On the prescription [against] heretics

1. The circumstances of the present time especially prompt us to the following reminder: we should not be surprised at the current multitude of heresies - neither that they exist (for their existence was foretold 1), nor that they undermine someone's faith (they exist for this purpose, so that faith is strengthened in trials). This means that many are vainly and thoughtlessly amazed that heresies have such power. How much more they would be amazed if there were no heresies at all! Once something is determined to an indispensable existence (and, therefore, has acquired the reason for its existence), it cannot but exist, because it is subject to the power, thanks to which it exists. 2. We are not surprised either that there is a fever, intended, among other deadly and painful ailments, to kill a person (and it does exist), nor that it destroys people, for that is what it exists for. Therefore, if we are horrified that heresies sent down to weaken and destroy faith are such, then first we should be horrified that they exist at all: since they exist, they have power, and since they exist, they exist. However, fever as an evil, both in its purpose and in its effect, is, of course, rather disgusting to us than surprising; As far as we can, we protect ourselves from it, without being able to destroy it. On the contrary, some people prefer to be surprised at the heresies that bring eternal death and the flame of cruel fire for their great power, rather than avoid this power, although they are quite capable of avoiding it. And yet they will not have such strength if they stop being surprised by this strength. After all, they fall into temptation just when they are surprised, or, on the contrary, because they fall, they are surprised - as if the power of heresies stems from some truth. And, indeed, it is surprising that evil has such power; but only because heresies are strong for those who are weak in faith. In competition between fist fighters and gladiators, most often someone wins not because he is brave and invincible, but because the loser was weak. And then this same winner, going against a strong opponent, leaves defeated. It’s no different with heresies: they are strong thanks to someone’s weakness, but are powerless if they meet a strong faith. 3. Those who, due to their weakness, are overthrown by heresies, are usually led into temptation by certain persons already captured by heresy. Why did this one or this one, very religious, prudent people, completely at home in the church, go over to the other side? Who, asking such a question, will not answer himself that they cannot be considered either believers, or prudent, or one of their own, since heresies could confuse them? And is it surprising (I think) if someone who was previously considered reliable then falls away? Saul, a kind husband more than others, then dies from envy 2; David, a good man after the Lord's heart 3, later became guilty of murder and debauchery 4; Solomon, endowed by the Lord with all grace and wisdom, is inclined by women to idolatry 5 . Only one Son of God was given to remain without sin 6 . If a bishop, deacon, widow, virgin, mentor, or even a martyr falls away from the rule of faith, is it really necessary to think that there is truth in heresy? So, do we establish faith by persons, or persons by faith? No one is wise, no one is faithful, no one is great unless he is a Christian: but only the Christian who “endures to the end” (Matthew 10:22). You, since you are a man, know everyone from the outside; you think as you see, but you see only what is before your eyes, but “the eyes of the Lord,” as it is said, “are high” (Jeremiah 32:19). “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). For “the Lord knows those who are His” (2 Tim. 2:19), “and the plant which the Father did not plant he uproots” (Matt. 15:13), “and makes the first last” (Matthew 20:16), “and the shovel is in His hand, and he cleanses His threshing floor” (Matthew 3:12). Let the chaff of easy faith, winnowed by temptations, be scattered more and in all directions, the purer will be the wheat poured into the Lord’s bins. Did not some of the disciples depart from the Lord Himself, succumbing to temptation 7. ? But the others did not think that because of this they too should move away from Him: on the contrary, those who knew that He was the “Word of Life” and came from God remained His companions to the end, although He meekly offered to leave them too if they wished. And it is not so important if a certain Figellus, and Hermogenes, and Philetus, and Hymenaeus left His apostle: after all, the betrayer of Christ himself was one of the apostles. We are surprised if someone leaves His churches, but what we endure according to the example of Christ Himself shows that we are Christians. “They went out from us,” says the apostle, “but they were not ours; for if they had been ours, they would have remained with us” (1 John 2:19). 4. Let us better remember both the sayings of the Lord and the apostolic writings, for they foreshadowed future heresies for us and determined to avoid them. And since we are not afraid of their existence, we will not be surprised that they are capable of things for which they should be avoided. The Lord taught that “many ravenous wolves will come in sheep’s clothing” (cf. Matt. 7:15). What are these sheep skins if not the appearance of a Christian name? What are predatory wolves if not insidious feelings and thoughts lurking within to plunder the flock of Christ? What are false prophets if not false preachers? What are false apostles if not counterfeit evangelists? What are antichrists, now and always, if not rebels against Christ? Nowadays, heresies no less torment the church with the vicissitudes of teachings than when the Antichrist persecutes her with the cruelty of persecution: but persecution creates martyrs, and heresy only apostates: “Wherefore there must be differences of opinion among you, so that those who are skilled may be revealed among you” (1 Cor. 11:19), both those who resisted persecution and those who did not deviate to heresies. Therefore, the apostle does not order those who exchange faith for heresy to be considered skilled people. After all, they interpret everything in their own way, for the apostle said in another place: “Test everything, hold on to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21); But is it not possible, having experienced everything badly, to choose some evil out of error? 5. Further, if the apostle condemns disagreements and strife, which are undoubtedly evil, then he also adds heresies 10. What he ranks as evil, then, of course, he declares to be evil, and even greater, for he says that he believed [the words] about disagreements and discord, knowing that there must even be heresies. He declares that it is easier to believe in a lesser evil, meaning a greater one. Of course, he became convinced of evil not because heresies are good, but to warn: one should not be surprised at temptations of an even worse nature, which, he said, are aimed at revealing the sophistication of those whom they could not seduce. And if the entire chapter is filled with the spirit of preserving unity and pacifying divisions - and heresies remove no less from unity than schisms and discords - then, without a doubt, he subjects heresies to the same censure as schisms and discords. Therefore, he does not consider those who have turned to heresy to be skillful, for he especially condemns this kind of deviation, teaching: “Let everyone speak and understand the same thing” (1 Cor. 1:10), which is precisely what heresies do not allow. 6. Why talk about this any longer, when the same Paul, who in another place classifies heresies as carnal crimes, - in Galatians 11 - inspires Titus to turn away “from the heretic after the first... admonition, knowing that he is so corrupted and sinful that he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11). But in almost every epistle, tirelessly repeating the need to avoid perverse teachings, he touches on heresies: their fruits are perverse teachings, called the Greek word “heresy” (αιρεος), it denotes the choice of opinion, which is used for instruction or assimilation of such [teachings] 12. That is why the apostle said that the heretic is condemned by himself, that he himself chose for himself what he is condemned for. We cannot introduce anything according to our own will, nor choose what someone else has introduced according to his own will. Our mentors (austores) are the apostles of the Lord; They themselves did not choose anything of their own accord that they would like to introduce, but, on the contrary, they faithfully passed on the teaching received from Christ to the nations. Therefore, “even if an angel from heaven preached otherwise, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). After all, even then the Holy Spirit foresaw that in a certain virgin Philumena there would be an angel of division, transformed into an “Angel of Light” (2 Cor. 11:14), by the signs and charms of which Apelles was prompted to introduce a new heresy 13. 7. All these are human and demonic teachings, “itching to hear” (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 4:3) and born of the ingenuity of pagan wisdom, which the Lord calls foolishness: “the foolish things of the world” (1 Cor. 1:27) He chose to shame even philosophy itself. She, of course, is the matter of pagan wisdom, the reckless interpreter of the Divine nature and institution. It is from philosophy that heresies themselves receive incitement. Hence the eons, some indefinite forms and the trinity of man (trinitas hominis) in Valentinus: he was a Platonist 14. Hence Marcion's God, who is better because of his serenity: this one came from the Stoics 15. And the Epicureans especially insist on the opinion that the soul perishes 16. And all philosophers are alike in denying the resurrection of the flesh. And where matter is equated with God, there is the teaching of Zeno; where we are talking about the fiery god, Heraclitus appears there 17. The same subject is discussed by heretics and philosophers, the same questions are repeated: where does evil come from and why? where is the person from and how? and, as Valentine recently suggested, where does God come from? Of course, from thought and premature birth 18. Pathetic Aristotle! He composed for them dialectics - the art of building and destroying, feigned in judgments, resourceful in premises, narrow-minded in proofs, active in wrangling, burdensome even for itself, interpreting everything, but never finding out anything. Hence their endless “tales and genealogies, and fruitless questions, and words creeping like cancer” (cf. 1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9). Keeping us from them, the apostle especially points out that we must beware of philosophy when he writes to the Colossians: “See to it that no one captivates you through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men,” contrary to the providence of the Holy Spirit (cf. Col. 2:8). He was in Athens, and there, in meetings, he recognized this human wisdom, an interrogator and distorter of the truth; learned that she herself was divided into numerous heresies due to the many sects opposing one another. So: what is Athens to Jerusalem? that the Academy is the Church? what are heretics to Christians? 19 Our institution is from Solomon’s portico 20, and he himself conveyed that the Lord must be sought “in the simplicity of the heart” (Wis. 1:1). May everyone remember this who wanted to make Christianity stoic, platonic, and dialectical. We don’t need curiosity after Jesus Christ, and we don’t need the search for truth after the Gospel. Once we believe [in something], we do not want to believe anything beyond this: for this is what we believe first of all, and there is nothing more that we should believe in. 8. So, I come to the position that ours also attract to reinforce their curiosity, and heretics repeat to justify their petty pickiness. It is written (they say): “Seek and you will find” (Matthew 7:7). Let us remember when the Lord said this. I think at the very beginning of His teaching, when everyone still had doubts whether He was the Christ, and when Peter had not yet announced that He was the Son of God, when, finally, John, who had knowledge of Him, passed away 21. This means that it was rightly said then: “Seek and you will find,” for it was still necessary to look for Him Whom they had not recognized until then. And this applies to the Jews - after all, the whole reproach of this saying is directed to them, for they had where to look for Christ. They, He says, “have Moses and Elijah, that is, the Law and the Prophets” (cf. Luke 16:29) 22, preaching Christ. According to this, He says in another place: “Search the Scriptures, in which you hope to find salvation, for they speak about Me” (John 5:39). This will be: “Seek and you will find,” because it is clear that the following words also refer to to the Jews: “Knock, and it will be opened to you” (Matthew 7:7). Before, the Jews were with God; from then on, those rejected for crimes began to be outside of God. The pagans were never with God, but were “only drops from a bucket, dust in the square” and always outside (cf. Isa. 40:15). But how can someone who has always been outside knock where he has never been? How did he recognize that door through which he had never entered or exited? Isn't he the one who is more likely to knock who knows that he was inside, was driven out, and who knows the entrance? Therefore, the words: “Ask, and it will be given to you” (Matthew 7:7) refer to the one who knew from whom one should ask and by whom something was promised, namely: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom the pagans knew no more than some of His promises. Therefore, He said to Israel: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24). He had not yet thrown “the bread of His children to the dogs” (Matthew 15:26), He had not yet commanded them to go “to the way of the Gentiles” (Matthew 10:5). If at the end He commanded them to “go to teach and baptize nations” (cf. Matt. 28:19), then soon the Holy Spirit-Comforter would be given to them, so that He would “guide them into all truth” (John 16:13). And He did this to them. If the apostles themselves, appointed teachers of the nations, were to find the Comforter, then all the more the words would not be addressed to us: “Seek and you will find,” the teaching should have come to us differently, through the apostles, and to the apostles themselves - through the Holy Spirit. And although all the sayings of God that reached us through the ears of the Jews were addressed to everyone, much of them referred to certain individuals; therefore, they are not direct instruction for us, but an example. 9. Now, of my own free will, I descend from this step. For everyone it is said: “Seek and you will find.” But even here it is useful to argue about the meaning, taking into account the guiding principle of interpretation 23. No utterance of God is so incoherent and vague that it is necessary to insist only on the words without defining their meaning. However, first I declare this: Christ has established something one and true; this the nations must certainly believe, and therefore “seek” for it, so that they may believe when they find it. But the search for a single and true establishment cannot be endless; you must seek it until you find it, and believe in it when you find it. And you don’t need anything more than to preserve what you believe in. Therefore, in addition, believe only that you should not believe in anything else and should not seek anything. After all, you have sought and believed in what He has established, and He does not order you to seek anything other than what He has established. If anyone doubts this, then let it be known to him that we [i.e. non-heretics] possess what was established by Christ. In the meantime, relying on the reliability of [my] evidence, I will remind some that they should not seek anything beyond what they believed, that is, what they were supposed to seek: that is, they should not interpret the words “Seek and you will find” without a reasonable basis. 10. And the rational basis of this saying consists of three provisions: in the subject (res), time and limit (modus). In the subject - so that you think about what you should look for, in time - when to look, in the limit - how long to look. Therefore, you need to search for what Christ established - in any case, if you do not have it, and until you find it. And you found it when you believed: after all, you would not have believed if you had not found it, just as you would not have sought if you had not hoped to find it. This means that you seek in order to find, and in order to find you believe. By faith you limited further searching and finding: this limit was set for you by the very result of the search. This boundary was determined for you by the One Who does not want you to believe in anything other than what He has established, and therefore does not want you to seek anything else. Moreover, if we, since many others have raised many different questions, must search as much as we can find, then we will always search and will never believe in anything. Where will the limit be to the search? Where is the haven of faith? Where is the end of being? Marcion? But Valentin also suggests: “Seek and you will find.” At Valentin's? But Apelles will knock on my door with the same saying; and Ebion, and Simon 24, and all the others have nothing else with which they could persuade and win me over. So, I will not find myself anywhere while I cry everywhere: “Seek and you will find,” as if I had no place 25 and as if I had never understood what Christ taught: what should be sought, what should be believed. 11. A person errs with impunity if he is not guilty (although error is a fault). He who leaves nothing behind wanders with impunity, I say. But since I believed in what I had to believe in, and I believe that I need to look for something again, then I, of course, hope to find it. The hope for this exists only because I either did not believe (although I seemed to believe) or stopped believing. This means that by leaving my faith, I find myself a negator. I will say once and for all: only the one who seeks is the one who either did not have or lost. “The woman lost one of the ten drachmas, and therefore searched; and when she found it, she stopped looking” (cf. Luke 15:8). “The neighbor did not have bread, and therefore knocked on the door; and when they opened the door and gave him bread, he stopped knocking” (cf. Luke 11:5 ff.). “The widow asked the judge to listen to her, because she was not allowed in; when they listened to her, she stopped asking” (cf. Luke 18:2 ff.). Therefore, there is a limit to searching, knocking, and asking. For “to the one who asks, it will be given,” [He] said, “and to the one who knocks it will be opened, and the one who seeks will find” (Luke 11:10). Let the one who always knocks wonder why the door will never be opened for him: after all, he knocks where there is no one. Let the one who always asks think about why he is never listened to: he asks from someone who does not listen. 12. Although we should have looked now and always, where should we have looked? Among the heretics, where everything is alien and hostile to our truth, to which we are forbidden to even approach? What slave hopes to receive food from a stranger, let alone an enemy, to his master? What warrior receives gifts and salaries from rulers with whom there is no alliance - not to say from enemies - if not an obvious traitor, defector and rebel? Even that woman was looking for a drachma under her roof; even the knocker hit the neighbor's door; even that widow did not cry out to the enemy, but to the judge, albeit a harsh one. That which corrupts cannot instruct anyone; no one can be enlightened by that which obscures. Let us seek in ours, from ours and from ours - and only that which can be sought while preserving the Rule of Faith 26. 13. And the Rule of Faith - so that we can already now declare what we defend - is this: by it it is confirmed that God is one and there is no other God except the Creator of the world, Who brought everything out of nothing through His Word, which came into being first of all. This Word, called His Son, which was revealed in different ways to the patriarchs in the name of God, was always heard in the prophets, finally descended from the Spirit of God the Father and His Goodness onto the Virgin Mary, became flesh in Her womb and brought forth Jesus Christ who was born of Her. Then He announced the new Law and the new promise of the Kingdom of Heaven, performed miracles, was crucified on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day. Having ascended into Heaven, he sat down at the right hand of the Father, and sent the Holy Spirit as His vicegerent, so that He would lead the believers. And He will come with glory to bestow on the righteous the fruits of eternal life and heavenly bliss, and to condemn the wicked to the eternal flame, resurrecting both of them and returning their flesh. This rule, established (as will be shown) by Christ, does not raise any questions in us - only heresies raise them, and these questions create heretics. 14. However, if the Rule remains unchanged, then ask and reason, being filled with all the passion of curiosity. And if something seems to you either ambiguous or obscured by obscurity, then, of course, there will always be some learned brother, gifted with the grace of knowledge, someone who moved among the sophisticated; searching with you, but just as inquisitively 27, he will finally determine that it is better for you to remain in ignorance, so that you do not learn what you should not (for you have already learned what you should have known). “Your faith,” He says, “has saved you” (Luke 18:42), and not reading in the Scriptures. Faith is contained in the Rule; in it you find the law and salvation for keeping the law. Reading consists of curiosity, having only glory for zeal and experience. Let curiosity give way to faith, let glory give way to salvation. Let them at least not bother or remain silent. Not knowing anything is against the Rule of faith. - is to know everything. Even if heretics were not enemies of the truth, even if they did not remind us of the need to avoid them, what is the use of communicating with people who themselves admit that they are still searching? And if they are really still searching, it means they still haven’t found anything right. And so, while they are still searching, they show their doubt about what they seem to have now. This means that you, who are looking for in the same way, turning to those who themselves are looking, will inevitably lead you to the pit, the doubter to the doubters, the ignorant to the ignorant, “the blind to the blind” (cf. Matt. 15:14). So they announce (thinking to deceive us): they are then still looking to instill in us their concerns and their questions. But as soon as they achieve their goal, they immediately defend what, according to them, still needs to be found. Here we need to refute them in such a way that they know: we deny them, not Christ. After all, if they are still looking, they do not yet have; and since they do not have it, they have not yet believed and are not Christians. But even if they have something to believe in; They also say that you need to search in order to protect. But before they defend, they deny what they admit they have not yet believed - while they are searching. Therefore: whoever is not a Christian for himself, how much more is he not a Christian for us? What kind of faith do those who act by deception discuss? What faith is defended by those who introduce it with lies? However, they themselves act and persuade in the name of Scripture. Indeed: where else can they borrow words about faith, if not from the Scriptures of faith? 15. So, we have come to what we planned. This is what we were aiming for and preparing for this with a preliminary appeal, so that from here we could begin the dispute to which our opponents challenge us. They refer to Scripture, and with this insolence they constantly confuse many. But when it comes to arguing, they tire the strong, entice the weak, and leave those in the middle in doubt. This means that we will deprive them of this most advantageous position if we do not allow them to engage in any discussions about Scripture. If their strength lies in the fact that they can possess the Scripture, then we need to look at who it belongs to, so that no one for whom it is appropriate is allowed to access the Scripture. 16. It may seem that I expressed this in order to [eliminate] mistrust of myself or out of a desire to present our dispute in a new way - if [I] did not have a [solid] basis - first of all, that our faith is obliged to obey the Apostle, who forbids “entering into searches, turning our ears to new voices” (cf. 1 Tim. 6: 3-5), communicating with a heretic “after one admonition" (cf. Titus 3:10), and not after a debate. He forbade disputes, pointing to admonition as the [only] reason for communicating with heretics and, moreover, a one-time one, precisely because the heretic is not a Christian, and so that it would not turn out that, according to Christian custom, he needs to be instructed “once and twice” 28 “. In the text used by Tertullian, the words "and second" were missing. in the presence of “two or three witnesses” (cf. Tit. 3:10; Matt. 18:15–16). The heretic needs to be instructed precisely because one should not enter into debate with him. In addition, arguing with him about Scripture will obviously only lead to damage to the stomach or brain. 17. After all, this heresy does not recognize some [books of] Scripture, and if it does recognize some, it is not entirely, distorting them with insertions and omissions to suit its own plan. And if something is preserved in its entirety, then this too is distorted, being provided with various interpretations. A perverted meaning is as contrary to the truth as a corrupted text. Empty prejudices, of course, do not want to admit what they expose; they use what is made up of lies and taken from ambiguity. What will you come to, a scholar of Scripture, if what you defend is denied and, conversely, what you deny is defended? You, however, will not lose anything in the argument except your voice, but you will not gain anything except the difference between bile and abuse. 18. And if there is someone for whose sake you enter into a debate about Scripture in order to protect him from doubts, will he turn to the truth or rather to heresy? Confused by the fact that you have made no progress in the argument (for he sees that the other side is equally skilled in denial and defense and does not concede in the least), he will leave the debate even less confident, not knowing what to consider heresy. After all, heretics turn our own arguments against us. And, of course, they say that corruption of Scripture and false interpretations most likely come from us, for they affirm the truth for themselves. 19. Therefore, one should not appeal to Scripture; one should not compete where there is no victory, or it is doubtful, or both are unclear. After all, even if it did not turn out that in a dispute about Scripture both sides are equal, [still] the order of things required first to clarify what is now the only thing to argue about: who has faith itself? Who owns the Scripture? by whom, through whom, when and to whom was the teaching transmitted that makes people Christians? For where the truth of Christian teaching and faith is revealed, there will be the truth of Scripture, the truth of interpretation and the entire Christian tradition. 20. Whoever our Lord Jesus Christ was (may He allow Him to express myself this way for now), the Son of whatever God He might be, whatever the nature (materia) of His humanity and Divinity, whatever faith He might be a teacher, whatever reward He would promise, yet He Himself proclaimed that He existed, that He was, what will of the Father He fulfilled, what He determined to do for man when He dwelt on earth: He proclaimed either openly to the people, or separately, to the disciples, from twelve of whom He especially brought close to Himself, appointing them to be teachers of the nations. When one of them fell away, the remaining eleven, ascending to the Father after the Resurrection, He ordered to “go and teach the nations, baptizing them in... the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Immediately the apostles (this name means: “messengers”), having chosen by lot the twelfth, Matthias, in the place of Judas, according to the command (ex auctoritate) of the prophecy contained in the Psalm of David 29, found the power of the Holy Spirit promised to them for miracles and preaching; first of all they testified to the faith and founded churches in Judea, and then went throughout the world, proclaiming the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations; in the same way, they established churches in every city, from which other churches received the shoot of faith and the seeds of teaching, and they constantly receive new churches: therefore they themselves are counted among the apostolic ones as shoots of the apostolic churches. Every breed should be judged by its origin. So, although there are many churches, the apostolic, original church, from which all others come, is one. Therefore [in some respect] they are all original and apostolic, for they are all one. Their unity is proven by communication in the world, the name of brotherhood and the bonds of mutual cordiality (contesseratio). 21. From here we derive the [first] objection (praescriptio): if the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, it is impossible to recognize other preachers except those appointed by Christ, for “no one knows the Father except the Son and the one to whom the Son revealed it” (Matthew 11:27); and the Son, it seems, did not reveal it to anyone except the apostles, and sent them to preach exactly what He revealed to them. And what they preached (precisely what Christ revealed to them) must (I will argue here) be proven no other way than through the same churches that the apostles themselves founded when they preached, as they say, both by living word and subsequently through epistles. If this is so, then it is clear that every teaching unanimous with these apostolic churches, the ancestors and founders of the faith, must be considered true; it undoubtedly contains what the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God. All other teachings must be considered lies, for they are contrary to the truth of the Church, Apostolic, Christ and God. Therefore, it remains for us to prove that this teaching of ours (we cited its Rule above) should be counted among the apostolic tradition, and all others are thereby rooted in lies. We have fellowship with the apostolic churches, for we have no difference in doctrine: this is the testimony of the truth. 22. But since this argument is so convenient that, if we present it immediately, it will leave no room for discussion, then we will give the other side the opportunity and opportunity to express, if he wishes, something to weaken this objection of ours (as if we were not presenting it). They usually say that the apostles did not know everything: being possessed by that madness that turns everything into the opposite, they immediately [assert] that although the apostles knew everything, they did not convey everything to everyone. Both here and there they blame Christ for sending either those who were not taught enough or who were not too truthful. But who in their right mind can believe that those whom the Lord appointed as teachers did not know something? Those - who were inseparable from Him on the road, in teaching, in constant communication, to whom “He privately explained everything dark” (Mark 4:34), saying that they were “given to know secret things” (Matthew 13:11), which the people were not given to understand? Was something hidden from Peter, who was called the stone for the erection of the Church, received the “keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” and the power to “loose and bind” - in heaven and on earth (Matthew 16:19). Was something hidden from John, the Lord’s favorite disciple, “who fell on His chest” (cf. John 13:25, 21:20): to him alone did He show the traitor Judas, and instead of Himself He entrusted him as a son to Mary. Did He wish that those to whom He even showed His Glory, and Moses, and Elijah, and, moreover, the voice of the Father from heaven, did not know something? 30 And not because He rejected others, but because “every word stands firmly by three witnesses” (Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16). This means that those whom, after the Resurrection, He deigned to explain “all Scripture” along the way (Luke 24:27) did not know? Of course, He once said: “I still have much to say to you, but now you cannot bear it,” but he immediately added: “When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He Himself will guide you into all truth” (John 16:12-13). By this He showed that nothing was hidden from those to whom He promised to reveal all truth through the Spirit of truth; and, of course, He fulfilled the promise, for in the Acts of the Apostles the descent of the Holy Spirit is testified. Those who do not recognize this book of Scripture 31 cannot have the Holy Spirit, for they cannot recognize that the Holy Spirit was sent down on the disciples. Likewise, those who are unable to show when and in what cradle this community was founded cannot defend the church. This is what the lack of evidence of what they defend costs them, just to prevent a correct explanation of what they are inventing. 23. And in order to mock some of the ignorance of the apostles, they point out that Peter and those who were with him were convicted by Paul 32. “That means,” they say, “they were missing something”; and from this they conclude that the apostles could subsequently acquire more complete knowledge, which was received by Paul, who denounced his predecessors. And here we can say to those who reject the Acts of the Apostles: first show who this Paul is, who he was before he became an apostle 33, and how he became one: after all, they [the heretics] often rely on Paul in other matters. But if he himself testifies that he became an apostle from a persecutor, then, of course, this is not enough for anyone who believes in [the word]: “test” - for the Lord Himself did not testify about Himself 34 . But let them believe for themselves without Scripture, since they believe against Scripture. Let them, on the basis of Paul's denunciation of Peter, prove that Paul added another gospel than that which Peter and those with him had previously spread. But Paul, who became a preacher from a persecutor, is taken by the brothers to the brothers as one of the brothers, and they are taken to those who accepted the faith from the apostles. Then, as he himself says, he “went to Jerusalem” in order to “see Peter” (Galatians 1:18), namely, according to the duty and right of the same faith and preaching. For they would not be surprised if Paul, who became a preacher from a persecutor, taught something contrary, and they would not “glorify the Lord” (Gal. 1:24) because Paul came as His enemy. Therefore, they “gave him their right hand” (Gal. 2:9) as a sign of agreement and communication, and appointed among themselves the distribution of labor, but not the division of the Gospel: not so that one preached one thing and the other another, but that each preached to others - Peter to the “circumcision”, Paul to the “Gentiles” (ibid.). Therefore, if Peter was criticized for previously “eating with the Gentiles” and then refused to eat with them out of respect for certain people (cf. Gal. 2:11-12), then, of course, this was a flaw in behavior, and not in preaching: for he did not proclaim any other God than the Creator, no other Christ than the one born of Mary, and no other hope except the resurrection. 24. It’s not so good, but also not so bad, that I bring the apostles together in an argument. But since these extremely perverted people turn their criticism to presenting [Peter’s] teaching (which was mentioned above) in a suspicious form, I will answer as if for Peter: Paul himself said that he became “all things to all people,” a Jew to the Jews, a non-Jew to the non-Jews, in order to “win” everyone (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20 ff.), Therefore, [the apostles], depending on the time, people and circumstances, condemned the very thing that they themselves permitted according to the time, people and circumstances: for example, Peter could have blamed Paul for the fact that, while forbidding circumcision, he himself circumcised Timothy 35. Let those who judge the apostles think about this. It is good that Peter is equal to Paul in martyrdom. But even if Paul himself, taken to the third heaven and “caught up into paradise” (2 Cor. 12:4), heard something there, one cannot think that these were things that would communicate to him another, better teaching, for these things would be of such a nature that they could not be communicated to any person. But if anyone has learned something so unknown, and if some heresy claims to follow it, then either Paul is guilty of divulging the secret, or it must be shown that someone else was then admitted into paradise, and was allowed to rant about something that Paul did not dare even stammer. 25. However, as we said 36, it is equal madness - on the one hand, to admit that the apostles knew everything and did not preach anything that disagreed with each other, and, on the other hand, to insist that they did not reveal everything to everyone, for they conveyed one thing openly to everyone, and another secretly and to a few; after all, Paul also used this word when addressing Timothy: “O Timothy! Keep what is given to you” (1 Tim. 6:20) and also: “Keep the good deposit” (2 Tim. 1:14). What is this pledge that is so secret that it must be considered another teaching? Or should it be considered the testament about which he says: “I entrust this testament to you, my son Timothy” (cf. 1 Tim. 1:18)? Or by the order about which he says: “I charge you... before God, who gives life to all things, and before Jesus Christ, who testified before Pontius Pilate to a good confession... to keep the commandment” (1 Tim. 6:13-14)? What kind of commandment is this, what testament? From the above and below, one must conclude that with these words he did not make any hints at some secret teaching, but rather called for not allowing any other than that which [Timothy] heard from himself and, I think, openly: “Before many,” he says, “witnesses.” (2 Tim. 2:2). If they do not want to understand these “many witnesses” as the church, then this does not matter, for what was said “before many witnesses” was not secret. However, [Paul's] desire that [Timothy] convey this to "faithful men who are able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2) cannot be interpreted as evidence in favor of some secret gospel. For when he says “this,” he is talking about what he was writing about at that moment, but about a secret, as soon as he knows, he would say not “this” (haec), but “that” (illa). 26. Further, it would be reasonable for him to remind the one to whom he has entrusted the observance of the Gospel not to use it everywhere and carelessly, so that, according to the word of the Lord, “not to throw pearls to swine and holy things to dogs” (Matthew 7:6). The Lord clearly said this, without any hint of any hidden “sacrament” (cf. John 18:20). He Himself commanded: “If you hear anything in darkness and secretly, then preach in the light and on the housetops” (Matthew 10:27). He Himself, through a figurative comparison, warned that not a single “mine,” that is, not a single word of his, should be hidden unprofitably in a hiding place (cf. Luke 19:20 ff.). He Himself taught: “A candle is not put under a bushel, but on a candlestick, so that it may give light to all who are in the house” (cf. Matt. 5:15). The apostles either ignored this or did not understand it well, if they did not fulfill it, hiding something from the light, that is, from the word of God and the sacrament of Christ. As far as I know, they were not afraid of anyone - neither Jews nor pagans; and even more so those who were not silent in synagogues and public meetings preached freely in church. Of course, they could neither convert the Jews nor instruct the Gentiles if in order (cf. Luke. 1.3) did not state what they wanted to assure them of; Moreover, they would not have hidden from the churches already strengthened in the faith anything that they separately trusted to a few others. Although they discussed some things, so to speak, in the domestic circle, nevertheless, one should not see in this something that introduced a new Rule of Faith, different and even opposite to that which they proclaimed publicly to everyone - so that one God was proclaimed in church, another in home fellowship, one being (substantia) of Christ was depicted openly, another in secret, one hope of the resurrection was proclaimed in front of everyone, another in a narrow circle. For they themselves in their epistles adjured that “everyone should speak the same thing, so that there would be no disagreement and divisions in the church” (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10), since both Paul and the others preached the same thing. And they also reminded: “Let your word be “yes, yes,” “no, no”; and what is more than this is from the evil one” (Matthew 5:37) - so as not to interpret the Gospel differently. 27. So, if it is incredible that the apostles either did not know the completeness of the sermon, or did not communicate to everyone the entire content of the Rule of Faith, then let’s see: maybe the apostles conveyed everything openly and completely, but the churches, due to their own defect, did not accept everything as they were preached to. Know that heretics cite all this as a reason for petty pickiness. They point out that the apostle was condemning the corrupt churches: “O foolish Galatians, who has deceived you?” (Galatians 3:1) and: “You walked so well, who stopped you?” (Gal.5,7); and at the very beginning: “I am amazed that you are so quickly moving on to another gospel from Him who called you by grace” (Gal. 1:6). Likewise, it is written to the Corinthians that they are still “carnal,” still “eating on milk and unfit for solid food” (1 Cor. 3:1–2), and “thinking that they know something, while they do not yet know what they ought to know” (1 Cor. 8:2). If they refer to the defects of churches, let them believe that they are corrected. Let them also recognize those churches, in whose knowledge and communication the apostle rejoices and thanks God: but they, along with those who are corrupt, even now share the rights to a single teaching. 28. Well, let us now assume that all the churches fell into error, that the apostle was also led astray, giving good testimony about some, that the Holy Spirit had no care for any of them to “guide her into the truth” (cf. John 14:26), - the Spirit sent by Christ for this purpose and asked of the Father to be a teacher of the truth. The steward of God, the vicar of Christ, neglected his duty, allowing the churches to understand differently and believe differently than He Himself preached through the apostles. Is it really plausible that so many and great churches should be mistaken in the same faith? What happens among many people does not have the same result. therefore, errors in the teaching of the church must have varied. What appears to be the same among many is not a delusion, but a tradition. So, will anyone dare to say that those who transmitted it were mistaken? 29. No matter how the error occurred, it, in any case, reigned until there were heresies. For its liberation, the truth was waiting for some Marcionites and Valentinians: and meanwhile the Gospel was taught incorrectly, they believed incorrectly, thousands of thousands were incorrectly baptized, so many works of faith were incorrectly performed, so many miracles were performed incorrectly, so many gifts were incorrectly received, so many sacred rites and services were performed incorrectly, finally, so many martyrs were crowned incorrectly! And if all this was not incorrect and in vain, then how were the works of God done before it was revealed what kind of God these works were? How could there have been Christians before Christ was found? How could heresies exist before true teaching? In fact, of course, truth precedes its image, likeness follows the thing. Indeed, it is completely absurd to believe that heresy exists before true teaching, if only because this teaching itself announced: there will be heresies and one must beware of them. For the church that possessed this teaching, it is written, or rather, the teaching itself instructs its church: “Even if an angel from heaven preached the gospel to you differently than we do, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). 30. Where was Marcion then, the Pontic shipbuilder, committed to the Stoic teachings 37? Where was Valentine, devoted to the platonic? After all, it is known that they were not so long ago, almost in the reign of Antoninus 38, and at first they recognized the universal teaching in the Roman Church, in the episcopate of the blessed Eleutheria 39 - until, for their always restless lust (with which they seduced the brothers), they were expelled once and twice, and Marcion, moreover, with two hundred [thousand] sesterces, which he brought into the church 40 ; and in recent times, excommunicated for ever, they spread the poison of their doctrines. After this, Marcion, having brought public repentance, was given a condition - he would receive fellowship if he returned to the church those whom he had taught to their destruction - but death anticipated him. “For there had to be heresies.” (1 Cor. 11:19). But heresies are not at all good because they had to be, as if evil were not meant to be. After all, it was necessary that the Lord should be betrayed, but “woe to the traitor” (Mark 14:21)! Let no one defend heresy on this basis. If we need to consider the genealogy of Apelles, then he is no more ancient than Marcion, his mentor and teacher. Having contacted a woman, this apostate of Marcion’s abstinence 41 left the eyes of the “most holy” teacher for Alexandria. From there he returned a few years later, having become no better in anything (except that he ceased to be a Marcionite), and became involved with another woman, the famous maiden Philumena, about whom we spoke above [chap. 6] (then she became a terrible harlot), the same one, deceived by whose spell he wrote down the revelations he received from her. There are still people alive who remember them, even their own students and followers, who therefore cannot deny that they are of recent times. However, “by their deeds,” as the Lord said, “they are convicted” (Matthew 7:16). For if Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, then he was later than what he divided, because he could not divide what was not one. Therefore, the unity before the division and the subsequent division shows that the divider came later. And Valentine, who interprets Scripture differently and, without a doubt, corrects Scripture, clearly shows that everything he corrected (as previously erroneous) existed before him. We mentioned them as the most noticeable and constant distorters of the truth. But besides them, a certain Nigidius, and Hermogenes 42, and many others still wander, distorting the ways of the Lord. Can they show me from what authority they came? If they preach another god, then why do they use the works, scriptures and names of the God against whom they preach? If the same, then why different? Let them prove that they are the new apostles: let them proclaim that Christ came down again, that He taught again, that He was crucified again, that He died again, that He rose again. For, as the apostle described, this is how He used to do 43: He gave the apostles the ability to perform the same signs as He Himself. Therefore, I desire that their miracles also be revealed. There is only one thing I recognize as their great miracle work, where they falsely compete with the apostles: they turned the dead into the living, and these turn the living into dead. 31. However, having completed this digression, I will turn to the proof that truth is primary and falsity is secondary. And in confirmation, I will refer to the parable, according to which the “good seed” of bread was sown by the Lord before the counterfeit seed “tares” was added from the enemy, the devil (cf. Matt. 13:37-39). In the proper sense, the difference in teachings is depicted here, for in other places the word of God is likened to a seed. Therefore, the very consistency proves that only that which came from the Lord and is true is what was transmitted initially; and what was introduced later is alien and false. This judgment will be valid for any future heresies that do not have any foundation backed by knowledge to enable them to claim the truth. 32. However, if any [heresies] dare to date themselves back to the time of the apostles, in order to thereby pass themselves off as apostolic tradition (since they existed under the apostles), then we can answer: but then let them show the foundations of their churches, reveal the succession of their bishops, going from the beginning through succession, and so that the first one has as his mentor and predecessor one of the apostles, or men of the apostles (but one who was with the apostles constantly). For the apostolic churches prove their position in this way. For example, the Church of Smyrna calls Polycarp, appointed by John, its bishop, and the Church of Rome calls Clement, appointed by Peter, as such. In the same way, other churches show in which men, appointed by the apostles as bishops, they have shoots of the seed of the apostles. Let the heretics invent something similar. What else is left forbidden to them after their blasphemy? However, even if they invented it, they will not advance at all, for their teaching, being compared with the apostolic one, will show by its very difference and opposition that it was not created at all by an apostle or an apostolic man. After all, just as the apostles did not teach anything discordant, so the apostolic men did not proclaim anything contrary to the apostles, for those who learned from the apostles could not preach otherwise. The same model will be used to judge those churches that, although they do not claim as their founders any of the apostles or apostolic men (for they arose much later and are constantly arising even now), are unanimous in one faith and therefore are considered no less apostolic due to the consanguinity of the doctrine (pro consanguinite doctrinae). Let all heresies, therefore, called to account by our churches, show in either of two ways that they consider themselves apostolic. But they are not such, and will not be able to prove that they are such, nor receive peace and fellowship from the apostolic churches (for one reason or another); that is, they are in no way apostolic precisely because of the difference in their teaching and faith. 33. To this I attach an analysis of the teachings that existed then, under the apostles, and which the apostles themselves indicated and condemned. For it will be all the easier to expose them if it is discovered that they already existed then or arose from the seed of those who already existed then. Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians denounces those who “deny the resurrection” and doubt it (cf. 1 Cor. 15:12). Actually, this is the opinion of the “Sadducees” 45, part of it is borrowed by Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus and all the others who crush the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh. And turning to the Galatians, he condemns those who keep the law and defend circumcision” (cf. Gal. 5:2, 4): this is the heresy of Ebion. Instructing Timothy, Paul scolds “those who prohibit marriage” (cf. 1 Tim. 4:3), but this is what Marcion and his follower Apelles teach. In the same way, he condemns those who declared that “the resurrection had already taken place” (cf. 2 Tim. 2:18): and this is what the Valentinians claim about themselves. But even when he speaks of “countless genealogies” (cf. 1 Tim. 1:4), and here Valentine is recognized. In him, the mentioned and unknown Aeon, which has a new and more than one name, gives birth from its grace to Mind and Truth; and they, in turn, give birth to the Word and Life, then these also give birth to Man and the Church, and this is how the first eight eons are obtained. From here arise the other ten aeons and the remaining twelve aeons with amazing names, and a real fable of thirty aeons arises. The same apostle, condemning “those who serve the elements” (cf. Col. 2:8), indicates by this something from the teaching of Hermogenes, who, introducing unborn matter, likens it to the unborn God and turning the mother of the elements into a goddess, can serve her, for he likens her to God 46 . John in Revelation commands to punish those who “eat things sacrificed to idols and commit fornication” (Apoc. 2:14). And now there are “Nicolaitans,” but others are the “Cainian heresy” 47. And in his epistle he especially calls antichrists those who denied that Christ “appeared in the flesh” and who did not consider “Jesus the Son of God” (1 John 4:3): the first was defended by Marcion. and the second is Evion. As for the teaching of Simon the Magician, which serves the angels, it itself was considered idolatry and was condemned by the Apostle Peter in the person of Simon himself 48 . 34. Such, it seems to me, are the types of perverse teachings that existed under the apostles, as we know from them themselves. And yet, with all the variety of perversions, we do not find a single teaching among them that would arouse a dispute about God, the Creator of the universe. No one dared to think about another God. They hesitated rather about the Son than about the Father - until Marcion introduced another God besides the Creator, the only good one, until Apelles turned into the Creator an unknown glorious angel [sent] by the supreme God, made him the God of Law and Israel, claiming that he was fiery; until Valentine scattered his aeons, and connected the lack of one aeon with the origin of God the Creator. To them alone, to them first, the Divine truth was revealed - and yet, they received greater dignity and greater grace from the devil, who also wanted to compete with God in that, so that from the poisonous teachings he himself would make “disciples above the teacher” (Luke 6:40) - which the Lord denied them. Let then all kinds of heresies that once existed choose their own time of existence: since they are not involved in the truth, then it does not matter when they existed. In any case, those who were not called apostles could not have existed under the apostles: if they had existed, then, of course, they would have been named as doomed to punishment. Those who were under the apostles are condemned by their very name. This means that either those very heresies that were crude under the apostles have now become somewhat more sophisticated - and then they are condemned on the same basis - or some existed before, while others arose later, but borrowed something from the first - but then, sharing with the first a community of teaching, they inevitably share with them a community of condemnation. Since they appeared later in the order of succession, although they did not participate in the condemned teachings, they are still condemned based solely on the time of their appearance; they are all the more perverse because the apostles did not even call them by name. From this it is all the more clear that they are the very ones who were announced then as coming. 35. Caused by our demands for judgment and exposed, all these heresies - which appeared later or were contemporary with the apostles (but equally contrary to their teaching), condemned by them in whole or only in part (but equally condemned) - can, perhaps, themselves pose to us in response several similar objections to our teaching. If they deny its truth, then they must prove that it is also a heresy, exposing it in the same way as they expose themselves; at the same time they must indicate where to look for the truth, which, as is already clear, is not with them. Our teaching is in no way later; on the contrary, it is before all: such is the evidence of truth, which has primacy everywhere. It is nowhere condemned by the apostles; on the contrary, it is defended: this is a sign of legal ownership. For those who condemn every foreign teaching, but do not condemn ours, thereby show that it belongs to them and is therefore defended. 36. Well then! You, who wish to quickly exercise lust in the matter of your salvation, pass by the apostolic churches, in which to this day there stand the authentic pulpits of the apostles, in which their authentic writings are read, 49 sounding in their voices and revealing the image of each of them. Achaia 50 is closest to you? You have Corinth. If you're close to Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus, and if Italy is nearby, then Rome, where authority comes from for us too. How happy this church is! The apostles imbued all her teaching with their blood; in it, Peter became equal with the Lord in suffering, Paul was crowned with the death of John, in it the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil, did not suffer at all and was exiled to the island 51. Let's see what she learned and taught through friendly interactions with African churches. It recognizes one God, the Creator of the universe, and Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, the Son of the Creator God, and the resurrection of the flesh. It combines the Law and the Prophets with the Gospels and apostolic writings, from here it draws faith, signifies it with water, invests it with the Holy Spirit, nourishes it with the sacrament of communion, encourages martyrdom and does not accept anyone who is against this teaching. This is the teaching that, not to mention, foreshadowed the coming heresies, but from which the heresies arose. However, they became not of him as soon as they went against him. For even from the seed of the fruitful, best and true olive, a gnarled and wild olive tree grows, but from the seed of the sweetest and most pleasant fig tree grows a barren and empty wild fig. So are heresies: although from our trunk, but not from our family; at least from the grain of truth, but wild with lies. 37. If it is true that the truth is awarded to us, because we possess that Rule of Faith that the church received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, then the meaning of our statement is preserved; and it says that heretics should not be allowed to debate about Scripture, for we prove even without Scripture that they have no relation to Scripture. If they are heretics, then they cannot be Christians, for they should not have received teaching from Christ; they accepted it by choice and therefore received the name of heretics. And since they are not Christians, they have no right to Christian writings. They can rightly be told: Who are you? When and where did you come from? What are you doing with me if you are not mine? By what right, say, do you, Marcion, cut down my forest? By whose permission, Valentine, are you turning back my sources? By what power, Apelles, do you move my boundaries? Why are you others sowing and grazing here according to your own will? This is my property, it has belonged to me for a long time, I have strong roots - from the very owners to whom everything belonged. I [the church] am the heir of the apostles. I own as they ordered in their will, as they entrusted to faith, as they confirmed with an oath 52. They disinherited you forever and rejected you as strangers, as enemies. Why are heretics alien and hostile to the apostles, if not because of the opposition of their teaching, which each of them created or received in spite of the apostles according to his own will? 38. This means that the corruption of the Scriptures and their interpretations must be sought where disagreements in doctrine are revealed. Whoever had the intention of teaching differently had to manage the means of teaching differently. Yes, they could not teach otherwise if they did not have other means of teaching. And just as they could not teach without damaging these means, so we would not have an intact teaching without the integrity of what this teaching is presented. But are we dissatisfied with anything in our books? What have we brought in in order to correct something that contradicts this in Scripture - either by removing, or adding, or changing? As Scripture is from its very beginning, so are we. We came out of it before it became different, before you distorted it. But since every distortion must be considered something later, in any case occurring due to jealousy (and it never happens before what it is jealous of, and never happens with it), then any reasonable person will consider it incredible that we, the first and who came out of the Scripture itself, distorted it with a corrupt text, and those who were later and contrary to it did not do this. One distorts the Scripture with his hand, the other distorts the meaning with a false interpretation. For although Valentinus appears to be using an intact text, he laid his hand on the truth in a more cunning manner than Marcion. For Marcion directly and openly used the sword, and not the style, since for his purpose he committed the murder of Scripture 53 . Valentin spared him because he did not adapt Scripture to his subject, but his subject to Scripture; and yet, he took away more and added more, eliminating the own meaning of individual words and introducing something else that does not exist in reality. 39. Such are the machinations of the “spirits of wickedness” (Eph. 6:12), with which, brothers, we must fight and thoroughly dismantle them; necessary for faith, so that the elect may appear and the wicked may be revealed. That is why spirits have the power and ability to invent errors and instruct in them. But one should not be surprised at this as something impossible and inexpressible, for examples of such ability are also found in pagan writings. And now one can see how a completely different story is compiled from Virgil and the content is adapted to the verses, and the verses to the content. For example, Osidius Geta completely based his tragedy “Medea” 54 on Virgil, and one of my relatives borrowed from the same poet, among other works of his pen, “The Picture” of Cebes 55. “Homercentons” are usually called those who compose their own compositions from Homer’s songs, just as something whole is sewn together from many scraps 56 placed here and there. And the Divine works, of course, are more abundant in the most varied material for such a matter. I do not risk anything if I say that Scripture itself, by the will of God, is compiled in such a way that it provides material for heretics, for I read: “There must be heresies,” and without Scripture they cannot exist. 40. We ask, finally: by whom is the knowledge of what is suitable for heresies instilled? Of course, the devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, who imitates even the sacred sacraments themselves in idolatrous mysteries. And he himself baptizes some, namely those who believe in him and are faithful to him: in return he promises the remission of sins in this font 57. And if I still remember, Mithra draws there [i.e. in the kingdom of the devil] signs on the foreheads of his warriors 58, he celebrates the offering of bread, represents the image of the resurrection and carries away a wreath under the sword 59. What else? After all, he also established monogamy for his high priest 60; he has virgins, and he also has ascetics (continentes). Further, if we turn to the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, 61 if we consider the duties of the priests, their insignia and privileges, the sacrificial services, the sacred objects and vessels of the priests themselves, finally, the petty concern for propitiations and vows, then will it not be clear that the devil imitates the petty ritual of the Jewish law? And of course, the one who, with such feigned imitation, sought to express in acts of idolatry the very means (res) with the help of which the sacraments of Christ are performed, without a doubt, also, and with the same intention, sought and could adapt divine texts and the writings of holy men to an alien and imitative faith, borrowing thought from thought, words from words, parables from parables. Therefore, no one should doubt either that spiritual wickedness is brought about by the devil, or that heresies are identical to idolatry, for they are of the same origin and design as idolatry. They invent another god contrary to the Creator, or, if they recognize the one Creator, they teach about Him not according to the truth. Therefore, any falsehood about God is a kind of idolatry. 41. I will not fail to describe the very way of life of the heretics - how flighty, how frail, how earthly-human it is, without dignity, without authority, without church order - in complete agreement with their faith. First of all, it is unclear who is the catechumen here, who is the faithful 62 - they enter together, leave together, listen together, pray together; after all, if the pagans come, they will “throw the holy thing to the dogs and the pearls to the swine,” even if they are not real. They want to consider simplicity to be the ruin of the church order, the concern for which in our country they call empty embellishment. They share church communion with everyone everywhere: it means nothing to them (even though they all teach differently), since they are all unanimous in the desire to overthrow the one truth. They are all arrogant, they all promise knowledge. Those who are catechumens among them become faithful before they learn [faith]; and how daring the women themselves are – heretics! They dare to teach, argue, cast out spirits, promise healing, and maybe even baptize. The ordination of heretics is rash, frivolous, and disorderly: they appoint either neophytes, or those performing secular service, or our apostates, in order to retain them with honors if they cannot retain them with the truth. Nowhere is promotion to office so easy as in the rebel camp, for the very stay there is considered a merit. That’s why they have one bishop today, another tomorrow; today a deacon is the one who tomorrow is a reader, a priest is the one who tomorrow will become a layman: after all, they entrust priestly affairs to the laity. 42. What can we say about how they use the word? After all, they are not busy converting the pagans, but seducing ours. They seek glory rather in throwing down those who stand than in raising up those who lie. And since their work comes not from their own construction, but from the destruction of truth, they undermine ours in order to build their own. Take away the law of Moses, take away the prophets and God the Creator - what can they blame then? It turns out that they are more capable of destroying standing buildings than erecting lying ruins. Only for this purpose do they show humility, courtesy and obedience; but otherwise they do not know respect even for their leaders. This is why there are almost no schisms among heretics: even if they exist, they are not noticeable. Their unity is their split. I would be lying if I claim that in their midst they do not even transgress their rules [of faith], for anyone, by his own will, changes what he received, just as the one who transmitted it created it by his own will. And subsequent deeds themselves reveal their nature and the image of their origin. The Valentinians are allowed the same as Valentinus, the Marcionites are allowed the same as Marcion: to renew the faith at their own discretion. Finally, a careful examination of all heresies reveals that they differ in many respects from their founders. Many do not even have churches: without a mother, without shelter, without faith, they wander like worthless exiles. 43. It has already been noted how close the relations of heretics are with numerous magicians, charlatans, astrologers, philosophers - with those, of course, who are devoted to lust. “Seek and you will find” - they never forget this. And to this extent, the quality of their faith can be judged by the way they live: the severity of morals is an indicator of the dignity of faith. They deny the fear of God - therefore everything is allowed to them and everything is destroyed. And where else do they not fear God, if not where He is not? Where there is no God, there is no truth; and where there is no truth, such discipline is inevitable. And where God is, there is the fear of God, which is “the beginning of wisdom” (Ps. 110:10; Proverbs 1:7). Where there is the fear of God, there is dignified earnestness, earnest application, anxious care, thoughtful ordination, deliberate fellowship, advancement according to merit, reverent submission, devoted service, humble appearance, one church, and all is God's. 44. So, the listed evidence of our strict church discipline increases the evidence of our truth: it is unprofitable for anyone to evade it, who remembers the coming judgment - “but we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor. 5:10) in order to give an account, first of all, of faith itself. What then will those who desecrated the virgin faith handed down to them from Christ by heretical adultery say? They, I think, will justify themselves by the fact that neither Christ nor His apostles ever announced anything to them about the future teachings, false and perverse, and did not command them to beware and beware of them. Then [Christ and the apostles] will need to admit that they themselves (and not the heretics) are to blame - for they did not warn us in advance 63 . Then [the heretics] will bring many considerations in defense of the authority of any heretical teacher: they especially confirmed the fidelity of their teaching by raising the dead, healing the sick, foretelling the future - so that they were rightfully considered apostles. (As if it had not been written that many would come who would perform great miracles in order to strengthen the deception of their false preaching.) And they will deserve forgiveness! Those who, accurately remembering the warnings of the Lord and the Apostles, remain in intact faith, those, I think, will doubt mercy for themselves, for the Lord will answer them: “I clearly foretold that there would be false teachers in My name - and in the name of the prophets and even the apostles; and I commanded my disciples to preach the same thing to you. Once and for all I handed over to My apostles the Gospel and the teaching about the same rule of faith. But since you did not believe, then I was pleased to change something in him. For I promised even the resurrection of the flesh, but I judged that I was not able to fulfill this. I declared that I was born of a Virgin, but then it seemed shameful to Me. I called My Father the One who created the sun and the rains, but another, better Father accepted Me. I forbade you to turn your attention to heretics, but I was mistaken...” Such thoughts captivate those who, having deviated from the true faith, are in danger 64. 45. Now, however, we have completed our general reasoning against all heresies; undoubted, just and inevitable objections demand that they be denied a debate about the Holy Scriptures. About other things, if there is the grace of God, we will answer some heretics especially 65. To those who read this with true faith, may there be peace and mercy of our God Jesus Christ forever. See Matt. 7:15, 24:4, 11, 24; 1 Tim. 4:1–3. See John. 1:1, 6:67–68, 16:30. See 2 Tim. 1:15, 2:17; 1 Tim. 1.20. Tertullian in his treatise “On the Resurrection of the Flesh” (24, cf. 1) ranks the mentioned Hermogenes among the heretics who denied the resurrection of the flesh. The meaning of the term αϊρεσις as a special “system of views” was established in the ancient tradition (for example, Diogenes Laertius, VII, 191, etc.). Apelles is a famous student of Marcion. Lived in Rome at the end of the 2nd century. A significant part of the information about him is reported by Tertullian. Information about the personal life of Apelles in Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, V, 13) and other authors (Hippolytus, Against Heresies, X, 20) does not have the same shade of scandalousness that is present in Tertullian. Apelles owned a work called Φανερωσες (“Revelations”), in which he set out the prophecies of his friend Philumena, and, possibly, a treatise “Syllogisms”, which criticized the theology of Moses (see Pseudo-Tertullian, “Against Heresies”, 19). Doctrinally, Apelles moved away from Marcion's harsh dualism and recognized a single principle for all things. Tertullian wrote a special treatise against the followers of Apelles (not preserved). Apparently, an allusion to a stoic sage, like a god in his serenity. See note. 4 to the treatise “On the Testimony of the Soul.” This refers to the Stoic doctrine of the corporeality of existence, formulated, apparently, already by the founder of the school, Zeno. The corporeal-fiery god-logos of the Stoics resembled the fiery logos of Heraclitus. In the text, accordingly, the Greek. ένθύμησις ("thought") and εκτρωμα (lit. "miscarriage"); This is how Valentine designated the last, thirtieth Aeon, i.e. Christ (see below, chapter 34 Jerome. 1 Commentary on the book of Amos 3). Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? quid Academiae et Ecclesiae? Lit.: “So what do Athens and Jerusalem, the Academy and the Church have in common?” Wed. Apol. 46. At first, the apostles taught in the so-called Portico of Solomon in Jerusalem (Acts 3:11). John the Baptist. Wed. Mark. IV, 18; Epiphany 10. Inaccuracy: Luke does not mention Elijah. The text is corrupted. We accept the reading Rig.-Oehl.: expedit de sensu certare cum interpretationis gubernaculo. Ebion is the name of a possibly never-existing heresiarch, which Tertullian erroneously derives from the name of the Judeo-Christian sect “Ebionites” (the same as πτωχοι, “poor” in Matt. 11:5; Galat. 2:10). Mentioned since the time of Irenaeus (“Against Heresies,” I, 22), they had a special influence in Jerusalem. They led an ascetic lifestyle. Only minor fragments have survived from the writings of the Ebionites. It is known that they had their own Gospel (version of the Gospel of Matthew). Theoretical views are difficult to reconstruct due to the contradictory sources. Usually they are accused of Christological errors - for example, recognizing one Christ before His baptism, another after, denying the birth of Christ from Mary (the mother of the common man Jesus), etc. (see Pla. Christ. 24; Hilgenfeld, S. 421f). By Simon we mean Simon the Magician, a Samaritan - a sorcerer, mentioned in “Acts” (Acts 8:9-24); The emergence of the Gnostic teaching is associated with his name. Wed. Idol. 9. The text is corrupted. We accept the reading Rig.-Oehl.: its itaque... dum ubique convenio... et velut si nusquam... This reading is supported by similar passages (E.g. Mk. II, 17); there is also a possible allusion to Seneca’s phrase (“Letters”, 2, 2): Nusquam est qui ubique est (“He who is everywhere is nowhere”). Wed. Mapcial, VII, 73. Convenio can be understood in the sense of arcesso (“I encourage”). Regula fidei - here is the actual Creed in its initial version. See next. chapter. The text is corrupted. We accept the reading Rig.: curiosus tecum. Critical editions of N. 3. give for Tit. 3.10 “after the first and second admonition: See Ps. 108.8; Acts 1.20. See John. 13:25–26, 19:26, 21:20; Matt. 17 words; Luke.9 words. For example, Manichaeans, Marcion, possibly Ebionites. The fact that Marcion came from Pontus (a region in the northeast of Asia) is reported by Justin (“Apology”, 26; 58) and Irenaeus (“Against Heresies”, IV, 6). That he was a shipbuilder is also known from the message of Eusebius (“Ecclesiastical History”, V, 13, 3). Valentinus and Marcion lived under the emperor Antoninus Pius (138–161), and possibly also under Marcus Aurelius (161–180). More precisely, Eleuther was the Bishop of Rome in 177–192. The mention of Eleuther in this context is an anachronism. Nigidius is apparently a Gnostic; known only from this mention. Tertullian dedicated a special treatise to Hermogenes. The text is corrupted. We accept the reading Rig.: Sic enim apostohis descripsit, solet facere... Apostolic churches were founded by the apostles themselves - in Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus and Rome. (See below, chapter 36.) Eusebius (“Church History”, VII, 10) also adds to them the see of the Apostle James in Jerusalem. For Polycarp and Clement, see Eusebius The Sadducees were an influential (along with the Pharisees) religious and political group in Judea in the 1st century. d.X. – I century It united mainly the highest strata of the priesthood. It was believed that the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead and the coming Judgment (see Matt. 22.23; Acts 23.8; Tert. Resur. 2; 36, etc.). N. Shcheglov incorrectly translates Caiana haeresis as “Gai’s heresy.” Meanwhile, we are undoubtedly talking about the “Cain heresy” (see Epiphany 1, note 2). The founder of the Nicolaitan heresy was considered to be Nicholas of Antioch, who was ordained a deacon by the apostles themselves (Acts 6:5). The Nicolaitans are severely condemned in the “Revelation” of John (Apoc. 2:6, 14, 20) for calling for “fornication” and eating “things sacrificed to idols” (cf. Mark I, 29; Clement of Alexandria. “Stromata” II, 20, 118; III, 4, 25). However, Eusebius (("Church History", III, 29, 2)) and others considered it impossible for the successor of the apostles to be a heresiarch, and were inclined to justify Nicholas. "Authentic" (authenticae) – unlikely to be genuine Greek autographs; most likely, they are simply texts free from heretical distortions (cf. Unibr. 11). Achaia is a region in the northern Peloponnese. During the Roman Empire, it was a province centered in Corinth, which included all of Greece. According to legend, Peter was crucified upside down in Rome, and Paul was beheaded there; their death dates back to the year 65 (Nero's persecution of Christians). This tradition, which took shape in the 2nd century, is presented by Eusebius (("Ecclesiastical History", II, 25)) as something long ago and well known. The version that ap. John, before exile to the island of Patmos, was immersed in boiling oil, apparently belongs to Tertullian himself. See 1 Tim. 5:21, 6:13; 2 Tim. 2:14, 4:1–4. Marcion excluded part of Heb. from the New Testament. from Luke, “Acts”, “Revelation” and part of the Epistles of St. Pavel. He rejected the Old Testament completely. Osidius Geta is an unknown person. The “patchwork” tragedy “Medea” (461st verse) was preserved in medieval manuscripts, but without the name of the author. Pinax (Tabula) Cebetis is an allegorical work in the form of a dialogue, attributed to the student of the Pythagorean Philolaus and subsequently the listener of Socrates, Cebes of Thebes (see Diogenes Laertius, II, 125). The present time of creation is no earlier than the 1st century. The dialogue shows the influence of Cynic, Stoic and Pythagorean ideas. Cento (from Greek κεντρων) - patchwork bedspread, beggar's cloak. The cult of Mithras, which spread throughout the empire in the first centuries, was influenced by Gnosticism, and in some elements resembled a Christian cult. Sub gladio redimit coronam. The meaning is unclear; perhaps an imitation of Christian martyrdom. See note. 152 to the treatise “To the Gentiles.” Catechumen" (from the Greek κατηχεω, “to announce,” “to instruct”) is a person preparing to receive baptism; he could be present with the “faithful” (the baptized) at all sacraments except the Liturgy, or Eucharist. Here and below it is said ironically. The following paragraph is sometimes added to Ch. 44, but is usually allocated to a separate chapter 45. The phrase should be understood in the sense that we are talking about large anti-Gnostic treatises (“Against Marcion”, etc.), since the text that follows in some manuscripts immediately after chapter 45, entitled “Against Heresies,” is established not to belong to Tertullian. You might be interested in: