Tertullian: Spuria

[1] Quorum haereticorum, ut plura praeteream, pauca perstringam. Taceo enim Iudaismi haereticos, Dositheum, inquam Samaritanum, qui primus ausus est prophetas quasi non in spiritu sancto locutos repudiare, taceo Sadducaeos, qui ex huius erroris radice surgentes ausi sunt ad hanc haeresim etiam resurrectionem carnis negare, praetermitto Pharisaeos, qui additamenta quaedam legis adstruendo a Iudaeis diuisi sunt, unde etiam hoc accipere ipsum quod habent nomen digni fuerunt, cum his etiam Herodianos, qui Christum Herodem esse dixerunt: ad eos me conuerto qui ex evangelio haeretici esse voluerunt.

[1] Of which heretics, that I may pass by more things, I will touch upon a few. I am silent, namely, about the heretics of Judaism—Dositheus, I say, the Samaritan, who first dared to repudiate the prophets as though they had not spoken in the Holy Spirit; I am silent about the Sadducees, who, arising from the root of this error, dared in this heresy even to deny the resurrection of the flesh; I pass over the Pharisees, who, by asserting certain additaments of the law, were separated from the Jews, whence they were even deemed worthy to receive the very thing which they have, the name; along with these also the Herodians, who said that Christ was Herod: I turn myself to those who wished to be heretics out of the Gospel.

[2] Ex quibus est primus omnium Simon Magus, qui in Actis Apostolorum condignam meruit ab apostolo Petro iustamque sententiam. Hic ausus est summam se dicere virtutem, id est summum deum, mundum autem ab angelis suis institutum, ad daemonem se errantem, quid esset sapientia, descendisse quaerendum, apud Iudaeos se in phantasmate dei non passum, sed esse quasi passum.

[2] Of whom the first of all is Simon Magus, who in the Acts of the Apostles deserved from the apostle Peter a condign and just sentence. He dared to call himself the supreme Virtue, that is the highest God, but the world to have been instituted by his angels, that he, wandering to the daemon, had descended to seek what Wisdom was, that among the Jews he, in a phantasm of God, did not suffer, but was as if he had suffered.

[3] Post hunc Menander discipulus ipsius, similiter magus, eadem dicens quae Simon aeque quicquid se Simon dixerat, hoc se Menander esse dicebat, negans habere posse quemquam salutem, nisi in nomine suo baptizatus fuisset.

[3] After this one, Menander, his disciple, likewise a magus, saying the same things which Simon [said], equally whatever Simon had said himself to be, this Menander said that he himself was, denying that anyone could have salvation unless he had been baptized in his name.

[4] Secutus est post haec et Saturninus, et hic similiter dicens innascibilem Virtutem, id est deum, in summis et illis infinitis partibus et in superioribus manere, longe autem distantes ab hoc angelos inferiorem mundum fecisse, et quia splendor quidam luminis desursum in inferioribus refulsisset, ad similitudinem illius luminis angelos hominem instituere curasse: hunc super terram iacuisse reptantem; cuius lumen illud et virtutem illam superiorem propter misericordiam scintillam salvam esse, cetera hominis perire: Christum in substantia corporis non fuisse, et phantasmate tantum quasi passum fuisse: resurrectionem carnis nullo modo futuram esse.

[4] After these there followed also Saturninus, and he likewise saying that the Unbegotten Virtue, that is, God, abides in the highest and those infinite parts and in the upper regions, but that angels far distant from this made the lower world, and that, because a certain splendor of light from above had shone back in the lower things, the angels took care to institute man according to the likeness of that light: that he lay upon the earth crawling; of whom that light and that higher Virtue, on account of mercy, a spark is preserved, but the rest of the man perishes: that Christ was not in the substance of a body, and had suffered only in a phantasm as if he had: that the resurrection of the flesh would in no way come to be.

[5] Postea Basilides haereticus erupit. Hic esse dicit summum deum nomine Abraxan, quo mentem creatam, quam Graecenou~n appellat; inde verbum; ex illo providentiam, uirtutem et sapientiam, ex ipsis inde principatus et potestates et angelos factos, deinde infinitas angelorum editiones et probolas, ab istis angelis trecentos sexaginta quinque caelos institutos, et mundum in honore Abraxae, cuius nomen hunc in se habebat numerum computatum. In ultimis quidem angelis, et qui nunc fecerunt mundum, novissimum ponit Iudaeorum deum, id est deum legis et prophetarum, quem deum negat, sed angelum dicit: huic sortito obtigisse semen Abrahae, atque ideo hunc de terra Aegypto filios Israël in terram Chanaam transtulisse: hunc turbulentiorem prae ceteris angelis, atque ideo et seditiones frequenter et bella concutere, sed et humanum sanguinem fundere: Christum autem non ab hoc, qui fecerit mundum, sed ab illo Abraxa missum, venisse in phantasmate, sine substantia carnis fuisse; hunc passum apud Iudaeos non esse, sed vice ipsius Simonem crucifixum esse; unde nec in eum credendum esse qui sit crucifixus, ne quis confiteatur in Simonem credidisse.

[5] Afterwards the heretic Basilides burst forth. He says that there is a highest god by the name Abraxas, by whom Mind was created, which in Greek he callsnou~n; thence the Word; from that, Providence, Virtue, and Wisdom; from these in turn were made Principalities and Powers and Angels; then infinite issues of angels and probolas (emanations); by those angels three hundred sixty-five heavens were established, and the world in honor of Abraxas, whose name contained in itself this number computed. Among the lowest angels, and those who have now made the world, he sets last the god of the Jews, that is, the god of the Law and the Prophets—whom he denies to be God, but says is an angel: to this one the seed of Abraham fell by lot, and therefore he transferred from the land of Egypt the sons of Israel into the land of Canaan: this one, more turbulent than the other angels, and therefore frequently stirring up seditions and wars, and also shedding human blood. But Christ, not from this one who made the world, but sent by that Abraxas, came in a phantasm, was without the substance of flesh; that he did not suffer among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in his stead; whence neither must one believe in him who has been crucified, lest anyone confess that he has believed in Simon.

Martyria negat esse facienda. Carnis resurrectionem graviter impugnat, negans salutem corporibus repromissam.

He denies that martyrdoms are to be undertaken. He gravely impugns the resurrection of the flesh, denying the salvation re-promised to bodies.

[6] Alter haereticus Nicolaus emersit. Hic de septem diaconis, qui in Actis Apostolorum allecti sunt, fuit. Hic dicit tenebras in concupiscentia luminis et quidem foeda et obscoena fuisse; ex hac permixtione pudor est dicere quae foetida et immunda sunt.

[6] Another heretic Nicholas emerged. He was of the seven deacons who in the Acts of the Apostles were enrolled. He says that darkness, in concupiscence for light—and indeed foul and obscene—existed; from this permixture it is a shame to speak the things which are fetid and unclean.

Sunt et cetera obscoena. Aeones enim refert quosdam turpitudinis natos, et complexus et permixtiones execrabiles obscenasque coniunctas, et quaedam ex ipsis adhuc turpiora. Natos praeterea daemones et deos et spiritus septem, et alia satis sacrilega pariter et foeda, quae referre erubescimus, et iam praeterimus.

There are also other obscene things. For he relates aeons, certain ones born of turpitude, and embraces and permixtures, accursed and obscene, conjoined, and certain things among them still more shameful. Besides, that daemons and gods and seven spirits were born, and other things quite sacrilegious equally and foul, which we blush to recount, and we now pass them by.

Satis est nobis, quod totam istam haeresim Nicolaitarum Apocalypsis domini gravissima sententiae auctoritate damnavit dicendo Quia hoc tenes, odisti doctrinam Nicolaitarum, quam et ego odi.

It is enough for us, that the Apocalypse of the Lord condemned that whole heresy of the Nicolaitans by the authority of a most grave sentence, saying "Because you hold this, you hate the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."

II.

[1] Accesserunt his haeretici etiam illi qui Ophitae nuncupantur. Nam serpentem magnificant in tantum, ut illum etiam ipsi Christo praeferant. Ipse enim, inquiunt, scientiae nobis boni et mali originem dedit.

[1] To these there were added also the heretics those who are named Ophites. For they magnify the serpent to such an extent that they even prefer him to Christ himself. For he himself, they say, gave to us the origin of the knowledge of good and of evil.

Huius animadvertens potentiam et maiestatem Moyses, inquiunt, aereum posuit serpentem, et quicunque ipsum aspexerunt, sanitatem consecuti sunt. Ipse, aiunt praeterea, Christus in evangelio suo imitatur serpentis ipsius sacram potestatem dicendo, Et sicut Moyses exaltavit serpentem in deserto, ita exaltari oportet filium hominis. Ipsum introducunt ad benedicenda eucharistia sua.

Noticing, they say, this one’s power and majesty, Moses set up a brazen serpent, and whoever looked upon it obtained health. Christ himself, they say furthermore, in his gospel imitates the sacred power of that very serpent by saying, “And just as Moses exalted the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be exalted.” They bring it in to bless their eucharist.

[2] Sed tota istius erroris et scena et doctrina inde fluxit. Dicunt enim de illo summo primario Aeone complures alios Aeones extitisse inferiores, omnibus tamen istis Aeonem antistare cuius sit nomen Ialdabaoth. Hunc autem conceptum esse ex altero Aeone Aeonibus inferioribus permixto, seque postea, cum in superiora voluisset eniti, gravitate materiae permixta sibi non potuisse ad superiora pervenire, in medietate relictum extendisse se totum, effecisse sic caelum.

[2] But the whole of this error’s show and doctrine flowed from this source. For they say that from that highest, primary Aeon there came forth several other Aeons, inferior; yet above all these an Aeon stands preeminent, whose name is Ialdabaoth. And they say that this one was conceived from another Aeon mixed with the inferior Aeons, and that afterwards, when he wished to strive upward to the higher things, because of the weight of matter mixed with himself he was not able to reach the higher regions; left in the middle, he stretched himself out entirely, and thus made the heaven.

[3] Ialdabaoth tamen inferius descendisse et fecisse sibi filios septem: quem occlusisse superiora dilatatione, ut, quia angeli quae superiora essent scire non possent, ipsum solum deum putarent. Virtutes igitur illas et angelos inferiores hominem fecisse, et quia ab infirmioribus et mediocribus virtutibus institutus esset, quasi vermem iacuisse reptantem; illum vero Aeonem, ex quo Ialdabaoth processisset, invidia commotum scintillam quamdam iacenti homini immisisse, qua excitatus per prudentiam saperet et intelligere posset superiora.

[3] Ialdabaoth, however, descended lower and made for himself seven sons: he shut off the things above by an expansion, so that, since the angels could not know what was above, they would think him the only god. Therefore those Virtues—namely, the lower angels—made the human; and because he had been established by weaker and mediocre powers, he lay like a worm, crawling; but that Aeon from whom Ialdabaoth had proceeded, moved by envy, inserted a certain spark into the man as he lay, by which, roused, he might have sapience through prudence and be able to understand the things above.

[4] Sic rursum Ialdabaoth istum in indignationem conuersum ex semetipso edidisse virtutem et similitudinem serpentis, et hanc fuisse virtutem in paradiso, id est istum fuisse serpentem cui Eva quasi filio deo crediderat. Decerpsit, inquiunt, de fructu arboris, atque ideo generi humano scientiam bonorum et malorum contribuit. Christum autem non in substantia carnis fuisse; salutem carnis sperandam omnino non esse.

[4] Thus again Ialdabaoth, turned into indignation, brought forth out of himself a power and likeness of a serpent, and this was the power in paradise, that is, this was the serpent in whom Eve had believed as in a son of God. He plucked, they say, from the fruit of the tree, and therefore he bestowed upon the human race the knowledge of good and evil. But Christ was not in the substance of flesh; the salvation of the flesh is in no way to be hoped for.

[5] Nec non etiam erupit alia quoque haeresis, quae dicitur Cainaeorum. Et ipsi enim magnificant Cain, quasi ex quadam potenti virtute conceptum, quae operata sit in ipso. Nam Abel ex inferiore virtute conceptum procreatum, et ideo inferiorem repertum.

[5] Nor indeed did another heresy burst forth as well, which is called the Cainites. For they too magnify Cain, as if conceived from a certain potent virtue, which has worked in him. For Abel, conceived from a lower virtue, begotten, and therefore found inferior.

Hi qui hoc adserunt, etiam Iudam proditorem defendunt, admirabilem illum et magnum esse memorantes, propter utilitates quas humano generi contulisse iactatur.

Those who assert this also defend Judas the traitor, recalling that he was admirable and great, on account of the benefits which he is vaunted to have conferred upon the human race.

[6] Quidam enim ipsorum gratiarum actionem Iudae propter hanc causam reddendam putant. Animadvertens enim, inquiunt, Iudas, quod Christus vellet veritatem subvertere, tradidit illum, ne subverti veritas posset. Et alii sic contra disputant et dicunt.

[6] For some of them think that a thanksgiving ought to be rendered to Judas for this cause. For noticing, they say, that Christ wished to subvert the truth, Judas betrayed him, lest the truth could be subverted. And others dispute thus in opposition and say.

Quia potestates huius mundi nolebant pati Christum, ne humano generi per mortem ipsius salus pararetur, saluti consulens generis humani tradidit Christum, ut salus, quae impediebatur per virtutes quae obsistebant ne pateretur Christus, impediri omnino non posset, et ideo per passionem Christi non posset salus humani generis retardari.

Because the powers of this world did not wish to allow Christ to suffer, lest salvation be prepared for the human race through his death, he, taking thought for the salvation of the human race, handed over Christ, so that the salvation which was being impeded by the Virtues who were resisting lest Christ suffer could not at all be impeded, and therefore through the passion of Christ the salvation of the human race could not be delayed.

[7] Sed et illa haeresis processit, quae dicitur Sethoitarum. Huius perversitatis doctrina haec est: Duos homines ab angelis constitutos, Cain et Abel, propter hos magnas inter angelos contentiones et discordias extitisse; ob hanc causam illam virtutem quae super omnes virtutes esset, quam matrem pronuntiant, dum Abel interfectum dicerent, voluisse concipi et nasci hunc Seth loco Abelis, ut evacuarentur angeli illi qui duos priores illos homines condidissent, dum hoc semen mundum oritur et nascitur.

[7] But that heresy also proceeded, which is called of the Sethians. The doctrine of this perversity is this: that two men were constituted by angels, Cain and Abel; on account of these there arose great contentions and discords among the angels; for this cause that Power which was above all powers, whom they proclaim the Mother, since they said that Abel had been slain, willed to conceive and to be born—this Seth—in the place of Abel, so that those angels who had fashioned those two earlier men might be nullified, while this pure seed arises and is born.

[8] Permixtiones enim dicunt angelorum et hominum iniquas fuisse, ob quam causam illam virtutem, quam, sicut diximus, pronuntiant matrem, ad vindictam etiam cataclysmum inducere, ut et illud permixtionis semen tolleretur et hoc solum semen, quod esset purum, integrum custodiretur.

[8] For they say the permixtures of angels and men were iniquitous, for which cause that Virtue, which, as we have said, they pronounce the Mother, to induce a cataclysm also for vengeance, so that both that seed of permixture might be taken away and this only seed, which was pure, might be kept intact.

[9] Sed enim illos, qui seminis illos prioris instituissent, occulte et latenter et ignorante illa matre virtute cum illis octo animabus in arcam misisse, etiam semen Cham, quo semen malitiae non periret, sed cum ceteris conservatum et post cataclysmum terris redditum exemplo ceterorum excresceret et effunderetur et totum orbem et impleret et occuparet. De Christo autem sic sentiunt, ut dicant illum tantummodo Seth, et pro ipso Seth ipsum fuisse.

[9] But indeed those who had constituted those of the prior seed, secretly and covertly, and with that mother-virtue ignorant, sent into the ark along with those eight souls even the seed of Cham, in order that the seed of malice might not perish, but, conserved with the rest and, after the cataclysm, restored to the lands, might, after the example of the others, grow out and be poured forth and fill and occupy the whole orb. But about Christ they think thus, that they say he was only Seth, and that in place of Seth he himself was.

III.

[1] Carpocrates praeterea hanc tulit sectam: Unam esse dicit virtutem in superioribus principalem, ex hac prolatos angelos atque virtutes, quos distantes longe a superioribus virtutibus mundum istum in inferioribus partibus condidisse; Christum non ex virgine Maria natum, sed ex semine Ioseph hominem tantummodo genitum, sane prae ceteris iustitiae cultu, vitae integritate meliorem; hunc apud Iudaeos passum, solam animam ipsius in caelo receptam, eo quod et firmior et robustior ceteris fuerit; ex quo colligeret, retentata animarum sola salute, nullas corporis resurrectiones.

[1] Carpocrates, moreover, advanced this sect: He says there is one principal power in the higher realms; from this were brought forth angels and powers, who, being far distant from the higher powers, fashioned this world in the lower parts; that Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary, but begotten as a man solely from the seed of Joseph, indeed superior to the rest in the cultivation of justice, and in integrity of life; that he suffered among the Jews, that only his soul was received in heaven, for the reason that it had been both firmer and more robust than the rest; whence he would infer that, retained, only the salvation of souls, there are no resurrections of the body.

[2] Post hunc Cerinthus haereticus erupit, similia docens. Nam et ipse mundum institutum esse ab illis dicit; Christum ex semine Ioseph natum proponit, hominem illum tantummodo sine diuinitate contendens, ipsam quoque legem ab angelis datam perhibens, Iudaeorum deum non dominum, sed angelum promens.

[2] After him the heretic Cerinthus erupted, teaching similar things. For he too says that the world has been instituted by those; he proposes that Christ was born from the seed of Joseph, contending that that man was only human, without divinity; also averring that the Law itself was given by angels, declaring the god of the Jews to be not Lord but an angel.

[3] Huius successor Ebion fuit, Cerintho non in omni parte consentiens, quod a deo dicat mundum, non ab angelis factum, et quia scriptum sit, Nemo discipulus super magistrum, nec servus super dominum, legem etiam proponit, scilicet ad excludendum evangelium et vindicandum Iudaismum.

[3] His successor Ebion was, not consenting with Cerinthus in every part, in that he says the world to have been made by God, not by angels, and because it is written, No disciple over the teacher, nor a servant over the lord, he also proposes the Law, namely to exclude the gospel and to vindicate Judaism.

IV.

[1] Valentinus autem haereticus multas introducit fabulas. Has ego circumducens breuiter expediam. Introducit enim Pleroma et Aeones triginta; exponit autem hos per syzygias, id est, coniugationes quasdam.

[1] But the heretic Valentinus introduces many fables. These, going around, I will briefly expound. For he introduces the Pleroma and thirty Aeons; and he sets these forth by syzygies, that is, certain conjugations.

Nam dicit in primis esse Bython et Silentium, ex his processisse Mentem et Veritatem, ex quibus erupisse Verbum et Vitam, de quibus rursum creatum Hominem et Ecclesiam. Sed enim ex his quoque processisse duodecim Aeonas; de Sermone autem et Vita Aeonas alios decem: hanc esse Aeonum triacontada, quae fit in Pleromate ex ogdoade et decade ac duodecade.

For he says that in the first place there exist Bythos and Silence, from these Mind and Truth proceeded, from whom burst forth the Word and Life, from whom again Man and Church were created. But indeed, from these too there proceeded twelve Aeons; and from the Word and Life, ten other Aeons: this is the triacontad of Aeons, which comes to be in the Pleroma from an ogdoad and a decad and a dodecad.

[2] Tricesimum autem Aeonem Bython illum videre voluisse et ad videndum illum ausum esse in superiora conscendere, et quoniam ad magnitudinem ipsius videndam capax non fuit, in defectione fuisse et paene dissolutum esse, nisi qui missus ad constabiliendum illum, ille quem appellant Horon, confirmasset illum dicto Iao pronuntiato.

[2] But the thirtieth Aeon wished to see that Bythus and, for the seeing of him, dared to ascend to the heights; and since he was not capable of beholding his magnitude, he was in a collapse and was almost dissolved, had not he who was sent to stabilize him—he whom they call Horon—confirmed him, with the word “Iao” pronounced.

[3] Istum autem Aeonem in defectionem factum Achamoth dicit in passionibus desiderii quibusdam fuisse et ex passionibus materias edidisse. Expavit enim, inquit, et extimuit et contristatus est, et ex his passionibus concepit et edidit. Hinc fecit caelum et terram et mare et omnia quaecunque sunt in eis,

[3] But he says that this Aeon, made into a defection, Achamoth, was in certain passions of desire and from the passions emitted materials. For, he says, she was terrified and dreaded and was saddened, and from these passions she conceived and emitted. Hence she made heaven and earth and sea and all whatever things are in them,

[4] ob quam causam omnia infirma esse et fragilia et caduca et mortalia, quaecunque sunt ab ipso facta, quoniam quidem ipse fuerit de defectione conceptus atque prolatus; hunc tamen instituisse istum mundum ex his materiis quas Achamoth vel pavendo vel timendo vel contristando vel sudando praestiterat. Nam ex pavore, inquit, tenebrae factae sunt, ex timore et ignorantia spiritus nequitiae et malignitatis, ex tristitia et lacrimis humida fontium, fluminum materia marisque.

[4] for which cause all things are infirm and fragile and caducous and mortal, whatever things have been made by him, since indeed he himself had been conceived from the deficiency and brought forth; nevertheless, that this one established this world from those matters which Achamoth had furnished either by quaking, or by fearing, or by being saddened, or by sweating. For from terror, he says, darkness was made; from fear and ignorance, spirits of iniquity and malignity; from sadness and tears, the humid elements of springs, the matter of rivers and of the sea.

[5] Christum autem missum ab illo propatore, qui est Bythos. Hunc autem in substantia corporis nostri non fuisse, sed spiritale nescio quod corpus de caelo deferentem, quasi aquam per fistulam, sic per Mariam virginem transmeasse, nihil inde vel accipientem vel mutuantem. Resurrectionem huius carnis negat, sed alterius

[5] But that Christ was sent by that Forefather, who is Bythos. And that he was not in the substance of our body, but, conveying from heaven some I-know-not-what spiritual body, as water through a pipe, thus passed through Mary the virgin, receiving or borrowing nothing from there. He denies the resurrection of this flesh, but of another.

[6] legis et prophetarum quaedam probat, quaedam improbat, id est, omnia improbat, dum quaedam reprobat. Evangelium habet etiam suum praeter haec nostra.

[6] of the law and the prophets he approves certain things, he disapproves others—that is, he disapproves all things, inasmuch as he reprobates certain things. He even has his own Gospel in addition to these of ours.

[7] Post hunc extiterunt Ptolomaeus et Secundus haeretici, qui cum Valentino per omnia consentiunt, in illo solo differunt. Nam cum Valentinus Aeonas tantum triginta finxisset, isti addiderunt alios complures; quatuor enim primum, deinde alios quatuor adgregaverunt. Et quod dicit Valentinus Aeonem tricesimum excessisse de Pleromate, ut in defectionem, negant isti.

[7] After him there arose Ptolemaeus and Secundus, heretics, who agree with Valentinus in all things; they differ only in this one point. For whereas Valentinus had fashioned only thirty Aeons, these added several others; for four at first, then they aggregated another four. And what Valentinus says—that the thirtieth Aeon went out from the Pleroma, as into a defection—these deny.

Non enim ex illa triacontade fuisse hunc qui fuerit in defectionem propter desiderium videndi propatoris.

For this one who had come into deficiency because of the desire to see the Propator was not from that Triacontad.

[8] Extitit praeterea Heracleon alter haereticus, qui cum Valentino paria sentit, sed novitate quadam pronuntiationis vult videri alia sentire. Introducit enim in primis illud fuisse quod pronuntiat, et deinde ex illa monade duo, ac deinde reliquos Aeonas. Deinde introducit totum Valentinum.

[8] Moreover there arose Heracleon, another heretic, who holds the same things as Valentinus, but by a certain novelty of pronunciation he wishes to seem to think otherwise. For he introduces, in the first place, that that which he pronounces existed, and then from that monad, two, and then the remaining Aeons. Then he introduces the whole Valentinus.

[1] Non defuerunt post hos Marcus quidam et Colarbasus, novam haeresin ex Graecorum alphabeto componentes. Negant enim veritatem sine istis posse litteris inueniri, immo totam plenitudinem et perfectionem veritatis in istis litteris esse dispositam. Propter hanc enim causam Christum dixisse, Ego sum A et W.

[1] Nor were there lacking after these a certain Marcus and Colarbasus, composing a new heresy from the alphabet of the Greeks. For they deny that truth can be found without those letters; nay rather, that the whole plenitude and perfection of truth has been disposed in those letters. For this cause Christ said, I am A and W.

[2] Denique Iesum Christum descendisse, id est columbam in Iesum venisse; quae Graeco nomine cumperistera pronuntietur, habeat secundum numerum DCCCI. Percurrunt isti W, Y, X, F, U, T, totum usque ad A, B, et computant ogdoadas et decadas. Ita afferre illorum omnes vanitates et ineptum sit et otiosum.

[2] In sum, that Jesus Christ descended, that is, that the dove came into Jesus; which, when pronounced by the Greek name asperistera, has, according to number, 801. These men run through W, Y, X, F, U, T, the whole way down to A, B, and compute ogdoads and decades. Thus to bring forward all their vanities is both inept and idle.

[3] Quod tamen non tantum iam vanum, sed etiam periculosum sit, alterum deum fingunt praeter creatorem, Christum in substantia negant carnis fuisse, negant carnis resurrectionem futuram.

[3] Which, however, is now not only vain but also perilous: they fashion another god besides the Creator, they deny that Christ was in the substance of flesh, they deny that the resurrection of the flesh will be.

VI.

[1] Accedit his Cerdon quidam. Hic introducit initia duo, id est duos deos, unum bonum, et alterum saevum, bonum superiorem, saevum hunc mundi creatorem. Hic prophetias et legem repudiat, deo creatori renuntiat, superioris dei filium Christum venisse tractat, hunc in substantia carnis negat, in phantasmate solo fuisse pronuntiat, nec omnino passum, sed quasi passum, nec ex virgine natum, sed omnino nec natum.

[1] To these there accedes Cerdon a certain man. He introduces two principles, that is, two gods: one good, and the other savage—good the superior, savage this creator of the world. He repudiates the prophecies and the law, renounces the creator god, maintains that Christ, the son of the superior God, came, denies that he was in the substance of flesh, pronounces that he was in a phantasm only, and that he did not suffer at all, but as if he suffered, nor was he born of a virgin, but not born at all.

Resurrectionem animae tantummodo probat, corporis negat. Solum evangelium Lucae, nec tamen totum recipit. Apostoli Pauli neque omnes neque totas epistolas sumit.

He approves only the resurrection of the soul; he denies that of the body. He receives only the Gospel of Luke, yet not even the whole of it. Of the Apostle Paul he takes neither all the epistles nor them entire.

Acta Apostolorum et Apocalypsim quasi falsa reicit.

He rejects the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse as if false.

[2] Post hunc discipulus ipsius emersit Marcion quidam nomine, Ponticus genere, episcopi filius, propter stuprum cuiusdam virginis ab ecclesiae communicatione abiectus. Hic ex occasione qua dictum sit, Omnis arbor bona bonos fructus facit, mala autem malos, haeresim Cerdonis approbare conatus est, ut eadem diceret quae ille superior haereticus ante dixerat.

[2] After this, his disciple emerged a certain Marcion by name, Pontic by race, the son of a bishop, cast out from the communion of the church on account of the defilement of a certain virgin. He, taking occasion from that which is said, Every good tree makes good fruits, but the bad however [makes] bad, tried to approve the heresy of Cerdo, so as to say the same things which that prior heretic had said before.

[3] Extitit post hunc Lucanus quidam nomine, Marcionis sectator atque discipulus, et hic per eadem vadens blasphemiae genera eadem docet quae Marcion et Cerdon docuerant.

[3] After him there arose a certain Lucanus by name, a sectary and disciple of Marcion, and he too, going through the same genres of blasphemy, teaches the same things which Marcion and Cerdon had taught.

[4] Post hos subsequitur Apelles, discipulus Marcionis, qui posteaquam in carnem suam lapsus est, a Marcione segregatus est. Hic introducit unum deum infinitis superioribus partibus. Hunc potestates multas angelosque fecisse; propterea et aliam virtutem, quam dici dominum dicit, sed angelum ponit.

[4] After these there follows Apelles, a disciple of Marcion, who, after he had fallen into his own flesh, was segregated from Marcion. He introduces one god in infinitely higher parts; that this one made many Powers and angels; and therefore also another power, which he says is called “lord,” but he sets as an angel.

Hoc vult videri mundum institutum ad imitationem mundi superioris; cui mundo permiscuisse paenitentiam, quia non illum tam perfecte fecisset quam ille superior mundus institutus fuisset. Legem et prophetas repudiat.

He wishes this to seem: that the world was instituted in imitation of the superior world; into which world he has intermingled penitence, because he had not made it so perfectly as that superior world had been instituted. He repudiates the Law and the prophets.

[5] Christum neque in phantasmate dicit fuisse, sicut Marcion, neque in substantia veri corporis, ut evangelium docet, sed ideo quod e superioribus partibus descenderet, ipso descensu sideream sibi carnem et aeream contexuisse: hunc in resurrectione singulis quibusque elementis quae in descensu suo mutuata fuissent in ascensu reddidisse, et sic dispersis quibusque corporis sui partibus in caelo spiritum tantum reddidisse.

[5] He says that Christ was neither in a phantasm, as Marcion, nor in the substance of a true body, as the Gospel teaches, but for this reason—that since he descended from the superior parts, by the descent itself he wove for himself a sidereal and aerial flesh: that at the resurrection he rendered back, in the ascent, to each and every element the things which had been borrowed in his descent, and thus, with the several parts of his body dispersed in heaven, he gave back only the spirit.

[6] Hic carnis resurrectionem negat. Solo utitur et apostolo, sed Marcionis, id est non toto. Animarum solarum dicit salutem.

[6] He denies the resurrection of the flesh. He uses only the Apostle—and that of Marcion, that is, not entire. He says salvation is of souls alone.

Habet praeterea privatas, sed extraordinarias lectiones suas, quas appellat phaneroseis, Philumenes cuiusdam puellae, quam quasi prophetissam sequitur. Habet praeterea suos libros, quos inscripsit Syllogismorum, in quibus probare vult quod omnia quaecunque Moyses de deo scripserit vera non sint, sed falsa sint.

He has, moreover, his private but extraordinary lections, which he calls phaneroseis, of a certain girl Philumene, whom he follows as if a prophetess. He has, moreover, his own books, which he has entitled Syllogisms, in which he aims to prove that all the things whatsoever Moses wrote about God are not true, but are false.

VII.

[1] His haereticis omnibus accedit Tatianus quidam alter haereticus. Hic Iustini martyris discipulus fuit; post hunc diuersa sentire coepit. Totus enim secundum Valentinum sapit, adiciens illud, Adam nec salutem consequi posse, quasi non, si rami salvi fiant, et radix salva sit.

[1] To all these heretics there is added a certain other heretic, Tatian. He was a disciple of Justin the Martyr; after him he began to hold diverse opinions. For he savors wholly according to Valentinus, adding this besides: that Adam cannot even attain salvation—as though it were not the case that, if the branches become saved, the root also is saved.

[2] Accesserunt alii haeretici, qui dicuntur Secundum Phrygas, sed horum non una doctrina est. Sunt enim qui Kata Proclum dicuntur, sunt alii qui Secundum Aeschinem pronuntiantur. Hi habent aliam communem blasphemiam, aliam blasphemiam non communem, sed peculiarem et suam: et communem quidem illam, qua in apostolis quidem dicant spiritum sanctum fuisse, paracletum non fuisse, et qua dicant paracletum plura in Montano dixisse quam Christum in evangelium protulisse, nec tantum plura, sed etiam meliora atque maiora.

[2] There have come in other heretics, who are called “According to the Phrygians,” but there is not one doctrine of these. For there are those who are called Kata Proclus, and there are others who are pronounced “According to Aeschines.” These have one blasphemy common, another blasphemy not common, but peculiar and their own: and the common one is this, that they say that in the apostles indeed the Holy Spirit was, but the Paraclete was not; and that they say the Paraclete said more in Montanus than Christ brought forth in the Gospel—nay not only more, but also better and greater.

Privatam autem blasphemiam illi qui sunt Kata Aeschinem hanc habent qua adiciunt etiam hoc, uti dicant Christum ipsum esse filium et patrem. VIII.

But the private blasphemy of those who are According to Aeschines is this, to which they add also this: that they say Christ himself is the Son and the Father. 8.

[1] Est praeterea his omnibus etiam Blastus accedens, qui latenter Iudaismum vult introducere. Pascha enim dicit non aliter custodiendum esse, nisi secundum legem Moysi XIIII. mensis.

[1] Moreover to all these there is added also Blastus, who wishes covertly to introduce Judaism. For he says that Pascha must not be kept otherwise than according to the law of Moses on the 14th of the month.

Quis autem nesciat quoniam evangelica gratia evacuatur, si ad legem Christum rediget?

Who, moreover, does not know that the evangelical grace is made void, if he reduces Christ to the Law?

[2] Accedit his Theodotus haereticus Byzantius, qui posteaquam Christi pro nomine adprehensus negavit, in Christum blasphemare non destitit. Doctrinam enim introduxit qua Christum hominem tantummodo diceret, deum autem illum negaret, ex spiritu quidem sancto natum ex virgine, sed hominem solitarium atque nudum, nulla alia prae ceteris nisi sola iustitiae auctoritate.

[2] To these there is added Theodotus the heretic, a Byzantine, who, after he had been apprehended for the name of Christ and denied, did not cease to blaspheme against Christ. For he introduced a doctrine by which he would say that Christ was only a man, but would deny him to be God—born indeed of the Holy Spirit from a virgin, but a solitary and bare man, with no other authority above the rest except the authority of justice alone.

[3] Alter post hunc Theodotus haereticus erupit, qui et ipse introduxit alteram sectam et ipsum hominem Christum tantummodo dicit ex spiritu sancto ex virgine Maria conceptum pariter et natum, sed hunc inferiorem esse quam Melchisedech, eo quod dictum sit de Christo: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. Nam illum Melchisedech praecipuae gratiae caelestem esse virtutem, eo quod agat Christus pro hominibus, deprecator et advocatus ipsorum factus. Melchisedech facere pro caelestibus angelis atque virtutibus.

[3] Another Theodotus the heretic burst forth after this one, who likewise introduced another sect and says that Christ himself is only a man, conceived from the Holy Spirit and likewise born from the Virgin Mary, but that he is inferior to Melchisedech, because it is said of Christ: You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. For he says that that Melchisedech is a heavenly power of preeminent grace, on the ground that Christ acts on behalf of human beings, having been made their intercessor and advocate, whereas Melchisedech acts on behalf of the heavenly angels and powers.

Nam esse illum usque adeo Christo meliorem, ut a)pa&pwr sit, a)mh&twr sit, a)genealoghto_j sit, cuius neque initium neque finis comprehensus sit aut comprehendi possit.

For that one to be so much better than Christ, that he a)pa&pwr is, a)mh&twr is, a)genealoghto_j is, one whose neither beginning nor end has been comprehended nor can be comprehended.

[4] Sed post hos omnes etiam Praxeas quidam haeresim introduxit, quam Victorinus corroborare curavit. Hic deum patrem omnipotentem Iesum Christum esse dicit, hunc crucifixum passumque contendit et mortuum, praeterea se ipsum sibi sedere ad dexteram suam, cum prophana et sacrilega temeritate proponit.

[4] But after all these, a certain Praxeas also introduced a heresy, which Victorinus took care to corroborate. He says that God the Father omnipotent is Jesus Christ; he contends that this one was crucified, suffered, and died; moreover, with profane and sacrilegious temerity he proposes that he himself sits to himself at his own right hand.