About a hundred heresies in brief

The main and most famous work of St. John of Damascus is the trilogy “The Source of Knowledge” (Πηγὴ γνώσεως), dedicated to his half-brother St. Cosmas Maiumsky. Researchers attribute its creation to the first half of the 8th century, most likely to the period between 730 and 743. The essay “About a Hundred Heresies in Brief” is the second part of this monumental work. The treatise is devoted to the history and content of various heretical teachings. It is largely a compilation from earlier sources. Its main source was the work of St. Epiphany of Cyprus "Panarion". The primary purpose of this work is to provide a brief overview of the various heresies that have arisen throughout the history of the Church so that believers can recognize and avoid false teachings. This is a kind of “warning” or “defense” before the presentation of the true faith in the third part. St. John describes the heresies in chronological order, beginning with pre-Christian schools of thought and Jewish sects, which he believed anticipated or influenced subsequent Christian errors. He then moves on to Christian heresies, from the earliest to the contemporary ones. If St. Epiphanius of Cyprus described 80 heresies, then St. John of Damascus significantly expanded this list, bringing it to 100. Among the most significant and relevant additions for his era are: - Ishmaelites (Hagarians), or Saracens (that is, Islam). This is one of the most important and original parts of the work of St. John. He views Islam as a Christian heresy that distorts biblical and Christian truths. The author gives a brief description of Islamic teachings, its differences with Christianity (for example, denial of the Divinity of Christ, the crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Trinity) and points to its origins from the false prophet Muhammad. This was the first systematic presentation of the Christian view of Islam and its criticism. - iconoclasts (iconomachos). St. John of Damascus was one of the most fiery denouncers of the iconoclastic heresy. By including iconoclasm in his list of heresies, he emphasized its destructiveness and deviation from the Orthodox tradition. * Title of the work in Greek: Περ αἱρέσεων ἐν συντομίᾳ κατόν, ὅθεν ἤρξαντο κα πόθεν γέγοναν. * Title of the work in Latin: De haeresibus. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith - St. John of Damascus (translated by A.I. Sagarda, V.A. Belyaev, S.M. Zarin, N.M. Malakhov) An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith - St. John of Damascus (translated by D.E. Afinogenov, A.A. Bronzov, A.I. Sagarda, N.I. Sagarda) Philosophical chapters of St. John of Damascus Where did they come from and what did they come from? Heresy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 All heresies of mothers and prototypes are four, namely: 4) Judaism. From them came all other heresies. 1. Barbarism: a heresy which itself lasted from the days of Adam until the tenth generation, [until the time of] Noah. It was called barbarism because the people of that time did not have any leader or one consent, but what everyone established for himself in preference to his own will became law for him. 2. Scythianism: from the days of Noah and subsequently until the construction of the Babylonian pillar and after the pandemonium for a few years, i.e. to Peleg and Raghav, who, escaping to the country of Europe, settled in the Scythian region and joined the local tribes from the time of Terah, from whom the Thracians descended, and later. 3. Hellenism: it began from the time of Serug with idolatry; and since at that time everyone lived by some kind of superstition, the human tribes, moving to a more civil structure, customs and laws, began to establish idols for themselves and deified those they followed. At first they painted and depicted likenesses of people they then revered, or sorcerers, or who had done something in life that seemed worthy of memory because of their strength and bodily strength. Then, from the time of Terah, the father of Abraham, they introduced idolatry through statues, honoring their forefathers with images and sculpting those who died before them, first with the help of pottery, and then making imitations with all kinds of art: house builders - cutting stones, silversmiths and goldsmiths - making from their own materials, carpenters, and so on. The Egyptians, and together the Babylonians, Phrygians and Phoenicians, were the first founders of this religion, making statues and performing sacraments. From them it was transferred to the Hellenes during the time of Kekrops and after him. Subsequently, and much later, Crones and Rhea, Zeus and Apollo and others were proclaimed gods. The Hellenes are named so from a certain Elena, one of the inhabitants of Hellas, and as others say, from an olive tree that grew in Athens. Their ancestors, as accurate history shows, were the Ionians, descended from Job (Gen. 10:2), one of those who built the pillar, when the languages ​​of all were divided. For this reason, from the divided speech, everyone is named. Subsequently, in later times, Hellenism turned into heresies - I mean the heresies of the Pythagoreans, Stoics, Platonists and Epicureans. And from then on, the image of piety, and together the natural law of life, having moved away from these peoples, from the creation of the world, existed until now among barbarism, Scythianism and Hellenism, until they united with the piety of Abraham. 4. And then Judaism, from the time of Abraham, received the sign of circumcision, and was written down by Moses, the seventh after Abraham, through the law given by God; and from Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, called Israel, through David, the first king from the tribe of this Judah, finally inherited the name of Judaism. The apostle spoke clearly about these four heresies, saying: in Christ Jesus there is neither barbarian nor Scythian, neither Greek nor Jew (Col. 3:11), but a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). Various heresies among the Hellenes. 5. Pythagoreans and Peripatetics. Pythagoras taught about the monad and providence, taught to prevent making sacrifices to supposed gods, not to eat animate creatures, and to abstain from wine. He introduced division, saying that on the moon and above everything is immortal, and below everything is mortal, he allowed the transmigration of souls from one body to another, even into the bodies of animals and wild animals. At the same time, he taught to practice silence for five years. Finally, he called himself God. 6. The Platonists believed that there is God, matter, form and the world, which has arisen and is corporeal, and that the soul has not arisen, is immortal and divine, that it has three parts: rational, irritable and concupiscent. Plato taught that everyone should have common wives and no one should have his own wife, but those who wish would live with those who wish. He also allowed the transmigration of souls into bodies even of animals. At the same time, he taught about many gods descending from one. 7. Stoics: they teach that everything is a body, and recognize this sensory world as God. Some argued that God has his nature from a fiery essence. They determine that God is the mind and, as it were, the soul of everything that exists in heaven and on earth; the universe is His body, as I said, and the lights are His eyes. The flesh dies, and the soul of everyone moves from body to body. 8. Epicureans: They maintained that atoms and indivisible bodies, composed of like parts and infinite in number, are the beginning of all things, and taught that the goal of blessedness is pleasure and that neither God nor providence controls things. 9 . Samaritanism, and from it the Samaritans. It came from the Jews before heresies appeared among the Hellenes, and before their teachings were compiled; but after the advent of the Hellenic religion, it received a foundation among Judaism from the time of Nebuchadnezzar and the captivity of the Jews. The Assyrians resettled in Judea, having received the Pentateuch of Moses, since the king sent it to them from Babylon with a priest named Ezra, were in everything like the Jews, except that they abhorred the pagans and did not touch them, and besides that they denied the resurrection of the dead and other prophecies that came after Moses. There are four interpretations of the Samaritans. 10. Gorphins: celebrate holidays at different times compared to the Jebusites. 11. The Jebusites differ from the Gorphins in regard to festivals. 12. Essins: they do not oppose either one or the other, but they celebrate indifferently with whomever they have to. 13. The Dosphines: are guided by the same customs as the Samaritans, use circumcision, and the Sabbath, and other statutes, and the Pentateuch; they observe more strictly than others the rule of abstaining [from eating] animate things, like in other things, and spend their lives in unceasing fasting. They also have virginity, some of them abstain; and others believe in the resurrection of the dead, which is alien to the Samaritans. 14. Scribes: they were lawyers and interpreters of the traditions of their elders, with excessive zeal they observed rituals that they did not learn from the law, but for themselves recognized as objects of respect and deeds of justification under the law. 15. Pharisees, by the meaning of the word, are renegades: they lead the highest life and are supposedly more experienced than others. They, like the scribes, recognize the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and the Holy Spirit, but their lives are different; [they observe] abstinence and virginity for a time, fasting through the Sabbath, cleansing of jars, dishes and bowls, like the scribes, tithes, first fruits, continuous prayers, zealous types of clothing, consisting of a robe and dalmatics, or sleeveless clothing, with the expansion of storage, i.e. stripes of scarlet, votives and buttons on the votives of the robe, which served as a sign of the abstinence they observed until the time. They introduced the doctrine of birth and fate. 16. The Sadducees, by the meaning of their name, are the most righteous: they descended from the Samaritans, as well as from a priest named Zadok; denied the resurrection of the dead, did not accept either an angel or the Spirit; in everything [else] there were Jews. 17. Imeroptists: they were Jews throughout, but they argued that no one will achieve eternal life unless they are baptized every day. 18. Ossins, which means “the most daring”: they fulfilled everything according to the law, but after the law they also used other scriptures, and rejected most of the later prophets. 19. Nassarites, by the meaning of the word, are unbridled: they prohibit all eating of meat, and do not eat animate things at all. The holy names of the patriarchs in the Pentateuch before Moses and Joshua are used and believed in, I mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the elders, and Moses himself, Aaron and Jesus. They teach that the books of the Pentateuch are not the writings of Moses, and they claim that there are others besides them. 20. The Herodians were Jews in everything, but they expected Christ in the person of Herod and they gave him honor and the name of Christ. Here is the first section, containing all these twenty heresies; it also contains a discussion about the coming of Christ and a confession of truth. This is what is contained in the second part of the first book, which talks about the thirteen heresies that existed among Christians. 21. Simonians: they got their name from Simon the Magus, contemporary to the Apostle Peter, from the village of Gitthon in Samaria. He was a Samaritan, taking only the name of Christian. He taught shameful and nasty mixing, non-distinction of bodies. He rejected the resurrection and argued that the world is not from God. He gave his image, in the form of Zeus, and his companion, a harlot named Helen, in the form of Athena, to his disciples for worship. He called himself Father to the Samaritans, and Christ to the Jews. 22. Menandrians: received their origin from Simon through a certain Menander and in some ways differed from the Simonians. They said that the world was created by angels. 23. Sartornilians: they supported the shamelessness of the Simonians in Syria, but in order to amaze more, they preach something different from the Simonians. They received their origin from Saturnilus and, like Menander, they said that the world was created by angels, but only seven, according to the thought of the father. 24. Basilidians: they celebrate the same shameless rituals, from Basilides, who, together with Saturnil, studies with the Simonians and Menandrians, holds the same way of thinking with them, but in some ways differs from them. He claims that there are three hundred and sixty-five heavens, and gives them angelic names. Therefore, the year consists of so many days, and the word “avrasax” means the number 365 and is, says Basilides, a holy name. 25. Nicolaitans: from Nicholas, assigned by the apostles to the services, who, out of jealousy for his wife, taught his disciples, together with others, to commit shameless deeds and spoke about Kawlakakh, Prunik and other barbaric names, introducing them into the world. 26. Gnostics: accepted the same heresies, but more than all these heresies they furiously commit shameless deeds. In Egypt they are called Stratiotics and Thebionites, in the upper parts of Egypt - Socrates, in others - Zacchaeus. Some call them Koddians, others call them Worvorites. They boast about Varvelo and Vero. 27. Carpocrats: from a certain Carpocrates from Asia. He taught to commit every shamelessness and every sinful deed. If someone, he said, does not go through everything and does not fulfill the will of all the demons and angels, then he cannot ascend to the highest heaven and pass through the Principles and Powers. He said that Jesus took on a thinking soul, but, knowing what was above, he proclaimed it here; and if anyone does the like of Jesus, he is not inferior to Him. Carpocrates denied the law together with the resurrection of the dead, like the Simonians and other heresies that have been discussed so far. His follower was Marcellina in Rome. Having secretly made images of Jesus, Paul, Homer and Pythagoras, Carpocrates burned incense and worshiped them. 28. Cyrinthians, they are also Mirinthians: these are the disciples of Cyrinthus and Mirinth, some Jews who boasted of circumcision. They said that the world was created by angels and that Jesus was called Christ because of his success. 29. Nazarenes: they confess Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and live according to the law in everything. 30. Ebionites: close to the previously named Cyrinthians and Nazarites; The heresy of the Sampseites and Elkeseites also comes into contact with them in some ways. They say that Christ and the Holy Spirit were created in heaven, that Christ dwelt in Adam and at times took off this Adam and put on him again. This is what Christ did, they say, when He came in the flesh. Being Jews, they use the gospels and disdain eating meat. They have water instead of God. About Christ, as I said, they say that in His fleshly coming He put on man. They are constantly baptized in the waters: both in summer and winter, as if for purification, like the Samaritans. 31. Valentinians: they deny the resurrection of the flesh, reject the Old Testament, but they read the prophets and accept everything else that can be interpreted similarly to their heresy. They bring in some other fables, the names of thirty aeons, saying that they came together as male and female from the Father of all, and they are called gods and aeons. They say about Christ that He brought the body from heaven and passed through Mary as through a pipe. 32. Secundians: Epiphanes and Isidore are in connection with them, and they use the same syzygies, they philosophize like Valentinus, but they tell something somewhat different from them. They also deny the flesh [of Christ]. 33. Ptolemies: they are also disciples of Valentinus; Flora stands in connection with them. And they say about the syzygies the same as Valentinus and the Secundians; but in some ways they differ from them. This is a table of contents of the thirteen heresies in the second section of the first book. In this third compartment, which contains thirteen heresies, the order is as follows. 34. Mapkosei. A certain Mark was a fellow student of Kolorvas. He also introduces two principles. He rejects the resurrection of the dead, and by changing the color of some visions in the bowls with the help of spells into blue and crimson, he secretly guides deceived women. Like Valentine, he desires to produce everything from the twenty-four elements. 35. Colorvasei. And this Kolorvas, in the same way expounding the same thing, differs in some ways from other heresies - I mean the heresies of Mark and Valentinus: he taught differently about generations and octagons. 36. Herakleonites. And they seem to talk fabulously about the eights, but in a different way, in comparison with Mark, Ptolemy, Valentine and others. In addition, when they die, like Mark, they redeem those who are dying with oil, fragrant oil and water, pronouncing over the head of the person being redeemed some invocations consisting of Jewish sayings. 37. Ophites. They glorify the serpent and consider it to be Christ, but they keep the natural snake, the reptile, in some kind of box. 38. Kayans (Cainites). Together with other heresies that reject the law and Him who spoke in the law, they also think the same thing: they deny the resurrection of the flesh, glorify Cain, saying that he is from a more powerful power; at the same time, Judas is deified, as well as those who were with Korah, Dathan and Abiron, and even the Sodomites. 39. Sethians. These, on the contrary, glorify Seth, claiming that he is descended from the supreme Mother, who repented of having produced Cain. After Cain was rejected and Abel was killed, she came into contact with the Highest Father and produced a pure seed - Seth, from whom the entire human race later descended. And they also teach about principles and powers and other similar things. 40. Archons: these again attribute everything to many princes and say that the being that arose received from them. They are also accused of some kind of shamelessness. They deny the resurrection of the flesh and reject the Old Testament. But they use both the Old and New Testaments, adapting each saying to their own views. 41. Kerdonians: they come from Kerdon, who adopted the error of Herakleon and added to his deception. Having moved from Syria to Rome, he expounded his teaching during the time of Bishop Igin. He preaches two principles hostile to each other, and that Christ is not born. Likewise, he rejects the resurrection of the dead and the Old Testament. 42. Marcionites. Marcion, a native of Pontus, was the son of a bishop, but, having molested a girl, he fled because he was excommunicated by his father. Arriving in Rome, he then asked for repentance from those in charge of the church at that time, but, not having time to do this, he became exalted against the faith and began to teach about three principles: good, just and evil, and that the New Testament is alien to the Old and to Him who spoke in it. He and his Marcionites reject the resurrection of the flesh, allowing not only one baptism, but two and three, after the falls. Others are baptized for their deceased catechumens. They also allow women to teach baptism without hindrance. 43. Lucianists. A certain Lucian, not the one who now lived in the time of Constantine, but more ancient, taught about everything in accordance with Marcion. In addition, of course, he taught something else besides Marcion. 44. Appellians. And this Apellis teaches, like Marcion and Lucian: they condemn the whole creation and the Creator. But he did not introduce three principles, like those, but one, and recognized one God, the highest and ineffable, and that this One created another. And this one, he says, brought into being, turned out to be evil and, out of his malice, created the world. 45. Sevirians. A certain Sevirus, following Apellis, again rejects wine and grapes, saying that they came from the dragon-like Satan and the earth, who copulated with each other. And he renounces the woman, saying that she originates from an evil force. Introduces some names of princes and secret books. Like other heretics, he rejects the resurrection of the flesh and the Old Testament. 46. Tatiana. Tatian was a contemporary of the most holy martyr and philosopher Justin. After the death of Saint Justin, he was corrupted by the dogmas of Marcion and taught in the same way as him, adding other things besides Marcion. They said that he came from Mesopotamia. These are the thirteen heresies of the first section of the second book. This third section of the second book contains the following eighteen heresies. 47. Encratites: being a fragment of the heresy of Tatian, they also reject marriage, claiming that it is the work of Satan. They prohibit all consumption of animate food. 48. Catafrigasts, they are also Montanists and Ascodrugits. They accept the Old and New Testaments; but they introduce other prophets: they boast of a certain Montanus and Priscilla. 49. The Pepusians, who are also the Quintillians, with whom the Artothirites stand in connection: these are two heresies. Some of them are catafrigasts, but teach something different from them. They deify some deserted city of Pepuza, between Galatia, Cappadocia and Phrygia, and consider it Jerusalem. There is, however, another Pepuza. Women are given leadership and priesthood. When dedicating someone, they pierce a small child with copper needles, like the catafrigasts, and, having kneaded his blood into flour and made bread, they eat it as an offering. They say that there, in Pepusa, Christ revealed himself to Quintilla or Priscilla in the form of a woman. They also use the Old and New Testaments, altering them according to their own understanding. 50. Fourteeners. These celebrate Easter on the same day of the year, and on whatever day the fourteenth day of the moon falls, i.e. Whether on Saturday or Sunday, that day is celebrated by fasting and also holding a vigil. 51. Alogs: so called by us, they reject the Gospel of John and his Apocalypse, because they do not accept the Word that came from the Father, God, who exists eternally. 52. Adamians: by the name of a certain Adam, called living. Their teaching is more worthy of ridicule than the true one. Something like this happens to them: naked, as if from a mother’s womb, men and women come together in one place and thus perform readings, prayers and all that, as if they were monastics and abstaining and not accepting marriage; They consider their church to be heaven. 53. Sampsei and Elkesei: they still live in Arabia, which lies above the Dead Sea. They are deceived by a certain false prophet Elxai; From his family to this day there were still women Marfus and Marfina, whom this heresy worships as goddesses. They are close to the Ebionites in everything. 54. Theodotians, followers of Theodotus, a Byzantine tanner. He stood high in Hellenic education, but, being captured along with others during the days of the then persecution, only one fell away, while the rest accepted torment for God. Therefore, since he was reproached for fleeing, he, because of the accusation that he had renounced God, came up with the idea of ​​​​saying about Christ that He is a simple man. 55. Melchizedekians: these revere Melchizedek, claiming that he is a certain power, and not a simple person, and they dare to trace everything to his name. 56. Vardesianists. This Bardesian came from Mesopotamia; at first he adhered to the true faith and distinguished himself in philosophy, but, deviating from the truth, he taught close to Valentinus, with the exception of some provisions in which he differed from Valentinus. 57. Noitians. This Noit was from Smyrna in Asia. Having ascended on the chariot [of pride], he began to say that Christ is the Son and Father, and taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. He called himself Moses, and his brother Aaron. 58. Valicia. These, as we have heard, inhabit Waqafa, a large settlement in Arab Philadelphia. They emasculate those who come to them and enjoy their hospitality. Very many, and among them eunuchs, circumcised. They also teach something else that is full of heresy: they reject the law and the prophets and introduce some other shamelessness. 59. Kafars. These, being in a relationship with Novatus the Roman, completely reject second marriages and do not accept repentance. 60. Angeliki. These have completely disappeared. They were named this way either because they boasted that they had the rank of angels, or because they were called angels. 61. Apostolics, they are also apotactics: they are also in Pisidia; They take only apotactics. They are very close to the Encratites; but they think differently in comparison with them. 62. Sabellians. They think similar to the Burden, except that they do not say that the Father suffered; They teach about the Word that it is pronounced and again scattered. 63. Origenists: from a certain Origen. These are shameless people who do unspeakable things and submit their bodies to corruption. 64. The Origenists are different: from the writer Origen, who is also called Adamantius. They reject the resurrection of the dead; they teach that Christ and the Holy Spirit are creatures; paradise, heaven and everything else are interpreted allegorically; they say idle talk that the Kingdom of Christ will one day cease, and will cease together with the Angels; it is also as if Christ and the devil will be under the same authority, and they come up with the idea that Christ was crucified by demons. These are the eighteen heresies of the fourth section of the second book. The fifth section of the second book contains the following five heresies. 65. Paulianists: from Paul of Samosata. This Paul asserts that Christ almost does not exist, imagining that He is the spoken word, but from Mary and here He exists. What was prophesied about Him in the divine Scriptures belonged to Him, but He was not it; and from Mary and here, from the time of His coming in the flesh, He has existence. 66. Manichaeans, aka Aconites: these are the disciples of the Persian Mani. They call Christ a ghost, worship the sun and the moon, pray to the stars, powers and demons: they introduce two principles - evil and good, eternally existing. They say that Christ appeared ghostly and suffered. The Old Testament and the God who spoke in it are blasphemed. They say that not the whole world, but only part of it, came from God. 67. Hierakites: these are from Hierak, a certain interpreter from Leontopolis in Egypt. They reject the resurrection of the flesh, but use the Old and New Testaments; They completely reject marriage, but they accept monastics and virgins, abstinents and widowers. They say that children who have not yet reached adulthood do not participate in the Kingdom because they have not labored. 68. Meletians (Melitians): In Egypt they constitute a schism, not a heresy. They did not pray with the fallen during persecution; now they united with the Arians. 69. Arians, they are also ariomanites and diatomites. They call the Son of God a creature, and the Holy Spirit a creature of a creature; claim that Christ received from Mary only flesh, and not soul. These are the five heresies of the fifth section of the second book. The first section of the third book contains the following seven heresies. 70. Avdians: schism and renegade, but not heresy. They have a comfortable lifestyle and behavior, and in everything they adhere to the same faith as the Catholic Church. Most of them live in monasteries and do not pray with everyone. Most of all they use apocrypha, they excessively blame our rich bishops, and others for something else. Easter is celebrated especially, together with the Jews. They have something peculiar and love to argue, very roughly explaining the expression: according to the image. 71. Photinians. This Fotin, being from Sirmium, thought like Paul of Samosata, and in some ways differed from him. He also claims that Christ received his beginning from Mary here too. 72. Marcellians: from Marcellus of Ancyra of Galatia. It is known that at first he philosophized close to Savely. Although he often defended himself, and defended himself in writing, others nevertheless accused him of remaining of the same opinions. It is possible that, having changed his opinions, either he himself or his students corrected themselves. Some Orthodox Christians spoke out in defense of his books. 73. Semi-Arians: they recognize Christ as a creature, but they call Him so not in the exact sense and not as one of the creatures. They say we call Him Son; but so as not to attribute suffering to the Father through the birth of the Son, we call Him created. In the same way, it is taught quite definitely about the Holy Spirit that He is a creature. Rejecting those who are consubstantial with the Son, they want to call Him co-existent. Some of them were rejected by the cultish ones. 74. Doukhobors. They speak well of Christ, except for one thing; but they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, calling Him a creature, and teach that He, not being from the Divine, but rather in a figurative sense, according to His action, was created as such. They claim that He is only a sanctifying power. 75. Aerians. This Aerius came from Pontus; it is still a temptation in life. He was a presbyter under Bishop Eustathius, slandered by the Arians. And since this Aerius was not installed as a bishop, he began to teach many things contrary to the Church. By faith, he is the most perfect Arian, but he also teaches what is unnecessary in comparison with the Arians: one should not make offerings for the dead, forbids fasting on Wednesdays, Fridays and Pentecost, celebrating Easter, rejects renunciation of the world, fearlessly enjoys all kinds of meat-eating and dishes. If any of his followers wants to fast, he says, let him fast not on set days, but when he wants, for you, he says, are not under the law. He also asserts that the presbyters are no different from the bishop. 76. Aetians: from Aetius, a Cilician who was a deacon under George, the Arian bishop of Alexandria. They are also called Anomeans, and some call them Eunomians, because of a certain Eunomius, who was a student of Aetius. Eudoxius was also with them, but out of fear, allegedly before Tsar Constantine, he separated from them and excommunicated only Aetius. Nevertheless, Eudoxius remained an Arian, although not according to the teachings of Aetius. These Anomeans and Aetians completely alienate Christ and the Holy Spirit from God the Father, claiming that [Christ] is a creature and does not even have any likeness. They want to explain the Divinity with the help of Aristotelian and geometrical syllogisms and thus prove that Christ could not have come from God. The Eunomians who descended from them rebaptize all those who come to them, not only [Orthodox], but also Arians, turning the legs of those being baptized upward above their heads, as the widespread rumor says. To sin something: fornication or another sin - they say there is nothing terrible, for God does not require anything except that someone should remain in this faith they recognize. These are the seven heresies of the sixth section of the third book. The seventh section of the third book contains four heresies. 77. Dimirites, who are also Apollinarians: they profess an imperfect coming, i.e. incarnation of Christ. Some of them dared to say that the body is consubstantial with the Divine; others even denied that Christ took on a soul; still others, relying on the saying: The Word became flesh (John 1:14), denied that He took flesh from created flesh, i.e. from Mary, but they stubbornly said one thing, that the Word became flesh. Then, I can’t say for what reasons, they began to say that He did not perceive the mind. 78. Anti-Dicomarianites: they say that Holy Mary Ever-Virgin after the birth of the Savior cohabited with Joseph. 79. Kolliridians, in the name of the same Mary, bringing some kind of bread on one specific day of the year, from which we gave the name collyridians. 80. Massalian, which means “those who pray.” Adjacent to them are the so-called Euthymites, Martyrians and Satanians from the former Hellenic heresies. Here is the table of contents of the seventh section. Chapters of the wicked doctrine of the Massalians, taken from their book. Satan coexists hypostatically with man and dominates him in everything. Satan and demons control the human mind, and the nature of people comes into communication with the nature of the spirits of evil. Satan and the Holy Spirit dwell in man, and even the apostles were not clean from the effects of possession, and neither baptism makes a person perfect, nor the communion of divine mysteries cleanses the soul, but only prayer, which they care about. Even after baptism, a person is defiled by sin. It is not through baptism that the faithful receives the incorruptible and divine garment, but through prayer. One must maintain dispassion, and the communion of the Holy Spirit will be in all feeling and fullness. The soul must feel the same communion with the heavenly bridegroom that a wife experiences when united with her husband. The spiritual see sin within and without, as well as grace acting and producing. Revelation takes place in feeling and in the divine hypostasis, as well as in teaching. Fire is a creative element. A soul that does not have Christ in feeling and every action is the home of snakes and poisonous beasts, i.e. of all hostile forces. Evil exists by nature. Even before the crime, Adam dispassionately entered into communication with Eve. The Seed and the Word fell into Mary. They say that a person must acquire two souls: one common with all people, and the other heavenly. They say that it is possible for a person to sensually perceive the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit in all its fullness and in all its action. The cross can appear in the light to those who pray. At one time a man was found standing at the altar of sacrifice, and they brought him three loaves of bread kneaded with oil. In addition, they reject work at their own hands, as indecent for Christians. In part, they also introduce inhumanity towards the beggars, arguing that for those who do not publicly beg or are abandoned widows and for those who are not beset by misfortunes or damage to the bodies, or illness, or harsh creditors, or attacks by robbers or barbarians, and for those who do not fall under other similar misfortunes, those who renounce the world or those who give themselves entirely to charity should be enough, but everything should be provided to them, for the Massalians say, that they are the ones who are truly poor in spirit. To this the Massalians also added neglect of churches and altars. They taught that ascetics should not remain in church assemblies, but be content with prayers in their chapels. They said that their prayer had such power that the Holy Spirit appeared to them and to those who learned from them sensually. They chatter that those who want to be saved must pray so much, doing absolutely nothing else, until they feel that sin, like some kind of smoke or fire, or a dragon, or some similar wild beast, is driven out by prayer and sensually comes out through prayers, and the entry of the Holy Spirit, in turn, is not perceived sensually and does not have a clear feeling in the soul of the entry of the Holy Spirit. And this is the true communion of Christians. For in church baptism or at the ordination of clergy, those baptized do not receive the Holy Spirit at all unless they diligently participate in their prayers, and someone can receive the communion of the Holy Spirit without baptism if he wishes to remain with them and learn their dogmas. So when certain elders told them: We confess that we have the Holy Spirit by faith, and not by sensory perception, then they promised that through prayer with them they too would receive participation in the sensory perception of the Spirit. The pride of their boasting is so great that those of them who allegedly received participation in the sensory perception of the Spirit are pleased by them, as perfect and free from all sin and people of the highest order, and are revered as no longer subject to the dangers of sin. But later they have relaxation and freedom in food, and all retinue, and honor, luxury, so that many of them, even after such evidence of perfection, are unworthy for outsiders to be called Christians, having fallen into various shamelessness, theft of property and fornication. In addition to what has been said, they invent many other things, namely: they calmly dissolve legal marriages; those who avoid marriage are accepted and pleased as ascetics; Fathers and mothers are persuaded not to worry about raising their children, but they are enticed to bring everything to them. Slaves running away from their masters are willingly accepted and those who sin and who come to them without any fruit of repentance, apart from the power of the priest, without the steps established by the canons of the church, are promised to quickly cleanse them from all sin, if only someone, having learned their famous prayer from them, becomes intimately initiated into their fraud. Before being freed from their sins, they bring some of these sinners for ordination as clergy, insidiously persuading bishops to lay hands on them, seducing them with the testimony of those whom they consider to be ascetics. They care about this not because they consider the degrees of clergy honorable - they even neglect the bishops themselves when they wish - but in order to bargain for themselves some kind of dominance and power. Some of them say that they would not have partaken of the mysteries if they had not sensed the manifestation of the Spirit, which happens at that hour. Some of them allow those who wish to cut off their natural members. They easily neglect excommunications. They fearlessly swear and break their oaths, and feignedly anathematize their heresy. Also regarding the aforementioned heresy of the Massalians, who are found most of all in monasteries, from the history of Theodoret. During the times of Valentine and Valens, the Massalian heresy appeared. Those who translate this name into Greek call them Euchites. They also have another name, borrowed from the case; for they are called enthusiasts because they receive into themselves the action of some demon and take this to be the action of the Holy Spirit. Those infected with this disease absolutely avoid manual labor as an evil, and, indulging in sleep, the dreams of dreams are called inspirations. The leaders of this heresy were Dado, Sava, Adelphius, Hermas, Simeon and others, besides these, who withdrew from church communion, arguing that the Divine food about which Christ speaks - whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life (John 6:54) - does not harm and does not benefit. Trying to hide their illness, even after denunciation they shamelessly deny and refuse those who think the same thing that they carry in their souls. A certain Litay, the ruler of the Melitino church, adorned with divine jealousy, seeing that many monasteries, or rather dens of robbers, had become infected with this disease, burned them and drove the wolves out of the herd. Also, the all-validated Amphilochius, to whom the metropolis of Lycaonia was entrusted and who looked after that entire tribe, having learned that this ulcer had penetrated here too, rebelled against it and freed the flock he grazed from this infection. The famous Flavian the Antiochian bishop, having learned that they lived in Edessa, infecting their neighbors with their poison, summoned many monks, brought them to Antioch and exposed those who denied their illness in the following way. He said their accusers were slandering and their witnesses were lying. Gently calling Adelphius, who was already very old, to sit close to him, Flavian said: “We old men, having lived a long life, have more carefully studied human nature and learned the tricks of opposing demons, and from experience we have been taught the help of grace. These young people, not knowing anything well, cannot accommodate more spiritual speeches. So, tell me, in what sense do you say that the hostile spirit is removed and the grace of the All-Holy Spirit dwells?” Fascinated by these words, that old man vomited out all his hidden poison and said that baptism does not bring any benefit to those worthy of it, but that only fervent prayer drives out the demon that dwells in a person. Each of those born, he said, borrowed from their ancestor both nature and slavery to demons. But when they are driven out by fervent prayer, then the All-Holy Spirit takes up residence, showing its presence in a tangible and visible way and freeing the body from the movement of passions and completely freeing the soul from the inclination to evil; so that there is no longer any need for fasting to curb the body, or for teaching to curb a person and instill in him good behavior. Whoever has achieved this is not only freed from bodily rebellions, but also clearly foresees the future and contemplates the Divine Trinity with his own eyes. When in this way the divine Flavian dug up the stinking spring and forced the streams to open, he said to the unfortunate old man: “O you, head gray in evil! You are now clothed not with me, but with your own lips; The witness against you is your own lips.” After such a discovery of their illness, they were expelled from Syria and, retiring to Pamphylia, filled it with their infection. These are heresies before Marcian. From Marcian and then a little later, to Leo, such heresies appeared. 81. Nestorians: they teach that God the Word and His man exist separately and separately, and the lower things done by the Lord during His stay among us are attributed to His man alone, and the more sublime and God-befitting things are attributed to God the Word alone, and they do not attribute both to one and the same person. 82. Eutychianists, who received the name of this heresy from Eutychus. They say that our Lord Jesus Christ did not receive flesh from the holy Virgin Mary, but they claim that He was incarnated in some more divine way, not realizing that the man guilty of the sin of their forefather Adam, it was God the Word who united to Himself from the Virgin Mary, who, having taken away the strength of the principalities and powers, powerfully subjected them to shame, having triumphed over them with Himself (Col. 2:15), as it is written - having triumphed over the principles and powers that entered the world through the crime of the primordial. 83. The Egyptians are also schismatics and Monophysites. Under the pretext of the Chalcedonian definition, they separated from the Orthodox Church. They are called Egyptians because the Egyptians were the first to start this type of heresy under the kings Marcian and Valentinian. In all other respects they are Orthodox. Out of affection for Dioscorus of Alexandria, who was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon as a defender of the teachings of Eutyches, they opposed the council and composed thousands of censures against him, which we have sufficiently refuted earlier in this book, showing them to be ignorant and superstitious. Their leaders: Theodosius the Alexandrian, from whom the Theodosians, Jacob the Syrian, from whom the Jacobites. Their accomplices, guarantors and defenders: Sevirus, the corrupter of the Aptiochians, and John the Tritheist, who labored in vain, rejecting the mystery of common salvation. They wrote a lot against the Chalcedonian inspired teaching of the six hundred and thirty fathers and set up many temptations for the perishing, leading them along their destructive path. And also, by introducing a dogma about private entities, they introduce confusion into the mystery of the economy. About nature and hypostasis, as the Sevirians think and how they teach about private essences from the fourth word of the “Arbitrator” of John the grammarian, a tritheist called Philoponus. The general and universal meaning of human nature, although in itself it is one, but, existing in many subjects, becomes multiple, being wholly, and not partly, present in each. Just as the plan of a ship, being one for the shipbuilder, multiplies, ending up in many subjects, so what is taught by the teacher, being one in its own meaning, when it turns out to be in the students, it multiplies together with them, existing entirely in each. In addition, the signet of the ring is one, but, existing in many impressions, entirely in each, it already exists and is called many. Thus, many vessels, many people, many imprints and concepts of many disciples are multiple in individuals and in number and in this respect are separate and not united. By general appearance, many people are one, and many ships are one, just as concepts and prints, by the identity of the image, have unity. Thus, all this is in one respect multiple and separate, and in another it is united and united. But even when applied to continuous quantities, we often use number, saying, for example, a tree of two cubits, but we call one two only in possibility, and not in reality, for in reality there is only one, and not two; and since it can become two through division, we say that it consists of any two [measures]. From the Arbitrator Chapter VII This is the seventh word, which, based on what those who defend the opposite opinion offer, confirms its own truth. They, accepting that there are two natures in Christ, argue that in Him there is only one hypostasis, i.e. face; they likewise reject those who believe that Christ has one nature after the union or that he has two hypostases. But before moving on to refuting this position, I consider it appropriate to first define what the teaching of the Church means by the word “nature”, what by the word “person” and “hypostasis”. So, they believe that nature is the general determination of the existence of things that participate in the same essence - like every person, that he is a rational mortal living being, receptive to intelligence and knowledge, for no person differs [from another] in this respect. Essence and nature are considered one and the same; hypostasis, i.e. face, they call the independent existence of each nature or, so to speak, a description composed of certain characteristics by which objects of the same nature differ from each other, or, in short, what the Peripatetics are accustomed to calling individuals, with which the division of common genera and species ends. The teachers of the Church called these hypostases, and sometimes persons. When a living being is divided into rational and unreasonable, and the rational, in turn, into man, angel and demon, then the individual is called that into which each of these latter species is divided: man, for example, into Peter and Paul; angel - say, into Gabriel and Michael and each of the other angels - because it is impossible for each of these beings to be divided into others, preserving their nature during division. After all, the division of a person into soul and body leads to the destruction of the entire living being. Therefore, the Peripatetics usually call such beings individuals. Church teaching called them hypostases because in them the genus and species receive existence, for although a living being, for example even a person, of which the first is a generic concept, and the second a specific one, have their own definition of being, however, they receive existence only in individuals, i.e. in Peter and Paul: outside of them they do not exist. So, what is hypostasis and what is nature according to church teaching - we have said. This common nature, for example, the nature of man, which no one differs from another, existing in each of the individuals, becomes his own nature and is not common to him with anyone else, as we established in the fourth chapter. For the rational mortal living being in me is not common to anyone else. When, for example, a person, or a bull, or a horse suffers, then, of course, it is possible for individuals similar to him to remain impassive. And if Paul died, it is conceivable that none of the other people died at that time. And when Peter was born and brought into being, the people who were to come after him did not yet exist. Thus, each nature is not defined in the same sense as what it is, but in a twofold sense. In one sense - when we consider the general meaning of each nature in itself, for example, the nature of man, horse, which does not exist in any individual. In another sense - when we see this very general nature existing in individuals and receiving in each of them a more particular existence, corresponding not to any other, but to this particular individual and only to him alone. For the rational mortal living being in me is not common to any other person; and the nature of a living being in a given horse will not be found in any other, as we have recently proved. That it is precisely such thoughts about natures and hypostases that church teaching also contains, it is clear from the fact that we confess one nature of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but we recognize three hypostases, i.e. persons, each of which differs from the others in some particular way. What is the unified nature of the Divinity if not the general meaning of the nature of the Divinity, considered in itself and shared by thought about the characteristics of each hypostasis? And that we also know a more specific definition of nature, considering the general meaning of nature to have become the property of each of the individuals, or hypostases, and can no longer correspond to another being of a general type, is again clear from the fact that we recognize in Christ the union of two natures - divine and human. After all, we do not say that the intelligible nature of the Divine, common to the Holy Trinity, was incarnate, for in this case we would recognize the incarnation of both the Father and the Holy Spirit. In the same way, we do not recognize that common human nature was united with God the Word, for in this case it would rightly be said that the Word of God was united with all people who were before the coming of the Word and who will be after him. But it is clear that by the nature of the Divinity we here call the nature of the general Divinity, isolated in the hypostasis of the Word, therefore we confess the single nature of God the Word, embodied by this addition: God the Word, separating the nature of the Word from the nature of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, understanding the general meaning of the nature of the Divinity, which has already become the own of God the Word, we say here that the nature of God the Word has become incarnate; and again, we say that human nature was united with the Word as that most particular existence, which alone of all received the Word. So, with this understanding of the word “nature,” nature and hypostasis mean almost the same thing, except that the word “hypostasis” also implies the features included in each hypostasis, in addition to the general nature, by which they are separated from each other. Therefore, you can find that many of our people indifferently say that a union of natures, or hypostases, took place. Hypostasis, as we have shown, means a separate and indivisible being; but since they often used these words interchangeably, it is clear that with these words they wanted to designate to us a separate nature, because both in everyday speech and in the usage of those who talked about such subjects, everyone has the custom of calling the general meaning of nature man. For example, “man” is said to be a species of living being, although no individual is a species subordinate to the genus, and is not called such. We also say that a man differs from a horse, meaning, of course, their common natures. But on the other hand, we say that Peter, and Paul, and John are people and that a person was born and died, an individual, of course, since the general meaning of human nature remains the same. And again, it would be appropriate to note that the names “person” and “hypostasis” often have the same meaning for us, as if someone called the same object both a sword and a dagger. Thus, in relation to the Holy Trinity, we say indifferently: both three persons and three hypostases, through each of these two expressions in the same way denoting the same thing. But often a person is distinguished from a hypostasis by calling the relationship of some objects to each other a person, and this meaning of the word “person” is also known in ordinary usage. For we say that someone took upon himself my person and that someone filed a lawsuit against such and such a person; We also say that the prefect acts on behalf of the king. Therefore, adherents of the dogmas of Nestorius do not want to talk about any one nature in Christ, nor about one hypostasis, since they do not recognize the union of the hypostases in themselves, but believe that from Mary was born a simple man who received divine illumination and thus differed from other people, because in each of those the divine illumination was more partial. Nevertheless, they confidently assert that the person of Christ is one, calling the relationship of God the Word to the man Mary a single person, since that person performed all divine dispensations on behalf of the Divinity of God the Word. That is why it is fair to transfer the reproach of a person to God, since both the honor shown to the prefect by his subjects and the reproach are transferred to the king himself. And the name Christ, they say, in its own sense serves as an expression of such an attitude. That is why they recognize Christ as one, because the relationship, as has been said, is one, even if many participate in it. So, I believe that for those who think piously regarding the incarnation of the Savior, it is clear that when we speak of the one person of Christ, we do not use the expression “person” in the way that it seemed to the friends of Nestorius, in the sense of denoting the simple relationship of God to man. But we say that the face of Christ is one, using the word “person” interchangeably with “hypostasis,” as in the one hypostasis of a person, for example, Peter or Paul. Along with other things, let this also be stated in advance: although, of course, the humanity of Christ did not exist outside of unity with the Word even for the most insignificant time, but at the same time received both the beginning of entry into being and unity with the Word; however, we do not say that this nature is hypostatic, since it had an independent and delimited existence in comparison with other people, differing from the general nature of other people in certain features. We recently showed that the word “hypostasis” means exactly this. So, just as in relation to the Divinity of Christ we confess both His nature and hypostasis, so in relation to His humanity it is necessary to confess both nature and its own hypostasis, so as not to be forced to call this nature non-hypostatic, as I said. For the humanity of the Savior, of course, was one of the individuals belonging to a common nature. After we have thus clearly and, I think, in agreement with everyone, examined this, let those who believe that in Christ there are two natures, but one hypostasis, tell us: since each of the united, as our reasoning has shown, necessarily had a nature together with a hypostasis, do they recognize that the union arose equally from natures and hypostases, or do they believe that the hypostases were united to a greater extent, since from two one hypostasis arose, natures - in smaller, why did they remain two even after the unification? After other remarks in which the writer makes out that the essence does not admit of a greater or lesser degree, he again says in the same chapter: I believe it is obvious to everyone that one nature gives rise to many hypostases. So, confessing that the nature of the Divine is one, we recognize that it has three hypostases. And people have one nature, although the number of hypostases of this nature extend almost to infinity - and so in other cases. It is impossible for two natures, while maintaining binary in relation to number, to have one hypostasis. And this can be verified not only by citing all particular examples (for how is one hypostasis possible, i.e. an individual, stone and tree, or bull and horse?), but also from self-evident reasoning. For if each nature receives existence in hypostases [i.e. in individuals], then it is necessary that where there are two natures, there are at least two hypostases in which the natures would receive their existence. For it is impossible for nature to exist in itself without being seen in some individual; the individual is the same as the hypostasis, as we have recently established. Thus, those who say that through the union not only one hypostasis, but also one nature was obtained, seem to agree with each other and with the truth. Those who say that there is one hypostasis, but two natures, turned out to disagree with themselves and with the truth. But, they say, since the humanity of Christ in the Word had a hypostasis and did not exist before the union with the Word, therefore we affirm that there is only one hypostasis of Christ. So, we say to them: do you think that nature and hypostasis mean the same thing, differing from each other, like the names of the same object, for example, dagger and sword, or does nature mean one thing, and hypostasis another? If it is one and the same, then in view of the fact that the hypostasis is one, it is necessary that the nature be one, just as it is necessary that since there is one dagger, then there is one sword. Or: if there are two natures, then there will also need to be two hypostases. If the name of nature means one thing, and the name of hypostasis another, the reason that there is one hypostasis in Christ, they consider that the hypostasis of man, i.e. person did not exist before union with the Word, then, therefore, the reason for the presence of two natures in Christ will be the existence of human nature before union with the Word. But if a particular nature united with the Word pre-existed, then it is absolutely necessary that its hypostasis also pre-existed, for it is impossible for one of them to exist when the other does not exist, that is, a private nature without its own hypostasis or a private hypostasis without its own nature. For according to the subject, both of them [nature and hypostasis] constitute one, which is why those who use these words often identify them, as we showed a little higher. Therefore, if both the hypostasis and the nature united with the Word did not exist before the union with Him, then for the same reason that they recognize one hypostasis of Christ, let them recognize that His nature is one. For if they do not differ in connection, then they will not differ in this. 84. Aphtartodocites: descended from Julian of Halicarnassus and Gaianus of Alexandria; are also called Guyanites. In all other respects they agree with the Sevirians; They differ from them in that they say that the difference of natures when they were united in Christ was illusory; and these teach that the body of Christ from its very formation was incorruptible. And that the Lord endured suffering, they confess, I mean hunger, and thirst, and fatigue; but they assert that He did not endure them in the same way as we do. For we endure suffering out of natural necessity, but Christ, according to them, endured it voluntarily and was not a slave to the laws of nature. 85. Agnoites, they are also themists: they godlessly claim that Christ did not know the day of judgment, and attribute fear to Him. They constitute the Theodosian sect, for Themistius, who was their heresiarch, recognized in Christ a single complex nature. 86. The Barsanufites, who are also the Semidalites, agree with the Gayanites and Theodosians, but they have something beyond that. They mix wheat flour with the gifts allegedly brought by Dioscorus, and, touching it with the tip of their finger, taste the flour and accept it instead of the mysteries, since they do not celebrate the Eucharist at all. Having taken, as is said, the communion of Dioscorus, they mix wheat flour into it until it is little by little used up, and this serves them instead of communion. 87. Ikets: these are monks; Orthodox in all other respects, but when they gather in monasteries with women, they offer hymns to God with some round dances and dances, as if imitating the choir that was formed in the time of Moses, during the death of the Egyptians that happened in the Red Sea. 88. Gnosismakhs: they reject the necessity for Christianity of all knowledge. They say that those who seek any knowledge in the divine Scriptures do in vain, for God does not require anything else from a Christian except good deeds. So, it is better to live rather more simply and not be curious about any dogma related to knowledge. 89. Iliotropites: They say that the so-called heliotropic plants, turning towards the rays of the sun, contain within themselves a certain divine power that makes such rotations in them, therefore they want to honor them, not realizing that the movement noticed in them is natural. 90. Phnitopsychites: they recognize the human soul as similar to the soul of livestock and claim that it perishes along with the body. 91. Agoniklites: at any time of prayer they do not want to kneel, but they always pray standing. 92. Theocatognosts, they are also blasphemers. They, being impudent and blasphemous people, try to find condemnation in some words and deeds of our Master God and the holy persons devoted to Him and in the Divine Scriptures. 93. Christolites: they say that our Lord Jesus Christ, after resurrecting from the dead, left His animated body on earth and ascended to heaven with only one Divinity. 94. Ephnophrons: follow the customs of the pagans, being otherwise Christians. They introduce birth, luck and fate, accept all astronomy and astrology, all mantles and bird fortune-telling, are committed to auspices, predictions, signs, spells and other fables of the wicked, they also adhere to other pagan customs, honoring some pagan holidays, observing again days and months, times and summers. 95. Donatists: descended from a certain Donatus in Africa, who taught them to first kiss a certain bone, taking it in their hands, and then proceed to offer the holy mysteries, if they were to be offered. 96. Iphicoproscoptes: in morals, i.e. in active life, they sin and condemn some teachings worthy of praise; some who are blameworthy are followed as useful. 97. Parerminevts: They reinterpret some chapters of the divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and understand them in their own way. But, being hostile to many of the exact and impeccable interpretations, they tolerate it due to some simplicity and illegibility, not knowing that some of the heretical dogmas are reinforced from this. 98. Lampetians: so named from a certain Lampetius. They allow everyone who wishes to live separately or spend life in communal monasteries, to choose the lifestyle that he wishes, and to dress in the clothes that he wants, for, they say, a Christian should not do anything under compulsion, since it is written: I will eat you with my will (Ps. 53:8). And one more thing: I will confess my will to him (Ps. 27:7). They allow, as some report, to give place to natural passions and not resist them, since nature requires it. They say that they also recognize something else that is close to those who are called Arians. 99. Monothelites: received their origin from Cyrus of Alexandria, but thanks to Sergius of Constantinople they established themselves. They recognize two natures in Christ and one hypostasis, but teach about one will and one action, thereby rejecting the duality of natures and coming very close to the teaching of Apollinaris. 100. 1 There is also the faith of the Ishmaelites, which is the forerunner of the Antichrist, which is still growing stronger, leading the people astray. It comes from Ishmael, born of Abraham from Hagar, therefore [its adherents] are called Hagarites and Ishmaelites. They are called Saracens (Σαρακνούς) from “Σάρρασ κένους” because of what Hagar said to the angel: “Σάρρα κενήν με ἀπέλυσεν” (“Sarah sent me away empty”) 2. They served idols and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, who in their language was called Khabar, which means “great” 3. And until the time of Heraclius 4, the Saracens clearly served idols; from his time and until now, a false prophet arose among them, called Muhammad (Μάμεδ), who accidentally became acquainted with the Old and New Testaments, in a similar way, they say, communicated with an Arian monk 5, [after which] he composed his own heresy. Under the pretext of turning the people to apparent worship of God, he spreads the rumor that a scripture was sent down to him from heaven from God. Having written in his book some points worthy of laughter, he handed it over to them for veneration. [In this book] he says that one God is the creator of everything, He neither begat nor was He begotten (Quran 112.3). He says that Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit (Koran 4.171), creation and slave, and that he was born without seed of Mary (Koran 19.19–22), sister of Moses and Aaron (Koran 19.28). For, he says, the Word of God and the Spirit entered into Mary and she gave birth to Jesus, the prophet and servant of God; and that the lawless Jews wanted to crucify Him and, seizing them, crucified His shadow 6, but Christ himself, he says, was not crucified and did not die (Koran 4.157). For God took Him to heaven because He loved Him. And [Muhammad] says that when Christ ascended into heaven, God asked him, saying: Jesus, did You say that “I am the Son of God and God?” and Jesus said, he answered: “Be merciful to Me, Lord! You know what I did not say, and I am not ashamed to be Your servant. But criminal people wrote that I said this word and lied about Me, and they are in error.” And God answered Him, he says: “I know that You did not say this word” (Koran 5.116–117). And inventing many other things worthy of laughter in his book, [Muhammad] boasts that it was sent down to him from God. We say: “Who is the witness that God gave him the Scripture, or which of the prophets predicted that such a prophet would arise?” And when they are at a loss, we say that Moses received the Law when God appeared on Mount Sinai in the presence of all the people in cloud and fire, darkness and smoke, and that all the prophets, from Moses onwards, predicted the coming of Christ and that Christ, God and the Son of God incarnate, would come and be crucified, die and rise again, and that He would be the Judge of the living and the dead. And we will say to them: “Why didn’t your prophet come in such a way that others would testify about him, and [why] didn’t God give the law in your presence, as he did to Moses on a smoking mountain in the sight of all the people, and gave him also the scripture, as you say, so that you too could have confidence [in it]?” They answer that God does what he wants. We, too, say, know this, but we ask, how did the scripture descend to your prophet? And they answer that the scripture descended on him from above while he was sleeping. And then we will tell them the following joke: “Since, as you say, he received the scripture sleepily and did not feel the effect, then the popular proverb was fulfilled on him...” 7 . When we ask again: “Why, when he commands you in your scripture not to do or accept anything without witnesses, 8 you did not ask him: first confirm through witnesses that you are a prophet, that you came from God, and what scriptures testify about you?” – ashamed, they remain silent. Then we legitimately say to them: “Since you are not allowed to marry, sell, or acquire without witnesses, and since you yourself do not accept either a donkey or cattle without witnesses, you receive wives, and property, and donkeys, and so on with witnesses, but only faith and scripture - without witnesses; for the one who transmitted this scripture to you did not confirm it in any way, and not only is there no one who would testify about it, but even [he] himself received the scripture in a dream.” They call us etherists (ἑταιριαστάς) 9 because, they say, we add another to God, saying that Christ is the Son of God and God. We will tell them that the prophets and the scriptures have conveyed this: but you, as you resolutely affirm, accept the prophets. So, if we say badly that Christ is the Son of God, then this is what they taught us and passed on to us. And some of them [to this] say that we attribute this to the prophets, interpreting them allegorically, while others say that the Jews, hating us, misled us, as if writing [this] on behalf of the prophets so that we would perish. Again we say to them: if you say that Christ is the Word of God and the Spirit, then why do you blame us as etherealists, since the word and the spirit are inseparable from the one in whom they exist? So, if His word exists in God, it is obvious that it is God. If it exists outside of God, then God [then], in your opinion, is wordless and soulless. Thus, by avoiding giving God another, you killed Him. For it would be better to tell you that He has another than to kill Him or represent [Him] as a stone, or a log, or any other insensible [subject]. Thus, you falsely call us etherealists, but we rightly call you deicides. They condemn us as idolaters because we worship the cross, which they abhor. And we will say to them: “Why do you touch the stone that is in your Kaaba and kiss and embrace it?” And some of them say [in response to this] that Abraham copulated with Hagar on it 11; others that he tied a camel here, intending to sacrifice Isaac 12. And [then] we will answer them: “The Scripture says that the mountain was wooded and [covered] with trees, from which, having made a fagot, Abraham laid it on Isaac (Gen. 22:6), and that he left the donkeys with the servants (Gen. 22:5). So where do you get [your] nonsense from? After all, there is no wooded thicket there, no donkeys pass by? They are ashamed, but nevertheless they still say that this is the stone of Abraham. And then we will say to them: “Let [this stone], as you talk, be [the stone of] Abraham; So, embracing it only because Abraham had intercourse with a woman on it, or because he tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed, but you condemn us because we worship the cross of Christ, through which the power of demons and the wanderings of the devil were destroyed? What they call the stone is the head of Aphrodite, which they worshiped, calling it Khabar. On this stone, to this day, the carved shadow [of the head] is visible to those who see perfectly. This Muhammad, as has already been said, having composed many absurd fables, gave each of them a name, for example the scripture “Woman” 13, in which he legislates openly to take four wives and, if anyone can, thousands [of concubines], as many as one’s hand can hold, in a lower position, in contrast to four wives. But for what reason did Muhammad decide to let go of any [of the wives], if you wish, and take another, if you wish: Muhammad had a companion named Zeid. He had this beautiful wife whom Muhammad fell in love with. And so, when they were sitting, Muhammad said: “Oh, so-and-so! God ordered me to take your wife.” He replied: “You are a messenger, do as God told you: take my wife.” It is better that we tell [this story] from the very beginning: [Muhammad] said to him: “God ordered me [to tell you] that you let your wife go.” He let go. And after several days [Muhammad] said: “God ordered that I take her for myself.” Then he, having taken her and committed adultery with her, established the following law: whoever wishes, let him let his wife go. If after the divorce he turns to her again, then let someone else marry her. For it is impossible to take her back unless another [first] marries her 14 . In the same scripture [Muhammad] commands the following: “Till the land that God has given you, and cultivate it and do such and such” (Quran 2.223), [we use this] so as not to speak, like him, of any obscenity. There is also the scripture “The Camel of God” 15, about which he says that she was a camel from God, and she drank the whole river, and could not pass between two mountains due to the fact that there was not enough space. So, he says, there were people in that place, and one day the people drank water, and the next day a she-camel. After drinking water, [the camel] fed them, giving them milk instead of water. So, he says, those men, being vicious, rebelled and killed the she-camel; She had a child - a little camel, who, it is said, when the mother was killed, cried out to God, and [God] took her to Himself. [To this] we will say to them: “Where does this camel come from?” They say it's from God. And we will say: “Did another camel copulate with her?” They say: "No." Then where, we ask, did she give birth? For we see that your camel, without a father and without a mother and without a pedigree, and having given birth, suffered evil. But even the one who copulated [with her] does not appear, and the little camel is taken to heaven. How is it that your prophet, with whom, as you claim, God spoke, did not find out about the camel, where she grazed and who fed her milk? Or, perhaps, she herself, as a mother, fell for evil people and was killed? Or did she enter paradise as your forerunners and from her will the river of milk you talk about come from her? For you say that three rivers flow for you in paradise: water, wine and milk (see: Koran 47.15). If your forerunner, the camel, is outside paradise, it is obvious that she has dried up from hunger and thirst, or others are using her milk and your prophet is falsely talking idlely, as if he talked with God, for even the secret of the camel was not revealed to him. If she is in heaven, then she drinks water again, and you suffer from lack of water in the midst of heavenly pleasures. If you desire wine from a flowing river, then, having drunk it unmixed with water (for the camel drank it all), through intemperance in drinking you become inflamed, become drunk and sleep. Suffering from a headache and a hangover from wine after sleep, [involuntarily] you forget about the pleasures of paradise. So, why didn’t your prophet think about the fact that [this] would not happen to you in the paradise of pleasure, and didn’t think about the camel, where she is now? But you did not ask him [about this] when he announced to you about the three rivers, deceiving you with the story of dreams. We clearly proclaim to you that your amazing camel entered the souls of donkeys before you, where you too will live, like beasts. There is outer darkness and endless punishment, a humming fire, a never-ending worm and hellish demons. Muhammad also says in the scripture “The Meal” that Christ asked God for a meal, and it was given to him. For God, he says, said to Him: I have given You and those who are with You an incorruptible table (Quran 5.112–115). He also composed the scripture "Cow" 16 and some other sayings worthy of laughter, which, due to their abundance, I think should be omitted. He decreed that Saracens and their wives should be circumcised 17 and ordered not to keep the Sabbath and not to be baptized, one of which is permitted in the law, and to abstain from the other; He completely forbade drinking wine. See also “St. John of Damascus on Islam” by priest Georgy Maximov Translation by Yu.V. Maximov according to the publication: Johannes Damaskenos und Theodor Abu Qurra, Schriften zum Islam. Kommentierte griechisch-deutsche Textausgabe von Reinhold Glei und Adel Th. Khoury/CISC, SG. T.3. Altenberg, 1995. There are no such words in the Holy Scriptures (cf. Gen. 16:8–15, 21:17). The Meccans, among others, revered three goddesses: Allat, al-Uzza and Manat (Koran 53.19–20). The goddess of the morning star was al-Uzza; by Aphrodite, most likely, Allat is meant, who had the same functions among the pagan Arabs. The period of Muhammad’s “prophetic” activity (610–632) actually coincides with the reign of Emperor Heraclius (610–641). Obviously, an echo of Muslim stories about the meeting of young Muhammad with the Christian hermit Bahira, although in Muslim legends, of course, Bahira’s religious affiliation is never specified. Among early Muslim commentators, beginning with al-Tabari, there were widely varying and conflicting accounts of how Jesus escaped crucifixion. They were united in the fact that another person was crucified in his place. The version that St. John sets forth is not found in the surviving works of Muslim authors; This is probably one of the earliest versions of the interpretation of Koran 4.157. Khoury believes that the proverb itself, to which St. John refers, is missing from the text. He points out that Euthymius Zigaben, quoting this place, supplements the text with the following sentence: “A person in a dream often talks nonsense and sees all sorts of nonsense” (PG. T. 130. Col. 1336 D). The need for witnesses in such cases is written in the Koran: 4.15; 5.106–108; 24.2–13; 65.2, etc. From ἑταιρία – “partnership”, i.e. giving someone else to God; translation of Arabic muhrikun. Since, according to Islam, Christ was not crucified, the veneration of the cross by Christians is perceived by Muslims as blasphemy. In one popular hadith, Muhammad states that when Jesus comes before the end of the world, he will destroy all the crosses (Bukhari, Muslim and Ibn Hanbal). See: Wensinck A.J. A Handbook of early Muhammadan Tradition. Leiden, 1927, pp. 252–253. Muslims have many legends about the black stone; those mentioned by St. John are not currently common. Although later Muslim tradition began to believe that Abraham intended to sacrifice Ishmael, early commentators, particularly al-Tabari, speak of Isaac. This refers to the 4th sura “Women”. Issues relating to marriage are mentioned in Qur'an 2.226–242; 4.19–21.130; 33.49; 58.1–4; 65.1–7. “If he divorced her, then it is not permitted to him until she marries another husband, and if he divorced her, then there is no sin against them if they return” (Quran 2.230). There is no sura with this name in the Koran. Apparently, this refers to the story of the prophet Salih's she-camel, which was killed by unbelievers from his people. Mentions of her are scattered throughout the Quran 7.73–79; 26.141–149; 27.45–53; 54.23–31; 91.11–14. Apparently, St. John writes it down from someone’s oral retelling, which mixed the Koranic story and folk legends about it. This may explain the presence of details that have no parallels with extant Muslim literature. The name of the 2nd sura of the Koran. Circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran, but is nevertheless attested to in tradition. Female circumcision is still practiced in some Muslim countries. You might be interested in: