On Heresies 1 part 3/3

Let this too, among the other points, be explained to us beforehand: that even though, at no time whatsoever, apart from the union with the Word, did the human nature of Christ subsist, but rather he assumed the union with the Word at the very same moment as the beginning of his passage into being, nevertheless we do not say that that nature was without hypostasis, seeing that it had a self-constituted existence, distinct from the rest of mankind, and a self-circumscribed existence, distinguished by certain properties from the common nature of all the rest of men;

for this, we have just now shown, is what the term 'hypostasis' signifies.

Therefore, just as, with regard to the Godhead of Christ, we confess both its nature and its hypostasis, so too, with regard to his humanity, just as we confess a nature, so also it is necessary to confess this particular hypostasis, lest we be compelled to say that that nature, as I have said, is without hypostasis;

for the Savior's humanity was clearly one of the individuals falling under the common nature.

Since these matters have thus been clearly distinguished, and are, I think, agreed upon by all, let those who posit that the natures of Christ are two but that his hypostasis is one — since each of the things united necessarily possessed both nature and hypostasis together, as the argument has shown — tell us whether they confess that the union came about with equal honor as regards both the natures and the hypostases, or rather suppose that it was the hypostases that were united,

they suppose, since indeed one hypostasis came to be out of both, but the natures less so, whence they have also remained two after the union.

And again, after certain other things, in which he argues that substance does not admit of the 'more' and the 'less,' he says again, in the same chapter, as follows:

For that one nature is generative of several hypostases is, I think, evident to all.

Thus indeed, confessing that the divinity is one nature, we maintain that its hypostases are three.

And of human beings too the nature is one, though the hypostases under it extend in number almost to infinity, and likewise in the case of the others.

But it is impossible for two natures, preserving numerically the duality, to constitute one hypostasis.

And this can be confirmed not only by induction from all particular cases—for how could there be one hypostasis, that is, a single individual, of a stone and a piece of wood, or of an ox and a horse?—but also from the very working of the argument itself.

For if each nature receives its existence in the hypostases—which is the same as saying in the individuals—then it is altogether necessary, since there are two natures, that there be at least two hypostases also, in which the natures received their existence;

for it is impossible for a nature to subsist by itself without being contemplated in some individual, and we have just shown that individual and hypostasis are the same.

So then, those who say that not only the hypostasis but also the nature became one through the union appear consistent both with themselves and with the truth, whereas those who say that the hypostasis is one but the natures are two have shown themselves inconsistent both with themselves and with the truth.

But since, they say, the human [nature] of Christ received its hypostasis in the Word and did not pre-exist the union with the Word, for this reason we say that the hypostasis of Christ is one.

Would we, then, also say that nature and hypostasis are to be understood as meaning one and the same thing, so that they are only different names falling under a single signification, like 'machaira' and 'xiphos' [both meaning sword], or as one thing and another? If then they are the same, then, since the hypostasis is one, it is necessary that the nature also be one, just as, if the xiphos is one, the machaira must also be one of necessity; or, if the natures are two, then the hypostases too will necessarily be two.

But if the term 'nature' signifies one thing and the term 'hypostasis' another, and they hold that the cause of the hypostasis of Christ being one is that the hypostasis of the man—that is, the person—did not pre-exist the union with the Word, then the cause of the natures of Christ being two would likewise be that the nature of the man pre-existed the union with the Word.

But if the particular nature united to the Word pre-existed, it is altogether necessary that its hypostasis also pre-existed.

For it is not possible for one of these to exist while the other does not—I mean, the particular nature without its own hypostasis, or the particular hypostasis without its own nature;

for the two are one in the substrate, even though those who use [these terms] often run them together into the same thing, as we showed a little earlier.

If, then, just as the hypostasis, so also the nature that was united to the Word did not pre-exist the union with him—and it is on this very ground that they hold the hypostasis of Christ to be one—then on this same ground let them also hold his nature to be one;

for since they do not differ in respect of having been united, neither could they differ on this ground.

The Aphthartodocetae, [named] from Julian of Halicarnassus and Gaianus of Alexandria, who are also called Gaianites—they agree with the followers of Severus in all other respects, but differ from them in this: that the latter say that the difference in the union of Christ amounts to a mere seeming (dokein), whereas these maintain that the Lord's body was incorruptible from the very moment of its formation.

And they confess that the Lord underwent the sufferings—I mean hunger and thirst and weariness—but they say that he underwent these not in the same manner as we do;

for they say that we [endure them] out of natural necessity, but that Christ endured them voluntarily and was not enslaved to the laws of nature.

The Agnoetae, also called Themistians, who impiously proclaim that Christ was ignorant of the day of judgment, and who ascribe timidity to him.

These are an offshoot of the Theodosians;

for Themistius, who became their heresiarch, held that there is one composite nature in Christ.

The Barsanuphites, also called Semidalites, are of the same mind as the Gaianites and the Theodosians, but they have something further besides:

for they add fine wheat flour to what is supposedly offered from [the line of] Dioscorus, and, touching it with the tip of the finger, they taste the flour and receive this in place of the mystery, making no [real] offering at all.

For having given up, as has been said, the communion of Dioscorus, they add the fine flour, until it is gradually consumed, and this is reckoned by them in place of communion.

The Heicetae, who are ascetics, orthodox in all other respects, but who gather together with women ascetics in monasteries and offer hymns to God with a certain dance and choral movement, imitating, as it were, the chorus of those under Moses that was formed at the destruction of the Egyptians which occurred in the Red Sea.

The Gnosimachi, who set themselves against all knowledge of Christianity, saying that those who seek out certain items of knowledge in the divine Scriptures do something superfluous;

for God requires nothing else of a Christian except good deeds.

It is better, then, [they say], for a person to conduct himself more simply and not to be over-curious about any doctrine of gnostic inquiry.

The Heliotropitae, who say that the plants called heliotropes, which turn along with the rays of the sun, possess a certain divine power which produces such turning in them, and who on this account wish to honor them, not understanding that the movement thus displayed in them is merely a natural one.

The Thnetopsychitae, who introduce the doctrine that the human soul is like that of beasts, and say that it perishes together with the body.

The Agonyclitae, who at every time of their prayers refuse to bend the knee, but always make their prayers standing.

The Theocatagnostae, also called Blasphemi, who attempt to find fault in certain words and deeds of our Master God, and in the holy persons devoted to him, and in the divine Scriptures, being certain bold and blasphemous men.

The Christolytae, who say that our Lord Jesus Christ, after the resurrection from the dead, left his ensouled body below and ascended into the heavens with the bare divinity alone.

The Ethnophrones, who follow the customs of the pagans, being Christians in other respects, who introduce genethlialogy, fortune, and fate, accepting all astronomy and astrology and all divination and augury by birds, and adhering to omens, apotropaic rites, chance-utterances, portent-watching, incantations, and things like these, and other impious fables, and the remaining custom of the pagans, honoring certain Greek festivals, and again observing days and months and seasons and years.

The Donatists, who took their beginning from a certain Donatus in Africa, who handed down to them a certain bone, which they hold in their hand and first kiss, and only then partake of the offering of the holy things, whenever these are about to be brought forward.

The Ethicoproscoptae, who stumble in the domain of ethics, that is, of [Christian] practice, and

denounce some of its teachings that are praiseworthy, while pursuing certain others, though blameworthy, as if they were good.

The Parhermeneutae, who misinterpret certain chapters of the divine Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments, and contrive these to their own purpose;

being disposed contentiously against the many accurate and unimpeachable interpretations, suffering this from a certain want of learning and lack of discernment, and thereby, unwittingly, confirming also some of the heretical doctrines.

The Lampetians, so called from a certain Lampetius, who permit those wishing to live together and pass their life in communities that each should pursue whatever manner of life he wishes and approves, and wear whatever habit he chooses;

for, he says, it is not necessary for the Christian to do anything under compulsion, since it is written:

'Freely will I sacrifice to you,' and again:

'Of my own will I will confess to him.' And they permit, as some say, giving room also to natural passions and not resisting them, since nature so demands;

and they are said to hold certain other views similar to those of the so-called Aerians.

The Monothelites, who took their beginning from Cyrus of Alexandria, and were confirmed by Sergius of Constantinople.

These maintain two natures in Christ and one hypostasis, but they teach one will and one operation, thereby doing away with the duality of natures and strenuously allying themselves with the doctrines of Apollinarius.

[ms. omega ends here] The Autoproscoptae, who are in all respects orthodox (variant reading: ms. Y has 'being' for 'happening to be'), but who fearlessly cut themselves off from the catholic Church and its communion, for some trifling pretext, if it should so happen (variant reading: the word 'some' is omitted in [ms.

... Y]), on account of something trivial, if it should so happen (variant reading: the phrase 'if it should so happen' is omitted in [ms.

... while ostensibly seeking canonical ordinances, being neither bishops nor leaders of the people at all (variant reading: the phrase 'neither ... leaders' is omitted in [ms.

... omega]), but being certain persons of the common herd; nevertheless they themselves give offense in the very matters for which they bring accusation against others.

For they openly cohabit with women, and consort with women smuggled in [under false pretenses] (variant reading: ms. Y has 'gather with' for 'consort with'), busying themselves (variant reading: ms. Y has the passive form 'are kept busy') with worldly affairs, business dealings, and covetousness, and other such matters; and irrationally... (variant: [ms.

... adds 'also,' see ms. Y]) they live, overturning in deed those very things which they claim to uphold in word, being transgressors according to the apostolic verdict;

for while honoring God in word, they dishonor him in deed—monks who are also ranked among the clergy.

And there follow them all who (variant reading: ms. Y has 'as those who' for 'as many as') are dazzled and who conduct themselves according to their own simplicity.

But the true nurslings of the Church revere the sacred canons, and, leaving to the bishops and superiors the matters pertaining to these, they themselves greatly honor them, both in deed (variant reading: the word 'and' is omitted in [ms.

... Y]) and hold them in the highest honor through their own good order.

There is also the people-deceiving religion of the Ishmaelites, prevailing to the present day, which is the forerunner of the Antichrist.

It is descended from Ishmael, who was born to Abraham by Hagar;

for which reason they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites.

And they call them Saracens, as being 'empty of Sarah,' because of what was said by Hagar to the angel.

These, then, practiced idolatry and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom indeed they named in their own tongue 'Chabar,' which means 'great.'

Until the times of Heraclius, then, they plainly practiced idolatry; from which time down to the present a false prophet arose among them, named Mamed, who, having chanced upon the Old and New Testament, and having reportedly conversed likewise with an Arian monk, put together his own heresy.

And having, under the pretext of a semblance of piety, ingratiated himself with the nation, [he claims that] from heaven

a scripture was brought down upon him by God—so he noises abroad.

And having inscribed in the book composed by him certain compilations worthy of laughter, he thus hands down to them an object of veneration.

He says that there is one God, maker of all things, neither begotten nor having begotten.

He says that Christ is the Word of God and his Spirit, but created and a servant, and that he was born of Mary, the sister of Moses and Aaron, without seed.

For the Word of God, he says, and the Spirit entered into Mary, and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and a servant of God.

And [he says] that the Jews, having transgressed the law, wished to crucify him, and, having seized him, crucified his shadow, but Christ himself, he says, was not crucified nor did he die;

For God took him to himself into heaven, because he loved him.

And he says this too, that when Christ had ascended into the heavens, God questioned him, saying:

"O Jesus, did you say, 'I am the Son of God, and God'?" And Jesus, he says, answered:

"You know that I did not say it, nor do I disdain to be your servant;

but the transgressing men wrote that I said this word, and they have lied against me, and they are deceived."

And God, he says, answered him:

"I know that you did not say this word."

And telling many other tall tales worthy of laughter in such a composition, he vaunts that this was brought down upon him from God.

And who is it that testifies that God gave him a scripture, or which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would arise? And when we press them with these difficulties — that Moses received the law from God upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people, God appearing in cloud and fire and darkness and storm; and that all the prophets from Moses onward, in succession, foretold the coming of Christ, and that Christ is God and Son of God, who would come incarnate and be crucified and die and rise again, and that he is judge of the living and the dead — and when we say, "How is it that your prophet did not come in this way, with others bearing witness concerning him? Why, you yourselves were not even present, nor did God, as with Moses, give the law while all the people watched, the mountain smoking, and furnish him the scripture which you also affirm, so that you too might have assurance" — they answer that God does whatever he wills.

This too, we say, we know; but we ask how the scripture came down to your prophet.

And they answer that, while he was sleeping, the scripture came down upon him.

And, as a jest, we say to them that, since he received the scripture while sleeping and did not perceive its operation, the popular proverb has been fulfilled in him.

How is it that, though he commanded you in your scripture to do or accept nothing without witnesses, you did not ask him: "First, prove by witnesses that you yourself are a prophet and that you have come forth from God, and what scripture testifies concerning you"? At this they fall silent, ashamed.

Since it is not lawful for you to marry a wife without witnesses, nor to buy, nor to acquire property; nor would you yourselves consent to hold even a donkey or any beast without a witness — you have wives and possessions and donkeys and everything else by witnesses, yet your faith and scripture alone you hold without a witness;

for the one who handed it down to you has no certainty from any source, nor is any witness of him known beforehand, but he even received it while sleeping.

And they call us Hetaeriasts, because, he says, we introduce a partner to God, in saying that Christ is Son of God, and God.

To whom we say that this the prophets and the scripture have handed down;

and you, as you insist, accept the prophets.

If, then, we speak wrongly in calling Christ Son of God, it is they who taught it, and —

And some of them say that we, having allegorized the prophets, have added such things; but others say that the Hebrews, hating us, deceived us by writing as though from the prophets, in order that we might perish.

Again we say to them:

Since you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, how do you revile us as Hetaeriasts? For the word and the spirit are inseparable from that in which they naturally subsist;

if, then, he is in God as his Word, it is clear that he is also God.

But if he is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without breath.

Therefore, in fleeing from making God have a partner, you have mutilated him.

For it would have been better for you to say that he has a partner, than to mutilate him and represent him as something like a stone or a piece of wood or one of the senseless things.

So then, you falsely speaking call us Hetaeriasts;

but we call you mutilators of God.

And they slander us as idolaters who worship the cross, which they also abhor.

How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone at your Chabathan and love the stone, kissing it? And some of them say that upon it Abraham had intercourse with Hagar; others, that he tied his camel to it when he was about to sacrifice Isaac.

And we answer them:

Since Scripture says that the mountain was wooded, with trees, from which Abraham, having split wood for the whole burnt offering, laid it upon Isaac, and that he left the donkeys behind with the servants,

whence, then, does your nonsense come? For no forest wood lies there, nor do donkeys pass through that place.

They are ashamed, yet nevertheless they say the stone is Abraham's.

Granted it is Abraham's, as you foolishly maintain;

then, in kissing it merely because Abraham had intercourse with a woman upon it, or because he tied his camel to it, you feel no shame; yet you reproach us because we worship the cross of Christ, through which the power of demons and the deceit of the devil has been overthrown.

But this thing which they call a stone is the head of Aphrodite, whom they used to worship, whom indeed they also called Chabar, upon which, even to this day, the faint trace of an engraving is visible to those who examine it closely.

This Muhammad, having composed, as has been said, many foolish tales, gave each of them a title, such as "The Scripture of the Woman," in which he openly legislates that a man may take four wives, and, if he is able, a thousand concubines besides — as many as his hand can hold, reckoned apart from the four wives.

And whichever wife he should wish to divorce, he may divorce whomever he pleases, and take another — having legislated on such grounds.

Muhammad had a companion called Zayd.

This man had a beautiful wife, with whom Muhammad fell in love.

So then, as they were sitting together, Muhammad says:

"So-and-so, God has commanded me to take your wife.

Do as God has told you."

But rather, that we may relate it from the beginning, he said to him:

"God has commanded me that you should divorce your wife."

And after some days he says:

"God has commanded that I too should take her."

Then, having taken her and committed adultery with her, he laid down such a law as this:

"Let whoever wishes divorce his wife.

But if, after divorcing her, he should turn back to her, let another man marry her.

For it is not permitted to take her back, unless she has been married by another.

And if a brother also divorces his wife, let his brother, if he so wishes, marry her."

And in that very scripture he prescribes such things as these:

"Work the land which God has given you, and beautify it, and do this and do that" — that I may not repeat all the shameful things he says.

Again, there is the Scripture of the Camel of God, concerning which he says that there was a camel from God, which drank an entire river and could not pass between two mountains because it could not fit through.

There was, he says, a people in that place, and on one day they themselves would drink the water, and the camel on the next.

And drinking the water, it would nourish them, providing milk instead of water.

Then those men, he says, being wicked, rose up and killed her —

and her offspring was a small camel, which, he says, when its mother was slain, cried out to God, and he took it to himself.

And they say that it was from God.

Was another camel joined with her? And they say:

Whence, then, we say, did she give birth? For we observe that your camel is without father and without mother and without genealogy, and having given birth, she met with evil.

But neither does the one who mated with her appear, and the small camel was taken up.

Your prophet, then, to whom, as you say, God spoke — why did he not learn concerning the camel where it grazes and who milk it, drawing off its milk? Or has it too, perhaps, met with evils like its mother and been slain, or has it entered paradise as your forerunner, from which will come for you that river of milk you babble of? For you claim that three rivers flow for you in paradise:

of water, of wine, and of milk.

If your forerunner camel is outside of paradise, it is clear that it has withered away from hunger and thirst, or else others enjoy its milk, and your prophet vaunts himself in vain as one who has conversed with God;

for the mystery of the camel was not revealed to him.

But if it is in paradise, it drinks the water once more, and you will be parched with drought in the very midst of the delight of paradise.

And even should you desire wine from the flowing river, since no water is present — for the camel has drunk it all up — you will drink it unmixed, and be inflamed, and be driven to distraction by drunkenness, and fall asleep;

But being heavy-headed after sleep, and stupefied from wine, you forget the delights of Paradise.

How then did your prophet fail to consider this, lest the same thing should befall you in the paradise of delight? Nor has he given any thought to the camel — where does it now abide? But neither did you ask him, when, in his dreaming, he told you of the three rivers.

But we plainly declare that your marvelous camel has run on ahead of you into the souls of asses, where you too, being brutish, are about to dwell.

And there is the outer darkness, and unending punishment, roaring fire, the unsleeping worm, and Tartarean demons.

And the scripture of the Table says that Christ asked of God a table, and it was given to him.

For God, it says, said to him: 'I have given to you and to yours an incorruptible table.'

Again, he speaks of the scripture of the Cow, and certain other sayings worthy of laughter, which, on account of their number, I think it necessary to pass over.

He legislated that these people be circumcised, women included, and ordained that they neither keep the sabbath nor be baptized; and he prescribed that they eat some of the things forbidden in the Law, while abstaining from others.

But he entirely forbade the drinking of wine.