more respect than the 22
following, because here at least there was some appearance of a Biblical
foundation. In confuting the doctrine of aeons he incidentally raised
several questions (II. 17. 2), which Church theologians discussed in
later times, with reference to the Son and Spirit. "Quaeritur quemadmodum
emissi sunt reliqui aeones? Utrum uniti ei qui emiserit, quemadmodum a
sole radii, an efficabiliter et partiliter, uti sit unusquisque eorum
separatim et suam figurationem habens, quemadmodum ab homine homo ...
Aut secundum germinationem, quemabmodum ab arbore rami? Et utrum eiusdem
substantiae exsistebant his qui se emiserunt, an ex altera quadam
substantia substantiam habentes? Et utrum in eodem emissi sunt, ut
eiusdem temporis essent sibi?... Et utrum simplices quidam et uniformes
et undique sibi aequales et similes, quemadmodum spiritus et lumina
emissa sunt, an compositi et differentes"? See also II. 17. 4: "Si autem
velut a lumine lumina accensa sunt... velut verbi gratia a facula
faculae, generatione quidem et magnitudine fortasse distabunt ab invicem;
eiusdem autem substantive cum sint cum principe emissionis ipsorum, aut
omnes impassibiles perseverant aut et pater ipsorum participabit
passiones. Neque enim quae postea accensa est facula, alterum lumen
habebit quam illud quod ante eam fuit." Here we have already a statement
of the logical reasons, which in later times were urged against the
Arian doctrine.]

[Footnote 502: See Iren. II. 17. 5 and II. 18.]

[Footnote 503: See Iren. II. 4. 2.]

[Footnote 504: Tertullian in particular argued in great detail (adv.
Marc. I. 9-19) that every God must, above all, have revealed himself as
a creator. In opposition to Marcion's rejection of all natural theology,
he represents this science as the foundation of all religious belief. In
this connection he eulogised the created world (I. 13) and at the same
time (see also the 2nd Book) argued in favour of the Demiurge, i.e., of
the one true God. Irenaeus urged a series of acute and weighty objections
to the cosmogony of the Valentinians (see II. 1-5), and showed how
untenable was the idea of the Demiurge as an intermediate being. The
doctrines that the Supreme Being is unknown (II. 6), that the Demiurge
is the blind instrument of higher aeons, that the world was created
against the will of the Supreme God, and, lastly, that our world is the
imperfect copy of a higher one were also opposed by him with rational
argumen