Chapter III.—Texts of Holy Scripture used by these heretics to support their opinions.
Chapter VIII.—How the Valentinians pervert the Scriptures to support their own pious opinions.
Chapter IX.—Refutation of the impious interpretations of these heretics.
Chapter X.—Unity of the faith of the Church throughout the whole world.
Chapter XI.—The opinions of Valentinus, with those of his disciples and others.
Chapter XII.—The doctrines of the followers of Ptolemy and Colorbasus.
Chapter XIII.—The deceitful arts and nefarious practices of Marcus.
Chapter XIV.—The various hypotheses of Marcus and others. Theories respecting letters and syllables.
Chapter XVI.—Absurd interpretations of the Marcosians.
Chapter XVIII.—Passages from Moses, which the heretics pervert to the support of their hypothesis.
Chapter XXI.—The views of redemption entertained by these heretics.
Chapter XXII.—Deviations of heretics from the truth.
Chapter XXIII.—Doctrines and practices of Simon Magus and Menander.
Chapter XXIV.—Doctrines of Saturninus and Basilides.
Chapter XXV.—Doctrines of Carpocrates.
Chapter XXVI.—Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes.
Chapter XXVII.—Doctrines of Cerdo and Marcion.
Chapter XXVIII.—Doctrines of Tatian, the Encratites, and others.
Chapter XXX.—Doctrines of the Ophites and Sethians.
Chapter XXXI.—Doctrines of the Cainites.
Chapter I.—There is but one God: the impossibility of its being otherwise.
Chapter IV.—The absurdity of the supposed vacuum and defect of the heretics is demonstrated.
Chapter VI.—The angels and the Creator of the world could not have been ignorant of the Supreme God.
Chapter VII.—Created things are not the images of those Æons who are within the Pleroma.
Chapter VIII.—Created things are not a shadow of the Pleroma.
Chapter XIII.—The first order of production maintained by the heretics is altogether indefensible.
Chapter XV.—No account can be given of these productions.
Chapter XXI.—The twelve apostles were not a type of the Æons.
Chapter XXIII.—The woman who suffered from an issue of blood was no type of the suffering Æon.
Chapter XXIV.—Folly of the arguments derived by the heretics from numbers, letters, and syllables.
Chapter XXVI.—“Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.”
Chapter XXVII.—Proper mode of interpreting parables and obscure passages of Scripture.
Chapter XXIX.—Refutation of the views of the heretics as to the future destiny of the soul and body.
Chapter XXXI.—Recapitulation and application of the foregoing arguments.
Chapter XXXII.—Further exposure of the wicked and blasphemous doctrines of the heretics.
Chapter XXXIII.—Absurdity of the doctrine of the transmigration of souls.
Chapter II.—The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.
Chapter X.—Proofs of the foregoing, drawn from the Gospels of Mark and Luke.
Chapter XII.—Doctrine of the rest of the apostles.
Chapter XXII.—Christ assumed actual flesh, conceived and born of the Virgin.
Chapter I.—The Lord acknowledged but one God and Father.
Chapter IX.—There is but one author, and one end to both covenants.
Chapter XVIII.—Concerning sacrifices and oblations, and those who truly offer them.
Chapter XXXVI.—The prophets were sent from one and the same Father from whom the Son was sent.
Chapter XXXVIII.—Why man was not made perfect from the beginning.
1. But the followers of Ptolemy say 151 We here follow the Greek as preserved by Hippolytus (Philosoph., vi. 38). The text followed by Epiphanius (Hær., xxxiii. 1) does not so well agree with the Latin. that he [Bythus] has two consorts, which they also name Diatheses (affections), viz., Ennœa and Thelesis. For, as they affirm, he first conceived the thought of producing something, and then willed to that effect. Wherefore, again, these two affections, or powers, Ennœa and Thelesis, having intercourse, as it were, between themselves, the production of Monogenes and Aletheia took place according to conjunction. These two came forth as types and images of the two affections of the Father,—visible representations of those that were invisible,—Nous (i.e., Monogenes) of Thelesis, and Aletheia of Ennœa, and accordingly the image resulting from Thelesis was masculine, 152 The text is here hopelessly corrupt; but the general meaning seems to be that given above. while that from Ennœa was feminine. Thus Thelesis (will) became, as it were, a faculty of Ennœa (thought). For Ennœa continually yearned after offspring; but she could not of herself bring forth that which she desired. But when the power of Thelesis (the faculty of will) came upon her, then she brought forth that on which she had brooded.
2. These fancied beings 153 This sentence exists only in the Latin version, and we can give only a free translation. (like the Jove of Homer, who is represented 154 Iliad, ii. 1, etc. as passing an anxious sleepless night in devising plans for honouring Achilles and destroying numbers of the Greeks) will not appear to you, my dear friend, to be possessed of greater knowledge than He who is the God of the universe. He, as soon as He thinks, also performs what He has willed; and as soon as He wills, also thinks that which He has willed; then thinking when He wills, and then willing when He thinks, since He is all thought, [all will, all mind, all light,] 155 These words are found in Epiphanius, but omitted in the old Latin version. The Latin gives “sense” instead of “light.” all eye, all ear, the one entire fountain of all good things.
3. Those of them, however, who are deemed more skilful than the persons who have just been mentioned, say that the first Ogdoad was not produced gradually, so that one Æon was sent forth by another, but that all 156 The text is here very uncertain. Some propose to read six Æons instead of all. the Æons were brought into existence at once by Propator and his Ennœa. He (Colorbasus) affirms this as confidently as if he had assisted at their birth. Accordingly, he and his followers maintain that Anthropos and Ecclesia were not produced, 157 Here again the text is corrupt and obscure. We have followed what seems the most probable emendation. as others hold, from Logos and Zoe; but, on the contrary, Logos and Zoe from Anthropos and Ecclesia. But they express this in another form, as follows: When the Propator conceived the thought of producing something, he received the name of Father . But because what he did produce was true , it was named Aletheia. Again, when he wished to reveal himself, this was termed Anthropos. Finally, when he produced those whom he had previously thought of, these were named Ecclesia. Anthropos, by speaking, formed Logos: this is the first-born son. But Zoe followed upon Logos; and thus the first Ogdoad was completed.
4. They have much contention also among themselves respecting the Saviour. For some maintain that he was formed out of all; wherefore also he was called Eudocetos, because the whole Pleroma was well pleased through him to glorify the Father. But others assert that he was produced from those ten Æons alone who sprung from Logos and Zoe, and that on this account he was called Logos and Zoe, thus preserving the ancestral names. 158 Harvey justly remarks, that “one cause of perplexity in unravelling the Valentinian scheme is the recurrence of similar names at different points of the system, e.g., the Enthymesis of Sophia was called Sophia and Spiritus; and Pater, Arche, Monogenes, Christus, Anthropos, Ecclesia, were all of them terms of a double denomination.” Others, again, affirm that he had his being from those twelve Æons who were the offspring of Anthropos and Ecclesia; and on this account he acknowledges himself the Son of man, as being a descendant of Anthropos. Others still, assert that he was produced by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who were brought forth for the security of the Pleroma; and that on this account he was called Christ, thus preserving the appellation of the Father, by whom he was produced. And there are yet others among them who declare that the Propator of the whole, Proarche, and Proanennoetos is called Anthropos; and that this is the great and abstruse mystery, namely, that the Power which is above all others, and contains all in his embrace, is termed Anthropos; hence does the Saviour style himself the “Son of man.”