On Heresies

this work *On Heresies* to be cited as John of Damascus's, and mentions of heresies 88, 96, 97, 98, 100, and 103 occurring in it first. Nor does it create difficulty that, for example, heresy 75, which is that of Aerius, is spoken of regarding this heretic: *ἔτι δεῦρο πειρασμός ἐστι* (or *περίεστι*) *τῷ βίῳ οὗτος* ("this is still a temptation in the life of man"); since Aerius lived at the end of the fourth century. For Damascus did not compose a new Epitome *On Heresies*, but transcribed the entire Synopsis, or *Anacephalaeosis*, of Epiphanius, as it lay in his books, with the addition of the account of the twenty or twenty-four subsequent sects; which he compiled not only from the books of Theodoret, Timothy the Presbyter of Constantinople, and Sophronius—as Lambecius signifies to be indicated in another Caesarean codex—but also from Leontius of Byzantium, as will be noted in its proper place. Those things which are held by the Mohammedans are to be attributed to no other than our author. In many codices, and in the ancient Latin translation which the Cologne edition exhibits, only one hundred heresies are recounted, of which the last is the Mohammedan; but I have no doubt that three or four others were subsequently added by our John: of which fact that very ancient codex of the Ascetics of the Caesarean library provides proof. Nor was it fitting that he should entirely omit the heresy of the Iconoclasts, which he himself had fought, and which in his age both the Eastern and Western Churches had proscribed. And yet, we observe that John of Damascus revised his books many times. Besides the ancient Latin translation, which nothing prevents us from attributing to Burgundio the Pisan, Perionius the Benedictine monk prepared another, from a codex I have already often praised which was once that of Saint Hilary of Poitiers. But because in this codex many things are omitted which pertain to the sect of the Ishmaelites, Fronto Ducæus supplemented them, both in Greek and in Latin, at the end of the latest Paris edition, with the aid of the Augustan codex. This same work appeared in Greek and Latin, multiply augmented from the Royal codex (formerly no. 2339, now 2508), in the first volume of the *Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae*, translated by the most learned John Cotelier. Finally, in this present edition, it will obtain the place set for it by the author, corrected against the Royal manuscripts 3244 and 2830, and the codex of St. Hilary and the Augustan one, which Cotelier did not consult, with added annotations, by which it will be more certainly established concerning the errors of the principal heresies, whether from the sincere monuments of the sectaries themselves that still survive, or from approved writers of that age.

ON HERESIES COMPENDIUM: WHENCE THEY AROSE AND HOW THEY ORIGINATED.

76 The parents and original four of all heresies, or sects, are: 1. Barbarism, 2. Scythism, 3. Hellenism, 4. Judaism; from which all others have drawn their origin.

1. Barbarism, which alone persisted from the days of Adam until the tenth generation, or the times of Noe. This is called Barbarism because the men of that age had neither a certain...

leader, nor were they in agreement among themselves; but each one, as it seemed right to him, would frame his life, and each proposed his own whim and will as his law. ^A

2. Scythismus (Scythism): from the days of Noe, and thenceforth until the construction of the tower and of Babylon, and for some few years after the tower was founded, it prevailed; that is to say, until Phalec and Ragau, who, declining toward the parts of Europe, were assigned, from the age of Thiras (from whom the Thracians have their origin) and beyond, to the part of Scythia and its nations. ^B

3. Hellenismus (Hellenism): started from the times of Serug, and as each one at that time swayed toward superstition, they drifted—in a more civic manner, as it were—toward the nations and institutions of idols; for the races of men began to order themselves according to the things they followed, making gods of those whom they honored, and by means of colors depicting the beginning and representing those who were then honored among them—whether tyrants, or sorcerers, or some who had done in life something esteemed worthy of memory for their strength or for bodily vigor. Afterward, from the times of Thare, the father of Abraham, who introduced idolatry, they set up images and statues and brought in the practice of idol worship. For they honored the souls of their ancestors and others who had already departed from the living with images; first they fashioned statues by the potter’s art, and then industry reached every art of imitation. For indeed, architects fashioned stones, and silversmiths and goldsmiths [worked] from their own materials, and likewise carpenters and those who followed. ^C The Egyptians, all at once, and the Babylonians, and the Phrygians and Phoenicians, became the first introducers of this religion, with image-making and mysteries; from whom these things were first brought over to the Greeks from the age of Cecrops, and thenceforth. Afterward, and much later, they proclaimed as gods those around [the time of] Chronos and Ares, and Zeus and Apollo, and those who followed them. ^D

^A *Hellenes, that is Greeks, derived the name from a certain Helen, who, living in Greece, bestowed the appellation upon that region. There are some who wish them to be called so from the olive tree that grew at Athens. The founders of this race were the Iones, who, as is clear from more accurate history, derived their name from Jouan or Javan, one of those who built the tower, when the languages of all were divided; for which reason all are called Meropes because of the divided speech. Afterward, and in a more recent age, Hellenism passed into certain sects, such as those of the Pythagoreans, Stoics, Platonists, and Epicureans. The character of true piety, however, together with natural law, flourished from the very beginning of the world, separating itself from these nations, and remaining between the Scythian barbarism and the Greek ^B superstition, until it coalesced with the piety and religion of Abraham.

4. But Judaism, truly, taking its character of circumcision from the times of Abraham, and being written down by the law given by God through Moses, who was the seventh from Abraham; and from Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, who was called Israel; and through David, who first obtained the kingdom from that same tribe of Judah, it finally received the name of Judaism. Concerning these four sects, the Apostle spoke briefly and openly, when he said: In Christ Jesus there is no Barbarian, nor Scy- ^C tha, nor Greek, nor Jew; but a new creature.

Varieties of the Greeks.

5. Pythagoreans, or Peripatetics: Pythagoras sanctioned the monad, and providence, and forbade the sacrificing to gods, and the eating of animate things, and the use of wine. He distributed things into two classes: those that are from the moon and up-

- ^A wards he called immortal; those below, mortal. He taught the transmigration of souls from bodies into bodies, even those of animals and beasts. He taught them to practice silence for five years; and finally he claimed that he himself was God.

6. The Platonists [held] that God, and matter, and form, and the world itself had a beginning and were subject to destruction; but the soul they considered unbegotten, immortal, and divine. They held that it has three parts: the rational, the irascible, and the concupiscible; and they willed that women should be common to all, and that no man should have one wife of his own, but that those who wished might be with those who desired it. They likewise affirmed the transmigration of souls into bodies, even those of beasts. And at the same time they taught that many gods were produced from the One. ^B

7. The Stoics define the entirety as a body, and consider this perceptible world to be God. Some have asserted that it has its nature from the substance of fire. They define God as mind, as also the soul of all that exists, [the world] itself being the body of heaven and earth; its body, as I said, is the whole universe, and the stars are its eyes. They maintain that the flesh of all things perishes, and that the soul is transmuted from body into body. ^C

8. The Epicureans posited that atoms and indivisible bodies, homogeneous and infinite, were the first principle of all things, and they taught that pleasure is the end of happiness, and that neither God nor providence governs human affairs.

9. Samaritanism, and those who originate from it, the Samaritans. This sect is from the Jews, existing before heresies had been established among the Greeks and before their own dogmas were formed; but later, [while preserving] the religion of the Greeks, it became a middle ground between it and Judaism, ^D taking as its pretext the times of Nebuchadnezzar and the captivity; and being settlers brought from other lands into Judea, and taking the...

Pentateuch of Moses, which the king sent to them from Babylon by the priest called Ezra, they have everything in common with the Jews, except for this one thing: that they abominate foreigners, and avoid touching them, ^A and reject the resurrection of the dead, and the other prophecies following Moses.

Four Factions of the Samaritans

10. The Gortheni, who celebrate their festivals at other times than the Sebuaei.

11. The Sebuaei, who disagree with the Gortheni for the same reason regarding the festivals.

12. The Esseni, who do not oppose either party, but celebrate their festivals indifferently with whomever they happen to be.

13. The Dositheni, who live by the same customs as the Samaritans, making use of circumcision and other things, and following the Pentateuch; but they are more rigorous than the others in abstaining from living things, ^B and they live very contiguously in fasts. Some of them also practice virginity, while others practice continence. Nor are there wanting some among them who believe in the resurrection of the dead, which is foreign to the Samaritan doctrine.

Seven Heresies, or Sects, of the Jews

14. The Scribes, who were legalists and masters of the traditions which they received from their elders (that is, the oral interpretations of the second law). They observed all the rites instituted by their ancestors more superstitiously and diligently than the others; which indeed they had not learned from the Law, but had decreed for themselves ^C as worship and justifications outside of the legislation.

15. The Pharisees, being interpreted as "the separated"; who lived most strictly, and appeared to excel the others in righteousness, by whom the resurrection of the dead is also held, which the Scribes also [affirm], and that concerning angels and the Spirit.

^A They were addicted to various observances: they determined a certain time for continence, and also for virginity; they fasted twice in the week; they washed and cleaned pots, disks, and cups frequently, as the Scribes were wont to do. To these things they added tithes, and first-fruits, and constant prayers, and superstitious forms of dress—such as the cloak, and the dalmatics, that is to say tunics, and the widening of the phylacteries, which are the purple insignia, and hems, and pomegranates upon the wings of the cloak; these were, in their view, signs of a time of continence. They also introduced fate and destiny.

16. The Sadducees ^B (8), being interpreted "the most righteous," were of the stock of the Samaritans, and had their beginning from a certain priest by the name of Sadoc; they deny the resurrection of the dead, and do not accept either angel or spirit—yet in all other respects they are Jews.

17. The Hemerobaptists (9) were in all things Jews. They used to say that no one could attain eternal life unless he were baptized every day.

18. The Essenes (10), who are interpreted as "the most stubborn." ^C These were men who performed all things according to the law. They used other scriptures after the law; but the majority of the later prophets they rejected.

19. The Nassaraeans, interpreted as "the rebellious," forbid every form of flesh-eating; and they do not partake of living things at all. Up to Moses and ^D

^A the patriarchs whose mention is made in the Pentateuch up to the times of Moses and Joshua, they receive the holy names, and put their trust in them: such as are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and those superior to them, as well as Moses himself with Aaron and Joshua. But they do not believe those five volumes are Moses', and they boast that other volumes, different from these, are kept among them.

20. The Herodians ^B were Jews in all respects, but they awaited Christ, and to Him they attributed the dignity and name of Christ.

Thus far the first volume, containing the refutation of all these twenty heresies, in which there is also an account of the coming of Christ.

21. The Simonians, ^C who take their name from Simon Magus, who lived in the times of the Apostle Peter, originated from the village of Gitta in Samaria. He came from the Samaritans, and took upon himself the name of a Christian in name only. He taught an unspeakable obscenity and the most unclean practice of indiscriminate sexual union. He rejected the resurrection of the body, and did not believe that the world was fashioned by God. Furthermore, he thrust upon his disciples for their adoration an image of himself and his prostitute, whom he named Helen, under the likeness of Zeus and Athena. Among the Samaritans, he proclaimed himself to be the Father, but to the Jews he proclaimed himself to be Christ.

22. The Menandrians, who took their name from a certain Menander, a disciple of Simon, differed from the Simonians in certain respects. They claimed that the world was brought into being by angels.

23. The Saturnilians in Syria embraced ^D the obscenity of the Simonians. They added some things to their dogmas to create greater wonder. Their leader was Saturnilus. Like Menander, they said that the world was fashioned by angels; and that seven of them alone labored at this, against the will and purpose of the supreme parent.

24. The Basilidians, followers of the same obscenity.

They recognize Basilides as their teacher, who was also a disciple of Saturninus, along with those of Simon and Menander; and although he thinks almost the same things, he differs in certain respects. He says, in fact, that there are ^A 365 heavens, and he assigns angelic names to these. Wherefore he also considers the year to consist of as many days; and that the name 'Abrasa' represents the sum of 365; and he says that this is a holy name.

25. The Nicolaitans ^B take their name from that Nicolas who was appointed by the apostles to the necessities of the ministry, who, through jealousy on account of his own wife, taught his disciples to practice impure lust along with others, and introduced the names of Caulacauch, of Prunicus, and other barbaric names into the world.

26. The Gnostics ^B are the successors of these heresies.

^A who surpassed all in lewdness and the frenzy and madness of execrable filth. Furthermore, those in Egypt are called Stratiotici or "the Military," and Phibionitæ; in the higher regions they are called Socratitæ; in other parts, Zacchæi. There are some who call them Choddiani, and others still, Borboritae. These brag about Barbelo and Bero.

27. Carpocratians, a sect named after a certain Carpocrates of Asia, who trained his disciples in every kind of turpitude and flagitiousness. And unless one, he used to say, has run through everything, and has satisfied the will of all demons and angels, he cannot be raised up to the highest heaven, nor pass beyond the Principalities and Powers. He asserted also that Jesus had taken a soul endowed with intellect; that because he knew the things above, he proclaimed them to men; and if anyone does the same things that Jesus did, he would be his equal. Finally, he rejected the Law, along with the resurrection of the dead, just as the Simonians did, and all the others I have recounted. Through his group, that Marcellina was in Rome. He also secretly fashioned images of Jesus, and Paul, and Homer, and Pythagoras, offering them incense and adoration. ^B

28. Cerinthians, who are also called Merinthians; these were followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus; they were men of the Jewish race, who took pride in circumcision. They said that the world was created by angels; and they said that Jesus had been called Christ by a progress in virtue. ^C

VARIÆ LECTIONES.

NOTÆ.

Carpocratiani many things were done. This heresy became known at Rome under Pope Anicetus and Emperor Hadrian; from whom they were also called Marcelliani, as Origen relates in that location. Clement of Alexandria writes in book 3 of the *Stromata* that Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates, when he died in Cephalenia at the age of seventeen, obtained divine honors there.

(18) Epiphanius in the *Panarion* and Philastrius write that Cerinthus was the author of various tumults, which are read about in the Acts of the Apostles. If that is true, he must have lived to a very advanced age. For he survived John the Evangelist; since Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, *Hist.* bk. III, ch. 28, testifies that from the book of Revelation he confirmed the fable of the millennial kingdom of Christ. However, it is certain from Irenaeus that the Nicolaitans emerged much earlier than he, and held almost the same views. Thus he said that Jesus was the son of the Creator of the world, that is, a mere man born of Joseph and Mary, into whom Christ descended in the form of a dove from that primacy which is over all things, and remained until the passion. For to the Gnostics, Christ did not differ at all from the Holy Spirit. He had mutilated the Gospel of Matthew in the part where it is said that Jesus was born of a Virgin. Although the Law was given by the Creator, he ordered it to be observed, and said that it was all to be observed sometime in the earthly kingdom of Christ. Hence he was always hostile towards the Apostle Paul. ^D

30 The Ebionites ^B are close to those previously mentioned, the Cerinthians and Nazarenes; but the heresy of the Sampsaeans and Elcesaites is connected to them in some way. They say that Christ was created in heaven, and likewise the Holy Spirit; and they say that Christ dwelt in Adam, and that from time to time he would divest himself of Adam and clothe himself again with him. They say he did the same thing in his incarnate appearing. Though Jews, they use the Gospels. They abhor the eating of flesh. They venerate water in the place of God. And as I said, they say that in his incarnate appearing, Christ clothed himself with a man. They are constantly baptized in water, both in summer and winter, for the sake of purification, as it were, just like the Samaritans. 31 The Valentinians 29 reject the resurrection of the flesh. ^C

VARIATIONS IN READING I read it thus from Epiphanius and from the old interpreter who placed "and again, according to time, divesting himself of the same Adam, and clothing himself again." ^D

NOTES (19) The Prisci of the Jewish Christians were called Nazarenes; because the Lord Jesus was a Nazarene. Since they followed the ceremonies of the Law before the destruction of Jerusalem, with the apostles conceding it, their descendants who lived beyond the Jordan retained their ancient customs, and especially circumcision; for they were from the seed of Abraham and kinsmen of the Lord according to the flesh. Jerome teaches us that they rejected the traditions of the Scribes and were well-disposed toward the Apostle Paul and other Christians of the Gentiles in his commentary on the first words of chapter ix of Isaiah: "The Nazarenes," he says, "attempt to explain this passage as follows: With the advent of Christ and his shining preaching, the first land of Zabulon and the land of Nephtalim was liberated from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees, and shook off the most heavy yoke of the Jewish traditions." Later, however, through the Gospel of the Apostle Paul—who was the last of all the apostles—the preaching was made heavy, that is, multiplied, and the Gospel of Christ shone into the borders of the Gentiles and the way of the entire sea. Then all of the city that before was walking or sitting in darkness and was held in the chains of idolatry and death, beheld the clear light of the Gospels. Epiphanius doubted whether they thought Christ was a mere man, like the Ebionites, or born of the Virgin; Jerome, however, imposes no other fault upon them except that, while they believed in Christ, they nevertheless held to the ceremonies of the Law. "To this day," he says, "throughout all the synagogues of the East, there is a heresy of the Minæans (which the Rabbis call [Hebrew script: וזאנימ]) and it is condemned by the Pharisees even now, whom they commonly call Nazarenes." They who believe in Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, say that he is the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again, in whom we also believe—following the simpler profession of the ancient Christians; which they kept among themselves: to believe in Christ the Son of God was the same as believing Christ to be the true God: whence he added, "in whom we also believe." And this is so, principally because, as we were just reading, the Nazarenes praised the faith of the Gentiles, by whom Christ was worshipped as the true God. But another of their interpretations, which Jerome reports on these words of Isaiah, chapter viii, 13, persuades us of this even more: "Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and he shall be your sanctification; and for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence" for the two houses of Israel. These things, which are proclaimed concerning the supreme [Hebrew script: אָבָא יְהוָה], the Lord of hosts, were interpreted by the Nazarenes concerning the Lord Jesus. "We say," he says, "that the Nazarenes, who receive Christ in such a way that they do not lose the observations of the Law, interpret the two families, Shammai and Hillel, from whom the Scribes and the Pharisees arose... the former of whom is interpreted as 'scatterer,' the latter as 'profane'; for they have scattered and stained the precepts of the Law through their traditions and [Greek: δευτερώσεις]: and these are the two houses which did not receive the Savior, who was made into a ruin and a scandal." From these things it is proven that Theodoret imputed to the Nazarenes the errors proper to the Ebionites. Thus he adds that they read the Gospel of Peter: a thing which Epiphanius attributes only to the Ebionites. Whence neither Justin, nor Irenaeus, nor Origen are to be considered as having refuted the Nazarenes, except where they argued against the Ebionites on account of the ceremonies of the Law. The Nazarenes read the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which is most complete, says Epiphanius (hær. 28 and 30), while the Ebionites read a mutilated one, with those parts removed in which the series of Christ's ancestors and the account of his birth from the Virgin are told. Origen, lib. 11 cont. Cels., says that the former Christians were called Ebionites on account of their zeal for poverty; and likewise that some of the Ebionites said that Christ was born of the Virgin, while others said he was born of Joseph and Mary. They performed their mysteries every year at Passover with unleavened bread, and simple water. They celebrated the Lord's day in addition to the Sabbath. [(20) see facsimile]

BOOK ON HERESIES.

They reject the Old Testament; however, they read the prophets and all other things that can be accommodated to their heresy by figure and trope, and these they accept. They have added certain other fables, mentioning the names of thirty æons and at the same time those produced by the Father of all as male-female, whom they consider to be gods and æons. Finally, they say that Christ brought his body from heaven and passed through Mary as through a pipe.

^A 32. The Secundians [(21)], and their associates Epiphanes and Isidorus, admitting the same syzygies of æons, agree with Valentinus; yet they have taught that various obscenities are to be practiced in explaining and recounting them. Even they themselves reject the flesh.

^B 33. The Ptolemaeans, being themselves disciples of Valentinus, to whom is joined Flora; and these too say the same things regarding the syzygies, while others add and invent new things. They do not hold the resurrection of the flesh. They also reject the flesh.

NOTE

... determined outside of God, which Valentinus had included in the very sum of divinity, as sense and affection and motion. He deduced from Heracleon through the branches, and Secundus, and Marcus. Soon he adds: Thus Valentinus nowhere, yet the Valentinians, who through Valentinus. Only to the present day at Antioch does the memory of Valentinus, in its intact preservation, console his followers. Indeed, from the Epitome of Eastern Theology, which exists in Greek after the works of Clement of Alexandria, it appears that Valentinus signified by the name *pleroma*, or the collection of æons, the identification of identity. Wherefore Origen, in *John*, says that according to the Valentinians the Word is nothing except an emanation of the Father, which neither has subsistence, nor possesses substance, nor [ύπόστασιν], nor essence. So Athanasius, *epist. ad Epict.*, Valentinus regarding the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit felt the same as Noetus and Sabellius. Having obtained the seed of the old error, he fabulated the thirtieth Æon, Wisdom or Sophia, to have wandered outside the pleroma, and through [ἐνθύμησιν], a certain unformed conception, to have composed matter and angels, and especially to have produced the fabricator of the world, who was the image of the Only-Begotten, [μονογενοῦς], nay rather of the Father. He, because he was [ψυχικός], animal, was only that, not spiritual, and since he could not know the unsearchable Father, sold himself as God and handed down the law to Moses. He narrates the formation of man thus: The fabricator of the world, having taken the dust of the earth, fashioned it not indeed of dry matter, but of multiform matter, a terrestrial, material, rational part, and from the substance of the brutes, implanted it into him. This then itself is the man made to the image [δὲ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ αὐτοῦ δημιουργοῦ]. And he is according to the likeness of the same fabricator, he breathed into him and inserted something... by which he injected some part of his substance. "For man is in man, the psychic in the earthy, not in part, but whole in whole being together." Man therefore is in man, animal in the earthy man, not as part with part, but as whole with whole. [Ἔσχε δὲ ὁ Ἀδάμ] Adam had indeed implanted in him by Sophia the spiritual seed into the soul. Adam, moreover, had the spiritual seed, which Sophia secretly sowed in him. See that Trinity of kinds, that, as I speak with Tertullian, of which it has been said in Gnosticism. Furthermore, he used to say that the first parents and the fourth were in the third heaven, that is in paradise, led down on account of sin, thence to the earth ^C to have been cast down, with flesh added to their bodies, which Scripture signified by leather tunics. Wherefore there would be no resurrection of the flesh, but only the body would rise. He then placed a double Jesus among the Nicolaitans and Cerinthus; one who had been sent by the Æons to call Sophia back to the pleroma, and who was the same as the second conjugation, [νοῦς καὶ ἀλήθεια], intellect and truth, and also the spirit of knowledge and the spirit of love, who in the pleroma is called [μονογενής], unigenitus, among created things [πρωτότοκος], primogenitus; so that finally he might come forth full of æons for the sake of consoling and bringing back Sophia, [Παράκλητος], Paraclete, consolator, and [Σωτήρ], Salvator: another again, a man Jesus, procreated by the fabricator, in whom the supernal Jesus rested, and who was named Christ by the Christ inhabiting in him, that is, by that second conjugation, which is called [λόγος καὶ ζωή], word and life. This Jesus withdrew from the man Jesus, that his death might dominate the body, which could by no means happen while life and the Saviour were present. Theodotus, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others report that the Valentinians said these things. Moreover, the body of the man Jesus, since it was of animal substance, as being a formation in the heavens by the fabricator, passed through Mary as through a canal; but nevertheless in a singular way suffered. They admitted fate, whose ministers were invisible powers, mutually contrary to each other, to whom the fabricator of the stars had committed the motions: but truly no fate has power over those who have received baptism. Jerome in chapter 1 of *Epist. ad Ephes.* says that Valentinus contended for two baptisms, and does not explain.

(21) Epiphanes, and Isidorus, they clung to their own parents, not the second disciple of Valentinus. Epiphanes was already dead when Secundus, or the follower of Ptolemaeus, increased the dogmas with new inventions. Tertullian, lib. *Cont. Valentin.* c. 4, places Secundus after Heracleon and Ptolemaeus. But he says that Ptolemaeus invented as many substances in God as Valentinus did æons. But, as Irenaeus testifies lib. 1, c. 6, he added to the first æon [βυθῷ], to the abyss, two as it were spouses, [ἔννοιαν], or [Ἐννοίαν], perception, and [θέλησιν], will, so that God first thought to emit other æons from himself, then did it by will, and not therefore, as Irenaeus observes, was he [μονογενής], Unigenitus, coeval with the Father.

^A And with him is joined Flora. These also assert the same things concerning the syzygies, or conjunctions, as do the Valentinians and Secundians; yet in some points they differ from them.

And this is the recapitulation of the thirteen heresies of the first book of the second volume.

What follows are the 13 heresies, which are to be found in this third volume.

34. Marcosians. ^B Marcus, who was a fellow-student of Colorbasus, introduced two principles himself. He denies the resurrection of the dead. He used certain deceptions, so that by certain incantations he would turn the liquid in cups to a deep blue or purple color, by which sacred rites he initiated the gullible women. He also wishes for all things to depend on twenty-four elements, just as Valentinus does.

35. Colorbasians. ^C This Colorbasus, while relating the same things, differs in some respects from other heresies—namely, from those of the school of Marcus and Valentinus; for he taught the emanations of the æons and the ogdoads in a different way.

36. Heracleonites. ^D These also appear to follow the mythology of the ogdoads, in a way different from Marcus, Ptolemy, Valentinus, and the others. But also, toward the end, they redeem those who are dying among them in the same manner as Marcus, by pouring oil, opobalsam, and water onto the head, whispering certain invocations in Hebrew words over the head of the one being redeemed.

37. Ophites reverence the serpent, and think it is Christ. Moreover, they keep a natural serpent, or the reptile which they worship, in a certain chest.

^A 38. Caiani. These people hold the same views as the sects that reject the law and deny the author of the law. They disapprove of the resurrection of the flesh. They commend Cain, asserting that he was of some more powerful virtue. They also accord divine honors unto Judas, and likewise to Core, and Dathan, and Abiron, and the Sodomites.

39. Sethiani. These, in turn, strangely praise Seth, saying that he was produced from the repentance of the supernal parent because she had brought forth Cain. Later, when Cain was rejected and Abel was slain, they say that she consorted with the supernal Father and produced the pure seed, Seth, from whom the whole human race has since been propagated. Finally, they posit principalities, and powers, and everything else, just as the others do.

40. Archontici. These again attribute the whole of things to many rulers ^B and preach that all things that have been made originated from them. They are found to exist in baseness, and they deny the resurrection of the flesh and reject the Old Testament. They use, however, both the Old and New Testaments, twisting every single word to fit their own mind.

41. Cerdoniani. They are from Cerdo, who, when Heracleon had taken over the succession of the error, added to the deceit with new inventions. Having departed from Syria for Rome, he disseminated his dogmas during the times of Bishop Hyginus. Furthermore, he asserts that there are two mutually contrary principles; he denies that Christ was truly born. Likewise, he denies the resurrection of the dead and rejects the Old Testament.

42. Marcionista. Marcio, having originated from Pontus ^C, son of a bishop; having seduced a virgin, he fled because he had been excommunicated by ^D [the church].

^A Having gone up to Rome, and having asked for penance from those who were leaders of the Church at that time, and not obtaining it, he was emboldened against the faith, and he taught three principles: the good, the just, and the evil; and that the New Testament was alien to the Old, and to the One who spoke in it. And he and his followers, the Marcionites, reject the resurrection of the flesh; and they bestow baptism, not only once, but twice and thrice, after falling. And others among them are baptized on behalf of the deceased and the catechumens. And women are boldly permitted by them to give the washing.

43. Lucianists. ^B A certain Lucian, not the one who lived in the times of Constantine, but one older than him, adhered to all the doctrines of Marcion. He also added some other things, which Marcion had ostensibly not handed down.

44. Apellians. And this Apelles also teaches things similar to those of Marcion and Lucian. He reviles the entire creation and its Creator. Yet he did not introduce three principles like them, but only one; and [he says there is] one supreme God, who is unnameable; and that this one ^C had made another. And this one who had come into being, having been found to be evil, made the world through his own wickedness.

45. Severians. A certain Severus, on the other hand, follows the Apellian path, rejecting wine, ^D and fashions it mythologically from the draconic Satan and the earth, when they came together.

He rejects the female sex, saying that it is of the left-hand power. He produces certain names of rulers and some apocryphal books. Likewise, he agrees with other heresies in rejecting the resurrection of the dead and the Old Testament. ^A

46. Tatiani. This Tatian flourished with the most holy martyr and philosopher Justin. After the death of Saint Justin, he was corrupted by the contagion of the dogmas of Marcion, and taught the same things as he did; yet he added other things besides. They report that he hailed from Mesopotamia.

These are the thirteen heresies of the first tome of the second book.

47 In the third tome of the second book, there are contained eighteen heresies.

47. Encratitae. These are a derivation and appendix of Tatian, who reject marriage, which they attribute to Satan. They hold that one must abstain from the eating of animate beings. ^B

48. Cataphrygians, and Montanists, and Asco-

VARIAR LECTIONES.

Epiph. et Reg. 1; R. 2950 abstaining from animate beings. R. 2570 and S. Hil. those who abstain.

NOTE.

…did not reject; but since he admitted the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels, but rejected the Epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. Tatian, however, established his own characteristic of teaching, says Irenaeus, lib. 1, cap. 31, and likewise narrates certain aeons, which are of Valentinus, as a fable. But he established a proper characteristic of doctrine, and not at all entirely according to Valentinus, as it pleased the author of the Appendix on heresies. It is evident that Tatian emulated Saturninus and Marcion, both in condemning marriages and in the prohibition of the use of wine and meat: whence they arrogated to themselves the name of 'Encratitae'; certainly because they had previously emulated Saturninus and Marcion, as Irenaeus relates, lib. 1, cap. 30. After the martyrdom of Saint Justin, Tatian wrote his Oration to the Greeks, in which it is permitted to observe the seeds of the Encratite heresy. He acknowledges one God, good, who made all things from nothing: but the Word, not begotten from eternity, but produced by the power of reasoning and will, as a work of God, *ergon*, and [his] procession as a division, not as a separation, just as splinters are parted from fire. He holds that matter is the cause of evil, whose dark spirit, by which it is pervaded, even if it remains one and the same, yet is varied on account of the variety of bodies. Wherefore he says that demons are not of flesh, but of subtle matter, as of fire, as of air, ^C as if the fire and air, and that by that spirit of matter they are held together; and that those things which are the radiations of matter and wickedness; wherefore they are not capable of repentance, from which they rejected the Spirit of God. He calls this spirit of matter the soul in man, and says it is dissolved together with the body: but in the resurrection, those same parts coalescing again, it is to be awakened. And indeed Epiphanius confesses, haer. 47, that the Encratites believed in the resurrection of the flesh. Tatian proceeds, saying that God added another spirit to the first men and the angels, so that He might raise up the spirit lying in matter, and lift it up into immortality; of which, because it is the image and likeness of God, it takes on heavenly diversity; but also that man receives from it so that he might truly be a man. Wherefore he distinguishes two kinds of men, *psychikon*, animal, whom he does not separate from those whom he calls *hylikon*, and the spiritual, *guarded by the Spirit of God*. Moreover, he holds that it is in the power of both to pursue virtue or vice, to be saved or to be reprobated: [he says] that he who wishes to conquer demons must curse matter, that is, to abstract the mind from the lures of the flesh. But among the lures of the flesh, of which he said demons are the handlers, he places laughter and marriage: *marrying, and committing child-corruption, and committing adultery, and even laughing.* Wherefore he mocks the Greeks because they indulged in laughter, and slaughtered animals for the sake of eating flesh. In this tract he suggests nothing whereby he might detract from the salvation of Adam, which nevertheless he inferred elsewhere, from these words of the Apostle to Rom. v, 16, *For we all die in Adam*. The disciples of Tatian are called *Hydroparastatai*, Aquarians, because they used bare water for the Eucharist. Nor did he emulate Valentinus only in the fashioning of aeons, but also in introducing another creator of the world besides the supreme God, who promulgated the law: *destroying the law, as of another God*, says Clement of Alexandria in *Ecclog. prophet.* Furthermore, he had composed one from the four Gospels, which is called *diatessaron*, from which he had removed both the series of the ancestors of the Lord and the other things by which it is declared that He assumed true flesh; according, indeed, to the principles of his own heresy and the Gnostic faction. In the commentary of Jerome on ch. vi of the Epistle to the Galatians, where we read, "Tatian, who introducing putatively the flesh of Christ, is found in the Royal codices and in the very ancient Cluniac codex," [I read] Cassian, who, etc., which reading I conjecture to be true. For Julius Cassianus was indeed an Encratite, a disciple of the Valentinian sect, ^D *a prince of the Docetae*, or of those who attributed putative flesh to the Lord, as Clement of Alexandria testifies, *lib. III Strom.* Who, if he be read more carefully, will be found to cite that same book of Cassian, from which Jerome received the argument which he refutes. But it was also easy for scribes to substitute the name of Tatian where it was a matter of the Encratites, because it was better known than that of Julius Cassianus.

^A and the Ascodrugitae, who accept both the Old and New Testament, but introduce certain other prophets, glorifying a certain Montanus and Priscilla.

49. The Pepuziani, who are also called Quintilliani, to whom the Artotyritae are joined; two heresies. They are indeed of the Cataphrygians, but they hold other dogmas apart from them, considering Pepuza, a certain desert town situated between Galatia, Cappadocia, and Phrygia, to be divine, and indeed deeming this to be Jerusalem. There is also another Pepuza. They assign magistracies and priesthoods to women. They perform sacred rites by pricking a young boy with bronze needles, as the Cataphrygians are wont to do, and by kneading flour with his blood and making bread, they become participants in an offering. ^B And they indeed theologyze that Christ once revealed himself to Quintilla, or even Priscilla, in that place, Pepuza, in the form of a female. They use the Old and the New Testament in the same way.

[VARIAE LECTIONES: These are wanting in Reg. 2. * R. 2508: "and his blood with flour." Ibid.: "to be revealed."]

[NOTAE]

that the Holy Spirit became incarnate in Montanus. But Apollinaris of Hierapolis, Miltiades, and Apollonius, in Eusebius (Book V of his *History*, ch. 17 et seqq.), attack Montanus only on this account, that by acting as a prophet in unordered utterances, he arrogated to himself, and not to the apostles, an extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit. The author of the *Appendix on Heresies* says that it was their common blasphemy that they said the Holy Spirit was in the apostles, but that the Paraclete was not. This is not to be understood as if they distinguished the Spirit from the Paraclete after the fashion of the Gnostics. For Tertullian, in his book *On the Veiling of Virgins*, in which he sets forth his heresy, indicates by the name of Paraclete nothing other than the Holy Spirit, the vicar of the Lord. Moreover, he explains the sense of the Montanists thus: "Justice was first in its rudiments, fearing God by nature; then it advanced through the Law and the prophets into childhood; then it subsided into youth through the Gospel; now it is brought to maturity through the Paraclete." So that, as Jerome interprets in Letter 54, the Holy Spirit ^C descended at last upon Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and the severed half-man Montanus possessed the fullness which Paul did not have. By which he means nothing else than the signal gift of prophecy, for which reason he calls all these abortive prophets in his epistle *To Hedibia*, q. 9. Epiphanius and Eusebius nowhere imply anything else. Jerome again, in Letter 54, says that the Montanists constrained the Trinity into the straits of one person. Doubtless the author of the aforementioned *Appendix* says that there is not one doctrine of the Cataphrygians. There are some who are called according to Proclus, and some according to Aeschines. But those who are according to Aeschines possess this private blasphemy, that they add that Christ himself is the Father and the Son. Theodoret knows this distinction between the two sects; however, in book II of *Haeretical Fabulae*, ch. 2, I do not doubt that he wrote *Proclion* for *Patroclon*. For Eusebius, whom he follows throughout in *History* book VI, ch. 20, mentions the dissertation of Gaius the Roman against Proclus. Perhaps he is the one of whom Tertullian says in *Against Valentinus*, book I: "Our Proculus, a man of virgin age and dignity of eloquence," etc. He speaks of the same Proculus in book *To Scapula*, ch. 4. However, he makes mention of another Proclus in his book *Against Praxeas*, from whom the Procliani are named; ^D who had established a creator of things other than the supreme one. Whether he mixed the ravings of Montanus into this Gnostic impiety is uncertain. The Montanists dissolved marriages, that is to say, second ones, and fasted a triple forty days. They paved the way for the Novatians, so that they closed the doors of the Church to almost every sin, says Jerome in Letter 54, where he also recites their hierarchy, in which the patriarch held the first place; the *Cenones* the second; the bishops the third, that is, almost the last. Montanus predicted the end of the world in the beginning, and the millennial Kingdom of Christ. This is what the pseudosibylla sings in eight books, which survive even today, subject to the Phrygians. Phrygia, indeed, has always existed as a fecund parent of prophets, and, as I might pass over the Gentiles, not so long before Montanus, a certain prophetess, whom John in Apocalypse 11:20 calls Jezebel, was maddening the Thyatireni, their neighbors. And to her succeeded Montanus, Theodotus, Alcibiades, Priscilla, Maximilla, and also Quintilla, that most monstrous woman, against whom Tertullian wrote *On Baptism*, to whom there was not even the right to teach fully (being indeed a woman), she knew how to kill "little fish" very well, taking them out of the water, as if the water of baptism were futile. Theodoret writes that they are called Tascodrugitae or Tascodrugiti: from which name also it is attested here and in Epiphanius’ *Panarion* that the Quintilliani were endowed; by the word Phrygian, or rather Galatian, composed of *tascosp* (finger) and *droungos* (nose); because they would stick their finger to their nose while praying: whence they were called by the Greeks again Passaloryncitae, i.e., "Little-nail-nose." Theodoret, and Timothy of Constantinople, and Antiochus join the Marcionites, whose deceits and tenets Quintilla had indeed emulated. Among Antiochus, with the letter 'a' omitted, as here among Damascenus, they are called *Ascodrugitae*: so also Philastrius and Augustine wrote *Ascodrugitae*. From which the passage of Jerome in the Preface to his book *Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians* must be corrected, where it is read that Passaloryncitae, Ascodrobos, and Artotyritae are found in Ancyra in Galatia, and for *Ascodrobos*, one must substitute *Ascodrogos* or *Tascodrogos*. Furthermore, the Quintilliani were also called Artotyritae because they would mix cheese into the eucharistic bread.

BOOK ON HERESIES

^A ...and they alter {the Testament} according to their own mind. They employ the Old and New Testament, yet in such a way that they transfer everything according to their own whim to perverse meanings.

50. The Tessarescaidecagitai (Quartodecimans) celebrate the Pasch on a fixed day of the year; in whatever day of the fourteenth moon it falls, whether it be a Sabbath or a Lord's Day, on that day they fast and celebrate the festive vigils.

51. The Alogi, so named by us, are those who reject the Gospel according to John, and his Apocalypse, because they do not accept the Word as God, who exists eternally proceeding from the Father.

52. The Adamiani, so named from a certain Adam who is alive, profess a dogma that is ridiculous rather than consonant with truth. ^B Furthermore, they act in this manner: naked, just as they came forth from their mother's womb, men and women gather together, and in this state perform readings, prayers, and every other religious duty. Inasmuch as they act as monastics and follow the institutes of the continent, they condemn marriage; and they consider their own gathering to be paradise.

53. The Sampsaei and Elcesaei (Elcesaites) dwell to this day in Arabia, situated above the Dead Sea; they are disciples of Elxai, a certain false prophet. From his lineage have sprung in our own age two women, Marthus and Marthina, whom this heresy honors as if they were goddesses. Moreover, they think the same things exactly as the Ebionites.

54. The Theodotiani (Theodotians), those from Theodotus the tanner...

^A of Byzantium. He was highly instructed in Greek learning, and at the same time as others during the days of the then-prevailing persecution, he alone fell away, while those others suffered martyrdom for the sake of God. Because, therefore, he was a fugitive and was reproached, he invented the claim that Christ was a mere man, on account of the crime that he had denied God.

55. The Melchisedeciani (Melchisedecians): these venerate Melchisedec, asserting that he is some power, and not a mere man, and they have dared to refer all things to his name.

56. The Bardesianistae (Bardesianists): ^B this Bardesanes was sprung from Mesopotamia. At first, he was of the true faith and excelled in philosophy; but, having deviated from the truth, he taught dogmas similar to Valentine, except for some few things in which he differs from Valentine.

57. The Noetiani (Noetians): ^C this Noetus was from Smyrna in Asia. Being carried along in a chariot with others, he dared to assert that Christ was the Filio-pater (that is, if I may so put it, the Son-father, or the Father-son); he showed him to be the same person as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He even claimed that he himself was Moses, and his own brother, Aaron. ^D

[VARIAE LECTIONES: a. R. 2508 fugitives. b. Cod. S. Hil. from Noetus: thus in Augustine, Noetians, who are from a certain Noetus.]

[NOTE: There have been disciples of this tanner Theodotus: Asclepiades, and Hermophylus, and Apollonius, and Theodotus the money-changer, who, desiring to be the author of a sect of his own, established this heresy. Insofar as they had him as their leader, they are called Theodotiani; because they suppose that Melchisedec is a certain divine and most great power, they are named Melchisedeciani. And because they do not wish to touch those who are not of their own faith, nor to be touched by any of those who are not like themselves, they are called Athingani. The same author had said that they were addicted to Thessalian sorcery, and observed the Sabbath in the Jewish manner, yet neglecting both baptism and circumcision. He appends anathemas to be recited by those who have returned from this heresy to the Catholic faith. Regarding both Theodotuses, and Asclepiades (or Asclepiodotus), Apollonius, and Hermophylus, one may read Eusebius, Hist. book V, ch. 28; also Theodoret, and the Appendix to the book On Prescriptions. Jerome, in Epistle 125, has examined the various opinions concerning Melchisedec. (36) Eusebius, book IV, ch. 50, and Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers, testify that Bardesanes did not defect to the Valentinians, but that, even though he was imbued with the teachings of Valentine, he proposed to return to the sound faith, yet he did not entirely wash away the filth of his ancient error; for he apparently imagined some emissions in God, and (37) there survives today the final part of the book of the holy martyr Hippolytus, bishop of Portus Romanus, against all the heretics of his age. The Syrus S. Ephraem refuted the errors of Bardesanes and his disciple Harmonius. Diodorus of Tarsus, mentioned by Photius, cod. 223, refuted Bardesanes in chapter 51, because while he admitted the prophets and confessed that souls were free from nature and fate, he nevertheless subjected them to the body. He wrote many things with great skill, but may have been tainted. The final part begins with these words, which I shall recite from the Latin translation of Gerard Vossius, until the Greek is found: "Some others introduce another doctrine, having become disciples of a certain Noetus, who by race was a Smyrniote, not long ago. He said that Christ was the same person as the Father, and that the Father himself was born and suffered." Then he narrates how Noetus with his associates defended his dogma: "So they say they prove that God is one, and they respond: 'If we confess that Christ is God, then he is the Father, if he is God; and if Christ who is God suffered, then the Father suffered.' For he himself was the Father. For this reason they are called 'Son-fathers' and Patripassians." Epiphanius says that Noetus first concealed his error before the presbytery of Smyrna, because no one before him had vomited forth this horrendous and destructive bitterness. But Theodoret teaches us that the author of this impiety was a certain Epigonus; that it was strengthened by Cleomenes, restored by Noetus, and finally augmented with new additions by Callistus. Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, produced the same at about this age, whom Origen brought back to health in a synod, as Eusebius relates, Hist. book VI, ch. 33. Noetus lived one hundred and thirty years ago, says Epiphanius; that is, around the year 245, and so his heresy became known before Sabellius emerged.]

BOOK OF HERESIES

^A 58. Valesii. These are, as I suspect, people who inhabit Bacathus, which is the principal town of Philadelphia in Arabia; and they are accustomed to castrate those who come to them as well as their guests: indeed, most of the people themselves are eunuchs and castrated. They have also other dogmas filled with error; and first of all, they reject the Law and the Prophets, and add certain obscenities.

59. Cathari. These joined themselves to Novatus of Rome, and they completely proscribe those who have been married twice, and do not accept repentance.

60. Angelici. These have completely disappeared; they were so called either because they boasted that they were of an angelic order, or because they invoked angels.

^B 61. Apostolici, who are also called Apotactici [that is, the Renouncers]. These also emerged only in Pisidia. They admit only those who have renounced goods. They are akin to the Encratites, although they maintain certain other things apart from them.

62. Sabellians. These think similar things to Noetus, except that they say the Father did not suffer; and they say that the Word is like that which is uttered by the mouth and again withdrawn.

63. Origenians, derived from a certain Origen.

[VARIOUS READINGS AND NOTES: omitted as per instructions.]

^A These are evildoers, committing unspeakable acts, and delivering their own bodies to corruption.

64. Other Origenians, followers of Origen, who is also called Adamantius, who reject the resurrection of the dead. They introduce Christ and the Holy Spirit as created beings; they allegorize Paradise, the heavens, and all other things. They chatter that the kingdom of Christ will at some point come to an end, and that the angels will cease to exist at the same time. They invent monstrous tales, saying that Christ will be subjected to the kingdom of God along with the devil, and that Christ was crucified for the sake of the demons.

These are the 18 heresies of the second book of the fourth volume.

The items contained in the second book of the fifth volume are 5 heresies.

65. Paulianists ^B, from Paul of Samosata.

NOTES

He collected everything in the book *De Principiis* [*On First Principles*]. Having been accused before Pope Fabian, he first pleaded that his works had been corrupted: he wrote to Fabian, says Jerome, in such a way as to suggest he would repent for having written such things, and he attributed the cause of his rashness to Ambrose, because he had published things that were secretly issued. Theophilus of Alexandria in his Paschal homily, and the Emperor Justinian in his epistle to Mennas, accuse Origen primarily of counting the Word among created things, both in the books *De Principiis* and in *Psalm 1*, in which he calls Christ a *γενητὸν θεόν*, a created God. There are indeed not wanting other places in which he says the Son is *ἀγέννητον*, not created, but proceeded from the substance of the Father; yet it can hardly be denied that Adamantius held the Son to be inferior to the Father in dignity, power, and knowledge, and the Holy Spirit to be inferior to the Son. He clearly rules this out in his book *On Prayer*, where he contends that the Father, not Christ or the Son, is to be prayed to. Hence Eusebius of Caesarea, who was most studious of Origen, in his books *Against Marcellus*, even though he denies that the Word was made *ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων* [out of nothing] and from things that did not exist, and affirms that he was begotten from the substance of God, is entirely occupied in defending the subjection of the Son to the Father. Therefore, he confessed that the Son is *ὁμοούσιον*, consubstantial with the Father, only in that sense in which the Platonists said that demons and souls consist of a divine substance. Origen had received this from Plato, who, as many ^C—and especially Eusebius, *Praeparatio Evangelica*, book XII, chapter 20—have observed, posited one God who, by a certain superabundance, sent forth from himself a mind or idea, as a *δεύτερον αἴτιον*, a second cause, and then a third, namely the soul of the world, inferior to him in order and nature. Again, according to the doctrine of the Platonists, he taught that angels, demons, and human souls are of the same essence, and then subsequently obtained different states according to the difference of their merits, so that some were angels, others demons; others were destined to animate celestial bodies, others to animate human ones. Souls, he taught, were bound to bodies as if to dungeons, and that they do not so much learn the things of religion as reminise about them. This is what he hands down in the book *On Prayer*; which indeed, among many other things, Jerome in Epistle 59, chapter 1, extracts from book 1 of *De Principiis*. And when he had treated of all things in varied discourse, he says, asserting that the devil is not incapable of virtue, and yet does not yet wish to embrace virtue; at the end he argued in the most fluid discourse that an angel, or a soul, or certainly a demon—all of whom he asserts are of one nature, but of ^D diverse wills—could through the greatness of his negligence become a beast... until at last, lest he be held guilty of a Pythagorean dogma, he who asserts *μετεμψύχωσιν* [transmigration of souls], after so unspeakable a dispute, by which he had wounded the reader’s mind; these, he says, according to our judgment are not dogmas, but merely inquiries, thrown out so that they might not appear altogether unexamined. Earlier in the prologue he had forewarned that he would speak of matters regarding which it would be possible to affirm or deny at will, provided that the faith which the apostles have handed down be saved. By this right, in book II, he asserts countless worlds, not simultaneously like Epicurus, says Jerome, but that after the end of one world, there is a beginning of another: which is plainly to posit eternal matter. Therefore, he inferred from the aforesaid that demons and the impious would return, by the merits of Christ, to a better state, and then, with all things subjected to God, the kingdom of Christ would cease. Thus he argues in book V of *De Principiis* and in book *On Prayer*, § 16, departing in nothing from his Platonists. Furthermore, having discarded the native sense of Scripture, after the manner of the Gnostics, and especially of Julius Cassianus, book V, chapter 5, he taught that Paradise was planted by God in the third heaven, understanding angels for trees, powers for rivers, and for the garments of skins, with which our first parents were clothed after sin, flesh which would be subject to death: for Adam had lived without flesh, nerves, and bones. Therefore, there would be a resurrection of bodies, but not of flesh. That original condition of the human body he called the inner man, to whom alone it is suitable to be the image of God. Moreover, by diligent exercise, man could reach such perfection that he might not feel even the slightest perturbation, or the stain of any sin, and, having dispelled the darkness of *ἀπάθεια* [apathy/passionlessness], might contemplate intelligible substances. Into this opinion, which had also been that of the Gnostics, Pelagius afterwards lapsed; whom Jerome therefore, having enumerated the authors of this man, addressed thus: Do you wish to know yet another source of your error? Your heresy is a little branch of Origen.

(43) The same was his sentiment regarding the Trinity and the person of Christ; which the bishops of the East state in the same way as Epiphanius in that third profession of faith which Athanasius and Hilary in the books *On Synods* record, as well as Socrates, book II, *Hist.*, ch. 15. Epiphanius in the *Panarion* adds that in this way the dogma of Artemas, extinguished long ago, *πρὸ πολλῶν ἐτῶν ἐσβεσμένον* [long ago extinguished], by the work...

of Paul of Samosata, who had been bishop of Antioch, was revived. ^A This Paul despoils Christ of existence in almost every way, transforming Him into a prolatitious word, and preaches that He had no beginning before Mary. Therefore, he teaches that those things reported about Him in the Holy Scriptures were announced in a prophetic manner while Christ did not yet exist, and that He existed only from Mary, from the time He appeared in the flesh.

^B 66. The Manichaeans, also called Acuanitae: these are disciples of Mani the Persian; they confess Christ only in appearance, worship the sun and moon, invoke the stars, the virtues, and demons, and introduce two eternal principles, always existing, one evil and one good; they say that Christ appeared and suffered only in phantom form; they blaspheme the Old Testament and the God who spoke therein; they define the world not to be entirely from God, but that only a part of it was made by Him.

67. The Hieracitae: these are named from Hieracas, a certain interpreter and teacher who originated from Leontopolis, a city of Egypt; they reject the resurrection of the flesh, though they use the Old and New Testaments. They forbid marriage entirely; monks, virgins, and celibates are held by them to be of the better principle.

NOTES

(44) Manes, according to the ancient theology of the Persians and also the Gnostics, posited two principles of all things, coeternal and self-subsistent: the good, which he called God and light, and the evil, which he called darkness or even matter with its own depraved genius, the devil. That [good] was indeed the source of goods from which higher things were produced, the other of evils. Both had once existed separated: but the evil, impatient of quiet, moved against the good, and having sent forth its own virtues, snatched away, not without the resistance of the adversaries, a portion of God Himself, which it entangled in bodies to be animated. It granted to the good God both the virtues and the aeons, its own portions, which ^C the Gnostics concede. And so it taught that the souls of men, as well as of beasts, birds, fish, and trees, are segments of the divine substance, just as the celestial virtues, the sun, the moon, and the stars. It insisted that God consists of an ethereal body; or rather that the air itself is an ether: for which reason it forbade any animal to be killed, or a branch to be plucked from a tree, nor even to stir the air with one's hand: Because the air is the soul of men, of volatile creatures, of fish, and of reptiles. Furthermore, it claimed that souls, after many migrations from body to body, are finally released from the servitude of darkness and fly to the heavens, and that God Himself, through the aid of the twelve signs, the seven planets, and primarily the sun and the moon, retracted certain vessels of souls—a fable somewhat like that which Porphyry in his book *On the Cave of the Nymphs* says Plato fashioned. Consequently, it admits no resurrection of the flesh, which heaven cannot contain. For which reason, when Christ was generated from God by a decision (just as a man from a man), he offered only a human appearance, and did not therefore suffer, with a certain son of an evil principle, whom the Jews killed, substituted in his place. Mention ^D is made of both Christs in the books of the Mendaites, which the most learned Mr. Ludovicus Picques, a Sorbonne doctor, of blessed memory, bequeathed to our Parisian library of Saint-Honoré. The Mendaites, who are also called Christians of St. John, are pure Manichaeans, who have recently also assumed the name of Sabaitae. I refrain from recounting their other blasphemies, by which they have burdened the creator of the world and the giver of the Mosaic Law, whom they judge to be the devil, as well as their filth; which may be similar to those which they report the most wicked of the Gnostics to have practiced.

(45) The Hieracitae were not Manichaeans, as Epiphanius wrote, but were offshoots of the Encratites. The author of the discourse *Against Heresies*, which exists among the works of Athanasius, teaches us that the Old Testament alone was rejected by the Hieracitae: furthermore, that marriage was indeed permitted before the coming of the Lord, but afterwards forbidden. Arius, in his epistle to Alexander of Alexandria, complains that his Hieracas explained his sense regarding the generation of the Word by the example of a lamp which is lit from another lamp, and has its own light, distinct from the light of the other: which accords with the heresy of the Tritheites. Hilary reports the same thing in book VI *De Trinitate*, as does the writer of the life of Macarius the Egyptian. He added that Melchisedec was the Holy Spirit, who, having assumed a human form, met Abraham.

^A they receive virgins, those who practice continence, and widows. They deny that children who have died at an immature age can be participants in the heavenly kingdom, because they have not contended [in the struggle of faith].

68. The Meletians. ^B These are considered schismatics in Egypt rather than heretics. They refused to join in the communion of prayers with those who had lapsed during the persecution. Now, however, they have attached themselves to the Arians.

69. The Arians, who are also called Ariomanites and Diatomites. They preach that the Son of God is a creature, and the Holy Spirit a creature of a creature. They assert that Christ took only flesh from Mary, and not a soul as well.

So far there are five heresies of the fifth tome, which is the second book of the second volume. ^C But in the first tome of the third book there are seven heresies.

70. The Audians. This is a schism and a withdrawal, though not a heresy. They possess a regulated way of life and conduct, nor do they differ from the Catholic Church in anything regarding faith. They live for the most part in monasteries, and do not admit all people to their prayers. There is a great supply of apocryphal books among them. They condemn our bishops, who are wealthy, and others for other reasons. They celebrate Easter ^D privately—

^A at the same time as the Jews. They also have something peculiar to themselves, which they defend vigorously: namely, that which is written, *ad imaginem* (in the image), which they interpret most harshly.

^B 71. Photinians (49). This Photinus, coming from Sirmium, held sentiments similar to Paul of Samosata, though in some matters he disagreed with him. He affirms that Christ received his origin entirely from Mary.

72. Marcellians (50). Those from Marcellus, who was from Ancyra in Galatia. He, having been famous at the beginning for thinking similarly to Sabellius, and having frequently come to an apology and having defended himself in writing, was accused by others of persisting in the same views. Perhaps, having repented, he may have corrected himself, or his disciples did. For some orthodox men interposed themselves as defenders in favor of his arguments.

73. Semiarians (51). They confess that Christ is a creature but, by irony and quibbling, call him a creature not as if he were one of the created things. But, they say, we call him Son; yet out of fear of attributing some passion to the Father because of the begetting, we call him a creature. Likewise, concerning the Holy Spirit, they define him entirely as a creature, rejecting the term *consubstantial* (ὁμοούσιον) for the Son, though they are willing to say ^C *like in substance* (ὁμοιούσιον). Others among them even rejected *like in substance*.

^A 74. Pneumatomachi, that is, adversaries of the Holy Spirit. Regarding Christ, they speak not ill, for the most part; but they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, defining Him as a creature, and not as being from the Godhead, but rather, by a certain misuse of the term, as having been created for the sake of His operation, asserting Him to be merely a sanctifying power.

^B 75. Aerians. This Aerius was from Pontus; and he is to this day a trial to the life of the Church. He had been a presbyter under Bishop Eustathius, whom the Arians had accused. And because this Aerius was not made bishop, he devised many doctrines against the Church. As regards the faith, he is a genuine follower of Arius; but he professes something more: for instance, he claims that offerings for the dead are not to be made, and he prohibits the fasts of the fourth and sixth days of the week, of Lent, and of Easter; he preaches the renunciation of worldly goods. He partakes of every kind of meat and food without fear. And if any of his followers wish to fast, he forbids it on the appointed days, but only when one chooses. For you are not, he says, under the law. He teaches that a presbyter is in no way superior to a bishop.

VARIAE LECTIONES

NOTÆ

196.

^A 76. Aetiani. From Aetius the Cilician, who was ordained deacon by George, the Arian bishop of Alexandria. They are also called Anomoeans, and by some Eunomians, from Eunomius, who was a disciple of Aetius. Eudoxius belonged to the same sect, but because of his fear of the Emperor Constantius, he separated himself from them, and in this way only Aetius was exiled. Eudoxius, however, remained an Arian, though he did not follow Aetius. These Anomoeans or Aetians declare that both Christ and the Holy Spirit are altogether alien from God the Father, maintaining that He is a created being, and saying that He possesses not even any likeness to Him. By means of certain Aristotelian and geometrical syllogisms, they wish to explain the nature of God, and from this they reason that Christ cannot be from God. The Eunomians among them baptize again all who come over to their side; not only Catholics, but also the Arians themselves; and they do this—as the report is widely spread—by immersing them head-first, with their feet in the air. ^B They say that it is no grave matter to err in some things, such as fornication or any other sin, for God, they claim, seeks nothing other than that someone should persevere in this faith of theirs which they profess.

These, then, are the seven heresies of the first volume of the third book. In the second volume of the third book, there are four heresies.

77. Dimoeritae, who are also Apollinarists; they who do not profess one composite nature.

^A They do not confess the full presence of Christ, that is to say, His incarnation; some of whom dared to say at one time that His body was consubstantial with the Divinity. Some again denied at another time that He had assumed a soul, and this they denied. Others, relying upon the scriptural text, "The Word was made flesh," denied that He had assumed flesh from created flesh—that is, from Mary—and asserted stubbornly that the Word alone had been made flesh. Later, however, for what reason I know not, they said that He had not assumed a mind.^B

78. Antidicomarianitae (56): they who say that the holy Mary, the Ever-Virgin, was joined to Joseph after the birth of the Savior.

79. Collyridiani: they who, on a certain appointed day of the year, offer a certain cake in the name of the same Mary, to whom we have given the name Collyridiani.

80. Massaliani (57), who are interpreted as "Prayers."

VARIOUS READINGS

R. 2508: ἀνειληφέναι (to have assumed).

NOTÆ

^C Apollinarist. The madness of those is condemned who would say that the flesh is consubstantial with God. For the flesh of the Word was made divine by union, not by nature. Valentinus the Apollinarist made Polemius, or Polemon, and Timotheus the parents of this error, because as masters they did not understand the sayings; nor does Theodoret deny this, who nevertheless warns that Apollinarius was not of one opinion. There are also those who think that Apollinarius preluded Nestorius, so that he might deny that the Virgin was [Theotokos], the Mother of God, by detracting from the substantial conjunction of the natures, in which Christ consists; for the reason that Athanasius and Nazianzen condemn this impiety along with other tenets of the same. But by both doctors not only were the errors of Apollinarius refuted, but also those which the heretic boasted would follow from Catholic doctrine. This can be gathered clearly enough from the [Anirrheticon] of Gregory of Nyssa against him, as well as from these words of Jerome in chapter 3 of his [Epistle to Titus]: "Nor do we say that Jesus Christ is one, and the Word is another, as the new heresy calumniates; but we say it is the same one, both before the ages and after the ages," etc. Moreover, Nyssa proves this more at length in his letter to Theophilus, which was read in the general council, collation 5. Whence not all books, in which there is a dispute about the one person of Christ, are to be recalled to Nestorian times.

Some of the Apollinarists taught that the blessed Virgin, after Christ was born, brought forth other children. In two volumes, Apollinarius defended the error of the Millenarians, in a Jewish sense, against Dionysius of Alexandria. Nemesius and Jerome, in the preface to book 16 of [Isaiah], in chapter 36 of [Ezekiel], and in Epistle 82, write that he thought the souls of men were created by traduction, so that just as body is born from body, so soul is born from soul, and subsists with a similar reason alongside brute beasts. But he understood the sentient soul, not the rational one, which he confessed to be of a higher origin.

(56) They who denied the virginity of Mary; Epiphanius reports that the sectaries of this same error sprouted up in Arabia. In the West, Helvidius stirred this up, whom Bonosus of Sardica embraced after having first denied the Divinity of Christ.

(57) Epiphanius reports that they are called Martyrians and Satanians, and that these are Gentiles rather than Christians. But those who were from among the Christians, while they interpreted the words of the Gospel insipidly, having abandoned their property and neglected the labor of their hands, gave themselves over to prayer alone. Hence the name of the Massalians, from the Syriac root [...], that is, to pray. For a long time, the passage of Jerome in the [Prologue to the Dialogue against the Pelagians] troubled me, which in the older editions read thus: "the heretics of almost all of Syria whom they call in the gentile speech, Abin and Paanin, that is, perverts and Massalians, in Greek [Euchitai]." I did not understand that Abin and Paanin were the same as perverts and Massalians. But in the recent edition, we are warned that this is the reading of many manuscripts: "whom in the gentile speech, DEINCIPAMNNI, that is, perversely, Massalians," etc., from the inspection of which reading, the passage of Jerome could be emended thus: "whom in the gentile speech AIECTPAMMENOC, that is, perversely, Massalians," etc. Photius, [cod. 52], recounts at length what was done by various pontiffs and synods against the Massalians. He omitted, however, Cyril of Alexandria, by whom this heresy was likewise struck down. Yet he writes that the Ephesian synod, over which Cyril presided, condemned chapters excerpted from the ascetic book of the Massalians, along with their parent Adelphius. And yet this is the very thing which John the Faster of Constantinople had written to Gregory the Great, that the Ephesian council had pronounced, among other things, concerning the soul of Adam, that it was not dead in sin, because the devil does not enter into the heart of man: and if anyone had said this, he would be anathema. Gregory denied that this was defined by the Ephesian Fathers, book 6, epistle 14, and censured it as Pelagianism: but from those things which he appends, I gather that the synod excluded solely the sense of the Massalians. "Searching," he says, "the Ephesian synod, concerning Adelphius, and Sabas, and the others, who are said to have been condemned there, we find absolutely nothing." But that Adelphius and Sabas were the leaders of the Massalians is testified by Theodoret, whom our author excerpted, Nilus, in his epistle to Magnus, and many others. Although it is the Catholic sentiment that the soul of Adam was dead by sin, and that the devil enters into the heart of him who sins; nevertheless, these are blasphemous according to the sense of the Massalians. Namely, they posited two souls in every man, one common, the other heavenly, which, having been excluded through sin, the man was considered dead; furthermore, that the devil is joined consubstantially [...] with the sinful man, and is not driven out by the power of any baptism or other sacrament, unless by prayer. These things had troubled Gregory, when that plague...

had not yet penetrated the western parts. But not long ago it had broken out in the East under the Emperor Anastasius, by the agency of Lampetius, from whom they were called Lampetians, then later by Marcianus Trapezita, from whom they were called Marcianists. Hence the holy Pontiff says in three letters that the sect of the Marcianists was unknown to him (as is set forth in lib. vi, epist. 15, 16, 17, not as some think, the Marcionites). Gregory prefers to assign the canon to John of Antioch, and his council. For it is remarkable that highly learned men have not noticed the book itself, ix, indict. 11, epist. 49, to Anastasius of Antioch, where he says: "Some think that that Ephesine synod in that city is the one which is handed down as having been composed by heretics; intended, of course, for those bishops who favored Nestorius along with John." He adds: "That synod, which took place under the first (legitimate) Ephesine, had certain chapters brought before it and approved, which are those of Celestius and Pelagius." By which it is implied that the council of the Antiochenes had approved the doctrine of Pelagius, or that doctrine which seemed Pelagian to Gregory, and that he would only explode the Euchetic one. Nor does it aid John that he himself in his letter to Rufus accused Cyril, because he had restored to communion those holding the same sentiments as Celestius and Pelagius (for the Euchetes are also Enthusiasts). For it is certain from the acts of the Ephesine synod that John had supported the Pelagians: nor was there a lack of deceit in his accusation, especially since the Euchetes and the Pelagians agreed, if one considers *apatheia*, or immunity from disturbances, which both parties boasted of. These were Gregory’s points. Moreover, the definition of the legitimate synod exists in Latin. ^A And those godless Massalians, who are also called Euchetes, and Enthusiasts; in which there is approved a synodical booklet of Constantinople issued against them by Sisinnius, and whatever was done at Alexandria for their sake, and it is enjoined upon Valerian of Iconium, Amphilochius of Side, and all the bishops of Lycaonia and Pamphylia, that they see to it that these decrees are observed. This the Ephesine Fathers decreed all the more advisedly, because they were also accused of the Massalian error by the Orientals before the emperor. Wherefore I conjecture that the chapters of the Euchetes, which the Faster wrote to Gregory had been condemned at Ephesus, were the very same which Sisinnius and Cyril had previously prohibited. But from which author our author received all those articles of the Massalians which he has related here, is not sufficiently known to me: unless perhaps by the same codex which Timotheus the presbyter used; namely, that of the impious Marcian, who appeared in the sixth century. Nevertheless, Timotheus recites many which Damascenus does not have, as in turn Damascenus has more, of which there is no mention in Timotheus. For example, you would not find in Timotheus that fire is the creator of things, that there is a certain nature of evils: that there are two souls in every man, which are purely Manichaean: that Adam likewise joined with Eve without any heat of lust. Nor conversely in Damascenus, that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are one hypostasis: that the Body of Christ is not circumscribed, and similar things, which not only Timotheus, but also Nicephorus of Constantinople and Euthymius drew out from the writings of Marcian. The heresies which follow were collected by Damascenus from various authors, whose books have perished. But he errs in chronological sequence, where he says that they emerged from the times of Marcian and Leo and thereafter. For Nestorius and Eutyches flourished under Theodosius the Younger.

To these are added also those called Euphemites, and Martyrians, and Satanians, from the sects of the Gentiles.

The summary of the seventh tome.

The impious chapters of the Massalian doctrine, collected from their own books:

1. That Satan resides in man personally, and dominates him in all things. 2. That Satan and demons possess the human mind, and human nature is joined in communion with the spirits of wickedness. 3. That Satan and the Holy Spirit dwell together in man; and that the apostles were not free from this operation by which men are seized. 4. That baptism does not perfect man, nor does the reception of the divine mysteries purify the soul, but only the prayers which they themselves perform. 5. That man, even after baptism, is in the mass of sin. 6. That the faithful does not receive the incorruptible and divine garment through baptism, but through prayer. 7. That *apatheia* must be obtained, and the participation of the Holy Spirit, in every sense and full assurance.

VARIE LECTIONES ... (no other variants needed)

^A 8. That one must thus feel the contact of the heavenly bridegroom, as a woman feels it in the intercourse of a husband.

9. That spiritual men see sin both within and without, and the grace that is infused and that works.

10. That it is a revelation taking place in sense and in the divine hypostasis, as a doctrine.

11. That fire is creative.

12. That the soul which does not have Christ in sense and in every action, is a dwelling-place of serpents and venomous beasts, that is, of every opposing power.

13. That evils exist by nature.

14. That even before the transgression, Adam had intercourse with Eve without any heat of lust. ^B

15. That both seed and the Word fell into Mary.

16. That man must acquire two souls, one which is common to men, they say, and one which is heavenly.

17. That it is possible, they say, for man to receive the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit sensibly, in all fullness and all operation.

18. That the Savior can appear to those who pray in the light; and at a certain time, a man was found standing at the altar, to whom three loaves anointed with oil had been offered. ^C

Furthermore, they also reject the work of the hands, as something unbecoming to Christians. And in particular, they display inhumanity towards the poor, saying that one ought not to grant alms to those who beg in public, nor to widows left behind, nor to those who have met with misfortune, or bodily mutilation, or diseases, or are oppressed by harsh creditors, or worn down by the incursions of robbers or barbarians, or have been thrust into life's hardships and poverty by other such calamities—through those who renounce worldly goods, or even through those who are primarily zealous for beneficence—but that everything should be provided for themselves; for they claimed to be the ones who are truly poor in spirit.

To these things they added contempt for the Churches and the sacred altars. They said that it does not befit monks to take part in ecclesiastical ^D assemblies, and that the prayers which they pour out in their own oratories are sufficient for them; for they claim that the power of prayer is such that to them and to their disciples, the Holy Spirit allows Himself to be seen in a sensible manner. Indeed, they babble that those who wish to obtain salvation ought, with such perseverance, to do nothing else at all but be devoted to prayer, until they perceive sin like some smoke, or fire, or serpent, or some beast of that—

^A kind, being driven out by the force of prayer, and departing in a perceptible manner through prayers; and that they, in turn, perceptibly receiving the entry of the Holy Spirit, might have a clear perception in their soul of this entry of the Spirit. And they maintain that this is the true communion of Christians. For they claim that those who are baptized do not in any way become partakers of the Holy Spirit through baptism or through the laying on of the hands of the clergy, unless they have devoted themselves to prayers with greater assiduity. Nay, they even assert that anyone can become a partaker of the Holy Spirit without baptism, provided he wishes to continue with them and has been imbued with their doctrine; so that when certain presbyters said to them, "We confess that the Holy Spirit is had by faith, not by perception," they did not hesitate to promise that the perception of the Spirit would also be given to them if they were willing to pray with them. And such is the arrogance of these people that they proclaim those who have perceived that sense of the Holy Spirit among them as blessed, as though they were perfect and free from all sin, and superior to sin. And they honor them with all zeal and pursue them with honors, as though they were no longer subject to the danger of sin ^B and had advanced to such a state of perfection that they could now safely enjoy every relaxation, feed on exquisite foods, swell with splendid company, and indulge in all delights. Many of them, having received such a testimony of perfection among them, have been detected, while sometimes living with outsiders (whom they do not even deem worthy of the name of Christian), falling into various obscene flagrancies, thefts of money, and fornications.

They also invent many other monstrosities: for they dissolve legitimate marriages for no cause at all, and they receive those who have withdrawn from wedlock as monks and proclaim them blessed. They persuade parents to abandon the care of raising their children, and they know how to drive them mad so that they bring all their possessions to them. They willingly receive servants who have fled from their masters; and likewise those who have fled to them while ^C guilty of various crimes, without any produced fruit of repentance, without being supported by the authority of priests, and without any regard for the ranks which the ecclesiastical canons prescribe for penitents, they promise that they will immediately cleanse them from every stain of sin, provided that someone, practicing the prayer so often boasted by them, has become an extemporaneous disciple of their craftiness and fraud. So clearly is this the case that they even present for ordination as clerics some of that sort, who are not yet freed from the bonds of their sins, to those men, who are preeminent among them for the reputation of monastic observance, ^D deceiving the bishops with their testimony so that they might lay their hands upon them. This, however, they do not because they hold the ranks of the clergy in high esteem; indeed, they hold the bishops themselves in contempt, when it pleases them; but they are maneuvering for a certain power and authority for themselves. Some of them they do not even deem worthy to be called Christians.

Further concerning the aforementioned heresy of the Massalians, who are found mostly in monasteries, from the History of Theodoret, book IV, chapter 11.

^B During the times of Valentinian and Valens, the heresy of the Massalians arose, whom they call Euchetae, interpreting their name in the Greek language. They have also another appellation imposed from the thing itself. For they are called Enthusiasts, because they receive the force and operation of a certain demon, which they think to be the presence of the Holy Spirit. Those who are affected by this extreme disease turn away from manual labor as an evil, and, yielding themselves to sleep, they call the images of their dreams a divine inspiration. The leaders of this heresy were Dadoes, and Sabas, and Adelphius, and Hermas, and Symeon, and others besides, who withdrew from ecclesiastical communion, because they said that the divine food, of which the Lord says, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood shall live forever," ^C neither profits nor harms those who partake of it. Furthermore, they study to conceal their disease; even when they are convicted, they stubbornly deny it and invoke curses upon those who think the things which they themselves cherish in their minds. Letoius, bishop of the Church of Melitene, a man burning with divine zeal, when he saw that many monasteries—or1 rather, dens of thieves—had contracted this plague, burned them and drove the wolves away from the flock. In the same way, the most celebrated Amphilochius, who was put in charge of the metropolis of the Lycaonians and governed the whole nation, when he discovered this corruption spreading there, rose up in the same manner and liberated the flocks which he was shepherding from that taint.

Flavianus also, the most celebrated bishop of Antioch, when he learned that these people were staying ^D at Edessa and instilling their poison into their neighbors, sent a crowd of monks, brought them away to Antioch, and refuted the disease from which they were suffering in this way. For he said that the accusers were slandering them and the witnesses were lying; and calling Adelphius, who was advanced in long years, to him kindly, and bidding him sit down nearby, he said: "We, O old man, who have extended our life for a longer time, know human nature more accurately, and..."

have experienced the assaults of demons, and have been taught by the very use of grace. But you, being young and not knowing any of these things exactly, cannot bear to hear more spiritual discourses. Tell me, therefore, how is it that you say the opposing spirit withdraws, and the grace of the Holy Spirit arrives?" ^B Deluded by these words, the old man vomited up all the hidden poison, saying that holy baptism brings no benefit to those who receive it, but that the indwelling demon is expelled only by constant prayer. For he said that all those born into the light, just as they inherit their nature, so also do they inherit the servitude of demons. But when these are driven away by constant prayer, the all-holy Spirit follows and arrives, signaling His own presence perceptibly and visibly; and He delivers the body from the movements of the passions and the soul from every propensity toward worse things, so that there is no longer any need for fasting to coerce the body, nor for doctrine to bridle it and lead it into proper order. And he who has attained this is not only freed from the wanton movements of the body, but also clearly foresees future events and beholds the Trinity with his eyes. Having in this way pierced the foul spring and laid open its streams by this art, the divine Flavian addressed the impious old man thus: "O you who have grown old in evil days, your own mouth convicts you, and not I; and your lips have testified against you." Thus, this disease having been brought to light, they were expelled from Syria, but they withdrew into Pamphylia, which they filled with this plague.

So far the heresies that existed up to the times of Marcian. From the age of Marcian and shortly thereafter, under the reign of Leo, these have arisen. ^C

80. Nestorians. They who uniquely and separately [taught—]

BOOK ON HERESIES

VARIÆ LECTIONES. [Note: The list of variants has been skipped as per instructions.]

NOTÆ. (58) As with Nestorius, so too the thinking of the Nestorians also, Eutychius of Alexandria explains in the Annals he wrote in Arabic. Assemani says: "Nestorius," he says, "did not truly say that the Virgin Mary was the Theotokos, but that there were two Sons, of whom one was God and begotten of the Father, and the other a man born of Mary; and that this man, who called himself Christ, was united with the Son by love, being called God not in reality, but by concession and communion of name, and also for the sake of honor, and as is read in the prophets." So indeed Nestorius is read to have thought in the fragments of his homilies, which Saint Cyril of Alexandria cites in his book, especially in the second against him: "As we call God the creator of all things, and also call Moses God, so we also call the Lord Christ, and God, and Son, and Holy [Spirit] by grace." Although he was most diligent in taking care that he might not appear to proclaim two Sons and two Gods; which indeed is evident from his various writings and those of his supporters which still survive. Eutychius ^D then reports that the later Nestorians held a different opinion, as if, having omitted that union according to love, affection, and honor, they professed that Christ is one but consists of two substances and two persons, God perfect in his person and substance, and man perfect in his person and substance, and that Mary gave birth to Christ according to his humanity, not his divinity; so that the Father begat God and not man, but Mary gave birth to man and not God. That the ancient Nestorians also spoke in this way is evident from various monuments that existed in the *Tragedy* of Irenaeus, and which Lupus Augustinianus first, and then the famous Baluze, edited according to an ancient Latin translation. But those men considered that both substances and persons were joined by no other bond, save according to

^A a good pleasure, just as they had learned, especially from Theodore of Mopsuestia.

82. The Eutychians ^B are those who have received their name from Eutyches, and who belong to his heresy. They are the ones who do not say that our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh from the holy Virgin Mary, but instead declare that he was incarnate in a more divine way. They do not understand that God the Word united to himself that man from the Virgin Mary who was subject to the sin of our first parent, Adam; by this, he despoiled the principalities and powers, and made a show of them openly, as it is written, triumphing over them in the cross, which he had put on through the transgression of the first-created man. ^C

NOTÆ ...as through a tube ^D passed [as through a conduit]: from whom our own men do not dissent. But Eutyches always protested that he believed Christ to be perfect God and perfect man, who was born from the Virgin, that is, he was perfect God and a perfect man, who was born of the Virgin. He reported this to Flavian and his synod, who had been sent to Eutyches. When he had arrived, he said openly: "I believe thus... I confess his presence according to the flesh, made from the holy Virgin, and he was made a perfect man. I confess this before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and before your Holiness." When the Fathers insisted that he confess Christ to be consubstantial with the Mother, he said, "I have not said [so]." For because I confess that the body is God's, for that reason I did not call it the body of man, but rather a human body; but the Lord was incarnate from the Virgin herself. He was afraid, indeed, lest by saying "the body of man," he should support the error of Nestorius, who had joined a man to the Word in himself. But by saying "human body," and that the Lord was incarnate from the Virgin herself, he declared that Christ's flesh had not fallen from heaven, but was procreated from the substance of the Virgin. Nevertheless, he denied that Christ’s flesh was consubstantial as much with the Mother as with us. Finally, he expressed his mind thus: "I confess that the Lord was of two natures before the union; but after the union, I confess one nature." These things have been interpreted in various ways. Combefis, in his Preface to the homilies of Basil of Seleucia and in his unpublished Annotations to the Exposition *kata meros*, which is attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, hit the point of the old man's sense with a needle. He says that the Eutychians speak of one nature, not that flesh or humanity is lacking in Christ, or through mutation, or through absorption, or through destruction, but that it is that proper nature, or that which holds the first position, not just the second; that one, I say, which has another, not that which is had, and that it belongs to the superior [nature] having it. Thus Eutyches clearly understood this saying, of one nature of God the Word incarnate; which Cyril thought to be from the profession of faith of Athanasius, although he was mistaken, for it was Apollinarian. Compare all these things with Act 1 of the Council of Chalcedon, pp. 193, 228, 229, 258, 257, etc.

A BOOK ON HERESIES

^A 101 83. The Egyptians, who are also called Schematici and Monophysites, departed from the orthodox Church under the pretext of the decree that was established at Chalcedon. They are called Egyptians because the authors of this scheme were Egyptians during the time of the emperors Marcian and Valentinian. In all other respects, however, they are orthodox. ^B Being zealous for Dioscorus, they…

[c]…cavils, feigning to accept it on the contrary and deceiving [others], he places the Alexandrian prelate Peter, whom they call Mongus, and who during the very time of the union had stolen the see of the Alexandrians, among the sacred lists of the Theopolitan Church, abandoning those who had been deceived by him and, having been instructed because of Peter ([Greek: διὰ Πέτρου]; thus amending for [Greek: διὰ Πέτρου], meaning "through Peter"), that they ought to be joined to the Alexandrian Church. From the synodal letter of Sophronius to Sergius, it is gathered that Peter the Iberian, the prelate of Gaza, who had laid hands upon Timothy Aelurus, had been the author [of the position] for Severus, whom he had taken in as a monk, so that he might set out for Egypt and urge a schism from Peter Mongus. Severus, furthermore, began to prove with new arguments that there is one nature of Christ, compounded of two, without the permutation or confusion of either, just like a man [is composed] of body and soul. Indeed, thus does the Jacobite Abulfarajius expound his mind (dyn. 7, p. 148), that in order to establish this, Severus asserted one operation and will in Christ, namely the divine: yet in such a way that he did not exclude human affections free of vice, and sufferings. A pupil of Severus was the monk James, whom they named Zanzalus and Baradaeus, and who drove most of the Syrians to madness: whence the Monophysites were subsequently called Jacobites. He by no means corrupted the Armenians, but, as is read in the account concerning Armenian affairs, certain of the disciples of Julian of Halicarnassus, the chief of whom is called Echanius and Mandacunes by Euthymius, and Peter by Photius, from whom they then received the virus of error, and [also] new rites, by which one nature of Christ and the incorruptibility of His flesh might be signified. Also among the disciples of Severus was John Philoponus, who, when he read in the books of the Fathers ^D that [Greek: οὐσία] (essence and nature) is said to be that by which a thing that subsists agrees with others of its own species, and that [that which refers] to hypotheses and individuals, which are called [Greek: πρώται οὐσίαι] (primary essences) by the Philosopher, is common, he subsequently posited three partial substances or essences in the Trinity. Conon and Eugenius, Egyptians, increased this impiety with new inventions: but they were rejected by the Severians themselves. While Damianus refuted them with excessive zeal, he was heard to be a Sabellian: concerning whom Sophronius and Timothy of Constantinople are to be read. Furthermore, Philoponus, because of the one hypostasis of Christ, also inferred one nature, with manifold cavil, a specimen of which we have in the fragments which I found inserted here in many codices of Damascene. Moreover, he taught that this world is to be destroyed according to matter and form, and that other bodies free from corruption are to be created, and that the souls of men are to be joined with such bodies in the resurrection. Wherefore Theodosius, whom Photius mentions in codex 22, wrote against him concerning the resurrection. Philoponus lived under Justinian, nearly a hundred years before Mohammed, and therefore did not defect to Islam as Abulfarajius feigned for himself. Anastasius, prelate of Antioch, refuted the book of Philoponus, which was titled [Greek: Διαιτητής] (The Arbiter), as is evident from many of his fragments which survive.

^A ...Alexandrian, in the Council of Chalcedon, because he was a defender of Eutyches' tenets, they opposed the synod, and fabricated innumerable accusations against it, which we have already abundantly refuted above in this book, where we showed them to be vain and insane. The leaders of these were Theodosius the Alexandrian, from whom come the Theodosians; and Jacob the Syrian, from whom the Jacobites are named. Consorts of their doctrine, and its asserters and patrons, were Severus, the corrupter of the Antiochians, and Joannes Tritheita, who invented and elaborated vain things. These, denying the mystery of the salvation of the human race, wrote many things against the doctrine of the six hundred and thirty Fathers of the God-inspired Council of Chalcedon; and they placed many things to their own destruction, as scandals for those who are perishing. Moreover, by teaching particular substances, they confound the whole mystery of the incarnation: to summarize whose impiety we have thought it worthwhile, with brief inserted scholia, for the refutation of their impious and most detestable heresy. Furthermore, I will set before your eyes the dogmas—or rather, the ravings—of their champion, John, in which they most glory.

Concerning nature and hypostasis, what the Severians think, and how they teach particular substances: from the fourth discourse of the work of John the Grammarian, the Tritheite, who is also called Philoponus, which is entitled "The Arbiter."

^C For the common and universal definition of human nature, even if it is one in itself, nevertheless, since it exists in many subjects, it becomes many, in such a way that it consists integrally in each one and not in part; just as also the definition of a ship, which is in the ship-builder, multiplies itself spontaneously, since it exists in many subjects. In a similar way also the consideration of a teacher, although it is one by its own proper reason, when it is perceived by students, exists at the same time with them, whole in each one. Furthermore, the type of a ring, both is one, and in many impressions, existing as the whole in each one, is already many, and is called so. Therefore, many ships, many men, many impressions, and the concepts which are communicated to many students, are indeed more numerous in individuals and divided, not united; but in the common species, many men constitute one [thing], and many ships one; and likewise the concepts and also the expressions have in the identity of the image a unity: so that those things according to one respect are many and divided, but according to another are united and one. Moreover, although we often attribute number to continuous...

entities; for example, when we say the wood is two cubits long; yet we pronounce that what is one is two by virtue, not in act; since it is one in act, not two. But because by segmenting it can become two, for this reason we say it is of two measurements.

Chapter VII. From the Arbiter.

^A The seventh discourse will be one by which, from the very premises of those who hold contrary opinions, the truth may be fortified. For when they suppose that there are two natures of Christ, they concede that there is one and only one hypostasis, or person, of him; by similar reasoning also equally rejecting those who [claim there is] one nature of Christ after the union, and those who confess two hypostases in him. But before we refute that hypothesis, I consider it worth the labor first to define what the doctrine of the Churches wishes to signify by the name of nature, and what by person and hypostasis. ^B It holds, then, that nature is the common account by which those things are that participate in the same essence; for example, the nature of every human being is: a rational animal, mortal, capable of intelligence and discipline. For in this, no human being is distinguished from another. But it treats essence and nature as the same thing; yet it teaches that hypostasis, or person, is the existence of each nature singularly subsisting, and, if I may so say, a circumscription constituted by certain properties, according to which those who possess a common nature differ from one another; in one word, those whom the Peripatetics are wont to call individuals, in whom the division of common genera and species ^C terminates.

These the teachers of the Church have called hypostases, and sometimes persons. For since an animal is divided into rational and irrational, and the rational into human, angel, and demon, those things into which each of these lowest species are cut—such as the human being into Peter and Paul, the angel into Gabriel and Michael and the rest of the individual angels—they call individuals; because it is impossible that any of these should be further subdivided into others, which would preserve their nature after the division. For indeed, ^D the division of a human being into body and soul brings about the destruction of the whole animal. Hence it pleased them to call these individuals. These same things are called hypostases by ecclesiastical discipline; for in them the genera and species have their existence. For although, by way of example, animal and human being have their own account of essence, of which the former is the genus and the latter the species, nevertheless they exist in individuals—I mean in Peter and Paul—without whom they do not subsist. What, therefore, hypostasis is, and what nature is, according to the exposition of the Church, we have declared.

^A And so this common nature of man, according to which no man differs from another man, when it comes to be in each of the individuals, becomes eventually peculiar to that one, and common to none other, just as we have defined in the fourth chapter. For the animal in me, rational, mortal, is common to no other animal. Certainly, it is not impossible that when some man, or ox, or horse is suffering, the individuals of the same species be not suffering. For if Paul dies, it may be that none of the remaining men is dying; and when Peter is born and brought into the nature of things, the men who are to come after him do not yet exist. Therefore, every nature is spoken of, not in just one way, but in two. In one way, if we consider the common definition of each nature, viewed in itself, such as the nature of man or of horse, existing in no individual; in the other way, when we behold this same common nature existing in individuals, and taking on in each of them a particular existence, which is applicable to no one else besides him alone. For the animal in me, rational, mortal, is common to none of the other men; nor could the nature of the animal that is in this horse be found in any other, as we have just shown. ^B That the teaching of the Church concerning natures and hypostases holds this sense is manifest from the fact that we confess one nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, but we teach their three hypostases, or persons, according to which each is distinguished from the others by a certain property. For what would the one nature of the Godhead be, if not the common definition of the divine nature, viewed in itself, and separated by thought from the property of each hypostasis? But that we also understand the name of nature more specifically, when we contemplate the common definition of nature as having become proper in each of the individuals, or hypostases, and as being from then on unable to be applied to any other of those that fall under the common species, is manifest again from the fact that we confess in Christ the union of two natures, I mean of the divine and of the humanity. ^C For we do not say that the common nature of the Godhead, which is understood in the holy Trinity, has been incarnate; for thus we would also be predicating the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. But neither do we believe that the common definition of human nature has been united to the Word of God; for in this way, by the same logic, the Word of God would deservedly be said to be united to all the men who lived before the coming of the Word, and to those who are to be after him. But it is clear that here we call "nature of the Godhead" the nature of the common Godhead as it exists in the hypostasis of the Word. Whence, when we confess the one nature of God the Word to be incarnate, by adding "of God the Word," we clearly distinguish it ^D from the Father and the Holy Spirit. So that here, too, having understood the common definition of the divine nature as now proper to the divine Word, we say that the nature of God the Word has been incarnate. And again, we say that the nature of the humanity has been united to the Word, namely that most particular existence, which alone from...

among all the Word has taken up. ^A Thus, the meaning of nature and hypostasis is nearly identical, except that the name of hypostasis has included within it the properties which are innate to individuals beyond the common nature, according to which they are defined as separate from one another. Hence, you can find many among our own writers who say that a union of "natures" or "hypostases" has occurred. For if hypostasis, as we have shown, signifies the singular and individual existence of each, and they have often used these names interchangeably, it is clear that they wish by them to indicate to us nature in its most singular sense; ^B since, in speaking of the things with which we are now dealing, and in accordance with the idiom which has prevailed among those who have disputed on these same matters, a custom has taken hold among all to call the common definition of nature "man": as when they say man is a species of animal; for certainly no individual is a species subject to the genus, nor is it called such. Furthermore, we say that man differs from the horse, clearly understanding these as universal natures. And again, we say that Peter is a man, and likewise Paul and John; and that he who was born as a man and has died is a man, namely the individual, with the common definition of the nature of man holding true in the same way. ^C And this, again, it is well to distinguish, just as the name of "person" [prosopon] and "hypostasis" often have the same meaning for us, just as if one were to call the same thing a sword [ense] or a blade [gladium]. Thus, therefore, in the Holy Trinity we proclaim three persons and three hypostases indiscriminately, indicating the same thing through each by the figure of parallelism. Often, however, they distinguish person from hypostasis, calling "person" the mutual relation between certain things: the common usage is not ignorant of this meaning of person. For we say: "He has assumed my person"; or: "He stood surety in his person." ^D Likewise, we say that the prefect "bears the person" of the emperor. Hence, those who adhere to the dogmas of Nestorius, since they refuse to admit either one nature or one hypostasis in Christ—because they profess no union according to the natures themselves or the hypostases—but assume the Son of Mary to be a mere man, who has been suffused with the divine light, and thereby has surpassed all other God-bearing men, in each one of whom there was only a particular illumination: yet nevertheless they do not hesitate to affirm with the utmost confidence that there is one person of Christ, calling the relation of the Word of God to the man born of Mary one person; because he conducted the entire divine economy, or dispensation, in the person of the divinity of the Word of God, and therefore the insult brought against the man is rightly referred to God; because the veneration or insult shown by the subjects toward the prefect is referred to the emperor himself. Furthermore, this...

^A they say is indicative; whence they also claim to call Christ one, since the relation, as has been said, is one, even if there are many things that participate in it. It is clear, therefore, I think, to the pious, regarding the incarnation of the Savior—just as we speak of the person of Christ, not as seemed right to the friends of Nestorius, by the mere relation of God toward man, that we use the appellation of person—that so we say the person of Christ is, just as one says the hypostasis of a man, for instance, of Peter or Paul.

Let it also be mentioned by us beforehand, among other things, that the humanity of Christ did not subsist, even for the briefest moment, not united to the Word; but as soon as it began to come into the nature of things, at the same time it received union with the Word. But we by no means said that that nature was destitute of all subsistence; ^B since it had a mode of subsisting peculiar and beyond other men, with an existence circumscribed by its own limits, and distinguished from the common nature of all others by certain properties. For this is what we showed earlier that the name of hypostasis signifies. Consequently, just as in the divinity of Christ we confess both a nature and a hypostasis, so likewise in his humanity it is necessary to confess both the nature and this singular hypostasis; lest, as I said, we be forced to pronounce that nature to be devoid of subsistence. For it is certain that the humanity of the Savior existed among the individuals that reside under a common nature.

These things being thus clearly explained, and, as I think, admitted by all, let those who posit two natures in Christ, and one hypostasis, tell us—since both those things which are united necessarily possessed both nature and hypostasis, as has been demonstrated—whether they confess that an equal union of natures and of hypostases has taken place; or whether they think rather that it was the hypostases that were united, since from two one ^C has subsisted, but the natures less so; whence also two have remained after the union.

After other matters, in which he sets forth for what reason substance does not admit of more and less, he adds:

I believe it is known to all that there is one nature which constitutes many hypostases. Thus, therefore, confessing the nature of the divinity to be one, we pronounce that there are three hypostases thereof. But the nature of men also is one; which hypostases, that reside under it, extend into an almost infinite ^D multitude: and so in others. Two natures, which retain a duality according to number, cannot produce one hypostasis: and this it is possible to prove not only by the induction of particulars (for how would there be one hypostasis of stone and of wood, or of an ox and a horse?), but from the very operation of the Word.

^A For if each nature receives existence in the hypostases (and it is the same thing to say "in the individuals"), it is absolutely necessary that where there are two natures, there be at least two hypostases in which those natures received their existence. For a nature cannot subsist by itself if it is not contemplated in an individual. And we have recently demonstrated that an individual is the same thing as a hypostasis. Therefore, those who claim that there is not only one hypostasis but also one nature because of the union, are found to be in agreement with themselves and with the truth. But those who claim that there is one hypostasis but two natures are found to be in disagreement both with themselves and with the truth.

But since they say that the human nature of Christ had its hypostasis in the Word and did not pre-exist the Word's union, for this reason we say that Christ's hypostasis is one. Would we then say as well—if you think that "nature" and "hypostasis" signify one and the same thing, so that they are merely different names falling upon one and the same thing, just as "sword" and "blade," or one thing and another—if it is indeed the same, since there is one hypostasis, it must necessarily follow that there is one nature? Just as if there were one blade, there would necessarily be one sword; or if there were two natures, there would by the same necessity be two hypostases. But if the name "nature" means one thing and "hypostasis" another, yet they suppose the cause of Christ's hypostasis being one to be that the hypostasis, or person, of the man did not exist before the union with the Word—then the reason why there are not two natures of Christ would be that the human nature did not pre-exist the union with the Word. ^B But if the particular nature that was united pre-existed, it is absolutely necessary that its hypostasis also pre-existed. Indeed, it is not possible for one of these to be without the other—the remainder not existing—I mean, the particular nature without its own proper hypostasis. Both are in fact one in subject, even if they often coalesce in the same way among those who use these terms, as we showed a little earlier.

Therefore, if just as the hypostasis, so too the nature united to the Word did not subsist before the union with Him, then by the very fact that they concede one hypostasis of Christ, they should forthwith confess that He has one nature on account of the same reasoning. For since they do not differ in the union, they would not differ in this regard either. ^C

^D 84. Aphthartodocetae,

the followers of Julian,

but differ from them in this: that while the others seem to speak of a difference in the union of Christ, these maintain that from the very formation of the Lord’s body it was incorruptible. And while they confess that the Lord underwent passions—I mean hunger, thirst, and weariness—[they assert] that he did not undergo these things in the same way as we do. For we undergo them by natural necessity, but they say that Christ suffered them voluntarily, and that he was not subject to the laws of nature. ^A

85. Agnoetae ^B, who are also called Themistians, are those who impiously proclaim that Christ was ignorant of the day of judgment, and they ascribe fear to him. They are in fact a sect of the Theodosians; for the author of their heresy, Themistius, taught that there was one composite nature in Christ.

86. Barsanuphites ^C, who are also called Semidalitae, defend the tenets of the Gaianites and the Theodosians, but they introduce something in addition. They add fine flour [semidalis] to those things which were formerly offered by Dioscorus, and, touching it with the tip of their finger, they lightly taste the flour; and they accept this in place of a mystery, without performing any oblation at all. For, having abandoned, as has been said, the communion of Dioscorus, they add the fine flour, as it is consumed little by little; and this is reckoned by them in place of communion.

87. Hicetae ^D are those who are ascetics, and, while being orthodox in all other respects, they gather together with ascetic women to offer hymns to God...

in the manner of a dance, ^A imitating that chorus which took its course under Moses when the Egyptians were submerged in the Red Sea. 88. Gnosimachi are those who so oppose all knowledge of the Christian religion that they say it is a superfluous labor for those who seek out certain pieces of knowledge from the divine Scriptures; since, they argue, God requires nothing from a Christian other than good deeds. Therefore, they claim, it is better for a person to walk in greater simplicity and not to search out any doctrine pertaining to knowledge with excessive curiosity.

89. Heliotropitae are those who follow the so-called heliotrope plants—or plants that turn to follow the sun and its rays—and say that they possess a certain divine power which brings about such turnings in them; for this reason, they wish to render them worship, not understanding that the movement observed in them is natural. ^B

90. Thnetopsychitae introduce the idea that the human soul is similar to the soul of cattle, and say that it perishes along with the body.

91. Agonyclitae are those who at no time wish to bend the knee for prayer, but remain standing always when they pray.

92. Theocatagnostae, that is, "accusers of God," are those who are blasphemous; these are the people who dare to bring charges against certain words and deeds of our Lord God, and against the holy persons consecrated to Him, and even against the holy Scriptures; they are reckless and abusive men. ^C

93. Christolytae, or "those who dissolve Christ," are those who say that after our Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead, He left behind His animate body on earth and ascended to heaven with His divinity alone and naked.

94. Ethnophrones are those who, while being Christian in other respects, follow the customs and habits of the Gentiles. They introduce [the concept of] genesis (astrological fatalism), fortune, and fate; they accept all astronomy and astrology; they also attend to all divination and augury; they pay heed to auspices, purifications, omens, portents, witchcraft, and similar other impious fables, and whatever else has taken root in the habits of the Gentiles. Indeed, they hold ^D certain feasts of the Gentiles in veneration, and again they observe days, months, seasons, and years.

95. Donatistae, beginning from a certain Donatus in Africa [the text continues into the next page].

them a certain bone to hold in their hands, which they were to kiss first, and then partake of the offering of the holy gifts whenever they were about to be brought forth.

96. Ethicoproscoptae are those who stumble in ethics, or the practical life, and who falsely accuse certain of its commandments that are praiseworthy, while pursuing certain others that are blameworthy as if they were good.

97. Parermeneutae are those who interpret the chapters of the divine Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, incorrectly, and distort them to suit their own purpose; being so disposed that they reject, out of a spirit of contention, most interpretations that are accurate and in which there is nothing one could justly censure, doing this out of a certain ignorance and lack of discernment: ^B wherefore they do not understand that by this means they are confirming some of the heretical doctrines, while they are not even aware of what they are.

98. Lampetiani are those called after a certain Lampetius, who permit those who wish to live together and dwell in common life, to adopt whatever mode of life and to wear whatever habit each one desires and approves. For he says that it is not fitting that a Christian should be forced to do anything, since it is written: "I will willingly sacrifice to thee" (Ps. LIII, 8). And, "And again, out of my own will I will confess to him" (Ps. XXVII, 7). Indeed, some assert that they permit themselves to indulge in natural affections, and do not wish to resist them, as if nature so required. ^C

[Note: Sophronius, in a letter to Sergius, makes Lampetius the ringleader of the Marcianists. Photius, likewise in Codex 82, where he reports other things which it is not necessary to recount here, adds that he wrote a book whose title was *Testament*, which Severus the presbyter, who later usurped the Antiochene see, refuted, and that Alphius, Bishop of Rhinocorura, was deposed by Timothy, Bishop of Alexandria (a Monophysite), because he had undertaken his defense. Lampetius, therefore, is older than Marcian, who became known under Justinian, and lived in the fifth century. Our author says the Lampetians hold certain views that are akin to those who are called Aerians. Correct to: Aerians, whose customs Lampetius emulated. For Aerius and Eustathius of Sebaste did not differ much from the Massalians. Indeed, according to Philastrius, the Aerians arose in Pamphylia, where the Massalians thrived. ^D Wherefore I have said that those things which the corrector of the codex of St. Hilary, through carelessness, added to the chapter on the Monothelites regarding the Eustathians, pertain to this head. For in the questions of Anastasius, 80, the Eustathians are reckoned with the Lampetians and Massalians: "Some," he says, "fast on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day according to the doctrine of the Eustathians, Marcianists, Lampetians, and Massalians." I have not yet found Eustathius to be more recent than Aerius.]

^A And there are other matters similar to the tenets of those called Arians. From these emerged a certain Eustathius, from whom the Eustathians [proceed].

These are the heresies that existed up to the time of Heraclius. ^B

From the time of Heraclius and thereafter, the following have sprouted up:

99. The Monothelites, who took their origin from Cyrus of Alexandria, and were confirmed by Sergius of Constantinople. These profess two natures in Christ, but one person; and they dogma- ^C tize one will and one operation in Him, thereby abolishing the duality of the natures and vigorously opposing the dogmas of Apollinarius.

^B 10. The Autoproscoptae. They are in all respects orthodox, but they have severed themselves from the communion of the Catholic Church for a rash and trivial reason, under the pretext of observing canons. And although they have no bishops, nor are they, in any sense, leaders of the people, but are merely common men, they stumble over the very things they reproach in others. For they live openly with women, keeping "introductitious" women among themselves; they are occupied with markets, profits, and other secular business, and lead a life entirely inconsistent with that reason, so that by their deeds they destroy what they strive to build up by their words; and thus they become transgressors according to the judgment of the Apostle. For, although they count as monks and are established among the clergy, they honor God with their voice, but despise Him with their works, while those who are simple-minded follow them in their simplicity. ^D

^A However, the genuine alumni of the Church, while they do indeed honor the sacred canons, nevertheless leave matters pertaining to them to the judgment of the bishops and those in charge; and in this way they observe them in practice, holding in high esteem those whom they greatly venerate for the sake of preserving order.]

101. But there still flourishes the seductress of the peoples, the superstition of the Ishmaelites ^B which precedes the advent of the Antichrist. It is said to take its origin from Ishmael, whom Abraham begat of Hagar: for this reason the Ishmaelites are commonly called Hagarenes. But they call them Saracens, as if they were *tes Sarras kenous*, that is, "void of Sarah," because Hagar answered the angel, "Sarah has dismissed me void." Since these people were addicted to idolatry, they used to worship the morning star and Venus, whom they call in their native tongue Chabar, which means "Great." It is manifest that they practiced idolatry up to the times of Heraclius; however, from that time until our own age, a false prophet has arisen among them. ^{C D}

^A Called Mamed, who, having chanced upon both the Old and New Testament, and having similarly held conversations with a certain Arian monk, contrived a heresy of his own. And having gained the favor of his people under the guise of piety, he proclaimed that a writing had been brought down to him from heaven by God. Wherefore, having scribbled some laughable trifles in his book, he hands down this rite of worshipping God unto them.

He posits one God as the creator of all things, who neither was begotten nor has begotten. He says, however, that Christ is the Word of God and His spirit, but created and a servant, and that he was born without seed of Mary, the sister of Moses and Aaron. For he says, the Word of God, having entered into Mary, begat Jesus, who was a prophet and a servant of God. And when the Jews wanted to crucify him through the greatest wickedness, and had arrested him, they fixed his shadow to the cross; but Christ himself was not crucified, he says, nor did he die; for God, because he was most dear to Him, had transferred him to heaven. He also narrates ^B that Christ, when he had ascended into heaven, was asked by God whether he had said that he was the Son of God; and that Jesus replied in this manner: "Be propitious to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I never said such a thing, nor do I disdain Thy service. But wicked men have falsely written against me that I said this word, and they are in great error." Then God, he says, replied to him: "I know that thou didst not speak this word." He invents many other portents ^C similar to this in such a book, and which are clearly ridiculous. He boasts that this volume was sent down to him from God. But we, if we inquire by what witness he received the book from God, or which of the prophets predicted that such a prophet would arise; as they hesitate, we reply that Moses received the law on Mount Sinai when God, with the whole people looking on, ^D made Himself manifest in a cloud, fire, and darkness, and a storm, and that all the prophets, beginning from Moses and thenceforth, predicted the coming of Christ long before, and likewise that Christ is God and the Son of God, who would come having assumed flesh, be crucified, would die and would rise again, and that he would be the judge of the living and the dead. If therefore we ask them, "Why did your prophet not come in this way, with others giving testimony to him; and why, with not even you yourselves beholding, did God not give the scriptures—as He gave the law to Moses—with the people watching and the mountain smoking, and as He provided for him—so that you might have the certainty of the deed?" they reply that God does whatever He wills.

^A We, we say, know this; but how did that scripture come down to your prophet, we ask. And they answer that while he was sleeping, the scripture came down upon him. And we reply to them with the jest: Since he received the scripture while asleep, and felt nothing of that divine inspiration, that common proverb rightly applies to him: "..."

Again, while we ask: Why, when he himself in your scripture (Sur. 4.3) forbade that you should do or receive anything without witnesses, did you not ask him to first produce witnesses who could attest that he was a prophet, and that he came from God; and finally to teach what Scripture bore witness to him? Then, for very shame, they are silent. ^B To whom we rightly add: Since you are not permitted to marry a wife without witnesses, nor to buy, nor to acquire, so that you do not even endure to have an ass or a beast of burden become yours without witnesses; and since you produce witnesses for your wives, your possessions, and all other things, how is it that you accept faith alone and a scripture without any witness? For he who handed it to you has no certainty in any respect, nor does any person exist who testified to him beforehand; rather, he received it while he lay overcome by sleep.

But they call us *Hetaerists* (that is, "Sociators"), ^C because, they say, we join a "companion" to God by saying that Christ is the Son of God and God. To whom we answer that this has been handed down by the prophets and holy Scripture. And yet you assert that you receive the prophets. If, therefore, we are wrong to confess Christ as the Son of God, the prophets themselves taught us this and handed it down to you. Furthermore, some of them say that we have added these things to the prophets, interpreting them in a different sense and through allegories; others say that we were led into error by the Hebrews, who, out of hatred for us, wrote these things in the names of the prophets so that we might be led to our destruction.

113. But again we pose this objection to them: Why do you insult us as "Sociators," you who say that Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit? For the Word and the Spirit cannot be separated from Him in whom they naturally reside. If, therefore, His Word is in God, it is clear that it is also God. But if it is outside of God, then according to your opinion it follows that God is without Word and Spirit; and thus you mutilate God while you are guarding against attributing a companion to Him. ^D For it would have been better for you to say that He has a companion than to mutilate Him and maintain that He is a stone, a piece of wood, or some thing devoid of sense. Therefore, it is no lie to say that you call us *Hetaerists*—that is, Sociators—but we, in turn, call you the mutilators of God.

Moreover, they accuse us of being idolaters because we adore the cross, which they also abhor. And we say...

^A to them: How then do you rub yourselves against a stone, which is your Chaba-tha, and kiss the stone, embracing it? And some of them say that Abraham had intercourse with Hagar upon it; others, that he tied up his camel there, when he was about to sacrifice Isaac. To them we answer: Since the Scripture says that the mountain was wooded and had trees, from which Abraham cut a bundle of wood and placed it on Isaac for the burnt offering, and that he left the donkeys with the boys, whence come so many absurdities for you? For there is no scrubby wood there at all, nor is there any path for donkeys to pass through. At this, they are indeed covered with shame; nevertheless, they still assert it to be the stone of Abraham. But we say: Let it be Abraham’s, as you foolishly claim; are you not ashamed to kiss it for no other reason than that Abraham had intercourse with a woman upon it, or tied a camel to it, while you meanwhile consider us worthy of correction because we adore the cross of Christ, by which the powers of demons and the deceits of the devil have been overthrown? But that stone which they mention is the head of Venus, whom they used to adore, ^B and whom they called Chaber, upon which even today the image of a carved head appears to those who examine it closely.

That Mamed ^C composed many nonsensical writings, as has been said, and assigned a name to each of them. One such is the writing "Concerning Women," in which he openly legislates by law to take four wives and, if possible, one thousand concubines—in addition to those four wives—and as many as his hand can hold, and that he may dismiss whichever one he wishes and take another, for any such reason as he may decree. Mamed had a companion named Zeid (Sur. 33), who had a beautiful wife with whom Mamed fell in love. As they were sitting together, Mamed said to him: "Such-and-such, God has commanded me to take your wife." And he replied: "You are an Apostle; do as God told you: take my wife." Rather, to repeat the matter from the beginning, he said to him: "God has commanded me that you should dismiss your wife." And after a few days had passed, he said: "God has commanded that I should take her for myself." Then, having taken her and committed adultery with her, he established this law: "He who wishes to dismiss his wife, let him do so; but if, after he has dismissed her, he should return to her, let another marry her. For it is not permitted to take her back unless she has been married by another. If even a brother should dismiss her, let her be married ^D by his brother, if he so desires." Furthermore, in his scripture he declares such things: "Work the land which God gave you, and cultivate it with diligence; and do this and do that"—so that I may not recount everything, for they are obscene, as he is.

Again, he edited the writing of the Camel of God, about which he narrates (Sur. 7, 11, and elsewhere) that a camel came forth from God, which drank up the whole river, and would not pass between two mountains because the

^A space was not sufficient for it. The people of that place, he says, were there, and for one day they drank the water, and the camel on the next. And as it drank the water, it nourished them, providing milk instead of water. Then those men, being wicked, he says, arose and killed the camel; and there was a small camel, its offspring, which, when the mother was killed, cried out to God, and He took it to Himself. To these we say: Whence was that camel? They say: From God. We say: Was another camel joined to it? They say: No. How, then, did it give birth? For we see your camel to be fatherless, motherless, and without genealogy; and the one that gave birth to it met a bad end. Moreover, no mate appears, and the small camel was taken up. Why, then, did your prophet, with whom, as you say, God spoke, not learn concerning the camel where it is fed, and who milks it? Or perhaps it too, meeting with misfortune, was killed like its mother, or entered the paradise before you as your forerunner, from which will flow to you the river of milk, about which you speak nonsense? For you claim that three rivers flow for you in paradise: of water, of wine, and of milk. If your camel, which preceded you, lives outside of paradise, it is clear that it has withered from hunger and thirst, ^B or others enjoy its milk; and your prophet boasts in vain that he conversed with God, since the mystery of the camel was not revealed to him. But if it is in paradise, it drinks the water again, and you will wither from the lack of water in the midst of the pleasures of paradise. And even if you desire wine from the flowing river, since water is not present (for the camel drank it all), you will burn while drinking unmixed wine, and you will stumble from drunkenness, and you will fall asleep; and being heavy-headed even after sleep, and having a hangover from the wine, you will forget the delights of paradise. Why, then, did these things not come into the mind of your prophet, so that they might not perhaps happen to you in the garden of delights? Why was he not concerned about the camel, where it now lives? nor did you ask him about it, just as you did not ask about those three rivers, which that seller of dreams described? But we openly announce to you that your prodigious camel has preceded you into the souls of donkeys, among which you too, being in no way unlike beasts of burden, are destined to live. ^C There, furthermore, is the outer darkness, and eternal punishment, the roaring fire, the wakeful worm, and the demons of Tartarus.

Again, Mamed says in the scripture of the Table (Sur. 5) that Christ asked for a table from God, and it was given to him. For God, he says, said to him: "I have given to you and to yours an incorruptible table." In addition, he authored the scripture of the Cow (Sur. 2), and other ravings worthy of laughter, which, on account of their ^D multitude, we pass over.

^A He commanded that they be circumcised along with their wives, and he enjoined that they should neither observe the Sabbath nor be baptized. He handed down that they should eat some of the foods prohibited by the Law, while abstaining from others; but as for the drinking of wine, he forbade it altogether.

[101.] The Christianocathegori (Christian-accusers) are so called because they accuse the Christians, who serve the one, living, and true God, as if they worshipped the ^B venerable images of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our immaculate Lady the holy Theotokos, and of the holy angels, and of His saints, as gods, like the Gentiles. They are also called Iconoclasts, because, displaying an entirely contumelious spirit, they have broken the holy and venerable images in pieces and committed them to the fire, and have either scraped away or covered with lime and ink those which were painted on the walls. Finally, they are called Thymoleontes, because, taking advantage of the opportunity offered by their power, and arming their sect with fury, they cruelly torment with lashes and tortures those who venerate the images. Indeed, they received their name from the head of this heresy.

NOTES

Nicephorus of Constantinople, in his *Antirrhetics* 3, chapter 88, presents a fairly large fragment from a certain book *On Heresies*, to show that this heresy derived its origin from the enemies of the Christians. ^C The beginning of the fragment consists of almost the same words as our author’s context; it is therefore helpful to publish it in full. "That which is advantageous to you," says Nicephorus, "and has been well brought about, I shall set forth, as far as it is in my power, so that you may hear whence and how this heresy, or rather apostasy, took its beginning and its progress, so that it may be known that it is not a Jewish opinion, but this accusation—like the others in all the remaining heresies which, having been sown by the enemy in the Church of Christ, have sprung up—this bitter thorn of impiety has also sprouted. Indeed, it follows those ^D that were enumerated in the hundred and second place. It is as follows:

The heresy of the Christianocathegori, or Iconoclasts. They were called Christianocathegori because they accused the Christians who worship the one living and true God, the One worshipped in Trinity, saying that they worship the venerable images of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our immaculate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and of the saints, as gods in the manner of the Gentiles, and as if they were idols. By despising the Church of Christ, and destroying these images, they bitterly tormented those who revered them according to the custom handed down from the beginning by Christians. This opinion is also Jewish. For they say that some of those who had previously apostatized, sprouted this heresy. As there was in the region of the Jews at that time a certain one who was of their religion, and who excelled in his nation—he was nicknamed 'Forty-cubits' (as we say *Sarantapichos*)—he was an instrument of the devil, and having received him entirely, he practiced sorcery and witchcraft as if it were a kind of craft. This man was hostile to the Christians and stood against the Church of Christ. And indeed, he sought an opportunity in which he might strike and injure piety. He finds the ease of power in the one who then held the rule of the Saracen tribe. *Iezid* was his name. He showed him his own ideas, and as was to be expected, he predicted as favorable to him some of the things he desired. And at the same time he promised that if he would yield to his suggestions, he would have longevity in his rule and would spend thirty years in it. He, being flighty and light-minded, for he embraced a dissolute life and accepted the prospect of extending his philosophy to himself for the longest time for his own pleasure, agreed to the word of the impious one. He then rushed to order that as quickly as possible, every image set up anywhere throughout his rule, and in general every likeness of any living creature, should be pulled down and destroyed. But the devilish malice of this enemy of God, who concealed his deceit as if it were hidden, was that through the destruction of every likeness, the order of our holy iconography might also be cast down. And when this impious decree was proclaimed, along with other likenesses and statues, the entire adornment of the holy images of the Church of Christ was immediately cast down. For they scraped away some, and others they obscured by painting over them. And there were even those which, together with the holy houses and vessels and vestments, were delivered to the fire, and these things were dared by profane and unholy hands. For they compelled those who were sent for this purpose to do as the Christ-hating Jews and Saracens had decreed. Yet the Christians, even though they were pressured and forced, did not consent to touch such great violence. From this source, the evil grew and spread through the Roman realm. Its ruin was received not by some of the common people, but by the leaders of the priesthood themselves; being called pastors by name, but wolves in their manner and character. One of these happened to be the then-bishop of Nacoleia. For having both thought and practiced the same things as the enemies of God, they insulted the Church of God. And it is not right to pass over what kind of end the author of this evil, this most defiled Jew, received. For that *Iezid* did not live more than two years and six months.

^A The one hundred and third heresy is the Aposchistae, who are also called Doxarii. They seek their own glory and are not subject to the justice of God, nor to His priests; and, being acquainted with the heresy of the Autoproscoptae, they seek after canonical institutions, although they are neither bishops nor even presiding over the people, but are certain herd-like men who separate themselves from the Catholic Church. Having emulated the Euchites, or Massalians, they tell the ascetics not to remain for ecclesiastical assemblies, but to be content with the prayers they offer in their monasteries. They are in confusion and mutual dissent among themselves (because... ^B ...he was engaged in witchcraft and incantations, or some such art. He was of a hostile spirit toward Christians and fuming with the bile of envy against the Church of Christ. Therefore, he watched for an opportunity to attempt the thing he had conceived in his mind and to bring ruin upon piety and religion. For this reason, when he had perceived the excessive indulgence of him who at that time ruled over the Saracens (he was called Jesidus), having gained his familiarity and feigning devotion toward him, as was fitting, he prophesied certain things that were pleasing and agreeable to him. And he promised that, if he followed his suggestions, he would have longevity of rule, such that he would complete thirty full years of reign. This man, being lifted up into hope by the levity of his mind—for he was one who indulged in a luxurious life and gladly embraced things that contributed to the prolonging of his lust—gave his assent to the impious discourses. He then began to persuade him that he should order his subjects to cast down and destroy any upright image whatsoever, and the expressed likeness of any animal. This was the diabolical plan of the enemy of God, who, in order to conceal his craftiness, sought that every effigy being overturned, every ornament of sacred paintings would be destroyed, with no one noticing. When this profane decree was promulgated, together with other likenesses and statues, the decoration of the sacred images was soon removed throughout the churches of Christ; some they scraped away, others they effaced by smearing them with lime and dust, and indeed they even consigned them to the fire together with the sacred buildings, vessels, and vestments themselves: and these things were perpetrated with impunity by profane and impure hands. For those who were sent for this purpose urged the Jews, the enemies of Christ, and the Saracens to carry out the commands: but the Christians, no matter how much they were driven, [at] ^C as they sought their own glory, they are not subject to the justice of God, nor to His priests; and, being acquainted with the heresy of the Autoproscoptae, they seek after canonical institutions, not being bishops, nor presiding over the people, but certain herd-like men, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. Having emulated the Euchites, or Massalians, they tell the ascetics not to remain for ecclesiastical assemblies, but to be content with the prayers they offer in their own oratories. They are in confusion and... the son of this man, Oulidos, having succeeded to the name and the beginning of his father, as if to one who had deceived the one who begat him, permitted the sorcerer to be killed by a most bitter and terrible death, he having received the wages worthy of his wickedness. Immediately, the Church throughout the East was adorning its own beauty, and received the renewal of the holy icons. But once that root of bitterness had been grafted into the Roman political order, it reached even to the one ruling at that time; and it was Leo, both in name and in disposition; who, being pricked by the same goads of licentiousness and love of the flesh as the Barbarian, becoming mad against piety, strove to root out the sacred iconography of the holy temples. His son, Constantine, having succeeded to his worthiness and his impiety, fanned the flames of an implacable war against the pious. He convened a council of unholy priests and set forth his own impious dogma of godlessness. That the holy icons were to be completely made to disappear, and those who venerated them, or who spoke a word in their defense, were to be handed over to bitter tortures and scourgings, bringing against them the accusation of idolatry, because they attributed worship to these as if they were gods; and that the sacred form of the monastic life was to be completely driven out and insulted, and the monks were either to change their habit or be subjected to various punishments. So that that which is useful to you, and whereby you may be well, may happen to you, it is within your power to hear from where and in what manner this heresy, or rather apostasy and dissension, received its origin and progress; so that it may be made clear that this accusation is not of royal, but of Jewish character. For after all the other heresies which, through the supreme wickedness of the enemy, have sprouted and grown in the Church, this bitter thorn also emerged with similar impiety. Therefore, it follows, added to the catalogue of those which were reviewed before, at the number one hundred and two, and it is in this manner:

Heresy CII. Christianocategori or Iconoclasts.

They are called Christianocategori, who rendered homage to the one true God, who is worshipped in the Trinity, but were slandered as though they worshipped the holy images of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our immaculate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and of the saints, like gods, in the manner of the Gentiles, with servile observance. And because they abominate them as idols, they brought injury upon the Church of God, by both overturning them and by torturing with dreadful punishments those who would venerate them according to the custom handed down from the beginning to Christians. This clearly savors of Judaism and hatred of God. For in such a manner some of the ancients relate that this heresy arose. A certain man, not obscure, of the Jews, addicted to the superstition of the Jews, who held the first rank among the Gentiles, whose surname was Tessaracontapechus (Al. Sarantapechus), when he was an instrument of the wicked demon, and had completely received him into himself... ^D (72) Iconoclast Aposchistae, or Doxarii, are subject to these in certain codices which the author does not indicate by another name. I would almost affirm that he signified the Paulicians; who, indeed, in the age of the Damascene, provoked the heresy of the Manichaeans, being called by this name by a certain Paul and John, who were Syrians. Concerning whom one should read Euthymius in his Panoplia, who transcribed word for word what is read at the beginning of the book of Photius against the Manichaeans, which exists in the Colbertine library, written out by hand together with three others, with the Amphilochia of the same author. As Epiphanius in the epilogue of the Panarion against heresies, so the Damascene appended a profession of faith to his treatise on heresies by way of an appendix. Lambecius edited this in Greek for the sake of the celebrated Cotelier, in the last volume of the Caesar Library. The author says there are one hundred heresies described by him in summary: thus also one hundred are recounted in the hand-written indices of the heresies, of which the Damascene has treated: so that indeed the heresies of the Autoproscoptae, of the Iconoclasts, and of the Aposchistae, were added to the others at last after the work was completed.

^A For falsehood is manifold; and having departed from the exactness of the ecclesiastical communion, one tries to appear better than another. Some of them do not admit the divine baptism, nor do they become participants in the divine communion. Others do not even salute the figure of the precious cross, recently fashioned, or any venerable image whatever: and, what is the extreme of evils, while they think themselves to excel all others, they do not even receive a priest, but after the manner of the liars, having a cauterized conscience because of a simulated appearance of virtue, they contend about nothing useful; but they treasure up for themselves wood, hay, stubble, the fuel of eternal fire. Moreover, let there be equally absent both the madness of the Iconoclasts and the folly of the Aposchistae; which indeed are diametrically opposed, yet equal in impiety. ^B

Epilogue

NOTES

These things are entirely conformable to the narrative which John the monk of Jerusalem recited in the fifth action of the seventh synod before the Fathers, and which they published separately, together with the continuators of the Byzantine History after Theophanes. But because the Catholics had contended that it was by no means an impiety to express the image of Christ's body, as also of any other man, Copronymus with his followers affirmed that the Lord's body had existed as incircumscript, and, having brought into this matter the books of Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius, Theodotus of Ancyra, Macarius Magnes, and other ancients, from which he was trying to extract that. The seventh synod held these authorities, together with his profane dogma, as of no account; then afterwards, Nicephorus of Constantinople in his *Antirrhetics* examined them: whose excellent works the most learned man, the Reverend Father Anselm Banduri, a monk of the Benedictine order, and most closely joined to me, is about to make public property.

^A light, the Holy Spirit. Wisdom is the Father, wisdom is the Son, wisdom is the Holy Spirit: one God, and not three gods; one God, the Holy Trinity existing in three persons. The Father is the Father, and unbegotten: the Son is the Son, begotten and not unbegotten; for He is from the Father. The Holy Spirit is not begotten, but proceeding; for He is from the Father. Nothing is created, nothing is first or second, nothing is master or servant; but it is a Unity and a Trinity; and it was, and is, and shall be unto the ages; understood and adored by faith: by faith, I say, not by inquiry, not by investigation, not by demonstration. For the more it is investigated, the more it is ignored, and the more curiously it is sought out, the more deeply it is hidden. Let God, therefore, be adored and believed in by the faithful with uncurious reason. And indeed, believe that He is in three subsistences. But inquire not who He Himself is. Do not say within yourself: Where is God? for God is omnipresent. Do not say: In what manner is He? since He exceeds all measure. For God cannot be comprehended. Do not say, How is the Trinity? For the Trinity is not something to be searched out. But if you wish to scrutinize God more studiously, I would have you first explain to me yourself, and the things that ^B are around you. What is the mode of your soul’s existence? In what way is your mind moved? How do you generate a word? By what reason are you mortal and at the same time immortal? But if you are ignorant of these things which are within you, how do you not tremble when you seek out those things which are beyond the heavens? Imagine the Father as a fountain of life, begetting the Son like a river; and the Holy Spirit like the sea. For the fountain, the river, and the sea are one nature. Think of the Father as the root, the Son as the branch, and the Holy Spirit as the fruit. For in these three there is one substance. The Father is the sun, having the Son as the ray, and the Holy Spirit as the heat. The Holy Trinity far surpasses every image and shadow. When you hear of a birth from the Father, take care that you do not think of a bodily birth; when you hear of the Word, do not suspect a corporeal word; and when you hear the word Spirit of God, do not imagine for yourself wind or breath; but with faith alone, without curiosity, give glory. For the Creator and Artificer is understood from His created things. Moreover, believe in the dispensation of the Son of God in the flesh ^C from the Virgin in an ineffable manner, brought about without seed, so that the same person, without confusion and change, could be both God and man. By believing, celebrate His glory, the glory, I say, of Him who arranges all things for you with certain counsel, and pay Him adoration and worship that befit a servant through good works. Adore and venerate the most holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, as the true Mother of God, and all His saints as His servants. If you do this, you become a righteous worshiper of the holy and unconfused Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, of the one Godhead and Deity, to whom be glory, ^D and honor, and adoration unto the ages of ages. Amen.