Chapter 5

§ 1.

Against them therefore who maintain that this world was made without the Pleroma, or under “the good God,” what we said a little before¹ is appropriate; and the said persons with their Father will be shut up as in a prison by that which is without the Pleroma: in which they also must of necessity terminate.

But those who say that within the regions comprehended of the Father this world was made by certain other beings, will be met by all the absurdities and incongruities now mentioned: and they will be forced either to own that all that is within the Father is luminous, and full, and active; or to speak ill of the paternal Light, as not being able to enlighten all things; or as one part, so the whole of their Pleroma must be acknowledged to be empty and disordered and dark. And all other things as many as belong to creation, they speak ill of, as though they were but for a time², or, if eternal, were made of matter. Whereas they must be free from all censure, being within the Pleroma and in the Bosom of the Father: otherwise the censures will spread in like manner over the whole of the Pleroma.

And their Christ is found to be a cause of ignorance. For by their account, he having in substance formed their Mother, cast her out beyond the Pleroma, i.e., cut her off from knowledge. He was himself therefore the cause of ignorance in her, who cut her off from knowledge. How then could he, the very same person, give knowledge to the other Æons, who existed before him, while to his Mother he caused ignorance. For he put her out of knowledge, throwing her out of the Pleroma.

§ 2.

Yet further:³ if the phrases “within and without the Pleroma” are used by them, as some of themselves say, to express knowledge and ignorance; because he who is in knowledge is within that which he has cognizance of: the Saviour Himself (whom they affirm to be all things) they must needs allow to have been in ignorance. For they say that he, having come out beyond the Pleroma, formed their Mother. If then being without is in their speech ignorance of all things; and the Saviour went out to form their Mother; He came to be without the limits of the knowledge of all things, i.e., in ignorance. How could He furnish her with knowledge, being Himself without the borders thereof? For so we, being without the borders of their knowledge, are, they say, without the Pleroma. And again: If therefore the Saviour went out beyond the Pleroma to search for the Lost Sheep, and the Pleroma is knowledge, He came to be without the limits of knowledge; which means, “in ignorance.” For either they must allow something locally without the Pleroma, and so all the aforesaid incongruities will confront them; or if they use “within” in the sense of knowledge and “without” of ignorance, the Saviour they speak of, and long before him Christ, will have come to be in ignorance, when they went out of the Pleroma to form their Mother: i.e., out of knowledge.

§ 3.

Now all this will apply in like manner against all who affirm the world to have been made either by Angels or by any other but the true God.⁴ For the fault they find about Fabricator of it, and about the things which were made material and temporal, will recoil upon the Father. For how come things to exist in the womb of the Pleroma, whose final dissolution was to begin presently? by the consent of the Father, and at His good Pleasure. Now then it is no more the Creator who is the cause of this work, thinking himself to be making it particularly well: but He Who in His People permits and approves emanations of Defect and deeds of error to take place, and among eternal things temporal, and among incorruptible things corruptible, and among the things of truth, those which are of error. If on the other hand these things were made without the permission and approbation of the Father of all: the other, who wrought in the Father’s own dominions any thing without His leave, is mightier, and stronger, and more sovereign than He. Again: if their Father, as some say, permitted without approving it; He permitted for some constraining cause, either when He had power to forbid, or when He had not power. If He had not power, He is weak and infirm; if He had, He is a deceiver and pretender, and a slave of necessity; not consenting, yet permitting as if He consented. And allowing error in the first instance to have substance and growth, in after times He tries to do it away, when now many have grievously perished because of this defect.

§ 4.

But it is unmeet to say that He who is God over all, free as He is and independent, was a slave to any necessity,⁵ so as that somewhat should exist by allowance contrary to His decree: else they will make Necessity greater and more absolute than God, since what hath more power is before all in dignity. And he ought immediately in the beginning to cut off the causes of that necessity, and not to shut himself to the endurance of necessity, allowing something otherwise than becomes Him. Yea, much better and more consistent and more godlike were it, to cut off at first the very ground of that kind of necessity, than afterwards, as it were upon change of mind, to try to root out such abundant produce of necessity. And if the Father of all is to be the slave of necessity. And if the Father of all is to be the slave of necessity, and to be subject to fate, displeased with what is done, but unable to do anything contrary to necessity and fate:—(like the Homeric Jupiter, who says upon compulsion

⁶For willing, when I gave, was I,

And yet I gave unwillingly:)

I say, by this rule, The Deep whom they talk of will be found the slave of necessity and fate.