Irenaeus of Lyons · a new plain-English translation from the original language
On the Inconsistency of the Emission, and on the Incoherence of the Pleroma. Let us return, then, to the question of the aforesaid emissions. And first let them tell us the reason for such an emission of the Aeons, so that it touches nothing belonging to creation. For they say that creation was not made for the sake of those things, but that those things were made for the sake of creation; and that those things are not images of these, but that these are images of those. Just as, then, they give the reason for these images, claiming the month runs to thirty days because of the thirty Aeons, the day divides into twelve hours, and the year into twelve months, all on account of the twelve Aeons found within the Pleroma, and whatever else they rave about in this fashion — now let them tell us the reason for that emission of the Aeons, why it came to be such as it is. Why was it precisely the first, archetypal Ogdoad that was emitted, rather than a Pentad, a Triad, a Heptad, or any other number by which things may be counted out? And why were ten Aeons emitted from the Word and Life, and not more or fewer; and again twelve from Man and Church, when these too might have been made either more or fewer?
Again, why is the whole Pleroma divided into three parts — into the Ogdoad, the Decad, and the Duodecad — and not into some other number besides these? And why was the division itself set at three, rather than at four, at five, at six, or at any other figure, having no bearing whatever on the numbers belonging to creation [Editorial note: for they say those numbers are more ancient than these, and ought to have their own proper reason, in general terms — the following chapters will take up each point individually — that is, the reason belonging to the order that exists before the constitution of things, not the order that follows the constitution], but agreeing, as it happens, in a mere consonance of pattern?
When we, in speaking of creation, call such numbers "fitting" — for this rhythmic patterning does indeed suit the things that have been made — we apply that word to this rhythmic patterning of creation; but they, having no proper reason of their own to give for those things which are prior to and perfected from themselves, are bound to fall into utter perplexity. For the very things they ask us about creation, as though we did not know the answer, when they themselves are asked the same about their Pleroma, they will either explain by an appeal to human feelings, or else they will fall back into that same argument about the harmony found in creation — answering improperly about the secondary things, instead of, as they ought, about the primary things belonging to their own system. For we are not asking them about the harmony found in creation, nor about human feelings; but we ask this: since their Pleroma — whose image they say creation is — is itself eightfold, tenfold, and twelvefold in form, will they not have to confess that their Father made the Pleroma of such a shape idly and without forethought, and so wrap their Father in unseemliness, if he did anything without reason? Or, on the other hand, if they say that the Pleroma was thus emitted, according to the Father's providence, for the sake of creation, so that creation might be well fashioned according to its pattern — then the Pleroma will turn out not to have been made on its own account at all, but on account of that image destined to come into being after its likeness (just as a wax model is not molded for its own sake, but so that a bronze, gold, or silver statue may afterward be cast from it) — and so creation will turn out to be more honorable than the Pleroma, if those things were emitted for creation's sake.