Treasury of Orthodox Faith

frontistērion. Joan. Cantac. I, 22: *eis hen tōn frontistēriōn*. See Suidas, and above under *monastērion*.

**X**

*Chamaizikion*: a type of musical instrument. Meursius. *Chamykladēs*: a type of bird. Meursius. *Chantakia*: ditches. Code GB *chantakia*. *Chartularion*: In purer Greek *chartularion*, a chartulary, archives, or record office. *Chartularios*: a chartulary. See our Glossary Nominicum on that term. *Cherniboxyston* [583]. *Choiromandrion*: a sty, pigpen, stye. *Chrysinos*: a *solidus*, a gold coin. Theodoret, *Hist. Eccl.* II, cap. 13: "He sent five hundred *chrysinous* to him." Epiphan. Schol. translates it thus: *Quingentos solidos destinavit* (He destined five hundred solidi). Trip. v, cap. 17. Josephus, bishop of Methone, in his response to the letter of Marius, Metropolitan of Ephesus: "Having informed the Florentines that he owed forty thousand gold pieces, he sent them his mitre as a pledge." Nicephorus Callistus, XI, 48: "Having ordered that eighty gold pieces be demanded." *Chrysoboullon*: Golden bull. Pap. 34 c. A document with a red seal. Code GB, *chrysoboullon*. For the Emperor used to subscribe to it in cinnabar. Anna Comnena, *Alexiad*, lib. VIII: "Having received from the Emperor a *chrysoboullon* document sealed with cinnabar, as is the custom, by the royal right hand." Constant. *De admin. imp.* *chrysoboullion* without. Niceph. Call. lib. XIV, cap. 43. See the Glossary to Cedrenus.

NICETAE CHONIATAE, MAGNI LOGOTHETAE SECRETORUM, INSPECTORIS ET JUDICIS VELI, PRAEFECTI SACRI CUBICULI, THESAURUS ORTHODOXAE FIDEI. AD CLARISSIMUM VIRUM D. JOANNEM A S. ANDREA, CARCASSONENSIS ECCLESIAE DECANUM, P. MORELLII LETTER.

I have at last prevailed, most distinguished sir, in that which I had long desired with every prayer, and I have brought to a conclusion that monody of Michael Choniates, prelate of Athens, with which he honors the funeral rites of his brother Nicetas. That work certainly, to speak the truth, held me in suspense for a long time, on account of those almost continuous difficulties, and it has hitherto delayed the course in which I was proceeding quite successfully with Nicetas’ *Thesaurus*, although in that work too I found a number of books, especially the earlier and later ones, teeming with no fewer difficulties. This cause moved me to transcribe them at the earliest opportunity, and to gift them with the Latin tongue, lest, if I were to delay any longer, they should be devoured by moths *anexetōs* (inscrutably). It seemed best to send them to you, most distinguished sir, as the first fruits of the work which, at your instigation, I undertook in the year of Christ 1560; and if these should find favor, I shall strive to have the rest follow one by one, and to complete the proper number of books of the *Thesaurus*, namely twenty-seven; and thus that Nicetas, whom you may easily recognize—as one recognizes a lion from its claws—even from the Annals which were not long ago published by Oporinus, may at last, under your patronage and at your expense, be rescued from darkness. For which benefit, a grateful posterity will bear you immortal thanks when it learns that the most ancient exemplar of the *Thesaurus Orthodoxiæ* of the blessed Nicetas Choniates (as being that which was written by Nicetas himself) passed on after the author’s death to Michael Choniates, prelate of Athens, by right of inheritance, and upon his death came into the hands of Theodore Soutariotes, the deacon of Cyzicus; and when Cyzicus was devastated by the Turks, it was deported to those most crowded *kalogeron agioreiton* monasteries which are on Mount Athos; and thence it was at last brought to Paris, and having been put up for sale by a certain Greek, it found no or very few buyers (on account of its deformity, to be sure, like that fabulist Aesop of old), except for one John a Sancto Andrea, from whose library good authors, especially Greek ones today, can no more depart—so it is said—than good soldiers from the Trojan Horse, or orators from the school of Isocrates. Certainly you, having suspected the same thing regarding that most ancient exemplar that Xanthus of old did regarding Aesop, paid the price to the Greek, and took care that the exemplar entrusted to me should be unfolded, and at last the *epigraphe* (title) was discovered, not holding a bad thing, as the proverb goes, but the *Thesaurus* of the Orthodox faith, in those pages so covered in filth and neglect.

^A It shows that they have lain hidden as if they could not be read except after many vigils. Soon the index or table of contents also reveals itself, by which the chief heads of the books of the *Thesaurus* are noted; it was both composed and written by Nicetas himself, just as were all the books of this work, with the exception of the last two, which were written by Theodore Scutariota, who also seems to have written a monody for Michael. I gather that the autograph of Theodore belongs at the end of the 25th book of the index. As for various other small works—such as those of Alexius, Michael, and Joseph, patriarchs of Constantinople; Eustathius and Germanus, prelates of Nicaea; Eustathius of Rome; *On two brothers marrying two sisters*; the *Chrysobull*, or Golden Bull, of Emperor Alexius Comnenus; the letter of a certain priest to Elias of Crete *On the Oblation*, etc. (to which the exemplar is like a certain treasure house of perfumes)—I cannot by any conjecture at all discern who might have transcribed them. I am of the same opinion regarding a certain philosophical work *On the infusion of souls* and the ecclesiastical commentary on the heresy of the Armenians, and indeed of that appendix which adheres to the second book; although it pertains to the 25th, as is clear from the few words added by Scutariota to the index of Nicetas, where he affirms that he attached that appendix, which was previously missing, somewhere at the end of the 25th book.

Now, to add a few things briefly about his life, which I have been able to gather both from the monody of Michael and from the *Thesaurus* itself: Colossae, that Asiatic city which the Epistle of the Blessed Paul ennobled, seems to have brought forth this pair of Choniates brothers, Michael and Nicetas, as I gather from chapter 22 of the fourth book, where, intending to cite the passage of Paul from the Epistle to the Colossians in the antithesis of the 14th heresy, he writes thus: "As Paul theologizes in the epistle to my fellow citizens, the Colossians." To say nothing of the fact that Choniates seems to signify the Colossian, for the city which was once Colossae was later, with the change of name, called Chonae, as I read in a certain manuscript lexicon which D. Vascosanus, a printer who deserved very well of letters and literary studies, possesses among many other oldest exemplars, copied by the hands of one of the students of Michael Psellus. In it, it is stated word for word: "Kolossai, a city of Phrygia, now called Chonae, whence also come the Kolossaeans."

Michael Choniates, the elder by birth, was brought from his father in Asia to Byzantium, where, when after his first literary rudiments he had so cultivated his mind with higher disciplines that he was already counted among the professors, he received his younger brother Nicetas, who was then nine years old and also brought by his father, to be instructed in letters and morals. This he achieved with such care, study, and labor that Nicetas, having been moderately taught all the arts which are in the discipline, in the course of time ascended to such a pinnacle of dignity that neither did Michael repent of his brother and disciple, nor did the father repent of Nicetas as a citizen. But at length, when the Athenians had chosen Michael as their pontiff, Nicetas was enrolled in the number of the imperial scribes, Manuel Comnenus being emperor at that time.

But, alas! events occurred in those times which seemed to stand much in the way of the virtue of these men from emerging—times in which the Constantinopolitan empire had begun to lean toward collapse due to the more than tragic crimes of its princes, especially through the tyranny of Andronicus Comnenus, who had secretly killed his grandson Alexius, then in his 13th year, and seized the empire. Fleeing this tyranny, Nicetas withdrew to the study of civil law, in which he progressed to such a degree that four years later, when Isaacius Angelus had exposed the patricidal Andronicus—once he was cast down in battle—to the mockery of the people, and had ordered him, placed upon a mangy camel and led about ignominiously, to be killed, he returned to Constantinople as if by a return from exile. Shortly thereafter, he was raised to higher ranks of honors, in which he served through a continuous series of emperors, right up to the times when the Constantinopolitan empire fell into the hands of the Latins and Venetians.

For it is established (if I may recount the history in a continuous series of events) that Isaacius Angelus, a most just prince, was deprived of his sight by Alexius the younger, his brother (blinding him for a supreme crime, having redeemed him from the hands of the Turks for a great sum of money), and was held in prisons until Alexius, son of Isaacius, implored the aid of Baldwin of Flanders, prince of the Gauls and Venetians, having pledged 3000 marks of gold and a supply of provisions if he were to recover the empire, either alone or with his father Isaacius, then held in prison.

The French princes, moved by such a remarkable event, then attacked Byzantium, having broken the chain which extends from the city to Pera, and, with the fratricide Alexius fleeing, they liberated Isaacius and declared Alexius emperor after the sudden death of his father (for, covered with the filth of the prison, he could not bear the pure and free air). A short time later, a certain Mursuphlus (or, as others say, Myrtilus), a man of low birth, killed this innocent man by fraud. After this tyrant had tried in vain to oppose his enemies, finally, with the city of Constantinople lost, he fled secretly at midnight with his wife, his concubines, and his treasury, and shortly thereafter, having been captured in the Peloponnese and dragged back to the city, he was put to death. Thus, the city in the year of Christ 1202 conceded by that law to the Franks and Venetians, that the Gauls would provide a Gallic Caesar, and the Venetians a Venetian patriarch. The former provided Baldwin of Flanders, and the latter Thomas Morosini, in accordance with the pact. The remnants of the Greeks, out of hatred for the Latin name, withdrew to Adrianople, and there The-

Lascaris, the son-in-law of Alexius, who had received that city by way of a dowry, was elected emperor, at a time when the Gauls were attempting to take it; Baldwin was captured, and died after one year of empire.

And this is that disaster, which Michael Choniates so often laments in his monody as having been suffered by Greece at the hands of the Latins, at the time when Athens too had been stormed and the temple of the blessed Mary desecrated, and he himself was chosen for the island of Cos, for the monastery of the Forerunner. Nicetas, having previously had Constantinople stormed by the Latins, snatched that virgin of the house of Belissariotides from the hands of the enemy—whom he later took as his wife (for which deed Michael prefers him to Abraham, Isaac, David, Levi, and Simeon, and indeed, in an overly hyperbolic manner, makes him equal to Christ himself)—had betaken himself to Nicaea, the metropolis of Bithynia, where he spent the remainder of his life in literary leisure. To the diligence and labor with which he accomplished this, his divine nightly studies bear witness, and shall eternally bear witness, which he gathered into this truly golden work, and brought forth with such art from the very foundations of Adam down to his own times, that he has essentially consecrated a kind of summary for posterity, regarding the heresies which flared up among Jews and Greek philosophers before the birth of Christ, and after the birth of Christ among those who were diametrically opposed to the dogmas of Christ, yet contended that they were Christians, no differently than those ancient Socratic [schools] were held to be. By consulting this, if any doubt should ever arise regarding divine matters, one can immediately see to which side one ought to lean. Many, I confess, have written on this subject before Nicetas, but none more successfully than Nicetas, if you remove the error concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit (which he defends tooth and nail against the Latins). For say, aside from the fact that he gathered the heresies of the Greeks from profane authors, those of the Jews from the Holy Scriptures, and those of the Christians from ecclesiastical writers—Dionysius the Areopagite, Athanasius, Eusebius, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Basil, Philostorgius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, the Gregories, Photius, Damascenus, Cyril, Euthymius, Eustathius, Nicolaus of Methone, Maximus, Amphilochius, Thomas Indicopleustes, Leo, etc.—as a bee gathers from various flowers into this most flourishing anthology, he also subjected them to antitheses, by which the leaden daggers of the heretics are blunted without any effort. It remains, most distinguished sir, that in returning from this digression to the path, I should again and again entreat and implore you to take these firstfruits of your Treasury, and my first experience in translating Greek, in good part; for by the proverb, *sungnome protoperi* [forgiveness for a beginner], I shall advance with greater alacrity to consecrate the remaining books of Nicetas to you, and through you, to all pious people.

Farewell, most illustrious sir. Paris, from the printing house of the most learned and most kind Mr. Michael Vascosanus, on the Ides of October, 1561.

MONITUM OF CARDINAL ANGELO MAI

The *Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith* of Nicetas Choniates, who flourished in the 12th and 13th centuries of Christ, composed by him in exile after Constantinople had been occupied by the Latins, was sufficiently known to philologists. For Montfaucon in his *Greek Palaeography*, and Fabricius in the old edition of *Bibliotheca Graeca* vol. VI, and likewise in the new vol. VII; as well as Bandinius in the *Catalogus Codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae Laurentianae* vol. I, and in the *Monumenta Ecclesiastica Graeca* vol. III; and furthermore Cave and others, have mentioned this learned and long-desired work of Nicetas. However, Montfaucon, who brought forth the arguments of the XXII books (that is, of the entire work), and Fabricius, who repeated them from him, have deserved better of it than the others; and much more so Peter Morell, by whom the first five books were published in Latin; and finally Bandinius, who in his *Monumenta* constructed an index of the authors and works that Nicetas uses in the *Thesaurus*.

Since matters stood thus, I indeed grieved that such a useful work was hardly begun, and only in Latin at that; and yet neither my own strength nor my time encouraged me to undertake such a burden and labor; although I saw, mirabile dictu, the very autograph of Morell, in Greek and Latin, having been brought to us from France long ago, of which he, as I said, published only a very small part; yet I chanced upon a much older copy of the same work on cotton paper, written shortly after the age of the author, but much more concise and in the manner of excerpts. Another codex of this kind is held by the Bodleian Library, according to Fabricius. I therefore decided to at least bring forth the more notable excerpts from the Vatican codices in Greek, taking my beginning from the end of the Morellian edition, namely from the sixth book, which, as we know from the summaries of Montfaucon, dealt especially with the heresy of Macedonius.

INDEX OF THE XIV BOOKS WHICH CONSTITUTE THE THESAURUS OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH BY NICETAS CHONIATES

^A Volume One. In the first book, the proemium. Then, concerning Adam and certain ancient men who invented the making of idols. Concerning the mysteries of the Greeks. Concerning Pythagoras and Plato, and other philosophers, and their opinions. Concerning the four elements. Concerning heaven and earth, the zodiacal circle, the fixed stars and the wandering stars. Concerning comets, the rainbow, frost, parhelia, earthquakes, winds, and whirlwinds. And thereafter, concerning Judaism. Concerning the golden calves of Jeroboam. Concerning the Samaritans. Concerning the Essenes and certain other heresiarchs; concerning the Sadducees, the Scribes, the Pharisees, the Hemerobaptists, and the Herodians.

Volume Two. In the second volume, concerning the Holy Trinity, passages from various [authorities]. Then, concerning angels. Concerning men. Various opinions concerning the intellect and the soul, and thereafter concerning the virtues.

Volume Three. Concerning the utterances of the prophets, declaring the coming of the Son of God in the flesh, the passion on the cross, and the resurrection. Concerning the conception and the two natures of Christ. Concerning the Enhypostata, concerning the Consubstantial, concerning the Homohypostata, concerning ^C the hypostatic union and the difference. Concerning the Persons. Concerning nature. Concerning corruption; concerning the corruptible and the incorruptible. Thereafter, passages from the saints concerning the economy in the flesh, or the incarnation. Concerning the manner of the interchange. Concerning the fact that the whole divine nature was united in one of its subsistences to the human nature, and not part to part, and other various matters following concerning the incarnation of the Son of God.

Volume Four. In this are contained all the ancient heresies which appeared up to the time of the heresy of Arius. The first described is the heresy of Simon, with its refutation. Second, that of the Nicolaitans. Third, the Carpocratians. Fourth, ^D that of Valentinus. Fifth, that of Ptolemy; sixth, that of Marcus. Seventh, the Ascodrugitae. Eighth, that of Colorbasus. Ninth, the Ophites; tenth, that of Prodicus. Eleventh, the Cainites. Twelfth, the Sethians. Thirteenth, the Archontics. Fourteenth, that of Cerdo and Marcion. Fifteenth, the Lucianists. Sixteenth, the Apelleans.

^A Seventeenth, the Severians. Eighteenth, the Tatianists. Nineteenth, the Encratites. Twentieth, the Montanists. Twenty-first, the Quintillians and Priscillianists, and Pepuzites, and Artotyrites. Twenty-second, the Tessarescaidecatites, or Quartodecimans. Twenty-third, the Alogi, as they are called. Twenty-fourth, the Adamiani. Twenty-fifth, the Sampsaeans and Elcesaeans. Twenty-sixth, the Theodotians. Twenty-seventh, the Noetians and Novatians. Twenty-eighth, the followers of Sabellius. Twenty-ninth, the followers of Marcellus. Thirtieth, the Valesians, or Valentians. Thirty-first, the Origenists, where there are some points concerning the soul, and an exposition of the saying: *Each one's work, of what sort it is, the fire shall test* (1 Cor. iii, 13). ^B Thirty-second, Paul of Samosata. Thirty-third, the Manichaeans and Cubricores. Thirty-fourth, the Hieracites. Thirty-fifth, the Collyridians. Thirty-sixth, the Massalians, or Euchites, in which there is also an enumeration of the impious dogmas of that same heresy. Thirty-seventh, the Corinthians. Thirty-eighth, the Icetici. Thirty-ninth, the Gnosimachi. Fortieth, the Thnetopsychitae. Forty-first, the Chrystolytes. Forty-second, the Ethnophronians, or those who side with the heathens. Forty-third, the Parermeneutae, or those who interpret the Scriptures mistakenly. Forty-fourth, the Meletians.

Volume Five

Volume Six

^A Holy Spirit. And next, a narrative of how the second synod was convened, and concerning the decrees ratified by it; and concerning the resignation of Saint Gregory the Theologian from the throne of Constantinople. And after these things, the testimonies of the holy Fathers, which were proclaimed concerning the equality of honor of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Word.

Volume Seven

Tomus Octavus

Volume Nine

Volume Ten

Volume Eleven

Tomus Duodecimus

^A Tomus Decimus Tertius. Against the Theopaschites. Tomus Decimus Quartus. Against the Agnoetae: where, after the passages from the holy Fathers, certain other things are added by us for the overturning of this heresy. Tomus Decimus Quintus. Concerning the Sixth Synod, which was gathered under the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, for the destruction of the heresy of the Monothelites. Tomus Decimus Sextus. Concerning the heresy of the Iconoclasts. Tomus Decimus Septimus. Concerning the heresy of the Armenians, which is joined to the Monophysites. In it there is our preface, and certain solutions to the objections of the Armenians. Then, a rescript of the Emperor, Lord Manuel, to the Catholicos of Armenia. A dialogue of Theorianus, a certain legate ^B of the same Emperor, sent into Armenia, with the same Catholicos. Afterward, however, there are passages from various Saints against the same heresy. Finally, certain syllogistic chapters collected by us against that very same heresy. Tomus Decimus Octavus. Against the Paulicians. Of Saint Basil and Saint Gregory of Nyssa, concerning Baptism. Of the same Gregory of Nyssa, concerning participation in the Lord’s body and blood. Tomus Decimus Nonus. Against the Bogomils. Tomus Vicesimus. Concerning the worship of the Agarenes, and of the ordinance ^C regarding the Saracens who are converted to our pure and immaculate faith. Tomus Vicesimus Primus. Concerning the Spirit, against the Latins: in which many passages are adduced. Tomus Vicesimus Secundus. Concerning the Unleavened Bread. Tomus Vicesimus Tertius. In which is a synopsis of the dogmas which were moved and arose under the Emperor Alexius Comnenus. Tomus Vicesimus Quartus. Concerning that dogma, "You are the one who offers and who is offered," ^D which was brought forward under the Emperor Manuel Comnenus.

Volume Twenty-Five. Regarding the dogma, *The Father is greater than I* 7, which arose under the same emperor. Seek the tractate in question immediately after the confirmation of such a dogma, which some said did not entirely please them; in which tractate the testimonies of almost all the Saints are brought forward. At the end, however, are certain syllogistic chapters, concerning the fact that one ought not call Christ, who is one hypostasis and one Lord and Son of God, even after the Incarnation, lesser than the Father, as though he were flesh-bearing. For we have not found these. (But I, when I had found these, added them after the beginning of the third volume of this present book.)

Volume Twenty-Six. Regarding the dogma of the God of Muhammad 8, which was set forth under the same emperor.

Volume Twenty-Seven. Regarding the dogma of the divine mysteries 9, which was stirred up under the reign of Alexius Comnenus Angelus, who also decreed that these should be called incorruptible, and not corruptible.

NICETAS CHONIATES THESAURUS OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH BOOK ONE Concerning the errors of the pagan philosophers and the Jews.

PROOEMIUM.

^CWhat, I ask, can be added to the perfection of God and the worshippers of God? For He, since He is the first and highest of all things to be desired, certainly has no need of any of the things that exist in the nature of things. Indeed, both from Him and through Him all things have received this very state of existing. But these, by the benefit of virtue, as far as it can be done humanly, approaching most closely to God, and having been made partakers of divinity, have replenished their own need from His abundance; nay, rather, God Himself, accommodating Himself to the prayers of men, if anything of those gifts which He has bestowed is offered to Him by them, finds it most pleasing, as a certain specimen of faith, and very delightful. He surely neither turns away the one offering, nor does He rarely command Himself to be appeased by prayers, so that in this way He may cast the evils of the day of affliction far away, and be celebrated hereafter with deserved praises. Moreover, those who approach most closely to God through virtue, neither having transgressed the limits of human nature, nor at all turning away from that Martha who is busy with things necessary for caring for the body, but being intent in addition upon things to be contemplated with Mary, both respond with kind address to those who supplicate them, and do not show themselves entirely implacable and inexorable to them, and they sincerely impart to those who ask for the things that seem necessary for the spiritual life: in turn, they themselves also most kindly receive whatever does not adulterate virtue, if it is suggested.

For this reason, therefore, man most dear to my soul, I have indeed provided to your piety nothing of those things by which the body is accustomed to be fed and sustained, from which you, with a loss common to me, to the nations…

beyond the setting sun, have been compelled to change your native soil. And this I certainly do not say because I myself am in need of any of the things that exist in the order of nature (for not even Elias, the first-fruits of those who are sober and fasting, provided this. For he says to the widow: "Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel, that I may drink; and as she was going to fetch it, he called after her, and said: Bring me also, I pray thee, a morsel of bread in thy hand. And she said: as the Lord thy God liveth, I have no bread, but only a handful of meal in a pot... Make me thereof a little hearth-cake first, and bring it to me, and for thyself and thy son 1*). Nay, indeed, not even my Lord and your Lord, Jesus, who while He sojourned on earth for a time had need of those things which are necessary for the nourishment of the body, but when He had fasted, afterwards hungered 2*, that He might give assurance of the humanity He had assumed); but because you prefer to be given a spiritual specimen rather than a bodily one, as you know well enough that, left to your own resources, I could scarcely have enough left over for myself, which might suffice to feed my companions and attendants, especially since I have moved into a foreign region and have pitched my tent in Nicaea, the metropolis of Bithynia, where I pass the remainder of my life as a useless exile and an outcast stranger. But as for that which you have often requested and demanded, this I very willingly present to you: namely, the carefully worked out and elaborated farrago of all the heresies. It is a gift, to be sure, which is not postponed after any of those things which men hold in high esteem, but is judged to be by far the most precious and excellent of all, since those who value piety and the knowledge thereof—which one ought to hold and consider as established regarding the worship of the Divine—are accustomed to prefer it to all other things: and this is true especially of those who cannot look through many books, much less attain to a knowledge of heresies, either because it is not possible for them to have the leisure for reading, or because they have learned by another art to ward off the snares of the investigator Satan. Therefore, that Hippocrates of Cos, in discussing the art which cares for human health, reasons thus quite appositely: If man were one and simple, he would certainly be affected by no pain or disease; and whoever is studious of piety, and bears with difficulty the manifold forms of heresies, would not absurdly reason in this way. Had we rested in that original condition, and had not held in contempt those things which were prescribed and commanded to us, we would have known one God, and would have depended upon His will in such a way that no one could have ever led us astray or distracted us from it—from Him, I say, who formed and fashioned us from clay, who by His word founded and built this body of the universe. But now, by the counsel of him who is the author of all manner of wickedness, we have been cast out from that loose and magnificent habitation of paradise, and have been removed far from the pleasing sight of God: finally, heaping worse evils upon the first, we have handed over the divine worship, glory, and adoration, which is peculiar to God alone, to elements, to brute beasts, and even to men, marked by the brand of none other than shame; and we have become prone to doing those things which are by no means fitting. Hence it happens that one and the same voice, one and the same lip, has departed into various and manifold languages: and by the same working, that unique worship of God has been multiplied and dissected into the diverse idioms of tongues, so that you will scarcely find anything in which greater varieties exist than in that which is instituted regarding God. For some have devised and taught some things, others things different from these, and still others things contrary to themselves, and in the end, others things discordant even from these. Wherefore, although most of the ancient theologians have written about heresies, yet they have not individually comprehended them all in one commentary, nor have they gone through them item by item. For Theodoret, a man most learned in divine matters, composed a catalogue of them, which others had also done before him, and they dissected them as if from a battle line, and threw them as the hay of the house-tops into the flames—as many as have sprung up in their own times—as aconite, one might say, by which all things that are sincere might be corrupted. Moreover, the book which is inscribed the Dogmatic Panoply (1), although it has summarized the ancient heresies in a very concise manner, and has taken its beginning from Sabellius the African and some others who preceded his times, yet it has omitted very many things in its sections that were certainly said by the Fathers for their overthrow: and it has not made any mention of whence the authors of the same had their origin, or what kind of life they led. I, however, gratifying your piety, and easily conjecturing what has been proposed and already determined by you regarding this matter, will collect into commentaries the heresies that have emerged long ago, intending to subjoin some of our own refutations, which are indeed clear and lucid. Then I shall also annex those mentioned by the Dogmatic Panoply, not meanwhile passing over those who have written about the heresies, so that not only may those blasphemous insults become known to you which the wise men of this age, with mouth stretched toward heaven, have vomited against God, but also whence they took their origin, and what kind of Sparta they have obtained. In which sequence I shall also set forth some things which seem very apposite to the proposed argument, so that you may enjoy the history of one single volume, and from it may extract a panacea, by which, as if by an amulet, you may preserve yourself sound and whole against pernicious dogmas.

Chapter I. Synopsis of Mosaic Genesis, from Adam to Moses.

Adam, the first of all, was formed by God from the earth, and being breathed upon by the vital spirit, he brought forth from one of his ribs an Eve like unto himself: then not...

1* III Reg. xvii, 13 2* Matth. IV, 1 (1) Euthymio monacho Zigabeno auctore.

nine hundred and thirty years later, after he was driven from paradise for transgressing the Lord's command, did he beget Cain, and not long after him, Abel. However, Cain, having laid a trap for Abel, finally caught him in the isolation of a field and killed him. After the murder of Abel, Seth was born to Adam. Thus, the transgression began with Adam and the murder with Cain; just as the impurity, sorcery, illusions, and adultery ^A began with Jared, who was the fifth generation from Seth. Jared’s son was Enoch, who was pleasing to God and, having been accepted by Him, turned away from his parent’s corrupted practice. He begot Methuselah, who fathered Lamech, the father of that Noah in whose days the whole world was submerged by the flood. Moreover, of all mortals, he alone, along with his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, escaped to safety with the aid of the ark ^B which, by God’s command, he had constructed from incorruptible wood and pitched on all sides. Furthermore, the sixth from Shem was Peleg, in whose time a tower was built and the languages were confounded. With languages confounded throughout the world, Nimrod was the first of all to call himself king and tyrant over Ethiopia. The posterity of both him and Peleg devised the art of statuary and pottery. Furthermore, it is recorded that no one before the days of Terah ^C died while their father was still living. But because he was the first to invent images formed of clay and was the author of such wickedness for the men of his age, he finally paid just and heavy penalties to the Divine; indeed, his son Haran was snatched away by an untimely death, as sacred Scripture testifies in these words: *And Haran died before his father Terah* 1. Moreover, the pigments of colors were devised by Serug, by which the ^D *apotheosis* of certain wicked tyrants and criminal men took root in the world. And the Egyptians and Assyrians were the very first of all to willingly fall into so vile and abject a practice. A little later, this disease also spread to the Greeks, at the time when Cecrops ruled them, and Ninus and Semiramis ruled the Assyrians. For it is said that Ninus and Cecrops lived at the same time as Abraham. From Keturah, this Abraham took six sons, from whom it is recorded that the prosperous Arabs, Midianites, and other nations took their origin, just as the Ishmaelites did from Hagar. Finally, when Abraham was about one hundred years old, as God had promised, He gave him Isaac, who flourished as the heir of his father’s goods and also his virtue. Two children were born to him, Esau and Jacob; of these, Esau, enjoying pleasures in his thick and hairy body, and given to other sensualities, built a city which he called Edom, the name being quite aptly adapted to his chosen form of life. For Edom signifies an inflammation or itching of the flesh. The fifth from him was that pious and just man Job. Jacob, on the other hand, being smooth by his constant lightness, was far more acceptable to God than that hairy hunter Esau, whose every hope depended on his bow and sword. Moreover, twelve sons were born to Jacob, one of whom was Levi, who was followed in the third generation by Moses, under whose leadership and guidance Israel escaped the harsh hand of the Egyptians. In Moses’s times, Jo also flourished in Greece, whom the Egyptians called Isis and whom they worshipped as a goddess. In those times, he was also celebrated among the Athenians.

CAP. II. The origin of the Greek mysteries and the sects of the philosophers.

CAP. III. Plato on the three causes of things.

CAP. IV. The delusions of Pythagoras, the futile trifler.

was a term formerly applied to judges whose sentences were venomous, and who moreover warned that their decrees were in no way to be discussed, nor was it to be inquisitively asked what they meant. From which it came to pass that those initiated into the Pythagorean sect, when inquiring into the reasons of their master, would answer nothing else than: "He himself said it," or "Pythagoras taught it so." He, furthermore, used to say that the heaven is a body, and that its stars, the moon, and the sun are eyes. Moreover, since he also practiced magic, he once displayed a golden thigh to the crowded masses of the people. He also divined the number of fish that happened to be lying on the shore because they had been recently caught and were still quivering. Finally, that delirious and futile babbler devised ^A *ensomatoseis*, or the migrations of souls into other bodies, which were called by the Greeks *somaton metangismoi*, that is, the elutriation and transfusion of bodies.

CAP. V. The trifles of Epicurus, the glutton for honeyed cakes.

Epicurus denied that there was a God or providence, asserting that this body of the universe consists of atoms—such as appear along with solar rays—and that it is resolved back into them again: as if nature generated things by a certain perpetuity, and was again resolved into that same thing from which it was composed. Furthermore, he claimed that this very body of the universe, from its lowest seat and foundation, expresses the form of an egg, and that the nature of the whole is bound and compressed by a spirit that surrounds the egg like a shell or coagulant; and furthermore, that the entire mass of nature, through the over-violent impulse of this spirit, is divided into two hemispheres, of which one is celestial and the other terrestrial; moreover, that those things which are lightest in the whole nature of things—namely, the light, the ether, and the thinnest airs—float upwards: while those which are heaviest, being similar to dross and scrapings, subside downwards to the earth and the moist substance of the waters: and, in short, he affirmed that all things are moved spontaneously and of their own accord with the circumrotation of the axis and the stars. The same man, holding that the blessedness which is the highest good consists in pleasure, took more delight in honeyed cakes than mice do in fatty bits.

CAP. VI. Moses more reliable than the philosophers. The principles of things, the elements. Which of the elements was the first product.

But that I may explain in general what external philosophers have thought about the construction of the universal nature (so that when you recognize that they disagree among themselves, you may be able to perceive that most of what they have said about the generation of things strays from the truth), Moses, for his part, discoursing on the creation of the world with a simpler and more concise, or rather, more copious style, says: "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth." Then he goes through in order those things which are in heaven. But some external philosophers have called the principles of things matter and form. And they say that the first matter—which falls not at all under the senses, but is comprehended by the mind alone, being ^B altogether devoid of subsistence and form—if perchance you strip away quantities, qualities, relations, habits, conversions, motions, alterations, mutations, and the rest of that kind, what remains is called matter. If a face or any figure—which they call "form"—is imprinted upon this, it finally turns out to be an element—namely, ether, or water, or fire, or earth: from the commixture of which elements, composite bodies, both animate and inanimate, are born. Therefore, they hand down that there is a greater reason inherent in the principles of matter and form than in the four elements, and in turn, more in the elements than in the remaining bodies. And some of them place matter in the same rank as God, as being prior and more ancient than all things that are in the nature of things, or indeed that it produces all bodies by continuous succession (although we, in the meantime, profess God to be the principle of all things, and indeed more ancient than the principles themselves), ^C and that it produced matter itself after substances devoid of matter, and thus at last fabricated the whole body of nature. Others, having diligently searched out the arcana of physiology, disputed with various contentions among themselves as to which of the elements was the first product. And to some, fire seems to have emerged first of all, on account of the force inherent in it, by which it consumes all things: to others, air, by whose breathing in and out animals persist: to others, water, for the sake of the generative faculty which is said to be inherent in it; to others, finally, earth, because all animals have their origin from it, and are resolved into it again.

But that I may explain in general what the external philosophers have thought about the fabrication of the entire nature (so that when you recognize that they disagree among themselves, you may be able to perceive that most of what they have said about the generation of things strays from the truth), Moses, for his part, discoursing on the creation of the world with a simpler and more concise, or rather, more copious style, says: "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth." Then he goes through in order those things which are in heaven. But some of the external philosophers have called the principles of things matter and form. And the first matter, which truly falls not at all under the senses, but is comprehended by the mind alone,

CAP. VII. Of Ideas and Heaven.

And Plato indeed understands by the name of the first idea the intelligence and the ineffable phantasy, and that imagination ^D by which He created the world: by the second, the order of blessed minds, and the exemplar of this world which lies open to the senses: by the third, finally, he understands those general reasons by which we contemplate things abstracted from their bodies, as when a discourse is instituted about a man, or a horse, or an ox. But Aristotle attributes substance to ideas, and does not hold, as Plato does, that they subsist by themselves and by their own force. He himself is the author of the idea that heaven is a fifth body, endowed with a nature far different from the elements. To Plato, heaven truly seems to be that which is most luminous in the four elements. For he maintains that terrestrial bodies consist of the lowest part of the elements, as being the crudest of all and having the most matter, while heaven consists of the most luminous part of the same. But Aristotle also brings an argument as to why heaven seems to him to be a fifth body, inasmuch as the motion of the elements is direct, while the heaven is carried in a circle. Therefore, because of the different motion, he assigns to it a substance also different from the four elements.

Furthermore, this heaven, which he calls the fifth body, he does not in reality define at all; rather, he speaks only from opinion and conjecture. Yet, although there are commonly said to be seven "wanderers," there are in truth only five; for the course of the sun and the moon is not wandering. But those stars are called wanderers because they are seen now to stand, now to advance, and then to retreat. Indeed, the order of the non-wandering stars is situated far more sublimely than that of the wanderers; moreover, the non-wandering stars themselves are not situated and carried on one and the same surface of the ethereal body; rather, some appear more sublime than others. The wanderers succeed the fixed stars; among them, the first seat is assigned to Saturn, the second to Jupiter, the third to Mars, the fourth to the Sun, the fifth to Venus, the sixth to Mercury, and the last to the Moon. Below the moon, the four elements—namely fire, air, earth, and water—lie in their own order. Each of the wanderers has its own fixed times in which it moves. Saturn, to whom, as ^C to the others that are higher, a greatest orbit must be traversed, completes its course in a space of thirty years. Jupiter completes its sphere in twelve years with a swifter course; Mars in two and a half. The course of the Sun, Venus, and Mercury is the same, and that is a year. The moon restores its course after twenty-nine days and a half. If anyone were to wish to examine the mysteries of such numbers as these, he would from hence easily discover how great the wisdom of the Architect is; for the ratios of the harmonies, those, I say, which are commonly called *diapason*, *diapente*, and *diatessaron*, shine forth in these.

CAP. IX. The time of the supreme judgment. The restoration of the planets. The synod of the stars, the deluges.

Although, by the oracle of the Gospel*, no one knows the day and hour of the supreme judgment, except the Father, and the Son co-eternal with the Father, and also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), yet the Greeks strive to make it clear by certain new ^D demonstrations. And learn in what way this is done. Saturn completes its greatest restoration in two hundred and sixty-five years; Jupiter, in four hundred and twenty-seven; Mars, in two hundred and four; the sun, in one thousand four hundred and sixty-one; Venus, in one thousand one hundred and fifty-one; Mercury, in four hundred; the moon, twenty-five. The cosmic restoration is accomplished after three thousand two hundred and seventy-five times ten thousand years: then indeed a certain synod and gathering of all the stars to the thirtieth mansion of Cancer, or the first of Leo, is celebrated: nor long after this is the world overwhelmed by a general deluge. They claim, moreover, that certain special deluges occur in the major restorations of the stars of each. For each wandering star has its maximum, middle, and minimum years.

CAP. X. Concerning the magnitude and interval of the sun, moon, and earth.

Furthermore, some philosophers, among whom is the astronomer Aristarchus, say that the ratio of the sun to the earth is greater than six thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, and that the ratio of its diameter to the diameter of the earth is conversely greater than nineteen to three. In addition to this, the diameter of the sun exceeds the diameter of the moon eightfold, and the interval by which the sun is distant from the earth is eight times greater than the interval by which the moon is separated from it. Moreover, the ratio of the sun to the moon is greater than five thousand eight hundred and two to one.

CAP. XI. Concerning the eclipse of the sun and moon.

But as regards the defects of the sun and moon, those who have examined these matters a little more subtly deny that an eclipse can properly be said to occur in the sun (since the sun's light never fails), but they do admit darkness and an obscuration, which is perceived only when, in the ecliptic conjunctions, the moon has been placed diametrically opposite to it; for then it obscures the light of the sun to our eyes, who inhabit the sublunary region. Moreover, astronomers, measuring the body of the moon with twelve digits, sometimes present the rays of the sun against its whole body, and sometimes against fewer than twelve. For since the moon is carried around in a more sublime orbit, that is, one which is nearer to the sun, it lacks little of casting darkness upon it; but when with a full orb, and consisting of its just magnitude, it traverses the lower regions, then indeed it dazzles our eyes with its splendor, and is opposed to the whole sun. The same men have said that the moon fails through the intervening obstruction of the earth's shadow. For the earth, illuminated by the light of the sun, makes a shadow not cylindrical or round, such as is the shape of a column, but a conoid or turbinated one. For the *konos*, which is also called *strobilos*, that is, a top, is sharpened from a wide flatness into a point. The shadow of the earth is undoubtedly like this, for which the cause is clear. For as often as any body receives light from a body of the same magnitude, the shadow is cylindrical; but as often as it receives it from a smaller one, the shadow is a conoid or turbinated.

^A Hence it follows that when the sun is larger than the earth and illuminates it with its rays, it also creates a turbinated shadow. And so the moon, at that time, appears to us darkened and as if it were failing, when it enters the shadow of the earth. But if it points toward the root or the center of the shadow itself, it fails completely; if, however, it points toward the vertex, it becomes darker, because clearly the wider the plane of the conical shadow, the more contracted the vertex is.

Chapter 12. On the qualities of the sun, moon, and stars.

These things, too, are not unworthy of being known, as they were decreed by philosophers of the first rank. Plato certainly, forming the entire body of the ether from fire, earth, and the other two elements, said that the sun is hot. Aristotle, however, positing a body of this kind as something different from the four elements, says that the sun is neither hot nor endowed with any other quality, but even calls it λείχνον φωτός, or a "basket of light." But here one might ask: how can it be that the sun, being devoid of heat, warms? Because it moves—even though it also moves itself—the exhalation and the air that flows around the earth, and hence is the cause that underlying bodies grow warm. ^B Furthermore, he who first discovered and gave both the nature and the name of the "exhalation," said that the exhalation is a hot and dry vapor, as if fumose, which is emitted upwards from the earth. And so this very fumose exhalation, when it has reached the moon by its own lightness, and has then been divided into parts, is ignited and shows itself to our eyes as very similar to fire; and thus it warms the substance underlying it. That heat is born from motion is evident from the tips of javelins. For the lead with which they are reinforced is loosened and melts by that very motion. And the Greeks, for their part, say that light was in the sun from the beginning, and indeed by its very nature. But Anaxagoras teaches that a solid stone was driven from the rotation of the universe and, being ignited, was smoothed out again and coalesced into celestial stars. The same man is the author of the idea that ^C the stars are full of holes like pumice and vents, and that sometimes they fall from the sky; in order to gain credence for which sayings, he produces that ignited body of round shape which once fell from the sky into the river Aigos. Others have said that the sun and moon are ignited ethereal clouds; others, that the sun itself is a glowing mass. But truly, when we say with the history of Moses that the sun, the moon, and the stars had the beginning of their creation from God, the maker of the world, it is not because He needed another light, but so that that light, which He therefore created at the very first day, would not remain inert and idle. For Scripture says: "And God said: Let there be light, and there was light" (Gen. 1, 3). Otherwise, fire is nothing other than light itself. But the luminaries are not light itself, but receptacles of light.

Chapter 13. On the course of the sun and moon, and the calculation of the year.

It must also be known that the moon was created whole by the Maker, that is, as a fifteen-day moon; for it was fitting that it be perfect in its numbers. But it was created on the fourth day. And so it precedes the sun by eleven days, since eleven days intervened from the fourth to the fifteenth. Hence it happens that in every year twelve lunar months are found to be shorter by the space of eleven days than twelve solar months. For solar years consist of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter, from which, when composed over four years, one day is completed, which they commonly call the Bissextile, and that year thus consists of three hundred and sixty-six days. But the lunar years are of three hundred and fifty-four days. For from the moment it emerges from the moon, or has been restored to its orbit, it will grow for as long as it reaches fourteen and a half days, from which time, indeed, it begins to wane, and proceeds waning until the twenty-ninth day and a half. Therefore, ^D consisting of its perfect and just magnitude, it is devoid of light and, joined again to the sun, rises anew and is restored; which is without doubt a sure monument of our resurrection. And so it pays back eleven days to the sun each year, so that every third year among the Hebrews the month ἐμβόσιμος, or intercalary, is formed: and thus that year is found to consist of thirteen months, due to the addition of the eleven days.

Chapter 14. The matter of the sun, moon, and stars, the nature of fire.

But it is evident that the sun, moon, and stars consist of the lunar globe. For they received the light later, like vessels, added upon them. Of what nature these are, we do not know. There are those who deny that fire is visible unless it acts upon some matter: whence it happens that, extinguished, it vanishes. Others contend that, extinguished, it is changed into air.

Chapter 15. On the zodiac, the houses of the planets, and their elevations.

For the movement of the zodiac circle is oblique, and it is divided into twelve sections, which the common people call ζῴδια or signs: each of which consists of thirty degrees. Any part whatsoever comprises six minutes, so that the sky has three hundred and sixty parts or mansions. One hundred and eighty parts of the hemisphere that is above the earth are counted, and as many of that which is under the earth. Now, the houses of the planets are handed down thus: Aries and Scorpius are Mars'. Taurus and Libra are Venus'. Gemini and Virgo are Mercury's. Cancer is the Moon's. Leo is the Sun's. Sagittarius and Pisces are Jupiter's. Finally, Saturn's are Capricorn and Aquarius. Elevations...

^A of the same are as follows: Aries for the Sun, Taurus for the Moon, Cancer for Jupiter, Virgo for Mercury, Libra for Saturn, Capricorn for Mars, Pisces for Venus.

CAP. XVI. Concerning the ten figures of the moon.

You should also keep in mind the figures of the moon. The *synodus*, or conjunction, is when it is in the part that the sun occupies. The *conceptio* is when it has departed from the sun by fifteen degrees. The *ortus*, or rising, is when it is *μηνοειδής*, that is, crescent or horned, appearing for the second time, or when it has departed by six or seven degrees. The *διχότομος* are two, that is, when it is halved, at ninety degrees. The *ἀμφίκυρτοι* are two, that is, when it is gibbous on both sides, at one hundred and twenty degrees. The *πλησιφαής* are two, that is, when it is full or completely luminous, at one hundred and fifty degrees. Then there is the *πανσέληνος*, or full moon, the entire face of the moon, when it has departed by one hundred and eighty degrees. Now we have spoken of two, that is, one that is waxing and one that is waning. Furthermore, the moon travels through each of the signs in the space of two and a half days.

CAP. XVII. Concerning the seven zones and the course of the planets, together with an explanation of the Davidic passage (Ps. VIII, 6): The moon and the stars which thou hast founded.

From the very totality of the celestial spheres, they claim that there are seven planets, ^B which move with a motion different from the celestial. For this reason, they have also obtained the name "planets" (wanderers). For while the heavens move from the East to the West, they are carried in the opposite direction, from the West to the East, and the heavens themselves, with their most rapid motion, carry the seven planets around; these are commonly known by these names: Sol, Luna, Jupiter, Mercurius, Mars, Venus, Saturnus. Now, in each of the zones of the heavens, one of the seven planets revolves. In the first, which is also the highest, is Saturn; in the second, Jupiter; in the third, Mars; in the fourth, the Sun; in the fifth, Venus; in the sixth, Mercury; in the seventh, which is the lowest of all, the Moon. Thus, they run their course with a restless and incessant movement, strictly according to the path which the Creator of the world has marked out for them, and just as He has established them, as that divine David exclaims: "The moon and the stars, which thou hast founded." For by saying "thou hast founded," he signifies a stability free from any mutation, and furthermore, the order and *σειρά*, or sequence, which they have received from God. For He disposed them into times, into signs, and into years.

CAP. XVIII. Concerning the four tropics or solstices.

Since four solstices are established by the sun, the first is the vernal, in which God created all things—the flowers still emerging and budding in it are a certain indication of this—also called by another name the equinoctial solstice, because it keeps the day and night at twelve hours ^C each, being endowed with a just temperance; it increases the blood, is a partaker of heat and moisture, and lies between winter and summer—the former being hotter and drier, but the latter colder. That part of the year is from the twenty-first day of March to the twenty-fourth of June. Then, as the rising of the sun is exalted a little so that it veers toward the northern region, the summer tropic succeeds, cutting between spring and autumn; it perceives heat from the former and cold from the latter, and is hot and dry, increasing yellow bile. Moreover, its longest day is perfected in the intervals of fifteen hours, and its shortest night in nine. It proceeds from the twenty-fourth of June to the twenty-fifth of September. Then, under the mean rising of the sun as it returns to us, the autumnal tropic takes the place of the summer one, retaining a certain moderation of cold and heat, and likewise of dryness and moisture, and it borrows heat from the summer tropic and cold from the winter one (for it is cold and dry, and increases black bile). This other equinoctial tropic consists of twelve diurnal hours and as many nocturnal, and it lasts from the twenty-fifth of September to the twenty-fifth of December. But when the sun has slipped down to its lowest and most inward rising, that is, the meridian, finally the winter tropic emerges; it is cold and damp, and lies between autumn and spring, representing the cold of the former and the heat of the latter equally. The day of this tropic runs its course in the space of nine hours, and its maximum night in fifteen; it increases phlegm, and it extends from the twenty-fifth of December to the twenty-first of March. ^D For it was wisely provided by the Creator of the world Himself, lest, by being carried into some extreme of contrary qualities through extreme heat or cold, or dryness or humidity, we should fall into certain graver diseases. For sudden mutations are commonly reputed to be dangerous and slippery. In this way, therefore, the sun arranges the tropics, and through them the year, and finally the days and nights; the former it brings about by its rising across the earth, while the latter [the nights] it brings about when it permeates the subterranean places, and imparts brilliance to other luminaries—I mean, to the moon and the stars.

CAP. XIX. Concerning the signs, months, and prognostics.

Furthermore, they say that the celestial signs are composed of the stars themselves and are moved by a motion contrary to the sun, the moon, and the remaining five planets, insofar as the seven planets themselves travel through them. Thus, the sun lingers in each sign for a whole month, and in twelve months it travels through as many signs, of which the names peculiar to them and the months are: Aries on the twentieth day of March, Taurus on the twenty-third of April, Gemini on the twenty-third of May, Cancer...

on the twenty-fourth of June, Leo on the twenty-fifth of July, Virgo on the twenty-fifth of August, Libra on the twenty-fifth of September, Scorpio on the twenty-fifth of October, Sagittarius on the twenty-fifth of November, Capricorn on the twenty-fifth of December, Aquarius on the twentieth of January, and finally, Pisces on the twenty-fifth of February receive the sun. In every month the moon runs through the twelve signs of the Zodiac, being itself far lower than they are and traversing its course at a very rapid pace. For just as if you were to insert a circle within a circle, the inner is found smaller than the outer, so also the moon, as if being lower, is much more constricted in its path, and completes it much more quickly. Now, from the rising and setting of the stars of this kind, and their approaches and recessions, and indeed even from the progressions and regressions of the Chaldeans and Greeks, and in addition those of the wicked astrologers, some affirm that human affairs are ruled and governed, while others, more moderate ones, affirm that signs of future events are elicited from the same under the pretext of Christianity. Whence also the names of the Arietini, Taurini, and others of that kind in ancient times took root, with regard had to the sign under which each one, having broken through the barriers of the maternal womb, had the sun as an object. ^A

CAP. XX. On the motion of the stars. And likewise of the moon.

Some of the philosophers have also handed down these things concerning the stars. Aristotle, and those who followed him, assert that the fixed stars are attached to the heavens and are thus carried around with it, so that they cannot be torn from it. And so, as the heaven is borne from the east to the west, they also are moved with the celestial body: but the planets, by divine guiding providence, are confirmed by a contrary, equal movement, as if by a balance, to struggle against it, lest by chance they be shattered by the constant circumvections and revolutions, through the reason of their own natural motion, by which they are snatched from the west to the east, and again from the east to the west are carried along together with the heavens. From which it happens that the sun, by its own motion, now turning towards the north, now towards the south, completes the four seasons of the year, although it, being carried with the heaven from the east to the west, produces the distinction of days and nights. Furthermore, they say that none of the fixed stars, nor any of the wandering ones, except the moon, has any light, as it borrows its light from the sun: for which reason even the part of it that is illuminated always faces the sun. Yet the moon is never entirely devoid of light, but it always shines with a half-moon light. Therefore, in the conjunctions, or syzygies, that gibbous part of it exposed to us lacks light; but its upper vertex is luminous. In full moons, however, the whole hemisphere of the same that turns toward us shines, and its upper part is not devoid of light. But at the time that lies between conjunction and full moon, according as it is distant from the sun, it is lunar-shaped (μŋvoειδήϛ) or dichotomous (dichotomous), being full ^B or double-gibbous and recurved on both sides. For it is illuminated by less than half, or by half, or even by more than half of its own part.

CAP. XXI. On the void.

Moreover, some of the philosophers have also introduced a certain "void," and they demonstrate it to be destitute of any body, like a certain infinite chaos, and they contend that it existed before the world; then, with the elements having been created, they enclosed all bodies within the circuit and circumvection of the heaven, leaving nothing of the void within. But they hold that whatever is outside, and thus beyond the very circumvection of the heaven, is entirely void and infinite, such as one could imagine in an infinite space. ^C

CAP. XXII. What element was produced first.

To these things Moses indeed, to whom God showed Himself, assigns the first place in the origin of the world to the heaven and the earth. But the wise men of the Greeks were in a different heresy: some of whom place the earth in the first position, as the center of the celestial sphere. Since in a solid circle the center is prior and more ancient. Others, however, divide the totality of the world into four elements and a fifth celestial body: and they deem that the tetrad, or quaternion, of elements is moved by the ether itself. Furthermore, they think that the heaven is the most beautiful part of the ether, which they judge to have been produced first in the nature of things. But whoever asserted that the world was unbegotten, the same also thought the same by consequence concerning the universe itself. But a more potent opinion seems to me that the heaven, as a more excellent and noble body, which includes all other things within its circuit, was also produced in the first place.

CAP. XXIII. On comets, and those flashes which are called *diattontes asteres* (shooting stars).

Now, that you may compare for yourself both that experience of many things from those passions or affections with which the heavens are said by the records of philosophers to be affected, and knowledge of those things which exist, they say that comets happen when some part of an exhalation is inflamed. For if that concretion is thinner, that which is ignited is snatched away in a rapid course, and it turns out to be that which is commonly called *diattōn astēr*, that is to say, a shooting star, which is nothing other than a transition of fire, or an emanation of celestial brightness: but if a thicker matter has settled, there, indeed, the seeds of white-hot fire are fostered, and they form a comet or a hairy star. Furthermore, the shapes of comets are reported to be various, according to the varying inflammation of the matter. For the matter burns up even by its length alone, whence a comet is generated, which is commonly [called] *doxian*, that is to say, tra-

- iling; or from the lower part some sparks, as it were, are thrust forth, and then at last it is called *pōgōnias*, that is, a bearded comet. And so much for comets.

CAP. XXIV. Concerning rain, snow, hail, and those things which are formed from vapor.

Vapor, however, since it is a participant in moisture and heat, as soon as it seeks the higher regions, is changed and condenses into water; and if it is brought down somewhat more copiously and densely, it creates rain, but if more rarely, a drop. But if it should solidify, it turns into snow, or if the solidification happens immediately from the change, it turns into hail. And these are the things which vapor produces when it is refined in the upper region of the air: if, however, it remains below, or in the lowest part of the air near the earth due to its thickness or density, it either changes into dew or solidifies into frost. Moreover, dew occurs most especially at the time when the sky is serene and dry, and in the most tepid places: frost, however, condenses in colder places; and dew prevails with the south winds, while frost prevails when the blast of the north winds dominates. Hail, however, condenses in the warmer parts of the year, namely in spring and autumn, and often even in summer: because heat and cold are so constituted by nature that they mutually compress and restrain each other, so much so that if external heat occupies them, cold hides in their interior, and conversely. Therefore, in the warmer parts of the year, the cold that is cast extrinsically into the heat creates hail. ^B

CAP. XXV. Concerning the rainbow, the halo, parhelia, and virgulae.

As regards the rainbow, which is called an arc by many, it is not endowed with natural substance, seeing that it is a certain empty likeness and phantom, which is presented to the eyes of the beholders when the rays of the sun, as it were, fall forward and are reflected, and thus bear the appearance of an arc. Moreover, every rainbow is distinguished by a triple color. For its inner zone is reddish, the second green, and the third blue and, as it were, purple. It rises, however, from the inequality and dissimilarity of clouds. But the halos, or crowns, the figure of which is always round, and which do not appear smaller than the circuit of the rainbows, are often seen around the moon by night, and often also by day. Physiologists, and those who scrutinize the secrets of nature, add also parhelia, or images of the sun, and *rabdous*, that is, rods: and they assert that these are indeed formed from the inequality of the clouds, and like the rainbows are tricolored; but that the parhelia are white, as are the halos. ^D

CAP. XXVI. The Christian and philosophical cause of earthquakes.

However, we say that earthquakes are caused by God so that He may strike terror into men and recall them to a saner mind: just as David himself also sings: *Who looks upon the earth, and makes it shake.* The philosophers, however, derive the cause of them from the winds, if by chance, when they are carried upward from the earth, it happens that some breath, like a certain external exhalation, insinuates itself into subterranean passages: for which reason also earthquakes are accustomed to occur in serene weather, and to infest those places more frequently where the sea flows more rapidly, and the earth is soft and loose and abounds with caverns and tunnels. Furthermore, they affirm that the sun itself is dark and obscured at the time of an earthquake: because, forsooth, the blast of the winds begins at that time to return into the earth, by which the air meanwhile becomes clearer and more serene.

CAP. XXVII. Concerning winds.

Truly, indeed, concerning the winds the same David also sings thus: *Who brings forth the winds from his treasuries.* The ancient philosophers affirm that there are four winds in general: Subsolanus, Zephyrus, Notus, and Boreas, of which Subsolanus and Zephyrus are not so violent, but Notus and Boreas exercise a most oppressive tyranny. Why these things come to be, they lean on these reasons, that the sun warms neither the southern nor the northern regions: because it is not always situated at the arctic or at the antarctic pole (whence it comes about that these are equally cold and humid, and with many rain-bringing manifestations arising, much vapor—and indeed smoky vapor—follows, which is the cause that Boreas and Notus are carried with such impetuous blasts). Conversely, however, when in regions which verge either toward the East or the West the sun moves in frequent circuits, it does not allow much cold to arise there.

CAP. XXVIII. Concerning lightning, the whirlwind, thunder, the storm, etc.

Furthermore, lightning has no inflammation in itself, seeing that it refers to the air by its innate lightness and thinness. Whence it also obtained its name, that it should be *keraunos*, as if *eukrafēs*, because by its lightness it does not burn at all. The *prester*, however, that is, an ignited whirlwind, since it has a substance consisting of very thick matter from a cloud, and sets it on fire and inflames it, it comes about that it becomes fit for conflagrations and fires. But the wind also precedes the *prester*, of which thing a sure sign is this, that because it is about to be touched by lightning, it is first shaken by wind. For the wind of the *prester* is accustomed to strike, because it is sulphurous, and to shake. Nor, indeed, does that wind merely precede the *prester*, but it also accompanies and follows it, and being dispersed and diffused into the lightest breaths, it excites thunder and lightning flashes: and if it is inflamed, it becomes either lightning, or a thunderbolt, or a *prester*: but if otherwise, it excites an *eknephias* and a *typhon*, that is, a storm and a whirlwind. Moreover, all these things are to be referred to inflammation and burning.

CAP. XXIX. On the resurrection of bodies and the immortality of souls.

CAP. XXX. On the authors of Judaism.

CAP. XXXI. The origin of Jewish heresies and seditions.

CAP. XXXII. The division of the twelve tribes into two duchies under Rehoboam.

CAP. XXXIII. Captivity. Ezra is sent to Samaria, inhabitant of idolaters.

CAP. XXXIV. The heresy of the Samaritans.

CAP. XXXV. In what things the four sects of the Samaritans agree, and in what they do not.

-^Asitheans in certain dogmas are in agreement, while in others they have come to disagree. For the Essenes celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread in the month of Augustus (in which they agree with the Sebuæans), the Feast of Tabernacles with the Jewish Unleavened Bread, and finally Pentecost in the autumn. But the Sebuæans observe the feasts with the same rites as the Essenes and the Sorothenians, yet they differ from the Dositheans. The Sorothenians, as they agree in other matters with the Essenes and Sebuæans, follow the very same rite in celebrating the feasts that the Dositheans observe. For the method of celebrating the feasts for them, and for the Sorothenians and Dositheans, is the same as it is for the rest of the Jews. The Dositheans indeed, although they confess the resurrection and agree with the Sorothenians in the celebration of the feasts, most of them in private forbear from the eating of living creatures, and no fewer of them abstain from marriage once they have had children, nor are there wanting those who profess virginity. ^B The author of this sect is said to have been Dositheus, who, being of Hebrew descent and endowed with singular learning, when he had contended in vain for the first place among those they call [i]deuterōseis[/i] (second traditions), he defected to the Samaritans and was the author of this heresy. But when he was held by an excessive love of philosophy, he withdrew into a certain cave, where, while he rashly attenuated and weakened his strength with fastings, he eventually died from a lack of bread and water. All those of this kind therefore instituted their life in such a way that they were somewhat more clever in the conduct of their affairs.

CAP. XXXVI. Of the Essenes in particular.

Essenes, moreover, through a love of virtue, abstained from marriage as much as possible, and considered riches as nothing; finally, they took their meals together. For they brought their private property into public use, holding it disgraceful if anyone should possess any wealth privately, among whom, indeed, their goods were mingled in the name of brotherhood and were dispensed for common uses. Among them, through a desire for squalor, there was no use of oil: a bright color was pleasing to them; ^C they did not put on new clothes or shoes unless the previous ones were worn out. They had one or even another steward for their common affairs. Among them there was no place for buying or selling, but with all things laid out for those in need, everyone received from him in exchange what he lacked. Indeed, they could even use the things belonging to others without express mutual gratitude. Before sunrise, they were in the greatest fear [that they might blurt out something profane]. They worked until the fifth hour. Then they assembled in one place, and after washing their hands in cold water, they feasted in a dining room. A server placed bread and a dish from one and the same food before each one, with a priest leading the prayers. The house was not confused by shouting or tumult. They conversed with one another in turns and by shifts. They did not distribute their own goods to anyone without the consent and presence of the stewards. They were most just in controlling anger, as they were in suppressing indignation. They were teachers of faith and ministers ^D of peace. Whatever they had said had more weight than an oath. They considered an oath worse even than perjury itself. They were constantly studying the Scriptures, but mainly those from which they could elicit precepts useful for forming their minds with good morals. They tested those who came to them, and those who were at length famous for a specimen of fortitude and constancy, they willingly accepted into their association. In judgments they were very exact and most just. In meetings and mutual conversations, they considered it an act of piety to spit. Furthermore, they made nothing of evils with a hardened mind, and they indeed surpassed pains by meditations. Death, if it could be met with praise and glory, was better to them than immortality itself. Wherefore, if at any time many were scourged on account of the Law: they neither flattered the executioners, nor did they weep; but instead they even smiled at the lashes, and mocked the tormentors themselves, ready to pour out their souls, as if they were about to receive them again. For among them this opinion was firmly held: that bodies indeed are subject to corruption, and the matter of which they consist is perishable; but that souls continue for an everlasting age, which indeed, I know not by what enticement of nature or by what allurements, are torn away from the most pure ether and sent down into bodies, and are confined in them as in prisons, but at length are released from these carnal bonds, and, as if freed from long servitude, then indeed they rejoice and are carried on high. And just as they suppose that the souls of the good (in which matter they agree with the Greeks) inhabit certain pleasant places above the Ocean, which are infested by neither rains, nor snows, nor heats, but to which a light breeze of zephyr blows from the Ocean; so, on the contrary, that the souls of the wicked are thrust into dark places that are stiff with winter cold, and finally abound with punishments of every kind that will never cease. And to me, indeed, the Greeks seem to have consecrated the Fortunate Isles for brave men (whom they call heroes and demigods) for this same reason, and on the contrary to have assigned the souls of the impious to Orcus (which is the seat of the wicked), where also it is in fables that Sisyphus, Tantalus, Ixion, and Tityus are afflicted with deserved punishments. Therefore, they suppose first that souls are everlasting, and then they affirm that they have been granted to men for the pursuit of virtues and the flight of vices, because good men, as long as they live, become better, led by the firm hope that after death they will be held in honor, while the wicked, on the contrary, are so restrained by the fear of their affections that, even if they remain hidden in life, after death they nevertheless expect a certain destruction for themselves.

CAP. XXXVII. The division of the Jews into seven sects.

From this kind of Essene way of life, if my opinion does not deceive me, our Nazarenes derived most of their institutes, although these also perished in time. But finally, Judaism was divided into Sadducees, Scribes, Pharisees, Hemerobaptists, Nazarenes, Essenes, and Herodians.

CAP. XXXVIII. On the Sadducees.

The Sadducees are, as it were, a certain offshoot or fragment of the Dositheans. They are called Sadducees as if they were "the righteous," for *Sadoc* in Hebrew means "righteous." Furthermore, they reject the resurrection of the dead, do not admit the existence of angels, and are ignorant of the Holy Spirit. In all other matters, they agree with the Dositheans. They taught that while souls might indeed pass into other bodies, for the wicked, they were assigned to eternal punishments.

CAP. XXXIX. On the Scribes.

The Scribes of the law are called *deuterotai*, that is, those of the second rank, or those who added traditions and ceremonies to the Law; for the traditions of the elders were called *deuteroseis*. While they agreed with the common people of the Jews in other matters, they were nevertheless addicted to I know not what superfluous observations; they would wash, with a singular superstition, their jars, cups, plates, and other vessels of that sort meant for the table, having first made a fist. Moreover, they would thoroughly purge their vessels before they took food from them. They were covered with dalmatics, which are now called *colobia*, and bordered with purple; they displayed their phylacteries, which were, to be sure, short scrolls upon which the law was inscribed, and which they carried about, adorned with precious bands and decorated with gold, like teachers of the Jews. Furthermore, fringes were worn hanging from their garments, and on the four corners of their robes golden knops, in the likeness of pomegranates, were fastened, to be worn whenever any of them was practicing continence or observing virginity. ^A

CAP. XL. On the Pharisees.

The Pharisees far surpassed the Scribes in their outward show of religion. Some of them would place boards two palms wide under themselves, so that if ever, overcome by sleep at night, they fell to the floor, they might be immediately awakened and pray to the Deity. Others would place pebbles or thorns under themselves; others would spend a set period of time in virginity, and in this manner some persisted for ten, others for eight, and others for four years, until they were stimulated by the snares of Venus in their dreams. ^B They fasted twice in the Sabbath, namely on the second and fifth days of the week. Furthermore, they received the name of Pharisees as those who were separated from others through their devotion to this kind of philosophy; for *Phares* in Hebrew means the same as *aphōrismenos* in Greek, and "separated" in Latin. Furthermore, they confessed the resurrection of the dead, angels, and the Holy Spirit, contrary to the dogma of the Sadducees. The same people, intent upon fate and astronomy, abstained from pregnant wives, signaling by this act that they had not taken wives for the sake of enjoying pleasures, but for the sake of procreating children. Among them, public baths were permitted to women who were veiled, and to men who were girded with loincloths. ^C

CAP. XLI. On the Hemerobaptists.

The Hemerobaptists differed from the Pharisees and Scribes only in this, that they said it was impossible for anyone to be saved unless they were dipped in holy baptism every single day.

CAP. XLII. On the Nazarenes.

The Nazarenes, who (if you interpret the force of the word) are the same as the *aphostasiai*, that is, the rebels, accept all the patriarchs mentioned in the Mosaic books, and even Moses himself. However, they reject the Pentateuch and contend that another law was given to Moses, with the result that they abstain from all living things and do not use any bloody victims in their sacrifices.

CAP. XLIII. On the Essenes, and the pseudo-prophet Elxai, and his brother Lezaeus with his sisters Martho and Marthana.

The Essenes, behaving in all things according to the prescription of the Law, as I have said above, also used other writings beyond the Law. The name signifies the most abject and vilest of men. A certain pseudo-prophet named Elxai, a corrupter of praiseworthy things, joined himself to them in the times of Trajan the Roman emperor; he denied Christ’s advent in the flesh and, detesting virginity and continence, exhorted them to marriage. They say that a man named Lezaeus was a brother to this Elxai, and he later became known, in the times of the great Constantine, along with two sisters who were said to be born of the same stock as he, namely Martho and Marthana; men, tainted by error, offered divine worship to them as if they were goddesses born from the divine seed of Elxai. Otherwise, *Elxai* signifies "hidden and arcane power," for *El* in Hebrew is said to mean "power" and *Xai* "hidden." ^D

CAP. XLIV. On the Herodians.

The Herodians received their name from Herod, the son of Antipater. For Antipater the Ascalonite, having been captured by the Jews and led away, fathered that Herod who killed the children during the time of Christ. Finally, having become most familiar with Demetrius and having been made procurator of Judea, he took care to have himself and his son Herod circumcised. This Herod, having later become known to Julius Caesar, Antony, and Augustus, was appointed ruler over the kingdom of the Jews. Therefore, some thought him to be the Christ, moved by the prophecy of Jacob, which sings thus: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a prince from his thigh, until he comes for whom it is reserved" (Gen. xlix, 10); for this reason they are called Herodians.

CHAPTER XLV. Libri primi Epilogus.

And these are indeed the heresies which preceded the advent of Christ in the flesh, yet not all were condemned; only those that undermined the law of Moses and opposed its ordinances. Furthermore, the traditions of the Pharisees and Scribes, if observed alongside the oracles of the Law, caused no harm. For what detriment could have been gathered from the baptism of pitchers, the washing of hands, the tinkling of bells, the hanging of golden clusters, or the double-sided boards laid down for sleeping, by one studious of such observations? The same must be judged concerning fasting and the other things by which the Pharisee was designated, and by which a Scribe was known even from afar—things that had been unknown until then. As for what remains, that what I say is true, Christ Himself, who is the Truth itself, clearly argues with these words: "For I say to you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ^A Furthermore, the hypocritical cult of traditions, the love of the first places at table, the ambition for the first seat, the prayers poured out in the middle of the streets, and finally the observance of private commands over divine ones, and thus the most accurate concern for their own dogmas over the commandments of God, bring—without a doubt—utter ruin and destruction to the souls of men; as these words of the Theanthropos sufficiently and abundantly indicate: "Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness." Likewise, "Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law, judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those others undone." And these are, I say, the things in which there was a straying from the divine law before the advent of Christ in the flesh; but after He assumed a human body, rose from the dead, ascended into the heavens, and the apostles were scattered through the nations of mankind, innumerable opinions diverse from the rule of the orthodox faith have arisen, by the effort of him who is accustomed to sow tares. I consider, however, that I shall do a service if I first discourse on the holy Trinity, and then subsequently append the heresies, along with those things which were written by me against them. ^B

Nicetas Choniates' Treasury of the Orthodox Faith, Book Two. On the Holy Trinity, angels, and men.

Chapter 1. That the divinity is three-hypostasized, that is, consists of three persons.

From here we shall certainly make the prelude to our discourse, where I see that an occasion for doubt has arisen for many: namely, what prevented the nature that is the creator of all things from showing itself as triune from the beginning, until such time as, when flesh was assumed by the Word, it made that same thing manifest to those who were pleased by it. We respond, therefore, most appositely, that it was done so for the dignity of divine magnificence. For when it saw that men were estranged from the monarchy, or the cult of one God, and were inclined toward a plurality of gods, addicted to the worship of creatures rather than the Creator, at that time it hid itself from the crowd, nor did it wish that unity which exists in the Trinity of persons to be clear and plain to everyone, so that it might spare the weak cognition of the perverse—who indeed, even with no such examples proposed, were either fearing what they called *anarchia*, that is, no God at all, ^C or were preferring the plurality of gods to the *monarchia*, that is, the cult of one God. However, the Trinity was not lacking in its unity among the Fathers who were dear to God; nay, indeed, Abraham, at the time he received the angels in hospitality, silently pondered it within himself more obscurely, but issued a more express specimen of it when he received back his son Isaac from the sacrifice, the ram having been substituted. For from those things which he then saw, he divined the incarnation of the Word, and that it would come to pass that the divinity would not suffer at all, but the flesh alone, which was to be assumed for the atonement of the whole world. Furthermore, while Moses walked upon the mountain, that new vision was presented to him. And Jacob, blessing his sons, prophesied that it would come to pass that He with whom he had wrestled by night would be joined to men, and would rise from sleep like a lion's whelp. Finally, whoever was breathed upon by the divine Spirit, as much as he could strain the eyes of his mind by this or that method, contemplated the knowledge of the Trinity as in a mirror. Otherwise, even the very thing concerning God the Father ^D

and Son, and the essence of the Spirit, it demonstrates and confirms. For ^A the Father is of the Son, and the Son is of the Father, and one and the same nature fashions them. The Spirit, likewise, is of another Spirit, namely, that of whom He is also said to be. For these reasons, therefore, the Godhead, essentially consisting in three persons, was first conceived in the mind from symbols by those who were illustrious for their foreknowledge of divine things; but it was made plain and manifest only when one from the persons of the Trinity lived on earth with us in the flesh.

CAP. II. Why the mystery of the Trinity was set forth through the ministry of the Word rather than that of any man.

Furthermore, it was appropriate to the office of the Word that He should manifest the mystery of the Trinity to the world, so that men, having been taught those things which are of God by God, might conceive an undoubted opinion concerning them. For if it had been handed down by any of the mortals, it would never have possessed such weight among those who study divine things that it would appear easy to accept; ^B as, for instance, sycophants have dared to affirm has happened in the Mosaic writings, saying that some things were promulgated by God the Lawgiver, but others by Moses and the elders of the people. And because of this latter opinion, they have not even shown the reverence of divine law toward these writings. For if, after Christ Himself professed that theology which shines forth both in the unity of the Godhead and in the trinity of persons, some have arisen—like counterfeit coins of the devil—who, in no way revering the majesty of God, introduced byways into the faith, ^C by what words, I ask, would men have restrained themselves [alt-version omitted] if they had been teachers of abstruse matters that had not yet been treated by anyone?

CAP. III. The incarnation of Christ is the most certain argument of divine providence toward us.

Moreover, the most excellent work of the majesty of God, and the most effective argument of His providence toward us, became known from this: that the Son took on flesh and emptied Himself even unto the death of the cross. For since He was the immutable and natural image of God, and we had corrupted the character of that divine image after which we had been formed, He Himself—who had brought it about that we exist in the nature of things—received into Himself the restoration of His creature, and thus that *enypostaton*, that is, the self-subsistent Word of God, while the Father did not divest Himself of His own glory, appeared in the flesh on earth and recalled those who had diverged from reason and turned to a brutish life, back to the dignity of reason and intellect. The Father, however, is said to precede the Son in order, ^D and the Son is said to precede the Spirit in the same way, 1128 as that which precedes a thing in nature and its effects, yet they are not diverse in nature, nor subsequent in time, but rather the eternal cause of co-eternal effects, a participant in the same substance, with the sole property excepted. For the first is called the Father, the second the begetting, and the third the procession.

CAP. IV. Since the Godhead is ineffable and incomprehensible, how does it come about that it is divided by Christ into Father, Son, and Spirit?

But if we inquire into the matter itself more deeply and in a way befitting God, the divine nature is in every respect ineffable and incomprehensible, nor can that which it is in reality be grasped by human reason and revealed, or expressed by any speech. And although we may conceive with the mind or pronounce with reason the Trinity, the unity, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and finally that incomprehensible Godhead and ineffable nature, it consists not in those things, but above them. Whence it comes about that neither a prior nor a subsequent place can be conveniently attributed to the divine nature, but only that which is supreme over all, in that it exceeds all number and the conception of unity, if at least number and unity revolve around substances, while God is above substance. Our Savior, however, in order that He might lead us by names and things familiar to us to those things which are placed above nature, and thus initiate us into divine mysteries, attributed in His discourse the first place to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit, when He thus addresses His disciples: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" 7.

CAP. V. That it was fitting that the Son of God should also be called the Son of man, and that it could not have happened that He be saved by a human man or an angel.

But this was neither inherent by nature in the Father, nor consonant with the divine Spirit, that He should be seen on earth and coalesce with us. For how could it be that He who proclaimed the fatherhood inherent in Him for all ages would be called the Son of man? Or even that Spirit, the coadjutor and perfector and confirmer of those things which the Son brought forth from nothing into what there is in the nature of things, as most have asserted in their writings? Nay, the Savior Himself in the Gospels, in which He discourses concerning the Holy Spirit, addresses the disciples in these words: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and suggest to you all things whatsoever I have said to you" 8. Likewise, "But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony of me" 9. But this from reason not ab-

- ^A horred, as one who, being the Son of God, turned out also to be the Son of man; and just as He had bestowed life upon men, so He might likewise bestow upon us in His advent not only life, but a good life as well, with both natures preserved: the divine, I say, which is the same as the first and transcends the grasp of man; and the human, which for our sake He assumed for a time under a specific property. Especially since it had happened through the fault of man that man was excluded from salvation, to the attaining of which neither the Mosaic Law nor prophetic predictions could have been of any avail, nor could any of the angels seem able to proffer to us anything in this matter: although this had pleased God beyond measure, because it brought a ready remedy and a most effective means for recovering salvation to the plight of men, which was in despair. For how could it have come to pass that a simple man, not a participant in any divinity, could gather nations into one and the same faith, and impose a limit upon those ceremonies which the Law made us liable to? Or could he even use the same power which Christ uses in these words: "The Law indeed saith, Thou shalt not commit adultery; but I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her" 10, and the things which follow, to be taken in this sense: that they are meant for the perfection of the Law, but not understood for its destruction? ^B Indeed, not even an angel could have weakened the powers of the evil spirits, especially since Scripture warns us that the archangel Michael contended with the devil over the body of Moses, yet he never reached such a pitch of audacity as to condemn him as a blasphemer, but used only these words: "The Lord rebuke thee." Furthermore, angels rise up against angels, just as that man of desires and most perceptive of prophets, Daniel, explains in his writings. Therefore, just as was fitting, so were all things created—yet created and made in such a way that they were both salutary to the world and not unworthy of God. And this much for now, even if these things have been said without any ornamentation of speech. Now there remain certain things to be committed to writing, from which the most holy Fathers and theologians have taught us what ought to be thought concerning the supersubstantial Trinity.

CAP. VI.

St. Dionysius the Areopagite, from Chap. 2, On Unified and Distinct Theology, concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

We have received from the sacred oracles that the Father is the fount of divinity, but the Son and the Spirit are the buds of the God-begotten divinity, so to speak, divinely blossoming as it were like flowers, and supersubstantial lights; but in what manner this eventually comes to pass, no one can attain to by speech or by intellect. Likewise, therefore, in almost every theological disputation we behold the sacred praises of the supreme Divinity, partly because it is a unity by reason of ^C simplicity and ^D the unity of His supernatural impartibility, by the reason of which, as a unifying power, we are united, and, complicating our divisive diversities above the condition of this world, we are gathered into a Deiform monad, and into that unity which imitates that divine one; but partly because it is a Trinity, in respect of those three persons which shine forth from their supersubstantial fecundity, from which every heavenly family both exists and is named. Likewise, that Divinity which is the patron of all things, and is called by the celebrated name of both Unity and Trinity, is not such a unity and Trinity as becomes known to us or to any other of those things which exist, but in order that we may truly praise His unity, which is superior to every unity, and His God-begotten fecundity, we designate it by the appellation of a triune and one Divinity: although, however, it transcends all names and surpasses the essence of those things which exist. Furthermore, no unity or Trinity, or any number or unit, or fecundity, or finally any other thing from among those which are, which is open to cognition and knowledge, can uncover that secret which is inexplicable by any speech or intellect, which resides in that super-Divinity, which by its own substance surpasses every substance by many parasangs. But it itself can be expressed neither by any name, nor by any reasoning, nor by speech, but it lies hidden in the very depths of the inner sanctums, as if removed from the midst.

CAP. VII.

Great Basil’s, from his epistle to his brother Gregory, which is inscribed "On the difference between essence and hypostasis."

Wherever [one] attains to the Father in the holy Trinity by intellect, by one and the same operation he at once understands Him as Father in Himself, and comprehends the Son in his thought. But he who holds the Son embraces the Spirit also, and consequently, indeed, according to order, but conjointly according to nature, he has expressed the faith of the three as fused and mingled in Himself. Likewise, he who has spoken of the Spirit has by such a confession embraced also Him whose Spirit it is, namely Christ, and Him from whom He proceeds, namely God, as the Apostle says. And just as in a chain, he who touches one ring draws along the other end as well, so whoever draws the Spirit, as the prophet is the author, is also, through Him, made possessor of both the Son and the Father. And if one apprehends [this], he shall have, by this same induction, reconciled to himself from both sides of the same [chain], this one being the Father of the same, that one being the Spirit proper to the same. For it will not be possible for Him to be separated from the Father, who always remains in the Father, or ever to be disjoined from His own Spirit, who does everything in Him. Therefore, absolutely no section or division can be thought of by which either the Father is understood without the Son, or the Son without the Spirit. Indeed, that conjunction and division in them is...

such ^A that, by a certain wondrous method, both the joined distinction and the distinct conjunction may be discerned. But that something of light might reach the obscurity of this matter, or rather that the truth might be shadowed forth, let that multicolor celestial bow, which the common people call Iris, be proposed as an example. For the splendors of all its colors are seen as distinct, because they shine from afar, and as joined, because we do not see the limits of the mixtures by which the varieties of the colors are distinguished: so that you are utterly unable to discern how far they extend, or whence they take their beginning, whether the red, the emerald, or the glaucous splendor of light. ^B By which example of nature indeed reason warns us not to labor under the vice of novelty in seeking out the principles of dogmas, if, when we have discovered some difficult knot in our inquiry, we are in doubt as to which side we ought to lean. For just as it is better to experience what things that fall under sight are like, rather than rashly to contradict them, so also in those dogmas which are established concerning difficult matters, faith must needs surpass that cognition which is acquired by reasoning.

CHAPTER VIII.

We, however, worship the principality of one God. The principality, I say, not circumscribed by one person (for it is possible that a unit may dissent from itself and depart into many) which is constituted by equal dignity of nature, by the same consensus of mind, by the same motion, and by the concourse of all things that flow from the one into the one (which indeed can in no way whatever happen in generated nature), so that even if it differs in number, it is not, however, divided in essence by reason. Therefore, unity, growing into a duality from the beginning, rests in the trinity. And this to us is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He indeed is the begetter and the emitter (which I understand as concerning affection, time, and body), but of these, the one is called generation, the other emission. Otherwise, I know not by what name those things ought to be called, since they have been abstracted from those things that fall under sight. ^C And a little later: Therefore, containing ourselves within our own boundaries, we introduce one unbegotten, another begotten, a third proceeding from the Father and the Son, just as God himself and the Word testifies somewhere. When, therefore, someone may object, did these begin to be? Doubtless, before any observation of time was made, and if something must be said in a youthful manner, when the Father himself was. But when was the Father not? When he was not. Thus, therefore, it is to be understood concerning the Son, and so concerning the Holy Spirit. Being interrogated by me again, that I may also answer you again: When was the Son begotten? It is surely when the Father was not begotten. When, finally, did the Spirit proceed? It is surely when the Son did not proceed. But he is begotten at no time, and [is] above what anyone can attain by reason. And if we can establish nothing above time, let us flee from any temporal signification (for these words, *when, before, after,* and *from the beginning*, are not devoid of time), even if we strive our utmost and take the force away from words, except that we call *eon* that space which is extended with the same duration as the eternal, and is divided by no motion or course of the sun, nor is it measurable like time. ^D Now, if they are coeternal, you ask, how comes it that they are not also without a beginning together with the Father? Because, forsooth, they are from him, although they are not after him. For what is devoid of a beginning is also eternal, but what is eternal is not entirely without a beginning, at least so long as it is referred to its principle, that is, the Father. Therefore, the Son and the Spirit, if their cause is recalled, are not without a beginning (it is agreed, however, that the cause is not entirely older than those of which it is the cause. For you would not say the sun is older than its light: so if account of time is held, they are without a beginning: however much you may terrify the minds of the simpler folk with your tricks. For they are not subjected to time, upon whom time itself depends).

CAP. IX.

Thus, therefore, we worship the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that by divided properties we conjoin the Divinity itself. Nor, indeed, do we contract the three into one, lest we be seized by the malady of Sabellius, nor, on the contrary, do we lead the one into three, distinct indeed and alien, lest we rave with Arius. For why, I pray, like plants inclined to the other side and completely bent, do we twist them with force to the opposite side, and correct perversity with perversity, and not rather, aspiring to the middle, remain within the bounds of divine piety? By the name of mediocrity, moreover, I understand the truth itself, to which if we look, we shall not stray: that, however, will happen if we subscribe neither to that wicked contraction, nor to that far more absurd division. So that we do not leave for ourselves names merely as words contracted into one person for fear of a manifold divinity, while we think the same person is Father and Son and Holy Spirit, nor do we define that all things are conflated into one, rather than that each one of them is nothing at all (for they designate what they are, if they yield to one another, and other things in

^A their place, neither opposing one another in three natures, or being foreign, dissimilar, and sundered from one another; having embraced that which I have rightly called madness, or lacking in principle and order, and, so to speak, contrary to the Divinity. From this we are drawn into the straits of Judaic paucity, if we ascribe Divinity only to the Unbegotten; but from there, we fall into the opposite, though equally wicked, error, if we posit three principles or three gods, which is indeed far more absurd than the aforementioned. For it is better if some do not embrace the Father in such a way that they would defraud Him even of the name of Father (for whose Father could He be said to be, if He were considered of a different nature and numbered among creatures?), nor love Christ so greatly that they despoil Him of the name of Son (for of whom, pray, could He be heard to be the Son, unless He be referred to the cause, that is, the Father?), nor diminish in the Father the dignity of principle, by which, assuredly, He is asserted to be father and generator. For there would be no principle of things of small moment and unworthy of Him, unless He were the author of His Divinity, which is discerned in the Son and the Spirit. Since it is necessary to worship one God, and to confess three hypostases or persons, and that each of them is endowed with its own property.

CAP. X.

CAP. XI.

^A essence, power, and action of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exists. Nor can any one of them exist or be understood without the other.

2. Of the same. The essence of this producer of the universe, the Holy Trinity, is alone simple, uniform, needing nothing, and immutable. But every creature is composite, which, indeed, consists of substance and accident, always needing the aid of divine providence, and by no means free from change. Consequently, neither accident nor quality is to be attributed to God. For such things are wont to be attributed to composite things that are subject to change. But whatsoever is in God, is there by nature, not as if acquired or adventitious.

3. Of the same. If you seek habits and aptitudes in the simple and infinite essence of the Holy Trinity, lest by chance you pronounce it composite and count it among created things.

4. Of the same. From those things which are, we discern the cause [namely the Father]; but from the difference of those things which are, that enhypostazed [entity], which is to say, existing by itself, of that which is wisdom, namely the Son, becomes known to us. From the natural motion, finally, of those things that are, we understand also the enhypostazed [entity]—or that which exists by itself—of those things that are life, and the power that vivifies those things that are, namely the Holy Spirit.

5. Of the same. If the Word presides over those things which are generated, no word has ever been older than this Word, nor shall there be. The Word is not without mind, nor without life, but is a participant in mind and life. For it has a generating mind, which consists by its own essence—namely, the Father—and it has life consisting by its own essence—namely, the Holy Spirit.

CAP. XII.

God is both Father, who is always unbegotten, inasmuch as He, being begotten of no one, begot the coeternal Son; and God is the Son, who is always with the Father, and who from Him has been begotten temporally without beginning, without change, imperturbably, and without separation from Him. Finally, God is the Holy Spirit, the sanctifying ^B virtue, which subsists through itself, proceeds from the Father and the Son, rests in the Son, and is of the same substance as the Father and the Son. The Word is that which is substantially always present with the Father. The Word is also the natural motion by which the mind itself is moved, understands, and thinks, because it exists as its rule and splendor, so to speak. Furthermore, the Word is also that internal word which we speak in our heart. Furthermore, the Word is the messenger of the mind. Therefore, the Word exists in God by His own essence and proper hypostasis. The other three words are faculties of the mind, which are in no way considered in a proper hypostasis. Of these, the first is the natural germ of the mind, which always naturally flows from it. The second is also called the internal word. Finally, the third is brought forth. The Spirit is also accepted in a manifold way. For there is the Holy Spirit; and spiritual faculties are designated by the name of spirit. Spirit is, moreover, used for a good angel, and likewise for a demon. Spirit is also the soul. Sometimes also the intellect, wind, air, and other things of that kind are called spirit.

CHAPTER XIII.

1. From two perfect hypostases, or persons, a composition cannot arise. Therefore, we do not say that species exists from persons, but in persons. From which it follows that we speak of the persons in the Holy Trinity as perfect, so that no composition at all may be conceived in them. But we assert that these are each individual in themselves, on account of their mutual habit among themselves and their relation. Because, moreover, they cannot be circumscribed, nor contained in a place, because finally their Divinity is one and the same.

2. In all created things, the division of persons is detected in the thing itself. For in reality Michael is separated from Gabriel, Peter from Paul, and all other things in the same way. But that which is common in these and one, is discerned by thought. For only by thought do we recognize angelness, for instance, and humanity—that is, the common notion of angels and men. But in the divine Trinity the matter is otherwise. For what is common and one in it ^C is seen in the thing itself. For in reality we certainly know the three to be one God, to be one and the same nature and action in the three, and finally one and the same will. But the division of the persons is understood by simple and bare thought. For we do not dare to understand or conceive here that circumscription by which persons are wont to be circumscribed, nor the interval by which one place is disjoined from another, nor any other of those properties by which individuals are contained, as it were, within their own boundaries. Besides paternity, filiation, and procession—or those notions by which the Father is understood as begetter, the Son as begotten, and the Spirit as proceeding. And indeed these things come to be in a manner of this kind, which easily surpasses every nature and essence. Therefore, we say that they are one God, since it cannot be that we divide their persons perfectly and in reality, which are divided without division, and joined without conjunction, because of the account of their division and conjunction, which is such that it is far superior to any nature and essence.

3. The hypostases are distinguished, not by essence, but by characteristic properties, that is, by the marks which are in the persons. From which it comes about that, from created things, we learn what the difference is ^D of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, that is, of their proper marks, but not of their natures.

CAP. XIV.

5. Species and form in the holy Trinity are taken in the same way, and both denote essence. For he says, He who sees me, sees the Father (John xiv, 9): in which place, seeing is understood by foreknowledge and cognition.

6. Essence indeed has not the power of joining persons. Hypostases, however, by the force of characteristic properties or their marks, distinguish essence.

7. Essence is never said of things that do not exist, whereas nature is very often. For this, he says, is the nature of a lie. Likewise, he says, The flow of the water shows its source: the nature of speech, however, indicates the heart from which it proceeded.

8. If things are common and universal, they are predicated wholly and entirely of the individuals subject to them; certainly, the nature of Divinity is also predicated wholly and entirely of its individual persons. For if nature and essence are something common and universal, but hypostasis and person are individual—individual, I say, not because it has a part of the nature while another does not, but because it is an individual.

9. And indeed, substance is something common, because it is predicated of many; but the individual is something singular, because it is predicated of one alone.

CAP. XV.

The difference of nature and hypostasis, from Cyril, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Alexandrian, Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodoret.

10. Nature and hypostasis, by ecclesiastical definition and law, do not signify the same: for in the way in which the common differs from the proper, the universal from the singular, and finally the infinite from the definite, in that same way does nature differ from hypostasis. Yet we do not doubt that the blessed Cyril and other Fathers used both terms to signify that divine assumption of flesh without any discrimination. For they used hypostasis for essence, and conversely essence for hypostasis, in an improper sense: not that they thought them to be the same, but because this custom—not only of the holy Scripture but also of ecclesiastical teachers—has long since taken root, namely, that in many things they use certain words without discrimination; which they sometimes use improperly, knowing that words represent nothing—if I may use the words of Cyril—when things are otherwise. Dionysius, the Hierophant, or demonstrator of sacred things, also provides the authority that it is contrary to reason, and an argument of a preposterous judgment, if anyone should depend upon the signification of words, having set aside the force and scope of things. That Dionysius also, the Alexandrian rhetorician, in the schools which he edited for his namesake, the Areopagite, says that among external or profane philosophers, "ingenerate" signifies all nature that does not fall under the sight. Moreover, essences also among the same are usurped for hypostases, and so forth. Such terms are certainly found used improperly by the Areopagite, and by Nazianzen as well. Gregory the Theologian also writes thus: "Nor let those who squabble about words blame us, as if we ascribed piety to names and not to things. Likewise, truth seems to us to reside not in names, but in things." Therefore, those things which are said improperly are not what they are called, because, forsooth, they are not even properly called what they are; nor, on the contrary, are such things understood as the word itself designates.

11. Now indeed, when Cyril makes mention of hypostases, conjunction, difference, and property, then he uses the name of hypostasis for essences, demonstrating by this word that the joined natures subsist by themselves, and teaching that such a conjunction is by no means made of certain similarities and forms that possess no subsistence of their own, but of those things which do subsist. That this is so, he himself testifies in his first Apology against the reproaches of Theodoret, saying thus: "Let him learn, however, by the way, that if the forms of flesh assumed were joined among themselves in such a way that they were considered only by themselves, separated from the hypostases of the economic union, then certainly they would have attained a concurrence of the things themselves." But that a different signification of nature and hypostasis was not unknown to him, he himself attests in his second epistle to Nestorius with these words: "We do not ascribe the evangelical words of our Savior to two hypostases, nor certainly to persons." Likewise in the epistle to the Orientals: "We know," he says, "that some of the evangelical and apostolic words concerning the Lord are so commonly accepted by theologians as if they were uttered concerning one person; some, however, are interpreted as if they were pronounced concerning two natures." He says elsewhere: "Christ is not one and only doubled," by which words he used the reasoning of one hypostasis. For if the reasoning of natures is considered, he can also be said to be double.

12. Certainly, when discourse proceeds simply and without difference, we find that not only the Fathers, but the divine Scripture also, uses words freely and simply. For the blessed Apostle calls the inner parts of a man, "man," and likewise his exterior parts, "man" again: attributing to the parts, forsooth, the name of the whole. The Prophets, on the other hand,

usage requires its own proper appellations as occasion demands. In the sense I have previously mentioned, the theologian John also says: "And the Word was made flesh," 13 that is, "was made man." We do not, however, dispute about this matter. For, as the great Dionysius testifies, this is characteristic not of those who aspire to the knowledge of divine things, but of those who hunt for simple sounds, and are more intensely delighted by elements, syllables, and unknown expressions, which in no wise penetrate to that part of their soul endowed with the power of understanding, but rather remain on the outside, clinging to and resounding on the surface of their lips and ears. ^B Hypostasis is twofold: for on the one hand, hypostasis is said to be that which is considered apart from characteristic properties or marks; on the other hand, it is called a "person," which subsists by itself or with the aforementioned properties. For those things which the Peripatetics used to call individuals, in which the division into genus and species terminates, and which can be divided no further (for the division of a man into soul and body usually brings about destruction), these it has pleased the ecclesiastical teachers to call persons and hypostases. Furthermore, they are called hypostases because in them genera and species, which are common and uncircumscribed, as it were plant their feet and are circumscribed. For although the definition of essence is proper to animal and man, of which the former is the genus and the latter the species, they nevertheless have a hypostasis, or subsist, in the atoms—that is, in Peter and Paul—without which they cannot exist. But enough about hypostasis. ^C Conversely, *enhypostaton*, or that which subsists by its own power, is also twofold: for it signifies that which simply "is," by which signification we denote not only essence—which experts in such matters call *authyparkton* and *autypostaton*, that is, subsisting by itself and through its own power—but we also call accidents *enhypostata*, because they are denominated by their own power of subsistence, since they exist and subsist in another (namely, in essence) and not in themselves; although they are more correctly called *heterohypostata*, that is, subsisting in another. It also signifies that which is by itself, and *idiostaton*, properly consistent by itself; in which signification we also call individuals *enhypostata*, which properly are and are recognized as hypostases. But let these things suffice regarding the *enhypostaton*. ^D By no dissimilar reasoning is the *anhypostaton* also twofold. For *anhypostaton* is not only said of that which in no way exists anywhere, but it is also said of that which subsists in another, such as accidents, which cannot subsist by themselves.

He who wishes to examine these things more subtly will discover many other significations of hypostasis. For besides those things which have been said above, hypostasis is also taken to mean a burden; as in Deuteronomy: "How can I myself alone bear your burden?" 14 For in Hebrew it is called *Masachem*, that is, a burden. Also, it is used for food or provisions, as in the book of Judges regarding the Jews: "because the Midianites rifled the fruits of the earth, and their substance." For in Hebrew it is used for hope, whence Naomi uses these words in the book of Ruth: "I have no son nor hope." 15 For in Hebrew it is read *Thiconia*, that is, the hope of offspring to be propagated. Also for a price or wage, as in the first book of Kings, regarding the wages of a coppersmith. Regarding the axe, he says, and what follows, this means wages. Also for a camp, as in the same book Jonathan says to his armor-bearer: "Come, let us go over into the camp of the Philistines." 16 For the Hebrew codex has *Mataan*, by which name the camp is signified. Also for that dregs which subsists in liquid things, as when we speak of the substance of urine. Also for wealth, as that: "And my substance is as nothing before thee." 16a Also for foundation, as that: "I am stuck in the mire of the deep, and there is no subsistence for me." 17 Also for business, whence Jeremiah: "He gathered his substance from without." And regarding a secret, as the same author says concerning the pseudoprophets: "And if they had stood in my substance, or in my secret." Also for foundation, as in Ezekiel regarding the building of the temple, describing the house and the rest that follows, in which he puts *hypostasis* for foundation. Also for praise, as with the Apostle: "That which I speak, I speak not according to the Lord, but as it were in foolishness, in this substance of glorying." 18

CAP. XVI.

God is neither light nor darkness; neither knowledge nor ignorance; neither truth nor falsehood; and, to conclude briefly, there is nowhere to posit Him, nor whence to take Him away. For He is superior to everything, both to what we think and to what is thought of by things that are above us. Since the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not what we think, nor who are above us, but He is He who can be understood by no reason, and expressed by no speech. For positions and removals, and habits and privations, are attributed to those things which are after God.

He is the beginning and cause of those things that are. But as to the "age of ages," He is more properly this than the ages themselves. Time, indeed, because He is the measure of those things that are; for He is also the term of them, as He who imposes upon them measure and end. Since those things which are eternal, and the infinite series of ages themselves, are terminated by His infinity, who infinitely and in an infinite manner embraces them all. Generation, because He produces into the nature of things those things which in any way come to be. Place, because He contains all things. Finally, He is all things, because He is superior to all.

3. Of the same. God is also called infinite, and that which is the limit is termed such. But infinity is that which extends above such things. For His infinity, which limits all things, is manifest in infinite ways.

4. Of the same. God, since He is the cause of all things, is spoken of in contrary ways. He is called "Great" in many places in Scripture; but "Small" is gathered from these words: *in a gentle breeze*. He is certainly called great, inasmuch as He bestows magnitude upon things, whose magnitude is infinite, and who finally surpasses every magnitude, whose magnitude is entirely devoid of quantity, measure, and limit. Moreover, "Small" or "gentle" is predicated of God in that He does not grow into any swelling or mass, is not defined by any space, but freely penetrates through all things and reaches even to the division of the soul and spirit, and discerns the very conceptions and thoughts of the heart—nay, discerns all things that are, for no created thing is hidden from Him. And this "smallness," devoid of quantity, is immense and infinite; and though He can be comprehended in no way, He nevertheless comprehends all things.

5. Furthermore, He is said to be both the same and different from God. The former is said in this place, *But you are the same self*, and the latter in that, *Lord, Lord, who is like you?* He is therefore said to be the same because He is not changed, but rather always conducts Himself in the same way and in a similar manner; also because He is not mixed, is not in need, does not grow, does not diminish, and finally because He bestows upon those things that exist, that they are not subject to [limitations], but are so because of His comprehension, which can be restrained or coerced in no way: and likewise because of the reason of those immovable ^A progressions, by which God, through His providence, is infused into things that exist, and finally because of the reason of those actions which are more excellent than all other actions.

8. Of the same. Just as it is said that holy men are the house of God: for He says, *I will dwell in them and walk among them*; so also is God the house of holy men. For David says, *Be to me a Protector, O God, and a house of refuge, that you may save me*. And the words of the Lord Himself are these: *You are in me, and I in you*. And just as God is in them in such a way that He can neither be contained nor circumscribed, so also are they in God, but without their essence being in any way mixed or confounded.

9. Of the same. Although God is devoid of any quantity, yet the breadth of God is understood as that wide progression by which He provides for all things; length, as that divine power which extends above all things; profundity, finally, as that concealment by which it comes to pass that He cannot be perceived or known by those things which exist.

10. Of the same. In sacred mystic visions, God is depicted as an old man and a youth; and the old man signifies the Ancient One, but the youth signifies that He is in no way subject to old age: or the youth signifies divine antiquity even in an arithmetical sense. For Unity, and those things which are annexed to unity, are by nature more ancient than those which far exceed them in number.

11. He is indeed present to all: for He is not addicted to one place, so as to be absent from another; but He embraces all things. Yet He is not present to all things [in the same way], but to whatever is worthy, that it might approach more closely to the Divinity. But we are present to Him only then, when we invoke Him with the purest prayers, that is, with a mind untainted by any filth, and so that we might be judged fit to approach God. Just as, if a chain constructed of many links were suspended from the summit of the heavens down to us, and we, having seized it with alternate hands, are seen to pull it downward—yet in reality we do not pull it downward, since it hangs both above and below—but rather we are pulled upward from it toward its more sublime ^C rays: or, as if we should board a ship and lean upon the ropes which are extended toward us from some crag, and are, as it were, stretched out for us to grasp, we do not at all draw the crag to ourselves, but we rather move ourselves, along with the ship, closer to the crag: so also by our prayers we do not at all draw God to ourselves, who is everywhere present, but we raise and lift up ourselves toward Him by the divine commemoration and invocation of Him. ^D

CHAPTER XVII.

^A D. Maximus, on God in general. [The genuine meaning of the names by which we call God.] We do not say that these names—Being, Good, God, Creator, Supersubstantial, Immense, Immortal, and others of this kind—signify substantial differences in God, lest we profess Him to be composite through words of this sort; but they are appellations by which some things that are considered regarding Him become known, yet in such a way that they signify nothing of those things which pertain to His essence and nature. For some have a signification of things that are fitting to the divine nature, but in no way to the nature itself, which indeed is proper to substantial things or those that constitute the essence.

2. Being indivisible, He is a Being, and is bereft of quantity; He is bereft of quantity because also of quality; He is, however, of quality because He is simple; He is simple because He is interminable; He is interminable because He is immense; He is immense because He is immovable; He is immovable because He lacks a beginning (for neither is there anything before Him, nor is anything greater than Him, nor anything equal to Him, nor anything after Him); but He lacks a beginning because He is unbegotten; and He is unbegotten because He is one and most singular; finally, He is one and most singular because He is quite bereft of every condition, and for that reason He cannot in any way at all be spoken of or known, as one in whom resides that unique true knowledge, that He is not known.

3. His Being is immense, not only because He lacks beginning and end, but because such is His essence, such His power, such His operation. His essence, indeed, is such that nothing can be capable of it. But by His power and operation, He is such that He cannot be comprehended by the sharpness of any mind at all, and, to speak more truly of what the matter is, by every reason and manner; for this is properly infinite, which we call immense. For just as unity is neither a number, nor falls under number, nor is a whole, nor a part, nor a condition: but it is indeed a beginning, in that it is the cause of all numbers, but it lacks a beginning, since it has no number more ancient than itself, and is the measure of unity; so also God, if I may speak with a small image proposed, surpasses all quantity, quality, and condition, as one who is simple, without beginning, and exists even as the beginning of those things which are.

4. His Being: nothing of those things that are has been made by itself, and that which has not been made by itself does not lack a cause; but that which does not lack a cause is not immovable; and that which is not immovable is moved for that very cause which comes about by natural motion from the cause by which, and toward which, it is moved (since of those things which are moved, nothing at all is so fashioned as to be moved without a cause). But the beginning of all natural motion is the rising of those things which are moved. God is the beginning of the generation of those things that have been generated, as the author of generation. Furthermore, the natural motion of those things which have been generated is an end—that state which comes to be from the passing of those things which have passed, from that infinity in which, because there is no interval, all motion of those things which are naturally moved ceases. Hence it comes about that God Himself is the beginning, middle, and end of all generation, and of the motion and state of those things which are, as being the principle of those things that have arisen from Him, that are moved by Him, and finally are to reach rest in Him, as One who defines and determines every definite infinity of motion.

5. The same God is said to be neither understanding nor understood, lest by chance He be thought composite. For that which understands is endowed with the faculty of understanding, which may understand together with Him, and that which is understood is endowed with the force by which it can be understood. Yet He is not called intelligence. For the natural power of intelligence is subordinate to Him as its possessor. It remains, therefore, above all these things, that if we cannot call Him intelligence, we may at least say that He is that Intelligence which is essence itself, and is merely intelligence, and that He surpasses all intelligence to such an extent.

CHAPTER XVIII.

B. Gregory the Theologian, from the great Apologetic Oration. [How difficult it is for heavenly things to be comprehended by an earthly man.]

Heaven is high, but the earth is depressed and lowly: who shall ascend, primarily of those who have been cast down from there by sin? Who, still wrapped in this earthly gloom and the grossness of the flesh, will be able with his whole mind to look purely and be mingled with those things which remain fixed and are invisible, as long as he remains among those things which are weak and are presented to the eyes? For with difficulty, and scarcely indeed, can anyone of those who have here a purified and clarified mind gaze even upon the mere image of the Good, just as those who contemplate the sun in the waters. Who has measured the water with his hand, and the heaven with his span, and the whole earth with his fist? Who has weighed the mountains with a scale and the valleys with a balance? What will that place be, in which He shall rest? And to whom, then, in this universe of things, will He be said to be similar? Who created all things by His Word, formed man by His Wisdom, and brought into one those things which were before disjointed, and mixed clay with spirit, or earth with heaven, and finally composed a living being, visible and invisible, mortal and immortal, earthly and heavenly? And who, to such an extent, would touch God, yet not embrace Him, and, while approaching nearer to Him, still be separated far from the same? I said: I will become wise, Solomon says, and it receded far from me, and even further than before. By which words he understands wisdom. And he who in truth adds knowledge, adds also sorrow. So that he is not pleased who

chooses it, but rather he who omits it is saddened. And this is indeed what usually happens to those from whom, while they were yet thirsty, the cup has been snatched from their hands: or to those who, though they cannot hold anything, yet judge themselves to possess it: or to those whom the splendor of lightning has deserted, once it has first shone forth. Thinking on this, reason dismissed me and rendered me more abject, and caused me to persuade myself that it would be better for me if I heard the voice of praise, than if I should profess myself a teacher of those things which exceed my powers. The majesty, height, dignity, and indeed those pure and heavenly natures are hardly capable of the brightness of God, who is veiled in the abyss and hides in the secret chambers of darkness, since He is most pure light and unapproachable to the greater part of mankind. Since He is indeed in this universe of things, and also runs outside the universe of things. He who is goodness itself, nay, He who surpasses every goodness. He who provides light to the mind, and yet escapes the speed and sublimity of the mind, always retreating as much as He is comprehended, and lifting up the lover to higher things as He flees, and grasping Himself within us almost by stealing away. ^B

CAP. XIX.

^A Likewise, *Spiritus* (Spirit) is so called *dià tò ὡς νεῦμα ὀξέως πᾶν νεύειν καὶ κινεῖσθαι*, that is, because, as a nod or impulse, it inclines and moves all things whithersoever it wills. Moreover, in Scripture, *Spiritus* is used in four ways: the Holy Spirit, the angelic spirit, the spirit of wind; and sometimes the human mind is also designated by the appellation of spirit.

For if Daniel, the prophet himself, could not bear the aspect of the angel who lowered himself to him, but with failing strength fell upon his face, saying: *And there remained no strength in me; and my appearance was changed in me, and I withered away*, that is, the beauty of my face perished and was turned into the pallor of a dead man; how is it that you, being as much inferior to Daniel as he was to the angel, dare to raise your face and inquire more curiously about the divine nature? Daniel, who in a human body could see things of which a man is not capable, could not bear the splendor of a fellow-servant lowering himself to him; and yet have you comprehended that nature which created countless thousands of angels, the aspect of a single one of which Daniel could not bear, as has already been said? Who would not grieve? Who would not lament such great stupidity?

CAP. XX.

Certain catechetical erotemata. Namely, in how many ways God, Father, Son, and Spirit are accepted in the Scriptures. Together with their *tomy*. What the Trinity is. ^B 1. In how many ways is the word "God" taken in Scripture? In two: namely, by nature and by habit. By nature, as Creator; by habit, however, and by grace: even just men are reckoned by the name of gods.

2. Is the word "God" of substance, or of action, or of figure, or truly of metaphor? It is clear that it is of action, whereby God in a certain way imparts to us His substance, which, because it is impossible to know, it happens that God reveals His action to us by contemplation alone; and therefore He is called *Theos* from *theein* (to run) or *theaomai* (to behold), that is, named from considering.

3. What does "Father" signify, and in how many ways does of-the-fatherhood fit God? The Father is properly called a hypostasis or person, which depends on no other cause. But although He begets, He is yet begotten of no one. Furthermore, He is called *Patēr*, as if *panta tērōn*, that is, *omnia conservans* (preserving all things), or as if *tous oikeious paidas tērōn*, that is, preserving His own children. God the Father is said to be Father in two ways: namely, by nature and by grace. By nature, indeed, of the Word of God, who is His own consubstantial; by grace, however, of us also, whence that saying: *I have said, You are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High*.

4. What is "Son," and in what manner is He understood? The Son is properly a secondary hypostasis in one and the same nature, whether an increase of persons, or the procession of the unbegotten nature, or a known relationship; but *Hyios*, that is, "Son," is properly said, as if *hoios* (what sort), that is, of such a quality. For of such quality as the Father is in substance, of such quality is the Son, the Only-Begotten. Whether it be from the uncreated, the uncreated; or from the mortal, the mortal; or from the human, the human. In two ways, likewise, is sonship said in God: by nature and by grace. By nature, indeed, the Word of God; by grace, however, the just.

5. What is "Spirit," and in what way is it said, and in how many ways is it accepted? Spirit is a certain subtle, processive substance, which ^C is utterly devoid of all else but itself. *Pneuma*, moreover, that is *Spiritus*, is so called because it is, as it were, a breath, quickly inclining and moving all things to whatever it may nod or move.

6. What is the Trinity? Trinity, if you consider the matter of the natural order, is nothing other than a composition of unities. But if you consider the divine substance, it is an essence that exceeds all number.

7. What is eternity? That which never had a beginning, and will have no end at any time. Moreover, whatever represents that which shall never cease, you should not rightly conclude immediately that it lacks a beginning. ^D For angels and souls certainly had a beginning of essence, but are to have no end in the meantime.

CAP. XXI.

Another theological consideration concerning the Trinity. [Since He is one, why do we invoke the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, against the Tritheists].

We believe there is One God, who created every substance and nature, whether it be visible or whether it does not fall under sight. He who follows a view different from this is impious. We persuade ourselves that the same One is endowed with humanity, justice, wisdom, and singular goodness, and with the rest of those things which befit the divine and blessed nature. Not to follow through by writing of each individual point, it is little short of you both saying and feeling the same thing. For you have invoked the Word of God while I was listening. And in very truth, it is so. For how could it be possible that God should lack a word? You also invoke the Spirit. And indeed, the Spirit exists. For no discourse can proceed articulately without spirit. Furthermore, since we refer these things to the one God, we therefore invoke the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as if we were contemplating the mind, the Word, and the spirit together. But we also assert the same things through His own power. For none of the divine things lacks its own forces. Since the Word is not to be understood as similar to our own, which is indeed brought forth by the support of the breath, but vanishes into the air; but, fittingly for God, as everlasting and subsisting by itself. Since nothing of divine things is done cursorily. For they exist, and they are one, and they consist in their own hypostasis and substance, of one and the same nature, honor, and essence. This is the Trinity to us, not "God, and God, and God." Let them depart into evil, those who circulate this heresy, for by this path a plurality of gods would be introduced. But we teach that these which are three by their properties are one God, one nature, and, finally, one substance. This, certainly,

^A is what we, who are assertors of the orthodox faith, believe, and whoever is wise and embraces piety must believe.

Chapter XXII.

A demonstration from common notions that there is one God in the Trinity.

To every man who possesses a divinely implanted mind, this opinion also naturally presents itself: that God is a substance that surpasses every substance, and a power that surpasses every power, and, finally, an action superior to every action, so that He is subject neither to division, nor to composition, nor to any passion. And yet, he who thinks God to be devoid of substance, power, and action is no less astray from reason. Equally astray from the truth is he who would strip God of substance, or of power, or of action. For whoever should dare to tear apart the first of this triple relationship will thereby be ejaculating a twofold blasphemy against the Divinity. For just as that which is devoid of substance is not Deity, so neither is that which is deprived of power or action. For how can that which is the supersubstantial substance, from which every substance proceeds, fail to be this? Nor, indeed, can it be the case that that from which any power or action whatever springs, should itself be wanting in these very things. Therefore, from that notion which is implanted in every human being, it is evident how far ^B from being absurd it is—nay, how it is a necessary consequence—that the threefold power of God should be celebrated. There is the supersubstantiality of the substance, the super-potentiality of the power, and, finally, the simultaneously begotten identity of the action. These three proceed from the same cause and the same principle, and shine forth at the same time. For since every substance receives this very thing that it is from God, it comes about that it can neither be comprehended without power nor without action. Now, how can it be that He who has imparted these things to the things that exist, and who so preserves His own gift within them that it cannot be dissolved or dissipated, should either not have been these things Himself beforehand, or be thought to have suffered some mutation and privation of those things which were His own? But if no one can contradict these things, it is clear that one Deity is to be adored in three. And these are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Or it may also be demonstrated in this way: One Deity, which is indeed defined by theologians as the mind of the universe, is not separated from intelligence and from the related intellect. For if there were no mind, intelligence would not exist at the same time, nor, in turn, would intelligence exist if it were deprived of intellect. This theological axiom will be confirmed by this sacred rationale as well. ^C One thing is not divided or separated from another, nor is one thing earlier or later, and yet they are three. For the mind is not the same thing as the intelligence and the intellect, since these are not to be reckoned by the name of mind, even though they proceed from the mind, and the mind is simultaneously with them. Furthermore, these do not consist of another nature, dignity, or conjunction, nor are they altered in their condition and properties. Hence it is evident that we teach neither another God from whom the Word and the Spirit proceed, nor, likewise, that those who proceed are another and another; but rather we teach one God from the three, of one nature, will, command, and dominion. For hence the unity of the gods, and that which is indivisible, shines forth. Otherwise, how could it be that those which are joined into one and the same nature, will, and power, should be contumelious to the nobility that joins them?

CHAPTER XXIII.

Against those who say that we believe in three gods.

By no means do we believe in three gods—far be it!—but in one omnipotent God, who is known in three persons. Recognizing one nature in three, one power, one counsel, and, finally, one action, through which He is known. And do not come ^D with such rashness as to ask how this comes to pass. For it is an argument of ignorance if someone, when dealing with God, inquires in what manner this is so. Since the Divinity is incomprehensible, nay, even inaccessible, and incorporeal. Hence it comes about that what He is can in no way be explained. For what the eye has not seen, what mind can attain to by thought? And what things are not accessible to the mind, how can they be explained by anyone's speech? Moreover, that there is a God in the Trinity is clear from the testimony of both truth itself and the Holy Scriptures, as will be confirmed in the following. But to inquire how this is so is the mark of an imprudent man, and of one who does not know how to measure himself by his own foot. For first, know yourself: how your soul is infused into you, how you are composed, how an incorporeal thing inhabits your body. Does your body, therefore, extend with all its members, or is it contained, contracted in one place? Now, if it extends, the question is foolish, for it is the property of bodies to be extended. But if it is contracted, it is much more foolish; for not only will the body be found to be incorporeal, but the remaining parts will also be proven to be dead, as being separated from the vivifying soul. But if you are in no way capable of the knowledge of those things which are within you, how can it be that you understand those things which are above you? For if the judgments of the Lord are inscrutable and His ways past finding out, in what manner will He Himself be inquired into or investigated? But just as the sun, although it is unique, nevertheless emits light and heat from itself—and the sun is indeed signified by the name of light, for light makes all visible things manifest by its brightness, but heat vivifies all living things and plants—so also God the Father contains the Son and the Spirit in such a way that one Deity is comprehended in the three. For there is one God because there is one Deity, just as we call the light of the sun the sun. For when it has entered a house through some opening, we are accustomed to say: "The sun has entered and illuminated the house"; on the other hand, if at any time we grow warm by the heating power of the sun, we are certainly warmed by the sun.

We speak of these things, while speaking what is true for the time being. For those things which proceed from nature itself in no way shrink from its appellation. As, therefore, the sun, although it is unique, is nevertheless endowed with light and heat, the title of "sun" being attributed to both of these, while in the meantime there is but one sun: so too, although there is only one God, He nevertheless has the Son and the Spirit joined to Himself in an indissoluble bond, and God Himself, as He is in reality, is called both Son and God, and Spirit and God, although there is only one Divinity. What is the need for words? This fire, which we perceive with our senses, consists of the matter generating the flame, and it also consists of that vapor ^A which is emitted upwards from the flame and the matter: meanwhile, the fire is one, but by the benefit of the flame and the vapor, it happens that it represents in some way that unique Divinity which shines forth in the holy Trinity. Let it therefore be proven by this demonstration that there is one God in the Trinity, with as much cogency as suffices for the strength of the matter itself to be grasped by examples. For it is in no way possible for one to attain to a clear and in all respects absolute knowledge of the truth. It would indeed certainly have been better if the Architect of the world had not become known through the things created by Himself. For it cannot be said how great a distance separates the Creator from the creature.

Chapter XXIV.

The Psalmist prophesied with these words: "Who in the clouds shall be equal to the Lord, shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of God?" ^B By which words he tacitly indicates the natural prerogative of the special filiation of Christ, above those whom God has bound to Himself by adoption and grace. Furthermore, this reasoning also can be brought forward: wherever the natural has not preceded, it is impossible for the adoptive to follow. For that which happens through adoption was conceived from natural generation. The former being removed, it is necessary that the latter be removed as well. For adoption necessarily follows nature. Consequently, if there were not a natural Son to God the Father, He would not have an adoptive one either. But it is to the benefit of the beloved Son that the love with which He pursues all the pious should be ascribed. For the same reason, He also calls them sons by adoption. Otherwise, what prevents the angels, since they are much more excellent than men, from being called fathers of spiritual sons; or men from being called such? Just as the Lord says of Abraham: "I have made you a father of many nations," ^C which has been said of none of the angels. Furthermore, because the procreation of children is natural to men, but not so to angels, therefore those whom God has adopted through grace confirm the natural filiation of Christ. For where there is truth, there is the appearance of truth. Where there is a body, there is a shadow. Where there is an exemplar, there is an image. Consequently, because adoption follows nature, if nature pre-exists, there will also be a place for adoption. Conversely, if nature does not pre-exist, adoption can in no way stand.

That if anyone should contend that Christ was called the Son of God by grace, just as the saints and Israel were, he ought to know that none of the saints is seen to have been clearly called a son by God. Rather, we see that all are addressed by a common name as sons, no differently than how devoted servants are called sons by their master. Abraham was certainly great, but he was not called the Son of God. Moses was great, and all the other prophets, yet God did not deign to call any of them by the name of sons. God the Father Himself calls Christ true and beloved Son, and the prophets themselves also testify to the same. Nor only after this, but also before He took on human flesh, indeed, verily before the world was founded. For that passage, "From the womb before the daystar I have begotten you," and that, "Before all the hills He begat me," confirms this very thing. But in men, the matter is not so. Therefore, from these things it is confirmed first that Christ is called the Son of God not by adoption and grace, but by nature and truth: ^D because God has never privately called any of those who are sons by grace by this name; for while the names of friends, servants, and menials are frequently on His lips, that of "son" is never so; but to Christ alone He clearly attributes the name of the beloved Son *κατ’ ἐξοχήν*, that is, by excellence. Which David also indicated in these words.

CAP. XXV.

That there is one Principle of the whole universality of things is established by the Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments. Surely, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, unbegotten, not subject to corruption, eternal, immense, uncircumscribed, indefinite, simple, incorporeal, invisible, simple, good, just, a light perceptible by the intellect alone, an immeasurable power, whose only measure, however, is the divine will. For whatsoever He wills, the same He is also able to do. Which the Prophet clearly demonstrates with these words: "For all that the Lord willed, He did." Furthermore, holy Scripture confirms the truth of the aforesaid. For we hear God thus speaking in the beginning of His legislation: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. You shall have no strange gods before me." In another place also: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord." To these also are added those things which He teaches through the prophet Isaiah.

^A For, He says, I am the first God, and after me there is no God, nor was there, nor shall there be one after me, nor is there another beside me. Likewise, I am God, and there is no righteous savior beside me, nor is there any besides me. By these words, certainly, He refutes the vanity of Valentinus, Marcus, Basilides, and Marcion, for He attributes the name of God to no one else, neither before Him nor after Him; but He confirms that He Himself is the first and the last.

CAP. XXVI. On the Father.

^A And He shows that He is also corporeal and indefinite. Moreover, that He is the same eternal God of the universe is witnessed by the blessed David, who says: "From age and to age Thou art," and now: "The Lord shall hear, and shall humble them, who is before the ages." 58 The prophet Isaiah also teaches this, exclaiming in these words: "The everlasting God the Lord, who created the ends of the earth: he shall not faint, nor labour, neither is there any searching of his wisdom." 59 Furthermore, the blessed Apostle knows Him to be the creator of the ages. And the Lord testifies that the divine nature not only existed before the creation of things, but that a kingdom was also granted to the saints before the foundation of the world.

These are the things which we have learned concerning the beginning of this universe from the reading of both the Old and New Scripture; indeed, not as Valentinus and Basilides fable, ^B about the marriages of both sexes of the ages and their commixtions, by which they consist as if in a marshaling for battle; nor indeed about contrary and diverse principles, with Cerdon, Marcion, and Manes, but one principle and just, as we shall show presently.

CAP. XXVII. On the Son. [That He is the only-begotten, the true Son of God most high, Lord, eternal, God, Jesus Christ, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father.]

Just as we have learned to believe in one God the Father, so also do we teach that there is one Son, who was born before the ages; and we do not teach, according to the fables of Valentinus, that there is one only-begotten, another the Word, another Christ, and another finally Jesus; nor indeed, following the Arian and Eunomian blasphemy, do we call Him who is called the Son a creature. For divine Scripture testifies that He is the only-begotten. But if the Only-begotten is created, He must have creation as a sister, and all parts of the whole of creation; ^C but if He is the only-begotten, as He is, no association whatsoever exists for Him with created things. Furthermore, that He is the Only-begotten, the Only-begotten Himself has testified in these words: "God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting," 60 and a little later: "He that believeth in him is not judged, but he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God." 61 The evangelist also attested to this, saying thus: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." 62 For the nature of the flesh did not diminish anything from the dignity of the divinity, but even having put on flesh, He shows forth the paternal nobility. Item: "The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." 63 The Baptist also exclaims thus: "He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." 64 Finally, all the apostles ^D call Him the true and legitimate Son of God. And He Himself, when the Father had called Him Son from heaven, demonstrates how genuine His generation was. For He says: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 65 Furthermore, the Baptist, the evangelist, the apostles, why do I say the God of all things Himself? Not even the devil himself, the father of lies, dared to address Him by another name; but before he descended into the struggle, he said doubtingly: "If thou be the Son of God." 66 But having lost the victory, already taught who He was, he exclaims without doubt: "What have we to do with thee, Jesus Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" 67 And the Philippians called Him both most high and Son. For these men, he says, "are the servants of the most high God, who preach unto you the way of salvation." 68 And he calls Christ's apostles servants, having learned this name from them. For he had heard blessed Paul saying and writing thus: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle." 69 Likewise, "Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ." 70 But if the very teacher of lies calls Him both God, and most high, and Son of God, and yields to the splendors of truth; those who dare to assert that the Son is a creature are certainly struggling to conquer the appellation of their father, the devil. Furthermore, to prove that He is also called most high by divine men, one should hear Zachary, when he addresses his own Son in these words: "And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways." 71 For that great John had not gone before God the Father, but the only-begotten Son, of which fact he himself is witness: for being asked if he were Christ, he denied this, and replied, "I am sent before him." 72 Furthermore, that divine David addresses Him thus: "Let the nations know that thy name is Lord; thou alone art the most high over all the earth." 73 For if He is Lord, and He is God. "For one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things," 74 as the blessed Apostle says. Likewise, "One Lord, one faith." 75 Therefore the Son is most high, since He is Lord. But we have already discussed most of these things against Arius and Eunomius in books published against them; now let us do that which is urgent, and show that we have learned that He is the same Lord who is both the only-begotten, and God the Word, and the Savior, and Jesus. But let us bring forward Peter, who was the first to confess these titles with a great confession. For being the first among the holy apostles asked by the Savior, "But whom do you say that I am?" he replied, "Thou art the Son of the living God." 76 Blessed John the evangelist calls the same both the Word that was before the ages, and the only-begotten Son, and the maker of the whole world, and Christ Jesus, in these words: "In the beginning was the Word." 77 By which words he signifies that He was eternal. For he who

[In the beginning was], it certainly always was, for he did not say, "In the beginning it was becoming," or "In the beginning it was being created," but, "In the beginning was." He teaches also what it truly was, for he adds, *And the Word was with God, and the Word was God* 76*. Then, resuming the prologue, he infers, *This was in the beginning with God* 76*, and by this common name he indicated the *homoousion*, that is, the equality of substance.

Furthermore, by saying "God," he denoted by these words the difference of the persons; this only-begotten Son he often called by the name Jesus Christ. Moreover, the most wise Paul says thus: *But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons* 77. Likewise: *But when it pleased him, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me* 78. It is possible to find these and countless other testimonies, by which they call him also Christ and the eternal Son, and coeternal with the Father, whom the same doctor also teaches, showing him first of all to be the maker of the ages. For he says: *Last of all in these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world* 79.

Verily, when it is called "Word," it shows that its generation is not subject to any passion. For he did not use the name of "Son" so that we might be involved in human suspicions, or think that the Artificer of the whole world was born under the same law as ourselves; for this reason he called him "Word," implying that that generation is free from all passion. For neither for our mind or reason to conceive and form a discourse is there need of feminine embrace, nor must any division or flux be endured; but while remaining perfect, he produces a perfect Word. By these things, therefore, we learn both that the generation is not subject to any passion and the coeternity of the Only-begotten.

Indeed, he is also of the same power as the Father, and similar and equal to him in all things, as anyone can easily learn from the Lord's teaching. For he says: *My Father worketh until now, and I work* 80; and, *As the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life* 81; and, *All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine* 82; and: *I in the Father, and the Father in me*; and, *He that seeth me seeth the Father* 83. ^B Moreover, from these things that follow, his immutable likeness becomes clear. For when Philip asked that the Father be shown to him, the Lord showed himself, signifying that he is the living image of the Father, which would bear the manifest characters, or signs, of the Begetter before it. For he said to Philip: *So long a time I have been with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip?* 84 Dost thou wish to see the Father, when thou seest me? Therefore thou hast not known me; for if thou hadst known me, thou wouldest in no wise have desired to see him. For in me the Father is seen: since this is induced from these words: *He that seeth me, seeth also the Father*. But here, by "aspect," the contemplation of faith is understood. *So long a time,* he says, *have I been with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip?* He did not say, "Thou hast not seen," but, "Thou hast not known." For Philip saw that which fell under his aspect; but the divinity, which is invisible, he did not [see] in the same way. Hence, he who did not perfectly know the Son, and therefore desired to see the Father, is deservedly rebuked.

But because those who do not wish to understand divine things by a divine sense think it impossible that he who is from God should be as eternal as God—for while foolishly and rashly they think the divine nature is subject to the laws of human nature, they suspect the Father is older than the Son—the blessed Apostle, disputing abundantly about these things, clearly showed that the only-begotten Son is both from God and with God. ^C For he named him the *brightness of his glory*: since brightness subsists both from fire and with fire. For brightness is innate to fire, as a ray is to the sun. For from the sun, from the same source also come the rays, but yet the cause of the rays is ascribed to the sun, and the brightness to the fire: for the sun does not originate from the rays, but the rays from the sun, and the brightness proceeds from the fire. Accordingly, the only-begotten Son is indeed born of the Father, but to the Father he adheres no differently than speech to reason, brightness to fire, and a ray to the sun. But none of these things subsists by itself, but has its hypostasis, that is, its foundation and subsistence, in that from which it originates. But God the Word, the brightness of his glory, is not an energy *anupostatos* [without hypostasis] apart from the Father, or severed from the Father's hypostasis, but a living hypostasis subsisting by itself. For he is not called simply "the Word," but "God the Word"; not merely "the brightness of glory," but also the "character" of his own hypostasis. ^D Because, in fact, it was impossible to express divine things openly by one and the same image, we speak of them in this way by multiple images: and indeed [he is] the coeternal brightness of glory, but the character of the hypostasis argues the perfection of the likeness, and teaches the difference of the hypostases or persons.

CAP. XXVIII. On the Holy Spirit, and his charisms.

Therefore, we have learned that the Holy Spirit has his substance from the Father [and the Son]: the mode of which substance is similar neither to a creature (for the Holy Spirit is uncreated) nor to the only-begotten Son. For none of the holy Fathers signified the substance of the divine Spirit by the word "generation," although the holy Scriptures testify that he is from the Father and also divine. For the Lord Christ says these things about him: *It is expedient to you that I go, for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you* 85, and elsewhere: *But when the Paraclete cometh, the spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he will give testimony of me* 86. But by the fact that he says he proceeds from the Father, he indicates that the Father is the fountain of the Spirit; and he does not say, "He shall proceed," but, "He proceedeth," [indicating] the same nature of both, and the individual and indifferent substance, through...

their conjunction, finally, showing the unity of persons. For that which proceedeth cannot be separated from That from whom it proceedeth. Furthermore, the blessed Apostle, in his [former] Epistle to the Corinthians, said this concerning the Spirit: *The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God* (1 Cor. II, 10). And adding, so that no ignorance might ever destroy this search, he subjoined: *For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God* (1 Cor. II, 11). After he had ascribed all knowledge to Him by these words, he also indicated whence He has His substance: *But we*, he says, *have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God* (1 Cor. II, 12); by which words he certainly places Him in the same order in which he places the Father and the Son, and never reduces Him to the order of creation. For he does not understand Him to be a part of creation, nor, following the blasphemy of Arius, Eudomius, and Macedonius, does he name Him the *first creature*. But showing the gifts of divine grace, he says thus: *And there are diversities of gifts, but it is the same God which worketh all in all* (1 Cor. XII, 4, 6). Then, having demonstrated the difference in charisms, he subjoined: *But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit*, dividing to every man severally as He will (1 Cor. XII, 11). For he says, the most holy Spirit is not of servile ministry, but of Lordly dignity: He does not serve, but co-operates, and works as Lord. Thus, also, at the end of the second Epistle to the same, he appended a benediction: *The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen* (2 Cor. XIII, 13). And in the former Epistle, he assigns the first place to the Spirit, but here the last, teaching that the difference in dignities is not to be inferred from the order of names. Therefore, he placed the Son before the Spirit to the Father, not to subvert the order once established by God, but to indicate that the Trinity is to be worshipped with equal honor. The same was also divinely infused into the Apostles. For first, He shook the house, so that He might denote a divine apparition. For the Prophet says this concerning the God of the universe: *Who looketh on the earth, and maketh it tremble* (Ps. 103, 32). Then, He also sat upon the disciples in the form of fire, just as Moses attests that God had appeared of old in the bush; and just as that bush, though it burned, was yet not consumed, so the tongues of the Apostles in no wise experienced any burning power or energy. When Peter—that man conspicuous for divinity above the rest—had learned this not by words, but by facts and deeds, he called Him God himself, when he refuted the theft of Ananias. For when he had said, *Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?* he subjoined: *Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God* (Acts V, 3-4). These things are supported by what was said by blessed Paul concerning the Spirit. For he calls believers the temples of God, in which, in truth, the grace of the Spirit dwells. *Know ye not*, he says, *that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?* (1 Cor. III, 16). Item, *Know ye not that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, which is in you, whom ye have of God?* (1 Cor. VI, 19).

By which words he openly teaches that the most holy Spirit is of divine nature. For if believers are called the temple of God, where they were first endowed with the grace of the Spirit, then from this consecration the Holy Spirit is from God. For because His grace dwells in them, they are for that reason denominated the temple of God. Furthermore, the dignity of the Spirit is indicated to us more openly and clearly by the Lord. For when the Apostle was instructing concerning the mystery of baptism, he said thus: *Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit* (Matt. XXVIII, 19). But if the Son, or the Holy Spirit, had been predicted as a created nature, they would never have been added and numbered together with the Creator God: for those are accused by divine words who have served the creature in place of the Creator. Accordingly, the Only-Begotten also assumed human flesh, that He might liberate men from this error, and show the difference between God and the creature. Moreover, with the adoration of the creature removed, He did not command created nature to be adored. For this would be the greatest of absurdities, if one should have led men away from those who are not gods, only to add the creature to their service. Thus, it is evident that the Son and the Holy Spirit are possessed of an uncreated nature. For we are taught to believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit for this reason, and we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For because the Father alone did not create the first man, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit (for He said, *Let us make man in our image and likeness* [Gen. I, 26]), it is certainly with merit that, when the resurrection and the new creation of the world take place, the Son and the Holy Spirit become the consorts of the Father, and the invocation of the Trinity thus regenerates each one of those who are baptized.

Chapter 29. On the divine names.

But the interpretation of divine names is also thus: Since those simpletons, ignorant of the interpretation of Hebrew names, have thought that Adonai, Eloi, and Sabaoth are different gods, I consider it worth my effort if I should open to the unlearned and ignorant what each of these names sounds to Greek and Latin ears. Eloth, therefore, is interpreted *God*. But Eloi, *ὁ θεός μου*, my God. El, also, if it be pronounced with a soft breathing, signifies *God*; if with a rough, *ἰσχυρὸν*, strong. Adonai, however, *Κύριον*, Lord. Furthermore, the Lord Sabaoth sounds the same as *Κύριος δυνάμεων*, Lord of powers, or *Κύριος στρατιῶν*, Lord of hosts. For among the Greeks, military orders are designated by the name of *δυνάμεων*, that is, powers or authorities. Saddai, moreover, *ἱκανὸν καὶ δυνατόν*, all-sufficient and powerful. But others signify *τὸν ὄντα*, He who is, which ineffable name is also from...

the Hebrews, as it was considered. The Samaritans say it is the same ^A while being ignorant of the power of the word. Since they gave little heed to these things, they called them different gods.

Cap. XXX. Demonstration of the Trinity from the equilibrium of the balance, the double Trinity of seraphic wings, and the Trisagion.

As for those who doubt for what reason the Son is assumed as the middle in the enunciation, while the Father and the Holy Spirit occupy the extremes, we can answer that since God is called the balance of justice, for the very same reason that we speak of a balance, this order also was devised in the divine nature, so that the Son, occupying the middle place, may preserve the maximum equality with the two extremes. For He Himself accomplished both that first fabrication of the world and also that reformation of the race which followed. Moreover, by the example of the balance, that equal virtue and power is indicated which shines forth in the Trinity (whose power is immense), since among those three Persons nothing raises itself upward any more than that which verges downward, but is balanced in the equilibrium of honor, glory, and substance, and persists in theological consistency. From which it results that in things subject to generation, equality is also given, and what is fair is weighed as if by a balance.

For the double trinity of the seraphic wings also responds with a certain proportion ^B to the mystery of the Holy Trinity; for the middle ones correspond to the Father, but the extremes to the Son and to the Spirit; and thus the triple enunciation of holiness, while it exists in itself as entirely immutable, enigmatically designates the three Persons as immutable in substance, virtue, and power; nay, even that equality and unity of substance which is in the three confirms by certain induction and inference that there is one Lord. The double wings also denote all that knowledge which descends to us by their benefit, even if the spirits administering it are removed from all matter, and even if it does not descend as simple, but consists of such matter as conforms to our types and figures, and thus is very well suited as composed for composed things. Moreover, every material thing is twofold, which indeed consists of matter and form. Furthermore, the word *Sanctity* indicates that it sits above the holy ones, to whom no other holiness whatsoever can be compared. For as many as are called holy by reason of their divinity are undoubtedly considered profane and impure, just as all kings are servants, and those things which are, are considered not to be, if they are compared with God, that is, with Him who truly is. By this word, therefore, *Holy*, excellence and prerogative in God are denoted, and that because He surpasses the natures of all things by His dignity. For *holy* in this place does not signify that He exists pure from any filth polluting body or soul, far be it! For with what praise would God thus be extolled? Nay, rather, who would have us assert that the Godhead is free ^C from those disturbances to which we are all subject, if that is not a further argument for praise? But it indicates rather that which is separated and far more sublime than all other things, and placed as if in a certain seclusion. Which meaning of the word occurs frequently in the Scriptures, as: *Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord* [Exod. xiii, 12], that is, separated. Likewise in the book of Judges: *He shall bring forth a son, and iron shall not ascend upon his head, because the child has been sanctified* [Judg. xiii, 5; xvi, 17], and in countless places. In the same sense also we say that a place, or bread, or wine is sanctified, which are separated for God and do not yield to any common use. Therefore, as soon as the priests had entered the altar, the cantor of the sacred Psalms used to exclaim above: *Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal*. Which expression of praise is indeed composed from that venerable confession of the seraphic order. Furthermore, we know that the same song also consists of the cherubic proclamation and the musical chant of the sacred Psalms, since in the psalm *Holy God, mighty, living* is indeed sung. Where certainly the word *Living* is assumed in place of the word *Immortal*, as signifying the same thing; the word *Mighty*, however, is retained in its entirety, and in this way the sacred song was eventually woven. God, however, is set against the impious cults of idols as *Holy* and *Mighty*—for those things are indeed earthly and works of the hands of men, and truly abominations. *Mighty*, moreover, is opposed to the same insofar as they are mute, immovable, and weak. *Immortal*, finally, insofar as they neither breathe, nor perform any action, nor enjoy any spark of life. Moreover, it is said that the composition of the above-mentioned canticle became known by revelation to the blessed Proclus, pontiff of Constantinople, who was the first of all to be initiated into it while the angels themselves were modulating this sacred hymn.

Indeed, that number of the first six days also, ^D of which there is mention in the book concerning the generation of the world, expresses in a certain type the threefold knowledge of God; which is indeed clear both from some other places and from this: *Day unto day poureth forth speech, and night unto night declareth knowledge* [Ps. xviii, 3]. Likewise from this: *In the head of the book it is written of me* [Ps. xxxix, 8]. For all who have expounded on those first days have uttered nothing obscure. For the head and beginning of the book, that is, of the entire divinely inspired Scripture, is that senary number of days by which the fabric of the world was consummated. From whose magnitude and beauty the Creator, becoming known, is extolled with praises.

To this must also be added the voice of Gregory the Theologian, who indeed testifies to us that the mystery of the Godhead has been revealed even as far as the three Persons. For the Unity, he says, emerged because of its inherent riches. The Duality, however, because of the abundance of matter and form, by which bodies...

^A grow into something greater. The Trinity is finally defined because of its own perfection. For the ternaries exceed the composition of the binary [monad], lest the Divinity be constricted into narrowness, or diffused into the infinite.

Another reason can also be brought forward, whereby the Divinity has progressed as far as the number three, for it is certain that the ternary alone, among numbers, bears the most evident type of a scale, and it is a symbol. For so it comes to pass, that the ternary alone, as the medium between both extremes of all things, thus holds the place, so that it might be both immutable and, meanwhile, absolutely no composition is seen in the three.

Now at length, regarding the Son, the right hand, the Word and power of the Father, and whatever else is called his class—on the contrary, is the Father not of the Son? No, because not the Father out of the Son, but the Son proceeds out of the Father. Furthermore, the hand, the arm, the wisdom, and the speech of man are so called; but we do not say that the hand of man is his wisdom, or things similar, just as we do not call the branch ^B of a tree, the tree of the branch.

The Spirit, moreover, is named the finger of God: but because the finger proceeds from the hand, the Spirit is deservedly not called for that reason the Father's only, but also the Son's, and he is said to be the right hand of the Father. But not conversely does the Son depend on the Spirit. Nor can the hand be called the finger. Not, however, for that reason is the Son of the Father to be considered less, but it was said that the Spirit should proclaim what was profitable at the beginning. Since God is also the Father of men, as I have already said, we addressed the Son by the name of our Father, and that is certainly considered among those things which can happen, or can be inferred from precedent. Hence, when the Father is preached—on account of the abuse of the word, which he who had taken it up used to denote and indicate the one Person—if the Son or the Spirit were announced, they were two persons indeed by confession. For whoever heard the name of the Son was immediately carried in his mind to the Father. The same thing happened exactly in the mention of the Spirit. For the question was asked whose Spirit it was. And, so that I may say it, whoever does not proclaim God to be devoid of reason, contends that he is a participant of the same reason. Furthermore, he who is immortal is also considered an immortal word. Now, clearly, no one has rightly said that there is another word than the one from him, through which we call him the Son.

But if anyone doubts, who are those—seeing that both the Son and the Spirit proceed in equal degree from the Father—that is, the Son, and this one is called Spirit: since both retain the appellation and the habit of the Son, just as we have it—to these it must be replied that in the universal ^C divine nature, Theology itself, as it is known to us, writes that in the Trinity it is worshipped as legitimate and in an honorable manner, with the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, an ineffable name of divinity, to no intellect accessible, through the appellations among us accustomed, and which have grown together with us, has pointed out.

And because this custom has taken root, that we speak with our children, let us state their recent generation, and the Spirit’s procession; for Scripture says, *The Spirit going and not returning*; item: *His spirit shall go forth*; item: *The Spirit passed through it, and it does not subsist*. Because, I say, in the human race we attribute generation to the Son, but procession to the Spirit; for the very same reason, we have learned that the Son was begotten in a supernatural and ineffable way, and that the Spirit proceeds from God in a common way. Hence he also was made, and while the Spirit is indeed called the Spirit of the Father, he is also called the Spirit of the Son, since among us he is the Spirit of both. But the Father himself is not the Spirit, at least among us.

Furthermore, that his very own nature is ineffable, and that it is such that hardly anyone with his intellect could attain it, no common opinion or notion would deny; the same thing, also, holy Scripture proclaims in many places, and the wisdom of our Fathers almost everywhere bears witness. ^D

CHAP. XXXI.

Hitherto, by the gathered opinions of the holy Fathers, we have sufficiently and superabundantly taught that the Trinity is of the same nature, majesty, power, and eternity, and we have added to these the Son’s advent in the flesh. For it seems worth the effort to me, since many and varied things have been said in circumlocutions and windings of words, and about the Zoarchic [Life-beginning]—with this as our guide—concerning the Trinity, and concerning the incarnation of the one out of it, namely the Word, and out of it I shall now collect a summary: especially since, if the time serves, and the reason of our orthodox faith needs to be rendered by us and from us to some, therefore these things which follow are added.

We believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, the Trinity in unity, and the unity in Trinity: unity, indeed, by the reason of natural conjunction, but the Trinity by the reason of being three-personed—which is the permanence of the person, of perfection, and by the reason of supernatural riches, which is joined to the Divinity, and the Trinity in turn, truly that which is divided *by properties and not divided*, which, though it is divided into parts in no way, yet its substance is exhibited with glory for this reason. Nor has time been, nor did it exist, that indeed it was not with the Father, the Son: for who would be, that the Father should be called so, unless he had the Son as a sharer of his empire? Nor was there ever a time when the Holy Spirit was not with both.

^A Since three united with one another is one God, the only difference of each lies in the essential communion that divides the individual person. For the Father alone is Father; the Son alone, Son; the Holy Spirit alone, Spirit. For by these differences they are not converted into one another. But in these they are indeed divided individually, yet they communicate by the principle of essence. The Trinity is simple, indivisible, uncompounded, perfect of itself from three perfects, and is more than perfect. Its one nature, divinity, and will, and finally its one action, is glorified. For of those whose nature is one, their will and action are one, as we have learned from the teaching of the blessed Basil.

We confess also one person of the holy Trinity, the only-begotten, I say, Son of God, and our God, a consort and coeternal with the ^B Father and the Holy Spirit: begotten indeed from the Father before the ages, as far as divinity is concerned; and the same person, in the last and foreordained times, in order to save and reform the human race, to have descended from the heavens, or to have submitted to the womb of the pure and God-bearing Virgin Mary, who had been pre-purified in body and soul by the Holy Spirit, and from her holy and incorrupt flesh to have assumed flesh in his own subsistence: so that, having become consubstantial with us, he might join and form it in himself, by means of an ensouled being possessing reason and intellect. He who was born from the same unviolated Virgin Mother is far beyond what can be said or thought or perceived by any intellect. For since the conception had been without seed and supernatural, the birth also was ineffable and indescribable. Therefore, in our manner, Christ and Lord, who was above us, proceeded, carrying all our things in himself essentially, with the exception of sin, having become wholly man, and remaining wholly God, the same being earthly and heavenly, visible and invisible, mortal and immortal. For the two natures, adhering in an indivisible conjunction, made one Emmanuel for us: yet so that, without any defect, he preserved the properties of the natures, from which he is composed, intact and safe. For since he was altogether simple according to his divine, and the same paternal and eternal generation, he proceeded dual according to his maternal and the same temporal and bodily generation. And so, although we profess two generations of Christ our God, yet we preach his one person, whose essence shines forth in two perfect natures. For although there was one person of the holy Trinity, he nevertheless remained, even when the Word was made flesh, perfect in divinity, and the same person perfect in humanity: in divinity indeed consubstantial with God the Father, and the same person consubstantial with us in humanity: passible in flesh, impassible in divinity. Whence it happens that we do not distribute the miracles to one and the passions to another, but, as if to one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, we assign a token for both: in one way dispensing the power of signs by the reason of his divine nature, but, according to the prescription of the human form, he did not refuse those passions to which that nature is subject, so that in himself he might transform our passions into the void of passions, as the Apostle testifies in these words: *It behooves this corruptible to put on incorruption, and this mortal to put on immortality* ^C. For he, the lover of the human race, did not disdain to be subjected to human passions—though they are subject to no reproach—and, although he was God, to be afflicted in the body through the medium of the soul: an soul, I say, perfect in all things and absolute in its own measures, to which nothing at all was wanting for the perfection of humanity. Moreover, the index of human perfection is the mind itself, by which we will and differ from brute animals. For of those things that are devoid of mind, none can have a will. But whatever is endowed with will is also endowed with intellect. For where there is a mind, there is also altogether an intellect. But if the Savior was perfect man, remaining perfect in divinity, he was no doubt lacking neither in mind nor in will. But those who attempt to deprive the human soul of Christ of its natural will have described it as devoid of mind, being themselves devoid of mind, and by ascribing passion and death to an impassible nature. By which heresy they follow that we do not appear to be perfectly saved. For we do not deny the natural will or the natural action of his humanity, lest we should invalidate the head and the sum of the work of our salvation, and ascribe passions to the Divinity, as those have attempted to argue who, not without great impiety, recently imagined a single will and a single action for him, and innovated the impious heresy of Arius, Apollinaris, Eutyches, and Severus.

We, however, as asserters of the orthodox confession, maintain one and the same Christ, the Son, the only-begotten Lord, who is known to exist in two natures ^D unconfusedly, simply, inseparably, and indivisibly. Yet so that in no way the difference of the natures has been abolished by the force of the conjunction; but rather that the property of each nature has remained intact, and has concurred into one person and one hypostasis: not so that it admitted a partition or division into two persons, but that one and the same only-begotten Son, God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ, has persevered; just as in previous times the prophets prophesied concerning him, and Jesus Christ himself so taught us, and the symbol of the holy Fathers has handed down to us as if by hand. Two volitions, or wills, and two actions in the same person, we preach according to the prescription of the holy Fathers, without division, mutation, partition, and confusion—natural wills, I say, and not contrary, as the impious have asserted.

It is not that His human will was resistant or reluctant, but rather obedient to His divine and omnipotent will. For it was fitting that the will of the flesh should move; yet it was fitting that it be subject to the divine will, just as the most wise Athanasius writes. For just as His flesh is called and is the flesh of God, so also the natural will of His flesh is called and is the will of the Word of God; as He Himself says: *I have descended from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me, the Father* (John vi, 38). By these words, He understands the proper will of His flesh. Since that very flesh was His own, just as His most holy and blameless animate flesh did not in any way perish when it was deified, so neither did the will of His flesh perish, but rather remained whole, as the Theologian Gregory is witness in these words. For the will of Him who is understood as the Savior is in no way contrary to God, since it is entirely redolent of God. Furthermore, we hold the opinion that we assert that the two natural actions are united in the same Lord our God Jesus Christ, without division, mutation, confusion, or partition; that is to say, the divine action, as that blessed Leo says more openly. Each form works with the communion of the other in regard to its property, the Word indeed performing that which is His own; and the body in turn performing those things which are of the body. For in no way do we concede that the natural action of God and of the creature was the same: lest we ascribe the creature to an impassible essence, or reduce the excellence of the divine nature to the order of creatures. For we know that the miracles and the passions were of one and the same; but the nature of the things of which He consists, account being taken, is one thing and another is that in which His essence consists, as the blessed Cyril says. Therefore, because what is unconfused and undivided is preserved in every respect, we profess this in summary, believing that one person of the holy Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ, is our true God, and we assert His two natures, which shine forth in His one person, in which He exhibited miracles and passions—as long as He dwelt among us by dispensation—not by phantasy and simulation, but in reality, especially since the natural difference is recognized in that very unique person: not because the person is something other than the natures, but because in the nature of that same person the whole human nature was formed. He performs the things of His parts in such a way that nothing is lacking, with which person the Word hypostatically cohered, one sin excepted. Just as the Word, in turn, perfectly and absolutely performed those things which were His own, and this with that human nature which He had assumed. Let that most holy Leo be brought forward again, who in his letter to the emperor Leo writes thus: ^A His divinity and humanity, from the moment of conception, came into such union ^B that not even human things were without the divine essence: but each nature, with the communion of the other, both willed and acted in those things which were proper to itself. Wherefore we also assert that two natural wills, and as many actions, concurred for the salvation of the human race. And because the blessed Fathers gathered and expressed these things on all sides with such great zeal and diligence, it is fitting that no one should propose, write, feel, or teach otherwise; indeed, let no one propose even a different symbol of faith to those who are converted to the knowledge of the truth from the Gentiles, or from the Jews, or from any heresy.

CHAPTER XXXII.

God is one, the beginning and Father of the living Word, of subsistence-bearing wisdom, and of eternal virtue and form, the perfect begetter of the perfect, the Father of the only-begotten Son. One also is the Lord, alone from the alone, God from God, the image of the person of the Father, God the acting Word, who created the hypostasis of all things by wisdom, which contains the constitution of all, the effectrix of all creatures. Truth from the true Father, invisible from the invisible, incorruptible from the incorruptible, immortal from the immortal, eternal from the eternal. Finally, one is the Holy Spirit, perfect, the perfect life of the living: holiness, and the fountain of holiness, and the bestower of holiness. From which it comes to pass that God, by the calculation of all believers, is over all, the Son through all, the Holy Spirit in all. A perfect Trinity, whose honor, eternity, and kingdom is neither divided nor altered. Wherefore in the Trinity there is nothing created, nor adventitious, if anything should have begun to be afterwards which had not been before. ^C For at no time was the Son lacking to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son, nor did unity grow into a binary, nor the binary into a Trinity, but it always remained one and the same Trinity without any mutation or alteration.

CHAPTER XXXIII.

Therefore we believe in one God, the unique beginning without beginning, uncreated, eternal, unbegotten, incorruptible and immortal, immense, circumscribed by no boundaries, indefinite, of immense power, simple, incomposite, incorporeal, inexhaustible, imperturbable, immobile, immutable, invisible, the fountain of goodness and justice, an intelligible light, an inaccessible power which is measured by no measure, but measures itself by its own proper will. Whatever

it wills, it is also able to do, as one who has created all things visible and invisible, contains all, commands all, and rules over a kingdom which is subject to no end or death, and possesses within itself nothing contrary; one who fills all things with his own fullness and is comprehended by no one, but rather ^A comprehends and contains all and excels them; one who permeates every essence undefiled, and is borne above all things, and excels every essence, is supersubstantial, and transcends those things which are, more than divine, more than good, more than full, who defines all principles and orders, the president of every principle and order, who excels every essence, life, reason, and thought; being light itself, goodness itself, life itself, essence itself, as one that does not exist by the benefit of another, nor is he any one of those things which exist, but rather he is the fountain of essence to those things which are, of life to those things which live, of reason to those things which use reason; in short, the cause of all good things to all, who knows all things before their generation, as one essence, one divinity, one virtue, one will, one action, one authority, one power, one dominion, one kingdom, which is known and worshipped in three perfect persons. It is also believed and worshipped by every creature that partakes of reason, and it is joined without any confusion and distinguished without any separation—which is a wonder—into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in whom we also are baptized. For thus the Lord commanded the apostles to baptize, in these words: Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. xxviii, 19). As for the one Father, who is the principle and cause of all things, begotten of no one, who alone is without cause and unbegotten, the Creator indeed of all, but the Father by nature only of his one only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Savior ^B Jesus Christ, and the sender forth of the Holy Spirit.

We believe also in one only-begotten Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is born of the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made. When we say "before all ages," we indicate that his generation is void of time and beginning. For the Son of God was not produced into essence from that which was not; he is the brightness of glory, the image of the Father's person, living wisdom and power, the Word subsisting by himself, essential, the perfect and living image of the invisible God; but he was always with the Father, and in him, from eternity, and begotten of him without beginning. For there never was a time when the Father was not, in which the Son was not; but as soon as the Father was, the Son also was, begotten of him. For it cannot be that he should be called Father without the Son. But if he had not possessed the Son, he would not have been a Father at all, and if ^C he had possessed the Son afterward, he would also have begun to be a Father afterward, when the Father had not been before, and had been changed from a non-Father into a Father; what more impious blasphemy, I ask, can be conceived? For it cannot be that God should be said to be deprived of the natural power of generating, since the power of generating consists in this: that out of himself, or from his own essence, he should procreate a nature similar to himself. From which it follows that if anyone should say that time intervened in the generation of the Son, or that the subsistence of the Son followed after the Father, he ought to be considered impious. For we say that the generation of the Son was from him, that is, from the nature of the Father. And unless we concede that the Son was from the beginning together with the Father, as begotten of him, we certainly introduce a change into the Father's person: because, forsooth, when the Father was not before, he would at length have begun to be a Father. For although a creature was made afterward, yet it was not produced from the essence of God, but from that which was not into that which is, by his will and power.

Nor is the divine nature subject to change. For generation is when that which is begotten proceeds from the essence of the generator, similar in essence. But a creature or a figment is that which is brought forth from without—not, however, from the substance of the one creating or fashioning—as a created or fashioned thing, which indeed is altogether dissimilar in substance. Wherefore generation and creation are incompatible in God alone, who alone is impassible, unalterable, and immutable, and always remains in the same way. For since his nature is impassible, inexhaustible, simple, and incomposite, he is not at all capable of undergoing any passion or flux, whether by generating or by creating, nor does he need any assistance. But generation is indeed devoid of a beginning and eternal, since it is a work of nature, and proceeds from his essence: lest the generator be subject to change, or God be first and last, and receive increase. But creation, since it is a work of a divided will, is not coeternal with God, since by nature it is not so constituted that that which is produced from nothing into the nature of things should be coeternal with him who lacks a beginning and is always. And so, just as God and man do not act in the same way (for man brings forth nothing from nothing into the nature of things, but whatever he makes ^D he makes from subject matter, with a preceding will not only, but also a pre-conception, and the formation in his mind of that thing which he intends to make, followed by the operation of his hands, together with the endurance of labor and toil: so that he is often defrauded of his expectation, and the thing does not succeed as he had proposed in his mind; but God produced all things from nothing into the nature of things by his will alone), so neither does God and man generate in the same way. For God, since he is without time and without beginning, and besides this is impassible, inexhaustible, incorporeal, and alone, lacks an end,

and his incomprehensible generation lacks a beginning; and indeed it lacks a beginning because he is immutable; it lacks flux because he is impassible and incorporeal; it is without intercourse because God is incorporeal and unique, needing no aid from another; and it is without end and unceasing because it lacks beginning, time, and end, and finally because he always remains the same. For whatever lacks a beginning also lacks an end, and remains always in the same mode. But he who through grace lacks an end does not immediately lack a beginning, just as the angels. Therefore, he who is always God generates his own perfect Word, and this without beginning or end, so that God, whose nature and essence ^B transcends all time, might not beget in time. Man, on the contrary, undoubtedly generates in a way that is subject to generation and corruption, to flux and multiplication, and is clothed in a body whose nature is distinguished by a dual sex, I mean masculine and feminine. For the masculine needs the help of the feminine: may the Lord, who presides over all things and transcends every intellect and every conception of the mind, forgive me.

Chapter XXXIV.

A recapitulation of the preceding, the difference between *agenneton* and *agenton*. The origin of paternity, filiation, and procession, etc.

Therefore, the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church teaches that the Father and his only-begotten Son were begotten from him without time, flux, or passion; and thus begotten, in such a way that he can be comprehended by no one: in such a way, I say, that only God has a view of the universe, just as fire and the light proceeding from it are at once and together, nor does the fire precede and the light follow, but they are at once and together; and just as the light is always begotten from the fire and is always in it, and is in no way separated from it, so the Son is also generated from the Father, in such a way that he is in no way separated from him, but is always in him. But indeed the light itself, which is born inseparably from the fire and always remains in it, does not have an own hypostasis distinct from the fire, since it is a natural quality of the fire itself. But the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father inseparably and indistinctly, and always remaining in him, has an own hypostasis distinct from the Father's. Wherefore he is called the Word and the Splendor, because he was begotten from the Father without intercourse, passion, time, flux, or separation; and the Son is the character of the Father's hypostasis, ^C because he is perfect and subsists by himself, in all things similar to the Father, except that he is not unbegotten. But he is only-begotten because he alone was begotten from the Father alone. For there is no other generation that can be compared with the generation of the Son of God, since there is no other Son of God than him. For although the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, ^D this occurs not by generation but by procession. The mode of this subsistence, like the generation of the Son, is incomprehensible and unknown. Wherefore, whatever the Father has, the Son also has, except for the fact that he is not unbegotten, by which matter is signified not a difference of essence or dignity, but the mode of existence, just as Adam is also "unbegotten," since he is a creature of God: but Seth is "begotten," because he is Adam's son. But Eve emanated from Adam's side, for she was not begotten. These all do not differ from one another in nature, since they are human beings, but in the mode of existence. [For it must be known that *agenneton* (ἀγέννητον), if written with a single nu, signifies that which is neither created nor made; but *agenton* (ἀγέννητον), with a double nu, signifies that which is not begotten. Now, by the first meaning, essence differs from essence. For one essence is uncreated, or *agenetos* (ἀγένητος) by a single nu, and another item is generated or created. By the latter meaning, however, essence does not differ at all from essence.] For every first hypostasis of a species of living beings was *agenetos*, that is, unbegotten, but not *agennetos*, that is, uncreated. For those things are created by God the creator, whatever he brought into the nature of things by his word; but they were not "begotten," since no animal of the same species existed before, from which they could be begotten. Now, if you follow the former signification, those three divine hypostases agree among themselves, which shine in the holy divinity, if indeed they are consubstantial and uncreated; but if you follow the latter signification, they do not at all agree. For the Father alone is unbegotten, nor does he have his existence from any other hypostasis: the Son is also alone begotten, who is begotten from the Father’s essence from eternity and without time: finally, the Holy Spirit alone proceeds from the very essence of the Father (and of the Son), not begotten, but proceeding, as the sacred Scripture teaches us, although meanwhile neither the mode of generation nor of procession can be comprehended.

Moreover, it must be known that the name of paternity, filiation, and procession did not at all pass from us to the blessed Trinity; rather, on the contrary, it came down from there to us, as the blessed Apostle says: For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, of whom the whole paternity in heaven and on earth is named. Now, however, although we say the Father is the principle of the Son, and therefore greater than him, we do not signify that he was prior to the Son in time or nature (for through him he made the ages), nor in any other thing except as the cause, that is, because the Son is begotten from the Father, but the Father is not from the Son. Also, because the Father is naturally the cause of the Son, just as we do not say that fire proceeds from light, but rather light from fire. Therefore, as often as we hear that the Father is the principle of the Son and greater than the Son, let us understand that this is true as cause. And just as we do not say that the essence of the fire is one thing and that of the light another, so it cannot be...

^A that the essence of the Father is one and that of the Son another, nay, it is one and the same essence. And just as we say that the fire shines by the light which it emits, yet we do not say that the light is an instrument subservient to the fire, but rather we assert it to be a natural power; so we maintain that the Father also does all that He does through His only-begotten Son, not as through a subservient instrument, but through a natural power, which subsists of itself and by its own virtue. And just as we say that the fire shines, and likewise we assert that the igneous light shines, so whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. Yet the light does not have a hypostasis of its own, separate from the fire, whereas the Son is a perfect hypostasis, inseparable from the Father’s hypostasis, as we have taught above. For no image can be found in created things which, without change in itself, expresses that mode by which the holy Trinity consists. For how does it come to be that one should subject to the eyes that divine essence, which is created, composite, fluxional, mutable, circumscribed, figured and corruptible, and which being free from all these things, transcends every essence? Yet it is manifest that every creature is subject to most of these, and is subject to corruption by its very own nature.

CHAPTER XXXV. The third part of the confession of faith of John of Damascus concerning the Holy Spirit.

Finally, we believe in one Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), and rests in the Son. Who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son, as consubstantial and coeternal. The right, principal Spirit of God, the fountain of life and sanctification. God who is with the Father, uncreated, full, creator; comprehending all things, the maker of all, omnipotent, of infinite power, Lord of every creature, subject to no one’s dominion: filling, not filled; bestowing, and receiving nothing from another: sanctifying, not sanctified: the Comforter of all, sufficient for all consolations; through all things similar to the Father and the Son, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), and is imparted through the Son. Of whom every creature is a partaker, who creates and animates all things by Himself, sanctifies and sustains them, and finally subsists in His own person by Himself, yet in such a way that He can in no manner be separated or divided from the Father and the Son, nay, He possesses all those things ^B which the Father and the Son possess, except for the fact that He is neither unbegotten nor begotten. For the Father lacks a cause: and He is unbegotten, for He proceeded from no one, nor even from Himself: nor is He any of those things which He has; nay rather, He is Himself the principle and author of essence, and He brings it to pass that all things in whatever way they exist, have their existence naturally. The Word, however, proceeded generationally from the Father. The Holy Spirit, finally, proceeded from the Father also, not generationally but processionally. Furthermore, what processional differs from generational, we have already learned; but what the mode of that difference is, we have not. Therefore, by the name of generation, that is, the generation itself of the Son from the Father and the generation, that is, the procession of the Holy Spirit, it seems it can be understood. Wherefore whatever the Son and the Holy Spirit have, they have from the Father, and their essence itself also, and if the Father were not, no Son, and no Spirit could exist, and if the Father lacked anything, the Son and the Spirit would lack the same. And because of the Father—that is, because the Father is—the Son and the Spirit also are. And because of the Father, the Son and the Spirit possess whatever they possess, that is, because the Father possesses those things, with the exception of ingeneration, generation, and procession. For in these alone, and in these hypostatic properties, the three holy hypostases differ among themselves: not in essence, but because they are individually divided by the character or sign of their own hypostasis. We say, however, that each of the three is endowed with its own hypostasis, so that we do not profess one perfect composite nature from three imperfect ones, but in three perfect hypostases, one simple, [Greek: ὑπερτελῆ τε καὶ προτέλειον], that is, which exceeds and precedes all perfection. For whatever consists of imperfect things is without doubt composite, but it cannot happen that anything is composed from perfect hypostases. Hence it follows that we say that the species does not proceed from the persons, but inheres in the persons. But we said "imperfect," that is, those things which do not preserve the species of that thing which is formed out of them; since stone, wood, and iron are indeed perfect as individuals, if we consider their own nature, but if we contemplate those same things in a building, which is formed out of them, they are imperfect. For none of them is a house by itself. And so we call the hypostases perfect, so that we may not understand composition to exist in the divine nature. For composition itself is the principle of dissension. Again, we say that the three hypostases are mutually in one another, so that we do not introduce a multitude or crowd of gods. Since by the reason of the three hypostases there is no composition or confusion in them; but by the reason of essence, and because each is in the other of the hypostases, for that reason we recognize that there is an undivided identity in them, so to speak, and will, and action, and power, and that there is one God. For God, and His Word, and His Spirit, is ^C one, and truly God.

CHAPTER XXXVI. On contemplating by the thing itself and by the mind. How are the common notions of all things distinguished? What does the same differ from the similar? How is person in person?

It must be known that it is one thing to contemplate by the thing itself, and another by reason and thought. Now in all created things the division of persons is seen by the thing itself. But community and kinship are made manifest by the mind and thought. For by the mind we perceive that Peter and Paul are of the same nature, and consist of one common nature. For each of them is an animal endowed with reason, subject to death. Likewise, each is flesh, into which an ensouled reason and intellect have been infused. Therefore, common nature can be perceived by reason. For the hypostases are not ^D

^A merely one within another, but each is individual and separate, or divided by itself, and having many things from another by which they are distinguished. For they differ in location, they differ in time, and finally, in judgment, powers, form or shape, habit, temperament, dignity, way of life, and in all figurative properties. Most importantly, however, because one does not reside in another, but remains separate. From whence it happens that they are called two or three men, and many. This, certainly, has a place in every creature. But in the holy, supersubstantial, all-surpassing, and incomprehensible Trinity, the matter stands otherwise. For what is common and one in it, is considered in reality itself. That is to say, because it is co-eternal, because it is endowed with the same essence, operation, and will; because, in short, it has the same willing and nilling, the same power, virtue, and goodness (the same, I say, not similar), and in short, a single ejaculation of motion. For there is one essence, one goodness, one virtue, one will, one action, one power, one, I say, and the same. It is not three motions among themselves similar, but one and the same motion of the three persons. For each of them possesses not less in the others than in themselves; that is, because in all things Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one, if the words unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding are removed, though they are divided by thought. For we acknowledge one God, but only in the properties of paternity, filiation, and procession. ^B Item, as to cause, effect, and the perfection of the person. Whether we grasp in the mind the mode of existence itself, or the difference itself. For it is not possible that we should speak of local distance regarding the Divinity, which cannot be circumscribed, just as we do of ourselves (for one person resides in another, not in such a way that it is confounded, but that it inheres. Just as the Lord himself says: *I am in the Father, and the Father is in me*), nor of a difference of will, or of judgment, or of action, or of virtue, or of any other thing. All of which things, among us, bring about division in reality and in mind. Wherefore, we do not call the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit three Gods, but rather one God, the holy Trinity: with the Son and the Spirit referred back to one and the same cause, namely the Father, not compounded, nor glued together, as the contraction of Sabellius desired; for the persons are joined in such a way, as we have said, that they are not confounded, but that they inhere in one another and touch each other, without any commixture and concretion: nor are they so disjoined that they disagree in essence, as the division of Arius fabulates. For such is the Divinity that, if the matter is to be condensed into a summary, it remains indivisible within the divided, and just as in three suns clinging to one another and indistinct, there is one tempered mixture and joining of light, from which it happens that, when the reason of the Divinity is considered, one cause, a monarchy or rule of unity, and one and the same motion and will of the Divinity, and finally the essence of its action and lordship ^C and the identity, we imagine to be one certain and same thing. But when account is taken of those in whom divinity resides, or to speak more subtly, what is divinity itself, and what from there, as if from a first cause, proceeds without time, entirely the same with glory, and indistinctly, that is, of the hypostases or persons, there are without doubt three that are adored. One Father is Father, and is without beginning, that is, without cause, for he proceeds from no one. One Son is Son, but not without beginning, that is, not without cause, since he proceeds from the Father. But if you understand a temporal beginning, you might also be able to call him without beginning. For he who founded times is not subject to time. One Holy Spirit is Spirit, proceeding indeed from the Father, not filially, but processively. So that neither does the Father cease to be unbegotten, because he begot, nor does the Son cease to be begotten, because he proceeded from the unbegotten. For how could this happen? Nor, likewise, does the Spirit degenerate into the Father or into the Son, because he proceeds and is God. For a property is not moved. For how could it happen differently, that a property should be changed and degenerate? For if he is the Son, he is not properly the Father, since one is properly Father. Likewise, if he is the Father, he is not properly the Son, for one is properly Son, and one is the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it must be known that we do not say that the Father proceeds from anything, but we assert him to be the Father of the Son, yet we by no means say that the Son and the Spirit lack a cause. We name the former from the Father, and the Son of the Father, but the latter we name from the Father also and the Son, and the Spirit of the Father. But the Spirit from the Son, not likewise. But we say only the Spirit of the Son. For the Blessed Apostle says: *If any man have not the Spirit of Christ* 10. And we confess that the same is known to us and bestowed through the Son. For Scripture says: *He breathed on them, and said to his disciples, Receive ye the Holy Ghost* 11. Just as a ray and splendor from the sun. For he is the fountain and origin of the ray and the splendor. Now indeed the ray imparts to us splendor, and it is he who illuminates us, and of whom we are partakers. But we do not say that the Son is the Spirit, nor that he proceeds from the Spirit.

CAP. XXXVII. On those things which are said of God, and that they should be referred to habit, action, and others of that kind, but not to the essence.

God is simple, and not at all composite. But that ^D which consists from many and diverse things, that is composite. Now indeed, if that which is uncreated, which lacks a beginning, which is incorporeal, immortal, eternal, good, is the maker of all things, and others of that kind, we have said that there are essential differences in God, that which will consist of so many things will not be simple, but composite. Which indeed labors under no lack of impiety. Thus, therefore, it must be judged, concerning each of those things which are said of God, that they signify nothing essential, but rather, as either what he is not, they make it manifest, or some habit

or nature consequent to it, or they denote some action. Thus, among all the nomenclatures of God, none seems to me more proper than ὁ ὤν, or "he who is." Just as He Himself, speaking to Moses on the mountain, says: Tell the Israelites: "He who is" has sent me. 12. For He embraces all essence in Himself, like some vast and immeasurable ocean of essence. But as it seems to the blessed Dionysius, "Good" is the most proper appellation of God, for one cannot say that essence preceded goodness in God. Another name is Θεός (God), which is said either ἐκ τοῦ θέειν (from running), and περιέπειν τὰ σύμπαντα (encompassing all things), that is, because He contains the universe by His course and circuit, or ἐκ τοῦ αἴθειν (from burning). For God is a fire by which every vice is consumed, or ἀπὸ τοῦ θεᾶσθαι τὰ πάντα (from watching over all things) because He beholds all things. ^B For nothing escapes Him, and He is the speculator of all things; for He has scrutinized all things by His providence before they came into being, and each of their individual voluntary acts by His thought—which is indeed predestination, an image, and an exemplar in the predestined thing in which it comes to be. Now, by His former nomenclature—namely, "He who is"—the essence itself is exhibited, not, however, what it is; but by the latter, the action itself is made manifest. Moreover, these names—"without beginning," "incorruptible," "unbegotten" or "uncreated," "incorporeal," "invisible," and the like—indicate what He is not, that is, that which did not begin to exist. For He is neither corrupted, nor created, nor is He a body, nor is He seen.

"Good," "just," and "holy" indeed correspond to His nature, but they do not in the least demonstrate the essence itself. Finally, "Lord," "King," and other names of this kind signify a habit in relation to opposites. For He is called Lord of those who are subject to His lordship; King of those who are under His reign; Creator of those who are under His creation; and finally, Shepherd of those who are under His pasturage. ^C

CAP. XXXVIII. By the same John Damascene. On the divine conjunction and distinction (and that the former is to be understood regarding the Trinity, the latter regarding the Son alone).

Everything, therefore, is to be understood of the whole divinity commonly, in the same simple, indivisible, and conjoint manner. Distinctly, however, or discretely, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—being uncaused, caused, unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding—are distinctions that hold no signification of essence, but only of the mode by which one relates to another, and by which he exists. Having known these things, and the path to the essence itself from there, we comprehend only the things adjacent to the essence. Just as, even if we have explored that the soul is devoid of body, quantity, and figure, we do not immediately comprehend its essence, nor likewise of the body itself, if ^D its whiteness or blackness has become known. But we know only those things which are adjacent to it. We are instructed by true reason that God is simple, and endowed with good by one simple action, which provides all things to all, like a ray of the sun, which warms all things and operates in each according to how apt and capable they are; He is endowed with this action by the grace of God the Creator. Furthermore, things pertaining to the divine and human full incarnation of the Word of God are discrete and separated. For the Father and the Spirit are in no way participants in these, except only because it has pleased them both, and that ineffable rendering of miracles has graced them: which indeed were brought forth by the Word of God, having also become a man similar to us, as the immutable God, and the Son of God.

CAP. XXXIX. By the same, from chap. 14, concerning those things which are said of God corporeally.

But since we find that most things in the Holy Scriptures are stated in such a way that they designate something corporeal as if by conjecture, it must be known that it is impossible for us, since we are humans covered in this fleshy mass, to grasp with the intellect or express in words the divine, exalted, and utterly immaterial actions of the divinity, unless we use images, forms, and symbols known among ourselves. Whatever, therefore, is stated of God corporeally depends on conjecture, but in those things some more sublime sense lies hidden. For God is simple, and cannot be depicted by any figure or lineament. Therefore, by the name of eyes, eyelids, and the gaze of God, we understand His power by which He contemplates all things, and indeed that cognition by which it comes about that nothing escapes Him, because, naturally, by the benefit of such a sense we attain a more perfect cognition and more certain persuasion of things. Likewise, by the name of ears and hearing, we designate His placability and His inclination toward our prayers and supplications. For we are made pliant and exorable to suppliants by the benefit of this sense, and we incline our ear to them in a more familiar manner. Furthermore, by the appellation of mouth and speech, we draw out some certain indication of His will, because it is our custom to reveal the secrets of our hearts by the benefit of mouth and speech. The nomenclature of food and drink also denotes our concurrence with His will. For we satisfy the necessary appetite of our nature by the sense of taste. By the appellation of smell, we understand the power implanted in us which testifies to our will and benevolence toward God, because, naturally, by that sense we perceive the sweet fragrance of odors. By the word "person," moreover, we sub-indicate that presence of God by which He monitors and permeates His works in turn, and as if successively, because, naturally, by the benefit of a person

^A we place ourselves. By "hands," moreover, that force is understood which completes the action of God; for we administer those things which are useful to us, and especially all those that are most precious, with our hands. By the "right hand," likewise, we are accustomed to understand the divine help which is present to us in prosperous affairs; for in those things which seem to us slightly more refined and decorative, and to require more strength, we generally use the right hand. Now, what, I ask, are we to say that "palpation" is, other than a more subtle investigation and more exact exploration by God of those things which are extremely subtle and obscure? For it happens in the human manner, so that those things which are felt might not be able to hide anything within themselves. Similarly, by "feet" and "trampling," we signify that He comes and is present at hand to bring help to suppliants, or to push back enemies, or to do anything else similar, because we are accustomed to arrive by foot where we have intended. By "oath," likewise, is shown how firm the divine will is; for we are accustomed to add strength and weight to our mutual agreements by the religion of an oath. Furthermore, by the name of "wrath" and "fury" we signify how much God hates malice and how much He is turned away from it. For we, if anything is done against us, are accustomed to be indignant and to be angry, as seems appropriate to us. Finally, by "oblivion," by "sleep," and by "slumber," is understood the delay of punishment to be exacted from an enemy, and the postponement of providing auxiliary help to our kinsmen and friends. To conclude at once and in summary, and to embrace many things in few words: in all these things which are said corporally concerning God, a certain arcane sense lies hidden, which, under the pretext of things customary among us, teaches those things which are above us, unless by chance something has been said concerning the corporal arrival of the Word of God. For He put on the whole man to make us safe, that is, the soul participant in intellect, and the body, together with those things which are proper to human nature, and finally, natural and immutable passions.

CAP. XL. Concerning the angels, the other principal part of this book.

Since, indeed, God is called the first and eternal light, but the orders of angels endowed with intellect are the second, a few things must also be said about them. An angel is an essence endowed with intellect, which is always moving, of free will, incorporeal, addicted to the ministry and cult of God, and made a participant of an immortal nature by grace. Of which essence, indeed, what is its form and what is its limit is known and explored by the Creator alone. It is called incorporeal, furthermore, and devoid of matter if it is compared with us. For whatever there is in the nature of things is found to be crude and material, if it is compared with God, who alone remains free and immune from all corporeity. Since God alone is He who is truly removed from all matter, and can be called ^A incorporeal. An angel, therefore, is a nature participant in reason, intellect, and free will, which can change its opinion, or is mutable by its own will. For whatever is created is also mutable: the uncreated alone is immutable. Likewise, whatever is endowed with reason is also of free will. Inasmuch, therefore, as it is a participant in reason and intellect, it is also of free will; inasmuch, however, as it is created, it is also subject to mutation; so that it may be free and whole to remain and progress in the good, and to deflect toward the worse. It is not, however, capable of repentance, because it is incorporeal. For man can repent on account of the weakness of the body. Furthermore, it is immortal, but not by nature, but by grace. For whatever has begun, the same also ceases by nature, and tends toward destruction. God alone, however, is eternal, nay rather, above all eternity, for He is not subjected to time, but is above time, by whom times were created. Furthermore, the second lights endowed with intellect, which have borrowed their splendor from the first light, which lacks a beginning, lack neither tongue nor hearing, but without the utterance of any speech, they communicate their own mental concepts and wills among themselves. Therefore, all angels were created by the Word and made perfect by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, being participants of light and grace according to the proportion of their dignity and order. They are circumscribed: for if they are in heaven, they are not on earth, and if they are sent by God to the earth, they do not remain in heaven; they are not enclosed by walls, gates, cloisters, or seals. They are indefinite. But I say "indefinite," for they do not appear to worthy men as they are, to whom God willed that they should appear, but transfigured, as those who behold them can bear. For that which is uncreated is the same by nature and properly indefinite. But every creature is defined outside its essence by its Creator. They have the same sanctification from the Holy Spirit, they prophesy by divine grace, they lack marriages altogether, for they are not mortal. But since they are spirits, ^D for that reason they also dwell in places accessible only to the intellect, not so as to be circumscribed by a body; for they cannot be divided by a corporeal nature or exterior figure and shape, but because they are presences accessible to intellect only, and follow orders, nor can they be here and there at one and the same moment and perform their office. But whether they are of equal essence, or whether they differ from one another, we do not know. Their Creator, God, alone knows this, to whom also all things are known. But they differ from one another in splendor and order, whether they serve order for the sake of splendor, or possess splendor and communicate it to others, so that they may preserve order. It is certain, moreover, that those who are in the lower orders receive both splendor and cognition as if by hand from those who are in the higher. They are, furthermore, strong and prepared for the execution of the divine will, and are found immediately here and there, so great is the speed of their nature, whithersoever the divine nod may have sent them; and they guard the regions of the earth, prefects over nations and places, pro

provided that it so pleases the Creator himself, and thus they administer human affairs and bring us aid. Moreover, since they are above us by the precept of the divine will and commandment, they always stand by God. Furthermore, although they are scarcely moved toward evil, they are not nevertheless immovable. But now they remain even immovable, not by nature, but by grace and the protection of God, who alone is good. They see God as far as is permitted to them, and they have this in place of sustenance. They are above us as incorporeal beings, and free from every corporeal affection, yet not impassible: for God alone is impassible. They are transformed, however, into whatever the Lord God may command, and thus they appear to men and reveal to them divine mysteries. They dwell in heaven, and serve only one purpose, namely to praise God and obey His divine will.

CAP. XLI. Synopsis of the hierarchy. That angels are creatures, not creators, against the Sethians.

^AJust as that most holy and most sacred man, and one most exercised in theological matters, Dionysius the Areopagite, testifies, all theology, or Holy Scripture, has expressed nine celestial essences. That divine administrator of sacred things distinguishes them into three ternary orders. And he establishes that the first of all is that which is said to always stand around God, and to be joined to Him contiguously and immediately. This order is that of the Seraphim, who have six wings, and the multi-eyed Cherubim, and finally the most holy Thrones. The second is that of the Dominions, Virtues, and Powers. The third and last, he says, is that of the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels.

^BIt now seems to some that they were created before every creature, as Gregory the Theologian says in these words: "He first revolves in His mind the angelic and celestial virtues, and that thought passes into act." To others, however, it has pleased that they were created after the first heaven. Certainly, no one does not admit that they were created before man. For my part, I am of the opinion of Gregory the Theologian. For it was in accordance with reason that the essence endowed with intellect should be created in the first place, and then that which is partaker of sense, and thus finally that man should be fashioned from both. But those who maintain that the angels were the creators of any essence whatever babble that which their father the devil suggests to them. For since they are creatures, they are not creators. But God, who made all things, provides for all things, and contains all things, He is the one uncreated Being, who is celebrated and glorified with praises under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

CAP. XLII. Concerning man. The division of essence. The difference of image and likeness in God. The delusion of Origen.

In this manner, therefore, God created the essence of the intellect, the celestial hosts. For without doubt ^C they are endowed with a nature that is partaker of intellect and is incorporeal. Incorporeal, I say, if it be compared with the density of matter. For God alone is truly devoid of matter and incorporeal. Then, indeed, He also created that essence which falls under the senses—I mean heaven, earth, and the things that lie between them—and indeed that which is proper and familiar (for that nature which uses reason and is comprehended by the mind alone is familiar to God), but this one, however, is remote from everywhere, which, of course, falls under the senses. Now truly, from both a certain mixture was to be formed, so that it might be a specimen and sign of the greater wisdom and magnificence of natural things, as Gregory the Theologian says, and as it were a certain conjunction of both natures, namely of that which is visible and that which is not seen. It was proper, I say, that the will of the Creator should be made known by such a specimen. For this is the most becoming law and rule, according to the prescription of which all things are to be examined. And no one will proceed with such madness as to ask his Creator: "Why did you form me thus?" For a potter can fashion various vessels from his clay, by which he may provide a specimen of his wisdom (15).

Since these things are so, from visible and invisible nature He created man with His own hands, after His own image and likeness, with his body indeed formed from the earth, but his soul, participating in reason and intellect, infused into him by His own breath, which indeed we understand by the appellation of the divine image. For that "according to the image" indicates that power which is partaker of intellect and endowed with free will. But this "according to the likeness" denotes that power which bears the likeness of the divine virtue, as far as it can be done.

CAP. XLII[-XLIV]. The parts of man, and his primitive qualities. Spirit and flesh.

Moreover, the body and soul were formed at the same time, but not the former as prior and the latter as posterior, as Origen wanted in his delusions; and so God created man pure, upright, strong, cheerful, secure, adorned with every virtue, abounding in all goods, as it were a certain second world, a little in the great: another angel, a worshiper, a mixture, an inspector of those creatures which are subject to the eyes: but a disciple of those which are manifest only to the intellect: a king of those which are on the earth: subject to the supernal King, earthly and celestial, mortal and immortal, visible and perceptible to the intellect, a medium between sublimity and lowliness, the same being spirit and flesh: flesh, indeed, on account of [pride's] swelling; but spirit, on account of grace: partly that he might suffer, and being patient, might be admonished, and be instructed, to

strive ^A with great zeal for sublimity; partly that he might persevere and glorify the beneficent Creator: an animal which governs here, that is, in the present life; but migrates to another, that is, to the future age; and finally, as he who is the end of the whole mystery, by divine numen becomes a god. A god, I say, because he is made a partaker of the divine splendor; yet he does not pass into the divine essence. God created man immune to sin, and free in will. (I say immune to sin, not because he is not capable of sin—for only God is not capable of sin—but because sin did not exist in him on earth: or rather in his will,) or it was so arranged that he might persevere and excel in good, with divine grace cooperating, and likewise might be able to decline from good to evil, by God’s permission, on account of free choice. For that which is done by force is not virtue.

CAP. XLV. Of the soul, the mind, and incorporeal things.

The soul, therefore, is a living essence, simple, incorporeal, whose proper nature cannot be discerned by bodily eyes, immortal, a partaker of reason and intellect, lacking shape: which uses the body as an instrument, and provides it with life, growth, sensation, and the reproductive force; embracing the mind within itself, not as something different, but as its own most pure part (for what the eye is in the body, that the mind is in the soul), of free choice, free will, and action: mutable or of its own accord liable to change, ^B because, indeed, it is created. It received all these things naturally, by the grace and benefit of its Creator, because it is by grace that it possesses both that it exists, and that it exists in such a natural way. Now, we consider those things which are incorporeal, and invisible, and lack shape, in two ways: some by essence, others by grace; and the former are thus naturally constituted, but the latter accrue, as it were, to the thickness of matter. Therefore, in God, the incorporeal is by nature; in angels, demons, and souls, it is spoken of by grace, and in such a way that it has a certain affinity with the thickness of matter.

CAP. XLVI. Of the body, the elements, and the humors.

The body, however, is that which consists of a triple dimension, namely length, breadth, depth, and thickness. Further, every body is composed of four humors. It must be known that there are four elements: earth, dry and cold; water, cold and moist; air, moist and hot; fire, hot and dry; to which the four humors correspond by diameter: for black bile, since it is dry and cold, corresponds to earth; phlegm, cold and moist, to water; blood, moist and hot, to air; yellow bile, hot and dry, corresponds to fire by diameter, as it were. And so fruits arise from the elements, but humors arise from the fruits, and finally the bodies of living beings are composed of these humors, ^D and are resolved into the same. For whatever is composite is accustomed at length to be resolved into those very things of which it consists.

CAP. XLVII. What man has in common with inanimate things, brutes, and those capable of intelligence.

Furthermore, it must be known that man has something in common with inanimate things, and is a participant in life with brutes, and is endowed with intelligence with those who use reason. For he has his body and the temperament of the four elements in common with inanimate things. But with plants, besides the things aforesaid, he also experiences these faculties which they have in common: the nutritive, the vegetative, and the generative. With brutes, likewise, besides the things aforesaid, these also accrue to him ^B in their turn: appetite, or irritability, and concupiscence, then sensation, then finally movement toward the thing desired. The senses, moreover, are five: sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch. By that movement, he is quickly moved toward the desired object, so that he passes from place to place, is moved with his whole body, and uses his voice and respiration. We have an innate, free capacity for doing or omitting these things. Finally, by the benefit of that part of the soul which is a partaker of reason, he is joined to incorporeal natures and those endowed with intelligence, when he weighs, understands, and judges individual things; and when he embraces virtues, and especially piety, the hallmark of virtues. For which reason also man is a little world.

CAP. XLVIII. What things are proper to the body and soul, and what are common to both.

It must be known, however, that partition, flux, and mutation belong only to the body. Mutation is indeed of quality, namely of heat, cold, and others of that kind. Flux, however, is to be referred to emptiness. ^C For those things which are dry and moist are evacuated, as well as the spirit: for the replenishment of which the body is in need. From which it happens that hunger and thirst are classified as natural affections. Piety and intelligence, however, are proper to the soul. But virtues are common to both body and soul: since these also are raised to the soul as if the soul were exercising the body.

CAP. XLIX. The division of the faculties of the soul.

It must be known that that part of the soul which is a partaker of reason presides over that which is devoid of reason. For the faculty of the soul is twofold. For one is capable of reason, the other is brute. Now there are two kinds of the brute faculty. One of them is of those which are entirely brute and do not obey reason: the other is of those which in some way obey reason. That part is entirely brute which is called vital and constrictive, also generative, and finally germinative, which is also called nutritive. Under which is also comprehended that which the common people call vegetative, and which...

shapes bodies. For these are ruled not by reason, but by nature. Of that part, however, which is subject to reason, there are two species: desire and spiritedness. Furthermore, that brute part of the soul is commonly called the affective and appetitive part. It should be known, moreover, that to the part of the soul possessing brute faculties that obeys reason, that impulse also toward the desired object is accustomed to be referred.

Chapter 50. More on body and soul. On the immortality and nature of the soul, insofar as it is joined to the body.

^A Immortality is acquired by man, who although he is naturally mortal, yet by the preeminence of the soul he attains to sit with the immortals. Therefore the nature of the soul, as it has pleased some, is its own perfect essence, lacking dimensions, which sits upon the body like a chariot. But because life must be sufficient for the whole, and must be circumscribed within it as within its own corners, for that cause it permeates the body itself, that is, it is divided, and is diffused through its individual parts, animating its depth and surface equally, and indeed circumscribes itself to itself, but accommodates itself to the body within certain boundaries.

Chapter 51. Also on the soul. The manner of the creation of angels and souls.

Along with the species of the angelic orders, the number of individuals also is said to have been completed in that first creation of the world; but the number of souls is said to have been brought forth by the Creator Word (to whom nothing is future or to come, but all things have attained a manifest nature), yet it is not drawn out along with the totality of things; rather, they were created from nothing, and for those who have lived from the beginning of the world until this present day, they were infused into their bodies: and they are thought to be infused daily.

Chapter 52. Also on the soul. The threefold affection of the soul also makes a threefold man.

^C There is, moreover, a triple affection of the soul, since that which is highest in it, and has kinship with things that are perceived by the intellect, is named *noēsis*, or intelligence; but that which is extreme, and is as it were a gnomon and rule for those things which fall under the senses, by the benefit of common sense, is called *doxa*, or opinion; that, finally, which is intermediate, and is so composed that it is borne now upward, now downward, is called *dianoia*, or thought. And within these boundaries man, or the opinion of man, expands, and only then becomes an ^D animal. For thought is a certain manifold nature. Intelligence, however, is a participant in divinity. For since desire is a certain multi-headed animal, and spiritedness is leonine, reason alone constitutes the true man; compared to whom still another man, more divine and truer, is detected, whoever is *noeros*, or capable of intelligence, whom they call *autanthropos*, that is, the man himself or the perfect man, who are addicted to the speculation of forms. Man, therefore, is threefold. One, indeed, is *noeros*, capable of intelligence, and that is uniform. Another, however, is *logikos*, a participant in reason, and that is tripartite and endowed with a triple faculty. The third, finally, is *aisthetikos*, addicted to the senses, and that is multiform and varied. That, moreover, which reasons and contemplates, is we ourselves. For there is no difference between us and the soul.

Chapter 53. On mind and soul (the opinions of certain Greek philosophers on the conjunction of soul and body).

From the number of Greek wise men, Plato indeed and Aristotle think that the soul uses the body as an instrument. For it is fitting, says Aristotle, that art should use its own instruments, and the soul its body. The Peripatetic philosophers, however, mix and entangle it with the body just as a form existing in matter. Cleanthes even demonstrates that it is a body, which, however, can sometimes be separated from that which falls under sight. Plotinus, however, is the advocate that it is not at all subjected to suffer the affections of the body, since it can in no way happen that the craftsman should put on the affections of the instruments. It is necessary, he says, that it should use sense. For that which performs acts through the body is aided by sense, so that by its benefit it may know external and adventitious things. Now if the soul is incorporeal, bodily affections will not penetrate it at all: and if they should arrive, they will not come into its essence, but only into its faculties and actions.

Chapter 54. On the soul. What is meant by being mixed, and how the soul is mixed with the body.

Those things are said to be mixed which are mingled and confused among themselves, like moist things or things implied, such as air and light; or like a form which cannot be separated from matter. But if they touch one another even a little, they are indeed separated in essence, but mixed in actions. Which matter moved Aristotle also to say that there is a double soul: one, indeed, which is separated from the body, another, however, which subsists in the body. That form of the soul, moreover, which is in the body, performs the role of an instrument, by which it may be carried up to the superior soul endowed with royal faculty. Furthermore, the soul which is in the body does not at all fall under sense, since it is mixed with the body, but the body itself is animated. For the body, by the benefit of the soul, is a participant in sense, appetite, and other affections. Plato, however, writes that the true essence of the soul depends upon itself. For that which subsists in another, he calls the form of an essential quality, but not essence.

CAP. LV.

On the soul. Is the soul subject to passion?

CAP. LVI.

On the soul. Affections of the soul are to be inferred from its essence, not the other way around.

Furthermore, the affections of the soul are not simply its every action, but only that of a subject which is suffering and straying outside itself. And indeed, every soul is afflicted by the sense of external things, but not every soul is separable from the body. For every sense and imagination does not occur without the body, and therefore not even the soul, subject to their passion, can be separated in any way. For actions seem to be, as it were, proper and domestic to essences.

CHAPTER LVII.

Likewise on the soul. Exposition of the Mosaic saying, Let us make man in our image and likeness.

CHAPTER LVIII.

That the soul is an idol of the body, and the body conversely of the soul.

cohere, which indeed is nothing else than that body which is commonly called divine: which, as soon as the soul has entered it, adheres again to a more gross part, which they attach to it—as it were, as a center—accepted, ^A so to speak, from the celestial disposition of the stars, and then at last they call it the form of the soul devoid of reason, from which, of course, opinion, sense, imagination, and finally the appetites of those things which fall under generation proceed. For they do not attribute to the same nature the contemplation of the one, primary notions, and exact sciences, along with false opinions and the apprehensions of those things which are endowed with sense—to wit, the imaginative faculty and the action of lower things—but rather they assign the more excellent things to the rational part, and the worse things to the part devoid of reason: not that they wipe away any stains or blemishes from the more divine nature by this distribution, but so that, the latter performing necessary functions, the former may turn itself only to those things which approach more closely to the divine nature. Therefore, they teach that this idol cannot be separated from the soul that partakes of reason: but when a man is dissolved, they carry the more excellent soul along with its luminous vehicle to its own rest; but the irrational ^B part, separated from the body, they either thrust down to the infernal regions or refer to the stars.

CAP. LIX. On the transmigrations of souls into other bodies.

Furthermore, those same people who taught the *palingenesia* or pre-existence of souls have also invented their *metangismos*, or strainings, and transfusions, as it were, from one vessel into another. For a *metangismos*, or straining, occurs when one and the same soul, having departed from a human body, transmigrates into another body; and sometimes it even enters the bodies of winged creatures and quadrupeds.

CAP. LX. On the luminous and tenebricose nature of the soul.

Some, indeed, have said that there is also a twofold nature of souls: one luminous, the other tenebricose. And they say that the latter wells up from below and leaps forth from subterranean vents, while the former is sent down, kindled from the vertex of heaven, so that it may adorn this earthly domicile of the body. Which, indeed, as it descends, is warned to take care, lest while it strives to form and adorn this formless and confused body, it itself becomes filled with disgrace and confusion; and thus the same soul, afterwards, may not be able to flow back by the same way and be poured into its first and proper fountain, but may be swept astray to those subterranean vents akin to another soul,

Where Envy, and Idle-grief, and species of a thousand evils Wander in the sad meadows of Tartarean ^C Ales.

From which it also often happens that those born of the same parents do not even agree among themselves in the kinship of their souls; but one yields to the dictates of a better soul, the other rushes headlong into that where the impulse of a worse one leads: and thus one is intent upon good actions, the other upon evil. Although the African, on the contrary, easily agrees with the Greek man regarding a similar propensity of the soul.

CAP. LXI. Also on the soul. Various opinions of the Heathens and Christians.

There have not been wanting those who said that the soul is that blood by which we live. Others also ^D thought it to be that spirit which is implanted in us from the beginning, together with the emission of the parents' seed; from which heat also arises. Because nature needed some body by which it might be animated and receive heat, therefore nature endowed it with aspiration and respiration, and prepared an entrance and exit for the living blood. And so this spirit permeates, constitutes, and corrupts bodies, and perishes together with them.

But of the men of our religion, some ascribed the essential cause of the soul to that first and divine insufflation, and said it was infused into the bodies of men at the time they are created. Others thought that the soul, subsisting of itself, concurs with the body: so that neither is the body constituted of itself, nor does the soul exist prior to the body. Moreover, they asserted it to be twofold, one part of which is participant in reason, the other devoid of it. That part which is devoid of reason, they divided into the spirited and the covetous. And they affirmed that that part which is participant in reason has its seat in the breast; but that which lacks reason is diffused throughout the whole frame of the body. But indeed, as to the *hegemonikon* itself, or the most excellent part of the soul, Plato and Democritus said it had its seat in the whole head, others in the *metopon*, or the middle of the eyebrows, others around the membrane of the brain, which is commonly called the *pia mater*, and by other names the *epikranis* or cerebellum. Some even in the ventricle of the brain. Nor were there wanting those who ascribed it to the whole breast and the whole heart, or to the spirit surrounding the heart and the thickness of the blood. Others placed it in the precordium. It pleased others that the heart should be surrounded by its vital faculty, but the head by the rational and intellectual.

CAP. LXII. On what the heathens and what the Christians held concerning the immortality of the soul.

Now, indeed, some have approved the immortality of the soul and said that, having departed from the body, it returns to the soul of the universe as being akin to itself. Others, on the contrary, preferred to think it subject to corruption and that it perishes together with the body. To others, it was pleasing that that part of it which is participant in reason is immortal, but that which is devoid of reason is mortal. But those of our own, or the Christi-

- ^A an philosophers, have said that some actions—others operating without any service of the body (since the mind, thought, and imagination work even when the body is at rest), others, however, requiring the service of the body—are performed out of the actions of the soul. For the sense cannot act without those things which fall under the sense. But in some way it sympathizes, and reconciles them to the body. Hence it happens that often certain types and characters, obscure images of those things which each person has done piously and according to the rule of religion in this life, remain impressed, and as it were engraved, upon the soul after it has been separated from the body. For undoubtedly those affections which are subjected to the sense are common to the soul and the body.

The blessed Gregory of Nyssa also is the authority for the belief that those faculties of the soul by which we remember ^B remain inherent after death, like a seal impressed upon wax; for this reason the rich man recognizes Lazarus, and deservedly so. For if nature shows that such powers exist in brute animals—so that a newly born lamb passes by many fountains of alien milk until it reaches its mother's udders—the Creator of nature could not fail to grant the prerogative of this miracle to animals endowed with reason, and to bestow upon the soul and the body, as spouses, this gift, that they may meet and be joined together.

CHAPTER LXIII.

Regarding the mind. How intelligence is inherent in the soul and the mind.

Intelligence is indeed capable of the soul, and the mind itself is also capable of intelligence: the latter by its own essence, the former by participation. For the mind is gifted with this privilege, that it is both a participant in intelligence and is mind, which is one and the same thing. But the soul, being capable of intelligence, looks to the mind and is provided with what is, as it were, a secondary intellect, which is primary in the mind, and thus it is said to be capable of intelligence by participation in the mind, a benefit which the mind has from its own essence. Therefore, the soul is capable of intelligence by participation in the mind. For when the soul understands, and the mind works in us, then at last the soul becomes capable of and a participant in intelligence. But that singular mind presides over our soul, which is also said to be a part of us, of which we are privately participants. For we ascend to it continually, and through its benefit we are turned toward the universal mind, and in it we are finally perfected.

CHAPTER LXIV.

Regarding the mind and soul, and the forms of each and their differences.

We possess forms in two ways: in the soul, as it were flying beneath and as if separate; in the mind, however, all together. But with the mind, there is one form by participation, which is more correctly called [i] noera [/i], or intellectual illumination, and another which is essential. Now the mind which consists by participation is that which communicates ^C to the irrational soul, and follows the very idol of the soul. Nothing else is it but a habit toward those good things which are fitting for the mind by duty. But essential mind is twofold: one indeed which cannot be shared, another which can: which indeed is wont to be called particular.

Furthermore, this mind is in us both common and private: common, indeed, as one and indivisible; private, however, in as much as it is present in its entirety to each individual. And animal forms indeed fill our essence, but mental forms bring us perfection and adornment; moreover, while the mental ones are conjoined, animal ones receive division. Furthermore, God resides in us, in the nature that is participant in intelligence, as a charioteer in his chariot.

CAP. LXV.

Regarding the virtues and their threefold order.

Now, indeed, because virtues are referred to the mind and the soul, a few things must also be treated concerning them. The order of virtues is threefold. For some adorn man, that is, the soul with the body. Others purge the soul from the body and recall it to itself, which are indeed called purgative. Others exercise the soul, once perfectly purified, in the contemplation of those things which are perceived by the intellect, which are indeed called contemplative and intellectual. ^D And one virtue is that of God, another of an angel, another of man. For just as their essences are various, so too are the virtues. And the soul indeed is properly rational, and is so called. But the mind is that which presides over the soul. It follows the rational soul. Now virtue is diffused through all the orders of the angels, which begins from the Seraphim. But God is above virtue, every good, and every perfection.

CHAPTER LXVI.

Item regarding the virtues and their six degrees: [i] physical, ethical, political, contemplative, theurgic [/i].

The degrees of virtues are said to be six. For one virtue is natural, which is indeed detected even in wild beasts. Another is moral, with which some of the unskilled are also endowed. Another is civil, which governs the state with reason and prudence. Another is purgative, which purges man from every affection or perturbation. Another is contemplative, which contemplates the mind. Another is deifying, which excites our soul, joins it with God himself, and pours in the divine favor. But there are also other virtues superior to these. Some indeed as an exemplar of the remaining virtues, others transcend all essence: which indeed are not accidents, as the other virtues are wont to happen to us, but are intellectual and superessential essences.

CHAPTER LXVII.

Regarding the virtues by which a man becomes perfect.

Three are the virtues by which a man becomes perfect: holiness, which strives to ascend to God,

^A consecrating man's life to God; the second is justice, which provides for necessary things; the third is prudence, which strives to adapt for us the life that partakes of intelligence. For by holiness one is conjoined to the One and to God; by justice, one provides for those things which are inferior; by prudence, finally, we attain ineffable knowledge. Now moral virtue arises from prudence, nor is it acquired by action, but by the use of things. Moreover, the divinity of virtue is such that it permeates all things that are in the nature of things. For there is a supercelestial, a supermundane, and a mundane virtue. Likewise there are intellectual, animal, angelic, and human virtues. There is indeed a certain fountain of virtues, of which we are made participants only when, with particular intelligence, having bidden farewell to long things, we execute all virtues most perfectly. ^B

CAP. LXVIII. Regarding the virtues and their ends: μετριοπάθεια and ἀπάθεια.

CAP. LXIX. Regarding the virtues. We are made like God in various ways.

CAP. LXX. Item regarding the soul.

CAP. LXXI. Regarding the infusion of souls into bodies. Things that seem most difficult in philosophy are easy.

CAP. LXXII. That the infusion of souls into bodies is demonstrated by four examples.

And just as at the rising of the sun all things are illuminated without any delay, and first of all the air that surrounds us; just as those strings in a lyre, placed in their own positions, even if they are somewhat far removed, are nevertheless moved along with the higher strings and become participants in the harmony; just as, finally, that Phthas who is called Vulcan is kindled by fire in such a way that the intervening air does not burn up: so also does the body, all at once and simultaneously, become kindled and illuminated by the soul, and is filled with its faculties—both those by which it might acquire knowledge of things and those by which it might produce its own likeness. Nor does the soul diffuse itself gradually through the limbs of the body, nor does it occupy the heart first, or the liver, or the brain, and flow from there through the other parts; but it embraces the whole at once and illuminates it with a concentrated light. Moreover, the bonds by which it is tied to the body are these: harmonic proportions and the fading of forms, by which it comes about that both the universal and the singular nature, and then also the expressive discourse itself, conceived in the mind and perfected, and even the very continuity of the form, along with the aptitude of the body yielding to stronger powers, are diminished not a little over time. In this very encounter, furthermore, the prefectures of the angels operate, which at the same time arrange and preserve the soul with the body.

CAP. LXXIII. On the departure of souls, especially holy ones, from bodies.

This, then, is the manner in which souls are insinuated into bodies. It remains that I should also add how they finally withdraw from bodies. And so the angel, it is said, to whom the guardianship of the soul has been divinely entrusted, once the occasion of dissolution is accepted, illuminates it with intellectual light in an ineffable manner, and soon, as the body grows weary and is no longer capable of it (because that original harmony of its wings has now been dissolved, and the harmonic proportions have gradually withdrawn themselves), gathers it into one and draws it back to the light kindred to itself. And from this material darkness, having been snatched away, it provides it with a purer substance and fills it with divine fire. Truly, I shall not now discourse upon what my own opinion is regarding the departure of various souls; but I shall examine more accurately that which seems best. Therefore, just as the encounter of soul and body happens all at once and in emulation, so too does their disconnection. Thus, I would scarcely dare to assert for certain that the soul cannot be circumscribed or is free from every movement of any kind, although I would not deny that, while it is impartible, it departs quickly and has no need of any dimension of time, whether it ascends or descends.

CAP. LXXIV. On what our writers and external philosophers have thought concerning the formation of the body in the womb.

^A Now, do you prefer that I answer you regarding what the sentiment of the saints who have philosophized according to our religion has been, or rather what the Greeks have been accustomed to hold? For there is no dogma at variance upon the question proposed, either handed down by the apostles or received from any other holy Fathers, as far as I can gather from their writings. Some of our own, therefore, who have pursued with more sagacious investigation those things that seem more sublime, have not hesitated to assert firmly that the seed is animated as soon as it is injected into the womb: so that neither part precedes or follows the composition of the other.

^B However, it pleased some of the wise Greeks that the embryo, or the imperfect fetus in the womb, is animated immediately from its own unformed shape. It seemed to others that they are animated at the time when they are already about to move in the belly. To others again, [it seemed] when they are pulled away from the womb and are already being prepared for the fall or the birth. Finally, those who have examined the matter more keenly and deeply have said that they are made participants of a rational soul immediately from their birth, and this in a comprehensive manner, as if they were being approached by divine light or being inflamed for life. But as long as they remain inside the walls of the womb, shut away as if barred, they have thought that life is indeed provided to them, but a life that is natural and entirely devoid of reason, as if by some root that, resting upon the navel, suggests its nourishment from the womb; yet they argued that they must explicitly be called animals, even though they are more imperfect than those who are able to be partakers of a more divine soul. For the rational soul is not like a wind, to be rashly thrust into or to inhabit any living little body whatsoever; but it first occurs to a suitable and capable one, and soon adheres to it in an ineffable encounter.

CAP. LXXV. How the embryo is moved and coalesces in the womb.

But now, how can it happen that a living embryo coalesces in a humid place? And likewise, since its mouth and buttocks are blocked and closed, in what way, I ask, would it breathe if there were any pure air there? But the indications of animated lives in them, they say, are by no means sought from movements. For they are not made by any imagination or any faculty of sudden affection; but they are moved just as the folds and convolutions of the intestines are stuffed, and as the barks of trees [are moved] when they are torn from the trunk. Moreover, even plants themselves grow and are cultivated, and their trunks are as if folded, and then they are unfolded, just as the lotus is accustomed to do with the turning of the sun. But after it has been sent forth from the womb and torn away from that root, it becomes a participant in the rational soul without any delay and immediately, and thereafter it becomes a pure animal.

CAP. LXXVI. On the rational soul: how it is joined to the body, and how it presides over it.

The soul that is partaker of reason is not mixed: for encounters of this kind are convenient for bodies, but it does not even inform the body after the manner of a form of constant matter, for in that way it would itself exceed its own boundaries,

^A and be required to rely upon a foreign foundation; yet not even in this way does it preside over the body as a charioteer over a chariot, or a pilot over a ship. For thus it would animate only that part in which it sat, while that part in which it sat less would remain inanimate. Although some of those who have excelled in philosophical matters have imagined the command which the soul exercises over the body to be similar to a charioteer and a pilot, they did not, however, intend this, but proposed these two things in order to indicate by the examples provided that the essence of a soul can be separated from a body—a soul which is not produced at the same time as the ejaculation of the seed, but rather, when the instrument is finally perfected and the nature is disposed, it becomes intimate and as it were domestic to it, and adheres to it. For in this way the charioteer himself also boards the vehicle, and the pilot ^B boards the ship.

What then is the conjunction of the soul with the body? It is surely the aptitude and similarity of the instrument to it, which appears at the time when its own proper life shines forth in it; a second conjunction of life, I say, and also a harmony and accurate proportion of reasons. For the soul subsists by its own power, just as the solar globe; it does not wander outside the body, but is contained in it by an incredible reason, and adheres to it by the power of the rays proceeding from the soul itself, which, even if the body itself be dissected or suffer anything else quite severe, nevertheless remain uncut and impassible. Just as also when air is stirred and changed by the blasts of winds, the light of the sun by which it is illuminated is not subject to being cut, nor to flow, nor to change.

Chapter 77. On the restoration of souls to their integrity, which occurs through the ministry of angels.

Just as the faculties of the soul associated with the body preside over its more excellent life, and after it has been made suitable for generation, are sent by God to take care of it: so also, when it is first separated from the body, others, better than the former, carry it upwards, performing this service for the creature, and acting as ministers of the restorations to the perfect state which is uniquely convenient for the soul. Nor indeed is the soul moved by such faculties as if it were some form that is stirred by a foreign force, and which could be dragged hither and thither without distinction according to whim; but rather, at that time, that power shines forth in the soul whereby it is moved by itself, and with the same impulse, so to speak, it tends on high with its guides, nor does it follow with wandering steps.

Chapter 78. On the final judgment, by which souls either become possessors of paradise or are cast into the underworld.

And indeed individual souls, whether they have lived wickedly ^C and flagitiously, or bravely and generously, whether they have struggled with their own nature, that place is rightly conceded to them which shines forth above the vertex of the world. But whatever souls have kept themselves pure and entire, as long as they were joined to the body, and have in no way forgotten the Creator Father, nay rather, by constant meditations upon Him, keep His exemplar in their image unharmed: these, I say, enjoy that welcome rest which is prepared for the blessed above the summit of the whole world, and to them is proposed the celestial hall, instead of a meadow and paradise, and the order of those things which are incredible, and the complement of divine goods.

Whatever souls, however, having been set aside from all the aforementioned care, have indulged in the genius of the body, these are considered as belonging to the rotund celestial body, and are brought into the ethereal regions ^D and are listed, as it were, decuried into the natures to which they were here addicted and subjected, nor do they escape being partakers of either good or evil lots: nay, they imagine and look upon certain traces of good, or of evil contrary to the good, conversing among themselves as if in dreams, as much as is permitted them by their guides; and this they do by a certain divine power. Yet they do not know each other individually, but those who have obtained the same lot have the ranks of their own, different from those of others, in view. Nor yet do they converse among themselves: but in place of speech, thoughts are mutually yielded, and whatever has been thought by one, the type of this is immediately detected in another, as if the souls were communicating to each other the thoughts of others.

Chapter 79. Whether souls pre-existed bodies and their various kinds.

However, we do not assert that souls existed before bodies (20), but that they are born together with them: not because they coalesce in them by any seed, but because as soon as bodies are compacted and disposed for generation, God inspires them. The Greeks, however, say that all souls were created from eternity, and were dispersed by the Creator, some of which were above the heaven, and these were also called super-mundane, while others were beneath the heaven, of which some were revolved with the firmament, some with the stars; but some, indeed, were beneath the sublunary ones, and those most suitable for generation, of which some, because they have kept watch heavily over the custody of bodies, and have contracted no stain here, according to the reason and measure of their life, are assigned to more sublime places: others, however, who have indulged in bodily pleasures more than is right, are cast down from here headlong to the lowest parts, and bound to other bodies. But if it happens to please the Creator that this life be committed to a more sublime and better office, and a more wonderful change be decreed for things, then they assert that it is granted to some of the super-mundane souls, that in

descend to the lands, and shortly those, accompanied by more eminent natures, descend hither with triumph, and being set over bodies, for a long time procure for them both liberty and salvation, those whose souls had contracted stain and destruction in life. ^A

CAP. LXXX. *Of idols, or shadowy specters of "philomatia" [lovers of the body], wandering around tombs. The same exactly, word for word, as above.*

Now if souls have been called "idols" of bodies by some, one might infer from this that, from imaginative souls, impressions of bodily forms are received by the power of those things which fall under our sight. For a body is straight in figure, hard to the touch, white in color, and finally heavy and rough, and not so arranged that it might hover about in the air; but an "idol" is dark and very like a shadow, and this to such a degree that one can scarcely conjecture what it is. This is the matter that also moved Plato to name those shadowy specters which appeared in tombs, souls *philosōmatous*, that is, lovers of bodies; as those which, even then, when they have departed from this world, do not return to the pure light, but even then wander about the bodies which they loved most of all, having been captured by the snares of slavish pleasures. Furthermore, an "idol" has been called the soul's body, because what the eye is to the body, the mind is to the soul; what touch is to the former, that power is to the latter by which the truth of things is sought out. Although these dogmas of the gentiles smell of their own error in the greater part. ^B

CAP. LXXXI. *Whether souls, with bodies, return to their pristine abodes.*

This also smells of the dogmas of the gentiles, if one says that souls are also subject to sins, and are familiar and related to the body, and cannot return to their pristine abodes otherwise than if they be purified by purgative virtues: whence it also happens that not even to demons can a return to their pristine dignity ever lie open; for how can it come to pass that the devil might return to the light, with the power of returning denied to him? For that return is not like the return of any person, as when he has the sun at his back, and shortly, with his front turned to his back, he looks upon it; but one might rather say it is like an obscure mirror, which, if it be so affected, however much it is exposed to the sun, it never admits the light into itself, nor does it respond to it with its own brightness, unless by chance it is first purged and polished. But truly, how could it be that a demon might be washed clean of his filth, when he lacks the will that might suffice for expiation, and is exhausted of the powers by which he might achieve this? ^C

CAP. LXXXII. *Of "metangismos" or Pythagorean "metempsychosis", and these [are] the same as above, in the same words.*

The same people also handed down *metangismos* of souls, that is, lixiviations [purifications/decantings], and transfusions from one vessel to another. Moreover, *metangismos*, that is, lixiviation, is when one and the same soul, having gone out from a human body, migrates into another body, sometimes even entering the bodies of birds and quadrupeds. The witness of this matter is that Pythagoras the Samian, who professed to be that Euphorbus the sculptor, who fought for the Trojans against the Greeks. A witness also is the Erythraean Sibyl, who, when she first came forth from her mother's womb, began to philosophize about the nature of the poles and celestial bodies. Finally, a witness is Apollonius of Tyana and the Egyptian Zoroaster. For these said that they drew their origin from the *metangisms*, that is, the lixiviations and transfusions, of other souls. ^D

NICETAS CHONIATES, TREASURY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, BOOK THREE. ON THE INCARNATION OF THE DIVINE WORD.

CAPUT I. Testimonies of the prophets concerning the incarnation of the Divine Word.

Before the useful chapters concerning the incarnation of the Word, and the assertions of the holy Fathers, the prophecies of the prophets must be set forth: by which they predicted that the Son of God would assume flesh from a Virgin, and would live among men in the flesh, would be buried, would rise again, and would ascend into the heavens.

1. *Of the generation of Christ.* 1. The one hundred and ninth Psalm says: *From the womb before the morning star I begot thee* (Ps. cix, 3). And Solomon in the person of the Word, who is co-eternal with the Father: *Before the mountains...*

had settled with heavy weight, nor had the fountains of water yet gushed forth, before all the hills I was brought forth. And David in another place: *Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; the Lord is God and hath shined upon us.* Item: *Our God shall come manifestly and shall not keep silence.* *God shall reign over the nations.* *Ask of Me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance.* *All the nations whatsoever thou hast made shall come and worship before thee.* Item Isaiah: *Not an angel, not a messenger, but God himself shall come, he himself will save us. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be open.* Item: *Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.* ^B *For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God, the Strong, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of peace.* Amen. The same in another place: *The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, toward the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light.* Item Micah: *And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, art not the least among the thousands of Juda. For out of thee shall come forth unto me the Ruler, that he may be prince in Jerusalem, and his going forth is from the days of eternity.* Item David elsewhere: *Mother Sion shall say: A man, and a man is born in her, and the Highest himself hath founded her.*

[h 2. Of the flight of Christ. h]

Again Isaiah concerning the flight of Christ into Egypt says thus: *Behold the Lord shall ascend upon a light cloud, and shall enter into Egypt, and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence.* ^C

[h 3. Of the baptism of Christ. h]

Item concerning his baptism elsewhere David thus sings: *The voice of the Lord is upon the waters: the God of majesty hath thundered, the Lord upon many waters.*

[h 4. Of the diseases cured by Christ. h]

Item concerning the diseases cured by him: *Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows.*

[h 5. Of the descent into the Virgin's womb. h]

Item concerning his descent into the virginal womb: *He shall come down like rain upon the fleece, and as drops of rain falling upon the earth.* And a little after: *Before the sun his name remains, and all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed in him; all nations shall magnify him.* But it is not possible that these things were spoken of Solomon, as a Jew, for he did not exist before the sun.

Item Job: *Who alone spreadeth out the heavens, and walketh upon the waves of the sea ^D as upon a pavement.* Item Zacharias: *Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; shout for joy, O daughter of Jerusalem. Behold thy King cometh to thee, the just and Saviour: he himself is poor and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.*

[h 6. Of Judas the betrayer of Christ. h]

Furthermore David writes of the betrayal by Judas and the Pharisees in this manner: *He who ate bread with me hath magnified his supplanting against me.* Item: *Why have the nations raged, and the people meditated vain things?*

[h 7. Of the detention of Christ. h]

Isaiah also predicts his detention in these words: *Woe to their soul, for evil things have been rendered unto them, for they have said: Let us circumvent the just, for he is useless to us.*

[h 8. Of the crucifixion of Christ. h]

The same prophet also has this concerning the crucifixion of Christ: *He shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer: he shall not open his mouth. He was taken away from distress and from judgment. Who shall declare his generation? (This is his generation, which preceded all ages) for the wickedness of my people I have struck him.* Item: *And he shall give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death.*

[h 9. Of the scourges and buffets by which Christ was beaten. h]

Item concerning those who beat him with scourges and buffets, the following and the like are read in the same prophet: *I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that plucked them. I have not turned away my face from them that rebuke and spit upon me.* David himself, also, speaks in the person of Christ thus: *For I am ready for scourges, and my sorrow is continually before me.*

[h 10. Of Christ sold. h]

Concerning his sale also, Jeremiah does speak in this manner: *And they received the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the precious one, whom they prized of the children of Israel, and gave them into the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.* And Zacharias: *And they weighed my wages for thirty pieces of silver.*

[h 11. Of the crown of thorns. h]

Moreover, Solomon says in the Canticle of Canticles: *Go forth, and see, ye daughters of Sion, king Solomon...*

in the diadem wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals.^A By this [h11. Of the crown of thorns. h] crown, he understands the crown of thorns with which Christ was crowned at the time of His passion by His mother, the Synagogue of the Jews.

12. Of the nails, garments, gall, and vinegar. In another place, David says concerning the nails: They have pierced my hands and my feet; they have numbered all my bones. They have parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture they cast lots. And: They gave me gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. Zacharias the prophet also says: And it shall be said to him: What are these wounds in the midst of thy hands? And he shall say: With these I was wounded in the house of those who loved me.

13. Of the darkness that arose at the passion of Christ. Concerning the darkness, the same prophet says in another place: And it shall come to pass in that day: there shall be no light, but cold and frost. And there shall be one day which is known to the Lord, not day, nor night, and in the time of evening there shall be light. Similarly, the prophet Amos: And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord: The sun shall go down at midday, and I will make the earth dark in the day of light. And likewise Joel: The sun and moon are darkened, and the stars withdrew their shining, and the Lord gave forth his voice. In the beginning, Moses says: The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation, and of thy brethren like unto me; him thou shalt hear. And your life shall be hanging before your eyes.

14. Of the death of Christ. Concerning the death of the same, Isaiah says: The just perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart. [Indeed, his resurrection.] Item: The just is taken away from the face of malice, and his burial shall be in peace. For he was sought by Joseph and given to him, that he might be buried. Regarding which, David himself also sang in these words: They have laid me in the lower pit: in darkness and in the shadow of death. Item: I am become as a man without help, free among the dead. This means: immune from sins. Truly it is written thus in Job: Have the gates of death been opened to thee, and hast thou seen the dark doors?

15. Of the descent of Christ into hell. In the same sense, David says: Who bringeth out those that are bound in strength, in like manner those that provoke, who dwell in sepulchres. ^B

16. Of the Resurrection of the Lord. He also prophesied of the resurrection in this manner: Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption. Item Osee: Come, and let us return to the Lord; for he hath taken us, and he will heal us after two days. In the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

17. Of the women bearing ointments. Isaiah prophesies of the women bearing ointments in this manner: Women coming and teaching it. For it is not a wise people.

18. Of the Ascension of the Lord. But also David says concerning the ascension: He ascended upon the Cherubim, and flew: he flew upon the wings of the winds. Item: God is ascended with jubilee, and the Lord with the sound of a trumpet. Item: Lift up your gates, O ye princes, and the King of glory shall enter in. Item Isaiah: Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bosra? Item: Why then is the redness of thy apparel, and thy garments like those of them that tread in the winepress? I have trodden the winepress alone, and of the Gentiles there is not a man with me. Moreover, Zacharias says: And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is over against Jerusalem toward the east. ^C

19. Of the last judgment. Concerning the second advent, Daniel prophesied thus: I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and they presented him before him. And he gave him power and honour, and a kingdom, and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him. His power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Item in another place: I beheld till thrones were placed, and the Ancient of days sat, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like clean wool. His throne is flames of fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him; thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him. The judgment sat, and the books were opened. I beheld, because of the voice of the great words which that horn spoke, and I saw that the beast was slain [which is Antichrist]. ^D

CAP. II. OF JOHN OF DAMASCUS, ON THE CONCEPTION OF CHRIST, OR THE DIVINE ASSUMPTION OF HUMAN FLESH.

^A The angel of the Lord was sent to the holy Virgin, who traced her lineage from the tribe of David (for it is established that the Lord derived His origin from Judah, from which tribe no one had applied his mind to the priesthood, as the blessed Apostle says, of which we shall speak more openly later), and evangelizing her, he said: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee." And when she was troubled by this discourse, the angel added: "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with the Lord, and shalt bring forth a Son; and thou shalt call His name Jesus." For He Himself shall save His people from their sins. Whence Jesus signifies savior. And when she, hesitating, answered: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The angel added: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. Therefore, also, that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." She, however, said: "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word."

And so, as soon as the holy Virgin consented, the Holy Spirit descended upon her, just as the Lord had said through the angel, in order to cleanse her and to provide the power of the divinity and the capacity to generate the Word. And then the wisdom and power of God Most High, existing of Itself—namely, the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father—overshadowed her exactly as the divine seed, and ^B joined to Itself from her chaste and most pure blood a body animated by a soul partaking of reason and intellect, the first-fruits of our mass. And this was not from seed, but by a divine artifice, through the Holy Spirit; it was not formed by degrees through successive accessions, but at one and the same moment, perfect, the Word of God Himself assumed the hypostasis of the flesh. For the Word of God did not assume to Himself flesh that subsisted by itself beforehand, but, dwelling in the womb of the holy Virgin in His own hypostasis in an uncircumscribed manner, He underwent the flesh animated by a soul partaking of reason and intellect, formed from the always chaste blood of the Virgin: assuming the first-fruits of our mass. The Word Himself became the hypostasis for the flesh. Thus, when there was first flesh, it was also the flesh of the Word of God. And when there was first animate flesh that was partaker of reason and intellect, it was also the animate flesh of the Word of God, partaker of reason and intellect. Wherefore we say not a deified man, but an incarnate Word. For when He was perfect God by nature, the same was also made perfect man by nature. Neither changing His nature, nor disposing it through fantasy or simulation, but assuming from the holy Virgin flesh animated by a soul partaking of reason and intellect, and having all that was in Him of essence, He was hypostatically joined: with no confusion, with no mutation, ^C with no division having been made: with the nature of His divinity in no way changed into the essence of the flesh, nor, on the contrary, with the essence of His flesh transformed into the nature of His divinity, nor with one and the same nature composed from His divine nature and the human which He had assumed.

CAP. III. OF THE SAME, ON THE TWO NATURES, AGAINST THOSE WHO SAY THERE IS ONE NATURE IN CHRIST.

The natures are joined one to another, with no inversion or mutation having occurred: so that neither the divine nature has departed from its own simplicity, nor, conversely, has the human been turned into the nature of the divinity or reduced to nothing, nor, likewise, has one composite thing emerged from the two natures. For a composite nature cannot be consubstantial with either of those from which it is composed, since it creates something different from things that are different: just as, for example, a body composed of four elements is neither said to be of the same essence as fire, nor is it called fire: nor is it called air, nor water, nor earth, nor is it consubstantial with any of them at all.

Now if, as it pleases the heretics, Christ after the junction were said to consist of a single composite nature, then He would have passed from a simple nature into a composite one, so that now He would be consubstantial neither with the Father, whose nature is simple, nor with the Mother, who indeed could not have been composed of divinity and humanity, nor likewise could He be a partaker of divinity and humanity; finally, He would be reckoned by the name of neither God nor man, but Christ alone, and not even Christ would be the name of His hypostasis, but one nature is found in Him. We, however, do not teach at all that Christ was of one composite nature, nor that something different emerges from different things, as man from soul and body, or a body from four elements: but the very same thing [emerges] from different ones. For we confess Him to be and to be called the same perfect God and perfect man from divinity and humanity, and from two and in two natures. Moreover, we assert that "Christ" is the name of the person, since it is not said in one way, but signifies two natures. For He Himself anointed Himself, indeed anointing the body with His divinity as God, but was anointed in so far as He is man. For He Himself is both this and that. Divinity, however, is the unction of humanity. For if Christ, existing of one composite nature, is consubstantial with the Father, then the Father is certainly composite, and He will be consubstantial with the flesh. Which is indeed absurd, and filled with every blasphemy. But come, how can it be that one nature is said to be capable of contrary essential differences? For how can it be that the same nature at the same moment [is] created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, ^D circumscribed and uncircumscribed? But if even [A...]

those who speak of Christ as being of one nature understand that nature as simple, they will either confess Him to be naked God, and introduce into the account of the incarnation a phantom or a feigned assumption of flesh, or [they will confess Him to be] a naked man, subscribing to Nestorius. [(25) Now, where there is perfect divinity and also perfect humanity, although they say that Christ was of two natures, yet they assert that even after the conjunction He was of one composite nature. For that Christ was endowed with one nature before the conjunction, no one doubts.]

But truly, this is the thing that lures heretics into error, while they take "nature" and "hypostasis" as the same thing. However, since we say that the nature of human beings is one, it must be known that we are not led to say this with regard to the account of the soul and the body. (For it cannot be that, when soul and body are compared one with the other, we should call them of one nature.) But because there are very many hypostases of human beings, and they all consist in the same manner of nature (for all are composed of soul and body, and no one is considered to lack the nature of the soul or the essence of the body), for this reason we say that the common form of many and diverse hypostases is one nature: since, clearly, individual hypostases have two natures, and are complete in two natures, namely, ^B soul and body. But in our Lord Jesus Christ, a common form cannot be understood, for there was not, nor is there, nor will there be another Christ from divinity and humanity who is in divinity and humanity the same perfect God and perfect man. [(26) But also all the parts of a composite nature, as soon as they are produced from nothing into the nature of things, are disposed for the completion of the universe. And it may be that those things which are produced at the same time form one composite nature, having obtained that kind of limit and natural law by the favor of the Creator: thus by the law of nature, like things are begotten of like things. But in the Lord, another principle of conjoined natures lacks beginning and time, nor is the form produced for the completion of the universe, since God did not rest from His works on the seventh day; nor are they indeed naturally conjoined: but [they are joined] in a certain admirable and ineffable manner. And those things which are wonderful, and occur in an ineffable manner, do not complete a nature: for we do not call that the nature of a bush which is not consumed when fire is applied, nor the nature of a man who is raised up high, and as if near to heaven: nor the nature of a human body, which is sprinkled as if with dew in the fire: but we say those things are wonderful and done around one hypostasis, just as we say that the Lord’s incarnation in the hypostasis of the divinity has evaded many of the hypostases of Christ: but one hypostasis composed of two natures and in two natures, and thus two natures, so that each nature, even after the conjunction, preserved its own bound, law, and mutual difference. For truly in man, insofar as account is held of the mutual difference of body and soul, we say there are two natures; but insofar as the natural difference of person from person is not regarded, [we say it is] one. And those things are said to be of one nature which, while they are of the same species, yet differ by way of hypostasis or person: but things are said to be of one hypostasis which are joined hypostatically, and differ in essence. Therefore, diverse-formed hypostases are by no means compared or discerned hypostatically, but naturally; and uniform hypostases are not compared or discerned naturally, but hypostatically. And just as it cannot be that those things which differ by hypostatic difference should be of one hypostasis, so it cannot be that those things which differ by natural difference [should be] of one nature. For these reasons, one nature cannot be said to be in our Lord Jesus Christ.]]

Wherefore, we say that the conjunction was made from two perfect natures, I say, the divine and the human, not by commixture, or confusion, or concretion, as pleased the insane Dioscorus, Severus, and their wicked faction, ^C nor by person, or habit, or dignity, or the same will, or likeness of honor or name, or finally by approbation, as seemed good to the impious Nestorius, Diodorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and their diabolical assembly: but by composition, or hypostatically, without inversion, mutation, confusion, division, and distraction. And we confess one person of the Son of God, and of Him incarnate, in two perfect natures, and we say that it is the same person of His divinity and humanity. And we confess that two natures are preserved entire in Him after the conjunction. Yet we do not place each privately or separately, but we say they are conjoined one to the other in one composite hypostasis. For we call it an essential conjunction, that is, a true one, and not a phantastic or feigned one. I say "essential" not because one composite nature is made from two natures, but because they are truly and mutually joined into one person of the Son of God, and thus we define their essential difference to be preserved. ^D For what was created, remained created; what was uncreated, [remained] uncreated; what was mortal, mortal; what was immortal, immortal; what was circumscribed, circumscribed; what was visible, visible; what was invisible, invisible. One part indeed shines with miracles, the other is subject to insults. Furthermore, the Word takes upon Himself those things which are of man, and makes them as if domestic. His own

^A nature He makes a participant in the things that are proper to His flesh, by way of mutual compensation, the affinity of the parts, and the reason of the hypostatic union. Furthermore, because He was one and the same who worked things both divine and human in both forms with the communion of the other. Wherefore the Lord of glory is also said to have been crucified, although His divine nature did not suffer. It is established, likewise, that the Son of Man was in heaven before the passion, as the Lord Himself was saying. For He was the one and same Lord of glory, who by nature and in very truth had become the Son of Man, or man: and we are not ignorant of His miracles and passions, although He performed miracles in one way, and was subject to passions in another way. For just as we know that His one hypostasis is to be preserved, so too do we know that the essential difference of His natures is to be preserved. Now, how can it be, that an essential difference should be preserved, if those things which differ from one another are not also preserved? For the difference of those things which differ is a difference. Therefore, by the same reason by which the natures of Christ differ from one another, that is by reason of essence, we assert that He also agrees with the extremes: with the divinity, I say, with the Father and the Spirit; with the humanity, however, with the Mother and with us. For He is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit by reason of divinity, but with the Mother and all men, by reason of humanity. But by whatever reason His natures converge, by that same reason we say that He also differs, both from the Father and the Holy Spirit, ^B and from the Mother and the rest of men. For His natures converge through the hypostasis, since they consist composed in one hypostasis, according to which He differs both from the Father and the Spirit, and from the Mother and us ourselves.

CAP. IV.

The enhypostaton is that which subsists by itself and by its own power; it is taken generally for every subsistence, corporeal, I say, and incorporeal, according as it can be borne, in which signification color can also be called a self-subsisting essence, although properly color is a *heteropostaton*, that is a thing subsisting through another; for it lacks its own subsistence, but inheres in a body as in a subject. Essence, however, is properly a hypostasis, or subsistence, but not an enhypostaton. Yet abusively these are also called *enypostata*. Furthermore, the universal man is called *enhypostaton*, which external philosophers call the species *eidos*, that is to say, the most specific or lowest [species]. But the universal man is called *enhypostaton* as considered in hypostases, as in Peter and the other individual men. Furthermore, these three significations of the enhypostaton, without great ^C difficulty, must now be stated by us. The *enhypostaton* is that which is composed with another, different in essence, for the constitution of one person and the generation of one hypostasis, and subsists as one; but it is not known by itself. Moreover, this definition of the enhypostaton must be attended to. The holy Catholic Church, in the dispensation of the incarnation, professes one hypostasis and two natures: the hypostasis, indeed, as the incarnate Son; the natures, however, as divinity and humanity. Therefore, the body, endowed with soul and mind, assumed by our Lord Jesus Christ, she does not call a hypostasis—lest she be caught saying there are two hypostases and subscribing to the trifles of Nestorius—but she names it *enhypostaton*, ὡς ἐν τῇ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὑποστάσει τὸ εἶναι λαβόν, that is to say, because it has found existence in the hypostasis of the Son. For since Christ Himself was one hypostasis, or rather, to speak more openly, since He Himself, the Son of God, was one hypostasis of the holy Trinity, He was also the hypostasis for the body which He assumed. And so, the body of the Lord is indeed *enhypostaton*, but it is not a hypostasis in the least.

CAP. V.

*Homoousia*, that is, consubstantial things, are those which are indeed divided from one another by hypostases, but are joined by essence. As I and you and all individual men are *homoousia* hypostases, that is, participants of the same essence. Therefore, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are indeed divided by hypostases (for the Father is one, the Son is another, and finally the Holy Spirit is another), but they are joined by essence. But *usia*, or essence, is the common principle of hypostases, or one divinity, one form. The Father, therefore, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are things of the same essence: because they are participants of one and the same essence; but they are divided by hypostases, or persons, as has been said, yet they are joined by essence, or nature; and for that reason they are called *homophyes*, of the same nature, and *homoousioi*, of the same essence, participants.

CAP. VI.

*Homohypostata*, that is, consubsistential things, are those which are said to be such as differ indeed in essence among themselves, but are composed among themselves into one and the same hypostasis: as I and you, and each one of us, consist of soul and body. Furthermore, these parts, soul and body, are different in essence (for the essence of the soul is one thing, the essence of the body another). But they are *homohypostatai*, or of the same subsistence, according to the dogmas of Christians. For neither the soul is older than the body itself, nor did the body come into being [apart]. Whatever, therefore, essence qui-

- ^A differ, yet at the same time and together they subsisted, they are co-hypostatic, and are so called. Therefore, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not co-hypostatic, although there is nothing older or more recent than them, because they do not differ in essence in the least; for this reason they also are, and are called, of one essence.

CAP. VII.

Concerning difference and conjunction, and its triple nature: essential, personal, and habitual.

Essential conjunction is that which gathers many hypostases into one essence; just as all individual men are divided by hypostases, or persons, but are joined in essence, or by the principle of humanity. Therefore, this conjunction of persons, which is brought about through one essence, is called essential conjunction. But essential difference is when the conjoined [entities] remain in one hypostasis of nature, without any confusion or diminution; as the two natures of Christ, namely divinity and humanity, having come together into one hypostasis, are by no means confused or changed, but differ by essential difference. For neither of the two natures ^B can be mingled or confused, having regard to essence, nor do they differ from each other by hypostasis; for the hypostasis of both is one, but there is an essential difference.

CHAPTER VIII.

Concerning hypostatic or personal conjunction and difference.

Hypostatic or personal conjunction is that which gathers and binds together diverse essences or natures into one and the same hypostasis, as was the hypostatic conjunction in the dispensation of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For his two natures were joined into one and the same hypostasis, without confusion. But hypostatic difference is when hypostases, which fall under one essence, are divided among themselves, and yield in number and multitude to characteristic or figurative properties. For we differ from each other by the principle of the hypostases. For example, I am advanced in age, of dark complexion, and am bald; you, however, are middle-aged, fair, and speak your words distinctly. In the same way, the other individual men also differ hypostatically by properties of this kind.

CAP. IX.

Concerning schematic or habitual conjunction and difference, though strictly speaking concerning difference, nothing.

Schematic or habitual conjunction is a friendly and benevolent disposition, or a concordant agreement of wills. Those, therefore, who follow one another with mutual benevolence are said to be schematically conjoined by reason of friendship. For the heretic, that impious Nestorius, not admitting the ecclesiastical doctrine by which God himself is asserted to have been made man and conjoined to our nature, denied that there was a hypostatic or personal conjunction; but he prattled on about ^C a holy one towards whom God the Word had a benevolent disposition or affection by the same generation. And indeed he confessed a conjunction, yet not a hypostatic one, but a schematic one. From which it came about that that wretched man professed not one hypostasis, but two, which indeed would be divided from each other in essence and hypostasis; but that they were conjoined by friendship and the same will, or voluntary disposition, and other ravings of that sort he babbled.

CAP. X.

Concerning the holy Trinity. In what they differ, in what they agree.

The Father indeed lacks a cause, and is unbegotten; for he has essence from no one, not even from himself, but the Son is begotten from the Father. Finally, the Holy Spirit is himself also from the Father, but not by way of generation, but of procession. And as soon as the generation of the Son from the Father existed, the procession of the Holy Spirit also existed. But in what way generation and procession differ, no one knows. Therefore, the hypostases differ only by hypostatic properties, or rather by generation, or not by generation, and by procession, by which they are likewise divided individually. Yet each of the three persons consists in a perfect hypostasis. For in the three perfect hypostases there is one simple essence, which precedes and surpasses every limit. We call the Paraclete both Advocate, and Spirit, and Son, as one who takes up the advocacies and patronages of all. We say that the Spirit indeed proceeds from the Father [and the Son], yet in such a way that he is imparted through the Son.

CAP. XI.

Concerning the incarnation of the Word.

It is not without error if we say that the divine nature was incarnate, since the hypostasis of the Word must be spoken of. For if we had said that flesh was assumed by the divine nature, we would surely include the Father and the Spirit, since the nature of the Holy Trinity is one. ^D *Synalpha*, or union, is properly confusion; but *henosis*, or conjunction, is when something is applied to another without mixing, as oil to water. We do not say that the nature of divinity was conjoined to the nature of humanity, but rather that the hypostasis of the Word was incarnate.

CAP. XII.

Concerning essence [nature, hypostasis, and person].

Essence is properly called that which is, and needs nothing else to subsist; but it is understood in many ways, as the essence of God, the essence of an angel, the essence of man, and likewise all things different from these are designated by the name of essence. Also, essence is that which exists by itself and by its own power, and has no essence from another, nor needs any other external thing in order to be. Indeed, to white and black color and other things of that kind we by no means attribute the name of essence, because they cannot subsist by themselves without the body capable of them.

^A Nature truly is the principle of those things which are in motion and at rest, in which that which is primary exists of itself, not by accident. For example, we call nature the rest and motion which are present in the earth by essential reason, nor is that suggested to natural things by the benefit of any cause for the sake of the sprout and the fruit. Furthermore, the name of *physis* or nature is derived from *to pephykenai*, that is to say, from that which is. Therefore, the meaning of the names *ousia* and *physis*, that is, essence and nature, is the same, of which the former is derived from *to einai* (to be), but this one from *to pephykenai*, which is to be naturally so constituted. Hypostasis, however, is a subsisting and essential thing, in which indeed a collection of accidents subsists in reality and in act, as it were in one subject. But *prosopon*, or person, is that which exhibits a certain and definite evidence of those things which are of the same essence with it, by its proper actions and properties. ^B

CAP. XIII-XIV. Ecclesiastical definition of nature. What pushed the Severians into error.

Nature, likewise, according to the opinion of the Church, is the true subsistence of a thing. But as Aristotle and other Greek authors are, nature is defined in many ways; and while the Severians cling too accurately to these definitions, they have fallen into error. For nature, as it pleases the Blessed Apostle, is everything, that is, that which truly is. We shall explain this more clearly hereafter. The Church calls nature the truth of those things which are, or that which is in them; and it is called *physis*, *dia to pephykenai kai einai* (because of being naturally constituted to be), because it is so constituted that it exists, ^C just as *ousia* is that which is, is known in truth. Nature, essence, that is, genus, and *morphe* or form, are understood as one and the same thing in ecclesiastical dogmas: just as bread and a morsel. Wherefore *emphyton* (innate) and *endousion* (essential), or that which is implanted, and that which inheres, signify the same thing. Nature is said to be in four ways, as I have already noted, namely, essence, nature, genus, and form. ^D

CAP. XV. What hypostasis, person, and character are in God. Hypostatic properties.

Hypostasis, moreover, according to ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition, is *prosopon* or person, or character, just as Paul calls the Son the splendor of the glory of the Father, and also the character or figure of his hypostasis, that is, the person of the same essence as the character and hypostasis of the Father. But we say that persons and characters in God are incorporeal, and such as cannot be circumscribed or expressed. For person or hypostasis, by the judgment of the holy Fathers, is that which is proper in addition to the common: for community is the nature of each thing: but the hypostases themselves are the proper things. For example, nature or essence is one deity, but the hypostases are three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: three persons, or characters, one ^A guardian of us all; you have signified the whole holy Trinity: but if you say: The Son of God is with you, you have proclaimed one and the whole divinity from three hypostases. Hear these further things concerning them. Divinity, behold the community and the absolute perfection of the essence. Paternitas (Fatherhood), behold one person or hypostasis. Filialitas (Sonship), behold another hypostasis. Holy Spirit, behold another. Moreover, the three hypostatic properties in the divinity are the unbegotten of the Father, the begotten of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Spirit. For the Father is not begotten, nor is the Son proceeding, nor is the Holy Spirit begotten.

CAP. XVI. Synopsis, or compendium, concerning the mode of *antidosis*, or mutual retribution of natures [concerning which more openly and plainly below].

When we speak of divinity and humanity, we indicate the whole nature of the divinity and the whole nature of the humanity; but when we say God and man, we do not show the totalities of the natures at all, but sometimes the persons and the hypostases. When, therefore, we say we believe in God, without any addition, we signify the whole divinity. But when we say that God was made man, we no longer denote the divinity, but express only the name of the Son. Furthermore, if indeed I use these words: God was incarnate for man, I designate the whole humanity: but if these: A certain man, I indicate him alone. Therefore, in our Lord Jesus Christ, we confess two natures, I say, divinity and humanity, but one hypostasis composed of both. And when we consider the natures of him himself, we speak of divinity and humanity: but when we speak of that hypostasis which is joined from the two natures, we sometimes call him Christ and man, sometimes only God and only man. Nor when we say God alone, do we separate him from man: nor when we name man alone, do we detach him from God. Likewise, when we speak of divinity, we do not include with it the properties of humanity: conversely, when we declare it with humanity, we do not understand in it the properties of the divinity: for we do not call humanity impassible and uncreated: yet in one hypostasis we are not accustomed to speak so, but we boldly confess both only God and only man, and Christ, who understands both, and we call the same God passible, by reason of humanity, and pure who was before the ages, by reason of divinity. And this is the mode of *antidosis* or mutual retribution of natures, by which it comes to pass that each nature renders what is proper to it, by reason of the same hypostasis and their mutual affinity. It must be confessed, furthermore, that the nature of the Word was incarnate, or joined to flesh, not because the nature suffered in the flesh. For that God was man, and conversely the man was God, that truly is the very thing which we confess: but that

the divinity was made man, or was incarnate, or clothed itself with humanity, we have nowhere at any time heard.

CAP. XVII. Concerning nature and hypostasis.

Nature is said to be angelicity itself, but the hypostases are the properties of single angelic persons, Gabriel, Michael. Likewise, nature is one and common, as humanity, but hypostasis is Peter and Paul and the other persons and characters. Nature therefore is the mistress, the cause, and the ^A mother of the hypostases which are in it; and for this reason they are called hypostases, because they are subject to nature as to a fountain. If, therefore, you say: "The angel is a good nature," you signify their whole essence. But if you say: "Gabriel is great," you denote one hypostasis out of all. But if you say: "humanity," behold, the whole essence. Conon and Simon, however, are hypostases. Again, if you say: "The nature of a bird is light," behold, you indicate the universal essence; but if it be a dove, or a turtledove, or a nightingale, behold, these are the hypostases. And this same rule holds not only in those endowed with reason, intellect, and soul, but in every nature devoid of the movement and sense of a soul. For example, if we say: "God made light," we signify the universal essence of the stars; but if we say: "the solar radiance," we point to the sun itself, just as also with the lunar and the stellar [light]. We can say the same of the winds and of the essence of fire, for they are divided in essence into north, south, lychni, and lamps. Therefore, we do not call the holy flesh of Christ a hypostasis or person, but an essence, so as to signify that our whole nature was assumed and saved by him. For if we were to say "the hypostasis itself," we would be found to be speaking of some one man, whom Christ (it is understood) has assumed and saved. Moreover, it cannot even be called a hypostasis, insofar as the flesh cannot be separated from the divine Word: for a hypostasis is called a separate person. Whence it comes about that we call it enhypostatic, that is, subsisting by itself and by its own power, but not a hypostasis. For that which subsists is called ^D *enhypostaton* (ἐνυπόστατον), just as, on the contrary, that which lacks subsistence or essence is called *anhypostaton* (ἀνυπόστατον), as a dream, which lacks essence and subsistence: for it depends on mere phantasy. *Anhypostaton* and *anhyparkton* (ἀνυπόστατον καὶ ἀνυπάρκτον) and *anousion* (ἀνούσιον) is the same thing—that which is indeed often spoken of in words, but is recognized as having no existence in essence or hypostasis, such as death, or hell. *Enousion* (ἐνούσιον), on the contrary, we call either that which truly is, or a property which is known within the essence, as the unbegotten in God the Father, the begotten in the Son, the procession in the Holy Spirit, as was said above.

CAP. XVIII. Concerning habit.

CAP. XIX. Concerning the will. What the will is, of what kind it is, and in how many ways it is spoken of.

The essential will is that which is commonly seen in a similar nature, just as the Lord's flesh was endowed essentially when it would not die, as the holy Fathers say. If such a will is found in the Father and the Holy Spirit, there could be one volition of flesh and divinity. The natural will of man, as the holy Basil and Cyril are authorities, is the love of life itself. For to every man, the enjoyment of life and light is dear; behold, this is the common will. Furthermore, there are many *gnomic* or cognitive wills in our nature; for one man wants to act privately by himself, another to build, another to plow, another to sail, and others similarly are endowed with many gnomic or spontaneous wills, but with one natural will, that is, the desire for living. Nor is it in vain that life is dear to man; rather it is nature signifying that one thing which it had from the beginning (for it is born for immortality), and it loves and cherishes it. The divine will is the commandments of God. The natural will, endowed with the reason of nature, is nothing other than the execution of the divine law. The carnal will is nothing other than the contempt of the divine law.

^A of those things that are mobile, the flight of those that are winged, the swimming of those that are aquatic, the creeping of those that are reptilian, the illumination of those that can be illuminated, the heat of those that are hot, the flow of those that are fluid, the contemplation of those that are open to contemplation, the generation of those that are subject to generation, and to speak universally, we say that the significance and determination of every nature is constituted by its natural action, whereby, if it be removed, the nature itself is utterly lost and perishes. If heat is removed, fire is extinguished; if intellect is removed, those parts of the soul which are endowed with intellect and reason are also taken away; if the motion of a living thing is removed, the animal perishes. For this reason we speak of two wills and actions in Christ, lest we confess an inanimate body or a soul devoid of reason to be in Him. For the action of an animate body is defined by walking and operation, whereas the action of a rational soul is defined by the very act of thinking, by which we will, reason, and consult.

Chapter 20. What 'property' is, of what it is said, and in how many ways: [What 'hypostasis' is; what an 'accident' is.]

^A An *idiōma*, or property, is so called according to being proper at the same time as the proper nature, existing apart from other essences, which is to say, it is so privately inherent in its own nature that it cannot be mixed with other essences. (For properties cannot be separated from natures and hypostases.) Or a property is properly that which is privately perceived in one nature, but is not found in another: as, for example, in the divine nature, that which is before the ages, uncreated, and incircumscriptible, which indeed does not belong to any other essence, not even to the most holy body of Christ, for it is neither before the ages, nor uncreated, nor incircumscriptible. ^B The property of the angelic nature is an essence that is impassible, which cannot command silence to itself from singing praises to God. Moreover, I said "impassible" in these matters to mean that which is immortal. The property of man is properly that which consists of a mortal and immortal nature, and it is not perceived in any other essence. The natural properties are those which I have already mentioned; but there are also hypostatic properties, such as whiteness, snub-nosedness, length, dwarfishness, greenness, truculence, and others of that kind, which are not found in all men in the same way, for not all are similar; not all are truculent, not all are sallow. Whence it comes about that some define a hypostasis as the private and peculiar concourse of characteristic or figurative properties, which I have foretold. ^C Natural properties, however, are found similarly in all of a genus, just as all men are mortal, subject to death in a similar way, partakers of reason, respiration, sleep, and walking; all are endowed with broad nails, and all, finally, are devoted to agriculture or other arts.

CHAPTER XXI. Quid sit accidens.

An accident is called that which is present or absent, as infancy is both present and absent by reason of perfection. In a similar way, health is also changed, as are disease, heat, and dryness; and, to express it in one word, whatever can be changed is signified by the name of accident.

CHAPTER XXII. De energia, seu actione.

Energy, therefore, or action, as the holy Gregory of Nyssen says, is the natural faculty and motion of individual essences, of which it is bereft of one thing, which is that which does not exist in the nature of things. For whatever is a partaker of any essence will be altogether also a partaker of the action designating it. For we are instructed by true reason that the limits of essences consist in their true actions, but that the intellect of those things endowed with intellect is an action, as is the sense of those things which are sensible and moving. ^D Nor only in animate and mobile things, but also in those which lack soul and motion, natural actions can be detected, as is evident in scammony and other purgative drugs, which indeed have the faculty of evacuation; likewise quicksilver, which is endowed with a lethal action, and hemlock similarly, than which no poison is more present for inflicting death.

Indeed, it is not unworthy of admiration that certain diverse natures, generally deprived of their natural actions, produce other actions, as a burning stone is deprived of its cooling action; for quicklime, once made, acquires for itself a burning force against bodies, just as burning cedar is also deprived of its natural, vegetative, and germinative action, but emits an action or faculty that is healing and destructive to worms, which is called *cedræa*.

Chapter 23. What 'conjunction' is, of what thing it is said, and in how many ways.

Conjunctio is nothing other than the familiar concourse of things that are apart. Among the Greeks, however, it is called *dia to eis en ōsai*, that is, *synōsai ta pragmata*, which is to say, because it drives and compels things into one. Otherwise, conjunction is fivefold: *confusiva* (confusive), as of wine and water; *divisiva* (divisive), as of man to man; *habitualis* (habitual), as of gold. But the conjunction of Christ is said to be hypostatic or personal above all these.

Hypostatic conjunction, moreover, was that concourse of the two natures which occurred through itself and its own power in the womb of the Mother of God. For neither did the body subsist before the Word of God, nor the soul, but as soon as it was made flesh, so too was the God-Word, and the animate flesh and participant of reason. For in Him it subsists, as it seems to me, just as our own composition also.

^C For the soul, existing by itself and in its own power, concurs with the body. For the body is not constituted by itself, nor does the soul pre-exist the body, which indeed prefigures the conjunction of Christ.

CAP. XXIV. On what is "Homoousion" (consubstantial), and why, and in how many ways it is said.

Homoousion, indeed, is that which is of the same substance and action without transformation or participation, such as man to man, angel to angel, animal to animal, flame to flame: they are consubstantial when they have the same essence in diverse hypostases. It is called *homoousion* because it has acquired the same essence and power for itself. Furthermore, it is said in four ways to be *homoousion*, that is, that which is of the same substance, namely: *homogenes* (of the same genus), *syngenes* (kindred), *homogenes* (of the same kind), and *homophylon* (of the same tribe). Homoousion is that which in potential is not less than its own essence—as a crumbling stone and a hard stone, likewise also palm wood and ebony wood, or the flesh of a fish and the flesh of a camel. *Heterousion*, or diversely-substantial, is that which in all ways is unlike another, as fire, water, and man; God and angel; mud and the sun for producing grain. *Hemiousion*, that is, semi-substantial—by some called *cadaver*—is that from which life has departed. *Heterophyés*, and *allogenes*, and *heterogenes*: and this is called that which is of a diverse nature, of a different and diverse genus, given that each is endowed with a diverse essence, namely this and that, or both.

CAP. XXV. On what "innovation" is and why its knowledge is necessary.

Innovation is said of whatever is in all ways changed from the law of common nature, and in no thing is similar to it, which has prevailed and grown strong among men by custom and use. But this mode must necessarily be taught, because of those who ill-understand innovation in Christ. For even if nature innovated, when He was born without seed, yet from birth the growth of age, and many accidents to human bodies—ingestions and egestions of food, circumcision, transmigration, shape, limbs, the growing of hair, teeth, and nails, stammering, and boyish walking: these, I say, He did not have through innovation, but for the likeness of us, sin excepted, just as Paul exclaims.

CAP. XXVI. On what "corruptible" is, whence it is, and in how many ways it is said.

Corruption is said in two ways in sacred Scripture, namely of the body and of the soul, as when He says: "And the Lord God saw, and behold all the earth was corrupted by sin" (Gen. vi, 12). Likewise, regarding men, He speaks in this manner: "They are corrupt, and have become abominable in their inventions" (Ps. xiii, 4). It remains, therefore, that when you hear the teacher saying the Lord’s body was incorruptible before it was crucified, you should understand the corruption of sin. But it is called *aphtharton* (incorruptible), or *anepexousion* (unimpaired), that is, undefiled: not, however, because it was predicted to be marked by some subtlety or diversity from our bodies. For incorruptible, properly, is that which is free from all passion, matter, and touch. Incorruptible also is that which cannot be harmed by another essence. Incorruptible, too, is that which is free in all ways from flux, defect, and passion. And yet, the most holy body of Christ suffered itself to be confessed by the nails and issued blood and water from the lance, and in the end escaped alive from the dead. Corruptible is whatever, being subject to death, can be separated from life. But the corruption of nature, as Saint Dionysius says, is nothing other than weakness and a defect of natural habits, actions, and faculties. And as it pleased some, the most holy body of Christ was indeed corruptible in power, that is, capable of corruption: but in act it was incorruptible, preserved in the tomb by the divinity of the Word.

CAP. XXVII. On free will.

*Antexousion*, or free will, is *autodespoton*, that is, that which is situated in one's own power. For what is subject to the Lord is not of free will. *Antexousiotes* (free-willedness), therefore, or liberty of will, is properly the liberty not subject to the dominion of another, an authority toward the thing desired. The intellectual liberty of the soul's will is the free inclination and motion of the desiring part of the soul toward virtue or vice. But where there is no struggle of virtue and vice, there the liberty of the soul's will cannot be known. For how can it be that a free choice of will appears where there is no place for a struggle of opposites? Therefore, only the mind of Christ, and His most holy soul, was immune and free from all evil suggestion. For it was in the form of a servant, which was governed as if by the reins and command of the Word of God, who indeed was conjoined to it. Wherefore that man, who is understood as the Savior, used to say: "I can of my own self do nothing" (John v, 19). For since He was above the limits and laws of our nature, subsisting without seed, as one who was God's body and soul, He was immediately subject to the nod of the Lord, as having been predicted as the form of God.

There follow the assertions of various Fathers concerning the dispensation of the Incarnation.

CAP. XXVIII. Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite: From chapter 1 of The Divine Names.

^B 1. That Thearchy, or supreme Divinity, pursues the human race with a certain singular love; for it took upon itself all those things to which we are liable, recalling and adopting our human vileness or lowliness into itself, through which ineffable reason He who is simple, Jesus, became composite, and He who is eternal took on the extension of time; finally, He is content with the limits of our nature, He who by a superessential reason exceeds the entire order of universal nature, along with the immutable and in no way confused preservation of His own properties.

^A May He be propitious, whom we celebrate by their name, whom neither reason can attain nor speech can express, although He exists as superessential even in these things, not only because, without change or confusion, He participated in our nature and suffered nothing from that ineffable conjunction which would be repugnant to His overflowing fullness, but also because (a thing which surpasses all new things by its own novelty in an unheard-of way) in those things which are natural to us, He showed Himself superior to nature, and in those things which are essential to us, He showed Himself greater than essence; finally, He possessed all things that are within us in a certain manner and by a way unusual to us.

^B 2. From the same, from the letter to Gaius the Therapist. How can it happen, he says, that Jesus, who excels all things, is essentially constituted with all things? For He is not called man insofar as He is the author of men, but insofar as He is truly man in His whole essence. But we do not define Jesus in a human manner. For He is not only God, but also truly man, who pursues the human race with a certain singular love; and He who, while surpassing men, was made equal to men, obtaining for Himself a substance from the essence of men, He who was established above every essence. Nor yet was He less than the superessentiality in which He is most full, He who never ceased to be superessential: by whose abundance, indeed, it came to pass that, although He had truly passed into the essence of man, He assumed the essence of man in a superessential manner, and thus those things which are of man succeeded in Him above man. The Virgin is witness, conceiving in a supernatural manner, and the water supporting the weight of [His] material and earthly feet without moving, and not succumbing to their gravity, but being established by a supernatural power so that it did not flow in either direction. What need is there, furthermore, for one to go through those things? Many, I say, and very many are those things by which one who knows how to contemplate divine things will recognize that, even in those things which are affirmed concerning the humanity of Jesus, the power of a most excellent negation resides above the grasp of the mind. For, to condense the matter into a few words, He was not even man, not that He was not man, but because He was born of humans in a manner above that to which humans are accustomed, and truly became man above man; then, furthermore, He did not act divinely in a divine way, nor humanly in a human way: but He exhibited to us a new, certain theandric—that is, God-man—action in the incarnate God.

3. From the same, from the theological elements of Blessed Hierotheus: Because, out of His love for the human race, He truly came down even to our nature, He certainly truly entered into our essence as well, and thus the highest God was both made and called man. To us, however, ^{C D} [the monks of the primitive Church were called so: from Philo, Justin, Euseb. 10, etc.]

CAP. XXIX. Great Gregory, from the oration on the birthday of the Lord.

1. But after the envy of the devil and his fraudulent power, which the woman, as being weaker, suffered and pushed onto the man as being more apt for persuasion (oh, my infirmity, for it is the infirmity of the first parent!), he forgot the command which he had received, and, overcome by the love of the fruit, was cast out at the same time from the tree of life, from paradise, and from God, as an exile, and is clothed in garments of skins, that is to say, with thicker flesh, which would suffer death and resist the spirit. And first indeed he recognizes his own shame, and for that reason, fleeing the sight of God, he hides himself. Yet here he gains death, through which sin is cut away, lest misery be immortal, and the benefit might be seen joined with the punishment. For by this reason God, as I indeed believe, punishes. Moreover, when the human race had been admonished and reproved in vain on various occasions and times for the many sins which that root of malice had produced in many ways—namely, by prayer, by law, by prophets, by benefits, by threats, by plagues, by floods, by conflagrations, by wars, by victories, by disasters, by portents from heaven, from the air, from earth, from sea, by the unexpected destruction of men, cities, and nations (by which means nothing else was being done except that malice might be destroyed)—and when it was being held fast by greater sins, such as mutual murders, adulteries, perjuries, insane human loves, and (which was the most serious of all evils) the worship of idols, by which men, neglecting the Creator, turned themselves to cultivating and adoring created things: then, because such death as this already required remedies and medicines, greater and more serious means were applied. For the Word of God Himself, who is before the ages, who cannot be comprehended, who has no body (and what follows), the immutable image of God, the definition and reason of the Father, He Himself takes on the image which He had impressed upon man and, for the sake of the flesh, bears flesh, and is commingled with an ensouled being gifted with reason for the salvation of the soul, so that the like might cleanse the like, in all things

sin however excepted, he becomes man. He is born from a Virgin, whose soul and flesh the Spirit had previously purified. For it was fitting that both the conception of children should be honored, and yet that virginity should be preferred to it in honor; and thus the assumed human form goes forth to us, one from two contraries, consisting of flesh and spirit: of which the one bestowed divinity, the other was affected by divinity (O new mission! O admirable conjunction!), the one who is the effector, is effected: who is the creator, is created: he who cannot be comprehended is comprehended, by the bond of the human mind binding the divinity and the thickness of the flesh. He who enriches others, becomes poor. For he embraces the poverty of my poverty, that I might attain the riches of his divinity. He who is more, is emptied: for he allows his glory to be exhausted for a little while, that I might be enticed as a participant of his fullness. What are these riches of goodness? What mystery regarding me appears? I, who had been made a participant of his image, did not preserve it: he undertakes my flesh, so that he may both preserve the image and render the flesh immortal. He begins a second society, by far more admirable than the former society, in that in the former he attributed what was more excellent, in the latter he accepted what was worse. ^A For both became one by commingling, when God is incarnate, but man is deified. For even if from both one has been made, it is not by nature, but by concurrence. And by the assumption, which the divinity anointed, which same is equal to the anointing one, and (to dare to say it) becomes equal to God.

2. Of the same, from the oration on the Lights. And the Son of God becomes and is called the Son of Man: not at all changing what he was: for he cannot be changed: but assuming what he was not, that he might not be separated from his own humanity, he is inseparable, with the intermediate flesh as a veil among us, since he is not sufficiently apt to tolerate his pure divinity at its origin and end.

3. Of the same, from the second oration on Cledonius. ^B For both have escaped into one commingling, when God is incarnate, and man is deified.

4. Of the same, from the second oration on the Son. Even if from both one thing has been made, not however by nature, but by concurrence.

5. Of the same, from the oration on the Lights: He confers honor on the body, since this also becomes deified God.

6. Of the same, from the second oration on Pascha. And by the assumption, which the divinity anointed, which same is equal to the anointing one, and (to dare to say it) becomes equal to God.

7. Of the same, from the oration on the baptism of the Lord. The same, whole man, and whole God, for the whole of you, who suffered, that he might bestow health on the whole of you, [he who dissolves the whole condemnation of sin.]

8. Of the same, from the same oration. So much man for your sake, as you are God for his sake.

CAP. XXX.

For as we see in a lamp the fire surrounding the matter, and we distinguish by reason that which touches it from the matter, which nevertheless in reality cannot be distinguished, so that the flame is not shown as separated by itself from the matter, but both are one (no one, however, should find fault with me in this example, because the fire is corrupted, but merely accepting that which suits the likeness, and rejecting those things which are alien to it), what prevents us, in the same way in which we perceive the flame touching the underlying matter, and yet not being included in it, from conceiving thoughts worthy of God: and let us believe that the divine nature is so conjoined, and becomes one with the human nature, so that in that very conjunction and unity, even while God is in man, he is yet concluded by no circumscription? But if you ask how God has been commingled with man, consider first the conjunction of the mind with your body; if you do not think you can understand in what way the mind is coupled with the body, much less think that you can attain how God is conjoined with man. But just as in yourself you believe that the mind is something other than the body, or since the body deserted by the mind becomes a corpse, and is inert, and useless for acting, even though you are ignorant of the reason of the conjunction: so also ^D we confess by the conjunction of God with man that the divine nature excels the perishable and mortal nature in all ways in dignity, but the reason by which this very conjunction is effected we cannot understand. That God was born in human nature, we do not doubt from the admirable things which have been seen and written, but we omit investigating the reason and the mode, as being greater than what can be perceived by us. For we do not wish to investigate whence or how all incorporeal things, which are perceived by the mind alone, were created by the incorporeal and uncreated nature, even though we believe that they were created. But since we have received that the world was created, we do not curiously inquire into the reason by which it was created, since we plainly know that it can by no means be perceived or explained.

That God appeared to us in the flesh, if anyone asks for demonstrations, let him observe his works. For even that God himself exists is proven by no other testimony than that of his own works. As therefore, looking at the universe of things, and their regulation and order, and the commodities of our life divinely given, we know of a certain world-effecting and conserving power, so in God, made manifest to us through the flesh, his admirable

works, like those written of, act as signs by which the divine nature is declared, and offer us clear testimony of his divinity. ^A For we know that it belongs to God to bestow life upon men; to God to oversee and preserve the things that exist through providence; to God to bestow food and drink upon those who live in the flesh; to God to show mercy to the poor and needy; to God to restore to health and bring back to its original state that nature which, through its own infirmity, had wandered from the right path; to God to command all created things, the earth, the sea, the air, and those things that are situated above the air. To God it belongs to have perpetual power over all things, and, above all, to be superior to death and corruption. If any of these things were lacking in the history in which his life is described, those who are alien to religion would deservedly repudiate our mystery. But if all the things by which God is known are seen within it, what prevents you from embracing the faith and religion? But, you say, to be born and to die are the properties of such a flesh. I concede this: but the things which preceded his birth, and the things which followed his death, surpass the common condition of our nature: for if you consider both ends of human life, you will see whence we begin and whither we are led. For we derive our beginning from corruption and we end in corruption: yet corruption had no part in his birth or his death. Does this seem to you wonderful and incredible? I rejoice. For if you think things beyond what can be believed are admirable, you must conclude that they are above nature. Wherefore, let this be the most certain argument of his divinity for you, that the things which are preached concerning him do not follow the natural order at all: for if all the things that have been handed down in memory concerning Christ were contained within the bounds of nature, where would his divinity be? But since the account of many things, in which you have no faith, surpasses nature, these very things are testimony that he whom we preach is also God. For men are generated from the union of parents, and after death they themselves are corrupted. If these things were said of him, you could not believe him to be God, understanding him to have the same condition of nature as we do. But since you hear that he was indeed born, but that in the manner of his birth he surpassed the common order of our nature, and that he indeed died, but did not attain to corruption: it would follow that if you were not to believe one or the other, you would rather not believe him to be a man, one of those who are seen in nature, and him who you do not believe to be a man, you must necessarily judge to be God. For he who recorded in memory that he was born, the same testified that he was born of a Virgin. Wherefore, if the words of the writer lead you to believe that he was born, let the same words of the writer persuade you that he was born in this way: for he who recounted his birth, the same added that he came into being from a Virgin; and he who made mention of death, has also attested to the resurrection after death. But if from those things which you hear, you concede that he was both dead and generated, you will from the same sources grant entirely that both his birth and his death were far removed from corruption. ^B And if these things surpass nature, he who is demonstrated to be superior to nature because of these is not contained within nature.)

CHAPTER XXXI.

disposed to a phantasy or simulation, but he will render the flesh ^A a human being participating in a soul of reason and intellect, taken from the holy Virgin, and one which would have its essence in him; it is hypostatically joined, with no confusion, no mutation, and no division having been made, the nature of his divinity being in no way changed into the essence of the flesh, nor conversely, the essence of his flesh converted into the nature of his divinity: nor is there one and the same nature composed of his divine nature and the human which he had assumed.

CAP. XXXIII. OF THE SAME. ON THE MODE OF ANTIDOSIS OR MUTUAL RETRIBUTION OF PROPERTIES.

These terms signify the essence or nature of divinity and humanity. Those others, however, "God" and "man," at times indicate the essence, as when we say: "God is an essence which cannot be comprehended," likewise: "God is one"; at other times they declare the persons, of which it is spoken as species of their individuals, as in that place of Scripture: "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you" (Ps. XLIV, 8); for here he has signified the Father and the Son. And when you read in another place: "A certain man was in the land of Ausitis" (Job I, 1); for Job alone is indicated. Therefore, since we acknowledge two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ, and only one person which consists of both natures, consequently when we contemplate the natures, we speak of divinity and humanity. But when we speak of the person consisting of nature, if it is considered to consist of both natures, we call him then Christ, then God and man at the same time, then God incarnate: but if from one, then we call him only God and Son of God, then only man. And sometimes he is considered from higher reasons, sometimes from lower ones; for he is one, whether he exists in this or in that way. Now when we speak of divinity, we do not designate it by the properties of humanity: for we do not say that the divinity suffers, or that it is created. Nor again do we declare the properties of divinity concerning the flesh or humanity. Since we neither call the flesh nor the humanity uncreated. But we designate the person, whether from one or from both sides, and we attribute the properties of both natures. For Christ, just as he is both, so also is he called both God and man, both created and uncreated, both suffering and not suffering: indeed, even when he is called only from one part, or God or the Son of God, he takes on the properties of the nature or flesh conjoined to him. And the same God is said to have suffered, and the Lord of glory to have been affixed to the cross, not insofar as he is God, but insofar as he is man: or he is called man, or Son of man, and admits the properties and dignities of the divine essence, and is called a child before the ages, and a man without beginning: not insofar as he is a child or man, but insofar as he is God existing

before the ages, born in the final ages. And this is the principle of the mutual and alternate attribution of both natures, seeing that each of them proffers its own properties to the other in turn, because they constitute one and the same person, and mutually encompass one another. From this it follows that we can say of Christ: This is our God, seen on earth, and who conversed with men. Likewise: This man is neither created, nor does he suffer, nor is he circumscribed by any limit.

Chapter XXXIV.

Those things which constitute a common and universal—and as it were whole—entity are said of those parts that are subordinate to them. Therefore, since essence is a common and universal thing and possesses the character of a whole, while a person is a part (a part, I say, not in the sense that it possesses a part of the nature and does not possess another part, but a part in number, like an individual; for persons differ in number, not in nature), essence is stated of the person. Since in each one of the persons of the same species, the essence is perfect.

^B Wherefore the essences of the persons do not differ among themselves, but by accidents. I call accidents those characters and distinctive marks which designate the person, but not the essence. For they define the person in such a way that it is an essence joined with accidents. Wherefore a person has that which is common, coupled with its own mark. Essence, however, does not subsist by itself, but is considered in persons. Therefore, when one of the persons suffers, the whole essence, through which it is a person, is said to have suffered in one of its persons. Yet it does not necessarily follow that all persons of the same species are also said to have suffered along with the one that suffered. Thus, therefore, we confess that the whole nature of the divinity is perfect in its individual persons: whole in the Father, whole in the Son, whole in the Holy Spirit. Wherefore the Father is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, and the Holy Spirit is perfect God. If, likewise, in the humanity assumed by one of the holy Trinity, God the Word, we say that the whole and perfect nature of the divinity was joined to the whole human nature in one of its persons, and not part to part. For as the blessed Apostle says, in him dwells all the fullness of the divinity bodily, that is, in his flesh. And Dionysius, the disciple of Paul, most excellent in explaining divine matters, says: He communicated himself wholly in one of his persons. Nor, however, are we compelled to say that all, or three, persons of the holy divinity are joined to all the persons of humanity according to their persons. For the Father and the Holy Spirit did not share in the humanity assumed by God the Word by any other reason than that of approval and will.

We assert, however, that the whole essence of the divinity is joined to the whole human nature. Because He did not abandon anything of those things which God the Word implanted in our nature when He created us in the beginning, but assumed all things—namely, body, soul endowed with mind and reason, and their properties (for an animal that lacks any of these parts is not a man). For He who is whole assumed the whole, and the whole is joined to the whole, so that He might bestow salvation on the whole. For what was not assumed would be incurable. Therefore, the Word of God is joined to the flesh, and God is joined through the mind, interceding between the purity of God and the coarseness of the flesh. For the mind is the ruler of the soul and the flesh, as being the purest part of the soul itself, and God is the ruler of the mind itself, which, when it yields to the superior, shows its own principality. But in this way it is joined to the superior and follows it, so that it may do whatever the divine will prescribes. The mind is the place of the divinity joined to it by the person, just as the flesh is, but it does not inhabit it at the same time—as the heretics are led astray by the error of their opinion, who say: "How," they ask, "will that which contains only one measure contain two modes?" The unskilled err because they judge by corporeal reason those things which are most remote from matter. For how will Christ be called perfect God and perfect man, and of the same essence with the Father and with us, if He joins a part of the divine nature with a part of the human nature in Himself?

Furthermore, we say that our nature has risen from the dead and has ascended into heaven and has sat at the right hand of the Father, not that all persons of all men have risen and sat at the right hand of the Father, but because all this nature of ours has attained this in the person of Christ: "He has made us," says the blessed Apostle, "rise and sit together in Christ." Moreover, we say that this conjunction is fashioned from common essences. For every essence, as a common and universal thing, encompasses all persons subject to it. Nor is it permitted to find any nature or essence that is singular and private; for thus it would be necessary for the persons themselves to be both of the same essence and different, and for the holy Trinity to be of the same and of a different essence, as far as it pertains to the divinity. Therefore, the same nature is considered in individual persons. And when we say that the nature of the Word assumed flesh, according to the opinion of the blessed Athanasius and Cyril, we affirm that it is joined to the flesh. Wherefore we cannot say that the nature of the Word has suffered, for the divinity in Him has not suffered. But in saying that human nature has suffered in Christ, we do not signify all persons of men.

but in human nature we confess that Christ suffered. Therefore, when we speak of the nature of the Word, we mean the Word Himself. For the Word possesses both the communion of essence and the property of personhood.

CAP. XXXV. Of the same. Of the one composite person of the Word of God. Cap. 7.

We therefore confess that even after human flesh was assumed, the Son of God and Son of man is one; one Christ, one Lord, one only-begotten Son, and the Word of God our Lord Jesus. We venerate His two births: the one from the Father before the ages, superior to every cause and reason, both of time and nature; the other in the most recent times for our sake, and from us, and above us. For our sake, because it was for our salvation; from us, because He was born of a woman as a man at the legitimate time of birth; above us, because without seed, from the Holy Spirit and the Holy Virgin, He was born above the law of childbirth. We do not proclaim Him to be God alone, separated from our humanity, nor man alone, removed from divinity, nor one and another, but one and the same, at once God and man: perfect God, and perfect man, whole God and whole man, the same whole God even with His flesh, and whole man even with the fullness of divinity. Thus, by saying perfect God and perfect man, we demonstrate the absolute fullness of the natures which lacks nothing; and by saying whole God and whole man, we declare a single and singular person. We also confess that the one nature of the Word of God assumed flesh, that is, the essence of flesh, as the blessed Cyril understands it. The Word, therefore, assumed flesh, yet did not recede from His own nature devoid of matter, and although He assumed the whole flesh, He is nonetheless whole, circumscribed by no limit. He is limited and narrowed by the body, but is not circumscribed by divinity, since His flesh does not extend beyond divinity, which cannot be circumscribed. Therefore He is the whole and perfect God, but not "the whole God"—for He is not God alone, but also man. And He is the whole and perfect one, but not "the whole man"—for He is not man alone, but also God, so that "whole" constitutes the nature, but personhood constitutes the total; and there is one thing for the nature, and another for the person. He was in all things and above all things, even in the womb of the Mother of God, yet in this most especially by that action through which He clothed Himself in flesh.

It should be known that although we say the Lord's natures communicate with one another, this proceeds from the divine nature. For it, as it wills, communicates through all things, passes through, and penetrates, but nothing passes through it. And indeed, it bestows its own dignities upon the flesh in such a way that it suffers nothing, and remains devoid of the affections of the flesh. For if the sun imparts its actions to us, and receives nothing from ours, how much more will the author and Lord himself accomplish this?

CAP. XXXVI. Of the same. Of nature considered in the species and in the individual, and of the difference between conjunction and incarnation.

Nature is considered as bare either by thought alone, for it does not subsist by itself; or it is considered commonly in all persons of the same species, joining them together. And it is called nature considered in species or commonly, which, with accidents assumed, is in one person. And that same person is said to be considered in the individual which is considered in the species. The Word of God, therefore, in assuming flesh, did not take a nature comprehended by bare and sole thought (for that would not be assuming flesh, but deceiving, and it would happen as an assumption of flesh), nor did He take that nature which is considered in the species (for He did not take all persons), but a nature in the individual, which is the same as that which is in the species (for He took the firstfruits of our mass), not subsisting by itself—which would be an individual, so as to be assumed by Him—but one which would exist in its own person. For the very hypostasis or person of the Word of God existed as the hypostasis or person of the flesh. And thus the Word was made flesh, yet without change, and the flesh became the Word, without commutation. And God is man, and man is God, on account of this personal conjunction. Wherefore it is the same to say the nature of the Word and the nature in the individual. For it does not declare that individual or person properly and singularly, nor the communion of persons, but a common nature which is considered and examined in one of the persons. Therefore, conjunction is one thing, and the assumption of flesh is another. For conjunction indicates only a coupling, but it does not declare with what the coupling itself is made; but the assumption of flesh, or (which is the same) of humanity, demonstrates the conjunction with the flesh, or with man, just as ignition (if I may so speak) of iron shows the conjunction with fire.

CAP. XXXVII. Of the same. Of natural affections, and those liable to no crime.

The Word, sin excepted, assumed the whole man and all things that are of man. Furthermore, we confess that He assumed all the natural and faultless affections of man. For He assumed the whole man, and all that is of man, except sin. For this is neither natural, nor implanted in us by the Creator, but sprang up in us by the sowing of the devil in our free will, with us willing—or rather, not against our will—and it has been propagated, and has obtained dominion. But the affections which are natural and free from vice and fault are those which are not in our power, which indeed rushed into human life from the condemnation and injury of the sin committed: such as hunger, thirst, weariness, pain, tears, ruin, the deprecation of death, fear.

anguish, from which came sweats, drops of blood, the aid and consolation of angels because of the weakness of nature. These and other things of this kind, which are naturally in all men, He assumed in their entirety, that He might render them all entirely holy. Moreover, all natural affections were in Christ both according to nature and above nature. According to nature, they moved in Him when He permitted the flesh to suffer and feel those things which are its own. Above nature, however, because natural impulses and affections in the Lord did not rule over His will, for nothing forced, involuntary, or necessary is considered in Him, but all things are voluntary; for willingly He hungered, willingly He thirsted, willingly He feared, willingly He died. ^A

Chapter XXXVIII. Another item on the divine incarnation. Demonstrations of other Fathers by syllogism, from common notions.

1. If anyone, remaining in his own place, is joined with iron, much more is He who is omnipotent, remaining immutable and joined to the assumed flesh, for He who was wholly in the Father, was wholly in the assumption of that flesh. Indeed, if this reasoning surpasses the power of nature, it is no wonder, since the Son and the Word Himself is higher than nature.

2. If the mind, when it is joined to a body that dwells in it, progresses in any way without leaving the soul itself, and as an impenetrable thing (if I may so speak) moves through and penetrates all things, it is superfluous to doubt how the Son and God, neither leaving the Father nor departing from heaven, descended to earth, and although He cannot be encompassed, was encompassed by soul and body. For if a created thing obtains this power, what will the Creator Himself be like, the giver of this marvelous thing that cannot be explained in words?

3. The whole Word, who is God, assumed flesh, and the whole cannot be encompassed. Wherefore He was both, the whole, in the bosom of God and the Father, and simultaneously the whole in the womb of the divine Mother; there, encompassed by no limit, but here, as clothed in human flesh.

4. Already before the foundation of the world, it was predestined that God should assume human flesh. But never before the most holy Mary was a dwelling found worthy of the assumption of divine flesh. But where it was found, God assumed human flesh. For this reason, He willed to be conceived in the betrothed Virgin, that He might commend the marriage, the beginning of which is betrothal, and prefer virginity to it.

5. Humanity, which is assumed in one and the same person, through this very conjunction and communion is made divine, and immediately, while not receding from the limits of human nature, received excellent and magnificent gifts of divinity, so that it might ^B attribute [them] to [itself], and be omnipotent, and behold all things.

It is said, however, to be servile and ignorant, and is called by other such names, if anyone (as Gregory the Theologian says) separates by mere naked thought that which is seen from that which is understood. In this, however, Christ was subject to natural affections that are devoid of blame, so that He might neither depart from His own proper nature, nor [fail to] confirm that He had truly assumed human flesh, and that He might cure our [ills] by His sufferings, and by natural affections might abolish those which are against nature; and finally, that by overcoming them Himself as man, He might bestow upon us—who are joined to Him by a similar nature and are kindred—the victory itself. For sin is not a natural affection, nor belong to those things which pertain to sin.

6. The iron that makes red-hot turns the Virgin [to heat] and renders it bright; it does not itself become a participant in its coldness and blackness; thus, divinity, communicating its virtue to humanity, does not receive its weakness.

7. Purity, indeed, moves among our filth, yet the filth does not defile its purity; for the Light, He says, shines in darkness, and the darkness did not encompass it (John 1, 5). For when darkness is expelled by the presence of rays, the sun is nevertheless not obscured by the darkness.

8. One thing is said of those things which are of the same essence, when it is the same nature and different persons. From which [comes] that: And the three are one. But among those which are of a different essence, [something] is said to be one when it is the same person and different natures, from which [comes] that: And both are one. But [this is] one not by nature, but by the conjunction of two natures in one person. ^C

9. The same is said either by essence (which is what it is) or by nature, as Petrus and Paulus are the same by nature; or by genus, as an ox and a horse are the same by genus; or by species, as Titus and Timotheus are the same by species, for both are under man; or by number, as that which has many names—for instance, *gladius*, *ensis*, *mucro* are the same by number, for one thing is subject to these; or by analogy, or convenience, or proportion. For what the eye is in the body, the same is the mind in the soul; or by person, as in Christ, for His diverse natures are the same person, or one.

10. A conjunction is a mutual concurrence of different things; it happens, however, in various ways: by mixing, as in those things which are liquid, such as wine and water; or by a heap, as in those things which are dry, such as wheat and barley; or by imbibition, as in the moist and the dry, such as earth and water; or by remixture, as in diverse flours; or by confusion, in those things which melt, such as gold and silver and wax and pitch; or by congruity, as in stones; or by apposition, as in tablets; or by conjunction, as in a lamp, which proceeds from fire and is again joined; or by essence, as in individuals, such as Petrus and Paulus, or any others, whether horses or oxen, ^D

^A or by habit, as in friends and those agreeing in one will; or by composition, as in soul and body; or by person, which is what is said about the divinity and humanity alone in Christ. Saint Cyril first taught this kind of conjunction when he resisted Nestorius, who taught that the copulation of the two natures in Christ occurs by habit. For, in opposition to his execrable opinion, he introduced a conjunction which is by hypostasis or person, by which two natures are joined in one person, and not in two as Nestorius asserted in his trifles. This is also called essential ^B conjunction, because it is true and not merely fashioned by opinion. Otherwise, personal conjunction is the crown, which gathers diverse essences into one person, with each retaining its property even after the conjunction. This conjunction also applies to soul and body coming together into one person, as Damascenus taught. ^C It is true that, although we sometimes call God man and sometimes man God, we never call the divinity man or the humanity God.

14. Although no example can be devised which clearly expresses the proposed matter, we shall attempt to bring forward something which, if it does not correspond to the magnitude of the thing, may yet aptly adumbrate the truth in some way. Just as if the whole air were entirely ignited, or rather were all fire, and a small fragment of iron were thrown into it, that iron would remain as it is, and yet the reason for its essence would remain one with that fire. In the same way, the nature of man, once joined, is so encompassed and surpassed by that [divine nature] that it no longer appears to be a separate nature. For this reason, our Fathers, witnessing that it is surpassed and declared to be God, and therefore on account of this ^D person and indissoluble conjunction, accorded it the same worship.

15. Indeed, we do not admit differences of persons in Christ, lest we conjure a fourth person in the Holy Trinity. We do, however, recognize differences of natures, lest we believe his flesh to be Christ by nature.

16. By the conjunction of the two natures in Christ there is no division, but a difference must be stated. For the ratio of difference is that by which things differ from one another. But in division, the same things are utterly and entirely separated from one another.

17. The Word and God did not assume universal man ^A nor individual man. Universal man is not seen by the eyes. Furthermore, it would have many persons: it embraces us as many, and it would be a substance common to us, for we are individuals, and we follow many such unchangeable things. But if he assumed an individual man, it would follow that he has two persons. It remains, therefore, that he assumed neither, but rather an individual; this is the individual nature of man, whose person he himself is. The common nature of man is indeed individual in the individual. But we say "individual" of the human nature—not just the soul or just the body, but that which is composed of both.

18. What is of human nature, which is subject to blame and alien to the state, Christ receives partly ^B as above men, partly as more abject than men. He was above men, in that he was conceived without seed, and born of the Virgin, and other such things. He was as other men, in that he caused the womb of the Mother of God to swell, he was born in the space of nine months, he drew milk, he wept, and other things of this kind. ^C

^A And more humbly than was consistent with the habits of men, in that his appearance on the cross seemed base, and with ignominy, and failing—as Isaiah says—beyond the sons of men, he died even before the thieves who had been executed with him on the cross, from the pain of the nails. Add also this, if you please: that he showed himself in the humble form of a gardener to be seen after the resurrection, and showed the apostles his scars and the places of his wounds, and that he took food. For other men, once they have been recalled to life, shall shine as the sun, nor will any of them retain such scars in the body or the places of wounds, nor will they eat.

13. The Son of God, the same being called God, is said to have been conceived, and to have taught, and to have done wonderful things, and (to sum up all in few words) to have both been in need and suffered, and to have died, and to have risen again. Since he was the person of the flesh that was assumed, which flesh, indeed, born without seed, had no other proper person. Wherefore, since there is one and the same person of the one assuming and of the human nature assumed, he himself is said both to do and to suffer according to the nature which he assumed. And the things that are proper to that nature, he takes to himself as his own, being as he is its hypostasis and person, as we have demonstrated.

CHAPTER XXXIX.

I think I shall be doing something worthwhile if I now profess what I think about the divine assumption of human flesh. For in this way the providence of God, who governs this body of the universe, will be known more clearly.

1. Valentinus, therefore, in those fabulous trifles of his, used to join one thing to another: one being the Only-Begotten, another the Word, and again another Christ, who would be comprehended within the Pleroma, or fullness; another item, Jesus; and finally another Christ, who would stand outside the Pleroma. Furthermore, he used to fable that Jesus was made man, clothed in that outer Christ, with a body assumed for himself from the essence of the soul, and that he had only a passage through the Virgin, and that he had assumed nothing from human nature.

2. Basilides in the same way used to speak of another Christ, another Word, and finally another Wisdom.

3. Cerdo, Marcius, and Manes used to say that Christ indeed appeared similar to a man, but that he had nothing human.

4. Cerinthus said that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary according to the common law of men, but that Christ descended into Jesus from heaven.

5. The Ebionites, however, the Theodotians, the Artemonians, and the Photinians used to say that Christ was a naked and simple man born from the holy Virgin.

6. Arius and Eunomius said that only the body was assumed by him, but that the divinity supplied the parts of the soul.

7. Apollinarius finally used to say that the Savior’s body was indeed animated, but not by a soul partaking of reason: for the mind, he said, would have been superfluous, with the Word present.

CAP. XL.

Now it has seemed good to record these dogmas of many heresies, so that I might lay open the truth of the Church in this matter. The Church names the Son the very same one who is the Only-Begotten, and God the Word, and the Savior, and the Lord Jesus: yet in such a way that the Only-Begotten Son, and God the Word, and the Lord, is said to have existed even before the flesh was assumed, and is still called by the same names even with the flesh assumed. But Jesus Christ only began to be called such after the flesh was assumed, having obtained such names from the things themselves. For Jesus is named and expounded as Savior: of which interpretation Gabriel himself is a witness, when he addresses the Virgin with these words: You shall call his name Jesus, because he himself shall save his people from their sins. But he received the surname of Christ from the anointing of the Spirit: for the psalmist David says: Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. The Lord himself also says through the Prophet: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, wherefore he has anointed me. Now, the Lord himself taught us how we must understand that prophecy. Having entered the synagogue and taken in his hands the book in which the prophecies were contained, he read the aforementioned passage indeed: but to those present he said: Today this scripture is fulfilled in your eyes. Those things which the great Peter preached were also consistent with the prophets. For when he had opened the mystery to those who were gathered at the house of Cornelius, he added: You know the word which was made through all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power. From the things which have been said above, it is clear that Christ has obtained that name for the reason that he had been anointed by the Spirit. But he was anointed, not as God, but as man. Although, however, by reason of the assumed flesh he is called Christ, he nevertheless was not a different God the Word and another Christ: for God the Word obtained the name of Jesus Christ with the flesh assumed.

Furthermore, he assumed flesh in order to restore the nature corrupted by sin. Therefore he assumed that entire nature which had sinned, that he might heal the whole. For he did not assume corporeal nature to cover his divinity, as Arius and Eunomius madly asserted in their ravings. For he was easily able to show himself even without a body, whom

^A just as he once appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and other saints; but he wished that the very nature which had once succumbed should defeat its enemy and emerge as its victor. For this reason, he also assumed a body and a soul participating in reason. For divine Scripture does not make man threefold, but testifies that he consists of body and soul. For when God had fashioned the body from dust, he breathed a soul into it, and exhibited two natures, not three. Indeed, the Lord himself says in the Gospels: *Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul*. There are also many things of this kind to be found in divine Scripture.

That he assumed the perfect nature of man, not to cast a cloak over his divinity, as heretics fable, but to procure victory for the entire human race through these first fruits, is testified by our true and diligent doctor, the blessed Apostle. For in his Epistle to the Romans, revealing the mystery of the dispensation, he says: *Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned*. By these words, having demonstrated the origin of sin and the fruit that sprouted from it, and also him who from the beginning was made subject to it, he also demonstrates its end. For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed when there was no law. Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one to come. By Moses, however, he understands the Law, whose policy, or administration of the republic, prevailed until the arrival of the Savior. But when those who lived according to the prescription of that law had sinned, as well as those who followed the law of nature, death rightly exercised dominion over them, with sin confirming its power. For *the wages of sin is death*. Therefore, after he taught from where sin began and how far death reigned, he also teaches in what way its dominion was dissolved; and he praises the immense humanity of God with these words: *But not as the transgression, so also is the gift. For if by the transgression of one many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abounded to many*.

^D His ambition for humanity, he says, transcends justice and equity. For by the prescription of the law, because of the transgression of one, his entire progeny was condemned to death. But divine mercy, when all men were under a curse and were entangled in the snares of sin, granted salvation to all on account of the righteousness of one. He called the Savior man, not so that his divinity might be denied (for he knows that he is God himself, of the same honor as God the Begetter), but so that like might be healed by like, and that from these first fruits, sanctification might come to the whole. ^A For being subject to the law by reason of his humanity, he fulfilled the law and freed the transgressors from the curse. Then he repeats the same argument in other words: *And not as through one who sinned, so is the gift. For the judgment was from one unto condemnation; but the grace was from many transgressions unto justification*.

At that time, he says, one sinned, and all were condemned; but now, when all have sinned, salvation is proposed to all, provided they wish it, through faith. By which words, after he shows that the righteousness of the one was the amulet for the common sin, he adds that through the same man, the lodging-place of death was also interrupted, and it received its end. *For if by the transgression of the one death reigned through the one, much more shall those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift and of righteousness reign in life through the one Jesus Christ*. Sin, he says, brings about death, but we are saved for the life of the kingdom by the righteousness of the one: obtaining divine salvation not by law, but by mercy. For the law of justice had adjudged all those who were guilty to punishment; for we were all workers of sin. For if by the transgression of one the progeny was condemned, it was certainly more equitable that those who served sin should be sentenced to punishment. But divine mercy transgressed the limits of justice, and humanity surpassed equality: so that, with the law fulfilled by one, all who believe in him might enjoy salvation. By which words, after he shows the immense humanity, he passes again to the explanation of the divine Word. *Therefore, just as through the transgression of one, it was unto all men unto condemnation; so also through the righteousness of one, it is unto all men unto justification of life*. Passing from things to persons, he says: *For as by the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of the one, the many will be made righteous*. ^C Furthermore, it was very necessary that he should use the word "many" in both cases. For when Adam had sinned, and very many had transgressed the divine laws, some remained within the bounds of nature and were studious of virtue, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, the patriarchs, the prophets, and very many others, not only among the Jews but also among other nations, of whom the blessed Apostle says: *For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, naturally do the things of the law, not having such a law, they are a law to themselves*. However, from the arrival of the Savior, not all attain salvation, but those who believe and institute their life according to the prescription of his divine laws. For which cause he used the word "many" in both the image and the archetype.

CAP. XLI. Why Christ became man. Resurrection. Judgment. Various orders of the blessed and the damned.

But let us see for the sake of what the Only-begotten Son of God assumed flesh; and human nature s-

will be made alive; for the resurrection is common: but after the resurrection there shall be judgment, which indeed He signified by those things which He added: But every man in his own order ^A. For there are many orders, both of those who are punished and of those who are saved; since, according to the quality and quantity of justice, rewards will be distributed, and in the same way, according to the difference of sins, punishments and torments will also be inflicted. ^A Having assumed [our] nature, He was man, and heard. The Apostle has also proposed to us the same doctrine in that Epistle which he wrote to the Corinthians, where he says thus: But now Christ is risen from the dead, the first-fruits of them that sleep: for since by man came death and by man came the resurrection of the dead. Then he proceeds from the nature to the persons, with these words: And as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all

NICETAS CHONIATES THESAURUS OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH BOOK FOUR. AGAINST FORTY-FOUR ANTE-ARIAN HERESIES. To each head or heresy its own refutation is annexed.

PREFACE. On the ministers of Christ and Satan.

When the most wise God of the universe had taken upon Himself the human mass for our sake, He at last, just as we have already said, propagated the light of the Trinity throughout the whole world, first indeed by the work and ministry of a few fishermen, and then truly of the doctors of piety, and He rooted out the briars of that error which had introduced a swarm and ant-hill of gods. When that common adversary of men could not bear this with equanimity, as one who saw those subject to him being led away from him, he plotted against the orthodox faith with the ministry of men worthy of his own wickedness, having nothing earlier or more ancient [in mind] than to drag men to destruction. From which it happens that, although the preaching of the apostles was scarcely yet confirmed, and was still experiencing the strength of the first foundations, he began at once to mix into it the seeds of impiety, and to sow them over it.

CAP. I. The first heresy, of Simon Magus and Basilides.

Simon is said to have been the first minister of this craftiness, who, born at Gitta (that is a village of Samaria), since he possessed all kinds of deceits to a nail, enticed many to his own opinion by the performance of miracles. And if at any time he was with the Jews, he professed himself to be the Son of God; if with the Samaritans, God the Father; if with the remaining ^D nations, the Holy Spirit. To conclude with a more general ^B and common doctrine, he called himself the infinite power of God. He invented names of lordship and power, and heavens; and to each heaven he ascribed certain powers called by barbaric names. Moreover, to a certain harlot of Tyrian origin, by the name of Helena, whom he led around with him, he had given the title of the first notion, and just as he proclaimed himself God the Father, so he asserted that she was the mother of others, and through her he had made the angels and archangels, and indeed that the world itself had been founded by the angels. To these he added that the angels, jealous of Helena, had detained her among them, as those who did not wish to be called the works or creatures of his. Whence it came about that they had thrust her into the bodies of many women, and at last even into the Helena of Tyndarus, who had given cause for the Trojan war. He added that for the sake of this Helena he had descended from heaven, that he might assert her from the chains by which she was held, and be the author of salvation to those who believe in him. The same man also suggested mysteries filled with every kind of filthiness, which for that reason cannot be expressed in human tongues, to those who believed in him—to men indeed through the emission of the seminal fluid, and to women through the menstrual flows—and this most impure man branded this kind of [i]mystagogy[/i], or initiation, with the name of [i]gnosis[/i], that is, of knowledge. Whence the heresy of the Gnostic heretics also sprouted up. Moreover, he taught that every action, even the most foul, should be performed without any distinction. Menander the Samaritan was imbued with his heresies, and not

changing any of the things he had learned, he professed himself to be even greater than Simon himself. ^A Now Basilides and Saturninus had sworn into the errors of this man, and they were also very pleased with Simon’s decrees. Furthermore, Basilides, interweaving certain additions of his own into his master’s fables, said that there was an Unbegotten, understanding by this name only the Father of all things; from Him, [he said], came the Intellect, from the Intellect the Word, from the Word Prudence, from Prudence Virtue and Wisdom, and from Wisdom and Virtue the Principalities, the Powers, and the Angels; and finally, he fabulated that the first and highest intellect proceeded from the angels, by whom the angels had created a second heaven, and yet other angels, who had likewise made other angels and another heaven, and had taken the matter so far that three hundred and sixty-five heavens were to be found, corresponding to the number of days in the year. To these things he added that the world was constructed by those angels who lived in the lowest heaven, which is visible to us, and that they had divided the leadership of the Earth among themselves; and that, finally, the angel to whom the province of Judaea had fallen by lot was a prince of angels, whom the other angels had resisted when he wished to subject the other nations to the Jews. ^B Having perceived these things, the Unbegotten had lost His first-begotten Intellect, and had named him Christ, so that He might make all believers safe. He said, moreover, that Christ did not suffer, but [rather] Simon of Cyrene. For Christ, he said, stood at a distance and out of range of the weapons, and mocked the madness of the Jews, and finally returned, as if by a postliminium, to the Unbegotten from whom He had been sent. Furthermore, he said that one should not believe in Him who was crucified, but in Him who appeared to be crucified. Basilides, moreover, just like Simon and as many as maintained his delusions and monstrous words, denied the resurrection of the flesh, and said that the world was created by that angel who ruled over the Jews. He also encouraged everyone to eat, for the sake of lust, of things sacrificed to idols—that is, of those things which had been offered to idols—and thus he busied himself with illicit actions without distinction. The same man is also said to have been an inventor of incantations and conjuring tricks, which he later passed on to the demented and the insane as if by his own hand.

A REFUTATION OF THE PRECEDING HERESY BY THE SAME NICETAS CHONIATES

he was moving about as a newcomer among the apostles, under whom, having imbibed the Christian faith, he undertook the care of widows assigned along with six others, among whom Philip and Stephen easily held the first place, of whom the former brought Samaria to the faith, and baptized Candace, [while] the latter was the first of all to suffer martyrdom for the name of Christ.

Nicolaus, therefore, having married a comely little wife, at first refrained from her, but then they reunited. Furthermore, this man said that no one would attain eternal life who did not daily immerse himself in vices of every kind. Hence, therefore, the Gnostics, sown by Simon, received growth; some of whom indeed fabricated other things, while others worshipped a certain woman named Prunicus, and did not fear to ascribe to her that power which is inherent in genital seed: others, finally, worshipped Caulacas. But all these names signify effeminate softness, devised by them, who considered every kind of filthiness to be praise and honor. Since *phrounixein* signifies intercourse. For the Greeks, if they should speak of the deflowerers of virgins, are accustomed to use these words, *eprounixeuse tēn de*, that is, he defiled that woman. As far as Caulacas is concerned, it is indeed expressed in an honest sense by the Hebrews, but it has been distorted by the Gnostics to [imply] turpitude. For in the twelfth vision of Daniel it is so written: *Saulasan, Saulasan, Caulacan, Caulacan*, that is, affliction after affliction, hope after hope. These Gnostics, furthermore, are designated by many names: for some are named Borborites, from *borboros*, ^C that is, from mire; others Codians, for *kodos* is called a food vessel in Syriac, because no one would not refuse to take food with them, on account of their singular filthiness. Others also are named Borbolites, Secundiani, Socratitae, and Racchaei. But their wives are held in common, and because they argue that there is no filthiness and impurity in intercourse itself, they are careful that seed is not ejaculated into a woman’s womb, or allowed to fall to the earth, but, caught with their hands, they sometimes swallow it, and at other times, saving it and mixing it with the blood of women’s menses, they use it for mysteries. And if, through their imprudence, it should fall into the womb, and the woman has become pregnant from it, as soon as the fetus is born, they seize it and crush it in a mortar, and mix into it honey, pepper, and I know not what ointments, then all tasting from it with a finger, they say: "We give thanks, O God, that we were not at all deceived by the prince of concupiscence, but have gathered the fall of our brother." And they consider this to be the perfect Pascha. ^D

Confutation of the preceding heresy.

Just as Judas was found to be a traitor among the twelve apostles, so also among the number of the seven deacons, Nicolaus of Antioch showed himself to be not unlike him, to such a degree that there is nothing in all things that is pure and altogether immune from evil.

^A being dispatched back to Simon by Peter, spoke the same things to him. Finally, when he had [drawn] many of those whom Peter had instructed by his sermons to his own private dogma, he was moving about as a newcomer among the apostles, under whom, having imbibed the Christian faith, he undertook the care of widows assigned along with six others, among whom Philip and Stephen easily held the first place, of whom the former brought Samaria to the faith, and baptized Candace, [while] the latter was the first of all to suffer martyrdom for the name of Christ. ^B Nicolaus, therefore, having married a comely little wife, at first refrained from her, but then they reunited. Furthermore, this man said that no one would attain eternal life who did not daily immerse himself in vices of every kind. Hence, therefore, the Gnostics, sown by Simon, received growth; some of whom indeed fabricated other things, while others worshipped a certain woman named Prunicus, and did not fear to ascribe to her that power which is inherent in genital seed: others, finally, worshipped Caulacas. But all these names signify effeminate softness, devised by them, who considered every kind of filthiness to be praise and honor. Since *phrounixein* signifies intercourse. For the Greeks, if they should speak of the deflowerers of virgins, are accustomed to use these words, *eprounixeuse tēn de*, that is, he defiled that woman. As far as Caulacas is concerned, it is indeed expressed in an honest sense by the Hebrews, but it has been distorted by the Gnostics to [imply] turpitude. For in the twelfth vision of Daniel it is so written: *Saulasan, Saulasan, Caulacan, Caulacan*, that is, affliction after affliction, hope after hope. These Gnostics, furthermore, are designated by many names: for some are named Borborites, from *borboros*, ^C that is, from mire; others Codians, for *kodos* is called a food vessel in Syriac, because no one would not refuse to take food with them, on account of their singular filthiness. Others also are named Borbolites, Secundiani, Socratitae, and Racchaei. But their wives are held in common, and because they argue that there is no filthiness and impurity in intercourse itself, they are careful that seed is not ejaculated into a woman’s womb, or allowed to fall to the earth, but, caught with their hands, they sometimes swallow it, and at other times, saving it and mixing it with the blood of women’s menses, they use it for mysteries. And if, through their imprudence, it should fall into the womb, and the woman has become pregnant from it, as soon as the fetus is born, they seize it and crush it in a mortar, and mix into it honey, pepper, and I know not what ointments, then all tasting from it with a finger, they say: "We give thanks, O God, that we were not at all deceived by the prince of concupiscence, but have gathered the fall of our brother." And they consider this to be the perfect Pascha. ^D

Confutation of the preceding heresy.

Just as Judas was found to be a traitor among the twelve apostles, so also among the number of the seven deacons, Nicolaus of Antioch showed himself to be not unlike him, to such a degree that there is nothing in all things that is pure and altogether immune from evil.

You could indeed say this: ^A but even among thorns a rose is born, and with the wheat the weeds also emerge. However, that miserable wretch, having lost his senses as soon as he departed from the number of the seven deacons, and having also corrupted the assembly of virgins because he had addicted himself like a husband to an adulterous and wicked woman, no longer shared anything with his seven colleagues, nor was he willing to care for the widows any longer; nay, he even spurned that eighth age which will one day succeed our own.

Furthermore, the actions and deceits of those who are called Gnostics became so infamous due to a flood of every kind of filth that, in comparison to them, the devil himself, the master of filth, might seem honest. Hence, refraining from stirring up such a Camarina, and of describing those things which are in every way to be detested and are most ungrateful to God, I shall be an author for the readers of the Gnostic heresy, so that, imitating the hero of Ithaca, they may stop their ears with wax—not indeed so that they may sail past the Sirens' melodies, but so that they might not, by hearing and tongue, pollute their own ^B *gnosis*, that is, their reason and intelligence, by offering easy ears to the reading of those things which in their impiety surpass any impiety by many parasangs.

CAP. III.

The third heresy: these are the Carpocratians, who are baptized.

A certain Carpocrates (40), while he was working in Asia, taught there filth of every kind, and omitted no crime for which he did not provide specific precepts, ^C adding this: that it is impossible for anyone to transcend from here to the highest heaven unless he has first immersed himself in all sins and obeyed the will of the demons. Furthermore, he abolishes marriage, nor does he admit the resurrection of the dead. The Carpocratians also devised certain prestidigitations and incantations that would suffice for carrying out all demonic arts. Furthermore, they would imprint a seal with a cauterizing iron, or a razor, or an awl onto the cartilage of the ears of those they had deceived, so that this mark might be proof that they had been initiated into their heresy. Whence a certain Marcellina, having been seduced by them at Rome under Anicetus, the Roman bishop, lured many matrons into the same heresy. They also erect statues to Christ and Paul, and even to Pythagoras and other philosophers, which they worship in hidden places. Furthermore, they also use the mysteries of the Greeks.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

This Carpocrates, by the harshness of his heresy, which was dissected into various opinions and was antagonistic to the sincere dogma of piety, ^D caused himself to become very like unto a barren and fruitless fig tree—which they call *axipon*—that flourishes only in leaves, and, if I may say so, one that is like a fountain ejecting flax.

He, the author and master of all-encompassing filth, sets himself against the ascent of souls to the heavens, especially those that have not by any means plunged themselves into foul actions. Yet he is so far from leading them—that which they desire most—to the wished-for end, that they have even sought from God and the man Christ that entry into pigs be granted them; nor has it been permitted to them, by any other law than because the decree of divine providence so ordained it, to exercise their madness in the pigsties and sheepfolds of Job. For what others were seen by Christ falling from on high like lightning, if not the reprobate spirits, their prince Satan, like the exterior fire, the sleepless worm, and the never-ending Gehenna? Therefore, they designate nothing new in the fact that they disapprove of marriage, while meanwhile wallowing in lust, and doing or suffering nothing that is not filth.

As for the fact that the followers of the heresy of Carpocrates imprint certain seals or rings onto the lower protrusion of their ears, they agree in this, and protest that they are completely in accord with the guile and impostures of that serpent who whispered into the ear of Eve. For from this it becomes entirely clear how disruptive and disobedient they are to divine precepts, and how alien is the path upon which they insist, far from the fold of the Church, which is as another Paradise—a path which, indeed, the authors of our race fell into, heeding the words of the serpent.

CAP. IV.

The fourth heresy is that of Valentinus. Those who repent from this are baptized.

Valentinus, an Egyptian by birth (41), in the reign of Antoninus the first, when he had completed the circle of Greek studies, which they call *enkyklios paideia*, introduced thirty gods and as many *aeons* and heavens: namely, fifteen males and fifteen females, whose males stood opposite the females. He enumerates their names, although they are omitted by me. Furthermore, he calls this group of thirty gods a spiritual *pleroma*, that is, a fullness; and he asserts that Bythus (whom he calls the progenitor or grandfather of these thirty aeons) is invisible and incomprehensible to all the aeons. He added that Sophia, or Wisdom (which he counts among the aeons), conceived out of the love with which she pursued Bythus the progenitor, and gave birth to a formless substance, which he calls *Hyle*, or matter: and he adds that when she was troubled by such a birth, she betook herself to the progenitor and reported what she had suffered; and he recounts that the other suppliant aeons, or aeons, were present to her: and when Bythus had spared her, he immediately established, along with Philia, or Friendship, his consort, a limit, which indeed is the limit...

of the end of the age. ^A Concerning the universe, likewise, the blessed David says in another place: "From age and unto age You are," because You are without beginning and without end. Therefore, because an age signifies a certain interval, lest anyone foolishly think that the God of the universe did not exist before the ages, the same Prophet says in another Psalm: "Hearken, O God, and He will humble them, He who is before the ages." Consequently, He who is the creator of the universe is also the creator of the ages—not, indeed, of those shameful and collectively fabricated ones, but of those by which any interval is signified. For this reason, the blessed Paul is led to say that the Father and the Son are the creator of the ages: "He has spoken to us," he says, "in the Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the ages." Furthermore, the word "made" does not indicate the substance of the ages, but that there is absolutely no one older than God, the creator of the universe. In another place, he likewise has it thus: "To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, to the only God, be honor and glory unto the ages of ages. Amen." He does not mean to show that there are any ages which subsist by themselves or rest upon their own powers, but he proclaims the eternal kingdom of God. Elsewhere, the same Apostle says thus: "However, we speak wisdom among the perfect; yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which has been hidden, which God predestined before the ages."

Now truly, if the mystery of the assumed flesh is older than the ages, as the divine oracles testify, it proves that it is the height of impiety if anyone says that the God of the universe is younger than the ages. The prophet Isaiah also cries out thus: "The everlasting God, the Lord, who created the ends of the earth." Likewise: "From the age we have not heard, nor have our eyes seen a God beside Thee." Therefore, God is the creator of the entire nature before the ages, and indeed even in the final times of our salvation. Therefore, one of the persons of the Trinity, the Only-begotten Word of the Father, when He had built for Himself a temple out of virginal blood, was seen to have a dual nature, though not a dual hypostasis. ^D And clothed with flesh He proceeded from the womb of the ever-virgin Mary: He did not, however, pass through her as through a conduit, as it seemed to the impure Valentinus, bearing with Him a celestial body, but He assumed her in union with His deity, as Paul himself also teaches more openly: "He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers," since in heaven there is nothing of human condition, nor in that life which is lived above this mundane and sublunary sphere, where there is a place for the disease of vice. Where, therefore, there is nothing evil, and no condition of human life is seen, how, I ask, is it credible that it could have come about that God therein assumed to Himself a human body? What, moreover, [could be the] emendation of our nature...

^A if, while it labored under a grave malady requiring treatment from terrestrial animals, it had received that divine mingling which is different from celestial things? For who could heal the sick, unless a most suitable remedy were applied to the affected member? If, then, Divine Power could not have reached the sick man dwelling on earth, it would certainly have availed him nothing to be occupied with those things which were not to impart even the slightest bit of divine power. But those who tear our nature to pieces with wagonloads of reproaches, as if from a stage, and who slander the manner of His birth, thinking it indecorous for God to be born in the same way we are accustomed to be born and to dwell on earth, should know that in God nothing is held to be shameful except sin, and if [there is] anything that draws near to sin. Furthermore, the order of our nature is tempered to the will and law of the divine intent ^B, being far removed from that slander to which sin is accustomed to be exposed. Otherwise, if anything were discovered in the creation of human nature that, because of its baseness and indecency, was not secure against the bites of slander, the fault would certainly redound upon the Creator.

Accordingly, while in the birth of Christ all other things were wondrous, to such a degree that they were by no means unbecoming to God (such as generation of flesh without seed, a passing forth without corruption: that the same one is virgin and mother, that the same one is mother and virgin, without any loss of virginity in the birth; that God assumed human flesh in personal essence, not in essential person; that while remaining wholly in the Father, and existing wholly as God by nature, He nonetheless also existed wholly as man by nature; that He did not reject divine nor human nature, but kept them united in a confused and commingled ^C way), yet in truth it is most especially true that He was born from a Virgin in the very same way in which we are accustomed to be born, nor did He contract anything therefrom which would be unbecoming or discordant to the generation of God. For if He applied Himself to the bush, a sterile plant, and spoke with Moses through its agency, He certainly did nothing unworthy of God; if, out of His supreme goodness, dwelling in the handywork of His hands, He in this way liberated not just one nation, and a small one at that, from the hand of the Egyptians, but converted the whole world to God the Creator and freed it from the dominion of demons. ^D

Now, with the divine incarnation demonstrated in this way, come, relying on the testimonies of the divine oracles, let us demonstrate that a human body was assumed by the incarnate Word of God. And first, indeed, the beginnings of His body pertained especially to divinity. Then the butter and honey, which the Prophet predicted long before, as well as maternal milk, and every other species of food and drink, sufficiently argue that the vessel by which they were received was within Him. But if some fool objects to that food which was taken within the tent of Abraham, let that person know that he wanders far from right reason. For such foods seemed to be consumed in another way, one not unknown to Him by whom they were consumed. And if anyone foolishly argues that the incorporeal nature made use of these, he would certainly find there neither hunger nor thirst; here, however, affections and appetites of this kind were stirred by necessity, not because the combined divinity could not have delivered the body from such need (for He who a little later bestowed immortality upon bodies would have much more easily vindicated His own body from all need), but He allowed this so that He might make His own nature manifest. Therefore, as many heresies as have denied that this was assumed by Him are convicted of manifest falsehood. For just as He, although He could render a body immune from death (for He granted this on the third day after death), nevertheless exposed it to passion and to death so that He might fulfill the mystery of the incarnation: so also He exposed the same to hunger, thirst, labor, and sleep, lest any handle for establishing falsehood remain for those who approve only of that which seems so to them. Wherefore hunger and thirst, and in addition labor and sleep, argue that the body of the Lord is a human body; which indeed the blessed Paul, intending to confirm, exclaims thus: "Because therefore the children have shared in flesh and blood, so He Himself in like manner participated in the same, that through death He might destroy him who held the empire of death, and might liberate those who through fear of death were all their life subject to servitude" (Heb. ii, 14). By which words He surely shows openly that the nature assumed by Him was one that was very similar to our own. But if anyone does not approve of such a garment as this, let him hear Jacob the patriarch prophesying thus: "He shall wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape" (Gen. xlix, 11). Let him hear also the most blessed Paul exclaiming: "Having therefore, brethren, confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Jesus, a way which He hath initiated for us, new and living through the veil, that is to say, His flesh, and a high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith" (Heb. x, 19 seqq.). For by the name of the veil, just as by the stole and the garment, the patriarch called His flesh. But it seems superfluous if I explain this with more words.

For even Christ Himself calls Himself the Son of man. For He inculcates this to the Apostles more often. "It shall come to pass that the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill Him, and on the third day He shall rise again" (Matt. xx, 18). And to him who wished to follow: "The foxes," He says, "have holes, and the birds of the air nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head" (Matt. viii, 20). And this He casts into the face of the Jews: "Why seek you to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God?" (Joan. viii, 20). But the blessed Apostle cries out thus: "One God and mediator of God and men" (I Tim. ii, 5). Likewise: "Because by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead" (I Cor. xv, 21), for...

^A furthermore, God promised Abraham that in his seed all the nations would be blessed, and likewise promised this to Isaac and to Jacob: so that the blessed Apostle himself, writing to the Galatians, rightly said: "To Abraham were the promises spoken and to his seed" (Gal. iii, 16): then, teaching whom he understands by the designation of 'seed,' he proceeds: "He does not say 'and to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'and to your seed,' who is Christ" (Gal. iii, 16). The same man, writing to the Hebrews, says thus: "For nowhere does he take hold of angels, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham; whence he ought to be made like his brethren in all things, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God" (Hebr. ii, 16, 17). For which reason also, when Jacob was bestowing that blessing of Judah which he had received from the God of all, he said thus: "The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until he comes who is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of the nations" (Gen. xlix, 10). The prophet Micah also renews this prophecy with these words: "And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the princes of Judah. For from you shall come forth to me a leader, and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity" (Mich. v, 2; Matth. ii, 6). ^B Likewise, the blessed Apostle, being about to show the end of the predictions, exclaims thus: "It is manifest that out of Judah our Lord has arisen" (Hebr. vii, 14).

^C David also, king and prophet, received these same promises from the God of all. For he says to Him: "I will prepare your seed forever, and I will build up your throne unto generation and generation" (Psal. lxxxviii, 5). In another place: "And I will set his seed for generation unto generation, and his throne as the days of heaven" (Psal. lxxxviii, 30). And a little later: "Once have I sworn in my holy one, if I shall lie to David, his seed remains forever. And his throne as the sun before me, and as the moon perfected, and a faithful witness in heaven" (Psal. lxxxviii, 36). These same promises the truth-telling Lord renewed once more through the prophet Isaiah: "And there shall come forth," he says, "a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall ascend from his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and piety, and the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him" (Isa. xi, 1, seqq.), and the rest which follow in the same sense. Likewise: "It shall be the root of Jesse, who stands for an ensign of the peoples: to him the nations shall pray, ^D and his sepulchre shall be glorious" (Isa. xi, 10). Likewise in another place: "And I will strike a everlasting covenant with you, the sure mercies of David" (Isa. lv, 3). For what I have promised him, I will fulfill; and through his seed I will save the circle of the earth; for faithful and true is my promise.

The evangelist Matthew also, indicating the truth of these promises, in the very beginning of his history announces to the earth that the expectation of the nations had flourished. For he says: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matth. i, 1). For to both seeds were the promises made.

And moreover, the blessed Apostle, writing to the Romans, indicated in the very beginning of the Epistle the faith of the promise which was made to David. For he says: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart unto the Gospel of God, which he had promised before by his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. i, 1 seqq.). Furthermore, by the fact that he added "according to the flesh," he clearly indicates that our Lord Jesus Christ was God before the ages. He pronounced him the Son of David by reason of his human nature. To teach this more clearly, he subjoined: "Who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead" (Rom. i, 4). For after he rose from the dead, he says, and the grace of the Spirit filled the apostles, God made him known through the miracles performed by them; since indeed they performed the greatest miracles in his name. Moreover, in the middle of the Epistle, having made mention of the good things which he once bestowed upon the Jews, he subjoined: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God" (Rom. ix, 5), and at the same time in one person he shows the difference of the two natures, when he says that he proceeded from the Jews according to the flesh, and is God over all, as God and blessed unto the ages. Furthermore, he exhorts the blessed Timothy with these words: "Be mindful that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead from the seed of David, according to my Gospel, in which I labor even unto chains, as an evildoer" (II Tim. ii, 8).

Otherwise very many testimonies can be found in both Testaments by which the carnal kinship of our Savior is confirmed. But these, in my judgment, suffice, because they teach that human nature, perfect and absolute, was assumed by him. For which cause also he is called Son of David, Son of Abraham, Son of Man, Man, Adam, Jacob, and Israel. For just as he was perfect God, so he was also perfect man, conferring perfect salvation upon men.

CAP. V.

The fifth heresy, that of Ptolemy: those who flee from this to the orthodox are baptized. [Irenaeus makes mention of Ptolemy and Heracleon in book I and IX. Athanasius calls Ptolemy a Valentinian in book I against the Arians, ch. 5.]

This man follows the impure Gnostics. Regarding the aeons, or ages, he thinks the same as Valentinus. He adds moreover that the God whom he calls Bythos has two consorts. Ennoea or thought, and Thelema or will; for he says he first thought, then willed. The same man also, writing to a certain matron named Flora, inveighs blasphemously against that law which God gave through Moses; and that only the Decalogue was given by God: of the rest...

of the scriptures he contends that some belong to Moses himself, and others to the elders of the people.

**Refutation of the preceding heresy.**

Because the Gnostics labored under every kind of ignorance of what is honorable, for that reason they even invoked evil demons in their traditions and actions. And so this Ptolemy, subscribing to their profane dogmas, was indeed impure because he followed blind guides, but still more impure because with a perverse mind he invented the *Ennoea* and *Thelema*, or thought and will, and also a god called *Bythos*; and so many fables, worthy to be submerged in the deep abyss of the infernal *Bubo*, whose narration is wont to bring weariness to healthy ears.

The same man, undoubtedly driven by black bile and lacking mental control, and with a glib and unbridled tongue, attacking the Mosaic law, asserts that of its statutes some are the sayings of God, others of Moses, and finally others of the elders of the people. ^B I do not know what induced him to babble these things, especially after so many thousands of years have passed since the birth of Moses and the law given by him—would that he had never been born!—unless perhaps he seems to have learned trifles of this kind from that *Ennoea* and *Thelesis*, which he imagines were married to his god *Bythos*, becoming completely oblivious to the fact that God himself spoke those things with the mouth of Moses, and that whatever was handed down by Moses was written in books. This can be easily gathered from that curse which hangs over the necks of those who despise the law. For he says: *Cursed is he who does not remain in the words of this law* ^C : by which words he understands the entire law.

Furthermore, that the entire law was given divinely is evident not only from many other places in Sacred Scripture, but also from these words which were divinely spoken to David: *If thy children shall keep my testament, and my testimonies which I shall teach them: and their children also for ever shall sit upon thy throne*. Also: *If his children shall forsake my law, and shall not walk in my judgments; if they shall profane my justifications, and not keep my commandments, I will visit their iniquities with the rod, and their sins with stripes. But my mercy I will not take away from them, nor will I deal unjustly in my truth; nor will I profane my testament, and the things that proceed from my lips I will not make void*. For by *testament*, *justifications*, and *testimonies*, he understands the entire law, which God indeed vindicates for himself as his own tradition.

**Appendix of Theodore Scutariota.**

It would have been better to rely on these reasons: *If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe if anyone rises from the dead*. Also: *They have Moses and the prophets*, etc. Item: *If anyone shall break one of the least commandments*, etc. Item in the law: *Cursed is he who does not remain in the words of this law, nor does them in deed, and the rest similar to these*.

But those things which were said to David can be referred to the New Testament: *For I will teach you*, says David, a second after Moses, and after David the evangelical legislation.

CAP. VI.

This man, instructed in magical arts and doing I know not what wonders by his tricks, deceived many of the simpler folk, but especially those matrons who walked adorned in expensive and purple robes, corrupting their souls and bodies. For he, as Irenæus is the author, used to prepare certain white-colored glass cups; then, using some charm or other, he would immediately change one of them into purple, and another into blue. The same man, with Valentinus, fabricated many *aeons*, which he said were similar to the twenty-four letters of the Greeks. And he called some mute, others semi-vocal, and others finally vocal. Indeed, instituting a certain prolix fable, he called it, as the same Irenæus says, *Sige* or Silence, a name, indeed, which would by no means suit the fable and its argument; and moreover other things, which I have considered superfluous to write. He added that the *aeons* had proceeded from a *tetrad* or quaternity. In the quaternity, he claimed, Man, the Church, the Word, and Life were contained. Furthermore, the virtues which had emanated from them, he said were generated from that Jesus who had appeared on earth. And that the angel Gabriel had fulfilled the role of the Word, the Holy Spirit that of Life, the virtue of the Son that of Man, and finally the Virgin that of the Church. And that thus he was born through Mary, he who by divine disposition was made man.

But as often as they baptize those whom they have misled, they are accustomed to use these words: "In the name of the unknown Father of all, and of Truth the Mother of all, and of him who descended into Jesus, unto the conjunction, and redemption, and communion of virtues." And to strike even greater wonder into him who is being baptized, they superadd these Hebrew names: *Chamosi baeannora: mystadia, rhuda, custaba: phogor: calathi*. The interpretation of which is this: "O thou who art above every virtue of the Father, we invoke thee, who art called Light, and good Spirit, and Life: for thou hast reigned in the body."

He who is initiated in this manner answers to these things: "I am confirmed, I am redeemed, in the name of Iao, who has liberated my soul from this world." Then they anoint him with opobalsam, and pronounce that he has become perfect.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

The marvelous Marcus used his jugglery and incantations to bewitch the sharp eyes of those present, and would bring it about that the things being looked at seemed to behave in a way contrary to their own nature. For he could not have changed the light-transmitting bodies of glass vessels into different colors—so that those he held out to those approaching as white would soon change into purple or blue—and by this means deceive many of the simpler folk, above all the little women, who, occupied around the spinning wheel, delight in fables and trifles. Nor is he any less trifling in his claim that there are ^A aeons, which correspond in number to the twenty-four letters. For although we hear of “aeons of aeons,” yet the true opinion, which teaches that divine things are immutable, assigns to them a single aeon.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

We know that this quaternity was a Pythagorean dogma. But as for the Powers, if we grant that they are angelic, we shall say that they were produced by Jesus, but were not the causes of his generation. Furthermore, those beings also, having discovered this, would cry out: “What have we to do with thee, Jesus, Son of God? Art thou come hither before the time to torment us?” For they, having been puffed up by the sin of pride, turned themselves toward that which is worse, and falling from their former dignity, were consigned and subjected to punishment, which is called *basanos*, that is, torment. For what, I ask, was the pride of him who holds the primacy among them? “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will be like the Most High, and I will seize the orbit of the earth as a nest, and I will take it away like abandoned eggs.” These indeed are his words; but what does Christ say? “Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions and upon all the power of the enemy.” Therefore, they are contrary to Christian doctrine, and on that account, along with the other dogmas of Marcus, they must be rejected, as well as whatever his priests whisper while bewitching those whom they wash in the laver of baptism. For Christ taught the apostles that baptism must be conferred in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: but these people invoke the name of an unknown father. Indeed, who he is I do not know, although from what follows it can be conjectured that he is a stranger to us who confess the name of Christ.

CAP. VII. The seventh heresy, of the Ascodrugites or Ascodrupites.

These contended that divine mysteries, or sacraments, which are symbols of things that are not seen, ought not to be related or commemorated by things falling under the aspect of the senses nor by corporeal things. They said that perfect redemption consists in one’s having true knowledge of that which exists. For all things that are visible are subject to ignorance and passion, and are dissolved through generation. Therefore, the purification must be spiritual. Accordingly, they do not baptize those who come to them, nor is there any place for the mystery of baptism among them at all. For they call their redemption [the act of] knowledge.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

The Ascodrugites also, having spoken vain and false things, have shut themselves off entirely from the walls of that mercy which is the constant companion of men. For the greater part of divine things, and things that do not fall under our sight, have, by God’s command, obtained a corporeal state displayed to the eyes of all. For He says: “See, that you do all things according to the pattern shown to you in the mount.” Here He speaks of the tabernacle, and of the other things that were placed in it by Bezalel. Now the tabernacle contained ten curtains, each one of which [measured] twenty-eight cubits in length and four in width.

It was stretched out, and the whole was crafted of twisted fine linen, hyacinth, purple, and scarlet twisted together. ^A Moreover, the columns of the tabernacle were of incorruptible wood, twenty in number, encrusted on the outside with gold. Furthermore, the veil of the tabernacle was constructed of hyacinth, purple, scarlet, and fine linen. The Ark was situated within the veil, and in the upper part behind the veil, the Mercy Seat was to be seen, upon which two Cherubim, fashioned in gold, sat facing one another and looking toward each other. The veil itself divided the Holy of Holies in the middle, and so covered the Ark of the Testimony that it could not be seen. The table, however, stood outside the veil, toward the north, and opposite it, toward the south, lay the lampstand.

^B Furthermore, the priestly stole consisted of a breastplate, an ephod, and a tunic reaching to the feet, made of twisted fine linen. And the texture of the ephod was of gold, hyacinth, and purple, and there were two stones on the shoulders of the ephod, upon which the names of the sons of Israel were inscribed. The Urim and Thummim, moreover, was a double square, of a length and breadth of a span, variegated with four rows of precious stones. In the breastplate there was the declaration and the truth. Such a tunic was entirely woven of hyacinth, and around its hem hung purple, hyacinth, and scarlet pomegranates, interspersed with golden bells. A gold plate, which was the sanctification to the Lord, was attached to the mitre. Furthermore, the mitre was a type of crown which girded the priest’s forehead. The turban (a garment for the head) was also of fine linen, and there was a sash of variegated work. And the breastplate was attached to the ephod, the plate to the mitre, and thus the mitre was placed upon the priest's head.

There was, moreover, the altar of incense, or of perfume, of incorruptible four-sided timber, gilded; it was distinguished by golden horns, and upon it was burned composite incense, fine, ^C and it was constantly moved. The composite incense was made of a drop of myrrh, onycha, fragrant galbanum, and pellucid frankincense.

God gave to Moses, after He ceased speaking with him on Mount Sinai, two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God. God further commands that a sacrifice be made, according to the proportion of one's means, whether a calf, or a lamb, or a goat; but that for the poor an offering of a turtledove or two young pigeons should be made, or for those even poorer, a little fine flour mixed with oil. Of the sacrifices, moreover, some were entirely burned, [while] of others only small parts were burned, [namely] the fat, the kidneys, the suet above, and the lower part of the liver. The one who offers the animal is called, in sacred Scripture, a man; but he who offers fine flour is called a soul. He forbids any honey or leaven to be placed upon the altar. And if the high priest should have transgressed any commandment, he was ordered to make [the sacrifice] with an immaculate calf; if a prince, with a male kid; if any ^D other of the people, with a goat. If by chance he were poor, [he offered] a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons; if he were very poor, he offered fine flour without oil and incense. Furthermore, with blood and oil he anointed the ear, the right hand, and the foot of the priest.

Now, if the type which was shown beforehand to Moses on the mountain, the tabernacle and what was contained therein, actually existed, and the type was, as it were, a copy and image of the prototype, or of the exemplary form: how much more should baptism be performed, which has been divinely proposed to us for the remission and washing away of sins? And immediately after baptism, [there is] the unbloody sacrifice, and the reception of it? For, indeed, that institution, which the Savior proposed to us through bread and wine for the salvation and reformation of human corruption, was not of a sort that lacked a body, or that could be perceived by the intellect alone, but one that also fell under the senses. For since, as Job affirms, we are formed of clay, and clay is composed of earth and water, and by the name of formation, food also—by which the wasting and weakening of our strength is repaired and reformed—is signified in another way: for this reason, just as at the time when God formed us, He took earth and water, so too bread and wine are assumed for our reformation.

Therefore, since Christ openly says that no one will enter the kingdom of heaven unless he has been reborn of water and the Spirit, whoever contends that baptism is not to be conferred acts in shameless opposition to the law and suffers from extreme dementia; for by this sign, without controversy, those who give their names to Christ are especially recognized. For in previous generations He imposed different laws upon different people: to Adam, indeed, the law of the tree; to Noah, the law regarding the eating of flesh; to Abraham He gave circumcision; and finally, He commanded the general law through the work of the prophet Moses. And in the sacred Gospels, He did not propose a law concerning matters of small moment, which might be in the place of elementary principles, but [taught] that more perfect things were to be meditated upon. And just as mothers bring the breast to newborn infants, and not so long after offer them food softened by teeth, and when they have grown, offer them more solid food: so also, when God, the Lord of all, had introduced the law to us in the place of a schoolmaster, He finally proposed more perfect things. Meanwhile, however, we embrace the Old Testament just as a mother's breast, even if we abstain from its milk, and take no care to observe circumcision, the Sabbath, sacrifices, and sprinklings.

Moreover, we reap another fruit from the Old Testament; for it teaches piety, faith in God, love of neighbor, temperance, justice, and fortitude exactly, and sets before us the examples of the ancient saints to be imitated. Verumennivero

divine baptism suffices in place of those sprinklings, which not only freely remits old sins, but also proposes the hope of promised goods; it makes us partakers of the death and resurrection of the Lord, makes us partakers of the gifts of the Holy Spirit; it demonstrates that we are children of God, and not only children, but also heirs of God and co-heirs of Christ. For it is an earnest of future goods, a type and figure of the future resurrection, a communion of the Lord’s passions, a participation in Christ’s resurrection, a garment of salvation, a tunic of joy, and a splendid stole—nay, splendor itself. For as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For if we have been grafted into the likeness of his death, we shall certainly be so also in his resurrection 42.

These, then, are what the Apostle intended for us to understand regarding divine baptism; but the heretics, those Ascodrupitae of whom we speak, and whoever follows in their footsteps and rejects divine baptism, let them go to ruin, because they say that all things which fall under sight are subject to ignorance and affections. For what place for ignorance and affections is there with God, who is nothing other than a simple nature, subject to no affections, and who reveals knowledge to man?

CAP. VIII. The Eighth Heresy, the Colobarsians.

^B This Colobarsus fabricated a certain Ogdoad, or octonary number, and said it consisted of the Progenitor, Ennoea—that is, Thought—Father, Truth, Man, Church, Word, and Life. For when he progressed a little further, he calls the Son of Man the Progenitor of all things, whom no one can grasp by thought, and for that reason asserts that Christ in the Gospels calls himself the Son of Man; nor meanwhile can he conjecture that God the Word was the Creator of men, but was not a man, who ultimately, with humanity commingled with divinity, is called one and the same Son of the Highest and Son of Man, by reason of one hypostasis, which is so perfect out of two natures that it is composite, because after the combination it is compounded into one hypostasis—into one, I say, Christ—the natures remain safe, no less than their natural properties, so that whoever proclaims Christ clearly signifies the union of two natures. And we say that God suffered in the flesh, and the flesh suffered in its own nature of the Word, and finally that the Lord of glory was crucified because of the highest union of natures. And this is that Theandric energy, that is, the operation of God and man. For after God became man, his human operation was divine, or deified, nor was it devoid of his divine operation; and conversely, the divine operation was not abhorrent of the human operation, but each shone forth with the other without confusion.

Therefore, whatever had been thought out by the Progenitor before all things, as a profitable thing to do, Colobarsus asserted was called Father. ^C Furthermore, he designated other things by the names of Truth and Man. When he set others forth in the midst, he had considered the Church to be an anticipation, and that the Word had proceeded from the Church, who indeed is the first-begotten Son of God, whom Life would follow. And in this way he completed his Ogdoad. Moreover, the listeners and disciples of Colobarsus dared to attribute the name of Man also to the Progenitor of All and to the Pro-annennoetos, that is, to him who is to be conceived by the mind before all things. For which reason they contended that Christ in the Gospels called himself the Son of Man.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

Colobarsus, reshaping some very impure opinions of Ptolemy, Marcus, and Valentinus, and producing their Tetrad or Quaternity into an Ogdoad or octonary number, built for himself and the men of his faction a ladder of perdition, since the things he blathered stand in no order at all, nay, are contradictory to themselves: as they could detect who are ^D occupied with the reading of his traditions.

CAP. IX. The Ninth Heresy, the Ophites. They are baptized.

The Ophites are named from the serpent, which they worship. They say that from an Aeon, or higher age, other ages proceeded, the weakest of which is Jaldabaoth, from the superior mother Pronice. This one, furthermore, descended to the lowest places, and there begat seven sons, who built seven heavens for themselves. Jaldabaoth then, whom they also call the God of the Hebrews, enclosed himself above, so that the seven sons might not know the things which are above them. They soon fashioned a man for their father Jaldabaoth, but the man was a reptile like a worm. Moreover, when Pronice, the mother of Jaldabaoth, pursued the son with hatred because he had, out of pride, enclosed himself above, she endowed man with a spark of divine virtue, that is, soul. And so, the man, having been raised onto his feet, penetrated the heavens by thought, and began to celebrate the celestial Jaldabaoth his father with praises. By which thing Jaldabaoth, being offended, looked down to the sediment of matter and begat his son in a serpentine Idea, by whom Eve was deceived. Hence they teach that the serpent is God, and that he was the principle of knowledge to men themselves, for which reason the serpent is called the most prudent of all, on account of those multiple, winding, and convoluted folds of our intestines, with which our bodies are packed. Moreover, they also nourish a serpent, and at the time of their mysteries, with loaves placed upon a table and the chest opened, they invite it to feed. It [crawls] around

the loaves, which they break as if they were sanctified and distribute to the people; and this they deem a perfect sacrifice. Then, moreover, with I know not what incantations and jugglery, they all kiss the mouth of the serpent, which has been coaxed ^A or fixed in place, and adoring it, they celebrate the heavenly Father with a hymn. Furthermore, some of them say that Christ, when He transformed Himself into a serpent, entered the womb of the Virgin; and in that sense those wretches understand this apostolic saying: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery that He should be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.

Refutation of the preceding heresy

Serpents, which are truly the progeny of vipers, have sprouted up after the fashion of the Ophites; for they, as if mad, adore that which is most detestable of all living creatures, and which is wont by divine command to crawl upon its breast and belly, and they call the God of the Hebrews Jaldabaoth (a name unknown to the sacred scriptures), whom they impiously fable to have been born in ancient ages from the mother Pronice. Then, they say, she gave birth to seven sons, who themselves constructed as many heavens, and finally brought forth man in the image of their father Jaldabaoth. And not content with these skirmishes, they assert that man also was a reptile, in the manner of a worm; and all the other things which we have set down in the previous discourse. Against which these things can be brought forward by us: That, forsooth, the Holy Scripture hands down one God, the creator of this universe, and that He is therefore lacking a beginning, unbegotten, and that He, together with the Only-Begotten Word and the Holy Spirit, produced the ages, and for that reason is glorified with them. But Pronice, together with her seven sons, we relegate to the crows as mere nonsense; just as also the statement that man was first produced as a worm, and then received a soul from Pronice, whom they claim to be the mother of Jaldabaoth. For He who is above all, constructed and established by His own hand, in no way took the form of a serpent, but such as we have, who are partakers of His form and nature; and when he had received from Him the living spirit, which we call the soul endowed with intellect and reason, dominion over earthly things was given to him. But as soon as through the envy ^B of the devil and the deceit of the woman he touched the forbidden fruit, he was cast out of paradise.

Moreover, we know that *skolex*, or worm, is a small animal which for the most part is born from rotting wood, but mostly from mire. For although the Lord says through the prophet: Fear not, thou worm Jacob, yet the Seer did not use that prophecy as if Adam had been endowed with such a form from the beginning or afterwards, but rather indeed to signify the humility and abjection of the Word. We know that the serpent, no less than the worm, is born from the earth, and in quality is similar to other animals which God willed to be born from the earth, and into which He implanted the power of propagating seed. But we say it is not called "prudent" because it is endowed with human figure and mind, like a man, but because it tries to supplant us, mindful of the evils which it suffered when it was ordered to crawl upon its breast and belly, and with the winding coils of its body, as if with a brazen wall, it preserves its head unharmed, which not rarely it thrusts forth from there, and as much as it is able to contend by its habit, it ejects poison against man. Besides, at certain periods of the years, by the friction of holes, it easily casts off its skin. If anyone understands, through the age and ages, the continuous movement of those things that are, which neither night nor day measures, we shall fully subscribe to him. Just as also whoever designateth the zones, for the situation of which the wandering stars are arranged in order below the fixed ones, by the improper name of heavens, or even the circle of the zodiac, around which in its own course the sun is carried. But if the heretics prattle anything else, and consider the ages to be prior and more ancient than those things which are, we think they, together with their ages, are to be exploded. For we have learned that all visible and invisible things were created by the Creator of all things, God, and by the Only-Begotten Word, and the most holy Spirit; for by the word of the Lord, as that psalm-loving David is the author, the heavens were established, and by the breath of His mouth all their power. Before him, however, Moses himself, the most excellent of the prophets, teaches us that the heaven, the earth, and the other elements were made by Him, who produced light into the nature of things, who adorned heaven with stars, the earth with forests, meadows, and crops, who produced various kinds of living creatures, who exposed the air to be inhabited by birds, the water by fishes, and the earth by beasts and wild animals; who finally fashioned human nature. To these Isaiah assents in these words: Who made the heaven and established it, who gave breath to the people inhabiting the earth, and spirit to those walking in it. Item: Who set the heaven as an arch, and stretched it out as a tent. Moreover, God Himself through the same prophet thus says: I alone stretched out the heaven. Jeremiah also cries out in this manner: He who sends the light and it goes, He called it, and it obeyed Him with fear. Melchizedek himself also, who preceded the times of the law, is said to have used these words blessing Abraham: Blessed be Abraham to the most high God, who created heaven and earth. ^D And Abraham himself, when he sent his servant to the nuptials of Rebecca: Put, he said, your hand under my thigh, that I may adjure you by the Lord God of heaven and earth. In addition, that Job, exercised in so many kinds of struggles, says: Who alone stretches out the heavens, and walks upon the waves of the sea [as upon a pavement].

But that the Old Testament agrees with the New, and speaks the same things with it, and that the streams of both flow indeed from the same source, becomes evident; let us hear John, the son of thunder, who asserts that all things were made by the Word, and that nothing of those things which fall under the senses and those which are perceived by the intellect was produced without Him. For, He says, "Without Him was not anything made that was made" [John 1:3]. Let us also hear Paul exclaiming: "In Him were all things created, whether they be visible or invisible" [Coloss. 1:16]. The same writes elsewhere: "By Him the Father made the ages" [Hebr. 1:2]. The same, when he was making a speech on the Areopagus, spoke in this manner: "God, who made the world and all things that are therein, He Himself gave to all life and breath and all things: and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" [Acts 17:24ff]. Likewise: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God" [Hebr. 11:3]. ^A And these things, indeed, regarding the heavens and the ages. But if anyone should bring into the discussion a third heaven of Paul, let him know that only one is properly called heaven by the Holy Scripture, and the other two are designated by the name of heaven improperly. One, indeed, which was made on the second day, was properly called the firmament, but abusively the heaven: for he says, "God called the firmament heaven" [Gen. 1:8]. Since this is different from that which was created on the first day, and it obtained that name either because it is compacted of waters, and therefore called firmament, or for the distinction of bodies which are contiguous above and below; which, since they are thin and transparent, and this one is thick and corporeal, it is called *strōma* or firmament: for *strepton* is customarily called a body by geometers, because it is divided into three parts, and neither yields to touch nor obeys. But just as this firmament, which fulfills the role of the first heaven, has obtained the name of heaven, so also the element next to it, the air, because it is contiguous to us, and we gaze upon it when we first look up, is by a greater abuse called heaven. For the Scripture says, "The heaven which is above you shall be iron" [Deut. 28:23]. And David, "The fowls of the air" [Ps. 8:6]. Therefore, Paul passed over the air and the firmament, and rested in the first and third heaven itself, by reason of the order of the lower things to the higher.

Also, those who say that knowledge was given to man by the serpent are redolent of extreme impiety. For the Mosaic history introduces Adam imposing names upon the animals, and speaking of Eve in this way: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" [Gen. 2:23]. ^B And when he had made nothing of the Lord's command, by which he was warned to touch all the trees with which Eden luxuriated, and from thence to prepare his sustenance, but to abstain from the one tree of knowledge—and having had the cause of this thing found out, indeed having received it with his ears from the present Lord—he was not unjustly exiled by God’s command, and driven out of the garden of delights. And he became, if I may say so, more prudent after the counsel, and in very deed learned what obedience avails against rebellion. Therefore, the serpent was not the giver of knowledge, but the tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But if anything be endowed with the knowledge of contraries, it is not immediately worthy to be counted among the contraries. For by the same reasoning we shall judge that the law is to be despised, which discerns contraries and weighs both in turn. Nay, rather it behooved Adam, having observed the precept, to ascend toward God by certain steps, as it were, and to contemplate the power of the tree of knowledge from a kind of watchtower, and then at last to offer himself to its perception, when it should be permitted by God, and the perception itself would have been devoid of harm, nor would he have inclined to the worse part. ^C On the contrary, however, when he had transgressed the precepts in the eyes of all, and had not auspiciously tasted the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he turned himself entirely prone to contraries; and not only was he excluded from the tree of life, but he was justly cut off from that conversation and state of which he had previously been held worthy. Let someone even say that Adam had addicted himself to speculations higher than was fitting, and such as exceeded the capacity of his own intellect, because, forsooth, they were endowed with the knowledge of good and evil. This was the cause that he was cast out by God. For the contemplations of such as these are full of many precipices, and turn many aside from the true sentiment concerning God, as if by a cramped neck, as, for example, the Ophites, of whom we now treat, and many of the ancient philosophers. Democritus asserted that water is the first and supreme principle. Anaximenes asserted that air is the first and supreme principle. Anaxagoras attributed it to the equalities of particular ideas, which the Greeks call *homoiomereias*. Another ascribed the administration of this universe to the heaven. Finally, others, when they applied their minds in one way or another to the various knowledge of the things which God created—as if to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—ensnared themselves in deadly death, so far were they from being partakers of the tree of life. ^D Furthermore, Adam does not see God without an intermediary, nor does he behold Him standing, but only hears Him walking in the paradise, that we may make words on these things too, although they are alien to the instituted argument. For God indeed stands by those who stand, and who avoid falling from the action of what is honest. But from those who are inconstant, and who follow a path oblique from those things which are better, God also is removed, and betakes Himself elsewhere; and for that cause, God offers Himself to be seen by Adam in the evening, I think, and not in the morning, as before, because, forsooth, he was no longer capable, for whom the Orient of divine splendor might shine, inasmuch as his organs of sense had become dull after the transgression. For before, he held converse with God not with an interval, nor in such a way that He was now present, now absent: but in the morning and at midday, that is to say,

^A with prudence and consideration, and in the end mystically he conversed and spoke with his Creator. But after he excluded from himself the radiance of divine light, then he heard, as the Scripture reports, the voice of the Lord walking in the garden in the evening, and he hid himself, because he was naked. Besides those things which have already been said, the Ophites also maintain this against the received opinion of the pious: that, supposedly, the Lord Jesus assumed the form of a serpent and thus entered the Virgin’s womb, which was the case that caused the Apostle to exclaim: 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. For what communion is there between God and the serpent that was most detestable of all living creatures, who had deceived Adam? But the Word of God, since He was in the form, or substance, of God, and His essence was not acquired through robbery, but rather [He was] nature, and indeed of such a kind that it can by no means be lost, was equal to God; He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, that is, human nature, just as he also shows in the following when he says, Being made in the likeness of men. Wherefore, since the Ophites bring forward Paul to confirm that the Lord entered the Virgin having assumed the form of a serpent, they are clearly refuted by Paul himself, who spoke in ventriloquist fashion, or rather, their mouths are stopped as being mere babblers. Furthermore, how can it be that the Lord accepted the form of the serpent, whom He had come to remove from the midst, as an emissary of the demon, who had deceived Adam—that is, the work of His own hands? For what anyone judges to be desirable, that he also pursues with great diligence, but what brings harm, he knows to be contrary to himself, he rejects it, nor does he join it to himself by any affinity whatsoever.

CAP. X.

The tenth heresy, of Prodicus and the Adamites.

When Prodicus had thoroughly examined the Platonic discipline, he was the author of the heresy of those who are called Adamites, and he added the public license of libidinous itch to the dogmas of Carpocrates. For he decreed that women were to be common, for the sake of which thing not only in public banquets, with the lamps immediately extinguished, anyone would lie with whomever he happened upon, but he also held such filthiness in the place of a mystical sacrifice. And I shall cite as a witness of this matter Clement, who wrote the ^D *Stromata*, a holy man, and one who surpassed all others in the knowledge of many things, in the third book of whose *Stromata* these things are read: "There are, moreover, some who deem a public and exposed Venus worthy of the name of mystical communion, being no doubt injurious to a sacred matter by the name alone." Then against that sudden, or swinish, filthiness on some things having been prefaced, he adds this: "For wretched men are inflamed by carnal and venereal intercourse with sacred things, and they think that through it a path open to the royal court of God will be made for them. Certainly such a communion opens a window to pursuing the brothel, and they would gladly be ascribed to the list of their society and of the goat. But let the chief and greatest hope in them be placed in those harlots who stand in the brothel and without distinction impudently admit whoever wishes to approach." Other things being added to the same opinion, he infers: "These and those of this kind are the dogmas of the Pronicenses, who falsely named themselves Gnostics."

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

If Plato spoke in the Platonic manner, and did not hide a philosophical sense behind the pretext of the bark of legislation, Plato doubtlessly worked things unworthy of himself when he sanctioned in his laws that marriages should be common. For I omit Prodicus, and those who, listeners to Plato, have been inflated like flies upon sores with the opinions of their master, which are dissenting and dissimilar to themselves. For whoever is the author of community of women, he introduces nothing other than the confusion of all nations, and indeed of the whole human race. For how can it be, that from such couplings any father might be recognized, and the rest [of the offspring] demonstrated to be blood relatives? But certainly God created nothing in confusion, but as soon as He had apportioned matter into the four elements, out of them He fabricated this world which we see. But he, while he permits to us a common Venus by law, and mandates that one should not adhere to a wife with choice, both denies us our own fathers and establishes a genus that is ambiguous and promiscuous: so that it can scarcely be known to anyone whether this man was born a Greek, or whether that one had his origin from the barbarian Amaxobii and Hippemolgi. But, I ask, allow me to enjoy the name of father, just as you to this very day are called the son of Aristo, and are not without reason so named. And certainly those living creatures in whom reason is implanted are not accustomed to commit their seed to any women whatsoever, but in these too there is a certain power by which they reject and avoid love. Not so Draco, not so Solon did your citizens sanction their laws, but they distinguished between beds, they inflicted penalties upon those who ravished virgins, and punished them with extreme punishment whoever brought force upon the marriage chambers of others, and finally arranged all things well and rightly. But you, who are held to be truly most wise, and everywhere most celebrated, what, I ask, did you intend when you dared to promulgate such things? Or from where, from what tripod, from the corollaries or syllogistic reasonings of which philosophers, if I may say so, were you brought to inscribe these things on tablets, which not even your own [followers] approved? Whoever set themselves up as surveyors and were so noble, the penalties from them

that they incurred, who dared to lay greedy hands on what belonged to others, as I conjecture from Ixion, even though he embraced a cloud in place of Juno; and from Mars, whom Vulcan had constrained with chains which could neither be broken nor undone, and had exposed him, lifted up for the common mockery of many, even though he might surpass them in the magnitude of his strength. But because time, the benefactor, has forsaken the city itself, well-walled though it was, and has permitted such laws to be consigned only to writing, we also shall make an end of speaking, lest perhaps we restore strength to them, and in some way become authors of a second life, which time desired to be void and dead.

CAP. XI. The Eleventh Heresy: The Cainites

^B The Cainites, approaching our spotless faith, are baptized, but impiously declare that this universe is sustained by two powers, of which one is weaker, the other more powerful. And they say that Adam and Eve were born of these. But they claim that these same powers later attached themselves to Eve. And indeed, they say that Cain, Esau, and the Korahites proceeded from the seed of the more powerful power, but Abel from that of the weaker. They also carry themselves with pride, in that they claim to be descended from their ancestors—Cain, the Sodomites, Esau, and indeed even from the traitor Judas. Consequently, they produce a certain little book which they ascribe to the author Judas. Furthermore, having devised names of angels and powers, they say that they are ephoros—that is, the presidents or prefects of the appetites of those who are bereft of reason. From which it happens that, when they commit execrable and unspeakable sins, they shout to any one of them: "O you angel, I am abusing your work, I am performing your duty." Indeed, they also devise another little book, teeming with every obscenity, in the name of the apostle Paul, which they call the *Anabatikon*, that is, *The Ascension of Paul*. Taking an opportunity from the fact that they claim the Apostle ascended as high as the third heaven and there heard words that should not be repeated, which it is not lawful for a man to speak—by these words, which are not to be repeated, they understand their own impious shameful acts.

Refutation of the Preceding Heresy

Let someone, however, contend against this heresy, saying: "I have heard unheard-of things, and it has fallen to my lot to run through them, which are truly worthy of oblivion and darkness." For since the Cainites preach two principles upon which the universe consists—one of which is weaker and the other stronger—they say that our first parents proceeded from those two powers. Then, indeed, they say that both attached themselves to Eve, and that from the weaker power Abel was born, and all the others who followed him and embraced the worship of God; but from the other, which is said by them to be more powerful, Cain, Korah, and Abiram proceeded, and even the Sodomites: and whoever followed them, flowing in luxury, living softly and delicately [those who have] lived. These things, and those of a similar nature, which easily strike the minds of men with shame, nonetheless please them, and they apply their soul to every kind of wickedness. In truth, their glory consists in their disgrace: they who not only attribute bodily sexual unions to those orders lacking substance, and hold that two principles contrary to each other exist—which indeed mutually destroy each other, as they cannot endure one another and are diametrically opposed—but, addicted to even baser men, these miserable wretches do not even consider for themselves in any way the punishments that await them, nor do they fear them even in the slightest. ^C Indeed, Cain paid the well-deserved penalties for fratricide, while he groaned and trembled, and labored throughout the whole course of his miserable life with the falling sickness. Korah and Abiram, however, were condemned by the opening of the earth, and by their descent to the underworld with their entire family. Furthermore, the Sodomites perished by fire sent down from heaven upon the Pentapolis, which indeed those who itch with male lust are still schooled today by the perception of ash-covered fruits, and by the dryness of the earth, and by an uninhabitable soil. Judas, finally, hanging himself of his own accord—without having received any reward—abruptly ended his life with a noose. But how fittingly do they also invent demons as the prefects of their own lust and intemperance? But what fellowship has light with darkness ⁶²? What does Judas have in common with Paul? So that the Gospel of that man might be brought forward, who did not even perceive with his ears that the Lord had risen from the dead, and that the nations had been taught the Christian faith, who hanged himself at the same time he betrayed the Lord: so that he preferred to perish rather than repent of his crime; while this man’s fabricated booklet is fashioned filled with every kind of obscenity, although it does say: Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord ⁶³. Item: I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway ⁶⁴. Item: In the Epistle to the Corinthians, concerning him who had defiled himself with his stepmother, he writes in this manner: For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus ⁶⁵. And a little later: Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God ⁶⁶. But those words not to be repeated, which Paul heard with his ears, which it is a sin to speak to anyone, or which do not edify the faith, on account of their novelty and the weakness of human nature, whereby it happens,

that human beings might not easily grasp such teachings, which by their divinity surpass all others. To this, I believe, that evangelical assertion also refers: *I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.* Likewise: *And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.* Or perhaps it is because the life which is in accordance with Christ, and therefore the kingdom of heaven, remains in some way hidden and does not fall entirely under our view. In this sense, not only are its goods not accessible to human reasoning, but its mysteries cannot even be taught or grasped. As for that saying, *He heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter*, I have understood it this way: Having been caught up, Paul did not perceive those things through the explanation of any tongue, but they were silently impressed upon that part of the soul which is participant in reason. For God by no means speaks with a voice nor suggests secret things, but plants them in the minds of those whom He deems worthy of His conversation. Whatever mysteries, therefore, he was initiated into without the ministry of the tongue, those he also wished not to explain by means of a tongue.

[h CAP. XII. ] The twelfth heresy, that of the Sethians. They are baptized.

The Sethians maintain that all things have their origin from angels, and in particular the first two men, Cain and Abel. Concerning whom, since the angels were at one time contending among themselves with great contention, Cain killed Abel with the aid of stronger angels. When that higher Power, whom they also call "Mother," learned of this, having received pure seed, she fashioned Seth for the establishment of justice and a choice of offspring. Moreover, in the passage of time, those two races, I mean of Abel and of Cain, were mingled. Furthermore, the angels who had formed Cain and Abel, when they saw that the daughters of these men were beautiful, had relations with them. When that superior Mother saw this, she sent the flood and destroyed both races, with the only surviving race being that which descends from Seth. As for these Sethians, concerning the trifles which they circulate about angels and powers, they agree remarkably with the Cainites.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

The Sethians are so named because they adhere to Seth and magnificently exalt his manner of life, just as the Cainites [are so called] because they proposed to themselves the tenets of Cain above all others and followed them. Furthermore, just as the doctrines of the Cainites are to be detested on account of their foulness, so the company of the orthodox is to be entirely forbidden to the Sethians, since their traditions are not in agreement with the truth, but are indeed entirely alien to the Mosaic discipline. For when Moses had proposed to speak of the constitution of this universe, he said: *In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.* Then, having set forth certain things, he discourses on the generation of Adam and Eve, subjecting their fall and their exile from paradise. But afterwards he says thus: *And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.* A little later he also describes the birth of Abel, not without an enumeration of the arts in which the one and the other exercised themselves. ^A Furthermore, of the virtues that, being entirely devoid of matter, surround God, Moses made no mention, either in Genesis or in Exodus, except once in the Canticle, in these words: *He set the bounds of the people according to the number of his angels.* Moreover, Jesus of Nave at night in the army saw the prince of the Lord’s host, with a drawn sword. ^B Furthermore, in those generations which followed that time, by judges, prophets, and other men celebrated for their justice, angels were seen face to face, who appear to be nothing else but certain simple natures, which in no way or force are dragged into being turned toward worse parts: capable indeed of divine brightness, but entirely immune from our material concretion. These Sethians, however, having no regard for the divine and Mosaic Scriptures, assert that this body of the universe was constituted by angels, by whom Cain and Abel, the first men, were created, with the names of their parents, that is, of Adam and Eve, suppressed. Then they relate that Abel was killed by Cain through the aid of stronger angels. ^C And what is most absurd, they fabricate that Seth was born from a certain divine power—for so they call it—which had conceived seed from the celestial Father. Furthermore, piling up these impious words with more impious deceits, they fearlessly assert that the angels had intercourse with the women who were descended from Cain and Abel; and as far as you may conjecture, having heard these words of Moses: *The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives*, they called the angels "sons of God" without any judgment, in which matter they showed themselves to be perverse interpreters of holy Scripture, and, as I might say, openly repugnant to their own opinions. ^D For they assert that the angels, by whom they wish the whole universe to have been produced, as if they were not lacking in bodies and male members, were badly and impiously captivated by feminine beauty, and that they hunted it not otherwise than we are accustomed to hunt living creatures with a hook. But the matter is not so: rather, Scripture is accustomed to call those "gods" who easily surpass others in virtue and knowledge of God: such as the one described by Moses as belonging to the tribe of Judah, highly celebrated for his love of God, and an exact imitator of the pious morals of Abel: just as the character of his prophecy is so consistent with itself that it cannot be varied. For this reason, he philosophized among men about celestial bodies, and the future correction of the whole worldly machine by the other of the two elements he...

and was once broken into fragments and pounded. He introduces one unknown Beginning, from whom he claims another God proceeded who created all things—and this not rightly, but evil, and according to the nature of a corrupted mind; neither fearing that Light which shines forth during the day, nor the air which we breathe, nor the bread by which we are nourished, nor the water which we use for drink, nor anything else that we and all other living beings enjoy, having no regard for any of these. In these matters, he is caught having spoken less than rightly, and not as is fitting to speak of the creatures, by whom they were produced into the nature of things. He certainly confesses Christ to be the Son of the supreme and good God, who in truth assumed human flesh, suffered, and rose again; yet he contends that when He ascended into heaven, He laid aside His flesh and ascended without a body. In this, he plays a double game, partly with Cerdo and partly with Marcion, and partly agrees with other heretics, receiving their erroneous and detestable dogmas as if by hereditary right. He also innovates another heresy, while asserting that Christ did not gather His flesh for Himself from the four elements, nor from the bloods of the Virgin, but that He dissolved it again into those same things from which it had been composed, which is indeed contrary to the deeds of Christ. For if He had brought flesh from heaven, at the time He sent the Angel Evangelist into the city of Nazareth: for what purpose, I ask, was there need for Him to be formed temporarily in the womb of the Virgin, and depart thence with the thickness of a body?

CAP. XVII. Seventeenth Heresy, the Severians. These also are admitted to baptism.

He is also the author of other heresies, as if to contend that he might surpass the blasphemous in his blasphemies, and he teaches that one should abstain entirely from the use of wine. He does not fear to assert that the devil had intercourse with the earth, and that from this the vine immediately sprang up: so that he affirms the vine to be the evil work of an evil demon; ignoring that all things which God created are good, as His own divine voice bears witness. Drunkenness is indeed an evil, and an abuse of created things; for the sun also is the author of blindness to those who direct their gaze straight toward its sphere, yet for that reason this most brilliant light is not to be shunned. Water bestows life upon things brought to it; the same is also accustomed to suffocate. Fire likewise warms and burns. A sword is useful in many matters; yet it also perpetrates murders. The rest of all things, by which human life consists, fare the same way. Indeed, even the use of those virtues which are called queens is by no means devoid of a middle ground. Therefore, if anyone were to remove things of this kind from human use, moved only by the impulse of contradiction, he would cause nothing to remain of those things without which our life would be unpleasant and bitter. For many, even a crumb of bread has brought death. But it can in no way happen that we lack bread, which as the most solid of all things, strengthens the heart of man, just as wine also, if it be drunk opportunely and moderately, and does not cross that crater of σωφροσύνης, or temperance, or at least does not exceed what is commonly called αυταρκείας, or sufficiency, by which indeed good things [are given] to the body.

He adapts to these Principates and Potentates that creation of things which we believe. And he says there is one good God in the supreme heaven and age. But the devil proceeded from His thigh, and he presides over the order of the powers, whom he also calls Jaldabaoth. This devil, as soon as he was brought into the light, was found to be a serpent, and therefore cast down to the earth. And since he was stung by venereal impulses, he had relations with the earth just as with a woman, and his vine was produced from his seed. Hence he said that one must abstain from wine, because it excited some to frenzy, others to anger. Furthermore, that miserable man fabricated that woman was made by Satan, and that those who had relations with a woman fulfilled the work of Satan. And for that reason he dissuaded people from marriage. Moreover, he contended that that part of man which was superior, and extended down to the navel, was a creature of the power of Christ, but that those things which followed the navel were the work of the evil power. Finally, he defiled the Old Testament, along with the resurrection of the dead.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

From most of the heresiarchs, a state of health that is pleasing comes, and the rational part of the soul is preserved sound and whole. And what is greater than this, Christ compared Himself to a vine and His disciples to the branches; finally, He gave the Father the name of husbandman. Further, on that night in which He was betrayed, taking bread and the cup filled with wine, and blessing both, He handed down the New Testament to us, having changed the bread into His own body and the wine into His blood. And thus, being joined to us by both of these, we who have received our naming from Him, He dwells with us all our days, just as He also promised. And thus the use of wine is found to be useful and life-bearing for us even in these arcane mysteries. But Severianus, who execrates wine and marriage, proves himself unworthy, both of having ever been brought into the light and of taking the cup of the Lord. For Christ blessed both: marriage indeed by His presence, and wine—made from water by a new and unheard-of miracle. But now what commonality is there between light and darkness? And likewise between God and a demon, so that he makes him a sharer in creation? For the former is considered the creator of the universe, but the latter a creature, and indeed one who, because he had not persevered in those things he had received, but rather had risen up with rash attempts against the Creator, was for that reason also cast down headlong from on high, and finally rendered himself the head and author of all wickedness. Therefore, the son of perdition and the author of evils is that

^A Marcion of Sinope, who during those times was a bishop of the Catholic Church. He is said to have been the son of a man most illustrious for his religion and piety; having seduced a certain virgin, he was cast out by his father, and fled, pursued by him. When he arrived in Rome, and had made known his character there, and was not permitted communion, he embraced the heresy of Cerdon, the imposter, with additions. For the latter, introducing two gods, here asserted three: one who is supreme, identical to the unnameable, invisible, and good one, who made nothing in the world; another, however, who is visible and the creator of the world; and a third, finally, who is between these two—invisible, I say, and visible—who is the middle one, namely, the devil. Moreover, he asserted that Christ had proceeded from the invisible and unnameable and good Father, and that the same had descended to the underworld, not, indeed, to save the Jews who had known God, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and those like them, but rather Cain, Korah, Dathan, Abiram, Esau, and anyone else of that sort who might remain, and indeed those nations that had not known God. Hence he also preached that one should fast on the Sabbath, and lied saying that the rest of the Sabbath was instituted by the God of the Jews, and therefore we must fast, so that we may keep His precepts. Furthermore, the same man baptized not once, but repeatedly and often. Sometimes, however, he introduced a fourth God also, namely Hyle, or matter, saying that it was assumed by the maker of the world itself, from which he produced the universality of things: from its purest part, naturally, [he produced] the heavens; from the remaining parts, the four elements; and from the lowest dregs and sediment, Hell and Tartarus. Also, he says, by straining a pure part of the earth, God created paradise, from which a single clod was taken to form Adam, and to him He bestowed a soul from His own substance. From thence, he believes that the conflict of body and soul is fueled, since on one hand the soul strives to draw the body toward the maker of the world, while on the other hand the body, defeated in this struggle, strives to ascribe it to Hyle, or matter, from which it was naturally formed. He also trifled that the serpent was better than the maker of the world, because, forsooth, the former had provided the perception of the tree of knowledge, while the latter had forbidden it and had introduced it. Wherefore those who profess the heresy of Marcion worship the serpent, and keep it in capsules. Marcionites, moreover, professing virginity, allow women also to approach the task of baptizing, and in their mysteries use water alone, and approve only the Gospel of Luke, having cut off the beginning and all those things in which he traverses His conception and incarnation; and beginning the narration therefrom, In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, they also removed many things from the middle and end of this Gospel; and they interwove other adulterated writings. Finally, they admit some of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

Cerdon and his teacher Marcion, setting their faces toward heaven, profess two gods: one indeed who spoke in the Law and the prophets, whom they also say is evil, alongside those who follow the most impure and wicked way of life; the other, however, is good and unknown, whom they also call the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. They teach that the Son of God, although He was considered to have come to earth, did not in truth come; and this [they claim] so that He might invalidate the Mosaic Law given by the evil god. Proceeding further, they invented a third god, the devil, and with him a fourth, Hyle, or matter.

Now, while they may indeed be allowed to babble to themselves, we, however, acknowledge and believe in one God, who produced matter from nothing, and from it fashioned the heaven and the earth, and created all things that are in them; [He] who first gave to the Israelites an excellent and salutary law through Moses, and which stands against every detestable action. Then, indeed, through the embassy of His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, He invited the nations so that they might be converted and know God. But Christ did not come to abolish the Law, as they desire, but to fulfill it. For it is written in the Law: *Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one* [Deut. VI, 4]. Also: *Thou shalt have no other gods before me* [Exod. XX, 3]. Also: *Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, nor shalt thou take the name of the Lord thy God in vain* [Ibid. 7]. And these words indeed ensure that we do not think there are many gods; and we recognize Him alone as the one who is God by nature. Furthermore, God, having conversed with men—that is, with us—as if through the veil of the flesh, brought into the world a more perfect knowledge of God, having taught that the Father is to be known as One who lacks beginning and cause; that the Son, while indeed begotten by the Father in the beginning, yet lacks a beginning, so that He is coeternal with Him; and finally that the Spirit proceeds from Him: [those] who enjoy the same command, the same power, the same honor, and the same essence as the Father, as can be gathered from His own word to the Samaritan woman: *Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain, nor at Jerusalem, will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth* [John IV, 21 seqq.]. And the Father seeks such worshipers. Also that which He said to the disciples after His resurrection: *Going, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit* [Matth. XXVIII, 19]. Item: *The Law indeed says, Tooth for tooth, eye for eye* [Matth. V, 38]. Item: *Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery* [Ibid. 21, 27]. Christus, however: Whoever in-

- ^A -clines toward a brother rashly, shall be liable to judgment [Matth. V, 22]. Item: *He who looks upon a woman to lust after her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart* [Ibid. 28]. Now, the constitution of the Law does not consist at all in exhortations of this kind, but in the keeping and preservation of what is honorable. For the old law detests the end of crimes, and punishes those by whom those things which are less honorable have been committed: but Christ roots out the very first germs of them, and demands penalties in their name. For to have looked upon a woman to lust after her, or to have risen against a brother with angry threats and in a contumelious manner (against which Christ admonishes us to guard with the utmost care), is not at all the end and consummation of actions that the Mosaic Law detests, but a certain appetite and motion, because it gives birth to things which are not at all proper, and leads even to the end.

In both, therefore, these followers of Cerdon and Marcion differ diametrically from the orthodox faith: both because they pronounce the Mosaic Law to be evil, and because they contend that Christ came for the purpose of dissolving it. But as for those who say that Christ did not appear on earth in reality, but by phantasy or simulation, and that He did not truly assume human nature, they themselves prove that they are worthy of being thrust into Chaos and Erebus to suffer punishments. For how is it possible that it be called a phantasy, that He was born of a virgin, that He grew in wisdom, age, and grace, that when He was crucified His side was pierced by a spear, that immediately after the resurrection He showed the scars of the nails and the opening of His side, and that the very disciple who was curious and doubting about these things found beyond a doubt that they were so? All these things are indeed preserved by the prescription of the divine dispensation so that we might believe Him to be the very one who appeared, who had suffered in the flesh three days before, and not a spectrum or spirit which could be discerned by the eyes.

That God is one Father, and one Lord our Savior Christ: that, in short, the Word was made flesh, that son of thunder attests with these words: *And the Word was made flesh* [Joan. I, 14]. But Paul, the doctor of the Gentiles, also attests to this, who in most places of his divine Epistles explains more fully those things which have been written concerning Christ. For he says: *Giving thanks unto the Father who has made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature* [Col. I, 12 seqq.]. And afterwards: *For it pleased the Father that in him all fullness should dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to things on earth, and things in heaven* [Col. I, 19 seqq.]. Item: *But now we are reconciled to God, through the death of his Son* [Rom. V, 10]. Item elsewhere: *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* [Philip. II, 6]. ^A Therefore He came to save the human race, whose form He had assumed, and by that means to render vain the subtle arts of the demon—whom profane men call God, although he fell together with the host of rebellion from angelic brilliance, and exchanged for that glory, by which he once shone as the morning light, the darkness; to whom it was granted for a time, and of no great moment, to bring about his own mockery rather, and the struggle and exercise of the just, than a demonstration of power. For no athlete is crowned by any other law, nor is he presented to the herald for victory, than if he has struck an adversary with his fist, or pierced his vitals with a catapult; or has gripped his throat, and thus displayed the appearance of his strength and dexterity before the judge, or the director of the contest. How, I ask, would piety be known to us, or the constancy of the martyrs for the name of Christ, or the excellent resolve of the other saints, unless the demon had asked for Job, and obtained his request, and had, moreover, instigated tyrants against the martyrs?

Furthermore, we say that Hyle, or matter, is neither without a beginning, nor is it without a beginning with God, nor is it an imagination, which might be a receptacle of forms: although to some outsiders this has seemed and pleased them. For when God contemplated producing the world, that thought was work and action. And form followed Hyle or matter, and at once emerged. Those, however, who hear Moses saying, *And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep* [Gen. I, 2], and from this seize an opportunity to attribute the divine eternity to matter and darkness against the highest Mind, are entirely wandering from the way, as if they were choosing. For after he explains in a few words, *In the beginning God created heaven and earth* [Gen. I, 1], then he explained what things were made, and that they were produced by form, and added in this manner: *And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.* For when the heaven was being moved in a circle, and those great luminaries and stars had not yet obtained their order in the firmament, darkness was deservedly spread about; but as soon as light emerged, and the stars were produced, the darkness was dispersed by the same work, and reduced to nothing: because indeed by themselves, and by their own power, they could not subsist, but light shone everywhere, as one may see, by way of example, in the shadows of trees. For as the sun passes by, they too, gathered and brought together, are moved about and jump asunder. Likewise, with the tabernacle or tent extended, light is separated as if by a certain partition, and the darkness is spread more freely; when the same has been overturned and destroyed, this too is reduced to nothing and vanishes. But in truth, of the things which God created, there is nothing that consists of His divine essence; but the human body is indeed compacted of clay, but the soul ^B

^A received its substance from that breath which God breathed into the first man: so that, being a partaker of reason and intellect, and subject to no matter or form, it might be the likeness and image of God; yet under this law, that its substance, which lacks a beginning, should not be a portion from which the substance of all other things which are in the nature of things, and even of the soul itself, depends.

Furthermore, there is nothing new in the fact that those who profess doctrines of this kind also call the devil a benefactor, and prefer him to God, the Maker of all things: and that they say he, out of envy, forbade our first parents the fruit of that tree in which was the knowledge of good and evil, but that the devil, as though desiring the fruit, voluntarily permitted it. They notice less—or rather, they are utterly foolish, or else they err by design—that death, introduced under the auspices of the devil, burst into the world, and that the first authors of our race, while they followed him, prepared exile for themselves and were cast out of paradise naked. Moreover, it follows as a consequence that whatever is done by those who belch forth such things against God according to the rule of Christian rites is not done without guilt, as when they often baptize those who embrace their heresy, or rather, submerge them.

Likewise, in their mysteries, they use water alone, or even allow the ministry of baptism to women. And of the four Gospels, they approve only that which was written by Luke, and not even that complete and without corruption of its context.

Theodoret testifies that he once saw an old man of this heresy, who, when he had risen in the morning, would wash his face with saliva; and when asked the reason, he replied that he had to be careful not to be in need of any of the things created by God, the Maker of the world, and therefore not even to use water, which, of course, had been created by Him. When he himself objected: "How is it then that you offer bread, drink wine and water, sleep, and finally celebrate the mysteries prescribed for you?" the man replied that these things were done by him out of necessity: for surely, if he were to act otherwise, he could not live nor celebrate the mysteries. And thus the wretched man, willy-nilly, confessed himself to be a partaker of the things created by God, as if they were good, which he had previously resisted and spoken against.

CAP. XV.

Lucian followed the dogmas of Marcion, and while he agreed with his teacher in other matters, he certainly rejected lawful marriage and exhorted men to virginity—not, indeed, because he judged that state to be best and pleasing to God, but so that he might slander the works of God, and that the wicked man might make a law, and take care that no one should be joined to a woman, for the sole purpose of resisting God, the Maker and Creator of all things, and preventing the world from being rightly administered ^B by Him through the benefit of marriage.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

Whatever we have brought forward to undermine the heresy of Cerdo and Marcion suffices also to overturn the blasphemies of the Lucianists, so much do they agree among themselves in all articles of dogma; and in truth, they all practice the same pottery, so to speak, of the most impious men. Now, since he altogether abolishes marriage, he thereby takes up the patronage of fornication; and thus, he opposes God—a man most impure, who prefers unlawful fornication to the immaculate and legitimate bond ^C of all men. But if he contends that he wants to abolish fornication by the same action, he therefore in no way approves of the union of man and woman, so that, by this trick, this man might cut off that great work of God, and it might vanish (worthy that he should be the first to experience such a sad fate), and thus the habitation of the earth might yield to the brute animals alone. Whence it is sufficiently apparent how slothful that wretch is, and of what an inhuman heart, or rather, less a partaker of reason than the brutes themselves, so to speak.

CAP. XVI.

Apelles, a fellow student of Lucian but a disciple of Marcion, dissenting from his teacher in most things, by no means asserted three, or four, principles, as he did, but maintained one principle, one power, and one ineffable God, from whom another God was made, who created the heaven, the earth, and all things that are in them; yet he maintained that this latter one did not turn out good, nor did he make the things he made well, but subjected them according to the lust of his own perverse affection. This, he claimed, was the cause why, in the last days, Christ, the Son of the supernal and good God, came into the world, and assumed flesh—not from the Virgin Mary, but from the substance of the world—who then was crucified, was buried, and rose again, and showed his own flesh to his disciples, and at length, being dissolved again into it, rendered to each element what it was composed of—namely, the hot to the hot, the cold to the cold, the dry to the dry, and finally the moist to the moist; and thus, liberated from that flesh he had assumed, he ascended into heaven without flesh.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

Apelles did not, in his opinions concerning God, prove himself that best artist of depicting human forms, as that Apelles was; but rather, he was a combatant of crooked dogmas, and was caught as if he were an unskilled potter. Which dogmas, indeed, are at length contracted and made ancient by the iron rod—that is, by the rule of the right faith: and they are even more strong than that cast statue,

^A which intoxication had fashioned into the shape of a bull, and which had been broken into tiny fragments and crushed.

He introduces, however, one unnamed principle, and subjoins that another God came forth from it, who created all things—and that not rightly, but wickedly, and according to the corrupted mind, having no concern for the light which shines before the day, or the air which we breathe, nor for the bread by which we are nourished, nor for the water which we use in drinking, nor for any other thing that we humans, just as other breathing creatures, enjoy. In these matters especially, it is detected that he has spoken concerning Him from whom these things were brought into the nature of things, less rightly and not as befits creatures. For he certainly confesses Christ to be the Son of the supreme and equally good God, and that He truly put on human flesh, suffered, and rose again; yet he contends that when He ascended into the heavens, He laid aside His flesh and ascended deprived of a body. In which matter he colludes partly with Cerdo, partly with Marcion, and partly agrees with other heretics, and obtains error-filled dogmas that are to be condemned from them as if by hereditary right.

The same man innovates another heresy as well, while he asserts that Christ fashioned His flesh for Himself from the four elements, and not from the blood of the Virgin: and that He dissolved it again into those same things from which it had been composed, which indeed is contrary to the deeds of Christ. For if He had brought His flesh from heaven when He sent the Angel Evangelist into the city of Nazareth, to what purpose, I ask, was there need for Him to be formed for a time in the womb of the Virgin, and to come forth from the same with the thickness of a body? ^B

CAP. XVII. XVII. The seventeenth heresy, of the Severians. These also are admitted to baptism.

He also accommodates that creation of things which we believe to the Principalities and Powers. He claims that there is one good God in the highest heaven and world. But he claims that the Devil proceeded from His thigh, who presides over the order of the powers: whom he also calls Jaldabaoth. He claims this Devil, as soon as he was brought into the light, was detected to be a serpent, and for that reason was cast down to the earth. And when he was stung by carnal stimuli, he had commerce with the earth no otherwise than with a woman, and that the vine was begotten of his seed. Therefore he said that one must abstain from wine, because it stirs up now into fury, now into rage. Furthermore, that wretched man fabricated that woman was made by Satan, and that those who might have commerce with a woman were fulfilling the work of Satan. And for that reason he dissuaded marriage. Moreover, he contended that that part of man which is superior, and which extends down to the navel, was the creation of the power of Christ: but that which follows the navel was the work of the evil power. Finally, he disparaged the Old Testament, together with the resurrection of the dead.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

Severianus, the author of other heresies as well, striving as if to surpass blasphemers with blasphemies, teaches that one must abstain altogether from the use of wine. And he does not fear to assert that the devil had intercourse with the earth, and that the vine sprang up immediately from that; so that he affirms the vine to be the evil work of the evil demon: ignoring that all things which God created are good, as the divine voice of the same testifies. Intoxication is indeed an evil, and the abuse of created things; for the sun also is the author of darkness to those who direct the straight gaze of their eyes into its sphere; yet for that reason this most luminous light is not to be spurned. Water bestows life upon things brought to it; the same is also accustomed to suffocate. Fire in the same way warms and burns. A sword is useful in many ^C matters: but the same perpetrates homicides. Such is the state of all other things upon which human life consists. Nay, even the use itself of those things which are called the virtues is not at all lacking in a middle ground. If any man, therefore, should remove such things from human use, moved solely by a collision of contrarieties, he will bring it about that nothing remains of those things without which our life would be unpleasant and bitter. For indeed death has also brought an end to many by even a crumb of bread. But yet it can in no way be that we should lack bread, which as the most solid thing of all, strengthens the heart of man, just as wine, if it be drunk opportunely and moderately, and does not leap past that crater of temperance, or at least does not exceed that of sufficiency, as it is commonly called, which indeed adds good health to the body and preserves the rational part of the mind sound and intact. And what is greater than this, Christ compared Himself to the vine and His disciples to the branches: and finally gave to the Father the name of husbandman. Moreover, on that night in which He was betrayed, taking bread and the cup filled with wine, and blessing both, He handed down the New Testament to us; the bread indeed changed into His body, and the wine into blood. And by both of these, He is so joined to us, we who have received our name from Him, that He dwells with us all days, just as He also promised. And thus, indeed, the use of wine is found to be useful and salutary for us even in such arcane mysteries.

But Severianus, who execrates wine and marriage, shows himself to be unworthy, both of him who was ever brought into the light and of him who takes the cup of the Lord. For Christ blessed both—marriage indeed by His presence, and wine by the new and unheard-of miracle made from water. But now, what has light to do with darkness? And likewise, how could he make God and the devil partakers of the same creation? For He is considered the creator of the universe, but the other a creature, and indeed one which, because it had not persisted in those things which it had received, but rather had risen up with rash attempts against the Creator, was for that reason cast down headlong from on high, and finally showed itself to be the head and author of all wickedness.

Therefore, the son of perdition and the author of evils, that ^D

offspring, is whoever attributes creation to God and our devil, as if to a certain common partition, and claims that the union with a woman is a Satanic work; Severianus is argued to be ^A the author of such figments.

CAP. XVIII. The eighteenth heresy, of Tatian. They are baptized.

The heresies of Tatian are foreign to the dogmas of Valentinus and Marcion. Nay, he, striving to surpass them in impiety in most things, wrote a Gospel, which is commonly called *Diatessaron*, that is, composed from the four Evangelists: the genealogies being cut out, and not others, which show that the Lord proceeded from the seed of David according to the flesh. And as far as belongs to the ravings of the ages, he felt the same as Valentinus. But as to the fact that he execrated marriages and abstained from animate things and wine, he was discovered to be of the same opinion as Saturninus and Severianus. Whence he was also the leader and author of those who are called Encratites and Aquarians. For when he performed sacraments in imitation of the holy Church, and thus professed continence, in the sacraments, indeed, he used water only. Furthermore, injurious to marriages, he used to say that they differed in nothing from fornication. Finally, he denied that Adam himself was saved.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

Writing against Marcion and the heretics who followed him, I have said that Tatian also was in the same heresy with him. But the same narrative repeated again and again undoubtedly produces disgust: and is no less annoying to the ears themselves. Nor is it indeed alien from the other impieties of Tatian that he used water in mystical rites: since the Lord determined his institution by the oblation of bread and wine, and from his side there flowed forth not only water, but blood also, in such a way that it was by no means unbecoming ^B to God, after he had commended his spirit into the hands of God the Father.

CAP. XIX. The nineteenth heresy, of the Encratites, or Continent. They are baptized.

The heresy of the Encratites, or Continent, is also a fragment of the heresy of Tatian. They propose two principles opposed to the good God, and say that the devil opposes him: not because he had deflected from good to evil (which is the opinion of the Catholic Church), but because he compelled with such great power that he did whatever he pleased by his own right, and did not submit or obey God. But they use the Scriptures which they commonly call the Acts of Andrew, of John, and of Thomas: as well as certain other apocrypha, and those passages of the Old Testament which please them the most. Furthermore, they openly ascribe marriages to the devil and abstain from the eating of all animate things, not for the sake of continence, as they say, but because they fear lest they be condemned on account of the eating of animate things. Moreover, they do not approve of wine: alleging that it too is diabolical: and those who use it they call wicked and sinners. Finally, in the sacraments they use only water.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

The Encratites also, or Continent, like the horse and mule which have no understanding, ^C insubordinately revolting against God, will be restrained by them as if by bit and bridle, which have been brought forward by us against the heresies of Valentinus and Marcion, as well as Apelles and Tatian.

CAP. XX. The twentieth heresy, of the Cataphrygians, who are also called Montanists and Tascodrugites. They are baptized.

The heresy of the Cataphrygians spread mostly through Phrygia. But they admit the Old and New Testament. And they confess the resurrection of the dead. But they boast of a certain teacher, the pseudo-prophet Montanus: who used to preach of himself in this way: I am the omnipotent Father. Also: I am not an angel, nor an envoy, but I am God, and the same Father, I have come to save the world. Furthermore, they adopt two prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla: of whom Maximilla was wont to use these words: After me there will be no prophet, but the consummation. Besides this, they hold in honor a desert place of Phrygia, to which the name is Pepuza: in which place a city once was, which now is destroyed: saying that this recalls the appearance of the celestial Jerusalem, they perform their mysteries in it. Furthermore, the name Tascodrugites was given to them for this reason: *taskos* in the Phrygian idiom is said to be a peg, but *drongos* a nose. They were ^D accustomed, at the time they prayed to God, to place a finger under the mid-nose, by this very sign signifying that they were ready to embrace justice voluntarily.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

Since our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said in the Gospels: But do not you be called Rabbi: for one is your master, Christ; since also from the apostles Paul and John, the latter indeed openly says, Every spirit that does not confess that the Lord Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God: the former, however, rebukes the vain speeches of the pseudo-apostles, and confirms the disciples of piety, lest they be drawn away by their doctrines, and thus warns: For such pseudo-apostles are deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder. For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. And in another place he ordains that a change of doctrine and faith is not to be admitted: But if we, or an angel from heaven should evangelize to you besides what we have evangelized to you, let him be anathema. Who, I ask, is so weak in piety, and so

easy to persuade of every word, as to convince himself that those things are true which are preached by Montanus? Finally, since Christ, being a Hebrew, said, "My testimony is not mine, but it is the Father who bears testimony of me," let no one of all men presume that Montanus speaks the truth, who bears testimony of himself: and this, in such a way, that he does not construct a narrative about some mediocre matters, but proclaims himself the almighty Father and Savior. Without doubt, this man is swollen with an evil spirit, who shortly after was found empty, just as were two prophetesses of his. For while they predict that no prophet is to come after them, but that the consummation is at the doors, they have shown themselves to be false and in themselves subject to reproach, while adhering to Montanus, and by their own mouth have prophesied. For they have long since died and been exposed to the torments of the underworld; but the world remains and even now is subject to the power of God, who is over all things.

CAP. XXI. The twenty-first heresy, of the Quintilians, Priscillians, Pepuzites, and Artotyrites. They are baptized.

These Quintilians vaunt a pseudo-prophetess, together with Priscilla, as the leader of their heresy. They claim that one of them, in the place which is called Pepuza, slept and saw Christ in a dream, clothed in female attire and a splendid stole, and that He walked with her, and slept, and finally inspired wisdom into her; and revealed how holy that place was. Furthermore, they use the Old and New Testament, and admit the resurrection of the dead. Moreover, women are chosen by them as bishops and presbyters. For they say that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. They are called Artotyrites, because they employ bread and cheese in their own sacraments: for *artos* is bread for the Greeks, and *tyros* is cheese. It is reported, moreover, that something else even more impious is done among them. For on a certain feast day, they prick a very young boy all over his body with needles, then they mix his blood into flour and knead it, and finally they communicate by making an oblation thereof.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

^AThese people are of the same mold as the preceding ones, or indeed even more perverse in that satanic doctrine and tradition of theirs. But because the changing and innovation of things is never unpleasing to heretics, and they take to themselves an insolent abundance of those things which are worse, the Artotyrites, adhering to these same footsteps, even raise women to the chairs of bishops and presbyters, and allow them to handle with their hands the mysteries which are celebrated among them. In assertion of which matter, they bring forward the place of Paul, where it is thus held: *"For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For whoever of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female."* For you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you are of Christ, then you are the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise. But they are proved to be citing Paul falsely, who by no means permits women to handle those things which are fitting for men, and especially those things which teem with mysteries and require the living voice of one teaching: ^B Nay, rather, he teaches and proclaims that we are no longer under the law, as under a pedagogue, but are justified by faith, and that both males and females are children of God, and that the whole human race is such, provided it has put on Christ in the laver of baptism; but above all, when he thus exhorts in another place: "I do not permit women to teach; but let them ask their own husbands at home if they have need of anything." Likewise, "Judge for yourselves. Does it befit a woman to pray to God unveiled?" Now, if it in no way befits, and is adversarial to the laws of nature, that a woman should pray with head uncovered (for if a man nourishes his hair, it is an ignominy to him, but if a woman nourishes her hair, it is a glory to her, since her hair is given to her in place of a veil), if she handles the mysteries, and finally approaches more closely to the altar of God, how great a crime does she commit? The Artotyrites, moreover, knowing neither God nor His saving precepts, slander Christ and Paul: the former, because they say He approached one of his prophetesses in female attire, slept with her, and finally instilled wisdom and foreknowledge of future things into her. The latter, who is rightly considered the great herald of the world, they slander because, being perverse interpreters of his divine dogmas, they lie impudently that he permitted sacred things to be handled by women no differently than by men. As to what pertains to the *prosphragma*, that is, the mystical oblation of the sacrifice, which they celebrate, I believe it to be that very thing which even its author, and the impious minister of the rite, the devil, detests as most nefarious.

CAP. XXII. The twenty-second heresy, of the Tessaresdecalites or Quartodecimans. They are anointed with ointment.

^CIn other matters, the Quartodecimans are almost faithful, but in the festival of Pascha they judaize. For they do not celebrate it on the Lord's Day, but whenever the fourteenth day of the moon falls, having been deceived by this oracle of the law, "Cursed is everyone who does not perform the Pascha on the fourteenth day of the month," and saying that John the apostle and evangelist was the author that the Pascha should be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon. Moreover, they use the Acts of the Apostles, which are commonly considered erroneous. And besides, other illegitimate books, which the common people call apocryphal.

Scholion by Theodore Skoutariotes. NICETAS CHONIATES

I also deem it proper that the Quartodecimans be baptized. Since they do not even have a presbyter to administer the sacrament of baptism, where indeed is there a bishop, even in name only? Furthermore, their priests, who are of the Jewish race, admit neither the sacrifice, nor the whole of Scripture, nor all the hagiographa. They understand the Gospel of the Apostle John, and truly they deem all people worthy of the name of saints. They reject works. They recognize no communion of saints. They follow the wickedness of the Bogomils, and that of the same. ^A If the Tessaresdecalitae are the same as those who are called Tetradites or Quaternarians, as others suppose, many of the headings of their heresy, O Nicetas, escape you; just as I myself perceived when I frequently fell to reading their books at the time when I was in exile at Lampsacus on the Hellespont, because, forsooth, I gave primacy to the traditions of the Apostles and the Fathers, and I maintained that ecclesiastical matters should be composed and restored according to their precept, rather than according to the lust for heretical disorder or confusion.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

In the Mosaic law it is indeed provided that those who trace their lineage from Abraham should celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth day of the moon. But that was the slaying of the lamb, and the smearing of the doorposts with its blood, and the unleavened bread which was eaten in the morning with lettuces. And they were ^B all standing upright with staves, and even wearing leather sandals; they used these things simultaneously with great diligence. So that he who would abolish this institution was deservedly held to be cursed and impious. We, however, do not slay a lamb, but in the commemoration of Christ and for our own sanctification and purification, we offer the body and blood of Christ, treating it as an unbloody sacrifice. And we must prepare our Passover on that very day on which Christ, like a bridegroom from his bridal chamber, leapt forth from the subterranean lairs of the underworld: at which time we also truly fled from Egypt, and we saw the armed satellites and hostile demons, with heads crushed and strength enfeebled, vanish away. For if, as the evening of the fifth day approached, on the day before Christ was iniquitously suspended on the wood, the sacraments were instituted and received, certainly it was a [Greek: πpody,ntixóv], or presumptive, and not a [Greek: πραγματικόν], or commemorative of an accomplished fact, kind of sacrifice. Presumptive, indeed, and teeming with mystery, I call that which was performed towards the evening of the fifth day: for Christ was not yet truly dead, nor had he risen. But the pragmatic, or commemorative of a thing already accomplished, is that which was celebrated after the passion, burial, and resurrection. For then Christ truly and in reality died, and truly and in reality rose from the dead. Although, therefore, both receptions—namely the proleptic or presumptive, and the ^C pragmatic or commemorative of the deed—are equally powerful (for in both the body and blood of Christ are truly present), yet the feast of the Passover is properly adjudicated to the day of the Lord's resurrection: and this name is more fitting to it than to the evening of the fifth day, and it succeeds it as it were by mutual exchange.

Furthermore, to explain more openly that one and the same Christ died and rose again presumptively and commemoratively—presumptively on the evening of the fifth day, when the divine mysteries were instituted, but commemoratively on the day of His resurrection, which took place on the third day after—I will bring forward as an example those things which take place in the regeneration of baptism. For there, those who are cleansed by the water of redemption truly are buried and truly rise again. For by the fact that we are cleansed by water three times, we are buried together with Christ, and again with Christ we rise again in the same cleansings, freed from that ancient mortality which we had contracted from the fall of Adam. Furthermore, such mortification and resurrection is by no means pragmatic, but mystical. For pragmatic mortification occurs in us when the separation of the soul from the body takes place. Likewise, pragmatic resurrection will happen when the angel, sounding the trumpet, shall rouse the dead from their tombs. Nevertheless, that mystical mortification which occurs through triple cleansing, and the resurrection which follows it, is regarded and believed by us to be true; and it is endowed with power, distinct from those things which are presented to the eyes, just as Paul theologizes about it in his epistle to my fellow-countrymen, the Colossians, in these words: In whom you also were circumcised with a circumcision not made by hand, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism: in which also you have risen again by faith in the work of God who raised him from the dead 7.

^D Therefore, the feast is not to be celebrated with the Jews, nor should one attend so studiously to the fourteenth day of the moon, but only then is the Passover to be celebrated when the day of our Savior falls.

But indeed the Tessaresdecalitae, or Quartodecimans, having followed blind leaders, and the Acts of the Apostles, which are approved by themselves, have not without reason fallen into the pit of perdition, inasmuch as they have exchanged darkness for light—that is, swapped the apostolic dogmas and catholic traditions and indeed the very precepts of Christ, which have pervaded the whole earth which the sun illuminates with its light—for those erroneous traditions which they themselves call apocryphal.

CAP. XXIII. Twenty-third heresy, of the Alogi, or those who deny the Word of God. These are anointed.

The Alogi do not admit the Gospel of John, nor indeed the Apocalypse, but say that these are inventions of the heretic Cerinthus, doubting and saying that Christ fled into Egypt, and after the flight returned to Nazareth and dwelt there,

and was then baptized, and led forth into the wilderness by the Spirit, and from there returned to begin preaching, as is evident from the writings of the other evangelists. But that nothing of this kind is contained in the Gospel of John.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

As for the explanation of the miracles, although not all have treated it in the same way, yet what was passed over by one was recorded by another in writing, and what the same person suppressed here in silence was by no means omitted by the one who followed, but was expressed and inserted into the history. This is, without a doubt, a most excellent work of divine providence and administration. For if the four evangelists had agreed with each other in everything, those who are blind to the light of truth would have objected that they had colluded, and had invented and written these things by common conspiracy and sophisticated agreement, which could by no means have happened. Now, however, a discordant harmony shines forth in them, and it is so similar, if I may say so, to a four-stringed musical instrument of the Gospels, which the Holy Spirit plays—now taking up this for the benefit of men in a saving canticle, now that in a most ornate sound of voice, as many as have not yet become entirely deaf—that I perceive it as often as I hear the heavenly voice of the Gospel of John, and often I make an echo, or perceive the final sound of the resounding voice, by which God’s glory and the harmonic voice of the firmament are explained, which indeed announces those miracles which were performed by the Word with flesh, and by the Spirit of the same nature as Him: and which are designated by the name of the paternal hands. For the disciple beloved of God, having entered upon a way untrodden and inaccessible to the three Evangelists, set forth those miracles of Christ which could not be passed over without being treated in some way. ^D For Christ also made His disciples free participants in His own miracles, and promised that they would do greater things than He Himself had done. And these things were indeed sufficiently and more than sufficiently handed down and explained by the three evangelists, with a few exceptions. But the heavenly and proper generation of Christ with the Word "was," immediately from the beginning, having been set forth, this son of thunder cast it like the impetus of a lightning bolt into all the ends of the world, so that the other things of this kind also, which He set forth, because that Word was that which can in no way be refused or refuted, had already thundered in the ears of men, and had become known to their souls. Although even with these precisely handed down, and the theology clearly explained, the unlearned and worst judges of the truth have devised these monstrous words: *ouk ēn*, "it was not"; *ēn hote ouk ēn*, "there was a time when He was not"; *homoion*, "like"; *homoiousion*, "of like essence"; *hēttōn*, "less"; and *ktiston*, "created," and other things besides which are circulated in published books to the manifest refutation and derision of their authors. Father, how different things would be said about Christ, unless the Lord had thundered down as if from heaven through him who revealed these mysteries, unless the Most High had sent forth His voice, had multiplied the lightning bolts of the most divine dogmas, and had confounded the heretics. But, as can be seen, the Gospel of John is not disapproved of by these Alogi for any other reason than that they do not admit the Word of God, nor do they confess and preach that He is God, nor that He is with God, nor that all things were made through Him.

Chapter 24. The twenty-fourth heresy, that of the Adamiani. These are anointed. But it would also be honorable if they were baptized.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

And that they augment that hot and burning zeal in the Adamiani is deservedly censured, because when they should be clothed in garments in the church and pour forth prayers to God in modesty, they approach the fire in hypocausts and furnaces, and conversing there with women, and singing psalms together with them, they burn with the itch of lust and enjoy most hot mutual intercourse.

CAP. XXV. The twenty-fifth heresy, of the Sampseans, who are also called Elceseans. They are baptized.

They are called Sampseans, as if "pure" in the Hebrew tongue; but Elceseans, from a certain teacher of theirs ^A. Moreover, the leader and author of this heresy for them was a certain Jewish false prophet named Elxai, who lived in the times of Trajan. He ordered them to swear by salt, water, earth, bread, heaven, the ether, and the wind, and to exhibit divine worship to them. For the rest, he opposed continence, and, loathing virginity, he forced them to marry. But he also commended hypocrisy, asserting that there was no sin in it, and added that those who, out of necessity rather than from their own conscience, had venerated idols at the time of persecution were immune from sin. He did not admit the prophets. He commanded the use of amulets or necklaces. He fabricated that Christ was a created being and that He had been formed in Adam, and that He would put on and take off His body according to His own whim. He asserted that the Holy Spirit was His brother, and that each of them extended in length to ninety-six miles and in breadth to twenty-five. Furthermore, he had a brother named Ioxaeus. Finally, from their blood, two women, Maltho and Malthana, arose, whom the demented men venerated no differently than goddesses, and if they went anywhere, they took to themselves the dust from their feet, and moreover their saliva and spittle, in place of a blessing.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

These men, as regards marriage and virginity, diametrically oppose the Adamiani, for both have diverged from moderation and right reason. The Sampseans, indeed, hold marriage in the highest honor, and command all to marry. But thinking that virginity, which the Adamiani pursue with the utmost zeal, is to be persecuted with hatred, they pursue with hatred those who contract marriages, when nevertheless marriages are to be honored, and virginity is to be preferred to marriage. For both are pleasing to God. For Christ is not alien to virginity, and at the same time He is the author of marriage, *He who can receive it, let him receive it* (Matt. xix, 12). Likewise, that great trumpet of preaching, Paul, while giving the primary place to virginity, openly cries out: *I say, however, to those who are not married and to widows, it is good for them if they remain as I am: but if they cannot contain themselves, let them marry* (I Cor. vii, 8, 9). Moreover, because they swear by the elements, they show themselves to be manifest imitators of the Gentiles. For they ^B swore by the dog, by the gander, and by the pine, and they preferred the quaternion of the elements to establish faith in their words. Indeed, they also held as a most true oath in their daily conversations the fact that water from Styx (which fabulous antiquity recounts to be the fountain of the underworld) bubbled up as most cold. But we, having been taught by Christ, have learned that we must not swear by land or by heaven; for He testified that the one is the footstool of God's feet, and the other is His throne. But He willed our oath to be, *Yes, yes, no, no* (Matt. v, 37). Finally, these are the ravings of the ignorant, and of those who bring divine wrath upon themselves, when they say that the whole of Christ is subject to corruption, who was birthed from Adam, and that He did not precede him, insofar as He is God, when they assert that His body is put off and put on again by Him, no differently than garments are by us, and as sloughs of skin are wont to be by serpents over the course of time. For the Only-Begotten Son of God, since He is co-eternal with the Father, and of one and the same nature with Him, in the last times, upon our created nature being united by hypostasis to the uncreated and pure divine nature, the body which He had assumed became a participant in the dignity of the Godhead, by that very conjunction, nor did He at any time whatever put it off, as if it were a thing that could be separated ^C from that which He had united, but rather, if I may so say, conjuncts—that is, always joined to God by an indissoluble bond, just as that great man in theological matters, Gregory, is the authority. From which it results that that hypostasis which is compounded of divinity and humanity, we now call Christ, likewise God and man, likewise God incarnate; but at other times we call Him God only, and the Son of man, and likewise man only. Yet, neither when we say "God" only, do we separate Him from humanity, nor when we say "man" only, do we alienate Him from divinity (for the same is wholly God, and wholly man), nor, when we speak of divinity, do we attribute to Him things that are proper to humanity (for we do not call the divinity subject to passion, or created), nor conversely, as often as there is mention of humanity by us, do we adorn it with the properties of divinity (for neither do we call humanity uncreated); but if mention is made of the one hypostasis, it is not so, but we confess simply and strictly both God, and man, and both together as Christ. And just as God the Word, before He suffered on the cross, made the flesh which He had joined to Himself by an ineffable conjunction and union exempt from difference: so He also made it a participant in immortality by His resurrection, nor is He in any way separated from it, nor will He ever be separated on account of that highest conjunction, and the concurrence of the double nature, which can in no way be confused. Thus He hung upon the cross, and

in this way He departed from the tomb: in this way He was seen by the disciples with doors closed, and was handled by their fingers: in this way He ascended into the heavens, and was received with the honor of the paternal seat: in this way, finally, He is to come again, and to judge the living with the unbelievers. Furthermore, since the Lord Himself says: *Everyone, therefore, who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father; but whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before the angels of My Father who is in heaven*; likewise: *He who shall have persevered to the end, he will be saved*: how can it be that the Sampsaei deny that they sin, when they permit the worship of idols in time of persecution? For there ought to be a mutual agreement between heart and tongue, and the former should bring forth piety inwardly, while the latter should profess the same before those who embrace a belief different from our own. But that this is how it should be done by a pious man, those words which God pronounces through the prophet attest: *This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me*. And Paul is the authority that with the heart one believes, but with the mouth confession is made.

Furthermore, when they name the Holy Spirit the brother of Christ, they are undoubtedly talking nonsense and uttering a satanic lie. For brothers come into the nature of things in a completely similar way from parents. But in Christ and the Spirit, we have learned and we preach generation and procession from the Father. And the Spirit indeed is in substance in no way measurable, as One who transcends all dimensions, as if He were some matter which lacked both matter and form. But Christ, because He assumed flesh and underwent a mortal form, is for that reason circumscribed by place, and was exposed to sight and touch, and finally arrived at the just term of age: yet in such a way that He was not extended in all points. For how could He have died on the cross, or have been buried in the monument which Joseph had constructed for himself out of stone, if He had grown to the measure of a jugerum or a stadium, and had been stretched out to an almost immense length, and a length corresponding to its breadth?

Since, indeed, they even ascribed women themselves to the number of the gods in the Gentile manner, and sought their foot-dust and saliva as something salutary, they are worthy to be rejected, and on account of this error and imposture, to be considered the most ridiculous of all, as if carrying their brain in their heels, and occupied with those things which that serpent, the spoiler, and the one who attacked Eve with a venomous voice, and who was finally condemned to crawl upon his breast and belly, and to feed on the dust of the earth, introduced among these people with his ancient hypocrisy: which hypocrisy they actually esteem worthy of honor among themselves, as one which [in their view] contains no offense, but contrary to that which the words of Christ demonstrate, who cries out to them thus: *Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites*: by which words He indicates that hypocrisy is ungrateful to God.

CAP. XXVI. Twenty-sixth heresy, of the Theodotians. They are baptized.

By certain Byzantine, named Theodotus, a tanner by trade, but fully skilled in the disciplines of the Greeks, gave his name to these people. He, having been detained in prisons during a certain time of persecution, denied Christ. For which reason, when he was harassed by the reproaches and insults of many, he fled from there and set out for Rome, where, when he had become even better known and was assailed by no less abuse, he began to profess that Christ was a bare and simple man—to be sure, so that he might be able to excuse his own action, as he had denied a man, not God—and he used this apology. For he would say that even Christ Himself said: *But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has spoken the truth to you*. Likewise: *If anyone speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him*. Furthermore, the apostles also said: *A Man who has shone among you with signs and wonders*.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

If Christ were a bare and simple man, we would undoubtedly be worshippers of a man; but if we worship a man, we are mad, even worse than before if, while once indeed out of ignorance we offered divine worship to the elements—which have hitherto remained in the same state—we now, with deliberate intention and knowing better, repose our hopes in a man who cannot save. And Christianity will henceforth be exposed to the manifest ridicule of all, together with those many, wondrous, and altogether divine stories which are circulated about Him.

And yet, in the meantime, Christ is not a bare and simple man, but the Son of God, and the Word subsisting by Himself, who assumed our mass and conversed with men in the body. Moreover, Christ, who is composed not as if from a double nature, but [composed] in hypostasis, says these things in the Gospels: *But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has spoken the truth to you*. Likewise: *The Son of Man, indeed, goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man through whom He shall be betrayed*. Christ, I say, is caught saying thus in the Gospels: *Father, glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee*. Likewise: *Glorify Me with the glory which I had with Thee before the world existed*. Likewise: *He who sees Me sees also the Father*. Likewise: *I in the Father, and the Father in Me*. Those things are to be referred to His humanity, these to His divinity, since He was twofold, and in reason also.

^A Likewise, He is called the Son of God, the Word of God, and the Lord of Glory.

But these words, *Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come*, are to be understood thus. When the Pharisees and Scribes witnessed the stupendous miracles of Christ before them, and ought to have attributed them to the works of God and believed in Him by whom they were performed, they were moved rather by envy and said that He cast out evil spirits by Beelzebub, the prince of demons. But He, first refuting their madness with these parabolic sayings, *No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, unless he first bind the strong man*, signified by this that the demons would not even blame Him, nor would He have cast them out of human bodies, had He not first bound the strong man, namely Beelzebub, the prince of the demons upon whom they said He cast the demons; afterwards, He adds: *To him who shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven; but to him who shall blaspheme against the Son, it shall be forgiven*. For since He was composed by reason of the assumed flesh, and lived among us with the flesh as a veil, so to speak, it came about that at one moment He would weep, being about to raise Lazarus from the dead, while at another He would walk upon the sea, or heal a woman suffering from an issue of blood: finally, He would restore vital movement to a withered hand. Therefore, it is fitting that those who discern both—that which pertained to the divine nature and those things which were done by Him as a man—should be moved now to those things which are better, and acknowledge God to be the Maker of such things, and now again believe that He was a man who sealed His nature with His deeds. Whosoever, therefore, approaches Him stripped of the form of God and having conformed to the laws of the flesh, for him the blasphemy will be forgiven, and the Lord will spare him, because he has stumbled in that which is visible, and by reason of the flesh has plunged himself into those vices to which the flesh is prone. But if anyone, with closed eyes, turns away from the divine miracles and the deeds which the Lord performed beyond the opinion of the crowd, and ascribes them to satanic powers, this absurd crime will not be forgiven him, and he will experience a severe and merciless judge, namely the Spirit Himself, against whom he has sinned through sloth or wickedness. He speaks, however, of those who persevere in blaspheming the Spirit and have departed this life in this perversity of opinion. But if any man should attain to the knowledge of the Lord, he will obtain remission for the things of which he was ignorant in this world. The same also is the sense of this passage from the Acts of the Apostles: *A man who was approved among you by signs and wonders*.

CHAPTER XXVII.

^B The twenty-seventh heresy, of Noetus and Novatus. These are anointed; but it were better that the Noetians be baptized, but the Novatians be anointed.

Partly these two agree among themselves, partly they differ. For Noetus, being an Ephesian by birth, contended that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, and he dared to assert that the Father also suffered. When he was reproved for this blasphemy, he answered that he was doing no evil, because he knew one God who was born, suffered, and died. For he said—so he spoke—God said to Moses: *I am the first God, and I am after*. Likewise: *Thou shalt have no strange gods*. Therefore, if Christ, coming into the world, was born, He is absolutely the same as the Father, the same as the Son, and finally the same one God, who always exists and has now come. In confirmation of his heresy, which he drew from the Sacred Scriptures, he attempted to distort these prophetic words: *This is our God, and no other shall be esteemed in comparison of him. He found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved. Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men*. Likewise: *There is no God besides thee*. Since, therefore, this man was a fool, that is, bereft of mind, Noetus disseminated dogmas of this kind, finally falling into such extreme absurdity that he said he was himself Moses, and his own brother Aaron.

Novatus, however, a presbyter of the Roman Church, puffed up by a spirit of arrogance, fell into error. For he did not admit those who had lapsed while persecution was raging to penance afterwards: saying that no salvation was left for those who had sinned after baptism. Finally, although Cornelius, who at that time presided over the Roman Church, often exhorted him to hasten his steps to those who were struck down and wavering from the cruelty of the tyrants, and to confirm them as a priest with holy exhortations, he could by no means be brought to do so; but withdrawing himself and attempting to hide, at last, laboring under this impious cruelty, he also separated himself from the body of the Church. The followers of this heresy, moreover, are called not only Novatians, but also Cathari, that is, the pure. He also shunned those who remarried after baptism, and did not admit them to communion.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

Those childish, admonitory voices of Solomon, by which he says, *I saw a just man perishing in his justice*; likewise, *There are ways which seem right to a man, but the ends thereof lead to death*, are in a marvelous way consistent with the cruelty and opinion of Novatus, by which he admits no pardon. For while he shows himself to be more of a lover of purity than is fitting and pursues it more accurately than is right, he fails to notice into what a pit of cruelty he is plunging himself: and he willfully summons destruction upon himself: nor does he consider with himself that there is no one who can pursue what is good in such a way that he can never fall from it; and that this is not granted perpetually even to the angelic nature which stands before God. Besides, if from that which is good…

^A we had not swerved, there would have been no need at all for God the Word to descend to us by assuming flesh. But indeed, because man has been allotted a life subject to change, and sways and moves to either side no differently than the scales of a balance, for this reason neither angel nor man (since they are committed to ministry) but the Lord Himself came, that He might save us. What, therefore, moved Novatus not to admit those who had sinned after baptism? Or to turn away those who lapsed in the time of persecution? I am utterly ignorant of this, unless one prefers to call such a contention a persuasion of man devoid of reason, and which can in no way lead anyone to purity. For from what evangelical sayings, I ask, uttered by the mouth of God, or even from apostolic constitutions, did this Novatus draw such severity? Did not the Lord admit the weeping of Peter, after he had denied Him? Did He not teach that same coryphaeus of the apostles that sins were to be forgiven to a brother seventy times seven? Did not Paul judge that the Corinthian who had defiled his stepmother was worthy of pardon after tears, and restore him to the rest of the body of the Church?

^B What great sloth and false opinion of purity this Novatus labors under is proved even from this: that he is unwilling to communicate with those who hasten to second marriages, although Paul says openly: "I wish the young widows to marry!" What also is to be thought of Noetus, who has spoken injustice into the heights and set his mouth against heaven, especially when that blasphemer calls the Father, Son, and Spirit one and the same! For although he admits the mystery of the dispensation, preaches the incarnation of God, unfolds the Gospel, and runs through all things contained in it, he manifests by his heart and lips that he shuns them and in movement of feet proceeds to the contrary opinion. For, says Christ, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Do you see how the three hypostases of one divinity are explained? ^C Also from that which He says in another place: "Father, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee." Also: "And now I come to thee." Also: "Glorify me with that glory which I had before the world was with thee." And the Lord Himself, indeed, after He was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father, openly indicated that the hypostasis of the Father is one, and that of the Son is another. Nay, even the very designation of Father and Son is a duality of persons, which is expressed by a schematic, or habitual and relative, meaning. Furthermore, in that which the Son said about the Spirit: "I will ask the Father, and he will send you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father." Also, "He will glorify me," He indicates also the third hypostasis ^D of the Holy Spirit. Badly, therefore, and not as one possessed of a good mind—though he is commonly called *Noetos* as if he were possessed of mind—does he contravene the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, truly the one nature, the divinity, but he is caught contracting and constricting those three distinct persons into one person, and usurping substance in place of the difference of persons. Moreover, in that he affirms that the flesh assumed from the Father is the same as that from the Son, and that all things which were of the dispensation were completed, he clearly opposes the evangelical traditions. For John the evangelist and theologian cries out in a thunderous voice, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." And a little later, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." The incorporeal angel also addressed the Virgin in the city of Nazareth thus: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee; and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." To this is added also the Davidic prophecy: "Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows"; just as those words of the Theanthropos, or God and man also: "When I shall drink it new in the kingdom of my Father." Item: "I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God." Item: "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father." From all of which, the alumni of piety learn that it is to be understood in this way: that they recognize three persons in the blessed and immortal divinity, which is perceived and worshipped in the Father, and the Son, and the most holy Spirit.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Sabellius, born in the Libyan Pentapolis, preached one person in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, asserting the Father to be the same as the Son and the Holy Spirit: so that in one person three meanings were detected, just as in the same man body, soul, and spirit might be. And in the Old Testament indeed, he held that He had issued laws as the Father, in the New, that He had assumed flesh as the Son, but that He had come upon the apostles as the Spirit: so that the Father might supply the place of the body, so to speak, the Son that of the soul, and finally the Holy Spirit that of the spirit—or as if in the sun, whose person is one, three actions emerged, namely, illuminative, calefactive, and the very figure by which it is carried in a circle; and indeed the calefactive action was the Spirit; the illuminative, the Son; and the figure of the whole person, the Father. He added that the Son was sent forth like a ray, or rather that the Father descended in the species of the Son, who, having executed those things which pertained to the evangelical dispensation, had returned to heaven as the Son, not otherwise than a ray sent from the sun takes itself back to the sun. Finally, that the Holy Spirit was sent into this world as an energy or effective power of the Father; to those who, both publicly and privately, are to be vivified by Him...

^A For it is utterly joined (and this will follow hereafter, since the Word of God, even after the assumption of flesh, was one person): either that that extension of divinity, which was in Christ, returned without the body to God the Father to its original contraction, and Christ will no longer exist, but will be merely a naked and simple man, as one who has stripped off the more excellent of the two natures; and Jesus will finally sit beside the Father, devoid of divinity: or he will be cast down like fledglings, ^B truly deprived of the divinity by which he might sustain his weight; and we shall be egregiously foolish to worship a man, and not God, in the incarnate one; which belief easily exceeds all heresies in impiety. For Nestorius, although he denied the natural union of divinity and humanity and divided Christ into two persons, still confessed a schetic—that is, a habitual or relative—union, and an inseparable concurrence of the Word and Jesus. Others, however, poorly understanding the Davidic verse which says, *He has set his tabernacle in the sun* (Ps. XVIII, 6), introduced a setting aside of the flesh, and taught that the Son, the Word, ascended to God the Father with only his divinity. Those, on the other hand, who stood by Marcellus, turning to a contrary opinion—and one even worse—resolved the person of the Son into God the Father. But because those blasphemers say that the Spirit is the ^C *parektasis* of the *ektasis*—that is, the production of an extension—they clearly affirm only one person in the holy Trinity; and in this way, they oppose the divine Scriptures and the evangelical sayings. For how can it be possible that he is called the Son and Word of God, who in no way exists among them as *hypostatic*—that is, subsisting by himself—or that another is the Spirit, the Paraclete? Such assertions certainly resist the dogmas of Christ, who says: *Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit* (Matt. xxviii, 19). For by the triple invocation of names, and by these words, "Another Paraclete," three hypostases are designated. Moreover, that this heresy is nothing other than the perception of the human mind is evident from the fact that this, too, has been deserted, extinguished, and submerged under the darkness of oblivion. For He who rebukes the deep and says to it, ^D *Be desolate* (Isa. xliv, 27), obliterated both this and the other heresies, since they were a planting which the heavenly Father never at any time planted.

CHAPTER XXIX.

The refutation of the preceding heresy. He proposed dogmas here, too, that were in no way to be admitted or approved. For how can it be possible that the *hypostatic*—that is, self-subsisting—Word of God, together with the assumed flesh, and sitting beside God and the Father, is called the *ektasis*, or extension, of the paternal divinity, and again contracted to God the Father?

CAP. XXX.

^A Bacatha is the metropolis, that is, the principal town of Philalphia, which is situated in Arabia beyond the Jordan. Thus, this same Valentius, along with the Archontics, the Sethians, and others of this stamp, holds positions concerning the principles and powers. They are all mutilated: for they put their primary effort into having as many eunuchs as possible. Any man, moreover, whom they undertake to initiate into their rites and ceremonies, they do not permit to eat any living thing as long as he possesses his private parts. Once these have been removed, having persuaded or even forced the disciple, they allow him to eat freely and according to his own inclination whatever he desires: for now, as they themselves say, he is free and unencumbered from the struggle. Nor do they think he will any longer be dissipated by the delicacies of food into pathic lust. And they do not visit these torments only upon these men, but even if any travelers happen to pass by them, they seize them, tie their hands behind their backs, and by force cut off their private parts.

Refutation of the preceding heresy

The heresy of the Valentians also seems worthy of being condemned with execration, in that it does not only entrust the administration of this entire universe to principles and powers created by God, but also rebels against divine dogmas. For it says regarding lawful marriage: *Increase and multiply, and fill the earth* (Gen. 1, 22, 28).

Valentius, however, greatly extols in every way the mutilation of private parts, which is the common destruction of all men. Consequently, if everyone were by mere chance to subscribe to their insane ravings, the earth would undoubtedly be emptied of men and would lie open to the habitation of wild beasts only. However, as to how unworthy of praise that mutilation is, by which men become eunuchs, the Lord has testified in the Gospels, approving only that which is done for the sake of the kingdom of heaven—which is, indeed, accomplished by bridling the passions rather than by cutting off the private parts. ^B Moreover, since there are various kinds of passions, they are not by any means limited to bodily combinations (whose unwilling abstinence the Valentians arrogantly claim for themselves), but they also consist in avarice, envy, ambition, luxury, and other things of this kind, by which a window is opened to iniquity. To say nothing of the fact that most of those miserable mutilators are caught in brothels for long periods of time, where they carry themselves not as men but contrary to nature: indeed, to put it this way, they submit to the female role; and they are addicted to such pathic obscenities that men seem to be nothing when compared to these half-men.

CAP. XXXI. The thirty-first heresy, of Origen. These are the Unguents.

Origen, who was also called by the surname Adamantius, and the Commentator, on account of the commentaries which he published, was of Egyptian stock, the son of the most holy martyr Leonidas. He spent time in Alexandria, where, having been both educated and taught, he also moved to Athens, and there proved himself to be a constant student in the gymnasia. Finally, when he had exhausted the disciplines of the Greeks, he also cultivated his mind with ecclesiastical dogmas.

During the time of the Decian persecution, however, he suffered much here for his confession of the faith: for he was harassed, dragged through the middle of the city while convicted, subjected to torments, and held up to mockery. For at one time, as it has been handed down to memory, the Greeks shaved his head and placed him in the vestibule of the temple of Serapis, imposing upon him the duty of offering palm branches to those who were ascending to worship Serapis: which duty the priests of the idols were accustomed to perform. But he, having taken the branches, cried out with a loud voice, neither fearing anything nor doubting: "Come and take, not a branch for an idol, but for Christ." By which words the workers of iniquity were immediately moved and proposed an option: whether he would prefer to perform rites to the demons or to prostitute his body to the lust of an Ethiopian catamite. Since he could not endure so wicked a defilement, he replied with a miserable complaint and voice that he preferred to sacrifice: and when, having changed his mind a little later, he had refused to do so, they, insistent upon their former promises, placed incense in his hands and commanded him to offer it upon the sacred hearths.

Which when he had done, because he was rejected by all confessors of the Christian dogma ^C and by the martyrs, and cast out of the Church. Finally, since he could not bear such great disgrace, he betook himself to Palestine, where, being asked by the clergy of Jerusalem to deliver some sermon (inasmuch as he had been elevated to the order of the presbyterate before he sacrificed), he arose, and from the thirty-ninth Psalm recited this verse: *But unto the sinner God said, Why dost thou declare my statutes, and take my covenant in thy mouth?* (Ps. XLIX, 16). And he immediately closed the book and returned it, and, bursting into groans and tears, with everyone weeping along with him, he returned to his seat. Afterward, when he had come into the intimacy of a certain Ambrose, who was a Marcionite or a Sabellian, as some think, he finally persuaded him that, having abandoned his heresy, he should adhere to the Catholic Church. ^D That man, furthermore, being a studious reader of the Sacred Scriptures, asked Origen to interpret them. He, about to fulfill his requests, spent much effort at Tyre in Phoenicia, as they say, for twenty-eight years in interpreting the Scriptures. And so, while Ambrose provided food, scribes, and copyists, as well as parchment along with other expenses, Origen finally completed the work with constant continence, vigil, and labor, and brought it to a conclusion, but he dedicated his primary effort to those things which are called the Hexapla. For when he...

had printed the Hebrew expressions in Greek letters on a single page, because he had two in place of one, as those which agreed with one another, he soon appended a third, or rather a second page—that of the seventy-two interpreters. He placed the seventy-two interpreters, and Aquila, and Symmachus, and Theodotion, and thus finally the fifth version followed. In this way, he comprised the entire Old Testament in his Hexapla.

But indeed, this corollary of pernicious dogmas obscured those many and great labors exhausted in the exposition of the Scriptures. And God may have abandoned him, because He saw him overly addicted to the pursuit of vainglory and popular acclaim, to the study of which he had sacrificed his own former, albeit private, life. For when he refused to be titillated by bodily sensations, he cut off his own genitals, and—as some would have it—with his own hands, though others say he used the services of a certain physician named Elias, who was very famous. There are not wanting those who claim he removed only the cremasteric cord, that is, the one from which the testicles hang. Others think he dried up those parts by applying a drug. Still others prefer the story that he found a medicinal herb by whose powers the seminal vessels would wither. But enough of these things.

Then, moreover, he began to spread the virus of his heresy, not only to many others, but also to monks, anchorites, and the hermits of Egypt; nay, he even opened the first window to Arius and to the other wicked men who followed Arius.

1. For he dared to assert that the Only-begotten cannot see the Father, nor likewise the Son the Spirit, nor the Spirit the angels, nor can man see the angels.

2. Likewise, he said that the Son is not of the Father’s substance, but is in all respects alien from Him, because he is, forsooth, created, and the Son is called such by grace.

3. Furthermore, he affirmed that souls existed before men, being at one time powers and authorities; yet finally, when they had sinned, they were cast down into this body as into a dungeon, in order that they might here undergo their first condemnation. From this it happens that the Greeks call the body δέμας, from the fact that the soul is bound (δεδέσθαι) in it 50, that is, that the soul is held fast in it as in a fetter. They also call the soul ψυχή, from the fact that it is breathed into (ἀναψύχεσθαι) from above, which indeed seems to be confirmed for him by the testimony of the sacred page. For it is said of the soul, "Before I was humbled, I sinned," 50 implying that it sinned in heaven before it was humbled in the body. Likewise that saying, "Return, O my soul, to your rest," 51 implies that, having done well in the things of this life, it returns as if by a right of postliminy to its former rest; and furthermore, because ^A Adam, before he sinned, possessed that divine likeness intact, that is, naked of all coverings, and adorned only with the human form. But after he had transgressed the commandments of the Lord, he lost that same form when, for the first time, the soul entered this body, which is signified in the holy Scriptures by the name of leather tunics; and because this body, in which we are wrapped, will not rise on that day of resurrection, but only that human form by which, perhaps, Paul or Peter is recognized; and thus that external figure will rise, which is comprised under every form. Moreover, the subject itself, or body, will by no means remain the same: "It is sown an animal body," says the Apostle, "and it is raised a spiritual body." 52 Therefore, it is necessary that we hope for a resurrection in the form alone, but not in the subject itself.

These are the things which Origen discussed concerning the pre-existence of souls and the resurrection.

The same man attempted to explain all things allegorically, such as paradise and the waters, which are said to be both below and above the firmament. To sum it up in one word, he perverted the entire Scripture, and even assigned the punishment of the future age to a fixed time, poorly understanding that place of the Apostle Paul where it is written: "Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is." 53 Moreover, he babbles and drivels some other things which I do not think it is even decent for me to write.

In sum, it must be said that Origen was a doctor most acceptable and most accommodating to everyone in physical theorems and their allegories, as well as in all moral discipline, and thus he was the man who practiced himself most of all in the actions of the virtues. For he cultivated his life with such a desire for this practice that, as they say, his chest withered away on account of excessive continence and abstinence from every animate thing. But in the true faith, and in those disciplines which require greater contemplation, and especially theological, he showed himself the most absurd of all those who preceded him and followed him.

Refutation of the preceding heresy

Most wise Origen, setting little store by the exhortation of Solomon, who speaks thus, "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin" 54, did not notice that, while he was searching through the entire Scripture of the Law and of Grace, he had fallen headlong into absurd thoughts and unheard-of opinions—nay, that in some places he had mingled impious and profane things into the divine dogmas, as is evident to anyone willing to learn from those things which we have mentioned above.

For how can it be, that a created Son of God should say...

and participation of the Son, as the prophets and the rest of the catalogue of saints [are participants]? Who is also endowed with a mutable nature and alien to the nature of God? Finally, who is said to see God the least, of whom the evangelist John exclaimed with a clear voice: *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*; likewise: *The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him*. Christ himself also says: *I am in the Father, and the Father in me*. Likewise: *He that seeth me, seeth the Father*. ^A Now, if he were with the Father in the beginning, he is in no way a creature. For creatures are made from nothing and are subject to time.

But he whose essence lacks this *state*, is not created in the beginning, nor is he even endowed with a mutable nature, since he was in the beginning, and is of the same substance as the Father, and not at all of a different one. For how could the Only-Begotten be inseparable from the paternal bosom? For the Father would never have allowed him to remain with him, had he been of a substance different from his own; but he is of the same substance as the Father, endowed with an immutable nature, just as the Father is.

Furthermore, how can it be that the Father is invisible to the Son, of whom these words are read: *No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him*, who is coeternal with the Father, and is subject to no beginning—the very thing which is the cause of his being unknown, nor being visible. Now, how can it be that he does not know him who is the author of knowledge for others? ^B

By what reasoning, moreover, could anyone contend that the Son is not seen by the Holy Spirit, since he is a substance which is perceived by the intellect alone, and is infinite, if we weigh his powers: a substance, I say, immense in times and ages, by which he liberally bestows the goods innate to himself; he, finally, whom all things desire, which order their life according to the prescription of virtue; to whom also all things take refuge, which require sanctification; he from whom the perfection of all other things depends; he who is wanting in nothing, who provides life, who is not completed by addition, but is always full; and is no less than the Father and the Son lacking a beginning, and is coeternal, and divides divine gifts, and distributes to each according to their dignity, as he wills: which Peter also testified to those things which he said to Sapphira: *Why is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? You have not lied to men, but to God*. ^C

If anyone should also say that souls pre-exist bodies, and deign to honor them with the names of angels and powers, and that angels fallen into sin were sent into this body as a place of punishment, in order that they might here first undergo judgment, this would certainly be impious, and repugnant to the creation of the first man. For the ancient and same divine Scripture teaches us how Adam, fashioned from dust, received the divine inspiration in his face, which even now we call the soul, a participant of reason and intellect.

Moreover, when Origen introduces the pre-existence of souls, and, what is most absurd, says that they are angels who have fallen into sin, bringing forward these Davidic verses in confirmation of this matter: *Before I was humbled, I sinned*; likewise, *Turn again, O my soul, unto thy rest*, he introduces the judgment of demons before the time, and says that they were introduced into the body as a place of punishment; which judgment, indeed, God determined as the apostle Paul says, yet he has not brought it upon anyone even to this day; nay, he has reserved it for the resurrection of the dead and the consummation of the whole world: at which time also the demons will depart into the outer fire, which is prepared for them and their prince, and those damned men will accompany them to that extent, on account of those things which they committed in life against justice and fairness. Origen therefore fabricates, while he supposes souls to be angels fallen into sin, whose substance should depend upon divine inspiration. ^D

How can it also be that Christ deigned to assume a body compacted from virginal blood, and a soul participant of reason and intellect, if souls are to be held as demons fallen into sin? Christ, I say, who came into the world for this reason, that he might destroy the empire of the demons, and procure the common salvation of the human race. The pre-existence of souls, which he introduces, smells of the fables of the Greeks.

For the Greeks, opining that souls pre-exist, said they were subject to sin, which, since they could not be purged of the stains and filth with which they were infected in any other way, and return to their pristine purity, they were therefore infused into bodies, and that since they would not misuse the expiatory virtues, those dissolved from the bodies would recover their pristine purity, and [the rest] of the souls...

^A, immediately upon returning, would be mingled with other souls that had in no way been joined to bodies. But those who, yielding to the corruption of the passions, rendered their own dignity void and useless, and presented themselves like a mirror from which that pure and pellucid smoothness is absent—as soon as they departed from the body, these would be cast headlong into chaos and Erebus.

Furthermore, the meaning of these words, *Before I was humbled I sinned:* likewise, *Turn again, my soul, into thy rest,* is that by these words the Prophet admonishes himself and calls to mind the things which he had committed in a most wicked manner regarding Uriah: the humiliation or abjection for the shameful disgrace that had redounded upon him therefrom, and the tumult of sedition by which, for the same cause, he had been attacked by Ahithophel and Absalom; and finally the ensuing expulsion from the kingdom, as well as his ignominious flight from the royal halls and his dwelling in solitude, just as he confesses to God in another place while singing: *I said, I will confess my injustice against the Lord* (Ps. XXXI, 5); likewise, *It is good for me that Thou hast humbled me, and my eyes have been immersed by the flow of waters: because I have not kept Thy law* (Ps. CXVIII, 71). In all these is contained a certain proclamation and recantation of one who repents of his past evils, and who speaks with his own soul and exhorts it to give thanks for the benefits which it received then, when it did not suffer the punishments deserved for those things which it had committed most contumeliously against God. By "rest," however, we can also understand that pilgrimage of the soul of the righteous, by which indeed it is withdrawn, free from the sad perils of this world, and shakes off the tabernacle of the body from itself as a heavy burden, as Paul also says: *In this tabernacle we groan, being burdened* (II Cor. V, 4); likewise, *I desire to be dissolved, and to be with Christ* (Philip. I, 23).

The following sections also teem with no less blasphemy, in which he contends that Adam, before he transgressed the Lord's command, had preserved the image of God, of which the soul was surely naked, nor was it covered by any veils, but was seen in the mere form of man. But he says that after the command was transgressed, he lost that same image when the soul donned this body, which he understands by "garments of skins." For Moses writes in the history of Genesis that God formed man by taking clay and then breathed a soul into him; and that when he had transgressed the command, he heard this from God: *Dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return* (Gen. III, 19), and not long after was commanded to live in exile, and finally, being driven from paradise, donned garments of skins. Now, how can it be that he to whom it was said, "Thou art earth, and into earth thou shalt go," was without a body, but had merely an idol—conspicuous in bodily form—cast about his soul? ^D At but this curious man, studious of subtlety more than is enough, seems to me to have spoken these things at that time when, from the tenets of the Platonists and other philosophers, through the reading of whom he had cultivated his mind from his tender years, he had imbibed and drunk to satiety doctrines contrary to our faith. For the Greeks attach two kinds of idols to the one and same soul that participates in reason; of these, one coheres to it from eternity, and by them is called the divine and luminous body, while the other is crasser, which, as they say, is implanted in it from the disposition of the stars. And they bestow a name upon this second idol, and call the idol of the soul "devoid of reason," endowed with the power of opinion, imaginative, sensitive, desirous of generation, and even of those things which are subject to generation. For they do not attribute the contemplation of one thing, first notions, exquisite sciences, erroneous opinions, the apprehension of things presented to the senses, and the imaginative faculty to one and the same nature of the soul, but they assign the more excellent things to that part which participates in reason, and to that which lacks reason they assign the things that are worse—not indeed with the intention of thereby causing any stains or any disgrace to the more divine nature, but so that, when that part has performed the necessary duties, this part might turn itself only to those things which are considered more divine.

This idol, therefore, which we also called crasser, they say can least of all be separated from the soul that participates in reason, but that when man is freed, they sometimes lift up that more excellent soul, which participates in reason, together with the luminous figure and with the part that is devoid of reason, to its own proper and peculiar lot, but sometimes they place that part which is devoid of reason (as Homer writes of Hercules) in Hades or among the stars.

Therefore Origen, as my own opinion holds, when he had clothed the soul with an idol of this kind, which would carry about its own actions and those involved with it, held that it would come to pass that it would rise again together with this and be subject to a future judgment—in which matter he imitates the pagans exactly—but that the flesh, being mortal and exposed to touch, would melt away and vanish.

For the confirmation of which absurd dogma he abused these words of the Apostle: *It is sown an animal body, it is raised a spiritual body* (I Cor. XV, 44): which word of the Apostle, indeed, does not at all subvert the resurrection of bodies. For it is not likely that he is of that opinion, who proclaims to all the nations the Lord's resurrection with a body, and predicts that we shall be participants in the same form as He was when He rose from the dead. But the "animal body," he says, is that which is subject to affections and flux, just as elsewhere the same Apostle called him an "animal man" who measures all things by the reasonings of the mind, nor...

does he meditate upon anything divine, nor upon those things that transcend the order of nature, in which, however, the soul is accustomed to exercise itself.

What kind of things, I ask, are these which this fickle and inconstant man was teaching concerning that which was created in the image, at the time when he was devising a new interpretation of divine things, and was tyrannically recalling them to his own senses and conceptions? For he maintained that God is one thing, that which was fashioned in the image is another, and likewise that the likeness is one thing, and that which was brought into effect after the likeness is another. And he used to say that the first images and likenesses are the angels of God and other powers: but that we are second to them, as being inferior to them, since we are fashioned, forsooth, in ^B their image. Then, turning aside to worse things, he calls the only-begotten Son the image of the invisible God, his apostolic voice corrupted, nor adding that which in Him is not subject to mutation, and he writes that we were made to the image of God, or of the only-begotten Son, which is not without impiety. For we are called created to the image of God for this reason: because reason dominates in us, by whose guidance the arts were discovered by us, and men famous for the knowledge of divine things have conceived of many things for the glory of God and the praise of His magnificent works. Hence, as it is clear from the things we have spoken, we are partakers of that which is created to the image, but they who have emerged perfect in virtue are partakers of that which is to the likeness: and they have left no stone unturned, as long as they lived, that they might attain the knowledge of things, by which they could be converted to God, and might desire with all their vows those things which are said always to have themselves in the same way: whom therefore divine Scripture calls gods and sons of the Most High, nor does it call them by the name by which it calls the rest, whom it compares to the beasts of burden lacking wisdom ^C and cries out that those have become like them who wickedly kick against their Master.

They have led them ^D to the four rivers, that is, the principal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance: so that Phison is compared with prudence, which encompasses the whole land of Evilath, that is, the soul oppressed by labors and straits: for this is the interpretation of the Hebrew word, because, assuredly, we attain prudence through labor; which is nothing else than the collection and heaping together, or rather the emulation of those things which have been done honestly at some time, or are currently being done.

Gaon, however, which waters the Ethiopian region, is adapted to temperance, which in a way constrains and contains the desiring part of the soul, nor permits it to flow off into absurd actions.

Tigris, moreover, which flows against the Assyrians, they wished to be a symbol of fortitude, because, forsooth, that ardor of soul is not unlike the Tigris, and the constant purpose of those who order their lives according to the prescription of the Spirit. For they fearlessly penetrate those things which seem to bring terror to others.

Finally, they compare justice with the Euphrates, which is circumscribed by no part, just as the other virtues; but it runs through all, is present to all, adorns all, and cherishes all in its embrace (51).

But thus far for these things, the narrative of which, I think, will not be useless to the hearers.

Moreover, the passage of Paul, where he says: *Each man's work, of what sort it is, the fire shall test; for the day shall manifest it, because it is revealed in fire* (73), can be understood in this sense. Heraclitus indeed, the philosopher, positing that fire is the primary element, said that it is still preserved and preserves the other things, which, assuredly, are mingled together by contrary qualities, yet in such a way that it would eventually overcome the other elements by its own effusion: and having been emitted from its own limits as if from craters, it would swell up to such a degree with its efficacious quality that it was about to devour and assume all things that are in the nature of things (52).

But the Apostle by no means makes these statements about such a fire; since it is a part of the world, and it too is subject to the corruption of the universe itself, nor indeed about that of which mention is made in the words of Peter, the pillar of the apostles: *The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night: in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be dissolved with heat. And the earth and the works that are in it shall be burned up.* If, therefore, all these things are to be dissolved, *what manner of persons ought we to be in holy conversations and pious operations, expecting and hastening unto the coming of the day of the Lord, in which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with the heat* (74)? But he understands another fire, which, forsooth, is as it were a portion and fragment of Gehenna, to which we also are then to be moved, so that, having been purged in it, we may be placed either on the right side or on the left.

^A Furthermore, we can also understand God Himself by the name of fire, who is also called light, and does not disdain the appellation of fire. For He is both lacking a name in this regard, and abounds in names, changing His designation from time to time according to the nature of our habits. For because He purges the soul and restores it to its pristine purity, and washes away the stains inherent in it which vice had branded upon it, for this reason He is and is called light, than which no light can be said to be more brilliant or more splendid. But because He consumes matter, for that reason He is called fire, just as elsewhere, because He cuts, divides, and reaches to the marrow of the soul, for that reason He is called a sword and a sharp word. Therefore, the fire will test what the work of each one is. In this world, we are indeed exposed to the testing of others, where there is much error and much compensation for committed sins, and the work itself is often worthy of crowns or punishments; yet, through the consolation of friends who offer aid and the advocacy of a skilled orator, it very often happens that the judge is moved to mercy and is thus brought to change his sentence: but hereafter, the fire will test what the work of each one is. For the judge cannot be circumvented, nor the tribunal corrupted by bribes, and as soon as one has approached closer to the judge, one is already tested by fire. For the most exact proof of actions depends on the very nature of the Judge: For the Day, he says, will manifest it, because all things are revealed in fire. This is a confirmation of the preceding statement. For because he said that we would all be judged by fire, and that fire which consumes vice and converts it into ashes is God Himself, for this reason he added: For the Day will manifest it, because all things are revealed in fire. The Apostle used "Day" in this place for the future age: either because it is not regulated by the movement of the sun, as a day is, which is soon succeeded in turn by its opposite; or because, if it is compared with the present life, the day is similar to night. This Day, therefore, he says, will manifest that all things are revealed in fire. For with other judgments rendered obsolete, and every kind of torture and inquisition having been bid a long farewell, it is certain that the judgment of our works before God alone will remain for us. For there will be no one there who might extort the administration of affairs from others through ambition, or circumvent judgments, or win over the will of the judge, or change the indissoluble divine law: If someone’s work remains, which he has built up, he will receive a reward: but if anyone’s work burns, he will be punished. ^B For just as if some material were thrown into this fire of ours, which is exposed to the senses, along with other material that is pure and truly gold, it shines more and more in the furnace, and the more effective the fire is, the more transparent the thing thrown into it becomes. If, however, anything containing lead or tin happens to fall into it, with the inferior material being consumed, that original bulk of the mass is diminished: so also, after all men have been brought closer to the divine and purgatorial fire—I mean, to God Himself—whoever will be pure and transparent, having been made brighter by the testing of the fire, receives a reward which is the true retribution for his golden soul and sincere action, not stained by any blot of offenses: because he is assuredly joined to God, and he endures that divine fire; and being mixed into His pure light, he at length by the grace of the Creator becomes divine. For his work, which he has built up, remains. But he has built upon it towers and bulwarks, that is, the unassailable dogmas of the faith, the heights of the virtues—those things, I say, through which, as if by intermediate steps, if anyone ascends from the earth on high, he might be able to see God Himself. Walls of this kind, divine fortifications of this kind, are by no means consumed by flames, but are strengthened and preserved more and more. But if anyone has tasted in his own soul of a bundle of stubble, which is material that is easily consumed and burns up in fire (whatever we may wish to understand by this, in my judgment, the abundance of evil works), as soon as he has approached closer to the fire, he will not be able to bear the conflagration, and consequently he will be punished. But I believe "punishment" here is not to be understood, as some have thought, for the burning of the material, but for the fact that one is not made a partaker of the divine light, nor is held worthy of the Creator's splendor. Such a man, therefore, will be punished, and he will be saved. In which words a contradiction seems to exist. For if the deprivation of light must be understood by the name of punishment, and the enjoyment of the same light by the name of salvation, how will it be possible for the same man to be punished and escape saved at the same moment of time? ^C Therefore, it must be known that the emphasis of "salvation" in this place is different from that which has commonly prevailed. For in this place, the word "to be saved" by no means signifies to merit salvation, but not to be consumed or burned up by fire, since we also say that adamant is saved in fire, and some living creatures are said in a certain way to be saved when brought to furnaces, as often as they endure the heat of the fire and are not burned or mutilated. Consequently, he who is punished can also be called "saved" in this way, especially since he is endowed with an immortal body, which is subject neither to any incisions nor to burnings. But that the word "to be saved" is to be taken in this sense is evident from what the Apostle added. For after he said: "He himself will be saved," he also added the manner, with these words, "as it were through fire"—for he will not, he says, enjoy an excellent salvation, but an inferior one, namely, that which comes about through fire. Origen, therefore, having seized the opportunity from this, as I have said, confirms that souls are to be restored to their pristine state: while he interprets that punishment, which in the sacred Gospels is called eternal, in the same way as eternal joy, and openly demonstrates that it will be that souls which have fallen into sin and have accumulated for themselves the matter of vices, remain in the fire for as long as the filth of their vices is consumed: having consumed which, they will be saved again, after they have been boiled and purged by the flames, yet in such a way that the worm without

end remains, and Gehenna is not extinguished, just as the Lord says in the Gospels, so that in this way concern for the future may be stimulated, and the memory of the divine humanity may be refreshed in the minds of those who have been liberated from these eternal punishments.

CHAPTER XXXII.

This Paul, born at Samosata in Mesopotamia, presided over great Antioch after Demetrianus, as the fifteenth bishop of that city. Because he deferred to Zenobia, he fell into a most absurd heresy. The matters being circulated about Zenobia are as follows: At the time when Galienus, son of Valerian, ruled the Romans, Macrinus rose up against him. Odennathus, however, prince of the metropolis of Palmyra in Arabia, assisted Galienus; for this reason, once victory was achieved, the latter entrusted the administration of the whole East to him. ^B But after Odennathus was killed by those of his own household, and not much later Galienus also died, Claudius succeeded to the empire. When he had defeated the Persians in war, they placed Zenobia, the wife of Odennathus, in charge of Syria and Phoenicia. But when shortly thereafter Claudius himself also departed from the living, the Emperor Aurelian, having been created emperor, moved an army against Zenobia and took her captive. Therefore, when Paul wished to defer to her—who, as we have said, was still governing the aforementioned places—and who professed Judaism, he himself also taught that there is one God, who was to be called Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit—one and the same. For he said: "God is one, and his Son is in him, just as speech is in a man." ^C But he claimed that the Word himself had come down to earth, dwelt in the man who was called Jesus, and once the dispensation was completed, ascended to the Father. But Jesus Christ is inferior, who had his beginning from Mary. Such, therefore, was the dogma of Paul, which partly agrees with Noetus and Sabellius, and partly disagrees with both, since they also differed among themselves to a certain extent. For they assert there is one God, as it were distinct in three persons. The three agree among themselves: but they differ in this, that Noetus says the Father himself suffered in form and name, whereas Sabellius says that while he is indeed the Father, he did not put on the persona of the Father, but of the Son; ^D Paul, finally, says that he did not put on the persona of the Father at all, but rather that of the Son. And these are the points in which he either agrees with the aforementioned heresiarchs or disagrees with them. But he openly agrees with Artemon and Theodotus the tanner, who clearly teach that the Lord Jesus Christ is a bare and simple man.

Since the rulers of the churches had found and verified that these things were so, they did not at all consider that this heresy should be neglected, but they gathered together at Antioch to remove it from their midst. Presiding over the council were Theodorus (53), who is also the miracle-working Gregorius, bishop of Neocaesarea; Athenodorus his brother, who presided over one of the Pontic churches; Firmilianus, bishop of Neocaesarea, which is in Cappadocia; Helenus of Tarsus; Icomas of Iconium; Hymenaeus of Jerusalem; Theotecnus of Caesarea, which is in Palestine; Maximus of Bostra; and Anatolius of Laodicea, which borders Syria. But that great Dionysius of Alexandria, on account of his old age, could not indeed be present, yet by letter he spurred on those who had gathered to the defense of the truth.

But once the synod had been convened, Paul was already prepared to deny the charges, when Malachion—who had previously practiced the art of sophistry, but had later been adorned with the dignity of the priesthood—instituted a disputation against him. And when his fraud had been detected in this way—as he who called Christ a man adorned with divine grace beyond others was rightly segregated from the assembly of priests—because the ecclesiastics had opposed him, they exposed his heresies to Aurelian, who was emperor at that time, and persuaded him to expel him from the Church. For although he was devoted to the worship of idols, he nevertheless deemed it just that if a man were to contradict those who shared the same faith, he should be excluded from their assembly by the common vote of all.

SCHOLION OF THEODORUS SCUTARIOTA.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

were partakers with him in the creative and kingly ^A dignity. The same [Scripture] where he says: "Behold, Adam has become as one of us" 76, or as one of us, who are three persons in one divinity. For although this is said ironically, it can in no way signify a single person. Likewise where it has: "God appeared to Abraham by the oak of Mamre. Looking with his eyes he saw: and behold, three men stood above him, and he hastened and ran to meet them and worshipped on the ground, and said: Lord, if I have found grace before thee, do not pass by thy servant." 77 You see how the Scripture testifies that God appeared to Abraham, but that there were three who appeared. And although there were three, he nevertheless conversed with him as with one, which happened entirely in such a way that one and the same Divinity shone forth under the three persons. But if one should say that there was only one God, and the others were two angels, how did they dare to sit with the Lord? Likewise: "The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and sulphur from the Lord out of heaven." 78 Likewise: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." 79 In these words, clearly, the Lord, God, and likewise the Lord, indicate the hypostases, but the fact that he is one indicates the one Divinity in the three. Consistent with these are these Davidic [utterances]: "In God I will praise the Word, in the Lord I will praise his speech." 80 Likewise: "In God I have hoped, I will not fear what man may do to me." 81 Likewise: "Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows to the Most High." 82 Likewise: "Call upon me in the day of thy tribulation." 83 Likewise: "The Lord lives, and blessed be the Lord." 84 Likewise: "Let the God of my salvation be exalted." 85 To these can be added: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were fixed, and by the spirit of his mouth all their power." 86 Likewise: "In thy light we shall see light" 87, that is, in thy Son we shall know the Holy Spirit. For through him those things which are to be known about the Holy Spirit are known no less clearly than those which are about the Father. Indeed, even in the book of Jeremiah IT IS written: "This is our God, and no other shall be reckoned against him" 88: to which is also added what follows: "He was seen on earth, and conversed with men." 89 Micah also says: "And thou, Bethlehem, land of Judah, for from thee shall come forth a leader who shall rule my people Israel." 90 But Daniel also writes thus: "I was looking in a vision of the night, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came as it were the Son of man; and he reached to the Ancient of days: and they brought him unto his presence: and he gave him power, and honor, ^B and a kingdom, and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him: his power is an eternal power, which shall not be taken away: and his kingdom shall not be corrupted." 91 Verily, if anyone unrolls the Old Testament and runs through the prophets, he might see the holy Triad signified by that triple cherubic sanctification, and by many such things, just as also by this Davidic [verse]: "The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool" 92; Item, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedech." 93 For Aaron and his consorts performed the holy act with the disemboweling of animals; but with bread and wine, Melchisedech alone was the priest, who was also a type of Christ and his initiatory mysteries: for whom David also prophesies an eternal priesthood. But from our own, that is, the New Testament, one might fish out clearer and weightier testimonies, just as from the mystery of the supersubstantial Triad, which shone forth through the incarnate advent of Christ. For at the very threshold, the angel said to the Virgin: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee" 93; by which words he indicated the divinity contained in three hypostases. Whoever wishes for more can hunt them out from other evangelical sayings, mention of which we have happened upon incidentally whilst we were dealing with the dogmas of Sabellius.

CAP. XXXIII. Thirty-third heresy, of the Manichaeans and Cubricians; these are baptized.

These were later called Acuanites, because they used the teachers of this impure heresy from a certain Acua, who originated from Mesopotamia. But the Manichaeans and Cubricians were designated from old, namely from Manes the Persian, who was formerly called Cubricus and afterwards bestowed upon himself the name of Manes. Moreover, by this word "Manes" in the Babylonian idiom is designated "vessel," or, as some prefer, "dialectician." Furthermore, this wretched Manes called himself the Paraclete, and taught that Christ appeared and suffered only by phantasy, or pretence. ^D

^A For, positing two unbegotten and eternal principles, God and matter, he called God light, and matter darkness; and the light he called good, and the darkness evil. He blasphemed the Old Testament, and Him who spoke in it, and all the prophets; he taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were gods to be worshipped; he taught the migration of souls from bodies into bodies; he denied the resurrection of the flesh; he claimed that herbs, trees, water, and all other things are ensouled; and he raved with ten thousand other such notions. Finally, inflated by a spirit of arrogance, and relying on the aid of the demons by whom he was carried, he promised to restore the son of the king of the Persians, who was laboring under a disease, to his former health; and he applied certain medicinal drugs to him for the cure of the disease, but the boy immediately expired in his hands. Consequently, the king, provoked to anger, cast him into prison, from which he escaped by bribing the guards with a great deal of money. At last, however, he was caught and flayed with reeds, and his skin, stuffed with chaff, was kept in Persia; and in his honor, the Manichaeans spread their beds upon reeds.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

The apostolic word which says that the Lord was made in the likeness of ^B man, and was found in fashion as a man, the Manichaeans wrongly twisting, established their own heresy, saying that Christ appeared and suffered only by phantasy or simulation. But we, the people of the planting of Christ, have learned to understand, and we believe with piety, this matter of His being made in the likeness of man and found in fashion as such, in this sense: that He assumed our nature and appeared to us equal and similar, in that He had taken the form of a servant—that is, had received the nature of man—not according to human succession, but without seed. For to come forth from a woman is human, and proper to Christ Himself; but to come forth from a virgin is more excellent than human condition, and proper to Christ alone. For even if He was truly endowed with human form, yet He transcended man in that He was not a mere or naked man, but united to the Divinity. Otherwise, if one may say so, the likeness and fashion, and the ambiguity of the phrase "as a man," seem as it were to hinder the account of the incarnation. But the Lord was by no means similar to man, but was perfect man; nor did He, as if to perform a play ^C upon a stage, acting out the dispensation, assume the man as an external, surreptitious mask, nor, as shadows that are painted upon walls through the aid of colors, did He assume only a fashion and not the nature of man, so that He was not truly man, but only appeared as man. For these are the things which the superficial application of the apostolic word shows to those who do not delve ^D into the depths: but having subsisted the human nature within Himself,

^A He preserved it in the divine union unconfused and unchangeable. We are taught that there is a double kind of similarity: one that has a difference, and another that maintains identity. For we say that the images which have proceeded from the prototype are similar both to each other and to the prototype; but they are different from the prototype, so that both the principle of the archetype and that of the image might be preserved; while they are undistinguished from each other, so that they may remain images of the prototype. And so the divine Apostle says that God is similar to man in respect to the unchangeableness of the substance; but he adds that He was also found "in habit as a man." ^B Now, habit is understood in a twofold way: namely, fictitious and true. For we say the upright habit of a man is the true one; but we say that the habit of Socrates or Plato is that which is assumed by those who represent their persons in the theater, as was the custom to do in fables or in comedies and tragedies; and this is a fictitious and false habit. In this place, therefore, the habit demonstrates the truth. For the Lord was found in habit as a man, that is, in the very human substance which had been formed by such a habit; for He did not convert only the substance of man into the substance of His own hypostasis, while proceeding endowed with a form—or human habit—different and not similar to ours, but He was found as man in both substance and habit.

Cæterum duo principia non esse, quorum alterum bonum, alterum malum sit, ut Manichæorum astruit impietas, hinc haud dubie perspicuum fiet. ^C Good and evil are contrary to each other, and destroy one another, and they cannot consist together, just as light cannot subsist with darkness. Hence, each of these is a part of the whole. And first, each of these shall be circumscribed not only by the whole, but even by a part of the whole. For who shall block the way for contraries, namely for good and evil? For no one would say that both could be brought together and reconciled from their own nature; since neither does evil, which produces peace and is so greatly loved by the good, remain evil, nor is the good, in turn, good, which shows itself to be benevolent to the evil. But if someone assigns to each of these their own seat where they might dwell, he will certainly be the only God, who has simultaneously and at once taken up those things which were most opposed to each other. ^D Therefore, it must be the case that one of two things happens in these matters: either they agree and mutually endure each other, or some medium intervenes by which the good is separated from the evil, being as it were a transverse partition by which both are divided from each other; and thus there will no longer be two, but three principles, of which one must guard the others as if in peace: which indeed cannot be done by the evil. For to guard peace

is not in the nature of ^A evil. Just as that which is fit for keeping peace cannot wage war or fight. Wherefore, it follows that one principle must be left—that which is good and free from every defect.

If they wish to ask whence evil arose (for it is impossible that evil should have derived its origin from good), we say that evil is nothing other than the privation of good, and a turning away from that which is according to nature to that which is contrary to nature. For nothing that is according to nature is evil; indeed, all things that God has made are very good, as they were created. Remaining, therefore, as they were created, they are very good; but when they voluntarily flee from what is according to nature and descend into what is contrary to nature, they become involved in evil. By nature, then, all things are servile and obedient to the Creator; but whenever any of the creatures willfully rebels and becomes disobedient to Him who made it, it has established evil within itself. For evil is neither a substance nor a property of a substance, but an accident—that is, a voluntary turning away from what is according to nature to what is contrary to nature, which is sin.

Sin is the invention of the free will of the devil. The devil, therefore, is evil, not by the nature in which he was created—for he was created as a most luminous and brilliant angel by the Creator, and, as a rational being, endowed with free will—but he voluntarily departed from the virtue that is according to nature and came to be in the darkness of wickedness, having moved far from God, the only good and life-giver. For from Him all good is rendered good, and in so far as he moved away from Him in his will—for it was not by place—he came to be in evil. Thus, he declined from that which is in accordance with nature and fled into the darkness of vice; he is far removed ^B from God, who alone is good and life-giving. For from Him everything that is good is brought into being well and benevolently; and in so far as one moves far away from Him, he falls into evil by his will (for not by place).

Vanity, therefore, is Manes, and futile, speaking things worthy of darkness, who imagines darkness and matter to be eternal and co-unbegotten with God, although he hears Moses saying: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth" [Gen. 1, 1], and that all things came to be out of things that were not; and how, as soon as light was produced, the darkness receded. For Socrates, son of Sophroniscus, and Plato, son of Ariston, and their successors, and very many others, were of this opinion, saying that all things were created from ^C underlying matter, and, calling them co-eternal with God, they assign to God the function of being its cause. Yet they do not define matter itself as being among the evils; since they consider it a supreme blasphemy to say that God is the creator of evils. And those men perhaps deserve some pardon, who have not heard the prophetic words, nor had the holy apostles as guides, but have pursued the knowledge of things by simple conjecture. But these men [the heretics], what punishments, pray, will they suffer, worthy of their impiety, who, while enjoying the holy Gospels, ^D have fled from their light to the darkness, like bats? For because every art among men requires underlying matter, those senseless ones suspected that not even God could create anything without matter; and they did not understand how great is the difference between God and man; and how it is not possible that the image...

^A should possess all the things that the archetype possesses. Moreover, as to man as an image, if he creates anything, he creates it from those things that are in the nature of things; but God [creates] both from things that are and from things that are not. And divine Scripture will clearly teach us this: for the Apostle says, *“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,”* so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. ⁵⁶ And again: *“Who calleth those things which be not as though they were.”* ⁵⁷ Furthermore, Moses, who wrote the history of the generation of the world, taught which things were created from those that were not, and which from those that already were. For he says, *“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”* He created light also from things that were not. For God said, *“Let there be light, and there was light.”* But he brought forth the firmament from things that had already been created. *“Let there be,”* he says, *“a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it divide water from water.”* And he commanded seeds and plants to spring forth from the earth; just as he also produced the various kinds of animals: from the waters those that swim and those that dwell in the waters, and those that are called amphibious, and from the earth the quadrupeds and creeping things. But he created man from things that were not and from things that were: ^B by molding the body from the slime of the earth, but creating the soul from nothing. For the soul is not of the same substance as the Creator, as the impious opinion of Marcion asserts, but [it is] created from nothing.

Moreover, because he attacks the Old Testament with his blasphemies, and also Him who spoke in it, and rejects it, and offers divine worship to the sun, the moon, and the stars, and contends that herbs and high-leafed trees, as well as perennial waters, are animate, and proposes other absurdities of this kind, this indicates how truly he is called [a man] of madness, or of insanity, from which, I think, he also rightfully gained his surname. Hence the provision in the book of the sixty laws, which forbids anyone to inherit from Manichaeans by will or by intestacy, but [ordains that] their goods be brought into the public treasury. Furthermore, they are rebaptized if any of those [people] turn to our blameless faith. For their heresy still rages, and the villages and estates of the Cabricians are situated around Apollonias. ^C

CAP. XXXIV. The thirty-fourth heresy, of the Hieracites.

A certain man named Hieracus is said to have been in the city of Leontopolis in Egypt, who was skilled not only in the Egyptian language but also in Greek, being practiced in every kind of eloquence, and not moderately versed in the art of medicosophy, astronomy, and perhaps even magic. Having prolonged his life to over ninety years—beautifully and elegantly, even to the last day of his life, he continued to write without any failing of his eyes—he was so continent that ^D he abstained from all kinds of food and wine, and with such exercise of mind he had so terrified the common people that he was able to persuade them to adhere to him and to be united with him. Whereby it came about that most of the Egyptian monks embraced his heresy. The principal heads of his heresy were of this sort.

This Hieracus interpreted the Old and New Testament as if drawing them out [from within himself], and composed books in the Egyptian and Greek tongue. Moreover, his interpretation was similar to the ravings of Origen; it was crammed with too many various fables and also with allegories which ver

^A clearly revealed.

Since it is impossible for two contrary forces—the holy Spirit, I say, and Satan—to come together in one and the same human being. For such a concurrence of them is not something that can happen, or ever come to pass at any time. For the one is God and the Creator of the angels, while the other is an apostate and baleful power, which, on account of its inherent pride, dwells far from Him; and according to the word of the Lord, it fell from heaven like lightning along with the powers that were companions of its rebellion 74.

To determine, then, that through the perception of immaterial things the soul—being one, and not of a dual nature, as the Euchites babble—is purified and a man is rendered perfect, is established by the very words of God, which call the remission of sins and spiritual regeneration wrought from heaven, baptism. We also know that divine gifts are food which can never be consumed or perish; which is far better than the manna 75. For the Hebrews ate that while departing from Egypt in the wilderness, and they died: but these confer immortality and purge the soul of adhering animal stains much better than that coal which was offered to Isaiah by a pair of tongs from the Cherubim 76. To conclude in one word, they are nothing other than a certain union with Christ, and the true cause of life. For Christ said in the Gospels: He that eateth my flesh, dwelleth in me, and I in him 77. Likewise: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you 78.

^B They introduce an immaterial life and preserve the grace of the Spirit, which is infused into those who are worthy of them through the washing of regeneration and the participation in the body and blood of Christ. Nor, indeed, is it to be taken by itself as the foundation of faith, nor does it bestow any benefit upon the salvation of those who pray. For to what end is prayer directed, unless piety and the knowledge of God precede it? Which, indeed, it has not yet fallen to the lot of any of those who are confined in the dungeon of an earthly body to see clearly in its essence or hypostasis. It is certain that to a few, and those purified ones, He has appeared as if in enigmas and obscure visions. Since Moses, when he had asked to see God, heard: No man shall see my face, and live 79: whence he was also held worthy to enjoy the sight of His back parts—whatever those back parts of God may be—who spoke to Moses, and to the just men who followed him, in a pillar of cloud, in darkness, and in a whirlwind. ^C The same God is also one, who is recognized as one in the Divinity and in the Trinity of hypostases; whom we adore in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. And indeed, the Trinity of persons was obscurely revealed to Moses and the prophets; yet in the final times, when the Son of God assumed our corruption, ^D that is, to subsist in truth, what else is this but the impiety of those who think and profess that a certain evil power is opposed to the good God, and, as if it were something contrary, is compared with Him as it were from an opposite position? This can in no wise occur. For it is agreed that good and evil mutually destroy one another; because, forsooth, they struggle against each other unceasingly, and the weaker is corrupted by the stronger. But if anyone should judge them to be of equal weight, he will discover that they fight a perpetual war between themselves, and consequently inflict upon each other constant destruction: since both are alternately conquered and do conquer. For He who brought all things into the nature of things created all things honorable and good, as one who was Himself honorable and good. For neither does life generate death, nor does light arise from darkness. How then can it be that evil, which is by no means created by God, should be endowed with a nature that is enhypostatic, or subsisting of itself? Truly, no one will deny that evil exists. But we deny that it is a living and animate substance, or a nature that is the parent of wickedness: rather, we assert that it is an affection in the soul that is repugnant to virtue for the reason that it has fallen from what is honorable and good, which indeed is born in the slothful, not from outside, or against the will of the mind—otherwise, neither would penalties have been decreed by laws against criminals, nor would punishments have been inflicted upon them by judges. But that evil does not consist in the nature of things, nor was it produced by God, but is in opposition to Him from the opposite side, let this become manifest. Out of the transgressions of what is honorable, evil arises: not otherwise than when light departs, darkness follows; and from the declension of the good, a progress toward evil is born. For when individual virtues have vice affixed to them, if they do not remain unshaken and firm, they substitute a contrary vice: just as a body that is exposed to the splendor of the sun produces a shadow. For example, since fortitude as a virtue is a mean, it has contrarieties on both sides—timidity, I say, and audacity—tacitly substituted. As long, therefore, as it remains firm and constant, and worthy of its own name, no place remains for timidity or audacity. But when one or the other of these creeps in, the former is obscured and loses its venerable name; and so it perishes as if unheard of, and substitutes the vices formed by itself: just as one may see the rainbow in the clouds, lacking its own proper hypostasis, or the parhelion or halo in the sun, which the common people call "suns." Do they not designate those who shun all work, and are busy with nothing else than to invent those things which are thoroughly alien to the truth? For since God immediately after the transgression commanded man to provide himself bread in labor and sweat, and Paul openly

teaches that he who does not work should not eat, how could he have meant that we should leave life, which is supported by food, in order to pursue a life of mere air? Or how could he have established such a rule for the holy ones, who are destined to be brighter than the stars, through the same comparison by which celestial bodies relate to earthly ones? Indeed, even among the just themselves there will be a difference of radiance, just as the moon differs from the sun, and the chorus of stars from the moon.

An animal body, moreover, must be understood as one that is ruled and moved by animal faculties, and therefore is by no means in need of those things necessary for density, just as all bodies are before death. The spiritual body, however, is one rich in the operation of the Holy Spirit, led by Him, and by which the soul itself is finally governed. Or, in another sense, he understands by the "spiritual" that which is not subject to corruption, but is subtle and light, and is carried as if through the air and ascends to the ethereal substance, nor is it seized by any desire for earthly things. Such are the bodies that become ours after the resurrection from God, who produced the celestial elements on the condition that they would be subject to no old age and no labor.

Now by what right, I ask, do they teach that the soul is led away to eternal punishments or to crowns destined to last forever without the body, with which it committed either pious or impious deeds? Furthermore, they are unworthy of ever having seen the day of their birth who affirm that none of those who have contracted marriage will be saved. ^B And they bring forth Paul as a witness to their own lie, where he says: *I wish all to be as I am*. Likewise: *Follow holiness of body, without which no one shall see the Lord*. Nor indeed does Paul understand under the name of holiness celibacy, but he hands down marriage as honorable and the bed undefiled; just as God also envisioned, saying: *It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a helpmate like unto him*. But Paul followed in the footsteps of Christ, who conferred the first rank upon virginity when He was born of the Virgin according to the flesh, and said: *He who can receive it, let him receive it*. He also teaches that marriages are legitimate, though he prefers virginity, setting himself forth as an example, since he followed the Pharisaic rule of life, by which, among other sects, he was bidden to abstain from women.

Moreover, the holiness of the body is by no means circumscribed by cohabitation with a woman, but is evident in a broader sense: in which the words of Paul are also to be understood, who warns in most places in his Epistles to be pure from adultery, fornication, envy, detraction, lying, perjury, gluttony, and the other vestibules of sin. For if, following the old womanly tradition of Hieracas, all who are acknowledged by the name of Christ were to abstain from the embrace of women, we would all to a man fail in one generation; nor would anyone care to leave behind someone surviving them if they truly understood how to offer worship to the Lord.

^C The same man, understanding the Paraclete under the name of Melchizedek: for he was called "like unto God" for no other reason than that he alone among all in Moses is without genealogy, and because, so to speak, he had declared his benevolence toward Abraham with the offering of bread and wine, when he was returning from the slaughter of the five kings, all of which things fit Christ in a wonderful way. For *who shall recount His generation*? And they define the institution of that mystery as having been done in the night in which He was betrayed, by the bread and wine.

But I will say something else in the third place, which is ignored by many. Moses writes that two men notable for piety flourished at one and the same time, namely Abraham and Melchizedek; yet the former received the covenant in circumcision, the latter in uncircumcision. Hence Christ is called a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not only because He performed it mystically with bread and wine, just as he did, but also because He blessed circumcision in uncircumcision, just as Melchizedek had blessed the circumcised Abraham in uncircumcision.

Furthermore, some ascribe the brevity of life of those who die a premature death to the providential foreknowledge of all things, so that, for instance, future evils and lawless deeds which they were about to perpetrate might be prevented by this means; others refer it to the chastisement of their parents, which indeed does not happen without that ineffable providence of the Divinity. And those who are not initiated into the sacred baptism, and those who are born to parents alien to our right faith, will be condemned no less than their parents, who deprived them of baptism as soon as they were born—whom David says will by no means rise in judgment, nor come into the council of the just.

But those who were born to parents imbued with the divine baptism, and who laid aside the old man through the washing of the font, even if they are deprived of those crowns with which the athletes are crowned—which are not won without the blood and sweat that are usually exhausted in such contests—they do not, however, fall short of that rest which the blessed enjoy, which is indeed in the many and varied mansions of God. For they did not lose the effect of martyrdom by design and by a change to a better sentiment, but rather by the extemporary interruption of the contest. And because the first parents were produced into the world immediately in that age, and the scope and end of the resurrection is that human nature should be recalled to that ancient formation of the first parents, therefore both those who are consumed by old age and those who exhale their soul while still in the cradle will rise again with the same measure of age, nor will their nature be changed due to a diversity of size.

CHAPTER XXXV.

thia, who had taken their origins from those regions. Giving honor to the holy Mother of God greater than was right, they deemed her worthy of the name of God and of worship beyond reason, and permitted women themselves to perform sacred rites to her, and to offer up a sacrifice as if to God. Those women, having a chariot or vehicle prepared, would spread out a square linen cloth, upon which they placed cakes, or a small loaf, and in the name of Mary would raise them up, and thus they would all communicate of it, and distribute it to others.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

It is not without great praise that virtues are designated by names of moderation; but excesses and deficiencies have always been considered as transgressions of honesty and contrary to every best action. For although, so to speak, they dwell in the same houses and some may cling to others, nevertheless they do not for that reason agree among themselves in their actions. Therefore, whoever pays greater honor to the divine Deity than is right, and than he has received from pious men, will by no means be acceptable to God, nor will he attain salvation in this way, even if he should surrender his body to be burned, even if he should distribute his goods to the poor; indeed, he will not even be said to have done anything great who has sought after virtue by any other path than that which finds favor with the denizens of heaven. For if anyone, having been taught that the powers of fasting are such that they remove evil affections from the midst and generate those which are laudable by their moderation, does not in any way pursue and cultivate that habit of those who are continent—which men are capable of—but, having thrown off the reins of that moderation, has attenuated his body with excessive weakness, and has finally breathed out his soul so miserably, he will appear to have killed himself rather than to have contended with the angels in fasting. Just as he will not be considered a martyr, but his own slayer, nor will he be held worthy of that holiness with which the faithful are wont to be adorned, whoever has drawn a sword into his own bowels, as if by this means he were bearing death for the name of Christ, so that he might be numbered among the martyrs. In the same way, the Collyridians, indeed, are to be embraced with regard to that faith by which they worship Christ: but because they deem the Mother of God to be God, and perform sacred rites to her, with female priests destined for this, to whom not even the temples are at all open because of those stains which they have contracted from nature, they are to be held by the faithful as altogether sacred and detestable; nor, in my judgment, do they gain any profit for their soul from those things which they seem to perform in a somewhat pious manner. For those deeds, because of the reprobation of others, will also turn out to be void and altogether useless. Since whoever has abolished one commandment of the law is condemned as if he had transgressed the whole law.

CAP. XXXVI. The thirty-sixth heresy, of the Massalians, or Euchites.

They are anointed, as some prefer, or, as others say, baptized, which indeed is better. ^A The Massalians, by the very derivation of the name Euchites, signify those who are praying or supplicating. For they teach that nothing else is more effective for putting demons to flight and for delivering the soul from evil affections than the perseverance of prayer. They are also called Euphemites, that is to say, those who pray for favorable things or who speak with favor; likewise Martyrians and Satanians. They are called Euphemites because they appear to be more diligent than others in praying and blessing God; but Martyrians, because they would count some of their own number among the martyrs who had been killed by the orthodox; and finally Satanians, because, thinking Satan to be strong, they worshiped him so that he would not, as they said, work evils in them.

But the heads of the heresy of the Massalians, extracted from their books, are these:

1. That Satan exists hypostatically, that is to say, he truly dwells within man and masters him in all things.

2. That Satan and demons possess the human soul, and that human nature is so much a companion and associate of their wickedness.

3. That Satan and the Holy Spirit dwell in man, ^B and that not even the apostles were free from contrary energy, that is, from the power of the demons.

4. That neither does baptism make a man perfect, nor does the reception of the divine mysteries purge the soul, but only that which is considered by them to be prayer.

5. That man, even after baptism, is polluted by sin, and that this comes to pass not by the benefit of baptism, but of prayer, so that the believer may enjoy that immortal and divine garment.

6. That apathia, that is, a state of being void of perturbations, is to be embraced, and that the communication of the Spirit is to be perceived by sense and in reality.

7. That he ought to enjoy the company of this spouse in such a way as a wife enjoys when she lies in her husband's embraces.

8. That those who are moved by the Spirit see sin and grace, both the thing that is worked and the one who works it, interiorly and exteriorly.

9. That revelation is something which happens by sense and by divine hypostasis, such as the heresy is.

10. That fire has a procreative power.

11. That the soul which does not have Christ in sense and in every operation is a habitat of reptiles and venomous animals, that is, of every contrary virtue.

12. That nature is the fountain and origin of evils.

13. That Mary and the seed conceived the Word.

14. That Adam, even before the transgression, slept with Eve without any perturbation of the soul.

15. That for man there are two souls, of which one is common to other men, and the other is proper to heavenly beings.

16. That it can happen that a man, in sense, that is, in reality and in every operation, receives the Holy Spirit.

^A 17. That a cross may appear to those praying in a light, and that sometimes a certain one of the dignitaries, having been caught, had three loaves placed before him at the altar, anointed with oil.

18. That the Massaliani turn away from all work, as if it does not at all befit Christians, as manual labor does.

19. They introduce inhumanity toward the poor: if they have renounced them, or have wished to do any good at all, that which they ought to spend, he who begs in public, or the widow abandoned, or those who have suffered various dangers, or are afflicted in body, or by the cruelty of creditors, or by the incursions of barbarians, or have experienced other such calamities, they say that they suffer the loss of their own things, but for themselves, who are truly poor in spirit, all things ought to be provided.

20. They add a contempt for churches and altars, as if, since they profess piety, they do not at all need to persist in ecclesiastical communions, being content with those prayers which they pour out to God in their oratories. They say that their prayers are of such weight, that the Holy Spirit appears to them and to those they instruct in perception.

21. They pretend that it is fitting that those who wish to be saved should pray continuously, doing nothing at all, until they drive away sin—like smoke from a fire, or a dragon, or any other wild beast of that kind—by prayer, and cause it to withdraw from their perception, and reciprocally perceive the efficacy of the Holy Spirit: that it is manifest that they grasp his sense while entering ^C into them. And this, they say, is the true communion of Christians.

22. For they deny that in the Church's baptism, or in the elections of the clergy, those who are baptized or chosen are participants of the Holy Spirit, unless they communicate with the studious zeal of their own prayers. Thus, for anyone, even without baptism, the communication of the Holy Spirit is chaff: provided that they continually converse in their assemblies, and learn the dogmas transmitted there.

23. Whence, when orthodox presbyters raise certain things against them, for instance that they confess they are not participants of the Holy Spirit in sense, they respond that they obtain the sense of the Holy Spirit through their own prayers.

24. Moreover, they are so carried away by the pride of arrogance that they proclaim those who perceive the sense of the Holy Spirit with them as perfect and free from every sin, and that they have finally become better: these they pursue with the highest affection, and revere them, so that they are no longer subject to the dangers of sin. But for the future, they enjoy quiet, delicacies of food, every kind of generosity, and honors. And since many among them use the testimony of such perfection obtained, among outsiders (who are not even worthy of the name of Christians) they are involved in various ^D obscenities, thefts of money, and debaucheries.

25. These and many other such portents they decree, so that they most easily dissolve even legitimate marriages, and those who are joined in marriage, they take to themselves no less than monks, and proclaim them blessed. And to such an extent do they persuade them that they cast aside their father, mother, and children (whom they ought to educate), and contribute everything to them.

26. They willingly receive those fleeing from their masters: those infamous for crimes who come to them, without any fruit of penance, without authority or honorable degrees, whom the canons designate for ecclesiastical order, they promise them to be absolved from all sin however many times, if only they evade the impromptu prayers meditated among them by a priest of iniquity.

27. And so they induce some, even before they are absolved from their sins, to the elections of the clergy, and elicit by deceitful persuasion from the bishops the laying on of hands, which they extort; these, forsooth, they insist are monks.

28. That they do this is not prompted by the fact that they despise the clergy or bishops, whenever it pleases them, but to secure power and authority for themselves.

29. Moreover, some of them say that they never even interfere with the communion of the mysteries, if they do not openly perceive and experience the presence of the Holy Spirit at that hour.

30. There are not lacking among them those who, if they perchance wish, exhort to the amputation of virile parts.

31. They easily despise separations (which are commonly called degradations).

32. They boldly swear, and perjure themselves.

33. Finally, they even tacitly detest their own heresy.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

The Euchites are certainly to be deplored, on account of that manifold heresy, and to be lifted up by the prayers of the pious, so that at long last, awakened from the lethargy of their rashness, and recognizing God, they might abstain from those foolish prayers, and having bid a long farewell to the fables of their dogmas, learn true piety. For it is true madness if anyone thinks that Satan and the Holy Spirit inhabit man [enhypostatically], that is, in reality: especially since God formed man of soul and body, and fashioned him remote from the dominion of Satan, at the very beginning of the world. For He who gave the breath of life to the human race, the same also suspended and established the heaven itself. If now Satan cohabited with man, and ruled over him in-hypostatic, that is, in reality inserted and commingled, he would never be trampled or chided by the saints, like a vile slave, nor would he be held in derision like a wretched little sparrow.

^A It is, moreover, impossible that two contrary virtues — I mean the holy Spirit and Satan — should coincide in one and the same man. For their concurrence is not something that could happen or ever come to pass at any time. For the one is God and the Creator of the angels, while the other is an apostate and baleful power, which, because of ingrained pride, dwells far away from Him; and, according to the word of the Lord, it fell from heaven like lightning along with the powers of the same rebellion.

2. Furthermore, that by the perception of the mysteries of Christ we are purified and made perfect human beings—not because our soul is of a double nature, as the Euchites babble, but because of the very words of God, which call baptism the remission of sins and a spiritual regeneration wrought from heaven—is certain. We also know that divine gifts are food that is never used up and does not perish: which is far better than manna itself. For the Hebrews ate that while leaving Egypt in the wilderness, and they died; but these confer immortality and purge the soul of attached animal stains much better than that coal which was offered to Isaiah by the Seraphim with tongs. To sum it up in one word, they are nothing other than a link with Christ and the true cause of life. For Christ said in the Gospels: "He that eateth my flesh dwelleth in me, and I in him." Likewise: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

3. Prayer introduces the life referred to, ^B and preserves the grace of the Spirit which is poured into those who are worthy of it through the washing of regeneration and the participation in the body and blood of Christ. Nor, indeed, is it to be taken by itself as the foundation of faith, nor does it confer anything for the salvation of those who pray. For to what is prayer directed if piety and the knowledge of God do not precede it? Which, indeed, it has not yet happened for anyone restrained by the prison of the earthly body to see clearly in its nature and substance. Certainly, to a few, and those purified ones, it is understood to have appeared as in enigmas and obscure visions. Since Moses, when he asked to see God, heard: "No one shall see my face and live"; whence he was also deemed worthy to enjoy the sight of His posterior parts—whatever those posterior parts of God may be—since it was He who spoke to Moses and the just men who followed him in the pillar of a cloud, in darkness, and in a storm of wind. The same God is also one, who is recognized in a single Divinity and a Trinity of hypostases: whom we worship in the Father, ^C the Son, and the Spirit. And while the Trinity of persons was obscurely revealed to Moses and the prophets, in the last times, when the Son of God assumed our corruption, ^D the knowledge of one divine and eternal principle became clearly known to the world.

4. Moreover, if anyone says that evil is "enhypostatic"—that is, that it truly exists—what else is this but the impiety of those who think and declare that a certain evil power is opposed to the good God and, as it were, compare it to Him as an adversary? This can in no way be. For it is agreed that good and evil mutually destroy one another, since they strive against each other unceasingly, and the weaker is corrupted by the stronger. But if anyone should consider them to be of equal weight, he will find that they are engaged in an eternal war between themselves and, consequently, are diligently bringing mutual destruction upon each other; since each alternately conquers and is conquered. For He who produced all things into the nature of things created all things honorable and good, as He Himself is honorable and good. For neither does life generate death, nor does light arise from darkness. How, therefore, can it be that evil, which is in no way created by God, is endowed with an enhypostatic nature, or one that is self-subsisting? That evil exists, no one will deny. But we deny that it is a living and animate substance, or a nature that is the parent of wickedness; rather, we assert that it is an affection in the soul, rebellious to virtue for the reason that it has fallen from the honorable and the good—which indeed is born in the lazy, not from outside or contrary to the will of the mind; otherwise, neither would penalties have been decreed by laws against criminals, nor would punishments have been inflicted upon them by judges. But that evil does not consist in the nature of things, nor was it produced by God, but rather stands as an adversary to Him, may be made clear hence. Evil arises from the transgressions of what is honorable; not otherwise than as darkness follows when light withdraws; and progress toward evil is born from the declension of good. For since every single virtue has a vice attached to it, if they do not remain unshaken and firm, they substitute a contrary vice: just as a body that is exposed to the splendor of the sun casts a shadow. For example, since fortitude as a virtue is a mean, it silently has contrary states on either side substituted for it—I mean timidity and audacity. As long, therefore, as it remains firm and constant and worthy of its name, there is no room left for timidity and audacity. But when either of these creeps in, it is obscured and loses its venerable name; and thus it perishes as if unheard of, and substitutes the vices formed by itself; just as it is possible to see a rainbow in the clouds lacking a substance of its own, and in the sun a parhelion or a rod, which the common people call suns.

5. Furthermore, who can be called "evil," if not those who avoid every work and have no leisure for other things, except to concoct those things which are completely alien to the truth? For since God immediately after the transgression ordered man to procure bread for himself in labor and sweat, and Paul openly…

^A exclaims: *He who does not labor, let him not eat* (II Thess. iii, 10): these men have counted work among sins! Now, if all men, as they desire, were to devote themselves to prayer without intermission, and were to care for none of the things that pertain to the sustenance of the body, they would be completely destroyed by famine and would suffer a death most pitiable. But you will say, O Euchite, that you are content with herbs and fruits that grow spontaneously during the seasons of the year. What, then? When you gather them, do you not labor? Do you not cease for a time from those perpetual prayers, just as, when leisure permits, you feed your mouth, and interrupt those chants and prayers which you are accustomed to sing to your own destruction? For God forbid that I should say you sing them to God.

6. And while you teach that one must cease from every work and keep watch in assiduous prayers, you persuade those to whom you have imparted your mysteries that they should exercise beneficence only toward you—who keep watch in prayer and are poor in spirit—and that apart from this they should pity no one; and you also cite as a witness Christ, who taught that the good of alms must be extended to everyone without discrimination, so that in this way we may imitate the Father who is in heaven, who makes his sun to rise upon the earth, which it illumines with its light: and rains upon the just and the unjust (Matth. v, 45). For if you do not have mercy on him who is covered in wounds, if you do not clothe him who wanders naked, if, in short, you do not feed him who is wasting away with hunger: in whom, I ask, do you cultivate a beneficent God? Or is it in yourself? But this is not mercy, but a hoarding of riches, and the habits of a man who pursues no one with mutual love; indeed, it is even a certain private gluttony, which no one would turn into a vice. But may such inhumanity be far from us. This doctrine is diabolical, and alien to the precepts of Christ.

7. But by what artifice, pray tell, do you see your sin escaping from your body ^B in the manner of smoke and fire, or even of a bloody dragon, while you are at leisure in prayer? None at all: unless some one of the demons you worship should entice you into a state of madness with his usual imposture, so that you might believe in such sorcery, by whose deceits it also happens that, with your mind captured, you attribute more weight to your prayers than to the divine baptism for the obtaining of the remission of sins, and to the laying on of hands, which is superior as being priestly, and the only thing that suggests the access of the divine Spirit: which baptism is indeed considered by us, the orthodox, to be the beginning and foundation of the faith: and thus the cause which draws the Holy Spirit to us, as I can confirm from the laying on of hands, which in the disciples of Christ after baptism were so effective that the Spirit manifestly descended. The same (Spirit), inhabiting the Virgin Mary, prepared and sanctified her so that, just as in a divine temple, the Word of God might be conceived of her, and so the Spirit wrought the first-fruits of our salvation, as soon as the power of the Most High overshadowed the Virgin, the Father so willing.

^B That you fable that seed was cast into the Virgin’s womb together with the Word, we have never accepted from any interpreter of divine things: or you are the sole author of this figment, who have certainly emerged like evil and ungrateful seed, rejoicing in vain speeches. Moreover, you most wickedly say that the divine nature is subject to change, and therefore is commingled with souls that are worthy of it. And yet change is spoken of in regard to those things which are created, which are changed either by will, such as angels, and souls as they progress in good, and are moved to evil: or because they are created and are subject to change, like everything that decays and perishes: such as all things which are seen in the world. But God is neither created, nor subject to change. For since the principle of his essence is contrary to those things which are subject to generation, for that reason it is not subject to those things to which they are accustomed to be subject. For those things are mutable; but this nature is immovable: and it is above the motions described by philosophers, devoid of quantity, quality, and place; in short, in every way immutable.

9. How, however, you say this too, that God willed human nature to serve demons: for from this it could be inferred that God is also the author of evils. But the matter is not so: on the contrary, God fashioned man to be of his own right, and alien to the consort and custom of demons. Furthermore, that demons have power by nature not only over men, but not even over brutes, is evident from the fact that at the command of Christ they went into the swine (Matth. viii, 31 seqq.). But in very truth Paul also ^C says: *Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in this world* (Ephes. vi, 12), adding courage to us who fear to contend with him, and sharpening us with these words: *Put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist the snares of the adversary the devil* (Ibid. 43). Having then enumerated the armor, he also subjoins this: *Stand girded about your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of justice, and your feet shod in the preparation of the Gospel of peace. In all things taking up the shield of faith, in which you will be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the wicked one* (Ibid. 14). Item: *Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God* (Ibid. 17). If anyone has been fortified with this armor, ^D which so resists the casting of missiles, and shines with such splendor, what demon will come against him, and not rather flee backward, especially if, instructed with such arms, he joins prayer and fasting? Prayer, I say, not such as you engage in with undue curiosity, which is truly useless, and unfit for putting demons to flight. For how can it be that he who exults in infidelity, and has not been expiated by baptism, can cast out demons by fasting and prayer, however much he may be broken by hunger, or suffocated by the vehemence of prayer? For those whose faith is reprobate and infirm—

are rendered useless. But if God, as you say, wanted human nature to be a companion to demons by reason of the transgression, how, I ask, could it be that Christ assumed human nature, so subject to sin and so exposed to demons, in such a way that He Himself was also found to be a companion of the malignant and antagonistic spirits? This is surely most impious, or rather, it was invented and devised by the demons themselves. Man was indeed condemned to death because of the transgression. Now, illnesses creep into natures subject to death. Yet, by this very fact, man is endowed with the power to treat demons with contempt and to extricate himself from their snares, if only he continues to obey God’s precepts and complies with His commands. It has been permitted to the demons, in turn, to use the bridle and bit with which they distract us from God; at times they put these before our eyes, at times they surreptitiously suggest them, and at other times they deceptively pretend and silently force upon us whatever drags us from the straight path into precipices.

10. ^B Oh, how you rave, even when you say that the ministers and companions of the Word were free from the power of demons! Were they not, O thrice accursed ones, the ones who cast out demons? Who healed the infirm with only their shadows? Who often scolded demons no differently than if they were base slaves, and who trampled underfoot scorpions and serpents and every power of the enemy? O wickedness worthy of no pardon! O statement alien to all reason, whose authors deserve to be beaten with fists.

11. ^C Just as those who say that for their soul, those who have attained *apatheia* (impassibility) are considered perfect among you, such a consort is perceived from the presence of the heavenly Spouse, as a woman is accustomed to perceive from the embrace of her husband. O open madness, or rather, a comparison that is the most absurd of all! If only they were ignorant that they bring insult to divine and most chaste things by comparing them with the allurements of the pathic and of lust: adapting, with their unbridled audacity, the streams of childish cylinders to such conjunctions, which are most alien to such effects: if, finally, due to their ignorance, they compare divine things with human ones.

12. ^D Nor does the blasphemy of those aforesaid cause horror, because you say that the soul of him who has first attained *apatheia* is transmuted into the divine nature: so that your most repeated discourse knows how to bring forward even those who are gods by nature and to include them together, O ridiculous men, as if in some stables: who not only exceed in number the multitude of the Greek gods, but also because their ranks consist of those in the first places at table, and in that, because they possess the first seats at banquets and are drawn from the assemblies of men: so that in this way again they become mortals, and are no longer a matter of wonder, but are instead seen as wondrous, because of that deification which is on the lips of every common person.

13. Furthermore, you say it is possible that a man who has attained your *apatheia* may perceive the hypostasis of the divine Spirit in his very sense and clearly. But how, I ask, can this come to pass? And upon what foundation of faith has this been built? For we also say and believe that to those who have been purified by legitimate expiation, there comes—I know not what, I shall not say a hypostatic or personal descent, but the presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord also said: "I and the Father will come, and we will make our home with him" (John XIV, 23), and as much as a human being is capable of God. Yet, the power of created nature is not such that it can behold the Divinity as nature is in itself, since it is, indeed, immense and infinite.

14. What need is there of words? You savor of Greek fables when you contend that there must be two souls in a man, one of which is common to humans, while the other is celestial. Yet, in truth, there is no subtlety in this fiction. For they say one is luminous, and the other is dark. However, they do not attribute both of them to one and the same man at once, but alternately and by turns. And you also say this thing, which brings weariness to the hearers: "For He breathed," as Moses says, "into his face the breath of life" (Gen. II, 7). This, then, is one soul. Christ also says in the Gospels: "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul" (Matth. X, 28). And Paul in Troas, when he speaks of that Eutychius who fell from the third loft, says: "Do not be troubled, for his soul is in him" (Acts XX, 10). But no one has yet been found, either among those of the Christian faith, or among outsiders, who has said that a man is *diluxon*, that is, endowed with a double soul.

15. Furthermore, that which is brought forward by me—the report of *eunouchismos*, that is, the excision of the virile members—is by no means to be attributed to those among you who are far from the assemblies of men. I would wish, therefore, even though human nature would be mutilated and adulterated by such a vow, that your synagogue could be excised from all those upon whom nature has raised up that member; and thus, deprived of the succession of the race, you might perish entirely along with your dogmas.

I, indeed, heard that these things were also being said and taught by them, on the report of a certain literate man, who had been seduced by them and trained at the Pontiff's, and who (of what disposition he is toward me, I know not) reported that he was compelled by the following words by their teacher, who was vested in monastic garments, had been advanced to the priesthood, and held a book of the holy Gospels in his hands:

"What do you say, good man? Are you a Christian, yet untouched by the baptism of Christ?" ^A When he who was interrogated replied: "Certainly, by the grace of Christ, I was born of Christian parents and, from the very age of infancy, I was cleansed by holy baptism." Then the Sophist of wickedness added: "At what time was this done, by whom, and where?" The pious man replied: "In the Church of God," he said, adding the name of the Pontiff who then presided over the Church in which he had been born, and also the name of the emperor who at that time was administering the affairs of the empire; and he added that he had received baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, just as Christ was the author of this in the Gospel. Then that other man, with an impure mouth and a deceitful mind, subjoined: "But that baptism of yours consists of introductory water. But as for that of which Christ said to his disciples: 'But you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire' (Matt. iii, 11; Act. i, 5), approach nearer, that I may baptize you, and that you may recognize the grace of the Spirit dwelling within you." That other man, having imitated Cerinthus, likewise turned out to be an impostor.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

The thirty-seventh heresy, that of the Cerinthians.

This Cerinthus boasted that he was initiated into great revelations, with angels as his teachers, and he said that the kingdom of Christ would be earthly after the resurrection; and that Jerusalem would once again enjoy the desires of the flesh, delights, festive days, and marriages for a space of a thousand years. Blessed Polycarp ^B the martyr is the authority for the fact that it once happened that when blessed John the Apostle had gone into a bath for the sake of washing his body, and had learned that Cerinthus was washing there, he leaped out of the bath immediately, and hurried away in flight, and exhorted his companions to do the same, lest the bath should collapse, for in it was Cerinthus, the adversary of the truth, and they might thus be utterly destroyed. They also say that Cerinthus was the author of that tumult of which James (54) makes mention in the Epistle to the Antiochians with these words: "They went out from us, who disturb us." It is also said that he contended with Peter concerning Cornelius; and in other places he appears to have been the author of that sedition against Paul which arose in the temple at Jerusalem when he had his head shaved (Act. 21, 26 seqq.). Likewise, he admits that Christ was indeed affixed to the cross, but he utterly denies that he rose again. But he asserts that he will then finally rise again when that universal resurrection takes place.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

It was enough for the refutation of the most impure Cerinthian's vanity and impiety, not only those things by which he blasphemed against Christ, but also because the disciple called the Theologian shunned him, and avoided him so much that even that divine man, ^C who had reclined upon the breast of the Lord at the supper (Joan. xiii, 25), would not even come into his sight. Furthermore, the number of years, that is, the thousand-year period, is clearer than the sun as a lie and the offspring of Cerinthus's reprobate thinking. For since Christ says that we will neither eat nor drink after the resurrection, nor contract marriages, nor give in marriage, but asserts we will be like the angels of God (Matt. xxii, 30), who would be so rash, bold, and alien to the free truth of Christ as to wish to announce that there will be an earthly kingdom for him and for those who, having risen from the dead with him, will one day be his friends? Or to what use, I ask, could the resurrection be, if indeed there should be again a place for the intercourse of bodies, the gluttony of foods, and finally for the afflictions of affections among men as before—if there is nothing spiritual, nothing that breathes of that more divine condition, and finally nothing alien to the earthly condition, which consists in the excitement of bodily movements? But if Christ has not yet risen, how is he called the firstborn from the dead (Coloss. i, 18)? Who, then, is he who appeared to the disciples, was felt by them (Joan. xx, 19), ^D and finally ascended into heaven with his body (Marc. xvii, 19; Luc. xxiv, 30)?

Furthermore, the divine Oracles testify that there will be one resurrection of the dead, by which they now introduce Christ using these words: "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God: and all who hear will rise again" (Joan. v, 25); but now revealing the judgment of the tribunal, that he may separate the just from the unjust (just as a shepherd also separates the sheep from the goats) and may station those on the right hand, these, however, on the left: and to the former grant the kingdom prepared before the foundation of the world, but cast the latter into the fire which is prepared for the devil. Moreover, Paul, the herald of Christ, writes thus to the Corinthians: "Christ has risen from the dead, the firstfruits of those who sleep" (I Cor. xv, 20). And a little later: "Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall all indeed rise again, but we shall not all be changed; in

^A a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet" (I Cor. xv, 51-52). Thus, by hymns and songs, we celebrate God with dance and movement, in imitation of that very dance which Moses and his sister Miriam instituted after crossing the Red Sea.

*Refutation of the preceding heresy.* "Old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new" (II Cor. v, 17), and the departing letter has bestowed freedom upon the spirit. Therefore, it is no longer for us, who are led by the spirit, either to establish choral dances or to sing songs; rather, it befits us to confess God with the heart and to praise His magnificent works with the mouth, standing in the temples with fear and the demeanor of religion. We can marginally deny that women, having mingled with the men after the drowning of the Egyptians, danced and joined with them in giving thanks to God. For it is more likely that Moses sang the ^B song of the crossing separately with the men, while his sister Miriam instituted dances with the other women. From this it follows that these things designated by the heretics, apart from the fact that they differ from that iniquity, are also foreign to the traditions of the holy Fathers and to our own.

CHAPTER XXXIX.

The Gnosimachi resist any knowledge and science of Christianity, and they assert that those who investigate science or knowledge in the Holy Scriptures labor in vain, especially since God requires nothing of Christians besides good works; wherefore it is better if one walks more simply and does not inquire too curiously into anything.

*Refutation of the preceding heresy.* Anyone can respond to the Gnosimachi in this way: In what manner could anyone explain the sense of the Holy Scriptures, especially those which are wrapped in the mist of obscurity, unless there were interpreters at hand to whom the depth of the Spirit is not unknown? Therefore, if according to the rule of your erroneous tradition, content with the reading of the Holy Scriptures, we had lived our lives without regard for science and reflection, what utility, I ask, would we have gained from them? Or in what way could we have explained what we believe to those who ask us in speech?

CAP. XL.

The Thnetopsychitae assert that the human soul is similar to the soul of brute beasts, and that it perishes together with the body.

*Refutation of the preceding heresy.* Theses are false, therefore, if any place is given to this tradition, and everything that is said concerning the future judgment and that most frequently sung resurrection is rendered void. For if souls are mortal, they will in no way rise again in judgment, nor will the fire test the work of each one, to use the words of that great herald Paul. Now how can it be that souls are subject to mortality, when so many dead have been raised by Christ, the prophets, and the apostles? For if they had been mortal, they would certainly never have returned to their own bodies. But in truth, souls are immortal, as the sacred Scriptures testify everywhere, concerning which it would be superfluous to discourse individually, as all know easily. Furthermore, even those ^C books that were written concerning the origin of the world establish this distinction between the souls of men and of brute beasts, that the soul of the latter is called their blood, so that it perishes together with the body; but to the souls of men is attributed the name of a divine breath: which breath we truly call a soul participant in reason and intellect, and thus immortal.

Moreover, this dogma is repugnant to the common notions and opinions of all. For by the consent of as many nations as there are, souls are seen to be immortal: and many who are studious of necromancy have called up souls and questioned them about future things.

Therefore, let Aristotle, and whoever follows him as a Thnetopsychite, asserting that the soul is subject to mortality—wearing a woolen garment and drenched in ointment, like the swallows—be expelled from the assembly of those who have given their names to Christ. For Christ rose from the dead, and He promised that we too shall rise again some day.

But as for what Solomon says: "Who knows if the spirit of the sons of Adam ascends upward, and if the spirit of the beasts descends downward?" (Eccl. iii, 21), that is something altogether different. For he does not speak there of humans and brutes in such a way that he denies the human soul is participant in reason, or that the soul of brutes is only of life and granted by the benefit of blood, and that nothing of them survives after death, and that with the body the soul itself is dissolved. For in that place he calls the sons of men first those who live their lives according to the prescription of reason and rule over their passions; but those who fall headlong and stupidly toward the earth, he compares to ^D beasts, the same Solomon who in another place asserts that the souls of the just are in the hands of God (Wisd. iii, 1).

CAP. XLI.

The Christolytae contend that our Lord Jesus Christ, after his resurrection from the dead, having left his ensouled body on earth, ascended into the heavens with his naked and simple divinity alone.

*Refutation of the preceding heresy.* And yet the angels, who at that time appeared to the apostles...

said: "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This Jesus, who is taken up from you, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." ^A But Stephen, the leader of the martyrs, also, when he was just about to be overwhelmed with stones by the Jews, said: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God." He calls him the Son of God, not one who had left his body behind and ascended with his divinity pure and simple alone, but one who took up his flesh with him as he ascended into the heavens. For if this were not the case, he would have called him the Son of God who had been stripped of his body. The Evangelist further says: "So then the Lord, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God." He was received, I say, with that same body with which he had suffered, had risen, and had offered himself to the hands of the disciples to be touched.

CAP. XLII. The forty-second heresy, of the Ethnophronites, that is, those who affect Gentile superstitions.

The Ethnophronites, that is, imitators of Gentile rites and superstitions, although they agree with orthodox Christians in other respects, certainly dissent in this, that, being devoted to Gentile superstition, they introduce and accept genesis—that is, the natal star—fortune, fate, astronomy, and astrology. Likewise, they embrace predictions and divinations that consist of auguries, auspices, cledonisms (that is, rumors from an uncertain source), expiations, prodigies, incantations, and other things of that kind, not without the observation of days, months, seasons, and years.

Refutation of the preceding heresy.

All these things are also to be avoided by Christian men, whose whole hope depends on God the best and greatest. For if even the hairs of our head are numbered by God, and not one of the sparrows that fall into a net falls without the will of God; and if Job himself, excelling all others in greatness of soul, said when he rebuked his wife: "If we have received good from the hand of the Lord, why should we not endure evil?" it is manifest that divine help is present in all things. How, then, can it happen that anything of advantage or disadvantage could befall one who has been intent upon such things—namely, from affections of this kind, or from the progressions, retrogressions, and varied configurations of the stars, and the observation of them? For if the elements, and not the senses and men themselves, are subject to the divine will, how, in the end, could those human conjectures, in which that divine movement against us is discovered in opposition to the observations of the stars, be accessible to us? For if war ^A breaks out, or a tempest arises at sea, it is God who stirs the sea and permits the incursion of soldiers against us. Therefore, it may rightly be said that He stirred up the war, as can be seen from many places in the divine Scriptures, or that He submerged the ship along with those sailing in it. But, on the contrary, this Mammacuthus, who is intent upon the stars, acts as an advisor to the commander, to whom slaughter is imminent, and to the pilot of the ship, to whom shipwreck is imminent, using those offices that entice a happy and fortunate day, advising the former to draw up his line of battle, and the latter to weigh anchor and spread his sails. Shall it then be said that the concourse and connection of the stars have anticipated the counsel of God, or are of greater energy and efficacy than the all-powerful hand of God itself? Impious, surely, would he be who even silently thought this to himself.

How, then, does it happen that of two kings who entered into the contest under the very same circumstances, with both hoping for victory from the predictions of a familiar astrologer, the one raises a trophy, while the other is thrown into chains and forced to undergo every disgrace, even though he used the same horoscope that the leader to whom he succumbed used? If one considers these things more exquisitely, he will discover that the powers of both fortune and fate, as well as the curious investigation of the stars, are nothing, even from the history of Cyrus and Croesus. For Croesus, the king of Lydia and of all the provinces that extend as far as Tarsus, struck terror into Cyrus because he abounded in money, by the aid of which he could entice Greeks and other peoples into alliance and assistance. Cyrus, on the other hand, terrified Croesus by his skill in military affairs, stratagems, and the drawing up of battle lines, by which he had subdued a great number of nations and subjected them to his rule. When, therefore, both had prepared those things that seemed necessary for waging war, Croesus succumbed in battle, even by the oracle of Apollo, which had warned him thus: "Croesus, crossing the Halys, will destroy a great force of wealth." In the name of which oracle he had donated to Apollo two hundred golden bricks; at which time, protected by the oracle itself and by the predictions of astrologers, he had moved his forces against Cyrus. But Cyrus, on the contrary, was recalled by the predictions of the astrologers from undertaking the expedition against Croesus (whose will at that time governed the Chaldean region before all other provinces of the nations), and was even advised by them to defer the expedition to another time. But being persuaded by the divine counsels of Daniel, who was the advocate for not delaying but proceeding against him, because naturally God was about to prepare a glorious victory for him, he put Croesus to flight in a few battles, finally captured him alive, and in a short time became master of his entire empire. But hear you, who are addicted to astronomy and observe days and times, what the Lord to Babylon through

His servant, the prophet Isaiah, concerning those who despise Him. “And yet they worship Me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men,” 14 yielding to the spirits of error, and listening to false speakers, turning their minds to the vanities of prophets: for while they think they know what is above the heavens and beneath the earth, they do not meanwhile notice how great is the blindness of mind with which they suffer, and to how great an extent they are deceived, and draw into the same fraud and the same destruction all those of their own whom they have been able to lure into their nets.

The book of the prophets also covers a few other things about these false-speaking astrologers, which have slipped my memory, so that it is no longer possible to relate them word for word. For the books have perished, and those, like the belly of Hades or a Laconian lair, have swallowed up the bellies of the Latins, along with my wealth and money; to be sure, these were not unlike the many and turbulent riches that were of the imperial offices, with which I was duly honored in order and rank.

Furthermore, Paul, the mouth of Christ Himself, who traversed almost the whole earth, as much of it as the sun warms with its most beautiful fire, is caught saying this in his Epistle to the Galatians: “But then, indeed, not knowing God, you served those who by nature are not gods. But now, when you have known God, or rather are known by God, how do you turn again to the weak and poor elements, to which you wish to serve again? You observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have labored in vain among you. Be as I am, for I also am as you.” 12

Therefore, whoever occupies himself with the observation of the stars, and places faith in those things which are spoken by the astrologers, ^B silently worships Mercury, Saturn, Mars, and the other stars which are carried around in a circle by their own motion. For although he does not consecrate brazen or stone images to them, nor does he perform acts of prayer before them, yet he is convicted of showing them a different kind of worship, in that he depends upon the effects of their revolution. It is fitting that those who do not lie about the name of true Christians should declare everything in one and the same way, namely, that all things come from Divine Providence, singing this with David: “My soul has followed close after thee.” 13

But if anyone, while indeed confessing with his tongue that God is the one by whose will and counsel all things happen, as of one who watches over and beholds all things, yet with fixed foot adheres to the error of the stars—what is this, if he does nothing else, but that his prayer does not seem to bring any force to piety, when he stains his mind with barbaric customs? For the Gentiles who do not know God lean on the figures and constellations of the stars like the gaping Mamacuthi, 55 and are stunned by their effects. God further rightly said of them: “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.” ^D Those who are little wise, and have not placed all their hope in God, convince themselves that the knowledge of future things is easy and accessible to anyone, and by attributing to the motion of the stars things that are proper and peculiar to divine foreknowledge, they lead away from a sound and error-free opinion whoever is inclined to the whispering of old wives' tales: just as the prophet Ezekiel also says: “Thus says the Lord God: Woe to the foolish prophets, who follow their own spirit and see nothing. Have you not seen a vain vision, and have you not spoken a lying divination? Therefore My hand shall be upon the prophets who see vain things and divine a lie.” 14

But because women of low estate were also claiming for themselves the knowledge of future things, the Lord again says through the prophet: “And you, son of man, set your face against the daughters of your people, who prophesy out of their own heart, and prophesy against them, and say: Thus says the Lord God: Woe to those who sew pillows under every elbow of my hands, and make kerchiefs for the head of every stature to hunt down souls! And you polluted Me among My people for a handful of barley, and for pieces of bread: to slay the souls that should not die, and to keep alive the souls that should not live, lying to My people who believe your lies.” 15 For so the matter stands. ^C True prophecy, and the foretelling of the future, is divinely displayed on account of the familiarity that intercedes between the petitioning man and God, and on account of the faith of him who desires to know the future. But from the revolution of the stars, and the position of such constellations, no knowledge of the future is given at all. For the administration of human affairs does not depend on them: but signs of rains, and the failure of such things, likewise of cold and heat, of moist and dry, and finally of winds and similar things are brought forth: but of our actions, absolutely none. For since the Creator of the world has granted us free will, our actions are in our own power. For if we do everything according to the course of the stars, whatever we eventually do, we do necessarily. But that which happens necessarily is neither virtue nor vice. Now if we attain neither virtue nor vice, we are unworthy to be adorned with praises or crowns, or to be affected by censures or punishments. Indeed, God Himself would be found unjust, who —

^A distributes good things to some, but to others sends afflictions, if He did not care to govern with His own providence the things He has created, but let all things drift headlong by necessity. Nay, even that part of the soul which partakes of reason would be superfluous in us; for if we are masters of no action, we deliberate in vain. For the rational part of the soul was given to men by God for the purpose of deliberation; and from deliberation, reason and free will shine forth.

Therefore, we say that the stars are not the causes of any of those things which exist, as they bring about neither the creation of created things, nor the destruction of those subject to decay; but rather, that they are signs of rains and of shortages thereof, and of other changes in the air. Nor, perhaps, does one judge wrongly in saying that they are sometimes signs of wars, but not in truth their causes. Since, from the quality of the air (to which various concretions or impressions happen in one way or another by the sun and moon), both dispositions in us and effects are brought about. Dispositions, moreover, are reckoned among those things which are placed within our power; for they are restrained by reason and recalled if they swerve. The perfection and waning of the lunar orb is also the cause of many mutations, as is evident from fish of the shellfish variety and from most trees, which wax and wane and in a certain manner sympathize with the changes of the moon.

^B He is, who have at last begun to feel piously toward God, and did not refuse to seek from Him those things which are peculiar to Him; as is also evident from the free prayer of Moses, by which he often interceded so that God might not give Israel over to destruction. This one may also conclude from Aaron, who, when he had followed the counsel of Moses and offered incense to the Lord in a censer, by this means repressed the destruction of the exasperated and rebellious people.

Many, too, of those who were marching to war, although victory had been promised them by God, and they saw themselves almost already in possession of it, and moreover perhaps hoping that they would possess the land which flowed with milk and honey (forasmuch as they had heard from God that they would one day possess it), fell utterly because of the sins that had intervened, having attacked the Palestinians unlawfully; and entering the land as corpses, and having raved very often against Moses and God Himself, they heard these words from God and David: *The enemy shall gain nothing in him, and the son of iniquity shall not add to harm him*. Likewise: *I will clothe his enemies with confusion*. Likewise: *I will turn those who hate him into flight*.

Moreover, besides this, on account of his sin which was committed against Uriah, it was not far off that he should suffer persecution, deprived of his bedchambers and even of his shoes, and should spend the night in the desert.

^C Sometimes indeed comets are divinely formed, which carry before them the signs of the deaths of kings; which indeed do not appear in those stars which were created in the beginning, but by divine command at one time proceed, and at another are again dissolved. Since that star, too, which was seen by the Magi at the time of the human and saving Nativity of the Lord for our sake, was not of the number of the stars which God created in the beginning; which was manifest even from that fact that it traveled in its course now from the east to the west, now contrariwise from the north to the south, and at other times would hide itself, and at other times emerge. For the order or nature of the stars does not allow for this.

But let someone of those who cling tenaciously to astrology, by way of recrimination against the things brought forward against their art, perhaps object that the end has at length been attained for most predictions; and therefore that it seems to some men that it is to be condemned and rejected rashly and in vain. ^D But in turn he will hear that that art is a mistress of the changes of the air, which knows how to portend the eclipses of the sun and moon, and to predict other things of this kind useful for human life, but has not likewise learned to portend the outcome of those things which depend on the divine will: not to mention the fact that many of the evils which were impending over men, and were just about to press upon them, have for the most part been changed for the better by God, through prayers, fasts, and supplications; as is manifest from the conversion of the Ninevites.

What need is there of words to enumerate, one by one, those things which are variously decreed by the wisdom and virtue of God—which is manifold and impenetrable to men—and finally by that sagacious providence, and which come to pass in this way or that, according as it pleases Him, and as is profitable for each individual? Since, therefore, the depth of divine judgments is accessible to no human thought, nor can the human intellect by any means follow it, or the series of natural things reveal it, how, pray, can it be that from the elements subject to nature, and which have attained nothing more than what they are reckoned to be, some should promise the knowledge of future things?

It is truly strange if, advancing further—hey you, whoever you are, who ascribe the prophecy of future things to the stars—you do not also add the times, and declare that you yourselves, at the will of your own mind, now subtract and now divide them: by what sign, however, is that faculty known which presides over life and supplies all things? Just as also from the fact that it holds future things no less than present things as foreseen and known. And that I may bring this forward for the sake of an example: that man indeed sets out intending to wage war or even to traverse the vast sea; this one, indeed, having professed the astronomical art, if consulted, promises victory and safe navigation, a celestial sphere having first been fashioned for his use. But, after things have for the most part turned out contrary to what had been promised, [they] return—

^A to the earth, signifying their rising and setting ^B by turns.

That anyone who subscribes to the vanity of false prophets does so to his own detriment, the blessed Moses is the authority—or rather, God Himself, who spoke through Moses: "When you have entered the land which the Lord your God will give you, beware that you do not want to imitate the abominations of those nations. Let there not be found among you anyone who purifies his son or daughter by passing them through the fire, or anyone who consults soothsayers, or observes dreams and omens, nor let there be a sorcerer, nor an enchanter, nor one who consults spirits, nor a diviner, nor one who seeks the truth from the dead. For all these things the Lord abhors." Furthermore, in another place He says: "You shall be perfect and without blemish with the Lord your God. For those nations whose land you will possess listen to augurs and diviners. But you have been instructed otherwise by the Lord your God." Consequently, no crime can be imputed to anyone more shameful than turning one’s mind toward false prophets and diviners. And yet it is a paradox, alien to common human opinion, that God not infrequently permits men of this sort to foretell even something true, so that by this very sign it may become manifest who they are who truly rely upon His promises. For God also said this through Moses in this manner: "If there rises in your midst a prophet, or one who claims to have seen a dream, and he predicts a sign or a portent, and what he said comes to pass, and he says to you: 'Let us go and follow strange gods whom you do not know, and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer: for the Lord your God is testing you, so that it may be made plain whether you love Him or not with all your heart and with all your soul."

But that Stephen, who was the first to suffer after Christ, rebuking the ^C assembly of the Hebrews—which delighted in slaughter, distrusted God, and finally transgressed His commandments—at the time when certain men of his congregation, which was called the Libertines, were seeking him out and could not withstand the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke, discussed among many other things these points in particular concerning the race of the Israelites: "And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands: but God turned and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: 'Did you offer victims and sacrifices to me for forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? And you took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Rempham, figures which you made, to adore them. And I will transfer you beyond Babylon.'"

There is little or no difference between him who adores the host of heaven—that is, the stars—and him who subscribes to and acquiesces to those who, from a more curious investigation of them, prophesy future events, which is the proper function of Divine power alone, and of those to whom He has granted this.

Christ rebuked even the demons themselves, saying: "What have we to do with thee, Jesus, Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" ^A Paul, too, rebuked the girl who was vexed by a Pythonic spirit and cried out: "These men are the servants of the most high God, who declare unto you the way of salvation." ^B And when she had done this for many days, being troubled, he turned to the spirit and said: "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." ^C And he did so at once with a word; nor was this without cause, for prediction of the future is not a property inherent and native to demons, but rather a species of violence and pretense, by which they foresee even the smallest and most meager image of truth, as is evident from those ancient oracles, most of which are for the most part doubtful, and for the greater part teem with lies, pushing most of those who believed in them into evil plights from which they could not escape by any art. Now if demons are essences partaking of reason, and fly about all the corners of the globe ^D and even now retain like the outermost echoes of ancient apostasies and rebellions, and indeed not rarely conjecture those things that are about to happen better than we ourselves do, then surely the stars are for the most part mute, neither do they understand anything of the future, nor can they investigate the natures of things as demons do. Yet many of those who have reached our own times hold this kind of art—however obscure it is in our age and however it flows from ignorant men—in the highest esteem, and they attach themselves to those who claim for themselves the expertise of that art, as true conjecturers of the future: although their answers contain nothing clear, nor do they ever come close to the truth. Nevertheless, because they have itching ears, and because they perhaps spoke the truth in a single word—if, for instance, in nocturnal visions—they give credit to those things which they say simply and in general, just as if they were divine oracles, and they willingly acquiesce, and resort to them, sometimes even refusing to enter divine shrines at their command.

I have indeed seen even emperors of the Romans (for not all are to be blamed) who, when urgent business was at hand, would not admit anyone to their counsel who was considered famous for his wisdom or long experience in military affairs, but would depend so much on the judgments of astrologers, and would be led about by those things which were predicted from the inspection of the planets as if by golden rings inserted into their nostrils. ^A These kings are at once both deceiving and deceived, when they relegate those things that happen far from God and His providence; and in this way they most manifestly contradict the beliefs and institutions accepted among us, so that they delay for long months that which could be done today, and from this place they shift from time to time to another nearby, where they linger for a short time; often also, when they are about to ride out, wearing a part of those things which are necessary for horsemen, they carry a part in their hand, and with the horse already standing for the saddle, they are called back by the unseasonable hour, and retracing their steps, they changed their purpose against their own better judgment; as if that region to which they had intended to travel had been sundered by a chasm, or they were about to be shaken by celestial terror.

An excerpt from Nicetas himself on the vanity of the Ethnophrones, in the person of the Emperor Manuel.

Nicetas Choniates, in his *Annals of Manuel*, book II: "For since," he says, "it has pleased almost all the powerful, both of our own and of a previous age, that the progressions and retrogressions of the stars, their fixed positions, configurations, approaches, recessions, and the rest of those things which those triflers assert to the fraud of divine providence, and dissemblingly establish as the fatal necessity of all things, contribute much to good fortune and human accidents, Manuel inquires as to the suitable time for departure, and announces it to Constantine. But what happens? The sun had not yet verged toward the west when, by Manuel's order, the man is recalled on account of an inconvenient exit, because of an inauspicious position of the stars, which had not been subtly and accurately investigated. Therefore, the theme is again established, the rules are consulted; after long inquiry into the stars, Angelus sets out with a company of favorable planets: but that observation of the hour profited the Romans so much, and so corrected the errors of the former generals and repaired the losses sustained, that Constantine was immediately captured by the hands of the enemy, etc." (Concerning the battle of Constantine Angelus, whom Manuel had designated as commander of the army, against Roger, King of Sicily.)

On Fate.

Furthermore, the Greeks introduced fate in such a way that they invented a Necessity which presided over all things, whose three daughters—Lachesis, Clotho, and Atropos—they said existed, so that Necessity would look ahead to future events; Lachesis would superinduce the lot; Clotho would add strength and weight by spinning the same and by rolling the spindle around; and finally, Atropos would so confirm and stabilize it that it could never be changed or inverted in any way. From which it followed that if a newborn boy were destined by the fatal spindle to handle a shoemaker's awl, or a cobbler's knife, or finally to stretch leather with his teeth, it would be impossible for him not to practice that craft which had fallen to him by lot; but he was dragged by the cord of fate as if by a twisted neck.

On Augury.

Augury is a presage of future events which is gathered from the flight, the stillness, and the chatter of birds. For there was once among the Greeks, and other nations, an observation of the future...

even if in our own times it has flown away entirely, and has finally vanished with all its feathers fallen.

Unless perhaps the solemn dances of cockerels, by which in France at the beginning of spring boys are stirred to the study of letters, might be some remnant of the auguries once upon a time instituted by Solon at Athens; not to mention old wives' tales of hags, crows, owls, etc.

*Of Fortune.* [Appendix I.]

The Greeks believed that Fortune presided over all things, and they were led by conjecture to think that nothing good, or the opposite, happened without her will; so much so that they said that many things were provided for men by her, even while they were sleeping securely on either ear, and without applying their hand to any work, as though by a divine (as they say) rod. From which it came to pass that Timotheus would so subjugate cities as if Fortune were casting them into his net, and handing them to him while he slept.

They also say that something of this kind happened to the painter Apelles, in that he painted a war-horse with a lofty and upright neck, ears pricked, and with bloody and piercing eyes, which to the spectators seemed to be raging as it ran, with its feet lifted into the air, and scarcely touching the ground in turn, while the driver controlled the reins and restrained the horse’s warlike onslaught with the bit. And when the image was equipped with everything suitable, he was left with the color for the foam, which could be seen from the constant mixing of blood and water, since the panting from its mouth was forcing out water, and as it blew back, it was stirring it into a foam with the violence of the bit. When therefore he was already doubting about the painting, he cast the sponge which he was using for painting around the reins: which, as it carried many colors not unlike foam, decorated the painting with its own color easily. And thus Apelles achieved what he wanted, not by his own art, but by the chance of fortune.

They also honored Fortune with statues, placing on her hands the rudder of a ship, that she might steer the universe of things; others placed a razor upon her, signifying the brevity of prosperous fortune; others a sphere, or globe, because she could be changed easily; others gave her the horn of Amalthea, full and overflowing with fruits before her hands, which Hercules had pulled down when he joined hand-to-hand combat against Achelous: by this sign they denoted the happiness of fortune, and the delights of her gifts. Nor were there wanting those who placed arms in her right hand, and a scepter in her left, intimating that by this pact kingdoms come to warlike men, and laws and judgments to those in legal professions by the favor of fortune. These things and others of this kind were fabricated by those who subjected this body of the universe to the empire of Fortune.

^{B C} *Of Cledonism.*

Furthermore, cledonism, or sortilege, was of great weight, especially among the Hebrews. Hence the Lord says through the prophet: Your territory is full of cledonisms 36, 37. Those rumors are called cledonisms whose certain author cannot be brought forward, but which of their own accord, and, so to speak, spontaneously fly around towns and cities, and here and there whisper something of them that should be shunned, or even things that are of no consequence at all. Whoever, therefore, noted rumors of this kind, or even trivial trifles, and twisted them toward what they themselves had to do, and the outcome of the very things themselves—not that which pleased divine providence, but that which rumors of this kind and the conversations of people encountered had predicted—those were called cledonismi. Others preferred to understand by cledonism those interrogations by which *hordearii vates* (barley-seers), that is, *gastrimythi* (ventriloquists), were consulted, and by which they gave forth their own prophecies: just as *apotropiasmoi*, or evil omens, are said to occur if, as soon as someone has set out and begun to take a step from the house, he encounters a swarthy man or any other thing whose appearance is usually unpleasant and disagreeable to us.

*More on Cledonism.* [Appendix II.]

For cledonism is an invocation of evil, if I may say so, demons, which was completed when the sun withdrew from the northern climate to the southern parts, at which time the day is indeed shortened, but night grows.

There are also, moreover, some demons, as a certain old opinion holds, that consist of matter and do not look upon the rays of the sun. From which it happens that they plot ambushes for men at night, while by day they can do nothing (58). Therefore, when the sun, as we have said, turns toward the south, at which time the air adjacent to us seems to be condensed by darkness on account of winter, then such demons give a specimen of their wickedness with certain leaps and jerky movements, with those also watching by whom they have been invoked. And if they cannot entice them to themselves with incantations, they jump out from the middle of the flame with fire led around as if in a circle. For it is said that superior virtues do not converse with men purely and sincerely, ^D as often as the air adjacent to our head is covered with darkness; and it thickens, which is why they purge it with fire (59).

*Of Lecanomanteia.*

But concerning lecanomanteia, or divination which is performed with a basin, these things also have been handed down by some. Indeed, the water which is poured into the basin does not differ in substance at all from other waters of the same...

kind: but the rites and incantations which are applied to it render the water fit and adapted to receive the evil spirit who will deliver an oracle. This demon, however, has a form and is of a terrestrial nature; it acquiesces to the pacts of those who invoke it. But after it has fallen into the water, at the first impulse it gives forth a certain indistinct sound; then, as the water fluctuates, certain obscure voices murmur, from which a foreknowledge of the future is gathered. ^A Moreover, some demons are partakers of an aerial substance, but others are terrestrial, and they resist the touch with a certain slight repercussion. Indeed, Porphyry testifies that in such demoniacal bodies they have happened upon the Elusians, and that he has seen some as luminous, but others as tangible—those, namely, that were somewhat hard and resisted the touch. He adds, furthermore, that they are not all round, but that most are oblong, and some even very similar to rhomboids. For, he says, such is the nature of the bodies to which they are joined, that they are accustomed to undergo such a nature themselves. So far, Appendix II. Now it passes to *manteia* or divination. Furthermore, *manteia*, that is, divination—since it is in a way more general—was partly connected to incantations and partly differed from them, and it was performed privately by those addicted to these impious acts.

1. For those which are performed through *anatomē*, that is, the dissection of victims, and through the inspection of the contraction of animals subjected to the stars and of their vitals; and those which involve the examination of that bone which *manteia*—that is, the "skull" of the work—which physicians call by that name, after its boiling and the removal of the flesh, is examined attentively: it does not use incantation in any way, but draws divinations of the future from certain tokens.

2. But that which is effected by water contaminated with filth, poured into a basin by a virgin girl during the dead of night, in places that are distant from divine oratories and remote from the sight of men, produces conjurations and invocations of demons through its own charms. These incantations they sometimes murmured with the application of sweet-smelling aromatics, and sometimes even performed them with human blood poured in, or by slaughtering the virgin who had poured the water, or any other girl. Furthermore, such obscene things were performed in hidden pits, not without the digging of trenches, into which they poured milk with honey.

3. But trivial divinations, which were performed at crossroads and in public places, and those which were performed in ancient times by the so-called *gastrimythoi*, that is, ventriloquists; as well as those amulets which were hung from the breast or neck; and likewise those waxen images fashioned to the likeness of men, which they were accustomed to pierce on both sides with nails, were bound with charms. I will not run through each one, which are detestable not only in act and in no way beneficial to the agents, but which also pollute the ears, the tongue, the mind, and the understanding of those who speak of them with their filth.

CAP. XLIII. The forty-third heresy, the Parementulae, that is, those who interpret the Scriptures perversely.

Certain people, the Parementae, interpreting the chapters ^B of the Holy Scriptures, I say both of the Old and New Testament, wrongly and perverting them to their own peculiar aim, and moreover contending with no small persistence over most of their interpretations—which the human mind can scarcely grasp, laboring under I know not what stupidity, rashness, and impotence of mind—dare to confirm some of the dogmas of the heretics, meanwhile being ignorant of what they designate.

Confutation of the preceding heresy.

Whoever is prone to contention and ambition, him all men not unjustly pursue with hatred. For the vice with which he labors is undoubtedly a disease of diabolical madness. It has brought forth many over a long lapse of time who not only contended about a matter to them entirely unknown, but who, although they could have recalled the question posed in consultation to its genuine sense, nevertheless dragged it to the contrary as if on purpose, as if they were wary of falling into contradictory positions. From which it happens that most, the more easily to establish their own opinion, have fallen into perverse labyrinths of dogmas, while they prefer to insult God petulantly rather than to diminish their views by anything, as happened while Manuel Comnenus was emperor.

For when a dispute was stirred up over these words: *You are he who offers, and you are he who is offered*, two of those who were then deemed learned (whose names there is no reason for me to mention), entering into a sentiment differing from the orthodox, contradicted them as if the Son were interior to the Father, and were finally cast down from their degree of ecclesiastical dignity. But when, having been already about to be smitten by anathema before the tribunal, they could hardly be persuaded to retract their opinions, they claimed that they were well aware of how much they had babbled in dissent from the right sense of ecclesiastical dogmas; but, ascribing this to ^C disgrace and infamy if they were to act prudently—and, as it were, through discipline—they clung tenaciously to the things they had once asserted, however foolish and absurd their dogmas were. This sort of crime certainly does not lack madness, by which, no doubt, contention is exercised in matters that are not good, which are not decent. Moreover, one labors under greater madness when one does not have faith in those skilled in divine things, who bring forward only that which they have learned from the Holy Spirit, but clings more tenaciously to an opinion sprung from ignorance; and thus, with broken neck, one plunges headlong of one's own accord into the abyss of perdition.

CAP. XLIV. The forty-fourth heresy, of the Melitians.

The leader of these was Melitus, a bishop of the city of Lycon in Egypt, under the jurisdiction of the Alexandrian pope; yet so that he appeared to take precedence over the others, as second only to the Alexandrian pope.

CAP. XII. ON THE THEOLOGICAL FALLACY OF EUSEBIUS, BISHOP OF NICOMEDIA, CONCERNING THE CHANGE OF ὁμοούσιον ("CONSUBSTANTIAL") TO ὁμοιούσιον ("OF SIMILAR SUBSTANCE"), TO WHICH THE EMPEROR CONSTANTIUS AND TWELVE AND MORE BISHOPS SUBSCRIBED.

It must be known, furthermore, that when the impious Arius said the Son of God was a creature and denied he was of the same substance as the Father; and conversely the Nicene Fathers professed him to be ^A *homoousion*, that is, joined in substance to the Father and endowed with the same nature as him, finally those who stood with Eusebius of Nicomedia, having rejected the word *ousia* (substance), which could nowhere be found in the Scriptures, introduced *homoiousion* (of similar substance). Indeed, to these words the Emperor Constantius and very many bishops swore, among whom are these names: Basilius or Basiliscus of Caunus in Lydia, and others with them. There were also some who publicly professed that the Son was *anomoion* (*ἀνόμοιον*), or dissimilar to the Father: such as Aetius and his associates.

CAP. XIV. CONCERNING THE TWO REASONS FOR PROCLAIMING THE TWO SYNODS OF ARIMINUM AND SELEUCIA: THE FORMER, SO THAT THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE ARIAN DOGMA MIGHT BE SETTLED; THE LATTER, SO THAT THE CASES OF THE THREE BISHOPS, EUSTATHIUS, CYRIL, AND MACEDONIUS, MIGHT BE DISCUSSED. AND FIRST, CONCERNING THE FOURTEEN CRIMES OF WHICH EUSTATHIUS WAS ACCUSED.

It seemed good therefore to the Emperor Constantius that synods should be gathered, the one indeed of the Western bishops at Ariminum in Italy; the other at Seleucia in Isauria, which is called *Tracheia* or the rough [province], as much on account of these dogmas as for certain accusations leveled against bishops, which seemed to require restraint by synodical censure: namely against Eustathius of Sebaste, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, who had been accused of various crimes. ^B George, bishop of Laodicea in Syria: Basil of Ancyra: Eustathius of Sebaste: Eleusius of Cyzicus: Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, which is in Paphlagonia: Cyril of Jerusalem: Silvanus of Tarsus: Dracontius of Pergamum: Heortasius of Sardis: Neon of Seleucia, which is in Isauria: Elpidius of Salala: Theophilus of Gabala, and not a few others: these are indeed called *Hemi-Arianoi*, or Semi-Arians, because while Arius said the Son was a creature and altogether *anomoion*, or dissimilar to the Father, they, favoring Arius in this matter, neither dared for fear of men openly to profess *homoousion* with the Nicene Fathers, nor to profess him a creature, but following a middle opinion said *homoiousion*, or of similar substance to the Father, indicating by the appellation *homoios*, or "similar," that the Son is like the Father, not by nature but by a certain imaginary resemblance, covering, however, the absurdity of the dogma with the name of *ousia*, or substance; and for this reason, while they embraced the Arian impiety at heart, they did so in such a way as to appear to do so by halves, because they did not openly attribute the name of creature to the Son.

CAP. XVIII. CONCERNING THE FORMULARY OF ACACIUS, TO WHICH TWENTY AND MORE BISHOPS SUBSCRIBED, AND THE OPPOSING *anomoion* ("DISSIMILAR") PROPOSITION OF AETIUS, WHENCE THE NAMES OF HOMEANS AND ANOMEANS WERE DERIVED.

Nor were there lacking those who, laboring under greater impudence, would say neither *homoousion* nor *homoiousion*, but *homoion*, or "similar," simply and absolutely, and in the very same manner as images are said to be similar to their archetypes. The leaders and authors of these were Acacius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine: George of Alexandria: Eudoxius of Antioch: Uranius of Tyre: Patrophilus of Scythopolis: Theodulus of the Charetolians in Phrygia: ^C Theodosius of Philadelphia, which is in Lydia: Evagrius of Mitylene: Leontius of Tripolis in Lydia: Phoebus of Silandus in Phrygia: Eutychius of Eleutheropolis in Syria: Eustathius of Epiphaneia: Augarus of Cyrus: Valens of Sigedon, which is in Pannonia: Ursacius of Mursa: Eusebius of Seleucia in Syria: Germinius of Sirmium: Auxentius of Milan: Demophilus of Berrhoea: had long ago been judged by Eulalius, a father and bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and had been cast out from public prayers. which had gathered at Neocaesarea in Pontus before that great Nicene [synod], to take counsel concerning those who had lapsed while the persecution was raging. the bishop of Constantinople, had removed him from the office. he had been convicted of perjury, and [committed] many other things, if we believe Socrates, contrary to the ecclesiastical canons. that they should likewise assume the cult. that he might forbid it. being a layman had married, he professed that a blessing was to be opposed and avoided.

CAP. XV. CONCERNING THE APPEAL OF CYRIL, BISHOP OF JERUSALEM, TO A HIGHER TRIBUNAL UPON BEING SUMMONED TO COURT BY HIS COMPETITOR ACACIUS, ALBEIT IN CONTUMACY.

Things which were fashioned against Cyril are of this manner. Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, who had sat with the Nicene Fathers, had judged Maximius the Confessor, to whom ^D he [Acacius?]... (for the right eye was...)

[had been] elevated to the episcopacy by the same parties, even though he had been deposed before.

For a certain man named Coluthus, a presbyter of Alexandria, had subscribed along with many others to the first deposition of Arius, which had been carried out by the blessed Alexander, as if he were an orthodox man. But later, dreaming of the episcopacy, he was created bishop of upper Cynopolis by Melitius. Eventually, when the blessed Alexander, the prelate of Alexandria, had convened a synod—in the presence of the most sacred Hosius, bishop of Corduba, whom the great Emperor Constantine had sent at that time to reconcile Alexander and Arius—Coluthus himself was also deposed, as one who had been created bishop by Melitius contrary to the canons. Along with him were also deposed those who had been ordained by Coluthus himself; and while he returned to private life, they were reduced once again to the status of laymen. From their number was one Ischyras, who, because he had been ordained a presbyter by Coluthus, was in this way stripped of his rank, though he was later promoted to the episcopacy by the Arians, as I have already mentioned. ^B

Refutation of the preceding heresy

No other reason has moved us to include in these commentaries the things that are reported about Melitius, than that the readers might recognize how full of hazard—or rather, beyond all hazard—the situation is if those who, whether from the laity or especially from the sacred catalog of ecclesiastics to whom the care of souls has been entrusted by God, should end up, I know not how, as schismatics who set themselves against their own superiors. For if priests are puffed up with a proud spirit and summon the trivial crowds of the people, and thereby arm them into mutual hatreds—those whom the same grace of the divine Spirit ought to have joined together and glued into one as a body—while they divide the very structure of the Church into parts and members, who then will be the herald of peace among the people, and who will persuade them to imitate the coherence of rings through the union of the spirit? For what, I ask, are those things which Melitius devised out of ambition and hatred of that great Alexander, and which his followers designated? For while he, with the highest rigor and the greatest malice, strives more than is just for the severity of judgment, and acts with greater hostility toward those who had fallen during the time of persecution—not those who had fought to the end, but those who had succumbed to persecution and offered sacrifice—he is finally carried to such a pitch of inhumanity that he makes it clear to anyone that he feels the same as Novatus. For this reason, he seemed unworthy of pardon even to the Nicene Synod, for he, as a refractory man, had prescribed such things contrary to the will of Alexander, and had caused a great many of his followers to tumble into the heresy of the Arians—who, following his private opinion with stubbornness, had devised I know not what frivolous things, as, for example, washing the body daily and inventing hymns accompanied by hand-clapping and dancing. From this it is clear to anyone that mercy and humanity are to be preferred in many things to rigor and sum-mum jus, especially where certain signs of repentance are discerned, and such great anguish of soul and contrition of heart as was observed in those whom the great Alexander brought before Melitius, and those who were being held in bonds with him: for fear that if they were not forgiven—he said—fearing they might waste away with excessive grief, and seeing that they were suffering rejection in the things they were pleading for the sake of the forgiveness of their sins, they might begin to think that God, who is wholly mercy itself, would one day be equally unmerciful to them, just as they saw the earthly physicians of their souls to be here in this life; and having fallen from there into certain despair, they might no longer be able to lift their heads from the deep of perdition.

^C Furthermore, anyone can easily discern, from those things which are reported to have been done by Alexander and Melitius, that these things have become known both to us and to others before us—who were not far from the truth—by a pious judgment. For the former, when he had suggested a counsel full of humanity regarding those who had fallen during the time of persecution, ended his life by martyrdom. But Melitius, while he pursues the highest law too studiously, achieved this: that he lacked the crown of martyrdom, and was condemned by the holy Fathers who had gathered at Nicaea for the very reason that he was convening separate parasynagogues, that is, illicit conventicles. Furthermore, those who had been ordained by him were granted second place to those whom Alexander had ordained, and so they were forbidden from attempting any ecclesiastical function. And if any of them should die, they were only then to be replaced in the place of the deceased.

NICETAE CHONIATAE THESAURI ORTHODOXÆ FIDEI LIBER QUINTUS ADVERSUS ARIANOS, EUNOMIANOS, ETC. (60)

Chapter One. On the lineage, appearance, dress, and priesthood of Arius.

^A Arius was an African by birth; he was an Alexandrian deacon of the Church, whose most holy service at the sacred altar [was interrupted because] he absolutely forbade it, because he professed that God the Word was *heteroousion*, that is, of a different substance from the Father, and introduced portents of words of this kind: "out of nothing," and "There was a time when he was not."

(60) Prothericum to Petrus Morellus, to the candid readers. ^A Since I have already warned you in the preceding books, candid readers, regarding the writings of St. Nazianzen and Damascenus, that if anyone should desire a cleaner version of them, the entire works of the Fathers themselves must be consulted, the same must be said of this fifth book concerning the immortal writings of St. Athanasius, from which almost the whole [content] has been drawn and excerpted. If anyone should require a clearer interpretation of these Athanasian oracles of mine, I ask that he not be annoyed to approach their interpreter—that is, the more recent one whom I, who have never failed to perform the duty of honor any student owes to a most learned and kind teacher, have always called Mr. Petrus Nannius, professor of the humanities in the most pleasant *leimon* [meadow] of the Muses and Graces, the Academy of Louvain, to which all learned men voluntarily cede second place after Paris. I heard him when he was lecturing on some of Cicero’s *Actions against Verres* in the Buslidiana hall, in the year of Christ 1546 (if I am not mistaken), when I was 19 years old, and at the very time when Mechlin was struck by lightning—a spectacle the most sorrowful of all that I have ever seen with these eyes—and was almost turned into a funeral pyre for a third of its area. ^B Furthermore, had I attached to the preceding books regarding the writings of St. Damascenus the *proto* [first draft], because not a few testimonies from the Athanasian books are also present there, if the writings of the holy Father, rendered in Latin by my teacher Nannius, had come into my hands—which I saw for the first time only the day before yesterday, having glanced through all the volumes with the intention of ensuring whether the golden little work of St. Athanasius, which I had had in my hands five years ago in an autograph transcription, had been published along with many other newly discovered ones. But it is nowhere mentioned in the entire volume, except for the principles of him in whose name it was written, namely Antiochus, to whom that most excellent work of *Questions drawn from both Testaments* is attributed, which is presented first in the fourth volume. Therefore, regarding that same Antiochus, I have the *stoicheiōsin* [elements] of the Christian faith from the monk and abbot who was a leader, or the *dōdekataiton* [twelve-chapter] inscription of the chapters, along with his *Life*, which will be published for the public only when it shall seem good to the most noble Mr. Nicolaus Trecelinus de Brossi, abbot of the monasteries of Bellilocum and Claritas. For that little work of St. Athanasius, like a treasure hidden in the field of that noble abbot (that is, in the monastery of Bellilocum, which was founded by Fulco Nerra, Count of Anjou, son of Geoffrey Grisagonelle, for monks gathered there in one place from the monasteries of St. Ursus of Loches and Leubacius of Senaparia, and which I have found, or rather, which I will not publish without the knowledge and command of the master), is there. ^C But if any part of this *parergon* [accessory work] is ^D not tedious to anyone, I have others too, and various writings, emended from the principal churches of Loches and Bellilocum, which, God willing, will appear. For besides the little work of St. Athanasius from the royal *canopium* [convent] of Bellilocum, I have a little work on the virtues of St. Martin the bishop, much more corrected than that which is commonly circulated under both Seneca’s name and that of the same saint. Furthermore, from the royal Basilica of the Holy Virgin of Loches, I have the entire golden little book of Paschasius on the sacrament of the Eucharist (for in that which was published in Cologne, two or three pages are missing, which can be supplied from the Loches copy). Also, a Latin *History of the First Twelve Counts of Anjou*, in which the genealogy of Geoffrey Grisagonelle (whose origin most recent historians of French affairs confess themselves to be ignorant of) and his deeds, besides the construction of the church of Loches, are related most diffusely. D. Nicol. Brachutus, governor of Loches and judge of Bellilocum, has entrusted the same history, both in Latin and French, to me to be transcribed, along with some archives of the Church of Loches digested into 50 chapters; yet I would not wish to publish these without the consent and command of the Reverend Father D. Antonius Isaurus, abbot of St. Cyprian of Poitiers and prior of the Church of Loches, and also of the entire chapter. Those archives are the *autographa* [autographs] of D. Petrus Sandillius, and his most elegant work on ecclesiastical *prosody* is preserved in the choir of the same church, which, through the auspices of the most learned men D. Franciscus Marronis, cantor and canon there, and D. Antonius Baraudinus, who is himself a canon and parish priest of St. Ursus, the same R. P. Isaurus and the others, as *symbouloi* [advisors] to me and some of my students, have handed over to be transcribed. I also have some little works of the learned theologian Nicolaus Bartolomæus of Loches, abbot of the Virgin Mary at Orleans while he lived, which the venerable D. Stephanus Pavenus, pro-parish priest of St. Ursus, committed to me, which, God willing, will be joined to *Christus Xylonicus*, the *Eunaeis*, and other works of such a great man already long available. Nor should the rhythmic Latin hypotheses of the twelve chapters of the biblical organ be passed over in silence, which that most learned *coenobita* [monk] D. Claudine a Lacu, D. Guillelmus Mainus, and the prior of St. Catherine of Rouen, and of the monastery of Bellilocum…

^B—whose names are among those of Saint Dionysius, Theonas, Pierius, Serapion, Perlea, Diza, Mindidius, and Anianus—bequeathed to me. I pray that they may assist me in dedicating to the Latin world this work of Nicetas and other books of the Saint-André library, whose titles I then proposed to him.

But why do I dwell on these things in my ungrateful mind? I pass on to the manuscript copy, in which are contained various short works of every kind of thought, which Odo of Foviliaco published in an acrostic order for the sake of his disciple, the most illustrious prince John of Orléans, and which he describes at the end of the book with these words: "Thus fifty-two letters, placed at the beginning of the fifty-two parts of this book, make seven terms of fifty-two letters, namely: *Joannes Aurelianensis Engolismensis comes, et nepos regius*." Finally, the book closes with this distich.

CAP. II.

Enumeration of the perverse dogmas of Arius.

Seven months had passed ^B when Achillas died, and the government of the Church was committed to Alexander. From this it happened that Arius, being unable to bear the envy, sought occasions for contention and strife. Having approached the adversaries of the Church, he led them to the point where they opposed the apostolic decrees of Alexander and impudently asserted (as is evident from Alexander's own letter to all the bishops, a copy of which Sozomen and Socrates inserted into their writings) that God the Father had not always existed, but that there was a time when God was not the Father.

Neither, indeed, did the Word of God always exist, but [was] [ξ οὐκ ὄντων], that is, created out of nothing: since God created things that were not from those that were not. Wherefore he asserted that there was a time when the Son was not, if the Son was created and made. He added that the Word was neither similar in essence to the Father, nor the true and natural Word of the Father, nor the true Wisdom, but was one of those things which were created and produced into the nature of things.

He argued that the word "Word" and "Wisdom" were used [καταχρηστικῶς], or abusively, since he himself was also created by the proper Word of God, and in that same Wisdom of His, in which God also created both him and all things.

From which it followed that He was [τρεπτὸς] and [ἀλλοιωτὸς τὴν φύσιν], or subject to change by nature, just as those other animals which possess reason: nay, even ^C that He was extraneous, alien, and separated from the substance of God, as if by a cord, such that He could not even see the Father.

*He who retains the surname of Foviliaco, Odo published this book, noble prince.*

But concerning this little book, and the houses bequeathed to D. Mainus for the use of the ancient Lochibellilocensian schools—in which I purchased at my own expense the book brought to me from the rustic Chamburgiensis—there are many others. For I hear that it was the private copy of the most Christian King Henry III of France and Poland; its mausoleum may be seen constructed of Parian marble in the church of St. Peter Celestine, and he is venerated by the people of Angoulême, as D. Bellaforestius writes, as a saint. Certainly, the book I possess testifies to having been very studious of piety, entirely sprinkled with godly ideas, which Odo collected for his use from various sacred and profane authors.

There remains the Italian booklet of D. Christopher Aretinus Lochiensis, in which he describes the itinerary of Francis the Great from Avignon to Péronne, to liberate it from the siege of the Burgundians, and commemorates many places, especially sacred ones. D. Michael Aretinus committed it to me to be transcribed; he and his brother D. Caspar Aretinus, canons in the church of Lochia, are the sons of Christopher, and D. Francis Peniszaldus, royal procurator among the Lochienses, is the grandson of the same through his daughter, as are many others from other daughters—but these things suffice. Now let us proceed to the narrative of Nicetas concerning the Arians, Homoousians, Anomoeans, Exuentians, Eunomians, and other such heresies, excerpted especially from the writings of the most holy Athanasius, the Christian Paneratiastes.

For since he does not perfectly and exactly know the Father, for that reason he cannot perfectly see Him either; nay, he does not even have his own essence clearly perceived and explored, since he was made for our sake—that God might create us through him as a kind of instrument—and he would never have existed had God not willed to create us. Furthermore, he asserted that he was *trepton*, or subject to change, no less than the devil, inasmuch as he consisted of a nature subject to change, since he was both generated and subject to change. Nor, as Theodoret is the author, was he content with these things; he also mutilated the mystery of the flesh assumed by the Word, saying that an inanimate body was assumed by the Lord, and that the divinity performed the duties of a soul. By these words, to the divinity he falsely attributes *sympatheian*, or natural consensus with the body.

CAP. III. Concerning the Alexandrian synod of one hundred bishops, in which Arius, along with five presbyters and as many deacons, were cast out from their ministry or ecclesiastical rank.

These were the dogmas of the impure Arius, and others of this kind, by which he ensnared many of the more incautious. But the blessed Alexander first tried to recall the man from his design by exhortations and counsel; when, however, he discovered him publicly professing his impiety, he convened a provincial synod of nearly one hundred bishops, in which he deposed from their rank not only Arius, but also the Arians Achilles, Aethales, Carpon, another Arius, Sarmatas, Euzoius, Lucius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius. Moreover, among this number were the presbyters—not only Arius himself, but also Aethales, Achilles, Carpon, Sarmatas, and the other Arius. All the others were deacons.

CAP. IV. Concerning the anti-synod of two hundred Arian bishops at Nicomedia against the orthodox Homoousians.

However, Arius wrote all that had followed to Eusebius, who had been bishop first of Berytus, then of Nicomedia in Bithynia, and was thence transferred to Constantinople. Furthermore, when the synod at Nicomedia was convened and two hundred and fifty bishops had gathered there, he wrote to all the bishops that they should communicate with Arius as an orthodox person; yet he was not able to induce them to do so. Moreover, when the Eusebians persisted, and Arius was summoned, and Alexander, the pontiff of Alexandria, was excommunicated, and they had subjected the Homoousian heresy to anathema, Arius, gaining courage, sent legates to Paulinus of Tyre, and also to Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, and to Patrophilus, the bishop of Scythopolis, from whom he requested that he and his followers be permitted to hold meetings for the people, ^A seeing as they were presbyters. They, meeting with other bishops in Palestine, subscribed to the requests of Arius.

CAP. V. Concerning the synod of three hundred bishops convened at Nicaea under the auspices of Constantine the Great, and the dogmas concerning the feast of Easter.

But the blessed Alexander, thinking that these matters could not safely be suppressed by silence, wrote to the pontiffs of Antioch, Rome, and very many others, by whose efforts the great emperor Constantine, having been informed of these things, began to grieve not a little, especially for the reason that, in the newly laid foundations of the Christian faith, discord of dogmas was recalling many from embracing Christianity. Moreover, when it was reported to him that the feast of Easter was being celebrated by some with a rite different from that which had generally taken root, it cannot be said how gravely and unpleasantly he took this. Wherefore he sent the most sacred Hosius, bishop of Corduba, a man of most proved faith and character, whom he had previously cherished ^B for the things he had professed concerning the controversial dogma, and for that reason held him in both benevolence and honor, to Alexandria, that he might reconcile those who were stirring up sedition there over dogma, and also those who in the East were contending over the feast of Easter. When he had returned unsuccessful, the emperor issued a public edict that all bishops should convene at Nicaea, a metropolis of Bithynia.

And so, as many as were living under the Roman empire, namely three hundred and eighteen bishops, gathered, omitting those whom either disease or advancing age held at home. For since a bishop had not yet been obtained for all their cities, it happened that more did not gather at that time. For some provinces obeyed only one, as Scythia or Russia down to the present day, while others had two or at most three, as Dalmatia. But in later times, bishops were given to many not only for cities but even for towns.

CAP. VI. Who presided over the Nicene synod, or represented those who convened it.

Now, as to those who presided over the council or represented those who convened it: these were Macarius, pontiff of the Jerusalemites, and Eustathius of the Antiochenes, the latter of whom, ^C a short time before, had been deemed worthy of the apostolic see by the common vote of those who had convened, and was for this reason summoned to Antioch from the neighboring Beroea. Indeed, after Domnus, who had been successor to Paul of Samosata, Timaeus had presided over the Church of Antioch, then Cyril, then Vitalis, whom Philogonius succeeded, whom Paulinus followed, and when Paulinus the Roman—the one who had been imprisoned because he had finished his life in martyrdom while protecting the Christian religion—left the bishopric of Antioch widowed, because indeed, as is right, the election of bishops could not be free due to the persecutions of the tyrants.

At that time, Eustathius ruled Antioch, and Alexander ruled Alexandria, with whom that great Athanasius lived very familiarly, presiding over the choir of deacons. Furthermore, in place of the already decrepit Roman pontiff, Julius, the priests Biton and Vincentius were present. Theodoret is an author who claims that Sylvester was still among the living at that time. Eusebius Pamphili, however, in the third book of his *Life of the Emperor Constantine*, writes that the Constantinopolitan pontiff was absent from the synod due to old age, but he suppresses his name, saying that certain priests appeared in his place. But it is established from the Acts of the synod that Metrophanes was the bishop of Constantinople at that time, who, on account of his advanced age, could not sit in the synod; yet Alexander, a priest, served in his stead, and through his work and ministry the synodical letters were transmitted in Europe. ^A

CAP. VII. On the first session of the Nicaean synod. For what cause they gathered.

Therefore, as many as had gathered in the designated city of Nicaea were led into consultation, as is fitting, regarding the ultimate cause for which a gathering of this kind was being convoked. And indeed, Eusebius, in the third book of his *Life of Constantine*, testifies that he was the first to speak at the synod. If, however, we believe Theodoret, Eustathius, the bishop of Antioch, was the first to crown the emperor’s head with the flowers of his praises. As Theodorus Mopsuestenus writes, however, this honor was voluntarily bestowed upon the Pontiff Alexander of Alexandria, since he had been the leader and author of the convoking of the synod. He adds that he narrated everything as it had occurred in the presence of the synod: and after many speeches had been delivered back and forth, he states that all the bishops agreed among themselves, and pronounced the Son to be *homoousios* to the Father—that is, of entirely the same substance with Him. ^B

Only fifteen, however, according to Sozomen, subscribed to Arius’s dogma: most of whom, having immediately changed their sentiments, embraced the common consent of the entire Church. The Acts of the synod, which are circulated everywhere, support Sozomen. For it is established by these that seventeen bishops seceded along with Arius: of whom six persisted in his heresy, but eleven, while singing a palinode, indeed subscribed with their hand, though not with their mind. Socrates says that five bishops—Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais—seceded from the synod. Theodorus Mopsuestenus, however, is the authority that there were only nine in all who were not pleased with the decrees of the synod, and he names these: Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Eusebius of Caesarea, which is in Palestine, Narcissus of Neroniades, which is in Cilicia and today is called Irenopolis, Paulinus of Tyre, Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of Ptolemais, which touches Egypt, and Theonas of Marmarica. When their wickedness had been detected, fearing the indignation of the synod, they devised another kind of imposture. For, reckoning among themselves that, being cast out of ecclesiastical assemblies, they would incur the stain of infamy, and that no one would afterward adhere to them, once they were cast down for their impiety, they therefore feigned that they felt the same as the Catholics, and all of them except Theonas and Secundus subscribed to the confession of faith. ^C

Furthermore, Theodoret, having stated that a few had adhered to Arius, and having expressed all their names, adds four others to those already commemorated by Theodorus: Theodorus of Laodicea, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berytus, and Aetius of Lydda or Diospolis; then he adds a certain recent detail regarding everyone else in these words: "They, therefore, contradicting the apostolic dogmas and professing a different faith, offered it to the Catholics, who, having read it through, all tore it to pieces as spurious and adulterated." A tumult having arisen, they were terrified and renounced, and first of all they renounced Arius, except for Secundus and Theonas.

Moreover, Philostorgius also, in the first book of his History, is our authority that these men, whose names follow, stood by Arius: from Upper Libya, Sentianus of Boreum, Dachius of Berenice, Secundus of the Theuchirites, Zopyrus of Barca, the other Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theonas of Marmarica. From Egyptian Thebes, Melitius. From Palestine, Patrophilus of Scythopolis and Eusebius of Caesarea, who is called Pamphili. From Phoenicia, Paulinus of Tyre and Amphion of Side (61). From Cilicia, Narcissus of Irenopolis, Athanasius of Anazarbus, and Tarcondimus of Aegeae. From Cappadocia, Leontius, Longianus, and Eulalius. From Pontus, Basilius of Amasia and Melitius of Sebastopolis. From Bithynia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, a certain man by the name of Magnus, who had been an intimate of the martyr Lucian, and was clear in virtue, as one who was most so: from which he had even obtained the surname of Magnus.

CAP. VIII. Of the excommunication of Arius, along with the condemnation of his books, and primarily of the Thalia, or the Symposium.

Furthermore, once the symbol of faith was written, Eusebius of Nicomedia, along with Theoguide, Maris, Patrophilus, and Secundus, indeed approved the text and subscribed to it with their own signatures; but because Arius was excommunicated, and the terms he used to prop up his heresy were condemned—and indeed the book also which he had written concerning the feast, and which he had entitled *Thalia*—Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea did not wish to subscribe to an excommunication of this kind. ^D

For this reason, the emperor punished Arius with exile. Furthermore, because he detested Eusebius for other reasons—namely, because he had been the first to stand with the tyrant and had plotted against the emperor himself—he ordered him, along with Theognis, to go into exile. And so, in place of Eusebius, Amphion was put in charge of the Church of Nicomedia, and Chrestus was put in place of Theognis of Nicaea. Not long after, Arius was recalled from exile, though he was forbidden only from Egypt and Alexandria; and a little later, Eusebius and Theognis, having feigned repentance through hypocrisy, both recovered their own Churches. ^A Likewise, Philostorgius, toward the end of his first book, is the authority for the fact that of those who had subscribed to the Nicaean faith, some had written the term *homoousios* in the region of their own handwritings, while others, instructed by Eusebius, had substituted the blasphemous word *homoeousios* in place of *homoousios*: except for Secundus and Theonas, who were also relegated to Illyricum along with Arius and his presbyters. But at the beginning of the second book, he writes that Eusebius, Theognis, and Maris, moved by repentance for those things to which they had subscribed, came to the emperor and used these words before him: "We are impious, O emperor, in that we subscribed to impiety, struck by fear of you." From which it happened that the emperor, yielding to them, released them to the Gauls or the Western Galatians, but ordered the Arians to depart from each of their own homelands. But after three years had passed, he permitted the Eusebians to return home by right of postliminy.

CAP. IX. Concerning the plot of the Arians against the Homoeousians and the Bishop of Antioch

The Arians, having returned from Gaul, summoned a counter-synod of two hundred and fifty bishops to Nicomedia, and they excommunicated Alexander, and with him as many as professed the *homoousios*. Nor did the Arians make an end to attacking the Catholic faith, or of taking those who opposed them out of the way: first of all, they left no stone unturned in order to deprive Eustathius of the bishopric of Antioch. ^B This matter moved Eusebius of Nicomedia to feign that he was setting out for a divine service, along with Theognis of Nicaea and several others suffering from the same disease. Therefore, they attacked Eustathius with grave plots. For upon returning to Antioch, they purchased with much money an adulteress, who was to accuse the man: then they summoned him to judgment, who, having been summoned to court, did not appear; appearing to many, he feared the argument of an evil conscience, if someone were to refuse to present himself to a judge. Eustathius therefore demanded that that little woman, burdened with sins and suborned, should lend some credibility to her words by testimony, which was indeed agreeable to both the laws and the canons. But they, inasmuch as the woman was destitute of any proof, demanded an oath, basing the entire truth of the judgment upon it. They had done this so deliberately, so that by the opinion of a sworn oath, it might add color to a fictional accusation. For she, producing a boy twelve years of age, said that she had conceived him by Eustathius. But previously she had suffered a clandestine defilement by a certain artisan named Eustathius, from whom she had also conceived this boy. ^C And so, this artifice having been put to use against Eustathius, they informed the emperor Constantius of this matter, so that he might surrogate Eusebius of Caesarea, the bishop, to the Antiochene see. But Eusebius wrote letters of deprecation regarding that office to the emperor; because, indeed, the same ecclesiastical order would not suffer it. The emperor approved this counsel and called him blessed, inasmuch as he would be worthy of the bishopric not only of one city, but indeed of the entire world. Therefore, a certain Arian is chosen to succeed Eustathius, Euphronius by name, as Socrates and Sozomenus write; but as it pleases Theodoret and the chronographer Theophanes, Eulalius. But Philostorgius alone, in the second book of his Histories, is the authority that Paulinus was transferred to Antioch from Tyre. But with the emperor also consenting, Eustathius is led away to Philippi in Macedonia, whence he drew his origin.

CAP. X. By what deceitful arts the leaders of the Arian heresy obtained his return from exile, and how they thought of launching slanders against Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; by the decree of which most holy man of the Jerusalem synod, he was at length ordered to go into exile at Trier in Gaul.

When, therefore, these things had succeeded for the Eusebians according to the sentiment of their mind, they broke forth with greater *kainotomia*, or zeal for revolution. For Eusebius and Theognis, having seduced that man to their own wickedness, to whom the emperor had entrusted the keeping of the acts of the Nicaean synod, destroyed their own handwritings, and then began to profess in public that the Son is not to be understood as being of the same substance as the Father. ^D Which, when Constantine bore it with grave and impatient mind, he ordered them to return to their own. But in truth they betook themselves to the consorts of the empire, and having contracted familiarity with them, they resumed their former *parrhesia*, or liberty of speech, and began to instruct slanders and plots against the Great Athanasius, and even to collect counter-synods against him. Hence, moreover, a great amount of growth accrued to their liberty. An Arian presbyter had insinuated himself into the familiarity of Constantia, the sister of the emperor. This man at length broke forth into such license, that he would freely converse with her, and say that Arius had been unjustly and through envy cast out of the Church. By which words having been convinced, she adopted the presbyter into her household. But when she was suffering from a grave illness, such that she appeared to be about to die, she requested this final favor from her brother Constantine, who at that time had come to visit her; namely, that he should hold that presbyter among his familiars, and to him

^A entrust the secrets of the sister, in order that he might be regarded as an orthodox believer. As for himself, he no longer had any anxiety about this life. On the other hand, he feared lest any adversity should befall the brothers, since he was punishing good men with unjust exile. From that time the emperor added the presbyter to his intimate circle, and having communicated to him the mandates of his sister, he was at length easily brought to the point of recalling Arius from exile, and commanding him to profess in writing what he thought about the Divine. He, however, fleeing that former novelty of words invented by himself, wove another confession of faith and wrote it down in simple words. Furthermore, Euzoius the deacon was with him. The emperor, therefore, suspecting that they held views which were in agreement with the Nicene synod, ordered the bishops to assemble at Jerusalem so that, having inspected their confession, they might decree more humanely concerning him. Consequently, the Eusebians, seizing the opportunity, and with Arius and Euzoius justified, condemned Athanasius, who had not admitted them. But when he had fled to the emperor and reported to him concerning their iniquitous judgment, the emperor sent comminatory letters to them. Terrified, therefore, they flew to Constantinople, where, after having engaged in not a few crimes against Athanasius, they finally persuaded the emperor to relegate him to the city of Tiberis in the region of the Gauls ^B.

CAP. XI. Concerning the expulsion of Arius from the Alexandrian communion, and his admission—only by force, with difficulty, and contrary to the sentiment of the orthodox—to that of Constantinople, and his shameful death.

Afterward, when Arius had come to Alexandria with this immunity proposed, and the Alexandrian Church had not received him into communion, he returned to Constantinople, where, through the work of the Eusebians, he again came into the sight of the emperor. And when Alexander, the bishop of Constantinople, was being compelled to admit him, and because he could not yet be induced to do so, the emperor addressed him with these more severe words: "You seem now," he said, "to stir up war against men out of envy, since you do not wish to admit into the ecclesiastical heaven any of those who are able to teach." Stung by the goad of these words, Alexander thought that it would go well with him if he committed the whole matter to divine providence, and he asked Arius to subscribe to the Nicene faith—and not without an oath, by which he might confirm that he subscribed without guile, and was truly brought to the faith, and [repentant] for those things which he had previously uttered out of ignorance. When therefore Arius had promptly subscribed and had also added the requested oath, Alexander accepted the document and entered into the temple of God and prayed. But on the coming Sunday, on which day, as had been decreed, Arius was to ascend the platform to be honored again with the office of presbyter, he went out to head to the church, accompanied by a certain pure boy. When he had reached the Signs—this is a place of the city of Constantinople, so named, and not far distant from the Purple Column—I mean, the one where the great statue of Constantine is set up, which is called 'Anogia', that is, turned toward the rising sun (which was also broken in an earthquake during the reign of Alexius, the first of the Comneni)—he was forced by griping pains of the belly to enter a latrine, where, in the place of a natural evacuation, his intestines were disrupted and voided.

Theodoret further is the authority that Athanasius the Great wrote in his Epistle to Appion concerning these things in this manner: Arius had been summoned by the Emperor Constantine through the labor of the Eusebians. The emperor therefore asked him when he had entered whether he embraced the faith of the Catholic Church. And when he had sworn that he believed according to the prescription of the orthodox faith, and had professed the faith in writing, having compared the voices of the Scriptures, he soon dismissed him, saying: "If your faith is correct, you have sworn well; but if it is otherwise, let God, who judges hidden things, be the judge." But the Eusebians were striving to introduce him, by force, according to their custom, into the Church. But Alexander, the bishop of Constantinople, resisting, threatened him in this manner: "Just as he was called by the emperor against your wishes, so also he will be introduced into this Church." And these things were said on the Sabbath day.

Struck by these things, Alexander betook himself into the church, and lying prostrate on the ground everywhere, shedding tears, he prayed to God with this dilemma: "If Arius is to be introduced to the synaxis, by some secret dispensation (for your judgments are unsearchable), dismiss me your servant, and do not destroy the pious together with the impious. But if you spare your Church, look upon the words of the Eusebians, and remove Arius from the midst, lest, if he has entered into the church, heresy also be seen to have entered along with him." Having prayed these things, he betook himself into his own chambers, dirty with tears. But Arius, thinking that the emperor's promises would remain firm, went out at dawn, and soon entered a public latrine to void his bowels, having left his servant outside to follow him. Furthermore, as he was collapsing and voiding his intestines, he cried out while sitting inside. But when those who were with him waiting saw this effect and the exclamation, the boy ran up and, seeing him dead, reported to his kin what had happened. This plague, therefore, or one sent divinely, as soon as it had pervaded the most celebrated city with its crowd of people, a consensus was reached by all to go to the divine temple. As soon as both the promises of the emperor and the prayers of the priests became known to them, they praised the prefect of the churches, but cursed Arius on account of his heresy.

CAP. XII.

Of the paralogistic substitution of *homoousion* with *homoiousion* by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, to which the Emperor Constantius and twelve other bishops subscribed.

It must be known, moreover, that when the impious Arius said that the Son of God was a creature, and denied that he was of the same substance as the Father; and, on the contrary, the Nicene Fathers professed that he was *homoousion*, that is, conjoined to the Father in substance and endowed with the same nature as He, eventually those who stood with Eusebius of Nicomedia, having exploded the term ^A *homoousion*, which is nowhere found in the Scriptures, introduced *homoiousion*. These are the very words to which the Emperor Constantius and very many bishops swore, of whom these are the names: George, bishop of Laodicea, which is in Syria; Basil of Ancyra; Eustathius of Sebaste; Eleusius of Cyzicus; Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, which is in Paphlagonia; Cyril of Jerusalem; Silvanus of Tarsus; Dracontius of Pergamus; Heortasius of Sardis; Neon of Seleucia, which is in Isauria; Elpidius of Satala; Theophilus of Gabala; and not a few others. These indeed were called Semiarians, because while Arius said that the Son was a creature and altogether *anomoion*, or unlike the Father, these men, neither daring to profess ^B *homoousion* with the Nicene Fathers—favoring Arius in this matter—nor daring to profess him a creature openly for fear of men, followed a middle opinion. They called him *homoiousion*, that is, similar in substance to the Father, indicating by the appellation "similar" that the Son is like the Father, not by nature, but by some imaginary similitude, while concealing the absurdity of the dogma by the name of *ousia*, or essence. And for that reason, although they entirely embraced the Arian impiety in their hearts, they seemed to do so only by half, because they did not openly attribute the name of creature to the Son.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Concerning the *homoion* of Acacius, to which twenty and more bishops subscribed, and the *anomoion* of Aetius contrary to it, from which the appellations of the Homeans and Anomoeans were derived.

Nor indeed were there lacking those who, laboring with greater impudence, said that he was neither *homoousion* nor *homoiousion*, but *homoion*, or similar, simply and absolutely; and in exactly the same way as images are said to be similar to their archetypes. Their leaders and authors were Acacius, ^D bishop of Caesarea in Palestine; George of Alexandria; Eudoxius of Antioch; Uranius of Tyre; Patrophilus of Scythopolis; Theodulus of Charetopolis in Phrygia; Theodosius of Philadelphia, which is in Lydia; Evagrius of Mitylene; Leontius of Tripolis in Lydia; Phoebus of Silandus in Phrygia; Eutychius of Eleutheropolis in Syria; Eustathius of Epiphaneia; Augarus of Cyrrhus; Valens of Sigedon, which is in Pannonia; Ursacius of Mursa; Eusebius of Seleucia in Syria; Germinius of Sirmium; Auxentius of Milan; Demophilus of Beroea; Basil or Basiliscus of Caunus in Lydia; and others with them. There were also some who publicly professed that the Son was *anomoion*, or unlike the Father, just as Aetius and his cohorts.

CAP. XIV.

It seemed good to the Emperor Constantius, therefore, that synods should be convened, one of the Western bishops at Ariminum in Italy, and another at Seleucia in Isauria, which is called ^B *tracheia*, or "rough," both on account of these dogmas and on account of certain accusations brought against the bishops, which seemed to need to be suppressed by synodical censure, namely against Eustathius of Sebaste, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, who had been accused of various crimes. 1. Eustathius, indeed, because having been a presbyter, he had already been judged long ago by his father Eulalius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and cast out from public prayers. 2. And because he was later condemned by the synod which had gathered at Neocaesarea in Pontus before that great Nicene one, to deliberate about those who had lapsed while the persecution raged. 3. And Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, had degraded him from his rank. 4. Furthermore, that he had been convicted of perjury in the synod of Antioch, and committed many other things, if we believe Socrates, beyond what the ecclesiastical canons designate. 5. Because he had prohibited marriages. 6. And ordered them to abstain from foods. 7. And to wear garments from the [sect of the] Lords under the pretext of piety. 8. And forbid women and men to wear their hair long. 9. That he himself wore the habit of the Greek philosophers. 10. And exhorted his followers to assume a similar guise. 11. That he neglected the appointed fasts. 12. That he taught that one should fast on the Lord's days. 13. [That he ordered] prayers not to be held in the houses of married people. 14. Finally, that he had married a woman who was a presbyter’s wife, while he himself was a layman, ^D and professed that he had to oppose and avoid the blessing.

CAP. XV.

Concerning Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, being called to law by his competitor Acacius, and, however contumacious, being cited to a higher tribunal.

The things which were set up against Cyril are as follows. Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, who had sat with the Nicene Fathers, had designated Maximus the Confessor, whose right eye Ma-

the tyrant had gouged out, and had cut the nerves of his left arm, and, along with Paphnutius, had condemned other Egyptian bishops to the digging of mines, to the bishopric of Diospolis. When the Jerusalemites, to whom he had been designated bishop after the death of Macarius, took this ill, he was moved by repentance and gave them another bishop for Diospolis; he ordered Maximus to remain in Jerusalem on the condition that he discharge the priestly office with him and be set over the Church after his death. As these things were agreeable, they were immediately confirmed by an act.

Maximus, therefore, having been made bishop of Jerusalem, suffered I know not what human frailty, and in that synod which Eusebius of Nicomedia had convened at Jerusalem, at the time when the dedication of the Martyrium of Maximus was celebrated, he subscribed to the deposition of Athanasius the Great. But afterwards, at a local or topical synod gathered at Sardica, he was in communion with him [Athanasius].

Now, after the death of Constantius, those who stood with Acacius, the successor of Eusebius Pamphili and bishop of his Caesarea in Palestine, as well as with Patrophilus of Scythopolis, objected to him [Maximus] that he had deposed a man, and then, moved by repentance, had recalled him. For that reason, therefore, they deposed Maximus from the episcopacy and elevated Cyril, who, if he was not a participant in the same heresy as they were, was at least held to be such. He contended for priority with the aforementioned Acacius, a man very famous for the elegance of his words and the weight of his matters, and one who, in his counsel, easily perceived those things which were less obvious to others, being of all men the most perspicacious and very adept at conjecturing the intentions of others. Finally, although he would move every stone by which he might ward off the cunning designs and sly tricks of his adversaries, he nonetheless looked upon them with calm eyes that betrayed no anger, and he laughed at his reviling adversaries with a kind of feigned patience, as if he were moved by no insults or abuses.

^C Ambition for the primacy thus provided an opportunity for the enmities that erupted between Acacius and Cyril. But since matters were directed by the ambition of Acacius, the Aelians accused Cyril on the count that, while a famine was raging, he had exposed sacred vessels and vestments to auction under the pretext of aiding the poor, and that a certain merchant, having purchased some of them, had sold them to a certain theatrical or stage woman. Theodoret, however, is the author of the account that such a vestment was given to Macarius of Jerusalem by the Emperor Constantine to be worn while performing the sacred rite, and that it was not bought from a stage woman, but from a man who had at one time been of the same profession.

Therefore, having convened the neighboring bishops, Acacius summoned Cyril to judgment; because he did not appear even though he had been called many times, they deposed him. But he, alone at that time, and the first beyond the ecclesiastical canon to be mindful of appeal to the public forum, sent a petition of appeal to those by whom he had been deposed, and appealed to a higher tribunal.

CHAPTER XVI.

Concerning the crimes of Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, and the slaughter of both Catholics and Arians that arose in the church itself on account of the translation of the chest of the sacred Emperor Constantine.

Macedonius, however, bishop of Constantinople, was accused because he had held a certain Eleusius and Marathonius as accomplices in crime, by whose agency he might harass the Homousians. One of them he had made a deacon—a man formerly a public accountant for the provincial soldiers—and had placed him over the monasteries of monks and nuns, and over the infirmaries and hospices, seeing that he had acquired as much wealth from the army as was enough. Afterwards, he had promoted him to the bishopric of Nicomedia. But upon Eleusius, who had served as a soldier not without diligence in the emperor’s retinue, he had bestowed the bishopric of Cyzicus. From this it came about that he afflicted the Novatians with countless evils; and the first to be attacked by them were those who inhabited Mantineum—that is, Pontic Heraclea—and the remaining parts of Paphlagonia. For by his counsel, soldiers armed by the emperor were sent to attack them. Wherefore, with hands joined on both sides, very many fell on both sides.

In addition to these things, he translated the remains of that great Emperor Constantine from the chest, not without much shedding of blood, into the basilica of the holy martyr Acacius, claiming that the temple in which it had been deposited was threatening ruin. For as the Catholics resisted and shouted that the chest should not be moved from its place—and that this was the same as digging up a tomb—a great slaughter arose on both sides, so that the very house sacred to the blessed martyr, and its precinct, overflowed with gore.

CHAPTER XVII.

Concerning the synod of more than four hundred bishops at Ariminum, and the confession of faith fabricated by the Arians at Nicea in Thrace and substituted for the true Nicene [faith] of Bithynia.

A double synod, therefore, as I have already indicated, assembled: at Ariminum, that matters of dogma might be considered, and at Seleucia, that the accusations against the bishops might be heard. The former, therefore, the Ariminum synod, was convened, and the Western bishops gathered, more than four hundred in number. Wherefore Valens of Mursa, Ursacius of Mursa, Germinius of Sirmium, Auxentius of Milan, and Demophilus of Berrhoea came forward and decreed that the Son must be said to be ὅμοιον, or "like" the Father, according to the prescription of the Scriptures. But they asserted that no mention whatsoever of "substance" should be made where God is concerned. That synod indeed deposed those who persisted stubbornly in this opinion, and sent legates to the emperor, who was at Sirmium at that time, to inform him of the things that had been done in the synod. Those who had been deposed, taking this ill, anticipated the legates and reported the acts of the synod to the emperor; and they [the emperor and the faction], favoring the Arian dogma, [acted] against the synod—

but not so: because when it was discussed on both sides, the synod was dismissed.

However, the Acacians would not sit any longer with those from whom they dissented. Wherefore, having gathered, they deposed Acacius and his associates; among whom was Eudoxius of Antioch, in whose place Adrianus or Abianus, a presbyter of the clergy of Antioch, was appointed; who was immediately sent into exile by Leonas and Lauricius.

CHAPTER XVIII.

Concerning the anti-synod of the one hundred and sixty bishops at Seleucia, in which the Homœan faction was divided from the Homœousians and the Anomœans; and Acacius, the leader and author of the Homœans, was driven into exile.

Not long after, about one hundred and sixty bishops gathered at Seleucia in Isauria, to whom there joined himself a certain illustrious man, and one who had much power in the imperial court, named Leonas, and Lauricius, the commander of the provincial soldiers, who had been ordered by the emperor to bring reinforcements to Leonas if there were need. In the first session, however, they were suddenly divided into two parties. The one was headed by Acacius, bishop of Cæsarea which is in Palestine, and his associates, being thirty-two in number; the other by George of Laodicea, which is in Syria, and his associates.

And these, while subscribing in all other things to the Nicene synod, disapproved of the single term *homoousion*, and professed that the Son should be said to be *homoiousion* to the Father. The Acacians, however, were in that heresy such that, having rejected both *homoousion* and *homoiousion* equally as terms that were utterly alien to the Scriptures, and having even discarded *anomoion*, they openly asserted that the Son is *homoion* to the Father, or similar. For, as the Apostle says somewhere, he is the image of the invisible God. ^B Being asked, however, to what extent they said he was similar to the Father, they replied: by will alone; but not in substance ^A (for on this point they were not of one mind). ^C

CAP. XIX.

The Emperor Constantius, having sent Aetius, the arch-heretic of the Anomœans, into exile, subscribed to the faith brought from Ariminum in place of the Nicene, and embraced the heresy of the Homœan Acacians.

When the Emperor Constantius had returned from the Western parts to Constantinople, and had first appointed the prefect of that city, one Honoratus, and had abolished the magistracy of the proconsulate, the Acacians came there in haste, and by enticing some of the courtiers into their own opinion, and by corrupting others with ecclesiastical goods, by this art opened a way for themselves to the ears of the emperor, and slandered those who were of the opposing party; of whom ten came to the emperor. In whose presence, together with ten others sent by the Ariminensian synod, and indeed others who happened to be at court at the time, the emperor commanded that an inquiry be made concerning Aetius.

This having been done, Aetius indeed, who professed that the Son was *ano-moion*, or dissimilar to the Father, was cast into exile. But the Acacians, by a precomputed and premeditated fraud, brought about the reading of that exposition of faith which had been brought from Ariminum, in which, through the influence of Valens and Ursacius, the name *homoousion* having been deleted, they had replaced *homoion*, or "similar," according to the Scriptures. Which position the emperor also, upon reading it, embraced; and considering within himself how great that multitude of prelates was who had gathered at Ariminum (for I have already reminded that they were four hundred), he reasoned that he would not be straying if he said the Son was similar to the Father, especially since *homoion*, *homoiousion*, and *homoousion* signify the same thing. Since, therefore, he was of this mind, he ordered the bishops to hold one and the same opinion concerning the confession of those who had gathered at Ariminum; and there subscribed both others and those ten who had arrived from Seleucia, and even Maris of Chalcedon, and Ulphilas of Gothia, although he formerly held with Theophilus—to whose bishopric he had succeeded, who had written as present at the Nicene synod. ^D

CAP. XX.

Fifty Acacian or Homœan bishops deposed eleven Anomœan bishops rather on account of certain crimes than dogmas.

To sum up, fifty bishops with Acacius confirmed this faith, then deposed some of those who had gathered at Seleucia: not because they were in error on the controversial dogma

but because certain peculiar crimes were laid against them.

1. They deposed Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, abusing the Emperor's anger, which had been kindled by the aforementioned causes. 2. Basil of Ancyra, because he had struck a presbyter in Antioch, had attacked him with various calumnies, and had committed other I know not what base acts of this kind. 3. Eleusius of Cyzicus, because he had rashly advanced a certain Hercules, a priest of the Tyrian powers, to the ministry of God, while he was accused of sorcery and was merely feigning to be a Christian. 4. Heortasius of Sardis, who had been chosen by the judgment of his suffragan bishops of Lydia. 5. Dracontius of Pergamum, because he had been transferred to Galatia. 6. Silvanus of Tarsus, because he had offered himself as a leader and author of the faction, both at Seleucia and at Constantinople. 7. Theophilus of Castabala, because he had not been transferred to Eleutheropolis. 8. Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, as a swindler, who had attempted to "huckster"—that is, to sell for profit—those things which were offered to the Church. 9. Neonas of Seleucia in Isauria, because he had advanced to the episcopate certain rude men, ignorant of both the Sacred Scriptures and the established rites. In our own time, indeed, bishops are created who are completely illiterate and ignorant of the very first elements of grammar, provided only that they know how to draw a seal or a signature. 10. Quin, [also] Elpidius of Satala, because he had restored a previously deposed man to the presbyterate, and had deemed a certain perjurer, Nectarius, worthy of the office of deacon. 11. Finally, Cyril of Jerusalem for the aforementioned causes.

CAP. XXI. On the transfer of certain bishops, the defection of Meletius to the Orthodox, and the constancy of preaching the Homousian Trinity, expressed through the three fingers, a symbol which the Orthodox still use during blessings.

These having been deposed in this manner, not long after, Erenius occupied the reins of the Church of Jerusalem in the place of Cyril; and after him Heraclius, and subsequently Hilarius, until the times of the Emperor Theodosius, by whom Cyril returned to his own see by right of postliminy. Theophanes the Chronicler, however, writes that Hilarius alone presided over the Church for twelve years, and that Cyril was restored to his see roughly in the third year of Valens, after Hilarius was deposed. As for the see of Sebastia, Meletius was placed in charge in place of Eustathius, while he [Eustathius] was transferred from Sebastia in Syria to Berrhoea. When he had arrived at the Council of Seleucia and had subscribed to the faith of the Acacians, he returned to Berrhoea holding that opinion.

^B When a council had been convoked at Constantinople and Eudoxius had been transferred to his see, it was decided that Meletius should also be transferred to Antioch, in the belief that he would tread in the path of Eudoxius and Acacius. Yet he frustrated their expectations. For he defected to the Orthodox and began to teach that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. But when the archdeacon rushed forward and, by placing his hand over his mouth, impeded him from speaking, he revealed his inner thoughts more clearly by his hand than by his voice: extending three fingers, he brought them together again into one with the others, indicating by this gesture of the hand that there is one God, defining for the people, as if in an image, those things which he felt and desired to say.

When these things were first reported to Constantius, he ordered Meletius into exile and substituted in his place Euzoius, who had been degraded from his rank at the time of Arius.

CAP. XXII. On the sudden mutation of the Arian party into Anomoeans and Exucontians, who asserted that Christ was [o]ὐκ ὄντων[/o] [from non-being].

The Acacians, however, struck by repentance because they had asserted that the Son was entirely [o]ὅμοιον[/o], or similar, to the Father, betook themselves to Antioch, which is in Syria. Having gathered with Euzoius, they decided that the word [o]ὅμοιον[/o] ought to be removed from the confession of faith of Ariminum, since the Son [o]ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων[/o], that is, was created out of nothing, and therefore exists to the Father as [o]ἀνόμοιος[/o] [unlike]. In this matter, they had as helpers those who stood with Aetius. From which it came to pass that those who had previously been called Arians were called Anomoeans and Exucontians by the Homousians of Antioch. When questioned by them as to how it could be that those who had asserted in their own confession of faith that the Son proceeded from God now dared to call him [o]ἀνόμοιον[/o] and created out of nothing, they responded that the Apostle Paul also said that all things proceeded from God, but that the Son was one thing among the sum of all things; which caused the phrase "according to the Scriptures" to be added to the confessions of faith. With such sophistry they attempted to delude others, yet, bearing it with a heavy and indignant heart that this opinion was disapproved of, they again read the confession of faith which had been confirmed at Constantinople. And thus they returned individually to their own bishoprics. At Antioch, indeed, the multitude of Catholics was split into two factions: some followed Meletius with the highest honor, others avoided his communion, moved by the reasoning that Meletius had been elected by the suffrage of the Arians, and that his followers had been baptized by the Arians.

CAP. XXIII. On the return of the exiled bishops, especially Athanasius, Eusebius, Lucifer, and Hilary of Poitiers, under Julian Caesar, and the Alexandrian council, and the confirmation of the Nicene canons.

But when Constantius had died, Julian took up the reins of empire; and Constantius's cruelty toward...

^A those beneath him, having been disapproved and condemned not without calumnies, led him to order all bishops to be recalled from exile. Therefore, they were recalled, both others and Athanasius of Alexandria, along with those who had been commanded to go into exile on his account at the council of Milan, among whom was Eusebius of Vercelli, which are in Liguria, or among the Ligurian peoples of Italy. Likewise Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia, and Hilary of Poitiers, who are in the second Aquitania. And so, Eusebius and Lucifer, returning from Upper Thebes, agreed between themselves that one should betake himself to Alexandria and the other to Antioch, so that counsel might be entered into regarding the composition of divine dogmas. And Eusebius, as soon as he reached Alexandria, convened a synod together with Athanasius. When therefore the bishops had assembled from various cities, the decrees of the Nicene synod were confirmed; and further, the Word, who became man, was proclaimed by the common judgment of all as not only incarnate, but also endowed with a rational soul, and perfect man, and indeed the Holy Spirit was demonstrated to be of the same substance as the Father and the Son.

CAP. XXIV. Concerning the heresy of those Luciferians who dissented from the Alexandrian synod, and the disturbances that arose in the Church of Antioch, and the exile of Meletius.

CAP. XXV. Again, those who had gone into exile for the sake of religion under Valens were recalled under Gratian and Valentinian the Younger. And again, the disturbances on account of Meletius which arose at Antioch finally with difficulty quieted down.

CAP. XXVI. Concerning the Constantinopolitan synod gathered by the order of Theodosius the Great, and the greatest of all disturbances that arose at Antioch regarding Flavianus, the successor of Meletius; finally, concerning Isidore the hieromonk, whom Damasus created bishop of Constantinople.

Furthermore, the patriarch Photius incidentally inserted a scholion of this kind into this chapter. Note the vehement incitement of the Roman and Alexandrian sees against Flavian, which nevertheless came to naught because it seemed to have been done without reason. For since Flavian had been condemned by no one within his own borders and was held in honor by his own people, it came about that he could easily allow the complaints of others, inasmuch as they transcended their own boundaries, to remain void.

When Paulinus died, however, the people again turned against Flavian and by their efforts and zeal brought it about that Evagrius was placed over their own party. Because he himself survived for only a short time, no one was appointed in his place, and this was through the deeds of Flavian. But in truth, certain recalcitrants, continuing to oppose Flavian, gathered in private conventicles; but he moved every lever of reason to bring them also into subjection to himself: a thing he accomplished a little later.

For when he had made Theophilus of Alexandria his friend through his own compliance, through his efforts he returned to favor with Damasus of Rome, having indeed sent to him Isidore the monk and presbyter, who, as one of the philosophers of Scete, was so pleasing to Damasus that without any delay he immediately made him bishop of Constantinople. Moreover, Theodoret is the authority for the fact that Flavian returned to favor not with Damasus of Rome, but with Innocent, and this through the effort and zeal of Emperor Theodosius, having sent the bishops of Berrhoea and others to Flavian. There are not wanting those who think that he who is called Chrysologus among the Fathers, together with Theophilus of Alexandria, through the zeal of Acacius of Berrhoea and Isidore the presbyter, seems to have reconciled Flavian to favor.

Chapter XXVI.

But indeed, let the refutations of the impious Arius be cast aside for now into another place. Since Aetius and Eunomius were confederates of Arius, I think it will be worth the effort if I first insert into this history what was designed by them: then afterwards I shall proceed to a common refutation of the three. For the javelin which one might aim at one of them, he might with no lack of wisdom deflect against the others as well. Furthermore, those things which I must weigh for the present are whatever those persons, to whom the administration of the clergy fell by lot, uttered against him by whom they were elevated to the pastoral office: and by what things they ravaged their own sheep with destruction. Indeed, the book in which the things done by them are contained and discussed clearly is open for anyone to read, ^A and it is clear, to be heard or read, by which indeed their impiety and abomination is exposed: the way those profane bishops willingly involved themselves, who, scattering as if they were heaps of chaff the coins intended for the needs of the poor toward their own private luxury and the service of those who were at that time consorting with the emperors, from among these they cast some—who were rejoicing in pious discourses and simplicity—headlong into the pit of destruction by their conversions and dialectical summaries, while against others who were resisting, they were blunted, in no other way than if they had broken their teeth against a hard wall [(63)], inasmuch as they were wiser than their wealth and were not shaken by any machines of logical syllogisms. But these men, through the convocation of synods agreeable to them, and also through the consent and favor of those who could do much with the emperors, were entirely trying to crush them, and not only were they ousting them from their own seats and sheepfolds, but were also always plotting to remove them from the midst by whatever right or wrong; some they even assailed with fabricated deceptions and slanders, and by such arts they attained what they wished; while justice mocks them, in judgments known only to Him to whom it does not please to blaze into anger whenever men sin [(64)], but in many cases puts off or delays for a long time the exacting of punishment for wicked crimes. In this manner the shepherds were acting foolishly, and not a few of them were corrupting the vineyard of God. Wherefore the Lord, taking this heavily and indignantly, exclaims through the prophet: Woe to those who feed themselves 36. Indeed, if anyone explores more deeply, he will find that those things which they rashly designated in such a way, and spoke against God in innumerable ways, [show that] they were not even feeding themselves, nor just neglecting the sheepfold, but had also distracted themselves and their own flock from God, and had fed the flock with every kind of lethal and deadly herb, and had watered them with every—in short—turbid and filthy stream, from which they themselves also offer a cup, like rams that are leaders of the flock, to whom the sounding bells of the priesthood are hung in vain. But although they managed all things in such a way that they obtained nothing except private accusation and the perdition of the souls of many, they nevertheless also embraced some useful things. So that it is permitted to pluck roses from them as from thorns, and like a salutary panacea to fashion it from the flesh of serpents; then, I say, when they deposed both the shepherds and the mercenaries of the shepherds, whomever they discovered to be uninstructed and ignorant of the faith, and not fit to explain the precepts of the Catholic faith to their subjects according to their prescription.

But indeed they were also accused by some of being strikers and rapacious, that they had admitted to communion those who had been removed from their rank, that they had stirred up seditions, that...

they had taken precautions in property, elements, and principles for what they were to do in life: ^A which indeed, had they not vanished along with the other ceremonies of the Church that serve the common good, or rather, had no one to this very day transgressed those things which right reason prescribes and which have long since been rightly sanctioned by the pious Fathers, would by no means have been committed to certain tillers of the soil, collectors of taxes, hunters of wild beasts, public companions of courtly magnates, those utterly ignorant of the dogmas of the faith, and finally to enchanters and rapacious men; nor to those who, so that I may say this also, despoil their own subjects, over whose pasturing they are set, much more violently than public tax-collectors, while they do not limit the debt of, as it were, tributary sheep to the superficial wool and the milking of the lacteal yield, but even: *They tear away the hides from the ribs, and strip bare the entrails.*

From which it happens that that ancient freedom of reproving kings and speaking before them anything at all without shame has utterly perished for them, and few now revere them; and consequently that greatest radiance of pontifical dignity has become cheap, and in its place have been introduced things which are altogether unbecoming to true pontiffs: such as fawning upon emperors, and in a servile manner approving whatever is said or done by them, however much those things may be more disgraceful than all other disgraces. To say nothing of the fact that they have also taken away from us, who discharge ^B the duties of magistrates, every freedom of speech, and have cast us down from our lofty degree of dignity and prostrated us on the ground, and have finally driven us to such a point that we have been forced to fawn upon the emperors along with them, as it were, like Maltese dogs. For what else, I ask, could we have done, when we saw that the pontiff of the primary see, and the other bishops who follow in order, had permitted at a single nod and word that the sacred relics be torn away ^C and exposed to the Gentiles as if they were dogs prepared for a banquet, while their own private effects, or rather, the very goods of the republic, if I may so say, were to be kept sound and whole, and were to be stored up for future use by their possessors?

If we had resisted rashly, we would undoubtedly have been cast from the tribunal with necks twisted. For that emperor who sat over us at that time, an example of shamelessness, was of his own accord conceding everything that was requested. Wherefore, if anyone wishes to examine the matter deeply, with all affection set aside, he will undoubtedly find that the ecclesiastics have committed more shameful acts than ^D the courtiers and satellites of the emperor. For the latter have carried out, through right and wrong, whatever the magnitude of the empire, the preeminence of power, and the will of the emperor demanded; but these men, along with their accomplices—some of them, to be sure, being authors of ruin and destruction to their own familiars, for they had the power of persuasion, as if they were subordinates acting as helpers to God, and were considered to neither say nor do anything without divine prompting—few are they who can look through the window of the chest and have the thoughts of their hearts laid bare. But enough of this, lest I seem to be casting my own sins behind me, while bearing those of others in the front part of my wallet, and appearing to inspect them with overly curious eyes.

CAP. XXVIII. On the hypocrisy of the Semiarian bishops, and especially on the heads of their heresy.

Therefore, so that the discourse may return to where it digressed, let us see what were the nature and quality of those words which the defenders of the Arian plague conceived and brought forth against Christ, and which, after frequent synods were called, they exposed to the ears of all, and finally dared to confirm as if they were orthodox, although in the meantime they breathed nothing but pure impiety, as if they were adulterated and alien to the decrees of the apostolic Church. And first, indeed, who would not accuse Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Eusebius of Caesarea, which is in Palestine? Who were endowed with a base sense unworthy of pontiffs. For being of the heretical faction, and fearing lest they fall from their own Churches or be marked with infamy, they feigned an abjuration of Arius; and a little later, returning like dogs to their own vomit, they did not consent to the deposition of Arius, but, resilient, they thenceforth made no end of attacking the catholic faith and opposing the pious. Hence those fraudulent councils against Eustathius, hence those frequent synods by which the term *homoousion* was considered among them as alien to the Scriptures and was exploded, and in its place was thrust now *homoiousion*, now *homoion*, and at other times even *anomoion*: all of which make the Son alien from the substance of the Father. For they were of the opinion that the Father should be called the first and proper substance, but the Son the second. And they said that the Father was God in the proper sense, but that the Son was a participant in the name of substance and divinity by homonymy, that is, equivocally. For example, they imagined that God the Father was like an animate and living being, but the Son like an inanimate and painted one. Wherefore they named the Father God properly, as we have said, but the Son a certain image of Divinity, so that they might in vain affix the name of both divinity and substance to the Son. For because they separated the Son from the substance of the Father, and, naming the Father God properly, confessed the Son to be alien from his essence, it came about that they made him in vain and

^A in mere name, in the manner by which a living man and a painted one are compared with one another and are equivocally designated by the name of man. Toward this end, the vain thoughts of perverse men were directed, concerning *homoion* and *homoiousion*. For this reason they were also called Semi-Arians. Because they reduced the Father and the Son to inequality, and attributed to the Father that He was above all substance, as unbegotten, as eternal; while on the contrary [they held] the Son to be created, and that He began to exist later, and finally that there was a time when He had not existed, they could not therefore bear for the term *homoousion* to be inserted into the symbol of faith, by which we profess the Son to be of one and the same substance with the Father. With this artifice they labored to secretly entice all the bishops into their heresy and perverse opinion—bishops who, although they were honored for their piety and delighted in the simplicity of their morals, were nevertheless not at all vigilant against the tricks or inversions of words and sophistical shortcuts. Because they said there was no difference between *homoousion*, *homoiousion*, and *homoion*, and [warned] that we must take care lest scandals arise and take root in the Churches by the novelty of the terms—by the allure of these very terms they spread the bait of impiety and entangled many in the snares of destruction. ^B

CAP. XXIX. Of the leaders of the Semi-Arians: and the false interpretation of the terms *homoousion* and *homoiousion*.

Now, those who were inventing such things were the leaders and primary authors of the impiety, being those who at that time excelled in religion and doctrine among the other heretics. I mean Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Eusebius of Caesarea which is in Palestine, he who wrote the ecclesiastical history; likewise Theognis of Nicaea, and the others who subscribed to the sentiments and doctrines of these men. For with great impudence they professed and taught that *homoousion* is properly understood and spoken of in reference to bodies, such as of man and other animals, and likewise of every kind of tree and plant, to which there is communication and birth from like beings: but that *homoiousion* is inherent in incorporeal things, and is spoken of properly of them, such as of God and an angel, and of each understood in its own essence. And even as it is said of the Son, so it can be said of the Father. For this is the nature of the essence of any things whatsoever, that what is begotten should be like to that from which it is begotten; and inasmuch as the essence of both is the same, [the Son] should be honored with the same honor, and one should not be called more eminent and the other inferior, or the essence of one older and the other more recent. For the forms of the genus proceed equally from it and are decorated with the same honor of common nature: ^C just as all men agree in the communion of definition, even if they are divided into many individuals. Whatever things, therefore, are reduced to some one term and are capable of it, these are also properly called men, or horses, or oxen, and, if I may so say, plants and trees, and they can be called *homoousia*—that is, constant by the communion of essence. But whatever things are not capable of those terms—for example, of man or some other animal—but are called by the mere name of men or some other animal, so they can neither be properly called men nor animals by anyone: and thus they will not be called *homoousia*, such as is a painted horse or man; because, forsooth, they are not referred even to their own form, nor are they capable of their own terms, such as being endowed with reason and subject to death, and capable of mind and knowledge: or even being neighing and lacking in reason. For whatever a sculptor may have fashioned, or a painter may have depicted, following the likeness of some man or horse, one may indeed call a man, because the figure may have imitated the form; but it is less proper, and rather abusive and equivocal; for it does not participate in the same definition as the form: because the statue is not an animal endowed with reason, subject to death, and capable of mind and knowledge; nor is it neighing and a quadruped, such as a living horse, nor *With thundering hoof the quadruped beats the dusty field.*

From this it follows, therefore, that just as one specific essence is inherent in us men, and likewise in individual angels, and indeed in animals themselves, so also in the three persons—in the Father, I say, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—one essence, divinity, and nature is inherent. But the impious—those Eusebii, the first-fruits of the heretics—while they attribute the name of God to the first essence of the Father, and set the Son as of another essence, as if by certain degrees, they abrogate the *homoousion*, ^D and strive with all their might so that no mention of it survives: but in its place they foist *homoion* and *homoiousion*, and, if not in reality, at least in word they profess the Son to be like in essence to the Father. But we shall treat of these things more openly then, when we set ourselves to refute the opinions of Arius and his consortium and followers. But this place demands that we recount those things which are circulated regarding Aetius and Eunomius.

CHAPTER XXX.

Concerning the Aetians and Anomoeans, to whom the Eunomians are also reckoned. On the life and the customs of Aetius. Concerning the traps set by Stephanus and "Onager" for certain orthodox bishops. Concerning the eunuch Leontius. On the origin of ecclesiastical antiphons.

Those things which are spread about regarding Aetius and Eunomius, Gregory of Nyssa and Theodore of Mopsuestia have pursued in greater detail, while Epiphanius of Cyprus, Theodoret of Cyrus, and the writers of ecclesiastical histories have proceeded in more concise terms; from all of whom we have borrowed those things that seemed to us more useful and appropriate. `<sup>A</sup>` That Stephanus, who not only showed himself to be a leader of heresy, but also committed countless other evils, pursued every sort of wickedness and filth; he had a certain reader who was an accomplice in his crimes and whom he used as an emissary, who for that very reason was called "Onager" [the Wild Ass], a name very aptly applied, by whose craft he undertook a fable of this sort. After the synod of Sardica had ended, Constans, that pious emperor of the Romans, had written to his own brother, Constantius, concerning Athanasius and Paul. The bishops Euphratas and Vincentius had carried the letters along with Salinus, a commander of soldiers. When they had arrived at Antioch, where Constantius was at that time, they sought lodging. But the detestable Stephanus, through the work of Onager, hired a harlot and ordered her to be introduced into the bishops’ lodging at night, and he suborned certain men to shout that there was a harlot with the bishops. But because the bishops were stronger—and so were their companions—they detained both the harlot and her handlers by force.

It must be known, therefore, that Aetius originated from Antioch, which is in Syria, and, as Nyssenus is the authority, he served a certain woman named Ampelis when he practiced the craft of a smith, mending worn-out bronze vessels with a small hammer and small anvil, stopping up holes, pouring in liquefied tin, and finally healing the bellies of cauldrons with poured lead. But according to the Mopsuestian author, he was born to a father who was free, indeed, but who was a "tent-making" goldsmith—that is, possessing no house, but carrying a pavilion or tabernacle woven from hair and bristles, which was therefore cheap, and thus he led a wandering life, earning his daily bread through certain trifling and frivolous works. When his son followed him, he [his father] instructed him in this little craft of his, and indeed even attempted to initiate him into the first rudiments of letters, having advanced him so far that he could write the words of contracts. That Aetius was a goldsmith, his associate Philostorgius also gives testimony in the third book of his History: "When, therefore," he says, "Aetius had applied his mind to goldsmithing, he emerged as a master goldsmith. But when he had adulterated a certain one of the works entrusted to him, he was slashed with sharp scourges, as is fitting." `<sup>B</sup>` Afterwards, when he saw that he was living thinly and squalidly by this trade, but that Christians received everyone with the utmost kindness, and especially the men of their own religion, he left the art and changed his habit, feigned a philosophical and indeed a Christian life, and found many followers. Then, having set off for Alexandria, when he had spent a few days learning Aristotelian arguments and seemed to be someone—such was the nature of the man, his sharpness of tongue, and his impudence—he had not a few heralds of his praises. `<sup>C</sup>` But when he was an exceptional defender of the doctrines of Arius, he indeed subscribed to them, but he withdrew from the Arians, because they had admitted to communion an Arian who had perjured himself in his written confession of faith to the Emperor Constantius, and had thought one thing while having spoken another. But afterwards, leaving Alexandria, he returned to Antioch, his native soil, and was received by Leontius, who was at that time bishop of the Antiochenes. For since the departure of that great Eustathius, Euphronius the Arian had been substituted for him through the efforts of Eusebius of Nicomedia; and after Euphronius, Phlacitus, or Placitus, of the same heresy as he, succeeded him. And so, that most impious Placitus…

`<sup>D</sup>` As soon as this fable reached the ears of Constantius, with the calumniator Stephanus deposed, the emasculated Leontius—who, having already fallen from the honor of the presbyterate because he was living daily with a certain girl named Eustolia, and in order to remove from himself the suspicion of this turpitude, had cut off his own manly parts, and then thereafter visited her more freely, being deprived, to be sure, of those members which had provided the cause for calumny—was substituted in his place. He, therefore, had been raised to the Antiochene episcopacy by the efforts and zeal of the Emperor Constantius. Furthermore, at that time there flourished at Antioch, and were held to be famous in virtue and knowledge, Flavianus and Diodorus, the former of whom was later put in charge of the Antiochene episcopacy, the latter of the Tarsian; and as Theodore of Mopsuestia writes, they were the ones who translated that form of psalmody which we call antiphons from the language of the Syrians into Greek, and they appeared to be the authors of this work to almost all men of the entire Christian world. The heterousiasts, certainly indeed the Arians—saying that the Son is of a different substance than the Father—used to sing: "Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit." But Flavianus is reported to have been the first to sing: "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit."

`

CHAPTER XXXI.

A few more things concerning the life and customs of Aetius and Eunomius.

Therefore, having been received, as has now been said, Leontius ordained Aetius a deacon; but because many contradicted him and threatened that they would secede from the Church—and Flavianus and Diodorus attempted to do this in particular, and argued against the Aetian heresy—Leontius, fearing this in part, and in part intending to prepare him for what followed, removed him from the diaconate, but granted him greater honor. And now, Aetius was reckless and witty,

and took delight in mimicry, theatrical banter, and indecent habits. For he would lift his tunic up to his buttocks, strike his bare thighs with his hands, and while lifting one foot and slapping his bight, he would dance. At social dinners, moreover, among other buffooneries, he would address his fellow guests with these words: "If you wish, I will teach you what the dogma means." Then, having emitted three flatulent sounds from his stomach with great panting, he would shout thus: "Behold, the dogma of the Orthocylli," that is, the "Straight-Knee-ites," thus calling the orthodox so by a transformation of the word. Then, after letting out three other dissimilar puffs, he would say, "Behold, even ours." So long as Leontius lived, he kept Aetius as a laughingstock for such jesteries. But upon the death of Leontius, Eudoxius of Germanicia seized the see of Antioch and began to hold Aetius in no less esteem, if not greater.

Now the impious Aetius had at that time Eunomius as the asserter of his blasphemies, by whom he was surpassed even in impiety. The parents of Eunomius, however, were freedmen of the ancestors of the great Basil; they had him imbued with the first rudiments of letters and led him to the training of scribes and amanuenses. Upon his parents' death, having gone to Constantinople, he attached himself to a family of great name, and the master soon entrusted to him the care of his children. Leading them in the manner of a pedagogue to the schools, he shared in their literary studies, and from thence was imbued with the arts of grammar and rhetoric. When, however, the master of the house caught him at one time committing some misconduct against the children, thinking that the shame of the injury, if it were divulged, would result in disgrace to his sons, he ordered him to be scourged and to depart the whole city, threatening that if he ever learned of him being found among any of his fellow citizens, he would publicly demand punishment from him. Therefore, as a wanderer, he came to Antioch; where, having embraced the Arian heresy, he contracted in that name a familiarity with Aetius and Eudoxius, by whom he was also honored with the dignity of deacon, and soon after, that of presbyter.

CAP. XXXII. Of the blasphemous heresies of Aetius, by whose name he is called Aetheos, that is, impious.

Such, therefore, was the life, education, and founding of Aetius and Eunomius. But wretched Aetius, blaspheming publicly, began to profess the Son of God to be *ktiston*, and *ex ouk onton*, and *anomoion te Patri*, that is, created, and from things that were not, or from nothing, and finally, unlike the Father. Wherefore he was also called *atheos*. Furthermore, if we are to believe the blessed Epiphanius, he was accustomed to use these words: "I know God so as he knows himself; and I know him in such a way that I am not even known to myself." But to some who objected: "Tell us first what are the traces of the abyss, and by what things it is doubted when a question occurs concerning the nature of things; and so we will believe you, when you speak of God," he would answer that such things were unknown to him as if they were corporeal and individual, but that God, their creator, was perceived and explored by him, who he was, whose he was, and what he was. But if he were convicted by the testimonies of Scripture, then indeed, as a blasphemer, he would curse both the prophets and the apostles, sometimes with these words: "Why do you cite to me the words of the Old Testament?" and sometimes even with these: "The Apostle spoke thus as a man." But when he taught his disciples, he used these words for the most part: "God requires nothing of man, except that he know him, even as I know." For this reason, Christ was wont to say: *This is life eternal, that they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent* . He used these words: "Fornication is no sin. For just as when we itch, we do some natural thing, so also fornication is the fulfillment of bodily use." These, therefore, and suchlike are the blasphemies which that *atheos* Aetius taught publicly, and that without being a participant of any ecclesiastical rank. For having been cast out of the diaconate by Leontius, he remained a layman, and in the synod of the heretical Acacian bishops convened at Constantinople while Constantius was emperor, he was relegated to a certain town of Phrygia, and there he remained for so long, until the impious Julius recalled him from exile.

CAP. XXXIII. Of the change of the Aetians into the Eunomians, and of the heresies and exile of Eunomius.

But from that time the name of the Aetians ceased, while that of the Eunomians prevailed: for a more wicked disciple had succeeded a wicked teacher. For when the impious Eudoxius was elevated to the Constantinopolitan see, he brought Eunomius with him. Now Eleuzius of Cyzicus, since he was a Macedonian and a Semi-Arian, was saying that the Son was *homoousion* to the Father: and although he was very often admonished by Eudoxius himself and by the Emperor Valens, he could not, however, be brought to say that he was similar without the addition of "of the essence." Then indeed, frightened by the fear of exile and the confiscation of his goods, he succumbed. Having returned, however, to Cyzicus, he persisted in his former opinion. When Eudoxius had learned this, having deposed him, he substituted Eunomius in his see. He, having taken over the churches of that place, could not remain quiet, but using sophisms and the lure of words in his sermons to the people, he again brought forward the Aetian heresy. Since the people of Cyzicus could not bear this, they drove him out of the city. Later, however, he was deposed also by the command of the Emperor Constantius. For Constantius was accustomed to favor that dogma which...

embraced the dogma which asserted that the Son was solely ^A similar to the Father, but in no way unlike, nor essentially the same. Eunomius therefore withdrew to Constantinople and passed his time as an idle bishop with Eudoxius; then he departed from him and gathered the people privately, because, though he had often requested that his teacher Aetius be admitted, Eudoxius had not granted it—not that he disapproved of the heresy of Aetius as being entirely identical to his own, but he feared that he himself might also be deposed. For all men, unanimous in their rejection of Aetius, had degenerated from him as one of a different leaning.

CAP. XXXIV. Concerning the cruelty of the Arians toward the orthodox, eighty of whom, having been sent to offer petitions by the order of the Emperor Valens, they burned along with their ship.

Furthermore, after the death of Eudoxius, the Homousians chose Evagrius as their pious prelate, who had previously been ordained by Eustathius, the great bishop of Antioch, after having been recalled from Philippi, where he was in exile, by the order of Jovian; and while he remained in Constantinople at that time, he confirmed those who felt the same as he did. But the Arians had forced Demophilus upon Berrhoea, which is in Thrace. When, however, people of the opposing party had stirred up sedition for this cause, the Emperor Valens, then staying in Nicomedia, having been informed of these ^B matters, sent soldiers there, and having relegated Eustathius to Bizya in Thrace and Evagrius to another town, he ordered that all the churches be committed to Demophilus.

With this opportunity, the Arians insulted the orthodox and began to harass those thousand men with taunts. Therefore, eighty ecclesiastics, with Theodore, Urbas, and Menedemus as their leaders, were sent by the orthodox to the emperor to plead on their behalf. But he, inflamed with anger, commanded the prefect of the city to put those who had been arrested to death. The prefect, however, fearing that a sedition might arise among the common people, pretended that he was relegated them into exile. Thus they were cast into a ship, and when they had navigated to the middle of the Astacene Gulf, the sailors, according to the command they had received, set fire to the ship, and while they themselves leaped into a boat, the ship, tossed hither and thither by the impulse of the wind, arrived at Dacidize (which is a place in maritime Bithynia), and there it was utterly consumed along with the men it was carrying.

CAP. XXXV. The praise of the Empress Placilla (70), who recalled her husband, Theodosius the Great, from his conversation with the Arian Eunomius.

Meanwhile, Eunomius was living in private houses in Bithynia, near Constantinople, and the people flocked to him across the strait. Others also came from elsewhere. When the report of this matter had reached the ears of Theodosius the Great, he intended to confer with the man, had not the Empress Placilla ^C stood in his way with her providence and prayers. For since she preserved the dogma of the Nicene synod most faithfully, it came to pass that she feared that, as usually happens, her husband might be perverted by that conversation and adhere to the opposing party. For Eunomius was most eloquent in discussions and would most easily persuade anyone of anything, and he reduced theology to I know not what quibbles of syllogisms. But because Eunomius would not rests thereafter, but constantly displayed the tracts he published, and thus led many astray into his own opinion, for that reason the emperor ordered him to go into exile. He, however, not long after he was sent into exile, departed from the living and was buried in his native land. That village is one of the Cappadocians, named Dacora, not far from Argaeus in Caesarea.

CAP. XXXVI. Concerning the private heresies of Theophronius the Cappadocian and Eutychius the Constantinopolitan, a disciple of Eunomius.

Furthermore, a certain Theophronius, a Cappadocian, having been taught the heresy by him, consecrated to posterity an *Isagoge* or instruction on it, to which he gave the title *On the Exercises of the Mind*; but since he was not pleased to stick to the tenets of his teacher, he thought up certain more recent ideas, and wrote thus: "Since the Divinity does not foresee that which does not exist, but knows that which is, and remembers the past, it results that He is not always in the same state, since He turns his cognition to the future and to the past." These, therefore, are the reasons why he was held in hatred and ejected by the Eunomians and their church, and founded his own ^D heresy. And a certain Eutychius, a citizen of Constantinople, a disciple of Eunomius, later founded a heresy of his own for a similar cause. The Eunomians living in Constantinople said that the hour of the final judgment was unknown to the Son of God, wrongly understanding the passage: *No one knows, except the Father* (Matth. xxiv, 36). But Eutychius asserted that even to the Son that hour was known by the grace of the Father and his Creator. And so, Eutychius surely went to Eunomius, where he was in exile, along with some other Eunomians who had left, as it were, to receive a solution to their doubt from Eunomius, and Eunomius approved of Eutychius's opinion the more. But seeing that not long after Eunomius had died, the man who was in charge of the heretics at Constantinople, being hateful to Eutychius for the reason that he had been approved of by Eunomius, would not admit him, and so he departed to establish his own heresy. But enough of these things.

CAP. XXXVII. What Eunomius added to the heresies of his teacher Aetius. The strange anabaptism of the same.

Furthermore, it must be known that all other writers, among whom is Theodoret, are of the opinion that Eunomius, by his own dogma—not that of his teacher Aetius—

acquiescing to [the heresy], devised certain rather upright and moderate blasphemies, and went so far as to call the Son of God the first and principal creature of the Father, and moreover in all things *anomoios*, *treptos*, *kai, doulon*, that is, dissimilar, mutable, and a servant. Moreover, he claimed that the most holy Spirit had proposed a law contrary to the law of the Lord Christ regarding baptism, when he said that one should not be baptized by means of three immersions, nor should the Trinity be invoked, but that one ought to be baptized only once into the death of Christ; furthermore, that he who is being baptized should be baptized or immersed in water only up to the chest. As for the other members of the body, he forbade them from being sprinkled with water, as if they were impure and execrable, maintaining that it is a sacrilege if anyone contends that the charism of incorruption should be applied to the genital members.

^B Another point is added by the blessed Epiphanius in those books which he titled *Panaria*: for he says that Eunomius rebaptized those who had already been baptized: for when anyone came to him, not only from the orthodox but also from heretics, and even from the Arians themselves, he would rebaptize them with the head of the candidates pointed downward and their feet held high; and whoever wished to be baptized, he bound them with the sacrament that they would never depart from his own heresy, and he used these very words: "In the name of the unbegotten Father, and of the begotten Son, and of the sanctifying Spirit, who was created by the Son." For the sake of this, when they were baptizing in a laver, placing the man externally, they would immerse his head once into the water up to the chest; but when it once happened that someone received a wound after his head was struck against the laver, they devised another form of baptism. For with the person stretched out prone in some pit, and his head brought out and lifted up, they poured water in such a way that it touched no other member. Nor were there wanting among them those who invented another rite of baptism. For they would wrap the person, prepared for this purpose with a very long strip of cloth, from the chest down to the extreme joints of the feet, and then they would wash the upper parts of the body with water. ^C

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

A comparison of the writings of Apollinarius, Basil, Gregory, and Eunomius, from the Arian Philostorgius.

That impious Philostorgius, in the eighth book of his History, praising this most impious Eunomius, writes as follows: Apollinarius was most famous for writing commentaries, but Basil for delivering sermons to the people; Gregory, however, having borrowed both of these practices from each, wrote with greater elegance of language: and in speaking he proved himself far more mature than Apollinarius, and firmer and more vehement than Basil. Therefore, Apollinarius and Basil wrote against that Apology which Eunomius had published. Gregory, however (lest anyone should take this as demonstrating the prudence of the man), when he learned ^D [of it], and preferred to remain silent rather than to write, it came to pass that he refuted only a few chapters of Eunomius in his oration *On the Son*, and published this as a specimen of his *Confutation of the Anomoeans*. Eunomius, however, did not deign to refute even Apollinarius. For he attacked him with a truly limp and weak style, and (if I may say so) with a leaden dagger. But he refuted Basil in five books, the first two of which, as soon as Basil received them, he closed his final day out of anguish of soul. And so much for Eunomius.

CHAPTER XXXIX.

A work of Aetius, consisting of thirty-six hypothetical paralogisms regarding the begotten and unbegotten, from the writings of Saint Epiphanius.

Furthermore, the most holy Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, inserts into his *Panaria* a certain impious work of the impious Aetius, divided into 36 chapters, with a Proemium of this kind: "Since in the time of persecution, in which we were indeed assailed by the *Temporarii*, certain of the aforementioned, together with many others separated from us, published a work of ours—composed privately—concerning the unbegotten God and the begotten, corrupted by additions and detractions, and altered the rule of living that is consistent with reason, and since it later fell into our hands, brought by someone zealous for us, I was compelled, as a father, to send to you, O all you pious athletes—male and female—the work newly purged, so that you might know that our response was issued by the prescription of the Holy Scriptures, by which you might be able to beat back the impudence of any man who dares to contradict you as you discourse concerning the unbegotten God and the begotten, with succinct refutations: and above all, [to refute] the aforementioned *Temporarii*. Furthermore, I have deduced doubt from doubt, and solution from solution, in a sort of verse-like form, so that the structure of the *epicheiremata* might be grasped more easily and clearly, and I have taken my beginning from the unbegotten God.

Whether it is possible for the unbegotten God to make the begotten unbegotten.

1. If God is unbegotten and superior to every cause, surely He will be superior in generation as well. For He did not receive what He is from any other nature, nor was He the author of Himself, so that He might be. Now, if He were not the author of Himself, it is not because the nature is weak, but because it surpasses every cause; how can it be that one would concede that a substantial nature, having received from what nature it subsisted, should pass into essence, especially when the hypostasis of such a kind does not desire generation? 2. If God remains in the unbegotten nature without end, and the state of being begotten is without end, surely the perverted dogma concerning the *homousion* and *homoiousion* will vanish. Now, whatever consists by substance, it so consists that neither can ever be compared with the other in nature, since, of course, each endures in its own dignity of nature.

3. If God is unbegotten by the necessity of His own substance, then that which is begotten is in no way begotten by a division of essence, but from the essence, by the power of which it subsists. For it can be persuaded to no pious mind that one and the same essence is both begotten and unbegotten.

4. If it is begotten, that which is unbegotten, what hinders it from also being what is begotten? For every nature is more prone to what is proper to itself than to what is improper.

5. If God is entirely unbegotten, naught exists that has birthed by the necessity of His own essence. But if He is entirely unbegotten, He is in no way distracted toward generation by the necessity of His essence, but has produced generation from His substance.

6. If God is unbegotten, being endowed with the power of begetting entirely, and that which is begotten is in no way begotten by the necessity of its essence, since the power of its substance is entirely innate within it, it brings forth, but is not brought forth.

7. If the Son is called to be by the transformation of substance, surely that is not His substance, for it cannot be changed, since the species of the Son is produced from a transformation of this kind. But if the substance of God is not subject to change, nor is it subject to generation: the nature of the Son will be reduced altogether to a naked and simple appellation. ^A

8. If generation, having been assumed after the event from outside into the human, so to speak, escaped: certainly the Son is perfect, not from those things from which He was begotten, but from those things which He assumed. For those things which they take up from things of their own kind, they obtain in manifold ways as the name of a perfect substance from their own properties.

9. If perfect generation were to consist in generation, not in those from which the unbegotten Himself begat. For it cannot happen that a begotten nature essentially inheres in the unbegotten. For this would be the same as if one were to say that something is and is not; seeing that generation is not unbegotten, and what is unbegotten was not a generation. For the dissimilarity of parts in God carries with it a species of blasphemy and insult.

10. If God is omnipotent: since He is of an unbegotten nature, He is ignorant that He is of a begotten nature; and if the Son, though He be of a begotten nature, knows Himself to be that which He is, how can it be otherwise than that His substance is homoousion, since the one is unbegotten, and the other knows Himself to be begotten? ^B

11. If the word unbegotten does not denote the hypostasis of God, but that incomparable name is referred to human opinion, it follows, since those who attain something by opinion, let God give thanks, by reason of an unbegotten opinion: since He does not bear the dignity of this name in His essence.

12. If unbegotten is considered in God externally, those who consider what has been considered will be more excellent, since they have compared to themselves a name which is the most excellent of all for God. ^C

13. If it does not yield to a nature unbegotten, it is what is also said: but if it yields to generation, it follows that the affections of generation are more excellent than the divine hypostasis.

14. If nature is immutable in generation, then because of Him who begat, the unbegotten is undoubtedly an immutable substance, not by reason of will, but of dignity, which inheres in the substance.

15. If the name unbegotten signifies a substance, it is deservedly opposed by generation: but if the unbegotten signifies nothing, much more does generation signify nothing. Now how can it be that nothing is opposed to nothing?

16. If the pronunciation of unbegotten is opposed to generation, it happens by silence receiving the pronunciation, that the hope of Christians, placed in a different pronunciation, not however in natures, which are such as the meaning of the names requires, comes to be and vanishes. ^D

17. If generation itself provides nothing more to the excellence of substance, it follows that the Son, excelling by pronunciation alone, finds those who are better than Himself, who invoke, not Him who is invoked as both God and His Father.

18. If a nature [is] unbegotten [and] more excellent than [another] generation, since it has obtained what is more excellent as if by hereditary right, it follows that the substance is unbegotten through itself. For he who wills, not because he wills, is therefore more excellent by generation, but because he is so constituted by nature. Therefore, the substance subsisting through itself, the unbegotten God, by no reasoning permits that generation be understood against itself, and be carried forth according to the will and opinion of those things which are begotten.

19. If unbegotten denotes a privation in God, how can it be that nothing is separated from Him, which is nowhere? But if it signifies to on, or that which is, who, I ask, will separate God, who is, from that very thing which He is?

20. If privations are nothing other than the removal of habits, surely that unbegotten thing, which is in God, is either the privation of a habit, or the habit of a privation. Now if it be the privation of a habit, how can it be that what is not present is reckoned to God as if it were present? But if unbegotten be a habit, it is necessary that we presuppose a begotten substance, so that with the habit assumed in this way, it may be named unbegotten.

21. If, having suffered the addition of a habit, it is undoubtedly deprived of the power of the unbegotten, so that indeed the substance is begotten, but the unbegotten is a habit. But if generation signifies a transition, since it denotes a habit, it consists either of some essence, or it is this very thing which is called generation.

22. If it is a habit, without doubt essences are prior to habits, but habits are posterior to essences, which therefore are more honorable? Now if the cause of the begotten be the unbegotten...

but there be nothing [there] at all, how could it be that it is a cause, if it be nothing?

25. If the unbegotten is a privation, and privation is a thing that rejects a habit, whereas other things pass into something else—rejection, that is—which might happen, how can the essence of God be denoted by the name of an unbegotten thing, if it be a transitive or dissolving habit?

26. If it be denominated by the vocabulary of the unbegotten, which does not fall under God, in which sense do we say he is unbegotten, but not begotten?

27. If the unbegotten is a naked name in God, and (moreover) simple utterance is for the hypostasis of God above being begotten, certainly the utterance of the omnipotence of God is more excellent than the hypostasis, which, adorning [him] with dignity, can be compared with nothing.

28. If tribute is given to the unbegotten as its own cause, but that which has proceeded from no cause lacks a cause, so it happens that it signifies not the unbegotten as a cause, but as a hypostasis.

29. If whatever has been made has been made by another, and the unbegotten hypostasis is neither [made] by itself nor made by another, it necessarily follows that it is denoted by the name of essence.

30. If the unbegotten hypostasis is one with the begotten essence, as if it shines forth in such a way that no cause can change it, it happens that it is itself incomparable; and since it is incomparable, it stands out as not being external, but as being through itself incomparable and inaccessible, since it is unbegotten.

31. If God the omnipotent is more excellent than any nature, that follows by reason of the unbegotten, which indeed remains in the cause, as being begotten.

32. If the unbegotten does not signify essence, by what reason shall it be preserved in the integrity of the nature of the begotten?

If of those things which are seen nothing is more ancient than itself by virtue of a principle, but it remains within the prescribed limits of nature, how does it happen that the unbegotten God, ^A immune from such a prescription, now sees his own essence as second in the begotten thing, and now as first in the unbegotten thing, according as the order of the first and second holds itself?

God, who is begotten through himself, and whom the only true God—*wherefore sent by him, Jesus Christ, truly subsisting before the ages and endowed with a begotten hypostasis—may he preserve you all, safe and sound from impiety, in Christ Jesus our Savior, through whom may all glory be to the Father and God, now and always, and unto the ages of ages.

CAP. XL.

The Epilogue of the same Nicetas Choniata to the preceding, and a Preface to the refutation which he prepares against Arius, Aetius, and Eunomius.

Nor is that the plant of impiety which leans upon a triple root: these are they who blaspheme Christ...

^A and have brought in and cultivated tares amidst the most pure wheat of piety; which indeed Arius planted, Aetius watered, and Eunomius increased; the fruit of whom is that the Creator is numbered among creatures, the Son is estranged from the substance of the Father, and the Spirit differs from Him by certain, as it were, degrees. Yet these men have raged in vain against Christ, and have shot their impious opinions into heaven—that is, against the height of His divinity—as if with a bowstring stretched by a tongue; but He, remaining outside the reach of the missile (since the excellence of His divinity transcends the heavens), has shone forth with a greater and more august glory, breaking their bows, shattering their arms, and burning their shields with the burning aid of the theology of the Fathers; and, if I may so say, drying up their foul words.

For what is more foul than the dogma of Arius, Aetius, and Eunomius, which we have surveyed in the history written about them, and which we shall explain more clearly in the following discourse, subjecting to them their contraries, so that we may refute their empty loquacity, and that no one may stumble upon it, which they have uttered without reason and wisdom against the Word and Wisdom?

CAP. XLI.

Arius, and his followers Aetius and Eunomius, used to object: "God was not always Father, but there was a time when the Father was not." But if the Father was not always and from the beginning, then the Son was not coeval or coeternal with the Father from the beginning, but only later, when it pleased God to create through the Son the angels, and us, and all things that are in the world: certainly He was a creature, and destitute of the paternal substance. Furthermore, he was called Word by reason of the creatures which are partakers of reason, namely the angels and ourselves; but Wisdom, by reason of those whom He instructed in the knowledge of divine and human things; and finally, Son, on account of those whom He adopted.

And because the Word is one thing ^D which is in the Father, which is also called "implanted" and proper to His substance; and another thing which descended onto earth and assumed flesh, which is also by participation called the Word of God and God (just as the just are also called sons of God and gods), inasmuch as it is mutable by nature, and neither sees the Father nor knows Him who lacks a beginning, since it falls under a beginning.

^A Strutting, he declares: "He who sees me, sees the Father." Likewise: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me," by which words the same substance of both is clearly indicated. And the evangelist John cries out: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" and subsequently, confirming what was said, he adds: "This was in the beginning with God," or in God. And proceeding further, he teaches that His Only-Begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known. Therefore, if Christ speaks truly when He says, "I in the Father, and the Father in me," and His genuine disciple, when he teaches that the Word was in the beginning and was always with God, let the Arian mouths—which speak injustice against God—be silenced; and especially Aetius, who displayed the vanity of his labor in not a few chapters which we have interspersed above into this history, while he tries to confirm that the Son is not generated from the unbegotten Father, because the unbegotten is also alien to generation. But if the Only-Begotten Son is always in the bosom of the Father, the Father is truly always Father, and the Son is coeternal with Him, as one who is of the same nature with Him, and cannot be separated from Him.

For things of their number are related, which are always together and introduce one another. Where, then, the Father is, there also is the Son. Likewise, that which lacks a beginning is neither a creature nor was it made for our sake. For how can He who is from eternity fall under a beginning, or be numbered among those who have a beginning?

In addition, the Word, and Wisdom, and the Son was by nature, and at all times this very thing was indeed the Word, because He is not subject to the affection of generation, because He is conjunctive and enuntiative, whence He says: "The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself," and in another place He says to the Father: "I have manifested thy name to men," namely, the name of paternity. Isaiah also calls Him the Angel of Great Counsel, namely, the Father's. Wisdom, however, was as it were the giver of divine and human things. Now how can it be that the Artificer is ignorant of the reasons of the things He has made? Finally, the Son, because He is equal to the Father, is with Him according to substance, nor can He be torn from His bosom.

But that passage: "I know the Father, and his word I observe," separates Him from the paternal essence, and pretends that he is someone else from the Word: which they wish to be the implanted and genuine Word of God. But Christ in this place calls the word the will of the Father. And by a similar reasoning, that passage: "Before the day-star have I begotten thee," does not introduce a temporal generation, but hints at this: just as the womb of God, if perceived piously, shows that which He conceived in knowledge to be genuine and consubstantial; so also the sermon, by which God addresses the Son, the angels, and men, denotes dialectical speech: which it is evident is both opposed to Christ Himself and to those who saw Him and ministered to Him.

It is disposed and fashioned for our sake in a human manner, since we could not in any other way grasp divine discourses. But He should not even be called mutable, He who is in the bosom of the Father, who is begotten, who is, in sum, consubstantial with the Father. For mutation and alteration belong to created things. Furthermore, there is no one who denies that God is alien to mutation and alteration. Now if the Son is of the same substance and nature as the Father, undoubtedly He is also God by nature: just as that disciple, who reclined upon the breast of the Lord, signifies in these words: *And the Word was God*. But if the Word is consonant with being of the same substance as the Father, and together with Him lacks a beginning, and yet did not begin at the same starting point as creatures are wont to do, how can it be that the Father, who even lacks a beginning, is unknown to Him, who imparts the knowledge of both the Father and Himself to others, according to the text: *And to whomsoever the Son will reveal him*? 50

CHAPTER XLIII.

Arius and Eunomius, in order to deny that the Son is coeternal with the Father, proposed this problem in the guise of a doubt. When the Son was being begotten, was He present to Himself, or not? This dilemma contains a precipice on both sides. For if we say that He was present to Himself, then we acknowledge that He who is consubstantial with the Father in simplicity was being begotten at the same time as the Son. But if we deny that He was present, in this way too we will adulterate that which in nature is simple and devoid of composition: and at the same time, we contend that He proceeded from things that are not, or from nothing, as they wish. For one who is not present to himself when he is begotten, is in no way existent: as one who did not exist before, but was born later, having had his origin from things that are not. Therefore, the conclusion they draw from this is that there was a time when the Son was not. ^A Moreover, to blunt such a doubt, the Fathers pose these things in turn to Eunomius, and especially that most sublime theologian, Gregory: But come, Eunomius, when you were being born, were you present to yourself, and are you present now, or neither of these? Item: At the time when you were brought into the light amid maternal pains, were you present to the one whom the maternal womb brought forth, and are you present now while you are becoming pubescent and growing a beard? Or rather, were you neither present when you were being born, nor are you present now, while the down is making your cheeks blossom, as it were, with certain flowers? And in this way he demonstrates that both of these—that you were present then, and are present now—are false. For it is impossible that both of these things should apply to those who are by nature single and unique: nor is that which is simple, the essence of which is divided, separated from body or soul. Otherwise, that objection—*Was He before, or did He exist afterward?*—fits those things which we are accustomed to measure by time. For "before" and "after" are parts of time. Furthermore, as to those things which time does not reach—nay, not even the age [of the world], to which that tripartite distance of time is unknown—how can it be that those things which are subject to time are applied to them?

^B Furthermore, they are accustomed to oppose the aforementioned points in this way: "Begotten" and "unbegotten" are homonymous words. For "unbegotten" is the same as "uncreated," and "unbegotten" is that which is not created, just as "begotten" is that which is begotten, and "begotten" is that which is created. "Unbegotten" is also taken for the very condition of being unbegotten and for that which is not begotten, just as "begotten" is taken for generation and that which is begotten: just as "white" is taken for whiteness and that which is whitened. Therefore, since there is a threefold meaning of "unbegotten" and "begotten," if you use these names for "uncreated" and "created," we too will confess in agreement that the unbegotten is not the same as the begotten, that is, the uncreated is not the same as the created: but if you use them for Him who begat and Him who was begotten, you do not rightly remove identity from the middle, which is nothing other than a specimen of nature, so that when no mutation has occurred, the begotten is similar to the begetter. ^C Again, if you take "unbegotten" and "begotten" for the state of being unbegotten and the state of being generated, they do not mean the same thing; as if you take them for those natures in which being unbegotten and being generated are considered, what prevents them from being the same? For see, Eunomius, the argument turned back another way. There is that which you call wise, there is that which is unwise; moreover, names of this sort do not signify the same thing; for in what thing would you say that the unwise is the same as the wise? Nevertheless, they are considered in the same man, and they do not dissect essences, but are dissected in the essence; that is, the unwise does not introduce one essence, and the wise another: just as, for example, God and man. ^D But why do you designate the divine essence only by the name of "unbegotten"? Why do you not likewise assume the name of immortality, of clemency, and of immutability? For these, too, are said of God in the same kind of locution. But if you say, Eunomius, that immortality, clemency, and immutability are asserted even of brutes and men, but that being unbegotten is peculiar to God alone, you will hear that "unbegotten" is not attributed even to God. Inasmuch as among the Greek philosophers, Aristotle indeed predicates "unbegotten" of matter. Plato, however, calls essences "unbegotten." Furthermore, Manes introduces two principles, one indeed good, the other indeed evil: and that one indeed is light, this one indeed is darkness: and so he says that the fountains of goods have flowed from the good, but the rivers of evils from the evil. [alt-version omitted]

CAP. XLIII. On God and matter, that God can neither be defined nor comprehended. ^A Eunomius further objects: "Tell us, I pray, if the unbegotten is not the essence of God, what else is the essence of God?" Against this question, these things must be opposed. Do you indeed, good sir, know your own essence and nature? Or that of an ant, or a gnat? But I will say this to you in turn: there are two extremes of those things which exist, God and matter; the former by way of ascent, the latter indeed by way of descent; and after matter there is nothing else at all. What then would the essence of matter be? Is it that which is truly what is, or that which is not? For if it is that which is, how is it lacking in form? For form is the defining mark of those things which exist. But if it is that which is not, how does it happen that it is defined by philosophers as that which is? For they call it *aschedon*—that is, life-lacking—and incorporeal, and yet even an imagination of substances; finally, that which, because it is nothing, is yet feigned to be everything, the essence of illusions, an idol and a shadow always fleeing and recurring into that which is not. Explain to me what the rationale of matter is, and then I will explain to you in turn what the definition of the divine essence is. But if you are ignorant of the extreme of those things which exist, how do you attempt to grasp and comprehend the first? If, indeed, you were to attempt to fly into the heavens, would you not immediately approach its circumference more closely without any intermediary? Would not the air first have to be cut for you, so that you might come to that which we call the aether, and then having traversed all the spheres, you might reach the very ambit of the heavens? You demand a definition of God, as if you were ignorant that it is the nature of definition to define the defined. But the defining agent ascends to the height of that which is defined, in such a way that God would be inferior to those things that define Him. What? Do you not hear Aristotle, when he says that like is comprehended by like: and that it is necessary that the one who knows should have a certain idea and likeness of that which is known? And the philosopher rightly guesses thus far, if indeed, as Empedocles sang: "We see earth by earth, water by water, aether by aether, soul by soul, that which is by what is, mind by mind, nature by nature, matter by matter, form by form, and the one by the one." For all these things are present in us: matter, form, body, nature, soul, mind, the one. For we too are one: not, however, in the proper sense; for we call ourselves one by way of unity or conjunction.

CAP. XLIV. That God is unbegotten, although He has begotten the only-begotten, and that the Son is not unbegotten, although He is of the same substance as the Father. ^A Furthermore, we say that the unbegotten is not that which does not beget, but that which has not been begotten at all; just as, by way of example, "uncaused" does not mean that which is not the cause of anything else, but that which does not have a cause prior to itself. For we do not call the *anarchos*—that is, the one wanting a Father—he who does not hear the title "Father of the Son," but him who has proceeded from no Father; and this *anarchos* is that which lacks a beginning, not he who has not been the beginning of other essences, but he whose essence transcends every essence. For these names are not common in such a way that unbegotten and begotten, and likewise those things that lack a beginning and those that do not, are accepted as the same in species. For just as Adam, even if he had begotten ten thousand children from carnal union, would not himself be called begotten from such a union, nor would the name of him who is not begotten from union have a commonality with those who are begotten from it: so also that supreme God (may He be propitious to me, who is delineated by me through sensible likenesses) did not alienate the name of "unbegotten" from Himself, even if He begat the only-begotten Son before the morning star, as the Holy Scripture testifies. ^B For the Father did not, on account of having begotten, thereby fall away from unbegottenness; but because He was not constituted as unbegotten and begetting by reason of a cause. Eunomius, however, while he deems that begotten things share in all things with those that begot them, seems to try to infer from this that the begotten Son, because He shares with the unbegotten Father, will also be unbegotten: by which words he shows that he is versed in the theology of the Greeks, and abuses it wrongly. For they call those essences units which proceed from the One. Likewise minds, which proceed from the first mind. Likewise lives, which proceed from Life. Likewise those things which exist, which proceed from that which is. And therefore he adds that the unbegotten also proceeds from the Unbegotten. ^C To which anyone could respond that those things which are generated by any beings do not by hereditary right attain their properties, but their substances: since Seth was indeed a man, in that he drew his origin from such an essence, yet he did not partake of those properties of his, as he was born without carnal union. For this property was the creation of Adam; and Eve was indeed a daughter and a woman, but not bone drawn from a rib. For this property was Eve's: just as it was the proper characteristic of Adam not to be begotten, but to be fashioned. For begotten things obtain essences by hereditary right, but not the properties inherent to the essences. Wherefore that supreme God did not fall away from unbegottenness, although He begat the Son: nor did the begotten Son degenerate into the unbegotten, because He proceeded from the Unbegotten. ^D

CAP. XLV. Another objection of Eunomius, that 'Father' is a name by which essence or action is signified. This kind of problem Eunomius is accustomed to infer most maliciously. For since he does not wish to attribute to the Son the same substance as the Father,

and believes them to be of different substances because their names are different, he has attached one substance to the name of Father, or rather he assigns different names to different substances; taking wrongly those things which are said by the philosophers; for he says: Heaven and earth differ in both their appellations and their essences; therefore in the same way ^B Father and Son; for of those whose names are different, their essences are also different.

Eunomius accordingly, wishing to alienate the Son from the Father, and he tries to prove this by many reasons, as it seems to him, or rather he uses certain obsolete questions, and thus proposes his own dogma, as if it could not be contradicted, with the result that he does not even now use the right signification of names. For he uses these two terms, essence and action, without any intermediate; he thinks, I know not by what doctor he is guided, that every name is significant either of substance or of action. But because such an insinuation of names, recognized by him alone, or rather invented, seems in some way to contribute to the construction of a heresy, he therefore asks: Is essence or action signified by the name of Father? So that if we say that essence is signified, he thence infers that if there is anything besides the Father, it is not of that essence, since the Father has presumed the essence for himself. And so if the Father, as Father, is essence, the Son, as Son, is not essence: but if we fear lest we introduce a Son lacking essence, and we profess that action is signified by the name of Father, then he will press us more sharply, and will entice us to prove his dogma. For if nothing else besides action is denoted by the name of Father, it must be that there is something which has been acted. For action is of something that is being done. Now what else has been acted ^C by this paternal name, besides the Son? For if the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Father is action, surely the Son will be that which is acted. If therefore one acts, and the other is acted upon—which words differ in essence, as is apparent in the arts—certainly the Son is also of a different substance from the Father: just as a statue has a different nature from the sculptor.

The great Father Gregory, however, subverts this ambiguous question of Eunomius, and destroys both parts of the objection as absurd, with these words: Neither is Father a name of essence, nor of action, but of habit, and of the mode of how the Son relates to him, from whom he is named. Then, just as some sturdy soldier, having been instructed in arms, attacks a defeated enemy again, and after the sword has been cast from his hands, seizes the adversary's spear with which to run him through—just as, for example, it is said that the ruddy David, who was beautiful to behold, had done, that is, he was famous for his skill in acting and contemplating. For the fact that he was suffused with a ruddy color was a most certain symbol of his constant industry in acting: but the fact that he was beautiful to behold was a most manifest argument ^D of his keen mind. For this man, as soon as he had cast down Goliath with a sling, having drawn his sword from its sheath, cut off that tyrannical head of his.

But these things I leave for the more studious to discuss. What we can extract from the fountains of rhetoricians, let these be brought into the middle. For since that divine man knew that these two instruments of rhetoric were chief for refuting the objections of adversaries—namely *enstasis* and *antiparastasis*, that is, instantia or contention, and resistance or replication—for that reason he used either one at the right time and appropriately. Now he puts forward both to the other as needed. For example, he immediately added resistance or replication to the instantia or contention stated here. For if both are refuted, with which that man, having entered the contest with head held high, is to be feared, this can be deservedly ascribed to the instantia; but if both are taken, and the adversary standing above is thrown down in the manner of skilled boxers, by which he seemed able to be thrown down, this truly pertains to the *antiparastasis* or resistance.

Father Gregory, however, responds thus: Because you are blind with regard to great lights, Eunomius, look to the least; give credence to general human opinions, namely: Whatever is begotten is consubstantial with the Father; for man begets man, horse begets horse, dolphin begets dolphin: and all these are consubstantial among themselves. Just as, therefore, the offspring in these instances does not turn out different from the parent, but rather coheres to it and assumes its nature, so also, if you grant ^C that essence is signified by the name of Father, you will glue the Son to the Father, and make him consubstantial: since the offspring is of the Father's substance. Wherefore if the reasoning of common notions and the force of these words be held, the Son coheres to the Father and is not different from him. For just as the human progenitor is prior to the begotten, so both Father and Son are together: but we, from that state in which we were not fathers, have eventually become so; wherefore, as humans, we have the prerogative of race in our sons, but as fathers we are consubstantial with them and contemporary: but the most high God of all, since He is Father from eternity, has the Son not subject to time, and coeternal with Himself. From which it follows, if you look at the force of these words, that the Son was never different from the Father neither in essence nor in *synhypostasis*—that is, co-subsistence—it might be permitted to say action as well, if it so seems. But it is possible that you may subscribe to these, and go over to our opinion of your own accord: but we in this way also blunt your weapons.

CHAPTER XLVI.

The *homoousion* is revealed from the action itself, that is, that he is the Son begotten to him, at the same time as the Father was. But truly, when they are asked what the Father acts, since he is indeed action, not unlike that which in archi-

architect, builder, and statue-maker we see. This is that which I call ^A consubstantial. For if the Father is the Father of the Son, and the former is indeed cause, but the latter truly caused or effect, both are yet of the same nature and of the same substance, which is what the Father himself has brought about, namely, the consubstantial; although the notion of action in this matter might otherwise be quite absurd. For since he has used dangerous names and ones unusual in theology, it therefore seems useful in the remaining part, if we consider what their sense is. For these three seem to follow one another: essence, action, and the ^B operation, that is, *ousia*, *energeia*, and *energoumenon*. But action is of one type when it concurs with essence, and another when it is acquired afterwards. Therefore, to those essences to which action concurs, their actions also are indivisible; but to those to which it happens afterwards, their actions also are subsequent: just as man is indeed essence, but performs respiration and building. One of these, namely respiration, is concurrent, but the other, namely building, is subsequent and acquired. Whence it happens that what is performed by the action which concurs with essence, ^C that very thing also concurs, namely, as by respiration the heart is cooled. For as soon as someone breathes, with outside air drawn in, and with the soft body of the liver loosened, which is full of a purer spirit, it wraps around the heart, and does not allow it to be dried up by heat. But building, because it happens later, it comes about that what is acted upon is also divided. Therefore, Father Gregory thus infers: I consent to you, Eunomius, who have imposed the name of action upon the Father. He has, moreover, brought about the consubstantial, although the opinion of action ^D in this matter is otherwise quite absurd. For in that action, what is acted upon is something subsequent. For the art of building must necessarily precede the building, and the architect and the building are separated of themselves. In this, however, the action we are now dealing with, that which is acted upon is not so. For the Father was not formerly, and then afterwards brought about the consubstantial, nor did he emerge different once it was brought about, but at the same time as he was Father, the Son was begotten, and both were consubstantial.

CHAPTER XLVII.

Another sophistic objection of Eunomius, against the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. By poorly understanding this place of Aristotle in the Categories, namely: "Whatever things are said of something, they will also be able to be said of that which is subject to it," Eunomius said that the Father is greater than the Son by nature.

Since our Lord Jesus Christ has said in the Gospels, *My Father is greater than I*, the Church has understood the term "greater" as having been uttered only on account of the Son. Although we proclaim the equality of honor in the three persons, and the same glory and brightness, yet in another sense we say that the Father is greater than both the Son and the Holy Spirit, because he is not referred to another principle, but he is himself the first principle of all; but the latter proceed from him as cause, and remain with him, and are referred to him. Therefore the Father is greater, because he is the cause to both, to the Son indeed of generation, but to the Spirit of procession. The Church, therefore, as has been said, has accepted the term "greater" in that sense.

But Eunomius, while he disturbs and confuses other things, also mixes his own brackish words into this clear water. For to this proposition: "The Father is greater than the Son, because he is the cause," he immediately subjoins another: "The cause is natural," and soon he reasons thus: "The Father is greater because he is the cause, and the cause is natural; then he concludes: Therefore the Father is by nature greater than the Son," attributing the "greater" thence, not to the cause, as right reason suggests. For this is what his dogma intends, that he makes the Father the first essence, the Son the second, the Spirit the third. I do not know, however, says that great Gregory, whether they inflict this ^B sophism upon themselves, or upon those to whom they make these statements. For those things which are said of something, they will not be able to be said also simply of that which is subject to it, but it is clear what is said of what. How, therefore, Eunomius has prefaced this, or by what kind of sophisms he has woven his trick, will be said in the progress of the discourse, where, indeed, the sophism is refuted. Furthermore, our own reasoning will also be immediately subjoined to the continuation of the discourse. Eunomius having heard those things which were written by Aristotle in the Categories: "Whatever things are said of something, they will also be able to be said of that which is subject to it," he received these words without any judgment being applied, and applied the term "whatsoever" to all things: whence it happened that, whereas Aristotle had used this word in those things which are predicated by reason of substance, this man enunciates it indiscriminately about those which are predicated by reason of accident, and, to say it once, about those which are predicated in any way whatsoever. But this is not so. For although animal is predicated of species, the genus of it is by no means also predicated. And yet the correct composition of propositions would be thus. For the genus pertains to every animal, and the animal to every species: yet the species is not the genus.

Therefore, not whatever things are said of something will they also be said of that which is subject to it. For man is subjected to animal; but not whatever things we predicate of animal, those we will also predicate of the subject; nay, it is clear of what those things can be said, and what those things are that are predicated. For animate and sensible, through the animal being transmitted, also reach to man. Since those are essential or specific differences, by which the animal is constituted: but the genus, which is a rational name, neither pertains to the essence of the animal, nor for that reason is it transmitted to man.

For Eunomius puts forward three names: greater, cause, and nature. Therefore he predicates "greater" of "cause," and "cause" of "nature": and hence he imagines the ma-

- ^A juris nature also to be predicated by consequence, according to the rule of the first figure. However, not everything that is said of some things is also said of that which is subject to them; for if they be essential or specific, they can indeed be predicated and transferred, but if they be adventitious and said in another sense, they will have nothing in common with the things subject to them. Therefore, because "greater" contributes nothing to the "cause" for it to exist, but is some word that is adapted to it out of opinion, it comes about that it does not pass over to the nature regarding the word. For what prevents—as Father Gregory says—my also, having made a proposition of this kind, namely that what is nature is not altogether greater, nor is the Father, from thence concluding that "greater" is not altogether greater? Or that the Father is not altogether Father? But if you wish it to be so, God is essence, but essence is not altogether God; you yourself conclude what follows. Therefore, God is altogether God.

CHAPTER XLVIII.

But this captious argumentation is indeed drawn from the fact that it is called with the addition of place and simply. For when we have granted "greater" to a cause by nature, they infer "greater" by nature, just as if to those saying to us that some man is dead, they were to infer "man" simply. For since Eunomius, as is proper, bore himself rather insolently on account of the discovery of such a great sophism, and thought that he had ensnared the professors of the orthdox faith in his own nets, that Father Gregory returns many such arguments to him in ready fashion and mocks his trifles.

For I too, he says, O Eunomius, will thrust such sophisms upon you. ^B Just as the Father is greater by nature, as your opinion holds, and what is nature is not altogether greater, from there it follows that "greater" is not altogether greater, or in this way: The Father is greater by nature, as you said; but "greater" is not altogether the Father. Whence it is gathered that the Father is not altogether the Father. Item, in this way: God is essence, but essence is not altogether God, therefore God is not altogether God. For if we grant this proposition of yours, "The Father is greater by nature," to be true, then this will also be true: "that which is by nature is not altogether greater." For not everything that is by nature is even "greater."

For nature, both son to father, and grandson to grandfather, and cousins to the uncle, are referred; yet they are not greater than those to whom they are referred. If therefore the Father is greater by nature, as you say, and what is by nature is not altogether greater, it will result that "greater" is not altogether greater, and thus the mode of the other sophists will be dissolved. But I think this captiouness is drawn from the fact that it is called with the addition of place and simply.

CHAPTER XLIX.

Furthermore, it must be known that thirteen fallacious argumentations are handed down to us by the Philosopher in the books *On Sophistical Refutations*: six of which are those that come about aside from the signification of the word, namely those that arise from homonymy or a multiplicity of a word; which arise from amphiboly or ambiguous signification of a word; which from conjunction, which from division, which from accent, and which from the form of the word. Furthermore there are seven that are proferred aside from the sense of the things, of which, not to enumerate the rest, one is said from the fact that it is called with the addition of place and simply, that is, from the particular; for that is what is said with the addition of place, and from the universal; for that is what is said simply. From which it comes about that those things which are said with the addition of place are enunciated conjunctively; for things which are compounded are particular, but those which are said simply are brought forth disjunctively. If anyone therefore brings forth those things which are said with the addition of place or time, simply and disjunctively, he errs totally in the path, as if someone were to conclude from this that that is which is not.

For because Plato said that what is not is "opinable" (since we opine concerning it, not as if it exists, but as if it does not exist), from there some have opined that it is that which is not. ^C For if the word "Is," they say, is predicated of that which is in opinion (for we say: "It is in opinion"), but that which is in opinion is predicated of that which is not; therefore the word "Is" is predicated of that which is not, so that from thence it follows that it is what is not. But you, note how they have erred in that which is called with the addition of place and simply. For this proposition, "That which is not is in opinion," is drawn from that which is said with the addition of place. But that which is, is simply. It cannot therefore come to pass that it is what is not, because it is in opinion. But what I say will be more clearly explained thus: An Ethiopian is white as to his teeth; this is said with the addition of place: for he is white in part. Now if anyone were to infer from this simply that he is white, he errs in that which is called with the addition of place and simply.

But come now, let us demonstrate this with some one sophism, such as this is: "God is essence" is a true statement, because it is said with an addition of place; but "essence" is not altogether God, and in this way it is a true statement, because it is said simply, for not every substance is God. But if the whole is compounded, the argumentation will be captious, composed from those things which are said with the addition of place and simply. ^D Father Gregory says that such is the argument of Eunomius. For when the orthodox say that the Father is greater than the Son, by reason of cause, which is indeed that which is said with the addition of place, conjunctively

^A collecting that a greater nature results, from the fact that it is said with the addition of place, they effect that which is enunciated simply, just as, he says, if while we were saying a certain man is dead, they were to infer simply that he is a dead man. Likewise this expression: "a dead man does not breathe," is derived from the fact that it is said with the addition of place, and is particular. If therefore he should speak thus, and someone should separate "dead," and say that the man does not breathe, from the fact that it is said with the addition of place, he effects that which is enunciated simply.

Just as if one were saying: "A bronze ship does not navigate," another were to collect thence that the ship does not navigate, which expression is derived from the fact that it is said with the addition of place and simply. Likewise if I say that a counterfeit drachma is not exchanged, and you conclude that the drachma is simply not exchanged, you deceive me from the fact that it is said with the addition of place and simply.

Of this kind are the captious arguments of the Stoics, the sorites, the horned syllogism, the "dominant," and many others, to which they have assigned their own names. For because a sophist had made mention of horns in his propositions, such as: "If you have horns, you also have beautiful horns"; item: "If Dion shall rule, certainly Dion shall rule": thence it came to pass that the "horned" was named from horns, and the "dominant" because of the figure of its propositions. The sorites ^B also obtained its name by a certain peculiar right, since it is designated by many other names; for it is designated as *kometes*, and *phalakrites*, and *dromites*, and *neolketes*, and *prooristes*, and *penistes*, and other appellations of this kind; but because those many things are gathered into one as if into a heap, therefore the usage has prevailed that an argumentation of this kind should be called *soreites*, that is, a coacervation.

Now the composition of a sorites is this. The sophist asks: "Is a bushel filled by one grain? Will one be considered hairy by one hair? Or will one be wealthy by one drachma? Will a ship be drawn to the harbor by one tower? Or will anyone approach the goal by one step? Or will one be made bald by the removal of one hair?" If, therefore, one hair has been born on a bald head, it does not make a mane or a head of hair, nor does the bald man become hairy in another way by the accession of one hair; but if one hair is multiplied to infinity, from the hairs that preceded, a mane will be formed. Nor is a bushel filled by one grain, but by that always being added and subsequently multiplied, it will happen that the bushel is filled, nor will the head be made bald by the removal of one hair; but if you do that over and over again, eventually baldness will occur. Because, therefore, many things are gathered into a *soreia*, that is, one as if a heap, as in a heap of grain in a granary, thence the name of sorites or the fallacy of coacervation is introduced.

CAP. L.

In how many ways the word "same" is accepted, according to Aristotle, from which it is manifest that identity is not to be used indiscriminately without discrimination.

There is another objection of Eunomius, and of those who introduce into the Son the *anomoion*, that is, the dissimilarity to the Father, against those things which the Catholics had answered, namely that they argue badly when they say that the Father is greater than the Son by reason of cause, and the cause by reason of nature, whence it comes about that the Father is greater than the Son by reason of nature. Moreover, the Eunomian question is thus: "But if the Son is the same as the Father by reason of essence, the Father however is unbegotten, the Son also will be the same."

These are the things which are objected by Eunomius, and by the crowd of his heresies; however, he admits the same essence in the Father and the Son, not dogmatically but hypothetically, that is, not so as to constitute thence a certain dogma, but an article (as they call it) of faith, but under condition: so that by this craft he may reason out some absurdity, and, with identity removed from the midst, introduce *diaphoron*, that is, difference, or, as he himself speaks, *anomoion*, that is, dissimilarity. For when we say that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, but differs in number, he perversely asks again: "If the Son is the same in substance as the Father, is he going to have everything that the Father has?" For this is what "identity" means to him. "Which if ^C all things were common to him with the Father, certainly even unbegottenness, as an identity, would be preserved intact in the Son in all respects. Therefore the Son also will be unbegotten, since the Father is unbegotten."

But to state the sum, "the same" is either numerically, or specifically, or generically, or, as the Philosopher says elsewhere, even by analogy, or proportion. Therefore, those things are numerically the same which are said of one subject, such as are, if I may so say, polyonymous or equivocal [terms]. For the *ensis* [sword], *gladius* [sword], and *mucro* [point/blade] are the same numerically, because there is one subject for them, which does not differ from itself: however adorned with diverse names it may be. Things are specifically the same which are subjected to one species, yet differ among themselves in number, and however much they are distinguished from themselves by persons, they do not differ in species at all.

On the contrary, things that are diverse in number and species, these have indeed inherited a difference from themselves, yet a reason of a common genus exists for them. Now the identity of analogy which we speak of will become clear by this example. We speak of body and soul, then we subject certain parts of bodies, and certain [parts] of souls, some indeed greater, others however lesser. Since, therefore, I shall show that analogy exists in both parts, I shall in a way introduce identity. For because the most beautiful member of the whole body is the eye, therefore the mind is the same thing in the soul, so that while the others are indeed diverse—body and soul, eye and mind—identity is found in analogy alone. Since, therefore, this name is enunciated in so many ways, there is no reason why one should [apply] identity indiscriminately without any applied difference...

The Anomoean, however, whether because he is utterly blind to arguments of this kind, or because he is unskilled in the art of logic, therefore objects to us: "If the Son is the same in essence with the Father, He will also be unbegotten, because He (the Father) is unbegotten; or else the Father is begotten because the Son is begotten; so that the Father is unbegotten-begotten, and the Son is begotten-unbegotten."

CAP. LI. That the Father and the Son have the same and immutable essence, but that the adjuncts of the essence are diverse, according to B. Nazianzen.

^A Verily, the Theologian counters one who asserts, "If the Son is the same in essence with the Father, but the Father is unbegotten, the Son will also be unbegotten," in this way: If unbegottenness were the Father's essence, the Son, because He is the same in essence as the Father, would also be unbegotten; but if 'unbegottenness' is something other than essence, how does it come about that, when questioning another, you arrive at that conclusion? For if, by the definition of nature, the Father Himself were unbegottenness, and other things were comprehended under unbegottenness, it would be fitting that the Son also be called unbegottenness. But because the Father's essence is something different from unbegottenness—for in the very nature [of the case] we consider unbegottenness as well—it comes about that, by reason of essence, the Son is the same as the Father, but by reason of unbegottenness, ^B He is not, since it is not the essence. Therefore, the essence is the same and immutable for both the Father and the Son, but the adjuncts of the essence are diverse. If, therefore, in some adjunct of the essence, the Son differs from the Father, what is new in this? For the powers of identity, as you define such things, as far as they pertain to essence, are not infringed or weakened: otherwise, you could also be called the father of your own father, did I not wish to omit anything, because you are the same in essence with him. Moreover, an opinion of this kind belongs to a jester and a sophist: for if, he says, those things that have an identity of essence also have an indifference in their adjuncts, and you are the same in essence with your father, and paternity is spoken of in him, but filiation in you, and you draw identity to all things—not only, I say, to the essence, but also [apply] the essence’s adjuncts to it—then it would certainly follow that you are the father of your father, ^C while he is yours—that is, the son of his own son: to which what is more ridiculous?

Will we, then, while the property remains immutable, ask, he says, what the essence of God is, if we should ask? For since the trifler Anomoean plays with names as if they were dice at his whim, acting the sophist in divine matters, and concerning things he does not understand, he shows now the unbegotten is begotten, and now the unbegotten is begotten, playing in matters that are not for play: that great Father, preserving these names as immutable properties ^D of the persons, says: "Let us ask," he says, "what it is in essence," as if to say: "If you, O heretic, or one thinking differently from the Catholics, posit identity in essence, and it is discovered that the unbegotten is not God’s essence, but a property which is considered in the essence, either transfer and transpose this property unlearnedly as you wish: do we, while this remains immutable, so that the property also preserves the force of its own name, ask for the essence of God, lest, when we have found identity in it, we transpose the properties? For we do not wish to babble in vanities, as if we were girding ourselves to embark upon a vain journey into the heavens."

CAP. LII. What difference there is between God and the unbegotten. Four types of opposites having been proposed, [how] the unbegotten is privatively opposed to the begotten.

Since, indeed, Eunomius, when he established the Father as unbegotten, also added that he had spoken of God properly, and thought that the same [person] was by him called unbegotten and God the Father, but the Son by reason of grace and participation, therefore Father Gregory says thus: "If God and the unbegotten do not differ at all from one another, and they have the same habit with respect to external things, see whether one thing [is] with a habit, and another [is] without a habit. For God is called the God of others." For Scripture says: "God of gods" 54. But the unbegotten is not said to be the unbegotten of any. For this belongs neither to angels, nor to men, nor to any creature at all. Because, therefore, the unbegotten is of none, it will not be the God of any. But God is of some; therefore, God and the unbegotten are not the same. For those things which are the same in all things have a similar prolation: as when we say 'mortal', 'man', both of these names are absolute: but when we say 'providence', 'care', these are relative [*σχετικά*] or related. But if the unbegotten is also borne relative to something, show of whom it is the unbegotten.

If, in turn, you ask me of whom God is said by habit or relation: of all, I say. How, therefore, can it be that God and the unbegotten are the same, if one of these names, namely God, is circumscribed in another; but the other, namely the unbegotten, in itself?

Furthermore, since the unbegotten and the begotten are opposites of each other, as a habit and a privation, and Aristotle divides opposition into four: into a contrary, into that which is by habit and privation, into that which is relative, and into that which is negatively opposed; and the example of negation is if anything is said to be and not to be; of relatives, the double and the half; of those things which are privatively opposed, hearing and deafness; of contraries, finally, white and black; it must now be seen to which class of opposites the unbegotten and the begotten will be subjected. To contraries? But they arise from each other, or, to speak more truly, one after the other, since from the white comes the black, or rather—

from the one the other. Further, are they to be attributed to negation? But these also are names by which neither affirmation nor negation is demonstrated. Therefore, it remains that they are opposed to each other as habit and privation, so that the begotten is indeed as a habit, like sight, while the unbegotten is a privation, just like blindness. If, therefore, these are opposites, as I have demonstrated, but you, O Anomoean, say that they are substances, it will follow from your discourse that some substances are opposed to others, which is not granted. But if the begotten is like a habit and the unbegotten like a privation, and you name the begotten the substance of the Son and the unbegotten the substance of the Father, then truly the Son will be prior to the Father, as a habit is to a privation. And the Son will be removed from the midst as a habit, by the Father as a privation. Since, indeed, there is in privations a power to remove habits from the midst, as blindness destroys sight and deafness hearing.

CAP. LIII. More from the same Choniates, against this problem of the Anomoeans: There was a time when the Father was not.

Arius indeed, Aetius, and Eunomius divided the Trinity, equal in honor and substance, into three diverse persons; they called the Father alone unbegotten and ἄναρχον, that is, lacking a beginning, and after him the πρῶτον κτίστον ποίημα, that is, the first-created creature, the Son: inasmuch as he was to be to the Father as an instrument for the production of all things. But after the Son, they posited the Holy Spirit. However, what we worship is a monarchy, that is, one divinity, not gathered into one hypostasis, but distinguished by three persons; and by the one name of divinity, essence, nature, principle, and form, the three are understood as person, characters, and individuals. For the properties are affected upon the hypostases, yet they are not hypostases. But this principle of the Trinity, if it be considered as it is one, lacks a beginning, and is eternal and altogether perpetual. But if it be considered as it is divided into persons, one of its persons lacks a beginning, but the others are both without a beginning and not without a beginning. For if you reduce them to the first cause, they are not without a beginning. For they proceed from that, but not after that. But if you compare them with our times and ages, and indeed with any intellectual property, they are without beginning and unbegotten. Therefore, of these three hypostases, one is altogether ἄναρχον, that is, lacking start, that is, called without beginning, namely the Father, while of the other two, one is the Son, the other the Spirit, both subsisting from the Father, yet not in the same way. For the Son is begotten, but the Spirit proceeded ^A, or rather the former is begotten, the latter proceeds.

For it is not as the Son proceeds from the Father, so the Spirit also proceeded from the Son: let us not posit one thing as first, another as second, another as third. Far be from us such blasphemy of the ethnic multitude of gods. For to the heathens, the gods are Heaven and Saturn, from whom are fathers, sons, and descendants. For with us, there is one bond between the two persons, the Father, to whom those things which proceed from him are referred back. And so we believe and perceive.

CAP. LIV. Assertions of the Holy Fathers against the heresy of Eunomius, which blasphemes that God the Father was not always.

The Eunomians, moreover, added this to their other blasphemies, that God and Father was not always, but had a beginning of essence, introducing from thence a temporal generation of the Son, and one such as we observe in creatures. To this, the Fathers oppose them in this manner.

St. Basil against this: That God the Father was not always.

1. If it is ^B beautiful and seemly for the divine nature to be Father, what hindered this beauty from being present from the beginning? For they attribute the defect to either his ignorance of what is more excellent or to his lack of power: ignorance, if he discovered what is better later, but lack of power, if, though he knew it, he nevertheless fell away from what is most beautiful. But if it is not beautiful for him to be Father, for what reason, after the change, did he choose what is worse?

The Theologian, from book 1, On the Son.

2. At what time was the Father not? Then, certainly, the Son was not. You could say the same concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit. But interrogate me again, and in turn I will answer you. At what time was the Son begotten? It is, of course, when the Father was not begotten. At what time, finally, did the Spirit proceed? It is, of course, when the Son did not proceed: but he was begotten without time, and above time. Even if we cannot express this "above time" (for we desire to escape temporal signification, for the words "When," "Before," "After," and "From the beginning" are not without time, however much power we attach to words), unless we say (if we at least call that interval, which is extended in eternal things, an age), that which we neither divide nor measure by any motion or by the course of the sun, which is indeed time.

How then can it be that [the Son and the Spirit] ^C are not ^D συνάναρχα, that is, without beginning, if they are co-eternal? Because they proceed from him, although they were not after him. For that which lacks a beginning is also eternal: but that which is eternal does not altogether lack a beginning, if at least it is referred to the principle, that is, the Father. Therefore, they do not lack a beginning by reason of cause. It is evident, moreover,

that they are in no way older than their cause: for the sun is not older than its light. Likewise, they lack a beginning in a certain manner, by reason of time, however much you may impose your mask and phantom upon the simpler folk. For those things from which time itself arises are not subject to time. ^A

Of the same Basil from the same oration.

3. Do they have some reasoning from those things which they think are unassailable? Perhaps they will resort to that as to a final fortress, saying: If God does not cease to generate, generation is imperfect, and at some time it will cease: if it ceases, surely it also began. Again, they put forward to men who are simple, and who are given to human ways, arguments such as these. I, however, consider it to be my duty to explain whether this is proper to the Son, and that he is eternally generated, not by the words: *Before all the hills I was brought forth*, but by reasoning more deeply and carefully. Yet I see that it is not necessary to conclude with this argument. For, as they wish, that which began that which will have an end, certainly that which will have an end does not begin at any time at all. What then are they to answer, being of an angelic nature? Or will they say that even if they are, they will cease to be? Or if they do not cease, that they did not even begin at any time? But which is true, that which these people say: That whatever had a beginning, the same will also have an end? Behold, the truly divine privation, which lacks a beginning in God, has an end, when the thing itself has gained its end. ^B

Of Saint Cyril.

4. If the generation, or the generation of God, is itself the specimen of the paternal hypostasis, it follows absolutely that it is his own property, and does not happen afterwards. And from natural and divine properties there is nothing that is assumed from without.

Of the same Cyril.

5. If indeed the Father began, and ceased to generate the Son, as the enemies of Christ suppose, he is certainly subject to change and mutation. For he who was not before he begat, began to be after he had begotten. And if his divinity is more excellent than that which is subject to change, he undoubtedly neither began nor ceased to generate the Son, but the Son, through whom the ages and times were made, was in the Father without time.

Of the same Cyril.

6. If the Father began to generate the Son, this certainly accrued to him, and he received it afterward, whereas it had a beginning. But if any such accession exists, it is imperfect, but what was perfect is not that which is of the Father—to think this is a crime. For its essence is perfect. ^C And so this did not accrue to him, so that he might beget, nor did he begin to beget.

Of the same Cyril.

7. That which has a nature for begetting innate in itself, does not beget from that, nor does it proceed from it at all, so that it begets: nor because he knows how to beget, and knows how to cease begetting. For fire has heat from itself, which is in its nature, and it generates that which has its nature in itself. But at the same time and together with it was the fire, and those properties were there. If, therefore, even in things created by God, such a method of generating appears, who is it that, being wicked, does not concede it, if greater things are not conceded, even if the human mind cannot grasp the greatness of his nature? ^D

Assertions against another heresy of Eunomius: *That the Son has not always been*.

CAP. LV.

Of the Great Athanasius against this: That the Son has not always been.

8. If the Son was not at some time, certainly the holy Trinity was not a Trinity from the beginning, but was a unity; afterward, with the Son added, a duality: finally, with the Holy Spirit added, confirmed and perfect; but if it be so, as the latter have published it, and attached it externally to the Father, who lacks a beginning, they are counted as having been added, and do they introduce a new creation? Do they not wonder that they are regenerated by the holy baptism and that they are worshipped and glorified together with him? For Scripture says: *Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit*.

Of the same B. Athanasius.

9. If the Son, as the Apostle says, is the *splendor of glory*, or of God and the Father, and so the character of his hypostasis, it follows that he cannot be separated from the Father; for the splendor cannot be separated from that whose splendor it is, from which it is always. And this, by nature, is not assumed from without. Furthermore, the character of the hypostasis is also that.

Of Basil the Great.

10. The nature of the Father certainly has no principle: the nature of the Son, however, [has] the Father. Moreover, there is no intermediate between these. What can it be, therefore, that he does not exist, who has nothing that might afterwards be added to him, except that he received to be that very thing, if I may say so, which is not surpassed by any interval, but is put forward by cause alone?

Of the same Basil.

11. If all things were made through the Son, he himself, however, is before all times; and if all things were made through him, he certainly preceded the times and the ages, nor was there any interval of time or of age: wherefore you cannot say that he ever was not.

^A Indeed, this saying is vain and futile: "There was a time when the Son was not."

*Of the same Basil.*

12. They say: "If he was, he is not begotten." But we say he was, and he was begotten. For these words, *From the womb before the day-star have I begotten thee*, and this, *Before all the hills he hath begotten me*, and others of that kind, demonstrate the Son to be from the Father, according to hypostasis. These, however, *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*. Item: *This was in the beginning with God*. Moreover, that the word is added to those that follow once and again, proves that the Son is from eternity, always adhering to the Father: whose confirmation must be sought from these words: *Who is in the bosom of the Father, who always is, nor is he ever separated from him*.

*B. Gregory of Nyssa, from his oration to Simplicius on the Son.*

13. God forbids through the Prophet that we should consider a "recent" God, or call a strange god our own and worship him. Hence it is clear that he is called "recent" who is not eternal, whereas the one that is not recent is called eternal. Wherefore, whoever does not believe the Only-Begotten to be eternal God, does not deny that he is recent. For since that which is not eternal is altogether recent, and God is not recent: as the Scripture testifies when it says: *There shall not be in thee a strange god*. Whoever therefore says that he was at one time not, denies his divinity. Furthermore, he says: *Thou shalt not worship a strange god*, for it forbids to worship a strange god. Yet that is considered strange which is separated from our own God. Now, who is our proper God? Truly, God. But who is the strange one? He who has a nature different from the true God. Wherefore, since our proper one is the true God, it follows that if the Only-Begotten were of a nature of true God—but the heretics wish it so—he should be strange [to God], but he is not to us. Furthermore, sheep, as we read in the Gospel, do not listen to a strange one. ^B If he who says he is a creature establishes him as alien to the nature of the true God. What are they doing [who profess him to be a creature]? Do they worship him, or not? If they do not worship, they imitate the Jews who deny the worshipping of Christ. If they do worship, they are idolaters, who worship an alien instead of God. It is a great impiety not to worship the true God, and to worship a strange god instead of the true God. Therefore, we must say the Son of the Father is true, so that we may worship him and not be condemned as worshippers of a strange god.

*Of the same Nyssen, in his oration on the Divinity of the Son and Spirit.*

14. The Eunomians say that the Son at one time was not. But if there is no Son, neither did the Father exist at all. If there is no splendor, then he who shines forth does not exist. If there is no character or figure, then there is no hypostasis. If there is no power, and if there is no wisdom (without which God is not), then God himself did not exist. For it cannot happen that there should be glory or light without splendor, or a figure without substance, or wisdom without the wise, or power without power, or a Father without a Son. Therefore, it is clear from the above that he who removes the Son, removes the Father as well by one and the same act. Now, neither is the Son glorified, nor is the Father believed, and the Divinity is altogether removed from our midst; and to remove the Divinity from our midst is nothing else but the act of Epicurus. It is evident that the assertors of such an impious heresy are of the herd of Epicurus. ^C It must be known, moreover, that by these words—splendor, character, power, and wisdom—a certain unshakable constitution and connection or conjunction is primarily signified.

*Of Saint Cyril.*

15. The Son is from the Father, just as splendor is from the sun: or just as heat is from fire. For among things of this kind there is indeed one seen born from another, but because it is always inherent to it and is never separated from it, it cannot exist without the other, nor can it preserve the true nature of itself.

*Of the same Cyril.*

16. If the Son were not with the Father, especially since he proceeds from him naturally and is coeternal with him, it would undoubtedly come to pass that the one who begat him, even the Father, must have been subject to mutation and change. For if he was not, as you wish, he subsequently became. But the divine nature is alien to all mutation and alteration. Therefore, it does not happen that the Father comes to be from God, but the Word who proceeds from him was coeternal with him, just as heat proceeds from fire, and is always both from it and shines forth as light outside.

*B. John of Damascus.*

17. Just as there is fire, and at the same time light proceeds from it, and it is not that the fire is first, and then the light, but they are together; ^D so also the Father and the Son are together; and just as light is always born from fire, and is always in it, and is in no way separated from it, so also the Son is born from the Father, and in no way is he separated from him, but is always in him. But when the light proceeds from the fire, it does not depart from it, and it always remains in it, having its own hypostasis not separated from the fire, for the natural...

truth of his essence and judgment; for the causes of this are anointed with divinity; for this is the anointing of humanity. But that general concept lacks a cause; or if it does have one attached to it, show it to me. What reasoning, therefore, prevents Wisdom or human generation from being called a creature? And if it is a generation, why is there not an even more incomprehensible reasoning for that generation? To this it must be referred that he who is a servant carries out the commands of many. Likewise, that he is great, that he is called the Son of God. For without doubt, having assumed flesh and been born, he served, and also through our affections, in order that he might free us into liberty, and all the rest among whom we were held fast by sin, he freed. Moreover, what greater thing could happen to the vileness of man, than ^B that he should be joined to God, and by that conjunction should become God, and that he should be visited by the Highest East, so that the holy thing which was born should be called the Son of the Highest; and a name should be given to him which is above every name, and which is indeed nothing other than God, and that he to that extent for our sake should be emptied, inasmuch as he had joined the divine image to the form of a servant, so that every knee should bow, and to the whole house of Israel, it should be made known that God had been made Lord and God? Since all these things are perfect works of the Begetter, by the will of the Father.

*Sancti Cyrilli.*

21. Furthermore, regarding these words: *And the Lord made him and Christ a God*, it is designated as dominion over all: which the Father indeed entrusted to the Son as a man; but it is not the making of his nature.

*Ejusdem Cyrilli.*

22. If he had said as if: *The Lord created me*, he would rather have said: *The Father created me*. For nowhere does he call him his Lord, but Father.

*Ejusdem Cyrilli.*

23. Since he is called the first-born of creation, it should be gathered from this that, first, he is considered a creature, that which was made, as the Apostle said, *everything that was made*, but rather before all things? For in that he said *that he is*, he shows that he is always, but that the creature was made. Therefore, he is called the first-born of every creature, or the first-born, by reason of his humanity, inasmuch as he is the head of the body of the Church of the faithful.

*Ejusdem Cyrilli.*

24. The Son is called the first-born of every generation, not as if he were first in time, nor because he consists of the same substance as the creatures, but because he humbled himself with the creatures, and in similar manner to us, he makes himself. But it is worth noting ^D

that he is called the only-begotten and the first-born. As often, then, as he is called only-begotten, no cause is annexed to him for which he is the only-begotten, other than that he is absolutely called the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father. But as often as the same sacred Scriptures call him the first-born, they also put forward the cause of whom he is the first-born, and offer the reason for which he is endowed with this surname as well. For they say, *"The first-born among many brothers"* (Rom. viii, 29), and *"the first-born from the dead"* (Col. i, 18). Now he is called the first-born among many brothers, in so far as he was made similar to us with sin taken away, and by assuming our flesh he made himself our brother. But he is the first-born from the dead, because he was the first himself to raise his own flesh to incorruption, and in truth was the first to bring it into the heavens. Whence he says, *"I am the way"* (John xiv, 6). Also, *"I am the door"* (John x, 9). For through him human nature is taught to enter upon a new way of resurrection, and just as through a door, it enters into heaven itself. ^A

*From the same Cyril.* 55. The Word [is named如此; this means to become or to be, and we find it said even of God the Father, as in David: *"Be to me a protective God"* (Ps. lxx, 3). Also: *"You have been to me for salvation"* (Ps. cvii, 14). But according to the Apostle, *"Let God be true, but every man a liar"* (Rom. iii, 4). If, therefore, the Father, although he becomes a protector and is true, is nevertheless not a creature, certainly the Son, although he was made for us wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, will not be a creature.]

*From the same Cyril.* 56. When you say that the Father is the cause of the Son's essence, by what cause do you say this? Or is it the cause of the creation? But the Father himself said to him: *"From the womb before the morning star I have begotten you"* (Ps. cix, 3); it remains, therefore, that you say it is the cause for which he is the Father. Whence it follows that the Son is not a creature, but the natural Son.

*Theologians from the discourse held before 150 bishops.* 57. A creature is indeed called God, since this is a great thing for us. But God is in no way a creature: surely then I would admit that God is a creature, when I myself also would properly be God. For the matter is thus; if indeed he is God, he is not a creature, for he who is with us, who are not gods, is a creature. But if he is a creature, he is not God. For he began in time, which moreover began, and there is a time when he was not. But that in which it was not, is older, when it does not properly exist; how can it be that he is God? Therefore, of the three [persons of the holy Trinity] there is no creature; nor anything that is inferior to that; having been made for me, he is not only a creature, but even more abject to us. For if I was made for the honor of God, but that thing for me, certainly the orbit was made for the course, and the latch for the door. I prevail by the cause. ^B For by how much God is more excellent than creatures, by so much more ignoble must that be which subsists for my sake, because it was made for my sake.

*Damascene.* 28. Just as we say that light proceeds from fire, and we do not count the light proceeding from the fire as an instrument that serves the fire, but rather we profess it to be a natural faculty, so also whatever the Father does, we say he does through his only-begotten Son, not as if by the help of an organ, but by a natural and self-subsisting power. And just as we say that fire gives light, and conversely we argue that the light of the fire gives light, so also whatever the Father does, the Son does the same.

*Other assertions against the Eunomians' ὅμοιον, that is, the word by which the Son is said to be similar indeed, but not of the same substance as the Father.*

CHAPTER LVII.

*Basil the Great.* 30. By the character or figure of the substance, however, we are taught the homoousion, that is, the identity of substance.

*Saint Cyril.* 31. Whence it is said that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, the Apostle says in these words: *"Who when he was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God"* (Philipp. ii, 6). Therefore, since by the form of God his nature is understood, and equality is attached, he is deservedly called consubstantial. For he who has a nature equal with the Father, certainly also has an equal substance. Indeed, Christ himself also, when he says: *"I and the Father are one"* (John x, 30), demonstrates the identity of nature or essence.

*From the same Cyril.* 32. Whose actions are the same, their essence also is one. Now the action of the Father and of the Son is one, as is evident from hence: *"Let us make man to our image"* (Gen. i, 26). Also: *"Whatever the Father does, the same...*

the Son does"* (John v, 19). Item: *"If I do not the works of my Father, do not believe me"* (John x, 37).

*Of the same Cyril.*

33. Just as that good scent which naturally and essentially proceeds from the flower, is truly the offspring of the flower, being born as it were from its parent, so also the Son, who is like a scent of the paternal substance, declares his own progenitor. For he says: *"He who sees me, sees the Father"* (John xiv, 9).

*Objection of St. Cyril against the Arians, and his solution.*

34. So if the Savior somewhere says that he is in the Father, and the Father is in him in a like manner, it is clear to everyone that this is not so to be understood, as though bodies were contained by bodies, and vessel by vessel; but rather in a certain way we say that the Father is contained by the Son, or the Son by the Father. Yet there appears to be no change in this, but rather an identity in essence and a natural conjunction and likeness. Just as if someone should behold his own genuine form in an image, truly he might say to some, that he admires the likeness so exactly expressed: "This is me in the picture, and the picture is in me." Or just as heat, which naturally proceeds from fire, could speak and say: "I am in the fire, and the fire is in me." For although each of the aforementioned can be divided in thought, yet they arise from one single individual procession; and just as it is seen to be separated from him, it is yet therein. However, even if their powers and operations seem to shine out as in some sort of type, as if thought of from themselves, they are yet seen to be the same in the other, provided that the account of the substance be maintained. And so, by reason of the essence which cannot be changed, and the character or figure which cannot be utterly corrupted, it can happen that there is a greater and a lesser; for thus these men think the Son passes over, and is seen to be in him. Since it follows that the Son proceeds wholly perfect from the perfect, he is the character and figure of the great Father.

*Of St. Basil, that the Father is greater than the Son as paternal cause, but not by the nature of divinity.*

35. If we do not say the essence is greater or lesser than the essence, but that the Father is greater, by reason of substance it is not dictated; but because he is his Father, he is the cause and the principle.

*Of the same Basil.*

36. If he is the greater cause, whose cause he is, and differs from him by the reason of essence: every father is the cause of him whose father he is, and certainly greater fathers are diverse from those sons by the account of essence. This is not true.

^A 37. Comparisons are properly made between those things which are of the same kind. For no one compares God with an angel, nor an angel with a man, nor a man with a brute, nor wood with a stone; but God indeed cannot be compared with any, whereas other things are compared with those which are of the same kind: but not with those which are diverse.

Nor, indeed, let an angel be compared with a man, nor a man with a brute, nor wood with a stone. Whence it happens that regarding those things which are of the same kind, it is better not to say "is better," but "is more," "is plus," and "is greater." And so, if the Father is greater than the Son by reason of nature or substance, the Son will be of the same substance as the Father.

*Of St. Cyril, against those who introduce a lesser Son, because Christ says in the Gospels: "My Father is greater than I."*

38. For who can be made the lesser when he clearly says: *"All things whatsoever the Father has, are mine"* (John xvi, 15)? And uttering words to God and the Father: *"All mine, he says, are thine, and thine are mine"* (John xvii, 10). He falls into the Father also as the lesser, in that he is in the Son as the greater, especially since in the order of things there is no discernment; seeing that those things which are in both are seen in both, and so whatever is of the Father, is also of the Son, and conversely, whatever is seen to be of the Son, also belongs to the Father. And so nothing prevents us from calling the Father lesser than the Son, and the Son greater than the Father; but such a thought or phrasing would be absurd. Wherefore, he is equal to the Father, and not lesser than the Father, who has the substance in common with the Father.

*Another objection of the Anomoeans: Whether the Father begat the Son willingly or unwillingly?*

CHAPTER LVIII

*Of St. Gregory the Theologian, from the oration on the incomprehensible generation of the Son of God.*

39. Moreover, of what kind is that which the Anomaeans object, so contentious and impudent? Willing, they say, did he beget the Son, or unwilling? Thence they entangle us in knots, and on both sides, they implicate us, not with valid arguments, but with very polished ones. If unwilling, they say, then he is forced by tyranny: but who can force God, and how could he be forced in that way? That if willing, the Father is confuted by the Son as by a new mother in place of his will. Yet this is in those things which are joined to the Father. But how then, from the Father, if he is in them, does he deviate from the will to the affections? For the will is not an affection.

Moreover, let us see how valid their argument is. It would be better, however, if we were to join battle with them more closely before him. Come now, you yourself, who easily say whatever you please: From a willing father...

^A were you born, or from an unwilling one? If from an unwilling one, he was, of course, forced by tyranny. But who, then, compelled him? For you cannot claim that there is a nature which can embrace chastity as well. But if from a willing one, has the Father escaped you in a few syllables? For you proclaim yourself the son of a will, not of a Father. But now, are you turning to God and created things? Therefore, I will accommodate my question to your wisdom. Did God create all things willingly, or was he forced? If forced, this is tyranny, and violence brought by someone; but if willingly, then created things are also deprived of God, and you above all, who concoct such sophistries for us. For the will separates us from the Creator like an intermediate wall. But I, for my part, think that he who wills is one thing, and the will another; he who begets is one thing, and the generation another; he who speaks is one thing, and the discourse another—unless, perhaps, we are drunk. For those are things that are moved, whereas these are akin to motion. Therefore, that which someone desires is not of his will (for nothing follows from this by reason), nor is that which is generated of generation, nor is that which is heard of utterance, but rather of the one who wills, the one who begets, and the one who speaks. Furthermore, whatever things are in God are superior to all these: to whom, perhaps, generation is nothing other than the very will to beget; but if we admit this at all, nothing remains in between. Yet generation is more excellent than the will itself. Do you wish for me also to bring forth some jest concerning the Father? Since, prompted by you, I venture to devise such sophistries. Is God the Father willing, or unwilling? Now, how will you extricate yourself from this double-edged sophism of yours? For if he is willing, when, finally, did he begin to will? Certainly not before he existed; for nothing was prior to him. Or did he will something else in himself—to use that term—that was willed? From which it follows that he admits division. But what stands in the way so that he might not also be the storehouse of your will? But if he is willing, what compelled him to exist? Likewise, how will he be God if he is forced? Although God is nothing other than existence itself.

CAP. LIX. That there is one essence, nature, and appellation of God. From the first oration of St. Gregory the Theologian against those who say that the Word, the Son of God, is God only by homonymy.

^C 40. The matter stands thus: as there is one definition for the horse, the ox, the man, and each of the individuals falling under the same species, and therefore whatever is endowed with reason is also properly [so called]; but whatever lacks it is either not called such, or is not called so properly: so, too, there is one essence, nature, and appellation of God, even if, having regard for the different essence and nature, varying names are also devised: so that what is properly called God is also God, and what is nature is also correctly named, since we believe that the truth resides not in names, but in things. But those men, fearing lest they leave no stone unturned ^D against the truth, seem to have moved that God is indeed the Son, as they are compelled by both reason and testimony to the term "homonym," and to a name that is merely common. But when, on the contrary, we insist here with words: "Come now, is God not properly God, in the same way as a painted animal is not? How does it happen, therefore, that he is God, if he is not properly God?" But what stands in the way, they say, of both being called homonyms and [both] being called properly? And they will set before us the terrestrial and the marine dog, as things that are homonyms and are called properly. For species of this kind are added to homonyms, and if any other thing is signified by the same name, it is a participant in it equally, but in nature it is different. But there, come now, my good man, when you comprehend two natures under the same appellation, you introduce one which is in no way better than the other, so that you cannot assert that one is prior or posterior to the other, or that one is more or less so than the other. For nothing is joined [to them] that brings upon them such necessity. For here one is not a dog more, nor the other less [so] than the other, namely the marine [is not] to the terrestrial, nor the terrestrial to the marine. For why or for what reason does that happen? But to equal, yet diverse, things the same appellation is attributed. But now, when you adjudge adoration to God, and say that he is the one who transcends all nature—which is the only thing proper to God and, as it were, the nature of divinity—then you attribute to the Father that by which you deprive the Son, nay, you subject him to the Father, and you ascribe to him honor and adoration as if he were secondary to the Father; yet with the very syllables you attribute to him [greek]ὁμοούσιον[/greek], or likeness, while in the very reality you rend the divinity asunder, and maliciously, while designating equality from homonymy, you pass over to that which admits unequal things, so that, in your judgment, a painted man and a living man, and those dogs which you brought forward for the sake of example, come closer to divinity. Either grant the homonymy of the appellation to both, or grant the quality of the natures as well, however different you introduce them to be, and you have dissolved those dogs which you invented to prove inequality. For what does homonymy or likeness of name profit, unless those things which you divide obtain an equal degree of honor? Since it was not to show them as equals, but as unequals, that you fled to such homonymy and to dogs.

CAP. LX. That the Son is truly God, from the same oration of the blessed Gregory the Theologian.

41. Since we detect and proclaim the divinity of the Son from the great and exalted ^D voices, that is to say: "The Word was God in the beginning, with the beginning the beginning: In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and, "With you is the beginning." And calling him [the beginning] from the ancient generations. Since the Son is the only-begotten, the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he himself has made him known.

^A The Father himself has declared it. The Way, the Truth, the Life; the Light, Wisdom, Virtue: Christ, the Virtue of God, and the Wisdom of God. The Splendor, the Character or Figure, the Image, the Seal; since He is "the splendor of his glory and the figure of his substance." And "the image of his goodness." And: "For him God the Father sealed."

The Lord, the King, who is almighty: "The Lord rained fire from the Lord." And: "A rod of direction, the rod of thy kingdom." And: "Who is, who was, and who is to come, and [the] almighty"—these are said clearly regarding the Son, and the rest that are of the same signification. None of these is adventitious, nor is any posterior attribute added to the Son or the Spirit, just as it is not to the Father himself. For that which is perfect does not consist by way of accession. ^B For He was never without the Word; the Father was never not-eternal, nor was He ever not-true, not-wise, not-mighty; never was He lacking in life, or in splendor, or in goodness.

But now, in your turn, recite to me the words of your ignorance, namely: "My God," and "Your God." "Greater," "He created," "He made," "He sanctified." Add, if you wish, these also: "Servant," "Subjected," "He gave," "He learned." "He received a commandment," "He was sent." Or that He is able to do, or say, or judge, or give, or will nothing of Himself. To these, add also: "Ignorance," "Subjection," "Supplication," "Interrogation," "Progression," "Perfection." Nay, indeed, if it pleases you, attach to these even more abject terms: "To sleep," "To go," "To be weary," "To weep," "To be anxious," "To fall." Perhaps you will also object with the cross and death. For you seem to me to be about to pass over the resurrection and the ascension into heaven; ^C since there is something to be found in these that might support our position. You will babble even more than this if you wish to posit your God as a homonym and adventitious, who is held by us to be both true and of the same dignity as the Father.

It will be easy for you to examine each of these by recurring to the rule of piety and, if any words have perplexed you, to remove the scruple—provided that you have at least truly applied yourself and have not voluntarily committed this impiety.

To conclude the matter in a few words: refer the more sublime things to the divinity and to that nature which is immune from all bodily perturbations. But ascribe the humbler things to the composite [nature], and to Him who for your sake was emptied, and assumed flesh, and—lest I say anything more abject—was made man. But afterwards, He was also exalted, so that, bidding a long farewell to those carnal dogmas of yours that creep upon the ground, ^D you may learn to be more sublime and to ascend to the divinity; not lingering on those things that fall under visual perception, but being carried aloft together with those things that are perceived by the mind; and so you may know what the law of nature is, and what the rationale of the flesh assumed by Christ is.

CAP. LXI.

42. Whatever is said—that He receives life or judgment, or the inheritance of the nations, or power over all flesh, or glory, or disciples, or whatever else is mentioned—these are said concerning [His] humanity. But if you concede that they are said regarding God as well, there is nothing absurd in this. For you would not concede them as adventitious, but as those things which exist from the beginning, and thus by reason of nature, not of grace.

Saint Cyril. 43. Those words: "I live because of the Father," do not at all constitute a differing substance for the Son, but rather one that is consubstantial. For just as if someone, a son of man, were to say: "I am a partaker of reason because of my father, or because my father is endowed with reason," so also the Son and God [says]: "I live," He says, "because the Father lives." Furthermore, by such an utterance, the Son and Word has made clear the paternal cause, and also the distinction of the hypostases themselves, so that no one, by reason of their mutual equality and identity in all things, might think them to be one person.

Saint John Damascene. 44. Whatever the Son and the Spirit have, they have from the Father, and [derive from Him] the very thing that they are. For if the Father had nothing, neither would the Son have anything, nor the Holy Spirit; and because of the Father—that is, because He is the Father—the Son and the Holy Spirit exist; according to that saying: "I live because of the Father," or because the Father lives, and because of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit have [all things]; that is, those things which the Father has are mine, except for the characteristic or figurative properties. Therefore, the Father gives to the Son by reason of the paternal cause. But the Son and the Holy Spirit are said to "receive" on account of the identity of nature.

CHAPTER LXII.

45. He was sent indeed, but as a man. For He was dual; since He was weary, He was hungry, He was thirsty, He was anxious, He wept by the law of the body; but if these occur also as God, what of it? Consider the mission to be the good pleasure of the Father: to whom He refers His own works—both that He may accord honor to the Principle which had no beginning in time, and so that He might not appear to be an adversary to God, since He is also said to be delivered up—indeed, He delivered up Himself, as it is written; likewise, He is said to be raised up and assumed by the Father; indeed, He Himself raised up and assumed Himself. Those are the good pleasures...

^A of the Father; these are the powers of the Son. You, however, recount those things which make Him inferior, but you pass over those which make Him more sublime, and you consider that He suffered, but you do not add that He suffered voluntarily. From the same [author], on that place in the Apostle, where he says: "For He must reign until the times." From the oration 2 on the Son.

46. As to the second point which our adversaries hold against us—and indeed they cite it as if it were their greatest and most invincible argument—namely, "For He must reign until" the end, "and be received from heaven until the restitution of the times," and "have a throne at the right hand of God, until He overcomes His enemies." What then afterwards? Will He abandon His kingdom, or be cast out of the heavens? Who will compel Him? And for what reason? How bold an interpreter you are! ^B And how alien to the kingdom or to subjection! And yet you hear: "Of His kingdom there shall be no end." But in truth you have stumbled into this error, because you are utterly ignorant of the fact that with these words, "until" and "until," the past is not strictly divided from the future; rather, they signify up to a certain point, without any consideration of what follows after. Otherwise, in what sense would you accept (not to mention other examples) that passage: "I will be with you until the consummation of the age"? Will you say that He will not be with us afterwards? And what would be the reason for this? Nor have you fallen into error for this reason alone, but also because you do not distinguish the meanings of terms. For "to reign" is said in one sense as of the omnipotent King of all, whether they will it or not; but in another sense it is said of Him who has subjected us to His authority, and has so brought us into His own kingdom that we willingly accept His yoke. In the sense thus accepted, therefore, there shall be no end of His kingdom. But what is the function of the second? Namely, that He may protect us by His hand and make us safe. For there is no need for Him to subject those who are already subject. For afterwards He shall arise to judge the earth, that He may separate the saved from the lost. Afterwards, I say, "God shall arise in the midst of the gods," the saved, being about to judge and distinguish as to what reward and dwelling each is worthy. Accept in this sense that subjection also by which you subject the Son to the Father. What do you say? As if He were not subject now? Or is He who is also God truly to be subjected to God? You certainly seem to me to be speaking of a thief or some enemy. Rather, weigh the matter itself in this way. Just as He is called a curse, who came to destroy my curse: likewise both "sin," who takes away the sin of the world, and finally becomes the new Adam for the old, so also He makes my disobedience His own, inasmuch as He exists as the Head of the whole body. Therefore, as long as I am rebellious and seditious, while I reject the yoke of Christ and serve my own passions, Christ also is said to be "not subject," with regard to me. But after He has subjected all things to Himself—and He will subject them by knowledge and transformation—then He Himself ^D completes the subjection, bringing me to salvation. For this is, as I think, the subjection of Christ, namely, the fulfillment of the Father's will. Moreover, both the Son is subjected to the Father, and the Father to the Son: the former indeed acting, the latter indeed approving, as we also said before. And thus He who has subjected what was subject, exhibits it to God, accommodating to Himself what is ours.

In the same sense, that passage also seems to me to be understood: "God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me?" For He was neither forsaken by God, nor by His own divinity, which to some seems as if He were fearing the passion, and therefore was contracted by the sufferer. Who forced Him either first to be born into this world, or to ascend the cross? But in Himself, as I have already said, He expresses what is ours. For we were forsaken before and despised: but now we are assumed and saved by the passions of Him who is in no way subject to passion. Just as He also assumes our foolishness, and assumes sin, which follow in that psalm; since that twenty-first psalm is referred to Christ without doubt.

Of the same consideration are also these things, that He "learned obedience from the things which He suffered"; likewise the "cry, tears, to beseech, to be heard, reverence": which He represents for our sake in a wondrous manner as if upon a stage. Insofar as the Word was neither obedient, nor disobedient: since these things look to those who are subject and, as it were, secondary—the former indeed certainly looks to good men and those who love what is right, but the latter to the reprobate and those worthy of punishment—insofar as He accommodates Himself in the form of a servant to His fellow servants and puts on an alien form, bearing me entirely and what is mine in Himself, so that by His own power He may consume what is worse, not otherwise than fire consumes wax, or the sun consumes the vapor of the earth: and I, by the grace of this commission, may become a partaker of those things which He has. For that reason He performs obedience in reality, and makes trial of the danger of the passion. For affection or the disposition of the soul is not enough, just as neither is it for us, unless we also declare the sentiments of the soul by the things themselves. For the work proves the affection of the soul. Nor is that meaning perhaps less to be approved, that He tests our obedience, and measures all things by His own passions through the art of humanity, so that He might know our things by His own, and how much is to be demanded of us, and how much is to be granted to us, having taken into account our weakness along with the reckoning of the passion. For if the light, on account of the emission which appeared in darkness, that is, this life, suffered persecution from the darkness, from the evil one, I say, and the tempter, how great and how weak were the shadows? What is strange, then, if upon their coalescing entirely, we also have been in some way assumed? For a greater thing to Him is...

^A to suffer persecution than for us to be assumed by Him; at least in the judgment of those who rightly weigh these things. Furthermore, I will add what comes to my mind. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to help those who are being tempted, which I refer to the same obvious meaning.

CHAPTER LXIII.

47. Furthermore, at the time of restoration, God will be all in all, not by the Father being wholly resolved into the Son, as if a torch were cast back again into the great fire from which it had been taken for a time; for we must not be corrupted in this by the saying of Sabellius, but [God will be] the whole God. At which time we shall no longer be distracted by the many parts of the movements of the mind and by perturbations, bearing nothing of God, or even the smallest bit, in ourselves, but [by being] ^B plainly like God, and capable of Him alone. For this is the perfection to which we hasten, of which the blessed Paul himself is indeed the greatest argument. For what he says indefinitely in this place concerning God, he elsewhere affirms openly concerning Christ, in these words: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, Barbarian and Scythian, slave and free, but Christ is all in all.

CHAPTER LXIV.

48. The Sixth argument is put forward, that the Son cannot do anything of Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. But this is the way it stands: Being able or not being able belongs by no means to things that are spoken of in one way, but to those which are expressed in many ways. For something is said to be unable to be done, partly by reason of a defect in power, or by reason of time, or relatively: as if you were to deny that a boy can wrestle, or a puppy can see, or that someone can conquer this or that person. For perhaps the boy will wrestle someday, and the dog will see, and this person will conquer that one, however much he may be unable to conquer anyone at other times. Partly, however, something is said ^C as being for the most part, as: A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. For perhaps it could be hidden by the obstruction of a larger body. Partly, also, because it may not be consistent with reason, as: The children of the bridegroom cannot fast. The reason for this type of passage is also the same: The world cannot hate you; and: How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For for what other reason can these things not be done, unless because the will is lacking? Furthermore, there is something of this sort also in these things which are said: That which cannot be done by nature, it is possible for it to be done eventually, if it pleases God: as that the same person cannot be born twice, and that the eye of a needle is not capable of a camel. For what would stand in the way of these things being done, if God willed it? Besides all these modes, there is that which can be done in no way at all, nor does any reason admit that it be done ^D by God, which we now seek. For just as we say it is impossible for God to be evil, or not to be at all—for this would be referred to the impotence rather than the power of God, rather than if it were said that what is not, is, or that twice two and four and ten are affirmed to be [the same]—so it is completely impossible, nor does any reason admit it, that the Son should do anything alongside that which the Father does not do. For all things whatsoever the Father has are the Son's, just as, conversely, what are the Son's are also the Father's. Nothing, therefore, is private and peculiar, since all things are common to them. Indeed, the very essence itself is common and equal to them, although the Son has it from the Father. Whence it is also said: I live because of the Father, not that the origin of life and essence for Him is thence, such as is the case for men, but because He subsists thence without any time or cause. But as the Father acts, so in the same way the Son acts. Or, indeed, is it as those who paint forms and letters, because there is no other way to attain the truth of the thing except that they look continually at the example and archetype, and direct their hand toward its imitation? But how can it be that Wisdom should be in need of a teacher? Is it to do nothing unless it is taught? How then does the Father act, or did He act? Did He create another world before the present one, however much He may have intended it to be something to come? And looking to that, did the Son construct one, and is He about to construct another? Were then these things of the world created by this reason, that the Father made some, and the Son, others? O nonsense! Therefore, that He cleanses from leprosy and demons, cures diseases, raises the dead, walks upon the sea, and does other things, which indeed He did—in what matter or when did He imitate the Father doing all things first? Or did the Father perchance prescribe formulas for things of this kind, while the Word acts not servilely or ignorantly, but skillfully?

^A For I interpret that passage in this sense: that what is done by the Father is said to be done similarly by the Son, in such a way that it signifies not a similarity of the things done, but the same power and dignity. In this sense also, this must be understood: that up to this present time both the Father and the Son are working; and not this alone, but also the moderation and conservation of those things which they have made, as is indicated by those words: "Making his angels spirits." Likewise, "Establishing the earth upon its stability," even though these were founded and those were made once and for all. Likewise: "Forming the thunder, and creating the Spirit"; the principle of which, although it existed once, a continuous operation nevertheless still remains.

CAP. LXV.

On the text: "I descended from heaven, not to do my own will." From the same oration of Saint Gregory.

49. The seventh point is proposed: that the Son descended from heaven not to do his own will, but that of Him by whom he was sent. Certainly, unless these words were put forward by one who descended, we could say that this discourse is formulated as if by a man, and not by one who is to be understood as the Savior, whose will is by no means contrary to God, seeing that it is wholly divine; but rather [as if by one] who is similar to us. For since the human will does not entirely serve God, but very often resists and struggles in the opposite direction, we accept that passage in this sense: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but thy will prevail." For it is not consistent that he should have been ignorant of whether that could happen or not, nor that he should have opposed will to will. But because these are the words of him who assumed flesh—for that which descended is not the assumed flesh—we should understand in reply to the question that this is not as if there were a will proper to the Son and another from the Father’s will, but as if there were not; from which this follows: "Not that I should do my will,"—for mine is not separated from thine—"but that which is common to thee and to me," of whom, as the divinity is one, so also is the will.

Since, indeed, most things are said in this way commonly, not affirmatively but negatively, as that saying: "For God does not give the Spirit by measure," for neither does he give, nor is it by measure. For God does not measure God. Likewise that saying: "Neither my sin, nor my iniquity," for thus it must be understood, not that it is present, but that it is not present. Likewise: "Not for our justices which we have done," for indeed we have not done them. Moreover, this is clear from what follows. For what does he say is the will of the Father? That everyone who believes in the Son may be saved, and become a participant in the final resurrection, or restitution. Is this, therefore, the will of the Father, but not that of the Son? Or is it announced and believed against the inclination of the will? But who would believe this? ^B especially when the discourse of those who hear it is also [the subject], that it is not of the Son, but of the Father, the meaning is the same. For how can it be, that what is common should be the peculiar property of one alone? I, considering this for the most part, cannot understand it, nor, in my own opinion, could another. If you understand the will in this sense, you understand it quite rightly and piously, according to my own opinion and that of every orthodox person.

CHAPTER LXVI.

From the same oration of the blessed Nazianzen, on the text: "That they may know thee the only true God."

50. This eighth point is for them: "That they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent," and this, "None is good but one, God." Regarding this difficulty also, the solution seems to me very easy. For if you understand "the only true God" of the Father, where, I ask, will you place the Truth itself? For if you understand these words in this sense, "To the only wise God," "to the only immortal," and to him "who inhabits inaccessible light," or to the "incorruptible and invisible King of ages," "to the only wise God," will the Son, who was put to death, flow away from you, so that he is either darkness, or not wise, nor King, nor invisible, nor God at all, which is the head of the forementioned? But who acts so that, when others are called gods, he may also not lose the goodness most especially proper to God alone? But truly I think those words, "That they may know thee the only true God," are said in such a way as to be spoken in opposition to those who are not gods. For he would never have added, "and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent," if he had referred these words, "the only true God," to him alone, and had not been speaking of the divinity in common. Furthermore, those words, "None is good," contain the occupation by which Christ confronts a certain lawyer tempting him, who attributed goodness to him insofar as he was a man: "The supreme good," he says, "belongs to God alone," although a man may also be counted by this name; whence that saying: "A good man out of the good treasure brings forth good." Likewise: "I will give the kingdom to the good one over thee." These are the words of God to Saul concerning David. Likewise that: "Do well, O Lord, to the good," and others of that kind, whatever is said of those among us who are exalted by praises, into whom the outflow of the first good has derived, in a secondary sense. Therefore, if we are persuaded, it is optimal; if not, what will you answer to those who, following your arguments, will assert that the Son is said to be the only God? By what words? These: "This is our God, and no other will be compared to him." And shortly after: "After this he was seen on earth, and conversed with men." For it is clear from what is added that the words there are not about the Father, but the Son. For he is the one who conversed with us in the body and lived with those who dwell on the earth. But if he has proven that this is said of the Father, not of those who are deemed gods, we have lost the Father [to those very ones to whom the Son...]

contend to protect. But what victory of this kind could be more miserable or more ruinous? ^A

CHAPTER LXVII.

On the text: "Always living to make intercession for us." From the same oration of St. Nazianzen.

51. "Nor can they object to this: 'Always living to make intercession for us.' Rightly so, and not without a great mystery and humanity. For the Word to make intercession is not what most people are accustomed to seek for punishment; for this is indeed most abject. Rather, it is to intercede for us in the role of an emissary, just as the Spirit is also said to intercede for us: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." He intercedes even now as man for my salvation; for He has a body, which He assumed, until when the power of the assumed flesh makes me God, although He is no longer known according to the flesh—that is, the carnal affections and those things to which we are subject, sin set aside. Thus we also have Jesus as Paraclete, that is, advocate, not because He grovels at the Father’s feet in a servile manner and falls to His knees for us. Far from us be this thought, which is truly servile and unworthy of the Spirit. For it is not the Father’s place to demand this, nor is it the Son’s place to provide it, nor is it right for anyone to imagine this about God. ^B But He encourages us, as the Word and monitor, regarding those things which He suffered for us as man, so that we might be of strong spirit. In the same sense, it seems to me, the expression *paraclesis*, that is, exhortation, should be understood.

CHAPTER LXVIII.

From the writings of St. Cyril on the progress or increase of Christ.

52. What makes progress in something is different from that in which it is said to progress. If, therefore, Christ is said to have progressed in wisdom, it was not wisdom that was progressing, but the human nature which He presented. For since His divinity was daily being revealed and shining forth, He was always becoming more worthy of admiration to those who beheld Him. And this is the sense of these words: "He progressed in wisdom."

From the same St. Cyril.

From the same St. Cyril.

St. John Damascene.

CHAPTER LXIX.

And these things are to be added to the above for the refutation of the Anomoeans: Whether the Father begat the Son who was already existing, or one not existing.

The Anomoeans, skilled in sophistic arguments rather than theology, used to object: "Did the Father beget the Son who was existing, or one not existing?" And they cast every pious man into such straits that he might not know what to answer. For if he responds that He begat one who was existing, they will receive this answer with laughter and retort: "But how can it be that one who is, is born? For this is absurd." But if they deny that He was existing, they will add, and thus infer, that it remains that there was a time when the Son was not. That this formula of syllogism or argumentation is not true, that great man in theological matters, Gregory, refutes similar things with similar arguments in this way:

Is there time in time, or not? Furthermore, it must be known that to inquire about time, whether it is in time or not, is not among those things that can be done; for time is not counted among things that exist, but among those that occur. For just as motion is said to reside in bodies, so time is the measure of motion. For the sun is a body that is moved: but time is the measure of its motion. Therefore, time is not one of those things which subsist, but of those which follow after (71).

^A Moreover, the admirable Aristotle, the adversary of the ancient Academy and contrary to his teacher Plato, taught that the world was brought into being, and that its circular revolution began from a certain temporal sign; but in saying that time itself also simultaneously subsisted with it, he introduces an eternal time and an unbegotten world. But this Father Gregory asks: "Is time," he says, "in time, or not? That is, has the universal time occupied a place among created things in time, or did it indeed subsist together with the universe of things without time?" For if it was created in time, he says, it is not the universe, since another time is found, in the interval of which time escaped. If not, he introduces time lacking time. But if there is time without time, scarcely anything else will be subject to time. But if, on the contrary, you say it is in time, someone will again interrogate him thus: whether that also is in time, or without time?

Therefore, Father Gregory, omitting many things which would be set forth here in vain concerning time, proposed only as much of it as seemed to him sufficient for the question proposed. For although the question seems to be doubtful on both sides, it is not such that it is altogether doubtful. For it is not the case that if something is less in the extension of time, it is already without time. Moreover, time is not without time, because it was not before, and afterwards was made, since it is measured by the sun and moon, which were created at once and together by the sole word of the Creator.

To these dilemmas he also adds this: "Now I lie," and a similar one which precedes concerning time. Thus, this dilemma: "Now I lie," says true things in the things in which it lies, but lies in the things which you might think to be true. Moreover, in proposing this question, the Theologian uses these words: "Of this dilemma, 'Now I lie,' concede one part, or that it speaks truly only, or that it lies. For we will not concede both." For because the adversary thought that in all questions there is a true negation or affirmation, therefore the Father obtrudes upon him those things in which opposites seem to concur: nor can it be that one proposition is true and the other false, but both this and that are true and false at the same time. ^B Thus, further, this dilemma is held: "Now I lie." Let us suppose someone said this: "I now lie," and did not introduce it with any preceding discourse, but said it first: "Now I lie"; and let us consider whether a negative proposition has a place here, or whether he said only true things, or whether he lied. Now if you say that he said true things, it follows also that he lied, for he himself proposes it about himself. But if you say he has lied, surely he also seems to speak truth. ^C For in this very thing he says true, that he confesses he lies; and it is altogether necessary that falsehood should follow truth, and truth falsehood: for whichever part of the contradiction you may have conceded, by the same operation you have also assumed the other. "But he lies," he says, when "I lie," he says; this is affirmative. But yet neither does he lie, although he said "I lie," this is negative; whence he concludes: "Why then is it a wonder if, as in this dilemma, opposites concur, so that each proposition is found to be partly false and partly true, so also in your objection both propositions, by which lying itself is divided."

You asked whether the Father begat the Son who exists, or (the Son) not existing? But I will answer you: He begat neither as existing, nor as not existing. ^D You, however, because I said "not existing," do not understand it as if I confessed that He begat an existing one. For it happens that each part of the proposition is true, as in the preceding dilemmas. But the Theologian dissolves the absurdity of this question by this compact. But it can be said that the existing Son was begotten by the Father; and thus he conquered the adversary. Which I will prove by such a natural example: the sun begets the ray, and the ray a beam of light. Does the sun then beget a non-existing ray, or the ray a non-existing beam? But who, of as many men as have ever lived, has seen the sun without rays? Or a ray without splendor? Therefore, they both beget, and beget existing things. For divine things do not behave as corporeal ones. Because we, when we were not, were afterwards born. But in things that, although they consist of a body, are nevertheless divine, the matter is otherwise. But if these things be so, how much more in incorporeal things, in which effects proceed from causes, and reside in them and are converted to them?

CAP. LXX.

Epilogue of the entire Arian and Eunomian heresy.

That was the opinion of Eunomius and the followers and successors of his heresy: that the Father is the first and proper essence; then the Son, who was produced by his agency; finally, the Holy Spirit, which was not reckoned to either of the preceding. Although, however, they separated the Son from the essence of the Father, yet they now called Him God himself by the same and common honor: now by the same name. Moreover, being rebuked by the orthodox, because it cannot happen that the Son is called God by the same and proper name, they replied that there is not one use of homonyms, but also a second, by which indeed homonyms are of a different genus and each is proper: such as "dog," terrestrial and marine, which are homonyms and are said properly. For neither is one "dog" properly and the other improperly, but both properly, that is, what is said. And starting from there, they affirmed that nothing stood in the way of the Father and the Son being called God by the same and proper name.

But the great Father Gregory refutes them as saying absurd things. The terrestrial dog, he says, and the marine one are equal in substance, and both are made participants of the same time and dignity. Nor is it that you might say that this one is more a substance, but that one less? Nor that this one was first and that one later. And so there is in the example of the dogs as if some diversity in things

society and communion (for one dog is terrestrial, the other marine), which nevertheless exist of the same dignity, substance, and time. But in the Son and the Father, this is not present: for you attribute to the Father one substance, whom you confess to be greater than all substance, not subject to time, and unbegotten; but to the Son another, indeed a temporal substance different from the Father, and one that subsisted by generation, just as all things that exist. Therefore, it is clear that the Son is called God by you through ^A homonymy, as you believe, and that you call him, to the Father, *homoousios*—that is, endowed with a similar essence—and similar, just as you call an animal, and that which lives, and that which is painted, rather than God; and you put forward the homonymy of dogs—terrestrial and marine, I say—in vain.

Therefore, contradicting your own example, you subvert yourselves, because you do not posit with us one Divinity, but divide it into unequal parts, and perversely pass from one continuous homonymy (that, I say, to which equal and like dignity and equal time belong) to another homonymy, in which of two substances, the Father is indeed greater, and the Son ^B less in substance. Certainly, a living man would be a better and more suitable human being for you to express the divinity of the Father and the Son, than the dogs you brought forward as an example. Since, according to your own dogmas, the Father is prior and the Son is posterior: just as a living man is prior, and his image is posterior, and the one truly is a man because the definition of man fits him; but this latter one [the image] is not so properly, but by homonymy or similarity of name: since only the form is imprinted in colors, and yet the definition does not fit, as it does the prototype or first exemplar. If, therefore, you wish to adapt your example to the true dogma, just as you say that the homonymous dogs possess equal dignity, so also attribute to the Father and the Son, together with us, an equal dignity of natures in communion. But if you refuse this, you have destroyed your dogs, invented by you for the purpose of serving as witnesses to the inequality conjured by you. For it has been proven that they [the Father and the Son] are endowed with equal dignity of nature and are contemporary, but you teach that those who are altogether equal, the Father and the Son, I say, are unequal.

Indices on Joel appear at the end of the following volume.

ORDER OF SUBJECTS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

ISIDORUS METROPOLITAN OF THESSALONICA. Notice. 9 SERMONS. 14 SERMON FIRST. — On the Nativity of the B. Virgin Mary. Sermon II. — On the Presentation of the B. V. Mary. 39 Sermon III. — On the Annunciation of the same B. V. Mary. 71 Sermon IV. — On the Dormition of the B. Virgin Mary. 118

NICETAS MARONE. Hergenröther’s Monitum. 166 DIALOGUES ON THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 170 Proemium. 170 Dialogue first. 174 Dialogue second. 202 Dialogue third. 211 Dialogue fourth. 211 Dialogue fifth. 215 Dialogue sixth. 215

JOANNES CITRI. CANONICAL RESPONSES (mentioned only). 222

MARCUS PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES (mentioned). 222

JOEL CHRONOGRAPHER. Notice. 223 CHRONOGRAPHIA COMPENDIARIA. 225

NICETAS CHONIATES. Notice. 287 Epistola nuncupatoria. 302 Fabrot’s Brevarium. 310 HISTORY OF NICETAS. 319 ON THE DEEDS OF MANUEL COMNENUS, SEVEN BOOKS. 378 Book I. 378 Book II. 406 Book III. 438 Book IV. 466 Book V. 491 Book VI. 519 Book VII. 547 REIGN OF ALEXIUS COMNENUS. 574 REIGN OF ANDRONICUS COMNENUS BOOK I. 627 BOOK II OF THE SAME REIGN. 674 REIGN OF ISAAC ANGELUS, THREE BOOKS. 715 REIGN OF ISAAC ANGELUS TOGETHER WITH HIS SON ALEXIUS. 930 REIGN OF ALEXIUS SURNAME MURZUFLUS. 947 BOOK ON THE DEEDS AFTER THE CAPTURE OF THE CITY. 957 NARRATION ON THE STATUES WHICH THE FRANKS DESTROYED AFTER THE CAPTURE OF THE CITY. 1002 Chronology of Nicetas. 1058 Glossarium Fabroti. 1063

NICETAS THESAURUS ORTHODOXAE FIDEI. 1087 Epistola nuncupatoria. 1087 Monitum, Cardinal Angelo Mai. 1091 Index of books of which the Thesaurus orthodoxae fidei consists. 1094 BOOK FIRST. — On the errors of the ethnic philosophers and Jews. 1101 Proemium. 1101 Chapter I. — Synopsis of Mosaic Genesis, from Adam to Moses. 1004 Cap. II. — Origin of Greek mysteries and philosophical sects. 1106 Cap. III. — Plato on the causes of three things. 1106 Cap. IV. — The delusions of Pythagoras, the futile prater. 1106 Cap. V. — The gluttony of Epicurus’s honey-cakes. 1107

^A Cap. VI. — Moses more certain than the philosophers regarding the principles of material elements. From what element the first things were produced. 1107 Cap. VII. — Of ideas and of heaven. 1108 Cap. VIII. — Of the stars, sun and moon, or are they planets? The order, motion, and harmony of the planets. 1109 Cap. IX. — Of the time of the last judgment. Synod of the stars, deluges. 1109 Cap. X. — Of the magnitude and interval of the sun, moon, and earth. 1110 Cap. XI. — Of the eclipse of the sun and moon. 1110 Cap. XII. — Of the qualities of the sun, moon, and stars. 1111 Cap. XIII. — Of the course of the sun and moon, and the definition of the year. 1112 Cap. XIV. — The matter of the sun, moon, and stars, fire. 1112 Cap. XV. — Of the zodiac, the houses of the planets, and their elevations. 1112 Cap. XVI. — Of the ten figures of the moon. 1113 Cap. XVII. — Of the seven zones of the planets and their course, with an explanation of Psalm VIII. 1113 Cap. XVIII. — Of the tropical or solstitial point. 1113 Cap. XIX. — Signs, months, and prognostications. 1114 Cap. XX. — Of the motion of the stars and the rest concerning the moon. 1115 Cap. XXI. — Of the vacuum. 1116 Cap. XXII. — From which [element] the element was produced. 1116 Cap. XXIII. — Of comets and those lightnings which are called the darting stars. 1116 Cap. XXIV. — Of rain, snow, hail, and what is formed from vapor. 1117 Cap. XXV. — Of the rainbow, halo, parhelia, and halos [virgulae]. 1117 Cap. XXVI. — Christian and philosophical account of earthquakes. 1117 Cap. XXVII. — Of winds. 1118 Cap. XXVIII. — Of lightning, whirlwind, thunder, storm, etc. 1118 Cap. XXIX. — Of the resurrection of bodies and the immortality of souls. 1118 Cap. XXX. — Of the authors of Judaism. 1119 Cap. XXXI. — Of the cause of Jewish heresies and seditions. 1119 Cap. XXXII. — The division of the twelve tribes into two kingdoms under Rehoboam. 1119 Cap. XXXIII. — The captivity. Ezra is sent to Babylon into Samaria, which is uninhabitable for idolaters. 1120 Cap. XXXIV. — The heresy of the Samaritans. 1120 Cap. XXXV. — In what the four sects of the Samaritans agree, and in what they do not. 1120 Cap. XXXVI. — Of the Essenes in particular. 1121 Cap. XXXVII. — The division of the Jews into seven sects. 1122 Cap. XXXVIII. — Of the Sadducees. 1123 Cap. XXXIX. — Of the Scribes. 1123 Cap. XL. — Of the Pharisees. 1123 Cap. XLI. — Of the Hemerobaptists. 1124 Cap. XLII. — Of the Nazarenes. 1124 Cap. XLIII. — Of the Essenes, and the pseudo-prophet Elxai, and his brother Jezaeus with his sisters Martho and Marthana. 1124 Cap. XLIV. — Of the Herodians. 1124 Cap. XLV. — Epilogue of the first book. 1125

BOOK I. — Of the Holy Trinity, angels, and men.

Cap. I. — That the divinity is tri-hypostatic, that is, consists of three persons. 1125 Cap. II. — Why the mystery of the Trinity was made known through the ministry of the Word rather than through that of any man. 1127 Cap. III. — The incarnation of Christ is the most certain argument of divine providence toward us. 1127 Cap. IV. — Since the divinity is ineffable and incomprehensible, how does it happen that in Christ it is divided into Father, Son, and Spirit? 1128 Cap. V. — That it was fitting that the Son of God should also be called the son of man, and that it was impossible that he could be saved either by a human man or by an angel. 1128 Cap. VI. — Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite, from Chapter II: Of the unified and distinct theology, of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. 1129 Cap. VII. — Of Basil the Great, from the epistle to his brother Gregory, which is inscribed "On the difference between essence and hypostasis." 1130 Cap. VIII. — Of Gregory the Great, of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit: the ratio of the divinity, distinct yet combined. 1131 Cap. IX. — By the same, from the oration On the dogma and status of bishops. 1132 ^B Cap. X. — By the same, from the oration against the Arians and themselves. 1133 Cap. XI. — By Maximus, of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, the ratio of the divinity, distinct yet combined. 1134 Cap. XII. — Of Damascene, from the oration of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, the ratio of the divinity, distinct yet combined. 1133 Cap. XIII. — Of the same matter from various Fathers. 1138 Cap. XIV. — Of essence, nature, genus, species, and form; item, the equivalence of hypostasis, person, character, and individual. 1137 Cap. XV. — The difference between nature and hypostasis from Cyril, Dionysius the Areopagite, and the Alexandrian, Gregory Nazianzen, and Theodoret. 1137 Cap. XVI. — Item, by Dionysius the Areopagite, of God. 1140 Cap. XVII. — By Maximus, of God in general. 1143 Cap. XVIII. — By Gregory the Theologian, from the Great Apologetic Oration. 1144 Cap. XIX. — By Chrysostom, from the book that God cannot be comprehended. 1145 Cap. XX. — Certain catechetical questions. 1147 Cap. XXI. — Other theological considerations on the Trinity. 1148 Cap. XXII. — Demonstration from common notions that there is a God in the Trinity. 1149 Cap. XXIII. — Against those who say we believe in three Gods. 1150 Cap. XXIV. — Demonstration by which it is proven that God, because He has a Son by nature, also has sons by adoption. 1151 Cap. XXV. — Of the beginning. 1152 Cap. XXVI. — Of the Father. 1153 Cap. XXVII. — Of the Son. 1153 Cap. XXVIII. — Of the Holy Spirit and his charisms. 1158 Cap. XXIX. — Of the divine names. 1160 Cap. XXX. — Demonstration of the Trinity from the balance of a scale, and the double trinity of the seraphic wings, and the Trisagion. 1161 Cap. XXXI. — Exposition of the faith, which consists of all the preceding [chapters]. 1164 Cap. XXXII. — Faith revealed to St. Gregory, as if from the doctrine of the Mother of God and St. John. 1168 Cap. XXXIII. — Again, of the Holy Trinity. 1168 Cap. XXXIV. — Anacephaleosis of what preceded. The origin of paternity, filiation, and procession. 1171 Cap. XXXV. — Third part of the confession of faith of John Damascene concerning the Holy Spirit. 1173 Cap. XXXVI. — To contemplate in reality and in the mind. How are the common notions of all things discerned? How does one thing differ from another? How is person present in person? 1174 Cap. XXXVII. — By the same Damascene: Of those things which are said of God. 1176 Cap. XXXVIII. — By the same: Of divine conjunction and discretion. 1177 Cap. XXXIX. — By the same: Of those things which are said of God corporally. 1178 Cap. XL. — Of angels, the second part of this book. 1179 Cap. XLI. — Synopsis of the hierarchies, that angels are creatures, not creators, against the Sethians. 1181 Cap. XLII. — Of man. Division of essence. The difference between image and likeness in God. 1181 Cap. XLIII-XLIV. — The delusions of Origen. Parts of man and pristine qualities, spirit and flesh. 1182 Cap. XLV. — Of soul, mind, and incorporeal things. 1183 Cap. XLVI. — Of body, elements, and humors. 1183 Cap. XLVII. — What man has in common with inanimate things, brutes, and those capable of intelligence. 1184 Cap. XLVIII. — What things are proper to body and soul, and what are common to both. 1184 Cap. XLIX. — Division of the faculties of the soul. 1184 Cap. L. — More on body and soul. Of the immortality and nature of the soul, insofar as it is joined to the body. 1185 Cap. LI. — Item, concerning the ratio of the creation of the souls of angels and [human] souls. 1185 Cap. LII. — Item, concerning the soul. The triple affection of the soul makes also a triple man. 1185 Cap. LIII. — The opinions of certain Greek philosophers concerning the conjunction of soul and body. 1186 Cap. LIV. — What things are said to be "mixed," and how the soul is commingled with the body. 1186 Cap. LV. — Whether the soul is passible. 1187 Cap. LVI. — That the affections of the soul are gathered from its essence, not conversely. 1187 Cap. LVII. — Exposition of the Mosaic saying: "Let us make man in our image," etc.

^A Cap. LVIII. — That the soul is an idol of the body, and the body in turn an idol of the soul. 1188 Cap. LIX. — Of the transmigration of souls into other bodies. 1189 Cap. LX. — Of the luminous and tenebrous nature of the soul. 1189 Cap. LXI. — Various opinions of the heathens and Christians concerning the soul. 1190 Cap. LXII. — Of the immortality of the soul; what has pleased the heathens, and what the Christians. 1190 Cap. LXIII. — Concerning intelligence, and how it is in the soul and the mind. 1191 Cap. LXIV. — Of the mind and the soul, and the forms and differences of each. 1191 Cap. LXV. — Of the virtues and their triple order. 1192 Cap. LXVI. — Item, of the virtues and the six degrees of them. 1192 Cap. LXVII. — Of the virtues by which a man is made perfect. 1192 Cap. LXVIII. — Of the ends of those virtues. 1193 Cap. LXIX. — Of the virtues; how we are made like to God in various ways. 1193 Cap. LXX. — Item, of the soul. 1194 Cap. LXXI. — Of the insinuation of souls into bodies. 1194 Cap. LXXII. — By four examples it is demonstrated how souls are insinuated into bodies. 1194 Cap. LXXIII. — Of the departure of souls, especially of the holy, from bodies. 1195 Cap. LXXIV. — What our writers and external philosophers have thought concerning the formation of the body in the womb. 1195 Cap. LXXV. — How the embryo in the womb moves and coalesces. 1196 Cap. LXXVI. — Of the soul that shares in reason: how it is joined to the body, and presides over it. 1196 Cap. LXXVII. — Of the restoration of souls to the whole, which occurs by the ministry of the angels. 1197 Cap. LXXVIII. — Of the extreme judgment, by which souls become possessors of paradise, or are thrust down into the infernal regions. 1197 Cap. LXXIX. — Whether souls existed before bodies, and of what kind they were. 1198 Cap. LXXX. — Of idols, or specters and shadows appearing to those who wander. 1199 Cap. LXXXI. — Whether souls return with bodies to their original seats. 1199 Cap. LXXXII. — Of metempsychosis or transmigration of souls, according to Pythagoras. 1199

^B LIBER III. — Of the incarnation of the divine Word. 1199 Cap. I. — Testimonies of the prophets concerning the incarnation of the divine Word. 1199 Cap. II. — John of Damascus, on the conception of Christ and the assumption of the divine human flesh. 1203 Cap. III. — Of the same, on the two natures, against those who say that there is no nature in Christ. 1206 Cap. IV. — Of the enhypostaton, the heterohypostaton, and hypostasis. 1209 Cap. V. — Of the homoousios, or those things which are of the same substance. 1210 Cap. VI. — Of the homohypostatoi, that is, those things which are of the same hypostasis but are subsistent. 1210 Cap. VII. — Of difference and conjunction, and that it is threefold: essential, personal, and habitual. 1211 Cap. VIII. — Of the hypostatic or personal conjunction and difference. 1211 Cap. IX. — Of the schematic or habitual conjunction. 1211 Cap. X. — Of the Holy Trinity. How the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit differ, and in what they agree. 1212 Cap. XI. — Of the incarnation of the Word. 1212 Cap. XII. — Of essence, hypostasis, and person. 1212 Cap. XIII–XIV. — Ecclesiastical definition of nature. What led the Severians into error. 1213 Cap. XV. — What hypostasis, person, and character are in God. Hypostatic properties. 1213 Cap. XVI. — Synopsis of the mode of the mutual returning of natures. 1214 Cap. XVII. — Item, of nature and hypostasis. 1215 Cap. XVIII. — Of habit. 1216 Cap. XIX. — Of the will. What the will is, and of how many kinds it is said to be. 1216 Cap. XX. — What the property is, of what it is said, and in how many ways. 1217 Cap. XXI. — What an accident is. 1217 Cap. XXII. — Of the energy, or action. 1217 Cap. XXIII. — What conjunction is, and concerning what thing it is, and in how many ways it is said. 1218 Cap. XXIV. — What the homoousion, or consubstantial, is, and in how many ways it is said. 1218 Cap. XXV. — What innovation is, and how its knowledge is necessary. 1219 Cap. XXVI. — What is the corruptible, whence it is, and in how many ways it is said. 1219 Cap. XXVII. — Of free choice. 1220 Cap. XXVIII. — Blessed Dionysius the Areopagite: De Divina Incarnatione. 1221 Cap. XXIX. — Of Saint Gregory, from an oration on the Nativity of the Lord. 1222 Cap. XXX. — Of Nyssenus on the divine incarnation. 1224 Cap. XXXI. — Of Maximus, on the divine incarnation. 1226 Cap. XXXII. — Of John of Damascus. 1227 Cap. XXXIII. — Of the same, on the mode of the mutual retribution of properties. 1228 Cap. XXXIV. — Of the same. That the whole divine nature was joined to the whole human nature in one of its persons, and not a part to a part. 1229 Cap. XXXV. — Of the same. Of the one composite person of the Word of God. 1231 Cap. XXXVI. — Of the same. Of nature considered in kind and in the individual, and of the difference between conjunction and incarnation. 1232 Cap. XXXVII. — Of the same. Of natural and blameless affections. 1232 Cap. XXXVIII. — Other things concerning the divine incarnation. 1233 Cap. XXXIX. — Other things concerning the incarnation of the Son of God. 1237 Cap. XL. — Refutation of the preceding heresies. 1238 Cap. XLI. — Why Christ became man. The resurrection, judgment. Various orders of the blessed and the damned. 1239

LIBER IV. — Against the forty-four Antiarian heresies. 1241 Proemium. — Of Christ and the ministers of Satan. 1241 1448 Cap. I. — The first heresy, of Simon Magus and his refutation. 1241 Cap. II. — The second heresy, of the Nicolaitans, who are also baptized, and the Gnostics. 1245 Cap. III. — The third heresy, of the Carpocratians. These are baptized. 1247 Cap. IV. — The fourth heresy, of Valentinus. Those from this sect who repent are baptized. 1248 Cap. V. — The fifth heresy, of Ptolemy. Those from this sect who proceed to the orthodox are baptized. 1254 Cap. VI. — The sixth heresy, of Marcus, at whose heresy those who repent are baptized. 1256 Cap. VII. — The seventh heresy, of the Ascodrugites, or Ascodrungitae. 1258 Cap. VIII. — The eighth heresy, of the Colobarsi. 1261 Cap. IX. — The ninth heresy, of the Ophites. These are baptized. 1262 Cap. X. — The tenth heresy, of Prodicus and the Adamites. 1267 Cap. XI. — The eleventh heresy, of the Cainites. 1269 Cap. XII. — The twelfth heresy, of the Sethians. These are baptized. 1271 Cap. XIII. — The thirteenth heresy, of the Archontics or Principalities. These are baptized. 1273 Cap. XIV. — The fourteenth heresy, of Cerdo and Marcion. These are baptized. 1274 Cap. XV. — The fifteenth heresy, of Lucian. He is baptized, as also are they, if they repent. 1279 Cap. XVI. — The sixteenth heresy, of Apelles. They also are baptized. 1280 Cap. XVII. — The seventeenth heresy, of the Severians. These also are received into baptism. 1281 Cap. XVIII. — The eighteenth heresy, of Tatian. They are baptized. 1283 Cap. XIX. — The nineteenth heresy, of the Encratites, or those of Continency. These are baptized. 1283 Cap. XX. — The twentieth heresy, of the Cataphrygians, who are also called Montanists. They are baptized. 1284 Cap. XXI. — The twenty-first heresy, of the Quintilians, Priscillianists, Pepuzians, and Artotyrites. These are baptized. 1285 Cap. XXII. — The twenty-second heresy, of the Tessaredecatitai, or Quartodecimans. These are anointed with ointment. 1286 Cap. XXIII. — The twenty-third heresy, of the Alogians, or those denying the Word of God. They are anointed. 1288 Cap. XXIV. — The twenty-fourth heresy, of the Adamites. They are anointed. 1290 Cap. XXV. — The twenty-fifth heresy, of the Sampsaeans, who are also the Elcesaites. These are baptized. 1291 Cap. XXVI. — The twenty-sixth heresy, of the Theodotians. These are baptized. 1294 Cap. XXVII. — The twenty-seventh heresy, of Noetus and Novatus. They are anointed. 1295 Cap. XXVIII. — The twenty-eighth heresy, of Sabellius. They are baptized, or anointed. 1298

^A Cap. XXIX. — The twenty-ninth heresy, that of Marcellus. They are baptized. 1299 Cap. XXX. — The thirtieth heresy, of the Valentians. 1300 Cap. XXXI. — The thirty-first heresy, of Origen. They are anointed. 1301 Cap. XXXII. — The thirty-second heresy, of Paul of Samosata. They are anointed. 1313 Cap. XXXIII. — The thirty-third heresy, of the Manichaeans and Cubrici. They are baptized. 1315 Cap. XXXIV. — The thirty-fourth heresy, of the Hieracites. They are anointed. 1323 Cap. XXXV. — The thirty-fifth heresy, of the Collyridians. They are anointed. 1328 Cap. XXXVI. — The thirty-sixth heresy, of the Massalians. They are anointed. 1329 Cap. XXXVII. — The thirty-seventh heresy, of the Cerinthians. 1339 Cap. XXXVIII. — The thirty-eighth heresy, of the Ecetians. They are anointed. 1340 Cap. XXXIX. — The thirty-ninth heresy, of the Gnosimachi. They are anointed. 1341 Cap. XL. — The fortieth heresy, of the Thnetopsychitae, who deny the immortality of the soul. 1341 Cap. XLI. — The forty-first heresy, of the Christolytae, who destroy the nature of Christ. 1342 Cap. XLII. — The forty-second heresy, of the Ethnophrones, that is, of those who embrace pagan superstitions. 1343 Cap. XLIII. — The forty-third heresy, of the Parermeneutae, who interpret the Scriptures perversely. 1356 Cap. XLIV. — The forty-fourth heresy, of the Melitians. 1356

BOOK V. — Against the Arians, Eunomians, etc.

^C that is, as soon as the Father existed, the Begotten was to Him. 1408 Cap. XLVII. — Another sophisticated objection of Eunomius against the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. 1409 Cap. XLVIII. — The origin of Eunomius’s error, repeated more profoundly from Aristotle: namely, from that which is said with the addition of place and simply. 1411 Cap. XLIX. — The captious nature of the argumentation derived from that which is said with the addition of place and simply, explained, together with the various modes it assumes. 1412 Cap. L. — In how many ways the word "the same" is understood, according to Aristotle, whence it is evident that identity ought not be used indiscriminately. 1414 Cap. LI. — That the Father and the Son have the same and immutable essence, but different adjuncts of essence, from the Blessed Nazianzen. 1415 Cap. LII. — What difference there may be between God and the unbegotten. Four classes of opposites being proposed, that the unbegotten is opposed to the begotten by way of privation. 1416 Cap. LIII. — Many things by the same Choniates against this problem of the Anomoeans: "There was a time when the Father was not." 1417 Cap. LIV. — The assertions of the holy Fathers against the heresy of Eunomius, which blasphemes that God the Father was not always. 1418 Cap. LV. — Of the great Athanasius against this: "The Son was not always." 1420 Cap. LVI. — Of the great Basil, that the Son was neither a creature nor a figment. 1423 Cap. LVII. — Of the great Athanasius against those who introduce the *homoousion*. 1428 ^D Cap. LVIII. — From the oration of the great Gregory the Theologian on the incomprehensible generation of the Son and of God. 1428 Cap. LIX. — That the essence, nature, and appellation of God are one, from the great Gregory the Theologian against those who say that the Word of God, the Son of God, is homonymous. From the first oration on the Son. 1429 Cap. LX. — That the Son is truly God, from the same oration of the Blessed Gregory the Theologian. 1430 Cap. LXI. — Explanation of this Scriptural passage: "As the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given," etc., from the second oration of the Theologian on the Son. 1432 Cap. LXII. — Of the great Gregory the Theologian: On the mission of the Son from the Father. 1433 Cap. LXIII. — From the same oration of the Blessed Gregory, an explanation of this Scriptural passage: "God shall be all in all." 1435 Cap. LXIV. — Concerning that the Son can do nothing from Himself. From the same oration of the Blessed Gregory. 1435 Cap. LXV. — On that: "I came down from heaven, not to do my own will"; from the same oration of the Blessed Gregory. 1437 Cap. LXVI. — From the same oration of the Blessed Nazianzen, on that: "That they may know thee, the only true God." 1438 Cap. LXVII. — On that: "Always living to make intercession for us," from the same oration. 1439 Cap. LXVIII. — From the writings of St. Cyril on the progress or increase of Christ. 1439 Can. LXIX. — And these things are to be annexed to the previous ones for the confutation of the Anomoeans: Whether the Father begat the Son who was already existing. 1440 Cap. LXX. — Epilogue of the entire heresy of the Arians and Eunomians. 1442

THE END OF THE ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINTH VOLUME.