1 I John 2 : 22 (DV).

2 I John 4 : 3 (DV). The traditional view of the Church is based on II Thessalonians 2 : 3ff., which speaks of the apostasy, of the (man of lawlessness) and the (son of perdition) who herald the coming of the Lord. This “lawless one” will set himself up in the place of God, but will finally be slain by the Lord Jesus “with the breath of his mouth.” He will work wonders (according to the working of Satan). Above all, he will reveal himself by his lying and deceitfulness. Daniel 11 : 36ff. is regarded as a prototype.

3 For “city” cf. Psychology and Alchemy, pp. 104ff.

4 ‘H (The kingdom of God is within you [or “among you”]). “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there!” for it is within and everywhere. (Luke 17 : 20f.) “It is not of this [external] world.” (John 18 : 36.) The likeness of the kingdom of God to man is explicitly stated in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13 : 24. Cf. also Matthew 13 : 45, 18 : 23, 22 : 2). The papyrus fragments from Oxyrhynchus say: … [ ] [] [ ] [] . (The kingdom of heaven is within you, and whosoever knoweth himself shall find it. Know yourselves.) Cf. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, p. 26, and Grenfell and Hunt, New Sayings of Jesus, p. 15.

5 Cf. my observations on Christ as archetype in “A Psychological Approach to the Dogma of the Trinity,” pars. 226ff.

6 “Et haec ergo imago censenda est Dei in homine, quod eosdem motus et sensus habeat humanus animus, quos et Deus, licet non tales quales Deus” (Adv. Marcion., II, xvi; in Migne, P.L., vol. 2, col. 304).

7 Contra Celsum, VIII, 49 (Migne, P.G., vol. 11, col. 1590): “In anima, non in corpore impressus sit imaginis conditoris character” (The character of the image of the Creator is imprinted on the soul, not on the body). (Cf. trans. by H. Chadwick, p. 488.)

8 In Lucam homilia, VIII (Migne, P.G., vol. 13, col. 1820): “Si considerem Dominum Salvatorem imaginem esse invisibilis Dei, et videam animam meam factam ad imaginem conditoris, ut imago esset imaginis: neque enim anima mea specialiter imago est Dei, sed ad similitudinem imaginis prioris effecta est” (If I consider that the Lord and Saviour is the image of the invisible God, I see that my soul is made after the image of the Creator, so as to be an image of an image; for my soul is not directly the image of God, but is made after the likeness of the former image).

9 De principiis, I, ii, 8 (Migne, P.G., vol. 11, col. 156): “Salvator figura est substantiae vel subsistentiae Dei” (The Saviour is the figure of the substance or subsistence of God). In Genesim homilia, I, 13 (Migne, P.G., vol. 12, col. 156): “Quae est ergo alia imago Dei ad cuius imaginis similitudinem factus est homo, nisi Salvator noster, qui est primogenitus omnis creaturae?” (What else therefore is the image of God after the likeness of which image man was made, but our Saviour, who is the first born of every creature?) Selecta in Genesim, IX, 6 (Migne, P.G., vol. 12, col. 107): “Imago autem Dei invisibilis salvator” (But the image of the invisible God is the saviour).

10 In Gen. hom., I, 13 (Migne, P.G., vol. 12, col. 155): “Is autem qui ad imaginem Dei factus est et ad similitudinem, interior homo noster est, invisibilis et incorporalis, et incorruptus atque immortalis” (But that which is made after the image and similitude of God is our inner man, invisible, incorporeal, incorrupt, and immortal).

11 De princip., IV, 37 (Migne, P.G., vol. 11. col. 412).

12 Retractationes, I, xxvi (Migne, P.L., vol. 32, col. 626): “(Unigenitus) … tantummodo imago est, non ad imaginem” (The Only-Begotten … alone is the image, not after the image).

13 Enarrationes in Psalmos, XLVIII. Sermo II (Migne, P.L., vol. 36, col. 564): “Imago Dei intus est, non est in corpore … ubi est intellectus, ubi est mens, ubi ratio investigandae veritatis etc. ibi habet Deus imaginem suam.” Also ibid., Psalm XLII, 6 (Migne, P.L., vol. 36, col. 480): “Ergo intelligimus habere nos aliquid ubi imago Dei est, mentem scilicet atque rationem” (Therefore we understand that we have something in which the image of God is, namely mind and reason). Sermo XC, 10 (Migne, P.L., vol. 38, col. 566): “Veritas quaeritur in Dei imagine” (Truth is sought in the image of God), but against this the Liber de vera religione says: “in interiore homine habitat veritas” (truth dwells in the inner man). From this it is clear that the imago Dei coincides with the interior homo.

14 Enarr. in Ps., LIV, 3 (Migne, P.L., vol. 36, col. 629): “ … ubi autem homo ad imaginem Dei factum se novit, ibi aliquid in se agnoscit amplius esse quam datum est pecoribus.”

15 I Cor. 15 : 47.

16 In Joannis Evangelium, Tract. LXXVIII, 3 (Migne, P.L., vol. 35, col. 1836): “Christus est Deus, anima rationalis et caro” (Christ is God, a rational soul and a body).

17 Sermo CCXXXVII, 4 (Migne, P.L., vol. 38, col. 1124): “(Verbum) suscepit totum quasi plenum hominem, animam et corpus hominis. Et si aliquid scrupulosius vis audire; quia animam et carnem habet et pecus, cum dico animam humanam et carnem humanam, totam animam humanam accepit.”

18 Enarr. in Ps., LIV, 1 (Migne, P.L., vol. 36, col. 628).

19 Contra Faustum, XXII, 38 (Migne, P.L., vol. 42, col. 424): “Est enim et sancta Ecclesia Domino Jesu Christo in occulto uxor. Occulte quippe atque intus in abscondito secreto spirituali anima humana inhaeret Verbo Dei, ut sint duo in carne una.” Cf. St. Augustine’s Reply to Faustus the Manichaean (trans. by Richard Stothert, p. 433): “The holy Church, too, is in secret the spouse of the Lord Jesus Christ, For it is secretly, and in the hidden depths of the spirit, that the soul of man is joined to the word of God, so that they are two in one flesh.” St. Augustine is referring here to Eph. 5 : 31f.: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.”

20 Augustine, De Trinitate, XIV, 22 (Migne, P.L., vol. 42, col. 1053): “Reformamini in novitate mentis vostrae, ut incipiat ilia imago ab illo reforman, a quo formata est” (Be reformed in the newness of your mind; the beginning of the image’s reforming must come from him who first formed it) (trans. by John Burnaby, p. 120).

21 Cf. “Concerning Mandala Symbolism,” in Part I of vol. 9.

22 Psychology and Alchemy, pars. 323ff.

23 Irenaeus (Adversus haereses, II, 5, 1) records the Gnostic teaching that when Christ, as the demiurgic Logos, created his mother’s being, he “cast her out of the Pleroma—that is, he cut her off from knowledge.” For creation took place outside the pleroma, in the shadow and the void. According to Valentinus (Adv. haer., I, 11, 1), Christ did not spring from the Aeons of the pleroma, but from the mother who was outside it. She bore him, he says, “not without a kind of shadow.” But he, “being masculine,’ cast off the shadow from himself and returned to the Pleroma ( [] , .), while his mother, “being left behind in the shadow, and deprived of spiritual substance,’ there gave birth to the real “Demiurge and Pantokrator of the lower world.’ But the shadow which lies over the world is, as we know from the Gospels, the princeps huius mundi, the devil. Cf. The Writings of Irenaeus, I, pp. 45f.

24 Cf. R. Schärf, “Die Gestalt des Satans im Alten Testament.”

25 “The Spirit Mercurius,” par. 271.

26 Jewish Christians who formed a Gnostic-syncretistic party.

27 A Gnostic sect mentioned in Epiphanius, Panarium adversus octoginta haereses, LXXX, 1–3, and in Michael Psellus, De daemonibus (in Marsilius Ficinus, Auctores Platonici [lamblichus de mysteriis Aegyptiorum], Venice, 1497).

28 “Oportuit autem ut alter illorum extremorum isque optimus appellaretur Dei filius propter suam excellentiam; alter vero ipsi ex diametro oppositus, mali daemonis, Satanae diabolique filius diceretur” (But it is fitting that one of these two extremes, and that the best, should be called the Son of God because of his excellence, and the other, diametrically opposed to him, the son of the evil demon, of Satan and the devil) (Origen, Contra Celsum, VI, 45; in Migne, P.G., vol. 11, col. 1367; cf. trans. by Chadwick, p. 362). The opposites even condition one another: “Ubi quid malum est … ibi necessario bonum esse malo contrarium. … Alterum ex altero sequitur: proinde aut utrumque tollendum est negandumque bona et mala esse; aut admisso altero maximeque malo, bonum quoque admissum oportet.” (Where there is evil … there must needs be good contrary to the evil. … The one follows from the other; hence we must either do away with both, and deny that good and evil exist, or if we admit the one, and particularly evil, we must also admit the good.) (Contra Celsum, II, 51; in Migne, P.G., vol. 11, col. 878; cf. trans. by Chadwick, p. 106.) In contrast to this clear, logical statement Origen cannot help asserting elsewhere that the “Powers, Thrones, and Principalities” down to the evil spirits and impure demons “do not have it—the contrary virtue—substantially” (“non substantialiter id habeant scl. virtus adversaria”), and that they were not created evil but chose the condition of wickedness (“malitiae gradus”) of their own free will. (De principiis, I, vm, 4; in Migne, P.G., vol. 11, col. 179.) Origen is already committed, at least by implication, to the definition of God as the Summum Bonum, and hence betrays the inclination to deprive evil of substance. He comes very close to the Augustinian conception of the privatio boni when he says: “Certum namque est malum esse bono carere” (For it is certain that to be evil means to be deprived of good). But this sentence is immediately preceded by the following: “Recedere autem a bono, non aliud est quam effici in malo” (To turn aside from good is nothing other than to be perfected in evil) (De principiis, II, ix, 2; in Migne, P.G., vol. 11, cols. 226–27). This shows clearly that an increase in the one means a diminution of the other, so that good and evil represent equivalent halves of an opposition.

29 Adv. haer., II, 4, 3.

30 Oratio ad Graecos (Migne, P.G., vol. 6, col. 829).

31 Migne, P.G., vol. 6, col. 1080.

32 Basil thought that the darkness of the world came from the shadow cast by the body of heaven. Hexaemeron, II, 5 (Migne, P.G., vol. 29. col. 40).

33 Homilia: Quod Deus non est auctor malorum (Migne, P.G., vol. 31, col. 341).

34 De spiritu sancto (Migne, P.G., vol. 29, col. 37). Cf. Nine Homilies of the Hexaemeron, trans. by Blomfield Jackson, pp. 61f.

35 Migne, P.G., vol. 18, cols. 1132f.

36 Responsiones ad orthodoxas (Migne, P.G., vol. 6, cols. 1313–14).

37 Migne, P.G., vol. 3, cols. 716–18. Cf. the Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, trans. by John Parker, I, pp. 53ff.

38 “Nunc vero ideo sunt omnia bona, quia sunt aliis alia meliora, et bonitas inferiorum add it laudibus meliorum. … Ea vero quae dicuntur mala, aut vitia sunt rerum bonarum, quae omnino extra res bonas per se ipsa alicubi esse non possunt. … Sed ipsa quoque vitia testimonium perhibent bonitati naturarum. Quod enim malum est per vitium, profecto bonum est per naturam. Vitium quippe contra naturam est, quia naturae nocet; nec noceret, nisi bonum eius minueret. Non est ergo malum nisi privatio boni. Ac per hoc nusquam est nisi in re aliqua bona. … Ac per hoc bona sine malis esse possunt, sicut ipse Deus, et quaeque superiora coelestia; mala vero sine bonis esse non possunt. Si enim nihil nocent, mala non sunt; si autem nocent, bonum minuunt; et si amplius nocent, habent adhuc bonum quod minuant; et si totum consumunt, nihil naturae remanebit qui noceatur; ac per hoc nec malum erit a quo noceatur, quando natura defuerit, cuius bonum nocendo minuatur.” (Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum, I, 4f.; in Migne, P.L., vol. 42, cols. 606–7.) Although the Dialogus Quaestionum LXV is not an authentic writing of Augustine’s, it reflects his standpoint very clearly. Quaest. XVI: “Cum Deus omnia bona creaverit, nihilque sit quod non ab illo conditum sit, unde malum? Resp. Malum natura non est; sed privatio boni hoc nomen accepit. Denique bonum potest esse sine malo, sed malum non potest esse sine bono, nec potest esse malum ubi non fuerit bonum. … Ideoque quando dicimus bonum, naturam laudamus; quando dicimus malum, non naturam sed vitium, quod est bonae naturae contrarium reprehendimus.” (Question XVI: Since God created all things good and there is nothing which was not created by him, whence arises evil? Answer: Evil is not a natural thing, it is rather the name given to the privation of good. Thus there can be good without evil, but there cannot be evil without good, nor can there be evil where there is no good. … Therefore, when we call a thing good, we praise its inherent nature; when we call a thing evil, we blame not its nature, but some defect in it contrary to its nature, which is good.)

39 “Iniquity has no substance” (CCXXVIII). “There is a nature in which there is no evil—in which, indeed, there can be no evil. But it is impossible for a nature to exist in which there is no good” (CLX).

40 Augustini Opera omnia, Maurist edn., X, Part 2, cols. 2561–2618.

41 Sermones supposititii, Sermo I, 3, Maurist edn., V, col. 2287.

42 Summa theologica, I, q. 48, ad I (trans. by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, II, p. 264).

43 Ibid., I, q. 48, ad 3 (trans., p. 268).

44 “ … Quod autem conveniens est alicui est illi bonum. Ergo omne agens agit propter bonum” (Summa contra Gentiles, 111, ch. 3, trans. by the English Dominican Fathers, vol. III, p. 7).

45 Summa theologica, I, q. 48, ad 2 (trans., II, p. 266, citing Aristotle’s Topics, iii, 4).

46 In the Decrees of the 4th Lateran Council we read: “For the devil and the other demons as created by God were naturally good, but became evil of their own motion.” Denzinger and Bannwart, Enchiridion symbolorum, p. 189.

47 Harnack (Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, p. 332) ascribes the Clementine Homilies to the beginning of the 4th cent. and is of the opinion that they contain “no source that could be attributed with any certainty to the 2nd century.” He thinks that Islam is far superior to this theology. Yahweh and Allah are unreflected God-images, whereas in the Clementine Homilies there is a psychological and reflective spirit at work. It is not immediately evident why this should bring about a disintegration of the God-concept, as Harnack thinks. Fear of psychology should not be carried too far.

48 Der Dialog des Adamantius, III, 4 (ed. by van de Sande Bakhuyzen, p, 119).

49 The female or somatic triad consist of έπɩθʋμία (desire), ὀργἡ (anger), and (grief); the male, of λoγɩσμóς (reflection), (knowledge), and ɸóβoς (fear). Cf. the triad of functions in “The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales,” Part I of vol. 9, pars. 425ff.

50 P. de Lagarde (Clementina, p. 190) has here … … . The reading . seems to me to make more sense.

51 Ch. III: .

52 The Clementine Homilies and the Apostolical Constitutions, trans. by Thomas Smith et al., pp. 312ff. (slightly modified).

53 Panarium, ed. by Oehler, I, p. 267.

54 Clement. Horn. XX, ch. VII. Since there is no trace in pseudo-Clement of the defensive attitude towards Manichaean dualism which is so characteristic of the later writers, it is possible that the Homilies date back to the beginning of the 3rd cent., if not earlier.

55 Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, pp. 309ff.

56 Cf. Matt. 19: 17 and Mark 10: 18.

57 A reference to the slaying of the first-born in Egypt.

58 Nezikin I, Baba Kamma 60 (in The Babylonian Talmud, trans. and ed. by Isidore Epstein, p. 348 [hereafter abbr. BT]; slightly modified).

59 Numbers 24 : 16.

60 Zera’im I, Berakoth 7a (BT, p. 31),

61 Midrash Tanchuma Shemoth XVII.

62 Cf. Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos … and Rashi’s Commentary, trans. by M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann, II, p. 76.

63 Midrash on Song of Sol. 2 : 6.

64 Bereshith Rabba XII, 15 (Midrash Rabbah translated into English, ed. by H. Freedman and M. Simon, I, p. 99: slightly modified).

65 Ibid. XXXIX, 6 (p. 315).

66 Mo’ed IV, Pesahim 119 (BT, p. 613); Nezikin VI, Sanhedrin II, 103 (BT, pp. 698ff.).

67 Nezikin VI, Sanhedrin II, 97 (BT, p. 659; modified).

68 Zera’im I, Berakoth 16b (BT, p. 98; slightly modified).

69 Ibid. 7a (p. 30).

70 “Akathriel” is a made-up word composed of ktr = kether (throne) and el, the name of God.

71 A string of numinous God names, usually translated as “the Lord of Hosts.”

72 Zera’im I, Berakoth 7 (BT, p. 30; slightly modified).

73 Aurora, trans. by John Sparrow, p. 423.

74 My learned friend Victor White, O.P., in his Dominican Studies (II, p. 399), thinks he can detect a Manichaean streak in me. I don’t go in for metaphysics, but ecclesiastical philosophy undoubtedly does, and for this reason I must ask what are we to make of hell, damnation, and the devil, if these things are eternal? Theoretically they consist of nothing, and how does that square with the dogma of eternal damnation? But if they consist of something, that something can hardly be good. So where is the danger of dualism? In addition to this my critic should know how very much I stress the unity of the self, this central archetype which is a complexio oppositorum par excellence, and that my leanings are therefore towards the very reverse of dualism.

75 It has been objected that Christ cannot have been a valid symbol of the self, or was only an illusory substitute for it. I can agree with this view only if it refers strictly to the present time, when psychological criticism has become possible, but not if it pretends to judge the pre-psychological age. Christ did not merely symbolize wholeness, but, as a psychic phenomenon, he was wholeness. This is proved by the symbolism as well as by the phenomenology of the past, for which—be it noted-evil was a privatio boni. The idea of totality is, at any given time, as total as one is oneself. Who can guarantee that our conception of totality is not equally in need of completion? The mere concept of totality does not by any means posit it.

76 Just as the transcendent nature of light can only be expressed through the image of waves and particles.

77 Cf. Psychology and Alchemy, pars. 323ff., and “The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious,” pars. 398ff.

78 Cf. “The Psychology of the Transference,” pars. 425ff.

79 Elenchos, V, 8, 2 (trans. by F. Legge, I, p. 131). Cf. infra, pars. 358ff.

80 Psychology and Alchemy, par. 334, and “The Psychology of the Transference,” pars. 457ff.

81 Basilides lived in the 2nd cent.

82 Elenchos, VII, 27, 12 (cf. Legge trans., II, p. 79).

83 Ibid., VII, 22, 10 (cf. II, pp. 69–70).

84 Ibid., VII, 22, 15 (II, p. 70). The eagle has the same significance in alchemy.

85 This word also occurs in the well-known passage about the krater in Zosimos. (Berthelot, Alch. grecs, III, li, 8: .

86 I must say a word here about the horos doctrine of the Valentinians in Irenaeus (Adv. haer, I, 2, 2ff.) Horos (boundary) is a “power” or numen identical with Christ, or at least proceeding from him. It has the following synonyms: òροθέτης (boundary-fixer), (he who leads across), καρπɩστής (emancipator), λυτρώτης (redeemer), σταυρóς (cross). In this capacity he is the regulator and mainstay of the universe, like Jesus. When Sophia was “formless and shapeless as an embryo, Christ took pity on her, stretched her out through his Cross and gave her form through his power,” so that at least she acquired substance (Adv. haer., I, 4). He also left behind for her an “intimation of immortality.” The identity of the Cross with Horos, or with Christ, is clear from the text, an image that we find also in Paulinus of Nola:

“… regnare deum super omnia Christum,

qui cruce dispensa per quattuor extima ligni

quattuor adtingit dimensum partibus orbem,

ut trahat ad uitam populos ex omnibus oris.”

(Christ reigns over all things as God, who, on the outstretched cross, reaches out through the four extremities of the wood to the four parts of the wide world, that he may draw unto life the peoples from all lands.) (Carmina, ed. by Wilhelm Hartel, Carm. XIX, 639ff., p. 140.) For the Cross as God’s “lightning” cf. “A Study in the Process of Individuation,” pars. 535f.

87 Elenchos, VII, 27, 5 (Legge trans., II, p. 78).

88 Ibid., VII, 26, 5 (II, p. 75).

89 Panarium, XXXI, 5 (Oehler edn., I, p. 314).

90 Elenchos, VII, 22, 16 (Legge trans., II, p. 71). Cf. infra, pars. 298ff.

91 Ibid., 20, 5 (cf. II, p. 66). Quispel, “Note sur ‘Basilide’.”

92 With reference to the psychological nature of Gnostic sayings, see Quispel’s “Philo und die altchristliche Háresie,” p. 432, where he quotes Irenaeus (Adv. haer., II, 4, 2): “Id quod extra et quod intus dicere eos secundum agnitionem et ignorantiam, sed non secundum Iocalem sententiam” (In speaking of what is outward and what is inward, they refer, not to place, but to what is known and what is not known). (Cf. Legge, I, p. 127.) The sentence that follows immediately after this—“But in the Pleroma, or in that which is contained by the Father, everything that the demiurge or the angels have created is contained by the unspeakable greatness, as the centre in a circle”—is therefore to be taken as a description of unconscious contents. Quispel’s view of projection calls for the critical remark that projection does not do away with the reality of a psychic content. Nor can a fact be called “unreal” merely because it cannot be described as other than “psychic.” Psyche is reality par excellence.

93 Cf. Psychology and Alchemy, pars. 528ff., 122ff., and “A Study in the Process of Individuation,” pars. 542, 550, 581f.

94 Matt. 5 : 48 (DV).

95 Rom. 7 : 21 (AV).

96 Cf. the last two papers in Part I of vol. 9.