Against Heresies: Book II

WE MIGHT FIRST NOTE ABOUT THEIR TRIACONTAD THAT IT REMARKABLY COLLAPSES ON BOTH SIDES: in terms of both defect and excess. They claim the Lord was baptized at thirty to signify this. However, this claim undermines their entire argument. Regarding defect, it occurs as follows: firstly, they include the Propator among the other Æons. The Father of all should not be counted with other entities; He who was not produced should not be counted with the produced; He who was unbegotten should not be counted with the born; He whom no one comprehends should not be counted with the comprehended, as He is Himself incomprehensible; and He who is without form should not be counted with entities that have a definite form. Since He is superior to the rest, He should not be included with them, nor should He who is impassible and not mistaken be counted with an Æon that is subject to emotion and error. I have demonstrated in the preceding book that, starting with Bythus, they list the Triacontad up to Sophia, whom they describe as the erring Æon; and I have also detailed the names of their Æons. If He is not counted, there would not be, according to their logic, thirty Æons, but rather only twenty-nine.

Regarding the first creation Ennœa, whom they also call Sige, from whom they say Nous and Aletheia were sent forth, they are mistaken in both aspects. It is impossible for someone's thought (Ennœa) or silence (Sige) to be understood separately from themselves, and for it to have its own distinct form if sent forth beyond them.

Yet if they claim that the (Ennœa) was not sent out beyond Him, remaining one with the Propator, then why do they count her among the other Æons—those who were not one with the Father and thus are ignorant of His greatness? If, however, she was so united (let's consider this too), it is absolutely necessary that from this united and inseparable connection, which constitutes just one being, there should emerge an unseparated and united production, so it should not differ from Him who sent it out.

IF THIS IS THE CASE: then just as Bythus and Sige, so too Nous and Aletheia will form one single being, always adhering closely together. And since one cannot be conceived without the other, just as water is always linked with moisture, fire with heat, or a stone with hardness (because these things are inherently connected and inseparable from each other, always co-existing), similarly Bythus should be united with Ennœa, and Nous with Aletheia. Logos and Zoe, being sent forth by those united, should also be united and form a single being.

But, following this line of reasoning, Homo and Ecclesia, and all the other pairings of the produced Æons should be united and always co-exist with one another. For they believe it is necessary for a female Æon to exist alongside a male one, as she represents, so to speak, his affection.

GIVEN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE OPINIONS THEY PROCLAIM: they continue, without shame, to teach that the younger Æon of the Duodecad, whom they also call Sophia, experienced suffering without being united with her consort, whom they name Theletus, and independently gave birth to a creation they call “a female from a female.” They thus plunge into such extreme inconsistency, forming two completely contradictory opinions on the same issue. For if Bythus is always one with Sige, Nous with Aletheia, Logos with Zoe, and so forth, how could Sophia, without union with her consort, either suffer or create anything? And if she did indeed suffer apart from him, it would mean that other unions could also allow separation and division among themselves, which I have already shown cannot be. Therefore, it is impossible for Sophia to have suffered apart from Theletus, and thus, once more, their entire line of reasoning collapses. For they have again derived all remaining [material substance], like the plot of a tragedy, from the suffering they claim she underwent without union with her consort.

IF: however, they boldly assert, in order to save their futile ideas from collapse, that the other conjunctions were also separated from one another because of this latest conjunction, then I reply that, first of all, they rely on something impossible. How can they separate the Propator from his Ennœa, or Nous from Aletheia, or Logos from Zoe, and so on with the rest? And how can they themselves claim that they strive toward unity and are, in fact, all united, if indeed these very conjunctions within the Pleroma do not maintain unity, but are separate from one another? And to such an extent that they both endure suffering and perform the act of creation without union with each other, just as hens do without mating with roosters.

5. Then, again, their primary and first-created Ogdoad will be overthrown as follows: They must admit that Bythus and Sige, Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia, each reside in the same Pleroma. However, it's impossible for Sige (silence) to exist where Logos (speech) is present, just as Logos cannot appear where Sige exists. These are mutually exclusive, just like light and darkness cannot exist in the same place: if light is present, darkness cannot be; and if there is darkness, there cannot be light, because where light appears, darkness retreats. Similarly, where Sige is, Logos cannot be; and where Logos is, Sige certainly cannot be. If they claim that Logos exists internally (unexpressed), Sige will also exist internally, but will still be destroyed by the internal Logos. However, the order of the production of their (Æons) shows that Logos is not merely conceptual.

6. They should not claim that the first and main Ogdoad consists of Logos and Sige, but they must exclude either Sige or Logos; and then their first and main Ogdoad comes to an end. For if they say that the conjunctions of the Æons are united, then their whole argument falls apart. Since, if they were united, how could Sophia have generated a defect without union with her partner? On the other hand, if they argue that each of the Æons has its own distinct substance, then how can Sige and Logos appear in the same place? That is all concerning the defect.

7. Their Triacontad is further debunked by the following observations. They describe Horos (whom they call by various names previously mentioned) as being created by Monogenes just like the other Æons. Some claim that Horos was created by Monogenes, while others say he was sent forth by the Propator himself in His own likeness. They also claim that Monogenes created Christ and the Holy Spirit, but they do not count these in the Pleroma, nor do they count the Saviour, whom they also declare to be Totum (all things).

CLEARLY: it is obvious that more than just thirty productions exist, as they assert, but four more in addition to these thirty. For they count the Propator himself in the Pleroma, as well as those who were successively produced by one another. Why are these [other beings] not counted as existing with those in the same Pleroma, since they were created in the same way? What valid reason do they have for not counting alongside the other Æons either Christ, whom they say was created by Monogenes according to the Father’s will, or the Holy Spirit, or Horos, whom they call Soter (Saviour), and not even the Saviour Himself, who came to help and shape their Mother? Is it because these were seen as weaker than the others and therefore not worthy of the name Æons, or of being counted among them, or because they were seen as superior and more excellent? But how could they be weaker, since they were created to establish and correct the others? Moreover, they cannot possibly be superior to the first and principal Tetrad, by which they were also created, for it too is counted in the number previously mentioned.

Therefore, these latter beings should also have been counted in the Pleroma of the Æons, or that should be deprived of the honor of those Æons with this title (the Tetrad).

8. Since, therefore, their Triacontad is thus rendered ineffective, as I have shown, both with respect to defect and excess (because any amount of excess or defect when dealing with such a number makes it untenable, and this is even more so with great variations), it follows that what they claim about their Ogdoad and Duodecad is just a fable that cannot stand. Furthermore, their entire system collapses when their very foundation is destroyed and dissolves into Bythus, which means into what does not exist. Let them, then, from now on try to provide other reasons for why the Lord was baptized at the age of thirty years, and explain the Duodecad of the apostles, and the case of the woman who suffered from an issue of blood, and all the other points about which they so madly labor in vain.