Against Heresies: Book II

IN THE FIRST BOOK: which comes right before this one, addressing "knowledge falsely so called," I showed you, my very dear friend, that the entire system created, in many and opposite ways, by those of the Valentinian school, was false and baseless. I also presented the beliefs of their predecessors, proving that they not only disagreed among themselves but had long previously strayed from the truth itself. I further explained, with great care, the doctrine and practice of Marcus the magician, since he also belongs to these people; and I carefully noted the passages they distort from the Scriptures to fit their own fictions.

Moreover, I described in detail how, using numbers and the twenty-four letters of the alphabet, they boldly attempt to establish what they consider truth. I also explained how they think and teach that creation as a whole was formed after the image of their invisible Pleroma, and what they believe regarding the Demiurge, sharing at the same time the doctrine of Simon Magus of Samaria, their progenitor, and all those who followed him. I mentioned, too, the multitude of those Gnostics who have sprung from him, and noted the differences between them, their various doctrines, and the order of their succession, while I set forth all the heresies they started.

I showed, moreover, that all these heretics, stemming from Simon, have introduced impious and irreligious doctrines into this life; and I explained the nature of their "redemption," and their method of initiating those considered "perfect," along with their invocations and mysteries. I also proved that there is one God, the Creator, and that He is not the result of any defect, nor is there anything either above Him or after Him. In this current book, I will establish those points that fit with my plan, as time allows, and overthrow, through in-depth treatment under distinct headings, their entire system.

For this reason, since it is an exposure and subversion of their views, I have titled the composition of this work accordingly. It is fitting, through a clear revelation and overthrow of their unions, to put an end to these hidden connections, and to Bythus himself, and thereby to demonstrate that he never existed at any previous time, nor does he exist now.

IT IS PROPER: then, that I should start with the first and most important topic, which is God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth and all things within them (whom these men blasphemously call the result of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that He was influenced by anyone, but by His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.

HOW CAN THERE BE ANY OTHER FULNESS: Principle, Power, or God above Him, since it is necessary that God, the Pleroma (Fullness) of all these, should encompass all things in His vastness and not be encompassed by anyone else? If there is anything beyond Him, then He is not the Pleroma of all, nor does He encompass all. What they claim to be beyond Him will be missing from the Pleroma, or from that God who is above all things. What is missing and falls short in any way is not the Pleroma of all things. In this case, He would have a beginning, middle, and end in relation to those beyond Him. If He has an end regarding things below, He also has a beginning in relation to things above. Similarly, it is absolutely necessary that He experiences the same thing at all other points, being confined, bounded, and enclosed by those existences outside Him. For the being who is the end downwards necessarily surrounds and limits Him who meets His end there. Thus, according to them, the Father of all (whom they call Proön and Proarche), along with their Pleroma and the good God of Marcion, is established and enclosed within some other, surrounded from outside by another mighty Being who must necessarily be greater since what contains is greater than what is contained. But then what is greater is also stronger, and more Lord; and what is greater, stronger, and more Lord—must be God.

3. Now, since they claim there is also something else outside of the Pleroma, into which the higher power that went astray descended, it is necessary that the Pleroma either contains what is beyond it, yet is itself contained (otherwise, it is not beyond the Pleroma; for if anything is beyond the Pleroma, there would be a Pleroma within the Pleroma they claim is outside, and the Pleroma would be contained by what is beyond: and with the Pleroma is understood also the first God); or, they must be infinitely distant from each other—the Pleroma, I mean, and what is beyond it. But if they insist on this, then there will be a third kind of existence that separates by its vastness the Pleroma and what is beyond. This third kind of existence would contain and bound both the others and would be greater than both the Pleroma and what is beyond, as it holds both within itself. In this way, discussion might continue endlessly about those things which are contained and those which contain. For if this third existence starts above and ends below, it must also be bounded on the sides, starting or ending at other points where new existences begin. These, and others above and below, will begin at other points, and so on indefinitely; their thoughts would never settle on one God but, in seeking what is beyond, would stray to what does not exist and depart from the true God.

THESE REMARKS CAN SIMILARLY BE APPLIED AGAINST THE FOLLOWERS OF MARCION: His two gods would also be separated by an immense distance from each other. This leads to the need to assume a multitude of gods, all separated by vast distances, beginning with one another and ending in one another. By the same logic they use to claim there is a certain Pleroma or God above the Creator of heaven and earth, anyone who wishes to could argue that there is another Pleroma above that one, and another above that, and another ocean of Deity above Bythus, with similar successions on the sides. Thus, their doctrine expands infinitely, and there will always be a need to imagine other Pleroma and other Bythi, never stopping but always seeking more beyond those already mentioned. Furthermore, it will remain uncertain whether those we imagine are below or are actually above, and similarly unclear regarding those they claim are above, whether they are really above or below. As a result, our views will lack any definite conclusion or certainty, but will inevitably wander into endless worlds and an uncountable number of gods.

GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES: each deity will be satisfied with their own possessions and will not be curious about the affairs of others. Otherwise, they would be unjust and greedy, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation will glorify its own maker and will be satisfied with them, not knowing any other; otherwise, it would justly be considered an apostate by all the others and would receive a well-deserved punishment. It must be that there is either one Being who encompasses all things and created everything within His domain according to His will, or numerous unlimited creators and gods who begin and end with each other in every direction. In the latter case, it would be necessary to acknowledge that all the rest are contained from outside by someone greater, with each confined within their own territory. Therefore, none of them is God, as each would lack much, possessing only a very small part compared to the others. This would effectively bring an end to the name of the Omnipotent, and such an opinion would inevitably lead to impiety.

THOSE WHO SAY THAT THE WORLD WAS FORMED BY ANGELS OR BY ANY OTHER CREATOR AGAINST THE WILL OF THE SUPREME FATHER ARE MISTAKEN: especially in claiming that angels created such a vast and mighty universe against the will of the Most High God. This would suggest that angels were more powerful than God; or if not, that God was either careless, inferior, or paid no attention to the events within His own creation, regardless of whether they were good or bad, preventing the bad and praising and rejoicing over the good. But if one would not ascribe such behavior even to a capable human, how much less to God?

NEXT: let them tell us whether these things have been formed within the limits set by Him, and in His proper territory, or in regions belonging to others and lying beyond Him. But if they say these things were done beyond Him, then all the absurdities mentioned before will confront them, and the Supreme God will be enclosed by that which is beyond Him, in which it will also be necessary for Him to find His end. On the other hand, if these things were done within His own proper territory, it would be very pointless to say that the world was formed in His territory against His will by angels who are themselves under His power, or by any other being, as if He Himself did not see all things happening in His own domain, or was not aware of the things to be done by angels.

IF: however, these things were not done against His will, but with His agreement and knowledge, as some think, then the angels or the Former of the world will no longer be the causes of that formation, but the will of God. For if He is the Former of the world, He also made the angels or was at least the cause of their creation; and He will be seen as having made the world by preparing the causes of its formation.

Even though they claim that the angels were made through a long succession or that the Former of the world came from the Supreme Father, as Basilides asserts, the cause of those created things will still be traced to Him who was the Author of such a succession. The situation is just like success in war, which is attributed to the king who prepared the factors leading to victory; similarly, the creation of any state or work is credited to him who prepared the materials for achieving those results.

Therefore, we do not say that it was the axe that cut the wood or the saw that divided it; rather, we rightly say that the man cut and divided it who created the axe and the saw for this purpose, and created much earlier all the tools by which the axe and the saw themselves were made. Justly, therefore, following this line of reasoning, the Father of all will be declared the Former of this world, and not the angels or any other so-called former, other than He who was its Author and was the original cause of the preparation for this kind of creation.

THIS WAY OF SPEAKING MIGHT SEEM PERSUASIVE TO THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW GOD: who compare Him to needy humans, and to those who cannot create anything immediately and without help but need many tools to make what they intend. However, it will not seem probable to those who know that God needs nothing and that He created and made all things by His Word. He did this without needing angels to help Him or relying on any power inferior to Himself and ignorant of the Father, nor on any defect or ignorance, so that one who knows Him might become man. Instead, He Himself, in a way we cannot describe or understand, predestined all things, forming them as He pleased, giving harmony to all things, and assigning them their place and the beginning of their creation. In this way, He gave spiritual things a spiritual and invisible nature, celestial things a celestial nature, angels an angelic nature, animals an animal nature, creatures that swim a nature suited to water, and those that live on land a nature suited to the land. In short, He gave all a nature suitable to their assigned way of life, forming all things by His Word that never tires.

This is a unique aspect of God's supreme power: He doesn't need any other tools to create things that are called into being. His own Word is both suitable and enough to form everything, just as John, the disciple of the Lord, says about Him: “All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made.” Among these “all things,” our world must be included. Therefore, it was also made by His Word, as Scripture tells us in Genesis that He made everything related to our world by His Word. David expresses the same truth when he says, “For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created.” Whom, then, should we trust regarding the creation of the world—these heretics who speak so foolishly and inconsistently about the subject, or the disciples of the Lord, and Moses, who was both a faithful servant of God and a prophet? Moses first described the formation of the world in these words: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” and then all other things followed; but neither gods nor angels had any part in the work.

NOW: that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul the apostle also has declared, saying, "There is one God, the Father, who is above all, and through all things, and in us all." I have indeed already proven that there is only one God; but I shall further demonstrate this from the apostles themselves, and from the teachings of the Lord. For what kind of behavior would it be if we were to abandon the words of the prophets, of the Lord, and of the apostles, in order to pay attention to these people, who do not speak a word of sense?

THE BYTHUS: therefore, whom they envision with his Pleroma, and the God of Marcion, are inconsistent. If indeed, as they claim, he has something beneath and beyond himself, which they call vacuity and shadow, this vacuum is then shown to be greater than their Pleroma. But it is inconsistent even to claim that while he contains all things within himself, creation was formed by someone else. For it is absolutely necessary that they acknowledge a certain void and chaotic kind of existence (below the spiritual Pleroma) where this universe was formed, and that the Propator intentionally left this chaos as it was, either knowing in advance what would happen in it, or being unaware of it. If he was truly unaware, then God will not know all things in advance. But they will not even in that case be able to give a reason why He left this place void for so long a period of time. If, again, He knows in advance and envisioned the creation that was about to exist in that place, then He Himself created it, having also formed it beforehand in Himself.

LET THEM STOP CLAIMING THAT THE WORLD WAS MADE BY ANYONE ELSE: As soon as God formed an idea in His mind, it was also made just as He conceived it. It was not possible for one Being to form an idea and another to create what was conceived by Him. But according to these heretics, God either conceived of an eternal world or a temporal one, but both cannot be true. If He conceived of it as eternal, spiritual, and visible, it would have been made that way. But since it is made as it truly is, then the one who conceived it also created it as such; or He desired it to exist in the idea of the Father, in accordance with His mind's conception, just as it is now—compound, changeable, and temporary. Since it is just as the Father ideally formed in counsel with Himself, it must be worthy of the Father. To claim that what was conceived and pre-created by the Father of all, as it has been formed, is the result of defect and the product of ignorance is to commit a serious blasphemy. For according to them, the Father of all would be seen as generating within His own mind the results of defect and ignorance, since what He conceived has truly been produced.

The reason for such an arrangement by God needs to be examined; however, the creation of the world should not be attributed to anyone else. All things should be understood as having been prepared by God in advance, so they came to be as they are. We should not imagine shadow and emptiness into being.

BUT WHERE: I ask, did this emptiness come from? If it was indeed created by Him, who they claim is the Father and Author of all things, then it is both equal in honor and related to the rest of the Æons, possibly even older than they are.

Moreover, if it came from the same source as they did, it must be similar in nature to Him who produced it, as well as to those it was produced alongside.

Therefore, it would necessarily follow that the Bythus they speak of, along with Sige, are similar in nature to a void, meaning He would really be a void. Likewise, the rest of the Æons, since they are siblings of emptiness, should also lack substance. If, on the other hand, it was not created in this way, it must have emerged and been generated by itself, in which case it would be equal in age to that Bythus, who they say is the Father of all.

Thus, the emptiness would have the same nature and honor as Him, who they regard as the universal Father. It must necessarily have been either created by someone or generated by itself and come from itself.

But if indeed emptiness was created, then its creator, Valentinus, is also a void, as are his followers. If, on the other hand, it was not created, but generated by itself, then this true void is similar to and the sibling of, and shares the same honor as, that Father proclaimed by Valentinus; and it would be more ancient, originating much earlier and held in higher esteem than the remaining Æons of Ptolemy, Heracleon, and all the others who share these views.

BUT IF: driven to despair about these points, they admit that the Father of all contains everything, and that there is nothing outside the Pleroma (because it is absolutely necessary that if there is anything outside, it should be bounded by something greater), and that they speak of what is inside and outside in terms of knowledge and ignorance, not physical distance; and that, in the Pleroma, or in what the Father contains, the whole creation we know to have been formed by the Demiurge or the angels is contained within the unspeakable greatness, like the center is in a circle, or a spot is in a garment—then, first of all, what kind of being must Bythus be, who allows a flaw to exist in His own domain and permits another to create or produce within His territory against His will? Such actions would truly bring a charge of degeneration upon the entire Pleroma, since it could have eliminated that defect and its emanations from the beginning, and not allowed creation to be formed in ignorance, passion, or defect.

For He who can later fix a defect and, as it were, wash away a stain, could have much earlier ensured that no such stain was ever found among His possessions. Or if He allowed things to be made as they are, since they could not be formed otherwise, then they must always remain the same. For how is it possible for things that cannot initially be corrected to later receive improvement? Or how can people say they are called to perfection when the very beings from which people originate—either the Demiurge himself or the angels—are said to exist in defect? And if, as claimed, the Supreme Being, being kind, eventually took pity on humans and gave them perfection, He should have first pitied those who created humans and granted them perfection.

This way, humans would truly have shared in His compassion, being made perfect by those who were perfect. For if He pitied the work of these beings, He should have long before pitied them and not allowed them to fall into such terrible blindness.

THEIR DISCUSSION ABOUT SHADOW AND EMPTINESS: by which they claim creation was made, will lose its foundation if these elements were created within the domain held by the Father. If they assert that the Father's light fills and illuminates everything within Him, how can any emptiness or shadow exist in the realm encompassed by the Pleroma and the Father's light? In that case, they must identify a space within the Propator or the Pleroma that is neither illuminated nor occupied, where either the angels or the Demiurge created as they wished. Moreover, this would require a considerable space for such a significant creation to have been formed. Therefore, there must logically be, within the Pleroma or the Father they speak of, some area that is void, formless, and dark, where these things were made. However, this assumption would cast a negative light on their Father's ability to illuminate and fill everything within Himself. Thus, when they claim these things are the result of defect and error, they effectively introduce defect and error into the Pleroma and the heart of the Father.

THE REMARKS I MADE A LITTLE WHILE AGO ARE SUITABLE IN RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THIS WORLD WAS FORMED OUTSIDE OF THE PLEROMA: or under a “good God;” and such people, along with the Father they speak of, will be completely cut off from that which is outside the Pleroma, where they must ultimately find rest. In response to those who argue that this world was created by certain other beings within the territory contained by the Father, all the points now noted will show their absurdities and inconsistencies.

They will be forced to either acknowledge that all things within the Father are clear, complete, and energetic, or to accuse the light of the Father as if He couldn't illuminate everything. Alternatively, if a portion of their Pleroma is described this way, the entire Pleroma must be admitted to be empty, chaotic, and full of darkness. They accuse all other created things of being merely temporary, or if eternal, still material.

Yet these (the Æons) should be considered beyond such accusations, since they are within the Pleroma, or the charges would equally apply to the entire Pleroma.

Thus, the Christ they speak of is revealed to be the author of ignorance. According to their claims, after giving form in terms of substance to the Mother they imagine, He cast her out of the Pleroma, effectively cutting her off from knowledge. So, the one who separated her from knowledge actually caused ignorance in her. How then could the same person give the gift of knowledge to the rest of the Æons, who were formed before Him, while also being the author of ignorance to His Mother? For He excluded her from knowledge when He cast her out of the Pleroma.

2.

MOREOVER: if they define being inside and outside the Pleroma as meaning knowledge and ignorance, as some of them do (since someone with knowledge is within that which knows), then they must necessarily admit that the Saviour Himself (whom they call All Things) was in a state of ignorance. For they claim that when He came forth outside of the Pleroma, He gave form to their Mother [Achamoth]. If, then, they assert that whatever is outside the Pleroma is ignorant of all things, and if the Saviour went forth to give form to their Mother, then He was beyond the reach of all knowledge; that is, He was in ignorance.

How then could He give knowledge to her when He Himself was beyond the reach of knowledge? For they declare we, too, are outside the Pleroma because we are outside the knowledge they have. And furthermore: If the Saviour actually went beyond the Pleroma to seek the sheep which was lost, but the Pleroma equals knowledge, then He placed Himself beyond the reach of knowledge, that is, in ignorance. For they must either agree that what is outside the Pleroma is so in a physical sense, in which case all the previous points will challenge them; or if they talk about what is inside regarding knowledge, and what is outside in respect to ignorance, then their Saviour, and Christ long before Him, must have been in ignorance, because they went beyond the Pleroma, that is, beyond the reach of knowledge, to give form to their Mother.

THESE ARGUMENTS CAN SIMILARLY BE ADAPTED TO ADDRESS ANYONE WHO CLAIMS IN ANY WAY THAT THE WORLD WAS CREATED EITHER BY ANGELS OR BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE TRUE GOD: For the accusations they make against the Demiurge, and those things which were made material and temporal, will ultimately reflect back on the Father; if indeed the things formed within the Pleroma began to dissolve over time, according to the permission and favor of the Father. The immediate Creator, then, is not the true Author of this work, thinking He created it very good, but rather He who allows and approves of the creations of defect, and the works of error having a place among His own possessions, and that temporal things should be mixed with eternal, corruptible with incorruptible, and those which partake of error with those which belong to truth.

If these things were formed without the permission or approval of the Father of all, then that Being must be more powerful, stronger, and more kingly, who made these things within a territory that rightfully belongs to Him (the Father), and did so without His permission. If, as some suggest, their Father permitted these things without approving them, then He granted permission due to some necessity, either being able to prevent this from happening or not.

But if He could not stop it, then He is weak and powerless; while, if He could, He is deceitful, a hypocrite, and a slave to necessity, since He does not agree with such a course and yet allows it as if He did agree.

Allowing error to arise initially, and continue to grow, He tries to destroy it later, when many have already suffered greatly due to the original defect.

IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE: however, to say of Him who is God over all, since He is free and independent, that He was a slave to necessity, or that anything happens with His permission but against His desire; otherwise, they will make necessity greater and more authoritative than God, since that which has the most power is superior to all others. And He should, at the very start, have eliminated the causes of the imagined necessity and not allowed Himself to be compelled to yield to that necessity by permitting anything beyond what was fitting for Him. For it would have been much better, more consistent, and more God-like, to eliminate at the beginning the principle of this kind of necessity, than to later attempt, as if moved by regret, to remove the outcomes of necessity when they had developed to such an extent. And if the Father of all is a slave to necessity and must yield to fate, while He unwillingly tolerates the things that are done, but is at the same time powerless to oppose necessity and fate (like the Homeric Jupiter, who says of necessity, “I have willingly given thee, yet with an unwilling mind”), then, according to this reasoning, the Bythus of whom they speak will be found to be the slave of necessity and fate.

HOW: again, could either the angels or the Creator of the world have been unaware of the Supreme God, seeing they were His property and His creatures, and were contained by Him? He might indeed have been invisible to them because of His superiority, but He could by no means have been unknown to them because of His providence. Even though it is true, as they claim, that they were very far separated from Him due to their inferior nature, as His dominion extended over all of them, they were obliged to know their Ruler and to be aware of this in particular: that He who created them is Lord of all. For since His invisible essence is mighty, it grants all a profound mental intuition and perception of His most powerful, indeed, omnipotent greatness. Therefore, although “no one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him,” all beings do know this one fact at least, because reason, implanted in their minds, moves them and reveals to them the truth that there is one God, the Lord of all.

2. And for this reason, everything has been generally accepted to be under the control of Him who is called the Most High and the Almighty. By calling on Him, even before the coming of our Lord, people were saved from the most wicked spirits, all kinds of demons, and every sort of rebellious power. This happened not because earthly spirits or demons had seen Him, but because they knew of the existence of Him who is God over all. At His invocation, they trembled, as does every creature, principality, power, and every being with energy under His rule. Similarly, don't those who live under the Roman Empire, though they have never seen the emperor and are separated from him by land and sea, understand well who holds the main power in the state due to experiencing his rule? How then could it be that those angels who were greater than us by nature, or even He whom they call the Creator of the world, did not know the Almighty, when even animals tremble and submit at the invocation of His name? And although they have not seen Him, everything is subject to the name of our Lord, and thus must also be to the One who made and established everything by His word, since it was He who formed the world. And for this reason, the Jews even now drive out demons using this very invocation, because all beings fear the invocation of Him who created them.

IF: then, they hesitate to claim that the angels are more irrational than animals, they will find that it was necessary for these beings, even though they had not seen Him who is God over all, to recognize His power and sovereignty. For it will seem truly absurd if they claim that they, who live on earth, know Him who is God over all, even though they have never seen Him, but won't allow Him who, according to their belief, created them and the entire world, although He resides in the heights and above the heavens, to know the things that they themselves, though they live below, are familiar with. This is the case unless perhaps they believe that Bythus lives in Tartarus below the earth, and that for this reason they have gained knowledge of Him before those angels who reside on high. Thus, they hurl themselves into such a depth of madness as to declare that the Creator of the world lacks understanding. They are truly deserving of pity, as they foolishly claim that He (the Creator of the world) neither knew His Mother, nor her offspring, nor the Pleroma of the Æons, nor the Propator, nor what the things were which He made; but that these are mere reflections of the things within the Pleroma, with the Saviour having secretly worked so that they would be formed in such a way [by the unaware Demiurge], in honor of the things above.

WHILE THE DEMIURGE WAS IGNORANT OF EVERYTHING: they say the Saviour honored the Pleroma by creating [through his Mother] things that were like images of what is above.

However, I have already shown that nothing can exist beyond the Pleroma (where they claim these images were made of things within the Pleroma), and that this world was formed only by the Supreme God. It is satisfying to refute them in every way and prove them to be false; let us argue against them by saying that if these things were made by the Saviour to honor those above, resembling them, they ought to last, and those things which have been honored should always remain honored.

But if they indeed fade away, what is the use of such a brief period of honor—an honor that once did not exist and will again become nothing? In that case, I shall demonstrate that the Saviour seeks vainglory rather than truly honoring those things above. How can temporary things honor those that are eternal and everlasting? Or things that disappear honor those that remain? Or corruptible things honor incorruptible ones?—even among mortals, there is no value attached to honor that quickly fades, only to that which lasts as long as possible.

Things that end as soon as they are made can be said to have been made more to show contempt for those believed to be honored by them, and the eternal is insulted when its image is corrupted and dissolved.

But what if their Mother had not wept, laughed, or fallen into despair? Then the Saviour would not have had any means to honor the Fulness, as her final state of confusion did not have its own substance to honor the Propator.

ALAS FOR THE HONOR OF VAIN GLORY: which quickly passes and is no longer seen! There will come a time when such honor will not even be thought to have existed, leading to a disregard for the things above; or it will be necessary to bring forth another Mother, weeping and in despair, to honor the Pleroma. What a dissimilar and blasphemous image! Are you telling me that an image of the Only-begotten was created by the creator of the world, whom you want to consider as the Mind of the Father of all, yet you claim that this image was ignorant of itself, ignorant of creation, ignorant of the Mother, ignorant of everything that exists, and of those things made by it? Are you not ashamed to attribute such ignorance even to the Only-begotten Himself? For if the things below were made by the Saviour after the likeness of those above, and He, who was made in such a likeness, was in great ignorance, it necessarily follows that ignorance of that kind spiritually exists around Him and in accordance with Him, after whose likeness the ignorant one was formed.

It is not possible, since both were created spiritually and neither fashioned nor composed, that in some cases the likeness was preserved while in others the image's likeness was spoiled, the image that was produced here to be according to the image of the creation above.

But if it is not similar, the blame will then be on the Saviour for producing a dissimilar image, as if He were an incompetent workman. It is out of their power to claim that the Saviour lacked the ability to create, since they call Him All Things.

If, then, the image is dissimilar, He is a poor workman, and the blame, according to their hypothesis, lies with the Saviour.

On the other hand, if it is similar, then the same ignorance will be found in the Mind of their Propator, that is, in the Only-begotten. In that case, the Mind of the Father was unaware of Himself, unaware of the Father, and unaware of those very things formed by Him.

But if He has knowledge, it necessarily follows that he who was formed in His likeness by the Saviour should know the things which are similar; thus, according to their own principles, their monstrous blasphemy is overthrown.

MOREOVER: how can the things in creation—so varied, numerous, and diverse—be images of the thirty Æons within the Pleroma, whose names I've listed in the previous book? They will not only fail to match the immense variety of creation with the relatively small size of their Pleroma, but they can't even do this for any specific part of it, whether dealing with celestial, terrestrial, or aquatic beings. They themselves claim that their Pleroma consists of thirty Æons; yet anyone can demonstrate that, within any given category of these created beings, there are not just thirty but many thousands of species.

How, then, can these complex creations—so different in nature from each other, often in conflict and mutually destructive—be images of the thirty Æons of the Pleroma? Especially when, as they claim, these Æons are of one nature, with equal and similar characteristics and no differences among themselves? If these things are supposed to be images of the Æons, and given their assertion that some people are inherently wicked and others inherently good, they should also highlight such differences among their Æons.

They ought to argue that some Æons were naturally good and others naturally evil, to support the idea of a likeness between those beings and the Æons.

Furthermore, since the world contains creatures that are gentle or fierce, harmless or harmful, dwelling on land, in water, in the air, or in heaven, they are obligated to show that the Æons have such properties if the Æons are indeed their images.

Additionally, they should identify which of these Æons is represented by "the eternal fire which the Father has prepared for the devil and his angels," since it is also considered a part of creation.

4. If, however, they claim that these things are the images of the Enthymesis of that Æon who fell into passion, then, first of all, they will act impiously against their Mother by declaring her to be the primary cause of evil and corruptible images. Furthermore, how can things that are varied, dissimilar, and contrary in nature be the images of one and the same Being? And if they say that the angels of the Pleroma are numerous, and that these many things are their images, then their explanation will not be satisfactory either. First, they must identify differences among the angels of the Pleroma that are opposed to each other, just as the images below are of a contrary nature among themselves. Moreover, since there are many, indeed, innumerable angels who surround the Creator, as all the prophets acknowledge—saying, for instance, “Ten thousand times ten thousand stood beside Him, and many thousands of thousands served Him”—then, according to them, the angels of the Pleroma will have the angels of the Creator as their images, and the entire creation remains in the image of the Pleroma, but in such a way that the thirty Æons no longer correspond to the varied complexity of creation.

IF THESE THINGS BELOW WERE MADE TO RESEMBLE THOSE ABOVE: then in what likeness will they be made next? For if the Creator of the world did not directly form these things from His own ideas, but instead, like a beginner architect or a student learning for the first time, copied them from blueprints provided by others, then where did their Bythus obtain the forms of the original creation? It logically follows that He must have received the model from someone else above Him, and that one from another, and so on. Nonetheless, this endless talk about images, like about gods, will continue indefinitely unless we focus our attention on one Artificer and one God, who by Himself formed the things that have been created. Or is it really the case that when it comes to mere humans, we accept that they have invented what is useful for life on their own, but we do not grant that God, who formed the world, created the forms of what has been made and gave it an orderly arrangement on His own?

BUT: again, how can these things below be images of those above, since they are really contrary to them and cannot sympathize with them in any way? For things that are contrary to each other might indeed destroy those to which they are opposed but cannot be their images—for example, water and fire, or light and darkness, and other such things, can never be images of one another. Similarly, things that are corruptible, earthly, compounded, and transitory cannot be the images of those that are, according to these people, spiritual, unless these spiritual things themselves are allowed to be compound, limited in space, and of a definite shape, thus no longer spiritual, but diffused, spreading into vast extents, and incomprehensible. For they must necessarily have a definite figure and be confined within certain limits to be true images, and then it is determined that they are not spiritual. However, if these people claim that they are spiritual, diffused, and incomprehensible, how can things that have a figure and are confined within certain limits be the images of those that are without figure and incomprehensible?

IF: again, they claim that the things above are not images of these below through shape or form, but through number and the order of their creation, then, first of all, these things below should not be called images and likenesses of those Æons above. For how can things that have neither the shape nor form of those above be their images? Furthermore, they would align both the numbers and creations of the Æons above to make them identical and similar to those of the creation below. But now, since they refer to only thirty Æons and assert that the vast multitude of things within creation below are images of only those thirty, we can rightly judge them as completely lacking in sense.

IF THEY CLAIM AGAIN THAT THESE THINGS BELOW ARE A SHADOW OF THOSE ABOVE: as some confidently argue, making them images, then they must admit that those things above have bodies. For bodies above do cast shadows, but spiritual substances do not, since they cannot darken others in any way. Even if we grant them this point (though it is really impossible), that there is a shadow belonging to spiritual and luminous essences, into which they say their Mother descended; yet, since those things above are eternal and their shadow lasts forever, it follows that these things below are also not temporary but endure along with those that cast their shadow over them. On the other hand, if these things below are temporary, it necessarily means that those above, which these are the shadow of, also pass away; while, if they endure, their shadow endures as well.

IF: however, they claim that the shadow mentioned is not created by the shade of those above, but simply because the things below are far separated from those above, they will accuse the light of their Father of being weak and insufficient, as if it cannot reach these things, failing to fill what is empty and to dispel the shadow, even when nothing is preventing it. According to them, the light of their Father will turn into darkness, be buried in obscurity, and end in places defined by emptiness, since it cannot penetrate and fill everything. Let them then no longer claim that their Bythus is the fullness of all things if indeed he has neither filled nor illuminated what is empty and shadowed. Alternatively, let them stop talking of emptiness and shadow if, in truth, the light of their Father fills everything.

BEYOND THE PRIMARY FATHER: who is the God over all, there can be no Pleroma into which they claim the Enthymesis of that Æon who experienced passion descended (so that the Pleroma itself, or the primary God, would not be limited and enclosed by what is beyond, and would, in fact, be contained by it). Nor can emptiness or shadow exist, since the Father exists beforehand, ensuring that His light cannot fail and end in a void. It is also irrational and impious to imagine a place where He who is the Propator, Proarche, and Father of all, and of this Pleroma, comes to an end.

Furthermore, it is not permissible, for the reasons already given, to claim that some other being created such a vast universe within the Father, whether with or without His consent. For it is equally impious and foolish to say that such a great creation was made by angels, or by some particular being unaware of the true God in His own domain. Nor is it possible for earthly and material things to have been formed within their Pleroma, since it is wholly spiritual.

Moreover, it is not even possible for things belonging to a diverse creation and formed with opposing qualities to have been created after the image of the things above, since these Æons are said to be few and similarly formed and homogeneous. Their talk about the shadow of kenoma—that is, a vacuum—has turned out to be false in every way. Their idea, then, however viewed, has been proven baseless, and their teachings are untenable. Empty, too, are those who listen to them, truly descending into the abyss of destruction.

THE IDEA THAT GOD IS THE CREATOR OF THE WORLD IS ACCEPTED EVEN BY THOSE WHO OFTEN SPEAK AGAINST HIM: yet they still acknowledge Him, calling Him the Creator and an angel. This is also supported by all the Scriptures and taught by the Lord, who speaks of this Father in heaven, and no other, as I will demonstrate later in this work. For now, the proof from those with opposing doctrines is sufficient, as all people agree on this truth: the ancients carefully preserved this belief from the first-formed man, praising one God, the Maker of heaven and earth. Others, after them, were reminded of this truth by the prophets of God, and even the heathens learned it from creation itself. Creation reveals the one who formed it, the work suggests the one who made it, and the world shows the one who ordered it. The Universal Church throughout the world has received this tradition from the apostles.

THIS GOD: then, being acknowledged, as I have said, and receiving testimony from everyone to the fact of His existence, that Father whom they claim into existence is undoubtedly untenable and has no witnesses to his existence. Simon Magus was the first who said that he himself was God over all and that the world was formed by his angels. Then those who succeeded him, as I have shown in the first book, further corrupted his teaching through their impious and irreligious doctrines against the Creator.

These heretics, being the disciples of those mentioned, render those who assent to them worse than the heathen. For the former serve the creature rather than the Creator and those which are not gods, even though they ascribe the first place in Deity to that God who was the Maker of this universe.

But the latter maintain that He, the Creator of this world, is the result of a defect and describe Him as being of an animal nature and as not knowing that Power which is above Him, while He also exclaims, “I am God, and besides Me there is no other God.” Affirming that He lies, they are liars themselves, attributing all sorts of wickedness to Him; and conceiving of one who is not above this Being as really having an existence, they are thus convicted by their own views of blasphemy against that God who really exists, while they claim into existence a god who has no existence, to their own condemnation.

And thus those who declare themselves "perfect," and as being possessed of the knowledge of all things, are found to be worse than the heathen and to entertain more blasphemous opinions even against their own Creator.

IT IS THEREFORE EXTREMELY IRRATIONAL THAT WE SHOULD IGNORE HIM WHO IS TRULY GOD AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY ALL: while we question whether there is above Him another being who really does not exist and has never been proclaimed by anyone. For they themselves provide evidence that nothing has been clearly stated about Him; since they unsuccessfully attribute to the being they imagined those parables of Scripture which, no matter how they have been spoken, are sought after for this purpose, it is clear that they are now creating another god who was never sought after before. By attempting to explain ambiguous passages of Scripture—not ambiguous as if referring to another god, but regarding the plans of the true God—they have constructed another god, as I mentioned earlier, by building ropes of sand and attaching greater importance to a lesser matter. For no question can be solved by another that itself is unsolved; nor, to sensible people, can an ambiguity be explained by another ambiguity or riddles by a greater riddle. Such matters are resolved by what is manifest, consistent, and clear.

THESE HERETICS: while attempting to explain passages of Scripture and parables, raise another, more significant and indeed impious question: "Is there truly another god above the God who created the world?" They do not genuinely solve the questions they propose; how could they, really? Instead, they attach a complex question to one of less importance, introducing an unsolvable dilemma into their speculations. In their pursuit to understand "knowledge" itself (without recognizing the fact that the Lord, at thirty years old, went to the baptism of truth), they irreverently reject the God who was the Creator and who sent Him for the salvation of humanity. In their attempt to appear informed about the origin of matter, they deny that God, according to His will and power, created everything from nothing. Consequently, they have amassed a collection of pointless arguments. They reveal their disbelief, not trusting in what truly exists, and have strayed into belief in what has no real existence.

WHEN THEY TELL US THAT ALL MOIST SUBSTANCES CAME FROM THE TEARS OF ACHAMOTH: all bright substances from her smile, all solid substances from her sadness, and all moving substances from her terror, claiming that they have superior knowledge because of this—how can these ideas not be seen as contemptible and truly ridiculous? They do not believe that God, being powerful and rich in every resource, created matter itself, because they do not understand how much a spiritual and divine essence can achieve. Yet, they believe that their Mother, whom they describe as a female from a female, produced the vast material substance of creation from the emotions mentioned earlier. They ask where the Creator got the material for creation from, but they do not question where their Mother (whom they call the Enthymesis and impulse of the Æon that went astray) obtained such an abundance of tears, perspiration, sadness, or what produced the rest of the matter.

TO ATTRIBUTE THE SUBSTANCE OF CREATED THINGS TO THE POWER AND WILL OF HIM WHO IS GOD OF ALL IS WORTHY OF BOTH TRUST AND ACCEPTANCE: It is also reasonable, and one could well say about such a belief that “the things which are impossible for people are possible with God.” While people cannot create anything out of nothing, but only from matter that already exists, God is exceptionally superior to people in this way: He Himself brought into being the substance of His creation when it did not exist before. But the claim that matter was produced from the Enthymesis of an Æon going astray, and that the Æon was far removed from her Enthymesis, and that her passion and feeling, separate from herself, became matter, is unbelievable, foolish, impossible, and unsupportable.

THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HE: who is God above all, created the various and diverse works of creation in His own domain, as He chose, being the designer of all things, like a wise architect and a powerful ruler. Instead, they believe that angels or some power separate from God, and who was unaware of Him, created the universe. By following this belief, they are not accepting the truth but are immersed in falsehood, losing the sustenance of real life and falling into emptiness and a void of shadow. They are like Aesop's dog, which dropped the bread to grab at its shadow, thereby losing the real food. It is easy to prove from the very words of the Lord that He recognizes one Father and Creator of the world, and the Maker of man, who was proclaimed by the law and the prophets, acknowledging no other, and that this One is truly God over all. He teaches that the adoption as sons linked to the Father, which is eternal life, occurs through Himself, granting it to all the righteous.

BUT SINCE THESE MEN ENJOY ATTACKING US AND: being nitpickers, come at us with points that don't actually work against us, bringing up numerous parables and tricky questions, I thought it would be good to instead ask them the following questions about their own doctrines, to show their improbability, and to end their audacity. After doing this, I plan to present the teachings of the Lord, so that they will not only lack the means to attack us, but, because they won't be able to reasonably respond to the questions, they will see that their argument strategy is ruined; so that either they return to the truth, humble themselves, stop their many fantasies, seek favor from God for the blasphemies they have spoken against Him, and gain salvation; or if they continue in the vainglory that has overtaken their minds, they will at least need to change their way of arguing against us.

WE MIGHT FIRST NOTE ABOUT THEIR TRIACONTAD THAT IT REMARKABLY COLLAPSES ON BOTH SIDES: in terms of both defect and excess. They claim the Lord was baptized at thirty to signify this. However, this claim undermines their entire argument. Regarding defect, it occurs as follows: firstly, they include the Propator among the other Æons. The Father of all should not be counted with other entities; He who was not produced should not be counted with the produced; He who was unbegotten should not be counted with the born; He whom no one comprehends should not be counted with the comprehended, as He is Himself incomprehensible; and He who is without form should not be counted with entities that have a definite form. Since He is superior to the rest, He should not be included with them, nor should He who is impassible and not mistaken be counted with an Æon that is subject to emotion and error. I have demonstrated in the preceding book that, starting with Bythus, they list the Triacontad up to Sophia, whom they describe as the erring Æon; and I have also detailed the names of their Æons. If He is not counted, there would not be, according to their logic, thirty Æons, but rather only twenty-nine.

Regarding the first creation Ennœa, whom they also call Sige, from whom they say Nous and Aletheia were sent forth, they are mistaken in both aspects. It is impossible for someone's thought (Ennœa) or silence (Sige) to be understood separately from themselves, and for it to have its own distinct form if sent forth beyond them.

Yet if they claim that the (Ennœa) was not sent out beyond Him, remaining one with the Propator, then why do they count her among the other Æons—those who were not one with the Father and thus are ignorant of His greatness? If, however, she was so united (let's consider this too), it is absolutely necessary that from this united and inseparable connection, which constitutes just one being, there should emerge an unseparated and united production, so it should not differ from Him who sent it out.

IF THIS IS THE CASE: then just as Bythus and Sige, so too Nous and Aletheia will form one single being, always adhering closely together. And since one cannot be conceived without the other, just as water is always linked with moisture, fire with heat, or a stone with hardness (because these things are inherently connected and inseparable from each other, always co-existing), similarly Bythus should be united with Ennœa, and Nous with Aletheia. Logos and Zoe, being sent forth by those united, should also be united and form a single being.

But, following this line of reasoning, Homo and Ecclesia, and all the other pairings of the produced Æons should be united and always co-exist with one another. For they believe it is necessary for a female Æon to exist alongside a male one, as she represents, so to speak, his affection.

GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE OPINIONS THEY PROCLAIM: they continue, without shame, to teach that the younger Æon of the Duodecad, whom they also call Sophia, experienced suffering without being united with her consort, whom they name Theletus, and independently gave birth to a creation they call “a female from a female.” They thus plunge into such extreme inconsistency, forming two completely contradictory opinions on the same issue. For if Bythus is always one with Sige, Nous with Aletheia, Logos with Zoe, and so forth, how could Sophia, without union with her consort, either suffer or create anything? And if she did indeed suffer apart from him, it would mean that other unions could also allow separation and division among themselves, which I have already shown cannot be. Therefore, it is impossible for Sophia to have suffered apart from Theletus, and thus, once more, their entire line of reasoning collapses. For they have again derived all remaining [material substance], like the plot of a tragedy, from the suffering they claim she underwent without union with her consort.

IF: however, they boldly assert, in order to save their futile ideas from collapse, that the other conjunctions were also separated from one another because of this latest conjunction, then I reply that, first of all, they rely on something impossible. How can they separate the Propator from his Ennœa, or Nous from Aletheia, or Logos from Zoe, and so on with the rest? And how can they themselves claim that they strive toward unity and are, in fact, all united, if indeed these very conjunctions within the Pleroma do not maintain unity, but are separate from one another? And to such an extent that they both endure suffering and perform the act of creation without union with each other, just as hens do without mating with roosters.

5. Then, again, their primary and first-created Ogdoad will be overthrown as follows: They must admit that Bythus and Sige, Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia, each reside in the same Pleroma. However, it's impossible for Sige (silence) to exist where Logos (speech) is present, just as Logos cannot appear where Sige exists. These are mutually exclusive, just like light and darkness cannot exist in the same place: if light is present, darkness cannot be; and if there is darkness, there cannot be light, because where light appears, darkness retreats. Similarly, where Sige is, Logos cannot be; and where Logos is, Sige certainly cannot be. If they claim that Logos exists internally (unexpressed), Sige will also exist internally, but will still be destroyed by the internal Logos. However, the order of the production of their (Æons) shows that Logos is not merely conceptual.

6. They should not claim that the first and main Ogdoad consists of Logos and Sige, but they must exclude either Sige or Logos; and then their first and main Ogdoad comes to an end. For if they say that the conjunctions of the Æons are united, then their whole argument falls apart. Since, if they were united, how could Sophia have generated a defect without union with her partner? On the other hand, if they argue that each of the Æons has its own distinct substance, then how can Sige and Logos appear in the same place? That is all concerning the defect.

7. Their Triacontad is further debunked by the following observations. They describe Horos (whom they call by various names previously mentioned) as being created by Monogenes just like the other Æons. Some claim that Horos was created by Monogenes, while others say he was sent forth by the Propator himself in His own likeness. They also claim that Monogenes created Christ and the Holy Spirit, but they do not count these in the Pleroma, nor do they count the Saviour, whom they also declare to be Totum (all things).

CLEARLY: it is obvious that more than just thirty productions exist, as they assert, but four more in addition to these thirty. For they count the Propator himself in the Pleroma, as well as those who were successively produced by one another. Why are these [other beings] not counted as existing with those in the same Pleroma, since they were created in the same way? What valid reason do they have for not counting alongside the other Æons either Christ, whom they say was created by Monogenes according to the Father’s will, or the Holy Spirit, or Horos, whom they call Soter (Saviour), and not even the Saviour Himself, who came to help and shape their Mother? Is it because these were seen as weaker than the others and therefore not worthy of the name Æons, or of being counted among them, or because they were seen as superior and more excellent? But how could they be weaker, since they were created to establish and correct the others? Moreover, they cannot possibly be superior to the first and principal Tetrad, by which they were also created, for it too is counted in the number previously mentioned.

Therefore, these latter beings should also have been counted in the Pleroma of the Æons, or that should be deprived of the honor of those Æons with this title (the Tetrad).

8. Since, therefore, their Triacontad is thus rendered ineffective, as I have shown, both with respect to defect and excess (because any amount of excess or defect when dealing with such a number makes it untenable, and this is even more so with great variations), it follows that what they claim about their Ogdoad and Duodecad is just a fable that cannot stand. Furthermore, their entire system collapses when their very foundation is destroyed and dissolves into Bythus, which means into what does not exist. Let them, then, from now on try to provide other reasons for why the Lord was baptized at the age of thirty years, and explain the Duodecad of the apostles, and the case of the woman who suffered from an issue of blood, and all the other points about which they so madly labor in vain.

I WILL NOW PROCEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INITIAL CONCEPT OF PRODUCTION: as they understand it, must be rejected. They claim that Nous and Aletheia were produced from Bythus and his Ennœa, which is shown to be contradictory. Nous is itself the chief and highest principle, the source of all understanding. Ennœa, on the other hand, which arises from Nous, is any sort of emotion concerning any subject.

Therefore, it is impossible for Nous to have been produced by Bythus and Ennœa; it would be more accurate for them to claim that Ennœa was produced as the daughter of the Propator and this Nous.

Ennœa is not the daughter of Nous, as they assert; instead, Nous becomes the father of Ennœa. How can Nous have been produced by the Propator when it occupies the chief and primary position of that hidden and invisible affection within Him? Through this affection, sense is produced, along with Ennœa, Enthymesis, and other concepts that are merely synonyms for Nous itself. As I have previously stated, these are just specific exercises in thought of that power concerning some particular subject.

We interpret the terms according to their full range of meaning, not according to any fundamental change of signification; the various exercises of thought are limited by the same sphere of knowledge and are expressed collectively by the same term, while the same sense remains within, creating, administering, and freely governing, by its own power and as it pleases, the elements previously mentioned.

For the first exercise of that power concerning anything is called Ennœa, but when it continues, gains strength, and takes control of the whole soul, it is called Enthymesis. This Enthymesis, when it focuses on the same point for a long time and is effectively tested, is named Sensation. This Sensation, when it is well developed, becomes Counsel. The increase and strong development of this Counsel becomes the Examination of thought (Judgment); and this remaining in the mind is most accurately termed Logos (reason), from which the spoken Logos (word) arises.

BUT ALL THE EXERCISES OF THOUGHT MENTIONED ARE FUNDAMENTALLY ONE AND THE SAME: receiving their origin from Nous, and obtaining different names based on their growth. Just as the human body, which is young at one time, then in the prime of life, and then old, receives different names according to its growth and duration, but not due to any change in its substance or any real loss of the body, so it is with those mental exercises. For when one mentally contemplates anything, he also thinks of it; and when he thinks of it, he has knowledge about it; and when he knows it, he also considers it; and when he considers it, he mentally handles it; and when he mentally handles it, he speaks of it.

But, as I have already said, it is Nous who governs all these mental processes, while He is invisible and expresses himself through those processes mentioned, as if by rays proceeding from Him, but He himself is not sent forth by any other.

THESE THINGS CAN RIGHTLY BE SAID TO HOLD TRUE FOR MEN: since they are naturally made up of a body and a soul. But those who claim that Ennœa was sent forth from God, and Nous from Ennœa, and then, in order, Logos from these, should first be criticized for improperly applying these concepts; and second, for describing the emotions, passions, and thoughts of men while showing ignorance of God. By speaking this way, they assign characteristics that apply to men to the Father of all, whom they also claim is unknown to everyone; and they deny that He Himself made the world, to avoid suggesting He lacked power; yet they still attribute human emotions and passions to Him. If they had understood the Scriptures and been guided by the truth, they would have surely known that God is not like men, and His thoughts are not like human thoughts. For the Father of all is far removed from the emotions and passions that affect men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse parts, entirely like, and equal to Himself, as He is wholly understanding, wholly spirit, wholly thought, wholly intelligence, wholly reason, wholly hearing, wholly seeing, wholly light, and the complete source of all that is good—even as the religious and devout tend to speak of God.

HE IS: however, above all these qualities, and therefore indescribable. For He can rightly be called an Understanding that comprehends everything, but He is not like the understanding of people; and He can most properly be called Light, but He is nothing like the light we know. Similarly, in all other respects, the Father of all is not at all similar to human weakness. He is described in these terms because of the love we have for Him; but in terms of greatness, our thoughts about Him go beyond these words. If even for humans, understanding itself does not come from emission, and the intelligence that produces other things is not separated from the living person, while its actions and emotions become visible, then even more so will the mind of God, who is all understanding, never be separated from Himself; nor can anything about Him be produced as if by someone else.

IF HE CREATED INTELLIGENCE: then according to their views, He who created intelligence must be understood as a compound and corporeal Being, making God, who sent forth the intelligence, separate from it, and the intelligence that was sent forth separate from Him. But if they claim that intelligence came from intelligence, they divide the intelligence of God into parts. And where has it gone? From where was it sent forth? For whatever is sent forth from somewhere must necessarily move into another place. But what existed before the intelligence of God, into which they claim it was sent? And what a vast region must it have been to be capable of receiving and containing the intelligence of God! If they argue that this emission happened just as a ray comes from the sun, then, just as the air that receives the ray must have existed before it, they imply that there was something into which the intelligence of God was sent, capable of containing it, and more ancient than itself. Following this logic, we must conclude that, like the sun, which is smaller than all things but still sends rays to great distances, the Propator must have sent a ray far from Himself. But what can exist beyond or at a distance from God, into which He sent this ray?

6. If, again, they claim that the intelligence was not sent forth beyond the Father but remained within Him, then firstly, it becomes unnecessary to say it was sent out at all. How could it have been sent forth if it remained within the Father? For an emission is the manifestation of that which is emitted, outside of the one who emits it.

FURTHERMORE: if this intelligence is sent forth, then both the Logos that comes from Him and the future emissions proceeding from Logos would still be within the Father.

Thus, they cannot be unaware of the Father, since they are within Him; nor can any of them know Him less than another, no matter the order of their emission. They must also remain unchanging to the same degree, since they exist in the embrace of their Father, and none of them can ever fall into a state of corruption or decline. For with the Father, there is no degeneration, unless perhaps as in a large circle containing a smaller one, and within this another smaller one; or unless they claim that the Father, like a sphere or square, contains within Himself the likeness of a sphere on all sides, or the production of the rest of the Æons in the form of a square, each one being surrounded by the one who is greater and surrounding in turn the one who is lesser; and that, for this reason, the smallest and last of all, being in the center and thus far removed from the Father, was really unaware of the Propator.

But if they hold such a theory, they must confine their Bythus within a specific form and space, while He both surrounds others and is surrounded by them; they would then have to admit that there is something outside of Him that surrounds Him. Regardless, talk about those that contain and those that are contained will continue infinitely; and all the Æons will clearly seem to be bodies enclosed within one another.

FURTHERMORE: they must also admit either that He is simply emptiness, or that the entire universe is within Him; and if that's the case, all will equally share in the Father. Just like when one creates circles in water, or round or square shapes, all of these will equally share in the water; similarly, those formed in the air must share in the air, and those formed in light, in light; so must those within Him all equally share in the Father, with ignorance having no place among them. Then, where is this sharing in the Father who fills all things? If He has indeed filled all things, there will be no ignorance among them. Based on this, their claim of [supposed] corruption is rendered meaningless, along with the creation of matter and the formation of the rest of the world; things they assert were made from passion and ignorance. If, on the other hand, they admit that He is emptiness, then they commit the greatest blasphemy; they deny His spiritual nature. For how can He be a spiritual being if He cannot even fill those things within Him?

NOW: these remarks about the emission of intelligence similarly apply against those who belong to the school of Basilides and against the rest of the Gnostics, from whom the Valentinians adopted the ideas about emissions and were refuted in the first book. I have now clearly shown that the first production of Nous, the intelligence they speak of, is a flawed and impossible opinion. Let us see how the matter stands with respect to the others [of the Æons]. They claim that Logos and Zoe were sent forth by him (i.e., Nous) as creators of this Pleroma.

They conceive of an emission of Logos, or the Word, following the analogy of human feelings, and make bold assumptions about God, as if they had discovered something extraordinary by asserting that Logos was produced by Nous. Everyone clearly perceives that this can logically be affirmed regarding humans.

But in Him who is God over all, since He is entirely Nous and entirely Logos, as I have said before, and has nothing in Himself more ancient or recent than another, and nothing conflicting with another, but remains completely equal, similar, and uniform, there is no basis for imagining such production in the mentioned order.

Just as he does not err who declares that God is all vision and all hearing (as He sees, He also hears; and as He hears, He also sees), so also does he who affirms that He is all intelligence and all word, and that, in whatever respect He is intelligence, in that He is also word, and that this Nous is His Logos, will still have only an inadequate concept of the Father of all, but will hold far more fitting thoughts about Him than do those who attribute the generation of the word which people express to the eternal Word of God, assigning a beginning and process of production to Him, just as they do to their own word.

And how will the Word of God—indeed, God Himself, since He is the Word—differ from the word of humans if He follows the same order and process of generation?

THEY HAVE ALSO MADE A MISTAKE REGARDING ZOE BY CLAIMING THAT SHE WAS CREATED IN THE SIXTH POSITION: when she should actually precede all others, since God is life, incorruption, and truth. These attributes are not created in a gradual order, but are names of the perfections that always exist in God, as much as it is proper for humans to comprehend and speak of God. The following words are in harmony with the name of God: intelligence, word, life, incorruption, truth, wisdom, goodness, and similar attributes. No one can claim that intelligence is older than life, because intelligence itself is life; nor that life comes after intelligence, such that He who is the intellect of all, which is God, could have ever been without life. But if they claim that life was initially in the Father and was created in the sixth position so that the Word could live, then logically, it should have been sent forth earlier, in the fourth position, so that Nous might have life; and even before that, it should have been with Bythus, so that their Bythus could live. To count Sige along with their Propator and assign her to Him as His partner, while not including Zoe in that number—is this not the height of madness?

In regard to the second generation that comes from these mentioned Æons—namely, of Homo and Ecclesia—their very founders, falsely called Gnostics, argue among themselves, each one trying to prove their own ideas right, thereby accusing themselves of being wicked thieves. They argue that it is more fitting for the concept of creation—taking it as truth—that the Word was produced by man, and not man by the Word; and that man existed before the Word, and that this man is truly He who is God over all. Consequently, as I have previously noted, by combining with a sense of plausibility all human emotions, thoughts, intentions, and speech, they lie without any plausibility against God. For although they attribute the occurrences in humans, and whatever they identify as their own experiences, to the divine reason, they seem, to those who are unfamiliar with God, to make appropriate statements. By these human passions, diverting their understanding while they describe the origin and creation of the Word of God in a lesser role, they claim to teach remarkable mysteries, indescribable and profound, known only to themselves. They assert that it was about these that the Lord said, "Seek, and you shall find," implying that they should investigate how Nous and Aletheia emerged from Bythus and Sage; whether Logos and Zoe again derive their origin from these and then whether Anthropos and Ecclesia proceed from Logos and Zoe.

THE ACCOUNT GIVEN BY ANTIPHANES: one of the ancient comic poets, in his work Theogony about the origin of all things is much more truthful and pleasing. He describes Chaos as emerging from Night and Silence, then explains that Love sprang from Chaos and Night, and from Love came Light. In his view, from this Light came the rest of the first generation of the gods. He then introduces a second generation of gods and the creation of the world, followed by the formation of humanity by the second order of the gods.

The heretics, adopting this fable as their own, have organized their beliefs around it as if by some natural process, only changing the names, and present the same beginning of the creation of all things. Instead of Night and Silence, they use Bythus and Sige; instead of Chaos, they use Nous; and for Love, who the comic poet says set all other things in order, they substitute the Word. For the primary and greatest gods, they have created the Æons; and as replacements for the secondary gods, they describe a creation by their mother outside of the Pleroma, calling it the second Ogdoad.

They claim, like the referenced writer, that from this Ogdoad came the world's creation and the formation of man, asserting that only they understand these ineffable and unknown mysteries. They take what comedians with clear voices perform in theaters everywhere and adapt it to their own system, teaching it with the same arguments while simply changing the names.

THEY ARE NOT ONLY ACCUSED OF PRESENTING: as if they were their own original ideas, the concepts found among the comic poets, but they also gather ideas expressed by those ignorant of God, known as philosophers. By piecing together a patchwork of poor ideas, they have created a disguise through their clever way of speaking that is not genuinely their own. Indeed, they do introduce a new kind of teaching, as it involves a new method replacing the old. However, it is essentially both outdated and worthless because these opinions have been assembled from ancient beliefs filled with ignorance and irreligion. For example, Thales of Miletus claimed that water was the fundamental principle of all things. Now, it is effectively the same whether we say water or Bythus. The poet Homer believed that Oceanus, along with mother Tethys, was the origin of the gods: this idea has been adapted by these people to Bythus and Sige. Anaximander proposed that infinity is the first principle of all things, containing within it the potential to generate everything, and from this, he claims the vast worlds were formed: this, too, they have reworked and associated with Bythus and their Æons. Anaxagoras, also called “Atheist,” suggested that animals were formed from seeds falling from heaven upon earth. These thinkers have adopted this idea into "the seed" of their Mother, which they identify with themselves, thereby revealing, to those who are sensible, that they are the descendants of the irreligious Anaxagoras.

3. Once more, adopting the ideas of shade and emptiness from Democritus and Epicurus, they have adapted these to their own views, following after those teachers who had already spoken extensively about a vacuum and atoms, one of which they called what is, and the other what is not. Similarly, these people call the things within the Pleroma real existences, just as those philosophers did with atoms, while they claim that those outside the Pleroma have no true existence, just as those philosophers did regarding the vacuum. They have thus placed themselves in this world (since here they are outside of the Pleroma) in a place without existence. Again, when they assert that these things below are images of those with true existence above, they once more clearly echo the teachings of Democritus and Plato. For Democritus was the first to claim that numerous and diverse figures were stamped with the forms of things above and descended from universal space into this world. But Plato speaks of matter, exemplar, and God. Following these distinctions, these people have referred to what he calls ideas and exemplar as the images of things above; while, with a simple change of name, they pride themselves as being the discoverers and creators of this sort of imaginary fiction.

This belief that the Creator formed the world out of pre-existing matter was expressed by Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Plato before them, as we learn they also do under the inspiration of their Mother. Additionally, regarding the idea that everything must eventually return to the elements from which they claim it was formed, and that God is bound by this necessity, unable to grant immortality to the mortal or incorruption to the corruptible, but rather that everything returns to a substance similar in nature to itself, this view is shared by those named Stoics from the portico, and indeed all who are ignorant of God, including poets and historians. These heretics who hold the same system of disbelief have assigned a distinct region to spiritual beings, specifically within the Pleroma, an intermediate space to animal beings, and the material realm to corporeal beings. They claim that God Himself cannot act otherwise, and that every type of substance must return to where it is naturally akin.

IN ADDITION: regarding their claim that the Savior was formed from all the Æons, with each one supposedly contributing their own specific essence to Him, they introduce nothing new that isn't already present in Hesiod's Pandora. What Hesiod says about Pandora, these people suggest about the Savior, presenting Him as Pandoros (All-gifted), as if each of the Æons had given Him what they had in the highest degree. Furthermore, their belief in the indifference of eating meat and other actions, and their notion that due to the nobility of their nature, they cannot be tainted by anything they eat or do, is borrowed from the Cynics, since they are indeed part of the same group as those philosophers. They also attempt to apply to matters of faith the detailed and delicate method of handling questions that is essentially a replication of Aristotle.

THE DESIRE TO ATTRIBUTE THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE TO NUMBERS ORIGINATES FROM THE PYTHAGOREANS: They were the first to propose numbers as the fundamental principle of everything, describing this principle as both equal and unequal. From this duality, they believed that both tangible and intangible things originated. They asserted that one set of first principles led to the substance of things, and another to their form, just as a statue consists of its metal and its unique shape. The heretics have adapted this idea to elements outside of the Pleroma. The Pythagoreans stated that the principle of intellect is proportional to the energy with which the mind, as a recipient of the understandable, conducts its inquiries until it is eventually resolved into the Indivisible and One. They also claimed that Hen, or One, is the primary principle of all things and the essence of everything that has been formed. From this, the Dyad, the Tetrad, the Pentad, and the multiple generations of other numbers emerged. Heretics repeat these ideas word for word, relating them to their concepts of the Pleroma and Bythus. They also try to promote those combinations that arise from unity. Marcus claims these ideas as his own, as if he has discovered something more innovative than others, while he merely presents the Tetrad of Pythagoras as the originating principle and mother of all things.

7. But I will simply say, in response to these men: Did all those mentioned, with whom you have been shown to agree in expression, know or not know the truth? If they knew it, then the descent of the Savior into this world was unnecessary. Why, in that case, did He come down? Was it to bring the truth, which was already known, to those who already knew it? On the other hand, if these men did not know it, then how can you, while expressing yourselves in the same terms as those who did not know the truth, boast that you alone possess knowledge above all things, even though those ignorant of God also claim it? Thus, by completely twisting language, they call ignorance of the truth knowledge: and Paul rightly says of them that they use "novelties of words of false knowledge." For their knowledge is indeed found to be false. However, if they shamelessly claim that men did not know the truth, but that their Mother, the seed of the Father, revealed the mysteries of truth through such men, just as through the prophets, while the Demiurge was unaware, then I respond, first, that the things predicted were not beyond comprehension; the men themselves understood what they were saying, as did their disciples, and those who came after them. Secondly, if either the Mother or her seed knew and proclaimed the things of the truth (and the Father is truth), then according to their theory, the Savior spoke falsely when He said, "No one knows the Father but the Son," unless they indeed claim that their seed or Mother is No-one.

THUS: by attributing human emotions to their Æons and using language that aligns with many who are unaware of God, they have managed to plausibly draw some people away from the truth. They lead them on with expressions they are familiar with, discussing topics like the creation of the Word of God, Zoe, and Nous, and introducing a sequence of emanations of the Deity as if bringing them into the world. The ideas they propose, which lack plausibility or grandeur, are nothing but lies from start to finish.

Just like those who use familiar food to lure and capture animals, gradually drawing them in with what they are used to until they are trapped, and then subject them to harsh captivity and force them wherever desired, these men also gradually and subtly persuade others with plausible speeches to accept the aforementioned emission. They then introduce inconsistent ideas and unexpected forms of the remaining emissions.

For example, they claim that ten Æons were sent forth by Logos and Zoe, while twelve came from Anthropos and Ecclesia, though they have no proof, testimony, likelihood, or anything of that kind to support these claims.

With equal foolishness and boldness, they wish people to believe that Bythus and Mixis, Ageratos and Henosis, Autophyes and Hedone, Acinetos and Syncrasis, Monogenes and Macaria were sent forth by Logos and Zoe, being Æons.

Furthermore, they assert that in a similar way, Paracletus and Pistis, Patricos and Elpis, Metricos and Agape, Ainos and Synesis, Ecclesiasticus and Macariotes, Theletos and Sophia were sent forth by Anthropos and Ecclesia, also being Æons.

THE PASSIONS AND ERROR OF SOPHIA: and how she risked perishing through her investigation of the nature of the Father, as they say, and what happened outside of the Pleroma, and from what kind of defect they teach that the Maker of the world came about, I have explained in the previous book, carefully describing the opinions of these heretics. I have also detailed their views regarding Christ, whom they describe as being produced after all these events, and also regarding Soter, who, according to them, originated from those Æons formed within the Pleroma. I have had to mention their names now so that the absurdity of their falsehood can be made clear, as well as the confusing nature of the names they have invented. They themselves detract from the dignity of their Æons by using a multitude of such names. They propose names that seem plausible and credible to the heathen, similar to those who are known as their twelve gods, claiming even these to be images of their twelve Æons. But the images they refer to can produce names more appropriate and more powerful through their meanings to indicate divinity than those of the imagined prototypes.

Let's return to the mentioned question regarding the production of the Æons. First, let them explain why the production of Æons is such that they do not interact with anything related to creation. They claim that the higher things were not made for creation, but rather creation was made for them; and that the lower things are not images of the higher, but the higher of the lower. Since they give a reason for these images by saying the month has thirty days because of the thirty Æons, the day has twelve hours, and the year twelve months, because of the twelve Æons within the Pleroma, along with other such nonsense, let them now also explain the reason for the production of the Æons, why it was of such a kind, and why the first and first-begotten Ogdoad was sent forth, and not a Pentad, Triad, or Septenad, or any other defined by a different number. Furthermore, how is it that from Logos and Zoe, ten Æons were sent forth, and neither more nor less; while from Anthropos and Ecclesia, twelve proceeded, although these could have been either more or less numerous?

2. And then, again, regarding the entire Pleroma, why is it divided into these three parts—an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad—rather than some other different number? Furthermore, concerning the division itself, why has it been made into three parts and not four, or five, or six, or some other number that has no connection with those numbers associated with creation? For they describe those Æons above as being more ancient than the created things below, and they ought to possess their principle of being within themselves, one that existed before creation and not patterned after creation, all agreeing on this point.

THE ACCOUNT WE GIVE OF CREATION ALIGNS WITH THE REGULAR ORDER OF THINGS PREVAILING IN THE WORLD: because our explanation fits the things that have actually been made. However, those who can't explain the nature of the beings that existed before creation, and were perfected by themselves, face great confusion. When they question us about creation, they either refer to mere human emotions or rely on the harmony seen in creation, incorrectly answering with details about secondary matters instead of the primary ones they claim to know. We don't ask them about creation's harmony or human feelings, but about their octiform, deciform, and duodeciform Pleroma, which they say creation imitates. They must admit that their Father formed it without reason if they assume He did so thoughtlessly, thus attributing imperfection to Him. Alternatively, if they claim the Pleroma was created according to the Father's foresight for the sake of creation, meaning He organized its essence symmetrically, then the Pleroma is no longer its own purpose but is made for creation, which is its image. Like a clay model not molded for its own sake but for a statue to be made in brass, gold, or silver, creation would have more honor than the Pleroma if those things above were made for creation's sake.

IF THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THESE CONCLUSIONS: they must admit that their Pleroma was modeled after some other system, more spiritual and powerful than itself. If the Demiurge did not create the figure of the existing creation on his own but based it on forms from above, then from whom did their Bythus—who ensured the Pleroma had such a configuration—receive the form of those things that existed before himself? It must be that either the intention to create was in the god who made the world, allowing him to derive the model of its formation from himself, or if departing from this, one must continually question where the configuration of what has been made originates from and what is the number and substance of the model. If Bythus could impart such a configuration to the Pleroma on his own, then why couldn't the Demiurge independently create the world that exists? Moreover, if creation is an image of those things above, why shouldn't we claim that those, in turn, are images of others above them, and those above also images of others, continuing indefinitely with images of images?

THIS DIFFICULTY AROSE FOR BASILIDES AFTER HE COMPLETELY MISSED THE TRUTH: and thought that by an endless series of beings formed from one another, he might avoid such confusion. When he claimed that three hundred and sixty-five heavens were created through succession and similarity by one another, and that clear evidence of these was found in the number of days in a year, as I mentioned before; and that above these there was a power they also call Unnameable, and its arrangement—he still did not escape such confusion. For, when asked where the image of its structure came from for that heaven above all others, from which he believes the rest were formed through succession, he will say, from that arrangement belonging to the Unnameable. He must then say either that the Unspeakable formed it from himself, or he will need to admit that there is some other power above this being, from whom his Unnameable One received such vast numbers of structures as do, according to him, exist.

3. How much safer and more accurate it is, then, to immediately acknowledge the truth: that this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him—He Himself using His own model and design for the things that have been made—rather than to exhaust ourselves with such an impious and roundabout explanation, only to eventually have to focus on one Being and admit that from Him came the design of created things.

CONCERNING THE ACCUSATION MADE AGAINST US BY THE FOLLOWERS OF VALENTINUS: who claim that we remain in the lower Hebdomad and cannot elevate our minds to understand higher things because we reject their bizarre beliefs: the followers of Basilides levy the same charge against them, arguing that they (the Valentinians) are entangled in lower matters, reaching only the first and second Ogdoad. They mistakenly believe that, immediately after the thirty Æons, they have discovered Him who is above all things, the Father, without extending their thoughts to the Pleroma beyond the three hundred and sixty-five heavens, which is above forty-five Ogdoads. Furthermore, anyone might accuse them similarly by imagining four thousand three hundred and eighty heavens or Æons, as this aligns with the number of hours in a year. If someone further includes the nights, thus doubling the hours mentioned and imagining a vast multitude of Ogdoads and an innumerable host of Æons, and thereby believing he has surpassed all others in perfection in opposition to Him who is above all things, the Father, he will levy the same charge against everyone else. According to this view, they are either lacking and remain among lower things or stay in an intermediate space, unable to grasp such a multitude of heavens or Æons.

THAT SYSTEM: then, which concerns their Pleroma, and especially the part of it that refers to the primary Ogdoad, is burdened with such great contradictions and perplexities. Let me now proceed to examine the remainder of their scheme. In doing so, because of their madness, I will be inquiring into things that have no real existence. Yet, it is necessary to do this since I have been entrusted with treating this subject, and because I desire all people to come to the knowledge of the truth, as well as because you yourself have asked to receive from me full and complete means for overturning the views of these men.

HOW: then, were the rest of the Æons created? Were they united with the one who created them, like the sun's rays with the sun, or were they made individually and separately, each with an independent existence and distinct form, like a man from another man or one herd of cattle from another? Or were they created like branches growing from a tree? Were they of the same substance as those who created them, or did they originate from a different substance? Were they produced simultaneously, as equals; or in a certain order, with some older and some younger? Furthermore, are they simple and uniform, entirely equal and similar to each other, like spirit and light; or are they complex and varied, different from one another in their parts?

If each of them was created in a human-like manner, actually and according to their own kind, then either those created by the Father will be of the same substance as Him and similar to their Creator; or if they appear different, then it must be acknowledged that they are made from some different substance. Now, if the beings created by the Father are similar to their Creator, then those who have been made must remain forever without suffering, just as He who made them; but if, on the other hand, they are of a different substance, which is capable of suffering, then how did this different substance find a place within the incorruptible Pleroma? Furthermore, according to this idea, each one of them must be understood as being completely separate from every other, just as humans are not mixed or united with one another, but each has a distinct shape and a specific sphere of action, while each is also formed of a particular size—qualities characteristic of a body, not of a spirit. Let them therefore no longer speak of the Pleroma as spiritual, or of themselves as "spiritual," if indeed their Æons are feasting with the Father, just as if they were humans, and He Himself is of such a form as those reveal Him to be who were created by Him.

IF: again, the Æons came from Logos, Logos from Nous, and Nous from Bythus, just as lights are kindled from a light—like torches from a torch—then they may differ in generation and size from each other; but since they share the same substance as the source of their creation, they must either all remain forever without suffering, or their Father Himself must experience suffering. For the torch that has been kindled afterwards cannot have a different kind of light from that which came before it. Therefore, when their lights come together as one, they return to the original identity because that one light is formed which has existed from the beginning. But we cannot say, regarding light itself, that one part is newer in origin and another older (since the whole is just one light); nor can we say this even about those torches that have received the light (for these are all contemporary regarding their material substance, as the substance of torches is one and the same), but we can simply speak about the timing of being kindled, since one was lit a little while ago and another has just now been kindled.

THE FLAW: therefore, of that passion related to ignorance will either affect their whole Pleroma since all its members are of the same substance; and the Propator will share in this flaw of ignorance—that is, will be ignorant of Himself; or, on the other hand, all those lights within the Pleroma will forever remain impassible. Where, then, does the passion of the youngest Æon come from if the light of the Father is that from which all other lights have been formed and is by nature impassible? And how can one Æon be described as either younger or older among them, since there is only one light in the entire Pleroma? And if anyone calls them stars, they will all still appear to share the same nature. For if “one star differs from another star in glory,” but not in qualities, nor substance, nor in being passible or impassible; then all these, being alike derived from the light of the Father, must either be naturally impassible and unchanging, or they must all, together with the light of the Father, be passible and capable of undergoing the varying stages of corruption.

THE SAME CONCLUSION WILL FOLLOW: even though they claim that the production of Æons came from Logos, like branches from a tree, since Logos comes from their Father. For all the Æons are made of the same substance as the Father, differing from each other only in size, and not in nature, and completing the greatness of the Father, just as the fingers complete the hand. If He exists in passion and ignorance, then the Æons generated by Him must also exist in the same way. But if it is impious to attribute ignorance and passion to the Father of all, how can they describe an Æon produced by Him as being susceptible to these qualities; and while they attribute the same impiety to the very wisdom (Sophia) of God, how can they still call themselves religious people?

If they claim that their Æons were sent out like rays from the sun, then since all are of the same substance and originate from the same source, all must either be capable of experiencing passion along with the one who created them, or all will remain unaffected forever. They cannot argue that, among these beings, some are unaffected while others are subject to passion. If they assert that all are unaffected, they undermine their own argument. How could the youngest Æon have experienced passion if all were unaffected? On the other hand, if they say that all shared in this passion, which some do argue, since it began with the Logos and then affected Sophia, they admit that the passion traces back to Logos, who is the Nous of the Propator, thus acknowledging that the Nous of the Propator and the Father Himself experienced passion. The Father of all should not be seen as a composite being who can be separated from His Nous (mind), as I have shown; rather, Nous is the Father, and the Father is Nous. It follows, therefore, that He who comes from Him as Logos, or rather Nous Himself, because He is Logos, must be perfect and unaffected, and those who come from Him, being of the same substance, should be perfect and unaffected, always remaining similar to Him who created them.

IT CAN NO LONGER BE CLAIMED: as these men teach, that the Logos, being third in generation, was unaware of the Father. While such a notion might seem probable in human generations, since they often know nothing of their parents, it is completely impossible in the case of the Logos of the Father. For if the Logos exists in the Father and knows Him in whom he exists—that is, is not ignorant of himself—then those emanations from him, being his powers and always with him, will not be ignorant of him who produced them, just as rays are not ignorant of the sun. Therefore, it is impossible for the Sophia (wisdom) of God, who is within the Pleroma and created in this way, to have succumbed to passion and conceived such ignorance. However, it is possible for that Sophia (wisdom) associated with the teachings of Valentinus, being a product of the devil, to fall into all kinds of passion and display profound ignorance. Since they themselves testify concerning their mother, saying she was the offspring of an erring Æon, we need no further reason to understand why the children of such a mother would remain in deep ignorance.

I AM NOT AWARE THAT: besides these productions already mentioned, they can speak of any others; in fact, I have often discussed these kinds of forms with them, yet they have never mentioned any other unique beings produced in this way. They only claim that each being was made so that it knows only the one who created it, remaining unaware of the one who came before.

However, they do not provide any explanation or evidence for how these beings were created or how such a process occurs among spiritual beings.

No matter how they try to explain it, they end up asserting that their Word, which comes from the Nous of the Propator, was produced in a flawed state. They argue that the perfect Nous, which was previously begotten by the perfect Bythus, could not create something perfect and instead brought forth something entirely ignorant of the Father's knowledge and greatness. They also claim that the Savior demonstrated this mystery in the story of the man blind from birth, as the Æon was produced by Monogenes blind, meaning ignorant, wrongly attributing ignorance and blindness to the Word of God, who, according to their theory, is the second creation from the Propator.

Admirable sophists and explorers of the profound mysteries of the unknown Father, and narrators of those super-celestial mysteries “which the angels desire to look into!”—that they might learn that from the Nous of that Father who is above all, the Word was produced blind, essentially ignorant of the Father who created him!

BUT: you miserable sophists, how could the Nous of the Father, or rather the very Father Himself, since He is Nous and perfect in all things, have produced His own Logos as an imperfect and blind Æon when He was also able to produce with Him the knowledge of the Father? As you affirm that Christ was generated after the rest and yet declare that He was produced perfect, much more then should Logos, who is older, be produced by the same Nous, unquestionably perfect, and not blind; nor could He have produced Æons even more blind than Himself, until at last your Sophia, always utterly blinded, gave birth to so vast a body of evils.

And your Father is the cause of all this mischief; for you declare the magnitude and power of your Father to be the causes of ignorance, comparing Him to Bythus, and assigning this as a name to Him who is the unnameable Father.

But if ignorance is an evil, and you declare all evils to have derived their strength from it, while you maintain that the greatness and power of the Father is the cause of this ignorance, you thus present Him as the author of all evils.

For you state as the cause of evil this fact: that no one could contemplate His greatness.

But if it was really impossible for the Father to make Himself known from the beginning to those beings that were formed by Him, He must in that case be held free from blame, since He could not remove the ignorance of those who came after Him.

But if, at a later time, when He willed it, He could remove that ignorance, which had increased with each successive generation and thus become deeply seated in the Æons, much more, had He willed it, might He have prevented that ignorance, which had not yet existed, from coming into existence.

SINCE: therefore, as soon as He pleased, He became known not only to the Æons, but also to people who lived in these later times; yet, as He did not please to be known from the beginning, He remained unknown—the cause of ignorance, according to you, is the will of the Father. For if He foreknew that these things would happen this way, why didn't He guard against the ignorance of these beings before it took hold among them, rather than later, as if in repentance, deal with it through Christ? The knowledge He conveyed to all through Christ, He could have imparted earlier through Logos, who was also the first-begotten of Monogenes.

Or if He knew them beforehand and willed that these things should happen as they have, then ignorance must endure forever and never pass away. For the things made in accordance with the will of your Propator must continue alongside His will; or if they pass away, then His will, which decreed their existence, will pass away with them. And why did the Æons find rest and attain perfect knowledge by finally learning that the Father is altogether incomprehensible? They could surely have had this knowledge before getting involved in passion; for the greatness of the Father did not diminish from the beginning, so that they might know He was altogether incomprehensible.

For if, due to His infinite greatness, He remained unknown, He ought also, due to His infinite love, to have preserved those unchanging who were produced by Him, since nothing hindered, and it was rather necessary, that they should have known from the beginning that the Father was altogether incomprehensible.

How can it be considered anything other than absurd that they also claim this Sophia (wisdom) was involved in ignorance, degeneracy, and passion? These things are alien and contrary to wisdom, and they can never be qualities belonging to it. Wherever there is a lack of foresight and ignorance of what is useful, wisdom does not exist. Therefore, let them no longer call this suffering Æon, Sophia, but let them give up either her name or her sufferings. Furthermore, let them not call their entire Pleroma spiritual if this Æon had a place within it while she was involved in such a tumult of passion. Even a strong soul, let alone a spiritual substance, would not go through such an experience.

2. And, again, how could her Enthymesis, going forth from her along with the passion, have become a separate existence? For Enthymesis (thought) is understood in connection with a person and can never exist on its own. For a bad Enthymesis is destroyed and absorbed by a good one, just as a state of disease is by health. What, then, was the kind of Enthymesis that came before the passion? It was this: to investigate the nature of the Father and to consider His greatness. But what did she later become convinced of, and was thus restored to health? It was this: that the Father is incomprehensible and beyond understanding. It was not a proper feeling that she wanted to know the Father, and because of this, she became susceptible; but when she became convinced that He is unsearchable, she was restored to health. And even Nous himself, who was inquiring into the nature of the Father, stopped his research upon learning that the Father is incomprehensible.

3. How then could the Enthymesis separately conceive passions, which were also her affections? For affection is necessarily connected with an individual; it cannot come into being or exist by itself. This opinion of theirs, however, is not only untenable but also opposed to what was spoken by our Lord: "Seek, and you shall find." For the Lord makes His disciples perfect by their seeking and finding the Father; but their Christ, who is above, has made them perfect by commanding the Æons not to seek the Father, persuading them that, even if they worked hard, they would not find Him. And they declare that they themselves are perfect because they claim to have found their Bythus; while the Æons have been made perfect through this, that He is unsearchable by them.

SINCE: therefore, Enthymesis herself could not exist separately from the Æon, it is clear that they tell even greater falsehoods about her suffering when they try to separate it from her and claim it was the substance of matter. As if God were not light, and as if no Word existed to convict them and overthrow their wickedness. For it is certainly true that whatever the Æon thought, she also experienced; and what she experienced, she also thought. Her Enthymesis was, according to them, nothing else than the struggle of one trying to understand the incomprehensible. Thus Enthymesis (thought) was the struggle; for she was contemplating the impossible. How then could affection and struggle be separated from Enthymesis and become the substance of such a vast material creation, when Enthymesis herself was the struggle, and the struggle was Enthymesis? Therefore, neither can Enthymesis exist apart from the Æon, nor the affections apart from Enthymesis, possess substance individually. Thus their system once again fails and collapses.

But how did it happen that the Æon was both broken down into parts and became subject to passion? She was undoubtedly of the same substance as the Pleroma; however, the entire Pleroma was of the Father.

NOW: any substance, when brought into contact with something of similar nature, will not dissolve into nothing or be in danger of perishing, but will instead continue and grow, like fire in fire, spirit in spirit, and water in water.

In contrast, those of opposite natures suffer, change, and are destroyed when they meet.

Similarly, if there had been a creation of light, it wouldn't suffer passion or face any danger in light like itself, but would rather glow with greater brightness and grow, as the day does from the sun's increasing brilliance; for they say Bythus himself was the image of their father (Sophia). Creatures that are alien and strange to each other, or opposed in nature, encounter danger and are destroyed when they meet, whereas those who are accustomed to each other and harmonious, suffer no harm from being together, and instead find safety and life in such a union.

If, therefore, this Æon was produced by the Pleroma of the same substance as the whole of it, she could never have changed, since she was among beings similar to and familiar with herself, a spiritual essence among those that were spiritual. Fear, terror, passion, dissolution, and similar things may occur through the conflict of opposites among beings like us, who have bodies; but among spiritual beings, and those illuminated with light, no such calamities are possible. These thinkers seem to me to have given their Æon the same kind of passion as a character in the comic poet Menander, who was deeply in love but also hated by his beloved.

Those who created such theories appear to have imagined a human lover’s misfortune rather than a spiritual and divine substance.

FURTHERMORE: to contemplate how to explore the nature of the perfect Father, to desire to exist within Him, and to understand His greatness, would not involve ignorance or passion, especially for a spiritual Æon. Instead, it would lead to perfection, impassibility, and truth. They do not claim that even they, as mere humans, experience confusion by contemplating Him who came before them. Rather, they attain knowledge and understanding of truth by doing so. They assert that the Saviour said, “Seek, and you shall find,” to His disciples with the intention that they should seek Him who is imagined to be above the Maker of all—the ineffable Bythus. They wish to be considered “the perfect” because they have sought and found the perfect One while still on earth. Yet, they state that the Æon within the Pleroma, a purely spiritual being, by seeking the Propator and trying to find a place within His greatness, and longing to understand the truth of the Father, fell into passion. This passion was so significant that, without encountering the Power that upholds everything, she would have dissolved into the general substance of the Æons and ceased to exist personally.

SUCH PRESUMPTION IS ABSURD AND TRULY REFLECTS AN OPINION OF MEN COMPLETELY LACKING THE TRUTH: They themselves admit, according to their own system, that this Æon is superior to them and older. They claim to be the fruit of the Enthymesis of that Æon who suffered passion, making this Æon the father of their mother, effectively their grandfather. They, the later grandchildren, believe that the search for the Father brings truth, perfection, stability, and deliverance from unstable matter, reconciling them to the Father. Yet, they say that the same search led their grandfather to ignorance, passion, terror, and confusion, from which they claim the substance of matter was formed. Therefore, to assert that the search for and investigation of the perfect Father, and the desire for communion and union with Him, were beneficial to them, but caused dissolution and destruction to an Æon, from whom they also originate, is completely inconsistent, foolish, and irrational. Those who listen to these teachers are truly blind, possessing blind guides, and justly fall with them into the abyss of ignorance beneath them.

But what kind of talk is this about their seed—that it was conceived by the mother according to the shape of those angels who serve the Saviour—shapeless, formless, and imperfect; and that it was placed in the Demiurge without his knowledge, so that it might achieve perfection and form through his involvement in that soul which he had, so to speak, filled with seed? This is to assert, first of all, that those angels who serve their Saviour are imperfect and without shape or form; if indeed what was conceived according to their image was generated as any kind of being as has been described.

2. Next, regarding their claim that the Creator was unaware of the deposit of seed placed in him, and of the impartation of seed he made to man, their words are pointless and baseless, without any proof. How could he have been unaware of it if that seed had any substance and unique qualities? On the other hand, if it lacked substance and quality, and was essentially nothing, then naturally, he was unaware of it. For things that have movement, and qualities like heat or swiftness or sweetness, or which differ in brilliance, do not go unnoticed even by humans, since they mix in with human activities; even less can they be hidden from God, the Maker of the universe.

IT IS REASONABLE TO SAY THAT THEIR SEED WAS NOT KNOWN TO HIM: as it lacks any quality of general usefulness and the substance necessary for action, and is, in fact, a complete nonentity. It seems to me that, regarding such opinions, the Lord expressed Himself like this: “For every idle word that men speak, they shall give account on the day of judgment.” All teachers like these, who fill men's ears with idle talk, will give an account when they stand at the throne of judgment for the things they have imagined and falsely spoken against the Lord, having become so audacious as to declare that, because of the substance of their seed, they know the spiritual Pleroma, since the man within reveals to them the true Father; for the animal nature needed to be disciplined by the senses.

But they claim that the Demiurge, after receiving all this seed through its deposit in him by the Mother, remained completely ignorant of everything and understood nothing about the Pleroma.

And they claim to be the truly "spiritual" ones because a certain particle of the Father of the universe has been placed in their souls. They assert that their souls are made of the same substance as the Demiurge himself. However, even though he received the entire [divine] seed from the Mother, and had it within himself, he still remained of an animal nature and had no understanding of higher things. They boast that they understand these higher things while still on earth. Does this not top all possible absurdity? To think that the very same seed gave knowledge and perfection to their souls, while it only caused ignorance in the God who made them, is an opinion that can be held only by those utterly insane and completely lacking in common sense.

MOREOVER: it is utterly absurd and baseless for them to claim that the seed, by being deposited in this way, was shaped and grew, and thus was prepared to receive perfect rationality. For there would be a mixture of matter in it— that substance which they believe stemmed from ignorance and defect; [and this would prove to be] more suitable and effective than the light of their Father, if indeed, when born, according to the contemplation of that [light], it was without form or figure, but gained form, appearance, growth, and perfection from this [matter].

For if that light which comes from the Pleroma caused a spiritual being to lack form, appearance, and its own specific size, while its descent to this world added all these things to it and brought it to perfection, then residing here (which they also call darkness) would seem much more effective and beneficial than the light of their Father.

But how can it be considered anything but ridiculous to assert that their mother nearly faced extinction in matter and was almost destroyed by it, had she not with difficulty stretched outwards and leaped out from herself, receiving help from the Father; yet her seed grew in this same matter, took on a form, and became fit to receive perfect rationality; and this happened while "bubbling up" among substances unlike and unfamiliar to itself, according to their claim that the earthly opposes the spiritual, and the spiritual the earthly? How, then, could "a little particle," as they claim, grow, gain shape, and reach perfection amid substances that are contrary and unfamiliar to itself?

5. Moreover, and in addition to what has been said, the question arises: Did their mother, when she saw the angels, give birth to all the offspring at once, or one by one in succession? If she gave birth to them all at once, what was produced cannot now be of an infantile nature; therefore, its descent into the people who now exist must be unnecessary. However, if she gave birth one by one, then her conception was not based on the form of those angels she saw; for by observing them all together and at once, she should have given birth all at once to the offspring from whom she conceived all at once.

6. Why was it that, when seeing the angels along with the Saviour, she recognized their images but not that of the Saviour, who is far more beautiful than them? Did He not please her, and was that why she did not recognize His likeness? Also, how was it that the Demiurge, who they call an animal being with his own specific size and figure, was created perfect in substance, while the spiritual being—which should be more effective than the animal—was sent forth imperfect and had to descend into a soul to obtain form? By doing so, it would become perfect and ready for perfect reason.

IF IT GAINS FORM IN EARTHLY AND ANIMAL MEN: he can no longer be said to be in the likeness of angels, whom they call lights, but in the likeness of the men here below. For in that case, he won't have the likeness and appearance of angels but of the souls he takes shape in; just as water takes the form of a vessel it is poured into, and if it freezes, it takes the form of that vessel.

Souls have the shape of the body they inhabit, adapted to the vessel they exist in, as previously mentioned. If the seed solidifies and forms a definite shape, it will have the form of a man, not of the angels. How, then, can that seed be in the image of the angels when it has taken a form like men? Why, again, did it, being spiritual in nature, need to descend into flesh? For the carnal needs the spiritual to be saved, sanctified, and purified from impurity, so that mortality may be overtaken by immortality, while the spiritual does not need anything from below.

It is not us who benefit it, but it that benefits us.

THAT TALK OF THEIRS ABOUT THEIR SEED IS CLEARLY PROVEN FALSE: and in a way that should be obvious to everyone, by the fact that they claim those souls which have received seed from the Mother to be superior to all others. Therefore, they say these souls have been honored by the Demiurge, made princes, kings, and priests. If this were true, the high priest Caiaphas, Annas, and the rest of the chief priests, teachers of the law, and rulers of the people would have been the first to believe in the Lord, given their connection to that lineage; and even before them, it should have been King Herod. But since neither he, nor the chief priests, nor the rulers, nor the prominent of the people turned to Him in faith, but rather those who were begging by the roadside, the deaf, and the blind, while He was rejected and despised by others, as Paul declares, “For you see your calling, brothers, that there are not many wise men among you, not many noble, not many powerful; but those things of the world which were despised God has chosen.” Therefore, such souls were not superior to others because of the seed within them, nor were they honored by the Demiurge for this reason.

8. Regarding the point that their system is weak, untenable, and completely fanciful, enough has been said. It is not necessary, as the saying goes, to drink the entire ocean to know its water is salty. Similarly, if there is a statue made of clay but painted on the outside to appear like gold, anyone who removes a small piece to reveal the underlying clay will release those seeking truth from false beliefs. In the same way, I have exposed not just a small part but several key aspects of their system, which are of great importance. I have shown to those who do not wish to be knowingly misled, the wickedness, deceit, seduction, and harm connected with the school of the Valentinians and all the other heretics who promote wicked views about the Demiurge, the Creator and Former of this universe, who is indeed the only true God. I have demonstrated how easily their views can be dismantled.

WHO: possessing any intelligence and even a small amount of truth, can accept their claims that there is another god above the Creator; another Monogenes and another Word of God, which they describe as being born in a state of degeneracy; another Christ, who they claim was formed with the Holy Spirit later than the rest of the Æons; and another Saviour, who, they say, did not come from the Father of all, but was a joint creation of those Æons formed in a state of degeneracy, and that He was produced out of necessity due to this very degeneracy? It is their belief that, if the Æons had not been in a state of ignorance and degeneracy, neither Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, nor Horos, nor the Saviour, nor the angels, nor their Mother, nor her descendants, nor the rest of the universe, would have been created at all; but the universe would have been barren and empty of the many good things it contains. They are therefore guilty not only of blasphemy against the Creator, declaring Him a result of a flaw, but also against Christ and the Holy Spirit, claiming they were created because of that flaw; and in the same way, that the Saviour was created after that flaw existed. Who will accept the rest of their pointless talk, which they cleverly try to fit into the parables, and have thereby dragged both themselves, and those who believe them, into the deepest depths of impiety?

They improperly and illogically apply both the parables and actions of the Lord to their falsely-devised system, and I prove this as follows: They attempt to demonstrate that the passion, which they claim occurred in the case of the twelfth Æon, is evidenced by the fact that the passion of the Saviour was brought about by the twelfth apostle and happened in the twelfth month. They believe that He preached only for one year after His baptism. They also argue that this was clearly shown in the case of the woman who suffered from the issue of blood. The woman suffered for twelve years, and by touching the hem of the Saviour’s garment, she was healed by the power that went forth from the Saviour, which they assert had a previous existence. For that Power which suffered was extending herself outward and flowing into immensity, to the point of being in danger of dissolving into the general substance of the Æons; but then, by touching the primary Tetrad, symbolized by the hem of the garment, she was stopped and ceased from her passion.

2. Regarding their claim that the passion of the twelfth Æon was demonstrated through Judas's actions, how is it possible to compare Judas with this Æon as a symbol of her—Judas, who was expelled from the group of the twelve and never reinstated? The Æon they claim Judas represents, after being separated from her Enthymesis, was restored to her former position; but Judas lost his office and was cast out, while Matthias was appointed in his place, as it is written, “Let another take his bishopric.” Therefore, they should argue that the twelfth Æon was cast out of the Pleroma, and another was created, or sent forth to take her place, if Judas is to represent her. Furthermore, they say that it was the Æon herself who suffered, but Judas was the betrayer, not the sufferer. Even they admit that it was the suffering Christ, and not Judas, who endured the passion. How, then, could Judas, the betrayer of Him who had to suffer for our salvation, be the type and image of that Æon who suffered?

BUT: in truth, the passion of Christ was neither similar to the passion of the Æon, nor did it occur in the same way. For the Æon underwent a passion of dissolution and destruction, so that she who suffered was at risk of being destroyed.

But the Lord, our Christ, underwent a true, not merely accidental, passion; not only was He Himself not at risk of being destroyed, but He also strengthened fallen man by His own power and brought him back to incorruption.

The Æon experienced passion while she was seeking the Father but couldn't find Him; the Lord suffered to bring those who have strayed from the Father back to knowledge and fellowship. Her search into the greatness of the Father led to her passion and destruction; but the Lord, having suffered, gave us the knowledge of the Father and granted us salvation. Her passion, as they claim, resulted in a weak, infirm, unformed, and ineffective female offspring; but His passion brought forth strength and power.

Through suffering, the Lord “ascended into the heavenly place, led captivity captive, gave gifts to men,” and granted believers the power “to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy,” meaning the leader of apostasy. Our Lord also, by His passion, destroyed death, ended error, abolished corruption, and eradicated ignorance, while He revealed life, unveiled truth, and bestowed the gift of incorruption.

But their Æon, after suffering, established ignorance and brought forth a formless substance, from which all material works like death, corruption, and error have been produced.

JUDAS: the twelfth disciple, was not a representation of the suffering Æon, nor of the passion of the Lord, because these two things are completely different and incompatible in every way. This difference applies not only to the aspects I’ve already talked about but also to their numbers. It is agreed by all that Judas the traitor is the twelfth, because the Gospel names twelve apostles. However, this Æon is not the twelfth but the thirtieth. According to the views in question, not just twelve Æons were created by the Father's will, nor was she the twelfth to be sent forth. Instead, she is counted as being created in the thirtieth place. How, then, can Judas, the twelfth, be the symbol and reflection of that Æon who is the thirtieth?

BUT IF THEY CLAIM THAT JUDAS IN HIS DESTRUCTION WAS THE IMAGE OF HER ENTHYMESIS: even then the image will not accurately reflect the truth it supposedly represents. The Enthymesis, after being separated from the Æon and then given shape by Christ, participates in intelligence through the Savior and creates everything outside the Pleroma in the likeness of what is within the Pleroma. It is said that Enthymesis was eventually received back into the Pleroma and united with the Savior who was formed from all.

However, Judas was completely cast away and never returned to the group of disciples; otherwise, someone else would not have been chosen to replace him.

Furthermore, the Lord declared regarding Judas: "Woe to the man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed," and "It would be better for him if he had never been born;" He also called him the "son of perdition." If they claim that Judas was a type of Enthymesis, but not as separated from the Æon—rather, of the passion associated with her—then neither can the number twelve be considered an appropriate type of the number three.

In Judas’s case, he was cast out, and Matthias was appointed in his place; whereas with the Æon, she was in danger of dissolution and destruction, along with her Enthymesis and passion. They clearly distinguish Enthymesis from passion, presenting the Æon as restored, with Enthymesis gaining form, and the passion, once separated, becoming material. Since there are these three—the Æon, her Enthymesis, and her passion—Judas and Matthias, being only two, cannot represent them.

IF: once again, they claim that the twelve apostles were only a symbol of the group of twelve Æons that Anthropos, together with Ecclesia, created, then let them provide ten more apostles as a symbol of those remaining ten Æons, who, they say, were created by Logos and Zoe. It is illogical to think that the junior Æons, who are considered inferior for that reason, were represented by the Savior through the selection of apostles, while their seniors, and therefore their superiors, were not represented; since if the Savior chose the apostles with the intent of showing the Æons in the Pleroma through them, He could have also chosen another ten apostles, and another eight before these, to represent the original and primary Ogdoad.

He could not demonstrate any symbol of the second Duo Decad, since the apostles' number already served as a symbol. For after the twelve apostles, our Lord sent seventy others ahead of Him.

But seventy cannot possibly be a symbol of an Ogdoad, a Decad, or a Triacontad. So why are the inferior Æons, as I mentioned, represented by the apostles, but the superior Æons, from whom the former derive their existence, not prefigured at all? If the twelve apostles were chosen to indicate the number of the twelve Æons, then the seventy should have also been chosen as a type of seventy Æons; and in that case, they must assert that the Æons are not thirty but eighty-two in number.

For He who chose the apostles to be a type of those Æons in the Pleroma would not have made them types of only some and not others; instead, through the apostles, He would have attempted to preserve an image and exhibit a type of all the Æons in the Pleroma.

2.

FURTHERMORE: we must not remain silent about Paul, but question them about the type of Æon that apostle has been portrayed as, unless perhaps they claim he represents the Savior composed of all of them, who came into being from the combined gifts of the whole, and whom they call All Things, as having been formed from them all. Concerning this being, the poet Hesiod has expressed himself strikingly, calling him Pandora—meaning "The gift of all"—because the best gift that everyone possessed was centered in him.

When describing these gifts, the following account is given: Hermes (as he is called in Greek) "implanted words of fraud and deceit in their minds, and thievish habits," to lead foolish people astray so they would believe their lies. For their Mother, Leto, secretly incited them (which is also why she is called Leto, according to the Greek meaning, because she secretly incited men), without the Demiurge's knowledge, to spread deep and unspeakable mysteries to eager listeners. Not only did their Mother ensure that this mystery was revealed by Hesiod, but she also skillfully did so through the lyric poet Pindar.

In his description to the Demiurge of the case of Pelops, whose flesh was cut into pieces by the Father and then gathered, reassembled, and united by all the gods, she indicated Pandora and these men with consciences seared by her, asserting, as they believe, the same things, proving them to be of the same family and spirit as the others.

I have demonstrated that the number thirty does not work for them in every way; sometimes there are too few Æons in the Pleroma as they say, and at other times there are too many to match that number. Therefore, there aren't thirty Æons, nor did the Savior come to be baptized at thirty years old to represent the thirty silent Æons of their system; otherwise, they would have to separate and eject the Savior Himself from the Pleroma entirely. Furthermore, they claim that He suffered in the twelfth month, suggesting that He preached for one year after His baptism. They try to prove this from the prophet, as it is written, “To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution,” but they are truly blind because they claim to have discovered the mysteries of Bythus without understanding what Isaiah calls the acceptable year of the Lord or the day of retribution. The prophet is not speaking of a day consisting of twelve hours, nor a year that lasts twelve months. Even they admit that the prophets often used parables and allegories, and should not be interpreted only based on the literal words.

THAT WAS REFERRED TO AS THE DAY OF RETRIBUTION: when the Lord will reward each person according to their deeds—that is, the judgment. The acceptable year of the Lord is this current time, in which those who believe in Him are called by Him and become acceptable to God—that is, the entire period from His coming until the end of all things, during which He gathers those who are saved as the fruits of His plan of mercy.

According to the language of the prophet, the day of retribution follows the acceptable year; and the prophet would be considered false if the Lord preached for only a year if he refers to it. For where is the day of retribution? For the year has passed, and the day of retribution has not yet come; but He still "makes His sun rise on the good and the evil, and sends rain on the just and unjust." The righteous suffer persecution, are afflicted, and are killed, while sinners live in abundance, and "drink with the sound of the harp and psaltery, but do not regard the works of the Lord." However, according to the prophet's words, they should be linked, with the day of retribution following the acceptable year.

The words say, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution." This current time, therefore, in which people are called and saved by the Lord, is correctly understood as "the acceptable year of the Lord;" and "the day of retribution," that is, the judgment, follows it. The period referred to is not just called “a year” but is also named “a day” by both the prophet and Paul, who, recalling Scripture, says in the Epistle to the Romans, "As it is written, for your sake we are killed all day long, we are considered as sheep for the slaughter." Here, "all day long" represents the entire period during which we endure persecution and are killed for His sake.

Just as this day does not represent one with twelve hours, but the whole time during which believers in Christ suffer and are put to death for His sake, the year mentioned does not mean one composed of twelve months, but the entire time of faith during which people hear and believe the Gospel, and those who unite with Him become acceptable to God.

IT IS TRULY PUZZLING HOW: despite claiming to have discovered the mysteries of God, some have not examined the Gospels to determine how many times after His baptism the Lord went to Jerusalem for the Passover, as was the custom for Jews from every land to gather there each year to celebrate it. First, after turning water into wine at Cana of Galilee, He went to the Passover, and it is written, "Many believed in Him when they saw the signs He did," as recorded by John, the disciple of the Lord.

Then, withdrawing from Judea, He went to Samaria, and there He conversed with the Samaritan woman and cured the son of the centurion from a distance by saying, "Go, your son lives." Later, He went a second time to Jerusalem for the Passover, where He healed the paralytic man who had been lying by the pool for thirty-eight years, telling him to rise, take up his bed, and walk. Again, withdrawing to the other side of the Sea of Tiberias, seeing a large crowd had followed Him, He fed them all with five loaves of bread, and twelve baskets of leftovers were collected.

When He raised Lazarus from the dead and the Pharisees plotted against Him, He withdrew to a city called Ephraim; and from there, it is written, "He came to Bethany six days before the Passover," and from Bethany went to Jerusalem, where He ate the Passover and suffered the following day. Everyone must acknowledge these three occasions of the Passover could not have happened within one year. And the specific month in which the Passover was held and when the Lord suffered was not the twelfth but the first.

Those who claim to know all things, if they do not know this, may learn it from Moses.

Therefore, their explanation of the year and the twelfth month has been proven false, and they should either reject their explanation or the Gospel; otherwise, they face the unanswerable question: How is it possible that the Lord preached for only one year?

WHEN HE TURNED THIRTY: He was baptized and then, being of the full age of a Master, He went to Jerusalem so everyone would recognize Him as a Master. He didn't appear to be something He was not, as some claim who describe Him as merely a man in appearance; He was truly what He appeared to be. As a Master, He had the age of a Master, not disregarding or avoiding any human condition, nor dismissing the law He had set for humanity, but sanctifying every age by living through it Himself. He came to help all through Himself—all, I say, who through Him are reborn to God—including infants, children, boys, youths, and old men. He went through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thereby sanctifying them; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of this age and becoming an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, exemplifying and sanctifying them for the Lord. Likewise, He was an old man for old men, so He could be a perfect Master for everyone, not just through truth but also through age, sanctifying the elderly and becoming an example for them too. Finally, He faced death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," the Prince of life, existing before all and leading all.

THEY: however, to support their false opinion about what is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” claim that He preached for only one year and then suffered in the twelfth month. In saying this, they forget to their own detriment, undermining His entire work and denying Him that age which is both more necessary and more honorable than any other; that more mature age, I mean, during which He also excelled as a teacher. For how could He have had disciples if He did not teach? And how could He have taught unless He had reached the age of a Master? When He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year but was beginning to be about thirty years old (for Luke, who mentioned His age, expressed it this way: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to be baptized); and, according to these people, He preached for only one year from His baptism.

He suffered upon completing His thirtieth year, still being a young man, and by no means had He attained a mature age.

Now, everyone will agree that the first stage of early life covers thirty years and extends onward to the fortieth year, but from the fortieth to the fiftieth year, a man begins to decline toward old age, a stage our Lord reached while He still fulfilled the role of a Teacher, as both the Gospel and all the elders testify; those in Asia who interacted with John, the disciple of the Lord, affirming that John relayed this information to them.

And John remained among them until the times of Trajan. Some of them also saw not only John but the other apostles as well, heard the same account from them, and bear witness to the validity of the statement. Whom, then, should we believe? Such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles and never even in his dreams achieved the slightest trace of an apostle?

BUT: in addition to this, the very Jews who argued with the Lord Jesus Christ clearly indicated the same thing. When the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it and was glad,” they replied to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” This kind of language is appropriately used for someone who is over forty but has not yet reached fifty, yet is close to that age.

But to someone who is only thirty years old, they would undoubtedly say, “You are not yet forty years old.” Those who wanted to accuse Him of lying would certainly not exaggerate His age far beyond what they saw; rather, they mentioned an age close to His actual age, whether they found this out from the public record or guessed from observing that He was over forty, not just thirty. It is completely unreasonable to think they were mistaken by twenty years when trying to prove Him younger than Abraham's time.

They spoke from what they saw; and He was not a spirit but a real person of flesh and blood. He was not far from being fifty years old, and based on this they said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Therefore, He did not preach for just one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of that year. The period between the ages of thirty and fifty cannot be considered as one year unless, in their Æons, there are years that long assigned to those who sit with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which Homer the poet also spoke, likely influenced by the Mother of their erroneous belief system:—

WHICH WE CAN TRANSLATE INTO ENGLISH AS: —“The gods sat around, while Jove presided over them, and held conversation on the golden floor.”

MOREOVER: their ignorance is clearly shown in the case of the woman who, suffering from an issue of blood, touched the edge of the Lord’s garment and was healed. They claim this demonstrates the twelfth power that suffered and extended toward immensity, representing the twelfth Æon. Their ignorance first appears because, as I've shown, in their own system, that wasn't the twelfth Æon. But even if we grant them this point for the moment, there being twelve Æons, eleven are said to have remained unaffected while the twelfth suffered. The woman, on the other hand, suffered for eleven years and was healed in the twelfth. If they were to say that eleven Æons experienced suffering, and the twelfth was healed, then it might be reasonable to say the woman represented them. But since she suffered for eleven years without relief and was healed in the twelfth, how can she represent the twelfth Æon, of whom eleven did not suffer, but the twelfth alone did? While a type and emblem might differ in substance, they should maintain a resemblance in form and features, foreshadowing future events through present things.

IN THE CASE OF THIS WOMAN: the years of her infirmity, which they claim fit their invention, have been mentioned. Behold, another woman also was healed after suffering similarly for eighteen years. The Lord said about her, “And should not this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for eighteen years, be set free on the Sabbath day?” If the first woman was a representation of the twelfth Æon that suffered, then the latter should represent the eighteenth Æon in suffering as well. However, they cannot support this; otherwise, their primary and original Ogdoad would be counted among the Æons who suffered together. Furthermore, another person was healed by the Lord after suffering for thirty-eight years. They should therefore assert that the Æon in the thirty-eighth position suffered. If they claim the actions of the Lord were representations of events in the Pleroma, then the representation should be consistent throughout. But they cannot adjust their fictional system to fit the case of the woman healed after eighteen years, nor the man healed after thirty-eight years. It is completely absurd and inconsistent to claim the Saviour maintained the representation in some cases but not in others. Therefore, the type of the woman with the issue of blood is shown to have no connection to their system of Æons.

THIS VERY POINT FURTHER SHOWS THAT THEIR OPINION IS FALSE AND THEIR FICTIONAL SYSTEM IS UNTENABLE: as they attempt to provide evidence for it through numbers and the syllables of names, at times using the letters of syllables, and also through numbers which, following the Greek method, are represented by different letters. This clearly demonstrates their confusion and the flawed nature of their claimed knowledge. For example, when they convert the name Jesus from another language into Greek numeration, they sometimes call it "Episemon," because it has six letters, and other times "the Plenitude of the Ogdoads," as it contains the number eight hundred and eighty-eight. However, the Greek name for Him, "Soter," meaning Savior, does not fit their system in terms of numerical value or its letters, so they ignore it. Yet, if they consider the names of the Lord as indicating the number in the Pleroma according to the Father's plan through their numerical value and letters, then Soter, being a Greek name, should reveal the mystery of the Pleroma through its letters and numbers. But it does not, since it is a five-letter word with a numerical value of one thousand four hundred and eight, which does not correspond with their Pleroma. Therefore, the account they give of events in the Pleroma cannot be true.

MOREOVER: Jesus, a word from the proper Hebrew language, contains, as their scholars say, two and a half letters and signifies the Lord who encompasses heaven and earth. In the ancient Hebrew language, Jesus means "heaven," while "earth" is expressed by the words sura usser.

Therefore, the word that encompasses heaven and earth is Jesus. Their explanation of the Episemon is false, and their numerical calculations are clearly incorrect. In their language, Soter is a Greek word of five letters, but in Hebrew, Jesus contains only two and a half letters.

Thus, the total they calculate, eight hundred and eighty-eight, is invalid.

Furthermore, Hebrew letters do not match Greek letters in number, although Hebrew, being more ancient and constant, should maintain the calculations linked to the names. These ancient, original, and sacred Hebrew letters are ten in number (but are written using fifteen), with the last letter joined to the first. They write some letters in sequence like we do, but others in reverse, from right to left, tracing the letters backwards.

The name Christ should also align with the Æons of their Pleroma, as He was produced for the establishment and correction of their Pleroma, according to their claims. Likewise, the Father should contain the number of those Æons produced by Him through letters and numerical value, as should Bythus and Monogenes. Especially the name above all others, which refers to God, and in Hebrew is expressed by Baruch, also contains two and a half letters. The fact that the important names in Hebrew and Greek do not fit their system, in terms of letter count or calculations, clearly shows the flawed nature of their other calculations.

FOR SELECTING FROM THE LAW WHATEVER ELEMENTS MATCH THE NUMBER USED IN THEIR SYSTEM: they forcefully try to prove its validity.

But if it was truly the intention of their Mother, or the Saviour, to demonstrate, through the Demiurge, examples of the things in the Pleroma, they should have ensured that the examples were found in things more precisely corresponding and more sacred; especially concerning the Ark of the Covenant, for which the entire tabernacle of witness was made. It was built with these dimensions: its length was two and a half cubits, its width one and a half cubits, its height one and a half cubits; but such a number of cubits does not correspond in their system, yet this design should have been, beyond everything else, clearly presented.

Likewise, the mercy-seat does not align with their explanations at all.

Moreover, the table of the shew-bread was two cubits long, while its height was one and a half cubits. These stood before the holy of holies, yet not a single number within them indicates the Tetrad, or the Ogdoad, or the rest of their Pleroma. What about the candlestick, which had seven branches and seven lamps? If these were crafted according to the example, it should have had eight branches and an equal number of lamps, following the pattern of the primary Ogdoad, which shines prominently among the Æons, and illuminates the whole Pleroma.

They meticulously counted the curtains as ten, declaring these as a symbol of the ten Æons; but they overlooked the coverings of skin, which were eleven in number. Nor have they measured the size of these very curtains, each being twenty-eight cubits long. They specify the length of the pillars as ten cubits, linking this to the Decad of Æons. "But the width of each pillar was one and a half cubits," and this they do not explain, nor do they account for the total number of the pillars or their bars, because this does not fit their argument.

What about the anointing oil, which sanctified the entire tabernacle? Perhaps it went unnoticed by the Saviour, or while their Mother slept, the Demiurge independently directed its weight; hence, it does not align with their Pleroma, being made of five hundred shekels of myrrh, five hundred of cassia, two hundred and fifty of cinnamon, two hundred and fifty of calamus, and oil as well, making it five components in total. The incense also consisted of stacte, onycha, galbanum, mint, and frankincense, all of which do not align with their argument in terms of mixture or weight.

It is therefore unreasonable and entirely absurd to claim that the examples were not preserved in the important and grand laws; but in other points, when a number coincides with their claims, to assert it was an example of the things in the Pleroma; while in reality, every number appears with the greatest variety in the Scriptures, so anyone could, if they wished, form not only an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad, but any number from the Scriptures and then claim it was an example of the erroneous system they devised.

TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE NUMBER FIVE: which doesn't fit their argument and doesn't align with their system, is, in fact, prevalent, we can turn to the Scriptures for proof. The name "Soter" has five letters, as does "Pater" and "Agape" (love). Our Lord, after blessing the five loaves, fed five thousand men. Five virgins were called wise by the Lord, and similarly, five were called foolish.

Furthermore, five men were with the Lord when He received testimony from the Father—namely Peter, James, John, Moses, and Elias.

As the fifth person, the Lord entered the room of the dead girl and raised her, for, as the Scripture states, "He allowed no one to go in, except Peter, James, and the girl's father and mother." The rich man in hell mentioned his five brothers, to whom he wanted someone rising from the dead to be sent. The pool where the Lord instructed the paralytic man to return to his house had five porches. The shape of the cross also has five extremities: two in length, two in width, and one in the middle, where the person rests when nailed.

Each hand has five fingers; we also have five senses. Our internal organs can be counted as five: the heart, liver, lungs, spleen, and kidneys. The whole body can also be divided into five parts: head, chest, abdomen, thighs, and feet. Humanity passes through five stages: infancy, childhood, youth, adulthood, and old age. Moses delivered the law in five books. Each tablet he received from God had five commandments. The veil of the holy of holies had five pillars, and the altar of burnt offering was five cubits wide.

Five priests were chosen in the wilderness—Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. The ephod, breastplate, and other priestly garments were made from five materials: gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine linen. Joshua, the son of Nun, imprisoned five kings of the Amorites in a cave and directed the people to step on their heads. Anyone could gather many more examples of the number five or any other number from the Scriptures or nature. Yet, even with this evidence, we do not claim that there are five Æons above the Demiurge, nor do we worship the Pentad as divine.

We do not support untenable ideas or senseless fantasies with such useless efforts. We do not distort God's well-crafted creation into types of things that do not exist. We do not seek to promote impious and vile doctrines that are easily debunked by anyone with intelligence.

Who can agree with them that the year has only three hundred sixty-five days, so there can be twelve months of thirty days each, following the pattern of the twelve Æons, when the pattern doesn't actually match [with the reality]? In one case, each Æon is a thirtieth part of the entire Pleroma, but they claim a month is the twelfth part of a year. If the year were divided into thirty parts and the month into twelve, then their imaginary system might fit.

BUT IN REALITY: their Pleroma is divided into thirty parts, and part of it into twelve; while the whole year is divided into twelve parts, and part of it into thirty.

Therefore, the Saviour acted unwisely in making the month a pattern of the entire Pleroma, but the year a pattern only of the Duodecad that exists in the Pleroma; it would have been more fitting to divide the year into thirty parts, as the whole Pleroma is divided, but the month into twelve, just as the Æons are in their Pleroma.

Moreover, they divide the entire Pleroma into three portions—an Ogdoad, a Decad, and a Duodecad.

But our year is divided into four parts—spring, summer, autumn, and winter.

Also, not even the months, which they claim to be a type of the Triacontad, have precisely thirty days, but some have more, and some have less, since five days are left over. The day, too, doesn’t always have exactly twelve hours, but ranges from nine to fifteen, and then falls from fifteen to nine.

It can’t be said that months of thirty days each were made to represent the Æons; if they were, they would have exactly thirty days. Nor can the days of these months symbolize the twelve Æons with twelve hours; if they did, they would always have twelve hours.

FURTHERMORE: regarding their claim that material substances are "on the left hand," and their belief that these things inevitably fall into corruption, they also state that the Savior came to the lost sheep to move it to the right hand, meaning the ninety-nine sheep that were safe and did not perish but remained in the fold, yet were of the left hand. It follows that they must admit that having rest does not imply salvation. Anything not reaching the same number will have to be acknowledged as belonging to the left hand, which is to corruption. The Greek word Agape (love), according to Greek letters used for numbering, has a value of ninety-three and is likewise assigned to a place of rest on the left hand. Aletheia (truth), similarly calculated, has a value of sixty-four and exists among material substances. Consequently, they will be forced to admit that all sacred names not reaching a numerical value of one hundred, but only containing numbers summed by the left hand, are corruptible and material.

1. If anyone says in response to these things, "What then? Is it meaningless and accidental that the positions of names, the election of the apostles, the works of the Lord, and the arrangement of created things are what they are?"—we answer them: Certainly not. With great wisdom and diligence, all things have clearly been made by God, fitted and prepared for their special purposes. His word formed both ancient things and those belonging to the latest times. People should not connect those things with the number thirty, but harmonize them with what actually exists or with right reason. Nor should they seek to investigate God by means of numbers, syllables, and letters. This is uncertain because of their varied and diverse systems, and because every sort of hypothesis can be devised by anyone today; thus, they can argue against the truth using these theories, as they can be interpreted in many different ways. On the contrary, they should adapt the numbers themselves and those things which have been formed to the true theory before them. For system does not come from numbers, but numbers from a system; nor does God derive His being from things made, but things made from God. All things originate from one and the same God.

SINCE CREATED THINGS ARE VARIOUS AND NUMEROUS: they are well suited and adapted to the whole creation. However, when viewed individually, they may seem opposite and inharmonious, much like the sound of a lyre, which uses many contrasting notes to create a single, continuous melody through the intervals that separate each note. Therefore, the lover of truth should not be misled by the gaps between each note, nor should he think that one note was made by one artist and another by someone else, or that different people tuned the treble, bass, and tenor strings. Instead, he should believe that the entire piece was crafted by the same person, showcasing the judgment, goodness, and skill demonstrated in the whole work and the wisdom it represents. Those who listen to the melody should praise and admire the artist, appreciate the tension of some notes, notice the softness of others, hear the sounds that lie between both extremes, and understand the unique qualities of each note. They should consider what each note aims to achieve and the reason for their variety, consistently applying our rule: never abandoning belief in the one artist, nor losing faith in the one God who created all things, nor speaking against our Creator.

IF: however, anyone does not understand the cause of all those things which are investigated, let them reflect that humans are infinitely inferior to God; that they have received grace only in part, and are not yet equal to or like their Maker; and, moreover, that they cannot have experience or form a conception of all things like God can. Just as someone who was created today and has just begun their existence is inferior to Him who is uncreated and always the same, in that same way, they are, in terms of knowledge and the ability to investigate the causes of all things, inferior to Him who made them. For you, O human, are not an uncreated being, nor have you always existed with God, as His own Word did; but now, through His supreme goodness, receiving the beginning of your creation, you gradually learn from the Word about the ways of God who made you.

4. Therefore, maintain the proper order of your knowledge, and do not, in ignorance of what is truly good, attempt to rise above God Himself, for He cannot be surpassed; nor should you seek anyone above the Creator, for you will not find such a one. Your Creator cannot be contained within limits; even if you were to measure the entire universe, explore all His creation, and consider its full depth, height, and length, you would not be able to conceive of anyone above the Father Himself. You will not be able to fully understand Him, and by following thoughts that are against your nature, you will prove yourself foolish; if you persist in this way, you will fall into complete madness, thinking yourself higher and greater than your Creator and imagining that you can surpass His realms.

IT IS THEREFORE BETTER AND MORE BENEFICIAL TO BELONG TO THE SIMPLE AND UNEDUCATED GROUP AND TO REACH CLOSENESS TO GOD THROUGH LOVE: than to imagine ourselves as learned and skillful, only to be found among those who are blasphemous against their own God by creating another God as the Father. For this reason, Paul exclaimed, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” He did not mean to criticize a true knowledge of God, for then he would be accusing himself; rather, he knew that some, inflated by the pretense of knowledge, fall away from the love of God and mistakenly see themselves as perfect, claiming an imperfect Creator.

To put an end to the pride that results from this kind of knowledge, Paul says, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” There can be no greater pride than thinking that someone is better and more perfect than the One who made and shaped him, gave him the breath of life, and brought him into existence.

Therefore, it is better, as I said, for someone to have no knowledge at all about why any single thing in creation was made, but to believe in God and remain in His love.

It's preferable to avoid being puffed up by such knowledge and losing that love, which is the life of man, and to seek no other knowledge except that of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for us, rather than by engaging in subtle questions and hair-splitting expressions fall into impiety.

2. How would it be if someone, gradually becoming overconfident from such attempts, decided to investigate the number of hairs on each person's head simply because the Lord said, "even the hairs of your head are all numbered," and tried to figure out why one person has a certain number and another has a different number? Not everyone has the same number of hairs, as there are thousands upon thousands of variations since some have larger and others smaller heads, some have thick hair, others thin, and some barely any hair at all. Then, if those who think they have discovered the number of hairs tried to use that to praise their own group, or if someone, because of the Gospel expression, "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them falls to the ground without your Father's will," began to count the number of sparrows caught each day, whether around the world or in a specific area, and questioned why so many were captured yesterday, the day before, and today, and then tried to connect the number of sparrows to their particular theory, wouldn't they be completely misleading themselves and driving those who agreed with them into insanity, since people are always eager to be seen as having discovered something more extraordinary than their teachers?

BUT IF ANYONE SHOULD ASK US WHETHER GOD KNOWS EVERY NUMBER OF ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND ARE BEING MADE: and whether each one has, according to His providence, received its specific amount, and we agree that this is true, acknowledging that not a single thing in the past, present, or future escapes God's knowledge, but through His providence each one has obtained its nature, rank, number, and specific quantity, and that nothing is made in vain or by accident, but with great purpose and profound knowledge, and that it was an admirable and truly divine intellect that could differentiate and bring forth the right causes of such a system: if, I say, anyone were to gain our agreement on this and then try to count the grains of sand and pebbles of the earth, as well as the waves of the sea and the stars of heaven, and attempt to figure out the reasons for the numbers he believes he has found, wouldn't his work be in vain? Wouldn't such a person be rightly called mad and irrational by anyone with common sense? And the more he occupies himself with these questions, and imagines himself to know more than others, claiming they are unskilled, ignorant, and simple-minded because they don't engage in his useless labor, the more he is truly insane and foolish, as if struck by a thunderbolt, since he does not consider himself in any way lesser than God.

By relying on the knowledge he believes he has discovered, he challenges God Himself and elevates his own opinion above the greatness of the Creator.

A SOUND MIND: which does not expose its owner to danger and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly reflect on the things God has placed within human control and subjected to our understanding. This mind will make progress in knowing them, making understanding easier through daily study. These things are those that are clearly observable and unambiguously expressed in the Sacred Scriptures. Therefore, parables should not be adapted to unclear expressions. If this isn’t done, both the one who explains them will do so safely, and the parables will receive a consistent interpretation from all, keeping the body of truth intact, with a harmonious arrangement of its parts, and without any conflict. But applying unclear expressions to interpret the parables, based on individual inclinations, is unreasonable. This way, no one will have the standard of truth; instead, there will be as many interpretations of truth as there are people explaining the parables, resulting in conflicting doctrines, much like the debates among Gentile philosophers.

ACCORDING TO THIS COURSE OF ACTION: therefore, man would always be questioning but never finding answers, because he has rejected the very method of discovery. And when the Bridegroom comes, the person who has his lamp untrimmed, and not burning with the brightness of a steady light, is counted among those who obscure the interpretations of the parables, abandoning Him who by His plain announcements freely gives gifts to all who come to Him, and is denied entry to His marriage-chamber.

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by everyone, even though not everyone believes them; and since they declare that only one God, excluding all others, created all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, through what we observe, that one Being made and governs it,—those persons will truly seem foolish who close their eyes to such a clear demonstration and refuse to see the light of the announcement made to them; but they place chains upon themselves, and each of them imagines, through their obscure interpretations of the parables, that they have discovered a God of their own.

For there is nothing openly, expressly, and without controversy stated in any part of Scripture regarding the Father conceived of by those who hold a contrary opinion, as they themselves testify when they claim that the Saviour privately taught these same things not to everyone, but to only certain disciples who could understand them, and who grasped what was intended by Him through arguments, riddles, and parables. They ultimately come to the point that they argue there is one Being who is proclaimed as God, and another as Father, the latter being revealed through parables and riddles.

BUT SINCE PARABLES CAN HAVE MANY INTERPRETATIONS: who that loves truth would not admit that claiming to find God through these, while abandoning what is certain, undeniable, and true, is the behavior of those who recklessly throw themselves into danger and act as if they lack reason? Isn't such behavior like building one's house not on a firm and strong rock, but on shifting sand? As a result, the collapse of such a building is easy.

HAVING THE TRUTH ITSELF AS OUR GUIDE AND THE TESTIMONY ABOUT GOD CLEARLY IN FRONT OF US: we should not, by chasing after many and different answers to questions, throw away the firm and true knowledge of God. Instead, it is much more appropriate for us, by directing our inquiries in this way, to engage in understanding the mystery and administration of the living God, and to grow in the love of Him who has done, and continues to do, so many great things for us. We should never fall from the belief that is clearly proclaimed: that this Being alone is truly God and Father, who formed this world, created man, and gave the capacity to grow to His own creation. He called him upward from lesser things to greater ones that are in His presence, just as He brings a child conceived in the womb into the sunlight and stores wheat in the barn after giving it full strength on the stalk. It is one and the same Creator who both formed the womb and created the sun; and the same Lord who both nurtured the stalk of corn, increased and multiplied the wheat, and prepared the barn.

IF: however, we cannot find explanations for all those things in Scripture that are investigated, let us not for that reason seek any other God than the One who truly exists. For this is the greatest impiety. We should leave such things to God who created us, firmly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, as they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit. Since we are inferior to and later in existence than the Word of God and His Spirit, we lack the knowledge of His mysteries.

It is no surprise if this is the case for us concerning spiritual and heavenly things that require revelation, since many things in this world, which we handle, see, and are close to, also surpass our understanding, so we must leave these to God. It is fitting that He should surpass all in knowledge.

For example, if we try to explain the cause of the Nile's rising, we may say much, plausible or not, but what is true, certain, and undeniable about it belongs only to God.

Then, the dwelling place of birds—those that come to us in spring and fly away in autumn—escapes our knowledge, even though it is a worldly matter. What explanation can we give for the ocean's tides, though everyone agrees there must be a cause? Or what can we say about things beyond? What about the formation of rain, lightning, thunder, clouds, vapors, and winds, or the storehouses of snow and hail? What do we know about the conditions for cloud formation, or the nature of sky vapors? Why does the moon wax and wane, or what causes differences among waters, metals, stones, and similar things? We may say much while searching their causes, but only God who made them can declare the truth about them.

3. If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things whose knowledge belongs only to God, and others that fall within our own understanding, then what reason do we have to complain if, regarding what we investigate in the Scriptures (which are entirely spiritual), we can explain some of them by the grace of God, while we must leave others to God, and that not only in this world, but also in the world to come? This way, God will forever teach, and humans will forever learn from God.

AS THE APOSTLE HAS SAID ON THIS POINT: when other things have come to an end, these three, “faith, hope, and love, shall endure.” Faith, which concerns our Master, remains unchanged, assuring us there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him forever, since He alone is our Father. We hope to continually receive more from God and to learn from Him, because He is good and possesses boundless riches, a kingdom without end, and instruction that is inexhaustible.

If, therefore, according to the principle I have stated, we leave some questions in God's hands, we shall preserve our faith unharmed and remain secure. All Scripture, given to us by God, will be found perfectly consistent; parables will align with those passages that are clear; and statements with clear meaning will help explain the parables. Through Scripture's varied expressions, one harmonious melody will be heard in us, praising in hymns the God who created everything. If, for example, someone asks, “What was God doing before He made the world?” we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself.

The Scriptures teach us that God formed this world perfectly, beginning in time, but no Scripture reveals what God was doing before this.

Thus, the answer remains with God, and it is not right for us to propose foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions in reply, as this might lead one to dismiss God Himself who created all things.

CONSIDER ALL OF YOU WHO CREATE SUCH OPINIONS: the Father Himself is alone called God, who truly exists, but you call Him the Demiurge. The Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God, and the Lord acknowledges Him alone as His own Father and knows no other, which I will show from His own words. When you call this very Being the product of defect and the offspring of ignorance, and describe Him as unaware of things above Him, along with the various other claims you make about Him, consider the terrible blasphemy you are guilty of against Him who truly is God.

You seem to assert sincerely enough that you believe in God, but as you are utterly unable to reveal any other God, you claim that this very Being in whom you profess to believe is the product of defect and the offspring of ignorance. This blindness and foolish talk come from the fact that you reserve nothing for God, but you wish to proclaim the birth and creation of God Himself, of His Ennœa, of His Logos, and Life, and Christ, forming these ideas from merely human experience.

You do not understand, as I said before, that it is possible, in humans, who are composite beings, to speak in this way of the human mind and human thought: to say that thought (ennœa) springs from mind (sensus), intention (enthymesis) springs from thought, and word (logos) from intention.

But which logos? Among the Greeks, there is one logos which is the principle that thinks and another which is the tool through which thought is expressed. And to say that a person sometimes rests and is silent, while at other times speaks and acts.

But since God is all mind, all reason, all active spirit, all light, and always exists as one and the same, as it is both beneficial for us to conceive of God, and as we learn about Him from the Scriptures, such feelings and divisions of operation cannot fittingly be attributed to Him. For our tongue, being physical, is not sufficient to serve the speed of the human mind, which is spiritual in nature. For this reason, our word is held within us and is not immediately expressed as it is conceived by the mind, but is spoken by successive efforts, just as the tongue is able to serve it.

BUT GOD: being all Mind and all Logos, both speaks exactly what He thinks and thinks exactly what He speaks. For His thought is Logos, and Logos is Mind, and Mind comprehending all things is the Father Himself. Therefore, anyone who speaks of the mind of God and ascribes to it a separate origin makes God a compound Being, as if God were one thing and the original Mind another. Similarly, regarding Logos, when someone assigns him the third place of production from the Father, they misunderstand His greatness; thus, Logos has been separated from God. As for the prophet, he declares about Him, "Who shall describe His generation?" But you claim to explain His generation from the Father and transfer the creation of human words, which happens through a tongue, to the Word of God, and thus you are justly exposed by yourselves as knowing neither things human nor divine.

BUT: beyond reason inflated with your own wisdom, you presumptuously claim that you are acquainted with the unspeakable mysteries of God; while even the Lord, the very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the exact day and hour of judgment, when He clearly states, “But no one knows that day and hour, not even the Son, but only the Father.” If, then, the Son was not ashamed to attribute the knowledge of that day to the Father alone and declared the truth regarding the matter, let us not be ashamed to leave those greater questions to God.

For no person is superior to their master. If anyone, therefore, asks us, “How then was the Son produced by the Father?” we respond that no one understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or whatever name one may use to describe His generation, which is truly indescribable. Neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides, nor angels, nor archangels, nor principalities, nor powers have this knowledge, but only the Father who begat, and the Son who was begotten.

Since His generation is unspeakable, those who try to explain generations and productions cannot be in their right mind, as they attempt to describe things which are indescribable. For it is well understood by all that a word is spoken by the command of thought and mind. Those who have developed the theory of emissions have not discovered anything great or revealed any hidden mystery, when they have merely applied what all understand to the only-begotten Word of God; and while they call Him unspeakable and unnameable, they nevertheless describe the production and formation of His first generation, as if they themselves had witnessed His birth, thus comparing Him to the word of humanity formed by emissions.

We would not be mistaken if we claim the same thing about the substance of matter—that God created it. For the Scriptures teach us that God holds authority over all things.

HOWEVER: from where or how He created it, Scripture does not reveal, nor should we speculate based on our own opinions, creating endless guesses about God. Instead, we should leave such knowledge to God Himself. Similarly, we must leave the reason why, although all things were made by God, some of His creations sinned and turned away from obeying God, while others, the majority, continued and still continue to willingly submit to Him who created them.

We should leave the reason for these things to God and His Word, to whom alone it is said, “Sit at my right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool.” As for us, we still live on earth and have not yet sat on His throne. Although the Spirit of the Savior searches all things, even the deep things of God, for us there are different gifts, administrations, and operations; and while on earth, as Paul states, we know in part and prophesy in part.

Since we only partially know, we should leave difficult questions in the hands of Him who only to some extent grants us grace.

For example, eternal fire is prepared for sinners, as the Lord has clearly stated and the Scriptures show. The Scriptures also show that God foreknew this would happen, since He prepared eternal fire from the beginning for those who would later break His commandments.

But the cause of the nature of such transgressors is not explained in any Scripture, nor by an apostle, nor has the Lord taught us.

Therefore, we should leave the knowledge of this matter to God, just as the Lord does with the day and hour of judgment. We should not risk such a danger as to leave nothing in God's hands, even though we have received only a measure of grace from Him in this world. When we investigate matters that are beyond us and cannot find satisfaction, it is unreasonable to show such presumption as to claim we fully understand God and undiscovered things, as if we have already found out, through empty words, God Himself, the Creator of all things, and to assert that He came from apostasy and ignorance, ultimately creating an impious belief against God.

THEY HAVE NO PROOF OF THEIR SYSTEM: which they recently invented, sometimes relying on numbers, sometimes on syllables, and sometimes on names. There are also times when, by using letters within letters, by misinterpreting parables, or through baseless guesses, they try to support the fictional account they've created. If someone asks why the Father, who shares everything with the Son, is known only by the Lord to know the hour and day of judgment, they will currently find no more appropriate, fitting, or safe reason than this: that we should learn through Him that the Father is above all things. For "the Father," He says, "is greater than I." The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel in knowledge; so that we, while we are part of this world's system, should leave perfect knowledge and such questions to God, and not, in trying to explore the Father's profound nature, accidentally question whether there is another God above God.

BUT IF ANYONE WHO LOVES CONFLICT CONTRADICTS WHAT I HAVE SAID: and also what the apostle affirms, that "we know in part, and prophesy in part," and believes that they have gained not just partial, but complete knowledge of everything that exists—being like Valentinus, or Ptolemy, or Basilides, or any others who claim to have uncovered the deep things of God—let them not boast (full of pride) that they have greater knowledge than others about things that are invisible or beyond our observation.

Instead, let them, by diligently inquiring and obtaining information from the Father, explain to us the reasons (which we do not know) for things in this world—like, for example, the number of hairs on their own head, and how many sparrows are caught daily, and other such facts with which we are unfamiliar—so that we might believe them in more significant matters.

But if even those who are perfect do not yet understand the very things in their hands, at their feet, before their eyes, and on the earth, and especially the order concerning the hairs on their head, how can we trust them about spiritual matters and things above the heavens, which they confidently and arrogantly claim to be beyond God? That is all I have to say about numbers, names, syllables, and questions about things beyond our understanding, and about their incorrect interpretations of the parables.

I shall add nothing further on these topics, since you yourself may expand on them.

LET US RETURN: however, to the remaining aspects of their system. For when they claim that, at the end of all things, their mother will re-enter the Pleroma and take the Savior as her consort; that they themselves, as being spiritual, when they have shed their animal souls and become intellectual spirits, will be the consorts of the spiritual angels; but that the Demiurge, whom they call animal, will take the place of the Mother; that the souls of the righteous will psychically rest in the intermediate place—when they claim that like will be gathered with like, spiritual things with spiritual, while material things remain with material, they actually contradict themselves.

They no longer maintain that souls enter the intermediate place because of their nature and similarity to these substances, but [that they do so] because of their actions [in the body], since they say that the righteous do indeed enter [that place], but the impious remain in the fire. For if it is because of their nature that all souls reach the place of enjoyment and all belong to the intermediate place simply because they are souls, as being of the same nature with it, then it follows that faith is entirely unnecessary, as would also be the descent of the Savior [to this world].

If, on the other hand, it is because of their righteousness [that they attain such a place of rest], then it is no longer because they are souls but because they are righteous.

But if souls would have perished unless they were righteous, then righteousness must have the power to save the bodies also [that these souls inhabited]; for why should it not save them, since they, too, participated in righteousness? For if nature and substance are the means of salvation, then all souls will be saved; but if righteousness and faith, why should these not save those bodies which, just like the souls, will enter into immortality? For righteousness would appear, in such matters, either powerless or unjust if it saves some substances through participating in it, but not others.

IT IS CLEAR THAT THOSE ACTS CONSIDERED RIGHTEOUS ARE PERFORMED IN BODIES: Therefore, either all souls must necessarily pass into the intermediate place, and there will never be a judgment; or bodies, too, which have shared in righteousness, will reach the place of enjoyment along with the souls that have similarly participated if righteousness is indeed powerful enough to bring there those beings that have shared in it. Then the teaching about the resurrection of bodies, which we believe, will prove true and certain; since, as we believe, God, when He raises our mortal bodies that preserved righteousness, will make them incorruptible and immortal. For God is above nature, and He has the willingness to show kindness because He is good; the power to do so because He is mighty; and the capability to fully accomplish His purpose because He is rich and perfect.

3. These men are entirely inconsistent when they claim that not all souls enter the intermediate place, but only those of the righteous do. They argue that the Mother produced three types of beings according to nature and substance: the first, emerging from confusion, fatigue, and fear, is material substance; the second, from impulsiveness, is animal substance; and the third, after seeing the angels who serve Christ, is spiritual substance. If the spiritual substance will inevitably enter the Pleroma due to its nature, while the material will stay below and be consumed by the fire within it, why shouldn't all animal substance go to the intermediate place, where they also send the Demiurge? What, then, will enter their Pleroma? They say souls remain in the intermediate place, while bodies, being material, will be consumed by the fire when reduced to matter. With the body destroyed and the soul in the intermediate place, no part of a person will be left to enter the Pleroma. The intellect of a person—mind, thought, and intention—is all part of the soul, and the emotions and actions of the soul have no existence apart from it. What part, then, will still be left to enter the Pleroma? As souls, they remain in the intermediate place; as body, they will be consumed with the rest of matter.

GIVEN THE SITUATION: these deluded men claim that they rise above the Creator (Demiurge); and since they assert themselves to be superior to the God who made and adorned the heavens, the earth, and everything in them, and insist that they are spiritual even though they are shamefully carnal due to their immense impiety—declaring that He, who has made His angels spirits, is clothed with light like a garment, and holds the circle of the earth as if in His hand, before whom its inhabitants are counted like grasshoppers, and who is the Creator and Lord of all spiritual substances, is of an animal nature—they truly and undoubtedly reveal their own madness. As if struck by thunder, even more than those giants mentioned in [heathen] myths, they raise their opinions against God, inflated by a vain presumption and unstable glory. All the hellebore on earth would not be enough to cleanse them of their profound foolishness.

A SUPERIOR PERSON SHOULD BE PROVEN BY THEIR ACTIONS: How, then, can they show themselves superior to the Creator? (For the sake of argument, I have to address this blasphemous comparison between God and foolish men, often using their own teachings to refute them; may God be merciful to me for this venture, as I do not aim to compare Him to them but to expose and counteract their insane beliefs.) These people, whom many foolish individuals admire greatly as if they could offer something more valuable than the truth itself, interpret the Scripture's phrase "Seek, and you shall find" to suggest that they are above the Creator. They claim to be greater and better than God, labeling themselves spiritual and the Creator as merely animal. They assert that this distinction allows them to ascend above God, entering the Pleroma while He remains in an intermediate place. Let them, therefore, prove themselves superior to the Creator through their actions, as a superior person should be validated not by words but by actual deeds.

WHAT WORK: then, will they claim to have accomplished through themselves by the Saviour, or by their Mother, either greater, more glorious, or more filled with wisdom, than those created by Him who arranged everything around us? What heavens have they established? What earth have they founded? What stars have they called into existence? Or what lights of heaven have they caused to shine? In what orbits have they placed them? Or, what rains, frosts, or snows, each suited to the season and every specific climate, have they brought upon the earth? And again, in contrast, what heat or dryness have they set over against them? What rivers have they made to flow? What fountains have they brought forth? With what flowers and trees have they adorned this earthly world? Or, what multitude of animals have they formed, some rational, and others irrational, but all adorned with beauty? And who can list, one by one, all the remaining things created by the power of God and governed by His wisdom? Or who can fathom the greatness of that God who made them? And what can be told of those existences above heaven that do not pass away, like Angels, Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, and Powers beyond number? Against which of these works, then, do they stand opposed? What can they show as having been made through themselves, or by themselves, since they too are the creations of this Creator? For whether the Saviour or their Mother (to use their own words, which are false) used this Being, as they claim, to make an image of those things within the Pleroma, and of all those beings she saw around the Saviour, she used him (the Demiurge) because he was, in a sense, superior to her and better suited to achieve her purpose through his means; for she would not create images of such important beings through an inferior, but rather a superior, agent.

4. For, note that they themselves, according to their own statements, existed as a spiritual concept because of the contemplation of those beings arranged as satellites around Pandora. And indeed, they remained useless, with the Mother achieving nothing through them—an idle concept, owed their existence to the Saviour, and fit for nothing, as nothing seems to have been done by them. But the God who, according to them, was produced, while they argue is inferior to them (for they claim he has an animal nature), was nevertheless the active agent in everything, efficient, and suitable for the tasks at hand, so that through him, the images of all things were made; and not only were the visible things formed by him, but also all invisible things—Angels, Archangels, Dominations, Powers, and Virtues—[by him, I say,] as being superior and capable of fulfilling her desire. Yet it seems the Mother achieved nothing through them, as they themselves acknowledge; so one might fairly consider them as an abortion resulting from their Mother's painful labor. No midwives assisted her, and therefore they were cast out as an abortion, useful for nothing, and formed to accomplish none of the Mother's work. Yet they describe themselves as superior to Him by whom such vast and admirable works have been created and organized, even though by their own logic, they are shown to be wretchedly inferior!

It is as if there were two iron tools or instruments—one that the workman continually uses and handles, crafting whatever he desires and showcasing his art and skill, and another that remains idle and unused, never being set to work or contributing to any creation. Then, if someone claimed that the idle and unused tool was superior in nature and value to the one the artisan actually uses and by which he gains his reputation, such a person would rightly be considered foolish and not in their right mind. Similarly, those who believe themselves to be spiritual and superior, while considering the Creator as possessing a lesser, animal nature, claim they will ascend on high and enter the Pleroma to be with their own husbands (since they themselves identify as feminine), but argue that God, the Creator, is of inferior nature and thus remains in an intermediate place. They do so without offering any evidence for their claims, for the better person is proven by their works, and all works have been accomplished by the Creator. Meanwhile, they have nothing reasonable to show as their own accomplishments and are suffering from the greatest and most incurable madness.

IF: however, they argue that, while all material things, such as the heavens and the entire world beneath them, were indeed formed by the Demiurge, yet all things of a more spiritual nature—those above the heavens, like Principalities, Powers, Angels, Archangels, Dominations, Virtues—were brought about by a spiritual process of birth (which they claim themselves to be), then, first of all, we prove from the authoritative Scriptures that all these mentioned things, visible and invisible, have been made by one God. For these men are not more reliable than the Scriptures; nor should we abandon the declarations of the Lord, Moses, and the rest of the prophets, who have proclaimed the truth, in favor of them, who indeed speak nothing sensible, but rave about untenable opinions. Secondly, if those things above the heavens were indeed made through their means, then let them tell us the nature of invisible things, recount the number of Angels, the ranks of Archangels, reveal the mysteries of the Thrones, and explain the differences between Dominations, Principalities, Powers, and Virtues. But they can say nothing about them; therefore, these beings were not made by them. On the other hand, if these were made by the Creator, as is indeed the case, and are of a spiritual and holy nature, then it follows that He who created spiritual beings is not Himself of an animal nature, and thus their dreadful system of blasphemy is destroyed.

THE EXISTENCE OF SPIRITUAL BEINGS IN THE HEAVENS IS CLEARLY STATED THROUGHOUT THE SCRIPTURES: Paul specifically confirms that there are spiritual things when he says he was caught up into the third heaven, and also when he was taken to paradise and heard indescribable words that it is not lawful for a man to speak.

But what benefit was there for him, either in entering paradise or being taken to the third heaven, since all these things are still under the power of the Demiurge, if, as some claim, he had already begun to witness and hear those mysteries said to be above the Demiurge? For if it is true that he was becoming familiar with that realm above the Demiurge, he would not have remained in the regions of the Demiurge, and that without fully exploring even these (for, according to their way of speaking, four heavens still lay before him if he were to approach the Demiurge, and thus see all seven beneath him); but perhaps he might have been admitted into the intermediate place, that is, into the presence of the Mother, so he might receive instruction from her about the things within the Pleroma.

For that inner man within him, which spoke through him, as they say, although invisible, could have reached not only the third heaven but even the presence of their Mother. For if they claim that they themselves, their [inner] man, immediately ascend above the Demiurge and go to the Mother, then all the more must this have happened to the [inner] man of the apostle; for the Demiurge would not have stopped him, being, as they assert, already subject to the Saviour.

But if he had tried to stop him, the effort would have been in vain. For it is not possible that he could have been stronger than the Father’s providence, especially when the inner man is said to be invisible even to the Demiurge.

But since Paul described his own ascent to the third heaven as something significant and outstanding, it cannot be that these people ascend above the seventh heaven, for they certainly are not superior to the apostle.

If they claim they are better than he is, let them prove themselves by their actions, for they have never claimed anything like [what he describes happening to himself]. For this reason, he added, “Whether in the body or out of the body, God knows,” so that the body might neither be considered to have shared in that vision, as if it could participate in those things it had seen and heard; nor, conversely, that anyone should say he was not taken higher because of the body’s weight.

Thus it is allowed even without the body to witness spiritual mysteries, which are the works of God, who made the heavens and the earth, formed man, and placed him in paradise, so that those who, like the apostle, have attained a high level of perfection in the love of God might witness them.

THIS BEING: therefore, also created spiritual things, of which the apostle was made a spectator up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words that are impossible for a human to express, since they are spiritual. He Himself bestows gifts on the worthy as He chooses, for paradise is His; and He is truly the Spirit of God, not an animal Demiurge, otherwise He would never have created spiritual things.

But if He really has an animal nature, then let them tell us who created spiritual things.

They have no proof to offer that this was done through the labor of their Mother, as they claim. Not to mention spiritual things, these men cannot even create a fly, a gnat, or any other small and insignificant animal without following the law established from the beginning, by which animals have been and are naturally produced by God—through the deposition of seed in those of the same species. Nor was anything formed by the Mother alone; they claim that this Demiurge was produced by her and that he was the Lord (the author) of all creation.

They maintain that the Creator and Lord of all that has been made has an animal nature, while they claim they themselves are spiritual—though they are neither the authors nor lords of anything, not only of things outside themselves but not even of their own bodies! Moreover, these men, who call themselves spiritual and superior to the Creator, often suffer much bodily pain, completely against their will.

THEREFORE: we rightly accuse them of having strayed far and wide from the truth. For if the Savior created what has been made through him (the Demiurge), then he is shown to be not inferior but superior to them, as he is found to be the creator of even them; for they also belong among created things. How, then, can it be argued that these people are spiritual, but that he who created them is of a lesser nature? Or, again, if (which is indeed the only true assumption, as I have shown with numerous clear arguments) He (the Creator) made all things freely, by His own power, and arranged and completed them, and His will is the substance of all things, then He is revealed to be the one and only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the sole Father shaping and forming all things, visible and invisible, those that can be perceived by our senses and those that cannot, heavenly and earthly, “by the word of His power;” and He has arranged all things by His wisdom, while He contains all things, yet He Himself cannot be contained by anyone: He is the Former, He is the Builder, He is the Revealer, He is the Creator, He is the Lord of all; and there is no one besides Him, or above Him, nor has He any mother, as they falsely claim; nor is there a second God, as Marcion imagined; nor is there a Pleroma of thirty Aeons, which has been shown to be a pointless assumption; nor is there any being like Bythus or Proarche; nor are there a series of heavens; nor is there a virginal light, nor an unnameable Aeon, nor, in fact, any of those things which are wildly dreamed up by these, and by all the heretics.

But there is only one God, the Creator—He who is above every Principality, Power, Dominion, and Virtue: He is the Father, He is God, the Founder, the Maker, the Creator, who made those things by Himself, meaning through His Word and Wisdom—heaven and earth, and the seas, and all things within them: He is just; He is good; He is the one who formed man, who planted paradise, who made the world, who caused the flood, who saved Noah; He is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of the living: He is whom the law proclaims, whom the prophets preach, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles make known to us, and in whom the Church believes.

He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed; for only those know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him.

But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wishes that God be revealed.

THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF VALENTINUS HAVE BEEN OVERRULED: and in turn, the entire group of heretics has also been undermined. All the arguments I have presented against their concept of Pleroma, regarding the things beyond it—showing how the Father of all is enclosed and limited by what is beyond Him (if there is indeed anything beyond Him)—and how their theory requires the necessity of imagining many Fathers, many Pleromas, and many creations of worlds, each beginning and ending, existing everywhere; and how all these beings remain within their own realms and do not interfere with others since no shared interest or fellowship exists between them; and that there is no other God of all, but that name belongs only to the Almighty;—these arguments apply equally to those who follow Marcion, Simon, Meander, or others like them who disconnect the creation we are part of from the Father.

The arguments I have also used against those who claim that the Father of all contains everything, but that the creation we belong to was not formed by Him, but by another power or by angels unaware of the Propator, who is surrounded at the center by the vastness of the universe, like a stain by a cloak; when I showed that it is unlikely for any being other than the Father of all to have formed our creation—these same arguments apply to the followers of Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, and other Gnostics expressing similar ideas.

The statements made about the emanations, Æons, the supposed state of degeneration, and the inconsistent nature of their Mother also undermine Basilides and all who are falsely called Gnostics. They merely repeat the same views under different names but transfer more elements outside of the truth into their doctrine. The remarks I have made about numbers also apply to those who misuse truths to support their systems. All that has been said about the Creator (Demiurge), showing that He alone is God and Father of all, and anything else I may say in the following books, applies against heretics in general.

You will convert and convince the more moderate and reasonable among them, preventing them from blaspheming their Creator, Maker, Sustainer, and Lord, or attributing His origin to defect and ignorance.

But the fierce, terrible, and irrational ones you will drive far from you, so you no longer have to endure their meaningless chatter.

FURTHERMORE: those who belong to Simon and Carpocrates, or any others said to perform miracles, will also be refuted. They do not perform their acts through the power of God, in connection with the truth, or for the well-being of people, but rather to destroy and mislead humanity through magical deceptions and universal deceit. They cause more harm than good to those who believe them, especially regarding the points on which they lead them astray. They cannot restore sight to the blind or hearing to the deaf, nor can they chase away all sorts of demons, except perhaps those they have sent into others themselves, if they can even do that. They cannot heal the weak, lame, paralytic, or those suffering in any other part of the body, as has often been done with bodily infirmity. Nor can they provide effective remedies for external accidents. They are far from being able to raise the dead, as the Lord and the apostles did through prayer, which has also been frequently done in the community out of necessity. The entire Church in that area earnestly prayed and fasted, and the spirit of the dead has returned in response to the prayers of the saints. They do not even believe this is possible, considering the resurrection from the dead to be just an understanding of the truth they proclaim.

SINCE THERE ARE ERRORS AND MISLEADING INFLUENCES AMONG THEM: and magical illusions are impiously performed before people, but in the Church, sympathy, compassion, steadfastness, and truth are offered for the aid and encouragement of humanity without charge, and we even provide for others' needs with our own resources; and since those who are healed often lack what they need, they receive these from us—this clearly shows that these men are entirely disconnected from the divine nature, the beneficence of God, and all spiritual excellence. Instead, they are completely full of deceit, apostate inspiration, demonic work, and phantoms of idolatry, and are actually the precursors of that dragon who, through similar deception, will cause a third of the stars to fall from the sky with his tail and will cast them to the earth. We must avoid them just as we would avoid him; and the more spectacular their claimed marvels, the more carefully we should watch them, as they possess a greater spirit of wickedness. If anyone considers the prophecy mentioned and the daily actions of these men, they will find that their behavior is identical to that of demons.

FURTHERMORE: their impious belief regarding actions—that they must experience all sorts of deeds, even the most abominable—is refuted by the teaching of the Lord, who not only rejects the adulterer but also the man who wishes to commit adultery; and not only is the actual murderer guilty of killing someone to his own damnation, but so is the man who is angry with his brother without a reason. He commanded His disciples not only not to hate people, but also to love their enemies; and instructed them not only not to swear falsely, but not even to swear at all.

He told them not only not to speak evil of their neighbors, but not even to call anyone "Raca" and "fool," declaring that otherwise, they were in danger of hell-fire. They were told not only not to strike, but even, when they themselves were struck, to offer the other cheek to those who mistreated them; and not only not to refuse to give up the property of others, but even if their own were taken, not to demand it back from those who took it.

They were instructed not only not to harm their neighbors or do them any evil, but also, when they themselves were mistreated, to be patient and to show kindness towards those who harmed them, and to pray for them, so that through repentance they might be saved—so that we should in no way imitate the arrogance, lust, and pride of others. Since He, whom these people boast of as their Master, and of whom they claim had a soul greatly better and more refined than others, did indeed command certain things to be done as good and excellent, and certain things to be avoided not only in their actual performance but even in the thoughts leading to them, as being wicked, harmful, and abominable—how then can they avoid being put to shame when they claim such a Master was greater in spirit and better than others, and yet clearly give teachings that are utterly opposed to His? Furthermore, if good and evil did not truly exist, and certain things were deemed righteous, and others unrighteous, only by human opinion, He would never have spoken this way in His teaching: “The righteous shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father;” but He shall send the unrighteous, and those who don't do the works of righteousness, “into everlasting fire, where their worm shall not die, and the fire shall not be quenched.”

WHEN THEY FURTHER ASSERT THAT THEY MUST EXPERIENCE EVERY TYPE OF WORK AND BEHAVIOR: so that, if possible, by doing everything in this life they might immediately reach perfection, they are never found striving to do those things that accompany virtue, which are laborious, glorious, and skillful, and which are universally accepted as good. For if it is necessary to go through every work and kind of operation, they should, first of all, learn all the arts: all of them, whether theoretical or practical, whether acquired through self-denial or mastered by labor, exercise, and perseverance; for example, every kind of music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and all intellectual pursuits. Then, again, they should engage in the whole study of medicine and the knowledge of plants to understand those prepared for human health; the art of painting and sculpture, working with brass and marble, and related arts. Moreover, they should study every kind of agriculture, veterinary art, pastoral tasks, and the various forms of skilled labor that are said to encompass the entirety of human effort; also those associated with seafaring, gymnastics, hunting, military and royal pursuits, and as many others as exist, though with the utmost effort, they could learn neither a tenth nor even a thousandth part of them throughout their lives.

In reality, they seek to learn none of these, despite claiming it is their duty to experience every kind of work. Instead, they turn to indulgence, lust, and abhorrent actions, condemning themselves when measured against their doctrine. Because they lack all the virtues mentioned, they will inevitably face destruction by fire. These individuals, while boasting that Jesus is their Master, actually imitate the philosophy of Epicurus and the indifference of the Cynics. Jesus, whom they call their Master, not only turned His disciples away from evil deeds but also from wicked words and thoughts, as I have already shown.

WHILE THEY CLAIM THAT THEIR SOULS COME FROM THE SAME REALM AS JESUS AND THAT THEY ARE LIKE HIM: sometimes even insisting they are superior, they claim they were created, like Him, to benefit and support humanity. Yet, they are found doing nothing similar or comparable to His actions. Even if they accomplish anything remarkable through magic, they deceitfully try to mislead foolish people, since they provide no real benefit or blessing to those over whom they claim to have supernatural power. They use mere boys as subjects for their tricks, deceiving their perception by showing illusions that vanish instantly and do not last even a moment. Thus, they are shown to be not like Jesus our Lord, but like Simon the magician. It is clear that the Lord rose from the dead on the third day, appeared to His disciples, and was seen ascending into heaven. Since these men die and do not rise again nor appear to anyone, they are proven to have souls not at all similar to that of Jesus.

IF: however, they claim that the Lord only appeared to perform such works, we shall direct them to the prophetic writings to prove that everything was foretold about Him and did indeed happen, and that He is the only Son of God. Therefore, those who are truly His disciples, receiving grace from Him, perform [miracles] in His name to help others, according to the gift each one has received from Him. Some certainly and truly drive out devils, so that those cleansed from evil spirits often believe [in Christ] and join the Church. Others have the gift of foreseeing the future: they see visions and utter prophecies. Still others heal the sick by laying hands on them, and they are healed. Indeed, as I have said, even the dead have been raised and have remained among us for many years. And what more shall I say? It's impossible to list all the gifts the Church, spread throughout the world, has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she uses every day for the benefit of the Gentiles, without deceiving or taking any reward from them [for such miraculous acts]. For as she has received freely from God, she also freely serves [others].

SHE DOES NOT PERFORM ANYTHING USING ANGELIC INVOCATIONS: incantations, or any other wicked curious art. Instead, she prays to the Lord, who made all things, with a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. She has been accustomed to work miracles for the benefit of humanity, not to mislead them. Therefore, if the name of our Lord Jesus Christ still provides benefits and thoroughly cures all who believe in Him, unlike Simon, Menander, Carpocrates, or any other person, it is clear that when He became man, He connected with His own creation and accomplished all things truly through the power of God, according to the will of the Father of all, as the prophets had foretold. What these things were shall be explained using evidence found in the prophetic writings.

WE CAN CHALLENGE THEIR BELIEF IN TRANSMIGRATION FROM BODY TO BODY WITH THE FACT THAT SOULS REMEMBER NOTHING OF THE EVENTS FROM THEIR PREVIOUS STATES OF EXISTENCE: If souls were sent for the purpose of experiencing every kind of action, they must necessarily remember past actions to complete the areas they lack. Otherwise, they would continue endlessly pursuing the same endeavors in vain. The combination of a body with a soul could not completely erase the memory and reflection of past experiences, especially since the purpose of entering the world was for this reason. Just as, when the body is asleep and at rest, the soul sees and does things in a vision and remembers them, it shares them with the body. Upon waking up, even after a long time, one can recount what was seen in a dream. Similarly, one would certainly remember the actions taken before entering this particular body. If what is seen for a short period or conceived briefly in a dream is remembered after the soul has rejoined the body and spread throughout its members, then it is even more likely it would remember experiences from a long-previous life.

REGARDING THESE OBJECTIONS: Plato, the ancient Athenian who was the first to introduce this idea, when he couldn't dismiss them, invented the concept of a cup of oblivion, thinking that this would solve the issue. He offered no proof for his theory but simply asserted, without evidence, that when souls enter this life, they are made to drink from the cup of oblivion by the demon who oversees their entry into the world, before they enter their assigned bodies. He overlooked that in saying this, he created an even greater problem. For if the cup of oblivion, once drunk, can erase the memory of all past deeds, how, O Plato, do you claim knowledge of this (since your soul is now in the body), that before entering the body, it was made to drink by the demon a potion causing oblivion? For if you remember the demon, the cup, and the entry into life, you should also know about other matters; but if you don't, then the story of the demon and the cup of oblivion is false.

IN RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THE BODY ITSELF IS THE CAUSE OF FORGETFULNESS: consider this: How is it, then, that whatever the soul perceives through its own means, whether in dreams or through deep reflection while the body is inactive, it remembers and shares with others? If the body were indeed the cause of forgetfulness, then the soul, while within the body, would be unable to remember things perceived long ago through the eyes or ears. As soon as one looked away from something, the memory of it would surely be lost. For the soul, existing in what they say is the very cause of forgetfulness, could know only what it saw right at that moment. How, then, could it learn of divine things and remember them while in the body, if the body were truly the cause of forgetfulness? However, the prophets also, when they were on earth, remembered and recounted to others whatever they saw or heard spiritually in visions of heavenly matters after returning to their normal mindset. Thus, the body does not cause the soul to forget those spiritually witnessed things; rather, the soul guides the body and shares with it the spiritual vision it has experienced.

THE BODY DOES NOT HAVE MORE POWER THAN THE SOUL: as the body is given life, energy, growth, and cohesion by the soul; but the soul controls and governs the body. It is undoubtedly slowed down in speed to the extent that the body participates in its movement; yet it never loses the knowledge that belongs to it. The body can be seen as an instrument, while the soul embodies the reasoning of an artist. Just as an artist quickly forms an idea in their mind but can only execute it gradually with an instrument due to the lack of perfect flexibility in the material, thus blending the quickness of their mental process with the slow action of the instrument results in a moderate progress towards their goal. Similarly, the soul, when united with its body, is somewhat hindered, mixing its swiftness with the body's slowness. Yet, it does not completely lose its unique powers; while sharing life with the body, it continues to live. In doing so, while imparting other things to the body, it retains both the knowledge and memory of things it has observed.

IF: therefore, the soul remembers nothing from a previous existence but perceives the things here, it follows that it never existed in other bodies or experienced things it cannot now recall or contemplate. Just as each of us receives a body through the skillful work of God, we also receive our soul. For God is not so lacking in resources that He cannot grant each individual body its proper soul, just as He gives it its specific character. Therefore, when the predetermined number is reached, all those who have been chosen for eternal life will rise again with their own bodies, souls, and spirits, in which they pleased God. On the other hand, those deserving punishment will go into it, also with their own souls and bodies, in which they distanced themselves from God's grace. Both groups will cease to procreate and marry, so that the number of humanity, according to God's foreordained plan, being completed, may fully fulfill the Father's scheme.

THE LORD HAS CLEARLY TAUGHT THAT SOULS NOT ONLY CONTINUE TO EXIST: not by passing from body to body, but they keep the same form they had in the body they were suited to and remember the deeds they did in this life, from which they have now ceased, as shown in the narrative about the rich man and Lazarus who found rest in the bosom of Abraham. In this account, He states that Dives recognized Lazarus after death, and Abraham in the same way, and that each of these individuals remained in their proper place, with Dives requesting Lazarus to be sent to relieve him—Lazarus, on whom he did not previously bestow even the crumbs from his table. He also tells us of the answer given by Abraham, who was aware not only of matters concerning himself but also of those concerning Dives, instructing those who did not wish to enter that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets and to accept the teaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, it is clearly declared that souls continue to exist, do not pass from body to body, possess the human form so they may be recognized, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that Abraham possessed the gift of prophecy, and that each class of souls receives a dwelling according to what it has deserved, even before the judgment.

2. But if anyone now claims that those souls, which only recently began to exist, cannot endure for a long time, and that they must either have no birth to be immortal or, if they began through generation, should die with the body—let them understand that only God, who is Lord of all, has no beginning and no end, being truly and forever the same, always remaining the same unchangeable Being. However, everything that comes from Him, whatever has been made and is made, indeed receives its own beginning through creation, and for this reason is inferior to Him who formed them, since they are not unbegotten. Nevertheless, they endure and continue their existence through a long series of ages according to the will of God their Creator, so that He allows them to be formed at the start and to exist after that.

Just as the heavens above us—the sky, the sun, the moon, the stars, and all their splendor—were brought into existence from nothing and continue for a long time according to the will of God, anyone who thinks similarly about souls and spirits, and indeed all created things, will not be far from the truth. All things that have been made had a beginning when they were formed but will last as long as God wills their existence and continuation.

THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT CONFIRMS THIS BELIEF BY DECLARING: “For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created: He has established them forever, yes, forever and ever.” And, concerning the salvation of humanity, it is stated, “He asked life of You, and You gave him length of days forever and ever,” demonstrating that the Father of all grants eternal continuance to those who are saved. Life does not originate from us or our own nature but is given according to the grace of God.

Therefore, anyone who preserves the life they have been given and gives thanks to the One who granted it will also receive eternal length of days.

But whoever rejects it and remains ungrateful to their Creator, given that they were created and did not recognize the One who gave them life, deprives themselves of eternal continuance. For this reason, the Lord said to those who were ungrateful towards Him: “If you have not been faithful in what is little, who will give you what is great?” indicating that those who have been ungrateful in this short earthly life will justly not receive eternal life from Him.

THE ANIMAL BODY IS CERTAINLY NOT THE SOUL ITSELF: but it shares a connection with the soul as long as God wills it. Similarly, the soul is not life itself, but it participates in the life given to it by God. Therefore, the prophetic word tells us about the first-formed man, "He became a living soul," teaching us that the soul became alive through participation in life. This means that the soul and the life it has should be understood as separate entities. Therefore, when God gives life and endless duration, it happens that souls which did not exist before will endure forever, because God has willed them to exist and continue existing. For God's will should direct and rule over all things, while all else yields to Him, is subject to Him, and devoted to His service. Thus far, let me discuss the creation and ongoing existence of the soul.

MOREOVER: Basilides himself, based on his own principles, will find it necessary to assert not only that there are 365 heavens created one after another, but that an immense and countless multitude of heavens have always been, are currently being, and will continue to be created, so that the formation of such heavens can never cease. For if the second heaven was made in the likeness of the first, and the third in the likeness of the second, and so on for all the subsequent ones, it inevitably follows that from our heaven, which he calls the last, another will be formed like it, and then a third from that one; thus, neither the process of creation from those heavens already made nor the making of new heavens can ever cease. This operation must continue indefinitely, leading to an infinite number of heavens.

THE REST OF THOSE WRONGLY CALLED GNOSTICS: who claim that the prophets spoke their prophecies under the inspiration of different gods, can be easily refuted by this fact: all the prophets proclaimed one God and Lord, the very Creator of heaven and earth and everything in them. They also foretold the coming of His Son, as I will show from the Scriptures in the following books.

IF ANYONE OBJECTS THAT THE SCRIPTURES IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE USE DIFFERENT EXPRESSIONS FOR GOD: like Sabaoth, Eloë, and Adonai, as well as other such terms, and tries to argue that these indicate different powers and gods, let them understand that all these expressions are just names and titles for the same Being. Eloë in Hebrew means God, while Elōeim and Eleōuth signify "that which contains all." The term Adonai sometimes means something that is nameable and admirable, but when the letter Daleth is doubled and the word begins with a guttural sound, like Addonai, it means "One who bounds and separates the land from the water," so the water doesn't flood the land. Similarly, when Sabaoth is spelled with a Greek Omega as Sabaōth, it means "a voluntary agent," but with a Greek Omicron, like Sabaŏth, it means "the first heaven." Likewise, the word Jaōth with a long and aspirated last syllable means "a predetermined measure," but when written shortly with Omicron as Jaŏth, it means "one who puts evils to flight." All other expressions also refer to the same Being, such as The Lord of Powers, The Father of all, God Almighty, The Most High, The Creator, The Maker, and so on. These are not the names and titles of different beings, but of the same one, who is the one God and Father revealing Himself, who contains all things and grants everyone the gift of existence.

NOW: the preaching of the apostles, the authoritative teaching of the Lord, the declarations of the prophets, the dictated speeches of the apostles, and the service of the law—all of which praise one and the same Being, the God and Father of all, and not many different beings, nor one deriving his essence from different gods or powers, but declare that all things were formed by one and the same Father (who nevertheless adapts His works to the natures and tendencies of the materials dealt with), things visible and invisible, and, in short, all things that have been made were created neither by angels, nor by any other power, but by God alone, the Father—are all in harmony with our statements, has, I believe, been sufficiently proven, while by these strong arguments it has been shown that there is only one God, the Maker of all things. But so I am not seen as avoiding that series of proofs which may be derived from the Scriptures of the Lord (since, indeed, these Scriptures do much more plainly and clearly proclaim this very point), I shall, for the benefit of those at least who do not approach them with a corrupt mind, dedicate a special book to the Scriptures referred to, which shall fairly follow them out and explain them, and I shall clearly present from these divine Scriptures proofs to satisfy all the lovers of truth.