Panarion (Against Heresies) 1 part 62/82

And they did not say 'when your brethren who are in circumcision,' but 'who are of the circumcision,' in order to show that those who had passed over from circumcision into the Church were the leaders after that time, and that the others should be persuaded to follow them together, so that one should not act one way and another act another way at another time.

For this whole concern they brought together for the sake of the one unity, so that there might be no schisms nor divisions.

At the same time there were also fifteen bishops of the circumcision, and it was necessary then, since the bishops of the circumcision had been established in Jerusalem, for the whole world to follow them and to observe it together with them, so that there might come to be one accord and one confession, one feast being celebrated.

Wherefore their diligent care, gathering the mind of men into the unity of the Church...

...not having been able to be accomplished for so long a time, by the good pleasure of God a correction came about in the time of Constantine, for the sake of concord.

But among the apostles the saying is set forth for the sake of concord, as they themselves attest, saying, 'And even if they should err, let it be of no concern to you.'

But from the very words spoken there, the contradiction will become evident.

For they claim that the vigil falls while the days of Unleavened Bread are in progress.

But this cannot always come about according to the Church's computation.

For the reckoning of Pascha is composed of three elements: from the solar course, on account of the Lord's Day and the month; and from the lunar course, on account of what is prescribed by the Law, that the Pascha should be sacrificed on the fourteenth day of the moon, as the Law said.

Therefore it cannot be observed unless the equinox has passed — which is not observed among the Jews, nor do they wish to carry out this matter with such precision.

For among them it has fallen into disorder, and everything has been thrown into error.

Yet even if such precision requires so much inquiry, it was not for the sake of this inquiry and precision that it was said by the apostles, but for the sake of concord; and if the apostles enjoined that it be observed together with the enemies of Christ, as these people insist, how much more ought it to be observed, for the sake of concord, together with the Church, lest we should mar the concord of the Church? How, then, can this be accomplished? For these same apostles say that when they are feasting, you, fasting, should mourn on their behalf, because on the day of their feast they crucified Christ; and when they mourn, eating the Unleavened Bread in bitterness, you should feast.

But it happens that they receive the Unleavened Bread on the Lord's Day.

For as the evening of the Lord's Day dawns, they are able to sacrifice the Pascha.

For after evening, once the Sabbath has passed, they are not able to perform work.

For if we should always observe it whenever they observe it, at times we would observe it after the equinox, just as they too often observe it, and we as well; but at other times, before the equinox has been completed, as they observe it whenever they alone observe it that way.

If, then, we too should observe it in that way, it would come about that in one year we observe two Paschas, after the equinox and before the equinox, but in the following year we would not observe Pascha at all — and the whole thing would be found to be a work of error rather than of truth.

...the year appointed for men, [†] if the equinox has not passed.

And there would be much to say about this — how well the fathers acted, or rather how through them God established for the Church the whole precise standard of truth concerning this most venerable and all-holy feast: that it should be kept after the equinox, whenever the reckoning of the fourteenth day according to the moon falls.

Not that we should celebrate it on the fourteenth day itself.

For among them a single day is sought, but among us not a single day, but six — a most complete week.

Therefore the Law itself also says, expanding on this: 'You shall take for yourselves a yearling sheep, without blemish, perfect, from the tenth day of the month, and it shall be kept by you until the fourteenth day, and you shall sacrifice it toward evening on the fourteenth day of the month' — that is, of the moon.

And if the fourteenth day of the moon falls on the second day of the week, the sacrifice of the sheep is brought into the midst of that week; likewise if on the third day of the week, or the fourth, or the fifth, or the day before the Sabbath, or the Sabbath itself — the six days having authority over the arrangement of this matter.

For we can neither celebrate it when the sixteenth day of the moon is dawning, nor can we begin the week of dry eating, called the holy Pascha, from the ninth day of the moon, but from the tenth until the dawning of the fifteenth, with the two courses, of night and of day, meeting in between.

And their number being reckoned together — the fourteen days of the moon — even if it touches upon the dawning of the fifteenth, on account of the necessary precision required both of the solar course after the equinox, and of the lunar course for the sake of the fourteenth day, and of the full week for the sake of the Lord's Day, and the number reckoned from the tenth day of the moon — which is the taking of the sheep, and the acrostic of the name of Jesus, since in his name its antitype, the sheep, was taken — being thus determined from the tenth day.

But no longer, when the sixteenth day is dawning, nor from the ninth day of the moon, can we have either the beginning or the end.

For the years, falling behind by mutual displacement on account of the diverging courses of the sun and moon, produce this inequality — not a stumbling-block appointed by God, but this precision having been ordained by God according to his all-wise administration, which he granted to his own age, having set the boundaries of the luminaries, of seasons, of months, of years, and of turnings of the sun, through his provident care for men, out of his own love for mankind.

For since the year according to the solar course is completed in three hundred sixty-five days and three hours, it happens, because the moon makes the year in three hundred fifty-four days, that the lunar course falls short by eleven days and three hours.

And in the first year there occur what are called the epacts, eleven days and three hours; in the second year, twenty-two days and six hours; in the third year, thirty-three days and nine hours, and the one month called intercalary is then cut off.

For the thirty days are intercalated, and there remain three days and nine hours, which, being added to the eleven days from the fourth year and to the three hours, become fourteen days and twelve hours.

When another eleven days are added, together with three hours, there become twenty-five epact days and fifteen hours.

And in the sixth year, when another eleven days of the year and three hours are added, there become thirty days and eighteen hours, which make one intercalary month; and thus over three years two months were intercalated.

In the first three years, one month; and in the other three years, another month.

And from the epact days there remain six days and eighteen hours.

And when these are added, in the seventh year, to the eleven days from that year and three hours, there become seventeen epact days and twenty-one hours.

And in the eighth year, when the eleven days and three hours are again added, there become twenty-eight epact days and twenty-four hours, which make two days.

When these hours are added to the twenty-eight days, they become thirty in all, and it happens that in the eighth year the thirty days are intercalated, one month for the two years.

And thus, over the course of an eight-year cycle, ninety days are intercalated, which amount to three full intercalary months: one occurring every three years, and one in the last two years.

In these three intercalations of the three systems, the Passover differs among Jews, Christians, and the others.

For Christ wills one Passover, and reckons it so, and accepts him who celebrates it without contentiousness—yet together with those who observe it with precision, together with the whole holy Church, which keeps the feast in many places.

And if the Passover had been split apart only from Constantine onward, this would be plausible to those who slander it so;

but since, before Constantine, the schisms already existed, and there was mockery—the pagans speaking and mocking the disagreement within the Church—while under Constantine, through the diligence of the bishops, the schism was rather united into a single concord, what then is more advantageous and more gracious than this: that from the ends of the earth, on a single day, a people should present themselves to God, agreeing together and keeping vigil and observing the same days alike, in vigils and supplications and concord and worship, in fasting and dry diet and purity, and in the other good things pleasing to God that belong to this all-venerable day? I think I have said enough concerning this matter of the disagreement of the Audians.

And the old man Audius himself also underwent exile, having been banished by the emperor to the regions of Scythia;

for because he was leading peoples into insubordination, he was reported to the emperor by the bishops.

And spending time there—for a number of years I am not able to say—and advancing forward even into the innermost parts of Gothia, he catechized many of the Goths; from which it came about that monasteries also arose in that same Gothia, and a way of life, and virginity, and no ordinary asceticism.

For in truth this order lives in a wholly admirable manner, and all their affairs in their monasteries proceed well, except for these contentious matters—the divergence over the Passover, and the peculiar insistence on the private notion concerning 'the image.'

But the most dreadful and most fearful thing of all is that they will not pray together with anyone—even if he should appear to be among the approved, and they have nothing to accuse him of, nor any charge of fornication or adultery or covetousness—simply because such a one assembles in the Church.

And this is the fearful thing: that they have exchanged the name of Christians, of the holy Church—which bears no additional name, but only the name of Christ and of Christians—for being called by the name of Audius, and have agreed to, and are required to keep, a pact against human nature, even though the order prides itself on purity of life and on all righteousness.

And many, both together with them and after him, became bishops of his order even after his death—a certain Uranius of Mesopotamia;

...bishops, but also a certain Silvanus and certain others, of whom it has happened that some have departed this life, especially Uranius.

For this man was held in high esteem in the midst of such an order.

But after the death of these two bishops of theirs, Uranius and Silvanus (the one from Gothia), many were dispersed, and their organization was reduced to little, both in the regions of Chalcis near Antioch and in the regions of the Euphrates.

For indeed most of them were driven out from Gothia—not only they, but also our own Christians there—a great persecution having arisen under a pagan king, one that became fierce also out of rivalry against the Romans, because the emperors of the Romans were Christians; he drove the whole race of Christians out from among that people.

Yet the root of wisdom does not fail, nor the planting of faith; but even if all seem to have been driven out, there are certainly still faithful people from that place;

for it is not possible for the fountain of faith to fail.

Many, therefore, of these same Audians, having withdrawn from Gothia and come all the way here to our own regions, have been sojourning here for four years from that time; but others also withdrew again to the monasteries of these same Audians on Mount Taurus, and in Palestine and in Arabia;

But I think it sufficient to have spoken thus far concerning these matters also;

having passed over these, I will again examine in order what follows, so that I may omit nothing of the things that have occurred in the world involving divisions, cuttings, separations, and schisms.

For even if some should not differ so greatly in faith and in manner of life, nevertheless everything that has been divided and is designated by a name in the world shall not, as far as possible, be omitted by us.

Against the Photinians, the fifty-first heresy, but the seventy-first in sequence.

Photinus, from whom the Photinians take their name, flourished at this time, having become a bishop of the holy catholic Church; he was carried away by no small madness, but became more befuddled than all those before him, having conceived notions similar to, and even beyond, those of Paul of Samosata concerning the Son of God, vomiting forth incoherent words of blasphemy.

This man came from Sirmium, and at the time when he introduced this tare into the world, at that very time, under the emperor Constantius, he was a bishop; and he was still alive up to this present time, though he had been deposed by the Western council assembled at Sardica on account of the blasphemy he had vomited forth.

He asserts that Christ did not exist from the beginning, but that he has existed from Mary onward, from the moment, he says, when the Holy Spirit came upon her; and that he was born of the Holy Spirit upon her.

And the Holy Spirit, he says—like some audacious master-builder, and like a surveyor of the heavens pronouncing upon things beyond utterance—is greater than Christ.

This Photinus was, by nature, talkative and sharp-tongued, capable of deceiving many by his fluency of speech and readiness of expression.

For, being often refuted by many, even after the defense he then made at Sardica, when he was summoned by the bishops to give account concerning the false doctrine he had put forward—

for indeed this man, as one who claimed he had been deposed unjustly, petitioned the emperor Constantius that he might again obtain a hearing, in order to prove that he had been deposed without cause.

In the debate he brought forward statements incoherent with the sense of the truth, but which were, in his own conception, understood in a distorted manner.

And through his deceptive utterance and readiness of speech, for the persuasion both of himself and of his hearers by means of his tongue, this fine fellow, being well-prepared, even boasted and promised to bring forward a hundred proof-texts concerning his thesis.

For indeed, since the hearers repeatedly and constantly raised objections against him, as we also found in the debate with Basil, in which they ordered shorthand-writers to record it—Anysius, deacon of Basil, and Callicrates, excerptor of Rufinus the prefect, and Olympius and Niceta and Basil, memorandarii, and Eutyches and Theodulus, notaries of the emperor—

and one sealed volume was sent to the emperor Constantius, one remained with the synod under Basil, and another volume was made and kept with the counts, likewise sealed, containing the record of his suspect notions that had been submitted.

For whenever Basil asked how the divine Scriptures teach concerning the Lord, the Word of God, that the Only-begotten exists before the ages and together with the Father, Photinus indeed accepted the term 'Word,' but applied a division: attributing some things to Christ, while comparing the things pertaining to the Word on high to what pertains to man.

For the words 'Let us make man according to our image and likeness'—these, he says, the Father spoke to his own Word;

What then? The Word, he says, was in the Father, but was not yet a Son; and 'the Lord rained down fire from the Lord'—this refers to the Word being in the Father;

And 'I saw one coming on the clouds like a son of man'—this, he says, was spoken by way of prophetic anticipation, not because the Son already existed, but because of what he was going to be called—'Son'—after Mary; and after coming forth with the flesh, Christ, having been begotten of the Holy Spirit and of Mary, arose; it is, he says, by way of proleptic usage that all these things are referred back to him from the beginning.

But he was not yet a Son; he was only a word, just as the word is in me.

But I have already said that, on the one hand, he holds notions similar to those of Paul of Samosata, while on the other hand he has gone even further beyond him in his thinking.

And this man too will be overturned, having arrived at the ultimate denial of God and at an opinion alien, in every respect, to eternal life.

For thus he himself also reasoned, and moreover, passing over the divine Scripture according to his own deluded conception, he asserted that the apostle too had said, 'The first man is of the earth, earthy, and the second is from heaven.'

But immediately the word of truth opposes him and refutes his darkened understanding.

For the holy apostle spoke of man and man: the first man, Adam, being of the earth, earthy; and the second, from heaven.

And yet, while calling him 'man'—

it is not the flesh that has come down from heaven, but it is confessed, precisely on this basis, that it is from Mary.

He does not, by a loose usage, call the flesh 'from heaven,' but the 'second man,' inasmuch as the Word came from above and tabernacled among us, according to what is written.

If, then, the Lord pre-existed—

and is present, he who found out every way of understanding—and that he exists is not doubted by the divine Scripture; for what follows signifies him as pre-existing, and that he had found every way of understanding, and then that he was seen upon earth, which indicates his future coming in the flesh.

And as for their saying that 'he brought man from heaven,' the apostle does not say this; rather, on account of the union constituted by his coming in the flesh, he calls him 'man,' and 'second' on account of the interval of time between Adam and his coming in the flesh;

and he calls him 'from heaven' because God the Word came from above and clothed himself with flesh, as it says, 'the Word became flesh'—not as he supposes, as though the Word had proceeded from the Father and been changed into flesh;

for it was thus, according to his deluded conception, that he expounded concerning this passage.

As for the Word—through whom, then, was Adam himself created, and all the works of God that came before him? Or to whom did the Father say, 'Let us make man'? For surely he does not direct this counsel to some word merely conceived within himself, or merely spoken aloud, but to his own innate and holy Word. Concerning the future creation of man he makes his exposition with all wisdom, so that we may learn that the Son exists from the beginning in relation to his Father, lest we should suppose our Creator to be a recent being, but rather one who exists together with the Father always, before the ages—as John also testifies, saying, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.'

As this charlatan himself says that the Word existed from the beginning—I too say that the Word existed from the beginning, but as a Son begotten of God.

And if he is not the Son of God, then his labor is in vain, vain also is his purpose, and his hope, and his understanding.

For this man says nothing more than what the Jews who denied him said.

For the Gospel does not say concerning him, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in God,' but 'the Word was with God.'

And it does not say that he was merely 'in God,' but 'the Word was God.'

But in man, the word that always exists as an inward and an uttered word cannot be called 'man,' but 'the word of a man.'

But if the begotten one did not yet exist, as he himself says, and if God the Word, the Son of God, did not yet exist, then through whom did all things come into being? Since the Gospel says, 'All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.'

Just as a man accomplishes what he wills by means of a word, so also the Father made all things through his own Word, through the Word that exists within him.

How then does the Lord say in the Gospel, 'My Father works until now, and I work'? Now the statement 'the Father works, and I work' does not mean that the Father does not work in the work of the Son, nor that the Son is alien to him and did not work in the creative work of the Father.

For all the works that exist have come to be at once from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

For through him all things came to be from the Father, and he himself worked all things together with the Father and with the Holy Spirit.

For by the word of the Lord the heavens were made firm, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. Therefore also the Lord spoke with certainty in the Gospel, knowing the suspicions of those who had gone astray, since as God he had foreknowledge and knew how each one was going to cast himself out from the truth.

For he said to the Jews, 'The Son does nothing of himself, unless he sees the Father doing it.'

And this is not because he first sees and then acts, but he has all things in himself and does what he wills.

How then will these things be, O Photinus? Or who is it that once more, in you, puts forward this tare for us? Who is it that has fashioned this poison for our life? Whence comes it that you conceive this wicked, blasphemous suspicion against your Lord? Did not Abraham persuade you, when he spoke to him and said, 'Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice?' For you stand refuted, in that the Son sojourned with him — not as a mere utterance, but as God the Word subsisting in his own hypostasis.

And so that you may know, O self-styled philosopher, the outcome of what was accomplished in this matter, hear how, sealing the whole as perfect for us in the divine Scripture, it declared, saying, 'The Lord rained down fire and brimstone from heaven upon Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord.'

And to show that the Son is not found only after his coming in the flesh, it also recounts concerning his existence from the beginning, that 'From the womb, before the morning star, I begot you.'

And concerning the Holy Spirit, O you who indulge in idle talk and busy yourself with vain and superfluous matters, no one will accept your argument.

For the Spirit is neither greater nor lesser.

'For who required this at your hands?' it says. And that same holy word refutes you, as the Lord speaks concerning the Holy Spirit:

For confessing the genuineness of his own divinity, he says, 'the one who proceeds from the Father and receives of mine.'

And how many other testimonies there are! But since your wrangling is evident to all as being error and not truth, it will be exposed not only by the discerning, but also by those who recognize but a little of the sequence of divine Scripture; for which reason I shall not need many testimonies or a lengthy refutation, for your tale and your ill-founded belief are easily overthrown. Therefore, considering what has been said against you to be sufficient, having crushed with the foot of reason the form of a feeble and powerless creature that has sprung up from the earth, and by the truth of God the Word, I will leave it behind like a worm, or rather like the innermost pith of the earth.

For already the heresy of this deceived man has been scattered within a short time.

And now, as is my custom, calling upon God, I will proceed to what follows.

Against the Marcellians, heresy 52; and in sequence, 72.

Again, at this same time — for all these were under one head — Marcellus arose in Ancyra.

For he was still living even up to now; reckoning from this year, he died about two years ago, more or less.

He too created a certain division within the Church from the beginning of that same time, and he gave rise to some slight suspicion, being likened to Sabellius and Novatus because of the provocation of the Arians against him, ostensibly on account of the reasoning of his opposition to the Arians.

Hence he is also reviled by some of the orthodox, as having derived, in part, as I said, the wrangling of the Sabellians.

But some spoke in his defense, insisting that it was not so, but that he had lived rightly and was sound in his mindset.

Wherefore there has arisen much inquiry concerning this.

And the hidden things of his intent are known to God; but those who arose from him and were catechized by him, either being ignorant of his intent, or not relating his true views, were unwilling to confess the three hypostases, as truth requires — that the Godhead is one, one glory, the Trinity being consubstantial and in no way differing from its own glory, a perfect Trinity and one Godhead, one power, one substance, being neither a mere blending together nor a diminished thing.

But he, wishing at great length to say something to certain persons, showed himself to be like Sabellius in his thinking.

Wherefore this too has been exposed as a heresy and numbered among them.

And I shall now also set forth the exposition of the discourse which this same Marcellus composed for Julius, the blessed bishop of the Romans, ostensibly defending himself.

And from this apology and libellus it will become evident that he held views other than the faith of the truth.

For if he had not held other views, on what grounds would he have come forward to make his defense — unless indeed certain unsound statements set forth by him, which troubled some, brought him down to this defense? The copy, then, is this:

Copy of a letter of Marcellus, whom the synod deposed on account of heterodoxy.

To the most blessed fellow-minister Julius, Marcellus sends greeting in Christ.

Since certain persons, previously condemned for not believing rightly — whom I refuted at the Council of Nicaea — have dared to write against me to your piety, as though I did not think rightly nor in a manner befitting the Church, striving to transfer their own accusation onto me, for this reason I have thought it necessary to come to Rome and remind you, that you may summon those who wrote against me, so that, upon their arrival, they may be refuted by me on both counts: both that what they have written against me happens to be false, and that even now they still persist in their former error, and have dared terrible things against the churches of God and against us who preside over them.

...and to write and deliver, with my own hand, an account of the truth which I learned and was taught from the divine Scriptures, and to remind you of the evil things said by them, so that you may know by what words they, in order to deceive their hearers, wish to conceal the truth.

For they say that the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is not the own and true Word of God the Almighty, but that he has another Word, and another Wisdom and Power.

This one, having come into being by him, was named Word and Wisdom and Power, and because they think in this way, they say that he is another hypostasis, separate from the Father.

Moreover, through what they write, they declare that the Father pre-exists the Son, and that he is not truly the Son from God.

But even if they say 'from God,' they say it in the same way as they say it of all things.

Furthermore, they even dare to say that 'there was once when he was not,' and that he is a creature and a thing made, thereby distinguishing him from the Father.

I am convinced, then, that those who say these things are alien to the catholic Church.

But I believe, following the divine Scriptures, that there is one God, and that his only-begotten Son, the Word, always coexists with the Father and has never had a beginning of his being, truly existing from God, not created, not made, but always being, always reigning together with God the Father, of whose kingdom, according to the testimony of the apostle, there shall be no end.

This is the Son, this is the Power, this is the Wisdom, this is the own and true Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, the undivided Power of God, through whom all things that have come into being came to be, as the Gospel testifies, saying, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'

All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made.

This is the Word, concerning whom Luke the evangelist also testifies, saying, 'As those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and became servants of the word have delivered to us.'

So too our Lord Jesus Christ teaches us through the Gospel, saying, 'I came forth from the Father, and I have come.'

This one, in the last days, came down for our salvation and, being born of the Virgin Mary, took on man.