Irenaeus of Lyons · a new plain-English translation from the original language
HOW THIS ACCOUNT OF THE THIRTY [AEONS] FAILS BOTH IN WHAT IT ADDS AND IN WHAT IT SUBTRACTS. I. First, then, concerning their Thirty (the Triacontad), we shall say this: that it collapses wondrously on both sides — both as regards what it lacks and as regards what it has in excess — the very thing on account of which they say the Lord came to baptism at thirty years of age. When this is stated, the overthrow of their whole argument will be plain. As to the shortfall, it is this: first, they number the Forefather among the rest of the Aeons. But the Father of all should not be reckoned among the rest of the emanation — he who was not emitted, alongside what was emitted; the unborn, alongside what was born; he whom none can contain, alongside what is contained by him and thus admits of containment; the formless, alongside what has taken form. Since he surpasses all the rest, he should not be classed together with them; and the same holds for the passible Aeon fixed in error, who cannot be classed with the impassible one who knows no error. For since they begin their Triacontad from Bythus and count up to Sophia — whom they call the wandering Aeon — as we showed in the book before this one, and set down there the names they give, once this last one is not counted, there are then, by their own reckoning, no longer thirty emissions of Aeons, but twenty-nine. THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYTHING TO HAVE BEEN EMITTED SEPARATELY. Next, as to the first emission, Ennoia, whom they call Sige (Silence), from whom in turn they say Aletheia was emitted — in both of these they go astray. For it is impossible for the 'thought' or the 'silence' of anyone to be understood as separate, having its own distinct form apart from the one who put it forth. But if they will not say that it was emitted apart, but united to the Forefather, why then do they number it among the rest of the Aeons, which are not so united, and which for this very reason are ignorant of his greatness? And if it is indeed united to him — let us consider this too — then it is altogether necessary that, from a union undivided and inseparable and existing as one, the emission that comes from it should likewise be undivided and one, so that it is not unlike the one who emitted it. But if this is so, then Bythus and Sige will be one and the same thing, just as also Nous and Aletheia, always cleaving to one another, since neither can be understood without the other — just as water is unthinkable without moisture, fire without heat, or stone without hardness (for these cling to one another, and neither can be split away from the other, though the two always coexist) — so likewise Bythus must be united with Ennoia, and Nous with Aletheia in the same way. Again, Logos and Zoe, being emitted from things so united, must themselves be united and be one. And by the same reasoning, Anthropos and Ecclesia, and the whole emission of the remaining pairs of Aeons, must be united, and each must always coexist with the other. For the female Aeon must, on their own view, exist equally with the male, since she is, as it were, his affection. Yet, this being so, and though this is what they themselves say, they in turn shamelessly presume to teach that the youngest Aeon of the Twelve, whom they also call Sophia, apart from any joining with her partner, whom they name Theletus, suffered a passion and, without him, alone brought forth a fruit — which they also name a female born of a female — descending into such madness that they plainly hold two contrary opinions about the same thing at once. For if Bythus is united with Sige, and Nous with Aletheia, and Logos with Zoe, and so on in order, how could Sophia, apart from union with her consort, suffer anything, or bring anything forth? But if she suffered this apart from him, then all the other pairs must likewise be understood to undergo separation and division from themselves — which is impossible, as we said before. It is therefore impossible for Sophia to have suffered apart from Theletus; and so their whole argument again comes undone. Indeed, concerning this passion, which they say she suffered without union with her consort, they have gone on to fashion the rest of it like the plot of a tragedy. And if they shamelessly say that the other pairs too are disjoined and separated from one another — so that, because of this last pair, their idle talk should not be dissolved — they run first into an impossibility. For how will they separate the Forefather from his Ennoia? Or Logos from Zoe, or Nous from Aletheia? And so with whatever pairs remain? And yet how, on the other hand, do they themselves say that all things run back into unity, and that all are one, if indeed the pairs within the Pleroma do not keep their unity, but stand apart from one another to such a degree that they can suffer and generate without their partners? THAT IN THE SAME PLEROMA THE WORD AND SILENCE COULD NOT BOTH BE. After this, again, their first and original Ogdoad will likewise be undone. For there will be, specifically, in the same Pleroma, Bythus and Sige, Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. But it is impossible, where the Word is present, for Silence to be there also; or again, where Silence is present, for the Word to be shown — for these consume one another, just as light and darkness cannot both be in the same place: where there is light, there is no darkness; and where there is darkness, there will be no light, for when light comes, the darkness is dissolved. So where Sige is, there will be no Logos; and where there is Logos, there certainly is no Sige. But if this is nonetheless to be resolved by an 'indwelling Word' — well, since he is not an indwelling Word, this very ordering of their emission proves the point against them.
Let them, then, stop claiming that Logos and Sige make up their foremost, chief Ogdoad; rather, let them abandon either Sige or Logos — for whichever way, that chief and foremost Ogdoad of theirs collapses. If they say the pairs are unities, their whole argument is undone: for how, once the pair is made into a unity, could Sophia, without a consort, have produced her defect? But if, as they say elsewhere, they still hold to consorts, then it can be shown by the same reasoning that Sige and Logos are likewise a pair. This concerns the diminished form of their scheme. But as regards the fuller number, their Triad of Tens is again dissolved in this way. They call Horos, whom they also call by many other names (as we have said above concerning the Aeon before him), 'Only-begotten,' just as they do the rest of the Aeons. Some of them say this Horos was put forth by the Only-begotten, others that he was put forth by the Forefather himself in his own likeness. Further, they say that Christ and the Holy Spirit were also put forth by the Only-begotten, and yet they do not count these among the number of the Pleroma — nor even the Savior, whom they also say is the 'All.' For this much is plain even to the blind: that according to them not only thirty emissions were put forth, but four more besides those thirty. For they count the Forefather himself within the Pleroma, along with those who were successively put forth from one another. What then of these — Christ, whom they say was put forth by the Only-begotten with the Father's consent, and the Holy Spirit, and Horos, whom they also call Savior, and even the Savior himself who came to help and form their mother — why are these not to be counted among the same Pleroma, existing as they do within it and having obtained the very same act of emission? What just cause can they give for not counting them along with the rest of the Aeons? Are these lesser than the others, and so unworthy of the name and the number of the Aeons? Or are they, rather, better and different? But how could they be the lesser, when they were even put forth to fix and correct the rest? And how, on the other hand, could they be counted better than, and distinct from, the first and principal Tetrad, from which they too were put forth — since that Tetrad is itself already reckoned within the aforesaid number? They ought, then, either to have counted these also within the Pleroma of the Aeons, or else to have stripped the rest of the Aeons of the honor of that very name.
Since, then, their Triad of Tens is dissolved — as we have shown — both in its diminished and in its fuller reckoning (for if a number of this kind has either more or fewer than it should, it makes the whole reckoning suspect, and how much more so in so great a number), their fable about the Ogdoad and the Duodecad is likewise unstable. And their whole system is unstable, its very foundation shaken and dissolved into the Bythos — that is, into what does not exist. Let them, then, try from now on to find other reasons why the Lord came to baptism at thirty years of age, why there are twelve apostles, and why there was the woman who suffered the flow of blood, and all the other things over which they toil in vain and rave. [Heading:] How the first order of their emission is shown to be worthless. And so we have shown the very first order of their emission to be untenable, in this way. They say that Nous and Aletheia were put forth from Bythos and his Ennoia; but this is shown to be contrary to reason. For Nous is itself the ruling principle, the highest thing, as it were the beginning and source of all understanding, whereas Ennoia is something derived from this and from whichever of those Aeons it happens to be — namely from the first and principal Tetrad. It does not follow, then, that Nous was put forth from Bythos and Ennoia; it would be far more reasonable to say that from the Forefather and from this Nous a daughter, Ennoia, was put forth. For Ennoia is not the mother of Nous, as they claim, but rather Nous becomes the father of Ennoia. And in what way was Nous himself put forth from the Forefather, who holds the primary and first place of that hidden and invisible disposition within him, from which understanding is generated, and ennoia, and enthymesis, and the other things which are nothing other than Nous itself — that is, various movements of it arranged, as we have said, around some object of thought, taking their names according to persistence and growth, not according to any change of substance, and coming to definite knowledge, and being uttered together into speech, while the understanding itself remains within, founding, administering, and governing freely and by its own power, exactly as it wills, as has been said above.
For its first movement toward some object is termed ennoia; once it persists and grows, taking possession of the entire soul, it earns the name enthymesis. Enthymesis of this kind, when it continues for a long while upon the same object and is, so to speak, put to the test, is called sensatio (perception). This perception, when greatly extended, becomes deliberation; and the growth and movement of that deliberation, when greatly extended, becomes the examination of thought — which, persisting still in the mind, becomes word (verbum). All these things that have been named are one and the same, taking their beginning from Nous and receiving their names according to growth. Just as the human body is called sometimes an infant, sometimes a grown man, sometimes an old man, taking these names from its growth and duration rather than from any alteration of substance or forfeiture of the body — and so it is with these as well. For what a man contemplates, of that he also thinks; and what he thinks, of that he also has understanding; and what he understands, of that he also takes counsel; and what he takes counsel about, that he turns over in his mind; and what he turns over in his mind, that he speaks. All these things, as we have said, Nous governs, since it is itself invisible, and puts forth speech from itself through the things aforesaid, as a ray of light is put forth from the sun, yet it is not itself put forth by another.
Now this may fairly be said of human beings, since they are composite by nature, consisting of body and soul together. But those who say that Ennoia was put forth from God, and Nous from Ennoia, and then Logos from these, are refuted first of all by this very consideration: that the thought of the mind, so long as it remains within the mind where it was conceived, is one thing; but when this conceived word is, as it were, separated off from the mind and uttered, it is another. They have used the term 'emissions' improperly. Afterward, in cataloguing the affections and passions of men, and the mind's operations, still ignorant of God, they pin on the Father of all — whom they themselves call unknowable to all — precisely what happens to human beings whenever they utter speech; refusing him the making of the world (lest he seem diminished thereby), yet handing him the passions and affections proper to men. Had they instead been schooled in the sacred writings and instructed by the truth, they would have grasped that God is nothing like men, nor are his thoughts anything like human thoughts. For the Father of all stands utterly apart from whatever befalls men — their passions and their affections. He is simple, not composite, of like parts throughout, wholly like himself and equal to himself, being wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly perceptive, and wholly ennoia, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly eye, and wholly light, and wholly the source of every good thing — as befits devout and God-fearing men to say of him.
But he is also, beyond all this and on account of it, indescribable. For understanding capable of all things may rightly and properly be affirmed of him, yet not in the manner of human understanding; and light too may most fittingly be said of him, yet unlike any light known among us. So too in everything else: the Father of all will be like nothing that belongs to human littleness. He is spoken of, in these terms, out of love — but he is perceived, beyond these terms, in his greatness. [Heading:] That understanding could not have been put forth, since it is itself what put forth the rest. If, then, even in human beings, the understanding itself is not put forth, nor separated from the living one who puts forth the rest — while its movements and affections come to visible expression — how much more will God, who is wholly understanding, never in any way be separated from himself, nor be put forth as one thing from another. For if he put forth understanding, then he who put it forth is, according to them, understood as composite and corporeal, so that there would be one who put it forth, namely God, and another, separately, that which was put forth, namely understanding. And if they say that understanding was put forth from understanding, they are cutting God's understanding in pieces and dividing it. Where, and from what, was it put forth? For whatever is put forth by something is put forth into some underlying substrate. But what substrate more ancient than the understanding of God existed, into which they say it was put forth? And how vast a place must there have been, to receive and contain the understanding of God? And if they liken it, as they do, to a ray from the sun — into what does it come, as into some underlying, receptive substance, older than itself, and where do they show anything of the kind subsisting, into which the understanding of God was put forth? For it will be necessary for them to say, just as we see the sun to be smaller than everything, sending out its rays far from itself, that the Forefather likewise sent out his ray outside himself and far from himself. But what can be conceived as outside or far from God, into which he sent forth his ray? And if they claim it was emitted, not outside the Father, but staying inside the Father himself — well, to begin with, it would be pointless even to speak of an 'emission' — for how could something be emitted while remaining lodged within the Father? For emission is the manifestation, outside the one who emits, of that which is emitted. And further, on this view, the Logos who comes from it will still remain within the Father; and likewise all the other emissions of the Logos. They will not, then, be ignorant of the Father, since they remain within him; nor will anyone know him less because of the descending order of the emissions, since all alike are equally surrounded by the Father on every side; and all alike will remain free from suffering, being within the Father's own depths, and none of them will be in any way diminished. For the Father admits no diminishment — unless, perhaps, they mean it as one great circle containing within it a lesser circle, and within that again another still lesser; or, on the analogy of a sphere or a square, they say the Father contains within himself, in the likeness of a sphere or square, the remaining emission of the Aeons, each one surrounded by the one greater than itself above it, and itself surrounding the lesser one that comes after it — so that the least and last of all, being set in the middle, and greatly separated from the Father, would be ignorant of the Forefather. But if they say this, they will be shutting up their Bythos within a figure and a boundary — the containing and the contained — for they will be forced to admit that there is something outside him as well, which surrounds him. And in any case their argument will run on without end concerning what contains and what is contained, and it will become plain that all these are bodies enclosed one within another. Moreover, they will either have to admit that he is empty, or that all that is within him partakes alike of the Father — just as, if one makes circles in water, whether round or square, all of them partake alike of the water; or as things within light all partake of the light; so too those who are within him would be filled, and if he is full, there will be no ignorance there. Thus their whole account of the diminishment, and of the emission of matter, and of the rest of the fashioning of the world, which they say had its origin from passion and ignorance, would be dissolved. But if they will confess him to be empty, they fall into the gravest blasphemy, denying that he is spiritual at all — for how could he be spiritual who cannot even fill the things that are within him? Now what has been said here about the emission of understanding applies equally against the followers of Basilides, and against every other Gnostic sect, since it was from these very sources that our men drew the starting-points of their emission-doctrine, as we already exposed at the outset. But since we have clearly shown that the first emission of Nous — that is, of understanding — is untenable and impossible according to them, let us look also at the rest. From this Nous, they say, the makers of this Pleroma put forth Logos and Zoe. As for the emission of the Logos, they take it from the analogy of human speech, imagining they have discovered something great against God in saying that Logos was put forth from Nous — a claim which everyone plainly recognizes is properly said only of human beings; whereas, regarding the one who is God above everything, since he is, as already stated, entirely Nous and entirely Logos, containing within himself nothing earlier or later, nothing set apart from another thing, but staying uniformly equal, alike, and single throughout, no emission of that sequential kind can possibly result. Just as one who says he is wholly sight and wholly hearing (for in that in which he sees, in the same he also hears, and in that in which he hears, in the same he also sees) commits no error, so too one who says he is wholly understanding and wholly word, and that in that in which understanding is, in the same word also is, and that this Nous is his Word, will still fall short in his thought of the Father of all — yet will speak more fittingly than those who transfer the generation of uttered human speech to the eternal Word of God, granting it a beginning and a coming-into-being of utterance, just as with their own word. And in what way will God differ — since he himself is Word — if his Word has the same ordering and emission of generation as the word of men? They have gone wrong too concerning Zoe, saying that it was put forth in the sixth place, when it should have ranked ahead of everything else, seeing that God himself is life, incorruption, and truth. Nor did such attributes come into being through any sequence of emission; rather, these titles belong to those powers forever present with God, insofar as men are able and permitted to hear and speak of him. For bound up together with the very name of God are understanding, word, life, incorruption, truth, wisdom, goodness, and all things of that sort. And no one can say that understanding is older than life, for understanding itself is life; nor that life comes after understanding, so that he who is the understanding of all things — that is, God — should ever be without life. But if they say that life was indeed present in the Father, then it ought to have been put forth in the fourth place, so that Nous might live — and even before that, it ought to have been present with Bythos, so that their own Bythos might live. For in numbering Sige alongside their Forefather and giving her to him as a consort, while failing to number Zoe among them, how is this not beyond all folly? — And that this is emission, and that it is spoken of him after the manner of surpassing rather than after the manner of ordinary things. As for the second production that comes from these — indeed rather the separation from — let it be understood accordingly; but the consubstantiality and the personal distinction of the Father and the Word will be affirmed clearly and thoroughly in the course of this work. In the matter of the emission of Anthropos and Ecclesia, these self-styled Gnostics — their own fathers — fight against one another, each claiming his own view and thereby proving themselves to be wicked thieves of one another's ideas: some saying it is more fitting to the emission, as more plausible, that the Word was put forth from Man, and not Man from the Word, and that Man precedes the Word, and that it is Man who is truly God above everything. And up to this point, as we have said, all of them, plausibly imagining human affections, and movements of mind, and generations of intentions, and emissions of words, have lied against God without any real plausibility. For the things that happen to men, and whatever they recognize themselves to suffer, they transfer to the divine reasoning, carrying their own understanding of these human passions across, and declaring the generation and putting-forth of the Word of God to be fifth in order — professing to teach wonderful mysteries, indescribable and lofty, known to no one else, concerning which the Lord himself said: 'Seek, and you shall find' — meaning, no doubt, that they should seek who it is that proceeded from Bythos and Sige, Nous and Aletheia; and whether after these come again Logos and Zoe, and after Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia.