciplinae genere profecerint Judaei, Hellenistae praesertim, ex Philonis scriptis videre est, qui quod Platonica dogmata animo altius imbibisset, ceu alter Plato a veteribus habitus fuisse videtur ; cujus exemplum male aemulati posteri, argutias argutiis addiderunt, vanisque subtilitatibus aegras mentes paverunt. Quamvis autem adeo longe progressos fuisse Judaeos, qui in Palaestina Philonis aetate degebant, nulla demonstrent argumenta ; eos tamen Platonica doctrina haud mediocriter excultos suadent tum frequens quod ipsis intercedebat cum Hellenistis, Aegyptiis et Tyriis commercium, tum Flavii Josephi libri, virum in philosophorum lectione non parum versatum ostendentes.

and how sublime, august, pure, and agreeable to reason, on the contrary, is that knowledge of divine things which is perceived from the sacred books. Happy had they been, if the rays gleaming thence had dispelled the clouds drawn over their mind, and with the shadows scattered they had turned their eyes to the sun itself! But most of them, blinded by preconceived opinions, preferred to obscure the sparks of divine light with the smoke and darkness of falsehoods; and whereas they ought to have measured their theology by the divine oracles, they studied rather in preposterous order to reduce these to the tenets of Pythagoras and Plato. On that account, putting a Pythagorean and Platonic guise upon all those things which they were able to filch from the sacred books and the doctrines of the Jews, they framed together a new body of doctrine, separated indeed from the grosser dregs of paganism, yet still muddy with no few impurities. Already indeed Plato had recognized one supreme artificer of the world and inferior demons; but of angels, archangels, their orders and offices, of I know not what mystical Triad, and six hundred other things concerning which those newer disciples discoursed in subtler disputation, the master had not thought even κατ' ὄναρ, in a dream; so that these things came forth with them alone as authors—if indeed those are to be called authors who darkened with counterfeit colours what they had received from the Jews. Yet if those Platonists received anything from the Jews, they afterwards repaid it to the Jews with interest. For when the latter observed that new method of philosophizing, mingled with sacred doctrines, allegories, and symbols, purer than the rest, and not so repugnant to the principles of diviner science, drawn into admiration of it, they began to apply themselves to its study, thinking that with no difficult labour it could be purged from the impurities which pagan superstition had brought in, and would be useful for explaining and treating by a more accurate method the mysteries of sacred religion. Applying their mind hither, therefore, and straining divine science more subtly than was fitting, they began to πλατωνίζειν, Platonize, with the Platonists, and to divert the purest streamlets of truth into the pools of Pythagoras and Plato; to the great detriment assuredly of religion, which thereafter came forth wholly crammed with subtleties, numbers, and couplings of numbers, symbols, and allegories. And how great progress the Jews, especially the Hellenists, made in that kind of discipline may be seen from the writings of Philo, who, because he had imbibed the Platonic doctrines more deeply in his mind, seems to have been regarded by the ancients as a second Plato; whose example posterity ill emulating, added subtleties to subtleties, and fed sick minds with vain refinements. Now although no arguments demonstrate that the Jews who lived in Palestine in the age of Philo had advanced so far, yet that they were no little cultivated in the Platonic doctrine is recommended both by the frequent intercourse which they had with the Hellenists, Egyptians, and Tyrians, and by the books of Flavius Josephus, which show a man no little versed in the reading of the philosophers.

32. Quae Judaeorum animis primum, eadem et Christianorum postea fucum fecit Platonica doctrina

32. The same Platonic doctrine which first played tricks upon the minds of the Jews, afterwards did so upon those of the Christians as well;

Editors' notes and page, col. 49

Page

running head: 49 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, D
marginal letters: A et quam econtrario; B tis faece secretum; C cipiis repugnantem; D quod Platonica dogmata
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: do-
other: the word doctrina was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 50

PG 7:50

; idque eo facilius, quo illucescente Evangelii die, nova accessione ditata superbius quam antea sese extulit. Nam ex quo apostoli apostolicique viri cum ethnica superstitione acerrimo certamine dimicarunt, palamque de ea triumphos egerunt ; Imminentem huic ruinam ut averterent philosophi, de nova doctrinae suae reformatione cogitare coeperunt. Perlectis itaque Novi Testamenti scriptis, habitisque cum doctissimis quibusque Christianorum congressibus, ex eorum dogmatibus ea collegerunt, quibus ethnicae religioni splendorem et pretium adderent ; haecque suis artificiose intexentes, et ne pateret furtum, symbolicarum formarum involucro, more Platonico, tegentes, novam hypothesim Christianis objecerunt, quae simulata sanctitatis sublimitatisque specie deciperet imperitos. Susceptum consilium non parum promovit magnus ille Ammonius, Origenis et Plotini praeceptor, qui Christianam religionem professus, inordinato Platonicae philosophiae, cui operam semper navaverat, amore nihil non molitus est, ut ad hanc Scripturarum oracula revocaret. Malus quidem animus non fuit ; hinc enim Christianae religioni majorem apud gentiles auctoritatem conciliaturum se sperabat. Et si quidem philosophiam, uti par erat, ex Scripturis reformare, eamque intra Evangelii limites concludere studuisset, operae forsitan pretium fecisset ; at contrariam omnino rationem cum iniisset, et Christianae religioni, et Christianis ipsis exitio fuit. Nam e Christianis plurimi deinceps hujus philosophiae, quae prae caeteris in pretio erat, ob affinitatem quam cum Scripturis habere videbatur, studio incumbentes ; nec attendentes quidquid sublimius prae se ferebat, totum ex earumdem Scripturarum penu depromptum fuisse, hanc pene cum Scripturis ipsis adaequare, et ad ejus magis quam ad illarum principia ratiocinationes suas exigere assueverunt : quod infinitorum propemodum errorum, quibus contaminata fides fuit, fomitem ministravit. Ethnici econtrario, ex hac sacrorum profanorumque dogmatum mistione, quae philosophiam ornabat, totque portentosis erroribus purgabat, perficiendae, insolentiusque efferendae doctrinae suae occasionem opportune captantes, superbius adversus Christianos, quasi Platonis exuviis seipsos ditassent, insolescere, Christianamque religionem contemnere coeperunt. Evanuit ex eorum scriptis ea deorum nulla vel sibi invicem, vel ulli superiori, subjectione colligatorum multitudo : pauciores apparuerunt, omnesque uni supremae Divinitati, augustiori quam antea sermone celebratae, subjecti. Angelis, archangelis, mentibus coelestibus, sexcentisque aliis, quae a Christianis mutuati fuerant, ornata deinceps processit eorum theologia naturalis. De corporis sensuumque fuga, de cura animi, mentisque cultu et elevatione in Deum, de virtutibus colendis, debellandisque vitiis magnifice scripserunt ; intentatumque nihil reliquerunt, quo fucatam doctrinae puritatem Evangelii sanctitati opponerent.

and that all the more easily, the more proudly, as the day of the Gospel dawned, enriched with a new addition, it exalted itself than before. For from the time when the apostles and apostolic men contended in sharpest combat with pagan superstition, and openly celebrated triumphs over it, the philosophers, in order to avert the ruin overhanging it, began to think of a new reformation of their doctrine. Having therefore read through the writings of the New Testament, and held meetings with all the most learned of the Christians, they gathered from their doctrines those things whereby they might add splendour and value to the pagan religion; and skilfully weaving these into their own, and covering them after the Platonic manner with the wrapping of symbolic forms lest the theft should lie open, they set up against the Christians a new hypothesis, which by a feigned appearance of sanctity and sublimity might deceive the unskilled. The design thus undertaken was promoted no little by that great Ammonius, the teacher of Origen and Plotinus, who, having professed the Christian religion, through an inordinate love of the Platonic philosophy to which he had always devoted his labour, left nothing untried to reduce the oracles of the Scriptures to it. Evil intention indeed he had none, for he hoped hence to win greater authority for the Christian religion among the Gentiles. And if indeed he had studied, as was fitting, to reform philosophy by the Scriptures, and to confine it within the bounds of the Gospel, he would perhaps have done something worthwhile; but having entered upon a wholly contrary course, he proved ruinous both to the Christian religion and to Christians themselves. For very many of the Christians thereafter, applying themselves to the study of this philosophy, which was held in esteem above the rest on account of the affinity which it seemed to have with the Scriptures, and not heeding that whatever sublimer features it displayed had all been drawn from the storehouse of those same Scriptures, grew accustomed almost to put it on a level with the Scriptures themselves, and to measure their reasonings by its principles rather than by theirs; which furnished the tinder for almost infinite errors wherewith the faith was contaminated. The pagans, on the contrary, from this mixture of sacred and profane doctrines, which adorned their philosophy and purged it of so many monstrous errors, seasonably seizing the occasion of perfecting and more insolently exalting their own doctrine, began more proudly to grow insolent against the Christians, as though the latter had enriched themselves with the spoils of Plato, and to despise the Christian religion. There vanished from their writings that multitude of gods bound together by no subjection either to one another or to any superior: fewer appeared, and all of them subject to one supreme Divinity, celebrated in more august language than before. Adorned with angels, archangels, heavenly minds, and six hundred other things which they had borrowed from the Christians, their natural theology thereafter marched forth. Concerning flight from the body and the senses, concerning the care of the soul, and the cultivation and elevation of the mind towards God, concerning the cultivation of virtues and the subduing of vices, they wrote magnificently; and they left nothing untried whereby they might oppose a painted purity of doctrine to the sanctity of the Gospel,

Editors' notes and page, col. 50

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 50
marginal letters: A ctrina ; idque eo; B tis sublimitatisque; C Nam e Christianis; D nos, quasi Platonis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; words split at column breaks: ctrina (from do-), oppo-
other: the word opponerent. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 51

PG 7:51

Duo tamen fuerunt, quibus, quidquid agerent, vanae excusationis velum sic obduci non potuit, quin turpis infamiae labes eorum religioni semper aspergeretur : magia videlicet, et abominanda sacrorum mysteria, Eleusinia praesertim, et Bacchanalia, ut alia sileam. Ex Plotino siquidem, Porphyrio, Jamblicho, Eunapio, aliisque videas, philosophos, perinde atque mystagogos, magicas artes exercuisse, nefandisque daemonum evocationibus studuisse. Eorum quidem infamiam specioso nomine θεουργίας et commercii sacri cum diis tegere nixi sunt ; sed certe abstergere non potuerunt. Ad scelesta mysteria quod attinet, de iis apud citatos philosophos ne verbum quidem, probe conscios scilicet ista nulla ratione excusari posse.

Yet there were two things over which, whatever they might do, the veil of vain excuse could not be so drawn that the foul stain of infamy was not always spattered upon their religion: namely, magic, and the abominable mysteries of their sacred rites, especially the Eleusinian and the Bacchanalian, to pass over others in silence. Since indeed you may see from Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Eunapius, and others that the philosophers, just like the mystagogues, practised magical arts and devoted themselves to nefarious evocations of demons. Their infamy indeed they strove to cover with the specious name of θεουργία and sacred intercourse with the gods; yet assuredly they were unable to wipe it away. As regards the wicked mysteries, there is not so much as a word concerning them in the cited philosophers, because they were well aware, to be sure, that those things could by no means be excused.

33. Haec omnia mox dicendis praemittere necesse fuit, ut inde pateret ex quibus fontibus manarint pleraque Gnosticorum dogmata. Sive hi Judaei nati essent, sive pagani, sive Christianam religionem ab incunabulis professi fuissent ; novorum Platonicorum doctrina eo facilius imbui potuerunt, quo jam apud Judaeos Hellenistas, imo et Palaestinos, et in Aegypto ac Oriente longe lateque propagata fuerat ; ex quo praesertim hoc philosophandi genus in celebrem toto orbe scholam Alexandrinam ab Ammonio introductum fuerat, ad quod deinceps studia sua contulerunt Origenes, Plotinus, Porphyrius, aliique tum Christiani, tum ethnici. Cum vero Valentinus, Epiphanio teste, Alexandriae Graecorum artibus institutus fuerit, haud dubium quin ibi philosophia Platonica animum excoluerit ; cum id conceptis verbis asserat Tertullianus supra laudatus. Ex ea praecipua quaeque Valentinianae haereseos capita profluxisse, ex enucleata eorumdem expositione demonstrare haud adeo difficile fuerit.

33. It was necessary to premise all these things to what is presently to be said, so that it might thence be clear from what fountains most of the doctrines of the Gnostics flowed. Whether these men were born Jews, or pagans, or had professed the Christian religion from the cradle, they could all the more easily be imbued with the doctrine of the new Platonists, the more widely it had already been propagated far and wide among the Hellenist, nay even the Palestinian Jews, and in Egypt and the East; especially from the time when this kind of philosophizing had been introduced by Ammonius into the Alexandrian school, famous throughout the whole world, to which Origen, Plotinus, Porphyry, and others, both Christians and pagans, thereafter directed their studies. And since Valentinus, as Epiphanius testifies, was educated at Alexandria in the liberal arts of the Greeks, there is no doubt that he cultivated his mind there with the Platonic philosophy, since Tertullian, praised above, asserts this in express terms. That all the chief heads of the Valentinian heresy flowed forth from it will not be very difficult to demonstrate from a distinct exposition of them.

34. Ac primo quidem ut a Gnosticorum nomine incipiamus, quod arrogabant sibi Simonis, Menandri, etc., Valentini ac Ptolemaei asseclae, a γνώσει seu scientia rerum supernarum qua prae caeteris gloriabantur, deductum esse, norunt omnes. Eamdem sermonibus ambitiose jactantes Platonici nihil frequentius habebant in ore quam perfectissimam γνῶσιν, veram sapientiam, intimam animae unionem cum Deo, mentis elevationem in Deum, cognitionem atque scientiam veri Entis, coelestium rerum contemplationem. Haec apud Platonem, Plotinum, Porphyrium, Jamblichum, aliosque passim occurrunt.

34. And first indeed, to begin with the name of Gnostics, which the followers of Simon, Menander, etc., and of Valentinus and Ptolemaeus arrogated to themselves, everyone knows that it was derived from γνῶσις, or the knowledge of supernal things, wherein they gloried above others. Ambitiously boasting of the same in their discourses, the Platonists had nothing more frequently on their lips than the most perfect γνῶσις, true wisdom, the intimate union of the soul with God, the elevation of the mind towards God, the cognition and knowledge of true Being, the contemplation of heavenly things. These expressions occur everywhere in Plato, Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and others.

35. Totam Valentini hypothesim ad tria capita revocari jam diximus : 1° ad Pleroma, quod res divinas complectitur ; 2° ad ea quae extra Pleroma contigerunt, quibus res inter coelestes et mundanas mediae continentur ; 3° ad mundi hujus aspectabilis originem et constitutionem. Haec ipsissima sunt quae de triplici mundo tam operose disputant Plato in Timaeo, et Epimenide, et post eum discipuli

35. That the whole hypothesis of Valentinus is reduced to three heads we have already said: 1st, to the Pleroma, which embraces divine things; 2nd, to those things which happened outside the Pleroma, wherein things intermediate between heavenly and mundane things are contained; 3rd, to the origin and constitution of this visible world. These are the very same things which Plato in the Timaeus and the Epimenides, and after him his disciples, so laboriously dispute concerning the threefold world.

Editors' notes and page, col. 51

Page

running head: 51 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A nerent. Duo tamen; B 33. Haec omnia mox; C philosophia Platonica; D nem cum Deo, mentis
old-edition numerals: [XXV] before sacrorum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I; word split at column break: nerent (from oppo-)

PG 7:52

ejus. Triplicem namque mundum statuunt illi, alterum quem invisibilem et idealem vocant, quia rerum omnium ideas continet ; nihil quippe in mundo inferiori corporali oriri putant, quod non in ideali invisibili mundo exhibeatur. Alterum, quem medium dicunt, qui animam seu spiritum universi, mundi corporalis et visibilis causam complectatur ; tertium denique, mundum hunc inferiorem, corporeum et aspectabilem. De his ita Marsilius Ficinus in Platonis Conviv. cap. 3 : Tres apud eos (Platonicos) mundi sunt... : Primum omnium est Deus universorum auctor, quod ipsum bonum dicimus. Hic mentem primo creat angelicam ; deinde mundi hujus animam, ut Plato vult ; postremo mundi corpus. Summum illum Deum, non mundum dicimus, quia mundus ornamentum significat ex multis compositum, ille vero penitus simplex esse debet : sed mundorum omnium principium atque finem ipsum asserimus. Mens angelica primus mundus est a Deo factus, secundus universi corporis anima, tertius tota haec, quam cernimus, machina. Triplicem hunc mundum, mutatis duntaxat nominibus, novisque accessionibus locupletatum proposuit Valentinus. Primum mundum vocavit Pleroma, quia totam Divinitatis plenitudinem, rerumque omnium inferiorum exemplaria, ideas et imagines continet ; ibique Divinitatis sedem constituit. Communis sententia est, desumptam fuisse vocem ex dicto Pauli Col. II, 9, ubi in Christo dicitur πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος, tota Divinitatis plenitudo inhabitare corporaliter. An inde mutuati fuerint Platonici, non dicam ; sed certissime asseruerim eadem voce, atque eodem sensu, atque Valentinianos, usos fuisse, adeo ut valde probabile sit hos ab illis accepisse. Id perspicuum est ex istis Jamblichi verbis, sect. I, De myst., cap. 8 : Οἱ μὲν (θεοὶ) κρείττονες ἐν αὐτῷ, ὡς ὑπὸ μηδενὸς περιέχονται, καὶ περιέχουσι πάντα ἐν αὑτοῖς. Τὰ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν τοῖς ΠΛΗΡΩΜΑΣΙ τῶν θεῶν ἔχοντα τὸ εἶναι, ὁπόταν ἐπιτήδεια πρὸς τὴν θείαν μετοχὴν γένηται, εὐθὺς ἔχει πρὸ τῆς οἰκείας ἑαυτῶν οὐσίας προϋπάρχοντας ἐν αὐτῇ τοὺς θεούς. Dii in hoc maxime praecellunt, quod a nullo contineantur, ipsi autem omnia in se contineant. Terrena autem, quae in deorum PLEROMASI habent suam essentiam, quam primum ad divina participanda apta sunt, illico deos in sua substantia prius exsistentes habent, quam propriam naturam sortiantur. Eamdem vocem pariter usurpat Damascius non semel

For they establish a threefold world: one which they call invisible and ideal, because it contains the ideas of all things, inasmuch as they think that nothing arises in the lower bodily world which is not exhibited in the ideal invisible world; a second, which they call intermediate, which embraces the soul or spirit of the universe, the cause of the bodily and visible world; and finally a third, this lower, corporeal, and visible world. Concerning these Marsilio Ficino writes thus on Plato's Symposium, Chapter 3: There are three worlds among them (the Platonists)... First of all is God, the author of all things, which we call the Good itself. He first creates the angelic mind; next the soul of this world, as Plato holds; and lastly the body of the world. That supreme God we do not call a world, because world signifies an ornament composed of many things, whereas He must be wholly simple; but we assert Him to be the beginning and end of all worlds. The angelic mind is the first world made by God, the second is the soul of the universal body, the third is this whole frame which we behold. This threefold world, with only the names changed and enriched with new additions, Valentinus propounded. The first world he called the Pleroma, because it contains the whole fullness of the Divinity, and the archetypes, ideas, and images of all lower things; and there he established the seat of the Divinity. The common opinion is that the word was taken from the saying of Paul in Col. 2:9, where πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς Θεότητος, all the fullness of the Godhead, is said to dwell in Christ bodily. Whether the Platonists borrowed it thence, I will not say; but I would most certainly assert that they used the same word, and in the same sense as the Valentinians, so that it is highly probable that the latter received it from the former. This is clear from these words of Iamblichus, Section I of De mysteriis, Chapter 8: Οἱ μὲν (θεοὶ) κρείττονες ἐν αὐτῷ, ὡς ὑπὸ μηδενὸς περιέχονται, καὶ περιέχουσι πάντα ἐν αὑτοῖς. Τὰ δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν τοῖς ΠΛΗΡΩΜΑΣΙ τῶν θεῶν ἔχοντα τὸ εἶναι, ὁπόταν ἐπιτήδεια πρὸς τὴν θείαν μετοχὴν γένηται, εὐθὺς ἔχει πρὸ τῆς οἰκείας ἑαυτῶν οὐσίας προϋπάρχοντας ἐν αὐτῇ τοὺς θεούς. The gods excel chiefly in this, that they are contained by nothing, while they themselves contain all things in themselves. And earthly things, which have their essence in the PLEROMATA of the gods, as soon as they become fit for partaking of divine things, forthwith have the gods pre-existing in their own substance before they obtain their proper nature. Damascius likewise uses the same word more than once.

36. Tripartitum erat Valentinianorum Pleroma, in Aeonum tetradas duas, seu ogdoada, in decada, et dodecada. Supremum omnium ac primo loco Bythum statuebant, cui Ennoian seu Sigen copulabant. Hunc excipiebat Nus seu Mens, cum qua Veritatem ; deinde Verbum, cum quo Vitam ; tum Homo, cum quo Ecclesiam colligabant. Quorum si

36. The Pleroma of the Valentinians was tripartite, divided into two tetrads of Aeons, or the ogdoad, into the decade, and the dodecade. Highest of all and in the first place they set Bythus, to whom they joined Ennoea or Sige. Next to him came Nous or Mind, with whom they linked Truth; then the Word, with whom they linked Life; and then Man, with whom they linked Church. Of these, if

Editors' notes and page, col. 52

Footnotes

(45) ‹anchor: De myst., cap. 8› · call in col 52

Edit. Oxon. 1678.

Oxford edition of 1678.

(printed under page 32)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 52
marginal letters: A ejus. Triplicem namque; B dicimus, quia mundus; C dicitur πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα; D Terrena autem, quae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:53

non omnia, prima saltem ac rudiora lineamenta suppeditavit Chaldaica, Aegyptiaca, et Pythagorica, seu his omnibus permista Platonica theologia. Jamblichus lib. De myst., sect. VIII, cap. 2, scribit, antiquissimam hanc esse Aegyptiorum de rerum principiis doctrinam : 1° Unum esse Deum, entibus omnibus quae vere sunt, universalibusque principiis, imo ipso etiam primo Deo et rege priorem : πρὸ τῶν ὄντως ὄντων, καὶ τῶν ὅλων ἀρχῶν ἐστι Θεὸς εἷς, πρῶτος καὶ τοῦ πρώτου Θεοῦ καὶ βασιλέως · in monade unitatis suae permanentem, exemplarque illius, qui est sui Pater, a se genitus, et Monopator Deus ; est enim majus quid et prius, fons omnium et radix omnium intelligibilium primarum idearum, quae sunt : ἐν μονότητι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἑνότητος μένων · παράδειγμα δὲ ἵδρυται τοῦ αὐτοπάτορος, αὐτογόνου, καὶ μονοπάτορος Θεοῦ. Μεῖζον γάρ τι καὶ πρῶτον, καὶ πηγὴ τῶν πάντων, καὶ πυθμὴν τῶν νοουμένων πρώτων εἰδῶν ὄντων. Primum istud principium vocat Mercurius, Jamblicho auctore, primum exemplar et Eicton ; in quo, inquit, est primum intelligens et primum intelligibile, quodque solo silentio colitur : ἐν ᾧ δὴ τὸ πρῶτόν ἐστι νοοῦν, καὶ τὸ πρῶτον νοητὸν, ὃ δὴ καὶ διὰ σιγῆς μονῆς θεραπεύεται. De hoc etiam oraculum illud quod sub Zoroastris nomine circumfertur : Ἔχει τὸ νοεῖν, πατρικὸν νοῦν ἐνδιδόναι πάσαις πηγαῖς τε καὶ ἀρχαῖς. Ἔστι γὰρ πέρας τοῦ πατρικοῦ βυθοῦ, καὶ πηγὴ τῶν νοερῶν, μηδὲ προῆλθεν, ἀλλ' ἔμεινεν ἐν τῷ πατρικῷ βυθῷ, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀδύτῳ κατὰ τὴν θεοθρέμμονα σιγήν. Habet ipsa intelligentia paternam Mentem indere omnibus fontibus et principiis. Est finis Profundi paterni, et fons intelligibilium. Neque prodiit, sed mansit in paterno Profundo, et in adyto per divinum silentium. Ex quibus evidenter patet nec Bythi nomen, supremi ac primi Dei, Aeonum omnium fontis ac parentis, nec rem nomine significatam antiquissimos philosophos latuisse. Bythum nempe seu Profundum vocabant, ob infinitas, quibus gaudet, perfectiones, quarum omnium altitudinem immensam nulla mens creata explorare valet. Rem eamdem, sed aliis verbis, pro more suo, exprimebant poetae, fingentes ex Oceano natos esse deos omnes. Oceani quippe nomine, cujus altitudo profundissima est, Bythum ipsum seu Profundum philosophorum designabant. 2° Ex hoc uno sponte effulsisse ait Jamblichus Deum sibi sufficientem ; qui proinde est sui Pater, et principium. Est enim hic et principium, et Deus deorum, unitas ex uno, superessentialis, et essentiae principium : nam ab eo natura est et essentia ; et propterea Noetarcha, seu intelligibile principium vocatur : ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἑνὸς τούτου ὁ αὐτάρκης Θεὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐξέλαμψε, διὸ καὶ αὐτοπάτωρ, καὶ αὐτάρχης (sic lego, non αὐτάρκης)· ἀρχὴ γὰρ οὗτος καὶ Θεὸς θεῶν· μονὰς ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς, προούσιος, καὶ ἀρχὴ τῆς οὐσίας· ἀπ' αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἡ οὐσιότης καὶ

not all, at least the first and rougher outlines were supplied by the Chaldaean, Egyptian, and Pythagorean, or the Platonic theology mingled with all these. Iamblichus in the book De mysteriis, Section VIII, Chapter 2, writes that this is the most ancient doctrine of the Egyptians concerning the principles of things: 1st, That there is one God, prior to all beings that truly are, and to universal principles, nay, even to the first God and king himself: πρὸ τῶν ὄντως ὄντων, καὶ τῶν ὅλων ἀρχῶν ἐστι Θεὸς εἷς, πρῶτος καὶ τοῦ πρώτου Θεοῦ καὶ βασιλέως · abiding in the monad of His own unity, and the archetype of that God who is His own Father, begotten from Himself, and Monopator; for He is something greater and prior, the fountain of all things and the root of all the first intelligible ideas that are: ἐν μονότητι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἑνότητος μένων · παράδειγμα δὲ ἵδρυται τοῦ αὐτοπάτορος, αὐτογόνου, καὶ μονοπάτορος Θεοῦ. Μεῖζον γάρ τι καὶ πρῶτον, καὶ πηγὴ τῶν πάντων, καὶ πυθμὴν τῶν νοουμένων πρώτων εἰδῶν ὄντων. That first principle Mercury calls, on the authority of Iamblichus, the first archetype and Eicton; in whom, says he, is the first intelligent and the first intelligible, and who is worshipped by silence alone: ἐν ᾧ δὴ τὸ πρῶτόν ἐστι νοοῦν, καὶ τὸ πρῶτον νοητὸν, ὃ δὴ καὶ διὰ σιγῆς μονῆς θεραπεύεται. Concerning this also is that oracle which is circulated under the name of Zoroaster: Ἔχει τὸ νοεῖν, πατρικὸν νοῦν ἐνδιδόναι πάσαις πηγαῖς τε καὶ ἀρχαῖς. Ἔστι γὰρ πέρας τοῦ πατρικοῦ βυθοῦ, καὶ πηγὴ τῶν νοερῶν, μηδὲ προῆλθεν, ἀλλ' ἔμεινεν ἐν τῷ πατρικῷ βυθῷ, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀδύτῳ κατὰ τὴν θεοθρέμμονα σιγήν. Intelligence itself has it to impart the paternal Mind to all fountains and principles. For it is the limit of the paternal Depth, and the fountain of intelligibles. Nor did it come forth, but remained in the paternal Depth, and in the innermost shrine through divine silence. From which it is evidently clear that neither the name of Bythus, the supreme and first God, the fountain and parent of all the Aeons, nor the thing signified by the name, was unknown to the most ancient philosophers. For they called Him Bythus or Depth on account of the infinite perfections which He enjoys, the immense depth of all of which no created mind is able to fathom. The poets expressed the same thing, though in other words after their custom, feigning that all the gods were born from Oceanus; inasmuch as by the name of Oceanus, whose depth is most profound, they designated the very Bythus or Depth of the philosophers. 2nd, From this One, Iamblichus says, there shone forth of Himself the self-sufficient God, who is therefore His own Father and principle. For He is both the principle and the God of gods, unity from the One, superessential, and the principle of essence; for from Him is nature and essence, and on that account He is called Noetarches, or the intelligible principle: ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἑνὸς τούτου ὁ αὐτάρκης Θεὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐξέλαμψε, διὸ καὶ αὐτοπάτωρ, καὶ αὐτάρχης (so I read, not αὐτάρκης)· ἀρχὴ γὰρ οὗτος καὶ Θεὸς θεῶν· μονὰς ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς, προούσιος, καὶ ἀρχὴ τῆς οὐσίας· ἀπ' αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἡ οὐσιότης καὶ

Editors' notes and page, col. 53

Footnotes

(46) ‹anchor: Jamblicho auctore› · call in col 53

Cap. 2.

Chapter 2.

(printed under page 33)

Page

running head: 53 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A non omnia, prima; B τοῦ ἑνότητος μένων; C ἀλλ' ἔμεινεν ἐν τῷ πατρικῷ; D nomine, cujus altitudo
old-edition numerals: [XXVI] after θεραπεύεται.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Massuet's Dissertationes praeviae, Diss. I, Art. I

PG 7:54

ἡ οὐσία, διὸ καὶ νοητάρχης προσαγορεύεται. Hunc Mercurius, Jamblicho teste, vocat Deum Emeth (forte legendum cum Eusebio lib. III Praep. evang., cap. 2, Kneph), quem tanquam ducem diis coelestibus praeponit, aitque hunc esse Mentem seipsam intelligentem, et alias intellectiones ad se convertentem : ὃν φησι νοῦν εἶναι αὐτὸν ἑαυτὸν νοοῦντα, καὶ τὰς νοήσεις εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπιστρέφοντα. Aliis nominibus vocatum fuisse ab Aegyptiis tradit idem Jamblichus. « Opifex quippe Mens, ait, Veritatis auctor et praeses, ac Sapientiae, quatenus ad generationem venit, et latentem occultarum rationum vim producit in lucem, lingua Aegyptiaca dicitur Amon : quatenus vero perficit omnia summa cum veritate et arte, vocant eum Phtha : quatenus vero bonorum artifex est, dicitur Osiris ; aliasque denominationes propter alias virtutes habet. » Ὁ γὰρ δημιουργικὸς νοῦς, καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας προστάτης, καὶ σοφίας, ἐρχόμενος μὲν ἐπὶ γένεσιν, καὶ τὴν ἀφανῆ τῶν κεκρυμμένων λόγων δύναμιν εἰς φῶς ἄγων· Ἀμῶν κατὰ τὴν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων γλῶσσαν λέγεται , συντελῶν δὲ ἀψευδῶς ἕκαστα, καὶ τεχνικῶς μετ' ἀληθείας, Φθά· ἀγαθῶν δὲ ποιητικὸς ὢν, Ὄσιρις κέκληται, καὶ ἄλλας δι' ἄλλας δυνάμεις τε καὶ ἐνεργείας ἐπωνυμίας ἔχει.

the essence, wherefore he is also called the ruler of intelligence. Him Mercury, as Iamblichus testifies, calls the God Emeth (perhaps to be read with Eusebius, Book 3 of the Preparation for the Gospel, Chapter 2, Kneph), whom he sets as a leader over the heavenly gods, and says that he is Mind understanding itself, and turning other intellections towards itself: whom he says is Mind itself understanding itself, and turning thoughts into itself. That he was called by other names by the Egyptians the same Iamblichus hands down. "For the framing Mind, he says, the author and president of Truth and of Wisdom, in so far as it comes to generation and brings forth into light the hidden force of concealed reasons, is called in the Egyptian tongue Amon; in so far as it accomplishes all things with the highest truth and art, they call it Phtha; in so far as it is the framer of good things, it is called Osiris; and it has other designations on account of other powers." For the creative mind, and president of truth and wisdom, coming indeed unto generation, and leading forth into light the unseen power of the hidden reasons, is called Amon according to the tongue of the Egyptians, and accomplishing each thing unerringly and artfully with truth, Phtha; and being productive of good things, it has been called Osiris, and has other surnames on account of other powers and operations.

37. Hinc aperte colligitur Jamblichum (eadem est Plotini doctrina Enn., lib. V, cap. 5) duos primos deos statuere, iisdemque characteribus ab eo designari, quibus Bythum et Nun designabant Valentiniani : adeo ut ex eodem fonte hauserint omnes, ex Aegyptiaca scilicet et Chaldaica theologia, cui operam navaverant Platonici, ii praesertim qui e schola Alexandrina prodierant. Id vero utrorumque principia et opiniones secum invicem conferenti manifestum fiet. Affirmat Jamblichus, ex Aegyptiorum sententia, primum Deum principiis omnibus ac rebus, ipso etiam primo Deo ac rege priorem esse, in Monade unitatis suae permanere, fontem omnium esse et radicem omnium intelligibilium primarum idearum, etc. Haec eadem sunt quae Bytho suo tribuunt Valentiniani. Dicunt enim, Irenaeo teste, esse quemdam in invisibilibus et inenarrabilibus altitudinibus perfectum Aeonem, προόντα, qui ante fuit, quem nulla res capere possit, invisibilem, sempiternum, et ingenitum, et in quiete multa fuisse infinitis saeculis. Quae apprime conveniunt : arctius adhuc cohaerere deprehendes, si conferas Epiphanis sententiam, quam exponit Irenaeus cap. 11 : Est quaedam, aiebat, ante omnes Proarche, proanennoetos, et inenarrabilis, et innominabilis, quam ego Monotetem voco. Cum hac Monotete est virtus, quam et ipsam voco Henotetem. Primus ergo Jamblichi Deus, principiis omnibus et rebus, ipso etiam primo rege prior est. Primus Valentinianorum Deus, perfectissimus Aeon est, προὼν, rebus omnibus praeexsistens, Proarche seu primum principium quod ante omnia est, sempiternus,

37. Hence it is openly gathered that Iamblichus (the same is the doctrine of Plotinus, Enneads, Book 5, Chapter 5) establishes two first gods, and that they are designated by him with the same characters by which the Valentinians designated Bythus and Nus: so much so that they all drew from the same fountain, namely from the Egyptian and Chaldaic theology, to which the Platonists had devoted their labour, those especially who had gone forth from the Alexandrian school. And this will become manifest to one comparing the principles and opinions of both with one another. Iamblichus affirms, according to the opinion of the Egyptians, that the first God is prior to all principles and things, even to the first God and king himself, abides in the Monad of his unity, is the fountain of all things and the root of all primary intelligible ideas, etc. These are the very same things that the Valentinians attribute to their Bythus. For they say, as Irenaeus testifies, that there is in invisible and unutterable heights a certain perfect Aeon, pre-existing, who was before, whom nothing can comprehend, invisible, everlasting, and unbegotten, and that he was in deep quiet for infinite ages. Which things agree exceedingly well: you will find that they cohere still more closely if you compare the opinion of Epiphanes, which Irenaeus sets forth in Chapter 11: There is a certain, he used to say, Fore-beginning before all things, fore-inconceivable, and unutterable, and unnameable, which I call Singleness. With this Singleness is a power, which itself also I call Oneness. The first God of Iamblichus, therefore, is prior to all principles and things, even to the first king himself. The first God of the Valentinians is the most perfect Aeon, pre-existing, pre-existing before all things, the Fore-beginning or first principle which is before all things, everlasting,

Editors' notes and page, col. 54

Footnotes

(47) ‹anchor: Irenaeo teste› · call in col 54

Iren., lib. I, c. 1.

Irenaeus, book I, ch. 1.

(printed under page 33)

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 54
marginal letters: A ἡ οὐσία, διὸ καὶ; B vero bonorum artifex; C Valentiniani : adeo; D invisibilem, sempiternum,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ἡ οὐσία, διὸ καὶ (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word sempi-

PG 7:55

ingenitus, Propator, ipso proinde Nu, quem Patrem et initium omnium dicebant, prior. Jamblichi Deus fons omnium est, et radix omnium intelligibilium primarum idearum, primum intelligens, et primum intelligibile, et, ut aiunt oracula Chaldaica, Πηγὴ πηγῶν, πηγῶν ἁπασῶν, μήτρα συνέχουσα τὰ πάντα, Fons fontium, et omnium fontium, matrix continens omnia. Valentinianorum Deus, primus fons et radix primae Mentis, Νοῦ, Veritatis et Verbi, uno verbo totius intelligibilis mundi, seu Pleromatis. Primus Deus, ex oraculis Chaldaicis, est quoddam intelligibile, quod mentis flore percipiendum est ; ad quod intelligendum violenter enitendum non sit, sed intima mentis acie, quae omnia metitur, praeter intelligibile illud. Ἔστι γάρ τι νοητὸν , ὃ χρή σε νοεῖν νόου ἄνθει, οὐ δὴ χρὴ σφοδρότητι νοεῖν τὸ νοητὸν ἐκεῖνο, ἀλλὰ νόου ταναοῦ ταναῇ φλογὶ, πάντα μετρούσῃ, πλὴν τὸ νοητὸν ἐκεῖνο. Primum Deum ex Valentinianis nulla res capere potest, incomprehensibilis est, proanennoetos, inenarrabilis, innominabilis. Hic, ex Platonicis, in singularitate unitatis suae manet, ἐν μονότητι τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἑνότητος μένων. Ex Epiphane vero Monotes est, cum qua est virtus quae dicitur Henotes. Ex Marco, cujus sententiam exponit Irenaeus lib. I, cap. 15, n. 1, τῇ μονότητι συνυπάρχει ἑνότης, cum singularitate unitas exsistit. Valentinianis Bythus est, cum quo fuit et Ennoea, cum qua et per quam Nun et Veritatem, caeterorum Aeonum principia et fontes, emisit. Chaldaicis oraculis Profundum est, in quo est primum intelligens et primum intelligibile, ἐν ᾧ τὸ πρῶτόν ἐστι νοοῦν, καὶ τὸ πρῶτον νοητὸν, cum quo intelligentia est, τὸ νοεῖν finis Profundi paterni et fons intelligibilium, quo paternam mentem omnibus fontibus et principatibus indidit. Ennoea Valentinianis dicitur et Sige, seu silentium. Eapropter, Irenaeo teste, lib. IV, c. 35, n. 4 : Silentium maximam rem esse apud sapientes dicebant : oportere enim eam, quae sit sursum, Sigen, per id, quod est apud eos, silentium deformari. Aegyptiis et Chaldaeis colitur Deus per solam Sigen, διὰ σιγῆς μόνης : hujus intelligentia tanquam in adyto clauditur per divinum silentium ; primus Deus Aegyptiis, ex Damascio in libro De principiis, necdum, quod sciam, typis edito, σκότος ἄγνωστον dicitur, tenebrae ignotae, et ut canit Orpheus :

unbegotten, Forefather, prior accordingly to Nus himself, whom they called the Father and beginning of all things. The God of Iamblichus is the fountain of all things, and the root of all primary intelligible ideas, the first intelligent, and the first intelligible, and, as the Chaldaic oracles say, Fountain of fountains, of all fountains, the womb holding all things together, Fountain of fountains, and of all fountains, the womb containing all things. The God of the Valentinians is the first fountain and root of the first Mind, Nus, of Truth and of the Word, in a word, of the whole intelligible world, or Pleroma. The first God, according to the Chaldaic oracles, is a certain intelligible, which is to be perceived by the flower of the mind; to understand which one must not strive violently, but with the inmost keenness of the mind, which measures all things except that intelligible. For there is a certain intelligible, which you must understand by the flower of mind; you must not indeed understand that intelligible with vehemence, but by the far-stretching flame of far-stretching mind, measuring all things, except that intelligible. The first God, according to the Valentinians, nothing can comprehend, he is incomprehensible, fore-inconceivable, unutterable, unnameable. He, according to the Platonists, abides in the singularity of his unity, abiding in the singleness of his own oneness. According to Epiphanes, moreover, he is Singleness, with which is a power which is called Oneness. According to Marcus, whose opinion Irenaeus sets forth in Book 1, Chapter 15, no. 1, with singleness coexists oneness, with singularity unity exists. To the Valentinians he is Bythus, with whom was also Ennoea, with whom and through whom he sent forth Nus and Truth, the principles and fountains of the rest of the Aeons. To the Chaldaic oracles he is the Deep, in which is the first intelligent and the first intelligible, in which is the first intelligent and the first intelligible, with whom is intelligence, the understanding, the end of the paternal Deep and fountain of intelligibles, whereby he imparted the paternal mind to all fountains and principalities. Ennoea is by the Valentinians also called Sige, or silence. On that account, as Irenaeus testifies, Book 4, Chapter 35, no. 4: They used to say that Silence is the greatest thing among the wise: for that Sige, who is above, must be represented through that silence which is among them. By the Egyptians and Chaldeans God is worshipped through Sige alone, through silence alone: the intelligence of him is shut up as if in an innermost shrine through divine silence; the first God among the Egyptians, according to Damascius in his book On Principles, not yet, so far as I know, published in print, is called unknown darkness, unknown darkness, and as Orpheus sings:

Αὐτὸν δ' οὐχ ὁράω, περὶ γὰρ νέφος ἐστήρικται·

Him indeed I do not see, for round about a cloud has been fixed;

Ipsum non video, nubibus enim circumtegitur.

Him I do not see, for he is covered round with clouds.

Secundum Valentinianos cum Bytho fuit Ennoea, ipsique conjugatur, nec ab eo prodiit. Secundum Chaldaeos primi Dei intelligentia ab ipso non processit, sed mansit in Profundo paterno et in adyto per divinum silentium. Hactenus gutta guttae similior non est, quam Valentinianorum placita Platonicorum, Aegyptiorum, Chaldaeorumque dogmatibus. Sed ad reliqua pergamus.

According to the Valentinians, Ennoea was with Bythus, and is yoked to him, and did not go forth from him. According to the Chaldeans, the intelligence of the first God did not proceed from him, but remained in the paternal Deep and in the innermost shrine through divine silence. Thus far one drop is not more like another drop than the tenets of the Valentinians are to the dogmas of the Platonists, Egyptians, and Chaldeans. But let us proceed to the rest.

Editors' notes and page, col. 55

Page

running head: 55 DISSERTATIONES PRÆVIÆ IN
marginal letters: A ternus, ingenitus,; B Ἔστι γάρ τι νοητὸν ,; C gibile, ἐν ᾧ τὸ πρῶτόν; D principiis, necdum,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word ternus; editors' matter: ternus, ingenitus, Propator (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:56

58. Ex primo Deo sponte emicuisse vult Jamblichus Deum sibi sufficientem, sui Patrem et principium, Mentem seipsam intelligentem, et alias intellectiones ad se convertentem, Mentem secundam et Mentis mentem, ut vocant oracula Chaldaica. A Valentinianorum Bytho prodiit secundus Aeon, quem etiam Νοῦν vocabant. Nus Valentinianorum ἀρχὴ πάντων, initium omnium dicitur, ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα ὁ Πατὴρ προέβαλε σπερματικῶς, in quo Pater praemisit omnia seminaliter, ut aiunt lib. I, cap. 8, n. 5. Aegyptiorum, Chaldaeorum, et Platonicorum Nus principium est, Deus deorum, Noetarcha seu intelligibile principium, essentiae principium, a quo omnis natura est et essentia, dux coelestium deorum, mensque opifex. Nam, ut habent oracula Chaldaica, Πάντα γὰρ ἐξετέλεσσε Πατὴρ, καὶ Νῷ παρέδωκε δευτέρῳ. Νοῦ γὰρ νοῦς ἐστιν, ὁ κόσμου τεχνίτης πυρίου. Cuncta namque perfecit Pater, et Menti tradidit secundae. Mentis enim mens est, quae mundi est artifex ignei, id est intelligibilis. Sic a Bytho prodiit Valentini Nus, ut tamen Pater ipse sit et unigenitus. Sic a primo Deo processit Platonicorum Nus, ut sui Pater sit et principium, et per se genitus, αὐτόγονος, αὐτογέννητος. Cujus quidem rei rationem hanc affert Porphyrius a S. Cyrillo cont. Julian. citatus ex lib. IV De hist. phil. : Προῆλθε δὲ προαιώνιος ἀπ' αἰτίου τοῦ Θεοῦ ὡρμημένος, αὐτογέννητος ὢν, καὶ αὐτοπάτωρ. Οὐ γὰρ ἐκείνου κινουμένου πρὸς γένεσιν τὴν τούτου ἡ πρόοδος γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ τούτου προελθόντος αὐτογόνως ἐκ Θεοῦ. Processit ante saecula a primo Deo prodiens, qui est per se genitus, suique Pater. Neque enim illo se movente ad hujus generationem emissio facta est, sed hoc per se prodeunte a Deo. Quae etiam ratio ad Gnosticos quadrat. Nam eodem fere modo sententiam suam exprimebat Epiphanes : Henotes, inquit, et Monotes cum sint unum, emiserunt, non emittentes, principium omnium noeton, et agenneton, et aoraton, quam Archen sermo Monada vocat. Cum hac Monade est virtus ejusdem substantiae ei, quam et eam voco Hen. Id est, Monas a Patre emissa est, non per motum generationis proprie dictum, cujus terminus fuerit quidpiam a Patre distinctum ; sed mera ejus ἐνέργεια est, non ab eo diversa ; ac proinde proprie loquendo ingenita, quaeque Patrem nesciat. Ubi etiam observes velim, quod quemadmodum Platonicis Mens secunda seu secundus Deus dicitur Μονὰς ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς, Unitas ex uno ; sic et Epiphani secundus Aeon dicitur Μονὰς ἐκ τῆς μονότητος et ἑνότητος, Unitas ex unitate ; Marco similiter secunda Aeonum conjugatio, quae Nun et Alethiam complectebatur, μονάς τε καὶ τὸ ἕν. Valentinianorum Nus similis et aequalis est ei qui emisit, et solus capit magnitudinem Patris. Aegyptiis Mens prima παράδειγμα ἵδρυται, forma et exemplar est ad quod efficta est mens secunda, quae hujus imago est, ab ea recipiens rerum omnium

38. From the first God Iamblichus holds that there shone forth of his own accord a God sufficient to himself, his own Father and beginning, a Mind understanding itself and turning other intellections towards itself, a second Mind and the mind of Mind, as the Chaldaic oracles call it. From the Bythus of the Valentinians went forth the second Aeon, whom they also called Nus. The Nus of the Valentinians is called the beginning of all things, the beginning of all things, in whom the Father put forth all things seminally, in whom the Father sent forth all things seminally, as they say in Book 1, Chapter 8, no. 5. The Nus of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Platonists is the beginning, God of gods, Noetarch or intelligible principle, the principle of essence, from whom is all nature and essence, leader of the heavenly gods, and framing mind. For, as the Chaldaic oracles have it, For the Father accomplished all things, and delivered them to the second Mind. For it is the mind of Mind, the artificer of the fiery world. For the Father perfected all things, and delivered them to the second Mind. For it is the mind of Mind, which is the artificer of the fiery world, that is, the intelligible. Thus from Bythus went forth the Nus of Valentinus, yet so that he himself is Father and only-begotten. Thus from the first God proceeded the Nus of the Platonists, so that he is his own Father and beginning, and begotten by himself, self-begotten, self-generated. Of which matter indeed Porphyry, cited by St. Cyril against Julian from Book 4 of the History of Philosophy, brings forward this reason: And he came forth pre-eternal, impelled from God as cause, being self-generated and his own father. For not by that one moving himself towards the generation of this one did his procession come to pass, but by this one coming forth self-begottenly from God. He proceeded before the ages, coming forth from the first God, he who is begotten by himself, and his own Father. For neither was the emission made by that one moving himself to the generation of this one, but by this one coming forth by himself from God. Which reason also fits the Gnostics. For in almost the same way Epiphanes expressed his opinion: Oneness, he says, and Singleness, since they are one, sent forth, without sending forth, an intelligible, and unbegotten, and invisible principle of all things, which Beginning speech calls the Monad. With this Monad is a power of the same substance with it, which I also call One. That is, the Monad was sent forth from the Father, not through a movement of generation properly so called, whose term would be something distinct from the Father; but it is his mere operation, not diverse from him; and accordingly, properly speaking, unbegotten, and one that does not know a Father. Where I would also wish you to observe that, just as to the Platonists the second Mind or second God is called Monad from the One, Unity from the one; so also to Epiphanes the second Aeon is called Monad from singleness and oneness, Unity from unity; to Marcus similarly the second pair of Aeons, which embraced Nus and Alethia, is monad and the one. The Nus of the Valentinians is like and equal to him who sent him forth, and alone comprehends the greatness of the Father. To the Egyptians the first Mind is established as a pattern, the form and exemplar according to which the second mind was fashioned, which is the image of this one, receiving from it the ideas of all things

Editors' notes and page, col. 56

Footnotes

(48) ‹anchor: ad Gnosticos quadrat› · call in col 56

Iren., lib. I, cap. 8, n. 3.

Irenaeus, book I, ch. 8, no. 3.

(printed under page 34)

Page

running head: S PRÆVIÆ IN IRENÆI LIBROS. 56
marginal letters: A 58. Ex primo Deo; B Nam, ut habent; C αὐτογόνως ἐκ Θεοῦ.; D diversa ; ac proinde
old-edition numerals: [XXVII] after sui Patrem et
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: 58. Ex primo Deo (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:57

ideas. Cuncta namque perfecit Pater, et Menti tradidit secundae. Vel, ut habet aliud Chaldaicum effatum, ὁ πρῶτος Θεὸς ἀρχετυπεῖ τῷ ἐλάττονι, primus Deus archetypus est secundo. Item : Πολὺ γὰρ μόνος ἐκ Πατρὸς ἀλκῆς δρεψάμενος νόου ἄνθος ἔχει, τὸ νοεῖν πατρικὸν νοῦν. Solus uberem, quem ex Patre decerpsit, mentis florem sortitus est, nosse videlicet paternam mentem. Porphyrius denique mox citatus, μόνος αἰώνιος ὁ Νοῦς, ὥσπερ ὁ Θεὸς ὁ πρῶτος, Nus solus aeternus, quemadmodum et Deus primus. Valentiniani Nun copulant cum Veritate. Sic pariter et Mercurius. Mens, ait, Veritatis προστάτης, perficit omnia cum Veritate, συντελῶν ἕκαστα μετ' Ἀληθείας. Illi denique Verbum, Patrem omnium eorum qui post se futuri essent, et initium et formationem universi Pleromatis, a Nu emissum asserebant. Et hic similiter : Ὁ γὰρ δημιουργικὸς Νοῦς, inquit, καὶ τῆς Ἀληθείας προστάτης.... ἐρχόμενος μὲν ἐπὶ γένεσιν, καὶ τὴν ἀφανῆ τῶν κεκρυμμένων λόγων δύναμιν εἰς φῶς ἄγων. Opifex quippe Mens et Veritatis praeses, ad generationem veniens, latentem occultarum rationum, λόγων, vim in lucem producit. Sed expressius adhuc alio in loco quem referunt Suidas et Cedrenus : Ἦν φῶς νοερὸν πρὸ φωτὸς νοεροῦ, καὶ ἀεὶ νοῦς νοῦ αἴτιον, καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἦν ἡ τούτου ἑνότης, ἀεὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ὢν, ἀεὶ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ νῷ καὶ φωτὶ, καὶ πνεύματι πάντα περιέχει· ἐκτὸς τούτου οὐ Θεὸς, οὐκ ἄγγελος, οὐ δαίμων, οὐκ οὐσία τις ἄλλη. Πάντων γὰρ Κύριος, καὶ Θεὸς, καὶ Πατὴρ, καὶ πάντα ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστιν. Ὁ γὰρ Λόγος αὐτοῦ προελθὼν, παντέλειος, καὶ γόνιμος, καὶ δημιουργὸς, ἔγκυον ἐποίησε τὸ ὕδωρ. Erat lumen intellectuale prius lumine intellectuali, et semper mens mentis principium, nihilque aliud erat praeter ipsius unitatem : semper in seipso manens, semper propria mente, luce, et spiritu omnia continet. Praeter eum non Deus, non angelus, non daemon, non aliqua alia essentia. Omnium enim Dominus est, et Deus, et Pater, et omnia ab ipso et in ipso sunt. Verbum enim ipsius prodiens, perfectum, fecundum et opifex, aquam fecundavit. Ubi tria saltem principia memorantur, Mens prima, Mens secunda, Verbumque opifex ab hac procedens. Quod autem Vitam cum Verbo conjugarent Valentiniani, a Joannis Evangelio sumpserant, ubi vita Verbo connectitur : In ipso vita erat, ut explicat ipse Ptolemaeus apud Irenaeum lib. I, cap. 8, n. 5. Nihil enim simile apud Platonicos legisse me memini ; nisi forte huc trahantur plura quae de ζωῇ disceptat Damascius in libro Περὶ ἀρχῶν. Idem de altera conjugatione Hominis et Ecclesiae dixerim, qua clauditur Valentinianorum ogdoas, seu secundus quaternarius, quamque Ptolemaeus eruere se posse putavit ex his Joannis Evangelii verbis, et vita erat lux hominum, ut loco mox cit. refert Irenaeus.

ideas. For the Father perfected all things, and delivered them to the second Mind. Or, as another Chaldaic saying has it, the first God serves as archetype to the lesser, the first God is archetype to the second. Likewise: For he alone, having plucked abundantly from the Father's strength, possesses the flower of mind, namely to understand the paternal mind. He alone has obtained the rich flower of mind which he plucked from the Father, namely to know the paternal mind. Finally Porphyry, just cited, says: Mind alone is eternal, just as the first God, Nus alone is eternal, even as is the first God. The Valentinians join Nus with Truth. So likewise does Mercury also. Mind, he says, the president of Truth, accomplishes all things with Truth, accomplishing each thing with Truth. Finally, they asserted that the Word, the Father of all those who were to come after him, and the beginning and formation of the entire Pleroma, was sent forth from Nus. And he similarly: For the creative Mind, he says, and president of Truth.... coming indeed unto generation, and leading forth into light the unseen power of the hidden reasons. For the framing Mind and president of Truth, coming to generation, brings forth into light the hidden force of concealed reasons, λόγων. But still more expressly in another passage which Suidas and Cedrenus report: There was an intellectual light before intellectual light, and mind was always the cause of mind, and nothing else was the unity of this one; always being in himself, always by his own mind and light and spirit he encompasses all things; outside of him there is no God, no angel, no daemon, no other essence whatever. For he is Lord of all, and God, and Father, and all things are under him and in him. For his Word coming forth, all-perfect, and fruitful, and creative, made the water pregnant. There was an intellectual light prior to intellectual light, and mind was always the principle of mind, and there was nothing else beside his unity: always abiding in himself, always by his own mind, light, and spirit he contains all things. Beside him there is no God, no angel, no daemon, no other essence. For he is Lord of all, and God, and Father, and all things are from him and in him. For his Word coming forth, perfect, fruitful, and framing, made the water fruitful. Where at least three principles are mentioned: the first Mind, the second Mind, and the framing Word proceeding from the latter. That the Valentinians yoked Life with the Word, however, they had taken from the Gospel of John, where life is connected with the Word: In him was life, as Ptolemy himself explains in Irenaeus, Book 1, Chapter 8, no. 5. For I remember having read nothing similar among the Platonists; unless perhaps there be drawn hither several things which Damascius disputes concerning life in his book On Principles. I would say the same of the other pair of Man and Church, wherewith the ogdoad, or second quaternary, of the Valentinians is closed, and which Ptolemy thought he could extract from these words of the Gospel of John, and the life was the light of men, as Irenaeus reports in the passage just cited.

39. Ex hactenus dictis aperte sequitur, ut a Platonicis tria intelligibilium principia, Mentem primam, Mentem secundam, et Verbum : sic etiam a Valentinianis tria Pleromatis (quod idem esse cum

39. From what has been said thus far it openly follows that, just as by the Platonists three principles of intelligibles, the first Mind, the second Mind, and the Word, so also by the Valentinians three principles of the Pleroma (which we have said is the same as

Editors' notes and page, col. 57

Page

running head: 57 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A ideas. Cuncta namque; B universi Pleromatis,; C καὶ πάντα ὑπ' αὐτοῦ,; D Verbo connectitur :
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: ideas. Cuncta namque (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:58

illorum mundo intelligibili diximus) agnosci principia, Bythum, primum principium et Patrem, Nun, Patrem et initium omnium ; et Verbum, Patrem omnium eorum qui post se futuri essent, et initium et formationem universi Pleromatis. Et hi forte sunt tres Platonis et Amelii reges, de quibus Proclus in Tim., seu potius Trias illa toties a Platonicis decantata. Sed et istud praeterea colligitur, octo illorum Aeonum conjugationes merito ab Irenaeo vocari, primas quidem, primam et primogenitam Pythagoricam quaternationem, et radicem omnium ; omnes vero, primogenitam octonationem, radicem et substantiam omnium. Quod enim Pythagorici quaternario et octonario numero ascribebant, id Valentiniani sibi vindicantes octo primis Aeonibus tribuebant. Pythagorici, qui ad numeros omnia referebant, quaternionem tanti faciebant, ut totius naturae fontem esse censerent : Ἡ πηγὴ τῆς φύσεως ἡ τετρακτύς, Fons naturae quaternarius numerus, ait Themistius, ex sententia Pythagoreorum, Phys. lib. III. et Proclus, in Theol. Plat., lib. IV, cap. 32 : Ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὴν αἰτίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχει τοῦ σύμπαντος ἀριθμοῦ, τετράδα προσείρηκεν αὐτὸ, τεττάρων τῶν πρωτουργῶν αἰτίων περιληπτικὴν ὁ Τίμαιος, πάσης γὰρ εἰδοποιΐας ἡ τέτρας αὕτη πηγὴ προϋφέστηκεν. Quoniam vero causam in se continet omnis numeri, quaternitatem id Timaeus appellavit, quatuor primo operantes causas comprehendentem ; omnis enim formarum procreationis fons praeexstitit. Hinc sacrum apud Pythagoreos jusjurandum, quo per Pythagoram quaternarii auctorem dejerabant :

their intelligible world) are recognized: Bythus, the first principle and Father; Nus, the Father and beginning of all things; and the Word, the Father of all those who were to come after him, and the beginning and formation of the entire Pleroma. And these are perhaps the three kings of Plato and Amelius, of whom Proclus speaks in his commentary on the Timaeus, or rather that Triad so often chanted by the Platonists. But this besides is also gathered, that the pairings of those eight Aeons are deservedly called by Irenaeus—the first ones indeed, the first and first-begotten Pythagorean quaternation, and the root of all things; and all of them together, the first-begotten octonation, the root and substance of all things. For what the Pythagoreans ascribed to the quaternary and octonary number, the Valentinians claimed for themselves and attributed to the first eight Aeons. The Pythagoreans, who referred all things to numbers, valued the quaternion so highly that they deemed it to be the fountain of the whole of nature: The fountain of nature is the tetractys, The quaternary number is the fountain of nature, says Themistius, according to the opinion of the Pythagoreans, Physics, Book 3; and Proclus, in his Platonic Theology, Book 4, Chapter 32: And since it contains in itself the cause of the entire number, Timaeus has called it a tetrad, comprehensive of the four primally operating causes, for this tetrad pre-existed as the fountain of all form-production. And since it contains in itself the cause of all number, Timaeus called that aaternity, comprehending the four primally operating causes; for it pre-existed as the fountain of all procreation of forms. Hence the sacred oath among the Pythagoreans, whereby they swore by Pythagoras the author of the quaternary:

Ναὶ μὰ τὸν ἁμετέρᾳ ψυχᾷ παραδόντα τετρακτύν, Παγὰν ἀεννάου φύσεως ῥιζώματ' ἔχουσαν.

Yea, by him who delivered to our soul the tetractys, which holds the Fount and roots of ever-flowing nature.

Per eum, qui animae nostrae tradidit quaternarium, Fontem perennis naturae radices habentem.

By him who delivered to our soul the quaternary, having the Fountain and roots of perennial nature.

Et hinc etiam quaternarium, omnem numerum appellabant. Suidas in Ἀριθμῷ : Οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι πάντα ἀριθμὸν τετρακτὺν προσηγόρευον· ὁ δὴ ἀριθμὸς συμπληροῦται τοῖς δέκα. Ὁ δὲ δέκα, σύνθεσις τῶν τεσσάρων, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀριθμὸν πάντα τετρακτὺν ἔλεγον. Pythagorei autem omnem numerum appellabant quaternarium, qui sane denario completur. Denarius vero est compositio quaternarii : ideoque quaternarium, omnem numerum vocabant. Nempe quod denarium complectatur, qui in sese numerum omnem comprehendit : quidquid enim ultra denarium numeratur, denarii repetitio est. Quaternarius vero, si conjungas unitatem, binarium, et ternarium, quibus constat, mox denarium efficit. Atqui ut Pythagorei quaternarium Naturae fontem et radicem, et omnem numerum appellabant, sic Valentiniani primum Aeonum quaternionem, primum et primigenum, et omnium radicem dicebant ; eo quod a primo illo quaternario proflueret secundus, caeterorum omnium Aeonum fons et principium. Et ut a quaternario denarium fluere volebant Pythagorei, sic a secundo quaternario Aeonum decada emitti asserebant Valentiniani. Hi praeterea octonationem ex duabus tetradibus conflatam, primogenitam

And hence also they called the quaternary all number. Suidas under Number: The Pythagoreans called every number the tetractys; for number is completed by ten. And ten is the composition of the four, and on this account they called every number the tetractys. Now the Pythagoreans called every number the quaternary, which indeed is completed by the denary. And the denary is the composition of the quaternary: and therefore they called the quaternary all number. Namely because it embraces the denary, which comprehends all number in itself: for whatever is counted beyond the denary is a repetition of the denary. Now the quaternary, if you join unity, the binary, and the ternary, of which it consists, forthwith makes the denary. Yet just as the Pythagoreans called the quaternary the fountain and root of Nature, and all number, so the Valentinians called the first quaternion of Aeons the first and first-born, and the root of all things; because from that first quaternary flowed forth the second, the fountain and principle of all the rest of the Aeons. And as the Pythagoreans held that the denary flows from the quaternary, so the Valentinians asserted that a decad of Aeons is sent forth from the second quaternary. They furthermore called the octonation, formed out of the two tetrads, the first-begotten

Editors' notes and page, col. 58

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 58
marginal letters: A illorum mundo intelligibili; B tribuebant. Pythagorici,; C apud Pythagoreos jusjurandum,; D denarium complectatur,
old-edition numerals: [XXVIII] after πρωτουργῶν
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: illorum mundo intelligibili (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word primogeni-

PG 7:59

octonationem, radicem et substantiam omnium nuncupabant. Quod mire consentit cum eo Pythagoreorum effato, Πάντα ὀκτώ. Cujus quidem hanc notionem affert Tarrhaeus in Proverbiis : Πάντα ὀκτώ. Εὔανδρος ἔφη, ὀκτὼ τοὺς πάντων εἶναι κρατοῦντας θεοὺς, Πῦρ, Ὕδωρ, Γῆν, Οὐρανὸν, Σελήνην, Ἥλιον, Μίθραν, Νύκτα. Omnia octo. Evander tradit, deos rerum omnium potentes octo esse, Ignem, Aquam, Terram, Coelum, Lunam, Solem, Mithram, Noctem. Quemadmodum ergo Pythagoreis omnia octo, quia primi dii, rerum omnium potentes, octo sunt ; ita Valentinianis octonatio primogenita est, radix et substantia omnium, quia ex primis octo Aeonibus caeterorum parentibus constat.

octonation, the root and substance of all things. Which agrees wonderfully with that saying of the Pythagoreans, All things are eight. Of which indeed Tarrhaeus in his Proverbs brings forward this explanation: All things are eight. Evander said that the gods ruling over all things are eight: Fire, Water, Earth, Heaven, Moon, Sun, Mithras, Night. All things are eight. Evander hands down that the gods potent over all things are eight: Fire, Water, Earth, Heaven, Moon, Sun, Mithras, Night. Just as therefore to the Pythagoreans all things are eight, because the first gods, potent over all things, are eight; so to the Valentinians the octonation is first-begotten, the root and substance of all things, because it consists of the first eight Aeons, the parents of the rest.

40. Si vero negotium facessat, quod octonatio quatuor nominibus duntaxat apud eos nuncuparetur, Bythus, et Nus, et Logos, et Anthropos, praetermissis Sige, Alethia, Zoe et Ecclesia, nodum facile solves ex Pythagoricorum principiis. Numerus omnis par, aut impar : hunc perfectum esse, illum vero imperfectum statuebant. Plutarchus lib. De Homeri poesi : Ὁ γὰρ Πυθαγόρας, τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς μεγίστην δύναμιν ἔχειν ἡγούμενος, καὶ πάντα εἰς ἀριθμοὺς ἀναφέρων, τὸν μὲν ἄρτιον, ἐνδεᾶ καὶ ἀτελῆ· τὸν δὲ περισσὸν, πλήρη τε καὶ τέλειον ἀπέφηνεν. Pythagoras enim, qui numeros maximam habere vim existimabat, omniaque ad eos referebat, parem quidem, indigentem et imperfectum ; imparem vero plenum ac perfectum ostendit. Eapropter imparem numerum praestantiorem esse censebant. Julianus in Epist. ad Serapionem : Καὶ οὐκ ἀγνοῶ μὲν, ὡς παλαιῶν, καὶ σοφῶν ἀνδρῶν ὁ λόγος, τοῦ ἀρτίου τὸν περιττὸν προκεῖσθαι. Equidem non sum nescius, veteres, eosdemque sapientes, imparem numerum pari praeposuisse. Et Plinius, lib. XXVIII, cap. 11 : Impares numeros ad omnia vehementiores credimus. Quia videlicet, ut explicat anonymus, in Ptolemaei Tetrabiblon lib. I, numerus par sectioni atque passioni obnoxius ; impar vero utriusque expers, et efficax, et ad unitatem, omnium simplicissimam, propius accedit. Et ideo, eodem anonymo teste, Pythagorei numerum imparem masculum, parem femineum dicebant. Διὸ ὁ μὲν, θῆλυς ὀνομάζεται· ὁ δὲ, ἄῤῥην. Et Macrobius, in Somnio Scipionis, lib. I, cap. 6 : Esse imparem marem, parem feminam, superius expressimus. Numerus proinde, qui ex pari, atque impari conflatus est, id est ex mare atque femina, ἀῤῥενόθηλυς, masculo-femina vocabatur. Anonymus in Theologumenis arithmeticis, ubi de numero senario : Ἐξ ἀρτίου, καὶ περισσοῦ, τῶν πρώτων, ἄῤῥενος καὶ θήλεος, δυνάμει καὶ πολλαπλασιασμῷ γίνεται , διὸ καὶ ἀῤῥενόθηλυς καλεῖται. Ex pari et impari primis, mare et femina, potentia et multiplicatione nascitur : unde et masculo-femina dicitur. Ex quibus omnibus lucem accipiunt, quae modo ex Irenaeo referebamus, primogenitam octonationem quatuor nominibus apud Valentinianos nuncupatam fuisse, Bython et Nun, et Logon et Anthropon. Nempe cum Bythus, Nus, Logos et Anthropos, imparibus numeris 1, 3,

40. But if it should cause difficulty that the octonation was named among them by four names only, Bythus, and Nus, and Logos, and Anthropos, passing over Sige, Alethia, Zoe, and Ecclesia, you will easily untie the knot from the principles of the Pythagoreans. Every number is even or odd: the latter they held to be perfect, the former imperfect. Plutarch, in the book On the Poetry of Homer: For Pythagoras, deeming numbers to have the greatest power, and referring all things to numbers, declared the even to be deficient and imperfect, and the odd to be full and perfect. For Pythagoras, who considered numbers to have the greatest force, and referred all things to them, showed the even indeed to be needy and imperfect, but the odd to be full and perfect. On that account they deemed the odd number to be more excellent. Julian, in the Epistle to Serapion: And I am not ignorant indeed that, as the saying of ancient and wise men goes, the odd is preferred to the even. Indeed I am not unaware that the ancients, and those wise men, set the odd number before the even. And Pliny, Book 28, Chapter 11: We believe odd numbers to be more powerful for all purposes. Because, namely, as the anonymous commentator on Book 1 of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos explains, the even number is subject to division and passivity; whereas the odd is free of both, and efficacious, and approaches nearer to unity, the simplest of all things. And therefore, as the same anonymous writer testifies, the Pythagoreans called the odd number male, the even female. Wherefore the one is named female, and the other male. And Macrobius, on the Dream of Scipio, Book 1, Chapter 6: That the odd is male, the even female, we have expressed above. A number, accordingly, which is formed out of even and odd, that is, out of male and female, was called ἀῤῥενόθηλυς, male-female. The anonymous author in the Theological Arithmetic, where he treats of the senary number: Out of even and odd, the first ones, male and female, it arises by power and multiplication, wherefore also it is called male-female. From the first even and odd, male and female, it is born by power and multiplication: whence also it is called male-female. From all of which those things receive light which we were just now reporting from Irenaeus, that the first-begotten octonation was named by four names among the Valentinians: Bythus and Nus, and Logos and Anthropos. Namely, since Bythus, Nus, Logos, and Anthropos were expressed by the odd numbers 1, 3,

Editors' notes and page, col. 59

Page

running head: 59 DISSERTATIONES PRÆVIÆ IN
marginal letters: A tam octonationem,; B quatuor nominibus duntaxat; C Epist. ad Serapionem :; D Esse imparem marem,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word tam; editors' matter: tam octonationem (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:60

5 et 7 exprimerentur, utpote qui primum, tertium, quintum et septimum locum in ogdoade tenerent ; ab his, utpote perfectioribus et praestantioribus, nomen sortiebatur ogdoas ; praetermittebantur vero Sige, Alethia, Zoe et Ecclesia, quod numeris 2, 4, 6 et 8, imperfectioribus et ignobilioribus responderent ; altera siquidem in secundo, altera in quarto, altera in sexto, altera in octavo ordine constituebatur. Lucem etiam accipiunt quae mox subjungit Irenaeus : Esse enim unumquemque masculo-feminam. Cum enim syzygia quaelibet ex impari atque pari numero, mare et femina coalescat ; Aeon proinde syzygiae caput, impari numero expressus, alteri Aeoni qui pari numero respondet, copulatus, masculo-femina dicendus. Nec etiam a verosimili abhorret, totum illud Aeonum masculorum, et Aeonum feminarum, vel Aeonum masculorum-feminarum mysterium e Platonicorum lacunis depromptum fuisse. Nihil frequentius apud Proclum et alios occurrit, quam deos quosdam mares, quosdam feminas, vel quosdam masculo-feminas esse. Ubi per feminas nihil aliud intelligunt, quam deorum potentias et facultates, iis intime adhaerentes, per quas effectus sibi proprios operantur et in lucem edunt.

5, and 7, inasmuch as they held the first, third, fifth, and seventh place in the ogdoad, from these, as being more perfect and more excellent, the ogdoad obtained its name; while Sige, Alethia, Zoe, and Ecclesia were passed over, because they corresponded to the more imperfect and more ignoble numbers 2, 4, 6, and 8; since the one was set in the second, the next in the fourth, the next in the sixth, and the last in the eighth rank. Light is also received by what Irenaeus presently subjoins: For that each one of them is male-female. For since every syzygy coalesces out of an odd and an even number, male and female, the Aeon accordingly who is the head of the syzygy, expressed by an odd number, when joined to the other Aeon who corresponds to an even number, is to be called male-female. Nor is it at variance with likelihood that that whole mystery of male Aeons, and female Aeons, or male-female Aeons, was drawn from the pools of the Platonists. Nothing occurs more frequently in Proclus and others than that certain gods are males, certain are females, or certain are male-females. Where by females they understand nothing else than the powers and faculties of the gods, intimately adhering to them, through which they work the effects proper to themselves and bring them forth into light.

41. Deinde Pythagorei numerum imparem, dextrum, faustum et prosperum ; parem vero, sinistrum et infaustum habebant. Jamblichus, De vita Pythagorae, lib. I, cap. 28 : Εἰσιέναι δὲ εἰς τὰ ἱερὰ κατὰ τοὺς δεξιοὺς τόπους παραγγέλλει· ἐξιέναι δὲ κατὰ τοὺς ἀριστερούς· τὸ μὲν δεξιὸν, ἀρχὴν τοῦ περιττοῦ λεγομένου τῶν ἀριθμῶν τιθέμενος, τὸ δὲ ἀριστερὸν, τοῦ ἀρτίου σύμβολον. Templa ingredi per loca dextra praecipiebat, egredi vero per sinistra, quippe dextrum numeri, qui impar dicitur, initium esse ; sinistrum autem, paris symbolum. Censorinus, De die natali, cap. 20 : Impar numerus plenus, et magis faustus habebatur. Lutatius, ad Statii Theb. V : Omnis impar numerus prospera significat, et vivis ascribitur. Festus denique : Imparem numerum antiqui hominibus prosperiorem esse crediderunt. Quibus facile explicatur ea quam lib. I, cap. 11, n. 2, Irenaeus refert Secundi, Valentini discipuli, sententia : Quaternationem esse dextram, et quaternationem sinistram, et lumen, et tenebras. Cum enim, Plutarcho teste, in lib. De animae procreatione, cujus verba mox recitabimus, Pythagoricis duplex esset quaternarius, alter ex primis quatuor imparibus, alter ex primis quatuor paribus compositus, illeque dexter et faustus, hic sinister et infaustus existimaretur ; non mirum si Secundus eorum vestigia relegens, Gnosticorum octonarium in duos quaternarios secaret, dextrum scilicet et sinistrum. Dexter is erat qui ex primis quatuor imparibus Aeonibus conflatus erat, primo videlicet, tertio, quinto et septimo ; sinister qui ex primis quatuor paribus, secundo, quarto. sexto et octavo. Primus lumen erat, quia numeri impares fausti et mares ; secundus tenebrae, quia numeri

41. Next, the Pythagoreans held the odd number to be right, auspicious, and prosperous; but the even to be left and inauspicious. Iamblichus, On the Life of Pythagoras, Book 1, Chapter 28: And he enjoins entering into temples by the places on the right, and going out by those on the left, laying down the right as the principle of the so-called odd among numbers, and the left as the symbol of the even. He commanded to enter temples by the places on the right, and to go out by those on the left, inasmuch as the right is the beginning of the number which is called odd, while the left is the symbol of the even. Censorinus, On the Birthday, Chapter 20: The odd number was held to be full, and more auspicious. Lutatius, on Statius's Thebaid 5: Every odd number signifies prosperous things, and is ascribed to the living. Finally Festus: The ancients believed the odd number to be more prosperous for men. By which things is easily explained that opinion of Secundus, the disciple of Valentinus, which Irenaeus reports in Book 1, Chapter 11, no. 2: That there is a right quaternation, and a left quaternation, and light, and darkness. For since, as Plutarch testifies in the book On the Procreation of the Soul, whose words we shall presently recite, the Pythagoreans had a twofold quaternary, the one composed of the first four odd numbers, the other of the first four even numbers, and the former was esteemed right and auspicious, the latter left and inauspicious; it is no wonder if Secundus, retracing their footsteps, cut the octonary of the Gnostics into two quaternaries, namely the right and the left. The right was that which was formed out of the first four odd Aeons, namely the first, third, fifth, and seventh; the left, that which was formed out of the first four even ones, the second, fourth, sixth, and eighth. The first was light, because odd numbers are auspicious and male; the second darkness, because even numbers

Editors' notes and page, col. 60

Page

running head: ES PRÆVIÆ IN IRENÆI LIBROS. 60
marginal letters: A 5 et 7 exprimerentur,; B simili abhorret,; C κατὰ τοὺς δεξιοὺς; D dextram, et quaternationem
old-edition numerals: [XXIX] after symbolum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: 5 et 7 exprimerentur (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:61

pares infausti et feminae, haeque a maribus, a quibus pendent, lumen accipiunt.

are inauspicious and female, and these receive light from the males, on whom they depend.

42. Denique ea vis est Pythagorici quaternarii, ut numerum sex et triginta contineat ; nempe quatuor primos pares numeros, binarium, quaternarium, senarium, octonarium . et quatuor primos impares, unitatem, ternarium, quinarium et septenarium ; qui collecti eum numerum exhibent ; ideoque Mundus appellatur. Plutarchus, De Iside et Osiride : Ἡ δὲ καλουμένη τετρακτὺς, τὰ ἓξ καὶ τριάκοντα, μέγιστος ἦν ὅρκος, ὡς τεθρύλληται, καὶ κόσμος ὠνόμασται, τεσσάρων μὲν ἀρτίων τῶν πρώτων, τεσσάρων δὲ τῶν περισσῶν, εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ συντιθεμένων ἀποτελούμενος. Qui vero quaternarius vocabatur, e sex et triginta constans, maximum erat juramentum, ut sermone omnium tritum est, et appellabatur Mundus : e primis quatuor paribus, ac primis quatuor imparibus constitutus. Et in lib. De animae procreatione : Ἡ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν ὑμνουμένη τετρακτὺς, τὰ ἓξ καὶ τὰ τριάκοντα, θαυμαστὸν ἔχειν δοκεῖ, τὸ συγκεῖσθαι μὲν ἐκ πρώτων ἀρτίων τεσσάρων, καὶ πρώτων περισσῶν τεσσάρων. Equidem quaternarius ille a Pythagoricis praedicatus, scilicet sex et triginta, illud habet admirandum, quod compositus sit e quatuor primis paribus, et primis quatuor imparibus. Eadem vis fuit utriusque quaternarii, cum paris, tum imparis, seu octonarii Valentiniani. Mundus et ipse erat, numerumque sex et triginta complectebatur. Exhibebat nempe octo primos Aeones, cum aliis viginti et duobus, Horoque, Christo et Spiritu sancto, et Salvatore ab iis emissis, quibus Pleroma seu mundus intelligibilis definitur ; et Achamotha ac Demiurgo, mundi hujus aspectabilis ducibus ac conditoribus, quique a supernis Aeonibus ortum ducunt, ac numerum 36 complent.

42. Finally, such is the force of the Pythagorean quaternary that it contains the number thirty-six; namely, the first four even numbers, the binary, quaternary, senary, octonary, and the first four odd numbers, unity, the ternary, quinary, and septenary; which when collected together exhibit that number; and therefore it is called the World. Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris: And the so-called tetractys, the thirty-six, was the greatest oath, as has been famed abroad, and has been named the World, being completed by the first four even numbers and the first four odd numbers compounded together. Now what was called the quaternary, consisting of thirty-six, was the greatest oath, as is worn smooth in the speech of all, and was called the World: constituted out of the first four even and the first four odd numbers. And in the book On the Procreation of the Soul: The tetractys celebrated in hymns by the Pythagoreans, the thirty-six, seems to have this wonderful property, that it is compounded out of the first four even numbers and the first four odd numbers. Indeed that quaternary proclaimed by the Pythagoreans, namely thirty-six, has this admirable property, that it is composed of the first four even and the first four odd numbers. The same was the force of both quaternaries, both even and odd, or the Valentinian octonary. It too was the World, and embraced the number thirty-six. Namely, it exhibited the first eight Aeons, together with the other twenty-two, and Horos, Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the Saviour sent forth by them, by whom the Pleroma or intelligible world is bounded; and Achamoth and the Demiurge, the leaders and founders of this visible world, who also derive their origin from the upper Aeons, and complete the number 36.

43. Ex primo illo Aeonum octonario, denarium alterum, et duodenarium derivabant Valentiniani, nempe decem a Verbo et Vita, duodecim ab Homine et Ecclesia emissos ; ut ex iis omnibus fieret tricenarius Aeonum numerus. Posteriorum quidem istorum nomina et conjugationes non occurrunt in Platonicorum Pythagoricorumque scriptis ; utpote quae vel e Scripturis corraserit, vel fabricaverit ipse Valentinus. Quaecunque in Scripturis voces divini Verbi proprietates, ejusque in humanum genus effusae benignitatis effectus significant, has studiose colligens, et artificio quodam colligans ac connectens, in totidem Aeones transformavit ; vana persuasione seductus, diversis illis nominibus res diversas designari. Verbum hominem factum Ecclesiam fundasse, inspirataque ei vita in sponsam sibi assumpsisse, in Scripturis passim legimus. His abusus nugator, a Verbo et Vita Hominem et Ecclesiam effluxisse finxit. Quia vero in Christo inhabitat omnis plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter, et in eo

43. From that first octonary of Aeons the Valentinians derived another denary and a duodenary, namely ten sent forth from the Word and Life, twelve from Man and Church; so that out of all these was made the tricenary number of Aeons. Now the names and pairings of these latter ones do not occur in the writings of the Platonists and Pythagoreans, inasmuch as Valentinus himself either scraped them together from the Scriptures or fabricated them. Whatever words in the Scriptures signify the properties of the divine Word, and the effects of His benignity poured out upon the human race, diligently collecting these, and binding and connecting them by a certain artifice, he transformed them into so many Aeons, seduced by the vain persuasion that different things are designated by those different names. That the Word made man founded the Church, and having breathed life into her took her to Himself as a bride, we read everywhere in the Scriptures. Abusing these things, the trifler feigned that Man and Church flowed forth from the Word and Life. And because in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and in Him

Editors' notes and page, col. 61

Footnotes

(49) ‹anchor: not seen (probably near "plenitudo Divinitatis corporaliter")› · call in col 61 (inferred; call not seen)

Coloss. II, 9 et 2.

Colossians 2:9 and 2.

(printed under page 37)

Page

running head: 61 DISSERTATIO I, ART I, DE
marginal letters: A pares infausti et feminæ,; B juramentum, ut sermone; C octo primos Æones,; D utpote quæ vel e Scripturis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: pares infausti et feminae (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:62

reconditi sunt omnes thesauri sapientiae et scientiae Dei, hinc Bythius seu Profundus, et Mixis seu Mistura : Profundus quidem ob perfectionum infinitam profunditatem ; Mistura vero ob earumdem ordinatissimam seriem. De Christo ea psalmi CI verba intelligit Apostolus : Ipsi (coeli) peribunt ; tu autem permanebis, et omnes ut vestimentum veterascent ; tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient ; ut omittam alia quamplurima, quae Christi immutabilitatem nulli obnoxiam senio, ejusque perfectiones nunquam caducas demonstrant. Inde Ageratos, senii expers, cui copulatur Enosis, unio, ob perfectionum nunquam defecturarum, minuendarum aut dissipandarum arctissimum nexum. Sapientia in Scripturis fuisse dicitur in initio viarum Domini, antequam quidquam faceret a principio, ab aeterno ordinata, et ex antiquis antequam terra fieret, ante abyssos concepta, etc., Deo fuisse in deliciis. Verbum in principio erat, Egressus ejus ab initio, a diebus aeternitatis, Filius Patri maxime dilectus est, Α et Ω, principium et finis, etc. Unde Autophyes, ex se natus, et Hedone, voluptas. Quod vero aeternum sit Dei Verbum, quod initium excludat, successionem, ac mutabilitatem, ac finem ; quod in puncto ac momento consistens, mutationem ac vicissitudinem nesciat ; quod denique infinitatem mobilis temporis praesentem habeat, et in quo omnis aetatum et temporum varietas, futurum, praesens et praeteritum perfectissime et absque ullo fluxu coeunt ; hinc Acinetos, immobilis, cujus proprietas est Syncrasis, temporum, ut ita dicam, contemperatio. Quia denique Verbum Unigenitus Dei Filius passim dicitur, quem cognoscere vita aeterna est, et quocum in coelis regnare, suprema mentium nostrarum felicitas est, Monogenem, Unigenitum, et Macarian (suppl. Ζωὴν, vitam), beatam vitam dixerunt haeretici.

are hidden all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God, hence Bythius or Deep, and Mixis or Mixture: Deep indeed on account of the infinite depth of His perfections; Mixture on account of the most orderly series of the same. Of Christ the Apostle understands those words of Psalm 101: They (the heavens) shall perish, but Thou shalt endure, and they all shall grow old as a garment; and Thou art the selfsame, and Thy years shall not fail; to omit very many other passages which demonstrate Christ's immutability subject to no old age, and His never-fading perfections. Hence Ageratos, free from old age, to whom is joined Enosis, union, on account of the closest bond of perfections never to fail, be diminished, or be dissipated. Wisdom in the Scriptures is said to have been in the beginning of the ways of the Lord, before He made anything from the beginning, ordained from eternity, and of old before the earth was made, conceived before the depths, etc., to have been in delight with God. The Word was in the beginning, His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity, the Son is most beloved to the Father, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, etc. Whence Autophyes, born of himself, and Hedone, pleasure. And because the Word of God is eternal, excluding beginning, succession, and mutability, and end; because subsisting in a point and moment, He knows neither change nor vicissitude; because finally He holds present the infinity of moving time, and in Him all diversity of ages and times, future, present, and past, meet most perfectly and without any flux; hence Acinetos, immovable, whose property is Syncrasis, the tempering together, so to speak, of times. Because finally the Word is everywhere called the Only-begotten Son of God, Whom to know is eternal life, and with Whom to reign in the heavens is the supreme happiness of our minds, the heretics called them Monogenes, Only-begotten, and Macaria (supply Ζωὴν, life), blessed life.

44. Qui autem ab Homine et Ecclesia emissi dicuntur Aeones, et hi ex iis Spiritus sancti proprietatibus et donis, quae leguntur in Scripturis, stolide a vesanis hominibus conflati sunt. Sic Paracletus Spiritus sanctus est, quem missurum se toties spopondit Salvator, ut doceret nos omnem veritatem, fidemque proinde nobis inspiraret. Patricos, paternus, Spiritus adoptionis est, in quo clamamus, Abba, Pater, testimonium reddens Spiritui nostro, quod sumus filii Dei, haeredes proinde, exspectantes revelationem filiorum Dei, et abundantes in spe et virtute Spiritus sancti. Metricos, Maternus, Paracletus est, qui quomodo si cui mater blandiatur, ita consolatur nos, charitate diffusa in cordibus nostris. Ainos, Graece ἀείνους, mens aeterna ac semper cogitans, Spiritus est qui scrutatur omnia, etiam profunda Dei, et quae Dei sunt cognoscit, per quem nobis revelavit Deus sapientiam in mysterio, quae abscondita est,

44. And those Aeons who are said to have been sent forth from Man and Church, they too were foolishly forged by madmen out of those properties and gifts of the Holy Spirit which are read in the Scriptures. Thus Paracletus is the Holy Spirit, Whom the Saviour so often promised that He would send, that He might teach us all truth, and accordingly inspire faith in us. Patricos, paternal, is the Spirit of adoption, in Whom we cry, Abba, Father, bearing witness to our spirit that we are sons of God, heirs accordingly, awaiting the revelation of the sons of God, and abounding in hope and in the power of the Holy Spirit. Metricos, Maternal, is the Paraclete, Who, even as a mother caresses someone, so comforts us, with charity poured forth in our hearts. Ainos, in Greek ἀείνους, eternal and ever-thinking mind, is the Spirit Who searches all things, even the deep things of God, and knows the things that are of God, through Whom God has revealed to us wisdom in a mystery, which is hidden,

Editors' notes and page, col. 62

Footnotes

(50) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 62 (inferred from note order)

Heb. I, 11, 12.

Hebrews 1:11, 12.

(printed under page 37)

(51) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 62 (inferred from note order)

Prov. VIII, 22.

Proverbs 8:22.

(printed under page 37)

(52) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 62 (inferred from note order)

Joan. I, 4.

John 1:4.

(printed under page 37)

(53) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 62 (inferred from note order)

Mich. V, 2.

Micah 5:2.

(printed under page 37)

(54) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 62 (inferred from note order)

Matth. III, 17.

Matthew 3:17.

(printed under page 37)

(55) ‹anchor: not visible (call above the imaged foot)› · call in col 62 (inferred from note order)

Apoc. I, 8.

Revelation 1:8.

(printed under page 37)

(56) ‹anchor: omnem veritatem› · call in col 62

Joan. XVI, 13.

John 16:13.

(printed under page 37)

(57) ‹anchor: filiorum Dei› · call in col 62

Rom. VIII, 15, 17, 19.

Romans 8:15, 17, 19.

(printed under page 37)

(58) ‹anchor: Spiritus sancti› · call in col 62

Rom. XV, 13.

Romans 15:13.

(printed under page 37)

(59) ‹anchor: consolatur nos› · call in col 62

Isa. LXVI, 13.

Isaiah 66:13.

(printed under page 37)

(60) ‹anchor: in cordibus nostris› · call in col 62

Rom. V, 5.

Romans 5:5.

(printed under page 37)

(61) ‹anchor: quae abscondita est› · call in col 62

I Cor. II, 10; II Cor. VII, 2.

1 Corinthians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 7:2.

(printed under page 37)

Page

running head: O I, ART I, DE VALENTINO. 62
marginal letters: A reconditi sunt omnes; B rum Domini, antequam; C ctissime et absque; D ternus, Spiritus adoptionis
old-edition numerals: [XXX] after revelavit
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: reconditi sunt omnes (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:63

et σύνεσις, intelligentia nobis datur eorum quae a Deo donata sunt nobis. Ecclesiasticos, Ecclesiasticus idem dicitur, quia Ecclesiam quam ex variis gentibus adunavit, regit, tuetur et fovet, multiplicique μακαριότητι, beatitudine, per inspirata dona locupletat. Theletos denique, seu voluntarius est, quia ex amore et voluntate procedit, eique proinde cum datum sit profundissima quaeque Dei voluntatis consilia scrutari, per hunc datur nobis sermo σοφίας, sapientiae, loquimurque Dei sapientiam in mysterio, quae abscondita est, et quam nemo principum hujus saeculi cognovit.

and σύνεσις, understanding, is given to us of the things that have been bestowed upon us by God. The same is called Ecclesiasticos, Ecclesiastic, because He rules, guards, and cherishes the Church which He has united out of various nations, and enriches her with manifold μακαριότητι, beatitude, through inspired gifts. Finally, He is Theletos, or voluntary, because He proceeds from love and will, and accordingly, since it is given to Him to search all the deepest counsels of the will of God, through Him is given to us the word of σοφίας, wisdom, and we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which is hidden, and which none of the princes of this world knew.

45. At quamvis posteriorum Aeonum nomina et proprietates ignoraverit Platonica, Chaldaica et Pythagorica theologia, tricenarium tamen omnium numerum effingendi exemplum ab ea petiere Valentiniani. Plutarchus in libro De Iside et Osiride refert, eam fuisse Zoroastris Magi sententiam, duos esse deos, alterum bonorum, alterum malorum opificem. Illi nomen Oromazes, huic Arimanius. Καὶ ὁ μὲν ἓξ θεοὺς ἐποίησε, τὸν μὲν πρῶτον εὐνοίας, τὸν δὲ δεύτερον ἀληθείας, τὸν δὲ τρίτον εὐνομίας· τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν, τὸν μὲν σοφίας, τὸν δὲ πλούτου, τὸν δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς καλοῖς ἡδέων δημιουργόν......... ἄλλους δὲ ποιήσας τέσσαρας καὶ εἴκοσι θεούς. εἰς ὠὸν ἔθηκεν. Porro sex deos fecit Oromazes, primum benevolentiae, secundum veritatis, tertium aequitatis, reliquos sapientiae, divitiarum et voluptatis, quae honesta consequitur, opifices...... Alios vero viginti quatuor deos condidit, et in ovo posuit. Ubi triginta deos habes, quorum etiam nomina quaedam cum Valentinianorum Aeonibus conveniunt. Zoroastrem secutus Hesiodus triginta et ipse deos finxit, quorum θεογονίαν descripsit ; adeo ut ab eo Pleromatis formam desumpsisse Valentinianos autumaverit Epiphanius. Quod vero hi Aeones quindecim masculos, cum totidem feminis copularent, Pythagoricorum exemplo fecisse demonstravimus, qui numeros impares cum paribus conjugabant, hosque feminas, illos mares appellabant.

45. Yet although the Platonic, Chaldaic, and Pythagorean theology did not know the names and properties of the latter Aeons, nevertheless the Valentinians sought from it the model of fashioning the tricenary number of them all. Plutarch, in the book On Isis and Osiris, reports that it was the opinion of Zoroaster the Magian that there are two gods, the one the framer of good things, the other of evil things. The name of the former is Oromazes, of the latter Arimanius. And the one made six gods, the first of good-will, the second of truth, the third of good order; and of the rest, the one of wisdom, the next of wealth, and the last the creator of pleasures in honourable things......... and having made twenty-four other gods, he placed them in an egg. Moreover Oromazes made six gods, the first of benevolence, the second of truth, the third of equity, and the rest the framers of wisdom, of riches, and of the pleasure that attends honourable things...... And he founded twenty-four other gods, and placed them in an egg. Where you have thirty gods, some of whose names also agree with the Aeons of the Valentinians. Following Zoroaster, Hesiod himself also feigned thirty gods, whose theogony he described; so much so that Epiphanius supposed that the Valentinians took the form of their Pleroma from him. And that they joined these Aeons as fifteen males with as many females, we have shown that they did after the example of the Pythagoreans, who yoked odd numbers with even, and called the latter females, the former males.

46. Aeonibus triginta, quatuor alios, sed extra conjugationum et emissionum seriem, in Pleromate tamen, insuper adjungebant haeretici, Horon videlicet, Christum et Spiritum sanctum, ac Salvatorem. Priorem ex Aegyptiorum, tres alios e Scripturarum sacrarum fontibus hauserant. Horon Aegyptii fingebant Typhonis conatus fregisse. Ab iis, Kirkero teste, pingebatur puer, labra premens, digitoque suadens silentium, ut ineffabilia esse mysteria indicaret. Horon vero ipsum Apollinem esse, concentus omnis et harmoniae auctorem, medendique ac divinandi peritissimum, pluribus ostendit Plutarchus in Iside et Osiride, unde et manasse videtur Hermionensium ille Ὅριος Apollo, id est, terminorum praeses. quem, teste Pausania, olim colebant. Terminum etiam a multis habitum fuisse deum, pacisque custodem, et justitiae testem dictum, liquet ex eodem Plutarcho in Numa. Quae omnia ad Valentinianorum Horon quadrant. Hic

46. To the thirty Aeons the heretics further added four others besides, though outside the series of pairings and emissions, yet within the Pleroma, namely Horos, Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the Saviour. The first they had drawn from the fountains of the Egyptians, the three others from those of the sacred Scriptures. The Egyptians feigned that Horos had broken the attempts of Typhon. By them, as Kircher testifies, he was painted as a boy pressing his lips and urging silence with his finger, to indicate that the mysteries are ineffable. And that Horos is Apollo himself, the author of all concord and harmony, and most skilled in healing and divining, Plutarch shows at length in Isis and Osiris, whence also seems to have flowed that Ὅριος Apollo of the Hermionians, that is, president of boundaries, whom, as Pausanias testifies, they formerly worshipped. That Terminus also was held by many to be a god, and called the guardian of peace and witness of justice, is clear from the same Plutarch in Numa. All of which things fit the Horos of the Valentinians. He

Editors' notes and page, col. 63

Footnotes

(41) ‹anchor: hujus saeculi cognovit› · call in col 63

I Cor. II et XII.

1 Cor. 2 and 12.

(printed under page 38)

Page

running head: 63 DISSERTATIONES PRÆVIÆ IN
marginal letters: A et σύνεσις, intelligentia; B numerum effingendi; C deos habes, quorum; D rarum sacrarum fontibus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek words and a Greek quotation from Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride) with its Latin rendering; editors' matter: et σύνεσις, intelligentia (Massuet, Dissertatio I) (Q4)
misprints kept as printed: praeses. quem (full stop for a comma), in terminorum praeses. quem, teste Pausania
misprints kept as printed: θεούς. εἰς (full stop for a comma, the sentence running on), in εἴκοσι θεούς. εἰς ὠὸν ἔθηκεν (Q3a)

PG 7:64

siquidem temerarios Sophiae et Enthymeseos conatus repressit : Bythum et Pleroma (nam duplicem Horon fingebat Valentinus, unum inter Bythum et Aeones, alterum inter Pleroma et Enthymesin) quasi vallo cingit et munit, propius accedentibus aditum intercludit, exclamansque Iao, id est, ineffabile Dei nomen pronuntians, impervia esse divina mysteria significat. Horothetes seu terminorum praeses ac constitutor et ipse dicitur : denique ceu virtus quae confirmat extra inenarrabilem magnitudinem, et custodit omnia, repraesentatur. Quia vero ex catholica doctrina perceperant, Filium Dei, quem etiam Νοῦν Patris sacrae litterae appellant, ὅρον καὶ Λόγον τοῦ Πατρὸς nominari, id est, definitionem et rationem, seu Verbum Patris ; hinc occasio ab insanis hominibus captata ὅρον καὶ λόγον ab unigenito Patris Filio distinguendi, sicque unam et eamdem personam, seu unius et ejusdem personae varia nomina et rationes in plures Aeones discerpendi. Ut enim λόγον a Nu emissum contendebant, sic et Horon a Bytho per Nun in imagine Patris prodiisse volebant. Quod foeda catholici dogmatis deformatio erat. Quippe unus et idem Dei Filius ὅρος καὶ Λόγος τοῦ Πατρὸς a SS. Patribus dicitur. Cujus quidem nominis interpretationem fuse edisserit Gregorius Nazianzenus orat. 36., p. 590 : Λόγος δὲ, ὅτι οὕτως ἔχει πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ὡς πρὸς νοῦν λόγος· οὐ μόνον διὰ τὸ ἀπαθὲς τῆς γεννήσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ συναφὲς, καὶ τὸ ἐξαγγελτικόν· τάχα δ' ἂν εἴποι τις, ὅτι, καὶ ὡς ὅρος πρὸς τὸ ὁριζόμενον, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τοῦτο λέγεται λόγος. Ὁ γὰρ νενοηκὼς, φησὶ, τὸν Υἱὸν (τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ ἑωρακώς), νενόηκε τὸν Πατέρα. Καὶ σύντομος ἀπόδειξις, καὶ ῥᾳδία τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς φύσεως ὁ Υἱός. Γέννημα γὰρ ἅπαν τοῦ γεγεννηκότος σιωπῶν λόγος. Verbum appellatur, quod sic ad Patrem se habeat, ut sermo ad mentem : non modo propter generationem passionis omnis expertem, verum etiam propter conjunctionem ipsius cum Patre, vimque enuntiatricem. Fortasse etiam, quia eodem modo se ad Patrem habet, quo definitio ad definitum. Nam definitio quoque λόγος dicitur. Qui enim Filium intellexit, ait (hoc enim significat illud, qui vidit), etiam intellexit Patrem. Ac brevis et compendiosa, facilisque naturae paternae declaratio, Filius est. Omne enim quod genitum est, genitorem suum tacita quadam voce definit. Igitur definitio, ὅρος, naturae paternae ac proprietatis ideo Filius dicitur, quoniam expressa est illius imago, eamque complectitur, continet, explicatque ; quemadmodum definitio rem definitam explicat, et efficit ut ea mente capiatur et intelligatur. Quod quidem aliqua ex parte exprimere voluerunt haeretici, aientes Horon in imagine Patris emitti, Pleromatis Horotheten esse, quod est divinitatem ab eo definiri ac declarari, aliaque Filii Dei nomina huic aptantes, puta λυτρωτοῦ, Redemptoris, Καρπιστοῦ, vindicis, etc. Sed his non contenti, fabulas Aegyptiacas in subsidium vocarunt, et quae catholica fides de Verbi divini generatione docet, misere defoedarunt.

indeed restrained the rash attempts of Sophia and Enthymesis: he surrounds and fortifies Bythus and the Pleroma (for Valentinus feigned a twofold Horos, one between Bythus and the Aeons, the other between the Pleroma and Enthymesis) as if with a rampart, bars the approach to those coming nearer, and crying out Iao, that is, pronouncing the ineffable name of God, signifies that the divine mysteries are inaccessible. He himself is also called Horothetes, or president and establisher of boundaries: finally he is represented as a power that confirms outside the unutterable greatness, and guards all things. Now because they had perceived from Catholic doctrine that the Son of God, Whom the sacred letters also call the Mind of the Father, is named the boundary and Word of the Father, that is, the definition and reason, or Word of the Father; hence an occasion was seized by madmen for distinguishing boundary and word from the only-begotten Son of the Father, and thus tearing apart one and the same person, or the various names and aspects of one and the same person, into several Aeons. For just as they contended that Logos was sent forth from Nus, so also they held that Horos went forth from Bythus through Nus in the image of the Father. Which was a foul deformation of Catholic dogma. For one and the same Son of God is called by the holy Fathers the boundary and Word of the Father. The interpretation of which name indeed Gregory of Nazianzus sets forth at length in Oration 36, p. 590: And He is called Word, because He is so related to the Father as word is to mind: not only on account of the passionlessness of His generation, but also on account of His conjunction and declarative power; and perhaps someone might say, because He is also related as definition to that which is defined, since this too is called word. For he who has understood, he says, the Son (for this is what "has seen" means), has understood the Father. And the Son is a concise and easy demonstration of the Father's nature. For every offspring is a silent word of him who begot it. He is called the Word, because He is so related to the Father as speech is to mind: not only on account of His generation free from all passion, but also on account of His conjunction with the Father, and His declarative force. Perhaps also because He is related to the Father in the same way as a definition to the thing defined. For a definition also is called λόγος. For he who has understood the Son, he says (for this is what that expression "he who has seen" signifies), has also understood the Father. And the Son is a brief, compendious, and easy declaration of the paternal nature. For everything that is begotten defines its begetter by a certain silent voice. Therefore the Son is on that account called the definition, ὅρος, of the paternal nature and property, because He is His express image, and embraces, contains, and unfolds it; just as a definition unfolds the thing defined, and causes it to be grasped and understood by the mind. Which indeed the heretics wished in some measure to express, saying that Horos is sent forth in the image of the Father, and is the Horothetes of the Pleroma, which is that the divinity is defined and declared by him, and fitting other names of the Son of God to him, for instance λυτρωτοῦ, Redeemer, Καρπιστοῦ, emancipator, etc. But not content with these, they called Egyptian fables to their aid, and wretchedly defiled what the Catholic faith teaches concerning the generation of the divine Word.

Editors' notes and page, col. 64

Page

running head: ES PRÆVIÆ IN IRENÆI LIBROS. 64
marginal letters: A siquidem temerarios; B casio ab insanis; C ὁριζόμενον, ἐπειδὴ; D declaratio, Filius est.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: siquidem temerarios (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:65

47. Eodem sacrilegii genere Christum ab Unigenito, Horo, Verbo, Salvatore et Jesu dividentes, finxerunt alterum par Aeonum, Christum et Spiritum sanctum a Monogene secundum providentiam Patris emissos fuisse ; illum, ut Aeones doceret Unigeniti solius menti pervium esse Patrem, nec a quoquam percipi aut intelligi, nisi Monogenis beneficio, posse ; hunc vero, ut Aeones omnes ad aequalitatem redigeret, omnesque ejusdem formae et animi efficeret, ut universi pariter et Mentes essent, et Sermones, et Homines, et Christi, etc. Nempe quod in Evangelio Christus docet, neminem nosse Patrem, nisi Filium, et cui voluerit Filius revelare ; et quod fide novimus Spiritum sanctum esse charitatem et amorem, vinculumque sanctissimae Trinitatis, ac nexum quo fideles constringuntur, et unum fiunt, haec comminiscendi ansam praebuerunt. Salvatorem autem, ex eo quod singuli Pleromatis Aeones in se praestantissimum ac florentissimum haberent, scite composito, atque eleganter contexto, ceu Pleromatis sidus, perfectumque fructum, ac paternis Aeonum omnium nominibus insignitum, in lucem editum effutiebant, quod apud Apostolum legissent, Christum nostrum infinitis divinae sapientiae et scientiae thesauris ditatum, et in eo plenitudinem omnem Divinitatis habitare corporaliter. Quem dum angelis satellitibus eodem tempore productis stipatum describunt, partim Evangelium, in quo legitur angelos Christi ortum et resurrectionem annuntiasse, eique in omnibus ministrasse, partim Platonicos imitantur, qui, Jamblicho teste, sect. II, cap. 2, 3 et seq., diis aliquam angelorum turbam, tanquam satellites, assignant.

47. By the same kind of sacrilege dividing Christ from the Only-begotten, Horos, the Word, the Saviour, and Jesus, they feigned that another pair of Aeons, Christ and the Holy Spirit, were sent forth by Monogenes according to the providence of the Father: the former, that he might teach the Aeons that the Father is accessible to the mind of the Only-begotten alone, and cannot be perceived or understood by anyone except through the kindness of Monogenes; the latter, that he might bring all the Aeons to equality, and make them all of the same form and mind, so that all alike should be both Minds, and Words, and Men, and Christs, etc. Namely, what Christ teaches in the Gospel, that no one knows the Father except the Son, and him to whom the Son wills to reveal Him; and what we know by faith, that the Holy Spirit is charity and love, and the bond of the most holy Trinity, and the nexus whereby the faithful are bound together and become one—these things furnished the handle for devising such fictions. And the Saviour, skilfully composed and elegantly woven together out of that which each of the Aeons of the Pleroma had in himself most excellent and most flourishing, they babbled was brought forth into light as the star and perfect fruit of the Pleroma, and marked with the paternal names of all the Aeons, because they had read in the Apostle that our Christ is enriched with infinite treasures of divine wisdom and knowledge, and that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And while they describe him as attended by companion angels produced at the same time, they imitate partly the Gospel, in which it is read that angels announced the birth and resurrection of Christ and ministered to Him in all things, and partly the Platonists, who, as Iamblichus testifies, Section 2, Chapters 2, 3, and following, assign to the gods a certain crowd of angels as attendants.

48. Sophiae, Aeonum novissimi, casus, insignior Valentinianae fabulae pars, in recensione Pleromatis omitti non debet. Alterum aenigma caeteris ut insulsius, sic et obscurius. Quid ea de re sentiam, paucis explicabo. Pervetus est de mali origine dubitatio, quae tum philosophorum Christiani dogmatis ignarorum, tum etiam eorum qui Christianum nomen profitebantur, diutius torsit ingenia. Cum enim hinc ea sit omnium animis ingenita notio, Deum summe bonum malorum auctorem esse non posse ; illinc vero malis mundum hunc scatere doceat experientia ; nodum solvere non valentes plurimi, vel desperatione fracti sunt, vel in absurdissimorum errorum barathrum praecipites acti, miserrime perierunt. Ut omittam eos e Platonicis, qui materiam aeternam et a nullo productam invexere malorum radicem, quae divinis operibus admista, haec contagione quadam inficeret ; alii cum philosophi, tum nomine tenus Christiani, quales Marcionitae, Manichaei et Priscillianistae, duos affirmare deos maluerunt, et unum eorum mali principium, ne illum verum Deum, qui natura bonus est, fontem et originem mali esse

48. The fall of Sophia, the last of the Aeons, the more notable part of the Valentinian fable, ought not to be omitted in the survey of the Pleroma. It is another riddle, as more insipid than the rest, so also more obscure. What I think concerning that matter, I will explain in a few words. Very ancient is the doubt concerning the origin of evil, which long tormented the minds both of philosophers ignorant of Christian dogma and also of those who professed the Christian name. For since on the one hand there is that notion innate in the minds of all, that the supremely good God cannot be the author of evils, while on the other hand experience teaches that this world teems with evils, very many, unable to untie the knot, were either broken by despair or driven headlong into an abyss of the most absurd errors, and most wretchedly perished. To omit those among the Platonists who brought in eternal matter, produced by no one, as the root of evils, which, mingled with the divine works, infected them with a certain contagion; others, both philosophers and Christians in name only, such as the Marcionites, Manichees, and Priscillianists, preferred to affirm two gods, and one of them the principle of evil, lest they should confess that true God, Who is good by nature, to be the fountain and origin of evil;

Editors' notes and page, col. 65

Footnotes

(42) ‹anchor: habitare corporaliter› · call in col 65

Col. II, 9.

Col. 2:9.

(printed under page 39)

Page

running head: 65 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A 47. Eodem sacrilegii; B sanctissimæ Trinitatis,; C Christi ortum et; D esse non posse ;
old-edition numerals: [XXXI] after et quod
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: 47. Eodem sacrilegii (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:66

faterentur ; alii vero dum duplicem Deum fateri merito reformidabant, aliam divinitati injuriam inferre veriti non sunt : statuere siquidem angelos ut mundi auctores, sic et malorum omnium opifices. Quae veterum omnium Gnosticorum, Simonis, Menandri, Saturnini, aliorumque quorum blasphemias recitat Irenaeus lib. I, impia fuit opinatio. Sed quia importuna, nec vanae subtilitatis artibus usquam eludenda, aut solvenda semper redibat quaestio, unde angeli ipsi eo usque cum malitiae, tum potentiae devenire potuerunt, ut mundum Deo bono vel invito, vel non repugnante et fabricarent, et malis contaminarent ; hanc fabularum commentis, certissimas veritates obscurando, expedire se posse putarunt Valentiniani. Audierant in Christianorum scholis, initium omnis perditionis superbiam exstitisse ; angelos quippe, quod ad Altissimi solium propius, quam eorum conditio ferebat, accedere voluissent, quodque summam Dei scientiam ac majestatem temere aemulati, rebus omnibus creatis dominari ac providere, affectu saltem ac voto, concupiissent, e coelo dejectos praecipiti ruina periisse, eodemque, quo primum infecti fuerant superbiae veneno, humanum genus infecisse, ac perdidisse, et proinde malorum omnium, quibus jam labefactatur orbis, fomitem ministrasse. Audierant, et apud Apostolum legerant, Deum sibi proposuisse instaurare omnia in Christo, quae in coelis, et quae in terra sunt, in ipso ; et quod per Filium suum, qui est imago Dei invisibilis, complacuerit reconciliare omnia in ipsum, pacificans per sanguinem crucis ejus, sive quae in terris, sive quae in coelis sunt. Certissima haec Ecclesiae catholicae ab apostolis tradita dogmata depravantes, iisque ludicra commenta pro more intermiscentes, novam hypothesim cuderunt, qua rerum genesin suo, Platonico potius ac Pythagorico, modo, aenigmata aenigmatis intexentes, explicarent. Finxerunt itaque, summum Deum infinitis temporum saeculis in summa quiete ac tranquillitate perstitisse, nihil exterius operatum, sed sola sua ἐννοίᾳ seu cogitatione contentum et occupatum : quam ideo Silentium vocabant, quia nullo sese actu exteriori prodebat ; Gratiam vero, quia beneficiorum omnium, quae orbi deinceps largitus est, fons et principium exstitit. Ex quo enim Deus in animum induxit orbem condere, cogitationem suam hactenus sterilem sic fecundavit, ut in novum actum, quo exterius patesceret, erumpens, Νοῦν seu sensum produceret, rerum omnium patrem ac principium deinde futurum, sive primaevam et archetypam rerum omnium condendarum formam, et exemplar. Huic copulata dicitur Veritas, quia primum illud exemplar suprema veritas et regula est, ad quam omnium fabricatio exigenda sit. Quia vero apertius, quam ut ab iis qui Christianum nomen utcunque profitentur, negari possit, in Scripturis

while others, shrinking deservedly from confessing a twofold God, did not fear to inflict another injury upon the divinity: for they established angels as the authors of the world, and so also the framers of all evils. Which was the impious opinion of all the ancient Gnostics, Simon, Menander, Saturninus, and the others whose blasphemies Irenaeus recites in Book 1. But because the importunate question, never to be eluded or solved anywhere by the arts of vain subtlety, always returned—whence the angels themselves were able to reach such a pitch both of malice and of power that, either against the will of the good God or without His resistance, they both fabricated the world and contaminated it with evils—the Valentinians thought they could extricate themselves from this by the figments of fables, obscuring the most certain truths. They had heard in the schools of the Christians that pride was the beginning of all perdition; namely, that the angels, because they had wished to approach nearer to the throne of the Most High than their condition allowed, and rashly emulating the supreme knowledge and majesty of God, had coveted, at least in affection and desire, to rule over and provide for all created things, were cast down from heaven and perished in headlong ruin, and infected and destroyed the human race with the same poison of pride wherewith they had first been infected, and accordingly supplied the tinder of all the evils by which the world is now shaken. They had heard, and had read in the Apostle, that God had purposed in Himself to restore all things in Christ, the things that are in the heavens and the things that are on earth, in Him; and that through His Son, Who is the image of the invisible God, it pleased Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, making peace through the blood of His cross, whether the things on earth or the things in the heavens. Depraving these most certain dogmas of the Catholic Church handed down by the apostles, and intermixing ludicrous figments with them after their custom, they forged a new hypothesis, whereby they might explain the genesis of things in their own—or rather the Platonic and Pythagorean—manner, weaving riddles into riddles. Accordingly they feigned that the supreme God persisted for infinite ages of times in the highest quiet and tranquillity, working nothing outwardly, but content and occupied with His own ἐννοίᾳ or thought alone: which they therefore called Silence, because it disclosed itself by no outward act; and Grace, because it was the fountain and principle of all the benefits which He afterwards lavished upon the world. For from the time when God resolved in His mind to found the world, He rendered His hitherto barren thought fruitful in such a way that, breaking forth into a new act whereby He might become outwardly manifest, He produced Νοῦν or understanding, to be thereafter the father and principle of all things, or the primeval and archetypal form and exemplar of all things to be founded. Truth is said to be joined to him, because that first exemplar is the supreme truth and rule according to which the fabrication of all things is to be measured. And because it is read in the Scriptures more openly than can be denied by those who in any way profess the Christian name

Editors' notes and page, col. 66

Footnotes

(43) ‹anchor: terra sunt, in ipso› · call in col 66

Ephes. I, 10.

Eph. 1:10.

(printed under page 39)

(44) ‹anchor: in coelis sunt› · call in col 66

Col. I, 15, 20.

Col. 1:15, 20.

(printed under page 39)

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 66
marginal letters: A faterentur ; alii vero; B posse putarunt Valentiniani.; C Filium suum, qui; D quæ orbi deinceps
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: faterentur ; alii vero (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:67

legitur, in principio esse Verbum, et in Verbo vitam ; per Verbum, totius molimenti curam huic demandante Patre, facta esse omnia ; a Verbo conditum hominem ; a Verbo refectum humanum genus, ac fundatam Ecclesiam ; Deum fundasse terram sapientia, et stabilivisse coelos prudentia, etc., fingere necesse visum est, a Nu, rerum omnium principio, processisse Verbum cum Vita ; quod quidem Verbum Patre inferius, hujusque minister, primus rerum omnium inferiorum auctor, conditor et architectus esset, a Patre proinde, ejusque Nu persona saltem distinctus ; a Verbo autem et Vita, Hominem et Ecclesiam. At cum Verbum et Homo, licet a supremo Patre distincti, hocque longe inferiores Aeones, ei tamen adhuc propiores essent, ut iis tanquam principiis proximis et immediatis rerum materia constantium creatio tribueretur, ne materiae vitia in summum Patrem refunderentur : horum proinde longius a Patre removendorum causa, longa Verbo et Homini subjecta fuit Aeonum series, ut gradatim operis ignobilioris molimen et causa ad Sophiam omnium postremum deveniret, cui minus notus esset Pater, quia longius ab eo dissitus. Et inde contexta de Sophiae ultimi Aeonis ignoratione, extremoque pene discrimine fabula ; ut hinc eruta malorum scaturigine, Dei sanctitati consuleretur. Dum enim Sophiam invidia flagrantem in scenam agunt delira illa capita, quod Monogeni soli datum esset summum Patrem penitius intueri ; dum male concepto Patris magnitudinem comprehendendi desiderio aestuantem, abreptam, ac prae rei impossibilitate pene dissolutam exhibent : quid aliud quam nefaria vota, tristemque casum adumbrant illius angeli, qui similem se Altissimo futurum sibi spondens, perdidit sapientiam suam in decore suo, et in terram, in poenam elevati cordis projectus est? Dum vero Horon, quem ipsum Dei Verbum esse superius diximus, quemque Crucem et Redemptorem vocabant, laboranti opem ferentem, ipsamque demum pristinae conjugationi restituentem fingunt ; quid aliud quam instauratam per Christi crucem et sanguinem angelorum ruinam, citatis Apostoli verbis nixi, exprimere animus erat? Haec quidem Apostoli verba perperam interpretabantur, et a genuino sensu abducebant ; at non soli ; postea siquidem Origenes, et ipse Platonicorum placitis longius quam par fuisset abductus, in eumdem sensum accepisse videtur, instauratosque a Christo angelos existimasse. Quorsum vero jam abeat fabula, quisque videt, ut scilicet praeceps illud temerariumque Sophiae desiderium, et, ut vocabant, Enthymesin, in fetum quemdam informem transformarent, ex quo demum rerum omnium condendarum materiam eruerent ; malorum omnium ideo seminarium, quod caeco ignari Aeonis desiderio originem acceptam referret. Sic aniles

that in the beginning is the Word, and in the Word life; that through the Word, the Father entrusting to Him the care of the whole undertaking, all things were made; that by the Word man was founded; that by the Word the human race was remade, and the Church founded; that God founded the earth by wisdom, and established the heavens by prudence, etc., it seemed necessary to feign that from Nus, the principle of all things, proceeded the Word with Life—which Word indeed, inferior to the Father and His minister, was the first author, founder, and architect of all lower things, distinct accordingly at least in person from the Father and His Nus—and from the Word and Life, Man and Church. Yet since the Word and Man, although distinct from the supreme Father and Aeons far inferior to Him, were nevertheless still too near to Him for the creation of things consisting of matter to be attributed to them as proximate and immediate principles, lest the vices of matter should be cast back upon the supreme Father: for the sake therefore of removing these things further from the Father, a long series of Aeons was subjected to the Word and Man, so that step by step the undertaking and cause of the more ignoble work might come down to Sophia, the last of all, to whom the Father was less known, because more widely separated from Him. And thence was woven the fable concerning the ignorance of Sophia, the last Aeon, and her almost extreme peril; so that, the spring of evils being drawn out from this, regard might be had for the holiness of God. For while those delirious heads bring upon the stage Sophia burning with envy because to Monogenes alone was it given to behold the supreme Father more inwardly; while they exhibit her seething with an ill-conceived desire of comprehending the greatness of the Father, carried away, and almost dissolved by reason of the impossibility of the thing: what else do they shadow forth than the nefarious wishes and sad fall of that angel who, promising himself that he would be like the Most High, lost his wisdom in his beauty, and was cast down to the earth in punishment of his lifted heart? And while they feign Horos, whom we said above to be the Word of God Himself, and whom they called the Cross and Redeemer, bringing help to her in her distress, and at length restoring her to her former pairing; what else was their mind to express, leaning upon the cited words of the Apostle, than the ruin of the angels restored through the cross and blood of Christ? These words of the Apostle indeed they wrongly interpreted, and drew away from their genuine sense; yet not they alone; since afterwards Origen, himself also led away further than was fitting by the tenets of the Platonists, seems to have taken them in the same sense, and to have supposed that the angels were restored by Christ. And whither the fable now tends, everyone sees: namely, that they might transform that headlong and rash desire of Sophia, and, as they called it, Enthymesis, into a certain shapeless offspring, out of which at length they might extract the matter of all things to be founded; the nursery of all evils for this reason, that it owed its origin to the blind desire of an ignorant Aeon. Thus by hawking old wives'

Editors' notes and page, col. 67

Footnotes

(45) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 67

Joan. I, 1.

John 1:1.

(printed under page 40)

(46) ‹anchor: cordis projectus est› · call in col 67

Ezech. XXVIII, 17.

Ezek. 28:17.

(printed under page 40)

Page

running head: 67 DISSERTATIONES PRÆVIÆ IN
marginal letters: A legitur, in principio; B propiores essent, ut; C Patris magnitudinem comprehendendi; D Hæc quidem Apostoli
old-edition numerals: [XXXII] after illius
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: legitur, in principio (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:68

nugas venditando, a Deo malorum causam avertere se posse, et in solam ignorantiam refundere putarunt nugatores illi. Et hinc varias, quibus jactata est Enthymesis, perturbationes omnes cum ignorantia conjunctas fuisse aiunt lib. I, cap. 4, n. 1, et Irenaeo teste lib. II, cap. 17, n. 10 : ignorantiam malum, omnia autem mala ex ea floruisse definiebant. Sic de rebus divinis aenigmatico, moreque poetico, ac inusitato loquendi more disseruerunt semi-Christiani homines, ethnicis Christiana attexentes, aliaque aliis foede interpolantes.

trifles, those triflers thought that they could turn away the cause of evils from God, and cast it back upon ignorance alone. And hence they say in Book 1, Chapter 4, no. 1, that all the various perturbations by which Enthymesis was tossed were conjoined with ignorance, and as Irenaeus testifies in Book 2, Chapter 17, no. 10: they defined ignorance as evil, and that all evils flowered forth out of it. Thus concerning divine things did half-Christian men discourse in an enigmatic and poetic manner, and in an unusual mode of speaking, weaving Christian things onto pagan ones, and foully interpolating some things with others.

49. Sed antequam ad alteram Valentiniani systematis partem transeamus, alia nobis incumbit, eaque operosior quaestio solvenda, quid nimirum tot Aeonum nomine sibi vellent haeretici isti? An totidem deos intelligerent, eo fere modo quo vulgus ethnicorum Saturnum, Jovem, Mercurium, etc., deos, singulos habentes singulas naturas divinas existimabat? An totidem in una et eadem Divinitate subsistentes personas, ad eum modum quo catholici tres in una natura divina subsistentes, distinctasque personas profitentur et credunt? An denique totidem unius ejusdem ut naturae singularis, sic et personae proprietates, affectiones et ἐνεργείας, quemadmodum Sabellius Verbum et Spiritum sanctum duas duntaxat merasque efficientias esse dicebat unius et ejusdem personae, cui diversa essent pro diversis operationibus et proprietatibus nomina. Et quidem, ut certa ab incertis secernamus, vocem Αἰὼν non Gnosticis modo, sed et veteribus plerisque Deum denotasse constat. Καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο τοὔνομα θείως ἔφθεγκται παρὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων. Divine namque nomen hoc pronuntiatum est a veteribus, ait Aristoteles, lib. I De coelo, cap. 9. Hinc Epictetus, apud Arianum eadem, qua Valentinus vixit, aetate florentem, lib. II, cap. 5, ante med., mortis necessitatem considerans, ait : Οὐ γάρ εἰμι Αἰὼν, ἀλλ' ἄνθρωπος. Neque enim Deus sum, sed homo. Alludit scilicet ad etymologiam vocis αἰών. Αἰὼν enim, inquit Aristoteles loco cit., ἔστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀεὶ εἶναι εἰληφὼς τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν, a semper essendo appellationem sumpsit. Hoc sensu a Pseudo-Dionysio, lib. De div. nom., cap. 5, § 4, Deus dicitur, ἀρχὴ καὶ μέτρον αἰώνων, καὶ χρόνων ὀντότης, καὶ αἰὼν τῶν ὄντων, Principium et mensura saeculorum, et temporum essentia, et aevum eorum quae exsistunt. Et Clemens Alexand., in hymno quem Christo Servatori canit, ad calcem lib. III Paedag., eum vocat, Αἰῶνα ἄπλετον, Aevum infinitum. Sed nullus hac voce in eo sensu liberius et frequentius utitur Synesio in Hymnis. Qui, ut id obiter dicam, si in hoc non omnino vituperandus, vix excusandus quod Valentinianorum sermones incautius adhibeat, sensu quidem catholico et ab haereticorum somniis procul dissito, at Musa justo solutiori et plus aequo πλατωνιζούσῃ. Durum certe catholicis auribus sonat, quod identidem Patrem

49. But before we pass over to the other part of the Valentinian system, another and more laborious question rests upon us to be solved: namely, what did those heretics mean by the name of so many Aeons? Did they understand so many gods, in almost the same way in which the common crowd of pagans supposed Saturn, Jupiter, Mercury, etc., to be gods, each having his own divine nature? Or so many persons subsisting in one and the same Divinity, after the manner in which Catholics profess and believe three distinct persons subsisting in one divine nature? Or finally, so many properties, affections, and operations of one and the same singular nature as well as person, just as Sabellius said that the Word and the Holy Spirit were only two mere efficiencies of one and the same person, who had different names according to different operations and properties? And indeed, that we may separate certain things from uncertain, it is established that the word Αἰὼν denoted God not only to the Gnostics, but also to most of the ancients. For this name too has been divinely uttered by the ancients. For divinely was this name pronounced by the ancients, says Aristotle, On the Heavens, Book 1, Chapter 9. Hence Epictetus, in Arrian, who flourished in the same age in which Valentinus lived, Book 2, Chapter 5, before the middle, considering the necessity of death, says: For I am not an Aeon, but a man. For I am not God, but a man. Namely, he alludes to the etymology of the word αἰών. For Αἰὼν, says Aristotle in the passage cited, is one that has taken its surname from always being, took its appellation from always existing. In this sense, by Pseudo-Dionysius, in the book On the Divine Names, Chapter 5, § 4, God is called the beginning and measure of ages, and the reality of times, and the age of things that are, the Principle and measure of ages, and the essence of times, and the age of the things that exist. And Clement of Alexandria, in the hymn which he sings to Christ the Saviour at the end of Book 3 of the Paedagogus, calls Him boundless Aeon, infinite Age. But no one uses this word in that sense more freely and frequently than Synesius in his Hymns. Who, to say this in passing, if he is not altogether to be blamed in this, is scarcely to be excused for employing the expressions of the Valentinians too incautiously—in a Catholic sense indeed, and far removed from the dreams of the heretics, yet with a Muse freer than is just and Platonizing more than is fair. Certainly it sounds harsh to Catholic ears that he repeatedly calls the eternal Father

Editors' notes and page, col. 68

Page

running head: ES PRÆVIÆ IN IRENÆI LIBROS. 68
marginal letters: A nugas venditando,; B totidem deos intelligerent,; C certis secernamus, vocem; D ὀντότης, καὶ αἰὼν
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: nugas venditando (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:69

aeternum Βυθὸν πατρῷον, Bythum paternum vocat, ut initio hymni secundi. Durius quod eodem hymno legitur :

eternal, he calls the paternal Deep, the paternal Bythus, as at the beginning of the second hymn. Harsher still is what is read in the same hymn:

Σὺ δ' ἄῤῥην, σὺ δὲ θῆλυς, Σὺ δὲ φωνὰ, σὺ δὲ σιγὰ, Φύσεως φύσις γονῶσα. Σὺ δ' ἄναξ, αἰῶνος αἰὼν, Τὸ μὲν, ᾗ θέμις βοᾶσαι . Μέγα, χαῖρε, κέντρον ὄντων, Μονὰς ἀμβρότων ἀριθμῶν, Προενουσίων ἀνάκτων.

And Thou art male, and Thou art female, and Thou art voice, and Thou art silence, nature fruitful of nature. And Thou art king, age of age, this indeed, so far as it is lawful to cry aloud. Hail, great centre of beings, Monad of immortal numbers, of pre-essential lords.

Tu Pater, tu es Mater, Tu mas, tu femina, Tu vox, tu silentium, Naturae natura fecunda. Tu, o rex, saeculi saeculum, Quantum id quidem fas est voce testari. Longum, salve, centrum rerum, Unitas divinorum numerorum, Sempiternorum regum.

Thou art Father, Thou art Mother, Thou art male, Thou art female, Thou art voice, Thou art silence, fruitful nature of nature. Thou, O king, art age of age, so far indeed as it is lawful to bear witness with the voice. Hail for ever, centre of things, Unity of divine numbers, of everlasting kings.

Et hymno III, de eodem Patre :

And in Hymn III, concerning the same Father:

Πατέρων πάντων Πάτερ, αὐτοπάτωρ, Προπάτωρ, ἀπάτωρ Υἱὲ σεαυτοῦ.

Father of all fathers, self-father, Forefather, fatherless Son of Thyself.

Patrum omnium Pater, Pater tui ipsius, Primus omnium Pater, sine Patre, Fili tui ipsius.

Father of all fathers, Father of Thyself, First Father of all, without Father, Son of Thyself.

Et postea :

And afterwards:

Σπέρμα τὸ πάντων, Ῥίζα καὶ ὅρπαξ, Φύσις ἐν νοεροῖς, Θῆλυ καὶ ἄῤῥεν, Μύστας δὲ νόος Τά τε καὶ τὰ λέγει, Βυθὸν ἄῤῥητον Ἀμφιχορεύων.

The seed of all things, root and shoot, nature in intellectual beings, female and male; and the initiated mind utters both these things and those, dancing around the unutterable Deep.

Semen omnium, Radix et summus ramus, Natura in intellectualibus, Femina et mas. Mystica autem mens. Haec atque illa dicit, Profunditatem ineffabilem Circa ducens choreas.

Seed of all things, root and topmost branch, nature in intellectual beings, female and male. And the mystic mind says both these things and those, leading dances around the ineffable Depth.

Ut omittam alia plurima a quibus Musa severior temperare debuisset.

To omit very many other things from which a more serious Muse ought to have refrained.

50. Illud etiam certum, e SS. Patribus non paucos existimasse Valentinum triginta deos invexisse. Sic Epiphanius, haer. 31, § 2, ubi triginta Aeones recensuisset, addit eos a Valentino deos nominatos, οὓς καὶ θεοὺς ὀνομάζει. Sic pariter Origenes hom. 1 in lib. Reg., cum Tertull. lib. advers. Valent., cap. 8, Cyrillo Hieros. Catech. 6, et Paulino, in Vita S. Ambrosii. At vero Ambrosius ipse epist. 40 nov. edit., ad Theodosium imper. scripta, n. 16, de nomine consentit quidem, de numero dissentire videtur. Licet, inquit, gentites duodecim deos appellent, isti (Valentiniani) triginta et duos Aeonas colunt, quos appellant deos. Sic enim legendum esse, non triginta Aeones, ut legerunt editores Romani, demonstrant novae editionis auctores ex unanimi veterum cum mss. tum editt. consensu. Sed cum Irenaeus, lib. II, cap. 12, n. 7, ex Valentinianorum principiis probet, non solum triginta emissiones secundum illos emissas esse, sed quatuor cum istis XXX, Horon videlicet,

50. This also is certain, that not a few of the holy Fathers supposed Valentinus to have brought in thirty gods. Thus Epiphanius, Heresy 31, § 2, when he had enumerated the thirty Aeons, adds that they were named gods by Valentinus, whom he also names gods. So likewise Origen, Homily 1 on the Book of Kings, together with Tertullian in the book Against the Valentinians, Chapter 8, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 6, and Paulinus, in the Life of St. Ambrose. Yet Ambrose himself, in Epistle 40 of the new edition, written to the Emperor Theodosius, no. 16, agrees indeed concerning the name, but seems to disagree concerning the number. Although, he says, the pagans name twelve gods, these (the Valentinians) worship thirty-two Aeons, whom they call gods. For that it must be read thus, and not thirty Aeons, as the Roman editors read, the authors of the new edition demonstrate from the unanimous agreement of the ancient manuscripts as well as editions. But since Irenaeus, Book II, Chapter 12, no. 7, proves from the principles of the Valentinians that not only thirty emissions were sent forth according to them, but four together with those thirty, namely Horos,

Editors' notes and page, col. 69

Page

running head: 69 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A æternum Βυθὸν πατρῷον,; B Sempiternorum regum.; C Ἀμφιχορεύων.; D Origenes hom. 1
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: aeternum Βυθὸν πατρῷον (Massuet, Dissertatio I)
misprints kept as printed: gentites (for gentiles), in Licet, inquit, gentites duodecim deos (italic, hyphenated gen-/tites; t/l uncertain at this zoom, Q2a read t; check)

PG 7:70

Christum ac Spiritum sanctum, et Salvatorem, quos et cum reliquis Aeonibus annumerandos esse demonstrat ; duos ex istis potuit Ambrosius aliis triginta accensere. At ut de Aeonum numero, qui aliunde ex Irenaeo, Tertulliano aliisque satis constat, dissentiat Ambrosius, de indito ipsis deorum nomine cum supra laudatis Patribus consentit.

Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the Saviour, whom he shows must also be numbered with the rest of the Aeons, Ambrose could have added two of these to the other thirty. Yet even if Ambrose disagrees concerning the number of the Aeons, which is sufficiently established from other sources in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others, concerning the name of gods given to them he agrees with the Fathers praised above.

51. At Valentiniani Aeonibus suis deorum nomen tribuerint, non inde tamen efficaciter concludi posse putem, ceu totidem aut naturas divinas, aut unius naturae divinae personas ab ipsis habitos fuisse. Si enim hominibus justis ac piis, principibus ac magistratibus ascriptum in Scripturis quandoque Dei nomen ; potuere Valentiniani substantiis quibusdam, Deo quidem inferioribus, sed caeteris quibuscunque rebus creatis superioribus, eodem ferme sensu ascribere. Certe Synesius, hymno III jam citato, angelos plus semel eo sensu deos vocat. Sic enim Deum Patrem affatur .

51. Yet even if the Valentinians attributed the name of gods to their Aeons, I should not think that it can be efficaciously concluded from this that they were held by them to be either so many divine natures, or so many persons of one divine nature. For if the name of God is sometimes ascribed in the Scriptures to just and pious men, princes and magistrates, the Valentinians could have ascribed it in almost the same sense to certain substances inferior indeed to God, but superior to all other created things whatsoever. Certainly Synesius, in Hymn 3 already cited, more than once calls the angels gods in that sense. For thus he addresses God the Father:

Αἰωνοτόκε, Αἰωνόβιε. Ἐπέκεινα θεῶν. Ἐπέκεινα νόων... Ἀρχηγὲ θεῶν, Πνευματοεργὲ, Καὶ ψυχοτρόφε.

Parent of ages, living through the ages, beyond gods, beyond minds... Founder of gods, framer of spirits, and nourisher of souls.

Saeculorum parens, Saeculorum vita, Superans deos, Superans mentes....... Originem praebens diis, Spirituum opifex, Et animarum alitor.

Parent of ages, life of ages, surpassing gods, surpassing minds....... Furnishing origin to gods, framer of spirits, and nourisher of souls.

Et postea :

And afterwards:

Σὲ, πάτερ κόσμων, Πάτερ αἰώνων, Αὐτουργὲ θεῶν, Εὐαγὲς αἰνεῖν. Σὲ μὲν οἱ νοεροὶ Μέλπουσιν, ἄναξ, Σὲ δὲ κοσμαγοὶ Ὀμματολαμπεῖς, Νόες ἀστέριοι Ὑμνοῦσι, μάκαρ, etc.

Thee, Father of worlds, Father of ages, self-working framer of gods, it is holy to praise. Thee indeed the intellectual beings sing, O king, and Thee the world-guiding, bright-eyed, starry minds hymn, O blessed one, etc.

Te, pater mundorum, Pater saeculorum, Opifex deorum, Fas est laudare. Te quidem intelligentiae Canunt, o rex, Te mundi rectores, Oculi fulgentes, Mentes sidereae Celebrant, o beate.

Thee, Father of worlds, Father of ages, Framer of gods, it is right to praise. Thee indeed the intelligences chant, O king, Thee the rulers of the world, the shining eyes, the starry minds celebrate, O blessed one.

Quae non nisi de angelis, quos non modo deos, sed et Aeonas, sed saecula vocat, intelligi possunt, ut totus contextus aperte declarat. Quin et Platonici, quorum vestigiis insistebant Gnostici omnes, deorum triplex genus distinguebant, ut apud Proclum, Jamblichum, Damascium, aliosque legere est, alios nimirum supercoelestes, alios coelestes, alios subcoelestes ; primos superiores, secundos medios, tertios inferiores : quos omnes tota essentia, totoque genere discrepare contendebant, κατ' οὐσίαν τε ὅλην, καὶ παντὶ τῷ γένει ἐξαλλαττομένοις, inquit

Which things can be understood only of the angels, whom he calls not only gods, but also Aeons and ages, as the whole context openly declares. Moreover, the Platonists also, in whose footsteps all the Gnostics trod, distinguished a threefold kind of gods, as may be read in Proclus, Iamblichus, Damascius, and others: namely, some supercelestial, others celestial, others subcelestial; the first superior, the second middle, the third inferior: all of whom they contended differed in their whole essence and in their whole genus, differing in their whole essence and in their entire genus, says

Editors' notes and page, col. 70

Page

running head: I, ART. I. DE VALENTINO. 70
marginal letters: A Christum ac Spiritum; B substantiis quibusdam,; C Spirituum opifex,; D Canunt, o rex,
old-edition numerals: [XXXIII] after personas ab
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Christum ac Spiritum (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:71

Jamblichus, sect. 1, cap. 4, a superioribus quippe pendebant medii, ab his infimi. Omnibus tamen Dei nomen tribuebant ; quamvis mediis et infimis inesse veram Dei essentiam et naturam existimare non potuerint ; cum insita omnium animis Dei notio omne subjectionis genus procul ableget. Quin et deos invisibiles seu supercoelestes, quamvis cum vulgo loquentes efferrent numero plurali, revera unum Deum, unius naturae, essentiae et personae esse censebant. Sallustius philosophus, lib. De diis et mundo, cap. 2, ait, deorum naturas neque a prima causa, neque a se invicem separari ; quemadmodum neque a mente notiones, neque ab animo disciplinas. Αἱ τῶν Θεῶν οὐσίαι, οὐδὲ τῆς πρώτης αἰτίας, ἢ ἀλλήλων χωρίζονται, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ νοῦ αἱ νοήσεις, οὐδὲ ψυχῆς αἱ ἐπιστῆμαι. Omnesque philosophi, si Damascio fides, τοὺς θεοὺς τοὺς πολλοὺς, τοῦ ἑνὸς Θεοῦ ὑπερουσίου ἐλλάμψεις εἶναι λέγουσιν, οὐκ αὐτοτελεῖς ὑποστάσεις, Deos illos plures unius Dei supersubstantialis fulgores esse dicebant, non absolutas ac per se subsistentes essentias. Quae cum Jamblichi sententia apprime consentiunt, qui deos invisibiles ipsasmet ideas esse putat, quas omnes unius esse essentiae, unumque inter se esse vult : quia una communis unitas dilatatur in omnes, et per communem unitatem, videlicet per primam mentem, cunctae exsistunt ; ad quam, ut ad unum objectum, principium et finem, omnes simul, absque ulla temporis differentia, in eodem momento referuntur. Neque omnibus ipsis simul, quia singulae res diversas respiciant, unitatem competere negandum est. Nam earum essentialis unitas rerum multitudinem antecedit ; neque possunt res natura posteriores, unitatem ideis, natura prioribus, auferre. Et hinc cum Aristoteles, ut invidiam Platoni faceret, hujus sententiam sic exposuisset, quasi ideas a mente divina separatas exsistere affirmasset ; calumniam propulsantes Platonis discipuli, uno ore negarunt usquam dixisse Platonem, quod fingit Aristoteles, ideas separatas exsistere a mente divina, sed tantum separatas esse a substantia, quae eis inferior esset. Proclus primo in Parmenidem Commentario, adductis variis ex Orpheo et Oraculis testimoniis pro ideis, concludit longam disputationem contra Aristotelicos, his verbis : Σμικρὰ φροντιστέον τῶν σοφιστικῶν λόγων αὐτῶν ὑφ' ἑαυτῶν ἐληλεγμένων, οὐδὲν ἐπιστημονικὸν, οὐδ' ὑγιὲς λεγόντων. Σαφῶς γὰρ οἱ θεοὶ εἰρήκασι, ὡς ἔννοιαι τοῦ Πατρός εἰσι , μένουσι γὰρ ἐν ταῖς νοήσεσι τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ οὕτως προέρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς πρὸς τὴν τοῦ κόσμου δημιουργίαν. Parum attendendum ad eorum sermones, quos meras esse cavillationes ex ipsismet ostenditur, nec quidquam doctum, aut sanum prae se ferentes. Aperte enim dixerunt dii, Patris notiones esse : manent quippe in Patris cogitationibus, et sic prodeunt a Patre in mundi opificium. Has tamen seu notiones seu ideas deorum nomine nuncupabant ; certissimo argumento, ex indito pluribus Dei nomine, concludi non

Iamblichus, Section 1, Chapter 4, since the middle ones depended upon the superior, and the lowest upon these. Yet to all of them they attributed the name of God, although they could not suppose that the true essence and nature of God was in the middle and lowest ones, since the notion of God implanted in the minds of all banishes far away every kind of subjection. Moreover, the invisible or supercelestial gods also, although when speaking with the common crowd they expressed them in the plural number, they deemed to be in reality one God, of one nature, essence, and person. Sallustius the philosopher, in the book On the Gods and the World, Chapter 2, says that the natures of the gods are separated neither from the first cause nor from one another, just as neither are notions separated from the mind, nor sciences from the soul. The essences of the gods are separated neither from the first cause nor from one another, just as neither are thoughts from the mind, nor sciences from the soul. And all the philosophers, if credit is to be given to Damascius, say that the many gods are illuminations of the one superessential God, not self-complete hypostases, used to say that those many gods are brightnesses of the one supersubstantial God, not absolute and self-subsisting essences. Which things agree exceedingly well with the opinion of Iamblichus, who thinks that the invisible gods are the very ideas themselves, all of which he holds to be of one essence, and to be one among themselves: because one common unity is spread out into all, and through the common unity, namely through the first mind, they all exist; to which, as to one object, principle, and end, all together, without any difference of time, are referred in the same moment. Nor is it to be denied that unity belongs to them all together because each regards different things. For their essential unity precedes the multitude of things; nor can things posterior by nature take away unity from the ideas, which are prior by nature. And hence, when Aristotle, to excite ill-will against Plato, had set forth his opinion as if he had affirmed that ideas exist separated from the divine mind, the disciples of Plato, repelling the calumny, with one voice denied that Plato had ever said what Aristotle feigns, that ideas exist separated from the divine mind, but only that they are separated from the substance which is inferior to them. Proclus, in his first Commentary on the Parmenides, having adduced various testimonies from Orpheus and the Oracles on behalf of the ideas, concludes a long disputation against the Aristotelians with these words: Little heed must be paid to their sophistic arguments, refuted by themselves, saying nothing scientific or sound. For clearly the gods have declared that they are thoughts of the Father, for they abide in the intellections of the Father, and thus go forth from the Father for the creation of the world. Little heed is to be paid to their discourses, which are shown from themselves to be mere cavils, displaying nothing learned or sound. For openly have the gods said that they are notions of the Father: for they abide in the thoughts of the Father, and thus go forth from the Father unto the framing of the world. Yet these notions or ideas they called by the name of gods; by a most certain argument that, from the name of God being given to many, it cannot be concluded

Editors' notes and page, col. 71

Page

running head: 71 DISSERTATIONES PRÆVIÆ IN
marginal letters: A Jamblichus, sect. 1,; B Omnesque philosophi,; C ciant, unitatem competere; D stotelicos, his verbis :
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Jamblichus, sect. 1 (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:72

posse plures aut substantias aut personas divinas esse.

that there are several divine substances or persons.

52. Sed quod majus est, et causae jugulum petere videtur, tantum abest ut Valentinus Dei unitatem negaret ; quin potius, Irenaeo teste, aperte profiteretur. Omnes enim, inquit lib. I, cap. 22, n. 1, fere quotquot sunt haereses Deum quidem unum dicunt, sed per sententiam immutant. Non ait, multiplicant, sed immutant ; quatenus a Dei idea rationem omnipotentis , et rerum omnium opificis separabant , alium a supremo omnium Patre mundi conditorem constituentes, quem et ipsum Dei nomine vocabant ; quamvis factum, et ignorantiae obnoxium esse dicerent, nec proinde vere Deum, nisi mens eos omnino destituisset, esse crederent. Et hoc ipsum explicat Irenaeus lib. IV, cap. 33, n. 3 : Judicabit autem et eos qui sunt a Valentino omnes, quia lingua quidem confitentur unum Deum Patrem, et ex hoc omnia ; ipsum autem qui fecerit omnia, defectionis sive labis fructum esse dicunt. Aperte igitur professus est Valentinus unum esse Deum. Et certe abhorret a verosimili, aut priores Gnosticos, quorum plerique e Judaeorum propagine legem Mosaicam, Judaicosque ritus cum Christiana professione conjungebant, quibus nec venerandum SS. Trinitatis mysterium, quod Dei unitatem violare hominibus terrena duntaxat sapientibus videretur, persuaderi non potuerat ; aut Valentinum, eosque omnes, qui spreta gentilium superstitione Christianam religionem amplexi fuerant, omnes aliquam saltem Evangelio fidem habere se confessos, profanum exsecrandumque Christianis omnibus polytheismum ab interitu excitare, aut immensum personarum divinarum numerum profiteri voluisse. Id scilicet exhorruissent Christiani omnes, veteratoribusque vanae famae et asseclarum cupidis male cessisset. Nec tantum nefas inultum abire sivisset Irenaeus, qui hominum flagitia omnia et errorum portenta detegenda, et pro merito castiganda sibi susceperat. Is vero, licet saepe saepius arguat quod mundi conditorem a supremo Patre dividerent, unumque et eumdem esse rerum opificem ac supremum Patrem demonstret ; licet de Deo indigne sensisse, hominumque affectus, imperfectiones et vitia in eum male transtulisse probet ; nunquam tamen ut πολυθέους, aut divinarum personarum numerum supra modum augentes traducit, argumentave conquirit quibus Patres Dei unitatem persuadere solebant ; a quibus nihilominus, ut ab imis radicibus malum statim convelleret, disputationis initia ducere debuisset. Quod cum non praestiterit vir caeteroquin accuratissimus, et cui probe nota erant Gnosticorum omnium dogmata ; eos non sensisse suos Aeones totidem veros deos, aut personas divinas fuisse, pro certo affirmare possumus, quamvis deos nominare solerent. Sed quae genuina fuerit haereticorum illorum de Aeonibus suis mens, quidve tot Aeonum ac conjugationum nomine intellexerint, ex tutioribus tum Irenaei, tum veterum

52. But what is greater, and seems to strike at the throat of the case, so far was Valentinus from denying the unity of God that rather, as Irenaeus testifies, he openly professed it. For almost all heresies, he says in Book 1, Chapter 22, no. 1, as many as there are, say indeed that God is one, but alter Him through their opinion. He does not say multiply, but alter; inasmuch as they separated from the idea of God the character of almighty and framer of all things, setting up another founder of the world apart from the supreme Father of all, whom also they called by the name of God; although they said that he was made, and subject to ignorance, and accordingly could not believe that he was truly God, unless their mind had altogether forsaken them. And this very thing Irenaeus explains in Book 4, Chapter 33, no. 3: And He will judge all those also who are of Valentinus, because with their tongue indeed they confess one God the Father, and all things from Him; but him who made all things they say is the fruit of a defection or fall. Openly therefore did Valentinus profess that God is one. And certainly it is at variance with likelihood that either the earlier Gnostics, most of whom, of the stock of the Jews, conjoined the Mosaic law and Jewish rites with the Christian profession, and who could not even be persuaded of the venerable mystery of the most holy Trinity, because to men savouring only of earthly things it seemed to violate the unity of God; or Valentinus, and all those who, having spurned the superstition of the pagans, had embraced the Christian religion, all confessing that they had at least some faith in the Gospel, wished to rouse from destruction a polytheism profane and execrable to all Christians, or to profess an immense number of divine persons. All Christians would assuredly have shuddered at that, and it would have turned out ill for those old foxes greedy of vain fame and followers. Nor would Irenaeus, who had taken upon himself to uncover all the shameful deeds of men and monsters of errors and to chastise them as they deserved, have suffered so great a wickedness to go unpunished. Yet he, although he argues again and again because they divided the founder of the world from the supreme Father, and demonstrates that the framer of things and the supreme Father are one and the same; although he proves that they thought unworthily of God, and wickedly transferred to Him the affections, imperfections, and vices of men; nevertheless never exposes them to scorn as polytheists, or as increasing beyond measure the number of divine persons, nor seeks out the arguments whereby the Fathers were wont to persuade men of the unity of God; from which nevertheless, in order to pluck up the evil at once from its deepest roots, he ought to have drawn the beginnings of his disputation. Since a man otherwise most accurate, and one to whom the dogmas of all the Gnostics were thoroughly known, did not do this, we can affirm for certain that they did not think their Aeons were so many true gods, or divine persons, although they were wont to name them gods. But what was the genuine mind of those heretics concerning their Aeons, or what they understood by the name of so many Aeons and pairings, must be investigated, so far as is lawful in a most obscure matter, from the safer principles both of Irenaeus and of the other ancients.

Editors' notes and page, col. 72

Page

running head: S PRÆVIÆ IN IRENÆI LIBROS. 72
marginal letters: A posse plures aut substantias; B Judicabit autem et eos; C aliquam saltem Evangelio; D quam tamen ut πολυθέους,
old-edition numerals: [XXXIV] after transtulisse
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: posse plures aut substantias (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:73

aliorum principiis, quantum in re obscurissima fas est, investigandum.

principles of the other [ancients], so far as is lawful in a most obscure matter.

53. Sic a Valentinianis Aeones dividi, ut alii sint masculi, alii feminae, masculique cum feminis conjugentur, jam diximus. Porro feminas Aeones meras esse masculorum affectiones, virtutes et proprietates, non substantias aut personas ab iis diversas aut distinctas, certum videtur. Et quidem ita sensisse Ptolemaei discipulos extra dubium est. Duas enim quas Bytho assignabant conjuges, vocabant ipsi, Irenaeo teste, lib. I, cap. 12, n. 1, Bythi διαθέσεις καὶ δυνάμεις, affectiones et virtutes. Nec secus sensisse caeteros Valentinianos ex eodem Irenaeo manifeste colligitur. Is quippe lib. II, cap. 12, ubi probandum sibi sumit, triacontadem haereticorum et deficere et redundare : deficere ex eo probat quod Ennoea cum Bytho indivulse conjuncta sit, nec proinde ab eo diversa aut re distincta. Impossibile est enim, inquit, Ennoeam alicujus, aut Silentium separatim intelligi, et extra eum emissum propriam habere figurationem, id est formam et naturam. Sed quia, quod probe callebat, ea non erat Valentinianorum sententia, Ennoeam a Bytho separatim intelligi, nec dicebant esse emissam illam extra, sed potius adunatam esse Propatori ; hac eorum allata responsione statim infert, Ennoeam cum reliquis Aeonibus, his qui non sunt adunati, annumerandam non esse, utpote quae a Bytho sit indistincta. Tum, necessitatem esse omnem ab unita conjugatione, et inseparabili, et unum exsistente, indiscretam, et unitam eam quae ex ea est, emissionem fieri, ut non sit dissimilis ab eo qui emisit. Ac proinde, unum et idem fieri, quemadmodum Bythum et Sigen, sic et Nun et Alethian, semper adhaerentes invicem : et quod non possit alterum sine altero intelligi, quemadmodum neque aqua sine humectatione, neque ignis sine calore, neque lapis sine duritia ; unita sunt enim invicem haec, et alterum ab altero separari non potest, sed semper coexsistere ei. Quod et ipsum de Logo et Zoe, Homine et Ecclesia, et reliquis Aeonum conjugationibus similiter concludit. Clara sunt haec atque perspicua. Sed ne videretur haec gratis et a seipso supposuisse sanctissimus martyr, ipsummet Valentinianorum principium refert, ut subinde alteram hypotheseos eorum partem funditus evertat, scilicet Sophiam sine permistione conjugis Theleti passam esse passionem, et separatim sine eo fructum generasse. Feminam enim Aeonem, ait, pariter esse oportet cum masculo, secundum eos, cum sit velut affectio ejus. Et cum haec ita se habeant, et cum haec dicantur ab ipsis, rursus impudorate audent docere, juniorem duodecadis Aeonem, quem et Sophiam appellant, sine permistione conjugis, quem Theletum vocant, passam esse passionem, et separatim sine eo fructum generasse, quem et feminam a femina nominant ; in tantum dementiae progressi, ita ut manifestissime duas contrarias de eodem sententias censeant.

53. That the Aeons are so divided by the Valentinians that some are males, others females, and that the males are yoked with the females, we have already said. Moreover, that the female Aeons are mere affections, powers, and properties of the males, not substances or persons diverse or distinct from them, seems certain. And indeed that the disciples of Ptolemy thought thus is beyond doubt. For the two consorts that they assigned to Bythus they themselves called, as Irenaeus testifies, Book I, Chapter 12, no. 1, dispositions and powers of Bythus, affections and powers. And that the rest of the Valentinians thought no otherwise is manifestly gathered from the same Irenaeus. For in Book II, Chapter 12, where he undertakes to prove that the triacontad of the heretics both falls short and exceeds, he proves that it falls short from the fact that Ennoea is inseparably conjoined with Bythus, and accordingly is neither diverse from him nor distinct in reality. For it is impossible, he says, that the Ennoea of anyone, or Silence, should be understood separately, and sent forth outside him have its own figuration, that is, form and nature. But because, as he well knew, it was not the opinion of the Valentinians that Ennoea is understood separately from Bythus, nor did they say that she was sent forth outside, but rather that she was united to the Forefather; having brought forward this reply of theirs, he immediately infers that Ennoea is not to be numbered with the rest of the Aeons, those who are not united, inasmuch as she is indistinct from Bythus. Then, that there is every necessity that from a united pairing, both inseparable and existing as one, the emission which is from it should be made unsevered and united, so that it is not unlike him who sent it forth. And accordingly, that just as Bythus and Sige become one and the same, so also do Nus and Alethia, always adhering to one another: and that the one cannot be understood without the other, just as neither can water without moisture, nor fire without heat, nor stone without hardness; for these things are united to one another, and the one cannot be separated from the other, but must always coexist with it. Which very thing he similarly concludes concerning Logos and Zoe, Man and Church, and the remaining pairings of Aeons. These things are clear and perspicuous. But lest the most holy martyr should seem to have supposed these things gratuitously and of himself, he reports the very principle of the Valentinians themselves, in order forthwith to overturn from its foundations the other part of their hypothesis, namely that Sophia suffered passion without union with her consort Theletos, and separately without him begot fruit. For the female Aeon, he says, must exist together with the male, according to them, since she is as it were his affection. And since these things are so, and since these things are said by them, again they shamelessly dare to teach that the youngest Aeon of the duodecad, whom they also call Sophia, without union with her consort, whom they call Theletos, suffered passion, and separately without him begot fruit, which they also name a female from a female; having advanced to such a pitch of madness as most manifestly to hold two contrary opinions concerning the same thing.

Editors' notes and page, col. 73

Page

running head: 73 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A aliorum principiis, quantum; B ticorum et deficere; C conjugatione, et inseparabili,; D subinde alteram hypotheseos
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: aliorum principiis, quantum (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word cen-
other: the word censeant. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 74

PG 7:74

Haec ergo Valentinianorum sententia erat, haecque dicebantur ab ipsis, feminam Aeonem cum masculo individue copulari, quia erat velut affectio ejus. Quod adeo certum, ut inde invicte conficiat Irenaeus secum ipsis pugnare, manifestissime duas contrarias de eodem sententias censentes ; hinc scilicet Sophiam sine permistione conjugis Theleti passam esse passionem, et separatim sine eo feminam generasse : illinc vero Sophiam cum conjuge tam arcte conjunctam, ut esset affectio ejus. Quod quidem argumentum futile esset, si secus sensissent haeretici, et feminas Aeones a maribus re distinxissent. Et hinc jam apparet, cur lib. I, cap. 1, unumquemque Aeonem masculo-feminam esse dicerent, et primigenam ogdoada quatuor nominibus duntaxat nuncuparent, omissis feminarum appellationibus. Cum enim hae masculorum affectiones essent, proprietates ac virtutes activae, non mirum si in numerum, qui ex distinctis unitatibus coalescit, proprie non venirent, et unusquisque Aeon masculo-femina diceretur, qui virtute activa gaudebat, quae ei instar feminae esset. Cum itaque jam constet Aeones feminas a maribus indistinctas esse, Aeones, si proprie et ex rei veritate loqui velimus, esse non possunt plus quam quindecim, aut si iis adjungere libeat Horon, Christum et Spiritum sanctum, ac Salvatorem, plus quam decem et novem, in quorum duntaxat investiganda natura totus vertitur difficultatis cardo.

—namely, on the one hand, that Sophia suffered passion without union with her consort Theletos, and separately without him begot a female; on the other hand, that Sophia was so closely conjoined with her consort that she was his affection. Which argument indeed would be futile if the heretics had thought otherwise, and had distinguished the female Aeons in reality from the males. And hence it now appears why in Book 1, Chapter 1, they said that each Aeon is male-female, and named the first-begotten ogdoad by four names only, omitting the appellations of the females. For since these were the affections, properties, and active powers of the males, it is no wonder if they did not properly come into the number, which coalesces out of distinct units, and if each Aeon was called male-female who enjoyed an active power which was to him like a female. Since therefore it is now established that the female Aeons are indistinct from the males, the Aeons, if we wish to speak properly and according to the truth of the matter, cannot be more than fifteen, or, if one pleases to join to them Horos, Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the Saviour, more than nineteen, in investigating whose nature alone the whole hinge of the difficulty turns.

54. Eamdem non fuisse Valentinianorum omnium de Aeonibus sententiam, ex Irenaeo, Tertulliano, Theodoreto et aliis exploratum est. In tantum enim Tertulliani aetate abscesserant a magistro discipuli, ut nusquam jam Valentinus, solusque ad hodiernum Antiochiae Axionicus memoriam Valentini integra custodia regularum ejus consolaretur. Imo nec nugivendis istis omnibus satis perspectum fuisse quid sibi vellent, quove tenderent, nec involutae rei ideam definiendo usquam explicare potuisse, testatur Irenaeus lib. II, cap. 16, n. 9. Nam proposita sibi quaestione, quam nunc versamus, allatisque variis explicandarum emissionum modis, concludit : Praeter has autem emissiones ego quidem jam non intelligo alteram posse eos dicere ; sed ne ipsi quidem alteram quamdam proprietatem emissam reddentes aliquando cogniti sunt nobis, licet valde multam de hujusmodi speciebus quaestionem habuerimus cum eis ; hoc autem solum dicunt, quoniam emissi sunt unusquisque illorum, et illum tantum cognovisse qui se emisit, ignorans autem eum qui ante illum est. Jam non autem cum ostensione progrediuntur, quemadmodum emissi sunt, aut quomodo capit tale quid in spiritalibus fieri. Et cap. 14, n. 8 : Hi paulatim assuetis his suadentes (sic lego) per pithanologiam assumere praedictam emissionem (sex priorum Aeonum), inferunt neque congruentia, neque opinatas reliquarum emissionum species, ex Logo

54. That the opinion of all the Valentinians concerning the Aeons was not the same is ascertained from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Theodoret, and others. For in the age of Tertullian the disciples had departed so far from their master that Valentinus was now nowhere, and Axionicus at Antioch alone to the present day consoled the memory of Valentinus by the entire observance of his rules. Nay more, that all those vendors of trifles did not even have a clear enough view of what they meant or whither they tended, nor were ever able to explain by definition the idea of the involved matter, Irenaeus testifies in Book 2, Chapter 16, no. 9. For having proposed to himself the question which we are now treating, and having brought forward various ways of explaining the emissions, he concludes: And beside these emissions I indeed no longer understand that they can speak of another; nay, not even they themselves have ever been known to us as rendering any other emitted property, although we have had very much questioning with them concerning species of this sort; but they say this only, that each one of them was sent forth, and knew him only who sent him forth, while remaining ignorant of him who is before him. But they do not proceed with any demonstration as to how they were sent forth, or how such a thing is capable of happening in spiritual beings. And in Chapter 14, no. 8: These men, gradually persuading those accustomed to these things (so I read) through plausible speech to accept the aforesaid emission (of the first six Aeons), bring in things neither congruous nor expected as the species of the remaining emissions, saying that from Logos

Editors' notes and page, col. 74

Footnotes

(47) ‹anchor: enim Tertulliani› · call in col 74

Lib. adv. Valent., c. 4.

Book Against the Valentinians, ch. 4.

(printed under page 43)

Page

running head: I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 74
marginal letters: A seant. Hæc ergo; B duntaxat nuncuparent,; C 54. Eamdem non fuisse; D ipsi quidem alteram
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word seant; editors' matter: seant. Haec ergo (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:75

quidem et Zoe decem dicentes Aeonas emissos, de Anthropo autem et Ecclesia duodecim ; et horum nec ostensionem, nec testimonia, nec verisimilitudinem, nec in totum aliquid talium habentes, frustra autem, et prout evenit, credi volunt, ex Logo et Zoe Aeonis exsistentibus emissum esse Bythium et Mixin, etc. Quibus verbis significat Valentinianos quidem affirmasse Aeones ab Aeonibus emitti ; sed ubi ad emissionum explicationem, et ad definiendam Aeonum naturam ventum erat, haesisse prorsus, nec satis perspicuam vel suis vel aliorum animis earum rerum ideam informare potuisse. Si Colorbasum audiamus, primae saltem ogdoadis Aeones nihil aliud sunt quam plura variis unius et ejusdem rei affectionibus, actibus et perfectionibus indita nomina ; non secus ac theologi catholici vulgo dicunt justitiam, bonitatem, sapientiam, etc., a Deo non re, sed cogitatione sola distingui, esseque unum et eumdem Deum, qui pro diversa ratione modo justus, modo bonus, sapiens, etc., vocetur a nobis. Quando (inquit apud Irenaeum lib. I, cap. 12, n. 3) cogitavit aliquid emittere Propator, hoc Pater vocatus est ; at ubi quae emisit, vera fuerunt, hoc Alethia vocatum est. Cum ergo voluit semetipsum ostendere, hoc Anthropos dictum est. Quos autem praecogitaverat, posteaquam emisit, hoc Ecclesia vocata est. Locutus est Anthropos Logon ; hic est primogenitus Filius. Subsequitur autem Logon Zoe, et sic prima octonatio completa est. Idem ergo supremus Pater est, qui diversa Patris, Alethiae, Anthropi, etc., pro diversis ἐνεργείαις et officiis sortitur nomina ; nec proinde censebat Colorbasus Aeones primae saltem ogdoadis substantias esse aut personas a Patre distinctas. Nec aliter sensisse Epiphanem puto, qui, ut superius vidimus, non modo Henoteta et Monoteta, id est Bythum et Sigen, unum esse volebat, sed et emisisse, non emittentes, Monada et Hen : id est, totum priorum saltem emissionum mysterium meram emittentis ἐνέργειαν esse, non motum generationis proprie dictum ; cujus terminus fuerit quidpiam ab emittente, non re, sed nomine tenus distinctum.

indeed and Zoe ten Aeons were sent forth, and from Anthropos and Ecclesia twelve; and having for these neither demonstration, nor testimonies, nor likelihood, nor anything at all of such a kind, they wish it to be believed in vain, and just as it happened, that from Logos and Zoe, existing as Aeons, Bythius and Mixis were sent forth, etc. By which words he signifies that the Valentinians indeed affirmed that Aeons are sent forth from Aeons; but when it came to the explanation of the emissions, and to defining the nature of the Aeons, they were altogether stuck, and were unable to form a sufficiently perspicuous idea of those things either in their own minds or in the minds of others. If we listen to Colorbasus, the Aeons of the first ogdoad at least are nothing else than several names given to various affections, acts, and perfections of one and the same thing; no otherwise than Catholic theologians commonly say that justice, goodness, wisdom, etc., are distinguished from God not in reality, but by thought alone, and that it is one and the same God Who according to different aspects is called by us now just, now good, wise, etc. When (he says in Irenaeus, Book 1, Chapter 12, no. 3) the Forefather thought of sending forth something, this was called Father; and when the things which he sent forth were true, this was called Alethia. When therefore he wished to show himself, this was called Anthropos. And after he sent forth those whom he had forethought, this was called Ecclesia. Anthropos spoke Logos; this is the firstborn Son. And Zoe follows Logos, and thus the first octonation is completed. It is therefore the same supreme Father Who obtains the different names of Father, Alethia, Anthropos, etc., according to different operations and offices; and accordingly Colorbasus did not deem the Aeons of the first ogdoad at least to be substances or persons distinct from the Father. Nor do I think that Epiphanes thought otherwise, who, as we saw above, held not only that Henotes and Monotes, that is, Bythus and Sige, are one, but also that they sent forth, without sending forth, the Monad and Hen: that is, that the whole mystery of the earlier emissions at least is a mere operation of him who sends forth, not a movement of generation properly so called; whose term was something distinct from him who sends forth not in reality, but in name only.

55. Tertullianus id discriminis inter Ptolemaeum et Valentinum constituit, quod hic Aeones non alias a divinitate distinxisset, quam ut notiones, affectiones et motus a re ; ille vero Aeones in personales substantias a Deo separatas transformasset. Eam (viam), inquit, postmodum Ptolemaeus intravit, nominibus et numeris Aeonum distinctis in personales substantias, sed extra Deum determinatas : quas Valentinus in ipsa summa divinitatis, ut sensus et affectus et motus incluserat. At quam parum sibi constiterit Tertullianus ostendit quod lib. adv. Prax., cap. 8, scribit : Valentinus probolas suas discernit et separat ab auctore, et ita longe ab eo ponit, ut Aeon patrem nesciat. Et lib. I contra Marcion. cap. 5, adversarium urgens, cur duos duntaxat,

55. Tertullian establishes this difference between Ptolemy and Valentinus, that the latter had not distinguished the Aeons from the divinity otherwise than as notions, affections, and movements from a thing; whereas the former had transformed the Aeons into personal substances separated from God. That (way), he says, Ptolemy afterwards entered upon, distinguishing the names and numbers of the Aeons into personal substances, but determined outside of God: which Valentinus had shut up in the very sum of the divinity, as senses and affections and movements. Yet how little consistent Tertullian was with himself is shown by what he writes in the book Against Praxeas, Chapter 8: Valentinus discerns and separates his projections from the author, and sets them so far from him that the Aeon does not know the father. And in Book 1 Against Marcion, Chapter 5, pressing his adversary why he admitted two gods only,

Editors' notes and page, col. 75

Footnotes

(48) ‹anchor: 55. Tertullianus› · call in col 75

Lib. adv. Valent., cap 4.

Book Against the Valentinians, ch. 4.

(printed under page 44)

Page

running head: 75 DISSERTATIONES PRÆVIÆ IN
marginal letters: A quidem et Zoe decem; B catholici vulgo dicunt; C thropi, etc., pro diversis; D nes, affectiones et motus
old-edition numerals: [XXXV] after verbis
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: quidem et Zoe decem (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word dun-

PG 7:76

non plures deos admitteret, addit : Honestior et liberalior Valentinus, qui simul ausus est duos concipere, Bythum et Sigen, cum usque ad triginta Aeonum fetus, tanquam Aeoniae scrophae, examen divinitatis effudit. Ubi non modo triginta Aeones deos appellat, sed aeque ab invicem et substantia et persona distinctos asserere videtur atque duos Marcionis deos ; alias nullam inter utrosque comparationem instituere potuisset. Vix igitur quidquam certi hac in re in Tertulliani fide statuere possumus. Irenaeus vero, cui potior habenda fides, utpote a quo caeteri hauserunt, lib. I, cap. 1 et seqq., Ptolemaei, et cap. 11 Valentini sententiam describens, in eo duntaxat alterum ab altero discrepare docet quod hic ὅρους duos, alterum inter Bythum et Aeones, alterum inter Pleroma et Enthymesin ; ille vero unum solum fingeret. Caetera, quod ad Pleromatis naturam et ordinem attinet, concordes exhibet, nec discriminis a Tertulliano memorati usquam meminit. Plura quidem utriusque hypothesi addidisse discipulos, plura detraxisse non me latet ; sed Epiphane et Colorbaso, de quibus superius egimus, exceptis, alios de Aeonum natura secus ac illos sensisse, nullibi legimus : ac proinde in ea re omnes fere omnium sententias convenire, pro certo statuere possumus. Quid vero de iis senserint, jam aperio.

and not more, he adds: More honourable and more liberal is Valentinus, who as soon as he dared to conceive two, Bythus and Sige, poured forth a swarm of divinity up to thirty litters of Aeons, as if of an Aeonian sow. Where he not only calls the thirty Aeons gods, but seems to assert that they are as distinct from one another both in substance and in person as the two gods of Marcion; otherwise he could have instituted no comparison between the two. Scarcely, therefore, can we establish anything certain in this matter upon the credit of Tertullian. Whereas Irenaeus, to whom greater credit is to be given, inasmuch as the rest drew from him, describing in Book 1, Chapter 1 and following, the opinion of Ptolemy, and in Chapter 11 that of Valentinus, teaches that the one differed from the other only in this, that the latter feigned two boundaries, one between Bythus and the Aeons, the other between the Pleroma and Enthymesis, while the former feigned one only. As for the rest, so far as pertains to the nature and order of the Pleroma, he exhibits them as agreeing, and nowhere mentions the difference recorded by Tertullian. That the disciples added several things to the hypothesis of both, and took away several things, does not escape me; but with the exception of Epiphanes and Colorbasus, of whom we treated above, we nowhere read that others thought otherwise than they concerning the nature of the Aeons: and accordingly we can establish for certain that in that matter almost all the opinions of all of them agree. And what they thought concerning them, I now disclose.

56. Non eamdem fuisse, in Valentinianorum hypothesi, Aeonum omnium conditionem, ex iis quae Irenaeus primis libri I capitibus et alibi passim refert, liquido constare videtur. Immensum enim a caeteris Aeonibus discrepasse Nun seu Monogenem, certissimum est. Huic soli cognitus supremus Pater ; reliquis vero omnibus invisibilis et incomprehensibilis erat. Solus Nus, secundum eos, delectabatur videns Patrem, et magnitudinem ejus immensam considerans exsultabat, etc. Reliqui Aeones omnes tacite quodammodo desiderabant prolatorem seminis sui videre, et eam quae sine initio est radicem contemplari. Uno verbo Nus ὅμοιός τε καὶ ἴσος τῷ προβάλλοντι, similis et aequalis ei qui emiserat, et solus capiens magnitudinem Patris, perfectissimaeque agnitionis luce collustratus ; caeteri tam procul a Patre distantes, ut iis prorsus incomprehensibilis esset, et non esset neque videre, neque audire eum nisi per solum Monogenem ; ignorantiae proinde tenebris suapte natura obvoluti. Longe igitur alterius sublimioris ac perfectioris naturae Nus, quam caeteri Aeones. Et quamvis omnes in Aeonum nomine convenirent, natura dissimiles fuisse liquet. Porro de utrisque, quantum ex Irenaeo conjicere licet, sic statuendum videtur.

56. That the condition of all the Aeons was not the same in the hypothesis of the Valentinians seems to be clearly established from the things which Irenaeus reports in the first chapters of Book 1 and everywhere else. For it is most certain that Nus or Monogenes differed immensely from the rest of the Aeons. To him alone was the supreme Father known; whereas to all the rest He was invisible and incomprehensible. Nus alone, according to them, was delighted in seeing the Father, and exulted in considering His immense greatness, etc. All the rest of the Aeons silently in a manner desired to see the putter-forth of their seed, and to contemplate that root which is without beginning. In a word, Nus is like and equal to him who put him forth, like and equal to him who had sent him forth, and alone comprehending the greatness of the Father, and illuminated with the light of the most perfect knowledge; while the rest were so far distant from the Father that He was altogether incomprehensible to them, and it was not possible either to see or to hear Him except through Monogenes alone; wrapped accordingly by their own nature in the darkness of ignorance. Nus, therefore, is of a far other, more sublime, and more perfect nature than the rest of the Aeons. And although they all agreed in the name of Aeons, it is clear that they were unlike in nature. Moreover, concerning both, so far as one may conjecture from Irenaeus, it seems that we must determine thus.

57. Monogenis quidem naturam divinam fuisse, extra dubium est. Qui enim similis et aequalis supremo Patri statuitur, perfecteque capiens magnitudinem ejus, natura inferior esse non potest. Et quidquid de Deo Patre senserint haeretici, nisi penitus

57. That the nature of Monogenes indeed was divine is beyond doubt. For he who is established as like and equal to the supreme Father, and perfectly comprehending His greatness, cannot be inferior in nature. And whatever the heretics thought concerning God the Father, unless they were utterly

Editors' notes and page, col. 76

Page

running head: S PRÆVIÆ IN IRENÆI LIBROS. 76
marginal letters: A taxat, non plures deos; B Æones, alterum inter; C Irenæus primis libri; D non esset neque videre,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word taxat; editors' matter: taxat, non plures deos (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word pe-

PG 7:77

insanierint, huic Nun seu Mentem ejus aequaverint necesse est. An vero, quod catholica fides de Dei Filio docet, Nun existimaverint personam subsistentem, a Patre distinctam, ejusdem tamen cum ipso substantiae, ipsique consubstantialem? Plura sunt quae contrarium suadere, meramque Patris affectionem, ἐνέργειαν aut proprietatem ἀνυπόστατον, non subsistentem esse probare videantur. 1º Quod huic nullam actionem aut proprietatem tribuant, quae personam a Patre distinctam arguat. Logo quidem, Sophiae, Horo, Christo et Spiritui sancto, ac Salvatori, suas cuilibet actiones et affectiones ascribunt, quae personale quidpiam innuant ; at Monogeni nullam, quae merae proprietati seu affectioni non subsistenti convenire non possit. 2º Valentinianos a prioribus Gnosticis accepisse primam ogdoada superius ostendimus. At Simon Magus, et Menander, Gnosticorum principes et coryphaei, eorumque discipuli Saturninus et Basilides, Judaei cum fuerint, vel Judaeorum anticipatis adversus sacrum Trinitatis mysterium opinionibus imbuti, nusquam vere Christiani, ii nunquam fuerunt qui plures in una Deitate personas confiterentur : rati videlicet, cum Judaeorum vulgo, personarum divinarum numero polytheismum induci. Quid de Trinitate sentiret Simon, satis exploratum ex iis quae de eo refert Irenaeus lib. I, cap. 22. Aiebat nempe impiissimus ille, esse se sublimissimam Virtutem, quae in Samaria quasi Pater descenderit, inter Judaeos quasi Filius apparuerit, in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus sanctus adventaverit. Quae demonstrant, Simonem non aliud de Trinitate sensisse, quam quod postea senserunt Noetus et Sabellius, unicam videlicet in Deo esse personam, quae pro diversis officiis diversa sortiretur nomina. Ut ergo censuerit Nun seu Unigenitum Patri similem esse et aequalem natura ; certe nec censuit, nec censere potuit persona distinctum esse. Etsi postea dixerit Basilides, Simonis discipulus, apud Irenaeum lib. I, cap. 24, n. 4, innatum et innominatum Patrem misisse primogenitum Nun suum, quem Virtutem incorporalem et Nun innati Patris vocat, ad salutem gentium ; qui apparuerit in terra homo, et virtutes perfecerit, quique e crucifigere volentium manibus elapsus, ascenderit ad eum qui miserat eum, deridens eos, cum teneri non posset : eodem prorsus sensu dixit quo postea Sabellius asseruit emissum esse Filium tanquam radium divinitatis, qui omnia illa perfecit, quae ad Evangelii procurationem et humani generis redemptionem attinent : quo munere defunctus, rursus ad coelum assumptus est ; quemadmodum radius emissus a sole, iterum recurrit ad solem : ac proinde in Jesum meram divinitatis efficientiam, ac veluti radiationem quamdam, nec solidam, nec substantivam, manasse. Eadem itaque fuit et Valentinianorum sententia, qui de prima ogdoade cum Simone consentiebant : nec ulla sive apud Irenaeum, sive apud Tertullianum, sive apud Epiphanium,

mad, they must necessarily have made Nus or His Mind equal to Him. But did they suppose Nus to be, as the Catholic faith teaches concerning the Son of God, a subsisting person, distinct from the Father, yet of the same substance with Him, and consubstantial with Him? There are several things which seem to persuade the contrary, and to prove that he is a mere affection, operation, or non-subsistent property of the Father, not subsisting. 1st, Because they attribute to him no action or property which argues a person distinct from the Father. To Logos indeed, to Sophia, Horos, Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the Saviour, they ascribe to each his own actions and affections, which intimate something personal; but to Monogenes none which cannot belong to a mere non-subsisting property or affection. 2nd, We have shown above that the Valentinians received the first ogdoad from the earlier Gnostics. Now Simon Magus and Menander, the chiefs and ringleaders of the Gnostics, and their disciples Saturninus and Basilides, since they were Jews, or imbued with the preconceived opinions of the Jews against the sacred mystery of the Trinity, and never truly Christians, were never men to confess several persons in one Deity: supposing, namely, with the common crowd of the Jews, that polytheism is introduced by a number of divine persons. What Simon thought concerning the Trinity is sufficiently ascertained from the things which Irenaeus reports of him in Book 1, Chapter 22. Namely, that most impious man used to say that he himself was the most sublime Power, which descended in Samaria as the Father, appeared among the Jews as the Son, and came among the rest of the nations as the Holy Spirit. Which things demonstrate that Simon thought no otherwise concerning the Trinity than Noetus and Sabellius afterwards thought, namely that there is a single person in God, who obtains different names according to different offices. Even if therefore he deemed Nus or the Only-begotten to be like and equal to the Father in nature, certainly he neither deemed, nor could deem, that he was distinct in person. Even if Basilides, the disciple of Simon, afterwards said, in Irenaeus, Book 1, Chapter 24, no. 4, that the unborn and unnameable Father sent His firstborn Nus, whom he calls the incorporeal Power and the Nus of the unborn Father, for the salvation of the nations; who appeared on earth as a man, and wrought powers, and having slipped from the hands of those who wished to crucify him, ascended to Him Who had sent him, laughing at them, since he could not be held: he spoke in altogether the same sense in which Sabellius afterwards asserted that the Son was sent forth as a ray of the divinity, who accomplished all those things which pertain to the administration of the Gospel and the redemption of the human race; which office having discharged, he was again taken up to heaven, just as a ray sent forth from the sun runs back again to the sun: and that accordingly a mere efficiency of the divinity, and as it were a certain radiation, neither solid nor substantive, flowed into Jesus. The same, therefore, was also the opinion of the Valentinians, who agreed with Simon concerning the first ogdoad: nor do they furnish any arguments, either in Irenaeus, or in Tertullian, or in Epiphanius,

Editors' notes and page, col. 77

Page

running head: 77 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A nitus insanierint, huic; B 2º Valentinianos a prioribus; C in reliquis vero gentibus; D cifigere volentium manibus
old-edition numerals: [XXXVI] after sentiret
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word nitus; editors' matter: nitus insanierint, huic (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word Epipha-

PG 7:78

sive apud alios praebent argumenta se de Trinitate personarum catholice sensisse. Et eapropter Athanasius in lib. De salutari Christi adventu, Valentinum Patripassianorum erroris reum facit : non quod Patrem vere passum fuisse affirmarit unquam, aut affirmare potuerit, qui nullam divinitatis cum humana Christi natura substantialem unionem agnovit ; sed quod si Filium Dei aliquatenus passum esse dixerit, hinc et Patrem, qui eadem cum eo persona erat, passum esse sequi videretur. 3º Irenaeus, lib. II, cap. 13, ut primum ordinem emissionis, quem fingebant haeretici, nulla ratione defendi posse probet, ut quid certissimum, et de quo ambigebat nullus, supponit, Nun esse ipsum quod est principale et summum, et velut principium et fons universi sensus ; principalemque et primum ejus quae est intus, absconditae et invisibilis affectionis locum continere, a qua sensus generatur : ut inde inferat nonnisi absurde omnino dici, Nun emitti. Id enim compositum et corporalem Deum facere est : ut sit separatim quidem qui emisit Deus ; separatim autem qui emissus est, sensus. Sed quia probe sciebat, respondere haereticos, Nun non emissum extra Patrem, sed in ipso Patre ; statim infert : primo quidem superfluum esse etiam dicere emissum esse eum. Quemadmodum enim emissus est, si intra Patrem erat? Emissio enim est ejus, quod emittitur, extra emittentem manifestatio. Post deinde hoc emisso, et is qui est ab eo Logos, erit intra Patrem, etc. Quae quidem Irenaei argumentatio manifeste probat, duo haec ab haereticis negata non fuisse, Nun principalem et primum ejus, quae est intus invisibilis affectionis locum continere ; et Nun non emissum esse extra Patrem, sed in ipso Patre ; ac proinde Nun, ex eorum hypothesi, meram Patris affectionem esse ἀνυπόστατον, non subsistentem. Nam utrumque si negassent haeretici, si Nun a Patre persona distinxissent, vanum esset et futile prorsus Irenaei argumentum ; totum enim quantum est, hoc principio nititur : Nus mera Patris affectio est, Nus intra Patrem emittitur, id est sic a Patre emittitur, ut a Patre non distinguatur, ne compositus dicatur Pater : Ergo vane emissus dicitur. Emissio enim est ejus, quod emittitur, extra emittentem manifestatio. Quod igitur intra Patrem manet, nec ab eo distinguitur, frustra emissum dicitur. Negato proinde principio, totum quod hoc innititur aedificium ruat necesse est. Et certe si eadem fuisset haereticis de Monogene suo sententia, quae catholicis est de unigenito Dei Filio ; si illum a Patre sic emitti docuissent, ut persona tantum, non substantia ab eo distingueretur, eam refellere nusquam in animum sibi induxisset Irenaeus, catholicae fidei propugnator acerrimus. Nec enim, puto, displicuisset quod προβολῆς seu emissionis nomine, de aeterna Filii Dei generatione loquentes, usi fuissent : hoc quippe veteribus catholicis ingratum non fuisse, liquet ex Tertulliano, lib. adv. Prax. cap. 8, imo ex ipso Irenaeo, lib. II, cap. 28, n. 6. Minus adhuc displicere

or in others, that they thought Catholically concerning a Trinity of persons. And on that account Athanasius, in the book On the Saving Advent of Christ, makes Valentinus guilty of the error of the Patripassians: not that he ever affirmed, or could have affirmed, that the Father truly suffered, since he acknowledged no substantial union of the divinity with the human nature of Christ; but because if he said that the Son of God suffered in any way, hence it would seem to follow that the Father also, Who was the same person with Him, suffered. 3rd, Irenaeus, Book 2, Chapter 13, in order to prove that the first order of emission which the heretics feigned can by no reason be defended, supposes as something most certain, and of which no one doubted, that Nus is that itself which is principal and supreme, and as it were the principle and fountain of all understanding; and that he holds the principal and first place of that hidden and invisible affection which is within, from which understanding is generated: so as to infer from this that it is only most absurdly said that Nus is sent forth. For that is to make God composite and corporeal: so that God Who sent forth is separately in one place, and the understanding which was sent forth is separately in another. But because he well knew that the heretics replied that Nus was not sent forth outside the Father, but in the Father Himself, he immediately infers: first indeed that it is superfluous even to say that he was sent forth. For how was he sent forth, if he was within the Father? For emission is the manifestation outside the emitter of that which is emitted. Next, after he has been sent forth, Logos also, who is from him, will be within the Father, etc. Which argumentation of Irenaeus indeed manifestly proves that these two things were not denied by the heretics: that Nus holds the principal and first place of that invisible affection which is within; and that Nus was not sent forth outside the Father, but in the Father Himself; and that accordingly Nus, according to their hypothesis, is a mere non-subsistent affection of the Father, not subsisting. For if the heretics had denied both, if they had distinguished Nus from the Father in person, the argument of Irenaeus would be vain and altogether futile; for the whole of it, such as it is, rests upon this principle: Nus is a mere affection of the Father, Nus is sent forth within the Father, that is, he is so sent forth from the Father that he is not distinguished from the Father, lest the Father should be called composite: Therefore he is vainly said to be sent forth. For emission is the manifestation outside the emitter of that which is emitted. What therefore remains within the Father, and is not distinguished from Him, is in vain said to be sent forth. If the principle accordingly be denied, the whole edifice that rests upon it must necessarily fall. And certainly if the heretics had held the same opinion concerning their Monogenes as Catholics hold concerning the only-begotten Son of God; if they had taught that he was so sent forth from the Father as to be distinguished from Him in person only, not in substance, Irenaeus, the keenest champion of the Catholic faith, would never have resolved in his mind to refute it. For it would not, I think, have displeased him that in speaking of the eternal generation of the Son of God they had used the name of προβολῆς or emission: for that this was not unwelcome to the ancient Catholics is clear from Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 8, nay from Irenaeus himself, Book 2, Chapter 28, no. 6. Still less could it have displeased

Editors' notes and page, col. 78

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 78
marginal letters: A nium, sive apud alios; B cipium et fons universi; C etc. Quæ quidem Irenæi; D statio. Quod igitur intra
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word nium; editors' matter: nium, sive apud alios (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word dis-

PG 7:79

potuit, quod non eamdem Unigeniti et Patris personam esse voluerint : haec enim catholica fides est. Id igitur solum offensionem apud Irenaeum habere potuit, quod Nun seu Unigenitum a Patre nec natura nec persona distinguentes, emissum tamen vellent : quod revera absurdum est. Et hinc ex haereticorum hypothesi tria haec absurda necessario consequi demonstrat toto cap. 13. Primo, quod nominibus abusi, emissum id dicerent, quod ne quidem in hominibus ipsis, licet compositis, emitti potest. 2º Quod Nun ab Ennoia Patris emissum dicentes, et a Nu Logon ; hominum ipsorum affectiones, et passiones, et intentiones mentis, dum cogitat ac secum ipsa loquitur, describerent et applicarent omnium Patri. In hominibus siquidem compositis natura, et ex corpore et anima subsistentibus, capit dici, a Nu sensum generari, et Ennoian, et Enthymesin : quae quidem omnia, cum in cognitionem conterminentur, et in verbum mentis coemittantur, a Nu secundum appellationem duntaxat, perseverantiam, augmentum et successionem, non secundum rem differunt : haec enim omnia pendent a Nu, qui ea gubernat, et a semetipso per ea quae praedicta sunt, sicut per radium, emittit verbum. Ast Deo, qui totus simplex est, totus sibi similis et aequalis, totus sensus, totus spiritus, totus cogitatio et ratio, nihil simile affingi potest, nisi compositus ac mutationi obnoxius dicatur. 3º Denique, Deum a Deo separari, et in eo aliud et aliud supponi. Cum enim Nus in ipsis hominibus sit quid primum et principale, a quo caetera omnia pendent et emittuntur ; emitti non potest, nisi aliud quidpiam et anterius et superius supponatur, a quo emittatur ; quod quidem sine manifesta contradictione, ne quidem in hominibus ipsis statui potest. Quisquis ergo Dei, cujus natura est, ut sit totus Nus seu Mens, Nun emitti fingit, quidpiam Dei mente, ac proinde Deo ipso prius et superius, a quo emittatur, supponit ; ac consequenter Deum a Deo separat, et quasi aliud ab alio emitti blasphemat.

him that they held the person of the Only-begotten and of the Father not to be the same: for this is the Catholic faith. This alone, therefore, could have given offence to Irenaeus, that without distinguishing Nus or the Only-begotten from the Father either in nature or in person, they nevertheless held that he was sent forth: which in reality is absurd. And hence throughout Chapter 13 he demonstrates that from the hypothesis of the heretics these three absurdities necessarily follow. First, that abusing names, they said that that was sent forth which not even in men themselves, although composite, can be sent forth. 2nd, That in saying that Nus is sent forth from the Ennoia of the Father, and Logos from Nus, they described the affections, and passions, and intentions of the mind of men themselves, while it thinks and speaks with itself, and applied them to the Father of all. For in men, who are composite by nature and subsist out of body and soul, it is capable of being said that understanding is generated from Nus, and Ennoia, and Enthymesis: all of which indeed, since they terminate together in knowledge and are co-emitted into a word of the mind, differ from Nus only according to appellation, continuance, increase, and succession, not according to reality: for all these things depend upon Nus, which governs them, and from itself through the things that have been aforesaid, as if through a ray, sends forth a word. But to God, Who is wholly simple, wholly like and equal to Himself, wholly understanding, wholly spirit, wholly thought and reason, nothing similar can be imputed, unless He be called composite and subject to change. 3rd, Finally, that God is separated from God, and one thing and another are supposed in Him. For since Nus in men themselves is something first and principal, on which all the rest depend and from which they are sent forth, it cannot be sent forth unless something else both prior and superior be supposed, from which it is sent forth; which indeed without manifest contradiction cannot be established even in men themselves. Whoever therefore feigns that the Nus of God, Whose nature is to be wholly Nus or Mind, is sent forth, supposes something prior and superior to the mind of God, and accordingly to God Himself, from which he is sent forth; and consequently separates God from God, and blasphemes as if one thing were sent forth from another.

58. De reliquis Aeonibus, Logo, Anthropo, Bythio et caeteris, non idem ferri posse judicium putem. Omnes ejusdem conditionis exstitisse, omnibus ignotum et invisibilem fuisse supremum Patrem, omnes cupidinem videndi Patris incessisse, omnes ignorantiae labe maculatos, omnes, novissimum praesertim, variis perturbationum aestibus obnoxios, passim testatur Irenaeus. Certe Logon ipsum a communi caeterorum vitio immunem non fuisse, et Patrem, perinde atque alios, ignorasse, ut quid certum ex haereticorum sententia supponit S. doctor, lib. II, cap. 13 et 16, ut hinc blasphemias eorum retundat. Omnes proinde natura inferiores fuisse Patre, et ab eo plusquam hypostasi aut ratione distinctos, quilibet confiteatur necesse est. Quemlibet enim sibi Deum finxerit Valentinus, quamlibet rudem, et, ut ita dicam, concretam ejus intelligentiam animo conceperit, non tamen adeo plumbeum exstitisse, et tam enormiter desipuisse

58. Concerning the rest of the Aeons, Logos, Anthropos, Bythius, and the others, I should think that the same judgement cannot be passed. That they were all of the same condition, that to all of them the supreme Father was unknown and invisible, that the desire of seeing the Father seized them all, that all were stained with the blemish of ignorance, and all, especially the last, subject to various tides of perturbations, Irenaeus testifies everywhere. Certainly the holy doctor supposes in Book 2, Chapters 13 and 16, as something certain according to the opinion of the heretics, that Logos himself was not immune from the common vice of the rest, and was ignorant of the Father just like the others, in order from this to beat back their blasphemies. Anyone must necessarily confess, accordingly, that they were all inferior by nature to the Father, and distinct from Him by more than hypostasis or aspect. For whatever sort of God Valentinus may have feigned for himself, however rude and, so to speak, concrete an understanding of Him he may have conceived in his mind, yet I cannot believe that he was so leaden-witted and raved so enormously

Editors' notes and page, col. 79

Page

running head: 79 DISSERTATIONES PRÆVIÆ IN
marginal letters: A plicere potuit, quod; B compositis natura, et; C poni. Cum enim Nus; D mum Patrem, omnes
old-edition numerals: [XXXVII] after judicium
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word plicere; editors' matter: plicere potuit, quod (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:80

credam, ut quos Aeones, personas aut perfectiones divinas esse voluisset, ignorantiae et perturbationibus obnoxios dixisset. Naturalis siquidem atque insita in omnium animis Dei notio unicuique suggerit, id omne quod aut persona aut perfectio divina est, infinitum cum sit, divinum ac Deus ipse, omnem ignorantiae, perturbationis, aut imperfectionis umbram procul a se ablegare. Et tamen Logon aliosque ex eo prognatos Aeones veras personas esse, non simplices duntaxat affectiones aut proprietates, contendebant Valentiniani. Id invicte, ni fallor, concluditur ex actionibus et passionibus, quas eis ascribebant, cupidine videndi Patris, exquisitione Patris, ignorantia et perturbationibus ; quae nonnisi personis convenire et de iis dici possunt. Eodemque modo judicandum videtur de Logo, Anthropo, etc., atque de Horo, Christo et Spiritu sancto, ac Salvatore. Hos autem Virtutes esse per se subsistentes, verasque personas, manifeste sequitur ex actionibus quas iis ascribunt haeretici, prioribus libri primi capitibus. Christum a matre adhuc sub umbra degente genitum fuisse, et quidem eadem umbra obscuratum, volebat Valentinus ; statim vero in Pleroma eum recurrisse, sic tamen ut Jesum postea procreasse assereret. Quae ostendunt et quam caeteris Aeonibus ignobilior esset Christus, ex haeresiarchae istius sententia, et quam ab eis distinctus. Quidni pariter ex similibus actionibus et affectionibus idem de Logo et aliis inferre liceat? Deinde Irenaeus, lib. II, cap. 13, n. 6, ut probet frustra ab haereticis Nun intra Patrem emissum dici, tanquam absurdum quid in eorum hypothesi infert, hoc semel posito, et eum qui est ab eo Logos, fore intra Patrem, similiter autem et reliquas Logi emissiones. Quod quidem argumenti genus, ut valeat, manifeste supponit, Valentinianorum principiis repugnare, Logon caeterosque ab eo emissos Aeones esse intra Patrem. Et revera cap. praecedenti n. 5 asserit endiatheton, id est intus mente conceptum non esse eorum Logon, sed externum, et a Patre adeo distinctum, ut propriam haberet substantiam a substantia Patris diversam. Nempe postquam ostendisset, Sophiam separatim a conjuge Theleto nihil quidquam pati aut generare potuisse, et in uno et eodem Pleromate stare simul non posse Sigen et Logon, Silentium et Verbum, praeoccupans adversariorum responsiones, subdit, num. 6 : Si enim unitas conjugationes dixerint, id est si Aeones feminas a masculis non aliter distinxerint, quam virtutes, proprietates, et affectiones a re cujus sunt, soluta est eorum universa argumentatio. Quomodo enim unitis eis, Sophia sine conjuge labem generavit? Si autem, pergit ille, sicut in emissione unumquemque ex Aeonibus propriam substantiam habere dicent ; quemadmodum in eodem ostendi potest Sige et Logos? Tam certum igitur erat apud haereticos, Logon, et unumquemque ex masculis Aeonibus ab eo emissis, propriam habere substantiam, ut vereatur Irenaeus ne hinc respondendi ansam arripiant,

as to have said that those Aeons whom he wished to be divine persons or perfections were subject to ignorance and perturbations. For the natural notion of God implanted in the minds of all suggests to everyone that whatever is either a divine person or a divine perfection, since it is infinite, divine, and God Himself, banishes far from itself every shadow of ignorance, perturbation, or imperfection. And yet the Valentinians contended that Logos and the other Aeons sprung from him were true persons, not merely simple affections or properties. This is invincibly concluded, unless I am mistaken, from the actions and passions which they ascribed to them—the desire of seeing the Father, the searching after the Father, ignorance, and perturbations—which can belong only to persons and be spoken of them. And in the same way it seems we must judge concerning Logos, Anthropos, etc., as well as concerning Horos, Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the Saviour. Now that these are Powers subsisting of themselves, and true persons, manifestly follows from the actions which the heretics ascribe to them in the first chapters of the first book. Valentinus held that Christ was begotten by his mother while she was still dwelling under the shadow, and indeed was darkened by the same shadow; but that he immediately ran back into the Pleroma, yet in such a way that he asserted he afterwards procreated Jesus. Which things show both how much more ignoble than the rest of the Aeons Christ was, according to the opinion of that heresiarch, and how distinct from them. Why may we not likewise infer the same concerning Logos and the others from similar actions and affections? Next, Irenaeus, Book 2, Chapter 13, no. 6, in order to prove that Nus is in vain said by the heretics to be sent forth within the Father, infers as something absurd in their hypothesis that, once this is laid down, Logos also, who is from him, will be within the Father, and similarly also the remaining emissions of Logos. Which kind of argument indeed, in order to be valid, manifestly supposes that it is repugnant to the principles of the Valentinians that Logos and the rest of the Aeons sent forth from him should be within the Father. And in fact in the preceding chapter, no. 5, he asserts that their Logos is not endiatheton, that is, inwardly conceived in the mind, but external, and so distinct from the Father as to have his own substance diverse from the substance of the Father. Namely, after he had shown that Sophia could not have suffered or generated anything whatever separately from her consort Theletos, and that Sige and Logos, Silence and Word, cannot stand together in one and the same Pleroma, forestalling the replies of his adversaries, he subjoins in no. 6: For if they say that the pairings are united, that is, if they do not distinguish the female Aeons from the males otherwise than powers, properties, and affections from the thing whose they are, their entire argumentation is undone. For if they are united, how did Sophia beget a fall without her consort? But if, he continues, as in the emission, they say that each of the Aeons has his own substance, how can Sige and Logos be shown in the same place? So certain, therefore, was it among the heretics that Logos, and each of the male Aeons sent forth from him, had his own substance, that Irenaeus fears lest from this they should seize a handle for replying

Editors' notes and page, col. 80

Page

running head: S PRÆVIÆ IN IRENÆI LIBROS. 80
marginal letters: A credam, ut quos Æones,; B que modo judicandum; C de Irenæus, lib. II,; D uno et eodem Pleromate
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: credam, ut quos Aeones (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word ar-
other: the word arripiant, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 81

PG 7:81

et feminas propriam habere substantiam ; quod tamen eorum opinioni contrarium erat. Logon itaque et alios ex eo natos Aeones sic extra Patrem emissos fatebantur, ut unicuique eorum propriam substantiam a substantia Patris distinctam tribuerent. Praeterea Irenaeus, eodem cap. 13, n. 9, perstringens haereticorum de Logi et Zoes emissione somnia, ait : Et non secundum descensionem ea (sic lego, non et) quae sunt talia acceperunt emissiones ; sed earum virtutum quae semper sunt cum Deo, appellationes sunt, quemadmodum possibile est et dignum hominibus audire et dicere de Deo. Appellatione enim Dei coobaudientur sensus, et verbum, et vita, et incorruptela, et veritas, et sapientia, et bonitas, et omnia talia. Principium hoc catholicis omnibus certissimum opponit haereticis ; aliud igitur hi sentiebant. Opinabantur proinde Logon, Veritatem, Vitam, Sapientiam, etc., non earum virtutum, quae semper sunt cum Deo, appellationes esse, nec appellatione Dei coobaudiri ; sed a Deo re et natura distingui, ita ut Deus sine iis nedum intelligi possit, sed et reapse aliquando exstiterit, ut quem fingerent infinitis saeculorum intervallis antiquiorem Aeonibus.

that the females also have their own substance; which nevertheless was contrary to their opinion. They confessed accordingly that Logos and the other Aeons born from him were so sent forth outside the Father that they attributed to each of them his own substance distinct from the substance of the Father. Furthermore Irenaeus, in the same Chapter 13, no. 9, censuring the dreams of the heretics concerning the emission of Logos and Zoe, says: And not according to a descent have the things that are such (so I read, not "and") received emissions; but they are appellations of those powers which are always with God, so far as it is possible and worthy for men to hear and speak of God. For with the appellation of God will be understood together understanding, and word, and life, and incorruption, and truth, and wisdom, and goodness, and all such things. He opposes this principle, most certain to all Catholics, to the heretics; they therefore thought otherwise. Accordingly they supposed that Logos, Truth, Life, Wisdom, etc., were not appellations of those powers which are always with God, nor understood together with the appellation of God; but were distinguished from God in reality and nature, so that God not only can be understood without them, but even actually existed at one time without them, inasmuch as they feigned Him to be older than the Aeons by infinite intervals of ages.

59. Nec a verosimili abhorrens cuiquam videri debet, quod Verbum et Sapientiam a Mente Patris et ab ipso Patre separarint Valentiniani. Tam enim indivulse cohaeret Ἐνθύμησις cum ἐνθυμοῦντι, quam λόγος cum cogitante. Et tamen Ἐνθύμησιν Sophiae sic ab ea separabant, ut utrique diversam prorsus substantiam tribuerent. Quidni similiter Logon et Sophiam a Nu et a Patre divellere potuerint? Absurdissima haec si quis dicat, lubens fatebor ; imo adeo absurda dicam, ut nullus unquam, nisi emotae mentis homo haec in animum inducere possit. Verum non quid cum recta ratione consentiat pugnetve, sed quae fuerint Valentinianorum dogmata, hic inquirimus. At, inquis, Irenaeus lib. II, cap. 16, n. 6, expendens, quemadmodum emissi sunt reliqui Aeones, id est Logos, Anthropos, et caeteri, varios explicandarum emissionum modos proponit. Utrum, inquit, uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a sole radii ; an efficabiliter et partiliter, id est an a principio emittente soluti et sejuncti, ut sit unusquisque eorum separatim, et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo, et a pecude pecus? Aut secundum germinationem, quemadmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum ejusdem substantiae exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut ejusdem temporis essent sibi ; an secundum ordinem quemdam, ita ut antiquiores quidam ipsorum, alii vero juniores essent? Et utrum simplices quidem et uniformes, et undique sibi aequales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina emissa sunt ; an compositi et differentes, dissimiles membris suis? Quibus diversas haereticorum sententias

59. Nor ought it to seem to anyone at variance with likelihood that the Valentinians separated the Word and Wisdom from the Mind of the Father and from the Father Himself. For Ἐνθύμησις coheres as inseparably with him who conceives it as λόγος does with him who thinks. And yet they so separated the Ἐνθύμησιν of Sophia from her that they attributed an altogether diverse substance to each. Why could they not similarly tear Logos and Sophia away from Nus and from the Father? If anyone should call these things most absurd, I will gladly confess it; nay, I will call them so absurd that no one ever, unless a man of deranged mind, could bring them into his mind. But we are inquiring here not what agrees or conflicts with right reason, but what were the dogmas of the Valentinians. Yet, you say, Irenaeus in Book 2, Chapter 16, no. 6, weighing how the rest of the Aeons were sent forth, that is, Logos, Anthropos, and the others, proposes various ways of explaining the emissions. Whether, he says, united to him who sent them forth, as rays from the sun; or effectively and partitively, that is, loosed and disjoined from the emitting principle, so that each of them exists separately and having his own figuration, as man from man, and beast from beast? Or according to germination, as branches from a tree? And whether they existed of the same substance with those who sent them forth, or having their substance from some other substance? And whether they were sent forth at the same moment, so as to be contemporaneous with one another, or according to a certain order, so that some of them were older and others younger? And whether they were sent forth simple indeed and uniform, and on all sides equal and like to one another, as spirits and lights, or composite and different, unlike in their members? By which words he seems to report and embrace the different opinions

Editors' notes and page, col. 81

Footnotes

(49) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 81

Lib. I, cap. 1.

Book 1, ch. 1.

(printed under page 47)

Page

running head: 81 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A ripiant, et feminas; B omnibus certissimum opponit; C Sophiæ sic ab ea; D cti, ut sit unusquisque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word ripiant; editors' matter: ripiant, et feminas (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word sen-

PG 7:82

referre ac complecti videtur ; ac proinde innuere quorumdam opinionem fuisse, unitos emitti Aeones ei qui emittit, quemadmodum soli radios ; quorumdam vero, ejusdem substantiae exsistere his qui se emiserunt ; aliorum denique, simplices et uniformes esse, et undique sibi aequales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina. Sed praeterquam quod non negaverim paucos quosdam ex ipsis, ut Colorbasaeos, existimare potuisse, sic emitti Aeones unitos emittenti, ut soli radios ; ex iis tamen quas refert et confutat Irenaeus, diversis explicandarum emissionum rationibus concludi posse non crediderim, his omnibus usos fuisse Valentinianos. Nempe id agit vir sanctus, quod in confutandis obscurioribus sententiis fieri vulgo solet ; ut invicte refellantur, omniaque adversariis effugia praecludantur, omnes quas adhibere possent explicandi rationes, responsionesque referuntur ; non quod revera omnes adhibeant ; sed ut, etiamsi adhiberent, eorum sententia a sana ratione abhorrere demonstretur. Hoc vero Irenaei consilium fuisse non dubitabit, quisquis attenderit ad ea quae subjicit n. 9 : Praeter has autem emissiones ego quidem jam non intelligo alteram posse eos dicere ; sed ne ipsi quidem alteram quamdam proprietatem emissam reddentes aliquando, cogniti sunt a nobis, licet valde multam de hujusmodi speciebus quaestionem habuerimus cum eis. Non ait eas esse emissiones quas probant, sed eas esse emissiones omnes possibiles, quas dicere possunt, et praeter eas non intelligere se alteram eos posse dicere ; nec alium quempiam emittendi modum audivisse se unquam ab ipsis. Sed tantum abest eas omnes emissiones sibi asciscerent Valentiniani, ut vix ulla certa hypothesi stare possent, et quaestionibus sibi ea de re propositis facere satis. Id perspicue tradit Irenaeus verbis sequentibus : Hoc autem dicunt, quoniam emissi sunt unusquisque illorum, et illum tantum cognovisse qui se emisit, ignorans autem eum qui ante illum est. Jam non autem cum ostensione progrediuntur, quemadmodum emissi sunt, aut quomodo capit tale quid in spiritalibus fieri. Et eapropter ad solvendas propositas sibi difficultates, explicandamve sententiam parum adeo comparati erant, ut auctore nostro teste, lib. III, cap. 15, n. 2 : Si aliquis ex his qui audiebant eos, quaereret solutiones, vel contradiceret eis, hunc quasi non capientem veritatem, et non habentem de superioribus a matre sua semen affirmantes, in totum nihil dicerent ei, mediarum partium dicentes esse illum, hoc est, Psychicorum. Quod homines ostendit temere quidquid in buccam veniret proloquentes, id vero nec explicare, nec certis rationibus munire valentes.

of the heretics; and accordingly to intimate that the opinion of some was that the Aeons are sent forth united to him who sends them forth, as rays to the sun; of others, that they exist of the same substance with those who sent them forth; of others finally, that they are simple and uniform, and on all sides equal and like to one another, as spirits and lights. But besides the fact that I would not deny that some few of them, such as the Colorbasians, could have supposed that the Aeons are thus sent forth united to the emitter, as rays to the sun; yet from those diverse ways of explaining the emissions which Irenaeus reports and refutes, I could not believe it can be concluded that the Valentinians used all of these. Namely, the holy man is doing what is commonly wont to be done in refuting more obscure opinions: in order that they may be invincibly refuted, and all loopholes closed against the adversaries, all the ways of explaining and replies which they could employ are reported; not because they actually employ them all, but so that, even if they should employ them, their opinion may be demonstrated to be abhorrent to sound reason. And that this was the design of Irenaeus no one will doubt who attends to what he subjoins in no. 9: And beside these emissions I indeed no longer understand that they can speak of another; nay, not even they themselves have ever been known by us as rendering any other emitted property, although we have had very much questioning with them concerning species of this sort. He does not say that those are the emissions which they approve, but that those are all the possible emissions of which they can speak, and that beside them he does not understand that they can speak of another; nor had he ever heard any other mode of emitting from them. But so far were the Valentinians from adopting all those emissions for themselves that they could scarcely stand by any certain hypothesis, or satisfy the questions proposed to them concerning that matter. This Irenaeus clearly hands down in the following words: But they say this, that each one of them was sent forth, and knew him only who sent him forth, while remaining ignorant of him who is before him. But they do not proceed with any demonstration as to how they were sent forth, or how such a thing is capable of happening in spiritual beings. And on that account they were so ill-prepared to solve the difficulties proposed to them, or to explain their opinion, that as our author testifies, Book 3, Chapter 15, no. 2: If anyone of those who heard them asked for solutions, or contradicted them, affirming that this man was as one not capable of receiving the truth, and not having the seed from above from his mother, they would say nothing at all to him, saying that he was of the middle parts, that is, of the Psychics. Which shows men rashly blurting out whatever came into their mouth, yet unable either to explain it or to fortify it with certain reasons.

60. Quantum vero ex verbis eorum, et ex recepta apud omnes hypothesi conjicere licet (nam ex iis solis, velimus, nolimus, ferenda sententia), Logon caeterosque posteriores Aeones fuisse substantias

60. So far, however, as one may conjecture from their words, and from the hypothesis received among them all (for from these alone, whether we will or no, judgement must be passed), we can conclude that Logos and the rest of the later Aeons were certain substances

Editors' notes and page, col. 82

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 82
marginal letters: A tentias referre ac complecti; B let ; ut invicte refellantur,; C sibiles, quas dicere possunt,; D nostro teste, lib. III,
old-edition numerals: [XXXVIII] after complecti
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word tentias; editors' matter: tentias referre ac complecti (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:83

quasdam per se subsistentes, sed supremo Deo longe inferiores, concludere possumus. Angelici porro ordinis non immerito quis dixerit : hancque haereticorum istorum mentem esse haud difficile probaverit. Primo enim Marcosii, qui nihil fere a caeteris Valentinianis dissidebant, nisi quod, ut pretium nugis adderent, ad symbolicam litterarum et elementorum farraginem, Pythagorico more, omnia revocabant, tradita sub his aenigmatis Aeonum genesi concludunt : Τοὺς δὲ φθόγγους ὑπάρχειν , τοὺς μορφοῦντας τὸν ἀνούσιον καὶ ἀγέννητον Αἰῶνα· καὶ εἶναι τούτους μορφὰς, ἃς ὁ Κύριος ἀγγέλους εἴρηκε , τὰς δὲ διηνεκῶς βλεπούσας τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ Πατρός Sonos autem eos esse, qui formant (exprimunt) insubstantivum et ingenitum Aeona, et esse has formas quas Dominus angelos dixit, quae sine intermissione vident faciem Patris. Nihil clarius : soni, id est Aeones, angeli sunt de quibus Christus (Matth. XVIII, 10) dixit : Angeli eorum in coelis semper vident faciem Patris mei qui in coelis est. Haec vero non de omnibus Aeonibus, sed de posterioribus duntaxat intelligi, patet ex latissimo, quod inter primam tetrada et reliquos Aeones interesse volebant, discrimine. Illius siquidem nomina sancta sanctorum intelligi, quae non possunt enarrari, intelliguntur autem a solo Filio, quae Pater scit quaenam sunt, esse dicebant lib. I, cap. 15, n. 1. Quae demonstrant quanto intervallo prima tetras superaret secundam, ac decada et dodecada ; hasque proinde solas angelici ordinis esse posse. 2º Valentinianos a Simone Mago, Menandro, Saturnino, aliisque Gnosticorum principibus, prima doctrinae suae principia et rudimenta, et, ut ait Irenaeus, initia emissionum accepisse, jam non semel diximus. At illos primis et summis Aeonibus immediate subjecisse Angelos, Archangelos, Virtutes, Potestates, etc., diserte docent Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Theodoretus et alii. Angelos enim ab Ennoea Patris (procul dubio interposito Nu seu Monogene, quem ab eo re non distinguebant) emissos esse volebant Simon et Menander. Nec alia fuit Saturnini sententia, qui, referente Irenaeo, similiter ut Menander, unum Patrem incognitum omnibus ostendit, qui fecit Angelos, Archangelos, Virtutes, Potestates, haud dubie quin per Ennoeam et Nun. Constat tamen, et a nobis superius probatum est, veteres illos Gnosticos, perinde atque Valentinianos, e Nu eduxisse vel Anthropon, vel Logon ; e prima tetrade secundam. Dum igitur ab Ennoea et Nu immediate emissos asserunt Angelos, dilucide satis, ni fallor, mentem exponunt, significantque quid posteriorum Aeonum nomine intelligerent, Angelos videlicet, Archangelos, Potestates, etc. Solus Basilides, ut altius aliquid et verisimilius invenisse videretur, in immensum extendit sententiam doctrinae suae, vel, ut loquitur Epiphanius, a Saturnino et Simone Mago erroris argumenta mutuatus est, quae alia ratione tractare et majore cum

subsisting of themselves, yet far inferior to the supreme God. Moreover, one might not undeservedly say that they are of the angelic order: and could without difficulty prove that this was the mind of those heretics. For first the Marcosians, who differed in almost nothing from the rest of the Valentinians except that, to add value to their trifles, they reduced all things after the Pythagorean manner to a symbolic medley of letters and elements, having handed down the genesis of the Aeons under these riddles, conclude: And that the sounds exist which give form to the unsubstantial and unbegotten Aeon; and that these are the forms which the Lord has called angels, which continually behold the face of the Father. And that the sounds are those which form (express) the unsubstantial and unbegotten Aeon, and that these are the forms which the Lord called angels, which without intermission behold the face of the Father. Nothing is clearer: the sounds, that is, the Aeons, are the angels of whom Christ (Matt. 18:10) said: Their angels in the heavens always behold the face of My Father Who is in the heavens. And that these things are understood not of all the Aeons, but of the later ones only, is clear from the very wide difference which they held to exist between the first tetrad and the rest of the Aeons. For the names of the former, they said in Book I, Chapter 15, no. 1, are understood as the holy of holies, which cannot be uttered, and are understood by the Son alone—which the Father knows what they are. Which things demonstrate by how great an interval the first tetrad surpassed the second, and the decad and duodecad; and that these alone accordingly can be of the angelic order. 2nd, That the Valentinians received the first principles and rudiments of their doctrine, and, as Irenaeus says, the beginnings of the emissions, from Simon Magus, Menander, Saturninus, and the other chiefs of the Gnostics, we have already said more than once. Now that those men immediately subjected Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, etc., to the first and highest Aeons, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others expressly teach. For Simon and Menander held that the Angels were sent forth from the Ennoea of the Father (without doubt with the interposition of Nus or Monogenes, whom they did not distinguish from Him in reality). Nor was the opinion of Saturninus different, who, as Irenaeus reports, similarly to Menander sets forth one Father unknown to all, Who made Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, doubtless through Ennoea and Nus. Yet it is established, and has been proved by us above, that those ancient Gnostics, just like the Valentinians, drew forth from Nus either Anthropos or Logos—from the first tetrad the second. While therefore they assert that the Angels were immediately sent forth from Ennoea and Nus, they set forth their mind clearly enough, unless I am mistaken, and signify what they understood by the name of the later Aeons, namely Angels, Archangels, Powers, etc. Basilides alone, that he might seem to have found something deeper and more plausible, extended the purport of his doctrine immeasurably, or, as Epiphanius speaks, borrowed the arguments of his error from Saturninus and Simon Magus, which he undertook to treat in another way and to relate with greater

Editors' notes and page, col. 83

Footnotes

(70) ‹anchor: ait Irenaeus› · call in col 83

Lib. I, c. 23 et 24.

Book I, chs. 23 and 24.

(printed under page 48)

(71) ‹anchor: Irenaeus, Epiphanius› · call in col 83

Haer. XXI et seqq.

Heresy XXI and following.

(printed under page 48)

(72) ‹anchor: Theodoretus› · call in col 83

L. I haer. Fab., lib. I, c. 1 et seqq.

Bk. I of the Compendium of Heretical Fables, book I, ch. 1 and following.

(printed under page 48)

Page

running head: 83 DISSERTATIONES PRÆVIÆ IN
marginal letters: A quasdam per se subsistentes,; B quas Dominus angelos; C angelici ordinis esse; D per Ennœam et Nun.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: quasdam per se subsistentes (Massuet, Dissertatio I)

PG 7:84

pompa enarrare instituit. Nam Angelos paulo longius a Nu et Ennoea removit, interpositis nimirum Logo, Phronesi, Sophia, et Dynami : quos quidem Aeones non re, sed virtute duntaxat et ratione ab innato Patre distinxisse videtur. Sed in hoc cum magistris consensit, quod primis illis ac summis Aeonibus Angelos immediate subjiceret. A Dynami siquidem et Sophia Virtutes, et Principes, et Angelos, quos et primos vocabat, genitos esse asseruit. Hoc ergo solum inter Valentinianos et Gnosticos interfuisse videtur, quod hi primi ordinis Angelos e supremis Aeonibus perturbate, nulloque certo ordine ac numero educerent ; illi vero ordinatim componerent, ac sub certis quibusdam conjugationibus, in decada et dodecada, quasi in agmina divisos collocarent.

pomp. For he removed the Angels a little further from Nus and Ennoea, interposing namely Logos, Phronesis, Sophia, and Dynamis: which Aeons indeed he seems to have distinguished from the unborn Father not in reality, but in power and aspect only. Yet in this he agreed with his masters, that he immediately subjected the Angels to those first and highest Aeons. For from Dynamis and Sophia he asserted that the Powers, and Principalities, and Angels, whom he also called the first, were begotten. This alone, therefore, seems to have been the difference between the Valentinians and the Gnostics, that the latter drew forth the Angels of the first order from the supreme Aeons confusedly, and in no certain order and number; whereas the former arranged them in order, and placed them under certain definite pairings, divided as if into troops in a decad and a duodecad.

61. Dixi primi ordinis Angelos : multiplex enim apud illos fuit ; neque existimandum Angelos illos. quos a summis Aeonibus emissos volebant, ejusdem ordinis ac dignitatis fuisse cum iis quibus mundi hujus fabricationem ascribebant. Et quamvis alii ab aliis gradatim descenderent, maximum tamen inter priores et posteriores interjectum erat intervallum. Id ex Saturnini hypothesi manifestum est, qui licet unum Patrem esse diceret, qui fecit Angelos, Archangelos, Virtutes, Potestates ; non tamen ab his mundum factum, et omnia quae in eo, sed a septem quibusdam aliis Angelis asserebat. Clarius adhuc ex Basilide, qui Virtutes, et Principes, et Angelos, quos a Sophia et Dynami emissos esse contendebat, primos vocabat, a quibus alteros et alteros Principes et Angelos factos esse dicebat : eos autem, qui posterius continent coelum, quod etiam a nobis videtur, constituisse ea quae sunt in mundo omnia. Sic pariter et Carpocrates et qui ab eo, mundum quidem, et ea quae in eo sunt, ab Angelis multo inferioribus ingenito Patre factum esse dicebant. Nempe Angeli illi inferiores extra Pleroma constituti erant ; alii intra Pleroma degebant ; et hi in multos ordines dispositi. Alii quippe dignitate et ordine praestantiores, vocabantur Aeones (quo etiam nomine Angelos identidem donavit Synesius superius a nobis citatus in Hymnis ), quasi dii secundarii, et ad divinitatem caeteris propius accedentes ; alii ordinis inferioris, satellites Salvatori destinabantur. Angelorum etiam, qui extra Pleroma versabantur, non unus erat ordo, sed multiplex, alius alio sublimior et dignior : alii enim Angeli, alii Archangeli, quorum omnia varia officia et veluti praefecturae : ita tamen ut Pleromatis Angelis superioribus, quorum ministri erant, subessent. Nam in rebus creatis condendis in id potissimum incubuerat Salvator per Enthymesin, ut in Aeonum honorem omnia faceret, et imaginem Pleromatis invisibilis in omnibus exprimeret, ut refert Irenaeus lib. I, cap. 5. Ut ergo Demiurgus Angelos sibi subjectos, sic Nus sibi subditos habebat.

61. I said Angels of the first order: for their order among them was manifold; nor is it to be supposed that those Angels whom they held to have been sent forth from the highest Aeons were of the same order and dignity with those to whom they ascribed the fabrication of this world. And although some descended step by step from others, nevertheless the greatest interval was interposed between the earlier and the later. This is manifest from the hypothesis of Saturninus, who although he said that there is one Father, Who made Angels, Archangels, Powers, Principalities, nevertheless asserted that the world, and all the things that are in it, were made not by these, but by seven certain other Angels. Still clearer is it from Basilides, who called the Powers, and Principalities, and Angels, whom he contended were sent forth from Sophia and Dynamis, the first, by whom he said other and yet other Principalities and Angels were made: and that those who hold the lower heaven, which is also seen by us, framed all the things that are in the world. So likewise also Carpocrates and his followers said that the world indeed, and the things that are in it, were made by Angels much inferior to the unbegotten Father. Namely, those lower Angels were established outside the Pleroma; the others dwelt within the Pleroma; and these were arranged in many orders. For some, more excellent in dignity and order, were called Aeons (with which name Synesius, cited by us above, also repeatedly endowed the Angels in his Hymns), as if secondary gods, and approaching nearer to the divinity than the rest; others, of an inferior order, were appointed as attendants to the Saviour. Of the Angels also who dwelt outside the Pleroma there was not one order, but a manifold one, one more sublime and more worthy than another: for some were Angels, others Archangels, all of whom had various offices and as it were prefectures; yet in such a way that they were subject to the superior Angels of the Pleroma, whose ministers they were. For in founding created things the Saviour through Enthymesis had bent his effort chiefly to this, that he might make all things in honour of the Aeons, and express the image of the invisible Pleroma in all things, as Irenaeus reports in Book 1, Chapter 5. As therefore the Demiurge had Angels subject to himself, so Nus had subject to himself

Editors' notes and page, col. 84

Page

running head: ES PRÆVIÆ IN IRENÆI LIBROS. 84
marginal letters: A pompa enarrare instituit.; B collocarent.; C Principes, et Angelos,; D pius accedentes ;
old-edition numerals: [XXXIX] after quibus
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: pompa enarrare instituit (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word habe-
other: the word habebat. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 85

PG 7:85

Logos proinde Angelus erat, qui Dei mentis veluti verbum ac interpres oracula divina caeteris pandebat, ac per eos, per Salvatorem maxime, hominibus manifestari curabat : quique rerum omnium rationes et ideas, quas divina mens complectitur, per Bythium, Ageraton, etc., certa quadam proportione atque norma in Salvatorem veluti derivabat, ut hic secundum hoc exemplar cuncta per Enthymesin et Demiurgum effingi studeret ; et eapropter Salvatorem receptaculum Christi superioris et universae Plenitudinis, et ex omnibus generatum esse dicebant : quapropter Beneplacitum vocari, quoniam universum Pleroma bene sensit per eum glorificare Patrem. Alii autem ex solis decem Aeonibus, qui sunt a Logo et Zoe emissi, et propter hoc Logon et Zoen dici eum, parentum nomina custodientem. Homo etiam et Ecclesia Angelus fuit, qui spiritalibus hominibus, seu Ecclesiae in terris degenti praefectus, hanc per Aeones sibi subditos et per Salvatorem ad exemplum superioris Ecclesiae instituit et informavit, seu, ut loquebatur Ptolemaeus, ἐφανέρωσε καὶ ἐγέννησε, in lucem edidit, generavitque. Hinc etiam inferiorem hanc Ecclesiam, seu spiritales homines, ut vocabant, imaginem superioris Ecclesiae dicebant. Hinc etiam quidam eorum Salvatorem ex duodecim Aeonibus, his qui sunt ab Anthropo et Ecclesia facti, generatum esse volebant : et propter hoc Filium hominis se confiteri, velut postgenitum (ἀπόγονον, nepotem) Anthropi. Marcosii vero asserebant ab Anthropo et Ecclesia, Logo et Zoe Virtutes emanatas generasse eum, qui in terra manifestatus est, Jesum. Et Logi quidem locum adimplesse angelum Gabriel, Zoes autem Spiritum sanctum, Anthropi autem Altissimi virtutem : Ecclesiae autem locum Virginem ostendisse. Et sic, inquiebant, ille qui est secundum dispositionem (ὁ κατ' οἰκονομίαν), generatur apud eum (παρ' αὐτῷ, ex eo, Anthropo, ni fallor) homo, quem Pater omnium transeuntem per vulvam elegit per Verbum ad agnitionem suam, id est, ut per eum hominibus innotesceret. Quibus mire confirmantur quae modo diximus, Angelos inferiores, ex haereticorum sententia, superioribus Pleromatis ministrasse, et Jesum a Verbo tanquam divinae mentis interprete electum, ab Anthropo vero tanquam Ecclesiae duce et praefecto in lucem editum, ut per Salvatorem oracula divina hominibus funderet, inferioremque Ecclesiam fundaret et institueret.

[those]. Logos accordingly was an Angel who, as the word and interpreter of the mind of God, unfolded the divine oracles to the rest, and through them, chiefly through the Saviour, took care that they should be manifested to men: and who derived as it were into the Saviour, by a certain definite proportion and rule, through Bythius, Ageratos, etc., the reasons and ideas of all things which the divine mind embraces, so that he might strive to have all things fashioned according to this exemplar through Enthymesis and the Demiurge; and on that account they said that the Saviour was the receptacle of the upper Christ and of the entire Fullness, and was generated from all: wherefore he is called Well-pleasing, because the whole Pleroma was well pleased through him to glorify the Father. Others, however, said that he was generated from the ten Aeons alone who were sent forth from Logos and Zoe, and that on this account he is called Logos and Zoe, keeping the names of his parents. Man also, with Church, was an Angel, who, set over spiritual men, or the Church dwelling on earth, instituted and fashioned her through the Aeons subject to himself and through the Saviour after the pattern of the upper Church, or, as Ptolemy used to speak, manifested and begot her, brought her forth into light and begot her. Hence also they called this lower Church, or spiritual men, as they called them, the image of the upper Church. Hence also some of them held that the Saviour was generated from the twelve Aeons, those who were made from Anthropos and Ecclesia: and that on this account he confesses himself the Son of man, as a descendant (ἀπόγονον, grandson) of Anthropos. And the Marcosians asserted that Powers emanating from Anthropos and Ecclesia, Logos and Zoe, begot him who was manifested on earth, Jesus. And that the angel Gabriel fulfilled the place of Logos, the Holy Spirit that of Zoe, the power of the Most High that of Anthropos, while the Virgin exhibited the place of Ecclesia. And thus, they used to say, he who is according to the dispensation (ὁ κατ' οἰκονομίαν) is generated with him (παρ' αὐτῷ, from him, Anthropos, unless I am mistaken) as a man, whom, passing through the womb, the Father of all chose through the Word for the knowledge of Himself, that is, that through him He might become known to men. By which things what we just now said is wonderfully confirmed: that the lower Angels, according to the opinion of the heretics, ministered to the upper ones of the Pleroma, and that Jesus was chosen by the Word as interpreter of the divine mind, and brought forth into light by Anthropos as leader and prefect of the Church, that through the Saviour he might pour forth the divine oracles to men, and found and institute the lower Church.

62. Quae vero hic de inferioribus Aeonibus effutiunt nugatores isti, totidem segmina sunt, partim ex Scripturis et traditione misere dissectis, partim ex Platonicorum philosophematibus huc male translatis, collecta, pessimeque simul consuta. Nimirum in Scripturis legerant, per Verbum Dei facta esse omnia, Deum Patrem invisibilem esse, neminem unquam Deum vidisse ; audierant a pluribus antiquis Ecclesiae Patribus, Deum Patrem

62. Now the things which those triflers babble here concerning the lower Aeons are so many scraps gathered partly from the Scriptures and tradition wretchedly cut to pieces, partly from the philosophical tenets of the Platonists badly transferred hither, and most vilely stitched together. Doubtless they had read in the Scriptures that all things were made through the Word of God, that God the Father is invisible, that no one has ever seen God; they had heard from many ancient Fathers of the Church that God the Father

Editors' notes and page, col. 85

Footnotes

(73) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 85

Iren., lib. III, c. 16, n. 4, et lib. I, c. 12, n. 4.

Irenaeus, book 3, ch. 16, no. 4, and book 1, ch. 12, no. 4.

(printed under page 49)

(74) ‹anchor: hominibus innotesceret› · call in col 85

Vide Iren., lib. I, c. 5, n. 6; c. 8, n. 5; c. 12, n. 4; c. 15, n. 3.

See Irenaeus, book 1, ch. 5, no. 6; ch. 8, no. 5; ch. 12, no. 4; ch. 15, no. 3.

(printed under page 49)

Page

running head: 85 DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A bat. Logos proinde; B et Zoen dici eum,; C bant ab Anthropo; D Anthropo vero tanquam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word bat; editors' matter: bat. Logos proinde (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word Pa-

PG 7:86

invisibilem semper mansisse, nec usquam hominibus manifestatum per seipsum fuisse, sed per Verbum suum, quod iisdem identidem sub visibili specie conspiciendum se praebebat, loquebaturque, ut eo videndo et audiendo paulatim assuescerent : viderant in iisdem Scripturis passim, verbum Domini factum esse ad prophetas, et in iis locutum fuisse ; angelos tamen saepius in Dei nomine et persona verba fecisse, et sub humana figura hominibus apparuisse, legem disposuisse et ordinasse, Ecclesiae curam gessisse, Christum nostrum angelum Novi Testamenti vocari, et alia ejusmodi. Quae omnia inepte consuentes, fabulam, quam dixi, contexuerunt ; Logon et Anthropon angelos esse a Dei mente emissos, ut oracula divina funderent, conspiciendosque hominibus se praeberent, ac successione quadam aliorum Aeonum Salvatorem, Angelum Testamenti, gignerent, qui Jesum Ecclesiae conditorem illustraret, et in hunc descenderet, in quo proinde Logos et Anthropos exprimerentur.

had always remained invisible, and had never been manifested to men by Himself, but through His Word, Who repeatedly offered Himself to be beheld by them under a visible appearance, and spoke with them, so that by seeing and hearing Him they might gradually grow accustomed to Him: they had seen everywhere in the same Scriptures that the word of the Lord came to the prophets, and spoke in them; yet that angels more often spoke in the name and person of God, and appeared to men under a human figure, disposed and ordained the law, had care of the Church, that our Christ is called the Angel of the New Testament, and other things of that kind. Foolishly stitching all these things together, they wove the fable of which I have spoken: that Logos and Anthropos are angels sent forth from the mind of God, that they might pour forth the divine oracles, and offer themselves to be beheld by men, and by a certain succession of other Aeons beget the Saviour, the Angel of the Testament, who should illuminate Jesus the founder of the Church, and descend into him, in whom accordingly Logos and Anthropos should be expressed.

63. At si Christiana religio et Scriptura formam, Platonica dogmata materiam toti fabulae praebuerunt. Platonici praeter unam πρεσβυτάτην αἰτίαν, antiquiorem ac superiorem causam, ut loquitur Jamblichus, quae diis omnibus supereminet, multiplex deorum genus distinguebant ; alios qui sunt in hoc mundo, alios qui in intelligibili. Ut de posterioribus duntaxat hic agam, hos Proclus in νοητοὺς, intelligibiles, et νοεροὺς, intellectuales, seu intelligendi facultate praeditos dividit. Similis est illa Chaldaeorum apud Damascium deorum series, αἱ πηγαὶ, fontes, οἱ νοεροὶ, intellectuales. De quibus licet, pro more, obscure omnino et allegorice dissererent, haec tamen, quantum assequor, ex eorum sermonibus erui posse videntur. Dii illi, quos πηγὰς et νοητοὺς vocant, ipsissimae sunt divinae mentis ideae, supremaque rerum omnium exemplaria in intimo Dei intellectus sinu recondita ; multiplicia quidem, si terminum spectes, res videlicet quas exprimunt et exhibent ; unum quid vero et simplicissimum Ens, si cum Deo conferas, a quo nec re distinguuntur, nec separantur. Hancque Platonicorum genuinam esse doctrinam, superius demonstravimus. Si cui vero scrupulum injiciat, quod ideae divinae appellentur dii, hunc eximet Proclus scribens lib. I Platonic. theol., cap. 24, multis in locis Platonem ea, quae deos participant, iisdem nominibus exornare, et deos vocare : Πολλαχοῦ δὲ ὁ Πλάτων καὶ τὰ μετέχοντα τῶν θεῶν, τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀποσέμνει, καὶ θεοὺς ἐπανομάζει. Ex quo concludit, alium quidem esse simpliciter Deum, alium propter unionem, alium propter communionem, alium propter connexionem, alium vero propter similitudinem. Ληπτέον τοίνυν ἐκ τούτων ἁπάντων, ὅτι Θεὸς, ὁ μέν ἐστιν ἁπλῶς Θεὸς, ὁ δὲ καθ' ἕνωσιν, ὁ δὲ κατὰ μέθεξιν, ὁ δὲ κατὰ συνα-

63. Yet if the Christian religion and Scripture furnished the form, Platonic dogmas furnished the matter for the whole fable. The Platonists, beside one most ancient cause, an older and higher cause, as Iamblichus speaks, which eminates above all the gods, distinguished a manifold kind of gods: some who are in this world, others who are in the intelligible world. To treat here of the latter only, Proclus divides these into νοητοὺς, intelligibles, and νοεροὺς, intellectuals, or endowed with the faculty of understanding. Similar is that series of gods of the Chaldeans in Damascius: αἱ πηγαὶ, fountains, οἱ νοεροὶ, intellectuals. Concerning whom, although after their custom they discoursed altogether obscurely and allegorically, nevertheless these things, so far as I can attain to them, seem capable of being drawn out from their discourses. Those gods whom they call πηγὰς and νοητοὺς are the very ideas themselves of the divine mind, and the supreme exemplars of all things hidden in the inmost bosom of God's intellect; manifold indeed, if you regard the term, namely the things which they express and exhibit; but one and a most simple Being, if you compare them with God, from Whom they are neither distinguished in reality nor separated. And that this is the genuine doctrine of the Platonists, we have demonstrated above. And if it should cause anyone a scruple that the divine ideas are called gods, Proclus will remove this, writing in Book 1 of the Platonic Theology, Chapter 24, that in many places Plato adorns the things that participate in the gods with the same names, and calls them gods: And in many places Plato dignifies the things also that participate in the gods with the same names, and surnames them gods. From which he concludes that one indeed is God simply, another on account of union, another on account of participation, another on account of connection, and another on account of likeness. It must be taken, therefore, from all these things, that as for God, one is God simply, another according to union, another according to participation, another according to con-

Editors' notes and page, col. 86

Footnotes

(75) ‹anchor: loquitur Jamblichus› · call in col 86

Sect. V, cap. 9.

Section 5, ch. 9.

(printed under page 49)

(76) ‹anchor: qui in intelligibili› · call in col 86

Jamb., sect. I, c. 19.

Iamblichus, section 1, ch. 19.

(76*) ‹anchor: ὀνόμασιν ἀποσεμνει› · call in col 86 ἀποσημαίνει.

[Variant:] ἀποσημαίνει ("designates").

(printed under page 49)

Page

running head: O I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO. 86
marginal letters: A trem invisibilem semper; B vina funderent, conspiciendosque; C in νοητοὺς, intelligibiles,; D superius demonstravimus.
old-edition numerals: [XL] after distinguuntur ,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; begins mid-word trem; editors' matter: trem invisibilem semper (Massuet, Dissertatio I); ends mid-word συνα-

PG 7:87

φὴν, ὁ δὲ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν. Porro ideae divinae αἱ πηγαὶ dicebantur, quod rerum omnium fontes et principia sint, et veluti archetypa, quae Deus agendo imitatur : dii autem νοητοὶ, quod utpote spiritales divini intellectus affectiones, sola mentis intelligentia comprehendi queant. Dii vero νοεροὶ, intellectuales, sunt angeli superiores ac Deo propiores, intelligendi facultate pollentes, seu mentes illae coelestes, quibus divina illa exemplaria, pro intelligentiae viribus, contemplari et exprimere, et ad eorum normam opera dirigere datum. Et ita sensisse Platonicos satis aperte significat Proclus, qui lib. III, cap. 21, post τὰ πρώτιστα, καὶ ὑψηλότατα γένη τῶν θεῶν, prima et altissima genera deorum, νοητῶν videlicet, immediate collocat τὰ δεύτερα, καὶ ἀγγελικὴν ἔχοντα τάξιν, deorum genera secunda, et angelicum habentia ordinem. Itaque dii νοεροὶ, qui secundas in ordine deorum mundi intelligibilis tenebant, sunt ipsimet angeli superiores. Consentit et Jamblichus, qui sect. II, cap. 2, 3 et seqq., primo loco deos νοητοὺς constituit. His proxime accedunt archangeli, quos sequuntur angeli. Archangelos autem secundum deorum gradum obtinere, non obscure innuit cap. 7, ubi de deorum, archangelorum et angelorum, dum sese videndos offerunt, speciebus disserit. Dii, inquit, circa se deos, vel angelos astantes habent, archangeli asciscunt sibi alios angelos, etc. Haud dubium enim quin dii illi, quos dii astantes habent, archangeli sint, quos immediate post deos νοητοὺς statuit. Sed rem totam omnium clarissime demonstrat Ficinus jam a nobis citatus, in Comment. in Conviv., c. 3, ubi triplicem, ex Platonis sententia, mundum distinguens : Primum omnium, inquit, est Deus universorum auctor; quod ipsum bonum dicimus. Hic mentem prius creat angelicam; deinde mundi hujus animam, ut Plato vult; postremo mundi corpus. Mens angelica primus mundus est a Deo factus, etc. Adeo certum est, Platonicorum mundum intelligibilem aliud nihil continere, praeter primam causam, formarum omnium et specierum feracem, et angelos. Hanc vero ipsissimam esse Valentinianorum et Gnosticorum omnium hypothesim manifeste patet. Quid enim aliud prima illa πρεσβυτάτη αἰτία, superior et antiquior causa, quae diis omnibus supereminet, quam Valentinianorum Proarche, Propator et Bythus, in invisibilibus et inenarrabilibus altitudinibus praeexsistens, invisibilis, sempiternus, ingenitus, in silentio, et in quiete multa degens in immensis saeculorum intervallis, antequam Aeones emitteret? Quid aliud dii νοητοὶ, intelligibiles, paternae mentis ideae, formae et exemplaria, ad quorum exemplum cuncta effinxit, quam Ennoia, Nus et Veritas, radix omnium; Nus, inquam, Pater et initium omnium, in quo supremus Pater praemisit omnia seminaliter? Quid aliud dii Platonicorum νοεροὶ, intellectuales, divinarum idearum contemplatores, et imitatores, archangeli seu angeli superiores, quos gradatim alterum ex altero derivabant,

form, and the other according to likeness. Moreover, the divine ideas were called the founts, because they are the founts and first principles of all things, and as it were archetypes, which God imitates in acting; and the gods intelligible, because, as being spiritual affections of the divine intellect, they can be comprehended by the intelligence of the mind alone. But the gods νοεροί, intellectual, are the higher angels and nearer to God, potent in the faculty of understanding, or those heavenly minds to whom it has been given, according to the strength of their intelligence, to contemplate and express those divine exemplars, and to direct their works according to their standard. And that the Platonists thought thus Proclus signifies clearly enough, who in Bk. 3, Ch. 21, after the first and highest genera of the gods, the first and highest genera of the gods, namely the intelligible, immediately places the second, and those having an angelic order, the second genera of the gods, and those having an angelic order. Therefore the intellectual gods, who held the second place in the order of the gods of the intelligible world, are the higher angels themselves. Iamblichus also agrees, who in Sect. 2, Ch. 2, 3 and following, in the first place establishes the intelligible gods. Closest to these approach the archangels, whom the angels follow. And that the archangels hold the second rank of gods he hints not obscurely in Ch. 7, where he discourses on the appearances of the gods, archangels, and angels when they offer themselves to be seen. The gods, he says, have gods or angels standing around them, the archangels take to themselves other angels, etc. For there is no doubt that those gods whom the gods have standing by them are the archangels, whom he places immediately after the intelligible gods. But Ficinus, already cited by us, demonstrates the whole matter most clearly of all in his Commentary on the Symposium, Ch. 3, where, distinguishing a threefold world according to the opinion of Plato, he says: First of all is God, the author of the universe, Whom we call the Good itself. He first creates the angelic mind; next the soul of this world, as Plato wills; lastly the body of the world. The angelic mind is the first world made by God, etc. So certain is it that the intelligible world of the Platonists contains nothing else besides the first cause, fruitful of all forms and species, and the angels. Now that this very same thing is the hypothesis of the Valentinians and of all the Gnostics is manifestly clear. For what else is that first most ancient cause, the higher and more ancient cause which rises above all the gods, than the Proarche, Propator, and Bythus of the Valentinians, pre-existing in invisible and unutterable heights, invisible, everlasting, unbegotten, dwelling in silence and in much quiet through vast intervals of ages, before he sent forth the Aeons? What else are the gods νοητοί, intelligible, the ideas, forms, and exemplars of the paternal mind, after the pattern of which he fashioned all things, than Ennoia, Nus, and Veritas, the root of all things; Nus, I say, the Father and beginning of all things, in whom the supreme Father sent forth all things seminally? What else are the gods of the Platonists νοεροί, intellectual, the contemplators and imitators of the divine ideas, the archangels or higher angels, whom step by step, one from another, they derived,

Editors' notes and page, col. 87

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A φὴν, ὁ δὲ; B καὶ ἀγγελικὴν; C quos immediate; D τία, superior
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: φὴν, ὁ δὲ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of μορ-φὴν from col 86; ends with deri- split to col 88; ascender of d in divini (line 5) uninked

PG 7:88

et quibus, ut vult Plato in Timaeo, mandat Deus, ut ad imitationem sui rerum inferiorum fabricationem aggrediantur; quam haereticorum secundi Aeones, quos omnes in intellectum et desiderium exquisitionis sui Patris adducere vult Nus, quique ad divinae Mentis ideas attenti, volentes et ipsi de suo clarificare Patrem, emittunt emissiones, alios videlicet Aeones, quos in agendo successione quadam ac serie dirigunt, et quorum ministerio suprema rerum exemplaria in condendis rebus exprimi curant? Tanta inter utramque hypothesim affinitas est, ut cum major esse non possit, eadem prorsus esse videatur. Hoc tantum interest, quod altera tota ad profanam gentilium theologiam comparata sit; altera vero Scripturarum ope tantillum ad Christianam theologiam deflexa sit, sed nugis istis ita defoedatam, ut quae cui praeferenda sit, ambigas. Vereor, ne si latius et per partes, quod facile fieri posset, expenderetur utriusque systematis affinitas, longius excurreret oratio : erudito lectori viam aperuisse sufficiat. Interea ex hactenus dictis, ni fallor, concludet, non modo posteriores Valentinianorum Aeones, ipsissimos Platonicorum archangelos fuisse; sed et invisibile et spiritale illud Pleroma a mundo intelligibili Platonis, ut exemplum ab archetypo, manasse. Jam ad alteram Valentiniani systematis partem, nimirum Achamothae fabulam, seu ea quae extra Pleroma contigerunt, sermonem convertamus, tempus est.

and whom, as Plato wills in the Timaeus, God commands to undertake in imitation of Himself the fashioning of lower things, than the second Aeons of the heretics, all of whom Nus wishes to bring into the understanding and desire of seeking out their Father, and who, attentive to the ideas of the divine Mind, wishing also themselves of their own to glorify the Father, send forth emissions, namely other Aeons, whom they direct in acting by a certain succession and series, and by whose ministry they take care that the supreme exemplars of things are expressed in the founding of things? So great is the affinity between each hypothesis that, since a greater cannot exist, it seems to be altogether the very same. There is only this difference, that the one is wholly framed for the profane theology of the heathens, whereas the other, by the help of the Scriptures, has been bent ever so little towards Christian theology, yet so befouled with those trifles that you would doubt which is to be preferred to which. I fear lest, if the affinity of both systems were weighed more at large and part by part, which could easily be done, our discourse would run out too far; let it suffice to have opened the way for the learned reader. Meanwhile from what has been said thus far, unless I am mistaken, he will conclude not only that the later Aeons of the Valentinians were the very archangels of the Platonists, but also that that invisible and spiritual Pleroma flowed from the intelligible world of Plato, as a copy from an archetype. Now it is time that we turn our discourse to the other part of the Valentinian system, namely the fable of Achamoth, or those things which happened outside the Pleroma.

64. Extra Pleroma Sophiae Enthymesin, cum appendice passione relegatam dicebant Valentiniani, in umbra et vacuo, formae, figurae, ac luminis expertem misere jacentem, ubi per necessitatem effervescebat. Postea vero quam ejus auxilio venit superior Christus, ac odore quodam immortalitatis perfudit, forma ei indita secundum substantiam, melior quidem ejus conditio fuit, ita ut rudem indigestamque rerum omnium creatarum molem jam profundere, et aliquantulum secernere coeperit; nondum tamen ab omni calamitate liberata, donec missus ad eam Salvator scientiae formam ei indiderit, et a perturbationum aestu solverit. Latentem sub his aenigmatis Platonicam mundi animam deprehendere haud arduum. Plato, pro eo cui de industria studebat, allegorico ac symbolico philosophandi more, totum hoc universum esse fingebat ζῶον ἔμψυχον καὶ ἔννουν, animal quoddam vivens, ac intelligens, ex corpore et anima concretum. Corporis universi nomine intelligit τὸ ὁρατὸν καὶ ἁπτὸν, materiam quae videri et tangi potest. Quod vero tum ipse, tum discipuli ejus tam magnifico verborum apparatu de anima mundi disserebant, ad illud referebatur, et ex eo decerptum erat quod Gen. I, 2, scriptum legitur : Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas; id est, super informem ac indigestam totius universi materiam, ut ei formam, motum, vitam ac fecunditatem inspiraret. Nempe Plato per spiritum universi, universalem spiritum, animam mundi, sapientiam, virtutem seu efficientiam

64. Outside the Pleroma, the Valentinians said that the Enthymesis of Sophia, banished with her appendages of passion, lay wretchedly in shadow and void, destitute of form, figure, and light, where by necessity she fermented. But after the higher Christ came to her aid, and poured over her a certain odour of immortality, a form having been imparted to her according to substance, her condition was indeed better, so that she already began to pour forth the rude and unordered mass of all created things, and to separate it a little; yet she was not freed from every calamity until the Saviour, sent to her, imparted to her the form of knowledge, and loosed her from the surge of perturbations. To detect the Platonic world-soul lurking beneath these riddles is not difficult. Plato, in accordance with that allegorical and symbolic manner of philosophizing which he studiously pursued, feigned that this whole universe is a living and intelligent creature, a certain living and intelligent animal, compounded of body and soul. By the name of the body of the universe he understands that which is visible and tangible, matter which can be seen and touched. But what both he himself and his disciples discoursed with such a magnificent apparatus of words concerning the soul of the world referred to that, and was plucked from that which is read written in (Gen. 1:2): The Spirit of God moved over the waters; that is, over the formless and unordered matter of the whole universe, that He might breathe into it form, motion, life, and fecundity. Namely, Plato by the spirit of the universe, the universal spirit, the soul of the world, understands the wisdom, power, or efficiency

Editors' notes and page, col. 88

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A vabant, et; B ad Christianam; C 64. Extra; D dustria studebat
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: vabant, et quibus (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of deri-vabant from col 87; ends with efficien- split to col 89

PG 7:89

Dei intelligit, quae cuncta movet, dirigit, ordinat et disponit. Sic enim ipse describit lib. X De leg., pag. 896 : Ψυχὴν ταὐτὸ ὂν, καὶ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν καὶ κίνησιν τῶν τε ὄντων, καὶ γεγονότων, καὶ ἐσομένων, καὶ πάντων αὖ τῶν ἐναντίων τούτοις· ἐπειδή γε ἀνεφάνη μεταβολῆς τε καὶ κινήσεως ἁπάσης αἰτία ἅπασι. Idem esse et animam et primam originem, motumque eorum quae sunt, quae fuerunt, et erunt, omniumque rursus his contrariorum : quandoquidem et mutationis et universi motus omnibus causa est. Et paulo post vocat ψυχὴν διοικοῦσαν καὶ ἐνοικοῦσαν ἐν ἅπασι τοῖς πάντῃ κινομένοις, animam regentem, et in omnibus, quae moventur, inhabitantem. Unde concludit, animam ante corpus exstitisse, corpus vero secundum et post animam natum esse, quandoquidem hoc ab ea regatur et moveatur : quod enim alteri causa motionis est, hoc prius sit necesse est.

of God, which moves, directs, orders, and disposes all things. For thus he himself describes it in Bk. 10 of On the Laws, p. 896: That the soul is the same thing as both the first origin and motion of the things that are, and that have been, and that shall be, and again of all the contraries to these; since indeed it has appeared as the cause to all of all change and motion. That the soul is the same thing as both the first origin and the motion of those things which are, which have been, and which shall be, and again of all things contrary to these: since indeed it is to all the cause both of change and of universal motion. And a little later he calls it the soul governing and indwelling in all things that are moved in every way, the soul ruling, and inhabiting in all things which are moved. Whence he concludes that the soul existed before the body, and that the body was born second and after the soul, seeing that the latter is ruled and moved by the former: for what is to another the cause of motion, this must needs be prior.

65. Porro illam mundi animam non statim perfectam, omnibusque numeris absolutam fuisse censebant Platonici. Nam, ut ait Plato in Timaeo, cum vellet mundi architectus mundum intellectuale animal facere, neque posset intellectus absque medio adesse corpori, conjunxit intellectum quidem animae, animam vero corpori, atque adeo ut medio infuderit mundo, et inde per cuncta diffuderit. Prius ergo condidit animam Deus, nondum proinde perfectam donec intellectu ditaret. Sed rem totam melius et ad propositum nostrum aptius edisserit Ficinus cap. 3, in Conviv. Platonis, ubi Platonicorum sententiam explicat. Principio, inquit, Deus mentis illius creat substantiam, quam etiam essentiam nominamus. Haec in primo illo creationis suae momento informis est et obscura. Quoniam vero a Deo nata est, ad Deum sui principium ingenti quodam appetitu convertitur. Conversa in Deum, ipsius radiis illustratur. Radii illius fulgore ille suus appetitus accenditur. Accensus appetitus Deo totus inhaeret : inhaerendo formatur; nam Deus qui potest omnia, in mente sibi inhaerente creandarum rerum naturas effingit. In ea igitur spiritali quodam modo pinguntur, ut ita loquar, omnia quae in corporibus ipsis sentimus. Illis coelorum, elementorumque globi, sidera, vaporum naturae, lapidum, metallorum, plantarum, animalium formae gignuntur. Hujusmodi rerum omnium species, Dei fomento quodam in suprema illa mente conceptas, ideas esse non dubitamus, etc. Quod hic sub allegoriarum tegumentis traditur, his ambagibus missis clarius et simplicius exponi potuisset. Nempe quam vocant animae substantiam nondum formatam, chaos est, seu materia, quam informem et rudem, certarum figurarum ac motionum expertem condidit Deus; quae tamen, ex legibus ab eo statutis, certis quibusdam formis, motibus ac figuris instrueretur, exigebat. Huic primum vim motricem indidit, quae paulatim sese exserens, eos motus, Deo dirigente, civit, ex quibus materiae partes sic invicem aptatae, compositae, atque ordinatae, ut corporum formae ad superni

65. Moreover, the Platonists held that that soul of the world was not at once perfect and complete in every respect. For, as Plato says in the Timaeus, when the architect of the world wished to make the world an intellectual animal, and intellect could not be present to body without a medium, He joined intellect indeed to soul, and soul to body, and so much so that He poured it into the midst of the world, and thence diffused it through all things. First, therefore, God founded the soul, accordingly not yet perfect until He enriched it with intellect. But Ficinus sets forth the whole matter better and more aptly for our purpose in Ch. 3 on the Symposium of Plato, where he explains the opinion of the Platonists. In the beginning, he says, God creates the substance of that mind, which we also name essence. This in that first moment of its creation is formless and dark. But since it was born from God, it turns by a certain mighty longing towards God its beginning. Turned towards God, it is illumined by His rays. By the brightness of that ray that longing of hers is kindled. The kindled longing cleaves wholly to God: by cleaving it is formed; for God, Who can do all things, fashions in the mind cleaving to Him the natures of the things to be created. In it, therefore, in a certain spiritual manner are painted, so to speak, all the things which we perceive in bodies themselves. By those the globes of the heavens and of the elements, the stars, the natures of vapours, the forms of stones, metals, plants, and animals are begotten. Such species of all things, conceived by a certain fostering of God in that supreme mind, we do not doubt to be ideas, etc. What is here handed down under the wrappings of allegories could, with these circumlocutions set aside, have been expounded more clearly and more simply. Namely, what they call the substance of the soul not yet formed is chaos, or matter, which God founded formless and rude, devoid of definite figures and motions, which nevertheless, according to the laws established by Him, required that it should be furnished with certain definite forms, motions, and figures. Into this He first imparted a motive force, which, gradually putting itself forth, stirred up under God's direction those motions from which the parts of matter were so fitted to one another, compounded, and ordered, that the forms of bodies according to the supernal

Editors' notes and page, col. 89

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A tiam Dei; B animam natum; C Ficinus cap. 3; D tarum, animalium
old-edition numerals: [XLI] after disponit.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: tiam Dei intelligit (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of efficien-tiam from col 88; ends with su- split to col 90

PG 7:90

exemplaris imaginem atque normam prodierint. Idipsum est quod exprimere voluit Plato in Timaeo scribens, mundum ex intellectu et necessitate, seu erratica causa compositum esse, id est ex ipso formarum ordine atque materia. Sic enim animam mundi, seu vim motricem, quam veluti semen quoddam materiae impressit Deus, et ipsam materiam vocat : illam quidem, quoniam intelligentiae divinae simulacrum est : hanc vero, quia non propter seipsam, sed tanquam formis ultimis necessaria est introducta, has vel illas successive sic exceptura, ut nullius tenax sit, sed ad omnes suapte natura indifferens. Possumus quin etiam, inquit Ficinus in Tim. cap. 39, sub necessitatis nomine intelligere non materiam solam, sed animam quoque ejus in primo processionis suae signo velut informem, materiae instar, consideratam. Utraque enim tam anima, quam materia, in primo originis suae signo informis quidem est, sed facile formabilis est per intelligentiae munus : unde et ipsi animae rationes seminaque formarum naturalium infunduntur, et materiae qualitates, atque formae.

exemplar's image and standard came forth. This very thing is what Plato wished to express in the Timaeus, writing that the world is compounded of intellect and necessity, or the erratic cause, that is, of the very order of forms and of matter. For thus he calls the soul of the world, or the motive force which God impressed upon matter like a certain seed, and matter itself: the former indeed, because it is the image of the divine intelligence; the latter, however, because it was introduced not on account of itself, but as necessary for the ultimate forms, about to receive these or those successively in such a way that it is tenacious of none, but by its own nature indifferent to all. Nay more, we can, says Ficinus on the Timaeus, Ch. 39, under the name of necessity understand not matter alone, but its soul also in the first sign of its procession considered as it were formless, after the likeness of matter. For both, soul as well as matter, in the first sign of its origin is indeed formless, but is easily formable through the gift of intelligence: whence both into the soul itself the rational principles and seeds of natural forms are poured, and into matter qualities and forms.

66. In his autem Platonicorum placitis totam Achamothae fabulam plus quam adumbratam nemo non deprehendit. Enthymesi siquidem superioris Sophiae, separatae a superiori Pleromate cum passione, in umbrae et vacuitatis locis effervescenti per necessitatem, extra lumen factae et extra Pleroma, informi et sine specie, quia nihil apprehendit (sic describunt Valentiniani), tanta est cum anima mundi, qualem modo ex Platonicorum sententia descripsimus, affinitas, ut major vix esse possit. Utraque a Dei sapientia et virtute emanat. Utraque primum in chao, seu materia obscura, tenebrosa et incondita delitescit, informis et sine specie, velut fermentescens, ac paulatim vim suam exserens : utraque nihil apprehendit, utrique indita primum forma secundum substantiam tantum, sed non secundum scientiam; quia, etsi initio motus quidam fuit; quia tamen inconditus, vagus, ut ita dicam, inordinatus et indeterminatus; nullam certam speciem aut formam exhibebat : utraque demum divini luminis radios excepit, quia vis motrix atque σπερματικὴ materiae impressa a Deo excitari debuit, ut in actum prorumperet. Quod addunt Valentiniani, Enthymesin jam aliquali immortalitatis odore perfusam, variis perturbationum aestibus, ex quibus varia mundi elementa prodierunt, agitatam fuisse, donec ad Christum conversa, missum Salvatorem exceperit, Patris et Aeonum potestate decoratum, qui eam a perturbationibus liberaret, hasque ab ea secretas commisceret, condensaret, atque ex incorporea affectione in incorpoream materiam immutaret; ineptiae sunt, eo verborum apparatu, qui moveat imperitos, venditatae; quibus id duntaxat innuitur, diversis tum primum perturbatisque motibus agitatum chaos, ad eas demum motionum species, rationes et modos, Deo ordinante, determinatum fuisse, ex quibus partes

66. Now in these tenets of the Platonists everyone detects the whole fable of Achamoth more than sketched out. For the Enthymesis of the higher Sophia, separated from the higher Pleroma with passion, fermenting by necessity in the places of shadow and emptiness, made outside the light and outside the Pleroma, formless and without shape because she apprehended nothing (thus the Valentinians describe her), has so great an affinity with the soul of the world, such as we have just described according to the opinion of the Platonists, that a greater can scarcely exist. Both emanate from the wisdom and power of God. Both at first lie hidden in chaos, or dark, shadowy, and unordered matter, formless and without shape, as it were fermenting, and gradually putting forth their force: both apprehend nothing, into both is imparted at first a form according to substance only, and not according to knowledge; because, although in the beginning there was a certain motion, yet because it was unordered, wandering, so to speak, unarranged and indeterminate, it exhibited no definite shape or form: both at length received the rays of the divine light, because the motive and seminal force impressed upon matter by God had to be aroused in order to burst forth into act. What the Valentinians add—that Enthymesis, already bedewed with some odour of immortality, was tossed by various surges of perturbations, out of which the various elements of the world came forth, until, turned towards Christ, she received the Saviour sent to her, adorned with the power of the Father and of the Aeons, who should free her from the perturbations, and mingle and condense these separated from her, and change them from an incorporeal affection into incorporeal matter—are absurdities peddled with such an apparatus of words as to move the unlearned; by which this alone is hinted, that chaos, agitated just then at first by diverse and disordered motions, was at length under God's ordering determined to those species, principles, and modes of motion from which the parts

Editors' notes and page, col. 90

Page

running head: I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO.
marginal letters: A perni exemplaris; B mine intelligere; C dit (sic; D trix atque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: perni exemplaris imaginem (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of su-perni from col 89

PG 7:91

sibi repugnantes ab invicem discedentes, cognatae secum coalescentes, variis rerum formis in lucem edendis aptae fierent. Cur ea materia incorporea tum a Valentinianis, tum a Platonicis dicatur, exposuimus in notis lib. I, cap. 4, n. 5. Sed quae Platonis sententiam exponens refert Laertius pag. 208, quia mire quae hactenus diximus confirmant, referre non pigebit. Aiebat nimirum Plato εἶναι δὲ τὴν ὕλην ἀσχημάτιστον καὶ ἄπειρον, ἐξ ἧς γίνεσθαι τὰ συγκρίματα. Ἀτάκτως δέ ποτε κινουμένην, ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ φησιν εἰς ἕνα συναχθῆναι τόπον, τάξιν ἀταξίας κρείττονα ἡγησαμένου. Esse materiam informem et infinitam, ex qua concretiones fiant. Ea cum aliquando temere et inordinate moveretur, a Deo ait in unum locum coactam, quod ordinem temeritati praestare censuerit. Confer, si lubet, Platonem in Timaeo. Idipsum aliis verborum involucris tegere Ophitis et Sethianis animus erat, dum aiebant, Sophiam descendentem in aquas, petulanter eas movisse et assumpsisse ex eis corpus : humectationi enim luminis ejus omnia accurrisse, et adhaesisse, et caetera ejusmodi delirantium hominum commenta, quae a Valentinianis penes ineptiae modum, non penes ipsam rem differunt. In hoc vero utrique Platonicis stolidiores exstiterunt, quod hi animam mundi a Deo ipso tanquam principio, et mundo tanquam subjecto, re distinxisse non videantur; illi vero Enthymesin suam ab utroque sic distinxerint et separaverint, ut in substantiam quamdam per se subsistentem, ac secundarium quoddam Deitatis genus transformarint.

repugnant to one another departing from each other, and those akin coalescing with themselves, might become fit for bringing forth into the light the various forms of things. Why that matter is called incorporeal both by the Valentinians and by the Platonists, we have set forth in the notes on Bk. 1, Ch. 4, n. 5. But the things which Laertius relates on p. 208 in expounding the opinion of Plato, because they wonderfully confirm what we have said thus far, it will not be irksome to relate. Namely, Plato used to say that matter is unshaped and infinite, out of which compounds come to be; and that when it once moved without order, he says it was gathered together by God into one place, inasmuch as He deemed order better than disorder. That matter is formless and infinite, out of which compounds come to be. When it once moved at random and without order, he says that it was gathered by God into one place, because He judged order to excel randomness. Compare, if you please, Plato in the Timaeus. To cover this very thing with other wrappings of words was the intention of the Ophites and Sethians, when they said that Sophia, descending into the waters, wantonly moved them and took a body from them: for all things ran up to the moisture of her light and clave to it, and other such figments of raving men, which differ from the Valentinians in the manner of their absurdity, not in the thing itself. In this, however, both proved more foolish than the Platonists, that the latter do not seem to have distinguished in reality the soul of the world from God Himself as beginning, and from the world as subject; whereas the former so distinguished and separated their Enthymesis from both that they transformed her into a certain substance subsisting by itself, and a certain secondary kind of Deity.

67. Achamothae fabulam excipit mundi hujus aspectabilis origo, constitutio et ordinatio, quam fusius exponit Irenaeus, et nos ex ipso compendio superius descripsimus. Summa huc redit, primum omnium ab Achamota conditum Demiurgum ex animali substantia, caetera omnia deinceps fabricatum fuisse, tum coelestia, tum terrena, tum animalia, tum sensu et vita destituta, Angelos, Archangelos, Cosmocratorem seu diabolum, et daemonia, septem coelos, quos intelligentia praeditos, imo et Angelos esse volebant, Hominem demum ex triplici substantia concretum. Caecus tamen et inscius quid ageret, tanta haec molitus est Demiurgus : at clam dirigebat Mater Achamoth, hanc vero Salvator, ut cuncta ad imaginem invisibilis Pleromatis efficerentur. Sedes Demiurgo constituta supra septimum coelum; Mater superiorem locum, medium videlicet, quod inter Pleroma et mundum visibilem intercedit, spatium occupabat. In quibus omnibus luce meridiana clarius iterum relucent Platonicorum aliorumque veterum philosophorum dogmata. E molestissimae quaestionis, unde malum? ambagibus expedire sese cum nequirent plures e vetustioribus philosophis, existimarunt, Plutarcho teste in Is. et Osir., duos esse deos καθάπερ ἀντιτέχνους, quasi contrariis artibus deditos, alterum bonorum,

67. The fable of Achamoth is followed by the origin, constitution, and ordering of this visible world, which Irenaeus sets forth more at large, and which we have described above in summary from him. The sum comes back to this, that first of all the Demiurge was founded by Achamoth out of animal substance, and thereafter fashioned all other things, both heavenly and earthly, both animate and destitute of sense and life, Angels, Archangels, the Cosmocrator or devil, and demons, seven heavens, which they wished to be endowed with intelligence, nay even to be Angels, and finally Man compounded of a threefold substance. Yet blind and ignorant of what he was doing, the Demiurge contrived these so great things: but in secret Mother Achamoth directed him, and the Saviour directed her, that all things might be wrought after the image of the invisible Pleroma. The seat appointed for the Demiurge was above the seventh heaven; the Mother occupied the higher place, namely the middle space which intervenes between the Pleroma and the visible world. In all of which there shine forth again more clearly than the midday light the dogmas of the Platonists and of the other ancient philosophers. Since many of the more ancient philosophers were unable to extricate themselves from the perplexities of that most troublesome question, Whence is evil?, they supposed, as Plutarch testifies in On Isis and Osiris, that there are two gods as it were rival artificers, devoted as it were to contrary arts, the one of good things,

Editors' notes and page, col. 91

Footnotes

(76**) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 91 Iren., lib. I, cap. 30.

Irenaeus, book 1, ch. 30.

(printed under page 52)

(77) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 91

Lib. III, cap. 12, n. 13.

Book 3, ch. 12, no. 13.

(printed under page 52)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A sibi repugnantes; B praestare censuerit; C tiam quamdam; D dirigebat Mater
old-edition numerals: [XLII] after ex
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: sibi repugnantes ab invicem (Massuet, Diss. I)

PG 7:92

alterum malorum fabricatorem. Illum bonum deum et Oromazen, hunc daemona et Arimanium appellabat Zoroaster; illum e purissima luce, hunc e tenebris et ignorantia genitum : a primo bonos, a secundo malos deos genitos esse volebat, et inter hos alium deum intermedium nomine Mithram exsistere. Has impurissimas repetiere lacunas tum Marcionitae, tum Gnostici veteres, ut inde duplex rerum principium, alterum bonum, alterum malum, alterum alteri perpetuo insidiantem et adversantem excitarent. Valentiniani vero, ut portentosi dogmatis invidiam declinarent, nominibus quidem honestius utebantur, ut loquitur Irenaeus; neque enim Deum malorum effectorem aperte profitebantur : at revera venenum crudius sorbebant, ut ostendit idem Irenaeus, dum rerum conditorem ex eu labe, quae extra Pleroma emissa est, temerario videlicet et supra modum audaci Sophiae facinore genitum, ac ignorantiae, caecarum nempe Achamothae perturbationum fructum esse asserebant. Nam Deum malum auctorem mali, et Deum caecum et ignorantem inducere, ejusdem sceleris esse videtur; imo hoc altero gravius. Neque enim Deus iste caecus a se est, sed ab Achamotha conditus est, dirigente Salvatore, quem vicissim regunt et inspirant tum supremus Pater, tum caeteri Aeones; ac proinde ignorantia, malorum omnium fomes et radix, et mala ipsa, quae inde pullulant, in summum Deum refunduntur. Sicque recrudescit pestiferum virus, quod e corruptis philosophorum lacubus haustum emollire conantur Valentiniani.

the other the framer of evil things. The former Zoroaster called the good god and Oromazes, the latter the demon and Arimanius; the former begotten from the purest light, the latter from darkness and ignorance: from the first he wished the good gods to have been begotten, from the second the evil gods, and between these another intermediate god by the name of Mithras to exist. Both the Marcionites and the ancient Gnostics resorted to these most impure ditches, that thence they might raise up a twofold principle of things, the one good, the other evil, the one perpetually lying in wait for and opposing the other. The Valentinians, however, in order to avoid the odium of this monstrous dogma, used names indeed more honourably, as Irenaeus says; for they did not openly profess God to be the producer of evils: yet in reality they drank the poison more rawly, as the same Irenaeus shows, when they asserted that the founder of things was begotten from that stain which was sent forth outside the Pleroma, namely from the rash and beyond measure audacious deed of Sophia, and was the fruit of ignorance, namely of the blind perturbations of Achamoth. For to bring in an evil God as the author of evil, and a blind and ignorant God, seems to be of the same wickedness; nay, the latter is heavier than the former. For neither is that blind God from himself, but he was founded by Achamoth under the direction of the Saviour, whom in turn both the supreme Father and the rest of the Aeons rule and inspire; and accordingly ignorance, the tinder and root of all evils, and the evils themselves which sprout thence, are poured back upon the supreme God. And thus breaks out afresh the pestiferous venom which, drawn from the corrupt tanks of the philosophers, the Valentinians endeavour to soften.

68. Eo usque desipuisse Platonicos, ut duos deos, alterum bonorum, alterum malorum auctorem fingerent, non legimus : imo quamlibet aliam, praeter Deum, malorum causam esse quaerendam constanter asseruerunt. Verumtamen est quod dum rerum inferiorum creandarum et administrandarum provinciam angelis demandabant, aliis postmodum offensionis ansam praebuerint. Id innuere videtur Plato, cum in Timaeo Deum filios suos, id est inferiores angelos adhortantem inducit, ut ad imitationem sui, mistionem sub luna rerum aggrediantur, hominique subjiciant omnia, ac rationalem ejus animam ab ipso acceptam corpori caduco infundant. Quod expendens simul et refellens Augustinus lib. XII De civit. Dei, cap. 26, scribit, Platonem minores, et a summo Deo factos deos, effectores esse voluisse animalium caeterorum, ut immortalem partem ab ipso sumerent, ipsi vero mortalem attexerent. Proinde animarum nostrarum eos creatores esse noluisse, sed corporum. Sed Platonis praeceptoris mentem clarius expressit Proclus lib. V, cap. 29, ubi sic distinguit : mundum indigere Deo Patre, ὡς ὑποστάτου τῶν ὅλων, καὶ γεννήτορος, tanquam fundatore a quo fulciatur, et genitore : τὸ δὲ γεννᾷν, καὶ παράγειν, καὶ τὸ προνοεῖν, θεῶν ἐστιν ἴδιον, καθόσον εἰσὶ θεοί. Ipsum vero generare,

68. That the Platonists were so foolish as to feign two gods, the one the author of good things, the other of evil things, we do not read: nay, they constantly asserted that any other cause of evils besides God must be sought. Nevertheless it is true that while they committed the province of creating and administering lower things to the angels, they afterwards afforded a handle of offence to others. Plato seems to hint at this when in the Timaeus he introduces God exhorting His sons, that is, the lower angels, that in imitation of Himself they should undertake the mingling of things beneath the moon, and subject all things to man, and pour his rational soul, received from Himself, into a perishable body. Weighing and at the same time refuting this, Augustine in Bk. 12 of On the City of God, Ch. 26, writes that Plato wished the lesser gods, made by the supreme God, to be the producers of the rest of living beings, so that they should take the immortal part from Him, while they themselves wove on the mortal part; and that accordingly he did not wish them to be the creators of our souls, but of our bodies. But Proclus expressed the mind of his master Plato more clearly in Bk. 5, Ch. 29, where he thus distinguishes: that the world stands in need of God the Father as the sustainer of the universe, and begetter, as the founder by Whom it is supported, and begetter: whereas to beget, and to bring forth, and to exercise providence, is proper to the gods, inasmuch as they are gods. But to beget,

Editors' notes and page, col. 92

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A alterum malorum; B ostendit idem; C ferum virus; D caduco infundant
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: alterum malorum fabricatorem (Massuet, Diss. I); ends with ge- split to col 93

PG 7:93

et producere et providere, deorum esse proprium, quatenus sunt dii. Primam quidem causam esse Deum Patrem, quatenus exemplaria rerum formas continentia, quibus dirigantur dii, ministrat; at τὸ γεννητικὸν, καὶ ὑποστατικὸν ἄλλων, καὶ προνοητικὸν αὐτοῖς διαφέρειν τοῖς θεοῖς, ipsam generandi vim, et ipsam aliarum causam fundatricem, et ipsam providendi facultatem ad ipsos deos maxime pertinere. Consentit Sallustius philosophus lib. De diis et mundo, cap. 6 : Deorum, inquit, alii mundani, alii supermundani. Τῶν δὲ θεῶν, οἱ μέν εἰσιν ἐγκόσμιοι, οἱ δὲ ὑπερκόσμιοι. Ἐγκοσμίους δὲ λέγω, αὐτοὺς τοὺς τὸν κόσμον ποιοῦντας θεούς. Τῶν δὲ ὑπερκοσμίων, οἱ μὲν οὐσίας ποιοῦσι θεῶν, οἱ δὲ νοῦν, οἱ δὲ ψυχάς. Mundanos dico eos, qui mundum condunt, deos. Supermundanorum vero alii deorum substantias, alii mentem, alii animas efficiunt. Ideoque, pergit, trino ordine discriminantur. Mundanorum hi condunt mundum, alii eumdem animant, alii ex variis diversisque compactum adaptant, alii adaptatum custodiunt. Quod vero dii illi tum mundani, tum supermundani primo Deo longe inferiores sint, docet cap. praeced. ubi ait, τὴν πρώτην αἰτίαν μίαν εἶναι, primam causam unam esse. Παντὸς γὰρ πλήθους, inquit, ἡγεῖται μονὰς, δυνάμει τε καὶ ἀγαθότητι πάντα νικᾷ· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πάντα μετέχειν ἐκείνης ἀνάγκη. Multitudini namque universae praeest unitas, potentia et bonitate omnia superans; ideoque omnibus communicari necesse est. Eademque Jamblichi sententia est, sect. V, cap. 9. Tum cap. 14 deos sic partitur, ut alii sint materiales, alii immateriales. Materiales vocat eos, qui licet a materia maxime separabiles sint, eam immateriali sua potentia comprehendunt et exornant, eique adsunt, ac dominantur, et una cum ea existunt. Immateriales appellat eos, qui omnino a materia liberi sunt, eique longe praecellunt. Omnem autem rerum humanarum administrationem ad deos materiales pertinere vult, non ad immateriales (nisi quatenus hi deos materiales eorumque potentias in se, tanquam causa una et prima, complectuntur), quia, administratio haec particularis est, et admistum habet quoddam anxietatis genus, neque omnino a corporibus segregata est, nec capere potest liquidam et imperturbatam gubernationem. Quare sect. II, diversis deorum inferiorum generibus et ordinibus diversas in administratione mundi, perinde atque Sallustius, stationes, officia et functiones assignat. Sic pariter et Ficinus in Critiam Platonis, deos in supercoelestes, coelestes et subcoelestes ex Platonicorum sententia partitur; primis amplissimam providentiam, secundis minus amplam, posterioribus ad angustiora redactam tribuit, utpote qui certis terrae plagis rerumque generibus divina distributione praesint : quemadmodum et coelestes alii aliis coeli partibus, sphaeris et stellis praeponuntur. Ex quibus omnibus liquido certum est, Platonem ejusque discipulos non existimasse primum principium per

and to bring forth, and to exercise providence, is proper to the gods, inasmuch as they are gods. That the first cause indeed is God the Father, inasmuch as He supplies the exemplars containing the forms of things, by which the gods are directed; whereas the generative, and the sustaining of others, and the providential belongs to the gods themselves, the very power of begetting, and the very founding cause of other things, and the very faculty of exercising providence pertains most of all to the gods themselves. Sallustius the philosopher agrees in his book On the Gods and the World, Ch. 6: Of the gods, he says, some are mundane, others supermundane. Now of the gods, some are mundane, and others supermundane. By mundane I mean those very gods who make the world. And of the supermundane, some make the substances of the gods, others mind, and others souls. I call mundane those gods who found the world. Of the supermundane, however, some produce the substances of the gods, others mind, others souls. And therefore, he continues, they are distinguished in a threefold order. Of the mundane, these found the world, others animate the same, others fit it together compacted out of various and diverse things, others guard it when fitted together. Now that those gods, both mundane and supermundane, are far inferior to the first God, he teaches in the preceding chapter, where he says that the first cause is one, that the first cause is one. For over every multitude, he says, presides a monad, surpassing all things in power and goodness; and on account of this all things must needs partake of it. For over the whole multitude presides unity, surpassing all things in power and goodness; and therefore it must needs be communicated to all things. And the same is the opinion of Iamblichus, Sect. V, Ch. 9. Then in Ch. 14 he so divides the gods that some are material, others immaterial. Material he calls those who, although they are most separable from matter, encompass and adorn it by their immaterial power, and are present to it, and rule over it, and exist together with it. Immaterial he calls those who are altogether free from matter, and far excel it. Now he wishes the whole administration of human affairs to pertain to the material gods, not to the immaterial (except insofar as the latter embrace the material gods and their powers in themselves, as the one and first cause), because this administration is particular, and has mingled with it a certain kind of anxiety, and is not altogether separated from bodies, nor can it admit of a clear and undisturbed governance. Wherefore in Sect. II, to the different kinds and orders of the lower gods he assigns, just like Sallustius, different stations, offices, and functions in the administration of the world. So likewise Ficinus also, on the Critias of Plato, divides the gods into supercelestial, celestial, and subcelestial according to the opinion of the Platonists; to the first he attributes the amplest providence, to the second a less ample, to the last one reduced to narrower limits, as those who by divine distribution preside over definite regions of the earth and kinds of things: just as the celestial also are set some over some parts of heaven, spheres, and stars, and others over others. From all of which it is clearly certain that Plato and his disciples did not suppose that the first principle by

Editors' notes and page, col. 93

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A nerare, et; B mundum condunt; C Tum cap. 14; D est, nec
old-edition numerals: [XLIII] after et
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: nerare, et producere (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of ge-nerare from col 92

PG 7:94

se creavisse res conditas; sed id quod secundo post illud loco constitutum est, angelos videlicet. Hinc Numenius apud Eusebium, lib. XI Praep. evangel., cap. 18, Platoni haec verba tribuit : O homines, quem vos arbitramini primum Deum, mundi opificem, non est primus, sed est adhuc eo superior. Cui effato concinit oraculum istud :

itself created the things that were founded; but that which was established in the second place after it, namely the angels. Hence Numenius in Eusebius, Bk. 11 of the Preparation for the Gospel, Ch. 18, attributes these words to Plato: O men, he whom you deem the first God, the artificer of the world, is not the first, but there is one still higher than he. With which utterance agrees that oracle:

Πάντα γὰρ ἐξετέλεσσε Πατὴρ καὶ νῷ παρέδωκε Δευτέρῳ, ὃν πρῶτον κληΐζετ' ἅπαν γένος ἀνδρῶν. Omnia siquidem perfecit Pater, et menti tradidit Secundae, quam primum Deum vocat omne hominum genus.

For the Father perfected all things, and delivered them to the Second Mind, whom the whole race of men calls the first God. For the Father perfected all things, and delivered them to the Second Mind, whom the whole race of men calls the first God.

Quod exponens Psellus ait, Mentem secundam vocari ab hominibus Deum primum, quod, nesciant Patrem supremum.

Expounding which, Psellus says that the second Mind is called by men the first God, because they do not know the supreme Father.

69. Ab his fontibus effluxit communis Gnosticorum omnium sententia, Angelis tum creandi, tum regendi mundi munus impositum fuisse. Nec secus sensere Valentiniani. Quamvis enim Demiurgum, Deum et Patrem interdum nominarent, revera tamen intra naturae angelicae limites concludebant. Demiurgum et ipsum angelum esse dicunt, Deo similem, inquit Irenaeus lib. I, cap. 5, n. 2, et lib. II, cap. 8, n. 3. Nec minus aperte scribit lib. IV, c. 1, n. 1, hanc esse Valentinianorum mentem, Demiurgum naturaliter neque Deum, neque Patrem esse, sed verbo tenus dici, eo quod dominetur conditioni. Quod et idem de Enthymesi seu Achamoth dicendum. Et hinc est quod sanctus doctor haec haereticorum deliria confutans libro II nullatenus inter Valentinianos caeterosque Gnosticos distinguit; sed probare satis esse sibi censuit mundum non ab angelis, aut archangelis, sed ab uno et eodem Deo et Patre conditum fuisse. Commune vero tum philosophis, tum haereticis isthaec asserendi principium fuit, Deum summum et Patrem ignotum ac invisibilem esse ac mansisse, nec per rerum creationem seipsum manifestando prodidisse : aliis existimantibus Dei majestatem haud decere, ut ad rerum inferiorum curam per seipsum suscipiendam sese demitteret; aliis timentibus, ne mala quibus labefactatur orbis, in ipsum refunderentur, si hunc ipse regeret creavissetque. Hinc sponte fluebat, orbis regimen et creationem alterius cujuspiam a Deo Patre opus et effectum esse : cumque neutri ullam aliam ultra hunc sive personam, sive naturam intelligentem nossent quam angelicam, in hanc operis molem recumbere voluerunt. Quae prava inde enascantur consectaria, paulo post referemus.

69. From these founts flowed out the common opinion of all the Gnostics, that upon the Angels was laid the office both of creating and of ruling the world. Nor did the Valentinians think otherwise. For although they sometimes named the Demiurge God and Father, yet in reality they confined him within the limits of the angelic nature. They say that the Demiurge himself also is an angel, like unto God, says Irenaeus in Bk. 1, Ch. 5, n. 2, and Bk. 2, Ch. 8, n. 3. And no less openly does he write in Bk. 4, Ch. 1, n. 1, that this is the mind of the Valentinians, that the Demiurge is by nature neither God nor Father, but is called so as far as the word goes, because he rules over creation. And the very same must be said of Enthymesis or Achamoth. And hence it is that the holy doctor, in refuting these ravings of the heretics in Bk. 2, makes no distinction at all between the Valentinians and the rest of the Gnostics; but deemed it enough for himself to prove that the world was founded not by angels or archangels, but by one and the same God and Father. Now the common principle both for the philosophers and for the heretics in asserting these things was that the supreme God and Father is and has remained unknown and invisible, and has not disclosed Himself by manifesting Himself through the creation of things: some supposing that it did not beseem the majesty of God to lower Himself to undertake by Himself the care of lower things; others fearing lest the evils by which the world is shaken should be poured back upon Him, if He Himself ruled and had created it. Hence it flowed of its own accord that the governance and creation of the world was the work and effect of someone else than God the Father: and since neither knew any other intelligent either person or nature beyond Him than the angelic, they wished the weight of the work to rest upon this. What perverse consequences spring up thence, we shall relate a little later.

70. Interim, quod mundum hunc inferiorem ad superioris, seu Pleromatis imaginem effictum dicebant Valentiniani, alterum doctrinae Platonicae caput est, quod in suam hypothesim transtulerunt. Notissimum quippe, nec semel a nobis jam dictum, invisibilem seu idealem Platonis mundum, rerum omnium ideas et formas a Dei mente conceptas continere; quas quidem supremus Pater angelorum opificum mentibus insculpit, et quasi oculis objicit, ut ad illius archetypi exemplum mundum hunc inferiorem

70. Meanwhile, that the Valentinians said this lower world was fashioned after the image of the higher, or of the Pleroma, is another head of Platonic doctrine which they transferred into their own hypothesis. For it is most well known, and has been said by us more than once already, that the invisible or ideal world of Plato contains the ideas and forms of all things conceived by the mind of God; which indeed the supreme Father engraves upon the minds of the artificer angels, and sets as it were before their eyes, that after the pattern of that archetype they may fashion this lower

Editors' notes and page, col. 94

Page

running head: I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO.
marginal letters: A se creavisse; B 69. Ab his; C nianos caeterosque; D opus et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: se creavisse res conditas (Massuet, Diss. I); [genus. printed as verse turn-over below omne hominum; ends with in- split to col 95

PG 7:95

efforment : et eapropter scripsit Tertullianus in lib. De anima, cap. 17, in ideis Platonicis relucere haeretica semina Gnosticorum et Valentinianorum. Angeli etiam et Archangeli, quos creat haereticorum Demiurgus, angeli seu dii mundani sunt, quos a superioribus progenitos esse, multiplici ordine, serie et successione, statuebant Platonici. Ut enim Archangelos diis, sic Angelos Archangelis, Angelis heroes, heroibus animas subjiciebant. Animatos item septem planetarum, aliarumque stellarum orbes, et intellectu praeditos, imo et Angelos esse, aeque ac Valentiniani, sustinebant; non quidem ratione formae informantis, sed assistentis, ut loquuntur in scholis; vel, ut exponebant Valentiniani, non re, sed virtute; quatenus unicuique coelo et sideri praefectus adest Angelus, qui motus hujus regat ac moderetur, ut passim explicant Platonici. Hosque septem planetarum orbibus praefectos Angelos, septem Κοσμοκράτορας esse puta, de quibus Damascius : quanquam ipse Κοσμοκρατόρων ordinem duplicem esse velit; alii siquidem mundum superiorem, seu coelestem, alii inferiorem moderantur : quod et ipsum Jamblichus sect. II innuit, ubi Archontas duplices distinguit, alios superiores, alios inferiores. Ex horum numero fuisse videtur ille Valentinianorum Cosmocrator seu diabolus, omnisque malorum daemonum caterva, quam spiritalem malitiam vocabant, quamque a Demiurgo ex Achamothae tristitia conditam asserebant. Cur vero hoc interesse vellent Demiurgum inter et Cosmocratora, quod hic ea quae sunt super eum intelligeret, alter ignoraret, haud facile quisquam dixerit. Hanc quidem rationem afferunt, quod Demiurgus animalis sit, diabolus vero spiritalis nequitia; sed rem implicat potius, quam explicat. Qui enim ex animali Demiurgo prodire potuerit Cosmocrator, qui, si non natura, saltem intelligentia superior sit : et qui ex tristitia Matris Achamoth condi potuerit spiritalis Angelus, ex ejusdem conversione animalis tantum, non video, nec quidquam, quo nodum hunc solvam, ministrat Platonica philosophia. Illud duntaxat ex Porphyrio in Epist. ad Anebonem erui potest, hoc daemones bonos a malis discrepare, quod illi animae sint spiritui adjunctae, sed spiritum ratione superantes, corpusque harmonica proportione compositum cum habeant, in beneficia natura sua proclives sint; hi vero animae sint spiritui adjunctae, sed ei ratione cedentes, corpusque inconcinne compositum et male affectum sortiti, irae et cupidinum impetu feruntur, quibus ad mala omnibus inferenda instigantur. Nempe id discrimen esse volebat deos inter et daemones, sive bonos, sive malos, seu inter angelos superiores et inferiores, quod primi impatibiles essent et intelligentiae purae, alii vero mentis participes et animales. Jam enim in Platonicorum scholis obtinebat ea sententia,

world: and on that account Tertullian wrote in his book On the Soul, Ch. 17, that in the Platonic ideas shine forth the heretical seeds of the Gnostics and Valentinians. The Angels also and Archangels whom the Demiurge of the heretics creates are the mundane angels or gods, whom the Platonists held to have been begotten by the higher ones in a manifold order, series, and succession. For as they subjected the Archangels to the gods, so they subjected the Angels to the Archangels, the heroes to the Angels, and souls to the heroes. Likewise they maintained, equally with the Valentinians, that the orbs of the seven planets and of the other stars are animate and endowed with intellect, nay even are Angels; not indeed by reason of an informing form, but of an assisting one, as they speak in the schools; or, as the Valentinians expounded, not in reality, but in power; inasmuch as an Angel is present set over each heaven and star, to rule and govern its motion, as the Platonists everywhere explain. And reckon these Angels set over the orbs of the seven planets to be the seven Cosmocrators of whom Damascius speaks: although he himself wishes the order of Cosmocrators to be twofold, since some govern the higher or celestial world, others the lower: which very thing Iamblichus also hints in Sect. 2, where he distinguishes twofold Archons, some higher, others lower. Of their number seems to have been that Cosmocrator or devil of the Valentinians, and the whole troop of evil demons, which they called spiritual malice, and which they asserted was founded by the Demiurge out of the sadness of Achamoth. Why, however, they wished there to be this difference between the Demiurge and the Cosmocrator, that the latter understood the things which are above him, while the former was ignorant of them, hardly anyone could easily say. They allege indeed this reason, that the Demiurge is animal, whereas the devil is spiritual wickedness; but this entangles the matter rather than explains it. For how out of the animal Demiurge could come forth the Cosmocrator, who, if not in nature, at least in intelligence is superior; and how out of the sadness of Mother Achamoth could be founded a spiritual Angel, and out of the conversion of the very same an animal one only, I do not see, nor does the Platonic philosophy supply anything whereby I may loose this knot. This alone can be drawn out of Porphyry in his Epistle to Anebo, that good demons differ from evil ones in this, that the former are souls joined to spirit, yet overcoming the spirit by reason, and since they have a body compounded in harmonious proportion, they are by their nature inclined to good deeds; whereas the latter are souls joined to spirit, yet yielding to it in reason, and having obtained a body uncouthly compounded and ill-disposed, they are carried away by the impulse of wrath and desires, by which they are instigated to inflict evils upon all. Namely, he wished there to be this difference between gods and demons, whether good or evil, or between the higher and lower angels, that the first were impassible and of pure intelligence, while the others were partakers of mind and animal. For already in the schools of the Platonists that opinion prevailed,

Editors' notes and page, col. 95

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A feriorem efforment; B unicuique coelo; C ditam asserebant; D sint spiritui
old-edition numerals: [XLIV] after inferenda
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: feriorem efforment (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of in-feriorem from col 94

PG 7:96

duplex daemonum genus, bonorum videlicet et malorum, esse statuendum. Secus sentiebant Pythagoras aliique veteres, quibus aliud daemonum genus, quam ἁγνῶν, purorum et beneficorum, haud agnitum fuisse probant ea carmina, quae vulgo Pythagorae ascribuntur. At cum Plato in Timaeo et alibi placitum istud aut induxisset, aut recens natum confirmasset, in daemonum ordinem referendas esse animas heroum, id est eorum hominum, qui tum beneficentia ac liberalitate erga patriam, tum justitia ac pietate prae caeteris excelluerant; hinc ad amplificandam daemonum turbam aditum sibi cito patefecere adulatio et timor. Quicunque enim viri potentes popularibus suis formidolosi vixerant, vel qualibet alia ratione nomen sibi inter suos fecerant, licet impuram flagitiosamque vitam duxissent, mortui facile invenerunt et adulatores, qui eos in heroum ac daemonum numero collocarent, atque sacra decernerent, et ignavos ac timidos homines, qui sic collocatorum memoriam divinis honoribus celebrarent. Sed cum ridicula illa faciliorque apotheosis, qua scelestis mortalibus sacra interdum decernebantur, invicta adversus ethnicam religionem argumenta Christianis suppeditaret; horum vim atque pondus ut declinarent philosophi, duplex daemonum heroumque genus statuere coacti sunt, alterum beneficum, maleficum alterum et malesuadum; illis quidem fieri sacra honoris ac religionis causa, et ut opitulentur; istis vero cautionis ac provisionis gratia, ne noceant. Sic fere rem explicant Jamblichus et alii. Is vero licet non neget daemones quosdam natura malos esse et improbos, qui tamen a natura ita constituti sint diserte satis non explicat; at quod ad alteram quaestionis partem attinet, daemones scilicet omnes corporeos esse et animales, fatetur id ita plerisque philosophorum videri, hancque communiorem esse sententiam, sibi tamen non probari. Et revera multorum philosophorum opinionem fuisse docet Plutarchus in libro De placit. philosoph. Litem dirimere nostri non est instituti; sed observare sufficiat, quod consilium nostrum fuit, ab hac philosophorum opinione Valentinianorum Demiurgum animalem, et forte etiam catervam illam spiritalis nequitiae fluxisse.

that a twofold kind of demons, namely of good and of evil, must be established. Otherwise thought Pythagoras and the other ancients, by whom no other kind of demons than the pure, the pure and beneficent, was acknowledged, as those verses prove which are commonly ascribed to Pythagoras. But when Plato in the Timaeus and elsewhere had either introduced this tenet, or confirmed it when newly born, that into the order of demons are to be referred the souls of heroes, that is, of those men who had excelled beyond the rest both in beneficence and liberality towards their fatherland, and in justice and piety; hence flattery and fear quickly laid open for themselves an entrance for enlarging the crowd of demons. For whatever powerful men had lived dreadful to their fellow-citizens, or in any other way had made a name for themselves among their own, even though they had led an impure and shameful life, when dead easily found both flatterers to place them in the number of heroes and demons and decree sacred rites, and cowardly and fearful men to celebrate the memory of those thus placed with divine honours. But since that ridiculous and all too easy apotheosis, whereby sacred rites were sometimes decreed to wicked mortals, supplied invincible arguments to the Christians against the heathen religion; in order to avoid their force and weight, the philosophers were compelled to establish a twofold kind of demons and heroes, the one beneficent, the other maleficent and ill-advising; saying that sacred rites are performed to the former indeed for the sake of honour and religion, and that they may bring help, but to the latter for the sake of caution and foresight, lest they do harm. Thus nearly do Iamblichus and others explain the matter. He, however, although he does not deny that certain demons are by nature evil and wicked, yet does not explain clearly enough how they are so constituted by nature; while as regards the other part of the question, namely that all demons are corporeal and animal, he confesses that it seems so to most of the philosophers, and that this is the more common opinion, yet that it is not approved by himself. And that in reality it was the opinion of many philosophers Plutarch teaches in his book On the Opinions of the Philosophers. To settle the dispute is not part of our undertaking; but let it suffice to observe, what was our design, that from this opinion of the philosophers flowed the animal Demiurge of the Valentinians, and perhaps also that troop of spiritual wickedness.

71. Nec vero in eo solum haeretici istis veteribus philosophis assentiebantur, quod Demiurgum suum, caeterosque inferiores angelos animales esse vellent, sed et in eo quod illi sedem in medietate, ut loquebantur, assignarent. Idem quippe de daemonibus sensisse Platonem, extra omnem dubitationis aleam positum. Cujus quidem assertionis hanc affert rationem in Convivio; quod cum dii superiores et homines natura maxime distent, daemones interjici debeant, qui medium locum impleant, et distantes conjungant; idque non solum natura, sed muneris functione etiam praestent, interpretando

71. Nor indeed did the heretics agree with those ancient philosophers in this alone, that they wished their Demiurge and the rest of the lower angels to be animal, but also in this, that they assigned to him a seat in the midst, as they used to speak. For that Plato thought the same concerning demons is placed beyond all hazard of doubt. Of which assertion indeed he alleges this reason in the Symposium: that since the higher gods and men are most distant in nature, demons ought to be interposed to fill the middle place and join the distant; and that they perform this not only by nature, but also by the discharge of their office, being interpreting

Editors' notes and page, col. 96

Footnotes

(78) ‹anchor: explicant Jamblichus› · call in col 96

Sect I, cap. 15 et 16.

Section 1, chs. 15 and 16.

(printed under page 54)

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A duplex daemonum; B ter suos; C vero cautionis; D ritalis nequitiae
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: duplex daemonum genus (Massuet, Diss. I); ends with in- split to col 97

PG 7:97

et trajiciendo humana ad deos, et divina ad homines; videlicet, deorum monita et praecepta ad nos, preces et sacrificia nostra ad illos. Ex quo sequebatur eos vaticiniorum omnium et prophetiarum auctores esse, quas pro suo quisque modo, affectu et natura inspirabat. Huic Platonis sententiae omnes Academici sequentibus saeculis semper assensere, ut Plutarchus in lib. De defectu orac., Apuleius in libro De deo Socratis, Jamblichus, Proclus et alii. Sic pariter humana cum divinis consociabant Valentiniani. Hominibus per Demiurgum animalem in medio constitutum, commercium intercedebat cum matre Achamoth spiritali, supra Demiurgum collocata. Quia vero illa media inter Demiurgum et Pleroma considebat, hujus interpositionis fibula Pleroma cum Demiurgo conjungebatur. Cujus etiam dogmatis idem quod Platonici consectarium erat, prophetias omnes vel Matri, vel Demiurgo, vel Salvatori per Jesum, acceptas referendas esse. Nam Christum Jesum, Novi Testamenti angelum et mediatorem, qui illud, quod peccatis intermissum fuerat, inter Deum et homines commercium instauraturus venit, triplici substantia indutum effutiebant haeretici, spiritali a superiori Pleromate devecta, animali a Demiurgo, et corporea a mundi elementis accepta : ut sic nec Deus (sic blasphemabant illi), nec purus homo, sed inter utrumque medius, et ceu Demiurgus alter, ima summis connecteret.

and conveying human things to the gods, and divine things to men; namely, the warnings and precepts of the gods to us, and our prayers and sacrifices to them. From which it followed that they are the authors of all divinations and prophecies, which each inspired according to his own manner, disposition, and nature. To this opinion of Plato all the Academics in following ages always assented, as Plutarch in his book On the Obsolescence of Oracles, Apuleius in his book On the God of Socrates, Iamblichus, Proclus, and others. So likewise did the Valentinians associate human things with divine. For men, through the animal Demiurge established in the midst, intercourse intervened with the spiritual mother Achamoth, placed above the Demiurge. And because she sat midway between the Demiurge and the Pleroma, by the clasp of this interposition the Pleroma was joined with the Demiurge. Of which dogma also the consequence was the same as that of the Platonic one, that all prophecies were to be referred as received either to the Mother, or to the Demiurge, or to the Saviour through Jesus. For the heretics babbled that Christ Jesus, the angel and mediator of the New Testament, who came to restore that intercourse between God and men which had been interrupted by sins, was clothed with a threefold substance, the spiritual brought down from the higher Pleroma, the animal from the Demiurge, and the corporeal received from the elements of the world: that thus neither God (so they blasphemed), nor pure man, but midway between both, and like another Demiurge, he might connect the lowest things with the highest.

72. Sed ad alteram mundi constitutionis partem sensim delabor, hominis nimirum fabricationem, quam mirum esset si ad Platonica placita etiam non exegissent blaterones illi. Triplicem in uno homine hominem esse statuebant, materialem seu choicum; psychicum seu animalem, a Demiurgo insufflatum; et spiritalem, ortum videlicet e spiritali semine, quod ex Angelorum contemplatione protulit Achamoth, quem per Demiurgum, ceu per canalem, eo tamen inscio, una cum ejus insufflatione inspersit omnium mater. Et quidem quod hominem choicum ex limo primum, tum ex carne compactum assererent, nihil inusitatum sonat, communisque philosophorum omnium sententia fuit. Limus prima velut corporis humani materia est, quam Deus ita conformavit ut caro fieret, cui vitam infudit. Sic Moyses Gen. II, 7, hominis creationem describit, hancque descriptionem, intertextis pro more fabulis, imitari studuerunt. Quod autem animam fingerent in duas veluti partes sectam, cujus altera animalis esset et inferior, altera spiritalis et longe dignior tum origine, tum natura, post Platonicos fecerunt. Homo, inquit Jamblichus, duas habet animas, quod ipsa Mercurii sacra scripta ostendunt. Una est a primo intelligibili, quae etiam de potentia opificis participat. Καὶ ἡ μέν ἐστιν ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου νοητοῦ, μετέχουσα καὶ τῆς τοῦ δημιουργοῦ δυνάμεως. Altera vero nobis inditur ex

72. But I slip gradually to the other part of the constitution of the world, namely the fashioning of man, which it would be wonderful if those babblers had not also measured by Platonic tenets. They held that in one man there is a threefold man: the material or choic; the psychic or animal, breathed into him by the Demiurge; and the spiritual, sprung namely from the spiritual seed which Achamoth brought forth from the contemplation of the Angels, which the mother of all sprinkled through the Demiurge, as through a channel, yet without his knowing it, together with his breathing. And indeed that they asserted the choic man to have been compacted first out of mud, then out of flesh, sounds nothing unusual, and was the common opinion of all philosophers. Mud is as it were the first matter of the human body, which God so fashioned that it became flesh, into which He poured life. Thus Moses in (Gen. 2:7) describes the creation of man, and this description, weaving in fables according to their custom, they strove to imitate. But that they feigned the soul to be cut as it were into two parts, of which the one was animal and lower, the other spiritual and far worthier both in origin and in nature, they did after the Platonists. Man, says Iamblichus, has two souls, as the sacred writings of Mercury themselves show. The one is from the first intelligible, which also partakes of the power of the artificer. And the one is from the first intelligible, partaking also of the power of the artificer. The other, however, is imparted to us from

Editors' notes and page, col. 97

Footnotes

(79) ‹anchor: inquit Jamblichus› · call in col 97

Sect. VIII, c. 6.

Section 8, ch. 6.

(printed under page 55)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A terpretando et; B hujus interpositionis; C 72. Sed ad; D est, quam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: terpretando et trajiciendo (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of in-terpretando from col 96

PG 7:98

circuitu coelestium mundorum, in quam anima Dei speculatrix se inserit, Ἡ δὲ ἐνδιδομένη ἐκ τῆς τῶν οὐρανίων περιφορᾶς, εἰς ἣν ἐπεισέρπει ἡ θεοπτικὴ ψυχή. Anima quae nobis advenit a mundis, mundorum quoque obtemperat motibus; illa vero quae ab intelligibili derivata adest intelligibiliter, Genesiurgi, Γενεσιουργοῦ, motioni supereminet. Vult igitur, priorem animam fato non servire, quia, ut ait cap. seq., habet in se principium proprium, quo possit ad intelligibile restituere seipsam, et a rebus factis refugere, et cum eo quod est, quodque divinum est, connecti. Posteriorem vero animam fato subjacere. Ita Jamblichus, in cujus verbis et sensu perspicue elucet duplex illa Valentinianorum anima. Ea enim, quam a primo intelligibili esse dicit, ipsa est quam spiritalem jactabant, e superiori Pleromate per Salvatorem et ejus angelos deciduam. Ea vero, quam inditam esse asserit ex circuitu coelestium mundorum, ipsa est quam a Demiurgo animali, supra septimum orbem considente, insufflatam volebant, et in quam superior illa sese insinuabat. Hoc tantum inter se differunt, quod Jamblichus post Platonem et cum caeteris Platonicis affirmaret superiorem illam animam corporibus dudum praeexsistentem, jam perfectam, et velut adultam iisdem infusam fuisse; Valentiniani vero eam opinarentur velut semen quoddam informe, et sine specie et imperfectum animae animali inseri, ut ibi perfectionem et formationem percipiat. Quanquam tamen non usque adeo dissentiunt, ut concordia redintegrari non possit. Quamvis enim animas jam adultas in corpora dejici vellent Platonici, prius tamen oblivionis poculo epotatae corporum mole sic obruebantur, ut iis ambagibus non nisi paulatim excussis iterum adolescerent, pristinarumque cogitationum vestigia rationis ope gradatim refricarent. Quamobrem et ipsi hanc animam primum informem, successu temporis perfectam evadere contendebant. Hoc etiam inter utrosque conveniebat, quod animam animalem fati vinculis illigatam, spiritalem his liberam esse sentirent; quod aliis terminis, eodem certe sensu, exprimentes Valentiniani, dicebant, animas quasdam natura bonas, quasdam autem natura malas. Et bonas quidem has esse, quae capaces seminis fiunt; alias vero natura nequam, nunquam capere illud semen, quibus proinde aditus omnis in Pleroma, solis spiritalibus excipiendis destinatum, intercluderetur necesse erat. Sic Christianismi speciem Platonicorum commentis inducebant nequissimi homines. Nempe quod in apostolorum scriptis legerant, animalem hominem non percipere ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei; quosdam homines animales esse, Spiritum non habentes; spiritalem omnia judicare; veros Christianos primitias Spiritus accepisse, et spiritales esse, etc., Platonica deliria huc transferendi occasio fuit. Diversam utriusque

the circuit of the heavenly worlds, into which the God-contemplating soul inserts itself, And the other imparted from the revolution of the heavenly bodies, into which creeps the God-beholding soul. The soul which comes to us from the worlds obeys also the motions of the worlds; whereas that which, derived from the intelligible, is present intelligibly, rises above the motion of the Genesiurgus, the Author of generation. He wishes, therefore, that the former soul is not subject to fate, because, as he says in the following chapter, it has in itself its own principle, whereby it can restore itself to the intelligible, and flee back from things made, and be connected with that which is, and which is divine; whereas the latter soul is subject to fate. Thus Iamblichus, in whose words and sense clearly shines forth that twofold soul of the Valentinians. For that which he says is from the first intelligible is the very one which they boasted of as spiritual, fallen down from the higher Pleroma through the Saviour and his angels. While that which he asserts to be imparted from the circuit of the heavenly worlds is the very one which they wished to have been breathed in by the animal Demiurge sitting above the seventh orb, and into which that higher one insinuated itself. In this alone do they differ from one another, that Iamblichus, after Plato and with the rest of the Platonists, affirmed that that higher soul, long pre-existing before bodies, was poured into the same already perfect and as it were adult; whereas the Valentinians supposed it to be inserted into the animal soul like a certain seed, formless, and without shape and imperfect, that there it might receive perfection and formation. And yet they do not disagree to such a degree that harmony cannot be restored. For although the Platonists wished souls already adult to be cast down into bodies, yet, having first drunk the cup of forgetfulness, they were so overwhelmed by the mass of bodies that only when those entanglements had been gradually shaken off did they grow up again, and by the help of reason step by step rub fresh the traces of their former thoughts. Wherefore they themselves also contended that this soul, at first formless, turns out perfect in the course of time. This also was agreed between them both, that they held the animal soul to be bound in the chains of fate, and the spiritual to be free from these; which the Valentinians, expressing in other terms, though certainly in the same sense, said that some souls are by nature good, and some by nature evil; and that the good indeed are these which become capable of the seed, whereas the others, wicked by nature, never receive that seed, to whom accordingly all entrance into the Pleroma, destined for receiving the spiritual alone, had necessarily to be shut off. Thus did most wicked men spread a semblance of Christianity over the figments of the Platonists. Namely, what they had read in the writings of the apostles—that the animal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God; that some men are animal, not having the Spirit; that the spiritual man judges all things; that true Christians have received the firstfruits of the Spirit, and are spiritual, etc.—was the occasion for transferring Platonic ravings hither. Upon the different lot of each

Editors' notes and page, col. 98

Footnotes

(80) ‹anchor: formationem percipiat› · call in col 98

Iren., lib. II, cap. 19, n. 1.

Irenaeus, book 2, ch. 19, no. 1.

(printed under page 55)

(81) ‹anchor: capere illud semen› · call in col 98

Id., lib. I, cap. 7, n. 4.

The same, book 1, ch. 7, no. 4.

(printed under page 55)

(82) ‹anchor: Spiritus Dei› · call in col 98

I Cor. II, 14.

1 Cor. 2:14.

(printed under page 55)

Page

running head: I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO.
marginal letters: A circuitu coelestium; B intelligibili esse; C cipiat. Quanquam; D Et bonas
old-edition numerals: [XLV] after Posteriorem
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: circuitu coelestium mundorum (Massuet, Diss. I)

PG 7:99

animae sortem non moror : sponte fluit ex diversa utriusque conditione et origine. Unaquaeque enim principium suum ambit, et ad illud anhelat : ac proinde cum altera e Pleromate, altera e Medietate defluxerit, una in Pleroma cum Angelis Salvatoris, altera in Medietatem cum Demiurgo recolligenda recurrat necesse est. Nec haec Platonicis ignota. Nam Jamblichus, sect. I, cap. 2, putat, animas quasdam per deorum benignitatem, et infusam ab illis illuminationem, saepe altius ascendere, et in ordinem majorem, angelicum videlicet evehi. Hoc quoties fit, ait, non jam amplius animae finibus continentur, sed totae angelicae animae evadunt, et in purissimam vitam perfecte perveniunt. Non moror etiam hylici hominis, seu materialis corporis sortem. In corruptelam abire, nusquam excitandum, cum Sadducaeis aliisque non paucis gentilibus philosophis, ex necessaria consecutione putabant. Nec enim id excitari, vitae particeps futurum decet, quod e labe et ignorantia, Enthymeseos perturbationibus, et Demiurgi inscitia ortum ducit.

soul I do not dwell: it flows of its own accord from the diverse condition and origin of each. For each one courts its own beginning, and pants after it: and accordingly, since the one flowed down from the Pleroma, the other from the Midst, the one must needs run back to be gathered again into the Pleroma with the Angels of the Saviour, the other into the Midst with the Demiurge. Nor were these things unknown to the Platonists. For Iamblichus, Sect. 1, Ch. 2, thinks that certain souls through the benignity of the gods, and the illumination poured into them by them, often ascend higher, and are raised into a greater order, namely the angelic. As often as this happens, he says, they are no longer contained within the bounds of soul, but become wholly angelic souls, and arrive perfectly at the purest life. Neither do I dwell upon the lot of the hylic man, or material body. That it passes away into corruption, never to be raised up, they thought by necessary consequence, along with the Sadducees and not a few heathen philosophers. For neither is it fitting that that should be raised up, to become a partaker of life, which draws its origin from stain and ignorance, from the perturbations of Enthymesis, and from the ignorance of the Demiurge.

73. De Christo Jesu quid sentirent, quibus potius blasphemiis sacrum Incarnationis mysterium subverterent, jam diximus. Illud fundamenti loco statuebant, quod verissimum est, nec semel a SS. Patribus affirmatum, ea suscepisse Christum quae servaturus erat. Sed hoc turpiter abusi concludebant, ex quadruplici substantia compactum fuisse, ut typum primi ac superni quaternarii servaret; ex spiritali, quae erat ab Achamoth; ex animali quae erat a Demiurgo; ex ea quam oeconomiae, seu salutis humanae procurandae causa assumpsit, corporea quidem quae sensus afficeret, sed ita a crassiori materia defaecata et pura, et tam solerti arte parata, ut nihil cum ea commune haberet, ac spiritalis quodammodo prae ea esset : ac demum ex superno Salvatore, qui in eum sub specie columbae descendit, tum cum ad baptismum venit. Spiritalem quidem substantiam ab Achamoth acciperet necesse erat, quoniam spiritali semini, hactenus repullulantibus undequaque vitiis, ignorantia praesertim, praefocato perfectionem et incrementum allaturus erat, novamque lucem hactenus invisam, nimirum supremi Patris agnitionem, in homines diffusurus. Animalem etiam, et eam quae videri et tangi posset, assumere debuit; quia cum et animalibus hominibus salutem impertiturus esset, iisque, utpote spiritali semine seu agnitione destitutis, unus aditus ad eam per fidem et bona opera pandatur; necesse erat iis similis ac visibilis fieret, quo dux eorum et magister evaderet. His omnibus accedere debuit de supernis Salvator, qui Jesu Christi mentem Pleromatis mysteriis informaret; isque huic uniendus eo unitionis genere, quod procul ab hypostatico dissideat, nihilque nisi mere morale sonet; ac Jesum a communi hominum (si tamen homo dicendus, cui corpus aethereum potius et phantasticum, quam humanum erat) sorte non

73. What they thought concerning Christ Jesus, or rather by what blasphemies they subverted the sacred mystery of the Incarnation, we have already said. They laid down in the place of a foundation that which is most true, and affirmed more than once by the holy Fathers, that Christ took up those things which He was about to save. But shamefully abusing this, they concluded that he was compacted of a fourfold substance, that he might preserve the type of the first and supernal quaternary: of the spiritual, which was from Achamoth; of the animal, which was from the Demiurge; of that which he assumed for the sake of the dispensation, or of procuring human salvation, corporeal indeed so as to affect the senses, yet so refined and pure from grosser matter, and prepared with such skilful art, that it had nothing in common with it, and was in a manner spiritual in comparison with it; and finally of the supernal Saviour, who descended into him under the appearance of a dove, at the time when he came to baptism. A spiritual substance indeed he had necessarily to receive from Achamoth, since to the spiritual seed, hitherto choked by vices sprouting up again on every side, and especially by ignorance, he was about to bring perfection and increase, and to diffuse upon men a new light hitherto unseen, namely the knowledge of the supreme Father. An animal substance also, and one which could be seen and touched, he had to assume; because, since he was about to impart salvation to animal men also, and for them, as being destitute of the spiritual seed or knowledge, one entrance to it is laid open through faith and good works, it was necessary that he should become like them and visible, whereby he might become their leader and teacher. To all these there had to be added from above the Saviour, to inform the mind of Jesus Christ with the mysteries of the Pleroma; and he had to be united to him by that kind of union which is far removed from the hypostatic, and sounds nothing else than merely moral; and would not exempt Jesus from the common lot of men (if indeed he is to be called a man, whose body was ethereal and phantom-like rather than human),

Editors' notes and page, col. 99

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A animae sortem; B In corruptelam; C ex spiritali; D diffusurus. Animalem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: animae sortem non moror (Massuet, Diss. I)

PG 7:100

eximeret, utpote qui nec vere Deus esset, sed merus Angelus Deo longe inferior, nec Jesu Christo hypostatice unitus. Neque enim ipsum Dei Filium carnem sumpsisse volebant; et si dixissent, haud alio quam Sabellii et Pauli Samosateni sensu dicere potuissent. At hylicum nihil seu materiale asciscere sibi potuit Jesus Christus; quia hoc cum labis et ignorantiae fructus sit, infausta perturbatae nec sui compotis Enthymeseos soboles, et caeci ac ignorantis Demiurgi opus, salutem capessere nullam potest, sed in corruptelam, unde initium sumpsit, cedat necesse est. Haec vero impiissimi dogmatis consectaria necessaria fuere. 1° Nihil a Maria Christum accepisse, sed per eam, veluti aqua per tubum, transiisse. Cum enim hylicum nihil susceperit, sed corpus ab hylico seu materiali, quod omnium hominum est, procul diversum gestaverit; ab ea mutuari nihil potuit, nec in ejus utero formari, ex qua nullum nisi hylicum et illi simile corpus generari poterat. 2° Nihil pati potuisse Salvatorem; cum nec Christo Jesu vere unitus esset, nec suapte natura patibilis et visibilis. Sed cum Jesus coram Pilato sisteretur, statim in Pleroma revolasse dicebant. 3° Ne id quidem quod a Matre erat semen passum esse, utpote quod et ab anima animali, quae sola passionis capax, distinctum, et spiritale, et invisibile etiam ipsi Demiurgo esset. Sic illi. 4° Solam passam fuisse animalem substantiam, et eam quam Christus oeconomiae causa susceperat, solerti artificio compactam. Sic totam Verbi incarnati mysteriorum oeconomiam labefactabant, et funditus evertebant profani homines.

inasmuch as he was neither truly God, but a mere Angel far inferior to God, nor hypostatically united to Jesus Christ. For neither did they wish that the Son of God Himself took flesh; and if they had said so, they could have said it in no other sense than that of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. But nothing hylic or material could Jesus Christ take to himself; because since this is the fruit of stain and ignorance, the ill-omened offspring of the perturbed Enthymesis not mistress of herself, and the work of the blind and ignorant Demiurge, it can lay hold of no salvation, but must needs pass into corruption, whence it took its beginning. Now these were the necessary consequences of this most impious dogma. 1. That Christ received nothing from Mary, but passed through her as water through a pipe. For since he took up nothing hylic, but bore a body far diverse from the hylic or material body which belongs to all men, he could borrow nothing from her, nor be formed in her womb, from whom no body except a hylic one and like unto her could be generated. 2. That the Saviour could suffer nothing, since he was neither truly united to Christ Jesus, nor by his own nature passible and visible. But when Jesus was set before Pilate, they said that he flew back at once into the Pleroma. 3. That not even that seed which was from the Mother suffered, inasmuch as it was both distinct from the animal soul, which alone is capable of passion, and spiritual, and invisible even to the Demiurge himself. So said they. 4. That only the animal substance suffered, together with that which Christ had taken up for the sake of the dispensation, compacted with skilful artifice. Thus did profane men shake and utterly overthrow the whole dispensation of the mysteries of the incarnate Word.

74. Mirum si dogmatis vita non respondisset : impiissima dogmata scelestissimis moribus adaequari necesse erat. Vesaniam arguit, quod seipsos perfectos, spiritales, spiritali semine fecundatos, semina electionis, ac Gnosticos, seu scientes impudentius jactarent; qui gratiam proprio ac haereditario jure a Matre acceptam ita possiderent, ut semper accresceret, decresceret nunquam, aut efflueret; catholicos vero psychicos et animales contemptim vocarent, qui gratiam commodato et in ancipiti usu sic accipiebant, ut ea illis adimi jure posset. Quid sit ista spiritalium gratia, spiritale illud semen, quo superbius efferebantur, diximus. Supremi Patris, usque ad Novi Testamenti tempora invisibilis et ignoti, agnitio est, supernorumque Pleromatis arcanorum scientia per Christi adventum hominibus indita, qua sola, caeteris omnibus spretis et omissis, salutem comparari putabant. Hanc suae duntaxat sectae hominibus concedebant, aliis omnibus denegabant, utpote quorum captum superaret ea γνῶσις; in quibus proinde locum habere crederent solam fidem, implicitam nimirum, et suae disciplinae sectariis adhibendam. Hoc vitiorum omnium, scelerum et turpissimorum facinorum, quibus perditorum hominum funestata vita fuit, seminarium et origo exstitit. Hinc, ut

74. It would have been a wonder if their life had not answered to their dogmas: most impious dogmas had necessarily to be matched by most wicked morals. It convicts them of madness that they shamelessly boasted themselves to be the perfect, the spiritual, fertilized with the spiritual seed, the seeds of election, and Gnostics, or the knowing; who so possessed grace received from the Mother by their own and hereditary right that it always increased, and never decreased or flowed away; while they contemptuously called Catholics psychic and animal, who so received grace on loan and in precarious use that it could rightfully be taken away from them. What that grace of the spiritual ones is, that spiritual seed whereby they were so proudly puffed up, we have said. It is the recognition of the supreme Father, invisible and unknown until the times of the New Testament, and the knowledge of the supernal secrets of the Pleroma imparted to men through the coming of Christ, by which alone, all other things being despised and omitted, they thought salvation is procured. This they granted to the men of their own sect alone, and denied to all others, as those whose capacity that gnosis surpassed; in whom accordingly they believed that faith alone had place, namely an implicit faith, to be given to the sectaries of their teaching. This was the seed-plot and origin of all the vices, crimes, and foulest deeds whereby the life of these abandoned men was polluted. Hence, as

Editors' notes and page, col. 100

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS
marginal letters: A eximeret, utpote; B rit, sed; C solerti artificio; D tale illud
old-edition numerals: [XLVI] after susceperat,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: eximeret, utpote qui (Massuet, Diss. I)

PG 7:101

recte observat Irenaeus, intimorate omnia quae vetantur, illi operabantur, nihil vitiorum omnium coeno inquinari se posse putantes. Si enim Deus summus usque ad Novi Testamenti tempora ignotus fuit; si mundi hujus curam ipse non gessit, sed ejus administrationem angelis inferioribus commisit : ergo ab angelis, ut caetera, ita et prophetiae profectae, et lex in monte Sinai lata fuit. Si vero lex a Demiurgo animali, animalis hominis conditore data est : ergo ea non tenetur anima spiritalis, nec proinde legis jussa negligens peccat, quia altioris est originis, nec Demiurgi imperio subdita. Si sola Dei hactenus ignoti, nunc vero se revelantis, cognitio, iis quibus infusa fuerit, salutem affert, seu, ut loquebantur, in Pleroma inducit; ergo non opus erit operibus, in primis quia ab illorum necessitate, quam lex ab angelis lata injungebat, animas liberavit suo adventu Salvator. Si quibusdam necessaria sint opera; eos duntaxat juvare queunt, quibus spiritalis scientia deest, caeteris penitus inutilia. Si spiritale semen ad salutem efficax, ex quo semel habitum, perire nunquam potest, sed augetur semper, crescit et perficitur : ergo quidquid agant ii, quibus inspersum fuerit, quodcunque scelerum genus perpetrent, a gratia et salute nunquam excident. Si denique ea duntaxat salutem percipiunt, quae suscepit Christus, hylicum vero nihil assumpsit : ergo nihil corporibus impertitus est, iisque nulla speranda resurrectio. Tam arcte cum suis principiis cohaerent eae consecutiones, ut eas ipsimet Valentiniani suas palam fateri non erubescerent.

Irenaeus rightly observes, without fear they wrought all things that are forbidden, thinking that they could in no wise be defiled by the filth of all vices. For if the supreme God was unknown until the times of the New Testament; if He Himself did not bear the care of this world, but committed its administration to lower angels: therefore from the angels, like the rest of things, so also the prophecies proceeded, and the law was given on Mount Sinai. And if the law was given by the animal Demiurge, the founder of the animal man: therefore the spiritual soul is not bound by it, nor accordingly does it sin when neglecting the commands of the law, because it is of a higher origin, and not subject to the rule of the Demiurge. If the knowledge alone of the God hitherto unknown, but now revealing Himself, brings salvation to those into whom it has been poured, or, as they used to speak, leads them into the Pleroma: therefore there will be no need of works, especially because from the necessity of them, which the law given by the angels enjoined, the Saviour by his coming freed souls. If works are necessary for some, they can help those only to whom spiritual knowledge is wanting, being utterly useless to the rest. If the spiritual seed, efficacious for salvation, once it is had, can never perish, but is always increased, grows, and is perfected: therefore, whatever those do upon whom it has been sprinkled, whatever kind of crimes they perpetrate, they will never fall from grace and salvation. Finally, if those things only receive salvation which Christ took up, and he assumed nothing hylic: therefore he imparted nothing to bodies, and no resurrection is to be hoped for by them. So closely do those consequences cohere with their principles that the Valentinians themselves did not blush to confess them openly as their own.

75. Jam, puto, nullus deinceps, nisi qui veterum omnium auctoritatis jugum audacius excusserit, Valentinianos iis errorum portentis absolvere cogitabit, quibus insimulantur tum ab Irenaeo, teste omni exceptione majori, tum a caeteris Patribus. Imo stupebit cordatus quisque, eo usque temeritatis prorupisse quosdam recentiores, ut testium coaetaneorum oculatorumque auctoritate elevata, eos excusare vanis argutiolis nitantur, quos illi certis rationibus invictisque testimoniis reos esse probant; et ne desipiant perditi homines, immaniter desipuisse sanctos Patres innuere non vereantur. Attendant, quaeso, benigni illi haereticorum interpretes, quot et quanta postremis hisce saeculis errorum monstra, stolidaque deliria pepererit in Anglia, Germania, Hollandia, imo paucis abhinc annis in Gallia male sanum fanaticorum caput; quibus tamen sui non defuerunt asseclae, neque numero pauci, neque ordine et scientia infimi : et jam fidem superare non videbitur, quosdam priorum saeculorum homines sic insaniisse, ut enarrant Patres. Sed missis hisce concertationibus, quae hactenus diximus, perspicue demonstrant, Valentinianos puros putosque ethnicos fuisse, qui ridiculis

75. Now, I think, no one hereafter, unless he has too audaciously shaken off the yoke of the authority of all the ancients, will think of absolving the Valentinians from those monsters of errors with which they are charged both by Irenaeus, a witness above all exception, and by the rest of the Fathers. Nay, every sensible man will be amazed that certain modern writers have broken forth to such a pitch of rashness that, disparaging the authority of contemporary and eyewitness testimonies, they strive with vain subtleties to excuse those whom the former prove to be guilty by sure reasons and invincible testimonies; and lest abandoned men should seem to rave, they do not fear to hint that the holy Fathers raved monstrously. Let those kindly interpreters of heretics consider, I pray, how many and how great monsters of errors and foolish ravings an unsound head of fanatics has brought forth in these last ages in England, Germany, Holland, nay a few years ago in France; who nevertheless did not lack their followers, neither few in number, nor lowest in rank and learning: and then it will not seem to surpass belief that certain men of the earlier ages raved in the way that the Fathers relate. But setting aside these controversies, what we have said thus far clearly demonstrates that the Valentinians were pure and simple heathens, who over the ridiculous

Editors' notes and page, col. 101

Footnotes

(82*) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot image› · call in col 101 Lib. I, c. 5, n. 3.

Book 1, ch. 5, no. 3.

(printed under page 57)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO I, ART. I, DE
marginal letters: A recte observat; B non opus; C nes, ut; D Attendant, quaeso
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: recte observat Irenaeus (Massuet, Diss. I); ends with ridicu- split to col 102

PG 7:102

gentilium philosophematis simulatam Christianismi speciem induxerant; sed ethnicis ipsis pejores, ipsa moralia praecepta, quae natura mortalium cordibus inscripsit, sic pessum dedisse, ut fractis repagulis homines in pecudum vivendi morem dejicerent. Religio Christiana in sacris sanctissimae Trinitatis et Incarnationis mysteriis, ceu duobus cardinibus, tota potissimum vertitur, Deique verbo tum scripto, tum tradito nititur. Haec autem fundamenta ita succussere, ut funditus diruerint. De trinitate personarum non in eo tantum impie sentiebant, quod Mentem, Veritatem, Verbum, Vitam, Horon, Christum, Salvatorem, diversa nomina, quibus exprimuntur unius et ejusdem Filii Dei per se subsistentis proprietates, in totidem Aeones transformassent; sed quod Aeones illos vel cum ipso Patre confunderent, uti fecere Noetus, Sabellius et Paulus Samosatenus; vel sic a Patre separarent, ut longe inferioris naturae esse vellent, nec plus quam angelos esse sentirent, quae Arii deinceps blasphemia fuit. Nec melius actum cum Spiritu sancto, qui et ipse gradu dejectus ad angelorum sortem relegatus est. Sicque una et eadem haeresis ea simul venena miscere novit, quae deinceps divisim epotarent Sabellius et Arius. Quam misere ab iis violata mysterii Incarnationis fides, ex paulo ante dictis manifestum est. Ibi nec Deus carnem suscepit, nec natus, nec passus in carne est, nec Verbum caro factum est; nec Christus verus homo fuit, sed hominis simulacrum et vana species, quae sensus deluderet. Etsi Scripturarum libris et verbis pepercit scelerata Valentini manus, eas tamen a summo omnium Parente inspiratas negasse, in fabulas foede detorquendo convertisse, sacrae apostolorum traditioni delirantium hominum nugas substituisse, Dei Verbum turpiter abjecisse fuit. De arbitrii libertate, bonorumque operum necessitate nihil dicam : aliud, maxima saltem ex parte, fatali necessitate constrictum; alterum, ceu viles quisquiliae, ad eos amandatum, quos spiritali semine haud inspersisset mater Achamoth : ut sic in Scripturis nihil intemeratum maneret, sed tum dogmata, tum praecepta penitus ruerent.

philosophemes of the heathens had spread a feigned semblance of Christianity; but worse than the heathens themselves, had so trampled underfoot the very moral precepts which nature has inscribed upon the hearts of mortals that, breaking through all barriers, they cast men down into the manner of life of beasts. The Christian religion turns wholly and chiefly upon the sacred mysteries of the most holy Trinity and of the Incarnation, as upon two hinges, and rests upon the word of God both written and handed down. Now these foundations they so shook that they utterly demolished them. Concerning the trinity of persons they thought impiously not only in this, that Mind, Truth, Word, Life, Horos, Christ, Saviour—diverse names whereby the properties of one and the same Son of God subsisting by Himself are expressed—they had transformed into so many Aeons; but also in this, that they either confounded those Aeons with the Father Himself, as did Noetus, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata; or so separated them from the Father that they wished them to be of a far inferior nature, and held them to be no more than angels, which was afterwards the blasphemy of Arius. Nor did it fare better with the Holy Spirit, who himself also was cast down from his rank and banished to the lot of angels. And thus one and the same heresy knew how to mingle together those poisons which Sabellius and Arius were afterwards to drink off separately. How wretchedly the faith of the mystery of the Incarnation was violated by them is manifest from what was said a little before. There neither did God take up flesh, nor was He born, nor did He suffer in the flesh, nor was the Word made flesh; nor was Christ a true man, but the phantom of a man and an empty appearance to delude the senses. Although the wicked hand of Valentinus spared the books and words of the Scriptures, yet to have denied that they were inspired by the supreme Parent of all, to have turned them into fables by foully twisting them, to have substituted the trifles of raving men for the sacred tradition of the apostles, was shamefully to cast away the Word of God. Of the freedom of the will and the necessity of good works I shall say nothing: the former, at least for the greatest part, bound fast by fatal necessity; the latter, like vile refuse, consigned to those whom mother Achamoth had not sprinkled with the spiritual seed: so that thus nothing in the Scriptures might remain unviolated, but both dogmas and precepts might utterly fall in ruin.

76. Haec de haeresi Valentiniana dicenda nobis erant. Si in ea explicanda paulo longiores exstiterimus, Irenaei exemplo fecimus, qui hanc longe fusiori et accuratiori stylo quam caeteras omnes persecutus est. Cum enim in eam, ut plus semel asserit, tanquam in sentinam quamdam confluxerint omnium haereticorum sordes et spurcitiae, vel, ut verbis ejus utar, ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, recapitulatio omnium sit; ea semel recte exposita, caeterae nihil aut parum negotii facessere poterunt. Quare et in hoc etiam Irenaeum imitabimur, quod eas levius perstringemus, ea duntaxat observantes, quae

76. These things we had to say concerning the Valentinian heresy. If in explaining it we have been a little too long, we have done so after the example of Irenaeus, who pursued it in a far fuller and more accurate style than all the rest. For since into it, as he asserts more than once, as into a kind of bilge, have flowed together the filth and defilements of all heretics, or, to use his words, since it is the ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, the recapitulation of all; once it has been rightly set forth, the rest will be able to cause little or no trouble. Wherefore in this also we shall imitate Irenaeus, that we shall touch upon them more lightly, observing those things only which

Editors' notes and page, col. 102

Footnotes

(83) ‹anchor: semel asserit› · call in col 102

Id. Praef. lib. III, et Praef lib. IV.

The same, preface to book 3, and preface to book 4.

(printed under page 57)

Page

running head: I, ART. I, DE VALENTINO.
marginal letters: A lis gentilium; B transformassent; sed; C species, quae; D 76. Haec de
old-edition numerals: [XLVII] after omnes
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: lis gentilium philosophematis (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of ridicu-lis from col 101

PG 7:103

unicuique propria erunt, nec aliis communia. Postposito temporum ordine, eum tantum, lectorum commodo consulentes servabimus, quem servavit auctor noster.

will be proper to each and not common to the others. Setting aside the order of time, we shall keep, out of regard for the readers' convenience, only the order which our author kept.

ARTICULUS II.

ARTICLE II.

DE VALENTINI DISCIPULIS.

ON THE DISCIPLES OF VALENTINUS.

77. Consensum in unam fidem, peculiarem solius verae ac catholicae Christi Ecclesiae laudem esse; discordes vero turpiterque secum pugnantes in fide sententias, in haereticos omnes proprie quadrare passim notat Irenaeus. Id etsi de haereticis omnibus verissimum, nusquam tamen clarius elucet, quam ubi de Gnosticis ac Valentinianis sermo est. Discrepant, inquit ille, ab invicem et doctrina et traditione; et qui recentiores eorum agnoscuntur, affectant per singulos dies novum aliquid adinvenire, et fructificare quod nunquam quisquam excogitavit. Et alibi: Ab his autem qui praedicti sunt, jam multae propagines multarum haeresum factae sunt, eo quod multi ex ipsis, imo omnes velint doctores esse, et abscedere quidem ab haeresi in qua fuerunt, aliud autem dogma ab alia sententia, et deinceps alteram ab altera componentes, nove docere insistunt; semetipsos adinventores sententiae quamcunque compegerint, enarrantes. Nempe omnes novae inventionis gloriam captabant, et, ut nomen sibi apud suos facerent, veterem errorem hi novis erroribus cumulare, illi novis saltem ac insolitis nominibus ornare studebant. Qua enim libertate a suis magistris, veteribus Gnosticis, in pluribus discesserat Valentinus, eadem ab ipso in multis secessere discipuli ejus, Secundus, Epiphanes, Ptolemaeus, Colorbasus, Marcus, et alii: adeo ut Tertulliani aetate purus, et qualem excogitaverat ipse Valentinus, Valentinianismus jam nullibi terrarum, praeterquam Antiochiae, sub Axionico vigeret. Caeteri omnes nova suscepta larva, oblitterato etiam magistri nomine, suum quisque haeresi propriae nomen imposuerunt.

77. Irenaeus notes throughout that agreement in one faith is the peculiar glory of the one true and Catholic Church of Christ alone, whereas opinions in the faith that disagree and shamefully fight among themselves properly fit all heretics. Though this is most true of all heretics, it nowhere shines out more clearly than where the discussion concerns the Gnostics and Valentinians. "They differ," he says, "from one another both in doctrine and in tradition; and those of them who are recognized as more recent strive every day to invent something new and to bring forth what no one ever devised." And elsewhere: "From those who have been mentioned, many offshoots of many heresies have now arisen, because many of them, indeed all, wish to be teachers, and to depart from the heresy in which they were, and, composing one doctrine out of another opinion and then another out of another, they insist on teaching in a new way, declaring themselves the inventors of whatever opinion they have put together." In short, they all sought the glory of a new invention, and, to make a name for themselves among their own, some were eager to heap new errors on the old error, others at least to adorn it with new and unusual names. For with the same freedom with which Valentinus had departed in many points from his masters, the older Gnostics, his disciples Secundus, Epiphanes, Ptolemy, Colorbasus, Mark and others withdrew from him in many points; so much so that in Tertullian's time pure Valentinianism, such as Valentinus himself had devised it, flourished nowhere on earth except at Antioch, under Axionicus. All the rest, having put on a new mask and blotted out even their master's name, each gave his own heresy its own name.

I. De Secundo.

I. On Secundus.

78. Primus quem post Valentinum proxime memorant Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Theodoretus, Tertullianus, vel quisquis alius auctor est Additamenti, quod ad calcem libri De praescriptionibus legitur, Augustinus et alii, Secundus est. Quis et qualis, quove in loco natus, veterum nemo scripsit. Id duntaxat ex Epiphanio discimus, quod Valentino coaevus, magistrum novo aliquo invento superare sic gestierit, ut tamen quod intererat inter utrumque discrimen, totum fere in verbis haeserit. Nam eadem, quae Valentinus, docebat omnia, sed ampliore sonitu furiosorum aures opplebat: Πάντα μὲν τὰ κατὰ τὸν Οὐαλεντῖνον ἐξηγεῖται, περισσότερον

78. The first whom Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Theodoret, Tertullian (or whoever else is the author of the Appendix that is read at the end of the book On Prescriptions), Augustine and others mention next after Valentinus is Secundus. Who and of what sort he was, or in what place he was born, none of the ancients has written. This alone we learn from Epiphanius: that, being a contemporary of Valentinus, he so longed to surpass his master by some new invention that the difference between the two nevertheless lay almost wholly in words. For he taught all the same things as Valentinus, but filled the ears of madmen with a louder sound: "He expounds all the things of Valentinus, but more

Editors' notes and page, col. 103

Footnotes

(84) ‹anchor: inquit ille› · call in col 103

Iren., lib. I, cap. 21, n. 5.

Irenaeus, book I, chapter 21, no. 5.

(printed under page 58)

(85) ‹anchor: Et alibi› · call in col 103

Id. cap. 27, n. 4.

The same, chapter 27, no. 4.

(printed under page 58)

(86) ‹anchor: Tertulliani› · call in col 103

Adv. Valent., c. 4.

Against the Valentinians, chapter 4.

(printed under page 58)

(87) ‹anchor: ex Epiphanio› · call in col 103

Epiphan. Haer. XXXI, § 1.

Epiphanius, Heresy XXXI, § 1.

(printed under page 58)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A unicuique propria; B omnibus verissimum; C facerent, veterem; D 78. Primus quem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: unicuique propria erunt (Massuet, Diss. I); first paragraph continues at top of col 104 (commodo consulentes...); after lectorum stands the full-width heading across cols 103–104 cut off at the right edge (ARTICULUS / DE VALENTINI DIS); ends with περισσό- split to col 104
other: a full-width band stands across cols 103/104 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 104 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 103 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
running head: 103 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 104
marginal letters: A ‹unicuique propria erant, nec aliis communia. Post-›; B ‹omnibus verissimum, nusquam tamen clarius elu-›; C ‹facerent, veterem errorem hi novis erroribus cu-›; D ‹78. Primus quem post Valentinum proxime me-›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other (Q2a): line 1 prints erunt (the file had erant); kept as printed; whether it is a misprint for erant depends on col 102's clause (check there)

PG 7:104

δὲ ἦχον εἰς ἀκοὰς τῶν ἐμβεβροντημένων ἐξήχησεν. Addit Augustinus, Secundianos hoc a Valentinianis distare dici, quod addant opera turpitudinis; forte quia turpem et obscenam Valentini doctrinam impudentius praedicabant, omnique deposita verecundia actu perficiebant. Neque enim principiorum auctores erant, sed haec a Valentino acceperant, qui si discipulis melior exstitit, forte quia paulo verecundior. Et ita sentit Damascenus scribens in lib. De haeres. Secundianos consensisse cum Valentino, nisi quod eum in docenda et commemoranda obscenitate longe multumque superarint.

loudly has he made the sound ring out into the ears of the thunderstruck." Augustine adds that the Secundians are said to differ from the Valentinians in this, that they add works of shamefulness; perhaps because they preached the shameful and obscene doctrine of Valentinus more impudently, and, all modesty laid aside, carried it out in act. For they were not the authors of the principles, but had received these from Valentinus, who, if he was better than his disciples, was perhaps so because he was a little more modest. And so Damascene judges, writing in the book On Heresies that the Secundians agreed with Valentinus, except that they surpassed him far and greatly in teaching and recounting obscenity.

79. Secundo tribuunt Irenaeus et Epiphanius, quod octonarium primum distinxerit in quaternarium dextrum et sinistrum, lumen et tenebras. Nova quidem et aenigmatica verba, sed non novus error. His enim significabat, ut supra ostendimus, primum octonarium ex duplici quaternario conflari; altero ex imparibus numeris, quos ex Pythagoreorum mente dextros et faustos, altero ex paribus, quos sinistros et infaustos vocabat. Idipsum est quod Ptolemaici quaternionem masculinum et femininum appellabant. In eo vero ab his et a Valentino discessit ille, quod Virtutem, quae prae temeritate defecit, non a triginta Aeonibus derivarit, sed a fructibus eorum. Scilicet angelum quemdam inferioris ordinis esse finxit, ne qua labe aspergeretur superius Pleroma.

79. Irenaeus and Epiphanius attribute to Secundus that he divided the first Ogdoad into a right and a left Tetrad, light and darkness. New and enigmatic words indeed, but not a new error. For by them he signified, as we showed above, that the first Ogdoad is made up of a double Tetrad: one of odd numbers, which, following the mind of the Pythagoreans, he called right and lucky, the other of even numbers, which he called left and unlucky. This is the very thing the Ptolemaeans called the masculine and feminine Tetrad. But he departed from them and from Valentinus in this, that he derived the Power which fell away through rashness not from the thirty Aeons but from their fruits. That is, he feigned it to be an angel of a lower order, so that the higher Pleroma should not be sprinkled with any stain.

II. De Epiphane

II. On Epiphanes

80. Proximum Secunde subnectit Epiphanem Irenaeus: de hoc enim, nec de alio intelligenda quae in veteri Irenaei Latina interpretatione legimus: Alius vero quidam, qui et clarus est magister ipsorum, etc. Quorum quidem verborum Graeca licet apud Epiphanium desiderentur, merito tamen sic habuisse conjicit Pearsonius: Ἄλλος δέ τις, ὁ καὶ Ἐπιφανὴς, διδάσκαλος αὐτῶν. Ubi imperitus interpres misere lapsus, Tertulliano offendiculum praebuit; nam et ipse scripsit, insignioris apud eos magistri. Quippe neuter advertens, Irenaeum voce ἐπιφανὴς alludere ad haeretici nomen, ex proprio appellativum fecerunt; definita Irenaei verba in vagum et indefinitum sermonem, ex quo nullius auctoris nomen colligi queat, perperam convertentes. Quin tamen de Epiphane hic agat Irenaeus, dubitare non sinit Epiphanius, qui Secundo

80. Next after Secundus Irenaeus joins Epiphanes; for it is of him, and of no other, that we must understand what we read in the old Latin translation of Irenaeus: "But another, who is also a famous master of theirs," and so on. Although the Greek of these words is missing in Epiphanius, Pearson nevertheless rightly conjectures that it ran thus: "And another, who is also Epiphanes, their teacher." Here the unskilled translator, slipping wretchedly, put a stumbling-block before Tertullian; for he too wrote "of a more distinguished master among them." For neither noticed that Irenaeus is alluding by the word epiphanes ("famous") to the heretic's name, and they made a common noun of a proper one, wrongly turning Irenaeus's definite words into a vague and indefinite statement from which no author's name could be gathered. Yet that Irenaeus is dealing here with Epiphanes, Epiphanius does not allow us to doubt, who next after Secundus

Editors' notes and page, col. 104

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A commodo consulentes; B verecundia actu; C rum mente; D ipsorum, etc.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin with Greek quotations (the end of the περισσότερον quotation at the head of §78's continuation; Pearson's conjectured Greek and ἐπιφανὴς in §80) (Q4); editors' matter: commodo consulentes servabimus (Massuet, Diss. I); first two lines conclude top paragraph of col 103; after auctor noster. stands the full-width heading across cols 103–104 cut off at the left edge (TICULUS II. / LENTINI DISCIPULIS.); second paragraph begins with rest of περισσό-τερον from col 103; ends with Se- split to col 105
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 103 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 103 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 104
marginal letters: A ‹commodo consulentes servabimus, quem servavit›; B ‹verecundia actu perficiebant. Neque enim princi-›; C ‹rum mente dextros et faustos, altero ex paribus,›; D ‹ipsorum, etc. Quorum quidem verborum Graeca›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: lower right column of page 58; the top right line is set in c103. Last word split at the column break: only "Se-" is visible; next column not seen, so not completed. UNSURE: "Secundo subnectit" in §80 may be printed "Secunde" (blurred); set Secundo. UNSURE: accent on ἐπιφανής in §80 (blurred; may be printed with grave).
other (Q3a): the split word at the foot is set whole here as Secundo (Se-|cundo; col 105 opens with proximum, the tail not restored there); English "who next after Secundus" here, "enumerates" in col 105. Both Greek forms in §80 read on the page with grave (Ἐπιφανὴς, before the comma; ἐπιφανὴς alludere) and set so. §80 opening read on the page as Secunde (printed e, cf. Secundo at §79) and set as printed; this supersedes the UNSURE line above.
misprints kept as printed: Secunde (for Secundo), in Proximum Secunde subnectit Epiphanem (Q3a)
other (Q4): the footnotes printed at the foot of this page (84–87) are all called in col 103; none is called in col 104. UNSURE (Q4): §79 "Irenaeus et Epiphanius" may be printed "Ephiphanius" (blurred at this resolution); set Epiphanius pending a sharper read.

PG 7:105

proximum recenset Epiphanem, in quem praeterea apprime quadrant quae claro illi seu insigniori magistro tribuunt Irenaeus Latinus, et Tertullianus. Σύγχρονος Secundo fuit Epiphanes, eique proinde successit, non tam tempore, quam doctrina. Carpocratis, infamis illius haeresiarchae de quo postea disseremus, filius erat, et matris cui nomen Alexandria; ex patre quidem Alexandrinus, ex matre vero Cephalenius. Liberalibus disciplinis a patre non segniter excultus, tantos eo duce in Platonica philosophia progressus fecit, ut exquisitam hominis eruditionem suspicerent omnes. Egregiae quidem dotes, sed quas cum in sui ipsius, tum in aliorum perniciem misere convertit : iis quippe abusus, nefaria patris dogmata ampliavit, audaciusque disseminavit; tum ad Secundum se atque ejus fautores applicavit, ac illius in se virus, hoc est, imbutam venenata quadam peste loquacitatem expressit. Omitto quod Epiphanius ait, Isidorum quemdam (philosophum, an haereticum Valentinianum, dubitat, affirmat vero Clemens Alexand., Basilidis filium exstitisse) scriptis Paraenesibus, Epiphani auctorem erroris fuisse, ac Secundum et Epiphanem has Paraeneses ad usum sectae suae transtulisse. Quod enim ex iis Paraenesibus Fragmentum recitat Clemens Alexand. lib. III Strom., pag. 427, repugnare videtur cum iis, quae de conjugio docet Epiphanes apud eumdem Clementem. Quidquid sit, Epiphanes ne pluribus exitio foret, diu vivere permissus non est. Nam cum ad XVII aetatis annum pervenisset, immatura morte praeventus est : quo anno, non constat. At cum Theodoretus scribat eum Adriano imperante haeresim suam confirmasse, vix huic principi superfuisse potuit. Quare vel sub ejus finem, vel inter initia Antonini Pii obierit necesse est. Non tamen istius morte compressum omnino malum. Sic enim vivens conterraneos suos, ex matre, Cephalenios tum praestigiis, tum eruditione fascinaverat, ut mortuo divinos honores detulerint, templum, altaria, Musaeum in Same urbe exstruxerint, sacrificia et libationes tanquam Deo singulis noviluniis obtulerint, convivia egerint, ac hymnos ei cecinerint. Quod adhuc Epiphanii temporibus obtinebat. Scripsit inter alios librum De justitia, ex quo fragmenta quaedam, quae insanam hominis impietatem ac libidinem prae se ferunt, descripsit Clemens Alexandrinus. In eo justitiam Dei dicit esse κοινωνίαν τινὰ μετ' ἰσότητος, quamdam cum aequalitate communionem : indeque infert res cunctas, ipsas etiam uxores, inter homines esse debere communes : quod quidem erroris portentum a Platone accepit, qui si non ita reapse senserit, iis saltem verbis usus est lib. V De republica, quae eum ita sensisse pluribus persuasere. Quae fuerint apud scelestos homines dogmatis hujus consectaria, quibusve

enumerates Epiphanes, to whom moreover fit exceedingly well the things which the Latin Irenaeus and Tertullian attribute to that illustrious or more notable teacher. Epiphanes was contemporary with Secundus, and accordingly succeeded him not so much in time as in doctrine. He was the son of Carpocrates, that infamous heresiarch of whom we shall discourse hereafter, and of a mother whose name was Alexandria; on his father's side indeed an Alexandrian, but on his mother's a Cephallenian. Cultivated not slothfully by his father in the liberal disciplines, under his guidance he made such great progress in Platonic philosophy that all admired the exquisite erudition of the man. Excellent gifts indeed, but such as he wretchedly turned to the ruin both of himself and of others: for abusing them, he enlarged the nefarious dogmas of his father, and disseminated them more audaciously; then he attached himself to Secundus and his partisans, and reproduced his venom in himself, that is, a loquacity steeped in a certain poisoned pestilence. I omit what Epiphanius says, that a certain Isidore (whether a philosopher or a Valentinian heretic he doubts, whereas Clement of Alexandria affirms that he was the son of Basilides), having written Paraeneses, was to Epiphanes the author of his error, and that Secundus and Epiphanes transferred these Paraeneses to the use of their own sect. For the Fragment which Clement of Alexandria recites from those Paraeneses in Bk. III of the Stromata, p. 427, seems to conflict with the things which Epiphanes teaches concerning marriage in the same Clement. However that may be, lest Epiphanes should be the ruin of more, he was not permitted to live long. For when he had reached the seventeenth year of his age, he was cut off by an untimely death: in what year is not established. But since Theodoret writes that he confirmed his heresy while Hadrian was reigning, he could scarcely have survived this prince. Wherefore he must needs have died either towards his end, or among the beginnings of Antoninus Pius. Yet the evil was not altogether suppressed by his death. For while living he had so fascinated his fellow-countrymen on his mother's side, the Cephallenians, both by juggling tricks and by erudition, that when he died they paid him divine honours, built a temple, altars, and a Museum in the city of Same, offered sacrifices and libations to him as to a god at every new moon, held banquets, and sang hymns to him. Which still obtained in the times of Epiphanius. He wrote among other works a book On Justice, from which Clement of Alexandria copied out certain fragments which display the mad impiety and lust of the man. In it he says that the justice of God is a certain communion with equality: and thence he infers that all things, even wives themselves, ought to be common among men: which monster of error indeed he received from Plato, who, if he did not in reality think thus, at least used such words in Bk. V of On the Republic as persuaded many that he thought thus. What were the consequences of this dogma among wicked men, or with

Editors' notes and page, col. 105

Footnotes

(88) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 105 or 106 (not visible)

Epiph., Haer. XXXI, § 1.

Epiphanius, Heresies 31, § 1.

(printed under page 59)

(89) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 105 or 106 (not visible)

Id., Haer. XXXII, § 3.

The same, Heresies 32, § 3.

(printed under page 59)

(90) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 105 or 106 (not visible)

Lib. III Strom., p. 418.

Stromata, book 3, p. 418.

(printed under page 59)

(91) ‹anchor: Theodoretus scribat› · call in col 105

Lib. I Haer. fab. c. 5.

Compendium of Heretical Fables, book 1, chapter 5.

(printed under page 59)

(92) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 105 or 106 (not visible)

Haer. XXXII, § 7.

Heresies 32, § 7.

(printed under page 59)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO I, ART. II, DE VALE
marginal letters: A cundo proximum; B vit, audaciusque; C permissus non; D Quod adhuc
old-edition numerals: [XLVIII] after ampliavit
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: cundo proximum recenset (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of Se-cundo from col 104; ends with qui- split to col 106
other: the word quibusve was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 106

PG 7:106

sordidari criminibus debuerint suum istorum et canum synaxes, quilibet intelligit.

what crimes the assemblies of those swine and dogs must have been befouled, anyone understands.

81. Quae fuerit Epiphanis de Aeonibus sententia, superius exposuimus. In eo duntaxat a Valentino, et Ptolemaitis differebat, quod primum quaternarium aliis nominibus exprimeret. Nempe quod illi Bythum et Sigen, Nun et Aletheian dicebant, hic Monoteta et Henoteta, Monada et Hen. Totidem voces Platonicis, cum de Divinitate sermo erat, familiares, ut vidimus. Et eapropter a Clemente Alexand. Μοναδικῆς γνώσεως auctor dictus est, scilicet a Monade illa vel Monotete, quam a Platonicorum schola in suam invexerat. Caetera de Valentinianorum hypothesi disserentes exposuimus.

81. What was the opinion of Epiphanes concerning the Aeons, we have set forth above. In this alone did he differ from Valentinus and the Ptolemaites, that he expressed the first quaternary by other names. Namely, what they called Bythus and Sige, Nus and Aletheia, he called Monotes and Henotes, Monas and Hen. Just so many words familiar to the Platonists when the discourse was of the Divinity, as we have seen. And on that account by Clement of Alexandria he was called the author of the Monadic gnosis, namely from that Monad or Monotes which he had imported from the school of the Platonists into his own. The rest we have set forth while discoursing on the hypothesis of the Valentinians.

III. De Epiphanis discipulis.

III. On the disciples of Epiphanes.

82. Sicuti vero Epiphanes vetera magistrorum aenigmata novis obscurare voluit, sic discipuli ejus majores adhuc praeceptoris dictis tenebras offundere gestierunt. Ii sunt, auctore Epiphanio, quorum nugas tacito gerronum nomine refert Irenaeus cap. 11, n. 5. Primam tetrada ex Proarche, Anennoeto, Arrheto, et Aorato coagmentabant. Ex Proarche vero emissum esse primo et quinto loco Archen, ex Anennoeto secundo et sexto loco Acatalepton, ex Arrheto tertio et septimo loco Anonomaston, ex Aorato autem quarto et octavo loco Agenneton effutiebant. Quas quidem ambages (si quis tamen hujusmodi deliriis sensus subesse possit) in notis ad hunc locum extricare conati sumus. Sic primam ogdoada grandioribus, quam caeteri solerent, nominibus infuscare placuit veteratoribus istis; et ne aliorum Gnosticorum vestigia relegere viderentur, Bythum (quem alii conjugis expertem, alii masculum et feminam, alii neque masculum, neque feminam esse dicebant) et Sigen de pristina sede deturbare, ut eo loco, quem reliqui Bythio et Mixi assignabant, collocarent. Sed pugna in verbis erat, eadem semper stante hypothesi.

82. Now just as Epiphanes wished to obscure the old riddles of his masters with new ones, so his disciples were eager to pour still greater darkness over the sayings of their preceptor. They are those, on the authority of Epiphanius, whose trifles Irenaeus relates in Ch. 11, n. 5, keeping silent the name of the babblers. The first tetrad they pieced together out of Proarche, Anennoetos, Arrhetos, and Aoratos. And from Proarche, they babbled, was sent forth in the first and fifth place Arche, from Anennoetos in the second and sixth place Acataleptos, from Arrhetos in the third and seventh place Anonomastos, and from Aoratos in the fourth and eighth place Agennetos. Which circumlocutions indeed (if however any sense can underlie such ravings) we have endeavoured to disentangle in the notes on this passage. Thus it pleased those old foxes to darken the first ogdoad with grander names than the rest were wont to use; and lest they should seem to retrace the footsteps of the other Gnostics, to dislodge Bythus (whom some said to be without a consort, others male and female, others neither male nor female) and Sige from their former seat, so as to place them in that spot which the rest assigned to Bythius and Mixis. But the fight was in words, the hypothesis always standing the same.

IV. De Ptolemaeo ejusque discipulis.

IV. On Ptolemy and his disciples.

83. Epiphanem excipit apud Epiphanium Ptolemaeus, de cujus aetate, patria et moribus nihil certi definiri potest. Secundi et Epiphanis discipulum, et utrique coaevum, magistris tamen longe doctiorem fuisse significat idem Epiphanius; de caeteris altissimum apud veteres silentium. Plures quidem conjecturas his de rebus proponit Dodwellus Dissert. IV in Iren., § 28 et seqq., sed quae vix apud alios quam credulos lectores fidem obtineant. Illud duntaxat ex Irenaeo concludere possumus, Ptolemaeum, etsi forte Valentinum viderit, eo tamen juniorem fuisse. Iste siquidem Theodadem quemdam apostolorum discipulum vidisse se jactabat, ut diximus : at Irenaeus lib. II, cap. 32, n. 5, affirmat Ptolemaeum apostolos nunquam vidisse, imo vestigium apostoli

83. After Epiphanes follows in Epiphanius Ptolemy, concerning whose age, fatherland, and morals nothing certain can be defined. That he was a disciple of Secundus and Epiphanes, and contemporary with both, yet far more learned than his masters, the same Epiphanius signifies; concerning the rest there is the deepest silence among the ancients. Dodwell indeed proposes several conjectures about these matters in Dissertation 4 on Irenaeus, § 28 and following, but such as would scarcely obtain credit with any other than credulous readers. This alone can we conclude from Irenaeus, that Ptolemy, even if perhaps he saw Valentinus, was nevertheless younger than he. For the latter boasted that he had seen a certain Theodades, a disciple of the apostles, as we have said: whereas Irenaeus in Bk. 2, Ch. 32, n. 5, affirms that Ptolemy never saw the apostles, nay not even the footprint of an apostle

Editors' notes and page, col. 106

Footnotes

(93) ‹anchor: idem Epiphanius› · call in col 106

Haer. XXXI, § 1, et haer. XXXIII, § 1.

Heresies 31, § 1, and Heresies 33, § 1.

(printed under page 59)

Page

running head: T. II, DE VALENTINI DISCIPULIS.
marginal letters: A busve sordidari; B III. De Epiphanis; C possit) in; D pulum, et
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: busve sordidari criminibus (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of qui-busve from col 105; ends with apo- split to col 107

PG 7:107

ne in somniis quidem assecutum fuisse : id est, aetate juniorem fuisse, quam ut ad apostolorum discipulos pertingere potuerit. Tantam sibi famam apud Valentinianos fecerat ille, ut hujus schola nominis celebritate caeteras omnes longe superaret. Hanc vocat Irenaeus ἀπάνθισμα τῆς Οὐαλεντίνου σχολῆς· quasi diceret, lectissimos quosque e Valentinianis hortis decerptos flores, quod e subtilioribus quibusque Valentinianae scholae dogmatis hypothesim suam adornasset Ptolemaeus. Quamobrem cum istius Valentinianae sectae coryphaei placita prae caeteris exagitanda sibi suscepisset auctor noster (ratus nimirum, iis semel subversis, aliorum ruinam brevi secuturam), caeteris etiam accuratius et fusius explicare suarum esse partium arbitratus est. In hac proinde explicatione priora novem libri primi capita insumpsit. Quin enim in iis capitibus Ptolemaei sententiam referat, vix dubitem. Nam in Praefatione spondet se sententiam eorum, qui sunt circa Ptolemaeum, τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον, compendiose et manifeste ostensurum. Ubi licet Hellenismus, τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον, pro linguae Graecae genio, ἀμφίβολος sit, et de Ptolemaicis aeque ac de Ptolemaeo ipso explicari possit; de posteriori tamen praecipue intelligendum esse demonstrat, quod reserata jam hypothesi, narrandi finem faciens, addit apud veterem interpretem in fine capitis 8 : Et Ptolemaeus quidem ita. Quae quidem etsi in hodierno Epiphanii textu Graeco desiderentur, credere satius est ab hoc omissa, quam ab interprete contra Graeci codicis, quem prae oculis habebat, fidem addita. Sic intellexit Tertullianus, nec ad alium quam ad Ptolemaeum pertinere priora Irenaei capita censuit. Explicatis enim ex Irenaei mente, et iisdem pene verbis, triginta Aeonibus, hos subinde vocat familiam Ptolemaei. Et postea cap. 12 Jesum ex Aeonum omnium symbolis concretum appellat, Miscellaneam Ptolemaei. Et cap. 19 cum spiritalem Achamothae conceptum descripsisset : Hoc est, inquit, mulum de asino pingere, et Ptolemaeum describere de Valentino. Sic totum illud Valentinianum systema, quod initio libri primi exposuit Irenaeus, ad Ptolemaeum ille semper retulit. Unde inferendum, eos quorum sententiam describit Irenaeus cap. 12 his quae apud veterem interpretem leguntur verbis : Hi vero qui sunt circa Ptolemaeum scientiores, duas conjuges habere eum Bython dicunt, etc., Ptolemaei discipulos quosdam esse a magistri doctrina degeneres, non Ptolemaeum ipsum, cujus placita, eaque diversa, jam retulerat : minusque recte fecisse Epiphanium, qui, quae plurali numero expresserat Irenaeus, in singularem converterit, et quae ille de discipulis tantum scripserat, ad hos et ad magistrum ex aequo, imo ad istum praecipue detorserit : Ὁ Πτολεμαῖος, καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ, ἔτι ἐμπειρότερος ἡμῖν τοῦ ἑαυτῶν διδασκάλου, δύο συζύγους τῷ Θεῷ,

had he attained even in his dreams: that is, he was younger in age than that he could reach to the disciples of the apostles. So great a fame had he made for himself among the Valentinians that his school far surpassed all the rest in the celebrity of its name. Irenaeus calls it the flower-gathering of the school of Valentinus: as if he should say, all the choicest flowers plucked from the Valentinian gardens, because out of all the more subtle dogmas of the Valentinian school Ptolemy had decked out his own hypothesis. Wherefore, since our author had undertaken to assail the tenets of this leader of the Valentinian sect beyond the rest (deeming namely that once these were overthrown, the ruin of the others would shortly follow), he judged it to be his part to explain them also more accurately and more at large than the rest. In this explanation, accordingly, he spent the first nine chapters of the first book. For that in those chapters he relates the opinion of Ptolemy, I would scarcely doubt. For in the Preface he promises that he will show compendiously and manifestly the opinion of those who are about Ptolemy, of those about Ptolemy. Where, although the Hellenism, τῶν περὶ Πτολεμαῖον, according to the genius of the Greek tongue, is ambiguous, and can be explained of the Ptolemaics equally as of Ptolemy himself; yet that it is to be understood chiefly of the latter is demonstrated by the fact that, having now laid open the hypothesis, in making an end of narrating, he adds in the ancient translator at the end of Ch. 8: And Ptolemy indeed thus. Which words indeed, although they are wanting in the present-day Greek text of Epiphanius, it is better to believe were omitted by him than added by the translator against the faith of the Greek codex which he had before his eyes. Thus Tertullian understood it, and judged that the first chapters of Irenaeus pertain to no other than to Ptolemy. For having explained according to the mind of Irenaeus, and in almost the same words, the thirty Aeons, he repeatedly calls them the family of Ptolemy. And afterwards in Ch. 12 he calls Jesus, compounded out of the contributions of all the Aeons, the Miscellany of Ptolemy. And in Ch. 19, when he had described the spiritual conception of Achamoth: This is, says he, to paint a mule from an ass, and to describe Ptolemy from Valentinus. Thus that whole Valentinian system which Irenaeus set forth at the beginning of the first book, he always referred to Ptolemy. Whence it is to be inferred that those whose opinion Irenaeus describes in Ch. 12 in these words which are read in the ancient translator: But those about Ptolemy who are more skilled say that that Bythus has two consorts, etc., are certain disciples of Ptolemy degenerate from the doctrine of their master, not Ptolemy himself, whose tenets, and those different, he had already related; and that Epiphanius did less rightly in turning into the singular what Irenaeus had expressed in the plural number, and twisting what the latter had written of the disciples only to them and to their master equally, nay to him chiefly: Ptolemy, and those with him, being for us still more experienced than their own teacher, two consorts for God,

Editors' notes and page, col. 107

Footnotes

(94) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 107 or 108 (not visible)

Praef. lib. I.

Preface to book 1.

(printed under page 60)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE I
marginal letters: A stoli ne; B tium arbitratus; C Graeco desiderentur; D quorum sententiam
old-edition numerals: [XLIX] after hoc
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: stoli ne in somniis (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of apo-stoli from col 106

PG 7:108

παρ' αὐτοῖς Βυθῷ καλουμένῳ, ἐπενόησέ τε καὶ ἐχαρίσατο. Longe melius Irenaei mentem accepit Tertullianus, qui, quae hoc cap. 12 narrat Irenaeus, in emendatores Ptolemaei confert. Exstiterunt enim, ait cap. 33, de schola ipsius, discipuli super magistrum, qui duplex conjugium Bytho suo affingerent, etc. Hoc vero duntaxat a magistro discrepabant discipuli, quod ille unam conjugem, Ennoeam nempe seu cogitationem; isti duplicem, cogitationem et voluntatem, Bytho suo tribuerent : ita ut utriusque ex aequo suffragante opera Nun et Aletheian produxerit Bythus, respondente Nu voluntati, Aletheia cogitationi : cum e contrario vellet Ptolemaeus, Bythum per unam cogitationem emisisse Nun et Aletheian. Quae quidem discipulorum sententia rationi magis consentanea videbatur. Cum enim utrique in eo consentirent, quod Aeonum conjuges meras eorum affectiones esse assererent, ut superius probavimus; aequius videbatur cogitationem simul et voluntatem, affectiones a Bytho indistinctas, in productionem Nu et Aletheiae influere, quam cogitationem tantum omissa voluntate. Caetera nihil dissidebant discipuli a magistro. Hic vero paulo aliter atque Valentinus de Termino, Christo et Spiritu sancto, ac Jesu sentiebat. Sed utriusque sententiam supra de Valentino agentes exposuimus, ubi cum in explicanda enucleatius Ptolemaei hypothesi diutius incubuerimus, nihil hic dicendum superest. Scripsit is epistolam ad mulierculam quamdam, nomine Floram, quam descripsit Epiphanius, in qua Legem Mosaicam, seu Pentateuchum, a supremo Deo et Patre sancitam negat, sed trifariam distribuendam esse censet. Quaedam enim, inquit, ad ipsum Deum (mundi conditorem) ejusque sanctiones pertinent : alia autem Mosi tribuenda sunt, non quidem quatenus aliquid a Deo illius interventu decretum est; sed quatenus per se ac suapte sponte nonnulla constituit : aliorum denique seniores, qui in populo erant, auctores exstiterunt, ac primi illi privata quaedam praecepta inserere sunt ausi. Sic veterator ille, Valentini, aliorumque Gnosticorum principiis inhaerens, qui summum Deum velut otio torpentem sibi fingebant, qui deposita mundi regiminis sollicitudine, ejus curam omnem angelis crederet. Ex quo sequebatur veterem legem nihil ad eum pertinere. Sed de his supra.

called among them Bythus, he both devised and bestowed. Far better did Tertullian grasp the mind of Irenaeus, who refers what Irenaeus relates in this Ch. 12 to the emenders of Ptolemy. For there arose, says he in Ch. 33, from his school disciples above their master, who fastened a double marriage upon their Bythus, etc. Now in this alone did the disciples differ from their master, that he attributed one consort, namely Ennoea or thought, while they attributed a double one, thought and will, to their Bythus: so that by the equally assisting agency of both Bythus produced Nus and Aletheia, Nus answering to will, and Aletheia to thought: whereas on the contrary Ptolemy wished Bythus through thought alone to have sent forth Nus and Aletheia. Which opinion of the disciples indeed seemed more agreeable to reason. For since both agreed in this, that they asserted the consorts of the Aeons to be their mere affections, as we proved above, it seemed more reasonable that thought and will together, affections indistinct from Bythus, should concur in the production of Nus and Aletheia, than thought alone with will omitted. In other respects the disciples differed not at all from their master. He, however, thought a little differently from Valentinus concerning the Limit, Christ and the Holy Spirit, and Jesus. But the opinion of both we have set forth above while dealing with Valentinus, where, since we dwelt at greater length on explaining more articulately the hypothesis of Ptolemy, nothing remains to be said here. He wrote an epistle to a certain woman named Flora, which Epiphanius copied out, in which he denies that the Mosaic Law, or Pentateuch, was sanctioned by the supreme God and Father, and holds that it is to be distributed into three parts. For some things, says he, pertain to God Himself (the founder of the world) and his sanctions; others are to be attributed to Moses, not indeed insofar as anything was decreed by God through his intervention, but insofar as of himself and of his own accord he established certain things; of others, finally, the elders who were among the people were the authors, and they first dared to insert certain private precepts. Thus that old fox, cleaving to the principles of Valentinus and the rest of the Gnostics, who feigned for themselves the supreme God as it were torpid with leisure, who, having laid aside anxiety for the governance of the world, entrusted all care of it to the angels. From which it followed that the old law pertained nothing to Him. But of these things above.

V. De Colorbaso.

V. On Colorbasus.

84. Ptolemaicis illis apud Irenaeum succedit, Marcoque praeit Colorbasus. Quamvis enim hujus nomen sileat, ad ipsum tamen pertinere, quae cap. 12, n. 3, refert placita eorum qui prudentiores illorum (Ptolemaicorum scilicet) putantur esse, patet ex Epiphanio haer. XXXV, unde concludere licet, Colorbasum Ptolemaei discipulum fuisse; an vero et Marci? paulo major difficultas. Id quidem asserit Epiphanius, scribens Colorbasum a Marci praestigiis ineptias suas corrogasse, fuisseque ei primum

84. To those Ptolemaics in Irenaeus succeeds, and before Marcus goes, Colorbasus. For although he keeps silent his name, yet that to him pertain the tenets which he relates in Ch. 12, n. 3, of those who are thought to be more prudent than they (namely than the Ptolemaics), is clear from Epiphanius, Heresy 35, whence one may conclude that Colorbasus was a disciple of Ptolemy; but whether also of Marcus, is a somewhat greater difficulty. Epiphanius indeed asserts this, writing that Colorbasus scraped together his absurdities from the juggling tricks of Marcus, and that he had at first

Editors' notes and page, col. 108

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A παρ' αὐτοῖς; B tioni magis; C nomine Floram; D deret. Ex
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: παρ' αὐτοῖς Βυθῷ καλουμένῳ (Massuet, Diss. I)

PG 7:109

cum Marco societatem, et dogmatum consensionem; postea velut caput a serpentis corpore divulsum, plurimis exitio fuisse. Idemque colligitur ex Augustino et Damasceno lib. De haeres., ac Theodoreto lib. I, cap. 12. Sed vereor ut Epiphanius primum deceptus, alios demum in errorem secum abduxerit. Nam Irenaeus, cui potior fides, Colorbasum non Marci, sed Ptolemaei auditorem facit, ut mox videbamus, et Valentini discipulos ordine recensens Colorbaso Marcum postponit. Imo cap. 14 Marci hypothesim expositurus, remque a capite repetens, satis perspicuis, ni fallor, verbis significat, huic Colorbasum viae ducem fuisse. Ait enim, Marcum vulvam et susceptorium Colorbasi Silentii semetipsum solum fuisse, dixisse : ὄυτως Μάρκος μήτραν καὶ ἐκδοχεῖον τῆς Κολορβάσου Σιγῆς (sic legendum) εἰσηγήσατο αὐτὸν μονώτατον γεγονέναι λέγων. Marcus autem vulva et susceptorium Colorbasi Silentii dici non potuisset, nisi a Colorbaso mysteria Valentinianorum Siges edoctus fuisset, quae in eo tanquam in vulva formam et incrementum accipientia, inde in lucem emitterentur. Nec omittendum quod idem Irenaeus recensita jam Colorbasi et discipulorum ejus haeresi, ad Marcum sermonem convertens subdit : Alius vero quidam ex iis, qui sunt apud eos, magistri emendatorem se esse glorians, Marcus est autem illi nomen, etc. Ad alios certe spectare posse non videntur ea verba, ex iis qui sunt apud eos, quam ad illos, de quibus mox dixerat, multa autem pugna apud eos etiam de Salvatore, Colorbasaeos scilicet. Et quis ille magister, cujus emendatorem se esse gloriabatur Marcus, nisi Colorbasus, de quo mox sermonem fecerat? Neque enim haec ad Ptolemaeum referri possunt, cujus haeresim longe antea descripsit, et inter quem ac Marcum plures alios scholae Valentinianae duces interserit. Non aliter Irenaeum, quod ad Colorbasum attinet, intellexit Tertullianus, Adv. Valent., cap. 4. Ait enim, Valentinum, cujusdam veteris opinionis semen nactum, Colorbaso viam delineasse; eam postmodum Ptolemaeum intrasse; deduxisse demum Heracleonem inde tramites quosdam, et Secundum, et magum Marcum. Viam scilicet Colorbaso affirmat delineasse Valentinum, ut scite observat Dodwellus; viam eamdem intrasse Ptolemaeum; ex eadem illa via tramitem deduxisse Marcum; viae scilicet allegoria ubique continuata. Ubi licet Colorbasum Ptolemaeo ac Secundo priorem facere videatur; in quo lapsum eum puto, et ab Irenaeo recessisse; in eo tamen huic assentitur, quod Marcum Colorbaso posteriorem innuat. Nec moror quod in lib. De praescript., cap. 50, ille huic praeponatur. Nam Catalogum illum haereticorum, qui ad calcem libri De praescript. legitur, genuinum Tertulliani fetum non esse consentiunt eruditi.

fellowship with Marcus and agreement in dogmas, and afterwards, like a head torn away from the body of a serpent, was the ruin of very many. And the same is gathered from Augustine and Damascene in their books On Heresies, and Theodoret, Bk. 1, Ch. 12. But I fear that Epiphanius, having been deceived first, at length led the others away into error with himself. For Irenaeus, to whom greater credit is due, makes Colorbasus a hearer not of Marcus, but of Ptolemy, as we just saw, and in enumerating the disciples of Valentinus in order places Marcus after Colorbasus. Nay, in Ch. 14, when about to set forth the hypothesis of Marcus, and repeating the matter from the head, in words clear enough, unless I am mistaken, he signifies that Colorbasus was to him the leader of the way. For he says that Marcus said that he himself alone was the womb and receptacle of the Silence of Colorbasus: thus Marcus introduced himself, saying that he alone had become the womb and receptacle of the Silence of Colorbasus (so we must read). Now Marcus could not have been called the womb and receptacle of the Silence of Colorbasus unless he had been taught by Colorbasus the mysteries of the Sige of the Valentinians, which, receiving form and increase in him as in a womb, were thence sent forth into the light. Nor must we omit that the same Irenaeus, having already recounted the heresy of Colorbasus and his disciples, turning his discourse to Marcus subjoins: But a certain other of those who are among them, boasting himself to be the emender of his master, and Marcus is his name, etc. Those words, of those who are among them, certainly do not seem able to look to others than to those of whom he had just said, And there is much fighting among them also concerning the Saviour, namely the Colorbasians. And who is that master whose emender Marcus boasted himself to be, except Colorbasus, of whom he had just made mention? For neither can these things be referred to Ptolemy, whose heresy he described long before, and between whom and Marcus he inserts several other leaders of the Valentinian school. Not otherwise did Tertullian understand Irenaeus as regards Colorbasus, Against the Valentinians, Ch. 4. For he says that Valentinus, having got hold of the seed of a certain old opinion, sketched out the way for Colorbasus; that Ptolemy afterwards entered upon it; and that finally Heracleon drew off certain bypaths thence, and Secundus, and the magician Marcus. Namely, he affirms that Valentinus sketched out the way for Colorbasus, as Dodwell shrewdly observes; that Ptolemy entered upon the same way; and that from that same way Marcus drew off a bypath—the allegory of a way namely being continued everywhere. Where, although he seems to make Colorbasus prior to Ptolemy and Secundus, in which I think he slipped and departed from Irenaeus, yet in this he agrees with the latter, that he hints that Marcus was later than Colorbasus. Nor do I dwell upon the fact that in the book On Prescriptions, Ch. 50, the former is placed before the latter. For the learned agree that that Catalogue of heretics which is read at the end of the book On Prescriptions is not a genuine offspring of Tertullian.

85. Longe aliter atque caeteri Valentiniani primam

85. Far otherwise than the rest of the Valentinians did Colorbasus explain the first

Editors' notes and page, col. 109

Footnotes

(95) ‹anchor: observat Dodwellus› · call in col 109

Diss. IV in Iren., § 19.

Dissertation 4 on Irenaeus, § 19.

(printed under page 61)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO I, ART. II, DE VALE
marginal letters: A cum Marco; B καὶ ἐκδοχεῖον; C rat, multa; D wellus; viam
old-edition numerals: [L] after Irenaeo
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: cum Marco societatem (Massuet, Diss. I); ends with pri- split to col 110
other: the word primam was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 110

PG 7:110

ogdoada explicabat Colorbasus. Illi enim primos octo Aeones gradatim alterum ab altero sic emissum volebant, ut posteriorem tetrada a priori penitus separatam et inferioris naturae esse sentirent. Hic vero primam ogdoada non gradatim, seu καθ' ὑπόβασιν, sed simul et in unum, ὁμοῦ καὶ εἰς ἅπαξ, emissam esse censebat : adeo ut non multi Aeones, sed unus et idem esset, qui pro variis operationibus et proprietatibus varia sortiretur nomina et appellationes, Patris videlicet, cum aliquid emittere cogitavit Veritatis, ubi ea quae emisit vera fuerunt, Hominis, cum voluit semetipsum ostendere, etc. Hominem etiam et Ecclesiam non a Logo et Zoe, cum aliis Valentinianis, sed potius Logon et Zoen ab Homine et Ecclesia produci cum veteribus Gnosticis asserebat. De Salvatore autem non una erat, sed multiplex apud Colorbasaeos sententia. Quidam ex Aeonum omnium symbolis conflatum esse dicebant, et ea ratione εὐδοκητὸν in Evangelio dici putabant, dum nimirum Pater Filium compellans ait : Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα, Hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi bene complacui : quod videlicet universo Pleromati Patris gloriam per eum illustrare placuerit. Alii eum ex solis decem Aeonibus, quos Verbum et Vita in lucem extulerunt, productum fuisse tradebant; ut sic explicarent, cur interdum in Evangelio Verbum et Vita vocetur, quod scilicet avita nomina retineat. Alii eum Christi et Spiritus sancti, qui fulciendi Pleromatis causa producti sunt, sobolem esse malebant; et eapropter Christum patrio nomine appellari. Alii eum ex duodecim illis Aeonibus, qui ex Homine et Ecclesia exstiterunt, ortum esse contendebant : hincque fieri ut ipsemet sese Filium hominis confiteatur, tanquam hominis nepotem. Quanquam, ait Tertullianus cap. ult. adv. Valent. post Irenaeum, sunt qui Filium hominis aliunde conceperint dicendum, quod nimirum supremus Pater quandoque hominis vocabulo nuncuparetur, cum videlicet seipsum hominibus manifestum faciebat. Praeter eos errores, quos Colorbasaeis tribuunt Irenaeus, Tertullianus et Epiphanius, addit Augustinus lib. De haeres., quod vitam omnium hominum et generationem in septem sideribus, septem scilicet planetis, consistere affirmaverit Colorbasus. Quod e Platonicorum lacunis hauserat. Nam ii animam animalem ex circuitu coelestium mundorum nobis advenire dicebant, et eorumdem motibus fatali necessitate constrictam obtemperare, ut superius ex Jamblicho probavimns.

ogdoad. For they wished the first eight Aeons to have been sent forth step by step one from another in such a way that they held the latter tetrad to be utterly separated from the former and of an inferior nature. He, however, held that the first ogdoad was sent forth not step by step, or by gradual descent, but all together and into one, together and once for all: so much so that there were not many Aeons, but one and the same, who according to various operations and properties obtained various names and appellations—namely of Father, when he thought to send forth something; of Truth, when the things which he sent forth were true; of Man, when he wished to show himself, etc. He also asserted, with the ancient Gnostics, not that Man and Church are produced by Logos and Zoe, as with the other Valentinians, but rather that Logos and Zoe are produced by Man and Church. Concerning the Saviour, moreover, there was among the Colorbasians not one opinion, but a manifold one. Some said that he was compounded out of the contributions of all the Aeons, and for that reason thought he was called well-pleasing in the Gospel, namely when the Father addressing the Son says: This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased, This is My beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased: namely because it pleased the whole Pleroma to illustrate the glory of the Father through him. Others handed down that he was produced out of the ten Aeons alone whom Word and Life brought forth into the light; that thus they might explain why he is sometimes called Word and Life in the Gospel, namely because he retains his ancestral names. Others preferred that he was the offspring of Christ and the Holy Spirit, who were produced for the sake of supporting the Pleroma; and that on that account he is called Christ by his paternal name. Others contended that he sprung from those twelve Aeons who came into being from Man and Church; and that hence it comes that he himself confesses himself the Son of man, as the grandson of Man. Although, says Tertullian in the last chapter Against the Valentinians after Irenaeus, there are some who have conceived that he is to be called the Son of man from another source, namely because the supreme Father was sometimes called by the appellation of Man, namely when he made himself manifest to men. Besides those errors which Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius attribute to the Colorbasians, Augustine adds in his book On Heresies that Colorbasus affirmed the life and generation of all men to consist in the seven stars, namely the seven planets. Which he had drawn from the ditches of the Platonists. For they said that the animal soul comes to us from the circuit of the heavenly worlds, and bound fast by fatal necessity obeys their motions, as we proved above from Iamblichus.

VI. De Marco mago.

VI. On Marcus the magician.

86. E Colorbasi schola prodiit Marcus, pro more veteratorum illorum magistri deliria novis ineptiis cumulaturus. E Basilidis Gnostici stirpe descendisse scribit Hieronymus; quod si verum, avitae impietatis non degener fuit soboles. Famosissimus fuit apud Valentinianos, nullique illius scholae

86. From the school of Colorbasus came forth Marcus, after the custom of those old foxes about to heap up the ravings of his master with new absurdities. Jerome writes that he descended from the stock of Basilides the Gnostic; which if true, he was no degenerate offspring of his ancestral impiety. He was most famous among the Valentinians, and to none of the leaders of that school,

Editors' notes and page, col. 110

Footnotes

(96) ‹anchor: cui› · call in col 110

Matth. XVII, 5.

Matthew 17:5.

(printed under page 61)

(97) ‹anchor: scribit Hieronymus› · call in col 110

Ep. 53, al. 29, t. IV nov. edit.

Letter 53 (otherwise 29), vol. 4 of the new edition.

(printed under page 61)

Page

running head: RT. II, DE VALENTINI DISCIPULIS.
marginal letters: A mam ogdoada; B asserebat. De; C Pleromatis causa; D planetis, consistere
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: mam ogdoada explicabat (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of pri-mam from col 109; ends with scho- split to col 111

PG 7:111

ducum, ne quidem ipsi Ptolemaeo, tum loquacitate, tum discipulorum numero secundus, imo mille nocendi artibus superior. Et eapropter utriusque haeresim vafritiem ac scelera speciali cura ac fusiori stylo descripsit Irenaeus. Qui dum Marci errores ac vitia confutat ac prodit, supponere videtur adhuc in vivis superstitem manere. Scribebat porro S. doctor sub Eleutherii pontificatu, annis plus minus post Christum natum 180. Cum vero jam longe lateque propagata esset Marcosiorum secta, in ipsumque etiam Occidentem invasisset, nec id nisi plurium annorum spatio fieri potuisset, non male conjecerit quisquis hujus initia ad annum circiter 160, imo paulo citius ad extrema Valentini vitae tempora retulerit. Magicarum praestigiarum peritissimus cum esset Marcus, pro more Gnosticorum omnium, qui tetrum illud scientiae genus a Platonicis magistris suis acceperant, quibus sub specioso theurgiae nomine maxime familiare ac summo in honore fuit, ut apud Porphyrium, Jamblichum et alios videre est; mirum quot viros et mulieres in fraudem induxerit, et ad se converterit, velut ad hominem singulari quadam scientia ac potestate praeditum. Parum esset si mulierum mentibus duntaxat, non etiam corporibus insidias struxisset ille perditus. Daemonem quemdam habuisse paredrum seu assessorem suspicatur Irenaeus, cujus opera tum ipse vaticinia quaedam edere videretur, tum etiam efficeret, ut misere seductae mulieres vaticinarentur. Potissimum enim circa mulieres studium et operam impendebat, eas praesertim quae eleganter cultae, opibus abundabant. Nefarias hominis artes, praestigias, horrendasque verborum formulas, quibus simpliciores ad insaniam, eamdemque secum blasphemiam adigebat, fuse describit Irenaeus cap. 12 et seqq. Sed illud non omittendum sceleris genus, quod nedum sacerdotium, nulla accepta secundum Ecclesiae leges manuum impositione, sibi arrogaret, sed et mulieribus in prostitutae pudicitiae pretium per summum nefas committeret. Nempe cum probe conscii essent ipsi etiam perditissimi quique eorum temporum haeretici, nullam sine vero sacrificio Christianam societatem esse posse, id utcunque adumbrare studebat Marcus. Nam pocula vino (albo procul dubio) mista consecrare se fingens, prolatis solemnibus invocationis verbis, efficiebat ut rubicunda et purpurea apparerent : ut sic existimaretur superna Gratia sanguinem suum per ipsius invocationem in poculum illud stillare. Quod et a mulieribus factitari postmodum jubebat. Ubi facile adverterit quisquis tantisper anticipatis Calvinianorum et Lutheranorum opinionibus animum exuere voluerit, tam alte tunc temporis eorum qui, Christianum nomen, etiam specie tenus, profitebantur, animis illud insedisse, sacra dona consecratione facta in verum Christi corpus et sanguinem converti, eo conversionis genere, quae nunc transsubstantatio dicitur, ut ii qui legitima auctoritate ac potestate destituti vinum

not even to Ptolemy himself, was he second either in loquacity or in the number of his disciples, nay he was superior in a thousand arts of doing harm. And on that account Irenaeus described the heresy, craftiness, and crimes of both with special care and in a fuller style. Who, while he refutes and exposes the errors and vices of Marcus, seems to suppose that he still remained alive among the living. Now the holy doctor was writing under the pontificate of Eleutherius, more or less about 180 years after the birth of Christ. And since the sect of the Marcosians had already been propagated far and wide, and had invaded the West itself also, and this could not have happened save in the space of several years, anyone will conjecture not amiss who refers its beginnings to about the year 160, nay a little earlier, to the last times of the life of Valentinus. Since Marcus was most skilled in magical juggling tricks, after the custom of all the Gnostics, who had received that foul kind of knowledge from their Platonic masters, to whom under the specious name of theurgy it was most familiar and held in the highest honour, as may be seen in Porphyry, Iamblichus, and others; it is wonderful how many men and women he led into deceit and turned to himself, as to a man endowed with a certain singular knowledge and power. It would have been a small thing if that abandoned man had laid snares only for the minds of women, and not for their bodies also. Irenaeus suspects that he had a certain demon as familiar or assessor, by whose agency he both seemed himself to utter certain prophecies, and also brought it about that wretchedly seduced women prophesied. For he spent his zeal and labour chiefly upon women, especially those who, elegantly attired, abounded in wealth. The nefarious arts of the man, his juggling tricks, and the dreadful formulas of words whereby he drove the simpler folk to madness and to the same blasphemy with himself, Irenaeus describes at large in Ch. 12 and following. But that kind of crime must not be omitted, that not only did he arrogate the priesthood to himself without having received any imposition of hands according to the laws of the Church, but also through the height of wickedness committed it to women as the price of their prostituted chastity. Namely, since even all the most abandoned heretics of those times themselves were well aware that there can be no Christian society without a true sacrifice, Marcus strove to shadow this forth after a fashion. For feigning to consecrate cups mixed with wine (white, without doubt), uttering solemn words of invocation, he contrived that they appeared red and purple: so that thus the supernal Grace might be supposed to drop her blood into that cup through his invocation. Which he afterwards ordered to be practised by women also. Where anyone who is willing for a little while to strip his mind of the preconceived opinions of the Calvinists and Lutherans will easily notice how deeply at that time there was seated in the minds of those who professed the Christian name, even so far as outward appearance goes, the conviction that once the consecration is made the sacred gifts are converted into the true body and blood of Christ, by that kind of conversion which is now called transubstantiation, so that those who, destitute of legitimate authority and power, knew full well that they could not convert wine

Editors' notes and page, col. 111

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A lae ducum; B peritissimus cum; C res vaticinarentur; D Marcus. Nam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: lae ducum, ne quidem (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of scho-lae from col 110; ends with vi- split to col 112

PG 7:112

in Christi sanguinem, invisibili, vera tamen ratione convertere se non posse probe sciebant, praestigiis uterentur, ut id operari se persuaderent. Age, quaeso, fac Marcum et ejus asseclas in Eucharistia nihil aliud agnovisse quam meram Christi corporis et sanguinis figuram, eadem semper perseverante substantia panis et vini post consecrationem; utquid tam operose studuisset vinum album in rubrum colorem commutare, sanguinemque desuper stillantem exhibere et praedicare, nisi Christianorum omnium ea tunc fuisset sententia, vinum consecratione facta non manere, sed in verum sanguinem converti? Facinus hactenus in coetibus ecclesiasticis inauditum exhorruissent quique, nec fuisset qui eo liquore, qui sanguinem retulisset, quemque verum esse sanguinem jactasset impostor, labia cruentare non refugisset; cum tamen ex Irenaeo constet, nullum fuisse, qui ex eo gustare non gestiret. Adeo infixa erat omnium Christianorum animis ea sententia, Eucharistiam verum Christi corpus et sanguinem esse. Alio praestigiarum genere fucum suis faciebat magus. Nam post sacrilegam a mulieribus attentatam consecrationem, ipse aliud poculum longe majus eo, quod a muliercula seducta consecratum fuerat, proferens, atque ex minore illo, a muliere consecrato, in id quod a se allatum erat transfundens, praemissis ridiculis quibusdam verbis, efficiebat, ut magnum poculum ex parvo usque adeo impleretur, ut etiam superflueret.

into the blood of Christ in an invisible yet true manner, used juggling tricks in order to persuade people that they wrought this. Come, I pray, suppose that Marcus and his followers acknowledged nothing else in the Eucharist than a mere figure of the body and blood of Christ, the same substance of bread and wine always continuing after the consecration; why then would he have striven so laboriously to change white wine into a red colour, and to exhibit and proclaim blood dropping down from above, unless this had then been the opinion of all Christians, that once the consecration is made the wine does not remain, but is converted into true blood? Everyone would have shuddered at a deed hitherto unheard of in ecclesiastical assemblies, nor would there have been anyone who would not have shrunk from staining his lips with that liquor which resembled blood, and which the impostor had boasted to be true blood; whereas nevertheless it is established from Irenaeus that there was no one who was not eager to taste of it. So deeply fixed in the minds of all Christians was that conviction, that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. By another kind of juggling tricks did the magician practise deceit upon his followers. For after the sacrilegious consecration attempted by the women, bringing forth himself another cup far larger than that which had been consecrated by the seduced woman, and pouring over from that smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which had been brought by himself, after premising certain ridiculous words, he contrived that the great cup was filled from the small one to such a degree that it even overflowed.

87. His ac similibus dolis Marcus ejusque discipuli, iisdem veteratoriis artibus eruditi, orbem circumeuntes, foeda vitiorum et errorum colluvie hunc infecerunt. Ab Asia malum coepisse videtur : diaconus enim ille, cujus uxorem, hospitalem hominis beneficentiam remuneraturus Marcus constupravit, Asianus erat. Inde in occiduas partes diffusum, Rhodanenses regiones subiit. A Marci discipulis, potius quam ab ipso magistro huc illatum fuisse, ex Irenaei verbis concludi posse videtur. Mirum igitur Hieronymum, tum in cap. LXIV Isaiae, tum epistola jam citata confidenter scripsisse, quasi ex Irenaeo : quod Marcus quidam de Basilidis Gnostici stirpe descendens, primum ad Gallias venerit : et eas partes per quas Rhodanus et Garumna fluunt, sua doctrina maculaverit : maximeque nobiles feminas, quaedam in occulto mysteria repromittens, hoc errore seduxerit, magicis artibus et secreta corporum voluptate amorem sui concilians. Inde Pyrenaeum transiens Hispanias occuparit, et hoc studio habuerit, ut divitum domus, et in ipsis feminas maxime appeteret, quae ducuntur variis desideriis, semper discentes, et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis pervenientes. Hoc ille (Irenaeus) scripsit ante annos circiter trecentos; et scripsit in his libris, quos adversus omnes haereses doctissimo et eloquentissimo sermone composuit. Quamvis, ut dixi, id Irenaeus Marci discipulis ascribat, quod in Gallias venerint, et eas partes per quas Rhodanus et Garumna fluunt, sua doctrina maculaverint; nolim tamen

87. By these and similar wiles Marcus and his disciples, instructed in the same crafty arts, going about the world, infected it with a foul sink of vices and errors. The evil seems to have begun from Asia: for that deacon whose wife Marcus debauched by way of repaying the hospitable kindness of the man was an Asian. Thence diffused into the western parts, it entered the regions of the Rhone. That it was brought hither by the disciples of Marcus rather than by the master himself seems possible to conclude from the words of Irenaeus. It is wonderful, therefore, that Jerome, both on Ch. 64 of Isaiah and in the epistle already cited, wrote confidently, as though from Irenaeus: that a certain Marcus, descending from the stock of Basilides the Gnostic, came first to the Gauls, and stained with his doctrine those parts through which the Rhone and the Garonne flow; and especially seduced noble women with this error, promising certain mysteries in secret, winning love for himself by magical arts and secret pleasure of bodies; and thence crossing the Pyrenees occupied Spain, and made this his study, to seek out the houses of the rich, and in them especially women, who are led away by various desires, always learning and never arriving at the knowledge of the truth. This he (Irenaeus) wrote about three hundred years ago; and he wrote it in these books which he composed in most learned and eloquent speech against all heresies. Although, as I have said, Irenaeus ascribes this to the disciples of Marcus, that they came into the Gauls and stained with their doctrine those parts through which the Rhone and the Garonne flow, yet I would not

Editors' notes and page, col. 112

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A num in; B fuisset qui; C 87. His ac; D Garumna fluunt
old-edition numerals: [LI] after substantia
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: num in Christi sanguinem (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of vi-num from col 111; ends with ta- split to col 113
other: the word tamen was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 113

PG 7:113

cum Hieronymo, qui illud ipsi Marco tribuit, proterve contendere, ratus videlicet alterum cum altero facile conciliari posse. At quod Marcus Pyrenaeum transiens Hispanias occuparit, tantum abest scripsisse Irenaeum in his libris quos adversus omnes haereses composuit, ut ne quidem cogitare potuerit. Fuisse quidem Marcum quemdam, qui Gnosticorum errores in Hispaniis disseminaverit, diserte scribunt Sulpitius Severus lib. II Hist. sacr., c. 60, et Isidorus Hispalensis lib. De script. eccles. Sed eum e Memphi in Aegypto oriundum, secta Manichaeum, ac saeculis duobus Marco Mago recentiorem fuisse, ex iisdem patet. Addunt enim, Marcum Memphitanum, cum in Hispanias advenisset, discipulos habuisse mulierem quamdam, Agapen nomine, et Elpidium Rhetorem, a quibus institutus fuit Priscillianus, qui a concilio Caesaraugustano anno 380 cum Elpidio magistro damnatus fuit, et anno 385 Treviris jussu Maximi tyranni capite truncatus. Vel ergo memoria lapsus Hieronymus, vel homonymia deceptus Marcum Memphitanum cum Mago confudit.

frowardly contend with Jerome, who attributes that to Marcus himself, deeming namely that the one can easily be reconciled with the other. But that Marcus crossed the Pyrenees and occupied Spain, Irenaeus is so far from having written in these books which he composed against all heresies, that he could not even have thought of it. That there was indeed a certain Marcus who disseminated the errors of the Gnostics in Spain, Sulpicius Severus in Bk. II of his Sacred History, Ch. 60, and Isidore of Seville in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers expressly write. But that he was a native of Memphis in Egypt, a Manichaean by sect, and two centuries more recent than Marcus the Magician, is clear from the same authors. For they add that Marcus of Memphis, when he had arrived in Spain, had as disciples a certain woman named Agape, and Elpidius the Rhetorician, by whom Priscillian was instructed, who was condemned by the Council of Saragossa in the year 380 together with his master Elpidius, and in the year 385 was beheaded at Trier by order of the usurper Maximus. Either, therefore, Jerome slipped in memory, or deceived by the identity of name confounded Marcus of Memphis with the Magician.

88. Longum esset, imo supervacaneum singulas praestigiatoris hujus ineptias recensere. Nihil quippe, aut parum a caeteris Valentinianis dissidebat, nisi quod ut nugis pretium adderet impervia quaedam obscuritas, quae alii planius et simplicius tradebant, hic Pythagorica methodo usus, allegorica elementorum, litterarum, syllabarum, et numerorum farragine, fictitiis Pleromatis mysteriis caliginem offundere satagebat. Nempe totum Pleroma instar nominis cujusdam; tetradas, decada et ogdoada, instar totidem syllabarum; Aeones vero singulos instar singularum litterarum, ex quibus mysticum Pleromatis nomen coalesceret, exhibebat. Litteras vero viginti quatuor Graecorum, velut ἀποῤῥοίας, effluvia quaedam esse contendebat, tres eas Virtutes, quibus universus superorum elementorum numerus continetur, adumbrantia. Sic mutas novem litteras, Patris et Veritatis imagines esse dicebat : quod videlicet muti ipsi sint, hoc est, ejusmodi, qui nullis verbis exprimi possint; semivocales autem, quae octo sunt, Verbi et Vitae; quod inter vocales et consonantes velut mediae interjectae sint, atque ut a superioribus defluant, ita vicissim inferiora ad eas referantur : vocales porro, quae ipsae quoque septem sunt, Hominis et Ecclesiae; quando quidem vox per Hominem progressa, omnia informavit. Fuit itaque haec Marci sententia, singulos Aeones in Pleromate peculiares suos habuisse characteres et sonos, ad quorum imaginem litterae Graecorum expressae sint.

88. It would be tedious, nay superfluous, to recount the several absurdities of this juggler. For he differed nothing, or little, from the rest of the Valentinians, except that in order that a certain impenetrable obscurity might add value to his trifles, the things which others handed down more plainly and simply, he, using the Pythagorean method, busied himself to pour darkness over the fictitious mysteries of the Pleroma by an allegorical medley of elements, letters, syllables, and numbers. Namely, he exhibited the whole Pleroma as like a certain name; the tetrads, decad, and ogdoad as like so many syllables; and the individual Aeons as like individual letters, out of which the mystic name of the Pleroma coalesced. And the twenty-four letters of the Greeks he contended were like emanations, certain effluxes, shadowing forth those three Powers in which the whole number of the upper elements is contained. Thus the nine mute letters he said were the images of the Father and of Truth: namely because they themselves are mute, that is, of such a kind as can be expressed by no words; the semivowels, however, which are eight, of Word and of Life; because they are interposed as it were midway between vowels and consonants, and as they flow down from the higher, so in turn the lower are referred to them: the vowels, moreover, which themselves also are seven, of Man and of Church; since indeed the voice, having gone forth through Man, gave form to all things. This, therefore, was the opinion of Marcus, that the individual Aeons in the Pleroma had their own peculiar characters and sounds, after the image of which the letters of the Greeks were fashioned.

89. De Jesu Christo eadem pene, ac caeteri Valentiniani, effutiebat : eum scilicet a rerum omnium parente, Verbi opera electum, ut ipsum hominibus notum faceret, ad supernae Virtutis imaginem dispensatum fuisse : quamobrem ab iis Virtutibus, quae a Verbo et Vita, Homine et Ecclesia profluxerant, productum fuisse, ad id tamen operam suam

89. Concerning Jesus Christ he babbled almost the same things as the rest of the Valentinians: namely that He, chosen by the parent of all things through the agency of the Word in order to make him known to men, was dispensed after the image of the supernal Power: wherefore He was produced by those Powers which had flowed forth from Word and Life, Man and Church, yet contributing their own agency to this

Editors' notes and page, col. 113

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO I, ART. II, DE VAL
marginal letters: A men cum; B Elpidium Rhetorem; C caliginem offundere; D terjectae sint
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: men cum Hieronymo (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of ta-men from col 112

PG 7:114

conferentibus et quatuor illis supremis Virtutibus, non quidem immediate et per seipsas, sed per angelum Gabrielem, qui Verbi; Spiritum sanctum, qui Vitae; Altissimi virtutem, quae Hominis; Virginem denique, quae Ecclesiae locum suppleret. Sic autem a Maria in lucem editum fuisse, ut per uterum ejus, ceu aqua per tubum transiens, nihil ex ea sumpserit. In eum vero, cum ad aquam venisset, columbae instar descendisse supernum Salvatorem, qui cum Aeonum omnium fetus esset, omnium in se virtutem complectebatur : huncque esse qui per os Jesu verba fecerit, seque Filium hominis confessus fuerit, quod supernum Hominem patrem haberet.

those four supreme Powers also, not indeed immediately and by themselves, but through the angel Gabriel, who supplied the place of the Word; the Holy Spirit, who supplied that of Life; the power of the Most High, which supplied that of Man; and finally the Virgin, who supplied the place of the Church. And that he was brought forth into the light by Mary in such a way that, passing through her womb like water through a pipe, he took nothing from her. Into him, however, when he had come to the water, descended like a dove the supernal Saviour, who, since he was the offspring of all the Aeons, embraced in himself the power of all: and that it was he who spoke through the mouth of Jesus, and confessed himself the Son of man, because he had the supernal Man for his father.

90. Mitto quas de mundi hujus aspectabilis ortu nugas venditabant. Hunc ad imaginem supernorum sic conditum volebant, ut in singulis fere partibus Pleroma referret. Platonicum id dogma fuisse a nugatoribus istis recoctum superius ostendimus. Ut autem confirmandis, si superis placet, tot et tantis emotae mentis deliramentis sacrarum Scripturarum auctoritas non deesset, stupendum quantas admoverent machinas, ut eas tam impie quam ridicule discerperent, consuerent, et obtorto collo in alienos ineptosque sensus traherent. Parum fuisset, nisi innumeras propemodum finxissent apocryphas spuriasque Scripturas, quibus fucum facerent imperitis. Quos libros supposuissent, Irenaeo nostro sigillatim edisserere non placuit. Id tantum constat, ridiculam illam, quam de Christo puero fabellam enarrant cap. 20 occurrere in pseudo-Evangelio infantiae Christi, quod Arabice cum Latina interpretatione edidit Henricus Sikius, et in aliis quibusdam ejusdem furfuris scriptis, quorum meminimus in notis ad hunc locum.

90. I pass over the trifles which they peddled concerning the origin of this visible world. They wished it to have been so founded after the image of the supernal things as to reproduce the Pleroma in almost every part. That this was a Platonic dogma hashed up again by those triflers we have shown above. Moreover, that the authority of the sacred Scriptures might not be wanting for confirming, save the mark, so many and so great ravings of a deranged mind, it is amazing what engines they brought to bear in order to tear them to pieces as impiously as ridiculously, sew them together, and drag them by the neck into foreign and absurd senses. It would have been a small thing had they not forged almost innumerable apocryphal and spurious Scriptures wherewith to practise deceit upon the unlearned. What books they had forged it did not please our Irenaeus to set forth one by one. This only is established, that that ridiculous tale which they relate in Ch. 20 concerning the boy Christ occurs in the pseudo-Gospel of the Infancy of Christ, which Henry Sike edited in Arabic with a Latin translation, and in certain other writings of the same bran, which we have mentioned in the notes on this passage.

91. Quibus sacrilegiis venerandum Eucharistiae mysterium, et Ordinationis sacramentum contaminassent, ac funditus evertissent, jam vidimus. Mirum si aliis sacramentis pepercisset impietas. Baptismo profanum quoddam et a Satana suggestum initiationis genus, ad sacri illius lavacri, per quod ad Deum regeneramur, eversionem, totiusque adeo fidei abjectionem, substituerant. Redemptionem vocabant illi, hancque iis, qui perfectam γνῶσιν consecuti fuerant, necessariam esse dicebant, ut in Virtutem, quae super omnia eminet, regenerarentur. Aliter enim fieri non posse, ut cuiquam aditus ad Pleroma pateret : quippe cum ea esset, quae usque ad intimum Bythi sinum eos eveheret. Eam porro redemptionem, vulgarem Christianorum baptismum infinito superare intervallo non pudebat asserere. Hic siquidem animalis, illa spiritalis; hic a conspicuo Jesu institutus, illa ab eo qui in eum descendit, Salvatore; hic ad poenitentiam annuntiatus, nec eo, quem conferebat Joannes, virtute superior; illa consequendae perfectionis causa desuper allata. Haec inter Marcosios conveniebant. At vero de Redemptionis modo dissentiebant

91. By what sacrileges they had contaminated and utterly overthrown the venerable mystery of the Eucharist and the sacrament of Ordination, we have already seen. It would have been a wonder if their impiety had spared the other sacraments. For Baptism they had substituted a certain profane kind of initiation suggested by Satan, for the overthrow of that sacred laver whereby we are regenerated unto God, and consequently for the casting away of the whole faith. They called it Redemption, and said that this was necessary for those who had attained perfect gnosis, that they might be regenerated into the Power which rises above all things. For otherwise it could not be that entrance to the Pleroma should lie open to anyone, seeing that it was this which carried them up even to the innermost bosom of Bythus. Moreover, they were not ashamed to assert that this redemption surpassed the common baptism of Christians by an infinite interval. For the latter was animal, the former spiritual; the latter instituted by the visible Jesus, the former by the Saviour who descended into him; the latter proclaimed unto repentance, and not superior in virtue to that which John conferred; the former brought down from above for the sake of attaining perfection. Upon these things the Marcosians were agreed. But concerning the manner of Redemption they disagreed:

Editors' notes and page, col. 114

Page

running head: RT. II, DE VALENTINI DISCIPULIS.
marginal letters: A conferentibus et; B 90. Mitto; C constat, ridiculam; D nem vocabant
old-edition numerals: [LII] after superis
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: conferentibus et quatuor (Massuet, Diss. I); ends with dis- split to col 115

PG 7:115

: Quoniam, inquit Irenaeus, unusquisque illorum, quemadmodum ipsi volunt, tradunt eam. Quanti enim sunt hujusmodi sententiae mystici antistites, tot sunt et redemptiones.

Because, says Irenaeus, each one of them hands it down just as they themselves wish. For as many as are the mystic priests of this sort of opinion, so many also are the redemptions.

92. Alii apparato nuptiali cubiculo, mysticis quibusdam ritibus, profanisque verborum formulis initiandos suos consecrabant. Hae spiritales ipsorum nuptiae, ad supernorum conjugiorum similitudinem. Alii baptismi caeremonias adumbrabant. Nam ad aquam ducentes eos, inter baptizandum haec verba proferebant : In nomen incogniti Patris omnium; in Veritatem matrem omnium : in descendentem in Jesum, ad unitionem et redemptionem et communionem virtutum. Alii ut terrorem miseris incuterent, insulsam et sensu vacuam grandiorum Hebraicarum vocum congestum efferebant. Tum Catholicorum unctiones aemulati, initiatos suos opobalsamo ungebant. Quidam spreto aquae baptismo, oleum et aquam una permiscebant, ac in eorum, quos initiabant, caput injiciebant, verba quaedam ab iis quae diximus haud dissimilia proferentes. Atque ipsi quoque balsamum adhibebant. Alii haec omnia improbantes et repudiantes, divina mysteria, quae nec sensibus, nec mente percipi possunt, per res sensiles et corporeas peragenda esse negabant. Perfectamque redemptionem spiritalem esse, non corporalem, et in ineffabilis magnitudinis agnitione positam esse censebant. Ex his specialem quamdam haereticorum sectam fecit Theodoretus, quam Ascodrutarum, seu Ascodrupitarum vocat; a quibus et apud quos nullum celebrari baptismatis mysterium asserit. An iidem sint cum Ascodrobis, quibus Ancyram Galatiae suo tempore infestari, alibi vero terrarum ignorari scribebat Hieronymus in Epist. ad Galat., affirmare non ausim.

92. Some, having prepared a nuptial chamber, consecrated their initiates with certain mystic rites and profane formulas of words. These were their spiritual marriages, after the likeness of the supernal conjunctions. Others shadowed forth the ceremonies of baptism. For leading them to the water, while baptizing they uttered these words: Into the name of the unknown Father of all; into Truth, the mother of all; into him who descended into Jesus, unto union and redemption and communion of the powers. Others, in order to strike terror into the wretched people, uttered an insipid and senseless heap of grand-sounding Hebrew words. Then, emulating the anointings of the Catholics, they anointed their initiates with balsam. Some, despising the baptism of water, mingled oil and water together and poured it upon the head of those whom they initiated, uttering certain words not unlike those which we have spoken of. And they themselves also employed balsam. Others, disapproving and rejecting all these things, denied that divine mysteries, which can be perceived neither by the senses nor by the mind, ought to be performed through sensible and corporeal things. And they held that perfect redemption is spiritual, not corporeal, and consists in the knowledge of the ineffable Greatness. Out of these Theodoret made a certain special sect of heretics, which he calls that of the Ascodrutae, or Ascodrupitae; by whom and among whom he asserts that no mystery of baptism is celebrated. Whether they are the same as the Ascodrobi, by whom Jerome in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians wrote that Ancyra of Galatia was infested in his time, while they were unknown elsewhere on earth, I would not dare to affirm.

93. Alii denique redemptionem in vitae finem rejiciebant. Cum quis igitur ex hac vita excessurus erat, hujus capiti oleum et aquam injicientes, ridiculis caeterorum Marcosiorum adhibitis invocationibus, insuper jubebant, ut cum ad Principatus, ac Potestates, et Demiurgum venisset, certis quibusdam verbis, quae refert Irenaeus, eos compellaret, quibus manus eorum effugeret. Nec illorum nomen expressit Irenaeus. Sed ex Epiphanio discimus, Heracleonitas fuisse, ab Heracleone sic dictos. Hunc Colorbaso successisse putat; Tertullianus vero Colorbasum inter et Heracleonem interserit Ptolemaeum. Ex Irenaeo colligi posse videtur Marci discipulum fuisse : cum illius placita inter varia Marcosiorum dogmata referat. Augustinus, cui consentire videtur et Damascenus, utriusque, Marci videlicet et Colorbasi, discipulum fuisse putat. Ex Origene, Valentini discipulus dictus est; ex Clemente Alexandrino, maxima illius in Valentini schola fuit existimatio. Sed haec omnia nullam certam temporum notam designant : et ut ex posterioribus

93. Others, finally, put off redemption to the end of life. When therefore anyone was about to depart from this life, pouring oil and water upon his head, employing the ridiculous invocations of the rest of the Marcosians, they ordered in addition that when he came to the Principalities and Powers and the Demiurge, he should address them with certain words which Irenaeus relates, whereby he might escape their hands. Nor did Irenaeus express their name. But from Epiphanius we learn that they were the Heracleonites, so called from Heracleon. He thinks that the latter succeeded Colorbasus; Tertullian, however, inserts Ptolemy between Colorbasus and Heracleon. From Irenaeus it seems possible to gather that he was a disciple of Marcus, since he relates his tenets among the various dogmas of the Marcosians. Augustine, with whom Damascene also seems to agree, thinks that he was a disciple of both, namely of Marcus and of Colorbasus. According to Origen, he was called a disciple of Valentinus; according to Clement of Alexandria, his reputation in the school of Valentinus was very great. But all these things mark no certain note of times; and granting that from the latter

Editors' notes and page, col. 115

Footnotes

(98) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 115 or 116 (not visible)

Lib. I, cap. 21, n. 4.

Book 1, chapter 21, no. 4.

(printed under page 64)

(99) ‹anchor: fecit Theodoretus› · call in col 115

Lib. I, c. 9 et 10.

Book 1, chapters 9 and 10.

(printed under page 64)

(1) ‹anchor: ex Epiphanio› · call in col 115

Haer. XXXVI.

Heresies 36.

(printed under page 64)

(2) ‹anchor: Ex Origene› · call in col 115

In Joan., p. 60, edit. Huet.

On John, p. 60, Huet's edition.

(printed under page 64)

(3) ‹anchor: Clemente Alexandrino› · call in col 115

Clem. Alex., lib. IV Strom., p. 502.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 4, p. 502.

(printed under page 64)

(4) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 115 or 116 (not visible)

Spicileg. Patr. et Haer. II saec., p. 117.

Spicilegium of the Fathers and Heretics of the Second Century, p. 117.

(printed under page 64)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A sentiebant : Quoniam; B Hebraicarum vocum; C quam Ascodrutarum; D Heracleonitas fuisse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: sentiebant : Quoniam (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of dis-sentiebant from col 114; ends with poste- split to col 116

PG 7:116

inferatur Heracleonem Valentini dogmata amplexum fuisse, ipsi tamen Valentino coaevum exstitisse concludi posse non puto. Quare malim illius aetatem in incerto relinquere, quam quidquam temere definire. Scripserat Heracleon Commentarios, saltem in Joannis Evangelium. Nam Origenes in suis, plures illius diversorum locorum expositiones refert et confutat. Quin etiam merito redarguit, quod his Joannis verbis, χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν, sine ipso factum est nihil, impudenter addere ausus fuisset, τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ τῇ κτίσει, eorum quae in mundo sunt, et creatione; ut nimirum hinc cum caeteris Valentinianis conficeret, non omnia per Verbum condita fuisse : Aeonum quidem inferiorum, ac mundi ipsius, interpositu Demiurgi, auctorem esse; at non superiorum quatuor Aeonum. Illos Heracleonis in Joannis Evangelium Commentarios, si non prae oculis, saltem in mente habuisse videtur Photius, ut scite notat cl. Grabius in Spicileg., quando epist. 134 ad Joannem Protospatharium (apud Grabium male omnino Aspatharium; nempe littera α hic numeralis est) scripsit : Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐφ' ὕβρει καὶ διαβολῇ τοῦ νόμου τὸ, « Ἡ χάρις δὲ καὶ ἀλήθεια δι' Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο· » τοῖς εὐαγγελικοῖς θεσμοῖς περιήρμοσεν. Ἡρακλέων γὰρ ἂν οὕτως εἴποι, καὶ οἱ παῖδες Ἡρακλέωνος. Non enim in contumeliam et criminationem Legis dictum illud : « Gratia autem et veritas per Jesum Christum facta est, » evangelicis sancitis adaptabatur. Heracleon ita diceret, et Heracleonis filii. Quibus innuit Heracleonem in suis Commentariis haec Evangelii verba in contumeliam legis detorsisse. Aliud etiam Heracleonis Fragmentum de martyrio refert Clemens Alexand. loco mox laudato, quod ex aliquibus in Lucam Commentariis exscriptum videtur. Ubi enim praemisit Clemens hunc Evangelii Lucae XII, 11, locum : Cum autem induxerint vos in synagogas, etc., subjungit : Τοῦτον ἐξηγούμενος τὸν τόπον Ἡρακλέων.... κατὰ λέξιν φησὶν, etc. Hunc locum exponens Heracleon... his verbis dicit, etc. In Eclogis propheticis ad calcem ejusdem Clementis, occasione horum Joannis Baptistae verborum, Luc. III, 16 : Ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu sancto et igni, citatur altera Heracleonis sententia dicentis, quosdam igne signasse aures eorum, qui baptismatis sigillum acceperant, ita intelligentes illud apostolicum. Tum proxime subnectitur ℣. 17 : Cujus ventilabrum in manus ejus, etc. Quibus firmari videtur eorum conjectura, qui existimant ab Heracleone elucubratos etiam in Lucam Commentarios. Caeterum cum Valentino paria sensisse, sed novitate quadam pronuntiationis voluisse videri alia sentire, tradit Tertullianus, vel alius quivis cap. 49 lib. De praescript., cui consentiunt Epiphanius et alii omnes. Hoc duntaxat a Ptolemaicis differebat, quod supremum omnium parentem, quem ii Bythum nominabant,

it may be inferred that Heracleon embraced the dogmas of Valentinus, yet I do not think it can be concluded that he was contemporary with Valentinus himself. Wherefore I would rather leave his age in uncertainty than rashly define anything. Heracleon had written Commentaries, at least on the Gospel of John. For Origen in his own relates and refutes several expositions of his on various passages. Nay more, he deservedly censures him because to these words of John, Without Him was made nothing, without Him was made nothing, he had shamelessly dared to add, of the things that are in the world and the creation, of the things that are in the world, and in the creation; namely that hence he might make out, with the rest of the Valentinians, that not all things were founded through the Word: that He is indeed the author of the lower Aeons, and of the world itself through the interposition of the Demiurge, but not of the higher four Aeons. Those Commentaries of Heracleon on the Gospel of John Photius seems to have had, if not before his eyes, at least in mind, as the illustrious Grabe shrewdly notes in his Spicilegium, when in Epistle 134 to John the Protospatharius (in Grabe quite wrongly Aspatharius; namely the letter α here is a numeral) he wrote: For neither was it by way of insult and slander against the Law that that saying, "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," was fitted to the evangelical ordinances. For Heracleon would speak thus, and the children of Heracleon. For not in insult and accusation of the Law was that saying, "But grace and truth came through Jesus Christ," adapted to the evangelical ordinances. Heracleon would speak thus, and the sons of Heracleon. By which he hints that Heracleon in his Commentaries had twisted these words of the Gospel into an insult against the law. Another Fragment also of Heracleon concerning martyrdom Clement of Alexandria relates in the passage just cited, which seems to have been copied out from some Commentaries on Luke. For when Clement has premised this passage of the Gospel of (Luke 12:11), And when they shall bring you into the synagogues, etc., he subjoins: Expounding this passage Heracleon.... word for word says, etc. Expounding this passage Heracleon... in these words says, etc. In the Prophetic Eclogues at the end of the same Clement, on the occasion of these words of John the Baptist, (Luke 3:16), He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire, another opinion of Heracleon is cited, saying that some marked with fire the ears of those who had received the seal of baptism, so understanding that apostolic saying. Then next is subjoined v. 17: Whose fan is in His hand, etc. By which the conjecture of those seems to be confirmed who suppose that Commentaries on Luke also were composed by Heracleon. For the rest, that he thought the same as Valentinus, but by a certain novelty of expression wished to seem to think otherwise, Tertullian, or whoever else it is, hands down in Ch. 49 of the book On Prescriptions, with whom Epiphanius and all the others agree. In this alone did he differ from the Ptolemaics, that the supreme parent of all, whom they named Bythus,

Editors' notes and page, col. 116

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS.
marginal letters: A rioribus inferatur; B Demiurgi, auctorem; C ita diceret; D quosdam igne
old-edition numerals: [LIII] after exponens
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: rioribus inferatur Heracleonem (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of poste-rioribus from col 115; ends with nomina- split to col 117
other: the word nominabant, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 117

PG 7:117

bant, ille Hominem appellaret, ut auctor est Epiphanius. Eidem insuper ascribit Origenes, quod animam natura immortalem esse non existimaret, sed corruptibilem. At ea erat communis Valentinianorum omnium de anima animali sententia, quam vel perire vel servari putabant, prout meliora vel deteriora elegisset.

he called Man, as Epiphanius reports. Origen further ascribes to him that he did not think the soul immortal by nature, but corruptible. But this was the common opinion of all the Valentinians about the animal soul, which they thought would either perish or be saved according as it had chosen the better or the worse.

94. Sed ut ad id revertamur, unde digressi sumus, quilibet, etiam tacentibus nobis, perspicit, superius expositas haereticorum redemptiones manasse ab impuris ethnicorum initiamentis, quae tanti fecere Platonici, tetris magorum artibus prae caeteris mancipati. Ut enim certis quibusdam ritibus ac caeremoniis gentilium mystae secretiorum quorumque sacrorum participes effecti, perfectionis apicem attigisse censebantur: sic et apud Marcosios qui redemptionis ritibus semel defunctus arcanorum sectae conscius factus fuerat, ad perfectionis culmen evectus existimabatur. Hinc initiationes ethnicis dictae τελεταί, quia perfectionem afferre credebantur; Marcosiis vero ἀπολυτρώσεις, quod hominem ab omni mortalitatis faece, et imperfectionum radice ignorantia, liberarent. Easdem suis frequenter inculcabant Platonici, ceu ad animae purgationem apprime necessarias: quatenus religiosis ritibus, ut vocabant, expurgata anima, apta evaderet ad deos suscipiendos fatidicaeque eorum potestatis particeps fieret. Legatur Jamblichus, sect. III, V et X. Sed sicuti ex haereticis aliqui divina mysteria per res sensiles et corporeas peragenda esse negabant; sic etiam ex Platonicis quidam, ut Porphyrius, existimabant usum rerum materialium, in sacris, haud congruum esse diis, qui a materia omnino secreti exsistunt. Id vero sibi de sua redemptione spondebant Marcosii, ut eum perfectionis gradum, perfectissimam videlicet et numeris omnibus absolutam, qua sola stat salus, cognitionem ineffabilis Virtutis, quo ne quidem Petro et Paulo, aut alii cuivis apostolorum (sic blasphemabant) pervenire fas fuit, assecuti; nec hinc, quandiu viverent, excidere, nec quavis mundana potestate post mortem retardari possent, quin destinatas sibi in Pleromate sedes statim capesserent. Redemptionis enim beneficio effici, ut, quidquid egissent in hac vita, a judice nec prehendi, nec conspici possent. Eapropter omnia sibi licere arbitrati, facinorum omnium ac libidinum coeno volutari non erubescebant. Haec erant exitiosi dogmatis necessaria consectaria, ut jam exposuimus. Quod vero barbaris quibusdam vocibus, peregrinisque ac insolitis verborum formulis haeretici suos initiantes uterentur, Pythagoricum etiam et Platonicum erat. Quid et quantum ejusmodi vocabulis in gentilium sacris adhibitis tribuerent Pythagorae et Platonis discipuli, notum est ex Porphyrii epistola ad Anebonem, et Jamblicho, sect. VII, cap. 4 et 5, ut alios taceam. Ea licet mortalibus ignota, sensu plerumque vacua, et significatione cassa, prae caeteris tamen convenire divinis existimabant: tum quod in Assyria et Aegypto pridem usurpata, ubi primum deorum cultus effloruit, hisque majus ac frequentius cum mortalibus intercessit commercium, ea caeteris omnibus antiquiora, diisque notiora ac familiariora esse viderentur. Quibus iisdem rationibus permoti Marcosii, Hebraica, Chaldaica et Syriaca vocabula aliis omnibus anteponebant; quod iis omnium primis et antiquissimis, oracula sua fudisset Deus, eaque soni insolentia incutiendo imperitorum pectoribus terrori aptiora essent.

94. But to return to the point from which we digressed: anyone sees, even without our saying it, that the redemptions of the heretics set out above flowed from the impure initiations of the heathen, which the Platonists, given over beyond others to the foul arts of the magi, valued so highly. For just as the initiates of the gentiles, made partakers of all the more secret rites by certain ceremonies and observances, were reckoned to have reached the summit of perfection, so too among the Marcosians whoever had once gone through the rites of redemption and been made privy to the sect's secrets was thought to have been raised to the height of perfection. Hence initiations were called by the heathen τελεταί (perfections), because they were believed to bring perfection; but by the Marcosians ἀπολυτρώσεις (redemptions), because they freed a man from all the dregs of mortality and from ignorance, the root of imperfections. The Platonists often urged these same things on their followers as above all necessary for the purging of the soul, inasmuch as the soul, purged by religious rites, as they called them, became fit to receive the gods and a partaker of their prophetic power. Let Iamblichus be read, sections III, V and X. But just as some of the heretics denied that the divine mysteries were to be performed through sensible and bodily things, so also some of the Platonists, such as Porphyry, thought the use of material things in sacred rites unbecoming to the gods, who exist wholly separate from matter. And this is what the Marcosians promised themselves from their redemption: that, having attained that degree of perfection, namely the most perfect knowledge of the ineffable Power, complete in every respect, in which alone salvation stands, and to which it was not granted even to Peter and Paul or to any other of the apostles to arrive (so they blasphemed), they could neither fall from it as long as they lived, nor be held back after death by any worldly power from at once taking possession of the seats destined for them in the Pleroma. For by the benefit of redemption it came about that whatever they had done in this life could be neither seized nor seen by the judge. Therefore, deeming all things lawful for themselves, they did not blush to wallow in the filth of every crime and lust. These were the necessary consequences of a ruinous dogma, as we have already explained. That the heretics used certain barbarous words and foreign and unusual formulas when initiating their followers was also Pythagorean and Platonic. What and how much the disciples of Pythagoras and Plato attributed to such words used in the sacred rites of the gentiles is known from Porphyry's letter to Anebo, and from Iamblichus, section VII, chapters 4 and 5, to say nothing of others. Although these were unknown to mortals, mostly empty of sense and void of meaning, they nevertheless thought them more suited than others to divine things: both because, having been long in use in Assyria and Egypt, where the worship of the gods first flourished and where a greater and more frequent intercourse took place between them and mortals, they seemed older than all others and better known and more familiar to the gods. Moved by these same reasons, the Marcosians preferred Hebrew, Chaldaic and Syriac words to all others: because to these, the first and most ancient of all, God had poured out His oracles, and because by the strangeness of their sound they were better suited to strike terror into the hearts of the unlearned.

95. Hactenus recensitis quam accurate fieri potuit, iis quos Irenaeus Valentino tribuit discipulis, ad utrorumque magistros sermo cum eodem conferendus. Nihil quippe efficacius, et merito quidem, ipsi visum est ad Valentinianorum insaniam retundendam, quam ut infamem eorum originem proderet, seu, ut verbis illius utar, referret spurcissimum fontem et radicem eorum, uti intelligeretur arbor, de qua defluxerant tales fructus. Veros siquidem stirpis suae auctores, Simonem et Menandrum, erubescebant Valentiniani, et tam probrosos magistros omni, quo poterant, conatu repudiabant. Hos tamen germanos eorum parentes exstitisse, vellent, nollent, invicte demonstrabat tum dogmatum consensio, tum continua nec interrupta a Simone ad Valentinum scholarum haereticarum successio, a quibus et in quibus hic quidquid postmodum blateravit, mutuatus est.

95. Having reviewed thus far, as accurately as could be done, those whom Irenaeus assigns to Valentinus as disciples, our discussion must now be carried, with him, to the masters of both. For nothing seemed to him more effective, and rightly so, for blunting the madness of the Valentinians than to expose their infamous origin, or, to use his own words, "to report their most filthy source and root, so that the tree might be understood from which such fruits had flowed down." For the Valentinians blushed at the true authors of their stock, Simon and Menander, and repudiated such disgraceful masters with every effort they could. Yet that these were their true parents was proved invincibly, whether they would or no, both by the agreement of their dogmas and by the continuous and unbroken succession of heretical schools from Simon to Valentinus, from whom and in whom he borrowed whatever he afterwards babbled.

ARTICULUS III.

ARTICLE III.

DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS.

ON THE MASTERS OF VALENTINUS.

Editors' notes and page, col. 117

Footnotes

(5) ‹anchor: ascribit Origenes› · call in col 117

T. XVIII, in Joan., p. 255.

Tome 18 on John, p. 255.

(printed under page 65)

(7) ‹anchor: oriundus fuit› · call in col 117

Vide Iren., lib. III, Praef; Id., lib. II, Praef.; Justin. M., Apol. I; Epiph., Haer. XXI; Theodoret., lib. I, c. 1.

See Irenaeus, book III, Preface; the same, book II, Preface; Justin Martyr, First Apology; Epiphanius, Heresy XXI; Theodoret, book I, chapter 1.

(printed under page 65)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A bant, ille; B cem attigisse; C sensiles et; D I. De Simone
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: bant, ille Hominem (Massuet, Diss. I); begins with rest of nomina-bant from col 116; second paragraph (94.) continues at top of col 118 (quidquid egissent...); after effici, ut, stands the full-width heading across cols 117–118 cut off at the right edge (ARTICULUS / DE VALENTINI MAG); final paragraph (96.) continues in lower part of col 118 (eum pro magna...)
other: a full-width band stands across cols 117/118 in mid-page: the 2 paragraph(s) above it in col 118 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 117 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
running head: 117 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 118
marginal letters: A ‹bant, ille Hominem appellaret, ut auctor est Epi-›; B ‹cem attigisse censebantur: sic et apud Marcosios›; C ‹sensiles et corporeas peragenda esse negabant; sic›; D (on this page beside the lower part; see c118)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other (Q2a): col 117's text below the band (I. De Simone Mago. and §96 from Simon, pater omnium to ut dementantes) is printed in col 117 but stands in c118_a.md, not here after the band; by the reading-order rule it belongs under col 117's rail. Text is complete; placement to be settled (c118 not written by Q2a)
other (Q2a): footnote 6 (Lib. I, c. 22, n. 2.), printed under page 65, is called in col 118 at tales fructus (moved-up §95 text set here); it belongs to n118

PG 7:118

I. De Simone Mago.

I. On Simon Magus.

96. Simon, pater omnium haereticorum, a quo Gnostici omnes initia sumentes, impia et irreligiosa dogmata induxerunt in hanc vitam, Gitthis olim oppido, Epiphanii aetate vico Samariae, oriundus fuit. Tantum apud populares suos magicis artibus, in quibus aequalem nullum habebat, valuit, ut dementantes eum pro magna Dei Virtute, id est supremo omnium Patre, haberent. A vero simili non abhorret, cum in liberalibus disciplinis, ac Platonica praesertim philosophia, quae tum apud Judaeos inoleverat, non poenitendam operam posuisse. Id suadent tum auctoritas ac dicendi fiducia, quibus ementitam potestatem venditans plebis animos ad se pellexerat,

96. Simon, "the father of all heretics," from whom "all the Gnostics, taking their beginnings, have brought impious and irreligious dogmas into this life," was a native of Gitthi, once a town, in Epiphanius's time a village of Samaria. He had such power among his countrymen through the magic arts, in which he had no equal, that in their madness they held him for the great Power of God, that is, the supreme Father of all. It is not far from likely that he had spent no regrettable labour on the liberal disciplines, and especially on the Platonic philosophy, which had then taken root among the Jews. This is suggested both by the authority and the confidence in speaking with which, peddling a feigned power, he had enticed the minds of the common people to himself,

Editors' notes and page, col. 118

Footnotes

(6) ‹anchor: tales fructus› · call in col 118

Lib. I, c. 22, n. 2.

Book 1, chapter 22, no. 2.

(printed under page 65)

Page

running head: RT. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS.
marginal letters: A quidquid egissent; B et Aegypto; C ipsi visum; D eum pro
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: quidquid egissent in hac vita (Massuet, Diss. I); first paragraph continues second paragraph (94.) of col 117; after mutuatus est. stands the full-width heading across cols 117–118 cut off at the left edge (TICULUS III. / LENTINI MAGISTRIS.); final paragraph continues bottom paragraph (96.) of col 117
other: the 2 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 117 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 117 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 118
marginal letters: D ‹eum pro magna Dei Virtute, id est supremo omnium› (between the columns, level with "I. De Simone Mago.")
old-edition numerals: (none)
misprints kept as printed: cum (for eum, subject of posuisse), in A vero simili non abhorret, cum in liberalibus disciplinis (Q3a)
other (Q3a): footnote 7 (at oriundus fuit, in the col 117 text set here) stands in n117

PG 7:119

tum ea quae vulgavit dogmata, Platonicis haud dissimilia, tum denique magia ipsa quam exercebat, Platonicis eo tempore familiaris, et in laude posita : itaque Platonismum cum Samaritanorum ac Judaeorum religione miscuisse videtur. Cum vero anno Christi 34, lux Evangelii in Samaria coruscare coepisset, veraque Philippi diaconi miracula Simonis praestigias discutere; errore deposito Samaritae Christo nomen dedere. Stupens et ipse Simon dedit, sed non ex animo. Quam enim in apostolis suspiciebat eximiam patrandi miracula virtutem, praesenti pecunia mercari volens a Petro pro merito increpatus, ad vomitum rediit canis impurus, artemque magicam studiosius quam antea colere coepit. Sic autem Christianam fidem abjecit, ut retenta nonnulla ejusdem umbra, hac utendum sibi statuit, ut pro eo quo exaestuabat in apostolos odio ac livore, iis verbum Dei disseminantibus obices, quoscunque posset, objiceret.

and by the dogmas which he published, not unlike those of the Platonists, and finally by the magic itself which he practised, familiar to the Platonists at that time and held in praise: and therefore he seems to have mingled Platonism with the religion of the Samaritans and Jews. But when in the year of Christ 34 the light of the Gospel began to flash in Samaria, and the true miracles of Philip the deacon to dispel the juggling tricks of Simon, the Samaritans, laying aside their error, gave their names to Christ. Astonished, Simon himself also gave his name, but not from the heart. For wishing to buy with ready money the eminent power of working miracles which he admired in the apostles, and being rebuked according to his desert by Peter, the impure dog returned to his vomit, and began to cultivate the magic art more zealously than before. Yet he cast away the Christian faith in such a way that, retaining some shadow of the same, he resolved to make use of it, so that in accordance with the hatred and envy with which he boiled against the apostles, he might throw whatever obstacles he could in their way as they disseminated the word of God.

97. Ascita igitur in societatem pristinae Platonicae, Judaicaeque misturae hac Christianitatis larva, relicta Samaria hac illac circumcursare coepit : ut gentes et provincias, ad quas nondum pervenisset Evangelium, praeoccuparet, erroribusque suis inficeret. Tyrum Phoeniciae cum devenisset, ibi vile scortum, mulierem quaestuariam, nomine Helenam emit, sibique eam adjunxit, itinerum deinceps ac scelerum sociam; ridicula plura palam de ea fabulatus, turpiora cum ea clam patraturus. Peragratis Orientis provinciis Romam venit sub Claudio Caesare, circiter annum Christi 41. Ibi tantum nomen sibi praestigiis ac imposturis fecit, ut statuam, ceu numini cuidam, ei positam in insula Tiberina, inter duos pontes, ferant, cum Latina inscriptione : Simoni Deo sancto. Primus enim omnium Justinus Martyr in ea quae vere prior est, secundum tamen in editis locum tenet, Apologia ad Antoninum Pium, id memoravit. In cujus fide idem, sed aliquantulum dubius, asseruisse videtur Irenaeus : Statua honoratus fuisse dicitur propter magicam, inquit. At fidenter asseverarunt Tertullianus, Apolog. cap. 13; Euseb., lib. II Hist., cap. 14; Cyril. Hierosol., Catech. 6, Theodoretus, Augustinus, et alii. Non defuere tamen posterioribus hisce saeculis doctissimi viri, qui Justinum seu Latinae linguae imperitia, seu nominis similitudine deceptum putarint; utpote qui statuam Semoni sanco, vel sancto, qui deus erat apud Sabinos, positam, Simoni Mago sacratam fuisse existimaverit. Centum circiter abhinc annis effossa est in insula Tiberina statua cum hac inscriptione, quae ad illam Justini proxime accedit : Semoni deo sanco (vel sango) Deo Fidio sacrum; adeo ut ea ipsa esse videatur, quam olim in eadem insula viderat Justinus; cujus eo proclivior lapsus esse potuit, quo veteribus Latinis commutatione litterarum e et i frequentius nihil exstitit, et Semo ille minorum gentium deus, sanctus, sancus, aut

97. Having therefore taken this mask of Christianity into fellowship with his former Platonic and Jewish mixture, leaving Samaria he began to run about hither and thither, that he might pre-occupy the nations and provinces to which the Gospel had not yet arrived, and infect them with his errors. When he had come down to Tyre of Phoenicia, he there bought a vile harlot, a woman for hire, named Helena, and joined her to himself as the companion thereafter of his journeys and crimes; openly telling many ridiculous fables about her, and about to perpetrate fouler things with her in secret. Having traversed the provinces of the East, he came to Rome under Claudius Caesar, about the year of Christ 41. There he made so great a name for himself by juggling tricks and impostures that they relate a statue was set up to him, as to a certain deity, on the island of the Tiber, between the two bridges, with the Latin inscription: To Simon the holy God. For first of all Justin Martyr mentioned this in that Apology to Antoninus Pius which is truly the first, though in the printed editions it holds the second place. On the credit of whom Irenaeus seems to have asserted the same thing, though somewhat doubtful: He is said to have been honoured with a statue on account of his magic, says he. But Tertullian, Apology, Ch. 13; Eusebius, Bk. 2 of the History, Ch. 14; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 6; Theodoret, Augustine, and others confidently affirmed it. Yet there have not been wanting in these later ages most learned men who thought that Justin was deceived either by unskilfulness in the Latin tongue, or by the similarity of the name; inasmuch as he supposed a statue set up to Semo Sancus, or Sanctus, who was a god among the Sabines, to have been consecrated to Simon Magus. About a hundred years ago there was dug up on the island of the Tiber a statue with this inscription, which comes very close to that of Justin: Sacred to Semo the god Sancus (or Sangus) Deus Fidius; so much so that it seems to be the very same which Justin had formerly seen on the same island; whose slip could be all the easier inasmuch as among the ancient Latins nothing was more frequent than the interchange of the letters e and i, and that god of the lesser nations, Semo, was called sanctus, sancus, or

Editors' notes and page, col. 119

Footnotes

(8) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 119 or 120 (not visible)

Act. VIII, 9 et seqq.

Acts 8:9 ff.

(printed under page 66)

(9) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 119 or 120 (not visible)

Prov. XXVI, 11.

Proverbs 26:11.

(printed under page 66)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A tum ea; B nonnulla ejusdem; C Orientis provinciis; D viri, qui
old-edition numerals: [LIV] after Judaeorum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: tum ea quae vulgavit (Massuet, Diss. I); ends mid-sentence at column foot (continues in col 120)

PG 7:120

sangus promiscue diceretur. Quorum doctissimorum virorum rationes expendit clarissimus Tillemontius ὁ μακαρίτης, ac pro ea qua valet eximia eruditione et acri judicio confutat, in suis in tom. II Commentariorum in Hist. eccles. observationibus, nota 2, in Simonem Magum, pag. 482, ubi probat vix ac ne vix quidem fieri potuisse, ut tot antiqui Patres ea in re lapsi fuerint, quae oculis omnium pateret, quamque Justinus, dum Romae ageret, et Apologiam conscriberet, non semel aut bis, sed quotiescunque Tiberinos pontes trajecerat, propriis oculis explorare potuerat. Ecquis enim sobrius sibi persuadeat, sanctissimum martyrem tam incogitantem atque imprudentem fuisse, ut in ipsa urbe Roma scribens ad imperatores, ea confidenter, nondum satis explorata veritate, bis in eadem Apologia asseverare ausus fuerit, quorum falsitatem vel ipsi pueri, scriptorem temerarium arguentes, deprehendere potuissent? Tam immanem hallucinationem vix ferat quisque in scriptore longa terrarum intercapedine ab ipsa statua dissito : quanto minus in eo qui in ipsa urbe Roma, et, ut ita dicam, ad ipsius statuae pedes scripserit. Sed ne actum agamus, consule citatum eruditissimi Tillemontii locum. Nec iis contentus impurus homo, seipsum sub Jovis, Helenam vero suam sub Minervae habitu effingi curavit; et utramque imaginem discipulis colendam tradidit.

sangus be spoken of indiscriminately. The arguments of these most learned men the most illustrious Tillemont of blessed memory weighs, and in accordance with the distinguished erudition and keen judgement whereon he is strong refutes them, in his observations in vol. II of his Memoirs on Ecclesiastical History, note 2, on Simon Magus, p. 482, where he proves that it could scarcely, and not even scarcely, have happened that so many ancient Fathers slipped up in a matter which lay open to the eyes of all, and which Justin, while he was staying at Rome and writing his Apology, had been able to examine with his own eyes not once or twice, but as often as he had crossed the bridges of the Tiber. For what sober man could persuade himself that the most holy martyr was so thoughtless and imprudent that, writing in the very city of Rome to the emperors, he dared confidently to assert twice in the same Apology things, with their truth not yet sufficiently investigated, the falsehood of which even the very boys, convicting the rash writer, could have detected? So monstrous a delusion would anyone scarcely tolerate in a writer separated by a long interval of lands from the statue itself: how much less in him who wrote in the very city of Rome, and, so to speak, at the feet of the statue itself. But lest we do what has already been done, consult the cited passage of the most learned Tillemont. Nor content with these things, the impure man took care to have himself portrayed under the guise of Jupiter, and his Helen under that of Minerva; and he handed over both images to his disciples to be worshipped.

98. Vulgata apud veteres opinio est, apostolorum Principem Romam venisse anno Christi 42, ut Magi fraudes ac malas artes discuteret : cumque hunc fama jam desereret, collectis viribus enixum esse mirabilem Christi ascensum in coelos aemulari; sed ei tam male cessisse volatum, ut divina virtute apostolorum precibus sollicitata praeceps actus, fractis cruribus misere postea interierit, eo anno qui Petri et Pauli martyrium proxime antecesserit, id est Christi 65. Haec omnia strictim attingo; obvia siquidem sunt et omnibus nota. Plures edidisse fertur seu libros, seu sermones. Quasdam ex altero eorum blasphemias recitat Hieronymus in Matth. cap. XXIV. Alios memorat auctor libri De divin. nom., cap. 6, quorum titulus, Ἀντιῤῥητικοὶ, Contradictorii. Si Constitutionibus apostolicis fides, lib. VI, c. 8, Simon ejusque socius Cleobius plures Christo ejusque discipulis libros supponere ausi fuerant. Ex discipulorum officina prodierat Evangelium, quod librum De quatuor mundi angulis inscripserant (quia in quatuor partes sectus erat), ut et apocryphus liber, De praedicatione sancti Pauli.

98. It is a common opinion among the ancients that the Prince of the apostles came to Rome in the year of Christ 42 in order to dispel the frauds and evil arts of the Magician: and that when fame was now deserting him, having gathered his strength he strove to emulate the wonderful ascension of Christ into the heavens; but that the flight turned out so badly for him that, driven headlong by divine power stirred up by the prayers of the apostles, with his legs broken he afterwards wretchedly perished, in that year which immediately preceded the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, that is, the year of Christ 65. All these things I touch upon briefly, since they are obvious and known to all. He is reported to have published several either books or discourses. Certain blasphemies from one of them Jerome recites on Matthew, Chapter 24. Others the author of the book On the Divine Names, Chapter 6, mentions, whose title is Antirrhetikoi, Contradictory Discourses. If credit is to be given to the Apostolic Constitutions, Book 6, Chapter 8, Simon and his associate Cleobius had dared to forge several books under the name of Christ and His disciples. From the workshop of his disciples had come forth a Gospel which they had entitled the book On the Four Corners of the World (because it was divided into four parts), as also an apocryphal book, On the Preaching of Saint Paul.

99. Quod ad Simonis errores spectat, superius de Valentino agentes ostendimus eum primae Valentinianorum ogdoadis auctorem et inventorem fuisse. Nempe, Theodoreto teste, infinitam quamdam statuit potestatem, quam et radicem universorum appellavit; Bythus est, cui et Ἔννοιαν copulabat. Istam vero duplicem esse fingebat : alteram primam, quam Matrem omnium appellabat, quamque

99. As regards the errors of Simon, when dealing above with Valentinus we showed that he was the author and inventor of the first ogdoad of the Valentinians. Namely, as Theodoret witnesses, he posited a certain infinite power, which he also called the root of all things; it is Bythus, to whom he also joined Ennoia. And he feigned that she was twofold: the one first, whom he called the Mother of all, and whom

Editors' notes and page, col. 120

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 120
marginal letters: A sangus promiscue diceretur.; B plorata veritate, bis; C Magi fraudes ac; D ejusque discipulis libros
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word sangus from col 119; ends mid-word quam- (continued in col 121 as que)
other: the word quamque was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 121

PG 7:121

in Helena sua conspicuam esse dicebat; alteram quam cum Φωνῇ, Voce, conjugabat. Eam autem infinitam potestatem ignem esse dicebat, id est Virtutem maxime actuosam, cujus duplex foret operatio, altera conspicua, altera latens. Ex illa quidem genitum esse mundum; ex hac vero productas primum esse tres conjugationes, quas etiam radices nominavit; quarum primam appellavit Νοῦν καὶ Ἐπίνοιαν, Mentem et Notionem; secundam Φονὴν καὶ Ἔννοιαν, Vocem et Intelligentiam; tertiam Λογισμὸν καὶ Ἐνθύμησιν, Rationem et Cogitationem. In hac ogdoade Valentinianam quisque deprehendit. Nomina quidem apud Theodoretum, quem hic exscribimus, aliquantulum dissimilia : at apud Eliam Cretensem et Nicetam supra laudatos, eadem prorsus : adeo ut constare videatur πολυώνυμον fuisse, ac modo his, modo illis nominibus a Simonis discipulis significatam. Sed rem eamdem utrobique exstitisse demonstrat veterum consensus, ac imprimis Irenaei, ut alibi diximus. De his ergo Simonianis Aeonibus idem sentiendum, quod de prioribus octo Valentinianis. Utrique e Platonicorum lacunis educti, Christiano amictu utcunque induti haereticorum illorum arte prodierunt.

he said was visible in his Helen; the other, whom he paired with Phone, Voice. Moreover, he said that this infinite power was fire, that is, a most active Power, whose operation was twofold, the one visible, the other hidden. From the former indeed the world was begotten; from the latter, however, three syzygies were first produced, which he also named roots; of which he called the first Nous and Epinoia, Mind and Notion; the second Phone and Ennoia, Voice and Intelligence; the third Logismos and Enthymesis, Reason and Thought. In this ogdoad everyone recognizes the Valentinian one. The names indeed in Theodoret, whom we transcribe here, are somewhat dissimilar: but in Elias of Crete and Nicetas praised above, they are altogether the same: so that it seems established that it was many-named, and signified by Simon's disciples now by these, now by those names. But that the same reality existed in both places is demonstrated by the consensus of the ancients, and especially of Irenaeus, as we have said elsewhere. Concerning these Simonian Aeons, therefore, the same must be thought as concerning the first eight Valentinian ones. Both, drawn out from the pools of the Platonists and clothed after a fashion in Christian garb, came forth by the art of those heretics.

100. Seipsum porro Simon esse sublimissimam Dei virtutem, hoc est, eum qui sit super omnia Pater, blasphemabat. Summa hic fuerit veteratoris dementia et impudentia, eo tamen usque insaniisse non putem, ut semetipsum re, essentia ac natura supremum esse Patrem crederet jactaretve. Id de seipso sensisse videtur, quod de Helena sua, quam primam mentis suae conceptionem aiebat esse, per quam Angelos et Archangelos fecisset. At, auctore Theodoreto, hunc mundum, cujus prima et nobilior pars angeli erant, conditum asserebat per eam supremae Virtutis operationem, quae conspicua esset, vel, ut loquitur Irenaeus, per Ennoiam quae exsiliisset ex summo Patre, et ad inferiora digressa fuisset, id est, quae seipsam exterius prodidisset. Quemadmodum igitur Helenam primam summi Patris Ennoiam esse censebat, non re et natura, sed operatione duntaxat; sic seipsum supremum esse Patrem non aliter existimare potuit, quam ἐνεργείᾳ et efficientia tenus, non substantia, aut unione personali (id enim unitionis genus nunquam agnovit) : quatenus eum prae caeteris mortalibus elegisset Pater, in quo inhabitaret, in quem divinitatis suae radiationem quamdam, non solidam, aut substantivam, sed transeuntem derivaret, et per quem velut per instrumentum sibi moraliter conjunctum operaretur. Uno verbo id de se opinatus est, quod discipuli ejus de Christo, quem etiam se esse dicebat. Constat vero eos, Christum non alia ratione Deum esse censuisse, quam, sicuti postea delirarunt Noetus, Sabellius et Paulus Samosatenus, efficientia duntaxat et operatione, non substantia aut unitione substantiva. Accedit denique

100. Furthermore, Simon blasphemously claimed that he himself was the most sublime power of God, that is, Him Who is Father over all things. Supreme as the madness and impudence of the old impostor may have been here, yet I would not think that he raved to such a degree as to believe or boast that he himself was in reality, essence, and nature the supreme Father. He seems to have thought concerning himself that which he thought concerning his Helen, whom he said was the first conception of his mind, through whom he had made the Angels and Archangels. Now, on the authority of Theodoret, he asserted that this world, whose first and nobler part were the angels, was founded through that operation of the supreme Power which was visible, or, as Irenaeus speaks, through Ennoia who had leaped forth from the supreme Father and had gone down to lower things, that is, who had manifested herself outwardly. Just as, therefore, he considered Helen to be the first Ennoia of the supreme Father, not in reality and nature, but in operation only; so he could not consider himself to be the supreme Father otherwise than by way of energy and efficacy, not in substance or personal union (for that kind of union he never acknowledged): inasmuch as the Father had chosen him above other mortals in whom to dwell, into whom to channel a certain radiation of His divinity, not solid or substantive, but transient, and through whom, as through an instrument morally conjoined to Himself, He might work. In one word, he held that opinion concerning himself which his disciples held concerning Christ, Whom he also said that he was. Now it is established that they considered Christ to be God in no other way than, just as Noetus, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata afterwards raved, in efficacy and operation only, not in substance or substantive union. Finally, there is added the fact

Editors' notes and page, col. 121

Footnotes

(10) ‹anchor: super omnia Pater› · call in col 121

Iren., loc. cit.

Irenaeus, in the place cited.

(printed under page 67)

(11) ‹anchor: substantiva.› · call in col 121

Id., n. 5; Theod., c. 2; Epiph., Haer. XXII, § 1.

The same, no. 5; Theodoret, chapter 2; Epiphanius, Heresies 22 [as printed; Simon is Heresy 21], § 1.

(printed under page 67)

Page

running head: 121 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A que in Helena; B adeo ut constare; C supremum esse Patrem; D aut unione personali
old-edition numerals: [LV] after de
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word que from col 120

PG 7:122

quod Menander Simonis discipulus, qui verbis, non re a magistro dissidebat, primam se Virtutem non nominaret; ignotam enim eam aiebat esse; sed ab illa se missum jactitans, Servatorem seipsum appellaret. Quidquid ergo discriminis inter utrumque fingi potest, eo redit, ut alter paulo modestior seipsum Servatorem diceret, quod a prima Virtute ad hominum salutem missus esset; alter impudenter seipsum primam esse Virtutem blateraret, quatenus ista per eum operaretur, eo operationis genere quod externum et conspicuum esset; non eo quod latens, et per quod Aeones produxerat. Hinc Judaeis quidem, qui Messiam exspectabant (quem Dei Filium esse ab apostolis didicerat), tanquam Filium apparuisse se jactitabat; ad Samaritanos vero, quorum obscurior de Messia fides erat, tanquam Patrem descendisse; ad alias denique gentes, quas Spiritus sancti virtute cooptandas in Ecclesiam noverat, tanquam Spiritum sanctum advenisse : ac denique, ut ait Irenaeus, sustinere vocari se quodcunque eum vocant homines : hoc est, pro diversis quas edidit primae Virtutis operationibus, diversis etiam diversarum gentium affectibus, diversa sibi nomina tribui sivisse, Patris, Filii et Spiritus sancti, imo etiam quandoque Jovis; nam et sub hoc schemate statuas et imagines, quas adorarent, ei posuerant discipuli. Ex quibus certissime colligitur Patrem, Filium et Spiritum sanctum tres, ex ejus sententia, subsistentes personas non fuisse, sed tria duntaxat unius personae nomina et officia.

that Menander, the disciple of Simon, who differed from his master in words, not in reality, did not name himself the first Power—for he said that she was unknown—but boasting that he was sent by her, called himself the Saviour. Whatever difference, therefore, can be imagined between the two comes back to this, that the one, somewhat more modest, called himself the Saviour because he had been sent by the first Power for the salvation of men; the other impudently babbled that he himself was the first Power, inasmuch as she worked through him by that kind of operation which was external and visible, not by that which was hidden and through which she had produced the Aeons. Hence to the Jews indeed, who were awaiting the Messiah (Whom he had learned from the apostles to be the Son of God), he boasted that he had appeared as the Son; to the Samaritans, however, whose faith concerning the Messiah was more obscure, that he had descended as the Father; and finally to the other nations, whom he knew were to be admitted into the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit, that he had come as the Holy Spirit: and finally, as Irenaeus says, that he endured to be called whatever men call him: that is, that in accordance with the diverse operations of the first Power which he put forth, and the diverse dispositions as well of diverse nations, he allowed diverse names to be attributed to himself, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, nay even sometimes of Jupiter; for under this guise also his disciples had set up statues and images to him, which they might adore. From which things it is most certainly gathered that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not, according to his opinion, three subsisting persons, but only three names and offices of one person.

101. Helenam suam (quam interdum etiam Spiritum sanctum appellabat) dicebat esse primam mentis suae conceptionem, Matrem omnium, per quam initio mente conceperit Angelos facere et Archangelos : hanc vero Ennoiam, seu conceptionem, exsilientem ex eo, cognoscentem quae vult Pater ejus, digredi ad inferiora, et generare Angelos et Potestates, quibus tamen nulla Patris indita notitia. Ab istis mundum hunc factum dixit. In Ennoia illa, omnium matre, per quam initio mente concepti Angeli et Archangeli, Platonis mundus idealis seipsum manifeste prodit; mundus scilicet idearum omnium, formarum et archetyporum apotheca, ad quorum normam et exemplar conditi primum Angeli et Archangeli mundum hunc aspectabilem, ex supernarum idearum praescripto, fecerunt. Primus enim e Christianis Simon summum Deum mundi hujus creatione, regimine et administratione abdicandum ratus, creatorem ab eo cum Platonicis distinxit, ne mala quibus labefactatur orbis in primum Deum summe bonum refunderentur; qui cum insuper ignotus semper manserit, nec ullo visibili signo seipsum usquam manifestaverit, nullas in mundi fabricatione et administratione partes habere potuit. Caetera quae impostor addebat de Ennoia per invidiam detenta ab Angelis, et inique habita, ne

101. His Helen (whom he sometimes also called the Holy Spirit) he said was the first conception of his mind, the Mother of all, through whom in the beginning he conceived in his mind to make Angels and Archangels: and that this Ennoia, or conception, leaping forth from him and knowing what her Father wills, went down to lower things and generated Angels and Powers, in whom nevertheless no knowledge of the Father was implanted. By these he said this world was made. In that Ennoia, the mother of all, through whom in the beginning the Angels and Archangels were conceived in the mind, Plato's ideal world manifestly betrays itself; a world, namely, the storehouse of all ideas, forms, and archetypes, according to the rule and model of which the Angels and Archangels, having first been founded, made this visible world in accordance with the prescription of the supernal ideas. For Simon, the first out of the Christians to think that the supreme God should be removed from the creation, governance, and administration of this world, distinguished the creator from Him along with the Platonists, lest the evils by which the world is shaken should be cast back upon the first, supremely good God; Who, since He moreover always remained unknown and never manifested Himself anywhere by any visible sign, could have no part in the fashioning and administration of the world. The other things which the impostor added concerning Ennoia detained out of envy by the Angels and unjustly treated, lest

Editors' notes and page, col. 122

Footnotes

(12) ‹anchor: dicebat› · call in col 122

Iren. l. l.

Irenaeus, in the place cited.

(printed under page 67)

Page

running head: RT. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 122
marginal letters: A quod Menander Simonis; B vero, quorum obscurior; C fuisse, sed tria; D normam et exemplar
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:123

recurreret ad Patrem, ac in varia corpora tum humana tum belluina revoluta, donec in fornice publice prostantis misertus Simon, ovem hanc perditam liberaturus venisset, hominibus simul salutem praestiturus per agnitionem suam mundumque ab Angelorum, de principatu ambitiose contendentium, tyrannide vindicaturus et emendaturus; haec, inquam, omnia, Christianismum olent, sed fabulis misere deformatum. Angelorum et hominum lapsum sub his symbolis adumbrare voluit. Priores superbiae typho excaecati, Deoque auctori suo subesse renuentes, quoniam nollent progenies alterius cujusdam putari esse, ipsius Ennoiam, ne recurreret ad suum principium detinuere; dum videlicet quidquid splendoris, potestatis ac perfectionis acceperunt, sibi ipsis inique arrogantes, supremi tantorum beneficiorum auctoris ideam, ne gloria ad eum rediret, in seipsis primum, tum in hominibus exstinguere conati sunt. His quippe auctores fuerunt, ut Dei imaginem mentibus eorum insculptam, superbia sua foede deformarent; ac paulatim oblitterata veri numinis notione, comparati jumentis insipientibus, et belluino vivendi more similes illis facti, in turpissimorum quorumque vitiorum barathrum sese in dies profundius immergentes, contumeliis semper novis afficerent. Haec sunt quae Ennoiae captivitate, calamitatibus, miserisque casibus suo modo significabat Simon. Nec dissimile vero est quod ait Tertullianus lib. De anim., c. 35 : Pythagoricam metempsychosin, Simoni hanc fabulam de Helena in alia atque alia corpora volutata, ex parte saltem instruxisse; cum utrumque discipulis ejus constiterit; et animas divinae mentis portiones esse, et eas in varia successive corpora detrudi. Ejusdem generis sunt quae de suo in hunc mundum adventu, ut perditam ovem liberaret, eumque ab Angelorum tyrannide vindicatum instauraret, effutiebat. In his inter ipsas commentorum nebulas relucet evangelica doctrina de veri Servatoris adventu; quo vitiis oblitterata Dei imago innovata, excitata in animis veri Dei notitia, homines excusso tenebricosarum Potestatum jugo in libertatem asserti, omnia denique instaurata, sive quae in coelis, sive quae in terra sunt. Nam ejus professione fundamentum Christianae religionis, cui consultum aliquatenus volebat, niti animadvertit haeresiarcha. Sic tamen in hunc mundum descendisse se jactabat, ut alienam speciem induens, per quam ementita similitudine Angelos et Potestates deciperet, ne ab eis teneretur, inter homines homo apparuerit, cum tamen non esset homo, et pati in Judaea visus fuerit, cum non sit passus. Haec prima Docetarum sectae, cui deinceps nomen dedere tot impuri homines, initia : primus hujus auctor hominum omnium perditissimus. Necessaria tamen male susceptae hypotheseos consectaria erant. Si enim, ut supponebat, malorum omnium

she return to the Father, and rolled through various bodies both human and bestial, until Simon, taking pity on her standing publicly in a brothel, had come to set free this lost sheep, at the same time to bestow salvation upon men through the knowledge of himself and to deliver and reform the world from the tyranny of the Angels ambitiously contending for supremacy; all these things, I say, smack of Christianity, but wretchedly deformed by fables. Under these symbols he wished to shadow forth the fall of Angels and of men. The former, blinded by the smoke of pride and refusing to be subject to God their author, because they were unwilling to be thought the offspring of some other, detained His Ennoia lest she return to her origin; while, namely, unjustly arrogating to themselves whatever splendour, power, and perfection they had received, they tried to extinguish the idea of the supreme author of so great benefits, lest the glory should return to Him, first in themselves and then in men. For they were the instigators to these that by their pride they should foully deform the image of God engraved upon their minds; and that, with the notion of the true Deity gradually obliterated, being compared to senseless beasts and made like unto them by a bestial manner of living, plunging themselves deeper day by day into the abyss of all the foulest vices, they should visit it with ever new insults. These are the things which Simon in his own way signified by the captivity, calamities, and wretched misfortunes of Ennoia. Nor is it unlikely what Tertullian says in his book On the Soul, Chapter 35: that Pythagorean metempsychosis furnished Simon, at least in part, with this fable concerning Helen rolled into one body after another; since both points were established among his disciples: both that souls are portions of the divine mind, and that they are thrust down successively into various bodies. Of the same kind are the things which he babbled concerning his own coming into this world to set free the lost sheep and to restore it, delivered from the tyranny of the Angels. In these things, amid the very clouds of fictions, shines forth the evangelical doctrine concerning the coming of the true Saviour; whereby the image of God obliterated by vices was renewed, the knowledge of the true God awakened in souls, men, having shaken off the yoke of the dark Powers, were claimed for liberty, and finally all things were restored, whether those that are in the heavens or those that are on the earth. For the heresiarch noticed that upon the profession of this rested the foundation of the Christian religion, for which to some extent he wished to have regard. Yet he boasted that he had descended into this world in such a way that, putting on an alien appearance through which by a feigned likeness he might deceive the Angels and Powers lest he be held by them, he appeared as a man among men, although nevertheless he was not a man, and seemed to suffer in Judaea, although he did not suffer. These were the first beginnings of the sect of the Docetists, to which afterwards so many impure men gave their name: its first author was the most abandoned of all men. Yet they were the necessary consequences of an ill-adopted hypothesis. For if, as he supposed, of all the evils

Editors' notes and page, col. 123

Footnotes

(13) ‹anchor: putari esse› · call in col 123, after "putari esse" (Q1c: call seen on the page)

Iren. l. l.

Irenaeus, in the place cited.

(printed under page 68)

Page

running head: 123 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A recurreret ad Patrem,; B acceperunt, sibi ipsis; C lam de Helena; D ejus professione fundamentum
old-edition numerals: [LVI] after excitata
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); ends mid-word om- (continued in col 124 as nium)
other: the word omnium was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 124

PG 7:124

quae in mundo sunt, auctores Angeli, si materiae et corporibus ab iis conditis turpissima inspersa labes, manifestum est eum qui a bono Deo missus est, ut mundi fabricatores debellet, orbemque malis purget, mundanum ac verum corpus asciscere sibi non potuisse : tum ne malis ipse contaminaretur, tum ne sub angelorum, qui materiae dominantur, imperium concedens, ab iis opprimeretur. Necesse erat igitur phantasticum duntaxat et umbratile corpus indueret, quo hominibus, quorum dux et doctor futurus erat, conspiciendum se praeberet, Angelisque tutius bellum inferret. Ex quo fluebat, nec vere nasci aut pati potuisse, et, ut recte concludit martyr Ignatius, Eucharistiam verum Christi corpus non esse, cum verum nunquam habuerit.

which are in the world the Angels are the authors, if the foulest stain has been sprinkled upon matter and the bodies founded by them, it is manifest that he who was sent by the good God in order to vanquish the fashioners of the world and purge the earth of evils could not have taken to himself a mundane and true body: both lest he himself be contaminated by evils, and lest, yielding to the rule of the angels who hold dominion over matter, he be overwhelmed by them. It was necessary, therefore, that he should put on a merely phantom and shadowy body, whereby he might present himself to be beheld by men, whose leader and teacher he was to be, and wage war more safely against the Angels. From which it flowed that he could neither truly be born nor suffer, and, as the martyr Ignatius rightly concludes, that the Eucharist is not the true body of Christ, since a true one He never had.

102. Addebat Magus, legem non a Deo (invisibilis quippe et ignotus usque ad Novi Testamenti tempora permansit), sed a sinistra quadam intelligentia latam fuisse. Prophetas a mundi fabricatoribus, istos ab his, illos ab illis inspiratos vaticinia fudisse. Ea ab illis contemnenda esse, qui vero Deo semel agnito, in Simonem et Helenam ejus legatos et interpretes spem collocant : iis quippe jam libertate donatis, quae per supremi Patris cognitionem acquiritur, liberum esse quodcunque velint peragere : salutem uni gratiae, γνώσει videlicet, non operibus justis acceptam referendam esse : natura siquidem nullas actiones bonas esse aut malas, sed ex accidenti; ex arbitrio nimirum Angelorum, qui mundum condiderunt, et ejusmodi praeceptorum vinculis in servitutem homines abduxerunt. Quam postremam sententiam ab Archelao philosopho accepisse videtur, cujus hoc fuit effatum, Nihil natura justum aut injustum esse, sed lege. Nefaria certe dogmata, uberrimaque scelerum omnium seminaria, quae tamen ex constitutis principiis necessario fluebant. Si enim summus Deus ignotus mansit, nec ullo sensibili signo deprehendendum se praebere dignatus, mundi curam et administrationem Angelis commisit : ergo legis et prophetiarum, quae ad mundi regimen spectabant, ii soli auctores exstiterunt; ergo qui homines adepta veri et summi Dei notitia ex eorum potestate eruti sunt, et in libertatem asserti, legis praeceptis non tenentur. Si ab una Dei hactenus ignoti, nunc vero se revelantis, cognitione pendet salus : ergo ad comparandam salutem opera supervacanea sunt. Si opera ideo duntaxat bona aut mala sunt, quia a lege quam tulerunt Angeli, praecepta vel prohibita : ergo natura indifferentia sunt; excusso proinde legis jugo, nec bona, nec mala. Jam quid mirum si homines hisce principiis imbuti, fractis omnibus tum naturae, tum pudoris repagulis, effrenem spurcissimamque vivendi rationem inierint? Eo siquidem, velut naturali consecutione deducebat exitiosa doctrina. Absit ut ea commemorem iniquitatis

102. The Magician added that the law had been enacted not by God (since He remained invisible and unknown right up to the times of the New Testament), but by a certain perverse intelligence; that the prophets, inspired by the fashioners of the world, these by these and those by those, had poured forth prophecies; that those things were to be despised by them who, once the true God is recognized, place their hope in Simon and Helen His legates and interpreters: since for them, now endowed with the liberty which is acquired through the knowledge of the supreme Father, it is free to perform whatever they wish: that salvation is to be credited to grace alone, namely to gnosis, not to righteous works: inasmuch as by nature no actions are good or evil, but by accident; namely, by the arbitrary will of the Angels who founded the world and led men away into slavery by the bonds of precepts of that kind. Which last opinion he seems to have received from Archelaus the philosopher, whose saying was this: Nothing is just or unjust by nature, but by law. Nefarious dogmas certainly, and most fertile seedbeds of all crimes, which nevertheless necessarily flowed from the established principles. For if the supreme God remained unknown, and not deigning to present Himself to be grasped by any sensible sign, committed the care and administration of the world to the Angels: therefore of the law and the prophecies, which pertained to the governance of the world, they alone were the authors; therefore those men who, having obtained knowledge of the true and supreme God, have been rescued from their power and claimed for liberty, are not bound by the precepts of the law. If salvation depends upon the sole knowledge of the God hitherto unknown, but now revealing Himself: therefore for procuring salvation works are superfluous. If works are therefore good or evil only because they are commanded or forbidden by the law which the Angels enacted: therefore by nature they are indifferent; and accordingly, once the yoke of the law is shaken off, neither good nor evil. Now what wonder if men imbued with these principles, having broken all barriers both of nature and of modesty, entered upon an unbridled and most filthy manner of living? For thither, as if by natural consequence, the ruinous doctrine led. Far be it from me to recount those mysteries of iniquity,

Editors' notes and page, col. 124

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 124
marginal letters: A nium quae in; B quam habuerit.; C las, sed ex; D state eruti sunt,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word nium from col 123; ends mid-word iniqui- (continued in col 125 as tatis)

PG 7:125

mysteria, Bacchanalium instar instituta, quae in scelestis conventibus ab iis patrata refert Epiphanius : nolim his scelerum portentis lectorum oculos defoedari. In cumulum accessere magicae artes, quarum teterrima quaeque genera, Simonis et Platonicorum exemplo, exercere veriti non sunt. Et hinc manavit vulgata gentilibus calumnia, qua dudum Christianam religionem vexaverunt, Christianos omnes magicis artibus deditos esse, eorumque coetus, omni pudoris exstincto discrimine, accedente noctis licentia corruptelarum omnis generis officinam esse. Sic in Christianam religionem redundabat pseudo-Christianorum istorum profligata vita. Resurrectionem carnis negabant : non negare qui potuissent? Si enim caro Angelorum mundi conditorum opus fuit; a Christo Servatore, qui Angelos debellaturus venerat, nec suscipi, nec salvari debuit. Animarum duntaxat cura ipsi fuit. Gentilium idolis, quotiescunque se daret occasio, thus adolere non dubitabant, nec supremum cultum, ut poenas negantibus illatas declinarent, iis adhibere renuebant : haec enim inter ἀδιάφορα numerabant. Imo gentiles in partes suas cessuros putans Simon, si illis ingeneraret opinionem, se Jovem esse, quem summum Numen patremque deorum venerabantur; Helenam vero suam Minervam, quam ex cerebro Jovis natam esse fabulantur poetae; seipsum sub Jovis, Helenam sub Minervae habitu pingi et adorari a discipulis voluerat : ut sic gentilismum cum Christianae religionis professione consociaret. Sed mirum, eum qui tota doctrinae serie inimicitias Angelis denuntiare videbatur, iis tamen divinos honores tribui voluisse. Negabat enim salutem consequi ullum hominem aliter posse, quam si Universitatis parenti abominanda sacrificia, quae vel nominare pudet, per Principatus et Potestates obtulerit : non quidem ut praesidium ferrent, sed ut placati damnum non inferrent, neu hominibus sive in vita, sive post mortem obessent. Quae etiam Platonicorum doctrina fuit superius a nobis exposita.

instituted after the likeness of the Bacchanalia, which Epiphanius relates were perpetrated by them in their wicked assemblies: I would not wish the eyes of readers to be befouled by these monstrosities of crimes. To crown all there were added magical arts, of which they did not fear to practise all the foulest kinds, after the example of Simon and the Platonists. And hence flowed the calumny spread abroad among the pagans, wherewith they long harassed the Christian religion, that all Christians were given over to magical arts, and that their assemblies, with every distinction of modesty extinguished and the licence of night added, were a workshop of corruptions of every kind. Thus the profligate life of those pseudo-Christians redounded upon the Christian religion. They denied the resurrection of the flesh: how could they not have denied it? For if the flesh was the work of the Angels who founded the world, by Christ the Saviour, Who had come to vanquish the Angels, it ought neither to have been assumed nor saved. His care was for souls alone. To the idols of the pagans, whenever occasion offered itself, they did not hesitate to burn incense, nor did they refuse to render supreme worship to them in order to avoid the penalties inflicted upon those who refused: for they numbered these things among things indifferent. Nay, Simon, thinking that the pagans would come over to his side if he engendered in them the opinion that he himself was Jupiter, whom they venerated as the supreme Deity and father of the gods, and his Helen Minerva, whom the poets fable to have been born from the brain of Jupiter, had wished himself to be painted and adored by his disciples under the guise of Jupiter, and Helen under that of Minerva: so that he might thus associate paganism with the profession of the Christian religion. But it is wonderful that he who by the whole tenor of his doctrine seemed to declare enmity against the Angels, nevertheless wished divine honours to be paid to them. For he denied that any man could attain salvation otherwise than if he offered through the Principalities and Powers to the parent of the Universe abominable sacrifices, which it is shameful even to name: not indeed that they might bring protection, but that, being placated, they might not inflict harm, nor injure men either in life or after death. Which was also the doctrine of the Platonists set forth by us above.

103. Hactenus dicta perspicue demonstrant Simonem ejusque discipulos inter gentiles potius, quam inter Christianos recensendos esse. Nam etsi Christianum nomen ore profiterentur, vix tamen vel unius Christiani dogmatis fidem integram servaverant. Trium quidem sanctissimae Trinitatis personarum nomen proferebant, rem non tenebant : una et eadem persona, pro diversis officiis, Patris, Filii et Spiritus sancti nomine gaudebat. Mysterium Incarnationis iis penitus ignotum : Christus nec verus Deus, cujus nulla fuerit hypostatica cum Deo unio; nec verus homo, cujus fuerit umbratilis tantum et phantastica humanitas; sed quoddam veluti simulacrum, quod hinc humanam naturam oculis exhiberet, illinc Divinitatis radios exciperet. Quibus omnis Christi nativitatis, vitae et mortis

103. The things said thus far clearly demonstrate that Simon and his disciples are to be reckoned among pagans rather than among Christians. For although they professed the Christian name with their mouth, yet they had scarcely preserved whole the faith of even a single Christian dogma. They uttered indeed the name of the three persons of the most holy Trinity, the reality they did not hold: one and the same person, according to diverse offices, rejoiced in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The mystery of the Incarnation was utterly unknown to them: Christ was neither true God, as having no hypostatic union with God; nor true man, as having only a shadowy and phantom humanity; but a sort of semblance, which on the one side exhibited human nature to the eyes, and on the other received the rays of Divinity. Whereby all the faith in the mysteries of Christ's nativity, life, and death

Editors' notes and page, col. 125

Footnotes

(14) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 125 or 126 (not visible)

Origen., in Cels., lib. VI.

Origen, Against Celsus, book 6.

(printed under page 69)

(15) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 125 or 126 (not visible)

Iren.

Irenaeus.

(printed under page 69)

Page

running head: 125 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A tatis mysteria, Bacchanalium; B Angelorum mundi conditorum; C sic gentilismum cum; D etsi Christianum nomen
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word tatis from col 124

PG 7:126

mysteriorum fides pessum ibat. Si aliquod baptismi genus retinuerint, ludicrum certe, quod a Christiano procul recederet. Vetus auctor qui contra Cyprianum scripsit, inter SS. martyris opera, refert quosdam haereticos e Simone prognatos, dum baptismum conferrent, emicantem ex aquis ignem intuentium oculis exhibuisse, quo simulata Spiritus sancti praesentia initiandos suos ludificarentur. Ecquam de Eucharistia fidem habere potuissent, qui verum Christo corpus denegabant? Sua quidem iis erant mysteria, sed exsecranda prorsus, quae vel commemorare pudet. Caetera sacramenta flocci fecisse homines impuros, unique γνώσει, caeteris omnibus spretis, salutem ascribendo, bonorum operum necessitatem, et evangelicarum legum observationem funditus evertisse, quisquis asseruerit, haud temere conjecerit.

went to ruin. If they retained any kind of baptism, it was certainly a mockery, which departed far from the Christian one. The ancient author who wrote against Cyprian, among the works of the most holy martyr, relates that certain heretics sprung from Simon, while conferring baptism, exhibited to the eyes of onlookers fire flashing forth from the waters, whereby with a simulated presence of the Holy Spirit they mocked those whom they were initiating. What faith concerning the Eucharist could they have had, who denied a true body to Christ? They had indeed their own mysteries, but altogether execrable ones, which it is shameful even to mention. That these impure men cared not a straw for the other sacraments, and by ascribing salvation to gnosis alone while despising all else, utterly overthrew the necessity of good works and the observance of the evangelical laws, whoever should assert will have conjectured not rashly.

104. Plures reliquit Simon errorum et scelerum successores, a principe impiissimae sententiae vocatos Simonianos. Ab his falsi nominis scientiam, Gnosticorum videlicet haeresim, accepisse initia, ex ipsis assertionibus eorum adest discere. Revera enim eadem pene Gnosticis omnibus fuere cum Simone dogmata. Si quid discriminis interfuerit, in eo positum fuit, quod eadem principia, et Platonicae philosophiae capita ab his paulo pressius, ab illis explicatius ac fusius tradita, et ad res fidei diversimode pro cujusque captu et ingenio accommodata fuerint, sed inconcusso manente fundamento. Tria fuere praecipua Gnosticae haereseos capita, 1° Summum Deum alterum esse a mundi conditore; 2° Opera nihil ad salutem juvare, sed eam ab una supernarum rerum cognitione pendere; 3° Christum verum hominem non fuisse, sed vana hominis specie oculos delusisse. Haec ab omnibus propugnata, quippe qui scirent iis totam niti hypothesim; caetera vel ad majorem explicationem addita, vel consectaria quaedam fuere, quae quisque, prout ingenio valebat, ex principiis ducebat, amplificabatque. Id ea conferenti quae de Valentiniana haeresi jam diximus, observare proclive fuit, nec difficilius observabitur in iis, quae de veteribus Gnosticis dicenda supersunt.

104. Simon left several successors in his errors and crimes, called Simonians from the prince of the most impious opinion. That from these the knowledge falsely so called, namely the heresy of the Gnostics, took its beginnings, one may learn from their very own assertions. For in truth almost the same dogmas belonged to all the Gnostics as to Simon. If any difference intervened, it lay in this, that the same principles and heads of Platonic philosophy were handed down by some a little more concisely, by others more explicitly and at greater length, and accommodated to matters of faith in diverse ways according to each one's capacity and talent, yet with the foundation remaining unshaken. Three were the chief heads of the Gnostic heresy: 1st, that the supreme God is another than the founder of the world; 2nd, that works avail nothing towards salvation, but that it depends upon the sole knowledge of supernal things; 3rd, that Christ was not a true man, but deluded the eyes with an empty appearance of a man. These points were championed by all, inasmuch as they knew that upon them rested the whole hypothesis; the rest were either added for greater explanation, or were certain corollaries which each one, according as he was strong in talent, drew from the principles and amplified. To anyone comparing those things which we have already said concerning the Valentinian heresy, it was easy to observe this, nor will it be observed with greater difficulty in those things which remain to be said concerning the ancient Gnostics.

II. De Menandro.

II. On Menander.

105. Simonis successor et discipulus fuit Menander, praeceptori moribus et doctrina respondens. Genere Samarites et ipse fuit, e vico Capparetaja, ut vocat Justinus M., vel Chabraï, ut Theodoretus appellat, oriundus. Ubi ad summum praestigiarum fastigium pervenit, ut facile non tantum cum magistro contenderet, sed etiam primas sibi vindicaret, majoribus portentis nomen sibi fecit. Antiochiam, Orientis caput, elegit, ceu publicum theatrum in quo circulatorem ageret, et unde venenatas merces facilius per Orientem spargeret. Ibi misere plures fascinavit. Si Tertulliano, vel auctori additamenti quod ad calcem libri De praescript. legitur,

105. The successor and disciple of Simon was Menander, answering to his teacher in morals and doctrine. By race he too was a Samaritan, native to the village of Capparetaja, as Justin Martyr calls it, or Chabrai, as Theodoret names it. When he reached the highest summit of juggleries, so that he easily not only vied with his master, but even claimed the first place for himself, he made a name for himself by greater portents. He chose Antioch, the capital of the East, as a public theatre in which to play the mountebank, and whence he might more easily scatter his poisoned wares through the East. There he wretchedly bewitched many. If we believe Tertullian, or the author of the addition which is read at the end of the book On Prescription,

Editors' notes and page, col. 126

Footnotes

(16) ‹anchor: 105.› · call in col 126

Iren., lib. I, c. 23, n. 5.

Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 23, no. 5.

(printed under page 69)

(17) ‹anchor: vocat Justinus M.› · call in col 126

Apol. 1.

First Apology.

(printed under page 69)

(18) ‹anchor: Si Tertulliano› · call in col 126

De Praesc. c. 46, et de An., c. 50.

On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 46, and On the Soul, chapter 50.

(printed under page 69)

Page

running head: RT. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 126
marginal letters: A mysteriorum fides pessum; B vationem funditus evertisse,; C fuere praecipua Gnosticae; D 105. Simonis successor
old-edition numerals: [LVII] after scripsit,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued), II. De Menandro

PG 7:127

credimus, eadem dixit quae Simon ipse. Quidquid Simon se esse dixerat, hoc se Menander esse dicebat. Quod tamen sobrie intelligendum. Nam Simon se esse supremam Dei Virtutem impudentius jactabat; tantum sibi non tribuebat Menander, quoniam primam Virtutem incognitam omnibus esse aiebat; se autem eum esse, qui missus sit ab invisibilibus (hoc est, ut explicat Eusebius, ab invisibilibus Aeonibus), Salvatorem pro salute hominum. Sed discrimen in verbis haerere, et in eo positum esse quod alter altero vesanior esset, superius ostendimus. Neque enim Simon supremam Dei Virtutem substantia et natura se esse contendebat, sed missione duntaxat et ἐνεργείᾳ, in quo cum Menandro consentiebat. Nec quod alter eam Virtutem omnibus ignotam esse diceret, alter ut ejus copiam faceret, venisse se jactaret, ulla inter eos pugna intercedit. Si enim cum Theodoreto duplicem summae Virtutis operationem distinguamus, occultam et manifestam, lis facile dirimitur. Nam Simon operationem occultam respicit; Menander de manifesta loquitur. Hic etiam explicandus, ne secum vel cum Irenaeo pugnet, Epiphanius scribens, Menandrum a Simonis dogmate non dissedisse, nisi quod majorem se antecessore et praeceptore suo praedicabat. Nempe hic majorem se praedicabat, non dignitate et missione; nam uterque a summa Virtute missum se esse Servatorem ad hominum salutem nugabatur; sed magicae artis peritia, qua magistrum vincere se gloriabatur.

he said the same things as Simon himself. Whatever Simon had said that he was, this Menander said that he was. Which nevertheless must be soberly understood. For Simon more impudently boasted that he was the supreme Power of God; Menander did not attribute so much to himself, because he said that the first Power was unknown to all; but that he himself was he who was sent by the invisible ones (that is, as Eusebius explains, by the invisible Aeons), a Saviour for the salvation of men. But that the difference clings to words, and lies in this, that the one was more insane than the other, we have shown above. For neither did Simon contend that he was the supreme Power of God in substance and nature, but in mission only and energy, wherein he agreed with Menander. Nor because the one said that this Power was unknown to all, while the other boasted that he had come to grant access to her, does any conflict intervene between them. For if with Theodoret we distinguish a twofold operation of the supreme Power, the hidden and the manifest, the dispute is easily settled. For Simon regards the hidden operation; Menander speaks of the manifest. Here also must Epiphanius be explained, lest he conflict with himself or with Irenaeus, when he writes that Menander did not dissent from the dogma of Simon, except that he proclaimed himself greater than his predecessor and teacher. Namely, he proclaimed himself greater here, not in dignity and mission—for both prated that they were the Saviour sent by the supreme Power for the salvation of men—but in skill in the magical art, wherein he gloried that he surpassed his master.

106. Mundum ab Angelis, quos produxit Ennoia, conditum similiter ut Simon docebat. Memoria igitur lapsus videtur Damascenus scribens lib. De haer. hoc differre Menandrianos a Simonianis, quod hi mundi molitionem ab angelis factam assererent, illi negarent; nam eadem erat utrorumque ea de re sententia. Neminem vero ex Angelorum illorum dominatu erui posse contendebat Menander, nisi per eam, quam docebat, magicam scientiam. Salutem itaque hominis positam esse volebat in redemptione ab Angelorum servitute; medium autem salutis in magica scientia. Quae omnia Simoniaca, imo et Platonica. Quae enim haeretici magicae scientiae ascribebant; eadem et Platonici μαντικῇ, divinationi et Theurgiae suae tribuebant. Nam duplicem magiam distinguebant, aliam quam Theurgiam vocabant, hoc est, artem divina operandi, bonam et laudabilem, qua certis quibusdam hostiis et sacrificiis, munditia quadam animae et corporis, aliisque sacris caeremoniis, bonos et beneficos daemones invocabant, quorum afflatu et auxilio, et occulta manifestabant, et futura praenuntiabant, et mira edebant opera : alteram Goeticam, et Necromantiam, artem videlicet praestigiosam et fallacem, quae mortuos evocat et consulit, et eorum ac malorum daemonum ope responsa de rebus occultis et futuris reddit. Ut posteriorem probro, sic priorem honori sibi vertebant, laudibusque ad coelum extollebant,

106. That the world was founded by the Angels whom Ennoia produced, he taught in like manner as Simon. Damascene therefore seems to have slipped in memory when writing in his book On Heresies that the Menandrians differed from the Simonians in this, that the latter asserted the construction of the world to have been made by the angels, while the former denied it; for the opinion of both on that matter was the same. Moreover, Menander contended that no one could be rescued from the domination of those Angels except through that magical science which he taught. Accordingly, he held that the salvation of man lay in redemption from the slavery of the Angels, and the means of salvation in magical science. All of which things are Simonian, nay, Platonic as well. For the things which the heretics ascribed to magical science, the same the Platonists also attributed to mantike, divination, and their Theurgy. For they distinguished a twofold magic: the one, which they called Theurgy, that is, the art of working divine things, good and praiseworthy, whereby with certain definite victims and sacrifices, a certain cleanness of soul and body, and other sacred ceremonies, they invoked good and beneficent daemons, by whose inspiration and aid they both manifested hidden things, and foretold future things, and wrought wonderful works; the other Goetic, and Necromancy, an art namely of jugglery and deceit, which calls up and consults the dead, and by the help of them and of evil daemons renders answers concerning hidden and future things. As they counted the latter a disgrace, so they turned the former to their honour, and extolled it with praises to heaven,

Editors' notes and page, col. 127

Footnotes

(19) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 127 or 128 (not visible)

L. III Hist., c. 26.

[Eusebius,] History, book 3, chapter 26.

(printed under page 70)

(20) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 127 or 128 (not visible)

L. I, c. 2 et seqq.

Book 1, chapter 2 ff.

(printed under page 70)

(21) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 127 or 128 (not visible)

Haer. XXXII.

Heresies 32.

(printed under page 70)

Page

running head: 127 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A credimus, eadem dixit; B esse diceret, alter; C 106. Mundum ab Angelis,; D magiam distinguebant, aliam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:128

ut passim apud Jamblichum et alios videre est. A Theurgis, inquit ille sect. III, cap. 31, omnis spiritus malus fugit, penitusque subvertitur. Exscinditur prorsus omnis malitia et passio; bonorum vero pura communicatio ad puros defertur, ignisque divinus desuper eos veritate replet. His mali spiritus impedimenti nihil afferre possunt, neque ad animae bona avertenda obstaculi, etc. Et sect. IX, cap. 4 : Sola divina μαντικὴ diis connectens, nos vere participes facit vitae divinae : cumque ipsa praescientiam, divinasque notiones in se contineat, nos quoque vere divinos facit. Haec bonum pure nobis exhibet; est enim beatissima deorum cognitio bonis omnibus plena. Et cap. 5 ait hominem olim visioni Dei conjunctum, postea aliam subingressum animam, eam nimirum quae ad humanae formae speciem aptata est, propterea venisse sub fati et necessitatis jugum; ab his vero vinculis aliter solvi non posse quam per deorum cognitionem; hanc esse quae veram vitam servat, quoniam ad Patrem sua sorte contentum et superessentialem reducit : sacram hanc et Theurgicam felicitatis donationem appellari januam ad ipsum omnium opificem Deum, vel sedem et aulam boni. Tum demum cap. sequenti concludit Theurgiam opifici universali animam sistere, et apud eum deponere, liberamque ab omni materia cum solo aeterno Verbo connectere : ipsi Dei Virtuti a se genitae, seipsam moventi, omnia sustentanti, intellectuali, omnia exornanti, ad veritatem intelligibilem revocanti, perfectae et perficienti, caeterisque Dei Virtutibus opificibus ita consociare, ut in actionibus earum, intelligentiisque efficacibus anima Theurgica perfecte confirmetur. Plura alia ejusmodi apud Jamblichum citatis sect. occurrunt. In his, puto, Simonis, Menandri Gnosticorumque omnium doctrinae fundamenta lector eruditus nullo negotio deprehendit; adeo ut ex impuris hisce fontibus palam hausta videantur tum γνῶσις ipsa, tum operosum illud quod in colendam magiam studium conferebant, tum denique quidquid utrique tam procaciter ascribebant.

as may be seen passim in Iamblichus and others. From the Theurgists, says he in Section 3, Chapter 31, every evil spirit flees, and is utterly overthrown. All malice and passion is altogether cut off; and a pure communication of good things is brought down to the pure, and divine fire from above fills them with truth. To these evil spirits can bring no impediment, nor any obstacle to turn away the goods of the soul, etc. And in Section 9, Chapter 4: Divine mantike alone, uniting with the gods, makes us truly partakers of the divine life: and since it contains within itself foreknowledge and divine notions, it makes us also truly divine. This purely exhibits the good to us; for the most blessed knowledge of the gods is full of all good things. And in Chapter 5 he says that man, once conjoined to the vision of God, having afterwards entered into another soul, that namely which is adapted to the form of the human shape, therefore came under the yoke of fate and necessity; and that from these bonds he cannot be loosed otherwise than through the knowledge of the gods; that this is what preserves true life, because it leads back to the Father content with His own lot and superessential: that this sacred and Theurgic bestowal of felicity is called the door to God Himself the fashioner of all things, or the seat and court of the good. Then finally in the following chapter he concludes that Theurgy presents the soul to the universal fashioner and deposits it with Him, and unites it, free from all matter, with the sole eternal Word: and so associates it with the very Power of God begotten from Himself, self-moving, sustaining all things, intellectual, adorning all things, recalling to intelligible truth, perfect and perfecting, and with the other fashioning Powers of God, that in their actions and efficacious intelligences the Theurgic soul is perfectly confirmed. Many other things of this sort occur in Iamblichus in the cited sections. In these, I think, the learned reader with no trouble detects the foundations of the doctrine of Simon, Menander, and all the Gnostics; so that from these impure fountains seem openly to have been drawn both gnosis itself, and that laborious zeal which they bestowed upon cultivating magic, and finally whatever they so shamelessly ascribed to both.

107. Quoddam baptismi genus suis impertiebatur Menander, quo qui dignati essent resurrectionem adipiscerentur, jamque deinceps immortalitatem consecuti perseverarent, nulli senio aut morti obnoxii. Tum vero baptismum in nomine suo conferebat; quo quidem insaniae Simon devenisse non videtur. Quem vero immortalitatis effectum baptismati suo impudenter asserebat, Tertullianus et Eusebius de corporis immortalitate etiam in hac praesenti vita intelligere videntur. Mirum autem homines, caeteroquin acutos, sic animum induxisse suum. Nam praeterquam quod extra dubium omne positum videtur, Menandri mentem explicandam esse ex praeceptoris sententia, qui corpora docebat interire penitus, nec resurgere, solam autem animam

107. Menander imparted a certain kind of baptism to his followers, whereby those who had been deemed worthy might obtain resurrection, and having thenceforth attained immortality might continue on, subject to no old age or death. Moreover, he conferred baptism in his own name; to which pitch of madness indeed Simon does not seem to have come. Now this effect of immortality which he impudently asserted for his baptism, Tertullian and Eusebius seem to understand of the immortality of the body even in this present life. Yet it is wonderful that men otherwise acute so persuaded their own minds. For besides the fact that it seems placed beyond all doubt that the mind of Menander must be explained from the opinion of his teacher, who taught that bodies perish utterly and do not rise again, and that only the soul

Editors' notes and page, col. 128

Footnotes

(22) ‹anchor: Tertullianus› · call in col 128

De An., c. 50.

On the Soul, chapter 50.

(printed under page 70)

(23) ‹anchor: et Eusebius› · call in col 128

L. III Hist., c. 26.

History, book 3, chapter 26.

(printed under page 70)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 128
marginal letters: A ut passim apud; B nimirum quae ad; C nanti, ad veritatem; D nem adipiscerentur, jamque
old-edition numerals: [LVIII] after quae
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); ends mid-word ani- (continued in col 129 as mam)
other: the word animam was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 129

PG 7:129

immortalem esse : perspicue docet Irenaeus lib. II, cap. 31, n. 2, quid Gnostici omnes per resurrectionem a mortuis, quam interdum praedicabant, intelligerent, nempe agnitionem ejus quae ab eis dicitur, veritatis. Quod ipse Tertullianus ag⟨n⟩oscens, paulo enucleatius explicat lib. De resurrect. carn., cap. 19, ubi Gnosticorum fraudes retegens scribit : Nacti quidam solemnissimam eloquii prophetici formam, allegorici et figurati plerumque, non tamen semper, resurrectionem quoque mortuorum manifeste annuntiatam, in imaginariam significationem distorquent, asseverantes ipsam etiam mortem spiritaliter intelligendam. Non enim hanc esse in vero, quae sit in medio, discidium corporis et animae, sed ignorantiam Dei, per quam homo mortuus Deo non minus in errore jacuerit quam in sepulcro. Itaque et resurrectionem eam vindicandam, qua quis adita veritate redanimatus et revivificatus Deo, ignorantiae morte discussa, velut de sepulcro veteris hominis eruperit : quia et Dominus Scribas et Pharisaeos sepulcris dealbatis adaequaverit. Exinde ergo resurrectionem fide consecutos cum Domino esse, cum eum in baptismate induerint. Hoc denique ingenio etiam in colloquiis saepe nostros decipere consueverunt : quasi et ipsi resurrectionem admittant. Vae, inquiunt, qui non in hac carne resurrexerit; ne statim illos percutiant, si resurrectionem statim abnuerint. Tacite autem secundum conscientiam suam hoc sentiunt : vae, qui non, dum in hac carne est, cognoverit arcana haeretica, hoc est enim apud illos resurrectio. Sed et plerique ab excessu animae resurrectionem vindicantes, de sepulcro exire, de saeculo evadere interpretantur, quia et saeculum mortuorum sit habitaculum, id est ignorantium Deum; vel etiam de ipso corpore, quia et corpus vice sepulcri conclusam animam in saecularis vitae morte detinet. Quibus palam fit, eam, quam Menander aliique similes, resurrectionem mortuorum mendaciter venditabant, mystice et allegorice intelligendam esse; nihilque aliud esse, praeter ignoti Dei, arcanorumque haereticorum notitiam, qua quisquis fictitium illud, quod conferebant, baptisma consecutus fuerit, nefariisque eorum mysteriis initiatus, ignorantiae morte discussa, velut de sepulcro veteris hominis erumpit. Menandrum proinde in his ne latum quidem unguem a Simonis aliorumque Gnosticorum sententia recessisse, nisi quod aenigmatis involverit quod illi planius efferebant.

is immortal: Irenaeus clearly teaches in Book 2, Chapter 31, no. 2, what all the Gnostics understood by the resurrection from the dead which they sometimes preached, namely the recognition of that which is called by them the truth. Which Tertullian himself acknowledging, explains a little more clearly in his book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 19, where, uncovering the frauds of the Gnostics, he writes: Certain men, having seized upon the most familiar form of prophetic speech, which is for the most part allegorical and figurative, yet not always, twist the resurrection of the dead as well, though manifestly proclaimed, into an imaginary meaning, asserting that death itself also must be spiritually understood. For they say that this is not in truth that which is open to all, the parting of body and soul, but ignorance of God, through which a man dead to God has lain no less in error than in a sepulchre. And therefore that resurrection also must be claimed whereby anyone, having approached the truth, reanimated and made alive again to God, with the death of ignorance dispelled, has burst forth as it were from the sepulchre of the old man: because the Lord also likened the Scribes and Pharisees to whitened sepulchres. That thenceforth, therefore, having attained the resurrection by faith, they are with the Lord, once they have put Him on in baptism. Finally, by this cleverness they have often been accustomed to deceive our people in conversations as well, as though they too admit the resurrection. Woe, say they, to him who has not risen again in this flesh; lest they immediately shock them if they immediately deny the resurrection. But silently according to their own conscience they mean this: woe to him who, while he is in this flesh, has not come to know the heretical secrets, for this among them is the resurrection. Nay, most of them also, claiming a resurrection of the soul from its departure, interpret coming out of the sepulchre as escaping from the world, because the world also is the dwelling-place of the dead, that is, of those who do not know God; or even from the body itself, because the body also, in the place of a sepulchre, detains the enclosed soul in the death of worldly life. Whereby it becomes plain that that resurrection of the dead which Menander and others like him falsely peddled must be understood mystically and allegorically; and that it is nothing else than the knowledge of the unknown God and of the heretical secrets, whereby whoever has attained that fictitious baptism which they conferred, and been initiated into their nefarious mysteries, with the death of ignorance dispelled, bursts forth as it were from the sepulchre of the old man. That Menander, accordingly, in these matters did not depart even a nail's breadth from the opinion of Simon and the other Gnostics, except that he wrapped in riddles what they uttered more plainly.

III. De Saturnino.

III. On Saturninus.

108. Venenata quaedam bestia bilinguis et biceps, ait Eusebius, e Menandro orta, duos duarum sectarum inter se discrepantium auctores et duces edidit, Saturninum, vel Saturnilum (utrumque enim promiscue scribunt auctores), genere Antiochenum, et Basilidem Alexandrinum, ambos Menandri discipulos, ac coaevos; quorum ille in Syria,

108. A certain venomous two-tongued and two-headed beast, says Eusebius, sprung from Menander, brought forth two authors and leaders of two sects differing from one another, Saturninus, or Saturnilus (for authors write both indiscriminately), an Antiochene by race, and Basilides an Alexandrian, both disciples of Menander and contemporaries; of whom the former in Syria,

Editors' notes and page, col. 129

Footnotes

(24) ‹anchor: ait Eusebius› · call in col 129

L. IV Hist., c. 7.

History, book 4, chapter 7.

(printed under page 71)

(25) ‹anchor: scribunt auctores› · call in col 129

Iren., lib. I, c. 24; Epiph., Haer XXIII.

Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 24; Epiphanius, Heresies 23.

(printed under page 71)

(26) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 129 or 130 (not visible)

Lib. I, c. 2 et 3.

Book 1, chapters 2 and 3.

(printed under page 71)

(27) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 129 or 130 (not visible)

Tertull. De praesc. c. 46.

Tertullian, On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 46.

(printed under page 71)

(28) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 129 or 130 (not visible)

Aug., Haer. III.

Augustine, Heresies 3.

(printed under page 71)

Page

running head: 129 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A mam immortalem esse; B non minus in; C resurrectio. Sed et; D Menandrum proinde in
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued), III. De Saturnino; begins mid-word mam from col 128; damaged type in ag⟨n⟩oscens

PG 7:130

hic vero in Aegypto scholas errorum Deo et pietati repugnantium instituit. Ambos Adriano imperante vixisse tradit Theodoretus; nec repugnat Eusebius, qui eorum meminit Adriani temporum historiam conscribens : quanquam tamen probabile censeat cl. Tillemontius, Saturninum jam a Trajani temporibus, paulo ante Basilidem coepisse. Sed de his postea. Ille eadem fere cum Menandro deliramenta loquebatur. Unum esse summum Patrem, et innascibilem Virtutem, id est Deum, in summis illis et infinitis partibus, et in superioribus manentem, ac prorsus ignotum praedicabat, qui longe a se distantes Virtutes, Principatus, Potestates et Angelos creaverit. Illis omnibus a Patre desciscentibus, septem ex iis mundum condiderunt, praeter conscientiam Dei Patris, ejusque suam quisque partem sortiti sunt. Unum ex iis mundi conditoribus Angelis fuisse Judaeorum Deum dicebat. Satanam ipsum angelum esse, repugnantem angelis mundi fabricatoribus, maxime vero Judaeorum Deo; qui perinde atque hic atque illi prophetiarum auctor fuerit. Omnia haec Simoniana et Gnostica, partim ex Platonicorum lacunis, partim ex corruptis ac depravatis Scripturarum oraculis hausta, ut ex hactenus dictis constat.

and the latter in Egypt established schools of errors repugnant to God and piety. Theodoret hands down that both lived when Hadrian was emperor; nor does Eusebius disagree, who mentions them when writing the history of the times of Hadrian: although nevertheless the illustrious Tillemont thinks it probable that Saturninus had already begun from the times of Trajan, a little before Basilides. But of these things afterwards. The former spoke almost the same ravings as Menander. He preached that there is one supreme Father and unbegotten Power, that is, God, abiding in those highest and infinite regions and in the upper realms, and altogether unknown, Who created Powers, Principalities, Authorities, and Angels far distant from Himself. When all those revolted from the Father, seven of them founded the world, without the knowledge of God the Father, and each obtained by lot his own part of it. One of those world-founding Angels, he said, was the God of the Jews. Satan himself was an angel opposing the angels who fashioned the world, and above all the God of the Jews; and he, just like the latter and the former, was the author of prophecies. All these things are Simonian and Gnostic, drawn partly from the pools of the Platonists, partly from the corrupted and depraved oracles of the Scriptures, as is established from what has been said thus far.

109. Hominis etiam originem Saturninus ascribebat Angelis. Creationis vero haec occasio fuit. Cum desuper a summa Potestate lucida imago emicuisset, coelestis illius lucis amore capti, summaque cupiditate ac voluptate perfusi, hanc apud se tenere viribus omnibus contenderunt; non valentibus vero, eo quod repente sursum evolarit, et ex eorum oculis evanuerit, id in animos incidit, ut evanidae imaginis jacturam resarciendi desiderio, aliquam ejus similitudinem exprimerent, hominemque, qui eam referret, conderent. Quare convenientes in unum, communi consilio dixerunt : Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem. Sic, inquit Epiphanius, impostor particulam, nostram, quam in Genesi Deus usurpat, ideo decurtavit, ut errori fidem astrueret; quasi alii sint operis artifices, imago vero ipsa ad alium referatur. Editus est igitur in lucem homo, sed prae Angelorum imbecillitate admodum imperfectus. Jacebat namque in solo reptantis instar vermiculi, neque erigere se, neque aliud quidquam agere valens, donec ei miserta Virtus suprema, ob imaginem suam atque effigiem, sui scintillam immisit, qua et illum erexit, et vitam impertivit. Eam vero scintillam vocat animam humanam, quam, utpote decisam ab essentia divina particulam, dissoluto animali servari ait, et evolare sursum ad ea quae sunt ejusdem generis; pereunte reliquo homine, resoluto in sua principia. Non tamen homines omnes in scintillae illius partem vocabat Saturninus, sed eos solos, qui sectae suae nomen dedissent. Duos quippe homines principio

109. The origin of man also Saturninus ascribed to the Angels. Now the occasion of his creation was this. When a bright image had flashed forth from above from the supreme Power, seized with love of that heavenly light and filled with supreme desire and pleasure, they strove with all their might to keep it with themselves; but being unable, because it suddenly flew back upwards and vanished from their eyes, it came into their minds that, out of a desire to repair the loss of the vanished image, they should fashion some likeness of it, and found a man who would reflect it. Wherefore, coming together into one, by common counsel they said: Let us make man after the image and likeness (cf. Gen. 1:26). Thus, says Epiphanius, the impostor cut short the particle, our, which God uses in Genesis, in order to build up credence for his error; as though the artificers of the work were some, while the image itself were referred to another. Man was therefore brought forth into the light, but by reason of the weakness of the Angels very imperfect. For he lay upon the ground like a crawling little worm, able neither to raise himself up nor to do anything else, until the supreme Power, taking pity on him on account of her own image and likeness, sent into him a spark of herself, whereby she both raised him up and imparted life. And that spark he calls the human soul, which, as being a particle cut off from the divine essence, he says is preserved when the living creature is dissolved, and flies upwards to those things which are of the same kind; while the rest of the man perishes, resolved into its own elements. Yet Saturninus did not call all men to a share in that spark, but those alone who had given their name to his sect. For he asserted that in the beginning two men

Editors' notes and page, col. 130

Footnotes

(29) ‹anchor: in Genesi› · call in col 130

Gen. I, 26.

Genesis 1:26.

(printed under page 71)

Page

running head: RT. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 130
marginal letters: A hic vero in; B conscientiam Dei Patris; C viribus omnibus contenderunt;; D reptantis instar vermiculi,
old-edition numerals: [LIX] after consilio
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:131

factos asserebat, bonum unum, scintillae participem, alterum malum, ejusdem expertem; a quibus duplex item hominum genus, natura scilicet bonum, ac natura malum in mundo proseminatum esse primus hominum finxit.

were made, the one good, a partaker of the spark, the other evil, devoid of the same; from whom he was the first of men to feign that a twofold race of men likewise, namely good by nature and evil by nature, was sown abroad in the world.

110. Platonica haec omnia sunt, sed varie interpolata, novisque fabulis aucta. Quod hic fingitur de imagine desuper emicante, ad cujus similitudinem conditus homo, purum putumque Platonicorum dogma est de rerum omnium ideis ac formis a supremo rerum omnium parente effictis : quas quidem in Angelorum, quibus creandi et administrandi mundi provinciam demandavit, mente recondidit, ut coelestia archetypa prae oculis habentes, ea in fabricandis rebus imitarentur. Communis itidem Platonicorum omnium sententia, superiorem animae partem, ejusdemque velut apicem, quam mentem vocabant, esse velut essentiae divinae particulam, ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου νοητοῦ, a primo intelligibili, ut loquitur Jamblichus, decisam, quae homini desuper inspirata rationem impertitur, eumque a communi brutorum animantium sorte eximit; fabula de scintilla reptanti homini et in solo jacenti, a superna Virtute, qua erigeretur et ageret quae sunt hominis, immissa, fundamentum praebuit. Ut scintilla, dissoluto animali, ad principium suum, ex Saturnino, revolabat; sic et mens post mortem, ex Platonicis, ad Deum ejus auctorem revertebatur. Hactenus quadrant sententiae; discrepant vero in explicatione scintillae, seu particulae divinae essentiae. Per eam, Platonici mentem qua rationalis fit homo; Saturniniani vero γνῶσιν, seu supremi Patris notitiam, qua fit spiritalis, et ab animalibus hominibus in ignorantiae tenebris agentibus, distinctus, intelligebant. Idque ipsum est quod deinceps semen spiritale Valentinianis vocitare placuit; quod quidem non omnibus, sed certis quibusdam hominibus concessum esse, ut Saturninus scintillam suam, jactabant. Unde quemadmodum hic duplicis generis homines, natura bonos scintillae participes, et natura malos, ejusdem expertes distinguebat; sic et illi quosdam homines natura bonos, eos scilicet qui semine fecundati erant; quosdam natura malos, qui seminis exsortes, statuebant. Adeo ut idem utrobique commentum sit, sub variarum nugarum involucris propositum. Quod alter per hominem erectum et reptantem; alii per homines spiritales et animales significant. Quod denique Saturninus prophetarum oracula modo opificibus Angelis; modo Satanae accepta referret, a Platonicis etiam mutuatus fuerat, qui, ut supra ex Jamblicho vidimus, vaticiniorum causam refundebant modo in bonos, modo in malos daemones.

110. All these things are Platonic, but variously interpolated and augmented with new fables. What is feigned here concerning the image flashing forth from above, after whose likeness man was founded, is the pure and simple dogma of the Platonists concerning the ideas and forms of all things fashioned by the supreme parent of all things: which indeed He stored up in the mind of the Angels, to whom He entrusted the province of creating and administering the world, so that, having the heavenly archetypes before their eyes, they might imitate them in fashioning things. Likewise the common opinion of all the Platonists, that the higher part of the soul, and as it were its summit, which they called the mind, is as it were a particle of the divine essence, cut off apo tou protou noetou, from the first intelligible, as Iamblichus speaks, which, breathed into man from above, imparts reason and exempts him from the common lot of brute animals, furnished the foundation for the fable concerning the spark sent by the supernal Power into the man crawling and lying upon the ground, whereby he might be raised up and do the things that are a man's. As the spark, when the living creature was dissolved, flew back to its origin according to Saturninus, so also the mind after death, according to the Platonists, returned to God its author. Thus far the opinions square; but they differ in the explanation of the spark, or particle of the divine essence. By it the Platonists understood the mind whereby man becomes rational; the Saturninians, however, gnosis, or the knowledge of the supreme Father, whereby he becomes spiritual and distinct from animal men living in the darkness of ignorance. And this very thing is what it afterwards pleased the Valentinians to call the spiritual seed; which indeed they boasted was granted not to all, but to certain definite men, just as Saturninus boasted of his spark. Whence, just as the latter distinguished men of a twofold kind, those good by nature who partake of the spark, and those evil by nature who are devoid of the same, so they too posited certain men good by nature, namely those who had been fertilized with the seed, and certain evil by nature, who had no share in the seed. So that it is the same fiction in both places, propounded under the wrappings of various trifles: which the one signifies by the upright and the crawling man, the others by spiritual and animal men. Finally, the fact that Saturninus credited the oracles of the prophets now to the fashioning Angels, now to Satan, he had also borrowed from the Platonists, who, as we saw above from Iamblichus, referred the cause of prophecies now to good, now to evil daemons.

111. Simonis vestigia relegens Saturninus, Servatorem de communi supernarum Virtutum sententia missum aiebat, ut Angelos rebelles, et maxime Judaeorum Deum in ordinem redigeret, et iis

111. Retracing the footsteps of Simon, Saturninus said that the Saviour was sent by the common resolve of the supernal Powers in order to reduce to order the rebellious Angels, and above all the God of the Jews, and to those

Editors' notes and page, col. 131

Page

running head: 131 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A factos asserebat, bonum; B Platonicorum omnium sententia,; C lae, seu particulae; D mentum sit, sub
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:132

qui vitae scintillam accepissent, salutem afferret, malos vero cum daemonibus, qui ipsis opitulabantur, profligaret. Hoc ipsum erat quod aliis verbis exprimebat Simon, venisse Christum ut homines a legis, quam tulerat Judaeorum Deus, vinculis eximeret, solisque credentium seu spiritalium animabus salutem impertiretur. Servatorem autem modo a supremo Patre genitum, modo ingenitum dicebat Saturninus : ingenitum quidem, si generationis proprie dictae habeatur ratio, cujus terminus fuerit persona a principio suo distincta; genitum vero, si generatio pro simplici productione, qualiscunque sit, latius accipiatur. Unde patet huic, sicut et Simoni, aliisque multis Gnosticis, Servatorem fuisse meram divinitatis ἐνέργειαν, functionem temporariam, et radium, non personam subsistentem, et a Patre distinctam. Eum vero corporis (terreni videlicet et materialis) expertem, et sine figura, hominis tamen simulacrum atque effigiem sensibus objecisse, omniaque ab eo specie tenus perfecta; cujusmodi fuit nasci, ambulare, videri, pati. Uno verbo phantasma fuisse, quod divina ἐνεργείᾳ motum, sensibus humanis fucum faceret. Jam uxores ducere, liberosque gignere a Satana esse, primus omnium circulator idem pronuntiavit : non quod castitatem coleret; sed ut solutus matrimonii legibus, turpissimis quibusque voluptatibus effrenatius indulgeret. Multi etiam ex ejus discipulis, Pythagoreos imitati, animatis omnibus abstinebant, ut affectato illo sanctioris vitae genere nonnullos suum in errorem pellicerent.

who had received the spark of life to bring salvation, while routing the evil along with the daemons who aided them. This was the very thing that Simon expressed in other words, that Christ had come to free men from the bonds of the law which the God of the Jews had enacted, and to impart salvation solely to the souls of believers or spiritual men. Moreover, Saturninus called the Saviour now begotten by the supreme Father, now unbegotten: unbegotten indeed, if account be taken of generation properly so called, whose term is a person distinct from his principle; but begotten, if generation be taken more broadly for simple production, of whatever sort be. Whence it is clear that for him, just as for Simon and many other Gnostics, the Saviour was a mere energy of the divinity, a temporary function, and a ray, not a subsisting person distinct from the Father; and that, being devoid of a body (namely an earthly and material one) and without figure, He nevertheless presented the semblance and likeness of a man to the senses, and that all things were performed by Him in appearance only, such as being born, walking, being seen, suffering; in one word, that He was a phantom which, moved by divine energy, played a trick upon human senses. Furthermore, the same mountebank was the first of all to pronounce that taking wives and begetting children are from Satan: not because he cultivated chastity, but so that, freed from the laws of marriage, he might indulge more unrestrainedly in all the foulest pleasures. Many of his disciples also, imitating the Pythagoreans, abstained from all living things, so that by that affected kind of holier life they might entice some into their error.

IV. De Basilide.

IV. On Basilides.

112. Basilides Alexandrinus, Saturnini condiscipulus, a Matthia apostolo doctrinam suam accepisse se falso jactitabat, atque Glauciam quemdam, quem Petri interpretem fuisse ferebant, praeceptorem habuisse gloriabatur. Inanis forte, quod ad Glauciam, obscuri nominis hominem, attinet, vesani hominis gloriatio, ut ex magistri persona auctoritatem dogmatibus suis conciliaret. Ex ea tamen (ut et ex simili Valentini gloriatione supra concludebamus) inferre licet Basilidem, si non apostolis ipsis coaevus fuerit, ad eorum saltem aetatem proxime accessisse, ipsorumque discipulis convixisse. Certe Hieronymus disputans contra Luciferianos, Basilidem inter haereticos apostolicorum temporum numerat : Sed quid de posterioribus, inquit, adhuc loquor? Apostolis adhuc in saeculo superstitibus, apud Judaeam, Christi sanguine recenti, phanstasma Domini corpus asserebatur. Galatas ad observationem legis traductos Apostolus iterum parturit. Corinthios resurrectionem carnis non credentes, pluribus argumentis ad verum iter trahere conatur. Tunc Simon Magus, et Menander discipulus ejus, Dei se asseruere Virtutes : tunc Basilides summum Deum Abraxas cum trecentis sexaginta quinque Aeonibus commentatus est. Nec dissentit Epiphanius

112. Basilides the Alexandrian, the fellow-disciple of Saturninus, falsely boasted that he had received his doctrine from Matthias the apostle, and gloried that he had had as teacher a certain Glaucias, whom they reported to have been the interpreter of Peter. An empty boast perhaps of a madman, so far as concerns Glaucias, a man of obscure name, in order that from the person of his master he might win authority for his dogmas. Yet from it (as we also concluded above from the similar boast of Valentinus) one may infer that Basilides, if he was not contemporary with the apostles themselves, at least came very close to their age and lived with their disciples. Certainly Jerome, disputing against the Luciferians, numbers Basilides among the heretics of apostolic times: But why, says he, do I still speak of later men? While the apostles were still surviving in the world, in Judaea, with the blood of Christ still fresh, the body of the Lord was asserted to be a phantom. The Galatians, led over to the observance of the law, the Apostle is in travail with anew (cf. Gal. 4:19). The Corinthians, not believing the resurrection of the flesh, he tries by many arguments to draw to the true way (cf. 1 Cor. 15). Then Simon Magus, and Menander his disciple, asserted themselves to be the Powers of God: then Basilides devised the supreme God Abraxas with three hundred and sixty-five Aeons. Nor does Epiphanius disagree,

Editors' notes and page, col. 132

Footnotes

(30) ‹anchor: Basilides Alexandrinus› · call in col 132

Clem. Alex., Strom. lib. VII, p. 768.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 7, p. 768.

(printed under page 72)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 132
marginal letters: A qui vitae scintillam; B fuisse meram divinitatis; C ut affectato illo; D convixisse. Certe Hieronymus
old-edition numerals: [LX] after Dei
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued), IV. De Basilide

PG 7:133

qui Haer. XXXI, § 2, scribit Valentinum quidem Basilide ac Saturnilo, Ebione, Cerintho ac Merintho, eorumque sociis, tempore esse posteriorem; omnes tamen uno tempore ad humani generis exitium profusos esse; quanquam, inquit, Cerinthus ac Merinthus et Ebion paululum antegressi sunt. Si non multum temporis intercessit inter Cerinthum, haereticum in Asia agnitum antequam S. Joannes Evangelium scripsisset, et Basilidem; hic igitur Joannis aetate vixerit necesse est. Deinde Valentinus et Basilides uno tempore ad humani generis exitium profusi sunt, ita tamen ut hic prior, ille posterior sit. At superius de Valentini aetate disserentes ostendimus, eum ineunte circiter secundo saeculo dogmata sua spargere coepisse; ex quo sequitur, Basilidem (a fortiori Saturninum qui huic aliquantulum praeivit) saltem ad Joannis apostoli tempora attigisse.

who in Heresy 31, § 2, writes that Valentinus indeed was later in time than Basilides and Saturnilus, Ebion, Cerinthus and Merinthus, and their associates, yet all were poured forth at one time for the destruction of the human race; although, says he, Cerinthus and Merinthus and Ebion went a little before. If not much time intervened between Cerinthus, a heretic recognized in Asia before Saint John had written his Gospel, and Basilides, the latter therefore must necessarily have lived in the age of John. Next, Valentinus and Basilides were poured forth at one time for the destruction of the human race, yet in such a way that the latter was earlier, the former later. Now above, when discussing the age of Valentinus, we showed that he began to scatter his dogmas about the beginning of the second century; from which it follows that Basilides (and a fortiori Saturninus, who preceded him a little) reached back at least to the times of John the apostle.

113. Non desunt tamen qui Basilidem juniorem faciant, ejusque haeresim non nisi Adriani temporibus in lucem prodiisse contendant. Nituntur in primis auctoritate Clementis Alexandrini lib. VII Strom., pag. 764; Eusebii, lib. IV Hist., cap. 7, et in Chronico, ac Theodoreti, lib. I Haer. fab., cap. 2, qui Basilidis haeresim conferunt in Adriani tempora. At ex Clementis, Eusebii in Chronico, et Theodoreti verbis id tantum inferri posse puto, Basilidem sub Adriani imperio fuisse, scholam habuisse, et audacius haeresim disseminasse; non vero haeresim inchoasse, aut tum primum docuisse. Nec ex eo quod Eusebius in Historia circa Adriani tempora narrationem instituat de Saturnini et Basilidis haeresi, magis concludi potest, eos sub illius imperio coepisse, quam ex eo quod de Ebionaeis, Cerinthianis et Nicolaitis disserat sub Trajano, inferri posset eorum originem anteriorem non esse. Neque expressiora sunt, ut figatur Basilidiani erroris exordium, Firmiliani verba, apud Cyprian. epist. 75 : Sed et Valentini et Basilidis tempus manifestum est, quod et ipsi post apostolos, et post longam aetatem adversus Ecclesiam Dei sceleratis mendaciis suis rebellaverint. Nam haec longa aetas, ut bene animadvertit Cotelerius, dubio procul oratoria exaggeratio haberi debet; quia inter finem Joannis apostoli, et initium Adriani imperatoris, non intercedunt anni viginti. Deinde loquitur Firmilianus de aperta Basilidis adversus Ecclesiam rebellione, non de haereseos ejus initio. Certum est, viventibus apostolis, haereticos velut serpentes in antris delitescentes, sanctissimorum hominum metu repressos, nonnisi clam et timidius venenum erroris evomuisse; at audaciam addente apostolorum morte, jam caput attollere, liberius dogmata sua propagare, unitateque palam violata, scholas sibi constituere coepisse. Ex quo sequitur verissimum esse quod scribit Irenaeus lib. V, c. 20, n. 1 : Omnes haereticos valde posteriores esse, quam episcopos, quibus apostoli tradiderunt

113. Yet there are not lacking those who make Basilides younger, and contend that his heresy came forth into the light only in the times of Hadrian. They rely especially on the authority of Clement of Alexandria, Book 7 of the Stromata, p. 764; of Eusebius, Book 4 of the History, Chapter 7, and in the Chronicle; and of Theodoret, Book 1 of the Heretical Fables, Chapter 2, who place the heresy of Basilides in the times of Hadrian. But from the words of Clement, of Eusebius in the Chronicle, and of Theodoret, I think only this can be inferred, that Basilides lived under the reign of Hadrian, had a school, and more boldly disseminated his heresy; not, however, that he began his heresy or then first taught it. Nor from the fact that Eusebius in his History sets up his narrative concerning the heresy of Saturninus and Basilides around the times of Hadrian can it any more be concluded that they began under his reign, than from the fact that he discusses the Ebionites, Cerinthians, and Nicolaitans under Trajan could it be inferred that their origin was not earlier. Nor are the words of Firmilian, in Cyprian, Epistle 75, more explicit for fixing the beginning of the Basilidian error: Moreover, the time of Valentinus and Basilides is manifest, that they too after the apostles, and after a long age, rebelled against the Church of God by their wicked lies. For this long age, as Cotelier well observes, must without doubt be considered an oratorical exaggeration; because between the end of John the apostle and the beginning of the emperor Hadrian there do not intervene twenty years. Next, Firmilian speaks of the open rebellion of Basilides against the Church, not of the beginning of his heresy. It is certain that while the apostles were living, the heretics, lurking like serpents in caves, repressed by fear of those most holy men, vomited forth the poison of their error only secretly and rather timidly; but when the death of the apostles added boldness, they now began to lift up their heads, to propagate their dogmas more freely, and, with unity openly violated, to establish schools for themselves. From which it follows that what Irenaeus writes in Book 5, Chapter 20, no. 1, is most true: That all heretics are much later than the bishops to whom the apostles handed

Editors' notes and page, col. 133

Footnotes

(31) ‹anchor: animadvertit Cotelerius› · call in col 133

Patr. Apost., t. II, p. 470, edit. Paris. 1672.

Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, p. 470, Paris edition of 1672.

(printed under page 73)

Page

running head: 133 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A qui Haer. XXXI,; B Basilidem (a fortiori; C eo quod Eusebius; D initium Adriani imperatoris,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); ends mid-word tra- (continued in col 134 as diderunt)
other: the word tradiderunt was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 134

PG 7:134

Ecclesias. Haec siquidem necesse ad tempus referamus, quo Ecclesias apostoli commiserunt apostolicis viris, non ad illud quo vivere desierunt illi episcopi. Nam certum est tum ex ipso Irenaeo lib. III, c. 3, n. 4, tum ex aliis veteribus, Polycarpum, ab apostolis Smyrnae ordinatum episcopum, Basilidi, Valentino, Marcioni aliisque haereticis coaevum exstitisse. Verius a fortiori quod proxime citato cap. n. 3, scribit auctor noster, epistolam Clementis ad Corinthios vetustiorem esse haereticis qui nunc falso docent, et alterum Deum super Demiurgum et factorem horum omnium commentiuntur. Verba haec qui nunc falso docent, aperte demonstrant eum intelligere, non Gnosticos quoslibet, s⟨e⟩d Valentinianos duntaxat, quos confutabat.

over the Churches. For these words we must necessarily refer to the time when the apostles committed the Churches to apostolic men, not to that when those bishops ceased to live. For it is certain both from Irenaeus himself, Book 3, Chapter 3, no. 4, and from other ancients, that Polycarp, ordained bishop at Smyrna by the apostles, was contemporary with Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, and other heretics. Truer still a fortiori is what our author writes in the chapter just cited, no. 3, that the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is older than the heretics who now falsely teach, and devise another God above the Demiurge and maker of all these things. These words, who now falsely teach, openly demonstrate that he understands not any Gnostics whatsoever, but the Valentinians only, whom he was refuting.

114. Quo anno excesserit e vivis Basilides, non satis constat. In Catalogo Hieronymi, voce Agrippa, legitur : Mortuus est autem Basilides, a quo Gnostici, in Alexandria temporibus Adriani; qua tempestate et Cochebas dux Judaicae factionis Christianos variis suppliciis enecavit. Quae si sincera sunt, dicendum erit obiisse Basilidem anno circiter 135, quo Judaea bello ardebat, quod excitarat Cochebae adversus Romanos rebellio. Sed utrum apud Hieronymum legendum sit mortuus est, an moratus est, necdum extra omne dubium positum existimo; sua enim utrique lectioni constant argumenta. Pro moratus est pugnat auctoritas vetustissimi omnium codicis nostri ms. San-Germanensis, Merovingicis characteribus exarati, saeculo circiter septimo. Quam eamdem lectionem exhibent mss. quinque, quos vidisse se testatur Vossius, et plures alii quos contulit doctissimus Martianaeus noster. Facit et pro eadem lectione perfectissima consensio Chronici Hieronymiani, cum ejus Catalogo. Nam in priori illo ad annum 134 habetur : Basilides haeresiarches in Alexandria commoratur, a quo Gnostici. Cochebas dux Judaicae factionis nolentes sibi Christianos adversum Romanum militem ferre subsidium omnimodis cruciatibus necat. Eadem pene utrobique verba sunt : et quod in priori legitur, commoratur, suadere videtur in posteriori legendum esse, moratus est. Illinc vero repugnant huic lectioni editi omnes, cum mss. plerisque codicibus, qui praeferunt, mortuus est. Sed quod majus videtur, Graeca interpretatio, quae Sophronio tribuitur, quaeque si vere Sophronii est, codicibus omnibus Latinis, qui nunc exstant, sine dubio antiquior est, hanc vulgatam lectionem repraesentat : Τελευτῶντος Βασιλείδου, Γνωστικοὶ ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ἐκλήθησαν, ἐν τοῖς χρόνοις Ἀδριανοῦ. Mortuo Basilide, Gnostici in Alexandria vocati sunt, temporibus Adriani. Deinde neque usque adeo certum est legendum esse in Chronico, commoratur. Quamvis enim Pontacus in aliquibus mss. commoratur legi doceat, ut in uno Cantabrigiensi codice scriptum etiam reperisse se dicit Pearsonius, idem tamen in pluribus commemoratur haberi

114. In what year Basilides departed from among the living is not sufficiently established. In the Catalogue of Jerome, under the entry Agrippa, it is read: Now Basilides, from whom the Gnostics come, died in Alexandria in the times of Hadrian; at which season also Cochebas, leader of the Jewish faction, put Christians to death with various tortures. Which things, if they are genuine, it will have to be said that Basilides died about the year 135, when Judaea was ablaze with the war which the rebellion of Cochebas against the Romans had stirred up. But whether in Jerome one should read mortuus est (died) or moratus est (dwelt), I consider not yet placed beyond all doubt; for each reading has its own supporting arguments. For moratus est fights the authority of the oldest of all, our manuscript codex of Saint-Germain, written in Merovingian characters about the seventh century. Which same reading five manuscripts exhibit that Vossius testifies he saw, and several others that our most learned Martianay collated. The most complete agreement of Jerome's Chronicle with his Catalogue also tells in favour of the same reading. For in the former, at the year 134, it is held: Basilides the heresiarch dwells in Alexandria, from whom the Gnostics come. Cochebas, leader of the Jewish faction, puts to death with tortures of every kind the Christians who refuse to bring him aid against the Roman soldiery. Almost the same words are in both places: and what is read in the former, commoratur (dwells), seems to persuade that in the latter one should read moratus est (dwelt). On the other hand, all printed editions oppose this reading, along with most manuscript codices, which prefer mortuus est (died). Nay, what seems weightier, the Greek translation which is attributed to Sophronius, and which, if it is truly Sophronius's, is without doubt older than all Latin codices that now exist, represents this common reading: Teleutontos Basileidou, Gnostikoi en Alexandreia eklethesan, en tois chronois Adrianou. When Basilides died, the Gnostics were so called in Alexandria, in the times of Hadrian. Next, neither is it altogether so certain that in the Chronicle one should read commoratur. For although Pontac teaches that commoratur is read in some manuscripts, as Pearson also says that he found it written in one Cambridge codex, yet the same scholar intimates that in several commemoratur (is mentioned) is

Editors' notes and page, col. 134

Footnotes

(32) ‹anchor: dicit Pearsonius› · call in col 134

In addend. ad Vind. epist. Ignat.

In the addenda to the Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii [Vindication of the Letters of Ignatius].

(printed under page 73)

Page

running head: T. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 134
marginal letters: A diderunt Ecclesias. Haec; B 114. Quo anno; C Quam eamdem lectionem; D tuus est. Sed
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word diderunt from col 133; ends mid-word ha- (continued in col 135 as beri); damaged type in s⟨e⟩d
other: the word haberi was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 135

PG 7:135

innuit; quae vox si obtineat, similitudo locorum perit. Sed quidquid sit de lectione, nihil repugnat Basilidem aut vitam finiisse sub Adriani finem, aut prorogasse usque ad Antonini Pii exordia. Vixerit quinquennio aut sexennio plus aut minus, parum omnino refert.

held; which word, if it prevails, the similarity of the passages perishes. But whatever be the case concerning the reading, nothing prevents Basilides from having either ended his life towards the end of Hadrian, or prolonged it right up to the beginnings of Antoninus Pius. Whether he lived five or six years more or less matters very little indeed.

115. Primus omnium Basilidis errores, subtilesque praestigias et detexisse et confutasse, occultaque illius et nefanda manifesto prodidisse mysteria, videtur Agrippa Castor, qui sub Adriano eruditionis laude florebat. Valentissimam fuisse illius refutationem memorat Eusebius, et ad sua usque tempora pervenisse : dudum est quod tam luculentum opus edax rerum tempus misere consumpsit, ne eo frueremur. Auctor fuit, Eusebio teste, Basilidem quatuor et viginti libros in Evangelium scripsisse : vicesimi tertii meminit Clemens Alex., lib. IV Strom., p. 506; Archelaus vero decimi tertii. Sed utrum in vera Christi Evangelia elucubrati essent, an in ipsius Basilidis, incertum. Nam eam fuisse hominis impudentiam, ut et ipse novum Evangelium scribere ausus fuisset, docet Origenes. Vetus Testamentum cum caeteris Gnosticis rejiciebat. Novum autem, Hieronymo teste in Epist. ad Tit. principio, foede mutilabat, resectis non modo pluribus locis, sed integris etiam Epistolis, ad Hebraeos, ad Titum, et utraque ad Timotheum, quas Paulo abjudicabat; resecandi vero aut abjudicandi sola ratio fuit, quod his configerentur ejus errores. At repudiatis veris prophetis, novos, ut errori fidem conciliaret, supposuerat, eisque barbara nomina Barcabam et Barcoph imposuerat, quibus terrorem simplicioribus injiceret. Forte fictitius ille Barcoph, is est Parchor propheta, in quem expositionum libros scripserat Isidorus Basilidis filius et discipulus. Fragmentum quoddam ex primo desumptum exscripsit Clemens Alexandrinus, ex quo discimus familiarem fuisse Basilidianis librum alterum, quem Chami prophetiam appellabant.

115. The first of all both to have detected and refuted the errors and subtle juggleries of Basilides, and to have openly exposed his hidden and nefarious mysteries, seems to have been Agrippa Castor, who flourished under Hadrian with praise for erudition. Eusebius records that his refutation was most powerful, and that it survived right down to his own times: long ago time, the devourer of things, wretchedly consumed so splendid a work, so that we might not enjoy it. He was the authority, as Eusebius witnesses, for the fact that Basilides wrote twenty-four books on the Gospel: Clement of Alexandria mentions the twenty-third in Book 4 of the Stromata, p. 506; and Archelaus the thirteenth. But whether they were composed upon the true Gospels of Christ, or upon that of Basilides himself, is uncertain. For Origen teaches that such was the impudence of the man that he himself also dared to write a new Gospel. The Old Testament, along with the other Gnostics, he rejected. And the New, as Jerome witnesses at the beginning of his commentary on the Epistle to Titus, he foully mutilated, cutting away not only several passages, but even whole Epistles, to the Hebrews, to Titus, and both to Timothy, which he denied to Paul; and the sole reason for cutting away or denying them was that by these his errors were transfixed. Moreover, having repudiated the true prophets, in order to win credence for his error he had substituted new ones, and had imposed upon them the barbarous names Barcabas and Barcoph, whereby he might strike terror into the simpler sort. Perhaps that fictitious Barcoph is the prophet Parchor, upon whom Isidore, the son and disciple of Basilides, had written books of expositions. A certain fragment taken from the first book Clement of Alexandria transcribed, from which we learn that another book was familiar to the Basilidians, which they called the prophecy of Cham.

116. A Simone, Menandro et Saturnino erroris argumenta mutuatus est Basilides; quae tamen, ut nomen sibi faceret, alia ratione tractare, et majore cum pompa enarrare instituit, novis quibusdam additis fabularum portentis. Ea duntaxat hic commemorare satis erit, quae a magistrorum doctrina dissidebant. Ab innato Patre Nun derivabat, tum ab hoc Logon, deinde a Logo Phronesin, seu Prudentiam, vel, ut apud Tertullianum legitur, Providentiam; a Phronesi autem Sophiam et Dynamin, hoc est Sapientiam et Potentiam. Ita Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Theodoretus, et Tertullianus. At Basilidis genealogiam integram non referunt. Nam ex Clemente Alex. lib. IV Strom., p. 539 : Βασιλείδης ἀποστατήσας (sic lego, non ὑποστατὰς), Δικαιοσύνην δὲ καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα αὐτῆς τὴν Εἰρήνην, ὑπο-

116. From Simon, Menander, and Saturninus Basilides borrowed the themes of his error; which nevertheless, in order to make a name for himself, he undertook to treat in another way and to relate with greater pomp, having added certain new monstrosities of fables. It will be enough to recount here only those things which differed from the doctrine of his masters. From the unborn Father he derived Nous, then from him Logos, next from Logos Phronesis, or Prudence, or, as is read in Tertullian, Providence; and from Phronesis Sophia and Dynamis, that is, Wisdom and Power. So Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and Tertullian. But they do not report the genealogy of Basilides in full. For from Clement of Alexandria, Book 4 of the Stromata, p. 539: Basilides, having revolted (so I read, not hypostatas), supposes that Justice and her daughter Peace

Editors' notes and page, col. 135

Footnotes

(33) ‹anchor: call not legible in the foot image (a call is cut at the top line of col 135)› · call in col 135 or 136

L. IV Hist., c. 7.

History, book 4, chapter 7.

(printed under page 74)

(34) ‹anchor: Hieronymo teste? (numeral not legible)› · call in col 135 or 136

Hom. I in Luc.

Homily 1 on Luke.

(printed under page 74)

(35) ‹anchor: call not legible in the foot image› · call in col 135 or 136

Euseb., loc. cit., et Hieronym., in Catal.

Eusebius, in the place cited, and Jerome, in the Catalogue [of Illustrious Men].

(printed under page 74)

(36) ‹anchor: Clemens Alexandrinus› · call in col 135

Lib. VI Strom., p. 641.

Stromata, book 6, p. 641.

(printed under page 74)

(37) ‹anchor: Ita Irenaeus› · call in col 135

Lib. I, c. 24, n. 3 et seqq.

Book 1, chapter 24, no. 3 ff.

(printed under page 74)

(38) ‹anchor: Epiphanius› · call in col 135

Haer. XXIV.

Heresies 24.

(printed under page 74)

(39) ‹anchor: Theodoretus› · call in col 135

Lib. I, c. 5.

Book 1, chapter 5.

(printed under page 74)

(40) ‹anchor: et Tertullianus› · call in col 135

Praesc., c. 46, August., de Haer., et alii.

On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 46; Augustine, On Heresies; and others.

(printed under page 74)

Page

running head: 135 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A beri innuit; quae; B tuor et viginti; C ejus errores. At; D ditis fabularum portentis.
old-edition numerals: [LXI] after vero
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word beri from col 134; ends mid-word ὑπο- (continued in col 136 as λαμβάνει)

PG 7:136

λαμβάνει ἐν ὀγδοάδι μένειν ἐνδιατεταγμένας· Basilides autem qui defecit, Justitiam et ejus filiam, Pacem, putat in ogdoade manere dispositas. Nec dubium quin in prima sua conjugatione Ἔννοιαν seu Σιγὴν habuerit, masculosque cum feminis in ogdoade copulaverit, cum id disertis verbis asserant Gregorius Naz., Nicetas, et Elias Cretensis alibi citati; et magistrorum sententiam non conciderit, sed potius in immensum extenderit, ut loquitur Irenaeus. Virtutes, Principes et Angelos in 365 classes, juxta coelorum numerum, distribuebat (coelos enim 365 fingebat : sic nimirum appellare placuerat orbes quos motu diurno sol percurrere videtur). Primam classem a Sophia et Dynami productam dicebat, quae deinde primum coelum et alios Angelos condiderit; a quibus factum secundum coelum, et alios Angelos : ab his tertium coelum, et alios itidem Angelos : et sic gradatim alios ab aliis productos Angelos et coelos usque ad 365 et ultimum, quod nobis proximum est, coelum. Ab Angelis vero qui posteriori praesunt coelo (quorum princeps is qui Judaeorum Deus dicitur), conditum inferiorem hunc mundum cujus regimen et imperium inter se partiti fuerint. Angelis porro illis omnibus barbara quaedam nomina, quae terrerent imperitos, imposuerat. Principem autem eorum ac supremum ducem Ἀβράξας, vel, ut scribit Epiphanius, Ἀβρασὰξ vocabat; de quo nomine vide quid in notis nostris diximus. At nusquam, quod sciam, Angelos illos appellavit Aeones, unde mirari subit Hieronymum in supra citato Dialogo contra Luciferianos, scripsisse Basilidem, 365 Aeones commentatum esse : Angelos enim ab Aeonibus distinguebant.

remain ranged in the ogdoad: Now Basilides, who revolted, thinks that Justice and her daughter Peace remain arranged in the ogdoad. Nor is there any doubt that in his first syzygy he had Ennoia or Sige, and paired males with females in the ogdoad, since Gregory of Nazianzus, Nicetas, and Elias of Crete, cited elsewhere, assert this in express words; and that he did not cut short the opinion of his masters, but rather extended it immensely, as Irenaeus speaks. He distributed the Powers, Princes, and Angels into 365 classes, according to the number of the heavens (for he feigned 365 heavens: so namely it had pleased him to call the spheres which the sun seems to traverse in its daily motion). The first class he said was produced by Sophia and Dynamis, which then founded the first heaven and other Angels; by whom was made the second heaven, and other Angels; by these the third heaven, and likewise other Angels; and so step by step other Angels and heavens produced by others right down to the 365th and last heaven, which is nearest to us. And by the Angels who preside over the lowest heaven (whose prince is he who is called the God of the Jews) was founded this lower world, whose governance and rule they divided among themselves. Furthermore, upon all those Angels he had imposed certain barbarous names to terrify the unlearned. And their prince and supreme leader he called Abraxas, or, as Epiphanius writes, Abrasax; concerning which name see what we have said in our notes. Yet nowhere, so far as I know, did he call those Angels Aeons, whence one cannot help wondering that Jerome, in the Dialogue against the Luciferians cited above, wrote that Basilides devised 365 Aeons: for they distinguished the Angels from the Aeons.

117. Haec fere sunt in quibus a magistrorum semitis declinaverat Basilides. Caetera perfecte consentiebant. Eadem utrisque de Christi adventu, ejusque causa, effectis, ac modo, sententia. Addebat tantum, non Christum ipsum, cujus phantasticum erat corpus, sed Simonem Cyrenaeum, commutata cum Christo forma ac specie, ei suppositum, in crucem sublatum esse : quapropter eos solos ab Angelorum mundi conditorum potestate liberandos, qui alterum ab altero apprime distinguentes, crucifixum negaverint, illumque confessi fuerint, non qui crucifixus sit, sed qui crucifigi visus sit; eos proinde insanos esse, qui pro crucifixo martyrium subierint; utpote quibus nulla mortis quam in hominis gratiam obierint, merces futura sit. Ad eam distinctionem, impiis istis familiarem, haud satis attendisse videtur Clemens Alex. dum scripsit lib. IV Strom., quod Basilides hominem peccandi potestate praeditum ausus esset dicere Dominum : quod falsum videtur, si ad verum Christum referatur, quem ne hominem quidem esse fatebatur : utcunque ferri potest si de ementito Christo, nempe Simone Cyrenaeo intelligatur, qui sub Christi specie ac figura cruci affixus fuit. Eadem etiam utrisque effrenata

117. These are almost all the points in which Basilides had turned aside from the paths of his masters. In the rest they agreed completely. Both held the same opinion concerning the coming of Christ, and its cause, effects, and manner. He added only that not Christ Himself, Whose body was phantom, but Simon of Cyrene, having exchanged form and appearance with Christ and been substituted for Him, was lifted up onto the cross: wherefore those alone are to be freed from the power of the world-founding Angels who, carefully distinguishing the one from the other, deny him who was crucified, and confess Him, not Who was crucified, but Who seemed to be crucified; and that those accordingly are mad who undergo martyrdom for the crucified one, inasmuch as for them there will be no reward for a death which they underwent for the sake of a man. To that distinction, familiar to those impious men, Clement of Alexandria seems not to have paid sufficient heed when he wrote in Book 4 of the Stromata that Basilides dared to call the Lord a man endowed with the power of sinning: which seems false if it be referred to the true Christ, Whom he did not confess to be even a man; yet it can pass after a fashion if it be understood of the feigned Christ, namely Simon of Cyrene, who was fastened to the cross under the appearance and figure of Christ. Both also had the same unbridled

Editors' notes and page, col. 136

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 136
marginal letters: A λαμβάνει ἐν ὀγδοάδι; B derit; a quibus; C citato Dialogo contra; D insanos esse, qui
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word λαμβάνει from col 135

PG 7:137

quidvis agendi licentia, morum corruptio, in flagitia quaelibet praeceps libido, et magicarum artium studia, imo et idololatriae scelera; nam certis quibusdam imaginibus nefarium cultum adhibebant. Sed in nectendis dolis peritior caeteris, dissimulandi artem suis sedulo commendabat, neu sectae suae arcana, nisi paucissimis, iisque fidis ac certis usquam proderent, frequenter inculcabat : non multos siquidem ad haec excipienda comparatos esse, sed vix unum e mille, et duo e decem millibus. Date operam, crebro ingeminabat, ut omnia cognoscatis, nemo vero vos cognoscat. Quare ut tacere tutius discerent, Pythagoreorum more et instituto, his qui se in ipsius disciplinam tradebant, quinquennii silentium praecipiebat. Hinc negare fidem, quotiescunque se dabat occasio, minime dubitabant. Interrogati vero, Judaeos quidem se esse negabant, Christianos vero nondum fuisse. Si cui martyrium obire contingeret, tantum abest ut id in singulari beneficio deputaret Basilides, quin potius poenam esse contenderet, quam lueret ejus anima ob peccatum in alia vita patratum : honorificentiorem quidem iis quas pendunt aliae animae, domesticis suppliciis puniendae; at poenam tamen. Nam animas ideo in hanc vitam detrudi censebat, quod in altera peccassent : imo belluarum aut avium corporibus prius interdum illigari, quam humanis. Quae Platonis sententiam de animarum praeexsistentia, peccato, et supplicio in corporibus luendo satis clare produnt, ut et μετεμψυχώσεως commentum, cujus primus auctor fuit Pythagoras, si Laertio fides. Primus enim sensit animam circulum necessitatis immutantem, aliis alias illigari animantibus. At id ab Aegyptiis acceperat. Nam Herodotus, in Euterpe, Aegyptios primos hanc sententiam tradidisse ait. Consentiuntque Jamblicus, lib. I De vita Pythagorae, cap. 5, et Photius, in Bibliotheca, p. 1004.

licence of doing anything whatever, corruption of morals, headlong lust for any shameful deeds whatever, and pursuits of magical arts, nay even the crimes of idolatry; for they paid nefarious worship to certain definite images. But being more skilful than the rest in weaving deceits, he sedulously commended the art of dissimulation to his followers, and frequently inculcated that they should never betray the secrets of their sect anywhere except to a very few, and those faithful and sure: since not many are fitted to receive these things, but scarcely one out of a thousand, and two out of ten thousand. Take care, he frequently repeated, that you know all things, but that no one knows you. Wherefore, that they might learn more safely to keep silence, after the custom and institution of the Pythagoreans he enjoined a silence of five years upon those who delivered themselves over to his instruction. Hence they did not hesitate in the least to deny the faith whenever occasion offered itself. And when questioned, they denied indeed that they were Jews, and said that they had not yet become Christians. If it happened to anyone to undergo martyrdom, so far was Basilides from counting that as a singular favour, that he contended rather that it was a punishment which his soul was paying on account of a sin committed in another life: more honourable indeed than those which other souls pay that are to be punished with domestic punishments, yet a punishment nevertheless. For he considered that souls are thrust down into this life because they sinned in another: nay, that they are sometimes bound to the bodies of beasts or birds before they are bound to human ones. Which things clearly enough betray Plato's opinion concerning the pre-existence of souls, their sin, and the punishment to be paid in bodies, as also the fiction of metempsychosis, whose first author was Pythagoras, if credit is to be given to Laertius. For he was the first to hold that the soul, changing the circle of necessity, is bound at different times to different living creatures. Yet he had received this from the Egyptians. For Herodotus, in Euterpe, says that the Egyptians were the first to hand down this opinion. And Iamblichus, in Book 1 On the Life of Pythagoras, Chapter 5, and Photius, in the Bibliotheca, p. 1004, agree.

118. Duas quoque in nobis animas statuisse Basilidem, sicut et Pythagoreos, testatum facit Clemens, alteram belluinam, alteram rationalem. Sed quis huicce dogmati subsit sensus, aperuimus de Valentino disserentes, scilicet duas animae nostrae partes esse, sensum, quem nobiscum participant belluae, et mentem, per quam ab iis differimus. Quae Pythagoreorum sententia et explicatio erat, ut apud Laertium videre est p. 512, 513. Paulo obscurius quod ibidem scribit Clemens, Basilidis sectatoribus visum, perturbationes animi, quas προσαρτήματα vocabant, id est appendices, quosdam esse spiritus secundum substantiam appensos animae rationali, habita ratione perturbationis cujusdam principalis; alias autem adulterinas, et diversi generis, spirituum naturas iis adnasci, ut lupi, simiae, leonis, ursi, quibus anima proprietates brutorum animantium proprietatibus similes induit. His vero lucem affert trita veteribus non paucis Patribus sententia, vitia totidem esse

118. That Basilides also, like the Pythagoreans as well, posited two souls in us, Clement testifies, the one bestial, the other rational. But what meaning underlies this dogma we explained when discussing Valentinus, namely that there are two parts of our soul, sense, which beasts share with us, and mind, through which we differ from them. Which was the opinion and explanation of the Pythagoreans, as may be seen in Laertius, pp. 512, 513. A little more obscure is what Clement writes in the same place, that it seemed to the followers of Basilides that the passions of the soul, which they called prosartemata, that is, appendages, are certain spirits substantially appended to the rational soul by reason of a certain principal passion; and that other bastard natures of spirits, and of a different kind, grow onto them, such as those of a wolf, an ape, a lion, a bear, whereby the soul puts on properties like the properties of brute animals. Now light is shed on these things by the opinion familiar to not a few ancient Fathers, that vices are so many

Editors' notes and page, col. 137

Footnotes

(41) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 137 or 138 (not visible)

Agrippa Cast. apud Euseb., l. IV Hist., c. 7.

Agrippa Castor, in Eusebius, History, book 4, chapter 7.

(printed under page 75)

(42) ‹anchor: poenam tamen› · call in col 137

Clem. Alex., Strom. lib. IV, p. 506; Origen., in Rom. V.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 4, p. 506; Origen, on Romans, [book] 5.

(printed under page 75)

(43) ‹anchor: si Laertio› · call in col 137

In Pythag., p. 499.

Life of Pythagoras, p. 499.

(printed under page 75)

(44) ‹anchor: facit Clemens› · call in col 137

Clem. Alex., l. II Strom., p. 408, 409.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 2, pp. 408–409.

(printed under page 75)

Page

running head: 137 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A quidvis agendi licentia,; B se esse negabant,; C thagoras, si Laertio; D catio erat, ut
old-edition numerals: [LXII] after 118.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:138

daemonia, quae animam movent, perturbant, et ad malum impellunt. Audiendus Origenes, hom. 15 in Jesum Nave : Unde mihi videtur inquit, esse infinitus quidam numerus contrariarum virtutum, pro eo quod per singulos homines sunt spiritus aliqui, diversa in iis peccatorum genera molientes. Verbi causa, est aliquis fornicationis spiritus, est irae spiritus alius, est avaritiae spiritus, alius vero superbiae. Et si invenias esse aliquem hominem, qui his omnibus matis, aut etiam pluribus agitatur; omnes hos, vel etiam plures in se habere inimicos putandus est spiritus. Unde et per singulos plures esse credendi sunt; quia non habent singula singuli homines vitia, vel peccata committunt; sed plura ab unoquoque videntur admitti. Et iterum non est putandum, quod unus fornicationis spiritus seducat eum, qui, v. g., in Britanniis fornicatur, et illum qui in India, et in aliis locis : neque unum esse spiritum irae, qui diversis in locis diversos homines agitet; sed puto magis principem quidem fornicationis unum esse; innumeros vero esse, qui in hoc ei officio pareant et per singulos quosque homines diversi spiritus, sub eo principe militantes, ad hujuscemodi eos peccata sollicitent. Similiter et iracundiae spiritum principem unum esse arbitror; innumeros vero esse sub ipso agentes, qui per singulos quosque homines hujusmodi vitii peccata succendant. Similiter et avaritiae unum esse principem; sic et superbiae, et caeterorum malorum, etc. Eadem habet ad Joannem VIII, 49. Plura alia eam in rem veterum Patrum testimonia refert Cotelerius in notis ad Hermae Past. lib II, cap. 2. Jam, ni fallor, haud adeo operosum erit explicare, quid sibi vellent Basilidiani, cum animae perturbationes definiebant, spiritus quosdam secundum substantiam appensos animae rationali, habita ratione perturbationis cujusdam principalis : Πνεύματά τινα κατ' οὐσίαν προσηρτημένα τῇ λογικῇ ψυχῇ, κατά τινα τάραχον καὶ σύγχυσιν ἀρχικήν. Eamdem ipsis cum Origene sententiam fuisse puto : nempe spiritus malos seu daemonia, quibus anima velut obsidetur, propositis inescantibus ac fallacibus objectis varias in ea perturbationes ciere; unum tamen esse in unoquoque homine ut principem daemonem, cui caeteri famulentur, sic et affectum dominantem a quo reliqui pendeant, et a quo referantur. Hancque fuisse Basilidianorum mentem confirmat ipsummet Valentini testimonium, quod e quadam ejus epistola decerptum ibidem refert Clemens. Ille enim Basilidianorum appendices explicans, ait cor nostrum esse diversorio simile, in quo multi habitantes spiritus, id mundum esse non sinant; unumquemque autem eorum propria efficere opera, indecoris saepe insultantem cupiditatibus. Quia vero duplicis generis affectus distingui possunt, alii magis spiritales, et, ut ita dicam, defaecatiores, quorum objecta a materia haud ita pendeant; alii crassiores, qui caeco ac prope belluino impetu ferantur in ea quae materiae

daemons, which move the soul, disturb it, and drive it to evil. Origen must be heard, Homily 15 on Joshua: Whence it seems to me, says he, that there is a certain infinite number of opposing powers, inasmuch as through individual men there are certain spirits contriving diverse kinds of sins in them. For example, there is a certain spirit of fornication, there is another spirit of anger, there is a spirit of avarice, and another of pride. And if you find that there is some man who is agitated by all these evils, or even by more, he must be thought to have all these, or even more, hostile spirits in himself. Whence also through individuals there must be believed to be several; because individual men do not have single vices, or commit single sins, but several seem to be committed by each one. And again it must not be thought that one spirit of fornication seduces him who, for instance, commits fornication in Britain, and him who does so in India, and in other places; nor that there is one spirit of anger that agitates different men in different places; but I think rather that the prince indeed of fornication is one, while there are innumerable spirits who obey him in this office, and that through each individual man different spirits, serving under that prince, solicit them to sins of this sort. Similarly I think that there is also one prince spirit of wrath, while there are innumerable spirits acting under him, who through each individual man kindle the sins of a vice of this sort. Similarly also that there is one prince of avarice; so too of pride, and of the other evils, etc. He has the same on John 8:49. Many other testimonies of the ancient Fathers to this effect Cotelier relates in his notes on the Shepherd of Hermas, Book 2, Chapter 2. Now, unless I am mistaken, it will not be so very laborious to explain what the Basilidians meant when they defined the passions of the soul as certain spirits substantially appended to the rational soul by reason of a certain principal passion and confusion: Pneumata tina kat' ousian prosertemena te logike psyche, kata tina tarachon kai synchysin archiken. I think they held the same opinion as Origen: namely, that evil spirits or daemons, by which the soul is as it were besieged, by setting before it alluring and deceitful objects stir up various passions in it; yet that as there is in each man one prince daemon whom the rest serve, so also there is a dominant passion on which the rest depend and to which they are referred. And that this was the mind of the Basilidians is confirmed by the very testimony of Valentinus, which, plucked from a certain epistle of his, Clement relates in the same place. For he, explaining the appendages of the Basilidians, says that our heart is like an inn, in which many indwelling spirits do not allow it to be clean; and that each of them performs its own works, often revelling in unseemly desires. Now because passions of a twofold kind can be distinguished—some more spiritual and, so to speak, more refined, whose objects do not so depend upon matter; others grosser, which by a blind and almost bestial impulse are borne towards those things which, plunged deeper

Editors' notes and page, col. 138

Page

running head: T. III. DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 138
marginal letters: A daemonia, quae animam; B seducat eum, qui,; C mae Past. lib; D dianorum mentem confirmat
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:139

altius immersa, belluis magis quam hominibus congruant : idcirco Basilidiani sentiebant, affectibus humanis alias spirituum adnasci naturas; quibus anima sui ipsius velut oblita, brutorum animantium proprietates induit.

in matter, suit beasts more than men—therefore the Basilidians held that onto human passions grow other natures of spirits, whereby the soul, as if forgetful of itself, puts on the properties of brute animals.

V. De Carpocrate.

V. On Carpocrates.

119. Carpocrates, seu Carpocras, genere Alexandrinus, uxorem duxit nomine Alexandriam, gente Cephaleniam, ex qua filium suscepit Epiphanem, mali corvi malum ovum, novae sectae conditorem, de quo jam disseruimus. Tradit Eusebius, quasi ex Irenaeo, Carpocratem iisdem cum Basilide vixisse temporibus. Quamvis apud Irenaeum ne verbum quidem de Carpocratis aetate occurrat, non ideo tamen male ab Eusebio constitutam existimem. Cum hoc enim apprime consentit Epiphanius, nec repugnat Theodoretus, sub Adriano vixisse scribens. Ille vero affirmat Basilidis, Saturnini, Valentini, Colorbasi, Ptolemaei, Secundi et Carpocratis sectas eodem tempore prodiisse; tantum Valentinianam aliis paulo recentiorem esse. Atqui Basilidem Joanni saltem apostolo supparem, nec Valentinum multo juniorem fuisse probavimus. Si igitur iisdem cum utroque temporibus scholam instituerit Carpocrates, Adriani initiis fecerit necesse est. Longe citius proinde in Orientis, quam in Occidentis partibus innotuit ejus haeresis : eam quippe huc detulit Marcellina quaedam, quae Romam, Irenaeo teste, venit sub Aniceto pontifice, anno circiter 160.

119. Carpocrates, or Carpocras, an Alexandrian by race, married a wife named Alexandria, a Cephallenian by nation, by whom he had a son Epiphanes, a bad egg of a bad crow, the founder of a new sect, concerning whom we have already spoken. Eusebius hands down, as though from Irenaeus, that Carpocrates lived in the same times as Basilides. Although in Irenaeus not even a word occurs concerning the age of Carpocrates, yet I would not on that account think it ill fixed by Eusebius. For with him Epiphanius agrees very well, nor does Theodoret disagree when writing that he lived under Hadrian. Indeed, the former affirms that the sects of Basilides, Saturninus, Valentinus, Colorbasus, Ptolemaeus, Secundus, and Carpocrates came forth at the same time, only that the Valentinian was a little more recent than the others. Yet we have proved that Basilides was contemporary at least with John the apostle, and that Valentinus was not much younger. If, therefore, Carpocrates established his school in the same times as both, he must necessarily have done so at the beginning of Hadrian's reign. Accordingly, his heresy became known far more quickly in the parts of the East than in those of the West: for a certain Marcellina brought it hither, who, as Irenaeus witnesses, came to Rome under the pontiff Anicetus, about the year 160.

120. Platonicae disciplinae scientissimum fuisse Carpocratem, vel ex eo liquet, quod filii Epiphanis ab illo instituti magnum nomen inter Platonicos fuerit. Sed si forte plures haeresiarchas scientiae laude, omnes certe morum pravitate superavit. Supremum quidem unum Principium, atque etiam Parentem omnium et incognitum, nec ullo nomine significatum, perinde ut caeteri, affirmabat : mundum vero, et quae mundo continentur, ab Angelis esse facta, qui incognito illo parente longe inferiorem dignitatis gradum teneant, et ab eo defecerint. Jesum porro Dominum nostrum e Joseph et Mariae consortio genitum, similem quidem natura reliquis hominibus exstitisse; vitae autem instituto, temperantia, virtute ac justitia praestitisse. Nempe cum firmiorem vegetioremque quam alii homines animam sortitus esset, tenacius ei adhaerente pristina cum ingenito Deo περιφορᾷ, circumlatione, immissa in eam fuit ab eodem supremo Parente Virtus, quae memoriam ante visorum refricaret, ut sic supernorum recordatione corroborata, conditores orbis Angelos effugeret, immissaeque Virtutis beneficio actionibus omnibus quae ab hominibus suscipi possunt, turpissimis etiam quibuscunque (horrendum!) ac scelestissimis defuncta, jam libera, solutis omnibus humanae naturae debitis, ad supremum

120. That Carpocrates was most skilled in Platonic instruction is clear even from the fact that his son Epiphanes, trained by him, had a great name among the Platonists. But if perchance he surpassed several heresiarchs in praise for learning, he certainly surpassed all in depravity of morals. Like the rest, he affirmed indeed one supreme Principle, and also Parent of all things, unknown and signified by no name; and that the world, and the things contained in the world, were made by Angels who hold a far lower degree of dignity than that unknown parent, and who revolted from Him. Furthermore, that Jesus our Lord, begotten from the union of Joseph and Mary, was indeed like the rest of men in nature, but excelled in manner of life, temperance, virtue, and justice. Namely, since He had obtained by lot a firmer and more vigorous soul than other men, with its former periphora, revolution, with the unbegotten God clinging to it more tenaciously, there was sent into it by the same supreme Parent a Power to refresh the memory of the things seen before, so that, thus strengthened by the recollection of supernal things, it might escape the world-founding Angels, and by the benefit of the Power sent into it having performed all actions that can be undertaken by men, even all the foulest (horrible to say!) and most wicked, now free, with all debts to human nature paid, to the supreme

Editors' notes and page, col. 139

Footnotes

(45) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 139 or 140 (not visible)

Id., Strom., l. III, p. 428; Theod. I, 5.

The same, Stromata, book 3, p. 428; Theodoret, [book] 1, [chapter] 5.

(printed under page 76)

(46) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 139 or 140 (not visible)

L. IV, Hist., c. 7.

History, book 4, chapter 7.

(printed under page 76)

(47) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 139 or 140 (not visible)

Haer. XXXI, § 1 et 2.

Heresies 31, §§ 1 and 2.

(printed under page 76)

(48) ‹anchor: call not in the foot image› · call in col 139 or 140 (not visible)

Lib. I, c. 5.

Book 1, chapter 5.

(printed under page 76)

(49) ‹anchor: Irenaeo teste› · call in col 139

Lib. I, c. 25, n. 6.

Book 1, chapter 25, no. 6.

(printed under page 76)

(50) ‹anchor: 120.› · call in col 139

Epiph., haer. XXVII, § 1; Ibid., § 2; Iren., lib. I, c. 25; Theod., l. I, c. 5.

Epiphanius, Heresies 27, § 1; the same, § 2; Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 25; Theodoret, book 1, chapter 5.

(printed under page 76)

Page

running head: 139 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A altius immersa, belluis; B ideo tamen male; C circiter 160.; D bus exstitisse; vitae
old-edition numerals: [LXIII] after conditores
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued), V. De Carpocrate; ends mid-word supre- (continued in col 140 as mum)

PG 7:140

Patrem evolaret. Neque vero animam Jesu duntaxat, sed et aliam quamcunque, quae tantum valeat ut mundi fabricatores Angelos contemnere possit, vires desuper accipere, ut per easdem actiones progressione facta, functionibusque omnibus obitis quas Jesus obierit, et ipsa super opifices Angelos efferri possit, et ab universis expedita, sursum ad incognitum Patrem pervenire. Imo ea erat impudentissimorum hominum arrogantia, ut gloriarentur quidam non modo apostolis Petro et Paulo, et reliquis, sed et ipsi Jesu praecellere se, tum excellentia cognitionis, tum quod progressiones varias ac decursus cumulatius obiissent. Animas quippe omnes ex eadem περιφορᾷ esse; et ideo eumdem, quem Jesus, contemptum Angelorum suscipientes, eadem vi ac virtute instrui qua per actionum omnium genera traducantur. Quod si reperiri aliqua possit quae majorem quam Jesus contemptum suscipiat, ea ipsi demum antecellet.

Parent it might fly up. Nor indeed did the soul of Jesus only, but also any other soul whatever that had strength enough to despise the world-fashioning Angels, receive powers from above, so that, having made progress through the same actions and discharged all the functions which Jesus discharged, it too might be lifted up above the fashioning Angels, and, freed from them all, arrive upwards at the unknown Father. Nay, such was the arrogance of those most impudent men that some gloried that they excelled not only the apostles Peter and Paul and the rest, but even Jesus Himself, both in excellence of knowledge and because they had more abundantly gone through the various progressions and courses. For all souls, they said, are from the same periphora; and therefore, undertaking the same contempt of the Angels as Jesus, are equipped with the same force and power whereby they may be led through all kinds of actions. And if any soul can be found that undertakes a greater contempt than Jesus, it will finally surpass Him Himself.

121. Hoc igitur, hominum dicam an ferarum? principium fuit, animas corporibus praeexsistentes perfectionis culmen attingere non posse, nisi dissolutiori vita, nefandis turpitudinibus, omnique scelerum ac facinorum genere mundi conditores Angelos, audacius conculcatis omnibus eorum legibus, praeceptis et operibus, spreverint : quo excusso jugo coelestem libertatem obtineant, et sursum aspirare et evolare possint. Nihil quippe natura bonum aut malum esse, sed sola hominum opinione, qui ea esse bona aut mala censent, quae legi vel repugnent, vel consentiant : sublata proinde lege, ab Angelis inique lata, omnia suapte natura promiscua haberi : solam vero fidem et charitatem ad salutem esse necessarias, reliqua omnia nihil conferre : eaque esse quae Jesus apostolos suos et discipulos clam docuerit, mandavitque ut iis crederent, qui digni essent. Hinc conficta nova μετεμψυχώσεως species, ut anima quae vel unicum flagitii genus in hac una praesenti vita praetermiserit, in aliud corpus detrudatur; et si ne tunc quidem omnia perfecerit, vicissim in aliud, donec omni actionum genere perfuncta, nulliusque in hoc mundo debito actionis obligata, jam libera abscedat. Animas siquidem hinc migrantes, simul ac corporis vinculis exsolutae fuerint, apprehendit unus ex mundi fabricatoribus Angelis, cui id muneris demandatum, et ad judicem deducit; ubi si nondum omnia praestitisse convictae fuerint, ab Angelorum Principe traduntur alteri Angelo sibi ministranti, qui eas in alia corpora retrudat.

121. This, therefore, was the principle—shall I say of men or of wild beasts?—that souls pre-existing before bodies cannot attain the summit of perfection unless by a more dissolute life, unspeakablebasenesses, and every kind of crimes and villainies they despise the world-founding Angels, having more boldly trampled underfoot all their laws, precepts, and works: so that, having shaken off this yoke, they may obtain heavenly liberty and be able to aspire and fly upwards. For nothing is good or evil by nature, but by the opinion of men alone, who account those things good or evil which either oppose or agree with the law: accordingly, once the law unjustly enacted by the Angels is removed, all things are held indifferent by their own nature: and faith and charity alone are necessary for salvation, while all the rest avail nothing: and these are the things which Jesus secretly taught His apostles and disciples, and commanded them to entrust to those who were worthy. Hence was devised a new kind of metempsychosis, that a soul which has omitted even a single kind of shameful deed in this one present life is thrust down into another body; and if not even then has it performed them all, in turn into another, until, having discharged every kind of action and being bound by no debt of action in this world, it now departs free. For souls migrating hence, as soon as they have been loosed from the bonds of the body, one of the world-fashioning Angels, to whom that office has been entrusted, seizes and leads before the judge; where, if they are convicted of not yet having performed all things, they are handed over by the Prince of the Angels to another Angel ministering to him, who thrusts them back into other bodies.

122. Quid jam mirum si homines abominandis iis principiis imbuti, pecudum more viventes in infinita sese flagitiorum genera praecipites dederint, ac quidquid in arte magica teterrimum erat, impudenter exercuerint? Parum fuisset, nisi Christianum sibi nomen assumentes, scelestissimae suae vitae infamia Ecclesiam Dei respersissent. Nam ex

122. What wonder now if men imbued with those abominable principles, living after the manner of cattle, cast themselves headlong into infinite kinds of shameful deeds, and impudently practised whatever was foulest in the magical art? It would have been a small thing, had they not, by assuming the Christian name to themselves, bespattered the Church of God with the infamy of their most wicked life. For from

Editors' notes and page, col. 140

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 140
marginal letters: A mum Patrem evolaret.; B eadem vi ac; C gnent, vel consentiant; D exsolutae fuerint, apprehendit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word mum from col 139

PG 7:141

profligata eorum vita similes esse Christianorum omnium mores judicantes ethnici, ab omnibus nullo discrimine habito abhorrebant, et ne quidem nomen ferre poterant. Alii tamen ab aliis non fide duntaxat et moribus, sed et signis quibusdam externis discriminari facile potuissent. Solebant enim Carpocratiani iis quos ad suam sectam fraudulenter pellexissent, candente ferro, vel novacula, vel acu notam quamdam ad imam auriculam imprimere. Ne vero a gentilium superstitionibus longius recederent, habebant imagines quasdam tum pictas, tum caelatas, quas Jesu effigies esse affirmabant a Pilato effictas, quo tempore ille inter homines agebat. His porro admiscebant celebriorum philosophorum, Pythagorae, Platonis, Aristotelis, et aliorum imagines; omnes vero simul, servatis gentilium ritibus, adorabant.

their profligate life the pagans, judging the morals of all Christians to be similar, shrank with horror from all without making any distinction, and could not bear even the name. Yet the one sort could easily have been distinguished from the other not only by faith and morals, but also by certain external signs. For the Carpocratians were accustomed to brand upon those whom they had fraudulently enticed into their sect a certain mark on the lobe of the ear with a red-hot iron, or a razor, or a needle. And lest they depart too far from the superstitions of the pagans, they had certain images, both painted and carved, which they affirmed were likenesses of Jesus fashioned by Pilate at the time when He lived among men. Furthermore, with these they mingled images of the more famous philosophers, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and others; and they adored them all together, observing the rites of the pagans.

123. Ex eo cultu confirmatur quod jam multoties diximus, summo apud Gnosticos in loco fuisse Pythagoram et Platonem, eorumque placita. Ea licet maximis impietatum monstris auxissent et interpolassent Carpocratiani, inter nebulas tamen identidem relucent. De mundi creationis hypothesi, de ignoto Deo, et abroganda lege per Angelos lata, nihil dicam : ipsissima siquidem Simonis doctrina est, Pythagorae et Platonis institutis non male respondens. Quae vero de anima humana comminiscebatur Carpocrates, Platonicam scholam per omnia fere sapiunt. Quemadmodum Platonici, auctore Jamblicho, duplicem unicuique homini tribuebant animam, alteram a primo intelligibili, quae participat de potentia opificis, ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου νοητοῦ μετέχουσαν καὶ τῆς τοῦ δημιουργοῦ δυνάμεως· alteram quae nobis advenit ἐκ τῆς τῶν οὐρανίων περιφορᾶς, εἰς ἣν ἐπεισέρπει ἡ θεοπτικὴ ψυχή, ex circuitione coelestium mundorum, in quam anima Dei speculatrix se inserit; sic et Carpocrates duas uniuscujusque, justi saltem, hominis velut animas distinguebat; alteram quae ex περιφορᾶς, circumlatione incogniti Dei, id est, nisi me fallit conjectura, ex supremo orbe seu coelo, aut Pleromate in quo summus Deus inhabitat, descenderit; alteram, quae in hanc sese insinuaverit; supernam videlicet virtutem ei immissam, ut corroboretur, et incogniti Dei recordari valeat. Ex Platonicis, prior anima mundorum obtemperat motibus, et fato subjacet; ex Carpocratianis, Angelorum mundi opificum, si sola sit, imperium subit : ex illis posterior γενεσιουργοῦ motioni supereminet, quia habet in se principium proprium τῆς εἰς τὸ νοητὸν περιαγωγῆς, quo possit ad intelligibile convertere seipsam, et a rebus factis eximere, ac ordinem mundanum supergredi. Ex his, Angelorum mundi conditorum jugum excutit, rebus omnibus factis dominatur, ac demum vinculis exsoluta ad supremum Patrem evolat. Haec tam apte sibi respondent, ut gutta guttae similior non sit. Platonis in Phaedro,

123. By that worship is confirmed what we have already said many times, that Pythagoras and Plato, and their tenets, were held in the highest place among the Gnostics. Although the Carpocratians had augmented and interpolated them with the greatest monstrosities of impieties, yet amid the clouds they repeatedly shine forth. Concerning the hypothesis of the creation of the world, concerning the unknown God, and concerning the abrogation of the law enacted through the Angels, I shall say nothing: inasmuch as it is the very doctrine of Simon, answering not badly to the teachings of Pythagoras and Plato. But the things that Carpocrates devised concerning the human soul smack of the Platonic school through almost every point. Just as the Platonists, on the authority of Iamblichus, attributed a twofold soul to each man—the one from the first intelligible, which partakes of the power of the fashioner, apo tou protou noetou metechousan kai tes tou demiourgou dynameos; the other, which comes to us ek tes ton ouranion periphoras, eis hen epeiserpei he theoptike psyche, from the circuit of the heavenly worlds, into which the God-beholding soul inserts itself—so also Carpocrates distinguished as it were two souls of each man, at least of the righteous man: the one which descended from the periphora, the revolution of the unknown God, that is, unless my conjecture deceives me, from the highest sphere or heaven, or the Pleroma in which the supreme God dwells; the other, which insinuated itself into the former, namely the supernal power sent into it so that it might be strengthened and be able to remember the unknown God. According to the Platonists, the former soul obeys the motions of the worlds and is subject to fate; according to the Carpocratians, if it is alone, it undergoes the rule of the world-fashioning Angels. According to the former, the latter soul rises above the motion of the generator of becoming (genesiourgou), because it has within itself its own principle of turning around towards the intelligible (tes eis to noeton periagoges), whereby it is able to convert itself to the intelligible, exempt itself from made things, and transcend the mundane order; according to the latter, it shakes off the yoke of the world-founding Angels, holds dominion over all made things, and finally, loosed from its bonds, flies up to the supreme Father. These things answer so aptly to each other that one drop of water is not more like another. In the Phaedrus,

Editors' notes and page, col. 141

Footnotes

(51) ‹anchor: auctore Jamblicho› · call in col 141

Sect. VIII, c. 6.

Section 8, chapter 6.

(printed under page 77)

(52) ‹anchor: recordari valeat.› · call in col 141

Idem, c. 7.

The same, chapter 7.

(printed under page 77)

Page

running head: 141 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A profligata eorum vita; B stotelis, et aliorum; C Jamblicho, duplicem unicuique; D gniti Dei recordari
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:142

Timone, Epinomide, et alibi, doctrina est, animas nostras diu antequam corpora ingrederentur, convivio deorum assedisse, divinasque dapes gustasse; videlicet veritatis contemplatione nutritas fuisse, verorumque entium conspectu recreatas : tum confractis binis alis, quibus ad supera ferebantur, fatiscente nimirum intellectus et voluntatis propensione in veritatem et bonitatem divinam; illius vero, qui in corpora generanda et animanda inclinat, instinctus pondere abreptas, in ea delabi : ubi ratiocinationis ope fractas recuperant alas, paulatim scilicet recordatae eorum quae olim viderunt Deo junctae; et tunc haec inferiora despicientes, reflecti ad vera entia quae sunt sursum. Quae si jugi rerum coelestium meditatione, laudabilique rationis usu supernorum olim sibi visorum memoriam redintegraverint, solutis demum corporis vinculis sursum evolare, astrum aliquod recturas, beatamque vitam acturas. Si vero corporibus altius immersae, rationem elanguescere, et pravorum affectuum nebulis obrui siverint, ad superna nusquam respicientes; has in peccatorum poenam in muliebria corpora primum, tum in belluina, si non resipiscant, detrudi : donec excitata ratione, pravisque affectibus purgatae, coelestium memores ad primum optimumque sui habitum jam redierint. Eamdem porro Carpocratis sententiam esse, cuilibet alteram cum altera conferenti perspicuum evadet. Eadem apparet utrobique animarum origo coelestis; eadem praeexsistentia, rerumque superarum contemplatio, corporum ingressu antiquior; eadem animarum purgatio, pristinorumque memoriae recuperatio per rerum inferiorum contemptum; eadem revolutio per diversa corpora, ac tandem in pristinum statum restitutio. Tantum Carpocrates sub nomine Christiano longe deterior Platone ethnico, rerum inferiorum contemptum eo modo interpretatur, quem erubuisset Plato; causamque iteratae revolutionis animarum refundit in turpissimi alicujus facinoris omissionem, quam ille in pravos affectus et perversum rationis usum rejicit.

the Timon, the Epinomis, and elsewhere, Plato's doctrine is that our souls, long before they entered bodies, sat at the banquet of the gods and tasted divine feasts; namely, that they were nourished by the contemplation of truth and refreshed by the sight of true beings: then, with the pair of wings broken whereby they were borne to things above—namely when the propensity of intellect and will towards divine truth and goodness flagged—swept away by the weight of that instinct which inclines towards generating and animating bodies, they slip down into them: where by the aid of reasoning they recover their broken wings, gradually remembering the things which they once saw when joined to God; and then, despising these lower things, are turned back to the true beings that are above. And if by continual meditation on heavenly things and the praiseworthy use of reason they restore the memory of the supernal things once seen by them, when the bonds of the body are finally loosed they fly upwards, to govern some star and lead a blessed life. But if, plunged deeper in bodies, they allow reason to languish and to be overwhelmed by the clouds of depraved passions, never looking back to supernal things, in punishment for their sins they are thrust down first into female bodies, then into bestial ones if they do not repent: until, with reason awakened and purged of depraved passions, mindful of heavenly things, they at length return to their first and best state. Furthermore, that the opinion of Carpocrates is the same will become clear to anyone comparing the one with the other. In both appears the same heavenly origin of souls; the same pre-existence and contemplation of supernal things prior to the entrance into bodies; the same purgation of souls and recovery of the memory of former things through contempt of lower things; the same revolution through diverse bodies, and finally restitution to their former state. Only Carpocrates, under the Christian name far worse than the pagan Plato, interprets the contempt of lower things in a way at which Plato would have blushed; and refers the cause of the repeated revolution of souls to the omission of some foulest villainy, whereas the latter casts it upon depraved passions and the perverse use of reason.

124. Pythagoreum etiam erat quod fingebat Carpocrates, Angelo cuidam id muneris demandatum fuisse, ut animas hinc migrantes ad Principem deducat, ab eo, si quidpiam praetermiserint, puniendas. Nam, Laertio teste, hoc ipsum officium erat quod Mercurio tribuebat Pythagoras : adeo ut eamdem omnino fabulam, mutatis duntaxat nominibus, recoxerit Carpocrates. Aiebat ille, Mercurium animarum ταμίαν, quaestorem esse, atque adeo ductorem dici, quod is ex corporibus animas, puras quidem ac purgatas in excelsum ducat, impuras vero Furiis tradat, infractis nexibus vinciendas. Hinc Horatius I, Od. 10 :

124. Pythagorean also was what Carpocrates feigned, that to a certain Angel had been entrusted the office of leading souls migrating hence to the Prince, to be punished by him if they had omitted anything. For, as Laertius witnesses, this very office was what Pythagoras attributed to Mercury: so that Carpocrates hashed up altogether the same fable, having changed only the names. The former said that Mercury is the tamias, the steward of souls, and is therefore called the conductor, because he leads souls out of bodies, the pure and purged indeed on high, while the impure he hands over to the Furies, to be bound in unbreakable chains. Hence Horace, Book 1, Ode 10:

Tu pias laetis animas reponis Sedibus, virgaque levem coerces Aurea turbam.

You place pious souls in joyful abodes, and with your golden wand you shepherd the shadowy throng.

Editors' notes and page, col. 142

Footnotes

(53) ‹anchor: Laertio teste› · call in col 142

In Pythag., p. 514.

Life of Pythagoras, p. 514.

(printed under page 77)

Page

running head: T. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 142
marginal letters: A Timone, Epinomide, et; B rationis usu supernorum; C coelestis; eadem praeexsistentia,; D deducat, ab eo,
old-edition numerals: [LXIV] after inferiora
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:143

VI. De Cerintho.

VI. On Cerinthus.

125. Cerinthus si non natione, saltem religione Judaeus, apostolorum temporibus, imo ab ipsis Ecclesiae incunabulis, si Epiphanio fides, erupit. Eum enim fuisse putat, qui fideles adversus S. Petrum, quod Cornelium Centurionem baptismo dignatus fuisset, concitavit; eumdem illum, qui perperam commendata veteri lege Ecclesiam Antiochenam turbavit. Cerinthianos denique fuisse qui praepostero legis studio, toties apostolis, praesertim D. Paulo, invidiam conflarunt, quos in Epistolis suis hic saepius perstringit. Verum repugnare videtur Irenaeus scribens, multo prius inseminatum fuisse Nicolaitarum quam Cerinthianorum errorem : nec sibi ipsi satis consentit Epiphanius, Cerinthum Carpocrate posteriorem fuisse significans, qui, ut paulo ante vidimus, non nisi Adriani imperii initiis prodiit. At antiquiorem esse Cerinthum, et sub Domitiano suam haeresim condidisse, vel illud demonstrat, quod a Polycarpo traditum accepisse se testatur Irenaeus, et post eum Eusebius, Epiphanius, Hieronymus, Theodoretus et alii, Joannem apostolum Ephesi in balneum lavandi causa ingressum, cum certior factus esset Cerinthum intus esse, actutum ex eo loco se proripuisse : ne balneum, inquiebat, in quo Cerinthus veritatis hostis commoratur, subito concidens, nos opprimat.

125. Cerinthus, a Jew if not by nation, at least by religion, broke forth in the times of the apostles, nay from the very cradle of the Church, if credit is to be given to Epiphanius. For he thinks that it was he who stirred up the faithful against Saint Peter because he had deemed Cornelius the Centurion worthy of baptism (cf. Acts 11:2); and that he was the very same who, by wrongly commending the old law, troubled the Church of Antioch (cf. Acts 15:1). Finally, that it was the Cerinthians who by a preposterous zeal for the law so often stirred up ill-will against the apostles, especially Saint Paul, and whom the latter frequently censures in his Epistles. Yet Irenaeus seems to oppose this when he writes that the error of the Nicolaitans was sown much earlier than that of the Cerinthians: nor does Epiphanius sufficiently agree with himself when he signifies that Cerinthus was later than Carpocrates, who, as we saw a little before, came forth only at the beginning of the reign of Hadrian. But that Cerinthus was older, and founded his heresy under Domitian, even this fact demonstrates, which Irenaeus testifies that he received as handed down by Polycarp, and after him Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Theodoret, and others: that John the apostle, having entered a bathhouse at Ephesus for the purpose of washing, when he was informed that Cerinthus was inside, immediately rushed out of that place: Lest, said he, the bathhouse in which Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is staying, suddenly collapse and crush us.

126. Eum in Aegypto primum diutius versatum, philosophiae (Platonicae certe, quae ibi tum temporis florebat) operam dedisse, deinde in Asiam venisse, ibique longe lateque impietatem suam propagasse, auctor est Theodoretus, cui consentit et Epiphanius. Nova ex eo secta prorupit, dicta Cerinthianorum, vel Merinthianorum; sive quod Cerinthus pariter et Merinthus vocaretur; sive quod Merinthum quemdam adjutorem et socium habuerit : quod dubium et soli Deo notum esse fatetur Epiphanius. Scriptum fuisse a Joanne Evangelium, partim ut Cerinthi errores refelleret, tradit Irenaeus. Hominum igitur insulsissimi, qui, Philastrio teste, Evangelii hujus auctorem Cerinthum ipsum fuisse autumabant. Solum enim Matthaei Evangelium, idque Christi genealogia decurtatum, repudiatis tribus aliis, rejectis etiam Actis apostolorum, omnibusque Pauli Epistolis, probabant, si Philastrio et Epiphanio fides est. Nonnihil tamen vereor, ut uterque Cerinthianos cum Ebionitis confuderit. Soli siquidem ex veteribus id illis ascribunt, quod his constanter tribuunt alii; nec videtur id ab Irenaeo Cerinthi errores referente omissum iri, quod Ebionitarum dogmata recensens adnotare non neglexit. Accedit quod Epiphanius secum ipse pugnare videatur. Nam haer. XXX, § 14, conceptis verbis asserit, Carpocratem

126. That he first spent a long time in Egypt and devoted himself to philosophy (certainly Platonic, which flourished there at that time), then came into Asia and there propagated his impiety far and wide, Theodoret is the authority, with whom Epiphanius also agrees. A new sect burst forth from him, called that of the Cerinthians, or Merinthians: whether because Cerinthus was equally called Merinthus, or because he had a certain Merinthus as helper and associate—which Epiphanius confesses is doubtful and known to God alone. That the Gospel was written by John partly in order to refute the errors of Cerinthus, Irenaeus hands down. Most foolish of men, therefore, were those who, as Philastrius witnesses, supposed that the author of this Gospel was Cerinthus himself. For they approved only the Gospel of Matthew, and that curtailed of the genealogy of Christ, having repudiated the three others, and having rejected also the Acts of the Apostles and all the Epistles of Paul, if credit is to be given to Philastrius and Epiphanius. Yet I am somewhat afraid that both confounded the Cerinthians with the Ebionites. For they alone among the ancients ascribe to the former what others constantly attribute to the latter; nor does it seem that Irenaeus, when reporting the errors of Cerinthus, would have omitted what he did not neglect to note when recounting the dogmas of the Ebionites. Added to this is the fact that Epiphanius seems to contradict himself. For in Heresy 30, § 14, he asserts in express words that Carpocrates

Editors' notes and page, col. 143

Footnotes

(54) ‹anchor: si Epiphanio› · call in col 143

Haer. xxviii, § 2.

Heresy 28, § 2.

(printed under page 78)

(55) ‹anchor: Irenaeus scribens› · call in col 143

L. iii, c. 11, n. 1.

Book 3, chapter 11, number 1.

(printed under page 78)

(56) ‹anchor: testatur Irenaeus› · call in col 143

L. iii, c. 3, n. 4.

Book 3, chapter 3, number 4.

(printed under page 78)

(57) ‹anchor: post eum Eusebius› · call in col 143

Lib. iii, c. 28.

Book 3, chapter 28.

(printed under page 78)

(58) ‹anchor: Eusebius, Epiphanius› · call in col 143

§ 2, 4.

§§ 2, 4.

(printed under page 78)

(59) ‹anchor: Hieronymus› · call in col 143

In Cat., c. 9.

In the Catalogue, chapter 9.

(printed under page 78)

(60) ‹anchor: Theodoretus et alii› · call in col 143

L. ii, c. 3.

Book 2, chapter 3.

(printed under page 78)

(61) ‹anchor: auctor est Theodoretus› · call in col 143

Id., ibid.

The same, in the same place.

(printed under page 78)

(62) ‹anchor: consentit et Epiphanius› · call in col 143

§ 6.

(printed under page 78)

(63) ‹anchor: fatetur Epiphanius› · call in col 143

§ 8.

(printed under page 78)

(64) ‹anchor: si Philastrio› · call in col 143

Lib. de Haer.

Book on Heresies.

(printed under page 78)

(65) ‹anchor: et Epiphanio› · call in col 143

§ 5.

(printed under page 78)

Page

running head: 143 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A VI. De Cerintho.; B Carpocrate posteriorem fuisse; C philosophiae (Platonicae certe,; D tatum, repudiatis tribus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued), VI. De Cerintho; ends mid-word Carpocra- (continued in col 144 as tem)

PG 7:144

et Cerinthum Matthaei Evangelio fretos, ex ejus initio, Christique genealogia probare niti, Christum ex Josephi et Mariae semine procreatum fuisse. Ebionaeos econtrario omni illa genealogia amputata, ab aliis verbis Evangelii initium deduxisse. Igitur Matthaei Evangelium genealogia non decurtabant Cerinthiani, e qua argumenta contra virginitatem Mariae petere se posse sibi persuadebant. Ac proinde aut hic aut illic memoria defecerit Epiphanium necesse est. Illic potius quam hic defecisse crediderim. Testatum facit Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Eusebium, quosdam fuisse qui Cerinthum auctorem esse existimarent Apocalypsis, quam Joannis esse certissime credit Ecclesia. Haud dubie quia et ipse apostolum sese venditans, spuriam Apocalypsin scribere ausus fuerat : id quippe disertis verbis asserit Theodoretus; huncque sensum facile admittunt Caii presbyteri verba apud eumdem Eusebium. Ediderat etiam, Theodoreto teste, ἀπειλῶν τινων διδασκαλίας, quarumdam minarum doctrinas; qui liber an ab Apocalypsi diversus esset, non satis constat. Illud certius, Cerinthum in sua Apocalypsi prima Chiliastarum seu Millenariorum erroris fundamenta jecisse : quo fingebat post humanae carnis resurrectionem, futurum terrenum Christi regnum, et Hierosolymis homines carnis cupiditatibus et voluptatum illecebris servituros, milleque annos in nuptiarum festis et celebritate consumpturos. Cui quidem errori occasionem praebuisse videntur (ut nihil de Joannis Apocalypsi dicam) prophetarum de Messiae regno vaticinia; quae cum ad litteram intelligenda, cum Judaeorum vulgo mundanum regnum exspectante, sibi fingeret homo pinguiori Minerva, et ita nondum impleta, in eam successit opinionem, implenda illa esse post resurrectionem. Forte etiam materiam subministravit Platonis commentum de magno anno. Vult enim, post 36 annorum millia innovandum esse mundum; tuncque fore saeculum aureum. In eumdem errorem, sed corporearum voluptatum faecibus expurgatum, cum imprudens incidisset Papias Joannis auditor, aliis postmodum e SS. Patribus non paucis lapsus occasionem ministravit. Sed de his alias.

and Cerinthus, relying on the Gospel of Matthew, strove to prove from its beginning and the genealogy of Christ that Christ had been procreated from the seed of Joseph and Mary; whereas the Ebionites, on the contrary, having cut off all that genealogy, began the Gospel from other words. Therefore the Cerinthians did not curtail the Gospel of Matthew of the genealogy, from which they persuaded themselves that they could draw arguments against the virginity of Mary. And accordingly Epiphanius's memory must necessarily have failed him either here or there. I would believe that it failed him there rather than here. Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, testifies that there were some who considered Cerinthus to be the author of the Apocalypse, which the Church most certainly believes to be John's: doubtless because he too, passing himself off as an apostle, had dared to write a spurious Apocalypse; for Theodoret asserts this in express words, and the words of Caius the presbyter in the same Eusebius easily admit this meaning. He had also published, as Theodoret witnesses, apeilon tinon didaskalias, doctrines of certain threats; whether this book was different from the Apocalypse is not sufficiently established. This is more certain, that Cerinthus in his Apocalypse laid the first foundations of the error of the Chiliasts or Millenarians: wherein he feigned that after the resurrection of human flesh there would be an earthly kingdom of Christ, and that at Jerusalem men would serve the desires of the flesh and the allurements of pleasures, and spend a thousand years in wedding feasts and festivities. Now the prophecies of the prophets concerning the kingdom of the Messiah (to say nothing of the Apocalypse of John) seem to have furnished the occasion for this error; for since the man of duller wit imagined, along with the common crowd of the Jews awaiting a worldly kingdom, that these must be understood literally, and that thus they were not yet fulfilled, he arrived at the opinion that they are to be fulfilled after the resurrection. Perhaps Plato's fiction concerning the great year also supplied material. For he holds that after 36,000 years the world is to be renewed, and that then there will be the golden age. When Papias, the hearer of John, imprudently fell into the same error, though purged of the dregs of bodily pleasures, he afterwards furnished the occasion of a slip to not a few others among the most holy Fathers. But of these things elsewhere.

127. Eadem fere Cerinthi, quae Simonis, Menandri et aliorum Gnosticorum somnia fuere. Deum summum a Creatore mundi ita distinguit et natura et sede, ut hic Virtus sit infinite ab illo distans, ejusque prorsus ignara. Unde sequitur Deum nullam hujus mundi curam egisse, nec legem dedisse; sed Angelum ut mundi conditorem, sic et legis auctorem, et Judaeorum Dominum fuisse : quae Simonis, Menandri et Carpocratis deliria fuerunt, quae Tertullianus, vel alius quivis, et Epiphanius diserte Cerintho tribuunt. Et tamen vult Epiphanius,

127. The dreams of Cerinthus were almost the same as those of Simon, Menander, and the other Gnostics. He so distinguishes the supreme God from the Creator of the world both in nature and in abode, that the latter is a Power infinitely distant from the former, and altogether ignorant of Him. Whence it follows that God took no care of this world, nor gave the law; but that an Angel, as he was the founder of the world, so also was the author of the law and the Lord of the Jews: which were the ravings of Simon, Menander, and Carpocrates, and which Tertullian, or whoever else it is, and Epiphanius expressly attribute to Cerinthus. And yet Epiphanius

Editors' notes and page, col. 144

Footnotes

(66) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 144

Lib. vii, c. 25.

Book 7, chapter 25.

(printed under page 78)

(67) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 144

Lib. ii, c. 5.

Book 2, chapter 5.

(printed under page 78)

(68) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 144

Lib. iii, c. 28.

Book 3, chapter 28.

(printed under page 78)

(69) ‹anchor: quae Tertullianus› · call in col 144

De Praescr., c. 48.

On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 48.

(printed under page 78)

(70) ‹anchor: et Epiphanius› · call in col 144

§ 1.

(printed under page 78)

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 144
marginal letters: A tem et Cerinthum; B Apocalypsin scribere ausus; C occasionem praebuisse videntur; D 127. Eadem fere
old-edition numerals: [LXV] after celebritate
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word tem from col 143; ends mid-word Epipha- (continued in col 145 as nius)

PG 7:145

Cerinthum tam incenso veteris legis promovendae studio flagrasse, ut apostolis passim et ubique restiterit, insusurrataque Christianorum auribus circumcisionis, adeoque et Judaicorum rituum necessitate, gentilium Ecclesias conturbarit. Haec certe secum aperte pugnant; ipseque agnoscit Epiphanius. Quare et hic vereor ut memoria lapsus, aut inconsiderantia offenderit, et Augustino ipsi offendiculum praebuerit; res dissociabiles, Ebionitarum videlicet et Cerinthianorum haereses miscendo. Irenaeus siquidem, Tertullianus et Theodoretus, accuratissimi scriptores, Cerinthi errorum catalogum texentes, intempestivi illius in veterem legem studii ne verbo quidem meminere; cujus tamen Ebionaeos arguere non omiserunt. Fateor equidem, nihil mirum esse si haeretici imprudentes a seipsis dissideant. Veritas cum una et eadem sit, sola sibi constat; sed quod tam aperte secum pugnent, ut scientes et volentes una manu dissipent, quod altera struxerint, illiusque legis necessitatem urgeant, cujus jugum ab iniquis Angelis, et in Deum rebellibus contra fas impositum, excutiendum esse palam et ubique docent; vix fidem apud sobrios obtinet. Eam autem esse debuisse patet Cerinthi hypothesim, ut ex consequenti veterem legem spreverit, illiusque observantiam omnem procul a veris Gnosticis amandandam esse censuerit, ex quo Simonis et Carpocratis vestigia relegens cum ipsis asserit, hanc ab inferioribus Angelis supremi Patris ignaris positam esse, et ad unam ignoti Dei cognitionem salutem retulit. Nec omittendum, apud Tertullianum hoc ipsum Ebionaeis ascribi, quod Epiphanius Cerinthianis tribuit, scilicet quod his Christi verbis apud Matthaeum : Nemo discipulus super magistrum, nec servus super dominum : sufficit discipulo si sit sicut magister ejus; illi abuterentur, ut circumcisionis ac veteris legis necessitatem ex Jesu Christi exemplo commendarent : quippe qui utrique seipsum subdiderit. Adeo ut hinc suspicio firmetur, Epiphanium inter Cerinthianos et Ebionaeos non satis accurate distinxisse.

will have it that Cerinthus burned with so ardent a zeal for promoting the old law that he resisted the apostles everywhere on all sides, and by whispering into the ears of Christians the necessity of circumcision, and consequently of the Jewish rites as well, threw the Churches of the Gentiles into confusion. These things certainly contradict each other openly; and Epiphanius himself acknowledges it. Wherefore here too I am afraid that through a slip of memory or inadvertence he stumbled, and furnished a stumbling-block to Augustine himself, by mingling things incompatible, namely the heresies of the Ebionites and of the Cerinthians. For Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Theodoret, most accurate writers, when weaving the catalogue of the errors of Cerinthus, did not mention by even a word that unseasonable zeal of his for the old law, of which nevertheless they did not omit to accuse the Ebionites. I confess indeed that it is no wonder if imprudent heretics disagree with themselves. Since truth is one and the same, it alone is consistent with itself; but that they should contradict themselves so openly as knowingly and willingly to pull down with one hand what they built up with the other, and urge the necessity of that law whose yoke, unlawfully imposed by unjust Angels rebellious against God, they openly and everywhere teach must be shaken off, scarcely obtains credence among sober men. Now it is clear that the hypothesis of Cerinthus must have been such that in consequence he despised the old law, and considered that all observance of it should be banished far from true Gnostics, inasmuch as, retracing the footsteps of Simon and Carpocrates, he asserts along with them that it was laid down by lower Angels ignorant of the supreme Father, and referred salvation to the sole knowledge of the unknown God. Nor must it be omitted that in Tertullian this very thing is ascribed to the Ebionites which Epiphanius attributes to the Cerinthians, namely that they abused these words of Christ in Matthew (Matt. 10:24–25): A disciple is not above his master, nor a servant above his lord: it is enough for the disciple that he be as his master; in order to commend the necessity of circumcision and of the old law by the example of Jesus Christ, inasmuch as He subjected Himself to both. So that hence the suspicion is confirmed that Epiphanius did not distinguish accurately enough between the Cerinthians and the Ebionites.

128. Suum fuisse Cerintho, sicut et Nicolaitis, aliisque Gnosticis Pleroma, supremi Patris ac Siges, aliarumque Virtutum invisibilium et innominabilium sedem, asseverant Irenaeus et Gregorius Nazianzenus. Ab illo Patre Monogenem, ab hoc Logon derivabat : adeo ut dubitare fas non sit, quin primam ogdoada cum caeteris Gnosticis admiserit. Jesum vero mundi conditoris Filium, eumque purum hominem, ex Josephi et Mariae satu natum, more caeterorum hominum, dicebat; cum hoc tantum discrimine, quod justitia, sapientia et prudentia aliis hominibus praecelluerit. In hunc vero, cum baptismum suscepit, delapsum a summo Deo esse Christum, sub columbae specie; qui ei incognitum Patrem, et per eum reliquis hominibus patefecerit,

128. That Cerinthus, just like the Nicolaitans and the other Gnostics, had his own Pleroma, the seat of the supreme Father and Sige and the other invisible and unnameable Powers, Irenaeus and Gregory of Nazianzus assert. From that Father he derived Monogenes, and from the latter Logos: so that one cannot lawfully doubt that he admitted the first ogdoad along with the rest of the Gnostics. Moreover, he said that Jesus was the Son of the founder of the world, and a mere man, born from the seed of Joseph and Mary after the manner of the rest of men; with this difference only, that He excelled other men in justice, wisdom, and prudence. And that into Him, when He received baptism, Christ glided down from the supreme God under the appearance of a dove, and made known the unknown Father to Him, and through Him to the rest of men,

Editors' notes and page, col. 145

Footnotes

(71) ‹anchor: apud Matthaeum› · call in col 145

Cap. x, 24.

Chapter 10, [verse] 24.

(printed under page 79)

(72) ‹anchor: asseverant Irenaeus› · call in col 145

Lib. iii, c. 11, n. 1.

Book 3, chapter 11, number 1.

(printed under page 79)

(73) ‹anchor: Gregorius Nazianzenus› · call in col 145

Orat. 23.

Oration 23.

(printed under page 79)

(74) ‹anchor: Gnosticis admiserit› · call in col 145

Iren., lib. i, c. 26, n. 1; Epiph. § 1; Theod., lib. ii, c. 3, etc.

Irenaeus, Book 1, chapter 26, number 1; Epiphanius, § 1; Theodoret, Book 2, chapter 3, etc.

(printed under page 79)

Page

running head: 145 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A nius, Cerinthum tam; B rum esse si; C cognitionem salutem retulit.; D bilium sedem, asseverant
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word nius from col 144; ends mid-word pa- (continued in col 146 as tefecerit)
other: the word patefecerit, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 146

PG 7:146

ac miraculorum, quae patravit, auctor fuerit. Tempore autem passionis recessisse Christum, et eo revolasse unde venerat; Jesum vero solum et obiisse mortem, et a mortuis excitatum fuisse; Christo, utpote spiritali, poenae omnis experte. Carpocratiana haec omnia; a Simonianis vero in eo recedunt, quod Jesu verum corpus humanum attribuatur; sed purus homo cum statuatur, quem transiens duntaxat divinitatis radius illustravit; utrobique meritum omne Christi passionis et mortis evanescit. Sed ex modo dictis facile deprehendes quo sensu Epiphanius ex Cerinthi mente scripserit, passum ac crucifixum esse Christum. Nisi mendum in textum irrepserit, ac pro Χριστόν legendum sit Ἰησοῦν, palam est hic Christi vocem non Cerinthianorum sensu usurpari, qui Christum a Jesu distinguebant, sed Catholicorum qui promiscue utramque vocem accipiunt, quod unus et idem sit, unaque et eadem persona Christus et Jesus. Sed quod addit Epiphanius (cui consentiunt Philastrius et Augustinus), nondum a mortuis excitatum esse Jesum, sed tum demum, cum mortui resurgent omnes, excitandum; vix stare potest cum iis quae modo ex Irenaeo, imo ex ipso Epiphanio retulimus, mortuum esse Jesum, et a mortuis suscitatum. Nisi forte dicamus, hanc, non Cerinthi ipsius, sed quorumdam e discipulis sententiam fuisse; qui Millenariorum errore a magistro imbuti, nulla prae caeteris singulari praerogativa Jesum donatum vellent; sed tum tantum a mortuis excitandum, cum alii omnes suscitandi essent. Idque innuere videtur Epiphanius, ut et Cerinthianos aliquos mortuorum resurrectionem funditus negasse; quos proinde de terreno Christi regno secus ac magistrum sensisse consequens videtur. Quod Judam proditorem honoraverit Cerinthus, solus memorat Philastrius, e veteribus nemo alius.

and was the author of the miracles which He wrought. But that at the time of the passion Christ withdrew and flew back thither whence He had come; and that Jesus alone both underwent death and was raised from the dead, while Christ, as being spiritual, was free from all suffering. All these things are Carpocratian; and from the Simonian tenets they depart in this, that a true human body is attributed to Jesus; yet since He is posited as a mere man whom only a passing ray of divinity illumined, in both cases all the merit of Christ's passion and death vanishes. Now from what has just been said you will easily grasp in what sense Epiphanius wrote, according to the mind of Cerinthus, that Christ suffered and was crucified. Unless a fault has crept into the text, and for Christon one should read Iesoun, it is plain that here the word Christ is used not in the sense of the Cerinthians, who distinguished Christ from Jesus, but in that of Catholics, who take both words indiscriminately because Christ and Jesus are one and the same, and one and the same person. But what Epiphanius adds (with whom Philastrius and Augustine agree), that Jesus has not yet been raised from the dead, but is to be raised only then when all the dead shall rise again, can scarcely stand with the things which we have just reported from Irenaeus, nay from Epiphanius himself, that Jesus died and was raised from the dead: unless perchance we say that this was the opinion not of Cerinthus himself, but of some among his disciples, who, imbued by their master with the error of the Millenarians, wished Jesus to be endowed with no singular prerogative above the rest, but to be raised from the dead only then when all others were to be raised. And this Epiphanius seems to intimate, as also that some Cerinthians utterly denied the resurrection of the dead; who accordingly, it seems to follow, thought otherwise than their master concerning the earthly kingdom of Christ. That Cerinthus honoured Judas the traitor, Philastrius alone records, and no one else among the ancients.

VII. De Ebionaeis.

VII. On the Ebionites.

129. Sentire videntur Origenes et Eusebius, Ebionaeorum nomen, ab Ebione quodam sectae principe derivatum esse, ut plurimi asserunt, sed merum cognomen esse iis haereticis inditum, qui merum hominem esse Christum arbitrati, humiliter admodum atque abjecte de eo sentiebant, Cujus rei causa, inquit Eusebius, Ebionaeorum nomen sortiti sunt, quo intelligentiae illorum inopia satis indicatur. Sic enim mendici apud Hebraeos vocantur. Eadem fere Origenis verba sunt. Alii tamen vulgo, sed his recentiores, quorum dux Epiphanius, repugnant, affirmantque tenebricosum quemdam Ebionem exstitisse qui cognominis sectae auctor fuerit. Mirum tamen, Irenaeum nostrum, qui veterum omnium sectarum Gnosticarum principes, ubi certi fuerunt et noti, nominare nusquam neglexit; Ebionis illius, ubi Ebionaeorum errores refert, ne

129. Origen and Eusebius seem to hold that the name of the Ebionites is [not] derived from a certain Ebion, prince of the sect, as most assert, but is a mere surname given to those heretics who, thinking that Christ was a mere man, thought very lowly and abjectly concerning Him. For which reason, says Eusebius, they obtained the name of Ebionites, whereby the poverty of their understanding is sufficiently indicated. For so beggars are called among the Hebrews. Almost the same are the words of Origen. Others, however, commonly, though more recent than these, whose leader is Epiphanius, oppose this, and affirm that there existed a certain shadowy Ebion who was the author of the sect of the same name. Yet it is wonderful that our Irenaeus, who nowhere neglected to name the princes of all the ancient Gnostic sects when they were certain and known, where he reports the errors of the Ebionites, did not even

Editors' notes and page, col. 146

Footnotes

(75) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 146

§ 6.

(printed under page 79)

(76) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 146

Id., § 1.

The same, § 1.

(printed under page 79)

(77) ‹anchor: videntur Origenes› · call in col 146

Origen., lib. iv De princ.

Origen, On First Principles, Book 4.

(printed under page 79)

(78) ‹anchor: et Eusebius› · call in col 146

Euseb., lib. iii, c. 27.

Eusebius, Book 3, chapter 27.

(printed under page 79)

Page

running head: RT. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 146
marginal letters: A tefecerit, ac miraculorum,; B non Cerinthianorum sensu; C donatum vellent; sed; D admodum atque abjecte
old-edition numerals: [LXVI] after tamen
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued), VII. De Ebionaeis; begins mid-word tefecerit from col 145

PG 7:147

meminisse quidem. Quidquid sit, veteri fama ad se perlatum scribit Epiphanius, Ebionem post excidium Hierosolymitanum, cum Christiani trans Jordanem in urbem Pellam, vicinasque regiones sese recepissent, in vico Cocabe male concepta dogmata propagare coepisse; indeque in Asia, Romae etiam et in insula Cypro disseminasse. Vulgata apud veteres sententia est, Joannem scripsisse Evangelium, ut hydram nascentem suffocaret : quod cum anno circiter 97 scriptum fuerit, necesse est antea erupisse e latebris Ebionem.

mention that Ebion. Whatever be the case, Epiphanius writes that it was brought down to him by ancient report that Ebion, after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Christians had withdrawn across the Jordan into the city of Pella and the neighbouring regions, began to propagate his ill-conceived dogmas in the village of Cocabe, and thence disseminated them in Asia, at Rome also, and in the island of Cyprus. It is a common opinion among the ancients that John wrote his Gospel in order to suffocate the nascent hydra: and since this was written about the year 97, Ebion must necessarily have burst forth from his hiding-place before then.

130. Si Cerinthi auditor fuerit, a magistri sententia longius discessit. Error ejus praecipuus fuit, quod veteris legis studiosus observator, hanc, sed pluribus superstitionibus, Samaritanorumque ritibus intermistam, cum Christiana fide consociandam esse pertinaciter assereret. Mundum a Deo conditum non negabat. De Jesu Christo autem non una erat Ebionitarum opinio. Purum hominem fuisse, non Deum, consentiebant omnes. Alii quippe fatebantur eum e Virgine natum esse; sed negabant ante hanc nativitatem exstitisse Deum, ac Dei Verbum et Sapientiam. Alii cum Ebione dicebant, eum ex Josephi et Mariae consortio, more caeterorum hominum, esse genitum, sanctitatemque bonis operibus acquisivisse sibi. Et haec communior erat Ebionaeorum sententia, quam ipsis tribuunt Irenaeus et Tertullianus, Eusebius et Theodoretus. Indeque eruendam esse puto explicationem istorum Irenaei verborum : Ea autem quae sunt erga Dominum, non similiter ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates opinantur; si tamen genuina sit lectio, nec expungenda sit particula negativa. Ut enim hic omittam quod in notis ad hunc locum observavi; quamvis Cerinthus et Carpocrates Jesum ex Josepho et Maria more aliorum hominum genitum esse vellent, non tamen opinabantur eum bonis operibus sanctitatem, sanctitudinisque conferendae vim acquisivisse sibi; sed delapsam in eum supernam Virtutem a Deo, sanctitatem ipsi ac per ipsum aliis impertiisse, vimque patrandi miracula. Ebionaei vero nihil simile commenti, nec fictitium illum Christum desuper accersentes, simplicius statuerunt Jesum merum hominem fuisse, cujus una fuerit prae caeteris haec praerogativa, quod bonis operibus studiosius incumbens, majorem sibi sanctitatem comparaverit. Sic inter utrosque non leve stat discrimen, ut merito scribere potuerit Irenaeus, non similiter opinari.

130. If he was a hearer of Cerinthus, he departed rather far from his master's opinion. His chief error was that, as a zealous observer of the old law, he obstinately asserted that this law, though intermingled with many superstitions and the rites of the Samaritans, must be joined with the Christian faith. That the world was founded by God he did not deny. Concerning Jesus Christ, however, the opinion of the Ebionites was not one. That He was a mere man, not God, all agreed. For some confessed that He was born of a Virgin, but denied that before this nativity He existed as God, and the Word and Wisdom of God. Others, with Ebion, said that He was begotten from the union of Joseph and Mary, after the manner of the rest of men, and had acquired holiness for Himself by good works. And this was the more common opinion of the Ebionites, which Irenaeus and Tertullian, Eusebius and Theodoret attribute to them. And hence I think must be drawn out the explanation of those words of Irenaeus: Moreover, the things that pertain to the Lord they do not hold in like manner as Cerinthus and Carpocrates; if, however, the reading be genuine, and the negative particle is not to be expunged. For, to omit here what I have observed in the notes on this passage, although Cerinthus and Carpocrates held that Jesus was begotten from Joseph and Mary after the manner of other men, yet they did not opine that He had acquired holiness and the power of conferring holiness for Himself by good works, but that a supernal Power from God, having glided down into Him, imparted holiness to Him and through Him to others, and the power of working miracles. The Ebionites, however, devising nothing similar, nor summoning down from above that fictitious Christ, more simply posited that Jesus was a mere man, Whose sole prerogative above the rest was this, that by applying Himself more zealously to good works He procured greater holiness for Himself. Thus between the two stands no slight difference, so that Irenaeus could deservedly write that they do not hold in like manner.

131. Ex Novi Foederis libris nullum, praeter Evangelium Matthaei, illud videlicet quod Hebraice scriptum, secundum Hebraeos dicebatur, idque primis duobus capitibus mutilatum, ac pluribus in

131. Out of the books of the New Covenant they received none except the Gospel of Matthew, namely that which, written in Hebrew, was called According to the Hebrews, and that mutilated in the first two chapters, and in several

Editors' notes and page, col. 147

Footnotes

(79) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 147

Haer. xxx, § 2.

Heresy 30, § 2.

(printed under page 80)

(80) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 147

Id., § 18; Hieron., de Vir. ill.

The same, § 18; Jerome, On Illustrious Men.

(printed under page 80)

(81) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 147

Philastr. Iren., l. i, c. 26, n. 2; Euseb., l. iii, c. 27; Origen., in Cels., l. v; Euseb., loc. cit.

Philastrius; Irenaeus, Book 1, chapter 26, number 2; Eusebius, Book 3, chapter 27; Origen, Against Celsus, Book 5; Eusebius, in the place cited.

(printed under page 80)

(82) ‹anchor: tribuunt Irenaeus› · call in col 147

Epiph., § 3; Iren., l. iii, cap. 21, n. 1.

Epiphanius, § 3; Irenaeus, Book 3, chapter 21, number 1.

(printed under page 80)

(83) ‹anchor: et Tertullianus› · call in col 147

Lib. de car. Chr., c. 14.

On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 14.

(printed under page 80)

(84) ‹anchor: Eusebius› · call in col 147

Lib. vi, c. 17.

Book 6, chapter 17.

(printed under page 80)

(85) ‹anchor: et Theodoretus› · call in col 147

Lib. ii, c. 1.

Book 2, chapter 1.

(printed under page 80)

(86) ‹anchor: 131.› · call in col 147

Iren., lib. i, c. 26, n. 2.

Irenaeus, Book 1, chapter 26, number 2.

(printed under page 80)

Page

running head: 147 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A meminisse quidem. Quidquid; B bus intermistam, cum; C num, non similiter; D teris haec praerogativa,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:148

locis depravatum, recipiebant. Caetera Evangelia non magni faciebant, τῶν λοιπῶν σμικρὸν ἐποιοῦντο λόγον, ait Eusebius. Si tamen Mario Mercatori fides, Marci et Lucae auctoritate interdum usi sunt; cum videlicet id e re sua esse existimabant, ut Catholicos, si possent, propriis armis debellarent. Non tantum Pauli Epistolas respuebant, sed varia in ipsum convicia jaciebant. E Veteri Testamento quaecunque prophetica erant, caeteris curiosius exponere nitebantur, inquit Irenaeus; id est, si bene conjiciam, in varias vanasque allegorias, pro haereticorum more, trahebant. Plura apostolis supponere veriti non fuerant adulterina scripta. Alia apostolorum Acta circumferebant, et Petri Circuitus, seu libros Recognitionum, quibus falso inscriptum Clementis Romani nomen, foede corruperant. Circumcisionis, legaliumque necessitatem sic urgebant, ut sine illis cum sola fide Christiana salutem obtineri non posse contenderent; sed legalia, ut dixi, variis, iisque ridiculis superstitionibus miscebant. Ii sunt potissimum quorum fervidius, imo saepe et furens studium, passim perstringunt ac coercent apostoli, Paulus praesertim in Epistolis. Baptismo suos initiabant, quem, Hieronymi saltem aevo, catholica non improbat Ecclesia. Mysteria vero quotannis celebrabant, in quibus panes azymos, et ad alteram mysterii partem aquam adhibebant. Significare tamen videtur Eusebius, ea mysteria, non quotannis, sed singulis Dominicis diebus ab iis fuisse celebrata. Nam, inquit, Sabbatum et reliquam Judaicam institutionem similiter cum Judaeis observant; dies vero Dominicos pari nobiscum ratione in resurrectionis Salvatoris nostri memoriam recolunt. Plura alia de Ebionitarum erroribus, pravisque consuetudinibus ac moribus videre est apud Epiphanium, quae cum nihil aut parum ad scopum nostrum conferant, nullaque expositione indigeant, consulto praetermitto. Observet tantum studiosus lector, Epiphanium non satis accurate distinxisse inter priorum et posteriorum Ebionitarum errores, eosque permistim omnibus tribuisse, qui tamen in priores non conveniant, sed in posteriores duntaxat : ab his siquidem illorum hypothesim novorum dogmatum et superstitionum accessione interpolatam fuisse puto : et in eo fere solo priores peccasse, quod Judaicis caeremoniis, ritibus ac superstitionibus ultra modum addicti essent, et de Christi persona humilius sentirent. Et ea ratione eos Gnosticorum catalogo inserit Irenaeus; non quod Aeonum chimaeris mentem pasti fuerint; sed quod in Christo Jesu nihil nisi humanum, nihil substantia divinum agnoscentes, Verbi Incarnationem e medio tollerent, Christique passionis meritum omne funditus everterent.

places depraved. Of the rest of the Gospels they made little account—ton loipon smikron epoiounto logon, says Eusebius. Yet if credit is to be given to Marius Mercator, they sometimes used the authority of Mark and Luke; namely when they considered that it was to their advantage in order to vanquish Catholics, if they could, with their own weapons. They not only rejected the Epistles of Paul, but hurled various insults against him. Out of the Old Testament, whatever things were prophetic they strove to expound more curiously than the rest, says Irenaeus; that is, if I conjecture well, they dragged them into various vain allegories, after the custom of heretics. They had not feared to forge several spurious writings under the name of the apostles. They carried around other Acts of the Apostles, and had foully corrupted the Circuits of Peter, or books of Recognitions, upon which the name of Clement of Rome was falsely inscribed. The necessity of circumcision and of the legal observances they urged in such a way as to contend that without them, with the Christian faith alone, salvation cannot be obtained; yet the legal observances, as I have said, they mingled with various and ridiculous superstitions. These are chiefly those whose too fervid, nay often even furious zeal, the apostles, and Paul especially in his Epistles, everywhere censure and check. They initiated their followers with a baptism which, at least in the age of Jerome, the Catholic Church does not disapprove. Moreover, they celebrated the mysteries yearly, in which they used unleavened bread, and for the other part of the mystery water. Yet Eusebius seems to signify that those mysteries were celebrated by them not yearly, but on each Lord's day. For, says he, the Sabbath and the rest of the Jewish discipline they observe in like manner as the Jews; but the Lord's days they honour in like manner as we in memory of the resurrection of our Saviour. Many other things concerning the errors of the Ebionites, and their depraved customs and morals, may be seen in Epiphanius, which, since they contribute nothing or little to our purpose and need no explanation, I purposely pass over. Let the studious reader only observe that Epiphanius did not distinguish accurately enough between the errors of the earlier and of the later Ebionites, and attributed indiscriminately to all those things which nevertheless do not suit the earlier, but the later only: for by the latter I think that the hypothesis of the former was interpolated by the addition of new dogmas and superstitions; and that the earlier sinned almost solely in this, that they were beyond measure addicted to Jewish ceremonies, rites, and superstitions, and thought too lowly concerning the person of Christ. And for that reason Irenaeus inserts them into the catalogue of the Gnostics: not because they fed their minds on the chimaeras of Aeons, but because, acknowledging nothing but what is human in Christ Jesus, and nothing divine in substance, they did away with the Incarnation of the Word and utterly overthrew all the merit of Christ's passion.

Editors' notes and page, col. 148

Footnotes

(87) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 148

Lib. iii, c. 27.

Book 3, chapter 27.

(printed under page 80)

(88) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 148

Theod., loc. cit.; Epiph. § 3, 15, 16.

Theodoret, in the place cited; Epiphanius, §§ 3, 15, 16.

(printed under page 80)

(89) ‹anchor: quem, Hieronymi› · call in col 148

In Lucif., c. 9.

Against the Luciferians, chapter 9.

(printed under page 80)

(90) ‹anchor: videtur Eusebius› · call in col 148

Lib. iii, c. 27.

Book 3, chapter 27.

(printed under page 80)

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 148
marginal letters: A locis depravatum, recipiebant.; B mentis Romani nomen,; C liquam Judaicam institutionem; D sione interpolatam fuisse
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:149

VIII. De Nicolaitis.

VIII. On the Nicolaitans.

132. Nicolaitas a Nicolao, uno e septem prioribus diaconis, quorum mentio fit in Actis apostolorum, nomen traxisse, communis omnium sententia est; si unus excipiatur Cassianus, qui nulla veterum auctoritate fretus existimat, eos ab alio quodam Nicolao et nomen et originem accepisse. An vero Nicolaus ille diaconus propudiosae Nicolaitarum sectae fundamenta jecerit, jam in diversa scinduntur opiniones. Alii eum culpa teneri, alii vacare sentiunt. Et quidem Nicolaum primum erroris auctorem et magistrum exstitisse, diserte asserunt Irenaeus, vetus auctor Additamenti quod ad calcem Tertulliani libri De praescript. legitur, Hippolytus apud Photium, Hilarius, Gregorius Nyss., Philastrius, Hieronymus et Gregorius Magnus. Lapsus occasio fuit, si Epiphanium audiamus, hominis intemperantia, continentiae propositi, quod susceperat, minime tenax. Cum enim uxorem haberet, eleganti specie mulierem, a qua aliquandiu sibi temperasset; continentiae longioris impatiens, ad pristinos amplexus rediit. Ut autem probrosum facinus quaesitis coloribus obduceret, libidinem procacitate cumulans, docuit : Nisi quis singulis diebus luxuriae vacet, sempiternam salutem consequi non posse. Tum zelotypia incensus, et inde in nova scelera prolapsus, Nicolaitarum ac Gnosticorum sectae initium dedit, e quibus plures aliae, quarum obscura vel prorsus ignota nomina, novis additis errorum ac spurcitiarum monstris, scaturiere. Qui vero Nicolaum a culpa liberant, nec ipsi pauci sunt, nec infimi in Ecclesia nominis. Agmen ducit Clemens Alexandrinus, quem sequuntur Eusebius, Theodoretus, Augustinus, Victorinus Petavionensis et alii : inter quos recenseri posset Ignatius in epistolis ad Trallianos et Philadelphienses, si ea quae in Nicolai gratiam adducuntur testimonia, ex genuinis, non vero ex interpolatis epistolis depromerentur. Illi omnes censent, haereticos Simonianos, ut auctoritatem sibi ex magno nomine conciliarent, Nicolao calumniatos, eo auctore gloriatos fuisse, arrepta perperam occasione ex facto quod Clemens Alexand. longe aliter atque Epiphanius narrat. Ait nempe, audiisse se, Nicolaum, ut ab objecta sibi ab apostolis zelotypia purgaret sese, uxore, quae formosa erat, in medium adducta, permisisse cui vellet ei nubere. Inde vero, quasi uxorem publice prostituisset, ejusque promiscuum usum quibuscunque permisisset, occasionem captasse haereticos laxandi frena libidini. Nicolai vero hunc unum fuisse scopum, ut a se amoliretur suspicionem

132. That the Nicolaitans drew their name from Nicolas, one of the first seven deacons of whom mention is made in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 6:5), is the common opinion of all, if one excepts Cassian alone, who, relying on no authority of the ancients, considers that they received both name and origin from some other Nicolas. But whether that deacon Nicolas laid the foundations of the shameful sect of the Nicolaitans, opinions are now split in opposite directions. Some hold that he is guilty, others that he is free from blame. And indeed that Nicolas was the first author and teacher of the error is expressly asserted by Irenaeus, the ancient author of the Addition which is read at the end of Tertullian's book On Prescription, Hippolytus in Photius, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, Philastrius, Jerome, and Gregory the Great. The occasion of his fall, if we listen to Epiphanius, was the incontinence of the man, by no means steadfast in the purpose of continence which he had undertaken. For since he had a wife, a woman of comely appearance, from whom he had abstained for some time, impatient of longer continence he returned to his former embraces. And in order to cover over the shameful deed with far-fetched pretexts, heaping shamelessness upon lust, he taught: That unless one indulges in luxury every day, he cannot attain eternal salvation. Then, inflamed with jealousy and thence lapsing into new crimes, he gave a beginning to the sect of the Nicolaitans and of the Gnostics, from which gushed forth many others, whose names are obscure or altogether unknown, with new monstrosities of errors anduncleannesses added. Those, however, who absolve Nicolas from blame are themselves neither few nor of the lowest name in the Church. Clement of Alexandria leads the line, whom Eusebius, Theodoret, Augustine, Victorinus of Pettau, and others follow: among whom might be reckoned Ignatius in his Epistles to the Trallians and to the Philadelphians, if the testimonies which are adduced in favour of Nicolas were drawn from the genuine, and not from the interpolated epistles. All those consider that the Simonian heretics, in order to win authority for themselves from a great name, slandered Nicolas and gloried in him as their author, having wrongly seized an occasion from a deed which Clement of Alexandria relates far otherwise than Epiphanius. Namely, he says that he heard that Nicolas, in order to clear himself of the jealousy wherewith he was reproached by the apostles, having led his wife, who was beautiful, into the midst, permitted anyone who wished to marry her. And that thence, as though he had publicly prostituted his wife and permitted the promiscuous use of her to anyone whatever, the heretics seized an occasion for loosening the reins to lust; whereas this alone had been the aim of Nicolas, to remove from himself the suspicion

Editors' notes and page, col. 149

Footnotes

(91) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 149

Cap. vi, 3, 5.

Chapter 6, [verses] 3, 5.

(printed under page 81)

(92) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 149

Coll. 18, c. 16.

Conference 18, chapter 16.

(printed under page 81)

(93) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 149

Lib. i, c. 26, n. 3.

Book 1, chapter 26, number 3.

(printed under page 81)

(94) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 149

C. 47.

Chapter 47.

(printed under page 81)

(95) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 149

Cod. 232.

Codex 232.

(printed under page 81)

(96) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 149

In Matth. c. 25.

On Matthew, chapter 25.

(printed under page 81)

(97) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 149

L. xi, ep. 1. Eunom.

Book 11, letter 1. Eunomius.

(printed under page 81)

(98) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 149

In epist. ad Heliod. et Sabinian. Diac.

In the letter to Heliodorus and to Sabinian the deacon.

(printed under page 81)

(99) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 149

Hom. 38 in Evang.

Homily 38 on the Gospels.

(printed under page 81)

(1) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 149

Haer. xxv, § 1.

Heresy 25, § 1.

(printed under page 81)

(2) ‹anchor: Clemens Alexandrinus› · call in col 149

L. iii Strom., p. 436.

Stromateis, Book 3, page 436.

(printed under page 81)

(3) ‹anchor: sequuntur Eusebius› · call in col 149

L. iii, c. 29.

Book 3, chapter 29.

(printed under page 81)

(4) ‹anchor: Theodoretus› · call in col 149

L. iii, c. 1.

Book 3, chapter 1.

(printed under page 81)

(5) ‹anchor: Augustinus› · call in col 149

Haer. v.

Heresy 5.

(printed under page 81)

(6) ‹anchor: Victorinus Petavionensis› · call in col 149

In Apoc. in Biblioth. PP.

On the Apocalypse, in the Library of the Fathers.

(printed under page 81)

(7) ‹anchor: Clemens Alexand.› · call in col 149

L. ii Strom., p. 411.

Stromateis, Book 2, page 411.

(printed under page 81)

Page

running head: 149 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A VIII. De Nicolaitis.; B rius, Gregorius Nyss.,; C novis additis errorum; D nempe, audiisse se,
old-edition numerals: [LXVII] after Hilarius,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued), VIII. De Nicolaitis

PG 7:150

zelotypiae, palamque faceret se ita affectum esse, ut, si fas esset, abdicata uxore, cuivis eam ducendi potestatem largiri paratus esset. Quod quidem vel ex eo demonstratur, quod a conjugali fide nunquam resiluerit, et ex ejus liberis filiae consenuerint virgines, filius autem caelebs vitam egerit. Alio Nicolai apophthegmate abutebantur haeretici, scilicet, Carne abutendum esse : quo tamen id unum significare animus fuerat, carni haudquaquam indulgendum esse, sed eam perdomandam, et assidua virtutis exercitatione frangendam. Sua stat utrique parti auctoritas, graviaque utrinque militant rationum momenta. Nicolaum damnat Irenaeus vir apostolicus, absolvit Clemens huic coaevus; uterque ex iis quae ab apostolorum discipulis auditu percipere potuerat; adeo ut hic alterutrius fides elevari non debeat. Tutius igitur, ne temere definiamus, rem in medio relinquere. Illud vero certissimum est, Dei ipsius ore damnatos fuisse Nicolaitas. Sic enim in Apocalypsi Christus episcopum Ephesinum alloquitur : Sed hoc habes, quia odisti facta Nicolaitarum, quae et ego odi. Ac proinde tum temporis Ecclesiam devastabat ea secta. Cito exstinctam putat Eusebius. Probabilius, non ipsam sectam exstinctam, sed sectae nomen duntaxat exstinctum esse. Cum enim scelestissimum quid, adeoque et exsecrandum, catholicis auribus sonaret; eo deposito novus excogitatus Gnosticorum titulus, qui ementita scientiae laude fucum faceret imperitis.

of jealousy, and to make it plain that he was so disposed that, if it were lawful, having renounced his wife, he would be ready to grant the power of marrying her to anyone. Which indeed is demonstrated even from the fact that he never drew back from conjugal fidelity, and among his children his daughters grew old as virgins, while his son led a celibate life. The heretics abused another apophthegm of Nicolas, namely, That the flesh must be abused: whereby nevertheless his mind had been to signify this one thing, that the flesh must by no means be indulged, but must be thoroughly tamed and broken by the continual practice of virtue. Each side has its own standing authority, and weighty considerations of arguments militate on both sides. Irenaeus, an apostolic man, condemns Nicolas; Clement, his contemporary, absolves him; both from the things which they had been able to learn by hearing from the disciples of the apostles; so that here the credit of neither of the two ought to be disparaged. It is safer, therefore, lest we decide rashly, to leave the matter undecided. This, however, is most certain, that the Nicolaitans were condemned by the mouth of God Himself. For thus in the Apocalypse (Rev. 2:6) Christ addresses the bishop of Ephesus: But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. And accordingly at that time that sect was laying waste the Church. Eusebius thinks that it was quickly extinguished. More probably, not the sect itself was extinguished, but only the name of the sect was extinguished. For since it sounded to Catholic ears as something most wicked, and therefore also execrable, having laid it aside, the new title of Gnostics was devised, which by a feigned praise of knowledge might play a trick upon the unlearned.

133. Dogmata Nicolaitarum theoretica recensere supervacaneum duxit Irenaeus : eadem quippe fuisse quae caeterorum Gnosticorum perspicue innuit lib. III, cap. 11, ut jam de Cerintho agentes observavimus. Ea fusiori stylo prosecutus est Epiphanius, compendio vero retulerunt Augustinus et Pseudo-Tertullianus. Sed quae ii Nicolaitis ascribunt, ipsa sunt quae paulo post tribuit Irenaeus Gnosticis in genere. Cum autem eo nomine prae caeteris gloriarentur Nicolaitae, illudque forte primi omnium sibi vindicassent, non dubitem quin in eos potissimum conveniant quae in Gnosticos illic refert auctor noster. Sed de his suo loco. Practica vero dogmata paucissimis verbis, sed efficacissimis perstrinxit idem Irenaeus : Indiscrete vivunt, inquit, id est promiscua eis sunt omnia : quod ad Carpocratis principium redit : nihil suapte natura bonum esse aut malum, sed indifferentia omnia. Nihil mirum itaque si idolothytis vesci, et fornicari (quibus characteribus designat eam sectam Christus, nulla eis religio esset. Uno verbo tam effrenis fuit in omni intemperantiae genere eorum

133. To recount the theoretical dogmas of the Nicolaitans Irenaeus considered superfluous: for that they were the same as those of the rest of the Gnostics he clearly intimates in Book 3, Chapter 11, as we have already observed when dealing with Cerinthus. Epiphanius pursued them in a fuller style, while Augustine and Pseudo-Tertullian reported them in summary. But the things which they ascribe to the Nicolaitans are the very things which a little later Irenaeus attributes to the Gnostics in general. Now since the Nicolaitans gloried in that name above the rest, and had perhaps been the first of all to claim it for themselves, I would not doubt that the things which our author there relates against the Gnostics apply chiefly to them. But of these things in their own place. Their practical dogmas, however, the same Irenaeus touched upon in very few, yet most effective words: They live indiscriminately, says he, that is, all things are promiscuous to them: which comes back to the principle of Carpocrates: that nothing is good or evil by its own nature, but all things are indifferent. No wonder, therefore, if they had no scruple against eating things sacrificed to idols and committing fornication (by which marks Christ designates that sect, Rev. 2:14). In one word, so unbridled in every kind of intemperance was their

Editors' notes and page, col. 150

Footnotes

(8) ‹anchor: in Apocalypsi› · call in col 150

Cap. ii, 6.

Chapter 2, [verse] 6.

(printed under page 81)

(9) ‹anchor: putat Eusebius› · call in col 150

Lib. iii, c. 29.

Book 3, chapter 29.

(printed under page 81)

(10) ‹anchor: est Epiphanius› · call in col 150

Haer. xxv.

Heresy 25.

(printed under page 81)

(11) ‹anchor: retulerunt Augustinus› · call in col 150

Haer. v,

Heresy 5,

(printed under page 81)

(12) ‹anchor: et Pseudo-Tertullianus› · call in col 150

De praesc., c. 47.

On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 47.

(printed under page 81)

(13) ‹anchor: sectam Christus› · call in col 150

Apoc. II, 14.

Apocalypse 2:14.

(printed under page 81)

Page

running head: T. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 150
marginal letters: A zelotypiae, palamque faceret; B scipulis auditu percipere; C tiae laude fucum; D dogmata paucissimis verbis,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); unclosed parenthesis before quibus characteribus; ends mid-word eo- (continued in col 151 as rum)
other: the word eorum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 151

PG 7:151

libido, ut Pseudo-Tertulliano pudor fuerit dicere.

lust, that Pseudo-Tertullian was ashamed to speak of it.

IX. De Cerdone.

IX. On Cerdo.

134 Cerdon Marcionis praeceptor e Syria oriundus fuisse videtur. Nam e Syria Romam venisse, Hygino Romanam Ecclesiam regente, eodem pene tempore quo Valentinum, id est circa annum Christi 141, constanter affirmant omnes antiqui. Ibi dolos erroribus miscens, modo catholicam fidem professus, modo abjiciens, modo poenitens, modo apostata, sic Prothei instar mutata saepius forma, nullius tenax, Ecclesiam diu fatigavit; donec tandem iteratorum lapsuum pertaesa impostorem sacris fidelium coetibus in perpetuum arcuit. Hic, Irenaeo teste, erroris materiam ab iis qui sunt erga Simonem, id est a Simone, Menandro, Saturnino, aliisque Gnosticorum coryphaeis accepit, cui tamen, ut novum quid proferre videretur, paulo diversam formam induxit. Duo rerum principia, duosque deos statuit; Bonum alterum, et ignotum omnibus, quem et Patrem Jesu nominavit; alterum mundi Conditorem, justum, immitem et cognitum, Mosaicae legis auctorem, qui et prophetis apparuit, ac se videndum saepenumero praebuit. Haec si quid a Simonis dogmatibus discrepant, in verbis tantum haeret pugna. Nam quamvis ille ab angelis conditum mundum, veteremque legem sancitam asseruerit; tamen ejus successores peculiarem creatorem et legis auctorem introduxerunt, quem alii Demiurgum, alii Jaldabaoth vocabant; omnes Deum esse, suo modo, dicebant, tum quod saepius eo nomine veniat in Veteri Testamento, tum quod supremum sibi in res inferiores vindicasset imperium. At verum Deum, nisi in apertam insaniam prolapsi insitam mortalibus omnibus divinitatis ideam exstinxissent, fateri non poterant, ex quo creatum, a summo Deo debellatum, et imperio, quod sibi male usurpaverat, exturbatum esse aiebant. Idem igitur re fuit Simoni et Cerdoni mundi fabricator, Angelus videlicet, isque iniquus ac tyrannidem exercens; idem summus Deus et Pater, qui usque ad Christi Domini tempora ignotus manserit. Eadem proinde ejusdem hypothesis consectaria, scilicet rejectaneam esse veterem legem, ut a vero Deo alienam; mortuorum resurrectionem nullam esse; Christum Mariae Filium non esse, sed ementita carnis specie vestitum e coelo descendisse, ut mundi opificis imperium ac tyrannidem everteret. Quae dogmata utrique ex aequo tribuunt auctores.

134. Cerdo, the teacher of Marcion, seems to have been a native of Syria. For that he came from Syria to Rome while Hyginus was ruling the Roman Church, at almost the same time as Valentinus, that is, around the year of Christ 141, all the ancients constantly affirm. There, mingling deceits with errors, now professing the Catholic faith, now casting it away, now penitent, now an apostate, thus like Proteus having often changed his shape and holding fast to none, he long wearied the Church; until at length, weary of his repeated lapses, she forever barred the impostor from the sacred assemblies of the faithful. He, as Irenaeus witnesses, received the material of his error from those who are of Simon's school, that is, from Simon, Menander, Saturninus, and the other coryphaei of the Gnostics, upon which nevertheless, in order to seem to bring forward something new, he put a slightly different form. He posited two principles of things, and two gods: the one Good, and unknown to all, Whom he also named the Father of Jesus; the other the Founder of the world, just, harsh, and known, the author of the Mosaic law, who also appeared to the prophets and oftentimes presented himself to be seen. If these things differ in any respect from the dogmas of Simon, the conflict clings to words only. For although the former asserted that the world was founded and the old law enacted by angels, yet his successors introduced a particular creator and author of the law, whom some called the Demiurge, others Ialdabaoth; all said that he was God, in their own way, both because he often comes under that name in the Old Testament, and because he had claimed for himself supreme rule over lower things. Yet they could not confess him to be the true God, unless, having lapsed into open madness, they had extinguished the idea of divinity implanted in all mortals, inasmuch as they said that he was created, vanquished by the supreme God, and driven out from the rule which he had wrongfully usurped for himself. The fashioner of the world, therefore, was in reality the same for Simon and for Cerdo, namely an Angel, and an unjust one exercising tyranny; the supreme God and Father was the same, Who remained unknown right up to the times of Christ the Lord. The same, accordingly, were the consequences of the same hypothesis, namely that the old law is to be rejected, as alien to the true God; that there is no resurrection of the dead; that Christ is not the Son of Mary, but descended from heaven clothed in a feigned appearance of flesh, in order to overthrow the rule and tyranny of the fashioner of the world. Which dogmas authors attribute equally to both.

X. De Marcione.

X. On Marcion.

135. Quotquot ex antiquis Marcionis meminere, eum et Cerdonis discipulum ac successorem, et Ponticum genere fuisse tradunt. Addit Epiphanius,

135. All of the ancients who have mentioned Marcion hand down both that he was the disciple and successor of Cerdo, and that he was a native of Pontus by race. Epiphanius

Editors' notes and page, col. 151

Footnotes

(14) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 151

Epiph., haer. xli, § 1; Philastr., cap. 44; Iren., lib. i, c. 27, n. 1; lib. iii, c. 4, n. 3; Idem, lib. i, c. 27, n. 1; Epiph. § 1; Tertull., De praesc., c. 51; Theodoret., lib. i, c. 24; Aug., haer. 21.

Epiphanius, Heresy 41, § 1; Philastrius, chapter 44; Irenaeus, Book 1, chapter 27, number 1; Book 3, chapter 4, number 3; the same, Book 1, chapter 27, number 1; Epiphanius, § 1; Tertullian, On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 51; Theodoret, Book 1, chapter 24; Augustine, Heresy 21.

(printed under page 82)

Page

running head: 151 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A rum libido, ut; B qui sunt erga; C auctorem introduxerunt, quem; D licet rejectaneam esse
old-edition numerals: [LXVIII] after rejectaneam
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued), IX. De Cerdone, X. De Marcione; begins mid-word rum from col 150; ends mid-word Epipha- (continued in col 152 as nius)

PG 7:152

frequentem de eo famam percrebuisse, ex ea Ponti parte quae Hellespontus dicitur, urbe Sinope oriundum fuisse, ac parente natum catholicae communionis episcopo. Nautam vocat Rhodon apud Eusebium, nauclerum Tertullianus : an quod artem nauticam primitus exercuerit? an quod uterque ludens in voce Pontus, Marcionis patriae nomine, quae et Asiae regionem, et mare significat, illum nautam aut nauclerum vocet, quasi marinum hominem, in mari natum? Forte hanc fuisse Tertulliani, ejusmodi argutiarum amantissimi, mentem deprehendet quisquis libri primi contra Marcionem initia attente legerit. In virginitate primum, hominum contubernium fugiens, μονάζων (non monachorum instituta, quae nondum nota, professus, ut minus attentus vertit Petavius), laudabiliter vixit. Sed cum postea ob stuprum virgini illatum, Ecclesia ab ipso patre, episcopo cum primis religioso, ac veritatis et sanctitatis amore flagrantissimo pulsus, veniam et pacem eblandiri nullis precibus posset (procul dubio quia sincerus ex delicto dolor non erat), Romam se post Hygini papae obitum contulit. Cumque nihilo magis illic quod cupiebat obtineret a presbyteris, vacante tum, uti conjicio, sede, quod inscio Patre facere istud Ecclesiae leges non sinerent; superbia et invidia fractus, quod nec principem illic locum, nec Ecclesiae quidem aditum impetrasset, ad Cerdonem se adjunxit. Quem principem locum, προεδρίαν, in Ecclesia Romana ambiret Marcion, incertum omnino. Nisi forte jam inter clericos ascriptus, reumque se stupri praefracte negans, ad primum inter aequales gradum aspiraret. Neque enim probabile est, hominem externum, vixque notum, sacris omnibus interdictum, ac proinde gravi saltem perpetrati criminis suspicione laborantem, adeo desipuisse, ut ad episcopatum ipsum animum adjiceret. Vult quidem Optatus Milevitanus Marcionem ex episcopo apostatam factum; sed qui episcopus is esse potuit, qui solitariam vitam usque ad lapsum egit?

adds that a widespread report had grown up concerning him, that he was a native of the city of Sinope, in that part of Pontus which is called Hellespontus, and was born of a parent who was a bishop of the Catholic communion. Rhodon in Eusebius calls him a sailor, Tertullian a shipmaster: whether because he originally practised the nautical art, or because both, playing on the word Pontus, the name of Marcion's homeland, which signifies both a region of Asia and the sea, call him a sailor or shipmaster, as though a marine man, born in the sea? Perhaps anyone who attentively reads the beginning of the first book Against Marcion will detect that this was the mind of Tertullian, who was most fond of subtleties of that kind. At first he lived laudably in virginity, shunning the company of men, monazon, living a solitary life (not having professed the institutes of monks, which were not yet known, as Petau less attentively translates). But when afterwards, on account of the defilement inflicted upon a virgin, having been driven from the Church by his own father, a bishop pre-eminently religious and burning with love of truth and holiness, he could by no entreaties coax pardon and peace (without doubt because there was no sincere sorrow for his offence), he betook himself to Rome after the death of Pope Hyginus. And when he obtained what he desired no more there from the presbyters—the see being then vacant, as I conjecture—because the laws of the Church did not allow them to do that without the knowledge of his father; broken by pride and envy because he had obtained neither the chief place there, nor even admittance to the Church, he joined himself to Cerdo. What chief place, proedrian, Marcion was soliciting in the Roman Church is altogether uncertain: unless perchance, having already been enrolled among the clergy and stubbornly denying that he was guilty of the defilement, he aspired to the first rank among his equals. For neither is it probable that a stranger, scarcely known, interdicted from all sacred rites, and accordingly labouring under at least a grave suspicion of a crime perpetrated, was so foolish as to set his mind upon the episcopate itself. Optatus of Milevis indeed will have it that Marcion became an apostate from being a bishop; but how could he have been a bishop, who led a solitary life right up to his fall?

136. Certum est Marcionem, cum Romam venit, catholica fide nondum excidisse. Id ex iis quae modo ex Epiphanio diximus liquido patet; clarius adhuc ex Tertulliano, qui diserte asserit, in catholicam primo doctrinam credidisse apud Ecclesiam Romanensem. Non negabunt, ait alibi, discipuli ejus, primam illi fidem nobiscum fuisse, ipsius litteris testibus : ut hinc jam destinari possit haereticus, qui deserto quod prius fuerat, id postea sibi elegerit, quod retro non erat. Desertionem autem hanc accidisse constat, tum cum a presbyteris Romanis repulsam passus, ad Cerdonem, tunc Romae commorantem, confugit. Neque enim ulla ratione defendi posse puto quod doctissimus conjicit Petavius, duo distinguenda esse Marcionis tempora :

136. It is certain that Marcion, when he came to Rome, had not yet fallen away from the Catholic faith. This is clearly evident from the things which we have just said from Epiphanius, and clearer still from Tertullian, who expressly asserts that he first believed in the Catholic doctrine in the Roman Church. His disciples, says he elsewhere, will not deny that his first faith was with us, his own letters being witnesses: so that hence he may already be marked out as a heretic, who, having forsaken what he had previously been, afterwards chose for himself that which previously was not. Moreover, it is established that this desertion happened at the time when, having suffered a rebuff from the Roman presbyters, he fled to Cerdo, who was then staying at Rome. For I do not think that what the most learned Petau conjectures can be defended on any ground, that two periods of Marcion must be distinguished:

Editors' notes and page, col. 152

Footnotes

(15) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 152

Haer. xlii, § 1.

Heresy 42, § 1.

(printed under page 82)

(16) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 152

L. v, c. 13.

Book 5, chapter 13.

(printed under page 82)

(17) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 152

De praesc., c. 30.

On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 30.

(printed under page 82)

(18) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 152

Epiph., § 1.

Epiphanius, § 1.

(printed under page 82)

(19) ‹anchor: Optatus Milevitanus› · call in col 152

L. iii, p. 79, edit. Paris. 1631.

Book 3, page 79, Paris edition of 1631.

(printed under page 82)

(20) ‹anchor: ex Tertulliano› · call in col 152

De praesc., c. 30.

On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 30.

(printed under page 82)

(21) ‹anchor: ait alibi› · call in col 152

Id., lib. i cont. Marc., c. 1.

The same, Against Marcion, Book 1, chapter 1.

(printed under page 82)

(22) ‹anchor: conjicit Petavius› · call in col 152

In Animadv. ad haer. xlvi, t. II Epiphan.

In the Animadversions on Heresy 46, volume II of Epiphanius.

(printed under page 82)

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 152
marginal letters: A nius, frequentem de; B professus, ut minus; C biret Marcion, incertum; D tholicam primo doctrinam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word nius from col 151

PG 7:153

ita ut sub Adriano primum in Ponto et Asia duntaxat nefarium dogma praedicaverit : postea vero sub Antonino majores trahens spiritus, vehementius in eosdem illos errores coeperit incumbere. Qui enim in Ponto et Asia nefarium dogma praedicare potuerit sub Adriano, quem e Ponto catholicum profectum Antonino imperante, Romae catholicum aliquandiu vixisse asserunt Tertullianus et Epiphanius, non video : minus adhuc qua ratione Tertullianus Marcionem plus semel Antonianum haereticum appellare, et sub Antonini principatu emersisse tam confidenter affirmare potuerit, qui dudum antea sub Adriano prodiisset. Deinde quicunque fere e veteribus Marcionis mentionem injecerunt, hunc Cerdonis et discipulum et successorem exstitisse asseverant; quod profecto stare non potest cum Petavii hypothesi; nam ex superius dictis certum est, Cerdonem e latebris prius caput non extulisse, quam Romam advenisset Hygino Ecclesiam, Antonino Pio imperium regente. Vel ergo veterum omnium, nulla adigente necessitate, elevanda fides; vel dicendum, Marcionem a catholica fide prius non defecisse, quam communionis spe dejectus Cerdonem Romae et videre et audire potuerit. Nec quempiam morari debet una Philastrii auctoritas, qui Marcionem a Joanne in Asia devictum, Epheso pulsum esse scribit : tam immaniter lapsus est, ut hujus sententiae calculum adjicere voluisse Petavium non putem. Non morabor etiam Clementem Alexandrinum, cujus verba Marcionem non modo Basilidi, sed etiam Simoni Mago aetate praeivisse prae se ferunt. In haec quidem explicanda desudant eruditi, sed frustra : mss. codicum ope sananda sunt, non explicanda. Unus Justinus martyr eruditissimum Petavium in eas ambages conjecit : alios Petavio minus peritos conjicere potest. Ille enim in Apologia priori nedum Marcionis meminit, sed et ejus haeresim jam longe lateque propagatam esse supponit. At non adeo premit, imo penitus evanescit ea difficultas, si dicamus, quod de Valentino disserentes probare conati sumus, scriptam hanc Apologiam fuisse circiter annum reparatae salutis 145, Antonini vero Pii 8. Quinquennio tardius scriptam volunt ipse Petavius et cl. Tillemontius. Si jam, ut certum est, Romam venerit Marcion, mortuo Hygino, sedeque tum vacante, hoc est ex nostris rationibus, anno 142, brevique postea animum despondens Cerdonis haeresim amplexus fuerit; exinde usque ad annum 145, quo scribebat Justinus, satis superque spatii fuerit ut per omne hominum genus, daemonum fretus auxilio, plurimis auctor esse potuerit, ut blasphema dicerent, quemadmodum loquitur Justinus. Idque eo similius vero videtur, quo Romae non diu commoratus, Cerdonis doctrina

so that under Hadrian he first preached his nefarious dogma in Pontus and Asia only: and afterwards under Antoninus, drawing greater spirits, began to apply himself more vehemently to those same errors. For how he could have preached his nefarious dogma in Pontus and Asia under Hadrian, who, having set out from Pontus as a Catholic while Antoninus was reigning, lived for some time at Rome as a Catholic, as Tertullian and Epiphanius assert, I do not see: still less by what reasoning Tertullian could more than once call Marcion an Antonian heretic, and affirm so confidently that he emerged under the principate of Antoninus, if he had come forth long before under Hadrian. Next, almost all of the ancients who have made mention of Marcion affirm that he was both the disciple and the successor of Cerdo; which assuredly cannot stand with the hypothesis of Petavius; for from what has been said above it is certain that Cerdo did not raise his head out of his hiding-places before he had arrived at Rome while Hyginus was ruling the Church and Antoninus Pius the empire. Either, therefore, with no necessity compelling, the credit of all the ancients must be disparaged; or it must be said that Marcion did not defect from the Catholic faith before, cast down from the hope of communion, he was able both to see and to hear Cerdo at Rome. Nor ought the sole authority of Philastrius to detain anyone, who writes that Marcion, vanquished by John in Asia, was driven from Ephesus: he slipped up so monstrously that I would not think Petavius wished to add his vote to this opinion. I shall not dwell either upon Clement of Alexandria, whose words purport that Marcion preceded in age not only Basilides, but even Simon Magus. Learned men indeed sweat over explaining these words, but in vain: they must be healed by the aid of manuscript codices, not explained. Justin Martyr alone cast the most learned Petavius into these perplexities: others less skilled than Petavius he can cast into them. For in his first Apology he not only makes mention of Marcion, but also supposes that his heresy has already been propagated far and wide. Yet that difficulty does not press so hard, nay, it vanishes altogether, if we say, what we endeavoured to prove when discussing Valentinus, that this Apology was written around the year of restored salvation 145, and the 8th of Antoninus Pius. Petavius himself and the illustrious Tillemont wish it to have been written five years later. If now, as is certain, Marcion came to Rome after the death of Hyginus, and while the see was then vacant, that is, according to our calculations, in the year 142, and shortly afterwards, losing heart, embraced the heresy of Cerdo; from then until the year 145, in which Justin was writing, there would have been time enough and to spare for him to have been able, relying on the aid of demons, to be the instigator to very many throughout every race of men to speak blasphemies, as Justin says. And this seems all the closer to the truth in that, not having lingered long at Rome, and with Cerdo's doctrine

Editors' notes and page, col. 153

Footnotes

(23) ‹anchor: asserunt Tertullianus› · call in col 153

De praesc., c. 30, et l. i cont. Marc. c. 19.

On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 30, and Against Marcion, Book 1, chapter 19.

(printed under page 83)

(24) ‹anchor: Philastrii› · call in col 153

Haer. 45.

Heresy 45.

(printed under page 83)

(25) ‹anchor: Clementem Alexandrinum› · call in col 153

L. vii Strom., p. 764.

Stromateis, Book 7, page 764.

(printed under page 83)

Page

running head: 153 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A ita ut sub; B sorem exstitisse asseverant;; C verba Marcionem non; D ut certum est,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); ends mid-word do- (continued in col 154 as ctrina)

PG 7:154

jam plus satis imbutus, inde discessisse videtur eodem anno 142, vel sequenti, ut provincias peragraret. Nam scribit Hieronymus, Marcionem, cum iter Romam suscepturus esset, illuc praemisisse mulierem, quae decipiendos sibi animos praepararet; quod cum certe de prima ejusdem peregrinatione intelligi non possit, ad secundam aliquam referendum est, qua Romam reversus sit, ut ibi latius errorem disseminaret, quem in prima satis pro votis praedicare non potuerat. Et in secundum illum Marcionis in Urbem adventum, quo jam apertius ibidem prodire coepit ejus error, utcunque quadrare potest quod ait Tertullianus : A Tiberio usque ad Antoninum anni fere CXV, et dimidium anni cum dimidio mensis : tantumdem temporis ponunt inter Christum et Marcionem ,....... qui sub Antonino primum processit. Qui a Tiberio usque ad Antoninum annos tantum 115 numeraverit Septimius, haud facile divinabit quisquam, nisi forte Tiberii imperium pluribus annis decurtaverit. Si tamen ab anno decimo quinto imperii ejus, quo Christus palam docere coepit, numerare velimus; non multum decedet de summa 115, tuncque Marcionem Romam esse reversum, et bellum aperte cum Ecclesia Romana gerere coepisse, nihil repugnat.

already more than sufficiently imbued, he seems to have departed thence in the same year 142, or the following, in order to travel through the provinces. For Jerome writes that Marcion, when he was about to undertake a journey to Rome, sent ahead thither a woman to prepare minds to be deceived by him; and since this certainly cannot be understood of his first journey, it must be referred to some second one, whereby he returned to Rome in order to disseminate more widely there the error which on the first he had not been able to preach sufficiently according to his wishes. And with that second arrival of Marcion in the City, whereby his error began to come forth there now more openly, what Tertullian says can after a fashion square: From Tiberius unto Antoninus there are about 115 years, and half a year with half a month: just so much time do they place between Christ and Marcion, ....... who first came forth under Antoninus. How Septimius counted only 115 years from Tiberius unto Antoninus, anyone will not easily divine, unless perhaps he shortened the reign of Tiberius by several years. Yet if we should wish to count from the fifteenth year of his reign, in which Christ began to teach openly, not much will be lacking from the sum of 115, and nothing prevents Marcion from having returned to Rome at that time, and having begun to wage war openly with the Roman Church.

137. Ut ut sit, ex hactenus dictis perspicuum est falli auctorem Carminis contra Marcionem, dum asserit hunc sub Aniceto pontifice Romam primum venisse et innotuisse. Dudum certe jam innotuerat, qui, Irenaeo teste, sub eo pontifice invaluit, id est summum nequitiae verticem adeptus est. Idque liquido probat id quod idem Irenaeus refert, sanctissimum martyrem Polycarpum, Romae tum degentem : Marcioni occurrenti sibi, et dicenti : Cognoscis nos? respondisse : Cognosco te primogenitum Satanae; multosque Marcionitas convertisse in Ecclesiam Dei. Ex ipso autem Irenaeo certum est, Polycarpum in Urbem non advenisse nisi sub Aniceto. Fallitur proinde et Tertullianus scribens, Valentinum et Marcionem, neque adeo olim fuisse, Antonini fere principatu, et in catholicam primo doctrinam credidisse apud Ecclesiam Romanensem; donec sub episcopatu Eleutherii benedicti, ob inquietam semper eorum curiositatem, qua fratres quoque vitiabant, semel et iterum ejecti, Marcion quidem cum ducentis sestertiis suis quae Ecclesiae intulerat; novissime in perpetuum discidium relegati, venena doctrinarum suarum disseminaverunt. Postmodum Marcion poenitentiam confessus, cum conditioni sibi datae occurrit, ita pacem recepturus, si caeteros quoque quos perditioni erudisset, Ecclesiae restitueret, morte praeventus est. Haec apprime consentiunt cum iis quae de Cerdone refert Irenaeus, qui saepe in Ecclesiam veniens, et exhomologesin faciens,

137. However that may be, from what has been said thus far it is clear that the author of the Poem against Marcion is mistaken when he asserts that he first came to Rome and became known under the pontiff Anicetus. Long before, certainly, had he already become known, who, as Irenaeus witnesses, prevailed under that pontiff, that is, reached the highest peak of wickedness. And this is clearly proved by what the same Irenaeus relates, that the most holy martyr Polycarp, who was then staying at Rome, when Marcion met him and said, Do you recognize us?, replied, I recognize you as the firstborn of Satan; and converted many Marcionites to the Church of God. Now from Irenaeus himself it is certain that Polycarp did not arrive in the City except under Anicetus. Accordingly, Tertullian is also mistaken in writing that Valentinus and Marcion were not so long ago, about the principate of Antoninus, and at first believed in the Catholic doctrine in the Church of Rome; until under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, on account of their ever restless curiosity, whereby they were corrupting the brethren as well, having been cast out once and again—Marcion indeed along with his two hundred sestertia which he had brought into the Church—and finally banished into permanent separation, they disseminated the poisons of their doctrines. Afterwards Marcion, having confessed repentance, when he agreed to the condition given to him, that he should receive peace on these terms, if he restored to the Church the others also whom he had trained for perdition, was forestalled by death. These things agree exceedingly well with those which Irenaeus relates concerning Cerdo, who, often coming into the Church and making confession,

Editors' notes and page, col. 154

Footnotes

(26) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 154

Ep. 43, t. IV nov. edit.

Letter 43, volume IV of the new edition.

(printed under page 83)

(27) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 154

L. i cont. Marc., c. 19.

Against Marcion, Book 1, chapter 19.

(printed under page 83)

(28) ‹anchor: contra Marcionem› · call in col 154

L. iii, in fine, ad calcem Tertull.

Book 3, at the end, in the appendix to Tertullian.

(printed under page 83)

(29) ‹anchor: Irenaeo teste› · call in col 154

L. iii, c. 4, n. 3.

Book 3, chapter 4, number 3.

(printed under page 83)

(30) ‹anchor: Irenaeus refert› · call in col 154

C. 3, n. 4.

Chapter 3, number 4.

(printed under page 83)

(31) ‹anchor: Tertullianus scribens› · call in col 154

De praesc. c. 30.

On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 30.

(printed under page 83)

(32) ‹anchor: refert Irenaeus› · call in col 154

Lib. iii, c. 4, n. 3.

Book 3, chapter 4, number 3.

(printed under page 83)

Page

running head: T. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 154
marginal letters: A ctrina jam plus; B ponunt inter Christum; C primum venisse et; D ob inquietam semper
old-edition numerals: [LXIX] after errorem
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word ctrina from col 153; ends mid-word fa- (continued in col 155 as ciens)
other: the word faciens, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 155

PG 7:155

sic consummavit, modo quidem latenter docens, modo vero exhomologesin faciens, modo vero ab aliquibus traductus in his quae docebat male, et abstentus est a religiosorum hominum conventu; at in Valentinum et Marcionem nequaquam conveniunt. Quae jam ea de re ad Valentini haeresim diximus, hic repetere nihil juvat; sed Marcionem usque ad Eleutherii tempora vitam prorogasse non crediderim; id enim non siluisset Irenaeus qui tunc librum suum tertium scribebat. Cum igitur illum invaluisse sub Aniceto ibidem asserat, nec ipsius quasi tum viventis meminerit, significare videtur jam sub Aniceto vivendi finem fecisse. Deinde non obscure innuit Tertullianus, Marcionem tandiu in catholicam doctrinam credidisse apud Ecclesiam Romanensem, donec sub episcopatu Eleutherii benedicti novissime in perpetuum discidium relegatus, venena doctrinae suae disseminaverit; et tamen hunc saepe vocat haereticum Antoniniani temporis, cujus haeresis Antonino imperante prodierit; quae secum aperte pugnant : nam Antonini Pii mors annis saltem quatuordecim praevertit Eleutherii episcopatui. Et qui is catholicus usque ad Eleutherium vixisse potuit, qui jam post Hygini mortem a fide defecerat, invalescebat vero sub Aniceto? Denique tota haec Tertulliani narratio de iteratis lapsibus, repetitaque Marcionis poenitentia, conciliari nulla ratione potest cum iis quae alii omnes scripserunt, illum spe communionis dejectum statim in Cerdonis castra convolasse, ac deinceps mundum erroribus inficere non destitisse. Et absurda prorsus videtur ea oblatae Marcioni pacis conditio, si caeteros quoque quos perditioni erudisset, Ecclesiae restitueret. Neque enim Marcioni integrum adhuc erat, toto orbe jam erroribus imbuto, tantam hominum multitudinem ex omnibus mundi partibus colligere, et Ecclesiae restituere. Itaque Tertullianus memoria lapsus Marcionem pro Cerdone, discipulum pro magistro scripserit necesse est.

thus finished his course, now indeed teaching secretly, now again making confession, and now again convicted by some in the things which he was teaching wickedly, and kept away from the assembly of religious men; but they by no means fit Valentinus and Marcion. What we have already said on that matter at the heresy of Valentinus, it avails nothing to repeat here; but that Marcion prolonged his life right up to the times of Eleutherius I could not believe; for Irenaeus, who was then writing his third book, would not have passed that over in silence. Since therefore he asserts in that same place that he prevailed under Anicetus, and makes no mention of him as if then living, he seems to signify that he had already made an end of living under Anicetus. Next, Tertullian not obscurely intimates that Marcion believed in the Catholic doctrine in the Church of Rome until under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherius, having been finally banished into permanent separation, he disseminated the poisons of his doctrine; and yet he often calls him a heretic of the Antonian time, whose heresy came forth while Antoninus was reigning; which things openly contradict each other: for the death of Antoninus Pius preceded the episcopate of Eleutherius by at least fourteen years. And how could he have lived as a Catholic right up to Eleutherius, who had already defected from the faith after the death of Hyginus, and was prevailing under Anicetus? Finally, this whole narrative of Tertullian concerning the repeated lapses and repeated repentance of Marcion can in no way be reconciled with what all others have written, that when cast down from the hope of communion he immediately flew to the camp of Cerdo, and thereafter did not cease to infect the world with errors. And altogether absurd seems that condition of peace offered to Marcion, if he restored to the Church the others also whom he had trained for perdition. For it was no longer in Marcion's power, when the whole world had already been imbued with his errors, to gather together so great a multitude of men from all parts of the world, and restore them to the Church. Therefore Tertullian, slipping in memory, must necessarily have written Marcion instead of Cerdo, the disciple instead of the master.

138. Marcionem Stoicae philosophiae potissimum studuisse, et tum ab ea, tum etiam ab Epicurea errorum argumenta petiisse tradit Tertullianus. Clemens autem Alexandrinus censet Marcionem externorum alienorumque dogmatum occasiones ingrate et indocte accepisse a Platone. Sed praecipuus illius error, caput caeterorum, de duplici Deo, altero bono et Christi Patre, altero veteris legis auctore et malorum effectore, fluxit tum a doctrina Platonis qui mundi conditorem a supremo Deo distinguit, ut alibi ostendimus; duasque mundi animas comminiscitur lib. X De legib., beneficam scilicet, et eam quae potest efficere contraria; tum maxime a vetustiorum illorum philosophorum opinione, a nobis Plutarchi verbis explicata, duplicem Deum fingentium, alterum bonum et bonorum, alterum malum et malorum effectorem. Hunc quidem errorem

138. That Marcion studied the Stoic philosophy above all, and sought the arguments of his errors both from it and also from the Epicurean, Tertullian hands down. Clement of Alexandria, however, judges that Marcion ungratefully and unlearnedly took the occasions of his foreign and alien dogmas from Plato. But his chief error, the head of the others, concerning the twofold God, the one good and the Father of Christ, the other the author of the old law and the producer of evils, flowed both from the doctrine of Plato, who distinguishes the founder of the world from the supreme God, as we have shown elsewhere, and devises two souls of the world in Book 10 On the Laws, namely a beneficent one, and that which is able to produce the contrary things; and especially from the opinion of those older philosophers, explained by us in the words of Plutarch, who feign a twofold God, the one good and the producer of good things, the other evil and the producer of evil things. This error indeed

Editors' notes and page, col. 155

Footnotes

(33) ‹anchor: tradit Tertullianus› · call in col 155

De praesc., c. 7 et 30, et l. v cont. Marc., c. 19.

On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapters 7 and 30, and Against Marcion, Book 5, chapter 19.

(printed under page 84)

(34) ‹anchor: Alexandrinus censet› · call in col 155

L. iii Strom., p. 434.

Stromateis, Book 3, page 434.

(printed under page 84)

Page

running head: 155 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A ciens, sic consummavit,; B Romanensem, donec sub; C inficere non destitisse.; D grate et indocte
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word ciens from col 154

PG 7:156

a Cerdone traditum acceperat Marcion; ille vero, ut superius observavimus, ab aliis Gnosticis, a quibus verbis tantum, non rebus discrepabat. Et hinc Gregorius Nazianzenus, et post eum Elias Cretensis, Marcioni tribuit Simonis Magi, caeterorumque Gnosticorum deliria, Bythum videlicet, Sigen, uno verbo triginta Valentini Aeones. Nec immerito : Irenaeus siquidem eum recenset inter illos, qui Dei Logo tertiam prolationem a Patre donabant, unde et ignorat magnitudinem ejus; quique porro et longe Logon a Deo separabant, et ex cogitatione et sensu, id est Ennoea et Nu emitti dicebant : qui garriebant, summum Deum extra se habere subjacens aliquid, quod vacuum et umbram vocant, in quo fabricatum est hoc quod est Universum, infra spiritale Pleroma : secundum quos erat et aliud quid, quod quidem extra Pleroma esse dicunt, in quod et superiorem erraticam virtutem descendisse opinantur : qui denique nituntur docere super fabricatorem coeli et terrae esse aliquod Pleroma aut Deum. Quae omnia cum sint ipsissima Valentini commenta, manifeste demonstrant Marcionem, qui Valentino coaevus, paulo posterior tamen fuit, totam Valentiniani systematis fabulam ingeminasse. Quod etiam ex iis patet quae alii auctores Marcioni ascribunt. Sua erat, Tertulliano teste, summo seu bono Marcionis Deo conditio, et suus mundus, et suum coelum; mundus nostro superior et super Creatorem. Creatorem in loco fecit, utique eadem conditione censendo, et materiam ei subjecit. Clarius Valentini Pleroma, ejusdemque Demiurgus designari non poterat. Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Athanasium, et post eum Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus et Epiphanius asseverant, Marcionem tria principia constituisse; quorum unum sit supremum, quod neque nomine comprehendi, neque visu percipi possit, quem et bonum Deum appellat, a quo nihil sit eorum quae in mundo sunt, conditum; alterum vero Deum dicit esse aspectabilem ac creatorem; tertium denique diabolum inter ambos illos, aspectabilem scilicet, et eum qui aspici nequit, interjectum; ex iis, qui creator est et opifex, viderique potest, Judaeorum esse Deum, eumdemque judicem : bonum Deum (addit auctor Dialogi contra Marcionitas, Origeni falso ascripti) imperare Christianis; diabolum gentilibus. His addit Theodoretus materiam quae mala sit, et alii malo subsit, quaeque, Tertulliano teste, aeterna sit et infecta. Quamvis Justinus, Irenaeus, et Rhodon apud Eusebium, duorum tantum Marcionis deorum seu principiorum, tertii ne verbo quidem, meminerint; imo ab errore triplicis Divinitatis Augustinus Marcionem absolvat; Rhodon primum hujus auctorem fuisse Syneron Marcionis discipulum scribat; nihil repugnat Marcionem Valentini vestigiis insistentem, praeter summum Deum invisibilem,

Marcion had received as handed down by Cerdo; and he, as we observed above, from the other Gnostics, from whom he differed only in words, not in realities. And hence Gregory of Nazianzus, and after him Elias of Crete, attributes to Marcion the ravings of Simon Magus and the rest of the Gnostics, namely Bythus, Sige, in one word the thirty Aeons of Valentinus. Nor undeservedly: since Irenaeus reckons him among those who assigned to the Logos of God the third prolation from the Father, whence He is also ignorant of His greatness; and who further and far separated the Logos from God, and said that He is emitted from thought and sense, that is, Ennoea and Nus: who prattled that the supreme God has outside Himself something underlying, which they call the void and shadow, wherein was fashioned this which is the Universe, beneath the spiritual Pleroma: according to whom there was also something else, which indeed they say is outside the Pleroma, into which they also opine that the higher erring power descended: who finally strive to teach that above the fashioner of heaven and earth there is some Pleroma or God. Since all these things are the very fictions of Valentinus, they manifestly demonstrate that Marcion, who was contemporary with Valentinus, though slightly later, repeated the whole fable of the Valentinian system. Which is also clear from those things which other authors ascribe to Marcion. To the supreme or good God of Marcion belonged, as Tertullian witnesses, His own creation, and His own world, and His own heaven; a world higher than ours and above the Creator. He made the Creator in a place, doubtless by reckoning him in the same condition, and subjected matter to him. More clearly the Pleroma of Valentinus and his Demiurge could not be designated. Dionysius of Alexandria in Athanasius, and after him Cyril of Jerusalem and Epiphanius affirm that Marcion established three principles; of which the one is supreme, which can neither be comprehended by name nor perceived by sight, Whom he also calls the good God, by Whom nothing of the things that are in the world was founded; the second God, however, he says is visible and the creator; and finally the third, the devil, interposed between those two, namely the visible one and Him Who cannot be seen; of these, he who is creator and artificer, and can be seen, is the God of the Jews, and the same is judge: the good God (adds the author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, falsely ascribed to Origen) rules over the Christians; the devil over the Gentiles. To these Theodoret adds matter, which is evil, and is subject to another evil, and which, as Tertullian witnesses, is eternal and unmade. Although Justin, Irenaeus, and Rhodon in Eusebius make mention of only two gods or principles of Marcion, and not by a single word of a third; nay, Augustine absolves Marcion from the error of a triple Divinity, and Rhodon writes that the first author of this was Syneros, the disciple of Marcion; nothing prevents Marcion, treading in the footsteps of Valentinus, besides the supreme invisible God,

Editors' notes and page, col. 156

Footnotes

(35) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 156

Orat. 23 et 44. El. Cret. in orat. 23.

Orations 23 and 44. Elias of Crete on Oration 23.

(printed under page 84)

(36) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 156

Lib. ii, cap. 28, n. 5, 6.

Book 2, chapter 28, numbers 5, 6.

(printed under page 84)

(37) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 156

Id., c. 1, n. 3, 4.

The same, chapter 1, numbers 3, 4.

(printed under page 84)

(38) ‹anchor: Tertulliano teste› · call in col 156

L. i cont. Marc., c. 15.

Against Marcion, Book 1, chapter 15.

(printed under page 84)

(39) ‹anchor: apud Athanasium› · call in col 156

De decret. Nic.

On the Decrees of Nicaea.

(printed under page 84)

(40) ‹anchor: Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus› · call in col 156

Haer. xlii, § 3.

Heresy 42, § 3.

(printed under page 84)

(41) ‹anchor: et Epiphanius› · call in col 156

Catech. 16.

Catechesis 16.

(printed under page 84)

(42) ‹anchor: Augustinus› · call in col 156

Haer. 22.

Heresy 22.

(printed under page 84)

(43) ‹anchor: Rhodon› · call in col 156

Apud Euseb., l. v, c. 13.

In Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 13.

(printed under page 84)

Page

running head: ES PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 156
marginal letters: A a Cerdone traditum; B sum, infra spiritale; C sendo, et materiam; D tra Marcionitas, Origeni
old-edition numerals: [LXX] after constituisse;
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:157

et Demiurgum Universi conditorem, diabolum statuisse Cosmocratorem, id est inferioris mundi Principem; et materiam, erraticae virtutis, seu Sophiae, vel Enthymeseos emanationem aeternam dixisse : quanquam tamen non constet, an Valentinus materiam aeternam esse crediderit; imo longe probabilius videatur eum in tempore conditam illam affirmasse. Et ea ratione facile consentient, qui inter se pugnare videntur auctores. Nihil ergo Marcion a Valentino differebat : uterque docebat duos esse deos, nempe Bythum caput Pleromatis spiritalis, et Demiurgum extra Pleroma illud exsistentem. Hoc tantum Marcioni proprium erat, quod ipse primus Demiurgum, sive mundi conditorem, aperta petere blasphemia ausus fuerit, dicendo ipsum esse malum, malique auctorem. Cerdon quidem cum Deum legis et prophetarum bonum esse negavit, justum tamen confessus est; at Marcion, ut cum Irenaeo loquar, magistri doctrinam adampliavit, malorum factorem, et bellorum concupiscentem, et inconstantem quoque sententia, et contrarium sibi ipsum dicens. Valentiniani quidem nominibus honestius utebantur, ut observat idem Irenaeus; Deum enim malorum effectorem aperte profiteri religio erat. At certe ejusdem sceleris erat Deum ignorantem, atque Deum malum et malorum effectorem statuere : imo illud eo gravius, quo ignorantia ipsa refunditur in ipsum supremum Deum, Demiurgi causam saltem remotam, ut ad Valentini haeresim probavimus. Et Deum ignorantem, caeco impetu agentem, et animalem, id est omnibus animi perturbationibus, quas ciet appetitus sentiens, obnoxium inducere; quid aliud est, quam malorum omnium, quibus labefactatur orbis, culpam in ipsum conferre? Unde, etsi prima fronte impudentius blasphemare videatur Marcion, sua emollire verba haudquaquam satagens : non minus exsecranda Valentini blasphemia erat, licet nominibus honestius uti videretur. Quid sit autem utrique Deus ille, seu ignorans, seu malorum effector, jam non semel diximus, et paulo ante ad Cerdonis haeresim iteravimus; merus scilicet Angelus, quem Dei titulo ac nomine cohonestare placuit; sed qui revera a vero Deo immensum distaret, et eadem conditione cum caeteris rebus creatis censeretur, ut ait mox citatus Tertullianus.

and the Demiurge the founder of the Universe, from having posited the devil as Cosmocrator, that is, Prince of the lower world; and from having called matter the eternal emanation of the erring power, or Sophia, or Enthymesis: although nevertheless it is not established whether Valentinus believed matter to be eternal; nay, it seems far more probable that he affirmed it to have been founded in time. And by that reasoning the authors who seem to contradict one another will easily agree. In nothing, therefore, did Marcion differ from Valentinus: both taught that there are two gods, namely Bythus the head of the spiritual Pleroma, and the Demiurge existing outside that Pleroma. This only was peculiar to Marcion, that he himself first dared to assail the Demiurge, or founder of the world, with open blasphemy, by saying that he is evil, and the author of evil. Cerdo indeed, while he denied that the God of the law and the prophets is good, nevertheless confessed that he is just; whereas Marcion, to speak with Irenaeus, enlarged his master's doctrine, calling him the maker of evils, and desirous of wars, and also inconstant in opinion, and contrary to himself. The Valentinians indeed made more honourable use of names, as the same Irenaeus observes; for they had a scruple against openly professing God to be the producer of evils. Yet certainly it belonged to the same wickedness to posit an ignorant God, and an evil God and producer of evils: nay, the former is all the more grievous in that the ignorance itself is cast back upon the supreme God Himself, at least the remote cause of the Demiurge, as we proved at the heresy of Valentinus. And to introduce an ignorant God, acting by blind impulse, and animal, that is, subject to all the perturbations of mind which the sentient appetite stirs up—what else is it than to lay upon him the blame for all the evils whereby the world is shaken? Whence, although at first sight Marcion may seem to blaspheme more impudently, taking no pains at all to soften his words, the blasphemy of Valentinus was no less execrable, even though he seemed to make more honourable use of names. Now what that God is to both of them, whether ignorant or the producer of evils, we have already said more than once, and repeated a little before at the heresy of Cerdo: namely, a mere Angel, whom it pleased them to honour with the title and name of God, but who in reality was immeasurably distant from the true God, and was reckoned in the same condition with other created things, as Tertullian, just cited, says.

139. Porro Tertullianus auctor est, hanc Marcioni fuisse occasionem duplicis rerum Principii comminiscendi. Passus est, inquit, infelix hujus praesumptionis instinctum, de simplici capitulo Dominicae pronuntiationis, in homines, non in deos disponentis exempla illa bonae et malae arboris, quod neque bona malos, neque mala bonos proferat fructus; id est neque mens vel fides bona malas edat

139. Furthermore, Tertullian is the authority that this was Marcion's occasion for devising a twofold Principle of things. The wretched man suffered, says he, the impulse of this presumption from the simple passage of the Lord's pronouncement, applying to men, not to gods, those examples of the good and the evil tree, that neither does a good tree bring forth evil fruits, nor an evil tree good fruits (Luke 6:43); that is, neither does a good mind or faith put forth evil

Editors' notes and page, col. 157

Footnotes

(44) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 157

Lib. i, c. 27, n. 2.

Book 1, chapter 27, number 2.

(printed under page 85)

(45) ‹anchor: idem Irenaeus› · call in col 157

Lib. iii, c. 12, n. 13.

Book 3, chapter 12, number 13.

(printed under page 85)

(46) ‹anchor: Porro Tertullianus› · call in col 157

L. i cont. Marc., c. 2.

Against Marcion, Book 1, chapter 2.

(printed under page 85)

(47) ‹anchor: proferat fructus› · call in col 157

Luc. VI, 43, 44.

Luke 6:43–44.

(printed under page 85)

Page

running head: 157 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A et Demiurgum Universi; B ipsum esse malum,; C impetu agentem, et; D tur, ut ait
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:158

operas, neque mala bonas. Languens enim (quod et nunc multi, et maxime haeretici) circa mali quaestionem; Unde malum? et obtusis sensibus ipsa enormitate curiositatis inveniens Creatorem pronuntiantem : « Ego sum qui condo mala; » quanto ipsum praesumpserat mali auctorem, et ex aliis argumentis, quae ita persuadent perverso cuique; tanto in Creatorem interpretatus, malam arborem malos fructus condentem, scilicet mala, alium deum praesumpsit esse debere in partem bonae arboris bonos fructus (supple condentem). Et ita in Christo quasi aliam inveniens dispositionem solius et purae benignitatis, ut diversae a Creatore, facile novam et hospitam argumentatus est divinitatem in Christo suo revelatam : modicoque exinde fermento totam fidei massam haeretico acore decepit. Ex eo venenato fonte fluunt omnia pene errorum portenta quibus miser ille deludi se passus est. Totum Vetus Testamentum repudiabat, utpote quod originem ducere existimaret a malo Deo, quem ideo inconstantem sententia et contrarium sibi ipsi blasphemabat, quod plura esse veteris legis testimonia contenderet, quae secum aperte pugnarent; quae quidem studiose colligens librum Antitheseon, seu contradictionum edidit, in quo sententias sententiis opponebat. Quamvis autem bonum Deum Novi Testamenti auctorem esse crederet, non omnia tamen amplectebatur ejusdem Testamenti scripta, quae catholica recipit Ecclesia. Nam ex quatuor Evangeliis, repudiatis tribus, solum Lucae, imo ejus partem duntaxat probabat; suppresso tamen auctoris nomine, nullum enim huic inscribi voluit. Discipuli vero ejus sic ipsi Christo ascribebant, ut tamen pluribus auctum, ut historia passionis, a D. Paulo fuisse garrirent. Quin et tanta erat eorum audacia, ut id quotidie interpolare, pluribus additis, vel resectis, prout a Catholicis urgebantur, non vererentur. Abscissis quaecunque ex Veteri Testamento citantur testimoniis, iisque omnibus locis, in quibus Christus mundi conditorem Patrem suum esse confitetur; amputato toto initio, quod ibi Salvatoris in utero generatio, et ejusdem adventus cum corpore perspicue commemoretur; et nec ex initio modo, sed et e medio sublatis pluribus sententiis, aliisque pro illis substitutis, non jam Evangelium, sed adulterinam Evangelii speciem suis obtrudebat Marcion. Quousque processerit sacrilegum hominis facinus, sigillatim explicat Epiphanius Haer. XLII. Decem duntaxat Pauli Epistolas admittebat, easque non integras, sed alia ex illis capita detrahebat, alia commutabat; respuebat vero utramque Epistolam ad Timotheum, eam quae est ad Titum et ad Hebraeos, cum Apocalypsi, caeterisque canonicis Epistolis.

works, nor an evil one good works. For languishing (as many do even now, and especially heretics) over the question of evil, Whence is evil?, and with his senses blunted by the very excess of his curiosity, finding the Creator pronouncing, I am He that creates evils (Isa. 45:7); inasmuch as he had already presumed him to be the author of evil from other arguments as well, which so persuade every perverse man, so interpreting against the Creator the evil tree creating evil fruits, namely evils, he presumed that there must be another god for the part of the good tree (supply: creating) good fruits. And thus finding in Christ as it were another disposition of sole and pure benignity, as differing from the Creator, he easily argued that a new and stranger divinity had been revealed in his Christ: and thence with a little leaven he spoiled the whole lump of the faith with heretical sourness. From that poisoned spring flow almost all the monsters of errors by which that wretched man suffered himself to be deluded. He repudiated the whole Old Testament, inasmuch as he considered it to derive its origin from the evil God, whom he therefore blasphemously called inconstant in opinion and contrary to himself, because he contended that there were many testimonies of the old law which openly contradicted each other; and studiously collecting these indeed, he published a book of Antitheses, or Contradictions, in which he set sentences against sentences. Moreover, although he believed the good God to be the author of the New Testament, yet he did not embrace all the writings of that same Testament which the Catholic Church receives. For out of the four Gospels, having repudiated three, he approved only that of Luke, nay, only a part of it; with the author's name, however, suppressed, for he wished no name to be inscribed upon it. His disciples, however, so ascribed it to Christ Himself as nevertheless to prattle that it had been augmented with several things, such as the history of the passion, by Saint Paul. Nay, so great also was their audacity that they did not fear to interpolate it daily, adding or cutting away many things according as they were pressed by the Catholics. Having cut off whatever testimonies are cited from the Old Testament, and all those passages in which Christ confesses the founder of the world to be His Father; having amputated the whole beginning, because the generation of the Saviour in the womb and His coming with a body are clearly commemorated there; and having removed many sentences not only from the beginning, but also from the middle, and substituted others in their place, Marcion thrust upon his followers no longer a Gospel, but an adulterated semblance of a Gospel. How far the sacrilegious crime of the man proceeded, Epiphanius explains in detail in Heresy 42. He admitted only ten Epistles of Paul, and those not entire, but some chapters he withdrew from them, others he altered; while he rejected both Epistles to Timothy, that which is to Titus, and that to the Hebrews, along with the Apocalypse and the rest of the canonical Epistles.

140. Eadem erant Marcionis, quae caeterorum

140. The ravings of Marcion concerning Christ were the same as those of the rest

Editors' notes and page, col. 158

Footnotes

(48) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 158

Isai. XLV, 7.

Isaiah 45:7.

(printed under page 85)

(49) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 158

Iren., lib. i, cap. 27, n. 2.

Irenaeus, Book 1, chapter 27, number 2.

(printed under page 85)

(50) ‹anchor: contradictionum edidit› · call in col 158

Tertull., l. iv cont. Marc., c. 1.

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, chapter 1.

(printed under page 85)

(51) ‹anchor: duntaxat probabat› · call in col 158

Iren., loc. cit.; Tertull., c. 2. Auctor. Dial. cont. Marc.; Tertull., c. 5.

Irenaeus, in the place cited; Tertullian, chapter 2. The author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites; Tertullian, chapter 5.

(printed under page 85)

(52) ‹anchor: Epistolas admittebat› · call in col 158

Iren , loc. cit., Epiph., haer. xlii, § 9.

Irenaeus, in the place cited; Epiphanius, Heresy 42, § 9.

(printed under page 85)

Page

running head: RT. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 158
marginal letters: A operas, neque mala; B modicoque exinde fermento; C lum Lucae, imo; D stitutis, non jam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:159

Gnosticorum, de Christo deliria; missum scilicet a Patre fuisse ementita carnis specie indutum, ut mundi opificis opera et leges dissolveret, animabusque solis salutem impertiret; corporibus proinde aeterno interitui obnoxiis manentibus. Duos tamen, si Tertulliano credimus, Christos finxisse videtur, alium qui Tiberianis temporibus a Deo quodam ignoto revelatus sit, in salutem omnium gentium; alium, qui a Deo creatore in restitutionem Judaici status sit destinatus, quandoque venturus. Quae Cerinthi fabulas de terreno Christi regno sapere videntur, ansamque Gennadio dedisse Marcionitas inter Millenarios recensendi. Animas ab aliis in alia corpora migraturas ac transituras statuebat : quod ad eos quidem homines attinet, qui in ignoratione versantur. De quibus hanc fabulam commentus erat : Redire videlicet animam, ac se in unumquodque animantium induere, donec purgationem adepta sit, atque ita purgata, dissolutaque in coelestia loca commigret. Marcionitarum vero animas, seu eorum qui Marcionis doctrinam didicissent, adeo purgari et a corporea faece liberari, ut post mortem immediate aeterna salute fruantur. Quae omnia Platonica et Carpocratiana sunt. Et in id Marcionis dogma procul dubio digitum intendebat Origenes, cum scribebat animas omnes, ex Marcionis sententia, non esse unius et ejusdem generis, sed alias ab aliis natura differre. Ex quo etiam fluxit altera impostoris blasphemia, Cain, et eos qui similes sunt ei, et Sodomitas, et omnes omnino gentes, quae in omni permistione malignitatis ambulaverunt, salvatas esse a Domino, cum descendisset ad inferos, et occurrissent ei. Quandiu enim damnatorum animae cognitionis istius Marcioniticae exsortes fuerunt, poenas luere debuerunt; ex quo vero ea illustratae fuerunt, Christo viso in inferis, mundatae ab ipso fuerunt, et assumptae in regnum ejus. Iisdem principiis innixus addebat, Abelem, Enoch, Noe, et reliquos justos, Abrahamum cum omnibus prophetis, et his qui placuerunt Deo, non participasse salutem : quoniam suspicati se tentari a mundi conditore, ut solebat, Jesum audire ac verbis ejus credere renuerunt.

of the Gnostics; namely, that He had been sent by the Father clothed in a feigned appearance of flesh, in order that He might dissolve the works and laws of the artificer of the world, and impart salvation to souls alone, the bodies accordingly remaining subject to eternal destruction. Yet, if we believe Tertullian, he seems to have feigned two Christs: one Who in the times of Tiberius was revealed by a certain unknown God for the salvation of all nations; another Who has been destined by the creator God for the restoration of the Jewish state, and is one day to come. Which things seem to smack of the fables of Cerinthus concerning the earthly kingdom of Christ, and to have given Gennadius a handle for reckoning the Marcionites among the Millenarians. He posited that souls would migrate and pass from some bodies into others: as regards those men, at least, who dwell in ignorance. Concerning whom he had devised this fable: namely, that the soul returns and clothes itself in each of the living creatures until it has obtained purgation, and thus purged and set free departs into the heavenly places; whereas the souls of the Marcionites, or of those who had learned the doctrine of Marcion, are so purged and freed from bodily dregs that immediately after death they enjoy eternal salvation. All of which things belong to Plato and Carpocrates. And at that dogma of Marcion Origen without doubt was pointing his finger when he wrote that all souls, according to Marcion's opinion, are not of one and the same kind, but differ from one another by nature. From which also flowed another blasphemy of the impostor, that Cain, and those who are like unto him, and the Sodomites, and altogether all the nations that walked in every commingling of malignity, were saved by the Lord when He descended into hell and they ran to meet Him. For so long as the souls of the damned were devoid of that Marcionite knowledge, they had to suffer punishment; but from the time when they were enlightened by it, having seen Christ in hell, they were cleansed by Him and taken up into His kingdom. Relying on the same principles, he added that Abel, Enoch, Noah, and the rest of the righteous, and Abraham with all the prophets and those who pleased God, did not partake of salvation: because, suspecting that they were being tempted by the founder of the world, as he was wont to do, they refused to hear Jesus and to believe His words.

141. Odium quod in Creatorem conceperat Marcion, eo usque eruperat, ut nuptias damnaret, neminemque ad baptismi gratiam admittendum censeret, nisi virginem, vel conjuge orbum, aut continentem. Nam carnem, quae generatione nascitur, mali opificis opus esse contendebat. Hunc errorem, si Clementi Alexandrino fides, hauserat e Platonicorum Pythagoreorumque lacunis, qui malam esse generationem existimabant, quanquam non eadem ratione atque Marcionitae. Hi generationi

141. The hatred which Marcion had conceived against the Creator had broken out to such a point that he condemned marriage, and judged that no one was to be admitted to the grace of baptism unless a virgin, or bereaved of a spouse, or continent. For he contended that the flesh, which is born by generation, is the work of the evil artificer. This error, if credit is to be given to Clement of Alexandria, he had drawn from the pools of the Platonists and Pythagoreans, who considered generation to be evil, although not for the same reason as the Marcionites. These slandered generation

Editors' notes and page, col. 159

Footnotes

(53) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 159

Tertull., c. 5. Iren., loc. cit., Tertull., l. i, c. 6.

Tertullian, chapter 5. Irenaeus, in the place cited; Tertullian, Book 1, chapter 6.

(printed under page 86)

(54) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 159

Epiph., § 4; Theod., l. i, c. 24.

Epiphanius, § 4; Theodoret, Book 1, chapter 24.

(printed under page 86)

(55) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 159

Lib. iv, c. 6.

Book 4, chapter 6.

(printed under page 86)

(56) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 159

Iren., loc. cit.

Irenaeus, in the place cited.

(printed under page 86)

(57) ‹anchor: intendebat Origenes› · call in col 159

Hom. 2 in Ep. ad Rom.; Iren. n. 3.

Homily 2 on the Epistle to the Romans; Irenaeus, number 3.

(printed under page 86)

(58) ‹anchor: eo usque eruperat› · call in col 159

Iren, cap. 28.

Irenaeus, chapter 28.

(printed under page 86)

(59) ‹anchor: Alexandrino fides› · call in col 159

L. iii Strom., p. 431, 432.

Stromateis, Book 3, pages 431, 432.

(printed under page 86)

(60) ‹anchor: atque Marcionitae› · call in col 159

Tertull., in Marc., lib. i, c. 14; Epiph., § 3.

Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 1, chapter 14; Epiphanius, § 3.

(printed under page 86)

Page

running head: 159 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A Gnosticorum, de Christo; B mentus erat : Redire; C nino gentes, quae; D cion, eo usque
old-edition numerals: [LXXI] after manentibus.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); ends mid-word genera- (continued in col 160 as tioni)

PG 7:160

calumniabantur, quod malam esse naturam, ex mala materia, et a justo Opifice ac Creatore factam effutirent; qua quidem ratione nolentes implere mundum qui factus est a Creatore, abstinebant a nuptiis, resistentes suo Creatori. Philosophi autem, quorum mentionem fecimus, a quibus cum malam esse generationem impie didicissent Marcionitae, tanquam suo dogmate gloriantur, non eam volunt esse natura malam; sed quod ea, anima quae divina est, detrudatur in corpus, tanquam in locum supplicii. In ejusdem Creatoris odium mortem sibi interdum consciscebant Marcionitae, oblatam non detrectabant : et hinc sectam suam martyribus non paucis decorari gloriabantur. Sabbato jejunabant, quod ea die mundi fabricator requievisset. Animatis vesci prohibebant, ac reos esse judicio, ait Epiphanius, putabant illos qui carnes degustarent, tanquam animas comederent. Fidem tamen facit Tertullianus, piscibus usos fuisse, imo sanctiorem cibum deputasse. Addit Epiphanius, baptismum apud illos usque tertio repeti, baptizandique potestatem mulierculis concedi : mysteria catechumenis cernentibus celebrari; ad haec vero aquam adhiberi, solam quidem, ut videtur; qui Aquariorum error fuit.

because they babbled that nature is evil, made out of evil matter and by a just Artificer and Creator; for which reason indeed, being unwilling to fill the world which was made by the Creator, they abstained from marriage, resisting their Creator. The philosophers, however, of whom we have made mention, from whom when the Marcionites had impiously learned that generation is evil they glory as if in their own dogma, do not wish it to be evil by nature, but because through it the soul, which is divine, is thrust down into the body as into a place of punishment. Out of hatred for the same Creator the Marcionites sometimes inflicted death upon themselves, and did not refuse it when offered: and hence they gloried that their sect was adorned with not a few martyrs. They fasted on the Sabbath, because on that day the fashioner of the world had rested. They forbade eating living creatures, and, says Epiphanius, thought those who tasted flesh guilty of judgement, as if they were eating souls. Yet Tertullian gives assurance that they made use of fish, nay, reckoned it a holier food. Epiphanius adds that baptism among them is repeated up to a third time, and the power of baptizing is granted to silly women: that the mysteries are celebrated with the catechumens looking on; and that for these water is used, water alone indeed, as it seems; which was the error of the Aquarians.

XI. De Tatiano.

XI. Concerning Tatian.

142. Tatianus seipse natione Assyrium fuisse testatur. Syrum exstitisse scribunt Theodoretus et Epiphanius : quanquam hic alibi in Mesopotamia natum asserat. Quae tamen facile conciliari possunt; nam interdum Assyriae, Syriae et Mesopotamiae nomina promiscue usurpantur. Sic Gen. XXVIII, 5, qui Jacob profectus venit in Mesopotamiam Syriae, v. 7, ivisse in Syriam dicitur. Sic etiam Arrianus scribit, Euphrate et Tigri mediam Assyriam contineri : unde, inquit, et ab indigenis Mesopotamia vocatur. Graecorum artibus ac studiis non mediocriter excultus Romam venit; ubi cum in sacras Scripturas incidisset, iis quos prae se ferunt, divinitatis characteribus permotus, Christi fidem amplexus est. Justini Martyris primum auditor, quandiu cum eo vitam egit, illibatam fidem servavit; at illo pro fide caeso circa annum 167, cum jam solus scholae a Justino institutae praeesset, magisterio elatus, in exitium ruit. Prius tamen quam a catholica fide descisceret, post Justini mortem, suam adversus Graecos orationem, opus certe catholicum, edidisse certum est. Sed non multo post Roma profectus in Orientem, in absurdas Gnosticorum opiniones incidit, novamque sectam condidit circa annum XII M. Aurelii (non Antonini Pii, ut perperam apud Epiphanium legitur), Christi vero 172, quae Tatianorum, Encratitarum

142. Tatian himself testifies that he was an Assyrian by nation. Theodoret and Epiphanius write that he was a Syrian: although the latter elsewhere asserts that he was born in Mesopotamia. Yet these statements can easily be reconciled; for sometimes the names of Assyria, Syria, and Mesopotamia are used indiscriminately. Thus in Genesis (Gen. 28:5), Jacob, who having set out came into Mesopotamia of Syria, in verse 7 is said to have gone into Syria. Thus Arrian also writes that middle Assyria is bounded by the Euphrates and the Tigris: whence, says he, it is also called Mesopotamia by the natives. Cultivatedin no moderate degree in the arts and studies of the Greeks, he came to Rome; where, having fallen upon the sacred Scriptures, moved by those marks of divinity which they display, he embraced the faith of Christ. At first a hearer of Justin Martyr, so long as he spent his life with him he kept the faith unblemished; but when the latter was slain for the faith around the year 167, as he now presided alone over the school established by Justin, puffed up by his mastership, he rushed into ruin. Yet before he fell away from the Catholic faith, after the death of Justin, it is certain that he published his Oration against the Greeks, a work certainly Catholic. But not long afterwards, having set out from Rome into the East, he fell into the absurd opinions of the Gnostics, and founded a new sect around the 12th year of Marcus Aurelius (not of Antoninus Pius, as is wrongly read in Epiphanius), and of Christ 172, which was called that of the Tatianites, of the Encratites

Editors' notes and page, col. 160

Footnotes

(61) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 160

Clem. Al., l. iv Strom., p. 481; Euseb., l. v, c. 16; Epiph., § 3, 12; Tertull., l. i in Marc., c. 14; Epiph., § 3.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, Book 4, page 481; Eusebius, Book 5, chapter 16; Epiphanius, §§ 3, 12; Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 1, chapter 14; Epiphanius, § 3.

(printed under page 86)

(62) ‹anchor: Assyrium fuisse testatur› · call in col 160

Orat. cont. Gr. in fi.

Oration against the Greeks, at the end.

(printed under page 86)

(63) ‹anchor: et Epiphanius› · call in col 160

Theodoret., lib. i, c. 20; Epiph., haer. xlvi, 5, 1; Id., in Indice, lib. i.

Theodoret, Book 1, chapter 20; Epiphanius, Heresy 46, 5, 1; the same, in the Index, Book 1.

(printed under page 86)

(64) ‹anchor: Arrianus scribit› · call in col 160

Lib. vii Exped. Alexand.

Expedition of Alexander, Book 7.

(printed under page 86)

(65) ‹anchor: primum auditor› · call in col 160

Tatian., p. 165, 170, edit. 1636, ad calc. Just.; Iren., l. i, c. 28, n. 1; Epiph. § 1; Tatian., (continues)

Tatian, pages 165, 170, edition of 1636, in the appendix to Justin; Irenaeus, Book 1, chapter 28, number 1; Epiphanius, § 1; Tatian, (continues)

(printed under page 86)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 160
marginal letters: A tioni calumniabantur, quod; B prohibebant, ac reos; C et Epiphanius : quanquam; D annum 167, cum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word tioni from col 159; ends mid-word Encratita- (continued in col 161 as rum)
other: the word Encratitarum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 161

PG 7:161

seu Continentium, et Hydroparastarum seu Aquariorum dicta est.

or Continents, and of the Hydroparastatae or Aquarians.

143. Dogmata eadem fuere quae Saturnini, Valentini et Marcionis. Ubique recantata ridicula Aeonum fabula, duplicisque principii, ac ementitae Christi carnis commenta. Unum adjecit Tatianus, scilicet Adamum salutem consecutum non fuisse, sed ob lapsum aeterna damnatione punitum. Caeterum nuptias cum Marcione damnabat : animatis et vino abstinendum censebat, aquamque solam in mysteriis offerebat. Ut vero legi veteri invidiam conflaret, Problematum, seu Quaestionum librum edidit, ut obscurissimam esse ac imperviam probaret, ac proinde a malo Deo profectam. Plures alios scripsit, de quibus cum nihil speciale dicendum habeamus, consule eruditissimum Tillemontium, tom. II Comment. in Hist. Eccles., in Encratitis.

143. The dogmas were the same as those of Saturninus, Valentinus, and Marcion. Everywhere the ridiculous fable of the Aeons was chanted anew, and the fictions of the twofold principle and of the feigned flesh of Christ. One thing Tatian added, namely that Adam did not obtain salvation, but on account of his fall was punished with eternal damnation. For the rest, along with Marcion he condemned marriage: he judged that one must abstain from living creatures and wine, and offered water alone in the mysteries. Moreover, in order to stir up odium against the old law, he published a book of Problems, or Questions, so as to prove that it is most obscure and impenetrable, and accordingly proceeded from an evil God. He wrote several other books, concerning which, since we have nothing special to say, consult the most learned Tillemont, vol. II of his Memoirs on Ecclesiastical History, on the Encratites.

XII. De aliis quibusdam haereticis.

XII. Concerning certain other heretics.

144. Tatiano subjungit alios haereticos Irenaeus; quos a Basilide et Carpocrate occasiones accepisse dicit. Nomen suppressit, sed scire parum refert : nihil quippe a magistris differebant, nisi quod eorum spurcitias atque flagitia minus erubescerent, promiscuos videlicet et plus quam ferinos concubitus, polygamiam, indifferentem idolothytorum esum, et alia ejusmodi. His enim Deum minime tangi blasphemabant, utpote quem otio torpentem, inferiorumque rerum haudquaquam sollicitum fingerent.

144. To Tatian Irenaeus subjoins other heretics, whom he says took their occasions from Basilides and Carpocrates. Their name he suppressed, but it matters little to know it: since in nothing did they differ from their masters, except that they blushed less at their filthinesses and outrages, namely promiscuous and more than bestial copulations, polygamy, the indifferent eating of things sacrificed to idols, and other things of that kind. For they blasphemously claimed that God is not at all touched by these things, inasmuch as they feigned Him to be torpid with idleness and nowise solicitous about lower things.

XIII. De variis Gnosticorum sectis.

XIII. Concerning the various sects of the Gnostics.

145. Postquam de Simonianis, variisque Simonianorum classibus sigillatim disseruit Irenaeus, tum de diversis haereticis agit, quos nullo speciali, sed generali duntaxat Gnosticorum nomine designat. Omnes quidem tum Simonis, tum Valentini asseclae, Gnosticorum titulo se insolentius efferebant, scientiae excellentiam jactantes. Γνῶσις enim scientiam, et γνωστικός scientem vel scientia praeditum significat. Eo nomine eximiam et singularem, qua prae caeteris pollere sibi videbantur, rerum divinarum notitiam imperitis venditabant. Cum enim alii Christiani suae sortis probe conscii divina mysteria a saeculo abscondita, de Trinitate, de Christo, de creatione, etc., curiosius perscrutari sibi non licere, sed ea simplici et humili fide venerari sibi satis esse merito persuaderent : haeretici econtrario temeraria curiositate ultra evangelicae simplicitatis metas longius abrepti, illa ex Platonica philosophia eruere et demonstrare, et cum ea conciliare tentarunt. Quod quidem licet infelicissimo conatu, et cum ipsius fidei naufragio factum sit, miseris tamen variae gloriationis ansam praebuit : quasi sibi solis, si superis placet, Christianae religionis penetralia, intimaque viscera reserare datum esset. Et hinc eo insaniae prolapsi, ut

145. After Irenaeus has discussed in detail the Simonians and the various classes of the Simonians, he then deals with diverse heretics whom he designates by no special name, but only by the general name of Gnostics. All the followers indeed both of Simon and of Valentinus vaunted themselves rather insolently under the title of Gnostics, boasting of the excellence of their knowledge. For gnosis signifies knowledge, and gnostikos one who knows or is endowed with knowledge. Under that name they peddled to the unlearned an extraordinary and singular acquaintance with divine things, wherein they seemed to themselves to excel beyond the rest. For whereas other Christians, rightly conscious of their own lot, deservedly persuaded themselves that it was not lawful for them to scrutinize too curiously the divine mysteries hidden from eternity, concerning the Trinity, concerning Christ, concerning creation, etc., but that it was enough for them to venerate those things with simple and humble faith: the heretics, on the contrary, carried away by rash curiosity far beyond the bounds of evangelical simplicity, attempted to draw them out and demonstrate them from Platonic philosophy, and to reconcile them with it. And although this was done with a most unhappy effort and with the shipwreck of the faith itself, yet to the wretched men it furnished a handle for manifold boasting: as if to them alone, heaven save the mark, it had been given to unlock the inner shrines and inmost bowels of the Christian religion. And hence they slipped to such a pitch of madness that

Editors' notes and page, col. 161

Footnotes

(65) (continued) · call on the previous page (col 160)

p. 158; Epiph., § 1; Euseb., Chron.; Iren., loc cit.; Epiph., § 2; Clem. Alex., Strom., lib. iii, p. 365, et Excerpt. p. 806; Tertull., de praesc., c. 52; Hieron., in Gal. V; Theod., loc. cit.

page 158; Epiphanius, § 1; Eusebius, Chronicle; Irenaeus, in the place cited; Epiphanius, § 2; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, Book 3, page 365, and the Excerpts, page 806; Tertullian, On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 52; Jerome, on Galatians 5; Theodoret, in the place cited.

(66-67) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 161 Lib. i, c. 28, n. 2.

Book 1, chapter 28, number 2.

(printed under page 87)

(68) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 161

Lib. i, c. 23, n. 4; lib. iii, c. 4, n. 3; lib. i, c. 25, n. 5.

Book 1, chapter 23, number 4; Book 3, chapter 4, number 3; Book 1, chapter 25, number 5.

(printed under page 87)

(69) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 161

In Cat. et Ep. ad Ctesiph ; Epiph., haer. xxv, xxvii; Philast. et August., De haer.

In the Catalogue and the Letter to Ctesiphon; Epiphanius, Heresies 25, 27; Philastrius and Augustine, On Heresies.

(printed under page 87)

Page

running head: 161 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VAL
marginal letters: A rum seu Continentium,; B mus, consule eruditissimum; C [LXXII] 145. Postquam; D venerari sibi satis
old-edition numerals: [LXXII] before 145.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word rum from col 160

PG 7:162

nedum alios Christianos despicerent, sed etiam apostolos ipsos scientia superare se audacter affirmarent.

they not only despised other Christians, but even boldly affirmed that they surpassed the apostles themselves in knowledge.

146. Quis primus superbum Gnostici nomen sibi suaeve sectae indiderit, non constat. Si quidem de ipsius haereseos origine quaestio esset, facile dirimeretur; nam a Simonianis falsi nominis scientiam accepisse initia diserte tradit Irenaeus. Alibi tamen vocari Gnosticos a Menandro Simonis discipulo; et Carpocratianos, Gnosticos se vocare pronuntiat. Hieronymus vero Gnosticos derivat a Basilide : Epiphanius, Philastrius et Augustinus a Nicolaitis deducunt. Quae omnia vera sunt; nam isti omnes haeretici Gnosticorum nomen sibi vindicabant. Sed qui ex iis illud primum sibi tribuerint, non adeo certum. Id fecisse priores Simonis aut Menandri discipulos facile crediderim, ut invidiam, quam sibi fecerat probrosum magistrorum nomen, a se amolirentur : quam enim illud exhorrescerent Christiani omnes, non eos latebat. Quare deposita Simonianorum aut Menandrianorum, indita sibi speciosa Gnosticorum appellatione, sub ea larva et tutius latere et latius serpere se posse crediderunt. Quippe deinceps in resarcienda, amplianda aut propaganda Simonis haeresi operam posuerunt, quanquam suis peculiaribus nominibus noti essent, Gnostici tamen dici maluerunt. Certe Gnosticos notare videtur Paulus, ubi Timotheum hortatur devitare ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae. Sic saltem Apostolum intelligunt Clemens Alexandrinus, et Chrysostomus : quorum sententia eo probabilior, quo Irenaeus iis omnino verbis, τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως, Gnosticorum haeresim passim designat; imo et libris suis titulum inscripsit, Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως.

146. Who first bestowed the proud name of Gnostic upon himself or his sect is not established. If indeed the question were about the origin of the heresy itself, it would easily be settled; for Irenaeus expressly hands down that knowledge falsely so called took its beginnings from the Simonians. Elsewhere, however, he pronounces that the Gnostics are called after Menander the disciple of Simon; and that the Carpocratians call themselves Gnostics. Jerome, however, derives the Gnostics from Basilides: Epiphanius, Philastrius, and Augustine deduce them from the Nicolaitans. All of which statements are true; for all those heretics claimed the name of Gnostics for themselves. But which of them first attributed it to themselves is not so certain. That the earlier disciples of Simon or of Menander did so I could easily believe, in order to remove from themselves the odium which the infamous name of their masters had brought upon them: for how greatly all Christians abhorred it did not escape them. Wherefore, having laid aside the appellation of Simonians or Menandrians and put upon themselves the specious one of Gnostics, they believed that under that mask they could both hide more safely and creep more widely. Indeed, those who thereafter bestowed their labour on repairing, enlarging, or propagating the heresy of Simon, although they were known by their own peculiar names, nevertheless preferred to be called Gnostics. Certainly Paul seems to mark the Gnostics where he exhorts Timothy to avoid the antitheses tes pseudonymou gnoseos, the oppositions of knowledge falsely so called (1 Tim. 6:20). Thus at least Clement of Alexandria and Chrysostom understand the Apostle: whose opinion is all the more probable in that Irenaeus everywhere designates the heresy of the Gnostics by those very words, tes pseudonymou gnoseos; nay, he also inscribed upon his books the title, Elenchos kai anatrope tes pseudonymou gnoseos.

147. Gnosticorum itaque nomen, non peculiaris alicujus sectae aut haereseos, sed communis omnium, quotquot Simonis ac Menandri deliriis illudi sibi siverant, appellatio fuit. Quamobrem nec Theodoretus, nec Pseudo-Tertullianus Gnosticae haereseos tanquam specialis atque a caeteris distinctae meminerunt. Cur vero Irenaeus econtrario, Epiphanius, Augustinus et alii, certam quamdam ac specialem, atque a Simonianis, Menandrianis, Basilidianis, Valentinianis, etc., distinctam sectam constituant, in promptu haec ratio est. Duplicis generis Gnostici erant. Alii non modo ex peculiaribus sibi dogmatis, sed etiam ex famosis quibusdam sectae suae coryphaeis ac ducibus noti erant; alii vero licet erroribus sibi propriis insignes, vel obscuri nominis duces habebant, vel nullos certos et singulares agnoscebant. Priores non tantum communi Gnosticorum titulo noti, sed magistrorum, sectaeque conditorum

147. The name of Gnostics, therefore, was not the appellation of any particular sect or heresy, but the common appellation of all, as many as had allowed themselves to be deluded by the ravings of Simon and Menander. Wherefore neither Theodoret nor Pseudo-Tertullian made mention of the Gnostic heresy as special and distinct from the rest. Why, on the contrary, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Augustine, and others establish a certain and special sect distinct from the Simonians, Menandrians, Basilidians, Valentinians, etc., this reason is close at hand. The Gnostics were of two kinds. Some were known not only from dogmas peculiar to themselves, but also from certain famous coryphaei and leaders of their sect; others, however, though distinguished by errors proper to themselves, either had leaders of obscure name or acknowledged no certain and individual ones. The former, known not only by the common title of Gnostics, but also by that of their masters and the founders of their sectwere

Editors' notes and page, col. 162

Footnotes

(70) ‹anchor: videtur Paulus› · call in col 162

I Tim. VI, 20.

1 Timothy 6:20.

(printed under page 87)

Page

running head: T. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 162
marginal letters: A nedum alios Christianos; B certum. Id fecisse; C sitiones falsi nominis; D atque a Simonianis,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); ends mid-word con- (continued in col 163 as ditorum)

PG 7:163

singulari nomine notiores fuere, dictique Simoniani, Basilidiani, Valentiniani, etc., seu Gnostici Simoniani, Gnostici Valentiniani, etc., ut sic variae sub eodem generali nomine scholarum species, a se invicem distingui et discerni possent. Posterioribus autem, quod nulla peculiaris esset appellatio, quae ex auctoribus derivata tribui posset, indita communis Gnosticorum. Et ita Gnosticorum nomen vel commune est, quod omnibus Simonis discipulis convenit; vel speciale, quod certis quibusdam duntaxat Simonianorum classibus usus proprium fecit. Et ii sunt quorum ineptias, descriptis jam celebriorum Simonis asseclarum erroribus, sigillatim refert Irenaeus, lib. I, c. 29 et seqq., et post eum Epiphanius, haer. XXVI. Super hos autem, inquit ille, ex his qui praedicti sunt Simoniani, multitudo Gnosticorum, Barbelo exsurrexit, et velut a terra fungi manifestati sunt. Recte quidem. Cum enim, ut capite praecedenti monuit, multi ex iis qui Gnosticorum titulo superbiebant, imo omnes vellent doctores esse, et abscedere quidem ab haeresi in qua fuerant, aliud autem dogma ab alia sententia, et deinceps alteram ab altera componentes nove docere insisterent, semetipsos adinventores sententiae, quamcunque compegissent, enarrantes; innumerae propemodum, quas vix ac ne vix quidem nominare esset, propagines multarum haeresum factae fuerant. Omnes quidem Ennoeam venerabantur; sed quae aliis Helena, aliis Sige aut Charis; aliis, quos nova dicendi mala prurigo exedebat, Barbelo dicta fuit. Inde dicti a quibusdam Barbeliotae, a barbaro nomine quod ipsi confinxerant : ab aliis Borboriani, vel Coddiani. Borboriani quidem, hoc est coenosi, a sordidissima atque flagitiis omnibus lutulenta vivendi ratione : Coddiani vero a voce Codda, quae, ait Epiphanius, idem est Syriace quod paropsis, aut catinus : quod tanta esset eorum spurcitia, ut nemo communi cum illis uti cibo vellet, sed separatim contaminatis illis apponi soleret. Iidem in Aegypto Stratiotici seu Militares, aliis in locis Floriani, Phibionitae, et Zachaei vocati sunt. Quanquam tamen, si Epiphanium audiamus, Stratiotici et Phibionitae, quibus adjungit Levitas, tres tantum essent in una et eadem secta hominum classes, quarum prima esset incipientium, secunda proficientium, tertia denique consummatorum in omni nequitiae et abominandae foeditatis genere. Illos haereticos a Nicolaitis prognatos vult idem Epiphanius; a Valentinianis Theodoretus. Utrumque forte verum; nam ab his Aeonum deliria, ab illis plus quam porcinum vivendi morem mutuari potuerunt.

better known by their individual name, and were called Simonians, Basilidians, Valentinians, etc., or Simonian Gnostics, Valentinian Gnostics, etc., so that thus the various species of schools under the same general name could be distinguished and discerned from one another. Upon the latter, however, because there was no peculiar appellation derived from their authors which could be attributed to them, the common name of Gnostics was bestowed. And thus the name of Gnostics is either common, which suits all the disciples of Simon; or special, which usage made proper to certain classes only of the Simonians. And these are they whose follies, after the errors of the more famous followers of Simon have already been described, Irenaeus relates in detail, Book 1, Chapter 29 and following, and after him Epiphanius, Heresy 26. Moreover, above these, says he, out of those Simonians who have been spoken of before, a multitude of Gnostics, Barbelo, arose, and were manifested like mushrooms from the earth. Rightly indeed. For since, as he warned in the preceding chapter, many of those who prided themselves on the title of Gnostics, nay all, wished to be teachers, and indeed to depart from the heresy in which they had been, and composing one dogma from one opinion, and then another from another, insisted on teaching in a novel way, declaring themselves the inventors of whatever opinion they had patched together; almost innumerable offshoots of many heresies, which it would scarcely and not even scarcely be possible to name, had been made. All indeed venerated Ennoea; but she who by some was called Helen, by others Sige or Charis, by others, whom an evil itch for speaking novel things consumed, was called Barbelo. Thence they were called by some Barbeliotae, from the barbarous name which they themselves had fabricated: by others Borboriani, or Coddiani. Borboriani indeed, that is, miry, from their most sordid manner of living, muddy with all outrages: Coddiani, however, from the word Codda, which, says Epiphanius, is the same in Syriac as dish or bowl: because so great was their filthiness that no one wished to take food in common with them, but it used to be set before those contaminated men separately. The same were called in Egypt Stratiotici or Soldiers, and in other places Floriani, Phibionitae, and Zachaei. Although nevertheless, if we hear Epiphanius, the Stratiotici and Phibionitae, to whom he adjoins the Levites, were only three classes of men in one and the same sect, of which the first was of beginners, the second of proficients, and finally the third of the consummated in every kind of wickedness and abominable foulness. The same Epiphanius wishes those heretics to have sprung from the Nicolaitans; Theodoret, from the Valentinians. Both perhaps are true; for from the latter they were able to borrow the ravings of the Aeons, and from the former their more than swinish manner of living.

148. Dogmata speculativa eadem fere erant, quae Valentinianorum; sed Aeonum appellationes, series, atque conjugationes paulo diversae. Patrem innominabilem primo loco statuebant, eumque ab omni conjugatione solutum; quae et aliorum

148. Their speculative dogmas were almost the same as those of the Valentinians; but the appellations, series, and syzygies of the Aeons were slightly different. In the first place they posited an unnameable Father, and Him free from every syzygy; which was also the opinion of very many others.

Editors' notes and page, col. 163

Footnotes

(71) ‹anchor: Barbelo dicta fuit› · call in col 163

Epiph., § 3.

Epiphanius, § 3.

(printed under page 88)

(72) ‹anchor: a Valentinianis Theodoretus› · call in col 163

Epiph., § 1; Theod., l. i, c. 13.

Epiphanius, § 1; Theodoret, Book 1, chapter 13.

(printed under page 88)

(73) ‹anchor: quae Valentinianorum› · call in col 163

Iren., lib. c. 29.

Irenaeus, Book [1, as printed the book number is missing], chapter 29.

(printed under page 88)

Page

running head: 163 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A ditorum singulari nomine; B hos autem, inquit; C bat, Barbelo dicta; D hominum classes, quarum
old-edition numerals: [LXXIII] before 148.
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word ditorum from col 162; ends mid-word alio- (continued in col 164 as rum)
other: the word aliorum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 164

PG 7:164

plurimorum sententia fuit. Huic vero subjiciebant Aeonem quemdam nunquam senescentem in virginali spiritu, quem Barbelon, Ennoeam, omnium Matrem, et magnum Aeona κατ' ἐξοχὴν nominabant. Isti Logon copulabant. Hanc conjugationem excipiebant tres aliae, Aphtharsiae, id est incorruptelae, et Christi; Zoes et Thelematis, hoc est vitae et voluntatis; Prognoseos et Nu, hoc est providentiae et mentis. Christum autem lumen esse dicebant, quod Pater unxerat sua benignitate, ut perfectum fieret : male scilicet alludentes tum ad nominis etymologiam, quod Graece unctum significat, tum ad ea Evangelii loca in quibus Christus seipsum appellat lucem mundi, tum ad illa Patris Filium compellantis verba : Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui. Haec prima istorum ogdoas, quam fusius explicare nihil juvat, facile intelligitur ex iis quae de Valentiniana diximus. Ab Ennoia et Logo Autogenem seu Monogenem, id est, per se genitum, seu unigenitum derivabant. Autogenem et Monogenem appellabant, quia eum singulari praerogativa genitum asserebant; utpote magni luminis, Ennoiae scilicet, effigiem et imaginem, summis proinde honoribus, omniumque rerum praefectura decoratum. Hujus conjux Alethia sive veritas. A lumine, quod est Christus, et incorruptela, quatuor emissa luminaria, hoc est quatuor angelos fingebant, qui Autogenem quasi satellites stiparent, quorum nomina erant Harmogenes, seu Soter vel Servator, Raguel, David et Eleleth; quibus itidem quatuor conjuges assignabant, Charin, Thelesin, Synesin et Phronesin, hoc est Gratiam, Voluntatem, Intelligentiam et Prudentiam. Autogenes autem produxit alterum Aeonum par, videlicet Hominem perfectum et verum, quem Adamantem, ob invictam virtutem, appellabant, et Gnosin seu agnitionem perfectam; unde illi datum ut supremum Patrem cognosceret. Sic manifestatum summum Patrem, Matrem, et Filium dicebant nugatores isti. Ex Anthropo autem et Gnosi natum lignum dicebant, quod et ipsum Gnosim appellabant, alludentes ad lignum scientiae boni et mali, de quo Genes. II, 9. Deinde ex primo Angelo Autogenis satellite, genitum Spiritum sanctum, quem et Sophiam et Prunicum appellabant; qui quidem cum videret caeteros Aeones conjugibus suis copulatos, se autem conjuge destitutum, anxie quaesivit cui conjungi posset; temerarioque impetu, inconsulto Patre, latus primum versus superiores partes, tum versus inferiores, nullamque quae sibi conveniret, inveniens; taedio affectus, ab incepto revocatus, destitit. Sed ex taedio ejus natum opus, in quo erat ignorantia et audacia. Hoc autem opus, Proarchontem, mundi hujus principem, conditorem et fabricatorem appellabant; qui virtutem magnam a matre furatus, ad inferiora digressus, condiderit firmamentum coeli, in quo inhabitaret, Potestates, Angelos, coelos et

To Him, however, they subjected a certain never-ageing Aeon in a virginal spirit, whom they named Barbelo, Ennoea, Mother of all, and the great Aeon par excellence. To her they joined Logos. This syzygy three others followed: that of Aphtharsia, that is, incorruption, and Christ; that of Zoe and Thelema, that is, life and will; that of Prognosis and Nus, that is, providence and mind. Moreover, they said that Christ is the light which the Father had anointed with His benignity, that it might become perfect: badly alluding namely both to the etymology of the name, which in Greek signifies anointed, and to those passages of the Gospel in which Christ calls Himself the light of the world, and to those words of the Father addressing the Son: This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Matt. 17:5). This first ogdoad of theirs, which it avails nothing to explain more at length, is easily understood from what we have said concerning the Valentinian one. From Ennoia and Logos they derived Autogenes or Monogenes, that is, self-begotten or only-begotten. They called him Autogenes and Monogenes because they asserted that he was begotten by a singular prerogative, inasmuch as he was the effigy and image of the great light, namely Ennoia, and accordingly adorned with the highest honours and the prefecture over all things. His consort was Alethia or truth. From the light which is Christ, and incorruption, they feigned that four luminaries were emitted, that is, four angels, to attend Autogenes like bodyguards, whose names were Harmogenes, or Soter or Saviour, Raguel, David, and Eleleth; to whom likewise they assigned four consorts, Charis, Thelesis, Synesis, and Phronesis, that is, Grace, Will, Intelligence, and Prudence. Moreover, Autogenes produced another pair of Aeons, namely the perfect and true Man, whom on account of his unconquered virtue they called Adamas, and Gnosis or perfect knowledge; whence it was given to him to know the supreme Father. Thus the supreme Father, Mother, and Son were manifested, said these triflers. From Anthropos and Gnosis, moreover, they said a tree was born, which itself also they called Gnosis, alluding to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, concerning which Genesis 2:9 speaks. Next, from the first Angel, the attendant of Autogenes, was begotten the Holy Spirit, whom they also called Sophia and Prunicus; who indeed, when it saw the other Aeons joined to their consorts, and itself destitute of a consort, anxiously sought one to whom it might be joined; and by a rash impulse, without consulting the Father, borne first towards the higher parts, then towards the lower, and finding none that suited it, affected with weariness and recalled from its undertaking, desisted. But from its weariness was born a work, in which were ignorance and audacity. And this work they called Proarchon, the prince, founder, and fashioner of this world; who, having stolen a great power from his mother and gone down to the lower parts, founded the firmament of heaven in which he might dwell, Powers, Angels, heavens, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 164

Footnotes

(74) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 164

Matth. XVII, 5.

Matthew 17:5.

(printed under page 88)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 164
marginal letters: A rum plurimorum sententia; B lectus, in quo; C guel, David et; D appellabant; qui quidem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word rum from col 163

PG 7:165

terrena omnia; omniumque malorum, rixarum, contentionum, etc., auctor fuerit. His contristata mater Sophia ab eo secessit, sedemque sibi supra firmamentum seu septimum coelum delegit : ut sic inferioris ogdoadis caput evaderet. In his totam Valentinianorum fabulam, paululum duntaxat immutatis nominibus, recoctam quisque videt. Caetera de Christo Jesu, resurrectione, bonis operibus, etc., dogmata, eadem erant quae Valentinianorum. Gnosticos saepe in suis epistolis perstringunt Joannes apostolus, Judas, Jacobus, Ignatius et Polycarpus, maxime quod Incarnationis mysterii veritatem negarent.

all earthly things; and was the author of all evils, quarrels, contentions, etc. Saddened by these things, his mother Sophia withdrew from him, and chose for herself a seat above the firmament or seventh heaven, so that thus she turned out to be the head of the lower ogdoad. In these things everyone sees the whole fable of the Valentinians cooked up anew, with the names only slightly changed. The rest of their dogmas concerning Christ Jesus, the resurrection, good works, etc., were the same as those of the Valentinians. John the Apostle, Jude, James, Ignatius, and Polycarp often censure the Gnostics in their epistles, especially because they denied the truth of the mystery of the Incarnation.

149. E Gnosticis quidam Veteri pariter et Novo Testamento utebantur, sed mutilis. Quae enim sibi favere putabant, haec amplectebantur, eaque a Spiritu veritatis pronuntiata dictitabant; quae vero sibi adversa, rejiciebant, et a mundi hujus Principe profecta pronuntiabant. Pauli Epistolas ad Timotheum repudiabant, quod in iis nominatim damnarentur. Sed alii omnes Gnostici legem et prophetas spernebant : imo nec multos dicere pudebat, Servatorem nostrum primum spurcitiarum suarum atque impietatum auctorem fuisse. Quamplurimi penes illos apocryphi, anilibusque fabulis, obscenitatibus et blasphemiis referti libri erant, quorum catalogum reperies apud Epiphanium, haer. XXVI. De perditissimis eorum moribus nihil dicam : porcos et canes putares, non homines; adeo abhorrent ab humana natura quae de iis refert mox laudatus Epiphanius. Haec vix fidem obtinere possent, nisi aliunde constaret necessaria principiorum ab iis statutorum consectaria esse; ipseque Epiphanius ea tum ex libris eorum, tum ex proprio ore duarum mulierum hujus sectae κορυφαίων, quae juvenem adhuc tentaverant retibus suis illaqueare, didicisse se contestaretur. Castiganda proinde recentiorum quorumdam audacia et temeritas, qui ut Gnosticos, futilibus ducti conjecturis, ab immanibus, quibus accusantur, sceleribus vindicent, Epiphanii, antiquorumque omnium fidem elevare non verentur, quasi haec ab hominibus male religiosis, in odium ipsius sectae conficta essent. Quasi potior habenda fides esset vanis neotericorum illorum obscuri nominis ratiunculis, quam Epiphanii, testis non tantum auriti, sed etiam oculati, aliorumque veterum Gnosticis coaevorum testimoniis, qui haereticos ipsos viderunt, audierunt, eorumque libros evolverunt. At, inquiunt, nemo apologistarum, dum Ecclesiam Christianam a calumniis Oedipodeorum concubituum, et Thyestearum epularum, quibus eam aspergebant gentiles, purgat, tanta scelera meminit a pseudo-Christianis perpetrata : quod tamen e re eorum fuisset non omittere, maxime cum ementitorum illorum flagitia calumniis, quibus veri Christi fideles onerabantur immeriti, ansam praebuissent. Imo Justinus Martyr in Apologia sua priori, et Ecclesiae Lugdunensis et

149. Of the Gnostics, some made use of the Old and New Testaments alike, but mutilated. For what things they thought favoured themselves, these they embraced, and repeatedly asserted that they had been pronounced by the Spirit of truth; whereas what things were adverse to themselves, they rejected, and pronounced to have proceeded from the Prince of this world. They repudiated the Epistles of Paul to Timothy, because in them they were condemned by name. But all the other Gnostics spurned the law and the prophets: nay, neither were many ashamed to say that our Saviour had been the first author of their filthinesses and impieties. There were very many apocryphal books in their possession, crammed with old wives' fables, obscenities, and blasphemies, the catalogue of which you will find in Epiphanius, Heresy 26. Concerning their most abandoned morals I shall say nothing: you would think them swine and dogs, not men; so abhorrent from human nature are the things which Epiphanius, just praised, relates concerning them. These things could scarcely obtain credit, were it not established from elsewhere that they are the necessary consequences of the principles posited by them, and did not Epiphanius himself call to witness that he had learned them both from their books and from the very mouth of two women, leaders of this sect, who while he was still a youth had tried to ensnare him in their nets. Accordingly, the audacity and rashness of certain moderns must be chastised, who, led by futile conjectures, in order to vindicate the Gnostics from the monstrous crimes of which they are accused, do not fear to disparage the credit of Epiphanius and of all the ancients, as if these things had been fabricated by ill-religious men out of hatred for the sect itself. As if greater credit were to be given to the vain petty reasonings of those moderns of obscure name than to the testimonies of Epiphanius, not only an ear-witness, but also an eye-witness, and of the other ancients contemporary with the Gnostics, who saw and heard the heretics themselves, and unrolled their books. But, say they, none of the apologists, while purging the Christian Church from the calumnies of Oedipodean copulations and Thyestean banquets wherewith the Gentiles bespattered her, mentions that such great crimes were perpetrated by pseudo-Christians: which nevertheless it would have been to their interest not to omit, especially since the outrages of those counterfeits had furnished a handle to the calumnies wherewith the true faithful of Christ were undeservedly burdened. Nay, Justin Martyr in his first Apology, and those of the Church of Lyons and

Editors' notes and page, col. 165

Footnotes

(75) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 165

Epiph., § 6.

Epiphanius, § 6.

(printed under page 89)

(76) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 165

Clem. Alex., Strom., lib. ii, p. 383; Epiph., § 8.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, Book 2, page 383; Epiphanius, § 8.

(printed under page 89)

(77) ‹anchor: ipseque Epiphanius› · call in col 165

Epiph., § 17.

Epiphanius, § 17.

(printed under page 89)

Page

running head: 165 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VALE
marginal letters: A terrena omnia; omniumque; B Spiritu veritatis pronuntiata; C datus Epiphanius. Haec; D non tantum auriti,
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:166

Viennensis in epistola sua, apud Eusebium lib. V, cap. 2, disertis verbis asserunt, aut nescire se, aut non credere flagitia haec ab haereticis, aut a quoquam mortalium usquam esse patrata. Sed facilis responsio. Ipsae istae calumniae quae Christianis struebantur, ostendunt gentiles aliquid saltem de turpissima Gnosticorum vita inaudisse; quod calumniarum occasio fuit. Cum enim eos a caeteris Christianis non distinguerent, omnibus indiscriminatim tribuerunt, quod larvatorum duntaxat scelus fuit. Hinc de Carpocratianis agens Irenaeus, conqueritur ipsos ad detractionem divini Ecclesiae nominis a Satana praemissos : uti secundum alium et alium modum, quae sunt illorum audientes homines, et putantes omnes nos tales esse, avertant aures suas a praeconio veritatis; aut et videntes quae sunt illorum, omnes nos blasphement. Et Eusebius lib. IV Hist., cap. 7, similiter scribit, miserorum illorum flagitia gentilibus ansam praebuisse sacrosancto Dei verbo petulanter impieque obtrectandi : eo plane consilio, ut fama de scelesta ipsorum vitae ratione passim dissipata, turpem ignominiae notam universae Christianorum multitudini inureret. Unde certe accidit, inquit, ut nefaria quaedam opinio de nobis excitata, eaque ab omni ratione alienissima, per infidelium animos longe lateque pervaderet : quod videlicet tum nefando concubitu matres et sorores violare, tum etiam scelerato quodam alimenti genere uti non vereremur. Unde vero tam immania scelerum portenta in Christianorum omnium caput intorquendi ansam captare potuissent ethnici, nisi saltem eorum aliquid vel ex verorum Christi fidelium querelis, vel ex ementitorum confessione, vel ex fama percepissent? Tam insolens criminatio fidem nunquam apud infensissimos Christianorum hostes obtinuisset, nisi huic aliquam veri speciem obduxisset flagitiosa quorumdam vita. Nec quemquam movere debet laudatorum Apologistarum silentium, aut Justini, et Ecclesiarum Lugdunensis et Viennensis ignoratio. Id eos latere potuit, quod occulte, et clam, non certe palam et publice perpetrabatur; nec mirum si credere refugerint, quod immane quantum abhorret ab humana natura, vixque porcinae congruit. Deinde id agebant apologistae, ut Christianos, quorum causam tuebantur, purgarent a criminibus quibus perperam infamabantur; quod et praestiterunt in Apologiis suis. Nihil autem attinebat hac occasione Gnosticorum obscenitates, aeterno silentio sepeliendas, commemorare : cum veris Christianis nihil cum larvatis istis, nisi solum nomen, commune esset, ut Justinus observat; illique his, ut citatus Irenaeus ait, in nullo communicarent, neque in doctrina, neque in moribus, neque in quotidiana conversatione. Satis erat si eorum, quorum vindicias susceperant, innocentia demonstraretur; alios accusare non decebat, et in capitis periculum adducere.

Vienne in their epistle, in Eusebius Book 5, Chapter 2, assert in express words that they either do not know or do not believe that these outrages were ever committed by heretics, or by any mortal anywhere. But the reply is easy. Those very calumnies which were contrived against the Christians show that the Gentiles had heard something at least concerning the most filthy life of the Gnostics; which was the occasion of the calumnies. For since they did not distinguish them from the rest of the Christians, they attributed to all indiscriminately what was the crime of the masked men alone. Hence Irenaeus, dealing with the Carpocratians, complains that they were sent ahead by Satan for the detraction of the divine name of the Church: so that in one way and another, men hearing the things that are theirs, and thinking that we all are such, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth; or even seeing the things that are theirs, may blaspheme us all. And Eusebius, Book 4 of his History, Chapter 7, similarly writes that the outrages of those wretched men furnished the Gentiles with a handle for petulantly and impiously disparaging the sacrosanct word of God: plainly with this design, that the rumour concerning their wicked manner of life, scattered far and wide, might brand a foul mark of ignominy upon the entire multitude of Christians. Whence it certainly happened, says he, that a certain nefarious opinion stirred up concerning us, and that most alien from all reason, pervaded the minds of unbelievers far and wide: namely, that we did not fear both to violate mothers and sisters in nefarious copulation, and also to make use of a certain wicked kind of food. Now whence could the heathens have seized a handle for hurling such monstrous portents of crimes upon the head of all Christians, unless they had perceived at least something of them either from the complaints of the true faithful of Christ, or from the confession of the counterfeits, or from rumour? So extravagant an accusation would never have obtained credit among the most hostile enemies of the Christians, unless the outrageous life of certain men had drawn over it some semblance of truth. Nor ought the silence of the praised Apologists, or the ignorance of Justin and of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, to move anyone. That could have escaped them which was perpetrated secretly and by stealth, certainly not openly and publicly; nor is it any wonder if they shrank from believing what is monstrously abhorrent from human nature, and scarcely suits that of swine. Next, the apologists were aiming at this, to purge the Christians, whose cause they were defending, from the crimes wherewith they were falsely defamed; which they also accomplished in their Apologies. Now it was not at all relevant on this occasion to recount the obscenities of the Gnostics, which ought to be buried in eternal silence: since true Christians had nothing in common with those masked men except the name alone, as Justin observes; and the former, as the cited Irenaeus says, communicated with the latter in nothing, neither in doctrine, nor in morals, nor in daily way of life. It was enough if the innocence of those whose defence they had undertaken was demonstrated; to accuse others, and bring them into danger of their lives, was not fitting.

Editors' notes and page, col. 166

Footnotes

(78) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 166

Lib. i, c. 25, n. 3.

Book 1, chapter 25, number 3.

(printed under page 89)

Page

running head: T. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 166
marginal letters: A Viennensis in epistola; B aures suas a; C immania scelerum portenta; D apologistae, ut Christianos,
old-edition numerals: [LXXIV] after secundum
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued)

PG 7:167

XIV. De Ophitis et Sethianis.

XIV. Concerning the Ophites and Sethians.

150. Aliud Gnosticorum genus memorat Irenaeus, quos alii, ut Theodoretus, Ophitas et Sethianos promiscue vocant : quamvis alii, ut Epiphanius, inter utrosque distinguant, diversasque ex eis haereticorum sectas constituant; sed praeter Irenaei mentem, qui alios ab aliis haudquaquam distinguit, unique et eidem sectae, eadem quae alii partiuntur, dogmata attribuit. Ophitae seu Anguinei dicebantur, ab angue seu serpente, quem numinis instar venerabantur, quod hominibus scientiae omnis auctorem exstitisse crederent; Sethiani vero, quod Seth Adami filium virtutem quamdam divinam fuisse arbitrarentur. Eorum haeresis ex male compacta placitorum Nicolaitarum et Valentinianorum farragine condita est : et eapropter a Pseudo-Tertulliano cum illa Nicolaitarum confunditur; ab Irenaeo vero, Epiphanio et Theodoreto a Valentiniana schola derivatur, quod Valentinianum quidpiam admistum habeat. Natam proinde post Valentinum necesse est. Primo loco statuebant quoddam primum lumen in virtute Bythi, beatum et incorruptibile, et interminatum, quod Patrem omnium et primum hominem vocabant. Progressam ab hoc Ennoeam, filium emittentis, filium hominis et secundum hominem dicebant. Infra utrumque positum volebant Spiritum sanctum, quem primam feminam et matrem viventium vocabant; qui quidem super segregata elementa, aquam, tenebras, abyssum, chaos ferretur. Ex conjunctione primi et secundi hominis Spiritus sanctus, radiis supremi luminis impraegnatus, novum lumen incorruptibile profudit, tertium masculum, Christum, filium primi et secundi hominis, et Spiritus sancti, primae feminae. Verum cum universa luminis Spiritui sancto infusi plenitudo capi ab eo non posset, magna ejus copia superebulliens secundum sinistras partes deorsum decidit; Christo interim secundum dextras sursum cum matre sua conscendente, et in incorruptibilem Aeonem recepto. Haec prima Aeonum tetras, adunatio videlicet Patris omnium primi hominis, Filii secundi hominis, Spiritus sancti primae feminae, et Christi filii eorum, vera et sancta Ecclesia ab insanis illis, Scripturam pro more depravantibus, appellabatur.

150. Irenaeus mentions another kind of Gnostics, whom some, such as Theodoret, call Ophites and Sethians indiscriminately: although others, such as Epiphanius, distinguish between the two, and establish out of them different sects of heretics; yet contrary to the mind of Irenaeus, who nowise distinguishes the one from the other, and attributes to one and the same sect the same dogmas which others divide between them. They were called Ophites or Snake-men, from the snake or serpent, which they venerated like a deity because they believed that it had been to men the author of all knowledge; and Sethians, because they supposed that Seth the son of Adam had been a certain divine power. Their heresy was put together out of an ill-compacted hotchpotch of the tenets of the Nicolaitans and the Valentinians: and on that account by Pseudo-Tertullian it is confounded with that of the Nicolaitans; whereas by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret it is derived from the Valentinian school, because it has something Valentinian admixed. Accordingly, it must necessarily have been born after Valentinus. In the first place they posited a certain first light in the power of Bythus, blessed and incorruptible and boundless, which they called the Father of all and the first man. Ennoea having proceeded from Him, the son of Him Who emits, they called the son of man and the second man. Placed beneath both they wished the Holy Spirit to be, whom they called the first woman and the mother of the living; who indeed was borne above the separated elements, water, darkness, the abyss, chaos. From the conjunction of the first and the second man, the Holy Spirit, impregnated by the rays of the supreme light, poured forth a new incorruptible light, a third male, Christ, the son of the first and the second man, and of the Holy Spirit, the first woman. But since the whole fulness of the light infused into the Holy Spirit could not be contained by her, a great abundance of it boiling over fell downwards along the left-hand parts; while Christ meanwhile along the right-hand parts ascended upwards with His mother, and was received into the incorruptible Aeon. This first tetrad of Aeons, namely the union of the Father of all the first man, of the Son the second man, of the Holy Spirit the first woman, and of Christ their son, was called the true and holy Church by those madmen, depraving Scripture according to their custom.

151. Virtus vero illa exsuperans quae in inferiora delapsa est, quamque Sinistram, Prunicum, Sophiam et masculo-feminam appellant, cum in aquas hactenus immobiles descendisset, movere coepit eas ab imo ad summum, assumpsitque ex eis corpus. Cum autem ad hujus lumen accurrissent omnia, eique adhaesissent, tanta mole gravata, et tantum non absorpta, frustra nitebatur aquarum complexus excutere, et ad matris sinum remeare. Interim superni luminis reliquias abscondere pro viribus conabatur; miseram enim angebat timor ne ab elementis laederetur. At novi luminis accessu roborata,

151. Now that overflowing Power which slipped down into the lower parts, and which they call the Left-hand one, Prunicus, Sophia, and male-female, when she had descended into the waters hitherto motionless, began to move them from the bottom to the top, and took a body out of them. Moreover, when all things had run to her light and clung to her, weighed down by so great a mass and all but swallowed up, she strove in vain to shake off the embraces of the waters and return to her mother's bosom. Meanwhile she endeavoured with all her might to hide the remnants of the supernal light; for fear tormented the wretched one lest she should be harmed by the elements. But strengthened by the accession of new light,

Editors' notes and page, col. 167

Footnotes

(78*) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 167 Lib. i, c. 30; Theodoret., lib. i, c. 14; Epiph., haer. xxxvii.

Book 1, chapter 30; Theodoret, Book 1, chapter 14; Epiphanius, Heresy 37.

(printed under page 90)

(79) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 167

Tertull., De praes., c. 47.

Tertullian, On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 47.

(printed under page 90)

(80) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 167

Iren., n. 1; Epiph., § 3; Theod., loc. cit.

Irenaeus, number 1; Epiphanius, § 3; Theodoret, in the place cited.

(printed under page 90)

Page

running head: 167 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A 150. Aliud Gnosticorum; B norum farragine condita; C cundi hominis Spiritus; D more depravantibus, appellabatur.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); ends mid-word ro- (continued in col 168 as borata)
other: the word roborata, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 168

PG 7:168

emersit tandem, sursumque se extulit : ubi dilatato ac expanso corpore suo, produxit coelum hoc quod apparet, sub quo remansit; servans adhuc aquatilis corporis formam. Sed superni luminis desiderio semper stimulata, viribus omnibus contendens, superstitibus corporis reliquiis demum expedivit sese. Corpus autem quod exuit, feminam a femina nominant. Habuit et filium nomine Jaldabaoth, quem in ignorantia peperit, cui tamen infudit aspirationem quamdam incorruptelae; qua vegetatus, inconsulta matre, Angelos, Archangelos et Virtutes, insuper et filium ex aquis produxit; a quo genitus et alter filius, ab hoc tertius, et sic consequenter usque ad septimum, unoquoque coelum sibi proprium condente ac regente; ut sic fieret hebdomas, octavum Matre tenente locum.

she emerged at last and raised herself upwards: where, having dilated and expanded her body, she produced this heaven which appears, beneath which she remained, still keeping the form of a watery body. But ever goaded by desire for the supernal light, striving with all her strength, she finally freed herself from the remaining relics of the body. And the body which she put off they name woman from woman. She also had a son by name Jaldabaoth, whom she bore in ignorance, yet into whom she infused a certain breath of incorruption; quickened whereby, without consulting his mother, he produced out of the waters Angels, Archangels, and Powers, and moreover a son; by whom another son also was begotten, by him a third, and so on in sequence up to the seventh, each one founding and ruling a heaven proper to himself; so that thus a hebdomad was made, the Mother holding the eighth place.

152. Haec fabulae prima pars, in qua Platonismus non obscure se prodit. Ibi primum apparet materia prima sub nominibus elementorum, aquae, tenebrarum, abyssi, chaos, quibus designari solet a Platonicis, ut alibi diximus; eaque aeterna, ut videtur, Deoque ipsi coaeva; quae si non Platonis ipsius, saltem discipulorum ejus non paucorum opinio fuit. Duo itaque principia coaeterna statuunt haeretici; alterum activum, Deum scilicet, sive lumen primum et incorruptibile; alterum passivum, hoc est materiam informem. Ab illo lumine seu Patre progressa Ennoia, mens est Patris rerum omnium ideas efformans, et in se continens, aeternaque rerum exemplaria, ad quorum normam omnia conduntur. Spiritus sanctus, est spiritus Universi, seu anima mundi. Primam feminam et matrem viventium vocant haeretici, quia prima generationem omnium ac motuum causa est. Hujus spiritus pars sursum effertur, pars ad ima descendit, aquasque movet; quia materiae subtilioris, quae spiritus Universi est, partes aliae aliis subtiliores; aliae aliis, pro variis subtilitatis gradibus, superiores. Quae pars in aquas descendit, ea est quae materiae primae motum impressit, ac in ea ceu fermentum abdita, peneque primum ejus mole obruta, paulatim demum vires exseruit, fractisque, quibus detinebatur, repagulis, sese extricans, ei varias formas, figuras ac motus indidit. Sic vulgata tria Platonicae philosophiae principia, Deum, mentem et animam mundi, primamque rerum genesim sub mysticis Patris, Filii et Spiritus sancti nominibus, non sine sacrilego religionis abusu, tradebant male feriati homines. Caetera de Aeonibus deliria non moror; facile intelliguntur ex iis quae de Valentinianis diximus.

152. This is the first part of the fable, wherein Platonism not obscurely betrays itself. There first appears prime matter under the names of the elements, water, darkness, the abyss, chaos, whereby it is wont to be designated by the Platonists, as we have said elsewhere; and that eternal, as it seems, and coaeval with God Himself; which was the opinion, if not of Plato himself, at least of not a few of his disciples. Two coeternal principles, therefore, the heretics posit: the one active, namely God, or the first and incorruptible light; the other passive, that is, formless matter. Ennoia, having proceeded from that light or Father, is the mind of the Father fashioning and containing in itself the ideas of all things and the eternal models of things, according to the rule of which all things are founded. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Universe, or the soul of the world. The heretics call her the first woman and the mother of the living, because she is the first cause of all generations and movements. Of this spirit a part is borne upwards, a part descends to the depths and moves the waters; because of the subtler matter, which is the spirit of the Universe, some parts are subtler than others, and some higher than others according to the various degrees of subtlety. The part which descended into the waters is that which impressed movement upon prime matter, and hidden in it like leaven, and at first almost overwhelmed by its mass, at length gradually put forth its strength, and breaking the barriers by which it was detained and extricating itself, imparted to it various forms, figures, and movements. Thus the three common principles of Platonic philosophy—God, mind, and the soul of the world—and the first genesis of things, under the mystic names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not without a sacrilegious abuse of religion, did these idly busy men hand down. Upon the rest of their ravings concerning the Aeons I do not dwell; they are easily understood from what we have said concerning the Valentinians.

153. Longiora sunt quae de hominis origine, ejus casu, malique ortu (qui scopulus fuit ad quem allisi sunt omnes fere priorum saeculorum haeretici) texunt commenta. Summa huc redit : Jaldabaoth, spreta matre, principatum ambibat; reluctabantur ab eo geniti liberi : unde stomachi plenus

153. Longer are the fictions which they weave concerning the origin of man, his fall, and the rise of evil (which was the rock upon which almost all the heretics of the earlier centuries were dashed). The sum of it comes back to this: Jaldabaoth, spurning his mother, was aspiring to supremacy; the children begotten by him were resisting: whence, full of anger,

Editors' notes and page, col. 168

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 168
marginal letters: A borata, emersit tandem,; B fieret hebdomas, octavum; C naque rerum exemplaria,; D Platonicae philosophiae principia,
old-edition numerals: [LXXV] after Ennoia,
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word borata from col 167; ends mid-word ple- (continued in col 169 as nus)
other: the word plenus was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 169

PG 7:169

ad materiae faecem demisit oculos, et Virtutem quamdam, serpentis specie, quem ejus Filium et Nun vocant; dehinc et spiritum, et animam, et omnia quae in mundo sunt, genuit : indeque nata omnis oblivio, malitia, zelus, invidia et mors. Hinc insulsae gloriationis ansam captans, Patrem se vocavit et Deum, et supremum rerum omnium principium. Ut vero insaniam ejus castigaret Mater, ipsi sexque reliquis Virtutibus, ut hominem conderent, mentem injecit; ut sic ablata a Jaldabaoth vi illa, quam eidem impertierat, in hominem transfunderet. Formatus igitur ab illis homo, longitudine et latitudine immensus, et humi repens, id est informis. Huic Jaldabaoth afflat spiritum vitae, et cum eo lumen, seu, ut vocabant, humectationem luminis, Nun videlicet et Enthymesin, quam a Matre acceperat; sed dum sibi demit, quod alteri tribuit, tantum proprias vires labefactat; quod callidae Matris intentum erat. Homo autem Nu et Enthymesi, hoc est mente, et coelestium desiderio locupletatus, quae sola, secundum Gnosticos, salutem percipiunt, statim primo homini, seu supremo Patri, relictis fabricatoribus, gratias egit. At Jaldabaoth aegre ferens ea quae supra se erant, ad alicujus notitiam pervenisse, feminam condidit, vocatam Evam, cujus formam mirati caeteri genuerunt ex ea Angelos. Sed ab ea coelestis Mater virtutem a Jaldabaoth inspiratam clam abstulit : nec his contenta, tantum artibus effecit, ut serpens ei primum, tum per eam Adamo rebellionis auctor fieret, vetitum fructum manducare suadens; per quem uterque supremae Virtutis, divinorumque mysteriorum scientiam adeptus, a mundi opificibus abscessit. Iratus Jaldabaoth, rebelles divina substantia vacuos, et maledictos, e coelo et paradiso in hunc mundum dejecit : ubi corpora illorum levia, pellucida et spiritualia, in tardius, obscurius et crassius mutata sunt, debilitata etiam et languore fracta anima. Simili ratione serpens Nus, seductionis instrumentum, in hunc mundum detrusus, angelos illius sibi subjecit, sexque filios, daemones mundanos, genuit, ad imitationem supernae hebdomadis : hominibus semper infestos, quoniam paterno lapsui et infortunio occasionem praebuerant. Ubi vero Prunicus hominum calamitate Jaldabaothi arrogantiam jam satis pro votis ulta est, ad miserationem versa, amissi luminis sensum quemdam eis concessit, per quem pristini status memores, praesentisque conscii, animum receperunt, intellexeruntque mortalis corporis mole se tandem aliquando liberandos : unde cibis jam refecti, generationi operam dederunt, ex qua natus primum Cain, tum deinde Abel, quos serpens cum filiis suis statim evertit, et in omnem nequitiam praecipites egit. Nec mirum : iis clam adversabatur Mater, ad id unum attenta, ut quod sibi proprium

he cast his eyes down to the dregs of matter, and begot a certain Power in the form of a serpent, whom they call his Son and Nus; and thereafter spirit, and soul, and all things that are in the world: and thence were born all oblivion, malice, jealousy, envy, and death. Seizing hence a handle for foolish boasting, he called himself Father and God, and the supreme principle of all things. Moreover, in order to chastise his madness, the Mother put it into the mind of him and the six remaining Powers to found man, so that thus, having taken away from Jaldabaoth that force which she had imparted to him, she might pour it over into man. Man therefore was formed by them, immense in length and breadth, and crawling on the ground, that is, formless. Into him Jaldabaoth breathes the breath of life, and with it the light, or, as they called it, the moisture of light, namely Nus and Enthymesis, which he had received from his Mother; but while he takes from himself what he bestows upon another, he by so much weakens his own strength; which was the intent of the crafty Mother. Now man, enriched with Nus and Enthymesis, that is, with mind and desire for heavenly things, which alone according to the Gnostics receive salvation, immediately gave thanks to the first man, or supreme Father, forsaking the fashioners. But Jaldabaoth, taking it ill that the things which were above him had come to anyone's knowledge, founded a woman, called Eve, whose form the rest admiring begot Angels out of her. Yet from her the heavenly Mother secretly took away the power breathed into her by Jaldabaoth: nor content with this, she accomplished so much by her arts that the serpent became the instigator of rebellion first to her, then through her to Adam, persuading them to eat the forbidden fruit; through which both, having obtained knowledge of the supreme Power and of the divine mysteries, departed from the artificers of the world. Angry Jaldabaoth cast the rebels, empty of the divine substance and accursed, down from heaven and paradise into this world: where their light, pellucid, and spiritual bodies were changed into what was slower, darker, and grosser, their soul also being weakened and broken with languor. In like manner the serpent Nus, the instrument of seduction, thrust down into this world, subjected its angels to himself, and begot six sons, mundane demons, in imitation of the supernal hebdomad: ever hostile to men, because they had furnished the occasion for their father's fall and misfortune. When, however, Prunicus through the calamity of men had now sufficiently avenged the arrogance of Jaldabaoth according to her wishes, turning to pity, she granted them a certain sense of the lost light, through which, mindful of their former state and conscious of their present one, they recovered courage, and understood that they would at length one day be freed from the mass of the mortal body: whence, refreshed now with food, they gave their attention to generation, from which was born first Cain, and then afterwards Abel, whom the serpent with his sons immediately subverted and drove headlong into every wickedness. Nor is it any wonder: the Mother secretly opposed them, attentive to this one thing, that what was proper to herself,

Editors' notes and page, col. 169

Page

running head: 169 DISSERTATIO I, ART. III, DE VALE
marginal letters: A nus ad materiae; B mectationem luminis, Nun; C effecit, ut serpens; D lapsui et infortunio
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word nus from col 168

PG 7:170

erat, supernum videlicet lumen, salvum fieret. Hinc irato hominibus Jaldabaoth, quod se non colerent, diluvioque humanum genus perdere volente; luminis quod infuderat sollicita, Noe servavit in arca, a quo nata nova hominum progenies mundum supplevit. Ex iis Abrahamum sibi delegit Jaldabaoth, cum quo foedus iniit; per Moysen Israelitas eduxit ex Aegypto, legemque sanxit; ac tum ipse, tum filii ejus e Judaeorum gente suos sibi quisque prophetas asciverunt, per quos vaticinia sua funderent.

namely the supernal light, might be saved. Hence when Jaldabaoth was angry with men because they did not worship him, and wished to destroy the human race by a flood, she, solicitous for the light which she had infused, preserved Noah in the ark, from whom a new progeny of men being born replenished the world. Out of them Jaldabaoth chose Abraham for himself, with whom he entered into a covenant; through Moses he led the Israelites out of Egypt, and enacted the law; and both he himself and his sons chose each his own prophets out of the nation of the Jews, through whom they might pour forth their prophecies.

154. In his omnibus dogmata Platonica ad Christianae religionis genium, et communem Gnosticorum hypothesim, non sine insigni Scripturarum corruptione, utcunque accommodata deprehendere est. Ibi superna animarum origo, ceu scintillarum ab igne divino emicantium, sive portionum quarumdam a divina substantia deciduarum, cum Platone fingitur. Eae propter inditi luminis abusum, corporum carceri squalido et tenebricoso includuntur, liberandae suo tempore, et pristina luce recreandae : quod Platonicum commentum est de animabus, ob amissas, quibus sursum ferebantur, contemplationis pennas, in corpora praecipites; ubi refricata paulatim supernorum memoria pristinam felicitatem gradatim recuperant. Ibi etiam mundi fabricatio angelis, non ipsi Deo summo ascribitur; quod itidem Platonicum est. Illis quidem fabulis multiplicem ornatum suppeditat religio Christiana; sed fundamentum praebet Platonica philosophia, ut sigillatim ostendere proclive foret, nisi attendentibus, et quae jam multoties diximus recolentibus res facile pateret. Caetera quae de rebellione Jaldabaoth, de duplici anima, altera quae spiritus vitae sit, seu animalis, insufflata per Jaldabaoth; altera quae spiritalis sit, seu humectatio luminis, quae clam eo, ejus tamen interpositu, per Matrem afflatur, quam solam cum emiserit Mater, solam servat in hominibus, solam salute donandam, corpore proinde aeternum perituro; de lege Mosaica sancita per Jaldabaoth, etc., garriunt haeretici Gnostica sunt et Valentiniana.

154. In all these things one may detect Platonic dogmas accommodated after a fashion to the genius of the Christian religion and the common hypothesis of the Gnostics, not without a signal corruption of the Scriptures. There the supernal origin of souls, as of sparks flashing forth from the divine fire, or of certain portions falling down from the divine substance, is feigned with Plato. On account of the abuse of the implanted light they are shut up in the squalid and dark prison of bodies, to be freed in their own time and restored by their former light: which is the Platonic fiction concerning souls headlong into bodies on account of the loss of the wings of contemplation whereby they were borne upwards, where, as the memory of supernal things is gradually rubbed awake again, they step by step recover their former felicity. There also the fashioning of the world is ascribed to angels, not to the supreme God Himself; which likewise is Platonic. To those fables indeed the Christian religion supplies a manifold embellishment; but Platonic philosophy furnishes the foundation, as it would be easy to show in detail, were the matter not easily clear to those who pay attention and recall what we have already said many times. The rest of the things which the heretics prattle concerning the rebellion of Jaldabaoth; concerning the twofold soul, the one which is the breath of life, or animal, breathed in by Jaldabaoth, the other which is spiritual, or the moisture of light, which without his knowledge, yet through his intervention, is breathed in by the Mother, and which alone, since the Mother emitted it, she preserves in men as the only one to be endowed with salvation, the body accordingly being destined to perish eternally; concerning the Mosaic law enacted by Jaldabaoth, etc., are Gnostic and Valentinian.

155. Ejusdem generis sunt quae de Jesu Christi ortu, morte, ac beneficiis per eum praestitis comminiscebantur; nisi quod Jesum e Virgine natum esse faterentur, et Christum non solum, sed simul cum Sophia sorore sua in eum descendisse vellent. Jesu quidem corpus a mortuis excitatum dicebant; non illud terrenum quod caro et sanguis est (haec enim, inquiebant, regnum Dei possidere non possunt : unde quidquid mundanum acceperat, mundo dimisit); sed illud corpus quod animale et spiritale vocabant, partem videlicet corporis subtiliorem et aeream; seu potius ipsam animam tum animalem, tum spiritualem, quam utramque corpoream esse finxerint, quarum

155. Of the same kind are the things which they devised concerning the birth of Jesus Christ, His death, and the benefits bestowed through Him; except that they confessed that Jesus was born of the Virgin, and wished Christ to have descended into Him not alone, but together with Sophia His sister. The body of Jesus indeed they said was raised from the dead; not that earthly one which is flesh and blood (for these, said they, cannot possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50): whence whatever mundane thing He had received, He left behind to the world); but that body which they called animal and spiritual, namely the subtler and aerial part of the body; or rather the soul itself, both animal and spiritual, both of which they feigned to be corporeal, of which

Editors' notes and page, col. 170

Footnotes

(81) ‹anchor: comminiscebantur› · call in col 170

Iren., n. 11, 12, 13.

Irenaeus, numbers 11, 12, 13.

(printed under page 91)

Page

running head: T. III, DE VALENTINI MAGISTRIS. 170
marginal letters: A erat, supernum videlicet; B hendere est. Ibi; C tum suppeditat religio; D ortu, morte, ac
old-edition numerals: [LXXVI] before dicebant;
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); ends mid-word qua- (continued in col 171 as rum)
other: the word quarum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 171

PG 7:171

tamen altera purior et subtilior dicta fuerit spiritalis, comparatione alterius crassioris. Quidquid sit, ludicrum est illud resurrectionis genus, quod hic admittebant, et ab eo quod catholica fides docet, procul diversum. Addebant, per Jesu resurrectionem spoliatum fuisse Jaldabaoth dominio quod sibi vindicarat in animas sanctas; jamque deinceps penes ipsum non fore, ut spiritales rursus demittat in saeculum purgandas, sed eas tantum quas insufflaverat, id est animales. Quae Platonicam metempsychoseos fabulam olent.

nevertheless the one, being purer and subtler, was called spiritual in comparison with the other grosser one. Whatever it be, laughable is that kind of resurrection which they admitted here, and far different from that which the Catholic faith teaches. They added that through the resurrection of Jesus Jaldabaoth had been despoiled of the dominion which he had claimed for himself over holy souls; and that henceforth it would no longer be in his power to send spiritual souls back down into the world to be purged, but only those which he had breathed in, that is, the animal ones. Which things smack of the Platonic fable of metempsychosis.

156. Ex Ophitis quidam, Irenaeo teste, ipsam Sophiam serpentem factam esse dicebant, ut Adae conditorem debellaret, hominibusque scientiam importaret; et eapropter dictum serpentem omnium animantium sapientissimum. Sed sive Sophiam, sive Nun serpentem induisse vellent Ophitae, huic summos honores deferebant, ob eam quam ab illo accepisse se scientiam existimabant. Testatum faciunt Epiphanius, Theodoretus, et Augustinus, impuros illos homines verum serpentem in cista vel spelunca nutrivisse, quem mysteriorum tempore evocabant. Is aperto foramine e latebris erumpens, mensam conscendebat, et circum panes implicabatur. Id Eucharistiam, et absolutissimum esse sacrificium censebant. Panes vero, quibus circumvolutus fuerat serpens, non modo frangebant, et distribuebant; sed etiam quilibet admoto ore serpentem ipsum exosculabatur : sive cantionibus quibusdam ad mansuetudinem bestia molliretur, sive alio daemonis artificio innocua redderetur. Ac demum supremum Parentem per illum, ut aiebant, celebrantes, mysteria sua perficiebant.

156. Of the Ophites, some, as Irenaeus witnesses, said that Sophia herself became a serpent in order to vanquish the founder of Adam and bring knowledge to men; and that on that account the serpent was called the wisest of all living creatures. But whether the Ophites wished Sophia or Nus to have put on the serpent, upon it they conferred the highest honours, on account of that knowledge which they considered themselves to have received from it. Epiphanius, Theodoret, and Augustine bear witness that those impure men nourished a real serpent in a chest or cave, which they called forth at the time of the mysteries. When the opening was uncovered, bursting forth out of its hiding-place, it climbed upon the table and coiled itself around the loaves. This they judged to be the Eucharist and the most complete sacrifice. And the loaves around which the serpent had coiled itself they not only broke and distributed, but each one also, putting his mouth to it, kissed the serpent itself: whether the beast was softened to gentleness by certain incantations, or rendered harmless by some other artifice of the demon. And finally, celebrating the supreme Parent through it, as they said, they completed their mysteries.

XV. De Caianis seu Cainistis.

XV. Concerning the Caiani or Cainites.

157. A Caianis seu Cainistis Gnosticorum catalogum, ac librum suum primum claudit Irenaeus. Eos e Valentiniana schola, ceu novum Lerneae hydrae caput, pullulasse scribit; Epiphanius vero et Theodoretus ex impuro Gnosticorum Nicolaitarum, Valentinianorum, et Carpocratianorum fonte impietatem suam actionesque nefandas hausisse volunt. Utrumque simul verum esse potest; nec repugnabit Irenaeus, qui paulo post subjicit Caianos foedam Carpocratianorum vivendi rationem imitatos fuisse. Sic dicti fuerunt, quod Cainum praedicare, parentemque suum appellare eos non puduerit. Duplicem quippe Virtutem fingebant, aliam superiorem, quam Sophiam, aliam inferiorem et posteriorem, quam Ὑστέραν, Hysteram, vocabant. Huic coeli et terrae fabricationem ascribebant. Adamum vero atque Evam ab iis Virtutibus, sive Angelis, originem traxisse; quos autem genuere liberos, non item. Nam ambas Virtutes cum Eva congressas Cainum et Abelem genuisse sic affirmabant, ut superioris et fortioris

157. With the Caiani or Cainites Irenaeus closes the catalogue of the Gnostics and his first book. He writes that they sprouted forth from the Valentinian school like a new head of the Lernaean hydra; whereas Epiphanius and Theodoret wish them to have drawn their impiety and nefarious actions from the impure spring of the Gnostics, Nicolaitans, Valentinians, and Carpocratians. Both can be true at the same time; nor will Irenaeus object, who a little later subjoins that the Caiani imitated the foul manner of living of the Carpocratians. They were so called because they were not ashamed to extol Cain and call him their parent. For they feigned a twofold Power, the one higher, which they called Sophia, the other lower and later, which they called Hystera. To the latter they ascribed the fashioning of heaven and earth; and that Adam and Eve drew their origin from those Powers, or Angels, but the children whom they begot, not likewise. For they affirmed that both Powers having had intercourse with Eve begot Cain and Abel, in such a way that of the higher and stronger

Editors' notes and page, col. 171

Footnotes

(82) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 171

Iren., n. 14.

Irenaeus, number 14.

(printed under page 92)

(83) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 171

Epiph., § 5; Theod., loc. cit.; Aug., Haer. xvii.

Epiphanius, § 5; Theodoret, in the place cited; Augustine, Heresy 17.

(printed under page 92)

(84) ‹anchor: et Theodoretus› · call in col 171

Iren., lib. i, c. 31; Epiph., Haer. xxxviii; Theod., lib. i, c. 15.

Irenaeus, Book 1, chapter 31; Epiphanius, Heresy 38; Theodoret, Book 1, chapter 15.

(printed under page 92)

(85) ‹anchor: non item› · call in col 171

Epiph., § 2.

Epiphanius, § 2.

(printed under page 92)

Page

running head: 171 DISSERTATIONES PRAEVIAE IN
marginal letters: A rum tamen altera; B animantium sapientissimum. Sed; C cantionibus quibusdam ad; D Caianos foedam Carpocratianorum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); begins mid-word rum from col 170

PG 7:172

fuerit Cainus, Abelus inferioris : propterea secum invicem rixatos, qui fortiori a Virtute propagatus fuerat, inferioris imbecilliorisque sobolem occidisse. Ad eamdem cum Caino prosapiam pertinere volebant Esau, Core, Sodomitas, et omnes qui in Veteri Testamento scelerum infamia laborant, quos opinione sua laudandos, ac secum generis cognatione conjunctos, utpote perfecta, caeterisque sublimiori scientia decoratos, asserebant nequissimi illi. Ideo mundi Opifici invisos, continuisque insidiis appetitos, nihil tamen ab eo detrimenti accipere potuisse : quod semine suo impraegnatos tutata fuerit mater Sophia, et in supernum Aeonem commutatos ad sese tandem rapuerit. Judam, quem etiam affinem suum esse jactitabant, cuique soli prae caeteris mortalibus veritatis notitiam attribuebant, accurate omnia haec perspecta habuisse : quamobrem Virtute potentiore divina instigatus Christum Jesum prodidit, sive quod, ut alii blasphemabant, malus esset, veritatique bellum indiceret : sive, ut, quemadmodum alii volebant, saluti nostrae consuleret, et Jesu Christi cruce ac morte coelestium rerum cognitionem nobis procuraret. Noverant enim mundi principes, si is in crucem tolleretur, ipsorum exhaustum iri potentiam omnem; quare veritus Judas ne mortem ejus impedirent, maturavit, omnemque lapidem movit, ut eum Judaeis traderet. Hanc enim fuisse causam volunt cur e coelo delapsus sit; ut fortis in ipso solidiorque Virtus perficeretur, ostendereturque, ac de infirmiore triumphum referre doceret. Exsecrandum certe triumphum, in eo situm, ut unusquisque per nefanda omnia flagitiorum genera volitaret : neminem quippe perfectam cognitionem, ipsamque proinde salutem adipisci posse, nisi turpissima quaeque expertus fuerit. Quae Carpocratis blasphemia fuit. Hoc unum addebant, unicuique flagitiosae actioni praeesse Angelum aliquem, quem huic operam dantes invocabant. Plures apocryphos libros confinxerant, ut Evangelium Judae, Anabaticum Pauli, seu de assumptione Pauli in tertium coelum, et alios quosdam, naeniis et impietatum monstris refertos. Porro si quid a caeteris Gnosticis discreparint belluae istae, discrimen in eo tantum fuit, quod superni seminis copiam reprobis quibusdam ac scelestis hominibus facerent, quam iisdem alii negabant. Sed idem omnibus fundamentum erroris exstitit, salutem videlicet uni divino semini, seu rerum coelestium scientiae acceptam referendam esse, mundique conditorem a supremo Deo diversum esse; alterum bonum esse, alterum malum : hujus conculcanda opera, violandasque leges; illius comparandam notitiam.

was Cain, and Abel of the lower: that on that account having quarrelled with each other, he who had been propagated by the stronger Power slew the offspring of the lower and weaker one. To the same stock with Cain they wished Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all who in the Old Testament labour under the infamy of crimes to belong, whom those most wicked men asserted were to be praised in their opinion, and were joined to themselves by kinship of race, inasmuch as they were adorned with perfect knowledge, more sublime than the rest. That therefore, though hated by the Artificer of the world and assailed with continual snares, they nevertheless could receive no harm from him: because mother Sophia protected them, impregnated with her seed, and having changed them into a supernal Aeon finally caught them up to herself. That Judas, whom they also boasted to be their kinsman, and to whom alone above the rest of mortals they attributed the knowledge of the truth, had accurately seen through all these things: wherefore, instigated by a more potent divine Power, he betrayed Christ Jesus, either because, as some blasphemously claimed, He was evil and declared war upon the truth; or in order that, as others wished, he might have regard for our salvation, and through the cross and death of Jesus Christ procure for us the knowledge of heavenly things. For the princes of the world knew that if He were lifted up upon the cross, all their power would be exhausted; wherefore Judas, fearing lest they should hinder His death, hastened and left no stone unturned to hand Him over to the Jews. For they wish this to have been the reason why He slipped down from heaven: that the strong and more solid Power might be perfected and shown in Him, and might teach how to win a triumph over the weaker one. An execrable triumph certainly, situated in this, that each one should flit through all nefarious kinds of outrages: inasmuch as no one can attain perfect knowledge, and accordingly salvation itself, unless he has experienced all the foulest things. Which was the blasphemy of Carpocrates. This one thing they added, that over each outrageous action presides some Angel, whom they invoked while giving their attention to it. They had fabricated several apocryphal books, such as the Gospel of Judas, the Anabaticon of Paul, or concerning the assumption of Paul into the third heaven, and certain others, crammed with dirges and monsters of impieties. Furthermore, if those beasts differed in anything from the rest of the Gnostics, the difference lay only in this, that they granted an abundance of the supernal seed to certain reprobate and wicked men, which others denied to the same. But the same foundation of error existed for all, namely that salvation is to be credited to the divine seed alone, or the knowledge of heavenly things, and that the founder of the world is different from the supreme God; that the one is good, the other evil: that the works of the latter are to be trampled underfoot and his laws violated, while the knowledge of the former is to be procured.

158. Haec sunt quae de haeresibus ab Irenaeo recensitis dicenda erant. Eas pro modulo nostro explicare, densamque iis offusam caliginem dispellere

158. These are the things which had to be said concerning the heresies recounted by Irenaeus. To explain them according to our small measure, and to dispel the dense darkness poured over them,

Editors' notes and page, col. 172

Footnotes

(86) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 172

Iren., n. 1; Epiph., § 1; Tertull., De praescr., c. 47; Theod., loc. cit.

Irenaeus, number 1; Epiphanius, § 1; Tertullian, On the Prescription [of Heretics], chapter 47; Theodoret, in the place cited.

(printed under page 92)

(87) ‹anchor not visible› · call in col 172

Epiph., § 3; Tertull., loc. cit.

Epiphanius, § 3; Tertullian, in the place cited.

(printed under page 92)

(88) ‹anchor: libros confinxerant› · call in col 172

Iren., n. 1, 2; Epiph., § 2.

Irenaeus, numbers 1, 2; Epiphanius, § 2.

(printed under page 92)

Page

running head: S PRAEVIAE IN IRENAEI LIBROS. 172
marginal letters: A fuerit Cainus, Abelus; B soli prae caeteris; C lidiorque Virtus perficeretur,; D tantum fuit, quod
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (continued); ends mid-word dispel- (continued in col 173 as lere)
other: the word dispellere was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 173

PG 7:173

conati sumus, ipsas ad genuinos fontes, Platonica nimirum philosophemata revocando. Plerasque Gnosticorum fabulas, quae hactenus inextricabiles visae sunt, purum putumque Platonismum esse, laceris ac foede mutilatis Scripturarum tegumentis Christianaeque religionis dogmatibus

we have endeavoured, by recalling them to their genuine sources, namely Platonic philosophical tenets. That most of the fables of the Gnostics, which hitherto have seemed inextricable, are pure and simple Platonism, most wretchedly clothed in torn and foully mutilated coverings of the Scriptures and dogmas of the Christian religion,

pessime vestitum nobis constat; forte et aliis, si ad hactenus dicta attendere dignati fuerint, remque penitius adhuc investigare, constabit. Neque enim latius ut in eo campo exspatiemur sinunt praescripti nobis limites; voluissemus, si licuisset, paulo minus exspatiari.

is established for us; and perhaps for others also, if they deign to pay attention to what has been said thus far and to investigate the matter still more deeply, it will be established. For the limits prescribed to us do not allow us to range more widely in that field; we would have wished, had it been permitted, to range a little less widely.

Editors' notes and page, col. 173

Footnotes

(89) ‹anchor: recitat Eusebius› · call in col 173

Lib. v, c. 20.

Book 5, chapter 20.

(printed under page 93)

(90) ‹anchor: adversus Haereses› · call in col 173

L. iii, c. 3, n. 4.

Book 3, chapter 3, number 4.

(printed under page 93)

(91) ‹anchor: mente revolverit.› · call in col 173

In epist. ad Flor.

In the letter to Florinus.

(printed under page 93)

(92) ‹anchor: cl. Dodwello› · call in col 173

Diss. 3, in Iren., § 6 et seqq.

Dissertation 3 on Irenaeus, § 6 and following.

(printed under page 93)

(93) ‹anchor: quod Irenaeus› · call in col 173

Iren., lib. ii, c. 22, n. 4.

Irenaeus, Book 2, chapter 22, number 4.

(printed under page 93)

Page

running head: 173 DISSERTATIO II, ART. I, DE S. IREN
marginal letters: A lere conati sumus,; B Quae fuerit Irenaei; C licet, hunc non; D eum dici, qui
old-edition numerals: [LXXVII.] before Quae
other: Latin only, no Greek printed; editors' matter: Dissertatio I (end) and Dissertatio II, Art. I (Quae fuerit Irenaei patria...); full-width headings between A and B cut off at right edge (DISSERTATIO SECUNDA. / De sancti Irenaei vita et rebus gestis... / ARTICULUS PRIMUS. / SANCTI IRENAEI VITA ET...), not set; begins mid-word lere from col 172
other: a full-width band stands across cols 173/174 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 174 are set here, after the 1 above it in col 173 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the column continues with Quae fuerit Irenaei patria (another unit); not set here

PG 7:174

Editors' notes and page, col. 174