Chapter
IX.—Valentinus.
Valentinus,
1049
however, and the adherents of this school,
though they agree in asserting that the originating principle of the
universe is
the
Father, still they are impelled into the
adoption of a contrary opinion
respecting Him
. For some of
them
maintain
that (the Father) is solitary and generative;
whereas others
hold
the impossibility, (in His as in other
cases,) of procreation without a female. They therefore add Sige
as
the
spouse of this
Father
, and style
the Father
Himself Bythus. From this
Father
and His spouse some
allege
that there have been six projections,—viz., Nous
and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia,—and that
this constitutes the procreative Ogdoad. And
the Valentinians
maintain
that those
are the first
projections which have
taken place within the limit,
and
have been again denominated
“
those
within the Pleroma;” and the second are
“those without the Pleroma;” and the third, “those
without the Limit.” Now the generation of these constitutes
the Hysterema
Acamoth
. And he asserts that what has been
generated from an Æon,
that exists
in
the
Hysterema
and
has been projected (beyond the Limit), is the Creator.
But
Valentinus
is not disposed
to affirm what is thus
generated
to be primal Deity, but speaks in detractive terms both
of Him and the things made by Him. And (he asserts) that Christ
came down from within the Pleroma for the salvation of the spirit who
had erred. This spirit, (according to the Valentinians,) resides
in our inner man; and they say that this
inner man
obtains
salvation on account of this indwelling
spirit
.
Valentinus
, however, (to uphold the doctrine,) determines that
the flesh is not saved, and styles it “a leathern tunic,”
and the perishable
portion of
man. I have (already)
declared these tenets in the way of an epitome, inasmuch as in their
systems there exists enlarged matter for discussion, and a variety of
opinions. In this manner, then, it seems proper also to the
school of Valentinus
to propound their
opinions
.
1049
This
section differs considerably from what Hippolytus has already stated
concerning Valentinus. [“Sige,” vol. i. p. 62, note
5.]