/> system chiefly at Rome c. 140-c. 160. The great work of Irenaeus against

the Gnostics, although having all Gnostics in view, especially deals with

the Valentinians in their various forms, because Irenaeus was of the

opinion that he who refutes their system refutes all (cf. Adv. Haer., IV,

praef., 2). It is difficult to reconstruct with certainty the esoteric

system of Valentinus as distinguished from possibly later developments of

the school, as Irenaeus, the principal authority, follows not only

Valentinus, but Ptolomaeus and others, in describing the system. The

following selection of sources gives fragments of the letters and other

writings of Valentinus himself as preserved by Clement of Alexandria,

passages from Irenaeus bringing out distinctive features of the system, and

the important letter of Ptolemaeus to Flora, one of the very few extant

writings of the Gnostics of an early date. It gives a good idea of the

character of the exoteric teaching of the school.





Additional source material: The principal authority for the system

of the Valentinians is Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., Lib. I (ANF), see

also Hippolytus, Refut., VI, 24-32 (ANF); "The Hymn of the

Soul," from the Acts of Thomas, trans. by A. A. Bevan, Texts

and Studies, III, Cambridge, 1897; The Fragments of Heracleon,

trans. by A. E. Burke, Text and Studies, I, Cambridge, 1891; see

also ANF, IX, index, p. 526, s. v., Heracleon. The Excerpta

Theodoti contained in ANF, VIII, are really the Excerpta

Prophetica, another collection, identified with the Excerpta

Theodoti by mistake of the editor of the American edition, A. C.

Coxe (on the Excerpta, see Zahn, History of the Canon of the

New Testament).





(a) Clement of Alexandria, Strom., IV, 13. (MSG, 8:1296.)





The following passages appear to be taken from the same homily of

Valentinus. The pneumatics are naturally immortal, but have

assumed mortality to overcome it. Death is the work of the

imperfect Demiurge. The concluding portion, which is very obscure,

does not fit well into the Valentinian system. Cf. Hilgenfeld,

op. cit., p. 300.





Valentinian in a homily writes in these words: "Ye are originally

immortal, and ye are children of eternal life, and ye desired to have

death distributed to you, that ye may spend and lavish it, and that death

may die in you and by you; for when ye dissolve the world, and are not

yourselves dissolved, ye have dominion over creation and all

corruption."(44) For he also, similarly with Basilides, supposes a class

saved by nature [i.e., the pneumatics, v. infra], and that this

different race has come hither to us from above for the abolition of

death, and that the origin of death is the work of the Creator of the

world. Wherefore, also, he thus expounds that Scripture, "No one shall see

the face of God and live" [Ex. 33:20], as if He were the cause of death.

Respecting this God, he makes those allusions, when writing, in these

expressions: "As much as the image is inferior to the living face, so much

is the world inferior to the living Eon. What is, then, the cause of the

image? It is the majesty of the face, which exhibits the figure to the

painter, to be honored by his name; for the form is not found exactly to

the life, but the name supplies what is wanting in that which is formed.

The invisibility of God co-operates also for the sake of the faith of that

which has been fashioned." For the Demiurge, called God and Father, he

designated the image and prophet of the true God, as the Painter, and

Wisdom, whose image, which is formed, is to the glory of the invisible

One; since the things which proceed from a pair [syzygy] are complements

[pleromata], and those which proceed from one are images. But since what

is seen is no part of Him, the soul [psyche] comes from what is

intermediate, and is different; and this is the inspiration of the

different spirit. And generally what is breathed into the soul, which is

the image of the spirit [pneuma], and in general, what is said of the

Demiurge, who was made according to the image, they say was foretold by a

sensible image in the book of Genesis respecting the origin of man; and

the likeness they transfer to themselves, teaching that the addition of

the different spirit was made, unknown to the Demiurge.





(b) Clement of Alexandria, Strom., II, 20. (MSG, 8:1057.)





According to Basilides, the various passions of the soul were no

original parts of the soul, but appendages to the soul. "They were

in essence certain spirits attached to the rational soul, through

some original perturbation and confusion; and that again, other

bastard and heterogeneous natures of spirits grow onto them, like

that of the wolf, the ape, the lion, and the goat, whose

properties, showing themselves around the soul, they say,

assimilate the lusts of the soul to the likeness of these

animals." See the whole passage immediately preceding the

following fragment. The fragment can best be understood by

reference to the presentation of the system by W. Bousset in

Encyc. Brit., eleventh ed., art. "Basilides."





Valentinus, too, in a letter to certain people, writes in these very words

respecting the appendages: "There is One good, by whose presence is the

manifestation, which is by the Son, and by Him alone can the heart become

pure, by the expulsion of every evil spirit from the heart; for the

multitude of spirits dwelling in it do not suffer it to be pure; but each

of them performs his own deeds, insulting it oft with unseemly lusts. And

the heart seems to be treated somewhat like a caravansary. For the latter

has holes and ruts made in it, and is often filled with filthy dung; men

living filthily in it, and taking no care for the place as belonging to

others. So fares it with the heart as long as there is no thought taken

for it, being unclean and the abode of demons many. But when the only good

Father visits it, it is sanctified and gleams with light. And he who

possesses such a heart is so blessed that he shall see God."





(c) Clement of Alexandria, Strom., II. 8. (MSG, 8:972.)





The teaching in the following passage attaches itself to the text,

"The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom" (cf. Prov. 1:7).

Compare with it Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, 30:6.





Here the followers of Basilides, interpreting this expression [Prov. 1:7]

say that "the Archon, having heard the speech of the Spirit, who was being

ministered to, was struck with amazement both with the voice and the

vision, having had glad tidings beyond his hopes announced to him; and

that his amazement was called fear, which became the origin of wisdom,

which distinguishes classes, and discriminates, and perfects, and

restores. For not the world alone, but also the election, He that is over

all has set apart and sent forth."



And Valentinus appears also in an epistle to have adopted such views. For

he writes in these very words: "And as terror fell on the angels at this

creature, because he uttered things greater than proceeds from his

formation, by reason of the being in him who had invisibly communicated a

germ of the supernal essence, and who spoke with free utterance; so, also,

among the tribes of men in the world the works of men became terrors to

those who made them--as, for example, images and statues. And the hands of

all fashion things to bear the image of God; for Adam, formed into the

name of man, inspired the dread attaching to the pre-existing man, as

having his being in him; and they were terror-stricken and speedily marred

the work."





(d) Clement of Alexandria, Strom., III, 7. (MSG, 8:1151.)





The Docetism of Valentinus comes out in the following. It is to be

noted that Clement not only does not controvert the position taken

by the Gnostic as to the reality of the bodily functions of Jesus,

but in his own person makes almost the same assertions (cf.

Strom., VI, 9). He might indeed call himself, as he does in this

latter passage, a Gnostic in the sense of the true or Christian

Gnostic, but he comes very close to the position of the

non-Christian Gnostic.





Valentinus in an epistle to Agathopous says: "Since He endured all things,

and was continent [i.e., self-controlled], Jesus, accordingly, obtained

for Himself divinity. He ate and drank in a peculiar manner, not giving

forth His food. Such was the power of His continence [self-control] that

the food was not corrupted in Him, because He himself was without

corruption."





(e) Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, 7, 15; I, 8, 23. (MSG, 7:517, 528.)





The division of mankind into three classes, according to their

nature and consequent capacity for salvation, is characteristic of

the Valentinian Gnosticism. The other Gnostics divided mankind

into two classes: those capable of salvation, or the pneumatics,

or Gnostics, and those who perish in the final destruction of

material existence, or the hylics. Valentinus avails himself of

the notion of the trichotomy of human nature, and gives a place

for the bulk of Christians, those who did not embrace Gnosticism;

cf. Irenaeus, ibid., I, 6. Valentinus remained long within the

Church, accommodating his teaching as far as possible, and in its

exoteric side very fully, to the current teaching of the Church.

The doctrine as to the psychics, capable of a limited salvation,

appears to be a part of this accommodation.





I, 7, 5. The Valentinians conceive of three kinds of men: the pneumatic

[or spiritual], the choic [or material],(45) and the psychic [or animal];

such were Cain, Abel, and Seth. These three natures are no longer in one

person, but in the race. The material goes to destruction. The animal, if

it chooses the better part, finds repose in an intermediate place; but if

it chooses the worse, it, too, goes to the same [destruction]. But they

assert that the spiritual principles, whatever Acamoth has sown, being

disciplined and nourished here from that time until now in righteous

souls, because they were sent forth weak, at last attain perfection and

shall be given as brides(46) to the angels of the Saviour, but their

animal souls necessarily rest forever with the Demiurge in the

intermediate place. And again subdividing the animal souls themselves,

they say that some are by nature good and others are by nature evil. The

good are those who become capable of receiving the seed; the evil by

nature, those who are never able to receive that seed.



I, 8, 23. The parable of the leaven which the woman is said to have hid in

three measures of meal they declare manifests the three kinds of men:

pneumatic, psychic, and the choic, but the leaven denoted the Saviour

himself. Paul also very plainly set forth the choic, the psychic, and the

pneumatic, saying in one place: "As is the earthy [choic] such are they

also that are earthy" [I Cor. 15:48]; and in another place, "He that is

spiritual [pneumatic] judgeth all things" [I Cor. 2:14]. And the passage,

"The animal man receiveth not the things of the spirit" [I Cor. 2:15],

they affirm was spoken concerning the Demiurge, who, being psychic, knew

neither his mother, who was spiritual, nor her seed, nor the Eons in the

pleroma.





(f) Irenaeus. Adv. Haer., I, 1. (MSG, 7:445 f.)





The following passage appears, from the context, to have been

written with the teaching of Ptolemaeus especially in mind. It

should be compared with the account further on in the same book,

I, 11: 1-3. The syzygies are characteristic of the Valentinian

teaching, and the symbolism of marriage plays an important part in

the "system" of all the Valentinians. In the words of Duchesne

(Hist. ancienne de l'eglise, sixth ed., p. 171): "Valentinian

Gnosticism is from one end to the other a 'marriage Gnosticism.'

From the most abstract origins of being to their end, there are

only syzygies, marriages, and generations." For the connection

between these conceptions and antinomianism, see Irenaeus, Adv.

Haer., I, 6:3 f. For their sacramental application, ibid., I,

21:3. Cf. I, 13:3, a passage which seems to belong to the

sacrament of the bridal chamber.





They [the Valentinians] say that in the invisible and ineffable heights

above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent Eon, and him they call

Proarche, Propator, and Bythos; and that he is invisible and that nothing

is able to comprehend him. Since he is comprehended by no one, and is

invisible, eternal, and unbegotten, he was in silence and profound

quiescence in the boundless ages. There existed along with him Ennoea, whom

they call Charis and Sige. And at a certain time this Bythos determined to

send forth from himself the beginnings of all things, and just as seed he

wished to send forth this emanation, and he deposited it in the womb of

her who was with him, even of Sige. She then received this seed, and

becoming pregnant, generated Nous, who was both similar and equal to him

who had sent him forth(47) and alone comprehended his father's greatness.

This Nous they also call Monogenes and Father and the Beginning of all

Things. Along with him was also sent forth Aletheia; and these four

constituted the first and first-begotten Pythagorean Tetrad, which also

they denominate the root of all things. For there are first Bythos and

Sige, and then Nous and Aletheia. And Monogenes, when he perceived for

what purpose he had been sent forth, also himself sent forth Logos and

Zoe, being the father of all those who are to come after him, and the

beginning and fashioning of the entire pleroma. From Logos and Zoe were

sent forth, by a conjunction, Anthropos and Ecclesia, and thus were formed

the first-begotten Ogdoad, the root and substance of all things, called

among them by four names; namely, Bythos, Nous, Logos, and Anthropos. For

each of these is at once masculine and feminine, as follows: Propator was

united by a conjunction with his Ennoea, then Monogenes (i.e., Nous) with

Aletheia, Logos with Zoe, Anthropos with Ecclesia.





(g) Ptolemaeus, Epistula ad Floram, ap. Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer.

XXXIII, 3. Ed. Oehler, 1859. (MSG, 41:557.)





Ptolemaeus was possibly the most important disciple of Valentinus.

and the one to whom Irenaeus is most indebted for his first-hand

knowledge of the teaching of the sect of the Valentinians. Of his

writings have been preserved, in addition to numerous brief

fragments, a connected passage of some length, apparently from a

commentary on the Prologue or the Gospel of St. John (see Irenaeus,

Adv. Haer., I, 8:5), and the Epistle to Flora. The commentary is

distinctly a part of the esoteric teaching, the epistle is as

clearly exoteric.





That many have not(48) received the Law given by Moses, my dear sister

Flora, without recognizing either its fundamental ideas or its precepts,

will be perfectly clear to you, I believe, if you become acquainted with

the different views regarding the same. For some [i.e., the Church] say

that it was commanded by God and the Father; but others [i.e., the

Marcionites], taking the opposite direction, affirm that it was commanded

by an opposing and injurious devil, and they attribute to him the creation

of the world, and say that he is the Father and Creator. But such as teach

such doctrine are altogether deceived, and each of them strays from the

truth of what lies before him. For it appears not to have been given by

the perfect God and Father, because it is itself imperfect, and it needs

to be completed [cf. Matt. 5:17], and it has precepts not consonant with

the nature and mind of God; neither is the Law to be attributed to the

wickedness of the adversary, whose characteristic is to do wrong. Such do

not know what was spoken by the Saviour, that a city or a house divided

against itself cannot stand, as our Saviour has shown us. And besides, the

Apostle says that the creation of the world was His work (all things were

made by Him and without Him nothing was made), refuting the unsubstantial

wisdom of lying men, the work not of a god working ruin, but a just one

who hates wickedness. This is the opinion of rash men who do not

understand the cause of the providence of the Creator [Demiurge] and have

lost the eyes not only of their soul, but of their body. How far,

therefore, such wander from the way of truth is evident to you from what

has been said. But each of these is induced by something peculiar to

himself to think thus, some by ignorance of the God of righteousness:

others by ignorance of the Father of all, whom the Only One who knew Him

alone revealed when He came. To us it has been reserved to be deemed

worthy of making manifest to you the ideas of both of these, and to

investigate carefully this Law, whence anything is, and the law-giver by

whom it was commanded, bringing proofs of what shall be said from the

words of our Saviour, by which alone one can be led without error to the

knowledge of things.



First of all, it is to be known that the entire Law contained in the

Pentateuch of Moses was not given by one--I mean not by God alone; but some

of its precepts were given by men, and the words of the Saviour teach us

to divide it into three parts. For He attributes some of it to God himself

and His law-giving, and some to Moses, not in the sense that God gave laws

through him, but in the sense that Moses, impelled by his own spirit, set

down some things as laws; and He attributes some things to the elders of

the people, who first discovered certain commandments of their own and

then inserted them. How this was so you clearly learn from the words of

the Saviour. Somewhere the Saviour was conversing with the people, who

disputed with Him about divorce, that it was allowed in the Law, and He

said to them: Moses, on account of the hardness of your hearts, permitted

a man to divorce his wife; but from the beginning it was not so. For God,

said He, joined this bond, and what the Lord joined together let not man,

He said, put asunder. He therefore pointed out one law that forbids a

woman to be separated from her husband, which was of God, and another,

which was of Moses, that allows, on account of the hardness of men's

hearts, the bond to be dissolved. And accordingly, Moses gives a law

opposed to God, for it is opposed to the law forbidding divorce. But if we

consider carefully the mind of Moses, according to which he thus

legislated, we shall find that he did not do this of his own mere choice,

but by constraint because of the weakness of those to whom he was giving

the law. For since they were not able to observe that precept of God by

which it was not permitted them to cast forth their wives, with whom some

of them lived unhappily, and because of this they were in danger of

falling still more into unrighteousness, and from that into utter ruin,

Moses, intending to avoid this unhappy result, because they were in danger

of ruin, gave a certain second law, according to circumstances less evil,

in place of the better; and by his own authority gave the law of divorce

to them, that if they could not keep that they might keep this, and should

not fall into unrighteousness and wickedness by which complete ruin should

overtake them. This was his purpose in as far as he is found giving laws

contrary to God. That thus the law of Moses is shown to be other than the

Law of God is indisputable, if we have shown it in one instance.



And as to there being certain traditions of the elders which have been

incorporated in the Law, the Saviour shows this also. For God, said He,

commanded: Honor thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee.

But ye, He said, addressing the elders, have said: It is a gift to God,

that by which ye might be profited by me, and ye annul the law of God by

the traditions of your elders. And this very thing Isaiah declared when he

said: This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from

me, vainly do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and commandment of

men [cf. Matt. 15:4-9.] Clearly, then, from these things it is shown

that this whole Law is to be divided into three parts. And in it we find

laws given by Moses, by the elders, and by God; and this division of the

whole Law as we have made it, has shown the real truth as to the Law.



But one portion of the Law, that which is from God, is again to be divided

into three parts: first, into the genuine precepts, quite untainted with

evil, which is properly called the law, and which the Saviour came not to

destroy but to complete (for what he completed was not alien to Him, but

yet it was not perfect); secondly, the part comprising evil and

unrighteous things, which the Saviour did away with as something unfitting

His nature; and thirdly, the part which is for types and symbols, which is

given as a law, as images of things spiritual and excellent which, from

being evident and manifest to the senses, the Saviour changed into the

spiritual and unseen. Now the law of God, pure and untainted with anything

base, is the Decalogue itself, or those ten precepts distributed in two

tables, for the prohibition of things to be avoided and the performance of

things to be done. Although they constitute a pure body of laws, yet they

are not perfect, but need to be completed by the Saviour. But there is

that body of commands which are tainted with unrighteousness; such is the

law requiring vengeance and requital of injuries upon those who have first

injured us, commanding the smiting out of an eye for an eye and a tooth

for a tooth and revenging bloodshed with bloodshed. For one who is second

in doing unrighteousness acts no less unrighteously, when the difference

is only one of order, doing the self-same work. But such a precept was,

and is, in other respects just, because of the infirmity of those to whom

the law was given, and it was given in violation of the pure law, and was

not consonant with the nature and goodness of the Father of all; it was to

a degree appropriate, but yet given under a certain compulsion. For he who

forbids the commission of a single murder in that he says, Thou shalt not

kill, but commands that he who kills shall in requital be killed, gives a

second law and commands a second slaying, when he has forbidden one, and

has been compelled to do this by necessity. And therefore the Son, sent by

Him, abolishes this portion of the Law, He himself confessing that it is

from God, and this, among other things, is to be attributed to an ancient

heresy, among which, also, is that God, speaking, says: He that curseth

father or mother, let him die the death. But there is that part of the Law

which is typical, laying down that which is an image of things spiritual

and excellent, which gives laws concerning such matters as offerings, I

mean, and circumcision, the Sabbath and fasting, the passover and the

unleavened bread, and such like. For all these things, being images and

symbols of the truth which had been manifested, have been changed. They

were abrogated so far as they were external, visible acts of bodily

performance, but they were retained so far as they were spiritual, the

names remaining, but the things being changed. For the Saviour commands us

to present offerings, though not of irrational animals or of incense, but

spiritual offerings--praise, glory, and thanksgiving, and also liberality

and good deeds toward the neighbor. He would have us circumcised with a

circumcision not of the flesh, but spiritual and of the heart; and have us

observe the Sabbath, for he wishes us to rest from wicked actions; and

fast, but he does not wish us to observe a bodily fast, but a spiritual,

in that we abstain from all that is unworthy. External fasting, however,

is observed among our people, since it is capable of benefiting the soul

to some degree, if it is practised with reason, when it is neither

performed from imitation of any one, nor by custom, nor on account of a

day, as if a day were set apart for that purpose; and at the same time it

is also for a reminder of true fasting, that they who are not able to fast

thus may have a reminder of it from the fast which is external. And that

the passover, in the same way, and the unleavened bread are images, the

Apostle Paul also makes clear, saying: Christ our Passover is sacrificed

for us, and That ye may be unleavened, not having any leaven (for he calls

leaven wickedness), but that ye may be a new dough.



This entire Law, therefore, acknowledged to be from God, is divided into

three parts: into that part which is fulfilled by the Saviour, such as

Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not

forswear thyself, for they are included in this, thou shalt not be angry,

thou shalt not lust, thou shalt not swear; into that which is completely

abolished, such as an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, being

tainted with unrighteousness, and having the same work of unrighteousness,

and these are taken away by the Saviour because contradictory (for those

things which are contradictory are mutually destructive), "For I say unto

you that ye in no wise resist evil, but if any one smite thee turn to him

the other cheek also;" and into that part which is changed and converted

from that which is bodily into that which is spiritual, as he expounds

allegorically a symbol which is commanded as an image of things that are

excellent. For these images and symbols, fitted to represent other things,

were good so long as the truth was not yet present; but when the truth is

present, it is necessary to do the things of truth, not the image of

truth. The same thing his disciples and the Apostle Paul teach, inasmuch

as in regard to things which are images, as we have already said, they

show by the passover and the unleavened bread that they are for our sake,

but in regard to the law which is tainted with unrighteousness, they call

it the law of commandments and ordinances, that is done away; but as to

the law which is untainted with evil, he says that the law is holy and the

commandment holy and just and good.



Accordingly, I think that it has been sufficiently shown you, so far as it

is possible to discuss the matter briefly, that there are laws of men

which have slipped in, and there is the very Law of God which is divided

into three parts. There remains, therefore, for us to show, who, then, is

that God who gave the Law. But I think that this has been shown you in

what has already been said, if you have listened attentively. For if the

Law was not given by the perfect God, as we have shown, nor by the devil,

which idea merely to mention is unlawful, there is another beside these,

one who gave the Law. This one is, therefore, the Demiurge and maker of

this whole world and of all things in it, different from the nature of the

other two, and placed between them, and who therefore rightly bears the

name of the Midst. And if the perfect God is good according to His own

nature, as also He is (for that there is only One who is good, namely, God

and His Father, the Saviour asserted, the God whom He manifested), there

is also one who is of the nature of the adversary, bad and wicked and

characterized by unrighteousness. Standing, therefore, between these, and

being neither good nor bad nor unjust, he can be called righteous in a

sense proper to him, as the judge of the righteousness that corresponds to

him, and that god will be lower than the perfect God, and his

righteousness lower than His, because he is begotten and not unbegotten.

For there is one unbegotten One, the Father, from whom are all things, for

all things have been prepared by Him. But He is greater and superior to

the adversary, and is of a different essence or nature from the essence of

the other. For the essence of the adversary is corruption and darkness,

for he is hylic and composite,(49) but the essence of the unbegotten

Father of all is incorruptibility, and He is light itself, simple and

uniform. But the essence of these(50) brings forth a certain twofold

power, and he is the image of the better. Do not let these things disturb

you, who wish to learn how from one principle of all things, whom we

acknowledge and in whom be believe, namely, the unbegotten and the

incorruptible and the good, there exist two other natures, namely, that of

corruption and that of the Midst, which are not of the same essence

[{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}], though the good by nature begets and brings forth what is

like itself, and of the same essence [{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}]. For you will learn by

God's permission, in due order, both the beginning of this and its

generation, since you are deemed worthy of the apostolic tradition, which

by a succession we have received, and in due season to test all things by

the teaching of the Saviour. The things which in a few words I have said

to you, my sister Flora, I have not exhausted, and I have written briefly.

At the same time I have sufficiently explained to you the subject

proposed, and what I have said will be constantly of use to you, if as a

beautiful and good field you have received the seed and will by it produce

fruit.