Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Chapter XII.—The Triacontad of the heretics errs both by defect and excess: Sophia could never have produced anything apart from her consort; Logos and Sige could not have been contemporaries. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter XII.—The Triacontad of the
heretics errs both by defect and excess: Sophia could never have produced
anything apart from her consort; Logos and Sige could not have been
contemporaries.
1. We may3036
3036 The text vacillates between
“dicemus” and “dicamus.” | remark, in
the first place, regarding their Triacontad, that the whole of it
marvellously falls to ruin on both sides, that is, both as respects
defect and excess. They say that to indicate it the Lord came to be
baptized at the age of thirty years. But this assertion really amounts to
a manifest subversion of their entire argument. As to defect, this
happens as follows: first of all, because they reckon the Propator among
the other Æons. For the Father of all ought not to be counted with other
productions; He who was not produced with that which was produced; He who
was unbegotten with that which was born; He whom no one comprehends with
that which is comprehended by Him, and who is on this account [Himself]
incomprehensible; and He who is without figure with that which has a
definite shape. For inasmuch as He is superior to the rest, He ought not
to be numbered with them, and that so that He who is impassible and not
in error should be reckoned with an Æon subject to passion, and actually
in error. For I have shown in the book which immediately precedes this,
that, beginning with Bythus, they reckon up the Triacontad to Sophia,
whom they describe as the erring Æon; and I have also there set forth
the names of their [Æons]; but if He be not reckoned, there are no
longer, on their own showing, thirty productions of Æons, but these then
become only twenty-nine.
2. Next, with respect to the first production Ennœa,
whom they also term Sige, from whom again they describe Nous and Aletheia
as having been sent forth, they err in both particulars. For it is
impossible that the thought (Ennœa) of any one, or his silence (Sige),
should be understood apart from himself; and that, being sent forth
beyond him, it should possess a special figure of its own. But if they
assert that the (Ennœa) was not sent forth beyond Him, but continued one
with the Propator, why then do they reckon her with the other Æons
—with those who were not one [with the Father], and are on this
account ignorant of His greatness? If, however, she was so united (let us
take this also into consideration), there is then an absolute necessity,
that from this united and inseparable conjunction, which constitutes but
one being, there3037
3037 This
sentence is confused in the Latin text, but the meaning is evidently that
given above. | should proceed an unseparated and united
production, so that it should not be dissimilar to Him who sent it forth.
But if this be so, then just as Bythus and Sige, so also Nous and
Aletheia will form one and the same being, ever cleaving mutually
together. And inasmuch as the one cannot be conceived of without the
other, just as water cannot [be conceived of] without [the thought of]
moisture, or fire without [the thought of] heat, or a stone without [the
thought] of hardness (for these things are mutually bound together, and
the one cannot be separated from the other, but always co-exists with
it), so it behoves Bythus to be united in the same way with Ennœa, and
Nous with Aletheia. Logos and Zoe again, as being sent forth by those
that are thus united, ought themselves to be united, and to constitute
only one being. But, according to such a process of reasoning, Homo and
Ecclesia too, and indeed all the remaining conjunctions of the Æons
produced, ought to be united, and always to co-exist, the one with the
other. For there is a necessity in their opinion, that a female Æon
should exist side by side with a male one, inasmuch as she is, so to
speak, [the forthputting of] his affection.
3. These
things being so, and such opinions being proclaimed by them, they again
venture, without a blush, to teach that the younger Æon of the Duodecad,
whom they also style Sophia, did, apart from union with her consort, whom
they call Theletus, endure passion, and separately, without any
assistance from him, gave birth to a production which they name “a
female from a female.” They thus rush into such utter frenzy, as to
form two most clearly opposite opinions respecting the same point. For if
Bythus is ever one with Sige, Nous with Aletheia, Logos with
Zoe, and so on, as respects the rest, how could Sophia, without union
with her consort, either suffer or generate anything? And if, again, she
did really suffer passion apart from him, it necessarily follows that the
other conjunctions also admit of disjunction and separation among
themselves,—a thing which I have already shown to be impossible.
It is also impossible, therefore, that Sophia suffered passion apart from
Theletus; and thus, again, their whole system of argument is overthrown.
For they have yet3038
3038 It is
difficult to see the meaning of “iterum” here. Harvey begins
a new paragraph with this sentence. | again derived the whole
of remaining [material substance], like the composition of a tragedy,
from that passion which they affirm she experienced apart from union with
her consort.
4. If, however, they impudently maintain, in order to
preserve from ruin their vain imaginations, that the rest of the
conjunctions also were disjoined and separated from one another on
account of this latest conjunction, then [I reply that], in the first
place, they rest upon a thing which is impossible. For 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 maintain
that they tend again to unity, and are, in fact, all at one, if indeed
these very conjunctions, which are within the Pleroma, do not preserve
unity, but are separate from one another; and that to such a degree, that
they both endure passion and perform the work of generation without union
one with another, just as hens do apart from intercourse with cocks.
5. Then, again, their first and first-begotten Ogdoad
will be overthrown as follows: They must admit that Bythus and Sige, Nous
and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia, do individually
dwell in the same Pleroma. But it is impossible that Sige
(silence) can exist in the presence of Logos (speech), or again, that
Logos can manifest himself in the presence of Sige. For these are
mutually destructive of each other, even as light and darkness can by no
possibility exist in the same place: for if light prevails, there cannot
be darkness; and if darkness, there cannot be light, since, where light
appears, darkness is put to flight. In like manner, where Sige is, there
cannot be Logos; and where Logos is, there certainly cannot be Sige. But
if they say that Logos simply exists within3039
3039 ἐνδιάθετος
—simply conceived in the mind—used in opposition to
προφορικός,
expressed. | (unexpressed), Sige also will exist within,
and will not the less be destroyed by the Logos within. But that he
really is not merely conceived of in the mind, the very order of the
production of their (Æons) shows.
6. Let them not then declare that the first and
principal Ogdoad consists of Logos and Sige, but let them [as a matter of
necessity] exclude either Sige or Logos; and then their first and
principal Ogdoad is at an end. For if they describe the conjunctions [of
the Æons] as united, then their whole argument fails to pieces. Since,
if they were united, how could Sophia have generated a defect without
union with her consort? If, on the other hand, they maintain that, as in
production, each of the Æons possesses his own peculiar substance, then
how can Sige and Logos manifest themselves in the same place? So far,
then, with respect to defect.
7. But again, their Triacontad is overthrown as to
excess by the following considerations. They represent Horos (whom they
call by a variety of names which I have mentioned in the preceding book)
as having been produced by Monogenes just like the other Æons. Some of
them maintain that this Horos was produced by Monogenes, while others
affirm that he was sent forth by the Propator himself in His own image.
They affirm further, that a production was formed by Monogenes—
Christ and the Holy Spirit; and they do not reckon these in the number of
the Pleroma, nor the Saviour either, whom they also declare to be
Totum3040
3040 Harvey
remarks that “the author perhaps wrote Ορον
(Horos), which was read by the translator ῞Ολον
(totum).” | (all things). Now, it is evident even
to a blind man, that not merely thirty productions, as they maintain,
were sent forth, but four more along with these thirty. For they reckon
the Propator himself in the Pleroma, and those too, who in succession
were produced by one another. Why is it, then, that those [other beings]
are not reckoned as existing with these in the same Pleroma, since they
were produced in the same manner? For what just reason can they assign
for not reckoning along with the other Æons, either Christ, whom they
describe as having, according to the Father’s will, been produced
by Monogenes, or the Holy Spirit, or Horos, whom they also call
Soter3041
3041 Since Soter
does not occur among the various appellations of Horos mentioned by
Irenæus (i. 11, 4), Grabe proposes to read Stauros, and Massuet
Lytrotes; but Harvey conceives that the difficulty is explained by
the fact that Horos was a power of Soter (i. 3, 3). |
(Saviour), and not even the Saviour Himself, who came to impart
assistance and form to their Mother? Whether is this as if these latter
were weaker than the former, and therefore unworthy of the name of Æons,
or of being numbered among them, or as if they were superior and more
excellent? But how could they be weaker, since they were produced for the
establishment and rectification of the others? And then, again, they
cannot possibly be superior to the first and principal Tetrad, by which
they were also produced; for it, too, is reckoned in the number above
mentioned.
These latter beings, then, ought also to have
been numbered in the Pleroma of the Æons, or that should be deprived of
the honour of those Æons which bear this appellation (the Tetrad).
8. Since, therefore, their Triacontad is thus brought
to nought, as I have shown, both with respect to defect and excess (for
in dealing with such a number, either excess or defect [to any extent]
will render the number untenable, and how much more so great
variations?), it follows that what they maintain respecting their Ogdoad
and Duodecad is a mere fable which cannot stand. Their whole system,
moreover, falls to the ground, when their very foundation is destroyed
and dissolved into Bythus,3042
3042 Irenæus here, after his custom, plays upon the word
Bythus (profundity), which, in the phraseology of the
Valentinians, was a name of the Propator, but is in this passage used to
denote an unfathomable abyss. | that is, into what has
no existence. Let them, then, henceforth seek to set forth some other
reasons why the Lord came to be baptized at the age of thirty years, and
[explain in some other way] the Duodecad of the apostles; and [the fact
stated regarding] her who suffered from an issue of blood; and all the
other points respecting which they so madly labour in vain.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|