THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES -- BOOK X
THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.
BOOK X.
CONTENTS
THE following are the contents of the tenth book of the Refutation of all
Heresies:--
An Epitome of all Philosophers.
An Epitome of all Heresies.
And, in conclusion to all, what the Doctrine of the Truth is.
CHAP. I.--RECAPITULATION.
After we have, not with violence, burst through the labyrinth(1) of
heresies, but have unravelled (their intricacies) through a refutation merely, or, in
other words, by the force of truth, we approach the demonstration of the truth
itself. For then the artificial sophisms of error will be exposed in all their
inconsistency, when we shall succeed in establishing whence it is that the
definition of the truth has been derived. The truth has not taken its principles
from the wisdom of the Greeks, nor borrowed its doctrines, as secret mysteries,
from the tenets of the Egyptians, which, albeit silly, are regarded amongst
them with religious veneration as worthy of reliance. Nor has it been formed out
of the fallacies which enunciate the incoherent (conclusions arrived at through
the) curiosity of the Chaldeans. Nor does the truth owe its existence to
astonishment, through the operations of demons, for the irrational frenzy of the
Babylonians. But its definition is constituted after the manner in which every true
definition is, viz., as simple and unadorned. A definition such as this,
provided it is made manifest, will of itself refute error. And although we have very
frequently propounded demonstrations, and with sufficient fulness elucidated
for those willing (to learn) the rule of the truth; yet even now, after having
discussed all the opinions put forward by the Greeks and heretics, we have
decided it not to be, at all events, unreasonable to introduce, as a sort of
finishing stroke to the (nine) books preceding, this demonstration throughout the
tenth book.
CHAP. II.--SUMMARY OF THE OPINIONS OF PHILOSOPHERS.
Having, therefore, embraced (a consideration of) the tenets of all the
wise men among the Greeks in four books, and the doctrines propounded by the
heresiarchs in five, we shall now exhibit the doctrine concerning the truth in one,
having first presented in a summary the suppositions entertained severally by
all. For the dogmatists of the Greeks, dividing philosophy into three parts, in
this manner devised from time to time their speculative systems;(2) some
denominating their system Natural, and others Moral, but others Dialectical
Philosophy. And the ancient thinkers who called their science Natural Philosophy, were
those mentioned in book i. And the account which they furnished was after this
mode: Some of them derived all things from one, whereas others from more things
than one. And of those who derived all things from one, some derived them from
what was devoid of quality, whereas others from what was endued with quality.
And among those who derived all things from quality, some derived them from
fire. and some from air, and some from water, and some from earth. And among those
who derived the universe from more things than one, some derived it from
numerable, but others from infinite quantities. And among those who derived all
things from numerable quantities, some derived them from two, and others from four,
and others from five, and others from six. And among those who derived the
universe from infinite quantities, some derived entities from things similar to
those generated, whereas others from things dissimilar. And among these some
derived entities from things incapable of, whereas others from things capable of,
passion. From a body devoid of quality and endued with unity, the Stoics, then,
accounted for the generation of the universe. For, according to them, matter
devoid of quality, and in all its parts susceptible of change, constitutes an
originating principle of the universe. For, when an alteration of this ensues,
there is generated fire, air, water, earth. The followers, however, of Hippasus,
and Anaximander, and Thales the Milesian, are disposed to think that all things
have been generated from one (an entity), endued with quality. Hippasus of
Metapontum and Heraclitus the Ephesian declared the origin of things to be from
fire, whereas Anaximander from air, but Thales from water, and Xenophanes from
earth. "For from earth," says he, "are all things, and all things terminate in the
earth."(1)
CHAP. III.--SUMMARY OF THE OPINIONS OF PHILOSOPHERS CONTINUED.
But among those who derive all entities from more things than one, and
from numerable quantities, the poet Homer asserts that the universe consists of
two substances, namely earth and water; at one time expressing himself thus:--
"The source of gods was Sea and Mother Earth."(2)
And on another occasion thus:--
"But indeed ye all might become water and earth."(3)
And Xenophanes of Colophon seems to coincide with him, for he says:--
"We all are sprung from water and from earth."(4)
Euripides, however, (derives the universe) from earth and air, as one may
ascertain from the following assertion of his:--
"Mother of all, air and earth, I sing."(5)
But Empedocles derives the universe from four principles, expressing himself
thus:--
"Four roots of all things hear thou first:
Brilliant Jove, and life-giving Juno and Aidoneus,
And Nestis, that with tears bedews the Mortal Font."(6)
Ocellus, however, the Lucanian, and Aristotle, derive the universe from five
principles; for, along with the four elements, they have assumed the existence
of a fifth, and (that this is) a body with a circular motion; and they say that
from this, things celestial have their being. But the disciples of Empedocles
supposed the generation of the universe to have proceeded from six principles.
For in the passage where he says, "Four roots of all things hear thou first," he
produces generation out of four principles. When, however, he subjoins,--
"Ruinous Strife apart from these, equal in every point,
And with them Friendship equal in length and breadth,"(7)--
he also delivers six principles of the universe, four of them material--earth,
water, fire, and air; but two of them formative--Friendship and Discord. The
followers, however, of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, and of Democritus, and of
Epicurus, and multitudes of others, have given it as their opinion that the
generation of the universe proceeds from infinite numbers of atoms; and we have
previously made partial mention of these philosophers. But Anaxagoras derives the
universe from things similar to those that are being produced; whereas the
followers of Democritus and Epicurus derived the universe from things both dissimilar
(to the entities produced), and devoid of passion, that is, from atoms. But the
followers of Heraclides of Pontus, and of Asclepiades, derived the universe
from things dissimilar (to the entities produced), and capable of passion, as if
from incongruous corpuscles. But the disciples of Plato affirm that these
entities are from three principles--God, and Matter, and Exemplar. He divides matter,
however, into four principles--fire, water, earth, and air. And (he says) that
God is the Creator of this (matter), and that Mind is its exemplar.(8)
CHAP. IV.--SUMMARY OF THE OPINIONS OF PHILOSOPHERS CONTINUED.
Persuaded, then, that the principle of physiology is confessedly
discovered to be encumbered with difficulties for all these philosophers, we ourselves
also shall fearlessly declare concerning the examples of the truth, as to how
they are, and as we have felt confident that they are. But we shall previously
furnish an explanation, in the way of epitome, of the tenets of the heresiarchs,
in order that, by our having set before our readers the tenets of all made well
known by this (plan of treatment), we may exhibit the truth in a plain and
familiar (form).
CHAP. V.--THE NAASSENI.
But since it so appears expedient, let us begin first from the public
worshippers of the serpent. The Naasseni call the first principle of the universe a
Man, and that the same also is a Son of Man; and they divide this man into
three portions. For they say one part of him is rational, and another psychical,
but a third earthly. And they style him Adamas, and suppose that the knowledge
appertaining to him is the originating cause of the capacity of knowing God. And
the Naassene asserts that all these rational, and psychical, and earthly
qualities have retired into Jesus, and that through Him these three substances
simultaneously have spoken unto the three genera of the universe. These allege that
there are three kinds of existence--angelic, psychical, and earthly; and that
there are three churches--angelic, psychical, and earthly; and that the names
for these are--chosen, called, and captive. These are the heads of doctrine
advanced by them, as far as one may briefly comprehend them. They affirm that James,
the brother of the Lord, delivered these tenets to Mariamne, by such a
statement belying both.
CHAP. VI.--THE PERATAE.
The Peratae, however, viz., Ademes the Carystian, and Euphrates the
Peratic, say that there is some one world,--this is the denomination they use,--and
affirming that it is divided into three parts. But of the threefold division,
according to them, there is one principle, just like an immense fountain, capable
of being by reason divided into infinite segments. And the first segment, and
the one of more proximity, according to them, is the triad, and is called a
perfect good, and a paternal magnitude. But the second portion of the triad is a
certain multitude of, as it were, infinite powers. The third part, however, is
formal. And the first is unbegotten;(1) whence they expressly affirm that there
are three Gods, three Logoi, three minds, (and) three men. For when the
division has been accomplished, to each part of the world they assign both Gods, and
Logoi, and men, and the rest. But from above, from uncreatedness and the first
segment of the world, when afterwards the world had attained to its
consummation, the Peratic affirms that there came down, in the times of Herod, a certain
man with a threefold nature, and a threefold body, and a threefold power, named
Christ, and that He possesses from the three parts of the world in Himself all
the concretions and capacities of the world. And they are disposed to think that
this is what has been declared, "in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily."(2) And they assert that from the two worlds situated above--namely,
both the unbegotten one and self-begotten one--there were borne down into this
world in which we are, germs of all sorts of powers. And (they say) that
Christ came down from above from uncreatedness, in order that, by His descent, all
things that have been divided into three parts may be saved. For, says the
Peratic, the things that have been borne down from above will ascend through Him;
and the things that have plotted against those that have been borne down are
heedlessly rejected,(3) and sent away to be punished. And the Peratic states that
there are two parts which are saved--that is, those that are situated above--by
having been separated from corruption, and that the third is destroyed, which
he calls a formal world. These also are the tenets of the Peratae.
CHAP. VII.--THE SETHIANS.
But to the Sethians it seems that there exist three principles, which have
been precisely defined. And each of the principles is fitted by nature for
being able to be generated, as in a human soul every art whatsoever is developed
which is capable of being learned. The result is the same as when a child, by
being long conversant with a musical instrument, becomes a musician; or with
geometry a geometrician, or with any other art, with a similar result. And the
essences of the principles, the Sethians say, are light and darkness. And in the
midst of these is pure spirit; and the spirit, they say, is that which is placed
intermediate between darkness, which is below, and light, which is above. It is
not spirit, as a current of wind or a certain gentle breeze which may be felt,
but just as if some fragrance of ointment or incense made out of a refined
mixture,--a power diffusing itself by some impulse of fragrance which is
inconceivable and superior to what one can express. Since, therefore, the light is above
and the darkness below, and the spirit is intermediate between these, the
light, also, as a ray of sun, shines from above on the underlying darkness. And the
fragrance of the spirit is wafted onwards, occupying an intermediate position,
and proceeds forth, just as is diffused the odour of incense-offerings (laid)
upon the fire. Now the power of the things divided threefold being of this
description, the power simultaneously of the spirit and of the light is below, in
the darkness that is situated beneath. The darkness, however, they say, is a
horrible water, into which the light along with the spirit is absorbed, and thus
translated into a nature of this description. The darkness being then endued
with intelligence, and knowing that when the light has been removed from it the
darkness continues desolate, devoid of radiance and splendour, power and
efficiency, as well as impotent, (therefore,) by every effort of reflection and of
reason, this makes an exertion to comprise in itself brilliancy, and a
scintillation of light, along with the fragrance of the spirit. And of this they introduce
the following image, expressing themselves thus: Just as the pupil of the eye
appears dark beneath the underlying humours, but is illuminated by the spirit,
so the darkness earnestly strives after the spirit, and has with itself all the
powers which wish to retire and return. Now these are indefinitely infinite,
from which, when commingled, all things are figured and generated like seals. For
just as a seal, when brought into contact with wax, produces a figure, (and
yet the seal) itself remains of itself what it was, so also the powers, by coming
into communion (one with the other), form all the infinite kinds of animals.
The Sethians assert that, therefore, from the primary concourse of the three
principles was generated an image of the great seal, namely heaven and earth,
having a form like a womb, possessing a navel in the midst. And so that the rest of
the figures of all things were, like heaven and earth, fashioned similar to a
womb.
And the Sethians say that from the water was produced a first-begotten
principle, namely a vehement and boisterous wind, and that it is a cause of all
generation, which creates a sort of heat and motion in the world from the motion
of the waters. And they maintain that this wind is fashioned like the hissing
of a serpent into a perfect image. And on this the world gazes and hurries into
generation, being inflamed as a womb; and from thence they are disposed to
think that the generation of the universe has arisen. And they say that this wind
constitutes a spirit, and that a perfect God has arisen from the fragrance of
the waters, and that of the spirit, and from the brilliant light. And they affirm
that mind exists after the mode of generation from a female--(meaning by mind)
the supernal spark--and that, having been mingled beneath with the compounds
of body, it earnestly desires to flee away, that escaping it may depart and not
find dissolution on account of the deficiency in the waters. Wherefore it is in
the habit of crying aloud from the mixture of the waters, according to the
Psalmist, as they say, "For the entire anxiety of the light above is, that it may
deliver the spark which is below from the Father beneath,"(1) that is, from
wind. And the Father creates heat and disturbance, and produces for Himself a Son,
namely mind, which, as they allege, is not the peculiar offspring of Himself.
And these heretics affirm that the Son, on beholding the perfect Logos of the
supernal light, underwent a transformation, and in the shape of a serpent
entered into a womb, in order that he might be able to recover that Mind which is the
scintillation from the light. And that this is what has been declared, "Who,
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made
Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant."(2) And the
wretched and baneful Sethians are disposed to think that this constitutes the
servile form alluded to by the Apostle. These, then, l are the assertions which
likewise these Sethians advance.
CHAP. VIII.--SIMON MAGUS.
But that very sapient fellow Simon makes his statement thus, that there is
an indefinite power, and that this is the root of the universe. And this
indefinite power, he says, which is fire, is in itself not anything which is simple,
as the gross bulk of speculators maintain, when they assert that there are
four incomposite elements, and have supposed fire, as one of these, to be
uncompounded. Simon, on the other hand, alleges that the nature of fire is twofold; and
one portion of this twofold (nature) he calls a something secret, and another
(a something) manifest. And he asserts that the secret is concealed in the
manifest parts of the fire, and that the manifest parts of the fire have been
produced from the secret. And he says that all the parts of the fire, visible and
invisible, have been supposed to be in possession of a capacity of perception.
The world, therefore, he says, that is begotten, has been produced from the
unbegotten fire. And it commenced, he says, to exist thus: The Unbegotten One took
six primal roots of the principle of generation from the principle of that fire.
For he maintains that these roots have been generated in pairs from the fire;
and these he denominates Mind and Intelligence, Voice and Name, Ratiocination
and Reflection. Anti he asserts that in the six roots, at the same time, resides
the indefinite power, which he affirms to be Him that stood, stands, and will
stand. And when this one has been formed into a figure, He will, according to
this heretic, exist in the six powers substantially and potentially. And He will
be in magnitude and perfection one and the same with that unbegotten and
indefinite power, possessing no attribute in any respect more deficient than that
unbegotten, and unalterable, and indefinite power. If, however, He who stood,
stands, and will stand, continues to exist only potentially in the six powers, and
has not assumed any definite figure, He becomes, says Simon, utterly
evanescent, and perishes. And this takes place in the same manner as the grammatical or
geometrical capacity, which, though it has been implanted in man's soul,
suffers extinction when it does not obtain (the assistance of) a master of either of
these arts, who would indoctrinate that soul into its principles. Now Simon
affirms that he himself is He who stood, stands, and will stand, and that He is a
power that is above all things. So far, then, for the opinions of Simon
likewise.
CHAP. IX.--VALENTINUS.
Valentinus,(1) however, and the adherents of this school, though they
agree in asserting that the originating principle of the universe is the Father,
still they are impelled into the adoption of a contrary opinion respecting Him.
For some of them maintain that (the Father) is solitary and generative; whereas
others hold the impossibility, (in His as in other cases,) of procreation
without a female. They therefore add Sige as the spouse of this Father, and style
the Father Himself Bythus. From this Father and His spouse some allege that there
have been six projections,--viz., Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos
and Ecclesia,--and that this constitutes the procreative Ogdoad. And the
Valentinians maintain that those are the first projections which have taken place
within the limit, and have been again denominated "those within the Pleroma;" and
the second are "those without the Pleroma"; and the third, "those without the
Limit." Now the generation of these constitutes the Hysterema Acamoth. And he
asserts that what has been generated from an AEon, that exists in the Hysterema
and has been projected (beyond the Limit), is the Creator. But Valentinus is not
disposed to affirm what is thus generated to be primal Deity, but speaks in
detractive terms both of Him and the things made by Him. And (he asserts) that
Christ came down from within the Pleroma for the salvation of the spirit who had
erred. This spirit, (according to the Valentinians,) resides in our inner man;
and they say that this inner man obtains salvation on account of this
indwelling spirit. Valentinus, however, (to uphold the doctrine,) determines that the
flesh is not saved, and styles it "a leathern tunic," and the perishable portion
of man. I have (already) declared these tenets in the way of an epitome,
inasmuch as in their systems there exists enlarged matter for discussion, and a
variety of opinions. In this manner, then, it seems proper also to the school of
Valentinus to propound their opinions.
CHAP. X.--BASILIDES.
But Basilides also himself affirms that there is a non-existent God, who,
being non-existent, has made the non-existent world, that has been formed out
of things that are not, by casting down a certain seed, as it were a grain of
mustard-seed, having in itself stem, leaves, branches, and fruit. Or this seed is
as a peacock's egg, comprising in itself the varied multitude of colours. And
this, say the Basilidians, constitutes the seed of the world, from which all
things have been produced. For they maintain that it comprises in itself all
things, as it were those that as yet are non-existent, and which it has been
predetermined to be brought into existence by the non-existent Deity. There was,
then, he says, in the seed itself a threefold Sonship, in all respects of the same
substance with the nonexistent God, which has been begotten from things that
are not. And of this Sonship, divided into three parts, one portion of it was
refined, and another gross, and another requiring purification. The refined
portion, when first the earliest putting down of the seed was accomplished by the
non-existent God, immediately burst forth, and ascended upwards, and proceeded
towards the non-existent Deity. For every nature yearns after that God on account
of the excess of His beauty, but different (creatures desire Him) from
different causes. The more gross portion, however, still continues in the seed; and
inasmuch as it is a certain imitative nature, it was not able to soar upwards, for
it was more gross than the subtle part. The mare gross portion, however,
equipped itself with the Holy Spirit, as it were with wings; for the Sonship, thus
arrayed, shows kindness to this Spirit, and in turn receives kindness. The third
Sonship, however, requires purification, and therefore this continued in the
conglomeration of all germs, and this displays and receives kindness. And
(Basilides asserts) that there is something which is called "world," and something
else (which is called) supra-mundane; for entities are distributed by him into
two primary divisions. And what is intermediate between these he calls
"Conterminous Holy Spirit," and (this Spirit) has in itself the fragrance of the Sonship.
From the conglomeration of all germs of the cosmical seed burnt forth and
was begotten the Great Archon, the head of the world, an AEon of inexpressible
beauty and size. This (Archon) having raised Himself as far as the firmament,
supposed that there was not another above Himself. And accordingly He became
more brilliant and powerful than all the underlying AEons, with the exception of
the Sonship that had been left beneath, but which He was not aware was more wise
than Himself. This one having His attention turned to the creation of the
world, first begat a son unto Himself, superior to Himself; and this son He caused
to sit on His own right hand, and this these Basilidians allege is the Ogdoad.
The Great Archon Himself, then, produces the entire celestial creation. And
other Archon ascended from (the conglomeration of) all the germs, who was greater
than all the underlying AEon, except the Sonship that had been left behind, yet
far inferior to the former one. And they style this second Archon a Hebdomad.
He is Maker, and Creator, and Controller of all things that are beneath Him,
and this Archon produced for Himself a Son more prudent and wiser than Himself.
Now they assert that all these things exist according to the predetermination of
that non-existent God, and that there exist also worlds and intervals that are
infinite. And the Basilidians affirm that upon Jesus, who was born of Mary,
came the power of the Gospel, which descended and illuminated the Son both of the
Ogdoad and of the Hebdomad. And this tank place for the purpose of
enlightening and distinguishing from the different orders of beings, and purifying the
Sonship that had been left behind for conferring benefits on souls, and the
receiving benefits in turn. And they say that themselves are sons, who are in the
world for this cause, that by teaching they may purify souls, and along with the
Sonship may ascend to the Father above, from whom proceeded the first Sonship.
And they allege that the world endures until the period when all souls may have
repaired thither along with the Sonship. These, however, are the opinions which
Basilides, who detailed them as prodigies, is not ashamed to advance.
CHAP. XI.--JUSTINUS.
But Justinus also himself attempted to establish similar opinions with
these, and expresses himself thus: That there are three unbegotten principles of
the universe, two males and one female. And of the males one principle is
denominated "Goody Now this alone is called after this mode, and is endued with a
foreknowledge of the universe. And the other is Father of all generated entities,
and is devoid of foreknowledge, and unknown, and invisible, and is called
Elohim. The female principle is devoid of foreknowledge, passionate, with two minds,
and with two booties, as we have minutely detailed in the previous discourses
concerning this heretic's system. This female principle, in her upper parts, as
far as the groin, is, the Justinians say, a virgin, whereas from the groin
downwards a snake. And such is denominated Edem and Israel. This heretic alleges
that these are the principles of the universe, from which all things have been
produced. And he asserts that Elohim, without foreknowledge, passed into
inordinate desire for the half virgin, and that having had intercourse with her, he
begot twelve angels; and the names of these he states to be those already given.
And of these the paternal ones are connected with the father, and the maternal
with the mother. And Justinus maintains that these are (the trees of Paradise),
concerning which Moses has spoken in an allegorical sense the things written
in the law. And Justinus u affirms that all things were made by Elohim and Edem.
And (he says) that animals, with a the rest of the creatures of this kind, are
from the a part resembling a beast, whereas man from the parts above the
groin. And Edem (is supposed by Justinus) to have deposited in man himself the soul,
which was her own power, (but Elohim the spirit.) And Justinus alleges that
this Elohim, after having learned his origin, ascended to the Good Being, and
deserted Edem. And this heretic asserts that Edem, enraged on account of such
(treatment), concocted all this plot against the spirit of Elohim which he
deposited in man. And (Justinus informs us) that for this reason the Father sent
Baruch, and issued directions to the prophets, in order that the spirit of Elohim
might be delivered, and that all might be seduced away from Edem. But (this
heretic) alleges that even Hercules was a prophet, and that he was worsted by
Omphale, that is, by Babel; and the Justinians call the latter Venus. And (they say)
that afterwards, in the days of Herod, Jesus was born son of Mary and Joseph, to
whom he alleges Baruch had spoken. And (Justinus asserts) that Edem plotted
against this (Jesus), but could not deceive him; and for this reason, that she
caused him to be crucified. And the spirit of Jesus, (says Justinus,) ascended to
the Good Being. And (the Justinians maintain) that the spirits of all who thus
obey those silly and futile discourses will be saved, and that the body and
soul of Edem have been left behind. But the foolish Justinus calls this (Edem)
Earth.
CHAP. XII.--THE DOCETAE.
Now the Docetae advance assertions of this description: that the primal
Deity is as a seed of the fig-tree; and that from this proceeded three AEons as
the stem, and the leaves and the fruit; and that these projected thirty AEons,
each (of them) ten; and that they were all united in decades, but differed only
in positions, as some were before others. And (the Docetae assert) that
infinite AEons were indefinitely projected, and that all these were hermaphrodites.
And (they say) that these AEons formed a design of simultaneously going together
into one AEon, and that from this the intermediate AEon and from the Virgin
Mary they begot a Saviour of all. And this Redeemer was like in every respect to
the first seed of the fig-tree, but inferior in this respect, from the fact of
His having been begotten; for the seed whence the fig-tree springs is
unbegotten. This, then, was the great light of the AEons--it was entirely radiance--which
receives no adornment, and comprises in itself the forms of all animals. And
the Docetae maintain that this light, on proceeding into the underlying chaos,
afforded a cause (of existence ) to the things that were produced, and those
actually existing, and that on coming down from above it impressed on chaos
beneath the forms of everlasting species. For the third AEon, which had tripled
itself, when he perceives that all his characteristic attributes were forcibly drawn
off into the nether darkness, and not being ignorant both of the terror of
darkness and the simplicity of light, proceeded to create heaven; and after having
rendered firm what intervened, He separated the darkness from the light. As
all the species of the third AEon were, he says, overcome by the darkness, the
figure even of this AEon became a living fire, having been generated by light.
And from this (source), they allege, was generated the Great Archon, regarding
whom Moses converses, saying that He is a fiery Deity and Demiurge, who also
continually alters the forms of all (AEons) into bodies. And the (Docetae) allege
that these are the souls for whose sake the Saviour was begotten, and that He
points out the way through which the souls will escape that are (now) overpowered
(by darkness). And (the Docetae maintain) that Jesus arrayed Himself in that
only-begotten power, and that for this reason He could not be seen by any, on
account of the excessive magnitude of His glory. And they say that all the
occurrences took place with Him as it has been written in the Gospels.
CHAP. XIII.--MONOIMUS.
But the followers of Monoimus the Arabian assert that the originating
principle of the universe is a primal man and son of man; and that, as Moses
states, the things that have been produced were produced not by the primal man, but
by the Son of that primal man, yet not by the entire Son, but by part of Him.
And (Monoimus asserts) that the Son of man is iota, which stands for ten, the
principal number in which is (inherent) the subsistence of all number (in general,
and) through which every number (in particular) consists, as well as the
generation of the universe, fire, air, water, and earth. But inasmuch as this is one
iota and one tittle, and what is perfect (emanates) from what is perfect, or,
in other words, a tittle flows down from above, containing all things in
itself; (therefore,) whatsoever things also the man possesses, the Father of the Son
of man possesses likewise. Moses, therefore, says that the world was made in
six days, that is, by six powers, out of which the world was made by the one
tittle. For cubes, and octahedrons, and pyramids, and all figures similar to these,
having equal superficies, out of which consist fire, air, water, and earth,
have been produced from numbers comprehended in that simple tittle of the iota,
which is Son of man. When, therefore, says (Monoimus), Moses mentions the rod's
being brandished for the purpose of bringing the plagues upon Egypt, he alludes
allegorically to the (alterations of the) world of iota; nor did he frame more
than ten plagues. If, however, says he, you wish to become acquainted with the
universe, search within yourself who is it that says, "My soul, my flesh, and
my mind," and who is it that appropriates each one thing unto himself, as
another (would do) for himself. Understand that this is a perfect one arising from
(one that is) perfect, and that he considers as his own all so-called
nonentities and all entities. These, then, are the opinions of Monoimus also.
CHAP. XIV.--TATIAN.
Tatian, however, similarly with Valentinus and the others, says that there
are certain invisible AEons, and that by some one of these the world below has
been created, and the things existing in it. And he habituates himself to a
very cynical(1) mode of life, and almost in nothing differs from Marcion, as
appertaining both to his slanders, and the regulations enacted concerning marriage.
CHAP. XV.--MARCION AND CERDO.
But Marcion, of Pontus, and Cerdon,(2) his preceptor, themselves also lay
down that there are three principles of the universe--good, just, and matter.
Some disciples, however, of these add a fourth, saying, good, just, evil, and
matter. But they all affirm that the good (Being) has made nothing at all, though
some denominate the just one likewise evil, whereas others that his only title
is that of just. And they allege that (the just Being) made all things out of
subjacent matter, for that he made them not well, but irrationally. For it is
requisite that the things made should be similar to the maker; wherefore also
they thus employ the evangelical parables, saying, "A good tree cannot bring
forth evil fruit,"(3) and the rest of the passage. Now Marcion alleges that the
conceptions badly devised by the (just one) himself constituted the allusion in
this passage. And (he says) that Christ is the Son of the good Being, and was
sent for the salvation of souls by him whom he styles the inner than. And he
asserts that he appeared as a man though not being a man, and as incarnate though
not being incarnate. And he maintains that his manifestation was only phantastic,
and that he underwent neither generation nor passion except in appearance. And
he will not allow that flesh rises again; but in affirming marriage to be
destruction, he leads his disciples towards a very cynical life. And by these means
he imagines that he annoys the Creator, if he should abstain from the things
that are made or appointed by Him.
CHAP. XVI.--APELLES.
But Apelles, a disciple of this heretic, was displeased at the statements
advanced by his preceptor, as we have previously declared, and by another
theory supposed that there are four gods. And the first of these he alleges to be
the "Good Being," whom the prophets did not know, and Christ to be His Son. And
the second God, he affirms to be the Creator of the universe, and Him he does
not wish to be a God. And the third God, he states to be the fiery one that was
manifested; and the fourth to be an evil one. And Apelles calls these angels;
and by adding (to their number) Christ likewise, he will assert Him to be a fifth
God. But this heretic is in the habit of devoting his attention to a book
which he calls "Revelations" of a certain Philumene, whom he considers a
prophetess. And he affirms that Christ did not receive his flesh from the Virgin, but
from the adjacent substance of the world. In this manner he composed his treatises
against the law and the prophets, and attempts to abolish them as if they had
spoken falsehoods, and had not known God. And Apelles, similarly with Marcion,
affirms that the different sorts of flesh are destroyed.
CHAP. XVII.--CERINTHUS.
Cerinthus, however, himself having been trained in Egypt, determined that
the world was not made by the first God, but by a certain angelic power. And
this power was far separated and distant from that sovereignty which is above the
entire circle of existence, and it knows not the God (that is) above all
things. And he says that JeSus was not born of a virgin, but that He sprang from
Joseph and Mary as their son, similar to the rest of men; and that He excelled in
justice, and prudence, and understanding above all the rest of mankind. And
Cerinthus maintains that, after Jesus' baptism, Christ came down in the form of a
dove upon Him from the sovereignty that is above the whole circle of existence,
and that then He proceeded to preach the unknown Father, and to work miracles.
And he asserts that, at the conclusion of the passion, Christ flew away from
Jesus,(1) but that Jesus suffered, and that Christ remained incapable of
suffering, being a spirit of the Lord.
CHAP. XVIII.--THE EBIONAEANS.
But the Ebionaeans assert that the world is made by the true God, and they
speak of Christ in a similar manner with Cerinthus. They live, however, in all
respects according to the law of Moses, alleging that they are thus justified.
CHAP. XIX.--THEODOTUS.(2)
But Theodotus of Byzantium introduced a heresy of the following
description, alleging that all things were created by the true God; whereas that Christ,
he states, in a manner similar to that advocated by the Gnostics already
mentioned, made His appearance according to some mode of this description. And
Theodotus affirms that Christ is a man of a kindred nature with all men, but that He
surpasses them in this respect, that, according to the counsel of God, He had
been born of a virgin, and the Holy Ghost had overshadowed His mother. This
heretic, however, maintained that Jesus had not assumed flesh in the womb of the
Virgin, but that afterwards Christ descended upon Jesus at His baptism in form of
a dove. And from this circumstance, the lowers of Theodotus affirm that at
first miraculous powers did not acquire operating energy in Saviour Himself.
Theodotus, however, determines to deny the divinity of Christ. Now, opinions of this
description were advaned by Theodotus.
CHAP. XX.--MELCHISEDECIANS.
And others also make all their assertions similarly with those which have
been already specified, introducing one only alteration, viz., in respect of
regarding Melchisedec as a certain power. But they allege that Melchisedec
himself is superior to all powers; and according to his image, they are desirous of
maintaining that Christ likewise is generated.
CHAP. XXI.--THE PHRYGIANS OR MONTANISTS.
The Phrygians, however, derive the principles of their heresy from a
certain Montanus, and Priscilla, and Maximilla, and regard these wretched women as
prophetesses, and Montanus as a prophet. In respect, however, of what appertains
to the origin and creation of the universe, the Phrygians are supposed to
express themselves correctly; while in the tenets which they enunciate respecting
Christ, they have not irrelevantly formed their opinions. But they are seduced
into error in common with the heretics previously alluded to, and devote their
attention to the discourses of these above the Gospels, thus laying down
regulations concerning novel and strange fasts.(3)
CHAP. XXII.--THE PHRYGIANS OR MONTANISTS CONTINUED.
But others of them, being attached to the heresy of the Noetians,
entertain similar opinions to those relating to the silly women of the Phrygians, and
to Montanus. As regards, however, the truths appertaining to the Father of the
entire of existing things, they are guilty of blasphemy, because they assert
that He is Son and Father, visible and invisible, begotten and unbegotten, mortal
and immortal. These have taken occasion from a certain Noetus to put forward
their heresy.
CHAP. XXIII.--NOETUS AND CALLISTUS.
But in like manner, also, Noetus, being by birth a native of Smyrna, and a
fellow addicted to reckless babbling, as well as crafty withal, introduced
(among us) this heresy which originated from one Epigonus. It reached Rome, and
was adopted by Cleomenes, and so has continued to this day among his successors.
Noetus asserts that there is one Father and God of the universe, and that He
made all things, and was imperceptible to those that exist when He might so
desire. Noetus maintained that the Father then appeared when He wished; and He is
invisible when He is not seen, but visible when He is seen. And this heretic also
alleges that the Father is unbegotten when He is not generated, but begotten
when He is born of a virgin; as also that He is not subject to suffering, and is
immortal when He does not suffer or die. When, however, His passion(1) came
upon Him, Noetus allows that the Father suffers and dies. And the Noetians
suppose that this Father Himself is called Son, (and vice versa,) in reference to the
events which at their own proper periods happen to them severally.
Callistus corroborated the heresy of these Noetians, but we have already
carefully explained the details of his life. And Callistus himself produced
likewise a heresy, and derived its starting-points from these Noetians,--namely, so
far as he acknowledges that there is one Father and God, viz., the Creator of
the universe, and that this (God) is spoken of, and called by the name of Son,
yet that in substance He is one Spirit. For Spirit, as the Deity, is, he says,
not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity; therefore
this one person, (according to Callistus,) is divided nominally, but
substantially not so. He supposes this one Logos to be God, and affirms that there was
in the ease of the Word an incarnation. And he is disposed (to maintain), that
He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified(2) is Son, but that the Father it
is who dwells in Him. Callistus thus at one time branches off into the opinion
of Noetus, but at another into that of Theodotus, and holds no sure doctrine.
These, then, are the opinions of Callistus.
CHAP. XXIV.--HERMOGENES.
But one Hermogenes himself also being desirous of saying something,
asserted that God made all things out of matter coeval with Himself, and subject to
His design. For Hermogenes(3) held it to be an impossibility that God should
make the things that were made, except out of existent things.
CHAP. XXV.--THE ELCHASAITES.
But certain others, introducing as it were some novel tenet, appropriated
parts of their system from all heresies, and procured a strange volume, which
bore on the titlepage the name of one Elchasai. These, in like manner,
acknowledge that the principles of the universe were originated by the Deity. They do
not, however, confess that there is but one Christ, but that there is one that is
superior to the rest, and that He is transfused into many bodies frequently,
and was now in Jesus. And, in like manner, these heretics maintain that at one
time Christ was begotten of God, and at another time became the Spirit, and at
another time was born of a virgin, and at another time not so. And they affirm
that likewise this Jesus afterwards was continually being transfused into
bodies, and was manifested in many (different bodies) at different times. And they
resort to incantations and baptisms in their confession of elements. And they
occupy themselves with bustling activity in regard of astrological and
mathematical science, and of the arts of sorcery. But also they allege themselves to have
powers of prescience.
CHAP. XXVI.--JEWISH CHRONOLOGY.
... From Haran, a city of Mesopotamia, (Abraham, by the com,and)(4) of
God, transfers his residence into the country which is now called Palestine and
Judea, but then the region of Canaan. Now, concerning this territory, we have in
part, but still not negligently, rendered an account in other discourses. From
the circumstance, then, (of this migration) is traceable the beginning of an
increase (of population) in Judea, which obtained its name from Judah, fourth son
of Jacob, whose name was also called Israel, from the fact that a race of
kings would be descended from him.(1) Abraham removes from Mesopotamia (when 75
years old, and) when 100 years old he begat Isaac. But Isaac, when 60 years of
age, begat Jacob. And Jacob, when 86 years old, begat Levi; and Levi, at 40 years
of age, begat Caath;(2) and Caath was four years of age when he went down with
Jacob into Egypt. Therefore the entire period during which Abraham sojourned,
and the entire family descended from him by Isaac, in the country then called
Canaanitis, was 215 years. But the father of this Abraham is Thare,(3) and of
this Thare the father is Nachor, and of this Nachor the father is Serag, and of
this Serag the father is Reu, and of this Reu the father is Peleg, and of this
Peleg(4) the father is Heber. And so it comes to pass that the Jews are
denominated by the name of Hebrews. In the time of Phaleg,(5) however, arose the
dispersion of nations. Now these nations were 72,(6) corresponding with the number of
Abraham's children. And the names of these nations we have likewise set down in
other books, not even omitting this point in its own proper place. And the
reason of our particularity is our desire to manifest to those who are of a
studious disposition the love which we cherish towards the Divinity, and the
indubitable knowledge respecting the Truth, which in the course of our labours(7) we
have acquired possession of. But of this Heber the father is Salah; and of this
Salah the father is Cainan; and of this Cainan the father is Arphaxad, whose
father is Shem; and of this Shem the father is Noah. And in Noah's time there
occurred a flood throughout the entire world, which neither Egyptians, nor
Chaldeans, nor Greeks recollect; for the inundations which took place in the age of
Ogyges and Deucalion prevailed only in the localities where these dwelt.(8) There
are, then, in the case of these (patriarchs--that is, from Noah to Heber
inclusive)--5 generations, and 495 years.(9) This Noah, inasmuch as he was a most
religious and God-loving man, alone, with wife and children, and the three wives
of these, escaped the flood that ensued. And he owed his preservation to an ark;
and both the dimensions and relics of this ark are, as we have explained,
shown to this day in the mountains called Ararat, which are situated in the
direction of the country of the Adiabeni.(10) It is then possible for those who are
disposed to investigate the subject industriously, to perceive how clearly has
been demonstrated the existence of a nation of worshippers of the true God, more
ancient than all the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Greeks. What necessity, however,
is there at present to specify those who, anterior to Noah, were both devout
men, and permitted to hold converse with the true God, inasmuch as, so far as
the subject taken in hand is concerned, this testimony in regard of the antiquity
of the people of God is sufficient?
CHAP. XXVII.--JEWISH CHRONOLOGY CONTINUED.
But since it does not seem irrational to prove that these nations that had
their attention engrossed with the speculations of philosophy are of more
modern date than those that had habitually worshipped the true God,(11) it is
reasonable that we should state both whence the family of these latter originated;
and that when they took up their abode in these countries, they did not receive
a name from the actual localities, but claimed for themselves names from those
who were primarily born, and had inhabited these. Noah had three sons--Shem,
Ham, and Japheth. From these the entire family of man was multiplied, and every
quarter of the earth owes its inhabitants in the first instance to these. For
the word of God to them prevailed, when the Lord said, "Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth." So great efficacy had that one word that from the
three sons of Noah are begotten in the family 72 children,--(viz.,) from Shem,
25; from Japheth, 15; and from Ham, 32. Unto Ham, however, these 32 children are
born in accordance with previous declarations. And among Ham's children are:
Canaan,(12) from whom came the Canaanites; Mizraim, from whom the Egyptians;
Cush, from whom the Ethiopians; and Phut, from whom the Libyans. These, according
to the language prevalent among them, are up to the present day styled by the
appellation of their ancestors; nay, even in the Greek tongue they are called by
the names by which they have been now denominated. But even supposing that
neither these localities had been previously inhabited, nor that it could be
proved that a race of men from the beginning existed there, nevertheless these sons
of Noah, a worshipper of God, are quite sufficient to prove the point at issue.
For it is evident that Noah himself must have been a disciple of devout
people, for which reason he escaped the tremendous, though transient, threat of water.
How, then, should not the worshippers of the true God be of greater
antiquity than all Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Greeks, for we must bear in mind that
the father of these Gentiles was born from this Japheth,(1) and received the name
Javan, and became the progenitor of Greeks and Ionians? Now, if the nations
that devoted themselves to questions concerning philosophy are shown to belong to
a period altogether more recent than the race of the worshippers of God as
well as the time of the deluge, how would not the nations of the barbarians, and
as many tribes as in the world are known and unknown, appear to belong to a more
modern epoch than these? Therefore ye Greeks, Egyptians, Chaldeans, and the
entire race of men, become adepts in this doctrine, and learn from us, who are
the friends of God, what the nature of God is, and what His well-arranged
creation. And we have cultivated this system, not expressing ourselves in mere pompous
language, but executing our treatises in terms that prove our knowledge of
truth and our practice of good sense, our object being the demonstration of His
Truth.(2)
CHAP. XXVIII.--THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRUTH.
The first and only (one God),(3) both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing
coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid
earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy(4) of
the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of
His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence,
except that He willed to make them. For He is fully acquainted with whatever is
about to take place, for foreknowledge also is present to Him. The different
principles, however, of what will come into existence, He first fabricated, viz.,
fire and spirit, water and earth, from which diverse elements He proceeded to form
His own creation. And some objects He formed of one essence, but others He
compounded from two, and others from three, and others from four. And those formed
of one substance were immortal, for in their case dissolution does not follow,
for what is one will never be dissolved. Those, on the other hand, which are
formed out of two, or three, or four substances, are dissoluble; wherefore also
are they named mortal. For this has been denominated death; namely, the
dissolution of substances connected. I now therefore think that I have sufficiently
answered those endued with a sound mind, who, if they are desirous of additional
instruction, and are disposed accurately to investigate the substances of these
things, and the causes of the entire creation, will become acquainted with
these points should they peruse a work of ours comprised (under the title),
Concerning the Substance of the Universe.(5) I consider, however, that at present it
is enough to elucidate those causes of which the Greeks, not being aware,
glorified, in pompous phraseology, the parts of creation, while they remained
ignorant of the Creator. And from these the heresiarchs have taken occasion, and have
transformed the statements previously made by those Greeks into similar
doctrines, and thus have framed ridiculous heresies.
CHAP. XXIX.--THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRUTH CONTINUED.
Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection,
brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by
voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the
divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself
constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things
that are produced.(6) The Logos was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of
His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For
simultaneously(1) with His procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as He is this
Progenitors first-born, He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in
the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into
existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing
God. And some things which multiply by generation(2) He formed male and
female; but whatsoever beings were designed for service and ministration He made
either male, or not requiring females, or neither male nor female. For even the
primary substances of these, which were formed out of nonentities, viz., fire and
spirit, water and earth, are neither male nor female; nor could male or female
proceed from any one of these, were it not that God, who is the source of all
authority, wished that the Logos might render assistance(3) in accomplishing a
production of this kind. I confess that angels are of fire, and I maintain that
female spirits are not present with them. And I am of opinion that sun and moon
and stars, in like manner, are produced from fire and spirit, and are neither
male nor female. And the will of the Creator is, that swimming and winged
animals are from water, male and female. For so God, whose will it was, ordered that
there should exist a moist substance, endued with productive power. And in
like manner God commanded, that from earth should arise reptiles and beasts, as
well males and females of all sorts of animals; for so the nature of the things
produced admitted. For as many things as He willed, God made from time to time.
These things He created through the Logos, it not being possible for things to
be generated otherwise than as they were produced. But when, according as He
willed, He also formed (objects), He called them by names, and thus notified His
creative effort.(4) And making these, He formed the ruler of all, and fashioned
him out of all composite substances.(5) The Creator did not wish to make him a
god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel,--be not deceived,--but a man. For if
He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example
of the Logos. His will, however, was, that you should be a man, and He has
made thee a man. But if thou art desirous of also becoming a god, obey Him that
has created thee, and resist not now, in order that, being found faithful in that
which is small, you may be enabled to have entrusted to you also that which is
great.(6)
The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos
is God, being the substance of God.(7) Now the world was made from nothing;
wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution whenever
the Creator so wishes it. But God, who created it, did not, nor does not, make
evil. He makes what is glorious and excellent; for He who makes it is good.
Now man, that was brought into existence, was a creature endued with a capacity
of self-determination,(8) yet not possessing a sovereign intellect,(9) nor
holding sway over all things by reflection, and authority, and power, but a slave to
his passions, and comprising all sorts of contrarieties in himself. But man,
from the fact of his possessing a capacity of self-determination, brings forth
what is evil,(10) that is, accidentally; which evil is not consummated except
you actually commit some piece of wickedness. For it is in regard of our desiring
anything that is wicked, or our meditating upon it, that what is evil is so
denominated. Evil had no existence from the beginning, but came into being
subsequently.(11) Since man has free will, a law has been defined for his guidance by
the Deity, not without answering a good purpose. For if man did not possess
the power to will and not to will, why should a law be established? For a law
will not be laid down for an animal devoid of reason, but a bridle and a whip;(12)
whereas to man has been given a precept and penalty to perform, or for not
carrying into execution what has been enjoined. For man thus constituted has a law
been enacted by just men in primitive ages. Nearer our own day was there
established a law, full of gravity and justice, by Moses, to whom allusion has been
already made, a devout man, and one beloved of God.
Now the Logos of God controls all these; the first begotten Child of the
Father, the voice of the Dawn antecedent to the Morning Star.(13) Afterwards
just men were born, friends of God; and these have been styled prophets,(1) on
account of their foreshowing future events. And the word of prophecy(2) was
committed unto them, not for one age only; but also the utterances of events
predicted throughout all generations, were vouchsafed in perfect clearness. And this,
too, not at the time merely when seers furnished a reply to those present;(3)
but also events that would happen throughout all ages, have been manifested
beforehand; because, in speaking of incidents gone by, the prophets brought them
back to the recollection of humanity; whereas, in showing forth present
occurrences, they endeavoured to persuade men not to be remiss; while, by foretelling
future events, they have rendered each one of us terrified on beholding events
that had been predicted long before, and on expecting likewise those events
predicted as still future. Such is our faith, O all ye men,--ours, I say, who are not
persuaded by empty expressions, nor caught away by sudden impulses of the
heart, nor beguiled by the plausibility of eloquent discourses, yet who do not
refuse to obey words that have been uttered by divine power. And these injunctions
has God given to the Word. But the Word, by declaring them, promulgated the
divine commandments, thereby turning man from disobedience, not bringing him into
servitude by force of necessity, but summoning him to liberty through a choice
involving spontaneity.
This Logos the Father in the latter days sent forth, no longer to speak by
a prophet, and not wishing that the Word, being obscurely proclaimed, should
be made the subject of mere conjecture, but that He should be manifested, so
that we could see Him with our own eyes. This Logos, I say, the Father sent forth,
in order that the world, on beholding Him, might reverence Him who was
delivering precepts not by the person of prophets, nor terrifying the soul by an
angel, but who was Himself--He that had spoken--corporally present amongst us. This
Logos we know to have received a body from a virgin, and to have remodelled the
old man(4) by a new creation. And we believe the Logos to have passed through
every period in this life, in order that He Himself might serve as a law for
every age,(5) and that, by being present (amongst) us, He might exhibit His own
manhood as an aim for all men. And that by Himself in Person He might prove that
God made nothing evil, and that man possesses the capacity of
self-determination, inasmuch as he is able to will and not to will, and is endued with power to
do both.(6) This Man we know to have been made out of the compound of our
humanity. For if He were not of the same nature with ourselves, in vain does He
ordain that we should imitate the Teacher. For if that Man happened to be of a
different substance from us, why does He lay injunctions similar to those He has
received on myself, who am born weak; and how is this the act of one that is
good and just? In order, however, that He might not be supposed to be different
from us, He even underwent toil, and was willing to endure hunger, and did not
refuse to feel thirst, and sunk into the quietude of slumber. He did not protest
against His Passion, but became obedient unto death, and manifested His
resurrection. Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own
manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be
disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer),
mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this
Son.(7)
CHAP. XXX.--THE AUTHOR'S CONCLUDING ADDRESS.
Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O ye men, Greeks
and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and
Ethiopians, Celts, and ye Latins, who lead armies, and all ye that inhabit
Europe, and Asia, and Libya.(8) And to you I am become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a
disciple of the benevolent Logos, and hence humane, in order that you may
hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered
creation. Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses,
nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics,(9) but to the venerable
simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the
approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy
Tartarus,(1) where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word!
You shall escape the boiling flood of hell's(2) eternal lake of fire and
the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as
punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils
for food around the body whose scum(3) has bred it. Now such (torments) as these
shall thou avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And thou
shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of
corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou
who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And
thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer
enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast
become God:(4) for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man,
these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is
consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because
thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality.(5) This constitutes the
import of the proverb, "Know thyself;" i.e., discover God within thyself, for He
has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is
conjoined the being an object of God's knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity
Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor
hesitate to retrace(6) with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above
all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings,(7) rendering
regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has
evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn
injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shall
resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shall have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For
the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His
divine(8) perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory
ELUCIDATIONS.
(Who first propounded these heresies, p. 11.)
HIPPOLYTUS seems to me to have felt the perils to the pure Gospel of many
admissions made by Clement and other Alexandrian doctors as to the merits of
some of the philosophers of the Gentiles. Very gently, but with prescient genius,
he adopts this plan of tracing the origin and all the force of heresies to
"philosophy falsely so called." The existence of this "cloud of locusts" is (1)
evidence of the antagonism of Satan; (2) of the prophetic spirit of the apostles;
(3) of the tremendous ferment produced by the Gospel leaven as soon as it was
hid in the "three measures of meal" by "the Elect Lady," the Ecclesia Dei; (4)
of the fidelity of the witnesses,--that grand, heroic glory of the Ante-Nicene
Fathers,--who never suffered these heresies to be mistaken for the faith, or to
corrupt the Scriptures; and (5) finally of the power of the Holy Spirit, who
gave them victory over errors, and enabled them to define truth in all the
crystalline beauty of that "Mountain of Light," that true Koh-i-noor, the Nicene
Symbol. Thus, also, Christ's promises were fulfilled.
II. (Caulacau, p. 52.)
See Irenaeus, p. 350, vol. i., this series, where I have explained this
jargon of heresy. But I think it worth while to make use here of two notes on the
subject, which I made in 1845,(1) with little foresight of these tasks in 1885.
Fleury (tom. ii.) makes this statement: "Les Nicolaites donnaient une
infinite de noms barbares aux princes et aux puissances qu'ils mettaient en chaque
ciel. Ils en nommaient un caulaucauch, abusant d'un passage d'Isaie, ou se
lisent ces mots hebreux: cau-la-cau, cau-la-cau, pour representer l'insolence avec
laquelle les impies se moquaient du prophete, en repetant plusieurs fois
quelques-unes de ses paroles." Compare Guerricus, thus: "Vox illa taedii et
des-perationis, quae apud Isaiam (xxviii. 13) legitur, quia, viz., moram faciente
Domino, frequentibus nuntiis ejus increduli et illusores insultare videntur: manda
remanda," etc. See the spurious Bernardina, "de Adventu Dom., serm. i.," S.
Bernard., opp. Paris (ed. Mabillon), vol. ii. P. 1799.
III. (The Phrygians call Papa, p. 54.)
Hippolytus had little idea, when he wrote this, what the word Papa was
destined to signify in mediaeval Rome. The Abba of Holy Writ has its equivalent in
many Oriental languages, as well as in the Greek and Latin, through which it
has passed into all the dialects of Europe. It was originally given to all
presbyters, as implied in their name of elders, and was a title of humility when it
became peculiar to the bishops, as (1 Pet. v. 3) non Domini sed patres. St.
Paul (1 Cor. iv. 15 ) shows that "in Christ"--that is, under Him--we may have such
"fathers ;" and thus, while he indicates the true sense of the precept, he
leads us to recognise a prophetic force and admonition in our Saviour's words
(Matt. xxiii.), "Colt no man your father upon the earth." Thus interpreted, these
words seem to be a warning against the sense to which this name, Papa, became,
long afterwards, restricted, in Western Europe: Notre St. Pere, le Pape, as they
say in France. This was done by the decree of the ambitious Hildebrand,
Gregory VII. (who died A.D. 1085), when, in a synod held at Rome, he defined that
"the title Pope should be peculiar to one only in the Christian world." The
Easterns, of course, never paid any respect to this novelty and dictation, and to
this day their patriarchs are popes; and not only so, for the parish priests of
the Greek churches are called by the same name. I was once cordially invited to
take a repast "with the pope," on visiting a Greek church on the shores of the
Adriatic. It is said, however, that a distinction is made between the words
<greek>papas</greek> and <greek>papas</greek>; the latter being peculiar to
inferiors, according to the refinements of Goar, a Western critic. Valeat quantum. But
I must here note, that as "words are things," and as infinite damage has been
done to history and to Christian truth by tolerating this empiricism of Rome, I
have restored scientific accuracy, in this series, whenever reference is made
to the primitive bishops of Rome, who were no more "Popes" than Cincinnatus was
an emperor. It is time that theological science should accept, like other
sciences, the language of truth and the terminology of demonstrated fact. The early
bishops of Rome were geographically important, and were honoured as sitting in
the only apostolic see of the West; but they were almost inconsiderable in the
structural work of the ante-Nicene ages, and have left no appreciable impress
on its theology. After the Council of Nice they were recognised as patriarchs,
though equals among brethren, and nothing more, The ambition of Boniface III.
led him to name himself "universal bishop. This was at first a mere name "of
intolerable pride," as his predecessor Gregory had called it, but Nicholas I.
(A.D. 858) tried to make it real, and, by means of the false decretals, created
himself the first "Pope" in the modern sense, imposing his despotism on the
West, and identifying it with the polity of Western churches, which alone submitted
to it. Thus, it was never Catholic, and came into existence only by nullifying
the Nicene Constitutions, and breaking away from Catholic communion with the
parent churches of the East. Compare Casaubon (Exercit., xiv. p. 280, etc.) in
his comments on Baronius. I have thus stated with scientific precision what all
candid critics and historians, even the Gallicans included, enable us to prove.
Why, then, keep up the language of fiction and imposture,(1) so confusing to
young students? I believe the youthful Oxonians whom our modern Tertullian
carried with him into the papal schism, could never have been made dupes but for
the persistent empiricism of orthodox writers who practically adopt m words what
they refute in argument, calling all bishops of Rome "Popes," and even
including St. Peter's blessed name in this fallacious designation.(2) In this series I
adhere to the logic of facts, calling (1) all the bishops of Rome from Linus to
Sylvester simply bishops; and (2) all their successors to Nicholas I.
"patriarchs" under the Nicene Constitutions, which they professed to honour, though,
after Gregory the Great, they were ever vying with Constantinople to make
themselves greater. (3) Nicholas, who trampled on the Nicene Constitutions, and made
the false decretals the canon law of the Western churches, was therefore the
first "Pope" who answers to the Tridentine definitions. Even these, however, were
never able to make dogmatic(3) the claim of "supremacy," which was first done
by Pins IX. in our days. A canonical Primacy is one thing: a self-asserted
Supremacy is quite another, as the French doctors have abundantly demonstrated.
IV. (Contemporaneous heresy, p. 125.)
Here begins that "duplicating of our knowledge" of primitive Rome of which
Bunsen speaks so justly A thorough mastery of this book will prepare us to
understand the great Cyprian in all his relations with the Roman Province, and not
less to comprehend the affairs of Novatian.
Bunsen, with all respect, does not comprehend the primitive system, and
reads it backward, from the modern system, which travesties antiquity even in its
apparent conformities. These conformities are only the borrowing of oId names
for new contrivances. Thus, he reads the cardinals of the eleventh century into
the simple presbytery of comprovincial bishops of the third century,(4) just
as he elsewhere lugs in the Ave Maria of modern Italy to expound the Evening
Hymn to the Trinity.(5) In a professed Romanist, like De Maistre, this would be
resented as jugglery. But let us come to facts. Bunsen's preliminary remarks(6)
are excellent. But when he comes to note an "exceptional system" in the Roman
"presbytery," he certainly confuses all things. Let us recur to Tertullian. (7)
See how much was already established in his day, which the Council of Nicaea
recognised a century later as (<greek>ta</greek> <greek>arkaia</greek>
<greek>eqh</greek>) old primitive institutions. In all things the Greek churches were the
exemplar and the model for other churches to follow. "Throughout the provinces
of Greece," he says, "there are held, in definite localities, those councils,"
etc. "If we also, in our diverse provinces, observe," etc. Now, these
councils, or "meetings," in spite of the emperors or the senate who issued mandates
against them, as appears from the same passage, were, in the Roman Province, made
up of the comprovincial bishops: and their gatherings seem to have been called
"the Roman presbytery;" for, as is evident, the bishops and eiders were alike
called "presbyters," the word being as common to both orders as the word pastors
or clergymen in our days. According to the thirty-fourth of the "Canons
Apostolical," as Bunsen remarks, "the bishops of the suburban towns, including
Portus, also formed at that time an integral part of the Roman presbytery." This word
also refers to all the presbyters of the diocese of Rome itself; and I doubt
not originally the laity had their place, as they did in Carthage: "the
apostles, elders, and brethren" being the formula of Scripture; or, "with the whole
Church," which includes them,--omni plebe adstante.(1) Now, all this accounts, as
Bunsen justly observes, for the fact that one of the "presbytery" should be
thus repeatedly called presbyter and "at the same time have the charge of the
church at Portus, for which (office) there was no other title than the old one of
bishop; for such was the title of every man who presided over the congregation
in any city,--at Ostia, at Tusculum, or in the other suburban cities.
Now let us turn to the thirty-fourth(2) "Apostolical Canon" (so called),
and note as follows: "It is necessary that the bishops of every nation should
know who is chief among them, and should recognise him as their head by doing
nothing of great moment without his consent; and that each of them should do such
things only as pertain to his own parish and the districts under him. And
neither let him do any thing without the consent of all, for thus shall there be
unity of heart, and thus shall God be glorified through our Lord Jesus Christ." I
do not pause to expound this word parish, for I am elucidating Hippolytus by
Bunsen's aid, and do not intend to interpolate my own theory of the primitive
episcopate.
Let the "Apostolical Constitutions" go for what they are worth:(3) I refer
to them only under lead of Dr. Bunsen. But now turn to the Nicene Council
(Canon VI.) as follows: "Let the ancient customs prevail in Egypt, Libya, and
Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these
provinces, since the like is customary in Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other
provinces, let the churches retain their privileges." Here the Province of Rome
is recognised as an ancient institution, while its jurisdiction and privileges
are equalized with those of other churches. Now, Rufinus, interpreting this
canon, says it means, "the ancient custom of Alexandria and Rome shall still be
observed; that the one shall have the care or government of the Egyptian, and
the other that of the suburbicary churches." Bunsen refers us to Bingham, and
from him we learn that the suburbicary region, as known to the Roman magistrates,
included only "a hundred miles about Rome."(4) This seems to have been
canonically extended even to Sicily on the south, but certainly not to Milan on the
north. Suffice it, Hippolytus was one of those suburbicarian bishops who sat in
the Provincial Council of Rome; without consent of which the Bishop of Rome could
not, canonically, do anything of importance, as the canon above cited ordains.
Such are the facts necessary to a comprehension of conflicts excited by "the
contemporaneous heresy," here noted.
(Affairs of the Church, p. 125.)
"Zephyrinus imagines that he administers the affairs of the Church-- an
uninformed and shamefully corrupt man." This word imagines is common with
Hippolytus in like cases, and Dr. Wordsworth gives an ingenious explanation of this
usage. But it seems to me to be based upon the relations of Hippolytus as one of
the synod or "presbytery," without consent of which the bishop could do nothing
important. Zephyrinus, on the contrary, imagined himself competent to decide
as to the orthodoxy of a tenet or of a teacher, without his comprovincials.
This, too, relieves our author from the charge of egotism when he exults in the
defeat of such a bishop.(1) He says, it is true, "Callistus threw off Sabellius
through fear of me," and we may readily believe that; but he certainly means to
give honour to others in the Province when he says," We resisted Zephyrinus and
Callistus;" "We nearly converted Sabellius;" "All were carried away by the
hypocrisy of CalIistus, except ourselves." This man cried out to his episcopal
brethren, "Ye are Ditheists," apparently in open council. His council prevailed
over him by the wise leadership of Hippolytus, however; and he says of the two
guilty bishops, "Never, at any time, have we been guilty of collusion with them."
They only imagined, therefore, that they were managing the "affairs of the
Church." The fidelity of their comprovincials preserved the faith of the Apostles
in apostolic Rome.
VI. (We offered them opposition, p. 125.)
Here we see that Hippolytus had no idea of the sense some put upon the
convenire of his master Irenaeus.(2) It was not "necessary" for them to conform
their doctrines to that of the Bishop of Rome, evidently; nor to "the Church of
Rome" as represented by him. To the church which presided over a province,
indeed, recourse was to be had by all belonging to that province; but it is our
author's grateful testimony, that to the council of comprovincials, and not to any
one bishop therein, Rome owed its own adhesion to orthodoxy at this crisis.
All this illustrates the position of Tertullian, who never thinks of
ascribing to Rome any other jurisdiction than that belonging to other provinces. As
seats of testimony, the apostolic sees, indeed, are all to be honoured. "In
Greece, go to Corinth; in Asia Minor, to Ephesus; if you are adjacent to Italy,
you have Rome; whence also (an apostolic) authority is at hand for us in Africa."
Such is his view of "contemporaneous affairs."
VII. (Heraclitus the Obscure, p. 126.)
"Well might he weep," says Tayler Lewis, "as Lucian represents him, over
his overflowing universe of perishing phenomena, where nothing stood; . . .
nothing was fixed, but, as in a mixture, all things were confounded." He was "the
weeping philosopher."
Here let me add Henry Nelson Coleridge's remarks on the Greek seed-plot of
those philosophies which were begotten of the Egyptian mysteries, and which
our author regards as, in turn, engendering "all heresies," when once their
leaders felt, like Simon Magus, a power in the Gospel of which they were jealous,
and of which they wished to make use without submitting to its yoke. "Bishop
Warburton," says Henry Nelson Coleridge, "discovered, perhaps, more ingenuity than
sound judgment in his views of the nature of the Greek mysteries; entertaining
a general opinion that their ultimate object was to teach the initiated a pure
theism, and to inculcate the certainty and the importance of a future state of
rewards and punishments. I am led by the arguments of Villoison and Ste. Croix
to doubt the accuracy of this." In short, he supposes a "pure pantheism," or
Spinosism, the substance of their teaching.(3)
VIII. (Imagine themselves to be disciples of Christ, p. 126.)
This and the foregoing chapter offer us a most overwhelming testimony to
the independence of councils. In the late "Council of Sacristans" at the
Vatican, where truth perished, Plus IX. refused to all the bishops of what he
accounted "the Catholic universe" what the seven suburbicarian bishops were able to
enforce as a right, in the primitive age, against two successive Bishops of Rome,
who were patrons of heresy. These heretical prelates persisted; but the
Province remained in communion with the other apostolic provinces, while rejecting all
communion with them. All this will help us in studying Cyprian's treatise On
Unity, and it justifies his own conduct.
IX. (The episcopal throne, p. 128.)
The simple primitive cathedra,(1) of which we may learn something from the
statue of Hippolytus, was, no doubt, "a throne" in the eyes of an ambitious
man. Callistus is here charged, by one who knew him and his history, with
obtaining this position by knavish words and practices. The question may well arise,
in our Christian love for antiquity, How could such things be, even in the age
of martyrdoms? Let us recollect, that under the good Bishop Pius, when his
brother wrote the Hermas, the peril of wealth and love of money began to be imminent
at Rome. Tertullian testifies to the lax discipline of that see when he was
there. Minucius Felix lets us into the impressions made by the Roman Christians
upon surrounding heathen: they were a set of conies burrowing in the earth; a
"light-shunning people," lurking in the catacombs. And yet, while this fact shows
plainly that good men were not ambitious to come forth from these places of
exile and suffering, and expose themselves needlessly to death, it leads us to
comprehend how ambitious men, studiosi novarum rerum, could remain above ground,
conforming very little to the discipline of Christ, making friends with the
world, and yet using their nominal religion on the principle that "gain is
godliness." There were some wealthy Christians; there were others, like Marcia in the
palace, sufficiently awakened to perceive their own wickedness, and anxious to
do favours to the persecuted flock, by way, perhaps, of compounding for sins
not renounced. And when we come to the Epistles of Cyprian,(2) we shall see what
opportunities were given to desperate men to make themselves a sort of brokers
to the Christian community; for selfish ends helping them in times of peril,
and rendering themselves, to the less conscientious, a medium for keeping on good
terms with the magistrates. Such a character was Callistus, one of "the
grievous wolves" foreseen by St. Paul when he exhorted his brethren night and day,
with tears, to beware of them.How he made himself Bishop of Rome, the holy
Hippolytus sufficiently explains.
X. (Unskilled in ecclesiastical definitions, p. 128.)
It has been sufficiently demonstrated by the learned Dollinger, than whom
a more competent and qualified witness could not be named, that the late
pontiff, Pins IX., was in this respect, as a bishop, very much like Callistus.
Moreover, his chief adviser and prime minister, Antonelli, was notoriously Callistus
over again; standing towards him in the same relations which Callistus bore to
Zephyrinus. Yet, by the bull Ineffabilis, that pontiff has retrospectively
clothed the definitions of Zephyrinus and Callistus with infallibility; thus
making himself also a partaker in their heresies, and exposing himself to the
anathemas with which the Catholic councils overwhelmed his predecessor Honorius and
others. That at such a crisis the testimony of Hippolytus should come to light,
and supply a reductio ad absurdum to the late papal definitions, may well
excite such a recognition of divine providence as Dr. Bunsen repeatedly suggests.
XI. (All consented--we did not, p. 128.)
The Edinburgh editor supposes that the use of the plural we, in this
place, is the official plural of a bishop. It has been already explained, however,
that he is speaking of the provincial bishops with whom he withstood Callistus
when the plebs were carried away by his hypocrisy. In England, bishops in
certain cases, are a "corporation sole;" and, as such, the plural is legal
phraseology. All bishops, however, use the plural in certain documents, as identifying
themselves with the universal episcopate, on the Cyprianic principle--Episcopatus
unus est, etc.
In Acts v. 13 is a passage which may be somewhat explained, perhaps, by
this: "All consented . . . we did not." The plebs joined themselves to the
apostles; "but of the rest durst no man join himself to them: howbeit, the plebs
magnified them, and believers were added," etc. "The rest" (<greek>twn</greek>
<greek>de</greek> <greek>koipwn</greek>) here means the priests, the Pharisees, and
Sadducees, the classes who were not the plebs, as appears by what immediately
follows.(1)
XlI. (Our condemnatory sentence, p. 131.)
Again: Hippolytus refers to the action of the suburbicarian bishops in
provincial council. And here is the place to express dissatisfaction with the
apologetic tone of some writers, who seem to think Hippolytus too severe, etc. As
if, in dealing with such "wolves in sheep's clothing," this faithful leader
could show himself a true shepherd without emphasis and words of abhorrence.
Hippolytus has left to the Church the impress of his character(2) as "superlatively
sweet and amiable." Such was St. John, the beloved disciple; but he was not less
a "son of thunder." Our Divine Master was "the Lamb," and "the Lion;" the
author of the Beatitudes, and the author of those terrific woes; the "meek and
gentle friend of publicans and sinners," and the "lash of small cords" upon the
backs of those who made His Father's house a "den of thieves." Such was
Chrysostom, such was Athanasius, such was St. Paul, and such have ever been the noblest
of mankind; tender and considerate, gentle and full of compassion; but not less
resolute, in the crises of history, in withstanding iniquity in the persons of
arch-enemies of truth, and setting the brand upon their foreheads. Good men,
who hate strife, and love study and quiet, and to be friendly with others; men
who never permit themselves to indulge a personal enmity, or to resent a personal
affront; men who forgive injuries to the last farthing when they only are
concerned,--may yet crucify their natures in withstanding evil when they are
protecting Christ's flock, or fulfilling the command to "contend earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints." What the Christian Church owes to the loving
spirit of Hippolytus in the awful emergencies of his times, protecting the
poor sheep, and grappling with wolves for their sake, the Last Day will fully
declare. But let us who know nothing of such warfare concede nothing, in judging of
his spirit, to the spirit of our unbelieving age, which has no censures except
for the defenders of truth :--
"Eternal smiles its emptiness betray,
"As shallow streams run dimpling all the way."
Bon Dieu, bon diable, as the French say, is the creed of the times. Every
one who insults the faith of Christians, who betrays truths he was sworn to
defend, who washes his hands but then gives Christ over to be crucified, must be
treated with especial favour. Christ is good: so is Pilate; and Judas must not
be censured. My soul be with Hippolytus when the gear Judge holds his assize.
His eulogy is in the psalm :(1) "Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment:
and so the plague was stayed.And that was counted unto him for righteousness
unto all generations, for evermore."
XIII. (As if he had not sinned, p. 131.)
There is an ambiguity in the facts as given in the Edinburgh edition, of
which it is hard to relieve the text. The word <greek>kaqistasqai</greek> is
rendered to retain (their places) in the first instance, as if the case were all
one with the second instance, where <greek>menein</greek> is justly rendered to
continue. The second case seems, then, to cover all the ground. What need to
speak of men "twice or thrice married," if a man once married, after ordination
is not to be retained? The word retained is questionable in the first instance;
and I have adopted Wordsworth's reading, to be enrolled, which is doubtless the
sense.
This statement of our author lends apparent countenance to the antiquity
of the "Apostolic Constitutions," so called. Perhaps Hippolytus really supposed
them to be apostolic. By Canon XVII. of that collection, a man twice married,
after baptism cannot be "on the sacerdotal list at all." By Canon XXVI., an
unmarried person once admitted to the clergy cannot be permitted to marry. These
are the two cases referred to by our author. In the Greek churches this rule
holds to this day; and the Council of Nice refused to prohibit the married clergy
to live in that holy estate, while allowing the traditional discipline which
Hippolytus had in view in speaking of a violation of the twenty-sixth traditional
canon as a sin. As Bingham has remarked, however, canons of discipline may be
relaxed when not resting on fundamental and scriptural laws.
XIV. (Attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church, p. 131 )
The Callistians, it seems, became a heretical sect, and yet presumed to
call themselves a "Catholic Church." Yet this sect, while Callistus lived, was in
full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Such communion, then, was no test of
Catholicity. Observe the enormous crimes of which this lawless one was guilty;
he seems to antedate the age of Theodora's popes and Marozia's, and what
Hippolytus would have said of them is not doubtful. It is remarkable that he employed
St. PauI's expression, however, <greek>o</greek> <greek>anomos</greek>,(2)
"that wicked" or that "lawless one," seeing, in such a bishop, what St. Gregory did
in another,-- "a forerunner of the Antichrist."
XV. (Callistians, p. 131.)
Bunsen remarks that Theodoret speaks of this sect(3) under the head of the
"Noetians." Wordsworth quotes as follows: "Callistus lock the lead in
propagating this heresy after Noetus, and devised certain additions to the impiety of
the doctrine." In other words, he was not merely a heretic, but himself a
heresiarch. He gives the whole passage textually,(4) and institutes interesting
parallelisms between the Philosophumena and Theodoret, who used our author, and
boldly borrowed from him.
XVI. (The cause of all things, p. 150.)
When one looks at the infinite variety of opinions, phrases, ideas, and
the like, with which the heresies of three centuries threatened to obscure,
defile, and destroy the revelations of Holy Scripture, who can but wonder at the
miracle of orthodoxy? Note with what fidelity the good fight of faith was
maintained, the depositum preserved, and the Gospel epitomized at last in the
Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan definitions, which Professor Shedd, as I have previously
noted, declares to be the accepted confession of all the reformed, reputed
orthodox, as well as of Greeks and Latins. Let us not be surprised, that, during these
conflicts, truth on such mysterious subjects was reflected from good men's
minds with slight variations of expression. Rather behold the miracle of their
essential agreement, and of their entire harmony in the Great Symbol, universally
accepted as the testimony of the ante-Nicene witnesses. The Word was Himself the
cause of all created things; Himself increate; His eternal generation implied
in the eternity of His existence and His distinct personality.
XVII. (Tartarus, p. 153.)
I am a little surprised at the innocent statement of the learned
translator, that "Dr. Wordsworth justifies Hippolytus' use of this word." It must have
occurred to every student of the Greek Testament that St. Peter justifies this
use in the passage quoted by Wordsworth, which one would think must be
self-suggested to any theologian reading our author's text. In short, Hippolytus quotes
the second Epistle of St. Peter(1) (ii. 4) when he uses this otherwise
startling word. Josephus also employs it; (2) it was familiar to the Jews, and the
apostle had no scruple in adopting a word which proves the Gentile world acquainted
with a Gehenna as well as a Sheol.
XVIII. (For Christ is the God, p. 153.)
Dr. Wordsworth justly censures Bunsen for his rendering of this
passage,(3) also for manufacturing for Hippolytus a "Confession of Faith" out of his
tenth book.(4) I must refer the student to that all-important chapter in Dr.
Wordsworth's work (cap. xi.) on the "Development of Christian Doctrine." It is
masterly, as against Dr. Newman, as well; and the respectful justice which he renders
at the same time to Dr. Bunsen is worthy of all admiration. Let it be noted,
that, while one must be surprised by the ready command of literary and
theological materials which the learned doctor and chevalier brings into instantaneous
use for his work, it is hardly less surprising, in spite of all that, that he
was willing to throw off his theories and strictures, without any delay, during
the confusions of that memorable year 1851, when I had the honour of meeting him
among London notabilities. He says to his "dearest friend, Archdeacon Hare, .
. . Dr. Tregelles informed me last week of the appearance of the work (of
Hippolytus) .... I procured a copy in consequence, and perused it as soon as I
could; and I have already arrived at conclusions which seem to me so evident that I
feel no hesitation in expressing them to you at once." These conclusions were
creditable to his acumen and learning in general; eminently so. But the theories
he had so hastily conceived, in other particulars, crop out in so many
crudities of theological caprice, that nobody should try to study his theoretical
opinions without the aid of that calm reviewal they have received from Dr.
Wordsworth's ripe and sober scholarship and well-balanced intellect.
GENERAL NOTE.
I avail myself of a little spare space to add, from Michelet's friend, E.
Quinet,(1) the passage to which I have made a reference on p. 156. Let me say,
however, that Quinet and Michelet are specimens of that intellectual revolt
against Roman dogma which is all but universal in Europe in our day, and of which
the history of M. Renan is a melancholy exposition. To Quinet, with all his
faults, belongs the credit of having more thoroughly understood than any
theological writer the absolute revolution created by the Council of Trent; and he
justly remarks that the Jesuits showed their address "in making this revolution,
without anywhere speaking of it." Hence a dull world has not observed it.
Contrasting this pseudo-council with the free councils of antiquity, M. Quinet says:
"The Council of Trent has not its roots in all nations; it does not assemble
about it the representatives of all nations . . . omni plebe adstante, according to
the ancient formula .... The East and the North are, almost equally, wanting;
and this is why the king of France refused it the title of a council." He
quotes noble passages from Bossuet.(2)