# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book V/Part 9

Chapter VIII.—The Peratæ Derive Their System from the Astrologers; This Proved by a Statement of the Astrological Theories of the Zodiac; Hence the Terminology of the Peratic Heretics.
Let us, then, in the first place, learn how (the Peratists), deriving this doctrine from astrologers, act despitefully towards Christ, working destruction for those who follow them in an error of this description. For the astrologers, alleging that there is one world, divide it into the twelve fixed portions of the zodiacal signs, and call the world of the fixed zodiacal signs one immoveable world; and the other they affirm to be a world of erratic (signs), both in power, and position, and number, and that it extends as far as the moon. And (they lay down), that (one) world derives from (the other) world a certain power, and mutual participation (in that power), and that the subjacent obtain this participation from the superjacent (portions). In order, however, that what is (here) asserted may be perspicuous, I shall one by one employ those very expressions of the astrologers; (and in doing so) I shall only be reminding my readers of statements previously made in the department of the work where we have explained the entire art of the astrologers. What, then, the opinions are which those (speculators) entertain, are as follow:—
(Their doctrine is), that from an emanation of the stars the generations of the subjacent (parts) is consummated.  For, as they wistfully gazed upward upon heaven, the Chaldeans asserted that (the seven stars) contain a reason for the efficient causes of the occurrence of all the events that happen unto us, and that the parts of the fixed zodiacal signs co-operate (in this influence). Into twelve (parts they divide the zodiacal circle), and each zodiacal sign into thirty portions, and each portion into sixty diminutive parts; for so they denominate the very smallest parts, and those that are indivisible. And of the zodiacal signs, they term some male, but others feminine; and some with two bodies, but others not so; and some tropical, whereas others firm. The male signs, then, are either feminine, which possess a co-operative nature for the procreation of males, (or are themselves productive of females.) For Aries is a male zodiacal sign, but Taurus female; and the rest (are denominated) according to the same analogy, some male, but others female. And I suppose that the Pythagoreans, being swayed from such (considerations), style the Monad male, and the Duad female; and, again, the Triad male, and analogically the remainder of the even and odd numbers. Some, however, dividing each zodiacal sign into twelve parts, employ almost the same method. For example, in Aries, they style the first of the twelve parts both Aries and a male, but the second both Taurus and a female, and the third both Gemini and a male; and the same plan is pursued in the case of the rest of the parts. And they assert that there are signs with two bodies, viz., Gemini and the signs diametrically opposite, namely Sagittarius, and Virgo, and Pisces, and that the rest have not two bodies. And (they state) that some are likewise tropical, and when the sun stands in these, he causes great turnings of the surrounding (sign). Aries is a sign of this description, and that which is diametrically opposite to it, just as Libra, and Capricorn, and Cancer. For in Aries is the vernal turning, and in Capricorn that of winter, and in Cancer that of summer, and in Libra that of autumn.
The details, however, concerning this system we have minutely explained in the book preceding this; and from it any one who wishes instruction (on the point), may learn how it is that the originators of this Peratic heresy, viz., Euphrates the Peratic, and Celbes the Carystian, have, in the transference (into their own system of opinions from these sources), made alterations in name only, while in reality they have put forward similar tenets. (Nay more), they have, with immoderate zeal, themselves devoted (their attention) to the art (of the astrologers). For also the astrologers speak of the limits of the stars, in which they assert that the dominant stars have greater influence; as, for instance, on some they act injuriously, while on others they act well. And of these they denominate some malicious, and some beneficent. And (stars) are said to look upon one another, and to harmonize with each other, so that they appear according to (the shape of) a triangle or square. The stars, looking on one another, are figured according to (the shape of) a triangle, having an intervening distance of the extent of three zodiacal signs; whereas (those that have an interval of) two zodiacal signs are figured according to (the shape of) a square. And (their doctrine is), that as in the same way as in a man, the subjacent parts sympathize with the head, and the head likewise sympathizes with the subjacent parts, so all terrestrial (sympathize) with super-lunar objects. But (the astrologers go further than this); for there exists (according to them) a certain difference and incompatibility between these, so as that they do not involve one and the same union. This combination and divergence of the stars, which is a Chaldean (tenet), has been arrogated to themselves by those of whom we have previously spoken.
Now these, falsifying the name of truth, proclaim as a doctrine of Christ an insurrection of Æons and revolts of good into (the ranks of) evil powers; and they speak of the confederations of good powers with wicked ones. Denominating them, therefore, Toparchai and Proastioi, and (though thus) framing for themselves very many other names not suggested (to them from other sources), they have yet unskilfully systematized the entire imaginary doctrine of the astrologers concerning the stars. And since they have introduced a supposition pregnant with immense error, they shall be refuted through the instrumentality of our admirable arrangement. For I shall set down, in contrast with the previously mentioned Chaldaic art of the astrologers, some of the Peratic treatises, from which, by means of comparison, there will be an opportunity of perceiving how the Peratic doctrines are those confessedly of the astrologers, not of Christ.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Or, “is part of the moon.”
* ↑ Some omissions here are supplied from Sextus Empiricus.
* ↑ Or, “produces alterations and causes turnings.”
* ↑ Celbes, as observed in a former note, has two other forms in The Refutation, viz., Acembes and Ademes. He is called Carystius, and the other founder of the heresy Peraticus. As the latter term is frequently used to designate Eubœa, i.e., the country beyond (πέραν) the continent, it is inferred that Carystius has a similar import. This would seem placed beyond conjecture by a passage (Strom., vii. vol. ii. p. 555) in Clemens Alexandrinus, already alluded to, who says that some heresies, e.g., those of the Marcionites and Basilidians, derived their denomination from the names, whereas others from the country, of their founders. As an instance of the latter, he mentions the Peratics (see note 4, p. 62, [and note 6, p. 58]).
* ↑ Some deficiencies in the text are filled up from Sextus Empiricus.
* ↑ Or, “celestial.”
* ↑ This expression άλλὰ γάρ requires to have the ellipsis supplied as above. It may be freely rendered “nay more.” Miller reads ῞Αλλη γάρ, i.e. “There is some other difference,” etc.; but this does not agree with Sextus Empiricus.
* ↑ Or, “sympathy:” συμπάθεια is, however, properly altered into ἀσυμπάθεια on the authority of Sextus.
* ↑ i.e., “Rulers of localities and suburbans.”
* ↑ The Peratic heresy both Hippolytus and Theodoret state to have originated from Euphrates. Origen, on the other hand, states (Contr. Cels., vi. 28, [vol. iv. p. 586]) that Euphrates was founder of the Ophites. The inference from this is, that Origen was not author of The Refutation.