Page images
PDF
EPUB

disciples left him so far. They allowed that Jesus Christ had flesh truly, though he was not born of a woman.' That opinion, as well as most other peculiarities of Apelles, is ascribed2 to the teachings of Philumene.

He believed then that Christ was not a mere phantom, but had really a body; not born however, but composed and formed to himself out of aerial matter, as he descended from heaven. So Tertullian in the places already cited; as in like manner the author of the Additions to his book of Prescriptions; and as Philaster says, according to him Christ had flesh, and that not brought from heaven, as Valentinus, but formed out of the four elements.

[ocr errors]

In support of that opinion that Jesus was not born, Apelles, as well as others, laid hold of those words of our Lord, "Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?" as Tertullian 'informs us, and at the same time confutes their reasonings.

In his ascension to heaven Christ restored his body to the stars, or the elements, from whence he had taken it. So Epiphanius, as before quoted, and other authors. Thus we have seen the opinion of Apelles concerning Christ. Origen takes notice of a particular which must have been a consequence of rejecting Moses and the ancient prophets, that Apelles said, 'Jesus was the only person who ever came from God."

SECTION X.

He denied the Resurrection of the Body.

EPIPHANIUS adds: he'denies also the resurrection of the dead; and in other things he agrees with his master Marcion.' That Apelles denied the resurrection of the body or the flesh is very probable; and Tertullian and others confirm the account.

k

h

However, Apelles, as we have seen, allowed that Christ rose again from the dead. And he says he shewed that very flesh in which he had been crucified to his disciples. Nevertheless, that is no proof of the resurrection of the flesh, or of the bodies of others, or that any thing beside the human soul should be saved. For, according to him,' Christ was not born, nor was

cione ad Apellem, qui posteaquam a disciplinà Marcionis in mulierem carne lapsus, dehinc in virginem Philumenen, spiritu eversus est, solidum Christi corpus, sed sine nativitate, suscepit ab eâ prædicare-Confitentur vere corpus habuisse Christum. Unde materia? Unde caro, si non nata? De sideribus, inquiunt, et de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatus est carnem. Et utique proponunt, non esse mirandum corpus sine nativitate, cum et apud nos angelis licuerit, nullâ uteri operâ, in carnem processisse. De Carne Christi. c. 6. p. 362. C. D. 301. 10.

Nam et Philumene illa magis persuasit Apelli, cæterisque desertoribus Marcionis, ex fide quidem Christum circumtulisse carnem, nullius tamen nativitatis, utpote de elementis mutuatam. Adv. Mar. 1. 3. cap. 11. p. 486. A. 391. 13.

b Christum neque id phantasmate dicit fuisse, sicut Marcion, neque in substantiâ veri corporis, ut Evangelium docet ; sed, eo quod a superioribus partibus descenderit, ipso descensu sideream sibi carnem et aeream contexuisse: hunc in resurrectione singulis quibusque elementis, quæ in descensu suo mutuata fuissent, in ascensu reddidisse, et sic, dispersis quibusque corporis, sui partibus, in cœlum spiritum tantum rediisse. cap. 51. p. 254. A. 217. 29.

c Dicit autem Christum in carne apparuisse, non tamen sicut Valentinus de cœlo carnem desumsisse-Sed de quatuor elementis. cap. 47. p. 99.

4 Sed quoties de nativitate contenditur, omnes qui respuunt eam, ut præjudicantem de carnis in Christo veritate, ipsum Deum volunt negare esse natum, quod dixerit: Quæ mihi mater, et qui mihi fratres? Audiat igitur Apelles, quid jam responsum sit a nobis Marcioni, eo libello quo ad Evangelium

provocavimus-Primo quidem nunquam quisquam adnuri. tiâsset illi matrem et fratres ejus foris stare, qui non certus esset, et habere illum matrem et fratres, et ipsos esse quos tunc nuntiabat. De Carne Christi. cap. 7. p. 364. A. B. 302.

11.

• Ότι Απελλής- μυθον ἡγεμενος είναι τα Ιεδαίων γραμ ματα, φησιν, ότι μόνος ουτος επιδεδημηκε τω γενει ανθρώπων -Λεγοντα μόνον επιδεδημηκεναι τον Ιησεν από τε θέα τους avows. Cont. Cels. lib. 5. 54. p. 619. 4. p. 267. Cantab. 1 Φάσκων μη είναι αναςασιν νεκρων. Ibid. n. 4. p. 383. Β. Partem ejus usurpat Marcion, et Apelles, et Valentinus, et ii qui ab eis resurrectionem carnis infringunt. De Pr. H. cap. 33. p. 243. D. p. 210. 37. Vide et de Carn. Chr. cap. 1. p. 358. 298.

Hic carnis resurrectionem negat—Animarum solarum dicit salutem, De Pr. c. 51. p. 254. B. p. 217. 33. Quæ caro mundo reddidit, cum sine carne resurgens. August. Hær. 23. Ait etiam post passionem non carnem surrexisse, sed de quatuor elementis quæ de mundo acceperat, eaque in terram dimisisse ipsum in cœlum sine carne ascendisse asserit. Philas. Hær. 11.

See the last quotations from Austin and Philaster.
See the preceding note . p. 643.

Satis esse debuerat ad probationem carnis humanæ in Christo, per defensionem nativitatis. Sed quoniam et isti Apelleiaci carnis ignominiam prætendunt maxime, quam voJunt ab igneo illo præside mali solicitatis animabus adstructam, et idciro indignam Christo, et idcirco de sideribus illi substantiam competisse, debeo illos de suâ paraturâ repercutere. D Carne Christi. c. 8. p. 365. D. p. 303. 14.

his body like ours, though real and solid, or substantial. His body consisted of aerial, ethereal particles, not such gross matter as that of our bodies, of which Apelles had a very low opinion. I think it worth while to transcribe, and place at the bottom of the page, a long passage of Jerom relating to this point, which some of my readers will see with pleasure.

b

PART III.

What Scriptures he received.

SECTION XI.

In other Matters he generally agreed with Marcion.

EPIPHANIUS says that in other things Apelles agreed with Marcion. It is therefore somewhat probable that he continued to condemn marriage, as before argued from Tertullian. Nor do I remember that any ancient writers have observed Apelles to have made any alteration in Mar- cion's scheme upon this head.

We now at length come to his sentiments about the scriptures.

с

SECTION XIP

Did not pay any great regard to the Old Testament.

How far Apelles rejected the Old Testament may be disputed. Rhodon in Eusebius says: that Philumene by her visions persuaded Apelles to reject the Old Testament. He likewise tells us that Apelles said that the prophets were full of contrarieties and contradictions, and therefore confuted themselves. Origen, in his books against Celsus, says much the same. But in his comments upon the epistle to Titus, as cited by Pamphilus, he expresseth himself more favourably, and supposeth that there was a good harmony between the supreme God, and him who made the world, and was the god of Israel, and of the law and the prophets. Nor is Philaster very different upon that head. The author of the Appendix to Tertullian's Prescriptions says he rejected the law and the prophets. Moreover it appears from what was before said of the writings of Apelles, that they were designed to shew the difficulties of the Old Testament, if not totally to overthrow its authority.

h

[ocr errors]

a Futile et frivolum illud corpusculum, quod malum denique appellare non horrent,etsi ignei alicujus exstructio, æque angeli, ut Apelles docet. De Res. Carn. cap. 5. p. 382. B. p. 316. 11.

b Dicit Origines in pluribus locis, et maxime in libro de resurrectione quarto, et in expositione primi Psalmi, et in Stromatibus, duplicem errorem versari in Ecclesiâ; nostrorum, et hæreticorum- Hæc nos innocentes et rusticos dicere: hæreticos vero, in quorum parte sunt Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus penitus carnis et corporis resurrectionem negare, et salutem tantum tribuere anime, frustraque nos dicere ad exemplum doinini resurrecturos, quum ipse quoque dominus. in phantasmate resurrexerit ; et non solum resurrectio ejus, sed et ipsa nativitas T doxa, id est, putative, visa magis ait quam fuerit. Sibi autem utramque displicere sententiam ; fugere se et nostrorum carnes, et hæreticorum phantasmata. Ad Pamm. Ep. 38. [al. 61.] Tom. 4. p. 320. et ap. Orig. T. 1. p. 36. ed. Bened.

- Τας δε προφητειας εξ αντικειμενο λεγει πνευματος πειθος

μενος αποφθέγματι παρθενε δαιμόνωσης, ονομα Φιλομενης. Αρ. Eus. p. 177. B.

4 Εφη, τας μεν προφητείας ἑαυτας ελέγχειν, δια το μηδεν όλως αληθες ειρηκεναι· ασύμφωναι γαρ υπαρχεσι και ψευδείς, και ἑαυταις αντικειμεναι. p. 178. Α.

• Ότι ὁ Μαρκιωνος γνώριμος, Απέλλης, αίρεσεως τινος γενομενος πατήρ, και μύθον ήγεμενος είναι τα Ιεδαίων γραμματα -x. A. Contr. Cels. lib. 4. cap. 54. p. 619. A. Tom. 1. Bened. p. 267. Can.

f Sed et Apelles, licet non omnibus modis Dei esse legem deneget et prophetas, tamen et ipse hæreticus designatur, quoniam Deum, qui hunc mundum condidit, ad gloriam alterius ingeniti et boni Dei eum construxisse pronuntiavit; illum autem ingenitum Deum in consummatione seculi misisse Jesum Christum ad emendationem mundi, rogatum ab eo Deo qui eum fecerat, ut mitteret filium suum ad mundi sui correctionem. Pamph. pro Origin. Ap. ap. Hieron. T. 5. 226. B. See above, p. 643. note a

Legem et prophetas repudiat. c. 51. p. 254. A. p. 217.29

SECTION XIII.

His Sentiments about the New Testament probably not very different from Marcion's.

WITH regard to the New Testament, as Apelles was a disciple of Marcion, and ancient writers do not take any particular notice of his dissenting from his master about the canon of the New Testament, it may be argued that upon this head the sentiments of both were much alike. Let us however observe a few particulars.

The author of the Additions to Tertullian's book of Prescriptions says that Apelles' re'ceived the apostle Paul only, and him not entire.' But that must be a mistake, or misrepre sentation, and deserves little or no regard. Apelles certainly received some gospel, if not all the gospels, as well as Paul's epistles: though perhaps all of them curtailed and altered after the manner of Marcion.

SECTION XIV.

It is likely that he rejected the Beginning of St. Matthew's Gospel as well as that of St. Luke.

As Apelles denied the nativity of Jesus, it is likely that he rejected the beginning of St. Matthew's gospel, if he received the other part of it, and also those chapters from the beginning of St. Luke's gospel that Marcion did.

b

Origen, in a letter to his friends at Alexandria, joins Marcion and Apelles together in a censure for altering the gospels and the apostle, or both parts of the New Testament; though perhaps his words do not necessarily imply that Apelles followed Marcion in every alteration of scripture. However, as we have only a Latin version of that epistle, we must not be too nice in our remarks.

с

Tertullian, in a passage where he censures Marcion, Valentinus, and Apelles, for a wrong usage of scriptures, speaks of Apelles as removing the ancient bounds; though the meaning of that expression is not easily determined with exactness.

In their argument against our Lord's nativity, from his saying, "Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?" and in Tertullian's answer, it is supposed that they did receive a gospel or gospels where that account is recorded. Of this I took notice formerly."

SECTION XV.

He treated the Scriptures just as Marcion did, by receiving Part, and rejecting what did not suit his Purpose.

I ADD here another passage of Tertullian in the margin, relating to the same matter, and supposing, I think, that Apelles treated the scriptures of the New Testament much after the same manner that Marcion did.

a Solo utitur et Apostolo, sed Marcionis, id est, non toto.

See before in the account of Marcion, sec. 37.

e Eodem illi exclamationi non

cap. 1. p. 254. B. p. 217. 3 disputationem nostram purgavit: mat derunt subenique gentis, sed feliciores designants, qui

tali nempe, quali purgatione Marcion Evangelia purgavit vel apostolum, vel quali successor ejus post ipsum Apelles. Orig. Ep. Tom. 1. p. 6. B.

Ad quos merito dicendum est: qui estis? quando, et unde venistis-Quo denique, Marcion, jure silvam meam cædis? Quâ licentiâ, Valentine, fontes meos transvertis. Quâ potestate, Apelles, limites meos commoves. De Pr. cap. 37. p. 245, D. p. 212. 3.

verbum Dei audiunt. Solis istis capitulis, quibus maxime instructi sibi videntur Marcion et Apelles, secundum veritatem integri et incorrupti Evangelii interpretatis, satis esse debuerat, ad probationem carnis humanæ in Christo, per defensionem nativitatis. De Carn. Christ. cap. 7, 8. p. 365. D. p. 303. 11.

b

с

Tertullian mentions an interpretation which the followers of Apelles gave of the lost sheep in the parable. In other places he supposes their respect for some of St. Paul's epistles. Epiphanius, in his history of Apelles, and in his confutation of him, quotes freely St. John's gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, and several of St. Paul's epistles. He also refers to St. Mark's and the other gospels. At the same time he' chargeth him with taking or leaving what he liked: which,' he says, is acting like a judge, not like an interpreter of scripture.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

CHAP. XIII.

OF THE SETHIANS..

SECTION I..

Some general Observations concerning these Heretics, and the Ophites and Cainites.

[ocr errors]

go

[ocr errors]

TILLEMONT speaks of the Cainites under the article of the Nicolaitans. He joins together the Ophites and Sethians. He says the heretics called Ophites descend, as to their doctrine, from the Nicolaitans and Gnostics.' They are reckoned not to have appeared till after the Heracleonites and some other branches of the Valentinians: therefore we cannot place their rise before the year 150, nor much later, since they were known to Irenæus. So йe.

A

Irenæus, at the conclusion of his first book, has two chapters, the first of Ophites and Sethians, whom he joins together; the other of the Cainites. The former is long, and he there seems to design we should think them all sprung from the Valentinians; and yet in the following chapter of the Cainites, he speaks as if the Valentinians had sprung from them.* large part of his long chapter of the Ophites and Sethians is very obscure; for which reason I shall not attempt to translate or transcribe it; but by and by I shall take out of it several particulars.

The 'Cainites, or Cainists, and Ophians, are mentioned by Clement of Alexandria. He gives no distinct account of them, but says that some heretics are denominated from their opi-nions, or the objects of their veneration, as the Cainists and Ophians.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

m

Philaster has three chapters of Ophites, Cainites, and Sethians. They are placed by him among the heresies before Christ, and are the very first in his catalogue. Nor has he any thing that might lead us to think them Christians; except that in the article of the Sethians he says. they not only said that the Christ descended from. Seth, but also that he was Seth himself.' In Epiphanius, and in Augustine, who follows him, the order is Ophites, Cainites, and Sethians. The author of the Additions to Tertullian observes the same order, and has a long article of each. Theodoret joins the Sethians and Ophites, and then has a distinct article for Cainites.

[blocks in formation]

Tales quidem secundum eos sententiæ sunt; a quibus multiplex capitibus fere de Valentini scholâ gencrata est. lib. 1. cap. 30. [al. 34.] n. 15. p. 112. Vide et c. 31. [al. 35.] n. 3. p. 113.

KA talibus matribus, et patribus, et proavis, eos qui a Vas lentino sint, sicut ipsæ sententiæ et regulæ ostendunt eos. cap, 31. n. 3. p. 113.

' Αἱ δε απο υποθέσεων, και ὧν τετιμηκασιν, ὡς Καϊανισαι τε και οἱ Οφιανοι προσαγορευομενοι. Str. lib. 7. p. 765. C. De Seth autem ipso Christum Dominum genus deducere aiunt. Quidam autem ex iis non solum genus de eo deducere, sed etiam ipsum Christum esse asserunt atque opinantur. P. 11, 12..

SECTION II.

Epiphanius's Account of the Sethians.

HAVING given this general view of the most ancient catalogues of heresies, where these people are mentioned, I choose to begin with the Sethians; and Epiphanius's account shall be

our text.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a

He says: neither the Sethians nor the former heresy of the Cainites are to be met with where.' He thinks however that he had seen some of them in Egypt: but he could not recollect in what part of it.

every

The Sethians,' he says, 'boast that they are descendants of Seth, the son of Adam, whom they mightily extol, saying that he was an example of righteousness and every virtue. They also call him Christ, and say he is the same as Jesus. They say that the world was made by angels, and not by the supreme power. Let us go over these things.

SECTION III.

They called themselves the Descendants of Seth.

C

THEY said they were descendants of Seth the son of Adam. In which there is nothing wonderful; for so are all men living since the flood. But they boasted that they were the children of Seth; meaning thereby, probably, that they were the children or people of God, not the children of Cain, who was of the evil one, nor the seed of the evil one, or men of the world. In this referring, it is likely, to divers texts in the books of Genesis and Numbers. For the Sethians being, as seems probable, Hebrews by descent, and Christians by profession, and well acquainted with the Jewish scriptures, were oftentimes led to speak of themselves in this manner. So Rhenford understood this, whose reasonings appear to have a great deal of probability.

e

[ocr errors]

SECTION IV.

They spoke of Seth in a very honourable manner.

THEY ascribed all virtues to Seth; nor can any say that they did so without reason.

They likewise called him Christ, and said he was the same as Jesus. In what they said of Seth it is likely they had a reference to Gen. iii. 15, and iv. 25. But here is probably some mistake, or misrepresentation; for, as we shall see presently, they say Christ was descended from Seth.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

pp cæterarumque versionum incommodis, Altingius solide atque præclare evicit in Locis Parallelis. p. 8, 9. Rhenfordi Diss. de Sethianis. n. 6. p. 166. Opp. Philolog. Trajec. ad Rhen. 1722.

Id ergo cum non ignorarent hi homines, natione Hebræi, professione Nazareni vel Christiani, linguæ Hebræææ Syræque callentissimi, Catecheseos veterum patrum, mysteriorum Cabalisticorum minime ignari, filios Sethi se professi sunt, id est illius fidei et pietatis, quæ quondam in Setho fuerat, studiosos atque æmulos, id est vere fideles, vere Christianos, illorumque beneficiorum, quæ quondam, cum alibi, tum Num. xxiv. 17, filiis Sethi per Messiam promissa erant, participes. Ib. n. 9. p. 167.

« PreviousContinue »