THE GNOSTIC CONCEPTION OF THE CROSS. 



103 



just cited, though the Gnostic phraseology and conceptions are 

 still evident. It was always possible to interpret such phraseology 

 from a CathoHc point of view, but as used by Gnostics it was 

 ;>urely symbohc of enhghtenment. The Gnostics, in fact, ex- 

 hausted language in praise of the Cross, while at the same time 

 robbing it of all its value. 



III. 



The Crucifixion as a symbol of heavenly events is best con- 

 sidered in the hght of the teaching of Valentinus and of his school. 

 But first we may premise that, as the heavenly ^on, who unites 

 artificially with the human Jesus, in most of the Gnostic systems, 

 is rooted in the mythology of the pre-Christian Gnosticism and 

 the rehgions from which it was formed, so Christ and the Cross 

 of the Christian scheme are further subjected to a mythologizing 

 process both in heaven and on earth. 



In the Valentinian system the ^on Sophia, as a result of 

 her "fall," i.e., her passionate desire for union with or under- 

 standing of the unsearchable God, or in her desire to emulate 

 His power of self-generation, was in danger of absorption into 

 His absolute essence, when the ^Eon Horos, who prevents such 

 an absorption, induced her to lay aside her design (personified 

 as a female, 6 v fir] a is:), as w^ell as her " passion.'' By him she 

 was purified and estabhshed, and her Enthumesis with its passion 

 — an amorphous yet spiritual being — was led outside the Pleroma. 

 This is a primary fall and redemption in the heavenly sphere.* 

 Horos is also called Stauros (Cross), Lytrotes (Redeemer), etc., 

 and was produced by the Father by means of the .^Eon Monogenes, 

 who now produces Christ and Holy Spirit. Christ instructed 

 all the iEons with respect to the Father and Himself, and in 

 pity for Enthumesis (also called Achamoth or the Lower Sophia) 

 outside the Pleroma, extended Himself through and beyond 

 Stauros, the boundary of the Pleroma, and imparted form to her. 

 Then He withdrew, leaving " the odour of immortality " with 



* Irenaeus, i, 1, 2. Cf. Mansel, Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second 

 Centuries, p. 182 : " The emanation of the relative from the Absolute, of 

 the many from the One, though it be but the manifestation of God 

 Himself, under various attributes, is regarded in some sort as a Fall, 

 typical of the lower Fall which gave existence to the material world ; 

 and the recognition of the real unity and indifference of these various 

 manifestations, as in some sort a redemption, typical of the redemption 

 of the lower world." 



