Title and Contents

The Early Church Fathers:

Ante-Nicene Fathers

Volume 5

Fathers of the Third Century:

Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian





I. Hippolytus.

The Refutation of all Heresies

The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus

Part I: Exegetical

Part II: Dogmatical and Historical

Appendix to the Works of Hippolytus


II. Cyprian.

The Life and Passion of Cyprian

The Epistles of Cyprian

The Treatises of Cyprian

The Seventh Council of Carthage

Treatises Attributed to Cyprian


III. Caius.



IV. Novatian.

Treatise Concerning the Trinity

On the Jewish Meats


V. Appendix.

Acts and Records of the Famous Controversy about the Baptism of Heretics

A Treatise against the Heretic Novatian

A Treatise on Re-Baptism


This fifth volume will be found a work complete in itself, simplex et unum. At first, indeed, it might look otherwise. The formation of Latin Christianity in the school of North Africa seems interrupted by the interpolation, between Tertullian and his great pupil Cyprian, of a Western bishop and doctor, who writes in Greek. A little reflection, however, will suggest to the thoughtful student, that, even if our chronological plan admitted to it, we should divest the works of Cyprian of a very great advantage should we deprive them of the new and all-important light shed upon Cyprian and his conflicts with Stephen by the discovery of the Philosophumena of Hippolytus. That discovery, as Dr. Bunsen reminds us, more than once, has duplicated our information concerning the Western Church of the Ante-Nicene period. It gives us overwhelming evidence on many points heretofore imperfectly understood, and confirms the surmises of the learned and candid authors who have endeavored to disentangle certain complications of history. It meets some questions of our own day with most conclusive testimony, and probably had not a little to do with the ultimate conclusions of Döllinger, and the rise of the Old Catholic school, among the Latins. We cannot fail to observe in all this the hand of a wise and paternal Providence, which is never wanting to the faithful in the day of trial. “I believe, with Niebuhr,” says Dr. Bunsen, “that Providence always furnishes every generation with the necessary means of arriving at the truth and at the solution of its doubts.” This consideration has inspired me with great hopes from the publication of this series in America, where the aggressions of an alien element are forcing us to renewed study of that virgin antiquity which is so fatal to its pretensions. I can adopt with a grateful heart the language of Bunsen, when he adds:1 “I cannot help thinking it of importance that we have just now so unexpectedly got our knowledge of facts respecting early Christianity doubled.”

To show some new tokens of this new light on old difficulties, I shall be obliged to throw one or two of my Elucidations almost into the form of dissertations. It will appear, as we proceed, that we have reached a most critical point in the Ante-Nicene history, and one on which that period itself depends for its complete exposition. Let me adduce conclusive evidence of this by reference to two fundamental facts, which need only to be mentioned to be admitted: – 


1. The Council of Nice did not pretend to be setting forth a new creed, or making anything doctrine which was not doctrine which was not doctrine before. Hence the period we are now studying is to be interpreted by the testimony of the Nicene Fathers, who were able to state historically, and with great felicity, in idioms gradually framed by the Alexandrian theologians, the precise intent and purport of their teaching. The learned Bull has demonstrated this; demolishing alike the sophistry of Petavius the Jesuit, and the efforts of latitudinarians to make capital out of some of those obiter dicta of orthodox Fathers, which, like certain passages of Holy Scripture itself, may be wrested into contradictory and self-stultifying declarations. Note, therefore, that the Nicene Creed must be studied not so much in the controvertists of the fourth century as in the doctors of preceding ages, whom we are reviewing in these pages.


2. A like statement is true of the Nicene constitutions and discipline. The synodical rule, alike in faith and discipline, was Τὰ ἄρχαῖα ἔθη κρατέιτο: “Let the (ancient) primitive examples prevail. Observe, therefore, what they ruled as to Rome and other churches was already ancient. Now, the “duplicated” light thrown upon the position of the North-African churches, and others in the West, at this period, by the discovery of long-lost portions of Hippolytus, will be found to settle many groundless assertions of Roman controvertists as to what these ἄρχαῖα ἔθη were.

Bearing this in mind, let us return to the point with which this Preface starts. We are pausing for a moment, in the North-African history, to make a contemporary survey of Rome, and to mark just where it stands, and what it is, at this moment. The earliest of the great Roman Fathers now comes forward, but not as a Latin Father. He writes in Greek; he continues the Greek line of thought brought into the West by Irenaeus; he maintains the Johannean rather than the Petrine traditions and idioms, which are distinct but not clashing; he stands only in the third generation from St. John himself, through Polycarp, and his master Irenaeus; and, like his master, he confronts the Roman bishops of his time with a superior orthodoxy and with an authority more apostolic. (see this series, vol. 3. Elucid. II. p. 630) He illustrates in his own conduct the maxim of Irenaeus, that “the Catholic faith is preserved in Rome by the testimony imported into it by those who visit it from every side;” that is, who thus keep alive in it the common faith, as witnessed in all the churches of Christendom.

Thus, Hippolytus, once “torn to pieces as by horses,” in his works, if not in his person, comes to life again in our times, to shed new light upon the history of Latin Christianity, and to show that Rome had no place nor hand in its creation. He appears as a Greek Father in a church which was yet a “Greek colony”2 and he shows to what an estate of feebleness and humiliation the Roman Church had been brought, probably by the neglect of preaching, which is an anomaly in its history, and hardly less probably by its adherence to a Greek liturgy long after the Christians of Rome had ceased to understand Greek familiarly. At such a moment Hippolytus proves himself a reformer. His historical elucidations of the period, therefore, form an admirable introduction to Cyprian, and will explain the entire independence of Roman dictation, with which he maintained his own opinions against that Church and its bishops.

And lastly we have Novatian as a sequel to the works of Cyprian; and truly, the light upon his sad history is “duplicated” by what Hippolytus shows us of the times and circumstances which made its schism possible, and which somewhat relieve his character from its darker shades.

Such, then, is the volume now given to the reader, – Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, – affording the fullest information ever yet brought together in one volume, upon the rise of Latin Christianity, the decline of the Greek period of the Roman See, and the restricted limits of the Roman province not yet elevated to the technical position of a Nicene patriarchate.





1 Hippol., vol. i. 7. Ed. London, 1851.

2 See this series, vol. 1. pp. 309, 360; also vol. 2. p. 166, and Milman (vol. i. pp. 28, 29), Latin Christianity.

Hippolytus. Introductory Notice to Hippolytus.

[A.D. 170-236] The first great Christian Father whose history is Roman is, nevertheless, not a Roman, but a Greek. He is the disciple of Irenaeus, and the spirit of his life-work reflects that of his master. In his personal character he so much resembles Irenaeus risen again,1 that the great Bishop of Lyons must be well studied and understood if we would do full justice to the conduct of Hippolytus. Especially did he follow his example in withstanding contemporary bishops of Rome, who, like Victor, “deserved to be blamed,” but who, much more than any of their predecessors, merited rebuke alike for error in doctrine and viciousness of life.

In the year 1551, while some excavations were in progress near the ancient Church of St. Lawrence at Rome, on the Tiburtine Road, there was found an ancient statue, in marble, of a figure seated in a chair, and wearing over the Roman tunic the pallium of Tertullian’s eulogy. It was in 1851, just 300 years after its discovery, and in the year of the publication of the newly discovered Philosophumena at Oxford, that I saw it in the Vatican. As a specimen of early Christian art it is a most interesting work, and possesses a higher merit than almost any similar production of a period subsequent to that of Antonines.2 It represents a grave personage, of noble features and a high, commanding forehead, slightly bearded, his right hand resting over his heart, while under it his left arm crosses the body to reach a book placed at his side. There is no reason to doubt that this is, indeed, the statue of Hippolytus, as is stated in the inscription of Pius IV., who calls him “Saint Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus,” and states that he lived in the reign of the Emperor Alexander; i.e., Severus.

Of this there is evidence on the chair itself, which represents his episcopal cathedra, and has a modest symbol of lions at “the stays,” as if borrowed from the throne of Solomon. It is a work of later date than the age of Severus, no doubt; but Wordsworth, who admirably illustrates the means by which such a statue may have been provided, gives us good reasons for supposing that it may have been the grateful tribute of contemporaries, and all the more trustworthy as a portrait of the man himself. The chair has carved upon it, no doubt for use in the Church, a calendar indicating the Paschal full moons for seven cycles of sixteen years each; answering, according to the science of the period, to similar tables from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. It indicates the days on which Easter must fall, from A.D. 222 to A.D. 333. On the back of the chair is a list of the author’s works.3

Not less interesting, and vastly more important, was the discovery, at Mount Athos, in 1842, of the long-lost Philosophumena of this author, concerning which the important facts will appear below. Its learned editor, Emmanuel Miller, published it at Oxford under the name of Origen, which was inscribed in the ms. Like the Epistle of Clement, its composition in the Greek language had given it currency among the Easterns long after it was forgotten in the West; and very naturally they had ascribed to Origen an anonymous treatise containing much in coincidence with his teachings, and supplying the place of one of his works of a similar kind. It is now sufficiently established as the work of Hippolytus, and has been providentially brought to light just when it was most needed.4 In fact, the statue rose from its grave as if to rebuke the reigning pontiff (Pius IV.), who just then imposed upon the Latin churches the novel “Creed” which bears his name; and now the Philosophumena comes forth as if to breathe a last warning to that namesake of the former Pius who, in the very teeth of its testimony, so recently forged and uttered the dogma of “papal infallibility” conferring this attribute upon himself, and retrospectively upon the very bishops of Rome whom St. Hippolytus resisted as heretics, and has transmitted to posterity, in his writings, branded with the shame alike of false doctrine and of heinous crimes. Dr. Döllinger, who for a time lent his learning and genius to an apologetic effort on behalf of the Papacy, was no doubt prepared, by the very struggle of his heart versus head, for that rejection of the new dogma which overloaded alike his intellect and his conscience, and made it impossible for him to bear the lashes of Rehoboam (1Ki_12:14) in communion with modern Rome.

In the biographical data which will be found below, enough is supplied for the needs of the reader of the present series, who, if he wishes further to investigate the subject, will find the fullest information in the works to which reference has been made, or which will be hereafter indicated.5 But this is the place to recur to the much-abused passage of Irenaeus which I have discussed in a former volume. (Vol. 1., pp. 415, 460, this series) Strange to say, I was forced to correct, from a Roman-Catholic writer, the very unsatisfactory rendering of our Edinburgh editors, and to elucidate at some length the palpable absurdity of attributing to Irenaeus any other than a geographical and imperial reference to the importance of Rome, and its usefulness to the West, more especially, as its only see of apostolic origin. Quoting the Ninth Antiochan Canon, I have good reasons for my conjecture that the Latin convenire represents συντρέχειν in the original; and now it remains to be noted how strongly the real meaning of Irenaeus is illustrated in the life and services of his pupil Hippolytus.


1. That neither Hippolytus nor his master had any conception that the See of Rome possesses any pre-eminent authority, to which others are obliged to defer, is conspicuously evident from the history of both. Alike they convicted Roman bishops of error, and alike they rebuked them for their misconduct.


2. Hippolytus is the author of a work called the Little Labyrinth, which, like the recently discovered Philosophumena, attributes to the Roman See anything but the “infallibility” which the quotation from Irenaeus is so ingeniously wrested to sustain.6 How he did not understand the passage is, therefore, sufficiently apparent. Let us next inquire what appears, from his conduct, to be the true understanding of Irenaeus.


3. I have shown, in the elucidation already referred to, how Irenaeus affirms that Rome is the city which everybody visits from all parts, and that Christians, resorting thither, because it is the Imperial City, carry into it, the testimony of all other churches. Thus it becomes a competent witness to the quod ab omnibus, because it cannot be ignorant of what all the churches teach with one accord. This argument, therefore, reverses the modern Roman dogma; primitive Rome received orthodoxy instead of prescribing it. She embosomed the Catholic testimony brought into it from all the churches, and gave it forth as reflected light; not primarily her own, but what she faithfully preserved in coincidence with older and more learned churches than herself. Doubtless she had been planted and watered by St. Paul and St. Peter; but doubtless, also, she had been expressly warned by the former of her liability to error and to final severance (Rom_11:17-21) from apostolic communion. Hippolytus lived at a critical moment, when this awful admonition seemed about to be realized.


4. Now, then, from Portus and from Lyons, Hippolytus brought into Rome the Catholic doctrine, and convicted two of its bishops of pernicious heresies and evil living. And thus, as Irenaeus teaches, the faith was preserved in Rome by the testimony of those from every side resorting thither, not by any prerogative of the See itself. All this will appear clearly enough as the student proceeds in the examination of this volume.

But it is now time to avail ourselves of the information given us by the translator in his Introductory Notice, as follows: – 

The entire of The Refutation of all Heresies, with the exception of book i., was found in a ms. brought from a convent on Mount Athos so recently as in the year 1842. The discoverer of this treasure – for treasure it certainly is – was Minöides Mynas, an erudite Greek, who had visited his native country in search of ancient mss., by direction of M. Abel Villemain, Minister of Public Instruction under Louis Philippe. The French Government have thus the credit of being instrumental in bringing to light this valuable work, while the University of Oxford shares the distinction by being its earliest publishers. The Refutation was printed at the Clarendon Press in 1851, under the editorship of M. Emmanuel Miller,7 whose labours have proved serviceable to all subsequent commentators. One generally acknowledged mistake was committed by Miller in ascribing the work to Origen. He was right in affirming that the discovered ms. was the continuation of the fragment, The Philosophumena, inserted in the Benedictine copy of Origen’s works. In the volume, however, containing the Philosophumena, we have dissertations by Huet, in which he questions Origen’s authorship in favor of Epiphanius. Heuman attributed the Philosophumena to Didymus of Alexandria, Gale to Aetius;8 and it, with the rest of The Refutation, Fessler and Bour ascribed to Caius, but the Abbe Jellabert to Tertullian. The last hypothesis is untenable, if for no other reason, because the work is in Greek. In many respects, Caius, who was a presbyter of Rome in the time of Victor and Zephyrinus, would seem the probable author; but a fatal argument – one applicable to those named above, except Epiphanius – against Caius is his not being, as the author of The Refutation in the Proaemuim declares himself to be, a bishop. Epiphanius no doubt filled the episcopal office; but when we have a large work of his on the heresies, with a summary,9 it would seem scarcely probable that he composed likewise, on the same topic, an extended treatise like the present, with two abridgments. Whatever diversity of opinion, however, existed as to these claimants, most critics, though not all, now agree in denying the authorship of Origen. Neither the style nor the tone of The Refutation is Origenian. Its compilatory process is foreign to Origen’s plan of composition; while the subject matter itself, for many reasons, would not be likely to have occupied the pen of the Alexandrine Father. It is almost impossible but that Origen would have made some allusions in The Refutation to his other writings, or in them to it. Not only, however, is there no such allusion, but the derivation of the word “Ebionites,” in The Refutation, and an expressed belief in the (orthodox) doctrine of eternal punishment, are at variance with Origen’s authorship. Again, no work answering the description is awarded to Origen in catalogues of his extant or lost writings. These arguments are strengthened by the facts, that Origen was never a bishop, and that he did not reside for any length of time at Rome. He once paid a hurried visit to the capital of the West, whereas the author of The Refutation asserts his presence at Rome during the occurrence of events which occupied a period of some twenty years. And not only was he a spectator, but took part in these transactions in such an official and authoritative manner as Origen could never have assumed, either at Rome or elsewhere. 

In this state of the controversy, commentators turned their attention towards Hippolytus, in favour of whose authorship the majority of modern scholars have decided. The arguments that have led to this conclusion, and those alleged by others against it, could not be adequately discussed in a notice like the present. Suffice it to say, that such names as Jacobi, Gieseler, Duncker, Schneidewin, Bernays, Bunsen, Wordsworth, and Döllinger, support the claims of Hippolytus. The testimony of Dr. Döllinger, considering the extent of his theological learning, and in particular his intimate acquaintance with the apostolic period in church history, virtually, we submit, decides the question.10

For a biography of Hippolytus we have not much authentic materials. There can be no reasonable doubt that he was a bishop, and passed the greater portion of his life in Rome and its vicinity. This assertion corresponds with the conclusion adopted by Dr. Döllinger, who however, refuses to allow that Hippolytus was, as is generally maintained, Bishop of Portus, a harbour of Rome at the northern mouth of the Tiber, opposite Ostia. However, it is satisfactory to establish, and especially upon such eminent authority as that of Dr. Döllinger, the fact of Hippolytus’ connection with the Western Church, not only because it bears on the investigation of the authorship of The Refutation, the writer of which affirms his personal observation of what he records as occurring in his own time in Rome, but also because it overthrows the hypothesis of those who contend that there were more Hypolytuses than one – Dr. Döllinger shows that there is only one historical Hippolytus – or that the east, and not Italy, was the sphere of his episcopal labours. Thus Le Moyne, in the seventeenth century, a French writer resident in Leyden, ingeniously argues that Hippolytus was bishop of Portus Romanorum (Aden), in Arabia. Le Moyne’s theory was adopted by some celebrities, viz., Dupin Tillemont, Spanheim, Basnage, and our own Dr. Cave. To this position are opposed, among others, the names of Nicephorus, Syncellys, Baronius, Bellarmine, Dodwell, Beveridge, Bull and Archbishop Ussher. The judgment and critical accuracy of Ussher is, on a point of this kind, of the highest value. Wherefore the question of Hippolytus being bishop of Portus near Rome would also appear established, for the reasons laid down in Bunsen’s Letters to Archdeacon Hare, and canon Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus. The mind of inquirers appears to have been primarily unsettled in consequence of Eusebius’ mentioning Hippolytus (Ecclesiast. Hist., vi. 10) in company with Beryllus (of Bostra), an Arabian, expressing his uncertainty as to where Hippolytus was bishop. This indecision is easily explained, and cannot invalidate the tradition and historical testimony which assign the bishopric of Portus near Rome to Hippolytus, a saint and martyr of the Church. Of his martyrdom, though the fact itself is certain, the details, furnished in Prudentius’ hymn, are not historic. Thus the mode of Hippolytus’ death is stated by Prudentius to have been identical with that of Hippolytus the son of Theseus, who was torn limb from limb by being tied to wild horses. St. Hippolytus, however, is known on historical testimony to have been thrown into a canal and drowned; but whether the scene of his martyrdom was Sardinia, to which he was undoubtedly banished along with the Roman bishop Pontianus, or Rome, or Portus, has not been as definitively proved. The time of his martyrdom, however, is probably a year or two, perhaps less or more, after the commencement of the reign of Maximin the Thracian, that is, somewhere about A.D. 235-39. This enables us to determine the age of Hippolytus; and as some statements in The Refutation evince the work to be the composition of an old man, and as the work itself was written after the death of Callistus in A.D. 222, this would transfer the period of his birth to not very long after the last half of the second century.

The contents of The Refutation, as they originally stood, seem to have been arranged thus: The first (which we have) contained an account of the different schools of ancient philosophers; the second (which is missing), the doctrines and mysteries of the Egyptians; the third (likewise missing), the Chaldean science and astrology; and the fourth (the beginning of which is missing), the system of Chaldean horoscope, and the magical rites and incantations of the Babylonian Theurgists. Next came the portion of the work relating more immediately to the heresies of the Church, which is contained in books v.-ix. The tenth book is the résumé of the entire, together with the exposition of the author’s own religious opinions. The heresies enumerated by Hippolytus comprehend a period starting from an age prior to the composition of St. John’s Gospel, and terminating with the death of Callistus. The heresies are explained according to chronological development, and may be arranged under five leading schools: (1) The Ophites; (2) Simonists; (3) Basilidians; (4) Docetae; (5) Noetians. Hippolytus ascends to the origin of heresy, not only in assigning heterodoxy a derivative nature from heathenism, but in pointing out in the Gnosis elements of abnormal opinions antecedent to the promulgation of Christianity. We have thus a most interesting account of the early heresies which in some respects supplies many desiderata in the ecclesiastical history of this epoch.

We can scarcely over-estimate the value of The Refutation, on account of the propinquity of its author to the apostolic age. Hippolytus was a disciple of St. Irenaeus, St. Irenaeus of St. Polycarp, St. Polycarp of St. John. Indeed, one fact of grave importance connected with the writings of St. John, is elicited from Hippolytus’ Refutation. The passage given out of Basilides’ work, containing a quotation by the heretic from St. Joh_1:9, settles the period of the composition of the fourth Gospel, as a matter of greater antiquity by at least thirty years than is allowed to it by the Tübingen school. It is therefore obvious that Basilides formed his system out of the prologue of St. John’s Gospel; thus forever setting at rest the allegations of these critics, that St. John’s Gospel was written at a later date, and that assigned an apostolic author, in order to silence the Basilidian Gnostics.11 In the case of Irenaeus, too, the Refutation has restored the text of much of his book Against Heresies, hitherto known only to us in a Latin version. Nor is the value of Hippolytus’ work seriously impaired, even on the supposition of the authorship not being proved, – a concession, however, in no wise justified by the evidence. Whoever the writer of the Refutation be, he belonged to the early portion of the third century, formed his compilations from primitive sources, made conscientious preparation for his undertaking, delivered statements confirmed by early writers of note,12 and, lastly, in the execution of his task, furnished indubitable marks of information and research, and of having thoroughly mastered the relations and affinities, each to other, of the various heresies of the first two and a quarter centuries. These heresies, whether deductible from attempts to Christianize the philosophy of Paganism, or to interpret the Doctrines and Life of our Lord by the tenets of Gnosticism and Oriental speculation generally, or to create a compromise with the pretensions of Judaism, – these heresies, amid all their complexity and diversity, St. Hippolytus13 reduces to one common ground of censure – antagonism to Holy Scripture. Heresy, thus branded, he leaves to wither under the condemnatory sentence of the Church. 





1 In pseudo-Chrysost. called γλυκύτατος καὶ εὐνούστατος. See Wordsworth, St. Hippolytus, etc., p. 92.

2 A very good representation of it may be seen in Bunsen’s Hippolytus and his Age, as a frontispiece to vol. i. London, 1852.

3 The learned Dr. Wordsworth deals with all the difficulties of the case with judicial impartiality, but enforces his conclusions with irrefragable cogency. See also Dr. Jarvis, learned Introduction, p. 339.

4 The valuable treatise of Dr. Bunsen must be compared with the luminous reviewal of Wordsworth, St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome, London, 1853; enlarged 1880.

5 A Biographical account of all the Ante-Nicene literature, from the learned pen of Dr. M. B. Riddle, will be given in the concluding volume of this series.

6 See Eusebius, Hist., v. 28; also Routh, Script. Eccles. Opusc., vol. ii. pp. 153-160.

7 In addition to Miller, the translator has made use of the Göttingen edition, by Duncker and Schneidewin, 1859; and the Abbe Cruice’s edition, Paris 1860.

8 An Arian bishop of the first half of the fourth century.

9 See pp. 126-157, tom. ii., of Epiphanius’ collected works, edited by Dionysius Petavius.

10 Those who are desirous of examining it for themselves may consult Gieseler’s paper on Hippolytus, etc., in the Theologische Studien urd Kritiken, 1853; Hergenröther, Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen, 1852; Bunsen’s Hippolytus and his Age; Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus; Dr. Döllinger’s Hippolytus und Kallistus: oder die Römische Kirche in der ersten Hälfte des dritten Fahrhunderts, 1853; and Cruice’s Études sur de Noveaux Documents Historiques empruntés au livre des Φιλοσοφούμενα, 1853. See also articles in the Quarterly Review, 1853, 1854; Le Correspondent, t. xxxi.; and the Revue des Deux Mondes, 1865.

11 It settles the period of the composition of St. John’s Gospel only, of course, on the supposition that Hippolytus is giving a correct account as regards Basilides’ work. The mode, however, in which Hippolytus introduces the quotation, appears to place its authenticity beyond reasonable doubt. He represents Basilides (see book vii. chap. 10) as notifying his reference to St. John’s Gospel thus, “And this,” he says, “is what has been stated in the Gospels: ‘He was the true light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world.’” Now this is precisely the mode of reference we should expect that Basilides would employ; whereas, if Hippolytus had either fabricated the passage or adduced it from hearsay, it is almost certain he would have said “in the Gospel of St. John,” and not indefinitely “the Gospels.” And more than this, the formulary “in the Gospels,” adopted by Basilides, reads very like a recognition of an agreed collection of authorized accounts of our Lord’s life and sayings. It is also remarkable that the word “stated” (λεγόμενον) Basilides has just used in quoting (Gen_1:3) as interchangeable with “written” (γέγραπται), the word exclusively applied to what is included in the canon of Scripture.

12 For instance, St. Irenaeus, whom Hippolytus professes to follow, Epiphanius, Theodoret, St. Augustine, etc.

13 The translator desires to acknowledge obligations to Dr. Lottner, Professor of Sanskrit and sub-Librarian in Trinity College, Dublin, – a gentleman of extensive historical erudition as well as of accurate and comprehensive scholarship.

Hippolytus (Cont,)The Refutation of All Heresies.

Book I.


The following are the contents of the first book of The Refutation of all Heresies.1

We propose to furnish an account of the tenets of natural philosophers, and who these are, as well as the tenets of moral philosophers, and who these are; and thirdly, the tenets of logicians, and who these logicians are.

Among natural philosophers2 may be enumerated Thales, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Parmenides, Leucippus, Democritus, Xenophanes, Ecphantus, Hippo.

Among moral philosophers are Socrates, pupil of Archelaus the physicist, (and) Plato the pupil of Socrates. This (speculator) combined three systems of philosophy.

Among logicians is Aristotle, pupil of Plato. He systematized the art of dialectics. Among the Stoic (logicians) were Chrysippus (and) Zeno. Epicurus, however, advanced an opinion almost contrary to all philosophers. Pyrrho was an Academic;3 this (speculator) taught the incomprehensibility of everything. The Brahmins among the Indians, and the Druids among the Celts, and Hesiod (devoted themselves to philosophic pursuits).


The Prooemium. – Motives for Undertaking the Refutation; Exposure of the Ancient Mysteries; Plan of the Work; Completeness of the Refutation; Value of the Treatise to Future Ages.

We must not overlook4 any figment devised by those denominated philosophers among the Greeks. For even their incoherent tenets must be received as worthy of credit, on account of the excessive madness of the heretics; who, from the observance of silence, and from concealing their own ineffable mysteries, have by many been supposed worshippers of God.5 We have likewise, on a former occasion,6 expounded the doctrines of these briefly, not illustrating them with any degree of minuteness, but refuting thorn in coarse digest; not having considered it requisite to bring to light their secret7 doctrines, in order that, when we have explained their tenets by enigmas, they, becoming ashamed, lest also, by our divulging their mysteries, we should convict them of atheism, might be induced to desist in some degree from their unreasonable opinion and their profane attempt.8 But since I perceive that they have not been abashed by our forbearance, and have made no account of how God is long-suffering, though blasphemed by them, in order that either from shame they may repent, or should they persevere, be justly condemned, I am forced to proceed in my intention of exposing those secret mysteries of theirs, which, to the initiated, with a vast amount of plausibility they deliver who are not accustomed first to disclose (to any one), till, by keeping such in suspense during a period (of necessary preparation), and by rendering him blasphemous towards the true God they have acquired complete ascendancy over him, and perceive him eagerly panting after the promised disclosure. And then, when they have tested him to be enslaved by sin, they initiate him, putting him in possession of the perfection of wicked things. Previously, however, they bind him with an oath neither to divulge (the mysteries), nor to hold communication with any person whatsoever, unless he first undergo similar subjection, though, when the doctrine has been simply delivered (to any one), there was no longer any need of an oath. For he who was content to submit to the necessary purgation,9 and so receive the perfect mysteries of these men, by the very act itself, as well as in reference to his own conscience, will feel himself sufficiently under an obligation not to divulge to others; for if he once disclose wickedness of this description to any man, he would neither be reckoned among men, nor be deemed worthy to behold the light, since not even irrational animals10 would attempt such an enormity, as we shall explain when we come to treat of such topics.

Since, however, reason compels us to plunge11 into the very depth of narrative, we conceive we should not be silent, but, expounding the tenets of the several schools with minuteness, we shall evince reserve in nothing. Now it seems expedient, even at the expense of a more protracted investigation, not to shrink from labour; for we shall leave behind us no trifling auxiliary to human life against the recurrence of error, when all are made to behold, in an obvious light, the clandestine rites of these men, and the secret orgies which, retaining under their management, they deliver to the initiated only. But none will refute these, save the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the Church, which the Apostles, having in the first instance received, have transmitted to those who have rightly believed. But we, as being their successors, and as participators in this grace, high-priesthood, and office of teaching,12 as well as being reputed guardians of the Church, must not be found deficient in vigilance,13 or disposed to suppress correct doctrine.14 Not even, however, labouring with every energy of body and soul, do we tire in our attempt adequately to render our Divine Benefactor a fitting return; and yet withal we do not so requite Him in a becoming manner, except we are not remiss in discharging the trust committed to us, but careful to complete the measure of our particular opportunity, and to impart to all without grudging whatever the Holy Ghost supplies, not only bringing to light,15 by means of our refutation, matters foreign (to our subject), but also whatsoever things the truth has received by the grace of the Father,16 and ministered to men. These also, illustrating by argument and creating testimony17 by letters, we shall unabashed proclaim.

In order, then, as we have already stated, that we may prove them atheists, both in opinion and their mode (of treating a question) and in fact, and (in order to show) whence it is that their attempted theories have accrued unto them, and that they have endeavoured to establish their tenets, taking nothing from the holy Scriptures – nor is it from preserving the succession of any saint that they have hurried headlong into these opinion; – but that their doctrines have derived their origin18 from the wisdom of the Greeks, from the conclusions of those who have formed systems of philosophy, and from would-be mysteries, and the vagaries of astrologers, – it seems, then, advisable, in the first instance, by explaining the opinions advanced by the philosophers of the Greeks, to satisfy our readers that such are of greater antiquity than these (heresies), and more deserving of reverence in reference to their views respecting the divinity; in the next place, to compare each heresy with the system of each speculator, so as to show that the earliest champion of the heresy availing himself19 of these attempted theories, has turned them to advantage by appropriating their principles, and, impelled from these into worse, has constructed his own doctrine. The undertaking admittedly is full of labour, and (is one) requiring extended research. We shall not, however, be wanting in exertion; for afterwards it will be a source of joy, just like an athlete obtaining with much toil the crown, or a merchant after a huge swell of sea compassing gain, or a husbandman after sweat of brow enjoying the fruits, or a prophet after reproaches and insults seeing his predictions turning out true. In the commencement, therefore, we shall declare who first, among the Greeks, pointed out (the principles of) natural philosophy. For from these especially have they furtively taken their views who have first pro-pounded these heresies,20 as we shall subsequently prove when we come to compare them one with another. Assigning to each of those who take the lead among philosophers their own peculiar tenets, we shall publicly exhibit these heresiarchs as naked and unseemly. 


Chap. I. – Thales; His Physics and Theology; Founder of Greek Astronomy.

It is said that Thales of Miletus, one of the seven21 wise men, first attempted to frame a system of natural philosophy. This person said that some such thing as water is the generative principle of the universe, and its end; – for that out of this, solidified and again dissolved, all things consist, and that all things are supported on it; from which also arise both earthquakes and changes of the winds and atmospheric movements,22 and that all things are both produced23 and are in a state of flux corresponding with the nature of the primary author of generation; – and that the Deity24 is that which has neither beginning nor end. This person, having been occupied with an hypothesis and investigation concerning the stars, became the earliest author to the Greeks of this kind of learning. And he, looking towards heaven, alleging that he was carefully examining supernal objects, fell into a well; and a certain maid, by name Thratta, remarked of him derisively, that while intent on beholding things in heaven, he did not know,25 what was at his feet. And he lived about the time of Croesus.[See Elucidation I.]


Chap. II. – Pythagoras; His Cosmogony; Rules of His Sect; Discoverer of Physiognomy; His Philosophy of Numbers; His System of the Transmigration of Souls; Zaratas on Demons; Why Pythagoras Forbade the Eating of Beans; the Mode of Living Adopted by His Disciples.

But there was also, not far from these times, another philosophy which Pythagoras originated (who some say was a native of Samos), which they have denominated Italian, because that Pythagoras, flying from Polycrates the king of Samos, took up his residence in a city of Italy, and there passed the entire of his remaining years. And they who received in succession his doctrine, did not much differ from the same opinion. And this person, instituting an investigation concerning natural phenomena,26 combined together astronomy, and geometry, and music.27 And so he proclaimed that the Deity is a monad; and carefully acquainting himself with the nature of number, he affirmed that the world sings, and that its system corresponds with harmony, and he first resolved the motion of the seven stars into rhythm and melody. And being astonished at the management of the entire fabric, he required that at first his disciples should keep silence, as if persons coming into the world initiated in (the secrets of) the universe; next, when it seemed that they were sufficiently conversant with his mode of teaching his doctrine, and could forcibly philosophize concerning the stars and nature, then, considering them pure, he enjoins them to speak. This man distributed his pupils in two orders, and called the one esoteric, but the other exoteric. And to the former he confided more advanced doctrines, and to the latter a more moderate amount of instruction.

And he also touched on magic – as they say – and himself28 discovered an art of physiognomy,29 laying down as a basis certain numbers and measures, saying that they comprised the principle of arithmetical philosophy by composition after this manner. The first number became an originating principle, which is one, indefinable, incomprehensible, having in itself all numbers that, according to plurality, can go on ad infinitum. But the primary monad became a principle of numbers, according to sub stance.30 – which is a male monad, begetting [after the manner of a parent all the rest of the numbers. Secondly, the duad is a female number, and the same also is by arithmeticians termed even. Thirdly, the triad is a male number. This also has been classified by arithmeticians under the denomination uneven. And in addition to all these is the tetrad, a female number; and the same also is called even, because it is female. Therefore all the numbers that have been derived from the genus are four; but number is the indefinite genus, from which was constituted, according to them, the perfect31 number, viz., the decade. For one, two, three, four, become ten, if its proper denomination be preserved essentially for each of the numbers. Pythagoras affirmed this to be a sacred quaternion, source of everlasting nature,32 having, as it were, roots in itself; and that from this number all the numbers receive their originating principle. For eleven, and twelve, and the rest, partake of the origin of existence33 from ten. Of this decade, the perfect number, there are termed four divisions, – namely, number, monad,34 square, (and) cube. And the connections and blendings of these are performed, according to nature, for the generation of growth completing the productive number. For when the square itself is multiplied35 into itself, a biquadratic is the result. But when the square is multiplied into the cube, the result is the product of a square and cube; and when the cube is multiplied into the cube, the product of two cubes is the result. So that all the numbers from which the production of existing (numbers) arises, are seven, – namely, number, monad, square, cube, biquadratic, quadratic-cube, cubo-cube.

This philosopher likewise said that the soul is immortal, and that it subsists in successive bodies. Wherefore he asserted that before the Trojan era he was Aethalides,36 and during the Trojan epoch Euphorbus, and subsequent to this Hermotimus of Samos, and after him Pyrrhus of Delos; fifth, Pythagoras. And Diodorus the Eretrian,37 and Aristoxenus38 the musician, assert that Pythagoras came to Zaratas39 the Chaldean, and that he explained to him that there are two original causes of things, father and mother, and that father is light, but mother darkness; and that of the light the parts are hot, dry, not heavy, light, swift; but of darkness, cold, moist, weighty, slow; and that out of all these, from female and male, the world consists. But the world, he says, is a musical harmony;40 wherefore, also, that the sun performs a circuit in accordance with harmony. And as regards the things that are produced from earth and the cosmical system, they maintain that Zaratas41 makes the following statements: that there are two demons, the one celestial and the other terrestrial; and that the terrestrial sends up a production from earth, and that this is water; and that the celestial is a fire, partaking of the nature of air, hot and cold.42 And he therefore affirms that none of these destroys or sullies the soul, for these constitute the substance of all things. And he is reported to have ordered his followers not to eat beans, because that Zaratas said that, at the origin and concretion of all things, when the earth was still undergoing its process of solidification,43 and that of putrefaction had set in, the bean was produced.44 And of this he mentions the following indication, that if any one, after having chewed a bean without the husk, places it opposite the sun for a certain period, – for this immediately will aid in the result, – it yields the smell of human seed. And he mentions also another clearer instance to be this: if, when the bean is blossoming, we take the bean and its flower, and deposit them in a jar, smear this over, and bury it in the ground, and after a few days uncover it, we shall see it wearing the appearance, first of a woman’s pudendum, and after this, when closely examined, of the head of a child growing in along with it. This person, being burned along with his disciples in Croton, a town of Italy, perished. And this was a habit with him, whenever one repaired to him with a view of becoming his follower, (the candidate disciple was compelled) to sell his possessions, and lodge the money sealed with Pythagoras, and he continued in silence to undergo instruction, sometimes for three, but sometimes for five years. And again, on being released, he was permitted to associate with the rest, and remained as a disciple, and took his meals along with them; if otherwise, however, he received back his property, and was rejected. These persons, then, were styled Esoteric Pythagoreans, whereas the rest, Pythagoristae.

Among his followers, however, who escaped the conflagration were Lysis and Archippus, and the servant of Pythagoras, Zaniolxis,45 who also is said to have taught the Celtic Druids to cultivate the philosophy of Pythagoras. And they assert that Pythagoras learned from the Egyptians his system of numbers and measures; and I being struck by the plausible, fanciful, and not easily revealed wisdom of the priests, he himself likewise, in imitation of them, enjoined silence, and made his disciples lead a solitary life in underground chapels.46


Chap. III. – Empedocles; His Twofold Cause; Tenet of Transmigration.

But Empedocles, born after these, advanced likewise many statements respecting the nature of demons, to the effect that, being very numerous, they pass their time in managing earthly concerns. This person affirmed the originating principle of the universe to be discord and friendship, and that the intelligible fire of the monad is the Deity, and that all things consist of fire, and will be resolved into fire; with which opinion the Stoics likewise almost agree, expecting a conflagration. But most of all does he concur with the tenet of transition of souls from body to body, expressing himself thus: – 

“For surely both youth and maid I was, And shrub, and bird,47 and fish, from ocean stray’d.”48

This (philosopher) maintained the transmutation of all souls into any description of animal. For Pythagoras, the instructor of these (sages),49 asserted that himself had been Euphorbus, who sewed in the expedition against Ilium, alleging that he recognised his shield. The foregoing are the tenets of Empedocles.


Chap. IV. – Heraclitus; His Universal Dogmatism; His Theory of Flux; Other Systems.

But Heraclitus, a natural philosopher of Ephesus, surrendered himself to universal grief, condemning the ignorance of the entire of life, and of all men; nay, commiserating the (very) existence of mortals, for he asserted that he himself knew everything, whereas the rest of mankind nothing.50 But he also advanced statements almost in concert with Empedocles, saying that the originating principle of all things is discord and friendship, and that the Deity is a fire endued with intelligence, and that all things are borne one upon another, and never are at a standstill; and just as Empedocles, he affirmed that the entire locality about us is full of evil things, and that these evil things reach as far as the moon, being extended from the quarter situated around the earth, and that they do not advance further, inasmuch as the entire space above the moon is more pure. So also it seemed to Heraclitus.

After these arose also other natural philosophers, whose opinions we have not deemed it necessary to declare, (inasmuch as) they present no diversity to those already specified. Since, however, upon the whole, a not inconsiderable school has sprung (from thence), and many natural philosophers subsequently have arisen from them, each advancing different accounts of the nature of the universe, it seems also to us advisable, that, explaining the philosophy that has come down by succession from Pythagoras, we should recur to the opinions entertained by those living after the time of Thales, and that, furnishing a narrative of these, we should approach the consideration of the ethical and logical philosophy which Socrates and Aristotle originated, the former ethical, and the latter logical.51


Chap. V. – Anaximander; His Theory of the Infinite; His Astronomic Opinions; His Physics.

Anaximander, then, was the hearer of Thales. Anaximander was son of Praxiadas, and a native of Miletus. This man said that the originating principle of existing things is a certain constitution of the Infinite, out of which the heavens are generated, and the worlds therein; and that this principle is eternal and undecaying, and comprising all the worlds. And he speaks of time as something of limited generation, and subsistence, and destruction. This person declared the Infinite to be an originating principle and element of existing things, being the first to employ such a denomination of the originating principle. But, moreover, he asserted that there is an eternal motion, by the agency of which it happens that the heavens52 are generated; but that the earth is poised aloft, upheld by nothing, continuing (so) on account of its equal distance from all (the heavenly bodies); and that the figure of it is curved, circular,53 similar to a column of stone.54 And one of the surfaces we tread upon, but the other is opposite.55 And that the stars are a circle of fire, separated from the fire which is in the vicinity of the world, and encompassed by air. And that certain atmospheric exhalations arise in places where the stars shine; wherefore, also, when these exhalations are obstructed, that eclipses take place. And that the moon sometimes appears full and sometimes waning, according to the obstruction or opening of its (orbital) paths. But that the circle of the sun is twenty-seven times56 larger than the moon, and that the sun is situated in the highest (quarter of the firmament); whereas the orbs of the fixed stars in the lowest. And that animals are produced (in moisture57) by evaporation from the sun. And that man was, originally, similar to a different animal, that is, a fish. And that winds are caused by the separation of very rarified exhalations of the atmosphere, and by their motion after they have been condensed. And that rain arises from earth’s giving back (the vapours which it receives) from the (clouds58) under the sun. And that there are flashes of lightning when the wind coming down severs the clouds. This person was born in the third year of the XLII. Olympiad.59


Chap. VI. – Anaximenes; His System of “An Infinite Air;” His Views of Astronomy and Natural Phenomena.

But Anaximenes, who himself was also a native of Miletus, and son of Eurystratus, affirmed that the originating principle is infinite air, out of which are generated things existing, those which have existed, and those that will be, as well as gods and divine (entities), and that the rest arise from the offspring of this. But that there is such a species of air, when it is most even, which is imperceptible to vision, but capable of being manifested by cold and heat, and moisture and motion, and that it is continually in motion; for that whatsoever things undergo alteration, do not change if there is not motion. For that it presents a different appearance according as it is condensed and attenuated, for when it is dissolved into what is more attenuated that fire is produced, and that when it is moderately condensed again into air that a cloud is formed from the air by virtue of the contraction;60 but when condensed still more, water, (and) that when the condensation is carried still further, earth is formed; and when condensed to the very highest degree, stones. Wherefore, that the dominant principles of generation are contraries, – namely, heat and cold. And that the expanded earth is wafted along upon the air, and in like manner both sun and moon and the rest of the stars; for all things being of the nature of fire, are wafted about through the expanse of space, upon the air. And that the stars are produced from earth by reason of the mist which arises from this earth; and when this is attenuated, that fire is produced, and that the stars consist of the fire which is being borne aloft. But also that there are terrestrial natures in the region of the stars carried on along with them. And he says that the stars do not move under the earth, as some have supposed, but around the earth,61 just as a cap is turned round our head; and that the sun is hid, not by being under the earth, but because covered by the higher portions of the earth, and on account of the greater distance that he is from us. But that the stars do not emit heat on account of the length of distance; and that the winds are produced when the condensed air, becoming rarified, is borne on; and that when collected and thickened still further, clouds are generated, and thus a change made into water. And that hail is produced when the water borne down from the clouds becomes congealed; and that snow is generated when these very clouds, being more moist, acquire congelation; and that lightning is caused when the clouds are parted by force of the winds; for when these are sundered there is produced a brilliant and fiery flash. And that a rainbow is produced by reason of the rays of the sun failing on the collected air. And that an earthquake takes place when the earth is altered into a larger (bulk) by heat and cold. These indeed, then, were the opinions of Anaximenes. This (philosopher) flourished about the first year of the LVIII. Olympiad.62


Chap. VII. – Anaxagoras; His Theory of Mind; Recognises an Efficient Cause; His Cosmogony and Astronomy.

After this (thinker) comes Anaxagoras,63 son of Hegesibulus,64 a native of Clazomenae. This person affirmed the originating principle of the universe to be mind and matter; mind being the efficient cause, whereas matter that which was being formed. For all things coming into existence simultaneously, mind supervening introduced order. And material principles, he says, are infinite; even the smaller of these are infinite.65 And that all things partake of motion by being moved by mind, and that similar bodies coalesce. And that celestial bodies were arranged by orbicular motion. That, therefore, what was thick and moist, and dark and cold, and all things heavy, came together into the centre, from the solidification of which earth derived support; but that the things opposite to these – namely, heat and brilliancy, and dryness and lightness – hurried impetuously into the farther portion of the atmosphere. And that the earth is in figure plane; and that it continues suspended aloft, by reason of its magnitude, and by reason of there being no vacuum, and by reason of the air, which was most powerful, bearing along the wafted earth. But that among moist substances on earth, was the sea, and the waters in it; and when these evaporated (from the sun), or had settled under, that the ocean was formed in this manner, as well as from the rivers that from time to time flow into it. And that the rivers also derive support from the rains and from the actual waters in the earth; for that this is hollow, and contains water in its caverns. And that the Nile is inundated in summer, by reason of the waters carried down into it from the snows in northern (latitudes).66 And that the sun and moon and all the stars are fiery stones, that were rolled round by the rotation of the atmosphere. And that beneath the stars are sun and moon, and certain invisible bodies that are carried along with us; and that we have no perception of the heat of the stars, both on account of their being so far away, and on account of their distance from the earth; and further, they are not to the same degree hot as the sun, on account of their occupying a colder situation. And that the moon, being lower than the sun, is nearer us. And that the sun surpasses the Peloponnesus in size. And that the moon has not light of its own, but from the sun. But that the revolution of the stars takes place under the earth. And that the moon is eclipsed when the earth is interposed, and occasionally also those (stars) that are underneath the moon. And that the sire (is eclipsed) when, at the beginning of the month, the moon is interposed. And that the solstices are caused by both sun and moon being repulsed by the air. And that the moon is often turned, by its not being able to make head against the cold. This person was the first to frame definitions regarding eclipses and illuminations. And he affirmed that the moon is earthy, and has in it plains and ravines. And that the milky way is a reflection of the light of the stars which do not derive their radiance from the sun;67 and that the stars, coursing (the firmament) as shooting sparks, arise out of the motion of the pole. And that winds are caused when the atmosphere is ratified by the sun, and by those burning orbs that advance under the pole, and are borne from (it). And that thunder and lightning are caused by heat falling on the clouds. And that earthquakes are produced by the air above falling on that under the earth; for when this is moved, that the earth also, being wafted by it, is shaken. And that animals originally came into existence68in moisture, and after this one from another; and that males are procreated when the seed secreted from the right parts adhered to the right parts of the womb, and that females are born when the contrary took place. This philosopher flourished in the first year of the LXXXVIII. Olympiad,69 at which time they say that Plato also was born. They maintain that Anaxagoras was likewise prescient.


Chap. VIII. – Archelaus; System Akin to That of Anaxagoras; His Origin of the Earth and of Animals; Other Systems.

Archelaus was by birth an Athenian, and son of Apollodorus.70 This person, similarly with Anaxagoras, asserted the mixture of matter, and enunciated his first principles in the same manner. This philosopher, however, held that there is inherent immediately in mind a certain mixture; and that the originating principle of motion is the mutual separation of heat and cold, and that the heat is moved, and that the cold remains at rest. And that the water, being dissolved, flows towards the centre, where the scorched air and earth are produced, of which the one is borne upwards and the other remains beneath. And that the earth is at rest, and that on this account it came into existence; and that it lies in the centre, being no part, so to speak, of the universe, delivered from the conflagration; and that from this, first in a state of ignition, is the nature of the stars, of which indeed the largest is the sun, and next to this the moon; and of the rest some less, but some greater. And he says that the heaven was inclined at an angle, and so that the sun diffused light over the earth, and made the atmosphere transparent, and the ground dry; for that at first it was a sea, inasmuch as it is lofty at the horizon and hollow in the middle. And he adduces, as an indication of the hollowness, that the sun does not rise and set to all at the same time, which ought to happen if the earth was even. And with regard to animals, he affirms that the earth, being originally fire in its lower part, where the heat and cold were intermingled, both the rest of animals made their appearance, numerous and dissimilar,71 all having the same food, being nourished from mud; and their existence was of short duration, but afterwards also generation from one another arose unto them; and men were separated from the rest (of the animal creation), and they appointed rulers, and laws, and arts, and cities, and the rest. And he asserts that mind is innate in all animals alike; for that each, according to the difference of their physical constitution, employed (mind), at one time slower, at another faster.72

Natural philosophy, then, continued from Thales until Archelaus. Socrates was the hearer of this (latter philosopher). There are, however, also very many others, introducing various opinions respecting both the divinity and the nature of the universe; and if we were disposed to adduce all the opinions of these, it would be necessary to compose a vast quantity of books. But, reminding the reader of those whom we especially ought – who are deserving of mention from their fame, and from being, so to speak, the leaders to those who have subsequently framed systems of philosophy, and from their supplying them with a starting-point towards such undertakings – let us hasten on our investigations towards what remains for consideration.


Chap. IX. – Parmenides; His Theory of “Unity;” His Eschatology.

For Parmenides73 likewise supposes the universe to be one, both eternal and unbegotten, and of a spherical form. And neither did he escape the opinion of the great body (of speculators), affirming fire and earth to be the originating principles of the universe – the earth as matter, but the fire as cause, even an efficient one. He asserted that the world would be destroyed, but in what way he does not mention.74 The same (philosopher), however, affirmed the universe to be eternal, and not generated, and of spherical form and homogeneous, but not having a figure in itself, and immoveable and limited.


Chap. X. – Leucippus; His Atomic Theory.

But Leucippus,75 an associate of Zeno, did not maintain the same opinion, but affirms things to be infinite, and always in motion, and that generation and change exist continuously. And he affirms plenitude and vacuum to be elements. And he asserts that worlds are produced when many bodies are congregated and flow together from the surrounding space to a common point, so that by mutual contact they made substances of the same figure and similar in form come into connection; and when thus intertwined,76 there are transmutations into other bodies, and that created things wax and wane through necessity. But what the nature of necessity is, (Parmenides) did not define.


Chap. XI. – Democritus; His Duality of Principles; His Cosmogony.

And Democritus77 was an acquaintance of Leucippus. Democritus, son of Damasippus, a native of Abdera,78 conferring with many gymnosophists among the Indians, and with priests in Egypt, and with astrologers and magi in Babylon, (propounded his system). Now he makes statements similarly with Leucippus concerning elements, viz. plenitude and vacuum, denominating plenitude entity, and vacuum nonentity; and this he asserted, since existing things are continually moved in the vacuum. And he maintained worlds to be infinite, and varying in bulk; and that in some there is neither sun nor moon, while in others that they are larger than with us, and with others more numerous. And that intervals between worlds are unequal; and that in one quarter of space (worlds) are more numerous, and in another less so; and that some of them increase in bulk, but that others attain their full size, while others dwindle away and that in one quarter they are coming into existence, whilst in another they are failing; and that they are destroyed by clashing one with another. And that some worlds are destitute of animals and plants, and every species of moisture. And that the earth of our world was created before that of the stars, and that the moon is underneath; next (to it) the sun; then the fixed stars. And that (neither) the planets nor these (fixed stars) possess an equal elevation. And that the world flourishes, until no longer it can receive anything from without. This (philosopher) turned all things into ridicule, as if all the concerns of humanity were deserving of laughter. 


Chap. XII. – Xenophanes; His Scepticism; His Notions of God and Nature; Believes in a Flood.

But Xenophanes, a native of Colophon,79 was son of Orthomenes. This man survived to the time of Cyrus.80 This (philosopher) first asserted that there is no possibility of comprehending anything, expressing himself thus: – 

“For if for the most part of perfection man may speak,

Yet he knows it not himself, and in all attains surmise.”

And he affirms that nothing is generated or perishes, or is moved; and that the universe, being one, is beyond change. But he says that the deity is eternal, and one and altogether homogeneous and limited, and of a spherical form, and endued with perception in all parts. And that the sun exists during each day from a conglomeration of small sparks, and that the earth is infinite, and is surrounded neither by an atmosphere nor by the heaven. And that there are infinite suns and moons, and that all things spring from earth. This man affirmed that the sea is salt, on account of the many mixtures that flow into it. Metrodorus, however, from the fact of its being filtered through earth, asserts that it is on account of this that it is made salt. And Xenophanes is of opinion that there had been a mixture of the earth with the sea, and that in process of time it was disengaged from the moisture, alleging that he could produce such proofs as the following: that in the midst of earth, and in mountains, shells are discovered; and also in Syracuse he affirms was found in the quarries the print of a fish and of seals, and in Paros an image of a laurel81 in the bottom of a stone, and in Melita82 parts of all sorts of marine animals. And he says that these were generated when all things originally were embedded in mud, and that an impression of them was dried in the mud, but that all men had perished83 when the earth, being precipitated into the sea, was converted into mud; then, again, that it originated generation, and that this overthrow occurred to all worlds.


Chap. XIII. – Ecphantus; His Scepticism; Tenet of Infinity.

One Ecphantus, a native of Syracuse, affirmed that it is not possible to attain a true knowledge of things. He defines, however, as he thinks, primary bodies to be indivisible,84 and that there are three variations of these, viz., bulk, figure, capacity, from which are generated the objects of sense. But that there is a determinable multitude of these, and that this is infinite.85 And that bodies are moved neither by weight nor by impact, but by divine power, which he calls mind and soul; and that of this the world is a representation; wherefore also it has been made in the form of a sphere by divine power.86 And that the earth in the middle of the cosmical system is moved round its own centre towards the east. 87


Chap. XIV. – Hippo; His Duality of Principles; His Psychology.

Hippo, a native of Rhegium, asserted as originating principles, coldness, for instance water, and heat, for instance fire. And that fire, when produced by water, subdued the power of its generator, and formed the world. And the soul, he said, is88sometimes brain, but sometimes water; for that also the seed is that which appears to us to arise out of moisture, from which, he says, the soul is produced.

So far, then, we think we have sufficiently adduced (the opinions of) these; wherefore, inasmuch as we have adequately gone in review through the tenets of physical speculators, it seems to remain that we now turn to Socrates and Plato, who gave especial preference to moral philosophy.


Chap. XV. – Socrates; His Philosophy Reproduced by Plato.

Socrates, then, was a hearer of Archelaus, the natural philosopher; and he, reverencing the rule, “Know thyself,” and having assembled a large school, had Plato (there), who was far superior to all his pupils. (Socrates) himself left no writings89 after him. Plato, however, taking notes90 of all his (lectures on) wisdom, established a school, combining together natural, ethical, (and) logical (philosophy). But the points Plato determined are these


Chap. XVI. – Plato; Threefold Classification of Principles; His Idea of God; Different Opinions Regarding His Theology and Psychology; His Eschatology and System of Metempsychosis; His Ethical Doctrines; Notions on the Free-Will Question.

Plato (lays down) that there are three originating principles of the universe, (namely) God, and matter, and exemplar; God as the Maker and Regulator of this universe, and the Being who exercises providence over it; but matter, as that which underlies all (phenomena), which (matter) he styles both receptive and a nurse, out of the arrangement of which proceeded the four elements of which the world consists; (I mean) fire, air, earth, water, from which all the rest of what are denominated concrete substances, as well as animals and plants, have been formed. And that the exemplar, which he likewise calls ideas, is the intelligence of the Deity, to which, as to an image in the soul, the Deity attending, fabricated all things. God, he says, is both incorporeal and shapeless, and comprehensible by wise men solely; whereas matter is body potentially, but with potentiality not as yet passing into action, for being itself without form and without quality, by assuming forms and qualities, it became body. That matter, therefore, is an originating principle, and coeval with the Deity, and that in this respect the world is uncreated. For (Plato) affirms that (the world) was made out of it. And that (the attribute of) imperishableness necessarily belongs to (literally “follows”) that which is uncreated. So far forth, however, as body is supposed to be compounded out of both many qualities and ideas, so far forth it is both created and perishable. But some of the followers of Plato mingled both of these, employing some such example as the following: That as a waggon can always continue undestroyed, though undergoing partial repairs from time to time, so that even the parts each in turn perish, yet itself remains always complete; so after this manner the world also, although in parts it perishes, yet the things that are removed, being repaired, and equivalents for them being introduced, it remains eternal.

Some maintain that Plato asserts the Deity to be one, ingenerable and incorruptible, as he says in The Laws:91 “God, therefore, as the ancient account has it, possesses both the beginning, and end, and middle of all things.” Thus he shows God to be one, on account of His having pervaded all things. Others, however, maintain that Plato affirms the existence of many gods indefinitely, when he uses these words: “God of gods, of whom I am both the Creator and Father.”92 But others say that he speaks of a definite number of deities in the following passage: “Therefore the mighty Jupiter, wheeling his swift chariot in heaven;” and when he enumerates the offspring of the children of heaven and earth. But others assert that (Plato) constituted the gods as generable; and on account of their having been produced, that altogether they were subject to the necessity of corruption, but that on account of the will of God they are immortal, (maintaining this) in the passage already quoted, where, to the words, “God of gods, of whom I am Creator and Father,” he adds, “indissoluble through the fiat of My will;” so that if (God) were disposed that these should be dissolved, they would easily be dissolved.

And he admits natures (such as those) of demons, and says that some of them are good, but others worthless. And some affirm that he states the soul to be uncreated and immortal, when he uses the following words, “Every soul is immortal, for that which is always moved is immortal;” and when he demonstrates that the soul is self-moved, and capable of originating motion. Others, however, (say that Plato asserted that the soul was) created, but rendered imperishable through the will of God. But some (will have it that he considered the soul) a composite (essence), and generable and corruptible; for even he supposes that there is a receptacle for it,93 and that it possesses a luminous body, but that everything generated involves a necessity of corruption.94 Those, however, who assert the immortality of the soul are especially strengthened in their opinion by those passages95 (in Plato’s writings), where he says, that both there are judgments after death, and tribunals of justice in Hades, and that the virtuous (souls) receive a good reward, while the wicked (ones) suitable punishment. Some notwithstanding assert, that he also acknowledges a transition of souls from one body to another, and that different souls, those that were marked out for such a purpose, pass into different bodies,96 according to the desert of each, and that after97 certain definite periods they are sent up into this world to furnish once more a proof of their choice. Others, however, (do not admit this to he his doctrine, but will have it that Plato affirms that the souls) obtain a place according to the desert of each; and they employ as a testimony the saying of his, that some good men are with Jove, and that others are ranging abroad (through heaven) with other gods; whereas that others are involved in eternal punishments, as many as during this life have committed wicked and unjust deeds.

And people affirm that Plato says, that some things are without a mean, that others have a mean, that others are a mean. (For example, that) waking and sleep, and such like, are conditions without an intermediate state; but that there are things that had means, for instance virtue and vice; and there are means (between extremes), for instance grey between white and black, or some other colour. And they say, that he affirms that the things pertaining to the soul are absolutely alone good, but that the things pertaining to the body, and those external (to it), are not any longer absolutely good, but reputed blessings. And that frequently he names these means also, for that it is possible to use them both well and ill. Some virtues, therefore, he says, are extremes in regard of intrinsic worth, but in regard of their essential nature means, for nothing is more estimable than virtue. But whatever excels or falls short of these terminates in vice. For instance, he says that there are four virtues – prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude – and that on each of these is attendant two vices, according to excess and defect: for example, on prudence, recklessness according to defect, and knavery according to excess; and on temperance, licentiousness according to defect, stupidity according to excess; and on justice, foregoing a claim according to defect, unduly pressing it according to excess; and on fortitude, cowardice according to defect, foolhardiness according to excess. And that these virtues, when inherent in a man, render him perfect, and afford him happiness. And happiness, he says, is assimilation to the Deity, as far as this is possible; and that assimilation to God takes place when any one combines holiness and justice with prudence. For this he supposes the end of supreme wisdom and virtue. And he affirms that the virtues follow one another in turn,98 and are uniform, and are never antagonistic to each other; whereas that vices are multiform, and sometimes follow one the other, and sometimes are antagonistic to each other. He asserts that fate exists; not, to be sure, that all things are produced according to fate, but that there is even something in our power, as in the passages where he says, “The fault is his who chooses, God is blameless;” and “the following law99 of Adrasteia.”100 And thus some (contend for his upholding) a system of fate, whereas others one of free-will. He asserts, however, that sins are involuntary. For into what is most glorious of the things in our power, which is the soul, no one would (deliberately) admit what is vicious, that is, transgression, but that from ignorance and an erroneous conception of virtue, supposing that they were achieving something honourable, they pass into vice. And his doctrine on this point is most clear in The Republic,101 where he says, “But again you presume to assert that vice is disgraceful and abhorred of God; how then, I may ask, would one choose such an evil thing? He, you reply, (would do so) who is worsted by pleasures.102 Therefore this also is involuntary, if to gain a victory be voluntary; so that, in every point of view, the committing an act of turpitude, reason proves103 to be involuntary.” Some one, however, in opposition to this (Plato), advances the contrary statement, “Why then are men punished if they sin involuntary?” But he replies, that he himself also, as soon as possible, may be emancipated from vice, and undergo punishment. For that the undergoing punishment is not an evil, but a good thing, if it is likely to prove a purification of evils; and that the rest of mankind, hearing of it, may not transgress, but guard against such an error. (Plato, however, maintains) that the nature of evil is neither created by the Deity, nor possesses subsistence of itself, but that it derives existence from contrariety to what is good, and from attendance upon it, either by excess and defect, as we have previously affirmed concerning the virtues. Plato unquestionably then, as we have already stated, collecting together the three departments of universal philosophy, in this manner formed his speculative system.





1 The four of the mss. of the first book extant prior to the recent discovery of seven out of the remaining nine books of The Refutation, concur in ascribing it to Origen. These inscriptions run thus: 1. “Refutation by Origen of all Heresies;” 2. “Of Origen’s Philosophumena … these are the contents;” 3. “Being estimable (Dissertations) by Origen, a man of the greatest wisdom.” The recently discovered ms itself in the margin has the words, “Origen, and Origen’s opinion.” The title, as agreed upon by modern commentators is, 1. “Book I. of Origen’s Refutation of all Heresies” (Wolf and Gronovius); 2. “A Refutation of all heresies;” 3. “Origen’s Philosophumena, or the Refutation of all Heresies.” The last is Miller’s in his Oxford edition, 1851. The title might have been, “Philosophumena, and the Refutation (therefrom) of all Heresies.” There were obviously two divisions of the work: (1) A résumé of the tenets of the philosophers (books i., ii., iii., iv.) preparatory to (2) the refutation of heresies, on the ground of their derivative character from Greek and Egyptian speculation. Bunsen would denominate the work “St. Hippolytus’ (Bishop and Martyr) Refutation of all Heresies; what remains of the ten books.”

2 Most of what follows in book i. is a compilation from ancient sources. The ablest résumé followed by Cicero in the De. Nat. Deor., of the tenets of the ancient philosophers, is to be found in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The English reader is referred to the Metaphysics, book i. pp. 13-46 (Bohn’s Classical Library), also to the translator’s analysis prefixed to this work, pp. 17-25. See also Diogenes’ Lives of the Philosophers, and Tenneman’s Manual of Philosophy (translated in Bohn’s Library); Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum; Lewes’ Biographical History of (Ancient) Metaphysical and Moral Philosophy; and Rev. Dr. F. D. Maurice’s History of (Ancient) Metaphysical and Moral Philosophy. The same subject is discussed in Ritter’s History of Philosophy (translated by Morrison).

3 This word is variously given thus: Academian, Academeian, Academaic, Academe, Cademian, and Cadimian. The last two would seem to indicate the character rather than the philosophy of Pyrrho. To favor this view, the text should be altered into ακὶ ἄδημος, i.e., ἀπόδημος = from home, not domestic.

4 Some hiatus at the beginning of this sentence is apparent.

5 An elaborate defence of this position forms the subject of Cudworth’s great work, The True Intellectual System of the Universe.

6 This statement has been urged against Origen’s authorship, in favor of Epiphanius, who wrote an extended treatise on the Heresies, with an abridgment.

7 That is, their esoteric mysteries, intended for only a favoured few, as contrasted with the esoteric, designed for more general diffusion.

8 One ms has – “the profane opinion and unreasonable attempt.”

9 “To learn” (Roeper).

10 “And those that are irrational animals do not attempt,” (or) “because irrational,” etc. The last is Sancroft’s reading; that in the text, Roeper’s.

11 “Ascend up to” (Roeper).

12 This passage is quoted by those who impugn the authorship of Origen on the ground of his never having been a bishop of the Church. It is not, however, quite certain that the words refer to the episcopal office exclusively.

13 The common reading is in the future, but the past tense is adopted by Richter in his Critical Observations, p. 77.

14 It might be, “any opinion that may be subservient to the subject taken in hand.” This is Cruice’s rendering in his Latin version. A different reading is, “we must not be silent as regards reasons that hold good,” or, “as rational distinctions,” or, “refrain from utterances through the instrument of reasoning.” The last is Roeper’s.

15 Another reading is, “bringing into a collection.”

16 or, “the Spirit.”

17 Or, “indicating a witness;” or, “having adduced testimony.”

18 Or, “a starting point.”

19 Or, “devoting his attention to;” or, “having alighted upon.”

20 The chief writers on the early heresies are: Irenaeus, of the second century; Hippolytus, his pupil, of the third; Philastrius, Epiphanius, and St. Augustine, of the fourth century. The learned need scarcely be reminded of the comprehensive digest furnished by Ittigius in the preface to his dissertation on the heresies of the apostolic and post-apostolic ages. A book more within the reach of the general reader is Dr. Burton’s Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age.

21 [These were: Periander of Corinth, B.C. 585; Pittacus of Mitylene, B.C. 570; Thales of Miletus, B.C. 548; Solon of Athens, B.C. 540; Chilo of Sparta, B.C. 597; Bias of Priene; Cleobulus of Lindus, B.C. 564.]

22 Or, “motions of the stars” (Roeper).

23 Or, “carried along” (Roeper).

24 Or, “that which is divine.” See Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., v. pp. 461, 463 (Heinsiun and Sylburgius’ ed.) Thales, on being asked, “What is God?” “That,” replied he, “which has neither beginning nor end.”

25 Or, “see.”

26 Or, “nature.”

27 “And arithmetic” (added by Roeper).

28 Or, “and he first.”

29 Or, “physiognomy.”

30 Or, “in conformity with his hypothesis.”

31 Or, “the third.”

32 Or, “an everlasting nature;” or “having the roots of an everlasting nature in itself,” the words “as it were” being omitted in some mss.

33 Or, “production.”

34 It should be, probably, “monad, number.” The monad was with Pythagoras, and in imitation of him with Leibnitz, the highest generalization of number, and conception in abstraction, commensurate with what we call essence, whether of matter or spirit.

35 Κοβισθῇ in text must be rendered “multiplied.” The formulary is self-evident: (a2)2 = a4, (a2)3 = a6, (a3)3 = a9.

36 Or Thallis. Aethalides, a son of Hermes, was herald of the Argonauts, and said never to have forgotten anything. In this was his soul remembered its successive migrations into the bodies of Hermotimus, Pyrrhus, and Pythagoras. (See Diogenes’ Lives, book viii. chap. i. sec. 4.)

37 No name occurs more frequently in the annals of Greek literature than that of Diodorus. One, however, with the title “of Eretria,” as far as the translator knows, is mentioned only by Hippolytus; so that this is likely another Diodorus to the long list already existing. It may be that Diodorus Eretriensis is the same as Diodorus Crotoniates, a Pythagorean philosopher. See Fabricus’ Biblioth. Graec., lib ii. cap., lib. iii. cap. xxxi.; also Meursius’ Annotations, p. 20, on Chalcidius’ Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. The article in Smith’s Dictionary is a transcript of these.

38 Aristoxenus is mentioned by Cicero in his Tusculan Questions, book i., chap. xviii., as having broached a theory in psychology, which may have suggested, in modern times, to David Hartley his hypothesis of sensation being the result of nerval vibrations. Cicero says of Aristoxenus, “that he was so charmed with his own harmonies, that he sought to transfer them into investigations concerning our corporeal and spiritual nature.”

39 Zaratas is another form of the name Zoroaster.

40 Or, “is a nature according to musical harmony” (preceding note); or, “The cosmical system is nature and a musical harmony.”

41 Zaratas, or Zoroaster, is employed as a sort of generic denomination for philosopher by the Orientals, who, whatever portions of Asia they inhabit, mostly ascribe their speculative systems to a Zoroaster. No less than six individuals bearing this name are spoken of. Arnobius (Contr. Gentes., i. 52) mentions four – (1) a Chaldean, (2) Bactrian, (3) Pamphylian, (4) Armenian, (4) Armenian. Pliny mentions a fifth as a native of Proconnesus (Nat. Hist., xxx. 1), while Aluleius (Florida, ii. 15) a sixth Zoroaster, a native on Babylon, and contemporary with Pythagoras, the one evidently alluded to by Hippolytus. (See translator’s Treatise on Metaphysics, chap. ii.)

42 Or, “that it was hot and cold,” or “hot of moist.”

43 or it might be rendered, “a process of arrangement.” The Abbe Cruice (in his edition of Hippolytus, Paris 1860) suggests a different reading, which would make the words translate thus, “when the earth was a undigested and solid mass.”

44 [See book iv. cap. xxii., infra, and note. But Clement gives another explanation. See vol. 2. p. 385, this series.]

45 Or, “Zametus.”

46 Or, “leading them down into cells, made them,” etc., or, “made his disciples observe silence,” etc.

47 Or, “and beast,” more in keeping with the sense of the name; or “a lamb” has been suggested in the Gottingen edition of Hippolytus.

48 Or, “traveller into the sea;” or, “mute ones from the sea;” or, “from the sea to a glittering fish.”

49 Or, “being instructor of this (philosopher).”

50 Proclus, in his commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, uses almost the same words: “but Heraclitus, in asserting his own universal knowledge makes out all the rest of mankind ignorant.”

51 Or, “and among these, Socrates a moral philosopher, and Aristotle a logician, originated systems.”

52 Or, “men.”

53 Or, “moist.”

54 Or, “congealed snow.”

55 That is, Antipodes. Diogenes Laertius was of opinion that Plato first indicated by name the Antipodes.

56 Or, “727 times,” an improbable reading.

57 “In moisture” is properly added, as Plutarch, in his De Placitis, v. xix., remarks that “Anaximander affirms that primary animals were produced in moisture.”

58 This word seems requisite to the sense of the passage.

59 [B.C. 610. On Olympiads, see Jarvis, Introd., p. 21.]

60 Or, “revolutionary motion.”

61 Plutarch, in his De Placitis Philosophorum, attributes both opinions to Anaximenes, viz., the sun was moved both under and around the earth.

62 [B.C. 556.]

63 Aristotle considers that Anaxagoras was the first to broach the existence of efficient causes in nature. He states, however, that Hermotimus received the credit of doing so at an earlier date.

64 Or, Hegesephontus.

65 Simplicius, in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, where (book i. c. 2) Anaxagoras is spoken of, says that the latter maintained that “all things existed simultaneously – infinite things, and [plurality, and diminutiveness, for even what diminutive was infinite.” (See Aristotle’s Metaphysics, iii. 4, Macmahon’s translation, p. 93.) This explains Hippolytus’ remark, while it suggests an emendation of the text.

66 Or, “in the Antipodes;” or, “from the snow in Ethiopia.”

67 Or, “overpowered by the sun,” that is, whose light was lost in the superior brilliancy of the sun.

68 Or, “were generated.”

69 [Died B.C. 428 or 429.]

70 [B.C. 440.]

71 Or, “both many of the rest of the animal kingdom, and man himself.” (See Diogenes Laertius’ Lives, ii. 17.)

72 There is some confusion in the text here, but the rendering given above, though conjectural, is highly probable. One proposed emendation would make the passage run thus: “for that each body employed mind, sometimes slower, sometimes faster.”

73 [B.C. 500.]

74 The next sentence is regarded by some as not genuine.

75 [B.C. 370.]

76 Or, “when again mutually connected, that different entities were generated.” (See Diogenes Laertius’ Lives, ix. 30-32.)

77 [Died in his hundred and ninth year, B.C. 361.]

78 Or, “Audera.”

79 [Born 556 B.C.]

80 [Incredible. Cyrus the younger, fell at Cunaxa B.C. 401. Cyrus the elder was a contemporary of Xenophanes.]

81 Or, “anchovy.”

82 Or, “Melitus.”

83 The textual reading is in the present, but obviously requires a past tense.

84 Some confusion has crept into the text. The first clause of the second sentence belongs probably to the first. The sense would then run thus: “Ecphantus affirmed the impossibility of dogmatic truth, for that every one was permitted to frame definitions as he thought proper.”

85 Or, “that there is, according to this, a multitude of defined existences, and that such is infinite.”

86 Or, “a single power.”

87 [So far anticipating modern science.]

88 Or, “holds.”

89 Or, “writing.” Still Socrates may be called the father of the Greek philosophy. “From the age of Aristotle and Plato, the rise of the several Greek sects may be estimated are so many successful or abortive efforts to carry out the principles enunciated by Socrates.” – Translator’s Treatise on Metaphysics, chap. iii. p. 45.

90 This word signifies to take impressions from anything, which justifies the translation, historically correct, given above. Its literal import is “wipe clean,” and in this sense Hippolytus may intend to assert that Plato wholly appropriated the philosophy of Socrates. (See Diogenes Laertius, xi. 61, where the same word occurs.)

91 De Legibus, iv. 7 (p. 109, vol. viii. ed. Bekker).

92 Timaeus, c. xvi. (p. 277, vol. vii. ed. Bekker). The passage runs thus in the original: “Gods of gods, of whom I am Creator and father of works, which having been formed by Me, are indissoluble, through, at all events, my will.”

93 The word is literally a cup or bowl, and, being employed by Plato in a allegorical sense, is evidently intended to signify the anima mundi (soul of the world), which constituted a sort of depository for all spiritual existences in the world.

94 Or, “that there exists a necessity for the corruption of everything created.”

95 Or, “are confirmed by that (philosopher Plato), because he asserts,” etc., or, “those who assert the soul’s immortality are especially confirmed in their opinion, as many affirm the existence of a future state of retribution.”

96 Or, “that he changes different souls,” etc.

97 Or, “during.”

98 Diogenes Laertius, in describing the system of the Stoics, employs the same word in the case of their view of virtue.

99 This is supplied from the original; the passage occurs in the Phaedrus, c. lx. (p. 86, vol. i. ed. Bekker).

100 The word Adrasteia was a name for Nemesis, and means here unalterable destiny.

101 the passage occurs in Clilophon (p. 244, vol. vi. ed. Bekker).

102 The text, as given by Miller, is scarcely capable of any meaning. The translation is therefore conjectural, in accordance with alterations proposed by Schneidewin.

103 Or, “declares.”

Hippolytus (Cont.)The Refutation of All Heresies. (Cont.)

Book I. (Cont.)

Chap. XVII. — Aristotle; Duality of Principles; His Categories; His Psychology; His Ethical Doctrines; Origin of the Epithet “Peripatetic.”

Aristotle, who was a pupil of this (Plato), reduced philosophy into an art, and was distinguished rather for his proficiency in logical science, supposing as the elements of all things substance and accident; that there is one substance underlying all things, but nine accidents, — namely, quantity, quality, relation, where, when, possession, posture, action, passion; and that substance is of some such description as God, man, and each of the beings that can fall under a similar denomination. But in regard of accidents, quality is seen in, for instance, white, black; and quantity, for instance two cubits, three cubits; and relation, for instance father, son; and where, for instance at Athens, Megara; and when, for instance during the tenth Olympiad; and possession, for instance to have acquired; and action, for instance to write, and in general to evince any practical powers; and posture, for instance to lie down; and passion, for instance to be struck. He also supposes that some things have means, but that others are without means, as we have declared concerning Plato likewise. And in most points he is in agreement with Plato, except the opinion concerning soul. For Plato affirms it to be immortal, but Aristotle that it involves permanence; and after these things, that this also vanishes in the fifth body,104 which he supposes, along with the other four (elements), — viz., fire, and earth, and water, and air, — to be a something more subtle (than these), of the nature of spirit. Plato therefore says, that the only really good things are those pertaining to the soul, and that they are sufficient for happiness; whereas Aristotle introduces a threefold classification of good things, and asserts that the wise man is not perfect, unless there are present to him both the good things of the body and those extrinsic to it.105 The former are beauty, strength, vigour of the senses, soundness; while the things extrinsic (to the body) are wealth, nobility, glory, power, peace, friendship.106 And the inner qualities of the soul he classifies, as it was the opinion of Plato, under prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude. This (philosopher) also affirms that evils arise according to an opposition of the things that are good, and that they exist beneath the quarter around the moon, but reach no farther beyond the moon; and that the soul of the entire world is immortal, and that the world itself is eternal, but that (the soul) in an individual, as we have before stated, vanishes (in the fifth body). This (speculator), then holding discussions in the Lyceum, drew up from time to time his system of philosophy; but Zeno (held his school) in the porch called Poecilé. And the followers of Zeno obtained their name from the place — that is, from Stoa — (i.e., a porch), being styled Stoics; whereas Aristotle’s followers (were denominated) from their mode of employing themselves while teaching. For since they were accustomed walking about in the Lyceum to pursue their investigations, on this account they were called Peripatetics. These indeed, then, were the doctrines of Aristotle.


Chap. XVIII. — The Stoics; Their Superiority in Logic; Fatalists; Their Doctrine of Conflagrations.

The Stoics themselves also imparted growth to philosophy, in respect of a greater development of the art of syllogism, and included almost everything under definitions, both Chrysippus and Zeno being coincident in opinion on this point. And they likewise supposed God to be the one originating principle of all things, being a body of the utmost refinement, and that His providential care pervaded everything; and these speculators were positive about the existence of fate everywhere, employing some such example as the following: that just as a dog, supposing him attached to a car, if indeed he is disposed to follow, both is drawn,107 or follows voluntarily, making an exercise also of free power, in combination with necessity, that is, fate; but if he may not be disposed to follow, he will altogether be coerced to do so. And the same, of course, holds good in the case of men. For though not willing to follow, they will altogether be compelled to enter upon what has been decreed for them. (The Stoics), however, assert that the soul abides after death,108 but that it is a body, and that such is formed from the refrigeration of the surrounding atmosphere; wherefore, also, that it was called psyche (i.e., soul). And they acknowledge likewise, that there is a transition of souls from one body to another, that is, for those souls for whom this migration has been destined. And they accept the doctrine, that there will be a conflagration, a purification of this world, some say the entire of it, but others a portion, and that (the world) itself is undergoing partial destruction; and this all but corruption, and the generation from it of another world, they term purgation. And they assume the existence of all bodies, and that body does not pass through body,109 but that a refraction110 takes place, and that all things involve plenitude, and that there is no vacuum. The foregoing are the opinions of the Stoics also. 


Chap. XIX. — Epicurus; Adopts the Democritic Atomism; Denial of Divine Providence; the Principle of His Ethical System.

Epicurus, however, advanced an opinion almost contrary to all. He supposed, as originating principles of all things, atoms and vacuity.111 He considered vacuity as the place that would contain the things that will exist, and atoms the matter out of which all things could be formed; and that from the concourse of atoms both the Deity derived existence, and all the elements, and all things inherent in them, as well as animals and other (creatures); so that nothing was generated or existed, unless it be from atoms. And he affirmed that these atoms were composed of extremely small particles, in which there could not exist either a point or a sign, or any division; wherefore also he called them atoms. Acknowledging the Deity to be eternal and incorruptible, he says that God has providential care for nothing, and that there is no such thing at all as providence or fate, but that all things arc made by chance. For that the Deity reposed in the intermundane spaces, (as they) are thus styled by him; for outside the world he determined that there is a certain habitation of God, denominated “the intermundane spaces,” and that the Deity surrendered Himself to pleasure, and took His ease in the midst of supreme happiness; and that neither has He any concerns of business, nor does He devote His attention to them. As a consequence on these opinions, he also propounded his theory concerning wise men, asserting that the end of wisdom is pleasure. Different persons, however, received the term “pleasure” in different acceptations; for some (among the Gentiles112 understood) the passions, but others the satisfaction resulting from virtue. And he concluded that the souls of men are dissolved along with their bodies, just as also they were produced along with them, for that they are blood, and that when this has gone forth or been altered, the entire man perishes; and in keeping with this tenet, (Epicurus maintained) that there are neither trials in Hades, nor tribunals of justice; so that whatsoever any one may commit in this life, that, provided he may escape detection, he is altogether beyond any liability of trial (for it in a future state). In this way, then, Epicurus also formed his opinions.


Chap. XX. — The Academics; Difference of Opinion Among Them.

And another opinion of the philosophers was called that of the Academics,113 on account of those holding their discussions in the Academy, of whom the founder Pyrrho, from whom they were called Pyrrhonean philosophers, first introduced the notion of the incomprehensibility of all things, so as to (be ready to) attempt an argument on either side of a question, but not to assert anything for certain; for that there is nothing of things intelligible or sensible true, but that they appear to men to be so; and that all substance is in a state of flux and change, and never continues in the same (condition). Some followers, then, of the Academics say that one ought not to declare an opinion on the principle of anything, but simply making the attempt to give it up; whereas others subjoined the formulary “not rather”114 (this than that), saying that the fire is not rather fire than anything else. But they did not declare what this is, but what sort it is.115


Chap. XXI. — The Brachmans; Their Mode of Life; Ideas of Deity; Different Sorts Of; Their Ethical Notions.

But there is also with the Indians a sect composed of those philosophizing among the Brachmans. They spend a contented existence, abstain both from living creatures and all cooked food, being satisfied with fruits; and not gathering these from the trees, but carrying off those that have fallen to the earth. They subsist upon them, drinking the water of the river Tazabena.116 But they pass their life naked, affirming that the body has been constituted a covering to the soul by the Deity. These affirm that God is light, not such as one sees, nor such as the sun and fire; but to them the Deity is discourse, not that which finds expression in articulate sounds, but that of the knowledge through which the secret mysteries of nature117 are perceived by the wise. And this light which they say is discourse, their god, they assert that the Brachmans only know on account of their alone rejecting all vanity of opinion which is the sours ultimate covering.118 These despise death, and always in their own peculiar language119 call God by the name which we have mentioned previously, and they send up hymns (to him). But neither are there women among them, nor do they beget children. But they who aim at a life similar to these, after they have crossed over to the country on the opposite side of the river, continue to reside there, returning no more; and these also are called Brachmans. But they do not pass their life similarly, for there are also in the place women, of whom those that dwell there are born, and in turn beget children. And this discourse which120 they name God they assert to be corporeal, and enveloped in a body outside himself, just as if one were wearing a sheep’s skin, but that on divesting himself of body that he would appear clear to the eye. But the Brachmans say that there is a conflict in the body that surrounds them, (and they consider that the body is for them full of conflicts);121 in opposition to which, as if marshalled for battle against enemies, they contend, as we have already explained. And they say that all men are captive to their own congenital struggles, viz., sensuality and inchastity, gluttony, anger, joy, sorrow, concupiscence, and such like. And he who has reared a trophy over these, alone goes to God; wherefore the Brachmans deify Dandamis, to whom Alexander the Macedonian paid a visit, as one who had proved victorious in the bodily conflict. But they bear down on Calanus as having profanely withdrawn from their philosophy. But the Brachmans, putting off the body, like fishes jumping out of water into the pure air, behold the sun.


Chap. XXII. — The Druids; Progenitors of Their System.

And the Celtic Druids investigated to the very highest point the Pythagorean philosophy, after Zamolxis,122 by birth a Thracian,123 a servant of Pythagoras, became to them the originator of this discipline. Now after the death of Pythagoras, Zamolxis, repairing thither, became to them the originator of this philosophy. The Celts esteem these as prophets and seers, on account of their foretelling to them certain (events), from calculations and numbers by the Pythagorean art; on the methods of which very art also we shall not keep silence, since also from these some have presumed to introduce heresies; but the Druids resort to magical rites likewise.


Chap. XXIII. — Hesiod; the Nine Muses; the Hesiodic Cosmogony; the Ancient Speculators, Materialists; Derivative Character of the Heresies from Heathen Philosophy.

But Hesiod the poet asserts himself also that he thus heard from the Muses concerning nature, and that the Muses are the daughters of Jupiter. For when for nine nights and days together, Jupiter, through excess of passion, had uninterruptedly lain with Mnemosyne, that Mnemosyne conceived in one womb those nine Muses, becoming pregnant with one during each night. Having then summoned the nine Muses from Pieria, that is, Olympus, he exhorted them to undergo instruction: — 

“How first both gods and earth were made,124

And rivers, and boundless deep, and ocean’s surge,

And glittering stars, and spacious heaven above;

How they grasped the crown and shared the glory,

And how at first they held the many-valed Olympus.

These (truths), ye Muses, tell me of, saith he,

From first, and next which of them first arose.

Chaos, no doubt, the very first, arose; but next

Wide-stretching Earth, ever the throne secure of all

Immortals, who hold the peaks of white Olympus;

And breezy Tartarus in wide earth’s recess;

And Love, who is most beauteous of the gods immortal,

Chasing care away from all the gods and men,

Quells in breasts the mind and counsel sage.

But Erebus from Chaos and gloomy Night arose;

And, in turn, from Night both Air and Day were born;

But primal Earth, equal to self in sooth begot

The stormy sky to veil it round on every side,

Ever to be for happy gods a throne secure.

And forth she brought the towering hills, the pleasant haunts

Of nymphs who dwell throughout the woody heights.

And also barren Sea begat the surge-tossed

Flood, apart from luscious Love; but next

Embracing Heaven, she Ocean bred with eddies deep,

And Caeus, and Crius, and Hyperian, and Iapetus,

And Thia, and Rhea, and Themis, and Mnemosyne,

And gold-crowned Phoebe, and comely Tethys.

But after these was born last125 the wiley Cronus,

Fiercest of sons; but he abhorred his blooming sire,

And in turn the Cyclops bred, who owned a savage breast.”

And all the rest of the giants from Cronus, Hesiod enumerates, and somewhere afterwards that Jupiter was born of Rhea. All these, then, made the foregoing statements in their doctrine regarding both the nature and generation of the universe. But all, sinking below what is divine, busied themselves concerning the substance of existing things,126 being astonished at the magnitude of creation, and supposing that it constituted the Deity, each speculator selecting in preference a different portion of the world; failing, however, to discern the God and maker of these.

The opinions, therefore, of those who have attempted to frame systems of philosophy among the Greeks, I consider that we have sufficiently explained; and from these the heretics, taking occasion, have endeavoured to establish the tenets that will be after a short time declared. It seems, however, expedient, that first explaining the mystical rites and whatever imaginary doctrines some have laboriously framed concerning the stars, or magnitudes, to declare these; for heretics likewise, taking occasion from them, are considered by the multitude to utter prodigies. Next in order we shall elucidate the feeble opinions advanced by these.


Books II. and III. Are Awanting. 





104 Or, “the fifth body, in which it is supposed to be, along with the other four (elements).” or, “the fifth body, which is supposed to be (composed) of the other four.”

105 Hippolytus expresses himself in the words of Stobaeus, who says (Eclog., ii. 274): “And among reputed external blessings are nobility, wealth, glory, peace, freedom, friendship.”

106 Or, “glory, the confirmed power of friends.”

107 One of the mss elucidates the simile in the text thus: “But he is not disposed, there is absolutely a necessity for his being drawn along. And in like manner men, if they do not follow fate, seem to be free agents, though the reason of (their being) fate holds assuredly valid. If, however, they do not wish to follow, they will absolutely be coerced to enter upon what has been fore-ordained.”

108 Or, “is immortal.” Diogenes Laertius (book vii.) notices, in his section on Zeno, as part of the stoic doctrine, “that the soul abides after death, but that it is perishable.”

109 Or, “through what is incorporeal;” that is, through what is void or empty space.

110 Or, “resurrection;” or, “resistance;” that is, a resisting medium.

111 The atomic theory is, as already mentioned by Hippolytus, of more ancient date than Epicurus’ age, being first broached by Leucippus and Democritus. The fact, however, has, as Cudworth argues, been frequently argued by those who trace the doctrine to no older source than the fonder of the Epicurean philosophy.

112 “Among the Gentiles” seems a mistake. One reading proposed is, “some (intended) our sensuous passions.” The words “among the Gentiles,” the French commentator, the Abbe Cruice, is of opinion, were added by Christian hands, in order to draw a contrast between the virtuous Christian and the vicious pagan.

113 See Diogenes Laertius’ Lives, x. 63 (Bohn’s Library); Plutarch. De Placitis Philosophorum, iv. 3.

114 Diogenes Laertius, Lives, ix. 75; Sextus Empiricus, Hypotyp., i. 188-192.

115 This is what the Academics called “the phenomenon” (Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hyp., i. 19-22).

116 This is a mistake in the manuscript for Ganges, according to Roeper.

117 Or, “knowledge.” (See Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., i., xv., lxxii.; Eusebius, Praeparat. Evang. ix. 6.)

118 Athenaeus (Deipn., book ix.) ascribes this opinion to Plate, who, he tells us, “asserted that the soul was so constituted, that it should reject its last covering, that of vanity.”

119 Or, “they name light their god;” or, “they celebrate in their own peculiar language God, whom they name,” etc.

120 The text here would seem rather confused. The above translation agrees with Criuce’s and Schneidewin’s Latin version. I have doubts about its correctness, however, and would render it thus: “… enveloped in a body extrinsic to the divine essence, just as if one wore a sheepskin covering; but that his body, on being divested of this (covering), would appear visible to the naked eye.” Or, “This discourse whom they name God they affirm to be incorporeal, but enveloped in a body outside himself (or his own body) (just as if one carried a covering of sheepskin to have it seen); but having stripped off the body in which he is enveloped, that he no longer appears visible to the naked eye,” (Roeper.) I am not very confident that this exactly conveys the meaning of Roeper’s somewhat obscure Greek paraphrase.

121 The parenthetical words Roeper considers introduced into the text from a marginal note.

122 Or “Zamalxis,” or “Zametris” (see Menagius on Diogenes Laertius. viii. 2).

123 Or, “of Thracian origin.” The words are omitted in two mss.

124 There are several verbal differences from the original in Hippolytus’ version. These may be seen on comparing it with Hesiod’s own text. The particular place which Hesiod occupies in the history of philosophy is pointed out by Aristotle in his Metaphysics. The Stagyrite detects in the Hesiodic cosmogony, in the principle of “love,” the dawn of a recognition of the necessity of an efficient cause to account for the phenomena of nature. It was Aristotle himself, however, who built up the science of causation; and in this respect humanity owes that extraordinary man a deep debt of gratitude.

125 Or “youngest” or “most vigorous.” This is Hesiod’s word, which signifies literally, “fittest for bearing arms” (for service, as we say).

126 “The majority of those who first formed systems of philosophy, consider those that subsist in a form of matter, to be alone the principle of all things.” — Aristotle’s Metaphysics, book i. c. iii. p. 13 (Bohn’s ed.).

Hippolytus (Cont.)The Refutation of All Heresies. (Cont.)

Book IV.

Chap. I. – System of the Astrologers; Sidereal Influence; Configuration of the Stars.

But in each zodiacal sign they call limits of the stars those in which each of the stars, from any one quarter to another, can exert the greatest amount of influence; in regard of which there is among them, according to their writings, no mere casual divergency of opinion. But they say that the stars are attended as if by satellites when they are in the midst of other stars, in continuity with the signs of the Zodiac; as if, when any particular star may have occupied the first portions of the same sign of the Zodiac, and another the last, and another those portions in the middle, that which is in the middle is said to be guarded by those holding the portions at the extremities. And they are said to look upon one another, and to be in conjunction with one another, as if appearing in a triangular or quadrangular figure. They assume, therefore, the figure of a triangle, and look upon one another, which have an intervening distance1 extending for three zodiacal signs; and they assume the figure of a square those which have an interval extending for two signs. But as the underlying parts sympathize with the head, and the head with the underlying parts,2 so also things terrestrial with superlunar objects.3 But there is of these a certain difference and want of sympathy, so that they do not involve one and the same point of juncture.


Chap. II. – Doctrines Concerning Aeons; the Chaldean Astrology; Heresy Derivable from It.

Employing these (as analogies), Euphrates the Peratic, and Acembes4 the Carystian, and the rest of the crowd of these (speculators), imposing names different from the doctrine of the truth, speak of a sedition of Aeons, and of a revolt of good powers over to evil (ones), and of the concord of good with wicked (Aeons), calling them Taparchai and Proastioi, and very many other names. But the entire of this heresy, as attempted by them, I shall explain and refute when we come to treat of the subject of these (Aeons). But now, lest any one suppose the opinions propounded by the Chaldeans respecting astrological doctrine to be trustworthy and secure, we shall not hesitate to furnish a brief refutation respecting these, establishing that the futile art is calculated both to deceive and blind the soul indulging in vain expectations, rather than to profit it. And we urge our case with these, not according to any experience of the art, but from knowledge based on practical principles. Those who have cultivated the art, becoming disciples of the Chaldeans, and communicating mysteries as if strange and astonishing to men, having changed the names (merely), have from this source concocted their heresy. But since, estimating the astrological art as a powerful one, and availing themselves of the testimonies adduced by its patrons, they wish to gain reliance for their own attempted conclusions, we shall at present, as it has seemed expedient, prove the astrological art to be untenable, as our intention next is to invalidate also the Peratic system, as a branch growing out of an unstable root.


Chap. III. – The Horoscope the Foundation of Astrology; Indiscoverability of the Horoscope; Therefore the Futility of the Chaldean Art.

The originating principle,5 and, as it were, foundation, of the entire art, is fixing6 the horoscope.7 

For from this are derived the rest of the cardinal points, as well as the declinations and ascensions, the triangles and squares, and the configurations of the stars in accordance with these; and from all these the predictions are taken. Whence, if the horoscope be removed, it necessarily follows that neither any celestial object is recognisable in the meridian, or at the horizon, or in the point of the heavens opposite the meridian; but if these be not comprehended, the entire system of the Chaldeans vanishes along with (them). But that the sign of the horoscope is indiscoverable by them, we may show by a variety of arguments. For in order that this (horoscope) may be found, it is first requisite that the (time of) birth of the person falling under inspection should be firmly fixed; and secondly, that the horoscope which is to signify this should be infallible; and thirdly, that the ascension8 of the zodiacal sign should be observed with accuracy. For from9 (the moment) of birth10 the ascension of the zodiacal sign rising in the heaven should be closely watched,11 since the Chaldeans, determining (from this) the horoscope, frame the configuration of the stars in accordance with the ascension (of the sign); and they, term this – disposition, in accordance with which they devise their predictions. But neither is it possible to take the birth of persons, falling under consideration, as I shall explain, nor is the horoscope infallible, nor is the rising zodiacal sign apprehended with accuracy.

How it is, then, that the system of the Chaldeans12 is unstable, let us now declare. Having, then, previously marked it out for investigation, they draw the birth of persons falling under consideration from, unquestionably, the depositing of the seed, and (from) conception or from parturition. And if one will attempt to take (the horoscope) from conception, the accurate account of this is incomprehensible, the time (occupied) passing quickly, and naturally (so). For we are not able to say whether conception takes place upon the transference13 of the seed or not. For this can happen even as quick as thought, just also as leaven, when put into heated jars, immediately is reduced to a glutinous state. But conception can also (take place) after a lapse of duration. For there being an interval from the mouth of the womb to the fundament, where physicians14 say conceptions take place, it is altogether the nature of the seed deposited to occupy some time in traversing15 this interval. The Chaldeans, therefore, being ignorant of the quantity of duration to a nicety, never will comprehend the (moment of) conception; the seed at one time being injected straight forward, and falling at one spot upon actual parts of the womb well disposed for conception, and at another time dropping into it dispersedly, and being collected into one place by uterine energies. Now, while these matters are unknown, (namely), as to when the first takes place, and when the second, and how much time is spent in that particular conception, and how much in this; while, I say, ignorance on these points prevails on the part of these (astrologers), an accurate comprehension of conception is put out of the question.16 And if, as some natural philosophers have asserted, the seed, remaining stationary first, and undergoing alteration in the womb, then enters the (womb’s) opened blood-vessels, as the seeds of the earth17 sink into the ground; from this it will follow, that those who are not acquainted with the quantity of time occupied by the change, will not be aware of the precise moment of conception either. And, moreover, as women18 differ from one another in the other parts of the body, both as regards energy and in other respects, so also (it is reasonable to suppose that they differ from one another) in respect of energy of womb, some conceiving quicker, and others slower. And this is not strange, since also women, when themselves compared with themselves, at times are observed having a strong disposition towards conception, but at times with no such tendency. And when this is so, it is impossible to say with accuracy when the deposited seed coalesces, in order that from this time the Chaldeans may fix the horoscope of the birth.


Chap. IV. – Impossibility of Fixing the Horoscope; Failure of an Attempt to Do This at the Period of Birth.

For this reason it is impossible to fix the horoscope from the (period of) conception. But neither can this be done from (that of) birth. For, in the first place, there exists the difficulty as to when it can be declared that there is a birth; whether it is when the foetus begins to incline towards the orifice,19 or when it may project a little, or when it may be borne to the ground. Neither is it in each of these cases possible to comprehend the precise moment of parturition,20 or to define the time. For also on account of disposition of soul, and on account of suitableness of body, and on account of choice of the parts, and on account of experience in the midwife, and other endless causes, the time is not the same at which the foetus inclines towards the orifice, when the membranes are ruptured, or when it projects a little, or is deposited on the ground; but the period is different in the case of different individuals. And when the Chaldeans are not able definitely and accurately to calculate this, they will fail, as they ought, to determine the period of emergence.

That, then, the Chaldeans profess to be acquainted with the horoscope at the periods of birth,20 but in reality do not know it, is evident from these considerations. But that neither is their horoscope infallible, it is easy to conclude. For when they allege that the person sitting beside the woman in travail at the time of parturition gives, by striking a metallic rim, a sign to the Chaldean, who from an elevated place is contemplating the stars, and he, looking towards heaven, marks down the rising zodiacal sign; in the first place, we shall prove to them, that when parturition happens indefinitely, as we have shown a little before, neither is it easy21 to signify this (birth) by striking the metallic rim. However, grant that the birth is comprehensible, yet neither is it possible to signify this at the exact time; for as the noise of the metallic plate is capable of being divided by a longer time and one protracted, in reference to perception, it happens that the sound is carried to the height (with proportionate delay). And the following proof may be observed in the case of those felling timber at a distance. For a sufficiently long time after the descent of the axe, the sound of the stroke is heard, so that it takes a longer time to reach the listener. And for this reason, therefore, it is not possible for the Chaldeans accurately to take the time of the rising zodiacal sign, and consequently the time when one can make the horoscope with truth. And not only does more time seem to elapse after parturition, when he who is sitting beside the woman in labour strikes the metallic plate, and next after the sound reaches the listener, that is, the person who has gone up to the elevated position; but also, while he is glancing around and looking to ascertain in which of the zodiacal signs is the moon, and in which appears each of the rest of the stars, it necessarily follows that there is a different position in regard of the stars, the motion22 of the pole whiffing them on with incalculable velocity, before what is seen in the heavens23 is carefully adjusted to the moment when the person is born.


Chap. V. – Another Method of Fixing the Horoscope at Birth; Equally Futile; Use of the Clepsydra in Astrology; the Predictions of the Chaldeans Not Verified.

In this way, the art practised by the Chaldeans will be shown to be unstable. Should any one, however, allege that, by questions put to him who inquires from the Chaldeans,24 the birth can be ascertained, not even by this plan is it possible to arrive at the precise period. For if, supposing any such attention on their part in reference to their art to be on record, even these do not attain – as we have proved – unto accuracy either, how, we ask, can an unsophisticated individual comprehend precisely the time of parturition, in order that the Chaldean acquiring the requisite information from this person may set25 the horoscope correctly? But neither from the appearance of the horizon will the rising star seem the same everywhere; but in one place its declination will be supposed to be the horoscope, and in another the ascension (will be thought) the horoscope, according as the places come into view, being either lower or higher. Wherefore, also, from this quarter an accurate prediction will not appear, since many may be born throughout the entire world at the same hour, each from a different direction observing the stars.

But the supposed comprehension (of the period of parturition) by means of clepsydras26 is likewise futile. For the contents of the jar will not flow out in the same time when it is full as when it is half empty; yet, according to their own account, the pole itself by a single impulse is whiffed along at an equable velocity. If, however, evading the argument,27 they should affirm that they do not take the time precisely, but as it happens in any particular latitude,28 they will be refuted almost by the sidereal influences themselves. For those who have been born at the same time do not spend the same life, but some, for example, have been made kings, and others have grown old in fetters. 

There has been born none equal, at all events to Alexander the Macedonian, though many were brought forth along with him throughout the earth; (and) none equal to the philosopher Plato. Wherefore the Chaldean, examining the time of the birth in any particular latitude, will not be able to say accurately, whether a person born at this time will be prosperous. Many, I take it, born at this time, have been unfortunate, so that the similarity according to dispositions is futile.

Having, then, by different reasons and various methods, refuted the ineffectual mode of examination adopted by the Chaldeans, neither shall we omit this, namely, to show that their predictions will eventuate in inexplicable difficulties. For if, as the mathematicians assert, it is necessary that one born under the barb of Sagittarius’ arrow should meet with a violent death, how was it that so many myriads of the Barbarians that fought with the Greeks at Marathon or Salamis29 were simultaneously slaughtered? For unquestionably there was not the same horoscope in the case, at all events, of them all. And again, it is said that one born under the urn of Aquarius will suffer shipwreck: (yet) how is it that so many30 of the Greeks that returned from Troy were overwhelmed in the deep around the indented shores of Euboea? For it is incredible that all, distant from one another by a long interval of duration, should have been born under the urn of Aquarius. For it is not reasonable to say, that frequently, for one whose fate it was to be destroyed in the sea, all who were with him in the same vessel should perish. For why should the doom of this man subdue the (destinies) of all? Nay, but why, on account of one for whom it was allotted to die on land, should not all be preserved?


Chap. VI. – Zodiacal Influence; Origin of Sidereal Names.

But since also they frame an account concerning the action of the zodiacal signs, to which they say the creatures that are procreated are assimilated,31 neither shall we omit this: as, for instance, that one born in Leo will De brave; and that one born in Virgo will have long straight hair,32 be of a fair complexion, childless, modest. These statements, however, and others similar to them, are rather deserving of laughter than serious consideration. For, according to them, it is possible for no Ethiopian to be born in Virgo; otherwise he would allow that such a one is white, with long straight hair and the rest. But I am rather of opinion,33 that the ancients imposed the names of received animals upon certain specified stars, for the purpose of knowing them better, not from any similarity of nature; for what have the seven stars, distant one from another, in common with a bear, or the five stars with the head of a dragon? – in regard of which Aratus34 says: – 

“But two his temples, and two his eyes, and one beneath

Reaches the end of the huge monster’s law.”


Chap. VII. – Practical Absurdity of the Chaldaic Art; Development of the Art.

In this manner also, that these points are not deserving so much labour, is evident to those who prefer to think correctly, and do not attend to the bombast of the Chaldeans, who consign monarchs to utter obscurity, by perfecting cowardice35 in them, and rouse private individuals to dare great exploits. But if any one, surrendering himself to evil, is guilty of delinquency, he who has been thus deceived does not become a teacher to all whom the Chaldeans are disposed to mislead by their mistakes. (Far from it); (these astrologers) impel the minds (of their dupes, as they would have them), into endless perturbation, (when) they affirm that a configuration of the same stars could not return to a similar position, otherwise than by the renewal of the Great Year, through a space of seven thousand seven hundred and seventy and seven years.36 How then, I ask, will human observation for one birth be able to harmonize with so many ages; and this not once, (but oftentimes, when a destruction of the world, as some have stated, would intercept the progress of this Great Year; or a terrestrial convulsion, though partial, would utterly break the continuity of the historical tradition)?37 The Chaldaic art must necessarily be refuted by a greater number of arguments, although we have been reminding (our readers) of it on account of other circumstances, not peculiarly on account of the art itself.

Since, however, we have determined to omit none of the opinions advanced by Gentile philosophers, on account of the notorious knavery of the heretics, let us see what they also say who have attempted to propound doctrines concerning magnitudes, – who, observing the fruitless labour of the majority (of speculators), where each after a different fashion coined his own falsehoods and attained celebrity, have ventured to make some greater assertion, in order that they might be highly magnified by those who mightily extol their contemptible lies. These suppose the existence of circles, and measures, and triangles, and squares, both in twofold and threefold array. Their argumentation, however, in regard of this matter, is extensive, yet it is not necessary in reference to the subject which we have taken in hand.


Chap. VIII. – Prodigies of the Astrologers; System of the Astronomers; Chaldean Doctrine of Circles; Distances of the Heavenly Bodies.

I reckon it then sufficient to declare the prodigies38 detailed by these men. Wherefore, employing condensed accounts of what they affirm, I shall turn my attention to the other points (that remain to be considered). Now they make the following statements.39 The Creator communicated pre-eminent power to the orbital motion of the identical and similar (circle), for He permitted the revolution of it to be one and indivisible; but after dividing this internally into six parts, (and thus having formed) seven unequal circles, according to each interval of a twofold and threefold dimension, He commanded, since there were three of each, that the circles should travel in orbits contrary to one another, three indeed (out of the aggregate of seven) being whirled along with equal velocity, and four of them with a speed dissimilar to each other and to the remaining three, yet (all) according to a definite principle. For he affirms that the mastery was communicated to the orbital motion of the same (circle), not only since it embraces the motion of the other, that, is, the erratic stars, but because also it possesses so great mastery, that is, so great power, that even it leads round, along with itself, by a peculiar strength of its own, those heavenly bodies – that is, the erratic stars – that are whirled along in contrary directions from west to east, and, in like manner, from east to west.

And he asserts that this motion was allowed to be one and indivisible, in the first place, inasmuch as the revolutions of all the fixed stars were accomplished in equal periods of time, and were not distinguished according to greater or less portions of duration. In the next place, they all present the same phase as that which belongs to the outermost motion; whereas the erratic stars have been distributed into greater and varying periods for the accomplishment of their movements, and into unequal distances from earth. And he asserts that the motion in six parts of the other has been distributed probably into seven circles. For as many as are sections of each (circle) – I allude to monads of the sections40 – become segments; for example, if the division be by one section, there will be two segments; if by two, three segments; and so, if anything be cut into six parts, there will be seven segments. And he says that the distances of these are alternately arranged both in double and triple order, there being three of each, – a principle which, he has attempted to prove, holds good of the composition of the soul likewise, as depending upon the seven numbers. For among them there are from the monad three double (numbers), viz., 2, 4, 8, and three triple ones, viz., 3, 9, 27. But the diameter of Earth is 80, 108 stadii; and the perimeter of Earth, 250,543 stadii; and the distance also from the surface of the Earth to the lunar circle, Aristarchus the Samian computes at 8,000,178 stadii, but Apollonius 5,000,000, whereas Archimedes computes41 it at 5,544,1300. And from the lunar to solar circle, (according to the last authority,) are 50,262,065 stadii; and from this to the circle of Venus, 20,272,065 stadii; and from this to the circle of Mercury, 50,817,165 stadii; and from this to the circle of Mars, 40,541,108 stadii; and from this to the circle of Jupiter, 20,275,065 stadii; and from this to the circle of Saturn, 40,372,065 stadii; and from this to the Zodiac and the furthest periphery, 20,082,005 stadii.42


Chap. IX. – Further Astronomic Calculations.

The mutual distances of the circles and spheres, and the depths, are rendered by Archimedes. He takes the perimeter of the Zodiac at 447,310,000 stadii; so that it follows that a straight line from the centre of the Earth to the most outward superficies would be the sixth of the aforesaid number, but that the line from the surface of the Earth on which we tread to the Zodiac would be a sixth of the aforesaid number, less by four myriads of stadii, which is the distance from the centre of the Earth to its surface. And from the circle of Saturn to the Earth he says the distance is 2,226,912,711 stadii; and from the circle of Jupiter to Earth, 502,770,646 stadii; and from the circle of Mars to Earth, 132,418,581. From the Sun to Earth, 121,604,454; and from Mercury to the Earth, 526,882,259; and from Venus to Earth, 50,815,160.


Chap. X. – Theory of Stellar Motion and Distance in Accordance with Harmony.

Concerning the Moon, however, a statement has been previously made. The distances and profundities of the spheres Archimedes thus renders; but a different declaration regarding them has been made by Hipparchus; and a different one still by Apollonius the mathematician. It is sufficient, however, for us, following the Platonic opinion, to suppose twofold and threefold distances from one another of the erratic stars; for the doctrine is thus preserved of the composition of the universe out of harmony, on concordant principles43 in keeping with these distances. The numbers, however, advanced by Archimedes,44 and the accounts rendered by the rest concerning the distances, if they be not on principles of symphony, – that is, the double and triple (distances) spoken of by Plato, – but are discovered independent of harmonies, would not preserve the doctrine of the formation of the universe according to harmony. For it is neither credible nor possible that the distances of these should be both contrary to some reasonable plan, and independent of harmonious and proportional principles, except perhaps only the Moon, on account of wanings and the shadow of the Earth, in regard also of the distance of which alone – that is, the lunar (planet) from earth – one may trust Archimedes. It will, however, be easy for those who, according to the Platonic dogma itself, adopt this distance to comprehend by numerical calculation (intervals) according to what is double and triple, as Plato requires, and the rest of the distances. If, then, according to Archimedes, the Moon is distant from the surface of the Earth 5,544,130 stadii, by increasing these numbers double and triple, (it will be) easy to find also the distances of the rest, as if subtracting one part of the number of stadii which the Moon is distant from the Earth.

But because the rest of the numbers – those alleged by Archimedes concerning the distance of the erratic stars – are not based on principles of concord, it is easy to understand – that is, for those who attend to the matter – how the numbers are mutually related, and on what principles they depend. That, however, they should not be in harmony and symphony – I mean those that are parts of the world which consists according to harmony – this is impossible. Since, therefore, the first number which the Moon is distant from the earth is 5,544,130, the second number which the Sun is distant from the Moon being 50,272,065, subsists by a greater computation than ninefold. But the higher number in reference to this, being 20,272,065, is (comprised) in a greater computation than half. The number, however, superior to this, which is 50,817,165, is contained in a greater computation than half. But the number superior to this, which is 40,541,108, is contained in a less computation than two-fifths. But the number superior to this, which is 20,275,065, is contained in a greater computation than half. The final number, however, which is 40,372,065, is comprised in a less computation than double.


Chap. XI. – Theory of the Size of the Heavenly Bodies in Accordance with Numerical Harmonies.

These (numerical) relations, therefore, the greater than ninefold, and less than half, and greater than double, and less than two-fifths, and greater than half, and less than double, are beyond all symphonies, from which not any proportionate or harmonic system could be produced. But the whole world, and the parts of it, are in all respects similarly framed in conformity with proportion and harmony. The proportionate and harmonic relations, however, are preserved – as we have previously stated – by double and triple intervals. If, therefore, we consider Archimedes reliable in the case of only the first distance, that from the Moon to the Earth, it is easy also to find the rest (of the intervals), by multiplying (them) by double and treble. Let then the distance, according to Archimedes, from Earth to Moon be 5,544,130 stadii; there will therefore be the double number of this of stadii which the Sun is distant from the Moon, viz. 11,088,260. But the Sun is distant from the Earth 16,632,390 stadii; and Venus is likewise distant from the Sun 16,632,390 stadii, but from the Earth 33,264,780 stadii; and Mercury is distant from Venus 22,176,520 stadii, but from Earth 55,441,300 stadii; and Mars is distant from Mercury 49,897, 170 stadii, and from Earth 105,338,470 stadii; and Jupiter is distant from Mars 44,353,040 stadii, but from Earth 149,691,510 stadii; Saturn is distant from Jupiter 149,691,510 stadii, but from Earth 299,383,020 stadii.


 Chap. XII. – Waste of Mental Energy in the Systems of the Astrologers.

Who will not feel astonishment at the exertion of so much deep thought with so much toil? This Ptolemy, however – a careful investigator of these matters – does not seem to me to be useless; but only this grieves (one), that being recently born, he could not be of service to the sons of the giants, who, being ignorant of these measures, and supposing that the heights of heaven were near, endeavoured in vain to construct a tower. And so, if at that time he were present to explain to them these measures, they would not have made the daring attempt ineffectually. But if any one profess not to have confidence in this (astronomer’s calculations), let him by measuring be persuaded (of their accuracy); for in reference to those incredulous on the point, one cannot have a more manifest proof than this. O, pride of vain-toiling soul, and incredible belief, that Ptolemy should be considered pre-eminently wise among those who have cultivated similar wisdom!


Chap. XIII. – Mention of the Heretic Colarbasus; Alliance Between Heresy and the Pythagorean Philosophy.

Certain, adhering partly to these, as if having propounded great conclusions, and supposed things worthy of reason, have framed enormous and endless heresies; and one of these is Colarbasus,45 who attempts to explain religion by measures and numbers. And others there are (who act) in like manner, whose tenets we shall explain when we commence to speak of what concerns those who give heed to Pythagorean calculation as possible; and uttering vain prophecies, hastily assume46 as secure the philosophy by numbers and elements. Now certain (speculators), appropriating47 similar reasonings from these, deceive unsophisticated individuals, alleging themselves endued with foresight;48 sometimes, after uttering many predictions, happening on a single fulfilment, and not abashed by many failures, but making their boast in this one. Neither shall I pass over the witless philosophy of these men; but, after explaining it, I shall prove that those who attempt to form a system of religion out of these (aforesaid elements), are disciples of a school49 weak and full of knavery.


Chap. XIV. – System of the Arithmeticians; Predictions Through Calculations; Numerical Roots; Transference of These Doctrines to Letters; Examples in Particular Names; Different Methods of Calculation; Prescience Possible by These.

Those, then, who suppose that they prophesy by means of calculations and numbers,50 and elements and names, constitute the origin of their attempted system to be as follows. They affirm that there is a root of each of the numbers; in the case of thousands, so many monads as there are thousands: for example, the root of six thousand, six monads; of seven thousand, seven monads; of eight thousand, eight monads; and in the case of the rest, in like manner, according to the same (proportion). And in the case of hundreds, as many hundreds as there are, so many monads are the root of them: for instance, of seven hundred there are seven hundreds; the root of these is seven monads: of six hundred, six hundreds; the root of these, six monads. And it is similar respecting decades: for of eighty (the root is) eight monads; and of sixty, six monads; of forty, four monads; of ten, one monad. And in the case of monads, the monads themselves are a root: for instance, of nine, nine; of eight, eight; of seven, seven. In this way, also, ought we therefore to act in the case of the elements (of words), for each letter has been arranged according to a certain number: for instance, the letter n according to fifty monads; but of fifty monads five is the root, and the root of the letter n is (therefore) five. Grant that from some name we take certain roots of it. For instance, (from) the name Agamemnon, there is of the a, one monad; and of the g, three monads; and of the other a, one monad; of the m, four monads; of the e, five monads; of the m, four monads; of the n, five monads; of the (long) o, eight monads; of the n, five monads; which, brought together into one series, will be 1, 3, 1, 4, 5, 4, 5, 8, 5; and these added together make up 36 monads. Again, they take the roots of these, and they become three in the case of the number thirty, but actually six in the case of the number six. The three and the six, then, added together, constitute nine; but the root of nine is nine: therefore the name Agamemnon terminates in the root nine.

Let us do the same with another name – Hector. The name (H)ector has five letters – e, and k, and t, and o, and r. The roots of these are 5, 2, 3, 8, 1; and these added together make up 19 monads. Again, of the ten the root is one; and of the nine, nine; which added together make up ten: the root of ten is a monad. The name Hector, therefore, when made the subject of computation, has formed a root, namely a monad. It would, however, be easier51 to conduct the calculation thus: Divide the ascertained roots from the letters – as now in the case of the name Hector we have found nineteen monads – into nine, and treat what remains over as roots. For example, if I divide 19 into 9, the remainder is 1, for 9 times 2 are 18, and there is a remaining monad: for if I subtract 18 from 19, there is a remaining monad; so that the root of the name Hector will be a monad. Again, of the name Patroclus these numbers are roots: 8, 1, 3, 1, 7, 2, 3, 7, 2; added together, they make up 34 monads. And of these the remainder is 7 monads: of the 30, 3; and of the 4, 4. Seven monads, therefore, are the root of the name Patroclus.

Those, then, that conduct their calculations according to the rule of the number nine,52 take the ninth part of the aggregate number of roots, and define what is left over as the sum of the roots. They, on the other hand, (who conduct their calculations) according to the rule of the number seven, take the seventh (part of the aggregate number of roots); for example, in the case of the name Patroclus, the aggregate in the matter of roots is 34 monads. This divided into seven parts makes four, which (multiplied into each other) are 28. There are six remaining monads; (so that a person using this method) says, according to the rule of the number seven, that six monads are the root of the name Patroclus. If, however, it be 43, (six) taken seven times,53 he says, are 42, for seven times six are 42, and one is the remainder. A monad, therefore, is the root of the number 43, according to the rule of the number seven. But one ought to observe if the assumed number, when divided, has no remainder; for example, if from any name, after having added together the roots, I find, to give an instance, 36 monads. But the number 36 divided into nine makes exactly 4 enneads; for nine times 4 are 36, and nothing is over. It is evident, then, that the actual root is 9. And again, dividing the number forty-five, we find nine54 and nothing over – for nine times five are forty-five, and nothing remains; (wherefore) in the case of such they assert the root itself to be nine. And as regards the number seven, the case is similar: if, for example we divide 28 into 7, we have nothing over; for seven times four are 28, and nothing remains; (wherefore) they say that seven is the root. But when one computes names, and finds the same letter occurring twice, he calculates it once; for instance, the name Patroclus has the pa twice,55 and the o twice: they therefore calculate the a once and the o once. According to this, then, the roots will be 8, 1, 3, 1, 7, 2, 3, 2, and added together they make 27 monads; and the root of the name will be, according to the rule of the number nine, nine itself, but according to the rule of the number seven, six.

In like manner, (the name) Sarpedon, when made the subject of calculation, produces as a root, according to the rule of the number nine, two monads. Patroclus, however, produces nine monads; Patroclus gains the victory. For when one number is uneven, but the other even, the uneven number, if it is larger, prevails. But again, when there is an even number, eight, and five an uneven number, the eight prevails, for it is larger. If, however, there were two numbers, for example, both of them even, or both of them odd, the smaller prevails. But how does (the name) Sarpedon, according to the rule of the number nine, make two monads, since the letter (long) o is omitted? For when there may be in a name the letter (long) o and (long) e, they leave out the (long) a, using one letter, because they say both are equipollent; and the same must not be computed twice over, as has been above declared. Again, (the name) Ajax makes four monads; (but the name) Hector, according to the rule of the ninth number, makes one monad. And the tetrad is even, whereas the monad odd. And in the case of such, we say, the greater prevails – Ajax gains the victory. Again, Alexander and Menelaus (may be adduced as examples). Alexander has a proper name (Paris). But Paris, according to the rule of the number nine, makes four monads; and Menelaus, according to the rule of the number nine, makes nine monads. The nine, however, conquer the four (monads): for it has been declared, when the one number is odd and the other even, the greater prevails; but when both are even or both odd, the less (prevails). Again, Amycus and Polydeuces (may be adduced as examples). Amycus, according to the rule of the number nine, makes two monads, and Polydeuces, however, seven: Polydeuces gains the victory. Ajax and Ulysses contended at the funeral games. Ajax, according to the rule of the number nine, makes font monads; Ulysses, according to the rule of the number nine, (makes) eight.56 Is there, then, not any annexed, and (is there) not a proper name for Ulysses?57 for he has gained the victory. According to the numbers, no doubt, Ajax is victorious, but history hands down the name of Ulysses as the conqueror, Achilles and Hector (may be adduced as examples). Achilles, according to the rule of the number nine, makes four monads; Hector one: Achilles gains the victory. Again, Achilles and Asteropaeus (are instances). Achilles makes four monads, Asteropaeus three: Achilles conquers. Again, Menelaus and Euphorbus (may be adduced as examples). Menelaus has nine monads, Euphorbus eight: Menelaus gains the victory.

Some, however, according to the rule of the number seven, employ the vowels only, but others distinguish by themselves the vowels, and by themselves the semi-vowels, and by themselves the mutes; and, having formed three orders, they take the roots by themselves of the vowels, and by themselves of the semi-vowels, and by themselves of the mutes, and they compare each apart. Others, however, do not employ even these customary numbers, but different ones: for instance, as an example, they no not wish to allow that the letter p has as a root 8 monads, but 5, and that the (letter) x (si) has as a root four monads; and turning in every direction, they discover nothing sound. When, however, they contend about the second (letter), from each name they take away the first letter; but when they contend about the third (letter), they take away two letters of each name, and calculating the rest, compare them.


Chap. XV. – Quibbles of the Numerical Theorists; the Art of the Frontispicists (Physiognomy); Connection of This Art with Astrology; Type of Those Born Under Aries.

I think that there has been clearly expounded the mind of arithmeticians, who, by means of numbers and of names, suppose that they interpret life. Now I perceive that these, enjoying leisure, and being trained in calculation, have been desirous that, through the art58 delivered to them from childhood, they, acquiring celebrity, should be styled prophets. And they, measuring the letters up (and) down, have wandered into trifling. For if they fail, they say, in putting forward the difficulty, Perhaps this name was not a family one, but imposed, as also lighting in the instance they argue in the case of (the names) Ulysses and Ajax. Who, taking occasion from this astonishing philosophy, and desirous of being styled “Heresiarch,” will not be extolled?

But since, also, there is another more profound art among the all-wise speculators of the Greeks – to whom heretical individuals boast that they attach themselves as disciples, on account of their employing the opinions of these (ancient philosophers) in reference to the doctrines tempted (to be established) by themselves, as shall a little afterwards be proved; but this is an art of divination, by examination of the forehead59 or rather, I should say, it is madness: yet we shall not be silent as regards this (system) There are some who ascribe to the stars figures that mould the ideas60 and dispositions of men, assigning the reason of this to births (that have taken place) under particular stars; they thus express themselves: Those who61 are born under Aries will be of the following kind: long head, red hair, contracted eyebrows, pointed forehead, eyes grey and lively,62 drawn cheeks, long-nosed, expanded nostrils, thin lips, tapering chin, wide month. These, he says, will partake of the following nature: cautious, subtle, perspicuous,63 prudent, indulgent, gentle, over-anxious, persons of secret resolves fitted for every undertaking, prevailing more by prudence than strength, deriders for the time being, scholars, trustworthy, contentious, quarrelers in a fray, concupiscent, inflamed with unnatural lust, reflective, estranged64 from their own homes, giving dissatisfaction in everything, accusers, like madmen in their cups, scorners, year by year losing something65 serviceable in friendship through goodness; they, in the majority of cases, end their days in a foreign land.


Chap. XVI. – Type of Those Born Under Taurus.

Those, however, who are born in Taurus will be of the following description: round head, thick hair, broad forehead, square eyes, and large black eyebrows; in a white man, thin veins, sanguine, long eyelids, coarse huge ears, round mouths, thick nose, round nostrils, thick lips, strong in the upper parts, formed straight from the legs.66 The same are by nature pleasing, reflective, of a goodly disposition, devout, just, uncouth, complaisant, labourers from twelve years, quarrelsome, dull. The stomach of these is small, they are quickly filled, forming many designs, prudent, niggardly towards themselves, liberal towards others, beneficent, of a slow67 body: they are partly sorrowful, heedless as regards friendship, useful on account of mind, unfortunate.


Chap. XVII. – Type of Those Born Under Gemini.

Those who are born in Gemini will be of the following description: red countenance, size not very large, evenly proportioned limbs,68 black eyes as if anointed with oil, cheeks turned down,69 and large mouth, contracted eyebrows; they conquer all things, they retain whatever possessions they acquire,70 they are extremely rich, penurious, niggardly of what is peculiarly their own, profuse in the pleasures of women,71 equitable, musical liars. And the same by nature are learned, reflective, inquisitive, arriving at their own decisions, concupiscent, sparing of what belongs to themselves, liberal, quiet, prudent, crafty, they form many designs, calculators, accusers, importunate, not prosperous, they are beloved by the fair sex, merchants; as regards friendship, not to any considerable extent useful.


Chap. XVIII. – Type of Those Born Under Cancer.

Those born in Cancer are of the following description: size not large, hair like a dog, of a reddish colour, small mouth, round head, pointed forehead, grey eyes, sufficiently beautiful, limbs somewhat varying. The same by nature are wicked, crafty, proficients in plans, insatiable, stingy, ungracious, illiberal, useless, forgetful; they neither restore what is another’s, nor do they ask back what is their own;72 as regards friendship, useful.


Chap. XIX. – Type of Those Born Under Leo.

Those born in Leo are of the following description: round head, reddish hair, huge wrinkled forehead, coarse ears, large development of neck, partly bald, red complexion, grey eyes, large jaws, coarse mouth, gross in the upper parts,73 huge breast, the under limbs tapering. The same are by nature persons who allow nothing to interfere with their own decision, pleasing themselves, irascible, passionate, scorners, obstinate, forming no design, not loquacious,74 indolent, making an improper use of leisure, familiar,75 wholly abandoned to pleasures of women, adulterers, immodest, in faith untrue, importunate, daring, penurious, spoliators, remarkable; as regards fellowship, useful; as regards friendship,76 useless.


Chap. XX. – Type of Those Born Under Virgo.

Those born in Virgo are of the following description: fair appearance, eyes not large, fascinating, dark, compact77 eyebrows, cheerful, swimmers; they are, however, slight in frame,78 beautiful in aspect, with hair prettily adjusted, large forehead, prominent nose. The same by nature are docile, moderate, intelligent, sportive, rational, slow to speak, forming many plans; in regard of a favour, importunate;79 gladly observing everything; and well-disposed pupils, they master whatever they learn; moderate, scorners, victims of unnatural lusts, companionable, of a noble soul, despisers, careless in practical matters, attending to instruction, more honourable in what concerns others than what relates to themselves; as regards friendship, useful.


Chap. XXI. – Type of Those Born Under Libra.

Those born in Libra will be of the following description: hair thin, drooping, reddish and longish, forehead pointed (and) wrinkled, fair compact eyebrows, beautiful eyes, dark pupils, long thin ears, head inclined, wide mouth. The same by nature are intelligent, God-fearing, communicative to one another,80 traders, toilers, not retaining gain, liars, not of an amiable disposition, in business or principle true, free-spoken, beneficent, illiterate, deceivers, friendly, careless, (to whom it is not profitable to do any act of injustice);81 they are scorners, scoffers, satirical,82 illustrious, listeners, and nothing succeeds with these; as regards friendship, useful.


Chap. XXII. – Type of Those Born Under Scorpio.

Those born in Scorpio are of the following description: a maidenish countenance, comely, pungent, blackish hair, well-shaped eyes, forehead not broad, and sharp nostril, small contracted ears, wrinkled foreheads, narrow eyebrows, drawn cheeks. The same by nature are crafty, sedulous, liars, communicating their particular designs to no one, of a deceitful spirit, wicked, scorners, victims to adultery, well-grown, docile; as regards friendship, useless.


Chap. XXIII. – Type of Those Born Under Sagittarius.

Those born in Sagittarius will be of the following description: great length, square forehead. profuse eyebrows, indicative of strength, well-arranged projection of hair, reddish (in complexion). The same by nature are gracious, as educated persons, simple, beneficent; given to unnatural lusts, companionable, toil-worn, lovers, beloved, jovial in their cups, clean, passionate, careless, wicked; as regards friendship, useless; scorners, with noble souls, insolent, crafty; for fellowship, useful.


Chap. XXIV. – Type of Those Born Under Capricorn.

Those born in Capricorn will be of the following description: reddish body, projection of greyish hair, round mouth,83 eyes as of an eagle, contracted brows, open forehead, somewhat bald, in the upper parts of the body endued with more strength. The same by nature are philosophic, scorners, and scoffers at the existing state of things, passionate, persons that can make concessions, honourable, beneficent, lovers of the practice of music, passionate in their cups, mirthful, familiar, talkative, given to unnatural lusts, genial, amiable, quarrelsome e lovers, for fellowship well disposed.


Chap. XXV. – Type of Those Born Under Aquarius.

Those born in Aquarius will be of the following description: square in size, of a diminutive body; sharp, small, fierce eyes; imperious, ungenial, severe, readily making acquisitions, for friendship and fellowship well disposed; moreover, for maritime84 enterprises they make voyages, and perish. The same by nature are taciturn, modest, sociable, adulterers, penurious, practised in business,85 tumultuous, pure, well-disposed, honourable, large eyebrows; frequently they are born in the midst of trifling events, but (in after life) follow a different pursuit; though they may have shown kindness to any one, still no one returns them thanks.


Chap. XXVI. – Type of Those Born Under Pisces.

Those born in Pisces will be of the following description: of moderate dimensions, pointed forehead like fishes, shaggy hair, frequently they become soon grey. The same by nature are of exalted soul, simple, passionate, penurious, talkative; in the first period of life they will be drowsy; they are desirous of managing business by themselves, of high repute, venturesome, emulous, accusers, changing their locality, lovers, dancers; for friendship, useful.


Chap. XXVII. – Futility of This Theory of Stellar Influence.

Since, therefore, we have explained the astonishing wisdom of these men, and have not concealed their overwrought art of divination by means of contemplation, neither shall I be silent as regards (undertakings) in the case of which those that are deceived act foolishly. For, comparing the forms and dispositions of men with names of stars, how impotent their system is! For we know that those originally conversant with such investigations have called the stars by names given in reference to propriety of signification and facility for future recognition. For what similarity is there of these (heavenly bodies) with the likeness of animals, or what community of nature as regards conduct and energy (is there in the two cases), that one should allege that a person born in Leo should be irascible, and one born in Virgo moderate, or one born in Cancer wicked, but that those born in…  





1 Or, “interval”.

2 Hippolytus gives the substance of Sextus Empiricus’ remarks omitting, however, a portion of the passage followed. (See Sextus Empiricus’ Mathem., v. 44.)

3 Or, “celestial.”

4 Or, “Celebes,” or “Ademes.” The first is in the form of the name employed in book v. c. viii.; the second in book x. c. vi.

5 This passage occurs in Sextus Empiricus.

6 Or, “the knowledge of.”

7 Horoscope (from ὥρα σκοπός) is the act of observing the aspect of the heavens at the moment of any particular birth. Hereby the astrologer alleged the ability of foretelling the future career of the person so born. The most important part of the sky for the astrologer’s consideration was that sign of the Zodiac which rose above the horizon at the moment of parturition. This was the “horoscope ascendant,” or “first house.” The circuit of the heavens was divided into twelve “houses,” or Zodiacal signs.

8 Or, “difference.”

9 Or, “during.”

10 ἀποτέξεως; some would read ἀποτάξεως.

11 The passage is given more explicitly in Sextus Empiricus. (See Adversus Astrol., v. 53.)

12 Sextus almost uses these words.

13 Or “lodgment” (Sextus), or “disposition.”

14 Or, “attendants of physicians.”

15 Or, “make.”

16 Or, “vanishes.”

17 Not in Sextus Empiricus.

18 The passage is more clearly given in Sextus.

19 Or, “the cold atmosphere.”

20 Or, “manifestation.”

21 Or, “reasonable.”

22 Or, “but the motion … is whirled on with velocity.”

23 This rendering of the passage may be deduced from Sextus Empiricus.

24 The text is corrupt, but the above seems probably the meaning, and agrees with the rendering of Schneidewin and Cruice.

25 Or, “view.”

26 The clepsydra, an instrument for measuring duration, was, with the sun-dial, invented by the Egyptians under the Ptolemies. It was employed not only for the measurement of time, but for making astronomic calculations. Water, as the name imports, was the fluid employed, though mercury has likewise been used. The inherent defect of an instrument of this description is mentioned by Hippolytus.

27 Literally, “twisting, tergiversating.”

28 This seems the meaning, as deductible from a comparison of Hippolytus with the corresponding passage in Sextus Empiricus.

29 Omitted by Sextus.

30 The Abbe Cruice observes, in regard to some of the verbal difference here in the text from that of Sextus, that the ms of The Refutation was probably executed by one who heard the extracts of other writers read to him, and frequently mistook the sound. The transcriber of the ms was one Michael, as we learn from a marginal note at the end.

31 This was the great doctrine of astrology, the forerunner of the science of astronomy. Astrology seems to have arisen first among the Chaldeans, out of the fundamental principle of their religion – the assimilation of the divine nature to light. This tenet introduced another, the worship of the stars, which was developed into astrology. Others suppose astrology to have been of Arabian or Egyptian origin. From some of these sources it reached the Greeks, and through them the Romans, who held the astrologic art in high repute. The art, after having become almost extinct, was revived by the Arabians at the verge of the middle ages. For the history of astrology one must consult the writing of Manilius, Julius Firmicus, and Ptolemy. Its greatest mediaeval apologist is Cardan, the famous physician of Pavia. (see his work, De Astron. Judic., lib. vi.-ix. tom. v. of his collected works).

32 Sextus adds, “bright-eyed.”

33 Hippolytus here follows Sextus.

34 Aratus, from whom Hippolytus quotes so frequently in this chapter, was a poet and astronomer of antiquity, born at Soli in Cilicia. He afterwards became physician to Gonatus, son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, king of Macedon, at whose court he rose high into favour. The work alluded to by Hippolytus is Aratus’ Phenomena, – a versified account of the motions of the stars, and of sidereal influence over men. This work seems to have been a great favourite with scholars, if we are to judge from the many excellent annotated editions of it that have appeared. Two of these deserve notice, viz., Grotius’ Leyden edition, 1600, in Greek and Latin; and Buhle’s edition, Leipsic, 1803. See also Dionysis Petavius’ Uranologion. Aratus must always be famous, from the fact that St. Paul (Act_17:28) quotes the fifth line of the Phenomena. Cicero considered Aratus a noble poet, and translated the Phenomena into Latin, a fragment of which has been preserved, and is in Grotius’ edition. Aratus has been translated into English verse, with notes by Dr. Lamb, Dean of Bristol (London: J. W. Parker, 1858).

35 the Abbe Cruice suggests “freedom from danger,” instead of “cowardice,” and translates thus: “whereby kings are slain, by having impunity promised in the predictions of these seers.”

36 Sextus makes the number “nine thousand nine hundred and seventy seven years.”

37 The parenthetical words are taken from Sextus Empiricus, as introduced into his text by the Abbe Cruice. Schneidewin alludes to the passage in Sextus as proof of some confusion in Hippolytus’ text, which he thinks is signified by the transcriber in the words, “I think there is some deficiency or omissions,” which occur in the ms of The Refutation.

38 As regards astrological predictions, see Origen’s Comment. on Gen.; Diodorus of Tarsus, de Fato; Photii Biblioth., cod. ccxxiii.; and Bardesanis, De Legibus Nationum, in Cureton’s Spicilegium Syriacum.

39 See Plato’s Timaeus.

40 Schneidewin, of Roeper’s suggestion, amends the passage thus, though I am not sure that I exactly render his almost unintelligible Latin version: “For as many sections as there are of each, there are educible from the nomad more segments than sections; for example, if,” etc. The Abbe Cruice would seemingly adopt the following version: “For whatsoever are sections of each, now there are more segments than sections of a monad, will become; for example, if,” etc.

41 Schneidewin, on mathematical authority, discredits the numerical calculations ascribed to Archimedes.

42 This is manifestly erroneous; the real total could only be “four myriads!”

43 The Abbe Cruice thinks that the word should be “tones,” supporting his emendation on the authority of Pliny, who states that Pythagoras called the distance of the Moon from the Earth a tone, deriving the term from musical science (see Pliny’s Hist. Nat., ii. 20).

44 These numerical speculations are treated of by Archimedes in his work On the Number of the Sand, in which he maintains the possibility of counting the sands, even on the supposition of the world’s being much larger than it is (see Archimedes, τὰ μεχρὶ νῦν σωζόμενα ἅπαντα, Treatise Ψαμμίτης, p. 120, ed. Eustoc. Ascalon., Basil, 1544).

45 Colarbascus is afterwards mentioned in company with Marcus the heretic, at the beginning of the end of book vi. of The Refutation.

46 This word (σχεδιάζουσι), more than once used by Hippolytus, is applied to anything done offhand, e.g., an extempore speech. It therefore might be made to designate immaturity of opinion. Σχεδία means something hastily put together, viz., a raft; σχέδιος, sudden.

47 Schneidewin suggests ὅμως instead of οἱμοίως. The word (ἐπανισάμενοι) translated “appropriating” is derived from ἔρανος which signifies a meal to which those who partake of it have each contributed some dish (pic-nic). The term, therefore, is an expressive one for Hippolytus’ purpose.

48 προγνωστικοὺς. Some would read πρὸς γνωστικοὺς.

49 Some propose δόξης, “opinion.” Hippolytus, however, used the word ῥίζης (translated “school”) in a similar way at the end of chap. i. book iv. “Novelty” is read instead of “knavery;” and for ἁναπλέου, “full,” is proposed (1) ἀναπλέοντας, (2) ἀναπτεροῦντας.

50 The subject of the numerical system employed by the Gnostics, and their occult mysteries, is treated by the learned Kircher, Oedipal Egypt., tom. ii. part i. de Cabalâ Hebraeorum; also in his Arithmelog., in the book De Arithmomantia Gnosticor., cap. viii., de Cabalâ Pythagoreâ. See also Mersennes, Comment. on Genes.

51 This subject is examined by Cornelius Agrippa in his celebrated work, De vanitate et incertitudine Scientarium, chap. xi. De Sorte Pythagoricâ. Terentius Maurus has also a versified work on Letters and Syllables and Metres, in which he alludes to similar interpretations educible from the names Hector and Patroclus.

52 That is, the division by nine.

53 That is, calculated according to a rule of a division by seven.

54 We should expect rather five instead of 9, if the division be by nine.

55 There is some confusion in the text. Miller conjectures that the reading should be: “As, for instance, the name Patroclus has the letter o occurring twice in it, they therefore take it into calculation once.” Schneidewin suggests that the form of the name may be Papatroclus.

56 Miller says there is an error in the calculation here.

57 This is as near the sense of the passage as a translations in some respects conjectural can make it.

58 The word θέλειν occurs in this sentence, but is obviously superfluous.

59 In the margin of the ms is the note, “Opinion of the Metopiscopists.”

60 These words are out of place. See next note.

61 There is evidently some displacement of words here. Miller and Schneidewin suggest: “There are some who ascribe to the influence of the stars the natures of men; since, in computing the births of individuals, they thus express themselves as if they were moulding the species of men.” The Abbe Cruice would leave the text as it is, altering only τυποῦντες ἰδέας into τύπων τε ἱδέας.

62 Literally, “jumping;” others read “blackish,” or “expressive” (literally “talking”). The vulgar reading, ὑπο ἄλλοις, is evidently untenable.

63 Or “cowardly,” or “cowards at heart;” or some read, χαροποιοὶ, i.e., “causative of gladness.”

64 Or, “diseased with unnatural lust,” i.e., νοσοῦντες for νοοῦντες.

65 Or, κατ ̓ ἔπος, “verbally rejecting anything.”

66 Or better, “wear in the limbs.”

67 Or, “short.”

68 Or, “parts.”

69 Some read καλῶ γεγεννημένων, or καλῶ τετεννημένων.

70 Or, “they are given to hoarding, they have possessions.”

71 This is an amended reading of the text, which is obviously confused. The correction necessary is introduced lower down in the ms, which makes the same characteristic twice mentioned. The Abbe Cruice, however, accounts for such a twofold mention, on the ground that the whole subject is treated by Hippolytus in such a way as to expose the absurdities of the astrologic predictions. He therefore quotes the opinions of various astrologers, in order to expose the diversities of opinion existing among them.

72 Manilius maintains that persons born under Cancer are of an avaricious and usurious disposition. (See Astronom., iv. 5.)

73 Or, “having the upper parts larger than the lower.”

74 Some read αναλοι.

75 Schneidewin conjectures ἀσυνήθεις, inexperienced.

76 Or, “succour.”

77 Or, “straight, compact.”

78 Miller gives an additional sentence: “They are of equal measurement at the (same) age, and possess a body perfect and erect.”

79 Or, “careful observers.”

80 Or, “speaking falsehoods, they will be believed.”

81 The parenthetical words are obviously an interpolation.

82 Or, “spies.”

83 Or, “body.”

84 Literally, “moist,” or “difficult;” or, the Abbe Cruice suggests, “fortuitous.”

85 Or, “pragmatic, mild, not violent.”

Hippolytus (Cont.)The Refutation of All Heresies. (Cont.)

Book IV. (Cont.)

Chap. XXVIII.86 – System of the Magicians; Incantations of Demons; Secret Magical Rites.

… And (the sorcerer), taking (a paper), directs the inquirer87 to write down with water whatever questions he may desire to have asked from the demons. Then, folding up the paper, and delivering it to the attendant, he sends him away to commit it to the flames, that the ascending smoke may waft the letters to demons. While, however, the attendant is executing this order, (the sorcerer) first removes equal portions of the paper, and on some more parts of it he pretends that demons write in Hebrew characters. Then burning an incense of the Egyptian magicians, termed Cyphi, he takes these (portions of paper) away, and places them near the incense. But (that paper) which the inquirer happens to have written (upon), having placed on the coals, he has burned. Then (the sorcerer), appearing to be borne away under divine influence, (and) hurrying into a corner (of the house), utters a loud and harsh cry, and unintelligible to all,… and orders all those present to enter, crying out (at the same time), and invoking Phryn, or some other demon. But after passing into the house, and when those that were present stood side by side, the sorcerer, flinging the attendant upon a bed,88 utters to him several words, partly in the Greek, and partly, as it were, the Hebrew language, (embodying) the customary incantations employed by the magicians. (The attendant), however, goes away89 to make the inquiry. And within (the house), into a vessel full of water (the sorcerer) infusing copperas mixture, and melting the drug, having with it sprinkled the paper that forsooth had (the characters upon it) obliterated, he forces the latent and concealed letters to come once more into light; and by these he ascertains what the inquirer has written down. And if one write with copperas mixture likewise, and having ground a gall nut, use its vapour as a fumigator, the concealed letters would become plain. And if one write with milk, (and) then scorch the paper, and scraping it, sprinkle and rub (what is thus scraped off) upon the letters traced with the milk, these will become plain. And urine likewise, and sauce of brine, and juice of euphorbia, and of a fig, produce a similar result. But when (the sorcerer) has ascertained the question in this mode, he makes provision for the manner in which be ought to give the reply. And next he orders those that are present to enter, holding laurel branches and shaking them, and uttering cries, and invoking the demon Phryn. For also it becomes these to invoke him;90 and it is worthy that they make this request from demons, which they do not wish of themselves to put forward, having lost their minds. The confused noise, however, and the tumult, prevent them directing attention to those things which it is supposed (the sorcerer) does in secret. But what these are, the present is a fair opportunity for us to declare.

Considerable darkness, then, prevails. For the (sorcerer) affirms that it is impossible for mortal nature to behold divine things, for that to hold converse (with these mysteries) is sufficient. Making, however, the attendant lie down (upon the couch), head foremost, and placing by each side two of those little tablets, upon which had been inscribed in, forsooth, Hebrew characters, as it were names of demons, he says that (a demon) will deposit the rest in their ears. But this (statement) is requisite, in order that some instrument may be placed beside the ears of the attendant, by which it is possible that he signify everything which he chooses. First, however, he produces a sound that the (attendant) youth may be terrified; and secondly, he makes a humming noise; then, thirdly, he speaks91 through the instrument what he wishes the youth to say, and remains in expectation of the issue of the affair; next, he makes those present remain still, and directs the (attendant) to signify, what he has heard from the demons. But the instrument that is placed beside his ears is a natural instrument, viz., the windpipe of long-necked cranes, or storks, or swans. And if none of these is at hand, there are also some different artificial instruments (employed); for certain pipes of brass, ten in number, (and) fitting into one another, terminating in a narrow point, are adapted (for the purpose), and through these is spoken into the ear whatsoever the (magician) wishes. And the youth hearing these (words) with terror as uttered by demons, when ordered, speaks them out. If any one, however, putting around a stick a moist hide, and having dried it and drawn it together, close it up, and by removing the rod fashion the hide into the form of a pipe, he attains a similar end. Should any of these, however, be not at hand, he takes a book, and, opening it inside, stretches it out as far as he think requisite, (and thus) achieves the same result.

But if he knows beforehand that one is present who is about to ask a question, he is the more ready for all (contingencies). If, however, he may also previously ascertain the question, he writes (it) with the drug, and, as being prepared, he is considered92 more skilful, on account of having clearly written out what is (about) being asked. If, however, he is ignorant of the question, he forms conjectures, and puts forth something capable of a doubtful and varied interpretation, in order that the oracular response, being originally unintelligible, may serve for numerous purposes, and in the issue of events the prediction may be considered correspondent with what actually occurs. Next, having filled a vessel with water, he puts down (into it) the paper, as if uninscribed, at the same time infusing along with it copperas mixture. For in this way the paper written upon floats93 upwards (to the surface), bearing the response. Accordingly there ensue frequently to the attendant formidable fancies for also he strikes blows plentifully on the terrified (bystanders). For, casting incense into the fire, he again operates after the following method. Covering a lump of what are called “fossil salts” with Etruscan wax, and dividing the piece itself of incense into two parts, he throws in a grain of salt; and again joining (the piece) together, and placing it on the burning coals, he leaves it there. And when this is consumed, the salts, bounding upwards, create the impression of, as it were, a strange vision taking place. And the dark-blue dye which has been deposited in the incense produces a blood-red flame, as we have already declared. But (the sorcerer) makes a scarlet liquid, by mixing wax with alkanet, and, as I said, depositing the wax in the incense. And he makes the coals94 be moved, placing underneath powdered alum; and when this is dissolved and swells up like bubbles, the coals are moved.


Chap. XXIX. – Display of Different Eggs.

But different eggs they display after this manner. Perforating the top at both ends, and extracting the white, (and) having again dipped it, throw in some minium and some writing ink. Close, however, the openings with refined scrapings of the eggs, smearing them with fig-juice.


Chap. XXX. – Self-Slaughter of Sheep.

By those who cause sheep to cut off their own heads, the following plan is adopted. Secretly smearing the throat (of the animal) with a cauterizing drug, he places a sword near, and leaves it there.95 The sheep, desirous of scratching himself, rushes against the blade, and in the act of rubbing is slaughtered, while the head is almost severed from the trunk. There is, however, a compound of the drug, bryony and salt and squills, made up in equal parts. In order that the person bringing the drug may escape notice, he carries a box with two compartments constructed of horn, the visible one of which contains frankincense, but the secret one (the aforesaid) drug. He, however, likewise insinuates into the ears of the sheep about to meet death quicksilver; but this is a poisonous drug.


Chap. XXXI. – Method of Poisoning Goats.

And if one smear96 the ears of goats over with cerate, they say that they expire a little afterwards, by having their breathing obstructed. For this to them is the way – as these affirm – of their drawing their breath in an act of respiration. And a ram, they assert, dies,97 if one bends back (its neck)98 opposite the sun. And they accomplish the burning of a house, by daubing it over with the juice of a certain fish called dactylus. And this effect, which it has by reason of the sea-water, is very useful. Likewise foam of the ocean is boiled in an earthen jar along with some sweet ingredients; and if you apply a lighted candle to this while in a seething state, it catches the fire and is consumed; and (yet though the mixture) be poured upon the head, it does not burn it at all. If, however, you also smear it over with heated resin,99 it is consumed far more effectually. But he accomplishes his object better still, if also he takes some sulphur.


Chap. XXXII. – Imitations of Thunder, and Other Illusions.

Thunder is produced in many ways; for stones very numerous and unusually large, being rolled downwards along wooden planks, fall upon plates of brass, and cause a sound similar to thunder. And also around the thin plank with which carders thicken cloth, they coil a thin rope; and then drawing away the cord with a whiff, they spin the plank round, and in its revolution it emits a sound like thunder. These farces, verily, are played off thus.

There are, however, other practices which I shall explain, which those who execute these ludicrous performances estimate as great exploits. Placing a cauldron full of pitch upon burning coals, when it boils up, (though) laying their hands down upon it, they are not burned; nay, even while walking on coals of fire with naked feet, they are not scorched. But also setting a pyramid of stone on a hearth, (the sorcerer) makes it get on fire, and from the mouth it disgorges a volume of smoke, and that of a fiery description. Then also putting a linen cloth upon a pot of water, throwing on (at the same time) a quantity of blazing coals, (the magician) keeps the linen cloth unconsumed. Creating also darkness in the house, (the sorcerer) alleges that he can introduce gods or demons; and if any requires him to show Aesculapius, he uses an invocation couched in the following words: – 

“The child once slain, again of Phoebus deathless made

I call to come, and aid my sacrificial rites;

Who, also, once the countless tribes of fleeting dead,

In ever-mournful homes of Tartarus wide,

The fatal billow breasting, and the inky100 flood

Surmounting, where all of mortal mould must float,

Torn, beside the lake, with endless101 grief and woe,

Thyself didst snatch from gloomy Proserpine.

Or whether the seat of Holy Thrace thou haunt, or lovely

Pergamos, or besides Ionian Epidaurus,

The chief of seers, O happy God, invites thee here.”


Chap. XXXIII. – The Burning Aesculapius; Tricks with Fire.

But after he discontinues uttering these jests, a fiery Aesculapius102 appears upon the floor. Then, placing in the midst a pot full of water, he invokes all the deities, and they are present. For any one who is by, glancing into the pot, will behold them all, and Diana leading on her baying hounds. We shall not, however, shrink from narrating the account (of the devices) of these men, how they attempt (to accomplish their jugglery). For (the magician) lays his hand upon the cauldron of pitch,103 which is in, as it were, a boiling state; and throwing in (at the same time) vinegar and nitre and moist pitch, he kindles a fire beneath the cauldron. The vinegar, however, being mixed along with the nitre, on receiving a small accession of heat, moves the pitch, so as to cause bubbles to rise to the surface, and afford the mere semblance of a seething (pot). The (sorcerer), however, previously washes his hands frequently in brine; the consequence being, that the contents of the cauldron do not in any wise, though in reality boiling, burn him very much. But if, having smeared his hands with a tincture of myrtle104 and nitre and myrrh, along with vinegar, he wash them in brine frequently, he is not scorched: and he does not burn his feet, provided he smear them with isinglass and a salamander.

As regards, however, the burning like a taper of the pyramid, though composed of stone, the cause of this is the following. Chalky earth is fashioned into the shape of a pyramid, but its colour is that of a milk-white stone, and it is prepared after this fashion. Having anointed the piece of clay with plenty of oil, and put it upon coals, and baked it, by smearing it afresh, and scorching it a second and third time, and frequently, (the sorcerer) contrives that it can be burned, even though he should plunge it in water; for it contains in itself abundance of oil. The hearth, however, is spontaneously kindled, while the magician pours out105 a libation, by having time instead of ashes burning underneath, and refined frankincense and a large quantity of tow,106 and a bundle107 of anointed tapers and of gall nuts, hollow within, and supplied with (concealed) fire. And after some delay, (the sorcerer) makes (the pyramid) emit smoke from the mouth, by both putting fire in the gall nut, and encircling it with tow, and blowing into the mouth. The linen cloth, however, that has been placed round the cauldron, (and) on which he deposits the coals, on account of the underlying brine, would not be burned; besides, that it has itself been washed in brine, and then smeared with the white of an egg, along with moist alum. And if, likewise, one mix in these the juice of house-leek along with vinegar, and for a long time previously smear it (with this preparation), after being washed in this drug, it continues altogether fire-proof.


Chap. XXXIV. – The Illusion of the Sealed Letters; Object in Detailing These Juggleries.

After, then,108 we have succinctly explained the powers of the secret arts practised among these (magicians), and have shown their easy plan for the acquisition of knowledge,109 neither are we disposed to be silent on the following point, which is a necessary one, – how that, loosing the seals, they restore the sealed letters, with the actual seals themselves. Melting pitch, resin, and sulphur, and moreover asphalt, in equal parts, (and) forming the ointment into a figure, they keep it by them. When, however, it is time to loose a small tablet, smearing with oil their tongue, next with the latter anointing the seal, (and) heating the drug with a moderate fire, (the sorcerers) place it upon the seal; and they leave it there until it has acquired complete consistence, and they use it in this condition as a seal. But they say, likewise, that wax itself with fir-wood gum possesses a similar potency, as well as two parts of mastich with one part of dry asphalt. But sulphur also by itself effects the purpose tolerably well, and flower of gypsum strained with water, and of gum. Now this (last mixture) certainly answers most admirably also for sealing molten lead. And that which is accomplished by the Tuscan wax, and refuse110 of resin, and pitch, and asphalt, and mastich, and powdered spar, all being boiled together in equal parts, is superior to the rest of the drugs which I have mentioned, while that which is effected by the gum is not inferior. In this manner, then, also, they attempt to loose the seals, endeavouring to learn the letters written within.

These contrivances, however, I hesitated to narrate111 in this book, perceiving the danger lest, perchance, any knavish person, taking Occasion (from my account), should attempt (to practise these juggleries). Solicitude, however, for many young persons, who could be preserved from such practices, has persuaded me to teach and publish, for security’s sake, (the foregoing statements). For although one person may make use of these for gaining instruction in evil, in this way somebody else will, by being instructed (in these practices), be preserved from them. And the magicians themselves, corrupters of life, will be ashamed in plying their art. And learning these points that have been previously elucidated112 by us, they will possibly be restrained from their folly. But that this seal may not be broken, let me seal it with hog’s lard and hair mixed with wax.113


Chap. XXXV. – The Divination by a Cauldron; Illusion of Fiery Demons; Specimen of a Magical Invocation.

But neither shall I be silent respecting that piece of knavery of these (sorcerers), which consists in the divination by means of the cauldron. For, making a closed chamber, and anointing the ceiling with cyanus for present use,114 they introduce certain vessels of cyanus,115 and stretch them upwards. The cauldron, however, full of water, is placed in the middle on the ground; and the reflection of the cyanus falling upon it, presents the appearance of heaven. But the floor also has a certain concealed aperture, on which the cauldron is laid, having been (previously, supplied with a bottom of crystal, while itself is composed of stone.116 Underneath, however, unnoticed (by the spectators), is a compartment, into which the accomplices, assembling, appear invested with the figures of such gods and demons as the magician wishes to exhibit. Now the dupe, beholding these, becomes astonished at the knavery of the magician, and subsequently believes all things that are likely to be stated by him. But (the sorcerer) produces a burning demon, by tracing on the wall whatever figure he wishes, and then covertly smearing it with a drug mixed according to this manner, viz., of Laconian117 and Zacynthian asphalt, – while next, as if under the influence of prophetic frenzy, he moves the lamp towards the wall. The drug, however, is burned with considerable splendour. And that a fiery Hecate seems to career through air, he contrives in the mode following. Concealing a certain accomplice in a place which he wishes, (and) taking aside his dupes, he persuades them (to believe himself), alleging that he will exhibit a flaming demon riding through the air. Now he exhorts them immediately to keep their eyes fixed until they see the flame in the air, and that (then), veiling themselves, they should fall on their face until he himself should call them; and after having given them these instructions, he, on a moonless night, in verses speaks thus: – 

“Infernal, and earthy, and supernal Bombo, come!

Saint of streets, and brilliant one, that strays by night;

Foe of radiance, but friend and mate of gloom;

In howl of dogs rejoicing, and in crimson gore,

Wading ‘mid corpses through tombs of lifeless dust,

Panting for blood; with fear convulsing men.

Gorgo, and Mormo, and Luna,118 and of many shapes,

Come, propitious, to our sacrificial rites!”


Chap. XXXVI. – Mode of Managing an Apparition.

And while speaking these words, fire is seen borne through the air; but the (spectators) being horrified at the strange apparition, (and) covering their eyes, fling themselves speechless to earth. But the success of the artifice is enhanced by the following contrivance. The accomplice whom I have spoken of as being concealed, when he hears the incantation ceasing, holding a kite or hawk enveloped with tow, sets fire to it and releases it. The bird, however, frightened by the flame, is borne aloft, and makes a (proportionably) quicker flight, which these deluded persons beholding, conceal themselves, as if they had seen something divine. The winged creature, however, being whirled round by the fire, is borne whithersoever chance may have it, and burns now the houses, and now the courtyards. Such is the divination of the sorcerers.


Chap. XXXVII. – Illusive Appearance of the Moon.

And they make moon and stars appear on the ceiling after this manner. In the central part of the ceiling, having fastened a mirror, placing a dish full of water equally (with the mirror) in the central portion of the floor, and setting in a central place likewise a candle, emitting a faint light from a higher position than the dish, – in this way, by reflection, (the magician) causes the moon to appear by the mirror. But frequently, also, they suspend on high from the ceiling, at a distance, a drum,119 but which, being covered with some garment, is concealed by the accomplice, in order that (the heavenly body) may not appear before the (proper) time. And afterwards placing a candle (within the drum), when the magician gives the signal to the accomplice, he removes so much of the covering as may be sufficient for effecting an imitation representing the figure of the moon as it is at that particular time. He smears, however, the luminous parts of the drum with cinnabar and gum;120 and having pared around the neck and bottom of a flagon121 of glass ready behind, he puts a candle in it, and places around it some of the requisite contrivances for making the figures shine, which some one of the accomplices has concealed on high; and on receiving the signal, he throws down from above the contrivances, so to make the moon appear descending from the sky.

And the same result is achieved by means of a jar in sylvan localities.122 For it is by means of a jar that the tricks in a house are performed. For having set up an altar, subsequently is (placed upon it) the jar, having a lighted lamp; when, however, there are a greater number of lamps, no such sight is displayed. After then the enchanter invokes the moon, he orders all the lights to be extinguished, yet that one be left faintly burning; and then the light, that which streams from the jar, is reflected on the ceiling, and furnishes to those present a representation of the moon; the mouth of the jar being kept covered for the time which it would seem to require, in order that the representation of full moon should be exhibited on the ceiling.


Chap. XXXVIII. – Illusive Appearance of the Stars.

But the scales of fishes – for instance, the seahorse – cause the stars to appear to be; the scales being steeped in a mixture of water and gum, and fastened on the ceiling at intervals.


Chap. XXXIX. – Imitation of an Earthquake.

The sensation of an earthquake they cause in such a way, as that all things seem set in motion; ordure of a weasel burned with a magnet upon coals (has this effect).123


Chap. XL. – Trick with the Liver.

And they exhibit a liver seemingly bearing an inscription in this manner. With the left hand he writes what he wishes, appending it to the question, and the letters are traced with gall juice and strong vinegar. Then taking up the liver, retaining it in the left hand, he makes some delay, and then it draws away the impression, and it is supposed to have, as it were, writing upon it.


Chap. XLI. – Making a Skull Speak.

But putting a skull on the ground, they make it speak in this manner. The skull itself is made out of the caul of an ox;124 and when fashioned into the requisite figure, by means of Etruscan wax and prepared gum,125 (and) when this membrane is placed around, it presents the appearance of a skull, which seems to all126 to speak when the contrivance operates; in the same manner as we have explained in the case of the (attendant) youths, when, having procured the windpipe of a crane,127 or some such long-necked animal, and attaching it covertly to the skull, the accomplice utters what he wishes. And when he desires (the skull) to become invisible, he appears as if burning incense, placing around, (for this purpose,) a quantity of coals; and when the wax catches the heat of these, it melts, and in this way the skull is supposed to become invisible.


Chap. XLII. – The Fraud of the Foregoing Practices; Their Connection with Heresy.

These are the deeds of the magicians,128 and innumerable other such (tricks) there are which work on the credulity of the dupes, by fair balanced words, and the appearance of plausible acts. And the heresiarchs, astonished at the art of these (sorcerers), have imitated them, partly by delivering their doctrines in secrecy and darkness, and partly by advancing (these tenets) as their own. For this reason, being desirous of warning the multitude, we have been the more painstaking, in order not to omit any expedient129 practised by the magicians, for those who may be disposed to be deceived. We have been however drawn, not unreasonably, into a detail of some of the secret (mysteries) of the sorcerers, which are not very requisite, to be sure, in reference to the subject taken in hand; yet, for the purpose of guarding against the villanous and incoherent art of magicians, may be supposed useful. Since, therefore, as far as delineation is feasible, we have explained the opinions of all (speculators), exerting especial attention towards the elucidation of the opinions introduced as novelties by the heresiarchs; (opinions) which, as far as piety is concerned, are futile and spurious, and which are not, even among themselves, perhaps130 deemed worthy of serious consideration. (Having pursued this course of inquiry), it seems expedient that, by means of a compendious discourse, we should recall to the (reader’s) memory statements that have been previously made.


Chap. XLIII. – Recapitulation of Theologies and Cosmogonies; System of the Persians; of the Babylonians; the Egyptian Notion of Deity; Their Theology Based on a Theory of Numbers; Their System of Cosmogony.

Among all those who throughout the earth, as philosophers and theologians, have carried on investigations, has prevailed diversity of opinion131 concerning the Deity, as to His essence or nature. For some affirm Him to be fire, and some spirit, and some water, while others say that He is earth. And each of the elements labours under some deficiency, and one is worsted by the other. To the wise men of the world, this, however, has occurred, which is obvious to persons possessing intelligence; (I mean) that, beholding the stupendous works of creation, they were confused respecting the substance of existing things, supposing that these were too vast to admit of deriving generation from another, and at the same time (asserting) that neither the universe itself is God. As far as theology was concerned, they declared, however, a single cause for things that fall under the cognizance of vision, each supposing the cause which he adjudged the most reasonable; and so, when gazing on the objects made by God, and on those which are the most insignificant in comparison with His overpowering majesty, not, however, being able to extend the mind to the magnitude of God as He really is, they deified these (works of the external world).

But the Persians,132 supposing that they had penetrated more within the confines of the truth, asserted that the Deity is luminous, a light contained in air. The Babylonians, however, affirmed that the Deity is dark, which very opinion also appears the consequence of the other; for day follows night, and night day. Do not the Egyptians, however,133 who suppose themselves more ancient than all, speak of the power of the Deity? (This power they estimate by) calculating these intervals of the parts (of the zodiac; and, as if) by a most divine inspiration,134 they asserted that the Deity is an indivisible monad, both itself generating itself, and that out of this were formed all things. For this, say they,135 being unbegotten, produces the succeeding numbers; for instance, the monad, superadded into itself, generates the duad; and in like manner, when superadded (into duad, triad, and so forth), produces the triad and tetrad, up to the decade, which is the beginning and end of numbers. Wherefore it is that the first and tenth monad is generated, on account of the decade being equipollent, and being reckoned for a monad, and (because) this multiplied ten times will become a hundred, and again becomes a monad, and the hundred multiplied ten times will produce a thousand, and this will be a monad. In this manner also the thousand multiplied ten times make up the full sum of a myriad; in like manner will it be a monad. But by a comparison of indivisible quantities, the kindred numbers of the monad comprehend 3, 5, 7, 9.136

There is also, however, a more natural relation of a different number to the monad, according to the arrangement of the orbit of six days’ duration,137 (that is), of the duad, according to the position and division of even numbers. But the kindred number is 4 and 8. These, however, taking from the monad of the numbers138 an idea of virtue, progressed up to the four elements; (I allude), of course, to spirit, and fire, and water, and earth. And out of these having made the world, (God) framed it an ermaphrodite, and allocated two elements for the upper hemisphere, namely spirit and fire; and this is styled the hemisphere of the monad, (a hemisphere) beneficent, and ascending, and masculine. For, being composed of small particles, the monad soars into the most rarified and purest part of the atmosphere; and the other two elements, earth and water, being more gross, he assigned to the duad; and this is termed the descending hemisphere, both feminine and mischievous. And likewise, again, the upper elements themselves, when compared one with another, comprise in one another both male and female for fruitfulness and increase of the whole creation. And the fire is masculine, and the spirit feminine. And again the water is masculine, and the earth feminine. And so from the beginning fire consorted with spirit, and water with earth. For as the power of spirit is fire, so also that of earth is water;139 … and the elements themselves, when computed and resolved by subtraction of enneads, terminate properly, some of them in the masculine number, and others of them in the feminine. And, again, the ennead is subtracted for this cause, because the three hundred and sixty parts of the entire (circle) consist of enneads, and for this reason the four regions of the world are circumscribed by ninety perfect parts. And light has been appropriated to the monad, and darkness to the duad, and life to light, according to nature, and death to the duad. And to life (has been appropriated) justice; and to death, injustice. Wherefore everything generated among masculine numbers is beneficent, while that (produced) among feminine (numbers) is mischievous. For instance, they pursue their calculations thus: monad – that we may commence from this – becomes 361, which (numbers) terminate in a monad by the subtraction of the ennead. In like manner, reckon thus: Duad becomes 605; take away the enneads, it ends in a duad, and each reverts into its own peculiar (function).


Chap. XLIV. – Egyptian Theory of Nature; Their Amulets.

For the monad, therefore, as being beneficent, they assert that there are consequently140 names ascending, and beneficent, and masculine, and carefully observed, terminating in an uneven number;141 whereas that those terminating in the even number have been supposed to be both descending, and feminine and malicious. For they affirm that nature is made up of contraries, namely bad and good, as right and left, light and darkness, night and day, life and death. And moreover they make this assertion, that they have calculated the word “Deity,” (and found that it reverts into a pentad with an ennead subtracted). Now this name is an even number, and when it is written down (on some material) they attach it to the body, and accomplish cures142 by it. In this manner, likewise, a certain herb, terminating in this number, being similarly fastened around (the frame), operates by reason of a similar calculation of the number. Nay, even a doctor cures sickly people by a similar calculation. If, however, the calculation is contrary, it does not heal with facility.143 Persons attending to these numbers reckon as many as are homogeneous according to this principle; some, however, according to vowels alone; whereas others according to the entire number. Such also is the wisdom of the Egyptians, by which, as they boast, they suppose that they cognise the divine nature.


Chap. XLV. – Use of the Foregoing Discussions,

It appears, then, that these speculations also have been sufficiently explained by us. But since I think that I have omitted no opinion found in this earthly and grovelling Wisdom, I perceive that the solicitude expended by us on these subjects has not been useless. For we observe that our discourse has been serviceable not only for a refutation of heresies, but also in reference to those who entertain these opinions. Now these, when they encounter the extreme care evinced by us, will even be struck with admiration of our earnestness, and will not despise our industry and condemn Christians as fools when they discern the opinions to which they themselves have stupidly accorded their belief. And furthermore, those who, desirous of learning, addict themselves to the truth, will be assisted by our discourse to become, when they have learned the fundamental principles of the heresies, more intelligent not only for the easy refutation of those who have attempted to deceive them, but that also, when they have ascertained the avowed opinions of the wise men, and have been made acquainted with them, that they shall neither be confused by them as ignorant persons would, nor become the dupes of certain individuals acting as if from some authority; nay, more than this, they shall be on their guard against those that are allowing themselves to become victims to these delusions.


Chap. XLVI. – The Astrotheosophists; Aratus Imitated by the Heresiarchs; His System of the Disposition of the Stars.

Having sufficiently explained these opinions, let us next pass on to a consideration of the subject taken in hand, in order that, by proving what we have determined concerning heresies, and by compelling their (champions) to return to these several (speculators) their peculiar tenets, we may show the heresiarchs destitute (of a system); and by proclaiming the folly of those who are persuaded (by these heterodox tenets), we shall prevail on them to retrace their course to the serene haven of the truth. In order, however, that the statements about to follow may seem more clear to the readers, it is expedient also to declare the opinions advanced by Aratus concerning the disposition of the stars of the heavens. (And this is necessary), inasmuch as some persons, assimilating these (doctrines) to those declared by the Scriptures, convert (the holy writings) into allegories, and endeavour to seduce the mind of those who give heed to their (tenets), drawing them on by plausible words into the admission of whatever opinions they wish, (and) exhibiting a strange marvel, as if the assertions made by them were fixed among the stars. They, however, gazing intently on the very extraordinary wonder, admirers as they are of trifles, are fascinated like a bird called the owl, which example it is proper to mention, on account of the statements that are about to follow. The animal (I speak of) is, however, not very different from an eagle, either in size or figure, and it is captured in the following way: – The hunter of these birds, when he sees a flock of them lighting anywhere, shaking his hands, at a distance pretends to dance, and so by little and little draws near the birds. But they, struck with amazement at the strange sight, are rendered unobservant of everything passing around them. But others of the party, who have come into the country equipped for such a purpose, coming from behind upon the birds, easily lay hold on them as they are gazing on the dancer.

Wherefore I desire that no one, astonished by similar wonders of those who interpret the (aspect of) heaven, should, like the owl, be taken captive. For the knavery practised by such speculators may be considered dancing and silliness, but not truth. Aratus,144 therefore, expresses himself thus: – 

“Just as many are they; hither and thither they roll

Day by day o’er heav’n, endless, ever, (that is, every star),

Yet this declines not even little; but thus exactly

E’er remains with axis fixed and poised in every part

Holds earth midway, and heaven itself around conducts.”


Chap. XLVII. – Opinions of the Heretics Borrowed from Aratus.

Aratus says that there are in the sky revolving, that is, gyrating stars, because from east to west, and west to east, they journey perpetually, (and) in an orbicular figure. And he says that there revolves towards145 “The Bears” themselves, like some stream of a river, an enormous and prodigious monster, (the) Serpent; and that this is what the devil says in the book of Job to the Deity, when (Satan) uses these words: “I have traversed earth under heaven, and have gone around (it),”146 that is, that I have been turned around, and thereby have been able to survey the worlds. For they suppose that towards the North Pole is situated the Dragon, the Serpent, from the highest pole looking upon all (the objects), and gazing on all the works of creation, in order that nothing of the things that are being made may escape his notice. For though all the stars in the firmament set, the pole of this (luminary) alone never sets, but, careering high above the horizon, surveys and beholds all things, and none of the works of creation, he says, can escape his notice.

“Where chiefly

Settings mingle and risings one with other.”147

(Here Aratus) says that the head of this (constellation) is placed. For towards the west and east of the two hemispheres is situated the head of the Dragon, in order, he says, that nothing may escape his notice throughout the same quartet, either of objects in the west or those in the east, but that the Beast may know all things at the same time. And near the head itself of the Dragon is the appearance of a man, conspicuous by means of the stars, which Aratus styles a wearied image, and like one oppressed with labour, and he is denominated “Engonasis.” Aratus148 then affirms that he does not know what this toil is, and what this prodigy is that revolves in heaven. The heretics, however, wishing by means of this account of the stars to establish their own doctrines, (and) with more than ordinary earnestness devoting their attention to these (astronomic systems), assert that Engonasis is Adam, according to the commandment of God as Moses declared, guarding the head of the Dragon, and the Dragon (guarding) his heel. For so Aratus expresses himself: – 

“The right-foot’s track of the Dragon fierce possessing.”149


Chap. XLVIII. – Invention of the Lyre; Allegorizing the Appearance and Position of the Stars; Origin of the Phoenicians; the Logos Identified by Aratus with the Constellation Canis; Influence of Canis on Fertility and Life Generally.

And (Aratus) says that (the constellations) Lyra and Corona have been placed on both sides near him, – now I mean Engonasis, – but that he bends the knee, and stretches forth both hands, as if making a confession of sin. And that the lyre is a musical instrument fashioned by Logos while still altogether an infant, and that Logos is the same as he who is denominated Mercury among the Greeks. And Aratus, with regard to the construction of the lyre, observes: – 

“Then, further, also near the cradle,150

Hermes pierced it through, and said, Call it Lyre.”151

It consists of seven strings, signifying by these seven strings the entire harmony and construction of the world as it is melodiously constituted. For in six days the world was made, and (the Creator) rested on the seventh. If, then, says (Aratus), Adam, acknowledging (his guilt) and guarding the head of the Beast, according to the commandment of the Deity, will imitate Lyra, that is, obey the Logos of God, that is, submit to the law, he will receive Corona that is situated near him. If, however, he neglect his duty, he shall be hurled downwards in company with the Beast that lies underneath, and shall have, he says, his portion with the Beast. And Engonasis seems on both sides to extend his hands, and on one to touch Lyra, and on the other Corona – and this is his confession; – so that it is possible to distinguish him by means of this (sidereal) configuration itself. But Corona nevertheless is plotted against, and forcibly drawn away by another beast, a smaller Dragon, which is the offspring of him who is guarded by the foot152 of Engonasis. A man also stands firmly grasping with both hands, and dragging towards the space behind the Serpent from Corona; and he does not permit the Beast to touch Corona, though making a violent effort to do so. And Aratus styles him Anguitenens, because he restrains the impetuosity of the Serpent in his attempt to reach Corona. But Logos, he says, is he who, in the figure of a man, hinders the Beast from reaching Corona, commiserating him who is being plotted against by the Dragon and his offspring simultaneously.

These (constellations), “The Bears,” however, he says, are two hebdomads, composed of seven stars, images of two creations. For the first creation, he affirms, is that according to Adam in labours, this is he who is seen “on his knees” (Engonasis). The second creation, however, is that according to Christ, by which we are regenerated; and this is Anguitenens, who struggles against the Beast, and hinders him from reaching Corona, which is reserved for the man. But “The Great Bear” is, he says, Helice,153 symbol of a mighty world towards which the Greeks steer their course, that is, for which they are being disciplined. And, wafted by the waves of life, they follow onwards, (having in prospect) some such revolving world or discipline or wisdom which conducts those back that follow in pursuit of such a world. For the term Helice seems to signify a certain circling and revolution towards the same points. There is likewise a certain other “Small Bear” (Cynosuris), as it were some image of the second creation – that formed according to God. For few, he says, there are that journey by the narrow path.154 But they assert that Cynosuris is narrow, towards which Aratus155 says that the Sidonians navigate. But Aratus has spoken partly of the Sidonians, (but means) the Phoenicians, on account of the existence of the admirable wisdom of the Phoenicians. The Greeks, however, assert that they are Phoenicians, who have migrated from (the shores of) the Red Sea into this country where they even at present dwell, for this is the opinion of Herodotus.156 Now Cynosura, he says, is this (lesser) Bear, the second creation; the one of limited dimensions, the narrow way, and not Helice. For he does not lead them back, but guides forward by a straight path, those that follow him being (the tail) of Canis. For Canis is the Logos,157 partly guarding and preserving the flock, that is plotted against by the wolves; and partly like a dog, hunting the beasts from the creation, and destroying them; and partly producing all things, and being what they express by the name “Cyon” (Canis), that is, generator. Hence it is said, Aratus has spoken of the rising of Canis, expressing himself thus: “When, however, Canis has risen, no longer do the crops miss.” This is what he says: Plants that have been put into the earth up to the period of Canis’ rising, frequently, though not having struck root, are yet covered with a profusion of leaves, and afford indications to spectators that they will be productive, and that they appear full of life, (though in reality) not having vitality in themselves from the root. But when the rising of Canis takes place, the living are separated from the dead by Canis; for whatsoever plants have not taken root, really undergo putrefaction. This Canis, therefore, he says, as being a certain divine Logos, has been appointed judge of quick and dead. And as (the influence of) Canis is observable in the vegetable productions of this world, so in plants of celestial growth – in men – is beheld the (power of the) Logos. From some such cause, then, Cynosura, the second creation, is set in the firmament as an image of a creation by the Logos. The Dragon, however, in the centre reclines between the two creations, preventing a transition of whatever things are from the great creation to the small creation; and in guarding those that are fixed in the (great) creation, as for instance Engonasis, observing (at the same time) how and in what manner each is constituted in the small creation. And (the Dragon) himself is watched at the head, he says, by Anguitenens. This image, he affirms, is fixed in heaven, being a certain wisdom to those capable of discerning it. If, however, this is obscure, by means of some other image, he says the creation teaches (men) to philosophize, in regard to which Aratus has expressed himself thus: – 

“Neither of Cepheus Iasidas are we the wretched brood.”158 


 Chap. XLIX. – Symbol of the Creature; and of Spirit; and of the Different Orders of Animals.

But Aratus says, near this (constellation) is Cepheus, and Cassiepea, and Andromeda, and Perseus, great lineaments of the creation to those who are able to discern them. For he asserts that Cepheus is Adam, Cassiepea Eve, Andromeda the soul of both of these, Perseus the Logos, winged offspring of Jove, and Cetos159 the plotting monster. Not to any of these, but to Andromeda only does he repair, who slays the Beast; from whom, likewise taking unto himself Andromeda, who had been delivered (and) chained to the Beast, the Logos – that is, Perseus – achieves, be says, her liberation. Perseus, however, is the winged axle that. pierces both poles through the centre of the earth, and turns the world round. The spirit also, that which is in the world, is (symbolized by) Cycnus, a bird – a musical animal near “The Bears” – type of the Divine Spirit, because that when it approaches the end itself of life,160 it alone is fitted by nature to sing, on departing with good hope from the wicked creation, (and) offering up hymns unto God. But crabs, and bulls, and lions, and rams, and goats, and kids, and as many other beasts as have their names used for denominating the stars in the firmament, are, he says, images, and exemplars from which the creation, subject to change, obtaining (the different) species, becomes replete with animals of this description.


Chap. L. – Folly of Astrology.

Employing these accounts, (the heretics) think to deceive as many of these as devote themselves over-sedulously to the astrologers, from thence striving to construct a system of religion that is widely divergent from the thoughts of these (speculators). Wherefore, beloved, let us avoid the habit of admiring trifles, secured by which the bird (styled) the owl (is captured). For these and other such speculations are, (as it were), dancing, and not Truth. For neither do the stars yield these points of information; but men of their own accord, for the designation of certain stars, thus called them by names, in order that they might become to them easily distinguishable. For what similarity with a bear or lion, or kid, or waterman, or Cepheus, or Andromeda, or the spectres that have names given them in Hades, have the stars that are scattered over the firmament – for we must remember that these men, and the titles themselves, came into existence long after the origin of man, – (what, I say, is in common between the two), that the heretics, astonished at the marvel, should thus strive by means of such discourses to strengthen their own opinions?





86 Hippolytus, having exposed the system of sidereal influence over men, proceeds to detail the magical rites and operations of the sorcerers. This arrangement is in conformity with the technical divisions of astrology into (1) judiciary, (2) natural. The former related to the prediction of future events, and the latter of phenomena of nature, being thus akin to the art of magic.

87 The text here and at the end of the last chapter is somewhat imperfect.

88 Or “cushion” (Cruice), or, “couch,” or “a recess.”

89 Or, “goes up,” or “commences,” or “enters in before the others, bearing the oblation” (Cruice).

90 Or, “deride.”

91 The Abbe Cruice considers that this passage, as attributing all this jugglery to the artifice of sorcerers, militates against the authorship of Origen, who ascribes (Περὶ Ἀρχῶν, lib. iii. p. 144, ed. Benedict.) the same results not to the frauds of magicians, but to demons.

92 Or, “denominated.”

93 Or, “rises up.”

94 On the margin of the ms we find the words, “concerning coals,” “concerning magical signs,” “concerning sheep.”

95 Or, παραδοθεὶς, “he delivers it a sword, and departs.”

96 Or, “close up.”

97 The words “death of a goat” occur on the margin of the ms.

98 A similar statement is made, on the authority of Alcmaeon, by Aristotle in his Histor. Animal., i. 2.

99 Μαννῇ is the word in the text. But manna in the ordinary acceptation of the term can scarcely be intended. Pliny, however, mentions it as a proper name of grains of incense and resin. The Abbe Cruice suggests the very probable emendation of μάλθῃ, which signifies a mixture of wax and resin for caulking ships.

100 δίαυλον in the text has been altered into κελανὸν. The translator has followed the latter.

101 Or, “indissoluble,” or “inseparable.”

102 Marsilius Ficinus (in his Commentary on Plotinus, p. 504 et seq., vol. ii. Creuzer’s edition), who here discusses the subject of demons and magical art, mentions, on the authority of Porphyry, that sorcerers had the power of evoking demons, and that a magician, in the presence of many, has shown to Plotinus his guardian demon (angel). This constitutes the Goetic department of magic.

103 Or, “full of pitch.”

104 Μυρσίνῃ. This word is evidently not the right one, for we have (σμύρνῃ) myrrh mentioned. Perhaps the word μάλθῃ, suggested in a previous passage, is the one employed here likewise.

105 Or, “makes speedy preparation;” or, “resorts to the contrivance of.”

106 The words in italics are added by the Abbe Cruice. There is obviously some hiatus in the original.

107 Or, “the refuse of.”

108 In the margin of the ms occur the words, “concerning the breaking of the seals.”

109 Or, “exposed their method of proceeding in accordance with the system of Gnosticism.” Schneidewin, following C. Fr. Hermann, is of opinion that what follows is taken from Celsus’ work on magic, to which Origen alludes in the Contra Celsum, lib. i. p. 53 (Spencer’s edition). Lucian (the well-known satirist), in his Alexander, or Pseudomantis, gives an account of the jugglery of these magicians. See note, chap. xlii. of this book.

110 Or, “ground” – φορυκτῆς (al.) φορυτῆς (al.) φρυκτῆς (al.) φρικτῆς.

111 Or, “insert.”

112 Or, “taught,” or “adduced,” or “delivered.”

113 This sentence is obviously out of place, and should probably come in before the words, “These contrivances, however, I hesitated to narrate,” etc., a few lines above in this chapter. The Abbe Cruice conjectures that it may have been written on the margin by some reader acquainted with chemistry, and that afterwards it found its way into the text.

114 Some read φανερὸν for παρὸν.

115 What cyanus was is not exactly known. It was employed in the Homeric age for the adornment of implements of war. Whatever the nature of the substance be, it was of a dark-blue colour. Some suppose it to have been blue steel, others blue copper. Theophrastus’ account of it makes it a stone like a dark sapphire.

116 Or, “with the head downwards,”

117 There is some hiatus here.

118 Or, “memory.”

119 Or, “suspending a drum, etc., covered with,” etc.; or “frequently placing on an elevated position a drum.” For πόῤῥωεν, which is not here easy of explanation, some read τορνωθὲν, others πορπωθὲν, i.e., fastened with buckles; others, πόῤῥω τεθὲν.

120 Schneidewin, but not the Abbe Cruice, thinks there is a hiatus here.

121 There are different readings: (1) ἐτυμολογικῆς; (2) ἔτι ὁλοκλήρου; (3) ὑαλουργικῆς, i.e., composed of glass. (See nextnote.)

122 The Abbe Cruice properly remarks that this has no meaning here. He would read ὑαλώδεσι τόποις, or by means of glass images.

123 There is a hiatus here.

124 The Abbe Cruice suggests ἐπίπλεον βώλου, which he thinks corresponds with the material of which the pyramid mentioned in a previous chapter was composed. He, however, makes no attempt at translating ἐπίπλεον. Does he mean that the skull was filled with clay? His emendation is forced.

125 Or, “rubbings of” (Cruice).

126 Or, “they say.”

127 Some similar juggleries are mentioned by Lucian in his Alexander, or Pseudomantis, xxxii. 26, – a work of kindred nature to Celcius’ Treatise on Magic (the latter alluded to by Origen, Contr. Cels., lib. i. p. 53. ed. Spenc.), and dedicated by Lucian to Celsus.

128 The word magic, or magician, at its origin, had no sinister meaning, as being the science blessed by the Magi, who were an exclusive religious sect of great antiquity in Persia, universally venerated for their mathematical skill and erudition generally. It was persons who practiced the wicked arts, and assumed the name of Magi, that brought the term into disrepute. The origin of magic has been ascribed to Zoroaster, and once devised, it made rapid progress; because, as Pliny reminds us, it includes three systems of the greatest influence among men – (1) the art of medicine, (2) religion, (3) divination. This corresponds with Agrippa’s division of magic into (1) natural, (2) celestial, (3) ceremonial, or superstitious. This last has been called “goetic” (full of imposture), and relates to the invocation of devils. This originated probably in Egypt, and quickly spread all over the world.

129 Or, “topic discussed;” or, “not have any place (subterfuge) for these,” etc.

130 Or, “you will suppose.”

131 See Aristotle’s Metaphysics, book i.; Cicero, De Naturâ Deorum, book i. (both translated in Bohn’s Classical Library); and Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum, lib. i.

132 The mention of the Persians, Babylonians, and Egyptians shows the subject-matter of the lost books to have been concerning the speculative systems of these nations.

133 This rendering follows Miller’s text. Schneidewin thinks there is a hiatus, which the Abbe Cruice fills up, the latter translating the passage without an interrogation: “The Egyptians, who think themselves more ancient than all, have formed their ideas of the power of the Deity by calculations and computing,” etc.

134 Or, “ineditation on the divine nature,” or “godlike reflection.”

135 The ms has “says he.”

136 The Abbe Cruice suggests the elimination of 9, on account of its being a divisible number.

137 Miller considers some reference here to the six days’ creation (Hexaëmeron), on account of the word φυσικωτέρα, i.e., more natural. The Abbe Cruice considers that there is an allusion to an astronomic instrument used for exhibiting harmonic combinations; see Ptolem., Harmon, i. 2. Bunsen reads τοῦ ἑξακύκλου ὑλικοῦ.

138 The text is obviously corrupt. As given by Schneidewin, it might be rendered thus: “These deriving from the monad a numerical symbol, a virtue, have progressed up to the elements.” He makes no attempt at a Latin version. The Abbe Cruice would suggest the introduction of the word προστεθεῖσαν, on account of the statement already made, that “the monad, superadded into itself, produces a duad.”

139 There is a hiatus here. Hippolytus has said nothing concerning enneads.

140 Or, “names have been allocated,” or “distributed.”

141 Miller thinks it should be “even number” (περιττόν). The Abbe Cruice would retain “uneven” (ἀπερίζυγον), on the ground that the duad being a περίζυξ ἀριθμὸς, the monad will be ἀπεριζυγος.

142 Servius on the Eclogues of Virgil (viii. 75) and Pliny (Hist. Nat, xxxviii. 2) make similar statements.

143 This is Miller and Schneidewin’s emendation for “uneven” in the ms.

144 Arat., Phaenom., v. 19 et seq.

145 Arat., Phaenom., v. 45, 46.

146 This refers to Job_1:7, but is at once recognised not as a correct quotation.

147 Arat., Phaenom., v. 61.

148 Arat., Phaenom., v. 63 et seq.

149 Arat., Phaenom., v. 70.

150 “Pierced it through,” i.e., bored the holes for the strings, or, in other words, constructed the instrument. The Latin version in Buhle’s edition of Aratus is ad cunam (cunabulam) compegit, i.e., he fastened the strings into the shell of the tortoise near his bed. The tortoise is mentioned by Aratus in the first part of the line, which fact removes the obscurity of the passage as quoted by Hippolytus. The general tradition corresponds with this, in representing Mercury on the shores of the Nile forming a lyre out of a dried tortoise. The word translated bed might also be rendered fan, which was used as a cradle, its size and construction being suitable. (see note, p. 46, infra.]

151 Arat., Phaenom., v. 286.

152 Or, “son of” (see Arat., Phaenom., v. 70).

153 The Abbe Cruice considers that these interpretations, as well as what follows, are taken not from a Greek writer, but a Jewish heretic. No Greek, he supposes, would write, as is stated lower down, that the Greeks were a Phoenician colony. The Jewish heresies were impregnated by these silly doctrines about the stars (see Epiphan., Adv. Haeres., lib. i. De Pharisaeis).

154 Reference is here made to Mat_7:14.

155 Arat., Phaenom., v. 44.

156 Herod., Hist., i., 1.

157 Or, “for creation is the Logos” (see Arat., Phaenom., v. 332 et seq.).

158 Arat., Phaenom., v. 179.

159 i.e., literally a sea-monster (Cicero’s Pisterix); Arat., Phaenom., v. 353 et seq.

160 πρὸς σὐτοῖς ἤδη τοῖς τέρμασι γενόμενον τοῦ βίου. Some read τοῖς σπέρμασι, which yields no intelligible meaning.

Hippolytus (Cont.)The Refutation of All Heresies. (Cont.)

Book IV. (Cont.)

Chap. LI. – The Hebdomadarii; System of the Arithmeticians; Pressed into the Service of Heresy; Instances Of, in Simon and Valentinus; the Nature of the Universe Deducible from the Physiology of the Brain.

But since almost every heresy (that has sprung up) through the arithmetical art has discovered measures of hebdomads and certain projections of Aeons, each rending the art differently, while whatever variation prevailed was in the names merely; and (since) Pythagoras became the instructor of these, tint introducing numbers of this sort among the Greeks from Egypt, it seems expedient not to omit even this, but, after we have given a compendious elucidation, to approach the demonstration of those things that we propose to investigate.

Arithmeticians and geometers arose, to whom especially Pythagoras first seems to have furnished principles. And from numbers that can continually progress ad infinitum by multiplication, and from figures, these derived their first principles,161 as capable of being discerned by reason alone; for a principle of geometry, as one may perceive, is an indivisible point. From that point, however, by means of the art, the generation of endless figures from the point is discovered. For the point being drawn into length becomes a line, after being thus continued, having a point for its extremity. And a line flowing out into breadth begets a surface, and the limits of the surface are lines; but a surface flowing out into breadth becomes body, And when what is solid has in this manner derived existence from, altogether, the smallest point, the nature of a huge body is constituted; and this is what Simon expresses thus: “The little will be great, being as a point, and the great illimitable.” Now this coincides with the geometrical doctrine of a point.

But of the arithmetical162 art, which by composition contains philosophy, number became a first principle, which is an indefinable and incomprehensible (entity), comprising in itself all the numbers that can go on ad infinitum by aggregation. But the first monad became a principle, according to substance, of the numbers, which (principle) is a male163 monad, pro-creating paternally all the rest of the numbers. Secondly, the duad is a female number, which by the arithmeticians is also itself denominated even. Thirdly, the triad is a male number; this also it has been the usual custom of arithmeticians to style odd. In addition to all these, the tetrad is a female number; and this same, because it is feminine, is likewise denominated even. All the numbers therefore, taken generically, are four – number, however, as regards genus, is indefinite – from which, according to their system, is formed the perfect number – I mean the decade. For one, two, three, four, become ten – as has been previously proved – if the proper denomination be preserved, according to substance, for each of the numbers. This is the sacred quaternion, according to Pythagoras, having in itself roots of an endless nature, that is, all other numbers; for eleven, and twelve, and the rest, derive the principle of generation from the ten. Of this decade – the perfect number – there are called four parts – number, monad, power, cube – whose connections and mixtures take place for the generation of increase, according to nature completing the productive number. For when the square is multiplied into itself, it becomes a biquadratic; but when the square is multiplied into a cube, it becomes the product of a quadratic and cube; but when a cube is multiplied into a cube, it becomes the product of cube multiplied by cube. Wherefore all the numbers are seven; so that the generation of things produced may be from the hebdomad – which is number, monad, power, cube, biquadratic, product of quadratic multiplied by cube, product of cube multiplied by cube.

Of this hebdomad Simon and Valentinus, having altered the names, detailed marvellous stories, from thence hastily adopting a system for themselves. For Simon employs his denominations thus: Mind, Intelligence, Name, Voice, Ratiocination, Reflection; and He who stood, stands, will stand. And Valentinus (enumerates them thus): Mind, Truth, Word, Life, Man, Church, and the Father, reckoned along with these, according to the same principles as those advanced by the cultivators of arithmetical philosophy. And (heresiarchs) admiring, as if unknown to the multitude, (this philosophy, and) following it, have framed heterodox doctrines devised by themselves.

Some indeed, then, attempt likewise to form the hebdomads from the medical164 (art), being astonished at the dissection of the brain, asserting that the substance of the universe and the power of procreation and the Godhead could be ascertained from the arrangement of the brain. For the brain, being the dominant portion of the entire body, reposes calm and unmoved, containing within itself the spirit. Such an account, then, is not incredible, but widely differs from the conclusions which these (heretics) attempt to deduce from it. For the brain, on being dissected, has within it what may be called a vaulted chamber. And on either side of this are thin membranes, which they term little wings. Now these are gently moved by the spirit, and in turn propel towards the cerebellum the spirit, which, careering through a certain blood-vessel like a reed, advances towards the pineal gland. And near this is situated the entrance of the cerebellum, which admits the current of spirit, and distributes it into what is styled the spinal marrow. But from them the whole frame participates in the spiritual energy, inasmuch as all the arteries, like a branch, are fastened on from this blood-vessel, the extremity of which terminates in the genital blood-vessels, whence all the (animal) seeds proceeding from the brain through the loin are secreted (in the seminal glands). The form, however, of the brain is like the head of a serpent, respecting which a lengthened discussion is maintained by the professors of knowledge, falsely so named, as we shall prove. Six other coupling ligaments grow out of the brain, which, traversing round the head, and having their termination in (the head) itself, hold bodies together; but the seventh (ligament) proceeds from the cerebellum to the lower parts of the rest of the frame, as we have declared.

And respecting this there is an enlarged discussion, whence both Simon and Valentinus will be found both to have derived from this source starting-points for their opinions, and, though they may not acknowledge it, to be in the first instance liars, then heretics. Since, then, it appears that we have sufficiently explained these tenets likewise, and that all the reputed opinions of this earthly philosophy have been comprised in four books; it seems expedient to proceed to a consideration of the disciples of these men, nay rather, those who have furtively appropriated their doctrines.165



[On p. 43 supra I omitted to direct attention to the desirable enlargement of note 150 by a reference to Homer’s Hymn of Mercury and its minute description of the invention of the Lyre. The passage is given in Henry Nelson Coleridge’s Introduction, etc., p. 202. The versified translation of Shelley is inimitable; in ottava rima, but instinct with the ethos of the original.] 





161 Sextus Empiricus. adv. Geom., 29 et seq. (See book vi. chap. xviii. of The Refutation.

162 The observations following have already been made in book i. of The Refutation.

163 Some read ἄρσις.

164 The Abbe Cruice refers to Censorinus (De Die Natali, cap. vii. et xiv.), who mentions that two numbers were held in veneration, the seventh (hebdomad) and ninth (ennead).The former was of use in curing corporeal diseases of the mind, and was attributed to the muses.

165 At the foot of ms occur the words, “Fourth Book of Philosophumena.”

Hippolytus (Cont.)The Refutation of All Heresies. (Cont.)

Book V.


The following are the contents of the fifth book of the Refutation of all Heresies:1 – 

What the assertions are of the Naasseni, who style themselves Gnostics, and that they advance those opinions which the Philosophers of the Greeks previously propounded, as well as those who have handed down mystical (rites), from (both of) whom the Naasseni taking occasion, have constructed their heresies.

And what are the tenets of the Perstae, and that their system is not framed by them out of the holy Scriptures, but from astrological art.

What is the doctrine of the Sethians,2 and that, purloining3 their theories from the wise men among the Greeks, they have patched together their own system out of shreds of opinion taken from Musaeus, and Linus, and Orpheus.

What are the tenets of Justinus, and that his system is framed By him, not out of the holy Scriptures, but from the detail of marvels furnished by Herodotus the historian.


Chap. I. – Recapitulation; Characteristics of Heresy; Origin of the Name Naasseni; the System of the Naasseni.

I think that in the four preceding books I have very elaborately explained the opinions propounded by all the speculators among both Greeks and Barbarians, respecting the Divine Nature and the creation of the world; and not even have I omitted4 the consideration of their systems of magic. So that I have for my readers undergone no ordinary amount of toil, in my anxiety to urge many forward into a desire of learning, and into stedfastness of knowledge in regard of the truth. It remains, therefore, to hasten on to the refutation of the heresies; but it is for the purpose of furnishing this (refutation) that we have put forward the statements already made by us. For from philosophers the heresiarchs deriving5 starting-points, (and) like cobblers patching together, according to their own particular interpretation, the blunders of the ancients, have advanced them as novelties to those that are capable of being deceived, as we shall prove in the following books. In the remainder (of our work), the opportunity invites us to approach the treatment of our proposed subjects, and to begin from those who have presumed to celebrate a serpent,6 the originator of the error (in question), through certain expressions devised by the energy of his own (ingenuity). The priests, then, and champions of the system, have been first those who have been called Naasseni,7 being so denominated from the Hebrew language, for the serpent is called naas8 (in Hebrew). Subsequently, however, they have styled themselves Gnostics, alleging that they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge. Now, from the system of these (speculators), many, detaching parts, have constructed a heresy which, though with several subdivisions, is essentially one, and they explain precisely the same (tenets); though conveyed under the guise of different opinions, as the following discussion, according as it progresses, will prove. 

These (Naasseni), then, according to the system9 advanced by them, magnify, (as the originating cause) of all things else, a man and a son of man. And this man is a hermaphrodite, and is denominated among them Adam; and hymns many and various are made to him. The hymns,10 however – to be brief – are couched among them in some such form as this: “From thee (comes) father, and through thee (comes) mother, two names immortal, progenitors of Aeons, O denizen of heaven, thou illustrious man.” But they divide him as Geryon11 into three parts. For, say they, of this man one part is rational, another psychical, another earthly. And they suppose that the knowledge of him is the originating principle of the capacity for a knowledge of God, expressing themselves thus: “The originating principle of perfection is the knowledge12 of man, while the knowledge of God is absolute perfection.” All these qualities, however – rational, and psychical, and earthly – have, (the Naassene) says, retired and descended into one man simultaneously – Jesus,13 who was born of Mary. And these three men (the Naassene) says, are in the habit of speaking (through Jesus) at the same time together, each from their own proper substances to those peculiarly their own. For, according to these, there are three kinds of all existent things – angelic, psychical, earthly; and there are three churches – angelic, psychical, earthly; and the names of these are elect, called, captive.


Chap. II. – Naasseni Ascribe Their System, Through Mariamne, to James the Lord’s Brother; Really Traceable to the Ancient Mysteries; Their Psychology as Given in the “Gospel According to Thomas;” Assyrian Theory of the Soul; the Systems of the Naasseni and the Assyrians Compared; Support Drawn by the Naasseni from the Phrygian and Egyptian Mysteries; the Mysteries of Isis; These Mysteries Allegorized by the Naasseni.

These are the heads of very numerous discourses which (the Naassene) asserts James the brother of the Lord handed down to Mariamne.14 In order, then, that these impious (heretics) may no longer belie Mariamne or James, or the Saviour Himself, let us come to the mystic rites (whence these have derived their figment), – to a consideration, if it seems right, of both the Barbarian and Grecian (mysteries), – and let us see how these (heretics), collecting together the secret and ineffable mysteries of all the Gentiles, are uttering falsehoods against Christ, and are making dupes of those who are not acquainted with these orgies of the Gentiles. For since the foundation of the doctrine with them is the man Adam, and they say that concerning him it has been written, “Who shall declare his generation?” (Isa_53:8) learn how, partly deriving from the Gentiles the undiscoverable and diversified15 generation of the man, they fictitiously apply it to Christ.

“Now earth,”16 say the Greeks, “gave forth a man, (earth) first bearing a goodly gift, wishing to become mother not of plants devoid of sense, nor beasts without reason, but of a gentle and highly favoured creature.” “It, however, is difficult,” (the Naassene) says, “to ascertain whether Alalcomeneus,17 first of men, rose upon the Boeotians over Lake Cephisus; or whether it were the Idaean Curetes, a divine race; or the Phrygian Corybantes, whom first the sun beheld springing up after the manner of the growth of trees; or whether Arcadia brought forth Pelasgus, of greater antiquity than the moon; or Eleusis (produced) Diaulus, an inhabitant of Raria; or Lemnus begot Cabirus, fair child of secret orgies; or Pallerie (brought forth) the Phlegraean Alcyoneus, oldest of the giants. But the Libyans affirm that Iarbas, first born, on emerging from arid plains, commenced eating the sweet acorn of Jupiter. But the Nile of the Egyptians,” he says, “up to this day fertilizing mud, (and therefore) generating animals, renders up living bodies, which acquire flesh from moist vapour.” The Assyrians, however, say that fish-eating Oannes18 was (the first man, and) produced among themselves. The Chaldeans, however, say that this Adam is the man whom alone earth brought forth. And that he lay inanimate, unmoved, (and) still as a statue; being an image of him who is above, who is celebrated as the man Adam,19 having been begotten by many powers, concerning whom individually is an enlarged discussion.

In order, therefore, that finally the Great Man from above may be overpowered, “from whom,” as they say, “the whole family named on earth and in the heavens has been formed, to him was given also a soul, that through the soul he might suffer; and that the enslaved image may be punished of the Great and most Glorious and Perfect Man, for even so they call him. Again, then, they ask what is the soul, and whence, and what kind in its nature, that, coming to the man and moving him,20 it should enslave and punish the image of the Perfect Man. They do not, however, (on this point) institute an inquiry from the Scriptures, but ask this (question) also from the mystic (rites). And they affirm that the soul is very difficult to discover, and hard to understand; for it does not remain in the same figure or the same form invariably, or in one passive condition, that either one could express it by a sign, or comprehend it substantially.

But they have these varied changes (of the soul) set down in the gospel inscribed “according to the Egyptians.”21 They are, then, in doubt, as all the rest of men among the Gentiles, whether (the soul) is at all from something pre-existent, or whether from the self-produced (one),22 or from a widespread Chaos. And first they fly for refuge to the mysteries of the Assyrians, perceiving the threefold division of the man; for the Assyrians first advanced the opinion that the soul has three parts, and yet (is essentially) one. For of soul, say they, is every nature desirous, and each in a different manner. For soul is cause of all things made; all things that are nourished, (the Naassene) says, and that grow, require soul. For it is not possible, he says, to obtain any nourishment or growth where soul is not present. For even stones, he affirms, are animated, for they possess what is capable of increase; but increase would not at any time take place without nourishment, for it is by accession that things which are being increased grow, but accession is the nourishment of things that are nurtured. Every nature, then, as of thins celestial and (the Naasene) says, of things celestial, and earthly, and infernal, desires a soul. And an entity of this description the Assyrians call Adonis or Endymion;23 and when it is styled Adonis, Venus, he says, loves and desires the soul when styled by such a name. But Venus is production, according to them. But whenever Proserpine or Cora becomes enamoured with Adonis, there results, he says, a certain mortal soul separated from Venus (that is, from generation). But should the Moon pass into concupiscence for Endymion, and into love of her form, the nature,24 he says, of the higher beings requires a soul likewise. But if, he says, the mother of the gods emasculate Attis,25 and herself has this (person) as an object of affection, the blessed nature, he says, of the supernal and everlasting (beings) alone recalls the male power of the soul to itself.

For (the Naassene) says, there is the hermaphrodite man. According to this account of theirs, the intercourse of woman with man is demonstrated, in conformity with such teaching, to be an exceedingly wicked and filthy (practice).26 For, says (the Naassene), Attis has been emasculated, that is, he has passed over from the earthly parts of the nether world to the everlasting substance above, where, he says, there is neither female or male,27 but a new creature, (See 2Co_5:17; Gal_6:15) a new man, which is hermaphrodite. As to where, however, they use the expression “above,” I shall show when I come to the proper place (for treating this subject). But they assert that, by their account, they testify that Rhea is not absolutely isolated, but – for so I may say – the universal creature; and this they declare to be what is affirmed by the Word. “For the invisible things of Him are seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made by Him, even His eternal power and Godhead, for the purpose of leaving them without excuse. Wherefore, knowing God, they glorified Him not as God, nor gave Him thanks; but their foolish heart was rendered vain. For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into images of the likeness of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore also God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.” What, however, the natural use is, according to them, we shall afterwards declare. “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly” – now the expression that which is unseemly signifies, according to these (Naasseni), the first and blessed substance, figureless, the cause of all figures to those things that are moulded into shapes, – ”and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” (Rom_1:20-27) For in these words which Paul has spoken they say the entire secret of theirs, and a hidden mystery of blessed pleasure, are comprised. For the promise of washing is not any other, according to them, than the introduction of him that is washed in, according to them, life-giving water, and anointed with ineffable28 ointment (than his introduction) into unfading bliss.

But they assert that not only is there in favour of their doctrine, testimony to be drawn from the mysteries of the Assyrians, but also from those of the Phrygians concerning the happy nature – concealed, and yet at the same time disclosed – of things that have been, and are coming into existence, and moreover will be, – (a happy nature) which, (the Naassene) says, is the kingdom of heaven to be sought for within a man. (Luk_17:21) And concerning this (nature) they hand down an explicit passage, occurring29 in the Gospel inscribed according to Thomas,30 expressing themselves thus: “He who seeks me, will find, me in children from seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be made manifest.” This, however, is not (the teaching) of Christ, but of Hippocrates, who uses these words: “A child of seven years is half of a father.” And so it is that these (heretics), placing the originative nature of the universe in causative seed, (and) having ascertained the (aphorism) of Hippocrates,31 that a child of seven years old is half of a father, say that in fourteen years, according to Thomas, he is manifested. This, with them, is the ineffable and mystical Logos. They assert, then, that the Egyptians, who after the Phrygians,32 it is established, are of greater antiquity than all mankind, and who confessedly were the first to proclaim to all the rest of men the rites and orgies of, at the same time, all the gods, as well as the species and energies (of things), have the sacred and august, and for those who are not initiated, unspeakable mysteries of Isis. These, however, are not anything else than what by her of the seven dresses and sable robe was sought and snatched away, namely, the pudendum of Osiris. And they say that Osiris is water.33 But the seven-robed nature, encircled and arrayed with seven mantles of ethereal texture – for so they call the planetary stars, allegorizing and denominating them ethereal34 robes, – is as it were the changeable generation, and is exhibited as the creature transformed by the ineffable and unportrayable,35 and inconceivable and figureless one. And this, (the Naassene) says, is what is declared in Scripture, “The just will fall seven times, and rise again.” (Pro_24:16; Luk_17:4) For these falls, he says, are the changes of the stars, moved by Him who puts all things in motion.

They affirm, then, concerning the substance36 of the seed which is a cause of all existent things, that it is none of these, but that it produces and forms all things that are made, expressing themselves thus: “I become what I wish, and I am what I am: on account of this I say, that what puts all things in motion is itself unmoved. For what exists remains forming all things, and nought of existing things is made.”37 He says that this (one) alone is good, and that what is spoken by the Saviour (Mat_19:17; Mar_10:18; Luk_18:19) is declared concerning this (one): “Why do you say that am good? One is good, my Father which is in the heavens, who causeth His sun to rise upon the just and unjust, and sendeth rain upon saints and sinners.” (Mat_5:45) But who the saintly ones are on whom He sends the rain, and the sinners on whom the same sends the rain, this likewise we shall afterwards declare with the rest. And this is the great and secret and unknown mystery of the universe, concealed and revealed among the Egyptians. For Osiris,38 (the Naassene) says, is in temples in front of Isis;39 and his pudendum stands exposed, looking downwards, and crowned with all its own fruits of things that are made. And (he affirms) that such stands not only in the most hallowed temples chief of idols, but that also, for the information of all, it is as it were a light not set under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, proclaiming its message upon the housetops, (Mat_5:15; Mat_10:27) in all byways, and all streets, and near the actual dwellings, placed in front as a certain appointed limit and termination of the dwelling, and that this is denominated the good (entity) by all. For they style this good-producing, not knowing what they say. And the Greeks, deriving this mystical (expression) from the Egyptians, preserve it until this day. For we behold, says (the Naassene), statues of Mercury, of such a figure honoured among them.

Worshipping, however, Cyllenius with especial distinction, they style him Logios. For Mercury is Logos, who being interpreter and fabricator of the things that have been made simultaneously, and that are being produced, and that will exist, stands honoured among them, fashioned into some such figure as is the pudendum of a man, having an impulsive power from the parts below towards those above. And that this (deity) – that is, a Mercury of this description – is, (the Naassene) says, a conjurer of the dead, and a guide of departed spirits, and an originator of souls; nor does this escape the notice of the poets, who express themselves thus: – 

“Cyllenian Hermes also called

The souls of mortal suitors.”40

Not Penelope’s suitors, says he, O wretches! but (souls) awakened and brought to recollection of themselves,

“From honour so great, and from bliss so long.”41

That is, from the blessed man from above, or the primal man or Adam, as it seems to them, souls have been conveyed down here into a creation of clay, that they may serve the Demiurge of this creation, Ialdabaoth,42 a fiery God, a fourth number; for so they call the Demiurge and father of the formal world: – 

“And in hand he held a lovely

Wand of gold that human eyes enchants,

Of whom he will, and those again who slumber rouses.”43

This, he says, is he who alone has power of life and death. Concerning this, he says, it has been written, “Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron.” (Psa_2:9) The poet, however, he says, being desirous of adorning the incomprehensible (potency) of the blessed nature of the Logos, invested him with not an iron, but golden wand. And he enchants the eyes of the dead, as he says, and raises up again those that are slumbering, after having been roused from sleep, and after having been suitors. And concerning these, he says, the Scripture speaks: “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise, and Christ will give thee light.” (Eph_5:14)

This is the Christ who, he says, in all that have been generated, is the portrayed Son of Man from the unportrayable Logos. This, he says, is the great and unspeakable mystery of the Eleusinian rites, Hye, Cye.44 And he affirms that all things have been subjected unto him, and this is that which has been spoken, “Their sound is gone forth unto all the earth,” (Rom_10:18) just as it agrees with the expressions, “Mercury45 waving his wand, guides the souls, but they twittering follow.” I mean the disembodied spirits follow continuously in such a way as the poet by his imagery delineates, using these words: – 

“And as when in the magic cave’s recess

Bats humming fly, and when one drops

From ridge of rock, and each to other closely clings.”46

The expression “rock,” he says, he uses of Adam. This, he affirms, is Adam: “The chief corner-stone become the head of the corner. (Psa_118:22; Isa_28:16) For that in the head the substance is the formative brain from which the entire family is fashioned. (Eph_3:15) “Whom,” he says, “I place as a rock at the foundations of Zion.” Allegorizing, he says, he speaks of the creation of the man. The rock is interposed (within) the teeth, as Homer47 says, “enclosure of teeth,” that is, a wall and fortress, in which exists the inner man, who thither has fallen from Adam, the primal man above. And he has been “severed without hands to effect the division,” (Dan_2:45) and has been borne down into the image of oblivion, being earthly and clayish. And he asserts that the twittering spirits follow him, that is, the Logos: – 

“Thus these, twittering, came together: and then the souls.

That is, he guides them;

Gentle Hermes led through wide-extended paths.”48

That is, he says, into the eternal places separated from all wickedness. For whither, he says, did they come: – 

“O’er ocean’s streams they came, and Leuca’s cliff,

And by the portals of the sun and land of dreams.”

This, he says, is ocean, “generation of gods and generation of men”49 ever whirled round by the eddies of water, at one time upwards, at another time downwards. But he says there ensues a generation of men when the ocean flows downwards; but when upwards to the wall and fortress and the cliff of Luecas, a generation of gods takes place. This, he asserts, is that which has been written: “I said, Ye are gods, and all children of the highest;” (Psa_82:6; Luk_6:35; Joh_10:34) “If ye hasten to fly out of Egypt, and repair beyond the Red Sea into the wilderness,” that is, from earthly intercourse to the Jerusalem above, which is the mother of the living; (Gal_4:26) “If, moreover, again you return into Egypt,” that is, into earthly intercourse,50 “ye shall die as men.” For mortal, he says, is every generation below, but immortal that which is begotten above, for it is born of water only, and of spirit, being spiritual, not carnal. But what (is born) below is carnal, that is, he says, what is written. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.” (Joh_3:6) This, according to them, is the spiritual generation. This, he says, is the great Jordan (Jos_3:7-17) which, flowing on (here) below, and preventing the children of Israel from departing out of Egypt – I mean from terrestrial intercourse, for Egypt is with them the body, – Jesus drove back, and made it flow upwards.


Chap. III. – Further Exposition of the Heresy of the Naasseni; Profess to Follow Homer; Acknowledge a Triad of Principles; Their Technical Names of the Triad; Support These on the Authority of Greek Poets; Allegorize Our Saviour’s Miracles; the Mystery of the Samothracians; Why the Lord Chose Twelve Disciples; the Name Corybas, Used by Thracians and Phrygians, Explained; Naasseni Profess to Find Their System in Scripture; Their Interpretation of Jacob’s Vision; Their Idea of the “Perfect Man;” the “Perfect Man” Called “Papa” by the Phrygians; the Naasseni and Phrygians on the Resurrection; the Ecstasis of St. Paul; the Mysteries of Religion as Alluded to by Christ; Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower; Allegory of the Promised Land; Comparison of the System of the Phrygians with the Statements of Scripture; Exposition of the Meaning of the Higher and Lower Eleusinian Mysteries; the Incarnation Discoverable Here According to the Naasseni.

Adopting these and such like (opinions), these most marvellous Gnostics, inventors of a novel51 grammatical art, magnify Homer as their prophet – as one, (according to them,) who, after the mode adopted in the mysteries, announces these truths; and they mock those who are not indoctrinated into the holy Scriptures, by betraying them into such notions. They make, however, the following assertion: he who says that all things derive consistence from one, is in error; but he who says that they are of three, is in possession of the truth, and will furnish a solution of the (phenomena of the) universe. For there is, says (the Naassene), one blessed nature of the Blessed Man, of him who is above, (namely) Adam; and there is one mortal nature, that which is below; and there is one kingless generation, which is begotten above, where, he says, is Mariam52 the sought-for one, and Iothor the mighty sage, and Sephors the gazing one, and Moses whose generation is not in Egypt, for children were born unto him in Madian; and not even this, he says, has escaped the notice of the poets.

“Threefold was our partition; each obtained

His meed of honour due.”53

For, says he, it is necessary that the magnitudes be declared, and that they thus be declared by all everywhere, “in order that hearing they may not hear, and seeing they may not see.” (Mat_13:13) For if, he says, the magnitudes were not declared, the world could not have obtained consistence. These are the three tumid expressions (of these heretics), Caulacau,54 Saulasu, Zeesar. Caulacau, i.e., Adam, who is farthest above; Saulasau, that is, the mortal one below; Zeesar, that is, Jordan that flows upwards. This, he says, is the hermaphrodite man (present) in all. But those who are ignorant of him, call him Geryon with the threefold body – Geryon, i.e., as if (in the sense of) flowing from earth – but (whom) the Greeks by common consent (style) “celestial horn of the moon,” because he mixed and blended all things in all. “For all things,” he says, “were made by him, and not even one thing was made without him, and what was made in him is life.” (Joh_1:3, Joh_1:4) This, says he, is the life, the ineffable generation of perfect men, which was not known by preceding generations. But the passage, “nothing was made without him,” refers to the formal world, for it was created without his instrumentality by the third and fourth (of the quaternion named above). For says he, this is the cup “Condy, out of which the king, while he quaffs, draws his omens.” (Gen_44:2-5) This, he says, has been discovered hid in the beauteous seeds of Benjamin. And the Greeks likewise, he says, speak of this in the following terms: – 

“Water to the raging mouth bring; thou slave, bring wine;

Intoxicate and plunge me into stupor.

My tankard tells me

The sort I must become.”55

This, says he, was alone sufficient for its being understood by men; (I mean) the cup of Anacreon declaring, (albeit) mutely, an ineffable mystery. For dumb, says he, is Anacreon’s cup; and (yet) Anacreon affirms that it speaks to himself, in language mute, as to what sort he must become – that is spiritual, not carnal – if he shall listen in silence to the concealed mystery. And this is the water in those fair nuptials which Jesus changing made into wine. This, he says, is the mighty and true beginning of miracles (Joh_2:1-11) which Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee, and (thus) manifested the kingdom of heaven. This, says he, is the kingdom of heaven that reposes within us as a treasure, as leaven hid in the three measures of meal. (Mat_13:33, Mat_13:34; Luk_17:21)

This is, he says, the great and ineffable mystery of the Samothracians, which it is allowable, he says, for us only who are initiated to know. For the Samothracians expressly hand down, in the mysteries that are celebrated among them, that (same) Adam as the primal man. And habitually there stand in the temple of the Samothracians two images of naked men, having both hands stretched aloft towards heaven, and their pudenda erecta, as with the statue of Mercury on Mount Cyllene. And the aforesaid images are figures of the primal man, and of that spiritual one that is born again, in every respect of the same substance with that man. This, he says, is what is spoken by the Saviour: “If ye do not drink my blood, and eat my flesh, ye will not enter into the kingdom of heaven; but even though,” He says, “ye drink of the cup which I drink of, whither I go, ye cannot enter there.”(Joh_6:53; Mar_10:38) For He says He was aware of what sort of nature each of His disciples was, and that there was a necessity that each of them should attain unto His own peculiar nature. For He says He chose twelve disciples from the twelve tribes, and spoke by them to each tribe. On this account, He says, the preachings of the twelve disciples neither did all hear, nor, if they heard, could they receive. For the things that are not according to nature, are with them contrary to nature.

This, he says, the Thracians who dwell around Haemus, and the Phrygians similarly with the Thracians, denominate Corybas, because, (though) deriving the beginning of his descent from the head above and from the unportrayed brain, and (though) permeating all the principles of the existing state of things, (yet) we do not perceive how and in what manner he comes down. This, says he, is what is spoken: “We have heard his voice, no doubt, but we have not seen his shape.” (Joh_5:37) For the voice of him that is set apart56 and portrayed is heard; but (his) shape, which descends from above from the unportrayed one, – what sort it is, nobody knows. It resides, however, in an earthly mould, yet no one recognises it. This, he says, is “the god that inhabiteth the flood,” according to the Psalter, “and who speaketh and crieth from many waters.” (Psa_29:3, Psa_29:10) The “many waters,” he says, are the diversified generation of mortal men, from which (generation) he cries and vociferates to the unportrayed man, saying, “Preserve my only-begotten from the lions.” (Psa_22:20-21, Psa_35:17) In reply to him, it has, says he, been declared, “Israel, thou art my child: fear not; even though thou passest through rivers, they shall not drown thee; even though thou passest through fire, it shall not scorch thee.” (Isa_41:8, Isa_43:1-2) By rivers he means, says he, the moist substance of generation, and by fire the impulsive principle and desire for generation. “Thou art mine; fear not.” And again, he says, “If a mother forget her children, so as not to have pity on them and give them food, I also will forget you.” (Isa_49:15) Adam, he says, speaks to his own men: “But even though a woman forget these things, yet I will not forget you. I have painted you on my hands.” In regard, however, of his ascension, that is his regeneration, that he may become spiritual, not carnal, the Scripture, he says, speaks (thus): “Open the gates, ye who are your rulers; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in,” that is a wonder of wonders. (Psa_24:7-9) “For who,” he says, “is this King of glory? A worm, and not a man; a reproach of man, and an outcast of the people; himself is the King of glory, and powerful in war.” (Psa_22:6, Psa_24:8)

And by war he means the war that is in the body, because its frame has been made out of hostile elements; as it has been written, he says, “Remember the conflict that exists in the body.”57 Jacob, he says, saw this entrance and this gate in his journey into Mesopotamia, that is, when from a child he was now becoming a youth and a man; that is, (the entrance and gate) were made known unto him as he journeyed into Mesopotamia. But Mesopotamia, he says, is the current of the great ocean flowing from the midst of the Perfect Man; and he was astonished at the celestial gate, exclaiming, “How terrible is this place! it is nought else than the house of God, and this (is) the gate of heaven.” (Gen_28:7, Gen_28:17) On account of this, he says, Jesus uses the words, “I am the true gate.” (Joh_10:9; Mat_7:13) Now he who makes these statements is, he says, the Perfect Man that is imaged from the unportrayable one from above. The Perfect Man therefore cannot, he says, be saved, unless, entering in through this gate, he be born again. But this very one the Phrygians, he says, call also Papa, because he tranquillized all things which, prior to his manifestation, were confusedly and dissonantly moved. For the name, he says, of Papa belongs simultaneously to all creatures58 – celestial, and terrestrial, and infernal – who exclaim, Cause to cease, cause to cease the discard of the world, and make “peace for those that are afar off,” that is, for material and earthly beings; and “peace for those that are near,” (Eph_2:17) that is, for perfect men that are spiritual and endued with reason. But the Phrygians denominate this same also “corpse” – buried in the body, as it were, in a mausoleum and tomb. This, he says, is what has been declared, “Ye are whited sepulchres, full,” he says, “of dead men’s bones within,” (Mat_23:27) because there is not in you the living man. And again he exclaims, “The dead shall start forth from the graves,” (Mat_27:52, Mat_27:53) that is, from the earthly bodies, being born again spiritual, not carnal. For this, he says, is the Resurrection that takes place through the gate of heaven, through which, he says, all those that do not enter remain dead. These same Phrygians, however, he says, affirm again that this very (man), as a consequence of the change, (becomes) a god. For, he says, he becomes a god when, having risen from the dead, he will enter into heaven through a gate of this kind. Paul the apostle, he says, knew of this gate, partially opening it in a mystery, and stating “that he was caught up by an angel, and ascended as far as the second and third heaven into paradise itself; and that he beheld sights and heard unspeakable words which it would not be possible for man to declare.” (2Co_12:2)

These are, he says, what are by all called the secret mysteries, “which (also we speak), not in words taught of human wisdom, but in those taught of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him.” (1Co_2:13-14) And these are, he says, the ineffable mysteries of the Spirit, which we alone are acquainted with. Concerning these, he says, the Saviour has declared, “No one can come unto me, except my heavenly Father draw some one unto me.” (Joh_6:44) For it is very difficult, he says, to accept and receive this great and ineffable mystery. And again, it is said, the Saviour has declared, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Mat_7:21) And it is necessary that they who perform this (will), not hear it merely, should enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again, he says, the Saviour has declared, “The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of heaven before you.” (Mat_7:21) For “the publicans,” he says, are those who receive the revenues59 of all things;60 but we, he says, are the publicans, “unto whom the ends of the ages have come.” (1Co_10:11) For “the ends,” he says, are the seeds scattered from the unportrayable one upon the world, through which the whole cosmical system is completed; for through these also it began to exist. And this, he says, is what has been declared: “The sower went forth to sow. And some fell by the wayside, and was trodden down; and some on the rocky places, and sprang up,” he says, “and on account of its having no depth (of soil), it withered and died; and some,” he says, “fell on fair and good ground, and brought forth fruit, some a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty fold. Who hath ears,” he says, “to hear, let him hear.” (Mat_13:3-9; Mar_4:3-9; Luk_8:5-8) The meaning of this, he says, is as follows, that none becomes a hearer of these mysteries, unless only the perfect Gnostics. This, he says, is the fair and good land which Moses speaks of: “I will bring you into a fair and good land, into a land flowing with milk and honey.” (Deu_31:20) This, he says, is the honey and the milk, by tasting which those that are perfect become kingless, and share in the Pleroma. This, he says, is the Pleroma, through which all existent things that are produced61 have from the ingenerable one been both produced and completed.

And this same (one) is styled also by62 the Phrygians “unfruitful.” For he is unfruitful when he is carnal, and causes the desire of the flesh. This, he says, is what is spoken: “Every tree not producing good fruit, is cut down and cast into the fire.” (Mat_3:10; Luk_3:9) For these fruits, he says, are only rational living men, who enter in through the third gate. They say, forsooth, “Ye devour the dead, and make the living; (but) if ye eat the living, what will ye do?” They assert, however, that the living “are rational faculties and minds, and men – pearls of that unportrayable one cast before the creature below.”63 This, he says, is what (Jesus) asserts: “Throw not that which is holy unto the dogs, nor pearls unto the swine.” (Mat_7:6) Now they allege that the work of swine and dogs is the intercourse of the woman with a man. And the Phrygians, he says, call this very one “goat-herd” (Aipolis), not because, he says, he is accustomed to feed the goats female and male, as the natural (men) use the name, but because, he says, he is “Aipolis” – that is, always ranging over, – who both revolves and carries around the entire cosmical system by his revolutionary motion. For the word “Polein” signifies to turn and change things; whence, he says, they all call the twos centre of the heaven poles (Poloi). And the poet says: – 

“What sea-born sinless sage comes hither,

Undying Egyptian Proteus?”64

He is not undone,65 he says,66 but revolves as it were, and goes round himself. Moreover, also, cities in which we dwell, because we turn and go round in them, are denominated “Poleis.” In this manner, he says, the Phygians call this one “Aipolis,” inasmuch as he everywhere ceaselessly turns all things, and changes them into their own peculiar (functions). And the Phrygians style him, he says, “very fruitful” likewise, “because,” says he, “more numerous are the children of the desolate one, than those of her which hath an husband;” (Isa_54:1; Gal_4:27) that is, things by being born again become immortal and abide for ever in great numbers, even though the things that are produced may be few; whereas things carnal, he says, are all corruptible, even though very many things (of this type) are produced. For this reason, he says, “Rachel wept67 for her children, and would not,” says (the prophet), “be comforted; sorrowing for them, for she knew,” says he, “that they are not.” (Jer_31:15; Mat_2:18) But Jeremiah likewise utters lamentation for Jerusalem below, not the city in Phoenicia, but the corruptible generation below. For Jeremiah likewise, he says, was aware of the Perfect Man, of him that is born again – of water and the Spirit not carnal. At least Jeremiah himself remarked: “He is a man, and who shall know him?” (Jer_17:9) In this manner, (the Naassene) says, the knowledge of the Perfect Man is exceedingly profound, and difficult of comprehension. For, he says, the beginning of perfection is a knowledge of man, whereas knowledge of God is absolute perfection.

The Phrygians, however, assert, he says, that he is likewise “a green ear of corn reaped.” And after the Phrygians, the Athenians, while initiating people into the Eleusinian rites, likewise display to those who are being admitted to the highest grade at these mysteries, the mighty, and marvellous, and most perfect secret suitable for one initiated into the highest mystic truths: (I allude to) an ear of corn in silence reaped. But this ear of corn is also (considered) among the Athenians to constitute the perfect enormous illumination (that has descended) from the unportrayable one, just as the Hierophant himself (declares); not, indeed, emasculated like Attis,68 but made a eunuch by means of hemlock, and despising69 all carnal generation. (Now) by night in Eleusis, beneath a huge fire, (the Celebrant,) enacting the great and secret mysteries, vociferates and cries aloud, saying, “August Brimo has brought forth a consecrated son, Brimus;” that is, a potent (mother has been delivered of) a potent child. But revered, he says, is the generation that is spiritual, heavenly, from above, and potent is he that is so born. For the mystery is called “Eleusin” and “Anactorium.” “Eleusin,” because, he says, we who are spiritual come flowing down from Adam above; for the word “eleusesthai” is, he says, of the same import with the expression “to come.” But “Anactorium” is of the same import with the expression “to ascend upwards.” This, he says, is what they affirm who have been initiated in the mysteries of the Eleusinians. It is, however, a regulation of law, that those who have been admitted into the lesser should again be initiated into the Great Mysteries. For greater destinies obtain greater portions. But the inferior mysteries, he says, are those of Proserpine below; in regard of which mysteries, and the path which leads thither, which is wide and spacious, and conducts those that are perishing to Proserpine, the poet likewise says: – 

“But under her a fearful path extends,

Hollow miry, yet best guide to

Highly-honoured Aphrodite’s lovely grove.”70

These, he says, are the inferior mysteries, those appertaining to carnal generation. Now, those men who are initiated into these inferior (mysteries) ought to pause, and (then) be admitted into the great (and) heavenly (ones). For they, he says, who obtain their shares (in this mystery), receive greater portions. For this, he says, is the gate of heaven; and this a house of God, where the Good Deity dwells alone. And into this (gate), he says, no unclean person shall enter, nor one that is natural or carnal; but it is reserved for the spiritual only. And those who come hither ought to cast off71 their garments, and become all of them bridegrooms, emasculated through the virginal spirit. For this is the virgin (Isa_7:14) who carries in her womb and conceives and brings forth a son, not animal, not corporeal, but blessed for evermore. Concerning these, it is said, the Saviour has expressly declared that “straight and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there are that enter upon it; whereas broad and spacious is the way that leadeth unto destruction, and many there are that pass through it.” (Mat_7:13, Mat_7:14)


Chap. IV. – Further Use Made of the System of the Phrygians; Mode of Celebrating the Mysteries; the Mystery of the “Great Mother;” These Mysteries Have a Joint Object of Worship with the Naasseni; the Naasseni Allegorize the Scriptural Account of the Garden of Eden; the Allegory Applied to the Life of Jesus.

The Phrygians, however, further assert that the father of the universe is “Amygdalus,” not a tree, he says, but that he is “Amygdalus” who previously existed; and he having in himself the perfect fruit, as it were, throbbing and moving in the depth, rent his breasts, and produced his now invisible, and nameless, and ineffable child, respecting whom we shall speak. For the word “Amyxai” signifies, as it were, to burst and sever through, as he says (happens) in the case of inflamed bodies, and which have in themselves any tumour; and when doctors have cut this, they call it “Amychai.” In this way, he says, the Phrygians call him “Amygdalus,” from which proceeded and was born the Invisible (One), “by whom all things were made, and nothing was made without Him.” (Joh_1:3) And the Phrygians say that what has been thence produced is “Syrictas” (piper), because the Spirit that is born is harmonious. “For God,” he says, “is Spirit; wherefore,” he affirms, “neither in this mountain do the true worshippers worship, nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit. For the adoration of the perfect ones,” he says, “is spiritual, not carnal.” (Joh_4:21) The Spirit, however, he says, is there where likewise the Father is named, and the Son is there born from this Father. This, he says, is the many-named, thousand-eyed Incomprehensible One, of whom every nature – each, however, differently – is desirous. This, he says, is the word of God, which, he says, is a word of revelation of the Great Power. Wherefore it will be sealed, and hid, and concealed, lying in the habitation where lies the basis of the root of the universe, viz. Aeons, Powers, Intelligences, Gods, Angels, delegated Spirits, Entities, Nonentities, Generables, Ingenerables, Incomprehensibles, Comprehensibles, Years, Months, Days, Hours, (and) Invisible Point from which72 what is least begins to increase gradually. That which is, he says, nothing, and which consists of nothing, inasmuch as it is indivisible – (I mean) a point – will become through its own reflective power a certain incomprehensible magnitude. This, he says, is the kingdom of heaven, the grain of mustard seed, (Mat_13:31, Mat_13:32; Mar_4:31, Mar_4:32; Luk_13:19) the point which is indivisible in the body; and, he says, no one knows this (point) save the spiritual only. This, he says, is what has been spoken: “There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.” (Psa_19:3)

They rashly assume in this manner, that whatsoever things have been said and done by all men, (may be made to harmonize) with their own particular mental view, alleging that all things become spiritual. Whence likewise they assert, that those exhibiting themselves in theatres, – not even these say or do anything without premeditation. Therefore, he says, when, on the people assembling in the theatres, any one enters clad in a remarkable robe, carrying a harp and playing a tune (upon it, accompanying it) with a song of the great mysteries, he speaks as follows, not knowing what he says: “Whether (thou art) the race of Saturn or happy Jupiter,73 or mighty Rhea, Hail, Attis, gloomy mutilation of Rhea. Assyrians style thee thrice-longed-for Adonis, and the whole of Egypt (calls thee) Osiris, celestial horn of the moon; Greeks denominate (thee) Wisdom; Samothracians, venerable Adam; Haemonians, Corybas; and them Phrygians (name thee) at one time Papa, at another time Corpse, or God, or Fruitless, or Aipolos, or green Ear of Corn that has been reaped, or whom the very fertile Amygdalus produced – a man, a musician.” This, he says, is multiform Attis, whom while they celebrate in a hymn, they utter these words: “I will hymn Attis, son of Rhea, not with the buzzing sounds of trumpets, or of Idaean pipers, which accord with (the voices of) the Curetes; but I will mingle (my song) with Apollo’s music of harps, ‘evoe, evan,’ inasmuch as thou art Pan, as thou art Bacchus, as thou art shepherd of brilliant stars.”

On account of these and such like reasons, these constantly attend the mysteries called those of the “Great Mother,” supposing especially that they behold by means of the ceremonies performed there the entire mystery. For these have nothing more than the ceremonies that are performed there, except that they are not emasculated: they merely complete the work of the emasculated. For with the utmost severity and vigilance they enjoin (on their votaries) to abstain, as if they were emasculated, from intercourse with a woman. The rest, however, of the proceeding (observed in these mysteries), as we have declared at some length, (they follow) just as (if they were) emasculated persons. And they do not worship any other object but Naas, (from thence) being styled Naasseni. But Naas is the serpent from whom, i.e., from the word Naas, (the Naassene) says, are all that under heaven are denominated temples (Naous). And (he states) that to him alone – that is, Naas – is dedicated every shrine and every initiatory rite, and every mystery; and, in general, that a religious ceremony could not be discovered under heaven, in which a temple (Naos) has no existence; and in the temple itself is Naas, from whom it has received its denomination of temple (Naos). And these affirm that the serpent is a moist substance, just as Thales also, the Milesian, (spoke of water as an originating principle,) and that nothing of existing things, immortal or mortal, animate or inanimate, could consist at all without him. And that all things are subject unto him, and that he is good, and that he has all things in himself, as in the horn of the one-horned bull; (Deu_33:17) so as that he imparts beauty and bloom to all things that exist according to their own nature and peculiarity, as if passing through all, just as (“the river) proceeding forth from Edem, and dividing itself into four heads.” (Gen_2:10)

They assert, however, that Edem is the brain, as it were, bound and tightly fastened in encircling robes, as if (in) heaven. But they suppose that man, as far as the head only, is Paradise, therefore that “this river, which proceeds out of i Edem,” that is, from the brain, “is divided into four heads, (Gen_2:11-14) and that the name of the first river is called Phison; this is that which encompasseth all the land of Havilath: there is gold, and the gold of that land is excellent, and there is bdellium and the onyx stone.” This, he says, is the eye, which, by its honour (among the rest of the bodily organs), and its colours, furnishes testimony to what is spoken. “But the name of the second river is Gihon: this is that which compasseth the land of Ethiopia.” This, he says, is hearing, since Gihon is (a tortuous stream), resembling a sort of labyrinth. “And the name of the third is Tigris. This is that which floweth over against (the country of) the Assyrians.” This, he says,74 is smelling, employing the exceedingly rapid current of the stream (as an analogy of this sense). But it flows over against (the country of) the Assyrians, because in every act of respiration following upon expiration, the breath drawn in from the external atmosphere enters with swifter motion and greater force. For this, he says, is the nature of respiration. “But the fourth river is Euphrates.” This, they assert, is the mouth, through which are the passage outwards of prayer, and the passage inwards of nourishment. (The mouth) makes glad, and nurtures and fashions the Spiritual Perfect Man. This, he says, is “the water that is above the firmament,” (Gen_1:7) concerning which, he says, the Saviour has declared, “If thou knewest who it is that asks, thou wouldst have asked from Him, and He would have given you to drink living, bubbling water.” (Joh_4:10) Into this water, he says, every nature enters, choosing its own substances; and its peculiar quality comes to each nature from this water, he says, more than iron does to the magnet, and the gold to the backbone75 of the sea falcon, and the chaff to the amber.

But if any one, he says, is blind from birth, and has never beheld the true light, “which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world,” (Joh_1:9, Joh_9:1) by us let him recover his sight, and behold, as it were, through some paradise planted with every description of tree, and supplied with abundance of fruits, water coursing its way through all the trees and fruits; and he will see that from one and the same water the olive chooses for itself and draws the oil, and the vine the wine; and (so is it with) the rest of plants, according to each genus. That Man, however, he says, is of no reputation in the world, but of illustrious fame in heaven, being betrayed by those who are ignorant (of his perfections) to those who know him not, being accounted as a drop from a cask. (Isa_40:15) We, however, he says, are spiritual, who, from the life-giving water of Euphrates, which flows through the midst of Babylon, choose our own peculiar quality as we pass through the true gate, which is the blessed Jesus. And of all men, we Christians alone are those who in the third gate celebrate the mystery, and are anointed there with the unspeakable chrism from a horn, as David (was anointed), not from an earthen vessel, (1Sa_10:1, 1Sa_16:13) he says, as (was) Saul, who held converse with the evil demon (1Sa_16:14) of carnal concupiscence.


Chap. V. – Explanation of the System of the Naasseni Taken from One of Their Hymns.

The foregoing remarks, then, though few out of many, we have thought proper to bring forward. For innumerable are the silly and crazy attempts of folly. But since, to the best of our ability, we have explained the unknown Gnosis, it seemed expedient likewise to adduce the following point. This psalm of theirs has been composed, by which they seem to celebrate all the mysteries of the error (advanced by) them in a hymn, couched in the following terms: – 

The world’s producing law was Primal Mind,76

And next was First-born’s outpoured Chaos;

And third, the soul received its law of toil:

Encircl’d, therefore, with an aqueous77 form,

With care o’erpowered it succumbs to death.

Now holding sway, it eyes the light,

And now it weeps on misery flung;

Now it mourns, now it thrills with joy;

Now it wails, now it hears its doom;

Now it hears its doom, now it dies,

And now it leaves us, never to return.

It, hapless straying, treads the maze of ills.

But Jesus said, Father, behold,

A strife of ills across the earth

Wanders from thy breath (of wrath);

But bitter Chaos (man) seeks to shun,

And knows not how to pass it through.

On this account, O Father, send me;

Bearing seals, I shall descend;

Through ages whole I’ll sweep,

All mysteries I’ll unravel,

And forms of Gods I’ll show;

And secrets of the saintly path,

Styled “Gnosis,” I’ll impart.


Chap. VI. – The Ophites the Grand Source of Heresy.

These doctrines, then, the Naasseni attempt to establish, calling themselves Gnostics. But since the error is many-headed and diversified, resembling, in truth, the hydra that we read of in history; when, at one blow, we have struck off the heads of this (delusion) by means of refutation, employing the wand of truth, we shall entirely exterminate the monster. For neither do the remaining heresies present much difference of aspect from this, having a mutual connection through (the same) spirit of error. But since, altering the words and the names of the serpent, they wish that there should be many heads of the serpent, neither thus shall we fail thoroughly to refute them as they desire.





1 [Consult Bunsen, vol. i. p. 35, always interesting and ingeniously critical; nobody should neglect his work. But for a judicial mind, compare Dr. Wordsworth, p. 182.]

2 The ms employs the form of Sithians, which is obviously not the correct one.

3 This term κλεψίλογοςis frequently applied by Hippolytus to the heretics.

4 Miller has ἀποκαλύψας for παραλείψας. This, however, can bear no intelligible except, we add some other word, as thus: “not even have I failed to disclose.” Schneidewin’s correction of ἀποκαλύψας into παραλείψας is obviously an improvement.

5 Μεταλαβόντες; some read μετασχόντες, which is presumed might be rendered, “sharing in the opinions which gave occasion to these hererodox doctrines.”

6 i.e., ὄφις. This term has created the title “Ophites,” which may be regarded as the generic denomination for all the advocates of this phase of Gnosticism.

7 The heresy of the Naasseni is adverted to by the other leading writers on heresy in the early age of the church. See St. Irenaeus, i. 34; Origen, Contr. Cels., vi. 28 (p. 291 et seq. ed. Spenc.); Tertullian, Praescr., c. 47; Theodoret, Haeretic. Fabul., i. 14; Epiphanius. Advers. Haereses., xxv. and xxxvii.; St. Augustine, De Haeres., xvii., Jerome, Comment. Epist. ad Galat., lib. ii. The Abbe Cruice reminds his readers that the Naasseni carried their doctrines into India, and refers to the Asiatic Researches (vol. x. p. 39).

8 The Hebrew word is נָחָשׁ (nachash).

9 παρὰ τὸν αὐτῶν λόγον. Bernaysius suggests for these words, πατέρα τῷαὐτῷ λόγῳ. Schneidewin regards the emendation as an error, and Bunsen partly so. The latter would read, Λόγον, i.e., “The Naasseni honour the father of all existent things, the Logos, as Man and the Son of man.”

10 See Irenaeus, Haer., i., 1.

11 Geryon (see note, chap. iii.) is afterwards mentioned as a synonyme with Jordan, i.e., “flowing from earth.” (γῆ ῥύων).

12 γνῶσις, – a term often alluded to by St. John, and which gives its name “Gnosticism” to the forms of the Ophitic heresy. The aphorism in the text is one that embodies a grand principle which lies at the root of all correct philosophy. In this and other instances it will be found that the system, however wild and incoherent in its theology, of the Naasseni and some of the other Gnostic sects, was one which was corrupted by a subtle analysis of thought, and by observation of nature.

13 The Abbe Cruice remarks on this passage, that, as the statement here as regards Jesus Christ does not correspond with Origen’s remarks on the opinions of the Naasseni in reference to our Lord, the Philosophumena cannot be the work of Origen.

14 The Abbe Cruice observes that we have here another proof that the Philosophumena is not the work of Origen, who in his Contra Celsum mentions Mariamne, but professes not to have met with any of his followers (see Contr. Cels. lib. v. p. 272, ed. Spenc.). This confirms the opinion mostly entertained of Origen, that neither the bent of his mind nor the direction of his studies justifies the supposition that he would write a detailed history of heresy.

15 Or ἀδιάφορον, equivocal.

16 This has been by the best critics regarded as a fragment of a hymn of Pindar’s on Jupiter Ammon. Schneidewin furnishes a restored poetic version of it by Bergk. This hymn, we believe, first suggested to M. Miller an idea of the possible value and importance of the ms of The Refutation brought by Minöides Mynas from Greece.

17 The usual form is Alalcomenes. He was a Boeotian Autocthon.

18 Or, “Iannes.” The Abbe Cruice refers to Berosus, Chald. Hist., pp. 48, 49, and to his own dissertation (Paris, 1844) on the authority to be attached to Josephus, as regards the writers adduced by him in his treatise Contr. Apion.

19 The Rabbins, probably deriving their notions from the Chaldeans, entertained the most exaggerated ideas respecting the perfection of Adam. Thus Gerson, in his Commentary on Abarbanel, says that, “ Adam was endued with the very perfection of wisdom, and was chief of philosophers, that he was an immediate disciple of the Deity, also a physician and a astrologer, and the originator of all the arts and sciences.” The spirit of exaggeration passed from the Jews to the Christians (see Clementine Homilies, ii.). Aquinas (Sum. Theol., pars i 94) says of Adam, “Since the first man was appointed perfect, he ought to have possessed a knowledge of everything capable of being ascertained by natural means.”

20 Or, “vanquishing him.” (Roeper).

21 This is known to us only by some ancient quotations. The Naasseni had another work of repute among them, the “Gospel according to Thomas.” Bunsen conjectures that the two “Gospels” may be the same.

22 αὐτογενοῦς. Miller has αὐτοῦ γένους, which Bunsen rejects in favour of the reading “self-begotten.”

23 Schneidewin considers that there have been left out in the ms the words “or Attis” after Endymion. Attis is subsequently mentioned with some degree of particularity.

24 Or, “creation.”

25 Or, “Apis.” See Diodorus Siculus, iii. 58. 59. Pausanias, vii. 20, writes the word Attes. See also Minucius Felix, Octav., cap. xxi.

26 Or, “forbidden.”

27 Gal_3:28, and Clement’s Epist. ad Rom., ii. 12. [This is the apocryphal Clement reserved for vol. 8. of this series. See also same text, Ignatius, vol. 1. p. 81.]

28 ἀλάλῳ; some read ἄλλῳ.

29 These words do not occur in the “Gospel of Thomas concerning the Saviour’s infancy,” as given by Fabricus and Thilo.

30 The Abbe Cruice mentions the following works as of authority among the Naasseni, and from whence they derived their system: The Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Eve, The Questions of Mary, Concerning the Offspring of Mary, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel according to (1) Thomas, (2) the Egyptians. (See Epiphanius, Haeres., c. xxvi., and Origen, Contr. Cels., vi. 30, p. 296, ed. Spenc.) There heretics otherwise make use of the Old Testament, St. John’s Gospel, and some of the Pauline epistles.

31 Miller refers to Littré, Traduct. des Oeuvres d’Hippocrate, t. i. p. 396.

32 See Herodotus, ii. 2, 5.

33 See Origen, Contr. Cels., v. 38 (p. 257, ed. Spenc.)

34 Or, “brilliant.”

35 Or, “untraceable.”

36 Or, “spirit.”

37 See Epiphanius, Haeres., xxvi. 8.

38 Miller has οὐδεὶς. See Plutarch, De Isid. et Osirid., e. li. p. 371.

39 Or, εἰσόδου, i.e., entrance.

40 Odyssey, xxiv. 1.

41 Empedocles, v. 390, Stein.

42 Esaldaius, Miller (see Origen, Contr. Cels., v. 76, p. 297, ed. Spenc.)

43 Odyssey, xxiv. 2.

44 See Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, c. xxxiv.

45 Odyssey, xxiv. 5.

46 Odyssey, xxiv. 6 et seq.

47 Iliad, iv. 350, ἕρκος ὀδόντων: – 

“What word hath ‘scaped the ivory guard that should

Have fenced it in.”

48 Odyssey, xxiv. 9.

49 Iliad, iv. 246, xxiv. 201.

50 Philo Judaeus adopts the same imagery (see his De Agricult., lib. i.)

51 Or, “empty.”

52 The Abbe Cruice considers that this is taken from verses of Ezekiel, founding his opinion on fragments of these verses to be found in Eusebius’ Praeparat. Evang., ix. 38.

53 Iliad, xv. 189.

54 The commentators refer to Isa_28:10. Epiphanius, Haeres., xxv., mentions these expressions, but assigns them a different meaning. Saulasau is tribulation, Caulacau hope, and Zeesar “hope, as yet, little.” [See my note 179 on Irenaeus, p. 350, this series, and see Elucidation II.]

55 Taken from Anacreon.

56 ἀποτεταγμένου; some read ἀποτεταμένου.

57 This is a quotation from the Septuagint, Job_40:1-24:27, LXX. The reference to the authorized (English) version would be Job_41:8.

58 [A strange amplifying of the word, which is now claimed exclusively for one. Elucidation III.]

59 The word translated “revenues” and “ends” is the same – τέλη.

60 Τῶν ὅλων; some read τῶν ὠνίων.

61 Or, “genera.”

62 ὑπὸ: Miller reads ἀπὸ.

63 κάτω; some read κάρπου.

64 Odyssey, iv. 384.

65 πιπράσκεται; literally, bought and sold, i.e., ruined.

66 λέγει; some read ἀμέλει, i.e., doubtless, of course.

67 ἔκλαιε: this is in the margin: ἔλαβε in the ms. The marginal reading is the proper correction of that of the ms.

68 [The Phrygian Atys (see cap. iv. infra), whose history should have saved Origen from an imitation of heathenism.

69 παρῃτημένος: some read ἀπηρτισμένος, i.e., perfecting.

70 These verses have been ascribed to Parmenides.

71 Or, “receive.”

72 ἐξ ἧς or ἑξῆς, i.e., next.

73 The passage following obviously was in verse originally. It has been restored to its poetic form by Schneidewin.

74 Or, “they say.”

75 κερκίς. This word literally means the rod; or, in later times, the comb fixed into the ἱστός (i.e., the upright loom), for the purpose of driving the threads of the wolf home, thus making the web even and close. it is among other significations, applied to bones in the leg or arm. Cruice and Schneidewin translate κερκίς by spina, a rendering adapted above. The allusion is made again in chap. xii. and chap xvi. In the last passage, κέντρον (spur) is used instead of κερκίς.

76 The text of this hymn is very corrupt. The Abbe Cruice explains the connection of the hymn with the foregoing exposition, and considers it to have a reference to the Metempsychosis, which forms part of the system of the Naasseni. [Bunsen, i. 36.]

77 Or, “nimble.”