Opening the library…
Home Bible Corpus Discover You
Against Heresies
Irenaeus of Lyons
Book 2 · Chapter 5 About this work A five-book account and refutation of competing Christian movements that also develops Irenaeus’s positive theology of creation, Scripture, apostolic tradition, incarnation, salvation, and recapitulation in Christ.
Author Irenaeus of Lyons
Date c. AD 175–185
Origin Lyons, Gaul
Genre Heresiology This world was not formed by any other beings within the territory which is contained by the Father. Section 1 1 . The remarks , therefore , which I
‹ Book 2 · Chapter 4 Book 2 · Chapter 6 ›made
a
little
while
ago
are
suitable
in
answer
to
those
who
assert
that
this
world
was
formed
outside
of
the
Pleroma
,
or
under
a
“
good
God
;
”
and
such
persons
,
with
the
Father
they
speak
of
,
will
be
quite
cut
off
from
that
which
is
outside
the
Pleroma
,
in
which
,
at
the
same
time
,
it
is
necessary
that
they
should
finally
rest
.
In
answer
to
those
,
again
,
who
maintain
that
this
world
was
formed
by
certain
other
beings
within
that
territory
which
is
contained
by
the
Father
,
all
those
points
which
have
now
been
noticed
will
present
themselves
[
as
exhibiting
their
]
absurdities
and
incoherencies
;
and
they
will
be
compelled
either
to
acknowledge
all
those
things
which
are
within
the
Father
,
lucid
,
full
,
and
energetic
,
or
to
accuse
the
light
of
the
Father
as
if
He
could
not
illuminate
all
things
;
or
,
as
a
portion
of
their
Pleroma
[
is
so
described
]
,
the
whole
of
it
must
be
confessed
to
be
void
,
chaotic
,
and
full
of
darkness
.
And
they
accuse
all
other
created
things
as
if
these
were
merely
temporal
,
or
[
at
the
best
]
,
if
eternal
,
yet
material
.
But
these
(
the
Æons
)
ought
to
be
regarded
as
beyond
the
reach
of
such
accusations
,
since
they
are
within
the
Pleroma
,
or
the
charges
in
question
will
equally
fall
against
the
entire
Pleroma
;
and
thus
the
Christ
of
whom
they
speak
is
discovered
to
be
the
author
of
ignorance
.
For
,
according
to
their
statements
,
when
He
had
given
a
form
so
far
as
substance
was
concerned
to
the
Mother
they
conceive
of
,
He
cast
her
outside
of
the
Pleroma
;
that
is
,
He
cut
her
off
from
knowledge
.
He
,
therefore
,
who
separated
her
from
knowledge
,
did
in
reality
produce
ignorance
in
her
.
How
then
could
the
very
same
person
bestow
the
gift
of
knowledge
on
the
rest
of
the
Æons
,
those
who
were
anterior
to
Him
[
in
production
]
,
and
yet
be
the
author
of
ignorance
to
His
Mother
?
For
He
placed
her
beyond
the
pale
of
knowledge
,
when
He
cast
her
outside
of
the
Pleroma
.
Section 2 2 . Moreover , if they explain being within and without the Pleroma as implying knowledge and ignorance respectively , as certain of them do ( since he who has knowledge is within that which knows ) , then they must of necessity grant that the Saviour Himself ( whom they designate All Things ) was in a state of ignorance . For they maintain that , on His coming forth outside of the Pleroma , He imparted form to their Mother [ Achamoth ] . If , then , they assert that whatever is outside [ the Pleroma ] is ignorant of all things , and if the Saviour went forth to impart form to their Mother , then He was situated beyond the pale of the knowledge of all things ; that is , He was in ignorance . How then could He communicate knowledge to her , when He Himself was beyond the pale of knowledge ? For we , too , they declare to be outside the Pleroma , inasmuch as we are outside of the knowledge which they possess . And once more : If the Saviour really went forth beyond the Pleroma to seek after the sheep which was lost , but the Pleroma is [ co - extensive with ] knowledge , then He placed Himself beyond the pale of knowledge , that is , in ignorance . For it is necessary either that they grant that what is outside the Pleroma is so in a local sense , in which case all the remarks formerly made will rise up against them ; or if they speak of that which is within in regard to knowledge , and of that which is without in respect to ignorance , then their Saviour , and Christ long before Him , must have been formed in ignorance , inasmuch as they went forth beyond the Pleroma , that is , beyond the pale of knowledge , in order to impart form to their Mother .
Section 3 3 . These arguments may , in like manner , be adapted to meet the case of all those who , in any way , maintain that the world was formed either by angels or by any other one than the true God . For the charges which they bring against the Demiurge , and those things which were made material and temporal , will in truth fall back on the Father ; if indeed the very things which were formed in the bosom of the Pleroma began by and by in fact to be dissolved , in accordance with the permission and good - will of the Father . The [ immediate ] Creator , then , is not the [ real ] Author of this work , thinking , as He did , that He formed it very good , but He who allows and approves of the productions of defect , and the works of error having a place among his own possessions , and that temporal things should be mixed up with eternal , corruptible with incorruptible , and those which partake of error with those which belong to truth . If , however , these things were formed without the permission or approbation of the Father of all , then that Being must be more powerful , stronger , and more kingly , who made these things within a territory which properly belongs to Him ( the Father ) , and did so without His permission . If again , as some say , their Father permitted these things without approving of them , then He gave the permission on account of some necessity , being either able to prevent [ such procedure ] , or not able . But if indeed He could not [ hinder it ] , then He is weak and powerless ; while , if He could , He is a seducer , a hypocrite , and a slave of necessity , inasmuch as He does not consent [ to such a course ] , and yet allows it as if He did consent . And allowing error to arise at the first , and to go on increasing , He endeavours in later times to destroy it , when already many have miserably perished on account of the [ original ] defect .
Section 4 4 . It is not seemly , however , to say of Him who is God over all , since He is free and independent , that He was a slave to necessity , or that anything takes place with His permission , yet against His desire ; otherwise they will make necessity greater and more kingly than God , since that which has the most power is superior to all [ others ] . And He ought at the very beginning to have cut off the causes of [ the fancied ] necessity , and not to have allowed Himself to be shut up to yielding to that necessity , by permitting anything besides that which became Him . For it would have been much better , more consistent , and more God - like , to cut off at the beginning the principle of this kind of necessity , than afterwards , as if moved by repentance , to endeavour to extirpate the results of necessity when they had reached such a development . And if the Father of all be a slave to necessity , and must yield to fate , while He unwillingly tolerates the things which are done , but is at the same time powerless to do anything in opposition to necessity and fate ( like the Homeric Jupiter , who says of necessity , “ I have willingly given thee , yet with unwilling mind ” ) , then , according to this reasoning , the Bythus of whom they speak will be found to be the slave of necessity and fate .
Notes 21 See above, chap. i.
22 The Latin text here is, “et concludentur tales cum patre suo ab eo qui est extra Pleroma, in quo etiam et desinere eos necesse est.” None of the editors notice the difficulty or obscurity of the clause, but it appears to us absolutely untranslateable. We have rendered it as if the reading were “ab eo quod,” though, if the strict grammatical construction be followed, the translation must be, “from Him who.” But then to what does “in quo,” which follows, refer? It may be ascribed either to the immediate antecedent Pleroma, or to Him who is described as being beyond it.
23 Chap. ii., iii., iv.
24 This is an extremely difficult passage. We follow the reading æternochoica adopted by Massuet, but Harvey reads æterna choica, and renders, “They charge all other substance (i.e., spiritual) with the imperfections of the material creation, as though Æon substance were equally ephemeral and choic.”
25 The common reading is “aut;” we adopt Harvey’s conjectural emendation of “at.”
26 The above clause is very obscure; Massuet reads it interrogatively.
27 The text has “antiquius,” literally “more ancient,” but it may here be rendered as above.
