Medicine Chest (Book II, Volume II – Exposition of the Faith, heresies 65–80)

OF OUR HOLY FATHER EPIPHANIUS, BISHOP OF CONSTANTIA IN CYPRUS, AGAINST EIGHTY HERESIES, THE WORK CALLED PANARIUM OR MEDICINE CHEST.

S. P. N. EPIPHANII, BISHOP OF CONSTANTIA IN CYPRUS, AGAINST EIGHTY HERESIES, THE WORK INSCRIPED PANARIUM OR CASKET. interpreted by Dionysius Petavius of the Society of Jesus.

THESE ARE CONTAINED IN THE SECOND TOME OF THE SAME SECOND BOOK, Being the fifth in the aforementioned order, in which there are five heresies, as follows.

INDICULUS OF THE HERESIES CONTAINED IN TOME II OF BOOK II, Which is the one we placed above, in order V; in which five heresies are contained in this manner.

^A I. Of Paul of Samosata. This man asserts that Christ is almost non-existent, having fashioned him as a "spoken word" [prophoric word]. And as for the things concerning him that have been proclaimed in the divine Scriptures, he holds that they were spoken by way of prophecy before he existed, but that he himself did not exist, but began to be only from Mary and onwards from the time of his bodily presence.

^B II. Manichaeans, who are also called Acuanites, disciples of Manes the Persian. They say that Christ is a certain figure, adoring the sun and the moon. They pray to the stars and the powers and demons, [introducing] two principles.

constitute two principles, good and evil. They claim that Christ appeared only in semblance, and suffered only in semblance. They load with curses the Old Testament and the God who spoke therein. They maintain that the universe was not fashioned by God, but only a part of it.

III. The Hieracites, from Hieracas of Leontopolis, which is a city in Egypt, a teacher who rejects the resurrection of the flesh. They use the Old and New Testaments, and forbid marriage entirely, admitting monks and virgins, the continent, and widows. Children not yet of mature age they deny to be partakers of the Kingdom of Heaven, because they have not yet performed the contest.

IV. ^B The Meletians in Egypt occupy the place of a schism, not a heresy. They refused to join in the communion of prayer with those who had lapsed in the persecution. Now they have attached themselves to the Arians.

V. The Arians, or Ariomanites, say that the Son of God is a creature, and the Holy Spirit is a creature of a creature; they assert that our Savior took only flesh from Mary, and not a soul. This Arius was a presbyter of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria.

This is the summary of the five heresies, which in this book or order are contained as five.

TOMUS II OF THE SECOND BOOK.

AGAINST PAUL OF SAMOSATA,

1. Following them is Paul of Samosata, who appeared after Novatus and Origen. Origen, indeed, was finally numbered among the heretics on account of that arrogance which he wished to take upon himself, and by his insolent loquacity, full of trifles, and by a mind introduced by the devil, rose up against the truth. Truly, he is to be lamented by us, who, having fallen through the envy of the devil, was cast down from on high. For in him that saying of Scripture is fulfilled: "The fascination of worthlessness obscures good things, and the instability of desire perverts the mind without malice."

Now I return to him whose dogma we have undertaken to explain, Paul of Samosata, of whose name we made mention above, and now we propose his heresy. He was born at Samosata, ^C a city of Mesopotamia on the Euphrates; who in this time, ^D

^A in the days of Aurelian and Probus the emperors, is appointed bishop of the holy Catholic Church at Antioch. Lifted up by pride and arrogance, he fell away from the truth and revived the heresy of Artemon, which had existed many years before but had been completely extinguished.

He asserts that God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God; and that God’s Word and His Spirit are always in God, just as one perceives a man’s own word to be in his heart; and that the Son of God has no subsistence of his own, but subsists in God Himself—much as Sabellius, and Novatus, and Noetus, and others have also held, although he holds it in a different way than they do. For he says that the Word came down and dwelt in Jesus, who was a mere man. And so, he says, there is one God, and [he denies that] the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit; but rather that there is one God, the Father, and His Son in Him, as a word is in a man. He tries to support his own heresy from these testimonies, based on what Moses said: "The Lord thy God, the Lord is one." He does not say, as Noetus does, that the Father suffered; but he says: "The Word arriving accomplished that whole work, and returned to the Father." And there is great absurdity in his account.

^C II. Let us therefore see if the arguments of this deceived man can stand. For he asserts that Christ said: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." And we ourselves profess that the God Word proceeded from the Father, and is always with Him, being begotten of Him. But we do not say that the Father is without a subsistent Word. On the contrary, the Word of the Father, the only-begotten Son, is God the Word, as He Himself declares: "Everyone therefore who shall confess me, him will I also confess before my Father," where these very words, "in me" and "before my Father," demonstrate that the Father Himself subsists in His own nature. But they, interpolating a Jewish opinion and having nothing more than that, should be called second Jews, and Samosatenes, being nothing else but those who merely parade the name of Jesus. For since they deny the God from God, the only-begotten Son and Word, they are such as were those who denied Him when He was present—that is, parricides of God and the Lord, and deniers of the same God. Although they neither apply circumcision nor keep the Sabbath, nor follow the other rites of the Jews.

^A III. Indeed, we ourselves do not assert that there are two Gods or two divinities, but confess only one divinity; since we do not speak of two Fathers, nor two Sons, nor two Holy Spirits, but of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—one divinity, one proclamation, and one glory. This man, however, does not confess that there is one God because the Father is, as it were, a certain fountain; rather, he makes Him "only God," thereby destroying, as far as he is concerned, the divinity and hypostasis of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. He holds the Father alone to be God, barren of a Son; so that the two, Father and Son, are imperfect—the Father as lacking a Son, and the Word as being barren of the living God and true wisdom. For they imagine the Word to be such as that which is in the heart of man, and wisdom to be such as every man possesses in his soul, gained from God as a kind of perception infused by God. For this reason, they say that there is one person in God together with the Word, just as a man is one with his own word; thinking, as I said, no further than the Jews, blinded from the truth, and deaf to the divine word and the proclamation of eternal life. For they do not fear the most true testimony of the Gospel which 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 was not any thing made that was made.* ^B For if the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, the very fact of his being pertains not merely to utterance, but to hypostasis. And if the Word was with God, the Word is not the one with whom he was. For neither is he with whom he was, the Word.

For if God holds the Word in His heart, and it is not begotten, how is that which is read fulfilled, that "it was," and that "the Word was God"? For the word of a man is not a man to another man; for it neither lives nor subsists, but is only a movement of a living and subsisting heart, not a hypostasis. It is spoken at once, and immediately it is no more; but while it is being spoken, it remains. But the Word of God is otherwise, as the Holy Spirit proclaims through the mouth of the Prophet: *Your word, O Lord, remains forever.* In accordance with this, the Evangelist speaks, confessing that God was manifested and has come, not associating the Father with the incarnation of the Word. For the Word, he says, *became flesh and dwelt among us.* He did not say, "The Word and the Father became flesh." And that, *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.* He did not say, "The Word was in God."

IV.

^A inner intent), and they begin to say: "It did not say, 'In God was the Word,' as you say, but, 'With God was the Word.' Therefore, the Word is not from the substance of the Father, but the Word is outside of God." Truth, once again turning to correct its own sons, refutes the thoughts that commit fornication against it; and the Only-Begotten himself says: "I came forth from the Father, and am come." And again: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me."

But the Father, speaking through the prophets concerning the Son—not consistng of a corporeal mass, but gifted with intelligible words and accommodating himself to human weakness, so as to present himself more easily to our senses—demonstrates, through the things that happen in us, that his Son was truly begotten of him, God from God, true God from true God, not something taken from without, but having proceeded from his own substance; thus he pronounces through David, saying: "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten thee," as the Seventy translated. But as the other translators have it: ^B Aquila rendered it: "From the womb, made bright as the morning, is the dew of thy youth." Symmachus: "As at the morning, thy youth." Theodotion: "From the womb, from the morning time of thy youth." The fifth edition: "From the womb, from the morning to thee is the dew in thy youth." The sixth edition: "From the womb they shall seek thee, the dew of thy youth." And in the Hebrew it is: *Merem messaar, lactal, jeledecheth*.

Which is clearly and unambiguously: "From the womb before the morning star I have begotten thee." For *merem* is "womb"; but *messaar* is the most "morning-like" of all [times], which is "before the morning star"; *lactal* is "and before the dew, a child"; *jeledecheth* is [exactly] "I have begotten thee." ^C So that from this saying you may know that the hypostatic God, the Word, is by nature begotten of the Father, without beginning and without time, before anything existed. For he was not speaking only of the morning star, even though there are many stars, and the sun and the moon, which were made on the fourth day, while the sea, and trees, and fruits—and the firmament of the earth and the heaven, and the angels along with these—were produced even earlier. For if the angels were not created along with the heaven and the earth, he would not have said to Job, that "when the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a voice." Therefore, "before the morning star" means before there was anything or ^D was created. For the Word was always with the Father; for by him all things were made, and without him n…

nothing was made.

^B V. But someone might say: "You have shown that the angels exist before the stars, but you also said they were produced at the same time as the heaven and the earth. Where have you obtained your proof for this? Tell us: have they not, then, absolutely been produced before the heaven and the earth? For nowhere does Scripture clearly indicate the time of the creation of the angels; and you have certainly shown well that they are before the stars. For if they did not exist, how could they have praised God at the creation of the stars?" We, however, cannot provide the solution to each question from our own reasoning, but from the sequence of the Scriptures. For the word of God clearly indicates that the angels were created neither after the stars nor before the heaven and the earth, since the statement is clearly immutable, that before the heaven and the earth nothing of created things existed; for "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," as that is the beginning of creation, and nothing of created things existed before it.

Therefore, as I have said, the word that is in man cannot be called a man, but the word of a man. But if the Word of God is God, it is not a word without substance, but a substantial Word, God, begotten of God, without beginning and without time: "For 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." John testifies concerning him, and cries out saying: "This is he of whom I said to you: He who comes after me has come before me, for he was before me." He came into the world, that the world might be saved through him. "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not." Do you see the Only-begotten Word? Do you see the one who is filled in the world among men, and who possesses the full glory of the Only-begotten from the Father? Not as if the Father himself were the Word, or appeared coalesced with the Word, just as a man appears with his own word, and his word cannot appear unless the one who speaks the word is present. To whom, therefore, shall I give my faith? To whom shall I assent? From whom shall I receive life in these teachings? From the holy evangelists and those moved by the Holy Spirit, who have declared that the Word was sent by the Father? Or from those disciples of Paul of Samosata, who say that God is with the Word and the Word is with God, who define the Father with the Word and the Word with the Father as being one person? But if there is strictly only one person, how does one send,

^A and how is he sent? "For you shall send," says the Prophet, "the Word, and it shall melt them; his Spirit shall blow, and waters shall flow." And again: "I came forth from my Father and have come"; and, "I live, and the Father who sent me lives in me." How, then, can he who is sent be sent, and appear in the flesh? For "no one has ever seen God." The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him. And the only-begotten God says: For indeed, the Word is begotten of the Father; but the Father was not begotten; for this reason [he is] the only-begotten Son.

VI. ^B For divine knowledge, in proclaiming its own truth by its own foreknowledge, anticipated the need for the safety of our souls; since it knew the foolishness of the Samosatene, and the wicked doctrine of the Arians, and the malice of the Anomoeans, and the downfall of the Manichaeans, and the evil contrivances of other heresies. And for this reason, the divine Word secures us regarding every expression; for it does not call the Father "only-begotten"—for how can he who is not begotten be "Only-Begotten"?—but it calls the Son "only-begotten," so that the Son might not be thought to be the Father, and so that God the Word might not be likened to a word within the heart of a man. For if it is called a "word," it is called so because of such usage, ^C so that no one might think [him] to be alien from the substance of God the Father, and that he is no longer a word without subsistence, but a word with subsistence, because of [the description]: "Only-begotten, full of grace and truth." And you see how many things there are for the security of our life. At any rate, "No one has ever seen God," [is said] to signify the invisibility of the Father, and [the invisibility] of his divinity, so that he might confirm his own divinity appearing through the flesh.

How many other things beyond these could one gather for our demonstration, and bring forth against the madness of the Samosatene! ^D For if he were in the Father as a word in the heart of a man, how could he have come to speak by his own intellect? For when he was speaking to his own disciples, he said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." And he did not say: "I am the Father"; but the word "me" signifies [him] in the Father. And he did not say: "I am that One"; but, "I have come in the name of my Father; and it is He who testifies about me." And again regarding the Holy Spirit: "I will send another Paraclete to you." Observe how he uses "I will send," and "another," and "I," so that he might show that the Father is a distinct hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit is a distinct hypostasis. "He will glorify me," he says, speaking of the Holy Spirit, "because he will take of what is mine." And what does he say [that] he [is]? "Who proceeds from the Father," he says, "and will take of what is mine." But he also says: "Two testimonies of men shall stand. And I am testifying about myself, and he who testifies about me is the..."

^A Father who sent me." And how many other such statements there are, and even beyond these! For behold, he says: "I acknowledge thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father, and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." Thou hast revealed them, he says, unto babes. And, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father," ^B in order to cut off the strange and contrived mode of speaking of these people.

VII. Look now upon what the devil, the persistent enemy of the human race, has brought forth in their souls, so that they might proclaim it as if driven by his inspiration. For the satellites of the Jewish opinion attempt to clear themselves against these things, ashamed as they are of this testimony because of the clear teaching and instruction provided by the divine Gospels, so that they may not appear utterly to be acting against the true knowledge of the Gospel. For they assert that Jesus was a man, and that the Word breathed into him from above. And they say that the man himself speaks these things about himself. For the Father, with the Son, is one God; but the man brings forward his own person from below. And thus the two persons are completed. How then, O most foolish of all men, and mind turned away from heavenly wisdom, can a man be God? How can a man be mere man, according to you, who says: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"? For if the man ^C is as the Father, the Father does not differ at all from the man. But if the God Word, who perfectly assumed the nature of man, is perfectly God, having been begotten from the Father before all things, he righteously and clearly speaks concerning himself, saying that "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," just as the Jews also say concerning him. For not only, saith John, did they seek to kill him because he did these things, but because he even called himself the Son of God, asserting himself to be equal to God. For by using those words again, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," he establishes the Father God as his equal.

But a man cannot be equal to God, nor be as God; rather, it is he who has truly proceeded ^D from God the Father as God and only-begotten Son. Concerning whom the Apostle thus testifies: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant." Of which things the words "in the form of God" pertain to God; but as for the form of the servant, he declares it to be assumed from without, and signifies that it was not his at any time before. But it happens very often that our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, the God Word, speaks certain things in a human manner and accommodatively to human affections. This, however, he was not doing when he said: "I proceeded from my Father and am come." For this cannot be said of humanity; but rather when he righteously bears witness, saying: "If I bear witness of"

myself, my testimony is not true," ^A in order to demonstrate his incarnation. And conversely, speaking of his divinity: "Even if I bear witness of myself, my testimony is true," in order to demonstrate true divinity and true incarnation.

VIII. Consequently, there are not two Gods, because there are not two Fathers; nor is the hypostasis of the Word abolished, because the divinity of the Son is not merged into the Father. For the Son is not of a different substance from the Father, but is consubstantial with the Father. Nor can he be of a different substance from him who begot him, nor yet of the same substance, but [rather] consubstantial. Nor, again, do we say that he is not the same in essence as the Father. For the Son is the same with the Father in divinity and in essence, and he is not other than the Father, nor from another hypostasis, but truly Son of the Father in essence, in hypostasis, and in truth. Yet the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father, but ^B the Son is truly begotten from the Father. Hence, there are not two Gods, nor two Sons, nor two Holy Spirits, but one divinity is the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, being consubstantial. For when you say "consubstantial," it does not signify a blending. For the term "consubstantial" does not signify unity [in persons], nor does it divide the essence of the Son who exists from the Father, nor does it make the hypostasis alien on account of the word "consubstantial." For the divine word does not proclaim two principles, but one principle. For it says: "The house of Judah shall come together with the house of Israel, and they shall set for themselves one head." He, therefore, who proclaims two heads proclaims two Gods. And he who removes the Word and his hypostasis ^C indicates Judaism. For Marcion indicates two principles, or rather three, contrary to one another. But the new Jews, these Samosatenes, remove the hypostasis of the Word, so that they too may be revealed as slayers of the Lord and deniers of the salvation of our Lord, and affirm things contrary to one another.

There is, then, one principle, and from it the Son, an exact image, by nature portraying his own Father and similar in every way. Because God is from God, and Son from Father, true God from true God, and light from light, being one divinity and one authority. Therefore he says: "Let us make man according to our image, and according to likeness." ^D Neither "according to thy image," lest it divide [them]; nor "according to my image," lest it show [the Son] to be unlike and unequal; but "according to our image." And the "let us make," pertains to this: that the Father might not be alienated from the things produced by him, nor the Only-Begotten be a stranger to the creation. But the Father creates along with the Son, and the Son, through whom all things came to be, is a co-creator with the Father.

^A Furthermore, because the Son has been begotten from Him, there is one perfect God from a perfect Father, and the Father is perfect, as is the perfect Son, who possesses the image of the paternal perfection—the image of the invisible God, not a pattern of an image, nor an image of an image, nor unlike, but the image of the Father—in order that He might demonstrate the unchangeable nature of the begetting from the Father who is without beginning and beyond time, in truth. The Son, therefore, is the image of the Father. For indeed, kings are not two because they possess an image, but there is one king along with the image (one king). It is not one single thing composed of two imperfect parts; rather, the Father is perfect, the Son is perfect, and the Holy Spirit is perfect. “I am in the Father,” He says, not in the way that a word exists in the heart of a man, but we acknowledge the Father as intelligible along with the Son, and the Son as begotten from the Father. And the divine Word did not come into a man as if into a dwelling, so that after He was born, the Word appeared in him, having previously existed in the Father in heaven as a word does in a man's heart. For these dogmas have proceeded from the furious breath of the devil and bear the marks of total denial of God.

^B IX. Since, therefore, we judge these few things which we have discussed so far to be sufficient for the refutation of his heresy—for their force is not difficult to overcome, nor is it of such a kind that it cannot be overturned by all sensible persons—and since we have cut out the roots of his thorns with the preaching and mindset of the truth, and have, so to speak, extinguished his venom and exposed his deadly poison, having, that is, invoked the Father along with the Son—He who truly is—and the Son who truly exists and is begotten, and the Holy Spirit, who is His subsistent and saving Spirit, and the author of the whole economy and of the flesh that was assumed; and having crushed the head of the question proposed by those new Jews by means of the trophy of death, that is to say, the Cross, let us pass on to the rest, ^C O beloved.

For there is a certain kind of viper called a "dryinus" which is very similar to that founder of heresy. It is said to be a viper that is a dryinus, most frequently lurking near grasses or oak trees; hence it is called dryinus because it is "tree-loving" and likens itself to the foliage cast from the trees by the greenness of each. The animal is not so painful to the touch; but if it lingers, it brings death. In the same way, this heretic and the heresy derived from him likens himself to all numbers of persuasions. He is clothed with the name of Christ, but he has taken up the mindset of the Jews; he confesses the Word to be Christ, but does not think that He is the One He is. And he is not ashamed to celebrate himself in many things. We, having trampled underfoot his supposed teaching—which is, in fact, a deception—in the sandal of Christ, and having treated those who have been bitten with the surgical blade of the Gospel...

the wounds, and having purged the venom from them, we shall pass on to the following account, as I said before.

AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS, Heresy XLVI, or LXVI

^A I. The Manichaeans, who are also called Acuanitae from the name of a certain veteran Acua, who came from Mesopotamia and brought this trade of poison into Eleutheropolis, introduced a great evil into the world by their preaching at the time when their generation occurred. For they began to emerge during the reign of the Emperor Aurelian, in the fourth year of his reign. This rumor-filled heresy, famous in many parts of the earth, began to spread its devastation, as I said, from a certain Mane, throughout many regions and parts of the world.

Now this Manichaeus was of the Persian race, first called Cubricus, but he imposed the name Manes upon himself, perhaps, I suppose, through divine providence, drawing upon himself a name that signifies "madness." And as he himself thought, he supposedly bestowed this name upon himself in the language of the Babylonians as meaning "vessel"; for the word *mane*, when translated from Babylonian into the Greek language, reveals the word ^B for "vessel." But as the truth reveals, it possesses the namesake of "mania," due to which the wretched man was thunderstruck to sow evil-teaching into the world. Now this Cubricus was the slave of a certain widow, who, dying childless, left him an immense sum of money, an abundance of gold, silver, spices, and other things. And she herself had received this succession of the inheritance from a certain Terbinthus, who was himself also a slave, but who had been renamed Buddas in the language of the Assyrians; and he was in turn a slave of a certain Scythianus, who originated from the region of the Saracens, and had been raised at the borders of Palestine, that is to say, in Arabia. This Scythianus, having been instructed in the aforementioned places in the Greek language and the education of their letters, became skilled in the vain ^C thoughts of the world. Setting out repeatedly on trips to the land of the Indians for the sake of his trade, he engaged in much commerce. From which, having acquired much in the world, he used to travel through the Thebaid; for the Red Sea has various harbors, which afford diverse paths to the Roman border. One of these looks toward Aila, which the Holy Scriptures call ^D Ailon. To this place, after the third year of Solo-

Solomon, ships arriving would bring gold, elephant tusks, aromatics, and peacocks, among other things. Another harbor is positioned opposite the Castle of Clysma. A third, in the upper parts of Egypt, pertains to Berenice, through which one arrives at Thebaid; and goods brought from India are distributed from there through Thebaid, or are carried to Alexandria by way of the Chrysorrhoas river—which is the same as the Nile, and is called Geon in the Scriptures—and are conveyed even to the whole land of the Egyptians and to Pelusium. In this manner, merchants arriving from India convey their goods to other cities by way of the sea into Roman territory.

^B II. I have sought to set these things forth in detail for the sake of history, so that those who wish to encounter the root of each subject may not be deprived of it. For it is necessary for anyone attempting a narration to make the effort to the best of their ability, and to make their introduction from the very root; from this, the things of the truth are discovered, even if the speaker should lack elegance of language and beauty of speech, so that the subject being sought may be demonstrated to the wise by the truth of the history. In the beginning, then, this Scythianus, puffed up with great wealth and a bounty of aromatics and other goods from India, came near the Thebaid to a city called Hypselis. ^C Finding there a woman of most abandoned life, yet of striking physical beauty, he was struck by an infatuation appropriate to his dull-wittedness; he took her from the brothel where she was practicing prostitution, and becoming attached to her, he set her free and joined her to himself in marriage. As much time passed, this wicked man, not containing himself in his delights, living in idleness, and accustomed to crimes, was led by excessive luxury to introduce something new into the world. Thus, he invented certain teachings from his own mind—not derived from the Holy Scriptures or the oracles of the Holy Spirit, but from the wretched reasoning of human nature; for he would say, "What is the reason why the things contained in this whole universe are unequal—take for example black and white, reddish and green, wet and dry, heaven and earth, night and day, soul and body, good and evil, just and unjust—if it is not that these have originated from two principles?" ^D For the devil, waging war more fiercely against the human race, implanted in his mind that monstrous opinion to such an extent that he conceived in his soul what does not exist, and failed to recognize what truly is; so that he excited a kind of war in the minds of miserably deluded men who, beyond Him who truly is, imagine another to exist, and think that all things are brought to perfection by two—to use such a term—roots or principles; which is of all things the most impious and most depraved. But I shall speak of this again. In these matters, then, that formerly mentioned Scythianus, blinded in his mind and taking the pretexts of his error from Pythagoras, thought in this way.

And he fashioned for himself four books: ^A to the first of which he gave the name *of Mysteries*, to the second *of Chapters*, to the third *Gospel*, and to the fourth *of Treasuries*. In these, by pairing equal and balancing persons of two principles according to each thesis, the wretch thus persuaded himself, and in this way dreamed that he had discovered something great in his life. And in truth, he did discover a great evil for his own life and for the lives of those led astray by him.

III. Since the man was in this state, and had heard how the prophets and the Law prophesied concerning the constitution of the world, and concerning the one and monarchical God who always is and never ceases to be—the Father, that is, and the same Son, and the Holy Spirit—he wished, being carried along by a more superfluous pleasure and mocking [the truth] according to his own private judgment, and bearing heavy groanings within himself, to set out on a journey toward Jerusalem around the times of the apostles, as if he intended to hold discourse there with those who were preaching concerning the Monarchy ^B and the works of God. But the wretch, having gone up, began to dispute with the presbyters there who were living according to the legislation given by God to Moses and according to the prophetic teaching of each prophet: "How," said he, "do you assert that there is one God, who fashioned night and day, flesh and soul, the dry and the wet, heaven and earth, darkness and light?" They, however, clearly demonstrated [the truth to him]. For the truth is not hidden. But he, in contradicting, felt no shame. And being able to accomplish nothing, he nevertheless persisted in the shamelessness of his cruelty. And as he could not achieve anything, but rather carried away less than he brought, he practiced [sorcery] through the magic books he possessed (for he was also a sorcerer, having trafficked in the terrible and destructive arts of sorcery from the wisdom of the Indians and Egyptians and [other] pagan lore). He climbed onto a house and practiced some illusion; but, having achieved nothing and having fallen from the house, he met the end of his life. ^C He had spent considerable years there, and had with him one pupil only, the aforementioned Terebinthus, to whom he had entrusted his own affairs as to a most reliable person who served him with goodwill. And he, upon the death of Scythianus, buried him most honorably, and after burying him began to consider not returning to the woman whom Scythianus had already joined to himself through prostitution or slavery.

But he flees, having taken everything he had—gold and silver and the rest—to the land of the Persians, changing his name to Buddas ^D (as I have declared above), rather than Terebinthus, so that he might not be discovered. And this man, again...

^A came into an evil inheritance: the four books of Scythianus and the practices of magic. For he too was most thoroughly trained in literature.

But as he also, while disputing in the land of the Persians, took refuge with a certain aged widow, and entered into a debate with the attendants and priests of the idol of Mithras—with a certain prophet named Parcus and with Labdacus—concerning the two principles, and was unable even to debate against the leaders of that idolatry, but was instead refuted by them and brought to shame; thinking the same thoughts as the aforementioned Scythianus, he climbed to the roof of the house ^B, practicing it is claimed some magic arts so that no one might thereafter contradict him, he was cast down by an angel and fell, and thus died, through the magical operation he wished to undertake. The widow, having laid out his body, came into possession of all his money; and having no children or any relatives, she remained for a long time as she was. But later, she purchased and took in Cubricus, who is also called Manes, for her own service; and upon her death, she left to him that evil inheritance, like the venom of an asp, for the destruction and ruin of many.

IV. Therefore Cubricus, who called himself Manes, began to dispute among the Persians, among whom he was living. But as no one was persuaded by him, and all who heard the doctrine of the Manichaean were pained and found his innovation and terrible myth-making and empty deception ^C strange—and as he himself saw the signs of his own wicked scheme and words being overturned, and his mind being infatuated—he devised for himself a pretext by which he might establish this own fabrication of craftiness. And a report having been spread that the son of the King of the Persians had fallen into some sickness and was lying ill in the royal city of the Persians (for Manes was not staying there, but in another place far removed from the king’s court); blinded by his own wickedness, and thinking that from the books he had found of his own master Terebinthus, who was also Buddas—the successor of Scythianus—he could find some remedies to heal the king’s son, he departed from his own location ^D and set out, and having reached the place, he announced who he was, promising certain help to the king’s son. But the hope of the impostor deceived him. For when he had applied certain medicines to the sick child of the king, he was frustrated in his expectation, to such a degree that the youth finally died in his hands, so that all his vain and lying promises were convicted. And as these things had happened in this way, he was thrown into prison by the king’s order. For the Kings of the Persians do not immediately decide on punishments against those accused of greater crimes, but they devise a more exquisite kind of death, subjecting them first to tortures and interrogation. This, therefore, is their custom.

V. But Manes, or Cubricus, was meanwhile detained in prison, where he was visited by his own disciples. For the vagabond had already gathered to himself

so to speak, those whom he called disciples, twenty-two in number. From these he chose three—one called Thomas, and Hermeas, and Addas—and he conceived a plan, having heard of the sacred books among the Judeans and throughout the whole world, I mean of the Christians—the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostles. He gave money, therefore, to those mentioned above and sent them to the regions of Jerusalem. He did this ^A before he was imprisoned, when he was debating with many but could not succeed in establishing his own dogma. But having heard of the name of Christ and of his servants—I mean the Christians—he had decided to use the name of the doctrine of Christ to deceive the erring. The men went and bought [the books]; for they did not delay. But when they returned and found him no longer at liberty, but confined in prison, they went in there and presented the books to him. He, having taken them and investigated them, corrupted them, interweaving his own lie with the truth wherever he found a turn of phrase or a title capable of producing a likeness to his own way of thinking. And from then on he firmly established the fabrication of his own system. But meanwhile, having importuned the jailer with a large sum of money, he effected his escape and fled, leaving behind the territory of the Persians, and set out for ^B Roman territory. Being now in the middle between Mesopotamia and Persia, and still remaining in the wilderness, he heard of a certain great man who excelled in extreme piety, Marcellus by name, who lived in the city of Caschara in Mesopotamia, a man who was in all things a Christian and most admirable in his works of righteousness, providing for widows and the poor, and for orphans and the needy. He planned to attach himself to this man, so that, having gained a person beholden to him, he might be able through him to rule not only over Mesopotamia, but also over the whole region toward Syria and Roman territory. He wrote a letter to him in this manner, by the hand of a certain Turbon, one of his disciples, from the end of the Stranga river, from a castle called Arabion; and the letter contained the following. And you, in taking it up, read the practice of this deceiver’s wickedness.

Letter of Manes to Marcellus.

^A who have given themselves over to fraud and error, I deemed it necessary to write these letters to you: first, for the salvation of your own soul, and then also for the salvation of those who are with you, that you might have your judgment undistracted, as the guides of the simpler folk teach, claiming that good and evil originate from the same source, and introducing but one principle, neither distinguishing nor separating the darkness from the light, nor the good from the evil and the base, nor the outer man from the inner, as I have said before; but they do not cease to mingle and fuse the one with the other. But you, my child, do not, like many men, thoughtlessly and simply unite both, as it might happen, nor attribute them to God, the author of goodness. For they refer the beginning, the end, and the author of these evils to God, whose end is near to a curse. For they do not place faith in those things that are said ^B in the Gospels by our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, that *a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit*. And I am greatly astonished at how they dare to call the God of Satan and his evil deeds their maker and creator. And would that their vain labors had proceeded only thus far, and that they did not say that the Only-Begotten Son of God, Christ, who descended from the bosom of the Father, was the son of a certain woman, Manice, and had come into being from blood and flesh and the rest of the foulness of women. But so that I do not, by writing a longer letter, detain your fairness for too long, especially since I lack natural eloquence, I shall be content with what has been said. But when I come to you, you will know everything more fully, if you still take some care for your own salvation. For we do not cast a noose for anyone, as some of the more foolish people do. Understand what I say, most dear child.

VII. ^C When Marcellus, a most excellent and religious man, and one who was illustrious above all, had read this letter, he was struck with wonder and amazement. For it chanced that on the same day that the servant of God received that letter from the Manichaean, Archelaus, the bishop of the city, was at his house with him. And Archelaus, having perceived the whole matter and having read the letter, gnashed his teeth like a roaring lion, and, taken with a certain divine zeal, he desired rather to set out to the Manichaean himself and to seize the man who had come from the barbarians—whence he had ^D originated—and who was rising up for the destruction of the human race. But the prudent Marcellus, having appeased the bishop with prayers, exhorted Tyrbo to return to Manes at the fortress of Arabion, where he was being awaited by him. Now this fortress is situated between Persia and Mesopotamia. But when Tyrbo was unwilling to return to the Manichaean, having left him, he appointed a certain swift courier from his own household, through whom he gave these letters to him.

Letter of Marcellus to the Manichaean

^A VIII. When Manes received these things, although he perceived within himself that there was nothing good in that retention of Tyrbo (for he was often accustomed to be deceived in his opinion, and to conjecture all other things differently than as the matter actually stood), in order that he might be more certain about the whole affair, taking the occasion from the letters of Marcellus, he ran most swiftly to him. ^B Archelaus the bishop, besides the doctrine of faith, endued with fervor, was a proponent that, if it could be done, that man, like a leopard or a wolf, or any other beast, should be intercepted and delivered to death, lest the flock be harmed by the incursion of such a beast, once he acknowledged his arrival. Marcellus, on the contrary, thought that he should be treated more patiently and gently in conversation. But he already knew the whole thesis of the opinion and doctrine of Manes; for Tyrbo had explained to them, to him and to Marcellus, the entire vanity of his sect, ^C namely, how he established two principles which lacked a beginning and would never end, and were mutually contrary to one another; one of which he called light and good, the other darkness and evil, so that they are the same as God and the devil; whom indeed he sometimes called both Gods, to wit, a good God and an evil God. And that all things arose and were constituted from these two principles; of which all good things proceed from one, and all evil things from the other, which have the subsistence of both principles in this world. To these things he added that the body was fashioned by one of them, and the soul by the other. And that this is effectively the soul which is in humans, and in every animal, and bird, and reptile, and beast; ^D and not only that, but he also asserts that in plants there is the vital moisture of the soul's movement, which kind he says exists also in humans.

IX. Besides these things, he adjoins many other fables, as for instance, if anyone feeds upon flesh, he says that he devours a soul, and makes himself liable to the punishment of being changed into that same thing. For example, if he has eaten a pig, that he will become a pig, or a bull, or a bird, or anything of those edible creatures. Therefore, they abstain from animate things. And if, he says, anyone plants a fig tree, or an olive, or a vine, or a sycamore, or a peach tree, after his death, his soul is bound to the branches of the tree which he planted, and is unable to depart from there. Whoever, moreover, has taken a wife, after passing from this life, is reincarnated into another body, and becomes a woman, so that he himself can be married in turn. And if anyone, he says, has murdered a man, after the departure from his body his own soul is again cast down

^A into the body of a slave, or a mouse, or a serpent, or some such thing, just like those he has killed. Again, he claimed that the Wisdom from on high, of the good God, deliberating on the soul which had been dissipated through all things (for he himself, and the Manichaeans who follow him, say that the soul is a part of God, and, having been torn from him, was cast down into bodies in captivity to the rulers of the opposing dominion and root)—in this manner, he says, because it is food for those men who have snatched it and distributed it within their own bodies, to which it also provides strength and power; for this reason, he says, the aforementioned Wisdom set these luminaries in heaven, the sun and moon and stars, having fashioned this mechanism by means of the twelve elements, as the Greeks claim. And he insists that these elements draw up the souls of the deceased men and other animals, since they are radiant, and carry them to the ship. For by "ship," he wishes to refer to the sun and the moon. The smaller ship, he holds, is loaded for fifteen days, until the filling of the moon, and thus it divides them and deposits them, after the fifteenth day, into the ^B great ship, that is to say, the sun. And the sun, the great vessel, transports them to the aeon of life and the dwelling-place of the blessed. And in this way, the souls are transported through the sun and the moon. For he says that those who are in the "gnosis" of their vulgar chatter are purified and deemed worthy of this transport, this myth-making of his. Again, he says that a soul is no longer saved unless it partakes in this same "gnosis." And the tragedy of this invention of his is quite extensive indeed.

627 X. On the disputation between Archelaus and Manes

^C Since these things were so, and Archelaus had thoroughly mastered everything so that he could dispute the question, and since he was at that point very well-prepared, partly because he was furnished with a manifold knowledge of divine matters, and partly because he had been previously instructed by Trybon and had accurately learned all the deceptions of that nefarious man, behold, Manes arrives with the retinue of his followers. Wherefore, without any delay, they immediately organize a public colloquy in the very town of Caschara, so that before all things they might debate that controversy. For this purpose, they choose as arbiters of the combat a certain Marsipus, and Claudius, and Aegialeus, and Cleobulus: of whom the first was a philosopher of gentile wisdom, the second a professor of medicine, the third a grammarian, ^D and the last a sophist. And many words were cast back and forth in that disputation, with Manes on one side putting forward his mythical teachings, and Archelaus, like an excellent soldier, by his own strength shattering the weapons of the adversary. Finally, Manes was defeated, and by the sentence of the judges, victory yielded to the truth. And this should be a wonder to no one. For the truth consists of itself, nor can it be cast down, however much wickedness, relying on audacity, may attempt to dissolve the firmest bonds by which it is bound, for falsehood has no foundation.

it relies on no foundation, just like the shadow of darkness, or the slippery and unstable movement of a serpent, for the reason that it lacks feet.

^A XI. Following these events, Manes sought safety in flight. For the populace wanted to stone him, had not Marcellus gone into their midst and restrained the crowds by his very countenance, full of veneration. If he had not done so, the wretch would have perished long ago. Departing from there, therefore, he betook himself to a village of the Carcharis called Diodoridis, where there was a certain Tryphon, a very good man, and at that time the presbyter of that place. Turning to him, Manes again began to stir up everything and carry himself arrogantly, having found a man who was good in other respects and admirable in his piety, but destitute of the defense of eloquence. Yet not even in this way, as he had hoped, could he mock the servant of Christ. For God prepares the gifts of the Holy Spirit for those who hope in Him, and bestows them abundantly, as He promised, for He cannot lie. ^B *Do not be anxious*, He says, *what you shall speak. For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of my Father who speaks in you.* Thereafter, since Manes again wished to dispute with Tryphon the presbyter, who had contradicted him on many points, the latter signaled the whole matter through letters to Archelaus, in these words: "A certain man has arrived here, who, after the manner of a most savage wolf, is attempting to ruin the sheepfold. But, I beseech you, write to me how I ought to comport myself against him, and by what arguments I should resist his pernicious doctrine. But if you yourself deign to come, you will free the sheepfold of Christ and his flock from every anxiety." Archelaus, having received these letters, sent him two books, written against Manes, which he could easily and readily understand; ^C he also warned him to await his arrival. Meanwhile, Manes, coming out into the middle of the village at the crack of dawn, challenged Tryphon to come forward for a disputation. And when he had presented himself, and had answered one by one to all the things he had asked, according to the wisdom he had received from God, and was dealing with the impostor quite mildly—while he [Manes] was hesitating somewhat within himself—Archelaus suddenly appeared unexpectedly, who, like a most vigilant master of the house, and most devoted to his own, boldly rushed, roaring, upon the brigand. When Manes looked upon him, with feigned flattery he said: "Let me be; I wish to contend with Tryphon, for you, ^D being a bishop, surpass me in dignity." Archelaus, however, showing that he was a greater impostor—from the fact that his dogma had already been refuted—rendered him speechless, and, refuting the arguments that had been put forward by him, he covered him with shame, so that he dared not open his mouth anymore. The people, again seized with zeal, attempted to destroy that wretch. But he, escaping the hands of the crowds, retreated once more to the aforementioned castle of Arabio.

^A XII. But the King of the Persians, having discovered Manichæus’s flight, sent out guards, captured him in that aforementioned castle, and dragged him away ignominiously to Persia. There, having ordered his skin to be flayed with a reed, he thus meted out his punishment. Hence it is that they still preserve his flayed skin in Persia, stuffed with straw, even to this day. This, then, was the end of life that he met. On this account, the Manichæans lay reeds beneath their beds. Now, when he died in this manner, he left behind those disciples whom I mentioned—Addas, Thomas, and Hermeas—whom he had sent off to various places before he paid the penalty in the manner described. For Hermeas went off to Egypt, with whom many associated; for this heresy is not ancient, and those who have associated with the aforementioned Hermeas, who was a disciple of Manes, have narrated to us the things concerning him. Addas went into the upper region, and Thomas into Judæa. And from them that sect has had strength and increase even to this day. But Manes asserted that he himself was the Paraclete Spirit, and sometimes he proclaimed himself to be an apostle of Christ, at other times the Paraclete Spirit. Such is the utterly insolent and absurd persuasion of this blinded man.

^B XIII. But now it is necessary that we should next dispute against this heresy and its foolish decrees. For what we have said thus far contains a bare history of him. Let us therefore begin from that which the most wicked Manes took as the beginning of his teaching, writing, and speaking in the book which he wrote, *On Faith*; for he published various books, one of which is divided into twenty-two parts, arranged according to the alphabetical order of the letters which the Syrians use; for most of the Persians, besides their Persian elements, also use the Syrian script, just as among us many nations use the Greek, even though they have their own letters for almost every nation. Others, however, pride themselves on the most profound language of the Syrians, such as the Palmyrene dialect, using both that and its twenty-two letters. Hence it is that this same book is divided into twenty-two sections of chapters; to this he attaches the name *Mysteries of Manichæus*, and to another, *Thesaurus*. ^C Besides these, he has fabricated others to delude men, such as the *Minor Thesaurus*, and also *On Astrology*. For they do not abhor those curious arts; rather, they hold out the science of astronomy and boast of it. But they also use amulets—that is, things hung around the neck—and magic charms and deceptions. Indeed, the same Manes begins in his book by saying:

XIV. There was God and matter, light and darkness, good and evil, which were so utterly contrary to one another in every respect, that in no way

communicate, the one with the other. ^A And this is the prologue of that vagabond. From here he begins his malignant contrivance. His book, indeed, lies open, containing such wretched things, the difficulty of which, and the contrariety of the arguments, must be understood even from the very beginning of his purpose. For even if the rest of it is all talk and a mythical hypothesis, the whole of his wickedness will be demonstrated from his introduction. For his statement, "There was God and matter," follows the vain conjecture of the Greeks in no small measure. This vain-mindedness of his slander is easily defeated, easy to refute, and easily demolished. For that two things should exist at once, as coeval and eternal, is impossible for any one possessing sound judgment and rational reasoning to accept. And this is something that anyone with any sense must know. For if there are two coeval things, they do not even differ in name. For everything that is coeval is also co-eternal. And that which is co-eternal and always existing, this is God, especially if it has not received its beginning from some cause. For there is nothing eternal but God alone. ^B For you have assigned these principles to different names, oh you barbarian in mind, and enemy of human nature. You have assigned the one to light, and the other to darkness, one to good, and the other to evil. And you say that these are absolutely contrary to all things in such a way that the one has no communication with the other. Therefore you separate these from one another. For it is evident that they are contrary, as you say. But if they are by nature such that they exist together, they will be found to be friendly and harmonious, and existing together with one another, dwelling together, and communicating, and not departing from one another at all on account of their excess of affection. But if they exist apart from one another, then each of these must be finite. And everything that is finite is not perfect. For it is defined by its very limit. Otherwise, a boundary would also have to be sought for the separation of both, so that they might not, by touching one another at their limits, join their own properties to one another through those limits, and the one communicate with the other, and destroy the definition of their contrariety.

^C And if you were to provide something separating the one from the other in between them, that which separates them will no longer be like them, nor will it be different from both. For if the separator is assimilated on one side to one of the two aforementioned eternal things, it would no longer be alien to that which it is assimilated to, but joined with the thing it is assimilated to, and through the part that is equalized there will be a connection, and it will no longer be bounded by the separation of the two natures from one another. But if it is neither like either of the two, nor partakes of the part of either, then there are no longer two eternal things that have always existed; ^D but there are now three, and they are no longer two principles, and two things primarily contrary to each other, but a third, another thing, contrary to both, and unlike both, and separating the two, and not communicating with either due to its strangeness, and not receiving the likeness of either. And thus there will no longer be two,

but rather these three. Moreover, another will be sought, who acts as mediator and who introduces this fourth boundary. For the two could not set forth the boundary or the wall unless there were another to be the boundary-setter, who introduces that which separates them from each other. But he must also be learned in knowledge, and prudent in manner, and fair, and more illustrious; so that he may be able to persuade both to a reconciliation of peace. There will therefore be one who sets the boundary, and one who separates, and two that are being bounded, and thus there will no longer be two principles only, but also three, and four. And in this way it is possible to turn one’s mind toward many principles, and to neglect the things that are, and to imagine things that are not.

XV. Regarding the avoidance of attributing evil to God

XVI. Regarding the devil, likewise, it must be held that he did not exist as evil from his very origin and the condition of his nature, but that he discovered how to do evil at a later time; yet he was not unknown as to what sort of being he would become. Rather, he was created well and most usefully along with all things on account of the excellence of God’s justice, for God, out of His singular goodness, wishes all things to exist and proposes His own good things to all in common. Nevertheless, according to the extent that it is granted to the freedom of each, He permits to all the use of their own will, that they might undertake whatever they might plan; so that He Himself might be blameless of base things, and there might be a discernment of those who progress toward virtue, and of those who

from their humanity and goodness receive their rewards. But that insane man, Manes, while he is eager to exempt God from every stain of malice, not only does not attain what he intends, but in another way recompenses it [malice] with an equal status. Nay, further, he insults without any shame all things founded by God: taking from those sins which are perceived in us such an occasion, that he derives that disgrace equally upon the rest of all creation. In which matter he appears as the champion and defender of that malice which he proclaims he is excluding; and he is so far from hating it, that he even takes up friendship and communion with it. For he grants it substance, and defends it as being eternal, and professes that it is always with God and never ceases to be. Yet, calling it by certain names throughout all his arguments, he will be caught straying far from the truth, since it is clearly established from the testimonies produced by himself that whatever was founded by God was created well and rightly.

^A XVII. And first of all, it must be seen that he names this "matter," which in his view is the same as corruption. But if it is corruption, of what, pray, is it the corruption? If it belongs to other things, remaining constantly itself, it ought long ago to have corrupted all things, and, alone for so infinite a time, to have persisted as it exerted the efficacy of its own power, without being cut off. But if it is the corruption of itself, destroying and subduing and consuming and perishing, it will perish in the end ^B and will not stand, having a power that is consumer and corruptor of itself. Since these things are so, by what reasoning could it have existed for such a duration of time, as that charlatan asserts? Furthermore, it could have no communion at all with life, nor will it be found along with life or goodness. But since in every one of the creatures which he insults there also exists goodness, his entire argument concerning malice collapses from every side, on account of the fact that one of those things which he mentioned has a certain society with the other, as for instance what might be said concerning serpents and other venomous reptiles. For as many things as ^C have been fashioned toward usefulness, but are insulted by him by that very name, in them also the opposite of malice is found, as for instance concerning the serpent and the others. For in them both the poison for death is found, and the antidote against the antidote of death, and of the corruption suffered, and the day [is found] for human work, and also for being illuminated and for seeing. But even the night, which by him is insulted by name, is found to be a kind of rest provided by God for mankind. And thus, each thing is found to be good, and cannot take its name from the sins that are in us, nor be judged by the same appellation as evil.

^D XVIII. For all things are good and pleasant, and there is nothing that should be rejected, since "And behold," he says, "all things were very good"; and nowhere is there a root of malice. For this reason also God, creating the whole world from the beginning by His...

goodness, bore witness to the ^A excellence of each of the creatures, saying: "And God saw that it was good" (Gen. 1, 10, 12, 18, 21, 23). He did this to bear witness to what is good, and to destroy the craftiness of those who plot against human nature, those who, by means of wicked myths, set out to extinguish the truth among men. For He created the heaven, and the earth, and the light, and the things that are on the earth on the first day. And He saw, and behold it was good, says the Scripture. For surely He did not not know that what He was about to make would be good? Why, then, after its creation, does He say, "Behold it is good"? And so on, successively, regarding the waters, the sea, the plants, the trees, the luminaries in heaven, the cattle, the birds, the reptiles, and the fish. For regarding each one, He said: "And God saw, and behold it was good." He did not say this because He was ignorant beforehand, nor because He learned by trial and experience ^B after it was created that it was good. Rather, because all things are truly good and contain absolutely no evil, He declared by this oracle that all things are good and excellent, in opposition to the opinion of wicked men. Thus, He pronounced them good, a pronouncement which contains the complete exclusion of evil and wickedness, so that by this very fact—that He signified that all things were good—that false opinion concerning the malice brought upon men might be removed, and the worst view held by the architects of every evil doctrine might be utterly destroyed.

Finally, when He came to man, He did not strictly say "it is good," not because man is something evil—he being the most excellent of all things created on earth, produced by an ineffable wisdom of God to rule over the rest, and to whom He had determined ^C to entrust the lordship and dominion over all things created by Him, as these words declare: "Let us make man in our image and likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the heaven, and the reptiles of the earth, and the cattle, and the wild beasts, and all things that are upon the earth" (Gen. 1, 26). But since he was created according to the image of God, the divine Scripture was satisfied with such great dignity, as if it needed no further addition. For if he was endowed with the image of that very goodness—I mean of the Lord God, the creator of every creature and the good one, from whom is every fountain of goodness, and from whom the good is present in all things—how could he still need to hear the testimony, "And behold it is good," ^D when he already possessed in himself the image of the Good One? Nevertheless, later, at the end of all, after creating the whole universe, the divine Word, as if sealing it, brought forth the same testimony regarding all things, saying: "And God saw all things that He had made, and behold, they were very good" (Gen. 1, 31). He willed to add that word "very" (and this happened to be on the sixth day, and the seventh was one of rest), so that, with all the perverted doctrine of that evil one having been rooted out, no one might find an excuse to dare to think that malice is eternal. For the argument concerning this has been destroyed. For evil was nowhere, all things being good.

^A XIX. Furthermore, the name "matter" has a double meaning: one is that which, according to the opinion of that detestable man, signifies action, corruption, and a certain consuming power; the other is that which we commonly call matter in reference to the equipment of all things that pertain to the use of an artisan, such as the material of wood, pottery, gold, and silver. Matter is also spoken of in bodies as that which is gathered from the corruption and vice of the humors. Let this newly arrived prophet, then, who pretends to know things that have existed from all eternity, speak. Since that same man did not hesitate to assert that he himself is the Spirit the Paraclete. ^B Sometimes, indeed, he styles himself an apostle of Jesus Christ, as I have said. But he never put on the form of a dove, nor was he the Spirit the Paraclete who was sent down from heaven upon the apostles to clothe them with the power of incorruptibility. He whom the only-begotten Son of God promised He would send, not "after many days," but as soon as He had ascended into heaven, as He Himself defined in these words: "For if I go, He will come." And immediately in the upper room they were filled with the Holy Spirit, when they had returned from the Mount of Olives. And thus Scripture testifies [O] to this in these words: "And there appeared to them cloven tongues as of fire, and the house was filled as with a violent wind, and the Spirit rested upon each of them, and they spoke in tongues the wonderful works of God, and each heard them speaking in his own tongue." For they were from every nation under heaven, and each was comforted through the Spirit—the apostles indeed by that heavenly benefit, but all nations by the instruction of that wondrous divine teaching.

And truly, if this impostor were that Holy Spirit whom the Lord had promised to the disciples, and the apostles had been defrauded of the promise, even though they had long before heard from the Lord, who cannot lie: "You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit not many days hence." By this, that crafty deceiver is convicted, while he lies, claiming that Christ did not fulfill what He had said. For the generation of the apostles has passed away, ^D I mean from the time of Peter to Paul, and to John, who survived until the time of the reign of Trajan. There has also passed away James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, who was surnamed the Lord's brother, and was the son of Joseph, begotten by him with his other brothers from his own wife; with which brothers our Lord Jesus Christ, born according to the flesh of Mary the Ever-Virgin, lived in such a way that He held them in the place of brothers, and was in turn called their brother; and all the holy men who shared the throne with him are dead; and along with them Symeon, the son of his uncle, the son of Cleophas, the brother of Joseph. We subjoin the times and sequence of all of them, that is, all the bishops of Jerusalem,

^A along with the names of the emperors, down to the times of Aurelian and Probus, ^B during which Manes began to emerge, a Persian man, by whom that most absurd doctrine was published and introduced into the world.

List of the Bishops of Jerusalem

^C

List of the Prelates of Jerusalem

| Episcopi. | Anni, quibus sederunt. | | :--- | :--- | | I Jacobus Domini frater | XXVI | | II Symeon Cleophæ F. | XXIII | | III Justus | VI | | IV Zacharias | IV | | V Tobias | IV | | VI Benjamin | II | | VII Joannes | II | | VIII Matthæus | IX | | IX Philippus | I | | X Seneca | IV | | XI Justus | IV | | XII Levi | II | | XIII Ephraim | II | | XIV Joseph | II | | XV Judas | II | | XVI Marcus | VIII | | XVII Cassianus | VIII | | XVIII Publius | V | | XIX Maximus | IV | | XX Julianus | II | | XXI Gaianus | III | | XXII Symmachus | II | | XXIII Caius | III | | XXIV Julianus | IV | | XXV Elias | II | | XXVI Capito | IV | | XXVII Maximus | IV | | XXVIII Antoninus | V | | XXIX Valens | III | | XXX Dulichianus | II | | XXXI Narcissus | IV | | XXXII Dius | VIII | | XXXIII Germanio | IV | | XXXIV Gordias | V | | XXXV Narcissus secundus martyr | X | | XXXVI Alexander martyr | XV | | XXXVII Mazabanes | IX | | XXXVIII Hymenæus | XXIII | | XXXIX Zabdas | X | | XL Hermon | IX | | XLI Macarius | XX | | XLII Maximianus | VI |

XLIII Cyrillus, who having been driven out by the Arians, three were substituted: Arsenius, Heraclius, Hilarius. According to whom, Cyrillus was again restored in the Council under Gratian.

These are from the *Chronicon* of Nicephorus. But Eusebius, in his *Ecclesiastical History*, book IV, chapter 5, and in his *Chronicle*, denies it is certain how many years each bishop sat in Jerusalem. That it is beyond controversy that they presided for a very short time, so much so that until the final siege of the Jews, which happened under Hadrian, there were in all fifteen bishops. Therefore, I cannot fathom whence Nicephorus fished out the years of each individual. Yet it is not doubtful that they were wretchedly conceived. In the first place, he accords twenty-six years to James and twenty-three to Symeon; both of which are false. Eusebius in his *Chronicle* teaches that James was ordained bishop of Jerusalem in the same year that Christ ascended into heaven. Nor is it true what the Alexandrian *Chronicle* asserts, that he was ordained then by Peter, when he was setting out for Rome. But he was killed in the sixth year of Nero, by the testimony of the same Eusebius and Jerome in his *On Ecclesiastical Writers*. For the Alexandrian *Chronicle* wanders far afield, which assigns the death of James to the first year of Vespasian, indiction ten, when Galba and Titus Rufinus were consuls, on page 581. Now, if, as was declared more fully before, the Passion of the Lord corresponds to the seventy-sixth Julian year, but the sixth of Nero corresponds to the one hundred and fifth Julian (the sixtieth Dionysian year), then James held the pontificate for more or less thirty years. Furthermore, since Symeon is said by ^D Eusebius in his *Chronicle* to have been crucified in the tenth year of Trajan, that is, in the year of Christ 107, he spent forty-seven solid years in the episcopate. But the five subsequent pontiffs presided for no more than ten years until the nineteenth year of Trajan, if Epiphanius wrote the truth. For Nicephorus attributes eighteen years to them in his *Chronicle*. According to these, eight remained from the circumcision as bishops until the final slaughter of the Jews, which is placed by Eusebius at the eighteenth year of Hadrian. But the eighteenth year of Hadrian began in the year of Christ 135. Therefore, those eight bishops did not hold that see for more than twenty years. But the passage of Epiphanius is faulty, in which it is written, "until the eleventh of Antoninus." Where first, for "Antoninus," "Hadrian" should be substituted. Then, "nineteenth" for "eleventh." For Eusebius, from whom Epiphanius translated these things, writes that in the nineteenth year of Hadrian, Marcus, after fifteen prelates of Jewish stock, was the first from the Gentiles to rule the Church of Jerusalem. But that seems to have caused the error for Epiphanius; because the same Eusebius in his *History*, book V, chapter 5, when he had enumerated all the bishops of Jerusalem, immediately mentions the twelfth year of Hadrian, in which, upon the death of Xystus, Telesphorus succeeded. Whence he collected that the preceding things pertain to the eleventh year. There follow five bishops, whom Epiphanius extended to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius. But the *Chronicle* of Eusebius only carries Marcus up to the nineteenth year of Antoninus, in which year he finally substitutes Cassianus. For which reason, Marcus must have sat for twenty years. Furthermore, between Julian and Capito, Eusebius and Nicephorus place Elias, whom Epiphanius passed over. Concerning Narcissus and his admirable sanctity, see what Eusebius produced in book VI.

III. Judas. IV. Zacharias. V. Tobias. VI. Benjamin. VII. John to the nineteenth year of Trajan. VIII. Matthias. IX. Philip. X. Seneca. XI. Justus to the times of Hadrian. XII. Levi. XIII. Vaphris. XIV. Josis. XV. Judas to the eleventh year of Antoninus. These men of the circumcision were bishops of Jerusalem. But of the Gentiles these are they who follow: XVI. Marcus. XVII. Cassianus. XVIII. Publius. XIX. Maximus. XX. Julianus. ^B These all reach to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius. XXI. Gaianus. XXII. Symmachus. XXIII. Caius, to the eighth year of Verus his time. XXIV. Julianus. XXV. Capito. XXVI. Maximus to the sixteenth year of Verus. XXVII. Antoninus. XXVIII. Valens. XXIX. Dolichianus until Commodus. XXX. Narcissus. XXXI. Dius, until Severus. XXXII. Germanio. XXXIII. Gordius, until Antoninus. XXXIV. Narcissus, the same, until Alexander son of Mammaea, not of the Macedonian line, but another. XXXV. Alexander, until the same Alexander. XXXVI. Mazabanus, until Gallus and Volusianus. XXXVII. Hymenaeus, until Aurelian. The total from the ascension of Christ to Manes is... years. ^{C D}

according to the calculation of certain chronographers, but according to others, two hundred and forty-six. From that time until today [(22)] there have been other bishops: Bazas, Hermon, Macarius, Maximus, Cyril, Herennius, another Cyril, and Hilarion, who now occupies the Church, having been accused of having had communion with the Arians.

The kings who followed [(23)] have their times conjoined: Aurelian being left over, [his] first year; Tacitus, six months; Carus and Carinus and Numerianus, two months; Diocletian, twenty years; Maximian, Licinius, Constantine, Constantius, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian, Valens, Gratian. Thus, from the aforementioned Manes [(24)] to the present time, that is, the thirteenth year of Valens, the ninth year of Gratian, and the first year of Valentinian the Younger, [and] the seventy-seventh year of Diocletian; so that in the fourth year ^B of Aurelian and in the times of Hymenaeus, bishop of Jerusalem, it is believed there was a Cyril. Regarding whom one should consult the Annales of Baronius under the year 351. There is also a mention of Cyril in the heresy of the LXXIII. ^C And regarding Manes, or Manichaeus, as it concerns him, there were eruptions of that monster at nearly the same time, and they are celebrated by the notable signs of some misdeed. This was the reason why the origin of this heresy was not assigned to those same emperors and consuls. Epiphanius and Leo the Great differ significantly in the years of Christ; for [the consulship of] Probus and Paulinus falls in approximately the year of Christ 277, in the Dionysian era: from which number, if thirty-one years are subtracted, 246 years remain from the Ascension of the Lord, as many, in fact, as Epiphanius ^D places in the later number according to the opinion of others. But the epoch of the former seems to be taken not from the Ascension, but from the Conception, or Generation. Finally, in Leo, for 260, one should read 240. For this round number is derived from the Ascension of Christ. Moreover, from this calculation of Epiphanius, that which we showed more fully above is not insignificantly established, namely, that the Passion and Ascension of the Lord Christ fell in the seventy-sixth year of the Julian era.

^A Hierosolymorum episcopo [that is, the bishop of Jerusalem] this error having been introduced into the world, and by the devil, who resided in that heretic, having been propagated by force and fraud, in order that he might lead those who gave credence to the faith away from the truth and into fraud.

XXI. Wherefore, ^B his deceits have been refuted from every side, so that the mind of the wise, when it truly knows all things, will condemn his fictitious dogma; for the rest of his sophistic cavils are full of inanities, ambiguous and unstable, and a laughingstock to all who are prudent. If I were to wish to set these forth word for word and respond to them individually, I would be too long in refuting this heresy, especially ^C since remarkable works have been published by great men to refute his errors. For instance, by Archelaus the bishop, as has been said before; by Origen, as we have heard; by Eusebius of Caesarea, and the other from Emesa; by Serapion of Thmuis; by Athanasius of Alexandria; by George of Laodicea; by Apollinaris ^D of Laodicea; by Titus, and by many others who have written against him.

Yet it will not be troublesome, I think, if we set forth a few things according to our own poverty, to increase the infamy of that miserable man, as we have already said. I would indeed have wished to avoid all asperity of words in correcting his error, and I could have done so gently, were it not that he does not blush with unbridled tongue to blaspheme the Lord of all, denying at once the Creator himself, who fashioned this whole mass of heaven and earth, and all things contained within them, and all that is in the world; imagining in his place some other God, one who does not exist, while abandoning the One who truly is. For he has fallen away from the truth; and that which happened is like the action in the ridiculous fable: just as the crow, when it was carrying food in its mouth and caught sight of the shadow of the food in the water, desiring to obtain other food, lost what it had, and did not obtain what it did not have. For who can tolerate that blasphemer? If we cannot bear to hear those parents from whom we have received our body maligned by anyone, how much less ought we to bear it when we hear the God and Lord of all attacked with curses by that most troublesome Manichaean? For when, out of his infinite mercy and goodness, rains are sent from heaven by God, this blasphemer does not fear to deny that those rains are from God, but asserts that they have flowed from the efflux of the rulers.

^A XXII. Regarding the rest, who could keep from laughing at these claims, when the ridiculous trifles of Philistion the mime seem more serious than they? For he imagines, I know not what sort of porter, who sustains the whole earth upon his shoulders, and every thirtieth year, as one shoulder grows weary, he transfers the burden to the other, whence earthquakes arise. But if this were true, the matter would be natural, and no longer marvelous. Yet the words of the Savior condemn this impostor, as He said: "Be good, even as your heavenly Father; for He makes His sun to rise upon the just and the unjust, and rains His rain upon the evil and the good." And again: "There shall be earthquakes in various places, and famines, and pestilences." But if earthquakes are said to occur naturally and in the usual manner, since the earth is shaken very often in various places, to the point where it sometimes seems to be shaken every night for a whole year, are we to say that this porter, unable to bear the labor because his shoulders are wounded, is causing this continuous agitation? Who could endure such stupidity? And what other plausible thing has he not dared to assert? For ^B he teaches, among other things, that souls which have been washed in the knowledge of his false dogma are raised to the lunar sphere, since the nature of the soul is luminous. For this reason, he says, the moon is at times full, and at other times is deprived of light, because it is filled by those souls that have departed from this life endowed with the knowledge of his infidelity. Then, he says, they are unloaded from the moon, as if from a smaller vessel, and are taken up into the sun, and are set forth into the aeon of the blessed. Truly, wickedness, being always blind, does not perceive its own shame and ignominy, and is thus convicted by its very own words, since it is unable to bring its lies to any plausible reason or conclusion.

^C XXIII. For in the first place, one man was formed, Adam, from whom children of both sexes have been propagated. Then, at the beginning of the world, about the one hundredth year of Adam, Abel was killed, having been born nearly thirty years. After this one, who was the first of all to be killed, our first parent Adam dies on the earth in the nine hundred and thirtieth year, when the sun and moon and the rest of the stars had already been fixed and created in the heavens on the fourth day. What then, my good man, are we to say? Shall we not finally confess that your stupidity has been convicted? For could it have happened that for all those nine hundred and thirty years the moon neither filled up nor waned? With what souls, then, could the moon have been filled up after death ^D and become full? Tell me, if you please. Doubtless, the Manichaean was ignorant of the fact that there are some who are wise, and who are not persuaded by empty lies, but by most certain proofs. And let us grant that thus...

though in reality it is far otherwise—yet how will this hypothesis regarding the souls of the Manichaeans being loaded and filled by the moon hold up? For if no Manichaean died after the fifteenth day of the moon, but there were a set deadline for the Manichaeans to die up to the fifteenth day of the moon, and after the fifteenth day no one died until the moon had unloaded its burden so that it might begin to be loaded again from the new moon, then their lie might perhaps have been plausible. But as it is, it is implausible. For people die every day, and the ordained elements fulfill their own course from God. And, again, the marriage that supposedly takes place regarding the souls in the moon will not stand.

^B XXIV. But there are some among them who, according to a wily artifice, propose that the mother of all things, having shared her own power, came down from heaven to steal and plunder from the rulers the power that they had taken from above. For he wishes to say that the principalities and powers, having waged war against the living God, had snatched from Him a great and incomprehensible power, which he also calls "soul." And oh, the great absurdity of this! For everyone who is plundered and carried off as booty has been overcome. If, therefore, the principalities, having overpowered the good God with their armor, tore away power from Him, they must be stronger than He. And if He, having yielded to them at the first, cannot afterwards take back from them the power that had been snatched from Him—or "armor," if you prefer—then He was not able to withstand the enemies from the beginning. Furthermore, even if he should ever at some point gain victory and, having defeated his adversaries, be able to regain that power of his which had been snatched, yet since the root and beginning of evil is still ^C remaining—without a beginning, and utterly unable to be destroyed—it will again be able to prevail by gathering together for itself greater power, and by gaining strength in some sort of dominion, it will again take away the power captured from the good God. And so, according to him, evil will always be in opposition, never having any end, perpetually plundering and being plundered. But if those men, blinded in their minds and deceived in every way, were to say that: "When the good God frees the armor of the portion of Himself that had been snatched away, then He will destroy and exterminate the principalities and powers of the opposing force."

And if this is still to be, and if the good God is to utterly destroy and exterminate, then the argument of that ^D imposter falls, which claims that the good God is not just, and that He does not judge the sinner in His judgment, nor deliver anyone to torments, nor slay. For if He attempts to utterly destroy and exterminate the devil, or rather the opposing energy, then according to his own argument, He will no longer be good. Or, if He is good and consumes the evil, then it will be

^A exactly as it is in truth, He who renders to each according to his works, who out of excess of goodness provides the good to the one who is good and has labored in goodness, and who awards justice to the one who has done evil. And on all sides his argument is refuted, leading astray the hearts of men toward contrary things. This is the Lord who made heaven and earth, as ^B XXV. But now I shall record his dogma word for word, as is appropriate, from the work of Archelaus, which he published against that same man, from those things which he had received from Tyrbo, his disciple, of whom I made mention before; for when Archelaus the bishop and Marcellus had questioned Tyrbo concerning the teaching of Manes, Tyrbo answered saying those very things which I have described from the book; and they are of this kind:

and having descended, raised up the princes and established them in the firmament, which is their body, or sphere.

XXVI. Then, moreover, the luminaries were created by the same Spirit, which are the remains of the soul; and thus, having been perfected by him, they were made to revolve around the firmament. Again, he fashioned the earth in eight species. But the Porter (Bajulus/Omophoros) supports it below, and when he grows weary in carrying it, he trembles, and causes an earthquake at times other than the appointed ones. For this reason, the good Father, he says, sent his Son from his bosom into the deep parts of the earth and into its lowest regions, so that he might satisfy its corresponding desire; and as often as the earth shakes, either he, laboring, trembles, or he transfers the burden to his other shoulder. ^B At the same time, matter created plants from itself; and when these were being plundered by certain princes, having summoned the chief of those princes, he took from each one a power, and constructed man, according to the idea of that first man, and bound the soul within him. This is the theory of the mixture. But when the Living Father saw the soul afflicted in the body, being compassionate and merciful, he sent his beloved Son for the salvation of the soul. For on account of this very reason, it is said that he sent him also for the sake of the Porter. Therefore, the Son, arriving, transformed himself into the appearance of a man, and he appeared to men as a man, though he was not a man; and the masses believed that he had been born as a man.

Coming, therefore, he performs the creation for the salvation of the souls, and constructed a machine having twelve buckets, which, being turned by the sphere, draws up the souls of the dying. And this the great luminary, having taken with its rays, cleanses and imparts to the moon; ^C and thus the disk of the moon, which is commonly called by us [a disk], is filled. For he says that the two luminaries are ships, or ferries. Then, if the moon is filled, it ferries them over to the east; and thus it makes a discharge of its cargo, becoming lightened, and thus it fills the ferry, and again unloads, as the souls are drawn up by the buckets, until it rescues its own proper portion of the soul. For he says that every soul and every moving living thing is a participant of the substance of the good Father. When, therefore, the moon imparts the cargo of souls to the Aeons of the Father, they remain in the pillar of glory, which is called the perfect air. But this air is a pillar of light, because it is filled with the souls that are being purified. This is the cause through which souls are saved.

XXVII. But concerning the reason why men die, he proposes this: A certain virgin, he says, beautiful and adorned and full of allurements, attempts to entice the princes who were led up by the Living Spirit into the firmament and crucified, by her own charms; ^D she appearing to the males as a most beautiful woman, and to the females as a handsome youth.

^A And when the princes see her adorned, they are stung with desire, and, not being able to possess her, they are terribly inflamed with erotic passion, their minds being snatched away. When, therefore, they run after her and the virgin vanishes, then the great Prince sends forth the clouds from himself, that he may darken the world with his wrath. And thus, if he is greatly distressed, he becomes exhausted like a man sweating, and his sweat is rain. And also the sickle-bearing prince, ^B if he is captivated by the virgin, pours a plague over the whole earth, so that he may put men to death. For this body is called a world in comparison to the great world. And all men have roots below, connected with those above. When, therefore, he is captivated by the virgin, then he begins to cut the roots of men. And when their roots are cut, then a plague begins to occur, and thus they die. But if the parts above the root are shaken by toil, an earthquake occurs and follows, the *Zephorus* (Bearer) being agitated. This is the cause of death.

XXVIII. I will also tell you this, how the soul is transferred into five bodies. ^C First, a small part of it is purified; then it is transferred into the body of a dog, or a camel, or another animal. And if the soul has committed homicide, it is transferred into the body of an elephant; and if it is found to have been a reaper, into the bodies of stammerers and those whose tongues are tied. For these are the names of the soul: mind, conception, prudence, thought, reasoning. But the reapers, whosoever they are that reap, are like the princes who from the beginning have existed in darkness, when they devoured the armor of the First Man. Therefore, it is necessary that they be transferred into hay, or beans, or barley, or grain, or vegetables, that they may be reaped and cut. And if anyone eats bread, it is necessary that he also become bread to be eaten. He who kills a bird will become a bird. Likewise, he who kills a mouse will be changed into a mouse. ^D Furthermore, if anyone in this life is rich, and when he departs from his body he is transferred into the body of a beggar, so that he may wander and beg for alms, and thence arrive at eternal punishment. And since this body of ours belongs to the princes and to matter, whoever plants a *persea* tree must undergo many bodies until that *persea* tree falls. He who builds a house for himself will be scattered into all bodies. He who washes in water constrains his own soul. He who does not give some gift of piety to his elect will pay the penalty for many generations, and will be reincarnated into the bodies of catechumens until he gives many gifts of piety. On account of this, they offer the choicest foods to the elect. And when they are about to eat bread, they first pray to the bread, saying thus: "Neither did I..."

^A reap, nor did I thresh, nor did I crush, nor did I put it into the oven. But Another performed these things, and brought them to me; I eat guiltless." And when he says these things to himself, he says to the catechumen: "I have prayed for you." And so that person departs. For, as I said to you a little before, if anyone reaps, he shall be reaped; so if anyone casts grain into a mill, he also shall be cast in; or if one has kneaded, he shall be kneaded; or if one has baked bread, he shall be baked. And for this reason they are forbidden from doing any work. And again, there are other worlds of some of the luminaries that arise from this world, from which they rise. And if anyone walks on the ground, he harms the earth; and he who moves his hand harms the air; because the air is the soul of human beings, and of beasts, and of birds, and of fishes, and of reptiles. And if anyone is in the world, I said to you, that this body is not of God, but is of matter, and is darkness, and it must itself be darkened.

^B XXIX. Regarding the paradise, (which) is called a world. The plants that are in it are cupidity and other deceits, which corrupt the minds of those men. But the plant in the paradise from which they discern the good is Jesus himself, the knowledge of him that is in the world; and he who receives it discerns the good and the bad. Yet the world itself does not belong to God, but it was fashioned from a portion of matter, and for this reason all things perish. And that which the rulers stole from the first man is the very thing that fills the moon, and is purified daily from the contagion of the world; and if the soul departs without knowing the truth, it is handed over to the demons, so that they may subdue it in the Gehennas of fire. And after the discipline, it is transferred into bodies, in order that it may be subdued; and thus it is cast into the great fire, until the consummation.

XXX. Regarding your prophets, he speaks thus: ^C That there is a Spirit of impiety, or rather of lawlessness of the darkness, which has ascended from the beginning; and for this reason they were led astray and did not speak. For their ruler blinded their mind. And if anyone follows their words, he dies for the ages, bound to the clod, because he did not learn the knowledge of the Paraclete. And he commanded his own elect only—being no more than seven in number—saying: "If you cease eating, pray, and pour upon your head oil consecrated with the invocation of many names, for the strengthening of this faith." But the names were not revealed to me; for only the seven use them. And again, the precious and great name of Sabaoth among us, they say is the very nature of man, and the father of cupidity. And for this reason the ^D *Aplarioi* worship cupidity, considering it to be God.

Regarding Adam, how he was created, he speaks thus: That

the one who said, "Come, let us make man after our image and likeness," or after the form which we beheld, is the Prince; the one who said to the other princes, "Come, give me from the light which we received, and let us make man after the form of us princes, according to which we beheld—which is the first man." And thus he created man. And they created Eve in like manner, giving to her from their own cupidity, so as to deceive Adam; and through these, the fashioning of the world came to pass from the creation of the Prince. ^A

XXXI. He claims that God has nothing in common with this world, nor does He take pleasure in it, because its parts were plundered by the princes from the beginning, and He was caused affliction. For this reason, He sends and snatches away His soul from them day by day through these luminaries, the sun and the moon, by which the whole world and all creation is plundered. He says that the one who spoke with Moses and the Jews and the priests is the prince of darkness; so that Christians, Jews, and Gentiles are one and the same, as they worship the same God. ^B For by His own cupidity he deceives them, for he is not the God of truth. Therefore, those who put their hope in that God who spoke with Moses and the prophets are to be bound with him, because they did not place their hope in the God of truth. For that one spoke with them according to their own cupidity.

After all these things, at the end he says, as that elder wrote, when he shows his image, then the *Omophoros* releases the earth outside of himself, and thus the great fire is let loose and consumes the entire world. Then again, he casts the ball with the new Aeon, so that all the souls of sinners may be bound for eternity. ^C Then these things will come to pass, when the Statue shall come. All the emanations—Jesus, who is carried in the small ship, and the Mother of Life, and the twelve helmsmen, and the Virgin of Light, and the third elder, who sits in the large ship, together with the Living Spirit, and the wall of the great fire, and the wall of the wind, and of the air, of the water, and of the living and exterior fire—dwell near the little luminary until the fire consumes the entire world, in some number of years, the quantity of which I have not learned. And after these things, there shall be a restoration of the two natures. ^D And the princes shall inhabit the lower parts themselves, and the Father shall occupy the higher parts, having received his own place.

Manichæus handed down all this doctrine to his three disciples, and sent them into various regions. The East fell to Addas, Syria was allotted to Thomas; another, Hermeas, set out for Egypt; and to this very day they abide in those places, striving everywhere to establish their dogma and sect.

XXXII. These are the things which I thought ought to be set forth from the book of Archelaus mentioned above. And thus was his school and the method of establishing that discipline formed, by which weeds were sown in the world, and

^A its weed-like doctrines were vomited forth. But how much might one offer against such great calumny of this deceiver, as is surely clear to everyone! And even if the language used is not polished for refutation, it will suffice to strike shame into them, that it may be understood that such decrees are defended by them as cannot be consistent with themselves, nor have any force or weight. For the former things are overturned by the later, and the later assert things far different from the former. At one time he wishes the world to have been generated by God, at another by the princes, and that God has no causality in the world, but rather that the world is perishing. At one time he asserts that the firmament is the skins of the princes, at another that they are crucified above in the pole, running about and clouding over, and ^B organs, and shining forth toward the sight of the virgin and the beauty of the youth.

And oh, the great shame! For what is more abominable, more loathsome, and more disgraceful than for the Spirit of truth to fashion the female for itself, and at another time to appear to the princes in the form of a male? For while it is disgraceful for a man to behave wantonly and to be effeminate, and to exist in the form of a female, it is much more disgraceful again for females to act like men and to take on the form of a man. And how will the Spirit of truth and divine reality not be found, by this creator of his, Mani, to be suffering outrage rather than being a power of virtue? And how are those who have been flayed goaded by lust, tell me, O this man? And how, after being crucified, were they flayed? And if they are indeed crucified, how do they run to the vanishing one? And who will endure this blasphemy, of one who defines that we are nourished by the sweats of the princes, and that rain is sent down to us from the excretion of their filth? Whence does he himself drink the potion drawn from the rain together with his own disciples? And how could he not be laughable, bowing to the need of bodily things, drinking sweats? For indeed, while sin is different in kind, the punishment will not be so great for one who sins involuntarily as for one who commits the sin with voluntary intent. For other men, even if it were so—which may it not be, for the madman imagines it—yet those who are ignorant of the sweats and disgraceful excretions, since they water themselves and drink, are more deserving of mercy than he who, pricked by a guilty ^C conscience in vain, yields to the weakness of his own body, using his own potions and other satisfactions of the flesh.

XXXIII. Regarding other things in which he deceived those persuaded by him with a lying mouth.

^A if the soul of a bull is the same, those who eat flesh are more deserving of praise ^B according to their own logic, than those who follow a stricter mode of life. For I fear that, according to his own disjointed way of writing, he might partake of living creatures—beasts and the rest—and become like them himself. Quite the contrary. For if fifty or even a hundred men assemble and are fed from a single bull, according to his vain, slanderous gossip—though it must be said for the sake of refutation—all fifty or hundred are guilty of one soul. But he who eats grains of seed is, in a single swallow, the cause of the consumption of thirty or forty souls. Thus, everything he proposes is absurd and ridiculous.

For to everyone who possesses understanding in the Lord, the proofs of the truth are, of course, evident from the true teaching itself. For there is nothing more true for the revelation of human life than our Savior. But this barbarian Persian ^C comes to us—a slave in his disposition (for otherwise, his bodily slavery would not harm him)—and asserts this: that all souls are equal, and that one soul is found in all things—in humans, in cattle, in wild beasts, in birds, in reptiles, in animals, both winged and sea-dwelling, in creeping things, and in the seeds of crops, in trees, and in all other visible things. But our Lord did not show it thus. For if, when He came to save the human race, He had also cared for the cattle, and had applied the care and treatment of healing to them, and had brought the fallen animals back to life! But He does not relate it so, nor does He teach it so—God forbid! But He knows how to save the souls of men, which, having comprehended in a riddle, He spoke of: *I came not but for the sheep which was lost.* By this saying, He understands the entire human nature. And what more does He say? He healed all who were brought to Him, those who were possessed by the moon and those held by various diseases. They brought to Him the blind, the deaf, the lame, the paralytic, the maimed, and He poured out His benefit and healing upon all; yet nowhere is it written that they brought animals to Him.

Furthermore, when He arrived at the region of the Gergesenes, ^D as Mark asserts, or at their borders, as Luke wrote, or the Gadarenes, as Matthew says, or the Gergesaeans, as some copies have it—for that place was situated in the midst of the three lots: *Behold,* He says, *two demoniacs, very fearsome, coming out of the tombs, cried out saying: What have we to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of God, because Thou hast come before the time to torment us? We know who Thou art, the Holy One of God.* And there was a herd of swine feeding there. And the demons were beseeching Him, saying: If

^A You cast us out of men, send us into the swine. And they rushed into the sea and perished in the waters. And they who were feeding them fled and reported it in the city. And whereas in Matthew it is spoken of two demoniacs. He denotes swine simply, and does not signify the number; but Mark recounted also the precision of the number of swine, saying that He came into the parts of the Gergesenes, and there met Him a demoniac who was bound with iron chains, and he broke asunder the bonds, and dwelt in the tombs, and was crying out: “Let us be; what have we to do with Thee, Jesus, Son of God? Hast Thou come before the time to torment us?” And Jesus asked him: “What is thy name?” And he said: “Legion,” because many demons had entered into him. And they besought Him ^B not to be sent out of the country, but to enter into the swine; for there was a herd of swine feeding there, and He permitted them to enter into the swine. And the herd rushed down the precipice into the sea. For there were about two thousand, and they were drowned in the sea. And they who were feeding them fled and reported it in the city. Did then the Word of God, who became man for our sake, ask out of ignorance, and did He not know the name of the demon before He asked? But the Divine is wont to make manifest the reasons for each matter from the mouth of those who are questioned. So also in this instance, in order to show the dreadfulness and the multitude of the demons, the question is made, so that the wonderful work might be pointed out from his mouth. And the demons besought Him, saying: “Do not send us into the abyss; but permit us to enter into the swine.” And He permitted them; and the demons departed into the swine. And the herd rushed down the precipice into the sea; and they perished in the waters. ^C

XXXIV. O the great kindness of God! How He refutes falsehood, and demonstrates the truth to His servants both through deeds, and through words, and through all His providence. For He showed by deed that the same soul does not exist in men, and in cattle, and in the rest of the animals. For if the same soul existed in them, for what reason—when He desired to cleanse one man, or to save one soul, that of the man possessed by demons—did He not spare two thousand souls together, if it were the same? How does He cleanse the one, or the one soul, yet permits the demons to enter into the other bodies, or rather, souls? Are not the works of light manifest? Are not these words brought forth in light? Is not the face of truth bright? Are not all things plain to those who understand, and straight to those who find knowledge? Who, having heard and compared these things, does not refute Manes, who stitches together what ought not be, for the purpose of twisting the minds of men away from the Truth? But the impious ones ^D continue again. For I have heard a certain person arguing in this way. As he heard from us this treatise, the beastly man turned and thought—

^A what he might possibly object against that divine truth. Therefore, opposing some vain and ridiculous thing to the truth, he believed that he could overthrow it. Thus he asserted: That death was useful for the swine. For in this way the souls were freed and saved from their bodies.

But the folly of such men, who see nothing and are blind in their mind, and do not even seem to hear what is said by themselves, is remarkable. For if one thinks that it is beneficial for souls to be freed from bodies, the Savior would have acted much more wisely if he had cast away the man possessed by demons, so that the soul, having been freed from the human body, might at last obtain salvation. Therefore, he cared more for those souls that were in the swine than for the soul of the man. For by what logic did he not also permit the man, along with the swine, to be cast into the sea and to die, in order to cleanse and save all the souls, both the man’s and the swine’s? ^B But we do not see it this way; rather, he calls Lazarus from the tomb on the fourth day, and raises him, and brings him back into the world, not desiring to bring any evil upon him by that act, nor doing anything absurd or foolish to him. For the Scripture says that he loved Lazarus. If, therefore, he loved him, why did he make him return into the flesh, if the flesh is evil? And why did he not rather leave him who had once died and been saved from the body? Nor should anyone persuade himself that Lazarus died again immediately. For the Holy Gospel clearly declares that Jesus reclined at table, and that Lazarus also reclined with him. But we also find in the Traditions that Lazarus was thirty years old at that time when he was raised from the dead. And after being raised he lived another thirty years; and thus he departed to the Lord, having fallen asleep, and was called by a reverent name, just as all are until the hour of the resurrection, when the Only-Begotten is about, as he promised, to restore body to soul and soul to body, and to render to each according to what he has done, whether good or evil.

^C XXXV. For if there were not one day to be a resurrection of bodies, whence would come the gnashing of teeth? But lest some again respond with those insane voices, that teeth are fashioned for us for the purpose of chewing. What food, then, are we about to eat after the resurrection of the dead? For if, after the resurrection, Jesus ate a second time, and of broiled fish, and of honeycomb, and lived with the disciples for forty days; shall we not think that there will be food at that time too? Although it is clear from this regarding food, because it is written: Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of heaven. And the promise of the Lord himself is also clear: You shall be sitting at the table of my Father, eating ^D and drinking. And as for the eating and drinking, that pertains to Him alone.

for what eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, those things which God has prepared for them that love Him. ^A But since we have arrived at this point, explaining the differences between souls, and those things which arise from the truth itself, and being a truly complete model, that the soul of a man is one thing, and that of a beast another; and that He did not come to save the soul of a beast, but of a man; because beasts are not judged. For humans indeed inherit the kingdom of heaven, and humans are judged. For these shall go away into eternal punishment, and these into eternal life, says the Only-begotten.

^B XXXVI-XL. What then of these investigators of questions? When they arrive at them, and do not grasp the clarity of the literal meaning, they are troubled, conceiving things that are contradictory to themselves, rather than seeking what is useful to themselves. For Matthew says, two demoniacs; but Luke tells of one. And indeed one of the evangelists says that the robbers who were crucified with him blasphemed him; but the other indicates not only that both did not blaspheme, but even gives a defense by one. For he rebuked the other, and said, Do you not fear God, seeing that we are in the same condemnation? And this holy man did nothing. And further, in addition to these things, he cried out, saying: Remember me, Jesus, when you come into your kingdom. And the Savior said to him, Truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in paradise. These things appear as if they have some discrepancy in Scripture. But all things are smooth. For even if there are two demoniacs in Matthew, they are the same in Luke. But because it is the custom of Scripture to provide the causes for what has been done, for this reason Luke does not mention the two, but only one. For there were two who had been healed from the demons; but one remained in the faith, and the other fell away. Therefore, because of his remaining in the faith, he followed Jesus, as the Gospel has it, to whatever place he was going. For this reason he omitted the one, and mentioned the one who was in the kingdom of heaven; and nothing is contrary to the discovery of truth.

^D XLI. And not unlike this argument which we are discussing is that which is narrated in the Gospel, as coming from the same author. The Lord cleansed ten lepers, and the nine who went away did not give glory to God; but the one who returned remained, who is also praised by the Lord, as he said: Ten lepers were cleansed; why did not even one of them return to give

^A glory to God, but only this foreigner? You see how, on account of his sensitive nature and the work of gratitude, he remembers the one instead of the ten?

Similarly, since one evangelist mentioned the robbers—for we are accustomed to speak of singulars in the plural, and plurals in the singular. We say, for instance, "We have told you, and we have seen you, and we have come to you," when there are not two people speaking, but one who is present. But that one person, according to the custom of common usage, speaks from the persona of many in the plural. Thus, the theme of the Gospel has employed the plural. The other evangelist recounts that while one was a blasphemer, the other confessed and obtained salvation. You see how all things of the truth are clear, and nothing in Scripture is contradictory or repugnant. But while we have gone into these things at length, drawn from the Scriptures, the account has gone on, I believe, for a longer time than necessary. And yet I would willingly labor in extending my speech further, while the enemies of the truth are being refuted, and the sons of the truth are delighted by its medicinal remedies.

XLII. Now let us look at the remaining points of this charlatan. ^B For he asserts that the two Testaments are contrary to one another, and that the God who spoke in the Law is different from the God of the Gospel. Therefore, he calls the former a "prince," but the latter he calls the Son, and he names Him the good God, the Father. If only he had spoken the truth, and not, deceived by error, uttered such contumelious words against God upon his own head! We, however, willingly assent to these very things he said, and we profess this: that the good offspring of a good Father, light from light, God from God, true God from true God, came to us for the sake of our salvation. He came into His own things, not into another's, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, He gave them power to become children of God, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God.

Yet no one in the world was born without flesh and blood; rather, all have been born as participants in flesh and blood. For what were we before we were born with flesh? Or what can we be without flesh? But since the world was made by God, and we were created by the same and born in the flesh of our parents, the Lord came so that He might beget us of the Spirit and fire. We have been born; this is most certainly true; and no one can abjure that first generation, or deny that they were propagated from flesh. ^C But as for the second generation, we have not obtained it from flesh or blood—that is to say, we have not received it from the use of flesh or blood; rather, after we have been born of the Spirit, we no longer have a carnal flesh and soul, but blood and flesh and soul are conjoined in a certain spiritual way. And that is the very thing which is said: He gave them power to become children of God, to those who, having changed their mind for the better, accommodate their flesh, blood, and soul to the will of God. ^D

Now, he who has come to his own is not alien, but the Lord of all. For this reason he says: "I who spoke in the prophets, behold, I am here." And to the Jews he said: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me." Also: "Abraham our father rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and he was glad." And: "So your fathers treated the prophets." And: "Blessed are ^A you when they shall revile you and speak all manner of evil against you falsely; rejoice and be glad, because your reward is great in heaven. For so did they persecute the prophets who were before you." And in another place: "Jerusalem, that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it, how often would I have gathered your children!" The "how often" shows that he had taken care to gather her through the prophets. For if he, in rebuking her, says that she kills the prophets, it follows that he took care of the prophets. Now, he who takes care of the prophets was not concerned about them as if ^B they were another’s, but as his own. And to this relates that saying: "The blood which has been shed will be required from the blood of Abel down to Zacharias the Just, who was poured out between the temple and the altar." And: "Having made all things, he overturned the tables of the money-changers, and said: 'Do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.'" And he said to those around Mary and Joseph: "Why were you seeking me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?" And the Gospel immediately adds that he said: "Do not make my Father’s house ^C a house of trade," as it says: "And his disciples remembered that it was written: The zeal of your house has eaten me up."

XLII. And how much might be said from such Gospels and from the apostles for the refutation of the madness of Manes, and how he wishes to divide and alienate the Old Testament from the New—the Old testifying concerning the Savior, and the Savior acknowledging the Old Testament? Not only this, but the apostles themselves also do so, as David says: "The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand." If, then, he calls him Lord, how is he his son? And again, in another place it says: "Of the children crying out 'Hosanna to the Son of David,' and he did not rebuke them." The ^D Pharisees say: "Do not you hear what these are saying? Restrain them." But he said to them: "If these should keep silent, the stones will cry out." For he is indeed the son of David according to the flesh, but Lord of David according to the spirit, both these statements being possible and true. For there is nothing counterfeited in the truth.

But that I may not lengthen this subject, I shall be content with these testimonies. I shall move on to other matters, refuting the impostor. If the body

^A is of one God, and the soul of another, O man, what communion is there between them both? I fear, indeed, into what a depth of contemplation my poor and insignificant mind is attempting to peer. Therefore, I shall curb myself, that I may not create too much labor for those who are able to read. And it is possible to refute the charlatan from a single piece of evidence. For things that are at variance with one another cannot share in the same thing; rather, it is the work of one, or at least the operation of two friends. Since, therefore, the body and the soul come together into one, that must be considered the work of one God. For there is no division, since both conspire fittingly and agree together in action. But if, according to his teaching, the rulers devoured the soul and made this body a shackle for it, how do they shut up into a body that which has already been devoured? For everything that is eaten is consumed; and what is consumed passes away into non-existence. That which passes into non-existence and no longer is, is neither enclosed in any place, nor does it exist, nor will there be a place of imprisonment for that which does not exist.

^B XLIV. But it often happens to this man that, forgetful of his own opinion, he no longer remembers what he said before, and what he once established, he unwittingly overthrows again. For at one time, he maintains that the soul, having been devoured, is enclosed within the bodies that exist in this world; at another, he defines it as having been snatched away by the rulers from on high, out of the armory of the good God, so that it is no longer devoured but has been carried off into captivity. Sometimes he also asserts that it is a captive; and he does not speak consistently, but weaves a different kind of narrative altogether. Indeed, he thinks of it as a kind of bait cast out by the higher power of its own accord, not otherwise than as men are accustomed to throw a kid into a pit for the sake of catching a wild beast, which, enticed by this bait, might be captured to seize the prey. But if that heavenly power — that is, the good God, or the light, as he calls it — sent forth this thing as a kid of its own ^C virtue, even if it catches the beast, it is necessary first that the kid be consumed. And thus, that heavenly power will inflict a greater injury upon itself, having cast a part of itself as fodder for the beast, so that by the portion with which it has mutilated itself, it might seem to have captured the beast; and it will no longer be powerful, supreme, and mighty, so as to subject the beast to its own authority by word or will; but rather, it devises many things craftily and deceitfully, so that it might be able to prevail over the beast. And if the beast is utterly captured, it would have already cast away the kid that had been devoured, or it might be able to capture the whole thing. For if the higher power sent the soul ^D into this place, so that through the soul it might fetter the principalities and capture the powers, its purpose did not turn out as it had intended. For if it sent the soul to hunt and capture, it has itself been captured; and when it came to ensnare, it has been entangled in its own nets: since, being derived from a most pure nature, it first fell into the bonds of the body of matter, and then also into many of the sins

^A of the perverse, and the entire teaching of the wretch is refuted from every side.

XLV. Let us now look at this "Mother of Life," whom he claims was brought forth by the Power, and who, with the First Man, created the five elements—which, according to his opinion, are wind, light, water, fire, and matter. Clothed in these, he says, that man descended to the lower regions to prepare for war and to battle against the darkness. For the princes of the darkness, fighting against him, consumed a part of his armor—which is the soul. O the buffoonery of an ignorant mime! O the mockery of a story worthy of all derision and laughter! ^B Everywhere he attaches weakness to the divine nature, and everywhere he binds with abysmal ignorance the God who knows all things. For he who brought forth the Mother of Life—according to his own argument—is either ignorant of what things are to be accomplished by the Mother of Life, or, if they are accomplished contrary to the expectation of his mind, the things that have happened are found to be otherwise, which brings reproach upon him. For he would be convicted of ignorance—the one who thought that one thing would come to pass, and later learned that something else had occurred, contrary to his will.

As for that Mother of Life, whom he calls a Power, ^C and wants to have been brought forth by him, how shameful it is to call her a "Mother of Life"! For no one endowed with sound judgment can admit that anything feminine could be conceived in the Divine nature. Yet this man even claims that the first man was procreated by this female. And, to say it in a word, he has invented both the First Man and the Mother of Life in the likeness of things that we see happening among us. For a man is called [the offspring of] a father on earth, and there is a mother who bore us from the earth, and who was divinely created for Adam. But this beastly man imagines, from his own ^D notions, that things in heaven are such as they are here on the earth.

These things are not admitted, as the divine Word teaches us in every way. For It speaks of "celestial bodies" and "terrestrial bodies," but "the glory of the celestial is one thing, and the glory of the terrestrial is another" (1 Cor. xv, 40). And in this way, he spoke entirely of things above the heavens. But [Scripture] discoursed concerning these visible things that exist as bodies—I mean the sun or the moon, or the things that are on the earth, and the bodies of the saints—as we, being lowly, understand them. But if there were to be any discourse concerning things above the heavens, on account of the very profound depths of the Apostle's knowledge, we do not assert anything for certain. He mentioned mostly terrestrial things; how much more [is this true of] things above the heaven? By what means could they be compared with terrestrial things, oh man?

XLVI. Now, as for claiming that the first man again prepared for himself as armor the wind, the light, the fire, the water, and matter, in order that—if the First Man is indeed from above, and came down hither to prepare this armor for himself, and to bring forth [original-script column: see facsimile] the equipment—it might be possible...

^A for these lower things to be more powerful than he who came down from above, from the heavenly realms. For the water is that which is seen, and the light is that which appears, and the matter is that which, according to you, is being corrupted, and the wind is that which sounds within us, and this fire which we all use without hindrance for our needs. And if he makes war against the rulers by means of such things, what is the strategy of the war? Tell us: who shall sound the trumpet for us, serving as the leader of the war? Shall we break through the phalanxes, shall we set up the battle-lines against those of that war? Who shall be the first to cast a dart against the one who has raved so fiercely against the substance of the Principalities and Powers? Is it the wind that makes war, O you? Or the matter which, according to your opinion, is corrupted? Or the fire which was prepared by the Lord for our use? Or the light which retreats before the darkness in turn, according to the intervals of time ordained by God? Or the water? Tell us, I pray, in what manner these things—which are but empty babblings on your part—could fight. For we see that, through these very things, both good and evil are brought about. For in fire, sacrifices are made to idols, and the fire does not refuse, nor does it hinder the sin. By the water of the sea, those who worship demons make libations, and no one has ever been prevented by the water from performing the work of total ignorance. And how many pirates have committed murders in the waters of the sea? So far is the water from being hostile to the "princes of wickedness," as you say, that it is rather an assistant; the fault lies not with the water itself, but with the man himself, to whom the cause of his own sin must be attributed. O what great nonsense and absurdity you utter!

What, then, did that structure of armor and that defense of the elements profit that first man, when he had descended to do battle and was overcome and defeated by the darkness? For this is your own discourse: that the man, oppressed and afflicted in these lower regions—the man who, for that reason, had prayed to him—was heard by the Father, and that He sent forth another power produced by Him, which he calls the "living spirit." Put away your mask, O Menander, you composer of comedy! For though you are clearly a man of this sort, you seek a hiding-place nonetheless, relating to us mere tales of adulteries and drunkenness. For there is nothing upright or modest in your teaching. You introduce the fables of the Greeks in place of the truth, and you deceive your followers. I believe, indeed, that Hesiod was wiser than you when he discoursed upon those fables in his *Theogony*, and likewise Orpheus and Euripides. For they, no matter how ridiculous the things they recounted, made it manifest that, as they were poets, they had deliberately fabricated things that did not exist. You, however, in order to make your error more plausible, palm off these falsehoods as truth.

XLVII. Therefore, you say that this living spirit descended from heaven to extend its right hand to the first man, and to lead him out from the darkness—that man, I say, who was in danger in this lower world. And you say that, when he had descended in order to deliver the soul that had been consumed, and was not able to rescue it, he himself—the very one, I say, who had come to sa-

- ^A ve, was in danger, and had need of another who was sent in turn for his salvation. How much more, then, was the soul in danger, for whose sake the first man who had been sent had come and fallen into danger? But you also teach that a second was sent to save—the one you call the living spirit himself—on account of repentance. Did the Father, then, send another still stronger, so that he might be the savior of the first man? Or did he not know that the first was incapable, and, supposing that he would save him who was in danger, did he later, having learned through experience, bring forth and send another? Most absurd are the things you say, O Manichæan, and your dogma is altogether incoherent and full of nonsense.

He claims, furthermore, that the spirit having descended to the earth gave his right hand, and raised up the first man who was in danger of his salvation. On account of this, he delivered a certain mystery to his own disciples, that when they happen upon one another they should offer the right hand, as a sign that they declare themselves to be delivered from darkness. For he claims that all things except himself alone are involved in darkness. Indeed, even the blind are often called "those who see" by those who have sight, for the sake of avoiding an ill omen.

XLVIII.

- ^A -ic, which has no consistency with the truth. As in all things, it has assailed us as an enemy, or rather it has assailed you yourself and those who receive your opinions.

XLIX. But he also professes this: After he had crucified the rulers in the globe, he produced the stars, which are the remains of the soul. For he did not say "the soul," but only "the remains of the soul." O vain and absurd decree! O false and completely inconsistent words! For all remains are some parts of the whole, and it is necessary that the whole be greater than these parts. Therefore, if the stars themselves are the remains, I would wish him to show us something greater than the stars themselves, so that we may see the soul. But if the whole itself has been devoured and consumed, and the stars themselves are its remains, since these are inferior to the rulers who were nailed to the cross, eventually they too will be devoured; for the rulers, as I have said, occupy the upper seats. But if, because they are nailed to the cross, they can keep neither the soul nor the stars, then your entire ^B empty and forged narrative, O Manichæan, collapses.

The same man continues and discourses thus: After he had rebuked the Carrier (Bajulus), he says, Matter also produced all its own stocks. When the rulers had despoiled these, the great prince then summoned all the other primary rulers, and received from them one power each; then he fashioned man according to the pattern of that first man, and bound the soul within him. This is the hypothesis of the commixture. But when the living Father, he says, saw the soul afflicted in the body, being compassionate and merciful, he sent his beloved Son for the salvation of the soul. For he says that for this reason, and for the sake of the Carrier, he was sent. Moreover, the Son, as soon as he arrived, transformed himself into the shape and form of a man, so that he appeared to men as a man, and men believed him to have been born. Having come, then, and having designed his work for the salvation of men, he constructed a machine containing twelve buckets, which, being revolved by the rotation of the globe, draws up the souls of the dying. And catching these with his rays, the great luminary purifies them and transmits them to the moon; and thus the disk of the moon, which we call so, is filled. ^{C D}

L. Do you see how great is the vanity of this impostor and the forgetfulness contracted as if from drunkenness? For he does not remember any longer what he said before, and what he seems to have said, he changes and destroys, and subverts his own doctrines. For at one time he discourses in one way and at another in another, so that he overthrows his earlier statements with his later ones, and restores what he had overthrown at the beginning; so that he clearly declares that he is not in possession of his senses, but is driven by an unclean spirit and babbles one thing after another after the manner of those who are delirious. For if, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, he speaks...

it happened many years after the luminaries were produced, or that machine of the twelve ^A buckets came into existence. For ever since the stars were created they have been in heaven, whether they choose to call them elements, or spaces and measures of the heavens. Nevertheless, from the fourth day of the creation of the world all things were well-ordered, and nothing was done to the detriment of those things held under the dominion of God. But the coming of Christ began its preaching in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, in the thirtieth year of his birth, which reaches the five thousand five hundred and ninth year of the creation of the world, and the thirtieth year of his age, and the thirty-third until the cross. How, therefore, could these exist in heaven from the beginning, both the luminaries and the stars? But if he says that by coming before this he made these things, his babbling is groundless. For before man existed upon the earth, the things he calls elements appeared, and the twelve buckets wrongly so-called, and the machine, if he wishes to dazzle those who have been led astray by him with gratifying names.

^B LI. For to everyone who possesses understanding, it is manifest from Scripture itself and from the sequence of events that, before Adam, the first-formed man, was fashioned, all the stars and luminaries were created on the fourth day. But this man says, as he asserts, "He came to manufacture the twelve buckets in the likeness of man, and appeared to men as man," and although he is ignorant, [even] while he thinks he is saying something about the dispensation that happened from the beginning, and as a blind man leading himself, he leads those blinded by him into the falsehoods that proceed from him. But when the truth is present and opens the eyes of the wise, it brings his babbling to ridicule. For to what men could he have appeared, who did not yet exist? Or how could he have appeared in the likeness of man, seeing that he had not taken a body? And if indeed ^C he was fulfilling this while appearing in the incarnate coming, but not being so in reality, the things were therefore a mere phantom (δόκησις). So he did not appear, nor did he come. For if he was not when he came, he did not come from the beginning either. But if he was thought to be a man, and yet was not a man, why did they invent that the Word of God appeared as a man when he was not? Unless, perhaps, he wanted to shape himself, dragging himself forth like one who is in debt to lenders, so that he might be able to escape the notice of those looking for him. But if he also appeared, and yet was not, what kind of truth was this? For in truth there is no falsehood, as the Only-Begotten says concerning himself: "I am the truth and the life." And the life ^D has no death. And the truth is not dissolved by any logic.

^A subject to any change, lest it cease to be truth, becoming perturbed. And thus the whole tragedy of his system falls to the ground. For the stars were not created after the advent of the Lord, nor did human beings exist before the stars were created. And from this side and that, the impostor Manichæus is refuted, as I have already shown above.

LII. Now regarding the ^B myth of the moon, he claims that its sphere is filled by souls that have been received. But tell me, how could that same sphere have been filled before any human being died on earth? If, after the nine hundred and thirty years that Adam lived, when he was the first to depart from this life, how could a single soul have filled the sphere? Or what else were those nine hundred and thirty years, or the times in general, to be called, if the moon were not filling and waning and completing the course ordained for it—not receiving its fullness from souls, but having the ordinance of His wisdom from God? But he says that all animals are filled by this same soul, so as to make equal and alike the soul of a man, and of a mouse, and of a worm, and of the other vilest bodies in their formation.

The rest of his chatter is ^C likewise clouded by the same absurdities, as when the maiden appears to the archons, sometimes in the form of a man, and sometimes in a woman's form. In inventing this, as it were, hermaphrodite of a demon, he expresses nothing but his own lust and passion. Then he says that as often as the great prince is captivated by the allurements of this maiden, he spreads out his clouds and sends forth a plague, and begins to cut the roots, from which death ensues. And the stupid man does not perceive that what he calls death in his reproach, he ought rather to have called life, because by its benefit souls are liberated from bodies. But if the archons thought the soul was enclosed in the body as in a prison, the supreme [archon] would never commit the act of letting go from the prison the soul which he claims was seized by him by force. How great is the vanity in these deceits and ludicrous teachings!

LIII. The rest are worthy of no less laughter, but especially those whom they call "the Elect." And they are in truth ^D chosen by the devil for condemnation, so that what is written is fulfilled: "And his food is choice." For they, sitting about like drones, do no work, but are busybodies, understanding nothing at all. To them the holy Apostle denounces in these words (for he knew them by prophetic inspiration), showing that they proceed not from the instruction of God, but from the devil's teaching: thunderstruck fools, idle, and persistent in the wickedness they have embraced. Speaking of them, therefore, he says: "If anyone will not work, neither let him eat," so as to cast a shadow over the practice of these loafers. They urge their own catechumens, therefore, to provide them with food abundantly. And they offer whatever is needed to their "elect," so that they may appear pious by feeding the souls that have been chosen. The

But these men—and it is ridiculous even to say it—in place of the prayer which they ought to have offered for their benefactors, instead perform a kind of imprecation, testifying by this that the impropriety of those who give is greater than their probity. For they speak as follows: "I did not sow you, I did not reap you, I did not grind you, I did not put you into the oven; another brought it, and I ate; I am without fault." And they thus condemn their own feeders of wrongdoing. And rightly and deservedly so. For he who abjures God, by whom all things were made, is unworthy to be fed by the gifts of God in this mocking and derisory manner. Furthermore, although they do not dare to prune the grapes, they still eat them, so that it is thoroughly obvious that they are driven by drunkenness and intemperance rather than by any reception of the truth. For what is more egregious? The one who harvests cuts the bunch once; but the one who eats, by using their teeth and by crushing every single berry, has tortured and cut it ^B far more multiply. And the person who chews and consumes is no longer the same as the one who cuts it just once; rather, they do this only so they may seem to be glorifying the extent to which it possesses evidence of the truth.

LIV. Regarding the Paradise which he calls the world.

^A LV. Furthermore, he discourses on the transition of souls from one body to another, a lie which he seems to have collected from Plato, or Zeno the Stoic, or some other from among those fanatics. For truly, how can the soul be transferred from body to body? If bodies were long since formed and prepared to receive souls, that stage-play of a fable might perhaps offer something plausible. But now, since that which is sown is but a tiny drop, I do not see how the soul finds such vast abundance and fullness in so small a body; for this is how all those things that are eventually concocted are concocted. Thus, there is no place for this narrative of his; nor are souls poured from one body into another. For without the mutual union of male and female, nothing in any species of animal is formed by propagation. Does the soul therefore stand in such a state that it completes this charade of that charlatan through the coupling of both bodies? Surely those who have devised such things even in their thoughts must have a marvelous stupidity. For our part, lest we change what is august and religious, it has seemed sufficient to have sketched, as if from a distance, the appearance of this argument. Wherefore I shall pass over this pernicious and destructive opinion. For all such dogmas are utter absurdities. ^B For if souls change bodies for bodies, so that one who was once a man later exists as a dog, why is it that a dog is not born from a man or an ox? Or why is not a bird begotten? Nay, on the contrary, if such a monster of this kind were to arise in the space of infinite time, it is held to be a portent. Yet nature itself holds itself within its own bounds, and neither changes the nature of man, or of any beast, in a manner contrary to what it itself requires, but in each species the same quality and condition remains perpetually. If, then, one body cannot arise from another in place of a different one, how much more impossible is it for the soul of a man to transgress into another body? ^C But what, he says, is the reason for this mutation? It is, of course, so that if, while it was in a man, it did not perceive the knowledge of the truth, then, having been introduced into a dog or a horse, and having been tamed and having obtained understanding, it might return again into a human body, and thus, having gained knowledge, be received up into the disc of the moon. And it is a wondrous thing to see that, while dwelling in a man—among whom are schools, grammarians, sophists, and countless multitudes of arts, and speech, and hearing, and eloquence—the soul existed in ignorance, but when it became a swine, it understood more! That he might show his own [the heretic's] profession of knowledge to be more suited to swine, on account of his own error and impiety. Such is the error and impiety of the man.

^D LVI. Regarding the fabrication of Adam, the same man, while disputing, weaves together other errors in place of others with the same license for wandering. For he asserts: The one who said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness," added something, and thus conceived, "Come, let us make," which is not read in Scripture, but that alone: "Let us make man in our image and likeness." But not only the Apostle, but the Lord Himself also in the Gospel, when the Pharisees said to Him that it is not good for man to be alon...

alone, ^A and that Moses commanded to give a bill of divorce and to cast out the wife: the Lord, bringing the refutation upon the Pharisees, said: "Moses wrote because of the hardness of your hearts; but from the beginning it was not so. But He that made them, made them male and female." And He said: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh." And He immediately adds, saying: "If therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." In this He confesses God, that is, His own Father, to have been the Creator of Adam and Eve, and the author of honest marriage. Consistent with this is what the herald of truth, the Apostle, testifies: "This mystery is great; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church," so that it pertains to the likeness of Adam and of Eve, who were created by God. For when God had created them, Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. For this cause shall a man leave," etc. Indeed, He built her rib into a woman, and the Apostle does not think it something different, but calls it a "great mystery." And while in the case of the man and woman it refers to procreation, in its higher sense it is carried forward through allegory. ^B

With what face, then, does the Manichaean pronounce those same things detestable and alien to the truth of God, and attribute things created by God to some prince, not without the greatest insult to God, and lead minds away from the truth itself? Furthermore, he says: "Since the soul, torn away from on high from the beginning, causes affliction and distress to the higher power, for this reason He sends down once for all, and plunders from the princes its own remnant, which is the soul, through these luminaries." Great indeed are our hopes, and great our expectation, if the good, living, and powerful God is not able to save—I do not say His own power drawn from Himself—but those things created and fashioned by Him, unless by some other method, and by secretly plundering back, through theft, the power torn away from Him from the heavens, as this charlatan says, He is not able to save us. ^C

LVII.

sacrifice, and fine flour for a burnt offering. But if that prince of darkness [had been the one to command this], the Word who came down from above, the Son of God, who came to turn man back from the error of the rulers, according to the teaching of Manes, would never have prepared the leper whom He had healed to be subject to him, but rather would have prepared him to flee from him, teaching him not to perform this. But He did not come to destroy the Law—for He Himself gave the Law—nor the prophets, but to fulfill it, so that He might display the fulfillment of the Law and the prophets as being the firm foundation of the Gospel. For although the prophets worshipped the same God and the Law was given by Him, nowadays the worship of the same God is not accomplished through the same gifts, but ^B through prayers, thanksgivings, and the other forms of service. For to those of old, as to servants, He laid down heavy commands, because in that way they were able to be persuaded; but to those in the Gospel, as to free men, He commanded lighter things, because of the superabundance of His philanthropy. Since there is but one God—the God of the Law and of the Gospel—in agreement with Himself, and neither the service of one time nor the other has been set aside or dissolved, the one and same God is He who rules over the whole age, being served by His servants in every generation as befits His philanthropy. Thus, the error of that man is refuted from every side, since the Savior permitted the things of the Law to be performed; and after permitting the things of the Law to be performed, He released the things of the Law—not by destroying them, but by fulfilling them—permitting new offerings to be brought to God in place of those in the Law, that is, those of piety, goodness, chastity, and a more accurate way of life.

LVIII. Manichaeus goes on to say again ^C that the old man will come, and will display his image in the last days; and then the "Burdens-bearer," recognizing his face, will abandon the earth, and thus the eternal fire will consume the earth. And that stupid man does not perceive that he makes that same [earth], which he claimed was mixed with matter, the very thing he had contended a little earlier was created by the living Spirit. Yet he none the less assumes that the entire universe will be consumed by fire. "And then," he says, "after these things, the restoration of the two natures will return to their archetypal state combined into one." O what great labor, and after such labor, to have nothing improved by it! For if, after being built and brought into being, this world is to be consumed and vanish, so that the archetypes may remain again in the identity of the two natures—the good and the bad—it will happen ^D that the evil one will strive again to turn back and join battle, to seize another power so that another world may come into being. But if this does not happen again, then malice will have come to its senses, so as no longer to strive against goodness, and the evil god will raise no more war against the good one. But if he is ever to come to his senses, he will no longer be evil, since he has changed and been transformed from his ancient nature of wickedness. But if the nature of evil is changeable, then surely [it follows] that from evil...

^A it may be changed into good, and the nature which has the capacity for change will no longer be evil. For it is possible for it to be changed even today, and while evil still exists, the wicked [nature] will be transformed into good.

And by what logic is he who is destined to change not already changing? And if the wicked one is changed by the contrivance of God so that he can no longer perform evil, the wicked one is no longer the cause of himself, but rather the Good One, who is able to restrain his wickedness and yet was not willing to do in advance of the time what belongs to the time. But if evil is altogether immutable, it will never cease to wage war and be warred upon; and there will never be a state of the two natures, for if evil remains immutable and continues to be worn down, it would [only] demonstrate wickedness to the Good and stir up war against Goodness. And if evil is always being rubbed against by a desire for the good, it will then no longer be evil, since, by longing for the good, it wishes to draw the good to itself, so that by means of the nature of the Good and its own panoply, having drawn power to itself, it might seem in this to honor and brighten itself, and to be encouraged and strengthened. For in anyone who desires the good, it is certain that the thought lies within based on a good intention; and the wicked [nature] will no longer be altogether wicked when it is found longing for the good. For every wicked thing has an aversion to the good, just as the good does not desire the wicked. But if the power of both exists in a mixture, and the Good One understands how to strip [the wicked one] of his own, and to wage war and strip away the principalities and powers, and sometimes to destroy and wipe out the matter generated by the wicked one, and sometimes to create from it, and sometimes to destroy, [then this is but] the wickedness and unstable narrative of the chatter brought upon us by this damnable man.

^C LIX. Come now, let us speak as well concerning the nature of evil, and once more resuming the discourse, tell us, O man, you who have come from the time of the Emperor Aurelian to this present time, and who strive to explain the things that were before all ages, which are not set forth by the oracles of the prophets, nor taught by the Savior himself, nor by the apostles, unless perhaps you might prattle on, putting forward and proposing for yourself certain fabricated books written in the name of the saints. Whence, I pray you, do you bring us that ancient origin of evil? For when he was questioned by us whether he deemed it ^D mutable or immutable, we learned that it was posited by him as immutable, or rather, that it is defined at times as mutable and at times as immutable—so much so that it cannot be changed toward evil, but can be changed toward good—so that from both these definitions he deserves to be a mockery to the human race. For if wickedness was immutable for infinite ages, and held that one name alone, and nothing else besides evil, who was it that, after many ages, turned...

^A that immutable nature of evil so as to change toward things that were not its due? For if it had not yet seized upon power, nor fought a battle, nor taken up armor for its own efficacy and for food, it was destined ^B—having been for many ages without food and in no need of food—to change from being the one that was in no need of food to arriving at food, and seeking that which it once did not seek, and needing that which it once did not need; but what if, rather, it changed its nature? And how, in your view, will the immutability of evil be established? But if it should return again to its own condition, no longer having what to eat, how can that one, who has become habituated again to eating and using food, be able to endure and persist for the time to come without food? For if, not having been accustomed to food, it was not able to maintain itself, but was driven to seek pasture, and finally, having preyed upon the soul, misused it for food—where it has indulged in the habit of foods, it will be much less able to restrain itself; nor can it, by any reasoning, once it has begun to experience their sweetness, contain itself from them, as your argument, being inconsistent, would wish to persuade.

LX. But I shall pass over this point and extend my account to other ravings of the same man. For he says again that in that last time the rulers will be in their own parts, and the Father will recover His own parts. ^C Who, then, is this fair one, who would measure the boundary of each part as if with a surveyor’s rod? Or how will he be persuaded, he who from the beginning would not obey the truth and the good? And if you say that the good will compel the lawless one by necessity to remain in his own domain, and not to encroach upon the portion of the good, why was he not able to do this from the beginning, before the parts were pillaged from him at all? Or how will the two be together, each holding his own part? For if he has parts at all, and other parts are not his, the Almighty will no longer be called Almighty, nor will He be the God of all, nor will the evil one be subject to the good, but each of them will have his own dominion. Of what, then, will the evil one be master, when the world no longer exists, nor the living beings and men under his dominion? ^D But if he is essentially evil, and matter and corruption, how is it that he himself is not corrupted? For if, from that time, the existing evil was corruption, and it corrupts other things, but does not corrupt itself, it no longer exists as corruptible; for it is one thing that corrupts others, while this remains eternal and is not destroyed. But while it remains in solid substance, and corrupts the rest but not itself, it has nothing to allow to remain, but the corruption of the others must essentially corrupt those other things. And as its own substance persists, it will no longer allow any of existing things to remain, but it alone will remain; and the things being corrupted by it will vanish. But if it is evil to itself, and corruption to itself, its substance will no longer be established. I would say this not only for the future, but that it would have vanished from that time,

for it could not have acted otherwise than to destroy itself by the ruin it brought upon itself. Such are the trifles and fables of this most foolish man. Having perceived this, do you, O prudent ones—nurtured by the holy Church of God and the faith of the Lord—judge for yourselves what kind of a charlatan he is, and deride his dreams. For he has recourse to certain arguments and occasions wrongly expressed from the sacred Scriptures due to some slight resemblance; these, while meaning something else, are poorly twisted by him into a contrary sense. Therefore, let us bring forward these very things which were furtively snatched by him from the sacred Letters and accommodated to his own opinion, using the selfsame words. Although we have most accurately refuted him by disputing from these same texts quite often.

^A LXI. In the first place, therefore, since he found the name of the Paraclete in the divine Scriptures, and was ignorant of the power of the holy Paraclete, he substituted himself for the true Spirit. And so he teaches that those things which are said by the Apostle Paul pertain to himself, as the holy Apostle has said: *We know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.* ^B Yet the holy Apostle, who was deemed worthy of that very holy Spirit along with his fellow apostles, does not set this forth at all concerning the Paraclete; rather, he was discoursing about two worlds, the present and the future, as I said, for those who wished to understand concerning the times. *Let nothing,* he says, *terrify you by word, or by epistle, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. For unless the son of lawlessness be revealed, the man of injustice,* and the rest. And again, when the disciples met with the Savior and were asking Him about the consummation, He said to them: *It is not for you to know the times or the moments, which the Father hath put in his own power; but you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you.* And again He said: ^C *Do not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Spirit, which you have heard,* that is, the Spirit the Paraclete, of whom He said: *If I go, He will come, and will teach you all things.* But the phrase, *He will teach you all things*, is to be referred to that heavenly gift which they were about to obtain, namely, that the Holy Spirit would dwell in them, so that He might openly declare to them all things which they were able to contain in this present age. And here, having contained Him in this age, they prophesied by the Spirit the Paraclete, just as Agabus prophesied concerning the famine that was to come; and that prophets descended from Jerusalem; and that there were four daughters to Philip who prophesied. But when they prophesy, ^D they prophesy in part, and they know in part. But that which is perfect, they await in hope and expectation for the ages to come, when the corruptible shall have been changed into incorruption, and the mortal into immortality, when we shall see Him face to face. For now our things are perceived through enigmas

but then that which the eye has not seen here will be prepared. There perfection is revealed, which the ear here has by no means heard. There the great gift is bestowed upon the saints, which here has not ascended into the heart of man. And you see that it was not for Manes that this higher knowledge was stored up. For how would Manes know these things, having fallen from his own purpose? For he set out to deceive Marcellus. He came to Archelaus that he might defeat him, yet he could not. How then can he who was ignorant of a recent event know of greater things? And why did he not escape the hands of the king of the Persians, since he was captured by him and punished? It is manifest to those who possess some prudence that he lied in all things.

^B LXII. But he presses another testimony, so that he may affirm that pair of principles which he holds, and he vainly divides them between the two origins, in the words of the Savior: "A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For the tree is known by its fruit." [Matt. VII, 18, 20] See the levity of the man, who is able to penetrate nothing more deeply in the Scriptures. For if those principles are trees, they therefore have their own husbandman, and since they are plants, they have certainly been planted by someone. But whatever has been planted has a beginning, and consequently will have an end. Thus, the corrupt tree did not exist perpetually, but was planted at some time. Nor must this good tree be referred to every kind of supreme goodness. For there truly exists in God a certain, faultless, and immutable goodness, ^C as it is the thought of God, gifted with an inexplicable honor. Whether it can be applied to the production of plants is something we must see and argue. For if we are talking about the devil, we have often shown that he was not evil from the beginning; for God created nothing evil, and this is manifest to the prudent. And though we are engaged in the same argument, we will not be weary of proving the truth even at present. Therefore, the devil was not evil in the beginning, but became evil afterward. Wherefore, the argument proposed concerning the tree has no place here. For we see that Saul was a persecutor, and then suffered persecution for the name he once persecuted. Conversely, we see Judas, ^D chosen with the twelve apostles, afterward fall away and be gathered into an evil faction. Indeed, we observe Rahab the harlot, also, hitherto an alien from the race of Israel, after repentance receive the mercy of God. We see even the thief, caught in transgression and lifted upon the cross, after confession enter into paradise together with the Lord. Furthermore, we see Nicolas, a man who was good and chosen, afterward become wicked and ranked among the inventors of heresies. Why need I mention the others here? What then is this corrupt tree, from which no good comes? But again, these are deeds

of men. For goodness cannot come from fornication; justice cannot come from the envy of wickedness; praise cannot come from adultery. For the tree of sin itself cannot be generated from goodness; that is to say, a bad tree does not bring forth ^A good fruits, nor can the good tree bring forth bad fruits. For example, let the good tree, which cannot bring forth bad fruits, be the kindly reception of guests, and whatever results from the reception of guests does not have its power from baseness. Almsgiving, chastity practiced on account of God, continence on account of the Lord, justice accepted for the sake of the law.

[LXII.] Wherefore those two trees can be conveniently understood in terms of justice and sin. But that barbarian Manes tries to think of these things in terms of God and the devil. And that no one can dare to say concerning God that He will ever do evil, God forbid, and that concerning the devil [no one can say] that he works good, is clear. But all good things come to pass through God, and nothing base has been created or comes to be from Him. But if some base things are brought about by the devil, behold, we have discovered that even through him a crown is being woven for the saints, and a prize given to those who have conquered. And his argument has collapsed. For the corrupt tree and the good tree happen to be about good and evil works; and it is not about the Old and New Testament, as the ^B Manichaean argument wishes.

[LXIII.] Moreover, the same man, wishing to present his pretexts concerning the two principles, hunting for them, cultivates those expressions which seem to him to fit, such as this: “For,” he says, “He said to the Jews: 'You are sons of the devil. That one was a murderer from the beginning; for his father was a liar.'” But he wishes to blaspheme, and to say that the Creator of heaven and earth is the father of the devil, while the word by no means at all appears to have this meaning. For if they are indeed sons of the devil, the argument according to him has collapsed, and Manes contradicts himself out of ignorance. For their souls would consequently be separated and generated from ^C the devil, and no longer be from the Power on high according to his myth, or [the soul] would not be a part of the light, or of His armor, or of the pillar of light, or of the mother of life. But if they are altogether the devil’s, then Abraham also, their father, from whom these Jews happen to be the seed, is himself also of the devil, according to the argument of Manes. How then does the Father ^D say to them with reproof: “You are not children of Abraham, but of your father the devil. If you were children of Abraham, you would do his works. But you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you.” This Abraham did not do. And you see that the expression is figurative; for while they were sons of Abraham by nature, the Lord nonetheless alienates them from him through their deeds.

^A They are judged not by origin or production, but by their works. We have already disputed this matter above. How, therefore, can a part of the same seed sometimes be alien and belong to the devil, and at other times be a portion of God? But this is stated in terms of accusation. For to whomever anyone submits himself, of him he becomes a servant, in terms of both action and teaching, as Paul also says: "For if you have many instructors, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel." And you see that he refers to the teaching? And if Manes were to accept Abraham, we would say that Abraham belonged to the God of light, but those begotten by him belonged to another; yet the thesis is as follows: they imitated the murderer, they imitated the betrayal of Judas, they accepted the calumny and the denunciation of the traitor; they became sons of his apostasy. He became a liar, keeping the money-bag and stealing, and saying to Him: "Hail, Rabbi!" And being exposed and hearing: "Friend, why have you come?" ^B This Judas imitated Cain, since he became a murderer, lying before the Lord and saying, "Am I my brother's keeper? I do not know where he is." And he too became a son by imitation, and having considered the lying voice that spoke in the serpent, which said, "You shall be as gods, knowing good and evil," this is what is said by the Savior in the Gospel: "You are the sons of the devil." For He says: "Did I not choose you twelve, and one of you is a devil? Because he is a liar and a murderer from the beginning, because his father was a liar." By this reasoning the Manichaean question is dissolved; for the Jews were not the sons of the devil in a strict sense. Far be it from us to believe that! For the Samaritan woman said to the Lord Christ: "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." Then after much, the Savior said to her, "We know what we speak, that salvation is from the Jews." And again the ^C Apostle: "It is clear that the Lord has arisen from Judah." And many things can be said about this, and to refute his error.

LXIV. But he also seizes upon that evangelical saying: "And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." For, he says, the darkness pursued the light, because the evil rulers hostilely pursued the divinity. But if the light, when attacked by the darkness in war, flees from those invading, the darkness will be stronger than the light, since the former is put to flight by the latter as if by those stronger, and does not dare to stand against it or appear. But the matter is far otherwise. For the light does not flee the darkness, but the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. ^D But if the darkness...

^A narrates that it has captured the armor of the light, how then could those which are called to have captured the armor in no way comprehend the light? By what means, then, does the light, having been put to flight, spontaneously shine forth within the darkness? Therefore, everything must be understood according to the truth of the matter. When the minds of men were blinded by the darkness of sin, the law was first sent by God, to illuminate them as if by a raised lamp; which Peter indicates in his Epistle with these words: *We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts*. Hence, therefore, the light shines in the darkness—namely, the law which was prescribed through the intercessor and mediator, that is, the faithful servant of God, Moses. And for this reason, since from ancient times the light was first shining as a spark in the natural law, having observed which, Enoch pleased God; by which being led, Abel also proved himself to the Lord; by which having understood the way, Noah became gracious before God; by which Abraham believed God and it was ^B reckoned unto him for righteousness. Then, that light, having passed from the likeness of a spark, was increased in the brightness of a lamp shining in a dark place; that is to say, the light shines in the darkness—the commandment of God, and the counsel consistent with goodness, which has shone into the hearts of the faithful, in the midst of the darkened minds of those who have become involved in the base and evil deeds that plague the human race, such as idolatry, the denial of God, murders, adulteries, and things of that kind. After all these things, that great light appeared, the true light, *which lighteth every man that cometh into the 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, to them gave he power to become the sons of God*. Do you see in what darkness this light shines, and what kind of darkness did not comprehend it? It is that the good which is always being sent by God ^C to the minds of men, and which shines in the world, is not overcome by sin.

LXV. But the same Manes again seizes upon that saying of the Savior, when he said: *The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat. Then his servants came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? From whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn*. But to his disciples, the ^D

Lord, when they asked, "Tell us the parable of the tares," explains it and does not pass it by, so that he might not leave any opportunity for the impostor to assail the truth. The Lord, therefore, clearly answers and says: "He that sowed the good seed is God; the field is the world; the tares are the wicked men; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the reapers are the angels; the harvest is the end of the world; the wheat consists of the good men." ^B When the Lord commands his angels, they gather the sinners from his kingdom and deliver them to be burned. And observe, O sons of the truth, that those things which he wishes to say, he brings forward against himself. This is the man who has been revived for us in place of the ones concerning Jannes and Jambres. For he himself denies that the world is God's, yet here the Savior says that the world is the field, and calls the master of the house and the lord of the field his own Father, and that he himself has sown his own good seed. And he neither separated souls from bodies, nor bodies from souls, but says that the "enemy man" sowed the tares, which are the wicked men; and he does not speak of men as bodies apart, but spoke altogether of wicked men. Again, likewise, the master of the house sowed the good seed in his own field; he means good men. And he did not say their souls, but good men with body and soul. Therefore, through this teaching, God sows the good in men, and through the ^C wicked craft of the devil, he oversows the evil deeds in men. From whichever side we turn it, we shall not find a root of wickedness, but only works which are performed by us. And the devil is not at all the cause of the sown tares. For he immediately clarifies this by saying: "While men slept." And he did not say, "While the master of the house slept." For when we slumber from good works, when we neglect the duties of justice, when we do not make our mind wakeful toward the commandment of God, then sins are sown in us. Do you see that the reapers prepare the bundles for the eternal fire? Tell me, O Manes, are souls bound there, or are bodies with souls burned, or are the souls alone? For your opinion regarding the purification of souls will no longer hold, when they shall be delivered to punishment and judgment. But let these things suffice thus far; for the words of truth are not obscure to the wise.

^D LXVI. He again takes up another testimony, brought forward from the sacred Scriptures, and because he is completely ignorant of what is contained in it, he distorts the power of the saving doctrine by an alien interpretation; for he abuses that which was said by the Lord: "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." Then that of the Apostle: "The God of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they..."

^A might not perceive the light of the glorious Gospel." Let us see, then, who this "prince of this world" is of whom the Lord speaks, saying: "He shall be cast out," and "If I be lifted up, I will draw all things to myself." Whom, then, does He call the prince of this world? If He means the devil, how does John say in his Gospel concerning the Savior that "He came unto his own"? For we see that these two statements are contrary to one another. For the Apostle says: "The whole world lies in the evil one," and yet, "The Savior was in the world." How, then, can both of these be maintained? If the whole world lies in the evil one, what place is there for the Savior in the world, so that He might be said to be in the world? Again, if the things that are in the world pertain to the property of the Son of God, who is this prince that dominates the property of God? But if the things in the world are not the property of the Son of God, what prince of this world would allow the things that are in the world to be the property of the Savior? Or if the world belongs to the Son of God, how does He allow ^B a prince to hold His own world? But all the words of the true Scripture are spoken in wisdom, just as the Lord Himself says: "John came in the way of righteousness, not eating nor drinking, and they say: He has a demon. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners; and wisdom is justified by her children." But how is wisdom justified by her children? It is by those who understand the words of wisdom, as it is also said in the prophet: "Who is wise and shall understand these things? For the ways of the Lord are right, and the word of wisdom; and he shall know these things. But the ungodly shall be weak in them."

LXVII.

In the first place, when he says: *The whole world lies in the wicked one* ^A—he does not mean heaven, nor earth, nor sun, nor moon, nor plants, nor sea, nor mountains, nor air, nor clouds, nor wind, nor stars, nor birds, nor anything at all of the things created; God forbid! But the world of men, the pride of the mind, the boldness of arrogance, the haughtiness of human self-exaltation—this ruler of this world fell down through pride. *For you,* He says, *receive glory one from another; yet I seek not My own glory.* For how did pride not fall? How was the ruler of the world not crushed, when Herod was watching and judging the Judge of the living and the dead and the Lord, when Pilate was sitting in judgment, when a servant was striking His cheek, when Judas was betraying, when Caiaphas was judging, when the Jews were spitting, when soldiers were striking with fists the head of Him who with a mere nod could shake heaven and earth? ^B This is the pride, and the boldness, and the glory of the men of the world; this was the ruler of this world, who fell to the ground. For all those who are in positions of prominence in this world hold their rule through bluster, through boldness, and boasting, and pride, none of which is found in the Savior. *For a burning wick He shall not quench, and a bruised reed He shall not break.*

LXVIII.

^A those who are saved have been propagated. Furthermore, if, while He frees others, He nonetheless refuses to free him, the work He is attempting is something imperfect, and it does not seem that He can provide an absolute good. But indeed, if He cannot bring salvation to this one—being of such a nature that it can be saved—which He imparts to those begotten by him, then those who have arisen from him clearly ought to be far worse, so that they cannot attain even to salvation themselves. Add to this that if, having no private possession which He can claim as His own, He approached another’s, in order to display Himself and His own power, it becomes something confused and tangled, as a power that cannot save its own things turns itself to foreign ones, in order to perform in them what it could not exercise in its own. In this way, therefore, the whole of that opinion of Mani regarding the Savior and the prince of this age collapses. And if we wish to admit the truth as it is, the God of this age is not some other one, distinct from the true God, nor is He possessed of any other substance. Indeed, the Lord who is God of all and the Creator of the world is one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will never ^B cease to be.

LXIX. Regarding him whom the Apostle commemorates, and relates that he was voluntarily adopted and chosen by the unbelievers, I do not say that there is only one such god of this age, but many, to whom the unbelievers have subjected themselves, and in their minds have been blinded. Just as he says in another place: "Whose God is the belly, and their glory is in their shame" (Philipp. III, 19). And the Lord in the Gospel says: "You cannot serve two masters" (Matth. VI, 24). Then, after many things have intervened, in order to show who those two masters were, He says: "You cannot serve God and mammon" (ibid.). Therefore, God is God, and mammon is the god of the world. For by means of mammon and the belly—by these two—the greatest part of mortals, being enticed, ^C is blinded; and indeed, God in no way bears the blame for this, but rather their own private wickedness, in proportion as everyone, led by cupidity through unbelief, has handed himself over, subjected and liable to all things. Hence that saying of the Apostle: "The love of money is the root of all evils" (I Tim. VI, 10). And for this reason he execrates that presumed and depraved opinion of false gods with these words: "Food for the belly, and the belly for foods; but God will destroy both this and those" (I Cor. VI, 13). With these words he has denounced the desires of the belly. Therefore, "the God of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (cf. II Cor. IV, 4). To this pertains that which we read in the Gospel, of the scribe who said, first the one and then the other: "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Matth. XIX, 16). He said: "Honor thy father and thy mother, as it is written" (ibid., 19). For the commandments of the Law were not foreign to Him; and accordingly, the Lord taught that the inheritance of the heavenly life is obtained through the observance of that Law. To this the young man replied: "All these things I have kept from my youth" (ibid., 20). Upon hearing this, Christ rejoiced, in order to show that the precepts of the Law were in no way abhorrent to His divinity. For when He is said to have rejoiced, He affirmed the agreement and concord of the Old Testament with the New. But as the young man pressed Him further, and asked, "What do I still lack?" He said to him: "If you wish to be perfect, sell what you possess, and give"

to the poor, and take up your cross, and follow me; and you will have treasure in heaven." But he went away sorrowful; for he was very rich. ^A Subjoined to this, the Lord says: "It is easier," He says, "for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."

For they cannot enter because they have been blinded by the god of this age, having deemed mammon their God, and having voluntarily made themselves subject to the god of this age, that is, to avarice. To this refers that saying of the Savior: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." ^B In another place, He refers to what is avarice. And in order to signify its fruit and work, He says: "They are blind leaders." And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit. For since avarice, the god of this age, blinded them, the light of the Gospel did not shine in their hearts, because they were blinded by avarice. For this it was that blinded Judas; this also brought about the death of Ananias, and destroyed many others. This, I say, is the god of this age, whom men, adopting for themselves as God, while they were zealous to honor it, have despised the Lord: which He Himself indicates in these words: "He will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." Do you see how clearly and perspicuously the whole matter is declared? ^C For there is no other God, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor in any other place, except one Father, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things—which is the eternal Trinity, and one Divinity, to which nothing can increase, nor from which anything can decrease.

LXX.

^B And of women and other matters, he says: “He prophesied a few things about Christ quite cunningly, so that by those few things he might, by persuasive arguments, establish credibility for himself.” These are the utterances of that bold Mani, which he shamelessly spits out against his own Lord. If anyone considers them more carefully, he will recognize that there is nothing in them to be seen other than the deeds of a madman. For just as a man suffering from phrenitis, if he happens upon a sword, arms himself against himself, and in his insanity, while cutting his own flesh, thinks he is fending off enemies, not knowing what he is doing: so too does this man turn his weapons against himself, not understanding the words he brings forth against himself. For if that God of the Old Testament is the author of desire, and if He promotes things proper to desire, why does He everywhere proscribe desire? He who, indeed, commanded: “You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, neither his ox, nor his beast of burden, nor his handmaid, nor his field, nor his wife, nor anything that is your neighbor's.” Whoever amputates all desire cannot be said to provide it.

^C LXXI. Why, then, he says, did He order the Jews, as they were migrating out of Egypt, to plunder the Egyptians? Truly, He is a just judge, as I have already often said regarding this. And to show that He Himself has no need of sacrifices, He says in the prophet: “Did you offer sacrifices to me, O house of Israel, for forty years?” says the Lord. To whom, then, were those things offered? I think to the one whom those who were offering them supposed. But He Himself, not because He was in need of them, but so that He might accustom those who had been transferred from the worship of many gods to the knowledge of the one God, commanded these things to be done. For since He saw that the deities of the Egyptians were appeased by sacrifices, He provided these things so that, through the superstition of such gods, their minds would not be corrupted, and they would not fall away from the one and only God. But after He had, over a long period, recalled their minds from the cult of many gods, and had broken them of the habit of such practices, He began to prune away what He did not wish. And ^D He said: “Why do you bring me incense from Sheba, and cinnamon from a far land? Shall I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? For these things I did not seek from your hands, but that each one should do justice toward his neighbor, and truth toward his own brother.” And you see that, as time progresses, the manifestation of the power of divine truth is revealed. As He Himself again says to Samuel: “Anoint Saul as king.” Yet later He rebukes them, saying: “You have anointed a king, but not through me, and princes, and I did not command you.” But because their minds had asked for this out of their own desire, God, consoling the prophet Samuel, said: “It is not you they have rejected, but me, says the Lord. Nevertheless, anoint Saul, the son of Kish, for them.” In this matter, God behaves toward them just as He does toward little children, so that He might sustain the weakness of the infirm, and in such a way as if

he softened the infant in that tenderness of his. ^A Afterward, he proposed what is highest and most perfect: *A sacrifice to God is a broken spirit; a broken and humble heart God will not despise.* Likewise: *Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise*; and whatever other things may be brought forward concerning this matter.

LXXII. Furthermore, even Manes himself confesses that that God wished to make mention of Christ. For truly great was He who spoke in the Law, who foresaw and predicted future things beforehand. For if He knew future things, He was not devoid of foreknowledge, and He will be God, who is endowed with the knowledge of future things. He wrote them, moreover, so that they might come to pass. But if things contrary to Him existed, He wrote indeed about them, but He destroyed them, so that we might not be persuaded by them. ^B Since, however, He establishes that the future things were to be brought to perfection in Christ, this then is the very Spirit that spoke in the Law, and in the prophets, and in the Gospel; for there is one harmony of all things, just as He says through Moses: *The Lord will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers.* And again, the Lord says: *Moses wrote about me.* But Moses says: *Every soul that will not listen to that prophet shall be rooted out*; and again the Lord: *If you do not believe the writings of Moses, how will you listen to my words?* Thus the truth appears splendid in every part and free from wrinkle.

LXXIII. But the Manichaean asserts that the Testament of the Law is a testament of death, because the Apostle said: *But if the testament of death, inscribed in letters on stones, was glorious.* ^C Nor content with that, Scripture added besides: *The law is not laid down for the just man, but for parricides, and matricides, and perjurers, and if there is any other thing contrary to sound doctrine.* Since, therefore, the Law is not laid down for the just man, is the just man then to be called an outlaw? By no means. But because the just man anticipated doing the things prescribed by the Law, the Law was not constituted against him, for he has observed the Law; but it is decreed against those who have committed some wickedness, for the purpose of judging those who have sinned against the Law. ^D And in this way the Old Testament had itself: it had commanded both that the murderer be killed, and that the adulterer be likewise condemned to death, and that the violator of the Law be overwhelmed with stones. Moreover, it had splendor and glory, and indeed not mediocre. For it gained glory among men on account of their mutual injuries. It was handed down in a fiery pillar, and was formed with trumpets resounding something vehement and horrendous; in the tabernacle of testimony, and in all the remaining glory which was then principal. For it was fitting that the testament of death go before, so that when we were dead to sins, we might live to justice. By which reasoning Christ bore our infirmities and took up our diseases; which all, imposed upon His own body on the cross, He sustained, so that first the things that pertain to death, then that which belongs to life, might be fulfilled in Him for us.

For this reason He died, ^A first, to commend the testament of death. Then, having been raised from the dead, He passed from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. For on the cross He triumphed over principalities and powers. In death He condemned sin; in burial He buried iniquity; in tasting death He broke the sting of death; in His own descent into the underworld He despoiled the underworld, liberated those who were bound by His own strength, and received the trophy of the cross against the devil. And see how this glory extended from Moses to Christ; how much greater, then, will be the glory that the testament of life possesses, when the stone is rolled back, the rocks are rent, the tombs are opened, the angels shine forth like lightning, the women preach the Gospel, peace is granted, the Spirit is bestowed by Him upon the apostles, the kingdom of heaven is proclaimed, and the world is illuminated by the Gospel? The One who descended is He who also ascended above all the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father. The testament was not death-dealing, but was a testament against death. Yet the testament of death had its glory, so that a surpassing glory might be brought to pass against death. ^B

LXXIV. Then again the same Manes says: The Old and New Testament cannot belong to one teacher. For the one grows old from day to day; but the other is renewed day by day. For whatever is growing old and aging is near to disappearance. But that one belongs to another god and another teacher; and this one to another god and another teacher. And if he could have shown two Old Testaments, it would be possible for what is said by him to be plausible, as representing the act of two who had existed at that time; likewise, if he could have shown two New Testaments, it would be easy to grasp the aforementioned point in the mind. But if the Old belongs to one, and the New to another—and if the New Testament belongs to the good God, and the Old to a wicked one—then, if the good God had not seen the wicked one making a testament, He would not have known that it was necessary to make a testament. And the result would be that He received the pretext for His teaching from him, and was inexperienced in such matters. For if He had not seen it, He would not have imitated it. And it was more fitting that the Old Testament should be attributed to the good God, so that the wicked one might be called an emulator ^C rather than the true and genuine God. For the Lord says in the Gospel: Whatsoever the Son seeth the Father doing, the same also He doeth likewise. And furthermore, so that He might not seem to have yielded to him who counseled Him, and lest the devil might boast and brag, saying that something was done by the Savior through his counsel—when he thus urged Him: Command that these stones be made bread—He rejected it entirely, so that He might not seem to have learned anything from the devil, or to have used his counsel. And you see that he says the two Testaments belong to one God? For the Apostle says: The first Testament was given from Mount Sina, bearing children unto bondage. For Mount Sina is in Arabia. For if there be two wives, yet one is the husband; so even if there be two Testaments, ^D

one is the founder of both, God. For this reason He has not called them two New ones, nor two Old ones, but one Old and one New. And He says: "A testament is of force after men are dead." Therefore, the first was not enacted without blood. For Moses ^A took the blood of goats, and sprinkled both the book and the people. For this reason the second Testament also was given at the death of the Savior, when both harmonize most perfectly with one another: the one saying, "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He comes for whom it is reserved"; and the second, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." And there is much that could be said on this subject; but for the sake of brevity I shall pass over it.

LXXV. Moreover, the Manichaean compares the Law and the Prophets to withered and barren trees, relying chiefly on this sentence: "The Law and the Prophets were until John." And nothing more foolish than this can be brought forward. For to whom is it not clear that, when that which was announced by the prophets was fulfilled, the prophets came to an end? For if prophets were still coming, announcing Christ as about to arrive from Mary, Christ would not yet have appeared. For this ^B argument is like such a case as this: As a king, intending to travel to a province, sends before him those who prepare the way, and heralds; and the closer his arrival, the more numerous are his criers and precursors who go ahead and proclaim the arrival in the cities. But when the king has reached the point of entering the city, what further need is there for criers, or for those who preceded him or announced the king's arrival, now that he himself is within the walls? In the same way the Law and the Prophets continued until John. But after John preached in the desert and pointed out that this is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, there was no longer any need for prophets to be sent to announce ^C to us the arrival of Christ from the Virgin. Yet there was need of those who had previously announced His arrival for the confirmation of His arrival, that it had indeed been foretold. For just as if someone has a tutor (for we rightly use this likeness, since the Apostle says that "the Law was our tutor unto the arrival of the Lord"), when he has grown up and found a master, he does not utterly cast aside the tutor as an enemy; so we also have been guided by the Law and the Prophets until the arrival of the Master. And having found the Master, we do not dishonor the tutor, but rather give him thanks, because he guided our infancy and sent us forward to more perfect disciplines. Or just as if someone, intending to sail on the high seas, having provided a larger ship, should cross the ^D shallow water near the shore where that larger ship floats in a small boat, and by the benefit of this smaller one has reached the point where he may board the larger one,

^A he does not entirely sink the small boat simply because he has found the larger ship; rather, he maintains gratitude toward the small boat while he takes possession of the vessel that is greater for the sake of his salvation. Or, to put it another way: if someone is abandoned by the mother who bore him, is taken up by some random person and raised over time, and later, when he has grown to manhood, recognizes his own natural father—if such a person has any sense, would he despise the one who raised him merely because he has recognized his own father and enters into his own inheritance? Or would he not rather be grateful to the one who raised him, because he did not allow him to be surrendered to death? Thus, we too have gratitude to God, first because He gave us the Law and the prophets, and also because He has deemed us worthy of the New Testament of His Son.

^B LXXVI. The same Manichæus affirms that we are images of the princes, and that we were produced by those princes, to whom we are exposed as fodder. That is, in truth, an impious thing to say. For we see in all things that the reality turns out quite differently. Everything upon the earth, even if you consider the meanest and most savage of wild beasts, does not attack those of its own form, but rather those of another kind. For example, a lion does not devour a lion on account of their shared impression and similar constitution; ^C but when a great famine presses upon the beasts in the mountains, and for a long time they find nothing—whether because of snow or some other scarcity—they return to their lairs and crevices, lions dwelling together with their cubs and lionesses. Nor does beast attack beast—a wolf does not attack a wolf—unless the animal falls into a state of madness, so that, having gone rabid, it does not know what it is doing. If, then, a wolf does not devour a wolf because of their common form, how can the princes devour us, if we are of the same substance, and not rather fawn upon us, so that they might appear to cherish and preserve their own images? Thus, the arguments of that impostor are confuted from every side.

^D LXXVII. Next, he takes up again from the Gospel: "Not all receive His teaching, but those to whom it is given." But here the discourse of the Savior was not regarding doctrine, but regarding eunuchs. And even if we were to grant that the saying, "Not all receive [it]," applies to His doctrine, then if they do not receive it, they do not receive it according to their own will. Therefore, these would be called praiseworthy or blameworthy based on their faculty of free will; and the capacity would no longer be considered a matter of nature—otherwise, what profit would there be in preaching doctrine to him? However, his logic fails entirely, since the Savior did not mean the discourse as a doctrine, but as something concerning castration. And even if [Manes] should call it a doctrine, the logic of Manes will still not stand. The same Manes says: "He already knew our own." For, "My sheep know me, and I know my sheep." But everywhere...

^A he lies. For, wishing to snatch a soul by means of flattery, he uttered this speech against those present at the discussion, scattering it as bait, so to speak, so that by this adulation they might appear to be joined to him; so that when they were joined, he might begin to boast and say that he knew them before they even arrived to meet him. And it happened to him as the Greeks' myth says regarding Apollo the prophet, who prophesied to others, but could not prophesy for himself, but was himself cast out of his own oracle, because he was in love with Daphne and was excluded from her due to her chastity. Thus, too, this Manes prophesied that he knew his own, but in reality, he had come hoping to get Marcellus under his control. But his prophecy fell flat. For neither was Marcellus persuaded by him, nor was anyone else among the people of that time.

LXXVIII. Furthermore, he said that no one in ancient times obtained salvation, but only from the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar down to his own age, which fell under the reign of Probus and his predecessor Aurelian, during which this Manes was living. In this again, he is utterly refuted, since the writings of both the Gospel and the Apostles mention many who attained salvation long before, and indeed the Lord himself says: "There shall be required from this generation all the righteous blood which has been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous, to the blood of Zacharias, who was shed between the temple and the altar." ^B If then Abel was righteous, and Zacharias was righteous, how could they be so unless salvation was already available and unless it granted its benefits through the law and the prophets? Therefore it is written: "Death reigned from Adam until Moses," so that you may understand that death was restrained under Moses, not abolished entirely. For it was awaiting Jesus, the fulfiller of all things, so that when he should surrender himself for the human race, the Immortal should die, the Uncontainable should allow himself to be contained, and Life, having assumed flesh, should endure suffering, and should finally, through death, break him who had dominion over death—that is, the sting of sin and death itself. At which time that was fulfilled: "Where, O death, is thy sting? Where, O Hades, is thy victory?" For there, death was overturned and stopped, having reigned until Moses. And in the first place, those like Abel and Enoch were righteous, for he was translated so as not to see death, and he was not found. But the written law had not yet been promulgated; rather, the natural law governed, which was fixed in every man's mind and had been propagated through the succession of families from parents to their children. ^C But when the law was openly set forth, it became, so to speak, a sword dividing the power of sin. And when the Savior arrived, the sting of death was shattered. And again, "death will be swallowed up in victory" at that time. And see how God has led men to salvation by various ways. But the perfection of salvation has come and will come in Christ Jesus our Lord, as the Gospel also says: "Of his fullness have we all received." And what, he says, is the fullness? But the law was given through Moses... ^D

but grace and truth came through Jesus. There it was "given," here it "came." If the law, grace, and truth of Jesus originate from that fullness, both the Old and New Testaments are contained in law, grace, and truth. ^B

LXXIX. Furthermore, the Manichaean brings forward another text from the Scriptures, saying: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us." Let him say, then, with what money this purchase was made; what is the price that was given in order that He might purchase us? For He did not say "he bought," but "he redeemed." Yet, while he is aware of the purchase, he is ignorant of the price. But the truth itself acknowledges both. For He did truly redeem and purchase us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. And how did He redeem us? The teacher of the Church immediately adds, saying: "You were bought with a price, with the precious blood of the Lamb, ^C an unblemished and spotless Christ." If, therefore, you were bought with blood, you are not among the redeemed, O Manes, since you deny the blood. From whom, then, did He redeem us? Tell us, I pray. Did He acquire us while we were the property of another? Had our former master become destitute and, being in need of our purchase price, received it and handed us over to Christ? If we were handed over to Christ, we are no longer in the power of the former. If, therefore, the former no longer possesses us, he has fallen entirely outside of his own property, and he does not enjoy any authority in his own domains. How, then, does he work in the sons of disobedience, as it is written? ^D But that madman, in his every utterance, does not understand how Christ redeemed us, nor how we were redeemed, nor how He became a curse for us, but opens his mouth to spout many things which he cannot prove. For behold, we see them crying out at His second coming and the restoration of the world: "In your name we ate, and in your name we cast out demons." And He will say to them: "Depart from me, you cursed; I do not know you." Why, if they confess Him, does He nonetheless curse them? But what else was the "curse of the law" than the cross, which became a curse of the law on account of sins? For if someone were caught in a transgression, that law commanded concerning him: "Hang him on a tree. The sun shall not set upon him, even on his corpse, but you shall take him down and bury him before the sun sets; for everyone who hangs on a tree is cursed." Since, then, the curse was ordained on account of the crucifixion, Christ, by coming and taking our sins upon the tree, and by giving Himself up for our sake, His blood purchased us and His body dissolved our curses—that is, He dissolved our sins through the repentance of the cross and His own advent. Therefore, neither is the law a curse—far be it!—nor did the Gospel receive the curse, nor did the Lord Himself; but through the pretext of His death, the death that was ordained against sin was abolished.

^A For it says that the law was a “ministration of death.” But we have already said much on this point, that it was not itself the minister of death. For it did not command to commit murder, but rather commanded, saying: “Thou shalt not kill.” But because it slew the murderer, so that by the one who was put to death the energy of murder might be destroyed, and by the fear of one, many might be restrained from the injustice of murdering any longer, the ministration was one of death—not that it might minister death, but that it might deal death to the murderer, so that many might no longer become murderers. But when the Savior came, after the pedagogue had finally disciplined [humanity], He spent the greater part of the time manifesting more perfect teachings, in harmony with the law—[the law which says], “Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness”—[He] said: “Whosoever shall smite thee ^B on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,” so that the ministration of life might come to pass, with murder being utterly destroyed. For he who is struck upon the cheek does not produce provocation to murder, but loosens the hand of the murderer, appeasing the wickedness within him by humility. And in this way, the Old and the New Testament are in all things consistent with each other.

LXXX.

of the widow who cast in two mites, because of the poverty aforementioned, that the Scripture might be fulfilled: *Rich and poor have met together; the Lord hath made them both.* And that these things are so, and that it is the same Spirit of the Old and New Testaments, see the Apostle saying concerning the ancient prophets: *And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephte; of David also and the other prophets, who wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; of whom the world was not worthy.* ^B For we have found Isaiah wearing sackcloth, and Elias likewise. And you see how the poor are blessed in the Old and New Testaments for their piety, and the rich are blessed for their righteousness.

LXXXI. Furthermore, the same Manes insists again, and objects: ^C The Old Testament, he says, commands to observe the Sabbath; and if anyone did not observe the Sabbath, he was stoned with stones, just as one who had gathered a bundle of wood was delivered up to stoning. But the New Testament, that is, the Lord in the Gospel, said: *My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.* And on the Sabbath the disciples plucked the ears of corn; and on the Sabbath He healed. And not only this, but also: *Take up thy bed, and walk unto thy house,* He said. O what great ignorance! For nothing is worse than inexperience. For ignorance has blinded many. For when is the Sabbath not broken for a good cause? And when is not only the Sabbath, but every day, bound (i.e., prohibited/restrained) from wickedness? For Jesus the son of Nave, the successor of Moses, who is numbered among the prophets, who is chosen by God, who by his prayer held back the sun and the moon, as he said: *Sun, stand thou still upon Gabaon, and thou moon, in the valley of Jalo,*—this man is found at once breaking the Sabbath for the sake of doing good. For Jesus encompassed the walls of Jericho ^D for seven days; for it was not permitted to walk on the Sabbath beyond the measure of the six stadia defined by law. But the perimeter of Jericho happens to be more than twenty stadia. And as they encompassed it for seven days, it is certain that the Sabbath fell on one of the days. And this was a command from God,

^A so that He might show His will of working miracles. For there were no machines, no engines, no rams, no siege-towers; but by the mere voice of a trumpet of horn and the prayer of a righteous man, the walls of the enemies were brought down and collapsed. For they had to be punished, since the sins of the Amorites had been filled up. ^B LXXXII. For the Law was a judge against injustice, and rendered to each according to his own deeds. And since the Amorites were in sins, having become transgressors and having denied the oath which they swore, as I have already said elsewhere; it will not be harmful to set the same things down here again. For these are the ready-made accusations of Mani's cleverness, that the God of the Law is good, who indeed plundered the Egyptians, but cast out the Amorites and the Gergesenes and the other nations, and gave their land to the sons of Israel. He who says, "Thou shalt not covet," how did He give them what belonged to others? And the ignorant man does not know that they received back their own land, which had been snatched away from them, and that what had happened between them was avenged in the limit of truth and oath. ^C For Noah, having been saved from the flood, and his spouse along with his three sons and three daughters-in-law, alone divided the whole world among his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, having cast lots at the town of the Rhinocorurans, as the sequence also holds, and there is nothing empty-sounding, nor corrupted. For Rhinocorura is interpreted as Nael. And thus the locals naturally call it; but from the Hebrew it is interpreted as "lots"; because Noah cast the lots there for his three sons, and the territory fell from the Rhinocorurans as far as Gadeira, ^D including Egypt, and Mariandynen, and Ammonen, and Libya, and Marmarica, Pentapolis, Macate, Macrone, and Leptemane, Syrtis, and Mauritania as far as the so-called Heraclean Pillars and the inner Gadeira. These are the parts to the South.

^A To the East, from the same town of Rhinocorura, are Idumea, the Madianitis, the Alabastritis, the Homeritis, the Axomitis, Bugea, and Lyba, as far as the borders of the Bactrians: this same portion divides the parts to the East from the regions allotted to Shem. To Shem, meanwhile, fell the portion extended in breadth, which comprises Palestine, and Phoenicia, and Coele-Syria, Commagene, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Galatia, Paphlagonia, Thrace, Europe, Rhodope, Lazica, Iberia, Caspia, and Cardyaea, as far as Media to the North: where it excludes the region of Japheth. To the West, furthermore, from Europe as far as Spain, and Britain, and the nations bordering there. In which tract are the Venetians, and the Daunii, the Iapyges, the Calabrians, the Latins, the Opici, and the Magardes, as far as Spain, and Gaul, and the upper region of the Scots and Franks. ^B

LXXXIII. Having distributed the lots in this manner, Noah, having called together his three sons, bound them by an oath that no one should invade the portion of his brother, or defraud his brother. But Chanaan, the son of Ham, being covetous of the goods of others, invaded the land of Palestine, and seized it, for which reason it was called the land of Chanaan.

^A For because he dwelt in it, having abandoned his own inheritance, on account of its appearing to be burning hot. And having sat down in the land of Shem, which is now called Judea, he begat these sons: the Amorite, and the Girgashite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Hittite, and the Asenaite, and the Samaritan, and the Sidonian, and the Philistine. For this reason the Lord says in the Law, showing that their sins were being fulfilled in the oath, as He says: "The sins of the Amorites are not yet fulfilled." For this reason they remained in the mountain, wasting time in the desert, until they should make themselves self-condemned and come to war against the sons of Shem, who had been wronged. For Shem begets Arphaxad, Arphaxad Cainan, Cainan Sala, Sala Eber, Eber Phalec, Phalec Rhagad, Rhagad Seruch, Seruch Nachor, Nachor Thare, Thare Abraham, Abraham Isaac, Isaac Jacob, Jacob Juda, Juda Phares, Phares Esrom, Esrom Aram, Aram Aminadab, Aminadab Naasson. In the times of Naasson, the phylarch of Juda, and in the times of Jesus Nave, the sons of Shem received their own land, there being no injustice in their midst, but righteous judgment. The walls of Jericho therefore fell down of their own accord. For justice exacts punishment for injustice. For seven days they encircled the walls, and the Sabbath came to pass, so that justice might be fulfilled.

LXXXIV. And this did not happen only on the Sabbath. But since the lampstand of the sanctuary in the tabernacle of testimony had seven lamps, all of them were likewise lit every day, and not one of them ever ceased; but the same light was there on each individual day. ^{B C D}

For the Sabbath ^A was not established for exclusion, but for a good work. And while no one at all among the twelve tribes might work, the altar alone did not cease from labor, as the Lord says in the Gospel: *Your priests violate the Sabbath in the temple, and are without blame* (Matt. XII, 5). Now to violate the Sabbath means to break it. And how do they break it, if not by offering sacrifice to God, that the altar might not be idle? Nor only this, but also the sun rises and sets, the moon waxes and wanes, the winds blow, fruits sprout, mothers give birth, and all things come to pass on the Sabbath. For this reason also, the Lord, when He came, did not perform the craft of a carpenter on the Sabbath, nor of a smith, nor anything of the other sort; but being God, He performed the work of God. And He says: *Take up your bed, and walk* (Mark II, 5), that from Him who bore it, the work being done might be manifest, that all might recognize Him who came down from heaven to bring help to the sons of men. For truly, He came to break the Sabbath; but He could not have broken it if it had belonged to another. For no one destroys the work of another, unless such a person is a usurper of what is foreign, a strange overseer, demanding claims for himself. But since the Sabbath was His own, for this reason He says that the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Mark II, 28). And He says: *Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man*. If, therefore, God made the Sabbath for man, and preferred man over the Sabbath, it is so that man might know the rest, and the rest of things to come. For these are types of heavenly things. Here it is in part, but there is all perfection. The Sabbath, then, which was in the Law, lasted until His presence; but He broke that Sabbath, and gave us the great Sabbath, which is the Lord Himself, our rest and our Sabbath-keeping.

No one, therefore, should differentiate the Old Testament from the New, nor the New from the Old. For there is one and the same harmony. But the matter is as if some ignorant and unskilled man were to see two vessels drawing from one spring, and should think that because of the difference between the vessels, the waters also are different; but then were to hear the truth from the wise: "Taste from the two vessels, and see that while the vessels are two, the spring nevertheless is one." In the same way, there is one Lord, one God, one Spirit that spoke in the Law, and in the prophets, and in the Gospel. For this reason... [alt-version omitted]

Behold, He says, you have learned that the Law is never entirely cruel and inhuman, but is most full of mercy, kindness, and peace. Concerning the Sabbath, indeed, He speaks, declaring that for the sake of the sick and for certain pious ministries, it can be broken in several ways.

^A God is one, the Spirit who has spoken in the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel. For this reason, there are not two Old Testaments, nor two New, since there are not two testators, but only one, who renews the New by antiquating the Old: not in such a way that He destroys the Old by extinguishing it, but that He puts an end to it and transfers it to the second possession of goods.

LXXXV. The Manichæan brings forward another passage from Scripture. For this, he says, is what I find: that the spirit obtains salvation without the body. The Apostle teaches this very thing in these words: *It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For I though absent in body am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.* Now, the destruction of the flesh is nothing other than its absolute extinction. How, therefore, when the flesh is thoroughly extinguished in the power of the devil and only the spirit is saved, can there be a resurrection of bodies and of flesh? But he is so dull that he does not see that fornication, adultery, and lust—and other things of this kind—are "works of the flesh," and that he speaks not of the flesh itself, but of the works of the flesh. For when someone commits fornication, the flesh acts; but when one has acquired temperance, the flesh in a certain way ceases to be flesh and is converted into spirit. ^B Just as the Apostle relates: *He who in the beginning joined both said: For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.* As he who joins himself to a prostitute is one body, so he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Therefore, he who commits fornication becomes flesh; not the flesh alone, but everything—even the soul and other things—becomes flesh. For by joining himself to a prostitute, he became flesh, and being carnal, he is called entirely flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit, that is, body and soul, and everything—whatever exists in man—is made one spirit in the Lord. Regarding this, the same Apostle, legislating, says: *God set the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.* ^C See how he affirms that God is also the founder of the body and the designer of our members, who in His wisdom and goodness established all things as He willed. After this, he accommodates the example of our body to the body of Christ. *As we also are the body of Christ, and members item by item, and the Church of God, which is the body of Christ.* If, therefore, the Church of God, being joined to the Spirit—that is, to the Lord—is one spirit, whoever falls away from it, by departing from the Spirit, is changed in soul and body alike into flesh, as if there were anything else contained within him. For how could it be that one part

^A should be delivered to Satan, and another part not be delivered? For he did not say, "deliver the flesh to Satan," but "deliver such a one." Yet he who says "such a one" has delivered the whole man, body and soul alike. If he has delivered the whole, he has signified that the whole is flesh; but he shows that the spirit is saved for the day of the Lord, so that the Church might not be made liable for the fault of the erring man, and so that the whole Church might not be defiled by the transgression of one; therefore he says, "Deliver such a one, that the spirit, that is, the whole Church, may be saved."

LXXXVI

LXXXVII

which we have commemorated, the rest which were falsely fabricated by him ^A may be detected. But as for us, having completed a long and rugged journey through dangerous places, we have with difficulty escaped that amphisbaena and the cenchritis, that most lethal beast, which, variegated with the likenesses of many things, deceives those who gaze upon it. From all of which it contains, as if forged together, a hidden fountain of deadly poison in its sting. For Manichaeus is a gentile among gentiles, and he worships the sun, the moon, the stars, and demons; he is a gentile, I say, my beloved, and his sect hands down the superstitions of the Greeks. He likewise embraces the juggling tricks of the magi, and wallows in them; he praises astronomers, whose curious arts he follows, while boasting of Christ's name only in word. In which he is very similar to the cenchritis, which, with its poison hidden, deceives by its variety, and winding itself among diverse shrubs, assumes the likeness of all things by which it is surrounded. But indeed, after we have, by the help of God and the club of truth, as well as by the blood and body of Christ, which was truly born of Mary, and by the confession of the resurrection of the dead and of one and the same God, crushed the head of that dragon in the waters ^B—that is, having put to flight that many-headed heresy and crushed its head—we must first render perpetual thanks to God; then we must hasten on to the remaining heresies, entreating God to be a helper to our weakness, so that, having finished what we have undertaken in God, we may return more abundant thanks to Him.

AGAINST THE HIERACITES

I. After that abominable and, more than any other heresy, virulent, serpentine, and barbaric, beast-like doctrine of Manichaeus, there arose a certain man by the name of Hieracas, from whom the Hieracites are named. He lived ^C in the Egyptian town of Leontopolis, having been educated primarily in the humanities and trained in the disciplines of the Greeks, especially in medicine, and imbued with other arts, to which he had also added the doctrine of the Egyptians. And I do not know if he perhaps reached for a knowledge of astronomy and the magical arts. He was certainly instructed in various arts and was skilled in exposition, as is apparent from his commentaries; but he was especially expert in the Egyptian language, being by race an Egyptian. Nor was he moderately polished in his knowledge of the Greek language, a man of the most acute talent in all things. And this man was indeed a Christian, ^D but he did not persevere in that form of life which would be worthy of Christ. For he slipped and, having stumbled, fell away from the truth. For since he was most learned in the Old and New Testaments, so that he could, as it were, pour them out from his breast, and had written commentaries, he scattered many vanities of his own dogmas and proposed whatever seemed good to him according to his own whim.

^A He denies entirely that there is a resurrection of the flesh, and attributes this solely to the soul, asserting that the resurrection is spiritual. Gathering together testimonies from the divine Scriptures and adapting them to his own intent and mind, he accumulated certain most absurd fabrications of dogmas and devised certain perverse things to establish his own heresy. Nevertheless, he was quite admirable in his life’s discipline and way of living, and especially effective at alluring souls. Wherefore, many of the monks in Egypt were led into his errors. For as far as the resurrection of the dead is concerned, that he denies the resurrection of the flesh, he seems to have borrowed this from Origen, unless it ought to be said that he vomited it out of his own mind. He rejects marriage, which he teaches was characteristic of the Old Testament. For he accepts those around Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Moses and Aaron and all the saints, as well as Isaiah and ^B Jeremiah, and reckons them prophets, and says that in the Old Testament it was permitted to marry; but that after the advent of Christ, marriage is no longer to be accepted, nor ^C is it possible for one practicing it to inherit the kingdom of heaven. For what, he says, did the Word come to do that was new? Or what new thing did the Only-begotten come to preach and accomplish? If you speak of the fear of God, the Law itself already contained this; if about marriage, the Scriptures have already proclaimed it; if you speak of having denounced envy, greed, and injustice, all these things were comprised within the Old Testament. It remains, therefore, that this was the one thing he wished to accomplish: to preach continence in the world, and to choose for himself chastity, without which life cannot be attained.

^D II. To confirm this dogma, however, he gathers arguments from every side, such as that passage: *“And your sanctification, without which no one will see God.”* But if you object that saying of the Apostle: *“Marriage is to be honored, and the bed is undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge,”* he replies thus: “But a little later the same Apostle says: *‘The unmarried woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how she may please the Lord, and the virgin. But the married woman is anxious how she may please her husband, and she is divided.’* If, therefore, there is division, how can communion intervene where there is division? And if it is not pleasing to God, but to a man, can it obtain the inheritance from God? Moreover, when he exhorts: *‘But on account of fornication, let each one have his own wife,’* he thinks that marriage is not to be praised after the advent of the Lord, but merely tolerated, lest they fall headlong into a greater ruin. For there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Again: *‘I wish all to be as myself.’* Then: *‘The kingdom of heaven is like ten virgins, five foolish and five wise.’* Where both the wise virgins and the foolish—but nonetheless virgins—are compared to the kingdom of heaven; and he did not make any mention of marriage.” He accumulates many other things of this kind against marriage.

^A Nor indeed does he admit children who die before the use of reason, but he rejects them from the proposed hope. For he says that they do not inherit the kingdom of heaven, because, he says, they have not struggled. For if someone competes, he is not crowned unless he has competed lawfully. For if even the one who struggles is not crowned unless he struggles lawfully, how much more so those who have not yet been called to the contest? Nor, again, does this man believe that there is a sensible paradise, just as, indeed, Origen also thought; nor, as I have said, that the resurrection of the dead pertains to the flesh; but he speaks of a resurrection of the dead, yet he calls it a resurrection of souls, spinning some sort of spiritual fable. And no one is gathered among them unless he is a virgin, or a monk, or continent, or a widow. Regarding the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, he does not think the same as Origen; but rather he believes that the Son is truly begotten from the Father, and regarding the Holy Spirit, that he is from the Father.

^B III. This Spirit, indeed, just as we have taught above in the heresy of the Melchisedecians, he convinces himself to be Melchisedec, because it is written: “He intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be uttered.” And who is that one? “He remains,” he says, “a priest forever.” Now, he remains a priest forever so that he may be able to intercede. He thinks that this very Spirit met Abraham at that time. For he is, he says, similar to the Son. Wherefore it is said by the Apostle to be without father, without mother, without genealogy; without mother, because he had absolutely no mother; without father, because he had no father on earth. But being made like to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. Besides these things, babbling many other things about the Holy Spirit, he instated a most extensive dispute about him. ^C But he draws the chief support of his opinion from a certain book, which is inscribed the *Anabatic of Isaiah*, in which book it speaks thus: “The angel showed me concerning all things before me, and he showed me, and said: Who is at the right hand of God? And I said: You know, Lord. Then he: This is the Beloved. And who is the other similar to him who came from the left, and I said: You know; this is the Holy Spirit, who speaks in you and in the prophets. And he was,” he says, “similar to the Beloved.” From this place he strives to confirm that sentence of Scripture: “Being made like to the Son of God ^D he remains a priest forever.”

But how many things our mind can imagine concerning this argument, and by disputing encompass, by which his depraved understanding and opinion may be refuted! But he died at an extreme old age, and wrote quite a lot in both the Greek and Egyptian languages. Among other things, he wrote commentaries and lucubrations on the work of the six days, by which he invented certain fables and most empty allegories. Likewise, he also composed other things from the sacred Scriptures, by which he also fashioned certain new psalms of his own. And many of those who are among them do not share in their true doctrine. But Hieracas himself...

indeed possessed great asceticism; but those who were his disciples after him did so in hypocrisy. He himself abstained from all foods, and he disciplined himself also from wine. Some say concerning him that, having lived for over ninety years, even up to the day on which he died he continued to copy books. For he was a calligrapher. And his eyesight remained unimpaired.

^A IV. Come, let us also examine his tares, by what sort of understanding of the divine word we might join them together and cause this venomous serpent to vanish, which like a scorpion strikes from both front and back, gathering for its own harm things from the two Testaments; not as the divine words contain them, but as its perverted ^B understanding was accustomed to think of the bright things in a dark way. For honey is not to be blamed, nor is it most bitter, nor are the foods created by God blameworthy, but when given to someone suffering from a fever, they appear bitter in their mouth—not because the sweet things have become bitter, but because the taste of the one suffering from fever makes the things given to him bitter. Thus also, everyone who has fallen from the truth has not been deceived by the truth, but has tasted the truth with bitter thoughts, and it has been transformed into bitterness for him.

But let us see, what shall we say concerning the children who were killed immediately in Bethlehem of Judaea for Christ’s sake? Are such as these excluded from the kingdom of heaven, or do they share in it? They do share in it, for they were blameless. For if they do not share in it, then the Lord has become the cause of their slaughter; for it was for His sake that they were killed. And if they were killed on His account, without having reached the point of competing, nor having received the prize, then His coming proved to be a detriment to the world rather than otherwise. For since it became the cause of the infants departing life out of time, having been punished, and having fallen under a royal threat, for not having reached the contest so that they might receive the prizes.

Let us see also other theories. Produce for me blessed and most wise Solomon for the refutation of this Hieracas. Come, most blessed of prophets, you who received from the Lord breadth of heart and of wisdom, as the sand that is by the seashore, what would you think concerning the children? And he says: "For venerable old age is not that of long duration, nor is it measured by the number of years. But grey hairs are understanding to men, and an unblemished life is the age of old age. Being made blameless, he was loved by God, and while living among sinners he was translated. He was snatched away, lest wickedness should change his understanding, or deceit beguile his soul. For the fascination ^C of worthlessness obscures good things, and the instability of desire overturns a mind without malice." And that he is indeed speaking about children, he adds next, saying: "Having been made perfect in a short time, he fulfilled..." so as to say: "Having died young, he fulfilled long times ^D

and filled many. For his soul was pleasing to the Lord: therefore he hastened to take him out of the midst of wickedness. And to Jeremiah the Lord says: Before I fashioned you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came forth from the womb, I sanctified you.

^B V. But let us come to the Saviour himself, that mouth devoid of falsehood and possessed of the knowledge of all things. Be present, therefore, O Lord, and bringing aid to our understanding, refute that Hieracas and his rashness. They brought young children to him, he says, that he might lay his hands upon them and bless them; but the disciples were pushing them away and hindering them. But he said to them: Suffer the little children, and do not hinder them from coming to me. For of such is the kingdom of heaven. But lest we should believe that the heavenly kingdom belongs only to little children, and not to every age, he began with them in such a way as to assign a common inheritance with them to those who are like them. Now if the kingdom of heaven is promised to those who are closest to them, how much more will they attain it whose types and archetypes these others have been fashioned to be? To such a degree is there no place left for this fable of his. For the Lord has mercy on all: For the Lord preserves little children. Likewise: Praise, O children, the Lord. Then that proclamation by the children is: Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; and, Out of the mouth of infants and sucklings you have perfected praise. And how many such things there are? I pass over other infinite things of this kind.

^C VI. As regards the resurrection of the flesh, does it not follow that it must refer to the flesh, O most foolish Hieracas, since the very mode of speech sufficiently argues its force? For a resurrection is not called that which has not fallen. What then is that which has fallen, what is that which has been buried and dissolved, other than the body? For it cannot be said of the soul, which can neither fall nor be separated. Many other things can be disputed on this matter, but this shall be the sum: that resurrection is by no means to be attributed to the soul, but it is the body that is raised up. But as for what he says at length concerning the choice, through which the Saviour chose virginity, continence, and chastity: who does not understand that the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church also glories in this same selection? But nevertheless it does not doubt that those also who are bound in honorable marriage can, according to their own condition of status, attain to salvation. ^D For who would not recognize that marriage is venerable, and that it can obtain the heavenly kingdom by the breathing of God's grace, from the fact that the Saviour himself was invited to the wedding, that he might bless it? For if he had not desired to be present at the wedding, he would have been a destroyer of marriage, and he would not be thought to admit everyone kindly and indulgently according to their own weakness. Therefore, marriages are venerable, since he himself ordained them. And for this reason he also wished to be present at them, that he might shut the mouths of those who [speak] against

the truth. And indeed, there at Cana of Galilee, he performed his first sign and turned water into wine. For just as he had been born of a Virgin, so that he might show to the world the light that had risen from the Virgin, so too he wished to perform the first miracle of the marriages at Cana of Galilee for the sake of grace. By this means, he granted honor to virginity by that birth and by the emission of the light that had come forth from it, and he illuminated honorable marriage with signs and miracles, through which he performed the first miracle of changing water into wine. In addition, if marriages were to be alienated from him, why would the teacher of the Gentiles have commanded: ^A *Reject the younger widows; for when they have waxed wanton against Christ, they wish to marry, having judgment, because they have cast off their first faith.* What, then, does he command? *Let them marry,* he says, *let them bear children, let them be mothers of families.* Since these things are approved by the authority of the Apostle, why, Hieracas, are marriages condemned by you after the coming of Christ the Lord in the flesh?

VII. On Melchizedek

VII. Regarding what you assert about Melchizedek, that he himself is the holy Spirit, if that were true, the Spirit would have come and clothed himself in flesh. The Only-begotten, then, would no longer be the only one born according to the flesh, but the Spirit as well. But if the Spirit too has been born according to the flesh, let Hieracas tell us, since Mary gave birth to the Savior, where in the world is she who gave birth to the Spirit? And as to the saying, *But made like unto the Son of God, he abideth a priest continually,* there is no mention there of the holy Spirit. For he did not say that he was similar to the Son of God, but that he was "made like." Now the word "made like" implies that we should understand something subsequent. And if the Spirit is made like Christ after the times of Abraham, it must be that he did not exist at one time, and that for this reason he was made like the Son of God. And how can he be fatherless? For if the Spirit were of himself, ^B and did not proceed from the proper nature of the Godhead, he would deservedly be shown to be fatherless. For indeed, the Son is truly the Only-begotten, and he has no brother, and he is the Son of God. But even if we do not at all wish to say that the Spirit is begotten, since the Son is the Only-begotten, yet the Spirit is from the Father proceeding, and *receiving of mine,* as Christ says. Therefore, he who proceeds from the Father and receives of mine cannot be fatherless. But if anyone says that he is motherless in heaven and fatherless on earth, this can also be applied to the Savior. Why, therefore, does the Apostle speak at the end, saying: *But he whose genealogy is not counted from them, received tithes of Abraham the patriarch?* For the words, "from them," are used for the sake ^C of a more accurate explanation, to indicate that he who did not trace his genealogy from the Israelites drew it from other nations entirely. And from the fact that neither of his parents was set forth in the Scriptures, the calumniators of the truth dream one thing instead of another. But we have found both his mother and his father in the Traditions. And here he is handed down as having been of the race of the Sidonians and the Canaanites. Therefore, his whole fictional story falls apart, and his way of life is in vain. For the practice of lifeless things linked with bad faith is not a school of life and hope, and of salvation. For, he says, *Let all things be done to the glory of God.* ^D

[VIII] But let what has been argued against his error suffice, by which we have broken the wings of the scorpion and struck down his powers. For he is a winged serpent and a scorpion, having wings in many ways, and flying, and imitating the virginity of the Church, yet lacking that sincerity of conscience. For upon this man and those like him is fulfilled that which is written: *Of those who have their conscience seared, and forbid to marry, and to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received*. For they are sanctified by the word of the living God and by prayer, because all things are good and pleasant, and nothing is to be rejected by God. The Hieracites are most laughable of all because of those additional and brought-in women whom, while they keep them with themselves, they boast that they use only for daily service. But since, as I have said, we have plucked off the wings of this one and have crushed his head with the tree of life—that is, the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ—let us proceed to the next ones, invoking God Himself as our helper, for the refutation and overthrow of the remaining heresies and the dogmas introduced in vain into the world by them.

THE SCHISM OF MELETIUS THE EGYPTIAN,

^A Culejanus was prefect of the Thebaid, but Hierocles was prefect of Alexandria. Meletius was kept in prison, along with the aforementioned martyrs and the aforementioned Peter, the archbishop of Alexandria. Meletius appeared to be leading those in Egypt, and held the second place in rank after Peter in the archbishopric, as if by way of acting as his deputy, though he was subject to him and referred ecclesiastical matters to him. For this is the custom of the archbishops of Alexandria: that they administer ecclesiastical affairs throughout all of Egypt and the Thebaid, Mareotis, Libya, Ammoniaca, Mareotis, and Pentapolis. Since, therefore, they had all been seized for testimony’s sake, they remained in prison; for a considerable time they remained in confinement, while others, having been delivered up before them, had achieved martyrdom and had received the end of the prize, having fallen asleep. But these men, as lead shoots and greater, were kept for later.

^B Now, since some had succeeded in martyrdom, while others had fallen away from martyrdom and had committed the lawless acts of idol worship, having resorted to sacrifice under necessity, those who had fallen—those who had sacrificed and transgressed—approached the confessors and martyrs so that they might obtain mercy through repentance. Some of these were soldiers, others were from the different orders of the clergy, whether presbyterate or diaconate, or from others; and a movement and no small disturbance arose among the martyrs. Some argued that those who had fallen once and had denied [Christ], and had not remained in fortitude nor contended [in the struggle], ought not to be deemed worthy of repentance, lest those still remaining, thinking less of the penalty because of such an easily obtained pardon, might also be turned aside and fall into apostasy and the lawless acts of Hellenism. And what was said by the confessors themselves was reasonable. Those who said this were Meletius, Peleus, and some other of the ^C martyrs and confessors along with them. It is clear that, having manifested a zeal for God, they were experiencing these things while saying them. They were saying that, if after the persecution had ceased, after a considerable time had passed and peace was established, the aforementioned persons were to be granted repentance, provided that they truly repented from the heart and showed forth the fruits of their repentance, it should not be that each one is welcomed back to his ^D ecclesiastical order.

^A His own rank, but after a lapse of time to be gathered in the Church and in communion, in their own order, and not in the ranks of the clergy. And this was a mark of the love of truth and was full of zeal. ^B It was permitted that they share in the honor of holding a seat, but to offer, or to preach, or in any way to perform any of the priestly functions was forbidden.

III. ^C Now, the most holy Peter, being compassionate and acting as the father of all, besought and entreated [them], saying: "Let us receive them as they repent, and let us assign them a penance so that they may sit with the Church, and let us not reject them, nor [reject] the clergy, just as the report that has come to us contains, lest by shame and by the passing of time those who were once shaken and troubled by the devil through cowardice and weakness should fall away completely and not be healed—as it is written: 'Do not let the lame be turned aside, but rather let it be healed.'"

And so, the word of Peter was for mercy and philanthropy, while that of Meletius and those with him was for truth and zeal. From this, through the medium of what was deemed a pious intention on both sides, the schism came to be, with some asserting one thing and others another. For when the archbishop Peter saw that those around Meletius resisted the plan of his own philanthropy, being moved with a more excessive divine zeal, Peter himself made a veil in the middle of the prison: he spread out a garment, that is to say a *lodikion*, or in other words a pallium ^D (54), and having proclaimed through a deacon that "Whoever is of my mind, let them come over to me; and whoever belongs to the opinion of Meletius, to Meletius," the multitude was divided—together with Meletius, bishops, monks, priests, and other orders; but a very small number followed the archbishop Peter, [consisting of] some bishops and a few others. And thereafter these prayed apart, and those prayed apart, and each performed the other sacred rites in their own separate ways.

Peter finished his martyrdom (55), and the blessed man was perfected, leaving behind Alexander as his successor in Alexandria. For he succeeded to the throne after the aforementioned Peter. But Meletius and many others were subjected to exile, being deported to the Phanesian mines. After that time, Meletius...

...men were moved. The Council of Ancyra, canon 1, orders that priests who have sacrificed, but afterward return to the struggle, possess the honor of their seat, but that it is not permitted for them to offer, or to preach, or generally to perform any of the priestly functions. The same canon is decreed for deacons, with the provision that if a bishop observes them to be distinguished by humility, penance, and other duties of that kind, he may deal more mildly and humanely with them. But Pope Leo, epistle 3, decreed that clerics returning from heretics after penance should remain in the order in which they were without hope of promotion. But formerly penance was granted to clerics with difficulty. Therefore, in the first Council of Orange, canon 4, it is specifically cautioned: "Penance should not be denied even to clerics who desire it." But it was forbidden for those who had once undergone public penance to be ordained, Council of Toledo 1, canon 2. Hence Optatus of Milevis, book 1: "You have found," he says, "children. You have wounded them with penance, so that they could not be ordained." Thus even children, who had been compelled to represent the appearance of penance, were rejected from sacred orders. In the Council of Carthage V, canon 11, it was decreed that hands should not be laid upon priests or deacons convicted of graver guilt, and therefore to be deposed, as if they were penitents or faithful laymen. To this also pertains that passage of Augustine, book De bapt. contr. Donat., chapter 1: "For just as those returning, who were baptized before they left, are not rebaptized; so those returning who were ordained before they left are not indeed ordained again, but either they administer what they were administering, if the utility of the Church requires this; or if they do not administer, they nevertheless bear the sacrament of their ordination, and therefore hands are not laid upon them as laymen."

(54) That is, a *lodikion*, or in our language a pallium. For *pallium* is used for any garment, even a rug. (55) Peter’s martyrdom occurs: we shall speak of Peter's successor at the following heresy, no. 11; for Epiphanius is indeed much mistaken in that narrative.

^A And then, those who were dragged along as confessors together with Meletius, and Meletius himself in prison, during their journey—as he passed through each country and each place, he would appoint clerics: bishops, presbyters, and deacons; and he would build private churches. Neither did these communicate with the others, nor did the others with them. Each would designate his own church by a different name: those who were successors of Peter, holding the ancient churches already in existence, labeled their church The Catholic Church; but those belonging to Meletius, The Church of the Martyrs. Hence, having gone to Eleutheropolis, Gaza, and Aelia, this same Meletius ordained many in this manner. And it happened that he spent some time in the aforementioned mines. But eventually, the confessors were released from the mines—both those who favored Peter (for there were still many of them) and those of Meletius. For they did not communicate with one another even in the mines, nor did they pray together. Meletius lived for a long time afterward, so that he flourished during the time of Alexander, the successor of Peter, and even had friendly relations with him; he also took special care regarding the Church ^B and the faith. For, as I have often said, he taught nothing different or alien from it.

IV. Moreover, when this selfsame Meletius was in Alexandria and had lived there for a time, holding his own private assemblies with his own followers, he detected Arius and reported him to Alexander, having perceived that he was deviating from the scope of the true faith in his interpretation of the Scriptures to the people. For this Arius was a presbyter of the church known as "Baucalis" in Alexandria. For to each church—there were many, and now there are more—a presbyter was assigned; and in this way, Arius had undertaken the care of that church, or if another had been joined to him, we shall speak more accurately of these matters in their own place, when there is need. ^C When Alexander had thus detected Arius, he convoked a council of bishops, inquired diligently concerning the faith, and demanded from Arius an account of the corrupt and pernicious opinion he had conceived in his mind. But Arius did not deny it; rather, with a brazen face, he answered just as the matter stood. For this reason, Alexander expelled him from the Church; and with him there was cast out a great multitude of virgins and other clerics whom he had corrupted. Arius, having fled, set his course for Palestine. But having gone up to Nicomedia, and from there writing letters to Alexander, he did not depart from the insane intent of his own evil doctrine. ^D But after a short time, through the zeal and exhortations of that same holy bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, and by moving the blessed Constantine, he convoked a synod in the city of Nicaea. And the heresy of Arius was anathematized, after his death. For at first, he denied it before the blessed emperor Constantine, and by quibbling and feigning agreement with the true faith, and even by interposing oaths—

^A the emperor said to him, "If you have sworn most justly, may your oath be affirmed, and you shall be innocent; but if you have done so deceitfully, let him by whom you swore exact vengeance upon you." This indeed happened to him not long after, as we shall relate later. This Arius, therefore, acting in concert with ^B Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia, who held the same opinions as he did, was brought to the same emperor as if he were renouncing and anathematizing his own heresy. Wherefore [the emperor] commands and allows Eusebius to assemble him in Constantinople, under Alexander, a bishop who bore the same name as the bishop in Alexandria, but who was the bishop of Constantinople.

V. At the same time, ^C Alexander of blessed memory in Alexandria, after the death of Meletius, the previously mentioned confessor, having taken up zeal against the schism of the Church, began to trouble and vex universally those who held private assemblies and had been left behind by Meletius, and to use force so that they would not stubbornly secede from the one and same Church; but they, on the contrary, being unwilling, were in a state of turmoil and caused disturbances. On this account, being pressured and constrained by the blessed Alexander, some of them—the leaders, and those who were preeminent in piety and lifestyle—set out for the comitatus so that they might entreat the emperor and obtain from him the unobstructed faculty for their private assemblies. Of these, the chief was a certain Paphnutius, a great man and anchorite, whose mother had formerly confessed Christ, and he himself had also in some measure undergone the same confession. With him was also John, their bishop, a man likewise most venerable, as well as Callinicus, the bishop of Pelusium, ^D and certain others who were partakers in this plan. When they had come to the emperor and wished to approach him, they were repelled and rejected. For the palace guards, having heard the name "Meletians," and not knowing what this might be, did not allow them to approach the emperor.

VI. Meanwhile, Paphnutius, John, and the others, lingering for a longer time in Constantinople and Nicomedia, cultivated intimacy with Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia, and disclosed the whole matter to him; for they knew that he had favor

^A and authority. Therefore through him they request to be reconciled to the emperor and brought before him. And when he had promised them at length that he would do all things, and that he would refer their cause to the emperor and obtain what they asked, he in turn asked this of them, that they receive Arius into communion, who had put on a feigned and simulated repentance. When they had promised this, Eusebius brings them to the emperor and explains what their business is; and finally, from that time, it was permitted to the Meletians to meet privately without anyone bothering them. Would that those Meletians, who had professed the most exact standard of justice and truth, had preferred to have communion with those who had lapsed and then repented, rather than with the Arians! For it happened to them as the proverb says, that those fleeing smoke fall into the fire. Nor indeed could Arius have stood his ground or had any confidence, had he not found that opportunity which has bound together to this very day a most evil concord among them. For the Meletians, who were once pure and strictly observant in the faith, were mixed with the disciples of Arius; and the majority were already polluted by the false doctrine of Arius, having turned aside from the true faith in those times; some, however, even if they remained holding the true faith, still were not freed from that muddy filth because of their communion with Arius and the Arians. This was the occasion for the mutual connection between the Meletians and the Arians. ^B

7. Regarding the death of Arius and the end of Alexander

But after a short time (for, as I promised, I shall weave the sequence of the narrative here), when Alexander, the bishop of Constantinople, had been forced to admit Arius to communion, he fled to prayers and sighs, bending his knees at about the ninth hour of the Sabbath before the altar, because Eusebius had threatened him in this way: "Unless you are willing of your own accord to receive him into communion, tomorrow, even against your will, he shall enter with me." And the Lord's day was at hand; wherefore, as I said, when Alexander had given himself to prayer and, as a suppliant, asked the Lord either to remove him from this life, that he might not be defiled by the contagion of Arius, who had been injurious to God, or to work some unusual prodigy, of the kind he is wont to perform at certain times, a little later the prayer of the holy man obtained what it sought. For Arius, coming at night to the privy for the relief of his bowels, burst asunder just as Judas the traitor once did, and in that impure and foul place made an end of his life. ^C

VII. Following these events, those fraudulent schemes against the Church were entered into by his disciples. Now Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, died after the Nicene synod, while Athanasius was absent after the death of Arius; for he was at that time a deacon ordained by Alexander, and had been sent by him to the court. And when the dying Alexander [found] no other

person to be appointed besides Athanasius—as he himself, the canons, and ^A the whole Church testified—the Meletians in Egypt, taking the opportunity of the bishop of Alexandria being absent (for Alexandria never had two bishops, as other cities did), installed a certain Theonas in place of Alexander; but he died after three months. Not long after the death of Theonas, Athanasius arrived. Then, a synod of the orthodox was assembled from all sides. And thus his appointment took place, and the throne was restored to him, as one who was worthy, and for whom it had been prepared according to the will of God and the testimony and command of the blessed Alexander.

From this point, Athanasius began to be distressed and troubled because of the schism in the Church between the Meletians and the Catholic Church. ^B He exhorted and besought them, but they would not listen; he urged and importuned them. He frequently visited the nearby churches, especially those located at the Mareotic Lake. It happened that when the Meletians were gathered, a deacon from Athanasius’s retinue and some of the people, as the story goes, burst in and broke a *candelas* (a certain vessel), which led to an altercation and a fight. From this incident, secret plots and frauds were stirred up against Athanasius, with the Meletians accusing and slandering him, fabricating one thing after another, while the Arians collaborated and shared their counsels, out of an innate envy against the holy faith of God and orthodoxy. And they ^C reported the matter to Emperor Constantine. Eusebius of Nicomedia, mentioned earlier, was the minister of their entire faction and the architect of all the mischief that was devised by them against both the Church and Pope Athanasius. The accusers therefore approached the emperor, saying that it was a vessel used for divine mysteries, which some called a *candelas*, as I have said. Moreover, they accused him of other crimes, and in particular that a certain Arsenius, a presbyter of the Mareotis, had been beaten, and that his hand had been cut off by the party of Athanasius, or rather by Athanasius himself—a hand which they even carried to the imperial court inside a small box, and displayed.

VIII. Upon hearing these things, the emperor was vehemently enraged; for he was burning with a certain divine zeal in a ^D higher degree, and he did not know that they were slanderers, or that they were moved by that spite which we have said the Arians had conceived against the sincere faith. Therefore, he ordered a synod to be convened in the city of Tyre in Phoenicia. He commanded Eusebius of Caesarea to preside over that judgment, along with several others who were all more inclined toward the empty dogma of the Arians. With these, certain bishops from the Catholic Church of Egypt, who were subject to Athanasius, were summoned; they were men of high standing and distinction, and of excellent reputation in God, among whom was the blessed

^A Potamo the Great, the bishop of Heraclea and a confessor. There were also the Meletians, primarily the accusers of Athanasius. But the blessed Potamo, burning with zeal for the truth and the orthodox faith, a man of the utmost freedom of speech, who had never at any time shown partiality to anyone, and who had lost one of his eyes in the persecution for the sake of the truth, seeing Eusebius sitting and judging, and Athanasius standing, was overcome with grief, and weeping, as usually happens to sincere souls, inveighed against Eusebius with a loud voice, saying: "Do you sit, Eusebius, and is the innocent Athanasius judged by you? Who could endure such things? Tell me, I pray you, were you not with me in prison at the time of the persecution? And I, indeed, lost an eye for the sake of the truth; but you have no part of your body mutilated, nor did you suffer martyrdom, but you remain alive and whole. By what means did you escape from prison, unless you promised those who brought the persecution upon us that you would commit, or had even committed, an impious ^B deed?" Hearing these words, Eusebius was moved to indignation, and rising, he dissolved the court, saying: "If you come here and contradict us in such a way, then the things your accusers charge against you are surely true. For if you exercise such tyranny in this place, how much more do you do so in your own country?"

IX

to those who slander our mediocrity. Hence it comes about that he falls into exile owing to the acts written by the synod to the emperor. For they effect his deposition, and the emperor, being provoked, was aggrieved toward him. And he remains in the regions of Italy ^A for twelve or thirteen years.

X. Afterwards much discourse is sung, how that Arsenius, who was formerly proclaimed by slanderers among the dead, and who was said to have had his hand cut off, is found in the regions of Arabia. And as Arsenius had completely revealed himself to Pope Athanasius while he was in exile, and the Pope Athanasius, according to the rumor that has reached us, had secretly summoned him, and Arsenius himself had come to the same blessed Athanasius, both at the time of the events concerning Constans and Constantius, the sons of Constantine—Athanasius indeed showed Arsenius alive and having both hands. ^B And from then on, the accusers were found guilty not only of slander, but also of grave-robbing on account of the dead hand that had been carried about. From this, the whole thing was a mockery, and there was wonder at such and so great a theatric display and difficulty, as to who the accusers might be, and the accused, and all the others, about whom I would spend much time if I were to speak in detail. After the death of Constantine, Athanasius, who was flourishing in the greatest authority and grace with everyone, and not only in Rome and all of Italy, but also with the emperor and his children Constans and Constantine, was sent back to Egypt by these two emperors after the death of their father, with the concurrence of Constantius, ^C who was then staying at Antioch. We learn the series of these events from the letters sent by the three emperors to the Alexandrians and to Pope Athanasius himself. And he sat again on the throne after Gregory, whom the Arians had substituted when Athanasius was in exile.

XI. But again new turmoils and slanders were fashioned ^D against him by the circle of Stephen and his accomplices in the presence of Constantius, by which he was again driven from his seat. And subsequently he was again plotted against by the circle of Leontius the eunuch and those with them. Hence it came about that he was cast out and again brought back. For George was sent by Constantius, and Athanasius withdrew, having hidden for some time, until George was killed. During which time Julian reigned, and after the death of Constantius had turned to Hellenism. For the Alexandrians, keeping their anger against George, killed him and, having burned him and made ashes, scattered them to the winds. But Julian having died in Persia, and Jovian of blessed memory succeeding to the empire, with great honor and most faithful letters—

to the bishop Athanasius, and having summoned him, and embraced him, he sent him back to his own throne. Thus the holy Church, having received its bishop back, was comforted for a short time. But upon the death of Jovian, Athanasius began to be troubled again by the same dangers, rumors, and disturbances, although he was not cast out from the Church and his throne. For the whole city of the Alexandrians decreed a public embassy and petition on his behalf; while in the meantime Lucius, of the Arian faction, who still holds the see today, having been created bishop in a foreign region and, if I am not mistaken, at Antioch, pressed the emperor Valens much that he might be sent to the Alexandrian throne, but the emperor, fearing a popular sedition, would not expel ^B him. But at length, after the death of Athanasius, Lucius was sent, who inflicted innumerable evils upon the Church, the city, the people, the bishops, the clergy who were supporters of Athanasius, and those who in every church maintained communion with him, and upon Peter himself, the successor of Athanasius at Alexandria.

These are the things which have been done up to this present time; where bishops, presbyters, and deacons have been in part relegated, in part punished with capital punishment, and in part condemned to the beasts; while holy virgins, along with many others, have been slain. These calamities still weigh upon the Church of God, stirred up by that conspiracy of the Meletians and Arians which I have explained. And these Arians, being established in this way, have strengthened the faction of their impious dogma. ^C But all these things will be more accurately explained in the next disputation against Arius, to which I shall direct my discourse, having passed over the present narrative, after having first implored the help of God, as I prepare to descend into the struggle with that horrible and many-headed serpent.

AGAINST THE ARIOMANITES, Which is heresy XLIX, or LXIX.

I. After those previous times of Meletius and of the holy Peter, bishop of Alexandria, Arius and the Arians who come from him follow in succession. He flourished under Alexander, the successor of Peter, by whom he was expelled after a great commotion ^D and a grand synod having been convened. For Alexander cast him out, and banished him from the Church and from the city, as a vast evil which was spreading for the destruction of the human race. They say he was by birth a Libyan, and having become a presbyter in Alexandria, he presided over the church which is called the Baucalis. For as many churches of the Catholic Church as are in Alexandria are subject to one archbishop, and each has its own presbyter assigned to it for the ecclesiastical needs of the inhabitants, who live around those churches, and their con-

^Agregations, or *amphoda* as they are called in the local dialect by those who dwell in the city of the Alexandrians. This Arius lived in the times of Constantine the Great and blessed emperor, the son of the elder Constantius, who was the son of the emperor Valerius, and they reigned together with Diocletian, Maximian, and the others. All men know that this Constantine, the father of those around Constantius, Constans, and Crispus, was deified in the Christian religion and the faith of the fathers, apostolic and prophetic, remaining unadulterated in the churches until Arius himself. And it came to pass that he [Arius] caused a multitude to split away.

II. ^B Satan’s spirit entered into this Arius, who was a presbyter of Alexander who was mentioned before, and he persuaded him, according to what is written, to raise a cloud of dust against the Church, and from it to kindle no moderate conflagration, which seized almost the entire Roman empire, and especially the eastern parts, so that even to this day his heresy does not cease from warring against the true faith and the Church. At that time, Arius was considered a presbyter, and there were many who were his fellow-presbyters in each church. There are, therefore, several in number in Alexandria, along with the one recently built, which is called Caesarea. Which was formerly [called] Adrianum.

^A It later became a gymnasium, or palace. Subsequently, during the times of Constantius, it was decided that it should be built as a church; it was begun by Gregory the Meletian and Arian, and was brought to completion by the blessed Athanasius, the father of orthodoxy, and later, after it had been burned down under Julian, it was rebuilt by the same blessed Athanasius, the bishop. There are many others as I said, such as the church called that of Dionysius, and that of Theonas, and that of Pierius, and that of Serapion, and that of the Persians, and that of Dizyas, and that of Mendidius, and that of Annianus, and that of Baucalis, and others. In one of these, there was a certain Colluthus, in another Carpones, in another Sarmatas, and this aforementioned Arius held one of the aforementioned churches. ^B And each of these, as is evident, while teaching the people entrusted to him during the customary assembly, sowed a certain strife among the people in their expositions. And some leaned toward Arius, others toward Colluthus, others toward Carpones, others toward Sarmatas. As, therefore, each was expounding in his own church, one saying one thing and another another, because of the exhortation and praise from them, some named themselves Colluthians, others Arians. For indeed, Colluthus also taught certain distorted things; but his heresy did not endure, but was immediately scattered; would that the thunderstruck faith—or rather, the unbelief, or rather, the mal-belief—of Arius had likewise vanished!

^C

III. Regarding the Old Man's Pride

For inflated with pride, that old man departed from the mark of truth. He was of very advanced age, gloomy in appearance, his whole bodily frame fashioned like a crafty serpent, able to deceive every innocent heart through this very cunning mask. For such a man, always wearing a

hemiforion

conversations and greetings, and held the minds of all bound by the allurements of flattery. ^A Wherefore, in a short time, he gathered together nearly seven hundred virgins consecrated to God, whom he had drawn away from the Church. They add that seven presbyters and twelve deacons were also led away. Furthermore, his pestilent poison gradually reached even to the bishops. For he drew Secundus, the bishop of Pentapolis, along with several others, over to his side; all these things were being carried out in the Church secretly from the blessed bishop Alexander, until Meletius, the archbishop of the Thebaid in Egypt, as I said above (for the Meletian faction had not yet broken out into hostile and implacable enmities; he, therefore, being inflamed with the fervor of piety, and since he held nothing alien or abhorrent to the true faith, but only differed in the mere appearance of a certain affected justice, through which, nevertheless, as we have shown before when we disputed against him, he brought great ruin upon the world), this very Meletius, the archbishop in Egypt, who was subject to Alexander, brought the whole matter to the ears of the archbishop Alexander. Now we have already said that this Meletius was a contemporary of the blessed bishop and martyr Peter, as I have said. ^B When, therefore, he signaled all the facts concerning Arius, how he had strayed from the truth, and how he had corrupted and destroyed many, having spoiled those who were persuaded by him of the right faith, then the bishop, having summoned Arius himself, asked him about the things he had heard, whether these things were so. But he, neither hesitating nor fearing, but immediately rubbing his forehead, vomited forth his entire perverse opinion, as is evident from his own letters and the acts of that inquiry. Wherefore Alexander, having held a convention of the presbyters and certain bishops who were present, examined the question concerning him and investigated it diligently. Then, because he refused to yield to the truth, he cast him out of the Church and proscribed him in the city; and with him those aforementioned virgins, and the clerics whom I mentioned before, along with no small multitude, were distracted from the Church.

IV.

^A And when these things reached the ears of Bishop Alexander, he wrote encyclical letters, which are still preserved by the studious, numbering about seventy, to each of the bishops: immediately to Eusebius in Caesarea, for he was still surviving, and to Macarius of Jerusalem, Asclepius in Gaza, Longinus in Ascalon, Macrinus in Jamnia, and others; likewise in Phoenicia to a certain ancient Zeno of Tyre, and others, and also in Coele-Syria. When, therefore, these letters were sent, blaming those who had received him, each one wrote back to the blessed Alexander making his apology; some wrote with irony, others in truth. Some said they had received him, others that they had received him out of ignorance; others claimed as an apology that they had received him in order to gain him over. The subject matter regarding these things is vast.

^B V. Afterwards, when Arius learned that letters had been sent to the bishops everywhere, and that he was henceforth repelled from every quarter and no longer accepted by anyone except his fellow-workers—for Eusebius, the old man, the bishop of Nicomedia, was his advocate, having lived together with Lucian in Nicomedia [(74)], and also Leontius, the eunuch in Antioch, not yet promoted to the episcopal see, and some others—since all these were of the same poisonous faction, Eusebius received him for a considerable time. From where, in fact, Arius himself wrote to Eusebius in Nicomedia, before he had reached Nicomedia to him, letters filled with all sorts of nonsense, containing all his impious doctrine, having inserted nothing more into them than the very things he thought at the time; ^C from which, one having come into our hands, I have deemed it necessary to set forth here, so that those who read it may see that we have not spoken or do not speak anything against anyone slanderously. And it is as follows:

Arius' Epistle

VI. To the most beloved lord, the faithful man of God, the orthodox Eusebius, Arius, who is being unjustly persecuted by Pope ^D Alexander because of the all-conquering truth of which you also are a champion, greetings in the Lord.

When my father Ammonius was setting out for Nicomedia, it seemed reasonable and a duty for me to send you greetings through him, and at the same time to remind you of your innate love and disposition which you have toward the brethren for the sake of God and his Christ, that the bishop greatly harasses and pursues us and stirs up every kind of evil against us, so as to expel us from the city as impious men, because we do not agree with those things he says publicly: 'Always God, always the Son.'

' The Son is at the same time as the Father; the Son is at the same time as the Son. The Son coexists with God without birth, always begotten, born without birth. God does not surpass the Son in thought or in any instant; God is always, the Son is always; the Son is from God himself. And because your brother Eusebius in Caesarea, and Theodosius, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius, and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, ^A they have become anathema, apart from Philogonio, and Hellanicus, and Macarius, ignorant men and heretics, some of whom call the Son an 'eructation,' others a 'begotten production.' And we cannot even bear to hear these impious men, even if the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths.

But what do we say, and think, and teach, and are teaching? That the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of the unbegotten in any way; nor is he from any underlying matter; but that he came into being by the will and counsel [of the Father] before times and before ages, a full only-begotten God, ^B immutable, and before he was begotten, or created, or appointed, or founded, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we said: 'The Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning.' For this we are persecuted, and because we said: 'He is from non-existent things.' We said it in this way, in that he is neither a part of God, nor from any underlying matter. For this we are persecuted. Now you know. I pray that you may be strong in the Lord, remembering our afflictions together with the Lucianist, truly, Eusebius.

Note on the Lucianists

(76) And Theodosius and Paulinus. Read Theodotus, not Theodosius, in Theodoret, book 1, chap. 5, and Nicephorus, book VIII, chap. 9. This man was bishop of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berytus, Aetius of Lydda.

(77) Together with the Lucianist, truly, Eusebius. It must be amended to 'Lucianist.' For they boasted that they were disciples of the martyr Lucian. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople, censures Lucian, as if he had followed the dogma of Paul of Samosata; and asserts that on this account he was rejected from the Church by three successive Antiochene bishops. The Arians zealously studied to claim and vindicate this man for themselves: so much so that in an Antiochene synod they issued a formula of faith as if conceived by him. But Baronius, in his Notes to the Martyrology and in the Annales Ecclesiastici for the year 318, clears Lucian of this calumny. Where he shows that Lucian, in refuting the heresy of the Sabellians, had proceeded too far and leaned somewhat too vehemently toward the opposite side, ^C and, in order to establish the distinction of the persons, had thrown out some things which the Arians, who arose afterward, transferred to their own use. Which same thing happened to most of the ancient Fathers in this business, as well as in other heads of the Christian faith, so that before the origin of the errors and heresies which were being opposed individually, while the truth of the matter was not yet sufficiently illustrated and made manifest, they sprinkled certain things in their writings which, with the rule of the orthodox faith, agree not at all.

That I may not depart from this mystery of the Trinity and the question: we have long observed that Justin the martyr, in the Dialogue with Trypho concerning the Son of God, feels almost the same as the Arians. For on page 119 of the Paris edition, he judged that the Word of God, and the Son even before he took up flesh, was inferior to the Father: whom he also says appeared to the ancients, and by subsequently recounted examples thus concludes: Then as often as it is read in Scripture: 'God ascended to Abraham' (Gen. xvii, 22): or, 'The Lord spoke to Moses' (Exod. xiii, 1): or, 'God descended, that he might see the tower' (Gen. xi, 5): or, 'The Lord shut the ark from without' (Gen. vii, 16), and other things of this kind, he denies that it should be accepted of the Father Himself; ^D who is neither moved from place, nor has addressed anyone, but pertains to the Son. For if the Jews could not at all bear the splendor of the Son himself, whom He had sent, how would they sustain the majesty and glory of the Father Himself? Therefore, neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any of mortals saw the Father Himself and the Lord of all things: But Him who is God by His own will, and His Son and angel, because He yields to His will. Which words of Justin, Tertullian imitated in book II, against Marcion, chap. 27. It is wonderful that the Arians, when they most desired to corroborate their own madness with the testimony of ancient Fathers, passed over Justin. But from all blame, as I have said, as much here as Lucian, and others are to be liberated, who, when the controversy had not yet been agitated and explained, seem to have pronounced on it a little less conveniently. Something similar about Dionysius of Alexandria, Basil relates in his letter and elsewhere.

^A VII. Furthermore, he wrote to the most holy Pope Alexander from Nicomedia another apology, ostensibly for the sake of excusing himself, but which is again filled with worse and incessant blasphemous expressions of his poison, and which he sent to Alexandria. We have thought fit to append it.

Epistle of Arius to Alexander

To the blessed pope and our bishop Alexander, the presbyters and deacons, greeting in the Lord.

That faith of ours which we have received from our ancestors and which we have also learned from you, most blessed Pope, is as follows: We recognize one God, alone unbegotten, alone eternal, alone without beginning, alone true, possessing immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone potent, alone judge of all, moderator and steward, unchangeable and unalterable, just and good, the God of the Law and the Prophets and of the New Testament, who begat a only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom he also made the ages and the rest of all things. He begat him not in semblance, but in truth; and he gave him subsistence by his own will, unchangeable and unalterable, a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; an offspring, but not as one of the offsprings; nor, as Valentinus ^B dogmatized the offspring of the Father to be an emission (78); nor, as Manichaeus introduced the offspring to be a consubstantial part of the Father; nor, as Sabellius, who divides the monad, called him Son-Father; nor, as Hieracas, [speaking of] a lamp from a lamp, or as a torch divided into two; nor that he who was before is later begotten or created into a Son, as thou thyself, most blessed Pope, didst frequently refute in the midst of the Church and in the council those who asserted these things; but, as we say, created by the will of God before times and before ages, and having received life and being from the Father, and the Father having co-established his glories alongside him. For the Father, in giving him the inheritance of all things, did not divest himself of having them in himself unbegottenly. For he is the Source of all.

^{C D} VIII. Wherefore there are three hypostases, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And while God, being the cause of all things, is without beginning, and solitary, the Son

^A born of the Father, and created and founded before the ages, was not before he was begotten. But being begotten timelessly before all things, he alone came into existence from the only Father. For he is not eternal, nor co-eternal, nor co-unbegotten with the Father; nor does he have his being together with the Father, as some say, who refer to relative things, introducing two unbegotten principles. But as the Monad and the Principle of all things, so God is before all things. Wherefore he is even before Christ, as we have learned from you, since he preached this in the midst of the Church. Inasmuch, therefore, as he received his being and life and honors and all things bestowed upon him from God, in this respect God is his Principle. For He rules over him as his God, and exists before him, because he is from Him. And if the expression, "From the womb," and, "I came forth from the Father, and I come," be understood by some as a part of the consubstantial, and as an emanation, the Father will be composite, and divisible, and mutable, and ^B according to them, a body; and, as far as they are concerned, God, who is incorporeal, will suffer things consistent with a body. I pray that you may fare well in the Lord, most blessed Pope. Arius, Euthales, Achilles, Carpones, Sarmatas, Arius, presbyters; deacons: Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, Caius; bishops: Secundus of Pentapolis, Theonas the Libyan, Pistus, whom the Arians established at Alexandria.

IX. Since, therefore, the state of affairs was being disturbed by these commotions ^C, Alexander wrote to the Emperor Constantine. The blessed emperor summoned Arius and certain bishops and cross-examined them. But he, surrounded by a crowd of his fellow-initiates, at first denied this to the face of the emperor, while meanwhile, with guardians removed, he was forging secret plots against the Church. As, therefore, the blessed Constantine summoned him, being, as it were, partially inspired by the Holy Spirit, he addressed to him words of this sort, saying, "I believe in God, for if you deceitfully possess anything concealed, ^D your Master, who is Lord of all, will quickly convict you—especially because you have dared to stir up such things."

From that time forth, having been caught holding the same errors and convicted before the emperor, he denied them yet again. And many of his advocates interceded for him through Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia. But the emperor, burning with zeal for the divine faith, wrote a long encyclical letter to all those subject to the Roman empire against Arius and his dogma, filled with all wisdom and true doctrines—a letter which is still preserved today by those who love such writings, containing at its beginning: "Constantine Augustus, greatest. Arius and the Arians are evil interpreters; they are the very image and representation of the devil." Then, after other matters, and after having set forth a long refutation of him from the divine Scriptures, he finally adds with indignation a verse from Homer, which I also thought necessary to set forth here, and it is this: "Come now, Ares, there is ^B need of shields." We beseech you, do not do this; let at least the intimacy of Aphrodite check you.

X. When Arius later desired to be received at Constantinople into the communion of the Catholic Church, with Eusebius, who had great influence with the emperor, violently insisting and importuning the bishop who was in Constantinople at that time—and although that bishop was unwilling to join in communion with him, and was burdened and grieving—Eusebius declared, "If you are not willing of your own accord, tomorrow, when the Lord’s Day dawns, he will enter the church with me; and what can you do against us?" Then the most pious and God-fearing bishop Alexander, the bishop of that same excellent city—for he was the namesake of the one in Alexandria—when he heard these things, ^C spent the whole day and night in tears and sorrow, continuing in prayer and beseeching God either to take his own soul so that he would not be defiled by the communion of Arius, or to do something extraordinary. And this is what came to pass for him. For when Arius was compelled by necessity to go out during the night to relieve his bowels, he withdrew to the privy, and while sitting inside in that inaccessible place, he was found having burst asunder and died. Thus he was discovered in that foul-smelling place, having cast out all his intestines just as he had vomited out his impure bad faith. ^D

XI. When these things were accomplished, the emperor, concerned for the Church because many were already often at variance with one another and there were many schisms, convened an ecumenical synod of three hundred and eighteen bishops, whose names are preserved to this day; and they anathematized the faith of Arius in the city of Nicaea, and confessed [the faith transmitted by the apostles and prophets].

When the bishops had subscribed to this, and had anathematized the Ariomanite heresy, it came to pass in this manner. At the same time, in the same synod, they established certain ecclesiastical canons; and they also decreed concerning the celebration of Easter, that that holy and most religious day should be celebrated at the same time with total consensus and concord, for previously there was a difference in how it was observed by some. For some were anticipating it, others were keeping it in the middle, and others were observing it later, and, to speak in a word, there was great confusion at that time. God desired that these things be settled for the sake of peace, through the efforts and zeal of the blessed Constantine. When Arius had been proscribed ^B and the rest had been done in this way, in that same year Alexander departed from this life, and Achillas succeeded him. But there was also a Theonas, who had been installed by the Meletians. Then, after Achillas the bishop had served for three months, he was succeeded by the blessed Athanasius, who was then a deacon of Alexander and had been sent by him to the court, to whom the dying Alexander had commanded that the episcopacy should be consigned. But since it is the custom at Alexandria that the successor should not be delayed for long after the death of a bishop, but should be appointed immediately for the sake of peace, lest there arise among the populace dissensions and contentions—some favoring this man and some that—they were forced to substitute Achillas in Athanasius’s absence. Yet the throne and the priesthood were owed to him who had been called by God and appointed by the blessed Alexander. When, therefore, Athanasius had arrived ^C and had been installed, being a man of great zeal regarding the faith and suffering on behalf of the Church, and seeing that assemblies were being split everywhere and the people divided by those called Meletians—the reason for which I have already declared in the discourse on the Meletian schism—and wishing to bring about the reunion of the Church, he did not cease to rebuke, threaten, and exhort, yet no one would listen. Whence all the disturbances that were gathered and organized against him were brought about and concocted because of his exceptional fervor and the zeal divinely bestowed upon him by God. And this matter went so far that he frequently endured exiles, and was most indignantly excommunicated by the Arians, who then possessed power and influence. But enough of the blessed Athanasius for now. For the things that concerned him were declared ^D above in the Meletian schism.

^A XII. I return now to Arius, who, at the prompting of the most wicked demon, did not hesitate to lift his mouth against his own Lord with equal unbridledness of tongue and impudence. For he wished, above all, to interpret that sentence of Solomon in the Proverbs: *The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways, for his works; before the ages He founded me, in the beginning before He made the earth, and before He made the abysses; before the fountains of the waters came forth, before the mountains were settled, and before all the hills, He begets me.* From this he found the occasion to introduce his error. Nor was he or his disciples ashamed to call the Word, who created all things and who was begotten of the Father without time and without beginning, a creature. From this one word, he thereafter cast his polluted mind into many and evil paths of error, and not only he but his successors in his doctrine did not hesitate to heap countless insults upon the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. They broke the tight-knit concord of the holy and orthodox faith and the Church, ^B as if to say, not by their own power or wisdom—for few were led astray or circumvented by them—but because most of them joined themselves to them, whether creeping in through hypocrisy or compelled by force, while harboring something very different in their minds. Nor was this brought about from any other source than that which was permitted by God for the proving of the faithful. The favor of emperors also played a part, the beginning of which proceeded from the Emperor Constantius. For while he was in all other things gentle and good, as the son of that great and perfect and God-fearing Constantine, who consistently maintained the sincere faith in his soul, Constantius himself, though pious otherwise and endowed with many ornaments of integrity, erred in this one thing: that he did not follow the footprints of faith imprinted by his parent. Yet this was not done through his own fault, but through the deceit of certain men who shall render an account on the day of judgment; men who, being bishops in appearance and name only, undermined the sincere faith of God. From them, beyond a doubt, an account must be demanded not only for the faith itself, but for the persecutions of the entire Church, and for such great calamities and slaughters which were caused in the churches on their account; ^C as well as for the infinite thousands of men who, to this very day, are battered by various miseries outside of cities and homes; and finally, for the fact that they accommodated the authority of the blessed Constantius—who was led into error by them and who was ignorant of the rule of the right faith—to a strategy hidden behind error.

XIII. Another cause was added, which gave still more strength to this workshop of serpents: Eusebius, who, by cunningly insinuating himself, ^D turned the ears of Valens, a pious and religious emperor and a lover of the divine majesty, back to his own way.

^A Since he had received baptism from him, this was patently the reason why this faction stood stable and firm. Otherwise, long ago, even by women and children—I do not speak of those who are more perfect and possess the most exact knowledge of the faith and of true religion—but even by those who had at least some small acquaintance with the truth, they would have been confounded and put to flight in the earliest times, as men contumelious toward the Lord, as second murderers of the Lord, and as deniers of the divine perfection of our Lord Jesus, had they not been granted the emperor’s favor and patronage. This protection allowed them to perpetrate all the evils that have been done, and are still being done by them, in Alexandria, Nicomedia, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, while the prince is present and defending them. ^B

XIV. On the abuse of scriptural passages by the Arians

Therefore, from this one statement which is read in the Proverbs of Solomon: *The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works*, they fabricate all the rest, which can in some way be adapted to their discourse and appear to have the same force and be consistent with it, though in fact neither that passage nor the other words make any mention whatsoever of the divinity of the Son of God. They also add other similar passages, such as that which is written by the Apostle: *Consider the high priest of our confession, who is faithful to him that made him*; and also from the Gospel according to John: *This is he of whom I spoke, He that comes after me is made before me*; and in the Acts of the Apostles: *Let all the house of Israel know that God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ*. And whatever else there is of the same kind. ^C All these things should be kept in readiness for caution, for observation, and for repelling enemies. For they are indeed enemies and plotters. And I do not know if the scriptural passage does not apply to them and their likes: *Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered*, when they seem meanwhile to be of the household. Yet there is no one worse than a domestic enemy: *A man’s enemies are all those of his own household*. And this perhaps finds its place in them as well.

XV. On the malicious and mocking nature of the heretics

XV. For like rabid dogs, they leap upon their enemies. Thus they are accustomed to boast and ask: "What do you say regarding the Son of God?" ^D These, indeed, are their artifices, by which they instill their poison into the minds of the simple. Yet what more can be added to this, after he has been called the Son of God? O men wise in your own eyes, and learned, in your own opinion and in appearance only! What is there that can be added to the name of Jesus, unless he is called the legitimate Son from the Father, produced by him, and in no way different? But immediately, with laughter and mockery, they attack thus: "How can he be from God?" But if anyone asks them whether or not he is the Son: by word, indeed, they confess him to be the Son, but in power and by their mode of thought they deny it, wishing him to be considered a bastard in every respect, and not the true one. For if, they say, he is from God, and

and God begot him from Himself, as if it were to be said, from His own hypostasis by nature, or from His own essence, then He was swollen, or suffered division, or was expanded in the begetting, or contracted, or underwent any of those things which occur in bodily affections. And they are altogether ridiculous, attributing their own characteristics to God and wishing to conjecture about God from themselves. For in God there is nothing of such things; for God is Spirit, and He begot the Only-begotten from Himself ineffably, and incomprehensibly, and unblemishedly. How then, they say, if He is from His essence, does He not know the day, as He says, and the hour? "But of that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father only." And how did He come into the flesh, if He is from the Father? And how was that uncontainable nature able to put on flesh, if He was from the Father by nature? ^B Such are the reasonings they bring together. For if, because He was changed from the Father's essence, He put on flesh, and in it suffered and was crucified, let them show us which of the other spiritual creatures—there being no doubt that there are some—put on flesh. For they cannot deny that the Son excels all things in dignity. And even if they call Him a creature, they admit that He is above all His creatures. But even as though they were favoring Him, they wish to treat Him with their word, striking with one hand, as it were, and anointing with the other. For they wish to bestow this upon Him, as if from their own choice. And they say: "We call Him a creature, but not as one of the creatures, and a work, but not as one of the works, and a begotten being, ^C but not as one of the begotten beings"; so that by saying "not as one of the begotten beings," they deprive Him of a generation according to nature; and by saying "not as one of the creatures," they wish to prove Him a true creature. For whatever is a creature, remains a creature, even if it had a name ten thousand times greater, it is the same thing, leveled with all creatures. For it is not because the sun is brighter than the others that it can fail to be a creature, just like a stone; nor because the moon surpasses the stars is it therefore separated from the number of created things. "For behold," says Scripture, "all things serve Thee"; for whatever things exist have been created by Him and serve Him; but the Only-begotten Son is truth, and His Word truly exists, as He said: "If you abide in My word, ^D you are My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Now if His Word is truth, and it frees those who are being freed, how much more does He Himself exist as free, being truth, and freeing those who are His servants and who obey Him? For the reason that all things are slaves of Him, and of His Father, and of His Holy Spirit.

XVII. But they offer this objection: How did He infuse Himself into flesh, if He proceeded from the essence of the Father? Let them tell us, then, why the angels—who are His servants—did not take on flesh; why the archangels; why the heavenly hosts; why all the other spiritual beings? But such persons also claim that the Spirit is inferior, and a creature of a creature, namely of the Word. How then did the Spirit not take on flesh, being able to have a mutable aspect more than the Son, according to their own argument? But because He is the Wisdom of the Father, He willed by His own self to take up our weakness into His own perfection, so that through Himself all salvation might come to the world. But they turn good things into evil and show themselves to be ungrateful; unthankful, mindless, abusers of their own Master, and blasphemers. And all the other things that they say, they harbor in folly. ^B How, they ask, did He hunger if He was of the essence of the Father? For it is written concerning God: *He shall not hunger, nor thirst; and there is no searching of His understanding.* But this One did both hunger and thirst. How is it that He tired from the journey and sat down, when it is written: *God shall not labor*? And why did He Himself say: *The Father who sent me is greater than I*? For he who sends is one person, and he who is sent is another. And it is clear that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. For we do not side with Sabellius, who says that the Son is the Father. If He had not said that "Another is He who sent me," and, *I go to my God and your God, to my Father and your Father*, He spoke. And the disciples were not begotten of the essence of God by nature. And yet He said to them: "Your Father." ^C

But those who boast of such things are swept along by a certain intolerable fury and madness. For if He is called Son by name only, and not by nature, however much He may surpass in dignity, He differs in no way from the condition of all other creatures. For even if a king excels his prefects and military commanders, he is not for that reason not of the same condition as the others, nor is he not contained in the same servitude as they, as one derived from the same creation, and mortal no less than those who are subject to him. Similarly, from the fact that the sun or moon excel the other stars, the elements do not for that reason cease to be subject, and under the rule of the one Creator and Artificer, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ^D Nor does the fact that the angels are more excellent than all visible things, and indeed than all created things, in order and dignity—inasmuch as they cannot fall under sight, and they hold the first place and rank of worship and service toward the divine Being, whom they unceasingly celebrate with hymns and praises; from whom also they are immortal not by nature, but created by grace by Him who is immortal, and in Himself is life and immortality—cause them to cease from being subject to fear and trembling, and under accountability, and examination, and…

to be subject to the authority of the divine majesty. ^C

XVIII. Hence, therefore, we must revert to that accurate account of the truth which is in question, so that when we say "Son," we do not think that the word resides in Him as a mere name, but that He is by nature Son. For even in our own usage we call many "sons" who are not sons by nature. But those are called true and genuine sons who are born of us by nature. If, therefore, He were called Son only in the way that all others also have been called sons of God, then He would differ in no way from the others. And how then is He worshipped as God? For it would behoove all the others, upon whom the name of adoption has been bestowed, to be worshipped just as He is, since they are addressed as sons of God. But the truth is not so; rather, it knows always one only-begotten Son of God, whom all things serve and worship, and to whom "every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." ^D Nor indeed is the Holy Spirit to be leveled with other spirits, since He is one, the Spirit of God, the Spirit proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son. But these men wish Him to be a creature of a creature. For they say that "all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made"; therefore, they say, the Spirit also belongs among created things, since all things were made through Him. But those who have vainly destroyed their own souls are ignorant that creatures are one thing, and the Creator Himself—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is another; one God, a Trinity in truth, and a monad in unity. For this reason there is one God, because there are not two Fathers, nor two Sons, nor two Holy Spirits. And because the Son is not a stranger to the Father, but begotten of Him, and the Holy Spirit is not a stranger; but while the Son is the only-begotten, begotten without beginning and without time, the Holy Spirit, as the Father Himself and the Only-begotten know, is neither begotten nor created, nor a stranger to the Father and the Son, but proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son. "For," He says, "My Spirit stands in the midst of you," and "He anointed Christ in the Holy Spirit." If the Only-begotten Himself is anointed in the Spirit, who will dare to attack the most holy Trinity?

XIX. The Furor of Arius regarding the Goodness of God

XIX. The furious and senseless Arius proceeds further and says: "Why," he asks, "did the Lord say: 'Why do you call Me good? There is one good, God'?" ^D as if He were denying His own goodness by these words. And yet who else is to be compared in goodness with the only-begotten Son of God, who offered Himself as a ransom for the redemption of our souls? To such a degree are they ignorant of the divine power and goodness; nor do they understand the providence and administration of the wisdom of God, being psychical men, immersed too deeply in the flesh, and not being discerned by the Holy Spirit, since they are empty of Him, not possessing the gift of the Holy Spirit that makes every man wise. All…

Furthermore, they say that when the sons of Zebedee, through the intervention of their mother, asked Him that one might sit on His right hand and the other on His left in His kingdom, He replied to them: "You do not know what you ask. Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink?" And when they said, "We can," He added: "You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." To this the Apostle writes: "God raised Him from the dead," as if there were need of someone to raise Him. Furthermore, they say that an angel of the Lord appeared to Him, strengthening Him, because He was in an agony and sweated, and His sweat became like drops of blood, as it is recorded in the Gospel according to Luke, when He had gone apart to pray before He was to be betrayed. And again, they say, on the cross He said: "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" ^B "You see," they say, "how He desires the help of another?" But as for those words: "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me," and again, "That we are two, so that they may be one," they say that He claims to be one not according to nature, but that such unity is to be referred to a harmony of will. Nor are they content with this error, but they furthermore deny that He was endowed with a human soul. They lay this foundation for a set purpose, so that they may admit He took true flesh from the Virgin Mary and the rest of things proper to man, if you but except the one soul; so that when you hear of hunger, or thirst, or labors, journeys, sweat, sleep, or indignation, and you say that He had need of these because of the humanity He had assumed, they may immediately object that flesh by itself cannot perform these things ^C unless it be endowed with a soul. And indeed, this is truly said by them. "What is this, therefore," they say, "other than what His divinity had need of in all these things?" So that, when they say His divinity had need of them, they proclaim Him to be like a foreigner, and entirely alien to the essence and true nature of the Father. But I, for my part, entirely maintain this: after those few testimonies, wrongly devised and understood by them, have been refuted and overturned, when the whole truth has been manifest, proclaimed, and corroborated in the orthodox faith and religion, they are to be easily convinced by those who are prudent, wise, and endowed with a divine mind, however much they may bring forward other countless sentences from every side, after the dissolution of those previous passages. For from a few, very many which have the same force will be explained. ^D XX. I shall therefore begin by speaking of that saying of Solomon, which they have persuaded themselves can plant the most bitter root of their dogma: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works." This passage the Scripture nowhere confirms by repeating it, nor did any of the apostles mention it, so as to accommodate it to Christ. Therefore, it does not at all refer to the Son of God.

of God speaks, even if it happens to say, "I, wisdom, have dwelt in counsel, and I have called upon knowledge and understanding." For how many wisdoms of God are there said to be, though in an improper sense? But there is one who is the Only-begotten, not called so in an improper sense, but in truth. For all things are the wisdom of God; and whatever comes from God is wisdom; but another is the peculiar one, and that which is above all things, that is to say, the Only-begotten, who is not wisdom in an improper sense, but in truth; who is always with the Father, who is the power and wisdom of God, according to that which is written: "But unto us Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God." There is also the wisdom of the poor that is despised; and, "Since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe"; and, "God has made foolish the wisdom of this world"; and, "God gave Solomon a heart as the sand of the sea," and he was wiser than the sons of Enac; and, "God gave Bezeleel wisdom," and God filled the son of Uri with wisdom. And many things can be said concerning wisdom. And, "Where is the place of understanding, and where is wisdom found?"

^A Whether, then, this celebrated wisdom says, "I, wisdom, have dwelt in counsel, and I have called upon knowledge and understanding. By me kings reign, and by me nobles are magnified, and potentates write justice, and tyrants rule the earth. I love those who love me, and those who seek me shall find me. Wealth and glory belong to me, and the possession of many things, and justice; I walk in the way of justice, and I dwell in the midst of the paths of judgment, that I may divide sustenance to those who love me, and fill their treasuries with good things. If I tell you the things that happen day by day, I shall remember to number things from the beginning." "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works; before the age he founded me in the beginning, before he made the earth, and before he made the depths. Before the springs of the waters came forth, and before the mountains were established, and before all the hills he begets me," and so forth: it is clear that, when certain people wish to argue against the text, those who are opposed use a counter-objection because of the name of wisdom and the sequence of the discourse which says, "The Lord created me," and by saying, "I, wisdom, have dwelt in counsel." For behold, wisdom, having named itself from the beginning, and proceeding in order, signifies itself, saying, "The Lord created me." For it says above, "I, wisdom," and further down it says, "If I tell you the things that happen day by day, ^B I shall remember to number things from the beginning." And what does it say? "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways."

XXI. But we have said before that there are many kinds of wisdom which are from time to time given by God, because

^A God brings all things to pass in wisdom. But there is one wisdom which is the wisdom of the Father, and the co-substantial Word of God. For that word does not at all force me to speak of the Son of God. For it has not been declared, nor has any of the apostles made mention of it, nor indeed the Gospel. But if, then, this were to be understood as being about the Son of God, the term is not the same, nor is it placed for a direct judgment. For the whole book is Proverbs, and everything that is spoken by way of a proverb is not the same in power, but it discourses with one word, and allegorizes with another power. If, therefore, [someone] says this, and some dare to carry this over to the Son of God, God forbid! This word is not carried over to His divinity. But if it is, it can be fulfilled in His incarnate coming. For since "Wisdom hath built herself a house," and if at any time it might be piously said from the person of His becoming man, as His incarnate coming speaks about His divinity, "The Lord created me," that is, He built me in the womb of Mary, "the beginning of His ways for His works." For the beginning of the ways of the descent of Christ into the world is the body taken from Mary in the work of His righteousness and salvation. But certainly one who is damaged in his heart, and struck by this terrible wound, would leap forward, possessing hatred against the Son of God in his mind, because, he says, it is written: "If I shall tell you the things that happen daily, I will remember ^B the things from the beginning [and] count them." And see, that he says "from the beginning." But the incarnate coming of God came after sixty-two generations (90) according to Matthew; how then can the things from the beginning of the age be said to belong to this?

XXII. But blind men, and those who have wandered entirely from the way of truth, do not know that it is the custom of Holy Scripture that, whatever it wishes to teach, it does not begin to narrate from the most ancient times, nor, so to speak, from the very beginning, but begins from those things which are closest, so that it may signify the pre-existent as the final thing. For this reason He also said, "If I tell you the things that happen daily," and further, "I will remember the things from the beginning," just as God first indicated to Moses the burning fire, and in the fire of the bush the vision occurred just now. And an angel spoke to him immediately; and afterwards the Lord from the bush likewise addressed him. And he [Moses] did not immediately ask about the things that were being seen, but asked about the things from the beginning. "Come," He says, "I will send you to the sons of Israel, and you shall say to them: The God of your fathers ^C has sent me, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," naming those around Abraham, who preceded Moses by five or six generations. And when He said the God of the fathers, He indicated what was ancient. But Moses, being graced with wisdom from God, did not ask these things, but rather what further.

name it was, or what he should say to them. And the Lord then reveals: "I am who I am." Thus it is clearly seen that He first began from things that were nearest, and then finally declared what was supreme and ultimate. In the same way, Luke begins from the lowest and nearest. "Jesus Himself," he says, "was beginning at about thirty years of age, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, who was of Eli, who was of Matthat, who was of Nathan, who was of David, who was of Judah, who was of Jacob, who was of Abraham, who was of Nahor, who was of Noah, who was of Lamech, who was of Enoch, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God." In these you notice that mention of the assumed flesh was made first; then, that which was last was introduced. For this reason Matthew also, wishing to bring the advent of Christ in the flesh to the knowledge of men and to weave together the genealogy of the body, did not begin thus: "The generation of Jesus Christ, the son of Abraham," but first "the son of David," then "the son of Abraham," so that by that which is recently seen and that which is confirmed as nearest, he might indicate that which is even higher, and signify one thing that surpasses all created things and cannot be taken away. ^B

XXIII. Therefore, the blessed John, coming after the others and seeing men occupied entirely with the lower nature of Christ—and seeing the Ebionites led into error by the bodily genealogy of Christ led down from Abraham and by Luke brought up to Adam; and indeed seeing the Cerinthians and Merinthians asserting that He was a mere man born from the copulation of both sexes; and that the Nazarenes and certain other heresies held the same opinion—as one coming last of all (for he was the fourth to set out to write a Gospel), he undertook to call back, as it were, those who had been led astray and were occupied with the lower advent of Christ, and to speak to them as if walking behind and seeing certain men who had turned onto rough paths and had abandoned the straight and true one, saying: "Where are you being carried? Where are you walking?" To those walking on the rough and scandalous road that leads into an abyss, he says: "Return. ^C It is not so; the God-Word did not come from Mary alone, He who was born from the Father from above; He does not date from the times of Joseph, her spouse, nor from the times of Salathiel and Zerubbabel and David and Abraham and Jacob and Noah and Adam; rather, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' And the 'was,' and 'was,' and 'was,' does not permit us to suspect that He did not exist at some time."

And you see how He immediately signifies the nearest things first; just as Matthew showed the way through the genealogy, and even he did not treat it precisely, but because he traced it from above, although the genealogy… ^D

order from above, and of the eternally existing divinity, declared it last; just as Solomon says proverbially, "the beginning of the ways," if indeed some wish piously to speak concerning the incarnate economy, as if she herself were speaking about the divinity of Christ, that this very divinity built the house; that this very divinity fashioned the flesh and the incarnation as the beginning of his ways for his works, for the salvation ^B and goodness of men. Then, immediately afterwards, as the events continue to progress, he says: "He founded me in the beginning." Is the Son of God, then, according to his divinity, created and subsequently founded? Let these "architects," these inspectors of heavenly things, tell us by what art Wisdom was created, by what tool it was founded. But if one must think at all, one should flee from such a depth of blasphemy and not touch the divinity of the Only-Begotten, which is always existing with the Father and begotten from Him. For the Word was always with the Father, always the Wisdom, always God from God, Lord, always true light, and no counterfeit; always having existence from Him, and being Truth, and possessing life. ^C XXIV. But why is it necessary for me to speak at length about this? Solomon proceeds: "And he founded me in the beginning." Here we can piously observe that the human soul is signified by these words. For to say, "The Lord created me," if one wishes to refer it to that thought, should be understood as being taken from his humanity. But the term "founded" pertains especially to the soul; by reason of which he is said to be founded. Now, as for what is added, "Before all the hills he begets me," this is to be accepted as pointing to that heavenly generation. And we say these things not in order to define that it must be so, but so that we may nonetheless have pious thoughts concerning the incarnation of Christ our Lord, if indeed the meaning ^D of this passage must be of such a nature. Although no one can force us to think that this was said about Christ, nevertheless, if we grant that it relates to Christ, it can have its own meaning; a meaning not fabricated through divination, but one proceeding from the piety of the mind, lest we think that any deficiency falls upon God, or that anyone should persuade himself that the divinity of the Son is inferior to the essence of the Father. For indeed some of our orthodox Fathers have interpreted this passage of Solomon as referring to the incarnation of Christ: "The Lord possessed me, and founded me." And this, in the end, is a sense consistent with piety, since, as I have said, certain great Fathers have understood it so. If anyone does not wish to agree with them in this part, he cannot in any way be forced. As for those who are strangers to the faith and who are aliens to it, there is no harm, for this will not cause any deficiency in us, while the divinity remains free and always existing with the Father. And whatever Christ has suffered, he has suffered, but not...

so as to change his nature; his divinity remained in that state of being exempt from suffering. Wherefore, since he determined of his own free will to suffer for the sake of the human race—for the divinity, being in itself impassible, could not suffer—that divine Wisdom assumed our passible body, so that within it he might willingly suffer and take our sufferings upon himself, while the divinity resided within the flesh. For the divinity does not suffer. For how could he who says, "I am the life" (John 11:25), be able to die? But God remains impassible. He suffers along with the flesh, so that the suffering may be accounted to the divinity—with the divinity suffering—in order that salvation might exist for us in God; yet the suffering is in the flesh, so that we might not have a God who is passible, but rather one who is impassible, taking the suffering upon himself by [an act of] will, and not by necessity. ^B

XXV. Yet these men, neither having handled the Hebrew words, nor understanding them, nor knowing what the power of them is, have risen up rashly and impetuously as fierce enemies, seeking a pretext from which they might undermine the faith, or rather themselves; for they can do nothing against the truth. And since they found it written, "The Lord created me," they have dreamt up, in a thirsty-dangerous way, as if imagining things in sleep, bringing in nothing useful to life, and have troubled the whole world. But the Hebrew does not say this; wherefore Aquila says, "The Lord possessed me." For those who beget/adopt children always say, "I have possessed a son." But not even Aquila interpreted the power of the word. For "I have possessed a son" implies something recent; but in God there is nothing recent. And even if one confesses that the Son is begotten of the Father, and is not created, he is begotten without time and without beginning. For there is no time between the Son and the Father, lest any time be found to be older than the Son. For if all things are through him, then surely the times are also. But if time exists, being before all things, how can this be? But if, then, another Son must be sought, through whom time was made before the Son. And there are many things which lead into an infinite impasse the minds of men who are meddlesome and who produce no good fruit. But in the Hebrew (92) it says, *Adonai*, which is called Lord; *kanani*, which can be said, "he nested me," and "he possessed me." But the most accurate reading is "he nested me." What ^{C D}

chick is not born of the nature of the one by whom it was begotten? ^A

There is indeed a regular structure in the forming of bodies, such that all fetuses come into existence from the conjunction of both sexes, and we see this same thing in humans as well as in cattle, birds, and other animals. On this account, the only-begotten Son of God, being the perfect wisdom of the Father, and desiring to bring all things to perfection that they might be able to steer and correct men, so that no one might suspect false things about Him and fall away from the truth, He took on human nature and, as nature dictates, was begotten of a woman. Throughout the whole time of gestation, He remained in the Virgin's womb, yet He was not conceived from the seed of a man, that there might be no conjunction and mingling of sexes in this corporeal generation. ^B Rather, He received flesh from the mother alone, and fulfilled in Himself a perfect incarnation of man, not a deficient one, but a true one. And because it was not from the seed of a man, was there anything lacking? For He possessed all things perfectly, having everything: flesh, nerves, veins, and all other such things; and He truly possessed a soul, not in appearance only, but in reality; and likewise a mind, and all other things of which human nature consists, apart from sin, just as it is written: "He was tempted in all things without sin." So that, in having been begotten here in this singular way from a mother according to the flesh, perfectly and without deficiency, He might show to those wishing to see the truth, and not to blind their own minds, that He was also begotten perfectly from the Father above, timelessly and without beginning, ^C and was also begotten below from the mother alone, without stain and without defilement.

XXVI. And to interpret those words, *Adonai kanani*, which is, "The Lord nested me," indeed, whatever begets another begets something like itself. Thus, man begets man, and God begets God. The former begets according to the flesh, but God according to the Spirit. And whatever the man who begets is, such also is the one begotten by him. The man who begets is encompassed by passions, and he begets his own son in the same way. But God, who is without any passion, begat the Son begotten by Him without passion and truly, and not in appearance only, from Himself, and not outside of Himself, being Spirit and passionless, and begetting Spirit without passion, being God and passionless, having begotten the true God without passion. For if He Himself created all things, and you, O Arius, confess that God created all things, He Himself also begat the Son. But if you say: "If He begat, He suffered in begetting," we shall reply to you in turn that, if He suffered in begetting, He also grew weary in creating. But He has all things at once that He wills, and He holds all things within Himself in perfection; and neither does passion strike Him in the act of creating the Son, nor shall the Divine be thought to be encompassed by passion on account of the ineffable birth of the Son. ^D For the Father is immutable, the Son is immutable, the Holy Spirit is immutable; one essence, one divinity.

^A At that, you will say to me: "Did He beget willingly or unwillingly?" But I am not like you, O contentious man, to think of any such thing regarding God. For if He begot not willing, He begot unwillingly; and if He begot willingly, then the will existed before the Son; and there would be even a moment of time between the Son [and the Father] by reason of the will. But in God there is no time for taking counsel, nor will for deliberation. Therefore, He did not beget either willingly or unwillingly, but [it occurred] in a nature that is beyond will. For the nature of divinity is His, which neither stands in need of will, nor does anything without will, but has all things simultaneously from itself, and is lacking in none of the things that exist.

^B XXVII. Now once again that same Arius, who in his grasping at words is so entirely given over to diligently inspecting and perlustrating all things, and searching out evil things on every side—not as the divine Scripture has it, but as he himself, diseased in his questionings and verbal contentions, is prompted by the ailment of his own mind, which leads to no good result but to his own destruction and that of those who are led astray by him—lays hold of the passage where the Lord, blessing His disciples, said: "Father, give them life to have in themselves. This is eternal life, that they may know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." But I have already treated all these matters in the great book on the faith, which we again, according to our mediocrity and infirmity, being compelled by the hortatory entreaties of the brethren, wrote concerning the faith; to which work we gave the name

Anchored

Holy Spirit of God; just as the holy Apostle of God said: "You are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you." Therefore, the Spirit is God from God, by which Holy Spirit we are called temples, if we have His Spirit dwelling within us. For it is the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, and receiving from the Son, as the Only-begotten Himself confesses. ^B

XXVIII. On the Arian heresy and the perversion of the truth

These things, then, we have explained more fully in the aforementioned book concerning faith, which we also sent to the regions of Pamphylia and Pisidia. But at this place, since we have arrived at the subsequent words that are in question, we have felt compelled to record these same things again, so to speak, on account of the aforementioned heresiarch Arius and the Arians who follow him, so that we may expose their wickedness, which turns the sweet into bitter, the good into evil, and light into darkness. For against such men, the woe is altogether decreed by the Lord through the holy Isaiah, against those who change good things into evil. And God is in no way the cause of such things; rather, each of these men, whether through vain glory, or through prejudice, or through self-chosen wisdom, or through a demonic conceit, has fallen away from the truth and brought tribulation upon the world, [which is] their own depravity. Come, therefore, let us examine this word here, that we may know the things spoken by the Lord, as the holy Apostle says: "And we have the Spirit of God, that we may know the things that are given to us by God, which also we speak," and the rest. The Lord says, then: "Give to them to have life in themselves. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

^C

XXIX. On the hypocrisy of Arius and the divine purpose of the Incarnation

Here this Arius, and those who follow him, disturb and confuse everything, and they object to us, saying: "If he is said to have besought God, and to have used these words: 'Father, give to them to have life in themselves,' he cannot be seen as equal to Him who provides life. For if he were from the essence of the Father, he would himself bestow the life, and would not ask the Father to give to the recipients what he is supposed to bestow through prayers." But those men—who have corrupted their own minds to their great harm—seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Son of God came for this one purpose: that He might become for you a pattern and salvation, standing in the middle of the world as if on a stage, after the manner of an athlete, ^D destroying and overturning everything that rises up against the truth, and everything which infidelity and the deceit and slander of the devil have stirred up—whether through the worship of idols, or through the pride of the Jews, or through infidelity, or through the arrogance of human opinion—so that He might teach men to be humble, lest any man, being human, should think himself to be something great, but rather refer the whole to the common Parent of all. And for this reason, although He is life, as He says, "I am the life," and is able to provide life, He does not wish to disturb the justice, but

^A but for this reason He came, that He might bring mankind to one principle, one divinity, one truth, one concord, and the proclamation of one glory, and to the salvation and understanding of men; and before the disciples He petitions the Father. For what son does not petition his father? And what father does not grant to his son? And what son happens to be different from the nature of the Father? And for this reason, the only-begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth, did not stand in need of fullness, nor was He lacking in truth, but was full of grace and truth. And He who is full both gives and is able to give. But He wishes to refer all things to the Father. For the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father glorifies the Only-begotten. "For I glorified You upon the earth," said the Son to the Father; and the Father said to the Son: "I have glorified You, and I will glorify You again." For there is no division in the ^B Godhead, nor is there any envy. "Give, therefore, to them to have life in themselves." Since He is Life, He wishes to receive life from the Father, and to give it to the disciples, being Himself Life, that He might not divide the unity, that He might not become a stumbling block to the Jews; that the Jews might hear Him petitioning from the Father, and giving to His own disciples.

XXX. How, then, does the Son petition the Father? Is it as one who lacked it and was asking? Not so, but as one signifying the unity of the Trinity, which perfectly bestows worthy gifts upon those who receive. And that He might signify that the Godhead is one, again in another place, no longer petitioning, He gives, but [bestows] His own [gifts] by authority, as a fountain from a fountain, and as God ^C having proceeded from God, He breathed into their faces and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit." And at another time He lifted up His hands and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit"; and He has life in Himself, that He may give to whom He wishes. For as the Father has life in Himself, so also the Son has life in Himself. And you see that, for the sake of honor toward the Father, and for the sake of one unity and one doxology, and so that the disciples might not think that the Only-begotten had come to turn the minds of the believers away from the God of the Law and the Prophets, for this reason, being God and foreknowing the malice of men, He addresses the word to the Father and gives the glory to the Father as inalienable, that the Manichaean might be put to shame who denies the Father; that the disciples might learn ^D that it is the same Godhead in the Old and New Testament; that the Jews might be put to shame, that the Only-begotten did not come to teach another God, but to reveal His divinity and the divinity of His heavenly Father. "Give therefore to them to have life in themselves." And yet He Himself was proclaiming this life. How then did He petition the Father to give to them what He Himself taught and was giving? For regarding life, He later explained it, saying: "This," He says, "is life, that they may know You the only true God."

^A XXXI. Here Arius and his supporters exult, and they think they have found in this expression a great aid for attacking the truth. For they say, "He called the Father the only true God." Therefore, as you see, the Father alone is the true God. But we in turn ask them: "What then do you say? The Father is the only true God. What then will the Son be? Is the Son not true? If the Son is not true, then our faith is vain, and our preaching among us is vain." You will be found to be likening the Son to—blaspheming against yourselves—the nameless and forbidden idols, of whom the prophets spoke on behalf of the deceived, just as each of the prophets mentioned this expression, saying, "Your fathers made for themselves false gods, and the hills became false." ^B Is the Only-Begotten thus judged by you, and do you thus shamefully think about Him who redeemed you, if indeed He has redeemed you? You are no longer of His fold, denying your Savior and the One who bought you. For if He is not true God, He is not to be worshipped. And if He is created, He is not God. And if He is not to be worshipped, how then is He proclaimed as God? Cease, you who again stir up the Babylonian nature, you who raise up the image and likeness of Nebuchadnezzar, you who are blowing this celebrated trumpet for gathering the soldiers, who with your deceitful voices, like musical instruments, cymbals, and psalteries, cast the peoples into a fall and into error, commanding them to serve an image rather than God and the truth. For who is another as true as the Son of God? For who among the sons of God shall be equal to the Lord, ^C as the Scripture says? And, "Another shall not be reckoned with Him." And why does it say this? So that you may see that it speaks regarding the Son, it continues, describing Him: "He found every way of knowledge, and gave it." And after that: "On earth He was seen, and He consorted with men." Are these things not truly said of Him, who also testified of Himself: "I am the truth"?

XXXII. But you will say to me, "Why does the Only-Begotten true God speak thus: 'That they may know You the only true God'?" So that a multitude of gods might not be imagined, so that there might not be a separation in vital knowledge. For if the Father is the alone true God, ^D the Son is also true from the Father, truly begotten from the same. For in deferring to the Father and declaring Him to be the only true God, He showed that He Himself also is truly begotten from the Father. For this reason, the Father is true, and the Only-Begotten Son is the true God. And whence can this be proven? But observe for me the expressions here, how He says in this place that the Father is the only true God. Regarding the Gospel according to John, that "He is the true light"—and what true light...

is there besides the only-begotten Son? And again, the Scriptures say concerning God that "God is light," and it did not say "God is true light"; but concerning the only-begotten Son of God, that "the only-begotten is true light." And concerning the Father: "true God"; and it did not say that "God is true light." But concerning the Son, that He is God, and concerning the fact that "the Son is God," it did not add "true." And where God is light, it did not add "true light." What then do we say concerning the Father? For God is true light, and we shall not therefore make the divine to be lacking. And since it is not written "the true light," we should not err by saying that it is not true light. And since it is written of the Son that He is God—"And the Word was with the abiding Father; for the Word was God"—^B and it did not say that the Word became God, but that He was God. From these two the things that are of equal weight will be shown: from the one, the Father is true God, and the Son is true light, the things of equal balance of dignity will appear; and from the fact that the Son is God, and God is light, the things of equal weight of glorification will be found. And nothing will differ, nor will anyone gainsay the truth, but the Father is true God, and the true Son is only-begotten.

XXXIII. Regarding the Holy Spirit

XXXIV.

^A such people, if they wish to win others over to their side, first approach them with many flatteries, and with generosity and attention, and at the same time they add both promises and threats, saying: "You are resisting royal decrees and the will of the emperor Valens, those of you who are unwilling to move according to their faith." And what do they say? "For what is it that we say? This is the faith; you are merely moved by empty vainglory." Let us see, then, if this is truly the same faith. Therefore, they say, "We confess the Son begotten from the Father, and we do not deny him." But, they say, "we must also confess 'creature' and 'work'." But there is nothing more foolish than this. For everything created is unlike that which is begotten, nor is that which is begotten like that which is created, especially if the discourse is concerning that one, pure, and perfect essence. For all things were created by God; but only the Son of God has been begotten, and only the Holy Spirit has proceeded from the Father and received from the Son. ^B All other things are created, and they neither proceeded from the Father, nor did they receive from the Son, but they come from the fullness of the Son, as it is written: "For by the Word of the Lord were all things established, and by the spirit of his mouth all their power" (Ps. XXXII, 6). "But," they say, "we must also confess 'creature,' since Scripture has spoken of it, and the word 'creature' is used more figuratively, and the word 'begotten' is used figuratively." For even if we say "begotten," we do not say it as one of those things which are begotten. Thus, when they speak of the "begotten" but not truly as the "begotten," they deceive the more guileless. "And we confess 'creature' as well," say they. For because Christ is called a door, and a way, and a pillar, and a cloud, and a rock, and a lamb, ^C and a sheep, and a kid, and a calf, and a lion, and a fountain, and wisdom, and Word, and Son, and angel, and Christ, and Savior, and Lord, and man, and Son of man, and corner-stone, and sun, and prophet, and bread, and king, and builder, and farmer, and shepherd, and vine, and suchlike things; thus, they say, we call him a "creature" by a certain abuse of language; and this we must entirely confess.

XXXV. Away with this wicked and cunning opinion! May the Lord never permit any of the sons of the truth to be circumvented by such hair-splitting; and, persuaded by such arguments, may none be convinced that the name of "creature" can be applied to the Son of God, and so profess it. Let them bring forward to us the usage ^D of this name and the clear reasons for it. For all those other things are used catachrestically, and they do not attack the divinity of the Son, nor do they argue that his essence is in any part lacking compared to the Father. Whether he is called a door, because through him we enter; or a way, because through him we walk; or a pillar, because he is the firmament of truth; or a cloud, because he protected the Israelites; or in another way a pillar, because of the splendor of that fire which shone throughout the wilderness; or manna, because they denied him as the heavenly bread; or bread, because by him we are strengthened; or

^A he confirms and strengthens us; or angel, since he is the angel of great counsel. For the word "angel" is homonymous. Rahab is said to have received the angels; yet those who were sent were not angels, but messengers who reported something certain about the nature of the region. For the same reason, the Son of God is called the Angel of great counsel because he announced the will of the Father to men, signaling that great counsel to the world. Now, when he is called a stone, one should not understand some stone devoid of sense, but it is used by catachresis ^B because he was a stumbling block to the Jews, but to us a foundation of salvation. And a cornerstone, because he joined and bound together the Old and New Testaments, circumcision and uncircumcision, into one unity. And a Lamb, because of his innocence; and because by him the sin of men was utterly abolished, when like a sheep he was slaughtered and offered to the Father; since he who could suffer nothing came to suffer for us, so that we might be saved. And if there is anything else that can contribute to this same usage for the salvation of men, it is transferred to him in the sacred Scriptures by catachresis.

XXXVI.

can any such affection or fatigue be attributed to the true God? Far be it from us to believe that He grows weary! For "He shall not faint," says the Scripture. In short, since God is Spirit, He has in like manner from the Spirit begotten the Son without any beginning or time, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created.

^A XXXVII. We must now turn our attention to the other scriptural passage which they, having misinterpreted it, are wont to seize upon and harp on, which we already mentioned at the beginning. They rashly bring forward that saying of the Apostle and corrupt it with their own interpretation: "Consider your high priest, who is faithful to Him that made Him." First, they reject this Epistle—I mean the one to the Hebrews—casting it out from the apostolic writings and saying it is not his. And they wickedly pervert that saying for the sake of their own disease toward those same interpretations, as I said before, essentially introducing the idea of a creature from the statement "who is faithful to Him that made Him." But someone who possesses understanding could ^B interrogate them and press them so that they have nothing to answer: that is, when did our Lord take upon Himself the name of high priest? For never before His incarnate presence did He possess such names—to be called the "stone," or the "sheep led to the slaughter," or "man" and "Son of man," "eagle," "lamb," and all the other things that are referred to Him according to the incarnate presence, just as He is also called "high priest," according to the thesis which the Law proclaimed concerning Him: "The Lord thy God will raise up unto you a Prophet from among thy brethren." Since the argument clearly interprets, after His presence here, that He is the prophet, the high priest, and the one raised up from them, one can see firmly how ^C the invincible power and foreknowledge of God, in order to silence every mouth rising up against the truth, foretold and confirmed all things with an admirable light. Thus, therefore, it is read in the same context in the following verses: "Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men, to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins, who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and out of the way, for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins." But He who has no sin offered Himself to the Father. And the phrase "taken from among men" pertains ^D to the incarnation; but the phrase "not from among men" and "not having need" indicates His divinity, just as the words, "though He were a Son." And concerning His incarnate presence, it says, "He learned by the things which He suffered."

XXXVIII. You see that all things which relate to Christ are plain and clear, and nothing in them is entangled or perplexing. For these very words, "high priest who is faithful to Him that made Him," do not refer at all to the formation of the body or the incarnation, or indeed to His creation, but indicate that dignity and heavenly office which was conferred upon Him after He had assumed flesh. To which also this passage must be referred: "He gave Him a name which is above every name." For this was not fulfilled formerly in His divinity, but in His present presence; since His incarnation from Mary received the name...

which surpasses all names in dignity, that, when conjoined with the divine Word, He might be called the Son of God. For which cause ^A he said by the same Apostle in this place: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor." By which, clearly, the Lord and creator of the angels appeared lower than the angels—He, I say, who is Himself feared and terrible to the angels, whom He created out of nothing with the Father and the Holy Spirit—and being called "lowered," it is made manifest that he speaks here not of His divinity, but only of His flesh. For the suffering of death is not imputed to the Word prior to His putting on flesh, but only after His incarnate presence; for He who is impassible in His divinity is passible in His incarnation; so that both are fulfilled in one: He is Son of man in the same, and Son of God in the same. For Christ is called the Son in both respects together.

^B XXXIX. What then is it that he is said to have "made" Him? Let those captious and contentious men learn from all that has been said before, that there is nothing in this passage that pertains to His divinity, but that all things refer to His incarnate presence. Yet in such a way that there is no mention of creation or formation, but rather that these words are to be understood of the dignity which He obtained after His presence. For the case stands thus: as if one were to ask a king about his own son, "What relationship does this one have to you?" and he should hear from him, "He is my son." "Is he legitimate then, or a bastard?" And he says: "He is legitimate, he exists from me." "What then have you made him?" "I have made him King." It is evident that he is in no way different from his father's dignity. And the king does ^C not by any means, because he said, "I have made him King," thereby say that he created him; for he did not deny the generation which he acknowledged had taken place, when he said, "I have made"; but while clearly declaring that, he indicated the "made" in reference to dignity. So also the Son is, without doubt, believed and worshipped as the Son of the Father by those who desire to obtain life; but that He became high priest is because in His body He offered Himself to the Father for the sake of humanity—He Himself being priest, He Himself being the victim—offering Himself for all creation, exercising His high priesthood; then, having ascended spiritually and gloriously, He sat down in that same body at the right hand of the Father, having become high priest forever, ^D and having passed through the heavens once for all, as the same holy Apostle testifies concerning Him in the following verses. And thus the sophistical discourse of those who oppose the divine Scripture—which is life-giving and contains nothing that could be a stumbling block to the faithful, or have any defect of blasphemy against the Word—is again brought to nothing.

XL. Arius mentions yet another passage, as John [the Baptist]...

^A stood in the wilderness and, seeing him coming, said: "This is he of whom I said to you, 'After me comes a man who was before me, for he was my first.'" And first of all, like those seized by intoxication and drunkenness, they alter the very phrases in their understanding and say: "How is this fulfilled in the incarnate presence, seeing that he had not been conceived in the womb of Mary before John?" But, he says, as the evangelist [narrates]: "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent to a city of Galilee, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph." And entering to her, he said: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you," and the rest of the narrative. As the Virgin was troubled at this greeting, he said to her: "Behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son, and will call his name Jesus. And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren." You see, he says, that six months before the annunciation to Mary, ^B John was already in existence. How then will that which says "was before me" be fulfilled in the incarnate presence of Christ? And who among the simple, not firmly established in their understanding, would not be troubled after hearing that saying? For he says: The necessary, pure, and life-giving things of Holy Scripture appear even more harmful to those who draw evils upon themselves, when those statements entirely established in the Holy Spirit are twisted. For what has been omitted from the statement for security? For behold, he says, "this is he," indicating the visible one and pointing him out to those who see, "of whom I said to you: 'After me he comes.'" And who is he that comes, other than a man? ^C But let no one who possesses any intelligence consider our Lord to be a mere man, unless it be those former heresies which we have already mentioned, namely those of Cerinthus, Merinthus, and Ebion. But apart from the fact that he is a man—and this is pointed out purposefully for assurance—true believers do not doubt that he is also Lord; a fact which is confirmed by the testimony of John himself: "That which we have heard from the beginning," he says; that he might declare him who exists from the beginning, the invisible Word of God, whom we heard proclaimed in the Holy Scriptures by the prophets, shining forth in heaven. And for this reason, what we heard in the beginning, and beheld with our eyes, that he might confess that the God who is heard of is from the beginning; and by the seeing, he indicates the man ^D of whom John the Baptist also spoke, saying: "After me comes a man." And the words, "our hands have handled," have the purpose that, while affirming he was God from above, he also shows him to be a visible man born of Mary, and one who rose from the dead perfect—not casting away the holy vessel he had taken, nor his perfect becoming-man, but that through the handling of his side and the marks of the nails, he might confess the three things unshakably. Therefore, understand it for me in this way here too: "This is he of whom I said to you, 'After me comes a man,'" that he might signify the incarnate presence. "For he was my first," that he might point out his divinity, that before me...

and had touched his traces, he confessed those three things without any hesitation. Thus, therefore, what is said by John the Baptist: *This is he whom I said to you: For he who comes after me*, declares his incarnation. But these words, *prior to me he was*, signify his divinity, since *before I was he was made*. For as it is written in the Gospel: *He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not*.

^B XLI. But if he was in the world before John was born or conceived, before him he existed in the world; which ought not to be understood concerning creation or production, but is adapted to the common manner of speaking, by which people commonly say: I was in Jerusalem, I was in Babylon, I was in Ethiopia, I was in Alexandria; where no creation or production is signified, but access and arrival. For that expression, I was in Babylon or in another place, is of the same value as, I arrived there. Wherefore also the phrase, *Before me he was made*, was said for this reason, to demonstrate the Word’s ^C arrival toward the earth. Likewise that phrase, *Prior to me he was*, shows the divinity that always exists; these words, *who comes after me*, [show] that he was born after John. Therefore, *I am the voice*, he says, *of one crying in the desert*, that is, the voice emitted for the purpose of preparing the ears of men. For those who cry out, in order to summon from afar those to whom they wish to signify something, are accustomed to proffer first a sonorous and non-articulate sound; and when those who hear the voice alone have applied their mind to hearing and have adjusted their hearing, then that caller utters more distinctly what he had determined to say. So also John became a voice ^D preparing the hearing of men. For he was not himself the Word, but after him came the Word, for whom the preparatory voice had been made. And for this reason he says: *The voice of one crying; in the desert; prepare the ways of the Lord*. For the voice prepares, but the Lord enters upon the ways that have been prepared. And the voice speaks [to] the hearing. But when the hearing is available, then the Word is deposited in the hearing of those who receive it. There is no place, therefore, for Arius and those who follow him to seize upon the truth of God which always illuminates the hearts of the faithful, so as to turn them away from the salvation that is in the Word, the Son of God, in the uncreated and unbegotten truth.

XLII. But as we proceed further and advance to the things that follow, we shall omit nothing of the things

...

those which we proposed for resolution at the beginning, but shall pursue the chain of reasoning in order. For they again seize upon another pretext, which is that spoken by the holy Peter in the Acts: ^A *“Let it be known to you, all the house of Israel, that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”* And they say again that the word “made” is written there. And they do not see the passage, for the passage explains itself. For it says “this Jesus” in order to signify the incarnation of the Lord. For from the words, “this Jesus, whom you crucified,” it is manifest that it was the flesh that they crucified. For they crucified flesh. And for this reason the Lord says in the Gospel: *“But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from my Father.”* But he does not thereby separate his divinity from the incarnation. ^B For neither was the divinity apart from the incarnation when it was about to suffer, nor was the fleshly presence abandoned by the Word in the act of suffering. But neither did the impassible Word suffer previously in the flesh while it was suffering. For it is true that the one name applies to both, in the divinity and in the humanity. For the incarnation of the Word himself is Christ, and Christ the Lord exists in that very fleshly presence. But the suffering in the flesh is described—as Peter said, *“Christ having suffered for us in the flesh”*—in order to show the impassibility of the divinity; and again, *“Put to death in the flesh, but brought to life in the Spirit.”* This, then, regarding him whom you crucified, was said so that the holy fleshly economy might not be left separated from the impassible and uncreated Word, ^C but might be united above with the uncreated Word. For this reason God also “made” Lord and Christ that which was conceived from Mary, that which was united in divinity; for Mary is not God by nature. For this reason he adds “made” directly afterwards.

As also the angel Gabriel says, when she asked, *“How shall this be, since I know not a man?”* he says: *“The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy thing to be born will be called the Son of God.”* When he says, *“and the holy thing to be born,”* he indicates beyond all questioning concerning God the Word that he is the Son, without doubt, not created, not made. ^D But concerning the fleshly economy from Mary, he adds, *“and the thing to be born, he made Christ and Lord”*; just as in other places all things were clearly fulfilled, and they contain nothing of difficulty. So, I say, what is said here was fulfilled in the incarnation. Wherefore there is nothing that those who care for their own life should allow themselves to be led away into error in any way. For the living Word proceeded from the living Father, the Son of the Father, and not created by him. All things, however, were fulfilled in the fleshly presence, so that it might neither be thought to be a phantom, nor that the flesh was consubstantial with the divinity above, but knit together...

into one passionless condition, especially after the resurrection from the dead. For he no longer dies, he says, and death no longer has dominion over him. ^A For there is one Lord, one Christ, one King, sitting at the right hand of the Father, the bodily and the spiritual, one union, one spiritual divinity, both being luminous and glorious. But I shall proceed further, thinking that the passage has been sufficiently interpreted, and I shall take up the other things they have devised to the overthrow of those who hear them.

XLIII. For they say again: If he is from the essence of the Father, how does he not know the hour and the day, but in his own word confesses to the disciples that he does not know what the Father knows, saying: "Concerning that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only"? If, therefore, they say, the Father knows, and he himself does not know, how can the same divinity of the Father and the Son exist, when the Father knows, but the Son is ignorant? ^B But the things which the Only-begotten taught mystically, and in his divine wisdom for the security of most true knowledge, these men, being ignorant of the things spoken in a human way, snatch and distort everything to their own ruin, like dangerous serpents, and bait caught by the cunning hunter, not knowing that a lie can stand nowhere, but the truth everywhere corrects its own sons and convicts the lie. For let it be put to you, O you who have had an evil suspicion about Christ from the beginning: What is greater by nature and in terms of knowledge, God the Lord of all, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, or that day and hour, which is brought about and caused by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Yet, when asked, they will necessarily be compelled by the truth itself to call the Father greater than that day, as he is. ^C If, therefore, the Son asserts, saying: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and no one knows the Son except the Father"; whoever knows the greater—namely, the Father—how can he be ignorant of the lesser? But these are divine utterances spoken by the Holy Spirit, but they are unknown to those who have not received the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit. For such are the aforementioned, having an unstable mind and a foolish intellect, which slips into harmful and lesser deviations.

XLIV. For that which was said by the Lord himself can meet their efforts: ^D "Be ready. Let your loins be girded, and your lamps in your hands. And you shall be like good servants, waiting for their own master."

^A For as a thief in the night, so does the day ^B arrive. And the holy Apostle says: "You are not children of darkness but of light, that the day may not overtake you like a thief." If, therefore, the children of the day are not covered by darkness, but are prepared, because on a day they do not know and at an hour they do not expect, their Master arrives; will He then differ from his own servants and children of the day by reason of his own luminous substance and divinity, He who is himself the cause of these things to them? Or will He, like those who are ignorant of the day and not prepared, be caught unawares, and be found wanting? Who could be so maddened as to think these things regarding the Lord, that He will be as the men who are ruled and discipled by Him, or as those who are worse because of their own lack of preparation and ignorance? The whole idea is foolish. If, therefore, these things cannot be satisfied, and the discourse if extended will be found contrary to the usage, then we must seek what account we may find, so that, without opposing both of the things being determined, we may not fall away from the truth. For it is impossible for the Lord to lie, and impossible for Him to have formulated explanations in vain for our own life. The Father, therefore, knows; the Son knows; the Holy Spirit knows. For there is nothing in the Father that is different from the Son, nor in the Son that is changed from the Spirit, as we have demonstrated in the refutation of each of the aforementioned heresies, where it was necessary: that the Trinity, being one divinity, is established on true foundations and has nothing changed within itself, but the whole is perfection—three perfects, one doxology, and one lordship.

XLV. You will say to me: "For what reason, then, has He said this?" And this has already been discussed in another place regarding this statement; but nothing will prevent me from saying the same things here. I am not ashamed to use the same most truthful words, and for the readers it will be useful for caution, and for the opponents, it is especially opportune for refutation. ^C The matter, therefore, stands in this way. For Christ proposed a threefold order in that place: the Father, Himself, and all the angels in heaven. To the Father, indeed, He attributed the knowledge of that day. Nor did He indicate this alone, but also all other things which have been without any controversy perpetually in the power of the Father and the Son, and which were produced and perfected by them. ^D The Father, therefore, knows that day; He knows it, I say, and He produced it, and passed judgment, as the Lord states in the Gospel according to John: "The Father," He says, "will judge no one, but has handed over all judgment to the Son." For in the very act of having handed over judgment, He is to be thought of as having judged. Therefore, since He has judged, He knows when that day is to come. "For he who does not believe in the Son is already judged." Not as if the judgment has already passed, but because the things which are then to come are already being declared, just as such a thing is fulfilled in the present. For Scripture understands knowledge and discernment, just as often, coming down into the comprehensive, from comparisons...

and examples of matters already treated, we have not ceased to represent the clarity and the phrasing of each proposition. ^A

XLVI. Let us therefore take it up again from the beginning, and speak concerning these things. What do you say, O you people? Did Adam know Eve his wife both before the disobedience and transgression, or did he not know her? And you cannot gainsay the truth. For if you are not willing to walk uprightly toward such a meaning, you will be refuted. For they were, he says, naked, and were not ashamed; and they being naked, and not blind—for neither are you able to deny this, nor to confess that they were not seeing—for Eve, he says, saw ^B the wood, that it was good for food, and beautiful to behold. So then, he knew, and they knew. And being knowing, and seeing, they recognized one another. It was after a long time, says the Scripture, that Adam knew Eve his wife. But the first knowledge and sight, regarding the knowledge consisting of visual perception and mental apprehension, he calls [knowledge]; but concerning the second knowledge, he speaks of knowledge as usage—just as David somewhere, having grown old, as the divine Scripture says: And David was old, and was not warmed. And his servants said to him: Let a virgin be sought for the king. ^C And Abisag the Sunamite was found. And he says: She warmed him, and slept with him. And David did not know her. How did he not know her, who was of the same body and the same side? But here he does not describe knowledge of the kind through affection, but that which is through usage. For indeed, even in the case of Jacob: for because he happened to be tending sheep for seven years with Rachel and Lia, and he knew them; yet when he speaks about the connection of their honorable marriage, he says: He knew Lia his wife. ^D Because the one first knowledge was through mental apprehension and through sight, but the second knowledge and apprehension is concerning usage and activity. Thus also in the divine Scripture: The Lord knew those who are His. Not as being ignorant of those who are not His, but it signifies the vividness of the Lord’s apprehension; and, Depart from me, you workers of iniquity, I never knew you. Does it mean He did not know them by way of recognition? But because they were not worthy of Him, He takes away the practical [aspect of knowledge] from them. And in another place: You I have known out of all the nations. Would it mean that all the nations, and the number of all humanity, is left out of His knowledge? And are not rather the hairs of the head of each man, both of those who serve Him and of those who disobey Him, known? For God knows the ways on the right. Does He then not know those on the left? And how many such things can be said concerning knowledge and knowledge?

^A XLVII. Wherefore the only-begotten Son of God Himself willed this. For when the Father committed judgment to the Son, He in turn surrendered the knowledge of that judgment to the Father: "No one," He says, "knows the day, except the Father." This can be explained in two ways. First, in that He understands when it is to come, since that hour and day arrive by His nod and will. Second, He is said to know it because He has already handed over all that function of judgment to His own Son. And no less is the same knowledge to be attributed to this very Son of God, as He is God, and not diverse from the Father in any respect. Wherefore He both knows that day, and brings it forth, and fulfills it, and administers the judgment, and it will by no means arrive without Him. Yet, regarding its accomplishment, He is said not to know it, because He has not yet instituted the judgment. For the impious still practice their impiety, and the unjust usurp the things of others by force; and the lecherous, the adulterers, and the worshipers of idols perpetrate their shameful acts, and the devil devises something; and heresies arise; and the falsity of errors schemes many things, until, clearly, the Son of God brings forth that day and assigns to each one what is just; then at last He shall be said to know it, that is, to perform it by His own power and authority. Therefore, this is fulfilled in the Father in two ways; in the Son, however, it is currently in the state of knowledge and awareness; yet He is not ignorant of it, but has not yet accomplished it by the act itself; for He has not yet judged. Furthermore, ^B this knowledge is denied to the angels in two ways: because they neither understand when it will be, nor have they recognized it by the act itself, that is, they have accomplished nothing as yet. For they have not yet been commanded to go forth and gather the impious, like tares, into bundles, and prepare them to be burned by fire. Do you perceive, I think, most beloved and servants of God, that all those who of their own accord and by impulse of their own mind draw upon themselves their own ruin, wage war against the truth in vain, since each one of them, to his own great evil, attempts by various reasoning to ascribe a certain inferior condition and lot to the Son of God through the highest of insults? ^C

XLVIII. The Refutation of the Heretics' Argument from the Human Conditions of Christ

But since we have said enough up to this point concerning that passage of Scripture, let us see, relying on divine protection, of what nature the remaining things are that are brought forward by them. For those noble and overly bold ones, although they do not think the same things as the Manichaeans and very many other heresies, but retain the true flesh in Christ, yet they profess this very thing not fully and integrally, but with some defect. For they concede that our Savior was indeed endowed with true flesh. But when they hear in the Gospel that He was fatigued by the journey, and that He hungered and thirsted, and slept and arose, they gather all these things and refer them to His divinity: which, relying on arguments of this sort, they attempt to prove is alien to the nature of the Father. For when the Father does not labor, nor thirst, nor hunger, as the Holy Scripture speaks: "He shall not labor, nor shall He thirst, nor shall He hunger, and there is no searching of His understanding;" ^D and those same things are seen to be perfect in the Son, He is alien, they say, from the essence and nature of the Father. And all these things indeed before the incarnation...

they would not even admit, but when forced they acknowledge them; yet when they arrive at those things which are said to be perfected in His incarnate presence, and hear why He took a body, and why He reasonably performed these acts—committing them for reasonable needs like a charioteer to a chariot—because He truly clothed Himself in flesh and not in appearance, then they assert that these things do not arise from the flesh alone.

^B XLIX. And indeed, flesh by itself cannot thirst, nor will it grow weary; yet those who have abandoned the way and turned aside to opposite paths seem to be unaware that the Son of God, having come, took not only flesh, but also soul, and mind, and everything that is proper to men, apart from sin, not from the seed of a man but from Mary the holy virgin, through the Holy Spirit. They do not wish to admit that He assumed a soul, so as to escape the force of this argument against them, which is easier and more ready than all others to refute their empty loquacity. For God Himself, who is true and who said that He is the truth, testified concerning Himself in the words we speak: *My soul is troubled* ^C and, *My soul is sorrowful*; and, *I have power to lay down My soul, and to take it again*; and this, in order to show Himself to be God, who possesses such power—for this discourse does not belong to a man. For no one has the power to lay down his own soul and take it again. But when He discourses concerning the soul, He shows that He truly became man, and not by appearance. And again: *I am the good Shepherd, who lays down His soul for the sheep*. And to show that these things are true, when hanging on the cross He said to the Father: *Into thy hands I commit my spirit*. And, *When the soldiers came*, it says, *they found Him already having expired*; and again, *And crying out with a loud voice He said: Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani?* that is, *My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?*—the force of which prayer we have already explained. And *He expired*, says the Gospel. ^D Since the expressions "He expired," and "Into thy hands," and "My soul is troubled," and all the other things of the truth are said, what fool would be so persuaded by such a workshop of squint-eyed and dreaming men, as to abandon the reasonable testimonies of the truth spoken by the Word of God?

L. But furthermore, word-hunting those things which have been well and rightly spoken in every book of Scripture, like pirates mutilating healthy bodies, they use a certain testimony which the Scripture often employs in a more figurative sense. And that which is spoken figuratively the truth is accustomed to carry; but that which is true and spoken without ambiguity is turned to another person.

^A They immediately leap from the holy Isaiah, bringing forward the statement which is spoken in the person of the Father: "Behold, my servant shall understand, my beloved, in whom I am well pleased; him my soul hath loved." Since this statement is considered to be the Father's—and indeed it is true—how then, they say, has the Father taken on a soul? But if we say, "God forbid!" what then, they ask, but that it is spoken more figuratively? Do they not then say that what was spoken by the Son is also spoken figuratively? And they think that in this they are finding a pretext to hunt down the truth, which will not be granted to them. For the truth, being unadorned, stands by itself, neither defeated nor needing adornment. Let us see the power of both. For if the Father had descended into a body and put on flesh, and had spoken this word, he would truly have possessed a soul; but if the Father did not put on flesh, and yet said, "My soul," this is sung of God tropically, so that He might make secure the genuineness and demonstrate the authenticity toward the Son. ^B But it is no longer the same to say these things concerning the Son. For the Father did not take on flesh, but the Son did put on flesh. The Father did not become man, but the Son became man. The same principle must be applied to the Father. For just as here He says, "My soul hath loved him," so He says, "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man according to my own heart," and, "My heart is far from them." If, therefore, because it is spoken more figuratively, "My soul hath loved," we accept it as pertaining to soul, then surely what pertains to heart is also spoken figuratively. And it is clear that this would be evident to anyone possessing understanding. If, therefore, the Father speaks figuratively about a soul, and about a heart which He did not take—for He did not wear flesh—such things are analogous to the Father in a more tropical sense. But one must no longer think the same concerning the Son; for the Son did take on flesh, and the entire human constitution.

LI. ^D For this would be contrary to him who says that what is concerning the Son is spoken tropically regarding the incarnation which took place in His person, even if, in some part of the discourse, an assumption was made through His truly having become man. For if what is concerning the soul of the Son is allegorized and must be understood more figuratively, then let such things be said also about the heart; and we shall eventually grant that all things are appearance and not truth. According to the argument of the contentious Arius, it is also said figuratively concerning flesh. And the Word, having come, would no longer possess a heart, nor liver, nor flesh, nor bowels, nor bones, nor anything of such a kind; but all things would henceforth be allegorized and called "more tropical"—or that He took on a confused body at all, having none of the internal parts. How then did He eat and drink? But away with this! But if the Father speaks of heart and soul, and it can be allegorized toward Him, and figuratively...

if also concerning the Son, regarding the soul—which the Arians deny He assumed from Him—it could somehow be seen as being said tropically; certainly, when the term "heart" is brought against them, they cannot deny it at all, because they themselves voluntarily confess that the entire disposition of the human body was assumed by the Lord. Therefore, just as they do not deny that "heart" is accepted in two ways—properly, that is, truly, and allegorically—so too is it ^B fitting to judge concerning the soul, so that it may be attributed to the Son truly, and not allegorically or tropically. Wherefore, since the human nature assumed by Christ consists of a body complete in all its members, as well as an soul, mind, heart, and the other things that are in man, except for sin; and since human functions were performed and discharged by Him, along with His perfect divinity, for the administration of salvation, as was consonant with reason, then that point can be explained conveniently: how His divinity is not, as regards dignity, inferior to the perfection of the Father; and we shall understand clearly that this ^C condition of human flesh which He assumed was perfect, so that it is written that He endured thirst and hunger, and drank and ate, and slept, and was affected by sadness and grief, while meanwhile His divinity was immune from every such affection. Thus, there is no place for their opinion in this matter, since indeed God descended to the flesh.

LII. But as to this objection raised by the Arians: If He were from the Father, who then descended to the flesh? To them, on the contrary, this reply can be made: What, then, do you think concerning the angels? For to no one is it in doubt that the angels were produced by the Son, according to their opinion. Especially since they dare to speak with the highest insult toward the Holy Spirit Himself, that He was created by the Son: when He, however, lacking any share in creation, proceeds from the Father and receives ^D from the Son. But if they do not hesitate to pronounce such a thing concerning the Holy Spirit, how much less will they be able to deny the same concerning the angels; nor to doubt that, since they are created, they received their being from the Son? Therefore, since the angels produced by the same—who, even though they are spirits, are nevertheless His creatures, and are distant by infinite degrees from the excellence of His nature, inasmuch as they are His work—yet since the angels did not assume flesh, what then shall we think? Are we to deem them more excellent than the Son, by whom they were created? Or shall we persuade ourselves of the same concerning the Holy Spirit? Why, I ask, did neither He, nor any of the angels, descend into flesh, nor wear it, nor assume the nature of man? Indeed, it is not because the Son is lesser than the Father that He therefore donned flesh. Otherwise, the angels, as well as the Holy Spirit, should also have been clothed in flesh. But because He Himself, who is the wisdom of the Father, and power, and the Word, created all things with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in order that He might demonstrate this obviously, that the cause of that sin which was committed by Adam...

was not to be referred to his original formation, nor did he derive that sin and ^A contumacy from his production, but from the judgment of his own will, by which he might bring a just judgment to its end, just as Isaiah speaks: "A bruised reed he shall not break, and smoking flax he shall not quench, until he bring forth judgment unto victory, and in his name shall the Gentiles trust." To which also that of David agrees: "And that thou mightest overcome when thou art judged." Indeed, He was judged, that in turn, judging justly, He might close the mouths of those who are to contradict. For no one will be able to resist His just judgment. For He so took upon Himself a body, that He might keep it whole and undefiled.

For neither did the sin which existed in the beginning in Adam derive into the body of Christ from the Maker Himself, who is estranged from every fault of our first parent, so that He committed any sin on that account; but He granted him freedom, so that each one is the cause of sin ^B to himself. Therefore, God the Word, the Creator, who with the Father and His holy Spirit created man, immortal and undefiled, took upon Himself human nature by His own resolve and by some ineffable mystery of wisdom, fully undertaking all things for the sake of His own creature out of an excess of love for man, not through necessity, but by voluntary determination, so that He might condemn sin in the flesh, and dissolve the curse upon the cross, and take away all corruption from the middle in the sepulchre, and descending into the underworld with His soul and divinity, break the sting of death and dissolve the covenant made with the underworld. But ungrateful men, who turn ^C good things into evil, whereas for all these things they ought to show gratitude to the most clement and perfect and good Son born of the good Father, not only have no thanks, but even show themselves most ungrateful, and attach passions and perturbations to His divinity: which indeed they can in no way accomplish, since the truth itself is manifest to all.

LIII. These things having been explained in this manner, I betake myself to other things which are proposed by them. For they bring forward in the first place that saying from the Gospel, depraved by their interpretation: "The Father who sent me is greater than I." Where it is to be noted in the first place that which He says: "The Father who sent me," and not, "Who created me," since in all the books of Scripture the genuine relationship of the divine Word with the ^D Father is expressed. "Thou hast begotten me, Father," He says. And, "I came forth from the Father, and I go." Likewise: "I in the Father and the Father in me"; and: "The Father who sent me." And nowhere is He called creator or maker. How, therefore, do they strive to accumulate those things which are nowhere to be found? "The Father who sent me is greater than I." What is more proper than that voice? What more necessary? What more genuine or congruous? For from whom is it more consonant that glory should be drawn, and the Father celebrated, than from the genuine Son, who is begotten of Him? For the Father glorifieth the Son, and the Son glorifieth the Father, and for this reason for our instruction, and that this preaching might be demonstrated towards one

^A unity, and to one glory, the Son glorifieth the Father, that He might teach us that His honor is the Father’s, as He has said: "He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father" (John v, 23), "the wrath of God abideth on him" (John iii, 36). But in what way do they think Him greater? By bulk? Or by time? Or by height? Or by age? Or by dignity? What of these exists in God, that they should think such things? For the Divine does not fall under time, so as to be thought inferior, having been begotten of the Father timelessly; nor does the Divine admit of progress, so that the Son, having progressed, might not reach the greatness of the Father. For if the Son is called Son of God by progress, then there were many equal to Him; and for this reason He Himself progressed, being called greater in dignity, but lesser than the one who existed before Him in dignity. But Scripture says: "Who shall be likened unto the Lord among the sons of God?" (Ps. lxxviii, 7), as though all others were called sons by catachresis, while He alone is Son by nature, and not by grace. Since "He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and there is none that shall be compared to Him" (Baruch iii, 37, 38). But what do they say? "The Father exceeds the Son in height." In what part, then, is the Divine placed? Or is it limited by place, so that the description of space might demonstrate what is greater? But God is spirit. And from every side their invented, ^B strange doctrine falls away. And passing this by, let us come to their next expressions, O beloved.

LIV. For they say that he who is sending is not the same as the one being sent, but that he who sends is someone else in power, and he who is sent is someone else: because the one sends, and the other is sent. And if the notion of truth were according to them, the whole basis of knowledge would no longer be referred to one unity of truth, and power, and divinity. For if two were meeting, or if two were sending, the Son would no longer be the Son, but a brother, since with a brother there is another brother, and he would no longer be the Son, except by confusion, or by adoption, or if He were sending Himself, or if both were sending together, or appearing, we would be signaling two divinities, and not one unity. Therefore, the sender and the one being sent are expressed here, that He might show that there is one source of all goods, that is, the Father; and next to the source, not heteronymously, but according to the name of the Son and of the Word, the Son is one source having proceeded from the source, always existing as begotten by the Father, "For with Thee is the fountain of life" (Ps. xxxv, 10). And that He might show also concerning the Holy Spirit: "In Thy light shall we see light" (Ps. xxxv, 10); that He might show ^C the Father to be light, and the Son to be light of the Father, and the Holy Spirit to be light; and a source from a source, the Holy Spirit ^D flowing from the Father and the Only-Begotten Son. "For rivers shall flow from His belly of water springing up into eternal life." And the Gospel says He was saying this concerning the Holy Spirit. And again He says, showing to His own disciples concerning

^A His consubstantiality with the Father, He said: "If anyone shall open to me, having entered, I and my Father will make a dwelling with him." And He no longer said, "I shall be sent by my Father," but, "I and the Father shall remain with him," as the Son knocks, and the Father enters with Him; so that He is always, and there is never a departure of the Father from the Son, or of the Son from His own Father. Hence in another place He says: "I am the way, and through me they shall enter to the Father." And lest some people might think Him less than the Father because it is through Him that one enters to the Father, He says: "No one shall come to me, unless my heavenly Father draws him." Therefore the Father ^B leads to the Son, and the Son leads to the Father, and He brings (them) in by the Holy Spirit. For the Trinity always consists forever in one unity of divinity: three perfects, one divinity. And the argument of these men has collapsed.

55.

^A My Father, by nature in His divinity; and your Father, by grace through me in adoption. My God, since I have taken on your flesh; and your God, by nature and in truth. And thus all things are clear and transparent, and there is nothing contrary, nor does the divine Scripture contain any kind of deadly entanglement, as these men pretend, inventing wicked things for themselves. But I think that the phrasing here is already sufficiently dealt with; so I will proceed to the other matters.

^B LVI. For they say that the Holy Spirit is again a creature of a creature, because, as Scripture said, all things were made through the Son, snatching at certain words pointlessly, not holding the saying as it was spoken, but having evil suspicions, and, from a proper saying, interpreting it incorrectly according to their own evil suspicion. For the divine Gospel does not speak about the Spirit, but about all created things, and it declares this one thing: whatever is created has been produced through the Word and by the Word. "For all things were made through him; and without him was not anything made." ^C When the reading is extended, it reads: "that which has been made"; so that it may be known in this way, that all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made. Then again: "In him was life." For it was necessary that in this also, the sequence of the holy John should be fulfilled, in Him who is, the things that are being always confessed as fulfilled. "For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ^D Since He was, and was, and was; and the things in Him were life, and the light was true, and He was in the world, and everything regarding this, the blessed John clarifies, through the Holy Spirit: "All things were made through him." But He Himself who made all things is above the things that were made. And the Scripture says that all things were made through Him, but it did not name what the things that were made are. For there was nowhere any suspicion of wickedness, so that some might not suspect things that are not, and blaspheme the unchangeable and unalterable Holy Spirit of God. For concerning them the Lord says, "If anyone speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him. But if anyone speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither here, nor in the age to come." For their whole argument is foolish. But against their blasphemous suspicion one might argue with them and say: O noble sophists, and distorters of words! You who wish to count the Holy Spirit of God together with the things that were made, because of the saying, "Through him all things were made," from the fact of saying "all things," when the Holy Spirit is nowhere being counted along with all things. Are you then obliged to think, or is there some other person worse than you, that the Father also was made through the Son, according to your blasphemous suspicion? For my account is comprehensive, saying that all things were made through Him. But if blasphemy...

is ^A entertained concerning the Father, such is also the case regarding the Holy Spirit, who is numbered with the Father and the Son. For if He were among the things created, He would not have been numbered with the uncreated Father and Son. But He is uncreated; He is thus numbered. For He said: "Going forth, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." For how could that Spirit be created, of whom it is witnessed: "He proceeds from the Father, and receives from me"? And through whom the perfection of human salvation and the economy of the incarnation, and all justification was fulfilled? "For God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit," says the Scripture concerning the Lord. Yet He would not have been united to the Godhead for the sake of the economy of the incarnation, if the Father had anointed a creature with one [and the same] Godhead.

^B But because the Trinity is one, one in perfection, one in Godhead, this needed to be realized economically in the Son, so that the Trinity might be glorified in all things; not as we argue against the heresies concerning the Spirit, bringing forth not one but two testimonies, that God is a Spirit, glorified with the Father and the Son, uncreated, and immutable, and perfect. The account of those who contend against this has fallen back upon themselves.

LVII. Let us consider the other expressions they are accustomed to bring forward. For they again make a display of the saying, not understanding it reasonably, that the Savior Himself said: "Why do you call me good? There is none good except God." And from this ^C they isolate Him from the essence and person of the Father. But the whole thing is ridiculous. For if He has bestowed so many good things upon us, how is He judged to be less than good by them? And how could anyone be more wicked than they, since He who poured out His soul for the sheep, who came willingly to suffer, being impassible, a God, because He accomplished the healing of the sins committed against us; who, going to all the people of Israel, healed their ailments, and in His goodness gathered together the infinite race of men, and as the administrator of goodness and the Lord of peace, is, I say, that Word which is from the Father from eternity, ^D who bestows food upon all flesh, and who imparts goodness to men and to all things produced by Him—yet He is not judged as good by them? For such people do not know that they are voluntarily taking upon themselves forgetfulness: that the Lord, who had been asked, gave the answer which we have previously mentioned, and that He did so to match their arrogance. For He was glorified alongside the company of the scribes because He most accurately kept all the precepts of the law; and He followed righteousness and goodness [867 - LATIN COLUMN] ^A... If we do not confess the generator to be without body, you may conjure up whatever tragedies you wish. By which you terrify no one, but you cast your own mind into confusion, away from the true profession of God. Therefore, God, being perfect from Himself, generated a perfect Son, not another outside of His nature. Nor is He unworthy of the generator, nor does He stand in need of any external accession. For surely nothing can be greater and more excellent than the substance of God, so that He might communicate to the needy that which is said to reach toward perfection. For He who exists forever without a body, the perfect One, has generated eternally and truly, by a generative power, Him who exists equally with Him, perfect, a Spirit, I say, generating Spirit, the subsisting Word of God. ^B It is, however, ridiculous, Aetius, to be your invention, you who are eager to investigate celestial things and to search out what ought to be thought about divine matters with syllogisms and clever reasonings, since to Him who created all things from nothing, and is able to perfect them all into one, and who lacks nothing in the way of increase and accession, and who has bound these things with His own laws and decrees, you nevertheless attach a Word of such a kind that it might admit a growth of divinity, nor do you allow it to be equalized even with things created by Him. For since He fashioned them ^C perfect and absolute at the beginning, He established by the decree of His wisdom that those things which pullulate from them should need accession: such as those which were born in succession and are born daily, like the heaven, earth, water, air, sun, moon, stars, and those things which spring from the waters, up to the human being himself. Therefore, He did not create heaven imperfect, nor the earth maimed and defective, but created this perfect, just as the heaven; although He fashioned it at least invisible and unformed, because of the finishing and ornament which He was about to perform later; but He brought forth also the water and that light before all things, and through the true, uncreated, and vital light He produced all things, then finally added the rest which are propagated from the earth. Before all things, however, He created the firmament itself. Furthermore, none of these was created imperfect, but all were constituted in perfection. "Let the earth produce," He says, "a green herb, seeding seed according to its likeness upon the earth, and a fruit-bearing tree, whose seed might be in itself after its likeness upon the earth." Do you observe how what was produced stood in need of no subsequent accession and increment, but endowed with a manly, so to speak, vigor, and adult, they came forth immediately at the command of God? Whatever things indeed are subject to man, or reside in him, still content with only seed, were not yet delivered in perfection to his dominion, so that he might never be unable to know Him who deserves well of him; who both imparts to all things that they may exist, and is superior to all, and bestows each of His works according to the opportuneness and convenience of one who is served by Him. ^D He delivered to him the earth in a seed-like way, setting it before him, as it were, as a base and foundation, and having delivered it to him like a womb, so that from the projection of those things...

^A of justice, the Lord, wishing to attribute all goodness to God, because there is no one good except Him, so that no man bearing flesh might draw to himself anything puffed up, for this reason said: "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one, God." This he said so that he, being so great and such a one, saying such a word, might strike down the conceit in the one who uttered it, who possessed an opinion regarding [his own] justice; and so that he might reprove his heart, since he called him a good teacher with his lips, but did not remain in his good teaching. And that he happens to be good, he himself teaches, saying: "Many good works I have done among you; for which of these works do you stone me?" For to whom is this not clear and most manifest? Especially since there are many good things that are his creatures and are called such, as the divine Scripture says. For see, the divine writing tells of many good things. "Saul," it says, "was good, the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin; and taller than all the people, from the shoulders and above"; and, "Samuel was good with God and with men"; and, "The end of a speech is better than its beginning"; and, "Open your good treasury, ^B the heavenly one." Since these are creatures, and are declared to be good, having been brought into being through him and by him, how is it not beyond doubt right to confess that the progenitor of these things is good? But so that I may not lengthen the speech about this—for we have already spoken about this quite broadly—I shall move on again to what follows, providing the solution for each expression.

LVIII.

^A For it is of the Lord to bestow; yet he bestows upon each according to merit. For each person, having worked righteousness, receives according to his own labor; and it is no longer for Him alone to give, but to him who has made himself worthy. For one dares to say that it is not even His to give, although He is able to give, but He does not wish; nor is it even the Holy Spirit's, although the Holy Spirit is able to give according to that which is said: "For to one is given wisdom through the Spirit; to another, varieties of tongues in the same Spirit; to another, interpretation of tongues; to another, power; to another, teaching." And one is the Spirit, apportioning to each as He wills. And He did not say, "as He is commanded," but "as He wills." And the Son gives life to whom He wills, and the Father calls whom He wills to the Son; and again: Neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit calls, or gives, or bestows, or awards worth according to respect of persons; but as each person prepares himself to be worthy. That is to say: "It is not mine to give, but if you labor, it shall be prepared for you by my Father." But the perfect thing is that "I am the life." And I shall yet pass on to other matters.

^B LIX. They object to the following: Whom do you say went forth from the perfect divinity of God? For behold, the Apostle writes thus concerning Him: "God raised Him from the dead." From which it is clear that He had need of the help of God, who would raise Him from the dead. And therefore, another is He who raises Him by His own power, and another, inferior, is He who is raised by the power of the mighty One. ^C And how long shall I be worn out by the nonsensical notions of those who have insolently rubbed their own foreheads raw? Who then raised Lazarus? Who restored to life the son of the widow in the town of Nain? Who said to the daughter of the synagogue ruler, "Cumi, talitha," that is, "Arise, ^D child"? In whose name invoked by the apostles were the dead recalled to life? But these men, since the apostles, arguing against the Jews—because it was their conviction that the apostles were preaching a defection from the God of the Law, and because the Holy Spirit foresaw that such heresies would arise which would strive to alienate and separate Christ from the Father's will—for this reason, I say, the apostles themselves referred all things to the one divinity, that all things were brought about by the good pleasure of the Father, by the will of the Son, and with the consent of the Holy Spirit; these heretics, I say, think that by these modes of expression a certain inferior condition, or weakness, or an alienation of the divine Word from the essence of the Father is signified. But the matter is far otherwise. And that you may understand this, come, consider the examples yourself. What did the angel say to Mary and the women with her? "Why do you seek the living among the dead?" You see how He who lives in His own divinity and flesh rose. Nor was He any longer among the dead. And what does he say to them?

not, for instance, a desire on the part of a human to fly, or to be carried into the air, or to investigate the depths of the abyss, or to know the foundations of the earth, and things similar to these—things which go beyond nature because we lack the power to carry out the impulse of the will. However, all that is contained within me in a way subject to passion is present in God without passion. For this reason, He is able to bring about all that He wills, since His nature does not resist His will, whereas our nature in us does resist our volitions, insofar as those volitions reach out towards what is impossible. Nor should anyone say, just because we have stated that God does all that He wills, that He therefore does things which are not fitting. By no means! For He wills only those things which He also performs, in proportion to His own dignity, so that neither does the power stand opposed to the will, nor is the will contrary to the power—not because He is unable to do otherwise, but because He does not will to do otherwise.

^B II. Furthermore, after such an absence of passion established in God—whereas in us and in other creatures things are of a nature subject to passion—if one were to conceive of the matter in such a way, another passion would have to be confessed, according to the strict truth; and after the second, one must conceive of a third. We beget and are begotten with passion, because our nature and that of other things which beget or are begotten admits of division and undergoes flow, expansion and contraction, increase and reduction, and all other things held captive by passion for this very reason. But in God, nothing of this sort was involved in the begetting of the Son. For if any such thing had existed in God—according to that specious suspicion meant to overthrow the generation of the Son—we would have to argue against them from the other part, as concerns us, that in us, who beget and are begotten in passion, there is a second passion in the act of creating, and we suffer when we beget or are begotten. But God, as conceived by you, is a Creator, not a Father; and so, in order to deny the genuine nature of the Son, you allege passion in a way that aims to overturn it, while you consign to oblivion the passion involved in creation. Yet this very thing, in God, is not a passion—God forbid! For we do not attribute any passion to Him by confessing Him as the Creator of all things. Nor, again, do we consider there to be passion in Him ^C because we confess that He truly begat the true Son, without beginning and without time. Therefore we know His nature to be incomprehensible and not held captive by passion. For this reason we confess Him to be both a passionless Father and a passionless Creator. For He begat the Only-Begotten without suffering, and sent forth from Himself His Holy Spirit without undergoing division, and He created those things that were created, and creates those that are being created, without being held captive by any evil or passion. And He does what He wills in a manner fitting to His divinity, not first willing so that He might learn by reflection whether what is being brought to completion ought to come to pass, nor willing to act and then finding Himself unable.

^A He signifies to the disciples that "My soul is troubled." And what shall I say, "Father, save me from this hour"? As if explaining the statement in a preparatory way, and using the expression ambiguously: "What shall I say? Father, save me from this hour?" This, he says, is what I say: "But for this cause came I unto this hour." He came not unwillingly, but willingly; for above he says, "I have a cup to drink. And how I am straitened till it be accomplished! And I have a baptism to be baptized with; and what will I if it be already kindled?" If, therefore, he wills it and is eager, and says that he came for this purpose, how does he show one will of his own and another of the Father? But because he was about to be betrayed through the Israelites, being lover of mankind and sparing the seed of Abraham, he made this speech on behalf of the people. But the will of the Father was that the dispensation regarding the sons of Israel should be accomplished in this way, since they were the authors of the betrayal of the Son to themselves, and were not compelled by God; and the will of the Son was not different from that of the Father. But it was necessary for him even in this to show these things, that he might refer the whole of the unity back to the Father as to the source, lest that unity and dispensation be divided in any part.

LIX. Beyond these things, the heretic also objects that which is written in the Gospel of Luke, namely, that while Christ was praying and was in an agony, he sweated. "And," it says, "his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him." From ^B which expression these captious ones, having found as it were an occasion against the enemy, and being elated and exultant, attack us, saying: "Dost thou see that he even had need of the strength of angels? For the angel strengthened him, since he was in an agony." And they do not perceive that, unless Christ had taken upon himself all these things, unless he had used these very words, "Not my will, but thine," and unless he had undergone that anguish of soul, and unless finally sweat had distilled from his body, that whole mystery of assumed flesh would have appeared to have nothing beyond opinion and appearance; and thus that mask and shadowy image of the incarnation which the Manichaeans and Marcionites preach would not have been absurd, nor would anything in the incarnation itself have been seen to be done in truth of fact. Wherefore Christ the Lord, that he might protect our life and salvation, undertook all those things under the singular management of his providence, and spoke from human affection not deceitfully, but in good faith. As with the words, "Not my will," in order that he might teach that the flesh truly subsists; and that he might refute those who denied that he had a human mind, as well as those who would strip him of flesh. For how wonderfully does the divine Word, standing in the midst of the sons of darkness, refute their darkness and enlighten the sons of truth! Observe indeed how many benefits are in that prayer. First, from things that are void of body, sweat cannot originate. Wherefore by this very fact, that he poured forth sweat, ^{C D}

^A he shows that it is true flesh, not a mere appearance of flesh, that is united with the divinity. Furthermore, without a soul and a mind, grief and anxiety cannot exist. Since, therefore, he was affected by these, he declared that he was endowed alike with soul, and body, and mind, from which that grief arises. Moreover, by these very words, *Not my will, but thine*, etc., he proved that a human mind exists within him, yet one immune to sin. For his divinity is perpetually in the Father, and the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Holy Spirit, perfectly embracing all things; nor does any sense or will of the Son depart from the Father, nor of the Father from the Son, nor of either from the Holy Spirit. For if the Son willed things that the Father did not will, we would have to conclude that there exists in him nothing but a bare human nature, and that he existed with such a will apart from the Father, because he would be far inferior to him. But far be it from us to believe that this is the case! For the fact that certain things were spoken by him out of human affection pertains to the truth of the Incarnation and to the demonstration of the perfect condition of human nature, so that he might bring a salvation absolute in all its parts to us, and that we might not, while conceiving one thing instead of another in our minds, wander too far from the truth.

LX. On his being seen strengthened by angels

[alt-version omitted]

^D As regards the meaning, if Epiphanius interprets those words so that *to strengthen* is the same as "to give strength to him," this is the way he takes it. But no Hellenism allows [the Greek verb] to be taken transitively, in the sense of "to strengthen someone." Wherefore the Sixtine and Complutensian editions are better: *And let them be strengthened or comforted in him.* How Epiphanius explains it, it would seem that [the text] should be read [this way]. Certainly, Theodoret had this in his codices; and he accommodates the sense of the passage to the mind of Epiphanius when he explains it concerning the angels; whose function it is to protect holy men—such as the apostles and patriarchs—by their aid and defense; for they were likewise present to Christ the Lord when he was born and when he was dying. Even in the struggle against the devil, the hosts of the angels were present; for, he says, the angels came and ministered to him; and they were present at his passion, and after the resurrection, they kept watch at the tomb.

^A For all things do not exist at all of themselves, but from the kind bounty of the Giver; to whom also, as things brought into being from nothing, it happens to experience something [i.e., 'suffer' or 'be affected'], when they are deprived of those very things which had been communicated by that Giver: who [God] is neither able to experience anything, nor has he [his being] from any other source, nor can he be deprived in any way. Seeing then that the Son is not equal to them, as neither is the Father nor the Holy Spirit, and the Son is different from these, in that he is not at all contained under the same designation, but possesses an extraordinary and excellent name—so that he who is Good itself may be said to have proceeded from him who is likewise Good itself—what kind of conjunction can there be with those things which have a privation opposed to them from the opposite side? ^B The argument, therefore, of Aetius, who introduces the privative to us, is superfluous; for the unbegotten God and the begotten Son do not acquire their worth from the privation of created things, but from that which spontaneously, specifically, and by itself is congruous with his own substance and divinity. Thus, when God is called "without anger" [ἀόργητος], it is not sought from anger itself, but from the fact that he is vacant of anger by himself. So also, he is called "unbegotten," because he exists from himself, even if the Son himself is begotten of the same unbegotten Father. Therefore, that negation added to the word is in vain, when it is transferred to him who, in the opinion of this very man who made mention of it, cannot be compared with others. For other things cannot be equaled with the Begotten, nor does the Unbegotten communicate his substance to created things. ^C This is not to be thought as occurring through any weakness of the Almighty, but clearly for this reason, that the weak things cannot be extended up to the Almighty, on account of the singular majesty and excellence of the one God and of the only-begotten Son proceeding from him, together with the Holy Spirit.

AETIUS' CHAPTER XX.

CONFUTATION XX. 1.

^A Christ, and superior to all ages, and Lord of angels and archangels, through whom all things were created, principalities, that is, and powers, angels and archangels, the heavens and all that is in them, and also the earth with all men, and all that is upon the earth; and finally the sea and what the sea contains. O the great folly of those who judge such things concerning him, and do not perceive here that it is impossible that he who before the ages in his divinity, through whom the heaven and earth were created, and angels and archangels, and, to use a single word, all things, both visible and invisible, should utter this cry from the person of his divinity: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" For when was the Son forsaken by the Father? Or when has the Son not existed in the Father, and the Father in the Son? For when the Son and God the Word was on earth, he was also touching heaven, and filling all enemies with the splendor of his glory. And he was in the womb of Mary, and became man, but by his power he filled all things. How then could such a one, and so great in his divinity, lamentably say: "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" especially when he himself had said: "I go again, and I will not leave you orphans; but I come to you." And again in another place he says: "Amen I say to you: All of you shall be offended in me this night, and you will leave me alone. But I am not alone, because the Father who begat me is with me." And again: "I go, and I will send to you the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, and takes of mine." And again in another place: "I knock, and if anyone opens to me, I and my Father will come to him, and we will make our abode with him"; showing that he is in no way forsaken by the Father, just as the Father is always with the Son, and as the Holy Spirit is with the Father and the Son.

^B LXII. What then, they say, does this word mean which he spoke, that "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And to whom is it not clear that this saying is uttered from the person of his incarnation, and according to human feeling? For his incarnation was not something existing by itself. For he did not speak as if the divinity were separated and the incarnation existed without it, as if they were one thing and another; but because the incarnation was united to the divinity, there being one holiness, and already knowing within itself the most perfect things, as being united in God, and joined into one divinity, seeing already the divinity... holy body from the person of the Lord's man, that is, of his incarnation. For the divinity was about to perfect all things, those concerning the mystery of the passion, and together with the soul to descend upon those... ^C of the dominion of man, which is destitute of soul and life, the body was in a certain way left by the divinity itself.

passion, and together with the soul to descend upon those of the dominion of man, and to effect ^A there the salvation of those who were sleeping, he speaks of the holy patriarchs. As the movement therefore occurred, the voice spoke from the person of the incarnation to the divinity itself: *My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?* But this had to happen, so that the divine Scriptures might be fulfilled through him, regarding the things heralded by his own prophets concerning him; so that he might also fulfill the things concerning Hades in the form of man toward Hades; so that the prince, Hades, and death, wishing to seize a man—ignorant as they were, in their ignorance, of the divinity in the holy soul—might themselves rather be seized by him, that Hades might be despoiled, death abolished, and the saying fulfilled: *Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, nor wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption.* For neither did the holy God the Word abandon the soul, nor was his soul left in Hades. For the Trinity—the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit—administer all things of such a great mystery without omission, the Son being incarnate, while the Father exists incorporeally, yet by the own good pleasure and will of the Spirit, the holy and bodiless one, the Son became embodied, but remained immutable. And all these things were administered by the Trinity for the salvation of men. ^B

LXIII. Wherefore, since he had said: *Why hast thou forsaken me?* in another place he says: *I will not leave thee, nor will I forsake thee.* For the body had to lie for three days in the tomb, that that prophecy might be fulfilled: *And I became as one without help, among the dead*; and: *They cast me out, the beloved, as a loathsome corpse.* And that it might be fulfilled: *Thou shalt not give thy Holy One to see corruption*; that by the name of "Holy One," he might designate the body, and teach that even in Hades the soul was not left destitute, in which, while it was being detained in that place, the Word of God was present, so that what was said by the apostles might be fulfilled in reality: *For it was impossible for him to be held by Hades.* But why does he speak of "the impossible"? It is because death and Hades hastened to seize the soul, but it was impossible for his soul to be seized because of the divinity. But if it was impossible ^C for it to be held because of the divinity, how then could that saying spoken from the person of his divinity, *My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?* be uttered? But this was the Word, speaking from the person of his incarnation in a human way, that we might learn that his presence in the flesh was true, and not administered by him in mere semblance or fantasy. For what was it that rose from the earth if not that which had fallen asleep? For he rose, he says, *He is not here.*

LXIV. What then is said to have risen, if not the body? And indeed, that very body which lay in the tomb; and the soul also rose again with the divine Word. And again, with it, he fulfilled the perfect divinity, ^D

^A in the same soul, in the same holy body, having finally united the entire dispensation into one spiritual union, into one union of divinity, into one dispensation, into one perfection; as it says in the 92nd Psalm: *The Lord has reigned, He has clothed Himself with beauty*; in order to show the entry of the Word of God from the heavenly realms into the world, clothed in beauty—that is, the flesh which was born from the Virgin. For since it seemed base to the unbelievers who saw it, yet was accounted beauty to Him, in order to show His strength through the seeming weakness of the flesh, destroying him who had the power of sin—[destroying] that is, death—having made the entire dispensation of our salvation beautiful, and having caused corruption to vanish, and having blotted out the curse, and the handwriting against us, and having destroyed the covenant with hell, and having administered all things for the salvation of men; for immediately after saying, *The Lord has reigned, He has clothed Himself with beauty*, He adds again, and repeats it, saying: *The Lord has clothed Himself with power, and has girded Himself*; in order to show that the first garment was from Mary, but the second clothing—the garment added—was from the resurrection of the dead. For He is the firstborn from the dead, as the divine Scripture said. Therefore, He adds to this second clothing a certain ^B greater assurance, saying: *The Lord has clothed Himself with power, and has girded Himself.*

LXV.

^A LXVI. Now, since we have spoken sufficiently about this topic, let us pass on to other things. For since many of the points that occur to my memory to have been calumniously brought against us by them have been clarified, we shall make it plain from a few—or even more—examples, that there is nothing in the divine Scriptures that, to one who is endowed with the Holy Spirit and who, by the grace of God, has obtained a wakeful and alert mind, contains any intricate meaning, nor does one judge therein even the slightest trace of that passion which might be attributed to the Father, or to the Son, or to the Holy Spirit; but to the contrary, everything is most perfectly spoken by Christ the Lord, and by the apostles and prophets sent by Him. But they are said in such a way that, according to the opportuneness of each matter, place, and argument, all things are spoken prudently and according to truth. For prophesying about Christ, David had said in the Hebrew tongue: *Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?* Which subsequently, as it had been foretold, the Lord fulfilled upon the Cross, when He pronounced in the Hebrew language, *Eli, Eli*, according to the testimony of the oracle. But the other two words He did not weave in in Hebrew, but in the Syriac dialect: *lema sabachthani*. Thus, in the beginning, He used such terms as had been written of Him; the rest He added in another language, and changed the words somewhat. This was done with a certain singular prudence, so that when He said *Eli, Eli*, He professed that the prophecy of the prophet pertained to Him; but when He conceived the remainder not in Hebrew, but in Syriac, He might suppress the pride of those who insolently boasted of the Hebrew language, and might deign to use other languages for the fulfillment of the oracles concerning Him. For the time was already at hand when He would spread the knowledge of Himself to all nations, and not communicate only with the Hebrews, as is read in almost the whole context of the twenty-first Psalm. There, everything is pronounced as if from the perspective of the human nature He assumed, and is accommodated to human affections; all of which He, upon coming, fulfilled. But those things which are spoken in that Psalm, and which we say pertain ^B to the incarnation of Christ, are above all opportune to the dispute we have instituted, as when He says: *They have divided my garments* [?]; and: *They have dug my hands and my feet* [?]; likewise: *They themselves have considered and looked upon me* [?], and other things of that kind, which cannot be fulfilled in the divinity, but in the flesh, with the divinity ordaining all things, having assumed no affection, yet performing them according to the truth of the reality.

^D LXVII. Again, like certain rabid dogs, neither recognizing their master anymore because of their rage, and making their first assault upon Him, they leap forward. And when they hear from us—admitting the truth of the matter—that Christ the Lord said these things in the Gospel concerning His disciples: *Whom Thou hast given me, Father, I have kept them in the world* [?]. And then: *Make them that they may be in me, as I and Thou are one* [?]; then they object to us:

^A "You see what is said by Him, that 'I in the Father, and the Father in me, and we two are one,' because He is speaking not of equality, but of concord?" For how could the disciples be in Him according to equality, and not rather according to concord? Immediately, however, the truth of God refutes them entirely, since the disciples could neither fulfill this, nor could such a thing be said of them, had not the Word come and shared in their flesh, and joined them to Himself in adoption. And for this reason, throughout the Song of Songs, He calls His holy Church His "neighbor," addressing her with His holy voice, which is awakening and encouraging, saying: *"Arise, come, my neighbor, my fair one, my dove."* And do you see how He calls her "neighbor"? But the Church could not be called Christ's neighbor, unless He had descended from heaven and approached her; for it was for her sake that He took on flesh subject to the same passions, so that, having brought the humanity that had approached Him together—gathering those who had come into obedience—He might call them near to Himself, as His holy and spotless bride.

^B And for this reason, the Word, our Lord and Only-Begotten, here asks the Father on behalf of the disciples, that they may be in Him, so that He might unite the kinship—the one that came to be in Him through the flesh by the good pleasure of the Father—with the disciples sanctified in a unity of good pleasure and adoption; so that they might have in the Firstborn of the Father the registration of the firstborn in heaven; and so that some might not think the Son is estranged from the glory of the Father because He wore flesh. Securing their faith and the knowledge of His truth, and so that no such thought might arise in the minds of His servants—lest any such person fall from hope—He says: *"That they may be, as I and Thou are one, so also they may be in one."* For I and Thou are one, because He is God from God, and consubstantial in divinity. And the words, *"We are one,"* do not signify a singular essence. For He did not say, "I am one [singular]," but "I and Thou," and "We are one," that He might refute Sabellius and his school, who thinks the Son and the Father are a conflation, and likewise the Father with the Holy Spirit. ^C For this reason He says, *"We are one,"* and did not say, "I am one." For two things are indeed perfect, the Father and the Son; but they are one because of the equality, because of the divinity, and one power and one likeness. Therefore, in the divinity, Father and Son are one; in the incarnation, the Son and the disciples are one, as those who have been brought, through the dignity of the calling of the disciples, to the ineffable nature of His philanthropy, into one unity of adoption through the good pleasure of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And once again the error of those empty men, who think wrongly concerning their own Master, has been refuted.

^D LXVIII. Sed jam ab hoc capite ad alia deinceps tractanda progrediar. Rursus enim magno in nos ... their minds, for the sophists, having been occupied with syllogisms and vain reasonings...

but I shall now proceed from this chapter to treat the others in turn. For the sophists are again rushing upon us with great force, relying on certain arguments ^A devised by themselves, whose entire study is occupied with syllogisms and the cavils of arguments. In this they are altogether ridiculous, who, being mere manikins, attempt to comprehend God with their reasonings. The prophet refutes their insanity with these words: "Will anyone supplant God, since you supplant me?" What, therefore, do those bold and confident men bring forward? We have previously proposed and explained this other objection of theirs, which they are accustomed to oppose to us by way of questioning. "God," they say, "begat His Son either willing or unwilling." But in that same place, with God's help, we demonstrated that nothing could exist in Him that would involve slowness or delay, but that all things are perfect in Him simultaneously. Wherefore He neither wills before He acts, nor does He undertake anything without counsel, nor does He deliberate to prepare anything, nor does His preparation require consultation. For this reason, the Son who was produced by Him is always begotten; nor did He begin at any time, but, begotten by the Father, He exists with Him ^B without any interruption of time. Therefore, I shall repeat in this place the same thing I said before: He begat Him neither willing nor unwilling, but in that nature which is superior to all deliberation. For such is the nature of God, that it transcends all counsel and all intelligence and knowledge. ^C

LXIX. Not unlike this argument is another invented by those new Aristotelians. For they have expressed all the poison of this philosopher in themselves, and have abandoned the innocent simplicity and kindness of the Holy Spirit. Concerning whom the Lord speaks thus: "Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls." But they, having abandoned gentleness, have embraced cunning instead, and have preferred to accommodate themselves to Aristotle and the other dialecticians of this world: whose fruits they pursue in such a way that they bring forth no fruit of justice, nor have they deserved to obtain any benefit of the Holy Spirit, being more than sufficiently desirous of contention. Therefore, they are accustomed to attack us thus when we say that the existing Son was with the existing Father, since the Father commanded Moses thus: "You shall say to them: 'He Who Is has sent me'"; then the Gospel testifies thus concerning the Son: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." From which, as we conclude that the existing Son was with ^D the existing Father, they reason as follows: "Was that which was already begotten, or that which was not yet? For if it already was, how was it begotten? But if it was begotten, how was it already?" And this has proceeded from the same vanity which wallows in petty questions, and pursuing sublime things, and curiously searching out heavenly things, accomplishes nothing good. We, however, shall address them thus: "Whence has this thought been injected into your minds?" If they say that this way of inquiring seems consistent with right reason, then we shall urge them in return thus: "We desire to hear from you whether you think this way about your own affairs, or about those things which pertain to God." They will answer, as those endowed with reason, "About...

now wish to cast away from themselves this healing remedy and salutary antidote, the foundation of the faith of the holy Church of God, saying: Whence is the name of "substance" brought to us? Why is the Son called consubstantial with the Father? What Scripture has spoken of consubstantiality? Which of the apostles has called God "substance"? They are ignorant that, in discourse, "hypostasis" and "substance" are one and the same. For the Lord is in His hypostasis, and ^B is the brightness of the glory and the very impress of His substance. ^C It is, therefore, substance—not something existing like a possession, but that which is the very Being itself, as Moses says: "HE WHO IS hath sent me," I said to the sons of Israel. Therefore, the "He Who Is" is that which exists, and that which is is the existing substance.

If, then, the nature of God differs from your nature, ^A in the first place, your nature cannot comprehend those things concerning God which are above all comprehension. In the second place, it is impious for God to be represented by you according to your own substance. For in us, that which was not comes to be, since we ourselves did not exist at one time, but have been begotten by our fathers, who themselves also did not exist at one time, and so one must descend from the beginning down to Adam. Adam, however, came to be from the earth, not having existed at one time. But the earth came to be from things that do not exist, because it did not always exist. But God the Father always was. And such as He was in nature, such He begat the Son. He begat Him as always existing, not as a brother, but begotten from Himself, similar to Him in nature—Lord from Lord, God from God, true God from true God. And whatever one thinks regarding the Father must also be thought regarding the Son; and whatever one believes regarding the Son must be understood regarding the Father. For thus says the ^B Gospel: "He who does not believe in the Son as he believes in the Father, and does not honor the Son as he honors the Father, the wrath of God abideth upon him." And thus their syllogistic reasoning has once again collapsed. For God, being incomprehensible, begat an incomprehensible Son before all ages and before time; and there is no interval between the Son and the Father, but as soon as you think of the Father, you think of the Son; as soon as you name the Son, you point to the Father. For the Son is known from the Father, and the Father is known from the Son. For whence is there a Son, if He has no Father? And whence is there a Father, if He did not beget the Only-Begotten? When can the Father not be called Father, or the Son not be called Son, so that some might imagine a Father without a Son, and later believe that He arrived at a progression and begat the Son, so that after the begetting the Father should be called the Father of the Son, as if the perfect One, who is never in need of perfection, had attained some progression in His divinity?

^D LXX. They flee again to another argument, and they attempt to shake off from themselves that most health-giving remedy and life-saving antidote—that is, the solidity and firmness of the faith which the holy Church of God preaches—and in this manner they are accustomed to insist: Whence, they say, does the name of "substance" come to us? Or why is the Son called consubstantial with the Father? In what place of Scripture is mention made of consubstantiality? Who among the apostles ever named the substance of God? For they are evidently ignorant that to speak of hypostasis or substance is to speak of the same thing. For the Lord is in His hypostasis, and He is the brightness of the glory and the figure of His substance. It is, therefore, substance, not existing as some kind of faculty, but that...

^A And the word "together" (ὁμοῦ) does not signify one thing again, but from the consubstantial it signifies two things—things perfect, yet not alien to one another, nor foreign to their own unity. If we have used this term "together" for the sake of piety, it is through the bond of the consubstantial of the truth. For without the confession of the consubstantial, it is impossible to refute any heresy. For just as the serpent avoids the scent of pitch, and the breath of the deer, and the incense of the jet stone, and the smoke of styrax, so too Arius and Sabellius hate the word of the confession of the consubstantial made in truth. But we shall say to them: Even if the term were not in the divine Scriptures (though it is, and is clearly present in the Law, and in the Apostles, and in the Prophets; for "at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established"), if it were not written, yet for the sake of piety we would be permitted to use a useful term, safeguarding the holy faith. But you, what say you? Tell us, O you men, what do you say concerning the Father? Is the Father uncreated? By all means, yes. For who is so foolish as to doubt this? Who is so thunderstruck as to think that God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is not uncreated? ^B For you yourselves also confess that He is ingenerate, and uncreated, and unbegotten. For He has no Father before Him, nor any limit of years, nor any beginning of days, as the Scripture speaks. If, therefore, He has no beginning of time, nor an end, it is confessed and beyond all controversy that He was created by no one. Yet this is nowhere expressed in writing concerning Him. For the sake of piety, as I have said, we are religiously compelled to both think and speak these things concerning Him, even if it were not written according to its own terminology, despite the narrowness of human discourse, and even if it seems to be beyond us, and beyond our nature, to discourse concerning God. But nevertheless, the Lord Himself will grant us forgiveness, since we do not wish to offer an apology for the Godhead—which is in no need of our support and confirmation—but rather because it is our duty to speak and think piously concerning divine things, lest we perish.

^C

LXXI.

sense of Scripture, both those I have mentioned so far and many others. But now I shall depart from the examination of this passage, in order to betake myself to discussing other sentences and arguments of Scripture, which they cast as bait before the untutored and simple.

LXXII. For among other testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, which they pervert to their own meaning by citing them from the Apostle and the Gospels and understanding them falsely, they also cast this one from the Apostle against us, which is read in the Epistle to the Corinthians, where he discourses on the resurrection of the dead. For he speaks thus: "Then the end, when He shall have delivered ^B the kingdom to God and the Father, when He shall have destroyed every principality, and every authority and power. For He must reign, until He puts all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. But when He says that all things are made subject to Him, it is manifest that He is excepted who subjected all things to Him. But when all things shall be made subject to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. xv, 24-28). ^C They seize, therefore, upon this passage, and in keeping with the habit of their own hatred toward the Only-Begotten, they construct - as I have often said, being carried away by folly - their arguments against His ineffable and glorious divinity. And they say: "Do you see that he says: 'When the end [comes, and] He shall deliver the kingdom to God and the Father, when He shall have destroyed every [principality and] authority and power. For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet'? And [the words] 'must,' and 'until,' and 'when He shall deliver the kingdom,' signify a definite span of time." And blaspheming, they say: "These things are indicative of the cessation and dissolution of Him who reigns, 'until He delivers the kingdom to God and the Father.'" And they do not know from the beginning the sense of the truth, that because the Only-Begotten partook of flesh and blood, human affections regarding Him, and terms suggestive of an ^D accession of glory to His incarnate presence, are sung and spoken; but this is not outside His perfect and glorious divinity, which, lacking nothing, required no prior glory, but possesses its own self-glorification and self-perfection. In the same way, He defends Himself regarding the two parts, saying regarding the recent one: "Glorify Me, O Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (Joan. xvii, 5). The Father, however, demonstrating the glory of the two states, speaks thus regarding the former according to the Spirit: "I have glorified," that He might show the infinite; and regarding the recent one, because of the incarnate presence: "and I will glorify [it] again." (Joan. xii, 28).

^A LXXIII. From these things, this passage of the Apostle that we are now discussing can be illustrated and declared, in which he has set forth a twofold sense of the truth. For these words, "Until He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father," must be referred to the human nature, which began at a certain time. The divinity of the Son, however, has always existed with the Father, which is nothing other than the only-begotten God, the Word proceeding from the Father without any beginning or time. Otherwise, how could that which was said by the angel be fulfilled in reality: "The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee"? For he had said to the Virgin Mary: "Thou shalt bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus." By these words he showed that the divine Word had descended from heaven and had been made flesh in the womb of the same Virgin, and had perfectly assumed the human nature, so that he might not separate the perfect nature of the body from the perfect divinity. Wherefore he immediately added and said to her: "And therefore that which shall be born holy shall be called the Son of God." Then: "God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

^B Wherefore, since both of these seem to be opposed to one another, namely: "He must reign, until," etc.; and, "He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever," where it is to be observed that he said, "for ever," not "for a time." Likewise, when that which says, "When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father," is contrary to this: "And of his kingdom there shall be no end"; and since worthy and faithful authors assert both of these things concerning Christ the Lord (for both the angel Gabriel is holy, and the Apostle is filled with the divine Spirit), what will those who are clearly unskilled in this vital and salutary mystery say? Does Scripture, which never swerves from the truth, fight against itself? By no means! But, as we were saying before, because of that condition of human nature which is capable of accession, all things cohere consistently and most fittingly. For if he is to deliver up the kingdom at a certain time, it follows that he does not yet reign. But if this is so, why is it said that he is adored by angels and archangels perpetually, both before and after the incarnation? For indeed the Scripture testifies concerning him: "When he brought the firstborn into the world, it was said: And let all the angels of God adore him." Item: "He sitteth at the right hand of the Father." ^C Then: "Before him every knee shall bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth." It is necessary, therefore, that he who is adored by all should perpetually possess the kingdom.

Now, indeed, since the royal power has long since resided with the Son, and does so now, and will in the future (forasmuch as he has not yet delivered up the kingdom to the Father), what then shall we think? That the Father is meanwhile excluded from the kingdom? By no means. For the Son reigns with the Father, and the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit. But what do these men assert? When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, will he cease to reign? By no means, certainly! For how would that response of the angel be true: ^D "And of his kingdom there shall be no end"? But in order to show,

^A that nothing in the Son is finished or finishes, being alienated from or separate from the unity of the Father and the one will of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For we see here also, as it was said regarding the Son himself, that "When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, when he shall have brought to naught all principality, and power, and virtue"—just as though the Son himself were delivering the kingdom and bringing to naught every principality and what follows—and that, "He must reign until he hath put all his enemies under his feet"; as though the Son were doing all things, and possessing authority, and having power, and delivering to the Father those who are subdued, together with the kingdom.

LXXIV. Next, he proceeds to another person, ^B where it is the Father subjecting all things to the Son; he says: "He hath subjected all things under his feet; the last enemy shall be destroyed, death." And it is no longer solely from the person of the Father, nor from the person of the Son alone, but as it were from another, placed between both persons, that he says: "The last enemy shall be destroyed, death." When, however, he says that "all things are subjected to him," I would like to ask those same persons: from whose person is that voice spoken? For the depth of the mysteries of God judges carnal men in a spiritual way. For the "carnal man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness unto him" (I Cor. II, 14). For here, when it says, "all things are subjected to him," if it is taken as if the Father said it to the Son, the account is ^C wanting and defective; for the Son has subjected all things to the Father. But if that very expression, "When he saith: All things are subjected to him," is thought to be from the person of the Son, the meaning is no less deficient, in that a certain delay and tardiness is attributed to God—that is, either to the Father or to the Son. Who, then, is the one saying that "all things are subjected"? For it does not say, "When they say." For if this pertained to the Son, the phrase "When they say" could be fulfilled either by the angels or by those who are subjected. Since, however, he had indicated above both the Son subjecting all things to the Father and delivering them, and the Father subjecting all ^D things to the Son, and only the person of the Holy Spirit remained for those who quibble over words, for this reason he added the person of the Holy Spirit, not explicitly but implicitly, after the person of the Son and the person of the Father—that is, the Spirit who ever announces and teaches the mysteries of the Father and the Son. This was done so that nothing might be lacking to the perfect knowledge of the Trinity and of the incarnate coming of the glory that is assumed. Then he says: "The last enemy shall be destroyed, death." Now, that which is destroyed is understood to be in a certain way held captive and constrained, so that it may no longer attempt what it used to do, and thus, once it has been destroyed, it no longer exists.

LXXV. What then can those who are unskilled in understanding the Scriptures say about this? Are we therefore to think regarding the Son that he will ever cease to reign, if the text were indeed to be taken that way? Yet it would be an impious thing for us to admit that he is numbered among those who are to be subjected.

^B Absit indeed! For no one who believes in Christ and hopes in truth would ever think to say or hear anything unworthy of His glory, in the way these men foolishly imagine. The divine Scripture teaches all things: “When it says, ‘All things have been subjected to Him,’ it is manifest that it is except for Him who subjected all things to Him. And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subjected to Him who subjected all things to Him”; this is so that what the angel signified from the beginning, and what is here conjoined through the likeness of the Word, might unfold the entire force of the Word’s power consistently and clearly. For the angel said much the same thing, when, in signifying the Son of God, and immediately adding certain things, he made mention of the assumed human nature conjoined with the Word: “Therefore,” he says, “that which is born of you (where he added, ‘and holy’) shall be called the Son of God.” Since these things are so, and since those words, “Therefore,” and “That which is born shall be called the Son of God,” were used by the angel, the Son is rightly said to be subjected to Him who subjected all things to Himself, so that what is carnal might no longer be carnal in power, but conjoined to the Godhead; that carnal nature being conjoined into one union, reigning together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, ^C “of whose kingdom there shall be no end.” From the time He arose, He received the beginning of the saying, “That God might be all in all,” for that carnal nature is gathered together into one with His own Godhead spiritually; since He says: “Do this for my remembrance, until the coming of the Son of man,” and, “Thus you will see Him, as you saw Him ascending into heaven.” Then, when all things have been brought to perfection and nothing is left wanting, all those same words demonstrate that everything is to be referred to His Godhead: “That God might be all in all,” so that there may be no suspicion of division—for there is none—lest a plurality of gods be imagined. ^D For there is but one glory of all the persons. For the Son is not now unsubjected to the Father as if playing the tyrant, nor is He subjected as a slave lacking His own power, since He is begotten of the Father, possessed of the same nature and the same Godhead; nor will He be subjected to the Father then on account of any defect, or as if by a diminution of status, or by necessity, or by an abrogation of power. Rather, as a true and only-begotten Son, who reigns eternally with the Father, He recalls all created things to one unity and to one glory and honor, and institutes His Church, “That God might be all in all.” Since the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one, and there is one sovereignty and one singular glory; honor is rendered by the Son, as by a true Son, to the Father, as is right; and likewise by the Holy Spirit, since He is in no way alien to the Father and the Son. Therefore, let those words, and the fabrications of malice against the Son and the Holy Spirit, be excluded. And further, we shall examine and refute the things wrongly imagined by them.

^A LXXVI. They argue further from other authorities brought forward from the Gospel: "What is this," they say, "that the Son can do nothing of himself unless he sees the Father doing it?" But they do not in any way grasp the meaning of these words, nor do they see that there is nothing which had been done previously by the Father, and thereafter fabricated by the Son. For what heaven did the Father fashion by himself alone, such that the Son, having taken the likeness from the pattern of this first heaven, might subsequently work in like manner? Nothing of the sort can be demonstrated by those architects of impiety. For "In the beginning God made heaven and earth." Moreover, right there at the beginning, in the making of the world, he says: "Let us make man in our image and likeness." He did not say, "Come, I shall make it first, and I will show you how you ought to work." Then it says: "And God made man." It did not say, "He made it and showed the Son how man must be made." For there was no ignorance in the Son, such that after learning the craft, he might then work from it. But because our Lord, having come, put on the flesh and became man and sojourned among us, and was addressing the Jews who had convinced themselves that he was overturning the works of the Father—wishing to lift their understanding so that they would not look only to his human incarnation, he said: "The Son does nothing unless he sees the Father doing it," in order to show that the work of the Son is the work of the Father, and that the Father is well-pleased with the economy of his entire work. Thus, in accordance with [this] sequence, they will also be chased away, ^B like wild beasts, from the other words of Scripture where they stumble, and having been reproved by the radiance of the Word—that is, the truth—they shall flee. "He flashed a flash, and you will scatter them; send forth your arrows, and you shall confound them."

^C LXXVII. For joined to this passage which they recite in order, they also say from the Gospel: "For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things which he himself does, and he will show him greater works than these, so that you may marvel." And again: "The Father raises the dead and gives life; similarly the Son also gives life to whom he wills." And again: "For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father." Observe now for me, Arius, the end of this discussion instituted against you: the point at which the argument concludes. It did not say [that he should be honored] by some, and not by others, but it says: "so that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father." Beware, therefore, of dishonoring the Son, lest you also dishonor the Father. For if you suspect anything inferior, ^D or that any defect is to be found in the Son, then your thought will redound to the ignominy of the Father. For it is the same act of temerity and audacity in you, whether you have conceived something of this kind against the Son, or

^A But tell me, you most confident of men, when the Father gives something to Him, what does He say? "That the Son might give life to whom He wills." He did not say "to whom He is commanded." It was necessary for the Son to receive these things from the Father, yet not to be inferior to the Father, especially for two reasons: first, to raise our minds to the one and singular divinity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and not to allow the human intellect to descend into divisions and polytheism, but to lead it back to one unity; second, for the sake of the transformation of glory in His incarnate presence, and for the sake of understanding the union of His divinity. For when He came to cheer His disciples with the promise that He spoke, namely "There are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His glory," ^B and on the eighth day, as the Gospel says, or as the other Gospel narrates, "after six days"—not because the writers of the Gospel were mistaken, but because, although the certainty of all is one, it nevertheless appears that the same must be fortified, lest any opportunity for stumbling be offered to men regarding things that are principal and necessary; since human thought is prone to evil from youth—for this reason, one evangelist said "on the eighth day." For a portion of the day remained when He spoke those words, and he counted from that day and hour, if the day had declined to about the ninth or tenth hour. And again, when the event occurred on the eighth day at about the third or fourth hour, this was called the eighth day. But the other evangelist proceeds with caution and says "after six days." ^C For he did not count the day on which He spoke the words to the disciples, nor the day on which He accomplished the work, but only the full six days that intervened.

LXXVIII. The Transfiguration on the Mount

Therefore, when the evangelist had come to a narrative of this kind, he expressed the whole matter thus: "Taking Peter and John and James, He led them up into a mountain, and He was transfigured, and His face shone as the sun—that face, I say, which was joined with divinity—and His garments became white as snow." ^D Wherefore that flesh which had been taken from the Virgin Mary and assumed from our own race was changed into glory and splendor—indeed, the glory of the divinity, the addition of which was made to it—and into honor, and perfection, and celestial dignity, which the flesh had not previously possessed, but which it obtained here after it was united with the divine Word. Therefore, you should understand the aforementioned words—that "He has given all judgment to the Son," and that "He has given Him authority to give life to whom He wills"—in such a way that He might declare the first principle and the one divinity and singular will in the Trinity, and refer all the goodness of the Father to the one principle and divinity of the three perfect hypostases, yet one divinity: Father, and Son, and

Holy Spirit. Moreover, the human nature assumed by the Word, together with the divinity, received from the Father and the Son both the benefit of highest dignity, and also power, perfection, and spiritual union into one divinity. ^B

LXXIX. But now we have with great difficulty escaped this place, infested with the most difficult storms of the sea and all that force of poison—or rather, the swelling and stormy waves and foaming vortices of waters and horrendous agitations. For relying on right reason and intelligence, we have burned the arrows and shields of the enemies and broken their bows; and, though undeserving, we have drawn from God so great a power and grace for the destruction of that monster, equipped with many heads in the likeness of a most foul hydra, that, once it was defeated and routed by the same divine aid, we are able to sing this triumphal song: "Let us sing unto the Lord, for he is gloriously magnified; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea." We have therefore crushed the head of the dragon upon that water which flows placidly, and of which those new possessors of the inheritance after the Jews would not be partakers; against whom the prophet inveighs thus: "Because you would not have the water of Siloam that flows gently, but chose to have Rase as king and the son of Tabeel, son of Romelia, behold, the Lord brings upon you the violent water of the river, the king of the Assyrians," and so forth. ^C But we, having obtained help from the Lord—that is, that spittle emitted from the true flesh upon the earth, and the clay made from that spittle and smeared upon our eyes, so that we who once lived in the greatest ignorance might now perceive the truth—going away and washing in Siloam, which is interpreted "sent," that is, in the human nature and divinity of Christ, once we were washed and our sight recovered, we no longer deny the Lord, even though we are driven out from all synagogues by the faction of Arius and the successors of the Jews. For they too, like them, decreed that whoever confessed the Lord should be excluded from their assemblies, in order that they might show that the one to whom sight had been restored had become a reproach to those who do not see. For if their conventicle were not entirely blinded, they would never have proscribed him whose eyes had been opened from all communion. ^D Therefore, thanks must be given to the Lord because we have both recovered the sense of sight and confess this very Lord, and have applied a remedy to all our ailments, if, however, we follow his commandments; and we have trampled the serpent, and by the help and virtue of God have crushed the head of the dragon. To whom be glory, honor, and dominion, to the Father in the Son, and to the Son in the Father, with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Now that we have departed from this seven-headed, and many-branched, but now dead hydra, let us, O beloved, proceed to the remaining heresies. But let us first implore the help of God, that he may grant the same to us and to those who

hanc nostram lucubrationem legere voluerint, curam ac providentiam adhibeat, ut et qui morsibus appetiti sunt persanentur, et qui nondum in illam calamitatem inciderint, ad eam cavendam instruantur.

CONTENTS OF THE FIRST TOME OF THE THIRD BOOK

^A It is the sixth tome according to the order we established, in which there are seven heresies together with the schisms, as follows.

LIST OF HERESIES CONTAINED IN THIS FIRST TOME OF THE THIRD BOOK,

Audianism is properly a schism and a falling away, not ^B a heresy. They have a well-ordered way of living. Nor do they differ from the Catholic Church as far as the faith is concerned. They dwell for the most part in monasteries. They make excessive use of many apocryphal books. They do not share in the common prayers with us, for they condemn our bishops, and indeed the wealthy, and others. Furthermore, they celebrate Passover privately at the same time as the Jews. There is also a certain peculiarity of theirs which they defend with the utmost contention: they interpret what is written about the "image" too harshly.

Photinians. This Photinus, originating from Sirmium, ^C wandered about even to this day. He indeed thinks the same as Paul of Samosata. There are some things, however, in which he disagrees with him. He also thinks that Christ received his origin entirely from Mary.

Marcellians. Marcellus was the author of these, bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, who, although he was brought into association with the common report of Sabellianism at the beginning, and had purged himself in writing many times, yet it was believed by many that he still adhered to those same opinions. It is possible that he himself, having changed his opinion, recalled himself to a better way of thinking, or his disciples did so; for some orthodox persons interposed themselves as defenders for both him and his disciples.

Semi-Arians. They say that Christ is a creature, but by quibbling, ^D however, they deny that he is like the other creatures; but, they say, "we call him the Son; yet, lest any affection be derived toward the Father from the generation itself, we confess him to be a creature." The same people also define the Holy Spirit as entirely a creature; and they reject the [ὁμοούσιον], that is, consubstantial, though they admit the [ὁμοιοούσιον], that is, like in substance. Which, however, some of them reject.

^A Pneumatomachi. These have a correct view concerning Christ, but they cast insults upon the Holy Spirit, defining Him as a creature, and not as being of the Godhead; nay, they rather say that He has been created with a certain abuse of language for the sake of the operation itself, asserting that He is nothing more than a sanctifying power.

^A Aeriani. This Aerius originates from Pontus. Even now he survives to the great calamity of mankind. He was formerly a presbyter under bishop Eustathius, who was accused of the Arian error; and because he himself, Aerius, was not made a bishop, he devised many doctrines against the Catholic Church, being in his faith a most perfect Arian, but he propagates them more excessively. He says that one ought not to offer [prayers or offerings] for the departed. He forbids fasting on the fourth day of the week and on Preparation day (Friday), and during Lent and at Easter; he preaches total renunciation. He uses all kinds of meats and luxuries without fear. But if any of his followers should wish to fast, he forbids them to do so on the appointed days, but [allows it] only when they feel like it. For, he says, you are not under the Law. He further asserts that a bishop is in no way superior to a presbyter.

^B Aetiani. A certain Aetius of Cilicia was the inventor of this heresy; he had been ordained a deacon by George, the Arian bishop of Alexandria. They are called Anomoeans, but by some they are named Eunomians, after a certain Eunomius, who became a disciple of Aetius and is still living. Eudoxius was also of their party, but for the sake of fear toward the Emperor Constantius, he separated himself from them and allowed Aetius alone to be banished, although he himself persisted in the Arian dogma, but did not in the least follow Aetius. ^C Furthermore, the Anomoeans, or Aetiani, preach that Christ and the Holy Spirit are entirely alien to God, asserting that they are created, and that they possess no similarity whatsoever. For they wish to demonstrate the nature of God by certain Aristotelian and geometric syllogisms, and thereby [seek] to prove that Christ, supposedly, cannot be from God. All those who are called Eunomians after him rebaptize all who come over to them, not only Catholics, but even the Arians themselves; and they do this in such a way—so the report goes—as to immerse them head-first, with their feet turned toward heaven. They claim that fornication or any other sin is nothing; for they say that God seeks nothing else ^D but that one should persevere in this faith of theirs alone.

These, then, are the seven heresies being described in the third book, which is the sixth volume in order.

The List of Heresies contained in this first volume of the third book

VOLUME ONE OF THE THIRD BOOK. ON THE SCHISM OF THE AUDIANS, Pentecost, which is also the seventieth.

^A 1. The Audians, or Odiani, are a sect. They dwell in monasteries, having withdrawn and living a life separated from the custom of men, partly in deserts, partly near towns, or in suburbs, or wherever they have placed their own dwellings or monasteries. The founder of this sect was Audius, in the times of Arius, when a synod of bishops was gathered against the latter, by whom he was condemned. But Audius, a native of Mesopotamia, was from the first distinguished in his own country for the integrity of his life and for his zeal and fervor for the divine faith. Since he often saw things being done improperly in the churches, he was not afraid to rebuke and argue with bishops and presbyters to their face, and to warn them repeatedly: "These things ought not to be done this way; it is not fitting that these things be administered in this manner." These things, like one who loves the truth, he was accustomed to urge, along with other things of this kind that are familiar to men of exquisite probity, who, because of their outstanding zeal for piety, use the utmost freedom in speech. ^B Wherefore, when he perceived that some things, as I said, were being done badly in the churches, he was sometimes forced to speak what he felt and to rebuke, and could not be silent at all. For if he saw anyone of the clergy—whether a bishop, a presbyter, or any other person counted among the ecclesiastical orders—to be more greedy for money than was right, he did not hesitate to reproach him; or if anyone was wallowing in luxury and delights, or was corrupting any part of the ecclesiastical dogma and discipline by adulterating it, being unable to bear it with a patient mind, he would castigate them with words, as I said. This, indeed, was troublesome to men of a more dissolute life, whence he endured the greatest outrages on that account, being agitated by the hostile voices and hatreds of everyone. But he, being tossed in this manner, and beaten, and affected with ignominy, endured it with a steady mind, and for a long time remained in the communion of the Church, until certain ones, being more vehemently offended, drove the man out on such grounds. ^C But he, nevertheless, while enduring these things, but being more sharply intent on upholding the truth, strove in the meantime not to be torn away from the conjunction and society of the holy catholic Church. But when he himself was being beaten along with his followers, and was suffering indignities, becoming angered by these evils, he took counsel from the violence of these calamities and outrages. Wherefore he separated himself from the Church; and thus, with many falling away along with him, a new schism was brought about by him. And yet he did not depart in any matter from the right faith, for he himself and his followers held to a sincere religion in all things, although there is a very small point in which they contend somewhat more obstinately. ^D

^A For besides confessing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in an admirable way, just as the Catholic Church holds, they also observe the rest of their life in an admirable way. For the man himself works with his own hands, and both he and the bishops and presbyters under him, and all the rest, support themselves. But later, after he was expelled from the Church, he was ordained bishop by another bishop who had been debating these same issues and had withdrawn from the Church. Regarding him, I undertook to speak—since I have made an aside, I shall resume the argument and continue. I refer to the language from Holy Scripture which he sings, which is of the harshest, most unlearned, and contentious sort. For he and those with him insist stubbornly that what God gave to Adam, "in the image," is fulfilled in the body; based on the fact that it is allegedly said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness." And then the divine Word adds, saying that God also made man, taking dust from the earth. Since, he says, it says "man from the earth," see how he most truly called the whole earthen creature "man," and therefore he was predicting that that same earthen creature would be in the image of God. And this, as I said, is harsh and unlearned, to define in what part of the man the "in the image" is posited; if it is right to speak of a "part" at all, on account of the many things that conflict with human reasoning regarding this text and which contain a multitude of questions. For either we make God visible and bodily, if the "in the image" is accomplished bodily and in a formed shape, or we make man equal to God by asserting this. Therefore, it is entirely wrong to define or insist in what part the "in the image" is fulfilled, but rather to confess that the "in the image" is indeed in man, so that we do not set aside the grace of God and disbelieve God. For whatever God says, these things are true, even if they escape our understanding in a few words. Therefore, to deny this "in the image" is not faithful, nor is it of the holy Church of God. For every man is clearly "in the image," and no one who has his hope in God will deny this; unless some should fabricate myths for themselves, casting themselves out of the Church and from the tradition of the fathers from the prophets, the Law, the apostles, and the evangelists. ^B III. So then, those who are inclined toward more contention in this matter also walk outside the tradition concerning ecclesiastical doctrine, which believes that every man is indeed in the image, but does not define in what [part] the "in the image" is placed, nor are those who mythologize about these things and argue or deny them able to demonstrate anything. For some say that the "in the image" is fulfilled in the soul, thinking ^C that they can reason this out by the flesh alone; ^D but there is no one who hopes in God who can deny this, unless there be some who perchance fabricate fables for themselves, and are excluded both from the Church and from that doctrine which has been handed down by our ancestors from the authority of the prophets, the Law, the apostles, and the evangelists. III. Whence, since in this part they are led by a spirit of contention greater than is fitting, they depart from ecclesiastical tradition and doctrine. For while it confesses that all men are created in the image of God, it nevertheless defines no part in which the notion of such an image is to be located. But neither can these men demonstrate anything, as they assert or deny something about this matter in a fabulous way. For some circumscribe that which is said about the image to the soul itself; that [index: entries preserved]

it should hearken to syllogisms and not simply approach God with a pure mind, and believe that those things spoken by God are truth, and known only to Him who knows all truth. Others say that "the image" is neither in the soul nor in the body, but is virtue. Others assert that it is not virtue, but baptism and the grace imparted in baptism, based, forsooth, on the word of Him who said: "As we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly." Others, again, do not wish this, but desire to say that the image existed in Adam only until he fell into disobedience and ate from the tree and was driven out; and from the time he was driven out, he lost the image. And great is the myth-making of men of this sort, to whom one ought not to yield even for an hour—neither to these, nor to those who speak in this way or that. But one must believe that the image is found in man, yet so that it does not reside in the whole simply or ^A in any absolute way. And such people do not know that the soul itself reasons, if it must heed syllogisms, and not simply— Where then is the image, or in what part is it fulfilled? God alone knows, who wished to benefit the human race with this singular gift of His image. Nor is it to be thought that man has lost it, even if, by staining himself with indifferent actions and incurable sins, he has rendered the dignity of that divine image ^B vile and abject. For, after Adam, God speaks thus to Noah: "Behold, I have given you all things as the herbs of the field; slay and eat. But do not eat flesh with the blood of the soul; for I will require your souls. Every one who sheds the blood of man upon the earth, for his blood shall his blood be shed; because in the image of God I made man; and I will require your blood from every one who sheds `it` upon the face of the earth." And you see that it is said that the image is in man after the tenth generation from the time Adam was fashioned? ^C And at the same time, David also, after a long time, sings by the Holy Spirit: "Every living man is altogether vanity." But following him, the Apostle also says: "A man ought not to wear long hair, since he is the image and glory of God." Yet even after him, James, in discussing the tongue, says: "It is an untamable evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless God and the Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God. These things ought not so to be, my brethren." From which it is manifest that their reasoning is vain, who predict that Adam lost the image of God. ^D IV. But as for those who have thought that the image is set in the soul, their reasoning and defense is of this sort: That, they say, it is invisible, as God is invisible; that it is active, that it is kinetic, that it is intellectual, that it

is in possession of reason: and for this reason it is "according to the image," since it imitates God upon the earth, moving and acting and doing all the other things ^A which man does according to his rational faculty. But these people are also found to be merely syllogizing. For if the soul is called "according to the image" on account of these things, it can no longer be "according to the image." For God is infinitely beyond the soul, and is even more incomprehensible and inconceivable, knowing all things—the things that were and the things that are, and the things that are seen and the things that are not seen, the ends of the earth and the depths of the abyss, the heights of the heavens—and he himself contains all things, but is contained by nothing. But the soul is contained in a body, and it knows not the depths of the abyss, and though it knows the breadth of the earth, it knows not the limits of the inhabited world; it has not apprehended the heights of the heavens, how many things are about to happen, or when they come to pass, or how many things have happened before it. ^B And many things can be said concerning it and such matters. Moreover, it has divisions; but God is indivisible. For the Apostle says: "For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and reaching through even to the division of soul and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature that is hidden in his sight," and so forth (Heb. iv, 12, 13). And you see that the argument of these people has also collapsed.

V. Furthermore, the opinion of those who say that the body is "according to the image" also collapses. For how is it possible for that which is visible to be similar to that which is invisible? How for the corporeal to be similar to the bodiless? How for that which possesses touch to be similar to that which is incomprehensible? For we, with the eyes we possess, see the things in front of us, but we are ignorant of things behind us. But in God there is no passion, no defect—far be it! ^C But he is light from every side, eye from every side, glory from every side. For God is Spirit, and a spirit beyond all spirit, and light more excellent than all light. For all things that were made by him are beneath his splendor and glory. The Trinity alone cannot be comprehended, and possesses a certain infinite glory, which is neither grasped by conjecture nor perceived by intelligence. But as for those who place that condition of the image in virtue, they do not think correctly either. For virtue cannot subsist without the keeping of the commandments. But many also surpass one another in virtue; for there are many kinds of virtue. We know, indeed, some who were among the confessors, who gave up their body and soul for the sake of their own Lord, and having persevered in confession and chastity, ^D acquired a most sincere faith, and were preeminent in piety, kindness, and reverence, and persevered in fasts, and in every goodness, and in the proofs of virtue. Yet it happened that they had a flaw, either being prone to insults, or swearing by the name of God, or being given to fables, or being prone to anger, or possessing a life of gold and silver and other things, which make the standards of virtue deficient. What then shall we say? That, on the one hand, they obtained the "according to the image" on account of virtue, but on account of the few human flaws

the image in them was not properly maintained in its form, and they no longer possessed the image in them? And again, the argument of these people falls. But regarding those who say that baptism is "according to the image," the argument fails significantly. For neither did Abraham possess baptism, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor Elijah, nor Moses, nor those before them, Noah and Enoch, nor those among the prophets, Isaiah and those who followed. What then? Do they therefore not possess the "according to the image"? And there is much dispute against these people, just as there is against those around Audios, ^B who stubbornly define the "according to the image" as being in the body.

VI. The Audians themselves also bring forward other testimonies from divine Scripture, saying: "The eyes of the Lord look upon the poor, and his ears unto their prayers;" and, "The hand of the Lord has made all these things;" and, "Has not my hand made all these things, you stiff-necked people?" and, "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is the footstool of my feet;" and whatever else is written in such a way concerning God; and that "I saw the Lord Sabaoth sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up. And his head was as white wool, and his clothing as snow." And you see, he says, how the body is "according to the image" of God? And they are also opposing us in this, and forcing the issue beyond human capacity. And the [passage], "The Lord appeared to the prophets." Indeed, he appeared as he willed, being ^C powerful in all things. And we do not deny that the prophets saw God; and not only the prophets, but also the apostles. For the holy protomartyr Stephen says: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God and the Father." But the all-good God, in his own power, showing kindness to his own creation, lest some of the unbelievers should think that the things said about God consist only in words and not in truth, and that what was proclaimed by him is not fulfilled in reality—for it is necessary, as the Apostle writes, that "he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who love him"—in order, therefore, to inspire confidence in the human whom he fashioned, God reveals himself to his holy and worthy ones, that they might see God in essence, and have their minds established, and hope in truth, and proclaim him truly, and certify the faithful man. Just as, indeed, the children ^D of the Greeks possess knowledge about God merely by word and imagination. But we know God truly as the true and truly subsistent King, incomprehensible, the creator of all things, one God; and from him, the only-begotten God—differing in nothing from the Father—and his Holy Spirit, differing in nothing from the Father and the Son, just as we have already argued at length in every heresy concerning the faith in God.

^A VII. That God has indeed appeared to men, we have frequently said, and we do not deny it; for if we deny the authority of the Holy Scriptures, we are not following the truth, and we wander far from it, or if we reject the Old Testament, we are no longer counted in the Catholic Church; yet it is written in the Gospel: *No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God has made him known*; furthermore, the same Scripture says: *God appeared to Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia*; and the Lord himself says in the Gospel: *Their angels see the face of my Father who is in heaven*. But someone will say that even though Scripture asserts that the prophets saw God, it means only in the mind and understanding, as can be gathered from this passage: *Their angels see the face of my Father who is in heaven*; and again from this: *Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God*. A person who says this, and compares those sentences of Scripture, will think that everyone sees God only mentally, not with the eyes. But he is easily refuted by the authority of the divine word, for the prophet Isaiah says: *Woe is me, for I am pierced, because I am a man having impure lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people having impure lips, and I saw the Lord of Sabaoth with my eyes*. He did not say "in the mind," nor "in thought," but "with my eyes," establishing the true and solid faith.

What then shall we say, when the Gospel asserts that God has never been seen by anyone, but the prophets and apostles, and indeed the Lord himself, assert the contrary? Is there any contradiction in the Holy Scripture against itself? God forbid! But the prophets and apostles saw God; and this is absolutely true: they saw him insofar as they were able, and as much as was permitted, and in the manner that God willed, who offered himself to be seen. For all things are placed in his power. And there is no doubt that God is invisible and incomprehensible, and this is confessed by all. But it is also certain that he is able to do whatever he wills. For there is no one who resists his will. Therefore, he is invisible in his nature, and incomprehensible in his glory. Yet when he wills to appear to the man whom he has created, nothing opposes his own will. For the Divine is not subject to passions, such that he willed not to do something, or did something he did not will. ^B For he is powerful, and does what he wills. But he does those things which are becoming to his divinity; there is nothing at all that opposes his will, such that he cannot do what he wills in a manner becoming to his divinity. And it is impossible to see God, especially for human nature; nor is it possible for the visible to see the invisible. But the invisible God, in his philanthropy and power, strengthening that which is weak, deigned by his own power that it might see the invisible, and what it saw—the invisible and infinite—it did not see as it possessed the infinite, but as it was able to contain...

grasp it, as the nature of that which is weak is strengthened by that power, so that it may be adequate to the knowledge of that mighty One. Wherefore there is nothing in the holy Scriptures at variance with itself, nor any opinion which dissents from another opinion.

[VIII.] The matter itself indeed, to repeat here the example I have so often mentioned, is roughly as follows: Just as if someone were to look at the sky through a narrow hole, and say, "I see the sky," he would not in fact be lying; for he does truly see the sky. But if someone else were to say to him wisely, "You do not see the sky," he too would not be lying; for the one says he has seen it, and does not lie; and the one who said to him that he did not see it, speaks the truth as well; for he has seen neither its extension nor its breadth. Thus he who saw spoke the truth, and he who contradicts him, in saying he did not see it, did not speak a lie, but he also spoke the truth. For often, standing at the summit of a mountain, we gaze upon the sea, and if we say we have seen the sea, we have not lied. But if someone contradicts us, saying, "You did not see it," he too does not lie. For where its breadth, where its length, where its depth, where the recesses of the abyss and its effects reach, man, being what he is, cannot know. ^C If, therefore, it is thus in regard to created things, how much more so in that gratuitous gift which God granted to the prophets and apostles? They thus beheld Him who truly is, and yet they did not behold Him; but they beheld Him as their nature was able to bear it; and this according to the gift of the power with which the Almighty empowered them in all things, through His love for man, and for the one who served Him in truth. If, therefore, such people suppose that God has hands, or eyes, or other members of that kind, because He appeared in such a manner to the prophets and apostles, they are carried away by a vain spirit of contention, being refuted by the truth itself. It is indeed necessary to place faith in all that is asserted in the holy Scriptures; but how it truly is, He alone knows. And that He was seen, indeed, is true; but He was seen as He willed, and truly was He seen, as He was seen. For God can do all things, and nothing is impossible for Him. ^D He is incomprehensible, being a Spirit beyond understanding, containing all things, Himself contained by nothing. And such as the Father is, such is the Son, and thus also the Spirit in the Godhead. But the Only-Begotten alone, having come, clothed Himself in flesh, in which He also rose again, which He also united to the Godhead, having joined it into spirit, and sat down in glory at the right hand of the Father, as it is written. As, therefore, He is incomprehensible and beyond understanding, so all those things said about Him are true, as things that are. And as God is incomprehensible, so everything that is said about Him is indeed incomprehensible, but incomprehensible in the manner of God, and as He is in incomprehensible glory. And these things, indeed, as we were able, we have uttered for the glorification of God with human tongue; for we have no use of any other speech beyond that which is from God.

Since, however, the mind conceives of God more than the mouth is able to utter—being restrained by the measurement and contained by the bodily instruments—God is merciful and accepts from us both the knowledge of Himself and the doxology that extends beyond our power, not that we might bestow something upon God, but that we might glorify the Divine according to our power, so as to think with piety and not fall away from His grace and truth. And having discussed these things concerning the aforementioned Audius and the Audians, we have set forth the things stated by them; to which they themselves, narrating them according to their own unlearned way and sticking to them with a spirit of contention, inappropriately insist, ^A claiming things that are most true. But just as God cannot be comprehended, so whatever is asserted about Him cannot be comprehended in the same way. It cannot be comprehended only insofar as it pertains to God, and in the manner in which it exists in that splendor which exceeds all comprehension. These things we have discussed for the honor and glory of God according to our ability, using human language; for we cannot use any other voice or speech that is more excellent than that which God has in a certain way and measure attributed to us, even though we may conceive something more excellent in the mind concerning God. But as much as our mind grasps, the mouth cannot utter, because it is restrained by that measure and held fast by bodily instruments. Wherefore God, indulgent to our weakness, accepts the knowledge we acquire of Him and the glory we offer, and takes it in good part, even while we extend it beyond the grasp of our strength—not that we might gratify God in anything, but that we might celebrate with praise Him who dwells in us, so that we may think religiously of Him and not fall from His grace and truth. And these things we have set forth disputing against Audius and the Audians, as well as their dogmas, which they basely assert with a certain more simplistic reasoning and a stubborn zeal for contention.

^B IX. They have also other things in which they place their chief reliance, and by which they have separated themselves from the communion of the Church, by which also they often disturb others and drag them away from the same Church, both men and women. For they wish to celebrate the Pasch with the Jews; that is, the season at which the Jews perform their unleavened bread, then they contend to keep the Pasch, pretending that this was the custom formerly followed by the Church; if indeed they can even show a slandered reason to the ecclesiastical authorities regarding this part, saying that from the time of Constantine, “because of your favoritism,” they say, “toward the emperor, you have abandoned the succession of the fathers concerning the celebration of the Pasch, and have changed the day to suit the convenience of the emperor.” Others again, according to their own spirit of contention, define that “When the birthday of Constantine was celebrated, then,” they say, “you changed the Pasch.” But if the Pasch were celebrated on the same day every year, and it had been determined by that synod assembled by Constantine to be performed on the same day, their statement might have been plausible; but since every year the succession of times does not correspond to the same calculation, their argument falls to the ground. For the emperor did not exert effort for the sake of his birthday, but for the sake of the unity of the Church. For in truth, two very great things were secured for us by God through the aforementioned Constantine, of most religious and ever-blessed memory: the first, that an ecumenical synod should be gathered, and the faith as set forth and confessed at Nicaea should be published, with the signatures of the bishops who had gathered, that Arius should be deposed, and that the purity of the faith should be proclaimed to all; ^D so much so that…

^A the matter concerning the Pascha was likewise rectified by them for our unity. For of old, even from the earliest times, there was a divergence in the Church, with it being celebrated in different ways, causing derision each year, as some practiced it before the week, and vied with one another, while others practiced it after the week; some anticipating it, some keeping to the middle period, and others performing it later. And, in a word, it was a great and wearisome confusion, as is not unknown to many learned men, in how many instances of time a tumult was stirred up in the ecclesiastical proclamation concerning the question of this feast—both in the time of Polycarp and Victor, as the East ^B disagreed with the West, the former not accepting the peaceful overtures of the others; and in other times as well, even in the times of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and of Crescentius; as they are found writing to one another and contending even to our own times, ever since it was disturbed after the time of the bishops from the circumcision, and thus it was borne. Wherefore, those who then gathered from everywhere, and having accurately examined matters, decided with concord that it should be done according to the propriety of the vote and the sequence.

X. The Audians themselves, however, bring forward for their practice the ordinance of the apostles, which is indeed a matter of dispute among many, but is not to be rejected. For every canonical order is contained therein, and it contains nothing perverted concerning the faith, nor anything contrary to the administration and decrees of the Church. But as for that passage from which they take their cue concerning the Pascha, the aforementioned interpret it wrongly, and through ignorance draw it to a different meaning. For the apostles define in that same ordinance: "You," they say, "do not calculate; but celebrate it when your brethren who are of the circumcision do so. Celebrate together with them." And they did not say, "When your brethren who are in the circumcision do so," but rather "those who are of the circumcision," so as to show ^C — for there is now no communion for us with them; for they themselves are led astray, and this very calculation which they think they are performing... ^D

^A regarding those who have come over to the Church from the circumcision to be leaders after that time; and to be in agreement with others, so that one does not do one thing and others another, and at different times. For the whole concern they gathered together was for the sake of the one unity, so that there might not be schisms, nor divisions. But these men, not understanding the mind of the apostles, and of the word expressed in the ordinance, thought that perhaps one ought to celebrate the Pascha with the Jews. Furthermore, there had been fifteen bishops from the circumcision, and it was necessary at that time, since the bishops were from the circumcision and were established in Jerusalem, for the whole world to follow them, and to celebrate with them, so that one might have a concord, and one confession, and one feast being celebrated. Hence, the care of those men, bringing the mind of men into the unity of the Church, having not been able for so much time to be accomplished, by the good pleasure of God ^B came to pass under Constantine for the sake of concord. And among the apostles the saying is brought forward for the sake of concord, as they testify, saying: "Even if they should be led astray, let it not be a concern to you." But from the very words spoken there the counter-argument will be seen. For they say that they observe the vigil, while the Unleavened Bread is midway.

(8) "That they may show those from the circumcision." It is false that the apostles ever decreed that the Pascha should be celebrated according to the Jewish rite, or with those Christians and bishops who conducted themselves Judaically and at a time that is not at all legitimate. For what is this reasoning, or what came into Epiphanius's mind to assert that this was ordained by the apostles: that all Christians ought to perform the Pascha with the Jews? This would have been an overly absurd decree. We do not deny that some at least of the apostles in the beginning accommodated their time to the Jews; which Polycarp and Polycrates and all the Asiatics used to cite against the Roman pontiffs concerning John, as Eusebius and other ancients testify. But we deny entirely that this was defined by any constitution of the apostles. Nay, rather, it is established that the opposite was handed down by those very same men. Eusebius makes mention of this tradition in *Hist.*, book v, chap. 23. For when he had said that the Asians performed the Pascha according to the Jewish custom, ^C he adds that in all other churches throughout the world a contrary custom existed. Socrates, however, in book v, chap. 22, writes that the Quartodecimans claim that they learned the formula of their celebration from John; while against them the Romans and all the Westerners assert that their own was handed down to them by the princes of the apostles. This same tradition of Peter and Paul was urged by the Catholics in Britain against the Scots. See Bede, *Hist. Angl.*, book iii.

(10) "From the very words spoken there." The things that follow are in a wonderful way entangled and obscure. I hitherto suspected that that contradiction, of which he speaks, was to be understood as concerning the Audians, to whom the decrees of those Constitutions are opposed. For what else could I do, in so abrupt and disordered a statement? But having applied myself more attentively to that place, ^D I learned from the consequences that there is another sense, which I shall briefly explain to you. When the Audians had proposed a certain passage from the apostolic *Constitutions* for the establishing of the Jewish custom of the Pascha, which seemed to testify to this very thing in clear and express words, Epiphanius fought against the letter of the law with the intention of the law, and taught that that decree existed only for a time and for the sake of maintaining concord, *kat’ oikonomian*. To illustrate this defense, he demonstrates that there is another contradiction and conflict in those same *Constitutions*, insofar as the diverse sanctions seem to be mutually repugnant, though in truth they do not differ, if you look not so much to the words as to the intent. For thus we believe these things must be interpreted. Now that conflict of laws is of such a kind: The apostles command that fasts and vigils be observed by Christians on the very day of the Unleavened Bread. Item: that when they are free for feasts and merriment, Christians should mourn and fast, and conversely, that when they are mourning, they should banquet and give themselves to joy. Moreover, another law forbids fasting on the Lord's Day. Wherefore, if the first day of the Unleavened Bread among the Jews should fall on a Sunday, it would be a sin to fast according to the latter law, which the former constitution nevertheless prescribes. You see the manifest contradiction. Of such a kind is that sanction regarding celebrating the Pascha in the Jewish manner, in which, just as in the other, we must consider the mind and intention of the legislator. For it must be interpreted thus: As often as the fourteenth day of the Jewish Nisan falls before the vernal equinox and they celebrate their Pascha, Christians must observe their solemn fasts. But if, as often happens, they observe that feast day after the equinox, it is permitted to Christians to perform their Pascha and rejoice on the same day. Concerning which we shall say more under the following number.

(11) "They say that they observe the vigil." I interpret "vigils and stations," which were accustomed to be observed by the fasting, concerning which elsewhere. Now "when the Unleavened Bread is midway" is nothing else than the very day of the Unleavened Bread, or, as the Hebrews say, *meza* [מֶצַע]. For so Epiphanius is accustomed to use it. Thus under number xii, "of night and day," as we shall say in its place. Our chronologists call it the passing day, or the year.

^A It cannot always take place in the ecclesiastical vote. ^B XI. For the bond of the Pascha is composed of three things (12): of the solar course, on account of the Lord's Day and the month; of the lunar course, on account of the Law, so that the Pascha may be sacrificed on the fourteenth of the moon, as the Law said. Therefore, it cannot be brought about unless it passes the equinox—which is not observed among the Jews (15), nor do they wish to perform such a procedure accurately; for it has fallen into ruin among them, and all things have been led astray. But even if such precision exists in such a question, it is not for the sake of this investigation and precision that it was spoken by the Apostles, but for the sake of concord. ^C And when the Apostles commanded that it be performed even with the enemies of Christ, as these people assert, how much more should it be performed with the Church for the sake of concord, so that we may not bring a rent into the concord of the Church! How then can this be accomplished? For the same Apostles say, "When they are feasting, you, fasting on their behalf, mourn, because on that day of the feast they crucified Christ." And when they are mourning ^D while eating the unleavened bread—

[index: entries preserved]

Epiphanius, as we shall see later. But among them, they used to eat for seven whole days with unleavened bread, Deut. xvi, 3. Yet those signify sorrow and sadness. Nevertheless, Epiphanius exempts the fourteenth day toward evening, or the beginning of the fifteenth, from this signification of sorrow: the remainder of the day, and indeed all the others, he attributes to revelries and feasts consecrated by the use of unleavened bread. The reason for this can be given: because the Paschal feast, with all its remaining preparation, and the wild lettuces applied to the unleavened loaves, represented something mournful and bitter. Which was absent from the first day of the unleavened bread and those that followed. To this also pertains that observation of the teachers: that it was indeed unlawful to eat anything leavened for seven whole days, but only at the beginning of the fifteenth and the completion of the fourteenth—that is, in the Paschal feast—they were required by necessity of the law to partake of unleavened bread. Outside of this time, they could neglect the unleavened bread and eat other grains or fruits. R. Mose ben Maimon, vol. 1, *Jad.*, treatise on Leaven and Unleavened Bread, chap. 6, § 1: "At other times of the festival the eating of unleavened bread is voluntary: if he wishes he eats unleavened bread, if he prefers he eats rice or millet or roasted corn or fruits; but on the night of the fifteenth alone it is obligatory." However, during the rest of the time of the celebration, the eating of unleavened bread alone is permitted, so that he who wishes may eat unleavened bread; he who prefers may eat rice or millet, or polenta, or fruits. But on the night of the fifteenth, it is necessary to use only unleavened bread. Which they observe most especially regarding the seventh day of the unleavened bread, which they called 'Atsarah, or the assembly, relying on that testimony of Scripture which is written in Exodus xii, 18: "In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the same month at evening. For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses." And although this is repeated in Deuteronomy xvi, 3, yet in the eighth verse of the same chapter it commands that unleavened bread be eaten for only six days. Whence R. Selomo writes of that passage:

^B It teaches regarding the eating of unleavened bread on the seventh day, that it is not an obligation; from this you may learn regarding the six days, for the seventh was included in the general rule, and was excluded from the general rule to teach that the eating of unleavened bread on it is not an obligation, but a permission. And it was not excluded to teach regarding itself, but to teach regarding the whole group; it was excluded from the whole group, for all of them are a permission, except for the first night, for which [it is] written... This is [what he means]: It teaches regarding the eating of unleavened bread on the seventh day; how it is not a debt or a necessity. From this therefore learn, regarding the six days; since, behold, the seventh day, while it was included in the sum, was excepted from it, so as to show that the eating of unleavened bread on that day was merely permitted. Nor indeed was it excepted to teach this regarding that day alone, but so that he might leave it to be understood regarding the whole sum of days: namely, just as on the seventh day it is permitted only to eat unleavened bread, so on all the rest it is permitted (not commanded) except for the first night, which Scripture wished to bind to the use of unleavened bread. Thus he. Which from the same R. Selomo in the Gloss on Chapter 7 of the Tractate Kiddush Hachodesh is more evidently affirmed with these words: "For from the midnight of the first Passover [day] until the twenty-first day, the eating of unleavened bread is a permission, and only..." For, behold, from the midnight of the first Passover until the twenty-first day, the eating of unleavened bread is permitted; with the law only, that it be not leavened. From these it is clear why the Paschal supper was said by Epiphanius to have had an argument of mourning and solicitude, while the remaining days of unleavened bread [were said to be] cheerful and joyful. ^C (16) *But after evening, passed*. I had judged that the negation should be expunged, so that Epiphanius wrote thus: *Having passed the Sabbath, they can perform the work*. For that *not* [οὐ] seems to be repeated from the preceding genitive. And indeed, I had posited that the cause of this, which he had just said, was rendered by this latter member: namely, because it is permitted to sacrifice the Passover at the approach of the Lord's Day evening; because the Sabbath has already passed, when, it having finished, it is lawful to proceed to the work. Still, this opinion contains a false and absurd reason; as if it were forbidden to sacrifice on the Sabbath. I confess it. But yet the very words of Epiphanius show it. We shall be able to remove the suspicion of such an error from him if, by accepting the negative particle, we elicit this sense: that on the approach of the Lord's Day evening, it was permitted for the Passover to be sacrificed. For after evening, the Sabbath now being over, it was not permitted to execute that work, namely the immolation of the lamb: for the reason that the lamb was to be immolated "between the two evenings"; that is, from the ninth to the eleventh hour, as Josephus explains, book ^D ... chapter 45, or 17. (17) *But after they have sacrificed*. The day following, and after the Paschal feast. (18) *In the sense, the whole truth stands*. The opinion of these words has been declared a little before. For he wishes that in those apostolic Constitutions the mind of the legislator should be looked to, rather than the words themselves. To show which, he has brought forward a certain contradiction; but you Christians, you feast. Yet it happens that on the Lord's Day they use unleavened bread, and mourn, [and] you Christians feast: but when they are feasting, you in turn are fasting and mourning. But by another law it is commanded that one should never fast on the Lord's Day. Which two things are mutually repugnant, if you look only at the words. Therefore they must be aided by interpretation. By the same reasoning, therefore, that first decree regarding celebrating the Passover with the Jews, if you stick to the words themselves, seems absurd and utterly abhorrent to ecclesiastical rite. Therefore his mind and sentence are to be attended to more than his words. He then explains the sentence. Which, before we touch upon it, you will notice that that former contradiction and the conflict of contrary laws, which we said was brought as an example, is not in the least resolved in this place. For he does not explain how the Lord's Day is to be excepted from that general constitution regarding fasting. But he indicated [it] *according to what is passed over in silence* in the Christian manner. Concerning which no one doubted. Wherefore the things which follow pertain to another contradiction and to the head of the question itself; and they explain in what sense that apostolic decree is to be accepted, when the Passover is to be celebrated with the Jews. For it is not to be performed with them perpetually, but at that time, namely, when they celebrate their Passover after the equinox. Otherwise, if, as they very often do, they anticipate the equinox, they are not to be imitated. It is therefore the meaning of the law that, the equinox having passed, the Passover is to be celebrated with the Jews. Having summed up all the things which have been said thus far, this sentiment of Epiphanius regarding that apostolic decree is gathered: In the first ages of the Church, especially as long as the bishops from the circumcision presided at Jerusalem, it was ordained that the Passover should be kept with the Jews, that is, the fourteenth of the moon, on whatever day it might fall, provided it happened after the equinox had already been completed. For so that which the same Constitutions command will come to pass, that while the Jews are mourning—that is, on the day when they eat unleavened bread with wild lettuces—the Christians are feasting. But the other point, that while they are in turn feasting, these [Christians] are mourning, cannot be obtained unless it is supposed that there was a fast in the Church during that time on the day after the Christian Passover, or the first day of the Jewish unleavened bread. Which is most false. For it is certain that during all those fifty days which intervene between the Passover and Pentecost, fasting was abolished by the Church. Therefore it could only happen at that time that, while the Jews were feasting, the Christians were fasting, as often as the Passover was performed by the Jews before the vernal equinox: because the Christians had not yet broken the fast. But no explanation of this and the previous number can be devised that is so thorough that much difficulty still remains. For who could reconcile those pseudo-constitutions among themselves, when at one time they define that the Passover is to be celebrated in the Jewish manner, even if the Jews err: and at another, [that] when the Jews are celebrating [the festival of] unleavened bread, the Christians are to occupy themselves with fasts and vigils? And the rest in that fashion, which no interpretation can vindicate from error and mutual contention.

^A For the truth of that dogma is consistent, and it is clear from that apostolic constitution that it was so decreed for the sake of concord, so as to establish harmony—which the very structure of the discourse shows—that if we celebrate Pascha, and they celebrate it as well, we must do so entirely after the equinox, just as they very often are accustomed to celebrate it with us. Meanwhile, it is performed by them even before the equinox is complete, when they observe their Pascha alone. But if we were to celebrate it together, two Paschas would fall for us in the same year, one before and one after the equinox. Then, in the following year, not even one would be celebrated; and in that way, our entire institution, being conjoined with extreme error, would be utterly abhorrent to the truth. For before the equinox, the year is not yet complete; nor is the time of that circuit—which was ordained by God for men—thought to be fulfilled until the equinox has passed.

XII. Regarding this matter, many things ^B could be mentioned by us, from which it would be clear that our ancestors—or rather, God through them—most wholesomely and wisely handed down the exact method of celebrating that most religious and holy day, namely, that we should begin it after the equinox, whenever the fourteenth day of the moon falls, not that the fourteenth day itself is the only thing to be kept. For the Jews seek a single day, but for us, it is not just one day, but an entire and most full week.

The Apostolic Constitution regarding the Paschal Feast

And if the fourteenth moon should fall on a Monday, or on the other days of the week up to the Sabbath, the week of Xerophagia is celebrated, and its beginning is led from the Monday. He calls this entire week the slaughtering of the lamb, because in the preparation for the celebration and immolation, a number of days were formerly set by the Jews. For, as we have taught above, it is nothing else than that which is celebrated and performed. Thus that [passage] of John 7:7 can be understood. However, he does not mention the Lord’s Day, or the first day of the week, in this place, because the week of Xerophagia can never begin on it, since it is not permitted to fast on the Lord's Day. Nevertheless, if the fourteenth day of the moon should fall on that day, they used to initiate the Xerophagia on the day following. In the heresy of the Quartodecimans, which is the fiftieth, number 2, he treats of the days which both the Jews and the Christians used to celebrate before the solemnity of Pascha. For he rebukes the heretics who had regard for one day alone, whereas the law had ordered a lamb to be selected from the tenth day and kept. Whence five days should have been observed by them. For he speaks of the Jews and the Judaizing Quartodecimans. Moreover, because the Jews would perform Pascha on the fourteenth day at evening, and would take the lamb on the tenth, they attributed five days to the Paschal religion. Indeed, when they immolated the lamb at the end of the fourteenth, at the beginning of the evening of the fifteenth—that is, they offered it on the fifteenth part—and thus they observed six days, not just one. Wherefore, in that place, that is, page 421, we think that the date should be written otherwise. Which emendation the meaning itself demands.

^A For we can neither from the sixteenth [(22)], nor from the ninth moon, begin the week of Xerophagia—which is also called the holy Pascha—but from the tenth until the dawning fifteenth, which is the midpoint of the two courses [(23)], of night and of day; and with the inclusion of the total number of the fourteen days of the moon, even if it happens to fall upon the dawning of the fifteenth, because of the necessary precision of the solar course after the equinox, and of the lunar course because of the fourteenth, and of the week being complete because of the Lord’s Day, and the number from the tenth day of the moon, which is the taking of the lamb, and the acrostic of the name of Jesus; ^B since the lamb which was an antitype of Him was taken in his name, being thus defined from the tenth; but it is no longer from the dawning sixteenth, nor can we have the beginning or the end from the ninth moon. For the years, by their mutual differences, are marked out. For neither from the sixteenth day of the moon, nor from the ninth day of the moon, can we begin or establish an end. For the years of the sun and of the moon, since they overtake one another by reason of their mutually dissenting courses, bring about that inequality: not that anything has been established by God which might cause offense, but because rather from Him comes that more accurate reckoning [(22)] [alt-version omitted] ^C ever to be started; and although the *hemerine* (day) moon is never called *nycterine* (nocturnal) by the subsequent phase, Epiphanius in this place, whether by error or on purpose, calls that *enaten* (ninth) which is the eighth *hemerine*, and it ends in the *enaten nycterine*. In sum, the first day of the holy week can be started from the ninth diurnal moon to the fifteenth diurnal; or, which is the same thing, from the tenth nocturnal to the sixteenth nocturnal. This perhaps was the reason why he conceived it so: "from the tenth, to the dawning fifteenth." Where I do not take *epiphōskousan* simply for "approaching" or "coming," or as pertaining to the lunar light which rises toward evening, but for *hemerine*. For when he says "from the tenth," and adds *epiphōskousa*, he signifies not the diurnal but the nocturnal is to be understood. And rightly does Epiphanius seem to have made the first day of Xerophagia the "tenth nocturnal"; because the very function of Xerophagia, that is, the eating of dry things, would be used toward the end of the day and toward evening, conveniently as the tenth moon dawns. ^D [(23)] *mesazouses tōn duo dromōn*. There is an obscurity in these words. For at first sight they sound as something that cannot even be understood: that the fifteenth moon, or the tenth with it, is intercepted between the two courses of night and day; or certainly that the *nychthemeron* is placed between the two courses, namely of the sun and of the moon. Which no Oedipus could divine. We, following what we have interpreted above, take *mesazouses* in this place not as something intercepted, but as the night and day passing by. For it is established by the opinion of Epiphanius that the week of Xerophagia should be commenced from the tenth nocturnal moon, so that its nearest limit is that day in whose night is the beginning of the tenth moon: but the most remote limit is the fifteenth diurnal moon. Therefore that space, which runs through the head of the week, begins from the night, that is, from the tenth nocturnal moon, and is terminated by the day, namely the fifteenth diurnal moon. Therefore night and day are spent, and the *mesazousa*, which are indeed proper to both luminaries. For the night is attributed to the lunar course, the day to the solar. [(24)] *sunanalambanomenou tou autōn*. With the previous numbers collected, the sum is fourteen days. But to this is added the fifteenth day, because of the concurrence of causes which are constitutive of that solemnity, especially because of the Lord's Day, on which the Christian Pascha is celebrated. Here the *epiphausis* of the fifteenth is the fifteenth day, or the diurnal fifteenth moon, just as a little later the "dawning sixteenth" is the diurnal sixteenth moon, as is necessarily inferred from the above.

^A For those arriving late due to the differing courses of the sun and moon toward one another, they produce this inequality; it is not a "stumbling block" ordained by God, ^B but rather this exact order which is appointed by God according to his all-wise administration, which he graciously gave to his own universe, having set in order the intervals of the lights, the seasons, the months, the years, and the solstices, and granted them to men of foresight out of his own loving-kindness.

XIII. For since the year, according to the solar course, is completed in three hundred and sixty-five days and three hours, it happens that, because the moon completes its year in three hundred and fifty-four days, there remain over and above it eleven days and three hours. Therefore the first year has what are called epacts, eleven, with three hours; the second year, twenty-two days and six hours; the third year, thirty-three days and nine hours—and here the one intercalary month is cut off. For the thirty days are intercalated. There remain, however, three days and nine hours. These, being added to the eleven days from the fourth year and the three hours, make fourteen days and sixteen hours. With another eleven days and three hours added, they become twenty-one epacts and fifteen hours. And in the sixth year, with another eleven [days and hours] of the year and three hours of the year added, [they] become thirty-six days and eighteen hours, which make one intercalary month. And two months were intercalated every three years; for the first three years, one month, and in the other three years...

^C ...the inequality from the sun and moon, as I said before, proceeds in an unequal course. Now he explains the mode and disposition of each, and points the finger to the sources themselves, having proposed the cycle of years into which those disparate motions are included and tempered by an equable variety. This is the lunar octaeteris, comprising ninety-nine syzygies, in which there are three embolismic [months] in the eight years, namely in years 3 and 8. The number of days is 2922, which is the mode of the Julian octaeteris, or two Julian lustra; the common lunar year is defined precisely by 354 days. Thus it is exceeded by the solar year by 11 and a quarter days. This octaeteris is very ancient, and was once used by the Greeks, which Geminus, an ancient and learned writer, explains on page 129 in the very same way as Epiphanius here. Censorinus attributes its invention to Cleostratus of Tenedos. But it was often corrected and interpolated, being faulty. For indeed, eight lunar years collect 2922 days. Wherefore that octaeteris differs from the usual lunar mode by about 12 days and 12 hours; for a lunar syzygy has 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes; a lunar year 354 days, 8 hours, 48 minutes, 38 seconds, etc. ^D Thus the lunar octaeteris consists of 2923 days, 11 hours, 51 minutes, etc. For which reason, after the heccaidecaeteris, or two octaeterides, three appendix days used to be intercalated, so that they might reach the new moon of the following octaeteris. But since they deviated by the same number of days from the solar calculations, in the twentieth octaeteris they would expunge one thirty-day month, so that that octaeteris might have only two embolismic months. These are the things Geminus says, which we shall discuss more fully and opportunely elsewhere, where we shall affirm the lunar form of the popular year among the Greeks against Scaliger's conjectures.

Now that the flaw in the octaeterides has been discovered, the Greeks fled to the enneadecaeterides and the longer spans of years. Thus, among the Christians in the matter of Pascha, the octaeterides were first used as simple ones. Dionysius of Alexandria established the canon of the octaeteris. But Hippolytus [established] the heccaidecaeteris, which Scaliger explains in his books *De emendatione temporum*. The enneadecaeteris eventually excluded all these methods from the Alexandrians and Anatolius, not indeed conceived by him, as many wrote with little prudence, and much less discovered by Eusebius of Caesarea, but translated by them all for the use of Pascha. The octaeterides and other useless forms of cycles gradually became obsolete. Although Bede himself still testifies in his book *De temporum ratione*, ch. 44, that some still retained the octaeterides in his time. But those were few and obscure. Wherefore I truly cannot wonder enough that Epiphanius in this place, for the sake of explaining the Paschal method, made mention only of the octaeteris, and explained it so diligently, as if the discipline of Paschal new moons were contained in this alone. For he did not even mention the enneadecaeteris here, although he so highly praises that Nicene decree concerning the celebration of Pascha, and strives to vindicate it from the ignorance and impudence of heretics. And nothing more distinguished concerning the ordination of that feast came from that synod than the fact that, having established the cycle of 19 years, it removed every dissension: which Ambrose testifies in these words: "Among those decrees of faith, as true as they are admirable, also concerning the aforementioned celebration, having gathered men most skilled in calculating, they collected the account of nineteen years, and established as it were a certain cycle," etc. There was, therefore, no reason why Epiphanius should recall the empty and absurd period of the octaeteris, while declaring the common method of the Paschal cycle, received by Catholics against heretics. Nor is Sozomen, lib. VII, cap. 18, more accurate, who adapts the same octaeteris to the matter of Pascha as if it sufficiently satisfied the calculations of both luminaries.

^A and another month is left over from the epacts, consisting of six days and eighteen hours. When these are added in the seventh year to the eleven days that come from the year and to the three hours, the epacts become seventeen [days] and twenty-one hours. In the eighth year, when the three hundred and fifty-one days and three hours are added again, the epacts become twenty-eight days and twenty hours, which make two days. From these hours, when added to the twenty-eight days, there are thirty in total. And it happens in the eighth year that thirty days are intercalated as one month every two years; and thus, through the period of the octaeteris, there are ninety days, which are exactly three intercalary months—which occur as one month every three years, and one month in the last two years. In these three intercalary months, which consist of that triple collection of days, the Pascha of the Jews and the Pascha of the Christians and others differ.

XIV. On the Audian Schism regarding Pascha

^B XIV. These are the points on which the Audians dissent from the Church; they lead both men and women into this error, boasting in this regard that they are holding fast to an ancient tradition and the decrees of the apostles, while in the meantime they possess nothing in this matter that is disciplined or accurate, nor do they understand the clear purpose of the apostles' disposition—a disposition they made not that the Jews might necessarily conduct themselves with accuracy, but to cut off the contentiousness of those who wanted to act according to their own will, and not in harmony. For Christ wills one Pascha, and He reckons this, and He accepts him who celebrates without contention, provided he does so with those who act with accuracy—with the whole holy Church, which celebrates the festival in various ways. And if the Pascha had been split from the time of Constantine, it would be plausible for those who criticize this; but since the schisms existed before Constantine, and there was mockery—with the Greeks saying—and since there was nowhere any accuracy. ^{C D} [alt-version omitted]

of such a celebration, some place for calumny on their part might seem to exist. But since those same schisms were prevalent before Constantine, and the heathens cast such discord in the Church in our teeth, not without mockery; yet at length, under the Emperor Constantine, the bishops conspiring together, that dissension was pacified and brought to concord: what could be more useful, or more pleasant, than for all Christian peoples from the ends of the earth to fulfill the celebration of that feast in honor of God, and to observe vigils with common consent? I say, to spend the same equal days in watching and prayer with the highest concord and obedience to the divine Being, with fasts, the use of dry foods, chastity, and other duties of piety with which they are accustomed to frequent and venerate that most religious day? ^A But I consider this enough to have been argued thus far concerning the Audian schism.

Furthermore, that same old man Audius was relegated to Scythia ^B by the Emperor, because he was drawing the peoples everywhere away from obedience to the Church, as he had been reported by the bishops to the Emperor under that charge. And when he was dwelling in that region (exactly how many years he lived there, we cannot state with certainty), making his way into the interior of Gothia, he instructed many barbarians in the rudiments of the Christian religion: from which circumstance several monasteries were propagated in Gothia itself, in which the religious manner of living and virginity and the strictest discipline flourished. For that gathering of men is in its way of life and its constitution altogether admirable; and there is nothing in their monasteries that is not excellent and distinguished; if you exclude that headstrong contumacy by which they depart from the common custom in celebrating Easter, and believe that this matter concerning the image of God should be interpreted by a certain simple rule.

XV. ^C But that which is greater in horror and atrocity than all the rest is that they pray with no one, even though they may appear to be of honest and upright morals, nor is there anything that one might object to them; no charge of fornication, or adultery, or avarice, except for this alone, which is contained in the communion of the Church. But this, as we have said, is horrible: to change the name of the Christians, who are counted in the holy Church, which, content with the name of Christ and Christians alone, rejects every foreign name. To be called Audians, I say, instead of that name, to hold assemblies among themselves, and to require a password inscribed with the name of a mere man. These things, I say, are by no means to be endured, however irreproachable that assembly of men may be in other respects; and though it may sell itself on every point of probity and justice. After his death, however, ^D many bishops attached themselves to that same gathering, but especially Uranius in Mesopotamia. Furthermore, from Gothia itself he joined to himself several [others], and appointed them bishops. Besides whom there also existed Silvanus and certain others, of whom some have died, and among others Uranius, who exalted himself above the rest in that crowd. But after the death of Uranius and of Silvanus the bishop in Gothia, [alt-version omitted] many were dissolved, and their system came to little, both in the parts of Chalcis near Antioch, and in the parts of the Euphrates. For indeed, the majority were driven out from Gothia, no

not only among them, but also our own Christians there, when a great persecution arose from a pagan king, who had become terrible and zealous against the Romans because the kings of the Romans were Christians, the entire race of Christians was expelled by them. But the root of wisdom and the plant of faith do not fail. For even if all seem to have been driven out, there are certainly people there. It is not possible for the fountain of faith to dry up. Many, therefore, who withdrew from the Audians of Gothia and from our parts, having come here, have been dwelling for four years from this time. Moreover, the monasteries of the same Audians also withdrew from Mount Taurus, and from Palestine and Arabia. For they were already widely spread. But now they are few, and there are few monasteries; perhaps, as I have said, the group is reduced to a small remnant in only two villages in the aforementioned regions towards the outer part of Chalcis, and beyond Damascus, and the parts of Mesopotamia, up to this day. But I think I have said enough about these matters. Passing these by, I shall examine what follows, so that I may not omit anything that has caused divisions, sections, dissensions, and schisms in the world. For even if they do not differ much as regards the faith, or in their manner and custom, yet we shall faithfully omit nothing that has been severed from the Church and ranked among the contrary factions. ^C

CONTRA PHOTINIANOS, Which is the fifty-first, or seventy-first heresy.

^A He says that Christ did not exist from the beginning, but that he began to be from the Virgin Mary, and has existed from that time forward; that, he says, is when the Holy Spirit descended upon him, and he was born of the Holy Spirit. He thinks that this Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ—a bold architect and a measurer of heavenly things that cannot be explained in words. This Photinus was ready in speaking and glib of tongue, so that he could drive many into error by the mere pronunciation of his words and the rapidity of his speech. For he was frequently refuted by many, even after the apology he made at the time in the synod of Sardica, when he was called upon by the bishops to give an account of the pestiferous doctrine that he had put forward. Indeed, he importuned the Emperor Constantius, claiming that he had been unjustly deposed, and requested judges and disputants for his cause, to whom he might prove that his priesthood had been wrongly abrogated. ^B On that account, the emperor sent judges and listeners for his impending apology: Thalassius, Datianus, Cerealius, Taurus, Marcellinus, Evanthius, Olympius, and Leontius; and he entrusted the task to Basil of Ancyra, that he should interrogate him, and refute whatever he might clear himself of or attempt to justify. ^C The disputation held with Basil was indeed not mediocre. But like a most wicked woman who adulterates her complexion with pigments, he kept introducing various opinions into the disputation, which, being abhorrent to the sense of truth, he had corrupted by his own perverted understanding. But being highly instructed in the craftiness of speech and readiness of elocution for the deception of himself and his hearers, he even dared to boast arrogantly that he would prove his opinion with a hundred testimonies from Scripture. For many descended into the contest against him, as we find in the acts of that collation with Basil, which was taken down by the notaries, Anysius, the minister of the emperor, ^D and Callicrates, the exciseman of the prefect Rufinus, and Olympius, Nicetas, and Basil, who were "a memoria" [secretaries], and Eutyches and Theodulus, the notaries of Basil. All these things having been written down, one volume was signed and sent to the Emperor Constantius; another remained with the synod, in which Basil took part; and the counts kept a third, likewise signed, in which the entire exposition of his dogma was contained.

2. For whenever Basil asked how the divine Scriptures teach concerning the Lord and God, the Word, that the Only-Begotten was before all ages and with the Father...

^A Photinus, by applying a distinction, would prove what was being said, judging that it should be referred in part to Christ and in part to the Word. For concerning the words, *Let us make man in our image and likeness*, [Gen. 1, 26] he says that the Father speaks to His own Word. What, then? He says, "The Word was in the Father, but He was not yet the Son." And, *The Lord rained from the Lord*, [Gen. 19, 24] meaning that the Word was in the Father. And, "I saw," he says, "one descending upon the clouds, as it were the Son of man," [Dan. 7, 13] which he says was spoken by way of pre-annunciation, not as though the Son already existed, but referring only to Him to whom the name of Son was one day to be given, namely after Mary, and who was to come forth from the flesh, Christ, born of the Holy Spirit and Mary; everything, he says, is referred to Him from the beginning by way of anticipation. But He was not yet [the Son], yet He was the Word, just as the word is in me. I have already said that he holds views similar to those of Paul of Samosata, and yet has gone beyond him in his mode of thought. ^B

III. But this man, too, will be refuted, for he has fallen into the ultimate impiety and into an opinion alien to eternal life in every respect. For if the Son of God is recent as regards His divinity, it follows that David is not only prior to Him, but is even to be preferred to his own Creator. And such indeed was the opinion of this heretic, who, having despised the authority of the holy Scriptures, wrongly misuses their testimony, saying: "The Apostle speaks thus: *The first man is of the earth, earthly; the second is from heaven*." [1 Cor. 15, 47] But the logic of truth immediately rises up against him and refutes his darkened mind. For the holy Apostle speaks of man and man; he affirms the first man, Adam, to be of the earth, and the second to be from heaven. ^C And although he calls Him man, yet the flesh itself did not descend from heaven, but, as is acknowledged, it was taken from Mary. He does not say that the flesh descended from heaven in a literal sense, but he calls the second man [so] because the Word came down from above and *dwelt among us*, [John 1, 14] as it is written. Therefore the Lord both existed before and was present, *who found out every way of knowledge*. [Baruch 3, 37] Divine Scripture surely does not doubt that He existed. For the things that follow declare that He existed before him. Just as He is said to have *found out every way of knowledge* and then to have been seen on earth, terms which signified the future incamate coming. Now, the heretics think that He brought man with Him from heaven, but the Apostle does not say this; rather, he calls Him "man" because of the human nature associated with the divine, and because of the time that lies between Adam and the incarnation; ^D not that the Word proceeded from the Father and was changed into flesh, as he persuades himself—for he argued falsely on this subject. And indeed, if Adam was before the Word existed, then by whom was this same Adam created, and all the works of God before him? Or to whom did the Father say

^A “Let us make man”? For no one ever directs his consultation and deliberation toward his own interior word or the one that is spoken outwardly; rather, he makes his explanation, using all (possible) wisdom, to his own innate and holy Word concerning the future creation of man, so that we might learn that the Son existed from the beginning with the Father himself, and so that we might not think our Creator to be something recent, but rather that He always existed with the Father before the ages, as John also testifies, saying: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.”

IV. “But,” says this charlatan, “I acknowledge that the Word existed from the beginning, but I do not acknowledge that He was begotten as the Son of God.” And if He is not the Son of God, his labor is in vain, his purpose is in vain, and so is his hope and his understanding. ^B For this man asserts nothing more excellent regarding Christ than did the Jews themselves who denied Him. For the Gospel does not say of Him, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in God,” but, “The Word was with God.” And it does not say that the Word was merely in God, but, “The Word was God.” But in the case of man, the word, existing always as interior and spoken, cannot be called a man, but the word of a man. If the offspring did not yet exist, as this man says, and if the Son of God, the Word of God, did not yet exist, through whom were all things created? Since the Gospel says: “All things were made through Him, and without Him not one thing was made.” But, he says, just as a man does what he wills through his word, so also the Father created all things through His own Word that was in Him. How, then, does the Lord say in the Gospel: “My Father is working until now, and I am working”? ^C But the statement, “My Father is working, and I am working,” does not mean that the Father is not working in the operation of the Son, nor that the Son is alienated, or was not working in the creation of the Father. For all works, whatever they are, have been produced together by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For through Him all things were made by the Father, and He Himself worked all things with the Father and with the Holy Spirit. For “by the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the breath of his mouth all their host.” Therefore, the Lord also spoke with assurance in the Gospel, being a knower of the thoughts of those who were led astray, being a foreknower, as God, of how each one was about to cast himself away from the truth, and He said to the Jews: “The Son can do nothing of his own accord, unless he sees the Father doing it.” And it is not that He first sees and then acts; ^D rather, He possesses all things within Himself and does what He wills.

V. How, then, can these things be true, O Photinus? Or who is the one among you who is again scattering this tare before us? Who is the one who has prepared this poison for the life of men? Whence came the wickedness for you to meditate against your Lord—

^A a blasphemous opinion to conceive? Could not even Abraham persuade you to have a better mind, he who addresses God thus: "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice?" It ought to convict you that the Son is said to have been present with Him, not as some utterance of speech, but as the subsisting Word of God. And so that you might know, O empty pretender to wisdom, the conclusion of the matters treated in this subject, as if sealing it in Holy Scripture, He declared the perfect and absolute truth to us, saying: "The Lord rained from heaven fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord." He did not say, "the Word of the Lord," but, "the Lord from the Lord." Just as David also says: "The Lord said to my Lord." And in order that it may be known that the name of the Son is not found only after His incarnate presence, He makes mention of that which took place from the beginning, saying: "From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you." And regarding the Holy Spirit, O you who babble superfluously ^B and involve yourself in idle and curious things, no one will accept your discourse. For the Holy Spirit cannot be called either greater or lesser. "For who," He says, "has required these things from your hands?" You are convicted, moreover, by the same holy Word Himself, as the Lord speaks concerning the Holy Spirit; acknowledging Him as the genuine sharer of His own divinity, He says: "He who proceeds from the Father, and He will take of Mine."

^C 3. But how many other testimonies are there? Since your quibbling is manifest to all to be of error and not of truth, it will be detected not only by the wise, but also by those who know even a little of the sequence of the Holy Scriptures. For this reason, I will not need many testimonies or much refutation; for your narrative and bad faith are easily overcome. Thus, I judge what has been said against you to be sufficient, as if I had crushed beneath the foot of discourse—and by the truth of the Word of God—some creeping thing that grew out of the earth, something contemptible and weak; or, as a worm, that is, an earth-maggot, I shall leave it behind. For the heresy of this deluded man has already been scattered in a short time. ^D I shall proceed to what follows, customarily invoking God.

AGAINST THE MARCELLIANS

4. At the same time again (for all these were at the same period), Marcellus arose at Ancyra. He lived down to our own times and died two years ago, more or less. He himself also created some division in the Church from the beginning of that same time. He gave only a dim indication of his dogma, likening himself to Sabellius and Novatus out of the provocation he received from the Arians against him, supposedly by the reasoning of his opposition to the Arians. Whence he is also blasphemed by some in part, as I said, for having taken his quibbling from the Sabellians. But some, on behalf...

^A their defense they answered that this was not the case, but persisted in asserting that he had lived uprightly and held the right opinion. Hence, much inquiry has taken place regarding this matter. Now the hidden things of the mind are known to God. But those who were his followers and had been instructed by him, ignorant of his inner meaning, and not declaring the truth of his mind, were unwilling to confess the three hypostases, as truth dictates—namely, that there is one Godhead, one glorification, the Trinity being consubstantial, and in no way differing from its own glory, being a perfect Trinity, and one Godhead, one power, one essence, being neither a coalescing nor one that has subsided. But he, ^B desiring to say something more than most men, showed them by his opinion to be under Sabellius. Wherefore, this itself was spoken of and numbered among the heresies. I shall set forth again the declaration of the discourse which this same Marcellus made to Julius, the blessed bishop of the Romans, purportedly in his own defense. But from that apology and memorandum it will appear that he held opinions other than the creed of the truth. For if he had not held other opinions, for what reason would he have come to an apology, unless words not correct were set forth from him, and some, being troubled by them, brought him to this apology? Therefore, the copy is this:

Copy of the letter of Marcellus, whom the synod deposed for heterodoxy.

^C 2. To the most blessed colleague Julius, Marcellus sends greeting in Christ. Since some of those who were formerly condemned for not thinking correctly about the faith, whom I refuted at the synod at Nicaea, have dared to write to your piety against me, as if I were not thinking correctly nor in accordance with the doctrine of the Church—eagerly endeavoring to transfer their own crime unto me—for this reason I deemed it necessary to come to Rome and to remind you that you should summon those who wrote against me, so that, when they have arrived, they might be refuted by me concerning two things: both that the things which they have written against me are false, and that they still, even now, persist in their former error, and have dared [to do] terrible things, both against the Churches ^D of God and against us who are set over them. Since, therefore, they were unwilling to come, even though you sent presbyters to them, and [that] while I [had been there] for a whole year and three months...

^A while I have been staying in Rome, I have deemed it necessary, before I depart from here, to offer you a profession of my own faith, written sincerely and from the heart by my own hand: [a profession] such as I was taught and as I have been instructed from the divine Scriptures, and to remind you of the things which are falsely asserted by them, so that you may understand what kind of discourses they employ to deceive their audience and [try] to hide the truth.

For in the first place, they deny that our Lord Jesus Christ is the proper and true Word of God the Almighty, but they preach that there is another Word of His, and another wisdom and power. [They say that] once He was brought into the light by Him, He was named Word, and wisdom, and power. And because they hold such views, they affirm that there is another hypostasis, distinct ^B from the Father. Moreover, they declare by the things they write that the Father existed before the Son, and [they claim] that He is not truly Son [proceeding] from God; but even if they say [He is] from God, they say it in the same sense as [they say] that all things [are from God]. Furthermore, they do not hesitate to say that there was a time when He was not; and [they claim] that He is a creature and a product, separating Him from the Father. Now, I am persuaded that those who say these things are alien to the Catholic Church.

But I, following the divine Scriptures, believe that there is one God, and His only-begotten Son, the Word, who always co-exists ^C with the Father, and has never at any time had a beginning of existence, but truly exists from God, not created, not made, but always being, always reigning together with God and the Father, of whose kingdom, according to the witness of the Apostle, there shall be no end. This is the Son, this is the power, this is the wisdom, this is the own and true Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the indivisible power of God, through whom all things that have been made were made, as the Gospel witnesses, saying: *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 was made nothing.* This is the Word concerning whom Luke the evangelist also witnesses, saying: *As they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word delivered to us.* David also looked to Him when he thus sang: *My heart has brought forth a good Word.* Thus also our Lord ^D Jesus Christ taught us in the Gospel, saying: *I came forth from the Father, and have come.* It is He who, in the last times for the sake of our salvation, descended and, having been born of the Virgin Mary, took on manhood.

III. I believe, therefore, in God the Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried, and on the third day rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence He is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission

of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, life everlasting.

^A We have learned from the holy Scriptures that the divinity of the Father and of the Son cannot be divided. For if anyone wishes to separate the Son—that is, the Word of the almighty God—he must necessarily either think that there are two Gods, which is considered foreign to the heavenly teaching and alien to every confession, or deny that the Word is God; which itself also appears alien to the true faith, since the evangelist says: "And the Word was God." But I have learned accurately that the power of the Father, which is the Son, can neither be divided nor separated. For the Savior Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, says: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me," and: "I and the Father are one," and: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Having received this faith from the holy Scriptures, and having been taught it by my God-fearing forefathers, I preach it in the Church of God, and I have now written it to you, having kept a copy of this for myself. And I ask that you insert an ^B exemplar of this my profession into your letter to the bishops, so that none of those who do not know us accurately may be deceived by paying heed to what has been written about me by them. Farewell. The epistle ends here.

IV. Concerning the Defense of Marcellus

^B Furthermore, whether this document is correct or not, let those who are able read it, and those who can have an exact understanding of what is written in it judge whether there is any flaw in it. For we do not wish to assert anything except what we know and what has been brought to us. And although there is nothing in that document that is not pure and sincere, yet even from the very subject matter, those who read or hear it ought to consider that it was not in vain, nor rashly, that he was brought to this necessity of defending himself, unless he had uttered certain disturbing words that forced him to render an account of what he had said. For it could be that, ^C after having erred, he sought to excuse and correct himself through the document, or that by that same document he made a pretense with his words to intentionally obscure what he had previously said, so that he might not be brought to order, being deposed from the common assembly of the bishops and the canon. However, these are the things that have reached us concerning Marcellus. When I once asked the blessed Pope Athanasius what kind of man he considered him to be, he neither defended the man, nor again did he harshly condemn him; but smiling gently, he indicated that he was not far from wickedness, and he accounted him among those who had defended themselves.

^D

V. Concerning the Criticisms of Others

I desire here to subjoin those things which some have observed in the writings of Marcellus, which seemed to them to be reprehensible; wherefore they also inveighed against him and wrote for the sake of confutation. Although others, because those who had commented against him—who, having later turned to other matters, were [original-script column: see facsimile]—suffered, of those whom he names, Acacius, Basil, George, and the rest, we shall speak at greater length in the following heresy.

^A And those matters which were advanced as counter-arguments by them were shown, and in their own compositions they made, according to what are called the divisions, a middle ground among those around Acacius, Basil the Galatian, and George of Laodicea for the sake of refuting Acacius himself. For this is the man who, from the writings of Marcellus against Marcellus, declared that we should not omit anything of the truth in all things as we show, so that we neither recoil from things that lead to correction, nor do we wish to agree with those who attempt things contrary to the truth. And these are the following from Acacius’s *Against Marcellus* ^B in refutation. These things [are] through Marcellus.

3. These things, then, and others like them, Marcellus wrote in his distortion of the words concerning the Proverbs, speaking wickedness against God, and lifting up his horn on high, having reached past the middle of the book, and again setting forth the words of Asterius:

7. But you, Marcellus, having praised these words at the beginning of the book, but now having denied the Word who is God from God, the Son, and [the] perfect from [the] perfect, you have clearly exposed your own evil opinion concerning divinity. For when you take the image of the great King, you ought to have cut off your impious tongue [from being] bereft of life, and divinity, and counsel, and power, and glory, and essence. [alt-version omitted]

^A For by depicting the image of God as devoid of life—[asserting] that it is neither Lord, nor God, nor essence, nor counsel, nor power, nor glory—you wish it to be an immobile image of these things, as if making it lifeless and without vitality, set forth externally, and as if it were yourself, lifeless and consisting only of human artifice. Yet you do not wish the image of the living God to be a living one, nor an image of essence which is of essence, nor an image of counsel and power and glory which is counsel and power and glory without variation. But to say "without variation" does not mean [an image] that is something unbegotten, but that it is exactly and precisely assimilated to the paternal goodness, divinity, and all energy. And after other things: "It was necessary for your deceitful lips to be struck dumb, which speak injustice against God with pride and disdain." For the Father alone begat the Only-Begotten alone, even if you do not wish it, now wishing for something else, since the coming forth of the Son did not take place by the cause of the aeons of Valentinus, but he has his birth from the Father alone; and perfect [begat] the perfect. For there is nothing imperfect in the Father; and therefore [there is nothing imperfect] in the Son, but the perfection of the Son is the genuine offspring of His perfection ^B and super-perfection.

^C And he also begat King as King. For it is consistent with piety that God reigns, while the Son, begotten before the ages, although he is King, is subject to the kingdom of Another, through whom all other things are ruled, gratefully acknowledging his subjection. For the Father has not begotten a private citizen, but a King of His kingdom, which has neither a beginning of days nor an end of life. For the dignity [of the Son] is not acquired from without, but pertains to the essence itself, just as in the Father from whom he is begotten. For this reason it is written: "And of his kingdom there shall be no end." In the same way, we confess that Lord begat Lord, and God begat God, as we maintain. And to define it in one word, we maintain that the image of essence, counsel, power, and glory is not a mute and dead image, but one endowed with essence and the power of counsel, and powerful, and glorious. For power does not beget weakness, but power itself; and glory does not beget ingloriousness, but glory itself; and counsel does not beget a lack of counsel, but counsel itself; and essence does not beget something lacking essence, but begets essence. Therefore, the Word himself is the image, God, living and subsistent Wisdom, the effective Word, and the Son, this very [Wisdom] having acquired essence. For this is she in whom God delighted daily, when he rejoiced, having finished the world. But you, Marcellus, while denying these things before men, will be denied by her herself before the Father who is in heaven; and you will be denied, moreover, ^D before the Church which is under heaven, writing everywhere concerning you: "Hear the word of the Lord. Write this man as a man cast out; for he shall not prosper from..."

his seed, a ruler any longer in Judah, sitting on the throne of David."

^B VIII. After this, when Marcellus had mentioned some of the remarks of Asterius, Acacius adds: "Having posited these things, and then proceeding further, denying the image of the Savior, and the essence, and the unique Son from the Father, as well as the 'firstborn of all creation'—and effectively abolishing that singularity which flows from the singular God, and the perfection from the Perfect, and the kingly power from the King, and the dominion from the Lord, and the divinity from God, and finally the essence and the counsel, the virtue and the glory, as in no way being the image of God—you have not just denied them briefly before men, and thus are to be denied before his Father, but you write these things openly: Such words clearly demonstrate your perverse opinion concerning the divinity of the Father and the Son. But in denying them, you have clearly exhibited your own perverse and depraved opinion concerning the divinity and essence of Christ, contrary to the true faith."

IX. After this, he adds the words of Marcellus: ^C "Consequently, what Marcellus added is inept: he holds that nothing of what he had previously mentioned exists; for you suppose that he is the image of all these things. Hence, if he is the image of essence, he cannot himself be essence; and if he is an image of counsel, he cannot be counsel himself; nor virtue, if of virtue; nor glory, if indeed he is an image of glory. For an image is not an image of itself, but of some other. But these things, Marcellus, are insipid and false. For Asterius indicates that he is all these things which he enumerated earlier, when he said: 'King [begetting] King, Lord Lord, God God.' By which words he utterly overthrows that inanimate effigy of yours, constructed, as you suppose, solely by human artifice. For he teaches that he is a living image of all these things—that is, a living effigy of the living Begetter—and essence of essence, and counsel of counsel, virtue of virtue, and glory of glory; and he demonstrates it to be an image not of itself, but of another. ^D You, however, since you do not wish the Son to be God from God, nor light from light, nor virtue from virtue, do not consider the Son to be God, nor light, nor virtue, nor essence, nor counsel, nor glory, but impiously extinguish these things with the body at the end of the world along with them. Thus you deny that testimony of John, 'The Word was God,' and you call the Son of God a son either by name only, or merely a man, so that God produces a Son of a different kind—one who is a son only by adoption, of the sort expressed in those passages: 'I have begotten and exalted sons'; item: 'You have received the Spirit of adoption'; item: 'Bring to the Lord, O sons of God.'"

Since, therefore, Asterius declares the Son to be an image of the paternal essence, virtue, counsel, and glory, differing in nothing...

^A from the Father, he asserts that, as it were, the paternal characters inhere in the Son, and that the things conceived of the Father are imprinted upon or granted to the Son, not being other things beside Him. Therefore, he wishes all that he previously mentioned to be the Son Himself. For he does not conceive of an image in colors, nor does he introduce a third painter, so that, by differing from the Father through colors, he might depict qualities elsewhere and call this the Son. For if you think thus—and you do not think aright—you say: "If He is the image of essence, He cannot be essential substance itself; and if [He is the image] of counsel, He is no longer self-counsel." But according to us, if He is a living image of essence, He can be essential substance itself, and is. And thus we call the essence an image of the essence by way of a most exact imitation of life and operation; and thus also an image of counsel [we call] counsel—the Angel of the Great Counsel—and an image of power and glory [we call] power and glory. And that which indicates ^B these things is: "As the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son to have life in Himself;" and, "As the Father raises the dead and gives them life." For the "as," "so," pertains to an iconic representation and is an exact mold of likeness.

[III.] And after a few other words: "For the divine Word, that is to say Jesus, acting as the giver of life, beauty, and splendor, is not Himself lacking in life, beauty, and splendor, being in death or in a state where He is entirely nothing; but He has the paternal marks expressed in Himself: not as if He were another, endowed with other marks of form, but rather the characters are in His existence, and His existence is in the characters. For an image of another, and not being an image of itself, as you also wish, bearing in itself the characters of the prototype, indicates otherness; yet [it indicates] otherness as a likeness. For this One, who is the image of the invisible God, is not an image of Himself, but of some other. Therefore, the Son is the image of the Father—living, of the living—in movement and operation, in power and counsel and glory; not lifeless, ^C nor unmoved, having His existence in another, and being depicted, while He Himself remains in Himself and through Himself, not existing in motion. And the image is exact, not because the exactness constitutes the Father, but because it constitutes the Son as perfected."

So much from Acacius. Now, however, certain of our orthodox brethren and confessors say that they have received an exposition of faith from some of the disciples of Marcellus, by which he rendered an account of his faith. This I thought should be inscribed here, although I have not yet accurately understood the individual points that pertain to it. But the copy is of the following sort.

Exposition of the faith of Marcellus.

[XI.] To the most venerable and most holy bishops at Diocaesarea, [exiled] for the orthodox confession of the faith ^D of our Savior Jesus Christ, to Eulogius, Adelphius, Alexan-

^Adro, Ammonius, Harpocration, Isaac, Isidore, Annubion, Pitimus, Euphratius, Aaron, the presbyters who are in Ancyra of Galatia, Photinus, Eustathius, another Photinus, Sigerius; and to the deacon Hyginus, and the subdeacon Heraclides, and the lector Elpidius, and the ^B defender Cyriacus, greeting in the Lord.

Having arrived at your God-fearing party from our aforementioned homeland, to pay the customary visit, and being questioned by your holiness concerning the faith that is in us and how we hold it, and having welcomed such a solicitous inquiry from you—which you made, especially on account of those who wish to babble vainly certain falsehoods about us—we have deemed it necessary to give you assurance concerning this, not only from the letters of communion which were written to us by the thrice-blessed Pope Athanasius, which we showed to your holiness, but also from this written confession of ours: that we neither think, nor have we ever thought, anything apart from the ecumenical and ecclesiastical faith which was defined at Nicaea, which we confess that we hold in its power, anathematizing those who dare to call the Holy Spirit a creature; and the Arian heresy, and those of Sabellius, and Photinus, and Paul of Samosata, and those who do not say that the holy Trinity is three persons, uncircumscribed, and subsistent, and consubstantial, and coeternal, and autonomous; ^C and anathematizing also those who call the Son an expansion, or a contraction, or an operation of the Father; and those who do not confess the divine Word, the Son of God, to be the pre-eternal and coeternal Son and God with the Father, subsistent and autonomous.

XII. If any man says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same, let him be anathema. If any man assigns a beginning or an end to the Son of God and Word, or to His kingdom, let him be anathema. If any man says that the Son or the Holy Spirit is a part of the Father, and does not confess that the Son of God was begotten of the essence of the Father before all thought, let him be anathema. But concerning the incarnation of the divine Word, the only-begotten Son of God, we confess that He is the Son of God, and became man without sin, after ^D [taking] the whole...

of human nature, that is, a soul endowed with reason and intelligence, and human flesh. We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down, and became incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. And those who say, "There was once when he was not," and "Before he was begotten he was not," and that "He came into being from things that are not," or who affirm that the Son of God is from another subsistence or essence, or that he is mutable or alterable, these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. ^A I, Photinus, presbyter of the Church at Ancyra, so believe and think as is written here. I, Sigerius, presbyter of the same Church, so believe and think as is written here. I, Hyginus, deacon of the same Church, so believe and think as is written here. I, Heraclides, subdeacon of the same Church, so believe and think as is written here. I, Elpidius, reader of the same Church, so believe and think as is written here. I, Cyriacus, defender of the same Church, so believe and think as is written here. These are the things which were written by them to the confessors and Fathers. Now, if those who are discerning should judge that these things are to be numbered among the better ones, then by all means let them be regarded as such. But if, even in this very apology and discussion, there is some stumbling or incorrect assertion on their part, let them have their proper place and order among the learned. Finally, since we have abundantly furnished the whole preceding account concerning Marcellus himself, we shall pass from him and proceed to other heresies.

AGAINST THE SEMIARIANS, Which is the fifty-third, or seventy-third, heresy.

1. Since, with God's help, we have broken through the wretched dogmas of the Arians and those who succeeded Arius, and especially those of Photinus; but have also discussed those earlier matters of Marcellus, in which he seemed to stumble somewhat, and which he vomited forth in the beginning as if seized by drunkenness (and would that his followers, if it is possible, might be amended!). In addition, having cut down, by the word of God which is more piercing than any two-edged sword, the tares that sprang up from Arius himself, we must now consider how, as that evil growth of Arius sprouted, a kind of sect emerged which they call the Semiarians. ^D Even though they abjure his name, they nevertheless put on the very man himself and his wicked opinion, and with a certain feigned appearance and mask they cover over their own face and dissimulate. Such is the wonted action of actors in the theaters, who under alien coun-

^Atenances, and with masks—which in comedies are most base and full of drunkenness—bring forth their performance; or else they express the fables of the ancient poets by their very gesture and the conformation of their body. Even so, these men also, desiring to deceive the simpler folk, although in their very countenance, and in their manners, and in their evil doctrine they do not differ from Arius and the Arianomaniacs, yet, under a certain artifice of flattery, desiring to cloak and dissimulate the doctrine that is confessed by those people—a doctrine of all most perditious—they persistently declare the Son of God to be a creature; so that they might the more easily deceive, and, as it were, perform a favor unto the Son of God, if they see any who are agitated by such language, they immediately add, in the manner of mountebanks, by way of blandishment: "We do not call Him a creature in the same way as one of the other creatures, nor a product in the same way as the other products."

They cast out the word "consubstantial" ^B as if it were a thing alien to the Holy Scriptures. But we have discussed these matters with the utmost precision when we were contending against Arius. But in order that they might propose another term similar to this, those around Basil—I mean, and Georgius, the leaders of this sect of the Semi-Arians—say: "We do not say consubstantial, but we assert that He is of similar substance." And these were they who, after the synod, were separated from the mad faction of the Arianomaniacs; the leader of whom was the same Basil of Ancyra, together with Georgius of Laodicea, and of Daphnes near Antioch, that is to say, of Coelesyria. And these same men also hold the same opinion concerning the Holy Spirit as those who fight against the Spirit. For they no longer do so with hesitation, or with any doubtful speech, as they do concerning the Son, being ashamed to call Him a perfect creature—which, however, they do indeed think; but because of their fear of men, they bring forward the term "of similar substance," and "a creature as one of the creatures." ^C But concerning the Holy Spirit, as I have said, they do not approach with hesitation, but like raging dogs, without restraint they define Him altogether as a creature, and they assert this with conviction, and that He is alien to the Father and the Son. And that no one may say that we speak against certain men out of calumny, I shall here set forth how each of them wrote his letter.

^D [index: entries preserved]

^A Basil wrote one, and George of Laodicea, together with Basil and his associates, another. And they are as follows. ^B

Letter of the Pseudosynod of Ancyra

II. The holy synod, ^B gathered at Ancyra shortly before Easter from various provinces, to our most venerable lords and fellow-ministers of like mind, who are in Phoenicia, and to the rest who hold the same faith with us in the Lord, greeting. We indeed desired that after that testing of the ecclesiastical faith—which, like silver tried in the fire, had been proved during those persecutions stirred up for the sake of religion—and after the things that happened at Constantinople on account of Marcellus; and after the exposition of the faith which was set forth at the synod assembled in Antioch for the dedication of the church, and subsequently repeated at Sardica, where the faith seems in a certain way to have flourished again; and finally after what was done at Sirmium concerning Photinus, but also after those accounts which, having been questioned, we recently issued concerning each article of the faith regarding the dissension at Sardica between the Westerners and the Easterners—what remains is to live in peace and quiet; and under the most religious ^C sovereign of our master Constantius, who has united [the world] from East to West, [we desire to remain in quiet]. ^D

And they openly, for the rest, anathematize the *homoousion*; having written letters [defending] the doctrine of the *anomoion* [the unlike], they send them everywhere.

^A Since the Church is everywhere joined under our most pious Emperor Constantius, and the scandals having been cast out, it is at peace and persistent in divine worship; but since, as it seems, the devil, for the sake of bringing about that which was foretold by the Lord and predicted by the holy Apostle in agreement regarding warnings of defection [to the faithful], ceases not to work and strive through his own vessels, in order that he may devise certain novelties ^B against the integrity of the ecclesiastical faith, and even now under a pretense of godliness attempts to introduce certain profane newfangled terms against the religious genuineness of the only-begotten Son of God—having heard, indeed, that some were traversing Antioch, and also Alexandria and Lydia, and even Asia, and casting sparks of impiety into the souls of the simpler-minded—we entertained a great hope that, because of the boldness of their impiety and the forwardness of their impudence, if we and the ministers of the Lord and colleagues in those places were to take up the defense of the Church, that recently invented heresy could be routed and all that wickedness be extinguished.

But since, ^C as we have learned from those who have come from those places and from the reports of the Illyrians, the authors of this evil are using all their industry, and are scheming the destruction of many, and are spreading [it] like a leaven to wickedness, we thought the matter should be delayed no longer. And since we had also received letters from our like-minded colleague George, bishop of the city of Laodicea—of which we have attached exact copies—and we have respected the testimonies of those who invoked us before God, as much as the time permitted, with the holy day of Pascha being at hand, as many of us as were able to gather together (for the winter kept many away, as we learned from their letters) took pains to add something specific and more explicit ^D to the received formula of faith, so that after other professions of faith—namely, the one which was set forth at Antioch at the dedication of the Church, and also [that] in the Sardican synod, which the Sirmian synod accepted—and to the arguments which were set forth in these councils, a more distinct explanation of the Catholic Church’s dogma concerning the holy Trinity might be added by us. In this new declaration of faith, we strove to dictate nothing other than what the Holy Spirit suggested to our minds. Wherefore we also beg you again and again, most honorable lords and colleagues, that upon reading these letters, you signify that the faith delivered to you by the fathers is dear to your hearts, and that we think and profess the same things as you do: in order that those who do not fear to disseminate that impiety may, when they have certainly learned that we hold and guard that faith which we received from the apostolic times through the succession continued down to our fathers, either be shamed and corrected, or, if they persist, be excommunicated from the Church and [their] apostasy [be attributed] to the son of lawlessness, who dares to threaten and...

even to sit in the temple of God, making preparations for himself. ^A

III. Our faith is referred to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

IV. Wherefore, if in the matter proposed, we discern in the Father that which is accustomed to adhere to [the name of Father]—as when with...

the Son, we conceive of the Son not as one begotten by seed and perfected by the forces of corporeal nature, nor as one constantly moving toward growth and decay, as is the nature of corporeal things—there will remain only the concept of the similar. For as we said, once all the [properties] of the creature have been excluded, there is taken up [in thought] that which is impassible in the Creator, perfect and as He willed, and the stability of the creature; so also, once all corporeal things have been excluded regarding the Father and the Son, there will be taken up only the generation of the similar and, in respect to essence, living being. Since every father is understood as the father of a similar essence. But if, along with all the other concepts associated with the names of "father" and "son" which are proper to corporeal things, one also were to cast away the similarity of essence of the living being that allows us to perceive the Father, then Father and Son will no longer be believed in, ^B but rather "creator" and "creature," and these would be superfluous names, bringing nothing of their own to the matter. And thus He will be creator as God, but in no respect at all Father. For that the Father is not called Father because of an operation, but because of a similar essence that exists through such an operation, is clear from natural reasoning. For since God has many operations, He is understood as creator by one operation, insofar as He is the creator of heaven and earth, and of all things in them, and also of those that are invisible. But He is understood as Father of the Only-Begotten not as creator, but as Father who has begotten. But if, because of the suspicion regarding corporeal fathers and sons, and fearing, as one who is incorporeal might suffer some passion in begetting, or that the begotten might be imperfect, and being wary of all that happens regarding the corporeal father and son, one were to take away the genuine concept of Father and Son, what other creature would he be naming? And he will never speak of the Son as Son. For whether he might describe Him as surpassing in magnitude, as heaven is greater than a mountain or a hill, he will [nonetheless] show that He belongs to the genus of created things, even if he imagines Him to be surpassing in magnitude; or [whether he speaks of Him] as coming to be first out of need, or as one who assisted in the creation of other things, he will not in this way place Him outside the concept of created things. For just as it makes no difference whether the coal is taken from the altar by tongs or by the hand itself, and by means of the tongs the smith’s art shifts the iron—for the tongs and the iron shifted by them will [both] be of the genus of created things—so, nothing will differ from the created things [if it be] he through ^C whom all things are, unless He is the Son, as the natural concept suggests. But if He were created first of all things, He will be the first of created things, and He will become an instrument for the Creator, through whom the creator fashions all things. ^D

V. Furthermore, no one should cavil at the notion of the Father who is strictly such, and the Son who is strictly such, by appealing to those who are called "sons" in a common sense; for otherwise there would be many sons of God. As when He says: ^A *I have begotten and raised up sons, and they have despised me.* And again: *Is there not one Father of you all?* And again: *As many as received Him, to them He gave the power to become children of God; who were born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.* And in addition to these, there is a reference to inanimate things, as: *Who has begotten the drops of dew?* For by these and similar examples it will be argued—based on the common usage—that He is not a son, any more than these things are, but is just as much a creation as they are, participating only in the name of "Son." But the Church believes that God is not only the Creator of created things (for Jews and Greeks alike understand this), but that He is also the Father of the Only-Begotten, possessing not only the creative activity—from which He is understood to be Creator—but also an activity of begetting, that is proper and unique, according to which He is understood by us to be the Father of the Only-Begotten. ^B For teaching us this, the blessed Paul writes: *For this cause I bow my knees to the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,* having sons according to the likeness of their own substances. So also in heaven He is called Father, from whom those fathers on earth were named according to substance, having every one who is begotten of Him as a Son according to the likeness of His own substance. And the concept of those who are called sons in a catachrestic and homonymous sense cannot be applied to the unique Son of God. For just as a box [pyxis] is properly called that which is made of boxwood, yet by a certain common abuse of the word it is transferred to other vessels of this kind which are made of lead, bronze, or some other material; therefore, it is not in this way that one should understand the Son of God, as when it is said: *Who has begotten the drops of dew?* — for this pertains not at all to the substance itself, since by an abuse of the word, in this place, the name of birth and generation is transferred to the efficacy of the work. Nor should it be understood as in the words: ^C *I have begotten and raised up sons.* For in this place also, the term is applied by a catachresis to signify kindness and honor. Nor as in the passage: *He gave them power to become children of God.* For this too is taken from the creation that comes through virtue and imitation. It is not in this way that the Only-Begotten is to be understood; but properly, as the Only One from the Only One, similar according to substance from the Father, of whom also He is named and conceived as the Son begotten. ^D

^A VI. But if, because human reason cannot penetrate there, anyone should form for himself a notion in such a way that he thinks some passion, or division, or flux must be attributed to the Father, and having cast aside the faith which piously conceives of the Father and the Son, he demands logical reasons, then reasons must in turn be demanded of him: how God is crucified, and how the foolishness of the evangelical proclamation—which is considered among those who seem wise in this world as crude and based on no reasoning—is wiser than human beings, whom the blessed Paul does not even deem worthy of speech. For he has destroyed the wisdom of those who are able to syllogize by the non-syllogistic power. For he said: "I came proclaiming to you the mystery of God, not in wisdom of speech, so that the cross of Christ might not be rendered empty." He, therefore, who demands the mystery in wisdom of speech, while holding the portion of the foolish wisdom, let him disbelieve the mystery, since even there Paul is disbelieved in wisdom of speech, so that the cross of Christ might not be rendered empty. But if he responds to these things, he does not do so in wisdom of speech, but by refuting through the non-syllogistic power all syllogistic wisdom as foolishness, he accepts faith alone for the salvation of those who receive the proclamation. Neither does he respond to how the Father begets the Son without passion, lest the mystery of the Sonship of the Only-Begotten from the Father be rendered empty. But by refuting the wisdom of the intelligent as being turned to folly (as it is written: "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?"), he does not employ wisdom of speech, lest through the suspicions arising from logical deductions—I mean the pious notion regarding the Father and the Son—it be rendered empty; but ^B he declares to the faithful that the Father, without passion, begetting the Son from Himself without flux or passion—and the Son, being similar, and according to substance from the Father, perfect from perfect, subsisting as the Only-Begotten—[he declares this] to be contemplated without syllogism. For it is among the absurd things, when one hears of Wisdom subsisting from the wise God, as He knows wisely how to be Father of the Wisdom begotten from Himself, to think that passion subsists regarding the Wisdom, if the Wisdom is to subsist from Him similar in substance to the Wise One. For if the Wise God is not understood by us as wise through participation in wisdom as a composite [being], but He himself is wise uncompositely—and is substance—neither is the Wisdom the Son understood [as something] following [otherwise]; but the Wisdom is substance from a wise substance, which is Wisdom, a substrate Son; He will be similar also according to substance to the wise Father, from whom the Wisdom, the Son, has subsisted.

^C VII. Therefore, the blessed Paul, accustomed as he was, being well-educated in the things of the Hebrews by the same Spirit that spoke in the Old and New Testaments, ^D since he was most expert in the Hebrew tongue, when—by the same Spirit, which in the Old and New Testament spoke—his...

^A custom was to draw the same meanings from two psalms, namely, from that which sings: *Thy judgments are a great deep*; and from the other, in which it is written: *Thy ways are in many waters, and thy footsteps shall not be known*; he transferred that thought concerning God's judgments by changing some things slightly. For for the words, *A great deep*, he wrote: *O the depth of the riches!* And for these: *Thy ways are in many waters, and thy footsteps shall not be known*, he wrote: *Unsearchable*; and for these words: *Thy judgments are a great deep*, he substituted these: *His judgments are inscrutable*. In the same manner, when he had learned from Wisdom itself its own mutual relation and that of the Father toward those things that are below, the habit and kinship, he expressed in his writings the proper conception of the Father, and of the Son, and of those things which, through the Son, have been produced by the Father. For when Wisdom had said: *I, wisdom, dwell in counsel*, etc., then, descending to that procreation and administration which occurs through the Word, when he had subjoined thus: *By me kings*, etc., and likewise that: *If I tell you those things which befall through me; I will count those things which are from of old*; and then: *The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works*: before the age he founded me; before all things he begets me: when Wisdom had said these things, I say, the Apostle, for *beginning*, placed *first*; for *begets me*, *begotten*; and for that whole member, *Created me the beginning of his ways for his works; and he begets me*, he subjoined this: *The firstborn of every creature*; for this, *Founded me*, he wrote: *In him were all things created*. Again, for this, *through me*; the Apostle, *what things are from of old, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created through him and in him*.

Therefore, since the Apostle’s sentiment agrees word for word with the voice of Wisdom, as *beginning* with *first*, and *begets* with *firstborn*; and that: *He created me the beginning of his ways for his works*, with this: *The firstborn of every creature*; likewise for *founded me*, these words being substituted: *In him were all things created*; and for this, *through me*, that: *through him*, it is manifest that the name of *image* is used without any passion, and that for these words, *I, wisdom*, it has been placed. And ^C just as the wisdom of the wise is the Son, substance of substance: so the image is similar to the substance. From which indeed the image of God, who cannot be seen by the eyes, that is, the Son, is understood. Thus we have all the expressions corresponding exactly. For instance, for *wise*, God; for *wisdom*, image; for *beginning*, first; for *begets*, begotten; for the whole, at once; and for: *The beginning of his ways he created me for his works*, and *he begets me*, the *firstborn of every creature*; and for *founded me*, *In him were all things created*; and for *through me*, *All things through him and in him*. It is evident from this that those who hear that the Son is the image of the invisible God, and nevertheless do not hesitate to slander his likeness with the Father so impudently, clearly ^D err, having fallen away from the truth—not only Paul, but even before him...

John, that true son of thunder, with his own great voice, just as if from some clouds of the riddles of Wisdom, has sent forth to us the pious view concerning the Son in a similar manner.

VIII. ON THE CONSONANCE OF SCRIPTURE REGARDING THE SON

^A Mark well, then, that even he [John] was taught by Wisdom, and has handed down in the Gospel preached by him these same things. For when Wisdom said: *The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways*—[as to that] *In the beginning*, he expounded this, saying: *In the beginning was the Word*; and instead of *He created me*, [he said] *And the Word was God*; so that we might not conceive of the Word of God as one that consists in utterance, but as God existing in a ^B solid subsistence, free from passion, and proceeding from the Father; and instead of *I was with him* [as one] *fitting together*, he [put] *was with God*; and instead of *through me*, [he put] *All things were made through him, and without him was nothing made*; and instead of *he founded*, [he put] *what has been made. In him was life.* To which is similar that [saying]: *In him all things were created.* And to these words, *And the Word became flesh*, that corresponds: *Wisdom built for herself a house.* Likewise, for this: *I was with him, forming*, John wrote this: *The Son can do nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing it; for whatever he does, these things the Son also does in like manner*; so that he has [the testimony] at the mouth of two and three witnesses for the proof ^C of the likeness of the Son to the Father according to essence. For one calls Wisdom the Son of the wise; another calls the Word of God the only-begotten God; and another calls the Son of God the image. So that the Word of God, and Wisdom, and the Image, as has been said before, signify exactly one and the same thing; and by all it is affirmed in common that the Son belongs to the essence of God and the Father.

Further, the authority of the divine word leads us even more, like Thomas, to a likeness of his essence that can almost be touched by the hands, when it speaks thus: *As the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself.* For if these words, *As the Father has*, are taken as not referring to some other and different thing—for the Father is not one thing and the life that is in him another, so that one should think of that which has and that which is possessed, but the Father himself, without any composition, ^D is Life—and as he himself has, so he has given to the Son, clearly without composition, just as the Father; it is manifest that, since he has it in this way, seeing that he does not have it as unbegotten, nor has it compositionally, he is in all respects similar in essence, and without composition, as the Father. It is clear that the similar can never be exactly the same as that to which it is similar; a proof of which is that the Son of God, having been made in the likeness of men, though he became a man, did not become the same as a man in all respects; and having been made in the likeness of the flesh of sin, he became [participant] in those passions that are the causes of sin in the flesh—hunger, we say, and thirst, and the rest—but he did not become [the same] in the identity of the flesh of sin. So that even from the apostolic testimonies, the likeness of the Son to the Father according to essence is proclaimed.

^B

IX. For as He became in the likeness of men, and was a man, and yet not in all respects a man—a man indeed in that He assumed human flesh, since the Word became flesh; but He was not a man in that He was not born similarly to men, for it was not from seed and marital union—so also the Son, who preceded all ages, is God in that He is the Son of God, just as He is man in that He is the Son of man. But He is not the same as God the Father who begat Him, just as He is not the same as man, in that He is without flux and passion, in that He is without seed and pleasure. And He was in the likeness of the flesh of sin, in that He endured hunger, and thirst, and sleep in the flesh, from which sinful passions bodies are moved. But while enduring the aforementioned passions of the flesh, He was not moved by them in a sinful manner. So also, being the Son of God and existing in the form of God, and being equal to God, He possessed the properties of divinity, being bodiless according to essence, and like to the Father according to divinity and bodilessness and operations, just as He was like to the flesh in being flesh and enduring the passions of the flesh; yet He is not the same person, in that He is God, nor is He the form of God, but God; nor is He equal to God, but God; nor does He possess authority as the Father does. For just as He was not a man in a sinful way, but similarly active as a man—for whatever the Father does, the Son does the same—so too here, He was not moved in a sinful way, but similarly to those who are in the flesh. For it is among the absurdities that He should have come from His natural state to that which is contrary to nature, that is to say, that the Son of man, having come from God, should have become like to those who are naturally men in that which He had apart from His nature; yet in that which is natural to Him, that he should not be like the natural Father, since God drew His origin from God.

But this is clearly certain: those who deny that the Son is like to the Father in essence, do not even acknowledge Him to be a Son, but only a creature; and the Father, not a Father, but a creator. For the very notion of likeness does not lead the Son to the point of being entirely identical with the Father, but of being like to Him in essence, and of possessing an ineffable genuineness, coming from Him without passion. For, I shall say again, in the likeness of men and in the likeness of the flesh of sin, He was not led to the identity of man, but to the likeness of the essence of flesh because of the things mentioned; so also the Son, being made like in essence to the Father who begat Him, will not bring His own essence to identity with the Father, but to likeness. ^{C D}

X. But if anyone, being given over to the wisdom of the world, which God has convicted of folly, does not pay heed to the most wise word

of the divine Word...

nor confesses the likeness according to the faith, nor the Son to be of the same essence as the Father, but falsely names the Father and the Son, and does not truly consider either Father or Son, but rather calls Him a creature and a created thing; and communicates the notion of the Father and the Son to the rest of the created works, and wishing to play the sophist—if there is any need—by saying that the first of created works is through Him, or because of the eminence of His magnitude; and who in no way confesses the ecclesiastical faith concerning the Father and the Son as the apostles have evangelized us, wishing instead to evangelize: let him be anathema. And according to the blessed Paul, ^B we have spoken before, and again now I say, having received it, and [the] thing we necessarily say: If anyone, hearing the Father is alone wise, and His only-begotten Son is Wisdom, should say that Wisdom is one and the same as the One who is alone wise, thereby doing away with the existence of the Son: let him be anathema. And if anyone, hearing the Father is wise, and his Son is named Wisdom, should claim that this Wisdom is dissimilar in essence to the wise Father, as if denying that the wise One is truly the Father of Wisdom: let him be anathema. And if anyone, while recognizing God as the Father, should claim that the One who was in the beginning, the Word and God, is one and the same with God, with whom the Word and God is, as if not truly acknowledging a Son: let him be anathema. And if anyone, hearing of the only-begotten God and Word as Son of God, should claim that the Word and God is dissimilar to the One with whom the Word and God is, and that the God-Word of the Father, God of God and ^C Father, with whom the only-begotten God-Word was in the beginning, is dissimilar—as if not truly acknowledging a Son: let him be anathema. And if anyone, hearing that the Son is the image of the invisible God, should say that the image is the same as the invisible God, as if not truly acknowledging a Son: let him be anathema. And if anyone, hearing that the only-begotten Son is called the image of the invisible God, should claim that the Son is dissimilar in essence, and not an image of the God who is invisible, in whose essence we understand Him to be the image—as if not truly confessing a Son: let him be anathema. Item, if anyone hearing the Son saying: “As the Father has life in himself, so he has given the Son to have life in himself,” should claim that the one who receives life from the Father, and who confesses, “And I live because of the Father,” is ^D the same as the One who gave it: let him be anathema. And if anyone, hearing that: “As the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son to have life in himself,” should assert that the Son is dissimilar in essence to the Father, and testifies that He has it just as He says: let him be anathema. For it is manifest that, since the life which we understand in the Father is essence, and the life of the Only-begotten which is begotten of the Father is also understood as essence, this particle, "so," indicates the likeness of essence to essence (let him be anathema).

XI. And if anyone, hearing the voice saying, “He created me,” and “He begot me,” does not think that “He begot me” pertains to the same Being and according to the same essence, but says that it is the same...

^A impassibly perfect Being, but solely confesses Him to be a creature and no longer a Son, as Wisdom has delivered the sense of the two [terms] to us devoutly—let him be anathema. And if anyone, while the Son reveals to us His similarity to His own Father according to essence through those words which He says: “For as the Father has life in himself, so also He has given the Son to have life in himself,” while he [the Son] teaches the similarity according to operation through those words: “For whatever the Father does, these things also the Son does likewise”—if anyone grants only the similarity according to operation, but withdraws from the Son the similarity according to essence, which is the most essential head of our faith, depriving himself of the eternal life which consists in the knowledge of the Father and the Son—let him be anathema. ^B And if anyone, professing to believe in the Father and the Son, does not say that the Father is of an essence similar to Him [the Son], but [only] of operation, as one daring to utter profane novelties of speech against the essence of the Son of God, and overturning the true property of the Son—let him be anathema. And if anyone, understanding the Son to be similar in essence to Him whose Son He is understood to be, should say that the Son is absolutely the same as the Father, or a part of the Father, or that the Son who subsists from the incorporeal Father is incorporeal through some efflux and passion, after the manner of corporeal sons—let him be anathema. And if anyone, because the Father is never understood to be Son, and the Son is never understood to be Father, saying that the Son is other than the Father, because the Father is one and the Son is another, as it is said: “Another is He who bears witness concerning me,” and, “For he who sent me, the Father, bears witness,” ^C says that the Son is dissimilar in essence to the Father because of this pious property of the persons of the Father and of the Son understood in the Church, lest the Son be thought to be the same as the Father—let him be anathema. And if anyone should think the Father was a father to the only-begotten Son in time, and not above times, and does not believe that the only-begotten Son subsisted from the Father impassibly according to all human reasonings, as one transgressing the apostolic preaching, which rejects all space of time regarding the Father and the Son, but faithfully instructs us: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”—let him be anathema. And if anyone should say that the Father is temporally older than the only-begotten Son born of Himself, or say that the Son is younger than the Father ^D regarding time—let him be anathema. And if anyone should refer the timeless subsistence of the only-begotten Christ proceeding from the Father to the unbegotten essence of God, calling Him, as it were, a Son-Father—let him be anathema. And if anyone should define the Father of the only-begotten Son by power alone, and not by power and essence together as Father of the only-begotten Son, as though grasping only the power and making Him common with the rest of the created works, and not truly calling Him the genuine Son from the Father—let him be anathema. And if anyone...

asserting the Father to exist simultaneously in power and substance as Father of the Son, should say that the Son is consubstantial or of the same substance as the Father, let him be anathema.

Subscribed by: Basil, Eustathius, Hyperechius, Letoius, Heorticus, Gymnasius, Memnonius, Eutyches, Severinus, Eutychius, Alcimedes, Alexander.

Thus I believe as it is written above, and by my subscription I confess it. The memorandum concerning Basil and George and their associates is completed.

XII. The name of substance least of all indeed in

Therefore, in number 1, toward the end, he professes that he is appending two letters; one of Basil, the other of Basil and George of Laodicea, and the other Semiarians. The former of these is subjoined from number 2 up to 12; the second is none other than that which follows from this very number 12 onwards. Which indeed Epiphanius himself signifies without any ambiguity, who, in number 23, after that long dispute proposed from number 12, speaks thus: "These letters were placed for the sake of each of the learned knowing," etc. These letters, moreover, have been appended by us here, etc. Therefore, more letters preceded. And what other is there, if not the one we have said, which is contained from number 12 to 23 exclusively? Thus indeed the matter stands. It was the fault of the scribes who thought that all these things ought to be subscribed to the prior synodal letter: "The memorandum concerning Basil and George is completed." That this is false, one thing is proof: that that synodal letter was not written by George, but in his absence, and was issued by Basil and the others gathered at Ancyra by occasion of his letters, as they testify at the beginning. Wherefore it ought to be distinguished thus: "Completed." (That is: Thus far the synodal letter). Then, what remains is the lemma of the following dissertation: "The memorandum concerning Basil and George." For it is not so much a letter as a fuller exposition of faith, with their narrative of what happened in the setting of the new formula at Sirmium between Ursacius, Valens, and Basil, George, and the remaining Semiarians. Although this very little commentary could have been sent by the Eastern Semiarians to the Council of Ariminum and the Western bishops in the manner of a letter: for it seems to have been written down at the same time in which Valens...

^A in the Old and New Testament, it is not explicitly found, but the meaning is expressed everywhere; and first from those things which God said when He sent Moses: "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel: He Who Is," as applied to the Father, who is primarily understood, from whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named, who is neither from anyone, and is the cause of being for those things that exist. But since the Son is also He Who Is, and received that which is said from the Gospel according to John, "In the beginning was the Word," etc., Paul of Samosata and Marcellus seized an occasion for error, no longer wishing to acknowledge the Son of God as truly Son, but ^B having taken occasion from the name of Word, I mean, from a spoken word and utterance, they wished to call the Son of God [a mere word]. The Fathers, therefore, who condemned Paul of Samosata, were compelled by such a question, in order to show that the Son has hypostasis and is existing, and is "He Who Is," and not a spoken word, to call the Son also a substance, pointing out the difference between that which is in itself non-existent and that which is existing by the name of substance. For a spoken word is in itself non-existent; and it cannot be the Son of God, since in this way there would be many sons of God. For it is admitted by all that the Father speaks many things to the Son, when He says: "Let there be a firmament; Let there be lights; Let the earth ^C bring forth," and: "Let us make man." Thus the Father speaks to the Son. But those very words which the Father uses toward the Son are not sons. But the Son, whom the Father addresses, among other appellations, is also called bread, life, and resurrection, and finally Word, because He is the interpreter of God's will. Lest, therefore, the heretics, deceiving the simpler folk, should say that the Son is the same as the words spoken by God, the Fathers, showing the difference of the Son of God from the words of God, called the Son a substance; thus demonstrating the difference, that God is "Existing," and the words which He speaks are "things that exist," but they are not substances of God, but speaking energies. But the Son, being the Word, is not a speaking ^D energy of God, but being the Son, He is a substance. For if the Father is Existing, and the Son is Existing—and the Son is so existing as having his being genuinely from God—the Son shall be thought of as the Word, not as the words which are spoken through God. For those possess their being in the speaker; but He has His being by being begotten of the Father, and by listening to the Father, and by ministering to the Father. This hypostasis, therefore, the Fathers called substance. XIII. We consider, therefore, the Son to be like the Father in all things, and we struggle against the heresy that is now springing up against the Church, which was compelled by the emperor to subscribe [to a formula], which asserted that the Son is like the Father in all things, as will be clear from no. 22, to which I will add some things that pertain to this. You see, reader, of how great importance the matter is that has followed from so slight an observation, so that the disputation of the heretics, which falsely sold itself under the name and authority of Epiphanius, being known at length after a long interval and restored to its own authors, might cease to deceive readers by the appearance and simulation of so great a name.

^A For the heresy existing now declares the Son to be like the Father in will and energy, but unlike the Son to the Father—a doctrine contrived by these new heretics, who claim that the will and energy of the Son are similar to the will and energy of the Father, yet the Son himself is unlike the Father. They wish the will and energy of the Son to be similar to the will and energy of the Father, yet they do not wish the Son to be similar to the Father, because they claim that the Son was not generated from God, but is merely a creature, though one who excels other creatures because he surpasses them in magnitude, because he existed before all things, and because God used him as a minister for the creation of the rest. Since, say the heretics, God made other things through the Son, but did not create the Son himself through any intermediate agent, but rather created him by himself, making him excel all things in magnitude and power. For ^B this reason He called him the only-begotten Son.

XIV. We, however, who are numbered in the part of the Catholic Church, having drawn our profession of faith from the divine Scriptures, hold firmly that the Father is the Father of a Son like himself, and that the Son is like the Father, from whom as Father the Son is conceived. In this we define our position, and thus we cleanse our minds against the Sabellians and the rest, insisting that the Son cannot be the Father, nor can the Father be the Son, but the Son is the Son, and the Father is the Father, and not the Son. For ^C in these things lies the accuracy of the discernment of the persons, in that we define the Father to be always the Father, incorporeal and immortal, and the Son to be always the Son, and never the Father. And when we say "always," we mean that his hypostasis is beyond all time and beyond the comprehension of the intellect, but that he at last took on flesh according to the will of the Father, and endured death for our sake.

These things having been clarified, those wonderful champions of heresy hasten to accomplish two things: one, that we should no longer say "Father and Son," but "innate and begotten," thinking by this sophism of heresy to infiltrate the Church. For the wise know the things of God, that "innate" is less than the name of "Father." For "innate" ^D signifies only that he was not begotten, but it does not yet signify whether he is Father. But the name "Father" is greater than the name "innate." For in the "innate," I say, the power of the Father is not manifested; but in the name "Father," it is at once apparent that the Father is not the Son, if "Father" is understood properly, and that he is the cause of his own like Son. This is one thing. The other is that they have already written that the Son is unlike the Father in essence. Just as, therefore, they thought they could vote against the Church through those things which they hunted down from the letters of the venerable bishop Hosius, in which the "unlike in essence" is carried. But since, having returned from...

written in their documents. By this term they thought they could condemn the Church in those letters which they had fraudulently extorted from the venerable bishop Hosius, in which "dissimilar essence" is read. But when the Orientals, having set out for Sirmium, had embraced the depravity of this heresy together with other things, lest they should be compelled to render an account on account of those who had not hesitated to subvert the Oriental profession of faith, they attempted to banish from all ecclesiastical doctrine the term "substance," which had been brought into use by the Fathers for the causes we have touched upon, so that by this means they might corroborate their own heresy.

^B 862 XV. For thus they thought among themselves: if, the term "substance" being excluded, they should say the Son is like the Father in action and will alone, it would be permitted to them, with the term "substance" utterly removed, to pronounce the Son thereafter dissimilar to the Father, as far as pertains to his being and existence. But God, the vindicator of truth, who catches the wise in their craftiness [cf. Job 5:13; 1 Cor. 3:19]... who, by asserting that his only-begotten Son is like the Father in all things, made an open profession before the religious emperor. For he himself, indeed, being pious, thought nothing differently concerning his own patron and protector, the unique Son of God, and what he thought he proclaimed with a pious mouth in all things: that which we Catholics believe, that the Son is like the Father; and that through him the insidious craftiness of the heretics against the ecclesiastical faith would not make its own advances, which attempts to extinguish the term "substance" with this counsel, so that the term "substance" no longer being pronounced, the heresy lurking at last in their hearts may spread with impunity. ^C Yet those who wrote that the Son is like in will but unlike in substance, the very same men, if they have in good faith and sincerely confessed him to be the same in all things, we shall discover their attempts to be most vain, while they strive with all contention to steal away the term "substance." For if in all things, as they assert, the Son is like to the Father, as is the truth, he is so not by will and action alone, as is their pleasure, but by existence and substance; and in that very fact that he is the Son, it is necessary that he be like: for this formula of speaking, "in all things," embraces the whole, and admits no discrimination, since it is a matter confessed among all, that ^D neither is the Father like to himself, nor the Son like to himself, but the Son is like to the Father, and, by that very fact that he is like to the Father in all things, he is the Son, not the Father, who indeed was begotten perfectly from the perfect Father before all thought, and all reason, and times, and ages from the likeness of the Father, in the way that the Father alone knows, who begat him from himself without any passion, but also the Son knows, who received from him that he should be; finally, he also knows, to whom he may have revealed it, and to whom he may have granted, in the contemplation of his Father, the understanding that is fitting for him.

863 XVI. But let not the naming of "hypostases" disturb anyone. For this reason "hypostases" are used by the Orientals, that the properties of the persons appearing...

and existing might be recognized. For even if the Father is spirit, and the Son is spirit, and the Holy Spirit is spirit, the Son is not understood as the Father. And the Spirit also subsists, yet it is not understood as the Son—which is not the case (the Spirit is not understood as the Son, but the Holy Spirit also subsists). And it is no longer the Holy Spirit, nor the Father, nor the Son, but Holy Spirit from the Father, given to the faithful through the Son. Accordingly, the Orientals term the properties of the subsisting persons, as we have said before, "hypostases" of the subsisting and existing Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, not saying that the three hypostases are three principles or three gods. For they anathematize anyone who says there are three gods. And neither do they say that the Father and the Son are two gods. For they confess that there is one divinity, ^B which contains all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit; they confess one divinity, and one kingdom, and one authority. Nevertheless, they piously recognize the persons in the properties of the hypostases, understanding the Father as subsisting in the paternal authority, and confessing the Son—not as a part of the Father, but purely as perfect begotten of the perfect—as subsisting; and recognizing the Holy Spirit, whom the divine Scripture calls Paraclete, as subsisting from the Father through the Son. As the Paraclete, the spirit of truth, teaches us the truth, which is the Son—for no one says, "Lord Jesus," except in the Holy Spirit—so too the Son, who is truth, will teach us piously to know the true God, his own Father, as he says: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Therefore, in the Holy Spirit we piously understand the Son, and in the only-begotten Son we piously and worthily glorify the Father. And this is the seal of the faith, in which seal the Savior and Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to be baptized, saying: "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

^C XVII. For although the perfect likeness of the Son to the Father in all things has been spoken of more fully elsewhere, yet even now we will not hesitate to note briefly that the Apostle, having called the Son the image of the invisible God, and having in this taught that the Son is like the Father, has elsewhere disclosed how the Son must be understood. For in the Epistle to the Philippians he says: "Who, being in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal to God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men." ^D And writing to the Romans: "For what was impossible for the law, in which it was weak through the flesh, God having sent his own Son in the likeness of flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Thus, then, from the two testimonies taken from the two Epistles, we learn of the conception of likeness from the corporeal nature, that we may also understand it in the incorporeal Father and Son.

^A For those words, *taking the form of a servant, and* being made *in the likeness of men*, declare that He took to Himself flesh from the Virgin. Wherefore that very flesh which the Son of God put on is the same as the flesh of other men; yet He is said to be in the likeness of men, because He was not begotten by male seed and intercourse in the manner of men. Just as in a similar manner, the Son, being spirit, and a Spirit begotten of the Father—insofar as spirit is from spirit, He is the same with Him, just as insofar as He is flesh from flesh, namely Mary’s, He is the same with that flesh—yet insofar as He was begotten of the Father without efflux, passion, or division, He is like the Father; and He is not the same as He is in the likeness of men according to the flesh, nor is He in all things the same as man.

XVIII

of God, who is before all ages, and who by nature is God of God the Father, when He was made man from the Virgin Mary contrary to His own nature, should in that very thing, which He had contrary to nature, be accounted like to human beings by nature: for it was contrary to nature for Him, being God, to become man; but that in that which is natural to Him, He should not be like the Father who begat Him. For if in that which is contrary to His nature He is like those to whom that property belongs by nature, much more will He be like in that which is natural and inherent to Him, to that Father from whom He is naturally and legitimately begotten. Hence, therefore, we conclude that which we have said, that the Son of the Father is to be proclaimed by the authority of the sacred Books as being like in all things, just as the Apostle handed down to us the notion of "like" in those things which we have just mentioned. For He is "like" in that He is life from life, light from light, true from true, and wisdom from the wise. And in a word ^B it is established by the Scriptures, not only by His action and will, but according to this very thing that He is, and subsists, and exists, that He is like in all things to the Father who begat Him, just as a son is like a father.

XIX. But if those new heretics, discussing with us, say "ingenerate" and "generate," we shall reply to them: Since you reject the name of "substance," which the Fathers used because it does not exist in Scripture, under bad faith, neither do we accept the word "ingenerate," as not expressed in writing. For the Apostle calls Him incorruptible, and invisible, and ^C immortal; but Scripture nowhere named Him "ingenerate." Moreover, because, as was said before, "ingenerate" nowhere signifies the notion of the Father, and nowhere signifies the generated Son specifically, but shares the notion in common with all generated things. For one who says "generated," while he signifies that He has come to be, nowhere indicates Him who is eternally understood as the Son. Wherefore, eternally thinking of the Son of God, we do not accept this [term] besides, because the name of Father and Son signifies a relative relation. Wherefore, even if we name only "Father," we have the notion of the Son understood along with the name of the Father. For a father is called the father of a son. And even if we name only "Son," we have the notion of the Father, because a son is called the son of a father. For one ^D holds the other, and the relation is not broken. But also, either one being named alone introduces the notion of the other, and not the name only, but along with the name, the kinship of nature. For thinking of God as Father, we think of the Father of God; and thinking of the Son of God, we think of God whom the Son of God is said to be, and like to Him according to nature, of whom also He is understood to be the Son. But "ingenerate" is not called the ingenerate of the generated, nor "generate" the generated of the ingenerate.

XX. Since, therefore, the terms "ingenerate" and "generate" have no relation to one another, nor do they imply the nature, but communicate in common with other created things

we shall reject such names, but we shall use the appellation of Father and Son holily and perpetually. First, because we who have been called from the Gentiles were not baptized into "ingenerate" and "generate," but into the Father and the Son; and furthermore, because the Son is nowhere found calling his own Father "ingenerate," but has always called God Father, and himself the Son of God (a few things [must be] noted), hearing him say: "If you loved me, you would rejoice because I go to my Father." And: "Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, do you rail at me because I said: I am the Son of God?" And: "I came forth from the Father, and I am come. I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; again I leave the world, and go to the Father." Likewise, the confession of Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And the Father from above: "This is my beloved Son." And because the Father is mentioned in this way as belonging to the Son, and the Son to the Father, and we have been sealed, I repeat, in these very names, we shall always use these, warding off the profane novelties of words that oppose the apostolic faith. ^B For what was said by the Father, "In the splendors of the saints, from the womb before the morning star I have begotten you," has been spoken of necessity; and it will withdraw the Son of the Father—the Son who is specifically and properly begotten from him—from the commonality with created things, by means of the word "from the womb," which instructs us. Just as in the same way the Son, having said, "The Lord created me," lest we suspect his nature to be common with other created things, necessarily added: "Before all the hills he begat me," manifesting to us the pious and passionless conception of his Sonship from God the Father. But the Father once, and the Son once, for the sake of the pious genuineness of God which we have spoken of, set forth the term "begotten" for us; but the whole New Testament is full of the names of Father and Son.

XXI. That we may be able to distinguish the architects of this new heresy by their own marks

said to be; he cannot therefore preserve the likeness of nature with the ingenerate. But he preserves God's will, which he possesses whole and sincere in his own hypostasis. Wherefore, he does indeed preserve likeness, but not in nature; rather, he does so in the realm of will, inasmuch as he produced [the Son] such as he willed." And again: "How is it that you do not yourself admit to me that in substance the Son is not like the Father?" And again: "Since, then, the Son is acknowledged to be without end, not having life from his own nature, but from the power of the ingenerate; and the ingenerate nature is without end and superior to all power; ^A how is it not manifest that these impious men betray themselves, when they change the proclamation of piety with the 'heteroousios' [different substance] by means of a likeness of substance?" And again: "Wherefore the name 'Father' is not declarative of substance, but of power, which brought forth the Son as God the Word before all ages, who without end was in him, having been bestowed power, which, while having it, he continues to be, both substance and power." And again: "They wish 'Father' to be declarative of substance, and not of power; let them call the person of the Only-Begotten by the name of 'Father' [as well]." ^B

XXII. We shall now say to these modern heretics: "You wrote that he is 'like according to will, but unlike according to substance'; for this reason we wrote back that he is like not according to imitation alone, but also according to substance." Since, therefore, you were the first to make mention of substance, by saying he is unlike according to substance, and for this reason you strive to have the name of 'substance' removed, so that you might speak of the Son as being 'like' only according to will—if you truly agree that the Son is like the Father in all things, anathematize those who speak of a difference of likeness; and write as follows: "If anyone does not say that the Son is like the Father in all things, as a son is like a father, but says he is like according to will, yet unlike according to substance, let him be anathema." ^C And after this, if they wish to make mention of the name of substance, and contradict their own signatures—making mention of substance everywhere—let them also agree with what the Fathers have confessed: that the Son is like unto the Father, not only according to will, but according to being, and according to subsisting, and according to existing in all things universally, as a son unto a father, as the divine Scriptures testify.

On the Confession of Faith (51) concerning the 'like'

(51) *On the Confession of Faith.* This, whether added by Nicolaus Faber in the Preface to the fragments of Hilary to the previous ^D *Commentariolus* of the Semi-Arians, or belonging to the *Commentariolus* itself: in which, besides the exposition of the faith, were recorded certain Minutes (*Acta*) of Basil and George; which the latter prefers more. It must be known, however, that the profession of which he speaks is that third one which was published at Sirmium, which Socrates and Sozomen falsely assert was written in the Sirmian synod. For it was born at last in the year 359, in the consulship of Eusebius and Hypatius, on the 11th of the Kalends of June, as Athanasius teaches in his book *De synodis*. Which day was the eve of Pentecost, as Epiphanius testifies in this place. See the dispute, page 375. Therefore, after the Ancyran council, Basil and other legates of the Semi-Arians went to the emperor at Sirmium and obtained letters from him against Eudoxius and the Anomoeans. Then, by the counsel of the same, the emperor decided to convene a new synod to settle the affairs of the Church of Antioch, which Eudoxius had occupied against the canons, and at the same time to defeat the impiety of Aetius and the Anomoeans; which we declared above in the synopsis of years. Later, when the bishops could in no way agree upon the city where the assembly could be held, Basil [returned] to the emperor in the year 349.

^A is defined to be in all things similar to the Father, they subscribed [as follows]: Marcus, bishop of Arethusa, thus I believe and hold in accordance with what is written above; and those who were present [did] likewise. Valens, however, [wrote] thus: How we submitted, on the night when Pentecost was dawning, the aforementioned subscription, those who were present know, as does the pious emperor, to whom I bore witness both without a document and with one. But after this, since Valens had subscribed in his own accustomed habit, and had added to the subscription that the Son is similar to the Father, but had not added "in all things," and had shown how he agreed with what was written above, and the pious emperor had noted how he understood the "consubstantial"—and had compelled him to add "in all things," which he did indeed add—Basil suspected that the words "in all things" had been added by [Valens] of his own mind and sense, as he wanted to have a copy of that confession with his own men, which he might bring with him to the synod of Ariminum, Basil, bishop of Ancyra, subscribed in this manner: ^B I believe and consent to those things which are written above, confessing the Son to be similar to the Father in all things. And when I say "in all things," I do not understand it only according to the will, but according to the subsistence, and according to the existence, and according to the being, as Son according to the holy Scriptures; spirit from spirit, life from life, light from light, God from God, true Son from true [God], wisdom, Son from wise God and Father; and simply in all things [confessing] the Son to be similar to the Father, as son to father. And if anyone should say that He is similar in any respect, as is written above, [I believe him] to be alien to the catholic Church, as not saying the Son is similar to the Father according to the holy Scriptures. This subscription was read, and was given to Valens, in the presence of the bishops Marcus, George, Ursacius, Germanus, [and] Hypatianus, and many presbyters and deacons.

^C XXIII. These letters have been appended here by us, that every learned man and student of the true faith might understand that we do not inveigh against certain people idly and without cause, but that we wish to rest upon the most certain proofs. Furthermore, those same men again departed from their own [ways], when, on account of private hatreds and human rivalries, they provoked one another with quarrels and struggled against one another.

He flies to Sirmium. For the prior departure occurred in the previous year, in which the Council of Ancyra was also celebrated. There, when he had encountered Ursacius, Valens, Marcus of Arethusa, George of Alexandria, Germinius, and other leaders of the Arian faction, he engaged with them, and after a long altercation, at length, with Constantius laboring for it, consent was reached by all in that profession of faith, so that, with the terms "consubstantial" and "co-essential" abolished, they affirmed the Son to be similar to the Father in all things. To this Valens unwillingly subscribed; but Basil, because he could by no means obtain that in the formula itself the Son should be called similar in substance, wished in his subscription to testify to what he believed, as Epiphanius narrates in this place. Valens immediately traveled to the Council of Ariminum with this formula of faith. Among the fragments of Hilary, a letter of Germinius exists, from which this also is to be learned: When the disputation about the faith had been extended until night with Constantius present—and had been brought to a certain rule—Marcus of Arethusa was chosen by both sides, by whom that Sirmium formula was dictated; to which the consuls were prefixed. From these it appears that Germinius, though until then he had been of the treachery of the Anomoeans with Valens and Ursacius—with whom he had also driven Osius to remove the terms from the middle, as Sozomen writes in book IV, chapter 11—had deviated a little from them, and, with the mention of the "substance" suppressed, had acknowledged the similarity of the Son to the Father in all things.

^A And the faction of these Semiarians, I mean those around Basil, Georgius, and Silvanus and the rest, was then strengthened, having with them, as the arm of flesh, the Emperor Constantius, and those around Eudoxius and Georgius the Alexandrian, and Euzoius the Antiochene. And those around Basil and Georgius the Laodicean were humbled, although they had been very powerful. From among them, again, others of the same heresy and council were divided; and the Arian system resulted in three factions. For Acacius the Palestinian, of Caesarea, together with Meletius, and Uranius the Tyrian, and Eutychius the Eleutheropolitan, because of the zeal and hatred they felt toward Cyril of Jerusalem, set themselves against those around Basil, ^B and Georgius the Laodicean, and Silvanus the Tarsian, and Eleusius of Cyzicus, and Macedonius the Constantinopolitan, and Eustathius of Sebaste, and Anianus the Antiochene—who had been installed at that time, and against whom the same Acacius had waged his own campaign, causing great confusion. And they became divided against one another, holding a doctrine that was in one sense orthodox in intent, but each confessing it differently; and, being split, they were torn into the three aforementioned factions. For Acacius and those with him neither confessed the consubstantial nor that He was a creature as one of the creatures, although they were in fact the same; but having secretly, for the sake of the time, suppressed the term "creature," they were entirely such as [alt-version omitted] ^{C D}

^A the Arians; for they were lurking at that time, holding no other view but this, because of those mingled with them who were by nature orthodox, but were acting as hypocrites and feigning the right hand of the Emperor, and were afraid, and were holding enmity toward one another, wishing to take their stand. For Eutychius of Eleutheropolis, as one who had held the clear faith of orthodoxy from the blessed Maximus, the confessor and bishop of Jerusalem, did not join himself to the party of Acacius because of his enmity toward Cyril; he indeed held to the orthodox faith for a time, yet acted as a hypocrite for the sake of his own throne. And there were many other bishops of Palestine for whose sake Acacius and those with him, having the same frenzy and mad godlessness, for the time being stirred up nothing regarding these dogmas, neither confessing nor denying them; but gathering at Seleucia, which is called the Rugged, in Isauria, by the order of the Emperor Constantius, they set forth another formula of faith, not such as the Fathers had once established in the city of Nicaea, the orthodox and well-ordered one, but craftily and fictitiously, as though speaking with guileless simplicity, they wrote it down in this manner:

XXIV. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, etc., and in the Son of God, etc.

^A whom shame holds back, nor are they forced by any command to put on some mask and appearance of feigned behavior, lest they seem to be setting in motion something new and unusual. But I will gladly transcribe here the formulation of the faith which Acacius with his party proposed there, together with the subscription of those who attended that synod. It is of this sort:

Exposition of the faith issued in the conciliabule of Seleucia.

XXV. We, the bishops who have assembled from various provinces at Seleucia in Isauria by the command of the most pious emperor, our Constantine, have decreed these things by common consent:

Yesterday, which was the fifth day before the Kalends of October, we applied all diligence and moderation to the task of securing the peace of the Church and establishing a steadfast and solid rule of faith, according to what our most God-loving emperor Constantius ^B ordered, in accordance with the prophetic oracles, so that we might introduce nothing into the ecclesiastical faith beyond the authority of the Holy Scriptures. But since, in the synod, some have treated certain of our number with insults, while others they have silenced, not permitting them to speak, and others they have unwillingly excluded; and since they have brought with them those who had been deposed from various provinces, and have led with them those who were ordained contrary to the canon, so that the assembly became from all quarters full of turmoil—as the most illustrious count Leonas and the most illustrious governor of the province, Lauricius, witnessed with their own eyes—for this reason we declare openly that we do not shrink from bringing forward the authentic faith [published] at the dedication at Antioch, ^C as those very Fathers of ours at that time also gathered to resolve the inquiry that lay before them.

^B Since the terms *homousion* (consubstantial) and *homoiousion* (of like substance) have disturbed many people in times past and even up to the present day, and since even now the term *anomoion* (dissimilar) is said by some to be an innovation regarding the Son in relation to the Father, for this reason we reject the term *homousion* as external to the Scriptures, and we anathematize the *anomoion*, and we consider all those who are of such a mind to be strangers to the Church. But we clearly confess that the Son is "like" the Father, according to the Apostle who says concerning the Son: *Who is the image of the invisible God* (Coloss. 1, 15).

We also confess and believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things seen and unseen. We also believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of Him impassibly before all ages, God the Word, God from God, only-begotten, light, life, truth, wisdom, power, through whom all things were made, those in the heavens and those upon the earth, whether seen or unseen. We believe that He, for the blotting out of sin, took on flesh from the holy Virgin at the end of the ages, and became man, suffered for our sins, and rose again, and was taken up into the heavens, sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit, whom our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ called the Paraclete, and promised that after His departure He would send to the disciples, which He did send, by whom He also sanctifies those in the Church who believe and are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. ^C But the Catholic Church knows as strangers those who preach any other thing besides this faith. And that the faith formerly set forth at Sirmium, during the piety of our emperor, is equivalent to this faith, those who read the faith recognize.

XXVI. Those present subscribed: Basil, Marcus, and George, the bishop of Alexandria.

^A Pancratius, Hypatianus, and most of the bishops of the West. I, George, bishop of Alexandria, have set forth this confession of faith as follows: I profess to hold the view as stated. I, Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, have set forth this confession of faith as follows: I profess to hold the view as stated. Uranius, bishop of Tyre; Eutychius, bishop of Eleutheropolis; Zoilus, bishop of Larissa in Syria; Seras, bishop of Parætonium in Libya; Paulus, bishop of Emesa; Eustathius, bishop of Epiphaneia; Irenæus, bishop of Tripolis in Phoenicia; Eusebius, bishop of Seleuceia in Syria; Eutychianus, bishop of Patara in Lycia; Eustathius, bishop of the Pinaras and Didymi; Basilius, bishop of the Caunians in Lydia; Petrus, bishop of Hippos in Palestine; Stephanus, bishop of Ptolemais in Libya; Eudoxius, bishop; ^B Apollonius, bishop of Oxyrhynchus; Theoctistus, bishop of Ostracine; Leontius, bishop of Lydia; Theodosius, bishop of Philadelphia in Lydia; Phœbus, bishop of Polychalanda in Lydia; Magnus, bishop of Themiscyra in Phrygia; Evagrius, bishop of Mytilene of the islands; Cyrion, bishop of Doliche; Augustus, bishop of Euphratesia; Polydeuces, bishop of the second province of Libya; Pancratius, bishop of Pelusium; Philicadus, bishop of Augustadora in the province of Phrygia; Serapion, bishop of Antipyris in Libya; Eusebius, bishop of Sebaste in Palestine; Heliodorus, bishop of Sozusa in the Pentapolis; Ptolemæus, bishop of Thmuis in Augustamnica; Augarus, bishop of Cyrus in Euphratesia; Exeresius, bishop of Gerasa; the bishop of the Arabians of Adraa; Charisius, bishop of Azotus; Elissæus, bishop of Diocletianopolis; Germanus, bishop of Petra; ^C Barochius, bishop of Arabia. In all, forty-three bishops.

The exposition of the aforementioned Semi-Arians and Arians is completed up to this point.

XXVII. Those of sound mind, having examined this 66 and the other

faith-expositions of this kind

^A you who read these expositions of the faith, in which there is some measure of prudence and judgment, consider, I pray you, how crafty and malicious is the plan of one of the sides of that sect, and how it holds nothing sound, nor is it even in the slightest degree consonant with the profession of divine faith. For the Lord has thus admonished: "What you hear in the ear, preach upon the housetops." And as the holy Apostle exhorts: "Let each one speak truth with his neighbor." But the Prophet declares their wickedness not without reproach: "He speaks peaceful things with his neighbor, but in his heart he has enmity," or malice. Such is this Acacius with his followers. For when they had separated themselves from Basil and his adherents, desiring to dissolve the bond and nexus of the true confession, they published a certain adulterated profession of faith ^B—one easy to refute and flexible in all directions—so that, from the very formula of the words conceived, if they wished to impose upon any, they could appear to present a just and legitimate confession. But if they desired to reveal the poison of their own perdition, such a profession of faith was at hand for them which, looking in both directions, could express something apt for whatever pretense they had. But since in this conventicle of Acacius, which is separated from the other two—for we have already said that the Arian sect was divided into three parts: wherefore Eudoxius, Germanus, Georgius of Alexandria, and Euzoius of Antioch were segregated into one faction; but Basil, Eleusius, Eustathius, Georgius of Laodicea, Sylvanus of Tarsus, Macedonius of Constantinople, and many others in like manner were divided into one group; ^C and Acacius again, as I have said before, with Meletius, Eutychius, and certain others, have become another group, and the whole business was full of trickery; for each one held what the other held; they were divided into schisms against one another, either by some hatred they had for one another, because Cyril of Jerusalem fostered mutual enmities with Eutychius, and Eutychius with Cyril; and Cyril was together with Basil the Galatian, and Anianus who had been ordained at Antioch, and Georgius of Laodicea—but what does it avail to waste time dividing and recounting their gatherings? I come, therefore, to refute them all and to overturn the wickedness of each one's craftiness. But it seems necessary to speak first of what happened afterward. For this very thing turned out for some unto goodness, and for others unto wickedness. ^D 876 To overturn the wickedness of their craftiness. But... Chapter XXVIII. For Meletius, having been ordained bishop at Antioch by those around Acacius—for from this point arose the opposition of Acacius, in order that he might avert, even a little, from their heterodox opinion, and pretend himself to be among the orthodox, by the very fact that he confirmed the aforementioned Meletius in that ordination: for this Meletius, having been ordained by the Acacians...

^A was thought by them to be of their own opinion. But he was not found to be so, as many report concerning him. For now, those who have attached themselves to him and to his order, because he was driven away and cast out from his own throne, and through the passage of time and the delay caused by his exile, have come forward and joined themselves to him, being orthodox for the sake of God. For there were indeed more people of this assembly of the synod, who, having appointed themselves as bishops, wonderfully confess concerning the Son, and do not cast out the consubstantial; but they say that they have this ready as well, if a perfect synod should be gathered, to confess it and not deny it. For it so happened that the aforementioned most venerable man, having been established by the Arians of the party of Acacius, ^B at his first discourse, as a first-fruit, preached in the church at Antioch; and as the majority say, he did so in an orthodox manner; and I shall set forth his discourse here. And it is as follows.

Copy of the homily of Meletius.

XXIX. The most wise Ecclesiastes says that the end of a matter is better than its beginning; in so much as it is better and safer to cease from the contention of speaking than to begin it; especially when the same Ecclesiastes says: ^C *This is the wisdom of the poor man, and which is despised, and his words are not heard* (Eccl. IX, 16). Since the body is not one member, but many; and all the members are anxious for one another, so that there may be no schism in the body; and the head cannot say to the feet: *I have no need of you* (1 Cor. XII, 24). But God has tempered the body, having given more abundant honor to that which lacked. That it is therefore unpardonable for the whole body not to be moved when the members are moved, is evident of itself.

What beginning, then, might one make of a discourse to you? Is it not clear that, for every word and work that is begun, it is fitting to make peace the beginning and the end, and to begin from it, and to conclude in it? For this is what the Apostle says, that one shall reach salvation through our prayers and the supply of the Spirit, which Jesus gives to those who believe in him. And whether one might speak for edification, or for exhortation, or for the consolation of love, or for the communion of the Spirit, it comes about through that which is according to God. ^D Not, however, to all indiscriminately, but to those who love the law, as the prophet says; not the bodily law, which has the image and shadow of things to come, but the spiritual one, which wisely reveals the outcome of the things foretold. *For great peace,* he says, *have they that love thee, and there is no scandal to them.* Whence it is clear that for those who have hated peace, scandal remains. And it is fitting for those who desire to be delivered from such things to...

protect themselves with charity toward the Lord, as if it were a shield. For He Himself is our peace, who ^A made both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, rendered the enmities in the flesh, and the law of commandments in dogmas, useless. Indeed, it is not possible to keep the commandment of the Lord unless the love of God takes precedence; for "If you love me," He says, "you shall keep my commandments"; nor can the eyes or the heart be illuminated unless the commandment sheds its light; for "The commandment of the Lord," He says, "is bright, enlightening the eyes." Nor can anyone utter a word of truth unless he has Christ speaking within himself, according to the one who says: "Do you seek a proof of Christ speaking in me?" or rather, not of Him only speaking, but also showing mercy. "Let thy mercy come upon me," he says, "and thy salvation, and I will answer those who reproach me with a word." This would in no way happen unless one sought His justifications. For those who are not thus disposed are characterized by shame in their reproaches, ^B to such an extent that they cannot use this prayer: "Take away from me reproach and contempt." For the word of truth is taken away from their mouth, so that he who prays in this manner perceives no fruit: "Do not take away the word of truth from my mouth."

XXX. When, however, does this come to pass? When someone does not observe the law at all times; when he does not walk in breadth. For it is necessary that the heart be dilated of him who wishes to contain Christ walking within him, whose glory not men, but the heavens declare: "For the heavens declare the glory of God," or rather the Father Himself, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." ^C And no one can confess Him who speaks iniquity in arrogance against his neighbor; nor if he should call him into that assembly and designation of antichrists, having departed from the order and designation of Christians—of whom it is written: "Do not touch my christs." For who, He says, is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This, He says, is the Antichrist. For he who denies the Son, neither has the Father; but he who confesses the Son, confesses also the Father. "What therefore," He says, "you have heard from the beginning, let this remain in you. And if," He says, "that which you have heard from the beginning remains in you, you shall also remain in the Son and in the Father." ^D And we shall remain then at last, when we shall confess [Him] before God and His elect angels, but also before kings, and shall not be ashamed. "For I spoke," He says, "of thy testimonies in the sight of kings, and I was not ashamed." If we confess this, I say, that the Son of God is God from God, one from one, only-begotten from only-begotten, a certain preeminent offspring of the One who begat, and the Son worthy of the One who is without beginning, a translator of the ineffable who is Himself ineffable, the Word, and His wisdom and power—He who [possesses] all wisdom and power

^A which the tongue is able to utter or the mind to set in motion; a perfect and abiding offspring, from a perfect and abiding One, remaining in identity; who did not flow forth from the Father, nor was He cut off or divided, but came forth passionlessly and integrally, from Him who lost nothing of what He possessed. And that He is the Word and is called the Son does not mean that He is the voice or the diction of the Father. For He subsists by Himself, and He acts, and through Him are all things, and in Him are all things; just as He is also Wisdom, not to be thought of as a mental conception of the Father, nor as an activity or movement of the ruling intellect, but as an offspring resembling the Father, and accurately expressing the image of the Father. For God the Father has sealed Him; and He does not exist within another, nor fail to subsist by Himself, but is an effective offspring, having created this entire universe and preserving it forever. These things are sufficient to deliver us from the error of the Greeks, and from Jewish will-worship, and from heretical wickedness.

^B XXXI. Since some, by twisting the sense of the words which are current in the Scriptures, and interpreting them otherwise than is fitting, neither understanding the power of the words nor the nature of the realities, dare to destroy the divinity of the Son, stumbling at the word of creation which is inserted in the Proverbs: "The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways for His works"; ^C whereas they ought to follow the life-giving Spirit, and not the letter that kills; for "the Spirit gives life"; come then, let us also dare to speak a little concerning these things, not because the matter has not been perfectly treated by those who spoke before us—for a man would have to be mad to say that—nor because you are in need of a teacher, for you yourselves are God-taught, but so that it may be manifest to your conscience concerning us, that we desire to share with you the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Believe, therefore, that neither elsewhere in Scripture, nor in the present passage, are the words of Scripture contrary to one another, even if they seem to conflict to those who are not sound in the faith, or who are weak in their judgment. And [believe] that no example among those in the world is sufficient ^D by itself to clearly represent the nature of the Only-Begotten. For this reason, Scripture has employed many concepts and appellations concerning the Only-Begotten, if by some means we might be able, through things familiar to us, to grasp what is above us, and through known things to imagine the unknown, being led forward gently and little by little from obvious things to what is hidden. Since, therefore, it was necessary for those who believe in Christ to believe that the Son is like the Father—inasmuch as He is the image of Him who is over all, who is through all, and through whom all things were created, both those in heaven and those on earth—and an image not as an inanimate thing of an animate one, nor as the operation of a craft, nor as the result of an act, but as an offspring of the Begetter:

and since it is unlawful for the generation of the Only-Begotten, which is prior to all ages, to be characterized by the bodily and human generation; ^A and as, according to the example of that wisdom which encompasses human thoughts, Scripture used both expressions—that of "creation" and that of "generation"—namely, "He created," and, "He begat," not so that opposite things should appear to be said about the same subject, but so that by the word "created," the substantial and permanent nature might be represented, and by the word "begat," the pre-eminent and peculiar status of the Only-Begotten might be set forth. "I," He says, "have come out from the Father, and I am going," although the very name of wisdom is sufficient to exclude every opinion of passion.

XXXII.

^A examining the grace and power of God, and inwardly burning [with the question] whether he has the nature to bring forth offspring from the aged one, what does he say? "How shall I know this, that it will be? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in her days." Therefore, when he heard, "Behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak," he did not speak when he went out.

XXXIII. ^A Therefore, leaving aside contentious disputes about uncertain matters and things that are above us, let us hold fast to what we have received. For who is he that dares to boast himself in knowledge, when even he who was deemed worthy of revelations, who was caught up to the third heaven, and who heard unspeakable words—when he, I say, was restrained by the thorn in the flesh, so that he might not be arrogant ^B and exalt himself? Nay, the Prophet who said, "I have believed, therefore I have spoken," says: "I was humbled," not just simply, but "greatly." For the closer one seems to approach to knowledge, the more he ought to consider with himself that he is a man. Concerning this, hear what he says: "I said in my alarm: Every man is a liar." Since, therefore, we have the teacher of truth, let us no longer have recourse to human teachers, but let us think for ourselves, and let us not be meddlesome as to modes, nor anything else. For just as the generation of the Son cannot be told, so no one can declare ^C the manner of the generation [of the Son] from the Father. But consider this enough for instruction, that "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made." May the Lord grant that we think according to Abraham, who says: "Now I have begun to speak to my Lord. But I am earth and ashes," and that we be not exalted like the cedars of Lebanon; because this smooth and peaceful wisdom is perfected not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in things learned by faith, ^D so that we do not waver, but whatever we do, we may please God and the Father, and with him the Son, and with him in the Holy Spirit, to whom be glory, power, honor, and might, now and always, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

The confession of Meletius is concluded.

XXXIV. ^D However, it seemed good to most of those of the Arian faction to remove him from the Pontic region; which brought them not the pleasure and ease they hoped for, but trouble. Therefore, they stir up the emperor, and intrigue against the man, because he would not confess the Son to be a perfect creature, and finally they drive him from his see. And the man is sent into exile by night, until the times of...

^A he who even to this day dwells in his own homeland and is to be pursued with singular honor and benevolence, both on other accounts and because of those things which we have now learned have been excellently accomplished by him; and because the Antiochenes, over whom he presides, at this time profess a sincere faith—those who no longer make any mention of a creature, not even slightly, but confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be consubstantial; three hypostases, one essence, and one divinity: which indeed the true faith affirms; which is deemed to have been handed down from our ancestors, and to be prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic. This faith, our Fathers and bishops who were gathered at the Nicene synod in the time of Constantine the Great and most blessed emperor, themselves professed. Would that the venerable Meletius himself might also profess it in this way, in accordance with those who are under him in Antioch and who elsewhere in some places think in this way! For there are also some who seem to hold communion with him, and yet blaspheme the Holy Spirit in their synod; for while they think rightly concerning the Son, they deem the Spirit Himself to be a creature and altogether alien to God. Regarding these, we shall speak with all accuracy according to our ability later, in the refutation of their heresy.

^B XXXV. Therefore, that man is held in high esteem by us, as I said, because of such reports concerning him as are spread abroad. For his life is otherwise grave and honest, his character excellent; in short, he is greatly beloved by the people because of the integrity of his life, which all everywhere extol with divine praises. Yet some, nevertheless—I know not whether moved by hatred toward him, or by envy, or finally wishing to magnify their own standing—have spread I know not what unfavorable reports about him; namely, that these disturbances against him were not stirred up on account of the Catholic faith, but on account of certain ecclesiastical matters and disputes which occurred between him and his clergy. Also that he admitted some to communion whom he had previously rejected and condemned with anathema. But we do not entirely assent to these things, as the matters which are daily being corrected in his assembly and council prevent us, and as it has been said before, they are handed down consistent with the profession of the right faith. For in this part, as far as we can attain by the weakness of our powers, we must retain the truth in all things. Indeed, whether in the very heat of speech something imprudent slipped out, I would not dare to affirm clearly, or whether it proceeded from a certain simplicity of heart, God knows. It is certain, indeed, that in his speech two or three points are found which do not lack cause for censure: first, that he understands those things which are said regarding the creature ^C as referring to the Son of God Himself and regarding His divinity, or at least in title; then when he speaks thus: *Higher than wisdom*, and if there be anything else of that sort.

XXXVI. But now that we have set forth a few things against their dogmas, we shall dismiss this heresy. Tell us, therefore, I beseech you, what the exile has been for so long a time. Regarding Meletius, indeed, and the threefold schism of the Church of Antioch, consult the same writers of ecclesiastical affairs. ^D You tell us, O you men, what it was that troubled you to say, *The Lord created me*, etc., concerning the uncreated Wisdom, and the Word of God. For many of the Fathers have done this, such as Ignatius the Martyr in his *Epistle to the Trallians*, Athanasius in his *De Decretis Nicænæ synodi*, and many others.

^A [consubstantial] consubstantial, confess it clearly to us, so that we may also recognize that you are our own and not strangers. For copper can be "of similar substance" to gold, tin to silver, and lead to iron. But your artificially and carefully turned fabrication of myths shall not deceive us. For if you wish to deceive certain people by claiming false excuses, saying that one ought not to say "consubstantial" lest we make a commingling of the Son with the Father, or of the Spirit with the Son and the Father, even in this your artificial argument has fallen. For we did not say "simulsubstantial" [commingled], but "consubstantial" [co-essential]; so that we might not confess anything changed from the Father, but God truly begotten of God, and not from elsewhere, nor from non-entities, but having proceeded from the Father timelessly and without beginning, ^B and begotten in an unspeakable manner, always existing with the Father, and never ceasing to be, but begotten, not a co-brother, not a forefather. For the "con-" is significant of two hypostases, yet not alien in nature; wherefore the bond of truth in this matter has been arranged by the Holy Spirit in the mouths of those who set this forth. And you see that there will be no excuse for you, nor are you able to speak against the orthodoxy and spit upon those who accept from you the hearing of your perverted argument: that if anyone says "consubstantial," he has confessed a commingling. For this will no longer be the case. For from "consubstantial" two will be signified, and from "consubstantial" its birth will be shown to be not alien to the Father. But you, having fabricated the "of similar substance," shall be refuted by the very name of the essence, and shall be condemned by your altered confession, not thinking what you say, but teaching what you think in a perverted way; for if he is not at all from Him, but is similar to Him, you have fallen very far from the truth. For with whatever materials one might wish to adorn the thing being depicted, ^C he would not make it equal to that which is depicted. For the work of construction is of one kind. But that which is begotten from something preserves in itself that which is similar in genus and equal in the nature of its genuineness. If, therefore, the Son is not begotten of the Father Himself, but is outside of Him, and is called "of similar substance" by you only by grace, you have given Him nothing, but have fallen from the grace that is from Him. For "he who does not honor the Son even as he honors the Father," the wrath of God remains upon him, the holy apostle says; and again: "I came forth from the Father, and I am coming," He who said: "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me"; He who says: "Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father."

XXXVII. Moreover, since these things have been discussed by me often, which we have previously stated for the purpose of overturning the root and stalk of this impious heresy, we think it sufficient to be here of the same refutations of the points mentioned above toward the root...

^A of those who are able to be overturned, and those who have schismatically separated from them—I mean those around Acacius and the others who, at Seleucia in Isauria, framed another confession of faith alien to the truth. Because we desired to bring into the light even that very document which was drawn up by them, we have placed it in its entirety above, immediately following the confession of Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea, which was written on behalf of them all. But that I may not appear—by ignoring this document, which works its evils in secret but has taken a muzzle upon its mouth, as if by a bridle for the sake of the time of hypocrisy—to have done so through forgetfulness, I wish to say a few things against it and against those who framed it, concerning the aforementioned Acacius, Euzoius, Eutychius, and the others. The proposed confession is indeed manifest, as it has altered the profession of the truth; but so that no one may say that we have spoken against them out of slander, let us show what, in the passage of time, was seen and detected in their aforementioned synod. ^B For from among them came Euzoius, who was in Caesarea, a disciple of those men; he succeeded Acacius after the deposition of Philumenus, who had been appointed by Cyril of Jerusalem, and after the deposition of Cyril the Elder, who had been set up by those around Eutychius, and after the deposition of Gelasius, who was again appointed by Cyril of Jerusalem—for he happened to be his sister’s son. For once those three had been appointed and, on account of their mutual strife, had fallen into inactivity, the aforementioned Euzoius was again appointed. From among them also was Gemellinus; from among them was Philip of Scythopolis; from among them was Athanasius of Scythopolis—men who not in secret, but with boldness, as those who have ceased from doing good, not only teach the decrees of Arius, but also fight for their own heresy and persecute those who teach the truth, no longer wishing to overturn them with words, ^C but also delivering the orthodox to enmities, wars, and swords. For they committed outrages not in one city and province alone, but in many.

XXXVIII. Such was that Lucius, who in Alexandria wrought such ^D horrendous and atrocious things against those who truly and sincerely profess the Son of God. For who among those endowed with divine wisdom does not recognize their sodality and faction day by day? How they publicly preach the Son of God to be a creature, and the Holy Spirit also to be a creature, and altogether alien to the essence of God. For regarding

the substance of God, nor hesitated to preach it publicly. For as for Eudoxius, from the time that George met with a most shameful end to his life in Alexandria, he easily obtained the position of leader, and flourished in grace and authority among those in whose hands lay the supreme power. ^A Eudoxius, therefore, from the flock of Hypatius and Eunomius, in order to accommodate himself to the times—being especially convicted and reproved—nevertheless retained the dogmas of the Anomoeans, but secretly and dissemblingly. Those whom he had previously relegated on account of that very abyss of impiety, he raised to power—Demophilus, I say, Hypatius, and Eunomius, the disciples of that Aetius: who, having been ordained deacon by George of Alexandria, was deported to the region of Taurus; from whom the origin of the Anomoeans flowed; so much so that from one single root, like thorns, all those heresies have sprouted. But in various ways—as on the branches and shoots of thorns—their wickedness, by means of interpretations of this nefarious heresy devised at one time or another and progressing for the worse, has poured its destruction and poison into the world, just as we shall say again later regarding this very sect of the Anomoeans. ^B But now, being content with what has been said thus far, since we have extinguished and routed this creature like some immense serpent, let us leave it trampled and dead, and turning to other things, let us attack the remaining heresies, with the help of God first of all invoked, so that we may be able to bring the work undertaken to a conclusion.

AGAINST THE PNEUMATOMACHI,

^C I. From these Semi-Arians and from the orthodox, a certain monster, so to speak, of biform and semi-ferine men has been stirred up against us: such as the storytellers have fashioned for us in the myths of centaurs, or Pans, or sirens. For some, having proceeded from the Arian discipline, define the Son not as an absolute creature, but as one begotten without time. Yet they posit that time is that which has flowed from the creation of heaven down to this present day. But from that prior opinion, which Arius vomited forth, they do not at all recede: namely, that there was a time when the Son was not yet. Furthermore, while they teach that He is indeed prior to all times, through whom all things were made, at the same time they speak contumeliously concerning the Holy Spirit. ^D Others, however, while they think correctly and according to the prescription of the Catholic faith concerning the Son, and believe that He was always with the Father, and never ceased to be, and thus was begotten from the Father without beginning and without time: nevertheless, they, like all the others, are contumelious toward the Holy Spirit, whom they do not count with the Father and the Son in the commemoration of the Divinity. But we have very often disputed concerning this matter, and in each heresy...

heresies, we have left behind a proof of no small diligence: namely, that the Holy Spirit is called Lord with the Father and the Son. For "the Spirit of the Lord has filled the whole world," and that Spirit is of truth and of God. For He is called the Spirit of the Lord, and as one proceeding from the Father, and receiving from the Son, and distributing gifts to each as He wills, and searching the depths of God, and existing with the Father and the Son, baptizing, sealing, and perfecting the one who is sealed. ^B But lest I undergo labor again in this place, I shall set forth what I have already said in the great discourse on the faith written for the parts of Pamphylia, for the refutation of those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, for the instruction of those who read, and for the joy of those who are deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit. And it is as follows.

Excerpts from the Ancoratus

II. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, instructing us that, denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age, awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the ^C great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify for Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works; having blotted out the handwriting against us by His decrees, which was contrary to us, He took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; and having despoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in Himself. And when He had broken the brazen gates, and burst the iron bars, He ^D displayed the light of life, stretching out His hands and preparing a way, showing the stairs to ascend to heaven, and finally offering Paradise again to dwell in. Therefore He dwelt in us, and granted us the justification of the law of the Holy Spirit, so that we might know both Him and what is properly His: which is the beginning and the end of life. Therefore, the law granted to us is the law of righteousness, I say, the law of faith, the law of the spirit, and free from the law of the flesh of sin. Therefore, I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. Christ is within us, if indeed He dwells in us. But He who died became the way of life for our sake: That they who live might no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him who died for us and rose again. And He is the beginning of life, and of the oath which He had pledged many years before, as David says, mindful that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. [(col. 476) B] For in Him it pleased all the fullness to dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, having made peace through the blood of the cross.

He has come, therefore, to administer the fullness of the times, just as the promise was given to Abraham and the other saints, to sum up all things in Himself, both those in heaven and those on earth; and there was a separation...

^A in the patience of God; but He reconciled them in the body of His flesh, having through Himself made both one. For our peace came, and having broken down the middle wall of the partition, He destroyed the enmity in His flesh, and abolished the law of commandments in ordinances, so that He might create the two in Himself into one new man. And He commanded that the nations should be one body and joint-heirs and fellow-partakers of the promise, saying: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Therefore, in that I was weak through the flesh, the Savior was sent to me in the likeness of sinful flesh, fulfilling such an economy, in order that He might redeem me from slavery, from corruption, and from death; and He became to me righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. Righteousness, in that through faith in Him He dissolved sin; sanctification, in that through water and Spirit and in His word He set me free; and redemption, in that He gave Himself as a ransom, the blood of the true Lamb for me, the propitiation for the cleansing of the world, for the reconciliation of all things in heaven and on earth; fulfilling the mystery hidden before the ages and generations ^B in the appointed times. The same shall transform the body of our humiliation, to make it conformable to the glory of His body, according to the working by which He is able to subject all things to Himself; for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

III. On the Mediator, Christ, and the Mystery of the Incarnation

^C III. Wherefore, that receptacle of wisdom and divinity, Christ the Mediator, reconciling all things in Himself unto God, not imputing sin, fulfilling secret mysteries by the faith of His testament, which had been shown beforehand by the Law and the Prophets, is preached as the Son of God and called the son of David. For He is both God and man, the mediator of God and men, the true dwelling-place of God, a holy priesthood, the giver of the Spirit who regenerates and restores all things back to God. For "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father." For as rain, coalescing with trees and plants, fosters the body, and brings forth each fruit ^D according to the likeness of that from which it sprang—so that in the olive, joined to its nature and substance, it becomes rich oil; in the vine, it passes into the quality and color of sweet wine; in the fig tree, it is tempered to the sweetness of the fig; and in every seed, it leads the nature of each to the growth of its own form—so, I think, the Word of God was made flesh in Mary, and was found as a man in the seed of Abraham, according to the promise. "For we have found the Messiah, which is written by Moses." And as Moses said: "Let my speech descend as the rain, and as drops falling upon the earth; or, Let it descend as dew upon the fleece." The wool, therefore, receiving the dew, increases the growth of the fleece. The earth

^A like a cultivator of hope, and as an agriculturist receiving the rain, brings forth fruit to maturity; and having been bedewed by the command of the Lord, it promptly and willingly sends forth natural fruits, and is held by a greater desire of receiving [more] from the same source. Thus also the Virgin Mary, when she had replied in this manner: "How," she said, "shall this be to me?" She heard: "The Spirit of the Lord shall descend upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; and therefore that which shall be born of thee shall be holy, and shall be called the Son of the Most High." Christ speaks in the angel; and the Lord fashions Himself within His own fashioning, putting on the form of a servant. ^B But Mary draws up the Word of God for conception, just as the earth draws up the rain: but God shows Himself as the holy fruit in assuming a mortal nature. Therefore, this one, having grown forth from her, as from the earth and the fleece, is the fruit of true and solid hope, and expected by the saints. Just as Elizabeth said: "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." Now that Word, which was otherwise wanting to suffer passion, transferred all this within Himself from human condition and nature. This is that living bread, which came down from heaven and imparted life. This is the fruit of the true olive, that oil of unction and of composition, which Moses shadowed forth in a certain manner. The same is the true vine, which ^C the Father alone cultivates, who produced for us a grape of joy. This is that living water, which when a thirsty man has drunk, he shall not thirst again; but it remains in his belly springing up into eternal life. The new husbandmen, having received a shoot from this, have scattered it throughout the whole world. But the ancient husbandmen, having been plucked up by their own perfidy, were cast out. He sanctifies the nations with His own blood; He leads to the heavenly kingdom those whom He has called through the Holy Spirit. For whoever are led by His Spirit, these live to God Himself. But whoever are not led, being still attributed to death, are called animal, or rather carnal. Therefore, He extinguishes the works of the flesh, which is a certain rampart of sin; and by His grace He mortifies the members of death. He also commands us to receive the Holy Spirit, which we lacked: He who long ago recalled me, when I was slain, to life; which if I have not received, I shall soon die. For without His Spirit, everyone is dead. But if His Spirit is in us, He who raised Him from the dead ^D shall quicken our mortal bodies through His Spirit that dwells in us. But, in my opinion, both dwell in the righteous person, Christ and His Spirit.

IV.

and by hearing alone, and by the love towards Him who descended even unto me. ^A For God knows Himself, Christ proclaims Himself, and the Holy Spirit manifests Himself to those who are worthy. In the holy Scriptures, the Trinity is proclaimed and believed by us, without prying, without contention, by the hearing of the confession. For salvation from grace is by faith; justice without the works of the law is by faith (as it is written), and by the hearing of faith, the Spirit of Christ is granted to those being saved. Now the general faith of the heralds is signified, as I conceive, being catechized from the Scriptures, by this: that there are three holy things, three co-holy things, three subsistent things, three co-subsistent things, three things having form, three things of the same form, three active things, three co-active things, three things with a subsistence, three things co-subsistent with one another. This Trinity is called holy: three things, one harmony, one divinity of the same power, of the same substance; like from like; it works the equality of grace from the same grace, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But as to the how, it is left to them to teach. No one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father, and he to whom the Son reveals Him. And He reveals through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, these three being, either from Him, or by Him, or to Him, as they are worthily understood by each, just as they reveal themselves—light, fire, spirit, and, I think, other likenesses of visions—according to what the person ministered to is worthy. God Himself, therefore, who in the beginning said, "Let there be light," and there was light—the visible light—is Himself He who has shone upon us to behold the true light, which "lightens every man coming into the world." "Send forth Thy light," the David says, "and Thy truth." He Himself is the Lord who said: "In the last days I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh; and their daughters shall prophesy, and their young men shall see visions"; showing us three persons of holy ministry, with a third subsistence proceeding from a subsistence. ^D V. I say, therefore, that Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, so that He might fulfill the promises. And we have received from the divine Scriptures that the Holy Spirit also ministers in this way: Christ is sent by the Father, the Holy Spirit is sent; Christ speaks in the saints, the Holy Spirit speaks; Christ heals, the Holy Spirit heals; Christ sanctifies, the Holy Spirit sanctifies; Christ baptizes in His own name, the Holy Spirit baptizes. Thus the Scriptures speak: "Thou shalt send forth Thy Spirit, and shalt renew the face of the earth"—similar to saying: "Thou shalt send forth Thy Word, and it shall melt them." For when they were ministering to the Lord, it says, and fasting, the Holy Spirit said: "Separate ^D to me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Similar to the...

saying: "The Lord says: Enter into the city, and there it shall be told you what you must do." They themselves, therefore, having been sent forth ^A by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia—just as Christ might say: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves." For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things—as He might say: "I say, not the Lord: let not the wife be separated from her husband." And they went through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they came to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, and the Holy Spirit did not permit them—as Christ might say: "Go, baptize all the nations. Do not carry a wallet, nor a staff, nor sandals." Those who, he says, were telling Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem. Or Agabus: "Thus says the Holy Spirit: The man to whom this girdle belongs"—similar to those things which Paul said: "Or do you seek proof of Christ speaking in me?" Or: "Remember the words of the Lord; for He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive'"; and, "Now behold, I, bound by the Spirit, go"—as he might say: "Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ." Nevertheless, the Spirit testifies to me through the cities, saying—similar to what he said: "The Lord is witness to my soul, that I do not lie." In power according to the Spirit of sanctification—similar to the saying: "The Holy One resting ^B among the holy"; and: "Circumcision of the heart in the Spirit," similar to the saying: "And you were circumcised with a circumcision not made by hands, in the putting off of the body of sins in the circumcision of Christ." And that: "If the Spirit of God dwells in you," has its affinity here: "As you have received Christ, so walk in Him"; and: "The Spirit of the Lord spoke in me, and His word was on my tongue." And, "Having the first fruits of the Spirit," similar to the saying: "Christ the first fruits." But the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us—similar to the saying: "Who is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession ^C for us." "That the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, having been sanctified in the Holy Spirit," similar to the saying: "May the Lord sanctify you, that you may be sincere and without offense in the day of the Lord." "But God has revealed to us through His Spirit"—similar to the saying: "When it pleased Him who set me apart from my mother's womb through His grace to reveal His Son in me." But we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit of God. With this is to be compared: "Test yourselves, whether Christ is in you. You are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you"—just like that: "I will dwell ^D

^A in them, and I will walk in them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people."

VI. He further demonstrates that both justification and grace proceed from both. For we are "justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God," which is similar to saying: "Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit"; and, "No one can receive the Holy Spirit unless from the Lord." "There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, ^B but the same God who works all things in all"; and, "From glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit"; and, "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption," which is similar to saying: "If we provoke the Lord, are we stronger than he?" And this: "The Spirit speaks expressly," is similar to: "Thus says the Lord Almighty"; and, "My Spirit stands in the midst of you." "If anyone opens to me to enter, I and the Father will make our abode with him." Isaiah also says: "And upon him the Spirit of God." And Christ: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me"; and, "Jesus ^C of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit"; and "The Lord has sent me, and his Spirit." Nor is the voice of the seraphim crying out obscure: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts." And if you hear that he was "exalted by the right hand of God, and received the promise of the Spirit from the Father"; or, "Wait for the promise of the Father, which you heard"; or, that "the Spirit drives him into the wilderness"; or, that he himself says: "Do not be anxious about what you shall say, for it is the Spirit speaking in you"; or, "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God"; or, "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him," and the things that follow; or, "Father, into thy ^D hands I commend my spirit"; or, "The child grew and became strong in the Spirit." Jesus, "filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan"; or, "Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit"; or, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit"; which is similar to saying: "What has been made in him was life"; or with this: "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth"; or with this: "Why did Satan fill your heart, Ananias says, so that you should lie to the Holy Spirit?" and after this, "You have not lied to men, but to God." Therefore God is from God, and the Holy Spirit is God, to whom they lied, who had held back something of the price of the land. Similar also is that which: Who

^A *Who was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit*. I have nothing greater than this to say. For the Son is God. *From whom*, he says, *is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all*. Believe, he says, *in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved*; and: *He spoke*, he says, *the word of the Lord to them*. And leading them into the house, *he set a table for them, and rejoiced with his whole family, having believed in God*; or that: *In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God*; or: *that they may adorn the doctrine of our Savior*; or: *For the grace of God and our Savior Jesus Christ has appeared to all men, instructing us*; or: *Looking for the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ*; or: *This is the ministry of the Spirit and of the word. Take heed*, he says, *to yourselves, and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to govern the Church of God*; similar to saying: *I give thanks to Him who strengthens me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because He esteemed me faithful, having placed me into the ministry*.

^B VII. Therefore, as has been demonstrated, the Son and the Holy Spirit act in common with the Father. *For by the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of His mouth all their power*. And the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped: *For those who worship God, must worship in Spirit and in truth*. But if the truth acts in common, a creature does not produce another creature, nor does the divinity become a creature, nor is God known by measure or circumscription. ^C For He is uncircumscribed, uncontained, and incomprehensible, while He contains all the works of God. Nor should the creature be worshipped: *They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, and were made foolish*. For how is it not foolish to call a creature God, and to violate the commandment of the Father which says: *Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one. There shall not be a recent God in you*? But in the holy Scriptures, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are called by various names: the Father is called Father Almighty, Father of all, Father of Christ; but the Lord is called Word, Christ, Son, true light; and the Holy Spirit, finally, Paraclete, Spirit of truth, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ. ^D What, then, is God understood to be? Both Father, and light, but as super-resplendent, power, and wisdom. And if God and the Father is light, the Son is light from light; and for this reason He dwells in light unapproachable. God is entirely power, and for this reason He is the Lord of hosts. God is entirely wisdom; therefore the Son is wisdom from wisdom, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom. God is entirely life; therefore the Son is life from life: *For I am*, he says, *the truth and the life*. And the Holy Spirit is from both, Spirit from Spirit. Spirit

^A indeed is God; he also is the bestower of heavenly gifts, most true, most efficacious light, consoler, interpreter and messenger of the Father’s counsels. For as the Son is the Angel of the great counsel, so also is the Holy Spirit. *But we have received*, he says, *the Spirit of God, that we might see the things that have been gifted to us by God, which we also speak, not in the persuasive words of wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit of God, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.*

VIII.

^A the heavens of heavens and the other invisible places, and they worthily bestow upon the worthy those gifts which are celebrated.

IX. Furthermore, Holy Scripture signifies that there are many spirits: *Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flaming fire* [Ps. CIII, 4]; also: *All ye spirits, praise the Lord* [Ps. CL, 6]. But to those who are worthy are given the gifts of *discerning of spirits* [1 Cor. XII, 10]. For some are heavenly, rejoicing in the truth; others are earthly, prone to deceit and error; others, finally, are subterranean, children of the abyss and of darkness. For the Gospel says [Luc. VIII, 31] that it entreated Him not to command it to go into the abyss. Likewise, He commanded the spirits, and cast out spirits with a word, and did not allow them to speak [Marc. I, 34]. It is called also a *spirit of judgment* and a *spirit of burning* [Isa. IV, 4]. It is also called a *spirit of the world*: *For we have not received the spirit of the world* [1 Cor. II, 12], it says. And also a *spirit of man*: *For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?* [1 Cor. II, 11] *A spirit that goeth and returneth not* [Ps. LXXVII, 39]. *For the spirit shall pass in him, and he shall not exist* [Ps. CIII, 16]; and: *Thou shalt take away their breath, and they shall fail* [Ps. CIII, 29]; and: *The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets* [1 Cor. XIV, 32]; and: *Behold, a lying spirit stood before the Lord, and said to him: Whereby wilt thou deceive Ahab? And I will be, he says, a lying spirit in the mouth of the prophets* [III Reg. XXII, 21, 22]. Furthermore, a certain spirit of compunction is mentioned [Rom. XI, 8], and a spirit of sloth, and a spirit of Python [Act. XVI, 16], and a spirit of fornication, and a spirit of storm, and a spirit of much speech, and a ^B spirit of infirmity [Luc. XIII, 11], and an unclean spirit, and a spirit of deafness, and a spirit of muteness [Marc. IX, 16], and a spirit that speaks with difficulty, and a very wicked spirit, which is called *legion* [Luc. VIII, 30; Marc. V, 7], and *spiritual wickedness* [Ephes. VI, 12]. Finally, the wise understand that in infinite places of Scripture mention is made of spirits. But just as there are many children by adoption or by calling, not by nature, because they have a beginning and an end and are prone to sin: so also there are many spirits by adoption or calling, if indeed they are apt to sin. But the Holy Spirit alone is called by the Father and the Son the Spirit of truth [Joan. XIV, 17], and the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of grace. For He bestows grace upon each one in different ways, and imparts good in various ^C modes. For to one is granted the spirit of wisdom, to another the spirit of knowledge, to this one the spirit of fortitude, to that one the spirit of healings, to another the spirit of prophecy, to this one the spirit of discernment, to another of interpretations [1 Cor. XII, 8 sqq.]. And finally other gifts, as the Apostle testifies: *But one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will* [1 Cor. XII, 11]. *For thy good Spirit shall lead me, O God*, says David [Ps. CXLII, 11]. Or: *The Spirit bloweth where he listeth* [Joan. III, 8]: by which words He shows us that the Holy Spirit is subsistent, *and thou hearest his voice, but canst not tell whence he cometh, and whither he goeth;* and: *Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit*, similar to what Paul said: *In* ^D

^A Christ Jesus I have begotten you. Concerning this the Lord says: *When the Paraclete is come, whom I will send unto you, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.* And: *I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you.*

I. ^B If, therefore, he proceedeth from the Father, and, the Lord says, *he shall receive of mine*, in the same manner as *no one knoweth the Father, but the Son, nor the Son, but the Father*: thus they dare to say that no one knoweth even the Spirit, but the Son, from whom he receives, and the Father, from whom he proceeds; and no one knoweth even the Son and the Father, but the Holy Spirit, who truly celebrates and preaches, who teaches all things, who gives testimony concerning the Son, who from the Father, who from the Son proceeds, the sole guide of truth, the interpreter of holy laws, the exponent of the spiritual law, the master of the prophets, the preceptor of the apostles, the torch and star of evangelical dogmas, the elector of the saints, true light from true light. He is the natural Son, the true Son, the genuine Son, alone from the alone, with whom also the Holy Spirit is conjoined, who is properly called Spirit. ^C This is that God celebrated in the Church: always Father, always Son, and always Holy Spirit, high above the high, nay, most high; who is endowed with an intelligible, and indeed an infinite, glory; to whom all created and made things are entirely subject, which are indeed delimited by a certain measure and circumscription. But the one divinity is especially proclaimed in Moses; the binary is more diligently announced in the prophets; but the Trinity is revealed in the Gospels, which, according to the times and generations, would better suit the just for knowledge and faith. And this knowledge of immortality is born from faith itself or from adoption.

But first he declares the justifications of the flesh, fashioning them in Moses as a certain outer court of the temple; ^D then he explains the justifications of the soul, adorning it as the holy place among the other prophets; third and finally, he sets forth the justifications of the spirit, as the propitiatory and the holy of holies in the Gospels to be his own dwelling place. But in place of the holy tabernacle and the holy people, he has the just one, who dwells in these. In these, however, one incorruptible deity dwells, one deity which cannot be conceived by thought, nor comprehended, nor explained, nor seen, which alone knows itself, and reveals itself to whom it wills, exciting its own witnesses, calling, predestining, glorifying, raising from the netherworld, sanctifying, and uniting again to its own glory and faith these three: the heavenly, and earthly, and those under the earth; spirit, soul, flesh; faith, hope, charity; the things that have passed, the things that are, and the things that are to come, world without end.

^A Sabbaths of Sabbaths, the circumcision of the flesh, the circumcision of the heart, the circumcision of Christ in the putting off of the body of sins. In sum, He purifies for Himself all things invisible and visible—thrones, dominions, principalities, powers, virtues. And in all these things is the same wisdom and holy voice, from glory to glory, crying "Holy, holy, holy," proclaiming the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit; to whom be glory and power unto ages of ages. Amen. And he who so believes shall say: So be it, so be it.

Here ends the *Ancoratus*. ^B

XI. These are the things which were formerly written concerning the faith of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and which, according to the smallness of our ability, we explained and set forth from the things previously spoken. But we continue further for the strengthening of our life, piously bringing forward testimonies, and piously conceiving concerning the Divinity from right reason. For it has been made manifest by many testimonies in what has been produced by Him, that the Only-begotten works together with the Father, and accomplishes and grants equal things in all, as being from Him, and not different from the power and divinity of the Father, but consubstantial with the Father. And not only the Son, but the Holy Spirit also comes into the communion of action with the Father and the Son, and performs equal things, granting and bestowing as He wills, ^C as He also is truly from God, and not alien to the Father and the Son, but consubstantial with the Father and the Son, as has been shown and shall be shown to be manifest to all by so many testimonies. Now, however, because of the adversaries and enemies of the Holy Spirit, we shall add, for the sake of a fuller explanation, some pious arguments drawn from right reason, and partly testimonies from the same divine Scripture, following the earlier ones, so that we may follow the true and pious dogma concerning the Holy Spirit in all things. For as the Holy Spirit is, He is dwelling within, ^D worshipped by all, desired by all creatures and works, equal to none—neither to angel nor to any other spirit—but is singular. For although there are many spirits, this one is superior to all, as being always from the Father, and not existing from others that have been made from nothing. There are, I say, many spirits; but the Holy Spirit is one, just as there is one God and one Only-begotten Son of God. So also does the Holy Spirit of God come from God and is in God. And thus the Only-begotten Son is incomprehensible, and the Spirit is incomprehensible. He proceeds from God, and is not alien to the Father and the Son. Nor does He coalesce with the Father and the Son by any confusion, but the Trinity is always of the same substance, not of another substance besides the divinity, nor is there another divinity besides the substance, but it is self-divinity, and from the same divinity are the Son and the Holy Spirit. And the Spirit is indeed the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the Son. But the Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives of the Son; flowing...

into the depths of God, communicating the things of the Son in the world, sanctifying and making men holy through the Trinity. It is also third in appellation, since the Trinity is Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. For, "Go," He says, "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." It is the seal of grace, not a bond of the Trinity, nor foreign to the sanctification, nor standing apart in name, nor alien to the gift; but there is one God, one faith, one Lord, one grace, one Church, one baptism.

XII. On the Trinity

Since these things are so, let us be diligent that we do not wander from the truth; but let us profess the truth, not as attorneys for God, but understanding it piously, lest we should at some time perish. For it is in no way possible to say or even to conceive of anything created in the Trinity, or that any subsequent addition was made; but the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit always existed. The Son is not a brother of the Father, nor is there a fusion; and the Spirit is not a fusion, nor a brother of the Father and the Son. But the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeded from the Father. The Trinity exists in ineffable sameness of glory, and the Son exists with the Father and the Holy Spirit in an incomprehensible way likewise, and the same eternity of the Trinity never ceases. The Father, then, is always unbegotten and uncreated and incomprehensible; but the Son is begotten, yet uncreated and incomprehensible. The Holy Spirit is always not begotten, not created, not a brother, not a progenitor, not a descendant, but of the same substance as the Father and the Son. For the Spirit is God.

XIII. Testimonies for the Spirit

explanation. For immediately the Father speaks concerning the advent of the Son, saying: "I will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles," so that He might proclaim His Holy Spirit as true God to all the faithful for salvation. And if the Only-begotten, adding to this same testimony, says: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me," so that the presence of His flesh, settled by the Holy Spirit and announced to the faithful, might be clearly acknowledged by the testimony of Christ Himself, it is certain that the Holy Spirit is not at all alien from God. Again, the Lord says concerning the Spirit: "It is the Spirit of my Father who speaks in you." And again, as though the Spirit were not foreign to the divinity of God, He breathed into the face of the disciples and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit." And again, to show His own equality and consubstantiality with His Spirit and the Holy Spirit of His Father, He says: "If you love me, keep my commandments: and I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete," signifying that the Lord Himself is a Paraclete, and the Holy Spirit is likewise a ^B fellow-Paraclete in the same way. The apostles, moreover, showing that the Spirit is not a servant, but endowed with the same divinity, signify His authority and power with these words: "And the Holy Spirit said: Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them," and so forth. Then the Apostle declares the same thing explicitly: "The Lord is the Spirit," and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Likewise: "You are the temple of God, and the Spirit of the Lord dwells in you." Now, since we are called the temple of God on account of that habitation of the Holy Spirit, who would dare to reject the Spirit and cast Him out of the substance of God, when the Apostle explicitly asserts that we are the temple of God because of that Holy Spirit who dwells in the worthy? Furthermore, in what way can that Spirit be alien from God, who "searches the deep things of God"? Nor is there any ground for that objection, that He searches them indeed, but does not yet know them, as some have dared to utter blasphemously to their own destruction. For nothing prevents them from saying the same thing ^C about the Father, of whom it is written that He searches the "recesses of the belly." Wherefore, if on the ground that no other word of knowing is joined to the word of searching, you are able to conceive such an impious notion about the Spirit, you must needs be equally impious toward the Father, about whom you are forced to offer the same opinion. For when the Father is said to search those "recesses of the belly," no mention is made of knowledge. Nor was it necessary to add that, since the foreknowledge of God is clearly signified, and the perfect sense is rendered by the very word "searching." Thus it is fitting to pronounce the same concerning the Spirit, the Son, and the Father, and to attribute one knowledge and foreknowledge to them, in that the most holy Trinity undoubtedly consists in its own perfection and identity. ^D XIV. But concerning all these matters, there is an infinite amount to dispute, and...

^A And to bring forward a mass of testimonies from the divine Scriptures and to lengthen out the discourse to great breadth would only weary the readers. For we have already said enough in refuting every heresy, and we—weak as we are—have through the power of God overthrown them all, and have shown them to be alien to the truth, and that each one of them is blasphemous and denies the truth, whether in small matters or in great; just as these [heretics] also, who blaspheme in vain against the Lord and against the Holy Spirit, and possess—as the Lord said—neither in this world nor in the world to come, the forgiveness of sins because of their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Stamped down by the truth itself, like a fierce horned viper whose mind of blasphemy has the power to corrupt the whole body, they have been convinced by the word of the Tree and by the true confession of the Only-Begotten that for him who blasphemes against the Spirit, it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, as I have said. Stamped down and crushed, they are unable to prevail against the truth. For all heresies are truly the gates of hell; but they shall not prevail against the rock, that is to say, against the truth. Even if some of them should wish to say, "The faith which was set forth at Nicaea we also confess." ^B Prove to me from that same faith, that the Holy Spirit is numbered within the Godhead; they will be found to be refuted even by that. But the inquiry concerning the Spirit had not been instituted at that time. For synods take precautions and make decisions concerning the matters that arise from time to time. Since, therefore, Arius directed his blasphemy against the Son, for that reason, with over-abundant discussion, accurate precision of words was made. But see, from that very confession, that not even in this will those found who blaspheme against the Spirit, those "Pneumatomachi" and those alien to his gift and sanctification, have anything to say. For the exposition immediately confesses—it does not deny—it. "We believe," it says, "in one God the Father Almighty." But the word "We believe" is not spoken simply; rather, it is faith in God. "And in one Lord Jesus Christ." It is not said simply, but it is faith in God. "And in the Holy Spirit." And it is not said simply, but into one doxology and into one union of Godhead and into one consubstantiality—into three perfects, but one Godhead, one essence, one glory, one lordship—from the "[We] believe," and "[We] believe," and "[We] believe." And here the argument of such men collapses. ^C And how far should I lengthen the discourse, considering what I have already said against them to be sufficient for those who love the truth? I shall therefore pass over this [heresy] as well, praying to God that He may habitually assist you for the overthrow of all such men, so that, having finished the undertaking through His power, we may in all things give thanks to Him.

Against Aerius, Heresy 55 or 75

^A 1. A certain Aerius has likewise become a great evil to the world, having his mind thunderstruck and his pride puffed up. For every heresy has sprung from the most wicked counsel of those who have existed from the beginning to the end, whether they were driven by a craving for glory, or arrogance, or a lust for pleasures, or envy of others, or a certain agitation of the soul, or rashness. Furthermore, all that blindness is the work of the devil—not that the devil is able to deceive anyone who does not wish it, but because each person becomes the cause and author of his own sin, that “those who are approved may be made manifest” 1 Cor. xi, 19. This Aerius is still alive today, and remains in this life, and is an Arian in everything. For he thinks nothing otherwise than Arius; indeed, he has even surpassed Arius himself in the novelty of his dogmas. For in this regard, he seems to have forged his tongue and to be ready of speech, so as to allure to himself a host of deceived men, and a multitude of those "whose ears itch" 2 Tim. iv, 3, and whose minds are distended with vanity and arrogance. For he too has brought a great store of nonsense and fables into the human race. And although it seems ridiculous to the more prudent, ^B nonetheless, he has imposed upon many through it and led them into error. This man was a companion of Eustathius, bishop of Sebastia (which is in the region of Pontus, or Lesser Armenia). For both of them embraced the monastic mode of life. But when Eustathius was raised to the episcopacy, Aerius—even though he greatly desired it—could not attain to it. Hence, a conflict was kindled by rivalry. And indeed, Eustathius appeared to be very indulgent toward Aerius and devoted to him. For he later made this man a presbyter, and entrusted to his care the xenodochium which is called a "ptochotrophium" in Pontus. For prelate of the churches are wont to establish such houses out of love for guests; in them, they place the mutilated and the disabled ^C and provide them with the necessities of life to the best of their ability.

2. But since Aerius set no limit to his anger, brawls and quarrels increased day by day, and their mutual hostilities grew. In addition to this, certain very wicked rumors and calumnies were spread by Aerius against Eustathius. Meanwhile, Bishop Eustathius, having called Aerius to himself, attempted to soothe him, to exhort him, to threaten him, to be angry, to entreat him, yet he accomplished nothing by these means. For that which had been established and begun from the start was breaking out into a great force of evil. Finally, leaving the hospital for the indigent, Aerius withdrew. From that time forth, intent on every opportunity, as if he were one who wished to crush an enemy and strike him with weapons, he turned ^D himself in all directions, and subsequently, in a calumnious manner, kept disparaging Eustathius before everyone, saying, "He is no longer such a man; rather, he has inclined to the accumulation of money and to the possession of all manner of things."

^A but at the same time, because Eustathius was managing ecclesiastical affairs, he could not act otherwise. And what Aerius said was plausible.

One might, however, think—since we brought in Eustathius while speaking against Aerius—that we are also praising Eustathius. For not a few men admire his life and way of living; but would that he had also thought rightly concerning the faith! For he held to the error of Aerius from beginning to end, and neither the afflictions of persecution nor its calamities corrected him. For he was persecuted along with those around Basil, and Eleusius, ^B and the others. Indeed, he even seems to have served as an envoy to the blessed Liberius, bishop of Rome, along with other bishops, and to have subscribed to the exposition of the faith which was set forth at the Council of Nicaea, and to the profession of the sincere dogma. But later, as if waking from sleep and remembering his former ways, he never ceased to look back again to the Arian impiety he had embraced at the beginning. But our discourse is about Aerius; therefore, we must return to him.

III. This Aerius, because of such arguments, made a show of renouncing all things at first; but then, having left the poorhouse, he drew away a great crowd of men and women, all of whom were barred from the churches, fields, villages, and other ^C cities. And often that whole group, blanketed with snow, would spend their time out in the fields, living under the open sky, or taking refuge among the crags of rocks and in the woods. His doctrine is maddening and more savage than human understanding can grasp; for he says: "What is a bishop to a presbyter? There is no difference between the one and the other. For there is one order for both, and one and the same honor and dignity. The bishop lays on hands, but so does the presbyter. The bishop administers the bath of baptism, and the presbyter does the same. The bishop administers the rite of worship, and the presbyter does likewise. The bishop sits upon a throne, and the ^D presbyter also sits." By these things he led many into error, and they have made him their ringleader. Then he says: "What is this Pascha that is celebrated among you? You are again clinging to Jewish fables. For one ought not," he says, "to celebrate the Pascha. For our Pascha was sacrificed, Christ."

^A Next, he asks: "For what reason, after death, do you name the names of the dead? For the living person prays," he says, "or he performs a work of dispensation; but what will the dead person benefit from it?" And if, in general, prayer from those here helps those there, then let no one show piety, and let no one do good; but let him acquire some friends in whatever way he wishes—by persuading them with money, or by asking friends at the time of his end—and let them pray for him, so that he may not suffer anything there, nor may his own heinous sins be sought out. "But," he says, "neither will there be any appointed fasting. For these things are Jewish and are subject to a yoke of slavery. For the law is not laid down for the righteous, but for parricides and matricides and the rest." For if I decide of my own will to fast, I will fast on whatever day I choose, out of liberty. Hence it is that they prefer to fast on the Lord's day, while they eat on the fourth and sixth weekdays. Yet they often fast on the fourth weekday, not by law, but led by their own free choice, as they claim. Moreover, during the very days of Pascha—a time when we are accustomed to celebrate with sleeping on the ground, chastity, ascetic struggles, eating of dry foods, prayers, vigils, fasts, and all the salvation of the soul through the holy sufferings—they, on the contrary, even at dawn, feast on meat and wine, filling their own veins, and they roar with laughter, mocking and ridiculing those who perform this holy worship of the week of Pascha. For even if they have adopted a rule of life of renunciation, it is not practiced among them; rather, there is a great deal of meat-eating and wine-drinking, unless perhaps a few, rare ones among them, from their own free choice, might wish to do otherwise. But for the most part, they are those who indulge in lavish feasting on meats and wine-drinking, as I have often said. These are the primary things that Aerius has vomited forth into this world.

^C IV. Furthermore, these very same things reveal his mind and his perfidy, which, through wicked guile, he has unleashed in sheer madness upon the human race. After we have disputed against these things in a few words, we shall let him be. For truly, any prudent person easily perceives that all that is completely full of folly, in that he attempts to ^D make the bishop and the presbyter equal. For how can this be consistent? Since the order of bishops pertains primarily to the begetting of fathers; for it is the order of fathers that begets fathers in the Church. The other, while unable to beget fathers, produces children for the Church through the washing of regeneration, but not fathers or teachers. But how can it be possible for him to appoint a presbyter, when he has no right to the laying on of hands to ordain? Or how can a presbyter be said to be equal to a bishop? But a certain excessive forwardness and rivalry has deceived this aforementioned Aerius.

^A V. But indeed, in order to impose upon himself and his hearers, he objects: "The Apostle writes to presbyters and deacons, not to bishops." Again, addressing a bishop, he says: "Do not neglect the grace that is in you, which you received through the laying on of the hands of the presbytery;" then in another place: "To the bishops and deacons," so that—he claims—the bishop and the presbyter are the same. But he who is ignorant of the succession of the truth, and who has not delved into the deepest accounts of history, does not understand that, because the preaching of the Gospel was still new, the holy Apostle wrote according to the demands of the situation. For where bishops had already been appointed, he wrote to bishops and deacons. For the apostles could not establish everything at once. For there was a need for presbyters and deacons, because by these two the ecclesiastical offices can be fulfilled. Where no one was found worthy of the episcopate, the place remained without a bishop. But where there was a need, and there were those worthy of the episcopate, bishops were appointed. But when there was no multitude, presbyters could not be found among them to be ordained, and they were content with the single bishop in that place. But it is impossible for a bishop to be without a deacon. Therefore, the holy Apostle took care that deacons should be with the bishop for the sake of the ministry. Thus, when the Church had received ^B the fullness of the economy, such was the state of those places at that time. For indeed, each thing did not have everything from the beginning, but as time went on, things were perfected according to the needs of the time.

VI. A History and Pattern of the Church in Moses

^C VI. We have an example of this in Moses. For in the Old Testament, he is sent into Egypt equipped only with a staff; yet, since he was sent by God, as he entered Egypt, Aaron, his brother, was sent by divine command to join him as his helper. Then, after his brother had trusted in him, the elders and the leaders of the people gathered to him at that time. And after this, as the work gathered strength and the following increased, he crossed the sea. Yet they had not yet reached the giving of the Law, until God called him to the mountain. And He gave him the tablets, and showed him how to construct the tabernacle, and to appoint leaders, and tens-men, and fifties-men, and hundreds-men, and thousands-men. And do you see how things are expanded? "See," He says, "that you make everything according to the pattern shown to you on Mount Sinai." And do you see how the seven-branched lampstand was added to the legislation, and the long priestly vestments, and bells, and cloaks, and ephods, and turbans, and miters, and the settings of various stones, ^D and cups, and incense-vessels, and basins, and altars, and trays, and *masmaroth*, which are strainers.

^A And whatever else the Law discusses: the cherubim and the other things like them, the Ark of the Covenant, the carrying-poles and the rings, the tabernacle, the curtains, the dyed skins, the handles and other things of that sort, the gatekeepers, the trumpets—both hammered and curved, and those of gold, silver, bronze, and horn—and the other things that the Law mentioned, as well as the various sacrifices and teachings. Since these things did not exist from the beginning, was it not the case that, after they were instituted, a proper order was assigned to these things? The same reasoning applies to the things written by the Apostle: they prevailed until the Church was enlarged, until it reached its own legitimate measure, and until it was most justly ordered by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with a certain prudent moderation. From these points, the dogma of Aerius is refuted.

That a presbyter cannot be the same as a bishop, the divine word of the holy Apostle declares, by which it is understood who is a bishop and who is a presbyter. For writing to Timothy, who was a bishop, he speaks thus: "Do not rebuke a presbyter, but exhort him as a father." ^B What point would there have been in forbidding the bishop to rebuke a presbyter, unless he possessed authority greater than his own? Wherefore, he subsequently admonishes: "Against a presbyter, do not quickly receive an accusation, except on evidence of two or three witnesses." He did not command any of the presbyters that they should not receive an accusation against a bishop, nor did he write to any of the presbyters that they should not rebuke a bishop. Do you see how no small ruin befalls him whom the devil has caused to waver?

VII. But let us see the rest of this man's claims, and let us examine them. ^C And first, let us speak about the Pascha, concerning which he brought forward that testimony: "Christ our Pascha has been sacrificed." Let us examine the one who says this, whether he himself celebrated it. For concerning him, it is written: "He was hastening to celebrate Pentecost in Jerusalem." But what Pentecost was Paul observing, if he had not first celebrated the Pascha? And who is there anywhere in the world who does not agree that, in the Church, the fourth day and the sixth day are consecrated by solemn fasting? And if we must draw our authority from the Constitution of the Apostles, why is the fast of the fourth and sixth days sanctioned for them by a perpetual law, except for Pentecost? And why do they decree that for the six days of the Pascha, nothing at all is to be taken for food except bread, salt, and water? ^D Moreover, that it is commanded to observe this day and to conclude it on the dawning Sunday, can be obscure to no one. But who, then, is more experienced in these matters? Is it this man, a little fellow led astray by error, who now at last has emerged and is still living today? Or is it those who were witnesses before us, and who possessed the tradition before us in the Church, and who received it from the very same fathers, and who learned it in turn from those same fathers?

^A And let the opinion of this man concerning Easter fall away again. But if the same apostles had not spoken in the *Constitution* concerning the same matter of the Fourth and Sixth days, and if we had not had other arguments from every side to demonstrate it, nevertheless they write about it most accurately. The Church received it and is in agreement throughout the whole world—before, indeed, there was an Aerius and the Aerians from him. Perhaps, for this reason, he has quite rightly received this name. For he possessed an "aerian" spirit from impurity, from those aerian spirits of wickedness which took up a dwelling within him against the Church.

^B VIII. But as to the rite by which the names of those who have died are mentioned, what could be more useful than this? What could be more opportune or more worthy of admiration than this—for those who are present to be most firmly persuaded that the departed live and are not reduced to nothingness, but exist still and live with the Lord? And furthermore, that this most religious dogma may be proclaimed, by which those who pray for their brothers demonstrate that they have good hope for them, as if they had merely gone on a journey. Moreover, the prayers which are offered for the dead are useful to them, even if they do not extinguish all faults. But they are useful for this reason, because for the most part, while we yet live on earth, we stumble both willingly and unwillingly, so that that which is more perfect may be signified. For we make mention both of the just and of sinners: of sinners, indeed, so that we may implore mercy for them from the Lord; but of the just and of the Fathers and patriarchs, prophets and apostles and evangelists and martyrs and confessors, of bishops and anchorites and of all that order, so that we may separate the Lord Jesus Christ from the order of men by the honor paid to Him, and render worship to Him, being mindful that the Lord is not equal to any of men, even if each of men should exist with ten thousand and more virtues. For how could that be? For the One is God, but the other is man; ^C and the One is in heaven, while the other is on earth because of the remains left on earth, except for those who were raised from the dead and entered with Him into the bridal chamber, as the holy Gospel says: *And many bodies of the saints arose, and entered into the holy city* (Matt. xxvii, 52, 53). And what holy city does He say is this? For the saying is fulfilled according to both: the one here below, and the one above. For that they entered with Him into the Jerusalem here below first, this is clear; but before the Savior ascended into heaven, no one had ascended until they went up with Him. *For no one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven, the Son of man.* But concerning these things, having arrived at that place in the discourse, we have pointed out the two meanings. But if anyone says that they entered then into the Jerusalem [here], let him learn that on that day, when the doors were shut, the Lord stood in their midst.

and said to them: Peace be to you.

^B IX. But leaving these things aside, I return to that from which I had digressed and I must necessarily say this: the Church keeps that rite which it received from the ancients. Can anyone overturn a mother's ordinance or a father's law? Just as it is written by Solomon: Hear, my son, the words of your father, and do not repel the laws of your mother. By these he declares that the Father, that is, the only-begotten God with the Holy Spirit, taught partly in writing and partly without writing; but our mother the Church has certain decrees established within her, which are indissoluble and cannot be overturned. Since these things are indeed established in the Church, being excellent and truly admirable, by this very same point that old deceiver is refuted. But leaving him behind, like some beetle, or blister-beetle, or the creature called the buprestis, which is a kind of insect, and having broken him with the solid dogma of the Church and the power of God, let us again pass on to the subsequent heresies, calling upon God as our helper.

AGAINST THE ANOMOEANS

^C I. Besides these, there have arisen certain others, the Anomoeans, recently brought to light, whose leader was Aetius the deacon; who was promoted to that degree of dignity on account of his follies and trifles by George of Alexandria, who was at once bishop of the Arians and the Meletians, and who, in the times of Julian the emperor, as I have previously shown, was placed upon a camel and ignominiously paraded through the whole city. And first, being surrounded by the Gentiles and suffering many things, and being led about in the manner we have described, and struck with clubs, and dragged through almost the whole city, he expired in the midst of these tortures; and after his death he was cremated, and together with the many bones of cattle and beasts of burden, he was reduced to ashes and scattered to the winds; ^D thus he met the end of his life. Regarding whom someone might object to us: Since he suffered these things at the hands of the Gentiles, might he not seem to have undergone martyrdom? But if he had undertaken such a struggle for the sake of the truth, and if these torments had been inflicted upon him by the Gentiles out of envy or because of his profession of the Christian name, he would undoubtedly be considered to be placed among the martyrs, and indeed among the foremost. But he did not sustain these things at all for the confession of Christ; rather, he suffered them because of all that injury and violence with which, during the time of his episcopate—in whatever manner he may have exercised it—he oppressed the whole city and the people, especially when he [seized] the citizens' paternal [inheritance]. And so that we may not malign the man—for there are many things which were done by him to the Alexandrians—how he seized the entire...

^A goods and possessions. Nor do we wish to slander the man; for he afflicted the Alexandrians with various hardships, as when he bought up all the niter workshops, along with the marshes of papyrus and reeds, and also all the salt ponds, which he sought to lease and transfer to himself; and such was the baseness of his avarice besides that he would pursue every illiberal profit from even the most trivial things with the utmost effort and contention. For among other things, he established a certain number of litter-bearers for carrying out the corpses of the dead; and it was not permitted for anyone to carry out a dead person without those over whom he had set charge for this duty, especially in the case of a stranger. He did not do this for the love of hospitality, but, as I said, for the sake of profit and money. And if anyone buried the body of a dead person by himself, he was summoned into danger. Therefore, from every corpse, some profit would return to him. I pass over the rest, especially all his luxury, along with his other vices and in particular his cruelty. For these reasons, since the Alexandrians, and the Gentiles especially, had long nurtured an old hatred against him, they inflicted that kind of death upon him. I have been led to commemorate his fall and that most atrocious execution, by which he was killed by the Alexandrians as soon as the death of Constantius was heard of, on no other occasion than that we had to discuss Aetius, who was ordained a deacon by him. ^B

II. Now this Aetius, according to the worldly account, was entirely uneducated in foreign disciplines until his full maturity. But finally, when he had applied himself to a certain Aristotelian philosopher and sophist in Alexandria and had learned from him the principles of dialectics, so to speak, he devoted himself entirely to explaining the entire rationale of divine things through certain figures. This is what he strove ^C to do with persistent effort, sitting in complete leisure from early light until evening; that is, to transfer geometric figures to the task of treating, defining, and teaching divine matters. And as he had immersed himself more deeply in the Arian sect and had imbibed the insane doctrine of Arius, he became a destroyer far more pestilential than them, and day by day he sharpened his tongue against the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. But having been reported by some to Constantius, he was relegated to the region subject to Mount Taurus; in that place he propagated his pernicious doctrine far and wide, and he brought forth the most bitter virus of his error, which he had vomited, into the open, without any intermission, with a bolder brow ^D and more audaciously than before. For he dared to say that the Son is unlike the Father and that he is not the same in divinity with the Father; and not even that we rely upon [the doctrine of] likeness. For we know the Son to be above likeness, because we [know Him in the Father, if]

^A If the Son is compared to the Father as being the same in divinity and equal, and not altered in any way, we acknowledge something more than a mere likeness. For there are many things likened to God, but which are not the same, even if they exist as equal in divinity; just as man is made according to the image and likeness, but is not the same as God in equality. And the kingdom of heaven is likened to a grain of mustard seed, but it is not the same as the kingdom, nor does it share at all in the same leaven. And it is likened to ten virgins, and to a householder, as a likeness, but not in identity. But since the Son is like the Father and is more than like—because He is the same as the Father and equal to the Father—it is not merely our concern to establish likeness for ourselves, but to show Him as the same and equal, as God from God, and Son from the Father, and not alien to the essence, but begotten from Him. Thus also it is with regard to the Holy Spirit. But to this ^B *gennadēs* Aetius, it did not even seem right to acknowledge the Son as like the Father. We do not rely solely upon "likeness" to establish the foundation of the faith, nor do we, in our heartfelt struggle to honor the Trinity, acknowledge only this. For silver is likened to tin, and gold to bronze, and lead to iron, and precious stones are likened to glass; yet the likeness does not declare the nature, but the copy.

III. ^C But here we, who confess the Son to be the image of the invisible God, having—by divine grace—deeply understood the power of the divine Scripture which says to the Pharisees, "You do not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God," understand that this relationship is twofold. We explain this by taking a common human example for the sake of elucidation. For there is what is called a "human image," yet it is not "like" [in the same way]. One is depicted merely by colors, but the other possesses the same substance through generation, just as the begotten Son takes a certain mark and form of His kind by comparison with the Father; and then, in Him, not only is the effigy perceived, but also the same nature and substance, and thus His true expression. Therefore, the only-begotten Son of God is the same in divinity and majesty as the Father, and equal, through a true image and an undistorted—nay, an immutable—likeness; for He is truly and consubstantially begotten as Son from the Father. ^D Thus also with regard to the Holy Spirit, because He proceeds from the Father, even if He is not begotten—owing to the only-begotten state of the Son. But this Aetius, wishing all the more strongly to oppose the confession of the truth, does not even attempt to acknowledge the likeness of the Son to the Father. For the others among the Arians—those who took the occasion for their error from Lucian and Origen, and who consorted with a certain sophist named Asterius, who fell away during the persecution under Maximian—some of them, as has been shown in my earlier works on heresies,

^A that each of the aforementioned defined the Son of God as a creature, and they taught ^B that the Holy Spirit was a creature of a creature; others said that the Son is like to the Father, even if they defined Him as a creature. But this man exposed, with clear distinctness, the entirety of their hypocrisy, and his own specific impiety, as well as the harshness and shamelessness of their doctrine regarding the Lord.

And as the truth holds, the reasoning of this Aetius, or the so-called Anomoean, attacks with the greatest justice those who introduce the creature. For everything that is created happens to be unlike its creator, even if it were to be made like him by grace; and the Creator himself exists as unlike the thing created, even if one should attempt to adorn it with various colors; unless, perhaps, with a view to an image and representation, the thing styled is that which is by imitation alone ^B for the sake of contemplation. And as against the Arians, who think the Son of God is a creature, his logic could indeed have prevailed—as it did afterwards, even by the Arians themselves, I mean those around Eudoxius and Menophilus and others, and when he became excommunicated—he was refuting them before the emperor at that time, saying: "As they themselves hold, so I hold, just as all of them do; but what is true in me, they conceal; and what I clearly show forth and profess, they all say the same things, but they conceal them," for the sake of the emperor at the time, who was not opposed to the Arian drama, but supposedly thought himself to be pious. For he, loathing to confess the Son of God to be a creature, was angered, and relegated him into exile, as has been declared above.

^D IV. From there the beginning of the heresy has arisen; and from this one hypothesis, the man, having been raised up in his mind to a great crop of evils, terribly wounded his own soul and the souls of those who were persuaded by him. For this man imagined later, both himself and those who were discipled by him, that: "Thus," he says, "I know God most clearly, and I know Him so much, that I do not even know myself better than I know God." And there are many other things which we have heard about this, according to how the devil terribly schemed against him, so as to destroy the souls of men who had been enticed. For there is no care among them regarding the sanctity of life, or fasts, or the commandments of God, or any other of the things ordained by God for the life of men, but only a word is ready to them, the whole [of religion] in a single utterance; just as if someone, casting off from a ship, and having made an entire jettisoning of all the cargo, should keep just one of the things stowed in the ship—I mean an earthen vessel or something else—so as to be able to swim across the entire sea by means of one vessel,

^A nor is he able to procure salvation for himself; and should such a person stumble, and—not having found the end as he supposed regarding the vessel he had in his hands—subsequently sink beneath the waves, he would lose both the entire venture and his salvation. ^B Just so, this Aetius and his fellow Anomoeans, whenever they bring forward the saying mentioned by the Lord in the Gospel, possess the wording, but not rightly grasping its power, he is led astray, and they are led astray with him. For when someone happens upon them and makes mention of the commandments, they assert this, as the saying says, that "God asks nothing else of us than that we know Him alone," as Christ also said, he says, when He said: "Give to them, Father, to have life in themselves. And this is life, that they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." ^C For we have heard it related by some, who testified that they had clearly heard it from him, that when certain men were accused of the wickedness of having committed adultery, and were being condemned by others, he was not at all moved, but met the deed with laughter and mockery, saying that this was of no consequence. For, he said, such is the necessity and function of the body; just as, he says, we scratch at the ear (and I myself am ashamed to repeat all that the impure man recounted), but having taken, he says, a feather or a straw, we scratch the ear, and thus the itching of the ear ceases; so too this, he says, happens by nature; and if someone should perform it, he does not sin.

V.

^A VI. Therefore, he disputes right at the beginning: “That which is begotten cannot be similar to that which is not begotten; for they differ even in name; the one is unbegotten, the other begotten.” But the whole thing is foolish, and has driven the man toward madness. For if we seek a begetter for the unbegotten, so that we may not lose the true opinion concerning Christ, it will be found that there is no longer one Father, nor Father of the Father, but infinite numbers of fathers of fathers will be sought, and there will no longer be one God who is always, and who had nothing before Him, and who remains and endures always; from whom the only-begotten true Son is begotten, and exists, and His Holy Spirit from Him; but those who are sought will be many gods, and henceforth all things will be deceit, and not truth. Yet we must know, just as it is, that there is one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father, and receives from the Son. ^B And this is one divinity, one God, one Lord, Father and Son and Holy Spirit; the Son is not some mixture with the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit, but the Father is Father, and the Son is Son, and the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit; three perfects, one divinity, one God, one Lord, as we have often expounded the doxology concerning God in all our refutations of heresies. Therefore, since there is one God, and it is not possible to conceive of another besides Him who is, the Father is wondrously and unbegotten and uncreated, and the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of Him, happens to be in no way dissimilar to Him in every respect, but is the same as the Father and equal in all dignity, even if the one is begotten and the other is unbegotten. ^C For if He has begotten the Son from Himself at all, it is impossible that He should not be equal and similar to the Father. For everything that begets, begets something similar to itself; and not only similar, but equal in identity. For a human begets a human, and God begets God. And while the human [begets] from the union of bodies, God has inexplicably alone begotten [His] Only-Begotten, and not by any utterance, nor contraction, nor dilation. But being Spirit, the Father has begotten the Son from Himself without beginning and without time, similar to Himself in all things, and equal, as the holy Gospel says: that “the Jews sought to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His own Father, making Himself equal to God.” For how is He not similar to the Father and equal in all things, He who has life in Himself, and says: “As the Father raises the dead, so also the Son raises the dead”? ^D And saying: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father”; he who signals the Father through himself cannot be different; and he who says, “He who knows Me knows the Father”; and “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” as if He were not another than the Father—as both the Father and the Son signal. “Let Us make man according to Our image, and according to likeness.” For if the Son were not similar to the Father, how then was man made according to image and according to likeness? For the Father did not say: “Let Us make man…

according to My image, or according to Your image, but according to Our image.” Moreover, when He says “Our,” He declares the equality and likeness of the Son with the Father; and not only that, but he signifies that He is the very same in all things, and in no way different. ^A

VII. But how can He be not equal or not similar who, as I have already said, speaks thus: “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me”? For not only does He Himself say this in the Gospel, but Isaiah also, prophesying by the Holy Spirit, recognized the Son as being in the Father and neither foreign nor different from the Father, just as the text says, which has the following progression: from the Hebrew thus: *Phthoou sarin, viaboton sadich, somer emmunio, iesrosmooch, thesar salom salom, chibac batou, betoub baldonai addoth, chibaia adonai sodolemim*. But from the interpretation of Aquila thus: “Open the gates, let a righteous nation enter, keeping faith, a confirmed creation, guarding of peace, because in Him they trust. Trust in the Lord for ever, for in the Lord is the Lord who established the ages.” But among the Seventy thus: “Open the gates, let one enter who guards truth, and takes hold of truth, and guards peace, because they hoped in Thee, O Lord, for ever, the great, eternal God.” In this passage let the reader observe that among the Seventy, “Lord” and “great” are written instead of “in the Lord.” ^B And how much there is to say ^C about this! But I fear lest I should prolong the treatise on these words too much. For all things are clear in the divine Scripture to those who desire to approach the divine word with a pious mind; and who have not conceived the devil’s impulse within themselves, throwing themselves headlong into the deepest pit of death. Just as that wretched man ^D and his followers have set out to do; who, above all others who have ever been abusive toward God and His faith before them, have attacked the truth. Therefore, let it remain that the Son cannot be dissimilar to the Father; yet we do not rest content with just that. For He is not only similar, but also equal, and the same in divinity, eternity, and power. For we do not call Him *tautousion* [the same substance], because that expression, being used by some, might be drawn toward the dogma of Sabellius. But we declare Him to be the same in divinity, and substance, and power, equal in all things to the Father and to His Holy Spirit. And we say “consubstantial” (*homoousion*), as the holy faith holds, so that from the term *homou* [together] the perfect natures may be clearly signified: that the Son is from the Father, perfect from perfect, and the Holy Spirit is likewise perfect.

^A VIII. Since these things are so, their error must be exposed by two or three testimonies. For if we entirely confess the Son to be begotten by Him, we will necessarily confess Him to be similar to the One who begat Him. But it is clear that, while he says the Son is begotten in word, in reality he thinks and believes Him to be a creature; so that the Son is called so only by the grace of God: this is the opinion of that definer of heavenly things, and divider of those things which cannot be divided, and measurer of our salvation through Christ. But the discourse of all these men easily collapses, those who thrust Him upon us as a creature; and in the first place, that of this heretic, whom I think I may deservedly address with these words: Tell me, I pray, what do you think about the Son of God, and whether you judge Him to be a creature or offspring begotten by the same? For if you maintain that He is a creature, cease to cover your venom with a cunning dissimulation, and cease to pronounce Him begotten by the Father only in word. For whatever is created cannot be begotten, and if it is begotten, it is not created. Wherefore, cease to call the Begotten [Son] by the word [creature]. For it does not befit you to utter the words of truth even in a single statement. But disclose the whole of your treachery, that we may know who you are, and thus escape from your treachery, O snarer of souls, and insidious corrupter of those whom you love! Do you, then, worship the Son of God, or do you not? "I worship Him," he says. Do you worship God, or not? "I worship God," he says. What sort of God, therefore, is He who is called created by you and is worshipped? For if the adorable God has created only one thing, and has willed that this be worshipped, while He Himself, who created everything else, does not wish them to be worshipped, but even blames those who worship the creation, teaching through the law: "You shall not make for yourself any likeness, and you shall worship it, neither in heaven, nor on the earth, nor in the waters" ^B — and the Apostle says: "They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, and were made foolish" — why, then, does He command that not all things be worshipped? Is there, therefore, respect of persons with God? God forbid! For in that the one is worshipped, He showed that the one who is worshipped is entirely other than the creation, and that the creation which is forbidden to be worshipped is other than the adorable Lord, the Son of God begotten of the Father. For because He was begotten of Him, He is similar to Him, and as the Son, He is therefore to be worshipped by all; through Him He made all things, and without Him was not anything made. For in Him, and in His Holy Spirit who proceeds from Him and receives from the Son, He made and established all things. "For by the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the spirit of His mouth all their power." For when the Only-Begotten says, as has been said by me above: "That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent," He separated Himself from the number of created things. As also the Apostle says: "One God, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him." ^{C D}

And you see, then, how he indicates one God the Father, and one Lord, who was begotten of Him! And he did not say, "One God, and one Lord, along with all those who have been created by Him," but rather, "one Lord, through whom are all things." But if He be the one Lord through whom are all things, He is not one of them, but the creator of all things, indeed, the maker of all created things. ^B

IX. Moreover, He who is begotten of the Father and brought forth from the Father, the Son, through whom all things were made, is dissimilar to all things, as being the creator of all; since there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things. By the union of the expression above, through the words "one and one," and through the words "of whom and through whom," he has clearly declared the Son to come forth from the Father. But he shows in a marvelous way that the Son is no longer to be counted among the rest of the things through whom all things come to be, saying this in order to show that there is a Father, and that the only-begotten Lord is a Son who is under the Father who is. The Apostle said these things as he was borne along by the Holy Spirit; hence, he had no need to make mention of the Spirit—not as though the Spirit were not glorified together with the Father and the Son, nor so that he might indicate that the Spirit is among those things created through the Son. For it sufficed that He be numbered through the firm confession of the Son, with the Father and the Son, in the words: "Go, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." ^C Accordingly, when the Apostle spoke, or rather, the Holy Spirit speaking in him, he did not dwell upon the Spirit [footnote omitted]. For the knowledge concerning Him was clear, and was not even doubted by the Jews. He was reserved for another time, so that the Holy Spirit might not commend Himself by His own preaching. Indeed, the Apostle, being moved by the Holy Spirit, as we have said, spoke of the Father and the Son, so that the All-Holy Trinity might be indicated by this, which always exists and never ceases to be. And do not wonder if you hear, "One God, of whom are all things, and one Lord, through whom are all things." For in calling the Son Lord, the Apostle did not at all deny that He is Lord and God; and in saying, "One God, through whom are all things," he did not deny that He is God and Lord. For He is at once Lord and God, and God and Lord; and there is no difference in the things preached to us in truth and for our salvation by God through the Apostles. ^D But that same Anomæan [footnote omitted], having abandoned the path of truth, has turned aside along the byways of error, having interpreted the divine sayings incorrectly. And from there, having turned their interest and mind toward disputes and the wrangling over words, they have recoiled from the truth and fallen away from heavenly things. For every word will refute them, if they are willing to apply their own mind to the illumination of the Gospel. For never does the Only-Begotten say, even though He came in the flesh, "The Father who created me has sent me," nor did the Savior anywhere in the Gospel, or in the Old Testament, discourse [footnote omitted], saying: "I have created the Son for you," but rather, "The Father has sent me," and "I came forth from the Father, and I come," and "He who is in the bosom of the Father."

^A There are infinite things that can be conceived in the mind regarding the mysteries of our salvation, so that we may not be circumvented by the doctrine of this devil, which is full of tricks and artifice. For the devil, desirous of destroying the human race and envying its glory, has devised various machines of wickedness—first through ignorance, then through idolatry, after these through craftiness and error, and now at this time he has arrived at the heresy that would cast man down from heaven; and we have thought it necessary to attribute this to the schemes of the heretics, so that we may be able to dispute against him from his own writings and refute him.

^B X. How many things, indeed, O Anomoean, are available against your dogma from the mediocrity of our intellect! Truly you are well named "Anomoean," that is, "dissimilar," since you differ in conduct and mind from people who possess the wisdom of God and the true faith. For you have not become "dissimilar" to men by having progressed in virtue; rather, having turned aside from the way of truth, you have become different from the sons of the Church of God. And since you have taken as a pretext the Son of God, who is with his Father, and have called him "dissimilar" to the Father, you yourself have become "dissimilar," having inherited this name, no longer being similar to those who are saved in God.

But that I may not waste time in pursuing his questions, come, let us set about refuting him from the very words which he wrote in certain disputations to some people. For in that work from which these excerpts are taken, he instituted a certain disputation full of error; and in that book there is not even the smallest word that seems to hold together with the integral and simple faith which the holy and meek Spirit has ordained. ^C But in the first place, I have set down the little work of his that came into our hands, so that from it we might perform the rest of the refutation of the discourse.

And this is the little treatise of the Anomoean Aetius.

The little work of Aetius the Anomoean follows.

^D XI. Since, in the time of the persecution which certain "temporal" men stirred up against us, some of those we mentioned, having stolen a little work privately composed by us regarding the unbegotten and the begotten God, along with many other writings, and having corrupted it with additions and subtractions, published it, having changed the consequent—

order. After these things, it came to us, for one of the diligent among us brought it. ^A I was compelled, as a father, to clean it thoroughly once more and send this treatise to you, all you pious athletes—both men and women—so that you might know that our discourse has been spoken according to the understanding of the holy Scriptures. By means of it, you will be able to silence, with brief arguments, every person who attempts to contradict you concerning the unbegotten God and the begotten [Son], and to stop their impudence, especially those aforementioned, setting it out in the form of verses, as question and answer, for the sake of the clarity and transparency of the arguments. We have made the beginning concerning the unbegotten God.

I. If it is possible for the unbegotten God to make the begotten unbegotten, [and] if every substance is unbegotten, neither will differ from the other in being without a master. How, then, could one say that the one changes and the other causes to change, when they do not permit God to bring anything into existence from underlying matter?

II. If the unbegotten God exists as superior to every cause, for this reason he would also be superior to generation; and if he is superior to every cause, he is clearly superior to generation also. For he did not receive his being from another nature, nor did he himself provide being for himself.

III. ^C If indeed he did not provide existence for himself, it is not because of any weakness of nature, but because he is the cause superior to all. Who, then, will acknowledge that the subsistence lacks any difference in substance from that which produced it, when such a subsistence excludes all generation?

IV. If God persists eternally and without any end in an unbegotten nature, and the begotten offspring is eternally begotten, that depraved opinion concerning *homoousios* and *homoiousios* shall be refuted. Meanwhile, the incomparability in substance remains in the dignity of each nature, so that, regarding their essence, they cannot be compared with one another.

V. ^D If God is unbegotten in substance, that which is begotten was not begotten by some dividing of the substance, but flowed from the substance by which it was produced. For no pious reason permits the same substance to be both begotten and unbegotten.

VI. If that which is unbegotten has been begotten, what prevents that which is begotten from having been unbegotten? For every nature tends more toward that which is akin to it than toward something alien or foreign.

VII. If the whole of God is not unbegotten, there is nothing to prevent there being a begotten [nature] according to substance. But if he is whole...

^A unbegotten, he is not divided into generation according to substance, but authority has established the begotten.

VIII. If God the Unbegotten is wholly endowed with the power of generation, that which is begotten is not begotten according to substance, since it is innate in his whole substance not that it should be generated, but that it should generate.

IX. But if the substance of God, being transformed, is called a begotten [offspring], his substance is not immutable, since the change has brought about the proper character of the Son.

X. But if the divine substance is devoid of all change and is superior to generation, whatever pertains to the Son we shall profess only by name.

XI. If the begotten offspring was contained in the unbegotten God as if by a certain seed, and after the generation was confirmed and strengthened by something taken from without, for this reason the Son does not have [his perfection] from the things he obtained by generation, but from those things he added, so that he might be perfect and complete. For whatever things naturally receive some addition, inasmuch as they are constituted out of those very things, are accustomed to admit the name of perfect in a different sense. ^B

XII. If the begotten offspring was perfect in the Unbegotten, it is a begotten offspring not from those things which it possessed when it was generated from the Unbegotten. For a begotten nature cannot exist in an unbegotten substance; for it would be at the same time the same and not the same. For that which is begotten is not unbegotten, and that which is unbegotten was not begotten, since to attribute some dissimilar part to God ^C brings with it a form of blasphemy and insult against the Divine.

XIII. If God the Almighty, endowed with an unbegotten nature, does not know himself to have a begotten nature, but the Son, possessing a begotten nature, knows himself to be such as he is, would not the whole theory of consubstantiality be a lie and a falsehood, since one recognizes himself as unbegotten and the other as begotten?

XIV. If the term "unbegotten" does not signify the substance of God, but that incomparable name was devised by human intellects, God is a debtor of grace to those who invented this very fiction of the "unbegotten," since he does not have an excellence in his essence corresponding to so great a name. ^D

XV. If the condition of being unbegotten is attributed to God from without, those who attribute it are superior to the one to whom it is attributed, since they attribute to him a name more excellent than his nature allows.

XVI. If the unbegotten nature does not yield to generation, we have what we desire. But if it does yield to generation, the passions of generation will be attributed to the divine substance.

XVII. If the begotten offspring is immutable by nature on account of the One who begat it, that which is unbegotten is an immutable substance, not by choice or by anyone's will, but by a certain dignity inherent in the substance.

XVIII. If the word "unbegotten" is indicative of substance, if

it is distinguished ^A in opposition to the substance of the begotten, how is it categorized as belonging to the substance of the begotten? But if "unbegotten" signifies nothing, much less does the word "begotten" express anything. For how can nothing respond to nothing in a division?

XIX. But if the very utterance of "unbegotten" is opposed to the utterance of "begotten," given that silence follows upon (either) utterance, the hope of Christians would happen to exist and cease to exist, grounded in a difference of utterance, but not in natures that are as the significance of the names themselves declares.

XX. If "unbegotten" confers nothing more to the dignity of substance than does "begotten," the Son, surpassed only by the utterance of a word, will acknowledge those who address Him as superior to Himself, rather than Him who is invoked as His God and Father. ^B

XXI. If unbegotten substance excels generation, having an excellence inherent in itself, it is unbegotten by its own nature. For it does not excel generation because it wills it—as if it were a matter of arbitrary desire—but because it is so constituted by nature. Therefore, since God is of Himself an unbegotten substance, He permits no reasoning to conceive generation as applicable to Himself, driving away and rejecting all inquiry and speculation directed toward begotten things.

XXII. If the word "unbegotten" signifies a privation in God, and yet "unbegotten" being nothing at all ^C—what reason could remove anything from that which does not exist? But if it signifies something that exists, who would separate existent being from that which it is in itself?

XXIII. Since privations are the removals of conditions, the "unbegotten" in God is either the privation of a condition, or a condition contrary to a privation. But if it is the privation of a condition, how could that which is not present in God be attributed to Him as if it were present?

XXIV. But if "unbegotten" is a certain condition, it is necessary that a begotten substance exist beforehand and, as it were, underlie it, so that by such a condition accruing to it, it may be named "unbegotten."

XXV. If, however, a begotten substance had partaken of an unbegotten one, having undergone the loss of a condition, it has lost the state of being unbegotten. Therefore, the substance would be begotten, while the "unbegotten" would be a condition. ^D

XXVI. And if a "begotten offspring" signifies a certain transition, it is not doubtful that it indicates a certain condition, whether it be formed by a certain change from a substance, or whether this very thing is what is called a "begotten offspring."

XXVII. If both "unbegotten" and "begotten" are conditions, substances are indeed prior to conditions; but conditions, though posterior to substances, are nevertheless to be preferred to them.

XXVIII. If "unbegotten" is the cause of the "begotten" and confers existence upon it; and if the "begotten," comprehending the cause itself in the notion of its own substance, is indicative of substance...

but not of an affection—since the ingenerate nature does not include anything else within itself—should it not be seen as a substance rather than some kind of affection? ^A

XXIX. If every substance is ingenerate, as is that of God the Almighty, what point is there in calling one subject to passions and the other free from them? But if by a certain lot and condition of the ingenerate nature, one is exempt from quantity and quality—and, to say it in a word, from all change—while the other admits of passions, yet—it is allowed—immutability is granted to the same, it is necessary that what is present in these mentioned natures be said either to have happened by some chance coincidence, or, as is fitting, that we call that which acts "ingenerate," and that which suffers and is changed, "generate."

XXX. If the ingenerate nature is the cause of the begotten, and "ingenerate"—which is called the principle—is absolutely nothing, how can that which is nothing be the principle of that which has been produced? ^B

XXXI. If "ingenerate" is a certain privation, and privation is the loss of an affection, and loss is utterly destroyed or shifts to another—how is it possible for the substance of God, as the affection passes away, to be named by the appellation of "ingenerate"?

XXXII. If "ingenerate" signifies a privation not present in God, why do we say He is ingenerate, yet say He is not generate?

XXXIII. If "ingenerate" is a mere name applied to God, and yet the mere utterance exalts the hypostasis of God above all begotten things, then it follows that the utterance of men is more venerable than the hypostasis of the Almighty, since it adorns God the Almighty with an incomparable excellence of dignity. ^C

XXXIV. If the notion of cause is implicated and joined with all that is generate, and the cause is the ingenerate nature, when we say "ingenerate," we express not some cause, but substance.

XXXV. If whatever has been produced has been produced by another, and the ingenerate hypostasis has been produced neither by itself nor by another, it necessarily follows that "ingenerate" signifies substance.

XXXVI. If the substance of the ingenerate is declared, as cause, to be the ingenerate hypostasis, which is endowed with immutability before all kinds of causes, that same substance is incomparable in and of itself, not bearing that quality as if it were added from without—so that nothing could be added to it—but it has this from itself, so that nothing can be compared with it or approach it. Whence it is also ingenerate in and of itself. ^D

XXXVII. If the Almighty exceeds every nature, it is by being ingenerate that he exceeds, which is the cause of stability for all generated things. But if it is not expressive of substance...

whence then shall the nature of generated things have that by which it is preserved?

^B XXXVIII. If none of the things that escape our sight is prior to itself by some innate power, but is contained by a defined lot of nature, how can it be that the ingenerate God, existing free from all allotment, should see his own substance now as secondary in a generated offspring, and now as primary in an ingenerate being, according to the order of first and second?

XXXIX. If God persists in an ingenerate nature, this claim should be withdrawn from him, that he might know himself to be generated and yet to be ingenerate. But if it be granted to him that his nature is transferred through the condition of the generated and the ingenerate, he is ignorant of his own substance, being distracted by the quality of both—that is to say, of the generated and the ingenerate.

XL. If, however, the generated shares in the condition of the ingenerate, and remains perpetually in the nature of the generated, it must needs know itself to be constituted in an imperfect nature, and remain unaware of that communion of the ingenerate. For it cannot form for itself a knowledge of the ingenerate substance and the generated substance at the same time.

XLI. If the property of the ingenerate is trivial and of no account because it is prone to change, then an immutable substance is a certain dignity of nature, since the ingenerate substance is acknowledged by all to excel every cause.

^C XLII. If the ingenerate has no cause at all, and there were many ingenerate beings, they would consist of an immutable nature. For one would not have been moved by some common and peculiar condition of nature, shared in and participated, while the other was produced and brought into being.

XLIII. If every substance is ingenerate, neither will differ from the other in terms of being subject to no lord. How then could anyone say that the one changes and the other causes change, since they do not allow God to produce anything from a substance that is not subject to him?

XLIV. If every substance is ingenerate, then none is variable. But if nature cannot be varied, then acting and being acted upon must be referred to some fortuitous occurrence.

^D XLV. But if there are many ingenerate and invariable beings, they will differ from one another by no certain number. For things that differ either absolutely or in any part cannot be comprehended by number; since every difference signifies in the ingenerate nature a certain designated lot, as if it were an attribute, of an ingenerate nature that is otherwise ordered.

XLVI. If the word "ingenerate" and "God" are taken as one and the same, then the ingenerate has generated the ingenerate. But if the terms "ingenerate" and "God" signify something different, and it is not absurd for God to have generated God, then each of them has derived his existence from the ingenerate substance.

XLVII. If there were nothing at all before God, just as there is not

^A anything, God and the ingenerate signify the same thing, for the generating principle does not admit the ingenerate. Hence it does not endure being named together with God and his Father.

May the self-generated God, who is and who is called by the sent Jesus Christ the only true God—who truly stood forth before the ages and who is truly of a generated substance—keep you sound, both men and women, and whole from impiety, in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom all glory to the Father both now and always and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Thus far is the work of Aetius.

And the beginning of his pestiferous words, as I have said, which have come to us in part, is this one being refuted by us. For they say he composed three hundred chapters similar to these, ^B full of every blasphemy. Here, however, as if one were an expert and studious craftsman gathering the bones from the remains of a dead and rotting serpent for the injury of some people—the plot of which he boasts, writing to some as if the little work contained something refined—the beginning of which we have described, on account of which we ourselves, having gathered the healing words of the divine Scripture from beginning to end as an antidote to be refuted, might prepare for those wishing to be healed of his venom, directly setting forth refutations of each word of those same syllogistic chapters as follows:

Preface of Aetius the Anomoean

Since at the time of the persecution brought upon us by the chronitae (the opportunists), some of the aforementioned persons, having made off with a little work privately authored by us concerning the ingenerate God and the generated one, along with many other things, ^C published it corrupted by additions and subtractions, having disordered the sequence; and since after this it came to us, some one of the diligent among us having brought it: I was compelled, as a father, to have cleaned it and sent it to you again, O all you athletes both male and female of piety, so that you might know that our little piece is meant to have been spoken according to the sense of the holy Scriptures, by which you will be able, by means of brief refutations, to stop every man who attempts to contradict you concerning the ingenerate God and the generated one from being shameless; but above all, to stop the aforementioned opportunists, having set apart the questioning of the question and the solution of the solution in the form of verses, ^D because of the ease of understanding and the clarity of the arguments, having made the beginning concerning the ingenerate God.

Refutation

I. I shall fashion the refutation of your dialectical bombast and syllogistic vain-labor word for word.

so that I may not leave out any of those infinite expressions, whether greater or lesser. And first, since you wrote above to the athletes and athlete-women of your own fullness, saying that certain people over time had surreptitiously obtained the small work that you had in hand, in which you had gathered the whole matter into questions, you may be convicted from this very writing of yours that this name belongs rather to yourself and those instructed by you—not to call them your associates in error. For the holy faith and religion of God, being from the beginning and ever-existing, ancient and never aging, is always present, and the foundation of it is made firm, and it exists, having its own Lord who is outside of time. Therefore, it is not itself subject to time, but dwells constantly with the angels, adorning the saints through every generation. But you, rather, are to be called a creature of time, ^B misled by error, puffed up in your mind, and having cast the sheep of your flock indiscriminately into thorny pastures. For none of the ancients thought as you do, O Aetius, who write about temporal matters, being yourself a creature of time and not adhering to the ancient tradition. Directly from your first endeavor, as you say you wrote a small work, speaking about the ingenerate and generate God, you bewildered life with such a brilliant display of your speech, so that I might make your discourse of such novel name-creation a laughingstock.

II. Who among all Christians possessing the saving proclamation of God

^A Since you have practiced your seemingly powerful and sophistic arguments against your superiors in debate, but rather that you might open your mouth against the truth, we, the lowly and unlearned—not your equals, but lesser than many who are in the holy Church of God—will, as I said before, accomplish the overturning of this unstable and utterly cheap garrulity.

^B III. But let your opposition to our brevity regarding the prologue rest here. Further, having arranged the chapters you have composed in order, I shall set over against every word and chapter the refutations and the destruction of your logical questions, drawn from the divine Scriptures and from right reason. Thus the servants of God and true athletes, upon reading them and understanding all your absurdity, may laugh you to scorn, saying: "The pride of your heart has done this to you." For you said these things in your heart: "I will ascend into heaven, and above the stars of heaven I will set my throne. I will sit on an exalted mountain; upon the high mountains which are towards the north I will ascend, I will be like the Most High. But now you shall descend into Hades, to the foundations of the earth," and so forth.

THE BEGINNING OF THE CHAPTERS OF AETIUS IS THIS

^C I. If it is possible for the ingenerate God to make what is generate, ingenerate.

Refutation I. ^C First of all, to deliberate that there is something which God cannot do is impious to think, and indeed this is only something that does not befit His divinity, and it is not because He lacks the strength to do it, but because the evil nature of the thing does not befit God, to whom nothing is impossible; but [it is not done] because that evil thing is impossible for His divine goodness, and for Him who is Himself good.

Furthermore: If what has been made and is generated were judged by God to be good if it were rendered ingenerate, and yet He could not bring this to pass well for that which is becoming good, then that all-powerful God would appear to be devoid of strength, being unable to achieve what He wished to accomplish for the better. But since that which is ingenerate is good, and that which is generate is well-generated in its own order—since the condition of generated things is good, and has proceeded from the good God, and is judged by Him none other than [good]—He will never desire to make that which is clearly well-generated into something ingenerate, ^D since He is persuaded that it is good for the matter to be as it is. Wherefore, since the condition of the good is in no way changed, not because it is impossible for Him, but because it is well-constituted in that manner, God is surely good, and likewise the things that have come from Him in their own order are good, even though they lack the name of "ingenerate." For He did not create gods, so that the one, being extended alongside the other, should through the appellation of the [incommunicable] name abolish the namelessness of the greater in relation to the lesser. For if the one is the ingenerate God, and the other is the generate God, of the natures

^A Since natures are not in communion, it is impossible for them to share in the divine dignity of the name by nature, but only, if at all, by some borrowed grace, and that too by participation in what is being generously bestowed by the superior upon the lesser. But the lesser would never call himself by the name of the greater, knowing full well that he is entirely alien to the dignity and the name that belong to the other by nature. Someone might say to you, O Aetius, "The Word was God," and not, "The Word became God." How will he possess the name of nobility by nature, or how will he be made equal, if he has become something through the dignity of Christ? Or how shall the phrase "was God" be clipped away, when the word "was" admits of no division of time, not even in any random instance? You will know, then, that the ingenerate God, and the God who is without beginning, begat from Himself a God like unto Himself, and not only like, but equal in all respects. And He did not create Him, lest the creature, having become unlike, should obliterate the name of God through the discrepancy of its variation. ^B It is impossible for the one who begets to beget one unlike and unequal to himself, and for the begotten to be unlike the begetter. Therefore, here will be contained the identity of nature from the evangelical testimony, that "All things that the Father has are mine," which is to say: God is the Father, God am I; life is the Father, life am I; and so on, all things that befit the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one divinity, with the Trinity having nothing changed; for it is clearly established for us in perfect knowledge that, without beginning and without time, the subsistent Word of the Father, and the subsistent Holy Spirit, who originates from the Father and from the Son, are ours to know. ^C God is the Father, I also am God; life is the Father, I also am life; and all other things which belong in common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in one divinity, since there is nothing diverse in the Trinity, clearly offer us a perfect knowledge, confirmed by every reason, of the subsistent Word of the Father and the similarly subsistent Holy Spirit, who arises from the Father and is proper to the Son.

AETIUS CHAPTER II

Refutation II

^A nor is contained by the common appellation of others, and by that fact that he is consubstantial with that excellent being, he is endowed with such dignity that he is placed in the same order as Him. If he had any variation from that excellent and preeminent being, it would be necessary that something of His dignity be diminished, by the very fact that the communion of that most excellent, unbegotten splendor has some variation or diversity. Wherefore, we do not conceive of that offspring from an equal as similar or equal according to the capacity of any bodily intelligence, but according to the Christian faith, as God from God, light from light, and the subsistent Word of the Father, such that the glory of that excellent and peerless being is preserved safe and entire, by the very fact that He is asserted to be not at all the principle of His own self, but that He produced the Son, an offspring equal to Him, endowed with the most pure and incomprehensible substance and in a consubstantial manner, that is, with the same substance and hypostasis: who indeed is not an image devoid of soul, but expresses the paternal lineage, as Scripture testifies, which constitutes the begotten Son equal to the begetter. The image, it says, of the invisible God. And lest anyone should believe that the notion of the image differs from identity itself, the Father Himself, that He might lead us on the right path, spoke thus before that statement was brought forth: Let us make man in our image and after our likeness. In this, He did not distinguish Himself from the Son, but willed to use a similar voice, pertaining to two, "Let us make man"; by which He might express two, namely Himself and the Son, or, I might also say, the Holy Spirit as well. And that He might show the equality of the image, He did not wish to insert two different words, but mentioned only one image, yet He brought forth that word—"our"—which looked toward two. Furthermore, He signified that the created man was not fashioned according to the image of one, but was an effigy of the likeness and equality of both, in order to declare openly that whatever excellence exists, it is the same and one in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, neither various nor multiple. For neither did the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit receive from another nature, nor did He transfer the communion of His nature and dignity into another nature; nor did the production of the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit bring variety to that divine nature, as if by some section or effusion. But just as from the beginning that most excellent nature existed always as made or created by none, so He has most openly proclaimed to us that He has always produced from Himself an offspring, together with the Holy Spirit, without any diversity.

AETIUS CHAPTER III

Refutation III

accounted as those who counsel what is pious. For you seem, in matters necessary and befitting to God, to declare the God who is unlike and unequal to Him who was begotten of Him—proceeding from a great error, though seeming to fashion it under a certain false appearance of piety—and you thus proclaim Him similar in those things which are most unworthy of God, and which do not befit His divinity. ^A And first of all, to rack the mind to such a depth regarding God is the fruit of impiety and rather of a maniacal intellect. For to say "He is the cause of Himself," or "He bestowed upon Himself that He should be," you entangle yourself in two evil surmises, groping and seeking regarding God: how He was, whether He ever existed, or whether He gave existence to Himself, or whether it came to be spontaneously. And I fear and shudder at your evil reasoning being extended further.

Cease, therefore, and we shall cease, holding sufficiently and piously to the belief in God as always, and believing that God always was. For even here, speaking and reasoning foolishly, as if you had greatly honored God, you said that He did not bestow existence upon Himself. ^B But if, according to you, the salvation of faith depends upon words and syllogisms—which can be found even in the lowest and most wretched bodies—and if there is nothing of which you speak in created things that is its own cause, or that obtained existence from itself—and if you wish to proceed from beasts to men, and from men to angels, you will find this to be true—for nothing of the things that have been made granted to itself that it should exist, but received the beginning of its existence from Him alone who is. Therefore, beware, lest by such reasonings, with which you think you shrewdly conclude, you forcibly and unnaturally extend yourself to that which is greater and more excellent. For if you do this, you will utterly fail for lack of strength. Since the only Son of God is equal and similar to God the Father, although He has this of dignity, that He was produced and begotten by Him, nothing of this will shrink back from the equality of the Father, nor from the likeness. ^C For nothing of the things that are made bestowed existence upon itself; just as that most excellent and in every part perfect One formerly had no beginning, in that He never began to be. For He always existed and always exists, even though He remains in identity, and did not bestow existence upon Himself. In this, one must not seek out ambiguous words, but apply a sincere consideration consistent with piety.

II. Furthermore, since you yourself dispute saying: If He did not bestow existence upon Himself, this is not because of any weakness of nature, but because He is above every cause; I wish you also to understand this: that the name of the Son does not refer to any weakness, but rather to the fact that, convening equally with the Progenitor, He possesses the glory of consubstantiality. ^D And otherwise, since you say: If He did not bestow existence upon Himself, it is not because of the weakness of nature, but because He has surpassed every cause; learn also yourself that the name of the Son will not exist due to the weakness of the Son, but because He possesses the excellence of consubstantiality in a manner befitting the One who begat Him. Since, just as it is most befitting to the Father to surpass every cause, so to the only Son from the only Father, together with the only Holy Spirit, the one same divinity is befitting, and, even though it cannot admit of being a cause, it...

does not admit it not because of any feebleness, but because it excels all things which have been made from nothing. Surely there is one divinity, which is numbered under the one name of the Trinity, and is preached to those being enlightened in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, by which we are confirmed as if by a certain singular seal; and finally it contains nothing different from itself, since those voices—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—proceeding from the truth, fulfill the equality of that which they signify.

But as to what you subjoin: "Who will confess that a product has no difference in essence from that which produced it, when such a substance excludes all generation?" you do not notice that you are alienated by your own fault from the divine knowledge of the truth, as one who has not been taught the truth by the Holy Spirit, but, relying on the wisdom of this world—which has been rendered foolish and stupid—you attempt to advance to heavenly things. Wherefore it is consequent that you should also hear that you are in vain: *For the Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.* For He who begat the subsistent Word begat an equal to Himself, and one not different from His own divinity, not because of a change in the begotten, but because it was altogether unseemly for us to think that He begat a offspring unworthy of Himself, and unequal, and inferior to the begetter. For this reason He said that all things were made through the Son and subsistent Word, so that He might not number Him among created things, but as being like and equal in the Father, because it is appropriate to the title of the Father to be what He is, always existing in His own substance, not a stranger, but genuine, as a Son consubstantial, begotten from Him.

AETIUS CHAPTER IV

Refutation IV

^A you are forced to introduce—since the truth does not admit that the Son should have an end—because, as Scripture says, of His kingdom there shall be no end; for He reigns forever with the Father and with His Holy Spirit. For everything that has a beginning will also have an end, if it pleases Him who granted the one who had received the beginning the power to be; this is possible in all other things, but regarding the Son, it is impossible. For He is always from Him who is, and is always with Him who is, never ceasing to be. Therefore, He was, and is, and shall be consubstantial, alone from the Alone, and in no respect differing in substance, but the divinity remains in the identity according to the dignity of the names, neither possessing any fusion, nor granting to itself a beginning of being, nor admitting into itself anything unlike itself; for It is [the Trinity] always existing, and never ceasing to be, but always consistent with Itself, subsisting without any interruption in the eternal dignity of the Father toward the Son, of the Son toward the Father, and of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. For the Trinity is incomparable to Itself, admitting no division in dignity. ^B

AETIUS CHAPTER V

If God is unbegotten in substance, that which is begotten was not begotten by some distraction of substance, but flowed from the substance by which it was produced. For no pious reason allows that the same substance is at once both begotten and unbegotten. ^C

Refutation V

You have often thrust these terms "unbegotten" and "begotten" upon us, insolently bandying about the name of God, while your mind is buried in every kind of wickedness. And indeed, for anyone in need, it is highly desirable to have an abundance of what he lacks for his comfort; or, if he cannot attain it, at least to use the word frequently in conversation. Hence you, too, since you are impious and devoid of God, sell yourself by mentioning His name with your lips—which is all that is left to you—since, in truth, regarding His fear, faith, hope, and love toward Him, you have never truly possessed Him. Otherwise, you would believe it sufficient to utter this once, and not exceed the prescribed order and sequence. For manifest is the judgment pronounced against you by the Savior: *By their fruits you shall know them*, in that, while you are wrapped in a sheep's skin, you are a ravenous destroyer on the inside and likened to a wolf. For if you had been begotten of the Holy Spirit and instructed by the prophets and apostles, you would have found it necessary to go through all the sacred books, from Genesis down to the times of Esther, which are the twenty-seven books of the Old Testament, numbered as twenty-two, then the four holy Gospels, and the fourteen Epistles of the holy apostle Paul, and those before these, and together with those in their own times, the Acts of the Apostles, the Catholic Epistles of James, and Peter, and John, and Jude,

the Apocalypse of John; the books of Wisdom, that is, of Solomon, and of the son of Sirach, and in short all the divine Scriptures, you would condemn yourself; because you have not hesitated to bring before us a name of this kind, of which there is no mention anywhere. For the name of the "Unbegotten" is indeed not unworthy of God, so that it might even breathe piety, but it is nowhere expressed in the divine Scriptures.

For no one, being of sound mind, has ever thought of God as being "begotten." Nor, again, was there need for us to call the Father alone the unbegotten God on account of the Son who is begotten of Him; so that no one might persuade himself that this is true in the Father alone, but might understand that it ^B pertains also to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. For right reason, and the Holy Spirit, teach the sons of truth not to wonder so much at this, but to think of the divine majesty in accordance with what is required of us, and what is contained within us of pious reasoning concerning God. Since, therefore, God is unbegotten, and we all readily confess this, even if this sort of appellation cannot be proved from any place in Scripture, but has proceeded from our own selves and from that pious reasoning: in that way it is fitting for us to know and to think. For why should there be any divorce of essence in what is begotten, if the name of "begotten" deservedly belongs to Him, and is attributed in a certain natural, yet inexplicable and—to God the Father as well as to Him who was begotten of Him without time or beginning—fitting manner, and indeed truly and properly, not by a mere abuse of the word? Hence we say that the essence is not created, nor external as if it were a thing made, but begotten substantially, and not other than the Father who begat. Therefore it also remains uncreated, and not made, but begotten of the very essence of God, not subject to time. For the One who truly begat did not fall under time, so that He might produce a temporal substance. For such as the offspring is, such is the Begetter; and such as the Begetter is, such also is the One who is begotten. ^C

AETIUS’ CHAPTER VI

Refutation VI

"— ^A it is impossible, Aetius, for us to confuse all things and to take away from your own mind the communion of that perfect name which corresponds to the true relationship of the Son who is always with the Father and is uncreated. It is impossible for the unbegotten and uncreated nature to have ever been created, and, having been created, to have repented and returned by a sort of postliminy to its former state of being unbegotten, however much you strive to entangle us in your infinite Aristotelian questions, having abandoned the simple, pure, and holy teaching of the Spirit from above.

AETIUS, CHAPTER VII

Refutation VII

AETIUS, CHAPTER VIII

Refutation VIII

is evil to himself and good to no one else? But so that you might not, because of the evils that have sprouted up in the world with you as their author, imagine them to be something magnificent and of such a kind that they can contradict the truth, we ourselves will apply ourselves with patience, so that with the two-edged sword—that is, the word of Christ—we may cut away your thorny roots and set against them the wholesome, perfect, and sincere confession of the faith. ^A For we must give great thanks to the merciful God, who has willed to show us what sort of person you are; you, I say, occupy the place and role of Judas, who, although he was reckoned among the disciples, separated himself from their number because, being not at all endowed with the mind of Christ, he expressed that wicked desire to renounce God through the prompting of Satan. For you have confessed the Son of God with mere words while having [something else] in your mind. And what need is there to converse with you, when you are altogether alienated from the company of Christians, from the prophets, to be sure, and the apostles, evangelists, martyrs, ^B and all the saints? For they shall openly refute you on that final day of judgment, since they endured even unto death—being tortured, scourged, scraped, thrown to wild beasts and fire, and murdered by the sword—lest they deny the Son who is truly begotten of God. For the Father is the begetter of the only Begotten, and of no other one besides the One, and He is the source of the Holy Spirit, and of no other spirit. But He is the Creator and Maker of those things which were created by Him and are always being created. Therefore, no longer are many sons being begotten, nor are many spirits proceeding from Him, but the same divinity always remains and is glorified in the Trinity, and is never added to, nor does it cease, nor was it ever left behind as if it did not exist. ^C For this reason, the dignity [of the Son] does not rest merely on the name applied to the offspring; for otherwise He would have had many brothers after Him like unto Himself, as in that which is said: "I have begotten and raised up sons"; and in that: "Who has begotten the drops of dew"; and in that: "From whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named"; and in that: "Is there not one Father of you all?"; and in that: "My son Jacob"; and in that: "My firstborn Israel." For all these, by a mere word, having advanced from non-being to being, do not stand in terms of essence by a true appellation, but [are sons] merely and by grace; whereas [the Son] is named not by a mere naming, but according to truth from the One, through the One, taking [His existence] together with Him who proceeds from Him.

AETIUS, CHAPTER IX

^D If the offspring were contained in the unbegotten God as in a seed, then after the birth, having taken [what was] from outside, he would have grown to manhood, so to speak. Therefore, the Son would be perfect not from the generation itself, but from that which He added to Himself subsequently. For things that assume kindred elements for their own growth, as if consisting of them, admit the name of "perfect" in a different way.

^A

Refutation IX

I. Unless you confess that the Begetter is without a body, you may stir up as many tragedies as you wish. You will frighten no one with them, but you will only confuse your own mind, turning it away from the true confession. For a perfect God begat from Himself a perfect Son, not another outside of His nature; for He is not unworthy of the Begetter, nor does He desire any external accession. Indeed, nothing can exist that is greater and more excellent than the substance of God, so that He could share that which is said to "advance toward perfection" with one who is in need. For He who exists eternally without a body, and who has begotten in a generative way the One who exists eternally with Him as bodiless, has perfectly begotten the perfect One—God being Spirit, and having begotten the Word, who is Spirit and subsistent. ^B

Yet it is truly ridiculous, Aetius, to hear your invention—you who are eager to investigate heavenly things and to inquire, by means of syllogisms and clever reasonings, into what must be thought concerning divine matters, while at the same time you attribute to Him who created all things from non-existence, and who is able to fashion everything perfectly as one, and who needs no growth or accession, and who has bound these things fast by His own laws and decrees—you attribute to the Word such a nature that admits of an increase in divinity, and you do not even allow Him to be equal to the things created by Him. For having made them perfectly from the beginning, He decreed by the law of His wisdom that those things which sprout from them should have need of accession; such are those things which were born subsequently and are born daily, like the heaven, the earth, water, air, the sun, the moon, the stars, and those things originating from the waters, down to man himself. ^C He did not make an imperfect heaven, nor a hollow and defective earth, but He made the earth perfect, just as the heaven; although He fashioned it invisible and unadorned at that time, because of the decoration He was to create later. He also produced the water and that first-created light, having made all things through the true, uncreated, and life-giving Light; then those things which grew from the earth; and before this, the firmament. Nothing of all these became imperfect, but all were in perfection. "Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass, sowing seed according to its likeness upon the earth, and the fruit tree, whose seed is in itself according to its likeness upon the earth." ^D Do you not observe how those things which were produced had no need whatsoever of subsequent growth for their perfection, but were, so to speak, robust and perfect immediately by the commandment, and were found to be so? But to man, the things subjected to him, and those that are in him, were not delivered in a perfect state while he was yet content with mere seed, in order that man might always know the One who bestows benefits, and who provides existence for all, and who is above all, and who grants the growth of every creature for the sustenance of those things which serve him.

II. He delivered the earth to him seminally, having laid it down, so to speak, as a foundation and base, and having committed it to him like a matrix, that from the projection of those things...

which the perfect God produced, they might receive an increase from the perfect God as if they were seeds cast into the earth, just as trees and other such growths. ^A For he took them piece by piece, as if gathering up a pebble from those things which were perfect, and letting it fall into the earth, that they might receive an increase from the perfect God, and that those things which were seminally planted by Him might grow from without—so that he might not, by being ignorant of the provider of this increase, think himself the creator and fall away from the truth. For although it is written that Noah planted a vineyard, it is not written that he was its creator; but, "He became a husbandman." For the one who provides the authentic elements for things that are to be is one thing, and the human being who has received his existence from Him, and has been entrusted with His cultivation, is another; so that the one might cultivate those things that require increase for their perfection, while the Other might provide perfection through His own increase of those things which were created by Him, and through the ^B increase of those which are growing toward perfection. Thus it is also with animals, birds, cattle, reptiles, and sea creatures; all things were made perfect in the beginning by the will of Him who commanded them. But now, by the counsel of wisdom, they stand in need of increase for the sake of the benefit in understanding of man, who is set as master on the earth, that he might acknowledge the God who is above all, the provider of the seeds and the increase of the growth, being God and Lord. Therefore, God left those things which are in the heavens, which are not sown by the hands of man, and which neither beget nor are begotten, in a state of perfection. For they did not fall into the mind of man as a cause for plotting and the pride of vainglory—as one might say, for instance, in the case of the sun, the moon, and the stars. For it is not because the moon is begotten, or wanes, or waxes, that it undergoes a change in its nature, but it is for the sake of the arrangement of the seasons and the provision which God ordained for the luminaries. How then, if God wished to make corporeal things, even those which decay and are capable of decay, perfect immediately, did He beget from Himself the One who is always existing, as though He needed an increase from Him who is? ^C Cease then, O Aetius, bringing us your empty Aristotelian terms, when we possess sufficient [truth], and are not deceived concerning the true teaching of our Lord, which says: "I came forth from the Father, and I go [John xvi, 28]," the power of which expression does not consist in a figurative sense, but signifies a nature endowed with the perfection and dignity of God.

AETIUS, CHAPTER X

If the begotten offspring were perfect, it would be in the unbegotten, not out of those things which it possessed when it was begotten by the unbegotten. For a begotten nature cannot exist in an unbegotten substance; for it would be at the same time the same, and not the same. For that which is begotten is not unbegotten, and that which is unbegotten was not begotten: to ascribe such a thing ^D to God bears the character of blasphemy and is a species of insult.

^A Thus, from every side, the parts of his distorted words are refuted, as it is impossible that the Son should be unlike the Father, or unequal to His perfect divinity. For if he speaks under compulsion, as he maintains, and turns the very words he utters against himself, by constantly pressing upon us the terms "begotten" and "unbegotten," then let him learn from this that the created and the uncreated cannot share with one another in that dignity which consists entirely in being worthy of adoration. For if the unlike, being equated with the unlike, is entirely worthy of adoration, then discourse will no longer distinguish the one from the many, with the unlikeness being unable to be ordered in the rank of its own dignity, even if it might surpass all other existing things in glory, in view of the unlikeness which cannot be associated or compared with the One, because it does not share in the unlikeness of all toward the One. And thus it will result that the sun and moon and stars and earth, and even things lower than these, would appear worthy of adoration; and this would not be unique and peculiar to the One, together with the one Spirit—which is one Trinity, and one divinity, and one worship. ^B Therefore, if one must draw this conclusion from that starting point, will it indeed be the truth, since the one Word is not similar to all other words, nor is the Son equal to all others who are called so by allegory? For He is not counted among the others, but it is through Him that they were created. ^C Thus that which Aetius proposed as impossible at the beginning, and which bore the character of an insult and blasphemy against God—on account of that part which he had attributed to God (which is indeed not a part of difference, but of equality, so that the divinity, which is always most perfect, consisting in three perfect Persons, a single divinity, is not to be divided)—this very thing, I say, which he introduced concerning the "unlike," has contributed greatly to the strengthening of the truth of the Catholic faith, so that we may not place faith in the error of those whom we convict of wrongly adhering to the rash opinion and superstition of the Greeks, and professing that all creation is to be adored, however much it may be unlike the Father, who is adored in the Son, and the Son, who is adored in the Father, with the Holy Spirit, to whom glory be forever. ^D

AETIUS CHAPTER XI

If God the Almighty is endowed with an unbegotten nature, but does not recognize in Himself the condition of a begotten nature; while the Son, possessing such a begotten nature, recognizes Himself for what He is: would not that whole doctrine of consubstantiality be mendacious and false, seeing that one recognizes himself as unbegotten, and the other as begotten?

Refutation XI

That man Aetius, who in his disputations attempted to establish distinctions and define certain limits within the divine nature—being a man in his own nature, and one who desired to know things surpassing all nature, and to know them not by the authority of the holy Scriptures, but by human reasonings—thus proclaimed: "Almighty God, since He is unbegotten by nature, does not in any way understand Himself to be begotten." This he asserted so persistently and from the very beginning of his discourse, that he differs even from the ancient Arians, although he wished to dissemble by calling the Only-Begotten "Son." ^B But do you, O sons of truth, carefully attend everywhere to this: how he strives to alienate Him utterly from the Father, and shows that He in no way partakes of the divine substance by the things which he does not hesitate to pronounce rashly again and again. For when he asserts that the Father knows Himself to be unbegotten, and does not know Himself to have a generative nature, he uses the term "Son" quite in vain. But his argument shall be refuted. For the Father is indeed unbegotten, and He begat the Only-Begotten from eternity, being of a nature proper to Himself, in that He alone begat the Only-Begotten and brought forth the Spirit; He, the sole Begetter, with the only Only-Begotten; He who exists together with the Son, who was begotten without any beginning, and being Spirit, He begat the Spirit. ^C Nor is He a body, which is divided in a corporeal manner, or is corrupted, or grows, or undergoes cutting. Wherefore, although in all other cases of those who beget or are begotten, the necessity of the condition itself implies something else, yet here the dignity of the One compared to the One has received something unlike the others. Whence the Begotten Himself, in a marvelous manner from the Father, who begat wonderfully, was begotten as from the Unbegotten, being consonant with the nature of the Begetter. Furthermore, the Same Himself, with regard to nature, does not beget further; so that, from the fact that He Himself begets nothing by nature and substance, while the Father is begotten by no one, the glory of the divine majesty may be preserved in the one and singular dignity of God—namely, of the perfect Father, the perfect Son, and the perfect Holy Spirit. ^D Since these things are so, the doctrine of consubstantiality cannot be shown to be false from the Scriptures, nor can a pious and religious mind reject it as a fabrication, because it has been piously established concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and, by divine benefit, it has attained the ability to celebrate and adore the same Trinity.

AETIUS CHAPTER XII

If the word "unbegotten" in no way signifies the substance of God, but this incomparable name is a product of human ingenuity, God knows...

[575/576] the superiority of the name is not something he bears in his essence.

Confutation XII.

The expression "unbegotten," as we have often contended against Aetius—and we do not deny it, even if it does not appear in the divine Scriptures—has been piously devised. We call and confess the Father to be unbegotten; we do not deny that the Son is begotten, but we do not call Him a creature. For if we define the Son as begotten, we cannot deny that He has His substance from God the Father. For He begat Him with generation, and did not create Him. Just as you, crookedly perverting everything in your thoughts regarding the begotten and the unbegotten (for you accomplish nothing else), also listen to this, from human syllogisms, dialectical contradictions, and human foolishness: "The mind of man is set on evil things ^B diligently from his youth."

We ourselves, however, shall say that it is much more unbecoming for God, who is uncreated, to create what is created, and for the One who is not made to make things. For it is not possible for the uncreated to create the created, nor for the One who is not made to make what is to be, if, according to Aetius’ argument, it is not fitting for the unbegotten to beget. But since created things are visible, and the greater part of the essence of the subsistence is apparent, and it is not fitting for God, who is the uncreated, to have created it—lest that which is incomparable be cast down into the mutable condition of created things, and instead of being fitting, should be thought by Aetius to be even more unbecoming—it will then be sought whether there is another God who is uncreated, and another who is created, and who is able to create in a way analogous to himself. But as for the one who is created and possesses the power to create—since he is not self-existent, but is posited as created—another will be sought who became the cause of him, and from him another will be imagined. And great will be the abyss of error, the babbling of thoughts, with the mind no longer standing firm but filling that which was said: "The servants of God were made foolish, and every man was made foolish from knowledge." For no one lives to himself, nor dies to himself; nor will anyone know anything without the help of God, who revealed to us His true faith, saying: "This is My beloved Son, and hear Him," and from the One who was begotten of Him, who revealed to us His own Father, saying: "I came out from the Father, and I come." Nor did God acquire that incomparable title from the naming of men; nor, because of this same incomparable nature, will the dignity of the true, subsistent Divine Word, who was begotten from the Father without beginning and consubstantially, be ^C distorted; nor will either of the two names, for the sake of which there is human ingenuity, be shifted. For nothing is added to the Divine nature by way of dignity or increase; but the Divine nature itself provides to all from the same fullness, remaining always in sameness, and not being diminished, but in its own... ^D

essence and power and dignity, it encompasses everything. ^A

AETIUS CHAPTER XIII

Refutation XIII

AETIUS CHAPTER XIV

Refutation XIV

I do not mean the will to be pious, but the will to perform some act that is beyond our nature; for we cannot ^A perform what the will requires—such as, for a human to try to fly, or to be carried into the air, or to investigate the veins of the deep, or to examine the foundations of the earth, and things similar to these. However much is contained in me in a passionate way, exactly that same thing exists in God without passion. Therefore, God is able to perform all that He wills, because His nature does not resist His will, whereas our nature in us resists our wills whenever we extend ourselves toward that which is entirely impossible. And if we say that God wills to perform something, let no one conclude that He therefore performs what is improper—not at all. For He wills those things which He also performs, in accordance with His own dignity; neither does His will resist His power, nor is His power contrary to His will—not because He is unable to act, but because He does not will it.

^B II. Furthermore, since such is the established absence of affections in God, while in us and in other created things they are joined with affections—if one happens to think in this same manner, then another affection must truly be confessed, and after this a second, and similarly a third. We do not beget or are we begotten without affection, because our nature, and that of other things which beget or are begotten by others, admits of division, and is flowing, and is dilated, or is contracted, and suffers an increase or diminution of mass, and all the rest of those things which are kept together by affection for this reason. In God, however, ^C none of these things could have had a place while He was begetting the Son. For if any such thing existed in God, according to the hollow suspicion of those who seek to overthrow the Generation, then from the other side, concerning our own case, it must be said in opposition to them that in us, who beget and are begotten in affection, there is a second affection involved in creating, and we suffer when we beget and are begotten. Yet the God whom you proclaim is an artisan, and you do not consider Him a begetter; for while you invoke passion to overthrow the generation, so that you may deny the genuineness of the Son, you forget the passion involved in creating—which itself in God constitutes no affection, God forbid! For we do not attribute passion to Him by acknowledging Him as the creator of all things. ^D Nor can passion be understood as existing in Him. We believe that He has truly, without beginning and without time, begotten the true Son. Thus we know His nature is incomprehensible and not held bound by any affection. For this reason we confess Him to be both an unpassionate begetter and an unpassionate artisan. For He begat the Only-Begotten without suffering, and He sent forth from Himself His own Holy Spirit without undergoing any division; and He created what He created, and created things without being held by any evil or by any passion; and He does what He wills in a manner becoming His own divinity; not first willing out of a need to learn by deliberation whether what is being performed ought to come to pass, nor willing to act but being unable

and the fulfillment of the will is an object of passion. But God, since He is of the divine nature and of the highest dignity, and far removed from Aetius's syllogistic reasoning and all human nature, is superior to all apprehension; He does not yield to passion, but is beyond all passions and all suspicion. ^A

AETIUS Chapter XV

Refutation 15

AETIUS CHAPTER XVI

^A succession of utterance occurs, it comes to pass that the hope of the Christians—which is placed in the utterance, and not in natures configured as the meaning of the words intends—is created and destroyed.

Confutation XVI

Aetius, Chapter XVII

Confutation XVII

proper and necessary order of the words clearly and perspicuously demonstrating the truth of the thing in the Son of God. ^B For neither are these words, "My Father and your Father," to be referred to His own flesh; for how can God be the father of flesh, He who never put on flesh? Nor are these, "My God and your God," to be understood regarding the divinity of the Son or the adoption of the disciples. Rather, the One who is true in all things wished, for the sake of our human nature which He assumed, to use these words, "My God and your God," not without a mystery of truth, to prepare the disciples beforehand. And He said "My Father and your Father" because of my communion of nature with Him, and mine with you; the communion of which I, having dwelt among you in my loving-kindness, granted you to be participants, as it is written: "He gave them power to become children of God." Therefore, since He was among them, He took the form of a servant, newly partaking of a recent communion, such that the ancient things remained meanwhile in the same state and suffered no confusion. For the sons of men were translated to an incorrupt state by such a participation, not joined in the same substance. But when the Son is said to have accepted the form of a servant, that word "accepted" demonstrates that this something was new and recent. Furthermore, what is added, "being in the form of God," signifies that no mutation intervened. Since these things are thus, and are clearly confessed in perfect knowledge by those taught of God, neither the phrase "My God and your God," nor "My Father and your Father," will separate that pure and sincere nature of God, from a communion that is fitting and not unworthy of Him, by reason of the ambiguity of the word, nor will they take away anything from the excellence of that property by which the Father is compared with the Son, the Son with the Father, and the Holy Spirit likewise. ^C

CHAPTER XVIII OF AETIUS

Refutation XVIII.

^A but to us who are called, both Jews and Greeks, is Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. How then would one not count Aetius among the Jews, because he provides a cause of offense by his syllogisms, and among the Greeks, because he deems the truth of God to be foolishness out of his own self-styled wisdom? For indeed, the Creator and Maker of all things is one, and is better than every creature and every work of creation; yet it does not follow from this, that because He is better than those things begotten by Him, He does not make and create the things that were made by Him. For He is not envious of His own goodness; for He possesses the Self-Good from Himself, which is better than all things. ^B For He is not contained within passions, either of envy or malice, and He has brought things that exist into completion out of non-existence. For the things that were made by Him, being subordinate to His incomparable Godhead, were not devised against Himself, but for His glory, to show forth His abundant Godhead, being Self-Goodness and Self-Substance, communicating to those things created by Him out of non-existence, willing them to exist, and wanting each one of the created things to partake of His gift according to the proportion of each subject; to the luminaries He granted light, to the heavens the beauties of ornamentation, and to the earth and other things, according to His will, He granted portions of virtue; ^C to the angels He granted the bestowal of immortality, and to other holy powers, and to man the dignity of the image, and the gift of life, and knowledge, and of the rational faculty. And this did not come from Him merely by a volition, as one might say, in a future-tensed way, or as if to come, or by deliberative reasoning, but according to the Self-Good. For by nature He is the Self-Good, having, making, and working all things in a manner becoming to Himself.

Just as, therefore, this did not bring unseemliness to His goodness, but glory, and the knowledge of the abundance of praise to those who have been made by Him, having come to knowledge and perception: so also it is glory, not as something added to His Godhead (for the Divine never requires the addition of glory, but is Self-Glory, and Self-Virtue, and Self-Wonder, and Self-Declaration), that the Father has begotten, even if He Himself is unbegotten, so that from a fountain that is always, an eternal fountain comes forth, existing from Him, a fountain from a fountain, and God from God, and light from light, not having begun to be, not subject to time, but at once truly having the Father, and at once the Father truly having the Son, not being unbefitting to the Father, nor destroying the incomparable. For there is no bodily separation, but a Word subsistent, God being from the Father, Spirit from Spirit, and God from God, excluding every syllogistic surmise, being life for the faithful, and for all those who have been made by the Father through Him and from Him, for those who believe, and know, and do not judge the power of God to be foolishness. ^D

^A

AETIUS CHAPTER XIX

If the term "unbegotten" in God signifies a privation, and there is absolutely nothing unbegotten, what logic would allow you to take away nothing from that which is not? But if it signifies something that exists, who would sever from that which is, the very thing which is—which is God Himself?

Confutation XIX

I. Aetius brings before us what the philosophers call "privations," ^B attempting to transfer this to the knowledge and understanding of God; but he is, first of all, ignorant of the things to which the term "privation" is applied by the philosophers. For the rules of the dialecticians do not allow all things to be spoken of as affected by privation promiscuously, but only those things which by their own nature are endowed with something. For it is when these are sometimes reduced to the state of their own contraries that they are then said to be deprived; but to those whose natural condition cannot be changed, this word by no means applies. Thus, no one would call a stone blind. ^C For this word is attributed only to that which has lost the sense of sight which it possessed by nature, as with birds, men, and beasts; which, having been despoiled of the sight they have by nature, are named "blind" by a privative term. Thus, too, no one would call a stone devoid of anger, or malice, or envy, since it is not constituted by nature to possess these. But in the case of a man or a beast, which are capable of anger, when they lack it, those privative names can be applied; not so with other things. ^D

II. In the same way, this must be understood regarding God, as our discourse is directed toward Aetius, who inquires in a questioning manner: "Tell us, Aetius, do you think that He can be compared with all the others who are not of the same substance, or do you not hesitate to number Him along with them all?" And if you were to number Him with all those who are not from His substance, but were generated from non-existence by Him through the One who was generated from Him according to substance—excluding only Himself and the Holy Spirit, who proceeded from the substance of the incomparable Father and His Only-begotten Son—your profession would be most absurd. For how could He still be one of all those, from whom all things have been generated out of non-existence? For this is impossible, and not even you would say this. Since it is not possible for Him to be equal or similar to those who have been generated from Him out of non-existence, it is impossible for Him to undergo the same things as those unlike Him—those for whom it is the case that they were produced from non-existence by Him, as were all the things within them, to which contraries happen by privation. For some things are seeing—not of themselves, for they did not possess the being of themselves, but by the gracious gift of the One who bestowed it, in whom it happens that

^A a passion resulting from the privation of those things which were present in them by the gift of the Giver, of him who is void of passion, and not from one who possesses being, nor is able to be deprived of it, for those things which have come into existence from things that are not.

If, therefore, that Son is not equal to these, nor the Father, nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son is another besides these, being called by no equal name, but having an exceptional and incomparable name, since he is self-good from the One who is self-good, what association could there be toward the privative term which has a contrary meaning? For the discourse of Aetius, who introduced the privative sense to us, concerns the unbegotten God and the begotten Son, not as possessing the existing dignity by way of the privation of created things, but by that which is automatically and characteristically appropriate to His own substance and divinity by itself. As in the case of "impassive," it is not because He is capable of being moved to anger, but because of His self-impassivity; and "unbegotten" because of His self-begottenness—even if the Son were to be called begotten from the Unbegotten; the term based on privation being applied in vain to the One incomparable to others, according to the mind of this proposer. For neither are the other things equalized with the Begotten, nor does the Unbegotten impart consubstantiality to created things; ^B not because the Powerful One is accused of impotence, but because the impossible does not extend to the possible, on account of the exceptional majesty and superiority of the one God and of the Only-begotten Son proceeding from Him, with the Holy Spirit.

AETIUS, CHAPTER XX

Since privations are the removals of affections, what is "unbegotten" in God is either a privation of an affection or an affection contrary to a privation. If, therefore, it is a privation of an affection, how could that which is not present in God be attributed to Him as though it were present? But if "unbegotten" is a certain affection, it is necessary that a begotten substance pre-exist and, as it were, underlie it, so that by that affection being added to it, it might be named "unbegotten." If, however, the begotten substance were a participant in the unbegotten substance, having suffered the loss of an affection, it would have forfeited the condition of being unbegotten. Therefore, the substance would be begotten, while "unbegotten" would be the affection. But if a begotten offspring signifies a certain transition, ^C there is no doubt that it indicates a definite affection, whether it is said to be shaped by a certain mutation from the substance, or if this is what is called a "begotten offspring."

Confutation XX

I. Aetius has already spoken at length about this matter of privation, in conformity with those who are alien to the true faith, and he himself has been carried away by the same zeal as they to oppose Catholic dogma, to such an extent that he pronounces nothing according to the prescription of the sincere faith, nor does he remember that opinion which is turned against those who utter many things in vain out of their own ingenuity ^D and do not hold fast to the principle of the faith. To those who, in a refutatory manner, the Word says toward them: "I said in my ecstasy: Every man

^A is a liar" (Ps. cxv, 11). And again: "I was humbled exceedingly" (Ps. cxv, 10). Now, once again, he wears himself out on the same things, bringing forward a burden of privation, naming, and habit, and of human, fallacious conjecture and syllogisms, and, being spiritually examined, he does not spare himself nor stop his own impulse, which comes from human craftiness, from which he wishes to speak about God. But he compels us also, even though we have discoursed much concerning privative terms, to persist again in the same things, and to wear ourselves out in the refutations against him. And the refutation of this would have been sufficient, being able, on account of the equipollence and homonymy of his syllogistic reasoning, to be moved against both cases. But since it is not proper to leave an iron-mouthed horse unbridled—whether it be carried toward precipices, or whether it has already recoiled from its impetus—nor is it proper ^B to yield to a man who says the same things against the faith and not contradict him, we shall therefore dispute in this manner: If privations are indeed certain subtractions of affections, then the "unbegotten," which is attributed to God, is either a privation of habit, or a habit of privation. And again: If it is a privation of habit, how will that which does not belong to God be enumerated as if it did belong to Him?

II. An Aetius, one might think of God in this way or that way, and surmise habits concerning God; nevertheless, your mind will be occupied with privation. For whatever your heart may devise to set before God—except for the sole act of believing, and marveling, and praising from the whole mind—you shall be refuted, being unable to syllogize God, nor His Son, nor His Holy Spirit, lest God refute you and you be found a liar, according to what is written. For in us, habits, and wills, and thoughts are fallacious; since we are of such a nature and substance. ^C But "nature" and "substance" are spoken of God. And just because we hear "nature and nature" and "substance and substance," we ought not for that reason compare the incomparable God to our nature. So also in all things which you might say about God, O Aetius, the whole of it is uncompounded, incomparable, perfect in itself, and in need of nothing. For it is self-perception and self-will. Wherefore, having begotten the incomparable only-begotten Son incomparably, He is neither deprived of His own substance, nor is the one begotten of Him, the One from the One, nor is His Holy Spirit, having nothing in common with other things in terms of equality of dignity, or of nature, or of any other hypothesis; He did not deprive Himself—neither in terms of habit, nor in substance—of His incomparable Godhead; nor ^D is the offspring from Him, as I said, deprived of the dignity and equality of the Father, being incomparable, nor is His Holy Spirit toward anything whatever. This is the perfect Trinity: perfect is the Father, perfect is the Son, perfect is the Holy Spirit, not some conglutination, nor divided against itself, nor having anything within itself that has fallen behind, lest that which is distinguished should cause the incomparable to disappear, and the altered should effect a privation of existence—having only the name, and not true [transubstantiating/being].

being, as your mind entirely conceives, while attempting to alienate it from the word of faith, that "he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. XI, 6); which cannot be perfected in the Father alone. For he who does not have the Son does not have the Father either; and he who speaks of the Son cannot do so apart from the Holy Spirit.

^A III. For the Father is truly the true God, as the Son testifies, who knows the Father; and the Son is the true Light, who is known and attested by the Father; and the Spirit is the Spirit of truth, who is not alien, but proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son. These things encompass your whole fable of arguments. Nor can you, by any exhortation, bring it about that we should wish to be disciples of Aristotle, your teacher, and abandon the doctrine of the fishermen who were illuminated by the Spirit of God—men illiterate and unrefined in speech, yet nonetheless heralds of the truth, having performed this office by the power and grace of God. For the kingdom of heaven is not placed in syllogistic arguments, nor in arrogant and inflated speech, but in power and truth. We have heard enough and more than enough, thus far, of your dispute concerning the privation of affections and positions. Then [you spoke of] that generated and ungenerated substance—whether it assumes something to itself or does not assume it, and at the same time suffers the loss of this [quality] along with the affection. And also of the generated substance, complicated at once with the affection of the ungenerated. Then concerning the generated offspring, which is expressed as if by a certain transit, yet nevertheless holds the meaning of a permanent affection, and indicates a change in nature when it is called a generated offspring. Therefore, you propose the same things on the same subjects more often from your own wit, fearing nothing in uttering the same things over again.

^B

CHAPTER XXI.

If both the ungenerated and the generated are an affection, then the substances are prior to the affections, and the affections, in turn, are posterior to the substances—so they [the substances] are to be placed before them. But if the ungenerated is the cause of the generated, and bestows existence upon it; and the generated, by the very notion of its substance, embraces the cause itself, it expresses the substance itself and not an affection, since the ungenerated nature includes nothing within itself [as an addition]; should it not, therefore, be seen as a substance rather than a certain affection?

^C

Refutation XXI.

I. Aetius undertakes again to treat of affections when speaking of the divine nature, just as he does of things inferior to God, as you all, lovers of the truth, can observe. In this, he does some things as he did formerly, and others—

^A posteriora. But it is not permitted even to speak of prior or posterior in God. For all things are simultaneously present in God, and He lacks no addition. Thus, a pious reason does not allow one to conceive of the begotten offspring from a point in time. For in God, in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit—that is, in the Trinity, which is precisely what the existent God is—He who exists is called Father, and the Son who exists is relative to Him who is, begotten without beginning and without time; as it is said, "With thee is the fountain of life" (Ps. XXXV, 10); and, "In thy light shall we see light" (ibid.); and, "Who is in the bosom of the Father" (John I, 18); and, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John I, 1). And likewise concerning the Holy Spirit: "My Spirit stands in the midst of you." Do you see that nothing is recent in the Trinity? Wherefore, there is neither disposition before disposition, nor disposition before substance. By "disposition," however, we do not mean those fallacious so-called dispositions, which involve change in each of those who possess positive dispositions; even though you force us, O Aetius, to use the word "disposition" regarding God; and neither is anything in God more precious or later in time, but only those things which befit His dignity for the sake of praise; to the one divinity, one praise and one honor, that they may honor the Son as they honor the Father, and that they may not blaspheme the Spirit because of that ^B word of threat, which does not forgive their sin either here or in the age to come (Matt. XII, 32); as it is proper to think nothing different concerning the Trinity, nor to act impiously, nor to praise. But one must acknowledge Father in the Father, Son in the Son, and Holy Spirit in the Holy Spirit; thus to speak, and thus in truth to praise: which belongs to the one Trinity, to render worship with reverence, true faith, and the acknowledge of its dignity. And neither does the unbegotten require the begotten, so that by its inclusion the begotten might become a cause of substance for Him; nor is the substance of the begotten an "affection" of the unbegotten nature, nor is it so called.

II. The Trinity does not lack anything, nor does it receive any addition.

or brought to another opinion, in the things which He has performed: for He always possessed within Himself the power of creating, and it was perfect, and was not to be increased by any increments of glory. Wherefore, just as when we speak of created things, it is wrong to suspect something of this kind concerning God, as if the majesty of the divine essence and glory were of such a disposition and dignity as to be able to claim anything for itself from without: so too must Aetius be refuted, who, desiring to comprehend the divine nature by his reasonings, abuses the properties of the unbegotten and the begotten in that dispute which he thrusts upon us concerning disposition and substance; since it is admitted that all created things truly exist; and yet [he argues] they were not devised by God—who has need of nothing—for any gain or increment of glory; just as it is wrong to equate Him, in the case of the only-begotten Son of God and His Holy Spirit, with the condition of created things. For this can in no way be said. But indeed, Aetius attacks us with his reasonings and syllogisms, babbling about heavenly things, and audaciously striving toward higher matters, and opposing us with arguments sought from inferior creatures, though he advances nothing at all with those subtleties of his disputation. For the wisdom of men passes away: the human power and subtlety of reasoning lies buried: "His spirit shall go forth," he says, "and shall return to his earth." I say that all the sharp points of syllogisms devised by human ingenuity pass away, and the men themselves along with them, together with that reasoning of Aetius and his artificial craftiness contrived against the faith. But that which he attempts to circumvent with his syllogisms remains—faith, hope, and charity, as it is written. ^A

AETIUS CHAPTER XXII

REFUTATION XXII

^A that which is not begotten. Therefore, it is the property of the Trinity to be incapable of suffering or change. All other things, however, once you depart from the Trinity, are subject to suffering, unless perhaps that Being who is free from all affection grants a similar state, through incorruption, as a unique benefit to those whom He wills, bestowing it generously and kindly. They do not possess incorruption from an incorporeal nature, but from the bounty of the good and impassible God. For not even the suffering of the Only-Begotten in the flesh brings about any suffering to His own divinity, although the true confession, derived from the true faith, teaches that the Word of God, who is in Himself incapable of suffering, did nevertheless suffer. ^B Yet He remained in impassibility, the same Being, neither having changed His nature nor having been altered. Therefore, being Wisdom, and being the impassible God, and knowing that by suffering He saves those who are subject to the sufferings of death, He did not send a messenger, nor an angel, nor is it as with the prophets before Him; but the Lord Himself came, and having taken what is passible into Himself, truly suffered, while His divinity remained impassible. For the incarnate presence did not dull the power of His divinity. For He is found in His divinity working the things of God, and not being excluded by the flesh, rebuking the wind, and the storm, and the sea, and calling Lazarus by His own authority, and doing ten thousand other things, and things beyond these; ^C just as He also allowed – on account of reasonable causes – things pertaining to the flesh, as being tempted by the devil, and being struck by men, and being seized by those who apprehended Him; that in the passible nature He who is impassible might suffer, while remaining impassible in His own divinity, not alien from the impassible God, but voluntarily doing all things according to His own surprising mystery. Just as the Father God, with the Only-Begotten Himself, and His Holy Spirit, being a Trinity that is always perfect and impassible, one divinity contains all things, one God, one lordship of the same God who encompasses the whole.

II. Nor indeed, because He is said to contain all things, is He therefore subject to the state of suffering, even though those things which are contained by Him are subject to that law. ^D For God is within all things, and outside all things, the God of the universe, yet He is not mixed or mingled with any thing; hence, neither from the fact that He is everywhere, nor from being outside all things, nor from containing all things, nor from the fact that all things move in Him, should one think that suffering is brought upon the impassible God; just as neither by the fact that He has begotten the Only-Begotten, nor by the Only-Begotten having been begotten, nor by His Holy Spirit having been sent forth from Him, is suffering brought upon the holy Trinity. For neither is the Holy Spirit passible, descending in the form of a dove around the Jordan; nor is the Only-Begotten passible when baptized and touched by John; nor is the Father passible when calling from above with an audible voice to men, that "This is my Son, hear Him." Therefore the Son is unchangeable; and the Father is indeed unbegotten, and the Son is begotten, impass-

impassible; and the Holy Spirit has proceeded without any passion; while all other things were brought forth by creation. And the perfect Trinity itself remains in its own quantity and by the title of uncreated: so that neither is that which is better changed, nor is that which is begotten constrained by any law of suffering. To which, indeed, the begetter was not subject. For that which is begotten is not corporeal, but Spirit is from Spirit, and the Son is from the Father. Likewise also the Holy Spirit is from Him, the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of Christ, neither created, nor begotten, nor a brother, nor a grandfather, nor a grandson; since the incomparable nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ^B surpasses every thought and mind, I would say not only of men, but even of angels. For the Only-Begotten Son of God admitted no mutation, nor did His Father, nor His Holy Spirit, from the fact that the Only-Begotten, being in Himself void of passion, suffered in the flesh; and the Holy Spirit presented Himself to be seen in the form of a dove; and finally the Father Himself, with a voice sent from heaven, sounded into the ears of men without any passion. No differently than the angels, the celestial spheres, the earth, and the rest of things which God created, all attributed no mutation or affection to their Author. But all these things are a certain stupendous and dreadful mystery, as it is written: "O the depth of the riches, and the wisdom and the knowledge of God!" ^C

AETIUS CHAPTER XXIII

Confutation XXIII

everything else which is separated by an infinite interval from His nature and dignity. ^A Therefore, the Son, existing with the existing Father, is eternal; He is truly begotten from Him without time, not out of nothing, but from Him; and His Holy Spirit is not alien to His own essence, nor was He added to God as if for the sake of assistance, as Aetius supposes.

AETIUS CHAPTER XXIV

If the unbegotten is a certain privation, and privation is the loss of an affection, and the loss is either completely destroyed or passes over into something else; how is it possible, ^B when that affection is passing over or being destroyed, that the essence of God is named by the appellation of "unbegotten"?

Refutation XXIV

If now for the first time from your time, Aetius, and from your own, a certain opinion about God has been brought forth for God's glory and honor from your syllogisms, as you previously professed, I myself, who, with God’s help, dispute against you, will be able to use the same things that you say: since no one of the ancients, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament, whether among the apostles or the prophets, ^C ever thought this, I judge you by your own verdict to be superior even to God Himself, and removed from all error. For it is from you and from this point in time that God, as you seem to assert, has added that artifice of your dialectical subtlety as a sort of accession to His own faith, namely that entire dispute concerning the privation of the unbegotten, and the begotten, and the perfect loss or commutation of affection, and concerning the appellation of God, which is attributed to His own essence. For the privation of things which are absent from God, ^D or the affirmation of things which are present, was not added on account of the fact that God is the creator of all things after the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit, out of the constitution of created things, as if what was later created conciliates anything more excellent to God, and has been conceived as something pure and sincere from the privation and immutable status of those things with which it is compared. But it has flowed from the fact that He Himself who exists is entirely glory, and is entirely of such a kind that He cannot be comprehended by any created things, which, according to their own measure, aim themselves toward His proclamation. And as He is celebrated and praised by the angels in their own language, which the Apostle prefers to the tongues of men, so He is also worshipped by human language, which is of inferior dignity, and finally is proclaimed by even the lowest things according to the capacity of each. Nor is the proclamation of His glory diminished in individual creatures by any proportion, nor does it suffer change, but it is immutable in itself, and it is denied to all created things that they might be able to extend themselves in proclaiming His infinity, since that supreme [nature]

far excels all things, and is incomparable, and most full of glory.

972 AETII CAPUT XXV. If the ingenitum [ungotten/unbegotten] signifies a privation which is not in God, why do we say that God is ingenitum, but say that He is not genitum [begotten]?

Confutatio XXV. The ingenitum, although it truly applies to God, is nowhere expressed [in Scripture]; nor was it commemorated by any prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Nor indeed should it be a cause for wonder if that had been affirmed concerning God. For a pious sense regarding God had long since drawn that very thing from a certain natural law. But you, Aetius, by inculcating this term out of a desire for novelty, think that you have proposed something wondrous and unheard of. Nay, you have even attempted to confuse and confound the most religious law of nature, and also that of the faith which the divine goodness bestowed for the making of better men, while you invent that the genitum is equal in majesty and dignity to the ingenitum, so that he whom you worship as dissimilar might appear equal to him whom you proclaim as dissimilar. If, indeed, you worship the Father by name alone, you have offered this honor to Him only through simulation and illusion: likewise, if you judge that the Son, whom you acknowledge as dissimilar to the Father, is to be worshipped, you introduce the greatest perturbation into that worship of yours, since you afflict one who is dissimilar with the same honor as Him from whom he is dissimilar. But if, such is the perfidy of your dogma, you deny that the Son is to be worshipped, all will immediately refute you, as one who in no way acknowledges Him whom all ought to worship and confess to be equal. For all the angels of God shall worship Him. ^B Mary, when He had most splendidly risen in the flesh, and finally all the disciples, worshipped the same. For they are not ignorant that the appellation of a created thing in no way applies to Him, inasmuch as He is begotten of the Father. And so, they worship the one born from the Existent, and likewise the Holy Spirit. For they know that He is distinct from the nature of created things. For He is not made or created, but begotten of the Father. Therefore, although you may have labored much, Aetius, and consumed much time, and introduced strange and unheard-of words, you will nonetheless worship Him even against your will. For all must stand before His tribunal. And then every tongue shall confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is not alien to God, but [exists] in the glory of God the Father, according to what both Scripture and the Catholic faith hold.

973 AETII CAPUT XXVI. If the ingenitum is a mere appellation in God, such that this utterance alone extols the divine substance above the condition of all created things, it follows that the utterance of men appears more excellent than the substance of the omnipotent God; which [utterance] indeed adorns God the omnipotent Himself with an incomparable excellence of dignity.

Confutatio XXVI. Neither is the ingenitum a mere name in God, nor...

^A does it have community of nature with created things. Thus, neither are created things merely symbolic of a bare name. But if, between the ingenitum and the creature, some other term is sought—which is the Son, and [who] is not a creature—to whom is that extraordinary [term] especially to be attributed? And if we grant the commonality to created things, neither of the things mentioned can be referred to as a bare name, as is the case for the ingenitum and the Creator, and as for those that have been created, as if no bare name could be applied—so too, in the case of the Generated One and the Son, there being no room for a bare name, that which is vainly slandered ^B will reveal the confusion as reasoned by Aetius, because the created essence is not equated in truth with the name of the Son, and [is] not a bare name; since the Son Himself does not admit a bare name for the designation regarding the Son. And since the Son, the Only-Begotten, and the Holy Spirit are not non-existent, nor referred to by a bare name, He is united with the glory of the Father, and is not confounded with the naming of created things. For the Divinity neither needs exaltation as if it did not exist, nor is it in need of height, even if it were not exalted by certain ignorant people; nor does the essence of the Divinity consist of the utterance of certain persons. For neither would the utterance of men or other beings boast, as though it were procuring glory for a needy God, or adorning God the Almighty, ^C acknowledging Him as God, and as Creator, and as one’s own Artificer. For [the Divinity] does not consider itself to be super-glorious and a decorator of its own Maker; for if it did, it would consider itself to be an object of worship, not [as one] worshipping the One who is worshipped. And your argument, Aetius, stirs up reason in vain against all things.

AETIUS CHAPTER XXVII

Refutation XXVII

created; but the Father is uncreated, having the Son begotten of himself, not created, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from him, not made. ^A Since this is the case, neither does the worshipped Son, nor the Holy Spirit, inherit the suffering of a cause, even if they have the Father as the Begetter; nor can the remaining creatures, which have been fashioned by the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, be said to be a cause of inheritance without suffering. Clearly, the Only-Begotten, and his Holy Spirit, as well as the Father, would be without the cause of such an inheritance without suffering, because the Son is a begetting and not a creature. ^B And the Son will not be assigned a cause of suffering from the fact of having been begotten; nor the Spirit, since he proceeds from the Father. For neither is the Father, since he begat and brought forth from himself, and fashioned the other things after the Son and Spirit, found to be subject to the suffering of a cause—even though all other things, in being created or begotten, are constrained by suffering. The Father is, therefore, without cause, and so are the Son and the Holy Spirit. But the Trinity is the cause of all things, creating and fashioning all things together, and recognizing nothing within itself as created or fashioned.

AETIUS' CHAPTER XXVIII

Refutation XXVIII

created ^A from Sacred Scripture, and from the holy faith, and nothing therein is crooked, or contrary, or tortuous.

AETIUS CHAPTER XXIX

Refutation XXIX Aetius rolls the same stone forever, as I have often said, nor does he bring us anything else but labor and tedium. Wherefore, we are constrained even in this place to add a new labor, and to repeat the same things, since it seems so to him. For even if the unbegotten substance that has brought forth is conjoined with the substance of the begotten, nothing will differ in the dignity of begetting between the begetter and the begotten. For from himself he begat substantially Spirit from Spirit, and not body from body. Hence, without any comparison, the begetter is understood to be in the conception of the begotten, and the begotten in the begetter, as is fitting. For the divine power stands in no need of addition, so that it might be called Father at one time, and at another not; nor will the Son be found, from the divine connection above, to be sometimes not existing, and at other times existing. ^B Wherefore the Father is by himself God, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and not a different substance. For it is not a brother, nor is it originated, but the name "Father" is ineffably appropriate, being of the same substance as the Son, and the Holy Spirit is appropriate to the Father and the Son, proceeding from him, through him, and of his own. Wherefore that which is inaccessible exists in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, ^C as regards all things that are of a lower rank, and were created by the Trinity itself. But the Trinity is not inaccessible to itself. For it is uncreated, and unbegotten, and incomparable. Wherefore nothing can be equalized with the Father; nor is anything of those things which were made from nothing, and not begotten, co-worshipped with him. For to none of the things that have been made did he ever say: "Sit at my right hand." Neither indeed has the Only-Begotten ever used that phrase of anyone: "He who sees me sees the Father"; and "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me"; and "No one knows the Father except the Son, and the Son except the Father, and those to whom he may reveal him." But he reveals him through the Holy Spirit, who knows, and teaches, and proclaims to the world the things of the Son, and searches even the deep things ^D of God. For that reason he says: "He who does not honor the Son, just as he honors the Father, the wrath of God remains upon him." And he did not say: "He who does not honor the angels as he honors the Father"; nor again did he say: "He who does not also honor the Son"; but "the Son as the Father": likewise, because he does not...

created; He spoke not thus: "He who does not honor the angels, as he honors the Father," nor does He concede this: "He who does not honor the Son," but He spoke of the Son, just as with the Father. Similarly, He teaches that for one who has uttered blasphemy against the Spirit, it will not be forgiven, neither here, nor in the world to come, so as to signify that the Trinity is unapproachable and incomparable in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. ^B

AETIUS, CHAPTER XXX

Refutation XXX

AETIUS, CHAPTER XXXI

^A *Confutation XXXI*. I. I would certainly wish that Aetius had explained his mind to us and set forth his inquiries somewhat more clearly, rather than using that expression which incurs reproach; for it bears no resemblance to the matters he treats, since neither of the things he mentions can be compared or made equal to the other, even though he brings into the discussion many appellations of things that escape our sight. For those spiritual living beings—that is, the Seraphim, the Cherubim, and the angels—indeed escape our sight, and concerning them there is verified that truth which Aetius states, namely, that they contain within themselves nothing by any native power. For no one would call those incorporeal beings bodies, since they neither beget nor are begotten, but were created clearly by the will of the ever-existent Godhead; and each of the created things has obtained that which the One who is distributed to it through the abundance of His own bountiful kindness. And each has been allotted that which it has received, and in this it remains; but God is free from every cause, containing all things in Himself. He, without any hesitation or change of counsel, did not begin after a long interval to have a Son, or His Holy Spirit, but as is fitting, He ever has a Son who is begotten as a Son from eternity; and since He has this only-begotten Son, always having the Father in Himself, He similarly has the Holy Spirit, who exists from the Father and ever receives from the Son.

^B II. For neither is the abundance of the ever-existent Godhead in any state of disrepute, nor does it exist through an addition of glory. Since there was at no time any of the created things, at what time did the Trinity view Herself as being in a lesser abundance? Did She view Herself thus at one time, and at another time see Herself in an addition of substance, as if needy after having created created things, viewing Herself now as endowed with a greater addition of glory or abundance? From every side, nothing can assault the truth from those who wish to bring forward human syllogistic conjectures and set them in the middle, since the worth of God—of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—surpasses every mind of angels, and is even beyond them; how much more, then, does it surpass the human nature? For because the thoughts of men are timid, and their understandings are corruptible, they entangle themselves in syllogisms and inquiries; just as some, examining themselves by their own syllogisms according to a certain sophistical conjecture—some asking whence the evil began, others whence the devil came to be, or why he was made; others, regarding the man who is to sin, asking why God created him in such a way, or why He who fashioned him thus later blames him—so that, when all men, having beaten back their own reasonings, acknowledge themselves to be corruptible, they may render to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, that is, to the one Trinity, the worship and the knowledge; and seeking the knowledge of the true faith from Him, and having obtained it, that they may not try to exceed their own measure, ^C but may learn to keep silence from blinded understanding, and not to philosophize ^D through that word, "the ever."

phrasing. ^A For that most wise sentiment of Scripture lashes them: *Do not think more highly than you ought to think, but think so as to be sober.*

CHAPTER XXXII OF AETIUS

CONFUTATION XXXII

^A and always existing in his own perfect nature was begotten. For this reason he knows himself; and neither can the Son be ignorant of the unbegotten substance of the Father, nor the unbegotten ignorant of the substance of the Son, whom he produced. For the Son himself is worthy, so that faith should be given to him who speaks thus: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and the Son except the Father."

^B II. Therefore, let the dogmatic decree of this base Aetius, which says: "It is not possible for him to have knowledge concerning himself and of unbegotten essence, and of unbegottenness," be set aside as if pronounced by a judge. For the Only-Begotten anticipated by forestalling this judicial utterance of his, saying that he knows the Father, and no one else; at the same time including the subsistence of his Holy Spirit, just as he says in another place, that "the Spirit of the Father will teach you." But if the Spirit is of the Father, he is not ignorant even of the Father himself. And in the statement, "No one knows the Father except the Son," he signifies that he himself, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit, have surpassed the condition of all other things which have not existed from eternity, but have come to be. But if he has eternally anticipated knowing the Father, Aetius enters in vain, prattling to us, being clearly manifest to all, that he reasons like a man, inquiring carnally, and being soulish, because of him who knows both himself and the Father, and his Holy Spirit. God, therefore, is exempt from every cause, not only the Father, but also the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the divinity of the Father, and ^C of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit being confessed as superior to every cause.

AETIUS’ CHAPTER XXXIII

REFUTATION XXXIII

is any common nature said to participate in the incomparable essence, nor is any created nature comprehended in that divine one. But this one is the maker of all things, which cannot communicate in the communion of the same substance with the incomparable and singular nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; as is clear to one who has received the knowledge of the truth, revealing that it alone is to be worshipped, and not all things; as also it alone baptizes in its own name, and not all things. ^A

AETIUS CHAPTER XXXIV

Refutation XXXIV

AETIUS CHAPTER XXXV

^A

Confutation XXXV

Not every substance can be called unbegotten; for it is foolish even to conceive this in one’s mind. This mode of reasoning and this aphorism originate from the ignorance of the Gentiles, whether Aetius said it affirmatively or interrogatively—though it is clear that he said it interrogatively. Let him, therefore, put this question to the children of the Gentiles, and let them concur with him in holding this proposition on the basis of their syllogisms, by asserting that there is some matter coeternal with God. Yet let Aetius be convicted along with them, if he agrees to it, since the truth holds that there is one efficient cause, in that the perfect Trinity is numbered in one and the same substance, without any confusion. ^B All other things, however, are generated and created, and are not unbegotten. But the Godhead, being uncreated—with the Father begetting, the Son being begotten, and the Holy Spirit being sent from the Father and receiving from the Son—while all things are created, the Father remains, by his power, immutable and fittingly subsisting in the Trinity. All Godhead is referred to the Father, which is consistent and pertains both to the preservation of unity and to the refutation of the vanity of multiple gods. For the nature of the divine power is so immutable that a consistent reason and comparison of the Son and of the Holy Spirit to the Father is preserved. ^C Since these things are so, the fabrication of that captious question is utterly destroyed. For there are not many things that are invariable; but there is only one Trinity in its singularity, and one Godhead in the Trinity, from which all other things are far removed. Nor did they happen to exist by some fortuitous chance, so as either to suffer or to act; nor can the sacrosanct Trinity, while acting, suffer anything, since it is entirely devoid of suffering and is to be worshipped—I mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For God created all things through the Son, but he did not create the Son; for he is not to be numbered with all things. Indeed, he works in common with the Father and is worshipped together with him; nor did he create the Holy Spirit, for he too is not numbered among all things; for it is proper to him to strengthen the power of all things, and therefore he is worshipped commonly. ^D Moreover, since all things are placed under the providence and administration of the One, they are moved and act, and suffer those things which are other than God. Therefore, the one Trinity is invariable with respect to itself, while all other things, since they are produced by it, are variable; for they are not coeternal with it, nor do they exist together with it from eternity. Only the Trinity is sempiternal, uncreated, and unbegotten; and the Son, though begotten agelessly and without beginning, is from eternity, and never ceases to be. Whence the divine Word has safely taught that the Father is the head of the Son, and not his beginning, because of the consubstantiality—both of the Holy Spirit, who is from eternity and sent from the Father, and who always exists with the Father and did not begin in time.

Aetius’ Chapter XXXVI

If "unbegotten" and "God" are taken to mean one and the same thing, the unbegotten has begotten the unbegotten. But if the terms "unbegotten" and "God" denote something different, it is not absurd...

that the unbegotten should not endure to be pronounced together with the God and his Father.

Refutation XXXVI

1. Whence, finally, does Aetius bid us grasp the sense and meaning of those questions and reasonings which he proposes? If he thinks that this should be sought by arguments and syllogisms, then whatever has been sought and tracked down by thinking is reduced to nothing along with him. For no one can ever comprehend God by arguing, nor shall the work say to the workman: "Why did you make me so?" as it is written. Therefore, with a pious mind and innocent security, the soul must be recalled to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which has been revealed to us through the sacred Scriptures. There, where we are taught with a solid and immutable opinion that those who worship the creature have been rendered foolish, does Aetius not seem to fall into this very trap and attribute divinity to the creature, following it with adoration and veneration, when the sincere faith separates the object of adoration from the created, and the created from the object of adoration? For if there be no difference at all between these, the Christian religion will have nothing excellent or superior to the worshippers of the creature, and faith of this sort will be deemed idolatry rather than the worship of God. For they, too, worship the sun, the moon, the powers, the heaven and the earth, and the other creatures; nor does the marvelous excellence of created things bring any diversity; nor will the fact that some are more excellent lead to any variety in the equality of honor, since they are contained under the same name, even if one far excels another in many parts. For it is one who fashioned both, and he attributed to each a distinction not of name, but of substance. ^A Since the name "creature" befits all created things, not that which is free, but that which is servile. And if that which is of servile condition is worshipped in one category, nothing will prevent adoration from being given to the other category as well, even if it be inferior. For that which has a kinship with the creature of the higher order is equal, inasmuch as it has obtained its nature from nothing, from him who is. Hence both the unbegotten is fitting for God, and God for the unbegotten. Wherefore we say the begotten offspring is not some work, or some effect, but an offspring naturally begotten from the Father without defilement, of the same substance with the Father, and to be worshipped together; and the Holy Spirit proceeding from him, and not foreign, and for that reason also to be worshipped together. But the name of God is granted to none of the created things, for the reason that it differs from the property of the unbegotten, since it obtained its existence from nothing. But the Trinity is eternal, and God is not one thing and the unbegotten another.

^B II. You, however, Aetius, by mocking—manifestly, and not in good faith—affirm that the Son was begotten by the Father. For everything that is begotten is not created, and everything that is created is not begotten. But if that which is begotten is created, it is in another way that it is...

called created. As it is possible to say, men beget men, but they do not create them; these, however, were created from above by God. Wherefore, those things which are brought forth are begotten by them, but all things were created by God. Since God is uncreated, and having begotten for Himself a Son, and not having created Him, He does not beget another beside His own essence. How then shall that which is begotten of Him be created, since the Father is uncreated? And if the begotten thing at His hand is created, it is no longer called begotten. And there is much refutation against such an assumption of absurdity. It is also unbecoming to God to have been at some time without a Son, and later to be called Father after the Son. And it is unbecoming to the Son to have time before Him, for time would be greater than His majesty; it is rather becoming to the Father that He ^B should always have, in the identity of dignities, Him who is unceasing and eternal. And that there was nothing before God, this is manifest. Therefore, "God," as Aetius said, and "the unbegotten," signify the same thing. And he howbeit weaves and accuses himself, rather than establishes his case. For if, with God, "God"—as He indeed is—also admits the unbegotten, what of the begotten Son? For it [the term God] implicitly contains Him; for the Word of God is proclaimed together with the Father, both uncreated, and honored with the Father as God, even if this does not occur to Aetius, while all creatures worship the Son, and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is to the glory of God the Father, to whom be glory, to the Father in the Son, with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

The Salutation of Aetius Placed at the End

May the self-begotten God—who alone for this reason was called the true God by the One who was sent, Jesus Christ, who truly existed before the ages and is of a begotten nature—keep you, both men and women, sound and safe and free from impiety, in Christ our Savior; through whom is all glory to God and Father, both now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Refutation

And at the end, Aetius, writing to his own troupe—those whom he called athletes, both men and women—did not desist from the wickedness of such words, but even in his farewell, he showed his deviation from the sincere doctrine. For he says: "May the self-begotten God keep you healthy and strong." He did not perceive that in a single word he dissolved the whole of his own sowing of the question. For having said in the foremost chapters regarding the unbegotten God, ^D that He does not contemplate, and that "He did not make Himself," here he introduces [the term] 'self-begotten' to us. Every mind becomes forgetful of itself, so that it may be caught out. Then he says: "Who also alone for this reason was called true God." According to his own argument and logic, he either strikes out the truth that the Son is God, and in vain...

^A considers that the Son is God, but not the true God; and thus there will be for him one true God, and one not true God. But by this subordinate reasoning, finding one beneath the other, and still further placing the Holy Spirit in a smaller and deficient order—or because he will have a smaller God—or not numbering Him with the Trinity, this wretched little man will be entirely alienated from Christians, and should be cast out as an arch-Gentile and a Sadducee in number, detached from the Holy Spirit, as indeed he is, while compared to the Gentiles in their grouping, claiming one God as great and another as small, one true and another not true, just as the Gentiles confess one great God and call the others small. Yet the divine Scripture ^B clearly convicts him, declaring concerning the Father that *God is true*, and concerning the Son, *God* likewise. And concerning the Father, *God is light*; but concerning the Son, *The light was true*; and concerning the Holy Spirit, that *the Spirit is the truth*. Thus, the Trinity is truly announced to us in wisdom and the depth of riches.

B. Then again, following this

C. But having examined all these things

the apostles, nor from any of the patriarchs, nor from the Saviour himself, nor from the Father, nor any word of the Holy Spirit spoken through the apostles or through the prophets; so that he might be entirely ^A caught red-handed by the friends of the truth, that he is utterly alien to God and to His faith.

I think, moreover, that we have sufficiently countered his premises, to the best of our ability, in a plain style, and by relying on the authority of the Holy Scriptures and on pious reasoning. And since I have spoken clearly enough in the refutations of his views regarding the faith, I consider that sufficient, lest by adding anything further I make the reading of this work more burdensome by superfluous length. Nevertheless, a few matters must be reviewed and briefly explained out of the things which he, becoming insolently puffed up after those importunate and absurd dogmas, has nefariously uttered in his hatred of Christ and of His Holy Spirit; things which have proceeded from his shameless mouth and that of his disciples, and which have been most contumeliously cast at God with an ^B unheard-of pride and arrogance of mind.

IV. For this man himself, along with his followers, has fallen into such a folly of vanity as to boast that he understands God better than all other mortals, not by faith alone, but by a certain knowledge of his own. As I mentioned a little while ago, it is their custom to maintain that they conceive of God not merely through the understanding of faith, but in the same way as anyone perceives these ^C visible and tangible things—as if one were to take a stone, or wood, or some tool of other material. So this noble fellow speaks with such boldness: "I so understand God as I do myself; nay, I do not know myself as much as I know God."

But to pursue or listen to these trifles any further would, as it brings fraud and ruin to many, likewise procure laughter and mockery from the wise. For who, driven by such madness and insanity of mind, would not be able to draw others into this same delusion, especially those who follow him and are obedient to his word? For if anyone were to ask him or his disciples: "Do not boast to me of the knowledge of the incomparable and incomprehensible God, whose form and nature no one can attain, though He can be known in some measure to His servants by faith; but explain this to me: what are the foundations of the earth, what are the deeper storehouses of the ^D abyss? What are the veins of the sea, the dwelling-place of Hades, the measures of the air, the form and thickness of the heavens? What is the uppermost point of those things above, and what is the limit of those below? What is on the right hand, and what is on the left? Explain the nature of creatures and your own fashioning, and the number and manner of all those things which are contained in infinite number upon the earth." When these things are brought against them, as I remember hearing from his followers, they turn to certain sophistical arguments and cavils, and respond according to his instruction thus: "All these things are..."

^A things that are distant, and cannot be perceived by us. But as for God, who created these very things, they claim they understand what He is, and in what manner, and of what nature, and who He is. Who could hear this without laughter? For it is indeed far too foolish to claim oneself to know and to have accurately perceived the Supreme and Incomparable Creator—who cannot be expressed by any speech—(and would that they at least claimed to know Him by faith, rather than announcing with incredible audacity that they could, as it were, handle Him with their own hands!) Meanwhile, they deny that He and His works can be known from all those things created by that Incomparable One, which, when considered in their own specific forms, are capable of drawing those who behold them into admiration of Him. Especially since the sacred Scriptures everywhere testify concerning God that He is neither perceived by the eyes, nor comprehended, nor able to be thought of by the mind; but that only this one thing is perceived of Him in truth: That He is, and that He becomes a rewarder of those who love Him. ^B V. Now truly, as often as someone among those who think rightly concerning the glory, faith, charity, and incomprehensible nature of God objects this to them: "We know an incomprehensible God, a God who is invisible and ineffable; we know Him truly, yet we know that He is invisible and incomprehensible"—this architect of a new dialectic, mocking and jeering, has dared to weave a certain fable, saying: "To what, then, should I say that you and your faith are like? To a virgin who has been defiled, yet is blind, deaf, and dumb; who, that she has been defiled, is manifest to all who know her, but when asked who the defiler is, she does not hear so that she may learn; and she has neither seen the one who defiled her, because she is blind, nor is she able to report it, because she is dumb." ^C Thus, toward him and his own fable, it is fitting to turn around the statement according to that which is written: "His labor shall return upon his own head, and he shall fall into the pit which he made," and other things of that kind. For he himself is like a man born blind from his mother’s womb, who speaks and hears many things, and even though he knows the names of white, and black, of blue and green, of red, and of the other various colors, as well as of light and darkness—the names of which he has heard—he does not know what their form is; nor can he explain it at all, because he was born blind from the beginning, and he is ignorant of the variation of the quality of each color, and its form. For each of these names has the experience of the distinction of insightful senses, but it is not capable of being explained through speech to one who did not know the form from the beginning, nor can it be verified through examination or touch. ^D When, therefore, those born blind, discussing these matters, and knowing how to compare black with white, and green with blue, and purple, and scarlet, and the other colors, are asked by us concerning the quality of the form and the color of each quality, they can neither say it themselves, nor be taught by us, but only persuade themselves by words; and they deceive their listeners, as if they knew perfectly about these distinctions, even though in their discourse they say that they possess ignorance through incomprehensibility; so too, this man comes to us speaking about God; and he mocks, with jeering, the defilement of the dumb, and deaf, and blind virgin,

corrupt himself by his own wantonness against the divine majesty, and laboring under a blindness contracted as if from the very beginning by his ignorance. He argues about God in such a way that, while discoursing on His nature, he seeks to guess and divine.

^B VI. Finally, he led his disciples to the extreme of impudence. For there is nothing to which their audacity does not extend. They heap insults upon the names of the prophets and apostles. And when they begin to be hard-pressed by the force of reason and to be ill-at-ease, they immediately escape and spring away, saying, "The Apostle said that as a man." At other times they say, "Why do you cast the Old Testament at me?" And indeed, this is not at all surprising if one considers that saying of the Savior: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household?" If they do not hesitate to deny the Lord Himself and His true glory and honor, how much more will they deny His prophets and apostles?

Moreover, the disciples of Aetius, seized by a greater madness and fury, along with their successor—who is falsely called Eunomius and who survives to these times—commit another wicked and nefarious deed: for Eunomius rebaptizes those who have already been baptized, not only those coming to him from the Catholics or other heresies, but even those who fall away from the Arians themselves. ^C Furthermore, the formula of this repeated baptism is: "In the name of the Uncreated God, and in the name of the Created Son, and in the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, procreated by the created Son." And so that their entire fraud, and their theatrical arts, as it were, and their deceits may be entirely manifest, and it may be perfectly clear that it is not faith that they preach, but a workshop of stage-players, there are those who report that as many as are rebaptized by them are plunged in headlong, with their feet held up, and in this manner an oath is forced from them never to depart from his error and heresy. They report, furthermore, that Aetius himself, after the death of Constantius, being recalled from exile by the Emperor Julian—while he was still a deacon of his sect—was advanced to the dignity of a bishop by a bishop of that same sect.

^D These are the things that we have been able to investigate concerning Aetius and the disciples of Aetius. Some call them Anomoeans, that is, "the dissimilar," because they surpassed the Arian heresy with a more abundant and more detestable impiety of doctrines. Having disputed against these things point by point, according to our ability, with the help of divine grace, and having crushed them under the foot of truth—just as one crushes a many-legged scolopendra, a species of insect which they call "iulus"—and having broken them with the true confession of the only-begotten Son of God, and having rendered thanks to God in our customary manner, and having implored His power for the protection of our own weakness, let us now pass on to the remaining heresies according to the measure of our strength and understanding, beloved. And let us, as I said, implore first the help of the Lord, that He may be present with us to explain and refute those things, so that in His power we might be able to fulfill the promise of our own littleness and brevity.

THINGS CONTAINED IN THE SECOND TOME OF THE SAME THIRD BOOK

Which is the seventh in the distribution of the tomes as we have stated; which is the seventh tome, and the end of the entire treatise; in which there are four heresies.

INDEX OF THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN TOME II OF BOOK III

Which is the VII in the distribution of the tomes established thus far, and the same one is the last of the entire work; in which there are IV heresies.

I. The Dimœritæ, who do not confess the perfect incarnation of Christ: some of whom dared to assert that His body was consubstantial with the Divinity; others denied that a soul was assumed by Him; some, relying on these words of the Gospel, *The Word was made flesh* ^A, ^B wished to say that the flesh was assumed by Him not from created flesh, that is, from Mary, but they stubbornly defended that the Word alone was made flesh; later, however, for what reason I know not, they said that He did not assume a mind.

II. The Antidicomarianitæ, who think that the blessed and ever-Virgin Mary, after having given birth to the Savior, had relations with Joseph.

III. The Collyridiani, who on a certain day of the year offer a cake ^C in the name of the same Mary: for which reason we have named them Collyridiani.

IV. The Massaliani, whom we can interpret as "those who pray." To these are joined those from the sects of the Gentiles, whom they call Euphemitæ, and Martyriani, and Sataniani.

This is the summary of the seventh tome, and the end of the three books. The heresies collected amount to eighty. At the end of the third book and the seventh tome, there is appended the formula of faith which the Catholic Church professes, along with a defense of the truth, the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and finally the character ^D of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, which, although it has existed from eternity, was most evidently revealed in the succession of times after the incarnation of Christ.

VOLUME II OF BOOK III. AGAINST THE DIMŒRITAE, WHO AS SOME CALL THEM, DENY THE PERFECT INCARNATION OF CHRIST: WHICH IS HERESY LVII, OR LXXVII.

^A 1. After those preceding matters, another doctrine alien to the faith has sprouted up in our life, born of the anticipation[s] of certain persons; what the cause is for this having happened, I cannot say, unless it be that the devil, who is always disturbing the human race and warring against it, as it were, strives to never cease from plaguing mankind. He injects his bitter poisons into choice foods, and, as they say, mixes gall with honey, and does so especially through the agency of those who are celebrated for their admirable way of life and are always proclaimed in our praises as being of the orthodox faith. For this is the work of him who from the beginning envied our father Adam and bears hatred toward all men, just as it has been said by some wise men: "Envy is always an opponent of great successes." Thus, through major figures, he has cast certain pretexts, so that he might not leave us and the holy Church of God untroubled, but rather always disturbed and warring. For it has seemed good to some, even those who have sprung from our own ranks and live with great devotion, and who are always honored by us and by all the orthodox with divine-like titles, to detach the ^B mind from the incarnate presence of Christ, and to say that Christ our Lord, on coming, took flesh and a soul, but did not take a mind—that is to say, He did not put on a perfect man. I do not know what they supposed they were contributing to life by this, or from whom they learned such things, or what useful thing they gained from it, or what fruits they brought to us, to all who hear them, and to the holy Church of God, except that they have caused turmoil and division among us, and sorrow and loss of our mutual sweetness and love. For, abandoning the sequence of the divine Scriptures, and their uprightness, and the confession of innocence, and the prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic faith, they have introduced to us a sophistic terminology and fabulous tales, with which they have brought about a sequence of many evils, fulfilling in themselves the saying: "Some shall fall away from sound doctrine, giving heed to myths and empty babblings." ^C

^D II. That excellent and venerable elder, whom we, and the blessed memory Pope Athanasius, or rather all Catholics, loved uniquely, Apollinaris of Laodicea,

^A was the one who in the beginning devised and propagated this word. And at first, hearing of it from some who had been disciples of his, we were incredulous as to whether such a man had really introduced this word into life, still waiting with the hope of patience until we might know the truth. For we said that the disciples who came to us from him, not understanding the things deeply [set forth] by so learned a man, a wise teacher, were inventing these things themselves, having not learned them from him. For there were many matters among those coming to us from them that appeared doubtful. For some of them dared to say that Christ had brought down his body from above; and this strange doctrine, lingering in the minds of men, produced a harvest of perversity. ^B Others among them even denied that Christ had taken a soul. And some dared to say that the body of Christ was consubstantial with his divinity, and they threw the upper regions into great confusion; on account of whom it became necessary for a synod to be convened, and for such persons to be anathematized. But memoranda were also drawn up, copies of which were sent to the blessed Pope Athanasius; for which reason the blessed man himself was also compelled to write a letter against those who said such things, sending it with threatening words to the most venerable Bishop Epictetus, because he had deigned to give an answer to those who caused this disturbance. And the same blessed man, having written clearly about the faith at the same time, also excommunicated those who asserted and disturbed [the Church] with these things. I thought it absolutely necessary to record a copy of that letter here. And it is as follows:

*Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth.* ^C

III. I used to think that all the vain and absurd babbling of all those who are heretics whatsoever had been completely suppressed by the Nicene synod. For the formula of faith set forth there by the Fathers, according to the authority of the holy Scriptures, seems sufficient both to overturn every kind of impiety and to establish the pious faith in Christ. For this reason, ^D even now that various synods have been held in Gaul, Spain, and great Rome, all who have assembled have unanimously, as if moved by one spirit, condemned the hidden followers of Arius—I mean Auxentius in Milan, and Ursacius, and Valens, and Caius from Pannonia—and have written everywhere that, because these men were boasting of false names of synods, no synod in the Catholic Church should be called a synod except that which was held at Nicaea, which is a trophy of every heresy, but especially of the Arian one, on account of which most of all the synod...

^A at that time was gathered. How then do some, even after so many things, attempt to dispute or to inquire? For if they are from the Arian faction, it is nothing surprising if they malign what has been written against them; just as the Greeks also, when they hear, "The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of men's hands," deem the teaching of the Holy Spirit to be foolishness. But if those who are of the number of those who seem to believe rightly, and who love what has been declared by the Fathers, are the ones who wish to overthrow it by inquiring, they do nothing other than what is written: they give their neighbor to drink a turbid overthrow, and they quarrel over words in nothing useful, ^B or else they aim at the ruin of the simple, and produce worthless contentions of words, which tend to nothing else but to the destruction and perdition of the simpler sort.

IV. I write these things because I have read the commentaries brought to me by your godliness; which I wish had never been written, so that not even the slightest memory of them might reach those after us! For who ever heard such things? Who taught them, or who learned them? For "out of Zion shall go forth the word of the Lord, and the law of God from Jerusalem." Whence have these things come forth? What hell belched them out, ^C to say that the body born of Mary is consubstantial with the divinity of the Word? Or that the Word has been changed into flesh, and bones, and hair, and an entire body, and has been altered from his own nature? Who among Christians ever heard that the Son bore a body by attribution and not by nature? Or who has been so impious as to think and say at once that his divinity, which is consubstantial with the Father, was itself circumcised, and that it became imperfect from being perfect? And that what was nailed to the wood was not a body, but the very creative substance of nature? And who, upon hearing that the Word did not from Mary, but from his own substance, ^D fashioned for himself a suffering body, would consider the one who says these things to be a Christian? And who invented this forbidden impiety, so as to even let it come into his thought, and say that he who says the Lord's body is from Mary no longer honors a Trinity, but a Quaternity in the divinity? As if for this reason those so disposed say that the flesh which the Savior put on from Mary is of the substance of the Trinity. And whence again did some belch out an impiety equal to those mentioned before, so as to say that the body is not more recent than the divinity of the Word, but that it has existed co-eternally with him always, since it was constituted from Wisdom? And how did those who are called Christians dare to doubt whether the Lord who came forth from Mary is indeed the Son in substance and by nature of God, but according to the flesh is from the seed of David, and from the flesh of the holy Mary? Who, then, have become so bold as to say that Christ, who suffered in the flesh and was crucified, is not the Lord, and Savior, and God, and Son of the Father? Or how do those wish to be called Christians who say that the Word came into a holy man, as into one of the prophets, and that he did not himself become man, having taken the body from Mary, but that Christ is one, and the Son of God another?

^A

V. These things were contained in those commentaries, expressed in various ways, but having one and the same purpose, looking toward impiety. On this account those who take pride in the confession of faith handed down by the Fathers at the synod of Nicaea were at variance and fought among themselves. ^B I, however, greatly admired your piety for having endured these men, and that you did not stop them from saying such things, but rather set before them the pious rule of faith, so that, having heard it, they might either remain quiet, or, if they chose to contradict, be named as heretics. For the things mentioned above are neither to be uttered nor heard among Christians, but are in every way alien to the apostolic teaching. On this account, therefore, I have also caused the things from them, as has been said, to be plainly written into this letter, so that even one who hears them solely may contemplate the disgrace and impiety within them. And if it were necessary to accuse and refute at greater length the disgrace of those who thought these things, it is nevertheless good ^C for the letter to be limited to this, and to write nothing further. For it is not necessary to practice or to investigate more minutely things that are shown to be so openly base, lest they be thought by contentious men to be doubtful or ambiguous. To such things it suffices to answer and say only this: that these are not the dogmas of the Catholic Church, nor did the Fathers hold these opinions. But lest the inventors of these evils provide for themselves a shameless excuse through total silence, it is good to mention a few things from the Holy Scriptures. Perhaps, even thus, they might be shamed and cease from these filthy fabrications. ^D

VI. Whence, therefore, did it enter your mind, O you men, to say that the body is consubstantial with the divinity of the Word? For it is good to begin from this, so that, with this being shown to be unsound, all the other things of like nature may also be shown such. For from the Scriptures it is not possible to find it. For they declare that God came to be in a human body. But the Fathers who gathered at Nicaea did not say the body, but the Son himself is consubstantial with the Father; and that he indeed went forth from the substance of the Father, but the body was acknowledged again from Mary, according to the Scriptures. Either, therefore, renounce the synod at Nicaea, and bring these things forward as heretics; or, if you wish to be sons of the Fathers, do not think beyond what they themselves wrote. For from this it is possible for us to see the absurdity. If the Word is consubstantial with the body which has its nature from the earth, and the Word is consubstantial with the Father also—according to the confession of the Fathers—then the Father himself will also be consubstantial with the body which was made from the earth. And why do you still find fault with the Arians who call the Son a crea-

creature, when you yourselves say that the Father is consubstantial with creatures, and, turning to another kind of impiety, you claim that the Word has been ^A changed into flesh and bones and hair and nerves, and into a whole body, and has departed from his own nature? For it is time for us to say openly that he was generated from the earth. For the nature of bones and of the whole body proceeds from the earth. What is this great foolishness, then, that you should even fight against yourselves? While you say that the Word is consubstantial with the body, you indicate that one thing is being compared to another as if they were different; yet you imagine a change in the Word himself when you say he has been turned into flesh. And who of us will henceforth endure these things spoken by men who only utter such words? For you have inclined toward impiety more than any heresy. For if the Word is consubstantial with the body, the memory and the need of Mary are superfluous, since the body could have existed eternally even before Mary; just as the Word himself also exists, if, according to you, he is consubstantial with the body. And what is the need for the coming of the Word, so that he might either put on that which is ^B consubstantial with himself, or, having been turned from his own nature, become a body? For the Godhead does not take hold of itself, that it might also put on its own consubstantiality. But neither did the Word who redeems the sins of others commit sin, so that, having been turned into a body, he might offer himself as a sacrifice for his own sake and redeem himself.

VII. But it is not so; God forbid! For he takes hold of the seed of Abraham, as the Apostle said. Whence he ought to have been made like his brothers in all things, and to have taken a body similar to ours. For this reason, truly, Mary is also set before us, so that he might receive this from her, and offer it as his own on our behalf. And Isaiah pointed this out while prophesying, saying: Behold, the virgin shall have in the womb and shall bear. And Gabriel is sent to her, not simply to a virgin, but to a virgin betrothed to a man, so that through the mention of the betrothed he might show that Mary was truly a human being. And the Scripture mentions the giving birth, and says: He wrapped him in swaddling clothes; and the breasts which he suckled were blessed. And a sacrifice was offered as for one who had opened the womb. And all these things were marks of the Virgin giving birth. And Gabriel also safely brought the good tidings to her, saying not simply, *What is born in thee*—lest the body be thought to have been introduced into her from without—but *of thee*, so that it might be believed openly that what was born came from her; and this the nature itself demonstrates, as it is impossible for the body of a virgin who has not yet given birth to produce milk, and impossible for a body to be nourished by milk and wrapped in swaddling clothes, if it had not first been born by nature. This is what was circumcised on the eighth day; this is what Simeon received into his arms; this became a child, and grew, and became ten years old, and arrived at the thirtieth year. For it is not, as some have supposed, that the very essence of the Word was changed and circumcised, being immutable

as the Savior Himself says: ^A *See me, that I am, and I am not changed*; and as Paul writes: *Jesus Christ yesterday and today, the same also unto the ages*. But in the body that was circumcised, and carried, and ate, and grew weary, and was nailed to the wood, and suffered, was the impassible and incorporeal Word of God. This it was that was placed in the grave, when He Himself went to preach to the spirits in prison, as Peter said. ^B VIII. From which the insanity of those who assert that the Word of God was changed into bones and flesh is chiefly declared. For if that had been so, that monument would have been superfluous; since the body itself would have gone by itself for the sake of preaching to the spirits that dwelt in the underworld. But now, He Himself went for the sake of preaching, and Joseph wrapped the body in a linen cloth and deposited it in Golgotha; and it is manifest to all that the body was not the Word, but the body was the Word's. Furthermore, Thomas handled that very body after It had been raised from the dead, and saw in It the marks of the nails, which He Himself, being the Word, endured while seeing them being nailed into His own body, and being able to prevent it, did not prevent it, but even made the things of the body His own, as if they were His own, being incorporeal. Indeed, when the body was being struck by the attendant, He said as He was suffering: *Why do you strike me?* And though He was untouchable by nature, nevertheless He said: *I gave my back to the scourges, and my face I did not turn away from spittings*. For those things which the human nature of the Word was suffering, the Word Himself, being present with it, referred to Himself, so that we might be able to partake of the divinity of the Word. And it was a paradox that He Himself was suffering and not suffering: suffering, indeed, because His own body was suffering and He was in the one who was suffering; but not suffering, in that being God by nature, the Word is impassible. And He Himself was incorporeal in the passible body; but the body had in itself the impassible Word, extinguishing the weaknesses of that body. And He did this and it came to pass thus, so that receiving our things and offering them as a sacrifice, He might cause them to vanish, and finally, clothing us with His own, He might make the Apostle to say: *For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality*. ^C IX. All these things were not done in fiction and simulation; by no means, as some wrongly arbitrate. But since the Savior truly made Himself man, the salvation of the whole human being was attained. For if the Word were in the body by simulation only, as they suppose, and that which is said to be only by simulation...

accomplished by imagination, the result would be that for us as well salvation and resurrection would be said to come about only by image and adumbration, which is the opinion of the impious Manichæan. But our salvation is not brought about through a mere appearance, and it is not bestowed upon the body alone, but is attained in reality for the whole human being—for the soul, I say, and for the body. Therefore, that which is from Mary is human by nature, ^A according to the divine Scriptures, and is the true body of the Savior. It was indeed a true body, for it was the same as ours. For Mary is our sister, since we all have received our origin from Adam. Nor will anyone doubt this, if he remembers what Luke has written. For after his resurrection from the dead, since some suspected that they were not seeing the Lord in the body that had come from Mary, but rather a spirit instead of this, he said: “See my hands and my feet, and the marks of the nails, that I myself am he. Handle and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see me have.” And having said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. ^B By which means those who dared to say that the Lord was changed into flesh and bones may again be refuted. For he did not say, “As you see me to be flesh and bones,” but “having,” so that the Word himself might not be thought to have been turned into these things, but that it might be believed that he himself had them, both before his death and after his resurrection. ^C

X. These things being thus proved, it is superfluous to speak of other matters or to argue them; for since the body in which the Word was, was not consubstantial with the divinity, but was truly born from the Virgin Mary, and since the Word himself was not changed into bones and flesh but became in the flesh. For that which is said by John, “The Word was made flesh,” has this meaning, as can be gathered from a similar manner of speech. For it is written by Paul: “Christ became a curse for us.” Just as, therefore, he did not himself become a curse, but is said to have become a curse because he took upon himself the curse for our sake; so also he was made flesh, not because he was changed into flesh, but because he assumed flesh for our sake and became man. For this very phrase, “The Word was made flesh,” has the same force as if it were said, “He was made man,” of the kind that is that saying from Joel: “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.” ^D This promise did not pertain to animals, but to human beings, for whose sake the Lord also became man. Since these things are so, and such is the meaning of those words, those will deservedly condemn themselves who think that the flesh that was taken from Mary existed prior to Mary, and that prior to her the Word possessed a human soul, and that he had existed in it always before his coming. But they also will cease to talk nonsense who deny that the flesh is capable of death, and who attribute it to the lot and condition of an immortal nature. For if he did not die, how did Paul deliver to the Corinthians what he also received, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures? And how also...

could he have risen, unless he had died before? Those who are persuaded that a quaternity is established instead of a Trinity incur the greatest shame if the body is said to have been born from Mary. For if we consider the body to be consubstantial with the Word, the Trinity remains a Trinity, as no foreign element is introduced into it by the Word; but if we say that the body from Mary is a human (body), then of necessity, since the body is by nature distinct and foreign, and the Word is in it, a quaternity arises in place of the Trinity on account of the addition of the body.

XI. While they speak in this way, they do not notice how greatly they contradict themselves. For even if they do not say that the body proceeded from Mary, but only that it is consubstantial with the Word, ^B nonetheless—fearing that they might be seen holding what they affected to fear—they openly fall through their own discourse into this very thing, which is their own stupidity, and they admit that quaternity. For just as the Son, who in their opinion is consubstantial with the Father, is not himself the Father, but is called consubstantial as Son to the Father; so the body consubstantial with the Word is not the Word himself, but something else distinct from the Word. And if it is something else, then according to them their Trinity will be a quaternity. For the true and genuinely perfect and indivisible Trinity does not admit an addition, but only that which has been devised by them. And how can they still be Christians, devising another beside the God who truly is? For again, in another of their sophistries, it is possible to see their folly. ^C For if, because the body of the Savior is said in the Scriptures to be from Mary and human, they think that a quaternity is spoken of instead of a Trinity, as if the body were an addition—they are greatly deceived, leveling the creature with the Creator, and imagining that the Godhead is capable of receiving an addition. And they have not known that the Word became flesh not for any addition to the Godhead, but that the flesh might rise again; nor did he come forth from Mary that the Word might be improved, but that he might redeem the human race. How then is it possible for the body, which was redeemed and given life by the Word, to make an addition to the Godhead of the Word who gave it life? Rather, a great addition has come to the human (nature) itself from its communion and union with the Word. It was changed from mortal to immortal, and from animal to spiritual, and having come from the earth, it has passed through the gates of heaven. ^D Yet the Trinity, even when the Word took a body from Mary, is a Trinity, receiving neither addition nor subtraction, but is always perfect, and one Godhead is known in the Trinity; and thus in the Church is preached one God, the Father of the Word.

XII. Furthermore, by the same reasoning, the mouth shall be shut of those who have sometimes dared to say that he who came forth from Mary is not the same Christ and Lord and God. For if he is not God

that God existed in the body, why, as soon as he proceeded from Mary, was he called Emmanuel, which is translated, "God with us"? And how, unless the Word were in the flesh, could Paul have written to the Romans, "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all God, blessed for ever. Amen"? Therefore, let those who previously denied that he who was crucified is God acknowledge their error and place their faith in all the divine Scriptures, but especially in Thomas, who, after he saw the marks of the nails in him, cried out: "My Lord and my God." For the Son, being the same God and Lord of glory, was truly dwelling in that body which, in extreme ignominy, was transfixed with nails and shamed. The body, indeed, suffered while being pierced on the tree, and there flowed from its side blood and water; but inasmuch as it was a temple of the Word, it was completely filled with the Godhead. For this reason the sun, seeing its own Creator enduring such grave insults in that miserable body, withdrew its rays and light, and shrouded the earth in darkness; but the body itself, having a mortal nature, was raised from the dead above the condition of its own nature on account of the Word that was in it, and was freed from natural corruption, becoming, as it were, a garment for the Word; and having been wrapped, as if in a cloak, in the Word who surpasses the human condition, it was rendered free from corruption.

^C As for the empty trifles and figments of some people, who suppose that the divine Word descended upon the one man born of Mary just as he did upon all the other prophets: it is superfluous to argue at length on this matter, for their foolish and inept persuasion is manifestly refuted without any difficulty. For if he descended in that manner, why was he born of a virgin and not also conceived of a man and a woman? For in that way each of the saints was born. Or why, when the Word descended in that manner, is not the death of each one said to have occurred for our sake, but that of him alone? Or why, when the Word was present in each of the prophets, is it said only of him who was from Mary that he arrived once at the consummation of the ages? Or why, when he came in that manner, just as he came to the saints of old, do all the other mortals lie dead and not yet risen, while he who was from Mary alone rose? Or why, when the Word came similarly to all the others, is the one from Mary alone called Emmanuel, being a body filled with the Godhead, and born of her? For Emmanuel is interpreted as "God with us." Or why, if he came in that manner, is it not said just as well that he ate and drank and labored and died, as it is said that each of the other saints ate and drank and labored and died, but only of the one who was from Mary? For the things which this body suffered are attributed to him as though he himself were suffering them. And while it is said of all the others merely that they were born and begotten, of the one from Mary alone it is said: "And the Word was made flesh."

^A XIII. From which it is evidently shown that while the Word of God infused Himself into the rest only for the grace of prophesying, the same Word Himself, having taken flesh from Mary, came forth as man. He who was by nature and substance the Word of God, as pertains to the flesh, was born a man from the seed of David and from the flesh of Mary, as the Apostle declares. The Father manifested Him both at the Jordan and on the mountain, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The Arians deny this, but we, worshiping, acknowledge Him; nor do we separate the Son from the Word, but we confess that the Word Himself is the Son, through whom all things were made and by whom we too have been liberated. Hence we have marveled greatly how any controversy at all could have been stirred up among us regarding these matters. But thanks be to God, for as much sorrow as we received from the reading of their commentaries, so much pleasure the conclusion of the same has brought us. For they departed in mutual harmony, and maintaining the same sincerity of faith and piety, they preserved peace. This is the matter that especially impelled me, after long deliberation, to write these few things; for I feared that those who had provided us with cause for joy by their consensus might find our silence producing sadness instead of gladness. Wherefore, while I ask it of you again and again, I also very much desire those who shall hear these things to receive them with a pure conscience. And if anything is lacking for piety, let them not be burdened to correct it and make it known to me; but if my speech appears less perfect than the dignity of the matter requires, as is to be expected of a crude and unskilled man, let them think it should be pardoned for our infancy and weakness. Farewell. ^B Here ends the letter of Athanasius.

XIV. Since, therefore, this letter has been produced by us, and we have been moved to write against them not only from what we heard from them or from others, but it has become clear from elsewhere that we have brought no calumny against them: I shall next resume the discussion undertaken against them, lest I leave even the slightest suspicion of calumny on our part against our brothers. And yet, for their own sake, I still pray that they might at some time correct those things which have brought us some distress, lest both they and we suffer loss. For we have often demanded this of them through legates and have exhorted them, and we still strive to obtain the same, so that, all contention being removed, they may adhere to the divine sanctions of the apostles, evangelists, and Fathers, and preserve an uncorrupted, solid, ^C unshakable, and in every respect most righteous profession of faith.

However, I remember that it was reported by some of their flock that: "Christ the Lord did not take this flesh of ours, but another of a different kind." And would that they had spoken this out of an affection of praise and honor! For we also say that that body is holy and immaculate, inasmuch as it committed no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth. And this is evident to every man…

who makes a pious profession and has pious thoughts concerning Christ. Indeed, even if we admit that it is the same pure and entire body that He assumed, yet in us who have sinned, it is much inferior in condition and dignity—not because it is alien to Him or abhorrent, but because sins and very many transgressions have been committed by us. Therefore, the body assumed by Christ is not different from ours; rather, it is entirely the same body, which in Him was preserved and kept free from all contagion. ^B XV. Furthermore, there are some among them who, even to this day, are greedy for contention and ensnared by most absurd opinions; they do not cleave to the teaching of the Fathers, nor do they hold to the head of the faith, "from whom the whole body, being supplied and joined together through joints and ligaments, grows with a growth from God," as the Apostle says. Instead, allowing their ears to be disturbed by the narrations of alien men, they—not unlike Valentinus, Marcius, and Manichæus—obtrude certain fabricated lies as true dogmas, ostensibly for the honor of Christ. For when they hear from us that Christ was endowed with our body, they immediately turn to fables that are empty and consonant with their own obstinacy. They preach that He did not have nails and flesh and hair and all other things of the sort that are in us; rather, they claim He had nails different from ours, and likewise flesh and the rest of that sort not similar to ours, but far removed from them—seemingly wishing, by a ^C certain sophisticated quibbling, as is the custom of Valentinus and the other heresies we have previously mentioned, to "do a favor" for Christ with their vain words. For they say: when we confess all things perfectly concerning Christ, they pry into these matters, even though Scripture writes against such meddlesome people who "do nothing." For, startling the minds of the simpler folk, they immediately say: "Did He not then have need of the customs of the flesh, or acts of evacuation, or the privy, or the other things which seem to be wise, but are in fact terrible and rather nonsensical?" as the prophet says: "Who has required these things from your hands?" For of which of the saints—even though the prophets were men and not gods, and the evangelists and the rest were composed of soul and flesh, just as we are, and were not doubted—was anything of this sort written? Does not Scripture rather bear witness to the holier things concerning the saints, let alone concerning Christ the Lord? ^D

XVI. Let them tell us, these men who frighten off the sheep, and drive away the doves, and put to flight the lambs and flocks of Christ, where has Moses—for those forty days—[...]

^A prepared himself? Where did Elijah find what was necessary at the brook Chorath, when he ate bread in the morning and meat in the evening, brought by the service of ravens at God's command? For it was foolish for Scripture to mention these things, just as it is now foolish for these people to examine them. For what benefit is there in such things? Or what is useful in them? They are only pretexts for unbelief regarding what has been stated before, involving trifles and useless subversions. Yet let them tell us again, for what reason did God, when He willed it, bring it about that for the sons of Israel, during forty whole years, neither did their hair grow, nor did their sandals wear out, nor were their garments consumed or dirtied? Did they perhaps come down from heaven? Were such people perchance gods? Yet they are not spoken of in terms of praise; rather, they provoked God in many things. Were they not, therefore, subject to the same passions as we are? But God wished to show that all things are possible through Himself, and that they can come to pass, and that they can be prevented from coming to pass. ^B For, lest some should again imagine regarding them things beyond nature because of the wonders happening to them from God—namely, that their hair did not grow, and their garments did not wear out, and the rest, and that a human ate the bread of angels—for our sake, the divine Scripture has provided a safeguard, saying: "Let each one take an iron stake in his belt, that when he sits in a place, he may dig and cover his own excrement," because "You are a holy people, and the Lord dwells in the midst of the camp." Regarding this, the children of the Hebrews also bring forward a story: that this pattern lasted for a certain time, as long as God willed to show this miracle among them; and although they ate both meat and quail, it happened that they had no need even of this natural necessity. ^C XVII. Now, if these things are invented by the Jews for the honor and glory of their ancestors, or out of favor, or are proclaimed according to the truth (although we do not doubt that those whose dignity they have undertaken to defend were human, corruptible, not gods, and composed of flesh, blood, and soul), who, hearing these things, will patiently listen to such atrocious and horrible things being asserted by them about Christ, the Word of God who descended from above, and about His glorious and true incarnation in all things? In which He fulfilled what was said: "Tested in all things as a man, without sin." For it was possible for Him, having our flesh in truth, to refrain from doing things that to us appear base, and to do only those things which seemed more honorable and fitting to His divine majesty; just as it was through Him that the hair of the sons of Israel did not grow and their garments were not dirtied, and these things happened to them by tradition. ^D That Christ also had garments made by human hands is beyond all controversy. For "they divided His garments, and cast lots for His clothing." But if His garment was made by humans, it is clear that it was of wool and of...

linen; and things made of linen and wool were inanimate and without sense. But when He wished to manifest ^A the power of His divinity, by being transfigured, He showed His face shining like the sun, and His garments as white as snow. For all things are possible to the Almighty, to change and transform even those things which lack sense and soul into glory and brightness, contrary to expectation, just as He did with the rod of Moses, and as with the sandals of the children of Israel. For it is agreed by all that the apostles were holy men, corruptible in their bodies as we are, yet incorruptible because of the glory of God that dwelt within them. And thus, the shadow of Peter healed all who brought the sick to him, and the handkerchiefs and aprons from the garments of Paul worked certain miraculous signs.

^B XVIII. But what is the point of these little men contriving certain filthy thoughts concerning the divine essence, and inquiring more curiously, when no prophet, or evangelist, or apostle, or writer of any other sort, has thought it necessary to argue about these things? For whatever they say, and even if they were to falsely suspect ten thousand things beyond these, they will never be able to overturn the faith handed down by our fathers, which proclaims Christ in truth in all things. For Christ was truly begotten in the flesh from Mary the Ever-Virgin by the Holy Spirit; and immediately from His conception, He is called Emmanuel, which is, "God with us"—He is not begotten a second time. And the Child fled into Egypt with Joseph and Mary, because they were seeking the soul of the Child, seeing that He could be killed in the flesh. But He was worshipped by the Magi as the true God, born in the flesh, and not merely in appearance. And when He returned from Egypt, Joseph, fearing Archelaus, did not enter Jerusalem, since the Child might have been seized, and might have suffered in the flesh before the time what He was destined to suffer. Furthermore, He was hindered by John, when the servant acknowledged the Lord, that God was truly clothed in human nature. ^C But He declined the honor from His own servant in that circumstance, so that He might fulfill all righteousness in the flesh, truly and in perfect incarnation, leaving for us an example of salvation. And He also truly grew weary from the journey; and He did not merely grow weary, but He also sat down. Because He truly became man, He cried out, saying: "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest"; in order to show that His divinity was sufficient to give rest to all the multitudes of the world who come to Him. Moreover, He was tempted by the devil, and He remained forty days without eating or drinking, so as to show the self-sufficiency of His divinity. For He did not endure it as if He were hungering, like one practicing self-control philosophically as we do, by restraining and forcing himself, but rather without deficiency due to His true ^D [divinity, and later, the Scripture says, He hungered; in order to show His true in...]

incarnation, giving to His bodily presence the ability to partake of reasonable needs and [what is] true; so that it might not destroy the true sequence of the true incarnation. For indeed He hungered also at the fig tree, and He made true clay. But God spoke a word to the fig tree, and it came to pass. And on the boat He rebuked the wind, and it ceased. And through the spittle and the clay, by the word of His Divinity and by the spittle of His incarnation, and by the clay again, just as with Adam, He bestowed a benefit, fashioning the missing member for him; for all things were perfect in Him, while in the flesh He suffered, but in His divinity He could suffer nothing, until He rose from the dead, no longer suffering at all, no longer dying at all.

If some, because He did not receive His body from the seed of a man, think it to be of a different kind, they must not on this account suppose it to be unlike our body. For since it is acknowledged that He was born of Mary, it was ours. For Mary herself was not of a different condition than our bodies; since Adam also was not from the seed of a man, but formed from the earth. And it does not follow, because he was from the earth, and not from the seed of a man, that he was of a different nature than our bodies. For we were born from him, and we are not different from his body, even though we have been born from the seed of a man and from a woman's womb. But some, frequently treating these things more subtly and pondering them in their minds, have strayed far from the point. Others again of those who came to us, babbling ten thousand other things and beyond, were slandering a man who was highly praised for his many merits. And they stirred up a commotion, more intense than was fitting, whether out of ignorance, or because they had not understood what had been said by him, and, departing from him, they preached the dogmas they had heard. But let this be enough for me for now regarding these superfluous questions, with the readers understanding that we are not moved by jealousy or hatred toward the man. For we desire and pray above all that he not be severed from the Church of Christ and the sweetness of the entire brotherhood, but that he put aside the opposition of this contentious argument and turn to better things, as it is written: "Return, O Shulamite, return, and we shall look upon thee." Nevertheless, I will again take up the sequence of the subject at hand.

XIX. He does not want to say that the incarnate presence of Christ is perfect, but he also rejects the salvation of some, causing them fear and saying that "One ought not to say that He assumed a perfect man," as if [that were]

^A a matter for saying that we claim He assumed a nature. But this relies most specifically on the testimony of Scripture: "The Lord lifts up the meek" (Ps. CXLVI, 6). Yet there is absolutely nothing in these words worthy of great surprise, nor can any difference be shown in this, in that the Lord is said to have assumed flesh or to have undergone a perfect incarnation. For many terms are often used by us homonymously. For [the Scripture] says, "The Lord lifts up the meek," and, "He took me from the sheepfolds" (Ps. LXXVII, 70), and, "He was taken up," and "two men said: Why do you stand, men of Galilee? This one who was taken up from you" (Acts I, 9, 10). Nor is there any variation in the word "taken up," whether we say "He assumed," or "He took," or "He fashioned into Himself his own incarnation." Those who wish to rise up against the simple-minded do not frighten us with this term. It is fitting to speak in this way. And let no one think that I am slandering or speaking mockingly concerning these words about this subject. For I have often considered writing about this, so that no one might think that we were being stirred up out of enmity against him. For no one has harmed us, ^B to speak in human terms, nor has anyone snatched away what we have in this world. But while considering whether I should write, I was compelled by the truth itself, so that I might not omit those who have held opinions contrary to the faith; as the pious will later discover when they come upon [this], that our discourse is not for the sake of worldly zeal. For the man would be of much greater benefit to us, as far as worldly matters and charity are concerned, if he were in agreement with the holy Church of God in all things with all people, and had not introduced some foreign term. Therefore, whether the discourse, as understood differently by him or by those taught by him, is chanted in passing through such a guise and pretext, I cannot say. We have often reflected, and have been struck with amazement, that it is for the sake of this term that their stance of contention and struggle even unto death is maintained by them. And from this we have realized that perhaps the discourse is chanted by them with some more reserved ulterior meaning.

^C XX. For when you question some of them, they are accustomed to answering in various ways; nor are there wanting those who deny that the Lord assumed a perfect human nature, or that He became a perfect man. But since this was an object of aversion for many, they subsequently used irony, as we later learned accurately from his own mouth. For when we were in Antioch, we encountered their leaders, among whom was Vitalis the bishop, a man most religious in his life, his morals, and his conduct. And we spoke, urging and beseeching him to agree with the faith of the holy Church, and

to let go of that contentious word. But Vitalis said, “What is it that is at issue between us?” For he had a disagreement ^A with a certain venerable and distinguished man, Paulinus the bishop, and Paulinus was at variance with the aforementioned Vitalis, whom we had then summoned. We were therefore eager to reconcile both of them to peace; for both appeared to preach the orthodox faith, and each had a disagreement for a certain reason; for Vitalis brought an accusation against Paulinus, as though he held a word regarding the name of Sabellius. Therefore, when we had arrived, we refrained from full communion with Paulinus until he persuaded us with a written confession; the consent for which he had already previously made by way of an apology to the blessed Athanasius. For he had brought forward and presented to us a copy of this, with a signature ^B clearly containing the truth concerning the Trinity and concerning the mind that is in the human nature of Christ, in the very hand of our blessed Father Athanasius, which confession I have set down below. And it is this.

Copy of the confession of Paulinus the bishop.

XXI. I, Paulinus the bishop, think thus, as I have received from the Fathers: that the perfect Father exists and subsists, and the perfect Son subsists, and the perfect Holy Spirit subsists. Wherefore I also embrace that interpretation of three hypostases and one hypostasis, or substance, with those who think in this way. For it is consistent with piety to recognize and confess the Trinity in one Divinity. Furthermore, concerning the incarnation which occurred for our sake by the Word of the Father, I think as it has been written before, namely, as John wrote, the Word became flesh. For I do not agree with those most impious and wicked [men] who define that He underwent a change, but rather that for our sake He became a man, being born of the holy Virgin and the Holy Spirit. For the Savior did not have a body that was inanimate, or devoid of sense and mind. [That also had been added ^C by the hand of bishop Athanasius.] For it is not possible that the body of our Lord, who became man for our sake, should be devoid of mind. Whence I also condemn with anathema those who reject the faith confessed in Nicaea, and who do not confess that the Son is from the substance or of one substance with the Father. I also anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature made through the Son. Furthermore, I anathematize [the heresy] of Sabellius and of Photinus, and every other heresy, following the faith that was decreed at Nicaea and all things written above.

Thus far the profession of faith.

XXII. Following these things, we spoke to Vitalis and his associates thus: “What, then, do you also say? If there is any disagreement between you, put it away ^D by reconciling your peace.” But he said, “Let them speak.” Now when the others objected that they do not say that Christ became a perfect man, he immediately replied that...

we confess that Christ has taken on a perfect man. ^A This response brought to those who heard it no less pleasure than amazement. Knowing the mind of those who would usurp the intellect of their own brethren for the sake of pretexts, we persisted in questioning them more sharply: "Do you confess that Christ by nature assumed flesh?" He agreed, saying, "Yes." "And from the holy Virgin Mary without the seed of a man, and through the Holy Spirit?" He confessed this also. "Did the Word of God, the Son of God, coming down from heaven, assume flesh by nature from the Virgin?" He agreed with gravity. This matter was of great pleasure to us, since we had heard from those disciples whom we mentioned earlier to have come to us in Cyprus, that the dogma of these people was that Christ’s flesh was in no way assumed from Mary. When this most devout man, Vitalis, preached that our Lord Jesus Christ had drawn his flesh from Mary, he was asked by us again whether he had also assumed a soul. He confessed with equal gravity and constancy that he had assumed it as well; and he said that one must not assert otherwise, but must proclaim what is true in all things. For whoever writes to men concerning the truth must apply his whole mind to this one thing, that he set the fear of God before his eyes, and admit nothing false or rashly invented into the writing he has undertaken.

^C XXIII. Therefore, Vitalis confessed that a human soul was assumed by Christ. For he was the one who said, "Yes, Christ was a perfect man." Then, after we had inquired about the soul and the flesh, we then asked him: "Did Christ the Lord receive a mind?" He immediately denied it, saying, "No." We then said to him, "How then do you say that he became a perfect man?" He then revealed the inner thoughts of his own mind, saying, "We say that he is a perfect man if we posit the divinity in place of the mind, and the flesh, and the soul; so that he exists as a perfect man from flesh, and soul, and divinity, which serves in the place of a mind." ^D Having thus discovered in him such a desire for contention, and having discussed this matter at length, and having proven from the authority of the holy Scriptures that it is necessary to confess that the Word of God perfectly received all things, and perfectly managed them in his incarnate presence, and likewise after his resurrection from the dead, united them, and gloriously rendered the whole [humanity] spiritual, and not another, but the same, having it united within himself with his own divinity, and having completed one Godhead, and being seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father, on the throne of glory of his own eternal dominion and kingdom—we finally departed, having not persuaded both parties because of the contention at hand. It was understood by us that their argument did not have to do with the mind, but rather that their inclination was something distinct from the mind. For at one time they did not confess that he had assumed a soul at all. But when we pressed them by asking, "What is the mind? Do you consider it to be the substance of these things in man? Surely then man is a composite creature." Then next to...

this, some were pleased to say that the mind is nothing other than the spirit which is attributed to man in many places in the Scriptures. But when we demonstrated that the mind is in no way the spirit, from the fact that the Apostle explicitly wrote: "I will pray with the mind, I will pray also with the spirit" (1 Cor. XIV, 15), much discussion arose between us on this matter, and yet we were unable to persuade them, contentious as they were. ^A Since we had shown that the mind is not the spirit, which is always sung in holy Scripture as being in man, yet when we showed this, they did not believe it.

XXIV. Afterwards, however, when we were confronting some of them in this manner: "What then? Do you assert that the mind is a substance?" To which, since some of them countered by denying it was a substance—because we had persuaded them that it is not the mind, nor that spirit which is called man's, since it is written: "I will pray with the mind, I will pray also with the spirit"—when they had nothing further to oppose to this, we began to press them thus: "If the mind is not a substance, but a certain motion of our entire substance, and since you wish Christ to be Mind in this respect, you thereby imagine Christ to be unsubstantive, and you devise that He performed the entire business of the ^B Incarnation only in word and appearance." They were no more able to provide an answer to this. And we were affected by a very bitter sorrow and grief at this, that such contentions and quarrels should arise among our illustrious and praiseworthy brothers, so that that most troublesome enemy of the human race, the devil, might sow perpetual dissensions among us.

And truly, brothers, in such an argument of error, a certain principal fraud is employed to deceive the minds of men. For had a dispute not been stirred up about this matter from the beginning, it would have been a very simple thing. For what novelty did this bring to the world, or what did it profit the Church? Did it not rather do great harm, having kindled domestic hatred and discord? But once that dogma began to emerge, it proved most fearful. For it is not directed toward any more expeditious path or method of our salvation. Indeed, whoever does not profess the truth, not only in this part but even in some very slight matter, is to be considered to have renounced it. For one must not deviate from the path of truth, not even in the smallest degree. Therefore, let us also dispute against that opinion, ^D while we strive with all our might neither to shrink from our own life nor to abandon the rule of the holy Church of God and its confession. For no one among the ancients ever asserted this: neither prophet, nor apostle, nor evangelist, nor any of the interpreters who have existed down to our own times—the time from which that sophistical and caviling word proceeded from the mouth of that most learned man. For he had attained no mediocre knowledge of letters, since he had been trained in the humane and Greek disciplines, and was skilled above all in dialectic and the sophisticated art; moreover, he was also endowed with the utmost gravity in all his life, and indeed, among all the orthodox, he was

^A one who was far dearer than such as propose dogmas of this sort. Furthermore, he even endured exile because he would not assent to the Arians. But why is it profitable for us to pursue these things at greater length? This matter has brought us great sorrow indeed and has made our life bitter, since the devil, as he has often said, is accustomed to afflict us with trouble.

XXV. ^A But now I proceed to discuss this argument, so that, as I warned at the beginning, I may not omit any part of the truth. What, then, does it profit us to exclude the mind from the nature of man assumed in Christ? For if our reasoning is carried to this point—to assist, if I may so speak, our Lord Jesus Christ and God the Word and Son of God—so that we deny that he assumed a mind, lest we say that any diminution of his divinity is to be understood, then the Manichaeans and Marcionites and other heresies, who do not wish to attach flesh to him lest they seem to diminish his divinity, are far to be preferred to us. But the power of the truth does not depend upon the will of men, but is to be judged by its own governing wisdom and the incomprehensibility of its dispensation. ^B Therefore, since we profess our faith in this way, and do not hold views like the Manichaean (for he is not to be thought of as rendering a service when, for the sake of a greater commendation of Christ, he strips him of flesh; rather, he shrinks from the truth, while he teaches that his incarnation consists in appearance only), in the same way, the discussion of our brethren will be most vain, and their zeal to serve Christ most empty. For both they and we ourselves hold the truth correctly concerning the flesh of Christ, unless perhaps they wish to determine otherwise; just as some often from among their number have been compelled and convicted by the force of arguments, so that they dared to deny that true flesh was assumed by Christ, as I said before, ^C certain ones having been led to such a point that they made the flesh consubstantial with the divinity. But those must be passed over by us, as people who have changed their opinion, and who have been refuted by others from the same fold who do not think ill concerning the flesh of Christ, because of such an absurd error. But whatever may be the case with others, surely the most religious Apollinarius will not deny this.

XXVI. Wherefore, since the Word of God, having descended from heaven, truly received flesh from the Virgin Mary, not from male seed, but from the Holy Spirit, and was truly carried in her womb, ^D and fashioned for himself a body, being God and the Creator and Maker of our first parent as well as of all other things, the dignity of that Word was not in any way diminished, but he remained in his own immutable nature. For when he took on flesh, he underwent no change, as one who exists as consubstantial with God the Father, and is not different or alien from God or his Holy Spirit. But if this is in confession, that he took on flesh and grew, he cannot be devoid of a soul. For whatever grows, if you except immobile things, consists of soul and body. Furthermore, those words of Scripture are to be referred to this: *Jesus, however, was advancing in wisdom and age.* Where, on account of the flesh, he indicated age; but age, as I said, is fulfilled by soul and body. And after he [continues...]

^A has been deemed to have been without a mind, how did wisdom advance in soul and body? And you see how great a strained understanding those possess who compare the mind! "But," they say, "I do not say that he took a human mind; since we would make him craving, being provoked; for since in us the mind is the desiring faculty." And simply, the contention of men is great, as it is written: *God made man simple and upright; but they have fashioned for themselves many reasonings.* For if at all, while we admit that he took to himself a human mind, we were to understand in him the parts of our own deficiency, much more, while we admit that he took flesh, shall we grant in that respect, by the same logic, that he is deficient in flesh? Which God forbid! As, therefore, the Word, having come, was not deficient in the flesh, although he possessed true flesh, so neither in the mind did he think things unbecoming to His own Godhead; but all things which were reasonable for flesh and soul and human mind, these the Lord performed having come, so as not to disturb the order of the true incarnate presence. For hunger and thirst were reasonable, and fatigue and sleep, and traveling and grief, and weeping and groaning. And these things, having been fulfilled in him in order, revealed the reasonable character of the true incarnate presence.

^B XXVII. For it is not written anywhere that he was corrupted by an evil craving. Rather, a good craving took hold of him, as He said: *With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you.* But craving does not proceed from the Godhead, nor from the flesh alone, nor from a mind-less soul, but from the perfect human nature, which embraces body and mind and whatever else is in man. For the Word came endowed with all these—with body, I say, and soul and mind, and the rest that are in man—if you except sin and every defect, according to what is written: *Tested in all things as a man, apart from sin.* But if he was tested in all things, it is necessary that all things should have been present in the Word. But while he possessed all these, the same things were nevertheless not able to be overcome in him, and they were kept without any stain, since he was perfect God born of flesh, who perfectly fulfilled all things, as the master craftsman of a perfect vessel: in whom the flesh was not divided by some less appropriate impulse, nor was he himself distracted by some alien thought of the mind, of the sort that is seen in us. For our mind is not implanted in us for the committing of sin, but for the contemplating of the perfection of those things which are considered in us on both sides, and for the discerning of the duties of justice, or what is contrary to it. For the mind ^D distinguishes words, while the throat tastes foods; and the eye considers, and the mind sees. Therefore sight and taste and discernment is the mind within us, bestowed upon us by God. And it is not yet consenting to the things that are always happening, unless the man wishes.

But the flesh ^A in all Scripture is condemned on account of the desire occurring within it. Yet the Word does not utterly condemn the flesh itself, but condemned the things that come to be from it, as the Apostle said: "For I know that there does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh, any good," because of the things which sprout forth from the flesh. And that He might ward off the minds of the heretics, lest they should think the flesh has despaired of the resurrection of the dead, he says: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality"; lest, while casting aside the works of the flesh, which Scripture is accustomed to call "flesh," he might be thought to be casting aside the hope of the resurrection of the flesh. For He clearly condemned the works that come to be in it as evil, but He showed the flesh itself to be a holy temple, in Him who sanctified His own flesh according to that which is written: "Religion that is pure before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." And in another place: "Blessed are those who have kept their flesh pure." Often, while Scripture speaks against it, it taught us that desires and pleasures sprout from it; but against the mind, Scripture suggests nothing, but says: "I will sing with the mind, I will sing with the spirit"; and, "If I sing with the spirit, yet my mind is unfruitful." And you see that there is fruit in it, in the mind; and even if there be no fruit, it did not entirely count the mind among sins, but rather asserted that the fruit arises through it. ^C

XXVIII. What then from all these things does violence to the power of the divinity of our Lord? Or in what did the womb of the holy woman obscure His power? Or the uterus of the Virgin; the passages of childbirth; the arms of Simeon; ^D the reception of a man; the carrying by Mary; the touch of a harlot; the hair of a woman touching His feet; or the tears; or the positions in the tomb? For the linen cloth that wrapped His body could not at all overcome that pure One and His greatest power. For even while still in the womb, John leapt, rejoicing at the entry of his Lord to him, whom the blessed Virgin was bringing forth. And when He was born and laid in a manger, He did not escape the choir of angels. For hosts were sent to attend the entry of the King of the ages after the manner of bodyguards and attendants, triumphal hymns were sung, and peace was proclaimed among the shepherds. But what obscured His power? For while He was still an infant and being carried, signs of a star from the east came to pass, the arrival of the Magi, and their worship and attendance, the questioning of the scribes—

^A regarding Him, and the answer and confession of the truth concerning Him. Finally, what could all other matters which are subsequently set forth have hindered His divinity? What sort of obscuring shroud, as it happens with us, did the apprehension of the flesh cast upon Him? For He rebukes the storm, and the winds, and the sea, and the power of His divinity is not held back by the flesh, but performs what is according to the nature of the Godhead. ^B Indeed, even though there existed the bulk and weight of the flesh, He was not kept down by any weight. For He walked as if upon the waters, as an unchangeable God, while existing in the flesh, yet not being altered by the flesh. And He calls with a voice: "Lazarus, come forth," not having a flesh that was contrary to Him, nor was the divinity enslaved in the flesh by the perfect assumption of humanity.

XXIX. And I could add many other things: as that He was raised from the dead, and broke the bars of Hades, and took captive the captivity and led it forth, and rose on the third day in that same most holy flesh, and with soul, and mind, and indeed in the entire vessel, and being united with the Divinity, He existed as perfect man, having united His own assumption of humanity to the Divinity, so that death no longer has dominion over Him. And being united with the Divinity, the gross and concrete He rendered fine and subtle, ^C just as when He entered through closed doors; and when He had entered, He showed flesh and bones, in order to manifest His saving power and to present what is the purpose of our hope, and to make plain that all things were perfected by the Word after the assumption of the flesh. Moreover, in that same body He was magnificently taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of the Father, not weighed down by the bulk of a body, nor yet being completely released from the body itself, but having raised up the selfsame body as a spiritual one. If our body is "sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body," how much more is it reasonable to think this of the body of the only-begotten Son of God? Therefore, this has been fulfilled: "Thou wilt not give Thy Holy One to see corruption, nor wilt Thou leave my soul in Hades." And all these things have been argued by me concerning the perfect assumption of humanity by Him, so that it might not enter anyone’s mind that, because He put on perfect flesh, He also performed those irrational and abhorrent acts which pertain to the flesh. For no one who believes piously in Him thinks or says this. ^D If no one thinks that He performed the irrational acts of the flesh, neither should one think that He performed those irrational acts which proceed from the mind. And that the Word came and became man perfectly, this is manifest. And if we say "perfectly," we do not have two Christs, nor two kings, sons of God, but the same God, the same man; not as one who has dwelt in a man, but as He who Himself completely became man, not being a man who attained to the advancement of divinity, but God who came from the heavens and fashioned within Himself His own incarnation according to His powerful Godhead; as He says that the Word became flesh. But the [phrase], "the Word became flesh," [signifies] that He dwelt [among us].

For He did not say, "The flesh became Word," in order to show that, first of all, the Word came down from heaven, and that He fashioned the flesh unto Himself from the womb of the holy Virgin, and perfectly refashioned the whole economy of the incarnation into Himself. For even if He says, "The Word became flesh," it is not that the Word was turned into flesh, and the Word became flesh, or [that] His Godhead was changed into flesh; but rather that God the Word, on coming, took His own incarnation together with [His] Godhead.

^A XXX. "And Jesus increased," he says, "in age and wisdom." But if He did not have a human mind, how did He increase? As has already been stated by me; just as the holy prophet of God, Isaiah, bears witness to this statement, saying: "Behold, my beloved servant will understand, in whom I am well pleased." And do you see that the [word] "will understand" refers to a perfect incarnation? For no one is able to understand who does not have a mind, nor is this fulfilled in the Godhead. For that which is understanding itself is not in need of understanding, nor is that which is Wisdom itself in need of wisdom; but the [word] "will understand" is taken with regard to the human mind. And tell me, whence did He hunger? For if He were merely flesh, how could He have experienced hunger? And if He consisted only of a soul and a body, without the soul having the rational faculty of the mind—the argument of the incarnation, I do not mean the debased one, but that which is ordered appropriately to the Godhead—how could He have hungered, or conceived of hungering? And tell me, whence was He aggrieved, if the soul had no mind, and [the power to] reason, but was an irrational soul, or [if] there was a soulless flesh? He would have fallen neither into sorrow ^B nor into despondency. And there are many things which we must know by reflecting, that sophistical arguments are superfluous and strike rather at those who wish to think beyond what is necessary, and who do not measure themselves by the standard said to us by the advice of the most holy Apostle, who said, "Not to think beyond what it is necessary to think."

^D XXXI. They also bring before us some phrases, saying, "But we have the mind of Christ." And they say: "Do you see that the mind of Christ is different from our own?" And O, the great simplicity of men! For each person bends [the meaning] to whatever he wishes; and in whatever he thinks he is being clever,

^A he is discovered to be a layman. For while we are "laymen in speech, but not in knowledge," according to that which is written, yet since they are very narrow-minded, and such men—who are so proud of their own eloquence and start from [mere] words—fill our minds with a sense of perplexity, it occurs to us that they are merely seizing upon this passage for the sake of setting forth such an empty and stubborn contentiousness of theirs, the matter itself having no implication relevant to such a relationship. "For we," he says, "have the mind of Christ." But we must ask them what Christ is, or what the mind of Christ is. For here they imply that Christ is one thing, and His divinity is another, having [clearly] supposed them to be distinct. For if they assume that Christ is [something] instead of the mind, and if they name Christ only as the incarnate presence of Christ, then they once again attempt to drag us into a different inquiry. And that the Word of God and the Son of God is indeed interpreted from the incarnate presence, is clear; even if testimonies preceded Him, that He was called Christ even before the incarnate presence, they are fulfilled ^B in the presence; neither does the name 'Christ' exist apart from the divinity, nor is the incarnate presence and His humanity named without such a title: just as it is established in that place: "Do not say in your heart: Who shall ascend into heaven?" that is, to bring Christ down; "or who shall descend into the abyss?" that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. And the same [Apostle] says again: "That they may know Thee, the only true God, and whom Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ." And the word "sent," while having its contemplation from above, must not be separated from what was said by Peter, that "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by miracles and signs, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit"; and things similar to these.

XXXII. But not even of these are our most sweet brothers satisfied; for since they have once set it before themselves to oppose their most opinionated stubbornness to us in all matters, with the greatest audacity they even preach that the divinity of Christ has suffered. ^C To which they abuse the words of the Apostle: "For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory." And some of his followers, not understanding this, as I suppose, bring it forward along with other [arguments], wishing to appear clever. For I wonder if he himself says so. For it is not wondrous if the divine Scripture says that the Lord of glory was crucified. For we confess both the Lord of glory and the incarnate presence itself; for the incarnate presence is not separated from the divinity; since each subject ^D is reasonably understood, and the whole matter is united for us into one dispensation and one perfection in the same [person]. For Christ is preached and believed by us as having suffered, not as having suffered in Himself, nor because he who suffered is one [person] and the Lord is another, nor because the divinity has suffered; but He has suffered

while our Lord Jesus Christ, with His divinity remaining immutable and impassible, nevertheless suffered in the flesh, while yet remaining impassible. For if Christ died for us, and truly died, it was not the divinity that died, but He died in the flesh, according to what is said: *Put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit*; and again: *Christ having suffered for us in the flesh*. ^B Wonderfully, therefore, is it acknowledged by us that He has suffered in truth, and is impassible in truth, in that the divinity did not suffer, by reason of its immutability, and its impassibility, and its being consubstantial with the Father; but the flesh suffered, and the divinity was not separated from the incarnate presence during the passion. For the divinity and the incarnation were together when Christ suffered in the flesh upon the cross, yet remained impassible in His divinity; that we might hold the justification no longer in the flesh alone, but in the divinity; and that in the divinity and in the flesh, salvation might come to us in both. For Christ is not to us a mere man, but the Word subsistent, incarnate, and God truly become man, so that we might no longer have our hope in man, but in the divinity; and that we might not have a suffering God, but one impassible; yet one who has not wrought our salvation apart from suffering, but in dying for us, and offering Himself as a sacrifice to the Father for our souls, cleansing us by His blood, tearing up the handwriting that was against us and nailing it to the cross, even as the Scripture teaches us everywhere.

^C XXXIII. I could, if it seemed necessary, bring forward many other things to confirm the truth of this dogma. For in another place, when we were treating this same argument, we established our salvation [as being] certain and beyond all doubt: just as a garment is stained by the sprinkling of blood, although the body of him who wears the garment is not stained, nevertheless that stained garment is not attributed to the garment, but to the person who wears it; even so, although the passion did not rest [upon] the divinity, but happened to the human nature alone, it is not to be attributed to this alone; ^D but, that in the procuring of our salvation through the incarnation of the Word, we might not fall into that scriptural judgment: *Cursed is every one who has hope in man*. Therefore it is also imputed to the divinity, although it suffers nothing of itself, so that the salvation of the human race, acquired through the passion of Christ, might be attributed by the holy Church of God also to the divinity. I fear lest some of those captious word-mongers might prefer to entangle themselves in a more subtle line of reasoning than to receive the similitude offered by us with caution and prudence. For there is no [image] in the holy Scriptures [that is taken]…

wholly and entirely used, as when it is said, "Judah is a lion's whelp." In that instance, the account is taken of the strength and of a certain royal excellence which is perceived in that wild beast; it is not considered that it is devoid of reason and rapacious. So it is with the garment: nothing of that relates to our reason, that it is accustomed to be put on and off. For once, as it is written, he put on comeliness; then indeed he put on strength and girded himself. In this the word of the Apostle is fulfilled: "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him."

Since these things are so, our brothers bring this forward for the defense of their dogma: "But we have the mind of Christ." From their discourse, which they use in this argument, it is possible to suspect that they wished to assert that there is another mind of Christ. But if they do not separate the divinity from the incarnation, but think that the business of the incarnation is one and simple, what then will that which is called the mind of Christ possess that is excellent? Does the Word of God exist by itself, and is it not endowed with a human mind in the incarnation? Such is their opinion. Does a mind other than the hypostasis of the divinity reside in Christ? Or is it rather the custom of Scripture to use more grandiose words ^B to place before the eyes those things that are accomplished within us?

XXXIV. For if we wish to speak truly, every pious person governs his life not by a human mind, but by that which is proper to Christ, and which is filled from that same wisdom, which is attributed to Christ on account of righteousness, which lives in Christ through the profession of faith, and which attains salvation through Christ by the performance of honorable works. This is that mind of Christ, which can be in us in such a way that it does not in the least circumscribe Christ within the region of any certain place. For the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are everywhere, and they exist in us in a spiritual manner, if we should prove worthy of them. Nor indeed is he confined by that place, nor is his Father, nor the Holy Spirit, but he exists in all things on account of the power of his own divinity; yet he is not mixed with anything, because his substance surpasses all communion and comparison, and his divinity is pure and greater than all comprehension.

But when the Apostle says, "But we have the mind of Christ," what then shall we think? Did he have his own—that is, a human—mind? Or must he be thought to have obtained that of Christ in its place, having lost his own? I do not think so; nor is there anyone who hears these things who would not judge that he had a peculiar mind, besides which he was also filled with the mind of Christ, who would adorn him with the ornaments of religion, knowledge, and a certain divine and heavenly life. If, therefore, while having his own mind, he moreover apprehended the mind of Christ, it is a consequence that Christ himself the Word is "mind," if indeed it is permitted so to speak. Since it has seemed to some ^C that "mind" can be used to call God. I, however, do not judge our mind to be a hypostasis, nor does any of the sons of the Church, but [I believe it to be] a certain operation given by God and existing within us. But I call Christ a hypostasis, as also all the faithful confess, and I confess him to be God, and the existing Lord born of the Father, perfect from perfect, and light from light, and God from God. But yet, according to their argument, the mind that is in him, just as the holy ^D

Apostolical doctrine teaches for him—when he says that we have the mind of Christ—he had his own mind, just as those who are testified of by him also had their own. And again, they were infused with the mind of Christ, his grace being thus able to be perfected in them.

^B XXXV. There is nothing, therefore, in the similarity proposed that hinders us from transferring the same to Christ and establishing that, while he was God in himself, even though he was a participant of a human mind, just as he was of flesh and blood, and had a human soul, he was in no way led captive by that mind, or reduced to servitude, so to speak. For if the Apostle, to whom a certain mind was naturally ingrained—namely, a human one, and another beyond that which he had drawn from the participation of a heavenly gift and grace and benefit—no longer directed his life according to the prescription of his own mind, but was endowed and adorned with the mind of Christ by a certain excellent institution and guidance of nature, how much more did the Word of God, who contains all perfection in himself, or rather is perfection itself, God himself, virtue itself, mind itself, light itself, fill or rather perfect [the mind and the whole body], and by his incarnation bring us salvation accumulated in every respect? Therefore, that discourse of theirs is to be rejected, which holds no significance for that dogma, and we must beware lest we fail to assert that all things in Christ are perfect, apart from sin.

Siquidem, since that divine Word performed all things in reality, and fulfilled what had been written long before concerning himself, as that holy prophecy demonstrates: *Behold, a virgin shall conceive*, etc. Then indeed, in reality and not merely in appearance, he was carried in the womb, in which he was also truly begotten, according to things in which he truly conversed among men with flesh: having embraced in himself flesh, soul, and mind, and whatever else a man is, apart from sin. The same was truly begotten of the Virgin's womb, of the all-holy Virgin, I say, not from virile seed. He who, as I have said, consisting in reality of flesh, soul, and mind, truly came forth through the natural passages of those giving birth, and was wrapped in swaddling clothes in a manger, carried by Mary, and after these things descending into Egypt, was brought back from there; then, living in Nazareth, and coming from there to the Jordan, he was baptized by John, and tempted by the devil, he truly took disciples to himself, and began to announce the kingdom of heaven, just as he undertook all other things in reality, and not fictitiously.

^C Just as when he was betrayed by Judas, and arrested by the Jews, offered to Pontius Pilate and condemned to death by him, and was fastened to the cross. Even so, he said in good faith: *I thirst*, give me to drink; and he took the vinegar with gall that was offered, and tasted it, and admitted no further drink. But also, fastened to the cross, he truly cried out thus: *Eli, Eli, lamma sabachthani*. ^D Then, bowing his head, he expired.

^A His body was truly taken down from the cross, handled by human hands, wrapped in linen cloths by Joseph, and truly deposited in a tomb, to which a stone was rolled for its protection. And furthermore, his divinity descended with his soul to the underworld, and by its own power and might liberated those who were kept bound there; then the same Word of God, rising with his own most holy soul, and surrounded by the company of the captives whom he had rescued, arose from the dead after three days in truth, together with his body, his soul, and every instrument [of his human nature] in truth. He was found with his disciples during the forty days, blessing them on the mount of Olives in truth, ascending into heaven in truth, as the disciples watched him being taken up even to the clouds in truth, and truly sitting down at the right hand of the Father, with his very body, his divinity, and finally the whole human nature which he had assumed: in which mystery of the Incarnation he united all things into one and into the same spiritual perfection, God indeed sitting in glory and truly destined to come at some time to judge the living and the dead. And there is nothing changed, but all things are perfected and fully worked out in him in completeness.

XXXVI.

Now, some also claim that this is a decree of Apollinaris: that in the first resurrection we are to complete a thousand-year period in the same institutions of life that we now use, so that we might observe the law along with all other things, and participate in whatever is in the world that pertains to daily use, such as marriage, circumcision, and the rest; ^D and we cannot at all be persuaded that such a dogma is defended by him, although we have heard from some that he is the assertor of it. Moreover, religious men are not unaware that mention is made of this millennial time somewhere, that is, in the Apocalypse of John, and that this book is accepted by very many among the canonical Scriptures. But so many, and they pious and skilled in spiritual matters, busy themselves in its reading that they confess those things which contain a spiritual sense within it to be true, indeed, but explained by a higher understanding. For not only the matter which is discussed there, but many other things also, are declared in deeper meanings.

XXXVII.

^B that any religious man who would once overstep the boundaries established in the Church of God, and the tradition of the prophetic and apostolic faith, and the hope of the doctrine, and would wish to go beyond it, his mind, upon the slightest occasion of a word, in a matter small and of almost no moment, turning aside from the common way, will fall into most empty assertions, and most dangerous opinions, and absurd and strange questions, and endless genealogies, as the Apostle says. For this is very foolish, ^C and needs no explanation; anyone who possesses a little understanding clearly knows that such wisdom and hypothesis of the discourse is not in need of inquiry. For if we are to rise again to be circumcised, why did we not anticipate circumcision? Indeed, those who in this life have known that very thing which is held to be perfect, and have begun to partake of it so long before, have acquired a clearer right to obtain that future perfection. ^D Why, then, was it said by the Apostle: "If you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing"? And: "You who are justified in the law, you have fallen from grace"? And how [do we reconcile this with] what is said by the Lord: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels"? But what is written: "You shall sit at the table of my Father, eating and drinking," and: "When I shall drink it new with you in the kingdom of heaven," with the addition of the word "new" and "at the table of the kingdom," signifies a different meaning. For we ourselves also say, having learned from the divine scriptures, that there is a certain participation in an ambrosial drink and food, concerning which it is said: "Things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, and which have not ascended into the heart of man, which God has prepared for those who love him."

XXXVIII. But he claims that, first, in that whole millennial period, we shall enjoy natural pleasures, all labor and pain having been removed; and after the millennium, then we shall partake of those things which are spoken of according to that which is said: "Things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard." But this argument of theirs is opposed to the entire scope of the Scripture. For if the law perfected no one, and yet they order us to observe the law after the resurrection; and since the holy law, delivered to us by the Lord through Moses, has been a pedagogue for us unto Christ, as being inferior to those things which are perfected by the Greater One, and is entrusted to lead [us] to the Most Perfect One; and when Christ, the Perfect One and Lord, has come, and has received from the hand of the pedagogue the one being led—that is, the holy Virgin of the faithful, and the Church—and we have known, through the law the pedagogue, the Greater One and the Perfecter, Jesus, how will the argument of those who say such things not be shown to be all the more of a shallow mind and foolishness, that

after the perfection of Christ, is there need for a return to the schoolmaster, in order that we might return to the beginning of the elements, and the teaching, and the laying on of hands, according to what is written? Since the Apostle clearly tells us that “everything that is becoming old and aging is near its destruction,” referring to the Old Covenant and the legislation. For, he says, when the priesthood is changed, there is of necessity a change of the law. ^A Since the Old [Covenant] has been removed, and the New [Covenant] has been renewed, who would be so bold as to introduce again for our use the Old, while putting the New into a state of decay, thus preparing us to fall away from grace and attempting to turn us aside from the benefit prepared for us by Christ?

Having discussed these matters briefly in our discourse, and considering what is sufficient—due to the breadth of the work—let us proceed to the next topics, beloved, customarily invoking God as our helper, for the discussion, demonstration, and refutation of the remaining subjects. ^B

AGAINST THE ANTIDICOMARIANITES,

1. That same dogma (whose advocates are also commonly called Dimœrites), which denies the human mind in the nature of Christ, has brought forth other troubles and difficulties besides, especially in Arabia, concerning which we have been informed by certain pious men. Although we had previously written a letter on this same subject, yet, because this heresy follows in its own order and number, we shall append this very letter against it here, with certain things reasonably added to it or removed from it. ^C For some of the flock of the Antidicomarianites, as if they had conceived a particular hatred against the Virgin, and wishing to disparage her glory—whether driven by envy or blinded by the shadows of error with which they corrupt the souls of mortals—have progressed to such a point of recklessness that they dare to say that the holy Mary, after the birth of Christ, was joined in intimacy with her husband, Joseph. They say, as I have mentioned above, that this doctrine originated from that old man Apollinaris, or from some of his disciples—though that is not yet clear to me. However the matter may stand, since they must necessarily be refuted by us, and so that we do not repeat the same labor, I shall append that very letter which I mentioned as having been written by me previously to Arabia. Which is of this sort:

Epiphanius’s Epistle against the Antidicomarianites.

2. To my most honorable and beloved children, and sincere brothers, professors of the same orthodox faith, from the priest down to the layman, and to the catechumens ^D

Epiphanius, the least of bishops, greeting.

^A It is a thing of the present time which may be seen as simultaneously worthy of wonder and yet not worthy of wonder: worthy of wonder, indeed, that all things are being fulfilled in our generation; but by no means worthy of wonder, because it is necessary that these same things should be fulfilled. For daily there breaks forth among us some sophisticated caviling, wrongly fashioned from human wits and minds, and progressing toward the worse, it departs from the apostolic teaching; just as the most holy Apostle foretold ^B that "they shall depart from sound doctrine, giving heed to fables and doctrines of demons," and so forth. For if any opportunity and capacity presents itself for investigating and devising wicked ways, men apply their zeal to this rather than to fulfilling that precept which commands us to seek what is honorable and worthy of approbation; or that other: "Let your speech be seasoned with salt, that it may give grace to the hearers." But if we revolve these things in our minds more attentively, asking whence it happens that the worst things are being revived among us day by day, we ourselves shall be like the unlearned, who apply their minds less to ^C divine words and prophecies. For it is necessary that these things be fulfilled. For in all parts of the faith, that which was said must be brought to completion: "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" For to what point has the mind of men, prone to evil from their youth, finally proceeded? What part of the faith has it not destroyed? And what dogma is there in which their perverse counsel has not disturbed whatever fruit and utility there was? Since they once neglected that which was especially becoming, and was consonant with the state of a rational nature—to which, indeed, it was more fitting that it should contemplate in its mind all things honorable, and, even if it were necessary to go beyond its own nature, should adapt itself to them even against its will—rather than struggling violently toward the worse, to twist what is true into profane and ridiculous things.

III. The Heresies of the Gnostics, Marcionites, and Others

^D Etenim posteaquam blasphemiarum genera omnia ac quæcunque a Spiritu sancto aliena sunt, in hac ætate nostra sunt exhausta, ad alia se quædam nova convertunt. Quidam enim in Patrem universorum Deum ac conditorem contumelias jaciunt, quales sunt qui Gnostici dicuntur. At Marciones, et Archontici, necnon et illorum asseclæ Manichæi, qui non sine divina quadam providentia furiosum illud nomen sortiti videntur. Igitur omnes isti cum plerisque aliis hæresibus, Cainorum, Setianorum, Melchisedecianorum, Colorbasiorum, Cerdonianorum, ac cæteris id genus, eumdem illum universorum Patrem contumeliis afficiunt, dum ipsum negant Deum illum exstitisse, qui in lege ac prophetis locutus est, quique jure a creatis rebus omnibus, tanquam creator et opifex adoratur: cujus illi cultum una cum dominatu ac potestate conantur evertere, ut et illum, qui revera est, ejurent Deum, et alterum, qui nusquam est, falsa ac fabulosa opinione sua confingant; atque et verum illum

seed-planting of words is wont to cause such disturbance and confusion, inciting the minds of created men through blasphemous reasonings to war against their own ^A Master with evil suspicions and total denials. Yet, again, some, having turned aside from this, have dared to proceed to other things, denying their only Master who bought them, the only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God—He who truly exists, begotten of the Father without beginning and timelessly, He who always exists from the Father and is with the Father, begotten in an incomprehensible and undefiled manner, being consubstantial with the Father, and not other than the Father. Some, again, having gone mad like rabid dogs, bark at their own Master; just as the Jews of old, because they were ignorant of Him, are rightly called "mute dogs" by the prophet, having been deemed worthy of this name by him on account of their shameless impetuosity toward the Lord and His ^B advent, as it is true to see. For they say that rabid dogs are called "mute" because they are rendered toothless by the madness that leaves their minds.

IV. For such is the nature of dogs, after they have been seized by rabies: those who formerly recognized their master, his children, his household, and all the others close to the master—as soon as they are gripped by that disease—their faces seem changed to their eyes, and they leap upon those they formerly knew, whom they had previously honored by wagging their tails and submitting themselves. Behold those Jews ^C who were awaiting the advent of the Lord, and were preparing themselves to receive the bridegroom, who desired to see the prophets, who professed that they would obey the divine words, who had entered into a covenant with Moses 5: "Be you our intercessor with the Lord," and, "All that the Lord shall say to you, we will hear and do." They, I say, when they looked upon the present Lord, being ignorant of the express forms and marks of the truth, which the prophets who preceded Him had described, delineated, announced, and signified—first they cast this at Him: "Who is this who speaks blasphemies?" 7 And at another time they dared to say, without shame, that He had ^D a demon 8. Furthermore, they were not ashamed to call Him a Samaritan. Finally, as I have said, they leapt upon Him like rabid dogs and affixed their hands, which is what the furious [dog does].

5 Deut. v, 27. 6 F. of "having come." 7 Luc. v, 21. 8 Joan. viii, 48.

^A Just as dogs are accustomed to do, which, running at their masters' hands and faces, fear nothing, so they rendered the Lord to the punishment of the cross, and they partly sawed the prophets, the members of the same Master's household, partly overwhelmed them with stones, and partly killed them with the sword. After them, in the same way, the new Jews of today, formed by the same practices and discipline, as those true Jews denied the Lord present in the flesh, so they themselves, denying the perfect kinship of the Son of God with the Father, madly and senselessly claim again and again that He is a creature, a work, and utterly alien to the Father.

^B V. Moreover, others, leaving behind those aforementioned blasphemous dogmas, as if they had themselves once contemplated that divine nature in heaven, I might say, and had penetrated more deeply into those arcane and celestial matters, and had looked into them diligently (as one might think they had fallen from heaven), arrogantly proclaim and vehemently assert that the Holy Spirit is to be separated from the communion of the divinity. And although they do not deny the Father, nor exclude the Son from His genuine conjunction with Him, they turn aside into another byway of the path, so that that saying may be entirely fulfilled: *Faith has perished from their mouth.* For what else are they doing, as if they had right and power over the Holy Spirit (who is by no means alien to the Father and the Son, but is of the same divinity and cannot be separated from it), than preferring to prescribe to God rather than to obey His precepts? ^C For they are not ashamed to call the Holy Spirit alien, a servant, a creature, more recent, and a made thing, and if any other base suspicion can be devised about Him, they are the more eager to invent it against Him. Therefore, this world is thus struck with a more vehement and incurable wound of infidelity, so that the iniquity which utterly destroys the human race might omit nothing in terms of total wickedness, perfidious faithlessness, and ignorance. By this reasoning, their idle and most wicked thought has swept these wretches—who had escaped that former blasphemy against the most holy Trinity—transversely toward certain other things, so that no one can hide his sin. For I hear of some who are meditating something against the most holy and perpetual Virgin Mary, and attacking her honor with a certain contumelious opinion. From which it appears that this storm of ours is most similar to a deadly and venomous serpent, which, lurking in the darkness, attacks all with hostile bites, and falls upon the face of one, the heel of another, and the hand of a third, so that no one might be able to escape the bite of infidelity completely; ^D but he who escapes the venom in one way cannot remove himself or avoid it in another: and he who retains uncorrupted faith in other matters, in another way brings fraud and destruction upon himself.

VI. From where, truly, did this wickedness emerge? From where did such boldness break forth? Does not even the name itself abundantly testify? Does not that very thing persuade you, O most obstinate man? Who has ever existed at any time who, when calling upon the name of holy Mary—and being questioned—did not immediately add, "the Virgin"? For from the very

^A evidence of names, the proofs of virtue are revealed. For the righteous received marks of honor, fittingly and as was appropriate for each one. And to Abraham was added "friend of God," and it shall not be dissolved; to Jacob, the name "Israel," and it shall not be changed; and to the apostles, "Boanerges," that is, "sons of thunder," and they shall not be abandoned; and to holy Mary, "Virgin," and she shall not be changed. For the holy one remained undefiled. Does not nature itself teach you this? O new madness! O new things! There are many other things which in ancient times were not dared by our fathers. But now one man blasphemes the incarnate presence of Christ, speaking other things against the divinity itself; another deems the entire work of the incarnate presence as ^B lacking and imperfect within himself; another is offended by the resurrection of the dead; another, finally, seizes upon something else to attack. O, our turbulent age, in which the life of man is brought into the greatest danger, and which is overwhelmed on every side by the worst errors of opinion and the fabrications of perfidy propagated by the devil! With what countenance, indeed, do they attack that incorrupt Virgin, who was found worthy to be the dwelling-place of the Son of God, who was chosen from the infinite number of Israelites to be that one vessel and habitation consecrated to the one divine birth?

VII. For I have learned this for certain from an authority, that some have dared to affirm concerning her: that after she gave birth to the Savior, she had intercourse with a man. And I am not surprised. For the ignorance of those who neither understand the Holy Scriptures accurately nor are practiced in the reading of ancient histories always turns someone ^C who desires to trace the truth—like a snake—from one thing to another. For first, because the Virgin was betrothed to Joseph—the necessity of the lot having led her to this—she was delivered to him for intimacy, if we must speak the truth, because he was a widower. But he is called her husband for the sake of the law; yet, according to the sequence shown by the tradition of the Jews, it is demonstrated that the Virgin was not delivered to him to be joined in union with him, but so that she might be kept as a testimony to those things that were to come to pass, so that it might be made clear that the economy of the incarnate presence was not a false and bastard thing, but witnessed to in truth, having been brought about, apart from the seed of man, by the power and efficiency of the Holy Spirit ^D indeed. For how could a man of such an aged, worn-out state have a virgin as a wife, having been deprived of his first wife for so many years? For this very Joseph was the brother of Cleopas, and was the son of Jacob, surnamed Panther; both of these, I say, were born to Panther as their father.

^A Now this Joseph had his first wife from the tribe of Judah, and she bore him six children in number, four males and two females, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have clarified. He had as his firstborn, then, James, who was surnamed Oblias, which is interpreted as "wall" (99), and was also called "the Just," and was a Nazirite, which word signifies "holy." This man was the first to receive the seat of the episcopate, to whom the Lord entrusted His throne on earth first; he was also called the brother of the Lord, just as the Apostle agrees with these things, speaking somewhere thus: *But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother* (Gal. 1, 19), and the rest. This man is called the brother of the Lord because of their upbringing together, not by nature, but by grace. For Mary, having been betrothed to Joseph, appeared to be the man’s wife, though she had no bodily union with him. From this circumstance, the kinship of association of the sons of Joseph with the Savior was called, and indeed was accounted, in the order of brothers. For just as Joseph himself, having had no communion in the birth of the Savior according to the flesh, is considered in the place of a father by the dispensation, just as the evangelist Luke speaks concerning the Savior Himself, that *He was, as was supposed, the son of Joseph* (Luke 3, 23). Just as Mary herself also said to Him in the Gospel according to Luke: *Behold, I and your father were seeking you sorrowing* (Luke 2, 48). Who then would call Joseph the father of the Lord, he who had no part in the cause of Him, especially since the incarnation took place without human seed? But by the order of the dispensation, things have taken this turn.

VIII. He begot this James when he was somewhere near forty years of age, more or less; after him is born a son named Jose, then after him Simeon, then Judas; and two daughters, Mary and the one called Salome. Then his wife died, and after many years he, a widower, takes Mary, having reached an age of about eighty years or more. And after this he takes Mary, as the Gospel also says: *For when Mary had been betrothed*, it says (Matt. 1, 18). And it does not say, "when she had been married." And again in another place: *He did not know her* (Matt. 1, 25). ^{B C} It is possible to wonder at all those who hunt for wicked excuses, and for whom there is no need to investigate the causes, and to seek for things not to be sought, but to turn from necessary matters to foolish questions, so that by every means a destruction of faith and blasphemy might be brought upon us through the insults against the saints. And first of all, the sequence and order itself convicts them, because, first of all, as an old man of over eighty years he did not take ^D a virgin for bodily use, but rather it was arranged for him to keep her.

^A Furthermore, both were certainly just. And having heard that what was in her was from the Holy Spirit, he who had heard this would not have dared, after such an administration of God, to use the vessel that had been deemed worthy to contain Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain because of the greatness of His glory. For if even now, in His name, virgins strive to persevere in that state, and to be chaste, and to exercise self-control; how much more would Joseph not have been more faithful, and Mary herself, who pondered all things in her heart, as it is written? But after such and so great a divine mystery, was it fitting that an old man be joined to a holy and honored Virgin, and to a vessel that had contained the Incontainable, and that had received such a mystery, a sign of heaven and of the life of men?

IX. For what arguments are lacking to show that the blessed Virgin persevered in chastity? Let them teach us that after the Savior was brought into the light, Mary bore any children. Let them speak the names, if they please, those architects of fraud and every artifice; but they can never show it. For the Virgin had no intimacy with a man. Far be it from us to think that she had! For if she had borne any children, she who dwelt constantly with the Savior Himself, they would speak of his brothers as living with Him. But this saying of the Gospel imposed upon them: "Behold, your mother and your brothers stand outside, seeking you." And they do not notice what was written before this: "For His brothers did not believe in Him." ^B Indeed, as we, having become better instructed by the progress of time, sometimes wondered that the sacred Scriptures were written so simply, after we completely perceived everything, we began to give thanks to God, who through a very few words wished to exhibit the truth of all those things which are written in holy Scripture as fortified and established. For when we would constantly hear about James, that he was called the brother of the Lord, we wondered why it was necessary to repeat that so often. But now we understand why it is impressed upon us in the holy Scriptures: namely, that when we hear, "Behold, your mother and your brothers stand outside, seeking you," we might be taught that the statement refers to James and the other sons of Joseph, and not to the non-existent sons of Mary. For it was clear that James was older in age, ^C as Scripture shows, rebuking opposing heresies in silence, and calling them by name: James, Joses, Simeon, Jude, Salome, and Mary. Thus it wished to declare whose son James was, and from what mother he was begotten, and which one was older by birth. For Jesus was crucified in the thirty-third year of His incarnate presence; and the year of Herod, or rather his son Archelaus, at that time ^D was the twentieth.

^A For in the thirty-third year of the first Herod, the son of Antipater, the Savior was born in Bethlehem of Judæa, which was the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus. Having spent two years there, He was taken by Joseph into Egypt, because of the things spoken to Herod by the Magi, while Herod was seeking the Child. He went down into Egypt and spent another two years there. And King Herod died in the thirty-seventh year of his reign. He was succeeded by his son Archelaus for nine years. Thus the transaction was completed, and He was delivered to the cross in the eighteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, which was the twentieth year of him called Agrippa the Great, or Herod the Younger, the son of Archelaus. Nowhere have we heard that Joseph had begotten children. Neither, after his return from Egypt, did he live for many years. For the Savior was in His fourth year, and Joseph was over eighty-four years old, when he arrived from the land of Egypt. And Joseph remained alive for another eight years, and in the twelfth year, as they were going up to Jerusalem, he was sought after, when he was not found on the journey, as the Gospel according to Luke contains. ^B In the midst of these years Joseph died, and He was no longer brought up under Joseph, but in the house of Joseph. Hence the Gospel no longer says that "His father and His mother and His brothers came," but, "Behold, Thy mother and Thy brothers stand outside." Nor did it say, when they spoke to Him in Idumæa, "No one who does these things wishes to be in secret. If Thou doest these things, show Thyself," that His father and His brothers said it to Him, but "His brothers," as if Joseph no longer existed in the body. Then at the very end, when the Savior stood on the cross, as the Gospel according to John contains, "Turning," it says, "He saw the disciple whom the Lord loved, and said to him concerning Mary, 'Behold thy mother'; and to her He says, 'Behold thy son.'" If there were children born to Mary, and if her husband were still alive, for what reason would He entrust Mary to John, and John to Mary? ^C And for what reason would He not rather entrust her to Peter, or to Andrew, or to Matthew and Bartholomew? But it is clear that He did so to John because of his virginity; for "Behold thy mother." Yet she was not the mother of John according to the flesh, but He wished to show her as the leader of virginity, since life proceeded from her; and He said to John, although he was a stranger according to the flesh, that he might teach him to honor his own mother, because the Lord Himself was truly born of her according to the flesh, so that no one might think the dispensation was a mere appearance and not a reality. For if she were not truly His mother, having conceived Him according to the flesh, ^D and were not His mother because of the body He assumed from her, He would not have taken such care for her, nor would He have commended the perpetual Virgin — who was also mother because of the body received from her — to John, although he was an outsider and in no way a relative, so as to show that she must be honored. Forasmuch as the Lord was truly born of her, as far as the body is concerned, lest anyone might perhaps think that the whole business of the incarnation consisted in outward form and not in truth. For had she not truly been His mother, from whom He had received flesh, and who had brought Him forth, He would not have taken such care for her that He would commend the perpetual Virgin; she who had also been his mother on account of the body assumed from her,

^A and [was] spotless on account of the honor [due] to Him, and the wonderful vessel. And the Gospel says: *And from that day the disciple took her into his own home*. If she had a husband, if she had a house, if she had children, she would have withdrawn to her own things, not to a stranger.

XI. I fear lest this very thing we are saying might be a snare to some, and they might think they have found in this a pretext to come up with [the practice of] keeping "co-habitants" and what they call "beloved" women, for themselves, on account of an evil-minded supposition. ^B For there, the matters were carried out according to a divine dispensation, but the affairs were separated from all the other [human affairs] that ought to be kept according to God's strictness. For indeed, even when this was done and he had taken her into his own home, she no longer remained with him. But even if some think they have erred, and seek the traces of the Scriptures, they would find neither the death of Mary, nor whether she has died, nor whether she has not died; neither whether she has been buried, nor whether she has not been buried. Although John set out for Asia, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him; but the Scripture simply kept silent ^C on account of the vehemence of the wonder, so as not to bring the mind of men into amazement. For I, indeed, do not dare to speak, but by pondering it, I keep silence. Perhaps we might even find traces of that holy and blessed one, such that it is not even possible to discover her death. For does not Simeon say about her: *And a sword shall pierce through your own soul, that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed*; and elsewhere the Apocalypse of John says that the dragon rushed at the woman who had brought forth the man-child, ^D and there were given to her wings of an eagle, and she was caught up into the desert, that the dragon might not lay hold of her. Perhaps this can be fulfilled in her; but I do not definitively assert this, and I do not say that she remained immortal; but neither do I assert whether she has died. For the Scripture has surpassed the human mind, and left it in suspense, on account of that precious and most excellent vessel, so that no one might fall into a notion about her of carnal things. So whether she has died, we do not know; and if she has been buried, she has not been joined to flesh [by such ties]—may it never be! But who, having brought on himself a delirium, would wish to launch some blasphemous notion, and open [his] mouth, and let loose [his] tongue, and part [his] lips out of an evil mind; and rather than [singing] hymns and glory, devise some insults, and mock the holy Virgin, and not honor the honored vessel?

^A with any honor at all?

XII. But if it is necessary to derive points from another field of inquiry, let us consider what nature itself brings forth and the relations of natural history. They say that the lioness ^B does not give birth more than once. And the reason for this is as follows: The animal is most ferocious, tawny in appearance, and possessed of the greatest strength; to say it in a word, it is the most royal species among the other animals. It receives conception from one mate, and the seed which is deposited completes twenty-six months in the womb; so that the cub within is brought to perfection by the length of the time, to the point that it might already have all its teeth before it comes forth from the womb, and its claws in a stable state of maturity, as well as those called "small stakes," and canine teeth, and all the molars, and everything else that falls to the lot of this animal. Therefore, while it is in the belly, with its kickings, movements, and other ways, it tears and flays the pregnant mother’s womb and uterus with its claws. Therefore, when the day comes for the mother to give birth, on that very day her belly is freed from every painful condition of pregnancy. For the naturalists assert ^C that at the very moment of birth, the uterus and the womb are excreted together; so that the female no longer has any desire, unless perhaps some force were to be applied. And even if, by some union, she were forced, she can no longer conceive, as the womb or uterus is gone. Is it not, then, that this analogy also provides us with a consideration for the inquiry at hand, favoring the argument rather than harming it? For if Jacob signifies Judah as a lion's cub, calling Christ [such] in a certain figure of speech, it also matches that which is in John’s Apocalypse: "Behold," he says, "the lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, and of the lineage of David." Since the Lord is compared to a lion, not by nature, but for the sake of the analogy and the shadowy representation—because a certain royal dignity exists in the lion, and it is the most courageous and strongest of all animals, and in all other respects the most pleasing to look upon—we might not absurdly call His mother a lioness. For how can a lion be born unless its mother is called a lioness? But just as the lioness does not give birth a second time, so the holy Virgin Mary was devoid of a second birth, and engaged in no intercourse of bodies. ^D

XIII. Furthermore, let us contemplate another consideration, so that she who was the follower of Jesus was always with Him. Jesus was called to the wedding, and His mother was there, and [His] brothers, but nowhere is there any mention of Joseph. "What have I to do with thee, woman? My hour has not yet come." And He did not say, "What have I to do with you, men?" Maria Magdalene was present, and Mary the wife of Clopas, and Ma-

Salome ^A with other women. He does not say that Joseph was there, or James the brother of the Lord. Indeed, he departed this life at the age of ninety-six, having preserved perpetual virginity. His head was never shorn with iron: he did not use baths, he partook of no living creature, he put on no second tunic: but he used a linen-only cloak, just as the Gospel bears witness: "The young man fled, leaving behind the linen cloth, with which he was clothed." For John and James, these three held this way of life; the two former were sons of Zebedee, and the last, James, the son of Joseph, and was called the Lord’s brother because he was nourished and educated with Him, and was considered in the place of a brother by Him; on account of ^B the genuineness which Joseph had toward Mary, from the time she was betrothed to him. To this James alone ^C allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. But it was granted only to the high priest, and that once a year. Yet James was not even a Levite. Furthermore, the reason given for why he was permitted the approach to the sanctuary is that he used linen garments, not woolen ones. But this was permitted only to priests when they performed sacred rites. Third, he says that Gentiles met with the Jews: which is absurd; for Gentiles did not flock to any of the Jews' feasts. Just as the claim is false that he says the twelve tribes were present: when at that time there were only two, the rest having long since been led away into captivity. Fourth, he mentions that Hosanna was shouted by the Jews: which they shouted only at the Feast of Tabernacles, when they broke branches from the trees. Fifth, he says that James was a Nazirite: and therefore abstained from meat and wine. Therefore, he partook of neither the paschal lamb nor the wine at that final supper. I care for nothing else. Nor do I deny that some things were either uttered by Hegesippus or were inserted by others, which seem little probable. But I deny that the whole history is to be condemned on that account. For most things in it are true, or at least very similar to what is true; some things are sub-absurd, especially those which were added by others. But the objections raised by Scaliger do not bring much weight to undermine its authority. The first is that about the Holy of Holies: which in Hegesippus is only ^D "it was permitted him," he says, "alone to enter the holy place:" by no means the holy of holies, or those secret and holier penetralia which were opened to the high priest only once annually; but those which are simply called the holy places: in which were the table, and the bread of the presence, and the candlestick and the altar of incense: into which place priests were accustomed to enter daily. If, therefore, James, who was neither a Levite nor even a priest, was admitted hereto, a singular honor was paid to his holiness. But since such ancient and grave authors assert that it happened, why it happened is more to be wondered at or inquired into, than that we should doubt the authority of most distinguished men. And since Hegesippus had mentioned the "holy places" alone, others added "of the holies," as Epiphanius in this place, and the most learned Jerome in his *Catalogue*. But the "holy places of the holies" [τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων] are often used for the exterior house, that is, not only for the inner adyta. So in Epiphanius, lib. *De XII gemmis*, cap. *De adamante*: In this place, they signify that first part of the interior and roofed temple. Because he did not go into that sacrosanct penetrale three times a year, but only once, and when he entered, he would put aside his jeweled breastplate and all other ornament; and he used a linen tunic, and linen breeches, a girdle, and a linen mitre. No otherwise does Chrysostom call it, orat. 62, tom. VI, edit. Savil. pag. 644, 'Εν τῷ στήθους, etc. Thus our Fronto emended it. For *tiara* is written erroneously for *kurbasia*. For the reason which I have said, the "holy of holies" to Chrysostom are no other than the "holy places," just as they are in Hegesippus and Jerome. Epiphanius, however, cannot use this excuse; because he wrongly added of his own, "once a year," which was peculiar to the high priest, that he might enter once into the holy of holies. To James, however, because of the excellence of his life's sanctity, it was granted that he might reach the holy places, since otherwise he was commonly clothed in a linen stole. Regarding the Gentiles, it is absurd to deny that they flocked to Jerusalem with others at those times, and at the solemnities of the Jews, especially the days of unleavened bread, which was by far the most celebrated feast among the Jews. Not to seek examples from afar, John XII, 20, Gentiles come to worship at those very solemnities. There were, however, some Gentiles among them who had come up to worship on the feast day. For as to the twelve tribes, how ineptly Scaliger prescribes! Indeed, almost impiously. For if he reasons truly, by the same logic he can exclude the apostle James, who thus prefaced his canonical Epistle:

^A permitted to enter once a year into the holy of holies, because he was a Nazirite and had been mingled with the priesthood. For this reason, Mary was in two ways a kinswoman to Elizabeth, and James was distinguished by his priesthood. Since the two tribes ^B were the only ones joined to each other—the royal to the priestly, and the priestly to the royal—as even above in Exodus, Naasson, the prince of the tribe of Judah, takes Elizabeth, the elder daughter of Aaron, as his wife. Hence, many of the heresies are ignorant of the Savior’s genealogy according to the flesh, and because they are at a loss, they disbelieve and think they are contradicting the truth, saying: "How can one who is of the tribe of David and Judah be a kinswoman to Elizabeth, who was of the Levitical race?"

XIV. This James also wore a golden plate ^C upon his head. And once, when the land was suffering from drought, he lifted his hands to heaven and prayed, and immediately the heaven gave rain. He never wore woolen garments. His knees became calloused like those of a camel, because of his constantly bending them before the Lord out of an abundance of piety. For this reason, men no longer called him by his name, but "the Just" was his name. He never bathed in a bathhouse; he abstained from any living creature, as has been shown by me above; he did not wear sandals. And many things could be said about the man and his virtuous manner of life. Do you see, then, that the house was altogether most commendable? For if the children of Joseph understood the rule of virginity and the work of the Nazirites, how much more did that old and venerable man know how to guard the pure Virgin and to honor the vessel in which the salvation of mankind had once resided! Nor does nature herself teach us otherwise, for he was an old man, far advanced in age, great among men, faithful in his ways, and pious in appearance. For the Gospel says that "a man fearing God sought to put her away secretly." This James, the brother of the Lord and son of Joseph, died in Jerusalem, having lived after the Savior's ^D assumption.

^A approximately twenty-four years, being ninety-six years of age. A certain fuller struck his head with a club when he had been thrown down from the pinnacle of the Temple; yet, being not at all injured, he knelt and prayed for those who had cast him down with these words: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." Whence Symeon, his nephew through his sister and son of Cleophas, who was standing far off, spoke these words: "Desist! Why do you attack with stones a righteous man? Behold, he is praying the best of prayers for you." And in this way his martyrdom was accomplished.

XV. Now if the son of Joseph was so advanced in years, who would think that his father, who had witnessed such ^B horrible sights—such as angels performing the duties of attendants and guards at the birth of the Son of God and singing from heaven, saying: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men" (Luc. 2, 14); and when shepherds had come to the cave where Christ was born and reported these things, and Joseph the elder, who was already far advanced in years, heard such wonders and miracles—could it have been possible for him to mock with such great ignominy that holy body in which God had dwelt? From which body, indeed, the nature of man was assumed by the Word of God, and from which that holy and incorrupt flesh was fashioned and joined to the divinity of the Savior. Just as the angel Gabriel testified there, saying: "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, the holy thing that is born of you will be called the Son of God" (Luc. 1, 35). How, then, could he have dared to be joined with such a great and such a holy Virgin, Mary? And what profit has this question brought us, even if he were joined—which may it not be!—to inquire into it? ^C Which is indeed more preferable: to entrust such matters to God, or to rush violently into worse things to our own detriment? For it is clear to no one that it is written for us that if we do not believe that Mary was joined [to a husband] afterward, we do not have eternal life but fall under judgment. But what was written? Things that are good, things that are righteous, things that are noble; "That he might give grace to those who hear" (Ephes. 4, 29). But men have left behind the necessary things, the things concerning the truth of the faith and the glorification of God, and from wherever they can, they contrive things for their own harm; alas! it is irksome even to think of it, when there is no mention of it in the Scripture.

XVI. For if the Scripture had mentioned something of this kind, we would certainly profess the truth without any tergiversation. ^D For is marriage unseemly? Or is the marriage bed profane, and not rather undefiled? Or is marriage finally adulterous? Although prophets and high priests abstain from them so that they may be occupied with greater duties. For after Moses had prophesied, he was no longer joined to a woman, was no longer in the way of begetting children.

For he had ^A a more scholarly life toward the Master. For how could he have been able to spend forty nights and forty days on Mount Sinai, continuing in the attachments of marriage? Or how could he have been able for forty years in the desert to be ready for the economy of God, and to be occupied with the priesthood? And how could he have been able to relate the mysteries, and to continue in conversation with God, bound by the burden of marriage? For if the holy Apostle speaks expressly concerning us, and says: "For a time, that they may be occupied with prayer," [*] how much more truly will this word apply to the prophets?

Mary, therefore, was also a prophetess. For it says: "He went in to the prophetess, and she conceived in her womb, and bore a son. And the Lord said to me: Call his name: 'Make haste to plunder, make speed to spoil,'" [*] and the rest. It signifies ^B here the entry of Gabriel to Mary, when he went out to bring her the good tidings that she was about to bring forth the Son of God, a Savior to the world, not from the seed of a man, but through the Holy Spirit. But also, Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied; they prophesied, indeed, because of the condition of virginity they were found worthy to possess. And Thecla encounters the holy Paul, and is set free from marriage, having been betrothed to a most handsome man, a leader of the city, extremely wealthy, and most noble and brilliant in his life; and the holy woman despises earthly things, so that she might become a possessor of heavenly things. If, therefore, these did these things, how much more shall we confess that the same was undertaken by Mary, in whom that marvelous economy of the incarnation has been perfected?

What kind of reasoning, then, can be adopted by us, so that we may both lead their minds toward better things, and dissipate for them all the darkness of error, who have conceived within themselves wicked dogmas like most pernicious offspring, as it is written: "He has conceived labor, and he has brought forth iniquity"? [*] For they truly conceive the labor of thoughts, but bring forth the iniquity of blasphemies.

XVII. Concerning the "Before they came together"

XVII. But I fear lest someone might introduce that very same error into his own mind and, having been impelled by some other reasoning, might attempt to sow it in himself, and might wish to argue in this manner: "What is it that the Gospel narrates, that 'Mary was found with child of the Holy Spirit, ^D before they came together'?" [*] Was that convention and meeting therefore expected, and for that reason did it say, "before they came together"? But also the same Gospel says again in another place (It was found with child of the Holy Spirit, Mary, before they came together; and, "He bore," and "he knew her not"; and, "She brought forth her firstborn son, and he knew her not"; and, "He knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son"). [*] And those who profess to interpret the contemplations of the Scriptures, and who attempt to investigate the sublime and most profound things, do not know that the contemplation of that passage has such a manner. For if Mary had given birth again, it would have been necessary to mention the names of the other brethren. But since the firstborn is of all

of all ^A creation is called the Only-Begotten, do not be disturbed. For it did not say that she gave birth to her firstborn, but only this: *He knew her not until she had brought forth her son.* Where it did not call him "her firstborn," but simply "firstborn." For in the case of "her son," it indicated that he was born of her according to the flesh; but in the title of "firstborn," it no longer added "her," but "firstborn" alone. For this is the one named by the Apostle "the Firstborn of all creation," not joined to the creation, but born before the creation. For he did not say "first-created," but "firstborn," since the reading is divided for the better and safer understanding, namely to say first "firstborn," and then to subordinate the creation. For "firstborn" is understood of the Son, while the creation exists through the Son. ^B He gave birth, therefore, to her son, the firstborn, but not "her" firstborn, as if she were going to bear another; and he did not know her. For how could he know that a woman would receive such grace? Or how could he know that a virgin would be glorified with such glory? He knew her indeed as a woman by her form, and as female by her nature, and that she was born of her mother Anna and father Joachim, and was a kinswoman to Elizabeth, from the house and family of David; but he did not know that any woman on earth, especially, would be honored with such glory. He did not know her, therefore, until he saw the miracle. He did not know the miracle within her until he saw what was born of her. But when she had given birth, he realized the honor from God, that she was the one who had heard: *Hail, full of grace; the Lord is with you.*

XVIII. This is she who was prefigured by Eve, who is called mother of the living under a certain shroud of a riddle. For Eve was called mother of the living only after she had heard: *You are earth, and into earth you shall return,* that is, after the transgression. And it is a matter for wonder that after that offense she received such a magnificent title. And if one considers only the external things and those obvious to the senses, the origin of the whole human race on earth is derived from that Eve. Yet in truth, life itself was introduced into the world by the Virgin Mary, so that she might bring forth a living one, and Mary might be the mother of the living. Therefore, Mary is called mother of the living in a prefigured likeness. For regarding the two women it was said: *Who has given to a woman wisdom, or the knowledge of embroidery?* For that first wise woman, Eve, wove observable garments for Adam, whom she herself had stripped, for she was condemned to labor of this kind. For because her own nakedness had been discovered by her deeds, this task was given to her, to cover that body which is exposed to the senses with a garment to hide the external nakedness. But to Mary it was given by God that she might bring forth for us a lamb and a sheep, and from the glory of that same lamb and sheep, as if from a fleece in wisdom, there might be granted to us through his virtue a garment of incorruption. But there is also another wonderful thing to consider concerning these, regarding the...

^A Eve and Mary. For Eve became a cause of death to men; for through her death entered into the world; but Mary was a cause of life, through whom life was born for us. And because of this the Son of God came into the world; and, "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound," and whence death had occurred, there life took precedence, so that life might come to be in place of death, having excluded the death that came from a woman, by the one who was born for us as life through a woman. And since there, while Eve was still a virgin, she had fallen into the transgression of disobedience, again through the Virgin the obedience of grace was accomplished, upon the announcement of the descent from heaven of the incarnate presence and eternal life. For there it says to the serpent: "And I will put enmity between thee and between her, and between thy seed and between her seed." But nowhere is any seed of a woman to be found; but rather, according to the riddle, the enmity regarding Eve is ^B understood in relation to those born of her, both the serpent and the devil who was in the serpent, who was burning with envy.

XIX. But, indeed, these things cannot be fulfilled in her in the most perfect way; but they shall be fulfilled truly in the holy and exceptional seed, the most unique one, which was found only from Mary and not from the union of a man. For this one came to destroy both the power of the dragon and the fleeing, twisting serpent, who boasted that he had taken hold of the entire inhabited world. For this reason the Only-Begotten came from a woman, for the destruction of the serpent—that is, of evil doctrine, and corruption, and deceit, and error, and lawlessness. This is he who truly opens a mother's womb. For all those who were born as first-borns, to speak more reverently, were not able to fulfill this, but only the Only-Begotten, having opened ^C the virgin womb; for in this one alone it is perfected, and in no one else. But one can see this even from the matter itself. For from Mary this word is taken, and regarding the Church this I shall have to say: "For this reason shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and they shall be two into one flesh." And the holy Apostle says: "This mystery is great; but I speak of Christ and the Church." And observe with me the accuracy of the Scriptures: that in the case of Adam he says he "molded" [him], but in the case of Eve he no longer says she was molded, but "built." For he took, he says, one of his ^D ribs, and built it for him into a woman; so that he might show that the Lord molded a body for himself from Mary, and that from that very side the Church was built, in the piercing of his side, and

the mysteries of the blood and water which became for us ^A a ransom.

XX. But although Joseph “knew” Mary, it was not by a knowledge of carnal usage, nor by a knowledge of intercourse. Instead, he “knew” her by honoring the one who had been honored by God. For he did not know that she was of such glory until he saw the Lord born of a woman. And the phrase, “Before they came together, she was found with child,” is added so that the opinion of those who think the mystery of the incarnation was accomplished by the agency and intervention of a man might not prevail. For the text says, “Before this might happen,” which was expected, but this event did not occur. For even if the Virgin was expected by Joseph for union (though he did not truly expect it, due to his advanced age), yet the Scripture anticipates it and instructs us, and secures our mind, for the subject is powerful, by the divine birth, to persuade that one should no longer approach the Virgin for union; just as the angel also persuaded Joseph that the suspicion he entertained was not true. For similar to the aforementioned, “Before they came together,” which refers to what was expected but did not occur, is the passage, “Being a just man, he sought not to expose her, but to put her away secretly,” as if a base thing would come to pass from exposing her, though it did not come to pass; just as the angel instructs him, saying, “Do not fear to take Mary your wife,” who was not yet a wife, and even though you are under a suspicion of fault, she is not so, just as you think, and so on. For immediately following he says, “For that which is born in her,” as if it were already born. And again the phrase, “She will bring forth a son,” as for a future event. For that is how it was; but to establish the faith, that prior announcement was made: such also are the words, “Before they came together.” Where it should suffice for us that this never took place at all. “Until she brought forth her firstborn son,” has the same meaning, and relates to the marvelous knowledge regarding the Virgin, who was honored by God. ^C

XXI. But let no one think, from the saying, “Before they came together,” that they came together afterwards. For no one can demonstrate or point to this; but it was to show the birth of our Savior to be free from all stain and blemish that Scripture asserted this. Wherefore these words, “He did not know her,” refer to her glory. He calls him “firstborn,” because he was begotten before all created things, and as the Apostle says, “the firstborn among many brethren,” not with respect to children of Mary, as if she had borne others; but with respect to all those who have obtained adoption through his benefit, since he became her son according to the flesh in truth, so that a mere appearance might not be supposed. And he is firstborn, and the son of the Virgin herself, not as I said, because she had other children, but… ^D

there is something in that category similar to it, which preceded the incarnation. For as he is said to be the Firstborn of the Father truly before all creation; yet he is not called firstborn for the reason that others were begotten of the Father after him: for he had no other brother, since he is the Only-begotten. Thus also, upon the assumption of the body of Mary, he is called her firstborn, even though she had but one offspring, and no second brother was brought forth into the light from her. Let those men therefore be silent who imagine for themselves things that bring them more ruin than utility; but may that error, I beseech you, depart. Whoever honors the Lord, honors the holy one; and he who treats the holy one with ignominy, inflicts the same ignominy upon his own Master. ^B Let Mary be considered in her own right, that most holy Virgin and that sacrosanct vessel. For such pestiferous and destructive dogmas bring us no fruit; it is fitting for us to hold a more honorable opinion of her, lest we fall into arrogance of mind, discord, or superfluous loquacity. For we shall give an account of every idle word, as it is written. Let us be concerned with ourselves; let us examine our own matters; let us not cast our own character upon the saints; let us not define the things of the saints from our own selves.

XXII. For there are certainly some who, since they have given themselves over to luxury and pleasures and have conceived a pernicious intention, seek—whether justly or unjustly—to bespatter the saints with the same stains of filth, that they may seek out some honest color and outward appearance for their own perverse and feeble spirit. Against them the Apostle speaks thus: *I wish all were like myself.* Where, regarding what but chastity can we interpret that phrase, *like myself*? *But because of fornications, let each man have his own wife*; yet in the former part he omitted the pronoun, which would otherwise have carried a more bitter reproach and censure. For while he might have said, *because of your fornications*, he purposely omitted that word *your*, lest he should seem to have cast this as an insult against some. But it was said for the condemnation of some who do not wish to be free for God: that is, that in the meantime they may live in accordance with the law’s prescription, and use their vessel honestly for the begetting of offspring, just as we have learned that our fathers once did: a thing which Scripture declares elsewhere: *Rebecca, conceiving from one.* By saying *from one*, he spoke with greater modesty, and showed that the conception was righteous. For after having had children, he shows that he was no longer joined to the woman. But since it is easy and prone for the mind to turn toward base things rather than toward necessary ones, and because our human reasoning is slippery—and does not quickly direct its impulse toward the straight path of the Lord, but leans now to the right, now to the left, and with difficulty obeys that commandment of Solomon: *Do not decline to the right, nor to the left*—and because malice turns in us again around the same reasonings, and pushes our sober mind to walk on other paths: let us therefore take heed lest...

that when the mind turns and twists in these same thoughts, and our moderation is urged to take other paths, we must be on guard so that those more effusive proclamations of the blessed Virgin do not perhaps provide material for another error and offense.

^B XXIII. For those who wished to be insolent toward the Son, as I have already declared, strove to alienate Him from the divinity of the Father. Others, on the contrary, going in a different direction, in order to honor Him more vehemently, dared to assert that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same. In both cases, the wound is incurable and deadly. Thus, with regard to that holy and blessed Virgin, some have dared to insult her, saying that after that supreme and perfect mystery of the incarnation of the Lord, she was polluted by the commingling of a body: this exceeds all wickedness and impiety. ^C But just as we learned that some had committed themselves to that crime, so not without great astonishment have we heard another thing: that some, regarding those things that pertain to the most holy Virgin, have progressed to such a degree of madness that they wished to force her upon us as a God, and spoke about her as if they were out of their minds and raving. For they say that certain women in Arabia, who had set out from the regions of Thrace, fabricated that new dogma: to such an extent that they offer a *collyris*—that is, a twisted loaf of bread—in the name and honor of the Virgin, and hold assemblies; overstepping, I say, every bound in the name of the most holy Virgin, they undertake a nefarious thing combined with insult to God—that is, in her name, they perform sacrifices through women. ^D This is indeed impious and wicked, and utterly alien to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore all of that has proceeded from the breath of a demon and the teaching of an unclean spirit. For in them is fulfilled: *Some shall depart from sound doctrine, giving heed to fables and doctrines of demons.* For they shall be, he says, worshippers of the dead, just as they were honored among the Israelites. And so it happened that the glory of the saints, which in its own time flourished toward God, has become for others—those who do not perceive the truth—a cause of error.

XXIV. For in Sicimis, which is today called Neapolis, certain rites are celebrated by the natives in honor of a maiden, which seems to have originated from the daughter of Jephthah, who had once been sacrificed to God. This matter has provided for wretched men the substance of idolatry and empty worship. Moreover, because the daughter of Pharaoh honored the servant of God, Moses, and took him up and reared him, the Egyptians, because of the famous reputation of the child, honored her more excessively than was right, and worshipping her instead of God, they wickedly propagated this kind of superstition among foolish men to be a bad tradition. Therefore, they proceed to adore Thermutis, the daughter of Amenophis—that is, the daughter of Pharaoh—because, as I said before, she reared Moses.

^A And many such things have happened in these matters, leading to the error of those who have been deceived—not because the saints provide any cause for stumbling, but because the mind of man cannot remain still, but turns towards wicked things. For whether the holy Virgin died and was buried, her falling asleep was in honor, and her end in purity, and her crown in virginity; or whether she was martyred, as it is written, "Yea, a sword shall pierce through her own soul also" — her glory is among the martyrs, and her holy body is among the blessed; through whom light rose upon the world; or whether she remained alive. For it is not impossible for God to do whatever He wills; for no one has known her end. It is not right to honor the saints beyond what is fitting, but rather to honor their Master. Let the error of the deceived, therefore, cease. For Mary is neither God, nor did she receive her body from heaven, but from the union of man and woman, though it was brought about by promise, even as Isaac was, by the singular providence of God. And let no one offer sacrifice in her name; for one would thereby destroy his own soul; nor, again, let anyone behave insolently ^B by reviling the holy Virgin. For God forbid! She was not joined in the flesh after the conception, nor before the conception of the Savior.

XXV. We have written these few things, having pondered them within ourselves for the sake of those who wish to understand the truth of the Scriptures, and not to misuse words in vain, nor to arm a blasphemous tongue against themselves. But if some wish to resist, and will not accept what is profitable, but rather the opposite, then we, lowly as we are, must say: "He that heareth, let him hear; and he that is stubborn, let him be stubborn"; and let him no longer cause trouble to the apostles or to us. For we have spoken those things concerning the holy Virgin that we deemed most reverent and profitable for the Church, advocating for her who is in all things full of grace, as Gabriel said: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee." But if the Lord is with her, how can she be in another marriage? ^C And how can she who is said to be preserved by the Lord be one who approaches the flesh? The saints are in honor; their rest is in glory; their departure from here is in perfection; their lot is in blessedness, in holy mansions, the choir with the angels, the dwelling-place in heaven, their citizenship in the divine Scriptures, their glory in incomparable and eternal honor, their rewards in Christ Jesus our Lord—through whom and with whom be glory to the Father with the holy Spirit forever. Amen.

All the brothers greet you. And do you also greet all the brothers among you who are faithful and orthodox, who loathe pride, ^D and who cherish…

who shun pride, who loathe the communion of the Arians ^A and the perversity of the Sabellians, who, professing the consubstantial Trinity, adore the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons and one substance, and one divinity, and in a word one doxology; and who do not err regarding the saving economy of our Savior and his incarnate presence, but believe perfectly in the incarnation of Christ, perfect God and the same perfect man, devoid of sin, who took that very body from Mary, and took a soul, and a mind, and everything that constitutes a human being, without sin, not being two, but one Lord, one God, one king, one high priest, God and man, man and God, not two, but one, I say, fashioned from the conjunction of a dual nature, not so that there is something confused or reduced to nothing, but so that in him all things are perfect for the achievement of the administration of divine grace. Farewell. ^B Being content with this copy of the letter, which is sufficient for refuting their error, and judging that we have done enough and more than enough, we shall depart from this heresy, which, like a serpent emerging from its hole, the most wise doctrine and power of God (which, like storax, has filled the whole world with its fragrance, that is, with the virtue of the children of the holiness of virginity, of which the Blessed Virgin is the leader, and by the protection of Him who through that same Virgin brought light into this world) has hitherto brought to light, and whose deadly poison of wickedness we have exposed, and we shall advance our discourse to the others, so that we may at last bring this singular work undertaken with the help of God to its conclusion.

AGAINST THE COLLYRIDIANS,

^C 1. After the aforementioned heresy, the fame of another has soon been brought to us, of which we made mention a little while ago in that letter which we wrote to Arabia concerning the Virgin Mary. For this heresy also emerged in Arabia from Thrace and the upper parts of Scythia, and came to our ears; ^D which is itself laughable and found to be full of mockery among the prudent. We shall begin to detect it and to disclose what it professes; nor do I doubt that it will be judged to have an abundance of folly and not even the least bit of wisdom: such as we know all others affine to it to be. For just as a little while ago, those who embraced that former sect sprinkled scurrilous opinions regarding the Blessed Virgin into the minds of men; so these others, declining to the opposite side, have fallen into extreme injury and ruin, so that that famous dictum of the pagan philosophers is proven true in them: Extremes are equal. Since equal and identical harm comes from both heresies, both when some demean the dignity of the sacrosanct Virgin, and when others exalt her beyond measure and reason. For as to this latter dogma

^A to whom does it belong, and what authors or patrons does it have, besides some poor women? This is a slippery, error-prone class, and one that is generally of a petty and narrow mind. ^B It seems that through them the devil has vomited forth this doctrine, doing in this matter what he accomplished through Quintilla, Maximilla, and Priscilla in the spreading of those ridiculous errors. For certain women, adorning a sort of carriage or square throne, and spreading a cloth over it, at a set time of the year, for several days, present bread and offer it in the name of Mary. Then they all partake of this bread together. We have discussed this somewhat in the letter we wrote to Arabia. But now we shall pursue each point more accurately, and with the help of God, we shall demonstrate as best we can the method by which this heresy, which is entangled in the superstition of idolatry, must be refuted, so that, having cut off its roots, we may, through God, more easily extirpate such madness and frenzy from the minds of some.

^D II. Come then, servants of God, let us take on a manly spirit, and let us scatter the madness of these women. For in that whole dogma there is nothing but female opinion, a recurrence of the disease of the deceived Eve—or rather, the promise of the serpent, that beast which incites to evil, and which spoke with her—a lying promise that offers nothing and fulfills none of its pledges, but only brings about death and destruction, calling things that are nowhere, as if they were true and existing. Moreover, it causes them to be defiant toward God from the vantage of the tree, and, holding truth in contempt, to be carried away toward many and varied errors. The kind of seeds that the deceiver casts may be judged from his words: "You shall be," he says, "as gods" (Gen. III, 5). And the spirit of these people is carried away in exactly the same way by the arrogance and pride of that beast. It is this very pride, ^C as we have said, that brings about death. For if we recall from ancient times to this very day all that has happened, who does not see that this is a doctrine and appearance of demons, and an undertaking that deviates from right reason? For never, since the world was created, has a woman held the priesthood, not even Eve herself—who, though she committed a most grievous transgression, never dared to perpetrate such an impious crime, nor did any of her daughters; although Abel repeatedly offered sacrifices to God, and Cain offered sacrifices before the Lord, though they were not accepted; and Enoch, who pleased God and was translated (Gen. V, 22; Eccli. XLIV, 16); and Noah, who offered thank-offerings to the Lord from the surplus of what was in the ark (Gen. VIII, 20), showing proof of a grateful disposition and acknowledging the grace of his Savior. Abraham, that just man, offered sacrifice to God (Gen. XXII, 13); then Melchisedec, the priest of the Most High God (Gen. XIV, 18); and Isaac, who pleased God; and Jacob, who, as best he could, offered sacrifice upon the stone and poured oil over the lentils (Gen. XXVIII, 18). Of his sons, Levi is found to have received the priesthood in succession, and from his lineage those who had taken upon themselves the priestly order ^D — I mean Moses the prophet and hierophant, Aaron and his sons, Eleazar and Phinehas, and Itamar, his descendant.

^A And why must I recount the multitudes who performed sacred rites for God in the Old Testament? Just as Achitob is found performing priestly duties, as are the Korahites, the Gershonites, and the Merarites, who were entrusted with the Levitical order. So too the house of Eli and those after him of his kindred in the house of Abimelech, and Abiathar, Chelcias, and Buzi, down to Jesus the high priest, and Esdras the priest, and the rest. And nowhere did a woman exercise the priesthood.

III. But I shall come also to the New Testament. If it had been commanded ^B that women perform priestly duties or perform any canonical office in the Church, Mary herself ought rather to have performed priestly duties in the New Testament, she who was deemed worthy to receive in her own bosom the King of all, the heavenly God, the Son of God; whose womb, having become a temple and dwelling-place, was prepared by the singular kindness of God and a stupendous mystery for the Lord’s incarnation in the flesh according to the philanthropy of God. But it was not His will. Nor indeed was she entrusted with giving baptism; for Christ could have been baptized by her rather than by John. But John, the son of Zacharias, spent his life in the desert, entrusted with a baptism for the remission of sins; and his father performed the priestly office for God, and at the hour of the incense ^C saw a vision. Peter, and Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas, Thaddaeus, and James of Alphaeus, and Judas of James, and Simon the Cananaean, and Matthias, who was chosen to complete the twelve — all these were chosen as apostles, and performing the sacred duty of the Gospel throughout the whole earth together with Paul and Barnabas and the rest, they were the authors and founders of the mysteries, together with James the brother of the Lord, the first bishop of Jerusalem; from which bishop and the aforementioned apostles, successions of bishops and presbyters were established in the house of God. Yet among them no woman is recorded as having been co-opted. There were, indeed, as Scripture narrates, four ^D daughters of Philip the evangelist who prophesied, yet they were not priests. Similarly, Anna the prophetess was the daughter of Phanuel, yet she was not endowed with the priesthood. Indeed, it was necessary that what is written be fulfilled: "Your sons shall prophesy, and your daughters shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions." Although there is an order of deaconesses in the Church, it has not been instituted for the exercise of the priesthood, nor for any such administration, but to provide for the modesty of the female sex, whether at the time of baptism, or to inspect if any [woman] has suffered some ailment or pain, or when the body of a woman must be bared, so that it may be seen not by men performing sacred rites, but by the deaconess who is commanded by the priest to attend for the moment of the woman in need at the time of the baring of her body, for the sake of order and ecclesiastical propriety.

In this matter, it has been wisely provided for both by the decency of that order and by ecclesiastical discipline, in accordance with the prescription of the Canon and the rule. Therefore, the holy Scriptures do not permit a woman even to speak in the church, nor to hold authority over a man. But more can be disputed concerning this whole matter.

IV. But this must be diligently noted: that the ecclesiastical order required the office of deaconesses alone, and designated widows, and among them those who were still elderly, called "presbytides" (elder women), but never did it ordain "presbyterides" (female priests) or priestesses. For neither are the deacons themselves in the ecclesiastical order entrusted to perform any sacrament, but only to minister to those things which are being performed. From where, then, has this new myth again arisen for us? From where this pride of women, or rather this female madness? From where is this wickedness nurtured again by the female sex, which pours its female suspicion into the minds of men, and, practicing its own self-indulgence, attempts to force the wretched human nature to depart from its intended purpose? But let us take up the mind of Job, that solid athlete; let us arm ourselves, taking up the righteous response upon our lips. Let us also say: "You have spoken as one of the foolish women."

For why will such a thing not appear thunderstruck to everyone who possesses understanding and who holds it in God? Why is this practice not to be thought of as idol-making, and this enterprise as diabolical? For the devil, always creeping into the minds of men under the pretext of righteousness, deifying mortal nature in the eyes of men, has delineated man-like images through the variety of the arts. And those who are worshipped are indeed dead, but they introduce as objects of worship their images which never lived (for those that never lived cannot even be called dead), through a mind that has committed adultery against the one and only God; just as a common prostitute, stirred up to a great absurdity of promiscuous mixture, and having wiped away the modesty of the rule of one husband. Yes, the body of Mary was indeed holy, but she was not God. Yes, indeed, the Virgin was a virgin and honored, but she was not given to us for worship, but instead she herself worshipped Him who was born from her in the flesh, and who had come down from the heavens and from the bosom of the Father. And for this reason the Gospel safeguards us, saying, with the Lord Himself speaking: "What have I to do with thee, woman? My hour is not yet come." In order that from the, "What have I to do with thee, woman?" no one might think the holy Virgin to be something more, He called her "woman," as if prophesying for the sake of the schisms and heresies that were to be on the earth; so that no one, by excessively admiring the holy one, might fall into this error, the nonsense of the heresy. ^{A B C D}

^A V. For the whole of this narrative is truly ridiculous and worthy of the night-studies of old women. For in what part of Scripture is it contained? What prophet ever permitted a man—much less a woman—to be worshipped? For although she is a chosen and excellent vessel, she is nevertheless a woman, and in no way changed in nature, though deemed worthy of honor in her disposition and perception, just as the bodies of the saints are, or if I should mention something more illustrious for the sake of glorification—such as Elijah, who from his birth remained a virgin forever and was taken up * into heaven, having never seen death; or John, who reclined upon the breast of the Lord, whom Jesus loved *; or the most holy Thecla, to whom, however, Mary is to be preferred by far, on account of that heavenly mystery which was accomplished in her womb. ^B Yet neither is Elijah to be worshipped, even though he is among the living; nor is John to be worshipped, although by his own prayer he rendered his falling asleep a wonder, or rather, received that grace from God. But neither is Thecla, nor any of the saints, worshipped. For the ancient error shall not dominate us, leading us to abandon the living God and to worship those things which were fashioned by Him. "They served," it says, "and worshipped the creature rather than the Creator," and became foolish *. For if He does not permit even angels to be worshipped, how much less would He have granted that to the daughter of Anna—who was given to Anna by Joachim through the goodness of God; who was given to her father and mother through prayer and every earnest effort of mind and struggle—as though she were born in a manner other than the nature of men, but, as with everyone, from the seed of a man and the womb of a woman? For even if in the history and traditions of Mary it is held that it was announced to her father ^C Joachim in the desert that "Thy wife hath conceived"—it is not to be understood as if this occurred without nuptial union and male seed. But the angel sent by God signified what was to come, so that there might not be any doubt on account of that which had truly come into the light and had been ordained by God and born to a righteous man.

^D VI. Moreover, we see the sacred Scriptures bearing witness to the same thing. For Isaiah prophesies concerning the things to be fulfilled in regard to the Son of God, saying: "Behold, the virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel *." And because she who gave birth was called a virgin, and He who is interpreted as God with us was to be carried in a woman's womb, so that there might not remain in the mind of the prophet any doubt of uncertainty concerning the truth of the matter, he sees in a vision, and the prophet, compelled by the Holy Spirit, narrates and says: "And I went in to the prophetess *," explaining the angelic entrance of Gabriel, who is mentioned in the Gospel, who was indeed sent by God to announce the arrival into this world of the only-begotten Son of God, and His birth from Mary. "And she conceived in the womb," he says, "and brought forth a son. And the Lord said to me: Call his name, Make haste to take away the spoils, make haste to plunder." Before the child knows

to call father or mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, etc. Yet all these things were not yet fulfilled, and were to be performed in the Son of God after about one thousand and six hundred years. And the prophet saw things which were to happen after so many generations as if they were already done. ^A Was it therefore a lie? Far be it! But what was to be performed and managed by the counsel of divine providence was proclaimed as if it were already accomplished, so that the truth might not be disbelieved, and that the prophet’s mind might not waver or be suspicious regarding such an astounding and unusual mystery that was to come about in the future. Or do you not notice the proclamation itself, which follows, as the holy Isaiah himself says: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. And who shall declare his generation? Because his life is taken from the earth, and I will give the wicked for his burial," and so on? And see how he relates the former things in the latter place, and explains the latter things as if they had happened, saying: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter." And it is spoken of as past. For he did not say: "He is being led." And he who was preached by Isaiah had not yet been led; yet the work was spoken of to the prophet as though it were already fulfilled. For the divine initiation (*mystagogia*) of God was immutable. ^B Advancing from that point, he no longer spoke as if of things past, lest he should provide an occasion for error, but says: "His life is taken from the earth." By these two phrases he shows the truth: that "he was led" was already being perfected, and "is taken" was being fulfilled afterwards; so that from what has happened you may understand the truth and the firmness of God’s promise. And from what is yet to happen, you may form a conjecture as to the time of the mysteries that are being revealed.

Ⅶ. Thus also the angel foretold concerning Mary, signifying what her father, upon returning home, would receive from God—which, of course, both parents were requesting from God with the highest prayers—saying: "Behold, your wife has conceived in the womb," so that by these words he might securely confirm the mind of the faithful man in the promise. But this has become a source of error for some. ^C For it is impossible for anyone to be born on earth otherwise than according to the common nature of men. To Him alone was this appropriate; to Him alone nature yielded. Here, I say, as the Artificer and Master, He fashioned Himself from the Virgin as if from the earth—God descending from heaven, the Word clothing Himself in a body received from the holy Virgin; not, however, that this Virgin should be adored, or that He should transfer her to a divine nature and condition, nor that a sacrifice should be offered in her name, nor that women should be appointed as priests after such long generations. God did not will for this to happen in the case of Salome, nor in the case of Mary herself. He did not grant her the power to baptize, nor to bless the disciples, nor to govern on earth; but He willed this one thing, that there should be some holy and

^A consecrated state, and to attain the heavenly kingdom. But neither to her who is called the mother of Rufus did He grant that degree of honor; nor to the other women who had followed Him from Galilee; nor to Martha, the sister of Lazarus and Mary; nor, in short, to any of the holy women who deserved to obtain salvation through His advent, and who ministered to Him of their own substance. Furthermore, He did not attribute that dignity to the Canaanite woman, nor to her whom He had freed from the flow of blood, nor to any woman at all on earth. Since these things are so, whence has this wily dragon emerged for us? Why are crooked and crafty counsels revived? Let Mary be held in honor, but let the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit be adored; let no one adore Mary. I do not say to a woman; indeed, not even to a man—for this mystery and worship are commanded for God alone—is that mystery attributed; so much so that not even the angels themselves seem equal to such honor. Let those things, therefore, which are poorly inscribed in the hearts of the miserable be erased. Let ^B that evil fetus conceived against the unhappy tree be utterly extinguished. Let the work itself turn toward the Lord and its Creator. May shame at long last compel Eve, together with her spouse Adam, to honor God alone; let her not be led astray by the voice of the serpent, but let her persist in the commandment of God: "You shall not eat from the tree." And the tree was not error, but through the tree the disobedience of error came to pass. Let no one eat of the error that came through the holy Mary. For even if the tree was beautiful, it was not for food. And if Mary is most beautiful, and holy, and honored, she is not for the purpose of being adored. Let that error be tasted by no one who, on the occasion of Mary, is nevertheless designated for food. Thus, although Mary be ever so holy and honored, she is not for that reason to be followed with adoration.

VIII. Against the Collyridians

^C VIII. Wherefore the women of this sect once again prepare that cup for fortune, and set a table for a demon and not for God, as it is written; and they feed upon the foods of impiety, as the divine Word says: "And the women knead the dough, and the sons gather the wood, to make cakes for the militia of heaven." Let such women be silenced by Jeremiah, and let them not trouble the world; let them not say: "We honor the Queen of Heaven." For Taphnes knows how to punish such women. The region of the Magdoli knows how to receive their cast-off bodies for putrefaction. Do not, O Israel, place your faith in a woman; turn yourself away from the advice of an evil woman. For a woman ensnares the precious souls of men. Her feet lead those with whom she associates ^D down to the underworld with death; do not lend your ear or your mind to an evil little woman: "For honey distills from the lips of a harlot, which, while it soothes your throat for a very short time, you will find afterward more bitter than gall, and sharper than a two-edged sword." Beware, therefore, of putting your trust in this evil little woman. For every heresy is an evil woman; but far more so is this heresy of women, and that of the one who deceived...

^A the first woman. Let our mother Eve be honored, as one formed by God; but let her not be heeded, lest she persuade her children to eat of the tree and to trans- gress the commandment. Let her also repent of her foolish babbling. Let her turn back in shame, and clothe herself with fig leaves. Let Adam also consider her, and no longer obey her. For the persuasion of error, and the counsel of a woman toward the opposite, brings death to her own spouse; and not only to him, but also to her children. Eve destroyed the creature through transgression, being stirred up by the voice and promise of the serpent, led astray from the proclamation, and having gone toward another way of thinking.

^B IX. For this reason the Lord and Savior of all, wishing to heal the pain, and to build up what had been overturned, and to correct what had been diminished, since death had come down into the world through a woman, was Himself born of a woman who was a virgin, so that He might shut out death, and fulfill what was lacking, and make perfect what was diminished. But wickedness returns to us again, so as to bring its defect into the world. But neither young men nor old men are persuaded by the woman, because of the temperance with which they have been endowed from above. The Egyptian woman does not mock the chaste Joseph, nor does she lead him away from a right mind—although she employs every device to carry out her detestable plan against the young man. But the man who has received prudence from the Holy Spirit cannot be mocked. He does not destroy his chastity, so as not to bring ignominy upon his nobility; he leaves behind his garments, but does not lose his body; he escapes from that place, ^C so that he may not fall into the snare; he is punished for a time, but he reigns for eternity; he is thrown into prison, but it is much more desirable to remain in custody, and in an exposed corner, than with a contentious and talkative woman. And how many things there are to say! For whether those idle women are venerating Mary herself, and offering the *collyris* to her, or whether they are attempting to offer this aforementioned rotten fruit on her behalf—the whole thing is foolish and alien, a swelling and a deception proceeding from the movement of demons.

For ^D that I may not let my speech drag on, what has been said by us will suffice. Let Mary be in honor; let the Lord be worshipped. For the righteous produce error for no one. For God is untested by evils; He Himself tests no one, nor do His servants, for the purpose of deception. "Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. Then lust, when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."

Thinking that we have sufficiently discussed all these matters, beloved, and that we have [dealt with] this, so to speak, beetle—the one that in appearance is golden, with its wings...

and flying, yet venomous, in the first place ^A full of deadly poison, we have driven away by the word of truth. Let us pass on to the other, which is the one last remaining: beseeching God from the first, that He may grant us His aid both to track the footprints of truth, and to work the complete overthrow of the contrary faction.

AGAINST THE MASSALIANS

I. Impudence can neither be sated, nor folly filled; but it spreads its reasoning into all things, and gapes with its mouth to corrupt the seeds of Adam and Noah, in various ways castigating temperance and sowing a harlot’s disposition in many ways among those whom it attacks. For they say that after these heresies again, another one has risen up against us, foolish and filled with all folly, ridiculous in its entirety, having an unstable frame of mind, and having deceived both men and women. These are called Massalians ^C, which is interpreted as "those who pray." They began to appear some time ago, from the times of Constantius and since. Others again are the Euphemites, or those called Massalians, from whom I suppose this sect also took its mimetic zeal. But those previous ones originated from the Greeks, neither observing Judaism, nor being Christians, nor being from the Samaritans, but only being Greeks, so to speak; and while saying there were gods, they worshiped no one and nothing, but only ^D [one...].

whom they called the Almighty. ^A And those who constructed certain houses for themselves, or wide places, by way of forums, they called these "proseuchas" or prayer-houses. Now, in ancient times, the Jews and Samaritans indeed had certain places for prayer outside the city, as we also find in the Acts of the Apostles; where Lydia, the purple-seller, met those with the holy Paul, as the divine Scripture also recounts it, saying: "There seemed to be a place of prayer." And the apostles approached, and taught the women who had assembled at that time. There was also a place of prayer at Shechem, in what is now called Neapolis, outside the city, in the plain, as if at two milestones, theater-like; in this manner, it was constructed in the open air and under the sky by the Samaritans, who imitated all the customs of the Jews.

^B II. These earlier Massalians, originating from the Greeks—those before the present ones who allegedly originate from the name of Christ—also themselves constructed in certain regions certain little songs, which they called "proseuchae" and oratories; in other places, they made them for themselves in the nature and likeness of a church, and at evening and at dawn, they gathered with a great lighting of lamps and torches, ^C and often [gathered] to recite certain compositions by those among them who were zealous for them. ^D [The text here continues to the next page.]

as though they were placating God and offering up certain praises to Him, while they are in fact deceiving themselves. But ignorance, being blind, causes all these things to appear to those who have been led astray as a product of their own conceit. And it is said that one of such structures was struck by lightning some time ago; though I cannot say in what place—perhaps it was there in Phoenicia that I heard it. Indeed, some of the magistrates, burning with religious zeal, killed many of these people because they were corrupting and adulterating the truth and dared to copy the manner of the Church in a perverse imitation, being neither Christians nor ^B sprung from the Jews. I believe that it was Lupicianus the general who was one of those who punished these same Euphemites for the Greeks; from which occasion a second error arose for them. For some, having taken the bodies of those killed at that time on account of such Hellenic lawlessness, and having buried them in certain places, performed there the same [rites] again, and called themselves Martyrians, obviously for the sake of those who had been martyred for the sake of idols.

III. But others of them again, imagining something ^C even deeper according to the grasp of their own foolishness and using their own mind as their counselor, have said: Satan is a great and very powerful being, and he inflicts many evils upon men. Why, then, do we not rather take refuge with him and worship him, and honor and praise him, so that through this flattering service he may cease to do us harm, and rather—since we have become his servants, they say—may show regard for us and forgive us? And thus they have called themselves Satanians. We have brought together the heresy of these people with the aforementioned ones, who are about to be spoken of by us now. For since both parties, by going out and praying and singing in the open air, have stepped outside the truth and have devoted themselves to this, all these things were indeed laughable and yet harmless, being unable to divert the mind from the truth; for they were not called by the name of Christ, but were entirely Greeks. But now, after those ways, these people who are called Massalians today have ^D neither beginning nor end, nor head, nor root, but they are altogether unstable, erratic, and deceived, having no foundation at all of name, or ordinance, or position, or legislation. Therefore, these men and women seem to have believed in Christ, saying that they have renounced the world and withdrawn from their own [possessions]; yet they sleep all together, men mixed with women and women with men, in the most spacious streets when it is the summer season, because they say they have no property on earth. They are unrestrained, and they stretch out their hands to beg as though they were destitute and propertyless. But their words surpass all stupidity; if one asks someone who originates from among them, he claims to be whoever you wish. For either you might call him a prophet, and they will say that "I am a prophet"; or

if you name a Christ, any one of them will reply that he is Christ; or if a patriarch, he will shamelessly attribute this very name to himself; or finally, if an angel, he will not hesitate to assert himself as such. O unique madness of men! As regards fasting, among them there is none at all. But, intent as they claim to be on prayer, from the second or third hour, or even at night, if they happen to be hungry, they do everything according to their own whim, gorging themselves with food and drink. Regarding their turpitude or lewdness, I cannot know with certainty. Yet I have not found them to be free from this, especially given the custom they share of sleeping promiscuously, men together with women. Moreover, they have seats in Antioch, to which they have moved from Mesopotamia. ^B

IV. Now this most pernicious dogma flowed from the excessive ignorance of certain brothers. For while they otherwise felt correctly about the faith, they in no way understood the manner of life to be instituted according to the prescription of Christ the Lord: how he commanded one to renounce the world, to divest oneself of one's own goods and faculties, to sell one's fortunes and distribute them to the poor, to carry the cross, and to follow him seriously: not so that anyone might be sluggish and idle, or gluttonous at the wrong time, or like a drone among bees; but rather that one should work with one's own hands, and imitate the blessed Apostle, who, bidding farewell to the world, became a herald of the truth, whose hands provided necessities not only for himself, but also for those who were with him: since they themselves did not cease at all, but were participants in the work, as he himself boasts in a certain place and commands with clear words: "He who does not work, let him not eat." But those brothers of mine whom I mentioned, I know not whether they might have learned these things from Mane, who arrived there from Persia, which are entirely alien to all reason. Whereas, on the contrary, the divine Scripture commands them to observe those who do no work. But the saying of the Savior has imposed itself upon the minds of some: "Work not for the food which perishes, but for that which remains into eternal life." But they refer that perishing food to that excellent work and labor which we sustain in pursuing justice. Which works indeed shone forth in Abraham when he prepared the calf; and likewise in the widow who labored for the sake of Elijah; and finally in Job, who did the same with his children and fortunes. Furthermore, there is no servant of God who does not exercise work with his own hands to obtain righteousness, so that he may be beneficent toward the needy. This we see being done in every monastery, as much in Egypt as in other provinces, where all for the sake of justice apply themselves to work, just like certain bees, which, bringing wax with their feet and drops of honey in their mouth, celebrate the common Lord of all according to their sense and capacity, with a kind of song and preaching of the voice, as Solomon testifies: "Honor wisdom," he says,

^A they labor with their own hands at their light tasks, according to each one’s craft. And with their mouth they recite almost the entire divine Scripture, and untiringly and zealously they keep frequent vigils, now in prayers, now in psalms. They perform their customary and lawfully appointed gatherings incessantly, and they spend their time always in unceasing, rhythmic hours, sending up prayers to God irreproachably with great humility and painful groaning, and, as I said, working with their own hands alongside their spiritual labor; so that they may not be in want, nor fall into human pretenses—no longer able to speak the truth to the ungodly, nor be free from the filth of those rich men who have become wealthy through injustice and greed at the expense of the poor—nor in the end be deprived of sustenance, because they are unable to earn their daily bread from righteous labors, but are compelled by the necessity of their idleness to partake of the table of the wealthy.

V. Wherefore the divine oracle teaches us: “Do not covet the foods of the rich.” ^B For these are joined to a lying life. And again in another place, it warns us of what sort those set before us are, and how they should be prepared in turn: “If you are gluttonous, do not covet his foods.” In these matters those youths in Babylon were glorified, who refused the king’s table, and, having preferred to be content with seeds rather than the table, and who having renounced foods and riches and glory, were glorified—just as Moses preferred rather to be afflicted with the people of God than to enjoy the treasures in Egypt, and working with his own hands he obtained prophecy. For this noble man, the son of the king's daughter, became a shepherd of sheep, so that he might not eat bread in idleness; just as our father Jacob also teaches, saying to Laban: "Give me some work, that I may earn my own bread." And he himself again was commanded by his own father-in-law to tend the sheep, so that the righteous might not eat bread in idleness. ^C But to the apostles it was commanded to be content with the preaching of the Word, so that they might not be distracted by various matters while migrating from city to city and place to place for the sake of preaching. "For the laborer is worthy of his hire," and, "The food of the laborer is sufficient for him." And likewise for the pastors, on account of their intense occupation in governing the peoples, and the ecclesiastical administration, and the constant labor of their ministry, the divine oracle says: "Who feeds a flock and does not eat of its milk? Or who plants a vineyard and does not partake of its fruit?" And it says: "It is fitting that the laboring farmer should be the first to partake of the fruits," so that you may not leave the presbyter or the bishop in need of daily food. ^D For this reason it exhorts the peoples to provide what is necessary for the support of the priests through first-fruits and offerings and other things, of which they have the authority.

^A Since they are those who were appointed to lead the peoples of God, provided they are not excessively burdened, those who profess to wish to please God perfectly.

VI. For these men, even if they are of the number of the priests, imitating the holy father of theirs in Christ after God—I mean the holy apostle Paul—they themselves also, as far as is possible, if not all, yet most of them, joining external manual labor to their reception of the preaching of the divine Word; whatever craft they may have mastered, provided it is not ^B alien to their dignity nor to the care of the Church which they perpetually hold, so that their conscience, beyond that labor of preaching the divine Word, bearing the fruit of their own hands, and providing for themselves, and sharing the profit of their toil with their brethren and the needy, may be filled with joy. And this is so, that both first-fruits and offerings, as well as what they have gained through the labor of their own hands, they may share voluntarily with their neighbors out of an ardent love for God. Yet they are not compelled or condemned to do this by any necessity. But since they have other most righteous labors and ecclesiastical duties, and for that reason, as is just, ought to be supported ^C from the same, they impose this burden upon themselves out of a certain abundance of virtue and a generous will. For their divine spirit, both established in the fear of God and adorned with knowledge infused by the Holy Spirit, is seized with a desire for heavenly riches which are founded in justice: which, with praise and glory, through excellent deeds and divine dogmas and the meditation of the holy Scriptures and of the oracles of God, and through the chanting of psalms and ecclesiastical assemblies, and also by holy fasts, chastity, a most religious manner of living, and an industry of the hands undertaken voluntarily for the love of justice, they attain. But those same venerable ^D brothers of ours who exist in monasteries in Mesopotamia, which they call "Mandras," have been caught also in another practice, being exposed to women's villages and resting upon obvious sackcloth. But it behooved the children of the holy Virgin, our mother the Church, to be very honorable, keeping to the home, and serving God, who knows the hidden and secret things and renders rewards openly, as it is written, in secret; and to do so decorously, for the sake of those outside, and honorably, so that they might expect no reward or favor from those who see them. For it is altogether alien to the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Apostles to make a display of sackcloth, or to let the hair grow long. For a man, says the Apostle, ought not to have long hair, since he is the image and glory of God.

VII. But something even worse and contrary is done by these men: for they cut off the beard, which is the proper form of a man; but they keep the hair of their head for the most part quite long. And as for the beard, in the Apostolic Constitutions it says

^A that the divine Word and teaching forbid destroying—that is, cutting—the hairs of the beard, and also forbid adorning oneself with harlot-like affectation, or having a haughty approach as a demonstration of righteousness. For this was appropriate only for the Nazarenes, for the sake of the type. For the ancients looked to the type of that which was to come, having hair upon their head on account of a vow, until the Vow of the world came and was made perfect; and the Head appeared, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, who was made known to the world, he who is always, yet was not known by all humanity, but only to some who believed in him; so that when we know the Head, we may not put the Head to shame. For the Apostle does not speak concerning one's own head, but rather directs the work of reproach from it onto Christ himself; for the Apostle says: ^B "Does not nature itself teach us that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace unto him?" And this is not a praiseworthy kind of disgrace, like that which says: "You have despised the disgrace." For the virtue is not for the sake of God, even if it might be supposed to be for the sake of God; but the manner of it comes from contentiousness, now that the type according to the law has passed by and the truth has come. He says: "If anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do the Churches of God." He therefore cast aside those who do such things and perform them in contentiousness, far from the rule of the apostles and from the Church of God. But we were compelled to say these things because of the pretext of the aforementioned Massalians, because they too, having caught the disease of the mindset from that source, and having turned aside their understanding, have fallen away from the truth; and a heresy has been established in the dreadfulness of idleness and other evils.

VIII. Concerning the promiscuous association of men and women

^C [H'] These are the things we have heard concerning them, those who stand as a mockery to the world, and who spew forth a rabble of mind and words, for they are inconsistent and hopeless, and have stepped outside the edification of God. Therefore, having discussed a few things against them, we shall again undertake to refute them. And first, that women should be together with men ^D in the same place, neither is allowed by the ancient custom of those who lived in matrimony, nor does the upright reason of justice and honesty permit it; but one husband ought to be associated with one wife, just as Adam was with Eve, as Sarah was with Abraham, and as Rebekah was joined to Isaac. For even if some of the Fathers did have two or three wives, the women were not in the same house. For such a form and joining is fitting for swine and cattle. But our heretics cause us even greater astonishment, for while they profess to have nothing in common with women, on the contrary they perform all the more shameful and ridiculous things, and demonstrate their extreme disgrace. For even if such men had wives, they would have them separately, not mixed together.

If, I say, they were bound by wedlock, it would be sinful to bring into the open and make manifest the union between man and woman, which God has joined together with all modesty, gravity, and prudence. But if some who have determined for themselves chastity and temperance abstain from women, what justice do they have, when they bring it into disrepute through utter foolishness and an undisciplined manner of life, through that reckless and insane license? For the apostles never did anything of the kind, nor did the prophets before the apostles ordain it.

^B IX. Nay, Moyses truly, while in the desert, composing his song, modulates a hymn to God having departed from the sea. "Let us sing to the Lord," he says, "for he has been gloriously magnified; he has cast the horse and the rider into the sea." And yet, while the men were chanting, the women were apart from them, that he might demonstrate modesty and reserve, and that he might show the gravity and discipline of the divine law. He continues then: "And Mary, taking a timbrel, went before the women and said: Let us sing to the Lord, for he has been gloriously magnified." The women sang in response to her in the same manner, she who was of the same tribe and in a certain way stood above the rest, so that even from this one instance the unlearned and common counsel and institution of those who perpetrate those shameful and wicked things of an alien dogma is refuted. ^C Furthermore, the prophet speaks thus concerning the resurrection: "And they shall lament tribe by tribe: tribe against tribe: the tribe of Nathan by itself, and their wives apart; the tribe of Juda by itself, and their wives apart," etc. Thus also the apostles have prescribed for the Church; and even the Lord in the Gospel commanded it and provided for us an example in one instance, when He said to Mary: "Do not touch me. For I have not yet ascended to my Father." Thus also Giezi, approaching the Sunamitess, repels the woman, that he might not violate the order nor cast insult upon the institution of the prophets. But the prophet, moved by the Holy Spirit, perceived that the Sunamitess was consumed with grief; and therefore, that he might console her, he transgressed the law of his office for a little while, and for the sake of her solace, which was produced by her, he suffered for a time, ^D believing that her touching of his feet, though contrary to custom, was equal and proportionate to her calamity and grief. But why do I linger longer in refuting those who imitate the filth of dogs or swine? And as for each of these men asserting himself to be Christ, who is sensible would not consider that to be totally full of madness? Or when they declare themselves to be prophets? For what kind of prophecy appears among them? Or what marvelous work, such as was formerly performed by Christ, has been brought forth by them? But if he himself is Christ, in what Lord has he hoped and believed? What are those empty utterances of error? What are the dogmata of these foolish men? But it is sufficient to have disputed thus far against this heresy.

^A X. Here, finally, I shall put an end to the whole work I have undertaken, in which I have experienced the singular help and presence of the divine power toward us, which we ought to confess with all our heart and mind, and give thanks to the same Lord; since, with Him assisting, we have happily brought to an exit whatever was received and promised by us. And as we have set forth and refuted all the heresies, so also—according to the imbecility of our powers—have we made known what is practiced by each one. But since we have heard of eighty heresies introduced into the world until this day, and have learned their number and appellations, and even the decrees, arguments, and dispositions of some, and—I say—have pointed out without omission their origins and causes, in so far as it was possible to do so, I am vehemently filled with admiration at what is contained in the Sacred Scriptures: "There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines; and maidens without number. One is my dove, my perfect one" (Cant. VI, 8).

^B Of these eighty concubines, therefore, we have treated thus far: Barbarism, Hellenism, Scythism, Judaism, and Samaritanism, which are by no means the names of legitimate wives; such as have neither received a dowry from the king, nor are written in the tablets of the testament as heirs with the children. For if we wish to speak properly, there are seventy-five heresies, of which there are five mothers: namely, Hellenism, or the sect of the gentiles, from which the gentiles originated; Judaism, from which the Jews and the heresies [arose]; and the Samaritan sect, from which Samaritanism and Christianity [originated]. From these, as it were, certain severed branches, the heresies have been plucked away. Although they bear the name of Christ, they pertain nothing to Him; but some are distant from Him by a great length, while others, for some trivial cause, have made themselves alien and foreign to all His inheritance, along with their children, since they are in no way legitimate, but are held among external things, and only claim for themselves the name of Christian. Since these things are so, it remains for us to declare the truth, and indeed that unique dove, who is praised by the Bridegroom.

^C XI. Therefore, having obtained leisure, and after earnest prayers to God, we shall next institute a defense of the truth that is brief in discussion, yet certain by the tradition of the elders. This indeed is not posterior in time, but truly prior to all, and we made mention of it at the beginning before all heresies, when we were discoursing on the incarnation of Christ.

^D This same [truth], moreover, now that it precedes all things, is also joined to Christ the Lord after His incarnation, as a certain most holy bride; which was fashioned even of old with Adam, and was preached to the fathers in those who preceded Abraham, and after Abraham was accounted worthy of faith, and was revealed through Moses, and was predicted by Isaiah; and in Christ it was manifested, and existing together with Him, it shall be commended by us in this later place. For it behooves the athlete first of all to engage in the contest, in the labor, and in the other struggles of the competition, so that later, [index: entries preserved]

exercised, so that afterward he may bear the crown in joy and delight; in which indeed the crown itself is not the last of all, but set before the struggle and the contest, it is bestowed at the end upon the one who has descended into the arena, for his joy and delight. ^A Since this is the case, let us return to the proposed discourse, and let us demonstrate this very thing: how, while there are eighty concubines and sixty queens, there is one virgin, chaste, and at the same time spouse, dove, lamb, holy city of God, faith, and foundation of the truth, the firm rock against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. For, calling upon God together in all things, and having called upon Him, we have attained the promise to fulfill the commitment regarding all heresies, I say—a promise to which we have arrived even unto the heresy of the Massalians. And having trampled it also with the shoe of the Gospel, like a many-footed ^B chameleon—formless, shapeless, and exhaling a foul odor—let us for all these things give thanks to God, and let us celebrate the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, with the Holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

A BRIEF AND TRUE EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH OF THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, BY THE HOLY EPIPHANIUS

^C 1078. After we have embraced and distributed in our discourse the varied and manifold and complex rash teachings arising from the depraved counsels of our enemies, and have divided them by form and kind, we have, by the power of God, shown how vain and empty they were. Then, having swum out from those immense billows of insults against God and of most shameful and bitter mysteries from every single sect; and having—all the while having with difficulty resolved the modes of the questions and overcome their wickedness—arrived at the tranquil harbor of truth, having crossed through every difficult and tempestuous place, and having finished with the storms and the foamy whirlpools of the waves—where we have experienced tossing and dizziness ^D more than once—then we have surveyed many shallow, dangerous, and beast-infested places, which...

^A in these discussions and commentaries we have braved: since at last we discern from afar the harbor of peace, and desiring to bring the ship into it, we shall again implore the aid of the divine majesty. And indeed, with all fear and trembling and nausea ceasing, placed in the best state and enjoying most pleasantly the breeze of clearer security, being now drawn into the tranquil harbor, we rejoice in spirit and soul. For in all these things, if we wish to confess the truth, having struggled with many inconveniences and the greatest injuries, and after completing our journey by land and sea—of which the one had its tangled and difficult rough patches and the roughness of the wilderness, and the other had the dangers of the aforementioned deeps—seeing the city at once, let us hasten to it, to holy Jerusalem itself, the virgin and bride of Christ, the foundation and solid rock and our venerable mother, and the same bride of Christ. In which we can opportunely use this: *Venite, ascendamus ad montem Domini et ad domum Dei Jacob, et annuntiabit nobis viam suam* [Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will tell us his way], etc.

^B II. Come therefore, children of Christ and children of the holy Church of God, you who have kindly perused this our work about the eighty heresies, and who have waded with me through that deep whirlpool of wicked dogmas which we have reviewed until now, and have traversed the vast and formidable, thirst-inducing wilderness, let us implore the Lord of all things. Which thing we have indeed long had in our prayers, when in any place of sects of this kind, just as in Merrha, and in a formidable, squalid, and inaccessible wilderness, we came upon their oblique and tortuous discourses. Now, by our right, let us proclaim that: *Quemadmodum desiderat cervus ad fontes aquarum, ita desiderat anima mea ad te, Deus* [As the deer thirsts for the fountains of water, so my soul thirsts for thee, O God]. ^C Also: *Quando veniam, et apparebo ante faciem Dei?* [When shall I come, and appear before the face of God?] Nay, let us also, in the words of the same Scripture, call upon the bride, not as he does—the Bridegroom himself and Lord and king and God and protector—but as his servants, let us address her in the same words as he did: *Veni de Libano, sponsa, quoniam tota pulchra es, et macula non est in te* [Come from Libanus, my spouse, because thou art all fair, and there is no spot in thee]. Paradise of the supreme Artificer, city of the holy King, bride of the spotless Christ, most chaste virgin, betrothed to one and a single man through faith, splendid and emerging like the dawn; fair as the moon, chosen as the sun, terrible as an army set in array: whom the queens proclaim blessed, and ^D the concubines celebrate, and the maidens praise; who ascendest from the desert, shining with most splendid brightness and leaning upon thy kinsman: who art fragrant with the scent of ointments; who ascendest from the desert like a rod of smoke from the incense of myrrh and frankincense, and from the dust of the apothecary, who hath exhaled a most sweet odor. Whom, foreseeing, she said: *Unguentum effusum nomen tuum: propterea adolescentulae dilexerunt te* [Thy name is as ointment poured out: therefore young maidens have loved thee]. Thou who assistest at the right hand of the king,

^A clothed in garments fringed and adorned with gold, who hast nothing dark or obscure. Once stained with blackness, now thou art fair and bright, so that when we have arrived at thee, we may at last cease from those most sorrowful troubles of the heresies ^B which we have hitherto endured; and, resting from the tossing of the storms and the huge waves that are therein, we may breathe again in thee, our holy mother Church, and in thy holy doctrine, and in the holy and only faith of God in truth. But I shall begin to relate the marvelous things concerning this holy city of God; for glorious things are spoken of thee, as the Prophet says:

Glorious things are spoken of thee, O city of God.

III. In the first place, it must be held that God, the God over all, belongs properly to us, who are born of this holy Church. For this is the first proof concerning the truth, and the foundation of the faith of this one virgin and holy and innocent dove, concerning whom the Lord, by the Spirit, revealed these things through Solomon in the Song of Songs, and said:

Sixty are the queens, and eighty the concubines, and young maidens without number; one is my dove, my perfect one.

one king the entire multitude, which is under the king, shall be accounted as one.

IV. Wherefore, the generation in Christ is termed a queen, not because every generation has reigned, but because that one alone, endowed with the knowledge of the Lord, has attained the royal dignity and order by the designation of one man: for example, Adam with all his progeny shall be counted as one queen, and his principle and patriarchate, having reigned with those who are with him on account of their knowledge of God, and because he merited being fashioned and formed first of all by God, and because he was the first to provide an example of repentance, as is evident from his history. After Adam, Seth and the entire race of men with him. And Enos, ^B Cainan, and Maleleel, and Jared, and Enoch, and Mathusala, and Lamech, and Noah. Of all these holy men, who are recounted generation by generation in a numbered list, whose number is shown in Matthew, from whom the LXII generations and the origins of the fathers of the more excellent men are expressed by their names—men who attained the knowledge of God, or who conducted themselves in some other matter remarkably and eximiously, and obtained royal splendor and majesty: the catalogue of these, I say, extends up to the birth of Christ the Lord. For from Adam to Noah ten generations have passed. As many from Noah to Abraham; from him to David xiv; from David to the captivity xiv; and from the captivity to Christ likewise xiv. There are collected from Adam to Christ LXII generations, which for the sake of brevity are numbered only as LX; for just as, though there were LXXII palm trees in the wilderness, Scripture mentioned only LXX. Thus, when LXX had been called to the mountain, with the addition of Elad and Modad, LXXII were found. Moreover, although LXX, during the reign of Ptolemy, interpreted the sacred Books, we nevertheless, for the sake of brevity, are accustomed to name the edition of the "Seventy" men. Thus also have the LX queens now been mentioned, in my opinion, in such a way that, with the extremes being removed on both sides, that middle sexagenarian number might remain to be raised to the figure, image, and perfect contemplation: for by six decades the circuit of the six days is completed, that there might be a union of the holy souls who reign in God by faith from each generation. Whence also six ... ^C ... ^D

in them, containing two or three metretae each; regarding the measure of the Old and New Testament and the fullness of the Trinity. These, having been changed from water into pure wine, were filled for the joy of the marriage and of the sons of men. Hence also the hexagonal figure is termed by those who study outside-learning to be measured geometrically through the trinity and the hebdomad into the number twenty-one, where the meaning of the hexagonal is the fullness of the ^A space of all that is seen, for the reason that it has a fourfold character, as one might say, the quadrangular, being a foundation and a covering from above for the roofing, completing the number six.

^B V. But that I may not lengthen the discussion, I think that enough has been said regarding those sixty queens—that is, the generations that are counted up to the coming of Christ. But as to the generations that have been and are from Christ until now, the Lord alone knows them. For no longer have numbers been carried forward or recorded by anyone according to generation, because the number of that hypothesis was sealed ^C and shut away, having been numbered by the number of the queens up to the time of His very bodily coming. For as for those who were writers, or chroniclers, or chronologers, or historians afterwards: they no longer count generations, but the successions of kings and the times according to the number of the years of each king; so that the sensible man may clearly know that from this question the whole of time was cut short to the number of the sixty-two generations ^D up to Christ, because no longer after Christ, according to this hypothesis, are the times of the world numbered by genealogies, being perfected in one single union, signified according to the unchangeable foundation of the good pleasure of God; as if from it the completion of the age were cut short, and transferred to be fulfilled in the transition to the coming age. Therefore He says, *My dove is one, my perfect one*; as if all things were completed in her, whether times and seasons and years and intervals of generations, whether the age should count itself by kings or consuls or Olympiads or magistracies; but the eighty concubines are those which are in the midst of the queens, and before the bodily kingdom, that is to say, of the faith, and of this very bride and virgin and undefiled and dove, who is unique to her mother and to her who bore her.

VI. For the Church is born of one faith, brought forth by the Holy Spirit, one to the one, and one to her who bore her. But then, as many as have come after her

or before her are named concubines: who, although they were not entirely alien to the testament and inheritance, yet obtained no dowry from the Word, nor did they receive the Holy Spirit pouring Himself into them; but they had only a relationship with the Word in their own consciousness. For the appellation of concubine is famously conceived among the Hebrews when it is called *Phelegestha*. Now *Pheleg* in Latin means "half," and *estha* signifies "woman," so that a concubine is the same as half a woman. For as far as the Lord is concerned, He called all to the light of freedom, with these words: "While you have the light with you, walk in the light." To which the Apostle bears witness: "You," he says, "are children of the day, and children of light." And again in a different place in Scripture: "He who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light." Thus, therefore, concubines are not taken by men openly, nor perfectly, nor endowed; and even if they contract some relationship with the bodies of men, they are nonetheless destitute of the honor of a free wife, and of her title, stability, dowry, nuptial gifts, and offerings, and finally, of legitimate union. ^B Such are the eighty heresies enumerated one by one by me. In which it should seem strange to no one if in each region they are accustomed to be called by certain other names. Indeed, it is also worthy of observation that a single heresy is often split and divided in itself into various parts and terms; which, as I have said, one should not wonder at, for this is clearly how things are. But we find the number eighty-one, one indeed on account of that one which is separated from the rest and attributed to the one bridegroom, of which it is testified by such an appellation: "One is my dove," and again, "my perfect one." By which He judges all the concubines to be ignoble and obscure, and not to be reckoned in innocence or chastity and gentleness. And indeed, from the beginning, from Barbarism and Scythism down to the latest Massalians, seventy-six [LXXVII] heresies have been recorded. To which, when Hellenism—from which the Gentile sects arose—and Judaism—from which the Jewish ones arose—and the faction of the Samaritans—from which the Samaritan ones arose—are added (that is, three sects in total added to the seventy-seven preceding), the number eighty is reached. There remains one, namely the holy and catholic Church, which is truly called the Christian religion; which already long ago, and with Adam, and indeed before Adam himself, and thus before all ages, flourished with Christ by the will of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. To which, indeed, the faith of all those who pleased God in any generation at their own time has been held; and which was manifested clearly to the world upon the coming of Christ the Lord; but now, after all the preceding heresies, or concubines, it must be proclaimed by our discourse, just as the order of our established argument requires. ^{C D}

VII. For the Word Himself in the Canticles numbered them in this way, saying sixty queens, and eighty con-

- ^A cubines, and damsels without number. But one, He says, is my dove, my perfect one; she is the only one to her mother, she is the choice one to her that bore her. And later He shows how she is found before all, as being more honorable than all, and ruling over all, and alone chosen by Him, whose children are heirs of the king and true children, as children of the promise, and not children of the bondmaid, nor of the concubine, nor of the others who are counted without number. For even if Abraham had children by Keturah the concubine, the children of Keturah do not attain to be co-heirs with Isaac; but they received gifts as a legacy, so that the type might remain for the anagogy of the Word, that no one should despair of the calling of Christ. For the gifts which he gave to Ishmael and to the sons of Keturah were a type of the good things that were to be for the conversion ^B of souls to the faith and to the truth. For as to Hagar, who was a bondmaid and was cast out by Abraham, as the one who served the lower Jerusalem with her children, of whom it is said: I have cast out your mother; and again: I gave a scroll of divorcement into her hands; to this bondmaid, I say—Hagar—a flask of water is given in a more symbolic way for the hope of conversion, that it might show the power of the laver of regeneration as a gift of life restored to the unbelievers, and for the conversion of all the nations to the knowledge of the truth. But to the sons of Keturah, the gifts were a possession of wealth, gold and silver and raiment, and whatever Abraham, not without mystery, ^C locked up in the bags: frankincense and myrrh and gold which he received from the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, those around Chodollogomor and Barsa, and the rest who took captivity from Sodom and Gomorrah and the rest, and plundered the cavalry, and took captive the multitude of men, and snatched away the multitude of possessions and wealth and other things from each one. He himself returned from the slaughter of the kings at that time, and, not daring to divert what had already been vowed to the Lord God, but having given those gifts together with the others to his sons who were from Keturah, as we found in the traditions of the Hebrews. VIII. But at the arrival of Christ, the same ^D children of Abraham, those from Keturah who had been cast out by Abraham, and had gone away and settled in the Arabian parts of the land of Magodia—the Magi who came from the succession of those seeds—offered those same gifts.

Which gifts the prophet clearly sets forth with these words: "For before the child knows to call father or mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, before the king of the Assyrians." ^A For these things, as I said before, were taken from Damascus and Samaria by the kings who came in the days of Abraham. When, then, did he receive them before he knew how to call father or mother? Only when the Magi came and opened their pouches, or their "treasures," as some of the copies have it, and offered myrrh and frankincense and gold. And you see how fitting are the expressions and the sequences of the truth; just as these heresies are concubines, and the gifts were received by their children? These heresies, indeed, obtain only the name, that is, they are classed solely by the title of Christ, and they take a few sentences from the holy Scriptures, in order that through them they might understand the truth, if they wish. But if they do not wish, but return to Herod—for they are commanded not to return to Herod, but to arrive at their own country by another way. But if they refuse to do what is commanded, these gifts shall be for them empty and fruitless, just as much as if they had returned to Herod, because in the same way these heresies corrupt the teachings of the holy Scriptures by adulterating them.

IX. These, therefore, are the eighty concubines whose number is ^B expressed; and those queens themselves are the souls that are reckoned by generations, that is, the men and the patriarchs. But the "young maidens" whose number cannot be defined signify the various sects of philosophers which have been introduced into the world, and the diverse ways of life of each one; of which some are worthy of praise, others of blame. For who could recount the variety of this world? How many other sects among the Gentiles have sprouted up after the four very manifest ones which we have discussed? And even after those heresies and the ones that followed, diverse minds and opinions of men, with a certain youthful pride and arrogance, have founded private sects according to each one’s own whim. For instance, some are called Pyrrhonians; and there are many others, whose names and doctrines I shall set forth one by one and in order. And although I have known of many, what a small part are they of those who are spread over the whole world? ^C Furthermore, these were specifically the sects of the Gentiles; among which I shall propose the opinion and doctrine of Thales the Milesian in the first place. Thales the Milesian, therefore, being one of the seven wise men, ^D was, for Thales the Milesian himself (34), being one of the

that all things are from water, and that they resolve back into water again.

Anaximander, son of Praxiades, who was also a Milesian, said that the infinite was the beginning of all things; for from this all things are generated, and into it all things are resolved.

Anaximenes, son of Eurystratus, who was also a Milesian, says that air is the beginning of the whole, and that all things are from it.

Anaxagoras, son of Hegesibulus the Clazomenian, stated that the ^B homoeomeries (similar parts) were the beginnings of all things.

Archelaus, son of Apollodorus, or, as some prefer, of Milton, who was an Athenian and a natural philosopher, says that all things have their origin from the earth; for this, he says, is the beginning of the whole.

Socrates, son ^B of Elbaglus or Sophroniscus and Phainarete the midwife, the moral philosopher, used to say that a man should busy himself only with what pertains to himself, and nothing more.

Pherecydes also says that earth was generated before all things.

Pythagoras the Samian, son of Mnesarchus, asserted that the Monad is God, and that nothing has been generated without it. He used to say that one should ^C not sacrifice animals to the gods, nor eat any living thing, nor beans, nor should the wise drink wine. He also said that all things below the moon are subject to suffering, but that those above the moon are incapable of suffering. He also said that the soul migrates into many animals; he ordered his disciples to maintain silence for a five-year period; and, finally, he named himself a god.

Xenophanes, son of Orthumenes the Colophonian, said that all things were generated from earth and water; but that of all things, as he said, ^D there is nothing true. Thus, the truth is hidden from us, and opinion has been established over all things, especially concerning those that are invisible.

^A Parmenides, son of Pyres, by birth an Eleatic, also said that the infinite is the principle of all things.

Zeno the Eleatic, the Eristic, held the same views as the other Zeno; he also asserted that the earth is motionless and that there is no such thing as empty space. He argued thus: Whatever moves, moves either in the place in which it is, or in the place in which it is not. But it moves neither in the place in which it is, nor in the place in which it is not. Therefore, nothing moves.

Melissus, son of Ithagenes, a Samian by birth, stated that all things are one; and that nothing in nature is constant or perpetual, but all things are corruptible in their power.

Leucippus the Milesian—though others claim he was an Eleatic—one of the Eristic sect, taught that the universe exists in the infinite. He held that all things consist merely in outward appearance and opinion, and that there is no truth in them at all, but rather that they appear so only as an oar submerged in water. ^B

Democritus, son of Damasippus, an Abderite, established the world as infinite, situated above a void. He further asserted that there is one end for all things, that tranquility of mind is the greatest good, and that pains are the boundaries of all evil. He claimed that what is thought to be just is by no means just, and that to act unjustly is contrary to nature. Indeed, he called laws a very bad invention, and said that a wise man should not obey them, but live in total liberty.

Metrodorus of Chios maintained that nothing can be known by anyone. "Truly," he said, "we do not accurately understand the things we think we know, nor should we put faith in the senses; for all things exist by opinion."

Protagoras, son of Menander, an Abderite, denied that there are gods, and completely rejected the existence of any divinity.

Diogenes of Smyrna, or as others say, a Cyrenian, held the same opinion as Protagoras.

Pyrrho of Elis, having collected the dogmas of all other wise men, wrote refutations against them, overturning their opinions, and embraced no dogma himself. ^C

Empedocles, son of Meton, an Agrigentine, introduced fire, earth, water, and air as the four primary elements, and said that enmity was present in the elements before all else. For he says that in the beginning all things were separate and scattered, but now they are joined into one, reconciled to one another, and made friends. Therefore, according to his opinion, there are two principles and powers, Enmity and Friendship; the former endowed with the power of separating, the latter with the power of joining. ^D

Heraclitus, son of Bleson, an Ephesian, attributed the origin of all things to fire, and said that all things were resolved back into fire.

^A Prodicus of a certain sort calls the four elements gods, and then the sun and the moon; for he says that the vital force for all beings is derived from them. ^B Plato the Athenian said that God, matter, and form exist. He maintained that the world is created and subject to corruption, but he said that the soul is unbegotten, immortal, and divine; and that it has three parts ^C: the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive. He also said that marriages and wives should be common to all, and that no one should have a wife privately, but that those who wish should consort with those who are willing.

Aristippus the Cyrenaean, being a glutton and a lover of pleasure, said that the end of the soul is pleasure; and whoever enjoys pleasure is happy, while he who does not enjoy it at all is thrice-wretched and miserable, as they say.

Theodorus, surnamed the Atheist, said that the teachings about God were mere nonsense; for he supposed that there is no Divine Being, and for this reason he encouraged everyone to steal, to commit perjury, to pillage, and not to die for their country; for he said that the world is one's only country; and he said that only one who enjoys happiness is good, and that one who is unfortunate, even if he were wise, should be shunned, and that it is preferable to be a rich and disobedient fool.

Hegesias the Cyrenaean said that there is neither friendship nor gratitude. For he said that these do not exist, but that one giving a favor does so because he is in need, or because he has received some greater benefit and is giving something back. He also said that for a base man living is advantageous, but for the wise man death is advantageous, so that some have called him Pisithanatos (the death-persuader) because of this.

Antisthenes, born of a Thracian mother but himself an Athenian, who was first a Socratic, then a Cynic, said that one should not envy the vices of others, nor the shameful things among one another. He said that the walls of cities are weak against an internal traitor, but that the walls of the soul are unshakable and unbreakable.

Diogenes the Cynic, from Sinope, that is in—

the Pontus, gave diligent care to all things for Antisthenes. He said that the good is acceptable to every wise man, and that all other things are nothing but trifles. ^A Crates, born in Thebes of Boeotia, also a Cynic, said that lack of possessions is the true essence of freedom.

Arcesilaus maintained that only for God is the truth attainable, but not for man. Carneades agreed with Arcesilaus in all respects.

Aristotle, son of Nicomachus, according to some a Macedonian from Stagira, though others would prefer to say he was of Thracian origin. He posited two principles, God and matter; and he thought that things above the moon are governed by divine providence, but that things below the moon are governed by no providence, but happen randomly and are carried along by some irrational motion. ^B He also says there are two worlds, the upper and the lower; the former is incorruptible, the latter corruptible. Finally, he calls the soul the *entelecheia* of the body—that is, its continuous and perpetual motion.

Theophrastus of Eresus followed Aristotle in everything.

Strato of Lampsacus attributed the cause of all things to warm nature. He said that the parts of the world are infinite, and he said that not every animal is capable of reason.

Praxiphanes the Rhodian asserted the same things as Theophrastus.

Critolaus the Phaselite followed the same doctrines as Aristotle.

Zeno of Citium, the Stoic, said that one should not build temples to the gods, but keep the Divine only in the mind; or rather, that the mind itself should be considered God, since it is immortal. He thought that the dead should be cast to wild beasts or consumed by fire; and he permitted the unrestricted use of boys for love and pleasure. The same man asserted that God governs and directs all things. He defined the causes of things as partly in our power, partly outside of us—that is, some things are under our own jurisdiction, others not at all. He also said that after separation from the body, he called the soul a long-lived spirit, but he did not say it was entirely incorruptible; ^C for it is consumed by the passage of a long time into the unseen, as he says.

Cleanthes says that pleasure is the highest good and honest; he called only the soul "man," and said that the gods were certain mystical figures and sacred names. And he called the sun the torch-bearer, that is ^D

the light-bringer; and the world itself [was in his view] the initiator; and he declared that those who were seized by the gods had caught the force of the ceremonies and rites. ^A Perseus fully agreed with Zeno. Chrysippus of Soli sanctioned nefarious and illicit laws. For he wished that sons should unite their bodies with their mothers, and fathers with their daughters. In other matters he agreed with Zeno of Citium. He added also the proposition that one should eat human flesh. He measured the final good in terms of the pleasure of the soul. Diogenes of Babylon believed that all things consist of pleasure. Panaetius of Rhodes affirmed that the world was immortal and exempt from old age and decay. He utterly rejected divination. He overturned what is asserted about God. ^B He placed the highest good of man in wealth and health. Posidonius of Apamea placed the highest good of man in wealth and health. Athenodorus of Tarsus held the same dogmas as Chrysippus and Zeno. Epicurus, the son of Neocles, educated at Athens, embraced a life of pleasure. And so he lived publicly and without any shame with prostitutes, beyond the things which we have written about him at the beginning of this work. He claimed that there were no gods, but that all things were governed by the arbitration of fortune. He held that there exists nothing voluntary or free in the world—neither training, nor ignorance, nor anything else—but that all things happen to all people against their will. And he says that none should be blamed or praised, ^C because no one undertakes anything of the sort by a free decree of the soul. He denied that death was ever to be feared. The same man, as I have said before, professed that this whole universe consists of atoms and that the world exists in infinite space.

X. These are the founders of the sects among the Greeks whom we have been able to discover.

^A In Ethiopia, among the Persians, in Parthia, in Elamitis, in Caspia, in the land of the Germans, in Sarmatia, or among as many as are in the land of the Dauni, or among the Zicchi and the Amazons, the Lazi and the Iberi, and the Bosphorani, or among the Geli, the Seres, or the other nations, there is an infinite multitude of differences in laws, philosophies, sects, and customs. For among the Seres, the men entwine their hair, sit at home, and are anointed with perfumes and softened, preparing themselves like women; but the women do the opposite, cutting the hair of their heads, girding themselves with a man’s belt, and performing all the tasks concerning the fields. But among the Geli, the opposite happens: those who commit wicked deeds are praised by their own laws. ^B And among the Greeks, how many mysteries and rites there are! Such are the Megarian women’s rites, and the Thesmophoria; their rituals differ from each other, as do the other customs, and those mysteries held at Eleusis, of Deo and Pherrephatta, and the obscene acts committed in their inner sanctuaries—or, to speak more respectably, the strippings of women, the drums and cakes, the tambourine and the basket, the finished wool, the cymbal, and the mixture prepared in a vessel; and how many other things there are in the Pythian rites, the mysteries of Archemorus, and others in the Isthmus, those of Athamas and Melicertes, the son of Ino; and those who turn the phallus, and the phallophoric exercises of obscenity; and those men who serve Rhea, who castrate young boys and cut off their virile parts entirely, so that they are no longer able to be men, nor have they become women. And there are other Dionysiacs, who the Curetes, and the ^C

^A initiate them into the rites of flesh-eating, crowned with serpents, exulting and shouting, "Oua, oua!" calling upon that Eve whom the serpent deceived. Not by means of the aspirated sound do they invoke the serpent from the Hebrew language into their own error. For the children of the Hebrews call the woman *Eva* with a simple pronunciation 67, but they call the serpent *Heva* with an aspirated one.

11 What more shall I say? The time will fail me if I were to describe the infinite distinctions among men, both regarding virtue and vice. For instance, those in the region of Egypt who, when dedicated to Saturn ^B, bind themselves with iron collars and employ long beards, filthy clothing, and ridiculous attire. Indeed, in honor of Saturn, in what is called Astis—which is a small town and the head of the villages in the district called Prosopitis—they repeatedly insert rings into their nostrils, at which time they institute wicked and criminal religious assemblies from all the towns; for then, with gatherings collected, celebrating orgies, they perform frantic and confused rites. But this breed of men is detestable. There are also sacred rites of a similar kind among others: for instance, those in the Butic ^C district, and indeed in the town of Buto 70, who nourish Harpocrates—these are men already advanced in age. On a solemn day, and on the Kalends themselves, they are compelled, driven by the goad of the demon, to celebrate the frenzied and furious mysteries of Horus. For all the citizens, including those who are already extremely aged, along with youths of similar habits and the other ages, now from the very onset of puberty, serving as priests of this same Horus and of Harpocrates, with shaved heads, carry about, without any shame, a servile, abominable, and childlike appearance. Then indeed they perform certain ludicrous acts and offer themselves for laughter to those who are prudent and have freed themselves ^D from the slavery of the demon. For these senseless men, not in control of themselves and ridiculously deformed, are carried away headlong. For first, they smear their faces with polenta and fine flour and other similar prepared foods, by thrusting their faces into a seething cauldron: it is...

^A by the deceit of a miracle that they excite the crowds, and they distribute to each of those who are asking, taking it from their own faces, for the sake of receiving health and for the healing of pains.

XII. Furthermore, if I were to pursue the Memphite and Heliopolitan women celebrating orgies, who stimulate themselves with the din of tabrets and flutes; if I were to recount the Coritides and trieteritides, and those who on account of the Bathæca and Menuthis are seized with fury and are forgetful of their own modesty and feminine decorum—what abundance of words, and what voluminous books would be required, if I wished to apply myself to commemorating all these things which I have reviewed above, and which are almost infinite? For even if I were to impose an enormous labor upon myself in this matter, it would nevertheless be strictly necessary to leave the treatment and comprehension of them imperfect. For it is written: “Young maidens, of whom there is no number” (Cant. VI, 7). To these pertain those sacred rites which are performed in the town of Saïs and Pelusium, Bubastis, and Abydos, as well as the shrines of Antinoös, along with the mysteries that are celebrated there. Also those which are at Pharbetus, or where the goat is worshipped by the Mendhesians; and those which are celebrated in the Busirite prefecture, the Sebennitic, and the Diospolitan. ^B But also to some extent in honor of Seth, whom they consider to be Typhon, they perform rites and ceremonies with an ass. Others are initiated into Tithrambus, whom they interpret as Hecate; others into Nephthys, others into Thermuthis, others into Isis. And how many such things can be said, for which to recount them specifically would consume much time? Therefore, the discourse may be summarized in all respects by being fulfilled through the phrase, “Young maidens, of whom there is no number.” For there are, moreover, very many other mysteries, and architects of sects and schisms: such as the Magusæi among the Persians, and among the Egyptians those called prophets, the leaders of the adyta and of the sacred rites; and among the Babylonians those who are called Gazareni, wise men and enchanters. To these are added the Indorum Evilei and the Brahmins; and the hierophants and temple-guardians of the Greeks. Also the Cynic sects, and the authors of other almost infinite philosophies.

XIII. Therefore, among the Persians, as I have said, the Magusæi, while they detest idols, nevertheless worship the same things—namely, fire, and the moon, and the sun. There are others besides these in Greece called Mysi and Abii, who live on mare’s ^D milk and inhabit an entirely wild and uncultivated region. How many things can be gathered by human intellects concerning those who are held in such high and excellent regard; and which ought to be ascribed to the race of praiseworthy young maidens, of whom there is no number? For some are to be commended, others are worthy of blame. For there are found some who, out of their own private judgment, choose a certain severe manner of life...

[...] discipline and law for themselves, and walk openly in the eyes of all with longer hair; but other holy brothers remain at home in sackcloth and ashes; finally, others manifest a life absolute in all its parts, by a most harsh manner of living and most hard labors undertaken for God’s sake, with a certain youthful fortitude and a perfect conscience towards the Bridegroom; others, however, as I said a little before, not sincerely but with a certain obstinacy of mind, as if tyrannically, are insolently puffed up beyond ^A the truth. Such was that Zacchæus, who recently died in the mountainous region near Jerusalem, who never allowed himself to be joined with anyone in the communion of prayer; nay, from that very beginning, though he was a layman, he attempted with a wicked and rash boldness to touch the divine mysteries and to celebrate the sacrifices. Another was also found—whoever that person may have been—living in a certain excellent manner of life, who dwelt in the desert of Egypt in a monastery. Likewise another, living at Mount Sinai. Who both, I know not by what dreams at that time ^B receiving the imposition of hands for a bishopric, attempted themselves both to sit and to perform the acts of bishops. Others also, and not a few, dared to castrate themselves, contrary to what is commanded, under the pretense of youth. Others, thinking they are acting in the prime of youth ^C... [alt-version omitted] ...and yet, because it pleased some of those in Asia, for the sake of the many and for the sake of peace and harmony, that their baptism should be accepted: let it be accepted. If, however, this should be an obstacle to the universal administration, the custom should be used again, and the fathers who managed our affairs should be followed. ^D ...regarding the many diversities of opinions, perhaps as many as the number of men. Lastly, Basil in his Epistle to Amphilochius, canon 47, himself indeed thinks that the Encratites, Saccophori, and Apotactites ought to be rebaptized. But if, as Amphilochius [thought], he rejects it just as the Romans do, he nonetheless declares his own reasoning to be valid. Concerning this matter, the decree of a synod is to be expected. But the same man, in canon 1, seems to incline toward decreeing that all heretics ought to be rebaptized. For he says that heresy is one thing, and schism is another, and "paraphylia" [paramount gathering] another. Heresy is that which defends some error contrary to the faith; but schism is a dissension having arisen on account of certain ecclesiastical controversies: but when contumacious presbyters, or bishops, or even laymen hold illegitimate gatherings. Now, those who return to the Church from schism or a "paramount gathering," he defines ought to be received without baptism according to the tradition of the elders, but that heretics ought to be rebaptized. Although, he says, Cyprian and Firmilian had judged that all, as much heretics as schismatics, ought to be rebaptized; because, since they had separated themselves from the communion of the Church, the grace of the Holy Spirit was interrupted in them: nor could they any longer transfuse it into others. Therefore, they ordered them, as if baptized by laymen, to be rebaptized when they returned to the Church, by the true baptism of the Church. Soon he adds: "Since, however, it pleased some Asians, for the sake of peace and harmony, that it should be forgiven, so that their baptism might be accepted: let it be accepted." But he states by name that the Encratites must be rebaptized. "If it is the case that this repeated baptism hinders the peace and administration of the Church, let the other custom of omitting baptism be retained." It seemed good to recount these things more fully from that decree of Basil; because many wonderful things are contained in it, and, if we seek the truth, few that are Catholic. For, because [he speaks] of rebaptizing—

those coming to them, supposedly from the Arians, without the judgment of an ecumenical council 76—the matter, as I have said, not yet having been settled by the judgment of a council, because the peoples still remain intermingled up to this day, and many are Orthodox, though joined by hypocrisy to the officiating priests—until a separation from such blasphemous heresy takes place, and then those things against it shall be determined. And from those who, in this manner, rebaptize on their own authority, one presbyter in the region of the Lycians has come to our ears. There are also others elsewhere, as each prays by himself, and not at all with anyone; others are in shackles, against the custom of the Church. Wherefore, at the end of the whole discourse, I said that there were maidens beyond number, who behave boldly and insolently by their own private counsel; not that they might attain any good, or perfect the types and parts of wisdom—namely, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice. From this number of maidens, some are carried away in a tyrannical manner and deviate from the truth, so that they cannot be contained in any number.

XIV. But that unique dove, and holy virgin, confesses God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Father perfect, Son perfect, Holy Spirit perfect— ^B

XIV. But that unique dove, and holy virgin, confesses God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit; Father perfect, Son perfect, Holy Spirit perfect-

[The commentary apparatus below the text, marked with standard footnote references in the source, is translated as follows:]

Regarding that same place, he doubts whether baptism can be conferred by one who has never been a Christian. And this is indeed another question, he says, whether baptism can be given by those who have never been Christians. Nor should anything be rashly affirmed concerning this without the authority of a council, as much as suffices for such a great matter. But it is surprising that in the Council of Elvira, canon 38, it is sanctioned: That those sailing abroad, in case of necessity, may be baptized by any faithful person who is not a bigamist. Was it, then, not lawful to be baptized by bigamists in such [great] necessity? ^C

Contra epist. Parm., cap. 13, it is declared. Although he seems to affirm that all heretics should be admitted, if it can be done without scandal; and because he believes that most are to be received without baptism, for the sole reason that it pleased [the Church] to do this for the sake of economia, this hardly agrees with ecclesiastical dogma. For he approves baptism of heretics if it is received according to the Catholic rite and prescription, and does not suffer it to be repeated in any way. But if baptism is bestowed otherwise than as is received in the Church—that is, from a legitimate formula—not only by heretics but even by Catholics themselves, no pretext of peace and concord can be brought forward to admit anyone without a new baptism. Wherefore, Basil feels little consistently concerning the Encratites, as did Cyprian of old; who, as Augustine frequently inculcates against the Donatists, especially in books I and II *De baptismo*, although he judged that there was no baptism of heretics, nevertheless did not think that those who were unwilling to be rebaptized should be repelled for that reason from the communion of the Church. But no one can be a Christian without true baptism. But how, for the sake of peace and concord, someone who is not a Christian is held among Christians, and access is permitted him to the divine mysteries—which in the case of the Encratites and others, whom he had otherwise determined were to be rebaptized, he had relaxed for the sake of peace—he decides in the same canon should be performed. This, I say, is abhorrent to the usage and customs of the Church, and to the sanctions of the Nicene Council and other ancients. Moreover, this same Basil seems to have judged baptism conferred by laymen to be void and null, when, in the opinion of Cyprian, Firmilian, and others, he says that those baptized by heretics are to be cleansed for baptism just as if they had obtained it from laymen. As if the baptism of laymen were not true. Which is otherwise, as among others, Aug. lib. ^D

76 *Rebaptizing*. Epiphanius rightly rebukes those who were rebaptizing those who indeed had already been baptized by the Arians. For baptism, conferred with the words of the Gospel—whatever some Churches may have sometimes attempted to bring forward to the contrary—is held by the universal Church to be valid, firm, and ratified forever. Just as it has always been considered null, void, and invalid if it was conferred with a different process, in a different form, and with words other than those of the Gospel; whoever that person may have been who conferred it, whether heretic or Catholic. It would be possible to bring forward almost innumerable documents of the ancients to illustrate the present passage of Epiphanius; but we shall be content with one: [that] of Pope Siricius, who lived not long from the age of Epiphanius, indeed in almost the same times. Writing to Himerius of Tarragona at the beginning of his epistle, he says regarding our matter: "You have marked on the front of your page that many who were baptized by the impious Arians are hastening to the Catholic faith, and that some of our brethren wish to baptize them anew: which is not allowed, since both the Apostles forbid this and the canons contradict it." Petavius has compiled many things here in a scholarly fashion, to which, however, some things might be added that would require proper interpretation.

^A the Trinity as consubstantial; not a Trinity that is blended together, but the Son truly begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit not alien to the Father and the Son. Being always the Trinity, and never in need of addition; having nothing in itself that is subordinate, but being referred to one unity and one principle of God and the Father. And from this Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, all things were created, which were not at one time, nor were they co-existent with God, nor did they pre-exist, but they began to be from non-existence into being, produced by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And this same Father and Son and Holy Spirit counted His saints worthy, from the beginning of time, to appear in visions—as each was able to receive according to his gift through the Divinity which was granted to each of those found worthy; ^B at times to behold the Father, as each was able to hear his voice, as he could comprehend; as in the mouth of Isaiah He said: *“Behold, my beloved Servant shall understand,”* which is the voice of the Father. And as Daniel saw the *“Ancient of Days,”* this was a vision of the Father. And as in the prophet again: *“I have multiplied visions, and in the hands of the prophets I was likened,”* this is the voice of the Son. And as in Ezekiel: *“And the Spirit of God took me, and cast me into the plain,”* this pertains to the Holy Spirit. And much more can be said of this sort, of which, having mentioned a few by way of example in passing, in order to show the character of the Church, we have set forth two or three statements, though there are countless others like these appearing in the divine Scriptures of both the Old and New Testament. And [the Church confesses] that the Lord Himself fashioned the body for Adam, and breathed into him the breath of life, creating for him a living soul; and that God—the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the one Divinity—Himself gave the Law to Moses; and that the prophets were sent by that same Divinity; and that He Himself is to us God, who is the God of Jews and Christians alike; who also called the Jews to justification—those who would not deny the very coming of our Lord Jesus—and who saves all who live according to His true faith, and who do not deny the truth of the proclamation of His true evangelical teaching. For He came, the Only-Begotten came; and thus our mother the Church, the tranquil harbor of peace, stands; the gladness that breathes the scent of the vine, and bearing for us the cluster of blessing, and the daily medicine for our sorrow, bestowing upon us the pure, true blood of Christ.

XV. That Christ was truly born of Mary the Ever-Virgin

(77). That Christ was truly born of Mary the Ever-Virgin, having taken upon Himself the body in truth, and not in mere appearance—flesh truly, a body

^A in truth, with bones and nerves and all things that are in us, without any difference from us, except only for the glory of His holiness and divinity; being a vessel of holiness and justice, and having all things perfectly without sin, and having possessed a human soul in truth, and a human mind in truth—not as we are asserted to be, that the mind is a hypostasis, as others say; but all things being undefiled by sin, a mouth that did not lie, lips that did not speak guile, a heart that did not incline toward provocation, a mind that did not turn toward what is not fitting, flesh that did not perform the pleasures of the flesh. He is perfect God from above, who did not come merely to dwell in a man, but the Word Himself became man, without changing His nature, having encompassed His own incarnation together with His divinity. He was born in the womb of a Virgin in truth, carried in the womb, and born through the generative passages without shame, undefiledly, and unpollutedly. Having been reared, and embraced by Symeon and Anna, carried by Mary, having journeyed on foot, having traveled, having become a child, having been strengthened in age; having all things within Himself in perfection, He was reckoned in the number of years ^B (78), and was carried in the womb in the number of months; having been made under the law, having come to the Jordan, having been baptized by John, not having need of washings. But because of the consequence of the incarnation under the law, not disturbing the justice, so that all justice might be fulfilled, as He Himself said, in order to show that He had put on true flesh, a true incarnation. He is descending into the waters, giving rather than receiving, bestowing more than He had need of anything; for He illuminated those same waters with His own light, and for the sake of adumbrating the image of those things that were to be perfected in Him, He imparted a certain power to them, so that those who truly believed in Him and were endowed with the faith of the truth might understand that He did not put on human nature in pretense, nor was He moistened by the waters in pretense; and the same for themselves as well, through that ^C accommodation which He displayed before them, approach and transfer into themselves the power implanted by His descent, and be flooded with the light of the same, whereby the prophetic oracle is fulfilled: "For the changing of strength, for the provision of salvation, for the strength of the bread that is received from Jerusalem, and the power of the water."

XVI. For here in Christ, the power of the bread and the strength of the water are strengthened, so that not the bread itself may be a power for us, but the power proceeding from the bread. Our food is indeed bread, but in it a certain vital power is contained. Nor was this done only so that the water might cleanse us, but so that by the power of the water, through faith and action and hope and the initiation of the mysteries and the naming of the sanctification, it might become for us ^D a perfection of salvation. Arising from the Jordan, hearing the voice of the Father unto the hearing of...

the disciples who were present, ^A in order to show who He was to whom that testimony was being offered, and the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a dove, as we have said in the refutation of many heresies, so that the Trinity might not be thought to be coalesced, the Spirit being configured in His own hypostasis; and the Spirit resting and coming upon Him, that He who was testified to might be seen; that the holy flesh, being dear and well-pleasing, might be testified to by the Father and by the Spirit; that the Father might be preached as well-pleased with the incarnate presence of the Son; that the Son might be seen as the true Son, and might fulfill that which was said: "And after these things He appeared upon the earth and conversed with men." ^B Having arisen from the Jordan, and having been clearly and truly tempted by the devil in the desert, and having hungered afterwards on account of the consequence and truth of the incarnate presence; and having chosen disciples, and having preached the truth, and having suffered sorrows, having slept, hungered, traveled, performed divine signs, raised the dead, granted sight to the blind, strengthened the lame and paralytics; as He preached the Gospel, the truth, the kingdom of the heavens, His own philanthropy and that of the Father and of the Holy Spirit.

XVII. ^C He who for our sake endured the passion in truth in the flesh and in the perfect becoming-man, having suffered in truth upon the cross, the Godhead being present with Him, yet not turning itself to suffer, but being impassible and immutable; these two consequences being clearly understood, Christ suffering for us in the flesh, but remaining impassible in the Godhead; not that the man was apart by himself, and the Godhead apart by itself, but the Godhead being present, yet not suffering on account of the pure and incomparable nature of His substance; but He suffering in the flesh, and being put to death in the flesh, yet living always in the Godhead, and raising the dead; the body being buried in truth, and remaining soulless for the three days, and breathless and motionless, having been wrapped in the shroud, having been laid in the tomb, having been closed in by the stone, and seals having been placed upon it; not the Godhead being shut in, ^D not the...

Godhead being buried, but descending with the soul to the underworld, bringing from there the captivity of souls, breaking the sting of death, bursting the bars and the adamantine bolts, and dissolving the pains of Hades by His own power, ascending with the soul, the soul not having been left in Hades, nor the flesh having seen corruption, the Godhead having raised it up. Or rather, the Lord God the Word Himself, and the Son of God, having risen with soul and body and the entire vessel—the vessel having been united thenceforth into spirit, that very body having become spiritual, which was once subject to touch, and which had been delivered to scourges by the voluntary will of the Godhead, and which had allowed itself to be tested by Satan, and to approach to hunger, and to sleep and weariness, to sorrow and ^A anxiety. That holy body itself, having been united thenceforth to the Godhead, the Godhead being inseparably united to the holy body that had suffered such things. For He rose and united it to Himself, into one spirit, into ^B one unity, into one doxology, into one Godhead. For it appeared in... no longer being loosed, no longer suffering, no longer being mastered by death.

The word is put forward in an anthropopathic manner from the perspective of His incarnation, not as if it were a separate thing, but because the incarnation was united to the Godhead, and already knowing the most perfect things in it. Already seeing the Godhead moving with the soul to leave the holy body ^C to that holy body. For ^D the Godhead is inseparable from both. By uniting the body...

On the union of the Godhead with the body in the tomb, and the opinion of the Fathers regarding the soul and body of Christ

Damascene, ^A but the Godhead remained inseparable from both. Other Fathers also establish the same dogma in their writings; we read many of their passages described in Petavius, book X, chapter 19, *On the Incarnation*. Among them, while many are significant, Saint Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa must be held in the highest regard, especially in the present matter. For they, fighting against those who, weakening the life-giving incarnation of the Son of God, impiously blathered that flesh alone was assumed in it, and not a soul—of which the Godhead itself would take the place—refute the falsehood by the fact that the dead body of Christ remained united to the Godhead for three days; from which they excellently deduce that Christ could not be said to be dead if He had possessed only a human body and not a soul: for death occurs by the severance of one from the other. And thus they exhausted their adversaries: they would have caused them no trouble if it had not been explored and certain for all, even for the adversaries who were being attacked, that in the death of Christ the Godhead had not departed from His body: it did not depart, therefore.

There are, however, not a few who believe that our Epiphanius contradicts these things. They bring forward his testimonies both from no. 20 of the heresies, and from heresy 69, no. 62, to which can be added that passage in the *Anacephalaeosis*, which refers to heresy 20 of the *Panarion*. Another passage of the same *Anacephalaeosis* is likewise not far from the end, where are repeated those things which are read in the *Exposition of the Faith* regarding the death and resurrection of Christ. But they are entirely mistaken. To one who examines it, the first testimony of Epiphanius will show that his aim was to declare that, in the Lord’s resurrection, the body of Christ had put on immortality and immunity from any affliction of human frailty. To establish that, he says that Christ was crucified, buried, and descended to the underworld; that His soul, to which the Godhead was united, descended; that He rose again on the third day together with His holy body, ^D with the Godhead. These are the words which seem to cause trouble: in them, if you look at the strength of the expression, they certainly denote that Christ united the body to the Godhead; had death perhaps severed it? Nothing of the sort. A little before, he had called the holy body dead; nor does he anywhere openly say that the body was severed from the Godhead in the tomb. But when he says that He united it, we must understand Epiphanius regarding that union...

^A as one of an indivisible nature, into one doxology, and into one and the same Godhead. For He appeared in truth, and was handled by Thomas, and ate and drank with the apostles, and dwelt with them (81) for forty days and forty nights. But He entered when the doors were shut, and after entering, He showed His sinews and bones, the marks of the nails and the place of the spear, that it was truly the same body. But that He was joined into one unity and one Godhead, no longer expecting to suffer, no longer dying, as the holy Apostle says: "Christ is risen, He dies no more, death has no more dominion over Him." The passible became for ever impassible, the Divine with the body and soul and the whole incarnation, being God Himself. And ascending into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father in glory, not putting off the body, but having united it into a spiritual state in the perfection of one Godhead; just indeed as our own bodies, which are now sown naturally, shall rise spiritually; those now sown in corruption, to rise in incorruption; those now sown in death, to rise in immortality. If therefore our own bodies are thus to be, how much more so that holy, ineffable, incomparable, and pure body united to God, which remains henceforth of one form? As also the Apostle testifies to this, saying: ^B "Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him no longer." Not that he severed the flesh from the Godhead, but that although it existed and was united to God, it was no longer "according to the flesh," but "according to the spirit," as he says, "According to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Church confesses Him to be God, both impassible and yet having suffered, and having been buried and risen and ascended in glory, and coming again to judge the living and the dead, as I have said, in truth, "Of His kingdom there shall be no end."

XVIII. On the Resurrection of the Body

^C For our holy mother ^D the Church believes this, just as it has been truly preached and truly commanded to her: that we shall die, and we shall rise again with this very body, with this same soul, and with this whole vessel of ours, that everyone may receive according to what he has done. For the resurrection of the dead, eternal judgment, the kingdom of heaven, rest for the just, the inheritance of the faithful, and the choir with the Lord, are all true.

^A and have been proclaimed, secured, and believed; because these shall rise again unto eternal life, according to that which is written in the Gospels. For whatsoever both the Apostle and all the holy Scriptures say, it happens to be true; even if it is otherwise understood by those who have disbelieved and wrongly perceived it. But for us, this is our faith, this is our honor, and this is our mother the Church, saving through faith 82 and hope, being strengthened, and perfected by the love of Christ, both in the confession and in the mysteries, and in the cleansing power of the laver. For, "Go, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," in the name of the divine Trinity, the naming of which contains no difference; but because one God has been proclaimed and announced to us in the Law, and in the Prophets, and in the Gospels, and in the Apostles 83, in the Old and New Testament, Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Nor is the Divinity itself anything confused, but it is truly a perfect Trinity; the Father is perfect, the Son is perfect, the Holy Spirit is perfect; one divinity, one God; to whom be glory, honor, and power unto the ages of ages. Amen.

XIX. This Catholic faith is the conduct of our life ^A, this is the bulwark of truth; this is the virgin of Christ and the innocent dove; this is the life, the hope, and the assurance of immortality. But I fervently beseech all of you who shall read these things, to forgive my humility and the weakness of my very small mind, which, because of that huge poison of the heresies, has contracted a certain stupor, weariness, and annoyance, as if rejecting and nauseated, or rather as if spitting it out and becoming sick at heart. I say that you should forgive me if we have perchance inveighed too harshly against someone, so as to have called some persons "accursed," or "mountebanks," or "astray," or "impostors." For because of the great pain of that venom (although we are not otherwise accustomed to easily hurl words at anyone), we were compelled to address them with such language, in order that we might turn away the minds of some, lest they should think—due to our not having publicized the things said or done by them, or exposed them—that we have any share of a mind that assents to the evil doctrine of each of the heresies. ^D I have also composed a prologue in brief at the beginning of the treatise, protecting myself regarding these very things and asking for pardon, lest anyone should launch an injustice at us, thinking that we have been defeated and have resorted to taunts and insults. In that same prologue we have also signified which heresies we were about to speak of, and into how many

books we have divided the whole treatise; and in each book, how many and what kind of things we have said. As we have recalled these things here again, we likewise show them point by point, for the benefit of those who encounter them anywhere.

XX. There are three books, seven volumes. In the first book there are forty-six heresies, set down according to the number of names, and according to the sequence from the first and second down to the last book that happens to come to mind; for the first book has forty-six heresies in three volumes. The second book has twenty-three heresies in two volumes. The third book has eleven heresies in two volumes. Therefore, all you who share this labor with us, and who are patient enough to read through our work, be encouraged and deign to reap the benefit, and to turn your minds away from the unpleasant things of the heresies. For we have not revealed them for harm, but for benefit and for the watchfulness of not falling into the enticement of those things mentioned before. After you have gone through the whole burden or parts of it, pray for us and count us worthy so that God may grant us a place in the holy and only, catholic and apostolic Church, and the true and life-giving and saving [Church], and that He may rescue us from every heresy. And if, because we are human and unable to stretch ourselves to the end of the incomprehensible and ineffable Godhead, we have been forced to speak humanly, and have been carried by daring to explain for the sake of God—being constrained into a corner for an apology—may God grant pardon, and may you yourselves grant pardon. And again, pray earnestly that the Lord may grant us the portion we have asked for in His holy faith, which alone is free from all contradiction, and that He may grant forgiveness for our sins, which are very many, in Christ Jesus our Lord; through whom and with whom be glory to the Father with the Holy Spirit forever. Amen. ^{B C}

XXI. Thus far, therefore, we have discussed with what brevity we could what the faith of the one and catholic Church is—that is, of that simple and innocent dove, which is unique to her husband, as it is written: "One is my dove" (Cant. vi, 8), and likewise concerning the numberless maidens whose number cannot be counted—and especially concerning the consubstantiality of the same Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and concerning the perfect incarnation of Christ the Lord, and the remaining chapters of the faith. Now, concerning the ordinances of the same ^D (85) it is again necessary for me in a brief compass [index: entries preserved]

to set forth the nature of these same laws, as many as are naturally kept and observed within her; some by commandment, others by the acceptance of a choice, God rejoicing in the virtue of His own teaching. And first, the foundation and, so to speak, the threshold within her is virginity, practiced and kept and glorified by many. Virginity is followed by singleness, among the majority of monks and nuns. After this comes continence, founded and established upon the same course. Then there is widowhood, conjoined with diligent and attentive caution and a chaste and sincere manner of life. Following these ranks and orders, honest marriage also holds its own place, being in great honor, especially those that are single and not repeated, which are devoted to the observance of the commandments. But if any, upon the death of his wife, or a woman upon the death of her husband, should desire to be joined a second time, it is permitted to take unto oneself a second, either man or wife, only after the death of the one or the other. But the crown and, so to speak, the mother and begetter of all these is the holy priesthood, ^B starting for the most part from virgins; but if not from virgins, then from monks; but if there are not monks sufficient for the ministry, then from those of the continent who keep to their own wives, or from those who are widowed after a single marriage. But it is not permitted in her to admit into the priesthood one who has contracted a second marriage, even if he be a widow who has lived in continence from the beginning of the order of bishop, presbyter, deacon, and subdeacon. After this priesthood, there is the order of lectors, [drawn] from all the ranks, that is, from virgins and monks and the continent and the widowed and those who are still in honest marriage. And if there be a necessity, even from those who have been joined in a second marriage after the death of their first wife; for the lector is not a priest, but as it were a scribe of the Word. And deaconesses also ^C are appointed unto service.

for the sake of decency, if need be, for the sake of the bath or the examination of bodies. And these ^A must be women who have been married but once and have remained continent, or widows from a single marriage, or those who are perpetual virgins. Following these, exorcists and interpreters of language into language follow, whether for readings or for homilies. Furthermore, there are also the *copiatae* [laborers], who shroud the bodies of the deceased, and the doorkeepers, and the entire good order.

XXII. Sacred assemblies and synaxes ^B are appointed by the apostles to be held on these days especially: Wednesday, Friday, and the Lord's Day; but on Wednesday and Friday [the assembly is] in fasting until the ninth hour, because the Lord was seized on the Wednesday that was dawning, and was crucified on the Friday; ^C and the apostles ordained that fasts should be kept on these days, the scripture being fulfilled which says, "When the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they shall fast in those days." And not that we should do this for the sake of... ^D

^A gratifying Him who suffered for our sake have fasts been instituted, but that we might acknowledge for our salvation the passion of the Lord, which He Himself undertook for us, and that these fasts might be reckoned by God for the expiation of our sins. Throughout the whole year, indeed, fasting is observed in the same holy catholic Church—I mean on the fourth and sixth days of the week until the ninth hour—except for the fifty days of Pentecost, during which neither are knees bent, nor is any fast prescribed; but instead of the fourth-day and sixth-day synaxes held toward the ninth hour, synaxes are performed as on the Lord’s day at the morning hours. Furthermore, during those fifty days of Pentecost, there is neither any fast; nor is it permitted to fast on the day of the Epiphany, when the Lord was born in the flesh, even if it should fall upon a fourth day or the day before the Sabbath. But those who are devoted to piety, with a noble and praiseworthy will, impose upon themselves fasts and vigils perpetually, ^B except on Sundays and the days of Pentecost. For this holy catholic Church considers all Sundays to be festive and joyous, and performs synaxes from the morning, and keeps no fasts; for it is inconsistent to fast on the Lord's day. The same Church is likewise accustomed to observe the Forty Days before the seven days of the holy Passover, continuing in fasts; but it never fasts on Sundays, not even within the Forty Days themselves. And all the people spend the six days of Passover in ^C *xerophagy*—that is to say, they partake only of bread with salt and water toward evening. Indeed, some even prolong their fasts for two, three, or even four days. Others pass the whole week until the cock-crowing of the following Sunday without food. They keep six all-night vigils; and likewise, they perform synaxes on these six days and during the whole of the Forty Days from the ninth hour until evening. In some places, they keep vigil only on the night following the fifth day of the week, which ends at the day before the Sabbath and the Lord’s day. In other places, the service of the economy ^D is celebrated on the fifth day at the ninth hour; and thus the congregation is dismissed, while they remain in the same *xerophagy*. In other places again, the service of the economy does not occur until the Sunday begins to dawn, when it is dismissed around the time of the cock-crowing on the day of the Resurrection, and on the great and solemn day of Passover, as has been prescribed. As for the other mysteries concerning the bath and the inner mysteries, as the tradition of the Gospel and the apostles has it, so are they performed.

^A XXIII. Now regarding the dead, their names are mentioned, and prayers, sacrifices, and rites are performed. Moreover, morning hymns and morning prayers are assiduously celebrated, as are also the evening psalms and prayers, in this holy Church. Furthermore, some of the monks live in cities, while others settle in monasteries and withdraw far from the company of people. To some, it has seemed good to wear long hair, purportedly for the sake of a holier life, based on their own judgment—not because the Gospel has commanded it, nor because the apostles accepted it; for the holy apostle Paul disapproved of this custom. ^B There are other distinct methods of life preserved in this same catholic Church: namely, that some abstain entirely from all meats, whether of four-footed animals, birds, or fish, and also from eggs and cheese. There are other various ways of life, for each will receive his reward according to his own labor. Thus, there are those who abstain from all these things; others abstain only from four-footed animals, but eat birds and the rest; others also refrain from birds, but take eggs and fish; others do not even take eggs; others abstain from fish but take cheese; others do not even take cheese. There are even those who abstain from bread, and others from tree-fruits and all boiled foods. Many sleep on the ground; others do not even wear shoes; others wear a secret hair-shirt—those who wear it well, for the sake of virtue or repentance; for it seems less seemly to go about in an overt hair-shirt, as some do. It is also unseemly, as we have said, ^C to go about with collars, as has seemed good to some, but most abstain from the baths. Some have renounced the world, devising for themselves light and untroubled crafts, so that they might not pass their lives in idleness nor eat bread that is a burden to others. For the most part, they discipline themselves in the chanting of psalms, in continuous prayers, in the reading of the holy Scriptures, and in reciting them by heart.

^D XXIV. As for the fruit of hospitality, humanity, and charity toward all the poor, it is enjoined upon all, for the whole of this holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. In place of the obsolete circumcision, this Church has received baptism in Christ; it finds its rest on the great Sabbath, in place of the lesser Sabbath. It separates itself from the communion of all heresies; it proscribes fornication, adultery, licentiousness, idolatry, murder, and every iniquity, as well as sorcery, witchcraft, astronomy, divination, and the interpretation of

^A omens, incantations, amulets, and what are called phylacteries. It condemns theaters, equestrian games, hunts, musical performances, and every kind of slander, backbiting, fighting, quarreling, blasphemy, injustice, avarice, and usury. It does not much approve of merchants, but considers them to be in the lowest rank of all. It accepts offerings from those who have wronged no one and committed no crime, but who live their lives righteously. It commands that prayers be offered to God assiduously, with all frequency, diligence, and kneeling on appointed days, by night and by day. Furthermore, in certain places, holy assemblies and synaxes are held even on the Sabbath. This, however, is not observed by all, but by the more excellent among them, so that they do not swear oaths at all, nor insult or curse anyone, according to the command of the Savior himself; and as much as it lies within them, they never lie. Most of them ^B sell their possessions and distribute them to the poor.

XXV. The form and mark of the Catholic Church is of this kind, together with the formula of faith which we have set forth above; and these are the laws and decrees observed within it. This, I say, is the form of the Church, composed from the Law, the prophets, the apostles, and the evangelists: it is like an exquisite antidote, prepared from many ointments for the salvation of those who wish to use it, by the will of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. These are the characteristics of this venerable bride of Christ. This is her dowry, ^C her testament of inheritance, and the will of her own bridegroom and heavenly Lord, Jesus Christ; through whom and with whom, to the Father, be glory, honor, and power, with the Holy Spirit, unto ages of ages. Amen.

All the brethren who are here greet your holiness most warmly, especially Anatolius, who, with great labor and abundant zeal, took it upon himself to transcribe and correct these disputations against the eighty heresies from brief notes into manuscripts; and likewise Hypatius, the venerable deacon, who transcribed that same work from the manuscripts into quaternions. Deign to pray to God for them, ^D most reverend and dearest brethren. May the peace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his grace and truth, according to his command, be with you all forever, most honorable and dearest brethren. Amen.