Page:Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol 5.djvu/76

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
50
IRENÆUS AGAINST HERESIES.
[Book i.

all mind, all light,][1] 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[2] 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,[3] 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.[4] Others, again, affirm that he had his being from those twelve Æons who were

  1. These words are found in Epiphanius, but omitted in the old Latin version. The Latin gives "sense" instead of "light."
  2. The text is here very uncertain. Some propose to read six Æons instead of all.
  3. Here again the text is corrupt and obscure. We have followed what seems the most probable emendation.
  4. 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