Irenaeus of Lyons · a new plain-English translation from the original language
A cause, then, must be sought for a dispensation of God of this kind, but the fashioning of the world must not be assigned to another; and it must be said that all things were prepared beforehand by God so that they might come to be just as they did come to be — but no shadow and void is to be invented. But then one will ask: whence comes this void? Is it, according to them, itself an emission from the Father and Producer of all, and so of equal honor and kin to the rest of the Aeons — perhaps even older than they? But if it was emitted by the same one, it is like him who emitted it, and like those along with whom it was emitted. It will then be altogether necessary that their Bythus, together with the void Sige, should likewise be void, and that the rest of the Aeons, being brothers of the void, should have a void substance as well. But if it was not emitted, it is self-born and self-generated, equal in time to him who is, according to them, Bythus, the Father of all — and thus the void will be of the same nature and the same honor as him whom they call the Father of all. For it must necessarily be either that it was emitted by someone, or that it was self-generated and self-born. But if the void was indeed emitted, then the emitter is void, Valentinus is void, and his followers are void. And if it was not emitted but self-generated, then this void thing is alike, kindred, and of equal honor with that Father spoken of by Valentinus — indeed older, existing long before, and more honorable than the rest of the Aeons of Ptolemy, of Heracleon, and of all the others who hold the same opinions.
Furthermore, even in their perplexity over this, let them admit that the Father of all contains all things, and that there is nothing outside the Pleroma (for it is altogether necessary that he be bounded and circumscribed by something greater); and let them say that "outside" and "inside" are spoken of in terms of knowledge and ignorance, not of local distance. But within the Pleroma, or among the things the Father holds, whatever the Demiurge or the angels brought into being, whatever we recognize as having been made, we recognize as held within his ineffable vastness, as a center is held within a circle, or a stain within a garment. Such, then, would Bythus be — sustaining in his own bosom the coming-to-be of a defect, and permitting some other to found or bring forth, within his own domain, something apart from his own mind. What manner of absurdity would this begin to bring upon the whole Pleroma? Since he could, from the beginning, have cut off the defect and those emissions that took their origin from it, and not have allowed the constitution of that creation to arise in ignorance, in passion, and in defect. For one who afterward corrects a defect, and cleanses away, as it were, a stain, could far more easily have taken care from the start that no such stain should arise at all among his own. Or if he permitted it at the beginning, on the ground that what was made could not have come to be otherwise, then it ought always to go on coming to be in the same way. For how can things that could not receive correction at the beginning receive it afterward? Or how do they say that men are called to perfection, when the very causes from which men were made — whether the Demiurge himself or the angels — are said to exist in defect? And if, because he is kind, he has in these last times had mercy on men and grants them perfection, he ought first to have had mercy on those who were the makers of man, and to have given perfection to them. For thus, indeed, would men also have received mercy, being made perfect from those who were already perfect. For if he had mercy on the work of their hands, he ought to have had mercy on them far sooner, and not have allowed them to fall into such great blindness.
Their account of the shadow and void, moreover — by which they say that this created order of ours came to be — will likewise be dissolved, if these things were made among those contained by the Father. For if they suppose their paternal light to be such that it can fill all things within it and illuminate all things, how could a void and a shadow exist among the things contained by the Pleroma and by the paternal light? For they must show a place within the Forefather, or within the Pleroma, that is not illuminated or held fast by anyone — a place where the angels, or perhaps the Demiurge instead, made whatever they wished. For it is no small place in which so great and such a creation was made. It will therefore be altogether necessary that, within the Pleroma or within their Father, something void, formless, and dark should come to be locally, in which what was fashioned was fashioned. Their paternal light, too, will incur reproach, as being unable to illuminate and fill the things within itself. And further, by calling these things the fruit of a defect and the work of error, they will be introducing defect and error within the Pleroma itself, and into the very bosom of the Father.