Against Heresies: Book II

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.