Against Heresies: Book I

YOU SEE: my friend, the method these men use to deceive themselves while they misuse the Scriptures in an attempt to support their own system. For this reason, I have highlighted their ways of expressing themselves so you might understand the deceitfulness of their process and the wickedness of their error. Firstly, if it had been John's intention to set forth that Ogdoad above, he would surely have preserved the order of its creation and would have placed the primary Tetrad first as it is, according to them, most venerable, and would then have added the second, so the order of the Ogdoad could be shown through the sequence of the names. He wouldn't have mentioned the primary Tetrad only after a long interval, as if he had forgotten, and then recalled it later. Furthermore, if John intended to point out their conjunctions, he wouldn't have omitted the name of Ecclesia. Regarding the other conjunctions, he either would have mentioned only the male Æons (since others, like Ecclesia, might be implied) to keep a uniformity, or, if he listed the conjunctions of the others, he would also have mentioned the spouse of Anthropos and not left us to guess her name.

THE FLAW IN THIS EXPLANATION IS CLEAR: When John proclaims one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten, through whom all things were made, he states that this is the Son of God, the Only-begotten, the Creator of all things, the true Light that enlightens everyone, the Creator of the world, the one who came to His own, and the one who became flesh and lived among us. Yet, some people distort these statements through a seemingly plausible interpretation, asserting the existence of another Monogenes, following creation, whom they also call Arche.

They claim there is another Savior and another Logos, the son of Monogenes, and another Christ, created for the restoration of the Pleroma. In twisting the truth of each expression that has been cited and misusing the names, they have reshaped them to fit their own system.

Thus, according to them, John does not mention the Lord Jesus Christ at all in these terms. They propose that if John mentioned the Father, Charis, Monogenes, Aletheia, Logos, Zoe, Anthropos, and Ecclesia, he referred to the primary Ogdoad, where there was no Jesus or Christ, the teacher of John.

However, the apostle did not speak about their conjunctions but rather about our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he recognizes as the Word of God. This is evident because, while summarizing his statements about the Word he previously mentioned, he further declares, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." According to their theory, the Word did not become flesh at all, as he never left the Pleroma. Instead, they claim it was the Savior who became flesh, formed by a special arrangement from all the Æons, who came after the Word.

LEARN THEN: foolish men, that Jesus who suffered for us and lived among us is the Word of God Himself. If any other of the Æons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been likely that the apostle spoke of another. But since the Word of the Father who descended is the same one that ascended—the Only-begotten Son of the only God—who, according to the Father's good pleasure, became flesh for humanity, the apostle certainly does not speak of anyone else or concerning any Ogdoad, but about our Lord Jesus Christ. According to them, the Word did not originally become flesh, as they claim the Saviour assumed an animal body, formed by a special dispensation and unspeakable providence, to become visible and tangible. However, flesh is what God formed for Adam from the dust long ago, and John has declared that the Word of God became this. Thus, their primary and first-begotten Ogdoad is nullified. Since Logos, Monogenes, Zoe, Phōs, Soter, Christus, and the Son of God, who became incarnate for us, have been proven to be one and the same, their Ogdoad collapses. When this is destroyed, their entire system falls into ruin—a system they falsely imagine into existence, thereby harming the Scriptures and constructing their own hypothesis.

4. Then, once again, gathering a set of expressions and names found here and there in Scripture, they twist them, as we have already mentioned, from their natural to an unnatural meaning. By doing this, they behave like those who propose any kind of hypothesis they like and then try to support it with verses from Homer’s poems. This makes the ignorant think that Homer actually wrote those verses to support that newly created hypothesis. Many others are led by the well-arranged sequence of the verses to question whether Homer might have written them. An example of this is when someone describes Hercules as being sent by Eurystheus to the dog in the underworld, using these Homeric verses. There’s no reason not to use this as an illustration, since a similar attempt is being made in both cases.

AS HE SPOKE: he left his house deeply groaning.

The hero Hercules, known for mighty deeds.

Eurystheus, the son of Sthenelus, descended from Perseus.

That he might bring from Erebus the dog of gloomy Pluto.

And he moved forward like a mountain-bred lion sure of its strength.

Swiftly through the city, with all his friends following.

Both maidens, and youths, and much-enduring old men.

Mourning for him bitterly as if going towards death.

But Mercury and the blue-eyed Minerva guided him.

For she knew her brother's mind, how it was troubled with grief.

NOW: what simple-minded person, I ask, would not be led astray by such verses as these to think that Homer actually crafted them with reference to the indicated subject? But someone acquainted with the Homeric writings will recognize the verses, but not the subject to which they are applied, knowing that some were spoken of Ulysses, others of Hercules himself, yet others of Priam, and still others of Menelaus and Agamemnon. But if he puts them back in their correct context, he immediately disrupts the narrative in question. Similarly, he who holds unchangeably in his heart the rule of the truth received through baptism will undoubtedly recognize the names, expressions, and parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use that these people make of them. For, while he will recognize the gems, he will certainly not accept the fox instead of the likeness of the king. But when he has restored each expression quoted to its proper context and has fitted it to the truth, he will expose and prove to be baseless the imagination of these heretics.

BUT SINCE WHAT MAY SERVE AS A FINAL BLOW TO THIS DISPLAY IS LACKING: so that anyone, by following their farce to the end, might then append an argument to overthrow it, we have decided it is wise to point out, first of all, in what ways the very originators of this fable differ among themselves, as if they were inspired by different spirits of error. For this very fact provides an initial proof that the truth proclaimed by the Church is unshakable, and that the theories of these men are merely a collection of falsehoods.