Book 2, Volume 1

who would not desire to be heard? Truly, great is the blindness of falsehood and error. Moreover, great is the word of God, which instructs us in every way to discern those things which have been brought forth by the impulse of the Holy Spirit, which are spoken partly in the person of the Father, partly in the person of the Son, and partly in the person of the Holy Spirit. And if the Spirit that was in Maximilla were the Holy Spirit, it would never have contradicted its own words. For the Holy Spirit is one, who distributes to each as He wills. And He is called the Spirit of piety, and He is called the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son, being in no way alien from the Father and the Son. Therefore, He would not have said, "Listen not to me." For the Spirit would have spoken the things of Christ, and Christ sends the Spirit, and casts out demons by the Holy Spirit; ^A but the Lord speaks the things of the Father; and the Father has sanctified the Son and sent Him into the world, that they might know Him and glorify Him, just as they glorify the Father. Thus, the mind of those who alienate themselves from the following of Christ has collapsed in every way. And so, what is that which says, Do not listen to me? Blindness is the deception, and great is the word of God, which instructs us in every way to know what things have been spoken by the Holy Spirit, partly in the person of the Father, partly in the person of the Son, and partly in the person of the Holy Spirit. And if the Spirit in Maximilla were the Holy Spirit, it would not have spoken its own words. For the Holy Spirit is one, who distributes to each as He wills. ^B And He is called the Spirit of piety, and He is called the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son, being in no way alien from the Father and the Son. What then, did He not say, "Listen not to me"? For the Spirit of Christ was speaking, and Christ sends the Spirit, and by the Holy Spirit casts out demons; and the Lord says the things of the Father; and the Father sanctified the Son and sent Him into the world, that they might know Him and glorify Him, just as they glorify the Father. And in every way the mind of those who alienate themselves from the following of Christ has fallen away.

XIII. But Maximilla goes on—that sheer force of intelligence and doctrine, if I may speak jokingly—saying that "The Lord sent me, a proclaimer, herald, and interpreter of this labor, and of this promise and covenant, forced, whether I will or no, to learn the knowledge of God." Let us therefore consider, O beloved, the solid and stable foundation of our life and the way of light, and let us not be tripped up by the words of those who are on the opposite side, and by the pasture of a foreign spirit. For look at the one who spoke thus here: she proclaimed herself to be "forced," not by a voluntary will. But our Lord did not come into the world against His will, nor was He sent from the Father with necessity; but He had the will together with the Father, and with the Holy Spirit the capacity to give; and likewise, He has the will together with the Father, and this grace is given to all, not with necessity, but out of an excess of philanthropy. ^C And so, those whom He called, He called with purpose, not imposing necessity, nor placing a yoke upon them. For He says, "You who thirst, come to me"; and again, "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and follow me." And through Isaiah, speaking this same thing, He said: "If you are willing and listen to me." And later, so that the prophet might show who it is that is speaking, he said: "For the mouth of the Lord has spoken these things." And do you see in every way the discrepancy of these things with the divine Scripture, and the different notion and assumption, contrary to the faith and following of God? For Maximilla was indeed saying that she forced those who were willing and those who were unwilling; so that by this very utterance, such a claim is proved to be a lie. For she neither taught the knowledge of God, which she did not know, to those who were willing, nor did she force those who were unwilling. ^D

nor did she teach the knowledge of God, which she did not possess; nor did she offer violence to those who were unwilling. For not all who are in the whole world know the name of Maximilla, or have heard her false dogmas and discourses. Thus, their fabricated dreams and trifles collapse entirely, having nothing in common with divine truth.

^A XIV. Furthermore, those same people especially venerate a certain desert place in Phrygia, where once stood the town of Pepuza, which is today leveled to the ground. For they maintain that the heavenly Jerusalem descends there. Therefore, they travel thither and perform certain mysteries and celebrate sacred rites according to their own opinion. For that faction of men is dispersed throughout Cappadocia, Galatia, and the aforementioned Phrygia—whence the sect is called Cataphrygian—but it is also seen in great numbers in Cilicia and in Constantinople.

^B Finally, that we may omit nothing pertaining to the designation of each of the heresies we have gathered, we must also speak again about the name of the Tascodrugites. For this name belongs either to this very sect or to the one succeeding it, called the Quintillianists; for it is from these very people that this name also originates. They are called Tascodrugites for this reason. In their language, *tascòs* is called a peg, and *drouggos* is called a nose or snout. And from their placing of their index finger, as it is called, upon their nose while praying—ostensibly for the sake of sorrow and affected sanctity—they have been called by some Tascodrugites, that is to say, "peg-nosers." ^C But in this heresy of Montanus, or in its sibling sect of the Quintillianists, or certainly the Priscillianists and Pepuzians, a certain terrible and forbidden work is said to take place. For at a certain festival, they pierce a very young infant over its whole body with bronze needles, and they collect its blood to use in their own rites, ostensibly for a sacrifice.

XV. But enough of this heresy for now. For we undertook in every single instance not to pass over anything, but to communicate honestly what we had discovered either by hearsay, or from the writings of others, or learned by the testimony of some who had given us credible assurance. For if we wished to commit to writing more than what we have received, ^D we would deservedly fall into the suspicion that we had composed certain depraved and absurd things with the intent of attributing the enmity of heretics to them, and that we would be held to the same charge as those who bring forward nothing true, but instead bring into our midst things they have never heard or seen, nor learned from the true discipline of the Holy Spirit. Since, therefore, as we have said, we are accurately covering everything pertaining to each heresy, so that what is destructive and pestilential in them is [brought forward] for the amendment of the readers.

^A And for those who have not yet been beset by it, it serves as a preventative, so to speak—a remedy of the truth dispensed to the prudent, that we ourselves might be called disciples of the disciples of Christ, and of the Savior himself, who exists as the helper of bodies and souls.

Now, having sufficiently and more than enough engaged in the refutation of this heresy, let us, with the help of Christ, proceed to the others, and let us, with the wood of the cross of truth, shatter their virus—which is to say, their venomous, fang-like poisons. For the one we treat now is like a hemorrhaging viper, whose virus is endowed with such power that it drains all the blood from the bodies of those it bites, and thus destroys them. This is exactly what the heresy of the Quintillians accomplishes. For they pierce the body of an innocent child and draw out all its blood, which they then nefariously misuse for the celebration and participation of their mysteries in order to deceive people.

Finally, before we gird ourselves—relying on the power of Christ—to address the remaining ones, let us implore His truth, so that, having tracked down the vestiges of each error and having exposed and refuted its power, we may, as usual, give thanks to God for all things.

AGAINST THE QUINTILLIANS,

I. ^C The Quintillians again—who are also called Pepuzians, Artotyritae, and Priscillians—are the same, being among the Phrygians and originating from them; however, they are divided in a certain way. For these people among the Phrygians, or Priscillians, say that in Pepuza, Quintilla or Priscilla—I cannot say precisely which it was, but one of them, as I have said before—was sleeping in Pepuza, and that Christ approached her and slept with her in that manner which she, in her delusion, used to claim: "In the form," she says, "of a woman, dressed in a bright robe, Christ came to me and instilled wisdom in me, and revealed to me that this place is holy, and that here the holy Jerusalem descends from heaven." Therefore, she says, even until this day, certain women and men are accustomed to being initiated there in that place, in order that, by keeping watch there, they might behold Christ. For this reason, among them women are called prophetesses. ^D Yet, I do not know very clearly whether this is among them or among the Phrygians. For they are together and possess the same mindset.

II. They make use of both the Old and the New Testament, and they believe similarly in the resurrection of the dead. They declare Quintilla, along with Priscilla, to be their founders, whom the Phrygians also acknowledge. They bring forward many very empty authorities.

^A They attribute a unique grace to Eve, because she was the first to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. They also boast of the sister of Moses as a prophetess, using her as a precedent to support their institution of admitting women into the clergy. Furthermore, they say, Philip had four daughters who were prophetesses. Often, seven virgins enter their church holding lamps, dressed in white, pretending to come so that they may prophesy to the people. By displaying a kind of feigned enthusiasm, they deceive the people present, causing them to weep as if they were leading them to a mourning of repentance, shedding tears and lamenting the life of men with a certain theatrical gesture. Among them, women are bishops and women are presbyters, and they are admitted to the other orders, so that no distinction of sex is observed. For in Christ Jesus, there is neither male nor female. These are the things we have discovered about them. They also call them Artotyrites because, to celebrate their mysteries, they use both bread and cheese to perform their rituals.

III. But truly, once one has wandered from the sincere religion, it is inevitable that everything men perform becomes ridiculous and confused, so that various kinds of madness arise from it, as well as the influence of demons upon their bodies. For those who do not hold the anchor of truth, but yield themselves to the gusts of the wind on every occasion, their minds are swept away by a headlong madness. For as to the fact that they admit women to the order of bishops or presbyters, they claim to do this on account of Eve, while they hear what was said by the Lord: ^B Toward your husband shall be your turning, and he shall rule over you. But the apostolic word also escapes them: I do not permit a woman to speak, nor to have authority over a man; and again: For man is not from woman, but woman from man; and: Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression. Oh, the manifold error of this world!

Therefore, as something toothless and full of folly, having bypassed this heresy like a gecko, I shall proceed to what follows, O beloved, calling upon God for the aid of our humility and for the fulfillment of our promise.

AGAINST THE QUARTODECIMANS, Heresy XXX, or L.

^D 1. From these two heresies, both being mixed with one another, the Phrygian,

and the Quintillian or Priscillian sects, a certain new one was formed and introduced into the world: the heresy of the Quartodecimans. While they agree with the Church in other matters, they deviate from everyone in this very point, that they have embraced certain things not consistent with its institutions and doctrine; for they also persist in Jewish fables, though they do not hold equal or identical views with them. For what they say, they do not understand, nor do they know what they are affirming. ^A Indeed, once a year they stubbornly celebrate one day of Pascha. Although they retain a sincere opinion with Catholics concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and they accept the prophets, apostles, and evangelists; and they likewise confess the resurrection of the flesh, and the future judgment, and eternal life; yet among these things they are afflicted by no small calamity, because they misunderstand that which is written in the Law: "Cursed is he who does not make the Pascha on the fourteenth day of the month." ^B There are some among them who, regarding the same single day, differ from those before them, and thus they will the more justly obtain the name Quartodecimans, than the latter ones, which once exercised the whole Church, but especially the Western Church. Those who followed this [view] did indeed celebrate Pascha on a Sunday; but if the fourteenth moon fell on that day, they did not postpone it to the twenty-first day according to the prescription of the Nicene synod, but celebrated the feast on the term itself. That this was held by many in Gaul long ago, in Spain, and especially in Britain, is testified by the writings of Bede, Sigebert, and others. See in particular Bede, *Ecclesiastical History*, bk. 1, ch. 3, and bk. 5, ch. 16; ^C then [see] what we have noted regarding Nicephorus a few years ago. The last error of the Latins concerning the celebration of Pascha arose because, while they observed the Nicene canon and the Catholic rule in other points, they nevertheless, by the Jewish rite, anticipating the near term of the first month, established the new moon on the 8th of March, and they had two common years, which the others called embolismic: namely, in the cycle of 8 and 19. Against these, and their standard-bearer Victorinus, Bede argues in more than one place. And although the 14th moon occasionally celebrated Pascha on a Sunday, they never did so before the equinox: which the Jews were accustomed to do, as will be said elsewhere. There were also other errors of the Quartodecimans. For among other things, they rejected the lapsed with Novatian, as Theodoret reports; which Socrates asserts of the solitary Asiatics in bk. 5, ch. 21, where he discourses at length on the rite of celebrating Pascha, and on the disagreement between the Asiatics and the Romans. ^D Other of them [celebrate] the same single day, differing not at all from the institution of the former; and yet the latter brought this forward as something different and disparate. Wherefore it must be seen whether those predecessors, who claimed to have discovered a certain day from the Acts of Pilate, observed the 14th moon, so much so that this mention of the 8th before the Kalends signifies no change in the calculation of the 14th moon, but contains only superfluous precision. It is also possible that they chose that 14th moon for the celebration of Pascha which was closer to the 8th before the Kalends of April; but the Cappadocians [celebrated] that same day fixed in the Julian year on the 8th before the Kalends of April.

^A And there is a dissension (9) among them that is not trivial, with some saying [it should be] on the fourteenth of the moon of the 8th before the Kalends of April. We also found transcripts from the Acts of Pilate, in which it is indicated that the Passion occurred on the 15th before the Kalends of April. But we determined, as we learned with great accuracy, that the Savior suffered on the 13th before the Kalends of April. Some, however, say on the 10th before the Kalends of April. These, too, have fallen away from the set subject. But I fear to prolong the discourse on these matters to too great an extent. For we have many things to say.

II. ^B For having fulfilled the entire Law, the lawgiver Moses, having received the matter from God, in the final book of Deuteronomy, that is to say, he sets forth all the curses, not only concerning Pascha, but also concerning circumcision, and concerning tithing, and offerings. Therefore, if they have escaped one curse, they have plunged themselves into many. For they will be found to be accursed, not being circumcised; accursed, not tithing; and they become accursed, not offering in Jerusalem. And oh, the many people who cast themselves into many contentions! ^C For truly it is possible to say that wise word of the Ecclesiastes, which was imparted to us from the Holy Spirit: that "This the Ecclesiastes knew, that God made the wise man upright; but they have sought out many paths for themselves."

Whence does the judgment of these men not err? For first, because they keep the Pascha on the fourteenth, they have need to take the sheep from the tenth, and to keep it until the fourteenth; and there will no longer be one day of fasting, but five: the tenth, and the eleventh, and the twelfth, and the thirteenth, and the fourteenth. But if it is sacrificed toward evening (10)

^A it is carried out over the days being assigned to fasting; and no longer is there one single day of fasting; and the question concerning one day among them—which is not one at all—falls away. For it holds the previous types joined together; and they have suffered no minor loss in the divine economy. For it was necessary for Christ to be sacrificed on the fourteenth day according to the Law, so that the light illuminating them according to the Law might cease among them, with the sun rising and covering the moon's radiance. For from the fourteenth day downward, the brightness of the moon wanes. Thus also in the Old Law, from the coming and passion of Christ, the Jewish synagogue was darkened, and the Gospel shone forth; yet the Law was not abolished, but fulfilled; nor was the figure rendered void, but it set forth the truth. For so also, at the performance of the Passover at Jericho, ^B the divine Scripture immediately added, saying: "And they ate in Gilgal, and the manna ceased." In these words, the divine Scriptures testified by prophecy to the very thing, that because of their denial of the Lord, the angelic and heavenly food which they called manna would cease among them at the Lord’s Passion.

III. Furthermore, the holy Church of God, gathering from every side the things necessary for the celebration of this mystery and bringing them into one, retains the truth. For it uses not only the fourteenth day, but also the week that revolves in the recurring order of the seven days of the Sabbath; so that according to those things done by the Lord according to the archetype, there might be both a resurrection and a feast. And it uses not only the fourteenth of the moon, but also the course of the sun, so that by making two Passovers in one year, we might not end up celebrating ^C no Passover at all in another year. Therefore, we observe the fourteenth day, but we pass beyond the equinox, and we bring the conclusion of the completion to the holy Lord’s Day; and we take the lamb from the tenth day, recognizing the name of Jesus through the *iota*; so that nothing might escape our diligence that appears to pertain to the ecclesiastical and genuine and life-saving celebration of the Pasch.

I will, however, pass by this pestilential breath of this toad, or rather this puffed-up serpent, having sealed these things through the power of Christ, and ^D directing my mind to the things that follow, while customarily calling upon God for help.

AGAINST THE HERESY

I. Following these, after the sects of the Cataphrygians, the Quintillianists, and those called the Quartodecimans, a new heresy sprang up in the world, like a weak serpent.

^A that cannot endure the scent of dittany, or of storax, or of frankincense, or of southernwood, or the smell of bitumen, or of incense, or of the gagates stone, or finally of a stag’s horn. For those who have become familiar with these things through experience say that these kinds are repellent to serpents and venomous creatures. And some say that dittany (dictamnum) is so named because those in the medical profession use it as a remedy for women in labor. Thus, it is fitting that we should liken it to the Word who came down from on high, God from the heavens, born of the Father timelessly and without beginning. For Solomon says regarding the foolish and base woman, that "she hates the word of safety." Just so, these men also have hated the solid words of the proclamation, being earthly and abhorring heavenly things. Hence, as they dread the voice of the Holy Spirit, which says: ^B "The voice of the Lord preparing the hinds," He who said to His own servants and apostles: "Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy." For this was the voice preparing the hinds, which was scattered throughout the world through the holy apostles and evangelists so that the hostile force and boldness of the devil might be trodden underfoot. But from the number of the apostles, John especially stood forth, who, setting his mind against them, repressed the power of these blind men, who were like serpents.

II. Yet such men have no strength against the ark. For holy Noah is permitted by the word of the Lord to secure it, as He says to him: "You shall coat it with ^C bitumen within and without," to show the form of the holy Church of God, which possesses the power of bitumen, by which the pernicious and death-dealing doctrines of serpents are repelled. For wherever bitumen is burned, no serpent lingers there. Indeed, they are even put to sleep by the holy scent of storax, and they flee from its smell, as they do from the power of southernwood, or frankincense, if it has been planted and grows above the serpent’s lair. For in those very places where Ebion and Cerinthus and their followers dared to assert that Christ was a mere man and born from the union of both sexes—I mean in Asia—there the Holy Spirit raised up for the world this holy herb, or shrub, which has driven away the serpent ^D and shattered the tyrannical dominion of the devil. For there the blessed John, in his advanced age, was moved by the Holy Spirit to preach and to call back those who had wandered from the path, not that he might compel them by force and necessity, but that he might induce them freely and willingly, and afterwards reveal to those who were persuaded the divine light of heavenly doctrine.

But why do I debate this matter at length? For whoever dwells long in a place where southernwood grows, there no serpent will remain or make its lair. So where the true doctrine of God is, no hiding-place of venomous doctrine will have any power, but it will be utterly destroyed.

^C III. Such, then, is the opinion of the Alogi; for this is the name I bestow upon them. Henceforth they shall be called thus; and so, beloved, let us give them a name, that is to say, Alogi [alogoi]. For they had a heresy, as it is called, which discarded the books of John. Since, therefore, they do not accept the Word [Logos] preached by John, they shall be called Alogi. As total strangers, then, to the preaching of the truth, they deny the purity of the proclamation, and accept neither the Gospel of John nor his Apocalypse. ^B And if they accepted the Gospel, but rejected the Apocalypse, one might say that they were doing this perhaps with subtle and careful judgment, not accepting it as an apocryphal work, because of the things spoken deeply and obscurely in the Apocalypse; but since by their nature they do not accept the books preached by the holy John, it is clear to everyone that these are the very people, and ones like them, of whom the holy John spoke in the Catholic Epistles: *It is the last hour, and you have heard that Antichrist is coming; and now there are many antichrists*, and so on. For these people offer excuses, being ashamed to contradict the holy John because they know that he was numbered among the apostles and was beloved by the Lord; he who worthily revealed the mysteries and reclined upon the breast of the Lord. And so they attempt to refute them in another way. They say that these are not the works of John, but of Cerinthus, and they claim that they are not worthy to be in the Church.

^C IV. But they are refuted by the very beginning of their attempt, neither understanding what they say, nor of whom they affirm it. For how can those things be of Cerinthus, which are especially repugnant to Cerinthus? For Cerinthus asserts that Christ was a simple man, recently born. Whereas John proclaims that the Word was always [present], and came from above, and became flesh. Therefore, from this very introduction, their foolish calumny is exposed as mere stupidity, for they do not understand whence they are being refuted. For they themselves also seem to believe the same things as we do; yet, not holding fast to the secure teachings provided to us by God through the holy John, they will be found to be refuted in those things of which they are ignorant, and how they are puffed up with a knowledge according to the truth. And if they would desire to recover and consider [the matter], they would know. For we would not discard the teachings from the Holy Spirit that are worthily and securely established. For they argue against themselves—for I would not say against the truth—that his books do not agree with the other apostles. And they proceed to lay hold of the holy and

^A divine doctrine of his and argue against it. For, they say, what did he write? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and likewise: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." And immediately: "John bears witness, and cries out, saying, This is he of whom I spoke to you." And: "This is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." Then he writes thus: "And they who heard said to him: Rabbi, where do you stay?" Afterward: "The next day, he says, he wished to go forth into Galilee, and he finds Philip, and Jesus says to him: Follow me." And shortly after this he says: "And after three days there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and Jesus and his disciples were called to the marriage, and his mother was there."

But the other evangelists relate that he spent forty days in ^B the desert, being tempted by the devil, and only then returned and chose his disciples. And those men, in their ignorance, do not perceive that it has been the study of each evangelist to proclaim, in harmony with the others, the things already spoken by them, but also to reveal those things which had been passed over by them. For it was not a matter of their own will, but their teaching and the sequence of their writing proceeded from the Holy Spirit. If they wish to find fault with this, let them learn that the other three did not begin from that same sequence. For Matthew is the first to begin to proclaim the Gospel. For to him was the task committed to preach the Gospel from the beginning, as we have also spoken at length regarding this in another heresy; nor will it trouble us to discuss the same things again here, for the sake of the demonstration of the truth and the refutation of those who are misled.

^C V. This Matthew, therefore, is deemed worthy of the Gospel, as I have said; and most rightly so. For it was fitting that the man who had turned from many sins and had arisen from the toll-booth to Him who came for the salvation of the human race, and who said, "I came not to call the just, but sinners to repentance," should be appointed—as an example to us who are to be saved—to the task of preaching salvation, he who had specifically been drawn from the toll-booth and had turned back from injustice, so that through him men might learn of the philanthropy of His coming. For after the forgiveness of his sins, He granted him also the resurrection of the dead, ^D and the cleansing of leprosy, and the powers of healing, and the casting out of demons, so that he might persuade those who hear not only by word, but also by the work itself.

^A (18) To the lost, that they shall be found through repentance; and to the fallen, that they shall arise; and to the dead, that they shall be revived. 426 And so this Matthew writes and preaches the Gospel in the Hebrew language. And he does not begin from the beginning, but relates the genealogy from Abraham. Abraham, he says, begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob, and the rest [of the sequence], up to Joseph and Mary. And he sets [it] from the beginning, saying: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David; then he says: the son of Abraham. Then, ^B coming to the matter itself that is sought, he says: Now the generation of Jesus Christ was in this wise: When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph, being a just man, sought to put her away privily. And behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying: Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. And this, he says, was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying: Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and so forth. And Joseph, he says, being raised from sleep, did so. And he took unto him his wife; and knew her not ^C till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying: Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Where, then, is the whole history of Zacharias? Where are those things which are narrated by Luke? Where is that vision of the angel? Where is the prophecy of John the Baptist? Where is the rebuke of Zacharias, that he could not speak until all things which had been spoken by the angel were fulfilled? Where are the words spoken by Gabriel to the Virgin? Where is that demonstration of the assurance—with which, ^D with prudence, Mary answered the angel herself—as she asked, saying: How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the pure and precise explanation, as he said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee?

VI. What then shall we say? Since Matthew did not proclaim the things spoken by Luke, are we to suppose that the holy Matthew is inconsistent with the truth? Or, on the contrary, that the holy Luke, in saying that Matthew did not write of these first events, did not tell the truth? Did not God distribute to each [evangelist], so that the four evangelists, being chosen to preach the Gospel, might find what each should accomplish? And [that] they might preach in agreement and equality, so that it might be shown that

^A they have sprung from the same fountain; but that which was received by each, another should recount, he who had received from the Spirit a portion of the analogy. What, then, shall we do, when Matthew preaches that Mary gave birth in Bethlehem, according to the genealogies set down by him, from Abraham and David, the incarnate presence of Christ, while holy Mark is not found saying these things, but takes his introduction to the Gospel from the ministry at the Jordan, and says: "The beginning of the Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: The voice of one crying in the wilderness"? Thus also with those things dealt with by holy John, and secured in the Holy Spirit, he took care to speak not only of those things already preached many times, but of those necessary things omitted by the others in their own preaching. For the entire subject matter of the Gospels followed such a plan.

^B For since Matthew preached Christ as born, and conceived of the Holy Spirit, and, according to the flesh, as having been placed under the dispensation from the seed of David and Abraham, this has been an occasion of error for some who did not understand; not because the Gospel itself is the cause of their being led astray, but because their own mind, having been led astray, contrived those things from the Gospel with a wicked suspicion in order to set forth their own understanding of those same things. For from this, those around Cerinthus and Ebion held that he was a mere man, as did Merinthus, and Cleobius, or Cleobulus, and Claudius, and Demas, and Hermogenes, who loved the present age and abandoned the way of truth. For as they contradicted the disciples of the Lord at that time, they attempted to prove their own folly from the genealogy of Abraham and David; not thinking rightly, yet hunting for a pretext from this point. For they were often contradicted by the holy John and those around him, by Lucius, and many others. But shamelessness, having rubbed its own forehead, was ambitious to draw down evils upon itself.

Immediately after Matthew ^C, there followed

Mark, who was ^A a companion of Saint Peter in Rome, and was entrusted with the publication of the Gospel. And when he had done this, he was sent by Saint Peter to the region of Egypt. This man was one of the seventy-two disciples who were dispersed because of that saying which the Lord had uttered: *Unless anyone eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, he is not worthy of me* (John VI, 54), as those who have read the Gospels clearly understand. However, through Peter he returned, and was deemed worthy to preach the Gospel, being filled with the Holy Spirit. He begins to preach from where the Spirit enjoined him, setting the start from the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, thirty years after the account of Matthew. But since he was the second writer of a Gospel, and did not signify clearly concerning the descent of the Word of God from heaven—although he declared it expressly—yet because he had treated it less accurately, hence new darknesses arose in the minds of those whom I mentioned a little before, lest that evangelical splendor should illuminate them. For thus they boasted: "Behold, a new Gospel is produced for you concerning Christ, in which there is no mention of that heavenly generation; but it records only this: *In the Jordan the Spirit descended upon him, and a voice: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased* (Mark I, 10, 11)." ^B

VII. Since, therefore, such incredible madness was prevailing among them in these matters, the Holy Spirit compels and pricks on Saint Luke, so that he might lead the minds of these blind men out of that deepest abyss, and commit to writing things that had been omitted by others, lest anyone—straying too far from the truth—should believe that the generation of Christ had been proposed by him as a fictitious fable. But he subsequently raises his discourse higher, ^C and since he sets forth everything more subtly, he accurately pursues the series of events, and to create belief in the truth, he brings forward those as witnesses who had been ministers of the divine word. For thus he speaks: *Forasmuch as many have taken in hand* (that he might indicate some who had taken this in hand, namely Cerinthus, Merinthus, and others). He proceeds indeed: *It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus* (Luke I, 3 sqq.)—whether, writing this, he meant a certain Theophilus, or addresses any lover of God—*of those things,* he says, *wherein thou hast been instructed, the certainty.* Here he signifies that some instruction had preceded, by which he had already been imbued by others; but that he had received nothing certain from them. After these things, he exposes the truth of the matter: *There was in the days of Herod the king, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia* (Luke I, 5): and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, whose name was Elizabeth. And he begins from... ^D

a point higher than Matthew did. For Matthew declared the thirtieth year of his age at the beginning. Mark, truly, set forth those events which happened after the thirtieth year; and in those which occurred at the Jordan, he is in agreement with Matthew and Luke. But Matthew began his narrative from the thirtieth year itself, before that whole history of the baptism and the events at the Jordan. Luke, moreover, took his beginning from the sixth month before the conception of the Savior in the womb; to which he then adds nine months, along with the few days in which he was born, so that the span of thirty-one years and more is collected. ^A He recounts, furthermore, how the shepherds, admonished by the angel messengers, beheld God; and how he was born in Bethlehem, and wrapped in swaddling clothes in a manger, and circumcised on the eighth day; and how, after forty days, they performed for him the offerings which the law had prescribed; and how Simeon received him in his arms; and how Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, made open confession; and how he went from Nazareth to Jerusalem with his parents, who paid for him what the law had commanded. None of these things has Matthew, nor Mark, nor John worked out ^B in their accounts.

VIII. From which it has come to pass that certain Gentile philosophers—I mean Porphyry, and Celsus, and Philosabbathius, a man sprung from the Jews, a crafty and most wicked serpent—when they wrote against the evangelical history, accused the holy evangelists; being carnal and animal men, and warring according to the flesh, who could neither please God nor had they known the things of the Holy Spirit. For all of them, stumbling at the words of truth through the blindness of their ignorance, and falling into such error, were wont to boast repeatedly: ^C "Can it be that the same day saw him born in Bethlehem, and—as was the custom to be done after eight days—circumcised, and after forty days carried to Jerusalem; and that those acts of Simeon and Anna occurred on that same day, especially when on the very night that Jesus was brought into the light, an angel appeared to Joseph after the arrival of the Magi, who had come for the sake of worshipping him, and who had offered their gifts from opened purses? For then, he says, the angel appeared to him, saying: 'Arise, and take the child and thy wife, and go into Egypt; for Herod seeketh the life of the child.' ^D If, therefore, he was carried into Egypt on the same night that he was born, and was there until Herod died, how could he have remained in Judea and been circumcised on the eighth day? Or what, then, is this that Luke has lied about after the forty days?" (For thus, through their utmost blasphemy, they raise an objection which turns back upon their own heads.) "For on the fortieth day (says Luke) they brought him into Jerusalem, and thence to Nazareth." But these men, being ignorant, do not in any way understand what the power of the Holy Spirit is.

^A IX. For it was granted to each of the evangelists to describe most truthfully the things that were fulfilled at each of their respective times and opportunities. Therefore, Matthew, having set forth only that he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born without the seed of man, said nothing about the circumcision, nor did he touch upon any of the things that happened before the two years; but he narrated the arrival of the Magi at long last, as the true word of God testifies 1, when Herod inquired of the Magi concerning the time. And the time of the star’s appearance was ascertained, and the answer of the Magi was that it was from two years and under; so that this time was not the same as that which was dealt with by Luke. But Luke narrates the things before the two years; and Matthew, having mentioned the birth, leaped to the two-year period, and made clear the things that happened after two years. ^B Wherefore Herod also, having pondered this after the Magi had departed by another way, thought that that child who had been born would be found in the multitude of children and be killed with them. For he ordered all the infants, as many as were in the territory of Bethlehem, to be killed, from two years old and under, up to that very day on which the Magi had been with him.

From which, who does not see that when the Magi came, the child was two years old? Since the narrative of these events demonstrates the truth itself most accurately. For Luke writes that the child, as soon as he was born, was wrapped in swaddling clothes and lay in a manger and a cave, because there was no place in the inn. For a census was being held then; ^C and those who had been dispersed during the times of the wars that existed under the Maccabees had traveled to every part of the world, so that very few indeed remained living in Bethlehem. Therefore, in one copy of the evangelists it is called the city of David; but in another it is called a village, because it had a very narrow territory. When, therefore, the edict of the emperor Augustus was brought, those who had been scattered here and there were compelled to come to that place with their families for the sake of being enrolled, and they easily filled it, so that because of the crowd of people, nothing was left in the inn. But after the census, each one returned to where he had placed his dwelling. Whence there was more space for living. And so, the first year now being finished, and a second one in addition, because of the memory of those things that had taken place there, ^D from hence to whom is it not evident (25) that when the Magi came, the child was two years old? For the account itself explains the whole matter with complete precision. For Luke says that the child was swaddled immediately upon being born and laid in a manger and in a cave, because there was no place in the inn; for a census was taking place then. And those who had been scattered from the time of the wars that occurred in the time of the Maccabees had been scattered to all parts of the world, and very few remained living in Bethlehem. Therefore, in one manuscript of the evangelists, it is called the city of David; but in another they call it a village, because it had come to have a small expanse of land. But when the command of King Augustus had occurred, and they had a necessity, both those who were dispersed (26) and their families, they came to the place in order to be enrolled, and the multitudes flowing in filled the place, and there was no room in the inn because of the congestion. But after the census, each departed to where he had his permanent place of residence. And so there was space in the land. And as they came, so to speak (27), for the sake of remembrance

the arrival of the Magi occurred at just such a juncture. Perhaps they were no longer in the same lodging where Luke testifies that Mary and Joseph stayed at the time of the census. For they did not find Mary in the cave where she had given birth, but as the Gospel relates, the star, it says, led them to the place where the child was. And entering the house, they found the child with Mary, no longer in a manger, no longer in a cave, but in a house; so that the precision of the truth might be known, and the interval of two years, that is, from the time he was born until the Magi arrived, might be expressed. And on that very night, after two years had passed from the birth, the angel appeared and told him to take the child and his mother to the land of Egypt. Therefore, Joseph does not return to Nazareth, but flees with the child and his mother to Egypt, and spends another two years there; and thus again, after the death of Herod, the angel returns him to Judea.

^B In the thirty-third year of Herod the Lord is born; in the thirty-fifth the Magi came; in the thirty-seventh year Herod dies; and his son Archelaus succeeds to the kingdom, having reigned for nine years, as I have stated in other places. He withdrew, therefore, having heard about Archelaus, and went and dwelt in Nazareth. And from there he used to go up again each year to Jerusalem. Do you see how much precision there is in the holy Gospels regarding every matter? But those who are carried along by ignorance, having darkened their own mind, do not know the import of each narrative; but they simply lift up their mouths against the holy things and loosen their tongues, saying nothing in truth, but estranging themselves from life.

Hence, therefore, Luke, after having narrated the first things, again says how in the twelfth year he went up to Jerusalem; so that he might not leave any room for those who supposed him to have appeared in the world simply as a perfect man of full age, and to have come to the Jordan to John; as was claimed by Cerinthus, and Ebion, and the others. ^C For the crafty serpent, moving in crooked ways, does not stand in one opinion; but to some it seems he was born from the intercourse and seed of a man, and to others that he simply appeared as a man. Therefore, the holy evangelists, describing everything in minute detail, are precise. And by nature Luke, as if tracing the reasoning from below to the things above, says: Now

^A Jesus was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. But this "being supposed" is not the truth; for Joseph was a father in rank, because it had so pleased God; yet he was not a father, since he had not had intercourse with Mary, but was only called her husband because he had become betrothed to her—an old man, of eighty years or so, having six children from his first wife, as I have discussed more fully elsewhere concerning this matter. How, then, could he who had no union be his father? This is entirely impossible.

^B XI. But you will say to me: How then was he called her husband, if he did not possess her? He who doubts these things is ignorant of what the Old Law ordained: for from the time a woman has been betrothed to a man, whether she be a virgin or still living in her father’s house, such a one is called a wife by name alone. For this reason the holy angel says: *Do not fear to take to you your wife* (Matt. I, 20). And that no one might think there is any delusion in the Gospels—for this mystery is astonishing, and the narrative is above human capacity; it is plain and enlightened only to the sons of the Holy Spirit—it says: *And Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthan* (Luke III, 23). And he traces the genealogy up to Abraham, from whence Matthew also began. But he goes beyond Noah and reaches Adam, in order to signify him who was formed first of all, and who was sought out through Him who came from his own substance—that is, from the holy Virgin Mary. For He came for the sake of him who was once formed, and those born from him who desire to inherit eternal life. And having passed beyond Adam, he says, *who was of God* (Luke III, 38).

^C From this, therefore, it was a manifestation that He was indeed the Son of God, yet through the seed of Adam, by continuous succession, He came appearing in the flesh. But those who were led astray did not obtain this light again. They spoke against the Word, deceiving themselves beyond the truth. They claimed, "Behold, a third Gospel, that according to Luke." For this was entrusted to Luke, who was himself one of the seventy-two of those who had been scattered by the word of the Savior, and who had been brought back again to the Lord by the holy Paul, and having been entrusted by him—[the text here reflects the Greek notation regarding Luke's commission to preach the Gospel; and he preaches first in Dalmatia and Gaul...].

to preach the Gospel; and he preaches first ^A in Dalmatia, and in Gaul, and in Italy, and in Macedonia. And the beginning was in Gaul; as the same Paul also says concerning some of his followers in his Epistles: "Crescens," he says, "in Gaul." For it must not be read "in Galatia," as some who have been led astray think, but "in Gaul."

XII. But I shall return to the subject proposed. For since Luke had brought the genealogies from the lower to the higher, and had succeeded in conveying the presence of the Word of God from above, and at the same time had become joined to His incarnate dispensation, so that he might turn those who had been led astray away from their error, they did not understand. Wherefore, the Holy Spirit later compels John, who was excusing himself from preaching the Gospel on account of reverence and humility due to his advanced age, being in the ninetieth year of his life, after his return from Patmos ^B—which happened while Claudius was Caesar—to set forth the Gospel after he had dwelt in Asia for many years. And there was no need for him to go into minute detail regarding the incarnate ministry; for that was already established. But he acted as one walking behind others, seeing them already ahead of him and having given themselves over to rougher paths, and errors, and thorny places, desiring to call them back to the straight way and to secure them by making a proclamation to them; and he said: "Why do you go astray? Where are you turning? Where are you wandering, Cerinthus, and Ebion, and the rest? It is not as you think. Indeed, Christ was born according to the flesh, that is clear. For behold, I myself confess that 'the Word became flesh.' But do not, from the time he became flesh, think that he only existed then. For He is not from the time of Mary only, just as each one of us exists from the time he is born; but before being born, [we] did not exist. But the holy Word of God, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is not from the time of Mary alone, nor from the time of Joseph alone, nor Eli, nor Levi, nor Zorobabel, nor Salathiel, nor Na- ^C than, nor David, nor from Jacob, nor from Isaac, nor from the time of Adam, nor...

[alt-version omitted]

^D Crescens, he says, in Gaul. For it is commonly "in Galatia." Which is the most ancient and certain reading, whatever Epiphanius may assert. Which both Eusebius in Book III of his *History*, ch. 4, and Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, and all the Greeks and Latins recognize. Although there are not wanting those who understand "Galliam" in Paul as "Galatia," like Theodoret. But that Crescens was apostle both to the Gauls and to Galatia, Ado testifies in his *Martyrology* on the 5th of the Kalends of July in his *Chronicle*, as does the new *Roman Martyrology*. For ancient texts only mention Galatia. And certainly it can be doubted whether not only Crescens, but even anyone else in those times brought the light of the Gospel to the Gauls.

...that he wrote the Gospel on Patmos; but at Ephesus. Nor indeed under Claudius, but under Nerva Cocceius he returned from exile, although he asserts he was recalled later under Claudius.

^A nor from David, nor from Jacob, nor from Isaac, nor from the times of Adam, nor Noah, nor Abraham, nor from the fifth day, nor from the fourth day, nor from the third, nor from the second, nor from the time when the heaven and earth were created, nor from the time when the world began; but: *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing that was made*, and the rest. *And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw it.* Then: *There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a testimony, to give testimony of the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.* He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, ^B he gave them power to be made the sons of God; who were born, not of blood and flesh, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, he says, and dwelt among us. John bears witness, and cries out, saying: *This was he of whom I spoke: and of his fulness we all have received.* And he says: *I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying in the wilderness.*

XIII. These things being set forth, he proceeds as follows: *These things were done in Bethabara.* In other copies it is: *Bethania, beyond the Jordan.* After these things, he shows that the disciples of John asked him: *Rabbi, where dwellest thou?* And he said to them: *Come, and see.* And they went, and stayed with him that day. And on the next day, it was about the tenth hour; and Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had followed him. He first finds his own brother Simon, and says to him: *We have found the Messias, which is interpreted Christ.* This man brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: ^C *Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.* On the following day he wished to go into Galilee, and he finds Philip, and Jesus says to him: *Follow me.* Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip finds Nathanael, and says to him: *We have found Jesus the son of Joseph from Nazareth, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write.* And Nathanael said to him: *Can anything of good come from Nazareth?* Philip says to him: *Come, and see.* Jesus seeing Nathanael coming to him, says of him: *Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile.* Nathanael says to him: *Whence knowest thou me?* Jesus answered, and said to him: *Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.* Nathanael answered him, and said: *Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the king of Israel.* Jesus answered, and said to him: *Because I said unto thee: I saw thee under the fig tree, ^D thou believest? Greater things than these shalt thou see.* And he said to him: *Amen, amen I say to you, you shall see*

the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.* And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and so forth. ^B

That he might show that, after the forty days of temptation, and after his return from that very temptation, and his movement toward Nazareth and Galilee, as the other three evangelists have said, he came again to the Jordan; as will be shown from the discourse of John, who says: *The next day he saw him coming, and said: Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.* And again: *The other day, when he saw him walking, he said: This is he of whom I said to you: After me cometh a man who is preferred before me, because he was before me.* And John, he says, bore witness, saying: *That I saw the Spirit coming down as a dove, and remaining upon him.* And the fact that he bore witness, and that *This is he of whom I said to you*, uses this wording to signify different times, so as to demonstrate that it is not the same time as the baptism, but a different one. For he did not come to John immediately after the temptation; but first he went into Galilee, and then from Galilee to the Jordan, which is to say, to John. Wherefore he says: *This is he of whom I said to you.* And since the Gospel says: *And John bore witness: That I saw*; it declares that this happened some time before the event.

^C XIV. After this, the beginning of the calling of those around Peter from Andrew is indicated. For Andrew went up to him—one of the two who had followed him, who were disciples of John, and were still remaining in Galilee, studying under John for a time. And as soon as Andrew had remained that day (it was about the tenth hour), it happened that on that same day he met his own brother Simon, and told him—

^A that which we mentioned a little earlier: We have found the Messiah; and so he led him to the Lord, and the rest. And as the sequence of events has it, he said to him: You shall be called Cephas. And on the morrow he desired, he says, to go out into Galilee, and he finds Philip, and Jesus says to him: Follow me. Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. And you see that he allows us to consider that, of the two who had followed—being disciples of John, of one of whom he mentioned the name, that he was Andrew, but of the other he did not—we might understand this one, whose name he did not mention, to be Philip, on account of their being from the same region, sharing the same tent, practicing the same craft, and being fellow workers; or perhaps it was John, or James, one of the sons of Zebedee. For it was fitting that these should be called first, and then Philip, in the order in which they are enumerated in the Gospels: Peter first, then Andrew, then James, then John, and after these, Philip. But let these things be passed over for now; for the sequence of this treatise is great.

XV. We must return to the question at hand, which serves to show that, just as they were already being discipled under John and were attending to his instruction, and having in the same way spent the first day with Jesus, they then departed on the next day and returned again to fishing, as the accounts of the other Evangelists contain. ^B For after Jesus had departed on the following day, the account immediately adds: On the third day a marriage took place in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the wedding. From the detailed words and sentiments on both sides, it is to be understood that Christ had taken other disciples with him as well, who had remained with him. Perhaps these were those around Nathanael, and Philip, and certain others. For those around Andrew had departed. But those who had remained with him were also invited ^C to the wedding. And after he had performed this first sign, he went down into the parts of Capharnaum and came to dwell there; and from then on he began to work other signs there: that he healed the man who had the withered hand. But he also saved the mother-in-law of Peter—who was from Bethsaida, but had married a woman from Capharnaum, though these towns were not far distant from each other—from a fever, and, having been healed, she served; so that this is the sequence of events. ^D And after these things he returned again to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. Then at last he read the book of Isaiah the prophet, having anticipated them further, and saying: You will surely tell me this proverb: Physician, heal—

^A yourself. Whatever we have heard as having occurred in Capharnaum, do here also in your own country. And do you see how there is a sequence of truth? And he performed nothing, he says, because of their unbelief. And passing on from there, he went into the city of Capharnaum. And having come to the regions of the sea, as Matthew says, he saw Simon Peter and Andrew his brother casting nets; and again James and John, the sons of Zebedee, and he called them completely. And having cast aside their nets then, they followed him. Now Luke ^B indicates the precision of the matter, wherefore they followed him thereafter without turning back, no longer delaying the calling, having said that when he had come to the lake of Gennesaret, he saw Simon and Andrew mending their nets, and he went up into the boat, which was, he says, Peter's and Andrew's. This signifies that he was already known to them. Therefore, because of that familiarity, they received him; and having gone up, he sat down. Then after the teaching, he says to Peter: Put out into the deep, and let down your nets. But they said: Master. For already, because of the testimony of John, those who had heard him before were calling him "Master," since they had heard from him first: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world; and that they remained with him that day, and on the second day they went out.

Afterwards, when they were greatly amazed at the catch of fishes, and Peter was saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord (perhaps he was also repenting because he had previously been called, and had returned to the fish and to the unemployment of fishing), the Lord said: Do not fear; encouraging him, not that he was rejected, but that he was able to hold to the calling. For, he says, from now on you will be catching men. At which time they signaled to their partners who ^C were in the other boat to come and assist them in hauling in the catch. For, as he says, they were partners with Simon, just as it has been explained above by me from this premise. Two did follow him, having heard from John, of whom one was Andrew. But we have considered in our own mind most appropriately that the other was perhaps one of the sons of Zebedee, because of the partnership in their craft and their communion. And then, after all these things, the four of them, having left behind their boats as well, followed him to the land, as the history of Luke holds. So that it is demonstrated completely that no crookedness or contradiction is found in the holy Gospels or among the holy evangelists, but all things are clear, provided one distinguishes the intervals of time. For from this point, the things concerning Peter and John ^D having then been joined and following him, it came to pass that he was teaching throughout all Galilee and in Judea. And as the [word] then was being spread abroad...

(39) From this point onwards, as Epiphanius says, it is brought about that the apostles, Peter, Andrew, and the others, who had been called shortly before and joined to him, set out to preach, even before John was cast into chains. Of which matter we shall treat later, as well as of the birth of Christ and the true year of his baptism and passion.

^A XVI. In the first place, if you take the computation of the Egyptian months, he was baptized on the twelfth of Athyr, which is the sixth day before the Ides of November, that is to say, sixty days before the day of the Epiphany, which is the day of his birth according to the flesh, as the testimony of the Gospel according to Luke has it, where it is written: *And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph.* For he was in actual fact twenty-nine years of age and ten months old when he came to baptism, so that he might be said to be of thirty years, though not yet complete. Hence it is written: *Beginning to be about thirty years of age.* Thereafter followed the forty days of temptation. Then there were more or less two weeks, which he spent at Nazareth after the temptation; then, with John, the first and second day; and after he departed from John, the same amount of time, when Andrew followed him together with his companion, and then Simon Peter. On the next day, as we have said, and as the order of the evangelical narrative requires, Philip was called, and Nathanael. On the third day thereafter, the marriage took place in Cana of Galilee, following those ^B two days mentioned before; and this was the first of all his signs, and the completion of thirty years from his birth and his appearance in the flesh. For on that very day on which he had been born according to the flesh, he is believed to have performed that first miracle of water turned into wine, when he had now finished thirty full years from his birth according to the flesh and his arrival: a point which we have often commemorated, and which the exact series of the Gospel narrative seems to demand that we should understand and receive in that manner. Now, after that first miracle, the other signs followed: and likewise the preaching of the heavenly doctrine, and other things of that kind which pertain to the singular humanity towards us, and to the showing forth and demonstrating of the miraculous power and doctrine of the Gospel. And since this has been stated by me not once but often, I am compelled to repeat it, on account of ^C blind men who, for the sake of asserting their infidelity, seize upon an occasion from every side to contradict both the Holy Spirit and the most consistent order of the Gospels.

XVII. For so clear and accurate a method overwhelms and removes all those who do not hesitate to fight against the Gospel, since it demonstrates the very thing; and it shows the beginnings of the other events following after baptism in this manner. Furthermore, the things that occurred after the baptism during those forty days of temptation in the desert were not passed over by John without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, because they had been committed to memory by the three [other] evangelists before. Just as other evangelists thought other things should be passed over, because one relied upon another as if for support. Yet so, that from them all, the truth is collected ^D and brought together as one.

For immediately after the temptation, as I have said, He goes to Nazareth, and stays there, while no disciple is yet with Him. And from thence He departs to John; at which time Peter is called through the mediation of Andrew; then Philip, and through Philip, Nathanael. ^A And let no one, being doubtful of this, make a careful investigation, seeing that Andrew was the first to meet Jesus, and then Peter, and that he was called through him, and begin to be annoyed by this. For the meeting with Andrew was indeed the first, Peter being younger in his time of life. ^B For later again, when their complete renunciation of all things took place, it occurred through Peter; because he was the leader of his own brother; and furthermore, because God is He who knows the calls of the heart, and knowing who is worthy to be set in the first place, He chose Peter [(41)] to be the leader of His disciples, as it has been most clearly demonstrated. For afterward, when they had come to Him and remained for the first day, as I said, and on the second had traveled, and on the third day, the first miracle having been performed—some others being with Him, not Andrew, nor Peter, nor John, nor James—next, after He had gone into Capharnaum and gone up again into Nazareth, and from thence again to Capharnaum, and had performed a portion of the miracles, such as the healing of him who had the withered hand and of Peter’s mother-in-law, He went up again to Nazareth, and read the book of Isaiah, and went down again to Capharnaum; it was then that the perfect calling of those around Peter and John occurred. ^C And thus the whole sequence is consistent, with nothing contrary existing, but all the truth being most clearly evident, and proclaimed in truth. For the other [(42)] evangelists say that He went off as a fugitive from the face of Herod, and after the flight came and stayed in Nazareth. And after Nazareth, having received baptism, He went away into the desert. And after these things He returned. After having returned, He began to preach.

XVIII. But they say that the Gospel written in the name of John is false. For after saying, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,” and a few other things, it says immediately, “A marriage took place in Cana of Galilee.” And they do not remember, those who summon this foolishness upon themselves, that John, after saying, “The Word became flesh,” says, “and dwelt among us,” which is to say that He became man; ^D and that He came to John the Baptist in the Jordan, and was baptized by him, John the evangelist testifying this after His return from the temptation; just as John the Baptist says that

^A He it is, of whom I spoke to you; and again, that "I saw the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove, and remaining upon Him"; and, "This is He who takes away the sin of the world." You see, therefore, that nothing has been passed over through forgetfulness, but only those things have been omitted which Matthew had already expounded. Since there was no longer need for those, he had to bring forward that divine utterance by which the error of those might be cut down, who believe that Christ was called [Christ] only from Mary and from that time forward, and who say that the Son of God was a mere man, and that He progressed by certain advances and increments until He obtained the name of the Son of God. For this reason, John thought that he must take upon himself that part which seemed necessary; for although all things are great and necessary, he was nevertheless most intent upon explaining divine matters and that heavenly administration. Therefore, those who, on the ground that it does not quite agree with the others, repudiate the Gospel according to John and do not admit it, are in the greatest error and are wandering in the blindness of their mind.

^B XIX. For this most holy evangelist, though fourth in order and succession, and though he was the first of all in the time of his writing, was unwilling to repeat those works of others which had already been clearly set forth before him; but he placed before them those things which had not yet been spoken. For Matthew, having made his beginning of writing from Abraham, having passed over the infancy of Christ and the second year from His birth, again makes his narrative. Mark, however, commences from the fifteenth year of Tiberius, having circumscribed the events of the intervening time. Luke, however, tracing these things from a higher source, began from the time which preceded the birth of Christ, and set forth both his and John's conception in the womb of Mary and Elizabeth. Finally, John, coming last, draws his narrative from the highest point of all, and sets out to establish and strengthen those things which are prior to that temporal generation of Christ. ^C For the things he committed to memory are for the most part spiritual, since those things which pertained to the body had been abundantly corroborated by the writings of others. Wherefore he undertakes a spiritual narrative concerning that divine gift, which, lacking any beginning, was infused into us from the heavenly Father, and, by the counsel and will of the Father, descended into the Blessed Virgin, and in her virginal womb was united with flesh. The others, moreover, spoke things consistent with these, looking chiefly to that which was necessary. But John had regard for the purpose he had set for himself. Thus it happens that from the four Gospels a precise and most certain truth concerning those things which pertain to the flesh and divinity of Christ is established for us.

XX. For when He had completed the whole business of the baptism and the temptation, He came, and having joined the disciples to Himself, He performed that first miracle in Cana of Galilee on the third day after He had begun to preach. ^D For Christ is not said to have attended the marriage before the temptation; nor did He perform any miracle at all before that time, unless perhaps those which it is said He performed in His childhood, which I see are affirmed by some. And yet, that He offered some proofs of His childhood age...

^A was necessary, so that no occasion might be given to other heresies, which claim that Christ descended to the Jordan and entered into Him in the form of a dove.

Wherefore, in His twelfth year, Luke clearly showed this, that while He was disputing with the priests and elders, He said to Mary: "Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?" in order to refute the argument of those who think that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him only from the time that He was baptized; and, on the contrary, that men might understand that the Word Himself, descending from heaven, took flesh from Mary, and that when He reached the Jordan, the Holy Spirit poured Himself into Him: so that this might also be made clear, who He was of whom the Father gave such distinguished testimony: "This is my beloved Son; listen to Him." Moreover, He willed this further to be an example and a proof for those who were to be illumined by the divine light through Him; specifically that they too would inevitably obtain the Holy Spirit, as well as the heavenly benefit, the forgiveness of sins, and the grace communicated by Him in baptism.

XXI. But when He began to perform the greater and more perfect miracles in the time of His preaching, this, he says, is the "first sign" that Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee.

Those things which were done then, when after the temptation and having crossed the Jordan, He turned His course toward His own country—to Nazareth, that is, where He had been raised by His mother. Where, having stayed for ^C two days, He began, inflamed by the zeal and care for human salvation, to undertake the office of preaching. Staying there, therefore, for two days, because He had returned after a long interval, and accompanied by some of the disciples whom He had already taken to Himself, having dismissed the two who had followed Him, He immediately set out for Galilee for the sake of preaching, and to perform that miracle which we read was accomplished at the wedding. For see with what circumspection Scripture declared this very thing, just as John the Baptist testifies as if the matter were already concluded, with these words: "And I did not know Him; but He who sent me to baptize said to me: Upon ^D

^A whom you see the Spirit descending in the form of a dove and remaining on Him, this is He." For the Father, sending John to baptize, had bestowed this sign upon him, so that when he saw it, he might recognize the One sent from above into this world, the Savior and benefactor of our souls. Those, therefore, who hold such views are refuted by the truth of such Scriptures and by their precision, especially by the harmony of the four Evangelists. For no person of sound mind would cast away that which has been most accurately and perfectly treated ^B by the Holy Spirit in the holy Gospels.

XXII. They also bring charges again [(44)] against the same holy Evangelist, or rather against the Gospel itself, claiming, as they say, that John spoke of two Passovers observed by the Savior, while the other Evangelists mentioned only one. And these ignorant people do not know that the Gospels acknowledge not only two Passovers, but speak of two as the first ones, and including the one in which the Savior suffered, [they account for] three Passovers during the time of His preaching. For immediately from the Jordan, as Luke says, Jesus was beginning to be about thirty years old, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, ^C of Eli, and so on. For the Savior was born in the forty-second year of Caesar Augustus, Emperor of the Romans; which was the twenty-ninth year of the Roman relation to the Jews. For Augustus reigned thirteen years before Judea was completely annexed to the Romans. And there was also, in the time of his reign, roughly speaking, a friendship between the Romans and the Jews, an embassy sent, a procurator appointed, and taxes collected for about five years, more or less, until Judea was completely surrendered and became fully subject to tribute; when the princes from the tribe of Judah had ceased ^D and Herod, a man from the nations—a proselyte, however—held the kingdom. Thereafter, Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, and came to begin the preaching when the Christ-leading princes, having lasted until Alexander, had ended.

[(44)] There is nothing in these books of more importance, and in the treatment of which Epiphanius has taken more effort and study, than in this question in which the year of the Lord’s birth and passion is investigated. Yet there is no place more obscure anywhere, nor one where a translator has less leave to equivocate or dissimulate. It is far from the case that he should fear being long-winded in explaining it, or feel the need to defend himself with the brevity of notes and annotations. And this question, since it exercises scholars just as much today as it did in those ancient times, has finally been brought to such a state that whoever has honestly confessed his own ignorance seeks a more honorable outcome than if he were to trust that he could hold something certain and tested. For to start from the ancients; before that common computation of Dionysius had spread, who allowed himself to be shut into a certain and established opinion? It is long and tedious to go through all the opinions of the ancient Fathers; and that has been done diligently by others, especially by our own Deker and by Joannes Kepler the mathematician, in that learned dissertation *De anno Natali*, and in the *Eclogae chronologicae*; to say nothing of the *Annals* of the most illustrious Baronius, and other chronographers. After such exquisite and exact work by all of them, it might seem superfluous for us to discuss more vehemently things which have been anxiously and accurately discussed by them, were it not that Epiphanius himself and the obligation of the task undertaken drove us to it, even against our will. It will be easy for the reader to follow this attempt and our labor, if he recognizes that my aim was this: to handle an almost infinite controversy, the most difficult of all by everyone's judgment, as briefly as such a great matter permits, and no longer than is necessary, but with the greatest ease; and to put forward what has been skillfully devised on this matter by ingenious and learned men, accumulated with some addition of our own. Wherefore the question to be discussed in this place will be two-fold: the one concerning the year itself in which Christ was born; the other, concerning the one in which He suffered. (Because what Petavius discussed here concerning the year of Christ's Nativity and the year in which He suffered is too long to have a place among the notes, we have sent them to the Appendix of the Dissertations which we have placed under the works of Epiphanius. Ed.)

which they indeed continued up to Alexander, and to Saalina, who is also called Alexandra. All these things took their beginning from the time when Christ was born in Bethlehem, in the forty-second year of the whole reign of Augustus, which was the ninth year from the procuratorship of Antipater, the father of Herod, ^A when there was friendship between the Romans and the Jews, and some tributes were paid, and it was already the fourth year since he had been appointed by Augustus. After the fourth year of Herod, and five years—more or less—of the procuratorship of Antipater his father, finally Judea was surrendered completely, until the thirty-third year of Herod, with the forty-second year of Augustus completed, when the whole of Judea was taken under control, as I have said, after it had been made tributary to the Romans for twenty-nine years, and after Antipater, the father of Herod, had served as procurator, and after him Herod had been appointed by Augustus as king over Judea.

^A These things were transacted in the consulship of Octavius Augustus for the thirteenth time, and Silanus; the consuls who followed them succeeded in this order:

I Lentulus and Piso for the second time, II Lucius Caesar and Paulus, III Vinducius and Varus, ^B IV Lamia and Servilius Nommius, V Magnus Pompeius and Valerius, VI Lepidus and Aruntius, VII Caesar and Capito, VIII Creticus and Nerva, IX Camillus and Quintillianus, X Camerinus and Sabinus, XI Dolabella and Silvanus, XII Lepidus and Taurus, XIII Flaccus and Silvanus, XIV The two Sexti, XV Pompeius Magnus and Apuleius, XVI Brutus and Flaccus, XVII Taurus and Libo, XVIII Crassus and Rufus, XIX Tiberius Caesar for the second time, and Drusus Germanicus for the second time, ^C XX Silanus and Balbus, XXI Messala and Gratus, XXII Tiberius Caesar for the third time, and Drusus Germanicus for the third time, XXIII Agrippa and Balbus, XXIV Pollio and Vetus, XXV Cethegus and Varus, XXVI Agrippa for the second time and Lentulus Galba, XXVII Getulicus and Sabinus, XXVIII Crassus and Piso, XXIX Silvanus and Nerva.

^D XXIII. You have here thirty full years. We have been diligent in enumerating these consulships one by one, so that readers may understand that there is nothing fabricated in the sacred doctrine of the truth, but that all things have been preached by the Church with the greatest accuracy. For who, turning his eyes to this series of consuls—which is most certain—will not condemn those who think there is any discrepancy in the number of years expressed by the Evangelists? It is for this reason, surely, that those earlier heresies collapsed, which had invented the fables of the thirty aeons, and had allegorically derived other things of that kind from the number of the thirty years of the Savior, in order that they might thereby be able [to explain the origin] of the aeons and princi-

thirty-third year of his incarnate presence—the Word of God, who is impassible from above, but who deigned to take on flesh for our sake, in order that he might blot out the handwriting of death against us. For after that consulate, in the thirtieth year signifying his life, another consulate occurred, known as that of the two Gemini; then another consulate of Rufus and Rubellio. And thus, as the consulate shifted—the one coming after the consulate of Rubellio, which later came to be called that of Vinicius and Longinus Cassius—the Savior suffered on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of April. And the error of all these men is refuted, clearly demonstrating the teaching that is in accordance with the truth: that not only a period of two Passovers is mentioned in the Gospels, but also [a period of] three.

XXIV. For he was born around the month of January—that is, on the eighth day before the Ides of January, which according to the Romans is the fifth of the month of January; according to the Egyptians, the eleventh of Tybi; ^B according to the Syrians, or Greeks, the sixth of Audynaeus; according to the Cyprians, or Salaminians, the fifth day of the fifth month; according to the Paphian, the fourteenth of Julius; according to the Arabs, the twenty-first of Aleom; according to the Cappadocians, the thirteenth of Arata; according to the Hebrews, the thirteenth of Tebeth; according to the Athenians, the fourth of Maimacterion—and he passed through the twenty-nine full consulates mentioned above. Then, in the thirtieth consulate, around the tenth month, he came to John and was baptized in the river Jordan in the thirtieth year of his incarnate birth—that is, according to the Egyptians, on the twelfth of Athyr, on the eighth day before the Ides of November; ^C according to the Greeks, the eighth of Dius; according to the Salaminians, who are also the Constantians, the sixth of the third Choeac; according to the Paphians, the sixteenth of Apogonicus; according to the Arabs, the twenty-second of Angallabaith; according to the Macedonians, the sixteenth of Apellaeus; according to the Cappadocians, the fifteenth of Aratata; according to the Athenians, the seventh of Metageitnion; according to the Hebrews, the seventh of Marchesvan; as the holy Gospel according to Luke testifies to my statement, saying in this way: *And Jesus was beginning to be about thirty years old, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph.* And from then on, from the twelfth of Athyr, he preached the acceptable year of the Lord, according to those things previously stated by the prophet Isaiah: *The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach the gospel to the poor, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of return.*

XXV. For he truly preached an acceptable year—that is, ^D a year not gainsaid. For he spent the first year after the thirtieth year of his incarnate presence in preaching, and all received him; neither did the Jews resist, nor the Gentiles, nor the Samaritans, but all heard him gladly. In which year he went up to Jerusalem, after he had been baptized and had passed through the forty days of temptation, and had made a choice of his own disciples; and having returned from the temptation to the Jordan, and having crossed the Sea of Tiberias, he proceeded toward Nazareth and arrived at Jerusalem.

^A And in the midst of the feast he cried out, saying: If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. And thus he went away to Nazareth, and into Judea, and into Samaria, and into the regions of Tyre. And when the first year had been completed, he went up again to Jerusalem. And later they sought to take him at the feast, and they were afraid. At which feast he said that "I am not going up to this feast." For he did not lie, heaven forbid! For when the feast was halfway over, he came, he says, and went up to Jerusalem; and they were saying: Is this not he whom they were seeking to take? And lo, he speaks openly; have the priests truly learned that this is the Christ? But we know where this man is from. For because he spoke mystically and spiritually to his own brothers, they did not know what he was saying. ^B For he denied that he would go up into the temple or onto the cross on that feast day, so that he might perform the administration of his Passion and our salvation, and wake from the dead and fly up into heaven, all of which things he performed afterward by his own power and will. And after these things, as the two-year period after his baptism and his birth had been completed, from the month of November and from the month of January, and from the time beyond that, finally in the thirty-third year of his incarnate economy, after he had passed the two consulships which we mentioned, of both Geminus and of Rufus and Rubellio, finally in the third consulship, and in the third month thereof, after January and February, in the month of March, the Word—he who is without passion, having suffered in the flesh for our sake—consummates the mystery of the Passion. Yet he remains in impassibility, as Peter says: Put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit. ^C XXVI. He suffered on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of April, when they had anticipated by one evening, that is to say, on the fourteenth of the moon at the middle of the night. For they had anticipated and eaten the Passover, as the Gospel says, and as we have often related. They ate the Passover, therefore, two days before the eating, that is to say, on Tuesday evening, whereas it should have been on Thursday evening. For the fourteenth, in this way, fell on the Thursday. And he is seized on the same Tuesday evening, which was the eleventh of the moon at night, the sixteenth day before the Kalends of April; Wednesday, the twelfth at night, the fifteenth day before the Kalends of April; Thursday, the thirteenth by day, but the fourteenth at night, the fourteenth day before the Kalends of April; the Preparation (day), the fourteenth at night, the fourteenth day before the Kalends of April; ^D Saturday, the fifteenth at night, the twelfth day before the Kalends of April; finally Sunday dawned, which illumined the underworld, the earth, and the heaven with his light, because of the fifteenth day of the moon and the course of the sun. Then, because the resurrection and the equinox fall on the eleventh day before the Kalends of April. For which reasons, having been deceived, they passed by the legitimate time by one day, as we said before. For there remain from their reasonings some additional hours, which in every third year make the difference of one day among them.

^A For they add to the lunar cycle, after three hundred and fifty-four days, another four hours each year, so that in three years they amount to one day. For this reason, five intercalary months are completed among them in fourteen years, because one hour is taken away from the solar course of three hundred and sixty-five days and three hours. For when the hours are added, there remain three hundred and sixty-five days, less one hour. Whence they, having multiplied the fourteen years six times, so that eighty-four years arise, intercalate one month in the eighty-fifth year: by which it comes about that eighty-five years exhaust thirty-one months; whereas the accurate calculation requires, besides the thirty months, an additional twenty-four days and three hours.

XXVII. Since this had been the cause of error for them, not only did they disturb everything, ^B by anticipating the legitimate time of the Pasch by two days, but also, having exceeded it by one day, they entangled themselves in great errors. But through a wise moderation of the truth, it came about that all things were related most accurately for our salvation. Wherefore, after the Pasch was performed, the Savior withdrew to the mountain, having eaten this very Pasch, which he says he has desired to desire. Therefore, he ate the Jewish Pasch there with his disciples; nor did he perform it any otherwise, but in the exact same manner in which they performed it, so that he might not destroy the law, but fulfill it. And so, when he had already passed his thirtieth year and had approached the baptism, and after this same thirtieth year had completed that solid acceptable year, with no one contradicting, he soon added another, in which he also experienced the resisting Jews and was greatly harassed by their vexations and envy; and furthermore, he had already entered into the third year from the day on which he was born, that is, the Epiphany, which occurs on the sixth of the month of January—or the eleventh of Tybi among the Egyptians—and continued for a full seventy-four days, which, as has been said, end on the thirteenth before the Kalends of April, which is the twenty-fourth of Phamenoth among the Egyptians. In this way, I repeat, he completed thirty-two full years and seventy-four days besides from the Epiphany. Furthermore, he rose again, according to the counting of the Egyptians, on the twenty-sixth of Phamenoth, on the very day of the Equinox, or the eleventh before the Kalends of April. From which it is clear that they are not the children of the truth. ^C

XXVIII. Of these, Valentinus first meets us: who, from the number of thirty years, to which he supposes the age and virile strength of the Savior to have been brought, contrived his fable of thirty aeons. In this, reason flees him. For he did not live only thirty years, but was baptized in his thirtieth year, when he had already reached the tenth month past twenty-nine years. This day we defined before as the twelfth of the month of Athyr, the eighth before the Ides of November. After these points, when he had preached the acceptable year of the Lord, and another equally full of contradiction, and an additional seventy-four days filled with the same trouble, from the day on which he had once been baptized before his birthday; ^D all manifest lies are the works of those who are not the children of the truth.

^A and 132 days; and from the beginning of the consulship of Silvanus and Nerua, two years and 134 days. ^B And here the aforementioned Valentinus is refuted, as well as the many who share his folly. Those also are refuted who reject the Gospel according to John, whom I shall justly call irrational, since they reject the Word of God, who was preached through John, the ancestral God-Word, who has come down from heaven and has wrought salvation for us by the whole of His incarnate presence. For by the consulships, and the years, and the structural evidence of the prophet Isaiah, and from the Gospel according to Luke, and from that according to John, and from that according to Matthew, and from that according to Mark, and in a word, from every side, the misguided are refuted; for He not only fulfilled one Passover after the beginning of the preaching at the annual period of a year, but He even completed the periods of nearly three consulships after the baptism of John. And the argument of those who do not understand has utterly collapsed into error, and madness, and ignorance, which not only does not know its own life, but is also falsely and vainly arrayed against the truth.

XXIX. Of the birth of the Word of God in the forty-second year of Augustus

^C For we find it written somewhere in these accounts that the unbegotten Word of God from God was born around the fortieth year of Augustus; which escaped the notice of the writer, or, because the letter beta was erased and only the letter mu remained, they made it only forty years. For He was born in the forty-second year of Augustus. ^D He states, however, that it was twelve days before the Kalends of July or Ju-

[alt-version omitted]

July, I cannot say, in the consulship of Sulpicius Camerinus and Pompeius Vettius. ^A I pondered this, that those who state the day of the conception, and how Gabriel brought the good news to the Virgin, voiced the suspicion of some who argue in tradition that He was born after seven months. For we have found from this Proposon [(47)] [or, Propontis] until the eleventh of Tybi, and before the eight days of the Ides of January, when the Theophany truly happened, that He was born, a period of seven lunar months minus four days. ^B So therefore, if you should find it written anywhere in notes, do not be misled concerning this information. For the certain birth of Christ is indeed the eleventh of Tybi; but some say that He was carried in the womb for ten months minus fourteen days and eight hours, so that it is nine months and fifteen days and four hours, hinting at what is said by Solomon: *Coagulated in blood after the space of ten months.* Nevertheless, the aforementioned birth of the Lord in the flesh took place everywhere on the eleventh of Tybi according to the Egyptians. And around that same eleventh [(49)], after thirty years, the first miracle took place in Cana of Galilee, when the water was made wine.

[(47)] *We have found from this Proposon.* This is a most foul error, concerning which I would not wager a hair, nor will I begin to prognosticate. Although from the consequences it is possible to elicit what should have been written. For from the day which those men prefixed for this Nativity to the 6th day before the Ides of January, he says there are seven lunar months, less four days. ^C But six lunar months collect 177 days: to which 26 added make 203 days; which, subtracted from 371, leave 166 days. And so, on the 169th day from the Kalends of January, that is, the 14th day before the Kalends of July, they asserted that Christ was conceived, and 200 days later, or on the 6th of January, that He was born, those of whom Epiphanius speaks. And so this passage should have been understood: *from the days before the twelve Kalends of July.* Or because the day is the 24th of Epiphi, *from the 24th of Epiphi.* Cornarius seems to have read *before Piso*. Which is not to be disapproved of, so that it might perhaps be interpreted thus: *From the year of the consulship of Augustus and Plautius, and from the 14th of the Kalends of July of that year to the 11th of Tybi, when Lentulus and Piso were consuls, seven lunar months had intervened.*

[(48)] *But some say that He was carried for ten months.* If those who defend that opinion constitute the Nativity of the Lord on the 11th of Tybi, or the 6th of January, they must have placed His conception on the very Kalends of April. From which day to the 6th of January, nine months and fifteen days are counted, which are in total 281 days. ^D But if, according to the common opinion, they bring it to the 25th of December, the conception of Christ falls on the 20th of March. Epiphanius, however, held it as certain that Christ was born on the 6th of January, which was the opinion of the Egyptians. Although they seem to have doubted whether He was born on that day, as Cassian signifies in *Collation* x, cap. 2. Clement of Alexandria in *Stromata* i reports various opinions on that matter: such as those who said He was born on the 25th of Pachon, that is, the 20th of May; those of the Basilidians, who said the 15th of Tybi, or the 10th of January; or finally others who, like Epiphanius, the 11th of Tybi. But Clement himself counts from the Nativity of the Lord to the death of Commodus 194 years, 1 month, 11 days. And if that were true, the Nativity of Christ would correspond to the 22nd of Athyr, which is the 18th of November. For Commodus died in the 193rd year of the Dionysian era, on the day before the Kalends of January. Therefore Christ will have been born in the 42nd year of the Julian [era], on the 15th of November. But there is an ancient tradition, received by the whole Church, that Christ was born on the 25th of December; which no prudent man would rashly challenge. Wherefore Scaliger’s divination is ridiculous and to be rejected; he, in the *Appendix* of the work *De emendatione temporum*, and in *Isagoge* can. 3, asserts from the circle of ephemerides and priestly functions that the Nativity of Christ should be placed at the end of September. Which is a pure dream; nor does it rest on any demonstration, or any certain firmament: first because it is not yet sufficiently explored what the arrangement of the year and months was among the Jews; then neither is that certain, whether Judas Maccabeus, when he was restoring the sacrifices and the functions of the priests, restored the cycle of the ephemerides *anew and from the beginning*; or whether, after the interrupted *ephemeris*, he substituted that which was to succeed the prior one, under which the temple was violated by Antiochus. To this, Maccabees 1, cap. iv, verse 42, states that a selection of priests was made, namely of those who might be whole and immaculate, such as perhaps the priests of the first course were not. Finally, that Christ was baptized on the 24th of the Julian [era], or at the completion of 30 years, assumed by Scaliger, has not been demonstrated, as we have proven in its proper place. And if any defect appears in that, or if the circuit of the ephemerides seems to the admonishing [scholar] to be for the sake of eliciting the year of Christ, anyone can, by rights used and posited by some of the same things as Scaliger, lead that circle and circuit wherever he pleases; for Kepler also, from that same series, kept the Nativity of the Lord on the 25th day of December.

But to return to that which Epiphanius introduced, the reasoning of some who thought that Christ remained in the womb of His mother for fewer days from the tenth month, because it is written at Sap. vii, 2: *Coagulated in blood after ten months*, the Catholic Armenian used the same argument in the letter which Scaliger cites in *Isagoge* can. p. 301.

[(49)] *And around that same eleventh.* Since he thought that Christ was born on the 6th of January, and baptized on the 8th of November, it was easy for Epiphanius to assert that the first miracle of the changed water happened on the same day on which He was born. But since according to the agreement of the ancient Church, the Nativity of Christ is attributed not to the 6th of January but to the 25th of December, and the baptism to the 6th of January...

A. ^A For this reason, and in many places up to the present day, this miracle which once occurred is renewed, and the very fountains and rivers attest to this by being changed into wine in many places. There is a fountain in the city of Cibyra in Caria where, at the very hour when the ministers drew the water and the Savior said, "Give it to the master of the feast," it is turned into wine. The same thing happens in the fountain of Gerasa in Arabia. We have drunk from that fountain of Cibyra, and our brothers have drunk from the spring in Gerasa, which is in the Martyrium. Many also in Egypt attest to this regarding the Nile. This is why on the eleventh of Tybi, everyone in Egypt draws water and stores it in Egypt itself and in many regions. ^B For thus it is found, after the twelfth of Hathyr, that Christ departed, underwent temptation for forty days, came back, chose some of his disciples, and, after the forty days of temptation, began to preach. And when he had descended to the Jordan and had met those around Nathanael and had taken them with him—when they stayed with him for two days—and when they had departed and he himself had gone out to Galilee, the Gospel immediately mentions, because of the two days previously mentioned: "On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee." This was a symbol of the Church; for on the third day of his work in the heart of the earth, which he performed on earth, rising after the passion, he joined a wedding to Cana. For Cana is interpreted as "possessing." And who is she who possesses, if not the heir, of whom David spoke in the fifth psalm: "For her who inherits," and so forth?

For this wedding is truly blessed, having taken its occasion from that prototype. ^C For there, indeed, was a physical wedding in Cana of Galilee, and water was truly changed into wine; and it was called so in two ways, so that he might restrain the watery and wild lust of those in the world into the temperance and decency of marriage, and that the rest might be remedied into the joy of the pain-relieving wine and of grace; that in every way he might stop the mouths of those rising up against the Lord, and that he might show that he is God with the Father and his Holy Spirit, providing water to the vine, coloring it in it into wine, and the joy of men. In another place we shall narrate these things at greater length; here, however, I have run through this matter as if in a digression. But although two Passovers ^D cannot occur, so that he turned water into wine on the same day he was born or even the day he was baptized. Otherwise, it is most absurd to claim that the first miracle was performed by him a year after his baptism, when, as I have taught before, he had already begun his preaching. For this is manifestly repugnant to the gospel history; but much more so if we assign only three Passovers with the ancients. For this reason, this miracle happened on a different day than the sixth of January; even though the Church celebrates the day on which the baptism occurred. Concerning which see Perrerius, lib. xi, Comm. in Dan., and Baronius in the Annals.

elsewhere we have discussed. Here, however, we have touched upon this discourse as if digressing by the way. But in truth, after the beginning of the preaching, two Passovers were celebrated by Christ; then He suffered at the third, so that all those intervals of days, months, and consulships which I have commemorated are brought to completion. And thus the entire false reasoning of those people vanishes, since the Gospels so agree among themselves that no one may seem to differ from another.

XXXI. But to return now to where I had digressed, Luke writes that which serves to confirm the things which have been variously and manifoldly proposed by me: “It came to pass on the second-first Sabbath.” Wherefore the word indicates that the first Sabbath is that which had been established at the beginning, of which the ^B Lord spoke in the creation of the world, and which from that time forward had arrived at that day by the circuit and revolution of seven days. But the second is that other one established by the law. For so we read that it was decreed: “You shall take for yourself a yearling lamb, unblemished, male (which was a figure of the Savior), from the tenth of the month. And it shall be kept until the fourteenth; and you shall sacrifice it at evening on the fourteenth day. And the Sabbath day shall be a holy day to you. And you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days; and on the seventh day you shall make a holy Sabbath, a holy day.” In this it is permitted to observe how, just as the Sabbath second from the former is called that holy Parasceve, which is consecrated unto the Sabbath, whether it be the Lord’s day, or the second, or the third feria. Yet this very second one, when the orb of seven days has revolved, is called the first. So that this may even serve as an argument, that not only John, but also Luke and the others, make mention of a two-year period, as well as three celebrations of the Passover. For thus indeed the Law prescribes: “You shall count for yourself seven hebdomads, from the day in which you offered the sheaf, from the day that you put the sickle to the grain; and you shall celebrate the seventh hebdomad as a feast day to the Lord your God.”

^A at the beginning of the preaching the Savior acts, and at the third Passover; so that those things already spoken of in detail concerning days, and months, and consulships, are fulfilled. And from every side the discourse concerning these things, which was led astray, has fallen, since the Gospels are in agreement with one another, and neither of the Gospels has anything contrary against the other.

AA’. I shall come again to what is proposed. Luke says again, testifying to me regarding the things spoken of in many ^B parts and in many ways, that: “It came to pass on a second-first Sabbath.” In order to show that the first Sabbath is that which was appointed and spoken of by the Lord from the beginning in the creation of the world, according to a period from that time until here, revolving by seven days, this is the first. But the second Sabbath is that ^C which is appointed by the Law. For he says: “Take for yourself a yearling lamb, unblemished, male (which was a figure of the Savior), from the tenth of the month. And it shall be kept until the fourteenth; and you shall sacrifice it at evening on the fourteenth day. And the Sabbath day shall be a holy day to you, and you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days; and on the seventh day you shall make a holy Sabbath, a holy day.” And see, that after the Sabbath, such a holy day of the Pro-Sabbath is called second, having been sanctified into a Sabbath, whether it be the Lord’s day, or the second, or the third day. But again revolving into seven days, the second is called first; in order to show from this, that not only did John signify concerning a period of two years of days and three feasts of the Passover, but also Luke and the others. For ^D thus the Law says: “You shall count for yourself seven hebdomads from the beginning of the sheaf, of the putting of the sickle to the harvest, and you shall perform the seventh hebdomad as a holy day to the Lord.”

^A By these words he indicates the Pentecost. For after the Passover was sacrificed, within the third day, that is, after three days from the lamb, he commanded the sheaf to be brought in, so that he might signify the blessed sheaf rising from the dead after the third day, the earth offering it up, and it being taken back again from it in the resurrection of the tomb, and remaining with the disciples for forty days, and at the end of the Pentecost bringing it into the heavens to the Father—the first-born of the first-born, the holy first-fruits, the sheaf which was grasped from Mary, which was embraced in God, the fruit of the womb, the first-fruits of the threshing floor. For no longer after Pentecost does the sickle offer the first-fruits to God. For Christ no longer dies; death shall no longer have dominion over him, according to what is written. And do you see how many mysteries of God the law typified, and the Gospel fulfilled? From where then do we not have the clarification of these things to show? Because of not bringing the word into a wide exposition, ^B therefore we must turn back again to the sequence. It appears from the ears of grain and from the harvest and from the disciples that John and Luke and all of them narrate all these things after the forty days of temptation.

^B 32. But those people are not ashamed again to arm themselves against the things spoken by Saint John, thinking that they are perhaps able to overthrow the truth, not knowing that they are arming themselves against themselves rather than against the sound doctrine. But they say, mocking these things concerning the Apocalypse: “What,” he says, “does the Apocalypse of John profit me, telling me about seven angels and seven trumpets?” not knowing how necessary and profitable such things were in the correctness of the preaching. For as many things as were dark and enigmatic in the law and in the prophets, these the Lord ordained through the Holy Spirit for our salvation to be revealed to his servant John; for those things which were dark there, he preached here as spiritual and manifest. And he ordained the same things for us spiritually. And while he makes the tabernacle at that time out of skins, of reddened skins and hyacinthine ones and the rest, it was to show that the tabernacle there was a tabernacle, but one receiving the most perfect tabernacle of Christ. For a skin comes from a body that is dead, being as a shadow of a living body, so as to show that the tabernacle of God ^D is bodies. For since God dwells in holy bodies, the statement being fulfilled that, “I will dwell in them, and walk among them.”

If, therefore, some error was about to happen among the faithful, if the book had not been revealed to us spiritually, so that we might learn that there is no need of trumpets, but to know that the whole dispensation of God is spiritual; that

we should not take them for Jewish bronze trumpets, but understand them spiritually, as being the proclamation of the Church from heaven. As it is also said elsewhere: "On that day they shall blow the great trumpet." ^A For the prophets were trumpets. And the great trumpet is the holy voice of the Lord in the Gospel. For this reason it was granted even to angels to reveal it to us. "For he shall blow," he says, "and the dead shall rise." Now if those trumpets of the angels, which are read of in the Apocalypse, seem ridiculous to you, O you [heretics], because it is written in the Apocalypse, then the trumpet spoken of by the holy Apostle is also ridiculous: "He shall descend," he says, "from heaven at the last trumpet, and the dead shall rise on the last day, in the voice of the archangel." Since, therefore, the Apostle is in such marvelous agreement with the holy apostle John in the Apocalypse, what contradiction remains? And how shall each error not be immediately refuted, since God has given a testimony ^B in each of the saints?

XXXIII. Yet some of them again seize upon this passage in the same Apocalypse. And they argue, saying that he said again: "Write to the angel of the Church in Thyatira," and yet there was no Church of Christians in Thyatira at that time. How then did he write to one that did not exist? And such people find themselves compelled by their own preaching to confess against the truth. For if they say, "There is no Church in Thyatira now," they show that John prophesied it. For those of the Phrygian heresy having settled there, like wolves snatching the minds of the simple faithful, carried off the whole city into their own heresy; those who deny the Apocalypse of the Word were at that time campaigning to overturn it. But now, through the Lord, in this ^C present time, after one hundred and twelve years, the Church exists, and grows, and others are also appearing there. But at that time the whole Church had been emptied out into the Phrygian faction. Therefore the Holy Spirit was eager to reveal to us how the Church was to be deceived after the time of the apostles, of John, and of those... ^D

^A who follow after. For the Lord immediately rebukes them thus: "Write to the angel of the Church in Thyatira: These things says the one who has eyes like a flame of fire, and his feet are like burnished bronze: I know your faith, and love, and ministry, and that your last works are greater than the first. But I have this against you, that you permit the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to lead my servants astray, teaching them to eat things offered to idols and to commit fornication. And I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent from her fornication." ^B Do you not see, O you men, that he speaks concerning those women who, being deceived by the delusion of prophecy, also deceived many others? I refer to Priscilla, Maximilla, and Quintilla, whose fraud, though it could not escape the Holy Spirit, was nevertheless prophetically foretold by the mouth of the holy John, which happened after the falling asleep of the holy John. For since he prophesied in the times of Claudius Caesar, when he was on the island of Patmos (for they themselves also agree that these things were fulfilled in Thyatira), he was consequently writing by prophecy to those in Christ who were living there at that time, that a woman would eventually call herself a prophetess. And thus the argument contrived from every direction to attack the truth fell to the ground, as the word according to the Apocalypse is shown to be truly prophetic and from the Holy Spirit.

XXXIV. The same people again lift themselves up in their mind, ^C hunting after words endlessly, so that they might appear to discard the books of the holy Apostle, I mean John’s Gospel and the Apocalypse, and perhaps the Epistles as well; for even these accord with the Gospel and the Apocalypse. For they say: "I saw," and he said to the angel, "Loose the four angels who are upon the Euphrates. And I heard the number of the army, ten thousand times ten thousand, and a thousand thousands; and they were wearing breastplates of fire, and of sulfur, and of hyacinth." For such people thought—lest perhaps the truth be a laughingstock—that if he speaks of the four angels sitting at the Euphrates, it is to show the four different nations sitting there upon the Euphrates, which ^D are indeed Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, and Persians; for these are the four kingdoms for which, according to Daniel, the end is prepared.

^A For these four kingdoms appear in succession in Daniel, as "first the Assyrians were reigning, and the Babylonians in his time. The Medes succeeded them. After them were the Persians, of whom Cyrus was the first king. For the nations are appointed under angels, as Moses, the saint and servant of God, bears witness to me, explaining the word in order and saying: "Ask your father, and he will declare to you; your elders, and they will tell you: When the Most High divided the nations, as he dispersed the sons of Adam. He set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And the portion of the Lord became his people Jacob, the measuring cord of his inheritance, Israel." If, therefore, the nations are appointed under angels, he rightly said: "Loose the four angels who are bound at the river Euphrates, and who are being held back from allowing the nations ^B to go to war until the time of the Lord's long-suffering, until he shall command."

For the angels who had been appointed by the Spirit were being restrained, not having an opportunity for an incursion, because the time had not yet come to release to them the penalty, so that the rest of the nations might be unleashed on account of the outrage against the saints. ^A Such ones are released and come upon the land, as John prophesies, and the other prophets. For indeed, as the angels are stirred up, they stir up the nations toward an impulse of vengeance.

That by "fiery," "sulphurous," and "hyacinthine" breastplates he signifies certain things, no one doubts. For those nations have their clothing from such a color. For "sulphurous" garments are of a yellow, as it is called, wool; "fiery" garments, so that he may mean crimson clothes; and "hyacinthine," so that he may show the Callaicus (porcelain-colored) wool.

XXXV. But these men, not having received the Holy Spirit, are judged as spiritual insofar as they do not understand the things of the Spirit; and while wishing to speak according to the Word, they do not know the gifts in the holy Church, which the Holy Spirit truly and firmly narrated in a powerful way through those who followed him, namely, the holy prophets and the holy apostles—among whom the blessed John also imparted the same heavenly gift through his Gospel, his Epistles, and the Apocalypse. ^B Yet the saying reaches even to them: "To him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven, neither in this age, nor in the age to come." For indeed, they have waged war against the very words spoken by the Spirit.

Having considered these things and such things said against such a heresy to be sufficient—and as having trampled underfoot, by God's power and truth, this "scolopendra," or what is called the "iulus" (a type of serpent, many-legged, feeble, whose venom does not cause great pain but which, as is said, has many feet and is oblong)—let us move on to the rest, beloved, with the same power of God.

AGAINST THE ADAMIANS,

Heresy XXXII, also LII.

I. ^C They call a "talpam" (mole) a certain animal dwelling in the earth below, a quadruped, which burrows into the earth and has its dwelling in its innermost recesses. Everything about the animal is like a small puppy, having the contour of a little dog, to which there is no sight at all. ^D Yet the animal is destructive, uprooting from below all the crops of men, and especially the acrid plants, such as onions and garlic, bulbs and things of that sort, lilies and many others. But if, while burrowing, it happens to reach the outside of the earth and the open air, or if it is caught by men, it offers a ridiculous spectacle to all who have caught this animal. Just so, I also attempt to speak regarding the heresy now at hand, how it blinds the heart and acts senseless; but...

it brings destruction upon itself, and cuts away the foundation of its own existence from beneath. It brings ruin upon the many men who have fallen into it. And yet, whenever it happens that prudent men catch sight of it, it provokes not an ordinary laugh; just as the aforementioned animal, being mocked for its own blindness and for its incontinence, and finding nowhere to make its entry—just so with this heresy. For they have applied to themselves the name of Adam. We state this ^A having heard it from the account of many men; for we have not found it in writings, nor have we encountered anything of the sort.

Since many have spoken of it, it seemed worthy of mention. Wherefore we have justly compared it to the aforementioned blind animal; and because it does not appear quickly to men, by reason of its being hidden in the earth and working destruction from beneath. It is a laughingstock; and I considered whether to include it in the number at all. But because a report of it exists in the world, it will not be grievous for a wise auditor to know of all things in the world that have been sown like tares by the devil. Whether such a thing exists, or does not exist, having heard it from many who speak of it, it seemed reasonable to me for the sake of certainty to speak of it as well, and not to omit it, even ^B if it were destroyed and no longer exists. For I do not know for certain whether it still exists or not. But why do I extend the preface to the account for a long time? I shall begin to relate the ridiculous, or rather, the mourning. Mourning, because of how the devil has taken up residence in the mind of men, to mock the form fashioned by God; and ridiculous, because they neither see nor understand things with prudence.

II.

they perform in a state of nudity. If anyone, however, is thought to have fallen into fault, as they are accustomed to say, they no longer admit this person into their assembly. For they say that he is the Adam who ate from the tree, and they judge him to be cast out as if from paradise, that is, from their Church. For they consider their own Church to be paradise, and themselves to be the ones concerning Adam and Eve. By what logic, then, do they light a fire beneath their dwelling, so that the cold might not touch them? For Adam and Eve did not have ^A their residence in a house heated from beneath, nor were they oppressed by any scorch, nor did cold impose itself upon them; but they had the purest air, and one measured out by God in perfect temperance, neither strained by the harshness of cold nor beset by the disagreeable burning of heat; and there was ambrosia, prepared indeed by God; the place was well-ordered, made for contentment and a good life. And they were subject neither to cold nor to heat, as I said. Since these people are in need of such things, mockery is greatly theirs.

III. HOW EVERY ERROR OF THEIRS MAY BE REFUTED

Furthermore, let us consider the other point: how all this error is refuted, that they were not naked for one hour, but continuously, and they were not ashamed. And for these people, it is not because they lack shame that "nudity" occurs, even if they themselves think so, but rather on account of insatiable pleasure, which causes desire through the pupils of the eyes. For modesty, which is praised in all the holy Scriptures, has been taken away from them; and truly the word that was said by the prophet (Jerem. III, 3) is fulfilled: "You have acquired the eyes of a harlot; you have become shameless toward all." But after that hour, they ^B cloak themselves in garments outside, and they are no longer Adam. For not immediately did he have a wealth of garments; but first, indeed, fig leaves, then skin tunics, and it was only after a long period of their life that the multi-variegated wisdom of God put into them the knowledge of apparel. And in every way they will be mocked, saying that they are the ones concerning Adam, lying about themselves, and at the same time speaking the truth. For that these people are not Adam, this is clear from many proofs, as we have also pointed out; but that they are mocked by the intelligible serpent, this is clear from their affected habit, and nudity, and shame, and mockery.

It is not worthy for us to make much of their refutation. For the animal ^C to which they are similar does not require military engines or major weapons for its destruction; for by a small rod it is made to vanish. Often, moreover, after it has been brought up from its hole, it is left alone and perishes by itself, being laughed at and mocked, and not found, because of the all-laughable mockery, and indecent behavior, and the subject matter of the nonsense. Having examined the next points, let us again pray to God to work together with us

for the discovery and refutation of the others, and for our own salvation and that of those who encounter them.

461 AGAINST THE SAMPSAEANS, Hæresis XXXIII or LIII.

^A I. There is, in that region called Peraea, a certain heresy of those who are also called Elcesaeans, of whom we have made mention in the previous heresies. This heresy exists in the region of Peraea so called, across the Salt Sea — or Dead Sea, as it is called — in the land of Moab, about the torrent of Arnon, and beyond, in the territory of Ituraea and Nabathaea, as I have often stated already. For these people boast that Elxai is their master. And until now, they worshiped two women from his lineage as if they were goddesses, because they were supposedly from a blessed seed. Both the Ossaeans and Ebionites and Nazarenes use this book of theirs, as I have said more than once; but the Sampsaeans rely upon it most of all. Since they are neither Christians, nor Jews, nor Greeks, they are simply of a middle sort and are nothing at all. They even claim to have another book, which they attribute to a brother of Elxai. They say there is one God, ^B and they worship Him, so they claim, by means of certain baptisms. They adhere to the Jews in all respects. Some among them abstain from all living things. They do not hesitate to face death for the sake of the lineage of Elxai. Moreover, for a time I had heard that one of the two women, named Martho, had died, while Marthana was still alive; unless she too has by now passed away. Whenever either of these women went out from their home and traveled anywhere, a huge multitude of people would accompany them, collecting the dust from their feet and the saliva from their spitting, supposedly for healing, and with great mockery, they would store them up in amulets and charms. For every error begins with blindness, then proceeds to empty babbling. Such people accept neither prophets nor apostles. Everything among them is deceived. Water is honored by them, and they consider this to be God, almost asserting that life comes from it. They confess Christ by name, ^C though they consider Him to be a creature and one who appears repeatedly. They hold that He first fashioned the body of Adam, and then in-dresses Himself in it when He wills. They say that He is called Christ, and that the Holy Spirit is His sister, existing in a female form. They claim that each of them—both Christ and the Holy Spirit—is ninety-six miles in height, and twenty-four in breadth. And they add many other nonsensical things.

II. But since I have already spoken of this kind of doctrine in other heresies, and have demonstrated how it should be refuted, I did not think it necessary to attach great importance to the inquiry into their refutation, as we have already ^D labored upon this Elxai, or rather El-

Elxai, and those from him, in the other heresies previously set forth. For such a man, and the heresy from him, is caught—that he is astray. Since, then, we have struck at the solar lizard with the rod of hope in Christ and ^A of the Cross, let us pass on to what follows. For it is fitting that we use the same enigma—the name by which they themselves also named themselves—for expressing their bastardized appellation. For the Sampsaei are interpreted as "Solars" (Heliakoi). Hence we also mentioned that creature. For men call this lizard a "solar" one in that way. But this heresy is worse than the lizard, having not even an iota of its own benefit. ^B For that one, when its eyes have grown dim, by the turning of the sun, looks up after a time, having squeezed itself into a hole looking toward the east, and having fasted, gazing toward the east. This heresy, however, I say, possesses the foolishness of the animal in all things; indeed, not even the small portion of praise. Since, then, this heresy, having been declared to us as a solar lizard, and trampled upon by the truth, let it remain, being able to do nothing regarding the truth of God. ^C But let us, as we said, hasten to the others.

AGAINST THE THEODOTIANS (67)

I. There arose again a certain Theodotus, being a fragment from the aforementioned irrational heresy, the one denying the Gospel according to John, and the God-Word who was in the beginning in it, and His revelation, but also both consorting with and existing simultaneously with the other previously mentioned ^D heresies, and succeeding them in time, from whom the ones called Theodotians derive their name. And if this heresy still exists, it is unknown; but we shall tell what has come down to us from books.

This Theodotus was from Byzantium, the now-called Constantinople, a tanner by trade, but well-versed in speech. Along with many others, in a time of persecution—I do not know if I should say in such a persecution—he was arrested by the governor of the city with many others, and interrogated with the others for Christ’s sake. And while all the other servants of God, having carried off victory, obtained heavenly rewards, having testified for Christ, this man, having denied Christ and fallen from the goal of truth, became a backslider; and being reproached by many out of great shame, he fled from his own fatherland. And having gone up to Rome, he lived there. And by someone...

who knew him because of his great learning, he was criticized for how a man of such great learning could have fallen from the truth. In, as it were, a poor defense of his own, he invented this empty doctrine, saying: "I did not deny God, but I denied the man." Then, being asked what man, he answers saying: "I denied Christ, who is man." From this, he and those who were established by him, the Theodotians, formulated the doctrine that Christ is a mere man, born of the seed of a man. Then, in defense of his own error, he gathered whatever he found useful, not with a pure and sincere judgment of mind, but so that he might seek some semblance and coloring for his own impiety, ^B seeking sources from everywhere. For instance, what the Lord said: "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth." You see, he says, that he is a man.

II. But the miserable wretch does not know that in the same context Christ speaks the truth "which I have heard from my Father." By "my Father" he means God, and certainly not a man. For if he had heard that from a man, he would not have boasted of the testimony of the truth by saying that he had heard the truth from men; but rather, he intended to show that he is God, born from the Father from above, but having become a man for our sake, and having been killed in the flesh, while living forever in his divinity.

He added that he had committed no sin in denying Christ, since Christ himself spoke thus: "Every blasphemy will be forgiven men, and whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven." But, of course, the most miserable man does not understand that Christ the Lord, when he desired to confirm the salvation of those who had once been insulting to him and had turned themselves to repentance, so that he might not establish any punishment against them, uttered that oracle out of his incredible humanity and clemency. Furthermore, because he knew that there would be some who would rise up against the Holy Spirit and attack him with blasphemies, and who would reduce him to a servile condition and say he was a creature and alien to the nature of God, in order to exclude this error, he added: "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither here nor in the world to come." In this, he did not intend to praise those who blasphemed him, but showed his foreknowledge and his humanity, which provided for the stability of the salvation of those who might repent after their blasphemy. For the same Lord said in another place: "Whoever denies me before men, will be denied before my Father"; and likewise: "I will deny him." Conversely: "Whoever confesses me, I will confess him before my Father."

^B But the miserable wretch did not know that in the same context Christ speaks the truth which I heard from my Father. He says "Father" is God; for he does not mean a man. For if he had heard [it] from a man, he would not have boasted of the testimony of the truth, saying that he had heard the truth from men; but [he said it] so that he might signal that he is God, born from the Father from [above], but [also] that he became a man for our sake, and was killed in the flesh, while still alive in his divinity.

Then he says that he did not even commit a sin by denying Christ, saying that Christ himself said: "Every blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, and the one who speaks a word against the Son of man shall be forgiven. But to the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven." And the miserable [(69)] man is ignorant that the Lord, wishing to secure the salvation of those who had blasphemed him and had turned back to repentance, so that he might not decree condemnation for them, foretold this word out of an excess of gentleness and philanthropy, and because he knew that some were going to rise up and blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and in the manner of a slave define him as being a created thing and alien to the substance of God. Therefore, in order to secure them, he says: "But the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven, neither here nor in the coming age." He is not praising those who blaspheme him, but shows his foreknowledge and his own philanthropy, securing beforehand the salvation of [those] who [might] repent from blasphemy. For he himself says again: "The one who denies me before men, shall be denied before my Father"; and again: "I will deny him"; and again: "The one who confesses in me, I will confess him before my Father." ^{C D}

^A The same Theodotus says again: "And the Law spoke concerning Him: The Lord will raise up for you a Prophet from among your brethren, like me; Him you shall hear. But Moses was a man. And this one who was raised up from God," he says, "was not God, but a man; since He was of them, just as Moses also was a man." And that turncoat Theodotus, having fallen into error, does not perceive in himself how each word has its own safeguard. For that the Lord raised Him up "from among their brethren" is to be referred to the fact that He was born from Mary, as it says: "Behold, the virgin shall have in the womb, and shall bear a son; and, remaining a virgin, she shall have in the womb," not from the seed of a man, "and shall bear a son." It is clear that the offspring is born of a virgin in the flesh. "But they shall call His name Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us." For He is God and man: born of the Father without beginning and without time, but man from Mary because of the incarnate presence.

Then, he says, the Gospel itself (70) said to Mary: "The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon you," and did not say, "The Spirit of the Lord shall be within you." Wherefore, through contentiousness in every respect, the foolish man falls away from the truth. For Holy Scripture, securing our life on all sides, in order to show that the Trinity joins in and works in everything and in every manner, and so that some might not say (as many also falsely pretend to themselves, alienating the Holy Spirit from Christ and the Father), for this reason the angel says to Mary: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you. Therefore also the Holy One who is born from you shall be called the Son of God." And he did not say only, "The one being born," but, "Therefore also the one being born," so as to show the Word, God from above, being born in the womb according to His own incarnation and according to His own good pleasure. And because of that which He managed for His own incarnation for our salvation, he adds: "Therefore also the Holy One who is born shall be called the Son of God." For if he had said, "The Holy Spirit will enter into you," it would no longer be thought that the Son of God had arrived in the flesh, but that the Holy Spirit had arrived in the flesh. That the Word has come down from above, John, clarifying the angel’s evangelical voice, says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made." Then after this: "And the Word became flesh"; and he did not say, "The Spirit became flesh"; nor did he say, "Christ was born a man." For in every way the divine Scripture, safeguarding Him as both God and man...

recognizes Him: as God, who proceeded from God from above; as man, born of Mary without the seed of a man. Whoever deviates from these two most true facts is an alien to the truth.

^B IV. Furthermore, Theodotus raises another objection, citing what Jeremiah said concerning Him: "He is man, and who shall know Him?" He does not understand, because he is estranged from the truth, that every word contains within itself the interpretation of its own power and meaning. For a man is certainly known by many who know him; I mean by father and mother, brothers and kin, companions and neighbors, fellow citizens and servants. But here the Scripture, explaining the miracle of His entire mission, calls Him man because of the flesh He assumed, while by the words, "And who shall know Him?" it intended to declare His Divinity, which cannot be comprehended. For since "no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him," it follows that He Himself cannot be known by anyone unless He reveals Himself. ^C But He reveals to His servants, through the Holy Spirit, both His own Divinity and that of His Father, and His glory, and His own future eternal life, and His mysteries, and His teaching, and His true incarnation for our sake, that He is God from above, and man from Mary.

V. Then this same Theodotus goes on to claim that Isaiah also says He is a man, with these words: "A man knowing how to bear infirmity. And we saw Him in plague and in affliction. And He was dishonored, and was not accounted of." But this brute does not see how he is refuted again. For in the same place Isaiah speaks thus: "As a sheep He was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so He opens not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away." He then adds: "Who shall recount His generation? because His life is taken away from the land of men." He did not say "His life is taken away," but added "from men." ^D For since the Word is perpetually living and has life in Himself, and imparts it to those who love Him, His life is taken away from men—

though He is life by His own nature. For the Word is life, and bestows life upon all who hope in Him in truth. And as for what is written: *"Who shall declare His generation?"* (Isa. LIII, 8), if He were a mere man born of Mary, His generation would be easy to describe. But since He is before David and before Abraham—for He says: "Abraham your father desired to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad"—and when they marveled and said, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" He, refuting Theodotus and the faithless and God-denying Jews, said: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (John VIII, 56 sqq.). He truly existed before Abraham, and before Noah, and before Adam, and before the world, and before the heavens, and before the time of the world, ^B before all things, and before any created things. Therefore, being timeless and ineffable, He is announced by the Holy Spirit through Isaiah: *"Who shall declare His generation?"* For *"His life is taken from the earth."*

But, he says, the apostles said: *"A man approved among you by signs and wonders"* (Acts II, 22); and they did not say "a God approved." But this very thing, Theodotus, kills you again, because in the same Acts the apostles spoke, and blessed Stephen in particular asserts: *"Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God"* (Acts VII, 55).

^C VI. The heretic persists again and objects: "The Apostle," he says, "speaks thus of Christ: *'Mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus'* (I Tim. II, 5)." But he does not know how he is again arming an argument against himself. For he who said, "Mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus," he himself clarified this by saying: *"Who was predestinated the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection of the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord"* (Rom. I, 4); and again: *"Made under the law"* (Gal. IV, 4). And making these words secure, he says: *"For if there are many so-called gods, and many lords, yet to us there is but one God, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things"* (I Cor. VIII, 5). If then all things are by Him, and we are toward Him, then the Only-Begotten born of Mary is not a mere man, nor [born] from the seed of a man. For how could all things have been made by Him—things that existed before Him, according to your argument—if He were a mere man? Or how could all things be recognized and made through Him before Him? And so his babbling falls away from every side. ^D In the same dialogue, having stated the knowledge concerning Him and the refutation of each [point],

468 now then, when those things which lead to the acknowledgment of Theodotus' heresy and to its piecemeal overthrow have been covered, we shall pass over the rest according to the custom of the sequence, just as one might set aside some part of a creeping thing yet [skipping...]

alive, having struck and extinguished it with the rod of the hope and faith of the truth. Therefore, we shall ^A hasten to contemplate and treat of the subsequent heresies, which are as ferocious as wild beasts.

AGAINST THE MELCHISEDECIANS, Heresy XXXV or LV.

I. Others again call themselves Melchisedecians, having perhaps broken away from those called Theodotians. They celebrate that Melchisedec, of whom mention is made in the Scriptures, first of all, and they believe him to be some great power. They place him in the highest and most inexplicable regions; and they assert that he is not only some power, but even greater than Christ himself. They argue that Christ simply came, and was considered worthy of that [Melchisedec's] order, allegedly based on that saying: *You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec*; from which they claim [Christ] is even inferior to Melchisedec. For if he were not placed in a second order, he would not have been in need of that person's order. Concerning Melchisedec himself, they say that he is ^B *without mother, without father, without genealogy*, wishing to demonstrate this from Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews. They also forge for themselves spurious books, deceiving themselves.

Yet, their refutation comes from these very sayings. For as David speaks about the Lord, prophesying that he would be established as a priest according to the order of Melchisedec, the divine Scripture at the same time explains that Christ would be a priest. And it is found immediately saying: *Being made like to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever*. But if he is made like to the Son of God, he is not equal to the Son of God. For how can the servant be equal to the Master? For Melchisedec was indeed a man. And he is called *without father, without mother*, not because he lacked them both, but because there is no mention of them expressed in the divine Scriptures. Indeed, the deep and illustrious things of the Scriptures, which surpass the entire mind and ^C thought of human nature, have led many into error. For the inhabitants of Arabia Petraea, in the region called Rochom and Edom, revere Moses as God because of the marvels performed by him, and they worship his image; being misled—not because the righteous man was the cause for them, but because their own ignorance of the truth regarding the righteous man created a fantasy of the matter for them. ^D

[GREEK COLUMN] gathering; but in Sebaste, which was formerly called Samaria, having ^A deified the daughter of Jephthah, they still perform this rite annually (75). Just so, these people too, hearing the wise and glorious words of the Scripture, turned them into nonsense; and, being lifted up to an arrogant state of mind, they left the way of truth and, having fashioned myths for themselves, they shall be convicted in all things.

II. For indeed, with some, the father and mother of Melchizedek (76) are mentioned; but there is no such thing according to the explicit and canonical Scriptures. Some have said that his father was called Heraclas, and his mother Astaroth, also called Asteria. Now this person was a son of the local people, who at that time dwelled in the plain of Sabe (77). And the city was called Salem (78); concerning which one person has set forth one thing, and another, another. For some say it is the one now called Jerusalem, but once called Jebus; others have said that there is another Salem in the plain of the Shechemites, opposite what is now called Neapolis. Whether, then, it is from here or from there, the places are not far apart from each other, yet the matter explains the deed. For it says, "He brought out bread and wine to Abraham." And he was a priest of the Most High at that time. "He who blessed Abraham, and received a tithe from him." For it was necessary for the priest of the Most High to be honored by the servant of God; and first of all for Abraham to offer to the one acting as priest in uncircumcision. And since the priesthood was about to come from him by way of circumcision, [it was done] so that every height being raised against the knowledge of God might be brought low through knowledge, to the end that the circumcision, boasting of the priesthood, might not be able to argue against the priesthood of the holy Church. For if Abraham offered a tithe to Melchizedek, and those from Abraham offer to Levi and to Aaron—and after a time, for the priesthood to be again from circumcision through Aaron and his sons successively, [as] the Scripture says through David, after twelve generations (79) from the birth of Levi, and the seventh from Aaron—

[LATIN COLUMN] that is abandoned, they have fallen into error. Their just man [Jepthah] does not support this reason; rather it is the madness of those who, because of him, excited an opinion of a true divinity through ignorance. But in Sebaste, which was formerly called Samaria, they consecrated the daughter of Jephthah with divine honors; in whose memory they celebrate an annual festival. Thus those heretics, having heard the words of Scripture full of wisdom and dignity, were led into mindlessness; and being puffed up with arrogance, they abandoned the way of truth, and so we shall most clearly convict them of having invented nothing for themselves but fables.

II. Indeed, some have commemorated the names of both of Melchizedek's parents; but those are nowhere declared in the explicit words of Scripture, nor in either Testament. There are those who say his father was named Heraclas, and his mother Astaroth, or Asteria. Furthermore, that son was from one of the natives of that time, who were living then in the plain of Sabe. They named the city itself Salem, concerning which it has been handed down differently by others. And some think it is the place now called Jerusalem, formerly called Jebus. Others think there is another Salem in the Shechemite field, which looks to Neapolis opposite. But whether it be said to have come from this place or that, both these locations are not far distant from each other. And nevertheless, the narrative of the event itself explains what was done by him. For he says, "He brought out to Abraham bread and wine. And he was a priest of the Most High at that time." He who blessed Abraham, and took a tithe from him. For it was fitting that the priest of the Most High should be honored by the servant of God; and that Abraham, as the first, should offer a gift to the priest celebrating the sacred rites in uncircumcision, since it was to happen at some point that the priesthood proper to circumcision would derive its origin from him himself, so that all loftiness raised against the knowledge of God might be abased by knowledge; and so that circumcision, boasting more gloriously, might not be able to contend with the priesthood of the holy Church. For when Abraham offered a tithe to Melchizedek, and his descendants offered it to Levi and Aaron in succession, and nevertheless [the tithe] was afterwards attributed to circumcision,

^A a nature—it seemed—not established in the old priesthood; yet it was transferred to the order of Levi, and before Aaron, according to the order of Melchizedek, to the priesthood: which is now administered in the Church from Christ until today, not with the seed being any longer chosen by succession, but with the one sought according to virtue as a type.

III. For the first priesthood in uncircumcision was perfected through Abel, then through Noah, and thirdly through Melchizedek. And that Melchizedek ^B was a man, the holy Apostle himself says in the Epistle with these words: "But he whose genealogy is not traced from them received tithes from the patriarch." It is clear, therefore, that he is not genealogized from them. But how many others are not genealogized, as is most manifest? Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah the Tishbite; and in all the inspired scriptures their fathers and mothers are nowhere mentioned. But lest any error arise from this, I shall not be reluctant to relate in this place what we have learned from the tradition of some. We have received that Daniel's father was a certain Sabaan. And as for Elijah, we have similarly found his nature and his patriarchate, which I will explain in order as follows: Elijah the Tishbite ^C was from the tribe of the priests; and many think he was of the tribe of Benjamin. But he states nothing for certain. Among the Christians, besides Epiphanius, the Alexandrian Chronicle, pg. 376, attributes a priestly origin to Elijah, and adds that he was called "Tishbite" from the priestly city of Tishbe in Arabia. This seems to have been borrowed from the book *On the Life of the Prophets*, which is inscribed with the name of Epiphanius. "Elijah," he says, "the prophet was from Thesbōn, from the land of the Arabs, from the tribe of Aaron, a Levite, living in Gilead, because the Tishbite territory was given to the priests." Some superintendent among the Lutherans, who most recently interpolated that book about the prophets, ^D wonders marvelously how to expunge those words which he indeed enclosed in parentheses to signify that they are extraneous. For if, he says, we place Tishbe in Arabia, he will no longer belong to the citizens of Gilead or to the Israelite kingdom. Here he attaches his own conjecture; and clearly the opportunity had to be sought to declaim against the monks, whose ignorance he suspects of having intruded those little words. For when it was read, and there was another reading annotated in the margin, as it grew, he says, by the barbarism of the monks, it was received into the very context of the author. But in that conjecture, that pastor exposed his own supreme ignorance and levity. For he did not know that Arabia once stretched very widely; so that it comprised not only the best part of Transjordania or Peraea, but also Coelesyria and Damascus. Since the region itself of Bashan and Gilead was contained in Arabia, according to the authority of Jerome in *$Isaiah$* and in *$Obadiah$*, where he observes that what was previously called Gilead was later named Arabia, and finally in his own time, Gerasa. Concerning Damascus, Tertullian, in book 3 *Against Marcion*, ch. 13: "Damascus," he says, "was formerly counted as part of Arabia, before it was transferred to Syrophenicia." Therefore, that book *On the Life of the Prophets* understood the Gileadite territory by the name of Arabia. But Kimchi thinks it was so named from the city in which he first dwelt; whence he later migrated to Gilead. Which words of David, the most learned Hebrew [scholar] Elias Levita did not at all understand. For

^A we find a lineage, which I recount in order in this manner. Elias the Thesbite was brother to Joda the priest; and therefore, he was of priestly stock, the son of Achimaam; Achimaam was the son of Sadoc; Sadoc of Achitob; of Amoria; Amorias of Moria; Morias of Zara; this one of Azias; Azias of Phinees; Phinees was the son of Eleazar; Eleazar was the son of Aaron, obviously the priest; Aaron the son of Amram; Amram of Caath; Caath of Levi; Levi the third son of Jacob; Jacob being the brother of Esau, the child of Isaac; Isaac the son of Abraham. But in the stated Books, the origins of these are not indicated with complete clarity, unless perhaps some things which pertain to Elias are comprised in the books of Paralipomenon. Moreover, regarding the three ^B youths, Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, we find nothing of them either in the apocrypha or in the traditions. What then shall we say? Will those three youths cast us into that error, that we should think regarding them what is not lawful, and admire each particular thing more than is right, and over-excessively? Far be it that we should ever admit such a thing into our mind! For both bounds have been prescribed to us, and foundations laid, and the structure of the faith, and the traditions of the apostles, and the holy Scriptures, and the successions of teaching; and divinity is secured from all sides by the truth of God. And let no one be deceived by novel fables.

The opinion of that man is expounded thus: ^C as originating from the city in which he first dwelt, which is called Toschab, but later he dwelt in Gilead; although he does not explain why he was called *of the inhabitants of Gilead*. But otherwise, unless I am mistaken, Kimchi is to be understood. For he does not judge the name of the city to have been *Toschab*, which is absurd, but that he sat there, in that city, namely Thisbi, in the beginning. Wherefore it should be read *Thisbi*. Nor is it true, as Elias adds, that there is no cause offered by David why Scripture should say Elias was of the inhabitants of Gilead, when by express words it signifies this very thing, since having set out from Thisbi he migrated to Gilead. But Elias the Levite teaches that the city in Gilead was Thisbi; which, when it had been razed to the ground by the Israelites after that slaughter of the Gibeonites (in which the Gileadites were likewise involved, Jud. xxi), most of those who had escaped that slaughter returned and later restored the town; and from that event they were named *inhabitants of Gilead*. One of whom was Elias; for it is an argument that he lived in those times, because Phinees was then ^D surviving; whom the masters consider to be the same person as Elias. These are the [views] of the Levite. Which are most foolish. For let us suppose Elias to be Phinees; how can it be believed that he was sought for death by the Israelites and escaped by flight, when he stood on their side and was their leader? Yet, St. Jerome has this same fable about Phinees, that he is the same as Elias, in his book *Quaestiones Hebraicae in Paralipomenon*, relying on the authority of which Petrus Damianus in his 4th Epistle *Ad Nicolaum Pontificem* expounds the same in more detail. This does not even deserve a refutation. The Abulensis denies that he was a priest at all, but [his argument] is a very light conjecture; because he is called an inhabitant of Gilead. Indeed, there is at least room for the opposite suspicion from this, since he was from the *inhabitants* (that is, an incomer, not a native), and not from that tribe, but a stranger and dwelling on foreign soil. But in a doubtful matter, there is on both sides a large store for guessing and dreaming. We are not idle. As for the town of Thisbi, no one has handed down anything certain regarding its location, except that it is asserted to have been Tobias, [which is] placed in Galilee, above Aser: which things are not found at all in the Latin. But also Masius thinks that in Josue xix, *Orn* should be written for *Biosn*. Josephus, book viii, cap. 7, says that Thesbon is a city of Gilead, the fatherland of Elias.

(82) *Brother of Joda*. This is Joiadas the high priest, who performed the priesthood under Athalia and Joas; but died under the latter, when he had lived 130 years. Torniellus assigns his death to the year of the world 3191, and roughly the thirty-fifth year of Joas. But Joas began, according to our chronology, in the year of the Julian period 5836; therefore it corresponds to the year 3870, from which subtracting 130, there remain 3740. Thus, Joiadas was born approximately in the year of the Julian period 3740, about XXXI years after the temple was built under Roboam. But if Elias was the brother of Joiadas, and the son of Achimaaz, it follows that Azarias is the same as Joiadas. For in the book of I Paralipomenon, cap. vi, from Sadoc to the destruction of the temple, this series of priests is proposed: 1 Sadoc 8 Sadoc 2 Achimaas 9 Sellum 3 Azarias 10 Helcias 4 Johanan 11 Azarias 5 Azarias 12 Saraias 6 Amarias 13 Josedec 7 Achitob

Azarias was therefore the same as Joiadas; which Abul. testifies that the learned have thought about this passage of Paralipomenon. Indeed, the succession of the Jewish high priests is a knotty matter; whose names in Josephus are very different from those which are handed down in the book of Paralipomenon. The easiest way of reconciling them is to affirm that most of them were endowed with multiple names. Moreover, in the priestly stock of Elias and Joiadas, Epiphanius has omitted two; for he hands down that Azias, who is Ozi in Scripture, was the son of Phinees, whereas he was his great-grandson. For he omitted Abisue and Bocci.

(85) *In the books of Paralipomenon*. There is not, as far as I know, a single word regarding the stock of Elias in the books of Paralipomenon. Otherwise, all that question regarding the stock of Elias would have been removed, if it had indicated even most lightly from what tribe he was born.

^A IV. I shall now return to the matters I proposed, namely what they most ineptly contrive concerning Melchizedek. For that he was indeed a just man, and a priest of God, and king of Salem, is true; but he was not existing in heaven, nor did he descend from heaven. "For no one has ascended into heaven, but he who has descended from heaven, the Son of man," says the most holy and truthful God the Word. And the divine Scripture, confirming the order of Melchizedek, and the Holy Spirit teaching expressly, showed the translation of the priesthood from the old Synagogue and custom to a most excellent and supreme custom, and one not joined to a carnal succession. For this holy Melchizedek neither had a successor after him, nor was the priesthood taken away from him; for he remained a priest for the whole time of his life. And even now in the Scriptures he is celebrated as a priest, with no one having succeeded him, or having overturned the service of the priesthood during his time. In exactly the same way our Lord, not being a mere man, but from God, very God the Word, and Son of God, begotten of the same without beginning or time, who is perpetually with the Father, yet became man for our sake from Mary, and not from the seed of a man. ^B And He offers the priestly gift to the Father, having taken the lump from human nature, so that for our sake He might be established as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, which has no succession. For He remains offering gifts for us into eternity; having first offered Himself, so that He might abolish the sacrifice of the old covenant, having offered Himself as a more perfect and living sacrifice for the salvation of the whole world; He Himself is the victim, He Himself the sacrifice, He Himself the priest, He Himself the altar, He Himself God, He Himself man, He Himself king, He Himself high priest, He Himself the sheep, He Himself the lamb, having become all things in all for our sake, so that life might in every way be ours, and that He might work the immoveable foundation of His priesthood for all ages, no longer distributing successions according to seed, but gifting that it be guarded in the Holy Spirit according to righteousness.

^C V. Others dream something else regarding this Melchizedek. For such men have been examined carnally, not having understood spiritually what was said by the holy Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And Hierax thinks this Melchizedek is the Holy Spirit, because it is written of him: "made like to the Son of God; he remains a priest forever." This is also illustrated by other words of the Apostle, when he says: "But the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings inexpressible." But he who understands the mind of the Spirit knows that He intercedes with God for the elect. But even this man has wandered completely from the intended meaning. For the Holy Spirit never put on flesh. And not having put on flesh, He could not be king of Salem, or a priest of any place. But at a more opportune time, when [I treat] concerning this Hierax and his heresy, ^D I shall create a subversion of it, then I shall discourse at length concerning these matters.

I shall now seize upon the sequence, and [consider] how many other fables others dream up concerning this Melchisedech.

VI. The Samaritans indeed deem him to be Shem, ^A but they will also be found laughable. For the divine Scripture, establishing all things gracefully and confirming all things in truth, did not arrange the times and the years in vain. For when Abraham was eighty-eight years old, or ninety, more or less, Melchisedech met him then, and brought forth to him bread and wine, prefiguring the enigmas of the mysteries, the antitypes of our Lord, who says, "I am the living bread," and the antitypes of the blood which flowed from his side for the cleansing of those who had been defiled, and for the sprinkling and salvation of our souls. ^B And the father of Abraham, Thare, at his seventieth year... [Melchisedech, king of Salem, the priest of the most high God, who offered wine and bread as the sanctified food in the type of the Eucharist.]

Concerning the opinion of the Jews or Samaritans, and other errors of the ancients about Melchisedech

The aforementioned is spoken of by almost all; the testimonies of whom have long since been studiously collected by Catholic writers. But a distinguished and most eloquent man is he who happens to occur to me now, the passage of Clement of Alexandria in book V of the *Stromata*: "Melchisedech, king of Salem, the priest of the most high God, who offered wine and bread as the sanctified food in the type of the Eucharist." See Augustine, *Epist.* 95.

That Thare begat Abraham at his seventieth year

Scripture explicitly teaches that Thare begat Abraham in the seventieth year of his age, and excludes all tergiversation. Nor have any of the most ancient Fathers interpreted that passage otherwise, as even those who favor the contrary opinion are forced to confess, who, against the authority of Moses, seem to assert that the patriarch was born not in the seventieth, but in the one hundred and thirtieth year of Thare. Let those men see how rightly they repudiate the consensus of so many centuries, and indeed of all the Fathers. We do not believe that what is opposed by them is of such weight that for its sake it must be denied that the sun shines at noon.

Furthermore, in this description of the generations, Epiphanius deviates not only from the Hebrew sources, but also from the numbers of the LXX Elders, such as they exist today. I shall provide here the series of the Hebrews and Greeks, so that each one may more easily perceive what should be observed.

Hebræorum et Latinorum series. Ex editione Vulgata LXX Seniorum. Vixerunt post generationem. Vita integra. Ex Hebræis et Latinis. Sem post diluvium genuit anno 2. Sem anno 500. 600. Arphaxad 35. Arphaxad 135. 303. 558. Sala 30. Cainan 130. Eber 34. Sala 130. 403. 433. Phaleg 30. Eber 134. 430. 464. Reu 52. Phaleg 150. 209. 259. Seruch 50. Reu 152. 207. 259. Nachor 29. Seruch 130. 200. 259. Thare 70. Nachor 179. 119. 148. Abraham 70. Thare 155. 205.

Colliguntur ad Abrahami ortum anni 292. Colliguntur ad Abrahami ortum anni 1172.

Yet by the reckoning of Epiphanius, only 292 years are gathered from the flood to the birth of Abraham. The difference is 230 years, which in the edition of the LXX Elders arise from Cainan and the hundreds of Nachor. For commonly 179 are attributed to Nachor, but by Epiphanius 79. But in the Preface to this work, and in...

^A the Ancoratus number [116], connecting those same generations, he inserted Cainan. So that it might appear that the edition of the LXX Elders was in this part varied and interpolated; for some codices included Cainan, others expunged him. Since in Eusebius' edition (Greek page 9), from Africanus and the LXX Interpreters, and also from the Hebrew exemplars of the Samaritans, Cainan is omitted in the context of this genealogy; nor does the sum of the years from the flood to the birth of Abraham exceed the number of years that Epiphanius counts in this place. Wherefore he indeed followed Eusebius here.

Regarding Cainan, there is an old question, which is usually debated in various ways by more recent writers. To me, he seems entirely to be omitted, since he exists nowhere in the Hebrew truth, nor in the Latin edition. For the idea that some hold that this defect crept into the Hebrew codices is asserted far too idly. The authority of Luke makes the controversy more serious. But this has long since been satisfied by pious and learned men. For since the codices of the Greeks commonly exhibited [the name] Cainan, Luke, who wrote in Greek, copied this genealogy from no other source than from their books: and therefore he also inserted Cainan, whom if he had otherwise omitted, he would have offended the Greeks themselves. Wherefore, affirming nothing on either side, he simply rendered the generations which he had found in the Greek edition. Just as if someone wishing to lead the Ethiopians to the Catholic faith were to excerpt the succession of their kings from their common Annals; even if someone had been intruded into the number, this should be believed to be the fault not of a Catholic writer, but of the histories and the Annals. ^D This I judge, with our Pererius, Jansenius, Genebrardus, and other learned and pious writers, to be probable.

(88) "Eber begets Phalec." The error is not Epiphanius', but the copyist's, in the notation of the numbers. Read therefore 134, as is clearly evident from the following collection.

(89) "According to the calculation of other copies." What these exemplars are, which from the birth of Sem to 80, or Abraham, think there are 628 years—that is, from the flood to the birth of Abraham 348—I could not discover. For neither the Hebrew nor Samaritan, nor finally the editions of the LXX Elders, number them so. Wherefore I fear that the numeral notations of Epiphanius are not entire. According to the Samaritans, and some copies of the LXX Interpreters, which number 942 years from the flood to the birth of Abraham, with 180 added, the years from the birth of Sem to Abraham become 1122.

^A And in that way the vanity of the Samaritans is refuted on all sides.

VII. But the Jews, for their part, admit that he was a just and upright man, and a priest of the Most High, as is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. But they say his mother is not written down, nor is his father known, because he was the son of a harlot. Yet even this nonsensical interpretation fails. For Rahab was a harlot, and yet Scripture makes mention of her. And again, Zambri is recorded as having committed fornication, and Chasbitha with him, even though she was of foreign stock and did not trace her origin from the race of Israel. ^B And everyone who does not enter by the door, as the holy Gospel says, is a thief and not a shepherd.

As pertains to the Catholics, there is not only one way in which Melchisedec is defined. For some believe that the Son of God himself appeared to Abraham at that time in human form. But they appear to have strayed completely. For no one can be called "like" himself, whereas the Scripture speaks of Melchisedec in this manner: "But made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually." Yet this much is true: that he, whose origin is not at all derived from them, received tithes from Abraham, since his lineage is woven from other men than Israelites. All these things have been mentioned by us on account of this heresy, and our narrative has been instituted, as it were, by a digression.

VIII. ^C Now, this same sect also celebrates its offerings in the name of this Melchisedec, whom they proclaim to be an intermediary before God. On account of this, they say, it is right to make offerings to God through his intervention, for he is a prince of righteousness, and was appointed by God to this very end in heaven, being a spiritual being and ordained as a Son of God. And, they say, we must offer to him so that by him we may be represented before God ^D and obtain life through him. And they say that Christ was chosen so that he might recall us to this one knowledge from the manifold divergence of ways, and for that reason he was anointed and chosen by God, because he turned you away from the worship of idols and showed the way. Whence also the Apostle, sent by God, revealed this very thing to us, that Melchisedec is great, and abideth a priest for ever; and, "Consider how great this man is," and that the less is blessed of the better. For this reason, they say, he also blessed Abraham the patriarch, as being greater; of whom we are initiates, so that we may obtain a blessing from him.

IX. But how empty is the understanding of all heresies! For lo, they also denied their own Lord, who ransomed them with his own blood, who did not receive his beginning from Mary, as they think, but who always existed with the Father, God the Word, begotten of the Father without any beginning or time, as the whole Scripture declares. For it says: "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness," and it did not say "to Melchisedec." For he is indeed a priest of God ^D

^A in his own generation, and he did not have a successor after him; but he is not one who has descended from above from heaven. For Scripture did not say that he brought down bread and wine to Abraham; rather, he brought it out to him and to those with him, as one who received the patriarch returning from the defeat of the kings. And he blessed him because of the justice that was present in him, and the faithfulness and piety of the man, because the patriarch had been tested in all things and did not fall away from justice in any particular. Moreover, in that expedition he even had God as an ally against those who had truly invaded the territory of the Sodomites and had carried off his nephew, the holy Lot; and he returned him safe with all the booty and plunder. And how, indeed, can we demonstrate that the Son was always with the Father? For, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It did not say: "In the beginning was Melchisedec." Also: "The Lord therefore came to Abraham; and the Lord rained fire and sulphur upon Sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord." Furthermore, the ^B holy Apostle says: "One God, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things."

So that no one might object: "Where then is the Holy Spirit, since he makes mention of only one and one?" But it was not fitting that the Holy Spirit should be the commendator and herald of himself. For Holy Scripture constantly preserves this practice, that it proposes itself to us on the model of an exemplar. Therefore, regarding the Holy Spirit, the Apostle spoke these things: "One God, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." But he who spoke these things with the Holy Spirit did not intend for the Triad to be incomplete. To this, the Lord himself speaks clearly: "Go therefore and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And again, the Apostle says: "But it is one and the same Spirit who distributes to each as he wills for the benefit." Behold, ^C therefore, the Father; behold, the Son; behold, the Holy Spirit. And nowhere is Melchisedec; neither when it is said that he distributes gifts, nor when he discusses the loftier things. And in vain are the false and contrived things of the obstacles sung by these men—not from the truth, but from the very hissing of the dragon, just as he was able to deceive and lead each one astray.

Now that we have disputed sufficiently about them, let us finally dismiss those whom we have struck down, as if a shrew-mouse, with the stone of strong faith and steadfastness, and have escaped the deadly poison. For ^D they say that the shrew-mouse is such by nature that it causes no immediate harm to one bitten by it, but gradually destroys the body and brings all the limbs to corruption until it has brought the victim to…

^A a state which they call *kelephia*, it in fact inflicts infection. Thus, the dogma of this sect appears to those who first hear of it to be of the most trivial importance; but when, little by little, their discourses have crept in, they bring, first, questions and doubts, and then destruction to those who are not instructed with this defense and, as it were, this antidote. But that animal does not show itself rashly; rather, it moves by night, and it is in this way that it causes the harm—especially in the region of the Egyptians. As it must be known to those who are versed in the knowledge of the animal, we have not made mention of the premise of this animal perfunctorily or because of calumny, for this is its *dikaioma* ^B (right/custom) (92). Henceforth I shall proceed to the others, so that, having been deemed worthy to fulfill the undertaking in God, we may give thanks to God.

AGAINST THE BARDESIANISTS (95),

A'. Following these, there follows a certain Bardesanes, so called. This Bardesanes, from whom the heresy of the Bardesianists has originated, was in his race from Mesopotamia, of those dwelling in the city of the Edessenes. He happened at first to be an excellent man; he wrote not a few discourses when he still had a sound and whole mind. For he originated from the holy Church of God, being a man of learning in the two languages, namely, in the Greek dialect and in the tongue of the Syrians. ^C Being at first closely associated with Abgar, the dynast of the Edessenes, a most holy man, and at once cooperating with him and having shared in his education, he persevered after the latter's death until the times of Antonius Caesar—not the one called the Pious, but Verus—the one who discussed much against the astronomer Abidas concerning fate. And other writings of his are also brought forward that are in accordance with the pious faith. But being pressed by Apollonius, the companion of Antoninus (94), to deny that he was a Christian, he would not acquiesce, ^D and he was almost related among the confessors of the faith. For indeed, by the patronage of piety... [original-script column: see facsimile] ...and, if someone pricks it, he will see the underlying flesh becoming foul and separated through the cracks. Swelling also follows those who have been bitten.

(92) "This is its *dikaioma*." It is Hebrew, *mishpat*, custom, a certain proper thing. Right in Scripture is for the most part rendered as *dikaioma*, which, however, it is not always permitted to refer to justice and equity. As in 1 Kings, ch. viii, 11, Samuel explains the right of the kingdom to the Israelites who are asking for a king: "This will be the right of the king who is to rule over you." Where the word for right itself does not seem to be interpreted in such a way as if those things which are in great part unjust and nefarious are permitted to kings to do and usurp; but "right" is taken for corrupt custom, and as Rabbi Levi and Rabbi David explain: for "the matters which he mentioned, but Samuel wished to frighten them and alarm them, and he advised [them] what the king would do when he is strengthened in his kingdom, when it is burdensome for them from what is impossible to do from the point of view of the judgments of the Law."

(94) "Apollonius the companion of Antoninus." He is Apollonius of Chalcis, concerning whom Eusebius in the *Chronicon*.

^A Having been asked if he calls himself a Christian, he replied almost with the order of a confession, and answered with sensible words, making a brave defense for piety, saying that he did not fear death, which would occur by necessity even if he did not contradict the emperor. And thus the man was greatly adorned in all things, until he fell into the error of his own heresy, becoming like an excellent ship that is laden with countless goods, but having been dashed against the harbor, not only suffers the loss of all its items, but also brings death to its passengers.

^B II. For this man attached himself most miserably to the Valentinians, and from their depravity he drew that poisonous and tares-like venom. He introduced many other principles and productions of his own. And having denied the resurrection of the dead, he dogmatized this heresy. He makes use of the Law and the Prophets, and the Old and New Testaments, and also of certain apocryphal books. But he, along with all those who have preceded him or come after him, will be easily refuted as one who has alienated himself from the truth, and like a bright and fiery torch has been changed into soot.

For concerning the resurrection of the dead, although it has already been discussed in other heresies, I shall not be burdened to discuss the same subject again in a few words for his refutation. For if you accept the Old Testament, O fellow, and the New Testament likewise, how will you not be convicted of corrupting the way of truth and alienating yourself from the true life of the Lord? Since the Lord Himself was the first, that He might be for us an earnest of the resurrection and the first-born from the dead, and He died for our sake and rose again. And He did not suffer merely in appearance. For He was buried, and some have carried His body. Joseph of Arimathea is a witness, and the women who brought spices to the tomb are witnesses, and the weight of the hundred pounds of aloes is a witness, that it was not a semblance or a phantom. The angels also are witnesses, who appeared to the women, saying: "He is risen; He is not here. Why do you seek the living among the dead?" And He did not say, "He has not died," but "He has risen," He who suffered in the flesh, but lives forever in the Spirit, and who, according to His divinity, is exempt from all suffering. He who exists, having risen from the heights and being perpetually begotten of the Father. Yet the same One, in the last times, willed to be made man from the Virgin Mary, as the most holy Paul testifies, saying: "Made of a woman, made under the law." Have you never heard the word of Scripture which says: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality"? Or has not the prophet Isaiah convinced you, when he speaks thus: "And the dead shall rise, and those who are in the graves shall be awakened"? And the Lord Himself saying that "These shall rise to eternal life, and these to..."

^A their punishment"? Do you not recall that conversation of Abel after his death with God, how it is not said that his soul pleads and cries out to God, but his blood? Now blood is by no means the soul, but the soul is present within the blood. For blood is a visible body, whereas the soul, being something invisible, has its place in the blood. And thus, O Bardesanes, your wickedness is refuted on all sides, overturned by the very power of the truth.

III. Against many principles

^C Since the sound faith is preserved on every side, being the foundation and salvation of the faithful, the invented emptiness of all heresies is easily overturned; just as this one also has been overturned, having rendered itself most miserable and alienated itself from life. For the prophet says to the holy Church of God: "I will set your stone as a carbuncle, and your foundations as sapphire, and your walls as choice stones, and your battlements as jasper." Then afterwards he says: "Every voice that shall rise against you, you shall overcome them all; but against you it shall not prosper." For there is nothing that can overcome the faith of the truth, because it is built upon the rock, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; as the holy God the Word, her King, and Bridegroom, and Lord, and Master promised her; ^D to whom is the glory, honor, and dominion, to the Father in the Son, with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Now that this heresy has also been trampled underfoot, being like the head of a serpent severed from its trunk and still quivering, crushed as it were by the staff of life, it remains that we, having duly given thanks to God, should pass on to observe the other heresies, O beloved.

AGAINST THE NOETIANS,

I. Another, after this one, arose by the name of Noetus, not many years ago, but as I said before...

^A of these one hundred and thirty, more or less, an Asian, being from the city of Ephesus. He, being borne along by a strange spirit, wished of his own accord to say and teach things that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Church from the beginning held, nor even conceived. This man, being lifted up ^B by his own spirit as it were on a chariot of madness, dared to say that the Father had suffered. And further, being carried away by a certain greater pride and delusion, he called himself Moses and his own brother Aaron. But meanwhile, receiving word of the rumor surrounding him, the blessed presbyters of the Church called him before them and examined him regarding all these things, and whether he had brought forward this blasphemy regarding the Father. He at first denied it when brought before the presbytery, because no one ^C before him had vomited forth this terrible and destructive poison. Later, however, having cast his madness upon some others, so to speak, and having gathered to himself about ten men, he was lifted up into greater pride and insolence; and having become bold, he openly disseminated his heresy. Therefore, the same presbyters again summoned both him and the men who had been disastrously led astray by him, and questioned them again about the same matters. But he, ^D together with those who had been led astray by him, brazenly standing his ground, began to contradict them, saying: "For what evil have I done? I worship one God, I know one, and no other besides him, who was born, suffered, and died." As he remained constant in these opinions, they cast him and those who had been taught his doctrine out of the Church. The same man died shortly after with his own brother; yet he was not buried with the honor of Moses of old, nor his brother with the honor of Aaron; for they were cast out as deserters, and none of the Catholics afforded them burial. After this, those who had imbibed the doctrine corrupted by him confirmed this same dogma, led on by the very same words by which their master had been led at the beginning; for when, upon being asked by the council of presbyters, he had said he worshipped one God, he heard from them the truthful response: "We also worship one God, but we know how to worship him legitimately. And we also have one Christ, but we know one Christ, the Son of God, who suffered as he suffered, died as he died, rose again, ascended into heaven, is at the right hand of the Father, and is coming to judge the living and the dead. We confess these things, having learned them from the holy Scriptures, which we also know."

II. From this, the Noetians, being an offshoot of him, and all his followers profess the same dogma, and endeavor to confirm that frantic doctrine of theirs by those words by which God spoke to Moses: "I am the God of the fathers..."

first, and I am after these things; and there shall be no other gods for thee;” and what follows. They used to argue thus: "We know Him alone. ^A If, therefore, Christ was born when He came, He Himself is the Father, He Himself is the Son; hence He Himself is the God who always existed, and who has now come, as the Scripture says: ‘This is your God; no other shall be reckoned alongside Him. He found the whole way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob His servant, and to Israel His beloved.’ After this, He was seen upon the earth and conversed with men."

"Do you see," they say, "once again how the divine Scripture instructs us, so that we should not imagine one God after another, asserting that He Himself is the only God who came, and that He Himself was the One who was seen later?" Furthermore, they employ another passage, as it says: "Egypt hath labored, and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans, men of high stature, shall pass over unto thee, and they shall be thy servants; and they shall walk after thee, bound in fetters, and they shall worship thee, and in thee they shall make supplication, because God is in thee, and there is no God ^B besides thee. For Thou art God, and we knew it not, the God of Israel the Saviour." "Do you see," they say, "how the divine Scriptures signify one God, and proclaim Him manifest? And by confession He is one, the same who always exists. And for this reason, we do not speak of many gods, but of one God, the same being impassible, the same being the Father of the Son, the same being the Son, and the one who suffered, so that He might save us by His own passion; and we cannot speak of another"—having indeed learned this confession, and this wicked assumption, and destructive madness, from their master.

Then they bring forward other passages for the validation of themselves, as their teacher also said, that the Apostle likewise bears witness to these words: "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen." But they wish to interpret this in a single-clause manner in this way, just as Theodotus did. The latter, to be sure, by ^C describing Him as a bare man in the most extreme, natural sense, whereas the former, once again, falling into another extreme, uniform-wise sets down the same Person as Father and Son and Holy Spirit, having supposed Him to have suffered and been born in the flesh. Neither, therefore, did those who follow Theodotus speak anything in truth, nor did this Noetus and his followers—or rather "No-sense" [Anöetos], by the force of the name, as the divine Scriptures refute both them and all who have been led astray.

III. But to one who has his mind fixed on God, and is illuminated by the divine Scripture and the Holy Spirit, their argument is easily refuted, and appears full of every folly. For it is a deed of audacity ^D and a thought of blindness to say that the same is the Father, and the same is the Son, and the same is the one who suffered; as those who assert such things shall be judged even by sound reasoning. For how could the same be Father and exist as Son? For if He exists as Son, it is by all means of someone

^A from whom He has been begotten. But if He is Father, it is impossible for Him to beget Himself. Again, for that which is called Son not to have begotten Himself, but to have been begotten from the Father—O, the great mental blindness and incorrigible reasoning of men! For that which is reasonable is not as these men imagine, but as the Truth indicates to us through the divine Scripture. For immediately the Lord says, speaking: "Behold, my beloved Son shall understand (98), whom I have chosen, in whom my soul has delighted. I will put my Spirit upon Him." And you see how the voice of the Father indicates by nature a Son, upon whom He also places His Spirit! Then the Only-begotten Himself says: "Glorify me, O Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." And He who says, "Father, glorify me," does not call Himself Father, but acknowledges his own Father. Again, in another place: "A voice came from heaven, that this is my Son; hear Him." And He did not say: "I am my Son; hear me," nor again, "I have become Son," but, "This is my Son; hear Him." And concerning the saying, "I and my Father are one," He did not say, "I and my Father am one," but "I and my Father are one." But the, "I and the Father," with the article "the" and the and interposed, signifies a Father by nature a Father, and a Son by nature a Son.

^B IV. Concerning the Holy Spirit, He speaks thus: "If I go away, He will come, the Spirit of truth." But this is much clearer: "I go, and He comes." And He did not say: "I go, and I come." But by these words, "I" and "He," He demonstrates that both the Son consists in His own hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit likewise in His own. Item: "The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, will take of Mine." By which words He shows that a hypostasis proper to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit is to be assigned. In addition to this, at the Jordan, the Father spoke from heaven; the Son truly descended to the Jordan; and the Holy Spirit appeared between both in the likeness of a dove, and descended upon Him. Although the Holy Spirit did not in the least take on flesh, nor did He put on a body. But lest the Son be believed to coalesce and be confused with the Holy Spirit, He presented Himself to be seen under the image of a dove, so that, of course, the Spirit might be discerned with a singular and proper person. Finally, with how many arguments can we demonstrate this against those who have conceived this insane madness of opinions in their mind! For if their meaning is true, and their speech is absurd, and not at all coherent, and has no weight, nor power, nor reasoning of understanding ^D or manifestation; therefore, they ought to be cast out from the Scriptures.

And yet you say, O man: might those who truly offer worship ^A to the Trinity—who are sons of the truth and of the one Catholic Church—be thought to hold to polytheism? But this is not so. For who does not rejoice that there is one God of truth, the Father Almighty, from whom the only-begotten Son is in truth God the Word, the Word subsisting in his own person, having been begotten of Him without beginning and without time? Therefore, the Church safely preaches one God, the Father and the Son. For, "I am in the Father, and the Father in me," and "We both are one"—that is, there is one divinity, one will, and one lordship. And from the Father, the Spirit also proceeds, subsisting in his own person, and in truth the perfect Spirit of truth, who illuminates all things, who receives from the Son, the Spirit of truth, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of Christ. For this reason, the Church acknowledges one divinity: one God the Father of truth, a perfect Father subsisting in his own person, a perfect Son subsisting in his own person, and a perfect Holy Spirit subsisting in his own person; one divinity, one dominion, one lordship. Wherefore, the divine Scriptures ^B have preached in every way clearly one God, that is, the consubstantial Trinity, always possessing the same identity and the same lordship. And thus your reasoning of folly has collapsed from every side, O senseless one. These things having been said, it is necessary to examine the utterances of the aforementioned Noetus from the beginning, and in this way to refute his individual arguments.

V. First of all, since he produced the point that, "There is one God, from whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, and we through him—through whom are all things, and we through him"—do you not see that "there is one God, from whom are all things, and we for him," signifies the one principle, so that he might not turn the mind to many principles and again lead the wandering mind of men into polytheism, toward the vain babbling of multiple gods? For you see how he has used one name and one designation, not denying the only-begotten ^C God. For he knows him to be the Lord, and he also knows him to be God. Therefore, guarding himself, he says: "And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." And in declaring this regarding the "Lord," he did not signify that the Father and the Son are the same; but he showed the Father to be truly Father, and the Son to be truly Son. For when he said, "One God," he referred to the Father, not as denying that the Son is God. For if he is not God, neither is he Lord; whereas, since he is Lord, he is also God. But he was compelled by the Holy Spirit to bring them into one ^D designation.

^A Nor yet let anyone suppose, because he said one, and one only, that anything has been taken away from the number of the Trinity; as if he had made no mention of the Holy Spirit. For in naming the Father and the Son, God and Lord, he named them in the Holy Spirit. For he did not cease, when he said, "One God," concerning the Father, of whom are all things, to acknowledge Him as Lord; nor again, when he said, "And one Lord Jesus Christ," did he deny Him to be God. But just as, regarding the Father, he was satisfied with the single appellation, saying, "One God"—with which word is also contained the other, "Lord"—so too regarding the Son, he expressed only the phrase, "One Lord"; with which word is also joined the appellation of God. Wherefore, when the Apostle was discoursing about the Father and the Son, he was not void of the Holy Spirit, but spoke in the same, as I have said. But the Holy Spirit is accustomed in no way to seek His own commendation, lest He might seem to have provided us with an example of commending ourselves. There is therefore one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, or for whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, by no means an alien to God, but being subsistent, because He is the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of truth, and the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of Christ.

^C VI. As for the objection he puts to us: "Egypt has labored and the trade of the Ethiopians, and the Sabean men of stature shall pass over to thee." Also that: "Thou art God, and we knew it not; and they shall serve thee, and they shall go behind thee bound in handcuffs, and in thee they shall pray: because in thee God is, and there is no God besides thee. For thou art God, and we knew it not, the God of Israel, the Savior"; ^D "You see," he says, "how there is only one God?" For he relies most on those places of Scripture, as we said before, not understanding their meaning, but fraudulently cutting off the sacred Scriptures, and establishing distorted narratives, and bringing forward sacred authorities in a perverse order and with some parts omitted. He speaks nothing consecutively or in order, and finally Noetus understands nothing, nor do those who are called Noetians from him. And just as sometimes the name of a lion is given to a very bad dog, and they call those who do not even see existing things "those who see many things," and say that bile is sweet, and some have named vinegar honey, and some have named the Furies Eumenides; so we see it has happened in their case, that Noetus, bearing a name of sense, exists as senseless, and those from him are senseless, neither seeing at all the consequence.

of those he claims, and of those things that are put forward. As ^A a fool, that is, a senseless and stupid man, he would be called; and this very name would be equally consequent to that inept disciple. For they do not understand the reason and the consequence of what they say and openly propose, so that in them that saying of the holy Apostle is fulfilled: "Neither understanding what they say, nor whereof they affirm."

VII. For observe, dearest brothers, what the Scripture has said beforehand, or rather the Lord Himself, as it is written at the beginning of the chapter. Whence, from that most true narrative which is in the whole chapter and the argument, the Christian faith is to be demonstrated. For thus it says: "Ask me concerning my sons and daughters, and command me concerning the works of my hands. I made," it says, "the earth, and man upon it; I with my hand founded the heaven; I commanded all the stars; I have raised up a king with justice, and all his ways are ^B straight. This one shall build my city, and shall turn again the captivity, not with price, nor with rewards, says the Lord of Sabaoth." Then it adds: "Egypt has labored, and the trades of the Ethiopians, and the rest, because God is in thee." In whom else, indeed, should we say that God resides than in the paternal Word? For truly the Word of God is the Son, and in Him the Father is known, as He Himself testifies: "He that has seen me, has seen the Father"; and, "I have glorified thy name upon the earth"; then again, "that I have raised up a king." Do you not see that the voice is the Father's, which is distinctive, which raises up from Himself the true Word ^C as King over all, Him who was truly begotten of Him without beginning and without time? Which same King He raised up again, as the holy Apostle expressed in these words: "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you," so that the oracles of the prophets may harmonize with the apostolic, and the apostolic with the evangelical, and the evangelical with the apostolic, and the apostolic finally with the prophetic.

Then: "I raised up a king." And here is declared He who raised Christ from the dead. But when it says, "In thee God is," with what mystery and how ^D admirably does Holy Scripture propose all things! For indeed in the flesh, as it were in a temple, the divinity was foreseen and shown to the hope of men through conversion to God. For the Son of God, the Word of God, as in a holy city and a holy temple—that is to say, in the holy incarnation and in the fleshly presence—being God, dwelling in a holy temple, thus speaks: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." For the Word of God, sent by the Spirit in the flesh, administers all things mysteriously, and showing the bond of love, He draws us, and having humbled Himself, though He is the great God, He Himself, the Word, born of a Virgin through the Holy Spirit as the Son of God, being one, Himself in flesh and spirit

brought all the business of His dispensation to perfection. To what, then, does this refer: "He who descended is the same who ascended, the Son of man, who is in heaven"?

^A VIII. What can Noetus, with his stupidity and madness, object to these things? Was flesh present in heaven before? Certainly not. How, then, is "He who descended from heaven the same who ascended"? Unless he wished to signify that the Word Himself, who had descended, did not come from a lower place but had descended from heaven. But after He assumed human flesh—not, indeed, conceived from the seed of a man, but through the Spirit and from the flesh—He brought the whole business of His economy to completion; and for this reason, signifying one unity of the union of the Word and the incarnation, He says that He who came from above ascends above in the perfection of divinity. For even now, He who was not formerly is flesh, having come from the Spirit and the Virgin, the perfect Word offered to God the Father, who before this was not flesh in heaven. What, then, was in heaven other than the Word who was sent down from heaven? To whom the union into one divinity belonged, joined and fused according to the power of the Father, that He might show that the same God the Word existed on earth and in heaven, changeless and immutable. For the Word was, God was always, He was Spirit, He was power; and as He took into Himself the common name, which men could grasp, so He was called the Son of man, being the Son of God, and was named by the prophets as the one pre-existing, which He was not yet in the flesh, on account of what was to be fulfilled in Him. As Daniel also said: "I saw one like the Son of man coming on the clouds." Therefore, the prophet rightly saw this Word in heaven by the Holy Spirit by this name, calling Him the Son of the Highest. Therefore, the Only-Begotten, declaring the things that are first in the later order, says: "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, the Son of man." Not that the flesh was in heaven, but that He who descended from heaven was to be called by such a name.

^B IX. But what at last, O man, will you bring forward? "It is written," he says: "This is our God, and no other shall be accounted." Very well, as also the Apostle affirms, saying: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all." These things are indeed written by him in an admirable way. For this one, who is, is God over all. Since He Himself teaches us, saying: "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father"; therefore He is God over all. And so John also testifies, saying: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, and have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched." And again he says in the Apocalypse: "He who is from the beginning, and He who is coming, the Almighty." ^C These things were clearly and excellently articulated by him. Rightly, I say, he spoke: "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father"; and he spoke exactly.

He was therefore God over all, while nevertheless having His own Father. Which He expressed ^A in these words: "I am going to the Father." But if He Himself were the Father, to what Father, then, O foolish man, would He be going? For again He speaks: "That they may be one, just as I and You are one."

X. For Scripture, being especially cautious regarding this, lest men lean toward either extreme, directs their understanding and intellect everywhere toward the middle path of truth. Wherefore, to confront those who proclaim that the Son is foreign to the Father—which is the opinion of Arius and other sects—it speaks thus: "I and the Father are one." Conversely, to refute those who assert that the Father and the Son are the same, in place of what He said, ^B "I and the Father are one," it speaks in another place in prayer: "Make them one, just as I and You are one"; in order to strike shame into Noetus and his school, by bringing forward the union of the disciples. For by what reasoning could Peter and John, and the others, be one, as if coalescing and merging into one? But those things were surely said because they stand together in the union of one divinity and in one will and power, so that every error and falsehood that might rise up against the truth from either side might be excluded. ^C The holy apostle Philip says: "Show us Your Father." To whom He replied: "He who sees Me, sees also My Father." He did not say: "I am the Father"; but He added "Me," which is the same as Himself. Likewise, He says, "sees the Father," not referring to Himself. For that article is one thing, the pronoun another, and "me" another. For if He were the Father Himself, He would have said precisely: "I am." Since, however, He is not the Father Himself, but the Son, He truly says: "He who sees Me, sees the Father," to refute the blasphemy of Arius, which alienates the Son from the Father.

Since these things are so, and since all the holy Scriptures most certainly demonstrate to us the way of truth, ^D after we have repelled this Noetus and the sect of the Noetians propagated by him, together with the rest of the heresies—just like that dragon which is called the "ostracites" (or "testaceous"), who when he pursues a man, can in no way bend himself toward the right or toward the left—having turned away from him and his school and wickedness, let us, relying on divine aid, direct our mind to the remaining ones, so that we may be able to unravel and refute the strange modes of speech devised against the truth in them.

AGAINST THE VALESIANS,

I. We have heard of the Valesians many times, yet we have not been able to discover where their author Valens was from, or from whence he arose, nor what his dicta, precepts, or discourses were. Although from his

^A lights, which is Arabic, we have some suspicion that he held the same opinion, and that the sect which we said exists among certain people who dwell in the Bacathi of the province of Philadelphia beyond the Jordan, remains to this day, as I said, in suspicion. These people are called Gnostics by the inhabitants of that place, although they are by no means Gnostics, and they dissent from them in the variety of their opinions. But what we have been able to learn about them is generally of this kind:

In the beginning, many of them frequented the Church, and this continued until their madness increased and spread, and they were segregated from the communion of the Church. Moreover, they are all castrated. They hold opinions about principalities and powers and other matters in this same manner. Whomever they receive into their discipline, as long as his virile parts have not yet been cut away, he abstains from living things. But after they have either persuaded him or violently performed the excision, then at last, as if free from every struggle and placed outside of all danger, so that he might not be inflamed toward the pleasures of lust by the use of food, he is permitted [to eat] any kind of food. Nor do they treat their own people in this way only, but often also strangers who are passing by and turn aside to them, as is spread about them by frequent rumor. For they seize such persons inside, and having bound them with manacles and chains, they violently mutilate them of their members. These are the things we have received about these heretics; and when we learned in what place they have their domicile, and how common that name is in those regions, and since we have received no other name for the heresy, we have rightly persuaded ourselves that this is the same one.

^B II. But there is a certain remarkable foolishness in these people. For if they wish to fulfill what is written in the Gospel: "If one of your members scandalizes you, cut it off from you. For it is profitable for you to enter into the kingdom of heaven lame, or maimed, or crooked," etc. How can any mutilated person enter the kingdom of heaven? For if the kingdom of heaven possesses all things perfect, it has nothing imperfect in itself. And when the bodies of men rise again, all the members will rise together, so that none of them is utterly left behind. And if we deny that any member at all rises again, not even the whole body will rise. But if that one member which scandalizes must be left behind, it is a consequence that none at all should be left behind. For all our members have scandalized us. But who is there who can tear out and amputate his heart for scandalizing in all things? For, he says, "from within proceed fornications, adulteries, lusts," and other things of that kind. Who, therefore, will tear out his own heart? But if, as the impiety and madness of some maintain, the body does not rise again at all, what then of our

^A being one member, while the others do not satisfy this [condition]? But if the body is raised (for it is raised), how can there possibly be any wounding or maiming in the kingdom of heaven? Or how will the kingdom of heaven not be unseemly, having bodies that are defective in the pursuit of glory? But if the member that causes scandal were to be cut off, it has surely been cut off and has not sinned. But when it has been cut off and has not sinned, it must itself first of all rise before anything else, having not sinned.

^B Γ΄. Those who are bold enough for this rash act have set themselves apart and alienated themselves from all people. For they are neither men, because of what has been removed, nor can they be women, because of the unnatural state. ^B And they have anticipated the name of the crown of this struggle and prize. Nor, indeed, will these people appear to be any of the three classes of eunuchs mentioned by the Lord. For He says, ^C "There are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb." For they are blameless in their eunuchism; they have committed no sin in being born thus; nor, again, are they able to commit sin—I mean, the sin of sexual intercourse—since the organs of generation, which were created by God, are not naturally present in them. But neither do they have the reward of eunuchism for the kingdom of heaven, because they do not recall the struggle. And if such people are conscious of desires ^D while being unable to act upon them, and do not act, they do not have a reward. For it is not because they do not wish to, that the deed is not performed by them, but because they are unable. And this is the way of life of the first eunuchism mentioned by the Lord, that which is born from the mothers, from which these people cannot be.

Δ΄. "And there are eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men," says the Savior; and those mentioned before are not among these. For the former are born [as eunuchs], but the latter are made eunuchs by men for the sake of royal or administrative service. For some of the barbarian kings, or even tyrants, moved by jealousy and suspicion toward their own wives, take children while they are still very young and make them eunuchs, in order that, when they reach manhood, they may be trusted with their own wives, as I have said. And thus the cause of this state has come to be in the world. Whence perhaps I think even the term "eunuch" is derived, from the ability to be well-disposed (*eunoiein*), with the members being removed, and not being rubbed by the union of bodies, as though they were deprived of the organs. This, then, is another class, taken from childhood and made eunuchs by men, not for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

^A

It follows then: *And there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom.* Who can these be, if not those noble men, first the apostles, then the monastics, and subsequent followers of virginity? Such were John and James, the sons of Zebedee, who persevered in virginity, neither by their own hands amputating their members, nor being bound by marriage, but struggling with their spirit and heart, and with the utmost admiration they brought back the crown and glory of that contest. Following them, countless thousands of men who have embraced the monastic life in this world, in monasteries and in the cloisters of virgins, have attained the honor of the same contest. These, clearly, have not had any association with women, but have struggled in the most perfect contest, as Elijah is found in the Old Testament, and Paul saying: *But I say to the unmarried, that it is good for them if they remain as I am. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry.* How then did he remain? For if he had been castrated, and they remained like him, imitating him, that they might fulfill the "as I am," how could a castrated man have been able to marry, if he no longer had self-control? And the expression, *let them marry, and let them not be inflamed*, do you not perceive that he is speaking about continence, and not about the removal of members? ^B

But if they say that they have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, how can they separate themselves from the aforementioned saying, which says that *there are some who have been made eunuchs by men*? For if someone castrates himself with his own hands, he is a man, and by his hands that wicked deed was committed. But if he cannot bring such ruin upon himself with his own hand, but has been castrated by others, he will no longer suffer it for the sake of the heavenly kingdom, because whether through himself or through the agency of others he has brought it upon himself, he has been made a eunuch by men. Wherefore, he will utterly fall from the hope of the crown and from the reward, since he merits no grace for abstaining from the use of such pleasure, but is unable to do so because he is destitute of the members necessary for that function. Wherefore, the judgment concerning him is the same as for one who violates any member of the body or cuts down another’s vine. ^C For he did not establish a way of life according to the divine will, but such a man has wickedly set himself against his Creator, the Lord God. Moreover, he shall burn with a more vehement desire. For even the eunuch, not by abstaining from his desire, but by being unable to fulfill the desire, is described by the Wise Man: *The desire of a eunuch shall deflower a young woman.* Consequently, O the incredible folly, devised in various ways in this world!

Conclusion of the Refutation of the Heretics

And these are the things which we have been able to investigate concerning this kind of heretic. Concerning whom, having spoken briefly, and suspecting them to be the same ones whom we mentioned before, having left behind and rejected with mockery these who, like the scorpion ^D with its bifid sting...

have opposed the paths of life established by the Fathers, and have erected their baneful stings against the form and precept of God’s holy Church; these, I say, having firmly trodden them underfoot with the sandal—that is, the voice of the sacrosanct Gospel, as is our custom—and having crushed and broken them, let us change our discourse to the remaining heresies, and here make an end of debating their foolishness.

AGAINST THE CATHARI, Heresy XXXIX, or LIX.

^A I. Next in order after these, certain people called Cathari arose from a certain Novatus, as the common report goes. This Novatus was at Rome during the time of that persecution which preceded the one Maximinus stirred up; it was, I suspect, that of Decius, or perhaps Aurelian. Because he was puffed up with arrogance on account of pretexts involving those who had lapsed in that persecution, and was unwilling to admit into communion along with his own followers those who had performed penance after the persecution, he turned to this heresy, asserting that there is no hope of salvation, and that there is but one penance. He maintained that no mercy could be shown to anyone who had fallen into sin after baptism.

But we also say that there is one penance, and that salvation is attained through the washing of regeneration. Yet we do not take away God’s love for mankind; we know the proclamation of the truth, and the Lord’s mercy, and the pardonable nature of our constitution, ^B the fickleness of the soul, the weakness of the flesh, and the many-fold nature of the perceptions of most men. For no one is without sin, and clean from impurity, not even if his life upon the earth be but a single day. And while perfect penance is found in the washing [of baptism], if anyone has lapsed, the holy Church of God does not destroy him,

but rather welcomes and grants the opportunity of changing his resolve after penance. ^A For God said to Cain: "You have sinned, be quiet." And to the paralytic: "Behold, you are well, sin no more." And the Lord recalls Peter after the denial, and to compensate for that triple denial, He led him three times to a confession: "Peter," He says, "do you love me?" Then, "Feed my sheep."

II.

The holy word, therefore, and the holy Church of God, always accepts penance, not weakening it, ^D nor making negligent those who run the race, but not turning away the grace and kindness of God, while knowing the manner of each particular case. For just as virginity

has lost its form, so to speak, in regard to the body, and cannot present it, since nature does not permit it; so also, one who has fallen into some greater sins after baptism, in the same way as one who has fallen from virginity has a second degree of commendation in continence, so he who has occurred in a greater transgression after baptism has a second path to restoration—not such a virtuous one as the first, yet the second way of life he possesses is not one to be rejected. The divine Word, therefore, does not reject the reward of those who labor in repentance.

III. Furthermore, again proceeding from this, they have invented other things. For they say that they have the same faith as we do, but they do not wish to hold communion with those who have married twice. For if anyone after baptism is joined to a second wife, by them he is no longer received, and the whole thing is foolish. For just as if someone were to see a person swimming in the water, and, being ignorant of the trial of the ordeal, were to throw himself into the waters, and be submerged—not being experienced, nor clearly knowing the skill of those who acquire salvation for themselves through the use of hands and feet—and thinks simply that the water supports a person without the movement of the hands; or as if someone were to hear a ruler punishing those who do something, even in the smallest matters, and thinks that the penalty is dealt out equally against all, as in the case of murder, and so also in the case of someone slandering his neighbor or fighting; or as if someone who is altogether a layman were to see a ruler who has received authority drawing a sword against wicked men, or against sorcerers, or blasphemers, or the impious, and thinks that everyone has the authority to exact punishment for such a cause; and, having seen men paying the penalty, he himself, imitating the same, would wish to kill some, as if he were judging those who have done wrong—such a person, having been caught, will himself pay the penalty, having received no authority from the king for such things, and because he thought that an equal sentence was issued by the law’s judgment against all, while he himself, through his own ignorance and incongruity, has rendered himself liable to destruction—so also they, having mixed all things together, have fallen from everything; and not understanding the precision of God's teaching, they have wandered off onto another path. They do not know that this is the tradition and sequence of the divine Scripture.

IV. For as regards those things handed down for the priesthood, because of the most excellent nature of the sacred ministry, they have thought that they apply equally to everyone; having heard that a bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, and continent; and likewise both the

^A deacon and the presbyter. For indeed, the holy Church of God, after the coming of Christ, does not accept those who, from a first marriage, have entered into a second marriage upon the death of their wife, because of the exceeding excellence of the priesthood. And this, the holy Church of God guards with strict accuracy. But it does not even accept one who is still living with his wife and begetting children, even if he be the husband of one wife; rather, it receives as deacon, presbyter, bishop, or subdeacon only one who has practiced continence from his wife or who is widowed—especially where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly observed.

But you will surely say to me, "In some places they still beget children, even among presbyters, deacons, and subdeacons." This happens not by the authority of the canon, but because of the negligence of men in certain times, and because of the multitude of the people, where ministers cannot easily be found. For the Church, always seeing what is ^B most fitting, being well ordered by the Holy Spirit, has known that it should endeavor to have worship performed in a way that allows us to be undistracted toward God, and for spiritual needs to be fulfilled with every most-willing conscience. I say, therefore, that it is fitting for the presbyter, the deacon, and the bishop to be free for God, for the sake of sudden liturgies and needs. For if the holy Apostle enjoins this even upon those of the people, saying, "That they may be free for prayer for a time," how much more does he enjoin the same upon the priest? By "being undistracted," I mean being free to serve the spiritual needs in the ^C ministry. It is permissible for the laity, because of weakness, to be borne with, if they cannot endure in their first union, to be joined to a second after the death of the first. And he who has had but one exists in greater praise and honor among all the gathered faithful; but he who could not be satisfied with the one—having, after her death, for some cause of fornication, or adultery, or some other evil cause of separation, refrained from one, and should it happen, been legally joined to a second—is not blamed by the... ^D

divine Word, nor is he cast out from the Church and from life; rather, [the Church] bears with him on account of his weakness. It is not that he should have two wives at the same time, while the first is still living, but that, having separated from one, he should, if it so happens, be legally joined to a second. The holy Word and the holy Church of God show compassion to such a person, especially if he happens to be devout in other respects and conducts his life according to the law of God. For the Apostle would not have said to widows: "Let them marry, let them bear children, let them manage their households," nor again would he have spoken of the man who had his father’s wife, and who had been delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that "the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord"; nor would he have said again: "Confirm your love toward him, that such a one may not be swallowed up by excessive sorrow." For he said again: "Whom you forgive, I also forgive; for, if I have forgiven anything, I have forgiven it for your sakes in the person of Christ, that we might not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs." And you see how he grants repentance even after offenses? ^B

V. Furthermore, the Lord says: "Forgive one another your offenses, that your Father who is in heaven may forgive us." And in another place He says thus: "I will mourn for many of those who have fallen among us and have not repented," showing that if they have fallen and have repented, these are acceptable and will not be cast out, for the Lord knows what He will do with each one. ^C

And that the rule of the truth has such a character is clear to everyone. For after the first repentance, which is through the laver of regeneration, in which repentance every man has been renewed, no second repentance of that same kind exists. For there are not two baptisms, but one; nor was Christ crucified twice, but once; nor did He die for us and rise again twice. And for this reason one must take care, lest, if we have fallen, we lose the crown of renewal. But if anyone should fall, and be caught in some transgression, as the Apostle says, "You who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to yourself, lest you also be tempted." If, therefore, anyone is caught in a transgression, of whatever kind it may be, let him repent. For God receives repentance even after baptism, if anyone should fall. But how one should act after this, He alone knows. For "His judgments are unsearchable, and His ^D ways past finding out"; and one should not judge before the presence [of the Lord], "until the Lord comes, who will also bring to light the hidden things of the heart." And then the praise of each one shall be made manifest. For the

day shall declare it, since it shall be revealed in fire. ^A

VI. Since these things are so, we neither show absolute freedom to those who have fallen into sin after baptism, nor do we snatch away from them the hope of salvation. For God is merciful and compassionate, and He has granted a way of return to those who repent. And while the first point is clear, regarding the second we know that God is merciful if we repent of our transgressions with our whole soul. For He holds life in His hand, and possesses a humanity inclined toward salvation. What He Himself does, however, is known to Him alone. Yet this much is certain: that there is no loss incurred by repentance, nor is the one who repents of all his faults forbidden [from hope]. How much more, then, should the same [mercy] be granted to one who, according to the law, has bound himself in marriage to a second wife? For as the first wife was ordained by God, so the later one was permitted on account of human weakness. And if one should take a second besides the first, his infirmity in this respect is tolerated. For it is written: "A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is free to marry whom she wishes." By this, it is declared that after the death of her husband, she is free from all sin, to the point that no one can gainsay it. ^B By adding "in the Lord," He signified that she is by no means an alien to the Lord if, after her husband's death, she joins herself to another man, just as neither is he who, upon his wife's death, joins himself to a second wife—provided it be "in the Lord," as the Apostle says. And he says: "She is more blessed if she remains as she is." The phrase "in the Lord" means not in fornication, not in adultery, not in illicit marriage, but to persevere in openness, in honorable marriage, in the faith, in the commandments, in charitable deeds, in reverence, in fasts, in law-abidingness, in almsgiving, in diligence, in well-doing. For these things, when they are present and remain in us, do not render us idle or unfruitful at the coming of the Lord.

For the priesthood, the first rank and an accurate rule of life in all things are assigned. But for the people, something moderate—and adapted to their capacity—is provided, joined with a certain indulgence, so that all may be taught and may obtain mercy. For the Lord is merciful, and He is able to save all by His own law and the true faith of the purity of the proclamation. For He alone is pure. But these men, while they proclaim themselves "Pure," by that very dogma make themselves impure. For whoever pronounces himself pure, by his own judgment condemns himself to extreme impurity. ^{C D}

VII. But there is a certain incredible folly in these men, who think that there is some scriptural statement of this kind (even if we admit their dogma to be true) which decides in this manner regarding the whole people. For they ought to have known that it is not only in this type of human conduct that souls incur guilt or are endowed with virtue, but that [the matter] entails...

not to deal craftily, not to slander, not to steal, not to profiteer. For from all these things, the filth of sins is gathered for us. For as it is said, "As a stake is driven into the midst between two stones, so also is sin [driven] into the midst of the buyer and the seller." And because from the multitude [of people] there are necessarily drunkards, and fornicators, and the covetous, and usurers—and because it is certain that they possess such things, and things similar to these—and also because falsehood follows upon each of them, how then can they call themselves "Pure" by means of this one vow, while the whole procedure of the Christian life concerning all faults is made secure? These people have not known the exact sense of the preaching, nor to whom He assigned this precise definition of the second marriage.

^B But as for those who have fallen away during the persecution, even they, if they show perfect repentance by sitting in sackcloth and ashes and weeping before the Lord, are such whom the Benefactor is able to pity. For nothing evil comes from repentance. The Lord, therefore, and His Church receive those who repent, just as Manasseh the son of Hezekiah returned and was received by the Lord, and just as holy Peter, the most eminent of the apostles, who for a time denied Him, [was received]. He who became for us truly a solid rock, establishing the faith of the Lord, upon which the Church was built in every way. First, because he confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God, and heard, "Upon this rock of the secure faith I will build my Church." Since he clearly confessed Him to be the true Son. For the saying, "Son of the living God," showed Him to be the genuine Son, with the addition of the word "living," as has been said concerning this in almost every heresy for me.

^{C D} VIII. But also concerning the Holy Spirit, the same Peter makes us secure, saying to those around Ananias, "Why has Satan tempted you, to lie to the Holy Spirit? You have not lied to men, but to God." For the Spirit is from God, and is not alien to God. But even here, a solid rock of the building and a foundation of the house of God was made in the one who had denied Him and returned again, and who was found by the Lord and counted worthy to hear again: "Feed my sheep; and, Feed my lambs; and, Feed my sheep." For Christ, by saying this, led us to the conversion of repentance, so that in him the most-securely-founded faith might be built up again, which does not deny life to men, as many as breathe in this life and repent in truth, and

correct their own failings in this age. ^A

IX. In the Song of Songs, the bride herself speaks to the bridegroom in this manner: *My brother answers, and says to me: Arise, come, my neighbor, my beautiful one, my dove; for the winter has passed*: that is to say, that sad and dark and terrible gloom of the clouds has passed. *The rain has departed and gone away, the flowers have appeared in our land; the time of pruning has arrived; the voice of the turtledove has been heard in our land; the fig tree has brought forth its green figs, our vines have blossomed, they have given forth their fragrance.* By this, she shows that all past things have gone by, and that the season is now spring-like, the sea calm and tranquil, the fear of rain has passed, the old branches of the vine have been pruned, and the grass is not only greening but has begun to put forth flowers. Just as the voice of preaching in the desert—that is, in our land—cries out, and that fig tree which was once cursed now produces its green figs, which are the fruits of repentance, visible upon the branches and trees; and the vines have begun to sprout, which is the fragrant preaching of the faith of the Gospel. ^B After he has suddenly called her, he says: "Arise, come." Arise from the death of sins, and come in justice; arise from transgressions, and come with confidence; arise from sins, and come to repentance; arise from sickness, and come into health; arise from infidelity, and come into faith; arise from perdition, and come into salvation.

Since Holy Scripture is in no way ignorant of the fact that, after the first repentance, and the first calling, and the healing, so to speak, the human race falls into many sins, it speaks again: *Arise, come, my dove*; calling her not once, but a second time, in such a way that the latter calling is not equal to the former. For in the first calling he addresses her thus: *Arise, my neighbor, my beautiful one, my dove.* First, therefore, he said: "Arise, come," and did not say: "And you, come." But in the second, he adds the article, so that he might signify a calling different from the other; a calling which, nevertheless, after that first one, shows forth a ^C helping hand and heavenly clemency. *And come*, he says, *my dove, into the shelter of the rock, beside the outer wall.* By "shelter of the rock," he means the kindness of Christ and the mercy of the Lord. For this is the shelter of the rock: the shelter, I say, of hope, of faith, and of truth. *Beside the outer wall*, means: before the gate is closed, before the King, having entered in, no longer receives the soul after its departure from this life and death. When we are no longer beside the outer wall, but the gates are closed, there is no longer any place for self-correction.

^A For in the world to come, after man’s departure, there is no gain from fasting, no call to repentance, no manifestation of almsgiving; nor is there any place for crimes, nor war, nor adultery, nor lusts, nor, on the contrary, for justice and repentance. For just as after a crop of wheat has been harvested, the grain can no longer swell, nor be corrupted by the wind, nor wither away, nor is there any other improvement, so also is it here. Yet do not object to me about the corruption in the storehouse—that is to say, the worms and the moths; for these things happen because of what is in this world. But what is depicted, what is spoken of to us at the gates, and what is secured in the storehouse, refers to the pattern and outline of faith. Where neither thieves break through, nor moths consume, as the divine Word said. Nor is there any gain of piety or repentance, as I have said, after death. For Lazarus does not go to the rich man there, nor the rich man to Lazarus; nor does Abraham send the poor man to become rich later; nor does the rich man obtain what he asks for, even though he beseeches the merciful Abraham with great prayers. ^B For the storehouses are sealed, the time has been filled, the contest has been brought to an end, the stadium has been emptied, and the crowns have been given; those who struggled have rested, and those who did not arrive have failed; and those who did not struggle no longer have the means; and those who were defeated in the stadium have been cast out; and all things are clearly perfected after the departure from here. Yet while all are still in the struggle, even after a fall there is the possibility of rising, and there is still hope, and healing, and confession; and even if it is not the most perfect state, yet for others, salvation is not despaired of.

XI. On Heresies

^C XI. But every heresy, once it has slipped away from the truth, is blinded in darkness and hallucinates, conceiving one thing in place of another. For these men are like certain unskillful people who do not know the condition, use, and order of each member. And, so to speak, what I am about to say is a nonsensical thing, similar to their own lack of understanding. Just as if they were to put shoes on the head and a crown on the feet, and a golden collar around the belly; and as for the other things—the garments, so to speak, made from clothes, which by some are called *odonia* or breeches—they put them on their hands, and rings on their feet. For such is the dangerous and disordered arrangement of those who possess ignorance. For the things ^D secured regarding the priesthood, regarding second marriage, and regarding...

^A other things, which were proclaimed by God out of an excess of austerity, so that some, through negligence, might not fall away, these men have linked to God an inhumanity. And just as if someone, holding the sleeve of a garment, should cover himself only from the wrist to the elbow, and yet at every hour brings the sleeve before his eyes and mocks others, forgetting that his whole body is naked; so also do these men: priding themselves on not accepting those who have married twice, they reject the one commandment while abandoning all the other commandments which are similar to this one, and even, by excess, better and more vital. And forgetting that they are naked in their whole body, having remained idle regarding all the commandments, and not having held even that one ^B commandment purely, they are naked in their whole bodies, while they abandon all the commandments of God and do not guard even that one in purity and sincerity.

XII. Oh, for the astonishing madness of men! Truly any occasion, however slight, has drawn each heresy away from the truth and led it into infinite evils. For just as if someone should find a broken hedge by a public road, and believing the path to be there, should depart a little from the road, thinking that there is a near exit by which he might return to the road again, not knowing that there is a very high wall there, intercepted by a very long space; and so he runs about, and can find no way to get out anywhere—and when he has proceeded a mile or two, there is still a longer journey ahead, and he does not find the road, but wanders hither and thither. He, therefore, laboring in this way, and finding no path that leads to the straight road, will perhaps find no other way than to return by the same way he entered. Thus, every heresy, when it had the shortcut for the journey at hand, through long detours has fallen into a solid wall; such is the obstructed and tortuous flexibility of ignorance and lack of knowledge. And it will never be able to find where to turn itself back to the right path, unless it directs its journey back to the primary path, that is, the royal one. This is what the law of the most holy Moses openly proclaimed when it commanded the king of Edom thus: Thus says your brother Israel: I will pass through your borders into the land which the Lord swore to give to our fathers; a land ^D flowing with milk and honey: the land of the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Jebusites and the Hivites and the Canaanites and the Hittites, a land flowing with milk and honey. We will not turn to the right hand or to the left; we will drink water in silver and eat food of silver. We will not turn this way or that; we will walk by the royal road. For there is a certain royal road, which is the Church of God and the path of truth. But each of these heresies, having abandoned the royal road and having inclined to the right or to the left, and having thereafter yielded itself long to error, is dragged away; so that there is no longer a limit for each heresy in its insolence of error.

^A XIII. Come then, servants of God and sons of the holy Church of God, you who know the sure rule of faith and walk the path of truth: do not be led away by contrary voices, or deceived by the discourses of any counterfeit sect. For the ways of such people are slippery, and their understandings are depraved; their path is steep and arduous. Indeed, they boast magnificently, yet meanwhile they know nothing of the lesser things. They promise freedom, while they themselves are slaves to sin. They glory in greater things, yet have not attained even the least.

But regarding this kind of heretics—those who are called Cathari, or "Pure," though "Impure" would be a more accurate name for them—I judge that enough has been said by me thus far. Therefore, passing over this heresy as we would the face of a basilisk, which, so far as the appearance of its name is concerned, is esteemed by a certain excellent title, we strike it down by the power of the wood, and let us hasten again to the others, taking with us the prayer to God, that He may accompany us, remain with us, be present, give aid, preserve, instruct, and grant that we may speak the truth; so that we ourselves, by saying falsehoods, may not fall into the same straits as those heresies which did not teach the truth to the world.

Furthermore, those who dwell in Africa and Byzacena, and who are called Donatists from a certain Donatus, being of the same mind as those former ones and for the same reason—namely, that they refused to hold anything in common with those who had lapsed during the persecution—rebellious, they shall be overthrown in the same manner as were the Novatians, or Cathari, who draw the same yoke with them. For this reason, we have not found it necessary to treat of them more fully in private, but have deemed it best to join them with their like. But these have erred even more vehemently and worse, insofar as they agree in faith with Arius; wherefore, they shall be overthrown in the same way regarding the faith, of which they think evil, as Arius was refuted by the word of truth—since he thought the same things as they, and they as he. And passing over this matter as well, we shall walk on to those that follow, having, with the Lord’s help, trampled down these things as if they were dreadful, serpentine monsters. ^B

AGAINST THE ANGELICI, Heresy XL or LX.

I. We have heard of the heresy of the Angelici, and have received the name only, but we have not clearly known what kind of heresy this is, perhaps because it appeared at some time, but later ceased and was eventually utterly extinguished. As for why it held this name, we are ignorant. For either it was because some heretics claimed that the world was created by angels (and whether this sect was called by this name because it asserted this, I cannot say), or else because they glorified themselves as being in the rank of angels, and in their life...

^A nor can I affirm this with certainty. Or rather, that they arrogantly claimed to belong to an angelic order and established a certain excellent mode of life? Not even this do I assert as a matter of certain knowledge. Or perhaps, finally, they drew that name from a certain place? Since there is a certain region, Angelina, situated beyond Mesopotamia. ^B

II. But now, whoever you are, listener, if you recall what I have said before, there will be no cause for you to bring me under suspicion of wrong. For this principle we adopted concerning the heresies: that we would recount the roots and causes, or something of what is wont to be done among them, for some, but would mention others only by name. And as the divine power has enabled and assisted us, we have gone through all of them up to this heresy, and have left none uninterpreted, except this one. Perhaps because, having been puffed up with pride for a short time and having later ceased, we did not perceive its grasp particularly clearly. Having mentioned this one only by name in passing, using the name as if it were an abortive fetus, we shall pass over this place and turn our mind to consider the others. And asking the Lord of all to appear to us, and to show to our humble mind the precise truth of what occurs among them, so that we may accurately signify everything; in order that we may effect the correction both for ourselves and for our neighbors—to flee what is base, and in what is good and most true, to procure for ourselves steadfastness in God, and to obtain firmness and constancy.

AGAINST THE APOSTOLICS, Heresy XLI or LXI

^C I. After these, others have named themselves Apostolics. They wish to call themselves Apotactics as well. They carefully observe the rule of possessing nothing. They are, moreover, an offshoot of the dogmas of Tatian—of the Encratites, the Tatianists, and the Cathars—all of whom chiefly repudiate the law. They have sacraments and mysteries different from ours. They boast of their poverty in all things, and they rashly divide and subvert the most holy Church of God with self-chosen superstitions, falling away from the loving-kindness of God. For they do not receive anyone who has once lapsed, and they hold the same opinions about marriage and other matters as those mentioned above. ^D And while the Cathars adhere only to the received Scriptures, these rely primarily on the so-called Acts of Andrew and Thomas (for so they call them), being altogether alien to the rule of the Church.

For if marriage is abominable, then those who have drawn their origin from marriage are clearly themselves impure. And if the holy Church of God consists only of those who have renounced marriage, then neither is marriage from God, nor is the whole business of the propagation of offspring. Therefore, since they themselves were born of that same process, they will be strangers to God. What place, then, will this have: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder"? For to separate by necessity is the work of man; but...

^A it is; to contain oneself voluntarily is not of man, but reveals the work of God. Moreover, this natural necessity is often subject to blame, because that which is performed by necessity is not done with right counsel and reason, but is kept outside the rule [of virtue]. For piety is not to be extracted by force; rather, righteousness is accepted by counsel and will. Furthermore, those things which are properly necessary for piety are manifest, which men measure, as it were, by nature. Such as: not to commit fornication, nor to commit adultery, nor to act licentiously, nor at the same time to contract a second marriage, nor to plunder, nor to do injury, nor to be intoxicated, nor to gorge oneself with food, nor to prepare poisons, nor to worship idols, nor to kill, nor to curse, nor to revile, nor to swear, to be indignant and quickly appeased, to be angry and not sin, not to let the sun set upon one’s anger. That it is permitted to be joined in lawful marriage, nature itself, created by God, will show. Finally, other things that are of the same principle can be recalled [to this standard], each according to its own manner and measure.

^B II. Yet, to pursue what we began to treat concerning them, these people dwell in a certain small region of Phrygia, Cilicia, and Pamphylia. What then? Is the Church, which extends to the ends of the earth, altogether cut off, and their sound gone forth no longer into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world? Nor does that which was said by the Savior hold: "You shall be my witnesses unto the uttermost part of the earth"? For if marriage does not exist in holiness, and marriage has no life, let them be born without marriage; but if they are born from marriage, then they are profane because of the marriage. And if they themselves alone are not profane, although they are from marriage, then marriage is not profane; because without it no one could ever be born into the world. Great indeed is the error of those men, which has brought destruction to the human race in various and manifold ways, and has led each one astray from the straight path of truth under a certain empty pretext.

^C III. The Church does indeed possess renunciation, but it does not on that account deem marriage to be detestable. It possesses a lack of all possessions, but it does not insolently exalt itself against those who justly possess goods received from their parents, by means of which they may provide for themselves and for those in need. And many abstain from foods; but they do not behave proudly against those who eat them. ^D For let not him who eats despise him who does not eat; and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats. For he eats and drinks to Christ. Do you not now see the same concord in the Church, and the same hope and faith, which seeks to grant to each one according to his own strength and his own struggle of labor? For the holy Church of God is like a ship. Moreover, a ship is not joined together from a single plank, but from diverse ones. Indeed, it possesses a keel from one piece of wood, but not in a single fashion; while the anchors are from others. And the crossbeams and the rigging...

^A For it has the keel made from one log, but not in a single or simple fashion; the anchors are of a different kind. Then the peritonia (braces), the planks, the frames, and the parts of the poop, the sides and the thwarts, the sails, the tillers, the yard-arms, the hand-spikes, the nails, and all other things, are joined together from various kinds of timber. But each one of these heresies, consisting of a single log, does not display the mark and character of the Church.

But the holy Church of God possesses a modest marriage, and honors such a thing; for marriage is honorable, and the bed is undefiled. It has a most admirable continence, and commends it, since it undertakes a certain struggle, and looks down upon life itself as one more powerful. It has virginity, and highly exalts such a state, as being joined to virtue and adorned with the lightest wing. It has those who have renounced the world, and who are not puffed up against those who still exist in the world, but take delight in them; just as the apostles were, who were themselves void of the possession of all things. Yes, and the Savior himself, the Lord of all, when he lived in this flesh, wished to possess nothing of these earthly things. Yet he did not for that reason wish to reject those women who used to minister to him and his apostles. For it is written: Who had followed him from Galilee, ministering to him and to those who were with him from their own substance.

^B IV. But if matters were not so, who then could fulfill that saying: Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was naked, and you covered me? For how could they have done all these things, unless they had fulfilled them from just labors, and from their own means acquired in righteousness? And if they themselves, having renounced [the world] and living an apostolic manner of life, were mingled with the others, that character would not be alien, nor estranged from the ordinance of God; and if they renounced wives for the sake of continence, the aforementioned [practice] would be praiseworthy, if they did not abominate marriage. But they would have used it with those who were still partners in marriage, knowing the measure and order of each. For the ship of God receives every passenger, except the pirate. ^C For knowing the pirate and the robber, it does not receive him, nor the fugitive, nor the one who shakes off the servitude of his masters. In the same way, the Church of God does not admit fornication, nor does it admit adultery, nor does it admit the denial of the faith, nor those who reject the mastery of the ordinance of God and of his apostles. But it receives the one engaged in great business, and the one skilled in the ways of sailors, and [it receives] the pilot and the expert, and the one at the bow, and the one at the stern—who possesses the greatest experience in keeping watch—and the one at the ^D...

^A For one of those ship-passengers, the master employs for some great business, another for nautical duties, a third he appoints as steersman, and sets others over the prow or the stern, according to each one’s special experience in looking out; another he keeps in the place of dregs or baggage, and yet another he receives merely for the sake of transporting him, that he might not sink in the sea. Nor does he use any exception at all, to close the way of salvation to him who possesses only this much; rather, he knows how to reconcile salvation for all, so that by providing for each one's function and manner of salvation, he preserves them. Otherwise, why do those of Caesar’s household send greetings through the Apostle? Or whence comes that apostolic saying: "If any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, and it so happen, let him marry; he sinneth not"? But this very thing—"he sinneth not"—cannot be obtained apart from baptism. For "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace," ^B that is, by the second washing of regeneration. For this washing has adorned the soul and the body, having washed away every sin through repentance. Therefore, the grace of baptism extends both to the virgin and to her who is not a virgin, and she desires to be sealed by this sacrament for the sake of her own relief.

V. Explanation of the Apostle’s command regarding virgins.

But let not certain tepid and insipid men think, when we say that the Apostle prescribed marriage for a virgin, that by the same decree he also wished to cast down from her course her who has once determined to consecrate her virginity to God. For that apostolic discourse is not to be referred to such as these, but to those aging virgins ^C who remained in the prime of life not out of love for virginity, but out of a lack of husbands. For the Apostles, originating from the Jews and instructed in their laws, addressed the preaching of the Christian religion in such a way that they were still bound by the sanctions of the old law—and this they deemed necessary not for the justification of the flesh, but for the harmonious and apt observance of the law and for the accurate conduct of duty. For it was provided for by the ancient law in a miraculous way, lest the daughters of Israel be given away to foreign nations, so that they might not draw them away to the worship of idols. Therefore, every one of the believers at that time was ordered no longer to ^D give away his own virgin to Jews, but to Christians who were of like faith and like mind. But since the proclamation was new, there was not yet in every place a multitude of Christians or of Christian teaching. Those, therefore, who then had virgin daughters, finding no Christians to whom to give them in marriage, kept their own virgins for a long time. But those who were past their prime fell into fornication due to the urgency of nature. The Apostle, therefore, seeing the loss occurring through this strictness, allowed it, saying: "But if any man think that he desireth his own virgin." And he did not say, "his own virginity." For he was not speaking of one's own body, but of a father who is the guardian of virginity. But if we should say that he calls his own virgin his own body, nothing will prevent it. He says, therefore: "He standeth steadfast in his own heart," and what he must do, he says, "let him marry"; he does not sin. "Let him marry," even if they are not well-provided; he does not sin. And for this reason, "Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed."

si cupis, quidquid dicit, "Volo omnes esse sicut meipsum"; illud unum dicit: *Si non continent, nubant*.

VI. Furthermore, when he was giving precepts to the unmarried, he said: *But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they so remain, even as I*. How then did he use this expression: *Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not a release*? Does it not seem that he is establishing a law contrary to the decree of his Lord, who proclaimed: *He who does not leave father, and mother, and brothers, and wife, and children, and daughters, is not my disciple*? And how does he who commands one to leave behind an honorable spouse and father, say in another place: *Honor thy father and thy mother; which is the first commandment in the promise*; and: *What God has joined together, let no man put asunder*? ^B But all divine words are not to be referred to allegories, but are to be accepted as they stand. They require consideration and understanding, so that the force and power of each argument may be grasped. But tradition is also necessary. For not everything can be gathered from the Holy Scriptures. Wherefore the holy apostles handed down some things in writings, and other things in traditions; as the holy Apostle says: *As I have delivered to you*; and elsewhere: *So I teach, and so I have delivered in the Churches*; and: *If you keep it: unless you have believed in vain*.

The holy Church of God has therefore received this tradition from the apostles: that to betake oneself to marriage after having vowed virginity, is seen to be entangled in a crime. But the Apostle wrote: *If a virgin marry, she has not sinned*. How then do both these things agree with each other? ^C But he is speaking of that virgin who has not vowed her virginity to God, and because of the scarcity of those who had believed in Christ at that time, these things were of necessity carried out in that manner. And that this is so, the same Apostle will teach us, saying: *But the younger widows avoid. For when they have grown wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, having judgment, because they have made void their first faith*. If therefore even a woman who has become a widow after having experienced the world, because she had been dedicated to God, would have judgment if she married afterwards, having made void her first faith; how much greater is the judgment on the virgin who, even without experience of the world, has dedicated herself to God, and yet marries? ^D How has she not all the more grown wanton against Christ, and made void the greater faith, and shall possess judgment as one who has relaxed her own purpose according to God?

[a] *Note on church traditions regarding the authority of what is handed down. Closely related to this is that passage of Basil to Amphilochius, On the Holy Spirit: Of the dogmas and preachings kept in the Church, we have some from written teaching, and others we have received having been handed down to us in a mystery from the tradition of the apostles; both of which have the same force for piety, and no one will gainsay these, whoever has even the slightest experience of ecclesiastical institutions. See the rest.*

^A VII. Let them therefore marry, let them bear children, let them manage households. This short and mean discourse is directed against those who think perversely among themselves regarding every subject of ecclesiastical preaching. This doctrine indeed rejects all those who call themselves Apostolics and Encratites; as well as those who are in a certain way "softer" within the Church, and who persuade women, by relaxing the contention of the perfect course, to abandon it altogether. But whoever removes the virginity of God from the midst, entangles himself in sin and judgment, and brings ignominy upon the contest. For the athlete who violates the laws of the contest is scourged and cast out from the contest. Thus, he who has corrupted virginity is repelled from that very course, and from the crown and the reward. But truly, judgment is better than condemnation. For they who, so as not to be brought into infamy among men, commit secret fornication, do not bind themselves to the monastic life or pledge of continence before men, but before God, who knows the hidden things and will reprove all flesh at His coming, regarding ^B the things in which each person has sinned. It is better, therefore, to have one sin, and not more. It is better for one who has fallen from the course to take a wife openly for himself according to the law, and after a long interval of penitence following his virginity, to be admitted again into the Church, as one who has acted wrongly, as one who has lapsed, and has been broken, and is in need of a binding, rather than to be wounded daily with secret arrows and the wickedness brought upon him by the devil.

^C VIII. In this way the Church is accustomed to preach. These are the medicines prepared for healing; these are the kinds of apothecary's work; this is the preparation of the holy oil in the Law; this is the noble faith, fragrant with the scent of aromatics, which has the power to bind the athlete entering into the contest, and warns him to strive in the course, so that he may be able to win the crown. This is the work and business of God, which gathers all for the royal administration, just as it gathers purple from the sea, wool from sheep, flax from the earth, byssus, silk, red-dyed skins, and precious stones—the emerald, the pearl, the agate—stones, I say, which, although they differ in color, are yet equal in value. But it does not reject gold and silver, and incorruptible woods, ^D and brass and iron, and not even goats' hair. And that tabernacle was of such a kind formerly, but now the house of the tabernacle is firmly established in God, and its foundation consists in virtue. Therefore, let every heresy that rises up against the truth cease, or rather, let it remove itself from the truth.

And let these things suffice up to this point. Now, after we have struck and left this proud viper behind, just as one would that kind of serpent which is called the javelin, or the blind-worm, or the mouse-catcher, with the wood of the cross—creatures which do not so much have [deadly venom]...

^A properly depicted, let us despise them and pass on to the next, beloved.

AGAINST THE SABELLIANS,

I. Not many years ago, a certain heretic named Sabellius arose; for he is recent, and from him the so-called Sabellians take their name. He, with a few exceptions, taught the same things as the Noetians. Many of this sect are found in Mesopotamia and in the parts of Rome, being carried away by a certain madness.

For he and his Sabellians teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same, so that in one hypostasis there are three names, or as in man there is body, soul, and spirit. And the body, so to speak, is ^B the Father, the soul is the Son, and the spirit is the Holy Spirit in the divinity, just as it is in a man. Or as if in the sun, which is one in hypostasis, there are three energies: I mean the illuminating power, the warming power, and the very shape of its circumference. And they say that the warming [power], that is, the hot and boiling, is the Spirit; the illuminating is the Son; and the Father himself is the form of the entire hypostasis. And they say that the Son was sent forth at a certain time, like a ray, having accomplished everything in the world pertaining to the evangelical dispensation and the salvation of men, and was taken up again to heaven, like a ray sent forth by the sun and having run back into the sun. But the Holy Spirit is sent into the world, and successively to each one of those deemed worthy; and he gives life to such a person, and makes him boil, warming and heating him, so to speak, through the power and ^C presence of the Spirit. And these are the things they teach.

II. They use all the Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament, but they select certain phrases according to their own perverted mind and folly and madness. First, the statement which God said to Moses: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. You shall not make ^D for yourself other gods. There shall not be any new gods for you,” since “I am the first God, and after these, and besides me there is no other God,” and whatever else is adapted to their own mind, which they abuse to confirm their error. Furthermore, they usurp from the Gospel that saying: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me,” and, “We two are one.”

But they have drawn all this error and the strength of their error from certain Apocryphal books, especially from the so-called Gospel of the Egyptians, to which some have given this name. For in it, many things of this kind are reported mysteriously, as if in a corner, from the person of the Savior, as if He himself were revealing to the

disciples that He is the same as the Father, the same as the Son, and the same as the Holy Spirit. Then, whenever they encounter any of the simpler or more artless sort, who do not possess the precise knowledge of the divine Scriptures, they lead them into this question: "What should we say, good sirs? Do we have one God or three gods?" When the religiously minded person, not yet polished with perfect knowledge for the sake of avoiding such errors, hears this, he is immediately disturbed in his mind, assents to their deception, and is found denying the God, he is found denying the existence of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

^C III. Furthermore, the perpetual enemy of the human race has breathed/inspired these men from the beginning, so that through one way or another, in whatever manner he might, he may circumvent the greatest number possible and lead them away from the path of truth. For that there is truly one God, and there is no other, the holy Church of God clearly confesses and is in agreement. We do not introduce a plurality of gods; rather, we proclaim the monarchy. And in proclaiming the monarchy, we do not err; but we confess the Trinity, a monad in the Trinity, and a Trinity in the monad, one godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For the Son did not beget Himself, nor did the Father cease to be Father in order to be Son; nor has the Holy Spirit ever named Himself Christ, but rather the Spirit of Christ, and given through Christ, proceeding from the Father, and receiving from the Son. The Father is subsistent, the Son is subsistent, the Holy Spirit is subsistent. But the Trinity is not some confusion, as Sabellius thought, nor is it altered from its own eternity and glory, as Arius, speaking vanity, dogmatized. But the Trinity was always Trinity, and the Trinity never receives addition, being one godhead, one lordship, one glory to be preached and celebrated, but a Trinity that is numbered: Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. Not as if one thing were called by three names, but the names are truly perfect, the subsistences are perfect, with nothing altered. The Father is always Father, and there was no time when the Father was not Father, being perfect and always subsistent as Father, and the Son, always being perfect, always subsistent, begotten from the Father in truth without beginning, and without time, and inexpressibly; not a brother-fellow to the Father, not having begun to be, nor ever ceasing, but always a genuine Son existing with the Father, begotten from the Father without time, being equal, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created. But the Father is not the same as the Son, nor is the Son himself the Father. And if God is Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.

IV. For the Spirit is always with the Father and the Son, not a brother-fellow to the Father, not begotten, not created, not a brother of the Son, not a descendant of the Father, but proceeding from the Father, and receiving from the Son, not alien to the Father and the Son, but of the same substance, of the same godhead, from the Father and the Son, with the Father and

^A the Son, the Holy Spirit is always subsistent, the divine Spirit, the Spirit of glory, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the Father. For: "The Spirit of the Father who speaks in you," and, "My Spirit is established in the midst of you." Third in name, equal in divinity, not altered from the Father and the Son, the bond of the Trinity, the seal of our confession. For the Son says: "I and the Father are one." And he did not say, "I am one," but the words, "I and the Father," denote the Father as subsistent and the Son as subsistent. And he said, "We two," and did not say, "The one." And again, "We are one," and he did not say, "I am one." Likewise: "Going, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Being placed in the middle, the articles of the syllable "of the," "of the," and "of the." And Matthew refutes Sabellius, who introduces a blending. For where it signifies truly Father, truly Son, truly Holy Spirit; and since the Trinity is of one rank, and named in one name of Trinity, it refutes Arius, who imagines a certain lower standing in the Trinity, or an alteration, or a difference. For even if the Father is proclaimed as greater by the Son, he most fittingly procures the glory for the Son. For whom was it fitting to glorify the proper Father, if not the genuine Son? But when he wishes again to speak of equality, so that some might not fall away, thinking less of the Son, he says thus: "He who does not honor the Son, as he honors the Father, does not have life in himself"; and, "All things that are the Father's are mine." And what is that, "the things of the Father," if not: because the Father is God, I am God; the Father is life, I am life; all things that are the Father's are mine?

^B V. See then, Sabellius, and carefully observe; open the eyes of your heart, and do not be blind; let your mind and the minds of those who have been deceived by you come together with the holy John at the Jordan. Open your ears, and hear the voice of the prophet saying: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." Hear the Forerunner of the Lord, who deserved to be called an angel, who received the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, and leaped when Mary entered. He, while still contained in his mother's womb, recognized the arrival of his own Lord and leaped; to whom the duty of manifesting the preaching of the divine Word and of preparing the way of the Lord was granted. Apply faith to this, and do not stray from the goal of truth. Behold, he offers you testimony. First, when he ^C acknowledges his own Lord, he speaks thus: "I have need of thee, and thou comest to me." Then, when he had said, "Suffer it now, that all justice may be fulfilled," and he had been baptized by him, the divine Gospel reports that John gave testimony with these words: "That the heavens were opened, and I saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending and coming upon him." And a voice from heaven: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." There was then in heaven

the Father, O contentions man, and the voice was coming from above. If, then, the voice was from above, distinguish for me your distorted line of reasoning. To whom was the Father speaking, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"? And who was this? And why did the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove, even though the Holy Spirit did not assume a body? For the Only-Begotten alone took it on, and He was made man perfectly from the ever-virgin Mary, through the Holy Spirit; not from the seed of a man, but the Word, who is the Architect, fashioned for Himself a body from Mary, and a human soul and mind; and He is still man, having perfectly received everything and united it to His own divinity; not as one who merely dwelt in a man (God forbid!), but the holy Word Himself, God the Word, became man. ^B

VI. Now for what reason does the Spirit appear in the form of a dove, except to persuade you not to blaspheme, O you who imagine yourself wise yet understand nothing, and so that you do not think the Spirit to be a mere mixing together with the Father or the Son? For this reason, even though the Holy Spirit did not assume a body, He took the form of a dove, in order to show and refute your error, that the Spirit is a subsisting subject in Himself, and the Father is a subsisting subject, and the Only-Begotten is a subsisting subject; but without the divinity being divided or its own glory being lowered. And you see how the Trinity is enumerated, with the Father crying out from above, the Son being baptized in the Jordan, and the Holy Spirit coming down in the form of a dove. Tell me, I pray you, who is He who said: "Behold, my Servant shall understand, my beloved, in whom I am well pleased, whom my soul has chosen. I will place my Spirit upon him, and he shall announce judgment to the nations. He shall not strive, nor cry out; nor shall his voice be heard in the streets. A bruised reed he shall not break, and a smoking flax he shall not extinguish, until he shall bring forth judgment unto victory," and the rest? Can these things not have the implication of a Trinity, O contentious man? Did the Father perhaps speak these many things in the prophet concerning Himself? And who is He concerning whom it is written: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand'"? He did not say: "Come up into me." Or that other text, which is written in the Gospel: "And he ascended into heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father; and he is coming to judge the living and the dead." Or again, why did the two men who appeared in white garments not persuade you when they said to the disciples: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in the way you saw him being taken up"? And whom was the blessed Stephen looking at when he said: "Behold, I see heaven opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God"? But you, O man ignorant in all things, by not understanding the voice of the holy Scriptures, have harmed yourself all the more. ^{C D}

^A having fallen away from the holy faith of the truth of God.

VII. For He truly said: *I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no other.* For in truth there are not many gods, but one God, the first and the last, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Trinity is not a mixing together, nor is it divided from its own identity, but the Father truly begat the Son, and the Son is truly begotten of the Father, subsisting in His own person, lacking any beginning or time; and the Holy Spirit is truly from the Father and the Son, endowed with the same divinity, proceeding from the Father, and always receiving from the Son. There is one God, the first and the last. ^B But again, for the sake of another economy, it is also sung from the person of Christ Himself. For since our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared to the prophets many times and has announced that His coming would take place, but some did not receive Him, expecting another in His place, therefore, against those who were entangled in the superstitions of idols and had brought the multitude of gods into the world, so that the sons of Israel might not be struck with wonder and turn astray, worshipping the idols of the Amorites, and Hittites, and Canaanites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Girgashites, and Jebusites, and Arkites, and Assannaeans—as it had been prophesied to them—they worshipped Beelphegor, and Chamos, and Astarte, and Mazuroth, and Neaste, and Beelzebath, ^C and the other idols of the nations. Therefore the Lord Himself said: *I am who I am*; I am the first and the last; so that He might turn them back from the error of the fables of the nations, who worship the multitude of gods.

And because they were going to reject the coming of the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, He spoke these words to the Jews: *I am the first and the last.* The first, namely, who arrived here endowed with flesh, and the last, who is to come to judge the living and the dead. He who indeed suffered on the cross and was buried, and was raised from the dead, and with the same body was gloriously taken up into heaven, ^D and was united to the glory of His divinity, and illuminated with a new splendor, so that He can no longer be handled, nor can He sustain death. *For Christ has risen,* says the Scripture; *death shall no longer hold dominion over Him,* says the Apostle. And see how the exactness of the Scripture holds firm, and safely guides man, so that he may not fall off to either side from the truth; so that when the mind wishes to invent a multitude of gods, it may immediately hear: *The Lord your God is one.* But when the descendants of Israel expect another Christ besides the One who has already come, let them hear in turn: *I am the first and I am the last*; and: *I am the A and the Ω*; the A, clearly, looking downward, and the Ω looking upward, so that what is said may be fulfilled: "He who descended, He is

^A he who also ascended above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named." And lest you should perhaps suspect otherwise; and for the sake of what was said: *I am the first, and I am the last*; and: *I am the A and the Ω*; and: *The Lord thy God is one*; and: *I am who am*; that no one should deny the Son and the Holy Spirit, on this account He says: "My Father is greater than I." And: "That they may know Thee, the only true God, and whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ." Not that the Son is not true God, but that He might draw the name of the Trinity into one unity, and exclude the mind of men from a multitude of gods to one divinity.

VIII. But if any one, having lapsed into error, should think that only one ^B is called the true God, namely the Father, and that the Son indeed exists but is not true God, He refutes such a one again in another way, saying: "I am the true light, which enlighteneth every man coming into this world." But concerning the Father He speaks thus: "God is light." He did not say: "True light," so that from the fact that He called Him both true God and true light, we might understand the divinity of the Father to be equal to the Son, and that of the Son to the Father. And from the fact that both the Father and the Son are called light and God, and that here the name "true" is not added—which indeed was not necessary, since there would be no doubt about that matter—for by these words, ^C of God and light, a perfect and the same kinship, if I may so call it, of the Father with the Son, and of the Son with the Father, is clearly declared. And thus all the insanity of your falsehood is refuted. For the Father is indeed Father, and the Son is Son, and the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit, and that very Trinity is one deity, one glory, one lordship. To whom be glory, honor, power: to the Father in the Son, to the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

But after we have brushed off this heresy, like a lyben, or a molurus, or an elops, or some other most atrocious kind of serpent, which, however, could not harm us at all with its bites, and have crushed it by the power and virtue of the Holy Trinity, proceeding to the rest in our discourse, ^D let us first invoke the same God as the helper of our poverty and weakness; relying on whose protection, we may be able to set forth both what is said or done by each heresy, and their refutation at the same time.

ADVERSUS ORIGENIANOS, Priores which are also called foul, which is heresy XLIII or LXIII.

I. Some represent the Origenians: though this class of men is not spread everywhere. But in order, I think, after those previous heresies, this heresy appears. And they are called Origenians: but for what reason we do not yet fully know, whether from Origen the Adamantine, called the Syn...

- ^A tactes, that is, the "lucubrator," [(22)] or if it belongs to someone else, I do not know. Nevertheless, we have obtained this name.

This heresy among them is considered to be, as it were, a likeness of that of Epiphanes, which I previously set forth in the heresies concerning the Gnostics. These people read various books of the New and Old Testaments. They reject marriage, yet they do not cease from obscenity; they defile their own body, and mind, and soul in sensuality. For some are in the guise of monks, and the women who are with them are in the guise of nuns. They are corrupt in their bodies, for while they satisfy their own lust, they employ an act—to put it more decorously—like that of the son of Judah called Onan. ^B For just as he would join with Tamar in body and satisfy his lust, but would not accomplish the procreation of offspring according to the procreation given by God, but rather did harm to himself in the manner by which he committed that shameful act, so too do these people use those who are thought to be their spouses, performing this forbidden work. For among them, it is not chastity that is held in high esteem, but a feigned chastity called by that name, an ambition even to ensure that the woman thought to be "corrupted" by whoever it is does not become pregnant, or that she might not bring forth any fetus, and that men might not discover it; for they desire to be held in honor and esteem among those who know them because of their supposed asceticism of chastity. Yet this is their work, and others perform this same foul act in their own ambition, not through women but in other ways, defiling themselves with their own hands. And in the same way they imitate the aforementioned son of Judah, polluting the earth with their forbidden works and foul drops, and rubbing their own emissions into the earth with their feet, so that their seeds might not be snatched away by unclean spirits for the purpose of receiving a pregnancy.

^C II. They use, as I said, various books of the Old and New Testaments, and also certain apocrypha, especially the so-called Acts of Andrew and others. Indeed, they themselves have often boasted that they do this openly. Moreover, they hypocritically accuse those clerics in the Church who possess the women called "beloved," or fellow-lodgers, as if they too committed this deed in secret for the sake of human shame, so that they might conceal themselves in that wickedness, while on the surface—because of the modesty of the people—they glory in the name of chastity. And some of those people have reported to me certain men who are now deceased, claiming that they had committed this kind of shameful act, and that they had heard this from the very women whom those men had ^D forced. Among them, they brought forward the name of a bishop. In a small city of Palestine, the man who had administered the bishop’s office for many years, and who had

^A women of this kind waiting upon him—I mean those called subintroductae—had them as part of his domestic staff; and we know him to have even been among the number of the confessors. But for those who affirmed this concerning him, and who claimed to have learned it from the women themselves, we thought no credence should be given. For the wickedness of those who were making these claims brought upon us a certain necessity, so that we were forced to believe at times, and at others not to believe, that which they reported concerning the infamy of that old bishop after his death. For the cause of the accusation that reached him was of such a nature: one of that faction had been caught in the sin of sexual intercourse with a woman. And as he was being refuted by us, he offered this excuse: that he had learned the manner of this foul pleasure from the woman with whom he had fornicated, even though she was already withered by time and was an old woman; and that he had been taught by her so to use the union as to scatter the detestable fluid upon the ground.

^B III. And this is the foul practice of these people, which deceives their minds and originates from diabolical blindness. I have not deemed it necessary to bring forward the testimonies by which they fall, lest we seem, while wishing to speak accurately for the refutation of the illegal lewdness of each heresy, rather to invite those whose minds are always unstable and fickle, and who are prone to hunt for evil over goodness for themselves. But for the refutation of this terrible and creeping heresy, I shall rather append a few things out of many.

Whence, I ask, O you people, did you invent the notion of this illegal practice? For in the first place, who does not see—to speak generally—that your teaching is of demons, and that it is a contrivance devised by those whose minds have been deceived and corrupted? For if sexual intercourse is altogether evil, then the evil is not in the procreation of children, but in the union of bodies. How, then, are you, who have been overcome by pleasure, united in body? And if it is not evil to be united in body, then it is not evil to bring to completion that which has been conceived. ^C For either a man, having renounced it, should not cultivate the things of the earth—just as Abel was a shepherd of sheep, but Cain was one who worked the land. If, however, one does cultivate the land, like Noah, for it is written that "he became a man of the earth," and he planted a vineyard—he did not plant a vineyard so that it would not bear a grape cluster; but he planted it, and he drank from its fruit, and he was drunken, as it is written. And it was right to grant pardon to the one who had become intoxicated. For being pleasing to God, he did not fall into that drunkenness out of debauchery, but—being perhaps overcome by grief—he was possibly dazed; and not being able to tolerate both, due to his weakness and old age, he fell into infirmity, ^D not that he might be mocked by his son. But the one who mocked him took the curse upon himself, that those who offer insults to their fathers might be punished, as well as those among you who

^A stir up thoughts against the knowledge of God and His well-ordered disposition.

IV. For even if marriage is not to be honored as much as virginity—and it is true, virginity is to be placed above it—yet that which is called true virginity is noble and virtuous; it is not cut off. Moreover, honorable marriage does not forbid procreation, nor does it forbid those things well-created by God as if they were shameful. Indeed, it does not otherwise handle the guidance of the marriage union ordained by God. For virginity is, in truth, as that which is praised by the holy Apostle, who says: *The unmarried woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how she may please the Lord, so that she may be holy in body and in spirit* (1 Cor. VII, 34). He said this to show that a solitary way of life does not admit of even the least suspicion of error. We know, however, that Abraham also engaged in procreation, ^B yet he was a friend of the Lord, as were Isaac and Jacob, and those who followed them. They neither defiled themselves with lawless actions, nor were they polluted by abominations, nor did they hold a contrary view toward the procreation of children through honorable marriage, which was well ordained by God. Nor did those among them who practiced chastity and virginity violate the laws of the contest, or pervert the virtuous manner of the struggle by some sort of trickery. Elijah did not even enter cities for the most part, nor did he associate with women; but he lived constantly in the deserts, just as Elisha did, and John, and all those who, to imitate the great character of the angels, ^C according to the evangelical command of the Lord, made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

Finally, while we could bring forward many things regarding these matters, and refute their mind, which is mocked by the devil, by means of infinite testimonies and authorities from Scripture, we shall be content with these few. For it is manifest in every way that their actions do not proceed from prudence, nor is such knowledge from God; rather, this mockery and falling away is the result of demonic influence and wicked labor. Having ^D rejected this, therefore, just as we would the terrible viper called the *scytale*—which, though small in body, breathes a fearful venom and inflicts harm and destruction upon those who approach it—let us crush it and go forward to the things that follow, invoking God as our helper for the divine undertaking of the work we have begun.

AGAINST ORIGEN ADAMANTIUS, Heresy XLIV or LXIV.

I. Origen, also called Adamantius, follows. Origen, who was also named Adamantius—from whom those called Origenists derive their name, whose errors Epiphanius attacks most copiously, for they, more than others...

following this. He was a child indeed of Leonides, a most blessed and holy martyr; and he himself also, having suffered many persecutions in the early time of his youth, being a man learned in Greek education and reared in the Church, was recognized in the times of Decius the emperor ^A in Alexandria. For he was by race an Egyptian, having had his habitation and rearing in Alexandria, and perhaps at one time attended schools in Athens. And it is said that he suffered many things for the holy word of the faith and the name of Christ, being dragged about in the city many times, reviled, and subjected to intolerable tortures. For in fact, at one time the Greeks, having shaved him near the ascent of the so-called Serapium—which is their idol—and having seated him there, commanded him to distribute palm branches to those who were going up to perform impious rites and to worship the idol. For such is the habit of the priests of their idols. But he, taking them, with a loud voice and a bold spirit, not fearing nor hesitating, cried out, saying: "Come, take not the branch of the idol's temple, but the branch of Christ." And there are many brave deeds which the ancients report handed down regarding the man. ^B

But the prize of his reward did not remain...

[alt-version omitted]

^A ...most blessed and holy martyr. But he also endured many evils in persecution during the first years of his life. And when he reached man's estate, having been thoroughly polished in Greek letters and reared in the bosom of the Church, he became renowned at Alexandria under the Emperor Decius. For he was Egyptian by birth, and had obtained his home and education in Alexandria. And I do not know if he perhaps attended schools in Athens for some time. But he is said to have suffered very many things for the Christian religion, for the faith, and for the name of Christ. For indeed he was dragged about in the city repeatedly, subjected to insults, and committed to the most savage questionings and torments. Among other things, the Greeks once had him shaved on the steps of the temple of Serapis (which is their idol) and ordered him to distribute palm branches to those who were approaching to perform execrable rites and worship the venerated image. For this is the custom of their priests of idols. But Origenes, having accepted the branches, with a loud voice and constant mind, without any fear or hesitation, so vociferated: "Approach, take not the branch of the temple of the idols, but the branch of Christ." Besides these, there are very many other excellent deeds of the man which the ancients have handed down concerning him. ^B ...professed himself a most bitter enemy for all time; nor did he hesitate to engage in vehement altercations with many on this account, using as helpers Jerome and Theophilus, and he especially agitated John of Jerusalem and Ruffinus. But there was also that one cause why he disagreed with Chrysostom, because the latter was unwilling to condemn Origen before the decree of a general synod. See what Jerome wrote against Ruffinus and John of Jerusalem, as well as Socrates, Sozomenus, and Nicephorus. Origenes was already of extreme old age under Decius, and lived on as far as Gallus and Volusianus. But why [Epiphanius] should say he flourished or was famous under him [Decius] rather than under the emperors who intervened, I cannot sufficiently wonder. For from the times of Severus onwards, he was in the greatest admiration of all. Read the sixth book of Eusebius' *History*, where he has described the deeds of Origenes most accurately. You will find that he had great favor and recommendation not only among Christians, but even among the emperors themselves. For he is said to have been summoned by Mammaea to Antioch, and he gave letters to Philip and his wife. What, therefore, was the point of making mention by name of Decius, and indeed of him alone? Nay, that which increases the admiration is that Epiphanius wrote in his book *De ponderibus et mensuris*, p. 174, that Origenes flourished from the time of the Emperor Decius to Gallus and Volusianus and beyond. In the tenth year of Severus, Leonides, the father of Origenes, suffered martyrdom, when Origenes was in his seventeenth year, as Eusebius is the author in book VI, chapter 2. That year was about 202 of Christ; for Severus began his empire in the year 193. If this is so, Origenes will have been born in the year 186 of Christ. He lived for sixty-nine years, as the same [Eusebius], book VII, chapter 1, testifies. Therefore he dies in the year 254, or the one following, in which Gallus and Volusianus were killed. Now the first year of Decius falls in 251 of Christ, in which year Origenes had indeed reached his sixty-sixth year. It does not therefore begin from that time at last. Indeed, I fear that here too ^C Epiphanius may have been mistaken for Severus. For in his book *De ponderibus et mensuris*, after he has recounted some prominent martyrs who had suffered under Decius, such as Babylas, Fabianus, and Alexander, he adds: Then he subjoins the rest of the narrative concerning his departure into Palestine, and his retreat of years in the city of Tyre, which he sets forth more fully in this place. Yet it is necessary that these things happened long before Decius. It seems, therefore, that Decius inconsiderately slipped in for Severus. ^D ...should be after that departure which Eusebius mentions, lib. VI, cap. 17, by which, under the Emperor Alexander, Origenes, already strengthened in age and erudition, went into Greece from Palestine. The same one also narrates, cap. 3, that he finished his commentaries on Ezekiel in Athens. ...can be attained by nothing else than conjecture. Which, if I am not mistaken, Origenes suffered under Severus while still a youth. See chapter 3 of Eusebius. And for that reason, indeed, I suspect that he was shaved by the Gentiles, because the ministers of the Egyptian gods were shaven, as Synesius, lib. *De encomio calvitii*, Plutarch, *Tractatus de Iside*, and several others signify. ...history, and recall the fall into doubt, the ecclesiastical annalists, in the year 253, number 120, and subsequently. Indeed, what is more, they render this place, where that narrative is contained, suspect, as if it had been wrongly inserted by someone. The latter of these is clearly false, the former is not sufficiently proven, and both rest on lighter conjectures than that faith should be taken away from a most ancient and holy Father in this part. It is a fabrication, they say, and a contrived calumny, that which is cast by some concerning the fall of Origenes. Why so, in the end? Because none of the ancient writers, who either published apologies for Origen, or who on the contrary attacked him with their own writings,

^A did not remain. For because of the excellence of his holiness and his education, he was brought into great envy, and this matter whetted the magistrates and prefects all the more. Then, in truth, the artificers of wickedness, by the cunning of the devil, devised a way to drive the man to the necessity of baseness, and determined such a punishment, that to bring about the defilement of his body, they procured an Ethiopian. Origenes, not bearing this diabolical machination, uttered that voice, by which, of the two things proposed to him, he chose rather to sacrifice. Although it is not said by the common people that he did this entirely of his own volition; but when he once assented that he would do it, the heathens assert that, incense being placed in his hand, they shook it off into the fire upon the altar. In this way, he both fell from the glory of the martyrs and confessors who were in his time, by the judgment ^B of those who were judging, and was cast out from the Church. This happened at Alexandria; where, since he could not bear the mockery of those taunting him, he went away from there, and established his domicile in Palestine, or the land of Judaea. It happened by chance that, having set out for Jerusalem, and being as he was an excellent and most learned interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, he was solicited by the college of priests (for he himself, too, is said to have reached the degree of the priesthood before he sacrificed) to speak words in the Church. And when, as I have said, he was almost forced by those who at that time held the priestly dignity in the Church to do so, he stood up on his feet, and omitting the remaining verses, ^C minit. Yet we oppose Epiphanius, than whom we ought to seek neither an older nor a more weighty author; who reported that very thing concerning Origen as a discovered fact and in no way doubtful. In which it is greatly to be pondered, as often as Epiphanius proposes something of this kind, which pertains to the envy and ignominy of someone, even an otherwise heretical and nefarious man, if it be of doubtful and inconstant fame, it is signified by him with some excuse and hesitantly; and this is primarily guarded against, lest by commemorating an uncertain thing he impose a certain infamy and disgrace upon someone. But in this place he used no such caution, but, since it was certain concerning the fall and the casting of the incense, he made this one exception, which, if it be true, serves to relieve Origen, namely that it is tossed about in the sermons of some, that Origen did not by any means burn the incense himself, but that when it was placed in his fingers, it was shaken off into the fire upon the altar by the heathens. Therefore, that Origen consented to the sacrifice and the greater part of the crime, Epiphanius did not in the least doubt: whether this deed was performed by his own hand, though forced, that indeed he did doubt. The others who were either older than Epiphanius, or were contemporaries of his time, partly dissimulated out of love for Origen, and partly, because it was not at all relevant to the matter, passed over it in their writing. And Eusebius indeed, as an admirer of Origen, seems to have done so intentionally in order to omit it; for he kept silent about none of those things which tended toward his commendation, and brought nothing which might serve to diminish his reputation. The rest, as well as the supporters and the adversaries of Origen, when they had come to the contest and disputation concerning his impious dogmas and errors, easily despised the rest. And truly, it was most just that it be passed over in silence by most holy men concerning that crime, ^D of which they knew he had repented so greatly, lest they should seem to want to insult the memory of the man and to calumniate, rather than to condemn his errors. Concerning others, whose writings do not exist, we can pronounce only rashly. The other conjecture in the Annals has no more truth, and even less probability. For it is most false that this scrap was woven into Epiphanius, since neither can there be a doubt about the style itself, and the arguments by which it is produced are light, nay, are none. Epiphanius, he says, in the book *On Weights and Measures* taught exactly the opposite. For he writes: Origen flourished from the times of Decius up to Gallus and Volusianus. Where the word *flourished* does not mean the same as *lived*, but signifies the splendor sought from doctrine. And if Origen had fallen at that time, Epiphanius would not say that he flourished. But truly *acmauzein* and *to flourish* among chronologers is nothing other than to be commended by the public, and to be engaged in some clarity of name because of learning or virtue. This fame and splendor of doctrine, indeed, neither the earlier guilt of idolatry, which repentance had washed away, ought to have snatched from Origen, nor could the later infamy of so many and so manifold heresies erase it. Furthermore, we demonstrated a little earlier that Decius was falsely used here by Epiphanius instead of Severus. Following these, Augustine is objected against us, who, although he borrowed everything concerning Origen from Epiphanius, did not sprinkle a single word about that most shameful fall. But whether this notable work of Epiphanius, *Against Heresies*, was read by Augustine, can be doubted for the reasons which we have explained at greater length to the reader in the preface which we prefixed to the work itself. In vain, therefore, as indeed it appears, has the faith of that narration and of this place been solicited in the annals, since no sufficiently firm reason has been adduced for overturning it.

^A ...having come, as the Psalm says, *“But to the sinner God said: Why dost thou declare my justices, and take my testament by thy mouth?”* [Ps. XLIX, 16] having folded the book, he delivered it back, and sat down with weeping and tears, all who were present weeping together with him.

III. And after some time, as many urged and compelled him, he happened upon a certain Ambrose, a man of distinction in the imperial courts (some designate this Ambrose as a Marcionite, others a Sabellian); he, at any rate, persuaded him to turn away from the heresy, to anathematize it, and to embrace the faith of the holy Church of God. The aforementioned Ambrose, since he had been involved in a great heresy, and was a man of learning and diligent in reading the divine Scriptures, because of the depth of the thoughts contained in the divine books, requested that Origen explain them to him. ^B And the latter, wishing to satisfy the duty and exhortation of that man regarding the whole of Scripture, as one might say, to become an interpreter and expounder, applied himself—and this in Tyre of Phoenicia, as the story goes—for twenty-eight years to a life of exceeding excellence, and to study and labor, with Ambrose providing all that was necessary for his food, as well as for the scribes and those serving him, for paper and other expenses, and Origen spending his labor upon the Scriptures with nights of watching and the greatest industry. Hence, he was the first who diligently ^C sought to assemble the six interpretations: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy-two, and Theodotion, as well as the Fifth and Sixth editions, with the placing of each Hebrew word alongside them, and of the very elements themselves; and from the parallel, directly opposite on a second page, using the Hebrew language by word, but written in Greek letters, he made yet another composition.

^A Thus it is that these volumes are called the Hexapla, because they include the Greek translations, together with two parallel columns of the Hebrew nature, in Hebrew and Greek letters; so that the entire Old Testament is contained within what are called the Hexapla, through also the two Hebrew wordings. The man had labored with ambition to complete this entire work; yet he did not bring his name and glory to an unquenchable end. For it happened that his vast learning led to a great fall. Since, in the very intent to leave no part of the divine Scriptures uninterpreted, he entangled himself in the introduction of sin and set forth deadly words, from which originated the so-called Origenists—not the first ones, who are of notorious turpitude. For I cannot say for certain, as I have already stated regarding those men, whether they took their beginning from Adamantius Origen, or from someone else who was also called Origen. However, they say that this same Origen devised something for his own small body; some say he cut a nerve so as not to be troubled by pleasure, nor to be inflamed and set on fire by bodily movements; others say No, but that he devised a certain medicine to apply to those parts, and to dry them up. There are those who attribute other things to him, as that he found a certain medicinal herb to aid the memory. We do not consider the grand and magnificent things reported about him to be altogether worthy of belief; nevertheless, we did not wish to pass over matters that have become common gossip.

^C IV. As for that heresy, the author of which he was, it first spread in the land of Egypt, and today it thrives most among the most prominent people, those who seem to adopt the monastic life, and who by nature retreat into the deserts and choose poverty. This heresy is both terrible and worse than all the old ones, whose errors it embraces. For even if it does not compel its followers to commit acts of turpitude, it nonetheless plants an absurd and impious opinion about the Godhead through maximum turpitude. For from this fountain of error Arius took his pretexts, and those who followed him, the Anomoeans and others of that kind.

For this man, having dared in the beginning to speak, asserts first that the only-begotten Son cannot see the Father; but also that the Spirit cannot behold the Son, nor do angels see the Spirit, nor do men see the angels. And this is his first fall. For he considers him to be from the substance of the Father, yet at the same time created. He wants it to be said that the Son is called such only by grace. There are also other, greater falls of his. For he says that the human soul pre-exists before the body, and that souls are angels and upper powers which, because they contracted sins, were for the sake of punishment enclosed in this body; and consequently were sent away by God to undergo penalties, so that here they might receive the judgment of their prior condemnation. For which reason…

he says, the body is called `δέμας` [a frame or bond], because the soul is bound within the body; ^A in which he brings to light the old dreams and trifles of the Greeks. Indeed, he adapts some myths to this same belief. For he says that we call it `ψυχή` [soul] because it has been cooled [ἐψύχθαι] from above.

He fabricates testimonies in accordance with his own mind from the holy Scriptures, which are not so and were not given in such a way. For regarding the Prophet’s statement, "Before I was humbled, I committed a fault" [Ps. 118:67], he says that the statement is that of the soul itself, as if it had committed a fault up in heaven before it was humbled in the body; and regarding the statement, "Turn, my soul, into thy rest" [Ps. 114:7], he thinks this refers to the one who has acted manfully and excellently in this world, and because of his illustrious deeds and life tempered by righteousness, turns himself toward that supreme heavenly rest. Six hundred such things could be mentioned. Moreover, he narrates that Adam lost the glory of the divine image that he possessed. Hence, he says, is why mention is made of the "garments of skin" in Scripture: "He made them garments of skin, and clothed them" [Gen. 3:21]—which he takes to mean the body. And there is a great deal of mockery uttered by him. He also makes the resurrection of the dead incomplete, at times presenting it in his discourse, at times denying it ^B altogether, and at other times saying that only a part of it will rise. Furthermore, he allegorizes whatever he can: paradise, its waters, the things above the heavens, and the water under the earth. He does not cease to babble these and similar things; we have already discussed these matters concerning him in other places.

V. But it will cause no trouble even now to recount his reversal and hypothesis in this heresy against him, and to make the refutation from the very things proposed by him. For his subsequent absurdity is great, as is his pursuit of a corrupted concept, which has stepped outside the truth. For he seemed to speak against all the heresies before him and to overturn each one; yet afterward he himself disgorged a heresy that is no ordinary one into the world. It is our pleasure to subject his contrived opinion to testing, first by adducing what was said by him, and then by bringing forward what must be said by our mediocrity against him. These are the things which he introduced in the first Psalm ^C for the life of men. For he is always slipping in every Scripture, and he has fallen short in the literal meaning in necessary matters. And since the mass [of his work] is great—for it is said that he has produced a great compilation—for he did not refrain from saying what he thought regarding every single Scripture, as I said. And as much as has been said in his discourses and through his prefaces regarding character and the natures of animals and other things, he often uttered clever things while rambling; but as for the things he dogmatized regarding dogmas and faith and higher contemplation, they are the most absurd of all ^D that came before him and

those who came after him, if you except the profanities and filth of other heresies. ^A

And he truly seems to have embraced the way of life of the ascetics, just as I have explained before. For this reason, some say that his stomach failed due to a certain refined manner of life, and fasting, and abstinence from all living things. But let us now bring forward his own words, taken from his commentaries on the first Psalm, and from the considerations published on the same, and from his treatises on dogmas, using the exact words he wrote, so that no one may say that we have slandered his words. ^B And it is from this place in particular that we wished to translate; not because he fell from the truth only in these commentaries on the first Psalm, as I have often testified; for he wandered plainly in everything; but because there are countless monuments left by him, and by collecting a few things from that Psalm—from one, or two, or three words—we shall reveal all his wickedness regarding things that pertain to the faith: and we shall necessarily refer to the same words he used. It is therefore the foundation and ground of every such utterance that you, studious auditor, should understand that the Son of God is most manifestly preached by him as a creature; and from that rashness regarding the Son, you may know that the Holy Spirit is also brought in by him ^C as a creature. From the beginning, therefore, let us review the Psalm, up to that very word, just as Origen himself wrote it, in the same words as him.

From the commentaries of Origen on the first Psalm.

VI. The divine oracles testify that the holy Scriptures are closed and sealed; and this is done by the key of David, and perhaps also by the seal, concerning which it is written: “The holiness of the seal unto the Lord.” This ought to be understood regarding the power of God, who bestowed them, which is evidently adumbrated by the seal. ^D For that the Scriptures are closed and sealed, John declares in the Apocalypse in these words: “And to the angel of the Church which is in Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy, the True, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth. I know thy works; behold, I have set before thee an open door, which no man can shut.” And a little later: “And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man was able in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept, because no man was found worthy to open the book, neither to look thereon. And one of the elders saith unto me: Weep not: behold, the lion of

the tribe of Judah, the root of David, [is worthy] to open the book and its seven seals. Regarding the fact that it is sealed, Isaiah says only this: And all these words shall be unto you as the words of this sealed book, which if they give to a man learned in letters, saying: Read this; he will answer: I cannot read, for it is sealed. And this book shall be given into the hands of a man who does not know letters, and he will say: I do not know letters. These things are to be thought to be spoken not only concerning the Apocalypse of John and the prophecies of Isaiah, but they are universally to be understood as applying to the entire Holy Scripture, as is confessed even by those who have attained even a moderate knowledge of divine letters. For they are filled with the wrappings of riddles, and parables, and dark sayings, and various other kinds of obscurity, which are difficult for the human mind to comprehend. Wishing to demonstrate this, the Savior also says that the key was in the possession of the Scribes and Pharisees, who did not struggle to find the way to open [the truth]. And, "Woe unto you lawyers," He says, "for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered." ^B

VII. These things have been proposed by us as a preface, for we have been urged by your great love of learning, and persuaded by your kindness and moderation, most holy Ambrose, into a most great struggle—one that without doubt exceeds our strength and capacity. Since for a long time, having perceived the magnitude of the danger, I resisted not only debating about the Holy Scriptures, but much more writing, and leaving [works] to posterity; [yet] you coaxed me in every way and with all sorts of enticements, and brought me to this by certain divine promptings. Therefore, you shall be a witness to me before God, when He shall inquire concerning my life and my writings, with what purpose of mind this was undertaken by me. And sometimes we attain the truth, sometimes we either break through too violently, or we seem to say something. Furthermore, we have searched into what is written, not so as to despise that excellent saying: "When you speak of God, you are judged by God." Likewise that other: "To speak even true things concerning God is no small danger." Therefore, since nothing can be excellent without God, and especially the understanding of the divinely inspired Scriptures, we ask that you would deign to beseech the Father of all, God, through our Savior and High Priest, the begotten God, and to obtain for us from Him this, that we may first be able to seek rightly. For the promise of attaining is set before those who seek; but I know not whether those who do not strive toward it by the way and by reason are counted by God among those who seek. Thus far the words of Origen. ^C

VIII. Against this arrogant man, inflated by the opinion of himself, and [who is] an investigator of things that cannot be investigated, and an expounder of heavenly things—this man who has filled the world with chatter, just as one superior to us has previously said concerning him—the first discussion to be handled is concerning the begotten God. And ^D that there are many identical expressions and homonyms in life, this is entirely evident. And if [the subject] be examined by another...

word had been used by someone else, we could have supposed that it was uttered with a straight and sincere mind. But now, since in many other places we find him separating the only-begotten God from the divinity and substance of the Father, as well as the Holy Spirit, it is clear that ^A he said this, namely "begotten God," because he determined Him to be a creature. For as some wish to sophistically deceive us, and say that "begotten" [genēton] is equal to "begotten" [gennēton], it is not to be admitted that this is said of God, but only of created things. For "begotten" [genēton] is one thing, and "begotten" [gennēton] is another. Whatever therefore was said by him, namely "begotten God," we ask first: in what ways is the God who is honored by you through this term created? And how will He still be worshipable, if He is created? Remove the rebuke of the holy Apostle against those who attribute divinity to created things; and grant to me a God who is worshiped according to the pious faith, who no longer worships the creation, but the Creator; and the sequence of your erroneous logic will be consistent with the piety of the Fathers according to you. But you cannot show this. And if you dared to steal from somewhere, and to do violence to the text, not even in this ^B will you turn the reasonable logic of the pious into such depravity, O you god-forsaken one! For your own mind and reason contradict you. For everything that is created is not to be worshiped, as I said. But if it were worshipable, with so many other created things existing, it would make no difference if we, along with the one Creator, also worshiped all the rest of the created things that are fellow-servants with us and under the same designation.

IX. Let us see through the four Gospels, through which God the Word, having come to us, arranged our entire life, whether Christ has ever said: "God created me," or, "My Father created me." Let us see also whether the Father has declared in any one of the Gospels that "I created the Son, and have sent Him to you." But let this suffice concerning this matter. For as for testimonies, we have often brought forward many against those who foisted a creature upon us. Nevertheless, it will not be annoying at present to make clear how easily that error can be refuted, and thus to address that man, who seems wise to himself. ^C Can that one be a creature, my man, who said: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me," and, "We both are one"? Can he be something different, who has the equal honor of the Father? For no one knows the Son, except the

^A Father, and no one knows the Father, except the Son. And the other: "He who sees me, sees the Father." But the things which have been argued by the same person against the resurrection, we will bring forward shortly, maintaining the order, from his very words, and by a single utterance we will reveal his entire opinion, and we will show how much infidelity is in that doctrine. And although he has often treated this argument copiously, and has uttered huge trifles in various books, I shall be content for his refutation with those things which, in his commentaries on the first Psalm, he persuades himself were set forth against those who believe the resurrection with certain hope and confidence.

Ex Origenis commentario

X. ^B There is, however, this passage: "Therefore the ungodly shall not rise in judgment." Then, just as is his custom to deceive by comparing editions, he says, "So say Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus." Then finally, mocking the children of the truth, he adds: "Relying, he says, on the authority of this passage, certain of the more simple among the faithful deny that the wicked will be partakers of the resurrection, or that they will be deemed worthy of God's judgment; nor do they express clearly enough what kind of resurrection or what sort of judgment they imagine for themselves. And although they might seem to express their opinion about these things, the inquiry itself will convict them, and show that neither can that which is consequent and coherent be maintained by them, nor is the mode and reason of the resurrection and judgment understood. If, therefore, we ask whose future resurrection it is, they answer, 'Of the bodies which now surround us.' When we press further as to whether it is of their whole substance or not, before they have diligently considered this, they declare it will be of the whole. But if we, accommodating ourselves to their simplicity, and not disputing anything about the flux and mutable nature of bodies, question them again with doubt, whether all that blood will rise again, which has flowed out from time to time when a vein has been cut, and whatever else the power of diseases has consumed of the flesh, and all the hairs that have ever grown, or only those which were present at death: sometimes they stumble at this question, and say that it must be left to God to decide whatever He wills concerning these things; ^C but at other times, as if agreeing, they assert that only those hairs will rise with us which we possessed at the end of life. But those among them who are more stout-hearted, so that they may not be compelled by logic to gather up the blood—that which has often been separated from our bodies—and the flesh that changed in diseases into sweat, or any other kind of matter, they declare that our bodies will rise such as they were at the time of death."

XI. These are the cavils of that aforementioned self-styled wise man proposed against the truth; which I have necessarily had to set forth, so that I might make it entirely plain to those desirous of understanding the matter, how little and how unfaithfully he thinks about the resurrection. For he also ^D brings forward other things in succession concerning the same Psalm. He says:

^A Therefore the ungodly shall not rise in judgment. From this point he also attacks those who define a secure resurrection and who believe with constant hope and faith in the resurrection of the dead, as if they were whole, having spoken many wicked things; and by introducing a certain sophistical surmise—not something credible, but syllogistic—he attempted, for the destruction of those persuaded by him, to overturn the very confession of our hope in the resurrection, from those things which happen to us according to nature. But I, not wishing to appear better than those who have already labored well before me and most justly overturned his entire contrived rhetorical knavery, since I am a man of mediocre talent, deemed it right to be content with those things which the blessed Methodius said in the discourse he wrote On the Resurrection against the same Origen. These I shall transcribe word for word here. Methodius, therefore, speaks as it is written below.

Epitome of the Dogmas of Origen from Methodius.

XII. At this point, therefore, the simpler among the faithful, relying most of all upon this, deny that the ungodly will be participants in the resurrection, neither do they sufficiently explain what they understand by the resurrection, and what sort of judgment they imagine it to be. For even if they seem to pronounce their own opinion on these matters, yet from the inquiry itself it will be evident that they are ^B by no means able to preserve what follows as a consequence. Wherefore, if we interrogate them: Whose resurrection is to be? They answer: Of the bodies with which we are now clothed. Then, upon our pressing them further with the question: Whether it is of their whole substance or not? before they carefully weigh it, they define it as being of the whole. But if we, accommodating ourselves to their simplicity, inquire further by doubting: whether that blood is restored which has been poured out again and again from a vein that has been opened, and likewise all the flesh, and the hairs which have ever grown, or only those which had flourished at the time of our departure? they take refuge in saying that it must be left to God to accomplish what He wills. But those among them who are more stout-hearted, that they may not be compelled by logic to gather together the same blood which happened to be separated from our bodies many times, say that the body as it exists at our end will rise again. But we posed a further difficulty: because the bodily nature is mutable, and just as ^C food is assimilated into our body and changes its likenesses, so also our bodies are changed and become parts in flesh-eating birds and beasts ^D and...

are consumed. These in turn, being devoured by men or other animals, are changed in their turn, and become the bodies of men or other animals. And since this happens frequently, it must necessarily follow that the same body becomes a part of many men, time and again. Whose body, then, will it be in the resurrection? And in this way we shall fall into a depth of ^A foolish babbling, as if deprived of reason, and collapse into the most absurd of trifles.

XIII.

XIV.

as regards the quality of Peter and Paul, who represent the bodily, in accordance with which quality even scars from childhood remain on their bodies, and certain other characteristics, such as freckles ^A.

Moreover, if there is anything similar in this form, by which Peter and Paul are characterized, which is the bodily aspect that is again bestowed upon the soul in the resurrection, it is changed for the better, though it is not altogether the same as that which was set down as the primary substrate. ^B And just as the form remains until the end, even if the features seem to have much variation, so too must it be understood in the present case that the form is the same as the future one, although there will be a very great transformation for the better. For it is necessary that the soul, existing in bodily places, should use bodies suited to its ways. And just as if it were necessary for us, having become aquatic, to live in the sea, it would certainly be necessary to have an arrangement of limbs similar to that of fish, so too, for those destined to inherit the kingdom of heaven and to dwell in different places, it is necessary to use spiritual bodies, not because the former form is extinguished, even if the change to something more illustrious and glorious occurs; just as the form of Jesus, and of Moses, and of Elijah was not other in the transfiguration than it was at the beginning.

XV. Therefore, let it not offend you if one were to say that the primary subject matter will not be the same at that time, since reason itself declares that it cannot remain the same even for two days, if one is willing to pay attention. Moreover, it is worth noting that a different body is sown and a different one rises. For a natural body is sown, a spiritual body is raised. ^C And the Apostle adds to all this, teaching us that we are almost certain to put off the earthly quality, while the form remains preserved in the resurrection: "But this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption." For perhaps, indeed, something excellent will be attributed to the body of the saints, so that the property of the flesh itself may be preserved, yet it will no longer be flesh, but that which was once impressed upon the flesh as a kind of unique mark, this same thing will be signified in the spiritual body.

Now, as regards those passages of Scripture which are objected to by our brethren, we can briefly respond to them, and first to that which they bring forward from Ezekiel. For if we wish to attend to the mind and purpose of the simpler folk, which they have proposed to themselves in the words of the prophet, the consequence is that not even a resurrection of flesh is seen, but only of bones, and skins, and nerves. And it must also be pointed out to them that they are carried away, as those who have not understood what is written.

^A For if they are called bones, these bones must certainly be understood in a spiritual sense; just as it is not the case where it is said, *All my bones are scattered* (Ps. XXI, 15); and, *Heal me, for my bones are troubled* (Ps. VI, 3), since it is manifest that the name of "bones" is not used according to the common acceptation. Accordingly, it is immediately subjoined in the same discourse, because they themselves say: *Because our bones are dried up*. Do they, therefore, say, "Our bones are dried up," wishing to rise again having been gathered together? But this is impossible. They would rather say, "Our bones are dried up," having been in captivity and having lost all vital moisture. Therefore, they also bring in the statement: *Our hope has perished; we have been cut off*. Wherefore, that promise of the resurrection made to the people is a certain future awakening from that ruin and, as it were, death in which they were extinguished when, on account of their sins, they were delivered into the power of the enemy. Furthermore, sinners are also said by the Savior to be ^B sepulchers full of bones and all uncleanness. But it befits the divine majesty to open the sepulchers of each one, and to lead us out from the sepulchers restored to life, just as the Savior drew Lazarus out.

XVI. Now, as for those who object with this passage: *There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth* (Matt. VIII, 12), it must be argued against them that, just as in this life every member was fashioned by that supreme Creator for some use, so too the teeth were made for the purpose of breaking down solid food. What need, therefore, have they of teeth, who are tormented in the underworld? For I do not think they would say that they are going to eat anything there. To these points they must be taught that not all things are to be taken exactly as they are written. Therefore, it is written in another place: *Thou hast crushed the teeth of sinners* (Ps. III, 8); ^C and elsewhere: *The Lord has broken the molars of the lions* (Ps. LVII, 7). For who is so foolish as to persuade himself that God, while preserving the bodies of sinners, breaks only their teeth? Just as, therefore, if anyone wishing these things to be taken literally, is driven by the difficulties into an allegorical sense, so too one must inquire likewise concerning the gnashing of teeth in those who are subjected to punishments; insofar as the soul has a certain power of mastication, by which, at that last time of judgment, when a question is held regarding sins, it will gnash with its teeth in a certain manner, just as teeth are accustomed to collide. That statement, however, *Fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell* (Matt. X, 28), perhaps teaches us that the soul is incorporeal, or perhaps it also indicates that it will not be punished without a body; concerning which body, as regards its form and the primary underlying matter, we have discoursed a little earlier by natural reasoning.

^D But as for that saying of the Apostle, *He will also make alive our mortal bodies* (Rom. VIII, 11); since our mortal body is not a partaker of the true life, this can declare that this corporeal form which we have mentioned before, which is of a mortal nature, when *Christ, our life, shall appear* (Col. III, 4), is also to be changed from that state in which it was a body of sin, after, of course,

^A having been made spiritual. And as to *But someone will say: How are the dead raised, and with what manner of body do they come?* (I Cor. XV, 35), he clearly indicates that the primary underlying matter will not be raised. For if we have rightly taken the example, it must be said that the seminal reason, having taken hold of the available matter within the grain of wheat, and having passed through all of it, and having taken hold of it of the same kind, applies the powers it possesses to the earth, water, air, and fire that were there before, and, having overcome their qualities, transforms it into that of which it is itself the creator; and thus the stalk is completed, differing to the highest degree from the original grain in size, shape, and diversity.

From the same Proclus. XVII.

God has called us bound by the earth because of our communion with the body, nor that David is on that account to be called bound. For these matters are precisely what should be recalled, in which they especially appear to have fallen away from the truth. Having therefore said what is appropriate concerning the leather tunics, and that our first parents lived with bodies before these were fashioned, and were partakers of immortality, and further, that the body cannot be considered as chains and a prison; since I have argued this as much as was necessary, O judges—for it is you whom I call the judges of my words, O most excellent Theophilus—I shall then turn to the matters that follow, in accordance with the promise I made regarding what was proposed, so that we may see more clearly what we desire. ^B

XVIII. After the Artificer of all things, God, had established the whole in an orderly manner, like a great city, He adorned it by commanding it with the Word, and He fitted every element to Himself in harmony; and He filled all things with the varieties of living creatures, so that the world might be perfected and grow into beauty, having brought forth shapes of every nature alive and animate. He placed the stars in the heavens, the birds in the air, the four-footed animals on the earth, and the swimmers in the water. Finally, He introduced man into the world, having prepared the whole for him like a most beautiful house, as a kind of image expressed after His own likeness, having fashioned him as a beautiful statue in a bright temple with His own hands. For He knew that whatever He should fashion with His own hand must necessarily be immortal, inasmuch as it is the work of immortality. For from immortality come immortal things, just as evil things come from wickedness and unjust things from injustice. For it is not the work of justice to do injustice, but of injustice; nor, conversely, is it the work of injustice to act justly, but of justice; just as it is not the work of incorruption to cause decay, but this is the property of corruption; and to make things immortal is not the work of corruption, but of incorruption. And to say it in one word, whatever the agent is like, it necessarily makes that which is produced by it like itself. Now God is immortality, and life, and incorruption; but man is the work of God. Whatever is fashioned by immortality must necessarily be immortal. Therefore, man is immortal. For this reason, God fashioned man with His own hand, whereas He commanded the air, the earth, and the water to bring forth the other kinds of living creatures. ^C

Man is most truly said by nature to be neither a soul without a body, nor a body without a soul, but that which is composed into one form of goodness from the conjunction of soul and body. From this, indeed, it seems to be inferred that man was made immortal and free from all corruption and diseases. And divine Scripture also abundantly teaches us this. For regarding other creatures, which are wont to grow and age through the changes of time, it is said: "Let the waters bring forth reptiles of living souls, and flying creatures flying above the earth according to the firmament of heaven"; and, "Let the earth bring forth the living soul." ^D

^A When it comes to man, however, it is not said as it was for those, "Let the earth bring forth," or anymore, "Let the waters bring forth," or, "Let there be lights." But, "Let us make man according to our image, and according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish, and the birds of heaven, and all the cattle"; and, "God took dust from the earth and fashioned man."

^B XVIII. And in order that you may perceive the difference even more—how he is distinguished from all and everything, and in having obtained the second place of dignity after the angels, man is found to be immortal—come, let us again discuss this very subject according to the true and orthodox reasoning. For to other animals, life was granted by the instilling of that spirit which is diffused through the air. But to man, this was bestowed from an immortal and superior substance. "For God breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul." It was commanded that they serve and be subject to authority, but to him, that he rule and exercise authority. To them, different forms of nature were given, and shapes, as many as the solid and visible nature brought forth at the command of God; but to him, a God-like and God-resembling nature, and everything accurately perfected toward that primal and only-begotten image of the Father. "For God made man; according to the image of God he made him."

^C Hence, God also took care for the permanency of his own statue, so that it might not be vulnerable to corruption—just as artisans are wont to provide for the statues they make. For they are concerned not only for the beauty and comeliness of their statues, so that they may be exceptionally fine or magnificent, but they also strive to provide as much immortality as they can to these very works, so that they may remain intact and not at all dissolved for as long a time as possible. They say that Phidias did this among others. For he, after having fashioned the Pisan image (made of ivory), ordered oil to be poured at the feet in front of the statue, to keep it immortal, so far as possible, in its power.

^D And so, if the creators of things made by hand devise these things, would not that most excellent craftsman, God, who can create all things even out of nothing, much more necessarily have fashioned his own image gifted with reason—that is, man—to be entirely indestructible and immortal? Or did he rather allow him to be dissolved so ignominiously and to be corrupted and perish—that very image which he deigned to polish with his own hands in a singular way, which he expressed according to his own image and likeness, as it were a "cosmos of the cosmos," for whose sake the world was made? This can by no means be said. For he who, puffed up with a vain opinion, dared to assert this, would approach near to madness.

^A XIX. But you, Aglaophon, perhaps considering with a less attentive mind the things that have been proposed, might object: If that animal existed as immortal from its origin, how could it ever have been mortal? Since whatever is immortal must necessarily be what it is perpetually, and not degenerate or transition into a baser and mortal nature; for this is impossible, otherwise it would not be immortal. But I shall reveal to you the cause of this thing. For when he was furnished with free will for the choice of the good, and had received that law, the most wicked envy, supervening, ruined him. For God created man for incorruptibility, and made him an image of His own eternity. For God did not make death, nor ^B does He delight in the destruction of the living. By the envy of the devil, death entered into the world, as the Wisdom of Solomon testifies. But it must necessarily be asked again, whence death originated, if God did not make death—if you say it came from envy, how then did envy prevail more than the divine will? But this is a wretched and detestable point to raise. For if you reply that it is from the devil, why then do we say the devil came to be at all, if he was created?

XX. And indeed, the one who created him ought to appear the author of evil. But God is in every way blameless of evils; therefore, the devil is unbegotten. ^C And if he is unbegotten, he is also impassible, and imperishable, and lacking nothing. For these things must necessarily belong to the unbegotten. But the devil is brought to nothing and is punished. Now, that which is punished is altered and undergoes suffering. But that which is unbegotten is impassible; therefore, the devil is not unbegotten, but created. And if he is created, and all that has been created came to be from some beginning, there is a creator both of him and of the devil. And is that one also unbegotten, or created? But only God must be conceived as being unbegotten; for there is not, in ^D the sum of all things, any other creator at all besides Him. "I am the first," He says, "and I am after these things, and besides Me there is no other God." Nor can anything be fashioned or created contrary to His own will. For even the Son confesses that He can do nothing of Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. "For whatever the Father does," He says, "these things the Son also does." Nor is there any hostile thing, or one that opposes or is anti-God to Him; for if there were anything that resisted God, it would cease to be entirely, its constitution being dissolved by the power and strength of God. For it is possible for Him alone, having created, to also dissolve even immortal things.

XXI. What then shall the devil be called? A spirit, evidently, that has to do with matter, as was said, O Athenagoras, [alt-version omitted] having become...

^A It is created by God, just as the rest were, O Athenagoras, just as the other angels were sown by the same. To them, both matter and the forms by which matter was affected were entrusted for care and administration. For the reason for constituting the angels was that they might render to God a vicarious service in those things which had been ordained and disposed by Him, providing the governance. For God, who holds dominion and empire over all things, was to undertake the common and general care of all, steering the whole universe unswervingly, as if it were a ship, by the rudder of His own wisdom, while the angels respectively assigned to this task sustained the singular function and care. ^B But the others, indeed, persisted in that station for which they had been created and constituted by God. The devil, however, acted impudently, and in the administration of those things that had been entrusted to him, having conceived envy against us, showed himself most evil. Just as also those who afterwards burned with concupiscence for bodies, and had the custom of fornication with the daughters of men. For that which was conceded to men was also granted to them by God, so that both parties might have a free counsel of will, that whether they obeyed His word they might enjoy His association and be participants of felicity, or if they refused obedience, judgment might rightly be exercised upon them. Moreover, the devil was like a certain morning star, Lucifer. How did Lucifer, who arose in the morning, fall from heaven? He was indeed a morning and bright star. But he fell and was dashed to the earth, having managed contrary things for man. For the Divine is accustomed to be indignant against the proud, and it restrains the more insolent spirits. And it is pleasing to declare this same thing in verses:

^C The head, alas, and end of evils for all, the dragon, You beget a heavy treasure of evils: Blind error, leader of the world in ignorance. Who takes pleasure in the sad mourning and lamentations of mortals: You, arming the impious hands that hate a brother Against a kindred head for unspeakable crimes, Forced Cain to defile the earth first With gore-stained blood. Then, because the first parent Fell from the happy life to the earth, That fraud of yours is to blame.

^D XXII. And in this manner, indeed, the devil. But death itself was found for the disciplining of men; just as beatings are accustomed to be applied for the correction of little children who are learning the rudiments of letters. For death is nothing else than the separation and disjunction of the soul from the body. What then? Is God in any way the author of death? For you might say this; and the same argument recurs to us. But far be it from us to say so. For neither are teachers the cause of boys being pained by stripes, in the first place or primarily. Death, therefore, is good, if, just as for children, towards

^A Since they are the primary and principal causes, why are children affected by the pain of stripes? Death, therefore, is a good thing, when it has been devised as a means of correction, like stripes, to restrain children. I do not mean the death of sins, O most wise men, but that by which the soul is separated from the fellowship of the body. For since man was made free and his own master, and had received a will of his own choice and power for the inclination towards the good, as I have said, and had heard: "Of every tree that is in the paradise ye shall eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat of it. In the day that ye eat of it, ye shall surely die"—by eating of it, and having been lured by the devil's cunning—he who persuaded him to listen in various ways—he set at naught the commandment of God; and this became for him a stumbling block, and a snare, and a thorn. For God did not make evil, nor is He in any way at all the author of evil. But everything that has been made by Him with the power of self-determination, if it does not keep the law which He justly set down—the law to be observed—is called evil. And the most grievous injury is to disobey the bounds of justice, which God established according to the self-determination of the creature. ^B Hence, after man had been defiled and polluted, having revolted from the decree of God, and had imprinted upon himself many stains of the wickedness which that prince and father of error had sown—having conceived, according to the Scripture, toil, so that he might always have the man imaginatively inclined and stirred toward unrighteousness—God the Almighty, seeing that an immortal evil had been brought into being through treachery, just as the devil was also a deceiver, therefore made for him the garments of skins, as it were clothing him in death, so that by the dissolution of the body, all the evil that had been born within him might die.

^C XXIII. It has already been discussed and demonstrated that the garments of skins are not the bodies. Nevertheless, let us state it again (for it must be said many times). Before the making of them, the first-formed man himself confesses to having bones and flesh, when indeed, having beheld the woman brought to him, he exclaimed, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of her man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh." For I will not endure certain men who babble and shamelessy distort the Scripture, so that the resurrection might not be for them a progress of the flesh, postulating "intelligible" bones and "intelligible" flesh, and ^D turning their allegories up and down in one way or another. And that these things are to be taken as they are written is confirmed by the authority of Christ, who, when asked by the Pharisees about the divorce of a wife, answers: "From the beginning He who created them made them male and female," and said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother," and the rest. For how, in relation to

^A souls alone is the saying, "Increase and multiply," to be referred? Or that other: *God took dust from the earth, and formed man*? This latter seems to have been spoken strictly of the body. For the soul did not derive its substance from the dust or from those heavier, concrete substances. Thus it is proven most truthfully that man was endowed with a body even before those skins of leather were put on him. For it is certain that all these things were pronounced before man's fall; but the matters concerning the tunics [were pronounced] only after the fall.

^B Wherefore we must now consider the things we have in hand, since we have abundantly demonstrated that those leathern tunics were not the bodies, but were a mortality fashioned after the manner of animals—for this is what remains. For this reason, he is exiled outside the bounds of paradise for this very cause. For it is not that God cast man out because He did not wish him to pluck and eat from the tree of life (for he could indeed have lived forever, had he eaten from that life-giving tree from time to time), but, as we have said, He thought he must take heed lest evil become immortal. Otherwise, what point was there in sending Christ from the heavens to the earth, if He had altogether wished man, without having tasted of life, to perish utterly? But if an opponent should object that God did this as though moved by some repentance, his argument is feeble, introducing a God who changes His mind. But God is neither ignorant of the future, nor the author of evil; rather, He is good above all, and foreknows the future. Wherefore it is not to be thought that He cast him out so that, if he were to eat from the fruit of the tree of life, he might be preserved forever; but rather that, first of all, sin might be put to death by mortality, and so that, when he had died, and sin had been, as it were, consumed and melted away, man, having been raised to life and made purer, might partake of life.

^C XXIV. Nor is there any reason why a foolish person should dare rashly to declare that these things were pronounced otherwise. For whoever absolutely denies that this flesh is capable of receiving immortality is suffering from a disease of madness and uses contumelious words against God. For why is Adam cast out after the leathern tunics are sewn, and why is he prohibited from reaching for the tree of life and living, if it is absolutely impossible for man to lead a life with a body forever? For that prohibition was issued as if, by tasting that life, he could have escaped death. For so it says: *And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife tunics of skins, and clothed them. And God said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil. And now lest perhaps he reach forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to work the ground from which he was taken. And he cast out Adam.* Therefore the body could have lived forever and become immortal, had it not been prohibited from tasting of life. But it was prohibited for this reason: that sin, having been killed along with the body, might die, and that the body

^A might be resurrected, with sin having perished. Therefore, in order that man might not be a certain immortal and everlasting evil, as I have said, nor foster within himself the dominance of sin—inasmuch as it sprouted in an immortal body and had immortal food—for this reason God decreed him to be mortal, clothing him in deadness. For those leather tunics signified this: that through the dissolution and division of the body, all sin from the very bottom might be rooted out and destroyed, so that not even the slightest part of the root might be left from which new shoots of sins might again bubble forth.

XXV. For just as a wild fig tree born in the structure of magnificent temples, having grown into expansion and size, and having spread its manifold branches of roots through all the joints of the stones, does not cease growing until, with the stones ^B having been dislodged from the place where it sprouted, it causes the whole thing to fall to ruin, and then, with the wild fig tree removed, the living stones can be restored to their own places so that the temple itself is preserved unharmed, having no longer any of the evils by which it was being destroyed, while the wild fig tree itself, pulled up from its lowest roots, dies—exactly in the same way, God the Architect dissolved His own temple, man, who had produced sin like a certain wild fig tree, and allowed him first to be overcome by the temporary incursion and force of death, as it is written, and then raised him to life, so that the flesh, endowed with the same parts, ^C might rise again, with the sin dried up and dead, like a certain restored temple, immortal and unharmed, with the sin having been destroyed and put to flight from the foundations. For as long as the body is still alive and has not yet died, sin must also live with it, hiding its roots within us, even if it is held in check on the outside by the cuts of corrections and admonitions. Since, therefore, it would not happen after being enlightened that one would do wrong, inasmuch as sin would have been altogether and purely removed from us—yet now, even after believing and coming to the water of purification, we are frequently found to be in sins—for no one can so boast of being free from sin as not even to think of injustice at all. Wherefore it is evident that sin is now held in check and lulled to sleep by the faith, so as not to bear harmful fruits, ^D but it is not yet rooted out to its very roots. For now we restrain its shoots, as it were—that is, wicked thoughts—so that no "root of bitterness" growing up might cause trouble, not allowing the closed mouths to open and yawn toward the sproutings of the word, like an axe cutting toward its roots that grow below; then, however, even the thought of evil at all will be made to disappear.

XXVI. For our word is not without the testimony of Scripture for those who wish to speak the truth sincerely. For the Apostle also knows that as yet the root is not [removed] from men

for he says at one time, "For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is, in my flesh, good," declaring that to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. And at another time, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." Thus it happens that sin has not yet been cut off from its very roots; for it has not died completely, but lives. For how could it be that before man has been delivered to death, in order that when he has been corrupted and consumed with him, it itself might be thoroughly extinguished and perish—like a plant that dies when the soil in which it was hiding its roots is dissolved—man should rise again to life having no longer any implanted root of bitterness? Therefore, as a remedy for the rooting out and utter destruction of sin, our Helper and true physician, God, has applied death as a sort of medical aid, so that the evil awakened in us, as we are immortal, might not remain eternal, and so that we, who are in a very bad condition and have fallen away from our own virtue after the manner of the sick, might not remain longer in that state, nourishing the great disease of sin within perpetual and everlasting bodies. And thus, for the recovery of the salvation of both, namely, of soul and body, God has devised death as a kind of medical purgation, so that He might render us immune to all harm and whole.

^C XXVII. Come now, since for such things many examples are needed, let us consider these things especially from this point, nor let us depart from this argument before our discourse ends in a clearer explanation and proof. It seems to me, therefore, that it has happened as if some most skilled craftsman were to melt down again a fine statue, fashioned by him out of gold or some other material and elegantly polished in all its members to perfection, because he suddenly observed it defiled by some very wicked man who, unable to endure the beauty of the statue out of envy, had endeavored to inflict some blemish upon it, so that he might reap a vain fruit from his own malice. For observe, O most wise Aglaophon, that if the craftsman does not wish the statue, which he has labored upon with such great study and diligence, to remain defiled and blemished, he will be moved again to melt it down, so as to make it such as it was before. But if it does not please him to melt it down again and to gather it into one, but only to amend and correct it as it stands, it is necessary that the image, heated by fire and reshaped by the craftsman’s art, should no longer remain the same, but should appear altered and distorted. Wherefore, if he wishes his work to be excellent and free from all blemish, it must be broken up and melted down, so that the things that have been acquired, and all the alterations resulting from his malice and rott-

rotting, may be destroyed by the remodeling and melting down, and the statue itself may again be rendered whole and unharmed, and as similar to its original self as possible. For it is not the case for a statue to be destroyed by the same craftsman, even if it is dissolved back into its material; rather, it is possible for it to be restored. Whereas for blemishes and wounds to be destroyed is possible—for they are melted away—but for them to be restored is not possible, because in every art, the excellent creator does not look toward the uglier thing or that which has been achieved, but toward the proportion and uprightness of what is being created.

For God appears to me to have arranged things in the same way regarding us. For when He saw man, His most beautiful handiwork, being basely affected by malicious designs and envy, He, being benevolent, could not bear to leave him in such a state, lest he remain defiled for all eternity, retaining that everlasting stain within himself; but He dissolved him into material again, so that through the refashioning, all the blemishes in him might be melted down and vanish. For what the melting down of the statue is there, that is death and the dissolution of the body here; and what the remolding of the material and restoration to its original luster is there, that is the rising again after death here. The prophet Jeremiah also corroborates this. For he teaches precisely this in these words: "And I went down," he says, "into the house of the potter; and behold, he was working a work upon the stones, and the vessel which he was making in his hands fell, and he made it again another vessel, as it pleased him to make it. And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, If as this potter, shall I not be able to do this to you, O house of Israel? Behold, as the clay of the potter, so are you in my hands."

[XXVIII] For observe how, as I said, after man had transgressed, the mighty Hand did not see fit to leave its work—as if it were counterfeit, unfairly damaged by a wicked one with malicious accusations—to remain in such disgrace and reproach; but after melting it down, He again worked it back into clay, like a potter who, by refashioning it, causes all the blemishes and fractures in it to vanish through that refashioning, so that the whole might come into existence once again irreproachably and acceptably. "Or does not the potter have power over the clay from the same lump to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor?" Which is to say (for this is what the Apostle seems to me to mean): Does not God have the power, by refashioning and restoring the form of each individual from the same material, to raise one to honor and glory, and another to dishonor and condemnation? To dishonor, indeed, those who have lived basely in the habit of sins; but to honor those who have adapted their lives to righteousness. This was also declared by Daniel [in the words]: "Since many of those sleeping in the dust of the earth," he says, "will rise, these to eternal life, and these to reproach and eternal shame; and those who understand will shine as the brightness of the fir-"

firmament." ^A For this is placed within our power, not that we should completely root out the evils of wickedness, but that we should not allow it to grow further and bear fruit. For the total and complete removal and destruction of its roots is accomplished by God at the dissolution of the body, as has been said; but the partial removal, to prevent it from sprouting, must be performed by our own efforts. From this it follows that he who has nurtured that evil stock until it has grown in breadth and stature, and who has not, so far as he was able, made it sterile and repressed it, must pay the penalty; for he had the power and the ability to do so, yet he chose to prefer the harmful over the beneficial to his own soul.

XXIX. Therefore, let no one, being the cause of his own evil, cast blame upon the divine nature with an intemperate tongue, as though it did not justly distribute the rewards of virtue and vice to each. For who are you, O man, who answers back to God? Will the thing molded say to the molder, "Why did you make me thus?" For how can he say this, when he has chosen wickedness by his own impulse and will? And for this reason he will not say to God, who judges by the unchangeable decrees of justice, "Why did you make me thus?" ^B Just as an expert javelin-thrower, the Apostle casts profound and convoluted arguments of discourse into the midst, making the treatment of his readings appear deep and shrouded, though it is most true and orthodox, and contains nothing neglected or impious. For to those who do not encounter these words with diligence, but rather in a base manner, it sometimes appears that he speaks in a disjointed and inconsistent way; but to those who are diligent and of a sober mind, how full of order and truth they are! ^C Those who apply themselves to them with an awake mind judge all things that have been pronounced according to the order and the truth of the matter.

But to discuss these things more accurately now would be a task of great labor in itself. Moreover, it is ridiculous, having abandoned the argument that we have undertaken to treat, to divert ourselves to other things. For these things have been said by us for the sake of those who, in the manner of fools, desire of their own accord to be wicked. Since, therefore, it has been most clearly demonstrated thus far that death is not inflicted upon man for the sake of any evil, it behooves one who has not attended to these matters negligently to understand the resurrection of the bodies. For is not death useful precisely on this account, that through it those things which in a certain way plunder our nature are destroyed? Even if, at the time it is brought upon us, it may seem somewhat annoying, like a medicine which is given to a sick person, being very bitter. ^D But lest we dispute too often about the same argument, come now, since we have confirmed the word from the song of Deuteronomy, let us proceed to examine what follows.

XXX. For these words: "I will kill and I will make to live; I will strike, and I will heal, and there is no one who can deliver from my hands," which are brought forward by God, what else do they teach us, except that for this reason the body is first killed and dies, so that it may afterwards rise again and live? It is struck first and broken, so that it may be saved and restored to health. And in no

^A way does anything have power to remove us from His great and mighty hand unto destruction and death—neither fire, nor death, nor darkness, nor chaos, nor corruption. For who, he says, shall separate us from the love of Christ? (who is interpreted as the hand of the Father and the Word). Tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. But in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. Most truly, so that it may be fulfilled, as I said: "I will kill, and I will make to live; I will strike, and I will heal." And there is no one who shall take us out of the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, for destruction. Therefore we were accounted as sheep for the slaughter, so that, having died to sin, we might live to God. And let these things be considered up to this point; what follows next must now be addressed.

XXXI. If everything that is generated is unhealthy—for in this way the adversary objects: "And both in generation itself and in nourishment, it—he says—is increased by that which comes in, and is diminished by that which departs; but things that are not generated are healthy, and do not become sick, nor do they have need, or desire; but things that are generated crave both sexual intercourse and food. Now to desire is to be sick, while not needing and not desiring is to be healthy; but generated things are sick because they desire, while things not generated are not sick. Things that are sick suffer either by the excess or the deficiency of what is added and taken away; and that which suffers both withers and perishes; wherefore it is also generated. Man is generated; therefore man cannot be impassible and immortal." But the argument falls down on these very points. For if everything that comes to be or is generated perishes (for it makes no difference to speak in this way, since even our first parents were not generated but were created), and if the angels and the souls are created (He who makes his angels spirits), then according to their ^B opinion the angels and souls perish. But neither the angels nor the souls perish; for they are immortal and invincible, as He who made them willed them to be. Therefore man is also immortal. But that other position is not acceptable, to say that the whole is to be utterly destroyed, and that earth and air and heaven will cease to be. For it will indeed be burned up for purification and renovation, ^C when the whole world descends, being flooded with fire, but it will not go into destruction and absolute corruption. For if it were better for the world not to be than to be, why would God have chosen the worse by creating the world? He would have acted in vain. Therefore, God ordered the creation that it might exist and remain, just as Wisdom also, through which it subsists, confirms, saying: "For God created all things that they might exist; and the generations of the world are wholesome, and there is no ^D potion of destruction in them."

^A And Paul clearly supports this, saying: "For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God." For the creature was made subject to vanity, he says. ^B And by the creature, he expects to be delivered from such bondage, wishing now to call this world the creature. For it is not the things that are invisible that serve corruption, but these things that are seen. The creature, therefore, remains, having been renewed to a better and more becoming state, rejoicing and exulting in the resurrection for the sake of the sons of God; for whose sake it now groans and travails in pain, and it itself awaits our redemption from the corruption of the body, so that when we have been raised from the dead and have shaken off the mortality of the flesh, according to that which is written: "Shake thyself from the dust and arise; sit down, O Jerusalem." And when we have been delivered from sin, it itself also shall be delivered from corruption, no longer serving vanity, but righteousness. "For we know that every creature groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." And Isaiah says: "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain"; and again: "Thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited." For in truth, God did not create this whole universe in vain, and fruitlessly, and for destruction, ^C according to the opinion of most foolish men, but that it might exist, and be inhabited, and remain. Hence it is necessary that the earth, and the heaven after that conflagration and heat of all things, should exist. But why it is necessary for this to be so requires a longer discourse to explain. For this universe will be reformed, not into some idle matter that it possessed before its constitution, and into which it might have been dissolved, nor will it be reduced to absolute ruin and corruption.

XXXII. But, the adversaries will object: If this whole universe does not perish, how does the Lord say that heaven and earth shall pass away? ^D And how does the prophet say that heaven shall perish like smoke, and the earth shall be worn out like a garment? But we shall reply that this is the custom of the Scriptures, to call the restoration of the world and its transformation into something better and more excellent "perishing," inasmuch as the prior form perishes in that change into a state that is the most pleasant of all; for there is no contradiction or absurdity in the divine words. For "the fashion of this world passeth away," it is said, and not the world itself. It is, therefore, the custom of the Scriptures to call the change toward the better, and sometimes—

^A a change of the former shape, and to call it destruction. Just as if someone were to call the transition from the shape of an infant to the perfect man "destruction," when his age is being led toward the magnitude and beauty of maturity. "For when I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away the things of a child." [1 Cor. xiii, 11] For it must be supposed that while the creation is to be shaken, as if it were to die in the conflagration, it is to be built up again, and not that it is to perish; so that we who have been recreated may dwell in a recreated world, tasting no sorrow; or according to what was said, "Thou shalt send forth thy spirit, and they shall be created; and thou shalt renew the face of the earth," in the hundred and third Psalm, [Psal. ciii, 30.] God having finally arranged the surrounding air to be most temperate. For since there will be an earth even after this age, it is absolutely necessary that there be those who will inhabit it, no longer to die, or be wedded and bring forth children, but like angels, without turning back, to perform the best works in immortality. Wherefore it is nonsense to ask in what manner of life the bodies will then exist, if neither air, nor earth, nor any of the other things that follow will exist any longer.

^B XXXIII. It is, moreover, a matter worthy of consideration, Aglaophon, that he errs and is greatly deceived, if I may be permitted to speak boldly about these things, when he discusses them. For after he had said that the Lord, answering the Sadducees who were tempting Him, asserted that those who shall attain to the resurrection shall then be as angels, he added: "But the angels, being without flesh, dwell in the peak of blessedness and glory. Therefore, we who are intended to be made equal to the angels must likewise be stripped of flesh, even as they." He did not realize, my excellent friend, that He who created and adorned the universe out of nothing ^C bestowed that same condition of immortality not only upon angels and His ministers, but also upon principalities, thrones, and powers. For the race of principalities is one thing, and that of the powers is another; for there is not one rank, and one constitution, and one tribe, and one family of the immortals, but races, and tribes, and differences. And neither do the cherubim, departing from their own nature, change into the form of the angels, nor do the angels in turn change into those of others. For they must be what they are, and what they were created. For if man, who was established to inhabit the world and to rule over all that is in it, being immortal by the original disposition, will never be changed from being a man, neither into ^D the form of the angels, nor into that of others; because not even the angels are changed by being transformed into the original idea of others.

For in fact, Christ came preaching not that the human nature should be transformed or refashioned into another, but that it should return to what it was from the beginning, before it fell—that is, being immortal. For it is necessary that each of those things which have been produced should remain in the form and condition of its own nature, so that all things may be filled by all: the heavens by the angels, the throne by the powers, the lights by the ministers; and further, the more divine places and the purer lights by the seraphim, who stand by the great Counsel ^A that governs all things; and the world by men. But if we were to grant that men change into angels, it would follow that we must also say that the angels change into powers, and these into one thing and another, until the argument, having ascended to the heights, falls into danger.

XXXIV. That God fashioned the human being as a defective thing, or failed in his design, and later thought to make him an angel out of repentance, like the basest of craftsmen, is wrong; nor did He create man because He had intended to make an angel at the beginning and had not succeeded. ^B This is weak. Why, then, would He make man and not an angel, if He had been thinking of making an angel and not a man? Was it because He could not? That is blasphemous and impious. Or was He occupied with an inferior task while deferring what was more excellent? That, too, is completely absurd. For God neither errs in creating what is good, nor does He defer it, nor is He powerless; but He possesses the power to act how He wills and when He wills, since He is Power itself. Therefore, ^C wishing man to be man, He created him from the beginning. And if He wills to do this—and He wills what is good, and man is a good thing, and a human being is defined as that which is composed of soul and body—then man will not exist outside of a body, but with a body, so that another human being might not be born, distinct from the human being. For it is necessary that all the immortal genera be preserved by God. For, says Wisdom, God created man for incorruption, ^D and made him an image of His own eternity. Therefore, the body is not utterly destroyed, since man is composed of body and soul.

XXXV. And see, I pray you, how the Lord willed to teach these same things to the Sadducees, who rejected the resurrection of the flesh. For this is the doctrine of the Sadducees. Whence, having contrived that parable about the woman and the seven brothers, which they proposed against the doctrine of the resurrection of bodies: "There came to Him," it says, "the Sadducees, saying that there is no resurrection." Therefore, if there were no resurrection of the flesh—if only the soul obtained salvation—Christ would have agreed with them, as though they were thinking correctly and well. But instead, He replies, saying: "In the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven." This is not because they do not have flesh, but because they do not marry or take wives, but are henceforth without any corruption. And He adds that in this respect we are made like the angels, so that just as the angels are in heaven, so we too shall be in paradise, no longer given to marriages or banquets.

but occupied in contemplating God and cultivating ^A life, under the presidency and guidance of Christ. For He did not say, "They shall be angels," but "as angels," as if to say, crowned with glory and honor, as it is written, but varying a little from the angels, and being near to being angels. Just as if one were to say: When there is order in the air, and calmness, and night, and all things of the moon are adorned with its ethereal light, the moon shines as the sun. And yet we would not testify that the moon is the sun, but that it is like the sun. Just as that which is not gold, yet is by its nature very close to being gold, is said to be "like gold," and not gold itself. For if it were gold, it would not be called "like gold," but gold. But since it is not gold, but is close to being gold, and assumes the appearance of gold, it is called "like gold." ^B

In exactly the same way, when He says that the saints will be like the angels in the resurrection, we are not to understand this as if He intended that the saints should be changed into the nature of angels in that resurrection, but merely that they will be close to the condition of the angels. Therefore it seems to me most foolish to conclude: Because Christ predicted that the saints in the resurrection would be seen as angels, therefore these bodies are not to be resurrected. Especially since the very word declares the action of what happens. For "resurrection" is used not of that which never fell, but of that which fell and rises again. Just as when the prophet says: *And I will raise up the tabernacle of David which has fallen.* That longed-for tabernacle of ^C the soul fell and collapsed upon the earth of clay. For it is not that which does not die, but that which dies, that is inclined. But the flesh dies; for the soul is immortal. And so, if the soul is immortal, but the body is a corpse, those who say that there is a resurrection, but not of the flesh, deny the resurrection; because it is not that which stands, but that which has fallen and inclined that is raised up, according to what is written: *Does he who falls not rise again, or does he who turns away not return?*

XXXVI. That the soul is immortal, the Lord has taught openly, both through Himself and through Solomon. Through Himself indeed, in the story of the rich man ^D and the poor Lazarus: the one of whom He wished to rest in the bosom of Abraham after putting off the body, while the other He condemned to torments; and from these He introduced him as conversing with Abraham. He showed the same clearly through Solomon in the book which is inscribed Wisdom, where it is written: *The souls of the just are in the hand of God, and torment shall not touch them. They seemed to die in the eyes of the foolish, and their departure was considered a misery, and their journey from us an extermination. But they are in peace, and their hope is full of immortality.* Therefore, it is the resurrection of the body, and not of the soul; for no one raises that which is standing.

but rather the one who is lying down; just as one does not provide a remedy to a body in health, but to one that is suffering.

But if someone should stubbornly insist on saying that the resurrection is to occur for the soul, and not for the flesh, there is great folly and unreasonableness in such a person. For he must first assert the corruption and dissolution of the soul, in order to conclude that the resurrection belongs to that part; otherwise, he would not appear to be merely raving, but to be arguing something with some degree of coherence. ^A Yet, even so, we must grant him the right to define the soul as mortal. For one of two things must necessarily be assumed: either that the Lord spoke the truth when He taught that the soul is immortal, and that it is a most false claim to say that it is corrupted; or else that it truly is corrupted, and that Christ taught erroneously when He declared it to be deathless and immortal—both in the narrative concerning the rich man and the poor man, and in the vision in which Moses and Elias appeared. But the Lord did not speak otherwise, nor did He lie. ^B For He was not showing the apostles an idol or a phantom on the mountain when He presented Elias and Moses to them, in order to deceive them, but by truthfully appearing, they were as they were. So that, one might say, even the most slow-to-learn could understand that the soul is immortal, and be assured that it is incorruptible.

XXXVII. Therefore, the resurrection is of the flesh, not of the soul, so that the tabernacle of David which has fallen into corruption may rise again; and having risen, and having been rebuilt, it may abide inviolable and eternal, as in the days of old. ^C And we must not imagine that God intends to build David a house of stone, nor that He constructs some exquisite dwelling in the heavenly kingdom. Rather, He is speaking of the flesh, which is the tabernacle of the soul, which He molded with His own hands. But you, most wise Aglaophon, must consider these things in this way. You will grasp them most easily if you attend to the likeness of those who sleep and those who awaken. For if sleep follows wakefulness, and waking follows sleep, this is surely some meditation on resurrection and death: inasmuch as

Because sleep and death are twins, it is just as necessary for returning to life to follow death, that the life of the body should succeed it, since a person is also said to be awakened from sleepers. For just as waking follows from sleep, and he who sleeps does not remain in the same state forever in order to sleep perpetually, but rises again in turn; ^D so too shall life follow from death, and he who has died does not remain in the same state after death. For if waking succeeds sleep, and arousal succeeds falling, and restoration succeeds demolition, is it not the case that from that which has inclined and is dead, a resurrection is to be expected? For we do not confess these things in vain—that after bodies have died, they will revive again. And you may see this same thing not only in sleep and waking, but also—if you wish—in seeds and plants, how all these things proclaim the resurrection.

For consider the seeds, how they are cast into the earth naked, as he says, and without flesh, and being brought to completion, they are given back. For if the seeds were truly to die and to rot, and if it were no longer possible for anything to come to life and grow from these seeds, what other lot would remain but for all things to be consumed and to perish in death?

^A XXXVIII. But let us, for the present, refrain from saying more on these matters, most excellent Theophilus, as well as you other judges of our arguments. Let us take up, however, the matters that follow in order, as they are far removed from what is right. For he, forcing the interpretation of the sixtieth Psalm and applying it quite inappropriately—as he says—to the resurrection, claims that it should be understood as applying only to the human form. And that you may not say that he teaches these things in an obscure manner—for he did indeed set this forth—I shall clarify this meaning for you more plainly here. You have surely seen, I suppose, an animal skin or something similar filled with water, such that if it is emptied little by little, and filled little by little, it always shows the same form. For whatever the container is like, the contents must necessarily take on its shape. For come, when the water flows out, if someone pours in as much as is drained away, not allowing the wineskin to be completely emptied of water, it is necessary that what is added appear as the whole, because it is the very same thing that contains the flowing and leaking liquid.

^C Whoever, therefore, wishes to compare the body with these things will do so without any shame. For in the same way, the food that is introduced in place of the flesh that has passed away is changed into the shape and appearance of the containing form. And as much as is distributed to the eyes becomes like the eyes; as much as to the face, becomes like the face; and as much as to other parts, becomes like them. So that each person appears to be the same, not because the original flesh remains as the underlying matter, but because of the form, by which the incoming material is shaped. Therefore, if we are not the same, even for a few days, regarding the body, but rather regarding the form within the body—for this alone has remained from our beginning—then in that time we will be even less the same regarding the flesh, but rather we will be the same according to the form which even now is always preserved and remains in us. For what the skin is in that former analogy, that is the form in this one; and what the water is there, that is exactly what our subject is, the part that is added and removed. Just as, therefore, even when the body is not the same, the species and figure of the form is nonetheless preserved; so too, even if the body is not the same, the form, having grown into something more glorious, will no longer be shown in a corruptible body, but in an impassible and spiritual one. As, for instance, in Jesus at the trans-

- ^A figuration, when he went up into the mountain with Peter, and Moses, and Elias, who then appeared to him.

XXXIX. But so much for these matters: for this is the sum and substance of the dogmas of Origen. But if any of our opponents, putting forward the body of Christ, and because he is called the first-born of the dead and the first-fruits of them that sleep, should argue that, just as he rose again, so all things must likewise be expected to rise again, in order that, as Christ has been raised, so also God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus; and that the body of Jesus was raised, and that it consisted of the same flesh and bones, as Thomas was persuaded—to these we should reply: The body of Christ was not produced by the will of man, ^B nor by the pleasure of a meeting in sleep, nor conceived in iniquities, nor entwined in sins, but was created of the Holy Spirit, and the power of the Highest, and of the Virgin. But yours consists of sleep, and pleasure, and filth. And for this reason also the wise Sirach declares: For when a man dies, he shall inherit serpents, and beasts, and worms. And in the eighty-seventh Psalm: Shall you do wonders for the dead, or shall physicians raise them up, and shall they confess to you? Does any one tell of your mercy in the grave, and your truth in destruction? Shall your wonders be known in the dark, and your justice in the land of forgetfulness? And other such words of Scripture may be gathered by anyone who wishes, ^C lest, if we should attempt to gather and recount them all copiously, our discourse might grow to a greater length.

Follows from Methodius.

XL. When Proclus had with difficulty made an end of speaking, and there was silence for a long while among those present, and they were sufficiently prostrated by unbelief, when I perceived that he had ceased, I lifted my head little by little and took a breath, like those who sail upon a sea when the storm has begun to abate, although I was still trembling and gripped by vertigo (for to confess the truth to you, I had been struck and as if overwhelmed by the great abundance and power of his speaking). I turned to Auxentius, and calling him, "Auxentius," I said, "I do not think that the poetic line was used to no purpose:

*For when two walk together.*

For the adversaries are two. Therefore, the strength of both must be withstood by both of us. For I choose you as my helper and fellow-combatant in the battle against them, that there may be no..." ^D

^A I choose to be an advocate, lest Aglaophon, with Proclus and Origen, instructed by arguments meant for refutation, should overthrow the resurrection. Therefore, we must resist their sophistical calumnies, and their arguments, by which they attack the faint-hearted, are in no wise to be feared. For there is nothing sound or firm in them, but merely an outward embellishment of words, contrived for display and for the admiration of the hearers; a certain enticement of persuasion—not for the sake of truth or any utility, but for the sake of ostentation—so that they may display clever and artfully devised discourses to their listeners. And hence it sometimes happens that those discourses which are deduced from mere probabilities, and are adorned for show and pleasure, seem to others superior to those which have been weighed by the most accurate standard of truth. From this it comes about that teachers no longer strive for that which is best and full of gravity, but look only to that which pleases and is carried along by popular favor, as the sophists are accustomed to do, who, receiving payment for their discourses, barter away the praise of their learning as at a paltry price. In ancient times, moreover, there was the utmost brevity in interpretation, since they strove most of all not to delight the hearers, but to benefit them.

^B But after the faculty of interpreting the Scriptures was granted to everyone without any difficulty, and all, puffed up with pride and high opinion of themselves, became dull and blunt toward that which is right, they truly made great progress in the subtlety of reasoning, and chased after the artifice of speech, just as if they were possessed of the knowledge of all things; for they were ashamed to confess that they had need to be taught, and preferred rather to wrangle contentiously and to spring forward like masters. From this, then, they grew bold, and slipped away from that pious and gentle faith—whereby one believes that God is able to do whatever He has promised—and fell into empty questions and blasphemies, not understanding that words were not devised for the sake of works, but works for the sake of words; just as in medicine, through which the sick must be cured, the words are confirmed by the deeds by which the sick man represented as healed. Whereby, tempered with a certain most fitting harmony, we might have such a mind as would manifest a character consistent with most excellent discourses, like a lyre, not jarring or discordant. For we must cultivate justice with every effort of the soul, in order that we may truly be in possession thereof and not merely seem to be, so that we do not pursue the study of wisdom as if limping, nor strive for glory more than for truth, nor put on a certain fine face and empty appearance, and take upon ourselves all the trappings and apparatus of hypocrisy.

^{C D} 41. There are indeed, there are those who sell themselves by the artifice of discourse adorned for tragic display, as women are wont to do; who, to entice and deceive, employ external bodily cultivation and enticement, unless those who are yet younger, protected by faith and sobriety, cast their eyes upon them with the utmost caution of soul. Wherefore, one must diligently

^A avoid, before we have understood the whole matter accurately, allowing such speeches to take root in our minds. For it often happens that deceivers outstrip the labor of teachers, no differently than the Sirens conceal their cruelty and hatred toward men from those who flee from them by the sweetness of their voice. If this is not so, I said, Auxentius, what is your opinion on this matter? The same as yours, he replied. Therefore, we declare all sophists of the contrary opinion to be imitators of images of truth, and ignorant of truth itself, just as painters are. For they too strive to imitate shipbuilders, and the ships themselves, and helmsmen, while lacking skill in shipbuilding and steering. Do you wish, therefore, that we should scrape away the colors and persuade the children, who are transfixed by the admiration of those paintings, that it is neither a ship that appears to be a ship, nor a helmsman who appears to be a helmsman, but a wall decorated on the outside with colors and pictures for their pleasure? But, good sir, I said, that those who have fashioned such works with a variety of colors are imitators only of the image of a ship and a helmsman, and not of the ship itself, is a long premise for those who wish to hear it, but nevertheless it is useful. For if one takes away the words of the divine ^B Scriptures, with which they distinguish their own opinion so as to deceive—just as if with a various kind of paint—and which they arrogantly call justice and truth, while being utterly ignorant of justice, how ridiculous do you think they would appear, stripped of such terminology? Wonderfully so, he said. Then I said: Do you prefer to be the guide of this path, Auxentius, or should I take the lead? It is fair, he said, that you should lead. For you initiated this discourse.

XLII.

it will no longer receive a body that casts it down into destruction and injustice. This too was said. And I said, Do you consider this to have been said well and rightly? And what difference does this make to you, he said? But you will not refute the argument. Nor do I refute the soul, I said. But, he said, because of the things you have said, so that the argument may be examined, tell me, is it said well and rightly? Does it seem to you to be posited well and rightly, that one who says things contrary and inconsistent to himself? Not at all. What then? Does it seem to you that it is ignorant ^A to feign the truth in this way? Most of all, he said. Do you not then accept the one who extends sins to the false member of arguments? Not at all. What then?

Therefore, you will not prove even your own self to be speaking ignorantly. For having granted that souls had sinned incorporeally, having slipped from the commandment, and having interpreted your statement—that God later gave them skins for their lawlessness, that they might provide compensation by bearing the dead, having interpreted the bodies as skins—as the argument proceeded, you forgot what you posited at first: that the soul is not able to sin by itself. For you say that it is not at all naturally disposed toward this, but that the body has become the cause of all sorts of evils for it. Then, so that it might not again be incited to injustice by the body, as happened before, in this way it will exist for ages without it. And yet you said first that the soul had sinned in paradise before the body, when it was still blessed and painless. For having transgressed the commandment, after it had been ^B already mastered by the persuasion of sin through the serpent, the body was given to it as a punitive bond ^C just as, when the sin had now prevailed because it had obeyed the serpent, the body was placed around it in the manner of a bond as a place of punishment.

Therefore, either the former or the latter is not correct. For either it sinned before the body—and it will not at all be the case that if it does not receive a body it will not sin, and the superfluous discussion is useless regarding the non-resurrection of the body—or it sinned with the body, and the skin tunics cannot be thought to be bodies. For it is found that man transgressed (against) the divine commandment before their creation, and for the sake of which the tunics are created, covering the nakedness brought upon them from their sin. But am I persuading you, and do you see how you posited things that contradict themselves, and has this become clear to you? Or do you not yet understand, Aglaophon, I said, what I mean? I understand, he said, and I no longer need to hear a second time; but I did not realize that I spoke incorrectly. For it is necessary for me, having granted that the skin tunics are the bodies, to confess that even before the soul came into the body it had sinned, on account of which the transgression occurred before their creation. For ^D because of the transgression the tunics were for them, and through them the creation of these for them, and not the transgression happens because of the tunics; and

from this admission one must agree that it is not that this body is the cause of wickedness, but rather the soul itself in itself. Wherefore, even if the body does not arise, it will sin, since it sinned also before without the body. And it is foolish to say that the body cannot rise again, for the reason that it might be the cause of sinning for the soul. For it will sin, just as it sinned also before the body, and likewise after the putting off of the body, even if it does not receive the body back again. Whence it is necessary for me, on account of these things, neither to accept for myself nor to hear from another that the leather tunics are the bodies. And if I were to accept it, I must also agree to the things that have been said. ^A

XLIII. To this I said: But that, O Aglaophon, does it not seem to you to have been wrongly stated? What is that? he asked. The body, I said, to assert that it was fashioned like a bond and fetters against the soul: because the prophet also says that we are in bonds upon the earth, and David calls us fettered? Then he: I cannot, he said, answer you readily. But why do you not dispute with someone else? And I (for I perceived that the man was blushing, and fearing to be refuted in the argument), Do you suppose, I said, that I was led by envy to want to refute you, and not rather that I wanted to declare what was the intended premise? But come now! Let it not weary you to be questioned. For you see that this discussion has arisen for us not on small matters, but on that, to be sure, of how one must believe. For I do not think any greater evil can befall a man than, concerning necessary things, to have conceived a false opinion about them. Clearly therefore, I ask, and readily answer what is asked; and if I seem to have proposed anything less true, refute it, led by a greater zeal for truth than for me. For I think it is a far more excellent good to be refuted than to refute; by how much it is a greater thing for oneself to be snatched from evil than to snatch others. Come then, comparing our words with one another, let us consider if they differ at all from each other. For the things about which we contend are not trivial, but of such a kind that it is more excellent to know them, and most shameful to be ignorant of them. ^B Accordingly, you do not think the body rises again: but I do. Very much so, he said, and for the things I have said. And you, I said, also said it was a bond, and a prison, and a tomb, and a burden, and fetters; but I do not say so. True, he said, you speak truly to me. And yet, through intemperance, and wandering, and grief, and anger, and in a word, through all the other evils of which you asserted it is the cause, you said the soul's impulse toward better things is hindered, and it does not allow us to pass through to the comprehension and knowledge of things that truly are. For even if we attempt to hunt down any of the things that are, a darkness always falling in shrouds the reasoning, not permitting us to look upon the truth clearly. For the investigation through our ears is filled with deception, as you said; and the investigation through sight is also of deception, and that through the other senses is of deception as well. ^C You see, he said, O Eubulius, how I am ready to consider the flesh so great an evil. ^D

^A

XLIV. Therefore, I said, if you would praise me all the more, if according to your view the body is thought to be a bond, it cannot in any way be considered the cause of wickedness and injustice to the soul, but on the contrary, [it is the cause] of temperance and discipline. Consider it in this way, so that you may better grasp what I mean. Where do we take those who are suffering in their bodies? Is it not to physicians? It is clear, he said. And where those who sin? Is it not to the judges? It is necessary, he said. Therefore, I said, they pay the penalty for what they have done, do they not, and justly? Yes. And is everything that is just, good? He agreed. And he who judges justly does well; for does he not judge rightly? He assented. And what is good appears to be beneficial. Therefore, they who are judged receive a benefit. For by these torments their wickedness is removed, being restrained, just as diseases are removed by the incisions and medicines of physicians. For to have one who has acted unjustly pay the penalty is equivalent to the soul being corrected and casting off the great disease which is injustice. He agreed. And what then? Do you not say that, in proportion to the sins committed, punishments are justly applied to those who are punished, just as surgeries are applied to those being treated in proportion to their wounds? He nodded his agreement. Therefore, he who has committed sins worthy of death is punished with death, he who has committed sins worthy of stripes with stripes, and he who is worthy of bonds with bonds. He agreed. And he who is sentenced to bonds, I said, or stripes, or some other such punishment, is penalized in order that he may stop, having repented of acting unjustly, and may be straightened by torments just like a piece of wood that has been warped? You speak most truly, he said. For the judge punishes him not on account of the past crime, but for the sake of the future, so that he may not do it again. This is clear, he said. For the bond clearly removes from him the impulse to act unjustly, not allowing him to do what he wishes. True. Therefore, he is restrained from sinning, since the bonds do not allow him to live freely and pursue his pleasures, but rather constrain him and teach him to honor what is just until he unlearns [his habits], and through admonition becomes temperate. It seems so, he said.

^B Consequently, the bond does not become the cause of wrongdoing, as it seems. For it disciplines and makes men more righteous, being an antidote—bitter and stinging, it is true, but medicinal—for the soul. It is clear, he said. For what else? Come, let us examine the preceding points again. Did you not posit that the body is a bond for the soul on account of the transgression? I do posit it, he said. And is it your opinion that the soul sins with the body, if indeed adultery, murder, and impiety are sins which the soul commits along with the body? ^C He nodded his agreement. But did we not agree that the prisoner is unable to act unjustly? We did agree, he said. And that he is restrained while distressed by his bonds? Yes. And is the flesh a bond for the soul? He nodded his agreement. But do we sin while being in the flesh, with the flesh also agreeing with us in this? We do sin, he said. ^D

But can he who is bound sin? And to this he likewise gave his assent. For he is pained and restrained. Rightly so, he said. For is he not hindered by his bonds? There is no doubt, he replied. But is the body an administrator for sinning? It is, he said. Yet does a bond restrain? He nodded. It follows, therefore, according to neither your opinion, Aglaophon, nor that of another, that the body is a bond; but it is an assistant to the soul for either purpose, that is to say, as much for good as for evil. He conceded.

^B XLV. Since these things are so, it is your task, Aglaophon, to clear up what you posited before. For you were saying that the body is the soul's bond, prison, and fetters. These things do not at all agree with what you have just said. For how can they agree, if indeed it is necessary that the flesh be considered a bond, yet the soul uses it as an assistant for wickedness and as a confederate in that very bond, which is impossible? For if it was given as a place of torment because of sin, so that the soul, being afflicted with pain, might be educated to worship God, how can the body assist and cooperate with it to do evil? For bonds and guard-houses, fetters, and in short all such instruments of punishment which pertain to the reformation of men, are endowed with the power of restraining the sins and crimes of those who are being punished. For a bond is not applied like some sort of guard—so that a criminal may commit greater crimes—but so that in that way, being tormented by the bonds, he may desist from committing outrages. And for this reason, ^C evildoers are constrained by judges with bonds, because they are prevented from doing anything evil, even against their will. Indeed, sinning is proper to free men who are their own masters and whose life no one observes, not to the bound. But man first committed parricide, like Cain. Then he grew in infidelity, venerated idols, and fell away from God. How, then, is it possible that the body was attributed to him as a bond? Or how, when man had already entangled himself in sins before the body, did God add the body to him as some sort of protection for greater sins? And finally, how, after that bond was fashioned, did He speak thus: "Behold, before thy face I have set life and death; choose life: good and evil; choose the good"? Or likewise: "If ye be willing and hearken to me"? For these things seem to be said to him as one endowed with liberty, not to one compelled by bonds and necessity. So that it follows entirely that the body is not to be considered in the place of fetters, or a guard, or bonds, ^D nor are souls called "bound to the earth" because of these things, as if God had condemned them with certain earthly shackles. For how can that be true, since it cannot be demonstrated by any reasoning? But it is also clearly absurd to think that the body, in that eternal life, will be far from the soul, because those things are a bond and foot-shackle for it;

and we shall be—that is why it will not rise. ^B XLVI. For what other reasonable and certain argument can be shown to those who are troubled by this, that it casts flesh into a trap, as if paying the penalty for sins committed? This is something closer to folly than to true orthodoxy. For if, as we have already explained above, souls possessed bodies before the transgression, how is it that they are later, after the transgression, cast into a body as into a trap, when there is no time in which they sinned before they received the body? For it is not the act of a sound mind to say sometimes that souls sinned because of the body, and at other times that, because they sinned, for that reason [the body] became a bond and a trap for condemnation. For if they sinned because of the body, then the body must have been with them from the beginning, even before the sin. For how could they have sinned because of something that did not yet exist? But if the body is considered once again to be a trap, fetters, and a bond for it, then it is no longer the compound that is the cause, but the soul alone that has sinned. For what is prepared for the sinner after the act of sinning? Bonds, traps, and fetters. ^C But we have already acknowledged that the body cannot be a bond for the soul, since the body cooperates toward both things—both toward what is just and toward what is unjust—whereas a bond prevents one from doing injustice. Therefore, as I say, it is one of two things: either we sinned from the beginning with a body—and no time appears in which we existed without a body, and the body is a joint cause for both evils and goods for the soul—or we sinned living without a body, and the body is entirely free from any cause of wickedness. But without a body, the soul is not overcome by irrational pleasure. Yet the first-created were overcome, being lured by irrational pleasure. ^D Therefore, the soul was with the body even before the sin. For concerning the point that it cannot be thought to have become a bond for punishment because of the transgression, so that the soul, according to them, might have unalloyed and continuous torment by carrying a corpse, I think I have already demonstrated these things fully with every proof. Whence it is groundless and unacceptable to posit that the body is a trap and bonds, and that God brings souls into a trap to exact punishment, casting them down from the third heaven because they disobeyed the commandment from above. For looking at what, would anyone believe what has been so rashly said by them? Even though the Psalm does not say so, they explain it under compulsion. But I will bring forth the passages themselves, so that the mythical character of their interpretation may be apparent, as they do not rightly wish to understand the Scriptures. For there are

^A things said in that psalm, in some such way as this: "You have tested us, O God, you have melted us as silver is melted. You have brought us into the trap; you have laid afflictions upon our back. You have set men upon our heads. We have passed through fire and water, and you have brought us out into a place of refreshment." And they immediately add: "These words are spoken by souls that have been brought down from the third heaven, where the paradise is, into the body, as into a trap and a wrestling ground." For in the words, "We have passed through fire and water," he says, it denotes the passage of the soul into this world through the womb, since it is brought forth into such great heat and moisture; or it denotes the fall from the heavens into this life, passing through the fountains of fire and the waters above the back of the firmament. To all of whom I wish to stand in opposition. Come then, Aglaophon, you yourself make the reply on their behalf, as to what they might say.

^B XLVII. For, in the first place, that paradise, from which we were cast out in our first parent, is without doubt an excellent place in this earth, set apart for the exquisite and most pleasant rest and dwelling of the pious. Thence, moreover, the Tigris, the Euphrates, and the other rivers take their source, whose channels and currents overflow into our continent. For they do not rush down into the earth having fallen from the sky. Nor, indeed, could the earth have endured such a mass of water cast down from on high with such a great impetuous force. Nor does the Apostle place paradise in the third heaven, if one ^C can penetrate his words with a certain subtle understanding. "I know," he says, "a man caught up to the third heaven, and I know such a man, whether in the body or apart from the body, God knows, that he was caught up into paradise." By these words he signifies that two things of the greatest moment were revealed to him, since he was clearly taken up twice; first to the third heaven, and then into paradise. For these words: "I know such a one caught up even to the third heaven," demonstrate that something peculiar was shown to him when he was raised to the third heaven. But that which follows: "And I know such a man, whether in the body or apart from the body, that he was ^D caught up into paradise," demonstrates that another thing was revealed and indicated to him again in paradise. Wherefore those are tuneful trifles, and are tragically fabricated for pomp and show, to assert that souls are sent down from heaven, and that, having fallen into this lower world, they pass through the fiery fountains and the waters that are above the firmament; for Adam also was by no means cast down from heaven, but from that paradise which had been planted in Eden toward the east. For the sin was not committed before he put on a body, as we have shown.

The body itself is not a snare. But it was only after the soul ^A became fused with the body that the fall occurred; for man is this compound, and his descent here was from paradise. But Aglaophon did not attend very carefully to the meaning of that passage, but instead insisted upon disputing things that cannot be understood in any way, and set out to explain that psalm according to the opinions of wicked men, concerning which we shall say no more.

XLVIII. For I wish, since we have once come to expose their wickedness, to strip away even the pretext for this prophecy of theirs. "Thou hast tested us, O God, and hast tried us with fire, as silver is tried." Since the martyrs are continuously tested ^B by the onset of tortures in their trials (for often the responses of the prophets are fulfilled in our own faith), and have wrestled both piously and most courageously, they give thanks to God saying, "Thou hast tested us," for He, in order that they might attain greater glory with Him, willed them to be endangered by various labors, and set before them the victory of a truly Olympic contest. And consider how clearly what Solomon pronounces concerning the martyrs is in harmony with these words; for the discourse is not devoid of the testimony of other Scriptures: "God tested them, and found them worthy of Himself. As gold in the furnace He tested them, and as a whole burnt offering of sweet fragrance He accepted them; and in the time of their visitation" ^C, etc., having said before: "For if they have suffered torments before men, their hope is full of immortality. Having been chastened a little, they shall be greatly benefited." Furthermore, in the 123rd Psalm, it is said: "If it had not been that the Lord was with us, when men rose up against us, they would have swallowed us alive. Our soul has passed through a torrent; our soul has passed through the unbearable water. Blessed be the Lord, who has not given us for a prey to their teeth. Our soul as a sparrow was delivered from the snare of the hunters. The snare was broken, and we were delivered." It is the martyrs who are chanting. There are two choirs of the triumphant martyrs, one belonging to the New Testament and the other to the Old, ^D who respond to one another in the honor of God, the patron and king of all, with the modulation of this hymn: "Thou hast tested us, O God; Thou hast tried us with fire, as silver is tried. Thou hast brought us into the snare; Thou hast laid tribulations upon our back." This signifies the tribunals of the Gentiles and the trials by which, being afflicted and seared as if by fire, they were most powerfully tested. "For test me," he says, "O Lord, and try me; burn my reins and my heart." It is permitted for Abraham also to say these things, when his inward parts were seared as if by a certain fire for the sake of his only-begotten son, and he preferred the command of God, after hearing, "Abraham,"

^A spare your son, and cast away the sword." "You have tested us, O God; you have refined us as silver is refined." Job, too, may utter the same words, after his body had dripped with purulent matter, and he had endured the insults of his friends, and was afflicted with bodily torments; when he had heard God speaking to him through the storm: "Do you think I have spoken to you for any other reason than that you might appear righteous?" Let him say, I say: "You have placed tribulations before us, O Lord, that you might test us as gold is tested in a furnace." The three youths in the furnace, sprinkled with dew so as not to be consumed by the fire, may also sing along: "You have tested us, O God; you have refined us as silver is refined. We have passed through fire and water; and you have brought us out into a place of refreshment." Would that it might be granted to me, Methodius, at some time, O omnipotent and eternal God, Father of Christ, when on your day I shall have passed through the fire without any pain, and escaped the force of the waters which have been changed into a burning nature, to say: "I have passed through fire and water; and you have brought me out into a place of refreshment." For this is the promise issued by you to those who love you: "If you pass through the water, I am with you, and the rivers shall not overwhelm you. And if you pass through the fire, you shall not be burned; the flame shall not consume you." But concerning the interpretation of that psalm, enough has been said thus far.

XLIX. Now that matter must be considered, in which those who are deluded after the manner of sleepers by various dreams boast that the Apostle said these things: "I was alive once without the law"; and they immediately shout that this describes the life of our first parent before the body and the prescription of the law, as those things which follow make one believe: "But I am carnal, sold under sin"; because otherwise a man could not have been brought under the power and dominion of sin, and, having violated the commandment, be sold, unless he had existed endowed with flesh. For the soul by itself cannot be taken ^C by any sin. Because of this, he acutely added immediately: "I am carnal, sold under sin," when he had said before: "I was alive once without the law." When they said these things, very many were turned to astonishment and amazement. But now, after the truth has been most manifestly revealed, it is evident not only that they have wandered far, but that they have even arrived at the height of blasphemy. For whereas they want souls to have lived before the precept, devoid of body, and not to be able to be overtaken by any sin by themselves, having fallen into another opinion thereafter, they have overturned their own dogma, or rather, themselves. For they make bodies for them later as if for a punishment, because they sinned before the body. Indeed, insults also occur to them, as they assert that the body is like chains and fetters, and they babble other foolish things of this kind.

But in truth, as I have said, the matter stands in the contrary way. For the soul ought to have been joined to the body even before sin. Otherwise, since the soul is void ^D of any

^A capacity for sinning by itself, it could not have sinned at all before the body. But if it did sin, it was not then unimpeachable of itself in regard to sin, but was rather both vulnerable and susceptible. Hence, also, even if it does not receive this body, it will sin, just as it sinned before receiving it. Why then did it receive the body at all later, after it had already sinned? Or what need of a body had it? If it were, for instance, that it might be tormented and feel pain, how is it that, with the body, it rather indulges in luxury and debauchery? And further, how does its power of free choice appear to exist in this world? For it lies within our own power to believe, and to not believe. And where it lies within our power to believe and to not believe, it is in our power to act rightly or to sin, and in our power to do good or to do evil. ^B But also, how can the judgment be expected as something future, in which God will recompense each one according to his deeds and practices? How could it not be considered as already present, if to be begotten and to enter into a body is for the soul effectively to be judged and to receive its recompense; and if to die and be separated from the body is nothing other than to be liberated and to come into a refreshment, for the reason that, having sinned before the body, it is thrust into the body as though into condemnation and a penalty, as you maintain? The argument has demonstrated sufficiently and in superabundance that it is impossible that the body should be regarded as a torture chamber and shackles for the soul.

^C 50. It would suffice, therefore, having shown from the Scripture itself that the first-created man existed from soul and body before the transgression, to put an end to the discourse on these matters here. I, however, will now pass through the main points, only endeavoring to refute the grounds of their arguments, so as not to exceed the proportion of the discourse. For it is possible for you now to perceive, O judges, that the passage, "I was once living without the law," spoken in the Epistle to the Romans, cannot apply to the conduct of the soul before the body, according to their view, just as the things which follow these words indicate. Even if this excellent physician of the Scriptures, by cutting away the parts that follow, violently bent the mind of the Apostle toward his own opinion, acting in this very ^D unskillful—nay, rather, childish—manner. For whereas he ought to have arranged the members of the divine words just like the limbs of bodies in their proper joining and articulation, so that the entire and natural form of the body might be preserved, he, on the contrary, neglecting the sequence of the Scripture, has rendered the body mutilated, just like a Scythian cruelly destroying and chopping limb by limb a hostile body. But let us let these things pass. Yet they will say: "Why were these things pronounced by the Apostle, if you deny that they are as you have said?" I answer that he used the word "law" for the "precept." For let it be granted, first, according to your hypothesis, that he called the precept a "law"—not on that account, however, did he assume that the first-created lived without bodies before the precept, but rather without sin. For the time from their creation until the precept is indeed short, in which

they lived without sin, but not without corpus; nor did he confirm that the body is subject to death. 577 ^B

51. But if they raise an objection again, saying: "Why then is the wisdom of the flesh said to be hostile to God? For it is not subject to the law of God; neither indeed can it be" (Rom. viii, 7), one must answer that they are greatly deceived at this point. For he does not declare that the flesh itself cannot be subject to the law of God, but the wisdom of the flesh, which differs from the flesh. Just as if one were to say: "The dross of silver, because it has not been sufficiently refined to be fashioned into a suitable vessel, is not subject to the craftsman; nor can it be." For it must first be separated and refined. And yet, he does not for that reason deny that the silver can be fashioned into a useful vessel, but only [denies it of] that which is copper-like in the silver and the other hardness. So also, when the Apostle speaks of the wisdom of the flesh, he does not say that the flesh itself cannot be subject to the law of God, but the wisdom which is in the flesh, by which term he signifies its propensity toward pleasures and lusts. ^C This he sometimes calls elsewhere the "old leaven of malice and wickedness" (1 Cor. v, 7), urging that it be utterly destroyed by us, and sometimes a "law warring against the law of my mind, and making me captive" (Rom. vii, 23). For if he were saying that the flesh itself cannot be subject to the law of God, then, in the first place, as often as we acted intemperately, or committed theft, or perpetrated other things of this kind through the instrumentality of the body, we would seem to be undeserving of blame before a just judge, since the flesh is absolutely incapable of being subject to the law of God. For why should the body be blamed if it lives according to the necessity of its nature? But neither could the body be led to chastity or virtue, if by the condition of its nature it were unable to be subject to the good. For if the nature of the flesh is such that it cannot be subject to the law of God, and the law of God is righteousness and temperance, then it would not be possible for anyone to remain a virgin, nor to be continent at all. But if they are virgins and are continent, it is evident that they are subjecting the body. For otherwise it is impossible to be continent from sin. Therefore it is not true that the body cannot be subject to the law of God. For if it were true, by what reasoning would John have subjected his own body to chastity, or Peter to holiness, or the others subsequently to righteousness? Why also would Paul have admonished thus: "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that you should obey the lusts thereof; neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God" (Rom. vi, 12, 13)? And likewise that other saying: "As you have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto sanctification" (ibid. 19). ^D

^A LII. This, therefore, he understood: that this tabernacle can be corrected and converted to what is good, so that sins might be utterly extinguished within it. For what other way is there by which a man can be brought into a certain servitude of justice, unless he first subjects the members of his flesh—that they may no longer obey sin, but righteousness—and orders his life as is worthy of Christ? Since indeed both the act of sinning and the act of not sinning come about through the body, which the soul uses as an instrument for either virtue or vice. For since "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. vi, 9-10); and since all these things are performed and strengthened by the agency of the body: no one can be justified unless he first overcomes them. He indeed overcomes these things who turns himself toward temperance and faith; thus it is brought about that the body can be subject to the law of God. For the law of God is temperance. Wherefore the Apostle does not assert that the flesh itself cannot be subject to the law of God, but the "wisdom" of the flesh (Rom. viii, 7), that is, its impulse and its ardent, inflamed cupidity toward injustice. For this reason he commanded it to be purged, even to the point of struggling against the gluttonous intemperance of the belly, showing that such desires and pleasures are to perish, and striking shame into those who think that to live in such luxuries is to live at all; those who consider the belly to be their God. "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die" (1 Cor. xv, 32)—as do certain voracious bodies that are abandoned to nourishment, occupied entirely with tables and banquets.

After having used these words: "Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them" (1 Cor. vi, 13), he added: "Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Cor. vi, 13-20).

^C LIII. In this, I would have you note that, because this body is capable of receiving the law of God and immortality—if it should be purged of the intemperance of those burning appetites, being in no way stained by the prurient touch of unlawful incitements—for this reason these things were spoken by the Apostle. For what else is that which

^A in joining with her through the conjunction of limbs, and through a certain communion becomes one with her, beyond that external body, by whose ministry all those abominations of the commingling of bodies and of burning lust are perpetrated? Whence also, "Every sin whatsoever a man doeth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body." For pride, and unbelief, and anger, and hypocrisy are sins of the soul. Fornication, however, and wantonness, and luxury belong to the body; with which a soul can neither fly toward the truth, nor be subjected to the decrees of temperance; but both must necessarily fall away from the kingdom of Christ. Furthermore, if our bodies, preserved in holiness, are the temple of the Spirit dwelling in us, and the Lord resides in the body, and the members of the body are the members of Christ, then the body is altogether subjected to the divine law, and is capable of inheriting the kingdom of God. "For He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken," He says, "your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you," that this mortal may put on immortality, and the corruptible should put on incorruption, and death may be swallowed up in victory. For the Apostle was not disputing in this place about any other body, but precisely about this one, which is extinguished and brought to an end by death, through which it is possible both to fornicate and to act wantonly. ^B 58 LIV. But if they suspect that there is some difference between "body" and "flesh" (so that we may even allow them to reason about this with some subtlety), and they imagine that the body is one thing—as, for instance, the proper property of the soul itself, which cannot be perceived by the eyes—while the flesh is that external thing which is seen by the eyes: it will be necessary to refute them by showing that not only Paul and the prophets attribute the term "body" to this flesh, but also other philosophers, among whom, indeed, the precision of terms is strictly observed. For "flesh" in general, if they wish to examine these things scientifically, is not properly said to be the entire bulk of this tabernacle of ours, but a certain part of the whole, just as bones, or nerves, or veins are; but the "body" is the whole. Whence also physicians, who discourse accurately concerning the nature of bodies, consider this thing which is visible to be the body. Indeed, even Plato himself does not ignore that this is the body. For in the Phaedo, Socrates ^C says: "Shall we not consider death to be the same, namely the departure of the soul from the body? And is it true that to die is for the body to exist separately by itself, apart from the soul, and for the soul to exist separated from the body?" What of blessed Moses (for let us also come to the divine Scriptures)? Does he not understand the same thing to be the body that we speak of, when he says, in the laws of purification, "And he that hath touched the unclean person shall wash his clothes; and he shall wash his body with water, and shall be unclean until the even"? And what shall we say of Job? Does he not also understand this same thing which is extinguished by death to be the body, saying, "My body is covered with the putrefaction of worms"? But also Solomon, that "into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter" ^D

^A, nor shall she dwell in a body subject to sin.

And in Daniel it is written regarding the martyrs: "The fire did not rule over their bodies," it says, "and the hair of their head was not singed." And the Lord in the Gospel says: "Therefore I say to you, Do not be anxious about what you shall eat or what you shall wear. Is not the soul more than food, and the body than clothing?" And the Apostle no less, by these words, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body," ^B demonstrates that the body is that with which we are clothed; and again: "But if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also." And again: "If the foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,' it is not for that reason not of the body." And again: "And Abraham, not weakened in faith, did not consider his own body to be dead." And again: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what he has done through the body, according to what he has performed." And again: "For they say, 'His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak.'" And again: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know." And again: "So ought men to love their own wives as their own bodies." And again: "Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, and soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." ^C But those who do not accurately understand any of these things have judged that the Apostle fluctuates and is carried about in a disordered way, as if his thoughts and the sentiments of his words were completely lacking in stability and firmness, and as if he pronounced things which were subsequently retracted, such as the flesh sometimes rising and sometimes not rising.

LV.

is without the boundary ^A by which one must conduct oneself, nor possesses an independent power of reason, through which it might choose what rule of life to use, in order that it might be individually honored or blamed, must be shown to be exempt from all such accusation; for it cannot desire those things which are not forbidden to it. And even if it should desire them, it will not be held blameworthy. For desire does not fall upon things present and subject to our power, but rather upon things that are present, yet not within our power. For how could anyone desire or yearn for that which is not forbidden to him, and of which he is not in need? For this reason, "I would not have known desire, unless the law had said: You shall not desire." For having heard, "But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat. For in the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die," then eventually I conceived the desire, and I began to travail ^B. For the one who desires does not desire the things he has, and over which he has power, and which he uses, but rather those things from which he is forbidden, and of which he is deprived, such that he does not possess them. Wherefore it was well said: "I would not have known desire, unless the law had said: You shall not desire." Which is to say: "You shall not eat from it." For from there, sin found a place and an opportunity to approach, to mock me and to lead me astray.

LVI. For once the commandment had been given, the devil found an opportunity through that commandment to work desire in me, having urged me on and cleverly invited me to fall into the appetite for forbidden things. For without the law, sin is dead. For as if the commandment had not been given and did not yet exist, sin was inactive. I, however, lived blamelessly before the commandment, not having a boundary and regulation by which it was necessary to live, and by falling from which I would commit sin. But once the commandment arrived, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment which was for life was found by me to be for death; because after God had legislated, and had specified what was to be done and what was not to be done, the devil worked the desire in me. For that exhortation and instruction of God which was given to me was for life and immortality, so that by obeying it and living according to it, I might have a life that is unharmed and most blessed throughout eternity, and always blooming toward immortality, and joy. But for me who violated it, it turned into death and condemnation. Since the devil, whom he now called by the name of sin, because he is the artisan and discoverer of sin, having found an opportunity through the commandment, mocked me, and once mocked, he killed me, having managed it so that I became subject to the judgment: "For in the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die." So that the Law is holy, and the commandment of God is just, and holy, and good. For it was not given to do harm, but to save. For let us not think that God does anything at all useless or harmful. ^D

What then, has that which is good become death to me, for the legislation of the greatest good, which was destined to give a like result, was given? God forbid! For God's commandment was not given that I should be enslaved to corruption and ^A should have the stains of destruction branded upon me; but rather that the devil, by means of that which is good, might be revealed to have maliciously devised evil against me, so that the finder and architect of sin might be shown up and convicted of being a sinner in the highest degree, and he who had managed affairs contrary to the law of God might be distinguished from the good. For we know that the law is spiritual; and therefore it is the cause of no harm to anyone. For spiritual things dwell far from irrational desire and sin. But I am carnal, sold under sin. For instance: "I, being carnal, and placed in the midst of evil and good, as one possessing free will, so that it might be in my power to choose what I wish (for He says, 'I have set before thy face life and death'); having inclined toward disobedience to the spiritual law—that is, the commandment—and toward obedience to the material—that is, the advice of the serpent—I am, by reason of such a choice, sold, having fallen under sin, to the devil." Whence, from that point on, wickedness, having besieged me, settles in and takes up residence in my flesh, just as a drone flying ^B around and buzzing about a honey-comb, often settles upon it; and, by reason of the penalty imposed on the one who broke the commandment, I was sold to wickedness. Wherefore, I do not understand what I do, as I consider what I do not wish. For the saying, "What I do, I do not understand, and I do what I hate," is not to be taken as meaning that one is actually performing and committing the evil, but it refers only to the thinking, since thoughts foreign to us frequently fly upon us and make us imagine things against our will, while the soul is led away by thoughts into many things.

LVII. For it is not at all within our power not to think or to think of base things, but it is in our power to use or not to use ^C these thoughts. For we cannot prevent these notions, which are breathed in from outside for our trial, from falling upon us, but we can refrain from consenting to them and from using them. Otherwise, how would the Apostle—in the least measure!—commit the evil that displeased him, and in the least measure do the good that pleased him, if he were not speaking about foreign thoughts, which we sometimes consider even unwillingly and for reasons we do not know? These we must overturn and silence, so that, if we do not expand, they may not gain hold of the ends of the soul. For it is impossible for goodness to spring up in us while these are occupying us. Rightly, therefore, he said: "For what I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I wish, but what I hate, that I do."

We wish, indeed, that things which are in no way fitting, and which are illicit, should not even enter our thoughts. For that is truly perfect goodness, which restrains from evil not only in the execution, but even in the thinking. ^A And that which we wish to be good is by no means brought to pass, but rather the evil which we do not wish. For thoughts come upon our heart and enter, even against our will, frequently a myriad of things about a myriad of things, filling us with curiosity and irrational preoccupation. Therefore, to wish not even to have these thoughts is in our power, but to succeed in having them entirely extinguished so that they no longer occur to us, is not (as I have said) in our faculty, but only in how we make use of them, or do not make use of them; so that the meaning of this passage is: "For I do not do the good which I wish." For I wish not to think on things that harm me; since this is good and blameless, according to the saying: "Faultless in deeds, and in mind a perfect square." ^B And this good which I wish, I do not do; but the evil which I do not wish, I practice. I do not wish to think, and yet I think the things I do not wish. And see, I pray you, whether it was not for this very reason that David besought God, being indignant that he should ponder in his mind things he did not wish to: "Cleanse me from my hidden things," he says, "and spare thy servant from others. If they do not gain dominion over me, then shall I be blameless, and I shall be cleansed from a great transgression." But the Apostle also says in another place: "Destroying speculations and every loftiness that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and taking captive every understanding into the obedience of Christ."

^C LVIII. But if anyone, daring to oppose these statements, should object that the Apostle is teaching this not only regarding the thought of evil, which we turn away from and which we flee, but also that it refers to the very work and action itself, when he speaks thus: "For I do not do the good which I wish, but the evil which I do not wish, this I do"—I would bid this person, if he speaks truly, to explain what that evil was which the Apostle hated and did not wish to do, and yet did all the same, or that good which, although he desired to perform it mightily, he was in no way able to. ^D Nay, but how often, when he wished to perform good, did he not actually accomplish the good he wished, but rather the evil which he did not wish? Was it, for example, that wishing to revere the one true God, he could not, but what he did not wish—to worship idols—this he was able to do? Or did he not do the self-control he wished, but performed the licentiousness at which he was offended? And to sum up: did he practice drunkenness, luxury, anger, injustice, and the other duties of wickedness when he did not wish to, while the things he did wish—justice and holiness—he could not pursue? And yet that same man, in the midst of the Churches, with the greatest intensity of soul, urged all to avoid...

^A wickedness, exhorting them not only that those who perpetrate crimes and are devoted to them should be reserved for destruction and the wrath of God, but further, that those who consent with them in such wickedness as this should likewise be condemned. He contended mightily that offices of justice should be performed by us pure and sincere from every stain. For every sin and attempt is brought to effect by the assistance of the flesh. Therefore, very often in his Epistles, clearly inculcating these same things to us, he bids us to flee and turn away. "Be not deceived," he says, "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God."

And the chief point, exhorting us to escape and shake off sin entirely from every side, he declares: "Be ye my imitators, even as I also am of Christ." He proposed these things not as a matter of ^B doing and committing what he did not wish, but only of taking thought. Otherwise, how could one be a perfect imitator of Christ? But now, since bestial thoughts often fall upon us, filling us at one time or another with desire and curiosity, "Like onto swarms of dense flies," therefore, he said, "For what I would not, that do I." These must indeed be constantly cast out from the soul, so that we do not incline at all to the doing of what they suggest. For in order that we may be enrolled in the kingdom of heaven, after we have made trial of ourselves through all pleasures and pains, to see whether we are constant ^C and immutable, and everywhere incorrupt like gold tested by fire and flame, having not departed from our own virtue, then indeed our soul is troubled and distressed by very many things. Wherefore we must courageously oppose their efforts. Just as soldiers are accustomed to behave; who, when they see themselves besieged by enemies, disregarding their arrows and those other missiles of theirs, for the sake of saving the city go forth against them with great spirit, and leave no diligence undone, until they have turned their mass to flight and driven them outside their borders. For you see how thoughts, because of the sin that dwells in us, arise from without, just as rabid dogs or wild and bold robbers who are always spurred on against us by that tyrant and prince of injustice, testing us, whether we are strong enough to resist them and to stand in battle array against them.

LIX. ^D Come then, O soul, take heed lest at any time you be broken and snatched away into that transgression; for we cannot free you with any price of redemption. "For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" And indeed it would be a desirable thing, and most full of joy, if we had no adversaries and enemies. But since this cannot be, and we by no means attain what we wish. For we wish to have no one who drags us toward the perturbations of the soul; for in this way it would be possible to obtain salvation without sweat and labor.

^A Let us not yield, therefore, O soul, let us not yield to the wicked one, but let us take up the armor of God

that protects and fights on our behalf

LX. ^C So then, if you remember, we were discoursing: from the time when the first man was circumvented and violated the command of God, sin, propagated from that contumacy, came to dwell in him. For thus did sedition first arise; and we began to be entangled in turbulent agitations and alien thoughts. For, having been deprived of that divine inspiration and being utterly exhausted, those muddy desires filled us, which the wily and deceitful serpent cast into us, when we had otherwise barely traversed the circle of the divine precept in a short space of time. Therefore God devised death for the destruction of sin for our sake, so that, having flourished among us who were immortal (as has been said), it might not remain immortal. Hence, undoubtedly, the Apostle says: "For I know," he says, "that in me, that is, in my flesh, there does not dwell good." By these words he signifies the sin that was introduced into us through desire as a result of that violation of the divine command; from which sin, as if from certain sprouts and shoots, voluptuous thoughts thus arise within us. For there is a double kind of thought within us: one which is accustomed to be stirred up from that concupiscence which resides in our body, which, as we said before, ^D from the fraud of the material spirit...

^A and its artifice, proceeds. Another thing is that which is derived from the law of the commandment—the law, I mean, which we have drawn in as something innate and born with us by nature, and which stimulates and raises up our mind toward honesty. From this it comes about that the divine law, in what pertains to the mind, brings us pleasure: for this is the interior man. But because of that sin which dwells in our flesh, we are delighted by the law of the devil. For that law which fights against the divine law and resists it, placed in the desire of our mind, is that very thing which produces turbulent thoughts, entwined with the dregs of matter and scattered toward impropriety, and which has an altogether huge allure toward pleasures. ^B

LXI. For the Apostle appears to me to plainly distinguish three kinds of law in this place. One of these is in agreement with the good that is innate in us, which he clearly calls the law of the mind. The second is that which, having been forged from the impression of the most wicked one, throws our soul into thoughts and phantasies most full of disturbance, which he said opposes the law of the mind. The third kind is that which has hardened through sin out of desire itself in our flesh, which he names the law of sin dwelling in our members. This, also, that wicked enemy, invading and sitting upon it, often stirs up against us and drives us to injustice and wicked deeds. For that law which is breathed in from the outside by the wicked enemy, and through the senses, like a certain sticky and clinging trail of bitumen, is poured into the soul itself within, is corroborated by that other law which desire itself derives into our flesh. For there appears to be in us one thing which is better, and another which is worse. And when that which is better becomes stronger than the worse, the whole mind is carried toward the good, as if by a certain impulse. But when that which is worse has abounded and weighed it down with its own heaviness, and is said to fight against the good that is in us, the man is led back in the opposite direction toward all kinds of phantasies and worse thoughts. ^C

LXII. And for this reason, the Apostle desires to be delivered, judging that to be death and destruction; just as the Prophet also says: "Cleanse me from my secret faults" (Ps. xviii, 13). For the words themselves convey this: "I delight," he says, "in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. vii, 22-24). Where he does not declare the body to be death, but evidently the law of sin, which resides in our members, and through the transgression of the commandment makes dens within us, and finally draws our soul away to the slaughter of injustice by deluding it with various images. Wherefore, ^D immediately in the same disputation he subjoins of what kind that was from which he desired to be delivered, and by whom he was to be delivered: "The grace of God through Jesus Christ" (ibid. 25). For I desire that it be diligently noted that, if he had called this body death, as you think, Aglaophon, he would never have invoked Christ as the one who was to deliver him, as if [he were] the one from whom he was later to be snatched away from such a calamity.

^A For what is more wonderful, or what greater [benefit] have we obtained from that coming of Christ? And why did the Apostle, at all, speak out in this way—as if he were able to be delivered from death by God through the coming of Christ—when it happened to everyone, even before Christ came into the world, to die? For everyone, at the departure from this life, was set free by being separated from their bodies. And in the same way, all souls—both those of unbelievers and believers, and those of the unjust and the just—were separated from their bodies on the day of death. ^B What, then, did the Apostle strive to obtain beyond the others who had spent their lives in unbelief? Or why did he desire to be released from the bonds of the body, a thing that was necessarily destined to happen even against one's will, for it is appointed for all to die and for their souls to be separated from their bodies, if indeed he supposed the body to be the death of the soul? Therefore, O Aglaophon, he does not call this body death, but the sin that has dwelt in the body through desire—from which body God rendered him free and unencumbered through the benefit of Christ's coming. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death, so that He who raised Jesus from the dead, through His Spirit that dwells in us, might also give life to our mortal bodies, with the sin that is in our body having been condemned to destruction; so that the righteousness of the natural law, which drew us toward the good, might be manifested—[though] it appeared how weak it was—which, before the coming of Christ, was enslaved under the power of sin ^C and burdened by earthly cares. For the power of the good, implanted by nature, which had succumbed to the desire innate in bodies, God confirmed and strengthened by sending His Son from heaven, who assumed flesh similar to ours. For it was truly, and not in mere appearance, that which it seemed to be, so that, with sin having been condemned to death, it might no longer bear fruit in the flesh, and the righteousness of the natural law might be fulfilled, abounding in obedience to those who walk not according to the desire of the flesh, but according to the desire of the Spirit and his guidance. For the law of the Spirit of life, which is the Gospel—being different from the aforementioned laws—having been established by the proclamation of the Gospel for obedience and the forgiveness of sins, has set us free from the law of sin and death, having completely conquered the sin that reigned over the flesh.

^D Whatever, therefore, is usually proposed from the Apostle's words, yet understood wrongly, I have explained to you thus far, O Theophilus. Now I shall turn to other matters, after I have found a helper to explain this discourse. For the things that follow are difficult indeed, and not easy to refute. On this account I approach them more sluggishly and timidly, seeing that the demonstration of them will be long and difficult, unless some breeze from [the] wisdom

^A suddenly breathing down from heaven might, just as for those sailing in the midst of the deep, restore them to a waveless harbor and a more secure demonstration. Thus far the part from Methodius.

LXIII. These things, then, are taken in order from the writings of the blessed Methodius, who is also called Eubulius, regarding the aforementioned Origen and his faith, depraved by sophistical fallacy, discussed in this same book on the resurrection. We have thought that what has been set forth here is sufficient against his trifles and his impious doctrine, by which he has corrupted the life of the human race with that added-on pagan superstition and wickedness. For Methodius, that man of great learning and most keen patron of the truth, has argued many other things in the same book concerning this subject, in almost as many verses as have been excerpted by us. Nevertheless, since we had initially resolved that in treating each heresy we would say only a few things for its refutation (for they are numerous), we have thought it sufficient to have translated thus far from his work. Therefore, since we have still drawn forth some things from our own scarcity against the unrefined loquacity of the man, ^B we shall make an end of our fighting against him, after we have offered the prize and honor of victory to God the author of victory, who for his own singular humanity always adorns the Church with amaranthine crowns—that is, with the dogmas of the truth. Let us then also, according to our strength, speak against him.

You, then, my man, as I have previously indicated above, throw this against us in jest, that "Was God perhaps a tanner, that he should make leather garments for Adam and his wife, when no animals had yet been slaughtered?" But if, he says, animals were slaughtered, these were not leather garments, but we are clad in the earthen body. And from every side he is caught following the device of the devil and the craftiness of the serpent, working into humanity the corruption of unbelief, just as that serpent previously deceived Eve and always corrupts ^C the minds of the simple-hearted by his cunning in their thoughts. Let us see, therefore, if the things said by you can stand, since you have labored so much and have vainly undertaken the contest for the writing of so many books. For if it is true, as is noised abroad concerning you, that you have written six thousand books, O labor-in-vain, and have spent all that effort on reproaches and the deceits of vanity, and have rendered your work heavily and vainly, having corrupted those necessary things you have set down, you have procured for yourself a labor hopeless in its trading. For if the body does not rise, neither will the soul inherit anything. For the communion of body and soul is one and the same, and the labor is one. ^D Resurrection, however, is a re-

^A-sult of your own confession, though you acknowledge it only with a specious phantasm, not truly, compelled to use the name alone. For what resurrection of the soul can be spoken of, when it neither falls nor is committed to burial? But it is clear from the very name that resurrection is of the body that has fallen and been buried, as is proclaimed everywhere and in every Scripture by the sons of truth. But if it does not rise, then the resurrection proclaimed through all the Scriptures does not exist. And if there is no resurrection, the expectation of the resurrection of the dead is in vain. For the resurrection is not of souls, which have not fallen, but of bodies that have been buried. And if a part of the body is raised by the resurrection and a part is laid aside, what, then, will be the state of that part? For it cannot be that parts arise in the body while other parts are laid aside and abandoned.

That there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body is not to be understood as if the spiritual body were one thing and the natural body another, but that both are considered one and the same; it is the same body that is natural and it is the same body that is spiritual. For when we are in this world and perform the corruptible works of the flesh, the bodies are natural. For we perform service to the soul in this world amidst perversities, as you yourself have also said in part. But when we are raised to life, the soul is freed from that servitude, and the administration of the Spirit follows continuously; which from here on holds the earnest and pledge, just as it is written: “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” But if we walk by the Spirit, we live as though killing the actions of the body. Therefore, there are no longer any marriages, no longer any desires, no longer any struggles for those who have professed continence, no longer lapses contrary to chastity, and finally, none of the actions of such a kind remain, which are done in this life. But as the Savior asserts, those who are considered worthy of that resurrection neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.

LXIV. As Enoch was translated, so that he should not see death, and was not found.

^A And you see that the very same body, the psychic one, is the very same spiritual one, just as our Lord also rose from the dead, not by raising another body, but the very one that was, and not something other than the one that was, but by transmuting that very one that was into spiritual subtlety, and uniting it into a wholly spiritual [body]: entering when the doors were shut—which cannot happen to our bodies here, because of their coarseness and because they have not yet been united into spiritual subtlety. What, then, was it that entered when the doors were shut? Something other than the one that was crucified, or the one that was crucified itself? Surely, Origen, you will not be able not to acknowledge that it is the very one that was crucified. For he convicts you through the precision of Thomas, saying to him: "Be not faithless, but believing." For He showed the print of the nails, and the print of the spear, and left the scars themselves upon the body, even though He had united the body into one spiritual unity. He could, therefore, have erased the scars; but He will not erase them, in order that He may convict you, O driven-by-a-godless-spirit. Was it then the body that was buried in the tomb for three days, and rose with Him in the resurrection? For He showed both bones, and skin, and flesh, as He said: "See, that a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see Me having." How then did He enter when the doors were shut, if not to show that what was seen is a body, and not a spirit, but a spiritual body, even though it was one with the soul, and the divinity, and His whole incarnation? But that which was once coarse became spiritual, that very one that was crucified, and that very one that was held became unholdable, united and mingled with the divinity, and no longer dissolving, but remaining forever, no longer dying. ^B For Christ has risen from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep; He no longer dies, death no longer has dominion over Him.

LXV. But that you may know this also, for what reason Christ is called the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, even though He was not the first of all to rise—for before Him, Lazarus was raised by Him, and the son of the widow, and others; and through Elijah, and through Elisha—because those who were raised all died again, thus Christ is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep; for *having risen, He no longer dies*, as the future resurrection is to be through His life and philanthropy. And if He is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, and His whole body rose with the divinity—His incarnation having risen, and with nothing of it being left behind, neither body nor anything else—for "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, nor wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to see corruption." ^C And that which is said concerning the soul in Hades signifies not being left behind; and [that which is said concerning] the Holy One, in order to show the holy body, [signifies] not having seen corruption, but having risen incorrupt, in the three days, and being united to incorruptibility for all eternity. ^D You observe, then, that it is the same body, both psychic and spiritual, as our Lord also rose from the dead, not to recall another body to life, but that same one which had been His, and none other than it. Yet it was so, that the Spirit might convert that same body into its own tenuity and subtlety, and fashion it wholly spiritual. Wherefore He entered while the doors were shut; which, in this life current, cannot happen to our bodies, because they are concrete and coarse, and have not yet coalesced into that spiritual tenuity. What body, therefore, is it that entered when the doors were shut? Is it another than that which was fixed to the cross, or is it that same one that was raised upon the cross? Whithersoever you turn yourself, Origen, you cannot but confess that it is that same one which was affixed to the cross. For He Himself convicts you through the accurate inquiry of Thomas, when He said to him: "Be not faithless, but believing." For then He showed the traces of the nails and of the spear; and thus He left the scars themselves in the body, although He had fashioned it into a spiritual unity. He could indeed have abolished the scars themselves; but He did not wish to, in order that He might convict you, O furious man. Wherefore, the same body was shown then which had been buried in the tomb for three days, and with it had been raised in the resurrection. For He demonstrated bones, skin, and flesh, as He said: "See that a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see Me have." How then did He enter when the doors were shut, except to prove that it was a body which they saw, and not a spirit, joined with the soul and the divinity, and with the whole nature of man. But it was, as I said, a spiritual body; and that which was once coarse was rendered subtle: that which had been acted upon and made subject to the cross, was now no longer subject to the power of any; and thus, being joined with the divinity, and as it were tempered, it could no longer be dissolved, but remained exempt from death, for all eternity. *For Christ has risen from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep; He no longer dies, death shall no longer have dominion over Him.*

LXV. And that you may understand for what cause Christ is called the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, although He was not the first of all to rise—for before Him Lazarus had been raised by Him, as well as the widow's son, and certain others; add also the fact that some were restored to life by Elijah and Elisha; that you may therefore understand that point, take it thus: Since all those who are said to have risen have died again, Christ is deservedly called the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep; for after He rose, He no longer dies, which is the pattern of the future resurrection, which we shall obtain by the benefit of His life and humanity. But since He is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, His entire body, with the divinity—that is, everything that pertains to the assumed humanity—has risen, so that nothing of it at all has been left behind, not a body or anything of that sort. "For Thou wilt not abandon my soul in the inferno, nor wilt Thou give Thy holy one to see corruption." Where that which is said concerning the soul in the inferno, that it is not...

^A abandoned, signifies it being destitute; but He added "holy one," in order to show the holy body, which did not see corruption, but after three days rose again, incorrupt and endowed with immortality forever.

But you, O man, affirm that these bodies of ours are the "garments of skin," even though the sequence of the discourse nowhere ^A holds this, but rather [it comes] from those seeds sown in you from the beginning from the myth-laden teaching of the Greeks, and because of the evil-minded logic aroused in you there, I mean that disbelief concerning the resurrection of the Greeks who led you into this. For "the natural man," he says, "does not accept the things of the Spirit; for they are foolishness to him, because they are spiritually discerned." For if indeed the garments had been given to those around Adam before the disobedience, your lie would be somewhat plausible, and capable of deceiving; but since it appears that they were fashioned after Eve, from whence then was she fashioned if not from a body? It is plain. ^B For it says, "He cast a trance upon Adam, and he slept, and He took one of his ribs." Now a rib is nothing else but a bone. And He built flesh in its place. Since then flesh is named, how is the making of it still awaited? But even earlier it says: "Let us make man according to our image, and according to our likeness." And it says, "He took dust from the earth, and fashioned the man." But dust and flesh are nothing else than a body. Then afterwards: "And Adam, having stood up from the sleep, said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." But the garments of skin did not yet exist, that allegory of yours had not yet been ^C devised. Therefore "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh," are clearly to be understood as bodies, so that Adam and Eve were not in the least lacking in bodies. And he took from the tree, and ate; just as he was deceived by the craftiness of the serpent and became rebellious against God. "And they heard the voice of the Lord walking in the paradise in the evening; and Adam and Eve hid themselves at the tree." And God says to Adam: "Where are you?" And he, being exposed, answers: "I heard Thy voice, and I hid because I am naked." But what then did He call naked? Did He mean the soul or the body? And as for the fig leaves, what were they covering? The soul or the body? "And who told you," He says, "that you are naked, unless you have ^D eaten from the tree from which I commanded you alone not to eat?" And he says: "The woman whom Thou gavest me, she gave to me, and I ate." But from where was the woman given if not from the rib, that is, from the body, before the garments were given to them? And He says to the woman: "Why did you do this?" And she: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate, and I gave to my husband." After these things God inflicted the curse: to the woman indeed pain, and to the man to eat his bread in sweat. And after these things He says: "Behold, Adam has become as one of us. Lest he extend his hand, and take of the tree, and eat, and live forever;" and after other things: "And God made garments of skin, and clothed those around Adam, and cast them out of Paradise." And you see that vain is the

new and empty opinion invented by you. For the bodies of our first parents existed for some time before.

^B LXVI. But if this examines you, and you are unable, thinking in an animal way, to receive the grace of the Spirit, O faithless man and worse than the infidels, tell me, I pray, how much miracle does each work of God contain? How was the heaven stretched out and expanded on high from nothing? Whence was that brightness of the sun kindled, or was it itself created with the moon and the stars? From what prototype material was the earth taken, which was produced from nothing? From what kinds of nature were the mountains hewn? Whence the constitution of the whole universe, which God brought forth from nothing? Or whence are the clouds composed, by which the heaven is suddenly covered? Whence was Moses, the servant of God, able to command the host of gnats and lice by the order of God? How did he turn [the] wooden rod into a living and creeping serpent? How could it be that the hand of Moses should be changed into snow? Thus therefore [it] pleased God at that time, O most faithless of mortals, and He made skins—and indeed real garments—without any animals, without any human art and manifold labor, as He willed, for those around Adam; just as from the beginning, as soon as He willed, the heaven and all things were produced. And concerning these things we have spoken often, both in other places and above. And for those who desire life, the way of salvation is ready, and the refutation of most faithless error is easy. But for those who refuse the training and instruction of salvation, not even a whole age would suffice for disputing, since their ears are eternally stopped up, like the adder that closes its ears so as not to hear the voice of the enchanters, of the wise charmer, as it is written in the sacred Scriptures. But I trust that this discourse will be most fruitful for the sons of truth, even though we pursue it more extensively in this place.

LXVII. I shall now come to the intended discourse on the resurrection. For whenever you deceive the ignorant, putting aside your own opinion, O vain worker, and say: "Some of the simpler sort imagine that the impious will not attain a resurrection."

^D For it is not only that one thing that is in the body, but beasts are also born from us, namely, lice and nits, which are neither outside the body nor counted as any part of the body. And no one ever sought to preserve a nit excreted from his body, but sought rather to kill it; nor does he consider the destruction brought by it as a loss. But neither, if that should be lost and extinguished, would he reckon it a damage. Thus, those things which have flowed from us, even if your opinion says so, will by no means be foolishly sought for by us. Nor would God bring these things into our composition and arrangement, but as filth existing from the garment itself, from

the garment which, for the sake of decorum, has been cast away, he would in a second ^A leave it behind. But that perfect and complete garment, neither lacking nor redundant, the Creator could return to its proper state according to the singular skill of His art; for all things are in His power. But if this were not so, O most unholy of men, and one turned to madness by that wordy craftiness of yours, our Redeemer and Lord, and Son of God—who for this very purpose came, that He might provide for us the most certain hope of life, and who, that He might establish for us the credibility of His words, wished to express many things within Himself—could, I say, have laid aside a part of His body and raised up another part; just as that wordy refutation of yours of the true faith and that multitude of most absurd reasonings, O lover of contention, declares. But He, straightway refuting your manner of reasoning, pronounces thus: *Unless a grain of wheat falling into the ground dies, it remains alone; but if it falls and dies, it bears much fruit.* ^B

What then was that grain of which He spoke? There is no one who doubts, and it is established by the confession of the whole world, that the Lord spoke of Himself, that is, of His own body and that most holy flesh which He took from Mary, and of His entire humanity. But as for his using the terms "falling" and "dying"—just as He says in another place: *Where the corpse is, there the eagles will be gathered*—He referred to the three-day slumber of His body, which not even you can deny. For the Divinity Itself is devoid of sleep, cannot fall or be overcome, nor is it in any way mutable. The grain of wheat, therefore, died and was raised up again. Was the whole grain, then, raised up, or was some part of it left behind? Was it another grain than that which existed before, or did the very thing that began to revive—the same that was wrapped in a shroud by Joseph ^C and buried, and laid in a new tomb—rise again? You yourself will not deny it. Whom, then, did the angels announce to the women as having risen, when they said: *Whom do you seek? Jesus the Nazarene? He has risen, He is not here: come, see the place?* As if to say: Come, see the place, and teach Origen that no relics of His lie there, but that He has risen whole. And so that you may understand that the whole has risen, He says, *He has risen, He is not here*, so that He might disperse your trifles and demonstrate that no part of Him had been discarded and left behind; but that it is precisely the same body that was pierced with nails, and wounded by the lance, and seized by the Pharisees, and bespattered with spittle. ^D

LXVIII. But what need is there to heap up more things against his wretched and insolent loquacity? Therefore, just as He Himself rose and raised His own body, so also will He raise us. For it is from this that the most holy Apostle confirmed our hope with these words: *How do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. But if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain.*

^A We are found to be false witnesses of God, because we have said: "He has raised Christ," and so forth. And later he adds, saying: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." And he did not say mortal only, nor corruptible only, nor an immortal soul; but "this corruptible," with the addition of the word "this," and "this mortal," with the addition of the word "this." Therefore, the whole of the grain itself rose; and not a part of it rose, but the whole rose; and no other grain rose beside the one that existed, but the very one that had fallen into the tomb rose whole. Where, then, does your vain talk find strength? For the divine Scripture knows of two grains, one mentioned in the Gospel, and one in the Apostle. The former, in all clarity, reveals what is perfectly wrought in it, which is the archetype of the resurrection. For the Savior, by teaching this and doing it, at once wrought all things securely for us as a demonstration. ^B For he spoke concerning the grain, and raised the grain, that he might confirm for us in truth the faith of the hope of our resurrection.

Following upon this, the Apostle, borne by the Holy Spirit, while narrating the glory of the saints that will be after the resurrection and the fruition of good things, demonstrates it again through the grain of wheat, having proclaimed this against the unbelievers. But you will say to me: "How are the dead raised? And with what body do they come?" And he says to him who says such things: "Fool." For whoever doubts at all about the resurrection is a fool and senseless. Then he says: "Fool, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. And ^C what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare grain, as it may happen, of wheat or of the other seeds; and it is not made alive unless it dies. And God gives it a body as He has willed, and to each of the seeds its own body." And you see that the body is not changed. For no one who has sown barley seeks wheat; nor does one sow nigella and find barley; but that which is sown is that which is raised. And even if something of it is left behind below in the earth, and the sprout rises from it—here, in this corruptible wheat, and not coming into judgment, that which is left behind is useless, but that which is raised from it is better. He wished to demonstrate the splendor on account of the unbelief of those who do not look forward to the hope of God. For in truth the grain of wheat is most fine. ^D Yet where, in such a tiny grain, are the roots and foundations, and the stalk, and the joints, and those many tubes, and the heads, and the husks, and the awns, and the multiplying grains?

LXIX

moisture? To strike the sea, and divide it into twelve paths for marching through the sea at His command; to turn the river into blood; to gather such a great multitude of frogs at a touch; to send the plague of lice upon the Egyptians; to mix hail with fire; to pour upon those same Egyptians a black and darkened night, shrouded in thickest gloom; to slay the firstborn of the Egyptians with death; to lead the people guided by the pillar of fire, whom He ruled like a shepherd; to bring down the bread of angels by prayer and supplication; to send up the quail, and to satisfy so many myriads of men at the command of God; to hear the voice of God, and to be deemed worthy, I say, out of so many myriads, to hear the voice of God, and to converse with God; to remain for forty days and forty nights without any desire for those things which we require by the necessity of nature for sustaining life; then that his flesh should be transformed into the brightness of the sun and a radiant splendor, which so dazzled the eyes of the people that the descendants of Israel could not behold his face with fixed eyes; that his hand, being of flesh, should be turned into snow; that he should command the earth to open its mouth for the reception of those ^B around Core, and Dathan, and Abiron, and Annan; to hear at the end: “Ascend into the mountain, and die there,” so that no man should know his burial? ^C Since the sacred Scriptures signify this: that it was not by men—by the angels, evidently—as the words themselves tacitly suggest to our understanding.

And all these things were done while he was still living in this world; but they were done in him, who was at once both animal and spiritual, perfectly formed. But we receive from thence a kind of pledge, as an example of that perfect future blossoming, which will come to pass when that saying is fulfilled: “It is sown in ignobility, it is raised in glory; it is sown in infirmity, it is raised in power.” For is that which is thus sown not infirm, and ignorant of where it is sown? Is that which ^D is cast into the tomb, and overwhelmed with a heap of dust, and torn, and cast out, and bereft of all sense, not full of ignobility? Conversely, is that which is roused to life, and remains forever, and possesses the kingdom of heaven with hope and confidence in the divine kindness, not glorious? Where the righteous shall shine as the sun; where they shall be equal to the angels; where they shall dance with the bridegroom; where the twelve apostles with Peter shall sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; where the righteous shall receive those things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man, which God hath prepared for them that love Him? Our resurrection, therefore, will be through the help and power of God, and that of the whole human race, of the righteous, that is, as well as of the unrighteous, of the unbelieving as well as of the faithful, of whom some rise to eternal life, and others to eternal judgment.

^A LXX. Be silent, therefore, Babylon, that old confusion of ours renewed. Be silent, I say, Sodom, and the clamor of your many terrible deeds that rises up to God; for "The deliverer shall come out of Zion to turn away ungodliness from Jacob." And he shall sound the trumpet, and the dead shall rise, and we shall be caught up together in the clouds to meet him in the air. As also the blessed and better Methodius said; and we have added these things to the same, to what has been built by them. For from the combined sense of each word it is possible to see the task at hand. For the holy Apostle, distinguishing the nature of both modes, brought them together into one hope from the words: "We shall be caught up in the clouds to meet him," in order to show that this is truly the body, and not something other than this. For he who is caught up is not yet dead. But he also demonstrates that we shall by no means anticipate the resurrection of the dead, so that he might show that what is impossible to men is easy and possible to God. "For we who are alive," he says, "shall not anticipate those who sleep," and their resurrection; he indicated the living and those being caught up, so that from the living he might show that their bodies rise whole, and from the fact that those who are left behind by the living are preceded by them, he might demonstrate the power of God.

^B And see, you who take care of your own life, that all who have risen up against the truth have procured for themselves the stain of injustice; just as the holy prophet David also says: "He conceived labor, and brought forth iniquity." For everyone who gathers to himself the labor of alien thoughts brings forth injustice for himself and for those who are persuaded by him. "He dug a pit and hollowed it out, and he shall fall into the pit which he wrought." But if anyone has something to say against all these things, let him come forward and oppose God in his labor. For God is strong and shall not labor nor thirst, nor is there any searching of his wisdom, by which he raises the dissolved bodies; by which he saves what is perishing; by which he brings to life what is dead; by which he clothes what is corruptible in incorruption; by which he brings the grain that fell to resurrection; by which he leads what was sown and died to a greater splendor, restoring it; as is mentioned in many Scriptures, signifying our resurrection.

^D LXXI. Thus, in that psalm of David which is inscribed concerning the dedication of the dwelling, the prophet, as if hanging in expectation and looking into the future by the Holy Spirit, reasonably spoke concerning the resurrection: "I will exalt you, O Lord, for you have taken me up," restoring my dwelling, that is, the body that had fallen; "and you have not made my enemies glad over me." And Solomon in Proverbs likewise, preparing everything for that hope of the life to come, admonishes, saying: "Prepare for your departure."

By this, he calls "departure" the exit from this life. ^A And, "Prepare yourself," he says, "for the field." By this he extends the admonition to all, both to those who live in the country and to those in the city, to the learned and to those who practice mechanical arts, who have no work in the field to perform. For what to linen-weavers and goldsmiths, to poets and prose-writers, is the preparation for the field? Yet the utterance collectively and without distinction calls to all at once: "Prepare yourself for the field." Or does this imply that for every person, citizen and rustic alike, the laying aside of the body is as a field for the sake of burial and the end? Then, indicating the same hope of the resurrection, he adds: "And you shall rebuild your house." For it was once built in the molding in the womb, when our mothers were bearing each of us. But from the earth or from the field is the resurrection, no longer being built, because of the dissolution brought upon it in the casting down of the burial; as the Savior also said: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," or "I will rebuild it." Being Wisdom, and in His own prudence, which no human investigation can attain, endowed with that same, He restores our bodies, even when they have devolved from the most difficult places, consumed part by part into ashes, or in the sea, or by flesh-eating birds, or by beasts, or by worms, ^B nonetheless He restores them.

LXXII. For if He brought into existence that which was nothing, how much more easily shall He restore that which already exists to its own nature and constitution, so that He may establish a righteous judgment, so that He may not judge one instead of another, and so that He may not deprive that which has labored of its reward? For if the fruit and the possession of the kingdom of heaven pertain only to the soul, then let the body enjoy all that it desires; let Gideon live in delicacies; let not John tire himself in vain, clothed in a garment woven of camel's hair; let us not in solitary places treat our flesh roughly, nor let us tame our bodies by the exercise of chastity. But if the body is a participant in all the institutions of life, in chastity, in fasting, and in other virtues, God is not so unjust as to subtract the reward of labor from him who has labored, and not to pay the retribution to the body that has labored together with the soul. ^C For immediately the judgment will be found to be idle; for if the soul is found alone, it will object when judged, saying: "The cause of sin did not arise from me, but from that corruptible and earthly body; fornication, adultery, and licentiousness proceeded from it. For from the time it departed from me, nothing of these has been committed." A reasonable plea for self-excuse, and one sufficient to overturn God's judgment. But if God also brings out the body itself—for He can do this, as I have also demonstrated above through Ezekiel, even if the work was performed by way of parable and similitude— ^D

But the form for the allegory of the truth that was then delivered ^A was perfected, as bone was joined to bone and joint to joint, while the bones were dry and there was not yet a soul, nor a spirit moving within them. And immediately the bodies were joined together, and according to the word of the prophet, were made solid. And if God so wills, He is able to do this without a soul, for them to be present and to move, just as Abel’s blood, being a body, spoke after death, and not a soul. For blood is not a soul, but it is the body that is visible. But a body will not be able to be judged without a soul. For it would contradict, saying, "I did not sin, but the soul did. From the time it departed from me, have I committed adultery? Have I fornicated? Have I practiced idolatry?" And the body will be contradicting the righteous judgment of God, and justly contradicting. For this reason, then, and for many other necessary ones, God in His wisdom brings our dead bodies and souls to regeneration in His promise of philanthropy, so that the one who has labored in holiness may receive the full, good reward from God, and those who have done vain things may likewise be judged, body with soul, and soul with body.

^B LXXIII. But these things shall suffice for me against that arrogant Origen, who vainly bestowed upon himself the name "Adamantius," and against his absurdity, and against the destructive teaching he has evilly devised in many parts of the faith against the truth. Having passed over his heresy, I shall proceed, dearest ones, to consider the others, customarily calling upon God as the helper of our insignificance, so that we may be able to stand against every vain voice raised against the truth, and to conquer, according to what was said by the holy Isaiah: "Every voice that shall rise up against you, you shall conquer all of them; and they shall be guilty in it." So that, having accomplished what we proposed with God’s help, for the sake of those who wish to read these things of ours wisely, for the illumination of the truth and as a certain salutary medicine—which is like an antidote—against the snares of each serpent and venomous reptile, I mean the faces of the heresies, and specifically this one of the Origenists, formed like a toad from much muddy water, and crying out with a louder voice—having taken up the resurrection of the Lord as a precautionary drink, one might say, let us spit out the viscosities of the toad’s venom and the injustice of the creeping, wicked one. For this has also befallen him along with all his passions. I suffer and groan for his sake. For alas! how were you harmed? And how many others have you harmed, as if bitten by a terrible viper—I mean from the worldly education—and become like poison to others?

For naturalists assert ^C that the dormouse hibernates and brings forth many offspring at once, up to five and more, and... ^D

when it finds the whole nest, being unable to devour them all, it eats one or two at a time to satiety. The ^A rest it blinds by piercing their eyes, and brings them food, keeping them alive even though they are blind, until such time as it wishes to bring out each one of them and eat it. If it should happen that some inexperienced person comes across such creatures and takes them for food, they consume for themselves a deadly poison from those things nurtured on the venom of the viper. So also you, Origen, blinded in the eyes of your mind by the aforementioned Greek education, have vomited your venom upon those who adhered to you, and have been for them in the place of deadly food, and you have brought ruin upon them by those very things which were your own detriment. ^B

ORDER OF SUBJECTS CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME

ST. EPIPHANIUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTIA IN CYPRUS. Notitia of Fabricius. 1 Dedication epistle of Dion. Petavius. 9 Preface of the same. 15 Elogia of the Ancients concerning Epiphanius. 19 Life of St. Epiphanius by John and Polybius. 23 Acts of St. Epiphanius, Bollandian. 113

CHAPTER I. Worship among Greeks and Latins. Life compiled under the fictitious name of disciples. 115 CAP. II. Monasticism of the chaste adolescent, age of life, and certain things done in the episcopate. 119 CAP. III. Liberality of Epiphanius toward the poor. Mutual quarrels between him and John of Jerusalem. 124 CAP. IV. The gift of prophecy; the Ancoratus and the Book against Heresies. 130 CAP. V. The saint's final deeds at Constantinople; death occurring on the return trip. 156 CAP. VI. The published Acts examined, as far as they are feigned to be written by John. 141 CAP. VII. The rest, as they are obtruded by being joined to Polybius, exploded. 145 Dion. Petavius's Warning on the work of Epiphanius which is inscribed Panarium. 151 Epistle of Acacius and Paul to Epiphanius. 158 Epiphanius's Rescript to Acacius and Paul. 158

PANARIUM OR CASKET AGAINST EIGHTY HERESIES. 174 LIBRI I TOMUS I. Heresies I-IV. 174 Of the Stoics, heresy V. 202 Of the Platonists, heresy VI. 203 Against the Pythagoreans, heresy VII. 206 Of the Epicureans, heresy VIII. 206 Samaritans, heresy IX. 223 Against the Essenes, heresy X. 231 Against the Sebuæans, heresy XI. 234 Against the Gortheni, heresy XII. 235 Against the Dositheans, heresy XIII. 258 Against the Sadducees, heresy XIV. 239 Against the Scribes, heresy XV. 242 Against the Pharisees, heresy XVI. 247 Against the Hemerobaptists, heresy XVII. 255 Against the Nazarenes, heresy XVIII. 258 Against the Ossenes, heresy XIX. 259 Against the Herodians, heresy XX. 270 Index of heresies contained in Tomus II of Book I. 282 LIBRI I TOM. II. Against the Simonians, heresy XXI. 286 Against the Menandrians, heresy XXII. 293 Against the Saturnilians, heresy XXIII. 298 Against the Basilidians, heresy XXIV. 307 Against the Nicolaitans, heresy XXV. 319 Against the Gnostics, heresy XXVI. 350 Against the Carpocratians, heresy XXVII. 363 Against the Cerinthians, or Merinthians, heresy XXVIII. 378 Against the Nazarenes, heresy XXIX. 387 Against the Ebionites, heresy XXX. 406 Against the Valentinians, or Gnostics, heresy XXXI. 471 Against the Secundians, to whom Epiphanes and Isidore attached themselves, heresy XXXII. 513 Against the Ptolemaeans, heresy XXXIII. 553 Index of heresies contained in Tomus III of Book I. 578 LIBRI I TOM. III. Against the Marcosians, heresy XXXIV. 582 Against the Colorbasians, heresy XXXV. 627 Against the Heracleonites, heresy XXXVI. 634 Against the Ophites, heresy XXXVII. 612 Against the Cainites, heresy XXXVIII. 631 Against the Sethians, heresy XXXIX. 666 Against the Archontics, heresy XL. 678 Against the Cerdonians, heresy XLI. 691 Against the Marcionites, heresy XLII. 695 Against the Lucianists, heresy XLIII. 818 Against the Apelleians, heresy XLIV. 822 Against the Severians, heresy XLV. 851 Against the Tatianists, heresy XLVI. 853 Synopsis of Tomus I of Book II. 816 LIBRI II TOMUS I. 850 Against the Encratites, heresy XLVII. 850 Against the Phrygians, or Montanists or Tascodrugites, heresy XLVIII. 855 Against the Quintillians, or Pepuzians and Priscillianists, to which are added the Artotyritae, heresy XLIX. 879 Against the Quartodecimans, heresy L. 882 Against that heresy which rejects the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse, which he calls the Alogi, heresy LI. 887 Against the Adamiani, heresy LII. 951 Against the Sampsaeans, heresy LIII. 919 Against the Theodotians, heresy LIV. 962 Against the Melchisedecians, heresy LV. 971 Against the Bardesanists, heresy LVI. 990 Against the Noetians, heresy LVII. 994 Against the Valesians, heresy LVIII. 1010 Against the Cathari, heresy LIX. 1018 Against the Angelici, heresy LX. 1023 Against the Apostolici, heresy LXI. 1039 Against the Sabellians, heresy LXII. 1051 Against the earlier Origenists, who are also called Phoebionites, heresy LXIII. 1062 Against Origen Adamantius, heresy LXIV. 1067 END OF THE FORTY-FIRST VOLUME. Paris. — From the Presses of J.-P. Migne.