7. The First Church of Rome Rises To Power Under Soter and Eleutherius (§§60-73)

60. Now they had bishops at their head going back to ones appointed by the Catholic Bible-believers, now they had the “blessing” of Polycarp (their bishop Anicetus had attended communion with him); now also they had — what was of much greater consequence in their eyes — the sympathy of the secular authorities at Rome. The First Church embarked on a deliberate campaign to persuade and pressure the Catholics to accept them as the ultimate authority in faith and morals. They deemphasized their historical connection with Simon Magus¹¹⁶ and asserted that their doctrines and practices had originated in “secret” oral traditions¹¹⁷ handed down to a special elite by Jesus and the Apostles. Even in the missionary fields of Lyons, in Gaul, where Polycarp’s disciples were active, there were some who addressed Eleutherus, the next but one Bishop after Anicetus, as “Father”¹¹⁸.

61. Pastor Clement’s fearful concern for the Christians in Corinth now proved justified. Though the vision tarried, it was at last fulfilled. Until the time of Bishop Anicetus in Rome and Bishop Primus in Corinth, the Corinthians had remained faithful to the Apostolic doctrine of Pastor Clement. This is vouched for¹¹⁹ by the Bible-believing church historian Hegesippus who had fellowshiped with the Corinthian Christians on his way to Rome. In the days of Anicetus’ successor, Soter, a change can be discerned. The Corinthian pastor in the time of Soter was the learned and influential Dionysius. He had quite a reputation as an ecclesiastical politician: he won over the hesitating, restored the backslidden, tested heresies, like that of Marcion, by the Scriptures, and built bridges between communion and communion, both in the Greek mainland and abroad. No doubt, like secular politicians, however, he felt the need for ready finance to further his favorite projects. The First Church now used its monetary reserves (which were evidently large), and its “social welfare” projects, to win him over. From its wealthy guru, Marcion, alone the First Church had been endowed with a fortune of 200,000 sesterces, when Marcion became a member. There was plenty of money to go round, if hearts and minds could be won at the same time, and other churches brought into the “supercommunion” of the First Church. In exchange for a generous donation, Dionysius opened up his pulpit to First Church doctrine. Bishop Soter sent a doctrinal letter to Corinth¹²⁰ which was read publicly and regularly thereafter in the church at Easter. This Dionysius envisaged as a token of the close ecclesiastical bond newly forged between his own church and the First Church of Rome: both Peter and Paul, he claimed, had been responsible for the “planting” of the churches at Rome and Corinth, whilst both had “taught into” Corinth and ITALY (Italy, not Rome) — a quiet protest, this, promoting the claims of the Corinthian Church as a doctrinal authority against those of Rome. Nevertheless, the move irreversibly subjected the chief Church of Achaea to the ambitious and unprincipled bishops of the First Church. The reading of Soter’s letter from the pulpit symbolized their submission. Ironically, it had long before this been the custom in Corinth to have public readings of the first-century Epistle of Clement, which warned the faithful Christians there of the very danger that had now materialized. Soter’s letter was treated by Dionysius as a kind of follow-up epistle from the church in Rome to the original epistle from the Roman church at Santa Pudenziana written by Pastor Clement. What appears to be the sermon preached by the original reader of Clement’s letter to the Church in Corinth has survived to this day under the title of the “Second Epistle of Clement”. This work contains quotations from heretical Gospels, one of them the Gospel of the Egyptians (c. AD 80?), which illustrate the author’s acceptance of Gnostic “textual criticism”¹²¹. The reader’s sermon cites a passage from Clement’s letter (II Clement xi. 2f.), describing it as a “prophetic pronouncement”, and distinctly refers (II Clement xix. 1) to his immediate public recitation of the “exhortation” — presumably that of Clement — following that of the Lord Himself — a reference which is likely to include the kind of spurious gospel passages alluded to. The credit accorded here to the Gospel of the Egyptians may explain how the heretical custom of treating the “bishop” or “supervisor” of the monetary resources as the spiritual leader of the Christians, exemplified in Egypt a little subsequent to that period in the syncretic cult of Serapis and Christ, came to infect the primitive Corinthian Church, and thus to be rebuked by Clement. By the time of Dionysius in the middle of the second century the situation had only worsened. Textual alterations of all kinds proliferated amongst the Artemonites and Marcionites of the First Church of Rome headed by Soter. In a marvelous reversal of the real direction of textual corruption in the perception and assessment of the Corinthian Pastor, Dionysius claimed the abuse some of his own letters had received at the hands of detractors, showed how the Scriptures themselves, as in the theory of Cerdon and Marcion, could have been mutilated and interpolated by “apostles of the Devil”.

61a. Along with the admission of the First Church’s cult and doctrine at Corinth went an alarming relaxation of the standards of moral discipline expected of the ordinary members of the congregation. Dionysius even wrote letters to the bishops of other churches, like Pinytus of Cnossus in Crete, advising him against expecting too much from his flock in the way of the practical exercise of holiness. Pinytus replied, rebuking Dionysius, and, according to Eusebius, who had access to this correspondence, Pinytus’ letter was commendably orthodox, the implication being that Dionysius’ was not. This laxness was in sharp contrast to the “asceticism” enjoined by favorite Gurus in the First Church of Rome, as also, amongst other Gnostic expositors, by the author of the Gospel of the Egyptians. “Spiritual” and “celibate” relationships, according to their theories, over-ruled the merely “carnal” or “soulish” relationships of husband and wife, father, mother and child, enjoined by the Apostles. They were expected accordingly of those came to Soter, in Dionysius’ words, as beloved children to their “father”, or otherwise participated in the Roman church’s “supercommunion”. Such practices became increasingly common in the First Church: an excessive, outward or ritualistic, asceticism expected of the Roman bishop’s most devoted adherents, especially the presbyters, combined with an excessive laxity of discipline allowed to the laity. The effect of this combination was to increase the daily attendance of the public at the church, as their moral life was not closely watched, whilst maximizing the control of the bishop over the clergy, and, at the same time, separating them as an exclusive, dominant, clique from the laity. We shall find this same tendency carried to even more extravagant lengths in the time of bishop Callistus of the First Church one generation later.

62. Those who would not yield willingly to the First Church were coerced. Now — when political conditions were ripe — the “multi-faith” tolerance was dropped in favor of excommunication, denunciation and intrigue. A fierce persecution of the Bible-believing Christians commenced about this time. The First Church of Rome and its Gnostic teachers were left unscathed. Only evangelicals perished — the enemies of the Gnostics. And at the same time members of the Imperial family, who initiated the persecutions, began to come under the influence of the Bishops of the First Church.

63. It all began with an incident ¹²² which caused the Emperor to look favourably on the Christian religion. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius, out of gratitude for a miraculous deliverance in battle by the prayers of Christians, promised to put to death any who made accusations against them. When about to enter into battle with German barbarians, and parched with thirst because of a prevailing drought, the Emperor was put in touch with dedicated, non-combatant Christians, who prayed to the Lord to send rain for him and his men: immediately a refreshing rain descended on the Romans and a blasting hail on the enemies of Rome! The Legion involved was surnamed the “Thundering Legion”. The event itself is undoubted as it features on the coin of the Empire and on the Antonine column in Rome.

64. The Emperor was astounded at the power of the Christians’ prayer, and immediately issued a decree forbidding Christians to be harassed, unless they had committed some crime. He threatened to burn at the stake any who accused them falsely. However, the Emperor had associated with him on the throne his darkling child, Lucius (who used the name Commodus on becoming sole Emperor). It was when Lucius and Aurelius (also called Antoninus) were joint-rulers, according to Melito of Sardis¹²³, that persecution broke out. Lucius was as evil and cunning as his father was benevolent and broad-minded. Through his concubine, Marcia, Lucius became acquainted with the Bishop of the First Church of Rome¹²⁴. If the Bishop needed some favor from the Court, Marcia obtained it for him. For example, members of the First Church whom Marcus Aurelius had condemned for criminal activity to hard labor in the mines of Sardinia, Lucius freed through the offices of Marcia. The Bishop of the First Church called these convicts “martyrs” (reminding one of the “martyr” Simon Magus). The occupant of the episcopal throne in the earlier years of Lucius’ reign, the successor of Soter, was Eleutherus, previously a deacon of Anicetus. The Book of Popes, in an entry under the name of Bishop Eleutherus¹²⁵, records that Emperor Lucius Britanni[c]us — the latter epithet assumed by him¹²⁶ as the imperial master of Britain — sent a letter to Eleutherus requesting to be “made a Christian by his command.” Evidently he thought that this Bishop of the First Church had the power to turn him into a Christian by a mere word. All this boded well for the First Church and ill for the evangelicals who rejected their spurious claims.

65. Marvellous to relate, a persecution was suddenly initiated against the evangelicals. Aurelius’ decree had promised vengeance on any who maligned Christians, but when the Imperial decree was executed, it fell on those who maligned the “Christians” of the First Church of Rome, i.e. on the EVANGELICALS WHO DENOUNCED THEIR OCCULT PRACTICES. True Christians, like Melito of Sardis in Turkey, were amazed at this outbreak of persecution under the auspices of such a philosophic and philanthropic Emperor as Aurelius. Melito sent official letters¹²⁷ to Rome asking if the persecution had been decreed by someone else (which could only mean by his son and coruler, Lucius). He also blamed informers, sectional strife and the slanderous accusations of calumniators for the current persecution and traced this fatal combination between informers and the imperial authorities directly back to the holocausts under Nero and Domitian; i.e. the real culprits were the Gnostic heretics of Rome, now under the episcopal supervision of Eleutherus. It is doubtful that these letters ever reached Aurelius. The renowned Bible-teacher, heresy-hunter, and Christian philosopher, Justin, was martyred¹²⁸ in the capital. The decree of Marcus Aurelius¹²⁹ written as a consequence of the miracle of the Thundering Legion is still found in the manuscripts appended to the text of Justin’s defence before the Emperor. Justin’s eloquent pleading and his appeal to the decree of Aurelius were not able to save him. When demanded by the Roman magistrate where his church assembled, Justin replied that it was a mistake to think there was any single church where Christians must needs assemble to be considered true Christians (an implicit criticism of the claims of the First Church), and that he and his fellow Christians held meetings at the house-church of Martinus in the Timothinian Baths (Santa Pudenziana)¹³⁰. But this church did not have official recognition as a Christian congregation; the coruler Lucius accepted the pronouncement of the First Church of Rome as to who was and who was not a Christian. The Roman magistrate also demanded to know whether it was Justin who had made his fellow-martyrs Christians (as Eleutherus was held to have made Lucius a Christian) but they replied that their conversion was accomplished by the command of God (and not, as in the case of Lucius, by the command of the bishop of the First Church). Regardless of such niceties, the magistrate condemned Justin and his fellow martyrs to death. The pagan authorities were only interested in determining whether these Christians honoured the idols, since they were the pagans’ “gods” as well as the symbols of imperial authority. Those who refused to do so were condemned as god-denying, subversive, “atheists”. Of course, the “Christians” of the First Church of Rome who happily worshiped idols could not be accused of “atheism” according to this definition. The “atheists”, on the contrary, were the evangelicals who rejected idol-worship.

66. The net of the persecutors was spread wide. As in Domitian’s time, the persecution was hottest in Rome and in the centers where John’s disciples had been active. In Turkey, the authorities hunted down the aged and venerable Polycarp¹³¹, the hammer of heretics, and world-famous patriarch of the Bible-believing Catholics. He was burned at the stake as an “atheist”, the Spirit departing from him in the form of a dove¹³² as he expired. In Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, Polycarp’s disciples and others influenced by them were mowed down in the arena¹³³, their agonies prolonged with horrible tortures.

67. Before their martyrdom, a number of Polycarp’s disciples in Gaul tried to negotiate with the Bishop of the First Church¹³⁴. They sent to Rome a young pastor called Irenaeus, carrying letters to Eleutherus. Some of the martyrs in Lyons actually participated in the First Church’s “supercommunion.” These addressed Eleutherus as “Father” and their letters, thus addressing him, were included with the rest. They hoped their negotiations would bring peace to the churches, which had already suffered the loss of many brethren in the persecution. Clearly, they believed Eleutherus would be able to stop the bloodshed. Polycarp’s disciples, Irenaeus being one of them, distanced themselves from the “New Prophecy” movement, founded by the cult-leader Montanus, which had been disturbing the First Church of Rome, and also pleaded for toleration. The confusion of Bible-believing, Holy Ghost filled Catholics with the Montanist “doomsday-cult” had evidently goaded the Imperial authorities to action against the Bible-believers. Surely their pleas would prevail with the Bishop of the First Church? He would clear up the confusion with his friends in the Government, and the bloodshed would cease. No response is recorded to have been forthcoming from the Bishop.

68. Who were the Montanists that played such an important part in this crisis? A flavor of the cult and its practices can be obtained from the contemporary accounts preserved in the Church History of Eusebius. Their leader, Montanus, a Phrygian by origin, had been before his profession of conversion to Christianity a priest in the ecstatic cult of the Phrygian Great Mother Goddess, Cybele. Montanists were commonly called Phrygians or Cataphrygians. The cult had spread from Phrygia in Asia (Turkey) and its prophetic treatises become distributed over the length and breadth of the Empire by the middle of the second century AD. It was strongly identified with the area of Turkey where it originated. So also were the Bible-believing disciples of John, like Polycarp and Irenaeus’ bishop Pothinus. That was one reason why the two groups were confused.

69. The novelty of the Montanist cult was its belief that the Apostolic gifts of the Spirit, particularly prophecy by direct inspiration, had been renewed in the ministry of Montanus. Hence his movement was called the “New Prophecy”. Indeed the “Paraclete” or “Comforter”, the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus to lead Christians into all truth, had been embodied, some believed, in the person of Montanus. But the gifts of the Spirit that were “new” to Montanus and his disciples had long been exercised by the Bible-believing Catholics. We know that the Montanists’ teacher Tertullian was influenced by Justin Martyr, whose Christian brethren in Rome experienced gifts of healing and deliverance, and by Irenaeus, who was likewise blessed with a notable, Spirit-anointed ministry in Rome and Gaul. Polycarp and Hermas are other examples of spiritually gifted men amongst the evangelical Catholics. Evidently a moribund cultic form of Christianity had been kindled into new life by the charismatic ministries of the Bible-believing Christians of Asia, to produce the “New Prophecy” movement of Montanus. The cult, in other words, was a bastard child of the Asian revival led by John and Polycarp. It held a midway position between the Gnostics of the First Church, on the one hand, and the Asian Bible-believers, on the other, and attracted adherents from both.

70. At first, the Montanist movement had been welcomed by the First Church of Rome. The pagan Phrygian background of Montanus was perhaps a factor in winning it respect in the apostate Gnostic church, as it certainly retained many evidences of its pagan background, including its spring-festival “Passover” rituals. Another factor may have been the sway the new charismatic cult could potentially have with the Spirit-gifted Christians of Polycarp’s circle. If so, the hopes of the First Church were disappointed. There was actually a great difference between the spiritual experiences of the evangelicals and the fanaticism of the Montanists. The Montanists claimed their revelations, delivered in ecstatic trances, were as binding on their followers as the Holy Scriptures. They invented new, detailed regulations about fasting, celibacy and other matters of church order, and demanded obedience to these regulations because they had been revealed by the Spirit to the new prophets. The evangelicals tested the Montanist spirit by the Word and rejected it as spurious.

71. The movement now became a burden, rather than a boon, to the First Church bishops. One area of conflict was the Passover practices of a Montanist splinter-group in Rome, led by Blastus. This man had previously been a pastor of the Bible-believers and when he fell into Montanist error he carried over with him into the Montanist camp the Jewish Passover customs practiced by the Bible-believing disciples of the Apostle John. Since the Montanists regularly claimed divine inspiration for church rituals (like the Passover customs) Blastus would have presented a threat to the vaunted “Passover” spring-festival of the First Church and of the other Montanists. It would have been intolerable in the eyes of the anti-Semitic bishops of the First Church of Rome to have this particular group of Montanists imposing their Jewish customs on the “Holy Church” with the claim that it was the commandment of the Paraclete. These were the Montanists who were confused with the evangelical Christians of Polycarp’s circle. Another point of conflict was the First Church’s teaching on the godhead. The mainline Montanist enthusiasts of Rome, led by Proclus (hence called the Cataproclan Montanists) and counting amongst their number the articulate lawyer Tertullian, held out against a new teaching on the godhead adopted by the Bishop of the First Church which had roots in pagan philosophy. Tertullian censured with all his (considerable) rhetorical powers the novel doctrine so effortlessly foisted on the Bishop by its promoters, as well as the vast pretensions and abysmal moral standards of the eldership of the First Church¹³⁵. Some Montanists, following the teacher Aeschines (hence called the Cataeschinetan Montanists), taught the same novel heresy regarding the godhead. If this complicated civil-war had been allowed to continue it could have led to the break-up of the apostate organization. The outcome was the expulsion of the Montanists from the First Church of Rome and persecution both for them and for the charismatic evangelicals who had influenced them.

72. The danger posed by the Montanist cult, as far as the Roman Imperial authorities were concerned, was that its adherents prophesied the end of the world in their lifetime, and the arrival of the Kingdom of God, which would involve, according to the Book of Revelation, the overthrow of the Roman Empire. The leading Montanist charismatic, Maximilla, prophesied¹³⁶ anarchy and wars in the Empire (which did not materialize) and it was given forth that the Phrygian villages of Pepuza and Tymion were the new Jerusalem, in the expectation that all the faithful would gather there. Claims like these were to the Romans of the Antonine period in the second century AD as troubling as, if not more troubling than, they had been to Nero in the first. Anyone wishing to provoke a quick, negative response from the authorities towards the Bible-believing Catholics of the later second century AD, had only to point to cults like the Montanists. Polycarp’s disciples might be confused with the Montanists by a superficial or prejudiced observer. As well as having a common geographical origin, both groups held a fervent belief in the soon appearing of the Kingdom of God, in the current endowment of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit and in a strict moral code. But the Montanists were fanatical extremists. The fasts that Montanus imposed on his followers — identical in the mainline group to the “Passover” rituals of the First Church of Rome — were, on the admission of the Montanists’ own teacher, Tertullian, no different from the self-inflicted fasts and mortifications of the priests of the Great Mother. The priests of Cybele were well known for working themselves up into an ecstatic frenzy and to such an extent, that they actually castrated themselves out of devotion to their divine Lover and Mother. That was celibacy with a vengeance! It was evident to many men of God that Montanus and the new prophets were still under the influence of that fanatical, heathen spirit. Also, the priests of Cybele had been proscribed by the Romans in the past because their cult tended to foster sedition. To ensure devotees of such foreign cults accepted the suzerainty of the Imperial Regime, the Romans demanded sacrifice to the state gods, and especially to the statue of the “divine” Emperor. That was where the Bible-believing Catholics (and the more fervent Montanists, for that matter) fell foul of the Roman authorities and incurred the charge of “atheism”. For example, when Polycarp was burnt at the stake in Smyrna, a Phrygian (Montanist) called Quintus was also brought to trial, though in his case he eventually offered sacrifice to the idols and escaped capital punishment.

73. Notice how the Gnostic First Church of Rome operated to induce the secular authorities to persecute the evangelicals. There was 1) a motive 2) an excuse 3) a legal fiction. In the first persecution of Nero’s time the motive was religious jealousy and sectional rivalry by the Gnostics against the Bible-believers, the excuse was the supposed danger to society posed by the Christians’ millenarian visions (the burning of Rome) and the legal fiction was malevolent occult practices (black magic). Thereafter Rome’s conflict with the Jews brought the Jewish Christians’ loyalty under suspicion. In the second persecution under Domitian the motive was the same — religious jealousy and sectional rivalry on the part of the heretics against the Bible-believers, the excuse was the same — the supposed danger to society posed by millenarian visions — and the legal fiction was atheism, i.e. treason. In the third persecution under Trajan the same motive and excuse applied and the legal fiction was, likewise, contempt of the imperial authority demonstrated by refusal to worship the idols and the Emperor’s statue. Under Lucius (Commodus) the same motive, the same excuse and the same legal fiction combined to produce the same result — the torture and death of the innocent disciples of Jesus.

____________________

Footnotes 116-136

116. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. xxvii. 4: “All those who in any way corrupt the truth, and injuriously affect the preaching of the Church, are the disciples and successors of Simon Magus of Samaria. Although they do not confess the name of their master, in order all the more to seduce others, yet they do teach his doctrines. They set forth, indeed, the name of Christ Jesus as a sort of lure, but in various ways they introduce the impieties of Simon; and thus they destroy multitudes, wickedly disseminating their own doctrines by the use of a good name, and, through means of its sweetness and beauty, extending to their hearers the bitter and malignant poison of the serpent, the great author of apostasy.”

117. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I. xxv. 5: “And thus, if ungodly, unlawful, and forbidden actions are committed among them, I can no longer find ground for believing them to be such. And in their writings we read as follows, the interpretation which they give [of their views], declaring that Jesus spoke in a mystery to His disciples and apostles privately, and that they requested and obtained permission to hand down the things thus taught them, to others who should be worthy and believing. We are saved, indeed, by means of faith and love; but all other things, while in their nature indifferent, are reckoned by the opinion of men — some good and some evil, there being nothing really evil by nature.”

118. Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. V. iv.1-2 : “The same martyrs also recommended Irenaeus, who was already at that time a presbyter of the residential district of Lyons, to the above-mentioned bishop of Rome, saying many favorable things in regard to him, as the following extract shows: “We pray, Father Eleutherus, that you may rejoice in God in all things and always. We have requested our brother and comrade Irenaeus to carry this letter to you, and we ask you to hold him in esteem, as zealous for the covenant of Christ. For if we thought that office could confer righteousness upon any one, we should commend him among the first as a presbyter of the church, which is his position.” Why should we transcribe the catalogue of the witnesses given in the letter already mentioned, of whom some were beheaded, others cast to the wild beasts, and others fell asleep in prison, or give the number of confessors still surviving at that time? For whoever desires can readily find the full account by consulting the letter itself, which, as I have said, is recorded in our Collection of Martyrdoms.” The martyrs of Lyons evidently included some who participated in the First Church’s “supercommunion,” and looked up to the bishop of the First Church as their “Father.” These were most likely Montanists in the mold of Blastus, who accepted the Montanist charismata but adhered also to the Passover practice of John (see para. 71, above, >>). The context of this citation in Eusebius is precisely the differing (Gk. diaphorous) letters sent from the persecuted brethren in Lyons respecting the Montanist movement that was then infecting the Church worldwide (Eusebius, op. cit. V. iii. 4). The danger of pseudo-asceticism of the kind practiced by the Montanists was present to the mind of these martyrs, as one of them, Attalus, exhorted another, Alcibiades, to partake of more than bread and water lest by this pseudo-ascetic (Gnosticizing, Montanizing) practice he should cause others to stumble into error (loc. cit. 2-3).

119. Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. IV. xxii. 1-3: “HEGESIPPUS in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: “And the church of the Corinthians continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I formed a succession until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.”

120. Eusebius, Church History, 4. 23: “There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle, in which he commends the practice of the Romans which has been retained down to the persecution in our own days. His words are as follows: “For from the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send contributions to many churches in every city. Thus relieving the want of the needy, and making provision for the brethren in the mines by the gifts which you have sent from the beginning, you Romans keep up the hereditary customs of the Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter has not only maintained, but also added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children.” In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: “Today we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written ‘to us through Clement.” The same writer also speaks as follows concerning his own epistles, alleging that they had been mutilated: “As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others. For them a woe is reserved. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord’s writings also, since they have formed designs even against writings which are of less accounts.””

Eusebius, Church History, 2. 25: “And that they [Peter and Paul] both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: “You [Soter’s church] have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of the Romans and Corinthians that came from Peter and Paul. For both of them indeed, having planted into our Corinth, likewise taught us. And likewise, having taught together into Italy, they suffered martyrdom at the same time.” I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed.”

Because an author wrote against heresies (like Dionysius), it did not follow that he himself was (or remained) faithful to the Apostolic doctrine. Of those mentioned below, Tatian and Bardesanes are known to have fallen into Gnostic heresy. Jerome, Letter 70: “Need I speak of Melito bishop of Sardis, of Apollinaris chief-priest of the Church of Hierapolis, of Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians, of Tatian, of Bardesanes, of Irenaeus successor to the martyr Pothinus; all of whom have in many volumes explained the uprisings of the several heresies and tracked them back, each to the philosophic source from which it flows.” We could add Tertullian to the list of those who fought admirably against certain heresies (e.g. Marcionism and Valentinianism) but fell into heresy themselves or rather, in his case, continued in the heresy he first espoused (Cataproclan Montanism) when the First Church moved into another (Cataeschinetan Montanism).

121. “The Second Epistle of Clement” or, more correctly, “The Second Epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians”: “Ch 4: For this reason, if we should do such wicked things, the Lord hath said, “Even though ye were gathered together to Me in My very bosom, yet if ye were not to keep My commandments, I would cast you off, and say unto you, Depart from Me; I know you not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity.” …. Ch 5: Wherefore, brethren, leaving willingly our sojourn in this present world, let us do the will of Him that called us, and not fear to depart out of this world. For the Lord saith, “Ye shall be as lambs in the midst of wolves.” And Peter answered and said unto Him, “What, then, if the wolves shall tear in pieces the lambs?” Jesus said unto Peter, “The lambs have no cause after they are dead to fear the wolves; and in like manner, fear not ye them that kill you, and can do nothing more unto you; but fear Him who, after you are dead, has power over both soul and body to cast them into hell-fire.” And consider, brethren, that the sojourning in the flesh in this world is but brief and transient, but the promise of Christ is great and wonderful, even the rest of the kingdom to come, and of life everlasting. By what course of conduct, then, shall we attain these things, but by leading a holy and righteous life, and by deeming these worldly things as not belonging to us, and not fixing our desires upon them? For if we desire to possess them, we fall away from the path of righteousness …. Ch 8: Wherefore, brethren, by doing the will of the Father, and keeping the flesh holy, and observing the commandments of the Lord, we shall obtain eternal life. For the Lord saith in the Gospel, “If ye have not kept that which was small, who will commit to you the great? For I say unto you, that he that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much.” This, then, is what He means: “Keep the flesh holy and the seal undefiled, that ye may receive eternal life.” …. Ch 12: from the Gospel of the Egyptians: Let us expect, therefore, hour by hour, the kingdom of God in love and righteousness, since we know not the day of the appearing of God. For the Lord Himself, being asked by one when His kingdom would come, replied, “When two shall be one, and that which is without as that which is within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.” Now, two are one when we speak the truth one to another, and there is unfeignedly one soul in two bodies. And “that which is without as that which is within” meaneth this: He calls the soul “that which is within,” and the body “that which is without.” As, then, thy body is visible to sight, so also let thy soul be manifest by good works. And “the male with the female, neither male nor female,” this… [The newly recovered portion follows:] … meaneth, that a brother seeing a sister should think nothing about her as of a female, nor she think anything about him as of a male. If ye do these things, saith He, the kingdom of my Father shall come …. Ch 14: The male is Christ, the female is the Church. And the Books and the Apostles plainly declare that the Church is not of the present, but from the beginning. For she was spiritual, as our Jesus also was, but was manifested In the last days that He might save us. Now the Church, being spiritual, was manifested in the flesh of Christ, thus signifying to us that, if any of us keep her in the flesh and do not corrupt her, he shall receive her again so in the Holy Spirit: for this flesh is the copy of the spirit. No one then who corrupts the copy, shall partake of the original. This then is what He meaneth, “Keep the flesh, that ye may partake of the spirit.” …. Ch 17: For the Lord said, “I come to gather together all the nations, tribes, and tongues.””

122. The site of the incident was Carnuntum near Vienna, the date c. AD 173-4. Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. V. v. 1-7: “GOD SENT RAIN FROM HEAVEN FOR MARCUS AURELIUS CAESAR IN ANSWER TO THE PRAYERS OF OUR PEOPLE. It is reported that Marcus Aurelius Caesar, brother of Antoninus, being about to engage in battle with the Germans and Sarmatians, was in great trouble on account of his army suffering from thirst. But the soldiers of the so-called Melitene legion, through the faith which has given strength from that time to the present, when they were drawn up before the enemy, kneeled on the ground, as is our custom in prayer, and engaged in supplications to God. This was indeed a strange sight to the enemy, but it is reported that a stranger thing immediately followed. The lightning drove the enemy to flight and destruction, but a shower refreshed the army of those who had called on God, all of whom had been on the point of perishing with thirst. This story is related by non-Christian writers who have been pleased to treat the times referred to, and it has also been recorded by our own people. By those historians who were strangers to the faith, the marvel is mentioned, but it is not acknowledged as an answer to our prayers. But by our own people, as friends of the truth, the occurrence is related in a simple and artless manner. Among these is Apolinarius, who says that from that time the legion through whose prayers the wonder took place received from the emperor a title appropriate to the event, being called in the language of the Romans the Thundering Legion. Tertullian is a trustworthy witness of these things. In the Apology for the Faith, which he addressed to the Roman Senate, and which work we have already mentioned, he confirms the history with greater and stronger proofs. He writes that there are still extant letters of the most intelligent Emperor Marcus in which he testifies that his army, being on the point of perishing with thirst in Germany, was saved by the prayers of the Christians. And he says also that this emperor threatened death to those who brought accusation against us. He adds further: “What kind of laws are those which impious, unjust, and cruel persons use against us alone? which Vespasian, though he had conquered the Jews, did not regard; which Trajan partially annulled, forbidding Christians to be sought after; which neither Adrian, though inquisitive in all matters, nor he who was called Plus sanctioned.” But let any one treat these things as he chooses; we must pass on to what followed.” Cf. also Tertullian Apol. 5 (i. 295) (illam germanicam sitim christianorum forte militum precationibus impetrato imbri discussam), Scap. 4 (i. 703) (christianorum militum orationibus ad Deum factis). The pagan witnesses are the pillar of Marcus, Dion Cassius (lxxi. 8, 10), and Capitolinus (Hist. Aug. Life of M. Antoninus Philosophus, xxiv. 4). The earliest Christian witness is Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, who gave a simple account of the incident — probably very soon after its occurrence — perhaps in the Apology which he addressed to Marcus Aurelius. He said that it received from the Emperor the name of keraunobolos (i.e. thundering) in memory of what happened.. The objection that the legion was already called Fulminata (“Thunderstruck”), at least since the time of Nero, is of no particular consequence, since the name could simply have been re-interpreted (as Fulminatrix, “Thundering”, Greek keraunobolos) by the Emperor as a result of the miraculous deliverance.

123. Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. IV. xxvi. 7, see footnote 41, above, >>.

124. On Marcia see First Church of Rome Part 5, and footnote 141, below, >>. Marcia (otherwise Marciana) was intimately involved with the “Christians” of the First Church of Rome, and favored them by her sway over Severus, Lucius Commodus, and other officials of their circle with whom she consorted. When did this involvement commence? It seems to have been in the days of the First Church bishop Anicetus around the time Polycarp visited Rome. Her prejudice in favor of the First Church and against Polycarp explains how and why she came to play such an important part in Polycarp’s execution, being then the wife of the proconsul Quadratus who condemned him to death. We can identify her first contact with Anicetus by inference from her spiritual sway over Septimius Severus and the Severan emperors who followed him on the throne. Aelius Lampridius, Life of Severus Alexander (emperor AD 222-235), in Historia Augusta, Life, 29. 1-3: “Before I tell of his {Severus Alexander’s} wars and his campaigns and his victories, I will relate a few details of his private every-day life. 2 His manner of living was as follows: First of all, if it were permissible, that is to say, if he had not lain with his wife, in the early morning hours he would worship in the sanctuary of his Lares {household gods}, in which he kept statues of the deified emperors — of whom, however, only the best had been selected — and also of certain holy souls, among them Apollonius {a notable pagan philosopher}, and, according to a contemporary writer, Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, and others of this same character and, besides, the portraits of his ancestors. 3 If this act of worship were not possible, he would ride about, or fish, or walk, or hunt, according to the character of the place in which he was.” Here the last of the Severan dynasty (Alexander’s maternal grandmother was the sister-in-law of Septimius Severus) is said to have kept idolatrous images of Christ, Abraham and Orpheus. These are marks of an heretical, Gnostic, brand of Christianity, and more specifically of Carpocratian Gnosticism which was characterized by its use of idolatrous images of Christ, saints such as Apostle Paul, and pagan philosophers and poets (Panarion, Migne PG XLI, 284, 373-6). Carpocrates’ son, the Gnostic guru Epiphanes, was worshiped as a god himself on the island of Samos at the “Museion of Epiphanes” and by the Cephallenians in a similar sacred enclosure (Panarion, Haer. XXXII or xii, Migne PG XLI, 548). Marcia was the conduit between the House of Severus and the paganizing Gnosticism of the First Church. It would seem more than coincidence, therefore, that the Carpocratian cult of images was introduced into the First Church itself under Anicetus by a female devotee called Marcellina (footnote 105, above, >>, and Panarion reference in footnote 40, above, >>), which latter name is a diminutive of Marcia or Marciana, meaning “Little Marcia”. Presuming this “Little Marcia” was the notorious Marcia in her younger days, she first captivated the powerful tribune Septimius Severus, then clawed her way up the social ladder in Rome till she was the most powerful female in the Imperial palace, engineering, as she rose, Severus’ own path to the throne. From those positions of eminence and influence, she promoted relentlessly her own brand of First Church Gnosticism and persecuted pitilessly the disciples of the Apostle John.