Not so with Irenæus and Tertullian.[324] The principal works of the latter _against the Heretics_, were written after his separation from the Catholic Church, when he had ranged himself among the zealous followers of Montanus; and teem with unfairness and bigoted prejudice.[325] He has exaggerated every Gnostic opinion to a monstrous absurdity, and his arguments are not based on coercive reasoning but simply on the blind stubbornness of a partisan fanatic. Discussing Basilides, the “pious, god-like, theosophic philosopher,” as Clemens of Alexandria thought him, Tertullian exclaims: “After this, Basilides, the _heretic_, broke loose.[326] He asserted that there is a Supreme God, by name Abraxas, by whom Mind was created, whom the Greeks call _Nous_. From her emanated the Word; from the Word, Providence; from Providence, Virtue and Wisdom; from these two again, Virtues, _Principalities,[327] and Powers_ were made; thence infinite productions and emissions of angels. Among the lowest angels, indeed, and those that made this world, he sets _last of all_ the god of the Jews, whom he denies to be God himself, affirming that he is but one of the angels.”[328] It would be equally useless to refer to the direct apostles of Christ, and show them as holding in their controversies that Jesus never made any difference between his “Father” and the “Lord-God” of Moses. For the _Clementine Homilies_, in which occur the greatest argumentations upon the subject, as shown in the disputations alleged to have taken place between Peter and Simon the Magician, are now also proved to have been falsely attributed to Clement the Roman. This work, if written by an Ebionite--as the author of _Supernatural Religion_ declares in common with some other commentators[329]--must have been written either far later than the Pauline period, generally assigned to it, or the dispute about the identity of Jehovah with God, the “Father of Jesus,” have been distorted by later interpolations. This disputation is in its very essence antagonistic to the early doctrines of the Ebionites. The latter, as demonstrated by Epiphanius and Theodoret, were the direct followers of the Nazarene sect[330] (the Sabians), the “Disciples of John.” He says, unequivocally, that the Ebionites believed in the _Æons_ (emanations), that the Nazarenes were _their instructors_, and that “each imparted to the other out of his own wickedness.” Therefore, holding the same beliefs as the Nazarenes did, an Ebionite would not have given even so much chance to the doctrine supported by Peter in the _Homilies_. The old Nazarenes, as well as the later ones, whose views are embodied in the _Codex Nazaræus_, never called Jehovah otherwise than _Adonai_, _Iurbo_, the God of the _Abortive_[331] (the orthodox Jews). They kept their beliefs and religious tenets so _secret_ that even Epiphanius, writing as early as the end of the fourth century,[332] confesses his ignorance as to their real doctrine.