Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Chapter XVII.—Inquiry into the production of the Æons: whatever its supposed nature, it is in every respect inconsistent; and on the hypothesis of the heretics, even Nous and the Father Himself would be stained with ignorance.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XVII.—Inquiry into the
production of the Æons: whatever its supposed nature, it is in every respect
inconsistent; and on the hypothesis of the heretics, even Nous and the Father
Himself would be stained with ignorance.
1. That
system, then, which has respect to their Pleroma, and especially that
part of it which refers to the primary Ogdoad being thus burdened with so
great contradictions and perplexities, let me now go on to examine the
remainder of their scheme. [In doing so] on account of their madness, I
shall be making inquiry respecting things which have no real existence;
yet it is necessary to do this, since the treatment of this subject has
been entrusted to me, and since I desire all men
to come to
the knowledge of the truth, as well as because thou thyself hast asked to
receive from me full and complete means for overturning [the views of]
these men.
2. I ask, then, in what manner were the rest of the
Æons produced? Was it so as to be united with Him who produced them,
even as the solar rays are with the sun; or was it actually3073
| 3073 Efficabiliter in the
Latin text is thought to correspond to ἐνεργῶς in the
original Greek. | and separately, so that each of them
possessed an independent existence and his own special form, just as has
a man from another man, and one herd of cattle from another? Or was it
after the manner of germination, as branches from a tree? And were they
of the same substance with those who produced them, or did they derive
their substance from some other [kind of] substance? Also, were they
produced at the same time, so as to be contemporaries; or after a certain
order, so that some of them were older, and others younger? And, again,
are they uncompounded and uniform, and altogether equal and similar among
themselves, as spirit and light are produced; or are they compounded and
different, unlike [to each other] in their members?
3. If each of them was produced, after the manner of
men, actually and according to its own generation, then either those thus
generated by the Father will be of the same substance with Him, and
similar to their Author; or if3074
| 3074 Si is inserted by most of the editors; and
although Harvey argues for its omission, we agree with Massuet in deeming
it indispensable. | they appear dissimilar, then it must of
necessity be acknowledged that they are [formed] of some different
substance. Now, if the beings generated by the Father be similar to their
Author, then those who have been produced must remain for ever
impassible, even as is He who produced them; but if, on the other hand,
they are of a different substance, which is capable of passion, then
whence came this dissimilar substance to find a place within the
incorruptible Pleroma? Further, too, according to this principle, each
one of them must be understood as being completely separated from every
other, even as men are not mixed with nor united the one to the other,
but each having a distinct shape of his own, and a definite sphere of
action, while each one of them, too, is formed of a particular size,
—qualities characteristic of a body, and not of a spirit. Let them
therefore no longer speak of the Pleroma as being spiritual, or of
themselves as “spiritual,” if indeed their Æons sit feasting
with the Father, just as if they were men, and He Himself is of such a
configuration as those reveal Him to be who were produced by Him.
4. If,
again, the Æons were derived from Logos, Logos from Nous, and Nous from
Bythus, just as lights are kindled from a light—as, for example,
torches are from a torch—then they may no doubt differ in
generation and size from one another; but since they are of the same
substance with the Author of their production, they must either all
remain for ever impassible, or their Father Himself must participate in
passion. For the torch which has been kindled subsequently cannot be
possessed of a different kind of light from that which preceded it.
Wherefore also their lights, when blended in one, return to the original
identity, since that one light is then formed which has existed even from
the beginning. But we cannot speak, with respect to light itself, of some
part being more recent in its origin, and another being more ancient (for
the whole is but one light); nor can we so speak even in regard to those
torches which have received the light (for these are all contemporary as
respects their material substance, for the substance of torches is one
and the same), but simply as to [the time of] its being kindled, since
one was lighted a little while ago, and another has just now been
kindled.
5. The defect, therefore, of that passion which has
regard to ignorance, will either attach alike to their whole Pleroma,
since [all its members] are of the same substance; and the Propator will
share in this defect of ignorance—that is, will be ignorant of
Himself; or, on the other hand, all those lights which are within the
Pleroma will alike remain for ever impassible. Whence, then, comes the
passion of the youngest Æon, if the light of the Father is that from
which all other lights have been formed, and which is by nature
impassible? And how can one Æon be spoken of as either younger or older
among themselves, since there is but one light in the entire Pleroma? And
if any one calls them stars, they will all nevertheless appear to
participate in the same nature. For if “one star differs from
another star in glory,”3075
but not
in qualities, nor substance, nor in the fact of being passible or
impassible; so all these, since they are alike derived from the light of
the Father, must either be naturally impassible and immutable, or they
must all, in common with the light of the Father, be passible, and are
capable of the varying phases of corruption.
6. The same conclusion will follow, although they
affirm that the production of Æons sprang from Logos, as branches from a
tree, since Logos has his generation from their Father. For all [the
Æons] are formed of the same substance with the Father, differing from
one another only in size, and not in nature, and filling up the greatness
of the Father, even as the fingers complete
the hand. If
therefore He exists in passion and ignorance, so must also those Æons
who have been generated by Him. But if it is impious to ascribe ignorance
and passion to the Father of all, how can they describe an Æon produced
by Him as being passible; and while they ascribe the same impiety to the
very wisdom (Sophia) of God, how can they still call themselves religious
men?
7. If, again, they declare that their Æons were sent
forth just as rays are from the sun, then, since all are of the same
substance and sprung from the same source, all must either be capable of
passion along with Him who produced them, or all will remain impassible
for ever. For they can no longer maintain that, of beings so produced,
some are impassible and others passible. If, then, they declare all
impassible, they do themselves destroy their own argument. For how could
the youngest Æon have suffered passion if all were impassible? If, on
the other hand, they declare that all partook of this passion, as indeed
some of them venture to maintain, then, inasmuch as it originated with
Logos,3076
but flowed onwards to Sophia, they will thus be convicted of
tracing back the passion to Logos, who is the3077
| 3077 It seems needless to insert an
“et” before this word, as Harvey suggests, or, as an
alternative, to strike out the first “Nun Propatoris.”
| Nous of this Propator, and so acknowledging the Nous of the
Propator and the Father Himself to have experienced passion. For the
Father of all is not to be regarded as a kind of compound Being, who can
be separated from his Nous (mind), as I have already shown; but Nous is
the Father, and the Father Nous. It necessarily follows, therefore, both
that he who springs from Him as Logos, or rather that Nous himself, since
he is Logos, must be perfect and impassible, and that those productions
which proceed from him, seeing that they are of the same substance with
himself, should be perfect and impassible, and should ever remain similar
to him who produced them.
8. It cannot therefore longer be held, as these men
teach, that Logos, as occupying the third place in generation, was
ignorant of the Father. Such a thing might indeed perhaps be deemed
probable in the case of the generation of human beings, inasmuch as these
frequently know nothing of their parents; but it is altogether impossible
in the case of the Logos of the Father. For if, existing in the Father,
he knows Him in whom he exists—that is, is not ignorant of
himself—then those productions which issue from him being his
powers (faculties), and always present with him, will not be ignorant of
him who emitted them, any more than rays [may be supposed to be] of the
sun. It is impossible, therefore, that the Sophia (wisdom) of God, she
who is within the Pleroma, inasmuch as she has been produced in such a
manner, should have fallen under the influence of passion, and conceived
such ignorance. But it is possible that that Sophia (wisdom) who pertains
to [the scheme] of Valentinus, inasmuch as she is a production of the
devil, should fall into every kind of passion, and exhibit the
profoundest ignorance. For when they themselves bear testimony concerning
their mother, to the effect that she was the offspring of an erring Æon,
we need no longer search for a reason why the sons of such a mother
should be ever swimming in the depths of ignorance.
9. I am not aware that, besides these productions
[which have been mentioned], they are able to speak of any other; indeed,
they have not been known to me (although I have had very frequent
discussions with them concerning forms of this kind) as ever setting
forth any other peculiar kind of being as produced [in the manner under
consideration]. This only they maintain, that each one of these was so
produced as to know merely that one who produced him, while he was
ignorant of the one who immediately preceded. But they do not in this
matter go forward [in their account] with any kind of demonstration as to
the manner in which these were produced, or how such a thing could take
place among spiritual beings. For, in whatsoever way they may choose to
go forward, they will feel themselves bound (while, as regards the truth,
they depart3078
| 3078 Some read
“cæcutientes” instead of “circumeuntes,” as
above. | entirely from right reason) to proceed so far as to
maintain that their Word, who springs from the Nous of the Propator,
—to maintain, I say, that he was produced in a state of
degeneracy. For [they hold] that perfect Nous, previously begotten by the
perfect Bythus, was not capable of rendering that production which issued
from him perfect, but [could only bring it forth] utterly blind to the
knowledge and greatness of the Father. They also maintain that the
Saviour exhibited an emblem of this mystery in the case of that man who
was blind from his birth,3079
since the Æon was in
this manner produced by Monogenes blind, that is, in ignorance, thus
falsely ascribing ignorance and blindness to the Word of God, who,
according to their own theory, holds the second [place of] production
from the Propator. Admirable sophists, and explorers of the sublimities
of the unknown Father, and rehearsers of those super-celestial mysteries
“which the angels desire to look into!”3080
—that they may learn that from the Nous of that Father who
is above all, the Word was produced blind, that is, ignorant of
the Father who produced him!
10. But, ye 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 able also to produce along with him
the knowledge of the Father? As ye affirm that Christ was generated3081
| 3081 “Postgenitum quidem
reliquis,” the representative, according to Grabe, of ἀπόγονον μὲν λοιποῖς in the Greek.
Harvey remarks that τῶν λοιπῶν would have been
better, and proposes to read “progenitum” in the Latin; but
we do not see any necessity for change. | after the rest, and
yet declare that he was produced perfect, much more then should Logos,
who is anterior to him in age, be produced by the same Nous,
unquestionably perfect, and not blind; nor could he, again, have produced
Æons still blinder 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 ye declare the magnitude and power
of your Father to be the causes of ignorance, assimilating Him to Bythus,
and assigning this as a name to Him who is the unnameable Father. But if
ignorance is an evil, and ye declare all evils to have derived their
strength from it, while ye maintain that the greatness and power of the
Father is the cause of this ignorance, ye do thus set Him forth as the
author of [all] evils. For ye 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,
inasmuch as He could not remove the ignorance of those who came
after Him. But if, at a subsequent period, when He so willed it, He
could take away that ignorance which had increased with the
successive productions as they followed each other, and thus become
deeply seated in the Æons, much more, had He so willed it might He
formerly have prevented that ignorance, which as yet was not, from coming
into existence.
11. Since therefore, as soon as He so pleased, He did
become known not only to the Æons, but also to these men who lived in
these latter times; but, as He did not so please to be known from the
beginning, He remained unknown—the cause of ignorance is,
according to you, the will of the Father. For if He foreknew that these
things would in future happen in such a manner, why then did He not guard
against the ignorance of these beings before it had obtained a place
among them, rather than afterwards, as if under the influence of
repentance, deal with it through the production of Christ? For the
knowledge which through Christ He conveyed to all, He might long before
have imparted through Logos, who was also the first-begotten of
Monogenes. Or if, knowing them beforehand, He willed that these things
should happen [as they have done], then the works of ignorance must
endure for ever, and never pass away. For the things which have been made
in accordance with the will of your Propator must continue along with the
will of Him who willed them; or if they pass away, the will of Him also
who decreed that they should have a being will pass away along with them.
And why did the Æons find rest and attain perfect knowledge through
learning [at last] that the Father is altogether3082
| 3082 “Incapabilis et
incomprehensibilis,” corresponding to ἀχώρητος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος
in the Greek. | incomprehensible? They might surely have
possessed this knowledge before they became involved in passion; for the
greatness of the Father did not suffer diminution from the beginning, so
that these might3083
| 3083
Literally, “to these knowing,” “his
scientibus.” | know that He was altogether
incomprehensible. For if, on account of His infinite greatness, He
remained unknown, He ought also on account of His infinite love to have
preserved those impassible who were produced by Him, since nothing
hindered, and expediency rather required, that they should have known
from the beginning that the Father was altogether incomprehensible.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
