Against Heresies: Book II

THAT SYSTEM: then, which concerns their Pleroma, and especially the part of it that refers to the primary Ogdoad, is burdened with such great contradictions and perplexities. Let me now proceed to examine the remainder of their scheme. In doing so, because of their madness, I will be inquiring into things that have no real existence. Yet, it is necessary to do this since I have been entrusted with treating this subject, and because I desire all people to come to the knowledge of the truth, as well as because you yourself have asked to receive from me full and complete means for overturning the views of these men.

HOW: then, were the rest of the Æons created? Were they united with the one who created them, like the sun's rays with the sun, or were they made individually and separately, each with an independent existence and distinct form, like a man from another man or one herd of cattle from another? Or were they created like branches growing from a tree? Were they of the same substance as those who created them, or did they originate from a different substance? Were they produced simultaneously, as equals; or in a certain order, with some older and some younger? Furthermore, are they simple and uniform, entirely equal and similar to each other, like spirit and light; or are they complex and varied, different from one another in their parts?

If each of them was created in a human-like manner, actually and according to their own kind, then either those created by the Father will be of the same substance as Him and similar to their Creator; or if they appear different, then it must be acknowledged that they are made from some different substance. Now, if the beings created by the Father are similar to their Creator, then those who have been made must remain forever without suffering, just as He who made them; but if, on the other hand, they are of a different substance, which is capable of suffering, then how did this different substance find a place within the incorruptible Pleroma? Furthermore, according to this idea, each one of them must be understood as being completely separate from every other, just as humans are not mixed or united with one another, but each has a distinct shape and a specific sphere of action, while each is also formed of a particular size—qualities characteristic of a body, not of a spirit. Let them therefore no longer speak of the Pleroma as spiritual, or of themselves as "spiritual," if indeed their Æons are feasting with the Father, just as if they were humans, and He Himself is of such a form as those reveal Him to be who were created by Him.

IF: again, the Æons came from Logos, Logos from Nous, and Nous from Bythus, just as lights are kindled from a light—like torches from a torch—then they may differ in generation and size from each other; but since they share the same substance as the source of their creation, they must either all remain forever without suffering, or their Father Himself must experience suffering. For the torch that has been kindled afterwards cannot have a different kind of light from that which came before it. Therefore, when their lights come together as one, they return to the original identity because that one light is formed which has existed from the beginning. But we cannot say, regarding light itself, that one part is newer in origin and another older (since the whole is just one light); nor can we say this even about those torches that have received the light (for these are all contemporary regarding their material substance, as the substance of torches is one and the same), but we can simply speak about the timing of being kindled, since one was lit a little while ago and another has just now been kindled.

THE FLAW: therefore, of that passion related to ignorance will either affect their whole Pleroma since all its members are of the same substance; and the Propator will share in this flaw of ignorance—that is, will be ignorant of Himself; or, on the other hand, all those lights within the Pleroma will forever remain impassible. Where, then, does the passion of the youngest Æon come from if the light of the Father is that from which all other lights have been formed and is by nature impassible? And how can one Æon be described as either younger or older among them, since there is only one light in the entire Pleroma? And if anyone calls them stars, they will all still appear to share the same nature. For if “one star differs from another star in glory,” but not in qualities, nor substance, nor in being passible or impassible; then all these, being alike derived from the light of the Father, must either be naturally impassible and unchanging, or they must all, together with the light of the Father, be passible and capable of undergoing the varying stages of corruption.

THE SAME CONCLUSION WILL FOLLOW: even though they claim that the production of Æons came from Logos, like branches from a tree, since Logos comes from their Father. For all the Æons are made of the same substance as the Father, differing from each other only in size, and not in nature, and completing the greatness of the Father, just as the fingers complete the hand. If He exists in passion and ignorance, then the Æons generated by Him must also exist in the same way. But if it is impious to attribute ignorance and passion to the Father of all, how can they describe an Æon produced by Him as being susceptible to these qualities; and while they attribute the same impiety to the very wisdom (Sophia) of God, how can they still call themselves religious people?

If they claim that their Æons were sent out like rays from the sun, then since all are of the same substance and originate from the same source, all must either be capable of experiencing passion along with the one who created them, or all will remain unaffected forever. They cannot argue that, among these beings, some are unaffected while others are subject to passion. If they assert that all are unaffected, they undermine their own argument. How could the youngest Æon have experienced passion if all were unaffected? On the other hand, if they say that all shared in this passion, which some do argue, since it began with the Logos and then affected Sophia, they admit that the passion traces back to Logos, who is the Nous of the Propator, thus acknowledging that the Nous of the Propator and the Father Himself experienced passion. The Father of all should not be seen as a composite being who can be separated from His Nous (mind), as I have shown; rather, Nous is the Father, and the Father is Nous. It follows, therefore, that He who comes from Him as Logos, or rather Nous Himself, because He is Logos, must be perfect and unaffected, and those who come from Him, being of the same substance, should be perfect and unaffected, always remaining similar to Him who created them.

IT CAN NO LONGER BE CLAIMED: as these men teach, that the Logos, being third in generation, was unaware of the Father. While such a notion might seem probable in human generations, since they often know nothing of their parents, it is completely impossible in the case of the Logos of the Father. For if the Logos exists in the Father and knows Him in whom he exists—that is, is not ignorant of himself—then those emanations from him, being his powers and always with him, will not be ignorant of him who produced them, just as rays are not ignorant of the sun. Therefore, it is impossible for the Sophia (wisdom) of God, who is within the Pleroma and created in this way, to have succumbed to passion and conceived such ignorance. However, it is possible for that Sophia (wisdom) associated with the teachings of Valentinus, being a product of the devil, to fall into all kinds of passion and display profound ignorance. Since they themselves testify concerning their mother, saying she was the offspring of an erring Æon, we need no further reason to understand why the children of such a mother would remain in deep ignorance.

I AM NOT AWARE THAT: besides these productions already mentioned, they can speak of any others; in fact, I have often discussed these kinds of forms with them, yet they have never mentioned any other unique beings produced in this way. They only claim that each being was made so that it knows only the one who created it, remaining unaware of the one who came before.

However, they do not provide any explanation or evidence for how these beings were created or how such a process occurs among spiritual beings.

No matter how they try to explain it, they end up asserting that their Word, which comes from the Nous of the Propator, was produced in a flawed state. They argue that the perfect Nous, which was previously begotten by the perfect Bythus, could not create something perfect and instead brought forth something entirely ignorant of the Father's knowledge and greatness. They also claim that the Savior demonstrated this mystery in the story of the man blind from birth, as the Æon was produced by Monogenes blind, meaning ignorant, wrongly attributing ignorance and blindness to the Word of God, who, according to their theory, is the second creation from the Propator.

Admirable sophists and explorers of the profound mysteries of the unknown Father, and narrators of those super-celestial mysteries “which the angels desire to look into!”—that they might learn that from the Nous of that Father who is above all, the Word was produced blind, essentially ignorant of the Father who created him!

BUT: you miserable sophists, how could the Nous of the Father, or rather the very Father Himself, since He is Nous and perfect in all things, have produced His own Logos as an imperfect and blind Æon when He was also able to produce with Him the knowledge of the Father? As you affirm that Christ was generated after the rest and yet declare that He was produced perfect, much more then should Logos, who is older, be produced by the same Nous, unquestionably perfect, and not blind; nor could He have produced Æons even more blind than Himself, until at last your Sophia, always utterly blinded, gave birth to so vast a body of evils.

And your Father is the cause of all this mischief; for you declare the magnitude and power of your Father to be the causes of ignorance, comparing Him to Bythus, and assigning this as a name to Him who is the unnameable Father.

But if ignorance is an evil, and you declare all evils to have derived their strength from it, while you maintain that the greatness and power of the Father is the cause of this ignorance, you thus present Him as the author of all evils.

For you state as the cause of evil this fact: that no one could contemplate His greatness.

But if it was really impossible for the Father to make Himself known from the beginning to those beings that were formed by Him, He must in that case be held free from blame, since He could not remove the ignorance of those who came after Him.

But if, at a later time, when He willed it, He could remove that ignorance, which had increased with each successive generation and thus become deeply seated in the Æons, much more, had He willed it, might He have prevented that ignorance, which had not yet existed, from coming into existence.

SINCE: therefore, as soon as He pleased, He became known not only to the Æons, but also to people who lived in these later times; yet, as He did not please to be known from the beginning, He remained unknown—the cause of ignorance, according to you, is the will of the Father. For if He foreknew that these things would happen this way, why didn't He guard against the ignorance of these beings before it took hold among them, rather than later, as if in repentance, deal with it through Christ? The knowledge He conveyed to all through Christ, He could have imparted earlier through Logos, who was also the first-begotten of Monogenes.

Or if He knew them beforehand and willed that these things should happen as they have, then ignorance must endure forever and never pass away. For the things made in accordance with the will of your Propator must continue alongside His will; or if they pass away, then His will, which decreed their existence, will pass away with them. And why did the Æons find rest and attain perfect knowledge by finally learning that the Father is altogether incomprehensible? They could surely have had this knowledge before getting involved in passion; for the greatness of the Father did not diminish from the beginning, so that they might know He was altogether incomprehensible.

For if, due to His infinite greatness, He remained unknown, He ought also, due to His infinite love, to have preserved those unchanging who were produced by Him, since nothing hindered, and it was rather necessary, that they should have known from the beginning that the Father was altogether incomprehensible.