Dissertation

DISSERTATION ON ALL THE WRITERS OF THE FIRST CENTURY OF THE CHURCH IN GENERAL.

(D. Le Nourry, *Apparatus ad Bibliothecam maximam*, Paris, 1703, in-folio, p. 1.)

CHAPTER I.

Many works of the Fathers of the first century of the Church do indeed exist, published indiscriminately in our Lyons Library; but there are none, or certainly very few, which can be demonstrated by invincible arguments to bear the true and genuine marks of such antiquity. For the seven epistles of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, have undoubtedly proceeded from him, as we shall show; yet those same ones did not come to light until the eighth year of the second century. To the first century of the Church, indeed, there seem to us to belong both the Epistle of the apostle Barnabas and also the three books of the Shepherd, or Hermas; yet we fear that the conjectures by which we ascertain this, however firm and solid they may be, will not find favor with those who can never set aside preconceived opinions, nor wish to be convinced, unless by the most invincible demonstrations. Furthermore, even if it were accepted by everyone, only two lucubrations of the writers of this first century now remain. But as to what might be added to these, hardly anything else survives, except perhaps the first and second Epistle of Clement of Rome; and since these are not printed in our Lyons Library, there will be no place for us to speak of them in this work.

It will seem truly wondrous, and perhaps incredible to some, that so few works of the first age of Christians have reached us. For it is beyond doubt that several writers of this time published various minor works, epistles, treatises, or other lucubrations of this kind. By what providence of God, you will ask, could it come to pass that such precious monuments of divine men, which should have been the channels of our tradition, have perished entirely? But you will soon put an end to these complaints if you understand from elsewhere that this loss, however much it is to be lamented, has been fully compensated. For all the books of the New Testament were written in this century; and when it was quite advanced, and almost at its end, the apostle John published his Gospel and Apocalypse. What of the fact that it was also brought about by the same providence of God that, in the times of the persecutions which raged more bitterly against the nascent Church, many—both from among the apostles and from those ^A who, having lived among us with Christ clothed in our flesh, had extended their lives for a long time, and had as their disciples those who flourished in the second century—poured out their blood for the preservation and propagation of the Christian faith? They were able to imbue these men with the sacred precepts and dogmas of Christian doctrine, which they themselves had received from Christ; nor did the Church need other teachers, by whom, as if by conduits, those same dogmas might be transmitted to us by voice and mouth, without writing, from hand to hand, as they say. In short, by this loss of so many and such valuable writers, we are taught that the counsel of divine Providence was none other than that those most holy writers—who almost all shed their blood for the defense and propagation of the Christian faith—might inscribe and imprint that faith upon the souls of ^B men more deeply with the crimson drops of their shed blood than with parchment, pen, and ink.

But since the works of the Fathers of the first century of the Church are so very few, they are certainly to be valued the more, the greater the authority those same Fathers acquired by their own merit and by their association and familiarity with Christ and his apostles. Therefore, so that their genuine writings may be easily distinguished from the spurious and supposititious, we shall study and examine them each and every one according to the stricter rules of criticism in the following dissertations. But first, we must dispute in this dissertation about those things which pertain to those writers generally and universally. We shall therefore show what their character was, what their studies, what their occupations, and what occasions they had for writing; who were the enemies of the Christian name and doctrine they defeated; and finally, what were the schools or public places in which they learned the Christian faith or taught it to others themselves.

CHAPTER II.

It is beyond controversy that they exerted all the nerves of their genius most especially for this, and consumed all their study and effort, in order to announce the Gospel of Christ to all; and, having demonstrated the truth of the Christian religion, to persuade them ^C that it alone, having rejected all others, was to be embraced. Hence, they convinced the Jews by various arguments that Christ was the one so long and with such ardor awaited by them as the Messiah, and the true God, and the Son of the ^D eternal Father; then indeed, when all that had been predicted of him by the prophets was completed, and he had suffered, died, and risen again, he was most certainly that Christ whom the prophets had proclaimed.

eternal Son; then, indeed, the oracles which had been predicted of Him by the prophets were fulfilled, and the law, ceremonies, and sacrifices of Moses were rescinded and abrogated by Him.

As for the pagans and idolaters, it was not possible to persuade them that there were many gods, but rather that there is only one God, the creator of heaven and earth and of all things; yet that Christ is His only Son, so begotten of the Father that He is one and the same God as He is. They showed that He, in order to redeem mankind, had assumed human flesh, and that He, the more the worship of false deities was defiled by unspeakable crimes and abominable obscenities, had established for men purer and holier laws both for the ordering of life and the worship of the Divinity. But although Christ was handed over to death by the impious and rebellious Jews, our writers nevertheless showed most clearly that His divinity was proven most invincibly by the countless miracles which He Himself performed, and which occurred at His birth, His death, and His resurrection from the dead. Furthermore, they added that after Him we are some day to be raised from the dead, and according to the works of our life, to be either punished with eternal torments or gifted with everlasting happiness. This doctrine, which was itself confirmed by the miracles He performed, they usually signed with their own shed blood.

Those whom they had recently brought to the Christian faith, they educated in the first precepts of the new law, and instructed them in how, after having cast aside the religion of the Jews or pagans, they were to serve the one God. They then taught them what was to be observed by each individual, so that, having been buried with Christ in the waters of baptism and rising with Him, they might be born again to a new life of grace, no longer to die in sins. After receiving the sacrament of divine regeneration, they would lay open to them the secret sanctuaries of our faith, giving a clear and accurate account of all those things which they concealed from others, with an exposition of the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation, as well as of the sacraments, and especially the Eucharist. Above all, they urged them to remain constant in the delivered faith and to endure any kind of torture to defend it.

If any lost their lives in such torments, some committed the accounts to writing. Others wrote of the virtue and merit of those who were more preeminent, their travels, dangers, labors, struggles, passions, tortures, and all the acts of their martyrdom. Others committed to writing the statutes and canons established by the apostles and their successors for the explanation of doctrine and the formation of holy morals; others, by letters sent to certain Christians, or bishops, or churches, inflamed them to bear the persecutions of tyrants with supreme patience; or they restrained ^A the abuses of others who were sinners, or new converts, and even the dangers already threatening, by paternal correction and reproof. Finally, others turned their pen against perverse doctrines, nefarious errors, and nascent heresies, lest the simple minds of some should be corrupted.

CHAPTER III.

In truth, however, against the divine defenders of the Christian faith, from the very beginning of the Church in the East, monstrous prodigies of various heresies emerged from the jaws of Hell: and as Theodoret prudently warns: When the devil craved the destruction of men, he did not wait for the preaching ^B of the apostles to prevail; but when they began to till the earth and sow the seeds of piety, he meanwhile sowed tares, that is, schisms and heresies. Against these monsters of erring men, who brought no less a cruel and destructive war upon the Church than did the persecutors, our writers fought sometimes openly and plainly, and sometimes more covertly and secretly. Wherefore, in order that their writings, in which heresies are sometimes attacked in terms sufficiently obscure, may be more easily understood, the rise, progress, and demise of these same heresies must be explained briefly, but clearly and accurately.

Simon Magus, as Irenæus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Theodoret record, was the first among Christians to devise and disseminate a heresy: In order, says Eusebius, that he might stand as an adversary to the great and admirable apostles of our Savior. By what reason, then, Clement of Alexandria said that this heresy had its origin no earlier than the second century and the age of Marcion, we ^C do not see at all. But this opinion of Clement will be discussed elsewhere.

This Simon, a native of the village of Gitta in Samaria, performed many things by magical arts that seemed entirely similar to miracles and prodigies. But after the death of Stephen, who was martyred, Philip betook himself to Samaria for the sake of preaching the Gospel, and there performed not false miracles, as Simon did, but true ones. When these were recognized by the same Simon Magus, he professed the Christian religion, or, as Eusebius says, feigned that he professed it. When, however, he saw the Holy Spirit, clearly visible to everyone, descending upon the baptized by the laying on of the hands of Peter and John, he offered money ^D to the same apostles, so that they might grant him the power to transmit that same Holy Spirit to others. But when this impious offering was immediately rejected by the apostles with the sharp and great spirit that was befitting, Simon, having raved against them, once again gave himself to magical arts and to the spreading of his errors with all the more dangerous zeal, because those

^A dangers, which Christians were taught to despise, he used to sell more boldly, pretending that idolatry was a matter of indifference. Indeed, no persecution against the Simonians was ever stirred up. Tertullian finally bears witness that the followers of Simon practiced a certain worship of angels, infected with superstition and idolatry: “The Simonian discipline,” he says, “serving angels, was surely itself reckoned among idolatries, and was condemned by the Apostle Peter in the person of Simon himself.” However, it seems to contradict Tertullian—if this was truly his mind and opinion, as is reported—that Simon himself boasted he had created the angels and had descended from heaven to correct the angels since they were governing the world badly. But it should seem strange to no one if men who wander very far from the path of truth occasionally fight against themselves and speak foolishly against their own positions. And in truth, Epiphanius chastises Simon precisely because he handed down things about the angels that were self-contradictory: for just as an impostor forgotten of his own nonsense, as if ignorant of what he had formerly taught, he refutes himself. For when he had said that the angels were created by him through his own intelligence, he later added that in order to hide from them while descending, he changed his shape in each heaven. Therefore, he was hiding because he feared them. But what was that impostor fearing from the angels whom he himself had created?

Simon published his errors first in Samaria and in Judea, then in other places, towns, and cities, and finally at Rome; in which city he so bound the minds of men to himself, that he was decreed the highest honors of adoration as the supreme God, and during the reign of Claudius, a statue was erected to him on the Tiber Island between two bridges, with this inscription: *Simoni Deo Sancto* (To Simon the Holy God). Yet some more recent writers narrate that during the pontificate of Gregory XIII, the stone base of this statue was discovered, upon which this inscription was engraved: *Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio sacrum* (Sacred to Semo Sancus Deus Fidius), that is, as they themselves say: To Hercules, not to Simon. From this they conclude that Justin, the primal source of that error, having been deceived by the Simonians due to his lack of skill in the Latin language, had handed down that this was the statue of Simon Magus. But it remained to be proven by those writers that that base, which was found ^D in recent times, was the very same one, and that the statue mentioned long ago by Justin and other most ancient Fathers was placed upon it.

Be that as it may, that first parent of heresiarchs, Simon Magus, was struck, defeated, and laid low by the first prince of the apostles, Simon Peter: “In Judea,” says Eusebius, “he was convicted by the Apostle Peter, and all his sorceries were exposed, and he took flight very far across the sea.” But the Apostle followed him as he was fleeing to Rome, and there he...

and all his power he destroyed and extinguished. ^A When the doctrine of God had enlightened the Romans with his arrival, the power of Simon, along with the author himself, was shortly thereafter extinguished and destroyed. And to use the words of Augustine: In which city the apostle Peter destroyed him by the true power of God Almighty. Although he had been thus crushed and oppressed by the Apostle, he nevertheless left behind many successors of his errors and crimes. For from this most bitter root, if you listen to Theodoret, there arose the Cleobians, the Dositheans, the Gorthenians, the Masbotheans, the Adrianists, the Eutychians, or, as according to Clement of Alexandria, the Eutychians, the Cainites. But all these, when they had devised certain depraved mutations of their impious heresy, did not last long, but were handed over to eternal oblivion. But if you wish to trust Hegesippus, the first four took their origin from the seven sects sown among the Jewish people. From which Valois elicited this conclusion: Theodoret would have spoken more correctly had he said that they were all propagated from the Jewish sects, especially since some of those heresies appear to be older than the Simonian, for instance, the Gorthenian and the Dosithean. But I fear whether this Valoisian conclusion, which infers that others are older than the Simonian from the two sects that are older than the Simonian, would be approved by everyone. Moreover, Epiphanius affirms that the Gnostics arose from Simon, and hence the origin of those whom we call Gnostics flowed forth. ^C Origen testifies that in his own time the heresy of the Simonians was extirpated: "Nowhere under heaven do Simonians exist." But concerning the Dositheans mentioned by us a little earlier, he adds this: "But the Dositheans, they never flourished, and now they are entirely extinct, so that they are numbered among thirty in name only." But Origen was deceived by some false account, or from the regions which he himself had traversed, he assumed the same had happened in all parts of the world. For Eusebius writes that some followers of the Simonian heresy still existed while he was alive: "Simon," he says, "feigned faith in Christ in order to receive baptism." Which indeed we observe even now with not a little wonder is done by those who profess his most foul sect: who, creeping into the Church in the manner of their parent like some pestilence or leprosy, inflict most grievous harm upon those into whom they have been able to instill that most vile and incurable poison which they hide in their minds. ^D And most of them have already been cast out from the Church, when their fraud had been detected. And below: "Whence even to our own age, whoever profess the sect of him, though they feigned that they were embracing the Christian religion, full of trouble and sanctity, nevertheless they relapse into the superstitious cult of demons, which they had seemed to renounce." There were, therefore, at the time of Eusebius certain supporters of the Simonian heresy. But since the same Eusebius testifies that, their frauds having been disclosed, most of them were cast out from the Church, it is certainly an indication, neither doubtful nor obscure, that they were then very few in number, and indeed concealing themselves under the false name of Christians. Wherefore it is necessary to conclude that that heresy did not persist long thereafter, and was quickly extinguished.

CAPUT IV. On the heresy of Menander.

Menander, a Samaritan by birth and from the village of Caparateia, derived from the tradition *Kapareteias* or *Chabrai*, was a disciple of Simon and boasted that he was greater than his predecessor and master. Wherefore, having added to or altered certain errors of the doctrine of his impious master, he founded a new sect and earned the title and name of heresiarch. He, therefore, when Simon had said that he was the supreme power of God, taught: that there was indeed a first power unknown to all, but that he himself was the one who had been sent from the invisible realms as a savior for the salvation of all. To these things he added: that his disciples, through the baptism that is in him, receive the resurrection, and are no longer able to die, but remain ageless and immortal. As to the rest, they pursued the same errors and magical arts as their master. But to some it seems difficult to explain in what sense Irenaeus said that the first error of Menander was that he boasted himself to be greater than his master Simon, since Simon wished to be heard by others as the supreme power of God, but Menander did not. However, if the words of Irenaeus are weighed attentively, the knot of that difficulty will not easily be solved. For the mind of the holy man seems to be nothing else than that Menander proclaimed himself greater than his master, not in virtue and power, but in knowledge and mission. Which adversaries the Menandrian heresy had, you will learn from Theodoret, who testifies that it was refuted by the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen. Nor will any man certainly ever deny that something was handed down to memory against it by Justin and Irenaeus. But in the manner that Theodoret writes, he himself without doubt seems to have indicated there certain other of their writings by which they refuted that heresy more plainly and fully. Moreover, those things which Menander chattered about his own baptism, by which he claimed men could be made immortal, Tertullian excellently refutes and demonstrates to be ridiculous. We do not, however, think it should be added that some suppose Tertullian in turn committed something to writing concerning the same heresy in his Book on Prescription.

you will find nothing of it there, unless at chapter 45 of that book, which the more perceptive critics observe to have been stitched on by impostors there, to whose law, however, they seem to submit as if to a good one. ^A From this, the Cerinthians also, as the same Epiphanius adds, utterly explode Paul, because he renounced circumcision. Philastrius, indeed, argues against Cerinthus because he rejected many other books of the New Testament: he does not accept the Apostle Paul, he honors Judas the traitor, he accepts only the Gospel according to Matthew, he spurns the three other Gospels, and blasphemes the blessed martyrs. Yet the author Epiphanius does not state that the complete Gospel of Matthew was accepted by him; they use the Gospel of Matthew not in its entirety, but only in part, namely because of the genealogy, which is proper to his flesh. And no wonder, since by that genealogy of Christ all their errors were utterly overturned.

CHAPTER V.

Concerning the heresy of Cerinthus.

Cerinthus, the parent of a new heresy from the very time of the Apostles, after having spent a great deal of time in Egypt, Theodoret says, and having been learned in philosophical sciences, came afterwards to Asia, and called his disciples by his own name. Epiphanius agrees with this, but adds that they were called Merinthians: as to whether, he says, Cerinthus himself was called by another name, Merinthus, or whether someone else existed with that name, an assistant and associate of his, that is known to God alone.

First, however, as Irenaeus testifies, Cerinthus taught that the world was not made by the first God, but by a certain power separated and distant from that Principality which is above all things, and which is ignorant of the God who is above all. Christ, moreover, according to Theodoret, he divided into two parts, or persons distinct from each other; and he taught that Jesus was born according to nature from Joseph and Mary, but had excelled in temperance, justice, and other virtues. Or, as Irenaeus says: that he was more powerful than all others, and that after his baptism, ^B Christ descended into him from that Principality which is above all, in the form of a dove, and then announced the unknown Father, and performed miracles; but that in the end Christ flew back again from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, being spiritual. Against this, however, Epiphanius, and Augustine after him, say: He did not fear to state that Christ indeed suffered and was crucified, yet was not yet raised from the dead, but is to be raised only when all the dead are raised. Whence he rightly concludes that the Cerinthians openly fought among themselves.

Nor was that heresy any less at odds with itself in that it commanded—these are the words of Augustine—that the flesh should be circumcised, and that other precepts of the law, namely the Mosaic, should be observed. For he says that the One by whom the law was delivered is not good, Epiphanius says, ^C but Gaius, in Eusebius, attributes a different error to Cerinthus, that of the Chiliasts: By revelations written by himself, as if by a great Apostle, he introduces to us certain portents, feigning that they were shown to him by angels, affirming that after the resurrection there would be a kingdom of Christ on earth, and that men again living in Jerusalem would be subject to the desires and pleasures of the body; and he adds that a space of a thousand years would be spent in nuptial festivities. Whence also they are called Chiliasts, says Augustine. This is confirmed by Eusebius on the authority of Dionysius of Alexandria: They say he, Cerinthus, composed a book, giving it the name of John, while he wished to borrow authority for his fictions from the name of John. But of this ridiculous Cerinthian fiction there will be a place for a deeper discussion elsewhere.

It seemed to some that those who had not been washed by baptism while living, were initiated with that sacrament by those heretics after death. But since they rely only on the testimony of Epiphanius—whom many believe to be speaking there of other heretics rather—these point out that others either deny this entirely, or contend that it is completely uncertain.

How much of a horror Cerinthus was to John the Evangelist, we learn from Irenaeus, who testifies that he had received it from others, that John, when he had entered a bath at Ephesus for the sake of washing, seeing Cerinthus inside, immediately fled from the bath unwashed, and broke out into these words: Let us flee from here, lest the bath collapse, in which is Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth. ^D Epiphanius, therefore, who attributes this to Ebion, was undoubtedly led astray by his memory. Yet the divine ardor and zeal of John did not stop there in defeating the heresy of Cerinthus. For he, as Jerome hands down, wrote his Gospel, asked by the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics. Epiphanius, however, thinks that James and the other apostles sent letters against the same heresiarch to Antioch...

should have directed: "Since we have known some to have set out to you from us," etc. Nor indeed does anyone doubt that Peter and Paul, burning with a love for completely uprooting error, in a contest entered into against him, confuted and defeated his heresy. To these, Theodoret adds Gaius, Dionysius of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen. But since that most learned man mentions no others who fought against Cerinthus, a not insignificant argument is drawn from this that that heresy, having expired around the times of Origen, had no further supporters. It is certain, however, that the principal errors of Cerinthus were afterward adopted by other heretics, who, as we shall say, gave names to their own sects.

CHAPTER VI.

On the heresy of Ebion.

In what place and time the heresy of Ebion arose, the same Epiphanius declares in these words: "The beginning of this faction began after the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. At which time all Christians were living in Perea, and especially in the city of Pella, which is in the Decapolitan province... near Balanaea and Basanitis; when, I say, they had taken up residence there, from this was given to Ebion the opportunity of propagating his error. Who, in a certain village of Cocabe, in the region of the Karnaimeans, of the Arnemians, and of the Astarothares, and in the tract of Basanitis, began to dwell, ^B just as fame has brought down to us until now." Afterward, however, he adds: "In Asia and in Rome he disseminated his error." Since, therefore, the city of Jerusalem, according to the chronology of the more skilled, was captured and destroyed in the year of Christ 70, around that time Ebion began to disseminate his errors in the places mentioned by Epiphanius. Nor is Jerome far from this opinion, who affirms that John wrote his Gospel upon the rising of the heresy of Ebion: "He wrote the Gospel against Cerinthus... and especially now against the rising dogma of the Ebionites."

The errors of Ebion were indeed almost the same as those of Cerinthus; so that he is asserted by some—though this is by no means indubitable—to have been a disciple of that same Cerinthus. For he taught that Christ was a mere man, born of Mary and Joseph by human generation; and that he himself was the Son of God by a certain progress of virtue, those are the words of Epiphanius, and was made so by conjunction with God, and therefore was merely an adopted Son of God, as Mercator upbraids the same Ebion. Yet the followers of Ebion did not follow this error of their master in one and the same way: "For others indeed," says Eusebius, "called by the same name, rejecting their absurd opinion, do not deny that Christ was begotten of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit: but the same men nonetheless, since they do not in the slightest acknowledge that Christ, as God, the Word, and the Wisdom of the Father, existed before all things, have slipped into the same opinion as their predecessors." Whence also Epiphanius: "Others pronounce differently concerning Christ... For some of them preach that Adam was Christ... Others confess that Christ is from heaven, but that he was created before all things, and is a certain spirit, and is superior to the angels, and possesses dominion over all things. Who, when he has obtained a perpetual habitation there, as often as he pleases, descends into these lowest parts, just as he descended into Adam, and appeared clothed in a body to the patriarchs, as when he approached Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Finally, he came in the last times, covered with the body of Adam, and was seen as a man, and was raised onto the cross and rose again, and ascended into heaven. Again, where he pleases, he appears ^C just as he is." But others deny this and say that indeed the holy Spirit, who is Christ, infused himself into him, and that he put on him who was called Jesus. And within: "They assert that two were constituted by God, Christ and the devil, to the former of whom is committed the power of the world to come, to the latter that of the present age: and that this was done by the command of that omnipotent one according to the request of each, etc."

"Moreover, that this division and difference of opinions is to be attributed to the pseudo-prophet Elxaeus is suspected. Some, however, record that this Elxaeus, or Elceai, was the author of a certain peculiar heresy, which from his name is called that of the Helcesaites. His errors are furthermore noted by Eusebius and Theodoret; but the same Eusebius in his ecclesiastical History has testified that it was born and extinguished at the same time. If you wish to approach the passage of his we have cited, read also the notes and observations of Valesius concerning him."

The Ebionites, moreover, taught that all men are held by the Mosaic law, and that the celebration of the Sabbath is to be observed, although they themselves also observed the Lord's day in memory of the Resurrection of Christ. Wherefore they, according to Irenaeus: "reject Paul, calling him an apostate from the law... and they use only the Gospel which is according to Matthew. In accordance with what is said here concerning the Gospel of Matthew, Theodoret agrees. ^D

him an apostate from the law... and they use only the Gospel which is according to Matthew. In accordance with what is said here concerning the Gospel of Matthew, Theodoret agrees.

^A They also celebrate certain mysteries annually, in which they use unleavened bread, and for the other part of the mystery, they employ pure water.

The same Epiphanius further relates that these same heretics, in order to lend great weight to their own errors, prefixed the sacred names of the apostles to certain books forged by themselves. They circulate other "Acts of the Apostles," in which there are very many traces of their impiety, and they arm their books with this authority, above all, to attack the truth. And further on: They admit the names of the apostles, the more easily to entice their own followers, through simulation, and to them they also ascribe certain books forged by themselves, as if edited by James, Matthew, and the rest of the disciples, among which they also intermingle the name of the apostle John. Finally, he makes it clear that the book which was reputed to have been written by Clement, called the *Circuits of Peter*, was also used by these same heretics.

With what care Epiphanius recounts the errors of the Ebionites, with the same diligence he clearly shows those by whom they were rejected and destroyed. "Furthermore," he says, "not only John, but all the apostles universally repudiate the faith of Ebion, and judge it alien to their own dogmas and to that apostolic character"; a thing which is manifest to everyone. We have seen above from Jerome that John, above all others, published his Gospel rising up against the dogma of Ebion. Nor is there any room for doubt that those divine champions achieved a full and perfect victory against these enemies of the faith and of Catholic truth. And surely, I have already warned that they were divided into various parts from their very beginnings, and torn asunder among themselves. And what else could have followed from this dissension than the total ruin of this sect, and its certain and most swift destruction? We would not reach the conclusion, however, that many of the errors of Ebion were not later revived by other heretics, but they did not dare thereafter to arrogate to themselves the name of the Ebionites, which had been routed by the apostles.

CAPUT VII. On the heresy of the Nazarenes.

Although the Nazarenes are called by some Christian heretics, by others neither Christians nor Jews, and finally by others as being entangled in the same errors as the Ebionites, they were nevertheless, if one believes Epiphanius, pure Jews. They do not call themselves Jesseans, nor do they retain the name of Jews, nor do they call themselves Christians, but Nazarenes—from the designation of that place—when in the meantime they are pure Jews, and nothing else besides. And in the ninth section: They are Jews rather than of any other kind, even though they are most hostile to the Jews; for not only do the descendants of the Jews pursue them with deadly hatred, but also in the morning, at noon, and at evening, three times a day, when they gather in their synagogues to pray, they curse them with execrations and proscribe them with a solemn imprecation. The same author, however, a little differently and more plainly...

it seems to define by these words: This therefore is the one thing in which they differ both from the Jews and from the Christians: from the former, in that they believe in Christ; from the latter, in that they are entangled in Jewish rites.

The same Epiphanius teaches that they ^A were also imbued with errors almost the same as those of the Ebionites: Both, having compared their heads together, communicated their own wickedness and depravity to one another. And although they differ from each other to a certain extent, they expressed their likeness to one another in conceiving a most villainous dogma. But whether they and the Cerinthians agreed in the same way is doubtful: But concerning Christ, he used to say, I cannot say for certain whether, deceived by that impiety of Cerinthus or Merinthus, they assert that He is a mere man, and, as the matter stands, confess that He was born of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. Theodoret, however, explains more briefly and clearly who the Nazarenes were, what their heresy was, at what time it arose, and by whom it was finally suppressed: The Nazarenes are Jews, honoring Christ as a just man, and they use the Gospel that is called according to Peter. Eusebius is the authority for the claim that these heresies were composed during the reign of Domitian. Against these wrote Justin the philosopher and martyr, and Irenaeus, the successor of the apostles, and Origen.

Here, however, observe in passing that the fact that he says they used the Gospel *according to Peter* does not lack difficulty, since Epiphanius affirms that it was according to Matthew, and written in Hebrew. There is, indeed, he says, among them the Gospel according to Matthew written in Hebrew, and that most absolute. For they keep this most certainly, just as it was written in the beginning in Hebrew letters, even to the present day. This assertion, indeed, so certain and perspicuous, casts a doubt and a certain hesitation—whether some error has crept into the text of Theodoret, or he himself is wrong or has lapsed in memory; and whether for *according to Peter* one ought to read in his text *according to Matthew*. And certainly Jerome favors this conjecture, where he said: In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which I lately translated from Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by most the authentic *Matthew*. He repeats the same elsewhere, and finally teaches that the Gospel was not attributed to Matthew, but to Peter. But that the Gospel according to Mark, who was his auditor and interpreter, was said to be Peter’s.

CHAPTER VIII. On the Heresy of the Nicolaitans

The Nicolaitans also invented a new sect in the first century. Irenaeus exposes their errors in a few words: They live indiscriminately, saying there is no difference in committing adultery and eating things sacrificed to idols. Augustine, however, is a little clearer: He pleases ^B the indiscriminate use of women. They do not separate their food from those things which are sacrificed to idols, and they do not avoid other rites of pagan superstitions. They relate other fables, I know not what, mixing barbarian names of princes into their disputations. Epiphanius indeed reports those barbarian names, but warns that they themselves dissent among themselves about the same things. Some, he says, celebrate I know not what Barbelo, to whom they attribute a dwelling in the eighth heaven. They affirm that she was produced by the Father, and some make her the mother of Jaldabaoth, others of Sabaoth... others attribute the same veneration to a certain Prunica, others to a certain Caulaucauch, by which name they call one of the princes... Others say that in the beginning there were darkness, an abyss, and water, which separated the spirits from one another. But darkness against spirit, excited by wrath and fury, running upward ^C these, having joined with it, came together. Thence a certain unknown matrix emerged, which desired the custom of the same spirit, and from it four aeons were produced, and from those four ten others were begotten, also on the right and on the left, and also light and darkness. According to them all, they relate that a certain base aeon was produced, and that he had intercourse with that matrix which we mentioned a little earlier; and from both [came] gods, and angels, and demons, and seven spirits had their origin. He adds finally: They have certain books inscribed with the name of Jaldabaoth, and counterfeit [books].

If you listen to Irenaeus and Eusebius, John marks these heretics in the Apocalypse with these words: But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I ^D also hate. From whom, however, they were opposed, you will learn from Theodoret: Against these, he says, wrote Clement, and Irenaeus, and Origen, and Hippolytus, bishop and martyr. How successfully they fought against them, you may gather from the victory which was reported by them very quickly. For this heresy, according to Eusebius, lasted for a very short space of time. From this most corrupt source, however, flowed the Gnostics and many others, of whom Epiphanius [says]: Derived from this source, he says, and most wretchedly introduced into the world, are those heretics who claim for themselves that knowledge which they falsely so name, of which kind are the Gnostics, the Phibionites, and those to whom the name was given by Epiphanes. Then also the Military, the Levitical, and many others. Each of whom, adapting his own heresy to the affections of his own mind, devised six hundred paths of wickedness. And thence, without doubt, arose that dissension which we mentioned above concerning the barbarian names of princes among these heretics.

Who, however, was the author of this heresy is not so easy to define. Many think it was none other than Nicolaus, one of those seven deacons of the Church who were chosen and inaugurated by the apostles. And this was indeed the [opinion] of Irenaeus, Epipha-

the opinion of [Philastrius] and others, ^A which is supported by Hilary, Jerome, Isidore, and not a few others. Among their number, however, Tertullian is not to be counted. For he wrote nothing concerning that Nicolaus, except in chapter 45 of the *Book of Prescriptions*: which chapter, as we have already observed, was foisted upon that same book by some impostor.

Yet some writers oppose the opinion of so many and such great men, and say that these heretics, in order to deceive others under the name of a very famous author, falsely claimed this Nicolaus for themselves as the leader of their sect. We know indeed that it is openly asserted in a certain Ignatian epistle: "Flee the impure Nicolaitans, who take to themselves a false name"; but since these words belong to an interpolator, and not to Ignatius, truly nothing certain can be concluded from them. Therefore, the supporters and advocates of that opinion derive their argument more validly from the authority of Clement of Alexandria. For he refutes the Nicolaitans because they twisted the words of Nicolaus into perverse meanings to confirm their heresy: "Such are they," he says, "who claim to follow Nicolaus, adducing some remark committed to writing by that man, but which has been misinterpreted by them, namely: 'That one must use the flesh.' But that illustrious man was signifying that one must restrain pleasures and desires, and by this exercise render the appetites and impulses of the flesh withered and flaccid. But those who, like goats, have given themselves over to pleasure... follow the decree of pleasure itself, not that of the apostolic man." But Clement would undoubtedly not have called Nicolaus an illustrious and apostolic man, if he had been the parent and author of so base a heresy.

What more? The same Clement elegantly dispels all suspicion of impurity branded upon Nicolaus by those same heretics: "When we were speaking of the said Nicolaus, we passed over this. They say that he had a beautiful wife, and after the Savior's assumption, being reproached by the apostles for jealousy, he brought the woman into the midst and permitted whomsoever wished to marry her." They say that this utterance is consistent with that saying which states that one must use the flesh, and those who persecute his heresy, following both his act and his speech absolutely and inconsiderately, fornicate impudently and excessively. "But I hear," says he, "that Nicolaus never used any wife other than her whom he had married, and that of his children, his daughters grew old as virgins, and his son remained incorrupt." Since these things are so, the bringing of his wife into the midst—the jealousy of whom was the source of labor—was a refutation and purging of the vice; and his instruction that one must "use the flesh," that is, exercise the flesh, was a call to continuous abstinence from pleasures. For neither, as I believe, did they wish to serve two masters—pleasure and God—agreeably to the Lord’s precept. Thus he shows that the words of Nicolaus were misinterpreted, and the errors falsely imputed to him. Clement is supported after Eusebius by Theodoret. Indeed, from the testimony of Clement brought forward, he concludes thus: "From which it is clearly proven that the Nicolaitans falsely arrogate to themselves the name from his designation." Eusebius, however, says: "They heralded a certain Nicolaus, one of those who, together with Stephen, had been appointed by the apostles as ministers for the care of the poor, as the author of their sect." What else does Eusebius imply by the word "heralded" than that Nicolaus was not the author of this heresy?

Furthermore, as to what should be decided regarding this question, which the authority of so many Fathers renders doubtful, we shall more willingly hear from others. For indeed Irenaeus and Clement, the more ancient and chief supporters of either ^B opinion, were contemporaries, and so little removed from the times of Nicolaus that they could easily have learned from the same Nicolaus’s friends or disciples whether that heresy had truly proceeded from him. And Clement indeed signifies that he investigated this not without diligence. But what of the fact that, in support of this opinion, it can be adduced that it is the custom for heretics to advocate for themselves some great author of their heresy? Yet the opinion of Irenaeus is not to be rejected on that account, because it seems improbable that that heresy took its origin from one of the first seven deacons of the Church. For since Christ was sold to death by one of his own apostles to prevent him from propagating his doctrine, one of those seven deacons could also have been the inventor and promulgator of some heresy. ^C

CAPUT IX.

What utility is there from this description of heresies? To what end, you will ask, is that description and history of so many heresies? Ought not those monstrous births of the human mind to have been buried in perpetual silence? And what benefit to the Church, or utility to readers, comes from this hateful and tiresome commemoration? Certainly not the least. For besides the fact that, as we have said, by the knowledge of heresies the more obscure passages of the Fathers are sometimes more easily understood, the arrogance of men who are always concocting something new is thereby checked, and at length, by the disastrous fall of the heretics, Catholics become more cautious. But above all, from this history of those who err and of their errors, everyone learns what has been the true and catholic faith and doctrine from the beginning of the Church. And lest our discourse should run beyond the first century of the Church, it is clearly deduced from what we have thus far discussed what was asserted and defined in those times regarding the chief articles of our faith which the heretics rejected. Truly, however, since the Fathers of the Church condemn as heretics those who dared to assert that Christ was a mere man, born of Mary and Joseph just like other men, and not equal to the eternal Father, from this you must conclude that the same Fathers believed with most certain faith that Christ was the Son of God, equal to his eternal Father, ^D

of the Son of God, equal to His eternal Father, born of Mary the Virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit alone. From this, one must likewise infer that the orthodox doctrine concerning the divinity of Christ, and His consubstantiality—that is, His one and the same substance with the Father—was delivered, asserted, and defended by the Fathers of the first century of the Church, long before the Council of Nicaea. From this, anyone ought to pass ^A judgment as well upon those other errors which we have mentioned, which were defended by heretics and rejected by the Fathers.

Another benefit to the Church arose from these same heretics: that they gave the Fathers of the Church occasion to write their books and treatises against heresies, which perhaps they would never have published otherwise. To these heretics, therefore, however unwilling and often protesting, we owe those precious monuments of such great men, from which the tradition of the sacred dogmas of the faith has been brought down even to us. Nor is there anything in this matter more to be lamented than that not only have all such writings not reached us, but that no memory of many of them exists any longer, nor does any trace of them remain for us anywhere.

CHAPTER X.

Concerning the origin of Christian schools.

Against heretics, our writers contended not only with pen and in writing, but also with the living voice and by means of various sermons, instructing Christians in both the precepts of morals and the doctrine of the faith. Moreover, they taught these things in private places and ^B sometimes in public, as much as the milder times of persecution allowed, or as the highest ardor of martyrdom urged them to preach the faith. And first of all, it is beyond controversy that the apostles and their disciples, with truly incredible ardor, frequented the streets and crossroads of villages and cities, and the synagogues of the Jews and the schools of the Gentiles, in order to announce the Gospel of Christ and His sacred doctrine, and to persuade everyone of it. And indeed, when Paul had come to Athens, "He was arguing in the Synagogue with the Jews and the worshippers, and in the marketplace every day with those who were present. But some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were debating with him," etc. Again, when he was staying at Ephesus, "Entering into the ^C Synagogue, he spoke with boldness for three months, discussing and persuading about the kingdom of God. But when some were hardened and did not believe, speaking evil of the way of the Lord before the multitude, he departed from them, separated the disciples, and was discussing daily in the school of a certain Tyrannus. And this was done for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, Jews and Gentiles." But there is no room for doubt that Paul and the other apostles established similar discussions in other places.

But they were more often gathered into private homes, where they brought those led to the faith by their divine sermons to the knowledge of our sacred mysteries—those who, having put aside their former errors, had either embraced the Christian religion by a public and sincere profession, or were promising with certainty that they would embrace it. Further, in order that these converts might be more fully instructed in the precepts and dogmas of the Christian faith, they put certain men in charge whom the Apostle himself calls teachers, and whom he clearly distinguishes from almost all other ministers of the Church. Concerning them, he writes in this manner to the Ephesians: "And he gave some, indeed, as apostles, and some as prophets, others, however, as ^D pastors and teachers." And to the Corinthians: "God has set some in the Church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers." Moreover, that the office of teacher was entrusted especially to bishops, the first Epistle to Timothy shows not obscurely: "A bishop therefore must be irreproachable... hospitable, a teacher." And to Titus: "A bishop must be without crime... embracing the faithful word that is according to doctrine, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to refute those who contradict."

Nevertheless, the same office of teacher was sometimes entrusted to others who were inferior to the bishop. For again, Paul says to Timothy: "Let the presbyters who rule well be held worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in word and in doctrine." But if you contend stubbornly that by this word "presbyters" the bishops themselves are designated, you must also admit that there were bishops of two kinds, some of whom, by Paul's testimony, labored in word and in doctrine. Yet that others besides bishops performed the duties of teachers, those words in the Acts of the Apostles clearly demonstrate: "Now there were prophets and teachers in the Church at Antioch, among whom were Barnabas and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster-brother of Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul." For who would dare to affirm that all these individuals were raised to the episcopal dignity?

Furthermore, concerning the origin of schools, it will perhaps seem to pertain more to this, that Paul writes to Timothy: "The things that you have heard from me before many witnesses, these commend to faithful men who will be fit to teach others." For out of these words truly two things, which are most conducive to our purpose, are not inappropriately gathered. First, indeed, that Paul had instructed Timothy in Christian doctrine before many witnesses—that is, in the presence of many who had both heard him teaching and were most competent witnesses of the doctrine delivered to Timothy. But if Paul thus instructed Timothy and others, who had gathered in the same place for the sake of hearing him, in the doctrine of the faith, who will deny that he himself imbued his other disciples with the same instructions by the same method of teaching? Second, that Paul commands Timothy to teach others—that is, to pass on to others, by the same method, the same things he had heard from him.

^A Indeed, no one, I think, would deny that it was strictly observed by his successors. But if, in those places where so many great disciples heard Paul teaching, you deny the name of "school," we shall not entirely oppose you; provided only that you concede that the primary origin of Christian schools must be traced back to them.

However, we believe it can be gathered—from no light argument drawn from the *History* of Eusebius—that even before the first century of the Church had passed away, certain schools of Christians, properly so called, had already been established. For there, regarding Pantaenus, the prefect of the Alexandrian school, these things are read: "At the same time, namely when Commodus was emperor, there presided over the school of the faithful a man most famous for his learning, by the name of Pantaenus; for ^B even from ancient times there had been a school of sacred letters established in that same city, Alexandria, which indeed continues to the present day in our own age." Now, Commodus held the reins of the Roman Empire from the year 180 to the year 193. During this time, therefore, Pantaenus presided over the Alexandrian school. And since Eusebius asserts that this same school had been established from ancient times, we surely consider it not an improbable conjecture that the foundations of that school were laid as early as the first century of the Church, and that it perhaps had no other founder than Mark the evangelist, the first bishop of Alexandria.

Nor does Eusebius indicate merely the first beginnings of this school; he also clearly reveals what was accustomed to be taught and handled within it, when he calls it a "school of sacred letters." By these words, indeed, he openly declares to us that the sacred letters—that is, the holy books of the Old and New Testaments—were explained therein by doctors and masters. And not much later, he reports, no less obscurely, that an explanation of divine dogmas was added to this explanation of the sacred Scriptures: "He unfolded the treasuries of the divine dogmas," he says.

As to the method by which this was done, he himself teaches in that same place: "Partly by the living voice," he says, "partly in writing." In this school of the Alexandrian Church, therefore, both sacred Scripture and the divine dogmas of the Christian faith were explained, partly by the living voice, partly in writing. But since Eusebius asserts that this same thing was done from ancient times, no one, without doubt, would deny that the same method of teaching was observed in the more ancient schools of that same Church, and why not in many others as well? Moreover, both before and after the books of the New Covenant were written and published, the apostles and their disciples explained these same dogmas of the faith to Christians, and confirmed them with the oracles of the prophets and other testimonies of the Old Testament, and finally, not only by the divine authority of Christ and various miracles performed in His name, but they most often sealed them with their own shed blood.