The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that there are passages in non-heretical early Christian writers which nevertheless teach things that are odd, or false. This is to show that, even amongst accepted, venerated early teachers who are considered orthodox, there are passages which are rejected by nearly all Christians, even those who otherwise appeal to them.
Protestants reading this should come away with the understanding that they can answer the question of "Do you accept the Church Fathers?", which is often asked to them by those in Imperialist denominations (Catholicism, Orthodoxy), with "Yes, very often, where they agree with Scripture, and no, where they stray from Scripture". And, these citations will demonstrate that an Imperialist must be similarly selective, as none of them can affirm everything that the early Christian leaders taught, but rather only affirm what they teach so long as they view it in harmony with what their Imperialist denomination already teaches is orthodox.
Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, taught the doctrine of Chiliasm, also called Premillennialism, which is rejected as a false doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church (Decree of the Holy Office, July 21, 1944), and is also rejected in favor of Amillennialism by most Orthodox:
Papias (60-130 AD) - Fragments of Papias, Chapter 6
We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord. The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.
Eschatology is an instance in which the earliest Christians align far more closely with modern Evangelicals than Imperialist denominations, with many of the early Church writers holding to Premillennialism (The Didache, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, etc.). Of course, we do not regard Papias to be in error here at all.
The Epistle of Barnabas provides the justification behind what "Moses said" (Epistle of Barnabas 10:1) in the Law regarding dietary restrictions:
Epistle of Barnabas 10:6-8 (70-130 AD)
6 Moreover thou shalt not eat the hare. Why so? Thou shalt not be found a corrupter of boys, nor shalt thou become like such persons; for the hare gaineth one place of conception in the body every year; for according to the number of years it lives it has just so many orifices.
7 Again, neither shalt thou eat the hyena; thou shalt not, saith He, become an adulterer or a fornicator, neither shalt thou resemble such persons. Why so? Because this animal changeth its nature year by year, and becometh at one time male and at another female.
8 Moreover He hath hated the weasel also and with good reason. Thou shalt not, saith He, become such as those men of whom we hear as working iniquity with their mouth for uncleanness, neither shalt thou cleave unto impure women who work iniquity with their mouth. For this animal conceiveth with its mouth.
The above is nonsense. These are not the reasons God forbade these animals, as none of the reasons given are true:
This is reading too much into the text, and teaching false doctrine on the reasons God gave for forbidding certain animals.
First Clement seems to believe a folk tale about a phoenix who lives for exactly 500 years, prepares for itself in a coffin with spices, and then enters the coffin, and dies. Then, a worm emerges from the coffin, becomes a winged creature, and carries the coffin to Heliopolis in Egypt:
First Clement 25:1-26:1 (96 AD)
1 Let us consider the marvelous sign which is seen in the regions of the east, that is, in the parts about Arabia.
2 There is a bird, which is named the phoenix. This, being the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into the which in the fullness of time it entereth, and so it dieth.
3 But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the country of Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of the Sun (Heliopolis);
4 And in the daytime in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to return.
5 So the priests examine the registers of the times, and they find that it hath come when the five hundredth year is completed.
1 Do we then think it to be a great and marvelous thing, if the Creator of the universe shall bring about the resurrection of them that have served Him with holiness in the assurance of a good faith, seeing that He showeth to us even by a bird the magnificence of His promise?
He uses this false story to attempt to defend the resurrection of the dead, and there is no indication that he does not believe the story, or views it as merely a legend. Rather, the context indicates that he did believe it, and that is why he uses it in defense of what he is preaching.
The Shepherd of Hermas teaches the heresy that there is only one chance for a believer to repent of a major sin after they have been baptized:
Shepherd of Hermas (160 AD) 29:8
8 "Certainly," saith he, "if the husband receiveth her not, he sinneth and bringeth great sin upon himself; nay, one who hath sinned and repented must be received, yet not often; for there is but one repentance for the servants of God. For the sake of her repentance therefore the husband ought not to marry. This is the manner of acting enjoined on husband and wife.
Shepherd of Hermas (160 AD) 31:1-6
1 "I will still proceed, Sir," say I, "to ask a further question." "Speak on," saith he. "I have heard, Sir," say I, "from certain teachers, that there is no other repentance, save that which took place when we rent down into the water and obtained remission of our former sins."
2 He saith to me; "Thou hast well heard; for so it is. For he that hath received remission of sins ought no longer to sin, but to dwell in purity.
3 But, since thou enquirest all things accurately, I will declare unto thee this also, so as to give no excuse to those who shall hereafter believe or those who have already believed, on the Lord. For they that have already believed, or shall hereafter believe, have not repentance for sins, but have only remission of their former sins.
4 To those then that were called before these days the Lord has appointed repentance. For the Lord, being a discerner of hearts and foreknowing all things, perceived the weakness of men and the manifold wiles of the devil, how that he will be doing some mischief to the servants of God, and will deal wickedly with them.
5 The Lord then, being very compassionate, had pity on His handiwork, and appointed this (opportunity of) repentance, and to me was given the authority over this repentance.
6 But I say unto you," saith he, "if after this great and holy calling any one, being tempted of the devil, shall commit sin, he hath only one (opportunity of) repentance. But if he sin off-hand and repent, repentance is unprofitable for such a man; for he shall live with difficulty."
The above is not believed or practiced by Imperialist denominations today. Roman Catholicism teaches that one can repent of more than one Mortal Sin after their baptism. Orthodoxy doesn't exactly have an analogous system, but do not reject the sincerely penitent, even after more than one major sin, nor do they teach that God does not accept their repentance.
Irenaeus taught that Jesus was over 40 years old, and nearly 50 years old, when He died, explicitly rejecting what all modern Christians acknowledge as being true, namely, that Jesus died in His early 30's:
Irenaeus (130-202 AD) - Against Heresies, Chapter 22
4 Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.
5 They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?
6 But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? "He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their Aeons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma;
The above is also especially significant given that Irenaeus says that "all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information". And, "not only John, but the other apostles also". That is, Irenaeus is claiming a direct link to multiple Apostles for his errant doctrine.
This passage demonstrates that someone claiming an "unwritten tradition" going back to the Apostles, even amongst the earliest of Christian writers, may be mistaken. Such traditions may be wildly erroneous, having nothing to do with what any Apostle ever taught anyone.
Cyprian (200-258 AD) presided over the 5th and 6th councils of Carthage (255-256 AD), which declared baptism by heretics to be invalid, and urged the re-baptism of those who had come to the Church from heretical sects.
In the midst of the controversy, Cyprian wrote to the Bishop of Rome, Stephen I (254-257 AD), concerning the matter (Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 5, Epistle LXXI of Cyprian, To Stephen). Stephen replied to Cyprian, and disagreed with his doctrine on re-baptism, which Cyprian later discussed in a letter to a Christian named Pompey:
Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 5, Epistle LXXIII of Cyprian, To Pompey, Against the Epistle of Stephen About the Baptism of Heretics
1 Cyprian to his brother Pompeius, greeting. Although I have fully comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the letters of which I sent you copies, dearest brother, yet, since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God.
For among other matters, which were either haughtily assumed, or were not pertaining to the matter, or contradictory to his own view, which he unskilfully and without foresight wrote, he moreover added this saying: "If any one, therefore, come to you from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated (or done) which has not been handed down, to wit, that hands be imposed on him for repentance; since the heretics themselves, in their own proper character, do not baptize such as come to them from one another, but only admit them to communion."
2 He forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is, he judged the baptism of all heretics to be just and lawful. And although special heresies have special baptisms and different sins, he, holding communion with the baptism of all, gathered up the sins of all, heaped together into his own bosom.
This rebuke of Stephen and his position on baptism can also be seen in the next epistle in the collection, written to Cyprian by a bishop named Firmilian (Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 5, Epistle LXXIV, Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, To Cyprian).
Cyprian later called another council - the 7th Council of Carthage (256 AD) - in which he reaffirmed his stance on the baptism of heretics, and said the following about the relationship of bishops to one another:
Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 5, The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian
It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.
The above is also quoted by Augustine (354-430 AD) in his work, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book 2, Chapter 2.
This quotation is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, he is opposing Pope Stephen I, showing that he (and the bishops gathered with him) did not consider the Bishop of Rome's ruling to be final, nor did they consider him to have jurisdiction over them. His words on this issue are striking - "every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another". Consequently, none of them "set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience".
Roman Catholics, eager to get rid of this quotation, ignore the historical context of the situation, and say that Cyprian was only speaking of the bishops gathered at the council. This is wrong, as Cyprian speaks of "every bishop", and the fact that they "can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another". The idea that there is an exception to this for the Bishop of Rome, who they were opposing, is absurd.
The second reason this quotation is interesting is because Cyprian's position that baptisms conducted by heretics are invalid is rejected today by the Roman Catholic Church. Some Orthodox re-baptize those who have been baptized in other denominations, but some do not, also rejecting Cyprian's opinion here.
Athanasius (296-373 AD), when enumerating the canon, omits Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, and Wisdom:
Athanasius - 39th Festal Letter (367 AD)
3 In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.
4 There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
5 Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.
6 These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.
7 But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.
Above, Athanasius explicitly distinguishes the divinely-inspired Scripture from the books which are merely appointed to be read for edification, mentioning Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit as examples of such books. However, Athanasius errs in including Esther among the non-canonical Scripture, even though it is regarded as canonical by all, including the Jews.
Therefore, in an official teaching capacity, Athanasius erred by anyone's standard, but certainly by the standard of the Imperialist denominations, which add many non-inspired books to the Old Testament, even though they are rejected as inspired by Athanasius.
Jerome (347-420 AD), in his introduction to Kings, distinguishes between the Old Testament, and the "Apocryphal writings", which include Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees:
Jerome (347-420 AD) - Preface to the Books of the Kings
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Law; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the ancient Law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb and offer their crowns with lowered visage, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and will be."
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a defensive introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.
Notice that Jerome connects the 24 book canon to the vision of the 24 elders in Revelation (Revelation 4:4, 4:10, 5:8, 5:14, 11:16, 19:4), whereas the extra books included in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles are relegated to the category of "Apocryphal writings".
With the exception of his inclusion of Baruch, Protestants would agree with Jerome's canon. It is only in this article because Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox must regard him to have erred, which is especially troublesome in the case of Roman Catholicism, as they admit that their Vulgate came from Jerome, and therefore acknowledge that he was regarded to have been very learned in issues regarding the text and content of the Bible.
Augustine (354-430 AD) seemingly taught that infant communion was necessary for Salvation - a position rejected by virtually every professing Christian in modern times, including those within Catholicism and Orthodoxy:
Augustine - On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book 1, Chapter 26-27
Well, then, let us remove the doubt; let us now listen to the Lord, and not to men's notions and conjectures; let us, I say, hear what the Lord says - not indeed concerning the sacrament of the laver, but concerning the sacrament of His own holy table, to which none but a baptized person has a right to approach: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall have no life in you". What do we want more? What answer to this can be adduced, unless it be by that obstinacy which ever resists the constancy of manifest truth?
Will, however, any man be so bold as to say that this statement has no relation to infants, and that they can have life in them without partaking of His body and blood - on the ground that He does not say, Except one eat, but "Except you eat"; as if He were addressing those who were able to hear and to understand, which of course infants cannot do? But he who says this is inattentive; because, unless all are embraced in the statement, that without the body and the blood of the Son of man men cannot have life, it is to no purpose that even the elder age is solicitous of it. From all this it follows, that even for the life of infants was His flesh given, which He gave for the life of the world; and that even they will not have life if they eat not the flesh of the Son of man.
Augustine - On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book 1, Chapter 34
If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord's body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin - respecting which guilty nature it is written, that "no one is clean, not even if his life be only that of a day" (Job 14:4).
Augustine - Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 4, Chapter 4
For both of them refuse to have it delivered by Christ's flesh and blood, - the one, because they destroy that very flesh and blood, as if He did not take upon Him these at all in man or of man; and the other, because they assert that there is no evil in infants from which they should be delivered by the sacrament of this flesh and blood.
Augustine - Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 4, Chapter 8
Why do the Pelagians evade this matter? If reconciliation through Christ is necessary to all men, on all men has passed sin by which we have become enemies, in order that we should have need of reconciliation. This reconciliation is in the laver of regeneration and in the flesh and blood of Christ, without which not even infants can have life in themselves.
The above is also notable because the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD), when discussing the "holy fathers" who taught infant communion, says "assuredly, is it to be believed without controversy, that they did this without any necessity unto salvation" (Council of Trent - Session 21, Chapter 4).
In the case of Augustine, then, who is an extremely important figure on this topic specifically, the Council of Trent was incorrect, and misrepresenting the early Church to make it seem as if they were unanimous, when they were not, and that they all agreed with them, when they did not.
Pope Gregory I (540-604 AD) is significant because he was a pre-schism Pope, who rejected the Apocrypha as canonical in his commentary on Job, which was published after he became Pope:
Pope Gregory I (540-604 AD) - Morals on the Book of Job, Book 19
34 With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Maccabees 6:46). Whom, then, does this one represent, whom his own victory bore down, but those persons who overcome bad habits, but by being lifted up are brought down under the very things they bring under?
Above, Gregory places the book of Maccabees in a category below the canonical Scriptures, following the example of Athanasius, Jerome, and others, who did the same. And, of course, Protestants do not regard this as an error, but it is included here because Catholics and Orthodox must regard it as an error.