9. And this they think is the Saviour’s saying:--“The sower went

forth to sow and that which fell upon good and fair ground made

some 100, some 60, and some 30.”[15] And hence, says he, He said,

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” because this is not what

all understand.[16] All these Aeons [to wit] the Three and all the

boundlessly boundless ones [who come] from them, are masculo-feminine

ones.[17] Therefore having increased and become great, and all of them

being from that one first seed of their concord [Sidenote: p. 401.] and

unity, and all becoming together one Aeon, they all begat from the one

Virgin Mary, the begettal common to them all, a Saviour in the midst

of them all,[18] of equal power in everything with the seed of the

fig, save that He was begotten. But that first seed whence is born the

fig is unbegotten. Then those three Aeons having been adorned[19] with

all virtue and holiness, as these teachers think, all the conceivable,

lacking-nothing, nature of that Only-Begotten[20] Son--for He alone

was born to the boundless Aeons by a triple generation; for three

immeasureable Aeons with one mind begot Him--was adorned also. But all

these conceivable and eternal things were Light; but the Light was not

formless and idle, nor did it lack anything superadded to it: but it

contained within itself the boundless forms of the various animals here

below corresponding in number to the boundlessly boundless after the

pattern of the fig-tree. And it shone from on high into [Sidenote: p.

402.] the underlying chaos. And this [chaos], being at once illuminated

and given form from the various forms on high, received consistence[21]

and took all the supernal forms from the Third Aeon who had tripled

himself.[22] But this Third Aeon, seeing all the types[23] that were

his at once intercepted in the underlying darkness beneath, and not

being ignorant of the power of the darkness and the simplicity and

generosity[24] of the light, would not allow the shining types from on

high to be drawn far down by the darkness beneath. But he subjected

[the Firmament] to the Aeons. Then, having fixed it below, he divided

in twain the darkness and the light.[25] “And he called the light which

is above the firmament, Day, and the darkness he called Night.”[26]

Therefore, as I have said, when all the boundless forms of the Third

Aeon were intercepted in this lowest darkness, and the impress[27] of

that same Aeon was stamped upon it along with the rest, a living fire

came from the light whence the Great Ruler came into being [Sidenote:

p. 403.] of whom Moses says: “In the beginning God created Heaven and

Earth.”[28] Moses says that this fiery God[29] spoke from the bush,

that is from the darksome air, for _batos_ [bush] is the whole air

which underlies the darkness. But it is _batos_, says Moses according

to him, because all the forms of light go from on high downwards,

having the air as a passage.[30] And the word from the bush is no less

recognized by us. For a sound significant of speech is reverberating

air, without which human speech could not be recognized. And not only

does our word from the bush, that is from the air, make laws for and be

a fellow-citizen with us, but also odours and colours manifest their

powers to us through the air.

10. Then this fiery God--the fire born from the light--made the cosmos,

as Moses says, in this manner, he being substanceless,[31] [and]

darkness having the substance and being ever silent towards the eternal

types of the light which are intercepted below.[32] Therefore, until

the Saviour’s manifestation, there was a certain great wandering of

souls by reason of the God of the Light, the fiery Demiurge. For the

forms are called souls, having been cooled down[33] from the things

above and they continue in darkness to change about from body to

body under the supervision of [Sidenote: p. 404.] the Demiurge. And

that this is so, we may know from the words of Job: “And I also am a

wanderer from place to place and from house to house.”[34] The Saviour

also says: “And if you will receive it, this is the Elias who shall

come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”[35] But by the Saviour,

change of bodies has been made to cease; and faith is preached for the

putting-away of transgressions.[36] In some such way that Only-Begotten

Son beholding from on high the forms of the Aeons changing about in

the darksome bodies willed to come down for their deliverance. When

He saw that the multitude of Aeons could not bear to behold without

ceasing the Pleroma of all the Aeons, but remained as mortals dreading

corruption,[37] being held by the greatness and glory of power, He drew

Himself together as a very great flash in a very small body, or rather,

like the light of the eye drawn together under the eyelids, and goes

forth to the [Sidenote: p. 405.] heaven and the shining stars. And

there He again withdraws Himself under the eyelids at His pleasure.

Thus does the light of the eye, and although it is everywhere present

and is all things to us, it is invisible; but we see only the lids of

the eye, the white corners, a broad membrane of many folds and fibres,

a horn-like coat, and under this a berry-like pupil, both net-like and

disk-like, and if there are any other coats to the light of the eye, it

is enwrapped and lies hidden within them.

Thus, he says, the Only-Begotten Son, eternal on high, did on Himself

(a form) corresponding to each Aeon of the Three Aeons, and being in

the triacontad of Aeons, came into the world of the Decad[38] being of

such age and as little as we have said, invisible, unknown, without

glory and not believed upon. in order then, say the Docetae,[39]

that he might do on also the Outer Darkness which is the flesh, an

angel came down with Him from [Sidenote: p. 406.] on high and made

announcement[40] to Mary as it is written, and He was born from her as

it is written. And He who came from on high put on that which was born,

and did all things as it is written in the Gospels; and was baptized in

Jordan. And he was baptized, receiving the type and seal in the water

of the body born from the Virgin, in order that when the Ruler should

condemn the form which was his to death, to the Cross, that soul which

had grown up within the body should strip off that body and affix it to

the Tree. And thus (the soul) having triumphed by its means over the

Principles and Authorities would not be found naked, but would put on

that body reflected in the likeness of that flesh in the water when He

was baptized. This he says, is the Saviour’s saying: “Unless a man be

born of water and of [the] Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom

of the heavens; because that which is born of the flesh is flesh.”[41]

From the thirty Aeons, then, He did on thirty forms. Wherefore

that Eternal One was thirty years on the earth, every Aeon being

manifested in his own year. And souls are all the forms which have

been intercepted from each of [Sidenote: p. 407.] the thirty Aeons,

and each of them possesses a nature capable of understanding the Jesus

who exists according to nature which that Only-Begotten One from the

eternal places puts on. But these places are different. Therefore so

many heresies contending [with each other] about it, seek Jesus. And

He is claimed[42] by them all, but is seen differently by each from

the different places. Towards whom, he says, each [soul] is borne and

hurries, thinking that she is alone. Who is indeed her kinsman and

fellow-citizen. Whom she beholding for the first time recognizes as her

own brother and all the rest as bastards. Those then who have their

nature from the lower places cannot see the forms of the Saviour above

them. But those on high, he say, from the middle Decad and the most

excellent Ogdoad[43]--whence, say they, we are--know Jesus the Saviour

not in part but wholly, and are alone the Perfect from above, while the

others are only partly so.

[Sidenote: p. 408.] 11. I think then that this is for right-thinking

persons sufficient for the knowledge of the complicated and

inconsistent heresy of the Docetae--those who attempt to make arguments

about inaccessible and incomprehensible matter calling themselves thus.

Certain of whom do not only _seem_[44] to be mad; and we have proved

that the beam from such matter has entered their own eye, if they are

anyhow able to see clearly; and, if not, they will be unable to blind

others. Whose dogma the early sophists of Greece anticipated in many

points of sophistry, as our readers will understand. These then are the

teachings of the Docetae.[45] It seems right also that we should not

keep silence as to the [teachings] of Monoimus.

2. _Monoimus._

12. Monoimus the Arab[46] was a long way off[47] the glory of the

great-voiced poet; for he thinks that some such man as Oceanus existed,

of whom the poet speaks somehow like this:--

[Sidenote: p. 409.] Oceanus, the birth of gods and birth of man.[48]

Turning this into other words, he says that a Man is the All which is

the source of the universals, [being] unbegotten, incorruptible, and

eternal; and that there is a Son of the aforesaid Man, who is begotten,

and capable of suffering, being born in a timeless, unwilled, and

previously undefined way. For such, says he, is the Power of that Man.

And when it was so, the son of the Power came into being more quickly

than reasoning or counsel. And this is, he says, the saying in the

Scriptures: “He was and came into being,”[49] which is: Man was and

his son came into being, as if one were to say: Fire was and Light

came into being in a timeless, unwilled, and previously undefined

way, while being at the same time fire. But this Man is a single

monad, uncompounded [and] undifferentiated, [and yet] compounded [and]

differentiated, loving and at peace with all things, [and yet] fighting

with and at war with all things before him,[50] unlike and like, as

it were a certain musical [Sidenote: p. 410.] harmony which contains

whatever one may say or leave unsaid, showing all things and giving

birth to all things. “This is Father, this is Mother, Two Immortal

names.”[51] But for the sake of an instance, conceive, he says, as the

greatest image of the Perfect Man, the one tittle which is one tittle

uncompounded, simple, a pure monad having no composition whatever from

anything, [yet] compounded of many forms, of many parts. That undivided

One, he says, is the many-faced and myriad-eyed and myriad-named one

tittle of the Iota,[52] which is an image of that Perfect and Invisible

Man.

13. The one tittle, he says, is then the monad and a decad. For by this

power of the one tittle of the Iota [are produced] also [the] dyad

and triad and tetrad and pentad and hexad and heptad and ogdoad and

ennead up to the ten. For these are the diversified numbers dwelling

within that simple and uncompounded tittle of the [Sidenote: p. 411.]

Iota. And this is the saying:--“Because it pleased the whole Pleroma to

dwell within the Son of Man bodily.”[53] For such compounds of numbers

from the simple and uncompounded one tittle of the Iota become he says

bodily hypostases. Therefore, he says, the Son of Man was born from

the Perfect Man, whom none know. But, he says, every creature who is

ignorant of the Son, represents Him as the offspring of a woman. Of

which Son some shadowy rays come very close to this world and secure

and control change [of bodies and] birth. And the beauty of that Son

of Man is till now unrevealed to all men who are misled as to the

offspring of a woman. Nothing then of the things here come into being,

he says, from that Man, nor will they ever do so; but all things that

have come into being have done so not from the whole, but from some

part of the Son of Man. For, says he, the Son of Man is one Iota, one

tittle flowing from on high, full, and filling full all things, and

containing within itself whatever the Man, Father of the Son of Man

possesses.[54]

[Sidenote: p. 412.] 14. Now the cosmos, as Moses says, came into being

in six days, that is, in six powers which are in the one tittle of the

Iota.[55] [But] the seventh, a rest and a Sabbath, came into being

from the Hebdomad which is over Earth and Water and Fire and Air, out

of which the cosmos came into being by the one tittle. For the cubes

and the octahedrons, and [the] pyramids and all the figures like these

of which Fire, Air, Water, [and earth] consist, came into being from

the numbers which are comprised in that single tittle of the Iota,

which is a Perfect Son of a Perfect Man. When then, says he, Moses

says that (the) rod was turned about in different ways for the plagues

on Egypt,[56] these [plagues], he says, are symbols allegorizing the

Creation. [For] he does not use the rod which is one tittle of the

Iota, duplex and varied, as a figure[57] for more plagues than ten.

This Creation of the world, he says, is the ten plagues.[58] For

[Sidenote: p. 413.] everything struck produces and bears fruit as, for

instance, vine-shoots. Man, he says, has burst forth from Man, and was

severed from him by a certain blow,[59] so that he might be born and

might declare the Law which Moses laid down after having received it

from God. The Law is according to that one tittle, the Decalogue which

allegorizes the divine mysteries of the words. For, says he, the Ten

Plagues and the Decalogue[60] are the whole knowledge of the universals

which none has known who has been misled concerning the offspring of

the woman. And if you say that the whole Law is a Pentateuch, it is

[still] from the pentad which is comprised in the one tittle. But

the whole Law is for those who have not thoroughly crippled their

understanding [a] mystery, a new feast not yet grown old, legal and

eternal, a Passover of the Lord God kept unto our generations by those

who can see [and] beginning on the 14th [day] which is the beginning,

he says, of the decad from which they reckon.[61] For the monad up

to 14 is the sum total of the one tittle of the perfect number. And

[Sidenote: p. 414.] one + two + three + four become ten, wherefore

it is the one tittle. But from fourteen up to twenty-one, a hebdomad

subsists in the one tittle, the unleavened creature of the world in

all these.[62] For what, says he, should the one tittle want of any

substance like leaven for the Passover of the Lord, the eternal feast

which is given for generations. For the whole cosmos and all the causes

of creation are the Passover Feast of the Lord. For God rejoices in the

transmutation of creation which is wrought under the strokes of the one

tittle. The which is the rod of Moses given by God, which strikes the

Egyptians and changes the bodies, as did the hand of Moses, from water

into blood. And the other [plagues] are in nearly the same way [such as

that of the] locusts, wherefore change of the elements he calls flesh

into grass: “for all flesh is grass,”[63] he says. [Sidenote: p. 415.]

But none the less do these men in some such way receive the whole Law.

Following, perhaps, as it seems to me, the Greeks who say that there

are Substance and Quality and Quantity and Relation and Position and

Action and Possession and Passion.[64]

15. So for example Monoimus himself says distinctly in his letter to

Theophrastus:[65] “Leave aside enquiry concerning God and Creation

and the like, and enquire about Him from thyself, and learn who it is

who simply makes His own all that is within thee, saying ‘My God, my

mind, my understanding, my soul, my body.’ Learn also what are grief

and rejoicing, and love and hate, and undesired watching and sleep,

and undesired anger and love. And if,” says he, “thou dost carefully

seek out this, thou wilt find Him in thyself [as both] one and many

things after the likeness of that one tittle, he finding the outlet for

Himself.”[66] This then is what these [men] say, which we are under

no necessity to compare with what has been before excogitated by the

Greeks. Since it is plain from [Sidenote: p. 416.] their statements

that they have their origin from the geometrical and arithmetical art,

which the disciples of Pythagoras set forth more excellently. As the

reader may learn in the passages where we have before explained all the

wisdom of the Greeks.

But since we have sufficiently refuted Monoimus,[67] let us see what

others have elaborated who wish thereby to raise for themselves an idle

name.

3. _Tatian._

16. But Tatian, although himself a disciple of Justin Martyr, was not

of like mind with his master, but attempted something new. He says that

there were certain Aeons [about whom] he fables in the like way with

the Valentinians. But in the same way as Marcion he says that marriage

is destruction. And he asserts that Adam will not be saved, through his

becoming a leader of rebellion. And thus Tatian.[68]

4. _Hermogenes._

[Sidenote: p. 417.] 17. A certain Hermogenes[69] thinking also to

devise something new, says that God created all things from co-existent

and ungenerated matter. For he held it impossible that God should

create the things that are from those that are not. And that God is

ever Lord and Maker, but Matter ever a slave and [in process of]

becoming. But yet not all [matter], for, as it was being borne about

violently and disorderly, He set it in order in this manner. Beholding

it boiling like a pot on the fire, He divided it into parts; and that

part which he took from the All He reclaimed, and the other He allowed

to be borne about disorderly. And the reclaimed part, he says, is the

cosmos; and that the other remains waste and is called acosmic[70]

matter. He says that this is the essence[71] of all things, as if he

were introducing [Sidenote: p. 418.] a new doctrine to his disciples;

but he does not consider that this fable happens to be Socratic, and is

better worked out by Plato than by Hermogenes. But he confesses that

Christ is the Son of the God who created all things, and that He was

begotten of the Virgin and of Spirit according to the [common] voice

of the Gospels. Who after He had suffered rose again in a body and

appeared to His disciples, and ascending to the heavens, left His body

in the Sun, but Himself went on into the presence of the Father. And

in witness of this,[72] he thinks he is corroborated by the word which

David the Psalmist spake: “In the Sun he set up his tent, and like a

bridegroom coming forth from his bridal chamber, he will rejoice like a

giant to run his course.”[73] This then is what Hermogenes attempts.[74]

5. _About the Quartodecimans._[75]

18. But certain others, lovers of strife by nature, unskilled

[Sidenote: p. 419.] in knowledge, very quarrelsome by habit, maintain

that the Passover ought to be kept on the 14th day of the First Month,

according to the ordinance of the Law, on whatever day [of the week]

it may fall. They have regard [merely] to that which has been written

in the Law: [that is] that he will be accursed who does not keep it as

it is laid down. They pay no attention to the fact that it was enacted

for the Jews, who were to kill the True Passover. Which [Law] has

spread to the Gentiles and is understood by faith, not kept strictly

in the letter. They pay attention to this one commandment, but do not

regard the saying of the Apostle: “For I bear witness to every man who

is circumcised that he is a debtor to do the whole Law.”[76] In other

matters they agree concerning all things handed down to the Church by

the Apostles.

6. _Phrygians._[77]

19. But there are others also very heretical by nature, Phrygians by

race, who have fallen away after being deceived [Sidenote: p. 420.]

by certain women, Priscilla and Maximilla by name, whom they imagine

to be prophetesses. Into these they say the Spirit Paraclete has

entered and they likewise glorify [even] above these one Montanus as a

prophet. Having endless books of their own, they are not judging what

is said in them according to reason, nor giving heed to those capable

of judgment; but, carried along heedlessly by the faith that they have

in them, imagine that they learn more through them than from the Law,

the Prophets, and the Gospels. They glorify these wenches[78] above

Apostles and every grace,[79] since some of them dare to say that there

are those among them who have become greater than Christ. They confess

that God is the Father of the universals, and the creator of all things

in the same way as [does] the Church, and also [confess] whatever the

Gospel testifies concerning Christ. But they innovate in the matter

of feasts and fasts and the eating of vegetable food and roots,[80]

thinking that they have learned this from the women. And some of them,

agreeing with the heresy of the Noetians, say that the Father is the

Son, and that He by being born, underwent [Sidenote: p. 421.] both

suffering and death. Concerning these, I shall later explain more

minutely; for to many their heresy has become the starting-point of

evils. We judge then that what has been said is sufficient, we having

proved briefly to all that their many absurd books and attempts are

feeble and not worth consideration, whereto those of sound mind need

pay no heed.[81]

7. _Encratites._

20. But others calling themselves Encratites[82] confess the [facts]

about God and Christ in like manner with the Church. But with regard

to the way of life, they having become puffed up,[83] have reverted

[to earlier opinions]. They think themselves glorified through food

by abstaining from things which have had life, drinking water, and

forbidding marriage, and in the other things of life are austerely

careful. Such as they are judged to be rather Cynics than Christians,

seeing that they pay no heed to what was said to them aforetime

through the Apostle Paul, who prophesied the innovations that would

come by the folly of some, saying [Sidenote: p. 422.] thus:--“The

Spirit says expressly: In the last times some will fall away from

the wholesome teaching,[84] giving heed to deceiving spirits and the

teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies,

branded in their own consciences as with a hot iron, forbidding to

marry and (commanding) to abstain from meats, which God created to be

received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected

which is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the

words of God and prayer....”[85] This saying then of the Blessed Paul

is sufficient for the refutation of those who live thus and honour

themselves as righteous men, and to show that this also is a heresy.[86]

But although some other heresies are named [to wit those] of the

Cainites, Ophites or Noachites[87] and others such as they, I do not

think it necessary to set forth their sayings and doings, lest they

should thereby think themselves somebody or worthy of argument.[88] But

since what [Sidenote: p. 423.] has been said about them seems to be

sufficient, we will come to the source of all evils, the heresy of the

Noetians, and having disclosed its root and proved plainly the poison

lurking within it, we will hold back from such error those who have

been swept away by a violent spirit as by a torrent.

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: Who these Docetae are is a puzzle. Although Cruice writes

the name Δοκήται, Salmon (_D.C.B._, s.h.n.) gives it as Δοκιταί which

is, he says, the spelling adopted by both Hippolytus and Clement of

Alexandria. Their tenets as here described have nothing to do with

the opinion that the body of Jesus existed in appearance only which

we have seen current among the Simonians, Basilidians, Marcionites,

and the followers of Saturninus and perhaps of Valentinus. Nor does

it seem connected with any proper name such as the fictitious one of

Ebion which was invented to explain to Greek ears the appellation

of the Ebionites. It may be thought, perhaps, that it was a kind of

nickname derived from this chapter’s opening metaphor of the δοκός

or “beam,” but this is too far-fetched to be insisted upon. Clement

is the only early author who mentions them, and then does so in a

fashion (_e. g._ _Strom._, VII, 17) which makes it fairly clear that

it is those who held Docetic opinions generally so called, and not

any special sect to which he is referring. He also says that Julius

Cassianus, a Valentinian, was the founder of Docetism of the Simonian

kind and St. Jerome (_adv. Lucifer_, 23) takes this further back by the

statement that the opinion in question was current in the life-time

of the Apostles. Nor is there anything novel or peculiar in the

doctrines set forth in our text of the Docitae or Docetae. The image

of the fig-tree with which this chapter opens is but an amplification

of the “Indivisible Point” put forward earlier in our text, and there

is nothing here stated which is inconsistent with the teachings of

Valentinus. This will be further discussed when we come to consider the

source of this chapter.]

[Footnote 2: ἐκ φυσικῆς φιλοσοφίας. That is, drawn from the study of

nature and natural objects such as trees and the anatomy of the eye,

for which see _infra_.]

[Footnote 3: No further reference is made to the Indian Gymnosophists

or “Brachmans,” and this sentence has probably slipped in from some

other part of the roll.]

[Footnote 4: δοκός, the “beam” of the Gospels (Cf. Matt. vii. 3, 4;

Luke vi. 41, 42). Hippolytus who here resumes his habit of punning

tries to connect it with δοκεῖν, “to seem.”]

[Footnote 5: Θεὸν εἶναι τὸν πρῶτον. That this construction is the right

one, see p. 400 Cr. and the summary in Book X, p. 496 Cr.]

[Footnote 6: The rhetorical form of this sentence should be noted.]

[Footnote 7: Cf. Matt. xii. 19, 20; Mark xi. 13-21; Luke xii. 7.]

[Footnote 8: As Salmon (_ubi cit._) points out, in the Valentinian

system, the male heads of the first three series of Aeons, _i. e._

Nous, Logos and Anthropos occupy a position corresponding to these

three first “principles” or ἀρχαί. The fact that their spouses or

syzygies are not here mentioned is accounted for by the statement

(on p. 101 _infra_) that they are all androgyne, or as is here said

“lacking nothing for generation,” _i. e._ capable of production without

assistance.]

[Footnote 9: Cf. Deut. v. 22. These words have already been quoted

in the chapter on the Sethians (I, p. 165 _supra_). Although here

attributed to Moses, they can hardly be taken from Deuteronomy, which

describes Moses’ death.]

[Footnote 10: Like the Bythos or Unknowable Father of Valentinus.]

[Footnote 11: Lit., “that the perfect being numbered is ten.”]

[Footnote 12: Lit., “all the aeons were thirty.”]

[Footnote 13: The words μετρήσας, κατέλαβεν, νοήσας here all seem to be

equivalent to “multiplied himself,” and to have been used as a play on

the double sense of the other words.]

[Footnote 14: This may possibly be an allusion to the Valentinian Horus

surrounding and guarding the Pleroma.]

[Footnote 15: Matt. xiii. 3, uses δίδωμι, “yield,” for ἐποίει as here.

Cf. Mark iv. 3, 8, ἔφερεν, “bore.” Luke viii. 3-5 stops short at a

“hundred-fold.”]

[Footnote 16: οὐκ ἔστι πάντων ἀκούσματα, “not the hearing of all.”]

[Footnote 17: See n. on previous page.]

[Footnote 18: τὸν μέσον αὐτῶν γέννημα κοινὸν ... τῶν ἐν μεσότητι Σωτῆρα

πάντων. Cruice, whom Macmahon follows, would translate “a common fruit,

a mediator ... the Saviour of all those who are in meditation”; but I

cannot make the sense out of the Greek. Miller, by transferring the

word Μαρίας to a place after μεσότητι, would make it read “through the

interposition of Mary.”]

[Footnote 19: κεκοσμημένων, perhaps “set in order or arranged.”]

[Footnote 20: Μονογενής. One of the very few instances in Gnostic

literature, where the word can be thus translated rather than as “one

of a kind,” or Unique. The explanation in parenthesis shows that it is

so intended here, but is probably of a late date.]

[Footnote 21: πῆξιν, “fixedness.”]

[Footnote 22: So the part of the _Pistis Sophia_ which is most plainly

Valentinian, has constant allusions to τριδυναμεις or triple powers.]

[Footnote 23: χαρακτῆρας, “impresses” or “marks.”]

[Footnote 24: ἄφθονον, “devoid of envy.”]

[Footnote 25: Στερεώσας οὖν κάτωθεν, καὶ διεχώρισεν ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ

σκότους καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτός. _Firmamentum igitur quum ab imo

confirmasset, divisit per medium tenebras et per medium lucem._

Macmahon follows Cruice, but ignores the repeated ἀνὰ μέσον.]

[Footnote 26: Cf. Gen. 1. 4-7.]

[Footnote 27: ἐκτύπωμα.]

[Footnote 28: Gen. i. 1.]

[Footnote 29: See _supra_, Vol. I. p. 128, for this fiery God, there

called the Demiurge Jaldabaoth.]

[Footnote 30: A pun on βάτος, “bush,” and βατός, “passable.”]

[Footnote 31: ἀνυπόστατος, “not hypostatized.” Cruice has “_non

subsistens_.”]

[Footnote 32: This seems the only construction, unless we are to

consider that it is the Demiurge who _wilfully_ ill-treats the souls.]

[Footnote 33: ἀποψυχεῖσαι. A common pun between ψυχή, “soul,” and

ψῦχος, “cold.”]

[Footnote 34: Not in the Canon. As Cruice points out, it is from some

apocryphal book which puts it into the mouth of Job’s wife and adds

it to Job ii. 9. It is also met with in St. Chrysostom’s homily, _de

Statuis_.]

[Footnote 35: Matt. xi. 14, 15.]

[Footnote 36: This doctrine of transmigration cannot be shown to have

formed part of Valentinus’ own teaching. It appears, however, among

some of his followers. Cf. _Forerunners_, II, cc. 9, 10.]

[Footnote 37: A pun on φθαρτοί, “mortals,” and φθορά, “corruption.”]

[Footnote 38: εἰς τὸν (δέκατον) κόσμον. Cruice would omit the δέκατον.

It clearly, however, means the world of the Decad, Jesus having come

down from the “most excellent Ogdoad.”]

[Footnote 39: Evidently Hippolytus has not here any book or writing of

a particular author before him, but is giving the opinion of the sect

generally.]

[Footnote 40: Εὐηγγελίσατο. Cf. the ἐν τοῖς Εὐαγγελίοις which follows.]

[Footnote 41: John iii. 5, 6. The Greek text omits ὅτι, “because.”]

[Footnote 42: οἰκεῖος, “peculiar to.”]

[Footnote 43: This is markedly Valentinian. The Ogdoad is of course the

Highest Heaven, the Decad the middle one. See n. on p. 31 _supra_.]

[Footnote 44: He here puns again on δοκεῖν, “to seem,” and δοκός,

“beam.”]

[Footnote 45: The source of this chapter can hardly have been a written

book or MS. The style is distinctly that of Hippolytus himself; the

passion for plays on words which he has before exhibited, but has kept

under restraint while quoting from serious writers like Basilides

and Valentinus, here resumes its sway; and he adds to it a fancy for

putting several nominatives in apposition without the τουτέστι which he

has heretofore generally employed. This, and the nature of the rhetoric

all go to show that he is here quoting not from a written, but from a

spoken discourse. The author of this is of course unknown to us; and

Hippolytus, who may very likely have forgotten his name, gives us no

clue to his identity; but it is fairly clear that he must have been a

follower of Valentinus. The Three Aeons who went forth from the first

ἀρχὴ τῶν ὅλων correspond to the Nous, Logos and Anthropos who rule

over the Valentinian Ogdoad, Decad and Dodecad, and the care taken

to bring the number of Aeons up to thirty practically settles this,

while the existence of Horos is hinted at, and that of the Sophia is

barred only by the attribution of both sexes to all the Aeons. Perhaps,

however, the most striking proof of Valentinianism is the myth of all

the Aeons coalescing to produce the Jesus who brings salvation, a myth

which is not to be found in any other system. If the theory be accepted

that Hippolytus’ source for the chapter was a Valentinian sermon, the

name of Julius Cassianus as its author deserves consideration. He is

described by Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._, III, 13, sqq.) as the

founder of Docetism, and as connected with the school of Valentinus,

while certain Logia quoted by him appear also in the Valentinian

_Excerpta Theodoti_. For other particulars about him see _D.C.B._,

s.nn. “Cassianus” and “Docetism.”]

[Footnote 46: This “Monoimus Arabs” is known to no other heresiologist

save Theodoret who here as elsewhere probably copied from Hippolytus.

Salmon (_D.C.B._, s.n. “Monoimus”) suggests that the name may cover

the Jewish appellation of Menahem, which is not unlikely. His system

as here disclosed has this in common with that of the Ophites or

Naassenes of Book V that both begin with a Divine Being called “Man”

for no other assigned reason than that his manifestation here below

is known as the Son of Man. He is not, however, here called Adamas as

with the Naassenes, and the remark about his being at once father and

mother is not necessarily connected with the Naassene hymn quoted on

p. 140 Cr. For the rest, there is, _pace_ Salmon, nothing distinctly

Christian about Monoimus’ doctrine, and although the passage from

Colossians about the Pleroma dwelling in the Son of Man is here again

introduced, the context makes it possible that this is the comment of

Hippolytus rather than a direct quotation. On the other hand, Monoimus

several times speaks slightingly of those who believe that the Son

of Man was born of a woman, and he shows a reverence for the Law and

the Passover which a Christian of the second century would hardly

have exhibited. His opinions seem in fact to be more pantheistic than

Christian or Judaic, although as Macmahon truly remarks, his similes

about the Creation are not far removed from those of Philo. His remarks

about numbers have possibly been corrupted in the copy, and are

unintelligible as they stand; but it is not unlikely that they cover

some early Cabalistic notions and that his “Perfect Man” may be the

Adam Cadmon of the Cabala.]

[Footnote 47: γεγένηται μακράν, _longe abest_, Cruice, “was far

removed,” Macm.]

[Footnote 48: This line does not occur in our editions of Homer. It is

apparently a conflation of the statement in _Il._, XIV 201 that Oceanus

is the “Father of the Gods” and that in l. 246 that he is the “Father

of them all.”]

[Footnote 49: Ἦν καὶ ἐγένετο. This has been thought a quotation from

St. John’s opening chapter, but the parallel is not very close. As

Salmon (_art. cit._) points out, it signifies Being and Becoming.]

[Footnote 50: πρὸς ἑαυτήν.]

[Footnote 51: The Naassene hymn in Vol. I, p. 120 _supra_ runs: “_From_

thee comes father and _through_ thee mother, two immortal names,

parents of Aeons, O thou citizen of heaven, man of mighty name!” It

is quite possible that Hippolytus, remembering this, is merely here

repeating part of it as comment and without attributing the quotation

to Monoimus.]

[Footnote 52: Cruice points out that this κεραία or tittle is the acute

accent placed over a letter of the Greek alphabet which converts it

into a numeral. Thus, ι = Iota, ί = 10.]

[Footnote 53: Cf. Col. i. 19, “For it pleased (the Father) that in Him

the whole fulness should dwell.”]

[Footnote 54: Salmon (_art. cit._) points out that this is “at first

sight mere pantheism.” It is difficult to put any other construction

upon it.]

[Footnote 55: These six powers have been compared to Simon Magus’ six

“Roots,” which Simon also connects with the six Days of Creation. Cf.

p. 252 Cr.]

[Footnote 56: Exod. vii. 20; viii. 16.]

[Footnote 57: σχηματίζει. Macm. translates “shape.”]

[Footnote 58: δεκάπληγος. Qy. δεκάπληγμος? The word is apparently

dragged in for the sake of making a pun with πληγή, “a stroke.” Πληγμός

is a medical term for a seizure or apoplectic stroke, and probably has

the same root.]

[Footnote 59: πληγή.]

[Footnote 60: δεκάπληγος καὶ δεκάλογος.]

[Footnote 61: Salmon (_art. cit._) thinks this may have some connection

with the Quartodeciman heresy mentioned later in the book.]

[Footnote 62: So Cruice, _in omnibus istis creaturam sine fermento

mundi_, but I see no meaning in the words.]

[Footnote 63: Isa. xl. 6.]

[Footnote 64: These are the “accidents” of substance which Hippolytus

has attributed in Book VI to Pythagoras, and in Book VII to Aristotle.

See pp. 21 and 64 _supra_. According to Book VI (_ubi cit._) the [Neo-]

Pythagoreans also used the image of the tittle.]

[Footnote 65: Probably some follower of Monoimus, but not otherwise

known.]

[Footnote 66: So the Codex. Duncker and Cruice would both read σεαυτῷ,

“for thyself.”]

[Footnote 67: Of the source of this chapter little can be said.

Both the statements in the earlier part of the text and the letter

to Theophrastus bear internal marks of having been taken from real

documents. They contain also some peculiarities of diction and

construction, which would be quite consistent with their author being

an Oriental imperfectly acquainted with Greek.]

[Footnote 68: This short notice of Tatian is condensed from the almost

equally short notice of Irenæus (I, xxviii.), who seems to connect

Tatian with the sect of Encratites. Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, I, xvi.),

while mentioning him as a pupil of Justin, does not speak of him as

a heretic. Epiphanius (_Haer._, XLVI) follows Irenæus, and Theodoret

(_Haer. Fab._, I, xx.), Hippolytus.]

[Footnote 69: Of this Hermogenes we know already from Tertullian’s

tract against him to be found in the second volume of Oehler’s edition

of Tertullian’s works. The date of this tract is said on good authority

to be 206 or 207 A.D., and as it speaks of Hermogenes as then living,

gives us his approximate date also. It is further said that he was a

painter, probably of mythological subjects, that he lived at Carthage,

and that he was several times married. Clement of Alexandria also

mentions him, and it is suggested that both Tertullian and Clement

drew from a tract against him said by Eusebius to have been written by

Theophilus of Antioch. The heretical tenets with which he is charged

are his contention that God could not have created the world from

nothing and that Matter must therefore be co-existent with Him, that

Christ on His Ascension left His body in the Sun, and that Adam was not

saved. The first of these Tertullian would derive from Stoic teaching,

while he does not touch on the second, which is, however, recorded by

Clement, nor on the third, which Irenæus (I, xxviii) attributes to the

Encratites. It is probable, however, that all three may be derived from

the Western Asian tradition, which later gave birth to Manichæism, of

which therefore Hermogenes’ heresy may prove to have been a forecast.]

[Footnote 70: ὕλην ἄκοσμον, “unordered matter.”]

[Footnote 71: οὐσία, “substantia,” Cr. and Macm.]

[Footnote 72: Μαρτυρίᾳ δὲ χρῆται.]

[Footnote 73: Ps. xix. 4, 5, “set up his tabernacle in the Sun,” A. V.]

[Footnote 74: The probable source of this chapter has been dealt with

in the note on previous page.]

[Footnote 75: This is, I think, the first mention of the Quartodecimans

as heretics. Eusebius, who thinks that the schism on the point began

in the reign of Commodus, treats them with great tenderness, and says

(_Hist. Eccl._, cc. xxiii. and xxiv.), that “the Churches of all

Asia” held their opinions, and that Irenæus himself pleaded their

cause before Pope Victor. Epiphanius (_Haer._, XXX) says that they

derived their origin from a mixture of the Phrygian and Quintillian or

Priscillianist sects, probably confusing them with the Montanists.]

[Footnote 76: Gal. v. 3.]

[Footnote 77: This heresy of the “Phrygians” is, of course, that

generally called the Montanist, which seems to have broken out

about the year 180. For some time it was not violently opposed by

the orthodox, and Tertullian himself became a convert to it and

probably died in its confession. Later it came to be looked upon as

an enemy only one degree less prejudicial to the Catholic Church than

Gnosticism, and therefore one to be stamped out by excommunication in

pre-Constantinian times, and by persecution afterwards. Its tenets are

sufficiently summarised in our text for a general understanding of

them and their connection with later forms of Patripassianism; but any

one wishing to go further into the subject is recommended to read Dr.

Salmon’s able article on “Montanus” in _D.C.B._, which will give him

all that is really known as to the sect and its tendencies. Its centre

seems to have been always Asia Minor.]

[Footnote 78: ταῦτα τὰ γύναια. The phrase is Aristotelian. Cf. same

word later on same page.]

[Footnote 79: χάρισμα.]

[Footnote 80: ξηροφαγίας καὶ ράφανοφαγίας. First phrase, “dry food.”]

[Footnote 81: There is no reason to believe that in what he says here

Hippolytus is drawing from any written document. As the Montanists on

being condemned by the rest of the Church appealed first to the Gallic

Churches in which Hippolytus’ master Irenæus was a leading spirit, and

later to the Church of Rome, all that he says about them must have been

familiar to his hearers without referring to any earlier writers.]

[Footnote 82: Ἐγκρατῖται, from ἐγκρατεῖς, “the continent ones.”

Many Gnostic sects, _e. g._ those of Saturninus and Marcion seem

to have been called Encratites, the reason given by themselves for

their abstinence being the malignity of matter. But it is plain from

Hippolytus’ statement as to the orthodoxy in other matters of those he

describes, that these were not Gnostics, but Catholics who practised

asceticism inordinately. This is doubtless his reason for quoting St.

Paul against them and for ignoring Irenæus’ statement that Tatian

was their founder, that they taught a system of Aeons and denied the

salvation of Adam. Bearing in mind that he thought the Docetae to be an

independent sect, it seems probable that in this Book he intended to

turn his back upon the Gnostics and to describe only the other sects

with a closer resemblance to orthodox Judaism and Christianity. The

whole work would thus form a roughly graduated scale extending from

the undisguised heathenism of the Ophites to the purely theological

errors of Callistus, the description of which seems designed to form

the climax of the book. The fact that it was probably, as said in the

Introduction, begun, laid aside, and then taken up again and finished,

is sufficient to account for discrepancies like that involved in the

concluding sentence of this Book.]

[Footnote 83: πεφυσιωμένοι. Cf. the Φυσιώσεις of 2 Cor. xii. 20.]

[Footnote 84: τῆς ὑγαινούσης διδασκαλίας. The N.T. substitutes πιστέως,

“faith,” for “teaching,” and omits the adjective.]

[Footnote 85: 1 Tim. iv. 1-5, _verbatim_ save as in last note.]

[Footnote 86: It follows from this that Hippolytus is indebted to no

other writer than himself for the facts in this chapter.]

[Footnote 87: Νοαχιτῶν. The Codex has Νοχαϊτων.]

[Footnote 88: The Cainites are described by Irenæus (I, xxxi) as

anterior to Valentinus. The Noachites are mentioned by no other writer.

It is difficult to account for the remarks of Hippolytus about the

Ophites in this passage in view of the fact that the greater part of

Book V has been devoted to the doctrines of the “Naassenes”--a word

which he evidently recognized as identical with “Ophites.” Unless we

are to believe that Ὀφιτῶν is here a copyist’s error for the name of

some other sect, we are almost compelled to accept the theory given

in the Introduction, _i. e._ that the materials for Book V only came

into Hippolytus’ hands after the rest of the book was written, and that

their heresy was then suddenly pitchforked into the place in which we

find it without due consideration of its accord with passages like the

present. In that case the “seven Books before this” on p. 397 Cr. must

originally have read “five,” unless we are to suppose that their place

was occupied by the description of the Jewish sects later transferred

to Book IX.]

[Sidenote: p. 424.] BOOK IX

NOETUS, CALLISTUS, AND OTHERS

1. These are the contents of the 9th (Book) of the Refutation of All

Heresies.

2. What is the blasphemous folly of Noetus and that he gave heed to the

doctrines of Heraclitus the Obscure and not to those of Christ.

3. And how Callistus having mingled the heresy of Cleomenes, Noetus’

disciple, with that of Theodotus, set up another and newer heresy, and

what was his life.

4. What was the fresh invasion[1] of the stranger spirit Elchesai and

that he covers his own transgressions by appearing to keep to the Law,

while he in fact devotes himself to Gnostic opinions [entirely], or to

astrological and magical ones in addition.

5. What are the customs of the Jews and how many their differences.

* * * * *

6. A long fight has now been fought by us concerning all [early]

heresies, and we have left nothing unrefuted. There still remains the

greatest fight of all, [to wit] to [Sidenote: p. 425.] thoroughly

describe and refute the heresies risen up in our own day, by means

whereof certain unlearned and daring men have attempted to scatter the

Church to the winds, [thereby] casting the greatest confusion among

all the faithful throughout the world. For it seems fit that we should

attack the opinion which was the first cause of [these] evils and

expose its roots, so that its offshoots, being thoroughly known to all,

may be contemned.

1. _About Noetus._

7. There was a certain man, Noetus[2] by name, by birth a Smyrnæan.

He introduced a heresy from the opinions of Heraclitus. Of which

[Noetus], a certain man named Epigonus becomes the minister and pupil,

and on his arrival at Rome sowed broadcast the godless doctrine.

Whose teaching Cleomenes, by life and manners alien to the Church,

confirmed, when he had become his disciple.[3] [Sidenote: p. 426.] At

that time Zephyrinus, an ignorant and greedy man, thought that he ruled

the Church, and, persuaded by the gain offered, gave leave to those

coming to him to learn of Cleomenes.[4] And himself also being in time

beguiled, ran into the same errors, his fellow-counsellor and comrade

in this wickedness being Callistus, whose life and the heresy invented

by him, I shall shortly set forth. The school of these successive

[teachers] continued to grow stronger and increased through the help

given to it by Zephyrinus and Callistus. Yet we never yielded, but

many times withstood them to the face, refuted them, and compelled

them perforce to confess the truth. They being ashamed for a season,

and being brought by the truth to confession, before long returned to

wallowing in the same mire.[5]

8. But since we have pointed out the genealogical succession of these

[men], it appears left to us to set forth their evil mode of teaching

their doctrines. The opinions of Heraclitus the Obscure being first

explained, we shall then make evident the parts of [their doctrines]

which are [Sidenote: p. 427.] Heraclitan, but which, perhaps, the

present chiefs of the heresy do not know to be those of the Obscure,

but think to be those of Christ. Should they meet with these [words],

they might, thus being put to shame, cease from their godless

blasphemy.[6] And although the teachings of Heraclitus have been

before expounded by us in this [our] _Philosophumena_,[7] yet it seems

expedient to repeat them now, so that by their closer refutation, those

who think they are disciples of Christ may be plainly taught that they

are not His, but are those of the Obscure.

9. Now Heraclitus says that the All is (one),[8] divided [and]

undivided, originated [and] unoriginated, mortal [and] immortal, reason

[and] eternity,[9] Father [and] Son, a just God. “It is wise,” says

Heraclitus, “that those who listen, not to me, but to reason,[10]

should acknowledge all things to be one.” And because all men do not

know nor acknowledge this, he reproves them somehow thus: “They do

not understand how anything that is diverse can agree [Sidenote: p.

428.] with itself. It is an inverse harmony, like that of a bow and a

lyre.” But that the All is ever Reason[11] and exists by it, he thus

declares:--“That this Reason ever exists, men do not understand either

before they hear it or when they hear it first. For while all things

come to pass according to this Reason, they seem to be ignorant of

it, although they seem to have attempted endlessly[12] by words and

deeds such a description as I now give by analysis of their nature

and by saying how things are.” But that the All is a Son and for ever

an eternal being of the universals, he says thus: “A boy playing at

tables[13] is Eternity; the kingdom is a boy’s.” That he is father

of all things that have been generated, begotten and unbegotten, the

creation and [its] Demiurge, we have his saying: “War is father of

[Sidenote: p. 429.] all, but king of all; and it displays some men

as gods, others as men; some it makes slaves, others free. Because

[this][14] is a harmony like that of bow and lyre.” But that the

unapparent, the unseen and unknown by men is [better],[15] he says in

these words: “An unapparent harmony is better than an apparent.” He

thus commends and admires that which is unknown to him before that

which is known, and the invisible before that which can be [seen]. And

that it is to be seen of men and is not undiscoverable, he says in

these words: “Whatever sight, hearing [and] learning can receive,[16]

I honour before all,” he says, that is, [I prefer][17] the things seen

to those unseen. From such phrases of his it is easy to comprehend his

argument. He says that men are deceived in regard to the knowledge of

things apparent like Homer, who was the wisest of all the Greeks. For

children when killing lice, tricked him by [Sidenote: p. 430.] saying:

“What we see and clutch we leave behind; but what we neither see nor

clutch, we take away with us.”

10. Thus Heraclitus supposes the apparent to have an equal lot and

honour with the unapparent, as if the apparent and the unapparent were

admittedly one. “For,” he says, “an unapparent harmony is better than

an apparent,” and “Whatever sight, hearing [and] learning [these are

the organs] can receive, this, he says, I honour above all,” thus not

honouring by preference the unapparent. And so Heraclitus says that

neither darkness nor light, nor good nor evil are different,[18] but

are one and the same. Therefore he blames Hesiod that he did not know

Day and Night, for Day and Night, he says, are one, speaking somehow

like this: “Hesiod is the teacher of most things, and they feel sure

that he knew most things, who did not [however] know Day and Night. For

they are one.” And [as to] good and evil:--“Now the surgeons,” says

Heraclitus, “usually cut, burn, and in every way torture the sick,

and complain that they receive from them no fitting reward for their

labours, although they do these good works on [Sidenote: p. 431.] the

diseases.” And both straight and crooked, he says, are the same. “The

way of wool-carders, he says, is both straight and crooked, [because]

the revolution of the tool called _cochleus_[19] is both straight and

crooked; for it revolves and moves upwards at the same time. It is,

he says, one and the same.” And upward and downward are, he says, one

and the same: “The way up and down is one and the same.” And he says

that the polluted and the pure are one and the same, and the drinkable

and the undrinkable also. “The sea,” he says, “is at once the purest

and the most polluted water, for to fish it is drinkable and salutary,

but to man undrinkable and hurtful.”[20] And in the same way, he says,

admittedly the immortal is mortal and the mortal immortal, in such

words as these: “Deathless are mortals, and mortals are deathless, when

the living take death from these, and the dead life from those.” But

he speaks here of the resurrection of this visible flesh [Sidenote: p.

432.] wherein we have been born. And he knows God to be the cause of

this resurrection, saying thus: “Those here will rise again and will

become the busy guardians of living and dead.” And he says also that

the judgment of the ordered world and of all therein will be by fire,

speaking thus: “Thunder governs all things,” that is, it corrects them,

meaning by “thunder” the everlasting fire. But he says also that this

fire is discerning and the cause of the government of the universals,

and he calls it Need[21] and Satiety. Now Need is according to him the

Ordering [of the world],[22] but Satiety the Ecpyrosis. For “Fire,” he

says, “coming suddenly will judge and seize all things.”[23]

In this chapter [entitled] “All Things Together,” the peculiar thought

of Heraclitus is set forth.[24] But I have also shown briefly that

it is that of Noetus’ heresy, he being a disciple not of Christ, but

of Heraclitus. For that the created world was its own Demiurge and

creator, he declares thus: “God is day and night, winter and summer,

war and peace, satiety and hunger.” “All things are contraries.” This

is the thought “but there is a change, as when one [Sidenote: p. 433.]

incense is mixed with others; which [incense] is named according to the

pleasure of each.”

But it is plain to all that the intelligent[25] successors of Noetus

and the chiefs of the heresy, although you may say that they were not

[actual] hearers of Heraclitus, yet by openly choosing[26] the opinions

of Noetus, acknowledge the same things. For they say this: One and the

same God is the Father and Demiurge of all, having been pleased, though

invisible, to appear to the righteous men of old. For when He is not

seen He is invisible [but when seen visible].[27] And when He wishes

to be uncontained, He is uncontainable,[28] and when He is contained,

He is containable. Thus by the same reasoning, He is unconquerable[29]

[and conquerable], unbegotten [and begotten], immortal and mortal. How

can such as they be shown not to be disciples of Heraclitus? Did not

the Obscure long ago philosophize in these very words?

Now that [Noetus] says the Father and Son are the same, no one is

ignorant. These are his words. When, then, the Father had not been

born, He was rightly proclaimed Father. And when He was pleased to

undergo [Sidenote: p. 434.] birth, He having been begotten, became the

Son of Himself and not of another. For thus [Noetus] seems to establish

Monarchia[30] by asserting the Father and the Son so-called are one

and the same, not another from another, but Himself from Himself. And

that He is called by the name of Father [or Son] according to the

change of times. But that One was He who appeared and underwent birth

from a Virgin and dwelt as a man among men. And acknowledged Himself

to those who saw Him to be a Son by reason of the birth that had taken

place, but did not conceal from those who could receive it that He was

also Father. And that He also suffered, being nailed to the Tree and

gave up His Spirit to Himself, and died and did not die. And that He

raised Himself again the third day after having been buried in a tomb

and pierced with a spear and nailed with nails. This One Cleomenes and

his band say was God and Father of the universals, thereby drawing a

Heraclitan darkness over many.[31]

2. _About Callistus._

11. To this heresy Callistus[32] gave strength--a man artful in evil

and versatile in falsehood, who was seeking after the [Sidenote: p.

435.] bishop’s throne. And he led whither he liked Zephyrinus,[33]

an ignorant man, unlearned and unskilled in the Church’s rules, whom

[Callistus] persuaded by gifts and extravagant demands. [And as

Zephyrinus] was a receiver of bribes and a money-lover, he induced

him to be ever making faction between the brethren, while he himself

by crafty words contrived that at the last both parties should be

friendly to himself. And sometimes he deceived those who thought truly,

by saying that he thought for his own part like things with them; and

again he said likewise to those [who held] the opinions of Sabellius,

whom, when he might have brought him into the right way, he abandoned.

For Sabellius did not harden [his heart] to our[34] admonitions, but

when he got alone with Callistus, he was urged by him to relapse

towards the doctrine of Cleomenes, alleging that he was of like

opinions. [Sabellius] did not then understand his trickery, but knew it

afterwards, as I will shortly explain.[35]

Now [Callistus] bringing forward Zephyrinus himself, persuaded him to

say publicly: “I know one God, Christ Jesus, [Sidenote: p. 436.] and

beside Him I know no other, begotten and susceptible of suffering.”

And at one time he said: “The Father did not die but the Son,” and

thus maintained without ceasing the faction among the people.[36]

Knowing whose designs, we did not give way to him, but refuted and

withstood him for the Truth’s sake. He also, advancing towards madness,

through everyone concurring with him--though we did not--called us

ditheists,[37] thus violently spitting forth the concealed poison

within him. It seems good to us then to set forth the lovable[38] life

of this man since he was born at the same time as ourselves, in order

that by the mode of life of such a one being made apparent, the heresy

which he has taken in hand may become well and quickly known to those

who have right mind. He bore witness[39] when Fuscianus was Prefect of

Rome;[40] and the manner of his martyrdom was on this wise.

12. [Callistus] chanced to be a house-slave of a certain

Carpophorus,[41] a man of the faith who was of Cæsar’s household. To

him as to one of the faith Carpophorus entrusted no little money on

his promising to bring in profit from the business of a money-dealer.

Who taking it, set up a money-changer’s stall in the place called

the _Piscina Publica_,[42] to whom in course of time not a few

deposits were entrusted by [Sidenote: p. 437.] widows and brethren

on the strength of Carpophorus’ name. But he having made everything

disappear,[43] was in difficulties. When he had done this, one[44] was

not lacking to tell Carpophorus; and Carpophorus said that he required

accounts from him. Callistus being aware of this and suspecting danger

from his master,[45] took flight and made for the sea. Who finding a

ship at Portus[46] ready to sail when she should have her cargo, went

on board intending to sail. But he could not thus escape; for one was

not lacking to tell Carpophorus what had happened. And he having halted

at the harbour according to the news given him, tried to hurry to the

ship. But she was lying in the middle of the harbour, and the ferryman

being slow, Callistus saw his master afar off, and knew that as he was

in the ship he would be taken. So he disregarded life and thinking

that his end had come, cast himself into the sea.[47] But the sailors,

jumping down into the boats, dragged him out [Sidenote: p. 438.]

against his will amid a great shouting from the shore. And thus he was

handed over to his master and taken away to Rome, whence his master

sentenced him to the _Pistrinum_.[48]

But time having gone on, some brethren, as generally happens, came

forward and besought Carpophorus that he would set free the runaway

from punishment, affirming that he had admitted having gold laid up

with certain persons.[49] And Carpophorus like a pious man said that

he did not care about his own [money], but that he was concerned about

the deposits. For many cried to him with tears that they had trusted

to his name when confiding money to Callistus, and [Carpophorus] being

persuaded, ordered him to be released. But he having nothing to pay

back and not being able to run away again because he was watched,

devised a scheme for [obtaining] death. On a Sabbath day, pretending to

go forth to his debtors, he rushed into the synagogue of the assembled

Jews, and stayed there factiously opposing them.[50] But when they

were factiously opposed by him, they abused and rained blows upon him

and haled him before Fuscianus, who was then Prefect of the City. And

this was their accusation:--“The Romans have conceded to us the right

to read aloud publicly the laws of our fathers. But this man coming

in forbade it, making a [Sidenote: p. 439.] faction against us, and

affirming that he was a Christian.” And as Fuscianus chanced to be on

the judgment-seat, and was angered by the words of the Jews against

Callistus, one was not lacking to tell Carpophorus what was being done.

And he, hastening to the judgment-seat, cried out to the Prefect, “I

beseech you, O Lord Fuscianus, do not believe this man, for he is not a

Christian, but seeks occasion of death, having made away[51] with much

money of mine, as I will prove.”[52] But the Jews thinking this to be a

fetch, as if Carpophorus were seeking by this speech to get him set at

liberty, cried out against him to the Prefect with increased fury. And

he being moved by them, had [Callistus] scourged and sent him to a mine

in Sardinia.

But after a time, there being other martyrs there, Marcia, being a

God-loving woman and a concubine of Commodus [Sidenote: p. 440.] and

having wished to do some good work, summoned before her the blessed

Victor, who was Bishop of the Church at that time,[53] and enquired

what martyrs there were in Sardinia. And he gave her the names of all,

but did not give her that of Callistus, knowing what he had dared to

do. Then Marcia, having succeeded in her petition to Commodus, gave

the liberating letter to an elder named Hyacinthus, a eunuch,[54]

who took it and sailed for Sardinia, and having handed it to the

Administrator[55] of the place for the time being, set free all the

martyrs with the exception of Callistus. But he, on his knees and

weeping, besought that he also might be set free. Then Hyacinthus

was moved by entreaty and required the Administrator [to do this]

affirming that he was the foster-father of Marcia and arranging to

hold the Administrator harmless. And he being persuaded [in turn]

set free Callistus also.[56] Upon whose coming [to Rome], Victor was

much annoyed at what had befallen; but, as he was a compassionate

man, held his peace. But to guard against the reproach of many--for

[Sidenote: p. 441.] the audacities of Callistus were not a long way

off--and Carpophorus was still an obstacle, he sends him to abide in

Antium, making him a certain monthly allowance for his support.[57]

After [Victor’s] falling asleep, Zephyrinus having had [Callistus]

as a coadjutor in the management of the clergy, honoured him to his

own detriment, and sending for him from Antium, set him over the

cemetery.[58] And Callistus being ever with [Zephyrinus], and as I have

said before, serving him with guile,[59] put him in the background[60]

as neither able to judge what was said to him nor to comprehend all

the counsels of Callistus when talking to him of what things pleased

him. Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, [Callistus] thinking that

he had succeeded in his pursuit,[61] put away Sabellius as one who

does not hold right opinions. For [Callistus] was afraid of me and

deemed that he could thus wipe off the charge [against him] before the

Churches,[62] just as if he held no different opinions from theirs.

Now Callistus was a sorcerer[63] and a trickster and in time [Sidenote:

p. 442.] snatched away many. And harbouring the poison in his heart,

and devising nothing straight, besides being ashamed to declare

the truth because he had reproached us in public, saying: “Ye are

ditheists,”[64] but especially because he had often been accused by

Sabellius of having strayed from his first faith, he invented some

such heresy as this:--He says that the Word is the Son and that He is

also the Father, being called by that name, but being one undivided

Spirit.[65] And that the Father is not one thing and the Son another;

but that they subsist [as] one and the same. And that all things above

and below are filled with the Divine Spirit, and that the Spirit which

was incarnate in the Virgin was not other than the Father, but one and

the same. And that this is the saying: “Dost thou not believe that I am

in the Father and the Father in Me?”[66] For that which is seen, which

is a man, that is the Son; but the Spirit which is contained in the

Son, that is the Father. “For I do not,” [Sidenote: p. 443.] he says,

“say that there are two Gods, Father and Son, but One. For the Father

who existed in Him, having taken on Him the flesh, made it God by union

with Himself and made it one [Being] so that He is called Father and

Son, one God. And that this [God] being one Person cannot be two.”[67]

And so he said that the Father had suffered _with_ the Son; for he did

not like to say that the Father suffered and was One Person, [so as]

to avoid[68] blasphemy against the Father. [Thus this] senseless and

shifty fellow, scattering blasphemies high and low, so that he may

only seem [not] to speak against the Truth, is not ashamed to lean now

towards the doctrine of Sabellius and now towards that of Theodotus.[69]

The sorcerer having dared such things, set up a school against that

of the Church,[70] thus to teach. And first he contrived to make

concessions to men in respect of their pleasures, telling every one

that their sins were remitted by himself. For if any one who has been

received[71] by another and calls himself Christian should transgress,

he says, the transgression of him will not be reckoned against him if

he hastens to the school of Callistus. And many were pleased with this

proposition,[72] having been stricken with conscience as well as cast

out of many heresies. And [Sidenote: p. 444.] some even after having

been cast by us out of the Church by a [regular] judgment, joining with

these last, filled the school of Callistus. He laid it down that if

[even] a bishop commits any sin, though it should be one unto death, he

ought not to be deposed. In his time bishops and priests and deacons

who had married twice and even thrice began to keep their places among

the clergy.[73] For if any one who was in the clerical order[74] should

marry, he [decided] that he should remain in the order as if he had not

sinned, saying that what was spoken by the Apostle was said with regard

to this [viz.:] “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?”[75]

And also the Parable of the Tares, he says spoke as to this: “Let the

tares grow to the harvest,”[76] that is, let the sinners remain in

the Church. But he also said that the ark of Noah was made into an

image[77] of the Church, wherein were dogs and wolves and crows and all

clean and unclean [animals]. Thus, he affirms, ought the Church to do

likewise; and as many things as he could bring together on this point,

he thus interpreted.

Whose hearers being attracted by these doctrines continue [to exist],

deluding themselves and many others, crowds of [Sidenote: p. 445.]

whom flock into the school. Wherefore they are multiplied and rejoice

in the crowds, by reason of the pleasures which Christ did not permit.

Whom slightly regarding, they forbid no one to sin, affirming that they

themselves remit sins to those with whom they are well pleased. For

[Callistus] has also permitted women, if they, being unmarried and in

the prime of life, turned towards some one unworthy of their station,

or did not wish to lessen it by [marriage], to hold any bedfellow they

might choose as lawfully married to them, whether he was a house slave

or free,[78] and to consider this person although not married by law as

in the place of a husband.[79] From this the so-called faithful women

began to make attempts with abortifacient drugs and to gird themselves

tightly so that they might cast out what they had conceived, through

their not wishing on account of their family or superabundant wealth to

have a child by a slave or some mean person. See now what impiety the

lawless one has reached when he teaches [Sidenote: p. 446.] adultery

and murder at the same time! And in the face of these audacities the

shameless ones attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church, and some

think that they do well to join with them.

Under this [Callistus, too], a second baptism has been ventured upon by

them for the first time.[80] These things the most amazing Callistus

has set on foot, whose school still persists and preserves the customs

and tradition [of the Church], nor does it discriminate as to whom it

should hold communion with, but offers communion indiscriminately to

all. From whom also they are called by a name that they share with him,

and, by reason of the protagonist of such works being Callistus, are

called Callistians.[81]

3. _Concerning Elchesaites._[82]

13. When the teaching of this [Callistus] had been dispersed [Sidenote:

p. 447.] over the whole world, a certain man called Alcibiades dwelling

at Apamea in Syria, who was crafty and full of impudence, and having

looked into the matter, deemed himself more forcible and expert in

tricks than Callistus, arrived in Rome bringing with him a book.[83] He

pretended that a righteous man (called) Elchasai, had received the same

from the Seres[84] of Parthia and gave it to one called Sobiae,[85]

as having been revealed by an angel. The height of which angel was 24

schoeni,[86] which is 96 miles; but the girth was 4 schoeni, and from

shoulder to shoulder 6 schoeni; and his footprints were 3½ schoeni

in length, which is 14 miles,[87] their width 1½ schoeni, and their

depth half a schoenus. And that there was with him also a female whose

measure, he says, accorded with those aforesaid. And that the male

is the Son of God, and that the female is called the Holy Spirit.

Describing these portents, he is wont to distract the foolish by this

address: “A new remission of sins was brought as good news to men in

the third year of the reign of Trajan.” And he prescribes (therefore) a

baptism which I will explain (later). He affirms that of those wrapped

in all licentiousness and pollution and breaches of the Law, if any

such be a believer and turns again and hearkens to and believes on

the book, he determines [Sidenote: p. 448.] that he shall receive by

baptism remission of sins.

These tricks he audaciously elaborated, starting from the doctrine

before described which Callistus had brought forward. For he, having

understood that many rejoiced at such an announcement,[88] thought

that his enterprise would be timely.[89] Yet we withstood him also,

and did not permit very many to go astray, refuting them[90] [with

the argument] that this was the work of a spurious[91] spirit and of

a puffed-up heart; and that the man like a wolf had risen up among

the many stray sheep which the false guide Callistus had scattered

abroad. But, since we have begun, we shall not be silent regarding

the doctrines of this man also; and we shall bring to light the (mode

of) life (he advocates),[92] and shall then prove that his supposed

discipline is a make-believe. And then again I will explain the chief

of his sayings, so that the reader who has studied [Sidenote: p. 449.]

his writings may know thoroughly what and of what quality is the heresy

on which he has ventured.

14. He puts forward as a bait, conformity with the Law,[93] claiming

that those who have believed ought to be circumcised and to live

according to the Law while clutching at something from the heresies

aforesaid. And he says that Christ was a man born in the way common to

all; and that He was not now begotten for the first time from a virgin,

but that both in the first instance and then many times since, He had

been begotten and born, appeared and grown up, alternating births and

changing one body for another, wherein He makes use of the Pythagorean

teaching.[94] But [the Elchesaites] are so vainglorious as to say

that they themselves foretell the future, starting evidently from the

measures and numbers of the Pythagorean art before described. And

they give heed to mathematics and astrology and magic as if they were

true, and they use these things to astonish the weak-minded, so that

they may think themselves partakers in a mighty matter. They give also

incantations and spells[95] to those bitten by dogs and to possessed

and other diseased persons concerning which we [Sidenote: p. 450.]

shall not be silent. Having then sufficiently detailed the sources and

causes of their audacities, I will proceed to repeat their writings,

whereby the reader may know at once their folly and their godless

endeavours.

15. To his catechumens, then, [Alcibiades] administers baptism,

speaking such words as these to those whom he deceives: “If, therefore,

any one has gone in unto a child, or to any kind of animal, or to a

male or to a brother or to a daughter, or has committed adultery or

fornication, and wishes to receive remission of sins, immediately he

hears this book, let him be baptized a second time in the name of the

Great and Highest God and in the name of His Son, the Great King.

And let him be purified and be chaste and call to witness the seven

witnesses who are written in this book [to wit], the Heaven and the

Water, and the Holy Spirit and the Angel of Prayer and the oil and

the salt and the Earth.”[96] These are the wonderful mysteries of

Elchasai, the hidden and great things which he hands [Sidenote: p.

451.] down to the disciples who are worthy. And the lawless one is not

content with these, but before two or three witnesses puts the seal on

his own crimes, again speaking thus: “I say again, O adulterers and

adulteresses and false prophets, if you wish to turn again so that your

sins may be remitted unto you, peace shall be yours, and a portion with

the just, if immediately you hearken to this book and are baptized a

second time with your garments.”

But since we have said that these persons use incantations over those

bitten by dogs and over others, we shall point out [these also].

Thus he speaks: “If a furious and mad dog in whom is the breath of

death,[97] bite or tear or touch any man or woman or man-child or

maid-child, in the same hour let [the bitten one] run with all his

clothing and go down to a river or a pool where there is a deep place,

and let him be baptized there with all his clothing, and let him

pray[98] to the Great and Highest God in faith of heart, and then call

to witness the Seven Witnesses who are written [Sidenote: p. 452.] in

this book, saying: ‘Lo! I call to witness the Heaven and the Water

and the Holy Spirit and the Angel of Prayer and the oil and the salt

and the Earth. I call to witness these Seven Witnesses that I will no

more sin, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor do injustice, nor be

greedy, nor cherish hatred, nor break faith, nor take pleasure in any

evil deeds.’ Then upon saying this, let him be baptized with all his

clothing in the name of the Great and Highest God.”

16. But in most other matters he talks nonsense, and teaches [the

repetition of] the same spells over the phthisical, and the baptizing

of them in cold water forty times a week. And in the same way with

those possessed of devils. O wisdom inimitable and incantations filled

full of powers! Who will not be struck at such and so great a power of

words? But since we have said that they also make use of the error of

the astrologers, let us prove this out of their own mouths. Thus he

says: “There are evil stars of impiety. This is now spoken unto you, O

God-fearing [Sidenote: p. 453.] men[99] and disciples. Beware of the

days of their authority,[100] and begin no works on these days, and

baptize not man nor woman in the days of their authority when the moon

goes forth with them and journeys with them.[101] Be ye ware from that

day until the moon leaves them utterly and then baptize and begin in

every beginning of your works. Honour also the Sabbath Day for it is

one day out of these.[102] But beware of beginning ought in the third

day from the Sabbath, because when three years of the reign of Trajan

Cæsar were fulfilled, he brought the Parthians under his sway.[103] And

when three years more are completed war will rage between the angels of

the impiety of the North,[104] and thereby all the kingdoms of iniquity

will be troubled.”[105]

17. Since, now, he believes it would be unreasonable that these great

and secret mysteries should be trampled [Sidenote: p. 454.] underfoot

or delivered to many, he advises that they should be preserved as if

they were costly pearls,[106] saying thus: “Read not these words to

all men and keep their commandments carefully, since not all men are

faithful nor all women straight.” But these things neither the sages of

the Egyptians, nor Pythagoras the sage of the Greeks withdrew within

their sanctuaries. For had Elchasai chanced to live at the time, what

need would there have been for Pythagoras, or Thales, or Solon, or

Plato the wise, or the rest of the Greeks to learn of the priests of

the Egyptians, seeing that they would have had so much and so great

wisdom from Alcibiades, the most wonderful interpreter of the wretched

Elchasai? Now therefore it seems that enough has been said for persons

of sound mind to have a complete knowledge of the madness of these

[heretics], wherefore it does not seem fit to make use of any more of

their sayings, which are many and laughable.

But since we have not passed over the things which have sprung up among

ourselves, and have not been silent on those which [happened] before

our time, it seems proper, so that we may go into everything and leave

nothing unexpounded, to say something of the [customs] of the Jews

[Sidenote: p. 455.] also, and what are the differences among them; for

I think that up till now this has been passed over.[107] [And] when

I shall have spoken of these,[108] I shall proceed to the exposition

of the Word of Truth.[109] So that after the lengthy struggle of the

discourse against all heresies, we, firmly pressing forward to the

crown of the kingdom, and believing on the things which are true, may

not be confounded.[110]

4. _Jews._[111]

18. Originally there was one nation of Jews. For one teacher had been

given them by God [namely] Moses, and through him was given one Law.

And there was one desert and one mountain [namely] Sinai; for one God

was their legislator. But after they had crossed the river Jordan

and had divided by lot the land won by the spear, they rent asunder

in different ways the Law of God, each understanding the precepts

differently. And thus they set up teachers for themselves and found

out heretical opinions and advanced in schism. Whose diversity I shall

set forth; but although for a long time they have been scattered in

many divisions, yet I will expose [only] the chief of them, whence the

lovers of learning[112] may easily know the rest. [Sidenote: p. 456.]

For three sects[113] are distinguished among them, and the adherents of

one of these are Pharisees, of another Sadducees, and the others[114]

are Essenes. These [last] practise the more holy life [of the three],

loving one another and observing continence. And they turn away from

every deed of concupiscence, holding it hateful even to listen to such

things. They renounce marriage, but take the children of others and

bring them up in their customs, thus adopting[115] them and impelling

them to the sciences, [but] not forbidding them to marry, although they

themselves abstain from it. But they admit no women, even those who are

willing to devote themselves to the same policy, nor give heed to them,

for they distrust women altogether.

19. And they despise wealth and do not shrink from sharing with those

who lack [it], although none of them is richer than another. For it

is a law among them that any one entering the heresy must sell his

possessions and offer [Sidenote: p. 457.] the price to the common

stock, which the ruler receives and distributes to all for their needs.

Thus there is no want among them. And they use not oil, thinking

anointing their bodies pollution. But there are stewards appointed by

vote who look after all their property in common, and all of them wear

white garments always.

20. And there is not one city of them, but many of them dwell in every

city. And if one of the practisers of the heresy[116] should arrive

from a strange country, they hold all things in common for him, and

those whom they knew not before they receive as guests and intimates.

And they travel about their native land, and when they go on a journey

they carry nothing with them except arms. And they have in every city a

ruler who spends what is collected for the purpose of providing clothes

and food for them. And their dress and its fashion are modest. They

do not possess two tunics or a double set of footgear; but when those

in use become old, they take others. And they neither buy nor sell

anything at all; but if one possesses ought, he gives it to him who

lacks, and what he has not, he receives [in its stead].[117]

[Sidenote: p. 458.] 21. But they lead a well-ordered and regular

life, and always pray at dawn, not speaking before they have praised

God. And thus they all go forth and do what work they will, and after

working until the fifth hour, leave off. Then, assembling again in

one place, they gird themselves with linen cinctures so as to conceal

their privities, and thus wash in cold water. And after having thus

purified themselves, they gather together in one dwelling--but no one

who thinks differently from them is with them in the house--and they

get to breakfast. And sitting down in order, they are offered bread

in silence, and then some one kind of food from which each has a

sufficient portion. But none of them tastes anything till the priest

has blessed and prayed over it. And after breakfast, when he has again

prayed, they offer up praises to God. Then, laying aside as holy the

garments with which they are clothed while indoors--and these are

of linen--and receiving again the [Sidenote: p. 459.] others in the

vestibule, they hasten to their favourite work until the afternoon. And

they take supper in all respects as before described. And none ever

shouts, nor is any other uproarious sound heard, but each one speaks

quietly, every one decently yielding the conversation to the other,

so that to those without the silence of those within seems somewhat

of a mystery. And they are at all times sober, eating and drinking

everything by measure.[118]

22. Now all give heed to the president[119] and what he commands they

obey as law. For they are zealous to pity and help the downtrodden.

And before all things they abstain from rage and anger and such-like,

judging that these betray mankind. And none takes oath to the other,

but what each one says is judged stronger than an oath. And if any

one takes an oath, he is condemned as one not to be believed (without

God).[120] And they are diligent concerning the recital of the Law

and the Prophets, and also if [Sidenote: p. 460.] there should be any

summary[121] [of these] [made by one] of the faithful, [they listen to

it?] And they are very curious concerning plants and stones, being very

inquisitive as to their operation, as they think that these did not

come into being in vain.

23. But to those who wish to become disciples of the heresy, they do

not straightway impart the traditions, until they have first made trial

of them. For a year they set before them the same sort of food as

[is served] to themselves, but outside their assembly and in another

house. And they give them a hatchet and the linen cincture and white

garments. When they have during this period given proof of continence,

they draw nearer to the way of living [of the others] and are purified

more thoroughly than at first, but they do not take their food with

them. For after they have shown that they can practise continence,

for another two years’ trial is made of such a one’s character, and

on his appearing worthy, he is adjudged so [to be received] by them.

Before, however, he can eat with them, he is sworn with fearful oaths;

first, that he will show piety towards the Divine, then that he will

observe justice towards men, and will in no way wrong any, nor hate

anyone who [Sidenote: p. 461.] wrongs him or who is an enemy to him,

but will pray for him. And that he will fight on the side of the just

and will keep faith with all, especially with those who bear sway, nor

be disobedient to them. For it happens to none to rule save by God. And

if [the aspirant] should bear rule, that he will never be arrogant in

authority, nor make more use than is customary of any ornament; but is

to love the truth, [Sidenote: p. 462.] to refute the liar, and not to

steal, nor soil his conscience with unlawful gain, nor hide ought from

his fellow-heretics. And will tell nothing [of their secrets] to others

even if he shall suffer violence unto death. Besides this, he swears to

them to impart none of the doctrines [of the sect] otherwise than as he

himself received them. By such oaths, therefore, do they bind those who

come unto them.[122]

24. But if any should be convicted in any transgression, he is cast out

of the order, and he that is cast out sometimes perishes by a fearful

fate. For, being bound by the oaths and customs, he cannot take food

with other people. Therefore sometimes they utterly destroy the body

by famine. Wherefore in the last extremity they sometimes take pity

on many already dying, thinking the penalty unto death sufficient for

them.[123]

25. Concerning their judgments, they are most careful and just. They

deliver judgment after assembling not less [Sidenote: p. 463.] than

a hundred and what they determine is irrevocable. And they honour

the Lawgiver [next] after God, and if anyone blasphemes him, he is

punished. And they are taught to give ear to the rulers and elders;

and if ten are sitting in the same place, one will not speak unless

the others wish. And they are careful of spitting in front of them or

on the right side; and more than all the Jews, they arrange to abstain

from work on the Sabbath. For not only do they prepare their food

one day before, so as not to light a fire, but they neither move an

implement nor relieve nature. And some of them will not even get out of

bed. But on other days, when they wish to evacuate, they dig a pit a

foot long--with the hoe--for such is the hatchet which they give their

adherents when first becoming disciples[124]--and covering it on all

sides with their cloak, sit down, affirming that they must not insult

the rays [of the Sun]. Then they throw back the excavated earth into

the pit. And this they do choosing the most deserted places, [and] when

they have done this they straightway wash, as if the [Sidenote: p.

464.] secretion were polluting.[125]

26. But in course of time they have drawn apart and do not [all]

observe the discipline in the same way,[126] being divided into four

parts. For some of them are more austere than they need be, so that

they will carry no coin, saying that they must not bear any image, nor

look upon it, nor make it. Wherefore none of them goes into a city,

lest he shall enter in through a gate whereon are statues, as they

think it unlawful to pass under an image. And others, if they hear

anyone holding forth about God and His Law, will watch such an one

until he is alone in some place, and threaten to kill him if he be not

circumcised. Whom, if he does not consent, he does not spare, but slays

him. Whence from this occurrence they take their name, being called

Zealots, but by some Sicarii. And yet others of them name none Lord but

God, even if any should torture or slay them. And those who succeeded

them became so much worse than their discipline that they would not

touch [Sidenote: p. 465.] those who remained in the ancient customs:

[or] if they did so [by accident] they straightway washed themselves

as if they had touched one of another sect. And the majority are

long-lived, so that they live more than a hundred years. Now they say

that the cause of this is their consummate piety towards God, and their

condemning the serving [of food] without measure and to their being

continent and slow to anger. And they despise death rejoicing that they

can make an end with a good conscience. But if any one should torture

such [men] to make them speak ill of the Law or to eat food offered to

idols, they would not do so, suffering death and supporting tortures so

that they may not go beyond their conscience.[127]

27. But the doctrine of the Resurrection is also strong among them. For

they confess that the flesh rises again and will be immortal in the

same way that the soul is already immortal. Which soul when it departs

from the body, abides in an airy and well-lighted place until judgment,

which place the Greeks hearing of it called [the] Islands of the

Blessed. But there are other opinions of them which [Sidenote: p. 466.]

many of the Greeks appropriated and maintained as their own teaching.

For the discipline among them concerning the Divine is earlier than

all nations, as is proved by all that the Greeks have ventured to

say about God or the fashioning of the things that are starting from

no other source than the Jewish Law. Wherefrom especially Pythagoras

and those of the Porch took much, having been instructed in it by the

Egyptians. And [the Essenes] say also that there will be a judgment

and a conflagration of the All, and that the unjust will be punished

everlastingly. And prophecy and the foretelling of things to come are

practised among them.[128]

28. Now there is another order of Essenes making use of their customs

and way of life, but they differ from these [just described] in the

one [point of] marriage; saying that those who reject marriage do a

fearful thing. And they declare that this comes to the taking-away of

life, and that one must not cut off the succession of children, and

that if everyone thought like this, the whole race of men might easily

be cut off. They certainly try their wives for a period of three years;

but when they have had three purifications, so as to prove that they

can bear children, they wed them. [Sidenote: p. 467.] But they do

not company with them when pregnant, proving [thereby] that they do

not marry for pleasure but from need of children. And the women wash

themselves in the same way and don linen garments in the same way as

the men with their cinctures. This, then, concerning the Essenes.[129]

But there are others also disciplined in the customs of the Jews, and

called both legally and generically Pharisees. The majority of whom

are [to be found] in every place, and all call themselves Jews, but

on account of the special opinions held by them are called besides

by specific names.[130] Now they, while holding fast the ancient

tradition, continue to enquire methodically into what things are clean

and what unclean according to the Law. And they interpret the things of

the Law, putting forward teachers for that purpose. And they say that

Fate is, and that some things are due to free-will and some to Fate,

so that some [come] by ourselves and some by Fate. But that God is the

cause of all, and that nothing is arranged or happens without His will.

And they confess the Resurrection of the Flesh and that the [Sidenote:

p. 468.] soul is immortal, and [admit] a judgment to come and a future

conflagration, and that the wicked will be punished in unquenchable

fire.

29. But the Sadducees eliminate Fate, and confess that God neither

does nor contemplates anything evil; but that man has the power to

choose the good or evil. But they deny not only the Resurrection of the

Flesh, but also consider that the soul does not survive. But that its

[function] is to live and that that is why man is born. And that the

doctrine of the Resurrection is fulfilled by leaving children on earth

when we die. But that after death there will be no hope of suffering

either evil or good. For [they say that] there will be a dissolution

of soul and body and that man will go to that which is not in the same

way as the other animals. And that if a man has great possessions, and

having become rich is [thereby] glorified, he is so far the gainer; but

that God does not take care of the affairs of [Sidenote: p. 469.] any

one individual. And while the Pharisees love one another, the Sadducees

love [only] themselves. The same heresy was especially strong round

about Samaria. And they give heed to the customs of the Law, saying

that one ought to do so that one may live well and leave children

behind on earth. But they pay no attention to the Prophets, nor to any

other wise men, but only to the Law [given] through Moses. Nor do they

interpret anything. This then is the heresy of the Sadducees.[131]

30. Since now we have set forth the differences among the Jews, it

seems proper not to pass over in silence the discipline of their

service of God. Now there is a fourfold system with regard to the

service of God among all Jews [to wit] Theological, Physical, Moral

and Ceremonial.[132] And they say that there is one God, the Demiurge

of the All and the Maker of all things that before were not,[133]

nor did He make them from any subordinate essence, but He willed and

created. And that there are angels and that they have come into being

for the service of creation; but that there is also a Spirit having

authority ever standing beside Him for the glory and praise of God.

And that all things in the creation have sensation and that nothing is

without soul.[134] And they pursue customs tending to a holy [Sidenote:

p. 470.] and temperate life as is to be recognized in their Law. But

these things were of old carefully laid down by those who originally

received a God-made Law, so that the reader will be astonished at

so much moderation and care in the customs prescribed for man. But

the ceremonial service offered in becoming fashion was excellently

performed by them as it is easy for those who wish to learn by reading

the Book discoursing on these matters.[135] [There they will see] how

reverently and devoutly they offered to God the things given by Him for

the use and enjoyment of man, obeying Him orderly and constantly. Some

of these [doctrines] the Sadducees reject; for they hold that neither

angels nor spirit exist.[136]

[Sidenote: p. 471.] But all alike wait for Christ, the Coming One

foretold by the Law and the Prophets. But the time of the Coming was

not known of the Jews, [so that] the supposition endured that the

sayings which appeared to concern the Coming were unfulfilled. But they

expect that Christ will presently come, since they did not recognize

His presence. And seeing the signs of the times of His having come

already, this troubles them, and they are ashamed to confess that He

has come, since with their own hands they became His murderers, through

anger at being convicted by Him of not having hearkened to their Laws.

And they say that He who was thus sent by God is not Christ. But they

confess that another will come who as yet is not, and will bear some of

the signs which the Law and the Prophets foreshowed; but some things

they imagine wrongly. For they say that his birth will be from the race

of David, but not from a Virgin and [the] Holy Spirit, but from a woman

and a man, as it is a rule for all to be begotten from seed. And they

declare that he will be a king over them, a man of war and a mighty

one, who, having gathered together the whole nation of Jews, will make

war on all the nations and [Sidenote: p. 472.] re-establish for them

Jerusalem as the royal city. Whereunto he will gather in the whole

nation, and again will restore the ancient customs, while [the nation]

is king and priest[137] and dwells in security for a sufficient time.

Then shall again spring up against them a war of [the nations] gathered

together. In this war the Christ shall fall by the sword and not long

afterwards the end and conflagration of the All shall draw near, and

thus their conjectures about the Resurrection shall be fulfilled, and

everyone shall be recompensed according to his works.[138]

31. It seems to us that the opinions of all Greeks and Barbarians

have been sufficiently set forth, and that nothing has been left

undemonstrated either of the philosophizings[139] or of the things

imagined by the heretics. To those among them [who read this], the

refutation from what has been set forth is clear [viz.] that either

plagiarizing from or laying under contribution what the Greeks have

elaborated, they have put them forward as divine. Now, having run

through all [these systems] and having declared with much labour in

the nine books [above] all these opinions, thereby leaving to all men

a little guide through life, and furnishing to the [Sidenote: p. 473.]

readers a study of no little joy and gladness, we think it reasonable

to present as the conclusion of the whole [work] a discourse on the

Truth.[140] And we shall write this in one book, [viz.] the Tenth. So

that the reader, having recognized the overthrow which the heresies of

these audacious men have sustained, may not only despise their follies,

but by also recognizing the power of the Truth, [and] by worthily

believing in God, can be saved.

FOOTNOTES

[Footnote 1: ἡ καινὴ ἐπιδημία. The book Elchesai, as will presently be

seen, is said to have been revealed “in the third year of Trajan” and

therefore long anterior to our text. Hippolytus, therefore, probably

refers here to a recrudescence of the superstition connected therewith.]

[Footnote 2: This Noetus, whom Epiphanius (_Haer._, LVII) would make

a native of Ephesus, possibly by confusion with the Praxeas against

whom Tertullian wrote, was one of the first to teach the heresy called

Patripassian, which made the Father as well as the Son to suffer on

the Cross. His date is uncertain, but he was “not very long” dead when

Hippolytus wrote (see Hippolytus’ Tractate against Noetus in Gallandi,

_Bibl. Vet. Patr._ II, p. 454), and the seeds of the heresy seem to

have been sown in the time of Justin Martyr. It was undoubtedly Eastern

in origin and passed in Rome chiefly under the name of Sabellius.

Hippolytus was evidently its greatest opponent there, Zephyrinus and

Callistus maintaining a more tolerant attitude towards it, until the

last-named Pope was compelled to excommunicate Sabellius. See Salmon’s

articles in _D.C.B._, s.n.n. “Noetus,” “Praxeas,” “Epigonus” and

“Cleomenes,” and Mr. Hugh Pope’s article on “Monarchian” in Hastings’

_Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics_.]

[Footnote 3: Theodoret (_Haer. Fab._, III, 3) would reverse this

position and make Cleomenes Epigonus’ teacher and not his pupil. He has

probably misread Hippolytus on this point, the later heresiologists

frequently failing to distinguish the founders of any heresy from their

successors.]

[Footnote 4: This is evidently the beginning of Hippolytus’ quarrel

with the Primacy. Of Victor, Zephyrinus’ predecessor in the Roman

Chair, he speaks well. Cf. p. 128 _infra_.]

[Footnote 5: Cf. 2 Peter ii. 22.ff]

[Footnote 6: δυσφημίας.]

[Footnote 7: ἐν τοῖς φιλοσοφουμένοις. The Codex has Φιλοσοφουμένους.

He evidently refers to Book I, in which (Vol. I, p. 41) he has given a

few words in the gnomic sayings of Heraclitus. The only other previous

reference to them seems to be in Book V (Vol. I, p. 154 _supra_) where

he calls Heraclitus one of the wisest of the Greeks and in Book VI

(p. 4 _supra_) where he attributes Simon’s image of “a fiery God”

not to Moses but to Heraclitus. If Cruice’s emendation holds good

this shows that Book I was originally published separately and called

“Philosophizings,” the rest of the work being known as the _Elenchus_

or “Refutation.” Cf. Introduction _supra_. Bishop Wordsworth (St.

_Hippolytus and the Church of Rome_, London, 1880), gets over the

difficulty by reading the passage ἐν τοὺς Φιλοσοφουμένους ἡμῖν, “in

this our Philosophumena,” and this reading has been adopted in this

translation.]

[Footnote 8: Cf. Stobaeus, _Eclog. Phys._, I, xlii.]

[Footnote 9: λόγον αἰῶνα.]

[Footnote 10: τοῦ λόγου ἀκούσαντας, “listen to the argument.”

Hippolytus had he written in English would doubtless have said “the

Word,” but this has a different connotation in modern language.]

[Footnote 11: λόγος without the article.]

[Footnote 12: ἀπείροισιν ἐοίκασι πειρεώμενοι. It is very difficult

to make sense of these words and both Cruice and Macmahon leave them

untranslated.]

[Footnote 13: πεττεύων. Playing at _tessera_ or draughts. Cr.,

_tesseras jaciens_, a game in which there was chance as well as skill

like backgammon. Lucian, as Cruice notes, puts the same phrase into

Heraclitus’ mouth.]

[Footnote 14: Some word missing here.]

[Footnote 15: κρείττων supplied from the next quoted sentence.]

[Footnote 16: The Codex has ὅσον ὄψις κ.τ.λ. Cruice substitutes ὅσων

and translates _Quaecumque visus ... capere possunt_.]

[Footnote 17: Something probably omitted here also.]

[Footnote 18: ἕτερον.]

[Footnote 19: A screw. Also a staircase.]

[Footnote 20: ὀλέθριον, “destructive.”]

[Footnote 21: χρημοσύνη. Cr., _Inopia_, Macm., “Craving.”]

[Footnote 22: διακόσμησις. The making of a cosmos out of chaos or the

Creation.]

[Footnote 23: So Clem. Alex., _Strom._, V, 1, makes Heraclitus predict

the destruction of the world by fire. The same theory is attributed to

the Stoics.]

[Footnote 24: It has not been thought well to delay the reader by

attempting to puzzle out the meaning of Heraclitus whom the ancients

themselves did not profess to understand. So far as can be seen the

only likeness between his sayings and the teaching of Noetus and his

successors was due to the love of paradox shown by both. The parallel

between them that Hippolytus tries to draw is mainly forced upon him by

his own theory that all heresy is derived from Greek philosophy.]

[Footnote 25: A pun on νοητός, the adjective, and Noetus, the proper

name.]

[Footnote 26: Another pun between ἁιρουμένοι and αἵρεσις.]

[Footnote 27: The words in brackets supplied from the Summary in Book

X.]

[Footnote 28: Ἀχώρητος, “that cannot be confined (in space),” or what

we mean when we say that He is infinite.]

[Footnote 29: ἀκράτητος, “that cannot be dominated.” One would have

expected the word ἀνίκητος; but as this was one of the honorific titles

of the Emperor, it was doubtless altered for prudential reasons.]

[Footnote 30: Not “sovereignty” but the doctrine of One Source and

Ruler of All. The phrase constantly recurs in the theology of the time,

and the word Monarchian is applied to all heresies of the Noetian kind.]

[Footnote 31: There can be little doubt as to the source of this

chapter. The quotations from Heraclitus are taken from some book of

extracts, like the work of Diogenes Laertius, and much corrupted in the

taking: the words put into the mouth of Noetus on the other hand are

doubtless taken from some written note of the arraignment of Noetus

before “the blessed presbyters” who expelled him from the Church as

described in Hippolytus’ own tract against Noetus, mentioned in n. on

p. 118 _supra_. In c. 3 of this, Hippolytus declares that Noetus made

use of the same passages of Scripture as “Theodotus,” which explains

the allusion in the Table of Contents, and he uses other phrases to

be found in our text. As the whole controversy between himself and

Callistus was doubtless familiar to his readers, there was therefore no

reason for him to refer to any written document containing the opinion

of Noetus or his successors.]

[Footnote 32: In this chapter, as has been said, Hippolytus discloses

his chief reason for the publication or republication of the whole

work. The controversy which raged round the evidence of schism in

the Primitive Church which it affords has now died down, and we are

therefore able to examine such evidence dispassionately. The suggestion

that the Callistus here mentioned had been confused with another person

has now been given up, and there is little doubt that Hippolytus’

adversary was the Pope of that name who presided over the Church of

Rome between the primacies of Zephyrinus and Urbanus, this last being

quickly succeeded by Pontianus. In estimating the worth of the story

which Hippolytus here tells against him, the way has been cleared by

the frank acceptance by contemporary Catholic writers such as Monsignor

Duchesne (_Hist. ancienne de l’Église_, Paris, t. I,) and Dom. Chapman

(_The Catholic Encyclopædia_, New York, 1908, s.v. “Callistus”), of the

view that the calumnies against Callistus here put forward, although

much exaggerated and coloured, have a basis of fact. In this, they

follow the line taken by the celebrated Dr. Döllinger at the first

appearance of our text, and no modern scholar has yet been found to

seriously controvert it. It therefore only remains to draw attention to

the points in which Hippolytus has, in Dr. Döllinger’s opinion, garbled

or added colour to the facts, and on the whole, it has seemed more

satisfactory to do this in the footnotes than here. The references,

except when otherwise stated, are to the English edition of Döllinger’s

_Hippolytus and Callistus_, Edinburgh, 1876. Callistus’ primacy appears

from several testimonies to have lasted from A.D. 218 to 223, when he

was killed apparently in a riot.]

[Footnote 33: Zephyrinus appears to have been Pope from A.D. 202 to

218.]

[Footnote 34: τῳ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν παραινεῖσθαι. It is thought that this is a

_pluralis majestatis_ consequent on Hippolytus’ claim to be himself

Bishop of Rome.]

[Footnote 35: The construction of the whole of this paragraph offers

difficulty, and many emendations have been proposed in the text. The

reading of Roeper has been mainly followed here, and the meaning is not

doubtful.]

[Footnote 36: ἐν τῷ λαῷ, _i.e._ “the laity.”]

[Footnote 37: “Worshipper of two gods.” In Döllinger’s opinion (_op.

cit._, p. 219) this accusation was well founded.]

[Footnote 38: ἀγαπητόν. Doubtless written sarcastically. Wordsworth,

Cruice and Macmahon all attach the phrase to δοκεὶ and translate “seems

good,” for which use of the word I can find no precedent.]

[Footnote 39: ἐμαρτύρησεν. A play on the double meaning of the word,

which might be translated “he was martyred.” But Callistus had not been

martyred when our text was written, nor was he even a confessor.]

[Footnote 40: Ἔπαρχος. Fuscianus was Prefect of the City from A.D. 188

to 193.]

[Footnote 41: Evidently the freedman of Marcus Aurelius whose

inscription is to be found in C.I.L. 13040. Cf. de Rossi, _Bull._,

1866, p. 3, and Duchesne, _Hist. ancienne_, I, p. 294, n. 1.]

[Footnote 42: “Public Fishpool.” It was one of the fourteen _Regiones_

of the city and the quarter of the money-dealers. The Latin name is

here not translated, but written in Greek letters.]

[Footnote 43: ἐξαφανίσας. A similar word is used by Carpophorus in his

address to Fuscianus later. Döllinger, _op. cit._, argues that this

does not necessarily imply any criminality on Callistus’ part as he may

have lost the money in an attempt to increase his master’s profit. See

note on next page.]

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

[Footnote 45: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 109) draws attention to

Carpophorus’ cruelty as shown by his condemnation of a fellow-Christian

to the awful punishment of the treadmill.]

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

[Footnote 47: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 110) argues that this was not

suicide but an attempt to escape.]

[Footnote 48: εἰς πίστρινον, transliterated as before. The terrible

nature of this punishment is well known. Cf. Darenberg and Saglio,

_Dict. des Antiq._, s.h.v.]

[Footnote 49: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 110) thinks that he had lent it

to the Jews, and that this accounts for the subsequent riot.]

[Footnote 50: See last note. In Döllinger’s opinion, he only went there

to ask for his money.]

[Footnote 51: ἀφανίσας.]

[Footnote 52: Döllinger (_ubi cit._) points out that Carpophorus’

speech throws further light on his character. Callistus _was_ a

Christian, as Hippolytus admits. Carpophorus’ anxiety to prevent his

being sentenced is explained by the fear of losing Callistus’ services,

sentence of penal servitude acting as manumission.]

[Footnote 53: Victor’s exact date is uncertain, but he probably

succeeded Eleutherus as Pope in A.D. 189 and was himself succeeded by

Zephyrinus in 202.]

[Footnote 54: τινὶ σπάδοντι πρεσβυτέρῳ. Some would translate “priest”;

but the ordination of a eunuch would be contrary to the Canons.]

[Footnote 55: ἐπιτροπεύων.]

[Footnote 56: Döllinger (_op. cit._) thinks there is no doubt from this

that Callistus was both condemned and set free as a Christian.]

[Footnote 57: From this, from the intervention of the brethren with

Carpophorus and from the favour shown to him by Hyacinthus, Döllinger

(_op. cit._) draws the conclusion that Callistus’ conduct up to this

point must have seemed to the community unlucky rather than criminal.]

[Footnote 58: The famous cemetery in the Via Appia still bearing his

name, where many of the early Popes are buried.]

[Footnote 59: ὑποκρίσει.]

[Footnote 60: ἐξηφάνισε. See n. 3 on p. 127.]

[Footnote 61: _i. e._ imagining himself to be the lawful Pope.]

[Footnote 62: Evidently refers to Hippolytus’ charge of Sabellianism

against him.]

[Footnote 63: γόης. Perhaps a juggler with words; but this sense is

unusual.]

[Footnote 64: See note on p. 125 _supra_. Döllinger (_op. cit._, p.

219) thinks that Hippolytus separated the Logos from God, and suggests

that Origen may have shared the error.]

[Footnote 65: Bishop Wordsworth (_St. Hippolytus and the Church of

Rome_, 1880, p. 87) would translate: “The Word is the Son and also the

Father, being called by a different name, but that the indivisible

Spirit is one.”]

[Footnote 66: Cf. John xiv. 11. The N.T. has πιστεύετε μοι, “Believe

me” (imperative).]

[Footnote 67: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 216) says this is a correct

statement of the Catholic position.]

[Footnote 68: Bunsen would read ἐκφυγών, [“thus] avoiding.” Cruice

inserts οὕτω πως ἐλπίζων, “thus hoping to avoid.” Döllinger inserts

ὥστε before ἐκφυγεῖν.]

[Footnote 69: If this Theodotus is, as seems probable, the Theodotus of

Byzantium mentioned in Book VII (p. 390 Cr.), who was excommunicated by

Victor, his heresy was, as Hippolytus himself records, Adoptianist, and

his opinions must have been poles asunder from those of Callistus.]

[Footnote 70: Here as elsewhere throughout this chapter, Hippolytus

assumes that he is the rightful head of the Catholic Church, and that

Callistus and the more numerous party within it are only a “school.”]

[Footnote 71: συναγόμενος, “gathered in,” “a member of any other man’s

congregation,” Wordsworth; _ab alio fuerat seductus_, Cruice, whom

Macmahon follows.]

[Footnote 72: A logical term.]

[Footnote 73: εἰς κλήρους. Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 140) points out

that Lectors, acolyths, Ostiarii and sub-deacons were all included in

the phrase ἐν κλήρῳ afterwards used, and that such persons were not

forbidden to marry. Yet the context is against him, and there can be no

doubt that Hippolytus intends to imply, whether with truth or not, that

Callistus did not degrade even the superior clergy for marrying more

than once.]

[Footnote 74: ἐν κλήρῳ.]

[Footnote 75: Rom. xiv. 4.]

[Footnote 76: Matt. xiii. 29.]

[Footnote 77: εἰς ὁμοίωμα.]

[Footnote 78: ἐλεύθερον, “a freed man”?]

[Footnote 79: Döllinger (_op. cit._, p. 158) suggests that this is a

reference to the _contubernium_, or concubinage known to Roman Law,

which the Church insisted on regarding as a lawful marriage. The case

of Marcia mentioned above might be one in point, but it is to be noted

that Hippolytus calls her παλλακὴ Κομόδου only.]

[Footnote 80: This practice of second baptism, which Hippolytus does

not accuse Callistus of teaching, but of which he says that it was

begun in his time, is apparently brought in here to connect this

chapter with the next on the Elchesaites. Had such accusation any

foundation, it would certainly have been known to Cyprian or Firmilian.]

[Footnote 81: No other author seems to have taken up this name, and

the rest of the paragraph shows that it was Callistus’ party which was

regarded as Catholic and Hippolytus’ as schismatic. As Hippolytus was

writing of matters within his own knowledge and in some measure that of

his readers, there is no reason to suppose that he drew his material

from any written source; but it has been suggested that the facts in

Callistus’ life that he here narrates may have been obtained _vivâ

voce_ from Carpophorus.]

[Footnote 82: This heresy of the Elchesaites was a very old one, and

probably had its roots in the Babylonian religion some millennia before

Christian times, ablution and exorcism being then considered one of the

most effectual modes of removing the consequences of transgression.

Prof. Brandt, of Amsterdam, who has paid much attention to the Mandæan

religion which has affinities with it, in his monograph on the subject

(_Elchasai, Ein Religionstifter und sein Werk_, Leipzig, 1912), thinks

that Elchasai, a name which may mean something like “Power of the Sun,”

was a real man who flourished in the reign of Trajan (A.D. 98-117),

and founded in Syria an eclectic religion made up of the doctrines of

Judaism and Christianity, mingled with the belief in the sovereign

efficacy of baptism found among the Hemerobaptists, Mughtasila or

“Washers,” who still exist. Thus, according to En-Nadîm (Flügel’s

_Mani_, p. 340), these Mughtasila in the tenth century still reverenced

as a prophet a certain Al-[H.]asih who seems to be our Elchasai, along

with Moses, Christ, and Mohammed. It also appears that his successors

sent out missionaries to the West, including doubtless the Alcibiades

of our text. Origen, in his Homily on the 82nd Psalm, mentions having

met with one of these who may have been Alcibiades himself. They seem

to have obtained some success among the Ebionite and Essene communities

on the shores of the Dead Sea, but the effort soon died out, and

Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl._, VI, 38) says that it was stifled almost at

its birth. Epiphanius (_Haer._, XIX, 5; XXX, 17; and LIII, 1) mentions

them in connection with the “heresies” of the Nazaræans, Ebionites

and Sampsæans respectively, but like Theodoret does little but repeat

Hippolytus’ statements.]

[Footnote 83: This book which is mentioned by all the writers who refer

to Elchasai, doubtless began with the vision of the angel from whom he

professed to receive his revelations.]

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

[Footnote 85: Brandt (_op. cit._, p. 42) thinks the word is Mandæan or

Aramaic, and means “the Baptized,” _i.e._ the Mughtasila.]

[Footnote 86: These measurements, intended to show the enormous

difference in size between the celestial powers and mankind, are

peculiarly Jewish and are frequent in the Haggadah and Cabala.]

[Footnote 87: The Rman mile here meant was 142 yards less than ours.

The schoenus was a measure of land used also by the Egyptians and

Persians.]

[Footnote 88: _i. e._ as that of Callistus.]

[Footnote 89: Hippolytus’ motive in thus connecting Alcibiades’

visit with Callistus’ proceedings is obvious. There could be nothing

in common in the re-baptizing of reconverted heretics of which he

(probably erroneously) accuses his adversary, and the magical efficacy

of the ablution prescribed by Alcibiades.]

[Footnote 90: ἐλέγξαντες.]

[Footnote 91: νόθος, “bastard.” Is this an allusion to the composite

nature of the Elchesaite religion?]

[Footnote 92: All these phrases are so condensed as to make the

conjectural restoration of important words necessary. It would seem

that the author was here hurrying over his task.]

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

[Footnote 94: Transmigration of souls does not appear to have entered

into the conceptions of the Mandæans, Mughtasila, or any other sects

with which Elchasai is known to have been connected; but Buddhist

ideas seem to have made some way with the Dead Sea communities. Did

Alcibiades draw this idea from them? If so this might explain the

allusion to the Seres.]

[Footnote 95: ἐπίλογοι.]

[Footnote 96: The text puts both Holy Spirit and Angels of Prayer in

the plural. Yet they must be singular, or the seven witnesses would

be more than that number. Brandt (_op. cit._) thinks many mistakes in

this chapter are to be explained by a faulty translation from Aramaic

into Greek. He also thinks that the mention of salt implies a sacrament

celebrated with bread and salt, and that earth, as one of the five

elements of Aristotle, should be substituted for the Earth as a pendant

to which Heaven is thrown in. It is simpler to derive the spell from

the ancient Babylonian religion in which Heaven and Earth are coupled

for the purpose of conjuration.]

[Footnote 97: πνεῦμα διαφθορᾶς. Cruice and Macmahon both translate

“spirit of destruction.” It evidently refers to rabies, and the authors

of the spell seem to have known that mere contact with a rabid animal

might produce infection.]

[Footnote 98: Both Miller and Duncker read προσευξάσθω, which has been

adopted here as making better sense. Cruice reads προσδειξάσθω, “show

himself unto.”]

[Footnote 99: εὐσεβεῖς. Often applied by the Jews of this time to those

who observed their usages, but were not full proselytes.]

[Footnote 100: _i. e._ “on which they bear rule”--a well-known

astrological phrase.]

[Footnote 101: _i. e._ “rises and sets with them.”]

[Footnote 102: This cannot mean that it is one of the days when the

evil stars rule. Probably some words like “which God has chosen” are

omitted.]

[Footnote 103: Did Alcibiades or Elchasai consider Trajan’s successful

campaign against the Parthians a calamity?]

[Footnote 104: Ἄρκτων, lit., “of the Bears.” Thus Cruice. But it is

probably another case of putting plurals for singulars.]

[Footnote 105: It is said that this is an unfulfilled prediction which

fixes the date of Elchasai’s book. If, however, we take Trajan’s

invasion of Parthia at A.D. 113, which seems the most likely date, the

rebellion of the Jews in the Cyrenaica, Egypt and Cyprus broke out

within the three years mentioned and raged until it was suppressed by

Marcius Turbo and Lusius Quietus, about the end of 116. The book may

therefore well be later than this.]

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

[Footnote 107: For the reason of this omission see Introduction,

_supra_.]

[Footnote 108: μηδὲ σιωπήσας, “when I have not kept silence about”--a

roundabout phrase.]

[Footnote 109: This promise is fulfilled by the peroration of Book X.

This shows the close connection between the Summary and the first nine

Books, and proves that the author of Book X, if not Hippolytus himself,

was at any rate some one who wished to be taken for him.]

[Footnote 110: The quotations in this chapter from the book of Elchasai

were doubtless taken from a Greek translation of that work brought to

Rome by Alcibiades.]

[Footnote 111: The reasons that probably influenced Hippolytus in

writing this description of Jewish religion as a sequel to his Ninth

Book are stated in the Introduction. It is for the most part extracted

from Josephus, the order of the paragraphs following that adopted by

him, and the words being in many cases the same. This has led Cruice to

suggest that both are taken from a common source, which he takes to be

a Christian writer of the first century. This is extremely unlikely,

since Epiphanius, Porphyry and Pliny all quote Josephus directly; but

it is probable that when he leaves Josephus, as he does after the

account of the Sadducees, Hippolytus draws from the statements of some

Jewish convert to Christianity of whom we know nothing. In this, the

Messianic ideas of the Jews which brought about the great revolt under

Bar Cochba are clearly set out, but it is curious that writing as he

must have done long after the practical extermination of the Jewish

nation by Hadrian, he should have made no allusion to it; and it may

therefore well be that he preferred to condense here the statements

which Justin Martyr puts into the mouth of Trypho, with which his own

agree in almost every particular. This Ninth Book bears throughout

the marks of haste or weariness, many of the sentences, except where

he is manifestly using the work of another as model, being slurred

over and difficult to construe grammatically. In one or two cases, he

contradicts his own statements, as in the case of the Sadducees, making

a subsequent correction by himself or the scribe necessary. See n. on

p. 147 _infra_.]

[Footnote 112: οἱ φιλομαθεῖς. Here as elsewhere this seems to mean “the

learned” simply.]

[Footnote 113: εἴδη, “species,” or “kinds.”]

[Footnote 114: ἕτεροι δὲ. Does he mean that all the rest of the Jews

are Essenes? Throughout this Book the article is frequently omitted

as in the title to this chapter. The rest of the section is almost

_verbatim_ from Josephus, _de Bell Jud._, II, 8, 2.]

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

[Footnote 116: αἱρετιστῶν. A Latinism here used for the first time by

Hippolytus.]

[Footnote 117: These two sections also are taken from Josephus, _op.

cit._, II, 8, 3, 4.]

[Footnote 118: So is this. Cf. Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 5.]

[Footnote 119: τῷ προεστῶτι. The president of the feast is evidently a

different person from the official of the same name in § 20, or of the

ἱερεύς or priest in § 21, _supra_.]

[Footnote 120: Words in ( ) inserted by Cruice from Josephus from whose

§ 6 this section is taken.]

[Footnote 121: σύνταγμα, _volumen ad usum fidelium_, Cruice,

“treatise,” Macmahon.]

[Footnote 122: This, too, is almost _verbatim_ from Josephus, _op.

cit._, II, 8, 7; but it is to be noted that Hippolytus omits the

obligation to preserve the books of the sect and the names of the

angels.]

[Footnote 123: Cf. Josephus, _op. cit._, § 8.]

[Footnote 124: Like the Egyptian _turria_, an axe with its blade at

right angles to instead of in a line with the shaft. Much used for

digging.]

[Footnote 125: This section also is taken from Josephus, _op. cit._,

II, 8, 9. Hippolytus omits to say that the blasphemers of Moses were to

be punished capitally. The refusal to get out of bed is not mentioned

by Josephus.]

[Footnote 126: τὴν ἄσκησιν, lit., “training,” as for a gymnastic

competition. Cf. our word “ascetic.”]

[Footnote 127: Josephus, _op. cit._, § 10, says that the sect and not

their teaching was fourfold. He transfers the story of pollution by

touch to the attitude of the seniors towards the juniors, and knows

nothing of the gate story. The Zealots, according to him (_op. cit._,

VII, 8, 1) grew up under the Sicarii, who defended Masada against the

Romans in Vespasian’s time. The rest of this section corresponds with

his Book II, 8, 10.]

[Footnote 128: In this section, Hippolytus leaves Josephus, except as

to the Islands of the Blessed and the Essene gift of prophecy, both of

which are to be found in Josephus, _op. cit._, II, 8, 11, 12.]

[Footnote 129: Josephus (_op. cit._, II, 8, 13), almost _verbatim_

through the whole section.]

[Footnote 130: ὀνόμασι κυρίοις, properly “nicknames.” He seems to

imply that while they called themselves Jews, other people knew them

as Pharisees, Chasidim, or Puritans. The statement about Fate and the

everlasting punishment of the wicked is to be found in Josephus (_op.

cit._, II, 8, 14), but the reward of the good is there said to be

metempsychosis.]

[Footnote 131: This section also appears to be expanded from Josephus,

_op. cit._, II, 8, 14.]

[Footnote 132: ἱερουργική.]

[Footnote 133: He here seems to imply that in the view of the Jews, at

any rate, the All was made from pre-existent material, as a house from

bricks, while some things were created _e nihilo_. This is denied in

the next sentence.]

[Footnote 134: ἄψυχον. Perhaps with Cruice and Macmahon, we should

translate “without _life_.” Yet it seems hardly possible that Jews

considered stones and minerals as alive.]

[Footnote 135: Leviticus?]

[Footnote 136: Here he, or perhaps some commentator, has to contradict

what he has just said about “all” Jews believing these doctrines.]

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

[Footnote 138: Here again it is plain that “all Jews” could not believe

this statement of Messianic hopes, and the Sadducees in particular

would have repudiated what he says about the Resurrection and future

recompense.]

[Footnote 139: τῶν φιλοσοφουμένων, a play quite in Hippolytus’ usual

manner on the name of the Book and its meaning. It should be noted that

the “things imagined by the heretics” correspond to the second title,

“Refutation of all Heresies.”]

[Footnote 140: He has already promised this in the conclusion to the

chapter on the Elchesaites (p. 138 _supra_), which strengthens one’s

conviction that that on the Jews was an afterthought. It is plain,

however, that nine Books were intended to precede the “Discourse on the

Truth.” Here again, he does not mention the Summary.]

[Sidenote: p. 474.] BOOK X

SUMMARIES, AND THE WORD OF TRUTH

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

Heresies.

2. An epitome of all the philosophers.

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

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

5. Having broken through the labyrinth[2] of the heresies without

violence but rather having dissolved them by our single refutation

in the power of Truth, we now draw near to the demonstration of the

Truth itself. For then the manufactured sophistries of the error will

appear inconsistent, when the definition of the Truth has shown that

it has not taken its beginnings from the philosophy of the Greeks. Nor

[has it taken] from [the] Egyptians [the] doctrines (and) the follies

which are adored among them as worthy of faith--as [the] mysteries

have taught--nor has it been devised out of the inconsistent jugglery

of [the] Chaldæans, nor been forged by the unreasoning madness of

[the] Babylonians through the activity of demons.[3] In whatever

shape, however, the definition subsists, it is true, unguarded, and

unadorned,[4] and by its appearance alone will refute the [Sidenote:

p. 475.] error. Concerning which, although we have many times made

demonstrations, and have pointed out the Rule of Truth sufficiently

and abundantly for those who are willing to learn, yet once again we

judge it reasonable on the top of all the doctrines of the Greeks and

heretics, to place as if it were [the] crown of the books [preceding],

this demonstration by means of the tenth book.

6. Now having brought together the teachings of all the sages among

[the] Greeks in four books,[5] and those of the heresiarchs in

five, we shall point out the Doctrine concerning the Truth in one,

after having first made a summary of what has been the opinions of

all. For the teachers of the Greeks, dividing philosophy into three

parts, so philosophize, some preaching Physics, some Ethics and some

Dialectic.[6] And those who preached Physics thus declared, some that

all things were born from one, others from many. And of those who

said [they came] from one, some [said they came] from what had no

Quality, and others from that which had Quality. And of those who [said

they came] from that which had Quality, some [said that they came]

[Sidenote: p. 476.] from fire, others from air, others from water and

yet others from earth. And of those who [said they came forth] from

many things, some [said that they came] from numerable things [others

from boundless ones. And of those who said they came from numerable

things], some [say that they came] from two, others from four, others

from five, and others from six. And of those [who say] that they came

from the boundless things, some [say that they came] from things like

generated things, others from those unlike. And some of them say that

they came from things impassible, others from things passible. The

Stoics indeed would establish the birth of the universals from that

which has no Quality and one body. For according to them, matter

unqualified and capable of change by means of the universals is their

source. And when it is transformed, fire, air, water and earth come

into being. And those who will have all things to come into being from

that which has Quality are the followers of Hippasus and Anaximander

and Thales the Milesian. Hippasus the Metapontian[7] and Heraclitus

the Ephesian declared the genesis of things to be from fire, but

Anaximander from air, Thales from water, and Xenophanes from earth.

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

[Sidenote: p. 477.] 7. Of those who would derive the universals from

[the] many and [the] numerable, the poet Homer declares that the

universals have been composed of earth and water when he says:--

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

and again:--

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

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

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