Chapter V.—The Dual Principle Falls to the Ground; Plurality of Gods, of Whatever Number, More Consistent. Absurdity and Injury to Piety Resulting from Marcion’s Duality.

But on what principle did Marcion confine his supreme powers to two? I would first ask, If there be two, why not more? Because if number be compatible with the substance of Deity, the richer you make it in number the better. Valentinus was more consistent and more liberal; for he, having once imagined two deities, Bythos and Sige,61    Depth and silence. poured forth a swarm of divine essences, a brood of no less than thirty Æons, like the sow of Æneas.62    See Virgil, Æneid, viii. 43, etc. Now, whatever principle refuses to admit several supreme beings, the same must reject even two, for there is plurality in the very lowest number after one.  After unity, number commences. So, again, the same principle which could admit two could admit more.  After two, multitude begins, now that one is exceeded. In short, we feel that reason herself expressly63    Ipso termino. forbids the belief in more gods than one, because the self-same rule lays down one God and not two, which declares that God must be a Being to which, as the great Supreme, nothing is equal; and that Being to which nothing is equal must, moreover, be unique. But further, what can be the use or advantage in supposing two supreme beings, two co-ordinate64    Paria. powers? What numerical difference could there be when two equals differ not from one?  For that thing which is the same in two is one. Even if there were several equals, all would be just as much one, because, as equals, they would not differ one from another. So, if of two beings neither differs from the other, since both of them are on the supposition65    Jam. supreme, both being gods, neither of them is more excellent than the other; and so, having no pre-eminence, their numerical distinction66    Numeri sui. has no reason in it. Number, moreover, in the Deity ought to be consistent with the highest reason, or else His worship would be brought into doubt. For consider67    Ecce. now, if, when I saw two Gods before me (who, being both Supreme Beings, were equal to each other), I were to worship them both, what should I be doing? I should be much afraid that the abundance of my homage would be deemed superstition rather than piety. Because, as both of them are so equal and are both included in either of the two, I might serve them both acceptably in only one; and by this very means I should attest their equality and unity, provided that I worshipped them mutually the one in the other, because in the one both are present to me. If I were to worship one of the two, I should be equally conscious of seeming to pour contempt on the uselessness of a numerical distinction, which was superfluous, because it indicated no difference; in other words, I should think it the safer course to worship neither of these two Gods than one of them with some scruple of conscience, or both of them to none effect.

CAPUT V.

0251C

Aut quae ratio duo summa magna composuit? Primo enim exigam cur non plura, si duo? quando locupletiorem oporteret credi substantiam divinitatis, si competeret et numeris. Honestior et liberalior Valentinus, qui simul ausus est duos concipere, Bython et Sigen: cum usque ad triginta aeonum foetus, tamquam Aeneiae scrophae, examen divinitatis effudit. Quaecumque ratio plura summa magna non patitur admitti, eadem nec duo, ut ipsa plura 0252A post unum; post unum enim, numerus. Quae potuit duo admittere, eadem potuit et plura; post duo enim, multitudo, unione jam excessa. Denique, apud nos vis rationis istius ipso termino plures deos credi non sinit, quod nec duos, illa regula unum Deum sistens, qua Deum id esse oporteat cui nihil adaequetur, ut summo magno; unicum autem sit, cui nihil adaequetur. Jam nunc, duo summa magna, duo paria, cui operae pretio, cui emolumento deputarentur? quid interfuit numeri; cum duo paria non differant uno? Una enim res est quae eadem in duobus est. Etiamsi plura essent paria, tandumdem omnia unum fuissent, nullo inter se differendo, qua paria. Porro, si neutrum ex duobus altero distat, jam ut ambo summa magna, qua dei ambo, neutrum plus 0252B altero praestat, nullam rationem numeri sui ostendunt, praestantiam non habentes. Numerus autem divinitatis summa ratione constare deberet, vel quoniam et cultura ejus in anceps deduceretur. Ecce enim, duos intuens deos tam pares quam duo summa magna, quid facerem? Si ambos colerem, vererer ne, abundantia officii, superstitio potius quam religio existimaretur; quia duos tam pares, et in altero ambos, possem in uno demereri: hoc ipsum testimonio praestans parilitati et unitati eorum, dum alterum in altero venerarer, dum in uno mihi duo sunt. Si alterum colerem, aeque recogitarem ne suffundere viderer numeri vanitatem, sine differentia supervacui; hoc est, tutius censerem neutrum colendum, quam alterum cum scrupulo colendum, aut 0252C ambos vane.