Book 5

MARCUS AURELIUS TO SEVERUS: THE SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS: THEIR REFUTATION OF MARCION AND MONTANUS: THEIR SETTLEMENT OF THE DATE OF THE EASTER FESTIVAL

It was in the eighth year of his rule that Bishop Soter of Rome passed away. He was succeeded by Eleutherus, twelfth from the apostles, it being the seventeenth year of the Emperor Antoninus Verus. At that period in some parts of the world the persecution of the Church flared up again more fiercely, and as the result of mob onslaughts in one city after another countless martyrs came to their glory, as can be gathered from what happened in a single province. Fortunately for posterity it was all written down, and it certainly deserves a permanent place in history. The entire document, containing a very full account of these things, has been inserted in my Collection of Martyrs. It contains not only the historical record but the lessons to be drawn from it. For the moment I will content myself with quoting such passages as are relevant to the present work.

Other historians have confined themselves to the recording of victories in war and triumphs over enemies, of the exploits of the commanders and the heroism of their men, stained with the blood of the thousands they have slaughtered for the sake of children and country and possessions; it is peaceful wars, fought for the very peace of the soul, and men who in such wars have fought manfully for truth rather than for country, for true religion rather than for their dear ones, that my account of God’s commonwealth will inscribe on imperishable monuments; it is the unshakeable determination of the champions of true religion, their courage and endurance, their triumphs over demons and victories over invisible opponents, and the crowns which all this won for them at the last, that it will make famous for all time.

Gallic martyrs of Verus’ reign

1. Gaul was the country in which the arena was crowded with people. Her capital cities, famous and held in higher repute than any in the land, are Lyons and Vienne, both situated on the River Rhône, whose broad stream flows through the whole area. A written account of the martyrs was sent by the most important churches there to those of Asia and Phrygia, relating what had happened in their midst as follows – I will quote their own words:

The servants of Christ at Vienne and Lyons in Gaul to our brothers in Asia and Phrygia who have the same faith and hope of redemption as we: peace, grace, and glory from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.¹

Then, after completing their introductory remarks, they begin their story thus:

The severity of our trials here, the unbridled fury of the heathen against God’s people, the untold sufferings of the blessed martyrs, we are incapable of describing in detail: indeed no pen could do them justice. The adversary swooped on us with all his might, giving us now a foretaste of his advent, which undoubtedly is imminent.² He left no stone unturned in his efforts to train his adherents and equip them to attack the servants of God, so that not only were we debarred from houses, baths, and the forum: they actually forbade any of us to be seen in any place whatever. But against them the grace of God put itself at our head, rescuing the weak and deploying against our enemies unshakeable pillars,³ able by their endurance to draw upon themselves the whole onslaught of the evil one. These charged into the fight, standing up to every kind of abuse and punishment, and made light of their heavy load as they hastened to Christ, proving beyond a doubt that the sufferings of the present time are not to be compared with the glory that is in store for us.⁴

To begin with, they heroically endured whatever the surging crowd heaped on them, noisy abuse, blows, dragging along the ground, plundering, stoning, imprisonment, and everything that an infuriated mob normally does to hated enemies. Then they were marched into the forum and interrogated by the tribune and the city authorities before the whole population. When they confessed Christ, they were locked up in gaol to await the governor’s arrival. Later, when they were taken before him and he treated them with all the cruelty he reserves for Christians, Vettius Epagathus, one of our number, full of love towards God and towards his neighbour, came forward. His life conformed so closely to the Christian ideal that, young as he was, the same tribute might be paid to him as to old Zacharias: he had scrupulously observed all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord,¹ and was untiring in service to his neighbour, utterly devoted to God² and fervent in spirit.³ As such he found the judgment so unreasonably given against us more than he could bear: boiling with indignation, he applied for permission to speak in defence of the Christians, and to prove that there was nothing godless or irreligious in our society. The crowd round the tribunal howled him down, as he was a man of influence, and the governor dismissed his perfectly reasonable application with the curt question: ‘Are you a Christian?’ In the clearest possible tones Vettius replied: ‘I am.’ And he, too, was admitted to the ranks of the martyrs. He was called the Christians’ advocate, but he had in himself the Advocate,⁴ the Spirit that filled Zacharias,⁵ as he showed by the fullness of his love when he gladly laid down his own life in defence of his brother Christians.⁶ For he was and is a true disciple of Christ, following the Lamb wherever He goes.⁷

Then the rest fell into two groups. It was clear that some were ready to be the first Gallic martyrs: they made a full confession of their testimony with the greatest eagerness. It was equally clear that others were not ready, that they had not trained and were still flabby, in no fit condition to face the strain of a struggle to the death. Of these some ten proved stillborn, causing us great distress and inexpressible grief, and damping the enthusiasm of those not yet arrested. However, in spite of the agonies they were suffering, these people stayed with the martyrs and did not desert them. But at the time we were all tormented by the doubts about their confessing Christ: we were not afraid of the punishments inflicted, but looking to the outcome and dreading lest anyone might fall away. But the arrests went on, and day after day those who were worthy filled up the number of the martyrs, so that from the two dioceses were collected all the active members who had done most to build up our church life. Among those arrested were some of our heathen domestics, as the governor had publicly announced that we were all to be hunted out. These were ensnared by Satan, so that fearing the tortures which they saw inflicted on God’s people, at the soldiers’ instigation they falsely accused us of Thyestean banquets and Oedipean incest, and things we ought never to speak or think about, or even believe that such things ever happened among human beings. When these rumours spread, people all raged like wild beasts against us, so that even those who because of blood-relationship had previously exercised restraint now turned on us, grinding their teeth with fury. So was proved true the saying of our Lord: ‘The time will come when whoever kills you will think he is doing a service to God.’¹ From then on the holy martyrs endured punishments beyond all description, while Satan strove to wring even from them some of the slanders.

The whole fury of crowd, governor, and soldiers fell with crushing force on Sanctus, the deacon from Vienne; on Maturus, very recently baptized but heroic in facing his ordeal; on Attalus, who had always been a pillar and support² of the church in his native Pergamum; and on Blandina, through whom Christ proved that things which men regard as mean, unlovely, and comtemptible are by God deemed worthy of great glory,³ because of her love for Him shown in power and not vaunted in appearance. When we were all afraid, and her earthly mistress (who was herself facing the ordeal of martyrdom) was in agony lest she should be unable even to make a bold confession of Christ because of bodily weakness, Blandina was filled with such power that those who took it in turns to subject her to every kind of torture from morning to night were exhausted by their efforts and confessed themselves beaten – they could think of nothing else to do to her. They were amazed that she was still breathing, for her whole body was mangled and her wounds gaped; they declared that torment of any one kind was enough to part soul and body, let alone a succession of torments of such extreme severity. But the blessed woman, wrestling magnificently, grew in strength as she proclaimed her faith, and found refreshment, rest, and insensibility to her sufferings in uttering the words: ‘I am a Christian: we do nothing to be ashamed of.’

Sanctus was another who with magnificent, superhuman courage nobly withstood the entire range of human cruelty. Wicked people hoped that the persistence and severity of his tortures would force him to utter something improper, but with such determination did he stand up to their onslaughts that he would not tell them his own name, race, and birthplace, or whether he was a slave or free; to every question he replied in Latin: ‘I am a Christian.’ This he proclaimed over and over again, instead of name, birthplace, nationality, and everything else, and not another word did the heathen hear from him. Consequently, the governor and his torturers strained every nerve against him, so that when they could think of nothing else to do to him they ended by pressing red-hot copper plates against the most sensitive parts of his body. These were burning, but Sanctus remained unbending and unyielding, firm in his confession of faith, bedewed and fortified by the heavenly fountain of the water of life that flows from the depths of Christ’s being.¹But his poor body was a witness to what he had suffered – it was all one wound and bruise, bent up and robbed of outward human shape, but, suffering in that body, Christ accomplished most glorious things, utterly defeating the adversary and proving as an example to the rest that where the Father’s love is² nothing can frighten us, where Christ’s glory is³ nothing can hurt us. A few days later wicked people again put the martyr on the rack, thinking that now that his whole body was swollen and inflamed a further application of the same instruments would defeat him, unable as he was to bear even the touch of a hand; or that by dying under torture he would put fear into the rest. However, nothing of the sort happened: to their amazement his body became erect and straight as a result of these new torments, and recovered its former appearance and the use of the limbs; thus through the grace of Christ his second spell on the rack proved to be not punishment but cure.

Biblis again, one of those who had denied Christ, was handed over to punishment by the devil, who imagined that he had already devoured her⁴ and hoped to damn her as a slanderer by forcing her to say wicked things about us, being – so he thought – a feeble creature, easily broken. But on the rack she came to her senses,⁵ and, so to speak, awoke out of deep sleep, reminded by the brief chastisement of the eternal punishment in hell.⁶ She flatly contradicted the slanderers: ‘How could children be eaten by people who are not even allowed to eat the blood of brute beasts?’⁷ From then on she insisted that she was a Christian, and so she joined the ranks of the martyrs.

When the tyrant’s instruments of torture had been utterly defeated by Christ through the endurance of the blessed saints, the devil resorted to other devices – confinement in the darkness of a filthy prison; clamping the feet in the stocks, stretched apart to the fifth hole; and other agonies which warders when angry and full of the devil are apt to inflict on helpless prisoners. Thus the majority were suffocated in prison – those whom the Lord wished to depart in this way, so revealing His glory.¹ Some, though tortured so cruelly that even if they received every care it seemed impossible for them to survive, lived on in the prison, deprived of all human attention but strengthened by the Lord and fortified in body and soul, stimulating and encouraging the rest. But the young ones who had been recently arrested and had not previously undergone physical torture could not bear the burden of confinement and died in prison.

Blessed Pothinus, who had been entrusted with the care of the Lyons diocese, was over ninety years of age and physically very weak. He could scarcely breathe because of his chronic physical weakness, but was strengthened by spiritual enthusiasm because of his pressing desire for martyrdom. Even he was dragged before the tribunal, and though his body was feeble from age and disease, his life was preserved in him, that thereby Christ might triumph. He was conveyed to the tribunal by the soldiers, accompanied by the civil authorities and the whole populace, who shouted and jeered at him as though he were Christ Himself. But he bore the noble witness.² When the governor asked him ‘Who is the Christians’ god?’, he replied: ‘If you are a fit person, you shall know.’ Thereupon he was mercilessly dragged along beneath a rain of blows, those close by assailing him viciously with hands and feet and showing no respect for his age, and those at a distance hurling at him whatever came to hand, and all thinking it a shocking neglect of their duty to be behind-hand in savagery towards him, for they imagined that in this way they would avenge their gods. Scarcely breathing, he was flung into prison, and two days later he passed away.

Then occurred a great dispensation of God, and the infinite mercy of Jesus was revealed to a degree rarely known in the brotherhood of Christians, but not beyond the skill of Christ. Those who when the first arrests took place had denied Him were gaoled with the others and shared their sufferings: on this occasion they gained nothing by their denial, for whereas those who declared what they were were gaoled as Christians, no other charge being brought against them, the others were further detained as foul murderers and punished twice as much as the rest. For the faithful were relieved of half their burden by the joy of martyrdom and hope of the promises, and by love towards Christ and the Spirit of the Father, but the unfaithful were tormented by their conscience, so that as they passed they could easily be picked out from the rest by the look on their faces. The faithful stepped out with a happy smile, wondrous glory and grace blended on their faces, so that even their fetters hung like beautiful ornaments around them and they resembled a bride adorned with golden lace elaborately wrought,¹ they were perfumed also with the sweet savour of Christ,²so that some people thought they had smeared themselves with worldly cosmetics. The unfaithful were dejected, downcast, ill-favoured, and devoid of charm; in addition they were gibed at by the heathen as contemptible cowards; they were accused of homicide, and had lost the honourable, glorious, life-giving name. The sight of this stiffened the resistance of the rest: those who were arrested unhesitatingly declared their faith without one thought for the devil’s promptings…

From that time on, their martyrdoms embraced death in all its forms. From flowers of every shape and colour they wove a crown to offer to the Father; and so it was fitting that the valiant champions should endure an everchanging conflict, and having triumphed gloriously should win the mighty crown of immortality. Maturus, Sanctus, Blandina, and Attalus were taken into the amphitheatre to face the wild beasts, and to furnish open proof of the inhumanity of the heathen, the day of fighting wild beasts being purposely arranged for our people. There, before the eyes of all, Maturus and Sanctus were again taken through the whole series of punishments, as if they had suffered nothing at all before, or rather as if they had already defeated their opponents in bout after bout and were now battling for the victor’s crown. Again they ran the gauntlet of whips, in accordance with local custom; they were mauled by the beasts, and endured every torment that the frenzied mob on one side or the other demanded and howled for, culminating in the iron chair which roasted their flesh and suffocated them with the reek. Not even then were their tormentors satisfied: they grew more and more frenzied in their desire to overwhelm the resistance of the martyrs, but do what they might they heard nothing from Sanctus beyond the words he had repeated from the beginning – the declaration of his faith.

In these two, despite their prolonged and terrible ordeal, life still lingered; but in the end they were sacrificed, after being made all day long a spectacle to the world¹ in place of the gladiatorial contest in its many forms. But Blandina was hung on a post and exposed as food for the wild beasts let loose in the arena. She looked as if she was hanging in the form of a cross, and through her ardent prayers she stimulated great enthusiasm in those undergoing their ordeal, who in their agony saw with their outward eyes in the person of their sister the One who was crucified for them, that He might convince those who believe in Him that any man who has suffered for the glory of Christ has fellowship for ever with the living God. As none of the beasts had yet touched her she was taken down from the post and returned to the gaol, to be kept for a second ordeal, that by victory in further contests she might make irrevocable the sentence passed on the crooked serpent,² and spur on her brother Christians – a small, weak, despised woman who had put on Christ,³ the great invincible champion, and in bout after bout had defeated her adversary and through conflict had won the crown of immortality.

Attalus too was loudly demanded by the mob, as he was a man of note. He strode in, ready for the fray, in the strength of a clear conscience, for he had trained hard in the school of Christ and had been one of our constant witnesses to the truth. He was led round the amphitheatre preceded by a placard on which was written in Latin ‘This is Attalus the Christian’, while the people were bursting with fury against him. But when the governor was informed that he was a Roman, he ordered him to be put back in gaol with the others, about whom he had written to Caesar and was awaiting instructions.

Their time of respite was not idle or unfruitful:⁴ through their endurance the infinite mercy of Christ was revealed; for through the living the dead were being brought back to life; and martyrs were bestowing grace on those who had failed to be martyrs, and there was great joy in the heart of the Virgin Mother,⁵ who was receiving her stillborn children back alive; for by their means most of those who had denied their Master travelled once more the same road, conceived and quickened a second time, and learnt to confess Christ. Alive now and braced up, their ordeal sweetened by God, who does not desire the death of the sinner but is gracious towards repentance,⁶ they advanced to the tribunal to be again interrogated by the governor. For Caesar had issued a command that they should be tortured to death, but any who still denied Christ should be released; so at the inauguration of the local festival, at which all the heathen congregate in vast numbers, the governor summoned them to his tribunal, making a theatrical show of the blessed ones and displaying them to the crowds. After re-examination, all who seemed to possess Roman citizenship were beheaded and the rest sent to the beasts. Christ was greatly glorified in those who had previously denied Him but now confounded heathen expectation by confessing Him. They were individually examined with the intention that they should be released, but they confessed Him and so joined the ranks of the martyrs. Left outside were those who had never had any vestige of faith or notion of the wedding-garment¹ or thought of the fear of God, but by their very conduct brought the Way into disrepute² – truly the sons of perdition.³ But the rest were all added to the Church.⁴

During their examination, Alexander, a Phrygian by birth and a doctor by profession, who had lived for many years in Gaul and was known to nearly everyone for his love of God and his boldness of speech ⁵ – he had a large measure of the apostolic gift – stood by the tribunal and gestured to them to confess Christ. To those surrounding the tribunal it was plain that he was suffering birth-pangs. But the crowds, furious that those who had hitherto denied Christ were now confessing Him, shouted against Alexander as the person responsible. The governor made him come forward and demanded to know who he was; when he replied ‘A Christian’, he lost his temper and condemned him to the beasts. The next day he entered the arena with Attalus, whom the governor, to gratify the mob, was again giving to the beasts. The two men were subjected to all the instruments of torture assembled in the amphitheatre, and underwent a supreme ordeal. In the end they were sacrificed. Alexander uttered no cry, not so much as a groan, but communed with God in his heart, while Attalus, when he was put in the iron chair and was being burnt and the reek was rising from his body, called out to the spectators in Latin: ‘Look! eating men is what you are doing: we neither eat men nor indulge in any malpractice.’ When asked what name God had he answered: ‘God hasn’t a name like a man.’

To crown all this, on the last day of the sports Blandina was again brought in, and with her Ponticus, a lad of about fifteen. Day after day they had been taken in to watch the rest being punished, and attempts were made to make them swear by the heathen idols. When they stood firm and treated these efforts with contempt, the mob was infuriated with them, so that the boy’s tender age called forth no pity and the woman no respect. They subjected them to every horror and inflicted every punishment in turn, attempting again and again to make them swear, but to no purpose. Ponticus was encouraged by his sister in Christ, so that the heathen saw that she was urging him on and stiffening his resistance, and he bravely endured every punishment till he gave back his spirit to God. Last of all, like a noble mother who had encouraged her children and sent them before her in triumph to the King,¹ blessed Blandina herself passed through all the ordeals of her children and hastened to rejoin them, rejoicing and exulting at her departure as if invited to a wedding supper,² not thrown to the beasts. After the whips, after the beasts, after the griddle, she was finally dropped into a basket and thrown to a bull. Time after time the animal tossed her, but she was indifferent now to all that happened to her, because of her hope and sure hold on all that her faith meant, and of her communing with Christ. Then she, too, was sacrificed, while the heathen themselves admitted that never yet had they known a woman suffer so much or so long.

Not even this was enough to satisfy their insane cruelty to God’s people. Goaded by a wild beast,³ wild and barbarous tribes were incapable of stopping, and the dead bodies became the next object of their vindictiveness. Their defeat did not humble them, because they were without human understanding; rather it inflamed their bestial fury, and governor and people vented on us the same inexcusable hatred, so fulfilling the scripture: ‘Let the wicked man be wicked still, the righteous man righteous still.⁴ Those who had been suffocated in gaol they threw to the dogs, watching carefully night and day to see that no one received the last offices at our hands. Then they threw out the remains left by the beasts and the fire, some torn to ribbons, some burnt to cinders, and set a military guard to watch for days on end the trunks and severed heads of the rest, denying burial to them also. Some raged and ground their teeth at them, longing to take some further revenge on them; others laughed and jeered, magnifying their idols and giving them credit for the punishment of their enemies; while those who were more reasonable, and seemed to have a little human feeling, exclaimed with the utmost scorn: ‘Where is their god?⁵ and what did they get for their religion, which they preferred to their own lives?’ Such were their varied reactions, while we were greatly distressed by our inability to give the bodies burial. Darkness did not make it possible, and they refused all offers of payment and were deaf to entreaty; but they guarded the remains with the greatest care, regarding it as a triumph if they could prevent burial…

Thus the martyrs’ bodies, after six days’ exposure to every kind of insult and to the open sky, were finally burnt to ashes and swept by these wicked men into the Rhône which flows near by, that not even a trace of them might be seen on the earth again. And this they did as if they could defeat God and rob the dead of their rebirth,¹ ‘in order,’ they said, ‘that they may have no hope of resurrection – the belief that has led them to bring into this country a new foreign cult and treat torture with contempt, going willingly and cheerfully to their death. Now let’s see if they’ll rise again, and if their god can help them and save them from our hands.’²

The martyrs’ friendly aid for those fallen from grace in the persecution

2. Such were the experiences of the Christian churches under the emperor mentioned: from them one can easily guess what happened in the other provinces of the Empire. It will be worth while to add other extracts from the same document, in which the gentleness and humanity of those martyrs is described in the following words:

So eager were they to imitate Christ, who though He was in the form of God did not count it a prize to be on an equality with God,³ that though they had won such glory and had borne a martyr’s witness not once or twice but again and again, and had been brought back from the wild beasts and were covered with burns, bruises, and wounds, they neither proclaimed themselves martyrs nor allowed us to address them by this name: if any one of us by letter or word ever addressed them as martyrs he was sternly rebuked. For they gladly conceded the title of martyr to Christ, the faithful and true Martyr-witness and Firstborn of the dead and Prince of the life of God,⁴ and they reminded us of the martyrs already departed: ‘They indeed are martyrs, whom Christ judged worthy to be taken up as soon as they had confessed Him, sealing their martyrdom by their departure: we are nothing but humble confessors.’ They implored their brother-Christians with tears, begging that earnest prayers might be offered for their fulfilment. The power of martyrdom they proved by their actions, showing great boldness towards the heathen, and by their endurance and dauntless courage making their nobility evident to all, but the title of martyr they begged their fellow-Christians not to use, filled as they were with the fear of God…

They humbled themselves under the mighty hand, by which they have now been greatly exalted.¹ They defended all and accused none; they loosed all and bound none;² they prayed for those who treated them so cruelly, as did Stephen, the fulfilled martyr: ‘Lord, do not charge them with this sin.’³ If he pleaded for those who were stoning him, how much more for brother-Christians?…

This was the greatest war they fought against him through the reality of their love, that the Beast might be choked into bringing up alive those whom he thought he had swallowed already.⁴ They did not crow over the fallen, but the things they themselves had in abundance they bestowed with motherly affection on those who lacked them. Shedding many tears on their behalf in supplication to the Father, they asked for life and He gave it to them.⁵ This they shared with their neighbours when triumphantly victorious they departed to God. Peace they had ever loved; peace they commended to our care; and with peace they went to God, leaving no sorrow to their Mother,⁶ no strife or warfare to their brothers, but joy, peace, concord, and love.

So much may profitably be said about the affection of those blessed ones for their brothers who had fallen from grace, in view of the inhuman and merciless attitude of those who later behaved so badly towards the members of Christ’s body.⁷

The dream-vision of Attalus the martyr

3. The same record of these martyrs contains yet another story worth repeating: there can be no objection to my bringing it to the notice of my readers.

Among them was a certain Alcibiades, who made a practice of extreme austerity. Hitherto he had refused everything, partaking only of bread and water, and he tried to go on like this even in gaol. But after his first ordeal in the amphitheatre it was revealed to Attalus that Alcibiades was not doing well in rejecting what God had created and setting others a misleading example. Alcibiades saw the danger, and began to accept everything freely and to give God thanks.¹ For they were richly blest by the grace of God, and the Holy Spirit was their counsellor.

It was at that very time, in Phrygia, that Montanus, Alcibiades, Theodotus, and their followers began to acquire a widespread reputation for prophecy; for numerous other manifestations of the miraculous gift of God, still occurring in various churches, led many to believe that these men too were prophets. When there was a difference of opinion about them, the Gallic Christians again submitted their own careful and most orthodox conclusions on the question, attaching various letters from the martyrs fulfilled in their midst – letters penned while they were still in prison to their brothers in Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, then Bishop of Rome, in an effort to ensure peace in the churches.

Irenaeus commended in a letter from the martyrs

4. The same martyrs commended Irenaeus, already a presbyter in the Lyons diocese, to the Bishop of Rome just mentioned, paying warm tribute to his character, as is clear from their words:

Greeting once more, Father Eleutherus: may God bless you always. We arc entrusting this letter to our brother and companion² Irenaeus to convey to you. We are anxious that you should hold him in high regard, as a man devoted to the covenant of Christ. For if we had thought that position conferred righteousness on anyone, we should have recommended him first as a presbyter of the Church, which indeed he is.

Need I go through the list of martyrs in the document we have been considering, distinguishing those who found fulfilment in decapitation from those thrown to the beasts for food and from those who fell asleep in gaol, or enumerate the confessors still surviving at the time? Anyone who so desires may easily find out all about them by looking up the actual letter, which, as I said before, is reproduced in full in my Collection of Martyrs.

Rain sent from heaven in answer to Christian prayers

5. While Antoninus was still on the throne, it is on record that when his brother Marcus Aurelius Caesar deployed his forces for battle with the Germans and Sarmatians, his men were parched with thirst and he was in a quandary. But the soldiers of the Melitene Legion, as it is called, through faith which has never wavered from that day to this, as they faced the enemy in their lines, knelt down on the ground, our normal attitude when praying, and turned to God in supplication. The enemy were astonished at the sight, but the record goes on to say that something more astonishing followed a moment later: a thunderbolt drove the enemy to flight and destruction, while rain fell on the army which had called on the Almighty, reviving it when the entire force was on the point of perishing from thirst.

The story can be found in the works of writers remote from our way of thinking, who have undertaken to record the reign of these monarchs; it has also been told by our own. The pagan chroniclers, being aliens to the Faith, have related the astonishing occurrence, but without acknowledging that it was the result of Christian prayers: our own, being lovers of truth, have described the event in a simple guileless fashion. Among these may be mentioned Apolinarius, who says that from then on the legion which by its prayers brought about the miracle received from the emperor a title appropriate to the occurrence, being called in Latin the Thundering Legion. A reliable witness of these facts is Tertullian, who in addressing to the Senate his Latin Defence of the Faith, to which I referred in the earlier section, confirmed the story with a stronger and clearer proof. What he had to say was this – letters from Marcus, the most sagacious of emperors, were still extant in which he himself testified that in Germany his army had been on the verge of destruction through lack of water, when it was saved by the Christians’ prayer; and Marcus had threatened to execute any who attempted to accuse us. Tertullian continues:

What kind of laws are these, enforced against us alone by wicked, unprincipled, and brutal men? Laws which Vespasian disregarded, though he had conquered the Jews; which Trajan to a large extent set aside, when he forbade Christian-hunting; which neither Hadrian, in spite of his obsessive interest in all that was mysterious, nor Pius ever ratified.¹

Everyone must make up his own mind about these matters; it is time for me to pass on to the next stage.

When Pothinus, at the age of ninety, had found fulfilment with the martyrs of Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded to the bishopric of Lyons, the diocese that had been headed by Pothinus. It appears that in his early youth he had listened to Polycarp. In Book III of his Against Heresies he sets out the succession of Bishops of Rome, giving the list as far as Eleutherus, whose period I am now discussing, the period in which Irenaeus was busy writing his work. He writes as follows:

The list of Bishops of Rome

6. Having founded and built the church, the blessed apostles entrusted the episcopal office to Linus, who is mentioned by Paul in the Epistles to Timothy;² Linus was succeeded by Anencletus; after him, in the third place from the apostles, the bishopric fell to Clement, who had seen the blessed apostles and conversed with them, and still had their preaching ringing in his ears and their authentic tradition before his eyes. And he was not the only one: there were still many people alive who had been taught by the apostles. In Clement’s time a violent dispute broke out among the Christians at Corinth, and the church at Rome sent a very long letter to the Corinthians, bringing them together in peace and renewing their faith, and passing on to them the authentic tradition they had so recently received from the apostles…

Clement was succeeded by Evarestus, Evarestus by Alexander; then Xystus was appointed, the sixth from the apostles, followed by Telesphorus, who suffered glorious martyrdom; next came Hyginus, then Pius, and after him Anicetus. Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and now, at the twelfth stage from the apostles, the position is filled by Eleutherus. In the same order and the same succession the authentic tradition received from the apostles and passed down by the Church, and the preaching of the truth, have been handed on to us.¹

Miraculous powers exercised down to those times by believers

7. In accord with the accounts which I have already given, Irenaeus demonstrates these facts in the five books entitled Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely so Called, and in Book II of the same work he makes it clear that right down to his own time manifestations of divine and miraculous power had continued in some churches.

But they² fall far short of raising the dead, as the Lord raised them, and as did the apostles through prayer, and as among later Christians, because the need was so great and the whole of the local church besought God with much fasting and supplication, the spirit of the dead man has returned and his life has been granted to the prayers of God’s people…

But if they suggest that the Lord has done these things only in appearance, I will refer them to the prophetic writings, and prove from them that all this had been foretold about Him and really happened, and that He alone is the Son of God. So it is that in His name those who truly are His disciples, having received grace from Him, put it to effectual use for the benefit of their fellow-men, in proportion to the gift each one has received from Him. Some drive out demons really and truly, so that often those cleansed from evil spirits believe and become members of the Church; some have foreknowledge of the future, visions, and prophetic utterances; others, by the laying-on of hands, heal the sick and restore them to health; and before now, as I said, dead men have actually been raised and have remained with us for many years. In fact, it is impossible to enumerate the gifts which throughout the world the Church has received from God and in the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, and every day puts to effectual use for the benefit of the heathen, deceiving no one and making profit out of no one: freely she received from God, and freely she ministers.³

Elsewhere Irenaeus writes:

Similarly, we hear of many members of the Church who have prophetic gifts and by the Spirit speak with all kinds of tongues, and bring men’s secret thoughts to light for their own good, and expound the mysteries of God.¹

This will suffice to show that diversity of gifts continued among fit persons till the time I am speaking of.

Irenaeus’ comments on Holy Scripture

8. At the beginning of the work I promised, when convenient, to quote passages in which the early presbyters and historians of the Church have transmitted in writing the traditions that had come down to them regarding the canonical scriptures. One of these was Irenaeus, so without more ado I will quote his remarks, beginning with those which concern the Holy Gospels.

Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their passing, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things preached by Peter. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel preached by him. Lastly John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leant back on His breast,² once more set forth the gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia.³

Such are the statements of Irenaeus in Book III of the work mentioned. In Book V he makes a definite statement about the Revelation of John and the number of the antichrist’s name:

Such then is the case: this number is found in all good and early copies and confirmed by the very people who saw John face to face, and reason teaches us that the number of the Beast’s name is shown according to Greek numerical usage by the letters in it… I for one dare not risk making any positive assertion regarding the name of the antichrist. Had there been any need for his name to be openly announced at the present time, it would have been stated by the one who saw the revelations. For it was not seen a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian’s reign.⁴

That is what Irenaeus has to say about the Revelation. He refers also to 1 John, drawing much evidence from it, and similarly to 1 Peter. And he not only knows but accepts the ‘Shepherd’.

Scripture is right in saying: ‘First of all believe that God is one, the Maker and Builder of all things, etc.’¹

He makes use too of a few sayings from the Wisdom of Solomon, which he quotes with fair accuracy:

The vision of God is the bestower of incorruption; and incorruption brings men near to God.²

He refers also to short works by an apostolic presbyter, whose name he omits to mention, and quotes comments of his on Holy Writ. He had a good deal to say about Justin Martyr and Ignatius, drawing his information as usual from their writings, and promises that in a special work he will refute Marcion out of his own works.

Regarding the translation by the seventy of the inspired scriptures,³ let him speak for himself.

So God became man, and the Lord Himself saved us, giving the sign of the Virgin, but not as suggested by some who in our day venture to translate the text thus: ‘Lo, the young woman shall be with child and bear a son’, as it was translated by Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes, followed by the Ebionites, who argue that He was Joseph’s child…

Before the Romans established their empire, while the Macedonians still held Asia, Ptolemy son of Lagus was anxious to equip the library he had established in Alexandria with worth-while books from every quarter, so he asked the people of Jerusalem to provide him with a copy of their scriptures translated into Greek. Being at that time still subject to the Macedonians, they sent him seventy men of mature age, the most skilled they had in the scriptures and in both languages. Thus was God’s purpose fulfilled. Ptolemy wished to test them in his own way, fearing that they might put their heads together and manipulate their translation to conceal the true meaning of the scriptures. So he separated them from each other, and told them they must all produce the same translation: he laid down his rule for every one of the books. When they reassembled before Ptolemy and compared their respective versions, God was glorified and the scriptures were recognized as truly divine; they all said the same things in the same phrases and the same words from beginning to end, so that even the heathen who were present knew that the scriptures had been translated by the inspiration of God. Nor is it surprising that God made this possible, seeing that when Nebuchadnezzar took the people into captivity and the scriptures were destroyed, and then seventy years later the Jews returned to their own country, afterwards, in the reign of Artaxerxes the king of Persia, He inspired Ezra the priest of the tribe of Levi to re-create all the utterances of the old prophets and restore to the people the Law given by Moses.¹

Bishops of Commodus’ reign: Pantaenus the philosopher

9. When the reign of Antoninus had lasted nineteen years, Commodus stepped into his shoes. In his first year, Julian was entrusted with the archbishopric of the province of Alexandria, Agrippinus having reached the end of his twelve years’ ministry.

10. At that time the school for believers in Alexandria was headed by a man with a very high reputation as a scholar, by name Pantaenus, for it was an established custom that an academy of sacred learning should exist among them. This academy has lasted till our own time, and I understand that it is directed by men of high standing and able exponents of theology, but we know that Pantaenus was one of the most eminent teachers of his day, being an ornament of the philosophic system known as stoicism. He is said to have shown such warm-hearted enthusiasm for the divine word that he was appointed to preach the gospel of Christ to the peoples of the East, and travelled as far as India. For there were, yes, there were even then many evangelists of the word eager to contribute an inspired fervour of apostolic pattern for the increase and building up of the divine word. Of these Pantaenus was one: it is stated that he went as far as India, where he appears to have found that Matthew’s gospel had arrived before him and was in the hands of some there who had come to know Christ. Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left behind Matthew’s account in the actual Hebrew characters, and it was preserved till the time of Pantaenus’ mission. He himself, after doing great work, ended up as principal of the academy in Alexandria, where both orally and in writing he revealed the treasures of the divine doctrine.

Clement of Alexandria

11. In his time Clement was noted at Alexandria for his patient study of Holy Scripture. He bore the same name as the former head of the Roman church, the pupil of the apostles. In his Outlines he refers by name to Pantaenus as his teacher, and it seems to me that in Book I of the Miscellanies there is a covert allusion to that scholar. After indicating the more distinguished members of the apostolic succession to which he had been admitted, he says this:

This work is not a careful literary composition designed to impress, but notes stored up for my old age, a tonic for a bad memory, no more than a sketchy outline of those clear and vital words that I was privileged to hear, and of blessed and truly remarkable men. Of these one was in Greece (the Ionian), a second in south Italy, a third in the Lebanon, a fourth from Egypt. Others lived in the East and included one in Assyria, and one in Palestine of Hebrew origin. When I met the last – in ability, the first – by tracking him down in his Egyptian lair, I found rest. These men preserved the true tradition of the blessed teaching straight from Peter, James, John, and Paul, the holy apostle, son receiving it from father – how few are like their fathers! By the grace of God, they came right down to me, to deposit those ancestral apostolic seeds.¹

Bishops of Jerusalem

12. In their time there was a noted bishop in Jerusalem who even now is famous almost everywhere – Narcissus, fifteenth in the succession from the time of the siege of the Jews under Hadrian. It was then that the church there first consisted of Gentiles, who took the place of converts from the circumcision and were headed by the first Gentile bishop, Mark, as already explained. After him, as shown by the local succession-lists, came Bishop Cassian, followed by Publius, Maximus, Julian, Gaius, Symmachus, a second Gaius, then another Julian, followed by Capito, Valens, and Dolichian; finally Narcissus, the thirtieth from the apostles in unbroken succession.

Rhodo and the disagreement about Marcion which he records

13. At the same period, Rhodo, an Asian by birth and, as he himself relates, a disciple at Rome of Tatian, whose acquaintance we made earlier, composed various books, ranging himself with the others against Marcion’s heretical sect. He tells us that in his day it split into dissentient groups, describes the people who caused the split, and effectively refutes the falsehoods invented by each of them. Listen to what he writes:

Consequently, they no longer agree among themselves, but struggle to uphold irreconcilable views. One of their herd is Apelles, who prides himself on his mode of life and his grey hairs. He admits that there is a single Source, but says that the prophecies come from a hostile spirit, relying on the prophecies of a demoniac girl named Philumene. Others, like the captain himself, Marcion, introduce two Sources. These include Potitus and Basilicus, who followed the Pontic wolf, and failing, as he had done, to find an answer to the problem of evil, took the easy way out and announced two Sources, baldly and without proof. Others of them again plunged into still worse error and posited not merely two but three Natures! Their leading spirit is Syneros, according to those who claim membership of his school.

Rhodo also states that he conversed with Apelles:

The old man Apelles, in a discussion with me, was shown to be guilty of many erroneous statements. He therefore began to suggest that it was far better not to argue about doctrine at all, and for each man to stick to his own beliefs: those who placed their hopes in the Crucified would be saved, he declared, so long as they continued in good works. The most obscure part of his teaching, as I said before, was his doctrine of God, for he spoke of a single Source, as does our doctrine.

After a full statement of Apelles’ position, Rhodo continues:

When I said to him ‘What is your proof of this? how can you speak of a single Source? Please explain,’ he replied that the prophecies refuted themselves, as they had never once told the truth: they were inconsistent, false, and mutually destructive. As to how there was a single Source, he said he did not know but simply inclined to that opinion. Then when I adjured him to tell the truth, he swore he was absolutely sincere in saying that he did not understand how there was one uncreated God, but that was his conviction. I laughed and condemned him, because he called himself a teacher and had no idea how to establish what he taught.

In the same work, addressing himself to Callistio, Rhodo admits that he was once a disciple of Tatian at Rome. Tatian had produced a book on Problems. In it he had promised to set out what was obscure and puzzling in Holy Writ, so Rhodo announces that in a special work he will furnish the answers to Tatian’s problems. There is also extant an essay of his on The Six Days of Creation.

The egregious Apelles voiced innumerable profanities about the Mosaic Law, and in treatise after treatise blasphemed the inspired words, making the most determined efforts to refute them, as he imagined, and demolish them altogether.

The false prophet of Phrygia, and the schism of Blastus at Rome

14. Filled with hatred of good and love of evil the enemy of God’s Church left no trick untried in his machinations against mankind, and did his best to make a fresh crop of heretical sects spring up to injure the Church. Some members of these crawled like poisonous reptiles over Asia and Phrygia, boasting of Montanus ‘the Paraclete’ and his female adherents Priscilla and Maximilla, alleged to have been his prophetesses.

15. Others flourished at Rome, led by Florinus, an unfrocked presbyter, along with Blastus who had been disgraced in the same way. Between them they led many churchmen astray and got them under their thumb, each trying in his own way to pervert the truth.

Montanus and his band of false prophets

16. To counter the so-called Phrygian heresy, the Power which fights for truth raised up an effective and invincible weapon at Hierapolis, in the person of Apolinarius, already referred to in these pages. With him were associated many learned men of the day, who have left us ample material for reconstructing the history. At the beginning of his polemic against these heretics, one of these writers first indicates that he had also argued with them orally to refute their pretensions. His preface runs as follows:

My dear Avircius Marcellus,

It is now a very long time since you invited me to write some kind of treatise against the sect called after Miltiades, but I have been rather hesitant until now, not from inability to refute falsehood and witness to the truth, but as a precaution against the danger that some people might think I was adding another paragraph or clause to the wording of the New Covenant of the Gospel, to which nothing can be added, from which nothing can be taken away, by anyone who has determined to live by the Gospel itself. But a little while ago I visited Ancyra¹ in Galatia and found the local church deafened with the noise of this new craze – not prophecy, as they call it, but pseudo-prophecy, as I shall shortly prove. So far as I was able, the Lord helping me, I spoke out for days on end in the church about these matters, and replied to every argument they put forward. The church was delighted and confirmed in the truth, while the enemy were repulsed for the time being and the opposition demoralized. So I was asked by the local presbyters, with the support of my fellow-presbyter Zoticus of Otrus, to leave them a summary of what I had said against the opponents of the word of truth. This I could not do, but I promised that if the Lord allowed me I would write it here and send it to them without delay.

After completing his explanation on these lines at the beginning of his book, he goes on to describe the originator of this heretical sect, as follows.

Their opposition and their recent schismatic heresy in relation to the Church originated thus. There is, it appears, a village near the Phrygian border of Mysia called Ardabau. There it is said that a recent convert named Montanus, while Gratus was proconsul of Syria, in his unbridled ambition to reach the top laid himself open to the adversary, was filled with spiritual excitement and suddenly fell into a kind of trance and unnatural ecstasy. He raved, and began to chatter and talk nonsense, prophesying in a way that conflicted with the practice of the Church handed down generation by generation from the beginning. Of those who listened at that time to his sham utterances some were annoyed, regarding him as possessed, a demoniac in the grip of a spirit of error,¹ a disturber of the masses. They rebuked him and tried to stop his chatter, remembering the distinction drawn by the Lord, and His warning to guard vigilantly against the coming of false prophets.² Others were elated as if by the Holy Spirit or a prophetic gift, were filled with conceit, and forgot the Lord’s distinction. They welcomed a spirit that injured and deluded the mind and led the people astray: they were beguiled and deceived by it, so that it could not now be reduced to silence. By some art, or rather by methodical use of a malign artifice, the devil contrived the ruin of the disobedient, and was most undeservedly honoured by them. Then he secretly stirred up and inflamed minds close to the true Faith, raising up in this way two others – women whom he filled with the sham spirit, so that they chattered crazily, inopportunely, and wildly, like Montanus himself. On those who were elated and exultant about him the spirit bestowed favours, swelling their heads with his extravagant promises. Sometimes it reproved them pointedly and convincingly to their faces, to avoid appearing uncritical – though few of the Phrygians were deceived. They were taught by this arrogant spirit to denigrate the entire Catholic Church throughout the world, because the spirit of pseudo-prophecy received neither honour nor admission into it; for the Asian believers repeatedly and in many parts of Asia had met for this purpose, and after investigating the recent utterances pronounced them profane and ejected the heresy. Then at last its devotees were turned out of the Church and excommunicated.

Having recorded these facts in his introduction, the author continues throughout the book to refute their error. In Book II he has this to say about their end:

They called us ‘prophet-killers’ because we would not receive their garrulous prophets – according to them, the ones whom the Lord promised to send to the people – so let them answer before God. Is there one person, my good sirs, among those from Montanus and the women onwards who started the chatter, who was persecuted by the Jews or killed by the wicked? Not one. Or was any one of them seized and crucified for the Name? No indeed. Very well then: was one of the women ever whipped in Jewish synagogues or stoned? Never anywhere.¹ It was by a different death that Montanus and Maximilla are believed to have died. For it is thought that both of these were driven out of their minds by a spirit, and hanged themselves, at different times; and on the occasion of the death of each, it was said on all sides that this was how they died, putting an end to themselves just like the traitor Judas.² In the same way it is commonly asserted that Theodotus, that wonderful fellow, the first trustee, shall we say, of their ‘prophecy’, was once raised aloft and taken up to heaven, where he experienced an unnatural ecstasy and entrusted himself to the spirit of deception, only to be sent spinning and perish miserably. That at any rate is how they say it happened. But we must not imagine that without seeing them we know the truth about such things, my friend: it may be have been in this way, it may have been in some other way, that death came to Montanus, Theodotus, and their female associate.

Later in the same book he says that the holy bishops of the time attempted to silence the spirit that was in Maximilla, but were prevented by others, who were obviously in league with the spirit:

It will not do for the spirit which spoke through Maximilla to say in the same work of Asterius Urbanus: ‘I am driven away like a wolf from the sheep. I am not a wolf; I am word and spirit and power.’³ He must show clearly the power in the spirit and prove it, and by that spirit he must make himself acknowledged by those who were then present in order to test and converse with the spirit as it chattered – eminent men and bishops, Zoticus from the village of Cumane and Julian from Apamea – who were muzzled by Themiso and his henchmen, who would not allow them to silence the lying spirit which was leading the people astray.

In the same work again, after putting forward other arguments to dispose of Maximilla’s prophecies, he indicates the time at which he was writing this, and in the same sentence refers to her predictions, in which she foretold wars and revolutions and which he exposes as false:¹

Surely it is now obvious that this too is a lie? Today it is more than thirteen years since the woman’s death, and there has been neither general nor local war in the world, but rather – even for Christians – continuous peace, by the mercy of God.

This passage is from Book II. From Book III also I will quote short passages in which, replying to those who boasted that they too had lost many by martyrdom, he has this to say:

When all their arguments have been disposed of and they have nothing to say, they try to take refuge in the martyrs, alleging that they have a great number and that this is a convincing proof of the power of what in their circles is called the prophetic spirit. But this seems to be as false as false can be, for some of the other heretical sects have immense numbers of martyrs, but this is surely no reason why we should approve of them or acknowledge that they have the truth. To take one instance – those who as sectaries of Marcion are called Marcionites claim an immense number of Christian martyrs, but they do not truly acknowledge Christ Himself… Hence whenever members of the Church called to martyrdom for the true Faith meet any of the so-called martyrs of the Phrygian sect, they part company with them and have nothing to do with them till their own fulfilment, because they will not be associated with the spirit that spoke through Montanus and the women. That this is true, and that it occurred in our own time in Apamea on the Maeander, in the case of Gaius and Alexander and the other martyrs from Eumenia, is perfectly clear.

Miltiades and the books which he wrote

17. In this work he also mentions Miltiades, a writer who was author of another polemic against the Montanist heresy. After quoting some of their sayings, he goes on:

The statements which I have summarized I found in a publication of theirs attacking the work in which our brother Alcibiades shows that a prophet ought not to chatter in a state of ecstasy.

Later in the same work he gives a list of those who had prophesied under the New Covenant, among whom he includes a certain Ammia and Quadratus.

But the pseudo-prophet speaks in a state of unnatural ecstasy, after which all restraint is thrown to the winds. He begins with voluntary ignorance and ends in involuntary madness, as stated already. But they cannot point to a single one of the prophets under either the Old Covenant or the New who was moved by the Spirit in this way – not Agabus or Judas or Silas or Philip’s daughters;¹ not Ammia at Philadelphia or Quadratus; nor any others they may choose to boast about though they are not of their number… For if, as they claim, after Quadratus and Ammia at Philadelphia Montanus and his female disciples succeeded to the prophetic gift, let them tell us which of their number succeeded the followers of Montanus and the women. For the prophetic gift must continue in the whole Church until the final coming, as the apostle insists. But they point to no one, though this is the fourteenth year since Maximilla’s death.

Let us turn now to Miltiades, who was referred to in one of these passages. He, too, has left us reminders of his own zeal for the oracles of God, in the works that he composed, Against the Greeks and Against the Jews, each subject being discussed separately in two books. In addition, he wrote a Defence before the Rulers of this World of the philosophy which he followed.

Apollonius’ refutation of the Phrygians: his personal comments on some of them

18. While the so-called Phrygian sect was still flourishing in Phrygia itself, an orthodox writer named Apollonius embarked on a refutation, and produced a special polemic against them, proving point by point the fraudulent character of their ‘prophecies’ and revealing the sort of life lived by the leaders of the sect. Listen to his actual words about Montanus:

What sort of person this upstart teacher is, his own actions and teaching show. This is the man who taught the dissolution of marriages, who laid down the law on fasting, who renamed Pepuza and Tymion, insignificant towns in Phrygia, as Jerusalem, in the hope of persuading people in every district to gather there; who appointed agents to collect money, who contrived to make the gifts roll in under the name of ‘offerings’, and who has subsidized those who preach his message, in order that gluttony may provide an incentive for teaching it.

This is his summing-up of Montanus. A little farther on he has this to say of his prophetesses:

It is thus evident that these prophetesses, from the time they were filled with the spirit, were the very first to leave their husbands. How then could they he so blatantly as to call Priscilla a virgin?

Next he goes on to say:

Don’t you agree that all scripture debars a prophet from accepting gifts and money?¹ When I see that a prophetess has accepted gold and silver and expensive clothing, am I not justified in keeping her at arm’s length?

Still farther on, he has this to say about one of their confessors:

Then there is Themiso, who is wrapped up in plausible covetousness, and who failed to raise aloft the standard of confession and bought his release by a heavy bribe. This ought to have made him feel small, but instead he vaunted himself as a martyr, and, copying the apostle, had the impudence to compose a ‘general epistle’ in which he instructed better Christians than himself, fought his battle with empty trumpetings, and blasphemed the Lord, the apostles, and Holy Church.

Again, about another of those whom they honour as martyrs he writes:

To confine ourselves to a single instance, let the prophetess tell us about Alexander, who calls himself a martyr, with whom she feasts, and whom many treat with profound respect. His robberies, and the other crimes for which he has been punished, there is no need for me to retail; they are filed in the record office. Who pardons whose sins? Does the prophet forgive the martyr’s robberies, or the martyr the prophet’s covetousness? The Lord said: ‘Do not provide yourselves with gold or silver or two coats’,¹ but these people have done the exact opposite – they have transgressed by providing themselves with these forbidden things. I can prove that their so-called prophets and martyrs rake in the shekels not only from the rich but from poor people, orphans, and widows. If they have the courage of their convictions, let them take their stand on this and settle the question, on this condition, that if convicted they will for the future refrain from transgressing, for the fruits of the prophet must be carefully examined, for from the fruit the tree is known.²

For the benefit of those interested in the history of Alexander – he was tried by Aemilius Frontinus, the proconsul at Ephesus, not because of the Name but because of his impudent robberies: there had been previous convictions. Then by a lying appeal to the name of the Lord he secured his release, having deceived the faithful there, but his own diocese from which he came would not receive him, because he was a robber. Any who want to know about him have the public archives of Asia to refer to. The prophet lived with him for years, and knows nothing about him, but I have exposed him, and in doing so have exposed the character of the prophet. I can show the same thing in the case of many others: if they dare, let them stand up to the exposure.

Again, elsewhere in the book he has this to say about their vaunted prophets:

If they deny that their prophets have accepted gifts, they will surely admit this, that if they are proved to have accepted them they are no prophets: I can provide endless proof of this. All the fruits of a prophet must be submitted to examination. Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair? Does a prophet paint his eyelids? Does a prophet love ornaments? Does a prophet visit the gaming tables and play dice? Does a prophet do business as a moneylender? Let them say plainly whether these things are permissible or not, and I will prove that they have been going on in their circles.

In the same work Apollonius informs us that he is writing it thirty-nine years after Montanus embarked on his career of spurious prophecy. He further states that while Maximilla was pretending to prophesy in Pepuza, Zoticus – who was mentioned by the previous writer – planted himself in front of her and tried to silence the spirit at work in her, but was prevented by her partisans. He also mentions one Thraseas as among the martyrs of that time. Furthermore, he states on the authority of tradition that the Saviour commanded His apostles not to leave Jerusalem for twelve years. He also makes use of evidences taken from the Revelation of John; and he relates how by divine power a dead man was raised by John himself at Ephesus. He makes other statements too, by which he has ably and fully demonstrated the error of the heresy under discussion. There we may leave Apollonius.

Serapion on the Phrygian heresy

19. The polemics of Apolinarius against the Phrygian heresy are referred to by Serapion, who, we have good reason to believe, was Bishop of Antioch in succession to Maximin in the period under discussion. He mentions him in a personal letter to Caricus and Pontius, in which he gives his own answer to the same heresy, and adds this:

In order that you may know this, that the working of the so-called New Prophecy of this fraudulent organization is held in detestation by the whole brotherhood throughout the world, I am sending you the writings of Claudius Apolinarius, Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, of most blessed memory.

In this letter of Serapion’s are preserved the signatures of various bishops, one of whom signed himself thus:

I, Aurelius Quirinius, a martyr, pray for your welfare,

Another, in this way:

I, Aelius Publius Julius, from Develtum, a colony in Thrace, Bishop. As God in heaven lives, blessed Sotas of Anchialus wished to drive out Priscilla’s demon, and the hypocrites would not permit him.

The autograph signatures of several other bishops, who were of the same opinion, are preserved in the document we are discussing. And there we will leave them.

The correspondence of Irenaeus with the schismatics at Rome

20. In opposition to those at Rome who were falsifying the sound precepts of the Church, Irenaeus composed various letters, entitling one To Blastus, on Schism, another To Florinus, on Sole Sovereignty, or God is not the Author of Evil – a notion which Florinus seemed to be defending. Again, when Florinus was inveigled by the error of Valentinus, Irenaeus composed his masterpiece The Ogdoad, in which he also makes it clear that he himself was in the unbroken succession from the apostles. At the end of this work I have found a most graceful note of his which I cannot refrain from including in this book. Here it is:

If, dear reader, you should transcribe this little book, I adjure you by the Lord Jesus Christ and by His glorious advent, when He comes to judge the living and the dead,¹ to compare your transcript and correct it carefully by this copy, from which you have made your transcript. This adjuration likewise you must transcribe and include in your copy.

May it prove salutary that these words were spoken by him and are recorded by me, so that we may keep those truly saintly men of an earlier generation in mind, as a splendid example of meticulous accuracy.

In the letter To Florinus already mentioned, Irenaeus refers once more to his associations with Polycarp:

Such notions, Florinus, to put it mildly, do not indicate a sound judgement. Such notions are out of harmony with the Church, and involve those who accept them in beliefs well-nigh blasphemous. Such notions not even the heretics outside the Church have ever dared to propound. Such notions the presbyters of an earlier generation, those taught by the apostles themselves, did not transmit to you. When I was still a boy I saw you in Lower Asia in Polycarp’s company, when you were cutting a fine figure at the imperial court and wanted to be in favour with him. I have a clearer recollection of events at that time than of recent happenings – what we learn in childhood develops along with the mind and becomes a part of it – so that I can describe the place where blessed Polycarp sat and talked, his goings out and comings in, the character of his life, his personal appearance, his addresses to crowded congregations. I remember how he spoke of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord; how he repeated their words from memory; and how the things that he had heard them say about the Lord, His miracles and His teaching, things that he had heard direct from the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life,¹ were proclaimed by Polycarp in complete harmony with Scripture. To these things I listened eagerly at that time, by the mercy of God shown to me, not committing them to writing but learning them by heart. By God’s grace, I constantly and conscientiously ruminate on them, and I can bear witness before God that if any such suggestion had come to the ears of that blessed and apostolic presbyter he would have cried out and stopped his ears, exclaiming characteristically: ‘Dear God, for what times Thou hast preserved me, that I should endure this!’ And he would have fled from the very place where he had been sitting or standing when he heard such words. The letters he sent either to the neighbouring churches to stiffen them, or to individual Christians to advise and stimulate them, furnish additional proof of this.

Apollonius martyred at Rome

21. During the same period – the reign of Commodus – our situation became easier, and by God’s grace peace came to the churches throughout the world. Then, too, the message of salvation began to lead every soul of every race of men towards the devout worship of the God of the universe, so that now many in Rome itself who enjoyed the advantages of birth and wealth were moving with all their household and kindred towards their own salvation. Needless to say, the demon, who hates what is good and is envious by nature, found this beyond endurance. Once more he stripped for the fight, and manifold were the devices he invented to destroy us. At Rome he dragged into court Apollonius, one of the most distinguished for learning and philosophy of the Christians of the time, having induced one of his servants – fit men for the task – to accuse him. But the wretched man brought the case at just the wrong time, for by an imperial decree those who informed on such matters were not allowed to live. His legs were at once broken, this sentence being passed on him by the judge Perennius. But God’s most beloved martyr, when the judge pleaded with him long and earnestly, and pressed him to speak up for himself before the Senate, made before them all a most eloquent defence of the faith to which he was testifying, and by decree of the Senate found fulfilment in decapitation: under an old statute that still held good no other verdict was possible in the case of those who were once brought into court and refused to change their plea. Anyone who wishes to know what Apollonius said in court, the answers he gave when questioned by Perennius, and the whole of his defence to the Senate, will find it all in the register I have compiled of the early martyrs.

Notable bishops of the period

22. In the tenth year of Commodus’ reign, after thirteen years’ service as bishop, Eleutherus was succeeded by Victor. At the same time, Julian having completed his tenth year, responsibility for the Alexandrian province was entrusted to Demetrius. Contemporary with them was the Serapion already mentioned, eighth from the apostles as Bishop of Antioch, and quite outstanding. Caesarea in Palestine was headed by Theophilus, while Narcissus, already referred to in this book, was still responsible for the Jerusalem diocese. Other contemporary bishops were those of Corinth in Greece (Bacchyllus) and of the diocese of Ephesus (Polycrates). No doubt a great many others were prominent at the time: naturally it is those of whose orthodoxy I have found written proof that I have listed by name.

The controversy about the Easter festival

23. It was at that stage that a controversy of great significance took place, because all the Asian dioceses thought that in accordance with ancient tradition they ought to observe the fourteenth day of the lunar month as the beginning of the Paschal festival – the day on which the Jews had been commanded to sacrifice the lamb: on that day, no matter which day of the week it might be, they must without fail bring the fast to an end. But nowhere else in the world was it customary to arrange their celebrations in that way: in accordance with apostolic tradition, they preserved the view which still prevails, that it was improper to end the fast on any day other than that of our Saviour’s resurrection. So synods and conferences of bishops were convened, and without a dissentient voice, drew up a decree of the Church, in the form of letters addressed to Christians everywhere, that never on any day other than the Lord’s Day should the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead be celebrated, and that on that day alone we should observe the end of the Paschal fast. There is extant to this day a letter from those who attended a conference in Palestine presided over by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem; and from those at Rome a similar one, arising out of the same controversy, which names Victor as bishop. There are others from the Pontic bishops, presided over by Palmas as the senior; from the Gallic province, over which Irenaeus presided, and from the bishops in Osrhoehe and the cities of that region. There are also personal letters from Bishop Bacchyllus of Corinth and very many more, who voiced one and the same opinion and judgment and gave the same vote. All these laid down one single rule – the rule already stated.

24. The Asian bishops who insisted that they must observe the custom transmitted to them long ago were headed by Polycrates, who in the letter which he wrote to Victor and the Roman church sets out in the following terms the tradition that he had received:

We for our part keep the day scrupulously, without addition or subtraction. For in Asia great luminaries sleep who shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s advent, when He is coming with glory from heaven and shall search out all His saints – such as Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis with two of his daughters, who remained unmarried to the end of their days, while his other daughter lived in the Holy Spirit and rests in Ephesus. Again there is John, who leant back on the Lord’s breast, and who became a priest wearing the mitre, a martyr, and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus. Then in Smyrna there is Polycarp, bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, the bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who also sleeps in Smyrna. Need I mention Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who sleeps in Laodicea, or blessed Papirius, or Melito the eunuch, who lived entirely in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis waiting for the visitation from heaven when he shall rise from the dead? All of these kept the fourteenth day of the month as the beginning of the Paschal festival, in accordance with the Gospel, not deviating in the least but following the rule of the Faith. Last of all I too, Polycrates, the least of you all, act according to the tradition of my family, some members of which I have actually followed; for seven of them were bishops and I am the eighth, and my family have always kept the day when the people put away the leaven. So I, my friends, after spending sixty-five years in the Lord’s service and conversing with Christians from all parts of the world, and going carefully through all Holy Scripture, am not scared of threats. Better people than I have said: ‘We must obey God rather than men.’¹

Referring to the bishops who were with him when he wrote, and shared his opinion, he adds:

I could have mentioned the bishops who are with me and whom I summoned in response to your request. If I write their names, the list will be very long. But though they know what an insignificant person I am, they approve my letter, knowing that I have not frittered away my long life but have spent it in the service of Christ Jesus.

Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighbouring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Christians there. But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace² and for unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was responsible in Gaul. While supporting the view that only on the Lord’s Day might the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection be celebrated, he gave Victor a great deal of excellent advice, in particular that he should not cut off entire churches of God because they observed the unbroken tradition of their predecessors. This is how he goes on:

The dispute is not only about the day, but also about the actual character of the fast. Some think that they ought to fast for one day, some for two, others for still more; some make their ‘day’ last forty hours on end. Such variation in the observance did not originate in our own day, but very much earlier, in the time of our forefathers, who – apparently disregarding strict accuracy – in their naïve simplicity kept up a practice which they fixed for the time to come. In spite of that, they all lived in peace with one another, and so do we: the divergency in the fast emphasizes the unanimity of our faith.

This argument he illustrates with two anecdotes which I may with advantage quote:

Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who were in charge of the church of which you are the present leader – I mean Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus. They did not keep it themselves or allow those under their wing to do so. But in spite of their not keeping it, they lived in peace with those who came to them from the dioceses in which it was kept, though to keep it was more objectionable to those who did not. Never was this made a ground for repulsing anyone, but the presbyters before you, even though they did not keep it, used to send the Eucharist to Christians from dioceses which did. And when Blessed Polycarp paid a visit to Rome in Anicetus’ time, though they had minor differences on other matters too, they at once made peace, having no desire to quarrel on this point. Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp not to keep the day, since he had always kept it with John the disciple of our Lord and the other apostles with whom he had been familiar; nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to keep it: Anicetus said that he must stick to the practice of the presbyters before him. Though the position was such, they remained in communion with each other, and in church Anicetus made way for Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist – out of respect, obviously. They parted company in peace, and the whole Church was at peace, both those who kept the day and those who did not.

Irenaeus, whose name means ‘peaceable’ and who by temperament was a peacemaker, pleaded and negotiated thus for the peace of the churches. He corresponded by letter not only with Victor but with very many other heads of churches, setting out both sides of the question under discussion.

Unanimous decision on the question of Easter

25. The Palestinian bishops of whom I spoke a little while ago, Narcissus and Theophilus, with Bishop Cassius of Tyre, Clarus of Ptolemais, and the others assembled with them, composed a lengthy review of the tradition about the Easter festival which had come down to them without a break from the apostles, at the end of which they add this appeal:

Try to send a copy of our letter to every diocese, so that we may not fail in our duty to those who readily deceive their own souls. We may point out to you that in Alexandria they keep the feast on the same day as we do, for we send letters to them and they to us, to ensure that we keep the holy day in harmony and at the same time.

The admirably written works of lrenaeus which have come into my hands

26. In addition to the letters and other works of Irenaeus already quoted, there is extant a very succinct and highly convincing essay directed against the Greeks and entitled Scientific Knowledge; another, dedicated to a fellow-Christian named Marcian, on the Exposition of the Apostolic Preaching; and a collection of addresses on various subjects, in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the ‘Wisdom of Solomon’, quoting several passages from them. That completes the list of works by Irenaeus that have come to my cognizance.

After thirteen years, Commedus reached the end of his reign and Severus took office as emperor, Pertinax having occupied the position for something less than six months following the death of Commodus.

The extant works of lrenaeus’ contemporaries

27. Large numbers of short works composed with commendable zeal by churchmen of that early time are still preserved in many libraries. Those that I have read myself include Heraclitus on The Epistles of Paul; Maximus on the question so much discussed among the heretics, The Origin of Evil, and on Matter the Result of a Creative Act; Candidus on The Six Days of Creation; Apion on the same subject; also Sextus on The Resurrection; and an essay by Arabianus; and works by many other authors – lack of evidence make it impossible to give their dates or shed any light on their history. Finally, there are a number of others whom I cannot even name, whose writings have come into my hands – orthodox churchmen, as is clear from their respective interpretations of Holy Writ, but unknown to us all the same, as they are not named in their writings.

Propagators of Artemon’s heresy, their character, their impudent corruption of Holy Scripture

28. In a polemic composed by one of these against Artemon’s heresy, which again in my own day Paul of Samosata has tried to revive, there is extant a discussion pertinent to the historical period under review. For the assertion of the heresy in question, that the Saviour was merely human, is exposed in this book as a recent invention, because those who introduced it were anxious to represent it as ancient and therefore respectable. After adducing many other arguments to refute their blasphemous falsehood, the writer continues:

They claim that all earlier generations, and the apostles themselves, received and taught the things they say themselves, and that the true teaching was preserved till the times of Victor, the thirteenth Bishop of Rome after Peter: from the time of his successor Zephyrinus the truth was deliberately perverted. This suggestion might perhaps have been credible if in the first place Holy Scripture had not presented a very different picture; and there are also works by Christian writers published before Victor’s time, written to defend the truth against both pagan criticism and current heresies – I mean works by Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and many more. In every one of these Christ is spoken of as God. For who does not know the books of Irenaeus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim Christ as God and man, and all the psalms and hymns written from the beginning by faithful brethren, which sing of Christ as the Word of God and address Him as God? How then can it be true that when the mind of the Church had been proclaimed for so many years, Christians up to the time of Victor preached as these people say they did? And are they not ashamed to slander Victor in this way, knowing perfectly well that it was Victor who excommunicated Theodotus the shoemaker, the prime mover and father of this God-denying apostasy, when he became the first to declare that Christ was merely human? If Victor regarded their views in the way their slanderous statements suggest, how could he have thrown out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy?

That is all I have to say about the events in Victor’s time. When he had held office for ten years, Zephyrinus was appointed to succeed him, about the ninth year of Severus’ reign.

The writer of the book just quoted about the founder of the heresy under discussion describes a further incident, which occurred in Zephyrinus’ time. Here is the actual passage:

I will remind many of my brother-Christians of an event which occurred in my time and which I think, had it happened in Sodom,¹ would perhaps have warned even them. There was a confessor named Natalius, who lived not a long time ago but in my own lifetime. He was led astray by Asclepiodotus and by a second Theodotus, a banker. These two were disciples of Theodotus the shoemaker, the first to be excommunicated for thinking in this way – or rather for failing to think – by Victor, who as I said was bishop at the time. They persuaded Natalius to be known as bishop of this heretical sect, in return for a stipend which he was to receive from them of 150 denarii a month. After joining them, he was repeatedly warned by the Lord in visions; for our compassionate God and Lord, Jesus Christ, did not desire one who had witnessed to His own sufferings to perish outside the Church. He paid little attention to the visions, ensnared by his pre-eminence among them and by the love of ill-gotten gain that corrupts so many; but he was finally whipped all night long by holy angels, and suffered severely, so that he got up early, put on sackcloth, sprinkled himself with ashes, and without a moment’s delay prostrated himself in tears before Bishop Zephyrinus, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy but of the laity as well, and moving with his tears the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ. But though he begged and besought them and displayed the weals left by the blows he had received, it was only after much hesitation that he was readmitted to communion.

To this I will add some further comments on the same persons from the same writer:

They have not hesitated to corrupt the word of God; they have treated the standard of the primitive faith with contempt; they have not known Christ. Instead of asking what Holy Scripture says, they strain every nerve to find a syllogistic figure to bolster up their godlessness. If anyone challenges them with a text from Divine Scripture, they examine it to see whether it can be turned into a conjunctive or disjunctive syllogistic figure. They put aside the sacred word of God, and devote themselves to geometry – earth-measurement – because they are from the earth and speak from the earth, and do not know the One who comes from above.¹ Some of them give all their energies to the study of Euclidean geometry, and treat Aristotle and Theophrastus with reverent awe; to some of them Galen is almost an object of worship. When people avail themselves of the arts of unbelievers to lend colour to their heretical views, and with godless rascality corrupt the simple Faith of Holy Writ, it is obvious that they are nowhere near the Faith. So it was that they laid hands unblushingly on the Holy Scriptures, claiming to have corrected them.

In saying this I am not slandering them, as anybody who wishes can soon find out. If anyone will take the trouble to collect their several copies and compare them, he will discover frequent divergencies; for example, Asclepiades’ copies do not agree with Theodotus’. A large number are obtainable, thanks to the emulous energy with which disciples copied the ‘emendations’ or rather perversions of the text by their respective masters. Nor do these agree with Hermophilus’ copies. As for Apolloniades, his cannot even be harmonized with each other; it is possible to collate the ones which his disciples made first with those that have undergone further manipulation, and to find endless discrepancies. The impertinence of this misconduct can hardly be unknown even to the copyists. Either they do not believe that the inspired Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit – if so, they are unbelievers; or they imagine that they are wiser than He – if so, can they be other than possessed? They cannot deny that the impertinence is their own, seeing that the copies are in their own handwriting, that they did not receive the Scriptures in such a condition from their first teachers, and that they cannot produce any originals to justify their copies. Some of them have not even deigned to falsify the text, but have simply repudiated both Law and Prophets, and so under cover of a wicked, godless teaching have plunged into the lowest depths of destruction.

And there we will leave that subject.