but the minority, without denying that they were heretics, or the minority, would not think themselves subject to any just opprobrium on that account. Thus, while the Christians were the minority among the Jews, and were consequently considered as heretics, Paul says, Acts xxiv. 14, "After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers." As heretics, we also find that the Christians were cast out of the Jewish synagogues (which was a pattern for the Christian excommunications), and yet it appears that, for some time, Christians were admitted into the synagogues, and allowed to preach and dispute in them.

Thus we find it to have been the custom of Paul, in all his apostolical journeys, to begin with teaching in the Jewish synagogues, and that he continued so to do, till, on account of their coming to no agreement, he was either denied that liberty, or withdrew of his own accord. This was the case at Ephesus, where he first preached three months in the Jewish synagogue, but then left it, Acts xix. 8, 9: "And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing (or discoursing) daily in the school of one Tyrannus."

In like manner, when the Gnostics began to distinguish themselves, and to be troublesome in christian churches, in which they had been tolerated for a time, they either sepa

"The word aigeois (heresy) in Greek writers is of a middle nature, and signifies the embracing any particular set of opinions, either good or bad. Diogenes Laertius says, the ancient moralists were distinguished into ten aipers or sects. And a little after, speaking of the Pyrrhonists, he says, some allow them to be aiper, a heresy or sect, and others not, according to their different notion of that word. Which some defined to be—την λογῳ τινι κατα το φαινόμενον ακολέθεσαν, η ƐоKSTAY AKоheÕεI'—that which follows a certain scheme according to the appearance of things, or which seems to follow it. But others προσκλισιν εν δοίμασιν, ακολυθίαν Exo-the embracing a set of decrees (or doctrines) consequent upon one another. (Proem. Segm. 20.) To which latter definition Clemens Álexandrinus adds,-and tending to happiness of life (#pos тO EU ZNY σUVTEIVera.) Strom. L. viii. And thus Cicero uses the word hæresis in speaking of Cato, when he says (Paradox. 1), ‘In ea est hæresi, quæ nullum sequitur florem orationis'-meaning the sect or heresy of the Stoics.

"The word alpetikos is seldom to be met with, except in ecclesiastical writers. But Suidas, applying it to philosophers, uses it in the same indifferent sense with αίρεσις. For describing the Pyrrhonists (in voce Πυρρωνειοι), he calls them αἱρετικοι (heretics)—who, embracing the opinions of Pyrrho, were so called from their master. In the New Testament this word is used but once, and that in an ill sense; but if there had been any occasion for introducing it thus, no good reason can be assigned why it might not have been used (as it is by Suidas) in an indifferent sense." Foster's Answer to Stebbing, 1735, pp. 17, 18, Note.

rated of themselves, or were expelled. Paul tolerated them for some time at Corinth, and only gave orders for the excommunication of the incestuous person, who is generally supposed to have been at the head of that party in the place; and at Ephesus, he contented himself with excommunicating "Hymenæus and Alexander," 1 Tim. i. 20. As Hymenæus denied the resurrection, as appears from 2 Tim. ii. 18, it is probable that Alexander did so too, and therefore that they were both excommunicated as Gnostics.

Paul's directions to Titus were general and decisive, requiring him to reject heretics after the first or second admonition only; having perhaps, from a more perfect knowledge of their character, and a longer acquaintance with their conduct, found that there was but little prospect of convincing them, and therefore thought that the sooner they were entirely separated from the society of Christians the better. That they were Gnostics, and Gnostics only, concerning whom he gave these directions, is clear from the context, which I shall therefore recite, Titus iii. 9-11: "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is a beretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, knowing that he that is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." He here probably alludes to the profligacy of some of the Gnostics, which he imagined they could not but themselves think to be blameable. As to mere opinions, no person can actually hold any one, and at the same time think it to be wrong, so as to condemn himself for holding it; and indeed those practices which men really think to be justified by their opinions, they must themselves consider as innocent, whatever others may think of them.

With respect to doctrines, this is a piece of justice that Evagrius very candidly does to the heretics, after the separation had continued a long time. "No heretics," he says, meant to blaspheme, but all thought their opinion to be preferable to that of those who went before them."*

In the time of the apostle John, the Gnostics seem to have been entirely separated from the church; and it should seem that they had generally retired of their own accord, as may be collected from 1 John ii. 19: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,

* Και εδεις αδυναίων των αίρεσεις παρα Χρισιανοις εξευρηκοίων πρωίοίυπως βλασφημείν ηθελησεν, η ατίμασαι το θειον βελόμενος εξωλίσθησεν· αλλα μαλλον ὑπολαμβανων κρείσσον το φθασανίος λεγειν ει τόδε πρεσβευσεις. Hist. L. i. C. xi. p. 263. (Ρ.)

they would, no doubt, have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." That these persons were Gnostics, is evident from the context. For in the verse preceding he had spoken of there being many Antichrists, and in ver. 22 he had defined Antichrist to be one who denied that Jesus is the Christ, which is well known to be a Gnostic doctrine.

It appears, however, from the book of Revelation, that there were exceptions in this case, and that Gnostics were not absolutely excluded from all churches. There were Nicolaitans in the church of Pergamos, as well as others who did not come under that particular denomination; for the Gnostics were very early divided into a variety of sects and parties. Such persons also there were in the church of Thyatira, Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20. As Christians had no creeds in those days, any person openly professing Christianity might be a member of a christian church; and if he did not make himself troublesome by propagating offensive opinions, would certainly be allowed to continue in it. For this has been the case in all ages. Afterwards the creed to which every person gave his assent at baptism, was so framed as purposely to exclude the Gnostics, and then the separation was complete, as will be shewn in its proper place.

In later times, when there was a still greater diversity of opinion among Christians, the definition of a heretic came to be much more difficult, as is acknowledged by Austin. "Every error," he says, "is not heresy, though all heresy, which consists in vice, must be an error. What it is, therefore, that makes a heretic, cannot, I think, be strictly defined, or at least not without difficulty."*

At length, the rule in which Christians acquiesced with the most satisfaction, was to define that to be orthodox which was received in those great churches which had been founded by the apostles, such as those of Rome, Antioch and Jerusalem. Irenæus strongly urges this topic, saying, that the Valentinians were not before Valentinus, nor the Marcionites before Marcion, &c. This is the short method taken by Tertullian, in his treatise De Præscriptione, the great prin

"Non enim omnis error hæresis est, quamvis omnis hæresis quæ in vitio ponitur, nisi errore aliquo hæresis esse non possit. Quid ergo faciat hæreticum, regulari quadam definitione comprehendi sicut ego existimo, aut omninò non potest, aut difficillimè potest." Index Haresium, Pref. Opera, VI. p. 11. (P.)

"Ante Valentinum enim non fuerunt, qui sunt à Valentino; neque ante Mar'cionem erant, qui sunt à Marcione; neque omninò erant reliqui sensus maligni, quos supra enumeravimus, antequam initiatores et inventores, perversitatis eorum fierent." L. iii. C. iv. p. 206. (P.)

ciple of which is thus briefly expressed by himself: "That is the true faith which is the most ancient, and that a corruption which is modern."* But then to determine what was ancient, and what was modern, he appeals to the tenets of those churches, or rather the bishops and clergy of those churches, at that time, without considering what changes had, in a course of time, been gradually and insensibly introduced into them. In this manner, however, heresy and novelty came to be considered as synonymous. Thus the term xavoroμia seems to be used by Athanasius. Without attending to this circumstance, we shall often be misled in reading ecclesiastical history. For it is not unusual with historians to speak of an opinion as new, when they themselves have said that it was adopted from some other person. Of this I shall, in its place, give several instances.

In later times, heresy came to be distinguished from schism by the former signifying a wrong opinion, and the latter an actual separation from the communion of the catholic church, though on any other account. Thus Jerome defines the words. §

"have

As the great body of Gnostics had no communion with the catholic church, this very want of communion, on the principle above-mentioned, was alleged as a decisive argument against them. "Heretics," says Tertullian, nothing to do with our discipline. The very want of communion with us shews that they are foreign to us."|| "When heresies and schisms rose afterwards," says Cyprian, "they set up separate conventicles to themselves, and left the head and origin of truth." And again, "If heretics are Christians, why are they not in the church of God?"**

* " Id esse verum quodcumque primum; id esse adulterum, quodcumque posterius." Ad. Prax. Sect. i. p. 501. (P.)

↑ "Quid autem prædicaverint, id est, quid illis Christus revelaverit, et hic præscribam non aliter probari debere, nisi per easdem ecclesias, quas ipsi apostoli condiderunt, ipsi eis prædicando, tam viva, quod aiunt voce, quam per epistolas postea. Si hæc ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quæ cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis, matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandam; sine dubio tenentem quod ecclesiæ ab apostolis, apostoli à Christo, Christus à Deo accepit." De Præscriptione, Sect. xxi. p. 209. (P.)

† Δι ων εκβαλλεται μεν εικείως ἡ το Σαμοσαλεως καινοτομία. Can. Sabel. Opera, I.

p. 654. (P.)

§ "Inter hæresim et schisma hoc interesse arbitramur, quod hæresis perversum dogma habeat: schisma propter episcopalem dissentionem ab ecclesia pariter separet." Opera, VI. p. 209. (P.)

"Hæretici autem nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis." De Baptismo, Sect. xv. p. 230. (P.) "Et cum hæreses et schismata post modum nata sunt dum conventicula sibi diversa constituunt, veritatis caput atque originem reliquerunt." Opera, p. 112. (P.) ** "Hæretici Christiani sunt, an nou? Si Christiani sunt; cur in ecclesia Dei non sunt?" Ibid. p. 234. (P.)

VOL VI

Heretics are also spoken of as out of the church, by Eusebius.* "Dionysius," says Athanasius, "was no heretic, because he did not separate himself from the church." "It seemed proper," says Basil, "from the beginning, to reject heretics entirely."+ Every heretic," says Jerome, "is born in the church, but is cast out of the church, and fights against the church." Austin also says, "As soon as any heresy existed, it separated itself from the catholic church."||

This being the case, according to the uniform testimony of all antiquity, in every period of it, it may be safely concluded, that though numbers of quiet people, whose opinions were sufficiently known to be heretical, might continue in communion with the church, yet that the majority must have been such as were not deemed heretics; especially as all persons had equal liberty to retire, and set up separate places of worship, and the temptation to continue in the church was not great. Since, therefore, there were no separate places of worship for Christians of any denomination, besides either those who were termed Catholics, or those who were called Gnostics, under some name or other, it may be safely concluded, that in these early times none could be deemed heretics besides the Gnostics.

When bodies of men distinguish themselves so much as to form separate places of assembly, they will of course be much talked of, and thence will arise a necessity of giving them some name, by which they may be distinguished from other classes of men. The purpose of discourse and writing will make this unavoidable; because it is inconvenient frequently to use periphrases and long descriptions of persons or things. Accordingly, the disciples of Christ had not long been known as a separate body of men, before they were distinguished by the name of Nazarenes, from Nazareth, of which place Jesus was, and then by that of Christians.

As the Gentile Christians used a different language from the Jewish, and of course held separate assemblies, and on

Ταυτα τα δόγματα εδε δι εξω της εκκλησίας αἱρετικοι ετολμησαν αποφήνασθαι ποτέ. Hist. L. v. C. xx. p. 238. (P.)

+ Μηδε αυτό ως αίρεσιν εκδικων εξήλθε της εκκλησίας. De Sententia Dionysii, Opera, I. p. 550. (P.)

† Αίρεσεις μεν της παντελώς απερρηγμένες, και κατ' αυτην την πιςιν απηλλοτριωμενες έδοξε τοινυν τοις εξ αρχής το μεν των αἱρετικων παντελως αθετησαι. Ad Amphiloch. Ep. Opera, III. p. 20. (P.)

"Omnis enim hæreticus nascitur in ecclesia, sed de ecclesia projicitur, et contendit et pugnat contra parentem." In Jerem. xxii. IV. p. 277. (P.)

|| "Statim enim unaquæque hæresis ut existebat, et à congregatione Catholicæ communionis exibat," &c. De Baptismo, contra Donatistas, L. v. C. xix. VII. ). 446. (P.)