Philosophumena; or, The refutation of all heresies, Volume II

by Antipope Hippolytus

FOOTNOTES

[1] ἡ καινὴ ἐπιδημία. The book Elchesai, as will presently be seen, is said to have been revealed “in the third year of Trajan” and therefore long anterior to our text. Hippolytus, therefore, probably refers here to a recrudescence of the superstition connected therewith.

[2] This Noetus, whom Epiphanius (Haer., LVII) would make a native of Ephesus, possibly by confusion with the Praxeas against whom Tertullian wrote, was one of the first to teach the heresy called Patripassian, which made the Father as well as the Son to suffer on the Cross. His date is uncertain, but he was “not very long” dead when Hippolytus wrote (see Hippolytus’ Tractate against Noetus in Gallandi, Bibl. Vet. Patr. II, p. 454), and the seeds of the heresy seem to have been sown in the time of Justin Martyr. It was undoubtedly Eastern in origin and passed in Rome chiefly under the name of Sabellius. Hippolytus was evidently its greatest opponent there, Zephyrinus and Callistus maintaining a more tolerant attitude towards it, until the last-named Pope was compelled to excommunicate Sabellius. See Salmon’s articles in D.C.B., s.n.n. “Noetus,” “Praxeas,” “Epigonus” and “Cleomenes,” and Mr. Hugh Pope’s article on “Monarchian” in Hastings’ Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

[3] Theodoret (Haer. Fab., III, 3) would reverse this position and make Cleomenes Epigonus’ teacher and not his pupil. He has probably misread Hippolytus on this point, the later heresiologists frequently failing to distinguish the founders of any heresy from their successors.

[4] This is evidently the beginning of Hippolytus’ quarrel with the Primacy. Of Victor, Zephyrinus’ predecessor in the Roman Chair, he speaks well. Cf. p. [128] infra.

[5] Cf. 2 Peter ii. 22.

[6] δυσφημίας.

[7] ἐν τοῖς φιλοσοφουμένοις. The Codex has Φιλοσοφουμένους. He evidently refers to Book I, in which (Vol. I, p. [41]) he has given a few words in the gnomic sayings of Heraclitus. The only other previous reference to them seems to be in Book V (Vol. I, p. [154] supra) where he calls Heraclitus one of the wisest of the Greeks and in Book VI (p. [4] supra) where he attributes Simon’s image of “a fiery God” not to Moses but to Heraclitus. If Cruice’s emendation holds good this shows that Book I was originally published separately and called “Philosophizings,” the rest of the work being known as the Elenchus or “Refutation.” Cf. Introduction supra. Bishop Wordsworth (St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome, London, 1880), gets over the difficulty by reading the passage ἐν τοὺς Φιλοσοφουμένους ἡμῖν, “in this our Philosophumena,” and this reading has been adopted in this translation.

[8] Cf. Stobaeus, Eclog. Phys., I, xlii.

[9] λόγον αἰῶνα.

[10] τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας, “listen to the argument.” Hippolytus had he written in English would doubtless have said “the Word,” but this has a different connotation in modern language.

[11] λόγος without the article.

[12] ἀπείροισιν ἐοίκασι πειρεώμενοι. It is very difficult to make sense of these words and both Cruice and Macmahon leave them untranslated.

[13] πεττεύων. Playing at tessera or draughts. Cr., tesseras jaciens, a game in which there was chance as well as skill like backgammon. Lucian, as Cruice notes, puts the same phrase into Heraclitus’ mouth.

[14] Some word missing here.

[15] κρείττων supplied from the next quoted sentence.

[16] The Codex has ὅσον ὄψις κ.τ.λ. Cruice substitutes ὅσων and translates Quaecumque visus ... capere possunt.

[17] Something probably omitted here also.

[18] ἕτερον.

[19] A screw. Also a staircase.

[20] ὀλέθριον, “destructive.”

[21] χρημοσύνη. Cr., Inopia, Macm., “Craving.”

[22] διακόσμησις. The making of a cosmos out of chaos or the Creation.

[23] So Clem. Alex., Strom., V, 1, makes Heraclitus predict the destruction of the world by fire. The same theory is attributed to the Stoics.

[24] It has not been thought well to delay the reader by attempting to puzzle out the meaning of Heraclitus whom the ancients themselves did not profess to understand. So far as can be seen the only likeness between his sayings and the teaching of Noetus and his successors was due to the love of paradox shown by both. The parallel between them that Hippolytus tries to draw is mainly forced upon him by his own theory that all heresy is derived from Greek philosophy.

[25] A pun on νοητός, the adjective, and Noetus, the proper name.

[26] Another pun between ἁιρουμένοι and αἵρεσις.

[27] The words in brackets supplied from the Summary in Book X.

[28] Ἀχώρητος, “that cannot be confined (in space),” or what we mean when we say that He is infinite.

[29] ἀκράτητος, “that cannot be dominated.” One would have expected the word ἀνίκητος; but as this was one of the honorific titles of the Emperor, it was doubtless altered for prudential reasons.

[30] Not “sovereignty” but the doctrine of One Source and Ruler of All. The phrase constantly recurs in the theology of the time, and the word Monarchian is applied to all heresies of the Noetian kind.

[31] There can be little doubt as to the source of this chapter. The quotations from Heraclitus are taken from some book of extracts, like the work of Diogenes Laertius, and much corrupted in the taking: the words put into the mouth of Noetus on the other hand are doubtless taken from some written note of the arraignment of Noetus before “the blessed presbyters” who expelled him from the Church as described in Hippolytus’ own tract against Noetus, mentioned in n. on p. [118] supra. In c. 3 of this, Hippolytus declares that Noetus made use of the same passages of Scripture as “Theodotus,” which explains the allusion in the Table of Contents, and he uses other phrases to be found in our text. As the whole controversy between himself and Callistus was doubtless familiar to his readers, there was therefore no reason for him to refer to any written document containing the opinion of Noetus or his successors.

[32] In this chapter, as has been said, Hippolytus discloses his chief reason for the publication or republication of the whole work. The controversy which raged round the evidence of schism in the Primitive Church which it affords has now died down, and we are therefore able to examine such evidence dispassionately. The suggestion that the Callistus here mentioned had been confused with another person has now been given up, and there is little doubt that Hippolytus’ adversary was the Pope of that name who presided over the Church of Rome between the primacies of Zephyrinus and Urbanus, this last being quickly succeeded by Pontianus. In estimating the worth of the story which Hippolytus here tells against him, the way has been cleared by the frank acceptance by contemporary Catholic writers such as Monsignor Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l’Église, Paris, t. I,) and Dom. Chapman (The Catholic Encyclopædia, New York, 1908, s.v. “Callistus”), of the view that the calumnies against Callistus here put forward, although much exaggerated and coloured, have a basis of fact. In this, they follow the line taken by the celebrated Dr. Döllinger at the first appearance of our text, and no modern scholar has yet been found to seriously controvert it. It therefore only remains to draw attention to the points in which Hippolytus has, in Dr. Döllinger’s opinion, garbled or added colour to the facts, and on the whole, it has seemed more satisfactory to do this in the footnotes than here. The references, except when otherwise stated, are to the English edition of Döllinger’s Hippolytus and Callistus, Edinburgh, 1876. Callistus’ primacy appears from several testimonies to have lasted from A.D. 218 to 223, when he was killed apparently in a riot.

[33] Zephyrinus appears to have been Pope from A.D. 202 to 218.

[34] τῳ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν παραινεῖσθαι. It is thought that this is a pluralis majestatis consequent on Hippolytus’ claim to be himself Bishop of Rome.

[35] The construction of the whole of this paragraph offers difficulty, and many emendations have been proposed in the text. The reading of Roeper has been mainly followed here, and the meaning is not doubtful.

[36] ἐν τῷ λαῷ, i. e. “the laity.”

[37] “Worshipper of two gods.” In Döllinger’s opinion (op. cit., p. 219) this accusation was well founded.

[38] ἀγαπητόν. Doubtless written sarcastically. Wordsworth, Cruice and Macmahon all attach the phrase to δοκεὶ and translate “seems good,” for which use of the word I can find no precedent.

[39] ἐμαρτύρησεν. A play on the double meaning of the word, which might be translated “he was martyred.” But Callistus had not been martyred when our text was written, nor was he even a confessor.

[40] Ἔπαρχος. Fuscianus was Prefect of the City from A.D. 188 to 193.

[41] Evidently the freedman of Marcus Aurelius whose inscription is to be found in C.I.L. 13040. Cf. de Rossi, Bull., 1866, p. 3, and Duchesne, Hist. ancienne, I, p. 294, n. 1.

[42] “Public Fishpool.” It was one of the fourteen Regiones of the city and the quarter of the money-dealers. The Latin name is here not translated, but written in Greek letters.

[43] ἐξαφανίσας. A similar word is used by Carpophorus in his address to Fuscianus later. Döllinger, op. cit., argues that this does not necessarily imply any criminality on Callistus’ part as he may have lost the money in an attempt to increase his master’s profit. See note on next page.

[44] οὐκ ἔλιπεν ὃς. Bunsen calls this “a rank Latinism.”

[45] Döllinger (op. cit., p. 109) draws attention to Carpophorus’ cruelty as shown by his condemnation of a fellow-Christian to the awful punishment of the treadmill.

[46] Portus Ostiensis or Ostia, the Port of Rome.

[47] Döllinger (op. cit., p. 110) argues that this was not suicide but an attempt to escape.

[48] εἰς πίστρινον, transliterated as before. The terrible nature of this punishment is well known. Cf. Darenberg and Saglio, Dict. des Antiq., s.h.v.

[49] Döllinger (op. cit., p. 110) thinks that he had lent it to the Jews, and that this accounts for the subsequent riot.

[50] See last note. In Döllinger’s opinion, he only went there to ask for his money.

[51] ἀφανίσας.

[52] Döllinger (ubi cit.) points out that Carpophorus’ speech throws further light on his character. Callistus was a Christian, as Hippolytus admits. Carpophorus’ anxiety to prevent his being sentenced is explained by the fear of losing Callistus’ services, sentence of penal servitude acting as manumission.

[53] Victor’s exact date is uncertain, but he probably succeeded Eleutherus as Pope in A.D. 189 and was himself succeeded by Zephyrinus in 202.

[54] τινὶ σπάδοντι πρεσβυτέρῳ. Some would translate “priest”; but the ordination of a eunuch would be contrary to the Canons.

[55] ἐπιτροπεύων.

[56] Döllinger (op. cit.) thinks there is no doubt from this that Callistus was both condemned and set free as a Christian.

[57] From this, from the intervention of the brethren with Carpophorus and from the favour shown to him by Hyacinthus, Döllinger (op. cit.) draws the conclusion that Callistus’ conduct up to this point must have seemed to the community unlucky rather than criminal.

[58] The famous cemetery in the Via Appia still bearing his name, where many of the early Popes are buried.

[59] ὑποκρίσει.

[60] ἐξηφάνισε. See n. 3 on p. [127].

[61] i. e. imagining himself to be the lawful Pope.

[62] Evidently refers to Hippolytus’ charge of Sabellianism against him.

[63] γόης. Perhaps a juggler with words; but this sense is unusual.

[64] See note on p. [125] supra. Döllinger (op. cit., p. 219) thinks that Hippolytus separated the Logos from God, and suggests that Origen may have shared the error.

[65] Bishop Wordsworth (St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome, 1880, p. 87) would translate: “The Word is the Son and also the Father, being called by a different name, but that the indivisible Spirit is one.”

[66] Cf. John xiv. 11. The N.T. has πιστεύετε μοι, “Believe me” (imperative).

[67] Döllinger (op. cit., p. 216) says this is a correct statement of the Catholic position.

[68] Bunsen would read ἐκφυγών, [“thus] avoiding.” Cruice inserts οὕτω πως ἐλπίζων, “thus hoping to avoid.” Döllinger inserts ὥστε before ἐκφυγεῖν.

[69] If this Theodotus is, as seems probable, the Theodotus of Byzantium mentioned in Book VII (p. 390 Cr.), who was excommunicated by Victor, his heresy was, as Hippolytus himself records, Adoptianist, and his opinions must have been poles asunder from those of Callistus.

[70] Here as elsewhere throughout this chapter, Hippolytus assumes that he is the rightful head of the Catholic Church, and that Callistus and the more numerous party within it are only a “school.”

[71] συναγόμενος, “gathered in,” “a member of any other man’s congregation,” Wordsworth; ab alio fuerat seductus, Cruice, whom Macmahon follows.

[72] A logical term.

[73] εἰς κλήρους. Döllinger (op. cit., p. 140) points out that Lectors, acolyths, Ostiarii and sub-deacons were all included in the phrase ἐν κλήρῳ afterwards used, and that such persons were not forbidden to marry. Yet the context is against him, and there can be no doubt that Hippolytus intends to imply, whether with truth or not, that Callistus did not degrade even the superior clergy for marrying more than once.

[74] ἐν κλήρῳ.

[75] Rom. xiv. 4.

[76] Matt. xiii. 29.

[77] εἰς ὁμοίωμα.

[78] ἐλεύθερον, “a freed man”?

[79] Döllinger (op. cit., p. 158) suggests that this is a reference to the contubernium, or concubinage known to Roman Law, which the Church insisted on regarding as a lawful marriage. The case of Marcia mentioned above might be one in point, but it is to be noted that Hippolytus calls her παλλακὴ Κομόδου only.

[80] This practice of second baptism, which Hippolytus does not accuse Callistus of teaching, but of which he says that it was begun in his time, is apparently brought in here to connect this chapter with the next on the Elchesaites. Had such accusation any foundation, it would certainly have been known to Cyprian or Firmilian.

[81] No other author seems to have taken up this name, and the rest of the paragraph shows that it was Callistus’ party which was regarded as Catholic and Hippolytus’ as schismatic. As Hippolytus was writing of matters within his own knowledge and in some measure that of his readers, there is no reason to suppose that he drew his material from any written source; but it has been suggested that the facts in Callistus’ life that he here narrates may have been obtained vivâ voce from Carpophorus.

[82] This heresy of the Elchesaites was a very old one, and probably had its roots in the Babylonian religion some millennia before Christian times, ablution and exorcism being then considered one of the most effectual modes of removing the consequences of transgression. Prof. Brandt, of Amsterdam, who has paid much attention to the Mandæan religion which has affinities with it, in his monograph on the subject (Elchasai, Ein Religionstifter und sein Werk, Leipzig, 1912), thinks that Elchasai, a name which may mean something like “Power of the Sun,” was a real man who flourished in the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117), and founded in Syria an eclectic religion made up of the doctrines of Judaism and Christianity, mingled with the belief in the sovereign efficacy of baptism found among the Hemerobaptists, Mughtasila or “Washers,” who still exist. Thus, according to En-Nadîm (Flügel’s Mani, p. 340), these Mughtasila in the tenth century still reverenced as a prophet a certain Al-[H.]asih who seems to be our Elchasai, along with Moses, Christ, and Mohammed. It also appears that his successors sent out missionaries to the West, including doubtless the Alcibiades of our text. Origen, in his Homily on the 82nd Psalm, mentions having met with one of these who may have been Alcibiades himself. They seem to have obtained some success among the Ebionite and Essene communities on the shores of the Dead Sea, but the effort soon died out, and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., VI, 38) says that it was stifled almost at its birth. Epiphanius (Haer., XIX, 5; XXX, 17; and LIII, 1) mentions them in connection with the “heresies” of the Nazaræans, Ebionites and Sampsæans respectively, but like Theodoret does little but repeat Hippolytus’ statements.

[83] This book which is mentioned by all the writers who refer to Elchasai, doubtless began with the vision of the angel from whom he professed to receive his revelations.

[84] ἀπο Σηρῶν, Chinese? Or it may be a town called Serae.

[85] Brandt (op. cit., p. 42) thinks the word is Mandæan or Aramaic, and means “the Baptized,” i. e. the Mughtasila.

[86] These measurements, intended to show the enormous difference in size between the celestial powers and mankind, are peculiarly Jewish and are frequent in the Haggadah and Cabala.

[87] The Rman mile here meant was 142 yards less than ours. The schoenus was a measure of land used also by the Egyptians and Persians.

[88] i. e. as that of Callistus.

[89] Hippolytus’ motive in thus connecting Alcibiades’ visit with Callistus’ proceedings is obvious. There could be nothing in common in the re-baptizing of reconverted heretics of which he (probably erroneously) accuses his adversary, and the magical efficacy of the ablution prescribed by Alcibiades.

[90] ἐλέγξαντες.

[91] νόθος, “bastard.” Is this an allusion to the composite nature of the Elchesaite religion?

[92] All these phrases are so condensed as to make the conjectural restoration of important words necessary. It would seem that the author was here hurrying over his task.

[93] νόμου πολιτείαν. The Jewish Law is of course intended.

[94] Transmigration of souls does not appear to have entered into the conceptions of the Mandæans, Mughtasila, or any other sects with which Elchasai is known to have been connected; but Buddhist ideas seem to have made some way with the Dead Sea communities. Did Alcibiades draw this idea from them? If so this might explain the allusion to the Seres.

[95] ἐπίλογοι.

[96] The text puts both Holy Spirit and Angels of Prayer in the plural. Yet they must be singular, or the seven witnesses would be more than that number. Brandt (op. cit.) thinks many mistakes in this chapter are to be explained by a faulty translation from Aramaic into Greek. He also thinks that the mention of salt implies a sacrament celebrated with bread and salt, and that earth, as one of the five elements of Aristotle, should be substituted for the Earth as a pendant to which Heaven is thrown in. It is simpler to derive the spell from the ancient Babylonian religion in which Heaven and Earth are coupled for the purpose of conjuration.

[97] πνεῦμα διαφθορᾶς. Cruice and Macmahon both translate “spirit of destruction.” It evidently refers to rabies, and the authors of the spell seem to have known that mere contact with a rabid animal might produce infection.

[98] Both Miller and Duncker read προσευξάσθω, which has been adopted here as making better sense. Cruice reads προσδειξάσθω, “show himself unto.”

[99] εὐσεβεῖς. Often applied by the Jews of this time to those who observed their usages, but were not full proselytes.

[100] i. e. “on which they bear rule”—a well-known astrological phrase.

[101] i. e. “rises and sets with them.”

[102] This cannot mean that it is one of the days when the evil stars rule. Probably some words like “which God has chosen” are omitted.

[103] Did Alcibiades or Elchasai consider Trajan’s successful campaign against the Parthians a calamity?

[104] Ἄρκτων, lit., “of the Bears.” Thus Cruice. But it is probably another case of putting plurals for singulars.

[105] It is said that this is an unfulfilled prediction which fixes the date of Elchasai’s book. If, however, we take Trajan’s invasion of Parthia at A.D. 113, which seems the most likely date, the rebellion of the Jews in the Cyrenaica, Egypt and Cyprus broke out within the three years mentioned and raged until it was suppressed by Marcius Turbo and Lusius Quietus, about the end of 116. The book may therefore well be later than this.

[106] A possible allusion to Matt. vii. 6.

[107] For the reason of this omission see Introduction, supra.

[108] μηδὲ σιωπήσας, “when I have not kept silence about”—a roundabout phrase.

[109] This promise is fulfilled by the peroration of Book X. This shows the close connection between the Summary and the first nine Books, and proves that the author of Book X, if not Hippolytus himself, was at any rate some one who wished to be taken for him.

[110] The quotations in this chapter from the book of Elchasai were doubtless taken from a Greek translation of that work brought to Rome by Alcibiades.

[111] The reasons that probably influenced Hippolytus in writing this description of Jewish religion as a sequel to his Ninth Book are stated in the Introduction. It is for the most part extracted from Josephus, the order of the paragraphs following that adopted by him, and the words being in many cases the same. This has led Cruice to suggest that both are taken from a common source, which he takes to be a Christian writer of the first century. This is extremely unlikely, since Epiphanius, Porphyry and Pliny all quote Josephus directly; but it is probable that when he leaves Josephus, as he does after the account of the Sadducees, Hippolytus draws from the statements of some Jewish convert to Christianity of whom we know nothing. In this, the Messianic ideas of the Jews which brought about the great revolt under Bar Cochba are clearly set out, but it is curious that writing as he must have done long after the practical extermination of the Jewish nation by Hadrian, he should have made no allusion to it; and it may therefore well be that he preferred to condense here the statements which Justin Martyr puts into the mouth of Trypho, with which his own agree in almost every particular. This Ninth Book bears throughout the marks of haste or weariness, many of the sentences, except where he is manifestly using the work of another as model, being slurred over and difficult to construe grammatically. In one or two cases, he contradicts his own statements, as in the case of the Sadducees, making a subsequent correction by himself or the scribe necessary. See n. on p. [147] infra.

[112] οἱ φιλομαθεῖς. Here as elsewhere this seems to mean “the learned” simply.

[113] εἴδη, “species,” or “kinds.”

[114] ἕτεροι δὲ. Does he mean that all the rest of the Jews are Essenes? Throughout this Book the article is frequently omitted as in the title to this chapter. The rest of the section is almost verbatim from Josephus, de Bell Jud., II, 8, 2.

[115] τεκνυποιοῦνται, “make them their own children.”

[116] αἱρετιστῶν. A Latinism here used for the first time by Hippolytus.

[117] These two sections also are taken from Josephus, op. cit., II, 8, 3, 4.

[118] So is this. Cf. Josephus, op. cit., II, 8, 5.

[119] τῷ προεστῶτι. The president of the feast is evidently a different person from the official of the same name in § 20, or of the ἱερεύς or priest in § 21, supra.

[120] Words in ( ) inserted by Cruice from Josephus from whose § 6 this section is taken.

[121] σύνταγμα, volumen ad usum fidelium, Cruice, “treatise,” Macmahon.

[122] This, too, is almost verbatim from Josephus, op. cit., II, 8, 7; but it is to be noted that Hippolytus omits the obligation to preserve the books of the sect and the names of the angels.

[123] Cf. Josephus, op. cit., § 8.

[124] Like the Egyptian turria, an axe with its blade at right angles to instead of in a line with the shaft. Much used for digging.

[125] This section also is taken from Josephus, op. cit., II, 8, 9. Hippolytus omits to say that the blasphemers of Moses were to be punished capitally. The refusal to get out of bed is not mentioned by Josephus.

[126] τὴν ἄσκησιν, lit., “training,” as for a gymnastic competition. Cf. our word “ascetic.”

[127] Josephus, op. cit., § 10, says that the sect and not their teaching was fourfold. He transfers the story of pollution by touch to the attitude of the seniors towards the juniors, and knows nothing of the gate story. The Zealots, according to him (op. cit., VII, 8, 1) grew up under the Sicarii, who defended Masada against the Romans in Vespasian’s time. The rest of this section corresponds with his Book II, 8, 10.

[128] In this section, Hippolytus leaves Josephus, except as to the Islands of the Blessed and the Essene gift of prophecy, both of which are to be found in Josephus, op. cit., II, 8, 11, 12.

[129] Josephus (op. cit., II, 8, 13), almost verbatim through the whole section.

[130] ὀνόμασι κυρίοις, properly “nicknames.” He seems to imply that while they called themselves Jews, other people knew them as Pharisees, Chasidim, or Puritans. The statement about Fate and the everlasting punishment of the wicked is to be found in Josephus (op. cit., II, 8, 14), but the reward of the good is there said to be metempsychosis.

[131] This section also appears to be expanded from Josephus, op. cit., II, 8, 14.

[132] ἱερουργική.

[133] He here seems to imply that in the view of the Jews, at any rate, the All was made from pre-existent material, as a house from bricks, while some things were created e nihilo. This is denied in the next sentence.

[134] ἄψυχον. Perhaps with Cruice and Macmahon, we should translate “without life.” Yet it seems hardly possible that Jews considered stones and minerals as alive.

[135] Leviticus?

[136] Here he, or perhaps some commentator, has to contradict what he has just said about “all” Jews believing these doctrines.

[137] βασιλεῦον καὶ ἱερατεῦον, “acting as kings and priests.”

[138] Here again it is plain that “all Jews” could not believe this statement of Messianic hopes, and the Sadducees in particular would have repudiated what he says about the Resurrection and future recompense.

[139] τῶν φιλοσοφουμένων, a play quite in Hippolytus’ usual manner on the name of the Book and its meaning. It should be noted that the “things imagined by the heretics” correspond to the second title, “Refutation of all Heresies.”

[140] He has already promised this in the conclusion to the chapter on the Elchesaites (p. [138] supra), which strengthens one’s conviction that that on the Jews was an afterthought. It is plain, however, that nine Books were intended to precede the “Discourse on the Truth.” Here again, he does not mention the Summary.

p. 474.

BOOK X
SUMMARIES, AND THE WORD OF TRUTH

1. These are the contents of the 10th [Book] of the Refutation of all Heresies.

2. An epitome of all the philosophers.

3. An epitome of all [the] heresies.[1]

4. And what is in all things the Word of Truth.

5. Having broken through the labyrinth[2] of the heresies without violence but rather having dissolved them by our single refutation in the power of Truth, we now draw near to the demonstration of the Truth itself. For then the manufactured sophistries of the error will appear inconsistent, when the definition of the Truth has shown that it has not taken its beginnings from the philosophy of the Greeks. Nor [has it taken] from [the] Egyptians [the] doctrines (and) the follies which are adored among them as worthy of faith—as [the] mysteries have taught—nor has it been devised out of the inconsistent jugglery of [the] Chaldæans, nor been forged by the unreasoning madness of [the] Babylonians through the activity of demons.[3] In whatever shape, however, the definition subsists, it is true, unguarded, and unadorned,[4] and by its appearance alone will refute the p. 475. error. Concerning which, although we have many times made demonstrations, and have pointed out the Rule of Truth sufficiently and abundantly for those who are willing to learn, yet once again we judge it reasonable on the top of all the doctrines of the Greeks and heretics, to place as if it were [the] crown of the books [preceding], this demonstration by means of the tenth book.

6. Now having brought together the teachings of all the sages among [the] Greeks in four books,[5] and those of the heresiarchs in five, we shall point out the Doctrine concerning the Truth in one, after having first made a summary of what has been the opinions of all. For the teachers of the Greeks, dividing philosophy into three parts, so philosophize, some preaching Physics, some Ethics and some Dialectic.[6] And those who preached Physics thus declared, some that all things were born from one, others from many. And of those who said [they came] from one, some [said they came] from what had no Quality, and others from that which had Quality. And of those who [said they came] from that which had Quality, some [said that they came] p. 476. from fire, others from air, others from water and yet others from earth. And of those who [said they came forth] from many things, some [said that they came] from numerable things [others from boundless ones. And of those who said they came from numerable things], some [say that they came] from two, others from four, others from five, and others from six. And of those [who say] that they came from the boundless things, some [say that they came] from things like generated things, others from those unlike. And some of them say that they came from things impassible, others from things passible. The Stoics indeed would establish the birth of the universals from that which has no Quality and one body. For according to them, matter unqualified and capable of change by means of the universals is their source. And when it is transformed, fire, air, water and earth come into being. And those who will have all things to come into being from that which has Quality are the followers of Hippasus and Anaximander and Thales the Milesian. Hippasus the Metapontian[7] and Heraclitus the Ephesian declared the genesis of things to be from fire, but Anaximander from air, Thales from water, and Xenophanes from earth.

“For all things [came forth] from earth and all end in earth.”[8]

p. 477. 7. Of those who would derive the universals from [the] many and [the] numerable, the poet Homer declares that the universals have been composed of earth and water when he says:—

“Ocean source of Gods and mother Tethys.”[9]

and again:—

“But turn ye all to water and earth.”[10]

And Xenophanes the Colophonian seems to agree with him, for he says:—

“All we are sprung from earth and water.”[11]

But Euripides says from earth and aether, as he lets us see from his saying:—

“I sing aether and earth, mother of all.”[12]

But Empedocles from four, saying thus:—

p. 478.“Hear first the four roots of all things;

Shining Zeus and life-bearing Here and Aïdoneus

And Nestis who wets with tears the human source.”

But from five, Ocellus the Lucanian[13] and Aristotle. For with the four elements they include the fifth and rotating body whence, they say, are all heavenly things. But from six, the followers of Empedocles derived the birth of all things. For in the verses where he says:—

“Hear first the four roots of all things”

he makes everything come from four. But when he adds to this:—

“And baleful Strife apart from these [and] equal everywhere,

And Love with them equal in length and breadth,”[14]

he is handing down six things as sources of the universals [i. e.] four material: earth, water, fire, [and] air and two, p. 479. the agents Love and Strife. But the followers of Anaxagoras the Clazomenian and Democritus and Epicurus and very many others whose [opinions] we have before recorded in part, taught that the genesis of all things was from the boundless. But Anaxagoras says they came from things like those produced; but the followers of Democritus and Epicurus, from those unlike and impassible, that is from the atoms; and those of Heraclides the Pontian[15] and Asclepiades[16] from those which are unlike, but passible, such as disconnected corpuscles. But the followers of Plato say that they came from three, and that these are God, Matter and Exemplar; but he divides matter into four principles: fire, water, earth, air; and says that God is the Demiurge of Matter, but Exemplar the Mind.

8. Now, having been persuaded that the system of Natural Science[17] is confessedly found unworkable by all these [philosophers], we ourselves shall unhesitatingly say concerning the examples of the Truth what they are and how we believe in them. But in addition we will first set forth in epitome the [opinions] of the heresiarchs, so that p. 480. the opinions of all being thereby easy to discern, we may display the Truth as clear and easy to discern also.

1. Naassenes.

9. But since this seems fitting, we will begin first with the ministers of the serpent. The Naassenes call the first principle of the universals a man and also Son of Man,[18] and him they divide into three. For part of him, they say, is intellectual, part psychic, and part earthly. And they call him Adamas and think the knowledge of him is the beginning of the power to know God. And they say that all these intellectual and psychic and earthly [parts] came into Jesus, and that the three substances spoke together through Him to the three races of the All. Thus they declare that there are three races, [the] angelic, psychic [and] earthly, and that there are three Churches, angelic, psychic and earthly; but that their names are [the] Called, Chosen, [and] Captive. These are the heads of their doctrine in so far as it can be briefly comprehended. They p. 481. say that they were handed down by James the Brother of the Lord to Mariamne, thereby belying both.[19]

2. Peratæ.

10. But the Peratæ, Ademes the Carystian and Euphrates the Peratic[20] say that a certain cosmos—this is what they call it—is one divided into three. But of this threefold division of theirs, there is a single source, as it were a great fountain, capable of being cut by the reason into boundless sections. And the first and most excellent section is according to them the triad and the one part of it is called Perfect Good [and] Fatherly Greatness. But the second part of the Triad is, as it were a certain boundless multitude of powers, and the third is that of form. And the first [of the Triad] is unbegotten (since it is good: but the second good and self-begotten and the third, begotten).[21] Whence they say explicitly that there are three gods, three words, p. 482. three minds [and] three men. For to each part of the cosmos when the division was made, they assign Gods and Words and Men and the rest. But from on high, from the unbegotten state and from the first section of the cosmos, when the cosmos had already been brought to completion, there came down in the time of Herod a certain triple-natured and triple-bodied and triple-powered man called Christ, having within Him all the compounds and powers from the three parts of the cosmos. And this they will have to be the saying: “In Him dwells all the Fulness of the Godhead bodily.” For [they say that] there came down from the two overlying worlds, namely from the unbegotten and the self-begotten, to this world in which we are, all sorts of seeds of powers. And that Christ came down from the Unbegottenness in order that through His descent all the things triply divided may be saved. For the things, he says, brought down from on high shall ascend through Him; but those who take counsel together against those brought down shall be ruthlessly rejected and having been punished shall be sent away. And he says that those [worlds] which will be saved are two, the overlying ones p. 483. released from corruption. But the third will be destroyed, which is the world of form.[22] And thus the Peratæ.

3. The Sethiani.

11. But to the Sethians it appears that there are three definite principles of the universals. And that each of these principles (has boundless powers ... everything which you perceive by your mind or which you pass over for lack of thought)[23] is formed by nature to become [each of the principles] as in the human soul every art is to be learned. As if [they say] there should come to a boy spending some time with a pipe-player, the power of pipe-playing, or with a geometrician the power of measurement, or in like manner with any other art. But the substances of the principles, they say, are light and darkness. And between them is pure spirit. But the spirit which is set between the darkness which is below and the light which is above is, they say, not spirit like a gust of wind or any small breeze which may be perceived, but resembles some faint fragrance of balsam or p. 484. of incense artificially compounded as a power penetrating by force of fragrance and better than words can say. But because the light is above and the darkness below and the spirit between them, the light, like a ray of the sun on high, shines on the underlying darkness, and the fragrance of the spirit holding the middle place is borne and spread abroad as the odour of incense on the fire is borne. And as the power of the triply divided is such, the power of the spirit and the light together are below in the darkness beneath. But, they say, the darkness is a fearful water into which the light is drawn down with the spirit and changed into a similar nature. Now the darkness is sensible, and knows that if the light is taken away from it, the darkness will remain desolate, viewless, without light, powerless, idle and weak. In this way by all its wit and foresight it is forced to retain within itself the brilliance and scintillation of the light along with the fragrance of the spirit.

And with regard to this, they bring in this image, saying that as the pupil of the eye appears dark because of the p. 485. waters underneath it, but it is made light by the spirit, thus the light seeks after the spirit and retains for itself all the powers which wish to withdraw and to depart. But these are ever boundless, wherefrom all things are modelled and become like mingled seals. For, as the seal coming into conjunction with the wax, makes the impress, while itself remains by itself whatever it was, so the powers coming into conjunction with each other elaborate all the boundless races of living things. Therefore [they say] came into being from the first conjunction of the three principles, the form of a great seal [i. e.] of heaven and earth, which had a shape like a womb with the navel in the midst. Thus also the rest of the models of all things were modelled resembling a womb like heaven and earth. But they say that from the water came into being the first born principle, a violent and rushing wind the cause of all generation, which sets in action a certain heat and movement in the cosmos from the movement of the waters. And [they say] p. 486. that this was changed into a complete form like the hissing of a serpent, beholding which the cosmos is driven to generation, being excited like a womb, and therefrom they will have it the generation of the universals is established. And they say that this wind is a spirit and that a perfect god came into being from the waters and from the fragrance of the spirit and from the brilliance of the light. And that there is also the begetting of a female, Mind, the spark from on high which is mingled with the accretions of the body and hastens to flee away so that it may escape and not find dissolution through being enchained in the waters. Whence it cries aloud from the mingling of the waters according to the Psalmist, as they say. “Thus the whole care of the light on high is how it shall draw the spark beneath from the Father who is below,” [that is], from the wind which puts in action heat and disturbance and creates for himself Mind (a perfect son) who is not (peculiar) to himself, [whom] they declare, beholding the p. 487. perfect Word of the light from on high, changed Himself into the form of a serpent and entered into a womb, so that He might take again that mind which is a spark of the light. And this, [they say] is the saying: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.” And this the unhappy and wicked Sethians will have to be the [servile] form.[24] This then is what they say.

4. Simon.

12. And the all-wise Simon says thus. There is a boundless power and this is the root of the universals. The boundless power is, he says, fire. According to him, it is not simple, as the many say the four elements are simple and therefore think fire is simple; but [he says] that the nature of the fire is double, and of this double [nature] he calls one part hidden and the other manifest. And p. 488. that the hidden parts are concealed within the manifest parts of the fire, and the manifest parts of the fire are produced by the hidden. But, he says, that all the seen and unseen parts of the fire are to be considered as having sense.[25] Therefore, he says, the begotten world came into being from the unbegotten fire. But it began to come into being, he says, thus. The begotten [cosmos] took from the principle of that fire the first six roots of the principle of generation. For these six roots were born from the fire by pairs, which he calls Nous and Epinoia, Phonê and Onoma, Logismos and Enthymesis. And [he says] that in these six roots [taken] together, the Boundless Power exists (potentially but not actively, which Boundless Power) he says is the “He who Stands, Stood, and will Stand,” which if it be exactly reflected will be within the six powers in substance, powers, greatness and influence, being one and the same as the Unbegotten and Boundless Power, and in no way inferior to that Unbegotten and Unchangeable and Boundless Power. But if it remains only potentially in the Six Powers and is not exactly p. 489. reflected, it, he says, vanishes and will die away like the grammatical or geometrical power in the mind of a man, when he does not receive technical teaching in addition. And Simon says that himself is the He Who Stands, Stood, and will Stand, being the Power which is above all.[26] Thus, then, Simon.

5. Valentinus.

13. But Valentinus and those from his school say the Source of the All is a Father and yet are carried into conflicting opinions [about him]. For some of them [think] that he is alone and capable of generation, while others hold that he is incapable of bringing forth without a female, and give him as a spouse Sigê, calling him Bythos. From whom and from his spouse some say that six projections came into being, [viz.] Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoë, Anthropos and Ecclesia, and that this is the first Ogdoad which brings forth.[27] And, again, [they say] that the projections which were first born within the Limit[28] are called the things within the Pleroma; but those second, those p. 490. without the Pleroma; and those third, those without the Limit, the offspring of which last exists as the Hysterema.[29] But he says that there was born from that which was projected in the Hysterema, an Aeon, and that this is the Demiurge, for he does not wish him to be the First God, but speaks ill both of him and of what came into being by him. And [he says] that Christ came down from that which was within the Pleroma for the salvation of the Spirit that went astray, which dwells in our inner man, which they say will be saved for the sake of the indwelling one. But [Valentinus] will not have it that the flesh will be saved, calling it a “coat of skin” and a corrupter of mankind. I have described this in epitome, as one meets with much matter [concerning it] and differing opinions among them. This then is what Valentinus’ school thinks.[30]

6. Basilides.

14. But Basilides also says that there is a God-Who-Is-Not who, being non-existent [made] the created world out p. 491. of the things that are not. [He says] that a certain seed, like a grain of mustard-seed was cast down, which contained within itself the stem, the leaves, the branches [and] the fruit; or, like a peacock’s egg, contains within itself a varied multitude of colours, and they say that this is the seed of the cosmos, from which all things were produced. For [he says] the seed contained all things within itself, inasmuch as thus the things that were not were preordained to come into being by the God-Who-Is-Not. Then there was, they say, in that seed a Sonhood, tripartite and in all things of the same substance with the God-Who-Is-Not, being begotten from the things that were not. And of this tripartite Sonhood, one part was [itself] finely divided, another coarsely so, while the other part needed purification. But the finely-divided part, straightway and concurrently with the happening of the first casting-down of the seed by the God-Who-Is-Not, escaped and went on high and came into the presence of Him-Who-Is-Not. For every nature yearns for Him because of His superabundance of beauty, but each in a different way. But the more coarsely divided [part] abode in the Seed and being merely imitative could not go on high, for it was much inferior p. 492. to the finer part.[31] And it was given wings by the Holy Spirit, for the Sonhood putting them on, both gives and receives benefit.[32] But the third Sonhood has need of purification. It remains in the heap of the Panspermia and it gives and receives benefit. And [he says] that there is something called [the] Cosmos and something hypercosmic for (the things that are) are divided by him into these two primary divisions. And what is between them, he calls [the] Boundary Holy Spirit, having the fragrance of the Sonhood.

From the Panspermia of the heap of the cosmic seed, there escaped and was brought forth the Great Ruler, the chief of the Cosmos, [33] And [Basilides] says that on Jesus who was born of Mary the power of [the] Gospel came, which descended and illumined the Son of the Ogdoad and the Son of the Hebdomad for the illumination and separation and purification of the Sonhood left behind that he might benefit and receive benefits from the souls. And they say that themselves are sons [of God], who for this purpose are in the world, [viz.] that they may purify the souls by their teaching and go on high together with the [third] Sonhood to the presence of the Father above, from whom the first Sonhood proceeded.[34] And they declare that the cosmos shall endure until all the souls together with the Sonhood shall withdraw [from it]. And Basilides is not ashamed to narrate these portents.[35]

p. 494.

7. Justinus.[36]

15. Justinus also daring to [advance] things like these, says thus: “There are three unbegotten principles of the universals, two male [and] one female.” Of the male, one is a certain principle called the Good, and is alone thus called, having foreknowledge of the universals. But the other [male] is the Father of all begotten ones, and has no foreknowledge and is unknown and unseen and is called, they say, Elohim. [But] the female is without foreknowledge, inclined to passion, double-minded, double-bodied, as in the stories about her[37] which we have above related in detail, the upper parts of her down to the groin being a virgin and those [below] a viper. The same is called Edem and Israel. And he declares that these are the principles of the universals wherefrom all things came into being. And [he says] that Elohim came without foreknowledge to desire for the composite virgin, and, companying with her, begat p. 495. twelve angels. The names of these are....[38] And of these the paternal ones take sides with the (father); but the maternal ones with the mother. The same are (the trees of Paradise)[39] whereof Moses, speaking allegorically, wrote in the Law. And all things were made by Elohim and Edem; and the animals together with the rest of [creation] come from the beast-like parts, but man from those above the groin. And Edem deposited in [man] the soul which is her power (but Elohim the spirit). But he declares that Elohim having learned [of the light above him] ascended to the presence of the Good One and left Edem behind. Whereat she being angered makes every plot against the spirit of Elohim which is deposited in man. And for his sake, the Father sent Baruch and commanded the Prophets (to speak) so that he might set free the spirit of Elohim and draw all men away from Edem. But he p. 496. declares that Heracles became a prophet and that he was worsted by Omphale, that is by Babel, whom they name Aphrodite. And at last in the days of Herod Jesus became the son of Mary and Joseph, to Whom he declares Baruch to have spoken. And that Edem plotted against Him, but could not beguile Him, and therefore made Him to be crucified. Whose spirit [Justinus] says went on high to the Good One. And thus (the spirits) of all who believe these silly and feeble stories will be saved; but the body and soul belonging to Edem, whom the foolish Justinus calls the Earth,[40] will be left behind.[41]

8. The Docetae.

16. But the Docetae say things like this: That the first God is as the seed of the fig-tree from whom have come three Aeons, like the stem and the leaves and p. 497. the fruit. And that these have projected thirty Aeons, each of them (ten). But all are linked together in tens and only differ in arrangement by some being before others.[42] And they projected infinitely boundless Aeons and are all masculo-feminine. And having taken counsel they all came together into one and from this intermediate Aeon was begotten from the Virgin Mary the Saviour of all, like in all things to the seed of the fig-tree, but inferior to it in that He was begotten. For the seed whence the fig-tree [comes] is unbegotten.[43] This then was the great light of the Aeons, complete, receiving no setting in order,[44] containing within itself the forms of all the animals. And [they say] that this [light] shining into the underlying chaos provided a cause to the things which have been and are, and descending from on high impressed [on the] chaos below the forms of the Aeonic exemplars.[45] For the third Aeon which had tripled itself, seeing that all his types were drawn down into the darkness below and not being ignorant of the terrible nature of the darkness and the simplicity of the light, created heaven and having fixed it between, divided in twain the darkness and the light.[46] Then all the forms of the third Aeon having been overcome, p. 498. they say, by the darkness, his likeness[47] subsisted as a living fire coming into being by the light. From which, they say, the Great Ruler came to be, of whom Moses talks when he says that this God is a fiery God and a Demiurge who ever transfers the forms[48] of all (Aeons) into bodies. But they declare that it is these souls for whose sake the Saviour came,[49] and showed the way whereby those that had been overcome may escape. And [they say] that Jesus did on that unique power, wherefore He could not be gazed upon by any by reason of the overpowering greatness of His glory. And they say that all things happened to Him as is written in the Gospels.[50]

9. Monoimus.

17. But the followers of Monoimus the Arab say that p. 499. the principle of the All is a First Man[51] and Son of Man, and that the things which have come to pass as Moses says, came into being not by the First Man but by the Son of Man, and not from the whole, but from part of him. And that the Son of Man is Iota, which is the Decad, a dominant number wherein is the substance of all number, whereby every number subsists, and is the birth of the All [viz.] Fire, Air, Water [and] Earth. But this being so, Iota is one and one tittle, a perfect thing from the Perfect, a tittle flowing from on high, having within itself whatever also has the Man the Father of the Son of Man. Therefore [Monoimus] says that the world of Moses came into being in six days, that is, in six powers, from which the cosmos came forth from the one tittle. For cubes and octahedrons and pyramids and all the equal-sided figures like these, whence are made up Fire, Air, Water [and] Earth, have came into being from the numbers left behind in that simple tittle of the Iota which is the Son of Man. When therefore, he says, Moses speaks of a rod turning p. 500. towards Egypt he is attributing allegorically the woes[52] of the world to the Iota, nor does he figure more than the ten woes. But if, he says, you wish to understand the All, enquire within thyself who it is who says, “My soul, my flesh, my mind,”[53] and who within thee makes each thing his own as another does to him. Understand that this is a perfect thing from the Perfect who considers all the so-called non-existent and all the existent as peculiar to himself.[54] This then is what Monoimus thinks.

10. Tatian.

18. But Tatian, like Valentinus and the others, says that there are certain unseen Aeons, by one of whom below the cosmos and the things that are, were fashioned. And he practises a very cynical mode of life, and hardly differs from Marcion in his blasphemies and his rules about marriage.[55]

p. 501.

11. Marcion.[56]

19. Marcion the Pontian, and Cerdo his teacher, also determined that there are three principles of the All, a Good One, a Just One, and Matter. But certain disciples of theirs add to this, saying that there are a Good One, a Just One, a Wicked One, and Matter. But all [agree] that the Good One created nothing wholly;[57] but they say that the Just One, whom some name the Wicked One, but others merely the Just, made all things out of the underlying Matter. For he made them not well but absurdly.[58] For things must need be like their creator. Wherefore they make use of the parable in the Gospels, saying, “A good tree cannot make evil fruits,”[59] and so on, declaring that in this it is said that things were devised wickedly by [the Just One]. And he says that Christ is the son of the Good One and was sent for the salvation of souls. Whom he calls [the] inner man, saying that He appeared as a man, p. 502. but was not man, and as incarnate, but was not incarnate, and was manifested in appearance [only], but underwent neither birth nor suffering, but seemed [to do so]. And [Marcion] does not wish that [the] flesh shall rise again. And, saying that marriage is destruction, he leads his disciples to a very Cynical life, thinking thereby to vex the Demiurge by abstaining from the things brought into being or laid down by him.[60]

12. Apelles.

20. But Apelles, the disciple of [Marcion] displeased with what was said by his teacher, as we have before said, proposed by another theory that there are four Gods, declaring that one is (good) whom the Prophets knew not, but of whom Christ is the Son. And that another is the Demiurge of the All, whom he does not wish to be a god, and another a fiery one who is manifest, and yet another a wicked one: [all of] whom he calls angels. And adding Christ to these, he says that He is the fifth. But he gives heed to a book which he calls Manifestations of a certain Philumene whom he thinks a prophetess. And he says p. 503. that Christ did not receive the flesh from the Virgin, but from the adjacent substance of the cosmos. Thus he has written treatises[61] against the Law and the Prophets attempting to discredit them as false speakers and ignorant of God. And he says, like Marcion, that [all] flesh will be destroyed.[62]

13. Cerinthus.

21. But Cerinthus, who had been trained in Egypt, would have it that the cosmos did not come into being by the First God, but by a certain angelic power far removed and standing apart from the Authority [set] over the universals and ignorant of the God over all things. And he says that Jesus was not begotten from a Virgin, but was the son of Joseph and Mary in the same way as the rest of mankind, and that He excelled all other men in righteousness, moderation and intelligence. And that at the Baptism, there descended upon Him from the Authority over the universals, the Christ in the form of a dove, and that He then preached the unknown God and perfected his powers;[63] p. 504. but that at the end of the passion the Christ fell away from Jesus. And Jesus suffered, but the Christ remained passionless, being a spirit of [the] Lord.[64]

14. Ebionæi.

22. But the Ebionæi say that the cosmos came into being from the true God; but speak of the Christ as does Cerinthus. And they live in all things according to the Law of Moses, thus declaring themselves justified.[65]

15. Theodotus.

23. Theodotus the Byzantian brought in another heresy such as this, declaring that the universals came into being by the true God. But he says, like the Gnostics before described, that the Christ appeared in some such fashion [as this]. He said that the Christ was a man akin to all, but He differed [from others] in that He by the will of God was born from a Virgin who had been overshadowed by the p. 505. Holy Spirit. And that he was not incarnate in the Virgin, but at length at the Baptism the Christ descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, whence they say He did not before then exercise powers. But he will not have the Christ to be God. And so Theodotus.[66]

16. Other Theodotians.

24. And others of them say all things like those aforesaid, altering one single thing only in that they accept Melchizedek as some very great power, declaring him to exist above every power. After whose likeness they will have the Christ to be.[67]

17. Phrygians.

25. But the Phrygians take the beginnings of their heresy from one Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla, thinking the wenches prophetesses and Montanus a prophet. But p. 506. they are considered to speak rightly in what they say about the beginning and the fashioning of the All, and they receive not otherwise the things about the Christ. But they stumble with those aforesaid to whose words they erringly give heed rather than to the Gospels, and they prescribe new and unusual fasts.

26. But others of them approaching the heresy of the Noetians think in like manner concerning the wenches and Montanus, but blaspheme the Father of the universals saying that He is at once Son and Father, seen and unseen, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These take their starting-points from one Noetus.[68]

18. Noetus.

27. And in the same way Noetus, being a Smyrnæan by birth, a garrulous and versatile man, brought in this heresy, which from one Epigonus reached Cleomenes and has so remained with his successors until now. It says that the p. 507. Father and God of the universals is one and that He made all things, and became invisible to the things which are when He willed, and then appeared when he wished. And that He is invisible when He is not seen; but visible when He is seen; and unbegotten when He is not begotten, but begotten when He is begotten from a Virgin; and passionless and immortal when He does not suffer and die, but that when [the] Passion comes, He suffers and dies. They think this Father is Himself called Son according to times and circumstances.[69] The heresy of these persons Callistus confirmed, whose life we have faithfully set forth. Who himself gave birth to a heresy, taking starting-points from them, while himself confessing that this Fashioner the All is the Father and God; but that He is spoken of by name and named Son, while in substance He is (one Spirit). For God, he says is a Spirit not other than the Logos nor the Logos than God, and therefore this Person is divided in name indeed, but not in substance. And he names this one God, and says that He was incarnated. And he wishes the Son to be He who was seen and overcome according to p. 508. the flesh, but the Father to be He who dwelt within [Him]. He sometimes branches off to the heresy of Noetus and sometimes to that of Theodotus, but holds nothing steadfastly. This now Callistus.

19. Hermogenes.

28. But one Hermogenes having also wished to say something [new] said that God made all things out of co-existent and underlying matter. For that it is impossible to hold that God created existing things from those which are not.[70]

20. Elchasaitae.

29. But certain others, as if bringing in something new [and] collecting things from all heresies, prepared a foreign book bearing the name of one Elchasai. These in the same way [as their predecessors] confess that the principles of the All came into being by God, but do not confess Christ to be one. But they say that there is one on high p. 509. who is often transferred[71] into [many] bodies, and that he is now in Jesus. Likewise that at one time, this one was born from God, and at another became [the] Spirit, and sometimes was born from a Virgin and sometimes not. And that thereafter he is ever transferred into [many] bodies, and is manifested in many according to [the] times. And they use incantations and baptisms for their confession of the elements.[72] And they are excited about astrology and mathematics and (give heed) to magic (acts). And they say they foreknow the future.[73]

21. [Title lacking].[74]

30. (Abraham being commanded) by God, migrates from Mesopotamia and the city of Harran to the part now called Palestine and Judæa but then Canaanitis, concerning which we have in part but not without care handed down the p. 510. account in other discourses.[75] Through this occurred the beginning of [the] increase [of population] in Judæa, which got the name from Judah the fourth son of Jacob, of whom it was also called the kingdom, through the royal race being from him. (Abraham)[76] migrates from Mesopotamia (being 75 years old) and being in his hundredth year (begat Isaac). (And Isaac being) 60 years old begat Jacob. And Jacob [when] 87 years old begat Levi. But Levi when 40 years old begat Kohath.[77] And Kohath [was 4] years old when he went down with Jacob into Egypt. Therefore the whole time which Abraham and all his race by Isaac dwelt in the land then called [the] Canaanitis was 215 years.[78] And his (father) was Terah. This, one’s [father] was Nahor, his Serug (his Zeu, his Peleg, his Eber) whence (the Jews) are p. 511. called Hebrews. There were 72 (sons of Abraham from whom also were 72) nations, whose names also we have set forth in other books.[79] Nor did we omit this in its place as we wished to show to the learned[80] our affection concerning the Divine and the accurate knowledge concerning the Truth which we have painfully acquired. But the father of this Eber was Shelah, and his Canaan, and his Arphaxad, who was born to Shem; and his father was Noah in whose time the flood over the whole world came to pass, which neither Egyptians, nor Chaldæans, nor Greeks record. For to them the floods in the time of Ogyges and Deacalion were [only] in places. Now in their time[81] were 5 generations, or 435 years.[82] This [Noah] being a most pious man and one who loved God, alone with [his] wife and children and their three wives escaped the coming flood, being saved in an ark, the measurements and remains of which, as we have set forth[83] [elsewhere], are shown to this day in the p. 512. mountains called Ararat which are near the land of the Adiabeni. It is then to be observed by those who wish to give a painstaking account how plainly it is shown that the God fearing race are older than all Chaldæans, Egyptians, [or] Greeks. But what need is there to name here those before Noah who both feared and spake with God, when to what has gone before the witness of antiquity is sufficient?

31. But since it seems not unreasonable to show that those nations who occupy themselves with philosophy[84] are later in date than they who feared God, it is right to say both where their race came from, and that when they migrated to these countries, they did not take a name from them, but themselves gained [one] from those who first ruled[85] and dwelt [there]. The three sons of Noah were Shem, Ham and Japhet. From them the whole race of men multiplied and dwelt in every country. For the word of God[86] was confirmed by them which said, “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.”[87] So mighty was this one saying, that 72 children were begotten by the 3 sons, family p. 513. by family, of whom 25 were Shem’s, 15 Japhet’s, and 32 Ham’s. And the sons of Ham were, as has been said 32:—his were Canaan, from whom the Canaanites, Misraim, from whom the Egyptians, Cush, from whom the Ethiopians, Phut, from whom the Libyans. These in their own speech unto this day are called by the common name of their ancestors and even in the Greek are named by the names by which they have just been called. But if it were shown that there were formerly none to inhabit their countries, nor a beginning of [any] race[88] of men, yet there are still these sons of Noah, a God-fearing man who was himself a disciple of God-fearing men, thanks to which he escaped the great although temporary threat of [the] waters. How then can it be denied that there were God-fearing men earlier than all Chaldæans, Egyptians [and] Greeks,[89] the father of which [last] was born to that Japhet [and had the] name Jovan, whence [the] Greeks and Ionians? And if the nations who occupy themselves with matters of philosophy are shown to be altogether of much later date than the God-fearing race and the Flood, will not the Barbarian p. 514. and whatever races in the world are known and unknown, appear later than these? Wherefore now, do ye Greeks, Egyptians and Chaldæans and every race of men master this argument and learn what is the Divine and what His well-ordered creation from us, the friends of God, who have not been trained in dainty phrase, but in the knowledge of Truth and the practice of moderation find words for His demonstration.[90]

32. One God is the First and Only One and Creator and Ruler of all. He has no coæval, neither boundless chaos, nor immeasureable water, nor solid earth, nor compact air, nor hot fire, nor subtle spirit, nor the blue canopy of great heaven.[91] But He was One, alone with Himself, who when He willed created the things which are, which at first were not, save that He willed to create them as knowing of what they would be. For foreknowledge also is present with Him. He fashioned first the different principles of things to come—fire and spirit,[92] water and earth,—from which different [principles] He made His creation. And some p. 515. things He [made of] one substance and some he bound together out of two, others of three and yet others of four. And those that are of one were immortal, for dissolution does not dog them, for that which is one will never be dissolved. But those [made] from two or three or four [substances] are dissoluble, wherefore they are called mortal. For death is called this, the dissolution of what is bound together. We think we have now answered sufficiently those who have sound perception, who, if for love of learning they will enquire further into these substances and the causes of the fashioning of all things, they will learn them by reading our book, treating of “the Substance of the All.”[93] And I think that it is here enough to set forth the causes from ignorance whereof the Greeks glorified with dainty phrase the parts of the creation, but ignored the Creator. Starting wherefrom the heresiarchs, transfiguring into like expressions what was formerly said by [the Greeks] have composed laughable heresies.

33. This God, then, One and Over All having first conceived p. 516. in His mind begat [the] Word, not a word in the sense of a voice, but the indwelling Reason[94] of the All. He begot Him alone from the things which are. For the Father Himself was what is, from Whom was the Word, the cause of the begetting of things coming into being, bearing within Himself the will of His begetter, not ignorant of the thought of the Father. For from the time[95] of His coming forth from Him who begat Him, becoming His first-born voice, He holds within Himself the ideas conceived in His Father’s mind. Whence, on the Father ordering the world to come into being, the Word completed it in detail,[96] [thus] pleasing God. And the things which multiply by generation, He formed male and female; but all those for service and ministry he made either males who have no need of females or neither male nor female. For when the first substances p. 517. of these came into being [namely] Fire and Spirit, Earth and Water, from the things that were not, neither male nor female things existed. Nor could male and female have come forth from each of these, unless the God who gave the command had willed that the Word should do this service.[97] I confess that angels are [formed] of fire and I say that no females are present with them. But I consider that Sun and Moon and stars were in like manner [formed] of fire and spirit and are neither male nor female. But I say that swimming animals were [formed] of water and that winged ones are male and female.[98] For thus God willed and commanded that the watery substance should be fruitful. In like manner, serpents and wild beasts and all sorts of animals were [formed] from earth and are male and female; for this the nature of begotten things allowed. For whatever things He willed, those God created. These He fashioned by the Word, for they could not have come into being otherwise than they did. But when as He had willed He also created, He called and designated them by name. Thereafter He fashioned the ruler of them all, and equipped him from all substances brought together. Nor did He wish to make a God and fail, nor an angel—be not deceived—but p. 518. a man. For had God willed to make thee a God, He could: thou hast the example of the Word. But He willed a man and created thee a man. But if thou dost wish also to become a God, hearken to the Creator and withstand Him not now, so that being found faithful over a little, thou mayest be entrusted with much.[99]

Only the Word of this [God] is from Him. Wherefore He also is God, being the substance of God. But the world is from nothing. Wherefore it is not God and it will be dissolved[100] when the Creator wills. But God who created makes nothing evil; but he creates it fair and good. For He who creates is good. But man when he came into being was an animal with free-will,[101] not having a ruling mind, nor dominating all things by reflection and authority and power, but a slave[102] and full of all contrary [desires].[103] Who, in that he is free to choose produces evil, which when it is completed by accident is nothing unless thou dost make [it].[104] For it is by the thinking and willing something p. 519. evil, that it is named evil; which was not from the beginning, but came into being later. [And] as man was free to choose, a Law was laid down by God, not vainly. For if man were not free to will or not to will, what need of a Law?[105] For the Law is not decreed for a dumb beast, but a bridle and a whip; but to man was appointed a commandment and a penalty in respect of what he was to do and not to do. And [the] Law as to this was laid down of old through righteous men. Nearer to our own times, a Law full of majesty and justice was laid down through the Moses aforesaid, a steadfast man and one who loved God.

All these things, the Word of God directs, the First-born Son of [the] Father, the light-bringing voice before dawn.[106] Thereafter there came into being righteous men who loved God. These were called prophets from their showing beforehand the things to come.[107] To whom word came not at one season [only], but through all generations the utterances of things foretold was most clearly brought forward.[108] p. 520. Nor did they merely give an answer to those present there at the time, but through several generations also the things to come were foreshadowed. [And this] because speaking of things past they recalled them to mankind; but by showing what was then happening they put away carelessness, and by foretelling the future have made every one of us fearful by the sight of the fulfilment of prophecies and the expectation of the future. Such is our faith, O all ye men who are not persuaded by vain speeches, nor captured by sudden movings of the heart, nor enchanted by plausible and eloquent words, but have not been obdurate to words uttered by Divine power. And these things God commanded [the] Word; and the Word speaking through [the prophets], uttered them for the turning of man from disobedience and emancipating him from the force of Fate, but calling him to liberty by his free choice.[109]

The Father in the last days sent forth this Word, not speaking through a prophet, and not wishing that the Word when proclaimed should be darkly guessed at, but that He should be manifested to the very eyes of all. He, I say, p. 521. (sent Him forth) that the world when it beheld Him should be put to shame. For He did not give commandment through the person of prophets, nor affright [the] soul by an angel, but was Himself present and spake. Him we know to have taken body from a Virgin and to have moulded[110] the old man through a new formation. [We know] that He passed in life through every age,[111] so that He might become a law for every age, and that His presence might show forth His manhood as an example[112] to all men; and that through Him it might be proved that God makes nothing evil, and that man as master of himself can will or not will [evil], being capable of both. We know, too, that this man came into being out of the same material[113] as ourselves; for were He not of the same [matter] it would be vain to order that the Teacher be imitated. For had that Man chanced to be of another substance [than ours] why should he order me who am weak by nature to do things like Himself? And [in that case] how is He good and just? But in order that He might not be thought different from us, He underwent toil, and was willing to hunger, and denied not thirst,[114] and was stilled in sleep, and renounced not suffering, and p. 522. submitted to death, and manifested resurrection, sacrificing in all this His own manhood, so that thou when suffering may not be faint-hearted, but mayst confess thyself a man and expect also what the Father promised Him.

34. Such is the true word about the Divine.[115] O all ye men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldæans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts and ye army-leading Latins,[116] and all ye dwellers in Europe, Asia and Libya.[117] To you I am become a counsellor, being a disciple of the Word who loves man and myself a lover of mankind, so that you may hasten to be taught by us who is the real God and what His well-ordered creation. And that you give not heed to the sophistries of artificial discourses,[118] nor to the crazy promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the august simplicity of unboastful truth. Through the knowledge of which, you shall escape the coming menace of the judgment of fire, and the unlighted vision of gloomy Tartarus unillumined by the voice of the Word, and p. 523. the boiling of the Lake of the eternal Gehenna of flame, and the ever-threatening eye of the angels punished in Tartarus,[119] and the worm which through the filth of the body turns towards the body which threw it forth as for food. And these things thou shalt escape when thou hast been taught the God Who Is. And thou shalt have an immortal body together with an incorruptible soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of the heavens, who whilst on earth didst also recognize the heavenly King. But thou shall speak with God and be joint heir with Christ, not enslaved by desires nor sufferings nor diseases.[120] For thou [wilt] have become God. For whatever sufferings thou underwent as man, thou hast shown that thou art a man; but whatever is appurtenant to a God, that God has promised to bestow, because thou hast been made divine, since thou hast been begotten immortal. This is the [true] “Know Thyself,” the knowledge of the Creator God. For to him who knows himself has occurred the being known to Him by whom p. 524. he is called. Wherefore now, O men, be not your own enemies, nor hesitate to turn again. For Christ is the God over all, Who has arranged to wash away iniquity from among men, and to make anew the old man who from the beginning was called His image, thus showing forth His love towards thee. Having hearkened to Whose august precepts, and having become a good imitator of the Good One, thou wilt be like unto and be honoured by Him. For God asks no alms,[121] and has made thee God for His own glory.