false system contained the germ of what afterward developed into Gnosticism,1 he has not unjustly been recognized as the father of all heresies." 2

3

Menander, at first probably the disciple, and afterward, according to St. Irenaeus, the successor of Simon, claimed, like him, to be the Messiah, and adopted essentially the same system. Following the theory of Philo, he maintained that there was one Primary or Supreme Being, hidden and incomprehensible; that angels begotten of Ennoia made the world; that man, because of his contact with matter, became degraded and enslaved; that he himself, by reason of an indwelling principle of divinity, was superior to the angels, and that he had a mission to free the world from their rule. More eclectic than Simon, he introduced baptism among his disciples, and assured those who received it that they would enjoy the blessings of perpetual youth and an exemption from death.

4

Cerinthus taught a doctrine which, though closely allied to that of the Ebionites, led to very different conclusions. St. Irenaeus asserts positively that he was contemporary with the Apostle St. John, while, according to Tertullian and Epiphanius, he lived during the reign of the Emperor Hadrian. It is as difficult to ascertain the place of his birth as when he lived. All writers affirm that he was most zealously attached

Σίμωνα

1Hippolyti, philosoph. VI. 20, we read: ouros dǹ kaì ỏ katà tòv Zípwva põvos, ἀφ' οὐ Οὐαλεντίνος τὰς ἀφορμὰς λαβὼν, ἄλλοις ὀνόμασι καλεῖ· ὁ γὰρ νοῦς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια, καὶ λόγος καὶ ζωὴ, καὶ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἐκκλησία, οἱ Οὐαλεντίνου αἰῶνες, ὁμολογουμένως εἰσὶν αἱ Σίμωνος ἐξ ρίζαι· νοῦς, ἑπίνοια, φωνὴ, ὄνομα, λογισμὸς καὶ ἐνθύμησις.—But the nomenclature of the Simonian system adopted by Valentine is now considerably changed, the latter making mind and truth, reason and life, man and assembly, synonymous with the Eons of the former, viz., mind and intelligence, voice and name, ratiocination and reflection.

2 Iren. contr. haer. I. 23, Simon Samaritanus, ex quo universae haereses substiterunt, habet hujusmodi sectae materiam. The same may be seen in Epiphan. haer. XXI. 1, Ziμwvos yivεtaι—πрúτη αïрεσis. Euseb. h. e. II. 23. Cf. Grabe, spicilegium, etc., T. I., p. 305–312. Baronii, annal. ad a. 44, n. 55.

3 Justin. apol. I., c. 26 and 56; Iren. adv. haer. I. 23, n. 15; Hippolyt. philos. VII. 28; Tertull. de anima, c. 50; Euseb. h. e. III. 26; Epiphan. haeres. XXII. 4 Iren. contr. haer. III. 3, n. 4, p. 177.

5 Tertull. de praescr., c. 48, p. 252. Epiphan. haer. XXVIII. 1.

to Judaism, and this, together with some elements of Christianity, constitutes a great portion of his confused system.

2

Like the Alexandrians, he professed belief in a Supreme Being, having no relations with the visible world; admitted the principle of emanation; and asserted that the world was made, not by the Supreme Being, but by a power (dn μovpyós) subordinate to Him, thus giving a tolerably definite indication of what afterward developed into the Gnostic Demiurge. He further asserted that it was but an angel who gave the Law to Moses; that Jesus was, as the Ebionites had asserted, only a man, born of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of nature, and remarkable for His wisdom and piety; that, after His baptism, the Logos or Word (ἄνω Χριστός, Christ; πνεῦμα θεοῦ, the Spirit of God; πνεῦμα äytov, the Holy Ghost) descended upon Him in the form of a dove and filled His soul; that He then proclaimed the unknown Father, wrought miracles, and thus accomplished the work of redemption; and that afterward the Logos or Word departed from Jesus, who then suffered and rose again simply as man, while the Logos, being entirely spiritual, remained impassible.3

It is rather surprising that Cerinthus, entertaining so vulgar a notion of the Creator of the world and the Author of the Mosaic Law, should have so strictly insisted upon the observance of certain portions of the latter, and appealed to the example of Christ as a warrant for his conduct.*

He used, of the New Testament, only the Gospel of St. Matthew, and regarded with special aversion the epistles of St. Paul and St. John.

6

He held the generally received opinion of the Jews that Christ would establish a glorious kingdom on earth, which he represented as the millennium, whose grossly sensual joys were to be the reward of those of the just who should first rise from the dead with Christ. This opinion, which has received the name of Chiliasm, and which is based upon a wrong interpretation of St. Matthew, chapter xxiv., verses 29 and 34, and of the Apocalypse, chapter xx., verses 2, 3, 4, and 6, found favor later on with many Christians, and was embraced by Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a father of the apostolic age. These latter, however, took a more exalted view of the millennium, as is evident from the testimony of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who speak of it as a preparation for the

1 Epiphan. haer. XXVIII. 2. Philastrius, de haeresib., c. 36. Cf. Paulus, historia Cerinthi, Judaeochristiani et Judaeognostici, Jen. 1795.

2Iren. contr. haer. I. 26, n. 1. A virtute quadam valde separata et distante a principalitate, quae est super universa, etc., III. 11. Epiphan. haer. XXVIII. 1, úñ' åyyéhov. Cf. Theodoret, haeret. fab. II. 1–3.

3Iren. and Epiphan. 1 c.

4 This inconsistency is blamed by Epiphan. haer. XXVIII. 2.

According to the Rom. presbyt. Cajus in Euseb. h. e. III. 28, and Dionys. of Alexand., in the same work, VII. 25. The former even makes Cerinthus the author of our Apocalypse.

6 Klee, tentamen theologicum de chiliasmo, Mogunt. 1825. Wagner, Chiliasm in the First Century of the Christian Era, Dillingen, 1849 (Programme), Schneider, The Doctrine of Chiliasm Schaffh. 1859.

state of beatitude which was to be entered upon at the second coming of Christ and after the general judgment.1

Finally, the doctrine of the Docetae began at this time to come into notice. They asserted that all corporeal things were only apparently so, and, while being fully in accord with the system of Philo of Alexandria, who regarded matter as the root of all evil, were in direct opposition to the teachings of the Ebionites.

This belief, so thoroughly erroneous, was founded on another equally so, viz., that it was impossible to reconcile the absence of sin in Christ with the fact of His existence in a corporeal body, and hence both Simon Magus and Cerinthus denied that the divine Logos or Word had truly taken upon Himself a human nature.

The Apostle St. John, fearful of the consequences of a doctrine which threatened to reduce the history of Jesus to the level of a fantastic fable, set himself to the work of refuting it, which he did with much vehemence and power; and the refutation of the Docctae, who held the same belief, forms the principal subject of the Apostolic epistles of St. Ignatius.2 St. Irenaeus informs us that the belief of the Nicolaitanes 3 was pretty much the same as that of Cerinthus and the Gnostics, but that they might surround it with some sort of dignity they claimed to have derived it from Nicolas, one of the seven Deacons.

They are charged in the Apocalypse ii. 6, 14, 16, with being idolators and fornicators, and were sometimes confounded

1Iren. contr. haer. V. 33, 34. Cf. Massuet. in his edition of Irenaeus, p. 206 sq., and the closing remarks.

21 John i. 1-3, iv. 2; 2 John v. 7. Ignat. ep. ad Ephes., c. 7-18; ad Smyrn., c. 1-8; ad Trallian, c. 9. In his ep. ad Smyrn., c. 2, we read: doxep àñiσTOí τινες λέγουσιν· τὸ δοκεῖν αὐτὸν πεπονθέναι, αὐτοὶ τὸ δοκεῖν ὄντες !—Some infidels say He (Christ) suffered only apparently, but those who say so are themselves the victims of their imagination.

3

3 Iren. contr. haeres. I. 26, III. 11. Clem. Alexandr. Strom. II. 20, III. 4. Euseb. h. e. III. 29. Cf. Walch, History of Heretics, Vol. I., p. 167 sq. Lob. Lange, The Christianized Jews, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes of the Apcstolic Times, Lps. 1828. Zeller, Theolog. Report of 1842, p. 713 sq.

VOL. I-15

1

with the Balaamites, of whose name, it appears, "Nicolaitanes" is a Greek translation.2 They were also accused of eating the meat offered to idols and leading very loose and dissolute lives.

Clement of Alexandria mentions a sect whose members also referred to Nicolas the Deacon as their founder, and claimed to find a sanction for their licentious practices in the words attributed to him, "Every one ought to abuse his flesh" (παραχρῆσθαι τῇ σαρκί δεῖ). He also gives an account of the circumstances which gave occasion to these words, and which seem in perfect keeping with so sensual a doctrine. It is that Nicolas, having a beautiful wife and being reproached by the Apostles with jealousy, conducted her into their midst and offered her to any one of them who wished to marry her.3

§ 60. St. John the Apostle. His Conflicts with the Heretics. Saint Jean Apôtre et Evangéliste, art. 1-12. Hug, Introd. Adalbert Maier, Introd. to the Scriptures of the N. T.,

Tillemont, T. I. to the N. T., pt. II. p. 121 et sq.

The Well-beloved Disciple, who had enjoyed the holy privilege of reclining upon the bosom of the Lord, took in with his eagle glance all the momentous events, both favorable and adverse, that had taken place up to his time. The Acts of the Apostles, after speaking of the part he took in the labors of the Apostles in and about Jerusalem and throughout Samaria, make no further mention of him; but tradition is unanimous in representing him as having, later on, quitted Jerusalem and gone to Ephesus, there to continue and extend the work begun by St. Paul, and it may be taken

4

1Apoc., ii. 14 and 20; 2 Peter ii. 15; Ep. of Jude, verses 4, 8, 11, 19. VIKOV Tòv haóv, to surpass the people in religious knowledge.

3 Cf. Coteler. in the constitutt. Apostolor. VI. 6. Later information may be obtained from Cassian, coll. 25, 16. Epiphan. haer. XXV. Philastr., c. 33. Augustin. de haeresib., c. 5. This whole story is qualified by John H. Blunt as "incredible." Dict. of Sects, Heresies, etc., art. Nicolaitanes, Lippincott & Co., Phila., and Rivingstons, London, 1874. (Tr.)

4 Clement of Alexandr. in Euseb. h. e. III. 23. Iren. contr. haer. III. 1, and Origen in Euseb. h. e. III. 1.

for granted that he was equally vigilant and active in watching over the six communities of Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardes, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, mentioned in the Apocalypse, ch. ii. and iii.

No fact of history is either better known or better established than his banishment to the island of Patmos,1 though the date of the event is not certain, but it probably took place either under the reign of Domitian, Claudius, or Nero. It is said that previous to his banishment he was plunged into a cauldron of boiling oil before the Latin Gate (ante Portam Latinam), and came out uninjured.2

The Apostle, who was, above all others, conspicuous for his, great purity of soul, serene quiet of mind, and depth of knowledge, had been destined by Almighty God to evangelize those very countries in which the sects of the Ebionites, the Docetae, and the Cerinthians were doing the greatest harm. It was an inestimable benefit for the primitive Church to possess a champion like St. John, who, by his apostolic authority, his single-minded and earnest zeal, and his exalted genius, was adequate to the task of defending the true nature of Christ. His labors had a special blessing, for they endured after they had passed into the hands of the numerous disciples whom he had gathered about him. Such were Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, bishops and martyrs, who, bound together by the bond of Christian charity, became the watchful guardians and zealous defenders of the faith at a time when men were striving to introduce dangerous innovations. It was not by word of mouth alone that St. John refuted the Ebionites, Nicolaitanes, and Cerinthians. He also committed his arguments to writing in that sublime

3

1 Apoc. i. 9. Euseb. h. e. III. 18, 20. Tert. de praescr., c. 36. Epiphan. haer. LI. 33. Von Schubert, Travels in the East, Erlangen, 1838 sq., Vol. III., p. 427 sq., writes: "Even at this day all the inhabitants of Patmos are Christians, a fact which reflects great credit on them, when compared with other Christian communities; and they still cherish with filial love the memory of their Apostle and his stay among them, and dwell with pleasure upon the story of his exile and the circumstances that preceded it."

2According to Hieronymus, commentar. in Matt., c. xx. Iren. contr. haer. II. 22, p. 148. Euseb. h. e. V. 20.