Chapter 17

§ 1.

Having then so great incongruities and perplexities in the order implied by their Pleroma, and especially in that part of it which relates to the first Ogdoad;¹ let us go on to consider the rest; we too, because of their folly, inquiring about the things which are not: and doing this too of necessity, because the care of this subject is intrusted to us,² and we would have all men to come to the knowledge of the truth: also because thou thyself hast requested to receive from us many and various topics for refuting them.

§ 2.

It is enquired, then, how the other Æons were produced? Was it in union with Him who produced them,³ as the rays from the sun: or in real efficacy, and by separation, so that each of them may exist separately, and having his own form; as man is produced by man, and beast by beast: or in the way of growth; as boughs by a tree? Again: were they of the same substance with those who produced them, or did they have their substance from some other? Again: were they produced in the same point, so as to be contemporaneous; or in a certain order, so as for some of them to be older, others younger? And did they emanate like spirits and rays of light, simple and uniform and in all respects mutually equal and similar: or compounded and different, from want of resemblance in their parts?

§ 3.

But now if each of them was produced,⁴ as men are, in real efficacy and by a birth of his own: the generations of the Father will either be of the same substance with Him, and like to Him who produced them; or if they be found unlike, we must needs confess them to be of some other substance. Again if the productions of the Father are like Him who produced them, they will remain impassible, as He is: but if they are of some other substance, capable of passions: whence came this incongruous substance within that Pleroma, which is all of Incorruption? And moreover, in this way each will be conceived of as divided from the other by a real separation, as men are; not mingled nor united together, but with distinct form and definite outline and a certain size will each of them be marked out; and these are properties of body, not of spirit. Let them not say then any longer that it is a spiritual Pleroma, nor that themselves are spiritual: since their Æons, like men, sit feasting with their father, who is himself too of the like figure; a fact disclosed concerning him by those who have emanated from him.

§ 4.

If again, as lights kindled from another light, so the Æons are from the Word, and the Word from the Mind, and the Mind from the Deep, in the manner, for example, of tapers kindled from another taper; in origination perhaps and in magnitude they will indeed be separate from each other, but being of the same substance with Him from Whom their emanation began, either they all remain impassive, or their Parent also will share in what befalls them. Even as that taper which is later in being lit, will have no other light than that which was before it. For which cause also their lights when blended, hasten back to their original union, one only light ensuing, the same which was also from the beginning. But the terms “younger” and “more ancient” can neither be understood of the light itself (for the whole light is one), nor of the tapers which received the light (for these too in their material substance are of the same date, for the tapers are of one and the same material): but only of the enkindling, in that one was lit a short time before, another just now.

§ 5.

The reproach therefore implied in suffering through ignorance will either befall their whole Pleroma alike,⁵ they being of the same substance; and their first Father will be in the reproach of ignorance, i.e., ignorant of Himself: or all the lights within the Pleroma will continue alike impassive. Whence then can any suffering befall the younger Æon, if there is a Paternal Light, out of which all the lights are formed, which is by nature impassive? And how can any Æon among them be called younger or older, when there is but one Light appertaining to the whole Pleroma? And should any one call them Stars, yet all will be found partaking of the same nature.⁶ For what if one star differeth from another star in glory? it is not in quality nor in substance, in respect of which a thing is passible or impassive: but either all appertaining to the paternal Light, must be naturally impassive and unchangeable; or all, with the paternal Light, are both liable to suffering, and capable of wasting changes.

§ 6.

Moreover this same rule will hold, should they say that the emanation of the Æons originates from the Word as branches from a tree;⁷ the Word having his generation from the Father, whom they talk of. For all are found to be of the same substance with the Father, differing from each other in magnitude only, but not in nature, and completing the magnitude of the Father, as the fingers complete the hand. If therefore the Father is in suffering and ignorance, so of course are the Æons who are generated from Him. But if it is impious to ascribe ignorance and suffering to the Father of all, how say they that there was produced from Him an Æon liable to suffering? and that, calling themselves religious, while against the very Wisdom of God they devise the aforesaid impiety?

§ 7.

But if, as rays from the sun, so they will say their Æons had their production:⁸ they being all of the same substance and of the same origin, will either be all capable of suffering,⁹ together with Him who produced them: or will all continue impassive. For they cannot surely maintain that upon such production some would prove impassive, some liable to suffering. If then they say all are impassive, themselves do away with their own argument. For how did the younger Æon suffer, if all were impassive? If again they say that all shared in this suffering, as some dare to affirm that it began from the Word, but was derived onward into Wisdom; then by referring the suffering to the Word, the Mind of this their First Father, they are convicted of maintaining that the Mind of the First Father and the Father too Himself was in suffering. For the Father of all is not like some compound creature, excluding Mind (as we have shewn before); but The Father is Mind, and Mind is The Father. It follows therefore necessarily both that the Word which is from Him, or rather the Mind itself, being the Word [or Reason] should be perfect and impassive: and that those emanations which are of him, being of the same substance with himself, should be perfect and impassive, and continue always alike, with him who produced them.

§ 8.

It could not be then that the Word, being in the third stage production,¹⁰ was ignorant of the Father, as these teach. For this may perhaps be thought probable in the birth of men, being they are often ignorant of their own parents; but in the Word of the Father it is altogether impossible. For if, being in the Father, he hath knowledge of Him in Whom he is, i.e., of himself, he is not ignorant: and the emanations which proceed from him, being Virtues of his, and always standing by him, will not be ignorant of him who produced them; as neither will the rays of the Sun.

It will not then hold that the Wisdom of God, that which is within the Pleroma, being of such origin, became liable to suffering, and underwent such ignorance. Though it be possible that the Wisdom which is of Valentinus, having its origin from the Devil, may fall into all kinds of suffering, and bring forth the fruit of deepest ignorance. Yea, since themselves bear witness of their Mother, saying that she is the production of a wandering Æon, we have no further need to inquire the cause, why the sons of such a Mother should be always swimming in the deep of ignorance.

§ 9.

Now besides these modes of emanation I for my part do not understand how they can find any other to mention.¹¹ Nor have I ever known themselves to state that any thing else belonging [to the Deity] became the subject of Emanation, although I have had very much discussion on the aforesaid kinds of it with them. But this only they affirm, That they were produced, each one of them, and each knew that other one only, from whom he was produced, but was in ignorance of the one next before the same. But they proceed not at all to explain, how they were produced; or how such a process is conceivable among spiritual beings. For whichever way they advance, they will be hampered, and will be going round and round the truth, away from right reason, so far as to affirm, that he who was produced as the Word from the Mind of their First Father, was produced in order to degradation: for that the perfect Mind begotten of the perfect Deep could not go on to make perfect the production which comes of it, but was blinded in respect of the knowledge and greatness of the Father: and that our Saviour shewed a token of this mystery in him who was blind from his birth, how that in like manner a blind Æon was produced from the Only Begotten, i.e., Ignorance. Thus in their lies they ascribe ignorance and blindness to the Word of God, emanating according to them in the second degree from the First Father. Admirable Sophists, and investigators of the depth of the unknown Father, and expounders of the mysteries which are above the Heavens,¹² which the Angels desire to look into! to learn how that the Word Who is sent forth from the Mind of the Father Who is over all, was sent forth blind, i.e., ignorant of the Father Who sent him forth!

§ 10.

And how, O ye vainest of Sophists, did the Mind of the Father,¹³ yea the Father Himself, being Mind and perfect in all things, produce His own Word as a blind and imperfect Æon,¹⁴ it being in His power at once to produce the knowledge also of the Father with him? Even as ye say that Christ, though begotten after the rest, was however produced perfect. Much more then would the Word, which is before him in time, be produced of course by the same Mind in perfection and not in blindness. Neither would he in his turn produce Æons blinder than himself, till at last the Wisdom you talk of growing continually blinder brought forth so great a body of evils.

And the cause of this mischief is your Father: for ye say that the greatness and might of the Father are the causes of ignorance, likening Him to a great Deep, and giving that Name to Him, the Father Who cannot be named. Now if ignorance is an evil (and you lay it down that all evils flourished therefrom) then you by saying that the cause thereof is the greatness and might of the Father, make Him out the framer of evils. For you say that the circumstance of one’s not being able to contemplate His greatness, is the cause of Evil. But now if it was impossible for the Father to make Himself known from the beginning to the things which He made: He could not be blamed as being unable to remove the ignorance of those who come after Him. But if afterwards, being so minded, He had power to remove the ignorance which had grown with the series of emanations, and which had become implanted in the Æons, much rather in the first instance, had He willed, might He forbid the existence of the ignorance, which as yet was not.

§ 11.

Wherefore, since when He would, He was recognized, not by Æons only,¹⁵ but also by these men, coming as they did in the last times; but from His unwillingness to be recognized from the beginning, was unknown: the cause of the ignorance, by your account, is the will of the Father. I say, If He foresaw these results, why did He not of course cut off their ignorance before it took place, which afterwards, as though repenting Himself, He remedies by the production of Christ? For the same knowledge which by Christ He communicated to all, He was able to communicate long before by the Word, who was also the first-born of the Only Begotten.

Again, if foreseeing these things He willed them, then the works of ignorance endure for ever, and never pass away. For the things which were done by the will of your First Father, must needs continue, together with His will Who so decreed. Or if they pass away, His will must pass with them, Who decreed them to have being. For at what point did the Æons cease learning and acquire perfect knowledge? was it the immensity and incomprehensibility of the Father? Why, this knowledge they might have before any passions befell them; for the greatness of the Father would suffer no disparagement, though our men were aware from the first that He is immense and incomprehensible. For if through His immensity they knew Him not, yet because of His boundless Love He ought to have kept those born of Him impassive: since nothing hindered, but it was rather profitable to them, to have known from the beginning that the Father is immense and incomprehensible.