10. These things he wrote from the above-mentioned city to the churches referred to. And when he had left Smyrna he wrote again from Troas 918 to the Philadelphians and to the church of Smyrna; and particularly to Polycarp, who presided over the latter church. And since he knew him well as an apostolic man, he commended to him, like a true and good shepherd, the flock at Antioch, and besought him to care diligently for it. 919
11. And the same man, writing to the Smyrnæans, used the following words concerning Christ, taken I know not whence: 920 “But I know and believe that he was in the flesh after the resurrection. And when he came to Peter and his companions he said to them, Take, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. 921 And immediately they touched him and believed.” 922
12. Irenæus also knew of his martyrdom and mentions his epistles in the following words: 923 “As one of our people said, when he was condemned to the beasts on account of his testimony unto God, I am God’s wheat, and by the teeth of wild beasts am I ground, that I may be found pure bread.”
13. Polycarp also mentions these letters in the epistle to the Philippians which is ascribed to him. 924 His words are as follows: 925 “I exhort all of you, therefore, to be obedient and to practice all patience such as ye saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed Ignatius and Rufus and Zosimus, 926 but also in others from among yourselves as well as in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles; being persuaded that all these ran not in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are gone to their rightful place beside the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not the present world, but him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us.”
14. And afterwards he adds: 927 “You have written to me, both you and Ignatius, that if any one go to Syria he may carry with him the letters from you. And this I will do if I have a suitable opportunity, either I myself or one whom I send to be an ambassador for you also.
15. The epistles of Ignatius which were sent to us by him and the others which we had with us we sent to you as you gave charge. They are appended to this epistle, and from them you will be able to derive great advantage. For they comprise faith and patience, and every kind of edification that pertaineth to our Lord.” So much concerning Ignatius. But he was succeeded by Heros 928 in the episcopate of the church of Antioch.
Footnotes
166:906On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.
166:907Of the life of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, we know very little. He is mentioned by Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 33. 3 and 4, who informs us that he was a companion of Polycarp and a hearer of the apostle John. The latter statement is in all probability incorrect (see chap. 39. note 4): but there is no reason to question the truth of the former. Papias’ dates we cannot ascertain with any great degree of accuracy. A notice in the Chron. Paschale, which makes him a martyr and connects his death with that of Polycarp, assigning both to the year 164 a.d. has been shown by Lightfoot (Contemp. Review, 1875, II. p. 381) to rest upon a confusion of names, and to be, therefore, entirely untrustworthy. We learn, however, from chap. 39, below, that Papias was acquainted with personal followers of the Lord (e.g. with Aristion and the “presbyter John”), and also with the daughters of Philip. He must, therefore, have reached years of maturity before the end of the first century. On the other hand, the five books of his Expositions cannot have been written very long before the middle of the second century, for some of the extant fragments seem to show traces of the existence of Gnosticism in a somewhat advanced form at the time he wrote. With these data we shall not be far wrong in saying that he was born in the neighborhood of 70 a.d., and died before the middle of the second century. He was a pronounced chiliast (see chap. 39, note 19), and according to Eusebius, a man of limited understanding (see chap. 39, note 20); but the claim of the Tübingen school that he was an Ebionite is not supported by extant evidence (see Lightfoot, ibid. p. 384). On the writings of Papias, see below, chap. 39, note 1.
166:908Four mss. insert at this point the words ἀνὴρ τὰ π€ντα ὅτι μ€λιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων (“a man of the greatest learning in all lines and well versed in the Scriptures”), which are accepted by Heinichen, Closs, and Crusè. The large majority of the best mss., however, supported by Rufinus, and followed by Valesius (in his notes), Stroth, Laemmer, Burton, and the German translator, Stigloher, omit the words, which are undoubtedly to be regarded as an interpolation, intended perhaps to offset the derogatory words used by Eusebius in respect to Papias in chap. 39, §13. In discussing the genuineness of these words, critics (among them Heinichen) have concerned themselves too much with the question whether the opinion of Papias expressed here contradicts that expressed in chap. 39, and therefore, whether Eusebius can have written these words. Even if it be possible to reconcile the two passages and to show that Papias may have been a learned man, while at the same time he was of “limited judgment,” as Eusebius informs us, the fact nevertheless remains that the weight of ms. authority is heavily against the genuineness of the words, and that it is much easier to understand the interpolation than the omission of such an expression in praise of one of the apostolic Fathers, especially when the lack of any commendation here and in chap. 39 must be unpleasantly noticeable.
166:909Eusebius follows what was undoubtedly the oldest tradition in making Evodius the first bishop of Antioch, and Ignatius the second (see above, chap. 22, note 2). Granting the genuineness of the shorter Greek recension of the Ignatian epistles (to be mentioned below), the fact that Ignatius was bishop of the church of Antioch in Syria is established by Ep. ad Rom. 9, compared with ad Smyr. 11 and ad Polycarp. 7. If the genuineness of the epistles be denied, these passages seem to prove at least his connection with the church of Antioch and his influential position in it, for otherwise the forgery of the epistles under his name would be inconceivable.
There are few more prominent figures in early Church history than Ignatius, and yet there are few about whom we have less unquestioned knowledge. He is known in history pre-eminently as a martyr. The greater part of his life is buried in complete obscurity. It is only as a man condemned to death for his profession of Christianity that he comes out into the light, and it is with him in this character and with the martyrdom which followed that tradition has busied itself. There are extant various Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius which contain detailed accounts of his death, but these belong to the fourth and subsequent centuries, are quite contradictory in their statements, and have been conclusively proved to be utterly unreliable and to furnish no trustworthy information on the subject in hand. From writers before Eusebius we have but four notices of Ignatius (Polycarp’s Ep. ad Phil. 9, 13; Irenæus’ Adv. Hær. V. 18. 3, quoted below; Origen, Prol. in Cant., and Hom. VI. in Luc.). These furnish us with very little information. If the notice in Polycarp’s epistle be genuine (and though it has been widely attacked, there is no good reason to doubt it), it furnishes us with our earliest testimony to the martyrdom of a certain Ignatius and to the existence of epistles written by him. Irenæus does not name Ignatius, but he testifies to the existence of the Epistle to the Romans which bears his name, and to the martyrdom of the author of that epistle. Origen informs us that Ignatius, the author of certain epistles, was second bishop of the church of Antioch and suffered martyrdom at Rome. Eusebius, in the present chapter, is the first one to give us an extended account of Ignatius, and his account contains no information beyond what he might have drawn from the Ignatian epistles themselves as they lay before him, except the statements, already made by Origen, that Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch and suffered martyrdom at Rome. The former statement must have rested on a tradition, at least in part, independent of the epistles (for they imply only the fact of his Antiochian episcopacy, without specifying the time); the latter might have arisen from the epistles themselves (in which it is clearly stated that the writer is on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom), for of course it would be natural to assume that his expectation was realized.
The connection in which Eusebius records the martyrdom implies that he believed that it took place in the reign of Trajan, and in his Chronicle he gives precise dates for the beginning of his episcopate (the 212th Olympiad, i.e. 69–72 a.d.) and for his martyrdom (the tenth year of Trajan, i.e. 107 a.d.). Subsequent notices of Ignatius are either quite worthless or are based solely upon the epistles themselves or upon the statements of Eusebius. The information, independent of the epistles, which has reached us from the time of Eusebius or earlier, consequently narrows itself down to the report that Ignatius was second bishop of Antioch, and that he was bishop from about 70 to 107 a.d. The former date may be regarded as entirely unreliable. Even were it granted that there could have been a bishop at the head of the Antiochian church at so early a date (and there is no warrant for such a supposition), it would nevertheless be impossible to place any reliance upon the date given by Eusebius, as it is impossible to place any reliance upon the dates given for the so-called bishops of other cities during the first century (see Bk. IV. chap. 1, note 1). But the date of Ignatius’ martyrdom given by Eusebius seems at first sight to rest upon a more reliable tradition, and has been accepted by many scholars as correct. Its accuracy, however, has been impugned, especially by Zahn and Lightfoot, who leave the date of Ignatius’ death uncertain, claiming simply that he died under Trajan; and by Harnack, who puts his death into the reign of Hadrian. We shall refer to this again further on. Meanwhile, since the information which we have of Ignatius, independent of the Ignatian epistles, is so small in amount, we are obliged to turn to those epistles for our chief knowledge of his life and character.
But at this point a difficulty confronts us. There are extant three different recensions of epistles ascribed to Ignatius. Are any of them genuine, and if so, which? The first, or longer Greek recension, as it is called, consists of fifteen epistles, which were first published in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Of these fifteen, eight are clearly spurious, and seven are at least largely interpolated. The genuineness of the former and the integrity of the latter now find no defenders among scholars. The second, or shorter Greek recension, contains seven of the fifteen epistles of the longer recension, in a much shorter form. Their titles are the same that are given by Eusebius in this chapter. They were first discovered and published in the seventeenth century. The third, or Syriac recension, contains three of these seven epistles (to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans), in a still shorter form, and was discovered in the present century. Since its discovery, opinions have been divided between it and the shorter Greek recension; but the defense of the genuineness of the latter by Zahn and Lightfoot may be regarded as finally settling the matter, and establishing the originality of the shorter Greek recension as over against that represented by the Syriac version. The former, therefore, alone comes into consideration in discussing the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles. Their genuineness is still stoutly denied by some; but the evidence in their favor, external and internal, is too strong to be set aside; and since the appearance of Lightfoot’s great work, candid scholars almost unanimously admit that the question is settled, and their genuineness triumphantly established. The great difficulties which have stood in the way of the acceptance of the epistles are, first and chiefly, the highly developed form of church government which they reveal; and secondly, the attacks upon heresy contained in them. Both of these characteristics seem to necessitate a date later than the reign of Trajan, the traditional time of Ignatius’ martyrdom. Harnack regards these two difficulties as very serious, if not absolutely fatal to the supposition that the epistles were written during the reign of Trajan; but in a very keen tract, entitled Die Zeit des Ignatius (Leipzig, 1878), he has endeavored to show that the common tradition that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan is worthless, and he therefore brings the martyrdom down into the reign of Hadrian, and thus does away with most of the internal difficulties which beset the acceptance of the epistles. Whether or not Harnack’s explanation of Eusebius’ chronology of the Antiochian bishops be accepted as correct (and the number of its adherents is not great), he has, at least, shown that the tradition that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan is not as strong as it has been commonly supposed to be, and that it is possible to question seriously its reliability. Lightfoot, who discusses Harnack’s theory at considerable length (II. p. 450–469), rejects it, and maintains that Ignatius died sometime during the reign of Trajan, though, with Zahn and Harnack, he gives up the traditional date of 107 a.d., which is found in the Chronicle of Eusebius, and has been very commonly accepted as reliable. Lightfoot, however, remarks that the genuineness of the epistles is much more certain than the chronology of Ignatius, and that, therefore, if it is a question between the rejection of the epistles and the relegation of Ignatius’ death to the reign of Hadrian (which he, however, denies), the latter alternative must be chosen without hesitation. A final decision upon this knotty point has not yet been, and perhaps never will be, reached; but Harnack’s theory that the epistles were written during the reign of Hadrian deserves even more careful consideration than it has yet received.
Granting the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles, we are still in possession of no great amount of information in regard to his life. We know from them only that he was bishop of the church of Antioch in Syria, and had been condemned to martyrdom, and that he was, at the time of their composition, on his way to Rome to suffer death in the arena. His character and opinions, however, are very clearly exhibited in his writings. To quote from Schaff, “Ignatius stands out in history as the ideal of a Catholic martyr, and as the earliest advocate of the hierarchical principle in both its good and its evil points. As a writer, he is remarkable for originality, freshness, and force of ideas, and for terse, sparkling, and sententious style; but in apostolic simplicity and soundness, he is inferior to Clement and Polycarp, and presents a stronger contrast to the epistles of the New Testament. Clement shows the calmness, dignity, and governmental wisdom of the Roman character. Ignatius glows with the fire and impetuosity of the Greek and Syrian temper which carries him beyond the bounds of sobriety. He was a very uncommon man, and made a powerful impression upon his age. He is the incarnation, as it were, of the three closely connected ideas: the glory of martyrdom, the omnipotence of episcopacy, and the hatred of heresy and schism. Hierarchical pride and humility, Christian charity and churchly exclusiveness, are typically represented in Ignatius.”
The literature on Ignatius and the Ignatian controversy is very extensive. The principal editions to be consulted are Cureton’s The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans, with English translation and notes (the editio princeps of the Syriac version), London and Berlin, 1845; Zahn’s Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulæ, Martyria fragmenta, Lips. 1876 (Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, ed. Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Vol. II); Bishop Lightfoot’s St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp (The Apostolic Fathers, Part II.), London, 1885. This edition (in two volumes) is the most complete and exhaustive edition of Ignatius’ epistles which has yet appeared, and contains a very full and able discussion of all questions connected with Ignatius and his writings. It contains the text of the longer Greek recension and of the Syriac version, in addition to that of the seven genuine epistles, and practically supersedes all earlier editions. An English translation of all the epistles of Ignatius (Syriac and Greek, in both recensions) is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. I. pp. 45–126. The principal discussions which it is necessary to refer to here are those of Lightfoot in his edition of the Ignatian epistles just referred to; Zahn’s Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873 (very full and able); Harnack’s Die Zeit des Ignatius, Leipzig, 1878; and the reviews of Lightfoot’s edition contributed by Harnack to the Expositor, December, 1885, January and March, 1886. For a more extended list of works on the subject, and for a brief review of the whole matter, see Schaff’s Church History, Vol. II. p. 651–664.
167:910That Ignatius was on his way from Syria to Rome, under condemnation for his testimony to Christ, and that he was expecting to be cast to the wild beasts upon reaching Rome, appears from many passages of the epistles themselves. Whether the tradition, as Eusebius calls it, that he actually did suffer martyrdom at Rome was independent of the epistles, or simply grew out of the statements made in them, we cannot tell. Whichever is the case, we may regard the tradition as reliable. That he suffered martyrdom somewhere is too well attested to be doubted for a moment; and there exists no tradition in favor of any other city as the place of his martyrdom, except a late one reported by John Malalas, which names Antioch as the place. This is accepted by Volkmar and by the author of Supernatural Religion, but its falsity has been conclusively shown by Zahn (see his edition of the Ignatian epistles, p. xii. 343, 381).
167:911The seven genuine epistles of Ignatius (all of which are mentioned by Eusebius in this chapter) fall into two groups, four having been written from one place and three from another. The first four—to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans—were written from Smyrna, while Ignatius was on his way to Rome, as we can learn from notices in the epistles themselves, and as is stated below by Eusebius, who probably took his information from the statements of the epistles, as we take ours. Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles lay to the south of Smyrna, on one of the great highways of Asia Minor. But Ignatius was taken by a road which lay further north, passing through Philadelphia and Sardis (see Lightfoot, I. 33 sq.). and thus did not visit the three cities to which he now sends epistles from Smyrna. The four epistles written from Smyrna contain no indication of the chronological order in which they were written, and whether Eusebius in his enumeration followed the manuscript of the epistles which he used (our present mss. give an entirely different order, which is not at all chronological and does not even keep the two groups distinct), or whether he exercised his own judgment, we do not know.
168:912Of this Onesimus, and of Damas and Polybius mentioned just below, we know nothing more.
168:913Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. chap. 5.
168:914λεοπ€ρδοις. This is the earliest use of this word in any extant writing, and an argument has been drawn from this fact against the authenticity of the epistle. For a careful discussion of the matter, see Lightfoot’s edition, Vol. II. p. 212.
168:915Compare 1 Cor. iv. 4.
168:916Compare the instances of this mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. I, §42, and in Bk. VIII. chap. 7.
168:917The translation of this sentence is Lightfoot’s, who prefers with Rufinus and the Syriac to read the optative ζηλώσαι instead of the infinitive ζηλῶσαι, which is found in most of the mss. and is given by Heinichen and the majority of the other editors. The sense seems to require, as Lightfoot asserts, the optative rather than the infinitive.
168:918That Troas was the place from which Ignatius wrote to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrnæans, and to Polycarp is clear from indications in the epistles themselves. The chronological order in which the three were written is uncertain. He had visited both churches upon his journey to Troas and had seen Polycarp in Smyrna.
168:919See Ep. ad Polycarp. chap. 7.
168:920Ep. ad Smyr. chap. 3. Jerome, quoting this passage from Ignatius in his de vir. ill. 16, refers it to the gospel which had lately been translated by him (according to de vir. ill. 3), viz.: the Gospel of the Nazarenes (or the Gospel according to the Hebrews). In his Comment. in Isaiam, Bk. XVIII. introd., Jerome quotes the same passage again, referring it to the same gospel (Evangelium quod Hebræorum lectitant Nazaræi). But in Origen de prin. præf. 8, the phrase is quoted as taken from the Teaching of Peter (“qui Petri doctrina apellatur”). Eusebius’ various references to the Gospel according to the Hebrews show that he was personally acquainted with it (see above, chap. 25, note 24), and knowing his great thoroughness in going through the books which he had access to, it is impossible to suppose that if this passage quoted from Ignatius were in the Gospel according to the Hebrews he should not have known it. We seem then to be driven to the conclusion that the passage did not originally stand in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but was later incorporated either from the Teaching of Peter, in which Origen found it, or from some common source or oral tradition.
168:921δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον.
168:922Compare Luke xxiv. 39.
168:923Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 28. 4.
168:924On Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 16.
168:925Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 9.
168:926Of these men, Rufus and Zosimus, we know nothing.
168:927Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 13. The genuineness of this chapter, which bears such strong testimony to the Ignatian epistles, has been questioned by some scholars, but without good grounds. See below, Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 16.
169:928According to Eusebius’ Chronicle Heros became bishop of Antioch in the tenth year of Trajan (107 a.d.), and was succeeded by Cornelius in the twelfth year of Hadrian (128 a.d.). In the History he is mentioned only once more (Bk. IV. chap. 20), and no dates are given. The dates found in the Chronicle are entirely unreliable (see on the dates of all the early Antiochian bishops, Harnack’s Zeit des Ignatius). Of Heros himself we have no trustworthy information. His name appears in the later martyrologies, and one of the spurious Ignatian epistles is addressed to him.
Chapter XXXVII.—The Evangelists that were still Eminent at that Time.
1. Among those that were celebrated at that time was Quadratus, 929 who, report says, was renowned along with the daughters of Philip for his prophetical gifts. And there were many others besides these who were known in those days, and who occupied the first place among the successors of the apostles. And they also, being illustrious disciples of such great men, built up the foundations of the churches which had been laid by the apostles in every place, and preached the Gospel more and more widely and scattered the saving seeds of the kingdom of heaven far and near throughout the whole world. 930
2. For indeed most of the disciples of that time, animated by the divine word with a more ardent love for philosophy, 931 had already fulfilled the command of the Saviour, and had distributed their goods to the needy. 932 Then starting out upon long journeys they performed the office of evangelists, being filled with the desire to preach Christ to those who had not yet heard the word of faith, and to deliver to them the divine Gospels.
3. And when they had only laid the foundations of the faith in foreign places, they appointed others as pastors, and entrusted them with the nurture of those that had recently been brought in, while they themselves went on again to other countries and nations, with the grace and the co-operation of God. For a great many wonderful works were done through them by the power of the divine Spirit, so that at the first hearing whole multitudes of men eagerly embraced the religion of the Creator of the universe.
4. But since it is impossible for us to enumerate the names of all that became shepherds or evangelists in the churches throughout the world in the age immediately succeeding the apostles, we have recorded, as was fitting, the names of those only who have transmitted the apostolic doctrine to us in writings still extant.
Footnotes
169:929This Quadratus had considerable reputation as a prophet, as may be gathered from Eusebius’ mention of him here, and also from the reference to him in the anonymous work against the Montanists (see below, Bk. V. chap. 16). We know nothing about this Quadratus except what is told us in these two passages, unless we identify him, as many do, with Quadratus the apologist mentioned below, in Bk. IV. chap. 3. This identification is possible, but by no means certain. See Bk. IV. chap. 3, note 2.
169:930This rhetorical flourish arouses the suspicion that Eusebius, although he says there were “many others” that were well known in those days, was unacquainted with the names of such persons as we, too, are unacquainted with them. None will deny that there may have been some men of prominence in the Church at this time, but Eusebius apparently had no more information to impart in regard to them than he gives us in this chapter, and he makes up for his lack of facts in a way which is not at all uncommon.
169:931That is, an ascetic mode of life. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.
169:932See Matt. xix. 21. Eusebius agrees with nearly all the Fathers, and with the Roman Catholic Church of the past and present, in his misinterpretation of this advice given by Christ to the rich young man.
Chapter XXXVIII.—The Epistle of Clement and the Writings falsely ascribed to him.
1. Thus Ignatius has done in the epistles which we have mentioned, 933 and Clement in his epistle which is accepted by all, and which he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth. 934 In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent production.
2. Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other writings of the apostle. For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle.
3. The latter seems more probable, because the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have a similar character in regard to style, and still further because the thoughts contained in the two works are not very different. 935
4. But it must be observed also that there is said to be a second epistle of Clement. But we do not know that this is recognized like the former, for we do not find that the ancients have made any use of it. 936
5. And certain men have lately brought forward other wordy and lengthy writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion. 937 But no mention has been made of these by the ancients; for they do not even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic orthodoxy. The acknowledged writing of Clement is well known. We have spoken also of the works of Ignatius and Polycarp. 938
Footnotes
169:933In chap. 36, above.
169:934See above, chap. 16.
169:935On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the various traditions as to its authorship, see above, chap. 3, note 17.
169:936Eusebius is the first one to mention the ascription of a second epistle to Clement, but after the fifth century such an epistle (whether the one to which Eusebius here refers we cannot tell) was in common circulation and was quite widely accepted as genuine. This epistle is still extant, in a mutilated form in the Alexandrian ms., complete in the ms. discovered by Bryennios in Constantinople in 1875. The publication of the complete work proves, what had long been suspected, that it is not an epistle at all, but a homily. It cannot have been written by the author of the first epistle of Clement, nor can it belong to the first century. It was probably written in Rome about the middle of the second century (see Harnack’s articles in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I. p. 264–283 and 329–364), and is the oldest extant homily, and as such possesses considerable interest. It has always gone by the name of the Second Epistle of Clement, and hence continues to be so called although the title is a misnomer, for neither is it an epistle, nor is it by Clement. It is published in all the editions of the apostolic Fathers, but only those editions that have appeared since the discovery of the complete homily by Bryennios are now of value. Of these, it is necessary to mention only Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn’s Patrum Apost. Opera, 2d ed., 1876, in which Harnack’s prolegomena and notes are especially valuable, and the appendix to Lightfoot’s edition of Clement (1877), which contains the full text, notes, and an English translation. English translation also in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. VII. p. 509 sq. Compare the article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christian Biography and Harnack’s articles in the Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. referred to above.
170:937There are extant a number of Pseudo-Clementine writings of the third and following centuries, the chief among which purports to contain a record made by Clement of discourses of the apostle Peter, and an account of Clement’s family history and of his travels with Peter, constituting, in fact, a sort of didactico-historical romance. This exists now in three forms (the Homilies, Recognitions, and Epitome), all of which are closely related; though whether the first two (the last is simply an abridgment of the first) are drawn from a common original, or whether one of them is the original of the other, is not certain. The works are more or less Ebionitic in character, and play an important part in the history of early Christian literature. For a careful discussion of them, see Salmon’s article Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christian Biography; and for the literature of the subject, which is very extensive, see especially Schaff’s Church History, II. p. 435 sq.
The fourth, fifth, and sixth books of the Homilies contain extended conversations purporting to have been held between Clement and Apion, the famous antagonist of the Jews (see Bk. II. chap. 5, note 5). It is quite possible that the “wordy and lengthy writings, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion,” which Eusebius refers to here may be identical with the Homilies, in which case we must suppose Eusebius’ language to be somewhat inexact; for the dialogues in the Homilies are between Clement and Apion, not between Peter and Apion. It seems more probable, however, when we realize the vast number of works of a similar character which were in circulation during the third and subsequent centuries, that Eusebius refers here to another work, belonging to the same general class, which is now lost. If such a work existed, it may well have formed a basis for the dialogues between Clement and Apion given in the Homilies. In the absence of all further evidence of such a work, we must leave the matter quite undecided. It is not necessary here to enumerate the other Pseudo-Clementine works which are still extant. Compare Schaff’s Church History, II. 648 sq. Clement’s name was a favorite one with pseudographers of the early Church, and works of all kinds were published under his name. The most complete collection of these spurious works is found in Migne’s Patr. Græc. Vols. I. and II.
170:938In chap. 36, above.
Chapter XXXIX.—The Writings of Papias.
1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. 939 Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, 940 in the following words: 941 “These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him.” These are the words of Irenæus.
2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends. 942
3. He says: “But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations 943 whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders 944 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver 945 the commandments given by the Lord to faith, 946 and springing from the truth itself.
4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,—what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion 947 and the presbyter John, 948 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books 949 would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”
5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. 950 The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.
6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s. 951 It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John. 952
7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.
8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.
9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. 953 But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time 954 one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.
10. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: “And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said.” 955
11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things. 956
12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth. 957 I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.
13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, 958 as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views. 959
14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
15. “This also the presbyter 960 said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. 961 For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, 962 so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.
16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then 963 Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” 964 And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John 965 and from that of Peter likewise. 966 And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. 967 These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
Footnotes
170:939λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις. This work is no longer extant, but a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Irenæus, Eusebius, and others, which are published in the various editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see especially Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn’s edition, Vol. I. Appendix), and by Routh in his Rel. Sacræ, I. p. 3–16. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. I. p. 151 sq. The exact character of the work has been long and sharply disputed. Some contend that it was a record of oral traditions in regard to the Lord which Papias had gathered, together with a commentary upon these traditions, others that it was a complete Gospel, others that it was a commentary upon an already existing Gospel or Gospels. The last is the view which accords best with the language of Eusebius, and it is widely accepted, though there is controversy among those who accept it as to whether the Gospel or Gospels which he used are to be identified with either of our canonical Gospels. But upon this question we cannot dwell at this point. Lightfoot, who believes that a written text lay at the base of Papias’ work, concludes that the work contained, first, the text; secondly, “the interpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object of the work”; and thirdly, the oral traditions, which “were subordinate to the interpretation” (Contemporary Review, 1875, II. p. 389). This is probably as good a description of the plan of Papias’ work as can be given, whatever decision may be reached as to the identity of the text which he used with any one of our Gospels. Lightfoot has adduced strong arguments for his view, and has discussed at length various other views which it is not necessary to repeat here. On the significance of the word λόγια, see below, note 26. As remarked there, λόγια cannot be confined to words or discourses only, and therefore the “oracles” which Papias expounded in his work may well have included, so far as the title is concerned, a complete Gospel or Gospels. In the absence of the work itself, however, we are left entirely to conjecture, though it must be remarked that in the time of Papias at least some of our Gospels were certainly in existence and already widely accepted. It is difficult, therefore, to suppose that if written documents lay at the basis of Papias’ work, as we have concluded that they did, that they can have been other than one or more of the commonly accepted Gospels. But see Lightfoot’s article already referred to for a discussion of this question. The date of the composition of Papias’ work is now commonly fixed at about the middle of the second century, probably nearer 130 than 150 a.d. The books and articles that have been written upon this work are far too numerous to mention. Besides the article by Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review, which has been already referred to, we should mention also Salmon’s article in the Dict. of Christian Biography, Schleiermacher’s essay in the Studien und Kritiken, 1832, p. 735 sq.,—the first critical discussion of Papias’ testimony in regard to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and still valuable,—dissertations by Weiffenbach, 1874 and 1878, and by Leimbach, 1875, with reviews of the last two in various periodicals, notably the articles by Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift für wiss. Theol. 1875, 1877, 1879. See also p. 389, note, below. On the life of Papias, see above, chap. 36, note 2.
170:940ὡς μόνων αὐτῷ γραφέντων. Irenæus does not expressly say that these were the only works written by Papias. He simply says, “For five books have been written by him” (žστι γὰρ αὐτῷ πέντε βιβλία συντεταγμένα). Eusebius’ interpretation of Irenæus’ words is not, however, at all unnatural, and probably expresses Irenæus’ meaning.
170:941Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 33. 4.
170:942The justice of this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the statement of Irenæus, has been questioned by many, who have held that, in the passage quoted just below from Papias, the same John is meant in both cases. See the note of Schaff in his Church History, II. p. 697 sq. A careful exegesis of the passage from Papias quoted by Eusebius seems, however, to lead necessarily to the conclusion which Eusebius draws, that Papias refers to two different persons bearing the same name,—John. In fact, no other conclusion can be reached, unless we accuse Papias of the most stupid and illogical method of writing. Certainly, if he knew of but one John, there is no possible excuse for mentioning him twice in the one passage. On the other hand, if we accept Eusebius’ interpretation, we are met by a serious difficulty in the fact that we are obliged to assume that there lived in Asia Minor, early in the second century a man to whom Papias appeals as possessing exceptional authority, but who is mentioned by no other Father; who is, in fact, otherwise an entirely unknown personage. And still further, no reader of Papias’ work, before the time of Eusebius, gathered from that work, so far as we know, a single hint that the John with whom he was acquainted was any other than the apostle John. These difficulties are so serious that they have led many to deny that Papias meant to refer to a second John, in spite of his apparently clear reference to such a person. Among those who deny this second John’s existence are such scholars as Zahn and Salmon. (Compare, for instance, the latter’s able article on Joannes the Presbyter, in the Dict. of Christian Biography.) In reply to their arguments, it may be said that the silence of all other early writers does not necessarily disprove the existence of a second John; for it is quite conceivable that all trace of him should be swallowed up in the reputation of his greater namesake who lived in the same place. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that Papias, writing for those who were well acquainted with both Johns, may have had no suspicion that any one would confound the presbyter with the apostle, and would imagine that he was referring to the latter when he was speaking of his personal friend John; and therefore he would have no reason for stating expressly that there were two Johns, and for expressly distinguishing the one from the other. It was, then, quite natural that Irenæus, a whole generation later, knowing that Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, and finding constant mention of a John in Papias’ works, should simply take for granted that the same John was meant; for by his time the lesser John may easily, in the minds of most people, have become lost in the tradition of his greater namesake. In view of these possibilities, it cannot be said that the silence of other Fathers in regard to this John is fatal to his existence; and if this is so, we are hardly justified in doing such violence to Papias’ language as is required to identify the two Johns mentioned by him in the passage quoted below. Among those who accept Eusebius’ conclusion, that Papias refers to two different persons, are such scholars as Tischendorf, Donaldson, Westcott and Lightfoot. If Eusebius has recovered for us from the ancient history of the Church an otherwise unknown personage, it will not be the only time that he has corrected an error committed by all his predecessors. In this case, as in a number of other cases, I believe Eusebius’ wide information, sharp-sightedness, and superiority to the trammels of traditionalism receive triumphant vindication and we may accept his conclusion that Papias was personally acquainted with a second John, who was familiarly known as “the Presbyter,” and thus distinguished from the apostle John, who could be called a presbyter or elder only in the general sense in which all the leading men of his generation were elders (see below, note 6), and could not be designated emphatically as “the presbyter.” In regard to the connection of this “presbyter John” with the Apocalypse, see below, note 14. But although Papias distinguishes, as we may conclude, between two Johns in the passage referred to, and elsewhere, according to Eusebius, pronounces himself a hearer of the second John, it does not necessarily follow that Irenæus was mistaken in saying that he was a hearer of the apostle John; for Irenæus may have based his statement upon information received from his teacher, Polycarp, the friend of Papias, and not upon the passage quoted by Eusebius, and hence Papias may have been a hearer of both Johns. At the same time, it must be said that if Papias had been a disciple of the apostle John, he could scarcely have failed to state the fact expressly somewhere in his works; and if he had stated it anywhere, Eusebius could hardly have overlooked it. The conclusion, therefore, seems most probable that Eusebius is right in correcting Irenæus’ statement, and that the latter based his report upon a misinterpretation of Papias’ own words. In that case, we have no authority for speaking of Papias as a disciple of John the apostle.
171:943This sentence gives strong support to the view that oral traditions did not form the basis of Papias’ work, but that the basis consisted of written documents, which he interpreted, and to which he then added the oral traditions which he refers to here. See Contemporary Review, 1885, II. p. 388 sq. The words ταῖς ἑρμηνείαις have been translated by some scholars, “the interpretations of them,” thus making the book consist only of these oral traditions with interpretations of them. But this translation is not warranted by the Greek, and the also at the beginning of the sentence shows that the work must have contained other matter which preceded these oral traditions and to which the “interpretations” belong.
171:944As Lightfoot points out (Contemp. Rev. ibid. p. 379 sq.), Papias uses the term “elders” in a general sense to denote the Fathers of the Church in the generations preceding his own. It thus includes both the apostles and their immediate disciples. The term was thus used in a general sense by later Fathers to denote all earlier Fathers of the Church; that is, those leaders of the Church belonging to generations earlier than the writers themselves. The term, therefore, cannot be confined to the apostles alone, nor can it be confined, as some have thought (e.g. Weiffenbach in his Das Papias Fragment), to ecclesiastical officers, presbyters in the official sense. Where the word πρεσβύτερος is used in connection with the second John (at the close of this extract from Papias), it is apparently employed in its official sense. At least we cannot otherwise easily understand how it could be used as a peculiar designation of this John, which should distinguish him from the other John. For in the general sense of the word, in which Papias commonly uses it, both Johns were elders. Compare Lightfoot’s words in the passage referred to above.
171:945παραγινομένοις, instead of παραγινομένας, agreeing with ἐντολ€ς. The latter is the common reading, but is not so well supported by manuscript authority, and, as the easier reading, is to be rejected in favor of the former. See the note of Heinichen in loco.
171:946That is, “to those that believe, to those that are possessed of faith.”
171:947Of this Aristion we know only what we can gather from this mention of him by Papias.
171:948See above, note 6.
171:949ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων. These words have been interpreted by many critics as implying that Papias considered the written Gospel accounts, which were extant in his time, of small value, and preferred to them the oral traditions which he picked up from “the elders.” But as Lightfoot has shown (ibid. p. 390 sq.), this is not the natural interpretation of Papias’ words, and makes him practically stultify and contradict himself. He cannot have considered the written documents which he laid at the base of his work as of little value, nor can he have regarded the writings of Matthew and Mark, which he refers to in this chapter as extant in his time, and the latter of which he praises for its accuracy, as inferior to the oral traditions, which came to him at best only at second hand. It is necessary to refer the τῶν βιβλίων, as Lightfoot does, to “interpretations” of the Gospel accounts, which had been made by others, and to which Papias prefers the interpretations or expositions which he has received from the disciples of the apostles. This interpretation of the word alone saves us from difficulties and Papias from self-stultification.
171:950See above, note 4.
171:951The existence of two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John is attested also by Dionysius of Alexandria (quoted in Bk. VII. chap. 25, below) and by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 9). The latter, however, says that some regard them both as memorials of the one John, the apostle; and Zahn, in his Acta Joannis, p. cliv. sq., endeavors to prove that a church stood outside of the walls of Ephesus, on the spot where John was buried, and another inside of the walls, on the site of the house in which he had resided, and that thus two spots were consecrated to the memory of a single John. The proof which he brings in support of this may not lead many persons to adopt his conclusions, and yet after reading his discussion of the matter one must admit that the existence of two memorials in Ephesus, such as Dionysius, Eusebius, and Jerome refer to, by no means proves that more than one John was buried there.
171:952A similar suggestion had been already made by Dionysius in the passage quoted by Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 25, and Eusebius was undoubtedly thinking of it when he wrote these words. The suggestion is a very clever one, and yet it is only a guess, and does not pretend to be more. Dionysius concludes that the Apocalypse must have been written by some person named John, because it testifies to that fact itself; but the style, and other internal indications, lead him to think that it cannot have been written by the author of the fourth Gospel, whom he assumes to be John the apostle. He is therefore led to suppose that the Apocalypse was written by some other John. He does not pretend to say who that John was, but thinks it must have been some John that resided in Asia; and he then adds that there were said to be two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John,—evidently implying, though he does not say it, that he is inclined to think that this second John thus commemorated was the author of the Apocalypse. It is plain from this that he had no tradition whatever in favor of this theory, that it was solely an hypothesis arising from critical difficulties standing in the way of the ascription of the book to the apostle John. Eusebius sees in this suggestion a very welcome solution of the difficulties with which he feels the acceptance of the book to be beset, and at once states it as a possibility that this “presbyter John,” whom he has discovered in the writings of Papias, may have been the author of the book. But the authenticity of the Apocalypse was too firmly established to be shaken by such critical and theological difficulties as influenced Dionysius, Eusebius, and a few others, and in consequence nothing came of the suggestion made here by Eusebius. In the present century, however, the “presbyter John” has again played an important part among some critics as the possible author of certain of the Johannine writings, though the authenticity of the Apocalypse has (until very recently) been so commonly accepted even by the most negative critics that the “presbyter John” has not figured at all as the author of it; nor indeed is he likely to in the future.
172:953In chap. 31, above. On the confusion of the evangelist with the apostle Philip, see that chapter, note 6.
172:954That is, in the time of Philip.
172:955Acts i. 23.
172:956Compare the extract from Papias given by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. V. 32), in which is contained a famous parable in regard to the fertility of the millennium, which is exceedingly materialistic in its nature, and evidently apocryphal. “The days will come when vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty measures of wine,” &c.
172:957Chiliasm, or millennarianism,—that is, the belief in a visible reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years before the general judgment,—was very widespread in the early Church. Jewish chiliasm was very common at about the beginning of the Christian era, and is represented in the voluminous apocalyptic literature of that day. Christian chiliasm was an outgrowth of the Jewish, but spiritualized it, and fixed it upon the second, instead of the first, coming of Christ. The chief Biblical support for this doctrine is found in Rev. xx. 1-6, and the fact that this book was appealed to so constantly by chiliasts in support of their views was the reason why Dionysius, Eusebius, and others were anxious to disprove its apostolic authorship. Chief among the chiliasts of the ante-Nicene age were the author of the epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and Tertullian; while the principal opponents of the doctrine were Caius, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius. After the time of Constantine, chiliasm was more and more widely regarded as a heresy, and received its worst blow from Augustine, who framed in its stead the doctrine, which from his time on was commonly accepted in the Church, that the millennium is the present reign of Christ, which began with his resurrection. See Schaff’s Church History, II. p. 613 sq., for the history of the doctrine in the ante-Nicene Church and for the literature of the subject.
172:958σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν. Eusebius’ judgment of Papias may have been unfavorably influenced by his hostility to the strong chiliasm of the latter; and yet a perusal of the extant fragments of Papias’ writings will lead any one to think that Eusebius was not far wrong in his estimate of the man. On the genuineness of the words in his praise, given by some mss., in chap. 36, §2, see note 3 on that chapter.
172:959See above, note 19.
172:960We cannot, in the absence of the context, say with certainty that the presbyter here referred to is the “presbyter John,” of whom Papias has so much to say, and who is mentioned in the previous paragraph, and yet this seems quite probable. Compare Weiffenbach’s Die Papias Fragmente über Marcus und Matthaeus, p. 26 sq.
172:961Papias is the first one to connect the Gospel of Mark with Peter, but the tradition recorded by him was universally accepted by those who came after him (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). The relation of this Gospel of Mark to our canonical gospel has been a very sharply disputed point, but there is no good reason for distinguishing the Gospel referred to here from our second Gospel which corresponds excellently to the description given by Papias. Compare the remarks of Lightfoot, ibid. p. 393 sq. We know from other sources (e.g. Justin Martyr’s Dial. c. 106) that our second Gospel was in existence in any case before the middle of the second century, and therefore there is no reason to suppose that Papias was thinking of any other Gospel when he spoke of the Gospel written by Mark as the interpreter of Peter. Of course it does not follow from this that it was actually our second Gospel which Mark wrote, and of whose composition Papias here speaks. He may have written a Gospel which afterward formed the basis of our present Gospel, or was one of the sources of the synoptic tradition as a whole; that is, he may have written what is commonly known as the “Ur-Marcus” (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). As to that, we cannot decide with absolute certainty, but we may say that Papias certainly understood the tradition which he gives to refer to our Gospel of Mark. The exact significance of the word ἑρμηνευτής as used in this sentence has been much disputed. It seems best to give it its usual significance,—the significance which we attach to the English word “interpreter.” See Weiffenbach, ibid. p. 37 sq. It may be, supposing the report to be correct, that Peter found it advantageous to have some one more familiar than himself with the language of the people among whom he labored to assist him in his preaching. What language it was for which he needed an interpreter we cannot say. We might think naturally of Latin, but it is not impossible that Greek or that both languages were meant; for Peter, although of course possessed of some acquaintance with Greek, might not have been familiar enough with it to preach in it with perfect ease. The words “though not indeed in order” (οὐ μέντοι τ€ξει) have also caused considerable controversy. But they seem to refer chiefly to a lack of chronological arrangement, perhaps to a lack of logical arrangement also. The implication is that Mark wrote down without regard to order of any kind the words and deeds of Christ which he remembered. Lightfoot and most other critics have supposed that this accusation of a “lack of order” implies the existence of another written Gospel, exhibiting a different order, with which Papias compares it (e.g. with the Gospel of Matthew, as Weiss, Bleck, Holtzmann, and others think; or with John, as Lightfoot, Zahn, Renan, and others suppose). This is a natural supposition, but it is quite possible that Papias in speaking of this lack of order is not thinking at all of another written Gospel, but merely of the order of events which he had received from tradition as the true one.
173:962λόγων, “discourses,” or λογίων, “oracles.” The two words are about equally supported by ms. authority. The latter is adopted by the majority of the editors; but it is more likely that it arose from λόγων under the influence of the λογίων, which occurred in the title of Papias’ work, than that it was changed into λόγων. The matter, however, cannot be decided, and the alternative reading must in either case be allowed to stand. See the notes of Burton and Heinichen, in loco.
173:963μὲν οὖν. These words show plainly enough that this sentence in regard to Matthew did not in the work of Papias immediately follow the passage in regard to Mark, quoted above. Both passages are evidently torn out of their context; and the latter apparently stood at the close of a description of the origin of Matthew’s Gospel. That this statement in regard to Matthew rests upon the authority of “the presbyter” we are consequently not at liberty to assert.
173:964On the tradition that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel, see above, chap. 24, note 5. Our Greek Gospel of Matthew was certainly in existence at the time Papias wrote, for it is quoted in the epistle of Barnabas, which was written not later than the first quarter of the second century. There is, therefore, no reason for assuming that the Gospel of Matthew which Papias was acquainted with was a different Gospel from our own. This, however, does not prove that the λόγια which Matthew wrote (supposing Papias’ report to be correct) were identical with, or even of the same nature as our Gospel of Matthew. It is urged by many that the word λόγια could be used only to describe a collection of the words or discourses of the Lord, and hence it is assumed that Matthew wrote a work of this kind, which of course is quite a different thing from our first Gospel. But Lightfoot has shown (ibid. p. 399 sq.) that the word λόγια, “oracles,” is not necessarily confined to a collection of discourses merely, but that it may be used to describe a work containing also a narrative of events. This being the case, it cannot be said that Matthew’s λόγια must necessarily have been something different from our present Gospel. Still our Greek Matthew is certainly not a translation of a Hebrew original, and hence there may be a long step between Matthew’s Hebrew λόγια and our Greek Gospel. But if our Greek Matthew was known to Papias, and if it is not a translation of a Hebrews original, then one of two alternatives follows: either he could not accept the Greek Matthew, which was in current use (that is, our canonical Matthew), or else he was not acquainted with the Hebrew Matthew. Of the former alternative we have no hint in the fragments preserved to us, while the latter, from the way in which Papias speaks of these Hebrew λόγια, seems highly probable. It may, therefore, be said to be probable that Papias, the first one that mentions a Hebrew Matthew, speaks not from personal knowledge, but upon the authority of tradition only.
173:965Since the first Epistle of John and the fourth Gospel are indisputably from the same hand (see above, chap. 24, note 18), Papias’ testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, which is what his use of it implies, is indirect testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Gospel also.
173:966On the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter, see above, chap. 3, note 1.
173:967It is very likely that the story referred to here is identical with the story of the woman taken in adultery, given in some mss., at the close of the eighth chapter of John’s Gospel. The story was clearly not contained in the original Gospel of John, but we do not know from what source it crept into that Gospel, possibly from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where Eusebius says the story related by Papias was found. It must be noticed that Eusebius does not say that Papias took the story from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but only that it was contained in that Gospel. We are consequently not justified in claiming this statement of Eusebius as proving that Papias himself was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see above, chap. 25, note 24). He may have taken it thence, or he may, on the other hand, have taken it simply from oral tradition, the source whence he derived so many of his accounts, or, possibly, from the lost original Gospel, the “Ur-Matthæus.”
Book IV.
Chapter I.—The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of Trajan. 968
1. About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan the above-mentioned bishop of the parish of Alexandria 969 died, and Primus, 970 the fourth in succession from the apostles, was chosen to the office.
2. At that time also Alexander, 971 the fifth in the line of succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after Evarestus had held the office eight years. 972
Footnotes
174:968We still have lists of bishops as old as the end of the second century. The most ancient is that of the Roman bishops given by Irenæus (III. 3. 3); but this has no dates. The list is probably the official catalogue as it had been handed down to the time of Eleutherus; but it is not authentic, as there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome at the time of Clement, nor even in the time of Hermas. For other churches the oldest lists date from the end of the third century. According to one interpretation of a passage from Hegesippus, quoted in chapter 22, below, Hegesippus drew up a list of Roman bishops down to the time of Anicetus; and Bishop Lightfoot thinks he has discovered this lost catalogue in Epiphanius, Hær. XXVII. 6 (see his article in the Academy for May 27, 1887). If Lightfoot is right, we have recovered the oldest Papal catalogue; but it is very doubtful whether Hegesippus composed such a catalogue (see note on chap. 22), and even if he did, it is uncertain whether the list which Epiphanius gives is identical with it. See the writer’s notice of Lightfoot’s article in the Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1887; No. 18, Col. 435 sqq.
The list of Roman bishops which Eusebius gives is the same as that of Irenæus; but it has dates, while Irenæus’ has none. From what source Eusebius took his dates we do not know. His Chronicle contains different dates. It is possible that the difference is owing, in part, to defective transcriptions or translations; but it is more probable that Eusebius himself discovered another source, before writing his History, which he considered more authentic, and therefore substituted for the one he has used in his Chronicle. Lipsius (Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, p. 145) says, “We may assume that the oldest catalogue extended as far as Eleutherus, but rested upon historical knowledge only from Xystus, or, at the farthest, from Alexander down.” On the chronology of the Roman bishops in general, see especially the important work of Lipsius just referred to.
174:969Cerdon, mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 21.
174:970The Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian) makes Primus succeed to the bishopric of Alexandria in the eleventh year of Trajan; the version of Jerome, in the ninth. According to chap. 4, below, he held office twelve years. No reliance can be placed upon any of the figures. The Alexandrian church is shrouded in darkness until the latter part of the second century, and all extant traditions in regard to its history before that time are about equally worthless. Of Primus himself we have no authentic knowledge, though he figures somewhat in later tradition. See Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christian Biography, in loco.
174:971According to the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian), Alexander became bishop of Rome in the eighth year of Trajan; according to Jerome’s version, in the twelfth year. He is said, in chap. 4, below, to have died in the third year of Hadrian, after holding office ten years. On the reliability of these dates, see note 1, above. Of Alexander’s life and character we know nothing.
174:972On Evarestus, see Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.
Chapter II.—The Calamities of the Jews during Trajan’s Reign.
1. The teaching and the Church of our Saviour flourished greatly and made progress from day to day; but the calamities of the Jews increased, and they underwent a constant succession of evils. In the eighteenth year of Trajan’s reign 973 there was another disturbance of the Jews, through which a great multitude of them perished. 974
2. For in Alexandria and in the rest of Egypt, and also in Cyrene, 975 as if incited by some terrible and factious spirit, they rushed into seditious measures against their fellow-inhabitants, the Greeks. The insurrection increased greatly, and in the following year, while Lupus was governor of all Egypt, 976 it developed into a war of no mean magnitude.
3. In the first attack it happened that they were victorious over the Greeks, who fled to Alexandria and imprisoned and slew the Jews that were in the city. But the Jews of Cyrene, although deprived of their aid, continued to plunder the land of Egypt and to devastate its districts, 977 under the leadership of Lucuas. 978 Against them the emperor sent Marcius Turbo 979 with a foot and naval force and also with a force of cavalry.
4. He carried on the war against them for a long time and fought many battles, and slew many thousands of Jews, not only of those of Cyrene, but also of those who dwelt in Egypt and had come to the assistance of their king Lucuas.
5. But the emperor, fearing that the Jews in Mesopotamia would also make an attack upon the inhabitants of that country, commanded Lucius Quintus 980 to clear the province of them. And he having marched against them slew a great multitude of those that dwelt there; and in consequence of his success he was made governor of Judea by the emperor. These events are recorded also in these very words by the Greek historians that have written accounts of those times. 981
Footnotes
174:973115 a.d.
174:974Closs says: “According to Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 32, they slew in Cyrene 220,000 persons with terrible cruelty. At the same time there arose in Cyprus a disturbance of the Jews, who were very numerous in that island. According to Dion, 240,000 of the inhabitants were slain there. Their leader was Artemion.” Compare Dion Cassius, Hist. Rom. LXVIII. 32, and LXIX. 12 sq. The Jews and the Greeks that dwelt together in different cities were constantly getting into trouble. The Greeks scorned the Jews, and the Jews in return hated the Greeks and stirred up many bloody commotions against them. See Jost’s Geschichte der Israeliten, chap. III. p. 181 sq. The word “another” in this passage is used apparently with reference to the Jewish war under Vespasian, of which Eusebius has spoken at length in the early part of the third Book.
174:975The Jews were very numerous both in Egypt and in Cyrene, which lay directly west of Egypt. The Jews of Cyrene had a synagogue at Jerusalem, according to Acts vi. 9.
174:976Lupus is, to me at least, an otherwise unknown character.
174:977νόμοι. See Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10.
174:978Lucuas is called by Dion Cassius (LXVIII. 32) Andreas. Münter suggests that he may have borne a double name, a Jewish and a Roman, as did many of the Jews of that time.
174:979Marcius Turbo was one of the most distinguished of the Roman generals under Trajan and Hadrian, and finally became prætorian prefect under Hadrian. See Dion Cassius, LXIX. 18, and Spartian, Hadr. 4–9, 15.
175:980Lucius Quintus was an independent Moorish chief, who served voluntarily in the Roman army and became one of Trajan’s favorite generals. He was made governor of Judea by Trajan, and was afterward raised to the consulship. According to Themistius (Orat. XVI.), Trajan at one time intended to make him his successor. See Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 8, 22, 30, 32; LXIX. 2; Spartian, Hadr. 5, 7, and cf. Valesius’ note on this passage.
175:981The language of Eusebius might imply that he had other sources than the Greek writers, but this does not seem to have been the case. He apparently followed Dion Cassius for the most part, but evidently had some other source (the same which Orosius afterward followed), for he differs from Dion in the name of the Jewish leader, calling him Lucuas instead of Andreas. The only extant accounts of these affairs by Greek historians are those of Dion Cassius and Orosius, but there were evidently others in Eusebius’ time.
Chapter III.—The Apologists that wrote in Defense of the Faith during the Reign of Adrian.
1. After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years 982 Ælius Adrian became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for our religion, 983 because certain wicked men 984 had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man’s understanding and of his apostolic orthodoxy. 985
2. He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: “But the works of our Saviour were always present, 986 for they were genuine:—those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day.” 987 Such then was Quadratus.
3. Aristides also, a believer earnestly devoted to our religion, left, like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian. 988 His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great many persons.
Footnotes
175:982Trajan reigned from Jan. 27, 98, to Aug. 7 or 8, 117.
175:983The importance of Quadratus’ Apology in the mind of Eusebius is shown by his beginning the events of Hadrian’s reign with it, as well as by the fact that he gives it also in his Chronicle, year 2041 of Abraham (124 to 125 a.d.), where he calls Quadratus “Auditor Apostolorum.” Eusebius gives few events in his Chronicle, and therefore the reference to this is all the more significant. We find no mention of Quadratus and Aristides before Eusebius, and of the Apology of Quadratus we have only the few lines which are given in this chapter. In the Chronicle Eusebius says that Quadratus and Aristides addressed apologies to Hadrian during his stay in Athens. One ms. of the Chronicle gives the date as 125 a.d. (2141 Abr.), and this is correct; for, according to Dürr (Die Reisen des Kaisers Hadrian, Wien, 1881, p. 42 to 44, and 70 to 71), Hadrian was in Athens from the fall of 125 to the summer of 126 and from the spring of 129 to the spring of 130. Eusebius adds in his Chronicle (but omits here) that these apologies were the cause of a favorable edict from Hadrian, but this is incorrect. Eusebius (IV. 12) makes a similar statement in regard to the Apology of Justin, making a favorable edict (which has been proved to be unauthentic) of the Emperor Antoninus the result of it. (See Overbeck, Studien zur Geschichte der alten Kirche, I. 108 sq., 139.) Quadratus and Aristides are the oldest apologists known to us. Eusebius does not mention them again. This Quadratus must not be confounded with Quadratus, bishop of Athens in the time of Marcus Aurelius, who is mentioned in chap. 23; for the apologist Quadratus who belonged to the time of the apostles can hardly have been a bishop during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Nor is there any decisive ground to identify him with the prophet mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 37 and Bk. V. chap. 7, for Quadratus was a very common name, and the prophet and the apologist seem to have belonged to different countries (see Harnack, Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol. p. 103). Many scholars, however, identify the prophet and the apologist, and it must be said that Eusebius’ mention of the prophet in III. 37, and of the apologist in IV. 3, without any qualifying phrases, looks as if one well-known Quadratus were referred to. The matter must remain undecided. Jerome speaks of Quadratus and Aristides once in the Chronicle, year 2142, and in de vir. ill. chap. 19 and 20. In chap. 19 he identifies Quadratus, the apologist, and Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, but he evidently had no other source than Eusebius (as was usually the case, so that he can very rarely be accepted as an independent witness), and his statements here are the result simply of a combination of his own. The later scattering traditions in regard to Quadratus and Aristides (chiefly in the Martyrologies) rest probably only upon the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome, and whatever enlargement they offer is untrustworthy. The Apology of Quadratus was perhaps extant at the beginning of the seventh century; see Photius, Cod. 162. One later tradition made Quadratus the angel of Philadelphia, addressed in the Apocalypse; another located him in Magnesia (this Otto accepts). Either tradition might be true, but one is worth no more than the other. Compare Harnack, Die Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol., and Otto, Corpus Apol. Christ. IX. p. 333 sq.
175:984This phrase is very significant, as showing the idea of Eusebius that the persecutions did not proceed from the emperors themselves, but were the result of the machinations of the enemies of the Christians.
175:985ὀρθοτομία. Compare the use of ὀρθομοῦντα in 2 Tim. ii. 15.
175:986The fragment begins τοῦ δὲ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν τὰ žργα ἀεὶ παρῆν. The δὲ seems to introduce a contrast, and allows us to assume with some measure of assurance that an exposure of the pretended wonders of heathen magicians, who were numerous at that time, preceded this ocular proof of the genuineness of Christ’s miracles.
175:987Quadratus had evidently seen none of these persons himself; he had simply heard of them through others. We have no record elsewhere of the fact that any of those raised by Christ lived to a later age.
175:988Aristides of Athens, a contemporary of Quadratus, is called by Eusebius in his Chronicle “a philosopher” (nostri dogmatis philosophus Atheniensis). Eusebius does not quote his work, perhaps because he did not himself possess a copy, perhaps because it contained no historical matter suitable to his purpose. He does not mention him again (the Aristides, the friend of Africanus, of Bk. I. chap. 7 and of Bk. VI. chap. 31, lived a century later), and his Apology is quoted by none of the Fathers, so far as is known. Vague and worthless traditions of the Middle Ages still kept his name alive, as in the case of Quadratus, but the Apology itself disappeared long ago, until in 1878 a fragment of an Apology, bearing the name of “Aristides, the Philosopher of Athens,” was published by the Mechitarists from a codex of the year 981. It is a fragment of an Armenian translation of the fifth century; and although its genuineness has been denied, it is accepted by most critics, and seems to be an authentic fragment from the age of Hadrian. See especially Harnack, ibid. p. 109 sq., and again in Herzog, 2d ed., Supplement Vol. p. 675–681; also Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 709.
Chapter IV.—The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria under the Same Emperor. 989
In the third year of the same reign, Alexander, 990 bishop of Rome, died after holding office ten years. His successor was Xystus. 991 About the same time Primus, bishop of Alexandria, died in the twelfth year of his episcopate, 992 and was succeeded by Justus. 993
Footnotes
175:989I.e. the emperor Hadrian.
175:990On Alexander, see above, chap. 1, note 4.
176:991Known as Sixtus I. (Sixtus, or Sistus, being the Latin form of the name) in the list of Roman bishops. He was supposed to be the author of a collection of religious and moral maxims, which were widely read in the ancient Church and are mentioned by many of the Fathers. His authorship was disputed by Jerome and others, and the work from that time on was commonly assigned to a heathen author, until recently some voices have again been heard in favor of the authorship of Bishop Sixtus (notably de Lagarde and Ewald). See Schaff’s Church Hist. II. p. 703 sq.
He is, according to Lipsius, the first Roman bishop whose dates we have any means of ascertaining, and it may be assumed that he was the first one that occupied an episcopal position in Rome; and yet, even in his time, the monarchical episcopate can hardly have been established in its full sense. In the next chapter we are told that he held office ten years; and this figure, which is supported by most of the ancient catalogues, may be accepted as approximately correct. The date of his accession given here by Eusebius cannot, however, be correct; for, as Lipsius has shown (Chron. de röm. Bischöfe, p. 183 sq.) he must have died at least as early as 126 a.d. (possibly as early as 124), so that his accession took place not later than 116; that is, before the death of Trajan. Like most of the other early Roman bishops he is celebrated as a martyr in the martyrologies, but the fact of his martyrdom rests upon a very late and worthless tradition.
176:992On Primus, see chap. 1, note 4. Eusebius contradicts his own dates here. For in chap. 1 he says that Alexander of Rome and Primus of Alexandria became bishops at the same time; but according to this chapter, Alexander died at the close of the tenth year of his episcopate, and Primus in the twelfth year of his. Eusebius may have used the word “about” advisedly, to cover considerable ground, and may have grouped the two bishops together simply for convenience’ sake. No reliance is to be placed upon the dates in any case.
176:993We know nothing about Justus except that he ruled eleven years, according to the next chapter. If Primus died in the twelfth year of his episcopate, as Eusebius says in this chapter, and entered upon his office in the twelfth year of Trajan, as he says in chapter 1, Justus must have become bishop about 120 a.d., in the third or fourth year of Hadrian. It must be remembered, however, that all of these dates are historically worthless.
Chapter V.—The Bishops of Jerusalem from the Age of our Saviour to the Period under Consideration
1. The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; 994 for tradition says that they were all short lived.
2. But I have learned this much from writings, 995 that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Adrian, 996 there were fifteen bishops in succession there, 997 all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.
3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; 998 the second, Symeon; 999 the third, Justus; 1000 the fourth, Zacchæus; 1001 the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; 1002 the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; 1003 the fourteenth, Joseph; 1004 and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.
4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.
5. In the twelfth year of the reign of Adrian, Xystus, having completed the tenth year of his episcopate, 1005 was succeeded by Telesphorus, 1006 the seventh in succession from the apostles. In the meantime, after the lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes, 1007 the sixth in order, succeeded to the leadership of the Alexandrian church, his predecessor having held office eleven years. 1008
Footnotes
176:994In his Chron. Eusebius also gives the names of these bishops of Jerusalem, without assigning dates to more than two or three of them. But in Nicephorus Callisti the dates are given. From what source Nicephorus drew we do not know. He is, at any rate, too late to be of any worth as an authority on such a subject. In fact, these men were not regular monarchical bishops, holding office in succession (see note 4), and hence Eusebius is quite excusable for his ignorance in regard to their dates. See Ritschl’s Entstehung der alt-kath. Kirche, p. 246 sq.
176:995Reuterdahl (De Fontibus Hist. eccles. Euseb., p. 55) conjectures that these “writings” were found in the church of Jerusalem itself, and compares a passage in the Dem. Evang. III. 5: “The first bishops that presided there [i.e. at Jerusalem] are said to have been Jews, and their names are preserved by the inhabitants of the country.” Had Hegesippus or any other known author been the source of his information, he would probably have mentioned his name.
176:996In 135 a.d. See below, chap. 7.
176:997From Hegesippus (see above, Bk. III. chap. 32) we learn that Symeon, the successor of James, was martyred during Trajan’s reign. As was seen in note 6 of the chapter referred to, the martyrdom probably occurred early in that reign. Eusebius, in his Chron., refers the martyrdom and the accession of Justus to the tenth year of Trajan (107 a.d.). This leaves thirteen bishops to be inserted between 107 (or, if this date is not reliable, 98+) and 135 a.d., which is, to say the least, very suspicious. The true explanation appears to be that, after the death of Symeon, the last prominent relative of Christ, the presbyters took the lead, and that they were afterward made by tradition into successive monarchical bishops. Closs and Gieseler suppose that there were bishops of a number of churches in Palestine at the same time, whom tradition made successive bishops of Jerusalem. But the fact is, that the episcopate is of Greek, not of Jewish, origin, and in the strictly Jewish Christian churches of Palestine no such person as a bishop can have existed. Only after the church there came under the influence of the Gentile church, and lost its prevailingly Jewish character, was it possible for a bishop, in the general sense of the term, to exist there. The Jewish Christians assumed for their church government the form of the Jewish Sanhedrim, though while James and Symeon were alive, they were naturally leaders (according to the common Oriental custom, which exalted the relatives of the founder of a religion). The Jewish character of the Jerusalem congregation was very marked until the destruction of the city under Hadrian (note that all but two of the fifteen bishops have Jewish names), after which all circumcised Jews—Christians as well as unbelievers—were excluded, and a heathen Christian congregation took its place (see the next chapter). According to Stroth, followed by Closs, Stigloher, and Heinichen, the church of Jerusalem remained in Pella after 70 a.d., and was called the church of Jerusalem because it was made up of Christians from Jerusalem. This is possible; but Eusebius evidently did not understand it so (compare, too, his Dem. Evang. III. 5), and Epiphanius (de Mensa et Pond. chap 15) says expressly that, after the destruction of the city by Titus, the church returned again to Jerusalem, and there is no good reason to doubt the report.
176:998On James, see above, Bk. II chap. 1.
176:999On Symeon, see above, Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4.
176:1000Of Justus and the following named bishops we know nothing more. Justus is called Judas by Epiphanius, Hær. LXVI. 20.
176:1001Zacchæus is called Zacharias by Epiphanius. According to Jerome’s version of Eusebius’ Chron. he became bishop in the fifteenth year of Trajan; according to the Armenian version, in the twelfth year. Dates are given by the Chron. for this bishop and for Seneca, but no confidence is to be reposed in the dates, nor in those given by Epiphanius and Eutychius. The former, when he gives dates at all, is hopelessly at sea. The latter gives exact dates for every bishop, but quite without the support of ancient tradition.
176:1002The name Seneca is Latin, the only Latin name in the list. But there is nothing particularly surprising in a Jew’s bearing a Latin name. It was quite common even for native Jews to bear both a Latin, or Greek, and a Hebrew name, and often the former was used to the exclusion of the latter. The name therefore does not disprove Seneca’s Hebrew origin.
176:1003᾽Εφρῆς. Epiphanius calls him ᾽Ου€φρις. The Armenian version of the Chron. calls him Ephrem; Jerome’s version, Ephres. Syncellus calls him ᾽Εφραΐμ, which is the Hebrew form of the name.
176:1004᾽Ιωσήφ. He is called ᾽Ιωσίς by Epiphanius, and Joses by Jerome.
177:1005On Xystus, see chap. 4, note 3.
177:1006Telesphorus was a martyr, according to Irenæus, III. 3. 3 (compare below, chap. 10, and Bk. V. chap. 6), and the tradition is too old to be doubted. Eusebius here agrees with Jerome’s version of the Chron. in putting the date of Telesphorus’ accession in the year 128 a.d., but the Armenian version puts it in 124; and Lipsius, with whom Overbeck agrees, puts it between 124 and 126. Since he held office eleven years (according to Eusebius, chap. 10, below, and other ancient catalogues), he must have died, according to Lipsius and Overbeck, between 135 and 137 a.d. (the latter being probably the correct date), and not in the first year of Antoninus Pius (138 a.d.), as Eusebius states in chap. 10, below. Tradition says that he fought against Marcion and Valentinus (which is quite possible), and that he was very strict in regard to fasts, sharpening them and increasing their number, which may or may not be true.
177:1007We know nothing more about Eumenes. He is said in chap. 11 to have held office thirteen years, and this brings the date of his death into agreement with the date given by the Armenian version of the Chron., which differs by two years from the date given by Jerome.
177:1008His predecessor was Justus. See the previous chapter.
Chapter VI.—The Last Siege of the Jews under Adrian.
1. As the rebellion of the Jews at this time grew much more serious, 1009 Rufus, governor of Judea, after an auxiliary force had been sent him by the emperor, using their madness as a pretext, proceeded against them without mercy, and destroyed indiscriminately thousands of men and women and children, and in accordance with the laws of war reduced their country to a state of complete subjection.
2. The leader of the Jews at this time was a man by the name of Barcocheba 1010 (which signifies a star), who possessed the character of a robber and a murderer, but nevertheless, relying upon his name, boasted to them, as if they were slaves, that he possessed wonderful powers; and he pretended that he was a star that had come down to them out of heaven to bring them light in the midst of their misfortunes.
3. The war raged most fiercely in the eighteenth year of Adrian, 1011 at the city of Bithara, 1012 which was a very secure fortress, situated not far from Jerusalem. When the siege had lasted a long time, and the rebels had been driven to the last extremity by hunger and thirst, and the instigator of the rebellion had suffered his just punishment, the whole nation was prohibited from this time on by a decree, and by the commands of Adrian, from ever going up to the country about Jerusalem. For the emperor gave orders that they should not even see from a distance the land of their fathers. Such is the account of Aristo of Pella. 1013
4. And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Ælia, in honor of the emperor Ælius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus. 1014
Footnotes
177:1009The rebellions of the Jews which had broken out in Cyrene and elsewhere during the reign of Trajan only increased the cruelty of the Romans toward them, and in Palestine, as well as elsewhere in the East, their position was growing constantly worse. Already during the reign of Trajan Palestine itself was the scene of many minor disturbances and of much bitter persecution. Hadrian regarded them as a troublesome people, and showed in the beginning of his reign that he was not very favorably disposed toward them. Indeed, it seems that he even went so far as to determine to build upon the site of Jerusalem a purely heathen city. It was at about this time, when all the Jews were longing for the Messiah, that a man appeared (his original name we do not know, but his coins make it probable that it was Simon), claiming to be the Messiah, and promising to free the Jews from the Roman yoke. He took the name Bar-Cochba, “Son of a star,” and was enthusiastically supported by Rabbi Akiba and other leading men among the Jews, who believed him to be the promised Messiah. He soon gathered a large force, and war finally broke out between him and Rufus, the governor of Judea, about the year 132. Rufus was not strong enough to put down the rebellion, and Julius Severus, Hadrian’s greatest general, was therefore summoned from Britain with a strong force. Bar-Cochba and his followers shut themselves up in Bethar, a strong fortification, and after a long siege the place was taken in 135 a.d., in the fourth year of the war, and Bar-Cochba was put to death. The Romans took severe revenge upon the Jews. Hadrian built upon the site of Jerusalem a new city, which he named Ælia Capitolina, and upon the site of the temple a new temple to the Capitoline Jupiter, and passed a law that no Jew should henceforth enter the place. Under Bar-Cochba the Christians, who refused to join him in his rebellion, were very cruelly treated (cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 31, quoted in chap. 8, below). Upon this last war of the Jews, see Dion Cassius, LXIX. 12–14, and compare Jost’s Gesch. der Israeliten, III. p. 227 sq., and Münter’s Jüdischer Krieg.
177:1010Heb. בר כוכבא, Bar-Cochba, which signifies “Son of a star” (cf. Num. xxiv. 17). After his defeat the Jews gave him the name בר כוזיבא, Bar-Coziba, which means “Son of a lie.”
177:1011I.e. Aug. 134 to Aug. 135.
177:1012Βίθθηρα, Rufinus Bethara. The exact situation of this place cannot be determined, although various localities have been suggested by travelers (see Robinson’s Bibl. Researches, III. p. 267 sqq.). We may conclude at any rate that it was, as Eusebius says, a strongly fortified place, and that it was situated somewhere in Judea.
177:1013Whether the whole of the previous account, or only the close of it, was taken by Eusebius from Aristo of Pella, we do not know. Of Aristo of Pella himself we know very little. Eusebius is the first writer to mention him, and he and Maximus Confessor (in his notes on the work De mystica Theol. cap. I. p. 17, ed. Corderii) are the only ones to give us any information about him (for the notices in Moses Chorenensis and in the Chron. Paschale—the only other places in which Aristo is mentioned—are entirely unreliable). Maximus informs us that Aristo was the author of a Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, a work mentioned by many of the Fathers, but connected by none of them with Aristo. The dialogue, according to Maximus, was known to Clement of Alexandria and therefore must have been written as early as, or very soon after, the middle of the second century; and the fact that it recorded a dialogue between a Hebrew Christian and an Alexandrian Jew (as we learn from the epistle of Celsus, De Judaica Incredulitate, printed with the works of Cyprian, in Hartel’s edition, III. p. 119–132) would lead us to expect an early date for the work. There can be found no good reason for doubting the accuracy of Maximus’ statement; and if it be accepted, we must conclude that the writer whom Eusebius mentions here was the author of the dialogue referred to. If this be so, it is quite possible that it was from this dialogue that Eusebius drew the account which he here ascribes to Aristo; for such an account might well find a place in a dialogue between two Hebrews. It is possible, of course, that Aristo wrote some other work in which he discussed this subject; but if it had been an historical work, we should expect Eusebius, according to his custom, to give its title. Harnack is quite correct in assuming that Eusebius’ silence in regard to the work itself is significant. Doubtless the work did not please him, and hence he neither mentions it, nor gives an account of its author. This is just what we should expect Eusebius’ attitude to be toward such a Jewish Christian work (and at the same time, such a ‘simple’ work, as Origen calls it in Contra Cels. IV. 52) as we know the dialogue to have been. We are, of course, left largely to conjecture in this matter; but the above conclusions seem at least probable. Compare Harnack’s Ueberlieferung der griech. Apol., p. 115 sq.; and for a discussion of the nature of the dialogue (which is no longer extant), see his Altercatio Simonis Judæi et Theophili Christiani (Texte und Untersuchungen, I. 3), p. 115 sq. (Harnack looks upon this Latin altercatio as, in part at least, a free reproduction of the lost dialogue). See, also, the writer’s Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew (᾽Αντιβολὴ Παπίσκου καὶ φίλωνος ᾽Ιουδαίων πρὸς μοναχόν τινα), p. 33.
The town of Pella lay east of the Jordan, in Perea. See Bk. III. chap. 5, note 10, above.
178:1014Of this Marcus we know nothing more. Upon the Gentile bishops of Jerusalem, see Bk. V. chap. 12.
Chapter VII.—The Persons that became at that Time Leaders of Knowledge falsely so-called. 1015
1. As the churches throughout the world were now shining like the most brilliant stars, and faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ was flourishing among the whole human race, 1016 the demon who hates everything that is good, and is always hostile to the truth, and most bitterly opposed to the salvation of man, turned all his arts against the Church. 1017 In the beginning he armed himself against it with external persecutions.
2. But now, being shut off from the use of such means, 1018 he devised all sorts of plans, and employed other methods in his conflict with the Church, using base and deceitful men as instruments for the ruin of souls and as ministers of destruction. Instigated by him, impostors and deceivers, assuming the name of our religion, brought to the depth of ruin such of the believers as they could win over, and at the same time, by means of the deeds which they practiced, turned away from the path which leads to the word of salvation those who were ignorant of the faith.
3. Accordingly there proceeded from that Menander, whom we have already mentioned as the successor of Simon, 1019 a certain serpent-like power, double-tongued and two-headed, which produced the leaders of two different heresies, Saturninus, an Antiochian by birth, 1020 and Basilides, an Alexandrian. 1021 The former of these established schools of godless heresy in Syria, the latter in Alexandria.
4. Irenæus states 1022 that the false teaching of Saturninus agreed in most respects with that of Menander, but that Basilides, under the pretext of unspeakable mysteries, invented monstrous fables, and carried the fictions of his impious heresy quite beyond bounds.
5. But as there were at that time a great many members of the Church 1023 who were fighting for the truth and defending apostolic and ecclesiastical doctrine with uncommon eloquence, so there were some also that furnished posterity through their writings with means of defense against the heresies to which we have referred. 1024
6. Of these there has come down to us a most powerful refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor, 1025 one of the most renowned writers of that day, which shows the terrible imposture of the man.
7. While exposing his mysteries he says that Basilides wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel, 1026 and that he invented prophets for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph, 1027 and others that had no existence, and that he gave them barbarous names in order to amaze those who marvel at such things; that he taught also that the eating of meat offered to idols and the unguarded renunciation of the faith in times of persecution were matters of indifference; 1028 and that he enjoined upon his followers, like Pythagoras, a silence of five years. 1029
8. Other similar things the above-mentioned writer has recorded concerning Basilides, and has ably exposed the error of his heresy.
9. Irenæus also writes 1030 that Carpocrates was a contemporary of these men, and that he was the father of another heresy, called the heresy of the Gnostics, 1031 who did not wish to transmit any longer the magic arts of Simon, as that one 1032 had done, in secret, but openly. 1033 For they boasted—as of something great—of love potions that were carefully prepared by them, and of certain demons that sent them dreams and lent them their protection, and of other similar agencies; and in accordance with these things they taught that it was necessary for those who wished to enter fully into their mysteries, or rather into their abominations, to practice all the worst kinds of wickedness, on the ground that they could escape the cosmic powers, as they called them, in no other way than by discharging their obligations to them all by infamous conduct.
10. Thus it came to pass that the malignant demon, making use of these ministers, on the one hand enslaved those that were so pitiably led astray by them to their own destruction, while on the other hand he furnished to the unbelieving heathen abundant opportunities for slandering the divine word, inasmuch as the reputation of these men brought infamy upon the whole race of Christians.
11. In this way, therefore, it came to pass that there was spread abroad in regard to us among the unbelievers of that age, the infamous and most absurd suspicion that we practiced unlawful commerce with mothers and sisters, and enjoyed impious feasts. 1034
12. He did not, however, long succeed in these artifices, as the truth established itself and in time shone with great brilliancy.
13. For the machinations of its enemies were refuted by its power and speedily vanished. One new heresy arose after another, and the former ones always passed away, and now at one time, now at another, now in one way, now in other ways, were lost in ideas of various kinds and various forms. But the splendor of the catholic and only true Church, which is always the same, grew in magnitude and power, and reflected its piety and simplicity and freedom, and the modesty and purity of its inspired life and philosophy to every nation both of Greeks and of Barbarians.
14. At the same time the slanderous accusations which had been brought against the whole Church 1035 also vanished, and there remained our teaching alone, which has prevailed over all, and which is acknowledged to be superior to all in dignity and temperance, and in divine and philosophical doctrines. So that none of them now ventures to affix a base calumny upon our faith, or any such slander as our ancient enemies formerly delighted to utter.
15. Nevertheless, in those times the truth again called forth many champions who fought in its defense against the godless heresies, refuting them not only with oral, but also with written arguments. 1036
Footnotes
178:1015ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. Compare 1 Tim. vi. 20.
178:1016This statement is of course an exaggeration. See above, Bk. II. chap. 3, note 1.
178:1017These two paragraphs furnish an excellent illustration of Eusebius’ dualistic and transcendental conception of history. In his opinion, heresy was not a natural growth from within, but an external evil brought upon the Church by the devil, when he could no longer persecute. According to this conception the Church conquers this external enemy, heresy, and then goes on as before, unaffected by it. In agreement with this is his conception of heretics themselves, whom he, in common with most other Christians of that age, considered without exception wicked and abandoned characters.
178:1018Eusebius’ belief that persecution had ceased at the time of Hadrian is an illusion (see below, chap. 8, note 14) which falls in with his general conceptions upon this subject—conceptions which ruled among Christian writers until the end of the fourth century.
178:1019See Bk. III. chap. 26.
178:1020Saturninus is called Saturnilus by Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, and his followers Saturnilians by Hegesippus, quoted in chap. 22, below. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I. 24) and Hippolytus (VII. 16) give accounts of the man and his doctrine which are evidently taken from the same source, probably the lost Syntagma of Justin Martyr. Neither of them seems to have had any independent information, nor do any other writers know more about him than was contained in that original source. Irenæus was possibly Eusebius’ sole authority, although Irenæus assigns Saturninus only to Syria, while Eusebius makes him a native of Antioch. Hippolytus says that he “spent his time in Antioch of Syria,” which may have been the statement of the original, or may have been a mere deduction from a more general statement such as Irenæus gives. In the same way Eusebius may have needed no authority for his still more exact statement.
178:1021Basilides was one of the greatest and most famous of the Gnostics. Irenæus (I. 24) and the early Compendium of Hippolytus (now lost, but used together with Irenæus’ work by Epiphanius in his treatise against heresies) described a form of Basilidianism which was not the original, but a later corruption of the system. On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria surely, and Hippolytus, in the fuller account in his Philosoph. (VII. 2 sq.), probably drew their knowledge of the system directly from Basilides’ own work, the Exegetica, and hence represent the form of doctrine taught by Basilides himself,—a form differing greatly from the later corruptions of it which Irenæus discusses. This system was very profound, and bore in many respects a lofty character. Basilides had apparently few followers (his son Isidore is the only prominent one known to us); and though his system created a great impression at the start,—so much so that his name always remained one of the most famous of Gnostic names,—it had little vitality, and soon died out or was corrupted beyond recognition. He was mentioned of course in all the general works against heresies written by the Fathers, but no one seems to have composed an especial refutation of his system except Agrippa Castor, to whom Eusebius refers. Irenæus informs us that he taught at Alexandria, Hippolytus (VII. 15) mentions simply Egypt, while Epiphanius (XXI. 1) names various Egyptian cities in which he labored, but it is evident that he is only enumerating places in which there were Basilidians in his time. It is not certain whether he is to be identified with the Basilides who is mentioned in the Acts of Archelaus as preaching in Persia. For an excellent account of Basilides and his system, see the article by Hort in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.; and in addition to the works of Neander, Baur, and Lipsius on Gnosticism in general, see especially Uhlhorn’s Das Basilidianische System, Göttingen, 1855.
178:1022See Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 24.
178:1023ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἀνδρῶν.
178:1024The only one of these—“that furnished posterity with means of defense against heresies”—whom Eusebius mentions is Agrippa Castor, and it is evident that he knew of no others. Moreover, it is more than doubtful whether Agrippa Castor belonged to that time. We do not know when he wrote, but it is hardly possible that the Church had at that period any one capable of answering such a work as the Commentary of Basilides, or any one who would wish to if he could. The activity of the Church was at this early period devoted chiefly if not wholly to the production of apologies for the defense of the Church against the attacks of enemies from the outside, and to the composition of apocalypses. Eusebius in the next chapter mentions Hegesippus as another of these “writers of the time.” But the passage which he quotes to prove that Hegesippus wrote then only proves that the events mentioned took place during his lifetime, and not necessarily within forty or fifty years of the time at which he was writing. The fact is, that Hegesippus really wrote about 175 a.d. (later therefore than Justin Martyr), and in chap. 21 of this book Eusebius restores him to his proper chronological place. The general statement made here by Eusebius in regard to the writers against heresy during the reign of Hadrian rest upon his preconceived idea of what must have been the case. If the devil raised up enemies against the truth, the Church must certainly have had at the same time defenders to meet them. It is a simple example of well-meaning subjective reconstruction. He had the work of Agrippa Castor before him, and undoubtedly believed that he lived at the time stated (which indeed we cannot absolutely deny), and believed, moreover, that other similar writers, whose names he did not know, lived at the same time.
178:1025Of Agrippa Castor we know only what Eusebius tells us here. Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 21) adds nothing new, and Theodoret’s statement (Fab. I. 4), that Agrippa wrote against Basilides’ son, Isidore, as well as against Basilides himself, is simply an expansion of Eusebius’ account, and does not imply the existence of another work. Agrippa’s production, of which we do not know even the title, has entirely disappeared.
179:1026εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον βιβλία. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. IV. 12) quotes from the twenty-third book of the Exegetica of Basilides. Origen (Hom. in Luc. I.) says that Basilides “had even the audacity to write a Gospel according to Basilides,” and this remark is repeated by Ambrose (Exp. in Luc. I. 1), and seems to be Jerome’s authority for the enumeration of a Gospel of Basilides among the Apocryphal Gospels in his Comment in Matt., præf. We know nothing more about this Gospel, and it is quite possible that Origen mistook the Exegetica for a Gospel. We do not know upon what Gospels Basilides wrote his Commentary (or Exegetica), but it is hardly probable that he would have expounded his own Gospel even if such a work existed. The passage from the Exegetica which Clement quotes looks to me like a part of an exposition of John ix. (although Lipsius, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. 715, suggests Luke xxi. 12). Meanwhile, in the Acta Archelai, chap. 55 (see Gallandii Bibl. PP. III. 608), is a quotation from “the thirteenth book of the treatises (tractatuum) of Basilides,” which is an exposition of the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi.). If this is the same work, it would seem that the Exegetica must have included at least Luke and John, possibly Matthew also, for we know that the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were all used by the Basilidians. The respective positions in the work of the expositions of the passages from Luke and John (the former in the thirteenth, the latter in the twenty-third, book) would seem, however, to exclude Matthew, if the books were at all of equal length. If Lipsius were correct in regarding the latter passage as an exposition of Luke xxi. 12, there would be no evidence that the Commentary covered more than a single Gospel.
179:1027According to Epiphanius, some of the Ophites appealed to a certain prophet called Barcabbas. What his connection was with the one mentioned here we do not know. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. VI. 6) speaks of the Expositions of the Prophet Parchor by Isidore, the son of Basilides. This may be another of Basilides’ prophets, but is more probably identical with the oft-mentioned Barcoph. In the second book of these Expositions, as quoted by Clement, occurs a reference to the prophecy of Cham or Ham. Rienstra (De Euseb. Hist. Eccles. p. 29) thinks that Agrippa Castor was mistaken in saying that Basilides mentioned these prophets; but there seems to be no good reason to deny the accuracy of the report, even though we know nothing more about the prophets mentioned. Hort (Dict. of Christ. Biog., article Barcabbas) thinks it likely that the prophecies current among the various Gnostic bodies belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian literature.
179:1028This was not a doctrine of Basilides himself, but of his followers (compare the accounts of Irenæus and Hippolytus). If Agrippa Castor represented Basilides’ position thus, as Eusebius says he did (though Eusebius may be only following Irenæus), it is an evidence that he did not live at the early date to which Eusebius assigns him, and this goes to confirm the view stated above, in note 10. Basilides himself taught at least a moderate asceticism, while his followers went off into crude dualism and moral license (see the excellent account of Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. 466 sq.).
179:1029Exactly what is meant by this “five years of silence” is uncertain. Whether it denoted unquestioning and silent obedience of all commands, as it meant in the case of the Pythagoreans (if, indeed, the traditions in regard to the latter have any basis in fact), or strict secrecy as to the doctrines taught, cannot be decided. The report in regard to the Basilidians, in so far as it has any truth, probably arose on the ground of some such prohibition, which may have been made by some follower of Basilides, if not by the latter himself. A bond of secrecy would lend an air of mystery to the school, which would accord well with the character of its later teachings. But we cannot make Basilides responsible for such proceedings. Agrippa Castor, as reproduced here by Eusebius, is our sole authority for the enjoinment of silence by Basilides.
179:1030See Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 25.
179:1031The date of the rise of Gnosticism cannot be fixed. Indeed, all the requisite conditions existed from the beginning. It was the “acute Verweltlichung” (as Harnack calls it) of Christianity, the development of it in connection with the various ethnic philosophies, and it began as soon as Christianity came in contact with the Greek mind. At first it was not heretical, simply because there were no standards by which to try it. There was only the preaching of the Christians; the canon was not yet formed; episcopacy was not yet established; both arose as safeguards against heresy. It was in the time of Hadrian, perhaps, that these speculations began to be regarded as heresies, because they contradicted certain fundamental truths to which the Christians felt that they must cling, such as the unity of God, his graciousness, his goodness, etc.; and therefore the Christians dated Gnosticism from that time. Gnosticism was ostensibly conquered, but victory was achieved only as the Church itself became in a certain sense Gnostic. It followed the course of Gnosticism a century later; that is, it wrote commentaries, systems of doctrine, &c., philosophizing about religious things (cf. Harnack’s Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 162 sq.). It must be remembered in reading the Fathers’ accounts of Gnosticism that they took minor and unimportant details and magnified them, and treated them as the essentials of the system or systems. In this way far greater variety appears to have existed in Gnosticism than was the case. The essential principles were largely the same throughout; the differences were chiefly in regard to details. It is this conduct on the part of the Fathers that gives us such a distorted and often ridiculous view of Gnosticism.
The Carpocratians are the first of whom Irenæus expressly says that they called themselves Gnostics (adv. Hær. I. 25, 6), while Hippolytus first speaks of the name as adopted by the Naasseni (V. 1). The Carpocratians are mentioned by Hegesippus (quoted below in chap. 22). The system was more exclusively Greek in its character than any other of the Gnostic systems. The immorality of the sect was proverbial; Tertullian (de Anima, c. 35) calls Carpocrates a magician and a fornicator. He taught the superiority of man over the powers of the world, the moral indifference of things in themselves, and hence, whether he himself was immoral or not, his followers carried out his principles to the extreme, and believed that the true Gnostic might and even must have experience of everything, and therefore should practice all sorts of immoralities.
Eusebius is probably right in assigning Carpocrates to this period. The relation of his system to those of Saturninus and Basilides seems to imply that he followed them, but at no great interval. Other sources for a knowledge of Carpocrates and his sect are Irenæus (I. 25 and II. 31–33), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. 2), Hippolytus (Phil. VII. 20), Tertullian (de Anima, 23, 35), Pseudo-Tertullian (adv. omnes Hær. 3), Epiphanius (Hær. 27), and Philaster (c. 35). Of these only Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and the earlier treatise of Hippolytus (which lies at the base of Pseudo-Tertullian and Philaster) are independent; and probably, back of Irenæus, lies Justin Martyr’s lost Syntagma; though it is very likely that Irenæus knew the sect personally, and made additions of his own. Compare Harnack’s Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus, p. 41 sq.
179:1032ἐκεῖνος, referring back to Basilides.
179:1033Where Eusebius secured the information that the Carpocratians made the magic rites of Simon public, instead of keeping them secret, as Basilides had done, I cannot tell. None of our existing sources mentions this fact, and whether Eusebius took it from some lost source, or whether it is simply a deduction of his own, I am not certain. In other respects his account agrees closely with that of Irenæus. It is possible that he had seen the lost work of Hippolytus (see below, VI. 22, note 9), and from that had picked up this item which he states as a fact. But the omission of it in Philaster, Pseudo-Tertullian, and Epiphanius are against this supposition. Justin’s Syntagma Eusebius probably never saw (see below, chap. 11, note 31).
180:1034The chief accusations urged against the early Christians by their antagonists were atheism, cannibalism, and incest. These charges were made very early. Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 26) mentions them, and Pliny in his epistle to Trajan speaks of the innocent meals of the Christians, implying that they had been accused of immorality in connection with them. (Compare, also, Tertullian’s Apol. 7, 8, and Ad Nationes, 7.) In fact, suspicions arose among the heathen as soon as their love feasts became secret. The persecution in Lyons is to be explained only by the belief of the officers that these and similar accusations were true. The Christians commonly denied all such charges in toto, and supported their denial by urging the absurdity of such conduct; but sometimes, as in the present case, they endeavored to exonerate themselves by attributing the crimes with which they were charged to heretics. This course, however, helped them little with the heathen, as the latter did not distinguish between the various parties of Christians, but treated them all as one class. The statement of Eusebius in the present case is noteworthy. He thinks that the crimes were really committed by heretics, and occasioned the accusations of the heathen, and he thus admits that the charges were founded upon fact. In this case he acts toward the heretics in the same way that the heathen acted toward the Christians as a whole. This method of exonerating themselves appears as early as Justin Martyr (compare his Apol. I. 26). Irenæus also (I. 25, 3), whom Eusebius substantially follows in this passage, and Philaster (c. 57), pursue the same course.
180:1035Eusebius is correct in his statement that such accusations were no longer made in his day. The Church had, in fact, lived them down completely. It is noticeable that in the elaborate work of Celsus against the Christians, no such charges are found. From Origen (Contra Cels. VI. 27), however, we learn that there were still in his time some who believed these reports about the Christians, though they were no longer made the basis of serious attacks. Whether Eusebius’ synchronization of the cessation of these slanderous stories with the cessation of the heresies of which he has been talking, is correct, is not so certain, as we know neither exactly when these heresies ran out, nor precisely the time at which the accusations ceased. At any rate, we cannot fully agree with Eusebius’ explanation of the matter. The two things were hardly connected as direct cause and effect, though it cannot be denied that the actual immoralities of some of these antinomian sects may have had some effect in confirming these tales, and hence that their extinction may have had some tendency to hasten the obliteration of the vile reports.
180:1036See above, note 10.
Chapter VIII.—Ecclesiastical Writers.
1. Among these Hegesippus was well known. 1037 We have already quoted his words a number of times, 1038 relating events which happened in the time of the apostles according to his account.
2. He records in five books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine in a most simple style, and he indicates the time in which he flourished when he writes as follows concerning those that first set up idols: “To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day. Among whom is also Antinoüs, 1039 a slave of the Emperor Adrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were instituted in our day. For he [i.e. Adrian] also founded a city named after Antinoüs, 1040 and appointed prophets.”
3. At the same time also Justin, a genuine lover of the true philosophy, was still continuing to busy himself with Greek literature. 1041 He indicates this time in the Apology which he addressed to Antonine, where he writes as follows: 1042 “We do not think it out of place to mention here Antinoüs also, who lived in our day, and whom all were driven by fear to worship as a god, although they knew who he was and whence he came.”
4. The same writer, speaking of the Jewish war which took place at that time, adds the following: 1043 “For in the late Jewish war Barcocheba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, commanded that Christians alone 1044 should be visited with terrible punishments unless they would deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ.”
5. And in the same work he shows that his conversion from Greek philosophy to Christianity 1045 was not without reason, but that it was the result of deliberation on his part. His words are as follows: 1046 “For I myself, while I was delighted with the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw that they were afraid neither of death nor of anything else ordinarily looked upon as terrible, concluded that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what pleasure-loving or intemperate man, or what man that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments, and would not rather strive to continue permanently his present life, and to escape the notice of the rulers, instead of giving himself up to be put to death?”
6. The same writer, moreover, relates that Adrian having received from Serennius Granianus, 1047 a most distinguished governor, a letter 1048 in behalf of the Christians, in which he stated that it was not just to slay the Christians without a regular accusation and trial, merely for the sake of gratifying the outcries of the populace, sent a rescript 1049 to Minucius Fundanus, 1050 proconsul of Asia, commanding him to condemn no one without an indictment and a well-grounded accusation.
7. And he gives a copy of the epistle, preserving the original Latin in which it was written, 1051 and prefacing it with the following words: 1052 “Although from the epistle of the greatest and most illustrious Emperor Adrian, your father, we have good ground to demand that you order judgment to be given as we have desired, yet we have asked this not because it was ordered by Adrian, but rather because we know that what we ask is just. And we have subjoined the copy of Adrian’s epistle that you may know that we are speaking the truth in this matter also. And this is the copy.”
8. After these words the author referred to gives the rescript in Latin, which we have translated into Greek as accurately as we could. 1053 It reads as follows:
Footnotes
180:1037On the life and writings of Hegesippus, see below, chap. 22, note 1. Eusebius in this passage puts his literary activity too early (see above, chap. 7, note 10). Jerome follows Eusebius’ chronological arrangement in his de vir ill., giving an account of Hegesippus in chap. 22, between his accounts of Agrippa Castor and Justin Martyr.
180:1038Already quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 32.
180:1039Antinoüs, a native of Bithynia, was a beautiful page of the Emperor Hadrian, and the object of his extravagant affections. He was probably drowned in the Nile, in 130 a.d. After his death he was raised to the rank of the gods, and temples were built for his worship in many parts of the empire, especially in Egypt. In Athens too games were instituted in his honor, and games were also celebrated every fifth year at Mantinea, in Arcadia, according to Valesius, who cites Pausanias as his authority.
180:1040Hadrian rebuilt the city of Besa in the Thebais, in whose neighborhood Antinoüs was drowned, and called it Antinoöpolis.
180:1041On Justin Martyr, see chap. 16, below. We do not know the date of his conversion, but as it did not take place until mature years, it is highly probable that he was still a heathen during the greater part of Hadrian’s reign. There is no reason, however, to suppose that Eusebius is speaking here with more than approximate accuracy. He may not have known any better than we the exact time of Justin’s conversion.
180:1042Justin, Apol. I. 29.
181:1043Justin, Apol. I. 31.
181:1044χριστιανοὺς μόνους. “This ‘alone’ is, as Münter remarks, not to be understood as implying that Barcocheba did not treat the Greeks and Romans also with cruelty, but that he persecuted the Christians especially, from religious hate, if he could not compel them to apostatize. Moreover, he handled the Christians so roughly because of their hesitation to take part in the rebellion” (Closs).
181:1045ἐπὶ τὴν θεοσέβειαν
181:1046Justin, Apol. II. 12. Eusebius here quotes from what is now known as the Second Apology of Justin, but identifies it with the first, from which he has quoted just above. This implies that the two as he knew them formed but one work, and this is confirmed by his quotations in chaps. 16 and 17, below. For a discussion of this matter, see chap. 18, note 3.
181:1047The best mss. of Eusebius write the name Σερέννιος Γρανιανός, but one ms., supported by Syncellus, writes the first word Σερένιος. Rufinus writes “Serenius”; Jerome, in his version of Eusebius’ Chronicle, followed by Orosius (VII. 13), writes “Serenius Granius,” and this, according to Kortholdt (quoted by Heinichen), is shown by an inscription to have been the correct form (see Heinichen’s edition, in loco). We know no more of this man, except that he was Minucius Fundanus’ predecessor as proconsul of Asia, as we learn from the opening sentence of the rescript quoted in the next chapter.
181:1048γρ€μματα. The plural is often used like the Latin literæ to denote a single epistle and we learn from the opening sentence of the rescript itself (if the Greek of Eusebius is to be relied on) that Hadrian replies, not to a number of letters, but to a single one,—an ἐπιστολή, as Eusebius calls it.
181:1049ἀντιγρ€ψαι
181:1050This Minucius Fundanus is the same person that is addressed by Pliny, Ep. I. 9 (see Mommsen’s note in Keil’s ed. of Pliny’s epistles, p. 419). He is mentioned also by Melito (Eusebius, IV. 26) as proconsul of Asia, and it is there said that Hadrian wrote to him concerning the Christians. The authenticity of this rescript is a disputed point. Keim (Theol. Jahrbücher, 1856, p. 387 sqq.) was the first to dispute its genuineness. He has been followed by many scholars, especially Overbeck, who gives a very keen discussion of the various edicts of the early emperors relating to the Christians in his Studien zur Gesch. der alten Kirche, I. p. 93 sqq. The genuineness of the edict, however, has been defended against Keim’s attack by Wieseler, Renan, Lightfoot, and others. The whole question hinges upon the interpretation of the rescript. According to Gieseler, Neander, and some others, it is aimed only against tumultuous proceedings, and, far from departing from the principle laid down by Trajan, is an attempt to return to that principle and to substitute orderly judicial processes for popular attacks. If this be the sense of the edict, there is no reason to doubt its genuineness, but the next to the last sentence certainly cannot be interpreted in that way: “if any one therefore brings an accusation, and shows that they have done something contrary to the laws (τι παρὰ τοὺς νόμους) determine thus according to the heinousness of the crime” (κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος). These last words are very significant. They certainly imply various crimes of which the prisoners are supposed to be accused. According to the heinousness of these crimes the punishment is to be regulated. In other words, the trial of the Christians was to be for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were guilty of moral or political crimes, not whether they merely professed Christianity; that is, the profession of Christianity, according to this rescript, is not treated as a crime in and of itself. If the edict then be genuine, Hadrian reversed completely Trajan’s principle of procedure which was to punish the profession of Christianity in and of itself as a crime. But in the time of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius the rescript of Trajan is seen still to be in full force. For this and other reasons presented by Keim and Overbeck, I am constrained to class this edict with those of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius as a forgery. It can hardly have been composed while Hadrian was still alive, but must have been forged before Justin wrote his Apology, for he gives it as a genuine edict, i.e. it must belong to the early part of the reign of Antoninus Pius.
The illusion under which the early Christian writers labored in regard to the relations of the emperors to Christianity is very remarkable. Both Melito and Tertullian state that no emperor had persecuted the Christians except Nero and Domitian. Christian writers throughout the second century talk in fact as if the mode of treatment which they were receiving was something new and strange, and in opposition to the better treatment which previous emperors had accorded the Christians. In doing this, they ignore entirely the actual edicts of the emperors, all of which are now lost and notice only forged edicts which are favorable to the Christians; when and by whom they were forged we do not know. Thus Tertullian, in addressing Septimius Severus, speaks of the favors which his predecessors had granted the Christians and contrasts their conduct with his; Melito addresses Marcus Aurelius in the same way, and so Justin addresses Antoninus Pius. This method probably arose from a misunderstanding of the original edict of Trajan (cf. Bk. III. chap. 33, note 6), which they all considered favorable, and therefore presupposed a friendly attitude on the part of the emperors toward the Christians, which, not finding in their own age, they naturally transferred to a previous age. This led gradually to the idea—which Lactantius first gives precise expression to—that only the bad emperors persecuted Christianity, while the good ones were favorable to it. But after the empire became Christian, the belief became common that all the heathen emperors had been persecutors, the good as well as the bad;—all the Christian emperors were placed upon one level, and all the heathen on another, the latter being looked upon, like Nero and Domitian, as wicked tyrants. Compare Overbeck, l.c.
181:1051Our two mss. of Justin have substituted the Greek translation of Eusebius for the Latin original given by the former. Rufinus, however, in his version of Eusebius’ History, gives a Latin translation which is very likely the original one. Compare Kimmel’s De Rufino, p. 175 sq., and Lightfoot’s Ignatius, I. p. 463 sq., and see Otto’s Corpus Apol. I. p. 190 sq., where the edict is given, both in the Greek of our mss. of Justin and in the Latin of Rufinus. Keim (Aus dem Urchristenthum, p. 184 sq.) contends that the Latin of Rufinus is not the original, but a translation of Eusebius’ Greek. His arguments, however, do not possess any real weight, and the majority of scholars accept Kimmel’s view.
181:1052Justin, Apol. I. 68.
182:1053We cannot judge as to the faithfulness of the Greek translation which follows, because we are not absolutely sure whether the Latin of Rufinus is its original, or itself a translation of it. Eusebius and Rufinus, however, agree very well, and if the Latin of Rufinus is the original of Eusebius’ translation, the latter has succeeded much better than the Greek translator of the Apology of Tertullian referred to in Bk. II. chap. 2, above. We should expect, however, that much greater pains would be taken with the translation of a brief official document of this kind than with such a work as Tertullian’s Apology, and Eusebius’ translation of the rescript does not by any means prove that he was a fluent Latin scholar. As remarked above (Bk. II. chap. 2, note 9), he probably had comparatively little acquaintance with the Latin, but enough to enable him to translate brief passages for himself in cases of necessity.
Chapter IX.—The Epistle of Adrian, decreeing that we should not be punished without a Trial.
1. “To Minucius Fundanus. I have received an epistle, 1054 written to me by Serennius Granianus, a most illustrious man, whom you have succeeded. It does not seem right to me that the matter should be passed by without examination, lest the men 1055 be harassed and opportunity be given to the informers for practicing villainy.
2. If, therefore, the inhabitants of the province can clearly sustain this petition against the Christians so as to give answer in a court of law, let them pursue this course alone, but let them not have resort to men’s petitions and outcries. For it is far more proper, if any one wishes to make an accusation, that you should examine into it.
3. If any one therefore accuses them and shows that they are doing anything contrary to the laws, do you pass judgment according to the heinousness of the crime. 1056 But, by Hercules! if any one bring an accusation through mere calumny, decide in regard to his criminality, 1057 and see to it that you inflict punishment.” 1058
Such are the contents of Adrian’s rescript.
Footnotes
182:1054Greek, ἐπιστολήν; Latin, litteras.
182:1055Greek, οἱ ἄνθρωποι; Latin, innoxii.
182:1056This is the only really suspicious sentence in the edict. That Hadrian should desire to protect his Christian subjects as well as others from tumultuous and illegal proceedings, and from unfounded accusations, would be of course quite natural, and quite in accord with the spirit shown by Trajan in his rescript. But in this one sentence he implies that the Christians are to be condemned only for actual crimes, and that the mere profession of Christianity is not in itself a punishable offense. Much, therefore, as we might otherwise be tempted to accept the edict as genuine,—natural as the style is and the position taken in the other portions of it,—this one sentence, considered in the light of all that we know of the attitude of Hadrian’s predecessors and successors toward the Christians, and of all that we can gather of his own views, must, as I believe, condemn it as a forgery.
182:1057Compare this sentence with the closing words of the forged edict of Antoninus Pius quoted by Eusebius in chap. 13. Not only are the Christians to be released, but their accusers are to be punished. Still there is a difference between the two commands in that here only an accusation made with the purpose of slander is to be punished, while there the accuser is to be unconditionally held as guilty, if actual crimes are not proved against the accused Christian. The latter command would be subversive of all justice, and brands itself as a counterfeit on its very face; but in the present case the injunction to enforce the law forbidding slander against those who should slanderously accuse the Christians is not inconsistent with the principles of Trajan and Hadrian, and hence not of itself alone an evidence of ungenuineness.
182:1058Greek, ὅπως ἂν ἐκδικήσειας; Latin, suppliciis severioribus vindices.
Chapter X.—The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of Antoninus.
Adrian having died after a reign of twenty-one years, 1059 was succeeded in the government of the Romans by Antoninus, called the Pious. In the first year of his reign Telesphorus 1060 died in the eleventh year of his episcopate, and Hyginus became bishop of Rome. 1061 Irenæus records that Telesphorus’ death was made glorious by martyrdom, 1062 and in the same connection he states that in the time of the above-mentioned Roman bishop Hyginus, Valentinus, the founder of a sect of his own, and Cerdon, the author of Marcion’s error, were both well known at Rome. 1063 He writes as follows: 1064
Footnotes
182:1059Hadrian reigned from Aug. 8, 117, to July 10, 138 a.d.
182:1060On Telesphorus, see above, chap. 5, note 13. The date given here by Eusebius (138–139 a.d.) is probably (as remarked there) at least a year too late.
182:1061We know very little about Hyginus. His dates can be fixed with tolerable certainty as 137–141, the duration of his episcopate being four years, as Eusebius states in the next chapter. See Lipsius’ Chron. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 169 and 263. The Roman martyrologies make him a martyr, but this means nothing, as the early bishops of Rome almost without exception are called martyrs by these documents. The forged decretals ascribe to him the introduction of a number of ecclesiastical rites.
182:1062In his Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3. The testimony of Irenæus rests upon Roman tradition at this point, and is undoubtedly reliable. Telesphorus is the first Roman bishop whom we know to have suffered martyrdom, although the Roman Catholic Church celebrates as martyrs all the so-called popes down to the fourth century.
182:1063On Valentinus, Cerdon, and Marcion, see the next chapter.
182:1064Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 4. 3.
Chapter XI.—The Heresiarchs of that Age.
1. “For Valentinus came to Rome under Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. 1065 Cerdon 1066 also, Marcion’s 1067 predecessor, entered the Church in the time of Hyginus, the ninth 1068 bishop, and made confession, and continued in this way, now teaching in secret, now making confession again, and now denounced for corrupt doctrine and withdrawing 1069 from the assembly of the brethren.”
2. These words are found in the third book of the work Against Heresies. And again in the first book he speaks as follows concerning Cerdon: 1070 “A certain Cerdon, who had taken his system from the followers of Simon, and had come to Rome under Hyginus, the ninth in the episcopal succession from the apostles, 1071 taught that the God proclaimed by the law and prophets was not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; and the former was just, but the latter good. 1072 Marcion of Pontus succeeded Cerdon and developed his doctrine, uttering shameless blasphemies.”
3. The same Irenæus unfolds with the greatest vigor the unfathomable abyss of Valentinus’ errors in regard to matter, and reveals his wickedness, secret and hidden like a serpent lurking in its nest.
4. And in addition to these men he says that there was also another that lived in that age, Marcus by name, 1073 who was remarkably skilled in magic arts. And he describes also their unholy initiations and their abominable mysteries in the following words: 1074
5. “For some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a mystic rite with certain forms of expression addressed to those who are being initiated, and they say that it is a spiritual marriage which is celebrated by them, after the likeness of the marriages above. But others lead them to water, and while they baptize them they repeat the following words: Into the name of the unknown father of the universe, into truth, the mother of all things, into the one that descended upon Jesus. 1075 Others repeat Hebrew names 1076 in order the better to confound those who are being initiated.”
6. But Hyginus 1077 having died at the close of the fourth year of his episcopate, Pius 1078 succeeded him in the government of the church of Rome. In Alexandria Marcus 1079 was appointed pastor, after Eumenes 1080 had filled the office thirteen years in all. And Marcus having died after holding office ten years was succeeded by Celadion 1081 in the government of the church of Alexandria.
7. And in Rome Pius died in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, and Anicetus 1082 assumed the leadership of the Christians there. Hegesippus records that he himself was in Rome at this time, and that he remained there until the episcopate of Eleutherus. 1083
8. But Justin 1084 was especially prominent in those days. In the guise of a philosopher 1085 he preached the divine word, and contended for the faith in his writings. He wrote also a work against Marcion, 1086 in which he states that the latter was alive at the time he wrote.
9. He speaks as follows: 1087 “And there is a certain Marcion 1088 of Pontus, 1089 who is even now still teaching his followers to think that there is some other God greater than the creator. And by the aid of the demons 1090 he has persuaded many of every race of men 1091 to utter blasphemy, and to deny that the maker of this universe is the father of Christ, and to confess that some other, greater than he, was the creator. 1092 And all who followed them are, as we have said, 1093 called Christians, just as the name of philosophy is given to philosophers, although they may have no doctrines in common.”
10. To this he adds: 1094 “And we have also written a work against all the heresies that have existed, 1095 which we will give you if you wish to read it.”
11. But this same Justin contended most successfully against the Greeks, and addressed discourses containing an apology for our faith to the Emperor Antoninus, called Pius, and to the Roman senate. 1096 For he lived at Rome. But who and whence he was he shows in his Apology in the following words. 1097
Footnotes
182:1065Valentinus is the best known of the Gnostics. According to Epiphanius (Hær. XXXI. 2) he was born on the coast of Egypt, and studied Greek literature and science at Alexandria. The same writer, on the authority of the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus, informs us that he taught in Cyprus, and this must have been before he went to Rome. The direct statement of Irenæus as to the date of his activity there is confirmed by Tertullian, and perhaps by Clement of Alexandria, and is not to be doubted. Since Hyginus held office in all probability from 137–141, and Anicetus from 154 or 155 to 166 or 167, Valentinus must have been in Rome at least thirteen years. His chronological position between Basilides and Marcion (as given by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VII. 17) makes it probable that he came to Rome early in Antoninus’ reign and remained there during all or the most of that reign, but not longer. Valentinus’ followers divided into two schools, an Oriental and an Italian, and constituted by far the most numerous and influential Gnostic sect. His system is the most profound and artistic of the Gnostic systems, and reveals great depth and power of mind. For an excellent account of Valentinus and Valentinianism, see Lipsius’ article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Vol. IV. Valentinus occupies a prominent place in all works on Gnosticism.
182:1066Cerdon is best known as the teacher of Marcion. Epiphanius (Hær. XLI.) and Philaster (Hær. XLIV.) call him a native of Syria. Epiphanius speaks of a sect of Cerdonians, but there seems never to have been such a sect, and his disciples probably early became followers of Marcion, who joined Cerdon soon after reaching Rome. It is not possible to distinguish his teachings from those of his pupil, Marcion. Hippolytus (X. 15) treats Cerdon and Marcion together, making no attempt to distinguish their doctrines. Irenæus, in the passage quoted, and the lost Syntagma of Hippolytus (represented by Pseudo-Tertullian’s Adv. Hær. and by Epiphanius) distinguish the two, treating Cerdon separately but very briefly. The doctrines of Cerdon, however, given by them, are identical with or at least very similar to the known views of Marcion. If they were really Cerdon’s positions before Marcion came to him, then his influence over Marcion was most decided.
183:1067On Marcion, see below, note 24.
183:1068The Latin text of Irenæus here reads “eighth” instead of “ninth.” See below, note 7.
183:1069ἐφιστ€μενος. This is commonly taken to mean that Cerdon was excommunicated. But as Valesius remarks, the participle is strictly middle, not passive. The distinction, however, cannot be insisted upon in the present case, and therefore we cannot determine decisively whether Cerdon was excluded by the congregation or excluded himself.
183:1070Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 27. 1–2.
183:1071Hyginus is here called the ninth bishop, and the reading is confirmed by a passage in Cyprian’s epistle to Pompey (Ep. LXXIII. 2 in the Ante-Nicene Fathers), and also by Epiphanius (Hær. LXI. 1). In the passage quoted just above, however, from the third book of Irenæus, although Eusebius calls Hyginus the “ninth,” the Latin text of Irenæus makes him the “eighth,” and according to Salmon in the Dict of Christ. Biog.: “The ms. evidence is decisive that Irenæus here [in the passage quoted above from III. 4. 3] describes Hyginus as the eighth bishop, and this agrees with the list of Roman bishops given in the preceding chapter (Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3), and with the description of Anicetus as the tenth bishop a couple of chapters further on. Lipsius hence infers that Irenæus drew his account of Cerdon from two sources in which Hyginus was differently described, but this inference is very precarious. In the interval between the composition of the first and third books, Irenæus may have been led to alter his way of counting by investigations concerning the succession of the Roman bishops, which he had in the meantime either made himself, or adopted from Hegesippus. As for the numeration ‘ninth,’ we do not venture to pronounce whether it indicates a list in which Peter was counted first bishop, or one in which Cletus and Anacletus were reckoned as distinct.” According to Eusebius’ own reckoning up to the present chapter, Hyginus was the eighth, not the ninth, from the apostles, for in chap. 5, above, he calls Telesphorus (Hyginus’ predecessor) the seventh, in chap. 1, Alexander (the predecessor of Xystus, who preceded Telesphorus) the fifth, and so on. Why, in the passage quoted at the beginning of this chapter, he should change his reckoning, and call Hyginus the ninth if the original list of Irenæus from which he drew said eighth is difficult to see. It is possible that he made the change under the influence of the “ninth,” in the present passage, which certainly stood in the original text. It would be easier to think this if the order in which the passages are quoted were reversed, but it may be that Eusebius had the present quotation in mind when making the first, or that he went back afterward and corrected that to correspond. If he ventured to change the text of Irenæus in that passage, he must have done it in all good faith, assuming a mistake in transcription, where the contradiction was so glaring. It still remains to me inexplicable, however, why he did not change the “ninth” of the second passage to “eighth” instead of the “eighth” of the first passage to “ninth.” He would thus have gotten rid of all contradictions, and have remained consistent with himself. I am tempted, in fact, to believe that Eusebius found “ninth” in the original of both passages quoted, and copied just what he found. At the same time, I do not feel disposed in the face of what Lipsius and Salmon say as to the original text of Irenæus to claim that Irenæus himself wrote “ninth” at that point.
183:1072Marcion drew this same distinction between the strictly just God of the Old Testament and the good or merciful God of the New, and the distinction was a fundamental one in his system. It is noticeable that Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. Omnes Hær. chap 6) says that Cerdon taught two Gods, one good, the other cruel (sævum); the good being the superior God,—the latter, the cruel one, being the creator of the world.
183:1073Irenæus gives an account of Marcus and the Marcosians in I. 13–21. He was a Gnostic of the sect of Valentinus. Jerome calls him a Basilidian (Ep. LXXV. 3), but he was mistaken. Hippolytus and Epiphanius (Hær. 34) copy their accounts from Irenæus, and probably had no direct knowledge of the works of Marcus, or of his sect. Clement of Alexandria, however, knew and used his writings. It is probable that Asia Minor was the scene of his labors. He is spoken of in the present tense by Irenæus, and hence seems to have been alive when he wrote; that is, in the latter part of the second century. His additions to Valentinianism lay chiefly, perhaps solely, in the introduction of worthless magic rites. He seems to have lowered greatly the tone of the philosophical Gnosticism of Valentinus. See Salmon’s article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
183:1074Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 21. 3.
183:1075εἰς τὸν κατελθόντα εἰς τὸν ᾽Ιησοῦν. Taking the Greek simply as it stands, we should naturally put a comma before the second εἰς, and translate “into the one that descended, into Jesus,” identifying the “one that descended” with Jesus. But the Gnostics in general taught that Jesus was only a man, upon whom descended one of the æons, or higher spiritual powers, and hence it is plain that in the present case the “one that descended upon [or literally “into”] Jesus” is referred to here as the third person of the baptismal Trinity.
183:1076The Greek and Latin texts of Irenæus add at this point widely variant lists of these words, but in both lists the words are quite meaningless.
183:1077On Hyginus, see the previous chapter, note 3.
183:1078Eusebius states, just below, that Pius held office fifteen years, and in his Chronicle he gives the same figure. In that work (Armen. version) he places his accession in the first year of Antoninus Pius, though the version of Jerome assigns it to the fifth year, and with this Eusebius agrees in his History, for in the previous chapter he puts the accession of Hyginus in the first year of Antoninus Pius, and here tells us that Hyginus held office four years. Lipsius assigns Pius’ episcopate to the years 139–154, as the earliest possible termini; the years 141–156 as the latest. But since we learn from chapter 14, below, that Polycarp was in Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus, and from other sources (see chapter 15, note 2) that he was martyred in Asia Minor in 155 or 156, we may assume it as certain that Pius cannot have held office as late as 156. The earlier date for his death (154) may therefore be accepted as more probable. The Liberian and Felician Catalogues put Anicetus between Hyginus and Pius; but that is certainly incorrect, for, in support of the order given here by Eusebius, we have the testimony both of Hegesippus, quoted below, in chap. 22, and of Irenæus (III. 3). Pius is commonly regarded as the first monarchical bishop in the strict sense, the so-called bishops before his time having been simply leading presbyters or presbyter bishops of the Roman church (see chap. 11, note 14). According to the Muratorian Fragment and the Liberian Catalogue, Pius was the brother of Hermas, the author of the Shepherd. Upon this alleged relationship, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 23.
184:1079Of Marcus we know only what Eusebius tells us here: that he succeded Eumenes, after the latter had held office thirteen years, and that he continued in office ten years. If Eumenes became bishop in 132 or 133 (see above, chap. 5, note 16), then Marcus must have succeeded him in 145 or 146, and this agrees with the Armenian Chron. of Eusebius, which, while it does not mention the accession of Marcus, yet puts the accession of his successor Celadin in the eighteenth year of Antoninus Pius, which would make the beginning of his own episcopate the eighth year of the same ruler. Jerome’s version of the Chron., however, puts it in the sixth year. Little reliance is to be placed upon any of the dates of the Alexandrian bishops during the first two centuries.
184:1080On Eumenes, see above, chap. 5, note 14.
184:1081Of Celadion we know only what Eusebius tells us here, and in chap. 19, where he gives fourteen years as the duration of his episcopate. As mentioned in the previous note, the Armenian Chron. of Eusebius puts his accession in the eighteenth year of Antoninus Pius, i.e. 155 or 156, while the version of Jerome puts it in the sixteenth year.
184:1082Anicetus, according to the Armenian Chron. of Eusebius, succeeded Pius in the fifteenth year of Antoninus Pius; according to Jerome’s version, in the eighteenth year (i.e. 155 or 156), which is more nearly correct. Lipsius puts his accession between 154 and 156 (see note 14, above). According to chap. 19, below, with which both versions of the Chron. agree, Anicetus held office eleven years; i.e. until 165 to 167, when he was succeeded by Soter. Irenæus (as quoted by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 24) informs us that Polycarp was in Rome in the time of Anicetus, and endeavored to induce him to adopt the Quartodeciman practice of celebrating Easter; but that, while the two remained perfectly friendly to one another, Anicetus would not change the custom of the Roman church (see the notes on the chapter referred to). As stated in note 13, the Liberian and Felician Catalogues incorrectly insert the name of Anicetus between those of Hyginus and Pius.
184:1083Eusebius evidently makes a mistake here. That Hegesippus remained so long in Rome (Anicetus ruled from 154–168 (?), and Eleutherus from 177–190) is upon the face of it very improbable. And in this case we can see clearly how Eusebius made his mistake. In chap. 22 he quotes a passage from Hegesippus in regard to his stay in Rome, and it was in all probability this passage from which Eusebius drew his conclusion. But Hegesippus says there that he “remained in Rome until the time of Anicetus,” &c. It is probable, therefore, that he returned to the East during Anicetus’ episcopacy. He does not express himself as one who had remained in Rome until the reign of Eleutherus; but Eusebius, from a hasty reading, might easily have gathered that idea. According to Hegesippus’ account in chap. 22, he must, then, have come to Rome before Anicetus, i.e. during the reign of Pius, and this Eusebius does not here contradict, though he is said to do so by Reading, who translates the Greek words, ἐπιδημῆσαι τῇ ῾Ρώμῃ, “came to the city” (so, also, Closs, Stigloher, and Crusè). But the words properly mean “to be in Rome,” not “to come to Rome,” which would require, rather, ἐπιδημῆσαι εἰς τὴν ῾Ρώμην, as in §2, above, where the words are used of Cerdon. Jerome, to be sure (de vir. ill. 22), says that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus; but his account rests solely upon Eusebius, whom he mistranslated. The tradition, therefore, that Hegesippus came to Rome in the time of Anicetus has no foundation; he was already there, as he himself informs us, in chap. 22, below. Cf. the note on this passage, in chap. 22.
184:1084Eusebius here puts Justin in his proper place, in the time of Antoninus Pius. The date of his birth is unknown, though it cannot have been far from the beginning of the second century. He was born in Flavia Neapolis, a Roman town built close by the ruins of the ancient Sychem, in Samaria. He was of heathen parentage, and received a thoroughly Greek education. He became an earnest student of philosophy, and after turning to many different systems in his search for truth, he was at last converted to Christianity, where he found that for which he had been searching; and his whole conception of Christianity shows the influence of the manner in which he accepted it. The date of his conversion is unknown, but it seems (from Dial. I. 1) to have taken place at least before the close of the Barcochba war (135 a.d.). He died as a martyr at Rome. The date of his death is difficult to determine, but it probably took place under Marcus Aurelius, in 163+. Upon his death, see below, chap. 16, note 4. Upon Justin, see Semich’s Justin der Märtyrer, Otto’s edition of the Greek Apologists, von Engelhardt’s article in Herzog, 2d ed., Holland’s article in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog., and finally Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. p.110 sq., where the most important literature is mentioned. Upon his theology, see especially von Engelhardt’s masterly monograph, Das Christenthum Justins des Märtyrers (Erlangen, 1878). A recent and interesting discussion of Justin’s testimony to early Christianity is found in Purves’ work on that subject (New York, 1889).
184:1085ἐν σχήματι φιλοσόφου. The reference here is to the distinctive cloak or mantle of the Greek philosophers, which was called the pallium, and to which Justin refers in his Dial. c. Trypho, §1. The wearing of the mantle was an advantage to the philosophers, inasmuch as it gave them peculiar opportunities to engage in philosophic discourse in the street or market, or other public places, which they could not otherwise so easily have enjoyed. Perhaps it was this fact which led Justin to continue wearing the cloak, and we see from the introduction to his Dialogue that it was the wearing of it which was the immediate occasion of his conversation with Trypho and his friends. Heraclas, the friend of Origen, also continued to wear the philosopher’s cloak after his conversion, as we learn from Bk. VI. chap. 19.
184:1086This work against Marcion is also mentioned by Irenæus, who quotes from it in his Adv. Hær. IV. 16. 2 (see below, chap. 18), and by Photius, Cod. 125. The work is lost, and we have only the single brief fragment preserved by Irenæus. It is possible that it formed a part of the larger Syntagma contra omnes Hæreses, mentioned by Justin in his Apol. I. 26 (see below), and it has been urged in support of this possibility that Irenæus nowhere mentions a work of Justin’s Against all Heresies, although it is highly probable that he made use of such a work (see Lipsius’ Quellen der ältesten Ketzergesch. and Harnack’s Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus). It would seem that Irenæus is referring to this work when he mentions the Syntagma contra Marcionem. On the other hand, Photius mentions the work against Marcion and the one against all heresies as two separate works. He does not seem, however, to have had a personal knowledge of them, and is possibly only repeating Eusebius (Harnack says he is certainly doing so, Ueberlieferung d. griech. Apol. p. 150; but in view of the fact that he omits two works mentioned by Eusebius, this seems to be somewhat doubtful); and if this is so, no reliance is to be placed upon his report, for it is evident that Eusebius himself knew neither of the two works, and hence the fact that he distinguishes them has no significance. Although, therefore, it cannot be determined whether Justin wrote two separate works against heretics, it is quite probable that he did not.
The conduct of Eusebius in this connection is very peculiar. After mentioning the work against Marcion, he at once gives a quotation in such a way as to convey the impression that the quotation is taken from this work, but it is really taken from the first Apology. This makes it very probable that he had not seen this work against Marcion, a conclusion which is confirmed by its omission from the list of Justin’s writings given in chap. 18. It is claimed by many that Eusebius practices a little deception here, wishing to convey the impression that he knew a book which he did not know. This is not in accord with his usual conduct (as he seldom hesitates to confess his ignorance of any matter), and his general character for candor and honesty must be taken into account in deciding the case. He does not state directly that the quotation is taken from the work against Marcion, and it is possible that the seeming reference of it to that source was an oversight on his part. But it must be acknowledged, if that be the case, that he was very careless in making the quotation.
184:1087Justin, Apol. I. 26.
184:1088Marcion cannot be called a Gnostic in the strict sense of the term. He was rather an anti-Jewish reformer. He had much in common with the Gnostics, but laid stress upon belief rather than upon knowledge. He developed no complete system as did the extreme and perverted Paulinism, considering Paul the only true apostle and rejecting the others as Judaizing teachers. He cut the Gospel away from its historical connections, repudiating the Old Testament and all of the New except a mutilated Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul, and denying the identity of the God of the Old Testament with the Supreme God, and the identity of Jesus with the promised Jewish Messiah. He magnified the mercy of God in redemption at the expense of creation, which he attributed to the demiurge, and in which he saw nothing good. He was an extreme anti-metaphysician, and the first Biblical critic. He was born in Pontus, was the son of a bishop, went to Rome about 135 a.d., and endeavored to carry out his reforms there, but was unsuccessful, and very soon broke with the Church. He traveled extensively and disseminated his doctrines very widely. The sect existed well on into the Middle Ages, and some of his opinions have never been completely eradicated. In Rome the Gnostic Cerdon exercised great influence over him, and to him are doubtless due many of Marcion’s Gnostic traits. The dualism which he held in common with the Gnostics arose rather from practical than speculative considerations; but his followers in the fourth and fifth centuries, when they had lost his practical religious spirit and yet retained his dualism, passed over quite naturally into Manicheeism. He was attacked by Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, and all the anti-heretical writers of the early Church, and was considered one of the most dangerous of heretics. A complete monograph upon Marcion is still a desideratum, but he is discussed in all the general accounts of Gnosticism; see especially the brief but excellent account by Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. 197–214.
184:1089Pontus was a province in Northeastern Asia Minor, bordering upon the Black Sea.
185:1090Justin here agrees with Eusebius in his transcendental theory of heresy, looking upon it not as a natural growth from within, but as an infliction upon the Church from without, through the agency of demons. Indeed, this was the prevailing notion of the early Church.
185:1091The extent of Marcion’s influence referred to here is very significant. Gnosticism was not intended for common people, and never spread among the masses, but on the contrary was confined to philosophers and speculative thinkers. In this respect, Marcion, whose sect included multitudes of all classes, was distinguished most sharply from them, and it was because of the popularity of his sect that his heresy appeared so dangerous to the early Church.
185:1092ἄλλον δέ τινα ὡς, ὄντα μείζονα παρὰ τοῦτον ὁμολογεῖν πεποιηκέναι. The sentence as it thus stands is very difficult to construe, for we are compelled to take the last verb without an object, in the sense of create. Our mss. of Justin Martyr insert after the ὡςὄντα μείζονα the words τὰ μείζονα, and the sentence then reads, “some other one, greater than he, has done greater works.” It is plain that this was the original form of the sentence, and that the harsh construction found in Eusebius is a result of defective transcription. It was very easy for a copyist to drop out the second μείζονα.
185:1093Justin refers here to Apol. I. 7. He wishes to have it clear that not all that call themselves Christians are really such. From chaps. 26–29, we see that in Justin’s time the Christians were accused of great immoralities, and in this same chapter (chap. 26) he is rather inclined to throw the guilt upon heretics, although he does not expressly accuse them of it (“whether they perpetrate these shameful deeds—we know not”). See above.
His mention of philosophers here in his appeal to the philosophical emperors is very shrewd.
185:1094Ibid. I. 26.
185:1095This work is not mentioned by Eusebius in the list of Justin’s works which he gives in chap. 18. He had, therefore, undoubtedly never seen it. Irenæus nowhere mentions it under this title, though he seems to have made extensive use of it, and he does mention a work, Against Marcion, which is very likely to be identified with the work referred to here (see Harnack’s Zur Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus). The work, which is now lost, is mentioned by Photius (Cod. 125), but he evidently had never seen it, and is simply copying some earlier list, perhaps that of Eusebius. His testimony to the work, therefore, amounts to little. Compare note 22, above.
185:1096On Justin’s Apology and his work Against the Greeks, see below, chap. 18, notes 3 and 4. As shown in note 3 of that chapter, he really wrote only one Apology.
185:1097Justin, Apol. I. 1.
Chapter XII.—The Apology of Justin addressed to Antoninus.
“To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrian Antoninus Pius Cæsar Augustus, 1098 and to Verissimus his son, 1099 the philosopher, and to Lucius the philosopher, 1100 own son of Cæsar and adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred senate and to the whole Roman people, I , Justin, son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, 1101 of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, Syria, present this address and petition in behalf of those men of every nation who are unjustly hated and persecuted, I myself being one of them.” And the same emperor having learned also from other brethren in Asia of the injuries of all kinds which they were suffering from the inhabitants of the province, thought it proper to address the following ordinance to the Common Assembly 1102 of Asia.
Footnotes
185:1098On the titles of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, see Otto’s notes in his edition of Justin’s works (Corpus Apol. Christianorum, Vol. I. p. 2. sq.).
185:1099That is, Marcus Aurelius, whose original name was Marcus Annius Verus, but who, after his adoption by the Emperor Antoninus Pius, was styled Marcus Ælius Aurelius Verus Cæsar. As a tribute to his sincerity and truthfulness, he was quite commonly called, instead of Verus, Verissimus.
185:1100The mss. are divided here between the forms φιλοσόφω and φιλοσόφου. If the former reading be followed, we must translate, “to Lucius, own son of Cæsar the philosopher.” The mss. are about equally divided, and the latter reading is adopted by Stephanus, Valesius, Stroth, and Burton. But our mss. of Justin support the former reading, which is adopted by Schwegler and Heinichen, and which, as the latter remarks, is far more natural than the other reading, for Justin had greater reason for giving the appellation of “philosopher” to a Cæsar who was still living, even though he may not have been noted for his philosophical tastes, than to a Cæsar who was already dead, and whose character certainly entitled him to the appellation no more than, if as much as, his son. See Heinichen’s note in loco, and Otto’s note in his edition of Justin’s works, Vol. I. p. 3. ff. The Lucius addressed here was Lucius Ceionius Commodus, whose father, bearing the same name, had been adopted as Cæsar by Hadrian. The younger Lucius was adopted as Cæsar along with Marcus by Antoninus Pius, and later became Marcus’ colleague in the empire, when he added to his own name the name Verus, which Marcus had formerly borne. He is therefore commonly known in history as Lucius Verus (see the respective articles in Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog.).
185:1101Of Justin’s father and grandfather we know nothing except their names. On the place of his birth, see above, chap. 11, note 20.
185:1102This “Assembly of Asia” (τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ᾽Ασίας) was one of the regular provincial diets which Augustus had called into being as fixed institutions. It was an annual assembly of the civic deputies of the province, and served as a general organ of the province, especially in bringing the wishes of the people to the knowledge of the governor, and through him to the emperor, and decrees of the emperor were often addressed to it, and legates chosen by it were sent to the emperor whenever occasion required. See Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, I. p. 366. sq.
Chapter XIII.—The Epistle of Antoninus to the Common Assembly of Asia in Regard to our Doctrine. 1103
1. The Emperor Cæsar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, 1104 Armenicus, Pontifex Maximus, for the fifteenth time Tribune, for the third time Consul, to the Common Assembly of Asia, Greeting.
2. I know that the gods also take care that such persons do not escape detection. For they would much rather punish those who will not worship them than you would.
3. But you throw them into confusion, and while you accuse them of atheism you only confirm them in the opinion which they hold. It would indeed be more desirable for them, when accused, to appear to die for their God, than to live. Wherefore also they come off victorious when they give up their lives rather than yield obedience to your commands.
4. And in regard to the earthquakes which have been and are still taking place, 1105 it is not improper to admonish you who lose heart whenever they occur, and nevertheless are accustomed to compare your conduct with theirs. 1106
5. They indeed become the more confident in God, while you, during the whole time, neglect, in apparent ignorance, the other gods and the worship of the Immortal, and oppress and persecute even unto death the Christians who worship him. 1107
6. But in regard to these persons, many of the governors of the provinces wrote also to our most divine father, to whom he wrote in reply that they should not trouble these people unless it should appear that they were attempting something affecting the Roman government. 1108 And to me also many have sent communications concerning these men, but I have replied to them in the same way that my father did.
7. But if any one still persists in bringing accusations against any of these people as such, the person who is accused shall be acquitted of the charge, even if it appear that he is one of them, but the accuser shall be punished. 1109 Published in Ephesus in the Common Assembly of Asia.”
8. To these things Melito, 1110 bishop of the church of Sardis, and a man well known at that time, is a witness, 1111 as is clear from his words in the Apology which he addressed to the Emperor Verus in behalf of our doctrine.
Footnotes
186:1103This edict is undoubtedly spurious. It contradicts all that we know in regard to the relation of Christianity to the State during this century, and both the language and the sentiments make it impossible to call it genuine. It is probably a forgery of the second century. It is found in our two (or more properly one, as one is simply a slavish copy of the other) mss. of Justin; but this is simply accidental, as it does not belong there, but was appended to the edict of Hadrian by some late copyist. The edict is now almost universally acknowledged to be a forgery; compare Overbeck, Studien zur Gesch. der alt. Kirche, p. 93 sq. Wieseler contends for its genuineness, but no good critic follows him.
186:1104Eusebius gives this as an edict of Antoninus Pius, and yet its inscription assigns it to Marcus Aurelius. Overbeck concludes that Eusebius was led by internal evidence to assign the rescript to Antoninus Pius, but that he did not venture to change the inscription of the original which lay before him. This seems the only possible explanation, and as Eusebius at any rate was badly confused in regard to the names of the Antonines, the glaring discrepancy may not have meant very much to him. In our mss. of Justin Martyr, where this edict is appended to the first Apology, the superscription and text are quite different from the form given by Eusebius. The rescript is in fact assigned there by its superscription to Antoninus Pius, instead of to Marcus Aurelius. But if that was its original form, we cannot understand the later change to Marcus Aurelius, for certainly his authorship is precluded on the very face of the document; but it is easier to see how it could have been later assigned to Antonius Pius under the influence of Eusebius’ direct statement. We have no knowledge of the original Latin of this pretended edict. Rufinus evidently did not know it, for he translates the document from the Greek of Eusebius. The text of the edict as given by Eusebius differs considerably at many points from the text found in the mss. of Justin, and the variations are such as can hardly be explained as due merely to copyists’ errors or alterations. At the same time the two texts are plainly not independent of each other, and cannot be looked upon as independent translations of one Latin original. We may perhaps suppose that one text represents the original translation, the other a revision of it. Whether the revision was made by a comparison with the original, and thus more accurately represents it, we cannot tell. If, then, one is a revision of the other, the form given in the mss. of Justin is evidently the later, for its statements in more places than one are an improvement upon those of the other text in point of clearness and decisiveness. Moreover, as remarked just above, the ascription of the edict to Antoninus Pius must be later than its ascription to Marcus Aurelius.
186:1105Numerous earthquakes took place in Asia Minor and in Rhodes during the reign of Antoninus Pius, and these, as well as famines and other occurrences of the kind which were uncomfortably frequent at this time, were always made the signal for renewed attacks upon the Christians, who were held by the people in general responsible for these misfortunes. See Julius Capitolinus’ Vita Antonini Pii, chap. 9.
186:1106This sentence has caused great difficulty. Crusè translates, “But as to those earthquakes which have taken place and still continue, it is not out of place to admonish you who are cast down whenever these happen, that you compare your own deportment with theirs.” Most of the older translators and, among the moderns, Stigloher, have translated in the same way; but the Greek of the last clause will not warrant this construction. The original runs as follows:…ὑπομνῆσαι ἀθυμοῦντας μὲν ὅταν περ᾽ ὦσι, παραβ€λλοντας δὲ τὰ ὑμέτερα πρὸς τὰ ἐκείνων. Stroth inserts μή before ἀθυμοῦντας, and translates, “Was die Erdbeben betrift, die sich ereignet haben, und noch ereignen, halte ich nicht für undienlich euch zu erinnern dass ihr den vorkommenden Fall den Muth nicht sinken lasst, sondern euer Betragen einmal mit jener ihrem vergleicht.” The insertion, however, is quite unwarranted and must be rejected. Valesius renders: Cæterum de terræ motibus, qui vel facti sunt vel etiamnum fiunt, non absurdum videtur vos commonere, qui et animos abjicitis, quoties hujusmodi casus contingunt, et vestra cum illorum institutis comparatis; which makes excellent sense and might be accepted, were it not for the fact that it fails to bring out adequately the force of μέν and δέ. Heinichen discusses the passage at length (in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. III. pp. 670–674), and translates as follows: Non alienum videtur vos admonere (corripere) de terræ motibus qui vel fuerunt vel adhuc sunt, vos qui estis quidem animo abjecto, quoties illi eveniunt, nihilo autem minus vestram agendi rationem conferre soletis cum illorum. Overbeck follows Heinichen in his German Translation of the edit (ibid. p. 127 sqq.), and the translation of Closs is similar. It seems to be the only rendering which the Greek will properly admit, and I have therefore felt compelled to adopt it, though I should have preferred to interpret as Valesius does, had the original permitted.
186:1107An orthodox worshiper of the Roman gods, like Antoninus Pius, can hardly have called the God of the Christians “The Immortal,” in distinction from the gods of the Romans.
186:1108Among these epistles the writer of this edict undoubtedly meant to include the rescript ostensibly addressed by Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus. See chap. 9, above.
186:1109This is the climax of the whole. Not only is the accused to be set free, but the accuser is to be held as guilty! This really goes further than Constantine. See above, chap. 9, note 4.
186:1110On Melito and his writings, see chap. 26, note 1.
186:1111Eusebius evidently draws this conclusion from the passage from Melito’s Apology, quoted below, in chap. 26, where Melito refers to edicts of Antoninus Pius; for had Eusebius referred to another passage, he would undoubtedly have quoted it. But according to Melito, the edicts of Antoninus were to prevent any new methods of procedure against the Christians, i.e. tumultuous proceedings in opposition to the custom established by Trajan. The edicts of which he speaks were intended, then, to perpetuate the principles of Trajan, which had been, since his time, the silent law of the empire upon the subject. The edicts cannot have been edicts of toleration (even Melito himself does not regard them so), but edicts against illegal, tumultuous proceedings, and the accusations of informers, and therefore quite in the spirit of Trajan. But as the significance of Trajan’s rescript was entirely misunderstood in the early Church (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33, note 6), so it was the common opinion that the attitude of the State toward the Church was at bottom friendly to Christianity, and therefore all edicts forbidding the introduction of new methods were regarded as favorable edicts, as in the present case by Eusebius. Again, had Melito known of such a favorable edict as this of Antoninus, he would certainly have called special and particular attention to it. Melito’s testimony, therefore, instead of being in favor of the genuineness of this edict, is really against it.
Chapter XIV.—The Circumstances related of Polycarp, a Friend of the Apostles.
1. At this time, while Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome, 1112 Irenæus relates that Polycarp, who was still alive, was at Rome, 1113 and that he had a conference with Anicetus on a question concerning the day of the paschal feast. 1114
2. And the same writer gives another account of Polycarp which I feel constrained to add to that which has been already related in regard to him. The account is taken from the third book of Irenæus’ work Against Heresies, and is as follows: 1115
3. “But Polycarp 1116 also was not only instructed by the apostles, and acquainted with many that had seen Christ, but was also appointed by apostles in Asia bishop of the church of Smyrna. 1117
4. We too saw him in our early youth; for he lived a long time, and died, when a very old man, a glorious and most illustrious martyr’s death, 1118 having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church also hands down, and which alone are true. 1119
5. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those who, down to the present time, have succeeded Polycarp, 1120 who was a much more trustworthy and certain witness of the truth than Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the heretics. 1121 He also was in Rome in the time of Anicetus 1122 and caused many to turn away from the above-mentioned heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received from the apostles this one and only system of truth which has been transmitted by the Church.
6. And there are those that heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe in Ephesus and seeing Cerinthus within, ran out of the bath-house without bathing, crying, ‘Let us flee, lest even the bath fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.’ 1123
7. And Polycarp himself, when Marcion once met him 1124 and said, ‘Knowest 1125 thou us?’ replied, ‘I know the first born of Satan.’ Such caution did the apostles and their disciples exercise that they might not even converse with any of those who perverted the truth; as Paul also said, ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.’ 1126
8. There is also a very powerful epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, 1127 from which those that wish to do so, and that are concerned for their own salvation, may learn the character of his faith and the preaching of the truth.” Such is the account of Irenæus.
9. But Polycarp, in his above-mentioned epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant, has made use of certain testimonies drawn from the First Epistle of Peter. 1128
10. And when Antoninus, called Pius, had completed the twenty-second year of his reign, 1129 Marcus Aurelius Verus, his son, who was also called Antoninus, succeeded him, together with his brother Lucius. 1130
Footnotes
187:1112On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18. He was bishop probably from 154 to 165 a.d.
187:1113γένεσθαι ἐπὶ ῾Ρώμης. It is quite commonly said that Polycarp came to Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus; but our authorities say only that he was in Rome at that time, and do not specify the date at which he arrived there. Neither these words, nor the words of Irenæus in §5 below (ἐπιδηυήσας τῇ ῾Ρώμη), are to be translated “came to Rome,” as is often done (e.g. by Crusè, by Roberts and Rambaut, in their translation of Irenæus, and by Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.), but “was at Rome” (as Closs, Stigloher, Lightfoot, &c., correctly render the words). Inasmuch as Polycarp suffered martyrdom in 155 or 156 a.d.(see below, chap. 15, note 2), he must have left Rome soon after Anticetus’ accession (which took place probably in 154); and though of course he may have come thither sometime before that event, still the fact that his stay there is connected with Anicetus’ episcopate, and his alone, implies that he went thither either immediately after, or shortly before Anicetus became bishop.
187:1114On the paschal controversies of the early Church, see below, Bk. V. chap. 23, note 1. We learn from Bk. V. chap. 24, that though Polycarp and Anicetus did not reach an agreement on the subject, they nevertheless remained good friends, and that Polycarp celebrated the eucharist in Rome at the request of Anicetus.
187:1115Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 3. 4.
187:1116Eusebius takes his account of Polycarp solely from Irenæus, and from the epistle of the church of Smyrna, given in the next chapter. He is mentioned by Irenæus again in his Adv. Hær. V. 33. 4 (quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 39), and in his epistle to Florinus and to Victor. From the epistle to Florinus (quoted below in Bk. V. chap. 20), where quite an account of Polycarp is given, we learn that the latter was Irenæus’ teacher. He was one of the most celebrated men of the time, not because of his ability or scholarship, but because he had been a personal friend of some of the disciples of the Lord, and lived to a great age, when few if any were still alive that had known the first generation of Christians. He suffered martyrdom about 155 a.d. (see below, chap. 15, note 2); and as he was at least eighty-six years old at the time of his death (see the next chap., §20), he must have been born as early as 70 a.d. He was a personal disciple of John the apostle, as we learn from Irenæus’ epistle to Florinus, and was acquainted also with others that had seen the Lord. That he was at the head of the church of Smyrna cannot be doubted (cf. Ignatius’ epistle to him), but Irenæus’ statement that he was appointed bishop of Smyrna by apostles is probably to be looked upon as a combination of his own. He reasoned that bishops were the successors of the apostles; Polycarp was a bishop, and lived in the time of the apostles; and therefore he must have been appointed by them. The only known writing of Polycarp’s is his epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant (see below, note 16). His character is plainly revealed in that epistle as well as in the accounts given us by Irenæus and by the church of Smyrna in their epistle. He was a devoutly pious and simple-minded Christian, burning with intense personal love for his Master, and yet not at all fanatical like his contemporary Ignatius. The instances related in this chapter show his intense horror of heretics, of those whom he believed to be corrupting the doctrine of Christ, and yet he does not seem to have had the taste or talent to refute their errors. He simply wished to avoid them as instruments of Satan. He was pre-eminently a man that lived in the past. His epistle is full of reminiscences of New Testament thought and language, and his chief significance to the Christians of the second century was as a channel of apostolic tradition. He does not compare with Ignatius for vigor and originality of thought, and yet he was one of the most deeply venerated characters of the early Church, his noble piety, his relation to John and other disciples of the Lord, and finally his glorious martyrdom, contributing to make him such. Upon Polycarp, see especially Lightfoot’s edition of Ignatius and Polycarp, and the article of Salmon, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog.
187:1117The church of Smyrna (situated in Asia Minor) was one of the “seven churches of Asia,” and is mentioned in Rev. i. 11; ii. 8–11.
187:1118On his age and the date of his death, see chap. 15, note 2. A full account of his martyrdom is given in the epistle of the church of Smyrna, quoted in the next chapter.
187:1119Irenæus emphasizes here, as was his wont, the importance of tradition in determining true doctrine. Compare also Eusebius’ words in chap. 21.
187:1120Of these successors of Polycarp we know nothing.
187:1121κακογνωμόνων
187:1122See above, note 2.
187:1123See above, Bk. III. chap. 28, where the same story is related.
187:1124Marcion came to Rome about 135 a.d., but how long he remained there we do not know. Polycarp’s words show the great abhorrence in which he was held by the Church. He was considered by many the most dangerous of all the heretics, for he propagated his errors and secured many followers among all classes. Marcion’s conduct in this case is very significant when compared with that of the Gnostics. He tried everywhere to gain support and to make friends with the Church, that he might introduce his reforms within it; while the genuine Gnostics, on the contrary, held themselves aloof from the Church, in pride and in a feeling of superiority. Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians, chap. 7, shows the same severity toward false teachers, and even uses the same expression, “first born of Satan,” perhaps referring to Marcion himself; but see below, note 16.
187:1125ἐπιγινώσκεις, which is the reading of the great majority of the mss., and is adopted by Schwegler, Laemmer, Harnack, Lightfoot, and others. Three mss., supported by Nicephorus, Rufinus, and the Latin version of Irenæus, read ἐπιγίνωσκε, and this is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Stroth, Closs, and Crusè.
188:1126Titus 3:10, 11.
188:1127Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians is still extant, and is the only work of Polycarp which we have. (The Greek text is given in all editions of the apostolic Fathers, and with especially valuable notes and discussions in Zahn’s Ignatius von Antiochien, and in Lightfoot’s Ignatius and Polycarp, II. p. 897 sqq.; an English translation is contained in the latter edition, and also in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I. p. 31–36.) The date of its composition it is very difficult to determine. It must have been written after the death of Ignatius (chap. 9), and yet soon after, as Polycarp does not seem to know all the circumstances attending that event (see chap. 13). Its date therefore depends upon the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, which is a very difficult question, not yet fully decided. The attack upon false teachers reminds us of Marcion, and contains traits which seem to imply that Polycarp had Marcion in his mind at the time of writing. If this be so, the epistle was written as late as 135 a.d., which puts the date of Ignatius’ death much later than the traditional date (on the date of Ignatius’ death, see above, Bk. III. chap. 36, note 4). The genuineness of Polycarp’s epistle has been sharply disputed—chiefly on account of its testimony to the Ignatian epistles in chap. 13. Others, while acknowledging its genuineness as a whole, have regarded chap. 13 as an interpolation. But the external testimony for its genuineness is very strong, beginning with Irenæus, and the epistle itself is just what we should expect from such a man as Polycarp. There is no good reason therefore to doubt its genuineness nor the genuineness of chap. 13, the rejection of which is quite arbitrary. The genuineness of the whole has been ably defended both by Zahn and by Lightfoot, and may be regarded as definitely established.
188:1128Polycarp in his epistle makes constant use of the First Epistle of Peter, with which he was evidently very familiar, though it is remarkable that he nowhere mentions Peter as its author (cf. Bk. III. chap. 3, note 1).
188:1129Antoninus Pius reigned from July 2, 138, to March 7, 161.
188:1130Both were adopted sons of Antoninus Pius. See above, chap. 12, note 3.
Chapter XV.—Under Verus, 1131 Polycarp with Others suffered Martyrdom at Smyrna.
1. At this time, 1132 when the greatest persecutions were exciting Asia, Polycarp ended his life by martyrdom. But I consider it most important that his death, a written account of which is still extant, should be recorded in this history.
2. There is a letter, written in the name of the church over which he himself presided, 1133 to the parishes in Pontus, 1134 which relates the events that befell him, in the following words:
3. “The church of God which dwelleth in Philomelium, 1135 and to all the parishes of the holy catholic Church 1136 in every place; mercy and peace and love from God the Father be multiplied. We write 1137 unto you, brethren, an account of what happened to those that suffered martyrdom and to the blessed Polycarp, who put an end to the persecution, having, as it were, sealed it by his martyrdom.”
4. After these words, before giving the account of Polycarp, they record the events which befell the rest of the martyrs, and describe the great firmness which they exhibited in the midst of their pains. For they say that the bystanders were struck with amazement when they saw them lacerated with scourges even to the innermost veins and arteries, so that the hidden inward parts of the body, both their bowels and their members, were exposed to view; and then laid upon sea-shells and certain pointed spits, and subjected to every species of punishment and of torture, and finally thrown as food to wild beasts.
5. And they record that the most noble Germanicus 1138 especially distinguished himself, overcoming by the grace of God the fear of bodily death implanted by nature. When indeed the proconsul 1139 wished to persuade him, and urged his youth, and besought him, as he was very young and vigorous, to take compassion on himself, he did not hesitate, but eagerly lured the beast toward himself, all but compelling and irritating him, in order that he might the sooner be freed from their unrighteous and lawless life.
6. After his glorious death the whole multitude, marveling at the bravery of the God-beloved martyr and at the fortitude of the whole race of Christians, began to cry out suddenly, “Away with the atheists; 1140 let Polycarp be sought.”
7. And when a very great tumult arose in consequence of the cries, a certain Phrygian, Quintus 1141 by name, who was newly come from Phrygia, seeing the beasts and the additional tortures, was smitten with cowardice and gave up the attainment of salvation.
8. But the above-mentioned epistle shows that he, too hastily and without proper discretion, had rushed forward with others to the tribunal, but when seized had furnished a clear proof to all, that it is not right for such persons rashly and recklessly to expose themselves to danger. Thus did matters turn out in connection with them.
9. But the most admirable Polycarp, when he first heard of these things, continued undisturbed, preserved a quiet and unshaken mind, and determined to remain in the city. But being persuaded by his friends who entreated and exhorted him to retire secretly, he went out to a farm not far distant from the city and abode there with a few companions, night and day doing nothing but wrestle with the Lord in prayer, beseeching and imploring, and asking peace for the churches throughout the whole world. For this was always his custom.
10. And three days before his arrest, while he was praying, he saw in a vision at night the pillow under his head suddenly seized by fire and consumed; and upon this awakening he immediately interpreted the vision to those that were present, almost foretelling that which was about to happen, and declaring plainly to those that were with him that it would be necessary for him for Christ’s sake to die by fire.
11. Then, as those who were seeking him pushed the search with vigor, they say that he was again constrained by the solicitude and love of the brethren to go to another farm. Thither his pursuers came after no long time, and seized two of the servants there, and tortured one of them for the purpose of learning from him Polycarp’s hiding-place.
12. And coming late in the evening, they found him lying in an upper room, whence he might have gone to another house, but he would not, saying, “The will of God be done.”
13. And when he learned that they were present, as the account says, he went down and spoke to them with a very cheerful and gentle countenance, so that those who did not already know the man thought that they beheld a miracle when they observed his advanced age and the gravity and firmness of his bearing, and they marveled that so much effort should be made to capture a man like him.
14. But he did not hesitate, but immediately gave orders that a table should be spread for them. Then he invited them to partake of a bounteous meal, and asked of them one hour that he might pray undisturbed. And when they had given permission, he stood up and prayed, being full of the grace of the Lord, so that those who were present and heard him praying were amazed, and many of them now repented that such a venerable and godly old man was about to be put to death.
15. In addition to these things the narrative concerning him contains the following account: “But when at length he had brought his prayer to an end, after remembering all that had ever come into contact with him, small and great, famous and obscure, and the whole catholic Church throughout the world, the hour of departure being come, they put him upon an ass and brought him to the city, it being a great Sabbath. 1142 And he was met by Herod, 1143 the captain of police, 1144 and by his father Nicetes, who took him into their carriage, and sitting beside him endeavored to persuade him, saying, ‘For what harm is there in saying, Lord Cæsar, and sacrificing and saving your life?’ He at first did not answer; but when they persisted, he said, ‘I am not going to do what you advise me.’
16. And when they failed to persuade him, they uttered dreadful words, and thrust him down with violence, so that as he descended from the carriage he lacerated his shin. But without turning round, he went on his way promptly and rapidly, as if nothing had happened to him, and was taken to the stadium.
17. But there was such a tumult in the stadium that not many heard a voice from heaven, which came to Polycarp as he was entering the place: ‘Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man.’ 1145 And no one saw the speaker, but many of our people heard the voice.
18. And when he was led forward, there was a great tumult, as they heard that Polycarp was taken. Finally, when he came up, the proconsul asked if he were Polycarp. And when he confessed that he was, he endeavored to persuade him to deny, saying, ‘Have regard for thine age,’ and other like things, which it is their custom to say: ‘Swear by the genius of Cæsar; 1146 repent and say, Away with the Atheists.’
19. But Polycarp, looking with dignified countenance upon the whole crowd that was gathered in the stadium, waved his hand to them, and groaned, and raising his eyes toward heaven, said, ‘Away with the Atheists.’
20. But when the magistrate pressed him, and said, ‘Swear, and I will release thee; revile Christ,’ Polycarp said, ‘Fourscore and six years 1147 have I been serving him, and he hath done me no wrong; how then can I blaspheme my king who saved me?’
21. “But when he again persisted, and said, ‘Swear by the genius of Cæsar,’ Polycarp replied, ‘If thou vainly supposest that I will swear by the genius of Cæsar, as thou sayest, feigning to be ignorant who I am, hear plainly: I am a Christian. But if thou desirest to learn the doctrine of Christianity, assign a day and hear.’
22. The proconsul said, ‘Persuade the people.’ But Polycarp said, ‘As for thee, I thought thee worthy of an explanation; for we have been taught to render to princes and authorities ordained by God the honor that is due, 1148 so long as it does not injure us; 1149 but as for these, I do not esteem them the proper persons to whom to make my defense.’ 1150
23. But the proconsul said, ‘I have wild beasts; I will throw thee to them unless thou repent.’ But he said, ‘Call them; for repentance from better to worse is a change we cannot make. But it is a noble thing to turn from wickedness to righteousness.’
24. But he again said to him, ‘If thou despisest the wild beasts, I will cause thee to be consumed by fire, unless thou repent.’ But Polycarp said, ‘Thou threatenest a fire which burneth for an hour, and after a little is quenched; for thou knowest not the fire of the future judgment and of the eternal punishment which is reserved for the impious. But why dost thou delay? Do what thou wilt.’
25. Saying these and other words besides, he was filled with courage and joy, and his face was suffused with grace, so that not only was he not terrified and dismayed by the words that were spoken to him, but, on the contrary, the proconsul was amazed, and sent his herald to proclaim three times in the midst of the stadium: ‘Polycarp hath confessed that he is a Christian.’
26. And when this was proclaimed by the herald, the whole multitude, both of Gentiles and of Jews, 1151 who dwelt in Smyrna, cried out with ungovernable wrath and with a great shout, ‘This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, the overthrower of our gods, who teacheth many not to sacrifice nor to worship.’
27. When they had said this, they cried out and asked the Asiarch Philip 1152 to let a lion loose upon Polycarp. But he said that it was not lawful for him, since he had closed the games. Then they thought fit to cry out with one accord that Polycarp should be burned alive.
28. For it was necessary that the vision should be fulfilled which had been shown him concerning his pillow, when he saw it burning while he was praying, and turned and said prophetically to the faithful that were with him, ‘I must needs be burned alive.’
29. These things were done with great speed,—more quickly than they were said,—the crowds immediately collecting from the workshops and baths timber and fagots, the Jews being especially zealous in the work, as is their wont.
30. But when the pile was ready, taking off all his upper garments, and loosing his girdle, he attempted also to remove his shoes, although he had never before done this, because of the effort which each of the faithful always made to touch his skin first; for he had been treated with all honor on account of his virtuous life even before his gray hairs came.
31. Forthwith then the materials prepared for the pile were placed about him; and as they were also about to nail him to the stake, 1153 he said, ‘Leave me thus; for he who hath given me strength to endure the fire, will also grant me strength to remain in the fire unmoved without being secured by you with nails.’ So they did not nail him, but bound him.
32. And he, with his hands behind him, and bound like a noble ram taken from a great flock, an acceptable burnt-offering unto God omnipotent, said,
33. ‘Father of thy beloved and blessed Son 1154 Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of thee, the God of angels and of powers and of the whole creation and of the entire race of the righteous who live in thy presence, I bless thee that thou hast deemed me worthy of this day and hour, that I might receive a portion in the number of the martyrs, in the cup of Christ, unto resurrection of eternal life, 1155 both of soul and of body, in the immortality of the Holy Spirit.
34. Among these may I be received before thee this day, in a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as thou, the faithful and true God, hast beforehand prepared and revealed, and hast fulfilled.
35. Wherefore I praise thee also for everything; I bless thee, I glorify thee, through the eternal high priest, Jesus Christ, thy beloved Son, through whom, with him, in the Holy Spirit, be glory unto thee, both now and for the ages to come, Amen.’
36. When he had offered up his Amen and had finished his prayer, the firemen lighted the fire and as a great flame blazed out, we, to whom it was given to see, saw a wonder, and we were preserved that we might relate what happened to the others.
37. For the fire presented the appearance of a vault, like the sail of a vessel filled by the wind, and made a wall about the body of the martyr, 1156 and it was in the midst not like flesh burning, but like gold and silver refined in a furnace. For we perceived such a fragrant odor, as of the fumes of frankincense or of some other precious spices.
38. So at length the lawless men, when they saw that the body could not be consumed by the fire, commanded an executioner 1157 to approach and pierce him with the sword.
39. And when he had done this there came forth a quantity of blood 1158 so that it extinguished the fire; and the whole crowd marveled that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this man also was one, the most wonderful teacher in our times, apostolic and prophetic, who was bishop of the catholic Church 1159 in Smyrna. For every word which came from his mouth was accomplished and will be accomplished.
40. But the jealous and envious Evil One, the adversary of the race of the righteous, when he saw the greatness of his martyrdom, and his blameless life from the beginning, and when he saw him crowned with the crown of immortality and bearing off an incontestable prize, took care that not even his body should be taken away by us, although many desired to do it and to have communion with his holy flesh.
41. Accordingly certain ones secretly suggested to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, 1160 that he should plead with the magistrate not to give up his body, ‘lest,’ it was said, ‘they should abandon the crucified One and begin to worship this man.’ 1161 They said these things at the suggestion and impulse of the Jews, who also watched as we were about to take it from the fire, not knowing that we shall never be able either to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those that are saved, or to worship any other.
42. For we worship him who is the Son of God, but the martyrs, as disciples and imitators of the Lord, we love as they deserve on account of their matchless affection for their own king and teacher. May we also be made partakers and fellow-disciples with them.
43. The centurion, therefore, when he saw the contentiousness exhibited by the Jews, placed him in the midst and burned him, as was their custom. And so we afterwards gathered up his bones, which were more valuable than precious stones and more to be esteemed than gold, and laid them in a suitable place.
44. There the Lord will permit us to come together as we are able, in gladness and joy to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom, 1162 for the commemoration of those who have already fought and for the training and preparation of those who shall hereafter do the same.
45. Such are the events that befell the blessed Polycarp, who suffered martyrdom in Smyrna with the eleven 1163 from Philadelphia. This one man is remembered more than the others by all, so that even by the heathen he is talked about in every place.”
46. Of such an end was the admirable and apostolic Polycarp deemed worthy, as recorded by the brethren of the church of Smyrna in their epistle which we have mentioned. In the same volume 1164 concerning him are subjoined also other martyrdoms which took place in the same city, Smyrna, about the same period of time with Polycarp’s martyrdom. Among them also Metrodorus, who appears to have been a proselyte of the Marcionitic sect, suffered death by fire.
47. A celebrated martyr of those times was a certain man named Pionius. Those who desire to know his several confessions, and the boldness of his speech, and his apologies in behalf of the faith before the people and the rulers, and his instructive addresses and, moreover, his greetings to those who had yielded to temptation in the persecution, and the words of encouragement which he addressed to the brethren who came to visit him in prison, and the tortures which he endured in addition, and besides these the sufferings and the nailings, and his firmness on the pile, and his death after all the extraordinary trials, 1165 —those we refer to that epistle which has been given in the Martyrdoms of the Ancients, 1166 collected by us, and which contains a very full account of him.
48. And there are also records extant of others that suffered martyrdom in Pergamus, a city of Asia,—of Carpus and Papylus, and a woman named Agathonice, who, after many and illustrious testimonies, gloriously ended their lives. 1167
Footnotes
188:1131Marcus Aurelius Verus. See below, p. 390, note.
188:1132Polycarp’s martyrdom occurred in Smyrna, not during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, as Eusebius says, but during the reign of Antoninus Pius, between 154 and 156 (probably in 155). This has been proved by Waddington in his Memoire sur la Chronologie de la vie du rheteur Ælius Aristide (in Mem. de l’acad. des inscript. et belles lettres, Tom. XXVI., part II., 1867, p. 232 sq.’ see, also, his Fastes des provinces Asiatiques, 1872, p. 219 sq.), and the date is now almost universally accepted (for example, by Renan, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Lightfoot, Harnack, &c.). But the Chron. of Eusebius seems to put the martyrdom in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius (166–167 a.d.), and this is the date given by Jerome and others, who based their chronology upon Eusebius, and was commonly accepted until Waddington proved it false. Lightfoot, however, shows that Eusebius did not mean to assign Polycarp’s death to the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius, but that he meant only to place it in the reign of that emperor, and did not pretend to fix the year. How he made the mistake of assigning it to the wrong emperor we do not know, but knowing Eusebius’ common confusion of the various emperors that bore the name of Antonine, we are not surprised at his error at this point. For the best and most recent discussion of this whole subject, see Lightfoot’s Ignatius, I. p. 629 sq. Since Waddington published his researches, Wieseler (in his Christenverfolgungen, 1878, p. 34–87) and Keim (Aus dem Urchristenthum, 1878, p. 92–133) have ventured to dispute his conclusions and to advocate the old date (167), but their arguments are worthless, and have been completely refuted by Lightfoot (ibid. p. 655 sq.).
188:1133I.e. the church of Smyrna. This letter (the greater part of which Eusebius gives in this chapter) is still extant in four Greek mss., and also in a poor Latin version which is preserved in numerous mss. The letter has been published a number of times, most recently by Zahn (in Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn’s Patrum Ap. opera, II. p. 132. sq.), and by Lightfoot (in his Apostolic Fathers, Part II.; St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, p. 947 sq). Lightfoot gives the Greek text with full notes and an English translation, and to his edition the reader is referred for fuller particulars on the whole subject.
188:1134Pontus was the northeast province of Asia Minor, bordering on the Black Sea. What led Eusebius to suppose that this epistle was addressed to the church in Pontus, we do not know. The letter is addressed to the church in Philomalium, and that city was not Pontus (according to Lightfoot, ibid. II. p. 948). Valesius suggests that we should read π€ντα τόπον instead of Πόντον, but the latter reading is confirmed both by Rufinus and by the Syriac as well as by all the Greek mss. I am inclined to think that Eusebius may have read hastily and erroneously in the heading of the letter Πόντον instead of π€ντα τόπον, and, not knowing that Philomelium was not in Pontus, never thought that his reading was incorrect. Such careless mistakes are by no means uncommon, even in these days, and, having once written Pontus, it is easy enough to suppose that nothing would occur to call his attention to his mistake, and of course no copyist would think of making a correction.
188:1135Philomelium, according to Lightfoot (ibid. p. 947), was an important city in Phrygia Paroreios, not far from Pisidian Antioch.
188:1136τῆς ἁγίας καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. The phrase “Catholic Church” occurs first in Ignatius’ Ep. ad Smyr., chap. 8, and there the word “catholic” evidently has the common and early meaning, “universal” (see Lightfoot’s Ignatius, I. p. 398 sqq.). In later usage (so in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Fragment) it has the meaning “orthodox,” as opposed to heretical and schismatical bodies. In the present epistle it occurs four times (§§3, 15, 39, below, and in a passage not quoted in this chapter), and at least the first three times with the later meaning, and consequently, in all probability, it has the same meaning the fourth time also. (Lightfoot, it is true, contends that it has the earlier meaning, “universal,” in the first, second and fourth cases; but in at least the first two that sense of the word produces most decided tautology, and is therefore to be rejected.) The occurrence of the word in the later sense has caused some critics to deny the genuineness of the epistle; but its genuineness is too well established to admit of doubt, and it must be granted that it is by no means impossible that a word which was used at the end of the second century (in Alexandra, in Rome, and in Carthage) with a certain meaning may have been employed in the same sense a generation earlier. On the other hand it is possible, as suggested by some, that the word “Catholic” itself is an interpolation; for it is just such a word that would most easily slip into a document, through the inadvertency of copyists, at a later time, when the phrase “Catholic Church” had become current. Lightfoot (ibid. p. 605 sq.) maintains the genuineness of the word (taking it in its earlier sense) in all but the third instance, where he substitutes ἁγίας upon what seem to me insufficient grounds.
188:1137ἐγρ€ψαμεν, the epistolary aorist, referring, not to another epistle, but to the one which follows, the writer putting himself in thought in the position of those who are reading the letter. See Lightfoot’s note on Gal. vi. 11, in his Commentary on that epistle.
189:1138Of Germanicus we know only what is told us in this epistle
189:1139This proconsul was Statius Quadratus, as we are told in the latter part of this epistle, in a passage which Eusebius does not quote. Upon his dates, see the discussions of the date of Polycarp’s martyrdom mentioned in note 2, above.
189:1140Compare Justin Martyr’s Apol. I. 6; Tertullian’s Apol. 10, &c.; and see chap. 7, note 20, above.
189:1141Of Quintus we know only what is told us in this epistle. It is significant that he was a Phrygian, for the Phrygians were proverbially excitable and fanatical, and it was among them that Montanism took its rise. The conduct of Polycarp, who avoided death as long as he could without dishonor, was in great contrast to this; and it is noticeable that the Smyrnæans condemn Quintus’ hasty and ill-considered action, and that Eusebius echoes their judgment (see above, p. 8).
189:1142Σαββ€του μεγ€λου. “The great Sabbath” in the Christian Church, at least from the time of Chrysostom on, was the Saturday between Good-Friday and Easter. But so far as we know, there are no examples of that use of the phrase earlier than Chrysostom’s time. Lightfoot points out that, in the present instance, it is not “The great Sabbath” (τὸ μέγα Σ€ββατον), but only “A great Sabbath”; and therefore, in the present instance, any great Sabbath might be meant,—that is, any Sabbath which coincided with a festival or other marked day in the Jewish calendar. Lightfoot gives strong reasons for assuming that the traditional day of Polycarp’s death (Feb. 23) is correct, and that the Sabbath referred to here was a great Sabbath because it coincided with the Feast of Purim (see Lightfoot, ibid. I. p. 660 sqq. and 690 sqq.).
190:1143Of Herod and Nicetes we know only what is told us in this epistle. The latter was not an uncommon name in Smyrna, as we learn from inscriptions (see Lightfoot, ibid. II. p. 958).
190:1144εἰρήναρχος (see Lightfoot, ibid. p. 955).
190:1145Compare Josh. 1:6, 7, 9, Deut. 1:7, 23Josh. 1:6, 7, 9, and Deut. 1:7, 23.
190:1146τὴν Καίσαρος τύχην. This oath was invented under Julius Cæsar, and continued under his successors. The oath was repudiated by the Christians, who regarded the “genius” of the emperor as a false God, and therefore the taking of the oath a species of idolatry. It was consequently employed very commonly by the magistrates as a test in times of persecution (cf. Tertullian, Apol. 32; Origen, Contra Cels. VIII. 65, and many other passages).
190:1147See above, chap. 14, note 5. Whether the eighty-six years are to be reckoned from Polycarp’s birth, or from the time of his conversion or baptism, we cannot tell. At the same time, inasmuch as he speaks of serving Christ, for eighty-six years, not God, I am inclined to think that he is reckoning from the time of his conversion or baptism, which may well be if we suppose him to have been baptized in early boyhood.
190:1148See Rom. 13:1, 1 Pet. 2:13Rom. xiii. 1 sq., 1 Pet. ii. 13 sq.
190:1149τιμὴν…τὴν μὴ βλ€πτουσαν ἡμᾶς. Compare Pseudo-Ignatius, ad Antioch. 11, and Mart. Ignat. Rom. 6 (in both of which are found the words ἐν οἷς ἀκίνδυνος ἡ ὑποταγή).
190:1150The proconsul made quite a concession here. He would have been glad to have Polycarp quiet the multitude if he could. Polycarp was not reckless and foolish in refusing to make the attempt, for he knew it would fail, and he preferred to retain his dignity and not compromise himself by appearing to ask for mercy.
190:1151The Jews appear very frequently as leading spirits in the persecution of Christians. The persecution under Nero was doubtless due to their instigation (see Bk. II. chap. 25, note 4). Compare also Tertullian, Scorp. 10, and Eusebius, H. E. V. 16. That the Jews were numerous in Smyrna has been shown by Lightfoot, ibid. p. 966.
190:1152“The Asiarch was the head of the Commune Asiæ, the confederation of the principal cities of the Roman province of Asia. As such, he was the ‘chief priest’ of Asia, and president of the games” (Lightfoot, ibid. p. 967; on p. 987 ff. of the same volume, Lightfoot discusses the Asiarchate at considerable length). The Asiarch Philip mentioned here was a Trallian, as we learn from a statement toward the close of the epistle, which Eusebius does not quote; Lightfoot identifies him with a person named in various Trallian Inscriptions.
191:1153The Greek reads simply προσηλοῦν αὐτόν.
191:1154παιδός not υἱοῦ. παίς commonly conveys the meaning of servant rather than son, although in this passage it is evidently used in the latter sense. Its use in connection with Christ was in later times dropped as Arianistic in its tendency.
191:1155Compare John v. 29.
191:1156It is not necessary to dispute the truthfulness of the report in this and the next sentences on the ground that the events recorded are miraculous in their nature, and therefore cannot have happened. Natural causes may easily have produced some such phenomena as the writers describe, and which they of course regarded as miraculous. Lightfoot refers to a number of similar cases, Vol. I. p. 598 ff. Compare also Harnack in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch. II. p. 291 ff.
191:1157Κομφέκτορα. It was the common business of the Confectores to dispatch such wild beasts as had not been killed outright during the combat in the arena. See Lightfoot, p. 974.
191:1158Before the words “a quantity of blood” are found in all the Greek mss. of the epistle the words περιστερὰ καὶ, “a dove and.” It seems probable that these words did not belong to the original text, but that they were, as many critics believe, an unintentional corruption of some other phrase, or that they were, as Lightfoot thinks, a deliberate interpolation by a late editor (see Lightfoot, II. 974 ff. and I. 627 ff.). No argument, therefore, against the honesty of Eusebius can be drawn from his omission of the words.
191:1159See above, note 6. That the word καθολικῆς is used here in the later sense of “orthodox,” as opposed to heretical and schismatical bodies, can be questioned by no one. Lightfoot, however, reads at this point ἁγίας instead of καθολικῆς in his edition of the epistle. It is true that he has some ms. support, but the mss. and versions of Eusebius are unanimous in favor of the latter word, and Lightfoot’s grounds for making the change seem to be quite insufficient. If any change is to be made, the word should be dropped out entirely, as suggested by the note already referred to.
191:1160All, or nearly all, the mss. of Eusebius read Δ€λκης, and that reading is adopted by Stephanus, Valesius (in his text), Schwegler, Laemmer, Heinichen, and Crusè. On the other hand, the mss. of the epistle itself all support the form ῎Αλκης (or ᾽Αλκῆς, ῞Ελκεις, as it appears respectively in two mss.), and Lightfoot accepts this unhesitatingly as the original form of the word, and it is adopted by many editors of Eusebius (Valesius, in his notes, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Closs). Dalce is an otherwise unknown name, while Alce, though rare, is a good Greek name, and is once connected with Smyrna in an inscription. Moreover, we learn from Ignatius, ad Smyr. 13, and ad Polyc. VIII., that Alce was a well-known Christian in Smyrna at the time Ignatius wrote his epistles. The use of the name at this point shows that its possessor was or had been a prominent character in the church of Smyrna, and the identification of the two seems to me beyond all reasonable doubt (see, also, Lightfoot, I. 353; II. 325 and 978). That Eusebius, however, wrote Alce is not so certain. In fact, in view of the external testimony, it might be regarded as quite as likely that he, by a mistake, wrote Dalce, as that some copyist afterwards committed the error. Still, the name Alce must have been to Eusebius, with his remarkable memory, familiar from Ignatius’ epistles, and hence his mistaking it for another word seems a little strange. But whether Eusebius himself wrote Dalce or Alce, believing the latter to be the correct form, the form which he should have written, I have ventured to adopt it in my translation.
192:1161This shows that the martyrs were highly venerated even at this early date, as was indeed most natural, and as is acknowledged by the writers themselves just below. But it does not show that the Christians already worshiped or venerated their relics as they did in later centuries. The heathen, in their own paganism, might easily conclude from the Christians’ tender care of and reverence for the martyrs’ relics that they also worshiped them.
192:1162This is, so far as I am aware, the earliest notice of the annual celebration of the day of a martyr’s death, a practice which early became so common in the Church. The next reference to the custom is in Tertullian’s de Corona, 3 (cf. also Scorp. 15). So natural a practice, however, and one which was soon afterward universal, need not surprise us at this early date (see Ducange, Natalis, and Bingham, Ant. XIII. 9. 5, XX. 7. 2).
192:1163The majority of the mss. read δώδεκα τοῦ ἐν Σμύρνῃ μαρτυρήσαντος, which, however, is quite ungrammatical as it stands in the sentence, and cannot be accepted. Heinichen reads δώδεκα τὸν ἐν κ.τ.λ., changing the genitive of the majority of the mss. to an accusative, but like them, as also like Rufinus, making twelve martyrs besides Polycarp. But the mss. of the epistle itself read δωδέκατος ἐν Σμ. μαρτυρήσας, thus making only eleven martyrs in addition to Polycarp, and it cannot be doubted that this idiomatic Greek construction is the original. In view of that fact, I am constrained to read with Valesius, Schwegler, and Zahn (in his note on this passage in his edition of the epistle), δωδέκατον ἐν Σμ. μαρτυρήσαντα, translating literally, “suffered martyrdom with those from Philadelphia, the twelfth”; or, as I have rendered it freely in the text, “suffered martyrdom with the eleven from Philadelphia.” It is, of course, possible that Eusebius himself substituted the δώδεκα for the δωδέκατος, but the variations and inconsistencies in the mss. at this point make it more probable that the change crept in later, and that Eusebius agreed with his original in making Polycarp the twelfth martyr, not the thirteenth. Of these eleven only Germanicus is mentioned in this epistle, and who the others were we do not know. They cannot have been persons of prominence, or Polycarp’s martyrdom would not so completely have overshadowed theirs.
192:1164γραφῇ. These other accounts were not given in the epistle of the Smyrnæans, but were doubtless appended to that epistle in the ms. which Eusebius used. The accounts referred to are not found in any of our mss. of the epistle, but there is published in Ruinart’s Acta Martyrum Sincera, p. 188 sq., a narrative in Latin of the martyrdom of a certain Pionius and of a certain Marcionist Metrodorus, as well as of others, which appears to be substantially the same as the document which Eusebius knew in the original Greek, and which he refers to here. The account bears all the marks of genuineness, and may be regarded as trustworthy, at least in the main points. But Eusebius has fallen into a serious chronological blunder in making these other martyrs contemporaries of Polycarp. We learn from a notice in the document given by Ruinart that Pionius, Metrodorus, and the others were put to death during the persecution of Decius, in 250 a.d., and this date is confirmed by external evidence. The document which Eusebius used may not have contained the distinct chronological notice which is now found in it, or Eusebius may have overlooked it, and finding the narrative given in his ms. in close connection with the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom, he may have jumped hastily to the conclusion that both accounts relate to the same period of time. Or, as Lightfoot suggests, in the heading of the document there may have stood the words ἡ αὐτὴ περίοδος τοῦ χρόνου (a peculiar phrase, which Eusebius repeats) indicating (as the words might indicate) that the events took place at the same season of the year, while Eusebius interpreted them to mean the same period of time. Upon these Acts, and upon Metrodorus and Pionius, see Lightfoot, I. p. 622 sqq. The Life of Polycarp, which purports to have been written by Pionius, is manifestly spurious and entirely untrustworthy, and belongs to the latter part of the fourth century. The true Pionius, therefore, who suffered under Decius, and the Pseudo-Pionius who wrote that Life are to be sharply distinguished (see Lightfoot, I. p. 626 sqq.).
192:1165This is an excellent summary of Pionius’ sufferings, as recorded in the extant Acts referred to in the previous note.
192:1166This is the Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, which is no longer extant, but which is referred to by Eusebius more than once in his History. For particulars in regard to it, see above, p. 30 sq.
193:1167A detailed account of the martyrdoms of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonice is extant in numerous mss., and has been published more than once. It has, however, long been recognized as spurious and entirely untrustworthy. But in 1881 Aubè published in the Revue Archæologique (Dec., p. 348 sq.) a shorter form of the Acts of these martyrs, which he had discovered in a Greek ms. in the Paris Library. There is no reason to doubt that these Acts are genuine and, in the main, quite trustworthy. The longer Acts assign the death of these martyrs to the reign of Decius, and they have always been regarded as suffering during that persecution. Aubè, in publishing his newly discovered document, still accepted the old date; but Zahn, upon the basis of the document which he had also seen, remarked in his Tatian’s Diatessaron (p. 279) that Eusebius was correct in assigning these martyrdoms to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and Lightfoot (I. p. 625) stated his belief that they are to be assigned either to that reign or to the reign of Septimius Severus. In 1888 Harnack (Texte und Unters. III. 4) published a new edition of the Acts from the same ms. which Aubè had used, accompanying the text with valuable notes and with a careful discussion of the age of the document. He has proved beyond all doubt that these martyrs were put to death during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and that the shorter document which we have contains a genuine account related by an eye-witness. These are evidently the Acts which Eusebius had before him. In the spurious account Carpus is called a bishop, and Papylus a deacon. But in the shorter account they are simply Christians, and Papylus informs the judge that he is a citizen of Thyatira.
Eusebius apparently did not include the account of these martyrs in his collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, and Harnack concludes from that that he found in it something that did not please him, viz. the fanaticism of Agathonice, who rashly and needlessly rushes to martyrdom, and the approval of her conduct expressed by the author of the Acts. We are reminded of the conduct of the Phrygian Quintus mentioned in the epistle of the Smyrnæans but in that epistle such conduct is condemned.
Chapter XVI.—Justin the Philosopher preaches the Word of Christ in Rome and suffers Martyrdom.
1. About this time 1168 Justin, who was mentioned by us just above, 1169 after he had addressed a second work in behalf of our doctrines to the rulers already named, 1170 was crowned with divine martyrdom, 1171 in consequence of a plot laid against him by Crescens, 1172 a philosopher who emulated the life and manners of the Cynics, whose name he bore. After Justin had frequently refuted him in public discussions he won by his martyrdom the prize of victory, dying in behalf of the truth which he preached.
2. And he himself, a man most learned in the truth, in his Apology already referred to 1173 clearly predicts how this was about to happen to him, although it had not yet occurred.
3. His words are as follows: 1174 “I, too, 1175 therefore, expect to be plotted against and put in the stocks 1176 by some one of those whom I have named, or perhaps by Crescens, that unphilosophical and vainglorious man. For the man is not worthy to be called a philosopher who publicly bears witness against those concerning whom he knows nothing, declaring, for the sake of captivating and pleasing the multitude, that the Christians are atheistical and impious. 1177
4. Doing this he errs greatly. For if he assails us without having read the teachings of Christ, he is thoroughly depraved, and is much worse than the illiterate, who often guard against discussing and bearing false witness about matters which they do not understand. And if he has read them and does not understand the majesty that is in them, or, understanding it, does these things in order that he may not be suspected of being an adherent, he is far more base and totally depraved, being enslaved to vulgar applause and irrational fear.
5. For I would have you know that when I proposed certain questions of the sort and asked him in regard to them, I learned and proved that he indeed knows nothing. And to show that I speak the truth I am ready, if these disputations have not been reported to you, to discuss the questions again in your presence. And this indeed would be an act worthy of an emperor.
6. But if my questions and his answers have been made known to you, it is obvious to you that he knows nothing about our affairs; or if he knows, but does not dare to speak because of those who hear him, he shows himself to be, as I have already said, 1178 not a philosopher, but a vainglorious man, who indeed does not even regard that most admirable saying of Socrates.” 1179 These are the words of Justin.
7. And that he met his death as he had predicted that he would, in consequence of the machinations of Crescens, is stated by Tatian, 1180 a man who early in life lectured upon the sciences of the Greeks and won no little fame in them, and who has left a great many monuments of himself in his writings. He records this fact in his work against the Greeks, where he writes as follows: 1181 “And that most admirable Justin declared with truth that the aforesaid persons were like robbers.”
8. Then, after making some remarks about the philosophers, he continues as follows: 1182 “Crescens, indeed, who made his nest in the great city, surpassed all in his unnatural lust, and was wholly devoted to the love of money.
9. And he who taught that death should be despised, was himself so greatly in fear of it that he endeavored to inflict death, as if it were a great evil, upon Justin, because the latter, when preaching the truth, had proved that the philosophers were gluttons and impostors.” And such was the cause of Justin’s martyrdom.
Footnotes
193:1168That is, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, 161–169 a.d. Inasmuch as Eusebius is certainly in error in ascribing the death of Polycarp, recorded in the previous chapter, to the reign of Marcus Aurelius (see note 2 on that chapter), the fact that he here connects Justin’s death with that reign furnishes no evidence that it really occurred then; but we have other good reasons for supposing that it did (see below, note 4).
193:1169In chap. 11.
193:1170Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, whom he mentioned at the close of chap. 14, and the events of whose reign he is now ostensibly recording. But in regard to this supposed second apology addressed to them, see chap. 18, note 3.
193:1171That Justin died a martyr’s death is the universal tradition of antiquity, which is crystallized in his name. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I. 28. 1) is the first to mention it, but does so casually, as a fact well known. The only account of his martyrdom which we have is contained in the Acta Martyrii Justini Philosophi (Galland. I. 707 sq.), which, although belonging to a later age (probably the third century), yet bear every evidence of containing a comparatively truthful account of Justin’s death. According to these Acts, Justin, with six companions, was brought before Rusticus, prefect of Rome, and by him condemned to death, upon his refusal to sacrifice to the gods. The date of his martyrdom is very difficult to determine. There are two lines of tradition, one of which puts his death under Antoninus Pius, the other under Marcus Aurelius. The latter has the most in its favor; and if we are to accept the report of the Acta Justini (which can be doubted least of all at this point), his death took place under Rusticus, who, as we know, became prefect of Rome in 163. Upon the date of Justin’s death, see especially Holland, in Smith and Wace, III. p. 562 sq.
193:1172Of this cynic philosopher Crescens we know only what is told us by Justin and Tatian, and they paint his character in the blackest colors. Doubtless there was sufficient ground for their accusations; but we must remember that we have his portrait only from the pen of his bitterest enemies. In the Acta Crescens is not mentioned in connection with the death of Justin,—an omission which is hardly to be explained, except upon the supposition of historical truthfulness. Eusebius’ report here seems to rest solely upon the testimony of Tatian (see §§8 and 9, below), but the passage of Tatian which he cites does not prove his point; it simply proves that Crescens plotted against Justin; whether his plotting was successful is not stated, and the contrary seems rather to be implied (see note 13, below).
193:1173Harnack thinks that Eusebius at this point wishes to convey the false impression that he quotes from the second apology, whereas he really quotes from what was to him the first, as can be seen from chap. 17. But such conduct upon the part of Eusebius would be quite inexplicable (at the beginning of the very next chapter, e.g., he refers to this same apology as the first), and it is far better to refer the words ἐν τῇ δεδηλωμένῃ ᾽Απολογί& 139· to chap. 13 sq., where the apology is quoted repeatedly.
193:1174Justin, Apol. II. 3.
193:1175κἀγὼ οὖν. In the previous chapter (quoted by Eusebius in the next chapter) Justin has been speaking of the martyrdom of various Christians, and now goes on to express his expectation that he, too, will soon suffer death.
193:1176ξύλῳ ἐντιναγῆναι. Compare Acts xvii. 24, and see Otto’s note on this passage, in his edition of Justin’s Apology (Corpus Apol. Christ. I. p. 204). He says: ξύλον erat truncus foramina habens, quibus pedes captivorum immitebantur, ut securius in carcere servarentur aut tormentis vexarentur (“a ξύλον was a block, with holes in which the feet of captives were put, in order that they might be kept more securely in prison, or might be afflicted with tortures”).
193:1177This accusation was very commonly made against the Christians in the second century. See above, chap. 7, note 20.
194:1178In §3, above.
194:1179This saying of Socrates is given by Justin as follows: ἀλλ᾽ οὔτι γὲ πρὸ τῆς ἀληθείας τιμητέος ἀνὴρ, “a man must not be honored before the truth” (from Plato’s Republic, Bk. X.). It is hard to say why Eusebius should have omitted it. Perhaps it was so well known that he did not think it necessary to repeat it, taking for granted that the connection would suggest the same to every reader, or it is possible that the omission is the fault of a copyist, not of Eusebius himself.
194:1180On Tatian and his writings, see below, chap. 29.
Eusebius has been accused by Dembowski, Zahn, Harnack, and others of practicing deception at this point. The passage from Tatian’s Oratio ad Græcos, which Eusebius appeals to for testimony in regard to Justin’s death, and which he quotes just below, is not given by him exactly as it stands in the extant text of the Oratio. In the latter we read, “He who taught that death should be despised was himself so greatly in fear of it, that he endeavored to inflict death as if it were an evil upon Justin, and indeed on me also, because when preaching he had proved that the philosophers were gluttons and impostors.” The difference between the two texts consists in the substitution of the word μεγ€λῳ for the words καὶ ἐμὲ ὡς; and it is claimed that this alteration was intentionally made by Eusebius. As the text stands in Tatian, the passage is far from proving that Justin’s death was caused by the machinations of Crescens, for Tatian puts himself on a level with Justin as the object of these machinations, and of course since they did not succeed in his case, there is no reason to suppose that they succeeded in Justin’s case. It is claimed, therefore, that Justin, realizing this, struck out the καὶ ἐμὲ ὡς in order to permit the reader to gather from the passage that Tatian meant to imply that the plots of Crescens were successful, and resulted in Justin’s death. Before accepting this conclusion, however, it may be well to realize exactly what is involved in it. The change does not consist merely in the omission of the words καὶ ἐμὲ ὡς, but in the substitution for them of the word μεγ€λῳ. It cannot, therefore, be said that Eusebius only omitted some words, satisfying his conscience that there was no great harm in that; whoever made the change, if he did it intentionally, directly falsified the text, and substituted the other word for the sake of covering up his alteration; that is, he committed an act of deceit of the worst kind, and deliberately took steps to conceal his act. Certainly such conduct is not in accord with Eusebius’ general character, so far as we can ascertain it from his writings. Even Zahn and Harnack, who accuse him of intentional deception here, yet speak of his general conscientiousness, and treat this alteration as one which Eusebius allowed himself to make while, at the same time, his “conscientiousness did not permit him even this time to change truth completely into untruth.” But if he could allow himself to make so deliberate an alteration, and then cover the change by inserting another word, there is little cause to speak of “conscientiousness” in connection with the matter; if he could do that, his conscience would certainly permit him to make any false quotations, however great, so long as he thought he could escape detection. But few would care to accuse Eusebius of possessing such a character. Certainly if he possessed it, we should find clearer traces of it than we do in his History, where we have the opportunity to control a large portion of his statements on an immense variety of subjects. Moreover, for such a grave act of deception as Eusebius is supposed to have committed, some adequate ground must have existed. But what ground was there? The only motive suggested is that he desired to appear to possess specific knowledge about the manner of Justin’s death, when in fact he did not possess it. It is not maintained that he had any larger motive, such as reconciling apparent contradictions in sacred records, or shedding an added luster upon the Christian religion, for neither of these purposes has any relation to the statement in regard to Crescens’ connection with Justin’s death. Solely then for the sake of producing the impression that he knew more about Justin’s death than he did, he must have made the change. But certainly when we realize how frequently Eusebius directly avows his ignorance on points far more important (to his mind) than this (e.g., the dates of the Jerusalem bishops, which he might so easily have invented), and when we consider how sober his history is in comparison with the accounts of the majority of his contemporaries, both Pagan and Christian, how few fables he introduces, how seldom he embellishes the narratives which he finds related in his sources with imaginary figments of his own brain,—when, in fact, no such instances can be found elsewhere, although, writing in the age he did, and for the public for whom he did, he might have invented so many stories without fear of detection, as his successors during the ancient and middle ages were seldom loath to do,—when all this is taken into consideration, we should hesitate long before we accuse Eusebius of such deceptive conduct as is implied in the intentional alteration of Tatian’s account at this point. It has been quite the custom to accuse Eusebius of intentional deviations from the truth here and there but it must be remembered that he was either honest or dishonest, and if he ever deliberately and intentionally deviated from the truth, his general character for truthfulness is gone, unless the deviation were only in some exceptional case, where the pressure to misrepresentation was unusually strong, under which circumstances his reputation for veracity in general might not be seriously impaired. But the present instance is not such an one, and if he was false here on so little provocation, why should we think his character such as to guarantee truthfulness in any place where falsehood might be more desirable?
The fact is, however, that the grounds upon which the accusation against Eusebius is based are very slender. Nothing but the strongest evidence should lead us to conclude that such a writer as he practiced such wilful deception for reasons absolutely trivial. But when we realize how little is known of the actual state of the text of Tatian’s Oratio at the time Eusebius wrote, we must acknowledge that to base an accusation on a difference between the text of the History and the extant mss. of the Oratio is at least a little hasty. An examination of the latest critical edition of Tatian’s Oratio (that of Schwartz, in Gebhardt, and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuch. IV. 1) shows us that in a number of instances the testimony of the mss. of Eusebius is accepted over against that of the few extant mss. of Tatian. The ms. of Tatian which Eusebius used was therefore admittedly different at a number of points from all our existing mss. of Tatian. It is consequently not at all impossible that the ms. which he used read μεγ€λῳ instead of καὶ ἐμὲ ὡς. It happens, indeed, to be a fact that our three mss. of Tatian all present variations at this very point (one reads καὶ ἐμὲ ὡς, another, καὶ ἐμὲ οἷον, another, καὶ ἐμὲ οὗς), showing that the archetype, whatever it was, either offered difficulties to the copyists, or else was partially illegible, and hence required conjectural emendations or additions. It will be noticed that the closing verb of this sentence is in the singular, so that the mention of both Justin and Tatian in the beginning of the sentence may well have seemed to some copyist quite incongruous, and it is not difficult to suppose that under such circumstances, the text at this point being in any case obscure or mutilated, such a copyist permitted himself to make an alteration which was very clever and at the same time did away with all the trouble. Textual critics will certainly find no difficulty in such an assumption. The mss. of Tatian are undoubtedly nearer the original form at this point than those of Eusebius, but we have no good grounds for supposing that Eusebius did not follow the ms. which lay before him.
The question as to Eusebius’ interpretation of the passage as he found it is quite a different one. It contains no direct statement that Justin met his death in consequence of the plots of Crescens; and finding no mention of such a fact in the Acts of Martyrdom of Justin, we may dismiss it as unhistorical and refuse to accept Eusebius’ interpretation of Tatian’s words. To say, however, that Eusebius intentionally misinterpreted those words is quite unwarranted. He found in Justin’s work an expressed expectation that he would meet his death in this way, and he found in Tatian’s work the direct statement that Crescens did plot Justin’s death as the latter had predicted he would. There was nothing more natural than to conclude that Tatian meant to imply that Crescens had succeeded, for why did he otherwise mention the matter at all, Eusebius might well say, looking at the matter from his point of view, as an historian interested at that moment in the fact of Justin’s death. He does undoubtedly show carelessness and lack of penetration in interpreting the passage as he does; but if he had been aware of the defect in the evidence he presents, and had yet wished deceitfully to assert the fact as a fact, he would certainly have omitted the passage altogether, or he would have bolstered it up with the statement that other writers confirmed his conclusion,—a statement which only a thoroughly and genuinely honest man would have scrupled to make. Finally, to return to the original charge of falsification of the sources, he realized that the text of Tatian, with the καὶ ἐμὲ ὡς, did not establish Justin’s death at the instigation of Crescens, he must have realized at the same time that his altered text, while it might imply it, certainly did not absolutely prove it, and hence he would not have left his conclusion, which he stated as a demonstrated fact, to rest upon so slender a basis, when he might so easily have adduced any number of oral traditions in confirmation of it. If he were dishonest enough to alter the text, he would not have hesitated to state in general terms that the fact is “also supported by tradition.” We conclude, finally, that he read the passage as we now find it in the mss. of his History, and that his interpretation of the passage, while false, was not intentionally so.
The attacks upon Eusebius which have been already referred to are to be found in Dembowski’s Quellen der christlichen Apologetik, I. p. 60; Zahn’s Tatian’s Diatessaron, p. 275 sq., and Harnack’s Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologeten, p. 141 sq. Semisch (Justin der Märtyrer, I. 53) takes for granted that Eusebius followed the text of Tatian which lay before him, but does not attempt to prove it.
195:1181Tatian, Oratio ad Græcos, c. 18. It is quite probable that Tatian is here appealing, not to a written work of Justin’s, but to a statement which he had himself heard him make. See Harnack’s Ueberlieferung der griech. Apologeten, p. 130. Harnack is undoubtedly correct in maintaining that Tatian’s Oratio is quite independent of Justin’s Apology and other writings.
195:1182Ibid.chap. 19.
Chapter XVII.—The Martyrs whom Justin mentions in his Own Work.
1. The same man, before his conflict, mentions in his first Apology 1183 others that suffered martyrdom before him, and most fittingly records the following events.
2. He writes thus: 1184 “A certain woman lived with a dissolute husband; she herself, too, having formerly been of the same character. But when she came to the knowledge of the teachings of Christ, she became temperate, and endeavored to persuade her husband likewise to be temperate, repeating the teachings, and declaring the punishment in eternal fire which shall come upon those who do not live temperately and conformably to right reason.
3. But he, continuing in the same excesses, alienated his wife by his conduct. For she finally, thinking it wrong to live as a wife with a man who, contrary to the law of nature and right, sought every possible means of pleasure, desired to be divorced from him.
4. And when she was earnestly entreated by her friends, who counseled her still to remain with him, on the ground that her husband might some time give hope of amendment, she did violence to herself and remained.
5. But when her husband had gone to Alexandria, and was reported to be conducting himself still worse, she—in order that she might not, by continuing in wedlock, and by sharing his board and bed, become a partaker in his lawlessness and impiety—gave him what we 1185 call a bill of divorce and left him.
6. But her noble and excellent husband,—instead of rejoicing, as he ought to have done, that she had given up those actions which she had formerly recklessly committed with the servants and hirelings, when she delighted in drunkenness and in every vice, and that she desired him likewise to give them up,—when she had gone from him contrary to his wish, brought an accusation concerning her, declaring that she was a Christian.
7. And she petitioned you, the emperor, that she might be permitted first to set her affairs in order, and afterwards, after the settlement of her affairs, to make her defense against the accusation. And this you granted.
8. But he who had once been her husband, being no longer able to prosecute her, directed his attacks against a certain Ptolemæus, 1186 who had been her teacher in the doctrines of Christianity, and whom Urbicius 1187 had punished. Against him he proceeded in the following manner:
9. “He persuaded a centurion who was his friend to cast Ptolemæus into prison, and to take him and ask him this only: whether he were a Christian? And when Ptolemæus, who was a lover of truth, and not of a deceitful and false disposition, confessed that he was a Christian, the centurion bound him and punished him for a long time in the prison.
10. And finally, when the man was brought before Urbicius he was likewise asked this question only: whether he were a Christian? And again, conscious of the benefits which he enjoyed through the teaching of Christ, he confessed his schooling in divine virtue.
11. For whoever denies that he is a Christian, either denies because he despises Christianity, or he avoids confession because he is conscious that he is unworthy and an alien to it; neither of which is the case with the true Christian.
12. And when Urbicius commanded that he be led away to punishment, a certain Lucius, 1188 who was also a Christian, seeing judgment so unjustly passed, said to Urbicius, ‘Why have you punished this man who is not an adulterer, nor a fornicator, nor a murderer, nor a thief, nor a robber, nor has been convicted of committing any crime at all, but has confessed that he bears the name of Christian? You do not judge, O Urbicius, in a manner befitting the Emperor Pius, or the philosophical son 1189 of Cæsar, or the sacred senate.’
13. And without making any other reply, he said to Lucius, ‘Thou also seemest to me to be such an one.’ And when Lucius said, ‘Certainly,’ he again commanded that he too should be led away to punishment. But he professed his thanks, for he was liberated, he added, from such wicked rulers and was going to the good Father and King, God. And still a third having come forward was condemned to be punished.”
14. To this, Justin fittingly and consistently adds the words which we quoted above, 1190 saying, “I, too, therefore expect to be plotted against by some one of those whom I have named,” &c. 1191
Footnotes
195:1183Eusebius in this chapter quotes what we now know as Justin’s second Apology, calling it his first. It is plain that the two were but one to him. See chap. 18, note 3.
195:1184Justin, Apol. II. 2.
195:1185Our authorities are divided between ἡμῖν and ὑμῖν, but I have followed Heinichen in adopting the former, which has much stronger ms. support, and which is in itself at least as natural as the latter.
195:1186Of this Ptolemæus we know only what is told us here. Tillemont, Ruinart, and others have fixed the date of his martyrdom as 166, or thereabouts. But inasmuch as the second Apology is now commonly regarded as an appendix to, or as a part of, the first, and was at any rate written during the reign of Antoninus Pius, the martyrdom of Ptolemæus must have taken place considerably earlier than the date indicated, in fact in all probability as early as 152 (at about which time the Apology was probably written). We learn from the opening of the second Apology that the martyrdoms which are recorded in the second chapter, and the account of which Eusebius here quotes, happened very shortly before the composition of the Apology (χθὲς δὲ καὶ πρώην, “yesterday and the day before”).
195:1187᾽Ουρβίκιος, as all the mss. of Eusebius give the name. In Justin the form ᾽Ούρβικος occurs, which is a direct transcription of the Latin Urbicus.
195:1188Of this Lucius we know only what is told us here.
196:1189Marcus Aurelius. See above, chap. 12, note 2.
196:1190In chap. 16, §3.
196:1191Justin, Apol. II. 3. These words, in Justin’s Apology, follow immediately the long account quoted just above.
Chapter XVIII.—The Works of Justin which have come down to us.
1. This writer has left us a great many monuments of a mind educated and practiced in divine things, which are replete with profitable matter of every kind. To them we shall refer the studious, noting as we proceed those that have come to our knowledge. 1192
2. There is a certain discourse 1193 of his in defense of our doctrine addressed to Antoninus surnamed the Pious, and to his sons, and to the Roman senate. Another work contains his second Apology 1194 in behalf of our faith, which he offered to him who was the successor of the emperor mentioned and who bore the same name, Antoninus Verus, the one whose times we are now recording.
3. Also another work against the Greeks, 1195 in which he discourses at length upon most of the questions at issue between us and the Greek philosophers, and discusses the nature of demons. It is not necessary for me to add any of these things here.
4. And still another work of his against the Greeks has come down to us, to which he gave the title Refutation. And besides these another, On the Sovereignty of God, 1196 which he establishes not only from our Scriptures, but also from the books of the Greeks.
5. Still further, a work entitled Psaltes, 1197 and another disputation On the Soul, in which, after propounding various questions concerning the problem under discussion, he gives the opinions of the Greek philosophers, promising to refute it, and to present his own view in another work.
6. He composed also a dialogue against the Jews, 1198 which he held in the city of Ephesus with Trypho, a most distinguished man among the Hebrews of that day. In it he shows how the divine grace urged him on to the doctrine of the faith, and with what earnestness he had formerly pursued philosophical studies, and how ardent a search he had made for the truth. 1199
7. And he records of the Jews in the same work, that they were plotting against the teaching of Christ, asserting the same things against Trypho: “Not only did you not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but you selected at that time chosen men, and you sent them out from Jerusalem through all the land, to announce that the godless heresy of the Christians had made its appearance, and to accuse them of those things which all that are ignorant of us say against us, so that you become the causes not only of your own injustice, but also of all other men’s.” 1200
8. He writes also that even down to his time prophetic gifts shone in the Church. 1201 And he mentions the Apocalypse of John, saying distinctly that it was the apostle’s. 1202 He also refers to certain prophetic declarations, and accuses Trypho on the ground that the Jews had cut them out of the Scripture. 1203 A great many other works of his are still in the hands of many of the brethren. 1204
9. And the discourses of the man were thought so worthy of study even by the ancients, that Irenæus quotes his words: for instance, in the fourth book of his work Against Heresies, where he writes as follows: 1205 “And Justin well says in his work against Marcion, that he would not have believed the Lord himself if he had preached another God besides the Creator”; and again in the fifth book of the same work he says: 1206 “And Justin well said that before the coming of the Lord Satan never dared to blaspheme God, 1207 because he did not yet know his condemnation.”
10. These things I have deemed it necessary to say for the sake of stimulating the studious to peruse his works with diligence. So much concerning him.
Footnotes
196:1192Eusebius apparently cites here only the works which he had himself seen, which accounts for his omission of the work against Marcion mentioned above, in chap. 11.
196:1193This Apology is the genuine work of Justin, and is still extant in two late and very faulty mss., in which it is divided into two, and the parts are commonly known as Justin’s First and Second Apologies, though they were originally one. The best edition of the original is that of Otto in his Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum; English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I. p. 163 ff. Eusebius, in his Chronicle, places the date of its composition as 141, but most critics are now agreed in putting it ten or more years later; it must, however, have been written before the death of Antoninus Pius (161). See Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 716.
196:1194Eusebius here, as in chap. 16 above, ascribes to Justin a second Apology, from which, however, he nowhere quotes. From Eusebius the tradition has come down through history that Justin wrote two apologies, and the tradition seems to be confirmed by the existing mss. of Justin, which give two. But Eusebius’ two cannot have corresponded to the present two; for, from chap. 8, §§16 and 17, it is plain that to Eusebius our two formed one complete work. And it is plain, too, from internal evidence (as is now very generally admitted; Wieseler’s arguments against this, in his Christenverfolgungen, p. 104 ff., are not sound), that the two were originally one, our second forming simply a supplement to the first. What, then, has become of the second Apology mentioned by Eusebius? There is much difference of opinion upon this point. But the explanation given by Harnack (p. 171 ff.) seems the most probable one. According to his theory, the Apology of Athenagoras (of whom none of the Fathers, except Methodius and Philip of Side, seem to have had any knowledge) was attributed to Justin by a copyist of the third century,—who altered the address so as to throw it into Justin’s time,—and as such it came into the hands of Eusebius, who mentions it among the works of Justin. That he does not quote from it may be due to the fact that it contained nothing suited to his purpose, or it is possible that he had some suspicions about it; the last, however, is not probable, as he nowhere hints at them. That some uncertainty, however, seemed to hang about the work is evident. The erasure of the name of Athenagoras and the substitution of Justin’s name accounts for the almost total disappearance of the former from history. This Apology and his treatise on the resurrection first appear again under his name in the eleventh century, and exist now in seventeen mss. (see Schaff, II. 731). The traditional second Apology of Justin having thus after the eleventh century disappeared, his one genuine Apology was divided by later copyists, so that we still have apparently two separate apologies.
196:1195This and the following were possibly genuine works of Justin; but, as they are no longer extant, it is impossible to speak with certainty. The two extant works, Discourse to the Greeks (Oratio ad Græcos) and Hortatory Address to the Greeks (Cohortatio ad Græcos), which are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 271–289, are to be regarded as the productions of later writers, and are not to be identified with the two mentioned here (although Otto defends them both, and Semisch defends the latter).
196:1196We have no reason to think that this work was not genuine, but it is no longer extant, and therefore certainty in the matter is impossible. It is not to be identified with the extant work upon the same subject (translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 290–293), which is the production of a later writer.
196:1197This work and the following have entirely disappeared, but were genuine productions of Justin, for all that we know to the contrary.
196:1198This is a genuine work of Justin, and is still extant (translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 194–270). Its exact date is uncertain, but it was written after the Apology (to which it refers in chap. 120), and during the reign of Antoninus Pius (137–161).
Of Trypho, whom Eusebius characterizes as “a most distinguished man among the Hebrews,” we know nothing beyond what we can gather from the dialogue itself.
196:1199See Dial. chap. 2 sq.
197:1200ibid. chap. 17.
197:1201ibid.chap. 82.
197:1202ibid.chap. 81.
197:1203ibid.chap. 71.
197:1204Of the many extant and non-extant works attributed to Justin by tradition, all, or the most of them (except the seven mentioned by Eusebius, and the work Against Marcion, quoted by Irenæus,—see just below,—and the Syntagma Contra omnes Hær.), are the productions of later writers.
197:1205Irenæus, Adv. Hær. IV. 6. 2.
197:1206Irenæus, V. 26. 2. Irenæus does not name the work which he quotes here, and the quotation occurs in none of Justin’s extant works, but the context and the sense of the quotation itself seem to point to the same work, Against Marcion.
197:1207Epiphanius expresses the same thought in his Hær. XXXIX. 9.
Chapter XIX.—The Rulers of the Churches of Rome and Alexandria during the Reign of Verus.
1. In the eighth year of the above-mentioned reign 1208 Soter 1209 succeeded Anicetus 1210 as bishop of the church of Rome, after the latter had held office eleven years in all. But when Celadion 1211 had presided over the church of Alexandria for fourteen years he was succeeded by Agrippinus. 1212
Footnotes
197:1208The reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus mentioned at the end of chap. 14.
197:1209As was remarked in chap. 11, note 18, Anicetus held office until 165 or 167, i.e. possibly until the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius. The date therefore given here for the accession of Soter is at least a year out of the way. The Armenian Chron. puts his accession in the 236th Olympiad, i.e. the fourth to the seventh year of this reign, while the version of Jerome puts it in the ninth year. From Bk. V. chap. 1 we learn that he held office eight years, and this is the figure given by both versions of the Chron. In chap. 23 Eusebius quotes from a letter of Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, addressed to Soter, in which he remarks that the Corinthian church have been reading on the Lord’s day an epistle written to them by Soter. It was during his episcopate that Montanus labored in Asia Minor, and the anonymous author of the work called Prædestinatus (written in the middle of the fifth century) states that Soter wrote a treatise against him which was answered by Tertullian, but there seems to be no foundation for the tradition. Two spurious epistles and several decretals have been falsely ascribed to him.
197:1210On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18.
197:1211On Celadion, see above, chap. 11, note 17.
197:1212Of Agrippinus we know only what Eusebius tells us here and in Bk. V. chap. 9, where he says that he held office twelve years. Jerome’s version of the Chron. agrees as to the duration of his episcopate, but puts his accession in the sixth year of Marcus Aurelius. In the Armenian version a curious mistake occurs in connection with his name. Under the ninth year of Marcus Aurelius are found the words, Romanorum ecclesiæ XII. episcopus constitutus est Agrippinus annis IX., and then Eleutherus (under the thirteenth year of the same ruler) is made the thirteenth bishop, while Victor, his successor, is not numbered, and Zephyrinus the successor of the latter, is made number fourteen. It is of course plain enough that the transcriber by an oversight read Romanorum ecclesiæ instead of Alexandrinæ ecclesiæ, and then having given Soter just above as the eleventh bishop, he felt compelled to make Agrippinus the twelfth, and hence reversed the two numbers, nine and twelve, given in connection with Agrippinus and made him the twelfth bishop, ruling nine years, instead of the ninth bishop, ruling twelve years. He then found himself obliged to make Eleutherus the thirteenth, but brought the list back into proper shape again by omitting to number Victor as the fourteenth. It is hard to understand how a copyist could commit such a flagrant error and not discover it when he found himself subsequently led into difficulty by it. It simply shows with what carelessness the work of translation or of transcription was done. As a result of the mistake no ninth bishop of Alexandria is mentioned, though the proper interval of twelve years remains between the death of Celadion and the accession of Julian.
Chapter XX.—The Rulers of the Church of Antioch.
1. At that time also in the church of Antioch, Theophilus 1213 was well known as the sixth from the apostles. For Cornelius, 1214 who succeeded Hero, 1215 was the fourth, and after him Eros, 1216 the fifth in order, had held the office of bishop.
Footnotes
197:1213On Theophilus and his writings, see chap. 24.
197:1214Of the life and character of Cornelius and Eros we know nothing. The Chron. of Eusebius puts the accession of Cornelius into the twelfth year of Trajan (128 a.d.), and the accession of his successor Eros into the fifth year of Antoninus Pius (142). These dates, however, are quite unreliable, and we have no means of correcting them (see Harnack’s Zeit des Ignatius, p. 12 sqq.). Theophilus, the successor of Eros we have reason to think became bishop about the middle of Marcus Aurelius’ reign and hence the Chron., which puts his accession into the ninth year of that reign, (169 a.d.) cannot be far out of the way. This gives us the approximate date for the death of Eros.
197:1215On Hero, see above, Bk. III. chap. 36, note 23.
197:1216On Eros, see note 2.
Chapter XXI.—The Ecclesiastical Writers that flourished in Those Days.
1. At that time there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, 1217 and Dionysius, 1218 bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, 1219 and besides these, Philip, 1220 and Apolinarius, 1221 and Melito, 1222 and Musanus, 1223 and Modestus, 1224 and finally, Irenæus. 1225 From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from apostolic tradition. 1226
Footnotes
197:1217On Hegesippus’ life and writings, see the next chapter. He has been already mentioned in Bk. II. chap. 23; Bk. III. chaps. 11, 16, 20, 32; and Bk. IV. chap. 8.
197:1218On the life and writings of Dionysius, see below, chap. 23.
197:1219On Pinytus, see below, chap, 23, note 14.
198:1220On Philip, see below, chap. 25.
198:1221On Apolinarius, see below, chap. 27.
198:1222On Melito, see chap. 26.
198:1223On Musanus, see chap. 28.
198:1224On Modestus, see chap. 25.
198:1225Irenæus was born in Asia Minor, probably between the years 120 and 130. There is great uncertainty as to the date of his birth, some bringing it down almost to the middle of the second century, while Dodwell carried it back to the year 97 or 98. But these extremes are wild; and a careful examination of all the sources which can throw any light on the subject leads to the conclusion adopted by Lipsius, and stated above. In Asia Minor he was a pupil of Polycarp (cf. the fragment of Irenæus’ letter to Florinus, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 20). The Moscow ms. of the Martyrium Polycarpi states that Irenæus was in Rome at the time of Polycarp’s martyrdom (155 or 156 a.d.), and appeals for its authority to a statement in Irenæus’ own writings, which does not exist in any extant work, but may have been taken from an authentic work now lost (cf. Gebhardt, in the Zeitschrift für die hist. Theologie, 1875, p. 362 sqq.). But whatever truth there may be in the report, we find him, at the time of the great persecution of Lyons and Vienne (described in the next book, chap. 1), a presbyter of the church at Lyons, and carrying a letter from the confessors of that church to the bishop Eleutherus of Rome (see Bk. V. chap. 4). After the death of Pothinus, which took place in 177 (see Bk. V. præf. note 3, and chap. 1, §29), Irenæus became bishop of Lyons, according to Bk. V. chap. 5. The exact date of his accession we do not know; but as Pothinus died during the persecution, and Irenæus was still a presbyter after the close of the persecution in which he met his death, he cannot have succeeded immediately. Since Irenæus, however, was, according to Eusebius, Pothinus’ next successor, no great length of time can have elapsed between the death of the latter and the accession of the former. At the time of the paschal controversy, while Victor was bishop of Rome, Irenæus was still bishop (according to Bk. V. chap. 23). This was toward the close of the second century. His death is ordinarily put in the year 202 or 203, on the assumption that he suffered martyrdom under Septimius Severus. Jerome is the first to call him a martyr, and that not in his de vir. ill., but in his Comment. in Esaiam (chap. 64), which was written some years later. It is quite possible that he confounded the Irenæus in question with another of the same name, who met his death in the persecution of Diocletian. Gregory of Tours first gives us a detailed account of the martyrdom, and in the Middle Ages Irenæus always figured as a martyr. But all this has no weight at all, when measured against the silence of Tertullian, Hippolytus, Eusebius, and all the earlier Fathers. Their silence must be accepted as conclusive evidence that he was not a martyr; and if he was not, there is no reason for assigning his death to the year 202 or 203. As we have no trace of him, however, subsequent to the time of the paschal controversy, it is probable that he died, at the latest, soon after the beginning of the third century.
Irenæus was the most important of the polemical writers of antiquity, and his works formed a storehouse from which all subsequent heresiographers drew. He is quoted very frequently by Eusebius as an authority for events which happened during the second century, and is treated by him with the most profound respect as one of the greatest writers of the early Church. Jerome devotes an unusually long chapter of his de vir. ill. to him (chap. 35), but tells us nothing that is not found in Eusebius’ History. His greatest work, and the only one now extant, is his ῎Ελεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνωσεως, which is commonly cited under the brief title πρὸς ῾Αιρέσεις, or Adversus Hæreses (“Against Heresies”). It consists of five books, and is extant only in a very ancient and literal Latin translation; though the numerous extracts made from it by later writers have preserved for us the original Greek of nearly the whole of the first book and many fragments of the others. There are also extant numerous fragments of an ancient Syriac version of the work. It was written—or at least the third book was—while Eleutherus was bishop of Rome, i.e. between 174 and 189 (see Bk. III. chap. 3, §3, of the work itself). We are not able to fix the date of its composition more exactly. The author’s primary object was to refute Valentinianism (cf. Bk. I. præf., and Bk. III. præf.), but in connection with that subject he takes occasion to say considerable about other related heresies. The sources of this great work have been carefully discussed by Lipsius, in his Quellenkritik des Epiphanios, and in his Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte, and by Harnack in his Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus (see also the article by Lipsius mentioned below). Of the other works of Irenæus, many of which Eusebius refers to, only fragments or bare titles have been preserved. Whether he ever carried out his intention (stated in Adv. Hær. I. 27. 4, and III. 12. 12) of writing a special work against Marcion, we cannot tell. Eusebius mentions this intention in Bk. V. chap. 20; and in Bk. IV. chap. 25 he classes Irenæus among the authors who had written against Marcion. But we hear nothing of the existence of the work from Irenæus’ successors, and it is possible that Eusebius is thinking in chap. 25 only of the great work Adv. Hær. For a notice of Irenæus’ epistle On Schism, addressed to Blastus, and the one On Sovereignty, addressed to Florinus, see Bk. V. chap. 20, notes 2 and 3; and on his treatise On the Ogdoad, see the same chapter, note 4. On his epistle to Victor in regard to the paschal dispute, see below, Bk. V. chap. 24, note 13. Other epistles upon the same subject are referred to by Eusebius at the close of the same chapter (see note 21 on that chapter). In Bk. V. chap. 26, Eusebius mentions four other works of Irenæus (see notes on that chapter). In addition to the works referred to by Eusebius, there are extant a number of fragments which purport to be from other works of Irenæus. Some of them are undoubtedly genuine, others not. Upon these fragments and the works to which they belong, see Harvey’s edition of Irenæus’ works, II. p. 431 sq., and Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. article Irenæus, p. 265 sqq.
The best edition of Irenæus’ works is that of Harvey (Cambridge, 1857, in 2 vols.). In connection with this edition, see Loof’s important article on Irenæushandschriften, in Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, p. 1–93 (Leipzig, 1888). The literature on Irenæus is very extensive (for a valuable list, see Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. 746), but a full and complete biography is greatly to be desired. Lipsius’ article, referred to just above, is especially valuable.
198:1226ὧν καὶ εἰς ἡμᾶς τῆς ἀποστολικῆς παραδόσεως, ἡ τῆς ὑγιοῦς πίστεως žγγραφος κατῆλθεν ὀρθοδοξία. Compare chap. 14, §4.
Chapter XXII.—Hegesippus and the Events which he mentions.
1. Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs 1227 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.
2. His words are as follows: “And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus 1228 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.
3. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, 1229 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.”
4. The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: “And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, 1230 was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.
“Therefore, 1231 they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.
5. But Thebuthis, 1232 because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects 1233 among the people, like Simon, 1234 from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, 1235 from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, 1236 from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, 1237 from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, 1238 from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, 1239 and Marcionists, 1240 and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.”
6. The same writer also records the ancient heresies which arose among the Jews, in the following words: “There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel. The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothæans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees.” 1241
7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, 1242 showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, 1243 and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.
8. And not only he, but also Irenæus and the whole company of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon All-virtuous Wisdom. 1244 And when speaking of the books called Apocrypha, he records that some of them were composed in his day by certain heretics. But let us now pass on to another.
Footnotes
198:1227The five books of Hegesippus, ὑπομνήματα or Memoirs, are unfortunately lost; but a few fragments are preserved by Eusebius, and one by Photius, which have been collected by Routh, Rel. Sac. I. 205–219, and by Grabe, Spicilegium, II. 203–214. This work has procured for him from some sources the title of the “Father of Church History,” but the title is misplaced, for the work appears to have been nothing more than a collection of reminiscences covering the apostolic and post-apostolic ages, and drawn partly from written, partly from oral sources, and in part from his own observation, and quite without chronological order and historical completeness. We know of no other works of his. Of Hegesippus himself we know very little. He apparently wrote his work during the episcopate of Eleutherus (175–189 a.d.), for he does not name his successor. How old he was at that time we do not know, but he was very likely a man past middle life, and hence was probably born early in the second century. With this, his own statement in the passage quoted by Eusebius, in chap. 8, that the deification of Antinoüs took place in his own day is quite consistent. The words of Jerome (de vir. ill. 22), who calls him a vicinus apostolicorum temporum, are too indefinite to give us any light, even if they rest upon any authority, as they probably do not. The journey which is mentioned in this chapter shows that his home must have been somewhere in the East, and there is no reason to doubt that he was a Hebrew Christian (see below, note 16).
198:1228Of this Primus we know only what Hegesippus tells us here. We do not know the exact date of his episcopate, but it must have been at least in part synchronous with the episcopate of Pius of Rome (see chap. 11, note 14), for it was while Hegesippus was on his way to Rome that he saw Primus; and since he remained in Rome until the accession of Anicetus he must have arrived there while Pius, Anicetus’ predecessor, was bishop, for having gone to Rome on a visit, he can hardly have remained there a number of years.
198:1229The interpretation of this sentence is greatly disputed. The Greek reads in all the mss. γενόμενος δὲ ἐν ῾Ρώμῃ διαδοχὴν ἐποιησ€μν μέχρις ᾽Ανικήτου, and this reading is confirmed by the Syriac version (according to Lightfoot). If these words be accepted as authentic, the only possible rendering seems to be the one which has been adopted by many scholars: “Being in Rome, I composed a catalogue of bishops down to Anicetus.” This rendering is adopted also by Lightfoot, who holds that the list of Hegesippus is reproduced by Epiphanius in his Panarium XXVII. 6 (see his essay in The Academy, May 27, 1887, where this theory is broached, and compare the writer’s notice of it in Harnack’s Theol. Lit. Zeitung 1887, No. 18). But against this rendering it must be said, first, that it is very difficult to translate the words διαδοχὴν ἐποιησ€μην, “I composed a catalogue of bishops,” for διαδοχή nowhere else, so far as I am aware, means “catalogue,” and nowhere else does the expression διαδοχὴν ποιεῖσθαι occur. Just below, the same word signifies “succession,” and this is its common meaning. Certainly, if Hegesippus wished to say that he had composed a catalogue of bishops, he could not have expressed himself more obscurely. In the second place, if Hegesippus had really composed a catalogue of bishops and referred to it here, how does it happen that Eusebius, who is so concerned to ascertain the succession of bishops in all the leading sees nowhere gives that catalogue, and nowhere even refers to it. He does give Irenæus’ catalogue of the Roman bishops in Bk. V. chap. 6, but gives no hint there that he knows anything of a similar list composed by Hegesippus. In fact, it is very difficult to think that Hegesippus, in this passage, can have meant to say that he had composed a catalogue of bishops, and it is practically impossible to believe that Eusebius can have understood him to mean that. But the words διαδοχήν ἐποιησ€μην, if they can be made to mean anything at all, can certainly be made to mean nothing else than the composition of a catalogue, and hence it seems necessary to make some correction in the text. It is significant that Rufinus at this point reads permansi ibi, which shows that he at least did not understand Hegesippus to be speaking of a list of bishops. Rufinus’ rendering gives us a hint of what must have stood in the original from which he drew, and so Savilius, upon the margin of his ms., substituted for διαδοχὴν the word διατριβήν, probably simply as a conjecture, but possibly upon the authority of some other ms. now lost. He has been followed by some editors, including Heinichen, who prints the word διατριβήν in the text. Val. retains διαδοχὴν in his text, but accepts διατριβήν as the true reading, and so translates. This reading is now very widely adopted; and it, or some other word with the same meaning, in all probability stood in the original text. In my notice of Lightfoot’s article, I suggested the word διαγωγήν, which, while not so common as διατριβήν, is yet used with ποιεῖσθαι in the same sense, and its very uncommonness would account more easily for the change to the much commoner διαδοχὴν, which is epigraphically so like it.
The word μέχρι is incorrectly translated apud by Valesius, who reads, mansi apud Anicetum. He is followed by Crusè, who translates “I made my stay with Anicetus”; but μέχρι can mean only “until.” Hegesippus therefore, according to his own statement, came to Rome before the accession of Anicetus and remained there until the latter became bishop. See chap. 11, note 19, for the relation of this statement to that of Eusebius.
For particulars in regard to Anicetus, see chap. 11, note 18; on Soter, see chap. 19, note 2, and on Eleutherus, Bk. V. Preface, note 2.
199:1230See Bk. III. chap. 11, note 4.
199:1231Διὰ τοῦτο. Valesius proposes to read μέχρι τούτου, which certainly makes better sense and which finds some support in the statement made by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 32, §7. But all the mss. have διὰ τοῦτο, and, as Stroth remarks, the illogical use of “therefore” at this point need not greatly surprise us in view of the general looseness of Hegesippus’ style. The phrase is perhaps used proleptically, with a reference to what follows.
199:1232Of Thebuthis we know only what is told us here. The statement that he became a heretic because he was not chosen bishop has about as much foundation as most reports of the kind. It was quite common for the Fathers to trace back the origin of schisms to this cause (compare e.g. Tertullian’s Adv. Val. 4, and De Bapt. 17).
199:1233The seven sects are mentioned by Hegesippus just below. Harnack maintains that Hegesippus in his treatment of heresies used two sources, one of them being the lost Syntagma of Justin (see his Quellenkritik des Gnosticismus, p. 37 sqq.). Lipsius, who in his Quellen der Ketzergesch. combats many of Harnack’s positions, thinks it possible that Hegesippus may have had Justin’s Syntagma before him.
199:1234Simon Magus (see Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3).
199:1235Cleobius is occasionally mentioned as a heretic by ecclesiastical writers, but none of them seems to know anything more about him than is told here by Hegesippus (see the article Cleobius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).
199:1236Trustworthy information in regard to Dositheus is very scanty, but it is probable that he was one of the numerous Samaritan false messiahs, and lived at about the time of, or possibly before, Christ. “It seems likely that the Dositheans were a Jewish or Samaritan ascetic sect, something akin to the Essenes, existing from before our Lord’s time, and that the stories connecting their founder with Simon Magus and with John the Baptist [see the Clementine Recognitions, II. 8 and Homilies, II. 24], may be dismissed as merely mythical” (Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. art. Dositheus).
199:1237Epiphanius and Theodoret also mention the Goratheni, but apparently knew no more about them than Hegesippus tells us here, Epiphanius classing them among the Samaritans, and Theodoret deriving them from Simon Magus.
199:1238The name Masbotheus is supported by no ms. authority, but is given by Rufinus and by Nicephorus, and is adopted by most editors. The majority of the mss. read simply Μασβωθαῖοι or Μασβώθεοι. Just below, Hegesippus gives the Masbotheans as one of the seven Jewish sects, while here he says they were derived from them. This contradiction Harnack explains by Hegesippus’ use of two different sources, an unknown oral or written one, and Justin’s Syntagma. The list of heresies given here he maintains stood in Justin’s Syntagma, but the derivation of them from the seven Jewish sects cannot have been Justin’s work, nor can the list of the seven sects have been made by Justin, for he gives quite a different list in his Dialogue, chap. 80. Lipsius, p. 25, thinks the repetition of the “Masbotheans” is more easily explained as a mere oversight or accident. The Apostolic Const. VI. 6 name the Masbotheans among Jewish sects, describing them as follows: “The Basmotheans, who deny providence, and say that the world is ruled by spontaneous motion, and take away the immortality of the soul.” From what source this description was taken we do not know, and cannot decide as to its reliability. Salmon (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) remarks that “our real knowledge is limited to the occurrence of the name in Hegesippus, and there is no reason to think that any of these who have undertaken to explain it knew any more about the matter than ourselves.”
199:1239On Menander and the Menandrianists, see Bk. II. chap. 26; on the Carpocratians, chap. 7, note 17; on the Valentinians, see chap. 11, note 1; on the Basilidæans, chap. 7, note 7; on the Saturnilians, chap. 7, note 6.
199:1240There is some dispute about this word. The Greek is Μαρκιανισταί, which Harnack regards as equivalent to Μαρκιωνισταί, or “followers of Marcion,” but which Lipsius takes to mean “followers of Marcus.” The latter is clearly epigraphically more correct, but the reasons for reading in this place Marcionites, or followers of Marcion, are strong enough to outweigh other considerations (see Harnack, p. 31 ff. and Lipsius, p. 29 ff.).
200:1241These are the seven Jewish heresies mentioned above by Hegesippus. Justin (Dial. chap. 80) and Epiphanius (Anaceph.) also name seven Jewish sects, but they are not the same as those mentioned here (those of Justin: Sadducees, Genistæ, Meristæ, Galileans, Hellenianians, Pharisees, Baptists). Epiphanius (Vol. I. p. 230, Dindorf’s ed.,—Samaritan sects 4: Gorothenes, Σεβουαῖοι, Essenes, Dositheans; Jewish 7: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Hemerobaptists, ᾽Οσσαῖοι, Nazarenes, Herodians). See Jess, in the Zeitschr. für hist. Theol. 1865, p. 45. sq.
200:1242The exact meaning of this sentence is very difficult to determine. The Greek reads: žκ τε τοῦ καθ᾽ ᾽Εβραίους εὐαγγελίου καὶ τοῦ Συριακοῦ καὶ ἰδίως ἐκ τῆς ῾Εβραΐδος διαλέκτου τινὰ τίθησιν. It is grammatically necessary to supply εὐαγγελίου after Συριακοῦ, and this gives us a Syriac gospel in addition to the Hebrew. Some have concluded that Tatian’s Diatessaron is meant by it, but this will not do; for, as Handmann remarks, the fact that Hegesippus quotes from the work or works referred to is cited as evidence that he was a Hebrew. Hilgenfeld supposes that the Chaldæo syroque scriptum evangelium secundum Hebræos, which Jerome mentions, is referred to, and that the first-named εὐαγγέλιον καθ᾽ ῾Εβραίους is a Greek translation, while the τὸ Συριακόν represents the original; so that Hegesippus is said to have used both the original and the translation. Eusebius, however, could not have made the discovery that he used both, unless the original and the translation differed in their contents, of which we have no hint, and which in itself is quite improbable. As the Greek reads, however, there is no other explanation possible, unless the τὸ Συριακὸν εὐαγγέλιον be taken to represent some other unknown Hebrew gospel, in which case the following clause refers to the citations from both of the gospels. That such a gospel existed, however, and was referred to by Eusebius so casually, as if it were a well-known work, is not conceivable. The only resource left, so far as the writer can discover, is to amend the text, with Eichhorn, Nicholson, and Handmann, by striking out the first καί. The τοῦ Συριακοῦ then becomes a description of the εὐαγγέλιον καθ᾽ ῾Εβραίους, “The Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews.” By the Syriac we are to understand, of course, the vulgar dialect, which had before the time of Christ taken the place of the Hebrew, and which is ordinarily called Aramaic. Eusebius then, on this interpretation, first qualifies the Gospel of the Hebrews more exactly, and then adds that Hegesippus quotes from the Hebrew original of it (ἐκ τῆς ῾Εβραΐδος διαλέκτου), and not from a translation; e.g. from the Greek translation, which we know existed early. There is, to be sure, no ms. authority for the alteration of the text, and yet the sense of the passage seems to demand it, and I have consequently omitted the καί in my translation. Upon the interpretation of the passage, see Handmann’s Hebräer-Evangelium, p. 32 ff., and upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 25, note 24, and chap. 27, note 8.
200:1243Eusebius had abundant opportunity to learn from Hegesippus’ works whether or not he was a Hebrew Christian, and hence we cannot doubt that his conclusion in regard to Hegesippus’ nationality (whether based merely upon the premises given here, or partly upon other facts unknown to us) is correct. His nationality explains the fact that he deduces the Christian heresies from Jewish, and not, like other writers, from heathen roots. There is, however, no reason, with Baur and others, to suppose that Hegesippus was a Judaizer. In fact, Eusebius’ respectful treatment of him is in itself conclusive proof that his writings cannot have revealed heretical notions.
200:1244This phrase (παν€ρετος σοφία) was very frequently employed among the Fathers as a title of the Book of Proverbs. Clement of Rome (1 Cor. lvii.) is, so far as I know, the first so to use it. The word παν€ρετος is applied also to the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon, by Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. §4) and others. Among the Fathers the Book of Sirach, the Solomonic Apocrypha, and the Book of Proverbs all bore the common title σοφία, “Wisdom,” which well defines the character of each of them; and this simple title is commoner than the compound phrase which occurs in this passage (cf. e.g. Justin Martyr’s Dial. c. 129, and Melito, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 26, below). For further particulars, see especially Lightfoot’s edition of the epistles of Clement of Rome, p. 164.
Chapter XXIII.—Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, and the Epistles which he wrote. 1245
1. And first we must speak of Dionysius, who was appointed bishop of the church in Corinth, and communicated freely of his inspired labors not only to his own people, but also to those in foreign lands, and rendered the greatest service to all in the catholic epistles which he wrote to the churches.
2. Among these is the one addressed to the Lacedæmonians, 1246 containing instruction in the orthodox faith and an admonition to peace and unity; the one also addressed to the Athenians, exciting them to faith and to the life prescribed by the Gospel, which he accuses them of esteeming lightly, as if they had almost apostatized from the faith since the martyrdom of their ruler Publius, 1247 which had taken place during the persecutions of those days.
3. He mentions Quadratus 1248 also, stating that he was appointed their bishop after the martyrdom of Publius, and testifying that through his zeal they were brought together again and their faith revived. He records, moreover, that Dionysius the Areopagite, 1249 who was converted to the faith by the apostle Paul, according to the statement in the Acts of the Apostles, 1250 first obtained the episcopate of the church at Athens.
4. And there is extant another epistle of his addressed to the Nicomedians, 1251 in which he attacks the heresy of Marcion, and stands fast by the canon of the truth.
5. Writing also to the church that is in Gortyna, 1252 together with the other parishes in Crete, he commends their bishop Philip, 1253 because of the many acts of fortitude which are testified to as performed by the church under him, and he warns them to be on their guard against the aberrations of the heretics.
6. And writing to the church that is in Amastris, 1254 together with those in Pontus, he refers to Bacchylides 1255 and Elpistus, as having urged him to write, and he adds explanations of passages of the divine Scriptures, and mentions their bishop Palmas 1256 by name. He gives them much advice also in regard to marriage and chastity, and commands them to receive those who come back again after any fall, whether it be delinquency or heresy. 1257
7. Among these is inserted also another epistle addressed to the Cnosians, 1258 in which he exhorts Pinytus, bishop of the parish, not to lay upon the brethren a grievous and compulsory burden in regard to chastity, but to have regard to the weakness of the multitude.
8. Pinytus, replying to this epistle, admires and commends Dionysius, but exhorts him in turn to impart some time more solid food, and to feed the people under him, when he wrote again, with more advanced teaching, that they might not be fed continually on these milky doctrines and imperceptibly grow old under a training calculated for children. In this epistle also Pinytus’ orthodoxy in the faith and his care for the welfare of those placed under him, his learning and his comprehension of divine things, are revealed as in a most perfect image.
9. There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, 1259 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:
10. “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.”
11. In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, 1260 showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: “To-day 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.”
12. 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. 1261 For them a woe is reserved. 1262 It is, therefore, not to be wondered at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord’s writings also, 1263 since they have formed designs even against writings which are of less account.” 1264
There is extant, in addition to these, another epistle of Dionysius, written to Chrysophora, 1265 a most faithful sister. In it he writes what is suitable, and imparts to her also the proper spiritual food. So much concerning Dionysius.
Footnotes
200:1245Eusebius speaks, in this chapter, of seven Catholic epistles, and of one addressed to an individual. None of these epistles are now extant, though Eusebius here, and in Bk. II. chap. 25, gives us four brief but interesting fragments from the Epistle to the Romans. We know of the other epistles only what Eusebius tells us in this chapter. That Dionysius was held in high esteem as a writer of epistles to the churches is clear, not only from Eusebius’ statement, but also from the fact that heretics thought it worth while to circulate interpolated and mutilated copies of them, as stated below. The fact that he wrote epistles to churches so widely scattered shows that he possessed an extended reputation.
Of Dionysius himself (who is, without foundation, called a martyr by the Greek Church, and a confessor by the Latin Church) we know only what we are told by Eusebius, for Jerome (de vir ill. 27) adds nothing to the account given in this chapter. In his Chron. Eusebius mentions Dionysius in connection with the eleventh year of Marcus Aurelius. According to Eusebius’ statement in this same chapter, Dionysius’ Epistle to the Romans was addressed to the bishop Soter, and as Eusebius had the epistle before him, there is no reason for doubting his report. Soter was bishop from about 167 to 175 (see above, chap. 19, note 4), and therefore the statements of the Chron. and the History are in accord. When Dionysius died we do not know, but he was no longer living in 199, for Bacchylus was bishop of Corinth at that time (see Bk. V. chap. 22). It is commonly said that Dionysius was the immediate successor of Primus, bishop of Corinth. This may be true, but we have no ground for the assumption. We know only that Primus’ episcopate was synchronous, at least in part, with that of Pius of Rome (see the previous chapter, note 2), who was bishop from about 139 or 141 to 154 or 156, and that Dionysius’ episcopate was synchronous at least an part with that of Soter of Rome (about 167 to 175).
200:1246This is, so far as I am aware, the earliest mention of a church at Lacedæmon or Sparta. The bishop of Sparta is mentioned in the synodical letter of the province of Hellas to the emperor Leo (457–477 a.d.), and also still later in the Acts of the Sixth and Eighth General Synods, according to Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics of the Church (London ed. p. 134 and 466).
200:1247Of this Publius we know only what Eusebius tells us here. What particular persecution is referred to we cannot tell, but Publius’ martyrdom seems to have occurred in the reign of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius; for he was the immediate predecessor of Quadratus, who was apparently bishop at the time Dionysius was writing.
200:1248We know nothing more about this Quadratus, for he is to be distinguished from the prophet and from the apologist (see chap. 3, note 2). Eusebius’ words seem to imply that he was bishop at the time Dionysius was writing.
200:1249On Dionysius the Areopagite, see Bk. III. chap. 4, note 20.
201:1250See Acts xvii. 34.
201:1251The extent of Dionysius’ influence is shown by his writing an epistle to so distant a church as that of Nicomedia in Bithynia, and also to the churches of Pontus (see below). The fact that he considers it necessary to attack Marcionism in this epistle to the Nicomedians is an indication of the wide and rapid spread of that sect,—which indeed is known to us from many sources.
201:1252Gortyna was an important city in Crete, which was early the seat of a bishop. Tradition, indeed, makes Titus the first bishop of the church there.
201:1253Of this Philip, bishop of Gortyna, and a contemporary of Dionysius, we know only what Eusebius tells us here and in chap. 25.
201:1254Amastris was a city of Pontus, which is here mentioned for the first time as the seat of a Christian church. Its bishop is referred to frequently in the Acts of Councils during the next few centuries (see also note 12, below).
201:1255This Bacchylides is perhaps identical with the Bacchylus who was afterward bishop of Corinth (Bk. V. chap. 22). Elpistus is an otherwise unknown personage.
201:1256This Palmas, bishop of Amastris in Pontus, presided as senior bishop over a council of the bishops of Pontus held toward the close of the century on the paschal question (see Bk. V. chap. 23). Nothing more is known of him.
201:1257It is quite likely, as Salmon suggests (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.), that Dionysius, who wrote against Marcion in this epistle to the Nicomedians, also had Marcionism in view in writing on life and discipline to the churches of Pontus and Crete. It was probably in consequence of reaction against their strict discipline that he advocated the readmission to the Church of excommunicated offenders, in this anticipating the later practice of the Roman church, which was introduced by Callixtus and soon afterward became general, though not without bitter opposition from many quarters. Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, p. 332, note 4) throws doubt upon the correctness of this report of Eusebius; but such doubt is unwarranted, for Eusebius had Dionysius’ epistle before him, and the position which he represents him as taking is quite in accord with the mildness which he recommends to Pinytus, and is therefore just what we should expect. The fact that Callixtus’ principle is looked upon by Tertullian and Hippolytus as an innovation does not militate at all against the possibility that Dionysius in Corinth, or other individuals in other minor churches, held the same principles some time before.
201:1258Cnossus, or Cnosus, was the capital city of Crete.
This epistle is no longer extant, nor do we know anything about Pinytus himself except what is told us here and in chap. 21, above, where he is mentioned among the ecclesiastical writers of the day. Jerome (de vir. ill. 28) only repeats what Eusebius says, and Rufinus, in stating that Pinytus was convinced by the epistle of Dionysius and changed his course, seems simply to have misunderstood what Eusebius says about his admiration for and praise of Dionysius. It is evident from the tone of his reply that Pinytus was not led by Dionysius’ epistle to agree with him.
201:1259On Soter, see chap. 19, note 2.
This practice of the Roman church combined with other causes to secure it that position of influence and prominence which resulted in the primacy of its bishop, and finally in the papacy. The position of the Roman church, as well as its prosperity and numerical strength, gave it early a feeling that it was called upon in an especial way to exercise oversight and to care for weaker sister churches, and thus its own good offices helped to promote its influence and its power.
201:1260On Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, see Bk. III. chap. 16.
201:1261See above, note 1.
201:1262Compare Rev. xxii. 18.
202:1263A probable, though not exclusive, reference to Marcion, for he was by no means the only one of that age that interpolated and mutilated the works of the apostles to fit his theories. Apostolic works—true and false—circulated in great numbers, and were made the basis for the speculations and moral requirements of many of the heretical schools of the second century.
202:1264οὐ τοιαύταις
202:1265Chrysophora is an otherwise unknown person.
Chapter XXIV.—Theophilus Bishop of Antioch.
1. Of Theophilus, 1266 whom we have mentioned as bishop of the church of Antioch, 1267 three elementary works addressed to Autolycus are extant; also another writing entitled Against the Heresy of Hermogenes, 1268 in which he makes use of testimonies from the Apocalypse of John, and finally certain other catechetical books. 1269
2. And as the heretics, no less then than at other times, were like tares, destroying the pure harvest of apostolic teaching, the pastors of the churches everywhere hastened to restrain them as wild beasts from the fold of Christ, at one time by admonitions and exhortations to the brethren, at another time by contending more openly against them in oral discussions and refutations, and again by correcting their opinions with most accurate proofs in written works.
3. And that Theophilus also, with the others, contended against them, is manifest from a certain discourse of no common merit written by him against Marcion. 1270 This work too, with the others of which we have spoken, has been preserved to the present day.
Maximinus, 1271 the seventh from the apostles, succeeded him as bishop of the church of Antioch.
Footnotes
202:1266Eusebius is the only Eastern writer of the early centuries to mention Theophilus and his writings. Among the Latin Fathers, Lactantius and Gennadius refer to his work, ad Autolycum; and Jerome devotes chap. 25 of his de vir. ill. to him. Beyond this there is no direct mention of Theophilus, or of his works, during the early centuries (except that of Malalas, which will be referred to below). Eusebius here calls Theophilus bishop of Antioch, and in chap. 20 makes him the sixth bishop, as does also Jerome in his de vir. ill. chap. 25. But in his epistle, ad Algas. (Migne, Ep. 121), Jerome calls him the seventh bishop of Antioch, beginning his reckoning with the apostle Peter. Eusebius, in his Chron., puts the accession of Theophilus into the ninth year of Marcus Aurelius (169); and this may be at least approximately correct. The accession of his successor Maximus is put into the seventeenth year (177); but this date is at least four years too early, for his work, ad Autolycum, quotes from a work in which the death of Marcus Aurelius (who died in 180) was mentioned, and hence cannot have been written before 181 or 182. We know that his successor, Maximus, became bishop sometime between 189 and 192, and hence Theophilus died between 181 and that time. We have only Eusebius’ words (Jerome simply repeats Eusebius’ statement) for the fact that Theophilus was bishop of Antioch (his extant works do not mention the fact, nor do those who quote from his writings), but there is no good ground for doubting the truth of the report. We know nothing more about his life.
In addition to the works mentioned in this chapter, Jerome (de vir. ill.) refers to Commentaries upon the Gospel and the book of Proverbs, in the following words: Legi sub nomine ejus in Evangelium et in Proverbia Salomonis Commentarios qui mihi cum superiorum voluminum elegantia et phrasi non videntur congruere. The commentary upon the Gospel is referred to by Jerome again in the preface to his own commentary on Matthew; and in his epistle, ad Algasiam, he speaks of a harmony of the four Gospels, by Theophilus (qui quatuor Evangelistarum in unum opus dicta compingens), which may have been identical with the commentary, or may have formed a basis for it. This commentary is mentioned by none of the Fathers before or after Jerome; and Jerome himself expresses doubts as to its genuineness, or at least he does not think that its style compares with that of the other works ascribed to Theophilus. Whether the commentary was genuine or not we have no means of deciding, for it is no longer extant. There is in existence a Latin commentary on the Gospels in four books, which bears the name of Theophilus, and is published in Otto’s Corpus Apol. Vol. VIII. p. 278–324. This was universally regarded as a spurious work until Zahn, in 1883 (in his Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. Canons, Theil II.) made an elaborate effort to prove it a genuine work of Theophilus of Antioch. Harnack, however, in his Texte und Unters. I. 4, p. 97–175, has shown conclusively that Zahn is mistaken, and that the extant commentary is nothing better than a Post-Nicene compilation from the works of various Latin Fathers. Zahn, in his reply to Harnack (Forschungen, Theil III. Beilage 3), still maintains that the Commentary is a genuine work of Theophilus, with large interpolations, but there is no adequate ground for such a theory; and it has found few, if any, supporters. We must conclude, then, that if Theophilus did write such a commentary, it is no longer extant.
The three books addressed to Autolycus (a heathen friend otherwise unknown to us) are still extant in three Mediæval mss. and have been frequently published both in the original and in translation. The best edition of the original is that of Otto (Corp. Apol. Vol. VIII.); English translation by Dods, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. p. 85–121. The work is an apology, designed to exhibit the falsehood of idolatry and the truth of Christianity. The author was a learned writer, well acquainted with Greek philosophy; and his literary style is of a high order. He acknowledges no good in the Greek philosophers, except what they have taken from the Old Testament writers. The genuineness of the work has been attacked, but without sufficient reason.
From Book II. chap. 30 of his ad Autol. we learn that Theophilus had written also a work On History. No such work is extant, nor is it mentioned by Eusebius or any other Father. Malalas, however, cites a number of times “The chronologist Theophilus,” and it is possible that he used this lost historical work. It is possible, on the other hand, that he refers to some other unknown Theophilus (see Harnack, Texte und Unters. I. 1, p. 291).
202:1267In chap. 20, above.
202:1268This work against Hermogenes is no longer extant. Harnack (p. 294 ff.) gives strong grounds for supposing that it was the common source from which Tertullian, in his work ad Hermogenem, Hippolytus, in his Phil. VIII. 10 and X. 24, and Clement of Alexandria, in his Proph. Selections, 56, all drew. If this be true, as seems probable, the Hermogenes attacked by these various writers is one man, and his chief heresy, as we learn from Tertullian and Hippolytus, was that God did not create the world out of nothing, but only formed it out of matter which, like himself, was eternally existent.
202:1269These catechetical works (τινα κατηχητικὰ βιβλία), which were extant in the time of Eusebius, are now lost. They are mentioned by none of the Fathers except Jerome, who speaks of alii breves elegantesque tractatus ad ædificationem Ecclesiæ pertinentes as extant in his time. We know nothing more of their nature than is thus told us by Jerome.
202:1270This work, which is also now lost, is mentioned by no other Father except Jerome, who puts it first in his list of Theophilus’ writings, but does not characterize it in any way, though he says it was extant in his time. Irenæus, in four passages of his great work, exhibits striking parallels to Bk. II. chap. 25 of Theophilus’ ad Autol., which have led to the assumption that he knew the latter work. Harnack, however, on account of the shortness of time which elapsed between the composition of the ad Autol. and Irenæus’ work, and also on account of the nature of the resemblances between the parallel passages, thinks it improbable that Irenæus used the ad Autol., and concludes that he was acquainted rather with Theophilus’ work against Marcion, a conclusion which accords best with the facts known to us.
202:1271Here, and in Bk. V. chap. 19, §1, Eusebius gives this bishop’s name as Maximinus. In the Chron. we find Μ€ξιμος, and in Jerome’s version Maximus, though one ms. of the latter gives Maximinus. According to the Chron. he became bishop in 177, and was succeeded by Serapion in 190. As remarked in note 1, above, the former date is incorrect, for Theophilus must have lived at least as late as 181 or 182. We cannot reach certainty in regard to the date either of his accession or of his death; but if Eusebius’ statement (in Bk. V. chap. 19), that Serapion was bishop while Commodus was still emperor, is to be believed (see further, Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1), Maximinus must have died at least as early as 192, which gives us for his episcopate some part of the period from 181 to 192. We know no particulars in regard to the life of Maximinus.
Chapter XXV.—Philip and Modestus.
Philip who, as we learn from the words of Dionysius, 1272 was bishop of the parish of Gortyna, likewise wrote a most elaborate work against Marcion, 1273 as did also Irenæus 1274 and Modestus. 1275 The last named has exposed the error of the man more clearly than the rest to the view of all. There are a number of others also whose works are still presented by a great many of the brethren.
Footnotes
203:1272See above, chap. 23, §5.
203:1273Philip’s work against Marcion which Eusebius mentions here is no longer extant, and, so far as the writer knows, is mentioned by no other Father except Jerome (de vir. ill. 30), who tells us only what Eusebius records here, using, however, the adjective præclarum for Eusebius’ σπουδαιότατον
203:1274On Irenæus, see above, chap. 21, note 9.
203:1275Modestus, also, is a writer known to us only from Eusebius (here, and in chap. 21) and from Jerome (de vir. ill. 32). According to the latter, the work against Marcion was still extant in his day, but he gives us no description of it. He adds, however, that a number of spurious works ascribed to Modestus were in circulation at that time (Feruntur sub nomine ejus et alia syntagmata, sed ab eruditis quasi ψευδόγραφα repudiantur). Neither these nor the genuine works are now extant, so far as we know.
Chapter XXVI.—Melito and the Circumstances which he records.
1. In those days also Melito, 1276 bishop of the parish in Sardis, and Apolinarius, 1277 bishop of Hierapolis, enjoyed great distinction. Each of them on his own part addressed apologies in behalf of the faith to the above-mentioned emperor 1278 of the Romans who was reigning at that time.
2. The following works of these writers have come to our knowledge. Of Melito, 1279 the two books On the Passover, 1280 and one On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets, 1281 the discourse On the Church, 1282 and one On the Lord’s Day, 1283 still further one On the Faith of Man, 1284 and one On his Creation, 1285 another also On the Obedience of Faith, and one On the Senses; 1286 besides these the work On the Soul and Body, 1287 and that On Baptism, 1288 and the one On Truth, 1289 and On the Creation and Generation of Christ; 1290 his discourse also On Prophecy, 1291 and that On Hospitality; 1292 still further, The Key, 1293 and the books On the Devil and the Apocalypse of John, 1294 and the work On the Corporeality of God, 1295 and finally the book addressed to Antoninus. 1296
3. In the books On the Passover he indicates the time at which he wrote, beginning with these words: “While Servilius Paulus was proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there arose in Laodicea a great strife concerning the Passover, which fell according to rule in those days; and these were written.” 1297
4. And Clement of Alexandria refers to this work in his own discourse On the Passover, 1298 which, he says, he wrote on occasion of Melito’s work.
5. But in his book addressed to the emperor he records that the following events happened to us under him: “For, what never before happened, 1299 the race of the pious is now suffering persecution, being driven about in Asia by new decrees. For the shameless informers and coveters of the property of others, taking occasion from the decrees, openly carry on robbery night and day, despoiling those who are guilty of no wrong.” And a little further on he says: “If these things are done by thy command, well and good. For a just ruler will never take unjust measures; and we indeed gladly accept the honor of such a death.
6. But this request alone we present to thee, that thou wouldst thyself first examine the authors of such strife, and justly judge whether they be worthy of death and punishment, or of safety and quiet. But if, on the other hand, this counsel and this new decree, which is not fit to be executed even against barbarian enemies, be not from thee, much more do we beseech thee not to leave us exposed to such lawless plundering by the populace.”
7. Again he adds the following: 1300 “For our philosophy formerly flourished among the Barbarians; but having sprung up among the nations under thy rule, during the great reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it became to thine empire especially a blessing of auspicious omen. For from that time the power of the Romans has grown in greatness and splendor. To this power thou hast succeeded, as the desired possessor, 1301 and such shalt thou continue with thy son, if thou guardest the philosophy which grew up with the empire and which came into existence with Augustus; that philosophy which thy ancestors also honored along with the other religions.
8. And a most convincing proof that our doctrine flourished for the good of an empire happily begun, is this—that there has no evil happened since Augustus’ reign, but that, on the contrary, all things have been splendid and glorious, in accordance with the prayers of all.
9. Nero and Domitian, alone, persuaded by certain calumniators, have wished to slander our doctrine, and from them it has come to pass that the falsehood 1302 has been handed down, in consequence of an unreasonable practice which prevails of bringing slanderous accusations against the Christians. 1303
10. But thy pious fathers corrected their ignorance, having frequently rebuked in writing 1304 many who dared to attempt new measures against them. Among them thy grandfather Adrian appears to have written to many others, and also to Fundanus, 1305 the proconsul and governor of Asia. And thy father, when thou also wast ruling with him, wrote to the cities, forbidding them to take any new measures against us; among the rest to the Larissæans, to the Thessalonians, to the Athenians, and to all the Greeks. 1306
11. And as for thee,—since thy opinions respecting the Christians 1307 are the same as theirs, and indeed much more benevolent and philosophic,—we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask of thee.” These words are found in the above-mentioned work.
12. But in the Extracts 1308 made by him the same writer gives at the beginning of the introduction a catalogue of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He writes as follows:
13. “Melito to his brother Onesimus, 1309 greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation.
14. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, 1310 Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, 1311 the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, 1312 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book 1313 ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. 1314 From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.” Such are the words of Melito.
Footnotes
203:1276The first extant notice of Melito, bishop of Sardis, is found in the letter addressed by Polycrates to Bishop Victor of Rome (c. 190–202 a.d.) in support of the Quartodeciman practice of the Asia Minor churches. A fragment of this letter is given by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 24, and from it we learn that Melito also favored the Quartodeciman practice, that he was a man whose walk and conversation were altogether under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and that he was buried at Sardis. Polycrates in this fragment calls Melito a eunuch. Whether the word is to be understood in its literal sense or is to be taken as meaning simply that Melito lived in “virgin continence” is disputed. In favor of the latter interpretation may be urged the fact that the Greek word and its Latin equivalent were very commonly used by the Fathers in this figurative sense, e.g. by Athenagoras, by Tertullian, by Clement of Alexandria, by Cassianus (whose work on continence bore the title περὶ ἐγκρατείας, ἢ περὶ εὐνουχίας), by Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gregory Nazianzen, &c. (see Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog., article Melito, and Suicer’s Thesaurus). On the other hand, such continence cannot have been a rare thing in Asia Minor in the time of Polycrates, and the fact that Melito is called specifically “the eunuch” looks peculiar if nothing more than that is meant by it. The case of Origen, who made himself a eunuch for the sake of preserving his chastity, at once occurs to us in this connection (see Renan, L’eglise chret. p. 436, and compare Justin Martyr’s Apol. I. 29). The canonical rule that no such eunuch could hold clerical office came later, and hence the fact that Melito was a bishop cannot be urged against the literal interpretation of the word here. Polycrates’ meaning hardly admits of an absolute decision, but at least it cannot be looked upon as it is by most historians as certain that he uses the word here in its figurative sense.
Polycrates says nothing of the fact that Melito was a writer, but we learn from this chapter (§4), and from Bk. VI. chap. 13, that Clement of Alexandria, in a lost work, mentioned his writings and even wrote a work in reply to one of his (see below, note 23). According to the present chapter he was a very prolific writer, and that he was a man of marked talent is clear from Jerome’s words in his de vir. ill. chap. 24 (where he refers to Tertullian’s lost work, de Ecstasi): Hujus [i.e. Melitonis] elegans et declamatorium ingenium Tertullianus in septem libris, quos scripsit adversus ecclesiam pro Montano, cavillatur, dicens eum a plerisque nostrorum prophetam putari. In spite of the fact that Tertullian satirized Melito’s talent, he nevertheless was greatly influenced by his writings and owed much to them (see the points of contact between the two men given by Harnack, p. 250 sqq.). The statement that he was regarded by many as a prophet accords well with Polycrates’ description of him referred to above. The indications all point to the fact that Melito was decidedly ascetic in his tendencies, and that he had a great deal in common with the spirit which gave rise to Montanism and even made Tertullian a Montanist, and yet at the same time he opposed Montanism, and is therefore spoken of slightingly by Tertullian. His position, so similar to that of the Montanists, was not in favor with the orthodox theologians of the third century, and this helps to explain why, although he was such a prolific and talented writer, and although he remained orthodox, he nevertheless passed almost entirely out of the memory of the Church of the third and following centuries. To this is to be added the fact that Melito was a chiliast; and the teachings of the Montanists brought such disrepute upon chiliasm that the Fathers of the third and following centuries did not show much fondness for those who held or had held these views. Very few notices of Melito’s works are found among the Fathers, and none of those works is to-day extant. Eusebius is the first to give us an idea of the number and variety of his writings, and he does little more than mention the titles, a fact to be explained only by his lack of sympathy with Melito’s views.
The time at which Melito lived is indicated with sufficient exactness by the fact that he wrote his Apology during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, but after the death of his brother Lucius, i.e. after 169 (see below, note 21); and that when Polycrates wrote his epistle to Victor of Rome, he had been dead already some years. It is possible (as held by Piper, Otto, and others) that his Apology was his last work, for Eusebius mentions it last in his list. At the same time, it is quite as possible that Eusebius enumerates Melito’s works simply in the order in which he found them arranged in the library of Cæsarea, where he had perhaps seen them. Of the dates of his episcopacy, and of his predecessors and successors in the see of Sardis, we know nothing.
In addition to the works mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius, who does not pretend to give a full list, we find in Anastasius Sinaita’s Hodegos seu dux viæ c. aceph. fragments from two other works entitled εἰς τὸ π€θος and περὶ σαρκώσεως χριστοῦ (the latter directed against Marcion), which cannot be identified with any mentioned by Eusebius (see Harnack, I. 1, p. 254). The Codex Nitriacus Musei Britannici 12,156 contains four fragments ascribed to Melito, of which the first belongs undoubtedly to his genuine work περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, which is mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius. The second purports to be taken from a work, περὶ σταυροῦ, of which we hear nowhere else, and which may or may not have been by Melito. The third fragment bears the title Melitonis episcopi de fide, and might be looked upon as an extract from the work περὶ πίστεως, mentioned by Eusebius (as Otto regards it); but the same fragment is four times ascribed to Irenæus by other early authorities, and an analysis of these authorities shows that the tradition in favor of Irenæus is stronger than that in favor of Melito, and so Harnack mentions a work, περὶ πίστεως, which is ascribed by Maximus Confessor to Irenæus, and from which the quotation may have been taken (see Harnack, ibid. p. 266 ff.). The fourth fragment was taken in all probability from Melito’s work, περὶ π€θους, mentioned by Anastasius. An Apology in Syriac, bearing the name of Melito, is extant in another of the Nitrian mss. in the British Museum (No. 14,658), and has been published with an English translation by Cureton, in his Spic. Syr. (p. 41–51). It has been proved, however, that this Apology (which we have entire) was not written by Melito, but probably by an inhabitant of Syria, in the latter part of the second, or early part of the third century,—whether originally in the Greek or Syriac language is uncertain (see Harnack, p. 261 ff., and Smith and Wace, Vol. III. p. 895). In addition to the genuine writings, there must be mentioned also some spurious works which are still extant. Two Latin works of the early Middle Ages, entitled de transitu Mariæ and de passione S. Joannis Evangelistæ, and also a Catena of the latter Middle Ages on the Apocalypse, and a Clavis Scripturæ of the Carlovingian period (see below, note 18), bear in some mss. the name of Melito. This fact shows that Melito’s name was not entirely forgotten in the Occidental Church of the Middle Ages, though little exact knowledge of him seems to have existed.
On Melito and his writings, see Piper’s article in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1838, p. 54–154; Salmon’s article in Smith and Wace, and especially Harnack’s Texte und Unters. I. 1, p. 240–278. The extant fragments of Melito’s writings are given in Routh’s Rel. Sac. I. 111–153, and in Otto’s Corp. Apol. IX. 374–478, and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII. p. 750–762.
203:1277On Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27.
203:1278Marcus Aurelius.
203:1279The following list of Melito’s works is at many points very uncertain, owing to the various readings of the mss. and versions. We have as authorities for the text, the Greek mss. of Eusebius, the History of Nicephorus, the translation of Rufinus, chap. 24 of Jerome’s de vir. ill., and the Syriac version of this passage of Eusebius’ History, which has been printed by Cureton, in his Spic. Syr. p. 56 ff.
203:1280The quotation from this work given by Eusebius in §7, perhaps enables us to fix approximately the date at which it was written. Rufinus reads Sergius Paulus, instead of Servilius Paulus, which is found in all the Greek mss. Sergius Paulus is known to have had his second consulship in 168, and it is inferred by Waddington that he was proconsul about 164 to 166 (see Fastes des provinces Asiatiques, chap. 2, §148). No Servilius Paulus is known in connection with the province of Asia, and hence it seems probable that Rufinus is correct; and if so, the work on the Passover was written early in the sixties. The fragment which Eusebius gives in this chapter is the only part of his work that is extant. It was undoubtedly in favor of the Quartodeciman practice, for Polycrates, who was a decided Quartodeciman, cites Melito in support of his position.
204:1281The exact reading at this point is disputed. I read, with a number of mss. τὸ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ προφητῶν, making but one work, On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets. Many mss. followed by Valesius, Heinichen, and Burton, read τὰ instead of τό, thus making either two works (one On the Conduct of Life, and the other On the Prophets), or one work containing more than one book. Rufinus translates de optima conversatione liber unus, sed et de prophetis, and the Syriac repeats the preposition, as if it read καὶ περὶ πολιτείας καὶ περὶ προφητῶν. It is not quite certain whether Rufinus and the Syriac thought of two works in translating thus, or of only one. Jerome translates, de vita prophetarum librum unum, and in accordance with this translation Otto proposes to read τῶν προφητῶν instead of καὶ προφητῶν. But this is supported by no ms. authority, and cannot be accepted.
No fragments of this work are extant.
204:1282ὁ περὶ ἐκκλησίας. Jerome, de ecclesia librum unum.
204:1283ὁ περὶ κυριακῆς λόγος. Jerome, de Die Dominica librum unum.
204:1284Valesius, Otto, Heinichen, and other editors, following the majority of the mss., read περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου, On the Nature of Man. Four important mss., however, read περὶ πίστεως ἀνθρώπου, and this reading is confirmed both by Rufinus and by the Syriac; whether by Jerome also, as claimed by Harnack, is uncertain, for he omits both this work and the one On the Obedience of Faith, given just below, and mentions a de fide librum unum, which does not occur in Eusebius’ list, and which may have arisen through mistake from either of the titles given by Eusebius, or, as seems more probable, may have been derived from the title of the work mentioned below, On the Creation and Generation of Christ, as remarked in note 15. If this supposition be correct, Jerome omits all reference to this work περὶ πίστεως ἀνθρώπου. The text of Jerome is unfortunately very corrupt at this point. In the present passage πίστεως is better supported by tradition than φύσεως, and at the same time is the more difficult reading, and hence I have adopted it as more probably representing the original.
204:1285ὁ περὶ πλ€σεως. Jerome, de plasmate librum unum.
204:1286All the Greek mss. combine these two titles into one, reading ὁ περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως αἰσθητηρίων: “On the subjection (or obedience) of the senses to faith.” This reading is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Otto, and others; but Nicephorus reads ὁ περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως, καὶ ὁ περὶ αἰσθητηρίων, and Rufinus translates, de obedientia fidei, de sensibus, both of them making two works, as I have done in the text. Jerome leaves the first part untranslated, and reads only de sensibus, while the Syriac reproduces only the words ὁ περὶ ὑπακοῆς (or ἀκοῆς) πίστεως, omitting the second clause. Christophorsonus, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Harnack consequently read ὁ περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως, ὁ περὶ αἰσθητηρίων, concluding that the words ὁ περὶ after πίστεως have fallen out of the Greek text. I have adopted this reading in my translation.
204:1287A serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from the fact that most of the Greek mss. read ὁ περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἢ νοός, while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the ἢ νοός entirely. Nicephorus and two of the Greek mss. meanwhile read ἦν ἐν οἷς, which is evidently simply a corruption of ἢ νοός, so that the Greek mss. are unanimous for this reading. Otto, Crusè, and Salmon read καὶ νοός, but there is no authority for καὶ instead of ἤ, and the change cannot be admitted. The explanation which Otto gives (p. 376) of the change of ἤ to καὶ will not hold, as Harnack shows on p. 247, note 346. It seems to me certain that the words ἢ νοός did not stand in the original, but that the word νοός, (either alone or preceded by ἤ or καί) was written upon the margin by some scribe perhaps as an alternative to ψυχῆς, perhaps as an addition in the interest of trichotomy, and was later inserted in the text after ψυχῆς and σώματος, under the impression that it was an alternative title of the book. My reasons for this opinion are the agreement of the versions in the omission of νοός, the impossibility of explaining the ἢ before νοός in the original text, the fact that in the Greek mss., in Rufinus, and in the Syriac, the words καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος are repeated further down in the list,—a repetition which Harnack thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius himself, and which in omitting νοός confirms the omission of it in the present case,—and finally, a fact which seems to me decisive, but which has apparently hitherto escaped notice, that the νοός, follows instead of precedes the σώματος, and thus breaks the logical order, which would certainly have been preserved in the title of a book.
204:1288ὁ περὶ λουτροῦ; Jerome, de baptismate.
204:1289Apolinarius (according to chap. 27) also wrote a work On Truth, and the place which it holds in that list, between an apologetical work addressed to the Greeks and one addressed to the Jews, makes it probable that it too bore an apologetic character, being perhaps devoted to showing that Christianity is pre-eminently the truth. Melito’s work on the same subject very likely bore a similar character, as suggested by Salmon.
204:1290Six mss., with Nicephorus, read κτίσεως, “creation,” but five mss., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read πίστεως. The latter reading therefore has the strongest external testimony in its favor, but must be rejected (with Stroth, Otto, Heinichen, Harnack, etc.) as evidently a dogmatic correction of the fourth century, when there was an objection to the use of the word κτίσις in connection with Christ. Rufinus divides the one work On the Creation and Generation of Christ into two,—On Faith and On the Generation of Christ, and his prophecy, connecting the second with the next-mentioned work. Jerome omits the first clause entirely at this point, and translates simply de generatione Christi librum unum. The de fide, however, which he inserts earlier in his list, where there is no corresponding word in the Greek, may be the title which he omits here (see above, note 9), displaced, as the title de sensibus is also displaced. If this be true, he becomes with Rufinus and the Syriac a witness to the reading πίστεως instead of κτίσεως, and like Rufinus divides the one work of Eusebius into two.
204:1291All the Greek mss. read καὶ λόγος αὐτοῦ περὶ προφητείας, which can rightly mean only “his work on Prophecy”; but Jerome translates de prophetia sua librum unum, and Rufinus de prophetia ejus, while the Syriac reads as if there stood in the Greek περὶ λόγου τῆς προφητείας αὐτοῦ. All three therefore connect the αὐτοῦ with the προφητείας instead of with the λόγος, which of course is much more natural, since the αὐτοῦ with the λόγος seems quite unnecessary at this point. The translation of the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome, however, would require περὶ προφητείας αὐτοῦ or περὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ προφητείας, and there is no sign that the αὐτοῦ originally stood in such connection with the προφητείας. We must, therefore, reject the rendering of these three versions as incorrect.
204:1292περὶ φιλοξενίας. After this title a few of the mss., with Rufinus and the Syriac, add the words καὶ περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, a repetition of a title already given (see above, note 12).
204:1293ἡ κλείς; Jerome, et alium librum qui Clavis inscribitur. The word is omitted in the Syriac version. The nature of this work we have no means of determining. It is possible that it was a key to the interpretation of the Scriptures, designed to guide the reader in the study especially of the figures of the prophecies (cf. Otto, p. 401) and of the Apocalypse. Piper is right, however, in saying that it cannot have been intended to supply the allegorical meaning of Scripture words, like the extant Latin Clavis of Pseudo-Melito, mentioned just below; for Melito, who like Tertullian taught the corporeality of God, must have been very literal—not allegorical—in his interpretation of Scripture. A Latin work bearing the title Melitonis Clavis Sanctæ Scripturæ was mentioned by Labbe in 1653 as contained in the library of Clermont College, and after years of search was recovered and published by Pitra in 1855 in his Spicileg. Solesm. Vols. II. and III. He regarded the work as a translation, though with interpolations, of the genuine κλείς of Melito, but this hypothesis has been completely disproved (see the article by Steitz in the Studien und Kritiken, 1857, p. 184 sqq.), and the work has been shown to be nothing more than a mediæval dictionary of allegorical interpolations of Scripture, compiled from the Latin Fathers. There is, therefore, no trace extant of Melito’s Key.
204:1294All the Greek mss. read καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου, καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως ᾽Ιω€ννου, making but one work, with two or more books, upon the general subject, The Devil and the Apocalypse of John. The Syriac apparently agrees with the Greek in this respect (see Harnack, p. 248, note 350); but Jerome and Rufinus make two works, the latter reading de diabolo librum unum, de Apocalypsi Joannis librum unum. Origen, in Psalm. III. (ed. Lommatzsch, XI. p. 411), says that Melito treated Absalom as a type of the devil warring against the kingdom of Christ. It has been conjectured that the reference may be to this work of Melito’s, and that reference is an argument for the supposition that Melito treated the devil and the Apocalypse in one work (cf. Harnack, p. 248, and Smith and Wace, p. 898).
204:1295ὁ περὶ ἐνσωμ€του θεοῦ. Jerome does not translate this phrase, but simply gives the Greek. Rufinus renders de deo corpore induto, thus understanding it to refer to the incarnation of God, and the Syriac agrees with this rendering. But as Harnack rightly remarks, we should expect, if this were the author’s meaning, the words περὶ ἐνσωματώσεως θεοῦ, or rather λόγου. Moreover, Origen (Selecta in Gen. I. 26; Lommatzsch, VIII. p. 49) enumerates Melito among those who taught the corporeality of God, and says that he had written a work περὶ τοῦ ἐνσώματον εἶναι τὸν θεόν. It is possible, of course, that he may not have seen Melito’s work, and that he may have misunderstood its title and have mistaken a work on the incarnation for one on the corporeality of God; but this is not at all likely. Either he had read the book, and knew it to be upon the subject he states, or else he knew from other sources that Melito believed in the corporeality of God, and hence had no doubt that this work was upon that subject. There is no reason in any case for doubting the accuracy of Origen’s statement, and for hesitating to conclude that the work mentioned by Eusebius was upon the corporeality of God. The close relationship existing between Melito and Tertullian has already been referred to, and this fact furnishes confirmation for the belief that Melito held God to be corporeal, for we know Tertullian’s views on that subject. Gennadius (de eccles. dogmat. chap. 4) classes Melito and Tertullian together, as both teaching a corporeality in the Godhead. What was the source of his statement, and how much dependence is to be put upon it, we cannot say, but it is at least a corroboration of the conclusion already reached. We conclude then that Rufinus and the Syriac were mistaken in their rendering, and that this work discussed the corporeality, not the incarnation, of God.
205:1296ἐπὶ πᾶσι καὶ τὸ πρὸς ᾽Αντωνῖνον βιβλίδιον βιβλίδιον (libellus) was the technical name for a petition addressed to the emperor, and does not imply that the work was a brief one, as Piper supposes. The Apology is mentioned also in chap. 13, above, and at the beginning of this chapter. Jerome puts it first in his list, with the words: Melito Asianus, Sardensis episcopus, librum imperatori M. Antonini Vero, qui Frontonis oratoris discipulus fuit, pro christiano dogmate dedit. This Apology is no longer extant, and we have only the fragments which Eusebius gives in this chapter. As remarked in note 1, above, the extant Syriac Apology is not a work of Melito’s. The Apology is mentioned in Jerome’s version of the Chron., and is assigned to the tenth year of Marcus Aurelius, 120 a.d. The notice is omitted in the Armenian, which, however, assigns to the eleventh year of Marcus Aurelius the Apology of Apolinarius, which is connected with that of Melito in the Ch. Hist. Moreover, a notice of the Apology is given by Syncellus in connection with the tenth year of Marcus Aurelius, and also by the Chron. Pasch.; so that it is not improbable that Eusebius himself mentioned it in his Chron., and that its omission in the Armenian is a mistake (as Harnack thinks likely). But though the notice may thus have been made by Eusebius himself, we are nevertheless not at liberty to accept the date given as conclusive. We learn from the quotations given by Eusebius that the work was addressed to the emperor after the death of Lucius Verus, i.e. after the year 169. Whether before or after the association of Commodus with his father in the imperial power, which took place in 176, is uncertain; but I am inclined to think that the words quoted in §7, below, point to a prospective rather than to a present association of Commodus in the empire, and that therefore the work was written between 169 and 176. It must be admitted, however, that we can say with certainty only that the work was written between 169 and 180. Some would put the work at the beginning of those persecutions which raged in 177, and there is much to be said for this. But the dates of the local and minor persecutions, which were so frequent during this period, are so uncertain that little can be based upon the fact that we know of persecutions in certain parts of the empire in 177. Piper, Otto, and others conclude from the fact that the Apology is mentioned last by Eusebius that it was Melito’s latest work; but that, though not at all unlikely, does not necessarily follow (see above, note 1).
205:1297A Sagaris, bishop and martyr, and probably the same man, is mentioned by Polycrates in his epistle to Victor (Euseb. V. 24) as buried in Laodicea. This is all we know of him. The date of his martyrdom, and of the composition of the work On the Passover, depends upon the date of the proconsulship of Servilius (or Sergius) Paulus (see above, note 5). The words ἐμπέσοντος κατὰ καιρόν have unnecessarily caused Salmon considerable trouble. The words κατὰ καιρόν mean no more than “properly, regularly, according to appointment or rule,” and do not render ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις superfluous, as he thinks. The clause καὶ ἐγρ€φη ταῦτα (“and these were written”) expresses result,—it was in consequence of the passover strife that Melito wrote this work.
205:1298This work of Clement’s, On the Passover, which he says he wrote on occasion of Melito’s work, was clearly written in reply to and therefore against the work of Melito, not as a supplement to it, as Hefele supposes (Conciliengesch. I. 299). The work of Clement (which is mentioned by Eusebius, VI. 13, in his list of Clement’s writings) is no longer extant, but some brief fragments of it have been preserved (see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 8).
205:1299This statement of Melito’s is a very remarkable one. See chap. 8, note 14.
205:1300The resemblance between this extract from Melito’s Apology and the fifth chapter of Tertullian’s Apology is close enough to be striking, and too close to be accidental. Tertullian’s chapter is quite different from this, so far as its arrangement and language are concerned, but the same thought underlies both: That the emperors in general have protected Christianity; only Nero and Domitian, the most wicked of them, have persecuted it; and that Christianity has been a blessing to the reigns of all the better emperors. We cannot doubt that Tertullian was acquainted with Melito’s Apology, as well as with others of his works.
205:1301εὐκταῖος
205:1302The reference here seems to be to the common belief that the Christians were responsible for all the evils which at any time happened, such as earthquakes, floods, famines, etc.
206:1303ἀφ᾽ ὧν καὶ τὸ τῆς συκοφαντίας ἀλόγῳ συνηθεί& 139· περὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ῥυῆναι συμβέβηκε ψεῦδος. The sentence is a difficult one and has been interpreted in various ways, but the translation given in the text seems to me best to express the writer’s meaning.
206:1304ἐγγρ€φως: i.e. in edicts or rescripts.
206:1305This epistle to Fundanus is given in chap. 9, above. Upon its genuineness, see chap. 8, note 14.
206:1306On these epistles of Antoninus Pius, see chap. 13, note 9. These ordinances to the Larissæans, Thessalonians, Athenians, and all the Greeks, are no longer extant. What their character must have been is explained in the note just referred to.
206:1307περὶ τούτων.
206:1308ἐν δὴ ταῖς γραφείσαις αὐτῷ ἐκλογαῖς. Jerome speaks of this work as ᾽Εκλογῶν, libros sex. There are no fragments of it extant except the single one from the preface given here by Eusebius. The nature of the work is clear from the words of Melito himself. It was a collection of testimonies to Christ and to Christianity, drawn from the Old Testament law and prophets. It must, therefore, have resembled closely such works as Cyprian’s Testimonia, and the Testimonia of Pseudo-Gregory, and other anti-Jewish works, in which the appeal was made to the Old Testament—the common ground accepted by both parties—for proof of the truth of Christianity. Although the Eclogæ of Melito were not anti-Jewish in their design, their character leads us to classify them with the general class of anti-Jewish works whose distinguishing mark is the use of Old Testament prophecy in defense of Christianity (cf. the writer’s article on Christian Polemics against the Jews, in the Pres. Review, July, 1888, and also the writer’s Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, entitled ᾽Αντιβολὴ Παπισκου καὶ φίλωνος, New York, 1889).
On the canon which Melito gives, see Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1.
206:1309This Onesimus is an otherwise unknown person.
206:1310Some mss., with Rufinus, place Leviticus before Numbers, but the best mss., followed by Heinichen, Burton, and others, give the opposite order.
206:1311ψαλμῶν Δαβίδ. Literally, “of the Psalms of David” [one book].
206:1312ἣ καὶ Σοφία: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see above, p. 200).
206:1313Literally, “in one book” (τῶν δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλῳ).
206:1314῎Εσδρας: the Greek form of the Hebrew name עֶזְרָא, Ezra. Melito refers here to the canonical Book of Ezra, which, among the Jews, commonly included our Ezra and Nehemiah (see Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1).
Chapter XXVII.—Apolinarius, Bishop of the Church of Hierapolis.
A number of works of Apolinarius 1315 have been preserved by many, and the following have reached us: the Discourse addressed to the above-mentioned emperor, 1316 five books Against the Greeks, 1317 On Truth, a first and second book, 1318 and those which he subsequently wrote against the heresy of the Phrygians, 1319 which not long afterwards came out with its innovations, 1320 but at that time was, as it were, in its incipiency, since Montanus, with his false prophetesses, was then laying the foundations of his error.
Footnotes
206:1315The first extant notice of Apolinarius is that of Serapion, bishop of Antioch from about 192 to 209 (see Harnack, Zeit des Ignatius, p. 46), in the epistle quoted by Eusebius in V. 19. We learn from this notice that Apolinarius was already dead when Serapion wrote (he calls him “most blessed bishop”; μακαριώτατος), and that he had been a skillful opponent of Montanism. His name is not mentioned again, so far as we know, by any Father of the second or third century. Jerome (de vir. ill. 26) simply repeats the account of Eusebius, but in his Epist. ad Magnum, c. 4 (Migne, I. 607), he enumerates Apolinarius among those Christian writers who were acquainted with heathen literature, and made use of it in the refutation of heresies. Photius (Cod. 14) praises his literary style in high terms. Socrates (H. E. III. 7) names Apolinarius with Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Serapion as holding that the incarnate Christ had a human soul (žμψυχον τὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα). Jerome, in his de vir. ill. chap. 18, mentions an Apolinarius in connection with Irenæus as a chiliast. But in his Comment. in Ezech. Bk. XI. chap. 36, he speaks of Irenæus as the first, and Apolinarius as the last, of the Greek Millenarians, which shows that some other Apolinarius is meant in that place, and therefore without doubt in the former passage also; and in another place (Prooem. in lib. XVIII. Comm. in Esaiam) he says that Apolinarius replied to Dionysius of Alexandria on the subject of the Millenium, and we are therefore led to conclude that Apolinarius, bishop of Laodicea (of the fourth century), is meant (see Routh, Rel. Sac. I. 174). Of the bishops of Hierapolis, besides Apolinarius, we know only Papias and Abircius Marcellus (of whom we have a Martyrdom, belonging to the second century; see Pitra, Spic. Solesm. III. 533), who, if he be identical with the Abircius Marcellus of Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 16 (as Harneck conjectures) must have been bishop after, not before Apolinarius (see note 6 on Bk. V. chap. 16). It is impossible to determine the exact date of Apolinarius’ episcopate, or of his death. As we see from Serapion’s notice of him, he must have been dead at least before 202. And if Abircius Marcellus was bishop after him, and also bishop in the second century, Apolinarius must have died some years before the year 200, and thus about the same time as Melito. The fact that he is mentioned so commonly in connection with Melito, sometimes before and sometimes after him, confirms this conclusion. The Chron. mentions him as flourishing in the tenth (Syncellus and Jerome), or the eleventh (Armenian) year of Marcus Aurelius. His Apology was addressed, as we learn from Eusebius, to Marcus Aurelius; and the fact that only the one emperor is mentioned may perhaps be taken (as some have taken it) as a sign that it was written while Marcus Aurelius was sole emperor (i.e. between 169 and 176). In Bk. V. chap. 5, Eusebius speaks of the story of the thundering legion as recorded by Apolinarius, and it has been thought (e.g. by Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) that this circumstance was recorded in the Apology, which cannot then have been written before the year 174. Harnack, however, remarks that this venturesome report can hardly have stood in a work addressed to the emperor himself. But that seems to assume that the story was not fully believed by Apolinarius, which can hardly have been the case. The truth is, the matter cannot be decided; and no more exact date can be given for the Apology. Eusebius, in the present chapter, informs us that he has seen four works by Apolinarius, but says that there were many others extant in his day. In addition to the ones mentioned by Eusebius, we know of a work of his, On the Passover (περὶ τοῦ π€σχα), which is mentioned by the Chron. Paschale, and two brief fragments of which are preserved by it. These fragments have caused a discussion as to whether Apolinarius was a Quartodeciman or not. The language of the first fragment would seem to show clearly that he was opposed to the Quartodecimans, and this explains the fact that he is never cited by the later Quartodecimans as a witness for their opinions. The tone of the work, however, as gathered from the fragments, shows that it must have been written before the controversy had assumed the bitter tone which it took when Victor became bishop of Rome; i.e. it was written, probably, in the seventies (see, also, Bk. V. chap. 23, note 1). Photius (Cod. 14) mentions three apologetic works by Apolinarius known to him: πρὸς ῞Ελληνας, περὶ εὐσεβείας, and περὶ ἀληθείας. The first and last are mentioned by Eusebius, but the second is a work otherwise unknown to us. There is no reason to suppose, as some have done, that the περὶ εὐσεβείας does not designate a separate work (cf. e.g., Donaldson, Hist. of Christ. Lit. and Doctrine, III. 243), for Eusebius expressly says that he mentions only a part of Apolinarius’ writings. Theodoret (Hær. Fab. I. 21) mentions Apolinarius, together with Musanus and Clement, as having written against the Severians (see chap. 29, below). But, as Harnack justly remarks (p. 235), the most we can conclude from this is that Apolinarius in his Anti-Montanistic work, had mentioned the Severians with disapproval. Five mss. of Eusebius, and the Church Hist. of Nicephorus, mention just after the work On Truth, a work Against the Jews, in two books (καὶ πρὸς ᾽Ιουδαίους πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον). The words are found in many of our editions, but are omitted by the majority of the best Greek mss., and also by Rufinus and Jerome, and therefore must be regarded as an interpolation; and so they are viewed by Heinichen, Laemmer, Otto, Harnack, and others. Harnack suggests that they were inserted under the influence of Bk. V. chap. 17, §5, where the works of Miltiades are given. We thus have knowledge of six, and only six, distinct works of Apolinarius, though, since no writer has pretended to give a complete list, it is quite probable that he wrote many others.
207:1316On the approximate date of this Apology, see the previous note. No fragments of the work are now extant, unless the account of the thundering legion mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 5 belong to it (see the previous note). Jerome speaks of the work as an insigne volumen pro fide Christianorum, and in chap. 26, §1, Eusebius speaks of it as λόγος ὑπερ τῆς πίστεως. This has given rise to the idea that the περὶ εὐσεβείας mentioned by Photius may be identical with this Apology (see the previous note). But such an important work would certainly not have been mentioned with such an ambiguous title by Photius. We may conclude, in fact, that Photius had not seen the Apology. The Chron. Paschale mentions the Apology in connection with those of “Melito and many others,” as addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
207:1317No fragments of this work are known to us. Nicephorus (H. E. IV. 11) says that it was in the form of a dialogue, and it is quite possible that he speaks in this case from personal knowledge, for the work was still extant in the time of Photius, who mentions it in Cod. 14 (see Harnack, p. 236).
207:1318No fragments of this work are extant, and its nature is unknown to us. It may have resembled the work of Melito upon the same subject (see the previous chapter). The work is mentioned by Photius as one of three, which he had himself seen.
207:1319Eusebius states here that the works against the Montanists were written later than the other works mentioned. Where he got this information we do not know; it is possible, as Harnack suggests, that he saw from the writings themselves that Marcus Aurelius was no longer alive when they were composed. Eusebius speaks very highly of these Anti-Montanistic works, and in Bk. V. chap. 16, §1, he speaks of Apolinarius as a “powerful weapon and antagonist” of the Montanists. And yet it is a remarkable fact that he does not take his account of the Montanists from the works of Apolinarius, but from later writings. This fact can be explained only as Harnack explains it by supposing that Apolinarius was not decided and clear enough in his opposition to the sect. The writer from whom Eusebius quotes is certainly strong enough in his denunciations to suit Eusebius or any one else. Eusebius’ statement, that the Montanistic movement was only beginning at the time Apolinarius wrote against it (i.e. according to him between 175 and 180), is far from the truth (see on this subject, Bk. V. chap. 16, note 12). How many of these works Apolinarius wrote, and whether they were books, or merely letters, we do not know. Eusebius says simply καὶ ἃ μετὰ ταῦτα συνέγραψε. Serapion (in Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 19) calls them γρ€μματα, which Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 41) translates litteras. These γρ€μματα are taken as “letters” by Valesius, Stroth, Danz, and Salmon; but Otto contends that the word γρ€μματα, in the usage of Eusebius (cf. Eusebius, V. 28. 4), properly means “writings” or “books” (scripta or libri), not “letters,” and so the word is translated by Closs. The word itself is not absolutely decisive, but it is more natural to translate it “writings,” and the circumstances of the case seem to favor that rather than the rendering “letters.” I have therefore translated it thus in Bk. VI. chap. 19. On the life and writings of Apolinarius, see especially Salmon’s article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuch. I. 1, 232–239. The few extant fragments of his works are published by Routh (I. 151–174), and by Otto (IX. 479–495); English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 772.
207:1320καινοτομηθείσης
Chapter XXVIII.—Musanus and His Writings.
And as for Musanus, 1321 whom we have mentioned among the foregoing writers, a certain very elegant discourse is extant, which was written by him against some brethren that had gone over to the heresy of the so-called Encratites, 1322 which had recently sprung up, and which introduced a strange and pernicious error. It is said that Tatian was the author of this false doctrine.
Footnotes
207:1321Of this Musanus, we know only what Eusebius tells us here, for Jerome (de vir. ill. 31) and Theodoret (Hær. Fab. I. 21) simply repeat the account of Eusebius. It is clear from Eusebius’ language, that he had not himself seen this work of Musanus; he had simply heard of it. Here, and in chap. 21, Eusebius assigns the activity of Musanus to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, making him a contemporary of Melito, Apolinarius, Irenæus, &c. But in the Chron. he is put much later. The Armenian version, under the year of Abr. 2220 (the eleventh year of Septimius), has the entry Musanus noster scriptor cognoscebatur. Jerome, under the same year (2220 of Abr., but twelfth year of Severus) has Musanus nostræ filosofiæ scriptor agnoscitur; while Syncellus, under the year of Abr. 2231 (fourth year of Caracalla) has Μουσιανὸς ἐκκλησιαστικὸς συγγραφευς ἐγνωρίζετο. All of them, therefore, speak of Musanus (or Musianus) as a writer, but do not specify any of his works. The dates in the Chron. (whichever be taken as original) and in the History are not mutually exclusive; at the same time it is clear that Eusebius was not working upon the same information in the two cases. We have no means of testing the correctness of either statement.
207:1322On Tatian and the Encratites, see the next chapter.
Chapter XXIX.—The Heresy of Tatian. 1323
1. He is the one whose words we quoted a little above 1324 in regard to that admirable man, Justin, and whom we stated to have been a disciple of the martyr. Irenæus declares this in the first book of his work Against Heresies, where he writes as follows concerning both him and his heresy: 1325
2. “Those who are called Encratites, 1326 and who sprung from Saturninus 1327 and Marcion, preached celibacy, setting aside the original arrangement of God and tacitly censuring him who made male and female for the propagation of the human race. They introduced also abstinence from the things called by them animate, 1328 thus showing ingratitude to the God who made all things. And they deny the salvation of the first man. 1329
3. But this has been only recently discovered by them, a certain Tatian being the first to introduce this blasphemy. He was a hearer of Justin, and expressed no such opinion while he was with him, but after the martyrdom of the latter he left the Church, and becoming exalted with the thought of being a teacher, and puffed up with the idea that he was superior to others, he established a peculiar type of doctrine of his own, inventing certain invisible æons like the followers of Valentinus, 1330 while, like Marcion and Saturninus, he pronounced marriage to be corruption and fornication. His argument against the salvation of Adam, however, he devised for himself.” Irenæus at that time wrote thus.
4. But a little later a certain man named Severus 1331 put new strength into the aforesaid heresy, and thus brought it about that those who took their origin from it were called, after him, Severians.
5. They, indeed, use the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but interpret in their own way the utterances of the Sacred Scriptures. And they abuse Paul the apostle and reject his epistles, and do not accept even the Acts of the Apostles.
6. But their original founder, Tatian, formed a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, I know not how, 1332 to which he gave the title Diatessaron, 1333 and which is still in the hands of some. But they say that he ventured to paraphrase certain words of the apostle, 1334 in order to improve their style.
7. He has left a great many writings. Of these the one most in use among many persons is his celebrated Address to the Greeks, 1335 which also appears to be the best and most useful of all his works. In it he deals with the most ancient times, and shows that Moses and the Hebrew prophets were older than all the celebrated men among the Greeks. 1336 So much in regard to these men.
Footnotes
207:1323From his Oratio (chap. 42) we learn that Tatian was born in Assyria, and that he was early educated in Greek philosophy, from which we may conclude that he was of Greek parentage,—a conclusion confirmed by the general tone of the Oratio (cf. Harnack, Ueberlieferung der Griech. Apol. p. 199 sq., who refutes Zahn’s opinion that Tatian was a Syrian by race). We learn from his Oratio also that he was converted to Christianity in mature life (cf. chap. 29 sq.). From the passage quoted in the present chapter from Irenæus, we learn that Tatian, after the death of Justin (whose disciple he was; see also chap. 16, above), fell into heresy, and the general fact is confirmed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. Beyond these meager notices we have little information in regard to Tatian’s life. Rhodo (quoted in Bk. V. chap. 13, below) mentions him, and “confesses” that he was a pupil of Tatian’s in Rome, perhaps implying that this was after Tatian had left the Catholic Church (though inasmuch as the word “confesses” is Eusebius’, not Rhodo’s, we can hardly lay the stress that Harnack does upon its use in this connection). Epiphanius gives quite an account of Tatian in his Hær. XLVI. 1, but as usual he falls into grave errors (especially in his chronology). The only trustworthy information that can be gathered from him is that Tatian, after becoming a Christian, returned to Mesopotamia and taught for a while there (see Harnack, ibid. p. 208 sq.). We learn from his Oratio that he was already in middle life at the time when he wrote it, i.e. about 152 a.d. (see note 13, below), and as a consequence it is commonly assumed that he cannot have been born much later than 110 a.d. Eusebius in his Chron. (XII. year of Marcus Aurelius, 172 a.d.) says, Tatianus hæreticus agnoscitur, a quo Encratitæ. There is no reason to doubt that this represents with reasonable accuracy the date of Tatian’s break with the Catholic Church. We know at any rate that it did not take place until after Justin’s death (165 a.d.). In possession of these various facts in regard to Titian, his life has been constructed in various ways by historians, but Harnack seems to have come nearest to the truth in his account of him on p. 212 sq. He holds that he was converted about 150, but soon afterward left for the Orient, and while there wrote his Oratio ad Græcos; that afterward he returned to Rome and was an honored teacher in the Church for some time but finally becoming heretical, broke with the Church about the year 172. The arguments which Harnack urges over against Zahn (who maintains that he was but once in Rome, and that he became a heretic in the Orient and spent the remainder of his life there) seem fully to establish his main positions. Of the date, place, and circumstances of Tatian’s death, we know nothing.
Eusebius informs us in this chapter that Titian left “a great many writings,” but he mentions the titles of only two, the Address to the Greeks and the Diatessaron (see below, notes 11 and 13). He seems, however, in §6, to refer to another work on the Pauline Epistles,—a work of which we have no trace anywhere else, though we learn from Jerome’s preface to his Commentary on Titus that Tatian rejected some of Paul’s epistles, as Marcion did, but unlike Marcion accepted the epistle to Titus. We know the titles of some other works written by Tatian. He himself, in his Oratio 15, mentions a work which he had written On Animals. The work is no longer extant, nor do we know anything about it. Rhodo (as we are told by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 13) mentioned a book of Problems which Titian had written. Of this, too, all traces have perished. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. 12) mentions an heretical work of Tatian’s, entitled περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν σωτῆρα καταρτισμοῦ, On Perfection according to the Saviour, which has likewise perished. Clement (as also Origen) was evidently acquainted with still other heretical works, especially one on Genesis (see below, note 7), but he mentions the title only of the one referred to. Rufinus (H.E. VI. 11) says that Tatian composed a Chronicon, which we hear about from no other writer. Malalas calls Tatian a chronographer, but he is evidently thinking of the chronological passages in his Oratio, and in the absence of all trustworthy testimony we must reject Rufinus’ notice as a mistake. In his Oratio, chap. 40, Tatian speaks of a work Against those who have discoursed on Divine Things, in which he intends to show “what the learned among the Greeks have said concerning our polity and the history of our laws and how many and what kind of men have written of these things.” Whether he ever wrote the work or not we do not know; we find no other notice of it. Upon Tatian, see especially Zahn’s Tatian’s Diatessaron and Harnack’s Ueberlieferung, &c., p. 196; also Donaldson’s Hist. of Christ. Lit. and Doct. II. p. 3 sqq., and J. M. Fuller’s article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
207:1324In chap. 16.
208:1325Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 28. 1.
208:1326᾽Εγκρατεῖς, a word meaning “temperate” or “continent.” These Encratites were heretics who abstained from flesh, from wine, and from marriage, not temporarily but permanently, and because of a belief in the essential impurity of those things. They are mentioned also by Hippolytus (Phil. VIII. 13), who calls them ἐγκρατῖται; by Clement of Alexandria (Pæd. II. 2, Strom. I. 15, &c.), who calls them ἐγκρατηταί; by Epiphanius (Hær. 47), who agrees with Hippolytus in the form of the name, and by others. The Encratites whom Irenæus describes seem to have constituted a distinct sect, anti-Jewish and Gnostic in its character. As described by Hippolytus they appear to have been mainly orthodox in doctrine but heretical in their manner of life, and we may perhaps gather the same thing from Clement’s references to them. It is evident, therefore, that Irenæus and the others are not referring to the same men. So Theodoret, Hær. Fab. I. 21, speaks of the Severian Encratites; but the Severians, as we learn from this chapter of Eusebius and from Epiphanius (Hær. XLV.), were Ebionitic and anti-Pauline in their tendencies—the exact opposites, therefore, of the Encratites referred to by Irenæus. That there was a distinct sect of Encratites of the character described by Irenæus cannot be denied, but we must certainly conclude that the word was used very commonly in a wider sense to denote men of various schools who taught excessive and heretical abstinence. Of course the later writers may have supposed that they all belonged to one compact sect, but it is certain that they did not. As to the particular sect which Irenæus describes, the statement made by Eusebius at the close of the preceding chapter is incorrect, if we are to accept Irenæus’ account. For the passage quoted in this chapter states that they sprung from Marcion and Saturninus, evidently implying that they were not founded by Tatian, but that he found them already in existence when he became heretical. It is not surprising, however that his name should become connected with them as their founder—for he was the best-known man among them. That the Encratites as such (whether a single sect or a general tendency) should be opposed by the Fathers, even by those of ascetic tendencies, was natural. It was not always easy to distinguish between orthodox and heretical asceticism, and yet there was felt to be a difference. The fundamental distinction was held by the Church—whenever it came to self-consciousness on the subject—to lie in the fact that the heretics pronounced the things from which they abstained essentially evil in themselves, thus holding a radical dualism, while the orthodox abstained only as a matter of discipline. The distinction, it is true, was not always preserved, but it was this essentially dualistic principle of the Encratites which the early Fathers combated; it is noticeable, however, that they do not expend as much vigor in combating it as in refuting errors in doctrine. In fact, they seem themselves to have been somewhat in doubt as to the proper attitude to take toward these extreme ascetics.
208:1327On Saturninus and on Marcion, see chap. 7, note 6, and 11, note 15. On their asceticism, see especially Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 24.
208:1328τῶν λεγομένων ἐμψύχων: i.e. animal food in general.
208:1329Cf. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 23, where this opinion of Tatian’s is refuted at considerable length. The opinion seems a little peculiar, but was a not unnatural consequence of Tatian’s strong dualism, and of his doctrine of a conditional immortality for those who have been reunited with the Holy Spirit who took his departure at the time of the fall (cf. especially his Oratio, chap. 15). That Adam, who, by his fall, brought about this separation, which has been of such direful consequence to the race, should be saved, was naturally to Titian a very repugnant thought. He seems, moreover, to have based his opinion, as Donaldson remarks, upon exegetical grounds interpreting the passage in regard to Adam (1 Cor. xv. 22) as meaning that Adam is and remains the principle of death, and as such, of course, cannot himself enjoy life (see Irenæus, ibid.). This is quite in accord with the distinction between the psychical and physical man which he draws in his Oratio. It is quite possible that he was moved in part also by the same motive which led Marcion to deny the salvation of Abraham and the other patriarchs (see Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 27 and IV. 8), namely, the opposition between the God of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament, which led him to assert that those who depended on the former were lost. We learn from Clement (Strom. III. 12) and from Origen (de Orat. chap. 24) that among Tatian’s heretical works was one in which he discussed the early chapters of Genesis and perhaps it was in this work that he developed his peculiar views’ in regard to Adam.
208:1330On Valentinus, see chap. 11, note 1. That Tatian was Gnostic in many of his tendencies is plain enough not only from these words of Irenæus, but also from the notices of him in other writers (cf. especially Hippolytus, Phil. VIII. 9). To what extent he carried his Gnosticism, however, and exactly in what it consisted, we cannot tell. He can hardly have been a pronounced follower of Valentinus and a zealous defender of the doctrine of Æons, or we should find him connected more prominently with that school. He was, in fact, a decided eclectic, and a follower of no one school, and doubtless this subject, like many others, occupied but a subordinate place in his speculations.
209:1331That the Severians, whoever they were, were Encratites in the wide sense, that is, strict abstainers from flesh, wine, and marriage, cannot be denied (compare with this description of Eusebius that of Epiphanius in Hær. XLV., also Theodoret’s Hær. Fab. I. 21, who says that Apolinarius wrote against the Severian Encratites,—a sign that the Severians and the Encratites were in some way connected in tradition even though Theodoret’s statement may be unreliable). But that they were connected with Tatian and the Encratitic sect to which he belonged, as Eusebius states, is quite out of the question. Tatian was a decided Paulinist (almost as much so as Marcion himself). He cannot, therefore, have had anything to do with this Ebionitic, anti-Pauline sect, known as the Severians. Whether there was ever such a person as Severus, or whether the name arose later to explain the name of the sect (possibly taken from the Latin severus, “severe,” as Salmon suggests), as the name Ebion was invented to explain the term Ebionites, we do not know. We are ignorant also of the source from which Eusebius took his description of the Severians, as we do not find them mentioned in any of the earlier anti-heretical works. Eusebius must have heard, as Epiphanius did, that they were extreme ascetics, and this must have led him, in the absence of specific information as to their exact position, to join them with Tatian and the Encratites,—a connection which can be justified on no other ground.
209:1332οὐκ οἰδ᾽ ὅπως. Eusebius clearly means to imply in these words that he was not acquainted with the Diatessaron. Lightfoot, it is true, endeavors to show that these words may mean simply disapproval of the work, and not ignorance in regard to it. But his interpretation is an unnatural one, and has been accepted by few scholars.
209:1333τὸ διὰ τεσσ€ρων. Eusebius is the first one to mention this Diatessaron, and he had evidently not seen it himself. After him it is not referred to again until the time of Epiphanius, who in his Hær. XLVI. 1 incorrectly identifies it with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, evidently knowing it only by hearsay. Theodoret (Hær. Fab. I. 20) informs us that he found a great many copies of it in circulation in his diocese, and that, finding that it omitted the account of our Lord’s birth, he replaced it by the four Gospels, fearing the mischief which must result from the use of such a mutilated Gospel. In the Doctrine of Addai (ed. Syr. and Engl. by G. Phillips, 1876), which belongs to the third century, a Diatessaron is mentioned which is without doubt to be identified with the one under consideration (see Zahn I. p. 90 sq.). Meanwhile we learn from the preface to Dionysius bar Salibi’s Commentary on Mark (see Assemani, Bibl. Or. I. 57), that Ephraem wrote a commentary upon the Diatessaron of Tatian (Tatianus Justini Philosophi ac Martyris Discipulus, ex quator Evangeliis unum digessit, quod Diatessaron nuncupavit. Hunc librum Sanctus Ephraem commentariis illustravit). Ephraem’s commentary still exists in an Armenian version (published at Venice in 1836, and in Latin in 1876 by Mœsinger). There exists also a Latin Harmony of the Gospels, which is without doubt a substantial reproduction of Tatian’s Diatessaron, and which was known to Victor of Capua (of the sixth century). From these sources Zahn has attempted to reconstruct the text of the Diatessaron, and prints the reconstructed text, with a critical commentary, in his Tatian’s Diatessaron. Zahn maintains that the original work was written in Syriac, and he is followed by Lightfoot, Hilgenfeld, Fuller, and others; but Harnack has given very strong reasons for supposing that it was composed by Tatian in Greek, and that the Syriac which Ephraem used was a translation of that original, not the original itself. Both Zahn and Harnack agree, as do most other scholars, that the work was written before Tatian became a heretic, and with no heretical intent. Inasmuch as he later became a heretic, however, his work was looked upon with suspicion, and of course in later days, when so much stress was laid (as e.g. by Irenæus) upon the fourfold Gospel, Christians would be naturally distrustful of a single Gospel proposed as a substitute for them. It is not surprising, therefore, that the work failed to find acceptance in the Church at large. For further particulars, see especially Zahn’s monograph, which is the most complete and exhaustive discussion of the whole subject. See also Harnack’s Ueberlieferung der Griech. Apologeten, p. 213 ff., Fuller’s article referred to in note 1, the article by Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review for May, 1877, and those by Wace in the Expositor for 1881 and 1882.
209:1334i.e. of Paul, who was quite commonly called simply ὁ ἀπόστολος. This seems to imply that Tatian wrote a work on Paul’s epistles (see note 1, above).
209:1335λόγος ὁ πρὸς ῞Ελληνας: Oratio ad Græcos. This work is still extant, and is one of the most interesting of the early apologies. The standpoint of the author is quite different from that of Justin, for he treats Greek philosophy with the greatest contempt, and finds nothing good in it. As remarked in note 1, above, the Oratio was probably written after Tatian had left Rome for the first time, but not long after his conversion. We may follow Harnack (p. 196) in fixing upon 152 to 153 as an approximate date. The work is printed with a Latin translation and commentary in Otto’s Corp. Apol. Vol. VI.
The best critical edition is that of Schwartz, in v. Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, IV. 1 (Leipzig, 1888), though it contains only the Greek text. An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. p. 59–83.
209:1336Tatian devotes a number of chapters to this subject (XXXI., XXXV.–XLI). Eusebius mentions him, with Clement, Africanus, Josephus, and Justus, in the preface to his Chron. (Schöne, II. p. 4), as a witness to the antiquity of Moses, and it is probable that Julius Africanus drew from him in the composition of his chronological work (cf. Harnack, ibid. p. 224). Clement of Alexandria likewise made large use of his chronological results (see especially his Strom. I. 21), and Origen refers to them in his Contra Cels. I. 16. It was largely on account of these chapters on the antiquity of Moses that Tatian’s Oratio was held in such high esteem, while his other works disappeared.
Chapter XXX.—Bardesanes the Syrian and his Extant Works.
1. In the same reign, as heresies were abounding in the region between the rivers, 1337 a certain Bardesanes, 1338 a most able man and a most skillful disputant in the Syriac tongue, having composed dialogues against Marcion’s followers and against certain others who were authors of various opinions, committed them to writing in his own language, together with many other works. His pupils, 1339 of whom he had very many (for he was a powerful defender of the faith), translated these productions from the Syriac into Greek.
2. Among them there is also his most able dialogue On Fate, 1340 addressed to Antoninus, and other works which they say he wrote on occasion of the persecution which arose at that time. 1341
3. He indeed was at first a follower of Valentinus, 1342 but afterward, having rejected his teaching and having refuted most of his fictions, he fancied that he had come over to the more correct opinion. Nevertheless he did not entirely wash off the filth of the old heresy. 1343
About this time also Soter, 1344 bishop of the church of Rome, departed this life.
Footnotes
209:1337i.e. Mesopotamia: ἐπὶ τῆς μέσης τῶν ποταμῶν.
209:1338Bardesanes or Bardaisan (Greek, Βαρδησ€νης), a distinguished Syrian scholar, poet, and theologian, who lived at the court of the king of Edessa, is commonly classed among the Gnostics, but, as Hort shows, without sufficient reason. Our reports in regard to him are very conflicting. Epiphanius and Barhebræus relate that he was at first a distinguished Christian teacher, but afterward became corrupted by the doctrines of Valentinus. Eusebius on the other hand says that he was originally a Valentinian, but afterward left that sect and directed his attacks against it. Moses of Chorene gives a similar account. To Hippolytus he appeared as a member of the Eastern school of Valentinians, while to Ephraem the Syrian he seemed in general one of the most pernicious of heretics, who nevertheless pretended to be orthodox, veiling his errors in ambiguous language, and thus carrying away many of the faithful. According to Hort, who has given the subject very careful study, “there is no reason to suppose that Bardesanes rejected the ordinary faith of the Christians as founded on the Gospels and the writings of the apostles, except on isolated points. The more startling peculiarities of which we hear belong for the most part to an outer region of speculation, which it may easily have seemed possible to combine with Christianity, more especially with the undeveloped Christianity of Syria in the third century. The local color is everywhere prominent. In passing over to the new faith Bardaisan could not shake off the ancient glamour of the stars, or abjure the Semitic love of clothing thoughts in mythological forms.” This statement explains clearly enough the reputation for heresy which Bardesanes enjoyed in subsequent generations. There is no reason to think that he taught a system of æons like the Gnostics, but he does seem to have leaned toward docetism, and also to have denied the proper resurrection of the body. Ephraem accuses him of teaching Polytheism, in effect if not in words, but this charge seems to have arisen from a misunderstanding of his mythological forms; he apparently maintained always the supremacy of the one Christian God. There is nothing in his theology itself to imply Valentinian influence, but the traditions to that effect are too strong to be entirely set aside. It is not improbable that he may, as Eusebius says, have been a Valentinian for a time, and afterward, upon entering the orthodox church, have retained some of the views which he gained under their influence. This would explain the conflicting reports of his theology. It is not necessary to say more about his beliefs. Hort’s article in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. contains an excellent discussion of the subject, and the student is referred to that.
The followers of Bardesanes seem to have emphasized those points in which he differed with the Church at large, and thus to have departed further from catholic orthodoxy. Undoubtedly Ephraem (who is our most important authority for a knowledge of Bardesanes) knows him only through his followers, who were very numerous throughout the East in the fourth century, and hence passes a harsher judgment upon him than he might otherwise have done. Ephraem makes the uprooting of the “pernicious heresy” one of his foremost duties.
Eusebius in this chapter, followed by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 33), Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others, assigns the activity of Bardesanes to the reign of Marcus Aurelius (so also in the Chron.). But Hort says that according to the Chronicle of Edessa (Assemani, Bibl. Or. I. 389) he was born July 11, 155, and according to Barhebræus (Chron. Eccl. ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, p. 49) he died in 223 at the age of sixty-eight, which confirms the date of his birth given by the Chronicle of Edessa. These dates are accepted as correct by Hilgenfeld and Hort, and the error committed by Eusebius and those who followed him is explained by their confusion of the later with the earlier Antonines, a confusion which was very common among the Fathers.
His writings, as stated by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and others, were very numerous, and were translated (at least many of them) into Greek. The dialogues against the Marcionists and other heretics are mentioned also by Theodoret (Hær. Fab. I. 22) and by Barhebræus. Epiphanius (who apparently had some independent knowledge of the man and his followers) mentions (Hær. LVI.) an Apology “in which he resisted Apollonius, the companion of Antoninus, when urged to deny that he was a Christian.” This was probably one of the many works which Eusebius says he wrote on occasion of the persecution which arose at the time.
The Dialogue on Fate is said by Eusebius, followed by Rufinus and Jerome, to have been addressed to Antoninus. Epiphanius says that in this work he “copiously refuted Avidas the astronomer,” and it is quite possible that Eusebius’ statement rests upon a confusion of the names Avidas and Antoninus, for it is difficult to conceive that the work can have been addressed to an emperor, and in any case it cannot have been addressed to Marcus Aurelius, whom Eusebius here means. This Dialogue on Fate is identified either wholly or in part with a work entitled Book of the Laws of Countries, which is still extant in the original Syriac, and has been published with an English translation by Cureton in his Spicileg. Syr. A fragment of this work is given in Eusebius’ Præp. Evang. VI. 9–10, and, until the discovery of the Syriac text of the entire work, this was all that we had of it. This is undoubtedly the work referred to by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and other Fathers, but it is no less certain that it was not written by Bardesanes himself. As Hort remarks, “the natural impulse to confuse the author with the chief interlocutor in an anonymous dialogue will sufficiently explain the early ascription of the Dialogue to Bardaisan himself by the Greek Fathers.” It was undoubtedly written by one of Bardesanes’ disciples, probably soon after his death, and it is quite likely that it does not depart widely from the spirit of Bardesanes’ teaching. Upon Bardesanes, see, in addition to Hort’s article, the monograph of Merx, Bardesanes von Edessa (Halle, 1863), and that of Hilgenfeld, Bardesanes, der Letzte Gnostiker (Leipz. 1864).
210:1339γνώριμοι
210:1340See note 2.
210:1341Hort conjectures that Caracalla, who spent the winter of 216 in Edessa, and threw the Prince Bar-Manu into captivity, may have allied himself with a party which was discontented with the rule of that prince, and which instituted a heathen reaction, and that this was the occasion of the persecution referred to here, in which Bardesanes proved his firmness in the faith as recorded by Epiphanius.
210:1342See note 2.
210:1343It is undoubtedly quite true, as remarked in note 2, that Bardesanes, after leaving Valentianism, still retained views acquired under its influence, and that these colored all his subsequent thinking. This fact may have been manifest to Eusebius, who had evidently read many of Bardesanes’ works, and who speaks here as if from personal knowledge.
210:1344On Soter, see chap. 19, note 2.
Book V.
Introduction.
1. Soter, 1345 bishop of the church of Rome, died after an episcopate of eight years, and was succeeded by Eleutherus, 1346 the twelfth from the apostles. In the seventeenth year of the Emperor Antoninus Verus, 1347 the persecution of our people was rekindled more fiercely in certain districts on account of an insurrection of the masses in the cities; and judging by the number in a single nation, myriads suffered martyrdom throughout the world. A record of this was written for posterity, and in truth it is worthy of perpetual remembrance.
2. A full account, containing the most reliable information on the subject, is given in our Collection of Martyrdoms, 1348 which constitutes a narrative instructive as well as historical. I will repeat here such portions of this account as may be needful for the present purpose.
3. Other writers of history record the victories of war and trophies won from enemies, the skill of generals, and the manly bravery of soldiers, defiled with blood and with innumerable slaughters for the sake of children and country and other possessions.
4. But our narrative of the government of God 1349 will record in ineffaceable letters the most peaceful wars waged in behalf of the peace of the soul, and will tell of men doing brave deeds for truth rather than country, and for piety rather than dearest friends. It will hand down to imperishable remembrance the discipline and the much-tried fortitude of the athletes of religion, the trophies won from demons, the victories over invisible enemies, and the crowns placed upon all their heads.
Footnotes
211:1345On Soter, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 2.
211:1346Eusebius in his Chronicle gives the date of Eleutherus’ accession as the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (177 a.d.), and puts his death into the reign of Pertinax (192), while in chap. 22 of the present book he places his death in the tenth year of Commodus (189). Most of our authorities agree in assigning fifteen years to his episcopate, and this may be accepted as undoubtedly correct. Most of them, moreover, agree with chap. 22 of this book, in assigning his death to the tenth year of Commodus, and this too may be accepted as accurate. But with these two data we are obliged to push his accession back into the year 174 (or 175), which is accepted by Lipsius (see his Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 184 sq.). We must therefore suppose that he became bishop some two years before the outbreak of the persecution referred to just below, in the fourteenth or fifteenth year of Marcus Aurelius. In the Armenian version of the Chron. Eleutherus is called the thirteenth bishop of Rome (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5), but this is a mistake, as pointed out in the note referred to. Eleutherus is mentioned in Bk. IV, chap. 11, in connection with Hegesippus, and also in Bk. IV. chap. 22, by Hegesippus himself. He is chiefly interesting because of his connection with Irenæus and the Gallican martyrs (see chap. 4, below), and his relation to the Montanistic controversy (see chap. 3). Bede, in his Hist. Eccles., chap. 4, connects Eleutherus with the origin of British Christianity, but the tradition is quite groundless. One of the decretals and a spurious epistle are falsely ascribed to him.
211:1347i.e., the seventeenth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, a.d. 177 (upon Eusebius’ confusion of Marcus Aurelius with Lucius Verus, see below, p. 390, note). In the Chron. the persecution at Lyons and Vienne is associated with the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius (167), and consequently some (e.g. Blondellus, Stroth, and Jachmann), have maintained that the notice in the present passage is incorrect, and Jachmann has attacked Eusebius very severely for the supposed error. The truth is, however, that the notice in the Chron. (in the Armenian, which represents the original form more closely than Jenner’s version does) is not placed opposite the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius (as the notices in the Chron. commonly are), but is placed after it, and grouped with the notice of Polycarp’s martyrdom, which occurred, not in 167, but in 155 or 156 (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 15, note 2). It would seem, as remarked by Lightfoot (Ignatius, I. p. 630), that Eusebius simply connected together the martyrdoms which he supposed occurred about this time, without intending to imply that they all took place in the same year. Similar groupings of kindred events which occurred at various times during the reign of an emperor are quite common in the Chron. (cf. the notices of martyrdoms under Trajan and of apologies and rescripts under Hadrian). Over against the distinct statement of the history, therefore, in the present instance, the notice in the Chron. is of no weight. Moreover, it is clear from the present passage that Eusebius had strong grounds for putting the persecution into the time of Eleutherus, and the letter sent by the confessors to Eleutherus (as recorded below in chap. 4) gives us also good reason for putting the persecution into the time of his episcopate. But Eleutherus cannot have become bishop before 174 (see Lipsius’ Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 184 sq., and note 2, above). There is no reason, therefore, for doubting the date given here by Eusebius.
211:1348All the mss. read μαρτύρων, but I have followed Valesius (in his notes) and Heinichen in reading μαρτυρίων, which is supported by the version of Rufinus (de singulorum martyriis), and which is the word used by Eusebius in all his other references to the work (Bk. IV. chap. 15 and Bk. V. chaps. 4 and 21), and is in fact the proper word to be employed after συναγωγή, “collection.” We speak correctly of a “collection of martyrdoms,” not of a “collection of martyrs,” and I cannot believe that Eusebius, in referring to a work of his own, used the wrong word in the present case. Upon the work itself, see the Prolegomena, p. 30, of this volume.
211:1349τοῦ κατὰ θεὸν πολιτεύματος, with the majority of the mss. supported by Rufinus. Some mss., followed by Stroth, Burton, and Schwegler, read καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς instead of κατὰ θεὸν (see Heinichen’s note in loco). Christophorsonus translates divinam vivendi rationem, which is approved by Heinichen. But the contrast drawn seems to be rather between earthly kingdoms, or governments, and the kingdom, or government, of God; and I have, therefore, preferred to give πολίτευμα its ordinary meaning, as is done by Valesius (divinæ reipublicæ), Stroth (Republik Gottes), and Closs (Staates Gottes).
Chapter I.—The Number of those who fought for Religion in Gaul Under Verus and the Nature of their Conflicts.
1. The country in which the arena was prepared for them was Gaul, of which Lyons and Vienne 1350 are the principal and most celebrated cities. The Rhone passes through both of them, flowing in a broad stream through the entire region.
2. The most celebrated churches in that country sent an account of the witnesses 1351 to the churches in Asia and Phrygia, relating in the following manner what was done among them.
I will give their own words. 1352
3. “The servants of Christ residing at Vienne and Lyons, in Gaul, to the brethren through out Asia and Phrygia, who hold the same faith and hope of redemption, peace and grace and glory from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.”
4. Then, having related some other matters, they begin their account in this manner: “The greatness of the tribulation in this region, and the fury of the heathen against the saints, and the sufferings of the blessed witnesses, we cannot recount accurately, nor indeed could they possibly be recorded.
5. For with all his might the adversary fell upon us, giving us a foretaste of his unbridled activity at his future coming. He endeavored in every manner to practice and exercise his servants against the servants of God, not only shutting us out from houses and baths and markets, but forbidding any of us to be seen in any place whatever.
6. But the grace of God led the conflict against him, and delivered the weak, and set them as firm pillars, able through patience to endure all the wrath of the Evil One. And they joined battle with him, undergoing all kinds of shame and injury; and regarding their great sufferings as little, they hastened to Christ, manifesting truly that ‘the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward.’ 1353
7. First of all, they endured nobly the injuries heaped upon them by the populace; clamors and blows and draggings and robberies and stonings and imprisonments, 1354 and all things which an infuriated mob delight in inflicting on enemies and adversaries.
8. Then, being taken to the forum by the chiliarch 1355 and the authorities of the city, they were examined in the presence of the whole multitude, and having confessed, they were imprisoned until the arrival of the governor.
9. When, afterwards, they were brought before him, and he treated us with the utmost cruelty, Vettius Epagathus, 1356 one of the brethren, and a man filled with love for God and his neighbor, interfered. His life was so consistent that, although young, he had attained a reputation equal to that of the elder Zacharias: for he ‘walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless,’ 1357 and was untiring in every good work for his neighbor, zealous for God and fervent in spirit. Such being his character, he could not endure the unreasonable judgment against us, but was filled with indignation, and asked to be permitted to testify in behalf of his brethren, that there is among us nothing ungodly or impious.
10. But those about the judgment seat cried out against him, for he was a man of distinction; and the governor refused to grant his just request, and merely asked if he also were a Christian. And he, confessing this with a loud voice, was himself taken into the order 1358 of the witnesses, being called the Advocate of the Christians, but having the Advocate 1359 in himself, the Spirit 1360 more abundantly than Zacharias. 1361 He showed this by the fullness of his love, being well pleased even to lay down his life 1362 in defense of the brethren. For he was and is a true disciple of Christ, ‘following the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.’ 1363
11. “Then the others were divided, 1364 and the proto-witnesses were manifestly ready, and finished their confession with all eagerness. But some appeared unprepared and untrained, weak as yet, and unable to endure so great a conflict. About ten of these proved abortions, 1365 causing us great grief and sorrow beyond measure, and impairing the zeal of the others who had not yet been seized, but who, though suffering all kinds of affliction, continued constantly with the witnesses and did not forsake them.
12. Then all of us feared greatly on account of uncertainty as to their confession; not because we dreaded the sufferings to be endured, but because we looked to the end, and were afraid that some of them might fall away.
13. But those who were worthy were seized day by day, filling up their number, so that all the zealous persons, and those through whom especially our affairs had been established, were collected together out of the two churches.
14. And some of our heathen servants also were seized, as the governor had commanded that all of us should be examined publicly. These, being ensnared by Satan, and fearing for themselves the tortures which they beheld the saints endure, 1366 and being also urged on by the soldiers, accused us falsely of Thyestean banquets and Œdipodean intercourse, 1367 and of deeds which are not only unlawful for us to speak of or to think, but which we cannot believe were ever done by men.
15. When these accusations were reported, all the people raged like wild beasts against us, so that even if any had before been moderate on account of friendship, they were now exceedingly furious and gnashed their teeth against us. And that which was spoken by our Lord was fulfilled: ‘The time will come when whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.’ 1368
16. Then finally the holy witnesses endured sufferings beyond description, Satan striving earnestly that some of the slanders might be uttered by them also. 1369
17. “But the whole wrath of the populace, and governor, and soldiers was aroused exceedingly against Sanctus, the deacon from Vienne, 1370 and Maturus, a late convert, yet a noble combatant, and against Attalus, a native of Pergamos 1371 where he had always been a pillar and foundation, and Blandina, through whom Christ showed that things which appear mean and obscure and despicable to men are with God of great glory, 1372 through love toward him manifested in power, and not boasting in appearance.
18. For while we all trembled, and her earthly mistress, who was herself also one of the witnesses, feared that on account of the weakness of her body, she would be unable to make bold confession, Blandina was filled with such power as to be delivered and raised above those who were torturing her by turns from morning till evening in every manner, so that they acknowledged that they were conquered, and could do nothing more to her. And they were astonished at her endurance, as her entire body was mangled and broken; and they testified that one of these forms of torture was sufficient to destroy life, not to speak of so many and so great sufferings.
19. But the blessed woman, like a noble athlete, renewed her strength in her confession; and her comfort and recreation and relief from the pain of her sufferings was in exclaiming, ‘I am a Christian, and there is nothing vile done by us.’
20. “But Sanctus also endured marvelously and superhumanly 1373 all the outrages which he suffered. While the wicked men hoped, by the continuance and severity of his tortures to wring something from him which he ought not to say, he girded himself against them with such firmness that he would not even tell his name, or the nation or city to which he belonged, or whether he was bond or free, but answered in the Roman tongue to all their questions, ‘I am a Christian.’ He confessed this instead of name and city and race and everything besides, and the people heard from him no other word.
21. There arose therefore on the part of the governor and his tormentors a great desire to conquer him; but having nothing more that they could do to him, they finally fastened red-hot brazen plates to the most tender parts of his body.
22. And these indeed were burned, but he continued unbending and unyielding, firm in his confession, and refreshed and strengthened by the heavenly fountain of the water of life, flowing from the bowels of Christ.
23. And his body was a witness of his sufferings, being one complete wound and bruise, drawn out of shape, and altogether unlike a human form. Christ, suffering in him, manifested his glory, delivering him from his adversary, and making him an ensample for the others, showing that nothing is fearful where the love of the Father is, and nothing painful where there is the glory of Christ.
24. For when the wicked men tortured him a second time after some days, supposing that with his body swollen and inflamed to such a degree that he could not bear the touch of a hand, if they should again apply the same instruments, they would overcome him, or at least by his death under his sufferings others would be made afraid, not only did not this occur, but, contrary to all human expectation, his body arose and stood erect in the midst of the subsequent torments, and resumed its original appearance and the use of its limbs, so that, through the grace of Christ, these second sufferings became to him, not torture, but healing.
25. “But the devil, thinking that he had already consumed Biblias, who was one of those who had denied Christ, desiring to increase her condemnation through the utterance of blasphemy, 1374 brought her again to the torture, to compel her, as already feeble and weak, to report impious things concerning us.
26. But she recovered herself under the suffering, and as if awaking from a deep sleep, and reminded by the present anguish of the eternal punishment in hell, she contradicted the blasphemers. ‘How,’ she said, ‘could those eat children who do not think it lawful to taste the blood even of irrational animals?’ And thenceforward she confessed herself a Christian, and was given a place in the order of the witnesses.
27. “But as the tyrannical tortures were made by Christ of none effect through the patience of the blessed, the devil invented other contrivances,—confinement in the dark and most loathsome parts of the prison, stretching of the feet to the fifth hole in the stocks, 1375 and the other outrages which his servants are accustomed to inflict upon the prisoners when furious and filled with the devil. A great many were suffocated in prison, being chosen by the Lord for this manner of death, that he might manifest in them his glory.
28. For some, though they had been tortured so cruelly that it seemed impossible that they could live, even with the most careful nursing, yet, destitute of human attention, remained in the prison, being strengthened by the Lord, and invigorated both in body and soul; and they exhorted and encouraged the rest. But such as were young, and arrested recently, so that their bodies had not become accustomed to torture, were unable to endure the severity of their confinement, and died in prison.
29. “The blessed Pothinus, who had been entrusted with the bishopric of Lyons, was dragged to the judgment seat. He was more than ninety years of age, and very infirm, scarcely indeed able to breathe because of physical weakness; but he was strengthened by spiritual zeal through his earnest desire for martyrdom. Though his body was worn out by old age and disease, his life was preserved that Christ might triumph in it.
30. When he was brought by the soldiers to the tribunal, accompanied by the civil magistrates and a multitude who shouted against him in every manner as if he were Christ himself, he bore noble witness.
31. Being asked by the governor, Who was the God of the Christians, he replied, ‘If thou art worthy, thou shalt know.’ Then he was dragged away harshly, and received blows of every kind. Those near him struck him with their hands and feet, regardless of his age; and those at a distance hurled at him whatever they could seize; all of them thinking that they would be guilty of great wickedness and impiety if any possible abuse were omitted. For thus they thought to avenge their own deities. Scarcely able to breathe, he was cast into prison and died after two days.
32. “Then a certain great dispensation of God occurred, and the compassion of Jesus appeared beyond measure, 1376 in a manner rarely seen among the brotherhood, but not beyond the power of Christ.
33. For those who had recanted at their first arrest were imprisoned with the others, and endured terrible sufferings, so that their denial was of no profit to them even for the present. But those who confessed what they were were imprisoned as Christians, no other accusation being brought against them. But the first were treated afterwards as murderers and defiled, and were punished twice as severely as the others.
34. For the joy of martyrdom, and the hope of the promises, and love for Christ, and the Spirit of the Father supported the latter; but their consciences so greatly distressed the former that they were easily distinguishable from all the rest by their very countenances when they were led forth.
35. For the first went out rejoicing, glory and grace being blended in their faces, so that even their bonds seemed like beautiful ornaments, as those of a bride adorned with variegated golden fringes; and they were perfumed with the sweet savor of Christ, 1377 so that some supposed they had been anointed with earthly ointment. But the others were downcast and humble and dejected and filled with every kind of disgrace, and they were reproached by the heathen as ignoble and weak, bearing the accusation of murderers, and having lost the one honorable and glorious and life-giving Name. The rest, beholding this, were strengthened, and when apprehended, they confessed without hesitation, paying no attention to the persuasions of the devil.”
36. After certain other words they continue:
“After these things, finally, their martyrdoms were divided into every form. 1378 For plaiting a crown of various colors and of all kinds of flowers, they presented it to the Father. It was proper therefore that the noble athletes, having endured a manifold strife, and conquered grandly, should receive the crown, great and incorruptible.
37. “Maturus, therefore, and Sanctus and Blandina and Attalus were led to the amphitheater to be exposed to the wild beasts, and to give to the heathen public a spectacle of cruelty, a day for fighting with wild beasts being specially appointed on account of our people.
38. Both Maturus and Sanctus passed again through every torment in the amphitheater, as if they had suffered nothing before, or rather, as if, having already conquered their antagonist in many contests, 1379 they were now striving for the crown itself. They endured again the customary running of the gauntlet 1380 and the violence of the wild beasts, and everything which the furious people called for or desired, and at last, the iron chair in which their bodies being roasted, tormented them with the fumes.
39. And not with this did the persecutors cease, but were yet more mad against them, determined to overcome their patience. But even thus they did not hear a word from Sanctus except the confession which he had uttered from the beginning.
40. These, then, after their life had continued for a long time through the great conflict, were at last sacrificed, having been made throughout that day a spectacle to the world, in place of the usual variety of combats.
41. “But Blandina was suspended on a stake, and exposed to be devoured by the wild beasts who should attack her. 1381 And because she appeared as if hanging on a cross, and because of her earnest prayers, she inspired the combatants with great zeal. For they looked on her in her conflict, and beheld with their outward eyes, in the form of their sister, him who was crucified for them, that he might persuade those who believe on him, that every one who suffers for the glory of Christ has fellowship always with the living God.
42. As none of the wild beasts at that time touched her, she was taken down from the stake, and cast again into prison. She was preserved thus for another contest, that, being victorious in more conflicts, she might make the punishment of the crooked serpent irrevocable; 1382 and, though small and weak and despised, yet clothed with Christ the mighty and conquering Athlete, she might arouse the zeal of the brethren, and, having overcome the adversary many times might receive, through her conflict, the crown incorruptible.
43. “But Attalus was called for loudly by the people, because he was a person of distinction. He entered the contest readily on account of a good conscience and his genuine practice in Christian discipline, and as he had always been a witness for the truth among us.
44. He was led around the amphitheater, a tablet being carried before him on which was written in the Roman language ‘This is Attalus the Christian,’ and the people were filled with indignation against him. But when the governor learned that he was a Roman, he commanded him to be taken back with the rest of those who were in prison concerning whom he had written to Cæsar, and whose answer he was awaiting.
45. “But the intervening time was not wasted nor fruitless to them; for by their patience the measureless compassion of Christ was manifested. For through their continued life the dead were made alive, and the witnesses showed favor to those who had failed to witness. And the virgin mother had much joy in receiving alive those whom she had brought forth as dead. 1383
46. For through their influence many who had denied were restored, and re-begotten, and rekindled with life, and learned to confess. And being made alive and strengthened, they went to the judgment seat to be again interrogated by the governor; God, who desires not the death of the sinner, 1384 but mercifully invites to repentance, treating them with kindness.
47. For Cæsar commanded that they should be put to death, 1385 but that any who might deny should be set free. Therefore, at the beginning of the public festival 1386 which took place there, and which was attended by crowds of men from all nations, the governor brought the blessed ones to the judgment seat, to make of them a show and spectacle for the multitude. Wherefore also he examined them again, and beheaded those who appeared to possess Roman citizenship, but he sent the others to the wild beasts.
48. “And Christ was glorified greatly in those who had formerly denied him, for, contrary to the expectation of the heathen, they confessed. For they were examined by themselves, as about to be set free; but confessing, they were added to the order of the witnesses. But some continued without, who had never possessed a trace of faith, nor any apprehension of the wedding garment, 1387 nor an understanding of the fear of God; but, as sons of perdition, they blasphemed the Way through their apostasy.
49. But all the others were added to the Church. While these were being examined, a certain Alexander, a Phrygian by birth, and physician by profession, who had resided in Gaul for many years, and was well known to all on account of his love to God and boldness of speech (for he was not without a share of apostolic grace), standing before the judgment seat, and by signs encouraging them to confess, appeared to those standing by as if in travail.
50. But the people being enraged because those who formerly denied now confessed, cried out against Alexander as if he were the cause of this. Then the governor summoned him and inquired who he was. And when he answered that he was a Christian, being very angry he condemned him to the wild beasts. And on the next day he entered along with Attalus. For to please the people, the governor had ordered Attalus again to the wild beasts.
51. And they were tortured in the amphitheater with all the instruments contrived for that purpose, and having endured a very great conflict, were at last sacrificed. Alexander neither groaned nor murmured in any manner, but communed in his heart with God.
52. But when Attalus was placed in the iron seat, and the fumes arose from his burning body, he said to the people in the Roman language: ‘Lo! this which ye do is devouring men; but we do not devour men; nor do any other wicked thing.’ And being asked, what name God has, he replied, ‘God has not a name as man has.’
53. “After all these, on the last day of the contests, Blandina was again brought in, with Ponticus, a boy about fifteen years old. They had been brought every day to witness the sufferings of the others, and had been pressed to swear by the idols. But because they remained steadfast and despised them, the multitude became furious, so that they had no compassion for the youth of the boy nor respect for the sex of the woman.
54. Therefore they exposed them to all the terrible sufferings and took them through the entire round of torture, repeatedly urging them to swear, but being unable to effect this; for Ponticus, encouraged by his sister so that even the heathen could see that she was confirming and strengthening him, having nobly endured every torture, gave up the ghost.
55. But the blessed Blandina, last of all, having, as a noble mother, encouraged her children and sent them before her victorious to the King, endured herself all their conflicts and hastened after them, glad and rejoicing in her departure as if called to a marriage supper, rather than cast to wild beasts.
56. And, after the scourging, after the wild beasts, after the roasting seat, 1388 she was finally enclosed in a net, and thrown before a bull. And having been tossed about by the animal, but feeling none of the things which were happening to her, on account of her hope and firm hold upon what had been entrusted to her, and her communion with Christ, she also was sacrificed. And the heathen themselves confessed that never among them had a woman endured so many and such terrible tortures.
57. “But not even thus was their madness and cruelty toward the saints satisfied. For, incited by the Wild Beast, wild and barbarous tribes were not easily appeased, and their violence found another peculiar opportunity in the dead bodies. 1389
58. For, through their lack of manly reason, the fact that they had been conquered did not put them to shame, but rather the more enkindled their wrath as that of a wild beast, and aroused alike the hatred of governor and people to treat us unjustly; that the Scripture might be fulfilled: ‘He that is lawless, let him be lawless still, and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still.’ 1390
59. For they cast to the dogs those who had died of suffocation in the prison, carefully guarding them by night and day, lest any one should be buried by us. And they exposed the remains left by the wild beasts and by fire, mangled and charred, and placed the heads of the others by their bodies, and guarded them in like manner from burial by a watch of soldiers for many days.
60. And some raged and gnashed their teeth against them, desiring to execute more severe vengeance upon them; but others laughed and mocked at them, magnifying their own idols, and imputed to them the punishment of the Christians. Even the more reasonable, and those who had seemed to sympathize somewhat, reproached them often, saying, ‘Where is their God, and what has their religion, which they have chosen rather than life, profited them?’
61. So various was their conduct toward us; but we were in deep affliction because we could not bury the bodies. For neither did night avail us for this purpose, nor did money persuade, nor entreaty move to compassion; but they kept watch in every way, as if the prevention of the burial would be of some great advantage to them.”
In addition, they say after other things:
62 . “The bodies of the martyrs, having thus in every manner been exhibited and exposed for six days, were afterward burned and reduced to ashes, and swept into the Rhone by the wicked men, so that no trace of them might appear on the earth.
63. And this they did, as if able to conquer God, and prevent their new birth; ‘that,’ as they said, ‘they may have no hope of a resurrection, 1391 through trust in which they bring to us this foreign and new religion, and despise terrible things, and are ready even to go to death with joy. Now let us see if they will rise again, and if their God is able to help them, and to deliver them out of our hands.’”
Footnotes
211:1350Λούγδουνος καὶ Βίεννα, the ancient Lugdunum and Vienna, the modern Lyons and Vienne in southeastern France.
212:1351μαρτύρων. This word is used in this and the following chapters of all those that suffered in the persecution, whether they lost their lives or not, and therefore in a broader sense than our word “martyr.” In order, therefore, to avoid all ambiguity I have translated the word in every case “witness,” its original significance. Upon the use of the words μ€ρτυρ and μ€ρτυς in the early Church, see Bk. III. chap. 32, note 15.
212:1352The fragments of this epistle, preserved by Eusebius in this and the next chapter, are printed with a commentary by Routh, in his Rel. Sacræ. I. p. 285 sq., and an English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 778 sq. There can be no doubt as to the early date and reliability of the epistle. It bears no traces of a later age, and contains little of the marvelous, which entered so largely into the spurious martyrologies of a later day. Its genuineness is in fact questioned by no one so far as I am aware. It is one of the most beautiful works of the kind which we have, and well deserves the place in his History which Eusebius has accorded it. We may assume that we have the greater part of the epistle in so far as it related to the martyrdoms. Ado, in his Mart., asserts that forty-eight suffered martyrdom, and even gives a list of their names. It is possible that he gained his information from the epistle itself, as given in its complete form in Eusebius’ Collection of Martyrdoms; but I am inclined to think rather that Eusebius has mentioned if not all, at least the majority of the martyrs referred to in the epistle, and that therefore Ado’s list is largely imaginary. Eusebius’ statement, that a “multitude” suffered signifies nothing, for μυρία was a very indefinite word, and might be used of a dozen or fifteen as easily as of forty-eight. To speak of the persecution as “wholesale,” so that it was not safe for any Christian to appear out of doors (Lightfoot, Ignatius, Vol. I. p. 499), is rather overstating the case. The persecution must, of course, whatever its extent, appear terrible to the Christians of the region; but a critical examination of the epistle itself will hardly justify the extravagant statements which are commonly made in regard to the magnitude and severity of the persecution. It may have been worse than any single persecution that had preceded it, but sinks into insignificance when compared with those which took place under Decius and Diocletian.
It is interesting to notice that this epistle was especially addressed to the Christians of Asia and Phrygia. We know that Southern Gaul contained a great many Asia Minor people, and that the intercourse between the two districts was very close. Irenæus, and other prominent Christians of Gaul, in the second and following centuries, were either natives of Asia Minor, or had pursued their studies there; and so the Church of the country always bore a peculiarly Greek character, and was for some centuries in sympathy and in constant communication with the Eastern Church. Witness, for instance, the rise and spread of semi-Pelagianism there in the fifth century,—a simple reproduction in its main features of the anthropology of the Eastern Church. Doubtless, at the time this epistle was written, there were many Christians in Lyons and Vienne, who had friends and relations in the East, and hence it was very natural that an epistle should be sent to what might be called, in a sense, the mother churches. Valesius expressed the opinion that Irenæus was the author of this epistle; and he has been followed by many other scholars. It is possible that he was, but there are no grounds upon which to base the opinion, except the fact that Irenæus lived in Lyons, and was, or afterward became, a writer. On the other hand, it is significant that no tradition has connected the letter with Irenæus’ name, and that even Eusebius has no thought of such a connection. In fact, Valesius’ opinion seems to me in the highest degree improbable.
212:1353Rom. viii. 18.
212:1354Of course official imprisonment cannot be referred to here. It may be that the mob did actually shut Christians up in one or another place, or it may mean simply that their treatment was such that the Christians were obliged to avoid places of public resort and were perhaps even compelled to remain somewhat closely at home, and were thus in a sense “imprisoned.”
212:1355χιλιαρχής, strictly the commander of a thousand men, but commonly used also to translate the Latin Tribunus militum.
212:1356Of the various witnesses mentioned in this chapter (Vettius Epagathus, Sanctus, Attalus, Blandina, Biblias, Pothinus, Maturus, Alexander, Ponticus) we know only what this epistle tells us. The question has arisen whether Vettius Epagathus really was a martyr. Renan (Marc Auréle, p. 307) thinks that he was not even arrested, but that the words “taken into the number of martyrs” (§10, below) imply simply that he enjoyed all the merit of martyrdom without actually undergoing any suffering. He bases his opinion upon the fact that Vettius is not mentioned again among the martyrs whose sufferings are recorded, and also upon the use of the words, “He was and is a true disciple” (§10, below). It is quite possible, however, that Vettius, who is said to have been a man of high station, was simply beheaded as a Roman citizen, and therefore there was no reason for giving a description of his death; and still further the words, “taken into the order of witnesses,” and also the words used in §10, “being well pleased to lay down his life,” while they do not prove that he suffered martyrdom, yet seem very strongly to imply that he did, and the quotation from the Apocalypse in the same paragraph would seem to indicate that he was dead, not alive, at the time the epistle was written. On the whole, it may be regarded as probable, though not certain, that Vettius was one of the martyrs. Valesius refers to Gregory of Tours (H. E. chaps. 29, 31) as mentioning a certain senator who was “of the lineage of Vettius Epagathus, who suffered for the name of Christ at Lyons.” Gregory’s authority is not very great, and he may in this case have known no more about the death of Vettius than is told in the fragment which we still possess, so that his statement can hardly be urged as proof that Vettius did suffer martyrdom. But it may be used as indicating that the latter was of a noble family, a fact which is confirmed in §10, below, where he is spoken of as a man of distinction.
212:1357Luke i. 6.
213:1358κλῆρον, employed in the sense of “order,” “class,” “category.” Upon the significance of the word κλῆρος in early Christian literature, see Ritschl’s exhaustive discussion in his Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, 2d ed., p. 388 sq.
213:1359παρ€κλητον; cf. John xiv. 16.
213:1360πνεῦμα is omitted by three important mss. followed by Laemmer and Heinichen. Burton retains the word in his text, but rejects it in a note. They are possibly correct, but I have preferred to follow the majority of the codices, thinking it quite natural that Eusebius should introduce the πνεῦμα in connection with Zacharias, who is said to have been filled with the “Spirit,” not with the “Advocate,” and thinking the omission of the word by a copyist, to whom it might seem quite superfluous after παρ€κλητον, much easier than its insertion.
213:1361See Luke i. 67
213:1362Compare John xv. 13.
213:1363Rev. xiv. 4.
213:1364διεκρίνοντο. Valesius finds in this word a figure taken from the athletic combats; for before the contests began the combatants were examined, and those found eligible were admitted (εἰσκρίνεσθαι), while the others were rejected (ἐκκρίνεσθαι).
213:1365ἐξέτρωσαν, with Stroth, Zimmermann, Schwegler, Burton, and Heinichen. ἐξέπεσον has perhaps a little stronger ms. support, and was read by Rufinus, but the former word, as Valesius remarks, being more unusual than the latter, could much more easily be changed into the latter by a copyist than the latter into the former.
213:1366Gieseler (Ecclesiastical History, Harper’s edition, I. p. 127) speaks of this as a violation of the ancient law that slaves could not be compelled to testify against their masters; but it is to be noticed that it is not said in the present case that they were called upon to testify against their masters, but only that through fear of what might come upon them they yielded to the solicitation of the soldiers and uttered falsehoods against their masters. It is not implied therefore that any illegal methods were employed in this respect by the officials in connection with the trials.
213:1367i.e. of cannibalism and incest; for according to classic legend Thyestes had unwittingly eaten his own sons served to him at a banquet by an enemy, and Œdipus had unknowingly married his own mother. Upon the terrible accusations brought against the Christians by their heathen enemies, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 20.
213:1368John xvi. 2.
213:1369καὶ δι᾽ ἐκείνων ῥηθῆναί τι τῶν βλασφήμων. The word βλασφήμων evidently refers here to the slanderous reports against the Christians such as had been uttered by those mentioned just above. This is made clear, as Valesius remarks, by the καὶ δι᾽ ἐκείνων, “by them also.”
213:1370Valesius maintains that Sanctus was a deacon of the church of Lyons, and that the words ἀπὸ Βιέννης signify only that he was a native of Vienne, but it is certainly more natural to understand the words as implying that he was a deacon of the church of Vienne, and it is not at all difficult to account for his presence in Lyons and his martyrdom there. Indeed, it is evident that the church of Vienne was personally involved in the persecution as well as that of Lyons. Cf. §13, above.
213:1371Pergamos in Asia Minor (mentioned in Rev. ii. 12, and the seat of a Christian church for a number of centuries) is apparently meant here. As already remarked, the connection between the inhabitants of Gaul and of Asia Minor was very close.
213:1372Cf. 1 Cor. 1:27, 28.
214:1373ὑπὲρ π€ντα ἄνθρωπον.
214:1374Blasphemy against Christianity, not against God or Christ; that is, slanders against the Christians (cf. §14, above), as is indicated by the words that follow (so Valesius also).
214:1375See Bk. IV. chap. 16, note 9.
215:1376The compassion of Jesus appeared not in the fact that those who denied suffered such terrible punishments, but that the difference between their misery in their sufferings and the joy of the faithful in theirs became a means of strength and encouragement to the other Christians. Compare the note of Heinichen (III. p. 180).
215:1377Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 15. Cf. also Bk. IV. chap. 15, §37, above.
215:1378μετὰ ταῦτα δὴ λοιπὸν εἰς πᾶν εἶδος διῃρεῖτο τὰ μαρτύρια τῆς ἐξόδου αὐτῶν.
215:1379διὰ πλειόνων κλήρων; undoubtedly a reference to the athletic combats (see Valesius’ note in loco).
215:1380τὰς διεξόδους τῶν μαστίγων τὰς ἐκεῖσε εἰθισμένας. It was the custom to compel the bestiarii before fighting with wild beasts to run the gauntlet. Compare Shorting’s and Valesius’ notes in loco, and Tertullian’s ad Nationes, 18, and ad Martyras, 5, to which the latter refers.
215:1381Among the Romans crucifixion was the mode of punishment commonly inflicted upon slaves and the worst criminals. Roman citizens were exempt from this indignity. See Lipsius’ De Cruce and the various commentaries upon the Gospel narratives of the crucifixion of Christ.
215:1382Compare Isa. xxvii. 1, which is possibly referred to here.
216:1383ὡς νεκροὺς ἐξέτρωσε. Compare §11, above.
216:1384Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
216:1385ἀποτυμπανισθῆναι. The word means literally “beaten to death,” but it is plain that it is used in a general sense here, from the fact that some were beheaded and some sent to the wild beasts, as we are told just below.
216:1386Renan (Marc Auréle, p. 329) identifies this with the meeting of the general assembly of the Gallic nations, which took place annually in the month of August for the celebration of the worship of Augustus, and was attended with imposing ceremonies, games, contests, &c. The identification is not at all improbable.
216:1387Cf. Matt. xxii. 11.
217:1388τήγανον: literally, “frying-pan,” by which, however, is evidently meant the instrument of torture spoken of already more than once in this chapter as an iron seat or chair.
217:1389The Christians were very solicitous about the bodies of the martyrs, and were especially anxious to give them decent burial, and to preserve the memory of their graves as places of peculiar religious interest and sanctity. They sometimes went even to the length of bribing the officials to give them the dead bodies (cf. §61, below).
217:1390Rev. xxii. 11. The citation of the Apocalypse at this date as Scripture (ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ) is noteworthy.
217:1391These words show us how much emphasis the Christians of that day must have laid upon the resurrection of the body (an emphasis which is abundantly evident from other sources), and in what a sensuous and material way they must have taught the doctrine, or at least how unguarded their teaching must have been, which could lead the heathen to think that they could in the slightest impede the resurrection by such methods as they pursued. The Christians, in so far as they laid so much emphasis as they did upon the material side of the doctrine, and were so solicitous about the burial of their brethren, undoubtedly were in large part responsible for this gross misunderstanding on the part of the heathen.
Chapter II.—The Martyrs, beloved of God, kindly ministered unto those who fell in the Persecution.
1. Such things happened to the churches of Christ under the above-mentioned emperor, 1392 from which we may reasonably conjecture the occurrences in the other provinces. It is proper to add other selections from the same letter, in which the moderation and compassion of these witnesses is recorded in the following words:
2. “They were also so zealous in their imitation of Christ,—‘who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,’ 1393 —that, though they had attained such honor, and had borne witness, not once or twice, but many times,—having been brought back to prison from the wild beasts, covered with burns and scars and wounds,—yet they did not proclaim themselves witnesses, nor did they suffer us to address them by this name. If any one of us, in letter or conversation, spoke of them as witnesses, they rebuked him sharply.
3. For they conceded cheerfully the appellation of Witness to Christ ‘the faithful and true Witness,’ 1394 and ‘firstborn of the dead,’ 1395 and prince of the life of God; 1396 and they reminded us of the witnesses who had already departed, and said, ‘They are already witnesses whom Christ has deemed worthy to be taken up in their confession, having sealed their testimony by their departure; but we are lowly and humble confessors.’ 1397 And they besought the brethren with tears that earnest prayers should be offered that they might be made perfect. 1398
4. They showed in their deeds the power of ‘testimony,’ manifesting great boldness toward all the brethren, and they made plain their nobility through patience and fearlessness and courage, but they refused the title of Witnesses as distinguishing them from their brethren, 1399 being filled with the fear of God.”
5. A little further on they say: “They humbled themselves under the mighty hand, by which they are now greatly exalted. 1400 They defended all, 1401 but accused none. They absolved all, but bound none. 1402 And they prayed for those who had inflicted cruelties upon them, even as Stephen, the perfect witness, ‘Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.’ 1403 But if he prayed for those who stoned him, how much more for the brethren!”
6. And again after mentioning other matters, they say:
“For, through the genuineness of their love, their greatest contest with him was that the Beast, being choked, might cast out alive those whom he supposed he had swallowed. For they did not boast over the fallen, but helped them in their need with those things in which they themselves abounded, having the compassion of a mother, and shedding many tears on their account before the Father.
7. They asked for life, and he gave it to them, and they shared it with their neighbors. Victorious over everything, they departed to God. Having always loved peace, and having commended peace to us 1404 they went in peace to God, leaving no sorrow to their mother, nor division or strife to the brethren, but joy and peace and concord and love.”
8. This record of the affection of those blessed ones toward the brethren that had fallen may be profitably added on account of the inhuman and unmerciful disposition of those who, after these events, acted unsparingly toward the members of Christ. 1405
Footnotes
217:1392Namely, Antoninus Verus (in reality Marcus Aurelius, but wrongly distinguished by Eusebius from him), mentioned above in the Introduction. Upon Eusebius’ separation of Marcus Aurelius and Antoninus Verus, see below, p. 390, note.
217:1393Phil. ii. 6.
218:1394Rev. iii. 14.
218:1395Rev. i. 5.
218:1396ἀρχηγῷ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ θεοῦ. Cf. Rev. iii. 14.
218:1397ὁμολογοι. The regular technical term for “confessor,” which later came into general use, was ὁμολογητής
218:1398τελειωθῆναι; i.e. be made perfect by martyrdom. For this use of τελειόω, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 3, §13, and chap. 5, §1; also Bk. VII. chap. 15, §5, and see Suicer’s Thesaurus, s.v.
218:1399πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφούς.
218:1400Compare 1 Pet. v. 6.
218:1401πᾶσι μὲν ἀπολογοῦντο. Rufinus translates placabant omnes; Musculus, omnibus rationem fidei suæ reddebant; Valesius, omnium defensionem suscipiebant, though he maintains in a note that the rendering of Musculus, or the translation omnibus se excusabant, is more correct. It is true that πᾶσι ἀπολογοῦντο ought strictly to mean “apologized to all” rather than “for all,” the latter being commonly expressed by the use of ὑπὲρ with the genitive (see the lexicons s.v. ἀπολογέομαι). At the same time, though it may not be possible to produce any other examples of the use of the dative, instead of ὑπὲρ with the genitive, after ἀπολογέομαι, it is clear from the context that it must be accepted in the present case.
218:1402The question of the readmission of the lapsed had not yet become a burning one. The conduct of the martyrs here in absolving (žλυον) those who had shown weakness under persecution is similar to that which caused so much dispute in the Church during and after the persecution of Decius. See below, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1.
218:1403Acts vii. 60.
218:1404ἡμῖν, which is found in four important mss. and in Nicephorus, and is supported by Rufinus and adopted by Stephanus, Stroth, Burton, and Zimmermann. The majority of the mss., followed by all the other editors, including Heinichen, read ἀεί.
218:1405Eusebius refers here to the Novatians, who were so severe in their treatment of the lapsed, and who in his day were spread very widely and formed an aggressive and compact organization (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 43, note 1).
Chapter III.—The Vision which appeared in a Dream to the Witness Attalus.
1. The same letter of the above-mentioned witnesses contains another account worthy of remembrance. No one will object to our bringing it to the knowledge of our readers.
2. It runs as follows: “For a certain Alcibiades, 1406 who was one of them, led a very austere life, partaking of nothing whatever but bread and water. When he endeavored to continue this same sort of life in prison, it was revealed to Attalus after his first conflict in the amphitheater that Alcibiades was not doing well in refusing the creatures of God and placing a stumbling-block before others.
3. And Alcibiades obeyed, and partook of all things without restraint, giving thanks to God. For they were not deprived of the grace of God, but the Holy Ghost was their counselor.” Let this suffice for these matters.
4. The followers of Montanus, 1407 Alcibiades 1408 and Theodotus 1409 in Phrygia were now first giving wide circulation to their assumption in regard to prophecy,—for the many other miracles that, through the gift of God, were still wrought in the different churches caused their prophesying to be readily credited by many,—and as dissension arose concerning them, the brethren in Gaul set forth their own prudent and most orthodox judgment in the matter, and published also several epistles from the witnesses that had been put to death among them. These they sent, while they were still in prison, to the brethren throughout Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, 1410 who was then bishop of Rome, negotiating for the peace of the churches. 1411
Footnotes
218:1406Of this Alcibiades we know only what is told us in this connection. Doubtless Eusebius found this extract very much to his taste, for we know that he was not inclined to asceticism. The enthusiastic spirit of the Lyons Christians comes out strongly in the extract, and considerable light is thrown by it upon the state of the Church there. Imprisoned confessors were never permitted to suffer for want of food and the other comforts of life so long as their brethren were allowed access to them. Compare e.g. Lucian’s Peregrinus Proteus.
218:1407On Montanus and the Montanists, see below, chap. 16 sq.
218:1408Of this Montanist Alcibiades we know nothing. He is, of course, to be distinguished from the confessor mentioned just above. The majority of the editors of Eusebius substitute his name for that of Miltiades in chap. 16, below, but the mss. all read Μιλτι€δην, and the emendation is unwarranted (see chap. 16, note 7). Salmon suggests that we should read Miltiades instead of Alcibiades in the present passage, supposing that the latter may have crept in through a copyist’s error, under the influence of the name Alcibiades mentioned just above. Such an error is possible, but not probable (see chap. 16, note 7).
218:1409Of the Montanist Theodotus we know only what is told us here and in chap. 16, below (see that chapter, note 25).
219:1410On Eleutherus, see above, Bk. V. Introd. note 2.
219:1411It is commonly assumed that the Gallic martyrs favored the Montanists and exhorted Eleutherus to be mild in his judgment of them, and to preserve the peace of the Church by permitting them to remain within it and enjoy fellowship with other Christians. But Salmon (in the Dict. of Christian Biog. III. p. 937) has shown, in my opinion conclusively, that the Gallic confessors took the opposite side, and exhorted Eleutherus to confirm the Eastern Church in its condemnation of the Montanists, representing to him that he would threaten the peace of the Church by refusing to recognize the justice of the decision of the bishops of the East and by setting himself in opposition to them. Certainly, with their close connection with Asia Minor, we should expect the Gallic Christians to be early informed of the state of affairs in the East, and it is not difficult to think that they may have formed the same opinion in regard to the new prophecy which the majority of their brethren there had formed. The decisive argument for Salmon’s opinion is the fact that Eusebius calls the letter of the Lyons confessors to Eleutherus “pious and most orthodox.” Certainly, looking upon Montanism as one of the most execrable of heresies and as the work of Satan himself (cf. his words in chap. 16, below), it is very difficult to suppose that he can have spoken of a letter written expressly in favor of the Montanists in any such terms of respect. Salmon says: “It is monstrous to imagine that Eusebius, thinking thus of Montanism, could praise as pious or orthodox the opinion of men who, ignorant of Satan’s devices, should take the devil’s work for God’s. The way in which we ourselves read the history is that the Montanists had appealed to Rome; that the Church party solicited the good offices of their countrymen settled in Gaul, who wrote to Eleutherus representing the disturbance to the peace of the churches (a phrase probably preserved by Eusebius from the letter itself) which would ensue if the Roman Church should approve what the Church on the spot had condemned.…To avert, then, the possibility of the calamity of a breach between the Eastern and Western churches, the Gallic churches, it would appear, not only wrote, but sent Irenæus to Rome at the end of 177 or the beginning of 178. The hypothesis here made relieves us from the necessity of supposing this πρεσβεία to have been unsuccessful, while it fully accounts for the necessity of sending it.”
Chapter IV.—Irenæus commended by the Witnesses in a Letter.
1. The same witnesses also recommended Irenæus, 1412 who was already at that time a presbyter of the parish of Lyons, to the above-mentioned bishop of Rome, saying many favorable things in regard to him, as the following extract shows:
2. “We pray, father Eleutherus, that you may rejoice in God in all things and always. We have requested our brother and comrade Irenæus 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.”
3. 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 1413 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. 1414 Such were the events which happened under Antoninus. 1415
Footnotes
219:1412On Irenæus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
219:1413ὁμολογητῶν. Eusebius here uses the common technical term for confessors; i.e. for those who had been faithful and had suffered in persecution, but had not lost their lives. In the epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, the word ὁμόλογοι is used to denote the same persons (see above, chap. 2, note 6).
219:1414Cf. §2 of the Introduction to this book (Bk. V.). On Eusebius’ Collection of Martyrdoms, see above, p. 30.
219:1415i.e. Antoninus Verus, whom Eusebius expressly distinguishes from Marcus Aurelius at the beginning of the next chapter. See below, p. 390, note.
Chapter V.—God sent Rain from Heaven for Marcus Aurelius Cæsar in Answer to the Prayers of our People.
1. It is reported 1416 that Marcus Aurelius Cæsar, brother of Antoninus, 1417 being about to engage in battle with the Germans and Sarmatians, was in great trouble on account of his army suffering from thirst. 1418 But the soldiers of the so-called Melitene legion, 1419 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, 1420 and engaged in supplications to God.
2. This was indeed a strange sight to the enemy, but it is reported 1421 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.
3. 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. 1422 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.
4. Among these is Apolinarius, 1423 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.
5. 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, 1424 he confirms the history with greater and stronger proofs.
6. He writes 1425 that there are still extant letters 1426 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 1427 to those who brought accusation against us.
7. He adds further: 1428
“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; 1429 which Trajan partially annulled, forbidding Christians to be sought after; 1430 which neither Adrian, 1431 though inquisitive in all matters, nor he who was called Pius 1432 sanctioned.” But let any one treat these things as he chooses; 1433 we must pass on to what followed.
8. Pothinus having died with the other martyrs in Gaul at ninety years of age, 1434 Irenæus succeeded him in the episcopate of the church at Lyons. 1435 We have learned that, in his youth, he was a hearer of Polycarp. 1436
9. In the third book of his work Against Heresies he has inserted a list of the bishops of Rome, bringing it down as far as Eleutherus (whose times we are now considering), under whom he composed his work. He writes as follows: 1437
Footnotes
219:1416The expression λόγος žχει, employed here by Eusebius, is ordinarily used by him to denote that the account which he subjoins rests simply upon verbal testimony. But in the present instance he has written authority, which he mentions below. He seems, therefore, in the indefinite phrase λόγος žχει, to express doubts which he himself feels as to the trustworthiness of the account which he is about to give. The story was widely known in his time, and the Christians’ version of it undoubtedly accepted by the Christians themselves with little misgiving, and yet he is too well informed upon this subject to be ignorant of the fact that the common version rests upon a rather slender foundation. He may have known of the coins and monuments upon which the emperor had commemorated his own view of the matter,—at any rate he was familiar with the fact that all the heathen historians contradicted the claims of the Christians, and hence he could not but consider it a questionable matter. At the same time, the Christian version of the story was supported by strong names and was widely accepted, and he, as a good Christian, of course wished to accept it, if possible, and to report it for the edification of posterity.
219:1417τούτου δὲ ἀδελφόν: the τούτου referring to the Antoninus mentioned at the close of the previous chapter. Upon Eusebius’ confusion of the successors of Antoninus Pius, see below, p. 390, note.
219:1418It is an historical fact that, in 174 a.d., the Roman army in Hungary was relieved from a very dangerous predicament by the sudden occurrence of a thunder-storm, which quenched their thirst and frightened the barbarians, and thus gave the Romans the victory. By heathen writers this event (quite naturally considered miraculous) was held to have taken place in answer to prayer, but by no means in answer to the prayers of the Christians. Dion Cassius (LXXI. 8) ascribes the supposed miracle to the conjurations of the Egyptian magician Arnuphis; Capitolinus (Vita Marc. Aurelii, chap. 24, and Vita Heliogabali, chap. 9), to the prayer of Marcus Aurelius. The emperor himself expresses his view upon a coin which represents Jupiter as hurling lightning against the barbarians (see Eckhel. Numism. III. 61).
As early as the time of Marcus Aurelius himself the Christians ascribed the merit of the supposed miracle to their own prayers (e.g. Apolinarius, mentioned just below), and this became the common belief among them (cf. Tertullian, Apol. chap. 5, quoted just below, and ad Scap. chap. 4, and the forged edict of Marcus Aurelius, appended to Justin Martyr’s first Apology). It is probable that the whole legion prayed for deliverance to their respective deities, and thus quite naturally each party claimed the victory for its particular gods. That there were some Christians in the army of Marcus Aurelius there is, of course, no reason to doubt, but that a legion at that time was wholly composed of Christians, as Eusebius implies, is inconceivable.
219:1419This legion was called the Melitene from the place where it was regularly stationed,—Melitene, a city in Eastern Cappadocia, or Armenia.
220:1420Kneeling was the common posture of offering prayer in the early Church, but the standing posture was by no means uncommon, especially in the offering of thanksgiving. Upon Sunday and during the whole period from Easter to Pentecost all prayers were regularly offered in a standing position, as a symbolical expression of joy (cf. Tertullian, de Corona, chap. 3; de Oratione, chap. 23, &c.). The practice, however, was not universal, and was therefore decreed by the Nicene Council in its twentieth canon (Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. 430). See Kraus’ Real-Encyclopädie der Christlichen Alterthümer, Bd. I. p. 557 sqq.
220:1421λόγος žχει. See above, note 1.
220:1422Dion Cassius and Capitolinus record the occurrence (as mentioned above, note 2). It is recorded also by other writers after Eusebius’ time, such as Claudian and Zonaras. None of them, however, attribute the occurrence to the prayers of the Christians, but all claim it for the heathen gods. The only pre-Eusebian Christian accounts of this event still extant are those contained in the forged edict of Marcus Aurelius and in the Apology of Tertullian, quoted just below (cf. also his de Orat. 29). Cyprian also probably refers to the same event in his Tractat. ad Demetriadem, 20. Eusebius, in referring to Apolinarius and Tertullian, very likely mentions all the accounts with which he was acquainted. Gregory Nyssa, Jerome, and other later Christian writers refer to the event.
220:1423i.e. Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis. Upon him and his writings, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1. This reference is in all probability to the Apology of Apolinarius, as this is the only work known to us which would have been likely to contain an account of such an event. The fact that in the reign of the very emperor under whom the occurrence took place, and in an Apology addressed to him, the Christians could be indicated as the source of the miracle, shows the firmness of this belief among the Christians themselves, and also proves that they must have been so numerous in the army as to justify them in setting up a counter-claim over against the heathen soldiers.
Apolinarius is very far from the truth in his statement as to the name of the legion. From Dion Cassius, LV. 23, it would seem that the legion bore this name even in the time of Augustus; but if this be uncertain, at any rate it bore it as early as the time of Nero (as we learn from an inscription of his eleventh year, Corp. Ins. Lat. III. 30). Neander thinks it improbable that Apolinarius, a contemporary who lived in the neighborhood of the legion’s winter quarters, could have committed such a mistake. He prefers to think that the error is Eusebius’, and resulted from a too rapid perusal of the passage in Apolinarius, where there must have stood some such words as, “Now the emperor could with right call the legion the Thundering Legion.” His opinion is at least plausible. Tertullian certainly knew nothing of the naming of the legion at this time, or if he had heard the report, rejected it.
220:1424In Bk. II. chap. 2, §4, and Bk. III. chap. 33, §3 (quoted also in Bk. III. chap. 20, §9).
220:1425Apol.chap. 5.
220:1426A pretended epistle of Marcus Aurelius, addressed to the Senate, in which he describes the miraculous deliverance of his army through the prayers of the Christians, is still extant, and stands at the close of Justin Martyr’s first Apology. It is manifestly the work of a Christian, and no one now thinks of accepting it as genuine. It is in all probability the same epistle to which Tertullian refers, and therefore must have been forged before the end of the second century, although its exact date cannot be determined. See Overbeck, Studien zur Gesch. d. alten Kirche, I.
220:1427The epistle says that the accuser is to be burned alive (ζῶντα καίεσθαι). Tertullian simply says that he is to be punished with a “condemnation of greater severity” (damnatione et quidem tetriore). Eusebius therefore expresses himself more definitely than Tertullian, though it is very likely that the poor Greek translation which he used had already made of damnatio tetrior the simpler and more telling expression, θανατός.
220:1428Apol. ibid.
220:1429See Bk. III. chap. 12, note 1.
220:1430Upon Trajan’s rescript, and the universal misunderstanding of it in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 33 (notes).
220:1431Upon Hadrian’s treatment of the Christians, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 9.
220:1432Upon Antoninus Pius’ relation to them, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 13.
220:1433Whether Eusebius refers in this remark only to the report of Tertullian, or to the entire account of the miracle, we do not know. The remark certainly has reference at least to the words of Tertullian. Eusebius had apparently not himself seen the epistle of Marcus Aurelius; for in the first place, he does not cite it; secondly, he does not rest his account upon it, but upon Apolinarius and Tertullian; and thirdly, in his Chron. both the Armenian and Greek say, “it is said that there are epistles of Marcus Aurelius extant,” while Jerome says directly, “there are letters extant.”
220:1434See above, chap. 1, §29.
220:1435Upon Irenæus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
220:1436Cf. Adv. Hær. II. 3. 4, &c., and Eusebius, chap. 20, below.
220:1437Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3.
Chapter VI.—Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome.
1. “The blessed apostles 1438 having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. 1439 Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. 1440
2. Anencletus 1441 succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third place from the apostles, Clement 1442 received the episcopate. He had seen and conversed with the blessed apostles, 1443 and their preaching was still sounding in his ears, and their tradition was still before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for many who had been taught by the apostles yet survived.
3. In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, 1444 the church of Rome sent a most suitable letter to the Corinthians, 1445 reconciling them in peace, renewing their faith, and proclaiming 1446 the doctrine lately received from the apostles.” 1447
4. A little farther on he says: 1448
“Evarestus 1449 succeeded Clement, and Alexander, 1450 Evarestus. Then Xystus, 1451 the sixth from the apostles, was appointed. After him Telesphorus, 1452 who suffered martyrdom gloriously; then Hyginus; 1453 then Pius; 1454 and after him Anicetus; 1455 Soter 1456 succeeded Anicetus; and now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, Eleutherus 1457 holds the office of bishop.
5. In the same order and succession 1458 the tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has descended from the apostles unto us.”
Footnotes
221:1438Namely, Peter and Paul; but neither of them founded the Roman church. See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.
221:1439On Linus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 2, note 1; and for the succession of the early Roman bishops, see the same note.
221:14402 Tim. iv. 21.
221:1441On Anencletus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3.
221:1442On Clement, see above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 19.
221:1443Although the identification of this Clement with the one mentioned in Philip. 4.3 is more than doubtful, yet there is no reason to doubt that, living as he did in the first century at Rome, he was personally acquainted at least with the apostles Peter and Paul.
221:1444See the Epistle of Clement itself, especially chaps. 1 and 3.
221:1445Upon the epistle, see above, Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.
221:1446ἀνεοῦσα τὴν πίστιν αὐτῶν καὶ ἣν νεωστὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων παρ€δοσιν εἰλήφει. The last word being in the singular, the tradition must be that received by the Roman, not by the Corinthian church (as it is commonly understood), and hence it is necessary to supply some verb which shall govern παρ€δοσιν, for it is at least very harsh to say that the Roman church, in its epistle to the Corinthians “renewed” the faith which it had received. The truth is, that both in Rufinus and in Irenæus an extra participle is found (in the former exprimens, in the latter annuntians), and Stroth has in consequence ventured to insert the word καταγγέλουσα in his text. I have likewise, for the sake of the sense, inserted the word proclaiming, not thereby intending to imply, however, the belief that καταγγέλουσα stood in the original text of Eusebius.
221:1447It is interesting to notice how strictly Eusebius carries out his principle of taking historical matter wherever he can find it, but of omitting all doctrinal statements and discussions. The few sentences which follow in Irenæus are of a doctrinal nature, and in the form of a brief polemic against Gnosticism.
221:1448Ibid.
221:1449Upon Evarestus, see above, Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.
221:1450Upon Alexander, see Bk. IV. chap. 1, note 4.
221:1451Upon Xystus, see IV. 4, note 3.
221:1452Upon Telesphorus, see IV. 5, note 13.
221:1453Upon Hyginus, see IV. 10, note 3.
221:1454Upon Pius, see IV. 11, note 14.
221:1455Upon Anicetus, see IV. 11, note 18.
221:1456Upon Soter, see IV. 19, note 2.
221:1457Upon Eleutherus, see Introd. to this book, note 2.
221:1458διαδοχῇ, which is confirmed by the ancient Latin version of Irenæus (successione), and which is adopted by Zimmermann, Heinichen, and Valesius (in his notes). All the mss. of Eusebius, followed by the majority of the editors, read διδαχῇ, which, however, makes no sense in this place, and can hardly have been the original reading (see Heinichen’s note in loco).
Chapter VII.—Even down to those Times Miracles were performed by the Faithful.
1. These things Irenæus, in agreement with the accounts already given by us, 1459 records in the work which comprises five books, and to which he gave the title Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So-called. 1460 In the second book of the same treatise he shows that manifestations of divine and miraculous power continued to his time in some of the churches.
2. He says: 1461
“But so far do they come short of raising the dead, as the Lord raised them, and the apostles through prayer. And oftentimes in the brotherhood, when, on account of some necessity, our entire Church has besought with fasting and much supplication, the spirit of the dead has returned, 1462 and the man has been restored through the prayers of the saints.”
3. And again, after other remarks, he says: 1463
“If they will say that even the Lord did these things in mere appearance, we will refer them to the prophetic writings, and show from them that all things were beforehand spoken of him in this manner, and were strictly fulfilled; and that he alone is the Son of God. Wherefore his true disciples, receiving grace from him, perform such works in his Name for the benefit of other men, as each has received the gift from him.
4. For some of them drive out demons effectually and truly, so that those who have been cleansed from evil spirits frequently believe and unite with the Church. Others have a foreknowledge of future events, and visions, and prophetic revelations. Still others heal the sick by the laying on of hands, and restore them to health. And, as we have said, even dead persons have been raised, and remained with us many years.
5. But why should we say more? It is not possible to recount the number of gifts which the Church, throughout all the world, has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and exercises every day for the benefit of the heathen, never deceiving any nor doing it for money. For as she has received freely from God, freely also does she minister.” 1464
6. And in another place the same author writes: 1465
“As also we hear that many brethren in the Church possess prophetic gifts, and speak, through the Spirit, with all kinds of tongues, and bring to light the secret things of men for their good, and declare the mysteries of God.”
So much in regard to the fact that various gifts remained among those who were worthy even until that time.
Footnotes
221:1459In the various passages referred to in the notes on the previous chapter.
221:1460ἐλέγχου καὶ ἀνατροπῆς τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως (cf. 1 Tim. vi. 20). This work of Irenæus, which is commonly known under its Latin title, Adversus Hæreses (Against Heresies), is still extant in a barbarous Latin version, of which we possess three mss. The original Greek is lost, though a great part of the first book can be recovered by means of extensive quotations made from it by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The work is directed against the various Gnostic systems, among which that of Valentinus is chiefly attacked. The first book is devoted to a statement of their doctrines, the second to a refutation of them, and the remaining three to a presentation of the true doctrines of Christianity as opposed to the false positions of the Gnostics. The best edition of the original is that of Harvey: S. Irenæi libros quinque adv. Hæreses., Cambr. 1857, 2 vols.; English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 309 ff. For the literature of the subject, see Schaff, II. p. 746 ff. On Irenæus himself, see Book IV. chap. 21, note 9.
221:1461Adv. Hær. II. 31. 2. The sentence as it stands in Eusebius is incomplete. Irenæus is refuting the pretended miracles of Simon and Carpocrates. The passage runs as follows: “So far are they [i.e. Simon and Carpocrates] from being able to raise the dead as the Lord raised them and as the apostles did by means of prayer, and as has been frequently done in the brotherhood on account of some necessity—the entire Church in that locality entreating with much fasting and prayer [so that] the spirit of the dead man has returned, and he has been bestowed in answer to the prayer of the saints—that they do not even believe this can possibly be done, [and hold] that the resurrection from the dead is simply an acquaintance with that truth which they proclaim.”
This resurrection of the dead recorded by Irenæus is very difficult to explain, as he is a truth-loving man, and we can hardly conceive of his uttering a direct falsehood. Even Augustine, “the iron man of truth,” records such miracles, and so the early centuries are full of accounts of them. The Protestant method of drawing a line between the apostolic and post-apostolic ages in this matter of miracles is arbitrary, and based upon dogmatic, not historical grounds. The truth is, that no one can fix the point of time at which miracles ceased; at the same time it is easy to appreciate the difference between the apostolic age and the third, fourth, and following centuries in this regard. That they did cease at an early date in the history of the Church is clear enough. Upon post-apostolic miracles, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 116 ff., J. H. Newman’s Two Essays on Biblical and Eccles. Miracles, and J. B. Mozley’s Bampton lectures On Miracles.
221:1462See the previous note.
221:1463Adv. Hær. II. 32. 4.
222:1464Cf. Matt. x. 8
222:1465Adv. Hær. V. 6. 1.
Chapter VIII.—The Statements of Irenæus in regard to the Divine Scriptures.
1. Since, in the beginning of this work, 1466 we promised to give, when needful, the words of the ancient presbyters and writers of the Church, in which they have declared those traditions which came down to them concerning the canonical books, and since Irenæus was one of them, we will now give his words and, first, what he says of the sacred Gospels: 1467
2. “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, 1468 while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. 1469
3. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; 1470 and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. 1471
4. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia.” 1472
5. He states these things in the third book of his above-mentioned work. In the fifth book he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John, and the number of the name of Antichrist: 1473
“As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies, 1474 and those who saw John face to face confirm it, and reason teaches us that the number of the name of the beast, according to the mode of calculation among the Greeks, appears in its letters.…” 1475
6. And farther on he says concerning the same: 1476
“We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian.” 1477
7. He states these things concerning the Apocalypse 1478 in the work referred to. He also mentions the first Epistle of John, 1479 taking many proofs from it, and likewise the first Epistle of Peter. 1480 And he not only knows, but also receives, The Shepherd, 1481 writing as follows: 1482
“Well did the Scripture 1483 speak, saying, 1484 ‘First of all believe that God is one, who has created and completed all things,’” &c.
8. And he uses almost the precise words of the Wisdom of Solomon, saying: 1485 “The vision of God produces immortality, but immortality renders us near to God.” He mentions also the memoirs 1486 of a certain apostolic presbyter, 1487 whose name he passes by in silence, and gives his expositions of the sacred Scriptures.
9. And he refers to Justin the Martyr, 1488 and to Ignatius, 1489 using testimonies also from their writings. Moreover, he promises to refute Marcion from his own writings, in a special work. 1490
10. Concerning the translation of the inspired 1491 Scriptures by the Seventy, hear the very words which he writes: 1492
“God in truth became man, and the Lord himself saved us, giving the sign of the virgin; but not as some say, who now venture to translate the Scripture, ‘Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bring forth a son,’ 1493 as Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus, 1494 both of them Jewish proselytes, interpreted; following whom, the Ebionites say 1495 that he was begotten by Joseph.”
11. Shortly after he adds:
“For before the Romans had established their empire, while the Macedonians were still holding Asia, Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, 1496 being desirous of adorning the library which he had founded in Alexandria with the meritorious writings of all men, requested the people of Jerusalem to have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language.
12. But, as they were then subject to the Macedonians, they sent to Ptolemy seventy elders, who were the most skilled among them in the Scriptures and in both languages. Thus God accomplished his purpose. 1497
13. But wishing to try them individually, as he feared lest, by taking counsel together, they might conceal the truth of the Scriptures by their interpretation, he separated them from one another, and commanded all of them to write the same translation. 1498 He did this for all the books.
14. But when they came together in the presence of Ptolemy, and compared their several translations, God was glorified, and the Scriptures were recognized as truly divine. For all of them had rendered the same things in the same words and with the same names from beginning to end, so that the heathen perceived that the Scriptures had been translated by the inspiration 1499 of God.
15. And this was nothing wonderful for God to do, who, in the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, when the Scriptures had been destroyed, and the Jews had returned to their own country after seventy years, afterwards, in the time of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians, inspired Ezra the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to relate all the words of the former prophets, and to restore to the people the legislation of Moses.” 1500
Such are the words of Irenæus.
Footnotes
222:1466Eusebius is apparently thinking of the preface to his work contained in Bk. I. chap. 1, but there he makes no such promise as he refers to here. He speaks only of his general purpose to mention those men who preached the divine word either orally or in writing. In Bk. III. chap. 3, however, he distinctly promises to do what he here speaks of doing, and perhaps remembered only that he had made such a promise without recalling where he had made it.
222:1467Adv. Hær. III. 1. 1.
222:1468See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5. Irenæus, in this chapter traces the four Gospels back to the apostles themselves, but he is unable to say that Matthew translated his Gospel into Greek, which is of course bad for his theory, as the Matthew Gospel which the Church of his time had was in Greek, not in Hebrew. He puts the Hebrew Gospel, however, upon a par with the three Greek ones, and thus, although he does not say it directly, endeavors to convey the impression that the apostolicity of the Hebrew Matthew is a guarantee for the Greek Matthew also. Of Papias’ statement, “Each one translated the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as he was able,” he could of course make no use even if he was acquainted with it. Whether his account was dependent upon Papias’ or not we cannot tell.
222:1469See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 17.
222:1470See above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
222:1471See above, Bk. III. chap. 4, note 15.
222:1472See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 1.
222:1473Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 30. 1.
222:1474Rev. xiii. 18. Already in Irenæus’ time there was a variation in the copies of the Apocalypse. This is interesting as showing the existence of old copies of the Apocalypse even in his time, and also as showing how early works became corrupted in the course of transmission. We learn from his words, too, that textual criticism had already begun.
222:1475The sentence as Eusebius quotes it here is incomplete; he repeats only so much of it as suits his purpose. Irenæus completes his sentence, after a few more dependent clauses, by saying, “I do not know how it is that some have erred, following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name,” &c. This shows that even in Irenæus’ time there was as much controversy about the interpretation of the Apocalypse as there has always been, and that at that day exegetes were as a rule in no better position than we are. Irenæus refers in this sentence to the fact that the Greek numerals were indicated by the letters of the alphabet: Alpha, “one,” Beta, “two,” &c.
222:1476i.e. concerning the Beast or Antichrist. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 30. 3; quoted also in Bk. III. chap. 18, above.
222:1477See above, Bk. III. chap. 18, note 1.
222:1478Upon the Apocalypse, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20.
222:1479In Adv. Hær. III. 16. 5, 8. Irenæus also quotes from the second Epistle of John, without distinguishing it from the first, in III. 16. 8, and I. 16. 3. Upon John’s epistles, see Bk. III. chap. 24, notes 18 and 19.
223:1480In Adv. Hær. IV. 9. 2. In IV. 16. 5 and V. 7. 2 he quotes from the first Epistle of Peter, with the formula “Peter says.” He is the first one to connect the epistle with Peter. See above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note 1.
223:1481i.e. the Shepherd of Hermas; see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note 23.
223:1482Adv. Hær. IV. 20. 2.
223:1483ἡ γραφή, the regular word used in quoting Scripture. Many of the Fathers of the second and third centuries used this word in referring to Clement, Hermas, Barnabas, and other works of the kind (compare especially Clement of Alexandria’s use of the word).
223:1484The Shepherd of Hermas, II. 1.
223:1485Adv. Hær. IV. 38. 3. Irenæus in this passage quotes freely from the apocryphal Book of Wisdom, VI. 19, without mentioning the source of his quotation, and indeed without in any way indicating the fact that he is quoting.
223:1486ἀπομνημονευμ€των. Written memoirs are hardly referred to here, but rather oral comments, expositions, or accounts of the interpretations of the apostles and others of the first generation of Christians.
223:1487Adv. Hær. IV. 27. 1, where Irenæus mentions a “certain presbyter who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles,” &c. Who this presbyter was cannot be determined. Polycarp, Papias, and others have been suggested, but we have no grounds upon which to base a decision, though we may perhaps safely conclude that so prominent a man as Polycarp would hardly have been referred to in such an indefinite way; and Papias seems ruled out by the fact that the presbyter is here not made a hearer of the apostles themselves, while in V. 33. 4 Papias is expressly stated to have been a hearer of John,—undoubtedly in Irenæus’ mind the evangelist John (see above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 4). Other anonymous authorities under the titles, “One superior to us,” “One before us,” &c., are quoted by Irenæus in Præf. §2, I. 13. 3, III. 17. 4, etc. See Routh, Rel. Sacræ, I. 45–68.
223:1488In Adv. Hær. IV. 6. 2, where he mentions Justin Martyr and quotes from his work Against Marcion (see Eusebius, Bk. IV. chap. 18), and also in Adv. Hær. V. 26. 2, where he mentions him again by name and quotes from some unknown work (but see above, ibid. note 15).
223:1489Irenæus nowhere mentions Ignatius by name, but in V. 28. 4 he quotes from his epistle to the Romans, chap. 4, under the formula, “A certain one of our people said, when he was condemned to the wild beasts.” It is interesting to note how diligently Eusebius had read the works of Irenæus, and extracted from them all that could contribute to his History.
Upon Ignatius, see above, III. 36.
223:1490Adv. Hær. I. 27. 4, III. 12. 12. This promise was apparently never fulfilled, as we hear nothing of the work from any of Irenæus’ successors. But in Bk. IV. chap. 25 Eusebius speaks of Irenæus as one of those who had written against Marcion, whether in this referring to his special work promised here, or only to his general work Adv. Hær., we cannot tell.
223:1491θεοπνεύστων
223:1492Adv. Hær. III. 21. 1.
223:1493Isa. vii. 14. The original Hebrew has עַלְמָה, which means simply a “young woman,” not distinctively a “virgin.” The LXX, followed by Matt. i. 23, wrongly translated by παρθένος, “virgin” (cf. Toy’s Quotations in the New Testament, p. 1 sqq., and the various commentaries on Matthew). Theodotion and Aquila translated the Hebrew word by νεᾶνις, which is the correct rendering, in spite of what Irenæus says. The complete dependence of the Fathers upon the LXX, and their consequent errors as to the meaning of the original, are well illustrated in this case (cf. also Justin’s Dial. chap. 71).
223:1494This is the earliest direct reference to the translations of Aquila and Theodotion, though Hermas used the version of the latter, as pointed out by Hort (see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note 23). Upon the two versions, see Bk. VI. chap. 16, notes 3 and 5.
223:1495Upon the Ebionites and their doctrines, see Bk. III. chap. 27.
223:1496Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, or Ptolemy Soter (the Preserver), was king of Egypt from 323–285 (283) b.c.
The following story in regard to the origin of the LXX is first told in a spurious letter (probably dating from the first century b.c.), which professes to have been written by Aristeas, a high officer at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285 [283]-247 b.c.). This epistle puts the origin of the LXX in the reign of the latter monarch instead of in that of his father, Ptolemy Soter, and is followed in this by Philo, Josephus, Tertullian, and most of the other ancient writers (Justin Martyr calls the king simply Ptolemy, while Clement of Alex. says that some connect the event with the one monarch, others with the other). The account given in the letter (which is printed by Gallandius, Bibl. Patr. II. 771, as well as in many other editions) is repeated over and over again, with greater or less variations, by early Jewish and Christian writers (e.g. by Philo, Vit. Mos. 2; by Josephus, Ant. XII. 2; by Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 31; by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I. 22; by Tertullian, Apol. 18, and others; see the article Aristeas in Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Biog.). It gives the number of the elders as seventy-two,—six from each tribe. That this marvelous tale is a fiction is clear enough, but whether it is based upon a groundwork of fact is disputed (see Schürer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, II. p. 697 sqq.). It is at any rate certain that the Pentateuch (the original account applies only to the Pentateuch, but later it was extended to the entire Old Testament) was translated into Greek in Alexandria as early as the third century b.c.; whether under Ptolemy Philadelphus, and at his desire, we cannot tell. The translation of the remainder of the Old Testament followed during the second century b.c., the books being translated at various times by unknown authors, but all or most of them probably in Egypt (see Schürer, ibid.). It was, of course, to the interest of the Christians to maintain the miraculous origin of the LXX, for otherwise they would have to yield to the attacks of the Jews, who often taunted them with having only a translation of the Scriptures. Accepting the miraculous origin of the LXX, the Christians, on the other hand, could accuse the Jews of falsifying their Hebrew copies wherever they differed from the LXX, making the latter the only authoritative standard (cf. Justin Martyr’s Dial. chap. 71, and many other passages in the work). Upon the attitude of the Christians, and the earlier and later attitude of the Jews toward the LXX, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 16, note 8.
223:1497ποιήσαντος τοῦ θεοῦ ὅπερ ἡβούλετο. This is quite different from the text of Irenæus, which reads facturos hoc quod ipse voluisset (implying that the original Greek was ποιήσοντας τοῦτο ὅπερ ἠβούλετο), “to carry out what he [viz. Ptolemy] had desired.” Heinichen modifies the text of Eusebius somewhat, substituting ποιήσοντας τὰ for ποιήσαντος τοῦ, but there can be little doubt that Eusebius originally wrote the sentence in the form given at the beginning of this note. That Irenæus wrote it in that form, however, is uncertain, though, in view of the fact that Clement of Alex. (Strom. I. 22) confirms the reading of Eusebius (reading θεοῦ γὰρ ἦν βούλημα), I am inclined to think that the text of Eusebius represents the original more closely than the text of the Latin translation of Irenæus does. Most of the editors, however, both of Eusebius and of Irenæus, take the other view (cf. Harvey’s note in his edition of Irenæus, Vol. II. p. 113).
224:1498τὴν αὐτὴν ἑρμήνειαν γρ€φειν, as the majority of the mss., followed by Burton and most other editors, read. Stroth Zimmermann, and Heinichen, on the authority of Rufinus and of the Latin version of Irenæus, read, τὴν αὐτὴν ἑρμηνεύειν γραφήν.
224:1499κατ᾽ ἐπίπνοιαν
224:1500This tradition, which was commonly accepted until the time of the Reformation, dates from the first Christian century, for it is found in the fourth book of Ezra (xiv. 44): It is there said that Ezra was inspired to dictate to five men, during forty days, ninety-four books, of which twenty-four (the canonical books) were to be published. The tradition is repeated quite frequently by the Fathers, but that Ezra formed the Old Testament canon is impossible, for some of the books were not written until after his day. The truth is, it was a gradual growth and was not completed until the second century b.c. See above, Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1.
Chapter IX.—The Bishops under Commodus.
1. After Antoninus 1501 had been emperor for nineteen years, Commodus received the government. 1502 In his first year Julian 1503 became bishop of the Alexandrian churches, after Agrippinus 1504 had held the office for twelve years.
Footnotes
224:1501i.e. Marcus Aurelius. See below, p. 390, note.
224:1502March 17, 180 a.d.
224:1503Of this Julian we know nothing except what is told us by Eusebius here and in chap. 22, below, where he is said to have held office ten years. In the Chron. he is also said to have been bishop for ten years, but his accession is put in the nineteenth year of Marcus Aurelius (by Jerome), or in the second year of Commodus (by the Armenian version).
224:1504Upon Agrippinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 19, note 5.
Chapter X.—Pantænus the Philosopher.
1. About that time, Pantænus, 1505 a man highly distinguished for his learning, had charge of the school of the faithful in Alexandria. 1506 A school of sacred learning, which continues to our day, was established there in ancient times, 1507 and as we have been informed, 1508 was managed by men of great ability and zeal for divine things. Among these it is reported 1509 that Pantænus was at that time especially conspicuous, as he had been educated in the philosophical system of those called Stoics.
2. They say that he displayed such zeal for the divine Word, that he was appointed as a herald of the Gospel of Christ to the nations in the East, and was sent as far as India. 1510 For indeed 1511 there were still many evangelists of the Word who sought earnestly to use their inspired zeal, after the examples of the apostles, for the increase and building up of the Divine Word.
3. Pantænus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, 1512 one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, 1513 which they had preserved till that time.
4. After many good deeds, Pantænus finally became the head of the school at Alexandria, 1514 and expounded the treasures of divine doctrine both orally and in writing. 1515
Footnotes
224:1505Pantænus is the first teacher of the Alexandrian school that is known to us, and even his life is involved in obscurity. His chief significance for us lies in the fact that he was the teacher of Clement, with whom the Alexandrian school first steps out into the full light of history, and makes itself felt as a power in Christendom. Another prominent pupil of Pantænus was Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 14). Pantænus was originally a Stoic philosopher, and must have discussed philosophy in his school in connection with theology, for Origen appeals to him as his example in this respect (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 19). His abilities are testified to by Clement (in his Hypotyposes; see the next chapter, §4), who speaks of him always in terms of the deepest respect and affection. Of his birth and death we know nothing. Clement, Strom. I. 1, calls him a “Sicilian bee,” which may, perhaps, have reference to his birthplace. The statement of Philip of Side, that he was an Athenian, is worthless. We do not know when he began his work in Alexandria, nor when he finished it. But from Bk. VI. chap. 6 we learn that Clement had succeeded Pantænus, and was in charge of the school in the time of Septimius Severus. This probably means not merely that Pantænus had left Egypt, but that he was already dead; and if that be the case, the statement of Jerome (de vir. ill. 36), that Pantænus was in charge of the school during the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla, is erroneous (Jerome himself expressly says, in ibid. chap. 38, that Clement succeeded Pantænus upon the death of the latter). Jerome’s statement, however, that Pantænus was sent to India by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, is not necessarily in conflict with the indefinite account of Eusebius, who gives no dates. What authority Jerome has for his account we do not know. If his statement be correct, the journey must have taken place after 190; and thus after, or in the midst or, his Alexandrian activity. Eusebius apparently accepted the latter opinion, though his statement at the end of this chapter is dark, and evidently implies that he was very uncertain in regard to the matter. His whole account rests simply on hearsay, and therefore too much weight must not be laid upon its accuracy. After Clement comes upon the scene (which was at least some years before the outbreak of the persecution of Severus, 200 a.d.—when he left the city) we hear nothing more of Pantænus. Some have put his journey to India in this later period; but this is contrary to the report of Eusebius, and there is no authority for the opinion. Photius (Cod. 118) records a tradition that Pantænus had himself heard some of the apostles; but this is impossible, and is asserted by no one else. According to Jerome, numerous commentaries of Pantænus were extant in his time. Eusebius, at the close of this chapter, speaks of his expounding the Scriptures “both orally and in writing,” but he does not enumerate his works, and apparently had never seen them. No traces of them are now extant, unless some brief reminiscences of his teaching, which we have, are supposed to be drawn from his works, and not merely from his lectures or conversations (see Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p. 375–383).
224:1506The origin of this school of the faithful, or “catechetical school,” in Alexandria is involved in obscurity. Philip of Side names Athenagoras as the founder of the school, but his account is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and deserves no credence. The school first comes out into the light of history at this time with Pantænus at its head, and plays a prominent part in Church history under Clement, Origen, Heraclas, Dionysius, Didymus, &c., until the end of the fourth century, when it sinks out of sight in the midst of the dissensions of the Alexandrian church, and its end like its beginning is involved in obscurity. It probably owed its origin to no particular individual, but arose naturally as an outgrowth from the practice which flourished in the early Church of instructing catechumens in the elements of Christianity before admitting them to baptism. In such a philosophical metropolis as Alexandria, a school, though intended only for catechumens, would very naturally soon assume a learned character, and it had already in the time of Pantænus at least become a regular theological school for the preparation especially of teachers and preachers. It exercised a great influence upon theological science, and numbered among its pupils many celebrated theologians and bishops. See the article by Redepenning in Herzog, 2d ed. I. 290–292, and Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. 777–781, where the literature of the subject is given.
224:1507Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 36) states that there had always been ecclesiastical teachers in Alexandria from the time of Mark. He is evidently, however, giving no independent tradition, but merely draws his conclusion from the words of Eusebius who simply says “from ancient times.” The date of the origin of the school is in fact entirely unknown, though there is nothing improbable in the statement of Jerome that ecclesiastical teachers were always there. It must, however, have been some years before a school could be developed or the need of it be felt.
225:1508παρειλήφαμεν
225:1509λόγος žχει.
225:1510Jerome (de vir. ill. 36) says that he was sent to India by the bishop Demetrius at the request of the Indians themselves,—a statement more exact than that of Eusebius, whether resting upon tradition merely, or upon more accurate information, or whether it is simply a combination of Jerome’s, we do not know. It is at any rate not at all improbable (see above, note 1). A little farther on Eusebius indicates that Pantænus preached in the same country in which the apostle Bartholomew had done missionary work. But according to Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 22) Bartholomew’s traditional field of labor was the region of the Bosphorus. He follows Gutschmid therefore in claiming that the Indians here are confounded with the Sindians, over whom the Bosphorian kings of the house of Polemo ruled. Jerome (Ep. ad Magnum; Migne, Ep. 70) evidently regards the India where Pantænus preached as India proper (Pantænus Stoicæ sectæ philosophus, ob pracipue eruditionis gloriam, a Demetrio Alexandriæ episcopo missus est in Indiam, ut Christum apud Brachmanas, et illius gentis philosophos prædicaret). Whether the original tradition was that Pantænus went to India, and his connection with Bartholomew (who was wrongly supposed to have preached to the Indians) was a later combination, or whether, on the other hand, the tradition that he preached in Bartholomew’s field of labor was the original and the mission to India a later combination, we cannot tell. It is probable that Eusebius meant India proper, as Jerome certainly did, but both of them may have been mistaken.
225:1511ἦσαν γὰρ, ἦσαν εἰσέτι. Eusebius seems to think it a remarkable fact that there should still have been preaching evangelists. Evidently they were no longer common in his day. It is interesting to notice that he calls them “evangelists.” In earlier times they were called “apostles” (e.g. in the Didache), but the latter had long before Eusebius’ time become a narrower, technical term.
225:1512See note 6.
225:1513If the truth of this account be accepted, Pantænus is a witness to the existence of a Hebrew Matthew. See above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5. It has been assumed by some that this Gospel was the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 24). This is possible; but even if Pantænus really did find a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as Eusebius says (and which, according to Jerome, de vir. ill. 36, he brought back to Alexandria with him), we have no grounds upon which to base a conclusion as to its nature, or its relation to our Greek Matthew.
225:1514Eusebius apparently puts the journey of Pantænus in the middle of his Alexandrian activity, and makes him return again and teach there until his death. Jerome also agrees in putting the journey in the middle and not at the beginning or close of his Alexandrian activity. It must be confessed, however, that Eusebius’ language is very vague, and of such a nature as perhaps to imply that he really had no idea when the mission took place.
225:1515See above, note 1.
Chapter XI.—Clement of Alexandria.
1. At this time Clement, 1516 being trained with him 1517 in the divine Scriptures at Alexandria, became well known. He had the same name as the one who anciently was at the head of the Roman church, and who was a disciple of the apostles. 1518
2. In his Hypotyposes 1519 he speaks of Pantænus by name as his teacher. It seems to me that he alludes to the same person also in the first book of his Stromata, when, referring to the more conspicuous of the successors of the apostles whom he had met, 1520 he says: 1521
3. “This work 1522 is not a writing artfully constructed for display; but my notes are stored up for old age, as a remedy against forgetfulness; an image without art, and a rough sketch of those powerful and animated words which it was my privilege to hear, as well as of blessed and truly remarkable men.
4. Of these the one—the Ionian 1523 —was in Greece, the other in Magna Græcia; 1524 the one of them was from Cœle-Syria, 1525 the other from Egypt. There were others in the East, one of them an Assyrian, 1526 the other a Hebrew in Palestine. 1527 But when I met with the last, 1528 —in ability truly he was first,—having hunted him out in his concealment in Egypt, I found rest.
5. These men, preserving the true tradition of the blessed doctrine, directly from the holy apostles, Peter and James and John and Paul, the son receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), have come by God’s will even to us to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds.” 1529
Footnotes
225:1516Of the place and time of Titus Flavius Clement’s birth we have no certain knowledge, though it is probable that he was an Athenian by training at least, if not by birth, and he must have been born about the middle of the second century. He received a very extensive education, and became a Christian in adult years, after he had tried various systems of philosophy, much as Justin Martyr had. He had a great thirst for knowledge, and names six different teachers under whom he studied Christianity (see below, §4). Finally he became a pupil of Pantænus in Alexandria, whom he afterward succeeded as the head of the catechetical school there. It is at this time (about 190 a.d.) that he comes out clearly into the light of history, and to this period (190–202) belongs his greatest literary activity. He was at the head of the school probably until 202, when the persecution of Severus having broken out, he left Alexandria, and we nave no notice that he ever returned. That he did not leave Alexandria dishonorably, through fear, may be gathered from his presence with Alexander during his imprisonment, and from the letters of the latter (see below, Bk. VI. chaps. 11 and 14, and cf. Bk. VI. chap. 6, notes). This is the last notice that we have of him (a.d. 212); and of the place and time of his death we know nothing, though he cannot have lived many years after this. He was never a bishop, but was a presbyter of the Alexandrian church, and was in ancient times commemorated as a saint, but his name was dropped from the roll by Clement VIII. on account of suspected heterodoxy. He lived in an age of transition, and his great importance lies in the fact that he completed the bond between Hellenism and Christianity, and as a follower of the apologists established Christianity as a philosophy, and yet not as they had done in an apologetic sense. He was the teacher of Origen, and the real father of Greek theology. He published no system, as did Origen; his works were rather desultory and fragmentary, but full of wide and varied learning, and exhibit a truly broad and catholic spirit. Upon his works, see Bk. VI. chap. 13. Upon Clement, see especially Westcott’s article in Smith and Wace, I. 559–567, and Schaff, II. 781–785, where the literature is given with considerable fullness. For an able and popular presentation of his theology, see Allen’s Continuity of Christian Thought, p. 38–70.
225:1517συνασκούμενος
225:1518Upon Clement of Rome and his relation to the apostles, see Bk. III. chap. 4, note 19.
225:1519On Clement’s Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. The passage in which he mentions Pantænus by name has not been preserved. Eusebius repeats the same statement in Bk. VI. chap. 13, §1.
225:1520τοὺς ἐμφανεστέρους ἧς κατείληφεν ἀπόστολικῆς διαδοχῆς ἐπισημαινόμενος. Rufinus reads apostolicæ prædicationis instead of successionis. And so Christophorsonus and Valesius adopt διδαχῆς instead of διαδοχῆς, and translate doctrinæ. But διαδοχῆς is too well supported by ms. authority to be rejected; and though the use of the abstract “succession,” instead of the concrete “successors,” seems harsh, it is employed elsewhere in the same sense by Eusebius (see Bk. I. chap. 1, §1).
225:1521Strom.I. 1.
225:1522i.e. his Stromata.
225:1523This is hardly a proper name, although many have so considered it, for Clement gives no other proper name in this connection, and it is much more natural to translate “the Ionian.” Various conjectures have been made as to who these teachers were, but none are more than mere guesses. Philip of Side tells us that Athenagoras was a teacher of Clement, but, as we have seen, no confidence can be placed in his statement. It has been conjectured also that Melito may be the person referred to as “the Ionian,” for Clement mentions his works, and wrote a book on the paschal question in reply to Melito’s work on the same subject (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 23). This too, however, is mere conjecture.
226:1524The lower part of the peninsula of Italy was called Magna Græcia, because it contained so many Greek colonies.
226:1525Cœle-Syria was the valley lying between the eastern and western ranges of Lebanon.
226:1526This has been conjectured to be Tatian. But in the first place, Clement, in Strom. III. 12, calls Tatian a Syrian instead of an Assyrian (the terms are indeed often used interchangeably, but we should nevertheless hardly expect Clement to call his own teacher in one place a Syrian, in another an Assyrian). And again, in II. 12, he speaks very harshly of Tatian, and could hardly have referred to him in this place in such terms of respect and affection.
226:1527Various conjectures have been made as to the identity of this teacher,—for instance, Theophilus of Cæsarea (who, however, was never called a Hebrew, according to Valesius), and Theodotus (so Valesius).
226:1528Pantænus. There can be no doubt as to his identity, for Clement says that he remained with him and sought no further. Eusebius omits a sentence here in which Clement calls Pantænus the “Sicilian bee,” from which it is generally concluded that he was a native of Sicily (see the previous chapter, note 1).
226:1529This entire passage is very important, as showing not only the extensiveness of Clement’s own acquaintance with Christians, but also the close intercourse of Christians in general, both East and West. Clement’s statement in regard to the directness with which he received apostolic tradition is not definite, and he by no means asserts that his teachers were hearers of the apostles (which in itself would not be impossible, but Clement would certainly have spoken more clearly had it been a fact), nor indeed that they were hearers of disciples of the apostles. But among so many teachers, so widely scattered, he could hardly have failed to meet with some who had at least known those who had known the apostles. In any case he considers his teachers very near the apostles as regards the accuracy of their traditions.
The passage is also interesting, as showing the uniformity of doctrine in different parts of Christendom, according to Clement’s view, though this does not prove much, as Clement himself was so liberal and so much of an eclectic. It is also interesting, as showing how much weight Clement laid upon tradition, how completely he rested upon it for the truth, although at the same time he was so free and broad in his speculation.
Chapter XII.—The Bishops in Jerusalem.
1. At this time Narcissus 1530 was the bishop of the church at Jerusalem, and he is celebrated by many to this day. He was the fifteenth in succession from the siege of the Jews under Adrian. We have shown that from that time first the church in Jerusalem was composed of Gentiles, after those of the circumcision, and that Marcus was the first Gentile bishop that presided over them. 1531
2. After him the succession in the episcopate was: first Cassianus; after him Publius; then Maximus; 1532 following them Julian; then Gaius; 1533 after him Symmachus and another Gaius, and again another Julian; after these Capito 1534 and Valens and Dolichianus; and after all of them Narcissus, the thirtieth in regular succession from the apostles.
Footnotes
226:1530The date of Narcissus’ accession to the see of Jerusalem is not known to us. The Chron. affords us no assistance; for although it connects him among other bishops with the first (Armen.) or third (Jerome) year of Severus, it does not pretend to give the date of accession, and in one place says expressly that the dates of the Jerusalem bishops are not known (non potuimus discernere tempora singulorum). But from chap. 22 we learn that he was already bishop in the tenth year of Commodus (189 a.d.); from chap. 23, that he was one of those that presided at a Palestinian council, called in the time of Bishop Victor, of Rome, to discuss the paschal question (see chap. 23, §2); from Bk. VI. chap. 8, that he was alive at the time of the persecution of Severus (202 sq.); and from the fragment of one of Alexander’s epistles given in Bk. VI. chap. 11, that he was still alive in his 116th year, sometime after 212 a.d. (see Bk. VI. chap. 11, note 1). Epiphanius (Hær. LXVI. 20) reports that he lived until the reign of Alexander Severus (222 a.d.), and this in itself would not be impossible; for the epistle of Alexander referred to might have been written as late as 222. But Epiphanius is a writer of no authority; and the fact is, that in connection with Origen’s visit in Palestine, in 216 (see Bk. VI. chap. 19), Alexander is mentioned as bishop of Jerusalem; and Narcissus is not referred to. We must, therefore, conclude that Narcissus was dead before 216. We learn from Bk. VI. chap. 9 that Narcissus had the reputation of being a great miracle-worker, and he was a man of such great piety and sanctity as to excite the hatred of a number of evil-doers, who conspired against him to blacken his character. In consequence of this he left Jerusalem, and disappeared entirely from the haunts of men, so that it became necessary to appoint another bishop in his place. Afterward, his slanderers having suffered the curses imprecated upon themselves in their oaths against him, Narcissus returned, and was again made bishop, and was given an assistant, Alexander (see Bk. VI. chaps. 10 and 11). A late tradition makes Narcissus a martyr (see Nicephorus, H. E. IV. 19), but there is no authority for the report.
226:1531Upon the so-called bishops of Jerusalem down to the destruction of the city under Hadrian, see Bk. IV. chap. 5. Upon the destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian, and the founding of the Gentile Church in Ælia Capitolina, and upon Marcus the first Gentile bishop, see Bk. IV. chap. 6.
The list given here by Eusebius purports to contain fifteen names, Marcus being the sixteenth, and Narcissus being the thirtieth; but only thirteen names are given. In the Chron., however, and in Epiphanius (Hær. LXVI. 20) the list is complete, a second Maximus and a Valentinus being inserted, as 26th and 27th, between Capito and Valens. The omission here is undoubtedly due simply to the mistake of some scribe. The Chron. puts the accession of Cassianus into the 23d year of Antoninus Pius (160 a.d.), and the accession of the second Maximus into the sixth year of Commodus (185 a.d.), but it is said in the Chron. itself that the dates of the various bishops are not known, and hence no reliance can be placed upon these figures. Epiphanius puts the accession of the first Gaius into the tenth year of Antoninus Pius, which is thirteen years earlier than the date of the Chron. for the fourth bishop preceding. He also puts the death of the second Gaius in the eighth year of Marcus Aurelius (168 a.d.) and the death of the second Maximus in the sixteenth year of the same reign, thus showing a variation from the Chron. of more than nine years. The episcopate of Dolichianus is brought down by him to the reign of Commodus (180 a.d.). As shown in note 1, however, the date given by him for Narcissus is quite wrong, and there is no reason for bestowing any greater credence upon his other dates. Syncellus assigns five years to Cassianus, five to Publius, four to Maximus, two to Julian, three to the first Gaius, two to Symmachus, three to the second Gaius, four to the second Julian, two to an Elias who is not named by our other authorities, four to Capito, four to the second Maximus, five to Antoninus, three to Valens, four to Narcissus the first time, and ten the second time. His list, however, is considerably confused,—Dolichianus being thrown after Narcissus with an episcopate of twelve years,—and at any rate no reliance can be placed upon the figures given. We must conclude that we have no means of ascertaining the dates of these various bishops until we reach Narcissus. We know nothing about any of them (Narcissus excepted) beyond the fact that they were bishops.
226:1532Called Maximinus by the Armenian Chron., but all our other authorities call him Maximus.
226:1533The name is given Γ€ιος in this chapter, and by Syncellus; but Jerome and the Armenian give Gaianus, and Epiphanius Γαιανός. All the authorities agree upon the name of the next Gaius (who is, however, omitted by Rufinus).
226:1534Eusebius has Καπίτων, so also Epiphanius, with whom Jerome agrees, writing Capito. The Armenian, however, has Apion, and Syncellus says ᾽Απίων, οἱ δὲ Καπίτων.
Chapter XIII.—Rhodo and his Account of the Dissension of Marcion.
1. At this time Rhodo, 1535 a native of Asia, who had been instructed, as he himself states, by Tatian, with whom we have already become acquainted, 1536 having written several books, published among the rest one against the heresy of Marcion. 1537 He says that this heresy was divided in his time into various opinions; 1538 and while describing those who occasioned the division, he refutes accurately the falsehoods devised by each of them.
2. But hear what he writes: 1539
“Therefore also they disagree among themselves, maintaining an inconsistent opinion. 1540 For Apelles, 1541 one of the herd, priding himself on his manner of life 1542 and his age, acknowledges one principle, 1543 but says that the prophecies 1544 are from an opposing spirit, being led to this view by the responses of a maiden by name Philumene, 1545 who was possessed by a demon.
3. But others, among whom are Potitus and Basilicus, 1546 hold to two principles, 1547 as does the mariner 1548 Marcion himself.
4. These following the wolf 1549 of Pontus, and, like him, unable to fathom the division of things, became reckless, and without giving any proof asserted two principles. Others, again, drifting into a worse error, consider that there are not only two, but three natures. 1550 Of these, Syneros 1551 is the leader and chief, as those who defend his teaching 1552 say.”
5. The same author writes that he engaged in conversation with Apelles. He speaks as follows:
“For the old man Apelles, when conversing with us, 1553 was refuted in many things which he spoke falsely; whence also he said that it was not at all necessary to examine one’s doctrine, 1554 but that each one should continue to hold what he believed. For he asserted that those who trusted in the Crucified would be saved, if only they were found doing good works. 1555 But as we have said before, his opinion concerning God was the most obscure of all. For he spoke of one principle, as also our doctrine does.”
6. Then, after stating fully his own opinion, he adds:
“When I said to him, Tell me how you know this or how can you assert that there is one principle, he replied that the prophecies refuted themselves, because they have said nothing true; 1556 for they are inconsistent, and false, and self-contradictory. But how there is one principle he said that he did not know, but that he was thus persuaded.
7. As I then adjured him to speak the truth, he swore that he did so when he said that he did not know how there is one unbegotten God, but that he believed it. Thereupon I laughed and reproved him because, though calling himself a teacher, he knew not how to confirm what he taught.” 1557
8. In the same work, addressing Callistio, 1558 the same writer acknowledges that he had been instructed at Rome by Tatian. 1559 And he says that a book of Problems 1560 had been prepared by Tatian, in which he promised to explain the obscure and hidden parts of the divine Scriptures. Rhodo himself promises to give in a work of his own solutions of Tatian’s problems. 1561 There is also extant a Commentary of his on the Hexæmeron. 1562
9. But this Apelles wrote many things, in an impious manner, of the law of Moses, blaspheming the divine words in many of his works, being, as it seemed, very zealous for their refutation and overthrow. 1563
So much concerning these.
Footnotes
227:1535We know nothing of Rhodo except what is contained in this chapter. Jerome gives a very brief account of him in his de vir. ill. 37, but it rests solely upon this chapter, with the single addition of the statement that Rhodo wrote a work Against the Phrygians. It is plain enough, however, that he had for his account no independent source, and that he in this statement simply attributed to Rhodo the work quoted by Eusebius as an anonymous work in chap. 16. Jerome permits himself such unwarranted combinations very frequently, and we need not be at all surprised at it. With him a guess is often as good as knowledge, and in this case he doubtless considered his guess a very shrewd one. There is no warrant for supposing that he himself saw the work mentioned by Eusebius, and thus learned its authorship. What Eusebius did not learn from it he certainly could not, and his whole account betrays the most slavish and complete dependence upon Eusebius as his only source. In chap. 39 Jerome mentions Rhodo again as referring, in a book which he wrote against Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, to Miltiades, who also wrote against the same heretics. This report is plainly enough taken directly from Eusebius, chap. 17, where Eusebius quotes from the same anonymous work. Jerome’s utterly baseless combination is very interesting, and significant of his general method.
Rhodo’s works are no longer extant, and the only fragments we have are those preserved by Eusebius in this chapter.
227:1536See Bk. IV. chap. 29.
227:1537Upon Marcion and Marcionism, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 22.
227:1538It is noticeable that Rhodo says γνώμας, opinions, not parties. Although the different Marcionites held various theoretical beliefs, which gave rise to different schools, yet they did not split up into sects, but remained one church, and retained the one general name of Marcionites, and it is by this general name alone that they are always referred to by the Fathers. The fact that they could hold such variant beliefs (e.g. one, two, or three principles; see below, note 9) without splitting up into sects, shows that doctrines were but a side issue with them, and that the religious spirit was the matter upon which they laid the chief emphasis. This shows the fundamental difference between Marcion and the Gnostics.
227:1539These fragments of Rhodo are collected and discussed by Routh in his Rel. Sacræ, I. 437–446.
227:1540The Fathers entirely misunderstood Marcion, and mistook the significance of his movement. They regarded it, like Gnosticism in general, solely as a speculative system, and entirely overlooked its practical aim. The speculative and theological was not the chief thing with Marcion, but it is the only thing which receives any attention from his opponents. His positions, all of which were held only with a practical interest, were not treated by him in a speculative manner, nor were they handled logically and systematically. As a consequence, many contradictions occur in them. These contradictions were felt by his followers, who laid more and more emphasis upon the speculative over against the practical; and hence, as Rhodo reports, they fell into disagreement, and, in their effort to remove the inconsistencies, formed various schools, differing among themselves according to the element upon which the greatest weight was laid. There is thus some justification for the conduct of the Fathers, who naturally carried back and attributed to Marcion the principles of his followers. But it is our duty to distinguish the man from his followers, and to recognize his greatness in spite of their littleness. Not all of them, however, fell completely away from his practical religious spirit. Apelles, as we shall see below, was in many respects a worthy follower of his master.
227:1541Apelles was the greatest and most famous of Marcion’s disciples. Tertullian wrote a special work against him, which is unfortunately lost, but from his own quotations, and from those of Pseudo-Tertullian and Hippolytus, it can be in part restored (cf. Harnack’s De Apellis Gnosis Monarchia, p. 11 sqq.). As he was an old man (see §5, below) when Rhodo conversed with him, he must have been born early in the second century. We know nothing definite either as to his birth or death. The picture which we have of him in this chapter is a very pleasing one. He was a man evidently of deep religious spirit and moral life, who laid weight upon “trust in the crucified Christ” (see §5, below), and upon holiness in life in distinction from doctrinal beliefs; a man who was thus thoroughly Marcionitic in his principles, although he differed so widely with Marcion in some of his doctrinal positions that he was said to have founded a new sect (so Origen, Hom. in Gen. II. 2). The slightest difference, however, between his teaching and Marcion’s would have been sufficient to make him the founder of a separate Gnostic sect in the eyes of the Fathers, and therefore this statement must be taken with allowance (see note 4, above). The account which Hippolytus (Phil. X. 16) gives of the doctrinal positions of Apelles is somewhat different from that of Rhodo, but ambiguous and less exact. The scandal in regard to him, reported by Tertullian in his De Præscriptione, 30, is quite in accord with Tertullian’s usual conduct towards heretics, and may be set aside as not having the slightest foundation in fact, and as absolutely contradicting what we know of Apelles from this report of his contemporary, Rhodo. His moral character was certainly above reproach, and the same may be said of his master, Marcion. Upon Apelles, see especially Harnack’s De Apellis Gnosis Monarchia, Lips. 1874.
227:1542The participle (σεμνυνόμενος) carries with it the implication that Apelles’ character was affected or assumed. The implication, however, does not lessen the value of Rhodo’s testimony to his character. He could not deny its purity, though he insinuated that it was not sincere.
227:1543This means that Apelles accepted only one God, and made the creator but an angel who was completely under the power of the Supreme God. Marcion, on the contrary, held, as said below, two principles, teaching that the world-creator was himself a God, eternal, uncreated, and independent of the good God of the Christians. It is true that Marcion represented the world-creator as limited in power and knowledge, and taught that the Christian God would finally be supreme, and the world-creator become subject to him; but this, while it involves Marcion in self-contradiction as soon as the matter is looked at theoretically, yet does not relieve him from the charge of actual dualism. His followers were more consistent, and either accepted one principle, subordinating the world-creator completely to the good God, as did Apelles, or else carried out Marcion’s dualism to its logical result and asserted the continued independence of the Old Testament God and the world-creator, who was thus very early identified with Satan and made the enemy of the Christian God. (Marcion’s world-creator was not the bad God, but the righteous in distinction from the good God.) Still others held three principles: the good God of the Christians, the righteous God or world-creator, and the bad God, Satan. The varying doctrines of these schools explain the discrepant and often contradictory reports of the Fathers in regard to the doctrines of Marcion. Apelles’ doctrine was a decided advance upon that of Marcion, as he rejected the dualism of the latter, which was the destructive element in his system, and thus approached the Church, whose foundation must be one God who rules the world for good. His position is very significant, as remarked by Harnack, because it shows that one could hold Marcion’s fundamental principle without becoming a dualist.
227:1544i.e. the Old Testament prophecies. Apelles in his Syllogisms (see below, note 28) exhibited the supposed contradictions of the Old Testament in syllogistic form, tracing them to two adverse angels, of whom the one spoke falsely, contradicting the truth spoken by the other. Marcion, on the other hand (in his Antitheses), referred all things to the same God, the world-creator, and from the contradictions of the book endeavored to show his vacillating and inconsistent character. He, however, accepted the Old Testament as in the main a trustworthy book, but referred the prophecies to the Jewish Messiah in distinction from the Christ of the New Testament. But Apelles, looking upon two adverse angels as the authors of the book, regarded it as in great part false. Marcion and Apelles were one, however, in looking upon it as an anti-Christian book.
227:1545This virgin, Philumene, is connected with Apelles in all the reports which we have of him (e.g. in Hippolytus, Tertullian, Jerome, &c.), and is reported to have been looked upon by Apelles as a prophetess who received revelations from an angel, and who worked miracles. Tertullian, De Præscriptione, 6, evidently accepts these miracles as facts, but attributes them to the agency of a demon. They all unite in considering her influence the cause of Apelles’ heretical opinions. Tertullian (ibid. 30, &c.) calls her a prostitute, but the silence of Rhodo and Hippolytus is sufficient refutation of such a charge, and it may be rejected as a baseless slander, like the report of Apelles’ immorality mentioned in note 7. There is nothing strange in the fact that Apelles should follow the prophecies of a virgin, and the Fathers who mention it evidently do not consider it as anything peculiar or reprehensible in itself. It was very common in the early Church to appeal to the relatives of virgins and widows. Cf. e.g. the virgin daughters of Philip who prophesied (Acts xxi. 9; Eusebius, III. 31), also the Eccles. Canons, chap. 21, where it is directed that three widows shall be appointed, of whom two shall give themselves to prayer, waiting for revelations in regard to any question which may arise in the Church, and the third shall devote herself to nursing the sick. Tertullian also appeals for proof of the materiality of the soul to a vision enjoyed by a Christian sister (de Anima, 9). So Montanus had his prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla (see the next chapter).
228:1546Of these two men we know only what is told us here. They are not mentioned elsewhere.
228:1547See note 9.
228:1548ὁ ναύτης. This word is omitted by many mss., but is found in the best ones and in Rufinus, and is accepted by most of the editors of Eusebius. Tertullian calls Marcion a ship-master (Adv. Marc. III. 6, and IV. 9, &c.) and a pilot (ibid. I. 18), and makes many plays upon his profession (e.g. ibid. V. 1), and there is no reason to take the word in a figurative sense (as has been done) and suppose that he is called a mariner simply because of his nationality. We know that he traveled extensively, and that he was a rich man (for he gave 200,000 sesterces at one time to the church of Rome, which was a large sum for those days; see Tertullian, de Præscript. 30). There is, therefore, no reason to doubt that he was a “ship-master,” as Tertullian calls him.
228:1549It was the custom of the Fathers to call the heretics hard names, and Marcion received his full share of them from his opponents, especially from Tertullian. He is compared to a wolf by Justin also, Apol. I. 58, on account of his “carrying away” so many “lambs” from the truth.
228:1550See note 9.
228:1551Of Syneros we know only what is told us here. He is not mentioned elsewhere. Had the Marcionites split into various sects, these leaders must have been well known among the Fathers, and their names must have been frequently referred to. As it was, they all remained Marcionites, in spite of their differences of opinion (see above, note 4).
228:1552διδασκ€λιον, which is the reading of the majority of the mss., and is adopted by Heinichen. Burton and Schwegler read διδασκαλεῖον, on the authority of two mss.
228:1553Apelles was evidently like Marcion in his desire to keep within the Church as much as possible, and to associate with Church people. He had no esoteric doctrines to conceal from the multitude, and in this he shows the great difference between himself and the Gnostics. Marcion did not leave the Church until he was obliged to, and he founded his own church only under compulsion, upon being driven out of the Catholic community.
228:1554τὸν λόγον.
228:1555This is a truly Christian sentiment, and Apelles should be honored for the expression of it. It reveals clearly the religious character of Marcionism in distinction from the speculative and theological character of the Gnostics, and indeed of many of the Fathers. With Marcion and Apelles we are in a world of sensitive moral principle and of deep religious feeling like that in which Paul and Augustine lived, but few others in the early Church. Rhodo, in spite of his orthodoxy, shows himself the real Gnostic over against the sincere believer, though the latter was in the eyes of the Church a “blasphemous heretic.” Apelles’ noble words do honor to the movement—however heretical it was—which in that barren age of theology could give them birth.
The latter clause, taken as it stands, would seem to indicate an elevation of good works to the level of faith; but though it is possible that Apelles may have intended to express himself thus, it is more probable, when we remember the emphasis which Marcion laid upon Paul’s doctrine of salvation by the grace of God alone, that he meant to do no more than emphasize good works as a natural result of true faith, as we do to-day. The apparent co-ordination of the two may perhaps lie simply in Rhodo’s reproduction of Apelles’ words. He, at least, did not comprehend Paul’s grand doctrine of Christian liberty, nor did any of his orthodox contemporaries. The difference between the common conception of Christ’s relation to the law, and the conception of Paul as grasped by Marcion and perhaps by Apelles, is well illustrated by a passage in Tertullian, in which he expresses astonishment that the Marcionites do not sin freely, so long as they do not expect to be punished, and exclaims (to his own dishonor), “I would sin without scruple, if I believed as you do.”
228:1556Rhodo had probably brought forward against Apelles proof from prophecy which led to the discussion of the Old Testament prophecies in general. Although Apelles had rejected Marcion’s dualism, and accepted the “one principle,” he still rejected the Old Testament. This is quite peculiar, and yet perfectly comprehensible; for while Marcion was indeed the only one of that age that understood Paul, yet as Harnack well says, even he misunderstood him; and neither himself nor his followers were able to rise to Paul’s noble conception of the Old Testament law as a “schoolmaster to bring us to Christ,” and thus a part of the good God’s general plan of salvation. It took, perhaps, a born Jew, as Paul was, to reach that high conception of the law in those days. To Marcion and his followers the law seemed to stand in irreconcilable conflict with the Gospel,—Jewish law on the one side, Gospel liberty on the other,—they could not reconcile them; they must, therefore, reject the former as from another being, and not from the God of the Gospel. There was in that age no historical interpretation of the Old Testament. It must either be interpreted allegorically, and made a completely Christian book, or else it must be rejected as opposed to Christianity. Marcion and his followers, in their conception of law and Gospel as necessarily opposed, could follow only the latter course. Marcion, in his rejection of the Old Testament, proceeded simply upon dogmatic presumptions. Apelles, although his rejection of it undoubtedly originated in the same presumptions, yet subjected it to a criticism which satisfied him of the correctness of his position, and gave him a fair basis of attack. His procedure was, therefore, more truly historical than that of Marcion, and anticipated modern methods of higher criticism.
228:1557A true Gnostic sentiment, over against which the pious “agnosticism” of Apelles is not altogether unrefreshing. The Church did not fully conquer Gnosticism,—Gnosticism in some degree conquered the Church, and the anti-Gnostics, like Apelles, were called heretics. It was the vicious error of Gnosticism that it looked upon Christianity as knowledge, that it completely identified the two, and our existing systems of theology, some of them, testify to the fact that there are still Gnostics among us.
228:1558Of this Callistio we know nothing; but, as has been remarked by another, he must have been a well-known man, or Eusebius would probably have said “a certain Callistio” (see Salmon’s article in Smith and Wace).
228:1559Upon Tatian, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.
228:1560Upon this work (προβλημ€των βιβλίον) see ibid.
229:1561Whether Rhodo fulfilled this promise we do not know. The work is mentioned by no one else, and Eusebius evidently had no knowledge of its existence, or he would have said so.
229:1562εἰς τὴν ἑξαήμερον ὑπόμνημα. This work of Rhodo’s, on the Hexæmeron (or six days’ work), is mentioned by no one else, and no fragments of it are known to us. For a notice of other works on the same subject, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 22, note 3.
229:1563Hippolytus (X. 16) also mentions works of Apelles against the law and the prophets. We know of but one work of his, viz. the Syllogisms, which was devoted to the criticism of the Old Testament, and in which he worked out the antitheses of Marcion in a syllogistic form. The work is cited only by Origen (in Gen. II. 2) and by Ambrose (De Parad. V. 28), and they have preserved but a few brief fragments. It must have been an extensive work, as Ambrose quotes from the 38th book. From these fragments we can see that Apelles’ criticism of the Old Testament was very keen and sagacious. For the difference between himself and Marcion in the treatment of the Old Testament, see above, note 9. The words of Eusebius, “as it seemed,” show that he had not himself seen the book, as might indeed be gathered from his general account of Apelles, for which he depended solely upon secondary sources.
Chapter XIV.—The False Prophets of the Phrygians.
The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies to spring up against the Church. 1564 For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus. 1565
Footnotes
229:1564Cf. Bk. IV. chap. 7, note 3.
229:1565On Montanus and the Montanists, see chap. 16.
Chapter XV.—The Schism of Blastus at Rome. 1566
Others, of whom Florinus 1567 was chief, flourished at Rome. He fell from the presbyterate of the Church, and Blastus was involved in a similar fall. They also drew away many of the Church to their opinion, each striving to introduce his own innovations in respect to the truth.
Footnotes
229:1566The separation of chaps. 14 and 15 is unfortunate. They are closely connected (οἱ μὲν in chap. 14 and οἱ δὲ in chap. 15), and constitute together a general introduction to the following chapters, Montanism being treated in chaps. 16 to 19, and the schism of Florinus and Blastus in chap. 20.
229:1567On Florinus and Blastus, see chap. 20.
Chapter XVI.—The Circumstances related of Montanus and his False Prophets. 1568
1. Against the so-called Phrygian 1569 heresy, the power which always contends for the truth raised up a strong and invincible weapon, Apolinarius of Hierapolis, whom we have mentioned before, 1570 and with him many other men of ability, by whom abundant material for our history has been left.
2. A certain one of these, in the beginning of his work against them, 1571 first intimates that he had contended with them in oral controversies.
3. He commences his work in this manner: 1572
“Having for a very long and sufficient time, O beloved Avircius Marcellus, 1573 been urged by you to write a treatise against the heresy of those who are called after Miltiades, 1574 I have hesitated till the present time, not through lack of ability to refute the falsehood or bear testimony for the truth, but from fear and apprehension that I might seem to some to be making additions to the doctrines or precepts of the Gospel of the New Testament, which it is impossible for one who has chosen to live according to the Gospel, either to increase or to diminish.
4. But being recently in Ancyra 1575 in Galatia, I found the church there 1576 greatly agitated by this novelty, not prophecy, as they call it, but rather false prophecy, as will be shown. Therefore, to the best of our ability, with the Lord’s help, we disputed in the church many days concerning these and other matters separately brought forward by them, so that the church rejoiced and was strengthened in the truth, and those of the opposite side were for the time confounded, and the adversaries were grieved.
5. The presbyters in the place, our fellow-presbyter Zoticus 1577 of Otrous also being present, requested us to leave a record of what had been said against the opposers of the truth. We did not do this, but we promised to write it out as soon as the Lord permitted us, and to send it to them speedily.”
6. Having said this with other things, in the beginning of his work, he proceeds to state the cause of the above-mentioned heresy as follows:
“Their opposition and their recent heresy which has separated them from the Church arose on the following account.
7. There is said to be a certain village called Ardabau in that part of Mysia, which borders upon Phrygia. 1578 There first, they say, when Gratus was proconsul of Asia, 1579 a recent convert, Montanus by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, 1580 gave the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning. 1581
8. Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were indignant, and they rebuked him as one that was possessed, and that was under the control of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit, and was distracting the multitude; and they forbade him to talk, remembering the distinction 1582 drawn by the Lord and his warning to guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets. 1583 But others imagining themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of a prophetic gift, 1584 were elated and not a little puffed up; and forgetting the distinction of the Lord, they challenged the mad and insidious and seducing spirit, and were cheated and deceived by him. In consequence of this, he could no longer be held in check, so as to keep silence.
9. Thus by artifice, or rather by such a system of wicked craft, the devil, devising destruction for the disobedient, and being unworthily honored by them, secretly excited and inflamed their understandings which had already become estranged from the true faith. And he stirred up besides two women, 1585 and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely, like the person already mentioned. 1586 And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the magnitude of his promises. But sometimes he rebuked them openly in a wise and faithful manner, that he might seem to be a reprover. But those of the Phrygians that were deceived were few in number.
“And the arrogant spirit taught them to revile the entire universal Church under heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received neither honor from it nor entrance into it.
10. For the faithful in Asia met often in many places throughout Asia to consider this matter, 1587 and examined the novel utterances and pronounced them profane, and rejected the heresy, and thus these persons were expelled from the Church and debarred from communion.”
11. Having related these things at the outset, and continued the refutation of their delusion through his entire work, in the second book he speaks as follows of their end:
12. “Since, therefore, they called us slayers of the prophets 1588 because we did not receive their loquacious prophets, who, they say, are those that the Lord promised to send to the people, 1589 let them answer as in God’s presence: Who is there, O friends, of these who began to talk, from Montanus and the women down, that was persecuted by the Jews, or slain by lawless men? None. Or has any of them been seized and crucified for the Name? Truly not. Or has one of these women ever been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews, or stoned? No; never anywhere. 1590
13. But by another kind of death Montanus and Maximilla are said to have died. For the report is that, incited by the spirit of frenzy, they both hung themselves; 1591 not at the same time, but at the time which common report gives for the death of each. And thus they died, and ended their lives like the traitor Judas.
14. So also, as general report says, that remarkable person, the first steward, 1592 as it were, of their so-called prophecy, one Theodotus—who, as if at sometime taken up and received into heaven, fell into trances, and entrusted himself to the deceitful spirit—was pitched like a quoit, and died miserably. 1593
15. They say that these things happened in this manner. But as we did not see them, O friend, we do not pretend to know. Perhaps in such a manner, perhaps not, Montanus and Theodotus and the above-mentioned woman died.”
16. He says again in the same book that the holy bishops of that time attempted to refute the spirit in Maximilla, but were prevented by others who plainly co-operated with the spirit.
17. He writes as follows:
“And let not the spirit, in the same work of Asterius Urbanus, 1594 say through Maximilla, ‘I am driven away from the sheep like a wolf. 1595 I am not a wolf. I am word and spirit and power.’ But let him show clearly and prove the power in the spirit. And by the spirit let him compel those to confess him who were then present for the purpose of proving and reasoning with the talkative spirit,—those eminent men and bishops, Zoticus, 1596 from the village Comana, and Julian, 1597 from Apamea, whose mouths the followers of Themiso 1598 muzzled, refusing to permit the false and seductive spirit to be refuted by them.”
18. Again in the same work, after saying other things in refutation of the false prophecies of Maximilla, he indicates the time when he wrote these accounts, and mentions her predictions in which she prophesied wars and anarchy. Their falsehood he censures in the following manner:
19. “And has not this been shown clearly to be false? For it is to-day more than thirteen years since the woman died, and there has been neither a partial nor general war in the world; but rather, through the mercy of God, continued peace even to the Christians.” 1599 These things are taken from the second book.
20. I will add also short extracts from the third book, in which he speaks thus against their boasts that many of them had suffered martyrdom:
“When therefore they are at a loss, being refuted in all that they say, they try to take refuge in their martyrs, alleging that they have many martyrs, and that this is sure evidence of the power of the so-called prophetic spirit that is with them. But this, as it appears, is entirely fallacious. 1600
21. For some of the heresies have a great many martyrs; but surely we shall not on that account agree with them or confess that they hold the truth. And first, indeed, those called Marcionites, from the heresy of Marcion, say that they have a multitude of martyrs for Christ; yet they do not confess Christ himself in truth.”
A little farther on he continues:
22. “When those called to martyrdom from the Church for the truth of the faith have met with any of the so-called martyrs of the Phrygian heresy, they have separated from them, and died without any fellowship with them, 1601 because they did not wish to give their assent to the spirit of Montanus and the women. And that this is true and took place in our own time in Apamea on the Mæander, 1602 among those who suffered martyrdom with Gaius and Alexander of Eumenia, is well known.”
Footnotes
229:1568Montanism must not be looked upon as a heresy in the ordinary sense of the term. The movement lay in the sphere of life and discipline rather than in that of theology. Its fundamental proposition was the continuance of divine revelation which was begun under the old Dispensation, was carried on in the time of Christ and his apostles, and reached its highest development under the dispensation of the Paraclete, which opened with the activity of Montanus. This Montanus was a Phrygian, who, in the latter part of the second century, began to fall into states of ecstasy and to have visions, and believed himself a divinely inspired prophet, through whom the promised Paraclete spoke, and with whom therefore the dispensation of that Paraclete began. Two noble ladies (Priscilla and Maximilla) attached themselves to Montanus, and had visions and prophesied in the same way. These constituted the three original prophets of the sect, and all that they taught was claimed to be of binding authority on all. They were quite orthodox, accepted fully the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church, and did not pretend to alter in any way the revelation given by Christ and his apostles. But they claimed that some things had not been revealed by them, because at that early stage the Church was not able to bear them; but that such additional revelations were now given, because the fullness of time had come which was to precede the second coming of Christ. These revelations had to do not at all with theology, but wholly with matters of life and discipline. They taught a rigid asceticism over against the growing worldliness of the Church, severe discipline over against its laxer methods, and finally the universal priesthood of believers (even female), and their right to perform all the functions of church officers, over against the growing sacerdotalism of the Church. They were thus in a sense reformers, or perhaps reactionaries is a better term, who wished to bring back, or to preserve against corruption, the original principles and methods of the Church. They aimed at a puritanic reaction against worldliness, and of a democratic reaction against growing aristocracy in the Church. They insisted that ministers were made by God alone, by the direct endowment of his Spirit in distinction from human ordination. They looked upon their prophets—supernaturally called and endowed by the Spirit—as supreme in the Church. They claimed that all gross offenders should be excommunicated, and that neither they nor the lax should ever be re-admitted to the Church. They encouraged celibacy, increased the number and severity of fasts, eschewed worldly amusements, &c. This rigid asceticism was enjoined by the revelation of the Spirit through their prophets, and was promoted by their belief in the speedy coming of Christ to set up his kingdom on earth, which was likewise prophesied. They were thus pre-Millenarians or Chiliasts.
The movement spread rapidly in Asia Minor and in North Africa, and for a time in Rome itself. It appealed very powerfully to the sterner moralists, stricter disciplinarians, and more deeply pious minds among the Christians. All the puritanically inclined schisms of this period attracted many of the better class of Christians, and this one had the additional advantage of claiming the authority of divine revelation for its strict principles. The greatest convert was Tertullian, who, in 201 or 202, attracted by the asceticism and disciplinary rigor of the sect, attached himself to it, and remained until his death its most powerful advocate. He seems to have stood at the head of a separatist congregation of Montanists in Carthage, and yet never to have been excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Montanism made so much stir in Asia Minor that synods were called before the end of the second century to consider the matter, and finally, though not without hesitation, the whole movement was officially condemned. Later, the condemnation was ratified in Rome and also in North Africa, and Montanism gradually degenerated, and finally, after two or three centuries, entirely disappeared.
But although it failed and passed away, Montanism had a marked influence on the development of the Church. In the first place, it aroused a general distrust of prophecy, and the result was that the Church soon came to the conviction that prophecy had entirely ceased. In the second place, the Church was led to see the necessity of emphasizing the historical Christ and historical Christianity over against the Montanistic claims of a constantly developing revelation, and thus to put great emphasis upon the Scripture canon. In the third place, the Church had to lay increased stress upon the organization—upon its appointed and ordained officers—over against the claims of irregular prophets who might at any time arise as organs of the Spirit. The development of Christianity into a religion of the book and of the organization was thus greatly advanced, and the line began to be sharply drawn between the age of the apostles, in which there had been direct supernatural revelations, and the later age, in which such revelations had disappeared. We are, undoubtedly, to date from this time that exalted conception of the glory of the apostolic age, and of its absolute separation from all subsequent ages, which marks so strongly the Church of succeeding centuries, and which led men to endeavor to gain apostolic authority for every advance in the constitution, in the customs, and in the doctrine of the Church. There had been little of this feeling before, but now it became universal, and it explains the great number of pseudo-apostolic works of the third and following centuries. In the fourth place, the Chiliastic ideas of Montanism produced a reaction in the Church which caused the final rejection of all grossly physical Premillenarian beliefs which up to this time had been very common. For further particulars in regard to Montanism, see the notes on this and the following chapters.
Our chief sources for a knowledge of Montanism are to be found in the writings of Tertullian. See, also, Epiphanius, Hær. XLVIII. and XLIX., and Jerome’s Epistle to Marcella (Migne, Ep. 41). The fragments from the anonymous anti-Montanistic writer quoted by Eusebius in this and the following chapter, and the fragments of Apollonius’ work, quoted in chap. 18, are of the greatest importance. It is to be regretted that Eusebius has preserved for us no fragments of the anti-Montanistic writings of Apolinarius and Melito, who might have given us still earlier and more trustworthy accounts of the sect. It is probable that their works were not decided enough in their opposition to Montanism to suit Eusebius, who, therefore, chose to take his account from somewhat later, but certainly bitter enough antagonists. The works of the Montanists themselves (except those of Tertullian) have entirely perished, but a few “Oracles,” or prophetic utterances, of Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla, have been preserved by Tertullian and other writers, and are printed by Bonwetsch, p. 197–200. The literature upon Montanism is very extensive. We may mention here C. W. F. Walch’s Ketzerhistorie, I. p. 611–666, A. Schwegler’s Der Montanismus und die christliche Kirche des zweiten Jahrh. (Tübingen, 1841), and especially G. N. Bonwetzsch’s Die Geschichte des Montanismus (Erlangen, 1881), which is the best work on the subject, and indispensable to the student. Compare, also, Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. p. 415 sq., where the literature is given with great fullness, Salmon’s article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and especially Harnack’s Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 319 sq.
229:1569τὴν λεγομένην κατὰ Φρύγας αἵρεσιν. The heresy of Montanus was commonly called the Phrygian heresy because it took its rise in Phrygia. The Latins, by a solecism, called it the Cataphrygian heresy. Its followers received other names also, e.g. Priscillianists (from the prophetess Priscilla), and Pepuziani (from Pepuza, their headquarters). They called themselves πνευματικοί (spiritual), and the adherents of the Church ψυχιχοί (carnal).
230:1570In Bk. IV. chaps. 21, 26 and 27, and in Bk. V. chap. 5. See especially Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1.
230:1571The author of this work is unknown. Jerome (de vir. ill. 37) ascribes it to Rhodo (but see above, chap. 13, note 1). It is sometimes ascribed to Asterius Urbanus, mentioned by Eusebius in §17 below, but he was certainly not its author (see below, note 27). Upon the date of the work, see below, note 32.
230:1572The fragments of this anonymous work are given by Routh, Rel. Sac. Vol. II. p. 183 sqq., and in English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII. p. 335 sqq.
230:1573᾽Αουίρκιε, as most of the mss. read. Others have ᾽Αυίρκιε or ᾽Αβίρκιε; Nicephorus, ᾽Αβέρκιε. The name is quite commonly written Abercius in English, and the person mentioned here is identified by many scholars (among them Lightfoot) with Abercius, a prominent bishop of Hieropolis (not Hierapolis, as was formerly supposed). A spurious Life of S. Abercius is given by Simeon Metaphrastes (in Migne’s Patr. Gr. CXV. 1211 sq.), which, although of a decidedly legendary character, rests upon a groundwork of fact as proved by the discovery, in recent years of an epitaph from Abercius’ tomb. This Abercius was bishop in the time of Marcus Aurelius, and therefore must have held office at least twelve or fifteen years (on the date of this anonymous treatise, see below, note 32), or, if the date given by the spurious Acts for Abercius’ visit to Rome be accepted (163 a.d.), at least thirty years. On Abercius and Avercius, see the exhaustive note of Lightfoot, in his Apostolic Fathers, Part II. (Ignatius and Polycarp), Vol. I. p. 477–485.
230:1574εἰς τὴν τῶν κατὰ Μιλτι€δην λεγομένων αἵρεσιν. The occurrence of the name Miltiades, in this connection, is very puzzling, for we nowhere else hear of a Montanist Miltiades, while the man referred to here must have held a very prominent place among them. It is true that it is commonly supposed that the Muratorian Canon refers to some heretic Miltiades, but since Harnack’s discussion of the matter (see especially his Texte und Untersuchungen, I. 1, p. 216, note) it is more than doubtful whether a Miltiades is mentioned at all in that document. In any case the prominent position given him here is surprising, and, as a consequence, Valesius (in his notes), Stroth, Zimmermann, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen substitute ᾽Αλκιβι€δην (who is mentioned in chap. 3 as a prominent Montanist) for Μιλτι€δην. The mss., however, are unanimous in reading Μιλτι€δην; and it is impossible to see how, if ᾽Αλκιβι€δην had originally stood in the text, Μιλτι€δην could have been substituted for it. It is not impossible that instead of Alcibiades in chap. 3 we should read, as Salmon suggests, Miltiades. The occurrence of the name Alcibiades in the previous sentence might explain its substitution for Miltiades immediately afterward. It is at least easier to account for that change than for the change of Alcibiades to Miltiades in the present chapter. Were Salmon’s suggestion accepted, the difficulty in this case would be obviated, for we should then have a Montanist Miltiades of sufficient prominence to justify the naming of the sect after him in some quarters. The suggestion, however, rests upon mere conjecture, and it is safer to retain the reading of our mss. in both cases. Until we get more light from some quarter we must be content to let the matter rest, leaving the reason for the use of Miltiades’ name in this connection unexplained. There is, of course, nothing strange in the existence of a Montanist named Miltiades; it is only the great prominence given him here which puzzles us. Upon the ecclesiastical writer, Miltiades, and Eusebius’ confusion of him with Alcibiades, see chap. 17, note 1.
230:1575Ancyra was the metropolis and one of the three principal cities of Galatia. Quite an important town, Angora, now occupies its site.
230:1576κατὰ τόπον, which is the reading of two of the mss. and Nicephorus, and is adopted by Burton and Heinichen. The phrase seems harsh, but occurs again in the next paragraph. The majority of the mss. read κατὰ Πόντον, which is adopted by Valesius, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Crusè. It is grammatically the easier reading, but the reference to Pontus is unnatural in this connection, and in view of the occurrence of the same phrase, κατὰ τόπον, in the next paragraph, it seems best to read thus in the present case as well.
230:1577Of this Zoticus we know only what is told us here. He is to be distinguished, of course, from Zoticus of Comana, mentioned in §17, below, and in chap. 18, §13.
Otrous (or Otrys, as it is sometimes written) was a small Phrygian town about two miles from Hieropolis (see W. H. Ramsay’s paper, entitled Trois Villes Phrygiennes, in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, Juillet, 1882). Its bishop was present at the Council of Chalcedon, and also at the second Council of Nicæa (see Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics of the Church). We may gather from this passage that the anonymous author of this anti-Montanistic work was a presbyter (he calls Zoticus συμπρεσβύτερος), but we have no hint of his own city, though the fact that Avircius Marcellus, to whom the work was addressed, was from Hieropolis (see note 6), and that the anonymous companion Zoticus was from Otrous, would lead us to look in that neighborhood for the home of our author, though hardly to either of those towns (the mention of the name of the town in connection with Zoticus’ name would seem to shut out the latter, and the opening sentences of the treatise would seem to exclude the former).
231:1578ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν Μυσί& 139·. It is not said here that Montanus was born in Ardabau, but it is natural to conclude that he was, and so that village is commonly given as his birthplace. As we learn from this passage, Ardabau was not in Phrygia, as is often said, but in Mysia. The boundary line between the two districts was a very indefinite one, however, and the two were often confounded by the ancients themselves; but we cannot doubt in the present instance that the very exact statement of the anonymous writer is correct. Of the village of Ardabau itself we know nothing.
231:1579The exact date of the rise of Montanism cannot be determined. The reports which we have of the movement vary greatly in their chronology. We have no means of fixing the date of the proconsulship of the Gratus referred to here, and thus the most exact and reliable statement which we have does not help us. In his Chron. Eusebius fixes the rise of the movement in the year 172, and it is possible that this statement was based upon a knowledge of the time of Gratus’ proconsulship. If so, it possesses considerable weight. The first notice we have of a knowledge of the movement in the West is in connection with the martyrs of Lyons, who in the year 177 (see Introd. to this book, note 3) were solicited to use their influence with the bishop of Rome in favor of the Montanists (see above, chap. 3, note 6). This goes to confirm the approximate accuracy of the date given by Eusebius, for we should expect that the movement cannot have attracted public notice in the East very many years before it was heard of in Gaul, the home of many Christians from Asia Minor. Epiphanius (Hær. XLVIII.) gives the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius (156–157) as the date of its beginning, but Epiphanius’ figures are very confused and contradictory, and little reliance can be placed upon them in this connection. At the same time Montanus must have begun his prophesying some years before his teaching spread over Asia Minor and began to agitate the churches and alarm the bishops, and therefore it is probable that Montanism had a beginning some years before the date given by Eusebius; in fact, it is not impossible that Montanus may have begun his work before the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius.
231:1580Ambition was almost universally looked upon by the Church Fathers as the occasion of the various heresies and schisms. Novatian, Donatus, and many others were accused of it by their orthodox opponents. That heretics or schismatics could be actuated by high and noble motives was to them inconceivable. We are thus furnished another illustration of their utter misconception of the nature of heresy so often referred to in these notes.
231:1581The fault found by the Church with Montanus’ prophecy was rather because of its form than because of its substance. It was admitted that the prophecies contained much that was true, but the soberer sense of the Church at large objected decidedly to the frenzied ecstasy in which they were delivered. That a change had come over the Church in this respect since the apostolic age is perfectly clear. In Paul’s time the speaking with tongues, which involved a similar kind of ecstasy, was very common; so, too, at the time the Didache was written the prophets spoke in an ecstasy (ἐν πνεύματι, which can mean nothing else; cf. Harnack’s edition, p. 122 sq.). But the early enthusiasm of the Church had largely passed away by the middle of the second century; and though there were still prophets (Justin, for instance, and even Clement of Alexandria knew of them), they were not in general characterized by the same ecstatic and frenzied utterance that marked their predecessors. To say that there were none such at this time would be rash; but it is plain that they had become so decidedly the exception that the revival by the Montanists of the old method on a large scale and in its extremest form could appear to the Church at large only a decided innovation. Prophecy in itself was nothing strange to them, but prophecy in this form they were not accustomed to, and did not realize that it was but a revival of the ancient form (cf. the words of our author, who is evidently quite ignorant of that form). That they should be shocked at it is not to be wondered at, and that they should, in that age, when all such manifestations were looked upon as supernatural in their origin, regard these prophets as under the influence of Satan, is no more surprising. There was no other alternative in their minds. Either the prophecies were from God or from Satan; not their content mainly, but the manner in which they were delivered aroused the suspicion of the bishops and other leaders of the Church. Add to that the fact that these prophets claimed supremacy over the constituted Church authorities, claimed that the Church must be guided by the revelations vouchsafed to women and apparently half-crazy enthusiasts and fanatics, and it will be seen at once that there was nothing left for the leaders of the Church but to condemn the movement, and pronounce its prophecy a fraud and a work of the Evil One. That all prophecy should, as a consequence, fall into discredit was natural. Clement (Strom. I. 17) gives the speaking in an ecstasy as one of the marks of a false prophet,—Montanism had evidently brought the Church to distinct consciousness on that point,—while Origen, some decades later, is no longer acquainted with prophets, and denies that they existed even in the time of Celsus (see Contra Cels. VII. 11).
231:1582i.e. between true and false prophets.
231:1583Cf. Matt. vii. 15.
231:1584ὡς ἁγί& 251· πνεύματι καὶ προφητικῷ χαρίσματι
231:1585Maximilla and Priscilla, or Prisca (mentioned in chap. 14). They were married women, who left their husbands to become disciples of Montanus, were given the rank of virgins in his church, and with him were the greatest prophets of the sect. They were regarded with the most profound reverence by all Montanists, who in many quarters were called after the name of the latter, Priscillianists. It was a characteristic of the Montanists that they insisted upon the religious equality of men and women; that they accorded just as high honor to the women as to the men, and listened to their prophecies with the same reverence. The human person was but an instrument of the Spirit, according to their view, and hence a woman might be chosen by the Spirit as his instrument just as well as a man, the ignorant just as well as the learned. Tertullian, for instance, cites, in support of his doctrine of the materiality of the soul, a vision seen by one of the female members of his church, whom he believed to be in the habit of receiving revelations from God (de anima, 9).
231:1586i.e. Montanus.
232:1587That synods should early be held to consider the subject Montanism is not at all surprising. Doubtless our author is quite correct in asserting that many such met during these years. They were probably all of them small, and only local in their character. We do not know the places or the dates of any of these synods, although the Libellus Synodicus states that one was held at Hierapolis under Apolinarius, with twenty-six bishops in attendance, and another at Anchialus under Sotas, with twelve bishops present. The authority for these synods is too late to be of much weight, and the report is just such as we should expect to have arisen upon the basis of the account of Montanism given in this chapter. It is possible, therefore, that synods were held in those two cities, but more than that cannot be said. Upon these synods, see Hefele (Conciliengesch. I. p. 83 sq.), who accepts the report of the Libellus Synodicus as trustworthy.
232:1588Cf. the complaint of Maximilla, quoted in §17, below. The words are employed, of course, only in the figurative sense to indicate the hostility of the Church toward the Montanists. The Church, of course, had at that time no power to put heretics to death, even if it had wished to do so. The first instance of the punishment of heresy by death occurred in 385, when the Spanish bishop Priscillian and six companions were executed at Trêves.
232:1589Cf. Matt. xxiii. 34.
232:1590There is a flat contradiction between this passage and §21, below, where it is admitted by this same author that the Montanists have had their martyrs. The sweeping statements here, considered in the light of the admission made in the other passage, furnish us with a criterion of the trustworthiness and honesty of the reports of our anonymous author. It is plain that, in his hostility to Montanism, he has no regard whatever for the truth; that his aim is to paint the heretics as black as possible, even if he is obliged to misrepresent the facts. We might, from the general tone of the fragment which Eusebius has preserved, imagine this to be so: the present passage proves it. We know, indeed, that the Montanists had many martyrs and that their principles were such as to lead them to martyrdom, even when the Catholics avoided it (cf. Tertullian’s De fuga in persecutione).
232:1591Whether this story is an invention of our author’s, or whether it was already in circulation, as he says, we cannot tell. Its utter worthlessness needs no demonstration. Even our anonymous author does not venture to call it certain.
232:1592ἐπίτροπος: a steward, or administrator of funds. The existence of such an officer shows that the Montanists formed a compact organization at an early date, and that much stress was laid upon it (cf. chap. 18, §2). According to Jerome (Ep. ad Marcellam; Migne, Ep. XLI. 3) the Montanists at Pepuza had three classes of officers: first, Patriarchs; second, Cenonæ; third, Bishops (Habent enim primos de Pepusa Phrygiæ Patriarchas: secundos, quos appellant Cenonas: atque ita in tertium, id est, pene ultimum locum Episcopi devolvuntur). The peculiar word Cenonas occurs nowhere else, so far as I am aware, but its meaning is plain enough. Whether it is merely a reproduction of the Greek οἰκονομοι (“administrators”), or whether it is a Latin word connected with cœna, in either case the officers designated by it were economic officers, and thus performed the same class of duties as this ἐπίτροπος, Theodotus. The reliability of Jerome’s report is confirmed by its agreement in this point with the account of the Anonymous. Of Theodotus himself (to be distinguished, of course, from the two Theodoti mentioned in chap. 28) we know only what is told us in this chapter and in chap. 3, above. It is plain that he was a prominent man among the early Montanists.
232:1593The reference here seems to be to a death like that recorded by a common tradition of Simon Magus, who by the help of demons undertook to fly up to heaven, but when in mid air fell and was killed. Whether the report in regard to Theodotus was in any way connected with the tradition of Simon’s death we cannot tell, though our author can hardly have thought of it, or he would certainly have likened Theodotus’ fate to that of the arch-heretic Simon, as he likened the fate of Montanus and Maximilla to that of Judas. Whatever the exact form of death referred to, there is of course no more confidence to be placed in this report than in the preceding one.
232:1594Of this Asterius Urbanus we know only what we can gather from this reference to him. Valesius, Tillemont, and others supposed that the words ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ τῷ κατὰ ᾽Αστέριον Οὐρβανόν were a scholium written on the margin of his copy by Eusebius himself or some ancient commentator to indicate the authorship of the anonymous work from which the fragments in this chapter are taken (and so in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII., these fragments are given as from the work of Asterius Urbanus). But Eusebius himself evidently did not know the author, and it is at any rate much easier to suppose the words a part of the text, and the work of Asterius a work which our anonymous author has been discussing and from which he quotes the words of Maximilla, just below. Accepting this most natural interpretation of the words, we learn that Asterius Urbanus was a Montanist who had written a work in defense of that sect.
232:1595Cf. note 21, above.
233:1596Of this Bishop Zoticus we know only what is told us here and in chap. 18, §13. On the proposed identification of Zoticus and Sotas, bishop of Anchialus, see chap. 19, note 10.
Comana (Κομ€νης, according to most of the mss. and editors; Κουμ€νης, according to a few of the mss. followed by Laemmer and Heinichen) was a village of Pamphylia, and is to be distinguished from Comana in Pontus and from Comana in Cappadocia (Armenia), both of which were populous and important cities.
233:1597Of this Julian we know nothing more. His city was Apamea Cibotus or Ciboti, which, according to Wiltsch, was a small town on Mount Signia in Pisidia, to be distinguished from the important Phrygian Apamea Cibotus on the Mæander. Whether Wiltsch has good grounds for this distinction I am unable to say. It would certainly seem natural to think in the present case of Apamea on the Mæander, inasmuch as it is spoken of without any qualifying phrase, as if there could be no doubt about its identity.
233:1598Themiso is mentioned again in chap. 18 as a confessor, and as the author of a catholic epistle. It is plain that he was a prominent man among the Montanists in the time of our anonymous author, that is, after the death of Montanus himself; and it is quite likely that he was, as Salmon suggests, the head of the sect.
233:1599This gives us a clear indication of the date of the composition of this anonymous work. The thirteen years must fall either before the wars which began in the reign of Septimius Severus, or after their completion. The earliest possible date in the latter case is 232, and this is certainly much too late for the composition of this work, which speaks of Montanism more than once as a recent thing, and which it seems clear from other indications belongs rather to the earlier period of the movement. If we put its composition before those wars, we cannot place it later than 192, the close of the reign of Commodus. This would push the date of Maximilla’s death back to 179, which though it seems rather early, is not at all impossible. The period from about 179 to 192 might very well be called a time of peace by the Christians; for no serious wars occurred during that interval, and we know that the Christians were left comparatively undisturbed throughout the reign of Commodus.
233:1600Our author tacitly admits in this paragraph, what he has denied in §12, above, that the Montanists had martyrs among their number; and having admitted it, he endeavors to explain away its force. In the previous paragraph he had claimed that the lack of martyrs among them proved that they were heretics; here he claims that the existence of such martyrs does not in any way argue for their orthodoxy. The inconsistency is glaringly apparent (cf. the remarks made in note 23, above).
233:1601This shows the bitterness of the hostility of the Catholics toward the Montanists. That even when suffering together for the one Lord they could not recognize these brethren seems very sad, and it is not to be wondered at that the Montanists felt themselves badly used, and looked upon the Catholics as “slayers of the prophets,” &c. More uncompromising enmity than this we can hardly imagine. That the Catholics, however, were sincere in their treatment of the Montanists, we cannot doubt. It is clear that they firmly believed that association with them meant association with the devil, and hence the deeper their devotion to Christ, the deeper must be their abhorrence of these instruments of Satan. Compare, for instance, Polycarp’s words to Marcion, quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 14, above. The attitude of these Catholic martyrs is but of a piece with that of nearly all the orthodox Fathers toward heresy. It only shows itself here in its extremest form.
233:1602Apamea Cibotus in Eastern Phrygia, a large and important commercial center. Of the two martyrs, Gaius and Alexander, we know only what is told us here. They were apparently both of them from Eumenia, a Phrygian town lying a short distance north of Apamea. We have no means of fixing the date of the martyrdoms referred to here, but it seems natural to assign them to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, after Montanism had become somewhat widespread, and when martyrdoms were a common thing both in the East and West. Thraseas, bishop of Eumenia, is referred to as a martyr by Polycrates in chap. 24, but he can hardly have suffered with the ones referred to here, or his name would have been mentioned instead of the more obscure names of Gaius and Alexander.
Chapter XVII.—Miltiades and His Works.
1. In this work he mentions a writer, Miltiades, 1603 stating that he also wrote a certain book against the above-mentioned heresy. After quoting some of their words, he adds:
“Having found these things in a certain work of theirs in opposition to the work of the brother Alcibiades, 1604 in which he shows that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy, 1605 I made an abridgment.”
2. A little further on in the same work he gives a list of those who prophesied under the new covenant, among whom he enumerates a certain Ammia 1606 and Quadratus, 1607 saying:
“But the false prophet falls into an ecstasy, in which he is without shame or fear. Beginning with purposed ignorance, he passes on, as has been stated, to involuntary madness of soul.
3. They cannot show that one of the old or one of the new prophets was thus carried away in spirit. Neither can they boast of Agabus, 1608 or Judas, 1609 or Silas, 1610 or the daughters of Philip, 1611 or Ammia in Philadelphia, or Quadratus, or any others not belonging to them.”
4. And again after a little he says: “For if after Quadratus and Ammia in Philadelphia, as they assert, the women with Montanus received the prophetic gift, let them show who among them received it from Montanus and the women. For the apostle thought it necessary that the prophetic gift should continue in all the Church until the final coming. But they cannot show it, though this is the fourteenth year since the death of Maximilla.” 1612
5. He writes thus. But the Miltiades to whom he refers has left other monuments of his own zeal for the Divine Scriptures, 1613 in the discourses which he composed against the Greeks and against the Jews, 1614 answering each of them separately in two books. 1615 And in addition he addresses an apology to the earthly rulers, 1616 in behalf of the philosophy which he embraced.
Footnotes
233:1603This Miltiades is known to us from three sources: from the present chapter, from the Roman work quoted by Eusebius in chap. 28, and from Tertullian (adv. Val. chap. 5). Jerome also mentions him in two places (de vir. ill. 39 and Ep. ad Magnum; Migne’s ed. Ep. 70, §3), but it is evident that he derived his knowledge solely from Eusebius. That Miltiades was widely known at the end of the second century is clear from the notices of him by an Asiatic, a Roman, and a Carthaginian writer. The position in which he is mentioned by Tertullian and by the anonymous Roman writer would seem to indicate that he flourished during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. His Apology was addressed to the emperors, as we learn from §5, below, by which might be meant either Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161–169), or Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (177–180). Jerome states that he flourished during the reign of Commodus (Floruit autem M. Antonini Commodi temporibus; Vallarsi adds a que after Commodi, thus making him flourish in the times of M. Antoninus and Commodus, but there is no authority for such an addition). It is quite possible that he was still alive in the time of Commodus (though Jerome’s statement is of no weight, for it rests upon no independent authority), but he must at any rate have written his Apology before the death of Marcus Aurelius. The only works of Miltiades named by our authorities are the anti-Montanistic work referred to here, and the three mentioned by Eusebius at the close of this chapter (two books Against the Greeks, two books Against the Jews, and an Apology). Tertullian speaks of him as an anti-Gnostic writer, so that it is clear that he must have written another work not mentioned by Eusebius, and it was perhaps that work that won for him the commendation of the anonymous writer quoted in chap. 28, who ranks him with Justin, Tatian, Irenæus, Melito, and Clement as one who had asserted the divinity of Christ. Eusebius appears to have seen the three works which he mentions at the close of this chapter, but he does not quote from them, and no fragments of any of Miltiades’ writings have been preserved to us; he seems indeed to have passed early out of the memory of the Church.
A very perplexing question is his relation to Montanism. According to Eusebius, he was the author of an anti-Montanistic work, but this report is beset with serious difficulties. The extract which Eusebius quotes just below as his authority has “Alcibiades,” not “Miltiades,” according to the unanimous testimony of the mss. and versions. It is very difficult to understand how Miltiades, if it stood originally in the text, could have been changed to Alcibiades. Nevertheless, most editors have thought it necessary to make the change in the present case, and most historians (including even Harnack) accept the alteration, and regard Miltiades as the author of a lost anti-Montanistic work. I confess that, imperative as this charge at first sight seems to be, I am unable to believe that we are justified in making it. I should be inclined to think rather that Eusebius had misread his authority, and that, finding Miltiades referred to in the immediate context (perhaps the Montanist Miltiades mentioned in chap. 16), he had, in a hasty perusal of the work, overlooked the less familiar name Alcibiades, and had confounded Miltiades with the author of the anti-Montanistic work referred to here by our Anonymous. He would then naturally identify him at once with the Miltiades known to him through other works. If we suppose, as Salmon suggests, that Eusebius did not copy his own extracts, but employed a scribe to do that work (as we should expect so busy a man to do), it may well be that he simply marked this extract in regard to the anti-Montanistic work without noticing his blunder, and that the scribe, copying the sentence just as it stood, correctly wrote Alcibiades instead of Miltiades. In confirmation of the supposition that Eusebius was mistaken in making Miltiades the author of an anti-Montanistic work may be urged the fact that Tertullian speaks of Miltiades with respect, and ranks him with the greatest Fathers of the second century. It is true that the term by which he describes him (ecclesiarum sophista) may not (as Harnack maintains) imply as much praise as is given to Proculus in the same connection; nevertheless Tertullian does treat Miltiades with respect, and does accord him a high position among ecclesiastical writers. But it is certainly difficult to suppose that Tertullian can thus have honored a man who was known to have written against Montanism. Still further, it must be noticed that Eusebius himself had not seen Miltiades’ anti-Montanistic work; he knew it only from the supposed mention of it in this anonymous work from which he was quoting. Certainly it is not, on the whole, difficult to suppose him mistaken and our mss. and versions correct. I therefore prefer to retain the traditional reading Alcibiades, and have so translated. Of the Alcibiades who wrote the anti-Montanistic treatise referred to, we know nothing. Upon Miltiades, see especially Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, I. I, p. 278 sqq., Otto’s Corpus Apol. Christ. IX. 364 sqq., and Salmon’s article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. 916.
234:1604῎Αλκιβι€δου, with all the mss. and versions, followed by Valesius (in his text), by Burton, Laemmer, and Crusè; Nicephorus, followed by Valesius in his notes, and by all the other editors, and by the translations of Stroth, Closs, and Stigloher, read Μιλτι€δου. See the previous note.
234:1605This was the first work, so far as we know, to denounce the practice of prophesying in ecstasy. The practice, which had doubtless fallen almost wholly into disuse, was brought into decided disrepute on account of the excesses of the Montanists, and the position taken by this Alcibiades became very soon the position of the whole Church (see the previous chapter, note 14).
234:1606Of this prophetess Ammia of Philadelphia, we know only what we can gather from this chapter. She would seem to have lived early in the second century, possibly in the latter part of the first, and to have been a prophetess of considerable prominence. That the Montanists had good ground for appealing to her, as well as to the other prophets mentioned as their models, cannot be denied. These early prophets were doubtless in their enthusiasm far more like the Montanistic prophets than like those whom the Church of the latter part of the second century alone wished to recognize.
234:1607This Quadratus is to be identified with the Quadratus mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 37, and was evidently a man of prominence in the East. He seems to have been a contemporary of Ammia, or to have belonged at any rate to the succession of the earliest prophets. He is to be distinguished from the bishop of Athens, mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 23, and also in all probability from the apologist, mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 3. Cf. Harnack, Texte und Unters. I. I. p. 102 and 104; and see Bk. III. chap. 37, note 1, above.
234:1608On Agabus, see Acts xi. 28, xxi. 10.
234:1609On Judas, see Acts 15:22, 27, 32.
234:1610On Silas, see Acts xv.-xviii. passim; also 2 Cor. 1:19, 1 Thess. 1:1, 2 Thess. 1:1, 1 Pet. 5:122 Cor. 1:19, 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1, and 1 Pet. v. 12, where Silvanus (who is probably the same man) is mentioned.
234:1611On the daughters of Philip, see Acts xxi. 9; also Bk. III. chap. 31, note 8, above.
234:1612On the date of Maximilla’s death, see the previous chapter, note 32. To what utterance of “the apostle” (ὁἀπόστολος, which commonly means Paul) our author is referring, I am not able to discover. I can find nothing in his writings, nor indeed in the New Testament, which would seem to have suggested the idea which he here attributes to the apostle. The argument is a little obscure, but the writer apparently means to prove that the Montanists are not a part of the true Church, because the gift of prophecy is a mark of that Church, and the Montanists no longer possess that gift. This seems a strange accusation to bring against the Montanists,—we might expect them to use such an argument against the Catholics. In fact, we know that the accusation is not true, at least not entirely so; for we know that there were Montanistic prophetesses in Tertullian’s church in Carthage later than this time, and also that there was still a prophetess at the time Apollonius wrote (see chap. 18, §6), which was some years later than this (see chap. 18, note 3).
234:1613περὶ τὰ θεῖα λόγια. These words are used to indicate the Scriptures in Bk. VI. chap. 23, §2, IX. 9. 7, X. 4. 28, and in the Martyrs of Palestine, XI. 2.
234:1614žν τε οἷς πρὸς ῞Ελληνας συνέταξε λόγοις, καὶ τοῖς πρὸς ᾽Ιουδαίους. Eusebius is the only one to mention these works, and no fragments of either of them are now extant. See above, note 1.
234:1615ἑκατέρᾳ& 184·δίως ὑποθέσει ἐν δυσὶν ὑπαντησας συγγρ€μμασιν
234:1616Or, “to the rulers of the world” (πρὸς τοὺς κοσμικοὺς ἄρχοντας.) Valesius supposed these words to refer to the provincial governors, but it is far more natural to refer them to the reigning emperors, both on account of the form of the phrase itself and also because of the fact that it was customary with all the apologists to address their apologies to the emperors themselves. In regard to the particular emperors addressed, see above, note 1.
Chapter XVIII.—The Manner in which Apollonius refuted the Phrygians, and the Persons 1617 whom he Mentions.
1. As the so-called Phrygian heresy 1618 was still flourishing in Phrygia in his time, Apollonius 1619 also, an ecclesiastical writer, undertook its refutation, and wrote a special work against it, correcting in detail the false prophecies current among them and reproving the life of the founders of the heresy. But hear his own words respecting Montanus:
2. “His actions and his teaching show who this new teacher is. This is he who taught the dissolution of marriage; 1620 who made laws for fasting; 1621 who named Pepuza and Tymion, 1622 small towns in Phrygia, Jerusalem, wishing to gather people to them from all directions; who appointed collectors of money; 1623 who contrived the receiving of gifts under the name of offerings; who provided salaries for those who preached his doctrine, that its teaching might prevail through gluttony.” 1624
3. He writes thus concerning Montanus; and a little farther on he writes as follows concerning his prophetesses: “We show that these first prophetesses themselves, as soon as they were filled with the Spirit, abandoned their husbands. How falsely therefore they speak who call Prisca a virgin.” 1625
4. Afterwards he says: “Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive gifts and money? 1626 When therefore I see the prophetess receiving gold and silver and costly garments, how can I avoid reproving her?”
5. And again a little farther on he speaks thus concerning one of their confessors:
“So also Themiso, 1627 who was clothed with plausible covetousness, could not endure the sign of confession, but threw aside bonds for an abundance of possessions. Yet, though he should have been humble on this account, he dared to boast as a martyr, and in imitation of the apostle, he wrote a certain catholic 1628 epistle, to instruct those whose faith was better than his own, contending for words of empty sound, and blaspheming against the Lord and the apostles and the holy Church.”
6. And again concerning others of those honored among them as martyrs, he writes as follows:
“Not to speak of many, let the prophetess herself tell us of Alexander, 1629 who called himself a martyr, with whom she is in the habit of banqueting, and who is worshiped 1630 by many. We need not mention his robberies and other daring deeds for which he was punished, but the archives 1631 contain them.
7. Which of these forgives the sins of the other? Does the prophet the robberies of the martyr, or the martyr the covetousness of the prophet? For although the Lord said, ‘Provide neither gold, nor silver, neither two coats,’ 1632 these men, in complete opposition, transgress in respect to the possession of the forbidden things. For we will show that those whom they call prophets and martyrs gather their gain not only from rich men, but also from the poor, and orphans, and widows.
8. But if they are confident, let them stand up and discuss these matters, that if convicted they may hereafter cease transgressing. For the fruits of the prophet must be tried; ‘for the tree is known by its fruit.’ 1633
9. But that those who wish may know concerning Alexander, he was tried by Æmilius Frontinus, 1634 proconsul at Ephesus; not on account of the Name, 1635 but for the robberies which he had committed, being already an apostate. 1636 Afterwards, having falsely declared for the name of the Lord, he was released, having deceived the faithful that were there. 1637 And his own parish, from which he came, did not receive him, because he was a robber. 1638 Those who wish to learn about him have the public records 1639 of Asia. And yet the prophet with whom he spent many years knows nothing about him! 1640
10. Exposing him, through him we expose also the pretense 1641 of the prophet. We could show the same thing of many others. But if they are confident, let them endure the test.”
11. Again, in another part of his work he speaks as follows of the prophets of whom they boast:
“If they deny that their prophets have received gifts, let them acknowledge this: that if they are convicted of receiving them, they are not prophets. And we will bring a multitude of proofs of this. But it is necessary that all the fruits of a prophet should be examined. Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair? 1642 Does a prophet stain his eyelids? 1643 Does a prophet delight in adornment? Does a prophet play with tables and dice? Does a prophet lend on usury? Let them confess whether these things are lawful or not; but I will show that they have been done by them.” 1644
12. This same Apollonius states in the same work that, at the time of his writing, it was the fortieth year since Montanus had begun his pretended prophecy. 1645
13. And he says also that Zoticus, who was mentioned by the former writer, 1646 when Maximilla was pretending to prophesy in Pepuza, resisted her and endeavored to refute the spirit that was working in her; but was prevented by those who agreed with her. He mentions also a certain Thraseas 1647 among the martyrs of that time.
He speaks, moreover, of a tradition that the Saviour commanded his apostles not to depart from Jerusalem for twelve years. 1648 He uses testimonies also from the Revelation of John, 1649 and he relates that a dead man had, through the Divine power, been raised by John himself in Ephesus. 1650 He also adds other things by which he fully and abundantly exposes the error of the heresy of which we have been speaking. These are the matters recorded by Apollonius.
Footnotes
235:1617Or events (τίνων).
235:1618On the name, see chap. 16, note 2.
235:1619Of this Apollonius we know little more than what Eusebius tells us in this chapter. The author of Prædestinatus (in the fifth century) calls him bishop of Ephesus, but his authority is of no weight. Jerome devotes chap. 40 of his de vir. ill. to Apollonius, but it is clear that he derives his knowledge almost exclusively from Eusebius. He adds the notice, however, that Tertullian replied to Apollonius’ work in the seventh book of his own work, de Ecstasi (now lost). The character of Apollonius’ work may be gathered from the fragments preserved by Eusebius in this chapter. It was of the same nature as the work of the anonymous writer quoted in chap. 16, very bitter in tone and not over-scrupulous in its statements. Apollonius states (see in §12, below) that he wrote the work forty years after the rise of Montanism. If we accepted the Eusebian date for its beginning (172), this would bring us down to 212, but (as remarked above, in chap. 16, note 12) Montanism had probably begun in a quiet way sometime before this, and so Apollonius’ forty years are perhaps to be reckoned from a somewhat earlier date. His mention of “the prophetess” as still living (in §6, below) might lead us to think that Maximilia was still alive when he wrote; but when the anonymous wrote she was already dead, and the reasons for assigning the latter to a date as early as 192 are too strong to be set aside. We must therefore suppose Apollonius to be referring to some other prophetess well known in his time. That there were many such prophetesses in the early part of the third century is clear from the works of Tertullian. Jerome (ibid.) states that an account of the death of Montanus and his prophetesses by hanging was contained in Apollonius’ work, but it has been justly suspected that he is confusing the work of the anonymous, quoted in chap. 16, above, with the work of Apollonius, quoted in this chapter. The fragments of Apollonius’ work, preserved by Eusebius, are given, with a commentary, in Routh’s Rel. Sac. I. p. 467 sq., and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 775 sq.
235:1620We are not to gather from this that the Montanists forbade marriage. They were, to be sure, decidedly ascetic in their tendencies, and they did teach the unlawfulness of second marriages,—which had long been looked upon with disfavor in many quarters, but whose lawfulness the Church had never denied,—and magnified the blessedness of the single state; but beyond this they did not go, so far as we are able to judge. Our chief sources for the Montanistic view of marriage are Tertullian’s works ad Uxorem, de Pudicit., de Monogamia, de Exhort. ad castitat., and Epiphanius’ Hær. XLVIII. 9.
235:1621One great point of dispute between the Montanists and the Catholics was the subject of fasts (cf. Hippolytus, VIII. 12, X. 21, who makes it almost the only ground of complaint against the Montanists). The Montanist prophetesses ordained two new fasts of a week each in addition to the annual paschal fast of the Church; and the regulations for these two weeks were made very severe. Still further they extended the duration of the regular weekly (Wednesday and Friday) fasts, making them cover the whole instead of only a part of the day. The Catholics very strenuously opposed these ordinances, not because they were opposed to fasting (many of them indulged extensively in the practice), but because they objected to the imposition of such extra fasts as binding upon the Church. They were satisfied with the traditional customs in this matter, and did not care to have heavier burdens imposed upon the Christians in general than their fathers had borne. Our principal sources for a knowledge of the dispute between the Montanists and Catholics on this subject are Tertullian’s de Jejuniis; Epiphanius, Hær. XLVIII. 8; Jerome, Ep. ad Marcellam (Migne, Ep. XLI. 3), Comment. in Matt. c. 9, vers. 15; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab. III. 2.
235:1622Pepuza was an obscure town in the western part of Phrygia; Tymion, otherwise unknown, was probably situated in the same neighborhood. Pepuza was early made, and long continued, the chief center—the Jerusalem—of the sect, and even gave its name to the sect in many quarters. Harnack has rightly emphasized the significance of this statement of Apollonius, and has called attention to the fact that Montanus’ original idea must have been the gathering of the chosen people from all the world into one region, that they might form one fold, and freed from all the political and social relations in which they had hitherto lived might await the coming of the Lord, who would speedily descend, and set up his kingdom in this new Jerusalem. Only after this idea had been proved impracticable did Montanism adapt itself to circumstances and proceed to establish itself in the midst of society as it existed in the outside world. That Montanus built upon the Gospel of John, and especially upon chaps. x. and xvii., in this original attempt of his, is perfectly plain (cf. Harnack’s Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 319 and 323. With this passage from Apollonius, compare also Epiphanius, Hær. XLVIII. 14 and XLIX. 1., and Jerome Ep. ad Marcellam).
235:1623This appointment of economic officers and the formation of a compact organization were a part of the one general plan, referred to in the previous note, and must have marked the earliest years of the sect. Later, when it was endeavoring to adapt itself to the catholic Church, and to compromise matters in such a way as still to secure recognition from the Church, this organization must have been looked upon as a matter of less importance, and indeed probably never went far beyond the confines of Phrygia. That it continued long in that region, however, is clear from Jerome’s words in his Epistle to Marcella already referred to. Compare also chap 16, note 25.
235:1624There can be little doubt that the Church teachers and other officers were still supported by voluntary contributions, and hence Apollonius was really scandalized at what he considered making merchandise of spiritual things (cf. the Didache, chaps. XI. and XII.; but even in the Didache we find already a sort of stated salary provided for the prophets; cf. chap. XII.). For him to conclude, however, from the practice instituted by the Montanists in accordance with their other provisions for the formation of a compact organization, that they were avaricious and gluttonous, is quite unjustifiable, just as much so as if our salaried clergy to-day should be accused, as a class, of such sins.
235:1625See chap. 16, note 18.
235:1626See note 8.
235:1627On Themiso, see chap. 16, note 31.
235:1628καθολικὴν ἐπιστολήν. Catholic in the sense in which the word is used of the epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; that is, general, addressed to no particular church. The epistle is no longer extant. Its “blasphemy” against the Lord and his apostles lay undoubtedly in its statement of the fundamental doctrine of the Montanists, that the age of revelation had not ceased, but that through the promised Paraclete revelations were still given, which supplemented or superseded those granted the apostles by Christ.
236:1629This fragment gives us our only information in regard to this Alexander. That there may be some truth in the story told by Apollonius cannot be denied. It is possible that Alexander was a bad man, and that the Montanists had been deceived in him, as often happens in all religious bodies. Such a thing might much more easily happen after the sect had been for a number of years in a flourishing condition than in its earlier years; and the exactness of the account, and the challenge to disprove it, would seem to lend it some weight. At the same time Apollonius is clearly as unprincipled and dishonest a writer as the anonymous, and hence little reliance can be placed upon any of his reports to the discredit of the Montanists. If the anonymous made so many accusations out of whole cloth, Apollonius may have done the same in the present instance; and the fact that many still “worshiped” him would seem to show that Apollonius’ accusations, if they possessed any foundation, were at any rate not proven.
236:1630A very common accusation brought against various sects. Upon the significance of it, see Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 82, note 2.
236:1631ὀπισθόδομος, originally the back chamber of the old temple of Athenæ on the Acropolis at Athens, where the public treasure was kept. It then came to be used of the inner chamber of any temple where the public treasure was kept, and in the present instance is used of the apartment which contained the public records or archives. Just below, Apollonius uses the phrase δημόσιον ἀρχεῖον, in referring to the same thing.
236:1632Matt. 10:9, 10.
236:1633Matt. xii. 33.
236:1634We know, unfortunately, nothing about this proconsul, and hence have no means of fixing the date of this occurrence.
236:1635i.e. of Christ.
236:1636παραβ€της
236:1637εἶτα ἐπιψευσ€μενος τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἀπολέλυται πλανήσας τοὺς ἐκεῖ πιστούς. The meaning seems to be that while in prison he pretended to be a Christian, and thus obtained the favor of the brethren, who procured his release by using their influence with the judge.
236:1638We have no means of controlling the truth of this statement.
236:1639δημόσιον ἀρχεῖον.
236:1640ὃν ὁ προφήτης συνόντα πολλοῖς žτεσιν ἀγνοεῖ, as is read by all the mss., followed by the majority of the editors. Heinichen reads ᾧ ὁ προφήτης συνὼν πολλοις žτεσιν ἀγνοεῖ, but the emendation is quite unnecessary. The ἀγνοεῖ implies ignorance of the man’s true character; although with him so many years, he knows nothing about him, is ignorant of his true character! The sentence is evidently ironical.
236:1641τὴν ὑπόστασιν
236:1642β€πτεται
236:1643στιβίζεται
236:1644Knowing what we do of the asceticism and the severe morality of the Montanists, we can look upon the implications of this passage as nothing better than baseless slanders. That there might have been an individual here and there whose conduct justified this attack cannot be denied, but to bring such accusations against the Montanists in general was both unwarranted and absurd, and Apollonius cannot but have been aware of the fact. His language is rather that of a bully or braggadocio who knows the untruthfulness of his statements, than of a man conscious of his own honesty and of the reliability of his account.
236:1645On the date of Apollonius’ work, see above, note 3.
236:1646See chap. 16, §17.
236:1647This Thraseas is undoubtedly to be identified with Thraseas, “bishop and martyr of Eumenia,” mentioned by Polycrates, as quoted in chap. 24, below. We know no more about him than is told us there.
236:1648Clement (Strom. VI. 5) records the same tradition, quoting it from the Preaching of Peter, upon which work, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 8, above.
236:1649Compare Eusebius’ promise in Bk. III. chap. 24, §18, and see note 21 on that chapter.
237:1650No one else, so far as I am aware, records this tradition, but it is of a piece with many others in regard to John which were afloat in the early Church.
Chapter XIX.—Serapion on the Heresy of the Phrygians.
1. Serapion, 1651 who, as report says, succeeded Maximinus 1652 at that time as bishop of the church of Antioch, mentions the works of Apolinarius 1653 against the above-mentioned heresy. And he alludes to him in a private letter to Caricus and Pontius, 1654 in which he himself exposes the same heresy, and adds the following words: 1655
2. “That you may see that the doings of this lying band of the new prophecy, so called, are an abomination to all the brotherhood throughout the world, I have sent you writings 1656 of the most blessed Claudius Apolinarius, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia.”
3. In the same letter of Serapion the signatures of several bishops are found, 1657 one of whom subscribes himself as follows:
“I, Aurelius Cyrenius, a witness, 1658 pray for your health.”
And another in this manner:
“Ælius Publius Julius, 1659 bishop of Debeltum, a colony of Thrace. As God liveth in the heavens, the blessed Sotas in Anchialus desired to cast the demon out of Priscilla, but the hypocrites did not permit him.” 1660
4. And the autograph signatures of many other bishops who agreed with them are contained in the same letter.
So much for these persons.
Footnotes
237:1651Both versions of the Chron. agree in putting the accession of Serapion into the eleventh year of Commodus (190 a.d.), and that of his successor Asclepiades into the first year of Caracalla, which would give Serapion an episcopate of twenty-one years (Syncellus says twenty-five years, although giving the same dates of accession for both bishops that the other versions give). Serapion was a well-known person, and it is not too much to think that the dates given by the Chron. in connection with him may be more reliable than most of its dates. The truth is, that from the present chapter we learn that he was already bishop before the end of Commodus’ reign, i.e. before the end of 192 a.d. Were the statement of Eutychius,—that Demetrius of Alexandria wrote at the same time to Maximus of Antioch and Victor of Rome,—to be relied upon, we could fix his accession between 189 and 192 (see Harnack’s Zeit des Ignatius, p. 45). But the truth is little weight can be attached to his report. While we cannot therefore reach certainty in the matter, there is no reason for doubting the approximate accuracy of the date given by the Chron. As to the time of his death, we can fix the date of Asclepiades’ accession approximately in the year 211 (see Bk. VI. chap. II, note 6), and from the fragment of Alexander’s epistle to the Antiochenes, quoted in that chapter, it seems probable that there had been a vacancy in the see of Antioch for some time. But from the mention of Serapion’s epistles to Domninus (Bk. VI. chap. 12) we may gather that he lived until after the great persecution of Severus (a.d. 202 sq.). From Bk. VI. chap. 12, we learn that Serapion was quite a writer; and he is commemorated also by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 41) and by Socrates (H. E. III. 7). In addition to the epistle quoted here, he addressed to Domninus, according to Bk. VI. chap. 12, a treatise (Jerome, ad Domninum…volumen composuit), or epistle (the Greek of Eusebius reads simply τὰ, but uses the same article to describe the epistle or epistles to Caricus and Pontius, so that the nature of the writing is uncertain), as well as some other epistles, and a work on the Gospel of Peter. These were the only writings of his which Eusebius had seen, but he reports that there were probably other works extant. There are preserved to us only the two fragments quoted by Eusebius in these two chapters. Serapion also played a prominent rôle in the tradition of the Edessene church, as we learn from Zahn’s Doctrina Addai (Gött. Gel. Anz. 1877, St. 6, p. 173, 179, according to Harnack’s Zeit des Ignatius, p. 46 sqq.).
237:1652On Maximinus, see Bk. IV. chap. 24, note 6.
237:1653See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 1.
237:1654Caricus and Pontius (called Ponticus in this passage by most of the mss. of Eusebius, but Pontius by one of the best of them, by Nicephorus, Jerome, and Eusebius himself in Bk. VI. chap. 12, which authorities are followed by Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, and Heinichen) are called in Bk. VI. chap. 12, ἐκκλησιαστικοὺς ἀνδρὰς. They are otherwise unknown personages. In that chapter the plural article τ€ is used of the writing, or writings, addressed to Caricus and Pontius, implying that ὑπομνήματα is to be supplied. This seems to imply more than one writing, but it is not necessary to conclude that more than the single epistle mentioned here is meant, for the plural ὑπομνήματα was often used in a sort of collective sense to signify a collection of notes, memoranda, &c.
237:1655This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sacræ, and, in English, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 775.
237:1656See Bk. IV. chap. 27, note 5.
237:1657Valesius justly remarks that Eusebius does not say that these bishops signed Serapion’s epistle, but only that their signatures or notes (ὑποσημειώσεις) were contained in the epistle. He thinks it is by no means probable that a bishop of Thrace (the nationality of the other bishops we do not know) should have signed this epistle of Serapion’s, and he therefore concludes that Serapion simply copies from another epistle sent originally from Thrace. This is possible; but at the end of the chapter Eusebius says that other bishops put in their signatures or notes with their own hands (αὐτόγραφοι σημειώσεις), which precludes the idea that Serapion simply copies their testimony from another source, and if they signed thus it is possible that the Thracian bishop did likewise. It may be that Serapion took pains to compose a semi-official communication which should have the endorsement of as many anti-Montanistic bishops as possible, and that, in order to secure their signatures he sent it about from one to the other before forwarding it to Caricus and Pontius.
237:1658Of this Aurelius Cyrenius we know nothing. It is possible that he means to call himself simply a witness (μαρτύς) to the facts recorded by Serapion in his epistle, but more probable that he uses the word to indicate that he has “witnessed for Christ” under persecution.
237:1659Ælius Publius Julius is also an otherwise unknown personage. Debeltum and Anchialus were towns of Thrace, on the western shore of the Black Sea.
237:1660Lightfoot (Ignatius, II. 111) suggests that this Sotas (Σωτᾶς) may be identical with the Zoticus (Ζωτικός) mentioned in the preceding chapter, the interchange of the initial Σ and Ζ being very common. But we learn from chap. 16 that Zoticus was bishop of Comana, so that he can hardly be identified with Sotas, bishop of Anchialus.
Chapter XX.—The Writings of Irenæus against the Schismatics at Rome.
1. Irenæus 1661 wrote several letters against those who were disturbing the sound ordinance of the Church at Rome. One of them was to Blastus On Schism; 1662 another to Florinus On Monarchy, 1663 or That God is not the Author of Evil. For Florinus seemed to be defending this opinion. And because he was being drawn away by the error of Valentinus, Irenæus wrote his work On the Ogdoad, 1664 in which he shows that he himself had been acquainted with the first successors of the apostles. 1665
2. At the close of the treatise we have found a most beautiful note which we are constrained to insert in this work. 1666 It runs as follows:
“I adjure thee who mayest copy this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by his glorious advent when he comes to judge the living and the dead, to compare what thou shalt write, and correct it carefully by this manuscript, and also to write this adjuration, and place it in the copy.”
3. These things may be profitably read in his work, and related by us, that we may have those ancient and truly holy men as the best example of painstaking carefulness.
4. In the letter to Florinus, of which we have spoken, 1667 Irenæus mentions again his intimacy with Polycarp, saying:
“These doctrines, O Florinus, to speak mildly, are not of sound judgment. These doctrines disagree with the Church, and drive into the greatest impiety those who accept them. These doctrines, not even the heretics outside of the Church, have ever dared to publish. These doctrines, the presbyters who were before us, and who were companions of the apostles, did not deliver to thee.
5. “For when I was a boy, I saw thee in lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in splendor in the royal court, 1668 and endeavoring to gain his approbation.
6. I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ 1669 Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.
7. These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And continually, through God’s grace, I recall them faithfully. And I am able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good God, unto what times hast thou spared me that I should endure these things? And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words. 1670
8. And this can be shown plainly from the letters 1671 which he sent, either to the neighboring churches for their confirmation, or to some of the brethren, admonishing and exhorting them.” Thus far Irenæus.
Footnotes
237:1661On Irenæus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
237:1662Eusebius, in chap. 15, informs us that both Blastus and Florinus drew many away from the church of Rome by their heretical innovations. He does not tell us either there or here the nature of the opinions which Blastus held, but from Pseudo-Tertullian’s Adv. omnes Hær. chap. 8, we learn that Blastus was a Quartodeciman. (“In addition to all these, there is likewise Blastus, who would latently introduce Judaism. For he says the passover is not to be kept otherwise than according to the law of Moses, on the fourteenth of the month.”) From Pacianus’ Epistola ad Sympronian. de catholico nomine, chap. 2, we learn that he was a Montanist; and since the Montanists of Asia Minor were, like the other Christians of that region, Quartodecimans, it is not surprising that Blastus should be at the same time a Montanist and a Quartodeciman. Florinus, as will be shown in the next note, taught his heresies while Victor was bishop of Rome (189–198 or 199); and since Eusebius connects Blastus so closely with him, we may conclude that Blastus flourished at about the same time. Irenæus’ epistle to Blastus, On Schism, is no longer extant. A Syriac fragment of an epistle of Irenæus, addressed to “an Alexandrian,” on the paschal question (Fragment 27 in Harvey’s edition) is possibly a part of this lost epistle. If the one referred to in this fragment be Blastus, he was an Alexandrian, and in that case must have adopted the Quartodeciman position under the influence of the Asiatic Montanists, for the paschal calendar of the Alexandrian church was the same as that of Rome (see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 264). If Blastus was a Montanist, as stated by Pacianus, his heresy was quite different from that of Florinus (who was a Gnostic); and the fact that they were leaders of different heresies is confirmed by the words of Eusebius in chap. 15, above: “Each one striving to introduce his own innovations in respect to the truth.” Whether Blastus, like Florinus, was a presbyter, and like him was deposed from his office, we do not know, but the words of Eusebius in chap. 15 seem to favor this supposition.
238:1663Florinus, as we learn from chap. 15, was for a time a presbyter of the Roman Church, but lost his office on account of heresy. From the fragment of this epistle of Irenæus to Florinus quoted by Eusebius just below, we learn that Florinus was somewhat older than Irenæus, but like him a disciple of Polycarp. The title of this epistle shows that Florinus was already a Gnostic, or at least inclined toward Gnostic views. Eusebius evidently had no direct knowledge of the opinions of Florinus on the origin of evil, for he says that he appeared to maintain (ἐδόκει προασπίζειν) the opinion that God was the author of evil. Eusebius’ conclusion is accepted by most ancient and modern writers, but it is suggested by Salmon (Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. 544) that Eusebius was perhaps mistaken, “for, since the characteristic of dualism is not to make God the author of evil, but to clear him from the charge by ascribing evil to an independent origin, the title would lead us to think that the letter was directed, not against one who had himself held God to be the author of evil, but against one who had charged the doctrine of a single first principle with necessarily leading to this conclusion. And we should have supposed that the object of Irenæus was to show that it was possible to assert God to be the sole origin and ruler of the universe, without holding evil to be his work.” Since Eusebius had seen the epistle of Irenæus to Florinus, it is difficult to understand how he can have misconceived Florinus’ position. At the same time, he does not state it with positiveness; and the fact that Florinus, if not already, certainly was soon afterward a Valentinian, and hence a dualist, makes Salmon’s supposition very plausible. Florinus is not mentioned in Irenæus’ great work against heresies, nor by Tertullian, Pseudo-Tertullian, Hippolytus, or Epiphanius. It is probable, therefore, that he was not named in Hippolytus’ earlier work, nor in the lectures of Irenæus which formed the groundwork (see Salmon, l.c.). The silence of Irenæus is easily explained by supposing Florinus’ fall into heresy to have taken place after the composition of his lectures against heresies and of his great work; and the silence of the later writers is probably due to the fact that Irenæus’ work makes no mention of him and that, whatever his influence may have been during his lifetime, it did not last, and hence his name attracted no particular attention after his death.
It has been maintained by some (e.g. Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review, 1875, p. 834) that this epistle to Florinus was one of the earliest of Irenæus’ writings but Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. 263) has given other and satisfactory reasons for thinking that Florinus’ heresy, and therefore Irenæus’ epistle and his work On the Ogdoad, belonged to the time of Victor, and hence were later than the work Against Heresies. A Syriac fragment of an epistle concerning Florinus, addressed by Irenæus to Victor (Harvey’s edition, Fragm. 28), is extant, and supports Lipsius’ conclusion. It would seem that Irenæus, subsequent to the writing of his great work, learning that Florinus was holding heretical opinions on the origin of evil, addressed him the epistle mentioned in this chapter. That afterward, Florinus having embraced Valentinianism, and having written “an abominable book” (as the fragment just referred to says), Irenæus wrote his work On the Ogdoad, and subsequently addressed his epistle to Victor, calling upon him to take decisive measures against Florinus, now seen to be a regular heretic. What was the result of Irenæus’ epistles and book we do not know; we hear nothing more about the matter, nor do we know anything more about Florinus (for Augustine’s mention of Florinus as the founder of a sect of Floriniani is a mistake; see Salmon, l.c.).
238:1664This treatise, On the Ogdoad, is no longer extant, though it is probable that we have a few fragments of it (see Harvey, I. clxvi.). The importance which Irenæus attached to this work is seen from the solemn adjuration with which he closed it. It must have been largely identical in substance with the portions of his Adv. Hær. which deal with the æons of the Valentinians. It may have been little more than an enlargement of those portions of the earlier work. The Ogdoad (Greek, ὀγδόας, a word signifying primarily a thing in eight parts) occupied a prominent place in the speculations of the Gnostics. Valentinus taught eight primary æons, in four pairs, as the root and origin of the other æons and of all beings. These eight he called the first or primary Ogdoad; and hence a work upon the Ogdoad, written against a Valentinian, must, of course, be a general discussion of the Valentinian doctrine of the æons. The word Ogdoad was not used by all the Gnostics in the same sense. It was quite commonly employed to denote the supercelestial region which lay above the seven planetary spheres (or Hebdomad), and hence above the control of the seven angels who severally presided over these spheres. In the Valentinian system a higher sphere, the Pleroma, the abode of the æons, was added, and the supercelestial sphere, the Ogdoad of the other systems, was commonly called the Mesotes. or middle region. For further particulars in regard to the Ogdoad, see Salmon’s articles Hebdomad and Ogdoad in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
238:1665Literally, “in which he shows that he himself had seized upon (κατειληφέναι) the first succession (διαδοχήν) of the apostles.” In order to emphasize the fact that he was teaching true doctrine, he pointed out, as he did so often elsewhere, the circumstance that he was personally acquainted with disciples of the apostles.
238:1666It was not at all uncommon for copyists, both by accident and by design, to make changes, often serious, in copying books. We have an instance of intentional alterations mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 23. It is not at all strange, therefore, that such an adjuration should be attached to a work which its author considered especially liable to corruption, or whose accurate transcription be regarded as peculiarly important. Compare the warning given in Rev. 22:18, 19. The fragments from Irenæus’ works preserved in this chapter are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 568 sq.
238:1667The epistle On Monarchy mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.
238:1668ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ αὐλῇ. This expression is a little puzzling, as the word βασιλική implies the imperial court, and could not properly be used of the provincial court of the proconsul. No sojourn of an emperor in Asia Minor is known which will meet the chronology of the case; and hence Lightfoot (Contemporary Review May, 1875, p. 834) has offered the plausible suggestion that the words may have been loosely employed to denote the court of Titus Aurelius Fulvus, who was proconsul of Asia about 136 a.d., and afterward became the emperor Antoninus Pius.
239:16691 John i. 1.
239:1670This would have been quite like Polycarp, who appears to have had a special horror of heretics. Compare his words to Marcion, quoted above, in Bk. IV. chap. 14. He seems to have inherited this horror from John the apostle, if Irenæus’ account is to be believed; see Adv. Hær. III. 3, 4, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28, and in Bk. IV. chap. 14.
239:1671We know of only one epistle by Polycarp, that to the Philippians, which is still extant. Upon his life and epistle, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, notes 5 and 16.
Chapter XXI.—How Appolonius suffered Martyrdom at Rome.
1. About the same time, in the reign of Commodus, our condition became more favorable, and through the grace of God the churches throughout the entire world enjoyed peace, 1672 and the word of salvation was leading every soul, from every race of man to the devout worship of the God of the universe. So that now at Rome many who were highly distinguished for wealth and family turned with all their household and relatives unto their salvation.
2. But the demon who hates what is good, being malignant in his nature, could not endure this, but prepared himself again for conflict, contriving many devices against us. And he brought to the judgment seat Apollonius, 1673 of the city of Rome, a man renowned among the faithful for learning and philosophy, having stirred up one of his servants, who was well fitted for such a purpose, to accuse him. 1674
3. But this wretched man made the charge unseasonably, because by a royal decree it was unlawful that informers of such things should live. And his legs were broken immediately, Perennius the judge having pronounced this sentence upon him. 1675
4. But the martyr, highly beloved of God, being earnestly entreated and requested by the judge to give an account of himself before the Senate, made in the presence of all an eloquent defense of the faith for which he was witnessing. And as if by decree of the Senate he was put to death by decapitation; an ancient law requiring that those who were brought to the judgment seat and refused to recant should not be liberated. 1676 Whoever desires to know his arguments before the judge and his answers to the questions of Perennius, and his entire defense before the Senate will find them in the records of the ancient martyrdoms which we have collected. 1677
Footnotes
239:1672Marcia, concubine of Commodus, and possessed of great influence over him, favored the Christians (according to Dion Cassius, LXII. 4), and as a consequence they enjoyed comparative peace during his reign.
239:1673Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 42, and Epist. ad Magnum, 4) calls Apollonius a Roman senator. It is possible that this is only a natural conclusion drawn by Jerome from Eusebius’ statement that he defended himself before the Senate; and this possibility might seem to be strengthened by the fact that Eusebius does not call him a senator here, as we should expect him to do if he knew him to be one. On the other hand, it is highly probable (as shown in the next note) that Jerome had read the fuller account of Apollonius’ martyrdom included by Eusebius in his Collection of Martyrdoms, and hence it seems likely that that account contained the statement that Apollonius was a senator. Jerome makes Apollonius the author of an insigne volumen, which he read in the Senate in defense of his faith; but there seems to be no foundation for such a report. It is apparently the result simply of a misunderstanding of the words of Eusebius, who states that Apollonius delivered before the Senate a most eloquent defense of the faith, but does not imply that he wrote an apology. The words that Eusebius uses at the close of this chapter imply rather that the defense made by Apollonius was recorded after its delivery, and that it is this report of it which can be read in his Collection of Martyrdoms.
239:1674Jerome, followed by Sophronius, reports that the accusation against Apollonius was brought by a slave. Jerome gives the slave’s name as Severus (a servo Severo proditus); while Sophronius makes Severus the name of the judge (παρὰ τοῦ δούλου παρὰ Σεβήρῳ προδοθεὶς χριστιανὸς εἶναι). The latter is impossible, however, as the name of the judge was Perennius according to Eusebius. Vallarsi states that some mss. of Jerome read sub Commodo principe ac Severo proditus, and supposes that ac Severo is a corruption for the words a servo (which he thinks may have stood alone in the original text), and that some student, perceiving the error, wrote upon the margin of his copy the words a servo, and that subsequently the note crept into the text, while the word Severo was still retained, thus producing our present reading a servo Severo. This is an ingenious suggestion, but the fact is overlooked that Sophronius undoubtedly read in the original translated by him the words a servo Severo, for we can explain his rendering only by supposing that he read thus, but understood the word Severo as the dative of the indirect object after proditus, instead of the ablative in apposition with servo. In the face of Sophronius’ testimony to the original form of the text, no alteration of the common reading can be accepted. As to the source of Jerome’s Severus, since there is nothing in the present chapter of Eusebius to suggest such an addition, and no reason can be imagined for the independent insertion of the name, the only legitimate conclusion seems to be, that the name occurred in the account of Apollonius’ martyrdom referred to by Eusebius just below, and that Jerome took it thence. If this be so, then that martyrology must have been the authority also for Jerome’s statement that Apollonius was accused by a slave; and hence the statement may be accepted as true, and not as the result of a misinterpretation of the reference of Eusebius’ words (ἕνα γέ τινα τῶν εἰς ταῦτα ἐπιτηδείων αὐτῷ), as supposed by some. Since it is thus almost certain that Jerome had himself examined the fuller account of Apollonius’ martyrdom referred to by Eusebius, a favorable light is thrown back upon his report that Apollonius was a senator, and it becomes probable that he obtained this statement from the same source (see the previous note).
239:1675M. de Mandajors, in his Histoire de l’Acad. des Inscript. tom. 18, p. 226 (according to Gieseler’s Ch. Hist., Harper’s edition, I. p. 127), “thinks that the slave was put to death as the betrayer of his master, according to an old law renewed by Trajan; but that the occurrence had been misunderstood by the Christians, and had given rise to the tradition, which is found in Tertullian and in the Edictum ad Comm. Asiæ, that an emperor at this period had decreed the punishment of death for denouncing a Christian.” Such a law against the denunciation of masters by slaves was passed under Nerva; but Gieseler remarks that, in accordance with the principles of the laws upon this subject, “either Apollonius only, or his slave only, could have been put to death, but in no case both. Jerome does not say either that Severus was the slave of Apollonius, or that he was executed; and since Eusebius grounds this execution expressly on a supposititious law, it may have belonged only to the Oriental tradition, which may have adduced this instance in support of the alleged law.” It is possible that Gieseler is right in this conclusion; but it is also quite possible that Eusebius’ statement that the slave was executed is correct. The ground of the execution was, of course, not, as Eusebius thinks, the fact that he brought an accusation against a Christian, but, as remarked by de Mandajors, the fact that, being a slave, he betrayed his master. Had the informant been executed because he brought an accusation against a Christian, the subsequent execution of the latter would be inexplicable. But it is conceivable that the prefect Perennius may have sentenced the informant to death, in accordance with the old law mentioned by de Mandajors, and that then, Apollonius being a senator, he may have requested him to appear before that body, and make his defense to them, in order that he might pass judgment upon him in accordance with the decision of the Senate. It is quite conceivable that, the emperor being inclined to favor the Christians, Perennius may not have cared to pass judgment against Apollonius until he had learned the opinion of the Senate on the matter (cf. what Neander has to say on the subject, in his Ch. Hist.). As remarked by Valesius, the Senate was not a judicial court, and hence could not itself sentence Apollonius; but it could, of course, communicate to the prefect its opinion, and he could then pass judgment accordingly. It is significant that the Greek reads ὡσὰν ἀπὸ δόγματος συγκλήτου, inserting the particle ὡσ€ν, “as if”; i.e. “as if by decree of the Senate.”
240:1676Valesius thinks the reference here is to Pliny’s rescript to Trajan (see above, Bk. III. chap. 33). This is possible, though the language of Eusebius seems to imply a more general reference to all kinds of cases, not simply to the cases of Christians.
240:1677On Eusebius’ great Collection of Martyrdoms, which is now lost, see above, p. 30.
Chapter XXII.—The Bishops that were well known at this Time.
In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, Victor 1678 succeeded Eleutherus, 1679 the latter having held the episcopate for thirteen years. In the same year, after Julian 1680 had completed his tenth year, Demetrius 1681 received the charge of the parishes at Alexandria. At this time the above-mentioned Serapion, 1682 the eighth from the apostles, was still well known as bishop of the church at Antioch. Theophilus 1683 presided at Cæsarea in Palestine; and Narcissus, 1684 whom we have mentioned before, still had charge of the church at Jerusalem. Bacchylus 1685 at the same time was bishop of Corinth in Greece, and Polycrates 1686 of the parish of Ephesus. And besides these a multitude of others, as is likely, were then prominent. But we have given the names of those alone, the soundness of whose faith has come down to us in writing.
Footnotes
240:1678The dates assigned to Victor’s episcopate by the ancient authorities vary greatly. Eusebius here puts his accession in the tenth year of Commodus (i.e. 189 a.d.), and this is accepted by Lipsius as the correct date. Jerome’s version of the Chron. puts his accession in the reign of Pertinax, or the first year of Septimius Severus (i.e. 193), while the Armenian version puts it in the seventh year of Commodus (186). Eusebius, in his History, does not state directly the duration of his episcopate, but in chap. 28 he says that Zephyrinus succeded him about the ninth year of Severus, i.e. according to his erroneous reckoning (see Bk. VI. chap. 21, note 3) about 200, which would give Victor an episcopate of about eleven years. Jerome, in his version of the Chron. and in his de vir. ill., assigns him ten years; the Armenian version of the Chron. twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue makes his episcopate something over nine years long; the Felician Catalogue something over ten. Lipsius, considering Victor in connection with his successors, concludes that he held office between nine and ten years, and therefore gives as his dates 189–198 or 199 (see p. 172 sq.). According to an anonymous writer quoted in chap. 28, Victor excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium for teaching that Christ was a mere man. He is best known, however, on account of his action in connection with the great Quartodeciman controversy (see chap. 24). Jerome, in his version of the Chron., says of him cujus mediocria de religione extant volumina, and in his de vir. ill. chap. 34, he tells us that he wrote upon the passover, and also some other works (super quæstione Paschæ, et alia quædam scribens opuscula). Harnack believes that he has discovered one of these works (all of which have been supposed lost) in the Pseudo-Cyprianic de Aleatoribus. In his Texte und Unters. Bd. V. Heft 1, he has discussed the subject in a very learned and ingenious manner. The theory has much to commend it, but there are difficulties in its way which have not yet been removed; and I am inclined to think it a product of the first half of the third century, rather than of the last quarter of the second (see the writer’s review of Harnack’s discussion in the Presbyterian Review, Jan., 1889, p. 143 sqq.).
240:1679On Eleutherus, see the Introduction to this book, note 2. As remarked there, Eleutherus, according to the testimony of most of our sources, held office fifteen years. The “thirteen years” of this chapter are therefore an error, clearly caused by the possession on the part of Eusebius of a trustworthy tradition that he died in the tenth year of Commodus, which, since he incorrectly put his accession into the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius (or Antoninus Verus, as he calls him), made it necessary for him to draw the false conclusion that he held office only thirteen years.
240:1680On Julian, bishop of Alexandria, see chap. 9, note 2.
240:1681The date of the accession of Demetrius, the eleventh bishop of Alexandria, as given here and in the Chron., was 189 a.d. According to Bk. VI. chap. 26, below, confirmed by the Chron., he held office forty-three years. There is no reason for doubting the approximate accuracy of these dates. Demetrius is known to us chiefly because of his relations to Origen, which were at first friendly, but finally became hostile. He seems to have been a man of great energy, renowned as an administrator rather than as a literary character. He was greatly interested in the catechetical school at Alexandria, but does not seem to have taught in it, and he left no writings, so far as we know. His relations with Origen will come up frequently in the Sixth Book, where he is mentioned a number of times (see especially chap. 8, note 4).
240:1682On Serapion, bishop of Antioch, see above, chap. 19.
240:1683Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, has gained prominence chiefly on account of his connection with the paschal controversy. He presided with Narcissus over the council mentioned in the next chapter, which was called to consider the paschal question, and in conjunction with the other bishops present composed an epistle, which was still extant in Eusebius’ time (according to the next chapter), and of which he gives a fragment in chap. 25. Jerome, in his de vir. ill. c. 43, speaks very highly of this epistle (synodicam valde utilem composuit epistolam); but it seems to have been no longer extant in his time, for in mentioning it and the epistle of Bacchylus of Corinth and others in his Chron., he says that the memory of them still endured (quarum memoria ad nos usque perdurat). The dates of Theophilus’ accession to office and of his death are not known to us.
240:1684On Narcissus, see above, chap. 12.
240:1685This Bacchylus is possibly identical with the Bacchylides who is mentioned in Bk. IV. chap. 23 as one of those who had urged Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, to write a certain epistle. Bacchylus also is prominent solely on account of his connection with the paschal controversy. According to the next chapter, he was himself the author of an epistle on the subject, which he wrote, according to Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 44), in the name of all the bishops of Achaia (ex omnium qui in Achaia erant episcoporum persona). But the words of Eusebius seem to imply that the epistle was an individual, not a synodical one, for he does not say, “an epistle of those in,” &c., as he does in every other case. We must conclude, therefore, that Jerome, who had not seen the epistle, was mistaken in making it a synodical letter. Jerome characterizes it as an elegant composition (elegantem librum); but, like the epistle of Theophilus, mentioned in the preceding note, it seems not to have been extant in Jerome’s time. The dates of Bacchylus’ accession to office and of his death are not known to us.
240:1686Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, is one of the most noted men connected with the paschal controversy, for the reason that he was the leader of the bishops of the province of Asia, in which province alone the Quartodeciman practice was uniformly observed. He was thus the leading opponent of Bishop Victor of Rome. His relation to the paschal controversy is brought out more fully in chap. 24. The dates of Polycrates’ accession to office and of his death are not known to us; though, of course, with Theophilus, Narcissus, Bacchylus, and the other bishops concerned in the paschal controversy, he flourished during the reign of Septimius Severus, while Victor was bishop of Rome. The only writing of Polycrates of which we know is his epistle to Victor, a portion of which is quoted by Eusebius, in Bk. III. chap. 31, and a still larger portion in chap. 24 of this book.
Jerome, in his de vir. ill. c. 45 speaks in terms of the highest praise of Polycrates, and quotes from Eusebius the larger fragment, given in chap. 24, adding, Hæc propterea posui, ut ingenium et auctoritatem viri ex parvo opusculo demonstrarem. The fact that he quotes only the passages given by Eusebius would be enough to show that he quoted from Eusebius, and not directly from Polycrates, even were it not plain from the statement in his Chron., referred to in note 6, that Polycrates’ epistle was, so far as Jerome knew, no longer extant. Polycrates himself informs us, in the second fragment given in chap. 24, that he wrote his epistle with the consent and approval of all the bishops present at the council summoned by him to discuss the paschal question. The fact that both Eusebius and Jerome praise Polycrates so highly, and testify to his orthodoxy, shows how completely the paschal question had been buried before their time, and how little the Quartodeciman practice was feared.
Chapter XXIII.—The Question then agitated concerning the Passover.
1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover. 1687 It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.
2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, 1688 and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, 1689 bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; 1690 also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, 1691 as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne 1692 and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, 1693 bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.
3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision. 1694
Footnotes
241:1687The great question of dispute between the church of Asia Minor and the rest of Christendom was whether the paschal communion should be celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan, or on the Sunday of the resurrection festival, without regard to Jewish chronology. The Christians of Asia Minor, appealing to the example of the apostles, John and Philip, and to the uniform practice of the Church, celebrated the Christian passover always on the fourteenth of Nisan, whatever day of the week that might be, by a solemn fast, and closed the day with the communion in commemoration of the last paschal supper of Christ. The Roman church, on the other hand, followed by all the rest of Christendom, celebrated the death of Christ always on Friday, and his resurrection on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, and continued their paschal fast until the latter day. It thus happened that the fast of the Asiatic Christians, terminating, as it did, with the fourteenth of Nisan, often closed some days before the fast of the other churches, and the lack of uniformity occasioned great scandal. As Schaff says: “The gist of the paschal controversy was whether the Jewish paschal day (be it a Friday or not) or the Christian Sunday should control the idea and time of the entire festival.” The former practice emphasized Christ’s death; the latter his resurrection. The first discussion of the question took place between Polycarp and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, when the former was on a visit to that city, between 150 and 155. Irenæus gives an account of this which is quoted by Eusebius in chap. 25. Polycarp clung to the Asiatic practice of observing the 14th of Nisan, but could not persuade Anicetus to do the same, nor could Anicetus persuade him not to observe that day. They nevertheless communed together in Rome, and separated in peace. About 170 a.d. the controversy broke out again in Laodicea, the chief disputants being Melito of Sardis and Apolinarius of Hierapolis (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1, and chap. 27, note 1). In this controversy Melito advocated the traditional Asiatic custom of observing the fourteenth day, while Apolinarius opposed it. To distinguish two parties of Quartodecimans,—a Judaizing and a more orthodox,—as must be done if Apolinarius is regarded, as he is by many, as a Quartodeciman, is, as Schaff shows entirely unwarranted. We know only of the one party, and Apolinarius did not belong to it. The third stage of the controversy, which took place while Victor was bishop of Rome, in the last decade of the second century, was much more bitter and important. The leaders of the two sides were Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, and Victor, bishop of Rome,—the latter an overbearing man, who believed that he, as Bishop of Rome, had a right to demand of all other churches conformity to the practices of his own church. The controversy came to an open rupture between the churches of Asia and that of Rome, but other churches did not sympathize with the severe measures of Victor, and the breach was gradually healed—just how and when we do not know; but the Roman practice gradually prevailed over the Asiatic, and finally, at the Council of Nicæa (325), was declared binding upon the whole Church, while the old Asiatic practice was condemned. This decision was acquiesced in by the bishops of Asia, as well as by the rest of the world, and only scattered churches continued to cling to the practice of the earlier Asiatics, and they were branded as heretics, and called Quartodecimanians (from quarta decima), a name which we carry back and apply to all who observed the fourteenth day, even those of the second and third centuries. This brief summary will enable us better to understand the accounts of Eusebius, who is our chief authority on the subject. The paschal controversy has had an important bearing upon the question of the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, the Tübingen critics having drawn from this controversy one of their strongest arguments against its genuineness. This subject cannot be discussed here, but the reader is referred, for a brief statement of the case, to Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. 219. The Johannine controversy has given rise to an extensive literature on these paschal disputes. Among the most important’ works are Hilgenfeld’s Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche nach seiner Bedeutung fur die Kirchengesch. u. s. w.; and Schürer’s Die Paschastreitigkeiten des zweiten Jahrhunderts, in the Zeitschrift für hist. Theologie, 1870, p. 182–284,—the latter perhaps the ablest extended discussion of the subject extant. The reader is also referred to the article Easter, in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Ant.; to Hefele’s Conciliengesch. I. p. 86–101; and especially to the chapter on the paschal controversies in Schaff’s Ch. Hist. Vol. II. p. 209–220. This chapter of Schaff’s is the clearest, and, in the opinion of the writer, by far the most satisfactory, brief statement of the whole subject which we have.
241:1688Although other synods are mentioned by the Libellus synodicus (of the ninth century), the only ones which we have good reason for accepting are those mentioned by Eusebius in this chapter and the next; viz. one in Palestine (the Libellus synodicus gives two: one at Jerusalem, presided over by Narcissus, and another at Cæsarea, presided over by Theophilus, but the report is too late to be of authority); one in Pontus, under the presidency of Palmas; one in Gaul, under Irenæus; one in Osrhoëne in Mesopotamia; and one in Asia Minor, under Polycrates. Hefele (Conciliengesch. I. p. 101) adds one in Rome under Victor; and although Eusebius does not distinctly mention such a synod, we are undoubtedly to conclude that the epistle written by Victor was a synodical epistle and hence Hefele is, in all probability, correct in assuming that some kind of a synod, whether municipal or provincial, took place there at this time (see note 4). From the words of Eusebius at the close of the chapter, we may gather that still other synods than those mentioned by him were held on this subject. The date of all of these councils is commonly given as 198 a.d., but there is no particular authority for that year. Jerome’s version of the Chron. assigns the composition of the various epistles to the fourth year of Septimius Severus (196–197); but it is clear that he is giving only an approximate date. We can say only that the synods took place sometime during Victor’s episcopate. All the councils, as we learn from this chapter, except the one under Polycrates in Asia Minor, decided against the Quartodeciman practice. Athanasius, however (de Syn. c. 5), speaks of Christians of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia as celebrating the paschal feast on the fourteenth day; and Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 35) says that many bishops of Asia and of the Orient kept up this observance. It is possible that the practice was from the beginning more widely spread than Eusebius supposed, or, what is more probable, that the words of Athanasius and Jerome refer to individual churches and bishops, whose observance of the fourteenth day was not general enough to invalidate what Eusebius says of the common consent of the whole Church, outside of Asia Minor, against the Quartodeciman practice, and that this individual observance, not being officially recognized by any synod, did not seem to him to require mention.
241:1689On Theophilus and Narcissus, see the preceding chapter, notes 6 and 7.
241:1690ἐπίσκοπον βίκτορα δηλοῦσα. This and the following epistles are no longer extant, nor have we any fragments of them. They seem to have disappeared, even before Jerome’s time; at least, he speaks only of the memory of them as remaining to his day (see chap. 22, note 6). Heinichen is certainly wrong in making this epistle an individual letter from Victor alone, for Eusebius expressly says that the epistle was from “those at Rome” (τῶν ἐπὶ ῾Ρώμης), which seems to imply a council, as in the other cases. The grammatical construction naturally leads us to supply with the τῶν the word used with it in the previous sentence, συγκεκροτημένων,—“those who were assembled.” Valesius, Hefele, and others are, therefore, quite justified in assuming that, according to Eusebius, a synod met at Rome, also, at this time.
242:1691Palmas, bishop of Amastris, in Pontus, mentioned by Dionysius, in Bk. IV. chap. 23, above.
242:1692Osrhoëne was a region of country in northwestern Mesopotamia.
242:1693This epistle of Bacchylus is distinguished from the preceding ones by the fact that it is not a synodical or collective epistle but the independent production of one man, if Eusebius’ report is correct (see the preceding chapter, note 8). The epistles “of many others,” mentioned in the next sentence, may have been of the same kind.
242:1694Namely, against the observance of the fourteenth day.
Chapter XXIV.—The Disagreement in Asia.
1. But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. 1695 He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him: 1696
2. “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.
3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.
4. And Polycarp 1697 in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, 1698 bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.
5. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris 1699 who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, 1700 or Melito, 1701 the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?
6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. 1702 And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people 1703 put away the leaven.
7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’” 1704
8. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows:
“I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; 1705 whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.”
9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. 1706
10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
11. Among them was Irenæus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord’s day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows: 1707
12. “For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night. 1708
13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. 1709 It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.”
14. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert:
“Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it 1710 themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it. 1711
15. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it. 1712
16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome 1713 in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.
17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. 1714 And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.”
18. Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, 1715 became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches. 1716
Footnotes
242:1695For a general account of the paschal controversy, see the preceding chapter, note 1. On Polycrates, see chap. 22, note 9.
242:1696A part of this passage from Polycrates’ epistle is quoted in Bk. III. chap. 31. The extract given there begins with the second sentence of the fragment (“For in Asia great lights,” &c.), and extends to the report of John’s burial at Ephesus. For comments upon this portion of the fragment, see the notes given there.
242:1697On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.
242:1698This Thraseas, said by Polycrates to have been bishop of Eumenia (a city in the southern part of Phrygia), was mentioned also by Apollonius in his work against the Montanists (according to Eusebius, chap. 18, §13, of this book). He is called by Polycrates a martyr, and by Eusebius, in reference to Apollonius’ mention of him, “one of the martyrs of that time.” There is no reason to doubt that he was a martyr, in the full sense, as Polycarp was; but upon the more general use of the word μ€ρτυς as, e.g., in connection with John just above, see Bk. III. chap. 32, note 15. We know nothing more about this bishop Thraseas.
242:1699On Sagaris, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 22.
242:1700Polycrates does not call Papirius a bishop or a martyr, and we know nothing about him. Simeon Metaphrastes, upon whose reports little reliance can be placed, in his life of Polycarp (according to Valesius), makes Papirius a successor of Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna.
242:1701On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1.
242:1702A careful exegesis of the passages in John’s Gospel, which are supposed by some to contradict the synoptic account, and to put Christ’s death on the fourteenth day of Nisan instead of on the fifteenth, shows that John agrees with the Synoptists in putting the passover meal on the fourteenth and the death of Christ on the fifteenth (see Schaff’s Ch. Hist. Vol. I. p. 133 ff., and the authorities referred to by him). The Asiatic churches, in observing the fourteenth of Nisan, were commemorating the last passover feast and the death of the paschal Lamb. Their practice did not imply that they believed that Christ died on the fourteenth (as can be seen from fragments of Apolinarius’ work quoted in the Chron. Paschale, and referred to above; see, also, Schaff, Vol. II. p. 214). They were in full agreement with all four Gospels in putting his death on the fifteenth. But the paschal controversy did not hinge on the day of the month on which Christ died,—in regard to which there was no widespread disagreement,—but on the question as to whether a particular day of the week or of the month was to be celebrated.
242:1703i.e. the Jews. The passover feast among the Jews took place on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and was eaten with unleavened bread (Ex. xii. 6 et passim). It was on the fourteenth of Nisan, therefore, that the Jews “threw away” the leaven, and until the evening of the twenty-first, when the seven days’ feast of unleavened bread closed, they used no leaven.
242:1704Acts v. 29.
242:1705According to this, the Asiatic Council was summoned at the request of Victor of Rome, and in all probability this was the case with all the councils referred to in the last chapter.
243:1706There has been considerable discussion as to whether Victor actually excommunicated the Asiatic churches or only threatened to do so. Socrates (H. E. V. 22) says directly that he excommunicated them, but many have thought that Eusebius does not say it. For my part, I cannot understand that Eusebius’ words mean anything else than that he did actually cut off communion with them. The Greek reads ἀκοινωνήτους π€ντας ἄρδην τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. This seems to me decisive.
243:1707This epistle is no longer extant, but in addition to the fragments given in this chapter by Eusebius, a few other extracts from it are found in other writers; thus, in the Pseudo-Justinian Quæstiones et responsa ad orthodoxos occurs a quotation from Irenæus’ work On Easter (περὶ τοῦ π€σχα), which is doubtless to be identified with this epistle to Victor (ed. Harvey, Græc. fragm. 7; Eng. translation in Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 569). Maximus of Turin, also, in his Sermo VII. de Eleemos., gives a brief quotation from “The epistle to Victor” (Harvey, Græc. fragm. 5, trans. ibid.). It is possible that some other unnamed fragments given by Harvey are from this epistle. From Eusebius’ words we learn that Irenæus agreed with Victor as to the proper time of keeping the feast, and yet he did not agree with him in his desire to excommunicate those who followed the other practice.
243:1708The punctuation of this sentence is a disputed matter. Some editors omit the semicolon after the words “yet others more,” translating, “For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more, and some forty; and they count the hours of the day and night together as their day.” The sense is thus materially changed, but the Greek seems to necessitate rather the punctuation which I have followed in my translation, and so that punctuation is adopted by Valesius, Zimmermann, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, Heinichen, Closs, Crusè, and others. We should expect, moreover, that the forty hours’ fast should be mentioned in this connection by Irenæus, as we learn from Tertullian that it was very common; whereas we have no other trace of the forty days’ fast at so early a date (cf. the next note).
243:1709The fast preceding the celebration of the paschal supper, which has grown gradually into our Lent of forty days preceding Easter, is, we are told here by Irenæus, much older than his day. It is thus carried back at least close to apostolic times, and there is no reason to think that it was not observed about as soon as the celebration of the paschal supper itself was established. Tertullian also mentions the fast, which continued, according to him (de Jejunio, chap. 2), during the period “in which the bridegroom was taken away,” i.e. in which Jesus was under the power of death.
We learn from this passage of Irenæus’ epistle that the duration of the fast varied greatly. From Socrates (H. E. V. 22) and Sozomen (H. E. VII. 19) we learn that the variation was as great in their time. Some fasted three, some six, some seven weeks, and so on. Socrates (l.c.) informs us that the fast, whatever its duration, was always called τεσσαρακοστή (quadrigesima). He does not know why this is, but says that various reasons are given by others. The time between Jesus’ death and his resurrection was very early computed as forty hours in length,—from noon of Friday to four o’clock Sunday morning. This may have lain at the basis of the number forty, which was so persistently used to designate the fast, for Tertullian tells us that the fast was intended to cover the period during which Jesus was dead. It is this idea which undoubtedly underlay the fast of forty hours which Irenæus mentions. The fasts of Moses, of Elijah, and of Jesus in the desert would also of course have great influence in determining the length of this, the most important fast of the year. Already before the end of the third century the fast had extended itself in many quarters to cover a number of weeks, and in the time of Eusebius the forty days’ fast had already become a common thing (see his de Pasch. chap. 5), and even Origen refers to it (Hom. in Lev. X. 2). The present duration of the fast—forty days exclusive of Sundays—was fixed in the seventh or eighth century. Cf. Sinker’s article on Lent in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Ant. and Krieg’s article, Feste, in Kraus’ Encyclop. der Christ. Alterthümer, I. p. 489.
243:1710i.e. the fourteenth day.
243:1711The Greek reads: καί τοι μᾶλλον ἐναντίον ἦν τὸ τηρεῖν τοῖς μή τηροῦσι. The meaning is, that the observance of the fourteenth day by these strangers in Rome itself, among those who did not observe that day, would be noticeable and more distasteful than the mere report that the day was so observed in Asia could be. If Victor’s predecessor, therefore, allowed such persons to observe that day even in Rome, how much more should he allow the Asiatics to observe it in their own land.
243:1712Valesius, followed by others, interprets this sentence as meaning that the presbyters of Rome sent the eucharist to other parishes where the paschal festival was observed on the fourteenth of the month. The council of Laodicea (Can. 14) forbade the sending of the eucharist to other parishes, which shows that the custom must have been widespread before the end of the fourth century, and it is therefore quite possible that the bishops of Rome, even as early as the time of Irenæus, pursued the same practice. But in regard to the statement made here by Irenæus, it must be said that, so far as we are able to ascertain, only the churches of Asia Minor observed the fourteenth day at that early date, and it is difficult to imagine that the presbyters of Rome before Victor’s time had been in the habit of sending the eucharist all the way from Rome to Asia Minor. Moreover, this is the only passage in which we have notice, before the fourth century, of the existence of the general practice condemned by the council of Laodicea. The Greek reads οἱ πρὸ σοῦ πρεσβύτεροι τοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν παροικιῶν τηροῦσιν žπεμπον εὐχαριστίαν. These words taken by themselves can as well, if not better, be understood of persons (whether presbyters or others is not in any case distinctly stated) who had come to Rome from other parishes, and who continued to observe the fourteenth day. This transmission of the eucharist to communicants who were kept away from the service by illness or other adequate cause was a very old custom, being mentioned by Justin Martyr in his Apol. I. 65. It is true that it is difficult to understand why Irenæus should speak in the present case of sending the eucharist to those persons who observed the fourteenth day, instead of merely mentioning the fact that the Roman church communed with them. In the face of the difficulties on both sides it must be admitted that neither of the interpretations mentioned can be insisted upon. On the practice of sending the eucharistic bread to persons not present at the service or to other parishes, see the article Eulogia, in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Ant.
243:1713ἐπιδημήσαντος τῇ ῾Ρώμῃ. Upon the significance of this phrase, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 19. On the date of Polycarp’s visit to Rome, see ibid., chap. 14, note 2. In his Adv. Hær., where he mentions this visit (as quoted in chap. 14), Irenæus does not speak of the affair of the passover which he refers to here. The omission, however, has no significance, as he is discussing Gnosticism there, and refers to Polycarp’s visit to Rome only because his attitude toward Marcion was revealed in connection with it.
244:1714The meaning of this passage has been disputed. The Greek reads: καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησί& 139· παρεχώρησεν ὁ ᾽Ανίκητος τὴν εὐχαριστίαν τῷ Πολυκ€ρπῳ κατ᾽ ἐντροπὴν δηλονότι. Valesius understands Irenæus’ meaning to be that Anicetus invited Polycarp to administer the eucharist in Rome; and this is the common interpretation of the passage. Heinichen objects, however, that παρεχώρησεν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν cannot refer to the administration of the sacrament, and hence concludes that Irenæus means simply to say that Anicetus permitted Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in his church, thereby proclaiming publicly their fraternal fellowship, in spite of their differences on the paschal question. The common interpretation, however, seems to the writer better than Heinichen’s; for if the latter be adopted, the sentence in question says no more than the one which precedes it,—“they communed with each other” (ἐκοινώνησαν ἑαυτοῖς). And moreover, as Valesius remarks, Anicetus would in that case have shown Polycarp no more honor than any other Christian pilgrim who might happen to be in Rome. Irenæus seems to intend to say that Anicetus showed Polycarp especial honor, and that in spite of their difference of opinion on the paschal question. But simply to have allowed Polycarp to partake of the eucharist in the church would certainly have been no honor, and, on the other hand, not to invite him to assist in the administration of the sacrament might have seemed a sign of disrespect, and have emphasized their differences. The old interpretation, therefore, must be followed, and so far as the Greek is concerned, there is no difficulty about the construction. In the παρεχώρησεν resides the idea of “yielding,” “giving place to”; and so Anicetus yielded to Polycarp the eucharist, or gave place to him in the matter of the eucharist. This in fact brings out the force of the παρεχώρησεν better than Heinichen’s interpretation.
244:1715The Greek form of the name is Εἰρηναῖος, from εἰρήνη, which means “peace.”
244:1716None of these epistles are extant; but it is possible that some of the fragments commonly assigned to Irenæus’ epistle to Victor may belong to one or more of them (see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 265). We do not know to what bishops or churches these epistles were sent. Jerome does not mention them.
Chapter XXV.—How All came to an Agreement respecting the Passover.
1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, 1717 and with them Cassius, 1718 bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, 1719 having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words: 1720
2. “Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.” 1721
Footnotes
244:1717In chaps. 22 and 23. For particulars in regard to them, see chap. 22, notes 6 and 7.
244:1718Cassius and Clarus are otherwise unknown men.
244:1719i.e. in the Palestinian council mentioned in chap. 23. Upon this and the other councils held at the same period, see chap. 23, note 2.
244:1720This fragment is given, with annotations, by Routh, Rel. Sac. II. p. 3 sq. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 774.
244:1721These epistles, like all the rest written at this time on the paschal question, are now lost (see chap. 23, note 4).
Chapter XXVI.—The Elegant Works of Irenæus which have come down to us.
Besides the works and letters of Irenæus which we have mentioned, 1722 a certain book of his On Knowledge, written against the Greeks, 1723 very concise and remarkably forcible, is extant; and another, which he dedicated to a brother Marcian, In Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching; 1724 and a volume containing various Dissertations, 1725 in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, making quotations from them. These are the works of Irenæus which have come to our knowledge.
Commodus having ended his reign after thirteen years, Severus became emperor in less than six months after his death, Pertinax having reigned during the intervening time. 1726
Footnotes
244:1722For a general summary of the works of Irenæus mentioned by Eusebius, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
244:1723πρὸς ῞Ελληνας λόγος…περὶ ἐπιστήμης. Jerome (de vir. ill. 35) makes two works out of this: one Against the Gentiles, and another On Knowledge (et contra Gentes volumen breve, et de disciplina aliud). Harvey (I. p. clxvi.) states that one of the Syriac fragments of Irenæus’ works mentions the work of Eusebius On Knowledge, and specifies that it was directed against the Valentinians. In that case it would be necessary to make two separate works, as Jerome does, and so Harvey thinks that the text of Eusebius must be amended by the insertion of an ἄλλος τε. Unfortunately, Harvey did not name the Syriac fragment which contains the statement referred to, and it is not to be found among those collected in his edition (Venables, in Smith and Wace, states that he could find no such fragment, and I have also searched in vain for it). Evidently some blunder has been committed, and it looks as if Harvey’s statement were unverifiable. Meanwhile, Jerome’s testimony alone is certainly not enough to warrant an emendation of the text in opposition to all the mss. and versions. We must therefore conclude, with our present light, that the treatise περὶ ἐπιστήμης was directed against the Greeks, as Eusebius says. The work has entirely perished, with the possible exception of a single brief fragment (the first of the Pfaffian fragments; Gr. Frag. XXXV. in Harvey’s edition), which Harvey refers to it.
244:1724εἰς ἐπίδειξιν τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ κηρύγματος. This work, too, has perished, though possibly a few of the fragments published by Harvey are to be referred to it (see Harvey, I. p. clxvii.). Harvey conjectures that the work discussed the articles of the early Rule of faith, which is quite possible. Of the “brother Marcian” to whom it was addressed, we know nothing.
244:1725βίβλιον τι διαλέξεων διαφόρων. This work (no longer extant) was probably, as Harvey remarks, “a collection of sermons and expositions of various texts and passages of Scripture.” To it are undoubtedly to be referred a great many of the fragments in which passages of Scripture are discussed (see Harvey, I. p. clxvii.).
245:1726Commodus was strangled on the 31st of December, 192, and Pertinax, who immediately succeeded him, was murdered, on March 28, 193, by the Prætorian guard, which then sold the imperial power to Didius Julianus, who, at the approach of Septimius Severus, who had been proclaimed emperor by the Pannonian legions, was declared a public enemy by the Senate, and beheaded after a reign of only sixty-six days.
Chapter XXVII.—The Works of Others that flourished at that Time.
Numerous memorials of the faithful zeal of the ancient ecclesiastical men of that time are still preserved by many. Of these we would note particularly the writings of Heraclitus 1727 On the Apostle, and those of Maximus on the question so much discussed among heretics, the Origin of Evil, and on the Creation of Matter. 1728 Also those of Candidus on the Hexæmeron, 1729 and of Apion 1730 on the same subject; likewise of Sextus 1731 on the Resurrection, and another treatise of Arabianus, 1732 and writings of a multitude of others, in regard to whom, because we have no data, it is impossible to state in our work when they lived, or to give any account of their history. 1733 And works of many others have come down to us whose names we are unable to give, orthodox and ecclesiastical, as their interpretations of the Divine Scriptures show, but unknown to us, because their names are not stated in their writings. 1734
Footnotes
245:1727This Heraclitus is mentioned only by Eusebius and by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 46), who, in his description of him and in the five following chapters (on Maximus, Candidus, Apion, Sextus, and Arabianus), does nothing more than repeat the words of Eusebius in this chapter. The work which Eusebius calls τὰ ῾Ηρακλείτου εἰς τὸν ἀπόστολον is called by Jerome in apostolum Commentarios. The word ἀπόστολος was quite commonly used among the Fathers to denote the epistles of Paul (see Suicer’s Thesaurus), and hence Eusebius seems here to refer to commentaries (the plural article τὰ is used) on the Pauline epistles. These commentaries are no longer extant, and we know nothing of their nature.
245:1728The Greek reads καὶ τὰ Μαξιμου περὶ τοῦ πολυθρυλήτου παρὰ τοῖς αἱρεσιώταις ζητήματος, τοῦ πόθεν ἡ κακία, καὶ περὶ τοῦ γενητὴν ὑπ€ρχειν τὴν ὕλην. The plural τὰ (sc. ὑπομνήματα) might lead us to suppose Eusebius refers here to separate works, were it not for the fact that in his Præp. Evang. VII. 22 is found a long extract from a work of Maximus On Matter (περὶ τῆς ὕλης) in which the subject of the origin of evil is discussed in connection with the origin and nature of matter. In that age one could hardly discuss the origin of evil without at the same time discussing matter, to which the origin of evil was referred by the great majority of the ancients. We are to suppose, then, that the work of Maximus bore the double title given by Eusebius in this chapter. Jerome in his de vir. ill. chap. 47, says: Maximus…famosam quæstionem insigni volumine ventilavit, unde malum, et quod materia a Deo facta sit. As remarked above, a long extract, which must have been taken from this work, is given by Eusebius in his Præp. Evang. It appears from this extract that the work was written in the form of a dialogue between three speakers,—two inquirers, and one orthodox Christian. The same fragment of Maximus’ work is found also in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Philocalia of Origen, and is said by the editors, Gregory and Basil, to have been copied by them from Eusebius’ work. The Dialogue on Free Will, ascribed to Methodius (of the early part of the fourth century), made large use of this work of Maximus; and the same is to be said of the Pseudo-Origenistic Dialogue against the Marcionites, though according to Routh (Rel. Sac. II. p. 79) the latter drew his quotations from Methodius and not directly from Maximus. The work of Methodius undoubtedly contains much more of Maximus’ work than is given here by Eusebius; but it is difficult to ascertain what is his own and what belongs to Maximus, and Routh, in publishing the fragments of Maximus’ work (ibid. p. 87–107), gives only the extract quoted by Eusebius. In his Præp. Evang. Eusebius speaks of Maximus as τῆς χριστοῦ διατριβὴς οὐκ ἄσημος ἀνήρ, but we know no more about him than has been already indicated. Gallandius suggests that he may be identical with Maximus, the twenty-sixth bishop of Jerusalem (see above, chap. 12), who, it is quite probable, lived about this time (cf. Eusebius’ Chron., year of Abr. 2202). But Eusebius, neither in this chapter nor in his Præp. Evang., calls Maximus a bishop, and it seems proper to conclude that he at least did not know that he was a bishop; and hence Gallandius’ conjecture, which rests only upon agreement in a very common name, must be pronounced quite baseless.
245:1729εἰς τὴν ἑξαήμερον (sc. κοσμοποιΐαν ορ δημιουργίαν). The adjective ἑξαήμερος was commonly used in this way, with the feminine article, implying a noun understood, and referring to the six days’ work of creation (see Suicer’s Thesaurus). The subject was quite a favorite one with the Fathers. Hippolytus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, and others wrote upon it, as did also the Apion mentioned in the next sentence. The work of Candidus is no longer extant, nor do we know anything more about it and its author than Eusebius tells us here. The plural τὰ occurs again, and Jerome supplies tractatus. Whether the word fitly describes the work, or works, or whether they were rather of the nature of homilies, like Basil’s, we do not know. Sophronius, in translating Jerome, puts ὁμιλίας for tractatus, but this of course is of no authority.
245:1730Apion’s work is mentioned also by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 4), but nothing is added to the statement of Eusebius. We know nothing more about him or his work.
245:1731Sextus also is mentioned by Jerome, in his de vir. ill. chap. 50, but we know nothing about him or his work, except what Eusebius tells us here.
245:1732Nothing more is known of this Arabianus, and Eusebius does not even tell us the name of his work. His silence is difficult to explain. We can hardly imagine that the title was intentionally omitted; for had there been a reason for such a course, there must have been as much reason for omitting the writer’s name also. It does not seem probable that he had never known the title of the book, for he was not in the habit of mentioning works which he had not seen, except with the formula λόγος žχει, or something of the kind, to indicate that he makes his statement only on the authority of others. It is possible that he had seen this, with the other works mentioned (perhaps all bound in one volume), at sometime in the past, but that the title of Arabianus’ work had escaped him, and hence he simply mentioned the work along with the others, without considering the title a matter of great importance. He speaks of but a single work,—ἄλλη τις ὑπόθεσις,—but Jerome (chap. 51) mentions quædam opuscula ad christianum dogma pertinentia. His description is not specific enough to lead us to think that he had personal knowledge of Arabianus’ writings. It must rather be concluded that he allowed himself some license, and that, not satisfied to speak of a writer without naming his works, and, at the same time, knowing nothing definite about them, he simply calls them, in the most general terms, ad christianum dogma pertinentia; for if they were Christian works, he was pretty safe in concluding that they had to do, in some way at least, with Christian doctrine. The substitution of the plural for the singular (quædam opuscula for τις ὑπόθεσις) can hardly have been an accident. It is, perhaps safe to say, knowing Jerome’s methods, that he permitted himself to make the change in order to conceal his own ignorance of the writings of Arabianus; for to mention a single book, and say no more about it than that it had to do with Christian doctrine, would be a betrayal of entire ignorance in regard to it; but to sum up a number of writings under the general head ad christianum dogma pertinentia, instead of giving all the titles in detail, would be, of course, quite consistent with an exact acquaintance with all of them. If our supposition be correct, we have simply another instance of Jerome’s common sin, and an instance which, in this case, reveals a sharp contrast between his character and that of Eusebius, who never hesitated to confess his ignorance.
245:1733Eusebius does not imply, in this sentence, that he is not acquainted with these works to which he refers. As the words are commonly translated, we might imagine that he was not familiar with them, for all the translators make him speak of not being able to draw any extracts from them for his own history. Thus Valesius: nec narrationem ullam libris nostris intexere possumus; Stroth: “noch etwas darauserzählen kann”; Closs: “noch etwas daraus anführen können”; Crusè: “we can neither insert the time nor any extracts in our History.” The Greek of the whole sentence reads, ὧν διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν žχειν ἀφορμὴν οὐχ οἷ& 231·ν τε οὔτε τοὺς χρόνους παραδοῦναι γραφῇ, οὔθ᾽ ἱστορίας μνήμην ὑποσημήνασθαι, which seems to mean simply that their works contain no information which enables him to give the dates of the authors, or to recount anything about their lives; that is, they contain no personal allusions. This is quite different from saying that he was not acquainted with the works; in fact, had he not been quite familiar with them, he could not have made such a broad statement. He seems to have searched them for personal notices, and to have failed in the search. Whether these words of Eusebius apply to all the works already mentioned, or only to the μυρίων ἄλλων just referred to, cannot be certainly determined. The latter seems most natural; but even if the reference be only to those last mentioned, there is every reason to think that the words are just as true of the writings of Heraclitus, Maximus, and the others, for he tells us nothing about their lives, nor the time in which they lived, but introduces them in the most general terms, as “ancient ecclesiastical men.” There seems, therefore, no good reason for connecting these writers with the reign of Commodus, rather than with any other reign of the late second or of the third century. It must be noticed that Eusebius does not say that “these men lived at this time”; he simply mentions them in this connection because it is a convenient place, and perhaps because there were indications which led him to think they could not have lived early in the second or late in the third century. It is quite possible, as suggested in the previous note, that the works of the writers whose names are mentioned in this chapter were collected in a single volume, and that thus Eusebius was led to class them all together, although the subjects of their works were by no means the same, and their dates may have been widely different.
246:1734Eusebius mentioned first those works whose authors’ names were known to him, but now adds that he is acquainted with many other writings which bear the name of no author. He claims, however, that the works testify to their authors’ orthodoxy, and he seems to imply, by this statement, that he has convinced himself of their orthodoxy by a personal examination of them.
Chapter XXVIII.—Those who first advanced the Heresy of Artemon; their Manner of Life, and how they dared to corrupt the Sacred Scriptures.
1. In a laborious work by one of these writers against the heresy of Artemon, 1735 which Paul of Samosata 1736 attempted to revive again in our day, there is an account appropriate to the history which we are now examining.
2. For he criticises, as a late innovation, the above-mentioned heresy which teaches that the Saviour was a mere man, because they were attempting to magnify it as ancient. 1737 Having given in his work many other arguments in refutation of their blasphemous falsehood, he adds the following words:
3. “For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter, 1738 but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, 1739 the truth had been corrupted.
4. And what they say might be plausible, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them. And there are writings of certain brethren older than the times of Victor, which they wrote in behalf of the truth against the heathen, and against the heresies which existed in their day. I refer to Justin 1740 and Miltiades 1741 and Tatian 1742 and Clement 1743 and many others, in all of whose works Christ is spoken of as God. 1744
5. For who does not know the works of Irenæus 1745 and of Melito 1746 and of others which teach that Christ is God and man? 1747 And how many psalms and hymns, 1748 written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as Divine.
6. How then since the opinion held by the Church has been preached for so many years, can its preaching have been delayed as they affirm, until the times of Victor? And how is it that they are not ashamed to speak thus falsely of Victor, knowing well that he cut off from communion Theodotus, the cobbler, 1749 the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy, and the first to declare that Christ is mere man? For if Victor agreed with their opinions, as their slander affirms, how came he to cast out Theodotus, the inventor of this heresy?”
7. So much in regard to Victor. His bishopric lasted ten years, and Zephyrinus was appointed his successor about the ninth year of the reign of Severus. 1750 The author of the above-mentioned book, concerning the founder of this heresy, narrates another event which occurred in the time of Zephyrinus, using these words:
8. “I will remind many of the brethren of a fact which took place in our time, which, had it happened in Sodom, might, I think, have proved a warning to them. There was a certain confessor, Natalius, 1751 not long ago, but in our own day.
9. This man was deceived at one time by Asclepiodotus 1752 and another Theodotus, 1753 a money-changer. Both of them were disciples of Theodotus, the cobbler, who, as I have said, was the first person excommunicated by Victor, bishop at that time, on account of this sentiment, or rather senselessness. 1754
10. Natalius was persuaded by them to allow himself to be chosen bishop of this heresy with a salary, to be paid by them, of one hundred and fifty denarii a month. 1755
11. When he had thus connected himself with them, he was warned oftentimes by the Lord through visions. For the compassionate God and our Lord Jesus Christ was not willing that a witness of his own sufferings, being cast out of the Church, should perish.
12. But as he paid little regard to the visions, because he was ensnared by the first position among them and by that shameful covetousness which destroys a great many, he was scourged by holy angels, and punished severely through the entire night. 1756 Thereupon having risen in the morning, he put on sackcloth and covered himself with ashes, and with great haste and tears he fell down before Zephyrinus, the bishop, rolling at the feet not only of the clergy, but also of the laity; and he moved with his tears the compassionate Church of the merciful Christ. And though he used much supplication, and showed the welts of the stripes which he had received, yet scarcely was he taken back into communion.”
13. We will add from the same writer some other extracts concerning them, which run as follows: 1757
“They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known. They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it.
14. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. 1758 Euclid is laboriously measured 1759 by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshiped.
15. But that those who use the arts of unbelievers for their heretical opinions and adulterate the simple faith of the Divine Scriptures by the craft of the godless, are far from the faith, what need is there to say? Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them.
16. That I am not speaking falsely of them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly.
17. Those of Asclepiades, 1760 for example, do not agree with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, 1761 of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus 1762 do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides 1763 are not consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different.
18. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed.
19. But some of them have not thought it worth while to corrupt them, but simply deny the law and the prophets, 1764 and thus through their lawless and impious teaching under pretense of grace, have sunk to the lowest depths of perdition.”
Let this suffice for these things.
Footnotes
246:1735This anonymous work against the heresy of Artemon is no longer extant, and the only fragments of it which we have are those preserved by Eusebius in this chapter. Theodoret (Hær. Fab. II. 5) mentions the work, and says that it was directed against the heresies of Theodotus and Artemon, and that it bore the name Little Labyrinth. It is plain, from the fragments which Eusebius gives, that it was written in Rome some little time before the middle of the third century, probably not far from 230 or 240 a.d. The work is commonly ascribed to Hippolytus, in favor of which may be urged both the time and the place of its composition as well as some internal resemblance between it and the Philosophumena. On the other hand, Photius (Cod. 48) ascribes to Caius of Rome a work against Artemon, which may well be identical with the anonymous work quoted in the present chapter. It is therefore contended by some (e.g. by Salmon) that Caius was the author of the work. It must be noted, however, that in the same connection Photius ascribes another work to Caius which we know to have been written by Hippolytus, and hence his testimony is rather in favor of Hippolytus than Caius as the author of the work. On the other hand several objections have been urged by Salmon against the Hippolytine authorship, which, while not decisive, yet make it extremely doubtful. In view of these facts, we must conclude that it is possible, but very improbable, that Hippolytus wrote the work; that it is not impossible, though we are quite without evidence for the supposition, that Caius wrote it; that it is more likely that a work which even to Eusebius was anonymous, was written by an unknown man, who must remain unknown to us also. The extant fragments of the work are given, with notes, by Routh in his Rel. Sac., and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V. p. 601 sq., among the works of Caius. Although the work is said by Eusebius to have been directed against the heresy of Artemon, he has preserved only extracts relating to the Theodoti and their heresy. They are described also by Hippolytus, both in his lost Syntagma (as we can learn from Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Philaster) and in his Philosophumena (VII. 23–24, and X. 19). Other ancient writers that mention him know only what our anonymous author or Hippolytus reports. It seems that the older Theodotus, a native of Byzantium, came to Rome in the time of Eleutherus or Victor, and taught a species of adoptionism, which reminds us somewhat of the Asia Minor Alogi, in whose circle he may have been trained. Hippolytus informs us that he was orthodox in his theology and cosmology, but that he was heretical in his Christology. He did not deny Christ’s birth from a virgin (as the Ebionites had done), but he did deny his divinity, teaching that he was a mere man (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος), upon whom the Holy Spirit descended at the time of his baptism, in consequence of which he became the Christ, received power to fulfill his special mission and by his righteousness was raised above all other men. The descent of the Holy Spirit, however, although raising him to a very exalted position, did not make him divine; some of Theodotus’ followers denying that he ever acquired divinity, others believing that he acquired it by his resurrection. Theodotus was excommunicated by Victor on account of his heretical Christology, but gained a number of followers, and after his excommunication founded a schismatical sect, which had a bishop Natalius, to whom a regular salary was paid (see below, §10), and which continued under the leadership of another Theodotus, a banker, and a certain Asclepiodotus, both of them disciples of the first Theodotus, during the episcopate of Zephyrinus, but seems soon to have disappeared, and to have exerted comparatively little influence during its brief existence. Theodotus, the banker, appears to have agreed substantially with the older Theodotus, but to have indulged himself in speculations concerning Melchizedek, pronouncing him to be a heavenly power still higher than Christ. Epiphanius makes the second Theodotus the founder of a second party, and gives his school the name of Melchizedekians, which appears in later works on heresy, but there is no reason to suppose that there were two separate parties.
A few years later another attempt was made in Rome to revive the old adoptionist Christology (essentially the same as that represented by Hermas early in the second century), by a certain Artemon, against whom the Little Labyrinth, quoted in this chapter, was directed. It is common to connect Artemon and his followers with the Theodotians; but, as Harnack remarks, it is plain that they did not look upon themselves as the followers of the Theodoti (see below, note 15). We cannot tell, however, in what respect their Christology differed from that of the latter, for we know very little about them. They at any rate agreed with the Theodotians in denying the divinity of Christ. From the epistle of the synod of Antioch (quoted below, in Bk. VII. chap. 30) we learn that Artemon was still living in the year 268, or thereabouts. He seems, however to have accomplished little in Rome, and to have dropped into comparative obscurity some time before this; at least, we hear nothing of him during all these years. In the controversy with Paul of Samosata he was called the father of the latter (see below Bk. VII. chap. 30, §16), and thus acquired considerable celebrity in the East, where his name became permanently connected with that of Paul as one of the leading heretics. Whether Paul really learned his Christology from Artemon we do not know, but that it closely resembled that of the latter there can be no doubt. He really reproduced the old adoptionist Christology of Hermas (as both the Theodotians and Artemon had done), but modified it under the influence partly of Origen’s teachings, partly of the Aristotelian method. For further particulars in regard to the Theodoti and Artemon, see the remaining notes on this chapter. For an admirable discussion of the whole subject, see Harnack’s Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 573 sq. On the Little Labyrinth, see especially the Dict. of Christian Biog. III. p. 98.
246:1736On Paul of Samosata, see below, Bk. VII. chap. 27, note 4.
246:1737The Artemonites were certainly correct in maintaining that the adoptionism which they held was, at least in its essential principles, an ancient thing, and their opponents were wrong in trying to deny it. It is the Christology which Hermas represents, and early in the second century it was undoubtedly a widespread popular belief. No one thought of questioning the orthodoxy of Hermas. The Christology of the Theodotians and of Artemon was an innovation, however, in so far as it attempted to formulate in scientific terms and to treat philosophically what had hitherto been only a popular belief. So soon as the logical conclusions were drawn, and its consequences to the divinity of the Son were perceived, it began to be felt as heresy, but not until then.
246:1738On Victor, see above, chap. 22, note 1. Victor is the thirteenth bishop if Cletus and Anencletus be reckoned as one, otherwise the fourteenth. This is used by Salmon as an argument against the Hippolytine authorship of the Little Labyrinth, for Hippolytus reckoned Cletus and Anencletus as two bishops, and therefore made Victor the fourteenth (see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3).
246:1739The dates of Zephyrinus’ episcopate are to be gained by reckoning backward from that of Callistus, which is shown in Bk. VI. chap. 21, note 3, to have begun in the year 217. A comparison of the various sources shows that Zephyrinus was bishop eighteen or nineteen years, which brings us back to the year 198 or 199 as the date of his accession. Eusebius says “about the ninth year of the reign of Severus,” which according to the correct reckoning would be the year 201, but according to his erroneous reckoning of the dates of the emperors’ reigns (see the note already referred to) gives the year 200, so that the agreement is reasonably close (see Lipsius’ Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 172 sq., and see above, Bk. V. chap. 22, note 1). In Bk. IX. of his great work Hippolytus gives quite an account of Zephyrinus and his successor, Callistus. The former is described as ignorant and illiterate, a taker of bribes, an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man, &c. How much of this is true and how much is due to prejudice, we cannot tell. But it seems at least to be a fact that Zephyrinus was completely under the influence of Callistus, as Hippolytus states. We learn from the latter that Zephyrinus at least countenanced the heresy of Patripassianism (at the opposite extreme from that of the Theodotians and Artemon), if he did not directly teach it.
247:1740On Justin Martyr, see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 20.
247:1741On Miltiades, see above, chap. 17, note 1.
247:1742On Tatian, see Bk. III. chap. 29. The fact that Tatian is here spoken of with respect is urged by Salmon as an argument against the Hippolytine authorship of this work, for Hippolytus devotes two chapters of his Philosophumena (VIII. 9, X. 14) to the heresy of Tatian.
247:1743On Clement of Alexandria, see above, chap. 11, note 1.
247:1744θεολογεῖται ὁ χριστός. Our author is quite correct in making this statement. The apologists are agreed in their acceptance of the Logos Christology of which they are the earliest patristic exponents, and in the time of Clement of Alexandria it had become, as yet in an undeveloped form, the commonly accepted doctrine of the orthodox Church.
247:1745On Irenæus, see Bk. IV. chap. 21, note 9.
247:1746On Melito, see Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1.
247:1747Irenæus’ utterances on this subject were epoch-making in the history of doctrine. No one before him had emphasized so energetically and brought out so clearly the God-manhood of Christ. His great significance in Christology is the emphasis which he laid upon the unity of God and man in Christ,—a unity in which the integrity both of the divine and of the human was preserved. Our author is also doubtless correct in saying that Melito called Christ God and man. If the two fragments from the Discourse on the Soul and Body, and from the Discourse on the Cross (printed from the Syriac by Cureton, in his Spic. Syr. p. 52 sq.), be genuine, as is quite probable (see above, Bk. IV. chap. 26, note 1), we have clear indications that Melito taught both the humanity and the deity of Christ (“when He was become incarnate through the womb of the Virgin, and was born man.” “Inasmuch as He was man, He needed food; still, inasmuch as He was God, He ceased not to feed the universe”).
247:1748This passage is sometimes interpreted as indicating that hymns written by the Christians themselves were sung in the church of Rome at this time. But this is by no means implied. So far as we are able to gather from our sources, nothing, except the Psalms and New Testament hymns (such as the “Gloria in Excelsis,” the “Magnificat,” the “Nunc Dimittis,” &c.), was as a rule, sung in public worship before the fourth century (the practice which had sprung up in the church of Antioch seems to have been exceptional; see Kraus, p. 673). Before the end of that century, however, the practice of singing other hymns in the service of the Church had become common, both in the East and West. On the other hand, the private use of hymns among the Christians began very early. We need refer here only to Pliny’s epistle to Trajan (translated above, in Bk. III. chap. 33, note 1); Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VII. 7; Tertullian, ad Uxor. II. 8; Origen, Contra Cels. VIII. 67; the epistle of Dionysius quoted below, in Bk. VII. chap. 24, &c. Compare the article Hymnen in Kraus’ Real-Encyclopädie der Christl. Alterthümer, and the article Hymns in Smith and Cheetham’s Dict. of Christ. Antiquities.
247:1749τὸν σκυτέα: “cobbler,” or “worker in leather.” On Theodotus, see above, note 1. As Harnack remarks, the Artemonites must have known that Victor had excommunicated Theodotus, and therefore, if they regarded themselves as his followers, it would have been impossible to claim that all the Roman bishops, including Victor, held their opinions. When to this is added the apparent effort of our author to identify the Artemonites with the Theodotians, it becomes clear that they must themselves have denied their connection with them, though in what points they differed with them, we do not know (see above, note 1; and cf. Harnack’s Dogmengesch. I. p. 583).
247:1750See above, note 5.
247:1751Of Natalius, we know only what is told us in this passage. The suggestion of Valesius that he might be identified with Cæcilius Natalis, the heathen who is represented as converted by Octavius, in the Octavius of Minucius Felix, is quite baseless.
247:1752᾽Ασκληπιοδότου, according to all the mss. except one, which reads ᾽Ασκληπι€δου, and with which Nicephorus and Theodoret agree. He is undoubtedly the same man that is referred to in §17, below, where all the mss. unite in reading ᾽Ασκληπι€δου. Of this man we know only what is told us in this chapter. Theodoret (Hær. Fab. II. 5) mentions him, but adds nothing new, while Hippolytus in his Philosophumena, and apparently in his lost Syntagma, passes him by without notice.
247:1753On this second Theodotus, a money-changer or banker (τραπεζίτης,) who is distinguished from the first Theodotus by both our sources (Hippolytus and the Little Labyrinth quoted here), see above, note 1.
247:1754The Greek contains a play of words at this point: ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ φρονήσει, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀφροσύνῃ.
247:1755This is the earliest instance we have of a salaried clergyman. The practice of paying salaries was followed also by the Montanists, and brought great reproach upon them (see above, chap. 18, note 8). A Roman denarius was equal to about seventeen cents, so that Natalius’ monthly salary was a little over twenty-five dollars.
248:1756It is not necessary to doubt the truth of this report, if we substitute “muscular Christians” for “holy angels.” As Stroth dryly remarks: “Eben kein löblich Geschäft für die heiligen Engel; es werden aber ohne zweifel Engel mit guten starken Knochen und Nerven gewesen sein.”
248:1757The information which is given us here in regard to the methods of the Theodotians is very interesting. What is said in regard to their philosophical principles makes it evident that they used the grammatical and critical mode of exegesis as opposed to the prevalent allegorical mode. Nothing could seem more irreverent and irreligious to the Church of that age than such a method of interpretation, the method which we now recognize as the only true one. They were, moreover, textual critics. They may have been rash in their methods, but it is not necessary to suppose them dishonest in their purposes. They seem to have looked upon the Scriptures as inspired as truly as their opponents did, but they believed that radical criticism was needed if the true reading of the originals was to be reached, while their opponents were shocked at anything of the kind. That textual criticism was necessary, even at that early day, is clear enough from the words of Irenæus (quoted in chap. 20, above), and from the words of Dionysius (quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 23), as well as from many other sources. Finally, these men seem to have offended their opponents by the use of dialectical methods in their treatment of theology. This is very significant at that early date. It is indeed the earliest instance known to us of that method which seemed entirely irreligious to the author of the Little Labyrinth, but which less than a century later prevailed in the Antiochian school, and for a large part of the Middle Ages ruled the whole Church.
248:1758The author makes a play here upon the word earth, which cannot be reproduced in a translation. γεωμετρίαν (literally, “earth-measure”) ἐπιτηδεύουσιν, ὡσὰν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ὄντες καὶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαλοῦντες
248:1759᾽Ευκλείδης…γεωμετρεῖται: literally, Euclid is geometrized.
248:1760All the mss. read ᾽Ασκληπι€δου, which is adopted by most of the editors. Rufinus and Nicephorus, however, followed by a few editors, among them Heinichen, read ᾽Ασκληπιοδότου (see above, note 18).
248:1761κατωρθωμένα, τουτέστιν ἠφανισμένα
248:1762Of this Hermophilus we know nothing more.
248:1763᾽Απολλωνίδου, which is the reading of one ancient ms., of Rufinus, Theodoret, and Nicephorus, and which is adopted by Stroth, Burton, Heinichen, and Closs. The majority of the mss. read ᾽Απολλωνίου, while a few read ᾽Απολλωνι€δου
248:1764These persons can hardly have rejected the Law and the Prophets utterly,—at least, no hint is given us that they maintained a fundamental difference between the God of the Old and the God of the New Testament, as Marcion did,—nor would such wholesale rejection be natural for critics such as they were. It is more likely that they simply, as many of the Gnostics did, emphasized the merely relative authority of the Old Testament, and that they applied historical criticism to it, distinguishing between its various parts in the matter of authority. Such action is just what we should expect from members of a critical school like that of Theodotus, and such criticism in its extremest form would naturally seem to an orthodox Catholic the same as throwing over the whole book. Cf. Harnack, Dogmengeschicte, p. 579 and p. 488 sqq.
Book VI.
Chapter I.—The Persecution under Severus.
When Severus began to persecute the churches, 1765 glorious testimonies were given everywhere by the athletes of religion. This was especially the case in Alexandria, to which city, as to a most prominent theater, athletes of God were brought from Egypt and all Thebais according to their merit, and won crowns from God through their great patience under many tortures and every mode of death. Among these was Leonides, who was called the father of Origen, 1766 and who was beheaded while his son was still young. How remarkable the predilection of this son was for the Divine Word, in consequence of his father’s instruction, it will not be amiss to state briefly, as his fame has been very greatly celebrated by many.
Footnotes
249:1765During the early years of the reign of Septimius Severus the Christians enjoyed comparative peace, and Severus himself showed them considerable favor. Early in the third century a change set in, and in 202 the emperor issued an edict forbidding conversions to Christianity and to Judaism (Spartianus, in Severo, c. 16; cf. Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 58). The cause of this radical change of conduct we do not know, but it is possible that the excesses of the Montanists produced a reaction in the emperor’s mind against the Christians, or that the rapidity with which Christianity was spreading caused him to fear that the old Roman institutions would be overturned, and hence produced a reaction against it. Why the Jews, too, should have been attacked, it is hard to say,—possibly because of a new attempt on their part to throw off the Roman yoke (see Spartianus, in Severo, c. 16); or perhaps there underlay the whole movement a reaction in the emperor’s mind toward the old Roman paganism (he was always superstitious), and Judaism and Christianity being looked upon as alike opposed to it, were alike to be held in check. The edict was aimed, not against those already Christians, but only against new converts, the idea being to prevent the further spread of Christianity. But the change in the emperor’s attitude, thus published abroad, at once intensified all the elements which were hostile to Christianity; and the popular disfavor, which continued widespread and was continually venting itself in local persecutions, now allowed itself freer rein, and the result was that severe persecutions broke out, which were confined, however, almost wholly to Egypt and North Africa. Our principal authorities for these persecutions (which went on intermittently, during the rest of Severus’ reign) are the first twelve chapters of this book of Eusebius’ History, and a number of Tertullian’s works, especially his De corona milites, Ad Scap., and De fuga in persecutione.
249:1766We know very little about Origen’s father. The fame of the son overshadowed that of the father, even though the latter was a martyr. The phrase used in this passage to describe him has caused some trouble. Λεωνίδης ὁ λεγόμενος ᾽Ωριγένους πατήρ. Taken in its usual sense, the expression means “said to be the father of Origen,” or the “so-called father of Origen,” both of which appear strange, for there can have been no doubt as to his identity. It seems better, with Westcott, to understand that Eusebius means that Origen’s fame had so eclipsed his father’s that the latter was distinguished as “Leonides, the father of Origen,” and hence says here, “Leonides, who was known as the father of Origen.” The name Leonides is Greek, and that he was of Greek nationality is further confirmed by the words of Porphyry (quoted in chap. 19, below), who calls Origen “a Greek, and educated in Greek literature.” Porphyry may simply have concluded from his knowledge of Greek letters that he was a Greek by birth, and hence his statement taken alone has little weight; but taken in conjunction with Leonides’ name, it makes it probable that the latter was at least of Greek descent; whether a native of Greece or not we do not know. A late tradition makes him a bishop, but there is no foundation for such a report. From the next chapter we learn that Leonides’ martyrdom took place in the tenth year of Severus (201–202 a.d.), which is stated also by the Chron.
Chapter II.—The Training of Origen from Childhood. 1767
1. Many things might be said in attempting to describe the life of the man while in school; but this subject alone would require a separate treatise. Nevertheless, for the present, abridging most things, we shall state a few facts concerning him as briefly as possible, gathering them from certain letters, and from the statement of persons still living who were acquainted with him.
2. What they report of Origen seems to me worthy of mention, even, so to speak, from his swathing-bands.
It was the tenth year of the reign of Severus, while Lætus 1768 was governor of Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, and Demetrius 1769 had lately received the episcopate of the parishes there, as successor of Julian. 1770
3. As the flame of persecution had been kindled greatly, 1771 and multitudes had gained the crown of martyrdom, such desire for martyrdom seized the soul of Origen, although yet a boy, that he went close to danger, springing forward and rushing to the conflict in his eagerness.
4. And truly the termination of his life had been very near had not the divine and heavenly Providence, for the benefit of many, prevented his desire through the agency of his mother.
5. For, at first, entreating him, she begged him to have compassion on her motherly feelings toward him; but finding, that when he had learned that his father had been seized and imprisoned, he was set the more resolutely, and completely carried away with his zeal for martyrdom, she hid all his clothing, and thus compelled him to remain at home.
6. But, as there was nothing else that he could do, and his zeal beyond his age would not suffer him to be quiet, he sent to his father an encouraging letter on martyrdom, 1772 in which he exhorted him, saying, “Take heed not to change your mind on our account.” This may be recorded as the first evidence of Origen’s youthful wisdom and of his genuine love for piety.
7. For even then he had stored up no small resources in the words of the faith, having been trained in the Divine Scriptures from childhood. And he had not studied them with indifference, for his father, besides giving him the usual liberal education, 1773 had made them a matter of no secondary importance.
8. First of all, before inducting him into the Greek sciences, he drilled him in sacred studies, requiring him to learn and recite every day.
9. Nor was this irksome to the boy, but he was eager and diligent in these studies. And he was not satisfied with learning what was simple and obvious in the sacred words, but sought for something more, and even at that age busied himself with deeper speculations. So that he puzzled his father with inquiries for the true meaning of the inspired Scriptures.
10. And his father rebuked him seemingly to his face, telling him not to search beyond his age, or further than the manifest meaning. But by himself he rejoiced greatly and thanked God, the author of all good, that he had deemed him worthy to be the father of such a child.
11. And they say that often, standing by the boy when asleep, he uncovered his breast as if the Divine Spirit were enshrined within it, and kissed it reverently; considering himself blessed in his goodly offspring. These and other things like them are related of Origen when a boy.
12. But when his father ended his life in martyrdom, he was left with his mother and six younger brothers when he was not quite seventeen years old. 1774
13. And the property of his father being confiscated to the royal treasury, he and his family were in want of the necessaries of life. But he was deemed worthy of Divine care. And he found welcome and rest with a woman of great wealth, and distinguished in her manner of life and in other respects. She was treating with great honor a famous heretic then in Alexandria; 1775 who, however, was born in Antioch. He was with her as an adopted son, and she treated him with the greatest kindness.
14. But although Origen was under the necessity of associating with him, he nevertheless gave from this time on strong evidences of his orthodoxy in the faith. For when on account of the apparent skill in argument 1776 of Paul,—for this was the man’s name,—a great multitude came to him, not only of heretics but also of our people, Origen could never be induced to join with him in prayer; 1777 for he held, although a boy, the rule of the Church, 1778 and abominated, as he somewhere expresses it, heretical teachings. 1779 Having been instructed in the sciences of the Greeks by his father, he devoted him after his death more assiduously and exclusively to the study of literature, so that he obtained considerable preparation in philology 1780 and was able not long after the death of his father, by devoting himself to that subject, to earn a compensation amply sufficient for his needs at his age. 1781
Footnotes
249:1767This sixth book of Eusebius’ History is our chief source for a knowledge of Origen’s life. His own writings give us little information of a personal nature; but Eusebius was in a position to learn a great deal about him. He had the advantage of personal converse with surviving friends of Origen, as he tells us in this connection; he had also a large collection of Origen’s epistles (he had himself made a collection of more than one hundred of them, as he tells us in chap. 36); and he had access besides to official documents, and to works of Origen’s contemporaries which contained references to him (see chap. 33). As a result, he was in a position to write a full and accurate account of his life, and in fact, in connection with Pamphilus, he did write a Defense of Origen in six books, which contained both an exposition of his theology with a refutation of charges brought against him, and a full account of his life. Of this work only the first book is extant, and that in the translation of Rufinus. It deals solely with theological matters. It is greatly to be regretted that the remaining books are lost, for they must have contained much of the greatest interest in connection with Origen’s life, especially that period of it about which we are most poorly informed, his residence in Cæsarea after his retirement from Alexandria (see chap. 23). In the present book Eusebius gives numerous details of Origen’s life, frequently referring to the Defense for fuller particulars. His account is very desultory, being interspersed with numerous notices of other men and events, introduced apparently without any method, though undoubtedly the design was to preserve in general the chronological order. There is no part of Eusebius’ work which reveals more clearly the viciousness of the purely chronological method breaking up as it does the account of a single person or movement into numerous detached pieces, and thus utterly destroying all historical continuity. It may be well, therefore, to sum up in brief outline the chief events of Origen’s life, most of which are scattered through the following pages. This summary will be found below, on p. 391 sq. In addition to the notices contained in this book, we have a few additional details from the Defense, which have been preserved by Jerome, Rufinus, and Photius, none of whom seems to have had much, if any, independent knowledge of Origen’s life. Epiphanius (Hær. LXIII, and LXIV.) relates some anecdotes of doubtful credibility. The Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus is valuable as a description of Origen’s method of teaching, and of the wonderful influence which he possessed over his pupils. (For outline of Origen’s life, see below, p. 391 sq.)
250:1768This Lætus is to be distinguished from Q. Æmilius Lætus, prætorian prefect under Commodus, who was put to death by the Emperor Didius Julianus, in 193; and from Julius Lætus, minister of Severus, who was executed in 199 (see Dion Cassius, Bk. LXXIII. chap. 16, and LXXV. chap. 10; cf. Tillemont, Hist. des emp. III. p. 21, 55, and 58). The dates of Lætus’ rule in Egypt are unknown to us.
250:1769On the dates of Demetrius’ episcopacy, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.
250:1770On Julian, see Bk. V. chap. 9, note 2.
250:1771On the persecution, see more particularly chap. 1, note 1.
250:1772This epistle which was apparently extant in the time of Eusebius, and may have been contained in the collection made by him (see chap. 36), is now lost, and we possess only this sentence from it.
250:1773τῇ τῶν ἐγκυκλίων παιδεί& 139·. According to Liddell and Scott, ἐγκ. παιδεία in later Greek meant “the circle of those arts and sciences which every free-born youth in Greece was obliged to go through before applying to any professional studies; school learning, as opposed to the business of life.” So Valesius says that the Greeks understood by ἐγκ. μαθήματα the branches in which the youth were instructed; i.e. mathematics, grammar, and rhetoric philosophy not being included (see Valesius’ note in loco).
250:1774On the date of Origen’s birth, see note 1.
250:1775Of this Antiochene heretic Paul we know only what Eusebius tells us here. His patroness seems to have been a Christian, and in good standing in the Alexandrian church, or Origen would hardly have made his home with her.
250:1776διὰ τὸ δοκοῦν ἱκανὸν ἐν λόγῳ.
250:1777Redepenning (p. 189) refers to Origen’s In Matt. Comment. Series, sec. 89, where it is said, melius est cum nullo orare, quam cum malis orare.
250:1778φυλ€ττων ἐξέτι παιδὸς κανόνα [two mss. κανόνας] ἐκκλησίας. Compare the words of the Apostolic Constitutions, VIII. 34: “Let not one of the faithful pray with a catechumen, no, not in the house; for it is not reasonable that he who is admitted should be polluted with one not admitted. Let not one of the godly pray with an heretic, no, not in the house. For ‘what fellowship hath light with darkness?’” Compare also the Apostolic Canons, 11, 12, and 45. The last reads: “Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who only prays with heretics, be suspended; but if he also permit them to perform any part of the office of a clergyman, let him be deprived.” Hefele (Conciliengesch. I. p. 815) considers this canon only a “consistent application of apostolic principles to particular cases,—an application which was made from the first century on, and therefore very old.”
250:1779Redepenning (p. 190) refers to the remarks of Origen upon the nature and destructiveness of heresy collected by Pamphilus (Fragm. Apol. Pamph. Opp. Origen, IV. 694 [ed. Delarue]).
251:1780ἐπὶ τὰ γραμματικ€
251:1781See below, p. 392.
Chapter III.—While still very Young, he taught diligently the Word of Christ.
1. But while he was lecturing in the school, as he tells us himself, and there was no one at Alexandria to give instruction in the faith, as all were driven away by the threat of persecution, some of the heathen came to him to hear the word of God.
2. The first of them, he says, was Plutarch, 1782 who after living well, was honored with divine martyrdom. The second was Heraclas, 1783 a brother of Plutarch; who after he too had given with him abundant evidence of a philosophic and ascetic life, was esteemed worthy to succeed Demetrius in the bishopric of Alexandria.
3. He was in his eighteenth year when he took charge of the catechetical school. 1784 He was prominent also at this time, during the persecution under Aquila, 1785 the governor of Alexandria, when his name became celebrated among the leaders in the faith, through the kindness and goodwill which he manifested toward all the holy martyrs, whether known to him or strangers.
4. For not only was he with them while in bonds, and until their final condemnation, but when the holy martyrs were led to death, he was very bold and went with them into danger. So that as he acted bravely, and with great boldness saluted the martyrs with a kiss, oftentimes the heathen multitude round about them became infuriated, and were on the point of rushing upon him.
5. But through the helping hand of God, he escaped absolutely and marvelously. And this same divine and heavenly power, again and again, it is impossible to say how often, on account of his great zeal and boldness for the words of Christ, guarded him when thus endangered. 1786 So great was the enmity of the unbelievers toward him, on account of the multitude that were instructed by him in the sacred faith, that they placed bands of soldiers around the house where he abode.
6. Thus day by day the persecution burned against him, so that the whole city could no longer contain him; but he removed from house to house and was driven in every direction because of the multitude who attended upon the divine instruction which he gave. For his life also exhibited right and admirable conduct according to the practice of genuine philosophy.
7. For they say that his manner of life was as his doctrine, and his doctrine as his life. 1787 Therefore, by the divine Power working with him he aroused a great many to his own zeal.
8. But when he saw yet more coming to him for instruction, and the catechetical school had been entrusted to him alone by Demetrius, who presided over the church, he considered the teaching of grammatical science inconsistent with training in divine subjects, 1788 and forthwith he gave up his grammatical school as unprofitable and a hindrance to sacred learning.
9. Then, with becoming consideration, that he might not need aid from others, he disposed of whatever valuable books of ancient literature he possessed, being satisfied with receiving from the purchaser four oboli a day. 1789 For many years he lived philosophically 1790 in this manner, putting away all the incentives of youthful desires. Through the entire day he endured no small amount of discipline; and for the greater part of the night he gave himself to the study of the Divine Scriptures. He restrained himself as much as possible by a most philosophic life; sometimes by the discipline of fasting, again by limited time for sleep. And in his zeal he never lay upon a bed, but upon the ground.
10. Most of all, he thought that the words of the Saviour in the Gospel should be observed, in which he exhorts not to have two coats nor to use shoes 1791 nor to occupy oneself with cares for the future. 1792
11. With a zeal beyond his age he continued in cold and nakedness; and, going to the very extreme of poverty, he greatly astonished those about him. And indeed he grieved many of his friends who desired to share their possessions with him, on account of the wearisome toil which they saw him enduring in the teaching of divine things.
12. But he did not relax his perseverance. He is said to have walked for a number of years never wearing a shoe, and, for a great many years, to have abstained from the use of wine, and of all other things beyond his necessary food; so that he was in danger of breaking down and destroying his constitution. 1793
13. By giving such evidences of a philosophic life to those who saw him, he aroused many of his pupils to similar zeal; so that prominent men even of the unbelieving heathen and men that followed learning and philosophy were led to his instruction. Some of them having received from him into the depth of their souls faith in the Divine Word, became prominent in the persecution then prevailing; and some of them were seized and suffered martyrdom.
Footnotes
251:1782Of this Plutarch we know only what Eusebius tells us here, and in chap. 4, where he says that he was the first of Origen’s pupils to suffer martyrdom. (On the date of the persecution in which he suffered, see note 4).
251:1783Heraclas, brother of Plutarch, proved himself so good a pupil that, when Origen later found the work of teaching too great for him to manage alone, he made him his assistant, and committed the elementary instruction to him (chap. 15). From chap. 19 we learn that he was for years a diligent student of Greek philosophy (chap. 15 implies his proficiency in it), and that he even went so far as to wear the philosopher’s cloak all the time, although he was a presbyter in the Alexandrian church. His reputation for learning became so great, as we learn from chap. 31, that Julius Africanus went to Alexandria to see him. In 231, when Origen took his departure from Alexandria, he left the catechetical school in the charge of Heraclas (chap. 26), and in 231 or 232, upon the death of Demetrius (see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4), Heraclas became the latter’s successor as bishop of Alexandria (chaps. 26 and 29), and was succeeded in the presidency of the catechetical school by Dionysius (chap. 29). According to chap. 35 he was bishop for sixteen years and with this both versions of the Chron. agree, though Jerome puts his accession two years too early—into the ninth year of Alexander Severus instead of the eleventh—while giving at the same time, quite inconsistently, the proper date for his death. Heraclas’ later relations to Origen are not quite clear. He was evidently, in earlier years, one of his best friends, and there is no adequate ground for the assumption, which is quite common, that he was one of those who united with Bishop Demetrius in condemning him. It is true, no attempt seems to have been made after he became bishop to reverse the sentence against Origen, and to invite him back to Alexandria; but this does not prove that Heraclas did not remain friendly to him; for even when Dionysius (who kept up his relations with Origen, as we know from chap. 46) became bishop (a.d. 248), no such attempt seems to have been made, although Origen was still alive and at the height of his power. The fact that the greater part of the clergy of Alexandria and Egypt were unfavorable to Origen, as shown by their condemnation of him, does not imply that Heraclas could not have been elected unless he too showed hostility to Origen; for Dionysius, who we know was not hostile, was appointed at that time head of the catechetical school, and sixteen years later bishop. It is true that Heraclas may not have sympathized with all of Origen’s views, and may have thought some of them heretical (his strict judgment of heretics is seen from Bk. VII. chap. 7), but many even of the best of Origen’s friends and followers did likewise, so that among his most devoted adherents were some of the most orthodox Fathers of the Church (e.g. the two Gregories and Basil). That Heraclas did not agree with Origen in all his opinions (if he did not, he may not have cared to press his return to Alexandria) does not prove therefore that he took part in the condemnatory action of the synod, and that he was himself in later life hostile to Origen.
251:1784See below, p. 392.
251:1785It is not clear from Eusebius’ language whether Aquila was successor of Lætus as viceroy of Egypt (as Redepenning assumes apparently quite without misgiving), or simply governor of Alexandria. He calls Lætus (in chap. 2) governor of Alexandria and of all Egypt, while Aquila is called simply governor of Alexandria. If this difference were insisted on as marking a real distinction, then Aquila would have to be regarded as the chief officer of Alexandria only, and hence subordinate in dignity to the viceroy of Egypt. The term used to describe his position (ἡγούμενον) is not, however the technical one for the chief officer of Alexandria (see Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire; Scribner’s ed., II. p. 267 ff.), and hence his position cannot be decided with certainty. In any case, whether he succeeded Lætus, or was his subordinate, the dates of his accession to and retirement from office are unknown, and hence the time at which the persecutions mentioned took place cannot be determined with exactness. We simply know that they occurred after 203 (for Origen had already taken charge of the catechetical school, and some of his pupils perished in the persecutions) and before 211, the date of Severus’ death.
251:1786How it happened that Origen escaped the persecution, when, according to Eusebius, he exposed himself so continually, and was so hated by the heathen populace, we cannot tell. Eusebius ascribes it solely to the grace of God here, and in chap. 4.
251:1787οἷος ὁ λόγος τοῖος ὁ βίος was a Greek proverb. Compare the words of Seneca, in Ep. 114 ad Lucilium, “Apud Græcos in proverbium cessit talis hominibus fuit oratio, qualis vita” (quoted by Redepenning, p. 196).
252:1788This does not mean that he considered the study of grammar and literature injurious to the Christian, or detrimental to his theological studies. His opinion on that subject is clear enough from all his writings and from his conduct as pictured in chaps. 18 and 19. Nor does it on the other hand imply, as Crusè supposes, that up to this time he had been teaching secular branches exclusively; but it means simply that the demands upon him for instruction in the faith were so great, now that the catechetical school had been officially entrusted to him by Demetrius, that he felt that he could no longer continue to teach secular literature as he had been doing, but must give up that part of his work, and devote himself exclusively to instruction in sacred things.
252:1789The obolus was a small Greek coin, equivalent to about three and a half cents of our money. Four oboli a day could have been sufficient, even in that age, only for the barest necessities of life. But with his ascetic tendencies, these were all that Origen wished.
252:1790It was very common from the fourth century on (the writer knows of no instances earlier than Eusebius) to call an ascetic mode of life “philosophical,” or “the life of a philosopher” (see §2 of this chapter, and compare Chrysostom’s works, where the word occurs very frequently in this sense). Origen, in his ascetic practices, was quite in accord with the prevailing Christian sentiment of his own and subsequent centuries, which looked upon bodily discipline of an ascetic kind, not indeed as required, but as commended by Christ. The growing sentiment had its roots partly in the prevailing ideas of contemporary philosophy, which instinctively emphasized strongly the dualism of spirit and matter, and the necessity of subduing the latter to the former, and partly in the increasing moral corruptness of society, which caused those who wished to lead holy lives to feel that only by eschewing the things of sense could the soul attain purity. Under pressure from without and within, it became very easy to misinterpret various sayings of Christ, and thus to find in the Gospels ringing exhortations to a life of the most rigid asceticism. Clement of Alexandria was almost the only one of the great Christian writers after the middle of the second century who distinguished between the true and the false in this matter. Compare his admirable tract, Quis dives salvetur, and contrast the position taken there with the foolish extreme pursued by Origen, as recorded in this chapter.
252:1791See Matt. x. 10
252:1792See Matt. vi. 34
252:1793Greek: θώραξ, properly “chest.” Rufinus and Christophorsonus translate stomachum, and Valesius approves; but there is no authority for such a use of the term θώραξ, so far as I can ascertain. The proper Greek term for stomach is στόμαχος, which is uniformly employed by Galen and other medical writers.
Chapter IV.—The pupils of Origen that became Martyrs.
1. The first of these was Plutarch, who was mentioned just above. 1794 As he was led to death, the man of whom we are speaking being with him at the end of his life, came near being slain by his fellow-citizens, as if he were the cause of his death. But the providence of God preserved him at this time also.
2. After Plutarch, the second martyr among the pupils of Origen was Serenus, 1795 who gave through fire a proof of the faith which he had received.
3. The third martyr from the same school was Heraclides, 1796 and after him the fourth was Hero. 1797 The former of these was as yet a catechumen, and the latter had but recently been baptized. Both of them were beheaded. After them, the fifth from the same school proclaimed as an athlete of piety was another Serenus, who, it is reported, was beheaded, after a long endurance of tortures. And of women, Herais 1798 died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by fire, as Origen himself somewhere says.
Footnotes
252:1794See the previous chapter, §2. The martyrdom of these disciples of Origen took place under Aquila, and hence the date depends on the date of his rule, which cannot be fixed with exactness, as remarked in note 4 on the previous chapter.
252:1795These two persons named Serenus, the first of whom was burned, the second beheaded, are known to us only from this chapter.
252:1796Of this Heraclides, we know only what is told us in this chapter. He, with the other martyrs mentioned in this connection, is commemorated in the mediæval martyrologies, but our authentic information is limited to what Eusebius tells us here.
252:1797Our authentic information of Hero is likewise limited to this account of Eusebius.
252:1798Herais likewise is known to us from this chapter alone. It is interesting to note that Origen’s pupils were not confined to the male sex. His association with female catechumens, which his office of instructor entailed upon him, formed one reason for the act of self-mutilation which he committed (see chap. 8, §2).
Chapter V.—Potamiæna. 1799
1. Basilides 1800 may be counted the seventh of these. He led to martyrdom the celebrated Potamiæna, who is still famous among the people of the country for the many things which she endured for the preservation of her chastity and virginity. For she was blooming in the perfection of her mind and her physical graces. Having suffered much for the faith of Christ, finally after tortures dreadful and terrible to speak of, she with her mother, Marcella, 1801 was put to death by fire.
2. They say that the judge, Aquila by name, having inflicted severe tortures upon her entire body, at last threatened to hand her over to the gladiators for bodily abuse. After a little consideration, being asked for her decision, she made a reply which was regarded as impious.
3. Thereupon she received sentence immediately, and Basilides, one of the officers of the army, led her to death. But as the people attempted to annoy and insult her with abusive words, he drove back her insulters, showing her much pity and kindness. And perceiving the man’s sympathy for her, she exhorted him to be of good courage, for she would supplicate her Lord for him after her departure, and he would soon receive a reward for the kindness he had shown her.
4. Having said this, she nobly sustained the issue, burning pitch being poured little by little, over various parts of her body, from the sole of her feet to the crown of her head. Such was the conflict endured by this famous maiden.
5. Not long after this Basilides, being asked by his fellow-soldiers to swear for a certain reason, declared that it was not lawful for him to swear at all, for he was a Christian, and he confessed this openly. At first they thought that he was jesting, but when he continued to affirm it, he was led to the judge, and, acknowledging his conviction before him, he was imprisoned. But the brethren in God coming to him and inquiring the reason of this sudden and remarkable resolution, he is reported to have said that Potamiæna, for three days after her martyrdom, stood beside him by night and placed a crown on his head and said that she had besought the Lord for him and had obtained what she asked, and that soon she would take him with her.
6. Thereupon the brethren gave him the seal 1802 of the Lord; and on the next day, after giving glorious testimony for the Lord, he was beheaded. And many others in Alexandria are recorded to have accepted speedily the word of Christ in those times.
7. For Potamiæna appeared to them in their dreams and exhorted them. But let this suffice in regard to this matter.
Footnotes
253:1799Potamiæna, one of the most celebrated of the martyrs that suffered under Severus, is made by Rufinus a disciple of Origen, but Eusebius does not say that she was, and indeed, in making Basilides the seventh of Origen’s disciples to suffer, he evidently excludes Potamiæna from the number. Quite a full account of her martyrdom is given by Palladius in his Historia Lausiaca, chap. 3 (Migne’s Patr. Gr. XXXIV. 1014), which contains some characteristic details not mentioned by Eusebius. It appears from that account that she was a slave, and that her master, not being able to induce her to yield to his passion, accused her before the judge as a Christian, bribing him, if possible, to break her resolution by tortures and then return her to him, or, if that was not possible, to put her to death as a Christian. We cannot judge as to the exact truth of this and other details related by Palladius, but his history (which was written early in the fifth century) is, in the main at least, reliable, except where it deals with miracles and prodigies (cf. the article on Palladius of Helenopolis, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).
253:1800Basilides is clearly reckoned here among the disciples of Origen. The correctness of Eusebius’ statement has been doubted, but there is no ground for such doubt, for there is no reason to suppose that all of Origen’s pupils became converted under his instruction.
253:1801Of Marcella, we know only that she was the mother of the more celebrated Potamiæna, and suffered martyrdom by fire.
253:1802The word σφραγίς, “seal,” was very commonly used by the Fathers to signify baptism (see Suicer’s Thesaurus).
Chapter VI.—Clement of Alexandria.
Clement 1803 having succeeded Pantænus, 1804 had charge at that time of the catechetical instruction in Alexandria, so that Origen also, while still a boy, 1805 was one of his pupils. In the first book of the work called Stromata, which Clement wrote, he gives a chronological table, 1806 bringing events down to the death of Commodus. So it is evident that that work was written during the reign of Severus, whose times we are now recording.
Footnotes
253:1803This chapter has no connection with the preceding, and its insertion at this point has no good ground, for Clement has been already handled in the fifth book; and if Eusebius wished to refer to him again in connection with Origen, he should have done so in chap. 3, where Origen’s appointment as head of the catechetical school is mentioned. (Redepenning, however, approves the present order; vol. I. p. 431 sqq.) Rufinus felt the inconsistency, and hence inserted chaps. 6 and 7 in the middle of chap. 3, where the account of Origen’s appointment by Demetrius is given. Valesius considers the occurrence of this mention of Clement at this point a sign that Eusebius did not give his work a final revision. Chap. 13 is inserted in the same abrupt way, quite out of harmony with the context. Upon the life of Clement of Alexandria, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1. The catechetical school was vacant, as we learn from chap. 2, in the year 203, and was then taken in charge by Origen, so that the “that time” referred to by Eusebius in this sentence must be carried back of the events related in the previous chapters. The cause of Clement’s leaving the school was probably the persecution begun by Severus in 202 (“all were driven away by the threatening aspect of persecution,” according to chap. 3, §1); for since Origen was one of his pupils he can hardly have left long before that time. That it was not unworthy cowardice which led Clement to take his departure is clear enough from the words of Alexander in chaps. 11 and 14, from the high reputation which he continued to enjoy throughout the Church, and from his own utterances on the subject of martyrdom scattered through his works.
253:1804On Pantænus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2.
253:1805Stephanus, Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen, following two important mss. and the translation of Rufinus, omit the words παῖδα ὄντα “while a boy.” But the words are found in all the other codices (the chief witnesses of two of the three great families of mss. being for them) and in Nicephorus. The manuscript authority is therefore overwhelmingly in favor of the words, and they are adopted by Valesius, Zimmermann, and Crusè. Rufinus is a strong witness against the words but, as Redepenning justly remarks, having inserted this chapter, as he did, in the midst of the description of Origen’s early years (see note 1), the words παῖδα ὄντα would be quite superfluous and even out of place, and hence he would naturally omit them. So far as the probabilities of the insertion or omission of the words in the present passage are concerned, it seems to me more natural to suppose that a copyist, finding the words at this late stage in the account of Origen’s life, would be inclined to omit them, than that not finding them there he should, upon historical grounds (which he could have reached only after some reflection), think that they ought to be inserted. The latter would be not only a more difficult but also a much graver step than the former. There seems, then, to be no good warrant for omitting these words. We learn from chap. 3 that he took charge of the catechetical school when he was in his eighteenth year, within a year therefore after the death of his father. And we learn that before he took charge of the school, all who had given instruction there had been driven away by the persecution. Clement, therefore, must have left before Origen’s eighteenth year, and hence the latter must have studied with him before the persecution had broken up the school, and in all probability before the death of Leonides. In any case, therefore, he was still a boy when under Clement, and even if we omit the words—“while a boy”—here, we shall not be warranted in putting his student days into the period of his maturity, as some would do. Upon this subject, see Redepenning, I. p. 431 sqq., who adduces still other arguments for the position taken in this note which it is not necessary to repeat here.
254:1806In Stromata, Bk. I. chap. 21. On this and the other works of Clement, see chap. 13.
Chapter VII.—The Writer, Judas. 1807
At this time another writer, Judas, discoursing about the seventy weeks in Daniel, brings down the chronology to the tenth year of the reign of Severus. He thought that the coming of Antichrist, which was much talked about, was then near. 1808 So greatly did the agitation caused by the persecution of our people at this time disturb the minds of many.
Footnotes
254:1807The mention of the writer Judas at this point seems, at first sight, as illogical as the reference to Clement in the preceding chapter. But it does not violate chronology as that did; and hence, if the account of Origen’s life was to be broken anywhere for such an insertion, there was perhaps no better place. We cannot conclude, therefore, that Eusebius, had he revised his work, would have changed the position of this chapter, as Valesius suggests (see the previous chapter, note 1).
Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 52) repeats Eusebius’ notice of Judas, but adds nothing to it, and we know no more about him. Since he believed that the appearance of Antichrist was at hand, he must have written before the persecutions had given place again to peace, and hence not long after 202, the date to which he extended his chronology. Whether the work mentioned by Eusebius was a commentary or a work on chronology is not clear. It was possibly an historical demonstration of the truth of Daniel’s prophecies, and an interpretation of those yet unfulfilled, in which case it combined history and exegesis.
254:1808It was the common belief in the Church, from the time of the apostles until the time of Constantine, that the second coming of Christ would very speedily take place. This belief was especially pronounced among the Montanists, Montanus having proclaimed that the parousia would occur before his death, and even having gone so far as to attempt to collect all the faithful (Montanists) in one place in Phrygia, where they were to await that event and where the new Jerusalem was to be set up (see above, Bk. V. chap. 18, note 6). There is nothing surprising in Judas’ idea that this severe persecution must be the beginning of the end, for all through the earlier centuries of the Church (and even to some extent in later centuries) there were never wanting those who interpreted similar catastrophes in the same way; although after the third century the belief that the end was at hand grew constantly weaker.
Chapter VIII.—Origen’s Daring Deed.
1. At this time while Origen was conducting catechetical instruction at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith and continence. 1809 For he took the words, “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,” 1810 in too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the Saviour’s word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all opportunity for scandal,—for, although young, he met for the study of divine things with women as well as men,—he carried out in action the word of the Saviour.
2. He thought that this would not be known by many of his acquaintances. But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do so, to keep such an action secret.
3. When Demetrius, who presided over that parish, at last learned of this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work of catechetical instruction.
4. Such was he at that time. But soon afterward, seeing that he was prospering, and becoming great and distinguished among all men, the same Demetrius, overcome by human weakness, wrote of his deed as most foolish to the bishops throughout the world. But the bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and distinguished among the bishops of Palestine, considering Origen worthy in the highest degree of the honor, ordained him a presbyter. 1811
5. Thereupon his fame increased greatly, and his name became renowned everywhere, and he obtained no small reputation for virtue and wisdom. But Demetrius, having nothing else that he could say against him, save this deed of his boyhood, accused him bitterly, 1812 and dared to include with him in these accusations those who had raised him to the presbyterate.
6. These things, however, took place a little later. But at this time Origen continued fearlessly the instruction in divine things at Alexandria by day and night to all who came to him; devoting his entire leisure without cessation to divine studies and to his pupils.
7. Severus, having held the government for eighteen years, was succeeded by his son, Antoninus. 1813 Among those who had endured courageously the persecution of that time, and had been preserved by the Providence of God through the conflicts of confession, was Alexander, of whom we have spoken already 1814 as bishop of the church in Jerusalem. On account of his pre-eminence in the confession of Christ he was thought worthy of that bishopric, while Narcissus, 1815 his predecessor, was still living.
Footnotes
254:1809This act of Origen’s has been greatly discussed, and some have even gone so far as to believe that he never committed the act, but that the report of it arose from a misunderstanding of certain figurative expressions used by him (so, e.g., Boehringer, Schnitzer, and Baur). There is no reason, however, to doubt the report, for which we have unimpeachable testimony, and which is in itself not at all surprising (see the arguments of Redepenning, I. p. 444 sqq.). The act was contrary to the civil law (see Suetonius, Domitian, c. 7; and cf. Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 29), and yet was a very common one; the existence of the law itself would alone prove what we know from many sources to have been the fact. Nor was Origen alone among the Christians (cf. e.g. Origen, In Matt., XV. 1, the passage of Justin Martyr referred to above, and also the first canon of the Council of Nicæa, the very existence of which proves the necessity of it). It was natural that Christians, seeking purity of life, and strongly ascetic in their tendencies, should be influenced by the actions of those about them, who sought thus to be freed from the domination of the passions, and should interpret certain passages of the Bible as commending the act. Knowing it to be so common, and knowing Origen’s character, as revealed to us in chap. 3, above (to say nothing of his own writings), we can hardly be surprised that he performed the act. His chief motive was undoubtedly the same as that which actuated him in all his ascetic practices, the attainment of higher holiness through the subjugation of his passions, and the desire to sacrifice everything fleshly for the sake of Christ. Of course this could not have led him to perform the act he did, unless he had entirely misunderstood, as Eusebius says he did, the words of Christ quoted below. But he was by no means the only one to misunderstand them (see Suicer’s Thesaurus, I. 1255 sq.). Eusebius says that the requirements of his position also had something to do with his resolve. He was obliged to teach both men and women, and both day and night (as we learn from §7), and Eusebius thinks he would naturally desire to avoid scandal. At the same time, this motive can hardly have weighed very heavily, if at all, with him; for had his giving instruction in this way been in danger of causing serious scandal, other easier methods of avoiding such scandal might have been devised, and undoubtedly would have been, by the bishop. And the fact is, he seems to have wished to conceal the act, which is inconsistent with the idea that he performed it for the sake of avoiding scandal. It is quite likely that his intimate association with women may have had considerable to do with his resolve, because he may have found that such association aroused his unsubdued passions, and therefore felt that they must be eradicated, if he was to go about his duties with a pure and single heart. That he afterward repented his youthful act, and judged the words of Christ more wisely, is clear from what he says in his Comment. in Matt. XV. 1. And yet he never outgrew his false notions of the superior virtue of an ascetic life. His act seems to have caused a reaction in his mind which led him into doubt and despondency for a time; for Demetrius found it necessary to exhort him to cherish confidence, and to urge him to continue his work of instruction. Eusebius, while not approving Origen’s act, yet evidently admired him the more for the boldness and for the spirit of self-sacrifice shown in its performance.
254:1810Matt. xix. 12.
255:1811See chap. 23.
255:1812On the relations existing between Demetrius and Origen, see below, p. 394.
255:1813Septimius Severus died on February 4, 211, after a reign of a little more than seventeen years and eight months, and was succeeded by his two sons, Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Bassianus (commonly known by his nickname Caracalla, which, however, was never used in official documents or inscriptions), and Lucius, or Publius, Septimius Geta. Eusebius mentions here only the former, giving him his official name, Antoninus.
255:1814Eusebius makes a slip here, as this is the first time he has mentioned Alexander in his Church History. He was very likely under the impression that he had mentioned him just above, where he referred to the bishops of Cæsarea and Jerusalem. He does refer to him in his Chron., putting his appointment as assistant bishop into the second year of Caracalla (Armen. fourth year), and calling him the thirty-fifth bishop of Jerusalem (Armen. thirty-sixth). In Bk. V. chap. 12 of the History (also in the Chron.) we are told that Narcissus was the thirtieth bishop of Jerusalem. The number thirty-five for Alexander (the number thirty-six of the Armen. is a mistake, and is set right in connection with Alexander’s successor, who is also called the thirty-sixth) is made out by counting the three bishops mentioned in chap. 10, and then reckoning the second episcopate of Narcissus (see the same chapter) as the thirty-fourth. We learn from chap. 14 that Alexander was an early friend of Origen’s, and a fellow-pupil in the school of Clement. We know him next as bishop of some church in Cappadocia (chap. 11; see note 2 on that chapter), whence he was called to be assistant bishop of Jerusalem (see the same chapter). From this passage, compared with chap. 11, we learn that Alexander was imprisoned during the persecutions, and the Chron. gives the year of his “confession” as 203 a.d. But from chap. 11 we learn that he wrote while still in prison to the church of Antioch on occasion of the appointment of Asclepiades to the episcopate there. According to the Chron. Asclepiades did not become bishop until 211; and though this may not be the exact date, yet it cannot be far out of the way (see chap. 11, note 6); and hence, if Alexander was a confessor in 203, he must have remained in prison a number of years, or else have undergone a second persecution. It is probable either that the date 203 is quite wrong, or else that he suffered a second time toward the close of Severus’ reign; for the persecution, so far as we know, was not so continuous during that reign as to keep one man confined for eight years. Our knowledge of the persecutions in Asia Minor at this time is very limited, but they do not seem to have been of great severity or of long duration. The date of Alexander’s episcopate in Cappadocia it is impossible to determine, though as he was a fellow-pupil of Origen’s in Alexandria, it cannot have begun much, if any, before 202. The date of his translation to the see of Jerusalem is likewise uncertain. The Chron. gives the second year of Caracalla (Armen. fourth). The connection in which Eusebius mentions it in chap. 11 makes it look as if it took place before Asclepiades’ accession to the see of Antioch; but this is hardly possible, for it was his firmness under persecution which elevated him to the see of Jerusalem (according to this passage), and it is apparently that persecution which he is enduring when Asclepiades becomes bishop. We find no reason, then, for correcting the date of his translation to Jerusalem given by the Chron. At any rate, he was bishop of Jerusalem when Origen visited Palestine in 216 (see chap. 19, §17). In 231 he assisted at the ordination of Origen (see chap. 23, note 6), and finally perished in prison during the Decian persecution (see chaps. 39 and 46). His friendship for Origen was warm and steadfast (cf., besides the other passages referred to, chap. 27). The latter commemorates the loveliness and gentleness of his character in his first Homily on 1 Samuel, §1. He collected a valuable library in Jerusalem, which Eusebius made use of in the composition of his History (see chap. 20). This act shows the literary tastes of the man. Of his epistles only the five fragments preserved by Eusebius (chaps. 11, 14, and 19) are now extant. Jerome (de vir. ill. 62) says that other epistles were extant in his day; and he relates, on the authority of an epistle written pro Origene contra Demetrium, that Alexander had ordained Origen juxta testimonium Demetri. This epistle is not mentioned by Eusebius, but in spite of Jerome’s usual dependence upon the latter, there is no good reason to doubt the truth of his statement in this case (see below, p. 396).
255:1815On Narcissus, see the next three chapters, and also Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1.
Chapter IX.—The Miracles of Narcissus.
1. The citizens of that parish mention many other miracles of Narcissus, on the tradition of the brethren who succeeded him; among which they relate the following wonder as performed by him.
2. They say that the oil once failed while the deacons were watching through the night at the great paschal vigil. Thereupon the whole multitude being dismayed, Narcissus directed those who attended to the lights, to draw water and bring it to him.
3. This being immediately done he prayed over the water, and with firm faith in the Lord, commanded them to pour it into the lamps. And when they had done so, contrary to all expectation by a wonderful and divine power, the nature of the water was changed into that of oil. A small portion of it has been preserved even to our day by many of the brethren there as a memento of the wonder. 1816
4. They tell many other things worthy to be noted of the life of this man, among which is this. Certain base men being unable to endure the strength and firmness of his life, and fearing punishment for the many evil deeds of which they were conscious, sought by plotting to anticipate him, and circulated a terrible slander against him.
5. And to persuade those who heard of it, they confirmed their accusations with oaths: one invoked upon himself destruction by fire; another the wasting of his body by a foul disease; the third the loss of his eyes. But though they swore in this manner, they could not affect the mind of the believers; because the continence and virtuous life of Narcissus were well known to all.
6. But he could not in any wise endure the wickedness of these men; and as he had followed a philosophic 1817 life for a long time, he fled from the whole body of the Church, and hid himself in desert and secret places, and remained there many years. 1818
7. But the great eye of judgment was not unmoved by these things, but soon looked down upon these impious men, and brought on them the curses with which they had bound themselves. The residence of the first, from nothing but a little spark falling upon it, was entirely consumed by night, and he perished with all his family. The second was speedily covered with the disease which he had imprecated upon himself, from the sole of his feet to his head.
8. But the third, perceiving what had happened to the others, and fearing the inevitable judgment of God, the ruler of all, confessed publicly what they had plotted together. And in his repentance he became so wasted by his great lamentations, and continued weeping to such an extent, that both his eyes were destroyed. Such were the punishments which these men received for their falsehood.
Footnotes
255:1816This miracle is related by Eusebius upon the testimony, not of documents, but of those who had shown him the oil, which was preserved in Jerusalem down to that time; οἱ τῆς παροικίας πολίται…ἱστοροῦσι, he says. His travels had evidently not taught him to disbelieve every wonderful tale that was told him.
256:1817See above, chap. 3, note 9.
256:1818The date of Narcissus’ retirement we have no means of ascertaining.
Chapter X.—The Bishops of Jerusalem.
Narcissus having departed, and no one knowing where he was, those presiding over the neighboring churches thought it best to ordain another bishop. His name was Dius. 1819 He presided but a short time, and Germanio succeeded him. He was followed by Gordius, 1820 in whose time Narcissus appeared again, as if raised from the dead. 1821 And immediately the brethren besought him to take the episcopate, as all admired him the more on account of his retirement and philosophy, and especially because of the punishment with which God had avenged him.
Footnotes
256:1819Of these three bishops, Dius, Germanio, and Gordius, we know nothing more than is told us here. Syncellus assigns eight years to Dius, four to Germanio, and five to Sardianus, whom he names instead of Gordius. Epiphanius reports that Dius was bishop until Severus (193 a.d.), and Gordius until Antonine (i.e. Caracalla, 211 a.d.). But no reliance is to be placed upon these figures or dates, as remarked above, Bk. V. chap. 12, note 2.
256:1820Eusebius and Epiphanius give Τόρδιος, and Jerome, Gordius; but the Armenian has Gordianus, and Syncellus, Σαρδιανός. What became of Gordius when Narcissus reappeared we do not know. He must have died very speedily, or some compromise would have been made, as it seems, which would have rendered the appointment of Alexander as assistant bishop unnecessary.
256:1821Literally, “as if from a resurrection” (ὥσπερ ἐξ ἀναβιώσεως).
Chapter XI.—Alexander.
1. But as on account of his great age Narcissus was no longer able to perform his official duties, 1822 the Providence of God called to the office with him, by a revelation given him in a night vision, the above-mentioned Alexander, who was then bishop of another parish. 1823
2. Thereupon, as by Divine direction, he journeyed from the land of Cappadocia, where he first held the episcopate, to Jerusalem, in consequence of a vow and for the sake of information in regard to its places. 1824 They received him there with great cordiality, and would not permit him to return, because of another revelation seen by them at night, which uttered the clearest message to the most zealous among them. For it made known that if they would go outside the gates, they would receive the bishop foreordained for them by God. And having done this, with the unanimous consent of the bishops of the neighboring churches, they constrained him to remain.
3. Alexander, himself, in private letters to the Antinoites, 1825 which are still preserved among us, mentions the joint episcopate of Narcissus and himself, writing in these words at the end of the epistle:
4. “Narcissus salutes you, who held the episcopate here before me, and is now associated with me in prayers, being one hundred and sixteen years of age; and he exhorts you, as I do, to be of one mind.”
These things took place in this manner. But, on the death of Serapion, 1826 Asclepiades, 1827 who had been himself distinguished among the confessors 1828 during the persecution, succeeded to the episcopate of the church at Antioch. Alexander alludes to his appointment, writing thus to the church at Antioch:
5. “Alexander, a servant and prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the blessed church of Antioch, greeting in the Lord. The Lord hath made my bonds during the time of my imprisonment light and easy, since I learned that, by the Divine Providence, Asclepiades, who in regard to the true faith is eminently qualified, has undertaken the bishopric of your holy church at Antioch.”
6. He indicates that he sent this epistle by Clement, 1829 writing toward its close as follows:
“My honored brethren, 1830 I have sent this letter to you by Clement, the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved, whom ye yourselves also know and will recognize. Being here, in the providence and oversight of the Master, he has strengthened and built up the Church of the Lord.”
Footnotes
256:1822The extreme age of Narcissus at this time is evident from the fact that Alexander, writing before the year 216 (see note 4), says that Narcissus is already in his 116th year. The translation of Alexander to Jerusalem must have taken place about 212 (see chap. 8, note 6), and hence Narcissus was now more than 110 years old. The appointment of Alexander as Narcissus’ assistant involved two acts which were even at that time not common, and which were later forbidden by canon; first the translation of a bishop from one see to another, and secondly the appointment of an assistant bishop, which made two bishops in one city. The Apost. Canons (No. 14) ordain that “a bishop ought not to leave his own parish and leap to another, although the multitude should compel him, unless there be some good reason forcing him to do this, as that he can contribute much greater profit to the people of the new parish by the word of piety; but this is not to be settled by himself, but by the judgment of many bishops and very great supplication.” It has been disputed whether this canon is older or younger than the fifteenth canon of Nicæa, which forbids unconditionally the practice of translation from one see to another. Whichever may be the older, it is certain that even the Council of Nicæa considered its own canon as liable to exceptions in certain cases, for it translated Eustathius from Beræa to Antioch (see Sozomen, H. E. I. 2). The truth is, the rule was established—whether before or for the first time at the Council of Nicæa—chiefly in order to guard against the ambition of aspiring men who might wish to go from a smaller to a greater parish, and to prevent, as the Nicene Canon says, the many disorders and quarrels which the custom of translation caused; and a rule formed on such grounds of expediency was of course liable to exception whenever the good of the Church seemed to demand it, and therefore, whether the fourteenth Apostolic Canon is more ancient than the Nicene Council or not, it certainly embodies a principle which must long have been in force, and which we find in fact acted upon in the present case; for the translation of Alexander takes place “with the common consent of the bishops of the neighboring churches,” or, as Jerome puts it, cunctis in Palestina episcopis in unum congregatis, which is quite in accord with the provision of the Apostolic Canons. There were some in the early Church who thought it absolutely unlawful under any circumstances for a bishop to be translated (cf. Jerome’s Ep. ad Oceanum; Migne, Ep. 69, §5), but this was not the common view, as Bingham (Antiq. VI. 4. 6) well observes, and instances of translation from one see to another were during all these centuries common (cf. e.g. Socrates, H. E. VII. 36), although always of course exceptional, and considered lawful only when made for good and sufficient reasons. To say, therefore, with Valesius that these Palestinian bishops violated a rule of the Church in translating Alexander is too strong. They were evidently unconscious of anything uncanonical, or even irregular in their action, though it is clear that they regarded the step as too important to be taken without the approval of all the bishops of the neighborhood. In regard to assistant bishops, Valesius correctly remarks that this is the first instance of the kind known to us, but it is by no means the only one, for the following centuries furnish numerous examples; e.g. Theotecnus and Anatolius in Cæsarea (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 32), Maximus and Macarius in Jerusalem (see Sozomen, H. E. II. 20); and so in Africa Valerius of Hippo had Augustine as his coadjutor (Possidius, Vita. Aug. chap. 8; see Bingham’s Antiq. II. 13. 4 for other instances and for a discussion of the whole subject). The principle was in force from as early as the third century (see Cyprian to Cornelius, Ep. 40, al. 44 and to Antonianus, Ep. 51, al. 55) that there should be only one bishop in a city, and we see from the works of various Fathers that this rule was universally accepted at an early date. The eighth canon of Nicæa refers to this principle in passing as if it were already firmly established, and the council evidently did not think it necessary to promulgate a special canon on the subject. Because of this principle, Augustine hesitated to allow himself to be ordained assistant bishop of Hippo; and although his scruples were overcome at the time, he afterward, upon learning of the Nicene Canon, considered the practice of having a coadjutor illegal and refused to ordain one for himself. But, as the instances referred to above and many others show, not all the Church interpreted the principle as rigidly as Augustine did, and hence under certain circumstances exceptions were made to the rule, and were looked upon throughout the Church as quite lawful. The existence of two bishops in one city as a matter of compromise, for the sake of healing a schism, formed one common exception to the general principle (see Bingham, II. 13. 2), and the appointment of coadjutors, as in the present case, formed another.
256:1823Of what city in Cappadocia Alexander was bishop we are not told by Eusebius, nor by our other ancient authorities. Valesius (note on this passage) and Tillemont (Hist. eccles. III. p. 415) give Flaviopolis or Flaviadis as the name of the city (upon the authority of Basilicon, Jur. Græco-Rom. Tom. I. p. 295, according to Tillemont). But Flaviopolis was a city of Cilicia, and hence Tillemont conjectures that it had once been taken from Cappadocia and attached to Cilicia, and that its inhabitants retained the memory of Alexander, their early bishop. The report seems to rest upon a very slender foundation; but not having access to the authority cited, I am unable to form an opinion as to the worth of the tradition.
257:1824εὐχῆς καὶ τῶν τόπων ἱστορίας ἕνεκεν.
257:1825᾽Αντινόεια (Antinoë or Antinoöpolis) was a city of Egypt founded by Hadrian in honor of Antinous (see Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 3). This is the first mention of a church there, but its bishops were present at more than one council in later centuries (see Wiltsch’s Geography and Statistics, p. 59, 196, 473). This letter must have been written between 212, at about which time Alexander became Narcissus’ coadjutor (see chap. 8, note 6), and 216, when Origen visited Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23). For at the time of that visit Alexander is said to have been bishop of Jerusalem, and no mention is made of Narcissus, who must therefore have been already dead (see Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1). The fragments of Alexander’s epistles quoted in this chapter are given in Routh’s Rel. Sacræ, II. p. 161 sq., and in English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 154.
257:1826On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.
257:1827The Chron. puts the accession of Asclepiades in the first year of Caracalla (211 a.d.). Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 47) believes that this notice rests upon better knowledge than the notices of most of the Antiochian bishops, because in this case the author departs from the artificial scheme which he follows in the main. But Harnack contends that the date is not quite correct, because Alexander, who suffered under Severus, was still in prison when Asclepiades became bishop, and therefore the latter’s accession must be put back into Severus’ reign. He would fix, therefore, upon about 209 as the date of it, rightly perceiving that there is good reason for thinking the Chron. at least nearly correct in its report, and that in any case his accession cannot be carried back much beyond that, because it is quite probable (from the congratulations which Alexander extends to the church of Antioch) that there had been a vacancy in that church for some time after the death of Serapion (a thing not at all unnatural in the midst of the persecutions of the time), while Serapion was still alive as late as 203 (see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1). But it seems to me that there is no good ground for making any alteration in the date given by the Chron., for we know that at the very end of Severus’ reign the persecution broke out again with considerable severity, and that it continued, at least in Africa, for some time after Caracalla’s accession (see Tertullian’s ad Scap.). The general amnesty issued by Caracalla after the murder of his brother Geta in 212 (see Dion Cassius, LXXVII. 3) seems first to have put a definitive end to the persecutions. There is therefore no ground for confining Alexander’s imprisonment to the reign of Severus. It may well have run into the time of Caracalla, and hence it is quite possible that Asclepiades did not become bishop until after the latter became emperor, so that it is not necessary to correct the date of the Chron. It is impossible to determine with certainty the length of Asclepiades’ episcopate (see chap. 21, note 6). Of Asclepiades himself we know no more than is told us in this chapter. He seems to have been a man of most excellent character, to judge from Alexander’s epistle. That epistle, of course, was written immediately after Asclepiades’ appointment.
257:1828Literally “confessions” (ὁμολογίαις).
257:1829On Clement of Alexandria, see above, Bk. V. chap. 11.
257:1830κύριοί μου ἀδελφοί.
Chapter XII.—Serapion and his Extant Works.
1. It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of Serapion’s 1831 literary industry, 1832 but there have reached us only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish will-worship; 1833 and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus, 1834 ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter. 1835
2. He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus 1836 who had been led astray by it into heterodox notions. It may be well to give some brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion of the book. He writes as follows:
3. “For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.
4. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith, and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name of Peter, I said, If this is the only thing which occasions dispute among you, let it be read. But now having learned, from what has been told me, that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to come to you again. Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly.
5. But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you, that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus, 1837 and that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself.
6. For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it, whom we call Docetæ 1838 (for most of their opinions are connected with the teaching of that school 1839 ) we have been able to read it through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have pointed out for you farther on.” So much in regard to Serapion.
Footnotes
257:1831On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.
257:1832The Greek reads: τοῦ δὲ Σαραπίωνος τῆς περὶ λόγους ἀσκήσεως καὶ ἄλλα μὲν εἰκὸς σώζεσθαι παρ᾽ ἐτέροις ὑπομνήματα
257:1833Of this Domninus we know only what is told us here. It is suggested by Daniell (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. 630) that this shows that the prohibition uttered by Severus against the Jews “must have been soon relaxed, if it ever was enforced.” But in regard to this it must be said, in the first place, that Severus’ decree was not levelled against the Jews, but only against conversion to Judaism,—against the fieri, not the esse, Judæos. The object of the edict was not to disturb the Jews in the exercise of their national faith, but to prevent their proselyting among the non-Jewish residents of the empire. If Domninus, therefore, fell from Christianity into Judaism on account of the persecution, it seems highly probable that he was simply a converted Jew, who gave up now, in order to avoid persecution, his new faith, and again practised the religion of his fathers. Nothing, therefore, can be concluded from Domninus’ case as to the strictness with which Severus’ law was carried out, even if we suppose Domninus to have fallen from Christianity into Judaism. But it must be remarked, in the second place, that it is by no means certain that Eusebius means to say that Domninus fell into Judaism, or became a Jew. He is said to have fallen into “Jewish will-worship” (ἐκπεπτωκότα ἐπὶ τὴν ᾽Ιουδαϊκὴν ἐθελοθρησκείαν). The word ἐθελοθρησκεία occurs for the first time in Col. ii. 23, and means there an “arbitrary, self-imposed worship” (Ellicott), or a worship which one “affects” (Cremer). The word is used there in connection with the Oriental theosophic and Judaistic errors which were creeping into the churches of Asia Minor at the time the epistle was written, and it is quite possible that the word may be used in the present case in reference to the same class of errors. We know that these theosophizing and Judaizing tendencies continued to exert considerable influence in Asia Minor and Syria during the early centuries, and that the Ebionites and the Elcesaites were not the only ones affected by them (see Harnack, Dogmengesch. I. 218 sq.). The lapse of any one into Ebionism, or into a Judaizing Gnosticism, or similar form of heresy—a lapse which cannot have been at all uncommon among the fanatical Phrygians and other peoples of that section—might well be called a lapse into “Jewish will-worship.” We do not know where Domninus lived, but it is not improbable that Asia Minor was his home, and that he may have fallen under the influence of Montanism as well as of Ebionism and Judaizing Gnosticism. I suggest the possibility that his lapse was into heresy rather than into Judaism pure and simple, for the reason that it is easier, on that ground, to explain the fact that Serapion addressed a work to him. He is known to us only as an opponent of heresy, and it may be that Domninus’ lapse gave him an opportunity to attack the heretical notions of these Ebionites, or other Judaizing heretics, as he had attacked the Montanists. It seems to the writer, also, that it is thus easier to explain the complex phrase used, which seems to imply something different from Judaism pure and simple.
258:1834See Bk. V. chap. 19, note 4.
258:1835On the so-called “Gospel of Peter,” see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 7.
258:1836Rhossus, or Rhosus, was a city of Syria, lying on the Gulf of Issus, a little to the northwest of Antioch.
258:1837This Marcianus is an otherwise unknown personage, unless we are to identify him, as Salmon suggests is possible, with Marcion. The suggestion is attractive, and the reference to Docetæ gives it a show of probability. But there are serious objections to be urged against it. In the first place, the form of the name, Μαρκιανός instead of Μαρκίων. The two names are by no means identical. Still, according to Harnack, we have more than once Μαρκιανοί and Μαρκιανισταί for Μαρκιωνισταί (see his Quellenkritik d. Gesch. d. Gnosticismus, p. 31 sqq.). But again, how can Marcion have used, or his name been in any way connected with, a Gospel of Peter? Finally, the impression left by this passage is that “Marcianus” was a man still living, or at any rate alive shortly before Serapion wrote, for the latter seems only recently to have learned what his doctrines were. He certainly cannot have been so ignorant of the teachings of the great “heresiarch” Marcion. We must, in fact, regard the identification as improbable.
258:1838By Docetism we understand the doctrine that Christ had no true body, but only an apparent one. The word is derived from δοκέω, “to seem or appear.” The belief is as old as the first century (cf. 1 John iv. 2; 2 John 7), and was a favorite one with most of the Gnostic sects. The name Docetæ, however, as a general appellation for all those holding this opinion, seems to have been used first by Theodoret (Ep. 82). But the term was employed to designate a particular sect before the end of the second century; thus Clement of Alexandria speaks of them in Strom. VII. 17, and Hippolytus (Phil. VIII. 8. 4, and X. 12; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer. ed.), and it is evidently this particular sect to which Serapion refers here. An examination of Hippolytus’ account shows that these Docetæ did not hold what we call Docetic ideas of Christ’s body; in fact, Hippolytus says expressly that they taught that Christ was born, and had a true body from the Virgin (see Phil. VIII. 3). How the sect came to adopt the name of Docetæ we cannot tell. They seem to have disappeared entirely before the fourth century, for no mention of them is found in Epiphanius and other later heresiologists. As was remarked above, Theodoret uses the term in a general sense and not as the appellation of a particular sect, and this became the common usage, and is still. Whether there was anything in the teaching of the sect to suggest the belief that Christ had only an apparent body, and thus to lead to the use of their specific name for all who held that view, or whether the general use of the name Docetæ arose quite independently of the sect name, we do not know. The latter seems more probable. The Docetæ referred to by Hippolytus being a purely Gnostic sect with a belief in the reality of Christ’s body, we have no reason to conclude that the “Gospel of Peter” contained what we call Docetic teaching. The description which Serapion gives of the gospel fits quite well a work containing some such Gnostic speculations as Hippolytus describes, and thus adding to the Gospel narrative rather than denying the truth of it in any part. He could hardly have spoken as he did of a work which denied the reality of Christ’s body. See, on the general subject, Salmon’s articles Docetæ and Docetism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
258:1839The interpretation of these last two clauses is beset with difficulty. The Greek reads τουτέστι παρὰ τῶν διαδόχων τῶν καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ, οὓς Δοκητὰς καλοῦμεν, (τὰ γὰρ φρονήματα τὰ πλείονα ἐκείνων ἐστὶ τῆς διδασκαλίας), κ.τ.λ. The words τῶν καταρξαμένων αὐτοῦ are usually translated “who preceded him,” or “who led the way before him”; but the phrase hardly seems to admit of this interpretation, and moreover the αὐτοῦ seems to refer not to Marcianus, whose name occurs some lines back, but to the gospel which has just been mentioned. There is a difficulty also in regard to the reference of the ἐκείνων, which is commonly connected with the words τῆς διδασκαλίας, but which seems to belong rather with the φρονήματα and to refer to the διαδοχῶν τῶν καταρξαμένων. It thus seems necessary to define the τῆς διδασκαλίας more closely, and we therefore venture, with Closs, to insert the words “of that school,” referring to the Docetæ just mentioned.
Chapter XIII.—The Writings of Clement. 1840
1. All the eight Stromata of Clement are preserved among us, and have been given by him the following title: “Titus Flavius Clement’s Stromata of Gnostic Notes on the True Philosophy.” 1841
2. The books entitled Hypotyposes 1842 are of the same number. In them he mentions Pantænus 1843 by name as his teacher, and gives his opinions and traditions.
3. Besides these there is his Hortatory Discourse addressed to the Greeks; 1844 three books of a work entitled the Instructor; 1845 another with the title What Rich Man is Saved? 1846 the work on the Passover; 1847 discussions on Fasting and on Evil Speaking; 1848 the Hortatory Discourse on Patience, or To Those Recently Baptized; 1849 and the one bearing the title Ecclesiastical Canon, or Against the Judaizers, 1850 which he dedicated to Alexander, the bishop mentioned above.
4. In the Stromata, he has not only treated extensively 1851 of the Divine Scripture, but he also quotes from the Greek writers whenever anything that they have said seems to him profitable.
5. He elucidates the opinions of many, both Greeks and barbarians. He also refutes the false doctrines of the heresiarchs, and besides this, reviews a large portion of history, giving us specimens of very various learning; with all the rest he mingles the views of philosophers. It is likely that on this account he gave his work the appropriate title of Stromata. 1852
6. He makes use also in these works of testimonies from the disputed Scriptures, 1853 the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, 1854 and of Jesus, the son of Sirach, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1855 and those of Barnabas, 1856 and Clement 1857 and Jude. 1858
7. He mentions also Tatian’s 1859 Discourse to the Greeks, and speaks of Cassianus 1860 as the author of a chronological work. He refers to the Jewish authors Philo, 1861 Aristobulus, 1862 Josephus, 1863 Demetrius, 1864 and Eupolemus, 1865 as showing, all of them, in their works, that Moses and the Jewish race existed before the earliest origin of the Greeks.
8. These books abound also in much other learning. In the first of them 1866 the author speaks of himself as next after the successors of the apostles.
9. In them he promises also to write a commentary on Genesis. 1867 In his book on the Passover 1868 he acknowledges that he had been urged by his friends to commit to writing, for posterity, the traditions which he had heard from the ancient presbyters; and in the same work he mentions Melito and Irenæus, and certain others, and gives extracts from their writings.
Footnotes
258:1840On the life of Clement, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1. He was a very prolific writer, as we can gather from the list of works mentioned in this chapter. The list is repeated by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 38) and by Photius (Cod. 109–111), the former of whom merely copies from Eusebius, with some mistakes, while the latter copies from Jerome, as is clear from the similar variations in the titles given by the last two from those given by Eusebius, and also by the omission in both their lists of one work named by Eusebius (see below, note 10). Eusebius names ten works in this chapter. In addition to these there are extant two quotations from a work of Clement entitled περὶ προνοίας. There are also extant two fragments of a work περί ψυχῆς. In the Instructor, Bk. II. chap. 10, Clement refers to a work On Continence (ὁ περὶ ἐγκρατείας) as already written by himself, and there is no reason to doubt that this was a separate work, for the third book of the Stromata (to which Fabricius thinks he refers), which treats of the same subject, was not yet written. The work is no longer extant. In the Instructor, Bk. III. chap. 8, Clement speaks of a work which he had written On Marriage (ὁ γαμικὸς λόγος). It has been thought possible that he may have referred here to his discussion of the same subject in Bk. II. chap. 10 of the same work (see the Bishop of Lincoln’s work on Clement, p. 7), but it seems more probable that he referred to a separate work now lost. Potter, p. 1022, gives a fragment which is possibly from this work.
In addition to these works, referred to as already written, Clement promises to write on First Principles (περὶ ἀρχῶν; Strom. III. 3, IV. 1, 13, V. 14, et al.); on Prophecy (Strom. I. 24, IV. 13, V. 13); on Angels (Strom. VI. 13); on the Origin of the World (Strom. VI. 18),—perhaps a part of the proposed work on First Principles, and perhaps to be identified with the commentary on Genesis, referred to below by Eusebius (see note 28),—Against Heresies (Strom. IV. 13), on the Resurrection (Instructor, I. 6, II. 10). It is quite possible that Clement regarded his promises as fulfilled by the discussions which he gives in various parts of the Stromata themselves, or that he gave up his original purpose.
259:1841Clement’s three principal works, the Exhortation to the Greeks (see below, note 5), the Instructor (note 6), and the Stromata, form a connected series of works, related to one another (as Schaff says) very much as apologetics, ethics, and dogmatics. The three works were composed in the order named. The Stromata (Στρωματεῖς) or Miscellanies (said by Eusebius in this passage to bear the title τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν γνωστικῶν ὑπομνημ€των στρωματεῖς) are said by Eusebius and by Photius (Cod. 109) to consist of eight books. Only seven are now extant, although there exists a fragment purporting to be a part of the eighth book, but which is in reality a portion of a treatise on logic, while in the time of Photius some reckoned the tract Quis dives salvetur as the eighth book (Photius, Cod. 111). There thus exists no uniform tradition as to the character of the lost book, and the suggestion of Westcott seems plausible, that at an early date the logical introduction to the Hypotyposes was separated from the remainder of the work, and added to some mss. of the Stromata as an eighth book. If this be true, the Stromata consisted originally of only seven books, and hence we now have the whole work (with the exception of a fragment lost at the beginning). The name Στρωματεῖς, “patchwork,” sufficiently indicates the character of the work. It is without methodical arrangement, containing a heterogeneous mixture of science, philosophy, poetry, and theology, and yet is animated by one idea throughout,—that Christianity satisfies the highest intellectual desires of man,—and hence the work is intended in some sense as a guide to the deeper knowledge of Christianity, the knowledge to be sought after by the “true Gnostic.” It is full of rich thoughts mingled with worthless crudities, and, like nearly all of Clement’s works, abounds in wide and varied learning, not always fully digested. The date at which the work was composed may be gathered from a passage in Bk. I. chap. 21, where a list of the Roman emperors is closed with a mention of Commodus, the exact length of whose reign is given, showing that he was already dead, but also showing apparently that his successor was still living. This would lead us to put the composition at least of the first book in the first quarter of the year 193. It might of course be said that Pertinax and Didius Julianus are omitted in this list because of the brevity of their reigns, and this is possible, since in his own list he gives the reigns of the emperors simply by years, omitting Otho and Vitellius. The other list which he quotes, however, gives every emperor, with the number of years, months, and even days of each reign, so that there is no reason, at least in that list, for the omission of Pertinax and Didius Julianus. It seems probable that, under the influence of that exact list, and of the recentness of the reigns of the two emperors named, Clement can hardly have omitted them if they had already ruled. We can say with absolute certainty, however, only that the work was written after 192. Clement left Alexandria in 202, or before, and this, as well as the rest of his works, was written in all probability before that time at the latest.
The standard edition of Clement’s works is that of Potter, Oxford, 1715, in two vols. (reprinted in Migne’s Patr. Gr., Vols. VIII. and IX.). Complete English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer. ed., Vol. II. On his writings, see especially Westcott’s article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. and for the literature on the subject Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. 781.
259:1842The Hypotyposes (ὑποτυπώσεις), or Outlines (Eusebius calls them οἱ ἐπιγεγραμμένοι ὑποτυπώσεων αὐτοῦ λόγοι), are no longer extant, though fragments have been preserved. The work (which was in eight books, according to this passage) is referred to by Eusebius, in Bk. I. chap. 12 (the fifth book), in Bk. II. chap. 1 (the sixth and seventh books), in Bk. II. chaps. 9 and 23 (the seventh book), chap. 15 (the sixth book), in Bk. V. chap. 11, and in Bk. VI. chap. 14 (the book not specified). Most of these extracts are of a historical character, but have to do (most of them, not all) with the apostolic age, or the New Testament. We are told in chap. 14 that the work contained abridged accounts of all the Scriptures, but Photius (Cod. 109) says that it seems to have dealt only with Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, the epistles of Paul, and the Catholic epistles (ὁ δὲ ὅλος σκοπὸς ὡσανεὶ ἑρμηνεῖαι τυγχ€νουσι τῆς Γεγέσεως κ.τ.λ.). Besides the detached quotations there are extant three series of extracts which are supposed to have been taken from the Hypotyposes. These are The Summaries from Theodotus, The Prophetic Selections, and the Outlines on the Catholic Epistles. On these fragments, which are very corrupt and desultory, see Westcott in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. They discuss all sorts of doctrines, and contain the interpretations of the most various schools, and it is not always clearly stated whether Clement himself adopts the opinion given, or whether he is simply quoting from another for the purpose of refuting him. Photius condemns parts of the Hypotyposes severely, but it seems, from these extracts which we have, that he may have read the work, full as it was of the heretical opinions of other men and schools, without distinguishing Clement’s own opinions from those of others, and that thus he may carelessly have attributed to him all the wild notions which he mentions. These extracts as well as the various references of Eusebius show that the work, like most of the others which Clement wrote, covered a great deal of ground, and included discussions of a great many collateral subjects. It does not seem, in fact, to have been much more systematic than the Instructor or even the Stromata. It seems to have been intended as a part of the great series, of which the Exhortation, Instructor, and Stromata were the first three. If so, it followed them. We have no means of ascertaining its date more exactly.
259:1843Pantænus, see above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1.
259:1844The Exhortation to the Greeks (ὁ λόγος προτρεπτικὸς πρὸς ῞Ελληνας), the first of the series of three works mentioned in note 2, is still extant in its entirety. It is called by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 38) Adversus Gentes, liber unus, but, as Westcott remarks, it was addressed not to the Gentiles in general, but to the Greeks, as its title and its contents alike indicate. The general aim of the book is to “prove the superiority of Christianity to the religions and philosophies of heathendom,” and thus to lead the unbeliever to accept it. It is full of Greek mythology and speculation, and exhibits, as Schaff says, almost a waste of learning. It was written before the Instructor, as we learn from a reference to it in the latter (chap. 1). It is stated above (Bk. V. chap. 28, §4), by the anonymous writer against the Artemonites, that Clement wrote (at least some of his works) before the time of Victor of Rome (i.e. before 192 a.d.), and hence Westcott concludes that this work was written about 190, which cannot be far out of the way.
259:1845The Instructor (ὁ παιδαγωγός, or, as Eusebius calls it here, τρεῖς τε οι τοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένου παιδαγωγοῦ), is likewise extant, in three books. The work is chiefly of a moral and practical character, designed to furnish the new convert with rules for the proper conduct of his life over against the prevailing immoralities of the heathen. Its date is approximately fixed by the fact that it was written after the Exhortation to which it refers, and before the Stromata, which refers to it (see Strom. VI. 1).
259:1846The Quis Dives Salvetur? as it is called (τίς ὁ σωζόμενος πλούσιος), is a brief tract, discussing the words of Christ in Mark x. 17 sqq. It is still extant, and contains the beautiful story of John and the robber, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 23. It is an eloquent and able work; and when compared with the prevailing notions of the Church of his day, its teaching is remarkably wise and temperate. It is moderately ascetic, but goes to no extremes, and in this furnishes a pleasing contrast to the writings of most of the Fathers of Clement’s time.
259:1847τὸ περὶ τοῦ π€σχα σύγγραμμα. This work is no longer extant, nor had Photius seen it, although he reports that he had heard of it. Two fragments of it are found in the Chronicon Paschale, and are given by Potter. The work was composed, according to §9, below, at the instigation of friends, who urged him to commit to writing the traditions which he had received from the ancient presbyters. From Bk. IV. chap. 26, we learn that it was written in reply to Melito’s work on the same subject (see notes 5 and 23 on that chapter); and hence we may conclude that it was undertaken at the solicitation of friends who desired to see the arguments presented by Melito, as a representative of the Quartodeciman practice, refined. The date of the work we have no means of ascertaining, for Melito’s work was written early in the sixties (see ibid.).
259:1848διαλέξεις περὶ νηστείας καὶ περὶ καταλαλιᾶς. Photius knew both these works by report (the second under the title περὶ κακολογίας), but had not seen them. Jerome calls the first de jejunio disceptatio, the second de obtrectatione liber unus. Neither of them is now extant; but fragments of the second have been preserved, and are given by Potter.
259:1849ὁ προτρεπτικὸς εἰς ὑπομονὴν ἢ πρὸς τοὺς νεωστὶ βεβαπτισμένους. This work is mentioned neither by Jerome nor by Photius, nor has any vestige of it been preserved, so far as we know.
259:1850ὁ ἐπιγεγραμμένος κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικὸς, ἢ πρὸς τοὺς ᾽Ιουδαϊζόντας. Jerome: de canonibus ecclesiasticis, et adversum eos, qui Judæorum sequuntur errorum. Photius mentions the work; calling it περὶ κανόνων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν, but he had not himself seen it. It is no longer extant, but a few fragments have been preserved, and are given by Potter.
Danz (De Eusebio, p. 90) refers to Clement’s Stromata, lib. VI. p. 803, ed. Potter, where he says that “the ecclesiastical canon is the agreement or disagreement of the law and the prophets with the testament given at the coming of Christ.” Danz concludes accordingly that in this work Clement wished to show to those who believed that the teaching of the law and the prophets was not only different from, but superior to the teachings of the Christian faith,—that is, to the Judaizers,—that the writers of the Old and New Testaments were in full harmony. This might do, were it not for the fact that the work is directed not against Jews, but against Judaizers, i.e. Judaizing Christians. A work to prove the Old and New Testament in harmony with each other could hardly have been addressed to such persons, who must have believed them in harmony before they became Christians. The truth is, the phrase κανὼν ἐκκλησιαστικός is used by the Fathers with a great variety of meanings, and the fact that Clement used it in one sense in one of his works by no means proves that he always used it in the same sense. It is more probable that the work was devoted to a discussion of certain practices or modes of living in which the Judaizers differed from the rest of the Church Catholic, perhaps in respect to feasts (might a reference to the Quartodeciman practice have been perhaps included?), fasts and other ascetic practices, observance of the Jewish Sabbaths, &c. This use of the word in the sense of regula was very common (see Suicer’s Thesaurus). The work was dedicated, according to Eusebius, to the bishop Alexander, mentioned above in chap. 8 and elsewhere. This is sufficient evidence that it was written considerably later than the three great works already referred to. Alexander was a student of Clement’s; and since he was likewise a fellow-pupil of Origen’s (see chap. 8, note 6), his student days under Clement must have extended at least nearly to the time when Clement left Alexandria (i.e. in or before 202. a.d.). But Clement of course cannot have dedicated a work to him while he was still his pupil, and in fact we shall be safe in saying that Alexander must have gained some prominence before Clement would be led to dedicate a work to him. We think naturally of the period which Clement spent with him while he was in prison and before he became bishop of Jerusalem (see chap. 11). It is quite possible that Clement’s residence in Cappadocia with Alexander had given him such an acquaintance with Judaizing heresies and practices that he felt constrained to write against them, and at the same time had given him such an affection for Alexander that he dedicated his work to him.
260:1851Literally, “made a spreading” (κατ€στρωσιν πεποίηται). Eusebius here plays upon the title of the work (Στρωματεῖς).
260:1852See note 2.
260:1853ἀντιλεγομένων γραφῶν. On the Antilegomena, see Bk. III. chap 25, note 1.
260:1854The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach were two Old Testament apocryphal books. The Church of the first three centuries made, on the whole, no essential difference between the books of the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha. We find the Fathers, almost without exception, quoting from both indiscriminately. It is true that catalogues were made by Melito, Origen, Athanasius, and others, which separated the Apocrypha from the books of the Hebrew canon; but this represented theory simply, not practice, and did not prevent even themselves from using both classes as Scripture. Augustine went so far as to obliterate completely all distinction between the two, in theory as well as in practice. The only one of the early Fathers to make a decided stand against the Apocrypha was Jerome; but he was not able to change the common view, and the Church continued (as the Catholic Church continues still) to use them all (with a few minor exceptions) as Holy Scripture.
260:1855On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.
260:1856On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.
260:1857The Epistle of Clement, see Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.
260:1858On the Epistle of Jude, see Bk. II. chap. 23, note 47.
260:1859On Tatian and his works, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.
260:1860This Cassianus is mentioned twice by Clement: once in Strom. I. 21, where Clement engages in a chronological study for the purpose of showing that the wisdom of the Hebrews is older than that of the Greeks, and refers to Cassian’s Exegetica and Tatian’s Address to the Greeks as containing discussions of the same subject; again in Strom. III. 13 sqq., where he is said to have been the founder of the sect of the Docetæ, and to have written a work, De continentia or De castitate (περὶ ἐγκρατείας ἢ περὶ εὐνουχίας), in which he condemned marriage. Here, too, he is associated with Tatian. He seems from these references to have been, like Tatian, an apologist for Christianity, and also like him to have gone off into an extreme asceticism, which the Church pronounced heretical (see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 4). Whether he was personally connected with Tatian, or is mentioned with him by Clement simply because his views were similar, we do not know, nor can we fix the date at which he lived. Neither of his works referred to by Clement is now extant. Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 38) mentions the work which Eusebius speaks of here, but says that he had not been able to find a copy of it. It is called by Clement, in the passage referred to here by Eusebius, ᾽Εξηγητικοὶ, and so Eusebius calls it in his Præf. Evang. X. 12, where he quotes from Clement. But here he speaks of it as a χρονογραφία, and Jerome transcribes the word without translating it. We can gather from Clement’s words (Strom. I. 21) that the work of Cassianus dealt largely with chronology, and hence Eusebius’ reference to it under the name χρονογραφία is quite legitimate.
260:1861On Philo and his works, see Bk. II. chaps. 4, 5, 17 and 18.
260:1862The Aristobulus referred to here was an Alexandrian Jew and Peripatetic philosopher (see the passages in Clement and Eusebius referred to below), who lived in the second century b.c., and was the author of Commentaries upon the Mosaic Law, the chief object of which was to prove that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the books of Moses (see Clement, Strom. V. 14, who refers only to Peripatetic philosophy, which is too narrow). The work is referred to by Clement of Alexandria (in his Stromata, I. 15; V. 14; VI. 3, &c.), by Eusebius (in his Præp. Evang. VII. 14; VIII. 9, 10; XIII. 12, &c.), by Anatolius (as quoted by Eusebius below, in Bk. VII. chap. 32), and by other Fathers. The work is no longer extant, but Eusebius gives two considerable fragments of it in his Præp. Evang. VIII. 10, and XIII. 12. See Schürer’s Gesch. d. jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu, II. p. 760 sq. Schürer maintains the authenticity of the work against the attacks of many modern critics.
260:1863On Josephus and his works, see Bk. III. chap. 9.
260:1864Demetrius was a Grecian Jew, who wrote, toward the close of the third century b.c., a History of Israel, based upon the Scripture records, and with especial reference to chronology. Demetrius is mentioned by Josephus (who, however, wrongly makes him a heathen; contra Apionem, I. 23), by Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebius. His work is no longer extant, but fragments of it are preserved by Clement (Strom. I. 21) and by Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX. 21 and 29). See Schürer, ibid. p. 730 sq.
260:1865Eupolymus was also a Jewish historian, who wrote about the middle of the second century b.c., and is possibly to be identified with the Eupolymus mentioned in 1 Macc. viii. 17. He wrote a History of the Jews, which is referred to under various titles by those that mention it, and which has consequently been resolvent into three separate works by many scholars, but without warrant, as Schürer has shown. The work, like that of Aristobulus, was clearly designed to show the dependence of Greek philosophy upon Hebrew wisdom (see Clement’s Strom. I. 23). It is no longer extant, but fragments have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I. 21, which gives us data for reckoning the time at which Eupolymus wrote, and I. 23) and by Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX. 17, 26, 30–34, and probably 39). See Schürer ibid. p. 732 sq.
260:1866Eusebius is apparently still referring to Clement’s Stromata. In saying that Clement ὧν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ δηλοι ὡς žγγιστα τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων γενομένου διαδοχῆς, he was perhaps thinking of the passage in Strom. I. 1, where Clement says, “They [i.e. his teachers], preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine, derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the fathers (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds.” Clement in this passage does not mean to assert that his teachers were immediate disciples of the apostles, but only that they received the traditions of the apostles in direct descent from their immediate disciples. Eusebius’ words are a little ambiguous, but they seem to imply that he thought that Clement was a pupil of immediate disciples of the apostles, which Clement does not assert in this passage, and can hardly have asserted in any passage, for he was in all probability born too late to converse with those who had seen any of the apostles.
261:1867In his Stromata (VI. 18) Clement refers to a work on the origin of the world, which was probably to form a part of his work On Principles. This is perhaps the reference of which Eusebius is thinking when he says that Clement in the Stromata promises εἰς τὴν Γένεσιν ὑπομνηματιεῖσθειν. If so, Eusebius’ words, which imply that Clement promised to write a commentary on Genesis, are misleading.
261:1868On this work, see note 8.
Chapter XIV.—The Scriptures mentioned by Him.
1. To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes 1869 abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books, 1870 —I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas 1871 and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter. 1872
2. He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews 1873 is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.
3. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name.
4. Farther on he says: “But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote to the Hebrews out of his superabundance.”
5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner:
6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark 1874 had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it.
7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external 1875 facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” 1876 This is the account of Clement.
8. Again the above-mentioned Alexander, 1877 in a certain letter to Origen, refers to Clement, and at the same time to Pantænus, as being among his familiar acquaintances. He writes as follows:
“For this, as thou knowest, was the will of God, that the ancestral friendship existing between us should remain unshaken; nay, rather should be warmer and stronger.
9. For we know well those blessed fathers who have trodden the way before us, with whom we shall soon be; 1878 Pantænus, the truly blessed man and master, and the holy Clement, my master and benefactor, and if there is any other like them, through whom I became acquainted with thee, the best in everything, my master and brother.” 1879
10. So much for these matters. But Adamantius, 1880 —for this also was a name of Origen,—when Zephyrinus 1881 was bishop of Rome, visited Rome, “desiring,” as he himself somewhere says, “to see the most ancient church of Rome.”
11. After a short stay there he returned to Alexandria. And he performed the duties of catechetical instruction there with great zeal; Demetrius, who was bishop there at that time, urging and even entreating him to work diligently for the benefit of the brethren. 1882
Footnotes
261:1869See the previous chapter, note 3.
261:1870On the Antilegomena of Eusebius, and on the New Testament canon in general, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.
261:1871On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.
261:1872On the Apocalypse of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 9.
261:1873On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.
261:1874On the composition of the Gospel of Mark, see Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4, and with this statement of Clement as to Peter’s attitude toward its composition, compare the words of Eusebius in §2 of that chapter, and see the note upon the passage (note 5).
261:1875τὰ σωματικ€.
261:1876See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 7.
261:1877Mentioned already in chaps. 8 and 11.
261:1878We see from this sentence that at the time of the writing of this epistle both Pantænus and Clement were dead. The latter was still alive when Alexander wrote to the Antiochenes (see chap. 11), i.e. about the year 211 (see note 5 on that chapter). How much longer he lived we cannot tell. The epistle referred to here must of course have been written at any rate subsequent to the year 211, and hence while Alexander was bishop of Jerusalem. The expression “with whom we shall soon be” (πρὸς οὕς μετ᾽ ὀλίγον ἐσόμεθα) seems to imply that the epistle was written when Alexander and Origen were advanced in life, but this cannot be pressed.
261:1879It is from this passage that we gather that Alexander was a student of Clement’s and a fellow-pupil of Origen’s (see chap. 8, note 6, and chap. 2, note 1). The epistle does not state this directly, but the conclusion seems sufficiently obvious.
261:1880The name Adamantius (᾽Αδαμ€ντιος from ἀδ€μας unconquerable,hence hard, adamantine) is said by Jerome (Ep. ad Paulam, §3; Migne’s ed. Ep. XXXIII.) to have been given him on account of his untiring industry, by Photius (Cod. 118) on account of the invincible force of his arguments, and by Epiphanius (Hær. LXIV. 74) to have been vainly adopted by himself. But Eusebius’ simple statement at this point looks rather as if Adamantius was a second name which belonged to Origen from the beginning, and had no reference to his character. We know that two names were very common in that age. This opinion is adopted by Tillemont, Redepenning, Westcott, and others, although many still hold the opposite view. Another name, Chalcenterus, given to him by Jerome in the epistle already referred to, was undoubtedly, as we can see from the context, applied to him by Jerome, because of his resemblance to Didymus of Alexandria (who bore that surname) in his immense industry as an author.
261:1881On Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5. He was bishop from about 198, or 199, to 217. This gives considerable range for the date of Origen’s visit to Rome, which we have no means of fixing with exactness. There is no reason for supposing that Eusebius is incorrect in putting it among the events occurring during Caracalla’s reign (211–217). On the other hand, it must have taken place before the year 216, for in that year Origen went to Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23) and remained there some time. Whether Origen’s visit was undertaken simply from the desire to see the church of Rome, as Eusebius says, or in connection with matters of business, we cannot tell.
262:1882On Demetrius’ relations to Origen, see chap. 8, note 4.
Chapter XV.—Heraclas. 1883
1. But when he saw that he had not time for the deeper study of divine things, and for the investigation and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, and also for the instruction of those who came to him,—for coming, one after another, from morning till evening to be taught by him, they scarcely gave him time to breathe,—he divided the multitude. And from those whom he knew well, he selected Heraclas, who was a zealous student of divine things, and in other respects a very learned man, not ignorant of philosophy, and made him his associate in the work of instruction. He entrusted to him the elementary training of beginners, but reserved for himself the teaching of those who were farther advanced.
Footnotes
262:1883On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
Chapter XVI.—Origen’s Earnest Study of the Divine Scriptures.
1. So earnest and assiduous was Origen’s research into the divine words that he learned the Hebrew language, 1884 and procured as his own the original Hebrew Scriptures which were in the hands of the Jews. He investigated also the works of other translators of the Sacred Scriptures besides the Seventy. 1885 And in addition to the well-known translations of Aquila, 1886 Symmachus, 1887 and Theodotion, 1888 he discovered certain others which had been concealed from remote times,—in what out-of-the-way corners I know not,—and by his search he brought them to light. 1889
2. Since he did not know the authors, he simply stated that he had found this one in Nicopolis near Actium 1890 and that one in some other place.
3. In the Hexapla 1891 of the Psalms, after the four prominent translations, he adds not only a fifth, but also a sixth and seventh. 1892 He states of one of these that he found it in a jar in Jericho in the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus.
4. Having collected all of these, he divided them into sections, and placed them opposite each other, with the Hebrew text itself. He thus left us the copies of the so-called Hexapla. He arranged also separately an edition of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion with the Septuagint, in the Tetrapla. 1893
Footnotes
262:1884Origen’s study of the Hebrew, which, according to Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 54), was “contrary to the custom of his day and race,” is not at all surprising. He felt that he needed some knowledge of it as a basis for his study of the Scriptures to which he had devoted himself, and also as a means of comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old Testament, a labor which he regarded as very important for polemical purposes. As to his familiarity with the Hebrew it is now universally conceded that it was by no means so great as was formerly supposed. He seems to have learned only about enough to enable him to identify the Hebrew which corresponded with the Greek texts which he used, and even in this he often makes mistakes. He sometimes confesses openly his lack of critical and independent knowledge of the Hebrew (e.g. Hom. in Num. XIV. 1; XVI. 4). He often makes blunders which seem absurd, and yet in many cases he shows considerable knowledge in regard to peculiar forms and idioms. His Hebrew learning was clearly fragmentary and acquired from various sources. Cf. Redepenning, I. p. 365 sq.
262:1885On the LXX, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31.
262:1886Aquila is first mentioned by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 21. 1, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 8, above), who calls him a Jewish proselyte of Pontus; Epiphanius says of Sinope in Pontus. Tradition is uniform that he was a Jewish proselyte, and that he lived in the time of Hadrian, or in the early part of the second century according to Rabbinic tradition. He produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was very slavish in its adherence to the original, sacrificing the Greek idiom to the Hebrew without mercy, and even violating the grammatical structure of the former for the sake of reproducing the exact form of the latter. Because of its faithfulness to the original, it was highly prized by the Rabbinic authorities, and became more popular among the Jews in general than the LXX. (On the causes of the waning popularity of the latter, see note 8, below.) Neither Aquila’s version, nor the two following, are now extant; but numerous fragments have been preserved by those Fathers who saw and used Origen’s Hexapla.
262:1887Symmachus is said by Eusebius, in the next chapter, to have been an Ebionite; and Jerome agrees with him (Comment. in Hab., lib. II. c. 3), though the testimony of the latter is weakened by the fact that he wrongly makes Theodotion also an Ebionite (see next note). It has been claimed that Symmachus was a Jew, not a Christian; but Eusebius’ direct statement is too strong to be set aside, and is corroborated by certain indications in the version itself, e.g. in Dan. ix. 26, where the word χριστός, which Aquila avoids, is used. The composition of his version is assigned by Epiphanius and the Chron. paschale to the reign of Septimius Severus (193–211); and although not much reliance is to be placed upon their statements, still they must be about right in this case, for that Symmachus’ version is younger than Irenæus is rendered highly probable by the latter’s omission of it where he refers to those of Theodotion and Aquila; and, on the other hand, it must of course have been composed before Origen began his Hexapla. Symmachus’ version is distinguished from Aquila’s by the purity of its Greek and its freedom from Hebraisms. The author’s effort was not slavishly to reproduce the original, but to make an elegant and idiomatic Greek translation, and in this he succeeded very well, being excellently versed in both languages, though he sometimes sacrificed the exact sense of the Hebrew, and occasionally altered it under the influence of dogmatic prepossessions. The version is spoken very highly of by Jerome, and was used freely by him in the composition of the Vulgate. For further particulars in regard to Symmachus’ version, see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 19 sq.
262:1888It has been disputed whether Theodotion was a Jew or a Christian. Jerome (de vir. ill. 54, and elsewhere) calls him an Ebionite; in his Ep. ad Augustin. c. 19 (Migne’s ed. Ep. 112), a Jew; while in the preface to his commentary on Daniel he says that some called him an Ebionite, qui altero genere Judæus est. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 21. 1) and Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 17) say that he was a Jewish proselyte, which is probably true. The reports in regard to his nationality are conflicting. The time at which he lived is disputed. The Chron. paschale assigns him to the reign of Commodus, and Epiphanius may also be urged in support of that date, though he commits a serious blunder in making a second Commodus, and is thus led into great confusion. But Theodotion, as well as Aquila, is mentioned by Irenæus, and hence must be pushed back well into the second century. It has been discovered, too, that Hermas used his version (see Hort’s article in the Johns Hopkins University Circular, December, 1884), which obliges us to throw it back still further, and Schürer has adduced some very strong reasons for believing it older than Aquila’s version (see Schürer’s Gesch. d. Juden im Zeitalter Jesu, II. p. 709). Theodotion’s version, like Aquila’s, was intended to reproduce the Hebrew more exactly than the LXX did. It is based upon the LXX, however, which it corrects by the Hebrew, and therefore resembles the former much more closely than Theodotion’s does. We have no notices of the use of this version by the Jews. Aquila’s version (supposing it younger than Theodotion’s) seems to have superseded it entirely. Theodotion’s translation of Daniel, however, was accepted by the Christians, instead of the LXX Daniel, and replacing the latter in all the mss. of the LXX, has been preserved entire. Aside from this we have only such fragments as have been preserved by the Fathers that saw and used the Hexapla. It will be seen that the order in which Eusebius mentions the three versions here is not chronological. He simply follows the order in which they stand in Origen’s Hexapla (see below, note 8). Epiphanius is led by that order to make Theodotion’s version later than the other, which is quite a mistake, as has been seen.
For further particulars in regard to the versions of Aquila and Theodotion, and for the literature of the subject, see Schürer, ibid. p. 704 sq.
262:1889We know very little about these anonymous Greek versions of the Old Testament. Eusebius’ words (“which had been concealed from remote times,” τὸν π€λαι λανθανούσας χρόνον) would lead us to think them older than the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. One of them, Eusebius tells us, was found at Nicopolis near Actium, another in a jar at Jericho, but where the third was discovered he did not know. Jerome (in his Prologus in expos. Cant. Cant. sec. Originem; Origen’s works, ed. Lommatzsch, XIV. 235) reports that the “fifth edition” (quinta editio) was found in Actio litore; but Epiphanius, who seems to be speaking with more exact knowledge than Jerome, says that the “fifth” was discovered at Jericho and the “sixth” in Nicopolis, near Actium (De mens. et pond. 18). Jerome calls the authors of the “fifth” and “sixth” Judaïcos translatores, which according to his own usage might mean either Jews or Jewish Christians (see Redepenning, p. 165), and at any rate the author of the “sixth” was a Christian, as is clear from his rendering of Heb. iii. 13: ἐξῆλθες τοῦ σῶσαι τὸν λαὸν σου διὰ ᾽Ιησοῦ τοῦ χριστοῦ. The “fifth” is quoted by Origen on the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, minor prophets, Kings, &c.; the “sixth,” on the Psalms, Song of Songs, and Habakkuk, according to Field, the latest editor of the Hexapla. Whether these versions were fragmentary, or were used only in these particular passages for special reasons, we do not know. Of the “seventh” no clear traces can be discovered, but it must have been used for the Psalms at any rate, as we see from this chapter. As to the time when these versions were found we are doubtless to assign the discovery of the one at Nicopolis near Actium to the visit made by Origen to Greece in 231 (see below, p. 396). Epiphanius, who in the present case seems to be speaking with more than customary accuracy, puts its discovery into the time of the emperor Alexander (222–235). The other one, which Epiphanius calls the “fifth,” was found, according to him, in the seventh year of Caracalla’s reign (217) “in jars at Jericho.” We know that at this time Origen was in Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23), and hence Epiphanius’ report may well be correct. If it is, he has good reason for calling the latter the “fifth,” and the former the “sixth.” The place and time of the discovery of the “seventh” are alike unknown. For further particulars in regard to these versions, see the prolegomena to Field’s edition of the Hexapla, the article Hexapla in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and Redepenning, II. 164 sq.
263:1890Nicopolis near Actium, so designated to distinguish it from a number of other cities bearing the same name, was a city of Epirus, lying on the northern shore of the Ambracian gulf, opposite the promontory of Actium.
263:1891Origen’s Hexapla (τὰ ἑξαπλᾶ, τὸ ἑξαπλοῦν, τὸ ἑξασέλιδον, the first form being used by Eusebius in this chapter) was a polyglot Old Testament containing the Hebrew text, a transliteration of it in Greek letters (important because the Hebrew text was unpointed), the versions of Aquila, of Symmachus, of the LXX, and of Theodotion, arranged in six columns in the order named, with the addition in certain places of a fifth, sixth, and even seventh Greek version (see Jerome’s description of it, in his Commentary on Titus, chap. 3, ver. 9). The parts which contained these latter versions were sometimes called Octapla (they seem never to have borne the name nonapla.) The order of the columns was determined by the fact that Aquila’s version most closely resembled the Hebrew, and hence was put next to it, followed by Symmachus’ version, which was based directly upon the Hebrew, but was not so closely conformed to it; while Theodotion’s version, which was based not upon the Hebrew, but upon the LXX, naturally followed the latter. Origen’s object in undertaking this great work was not scientific, but polemic; it was not for the sake of securing a correct Hebrew text, but for the purpose of furnishing adequate means for the reconstruction of the original text of the LXX, which in his day was exceedingly corrupt. It was Origen’s belief, and he was not alone in his opinion (cf. Justin Martyr’s Dial. with Trypho, chap. 71), that the Hebrew Old Testament had been seriously altered by the Jews, and that the LXX (an inspired translation, as it was commonly held to be by the Christians) alone represented the true form of Scripture. For two centuries before and more than a century after Christ the LXX stood in high repute among the Jews, even in Palestine, and outside of Palestine had almost completely taken the place of the original Hebrew. Under the influence of its universal use among the Jews the Christians adopted it, and looked upon it as inspired Scripture just as truly as if it had been in the original tongue. Early in the second century (as Schürer points out) various causes were at work to lessen its reputation among the Jews. Chief among these were first, the growing conservative reaction against all non-Hebraic culture, which found its culmination in the Rabbinic schools of the second century; and second, the ever-increasing hostility to Christianity. The latter cause tended to bring the LXX into disfavor with the Jews, because it was universally employed by the Christians, and was cited in favor of Christian doctrines in many cases where it differed from the Hebrew text, which furnished less support to the particular doctrine defended. It was under the influence of this reaction against the LXX, which undoubtedly began even before the second century, that the various versions already mentioned took their rise. Aquila especially aimed to keep the Hebrew text as pure as possible, while making it accessible to the Greek-speaking Jews, who had hitherto been obliged to rely upon the LXX. It will be seen that the Christians and the Jews, who originally accepted the same Scriptures, would gradually draw apart, the one party still holding to the LXX, the other going back to the original; and the natural consequence of this was that the Jews taunted the Christians with using only a translation which did not agree with the original, and therefore was of no authority, while the Christians, on the other hand, accused the Jews of falsifyng their Scriptures, which should agree with the more pure and accurate LXX. Under these circumstances, Origen conceived the idea that it would be of great advantage to the Christians, in their polemics against the Jews, to know more accurately than they did the true form of the LXX text, and the extent and nature of its variations from the Hebrew. As the matter stood everything was indefinite, for no one knew to exactly what extent the two differed, and no one knew, in the face of the numerous variant texts, the precise form of the LXX itself (cf. Redepenning, II. p. 156 sq.). The Hebrew text given by Origen seems to have been the vulgar text, and to have differed little from that in use to-day. With the LXX it was different. Here Origen made a special effort to ascertain the most correct text, and did not content himself with giving simply one of the numerous texts extant, for he well knew that all were more or less corrupt. But his method was not to throw out of the text all passages not well supported by the various witnesses, but rather to enrich the text from all available sources, thus making it as full as possible. Wherever, therefore, the Hebrew contained a passage omitted in the LXX, he inserted in the latter the translation of the passage, taken from one of the other versions, marking the addition with “obeli”; and wherever, on the other hand, the fullest LXX text which he had contained more than the Hebrew and the other versions combined, he allowed the redundant passage to stand, but marked it with asterisks. The Hexapla as a whole seems never to have been reproduced, but the LXX text as contained in the fifth column was multiplied many times, especially under the direction of Pamphilus and Eusebius (who had the original ms. at Cæsarea), and this recension came into common use. It will be seen that Origen’s process must have wrought great confusion in the text of the LXX; for future copyists, in reproducing the text given by Origen, would be prone to neglect the critical signs, and give the whole as the correct form of the LXX; and critical editors to-day find it very difficult to reach even the form of the LXX text used by Origen. The Hexapla is no longer extant. When the Cæsarean ms. of it perished we do not know. Jerome saw it, and made large use of it, but after his time we have no further trace of it, and it probably perished with the rest of the Cæsarean library before the end of the seventh century, perhaps considerably earlier. Numerous editions have been published of the fragments of the Hexapla, taken from the works of the Fathers, from Scholia in mss. of the LXX, and from a Syriac version of the Hexaplar LXX, which is still in large part extant. The best edition is that of Field, in two vols., Oxford, 1875. His prolegomena contain the fullest and most accurate information in regard to the Hexapla. Comp. also Taylor’s article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and Redepenning, II. p. 156 sq. Origen seems to have commenced his great work in Alexandria. This is implied by the account of Eusebius, and is stated directly by Epiphanius (Hær. LXIV. 3), who says that this was the first work which he undertook at the solicitation of Ambrose (see chap. 18). We may accept this as in itself quite probable, for there could be no better foundation for his exegetical labors than just such a piece of critical work, and the numerous scribes furnished him by Ambrose (see chap. 18) may well have devoted themselves largely to this very work, as Redepenning remarks. But the work was by no means completed at once. The time of his discovery of the other versions of the Old Testament (see above, note 6) in itself shows that he continued his labor upon the great edition for many years (the late discovery of these versions may perhaps explain the fact that he did not use them in connection with all the books of the Old Testament?); and Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 18) says that he was engaged upon it for twenty-eight years, and completed it at Tyre. This is quite likely, and will explain the fact that the ms. of the work remained in the Cæsarean library. Field, however, maintains that our sources do not permit us to fix the time or place either of the commencement or of the completion of the work with any degree of accuracy (see p. xlviii. sq.).
263:1892Valesius remarks that there is an inconsistency here, and that it should be said “not only a fifth and sixth, but also a seventh.” All the mss. and versions, however, support the reading of the text, and we must therefore suppose the inconsistency (if there is one, which is doubtful) to be Eusebius’ own, not that of a scribe.
263:1893Greek: ἐν τοῖς τετραπλοῖς ἐπικατασκευ€σας. The last word indicates that the Tetrapla was prepared after, not before, the Hexapla (cf. Valesius in hoc loco), and Redepenning (p. 175 sq.) gives other satisfactory reasons for this conclusion. The design seems to have been simply to furnish a convenient abridgment of larger work, fitted for those who did not read Hebrew; that is, for the great majority of Christians, even scholars.
Chapter XVII.—The Translator Symmachus. 1894
As to these translators it should be stated that Symmachus was an Ebionite. But the heresy of the Ebionites, as it is called, asserts that Christ was the son of Joseph and Mary, considering him a mere man, and insists strongly on keeping the law in a Jewish manner, as we have seen already in this history. 1895 Commentaries of Symmachus are still extant in which he appears to support this heresy by attacking the Gospel of Matthew. 1896 Origen states that he obtained these and other commentaries of Symmachus on the Scriptures from a certain Juliana, 1897 who, he says, received the books by inheritance from Symmachus himself.
Footnotes
264:1894On Symmachus, see the previous chapter, note 4.
264:1895In Bk. III. chap. 27. For a discussion of Ebionism, see the notes on that chapter.
264:1896On the attitude of the Ebionites toward the Canonical Gospel of Matthew (to which of course Eusebius here refers), see ibid. note 8. All traces of this work and of Symmachus’ “other interpretations of Scripture” (ἄλλων εἰς τὰς γραφὰς ἑρμηνειῶν), mentioned just below, have vanished. We must not include Symmachus’ translation of the Old Testament in these other works (as has been done by Huet and others), for there is no hint either in this passage or in that of Palladius (see next note) of a reference to that version, which was, like those of Aquila and Theodotion, well known in Origen’s time (see the previous chapter).
264:1897This Juliana is known to us only from this passage and from Palladius, Hist. Laus. 147. Palladius reports, on the authority of an entry written by Origen himself, which he says he found in an ancient book (ἐν παλαιοτ€τῳ βιβλί& 251· στιχηρῷ), that Juliana was a virgin of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and that she gave refuge to Origen in the time of some persecution. If this account is to be relied upon, Origen’s sojourn in the lady’s house is doubtless to be assigned, with Huet, to the persecution of Maximinus (235–238; see below, chap. 28, note 2). It must be confessed, however, that in the face of the absolute silence of Eusebius and others, the story has a suspicious look.
Chapter XVIII.—Ambrose.
1. About this time Ambrose, 1898 who held the heresy of Valentinus, 1899 was convinced by Origen’s presentation of the truth, and, as if his mind were illumined by light, he accepted the orthodox doctrine of the Church.
2. Many others also, drawn by the fame of Origen’s learning, which resounded everywhere, came to him to make trial of his skill in sacred literature. And a great many heretics, and not a few of the most distinguished philosophers, studied under him diligently, receiving instruction from him not only in divine things, but also in secular philosophy.
3. For when he perceived that any persons had superior intelligence he instructed them also in philosophic branches—in geometry, arithmetic, and other preparatory studies—and then advanced to the systems 1900 of the philosophers and explained their writings. And he made observations and comments upon each of them, so that he became celebrated as a great philosopher even among the Greeks themselves.
4. And he instructed many of the less learned in the common school branches, 1901 saying that these would be no small help to them in the study and understanding of the Divine Scriptures. On this account he considered it especially necessary for himself to be skilled in secular and philosophic learning. 1902
Footnotes
264:1898Of the early life of Ambrose, the friend of Origen, we know nothing. We learn from Origen’s Exhortatio ad Martyr. c. 14, and Jerome’s de vir. ill. c. 56, that he was of a wealthy and noble family (cf. chap. 23 of this book), and from the Exhort. ad Mart. c. 36, that he probably held some high official position. Eusebius says here that he was for some time a Valentinian, Jerome that he was a Marcionite, others give still different reports. However that was, the authorities all agree that he was converted to the orthodox faith by Origen, and that he remained devoted to him for the rest of his life. From chap. 23 we learn that he urged Origen to undertake the composition of commentaries on the Scriptures, and that he furnished ample pecuniary means for the prosecution of the work. He was also himself a diligent student, as we gather from that chapter (cf. also Jerome, de vir. ill. c. 56). From chap. 28 we learn that he was a confessor in the persecution of Maximinus (Jerome calls him also a deacon), and it seems to have been in Cæsarea or its neighborhood that he suffered, whither he had gone undoubtedly on account of his affection for Origen, who was at that time there (cf. the Exhort. c. 41). He is mentioned for the last time in the dedication and conclusion of Origen’s Contra Celsum, which was written between 246 and 250 (see chap. 36, below). Jerome (l.c.) states that he died before Origen, so that he cannot have lived long after this. He left no writings, except some epistles which are no longer extant. Jerome, however, in his Ep. ad Marcellam, §1 (Migne’s ed., Ep. 43), attributes to Ambrose an epistle, a fragment of which is extant under the name of Origen (to whom it doubtless belongs) and which is printed in Lommatzsch’s edition of Origen’s works, Vol. XVII. p. 5. Origen speaks of him frequently as a man of education and of literary tastes and devoted to the study of the Scriptures, and Jerome says of himnon inelegantis ingenii fuit, sicut ejus ad Origenen epistolæ indicio sunt (l.c.). The affection which Origen felt for him is evinced by many notices in his works and by the fact that he dedicated to him the Exhortatio ad Martyr., on the occasion of his suffering under Maximinus. It was also at Ambrose’s solicitation that he wrote his great work against Celsus, which he likewise dedicated to him.
264:1899On Valentinus, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 1.
264:1900Greek, αἰρέσεις
264:1901ἐγκύκλια γρ€μματα; “the circle of those arts and sciences which every free-born youth in Greece was obliged to go through before applying to any professional studies” (Liddell and Scott, defining ἐγκ. παιδεία).
264:1902On Origen’s education, see p. 392, below.
Chapter XIX.—Circumstances Related of Origen.
1. The Greek philosophers of his age are witnesses to his proficiency in these subjects. We find frequent mention of him in their writings. Sometimes they dedicated their own works to him; again, they submitted their labors to him as a teacher for his judgment.
2. Why need we say these things when even Porphyry, 1903 who lived in Sicily in our own times and wrote books against us, attempting to traduce the Divine Scriptures by them, mentions those who have interpreted them; and being unable in any way to find a base accusation against the doctrines, for lack of arguments turns to reviling and calumniating their interpreters, attempting especially to slander Origen, whom he says he knew in his youth.
3. But truly, without knowing it, he commends the man; telling the truth about him in some cases where he could not do otherwise; but uttering falsehoods where he thinks he will not be detected. Sometimes he accuses him as a Christian; again he describes his proficiency in philosophic learning. But hear his own words:
4. “Some persons, desiring to find a solution of the baseness of the Jewish Scriptures rather than abandon them, have had recourse to explanations inconsistent and incongruous with the words written, which explanations, instead of supplying a defense of the foreigners, contain rather approval and praise of themselves. For they boast that the plain words of Moses are enigmas, and regard them as oracles full of hidden mysteries; and having bewildered the mental judgment by folly, they make their explanations.” Farther on he says:
5. “As an example of this absurdity take a man whom I met when I was young, and who was then greatly celebrated and still is, on account of the writings which he has left. I refer to Origen, who is highly honored by the teachers of these doctrines.
6. For this man, having been a hearer of Ammonius, 1904 who had attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day, derived much benefit from his teacher in the knowledge of the sciences; but as to the correct choice of life, he pursued a course opposite to his.
7. For Ammonius, being a Christian, and brought up by Christian parents, when he gave himself to study and to philosophy straightway conformed to the life required by the laws. But Origen, having been educated as a Greek in Greek literature, went over to the barbarian recklessness. 1905 And carrying over the learning which he had obtained, he hawked it about, in his life conducting himself as a Christian and contrary to the laws, but in his opinions of material things and of the Deity being like a Greek, and mingling Grecian teachings with foreign fables. 1906
8. For he was continually studying Plato, and he busied himself with the writings of Numenius 1907 and Cronius, 1908 Apollophanes, 1909 Longinus, 1910 Moderatus, 1911 and Nicomachus, 1912 and those famous among the Pythagoreans. And he used the books of Chæremon 1913 the Stoic, and of Cornutus. 1914 Becoming acquainted through them with the figurative interpretation of the Grecian mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish Scriptures.” 1915
9. These things are said by Porphyry in the third book of his work against the Christians. 1916 He speaks truly of the industry and learning of the man, but plainly utters a falsehood (for what will not an opposer of Christians do?) when he says that he went over from the Greeks, 1917 and that Ammonius fell from a life of piety into heathen customs.
10. For the doctrine of Christ was taught to Origen by his parents, as we have shown above. And Ammonius held the divine philosophy unshaken and unadulterated to the end of his life. 1918 His works yet extant show this, as he is celebrated among many for the writings which he has left. For example, the work entitled The Harmony of Moses and Jesus, and such others as are in the possession of the learned.
11. These things are sufficient to evince the slander of the false accuser, and also the proficiency of Origen in Grecian learning. He defends his diligence in this direction against some who blamed him for it, in a certain epistle, 1919 where he writes as follows:
12. “When I devoted myself to the word, and the fame of my proficiency went abroad, and when heretics and persons conversant with Grecian learning, and particularly with philosophy, came to me, it seemed necessary that I should examine the doctrines of the heretics, and what the philosophers say concerning the truth.
13. And in this we have followed Pantænus, 1920 who benefited many before our time by his thorough preparation in such things, and also Heraclas, 1921 who is now a member of the presbytery of Alexandria. I found him with the teacher of philosophic learning, with whom he had already continued five years before I began to hear lectures on those subjects. 1922
14. And though he had formerly worn the common dress, he laid it aside and assumed and still wears the philosopher’s garment; 1923 and he continues the earnest investigation of Greek works.”
He says these things in defending himself for his study of Grecian literature.
15. About this time, while he was still at Alexandria, a soldier came and delivered a letter from the governor of Arabia 1924 to Demetrius, bishop of the parish, and to the prefect of Egypt who was in office at that time, requesting that they would with all speed send Origen to him for an interview. Being sent by them, he went to Arabia. And having in a short time accomplished the object of his visit, he returned to Alexandria.
16. But sometime after a considerable war broke out in the city, 1925 and he departed from Alexandria. And thinking that it would be unsafe for him to remain in Egypt, he went to Palestine and abode in Cæsarea. While there the bishops of the church in that country 1926 requested him to preach and expound the Scriptures publicly, although he had not yet been ordained as presbyter. 1927
17. This is evident from what Alexander, 1928 bishop of Jerusalem and Theoctistus 1929 of Cæsarea, wrote to Demetrius 1930 in regard to the matter, defending themselves thus:
“He has stated in his letter that such a thing was never heard of before, neither has hitherto taken place, that laymen should preach in the presence of bishops. I know not how he comes to say what is plainly untrue.
18. For whenever persons able to instruct the brethren are found, they are exhorted by the holy bishops to preach to the people. Thus in Laranda, Euelpis by Neon; and in Iconium, Paulinus by Celsus; and in Synada, Theodorus by Atticus, our blessed brethren. 1931 And probably this has been done in other places unknown to us.”
He was honored in this manner while yet a young man, not only by his countrymen, but also by foreign bishops. 1932
19. But Demetrius sent for him by letter, and urged him through members and deacons of the church to return to Alexandria. So he returned and resumed his accustomed duties.
Footnotes
264:1903Porphyry, one of the most distinguished of the Neo-Platonists, disciple, biographer, and expounder of Plotinus, was born in 232 or 233 in the Orient (perhaps at Tyre), and at the age of thirty went to Rome, where he came into connection with Plotinus, and spent a large part of his life. He was a man of wide and varied learning; and though not an original thinker, he was a clear and vigorous writer and expounder of the philosophy of Plotinus. It may be well, at this point, to say a word about that remarkable school or system of philosophy, of which Plotinus was the greatest master and Porphyry the chief expounder. Neo-Platonism was the most prominent phenomenon of the age in the philosophic world. The object of the Neo-Platonists was both speculative and practical: on the one side to elaborate an eclectic system of philosophy which should reconcile Platonism and Aristotelianism, and at the same time do justice to elements of truth in other schools of thought; on the other side, to revivify and strengthen the old paganism by idealizing and purifying it for the sake of the philosophers, and at the same time by giving it a firmer philosophic basis than it had hitherto possessed. Neo-Platonism, taken as a whole, has therefore both a philosophic and a religious motive. It may be defined in the briefest terms, in its philosophic aspect, as an eclectic revival of Greek metaphysics (especially Platonic-Aristotelian), modified by the influence of Oriental philosophy and of Christianity; in its religious aspect, as an attempt to restore and regenerate paganism by means of philosophy. In its earlier and better days, the philosophic element greatly predominated,—in fact, the religious element may be said to have been, in large part, a later growth; but gradually the latter came more and more into the foreground, until, under Jamblichus (d. 330 a.d.), the chief master of the Syrian school, Neo-Platonism degenerated into a system of religious mysteries, in which theurgic practices played a prominent part. Under Proclus (d. 485), the great master of the Athenian school, the philosophic element was again emphasized; but Aristotelianism now gained the predominance, and the system became a sort of scholastic art, and gradually degenerated into pure formalism, until it finally lost all influence. The extent of the influence which Christianity exerted upon Neo-Platonism is a greatly disputed point. We shall, perhaps, come nearest the truth if we say that its influence was in the main not direct, but that it was nevertheless real, inasmuch as it had introduced problems up to that time undiscussed, with which Neo-Platonism busied itself; in fact, it may almost be said that Neo-Platonism was at first little more than (Aristotelian-) Platonism busying itself with the new problems of salvation and redemption which Christianity had thrown into the world of thought. It was un-Christian at first (it became under Porphyry and later Neo-Platonists anti-Christian), because it solved these problems in a way different from the Christian way. This will explain the fact that all through, whether in the more strictly philosophic system of Plotinus, or in the more markedly religious and theurgic system of Jamblichus, there ran a vein of mysticism, the conception of an intimate union with the supreme God as the highest state to which man can attain.
Porphyry, with whom we are at present concerned, was eminently practical in his thinking. The end of philosophy with him was not knowledge, but holiness, the salvation of the soul. He recommended a moderate asceticism as a chief means of freeing the soul from the bonds of matter, and thus permitting it to rise to union with God. At the same time, he did not advise the neglect of the customary religious rites of Paganism, which might aid in the elevation of the spirit of man toward the deity. It was with Porphyry that Neo-Platonism first came into direct conflict with Christianity, and its enmity against the latter goes far to explain the increasing emphasis which he and the Neo-Platonists who followed him laid upon religious rites and practices. Its philosophy, its solution of the great problems of the age, was essentially and radically different from that of Christianity; and although at first they might run alongside one another as independent schools, without much thought of conflict, it was inevitable that in time the rivalry, and then the active hostility, should come. Neo-Platonism, like Christianity, had a solution of the great problem of living to offer to the world,—in an age of unexampled corruption, when thoughtful men were all seeking for a solution,—and each was essentially exclusive of the other. The attack, therefore, could not be long delayed. Porphyry seems to have begun it in his famous work in fifteen books, now lost, which was answered in extenso by Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius, and Apolinarius of Laodicea. The answers, too, have perished; but from extant fragments we are able to see that Porphyry’s attack was very learned and able. He endeavored to point out the inconsistencies in the sacred narrative, in order to discredit its divine origin. At the same time, he treated Christ with the greatest respect, and ranked him very high as a sage (though only human), and found much that was good in his teaching. Augustine (De consensu Evang. I. 15) says that the Neo-Platonists praised Christ, but railed at his disciples (cf. Eusebius’ words in this chapter). Porphyry was a very prolific writer; but only a few of his works are now extant, chief among them the ἀφορμαὶ πρὸς τὰ νοητ€, or Sententiæ, a brief but comprehensive exposition of his philosophic system. We learn from this chapter that he had met Origen when very young (he was but about twenty when Origen died); where, we do not know. He lived to be at least sixty-eight years old (see his Vita Plot. 23), and Suidas says that he died under Diocletian, i.e. before 305 a.d.
On Porphyry and Neo-Platonism in general, see the great works of Vacherot (Hist. critique de l’Ecole d’Alexandrie) and Simon (Hist. de l’Ecole d’Alexandrie); also Zeller’s Philosophie der Griechen, and especially Erdmann’s History of Philosophy (Engl. trans., London, 1889).
265:1904Of the life of Ammonius Saccas, the “father of Neo-Platonism” very little is known. He is said by Suidas (s. v. Origenes) and by Ammianus Marcellinus to have been a porter in his youth and to have gained his second name from his occupation. That he was of Christian parents and afterward embraced paganism is stated in this passage by Porphyry, though Eusebius (§10, below) and Jerome assert that he remained a Christian. From all that we know of the teachings of Ammonius Saccas as reported to us by Plotinus and other Neo-Platonists, we cannot imagine him to have remained a Christian. The only solution of the difficulty then is to suppose Eusebius (whom Jerome follows) to have confounded him with a Christian of the same name who wrote the works which Eusebius mentions (see note 16). Ammonius was an Alexandrian by birth and residence, and died in 243. His teaching was of a lofty and noble character, to judge from Plotinus’ descriptions, and as a teacher he was wonderfully fascinating. He numbered among his pupils Herennius, Longinus, the pagan Origen, and Plotinus. The Christian Origen also studied under him for a time, according to this passage. He wrote nothing (according to the Vita Plot, c. 20), and hence we have to rely solely upon the reports of his disciples and successors for our knowledge of his system. It is difficult in the absence of all direct testimony to ascertain his teaching with exactness. Plotinus claims to give only what he learned from Ammonius, but it is evident, from his disagreement in many points with others of Ammonius’ disciples, that the system taught by him was largely modified by his own thinking. It is clear that Ammonius, who undoubtedly took much from his great master, Numenius, endeavored to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, thus laying the basis for the speculative eclecticism of Neo-Platonism, while at the same time there must have been already in his teaching the same religious and mystical element which was present to some extent in all his disciples, and which played so large a part in Neo-Platonism.
265:1905τὸ β€ρβαρον τόλμημα. Porphyry means to say that Origen was originally a heathen, and was afterward converted to Christianity; but this is refuted by the universal tradition of antiquity, and is clearly a mistake, as Eusebius (who calls it a “falsehood”) remarks below. Porphyry’s supposition, in the absence of definite knowledge, is not at all surprising, for Origen’s attainments in secular learning were such as apparently only a pagan youth could or would have acquired.
266:1906On Origen’s Greek culture, see p. 392, and also his own words quoted below in §12 sq.
266:1907Numenius was a philosopher of Syria, who lived about the middle of the second century, and who exerted great influence over Plotinus and others of the Neo-Platonists. He was, perhaps, the earliest of the Orientalizing Greek philosophers whose thinking was affected by the influence of Christian ideas, and as such occupies an important place in the development of philosophy, which prepared the way for Neo-Platonism. His object seems to have been to reconcile Pythagoras and Plato by tracing the doctrines of the latter back to the former, and also to exhibit their agreement with Jewish and other Oriental forms of thought. It is significant that he was called by the Church Fathers a Pythagorean, and that he himself called Plato a Greek-speaking Moses (cf. Erdmann’s Hist. of Phil. I. p. 236). He was a prolific writer, but only fragments of his works are extant. Numerous extracts from the chief of them (περὶ τἀγαθοῦ) have been preserved by Eusebius in his Præp. Evang. (see Heinichen’s ed. Index I.).
266:1908Of Cronius, a celebrated Pythagorean philosopher, apparently a contemporary of Numenius, and closely related to him in his thinking, we know very little. A brief account of him is given by Porphyry in his Vita Plot. 20.
266:1909The Apollophanes referred to here was a Stoic philosopher of Antioch who lived in the third century b.c., and was a disciple of Ariston of Chios. None of his writings are extant.
266:1910Longinus was a celebrated philosopher and rhetorician of Athens, who was born about 213 and died in 273 a.d. He traveled widely in his youth, and was for a time a pupil of Ammonius Saccas at Alexandria; but he remained a genuine Platonist, and seems not to have been influenced by the eclecticism of the Neo-Platonists. He was a man of marked ability, of the broadest culture, and a thorough master of Greek style. Of his numerous writings we possess a large part of one beautiful work entitled περὶ ὕψους (often published), and fragments of some others (e.g. in Eusebius’ Præp. Evang. XV. 21). Longinus was the teacher of Porphyry before the latter went to Rome to study under Plotinus.
Porphyry has made a mistake in classing Longinus with those other philosophers whose works Origen studied. He was a younger contemporary of Origen, and cannot even have studied with Ammonius until after Origen had left Alexandria. It is possible, of course, that Origen in later life read some of his works; but Porphyry evidently means that the works of all the philosophers, Longinus among them, had an influence upon Origen’s intellectual development. Heinichen reads ᾽Αλβίνου instead of Λογγίνου in his text, on the assumption that Porphyry cannot possibly have written Λογγίνου; but the latter word has the support of all the mss. and versions, and there is no warrant for making the change. We must simply conclude that Porphyry, who, of course, is not pretending to give an exact list of all the philosophical works which Origen had read, classes Longinus, the celebrated philosopher, along with the rest, as one whose works such a student of Greek philosophy as Origen must have read, without thinking of the serious anachronism involved.
266:1911Moderatus was a distinguished Pythagorean philosopher of the first century after Christ, whose works (no longer extant) were not without influence over some of the Neo-Platonists.
266:1912Nicomachus was a Pythagorean of the first (or second?) century after Christ, who gained great fame as a mathematician and exerted considerable influence upon European studies in the fifteenth century. Two of his works, one on arithmetic and the other on music, are extant, and have been published.
266:1913Chæremon was a Stoic philosopher and historian of Alexandria who lived during the first century after Christ. He was for a time librarian at the Serapeum in Alexandria, and afterward went to Rome to become a tutor of Nero. His chief writings were a history of Egypt, a work on Hieroglyphics, and another on Comets (mentioned by Origen in his Contra Cels. I. 59). He also wrote on grammatical subjects. His works, with the exception of a fragment of the first, are no longer extant. Cf. Eusebius’ Præf. Evang. V. 10, and Suidas,s.v. ᾽Ωριγένης.
266:1914Cornutus a distinguished Stoic philosopher, lived and taught in Rome during the reign of Nero, and numbered among his pupils and friends the poet Persius. Most of his numerous works have perished, but one on the Nature of the Gods is still extant in a mutilated form (see Gall’s Opuscula). See Suidas (s.v. Κορνοῦτος) and Dion Cassius, XLII. 29.
266:1915Origen was not the first to interpret the Scriptures allegorically. The method began among the Alexandrian Jews some time before the Christian era, the effort being made to reconcile the Mosaic revelation with Greek philosophy, and to find in the former the teachings of the latter. This effort appears in many of the apocryphal books, but the great exponent of the method was the Alexandrian Philo. It was natural that the early Christians, especially in Alexandria, should be influenced by this already existing method of interpretation, which enabled them to make of the Old Testament a Christian book, and to find in it all the teachings of the Gospel. Undoubtedly the Old Testament owes partly to this principle of interpretation its adoption by the Christian Church. Had it been looked upon as the Jewish Scriptures only, containing Jewish national history, and in large part Jewish national prophecy, it could never have retained its hold upon the early Church, which was so bitterly hostile to all that savored of Judaism. The early Gentile Christians were taught from the beginning by Jewish Christians who could not do otherwise than look upon their national Scriptures as divine, that those Scriptures contained prophecies of Jesus Christ, and hence those Gentile Christians accepted them as divine. But it must be remembered that they could of course have no meaning to these Gentile Christians except as they did prophesy of Christian things or contain Christian teaching. They could not be content to find Christian prophecy in one part and only Jewish history or Jewish prophecy in another part. It must all be Christian if it was to have any meaning to them. In this emergency the allegorical method of interpretation, already practiced upon the Old Testament by the Alexandrian Jews, came to their assistance and was eagerly adopted. The so-called epistle of Barnabus is an early and most significant instance of its use. With Clement of Alexandria the matter first took scientific shape. He taught that two senses are everywhere to be assumed; that the verbal sense is only for babes in the faith, and that the allegorical sense alone leads to true spiritual knowledge. With Origen allegorical interpretation reached its height. He taught a threefold sense of Scripture, corresponding to body, soul, and spirit. Many voices were raised against his interpretation, but they were directed against his particular explanations of the meaning of passages, seldom against his method. In the early centuries Alexandria remained the chief center of this kind of exegesis, while Antioch became in the fifth century the seat of a school of exegetes who emphasized rather the grammatical and historical interpretation of Scripture over against the extremes of the Alexandrian teachers. And yet even they were not entirely free from the vicious methods of the age, and, moreover, errors of various kinds crept in to lessen their influence, and the allegorical method finally prevailed almost universally; and it has not even yet fully lost its hold. This method of Scripture interpretation has, as Porphyry says, its analogy in the methods of the Greek philosophers during the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. It became early the custom for philosophers, scandalized by the licentious stories of their gods, to interpret the current myths allegorically and refer them to the processes of nature. Homer and others of the ancient poets were thus made by these later philosophers to teach philosophies of nature of which they had never dreamed. With the Neo-Platonists this method reached its highest perfection, and while the Christian teachers were allegorizing the Old Testament Scriptures, these philosophers were transforming the popular myths into records of the profoundest physical and spiritual processes. Porphyry saw that the method of pagans and Christians was the same in this respect, and he may be correct in assigning some influence to these writings in the shaping of Origen’s thinking, but the latter was an allegorist before he studied the philosophers to whom Porphyry refers (cf. chap. 2, §9, above), and would have been an allegorist had he never studied them. Allegory was in that age in the atmosphere of the Church as well as of the philosophical school.
266:1916On this great work of Porphyry, see note 1.
266:1917See note 3.
267:1918This is certainly a mistake on Eusebius’ part (see above, note 2), in which he is followed by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 55). Against the identification of the Christian Ammonius, whose works are mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, with Ammonius Saccas, may be urged first the fact that the teaching of Ammonius Saccas, as known to us from Porphyry’s Vita Plotini and from other Neo-Platonic sources, is not such as could have emanated from a Christian; and, in the second place, the fact that the Christian Ammonius, according to Eusebius, was the author of more than one important work, while Longinus (as quoted by Porphyry in the Vita Plot. c. 20) says explicitly that Ammonius Saccas wrote nothing. It is clear from Eusebius’ words that his sole reason for supposing that Ammonius Saccas remained a Christian is the existence of the writings to which he refers; and it is quite natural that he and others should erroneously attribute the works of an unknown Christian of Alexandria, named Ammonius, to the celebrated Alexandrian philosopher of the same name, especially since it was known that the latter had been a Christian in his youth, and that he had been Origen’s teacher in his mature years. We know nothing about the life of the Christian Ammonius, unless he be identified with the presbyter Ammonius of Alexandria, who is said by Eusebius to have perished in the persecution of Diocletian. The identification is possible; but even if it be accepted, we are helped very little, for is only the death, not the life, of the presbyter Ammonius with which Eusebius acquaints us. Ammonius’ writings, whoever he may have been, were well known in the Church. Eusebius mentions here his work On the Harmony of Moses and Jesus (περὶ τῆς Μωϋσέως καὶ ᾽Ιησοῦ συμφωνίας), and in an epistle addressed to Carpianus (see above, p. 38 sq.) speaks of a Diatessaron or Harmony of the Four Gospels (τὸ διὰ τεσσ€ρων εὐαγγέλιον), composed by Ammonius. Jerome mentions both these works (de vir. ill. 55), the latter under the title Evangelici Canones. He refers to these Canones again in his preface to the Four Gospels (Migne’s ed., Vol. X. 528); and so does Victor of Capua. The former work is no longer extant, nor have we any trace of it. But there is extant a Latin translation of a Diatessaron which was made by Victor of Capua, and which was formerly, and is still, by many scholars supposed to be a version of this work of Ammonius. By others it is thought to be a translation of Tatian’s Diatessaron. For further particulars, see above, Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 11.
267:1919The names of the persons to whom this epistle was addressed we do not know, nor can we ascertain the exact time when it was composed, though it must have been written before Heraclas became bishop of Alexandria, and indeed, we may assume, while Origen was in Alexandria, and still engaged in the study which he defends in the epistle, i.e., if Eusebius is correct in the order of events, before 216 a.d. (see note 23).
267:1920On Pantænus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1.
267:1921On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
267:1922ἐκείνων τῶν λόγων.
267:1923See above, Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 21.
267:1924The words used to designate the official who sent for Origen (ὁ τῆς ᾽Αραβίας ἡγουμενος) lead us to think him a Roman, and governor of the Roman province of Arabia, which was formed by the Emperor Trajan in the year 106, and which comprised only the northern part of the peninsula. We know no particulars of this visit of Origen to that province, but that he was remembered and held in honor by the people is proved by chaps. 33 and 37, which record that he was summoned thither twice to assist in settling doctrinal difficulties.
267:1925In the sixth year of his reign (216 a.d.) Caracalla visited Alexandria, and improved the occasion to take bloody vengeance upon the inhabitants of the city, from whom had emanated a number of satirical and cutting comments upon the murder of his brother Geta. He instituted a horrible butchery, in which young and old, guilty and innocent, perished, and in which scholars were objects of especial fury. (See Herodian, IV. 8, 9, and Dion Cassius, LXXVII. 22–24, and cf. Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 115 sq.) This was undoubtedly the occasion, referred to here, which caused Origen to flee from the city and retire to Palestine.
267:1926οἱ τῇδε ἐπίσκοποι. The τῇδε must refer to Palestine, not to Cæsarea, for “bishops” are spoken of, not “bishop.”
267:1927In the apostolic age, and the generations immediately succeeding, it was the privilege of every Christian to take part in the public meetings of the Church in the way of teaching or prophesying, the only condition being the consciousness of guidance by the Spirit (see 1 Cor. xiii.). We cannot call this teaching and prophesying preaching in our sense of the term. The services seem rather to have resembled our “open prayer-meetings.” Gradually, as the services became more formal and stereotyped, a stated address by the “president” (as Justin calls him) became a regular part of the service (see Justin’s Apol. I. 67), and we may assume that the liberty of teaching or prophesying in the public meetings did not now belong to all the members as it had in the beginning. The sermon, in our sense of the word, seems to have been a slow growth, but a direct development from this exhortation of the president mentioned by Justin. The confinement of the speaking (or preaching) to a single individual,—the leader,—which we see in Justin, is what we find in subsequent generations quite generally established. It becomes, in time, the prerogative of the bishop to preach, and this prerogative he confers upon his presbyters also (not universally, but in most cases), while deacons and laymen are almost everywhere excluded from the right. We see from the present chapter, however, that the custom was not the same in all parts of the Church in the time of Origen. The principle had evidently before this become firmly established in Alexandria that only bishops and presbyters should preach. But in Palestine no such rule was recognized as binding. At the same time, it is clear enough that it was exceptional even there for laymen to preach (in the presence of their bishops), for Alexander in his epistle, instead of saying that laymen preach everywhere and of right, cites particular instances of their preaching, and says that where they are qualified they are especially requested by the bishops to use their gifts; so that the theory that the prerogative belonged of right to the bishop existed there just as truly as in Alexandria. Origen of course knew that he was acting contrary to the custom (if not the canon) of his own church in thus preaching publicly, and yet undoubtedly he took it for granted that he was perfectly right in doing what these bishops requested him to do in their own dioceses. They were supreme in their own churches, and he knew of nothing, apparently, which should hinder him from doing what they approved of, while in those churches. Demetrius, however, thought otherwise, and considered the public preaching of an unordained man irregular, in any place and at any time. Whether jealousy of Origen’s growing power had anything to do with his action it is difficult to say with certainty. He seems to have treated Origen in a perfectly friendly way after his return; and yet it is possible that the difference of opinion on this point, and the reproof given by Demetrius, may not have been wholly without influence upon their subsequent relations, which became in the end so painful (see chap. 8, note 4).
268:1928On Alexander, see chap. 8, note 6.
268:1929Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea, seems to have been one of the most influential bishops of the East in his day, and played a prominent part in the controversy which arose in regard to Novatus, as we learn from chap. 46 of this book and from chap. 5 of the next. He was also a firm friend of Origen’s for many years (see chap. 27), probably until the latter’s death. We do not know the dates of his accession and of his death, but we find him already bishop in the year 216, and still bishop at the time of the episcopate of Stephen of Rome (254–257; see Bk. VII. chap. 5), but already succeeded by Domnus, when Xystus was bishop of Rome (257–258; see Bk. VII. chap. 14). We must, therefore, put his death between 255 and 258.
268:1930Eusebius is apparently mistaken in stating that this epistle was addressed to Demetrius, for the latter is spoken of throughout the epistle in the third person. It seems probable that Eusebius has made a slip and said “to Demetrius” when he meant to say “concerning Demetrius.”
268:1931Of the persons mentioned here by the Palestinian bishops in support of their conduct, Neon, bishop of Laranda in Lycaonia, Celsus, bishop of Iconium, and Atticus, bishop of Synada in Phrygia, together with the laymen Euelpis, Paulinus, and Theodore, we know only the names.
268:1932οὐ πρὸς μόνων τῶν συνήθων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ ξένης ἐπισκόπων. συνήθων seems here to have the sense of “countrymen” or (bishops) “of his own country” over against the ἐπὶ ξένης, rather than the meaning “friends” or “acquaintances,” which is more common.
Chapter XX.—The Extant Works of the Writers of that Age.
1. There flourished many learned men in the Church at that time, whose letters to each other have been preserved and are easily accessible. They have been kept until our time in the library at Ælia, 1933 which was established by Alexander, who at that time presided over that church. We have been able to gather from that library material for our present work.
2. Among these Beryllus 1934 has left us, besides letters and treatises, various elegant works. He was bishop of Bostra in Arabia. Likewise also Hippolytus, 1935 who presided over another church, has left writings.
3. There has reached us also a dialogue of Caius, 1936 a very learned man, which was held at Rome under Zephyrinus, 1937 with Proclus, who contended for the Phrygian heresy. In this he curbs the rashness and boldness of his opponents in setting forth new Scriptures. He mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not counting that to the Hebrews 1938 with the others. And unto our day there are some among the Romans who do not consider this a work of the apostle.
Footnotes
268:1933Ælia, the city built by Hadrian upon the site of Jerusalem (see Bk. IV. chap. 6). We do not know the subsequent history of this library of Alexander, but it had already been in existence nearly a hundred years when Eusebius examined it.
268:1934On Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, see chap. 33.
268:1935On Hippolytus, see chap. 22.
268:1936On Caius and his discussion with Proclus, see Bk. II. chap. 25, notes 7 and 8.
268:1937Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome from 198 or 199 to 217. See Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.
268:1938On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the opinions of the early Church in regard to its authorship, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.
Chapter XXI.—The Bishops that were well known at that Time.
1. After Antoninus 1939 had reigned seven years and six months, Macrinus succeeded him. He held the government but a year, and was succeeded by another Antoninus. During his first year the Roman bishop, Zephyrinus, 1940 having held his office for eighteen years, died, and Callistus 1941 received the episcopate.
2. He continued for five years, and was succeeded by Urbanus. 1942 After this, Alexander became Roman emperor, Antoninus having reigned but four years. 1943 At this time Philetus 1944 also succeeded Asclepiades 1945 in the church of Antioch.
3. The mother of the emperor, Mammæa 1946 by name, was a most pious woman, if there ever was one, and of religious life. When the fame of Origen had extended everywhere and had come even to her ears, she desired greatly to see the man, and above all things to make trial of his celebrated understanding of divine things.
4. Staying for a time in Antioch, she sent for him with a military escort. Having remained with her a while and shown her many things which were for the glory of the Lord and of the excellence of the divine teaching, he hastened back to his accustomed work.
Footnotes
268:1939i.e. Caracalla, who was slain on the 8th of April, 217. Four days later, Marcus Opilius Macrinus, prefect of the prætorians, was proclaimed emperor. After a reign of fourteen months, he was defeated and succeeded by Varius Avitus Bassianus, a cousin of Caracalla, and priest of the Phœnician Sun-god, from which fact is derived the name by which he is commonly known,—Elagabalus, or Heliogabalus. Upon his accession to the imperial power, he took the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, which became his official designation.
268:1940On Zephyrinus, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5.
268:1941As shown in the next note, a comparison of our best sources leads us to the year 222 as the date of the accession of Urban, and consequently of the death of Callistus. A careful comparison of the various sources, which differ in regard to the years of the several episcopates of Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus, but agree as to the sum of the three, leads to the result that Callistus was bishop for five years, and therefore his accession is to be put into the year 217, and the reign of Macrinus (see Lipsius, Chron. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 171 sq.). This agrees, so far as the years of our era are concerned, with the statement of Eusebius in this chapter; but he wrongly puts Callistus’ accession into the first year of Alexander, which is a result of an error of a year in his reckoning of the dates of the emperors, which runs back to Pertinax (see Lipsius, p. 7 sq.). He does not assign Callistus’ accession to the first year of Heliogabalus because of a tradition connecting the two, but simply because his reckoning of the lengths of the various episcopates, which were given in the source used by him, led him to the year 217 for Callistus’ accession, and this, according to his erroneous table of the reigns of the emperors, was the first year of Heliogabalus. We thus see that Eusebius is in real, though not in apparent, agreement with the Liberian catalogue in regard to the date of Callistus’ accession, which may, therefore, be accepted as certain.
Nothing was known about the character and life of Callistus until the discovery of Hippolytus’ Philosophumena, or Refutation of All Heresies (see the next chapter, note 1). In Bk. IX. of that work is given a detailed description of him, from the pen of a very bitter opponent. At the same time, it can hardly be doubted that at least the groundwork of the account is true. According to Hippolytus, he was a slave; a dishonest banker, who was punished for his dishonesty; the author of a riot in a Jewish synagogue, who was sent as a criminal to the mines; finally, after various other adventures, the right-hand man of the bishop Zephyrinus, and after his death, his successor. According to Hippolytus, he was a Patripassian, and he introduced much laxer methods of church discipline than had hitherto been in vogue; so lax as greatly to scandalize Hippolytus, who was a very rigid disciplinarian. Whatever truth there may be in this highly sensational account (and we cannot doubt that it is greatly overdrawn), it is at least certain that Callistus took the liberal view of Christian morals and church discipline, over against the stricter view represented by Hippolytus and his party. It was, perhaps, owing to his popularity on this account that, after the death of Zephyrinus, he secured the episcopacy of Rome, for which Hippolytus was also a candidate. The latter tells us also that Zephyrinus “set him over the cemetery,”—a most interesting notice, as the largest catacomb in Rome bears the name of St. Callistus, and may be the very one of which Zephyrinus made him the superintendent.
269:1942Lipsius, in his Chron. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 170 sq., shows that the only fixed point for a calculation of the dates of Urban and the three bishops preceding him, is the banishment by the Emperor Maximinus of Pontianus to Sardinia, which took place, according to the Liberian catalogue, while Severus and Quintinus were consuls; that is, in the year 235. The duration of Pontianus’ episcopate is shown by a comparison of the best sources to have been a little over five years (see chap. 23, note 3). This brings us to the year 230 as the date of Urban’s death. According to chap. 23, Urban was bishop eight years, and with this the Liberian catalogue agrees, so that this figure is far better supported than the figure nine given by the Chron. Accepting eight years as the duration of Urban’s episcopate, we are brought back to 222 as the date of his accession, which agrees with Eusebius’ statement in this chapter (see the previous note). There are extant Acta S. Urbani, which are accepted as genuine by the Bollandists, and assigned to the second century, but they cannot have been written before the fifth, and are historically quite worthless. For a good discussion of his supposed connection with St. Cecilia, which has played such an important part in ecclesiastical legend, see the article Urbanus in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. We have no certain knowledge of his life and character.
269:1943Elagabalus was slain in March, 222, after a reign of three years and nine months, and was succeeded by his cousin, Alexianus Bassianus, who assumed the names Marcus Aurelius Alexander Severus, by the last two of which he is commonly known.
269:1944Philetus, according to the Chron. (Armenian), became bishop in the sixth year of Caracalla (216), and was succeeded by Zebinus in the sixth year of Alexander Severus (227). Jerome puts his accession into the reign of Macrinus (217–218), and the accession of Zebinus into the seventh year of Alexander (228). The accession of Zebinus must have taken place at least as early as 231 (see chap. 23, note 4), and there remains therefore no reason to doubt the approximate accuracy of the latter dates. If the dates given for Philetus’ accession (216–218) be approximately correct, we must understand the words “at this time” of the present chapter, to refer back to the reign of Macrinus, or the accession of Alexander Severus, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter. This does not seem natural, but we cannot say it is impossible. Knowing the unreliability of the dates given in the Chron., we are compelled to leave the matter undecided. He is called by the Armen. Philip, by Syncellus φίλητος ἢ φίλιππος. The latter assigns him an episcopate of eight years, which agrees with none of the figures given by the two versions of the Chronicle or by the History. We know nothing about the person or the life of Philetus.
269:1945On Asclepiades, see chap. 11, note 6.
269:1946Julia Mamæa or Mammæa (Eusebius, Μαμμαία) was the niece of Septimius Severus’ wife Julia Domna, the aunt of the Emperor Elagabalus, and the mother of the Emperor Alexander Severus, by the Syrian Gessius Marcianus. She accompanied Elagabalus to Rome, and had strength of character enough to protect her son from the jealousy of the latter, and to keep him comparatively pure from the vice and debauchery of the court. During the reign of her son she exerted great influence, which was in the main highly beneficial; but her pride and avarice finally proved fatal, both to her son and to herself. Her character seems to have been in the main pure and elevated; and she was apparently inclined to the same sort of religious syncretism which led her son to adopt many Christian principles of action, and to put the busts of Abraham and of Christ, with those of Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana, and the best of the Roman emperors, in his private chapel (see Lampridius, Vita Sev. c. 29, 43). Eusebius calls Mammæa θεοσεβεστ€τη and εὐλαβής, and Jerome calls her a religiosa femina (de vir. ill. c. 54); but there is no evidence that she was a Christian. The date of Origen’s interview with her has been greatly disputed. Huet and Redepenning, accepting the order of events recorded in this chapter as chronological, put the interview in the early years of Alexander Severus, Redepenning assuming an otherwise unrecorded visit of Mammæa to Antioch, Huet connecting her visit there with the Persian expedition of Alexander. Huet assumes, upon the authority of Jerome’s Chron., that the Persian expedition took place in the early part of Alexander’s reign; but this is against all other ancient authorities, and must be incorrect (see Tillemont, Mem. III. 763 sq.). The only occasions known to us, on which Mammæa can have been in Antioch, were this expedition of her son (between 230 and 233) and the visit of her nephew Elagabalus to Antioch, after his victory over Macrinus in 218. At both these times Origen was quite probably in Cæsarea (see chap. 19, note 23, and p. 392, below), whence it is more natural to suppose him summoned than from Alexandria. If we put the interview in 218, we must suppose (as Tillemont suggests) that Eusebius is led by his mention of Alexander to give this account of his mother, and that he does not intend to imply that the interview took place after Alexander’s accession. There is nothing at all improbable in this. In fact, it seems more likely that he would mention the interview in connection with Alexander than in connection with Elagabalus, in spite of chronology. On the other hand, it is not impossible that the interview took place subsequently to the year 231, for Origen’s fame was certainly by that time much greater in Syria than fifteen years previous. At the same time, to accept this date disarranges seriously the chronological order of the account of Eusebius, for in chap. 24 we are told of those works which Origen wrote while yet in Alexandria; that is, before 231. Moreover, there is not the same reason for inserting this account of Mammæa at this point, if it occurred later in Alexander’s reign, that there is if it occurred in the reign of Elagabalus. We shall, therefore, do best to accept the earlier date with Tillemont, Westcott, and others.
Chapter XXII.—The Works of Hippolytus which have reached us.
1. At that time Hippolytus, 1947 besides many other treatises, wrote a work on the passover. 1948 He gives in this a chronological table, and presents a certain paschal canon of sixteen years, bringing the time down to the first year of the Emperor Alexander.
2. Of his other writings the following have reached us: On the Hexæmeron, 1949 On the Works after the Hexæmeron, 1950 Against Marcion, 1951 On the Song of Songs, 1952 On Portions of Ezekiel, 1953 On the Passover, 1954 Against All the Heresies; 1955 and you can find many other works preserved by many.
Footnotes
269:1947Hippolytus (mentioned above in chap. 20) was one of the most learned men and celebrated writers of his age, and yet his personal history is involved in the deepest obscurity. The earliest mention of him is by Eusebius in this passage and in chap. 20, above. But Eusebius tells us there only that he was a bishop of “some other church” (ἑτέρας που ἐκκλησίας), and Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 61) says that he was a bishop of some church whose name he did not know (Hippolytus, cujusdam Ecclesiæ episcopus, nomen quippe urbis scire non potui). In the East, from the fourth century on, Hippolytus was commonly called bishop of Rome, but the Western tradition makes him simply a presbyter. The late tradition that he was bishop of Portus Romanus is quite worthless. We learn from his Philosophumena, or Refutation of Heresies, that he was active in Rome in the time of Zephyrinus and Callistus; but what is significant is the fact that he never recognizes Callistus as bishop of Rome, but always treats him as the head of a school opposed to the orthodox Church. This has given scholars the clue for reconciling the conflicting traditions about his position and his church. It seems probable that he was a presbyter of the church of Rome, and was at the head of a party which did not recognize Callistus as lawful bishop, but set Hippolytus up as opposition bishop. This explains why Hippolytus calls himself a bishop, and at the same time recognizes neither Callistus nor any one else as bishop of Rome. The Western Church therefore preserved the tradition of Hippolytus only as a presbyter, while in the Orient, where Hippolytus was known only through his works, the tradition that he was a bishop (a fact directly stated in those works; see the preface to his Philosophumena) always prevailed; and since he was known to have resided in Rome, that city was made by tradition his see. The schism, which has left no trace in the writings either of the Western or Eastern Church, cannot have been a serious one. Doubtless Callistus had the support of by far the larger part of the Church, and the opposition of Hippolytus never amounted to more than talk, and was never strong enough to enlist, or perhaps even attempt to enlist, the support of foreign bishops. Callistus and the body of the Church could afford to leave it unnoticed; and after Callistus’ death Hippolytus undoubtedly returned to the Church and was gladly received, and the memory of his brief schism entirely effaced, while the knowledge of his orthodoxy, and of his great services to the Church as a theologian and a writer, kept his name in high repute with subsequent generations. A Latin translation of a Chronicle written by Hippolytus is extant, and the last event recorded in it is the death of the Emperor Alexander, which took place early in the year 235. The Liberian catalogue, in an entry which Lipsius (Chron. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 194) pronounces critically indisputable, records that, in the year 235, the bishop Pontianus and the presbyter Hippolytus were transported as exiles to the island of Sardinia. There is little doubt that this is the Hippolytus with whom we are concerned, and it is highly probable that both he and Pontianus died in the mines there, and thus gained the title of martyrs; for not only is the account of Hippolytus’ martyrdom given by Prudentius in the fifth century not reliable, but also in the depositio martyrum of the Liberian catalogue the bodies of Pontianus and Hippolytus are said to have been buried in Rome on the same day; and it is therefore natural to think that Hippolytus’ body was brought from Sardinia, as we know Pontianus’ was.
The character of Hippolytus, as revealed to us in the Philosophumena, is that of a strictly, even rigidly, moral man, of a puritanic disposition, who believed in drawing the reins very tight, and allowing to the members of the Christian Church no license. He was in this directly opposed to Callistus, who was a lax disciplinarian, and favored the readmission to the Church even of the worst offenders upon evidence of repentance and suitable penance (see the previous chapter, note 3). We are reminded greatly of Tertullian and of Novatian in studying Hippolytus’ character. He was, moreover, strictly orthodox and bitterly opposed to what he considered the patripassianism of Zephyrinus and of Callistus. He must be admired as a thoroughly independent, sternly moral, and rigidly orthodox man; while at the same time it must be recognized that he was irascible, bitter, and in some respects narrow and bigoted. He is known to have been a very prolific writer, composing all his works in Greek. Eusebius mentions but eight works in this chapter, but says that many others were extant in his day. Jerome, who in the present instance has other sources of information than Eusebius’ History, mentions some nineteen works (de vir. ill. c. 61), including all of those named by Eusebius, except the commentary on portions of Ezekiel and the work on the Events which followed the Hexæmeron (but see note 4, below). In the year 1551 a statue representing a venerable man sitting in a chair, and with an inscription upon it enumerating the writings of the person commemorated, was found near the church of San Lorenzo, just outside of Rome. The statue, though it bears no name, has been shown to be that of Hippolytus; and with the help of the list given upon it (which contains some thirteen works), together with some extant fragments of writings which seem to have been composed by him, the titles known to us have been increased to about forty, the greater part of which are entirely lost. We cannot discuss these works here. For the most complete list of Hippolytus’ writings the reader is referred to Caspari’s Taufsymbol und Glaubensregel, III. 377 sq., or to the more accessible article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. In 1842 was discovered the greater part of a work in ten books directed against heresies, the first book of which had been long before published by the Benedictines among Origen’s works with the title of Philosophumena. This discovery caused great discussion, but it has been proved to the complete satisfaction of almost every scholar that it is a work of Hippolytus (cf., among other discussions, Döllinger’s Hippolytus und Callistus, translated by Plummer, and the article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. already referred to). The work was published at Oxford in 1851 by Miller (who, however, wrongly ascribed it to Origen), and at Göttingen, in 1859, by Duncker and Schneidewin. It is given also by Migne; and an English translation is found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Amer. ed.), Vol. V., under the title the Refutation of All Heresies.
270:1948This chronological work on the passover, which contained a cycle for the purpose of determining the date of the festival, is mentioned also by Jerome, and is given in the list on the statue, on which the cycle itself is also engraved. Jerome says that this work was the occasion of Eusebius’ work upon the same subject in which a nineteen-year cycle was substituted for that of Hippolytus. The latter was a sixteen-year cycle and was formed by putting together two of the eight-year cycles of the Greek astronomers,—according to whose calculation the full moon fell on the same day of the month once in eight years,—in order to exhibit also the day of the week on which it fell; for he noticed that after sixteen years the full moon moved one day backward (if on Saturday at the beginning of the cycle, it fell on Friday after the sixteen years were past). He therefore put together seven sixteen-year cycles, assuming that after they had passed the full moon would return again to the same day of the week, as well as month. This cycle is astronomically incorrect, the fact being that after sixteen years the full moon falls not on the same day of the week, but three days later. Hippolytus, however, was not aware of this, and published his cycle in perfect good faith. The work referred to seems to have contained an explanation of the cycle, together with a computation by means of it of the dates of the Old and New Testament passovers. It is no longer extant, but the cycle itself, which was the chief thing, is preserved on the statue, evidently in the form in which it was drawn up by Hippolytus himself.
270:1949This treatise on the Hexæmeron, or six days’ work, is mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the list on the statue. It is no longer extant; but according to Jerome (Ep. ad Pammachium et Oceanum, c. 7; Migne’s ed. Ep. 84), was used by Ambrose in the composition of his own work upon the same subject, which is still preserved (cf. also Bk. V. chap. 27, note 3, above).
270:1950Greek, εἰς τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἐξαήμερον. This work is not given in the list on the statue. It is mentioned in some of the mss. of Jerome under the form et post Hexæmeron; but the best mss. omit these words, and substitute for them et in Exodum, a work which is not mentioned by any other authority. Jerome mentions also a commentary in Genesim, which we hear of from no other source, and which may be identical with this work mentioned by Eusebius. If the two be identical (which is quite possible), the nature of the work is plain enough. Otherwise we are left wholly to conjecture. No fragments of the work have been identified.
270:1951This work is mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the list on the statue. The last work, however, mentioned in that list bears the title περὶ τἀγαθοῦ καὶ πόθεν τὸ κακόν, which, it has been conjectured, may be identical with Eusebius and Jerome’s Contra Marcionem. No fragments are extant.
270:1952Eusebius has simply τὸ ἆσμα (The Song), which is the title given to the book in the LXX. This commentary on the Song of Songs is mentioned also by Jerome, but is not in the statue list. Four fragments of it are given by Lagarde, in his edition of the works of Hippolytus.
270:1953This commentary on portions of Ezekiel is mentioned by no one else. A supposed fragment of it is given by Lagarde, Anal. Syr., p. 90.
270:1954Jerome agrees with Eusebius in mentioning a work On the Passover, in addition to the chronological one already referred to. The list on the statue, however, mentions but one work on the passover, and that the one containing the paschal cycle. Fragments are extant of Hippolytus’ work On the Passover,—one from his ἐξήγησις εἰς τὸ π€σχα (see Lagarde’s edition of Hippolytus p. 213), and another from “the first book of the treatise on the holy paschal feast” (τοῦ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου π€σχα συγγρ€μματος, Lagarde, p. 92). These fragments are of a dogmatic character, and can hardly have occurred in the chronological work, except in a separate section or book; but the last is taken from “the first book” of the treatise, and hence we are safe in concluding that Eusebius and Jerome are correct in enumerating two separate works upon the same subject,—the one chronological, the other dogmatic, or polemical.
270:1955This work, Against All the Heresies, is mentioned both by Eusebius (πρὸς ἁπ€σας τὰς αἱρέσεις) Jerome (adv. omnes hæreses), but is not given in the list on the statue. Quite a full account of it is given from personal knowledge by Photius (Cod. 121), who calls it a small book (βιβλιδ€ριον) directed against thirty-two heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus, and says that it purported to be an abstract of lectures delivered by Irenæus. The work is no longer extant (it must not be confounded with the Philosophumena, or Refutatio, mentioned in note 1), but it has been in part restored by Lipsius (in his Quellenkritik des Epiphanius) from the anti-heretical works of Pseudo-Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Philaster. There is in existence also a fragment of considerable length, bearing in the ms. the title Homily of Hippolytus against the Heresy of one Noetus. It is apparently not a homily, but the conclusion of a treatise against a number of heresies. It was suggested by Fabricius (who first published the original Greek) that it constituted the closing chapter of the work against the thirty-two heresies. The chief objection to this is that if this fragment forms but one of thirty-two chapters, the entire work can hardly have been called a “little book” by Photius. Lipsius suggests that the little book of which Photius speaks was not the complete work of Hippolytus, but only an abbreviated summary of its contents, and this is quite possible. At any rate it seems probable, in spite of the objections which have been urged by some critics, that this constituted a part of the larger work, and hence we have one chapter of that work preserved. The work seems to have been composed in Rome and during the episcopate of Victor (as Lipsius holds), or, as is more probable, in the early part of the episcopate of Zephyrinus (as is maintained by Harnack). This conclusion is drawn from the dates of the heretics mentioned in the work, some of whom were as late as Victor, but none of them later than the early years of Zephyrinus. It must, too, have been composed some years before the Philosophumena, which (in the preface) refers to a work against heresies, written by its author a “long time before” (π€λαι). Upon this work and its relation to the lost Syntagma of Justin Martyr, which Lipsius supposes it to have made use of, see his work already referred to and also his Quellen der ältesten Ketzergeschichte together with Harnack’s Quellenkritik der Gesch. des Gnosticismus, and his article in the Zeitschrift für historische Theologie, 1874, p. 143–226.
Chapter XXIII.—Origen’s Zeal and his Elevation to the Presbyterate.
1. At that time Origen began his commentaries on the Divine Scriptures, being urged thereto by Ambrose, 1956 who employed innumerable incentives, not only exhorting him by word, but also furnishing abundant means.
2. For he dictated to more than seven amanuenses, who relieved each other at appointed times. And he employed no fewer copyists, besides girls who were skilled in elegant writing. For all these Ambrose furnished the necessary expense in abundance, manifesting himself an inexpressible earnestness in diligence and zeal for the divine oracles, by which he especially pressed him on to the preparation of his commentaries.
3. While these things were in progress, Urbanus, 1957 who had been for eight years bishop of the Roman church, was succeeded by Pontianus, 1958 and Zebinus 1959 succeeded Philetus 1960 in Antioch.
4. At this time Origen was sent to Greece on account of a pressing necessity in connection with ecclesiastical affairs, 1961 and went through Palestine, and was ordained as presbyter in Cæsarea by the bishops of that country. The matters that were agitated concerning him on this account, and the decisions on these matters by those who presided over the churches, besides the other works concerning the divine word which he published while in his prime, demand a separate treatise. We have written of them to some extent in the second book of the Defense which we have composed in his behalf. 1962
Footnotes
271:1956On Ambrose and his relation to Origen, see chap. 18, note 1.
271:1957On Urbanus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 21, note 4.
271:1958For the dates of the first group of Roman bishops, from Peter to Urbanus, the best source we have is Eusebius’Church History; but for the second group, from Pontianus to Liberius, the notices of the History are very unreliable, while the Liberian catalogue rests upon very trustworthy data (see Lipsius, Chron. d. röm. Bischöfe, p. 39 and p. 142 sq.). We must therefore turn to the latter for the most accurate information in regard to the remaining Roman bishops mentioned by Eusebius, although an occasional mistake in the catalogue must be corrected by our other sources, as Lipsius points out. The notice of Eusebius at this point would throw the accession of Pontianus into the year 231, but this is a year too late, as seen in chap. 21, note 4. According to chap. 29, he was bishop six years, and was succeeded by Anteros at about the same time that Gordian became emperor; that is, in 238. But this is wide of the truth. The Liberian catalogue, which is supported by the best of the other sources, gives a little over five years for his episcopate, and puts his banishment to Sardinia, with which his episcopate ended, on the 28th of September, 235. According to the Felician catalogue, which may be trusted at this point, he was brought to Rome and buried there during the episcopate of Fabian, which began in 236 (see also the preceding chapter, note 1). We know nothing about the life and character of Pontianus.
271:1959The notices of the Chronicle in connection with Zebinus are especially unreliable. The Armen. puts his accession into the sixth (227), Jerome into the seventh year of Alexander (228). Jerome makes no attempt to fix the date of his death, while the Armen. puts it in the first year of Gallus (251–252). Syncellus assigns him but six years. In the midst of such confusion we are obliged to rely solely upon the History. The only reliable data we have are Origen’s ordination to the priesthood, which took place in 231 (see below, p. 392) and apparently, according to this chapter, while Zebinus was bishop of Antioch. If Eusebius is correct in this synchronization, Zebinus became bishop before 231, and therefore the statements of the Chron. as to his accession may be approximately correct. As to the time of his death, we know that his successor, Babylas, died in the Decian persecution (see chap. 39), and hence Zebinus must have died some years before that. In chap. 29, Eusebius puts his death in the reign of Gordian (238–244), and this may be accepted as at least approximately correct, for we have reason to think that Babylas was already bishop in the time of Philip (see chap. 29, note 8). This proves the utter incorrectness of the notice of the Armen. We know nothing about the person and life of Zebinus. Harnack concludes from his name that he was a Syrian by birth. Most of the mss. of Eusebius give his name as Ζεβῖνος; one ms. and Nicephorus, as Ζέβενος; Syncellus as Ζέβεννος; Rufinus, Jerome, and the Armen. as Zebennus.
271:1960On Philetus, see chap. 21, note 6.
271:1961See the note on p. 395, below.
271:1962Eusebius refers here to the Defense of Origen, composed by himself and Pamphilus, which is unfortunately now lost (see above, chap. 2, note 1, and the Prolegomena, p. 36 sq.).
Chapter XXIV.—The Commentaries which he prepared at Alexandria.
1. It may be well to add that in the sixth book of his exposition of the Gospel of John 1963 he states that he prepared the first five while in Alexandria. Of his work on the entire Gospel only twenty-two volumes have come down to us.
2. In the ninth of those on Genesis, 1964 of which there are twelve in all, he states that not only the preceding eight had been composed at Alexandria, but also those on the first twenty-five Psalms 1965 and on Lamentations. 1966 Of these last five volumes have reached us.
3. In them he mentions also his books On the Resurrection, 1967 of which there are two. He wrote also the books De Principiis 1968 before leaving Alexandria; and the discourses entitled Stromata, 1969 ten in number, he composed in the same city during the reign of Alexander, as the notes by his own hand preceding the volumes indicate.
Footnotes
271:1963Origen’s commentary upon the Gospel of John was the “first fruits of his labors at Alexandria,” as he informs us in Tom. I. §4. It must have been commenced, therefore, soon after he formed the connection with Ambrose mentioned in the previous chapter, and that it was one of the fruits of this connection is proved by the way in which Ambrose is addressed in the commentary itself (Tom. I. §3). The date at which the work was begun cannot be determined; but if Eusebius follows the chronological order of events, it cannot have been before 218 (see chap. 21, note 8). Eusebius speaks as if Origen had expounded the entire Gospel (τῆς δ᾽ εἰς τὸ πᾶν εὐαγγέλιον αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο πραγματείας), but Jerome, in his catalogue of Origen’s works given in his epistle to Paula (in a fragmentary form in Migne’s ed., Ep. 33, complete in the Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol. 1851, p. 75 sq.), reports that the commentary consisted of thirty-two books and some notes (cf. his prologue to his translation of Origen’s homilies on Luke, Migne’s ed., VII. 219), and Rufinus likewise (Apol. II. 22) speaks of thirty-two books only. But in the thirty-second book, which is still extant, Origen discusses the thirteenth chapter of John, and does not promise to continue the commentary, as he does at the close of some of the other books. We may therefore conclude that Eusebius’ rather indefinite statement (which was probably not based upon personal knowledge, for he says that he had seen only twenty-two books), is incorrect, and that the commentary extended no further than the thirteenth chapter. We learn from the preface to the sixth book that the first five were composed while the author was still in Alexandria, the remaining books after his removal to Cæsarea, and at least part of them after the persecution of Maximinus (235–238), to which reference was made in the twenty-second book, according to Eusebius, chap. 28, below. There are still extant Books I., II., VI., X., XIII., XX., XXVIII., XXXII., small fragments of IV. and V., and the greater part of XIX. (printed in Lommatzsch’s ed., Vols. I and II.). The production of this commentary marked an epoch in the history of theological thought, and it remains in many respects the most important of Origen’s exegetical works. It is full of original and suggestive thought, and reveals Origen’s genius perhaps in the clearest and best light, though the exegesis is everywhere marred by the allegorizing method and by neglect of the grammatical and historical sense.
271:1964Of the commentary on Genesis, only some fragments from the first and third books are extant, together with some extracts (ἐκλογαί), and seventeen homilies (nearly complete) in the Latin translation of Rufinus (see Lommatzsch’s ed., Vol. VIII.). Eight of the books, Eusebius tells us, were written in Alexandria, and they must, of course, have been begun after the commencement of the commentary on John. Jerome (according to Rufinus, Apol. II. 20) gave the number of the book as thirteen (though in his catalogue mentioned in the previous note, he speaks of fourteen), and said that the thirteenth discussed Gen. iv. 15; and in his Contra Cels. VI. 49 Origen speaks of his work upon Genesis “from the beginning of the book up to” V. 1. We may therefore conclude that the commentary covered only the early chapters of Genesis. The homilies, however, discuss brief passages taken from various parts of the book.
272:1965Origen’s writings on the Psalms comprised a complete commentary (cf. Jerome’s Ep. ad Augustinum, §20; Migne’s ed.; Ep. 112), brief notes (“quod Enchiridion ille vocabat,” see Migne’s edition of Jerome’s works, Vol. VIII. 821, and compare the entire Breviarium in Psalmos which follows, and which doubtless contains much of Origen’s work; see Smith and Wace, IV. p. 108) and homilies. Of these there are still extant numerous fragments in Greek, and nine complete homilies in the Latin version of Rufinus (printed by Lommatzsch in Vols. XI.–XIII.). The catalogue of Jerome mentions forty-six books of notes on the Psalms and 118 homilies. The commentary on the 26th and following Psalms seem to have been written after leaving Alexandria (to judge from Eusebius’ statement here).
272:1966There are extant some extracts (ἐκλογαί) of Origen’s expositions of the book of Lamentations, which are printed by Lommatzsch, XIII. 167–218. They are probably from the commentary which Eusebius tells us was written before Origen left Alexandria, and five books of which were extant in his time. The catalogue of Jerome also mentions five books.
272:1967Jerome (in the catalogue and in the passage quoted by Rufinus, Apol. II. 20) mentions two books and two dialogues on the Resurrection (De Resurrectione libros duos. Et alios de Resurrectione dialogos duos). Whether the dialogues formed an independent work we do not know. We hear of them from no other source. The work was bitterly attacked by Methodius, but there are no traces of heresy in the extant fragments.
272:1968Of Origen’s De Principiis (περὶ ἀρχῶν), which was written before he left Alexandria, there are still extant some fragments in Greek, together with brief portions of a translation by Jerome (in his epistle to Avitus; Migne’s ed.; Ep. 124), and a complete but greatly altered translation by Rufinus. The latter, together with the extant fragments, is printed by Lommatzsch, Vol. XXI.; and also separately by Redepenning (Lips. 1836); Engl. trans. by Crombie, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The work is the most important of all Origen’s writings, and from it we gather our fullest knowledge as to his opinions, philosophical and theological; though unfortunately Rufinus’ alterations have made it doubtful in many cases what Origen’s original meaning was. The work constitutes the first attempt to form a system of Christian doctrine. It contains a great many peculiar, often startling errors, and was the chief source of the attacks made upon Origen for heterodoxy; and yet the author’s object was only to set forth the doctrines accepted by the Church, and to show how they could be systematized by the aid of Scripture or of reason. He did not intend to bring forward doctrines inconsistent with the received faith of the Church. The work consists of four books. To quote from Westcott: “The composition is not strictly methodical. Digressions and repetitions interfere with the symmetry of the plan. But to speak generally, the first book deals with God and creation (religious statics); the second and third books with creation and providence, with man and redemption (religious dynamics); and the fourth book with Holy Scripture.”
Intellectually the work is of a very high order, abounding in deep and original thought as well as in grand and lofty sentiments.
272:1969In his catalogue, Jerome gives among the commentaries on the Old Testament the simple title Stromatum, without any description of the work. But in his Ep. ad Magnum, §4 (Migne’s ed., Ep. 70), he says that Origen wrote ten books of Stromata in imitation of Clement’s work, and in it compared the opinions of Christians and philosophers, and confirmed the dogmas of Christianity by appeals to Plato and other Greek philosophers (Hunc imitatus Origines, decem scripsit Stromateas, Christianorum et philosophorum inter se sententias comparans: et omnia nostræ religionis dogmata de Platone et Aristotele, Numenio, Cornutoque confirmans). Only three brief fragments of a Latin translation of the work are now extant (printed in Lommatzsch’s ed., XVII. 69–78). These fragments are sufficient to show us that the work was exegetical as well as doctrinal, and discussed topics of various kinds in the light of Scripture as well as in the light of philosophy.
Chapter XXV.—His Review of the Canonical Scriptures.
1. When expounding the first Psalm, 1970 he gives a catalogue of the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament 1971 as follows:
“It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters.” Farther on he says:
2. “The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, 1972 which means, ‘In the beginning’; Exodus, Welesmoth, 1973 that is, ‘These are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘And he called‘; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ‘These are the words’; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ‘The called of God’; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, ‘The kingdom of David’; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, ‘Records of days’; Esdras, 1974 First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant’; the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.” 1975 He gives these in the above-mentioned work.
3. In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, 1976 maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:
4. “Among the four Gospels, 1977 which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. 1978
5. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, 1979 who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son.’ 1980
6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, 1981 and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.” 1982
7. In the fifth book of his Expositions of John’s Gospel, he speaks thus concerning the epistles of the apostles: 1983 “But he who was ‘made sufficient to be a minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit,’ 1984 that is, Paul, who ‘fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and round about even unto Illyricum,’ 1985 did not write to all the churches which he had instructed and to those to which he wrote he sent but few lines. 1986
8. And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,’ 1987 has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful. 1988
9. Why need we speak of him who reclined upon the bosom of Jesus, 1989 John, who has left us one Gospel, 1990 though he confessed that he might write so many that the world could not contain them? 1991 And he wrote also the Apocalypse, but was commanded to keep silence and not to write the words of the seven thunders. 1992
10. He has left also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all consider them genuine, and together they do not contain hundred lines.”
11. In addition he makes the following statements in regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews 1993 in his Homilies upon it: “That the verbal style of the epistle entitled ‘To the Hebrews,’ is not rude like the language of the apostle, who acknowledged himself ‘rude in speech’ 1994 that is, in expression; but that its diction is purer Greek, any one who has the power to discern differences of phraseology will acknowledge.
12. Moreover, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged apostolic writings, any one who carefully examines the apostolic text 1995 will admit.’
13. Farther on he adds: “If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s.
14. But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows. The statement of some who have gone before us is that Clement, bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, and of others that Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.” But let this suffice on these matters.
Footnotes
272:1970On Origen’s commentary on Psalms, see the previous chapter, note 3. The first fragment given here by Eusebius is found also in the Philocalia, chap. 3, where it forms part of a somewhat longer extract. The second fragment is extant only in this chapter of Eusebius’ History.
272:1971On the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, see Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1. Upon Origen’s omission of the twelve minor prophets and the insertion of the apocryphal epistle of Jeremiah, see the same note.
272:1972I have reproduced Origen’s Greek transliteration of this and the following Hebrew words letter by letter. It will be seen by a comparison of the words with the Hebrew titles of the books, as we now have them, that Origen’s pronunciation of Hebrew, even after making all due allowance for a difference in the pronunciation of the Greek and for changes in the Hebrew text, must have been, in many respects, quite different from ours.
272:1973Οὐελεσμώθ. I represent the diphthong οὐ at the beginning of a word by “w.”
272:1974The first and second books of Esdras here referred to are not the apocryphal books known by that name, but Ezra and Nehemiah, which in the Hebrew canon formed but one book, as Origen says here, but which in the LXX were separated (see above, Bk. III. chap. 10, note 4). Esdras is simply the form which the word Ezra assumes in Greek.
272:1975Whether this sentence closed Origen’s discussion of the Hebrew canon, or whether he went on to mention the other apocryphal books, we cannot tell. The latter seems intrinsically much more probable, for it is difficult to understand the insertion of the Maccabees in this connection, and the omission of all the others; for the Maccabees, as is clear from the words žξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκ€, are not reckoned by Origen among the twenty-two books as a part of the Hebrew canon. At the same time, it is hardly conceivable that Eusebius should have broken off thus, in the midst of a passage, without any explanation; though it is, of course, not impossible that he gives only the first sentence of the new paragraph on the books of the LXX, in order to show that the discussion of the Hebrew canon closes, and a new subject is introduced at this point. But, however that may be, it must be regarded as certain that Origen did not reckon the books of the Maccabees as a part of the Hebrew canon, and on the other hand, that he did reckon those books, as well as others (if not all) of the books given in the LXX, as inspired Scripture. This latter fact is proved by his use of these books indiscriminately with those of the Hebrew canon as sources for dogmatic proof texts, and also by his express citation of at least some of them as Scripture (cf. on this subject, Redepenning, p. 235 sq.). We must conclude, therefore, that Origen did not adopt the Hebrew canon as his own, but that he states it as clearly as he does in this place, in order to bring concretely before the minds of his readers the difference between the canon of the Jews and the canon of the Christians, who looked upon the LXX as the more authoritative form of the Old Testament. Perhaps he had in view the same purpose that led him to compare the Hebrew text and the LXX in his Hexapla (see chap. 16, note 8).
273:1976On Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, see chap. 36, note 4. The fragment given here by Eusebius is all that is extant of the first book of the commentary.
273:1977Compare Origen’s Hom. I. in Lucam: Ecclesia quatuor habet evangelia, hæresea plurima; and multi conati sunt scribere, sed et multi conati sunt ordinare: quatuor tantum evangelia sunt probata, &c. Compare also Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 11, 8, where the attempt is made to show that it is impossible for the Gospels to be either more or fewer in number than four; and the Muratorian Fragment where the four Gospels are named, but the number four is not represented as in itself the necessary number; also Tertullian’s Adv. Marc. IV. 2, and elsewhere.
273:1978See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 5.
273:1979See Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
273:19801 Pet. v. 13.
273:1981See Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15. Origen refers here to 2 Cor. viii. 18, where, however, it is clear that the reference is not to any specific Gospel any more than in the passages referred to above, III. 4, note 15.
273:1982See Bk. III. chap. 24.
273:1983This fragment from the fifth book of Origen’s commentary on John is extant only in this chapter. The context is not preserved.
273:19842 Cor. iii. 6.
273:1985Rom. xv. 19.
273:1986See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 2.
273:1987Matt. xvi. 18.
273:1988On the first and second Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, notes 1 and 4.
273:1989See John xiii. 23.
273:1990On John’s Gospel, see Bk. III. chap. 24, note 1; on the Apocalypse, note 20; and on the epistles, notes 18 and 19 of the same chapter.
273:1991See John xxi. 25
273:1992See Rev. x. 4
273:1993Upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Origen’s treatment of it, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17. The two extracts given here by Eusebius are the only fragments of Origen’s Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews now extant. Four brief Latin fragments of his commentary upon that epistle are preserved in the first book of Pamphilus’ Defense of Origen, and are printed by Lommatzsch in Vol. V. p. 297 sq. The commentaries (or “books,” as they are called) are mentioned only in that Defense. The catalogue of Jerome speaks only of “eighteen homilies.” We know nothing about the extent or the date of composition of these homilies and commentaries.
273:19942 Cor. xi. 6.
273:1995προσέχων, τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῇ ἀποστολικ & 135·ν€γνωσις meant originally the act of reading, then also that which is read. It thus came to be used (like ἀν€γνωσμα) of the pericope or text or section of the Scripture read in church, and in the plural to designate the church lectionaries, or service books. In the present case it is used evidently in a wider sense of the text of Paul’s writings as a whole. This use of the two words to indicate, not simply the selection read in church, but the text of a book or books as a whole, was not at all uncommon, as may be seen from the examples given by Suicer, although he does not mention this wider signification among the uses of the word. See his Thesaurus, s.v.
Chapter XXVI.—Heraclas becomes Bishop of Alexandria.
It was in the tenth year of the above-mentioned reign that Origen removed from Alexandria to Cæsarea, 1996 leaving the charge of the catechetical school in that city to Heraclas. Not long afterward Demetrius, bishop of the church of Alexandria, died, having held the office for forty-three full years, 1997 and Heraclas succeeded him. At this time Firmilianus, 1998 bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, was conspicuous.
Footnotes
274:1996The tenth year of Alexander Severus, 231 a.d. On Origen’s departure from Alexandria at this time, see below, p. 396. On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
274:1997On the episcopacy of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4. Forty-three years, beginning with 189 a.d., bring us down to 232 as the date of his death, and this agrees excellently with the statements of this chapter.
274:1998Firmilian, bishop of Cæsarea, the capital of Cappadocia (to be distinguished from Cæsarea in Palestine), was one of the most famous prelates of his day in the Eastern Church. He was a friend of Origen, as we learn from the next chapter, and took part in a council called on account of the schism of Novatian (see chap. 46), and also in councils called to consider the case of Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chaps. 28 and 30). He was one of the bishops whom Stephen excommunicated because they rebaptized heretics (see Bk. VII. chap. 2, note 3, and chap. 5, note 4), and he wrote an epistle upon this subject to Cyprian, which is extant in a Latin translation made by Cyprian himself (Ep. 74, al. 75, in the collection of Cyprian’s epistles. See Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. 751, note). Basil (de Spiritu Sancto, 29) refers to works (λόγοι) left by Firmilian, but none of them are extant except the single epistle mentioned, nor do we hear from any other source that he was a writer. Jerome does not mention him in his De vir. ill. The exact date of his accession is unknown to us, as it very likely was to Eusebius also. He was a bishop already in the tenth year of Alexander (231 a.d.), or very soon afterward, and from Bk. VII. chap. 30, we learn that he died at Tarsus on his way to Antioch to attend a council which had been summoned to deal with Paul of Samosata. This synod was held about 265 a.d. (not in 272 as is commonly supposed; see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1), and it is at this time, therefore, that we must put the death of Firmilian; so that he was bishop of Cæsarea at least some thirty-four years.
Chapter XXVII.—How the Bishops regarded Origen.
He was so earnestly affected toward Origen, that he urged him to come to that country for the benefit of the churches, and moreover he visited him in Judea, remaining with him for some time, for the sake of improvement in divine things. And Alexander, 1999 bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, 2000 bishop of Cæsarea, attended on him constantly, 2001 as their only teacher, and allowed 2002 him to expound the Divine Scriptures, and to perform the other duties pertaining to ecclesiastical discourse. 2003
Footnotes
274:1999On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6.
274:2000On Theoctistus, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, see chap. 19, note 27.
274:2001A number of mss., followed by Heinichen and some others, insert at this point ὡς žπος εἰπεῖν (“so to speak”).
274:2002The presbyter derived his authority to preach and teach only from the bishop, and hence these bishops extended to Origen, whom they had ordained a presbyter, full liberty to preach and teach within their dioceses.
274:2003τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ λόγου.
Chapter XXVIII.—The Persecution under Maximinus.
The Roman emperor, Alexander, having finished his reign in thirteen years, was succeeded by Maximinus Cæsar. 2004 On account of his hatred toward the household of Alexander, 2005 which contained many believers, he began a persecution, commanding that only the rulers of the churches should be put to death, as responsible for the Gospel teaching. Thereupon Origen composed his work On Martyrdom, 2006 and dedicated it to Ambrose and Protoctetus, 2007 a presbyter of the parish of Cæsarea, because in the persecution there had come upon them both unusual hardships, in which it is reported that they were eminent in confession during the reign of Maximinus, which lasted but three years. Origen has noted this as the time of the persecution in the twenty-second book of his Commentaries on John, and in several epistles. 2008
Footnotes
274:2004Alexander Severus was murdered early in the year 235, and was succeeded at once by his commanding general, the Thracian Maximinus, or Caius Julius Verus Maximinus, as he called himself.
274:2005The reference here is not to the immediate family of Alexander, but to the court as a whole, his family in the widest sense including court officials, servants, &c. The favor which Alexander had shown to the Christians (see chap. 21, note 8) is clearly seen in the fact that there were so many Christians at court, as Eusebius informs us here. This persecution was at first directed, Eusebius tells us, solely against the heads of the churches (τοὺς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἄρχοντας), i.e. the bishops; and we might imagine only those bishops who had stood nearest Alexander and had been most favored by him to be meant (Pontianus and Hippolytus of Rome were exiled, for instance, at the very beginning of Maximinus’ reign, in the year 235; see chap. 22, note 1); for Maximinus’ hostility to the Christians seems to have been caused, not by religious motives, but by mere hatred of his predecessor, and of every cause to which he had shown favor. But the persecution was not confined to such persons, as we learn from this chapter, which tells us of the sufferings of Ambrose and Protoctetus, neither of whom was a bishop. It seems probable that most of the persecuting was not the result of positive efforts on the part of Maximinus, but rather of the superstitious hatred of the common people, whose fears had been recently aroused by earthquakes and who always attributed such calamities to the existence of the Christians. Of course under Maximinus they had free rein, and could persecute whenever they or the provincial authorities felt inclined (cf. Firmilian’s epistle to Cyprian, and Origen’s Exhort. ad Mart.). Eusebius tells us nothing of Origen’s whereabouts at this time; but in Palladius’ Hist. Laus. 147, it is said that Origen was given refuge by Juliana in Cæsarea in Cappadocia during some persecution, undoubtedly this one, if the report is true (see chap. 17, note 4).
274:2006This work on martyrdom (εἰς μαρτύριον προτρεπτικὸς λόγος, Exhortatio ad Martyrium) is still extant, and is printed by Lommatzsch in Vol. XX., p. 231–316. It is a most beautiful and inspiring exhortation.
274:2007On Ambrose, see chap. 18, note 1. Protoctetus, a presbyter of the church of Cæsarea (apparently Palestinian Cæsarea), is known to us only from this passage.
274:2008On Origen’s Commentary on John’s Gospel, see chap. 24, note 1. No fragments of the twenty-second book are extant, nor any of the epistles in which reference is made to this persecution.
Chapter XXIX.—Fabianus, who was wonderfully designated Bishop of Rome by God.
1. Gordianus succeeded Maximinus as Roman emperor; 2009 and Pontianus, 2010 who had been bishop of the church at Rome for six years, was succeeded by Anteros. 2011 After he had held the office for a month, Fabianus 2012 succeeded him.
2. They say 2013 that Fabianus having come, after the death of Anteros, with others from the country, was staying at Rome, and that while there he was chosen to the office through a most wonderful manifestation of divine and heavenly grace.
3. For when all the brethren had assembled to select by vote him who should succeed to the episcopate of the church, several renowned and honorable men were in the minds of many, but Fabianus, although present, was in the mind of none. But they relate that suddenly a dove flying down lighted on his head, resembling the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Saviour in the form of a dove.
4. Thereupon all the people, as if moved by one Divine Spirit, with all eagerness and unanimity cried out that he was worthy, and without delay they took him and placed him upon the episcopal seat. 2014
5. About that time Zebinus, 2015 bishop of Antioch died, and Babylas 2016 succeeded him. And in Alexandria Heraclas, 2017 having received the episcopal office after Demetrius, 2018 was succeeded in the charge of the catechetical school by Dionysius, 2019 who had also been one of Origen’s pupils.
Footnotes
274:2009Gordianus the younger, grandson of Gordianus I., and nephew (or son?) of Gordianus II., became emperor after the murder of Balbinus and Pupienus, in July, 238, at the age of fifteen years, and reigned until early in the year 244, when he was murdered by the soldiers and succeeded by Philip. He is made by Eusebius (both here and in the Chron.) the direct successor of Maximinus, simply because only two or three months elapsed between the death of the latter and his own accession.
274:2010On Pontianus, see chap. 23, note 3.
275:2011Both here and in the Chron. the accession of Anteros is synchronized with the accession of Gordianus, but as seen in chap. 23, note 3, Pontianus was succeeded by Anteros in the first year of Maximinus, i.e. in 235,—three years earlier, therefore, than the date given by Eusebius. All the authorities agree in assigning only one month and a few days to the episcopate of Anteros, and this is to be accepted as correct. Of the life and character of Anteros we know nothing.
275:2012Greek Φαβιανός, though some mss. read Φλαβιανός. The Armenian and Hieronymian Chron. call him Fabianus; the Liberian catalogue, Fabius; Eutychius and the Alex. cat., Flabianus. According to chap. 39, he suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Decius (250–251). Both versions of the Chron. assign thirteen years to his episcopate, and this agrees fairly well with the notices here and in chap. 39 (accession in 238 and death in 250 or 251). But, as already seen, Eusebius is quite wrong in the dates which he gives for the accession of these three bishops, and the statements of the Liberian catalogue are to be accepted, which put Fabian’s accession in January, 236, and his death in January, 250, after an episcopate of fourteen years and ten days. The martyrdom of Fabian rests upon good authority (cf. chap. 39, and Jerome’s de vir. ill. chap. 54, and especially Cyprian’s Epistles, 3, al. 9, and 30). From these epistles we learn that he was a man of ability and virtue. He stands out more clearly in the light of history than most of the early Roman bishops, but tradition has handed down a great many unfounded stories in regard to him (see the article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).
275:2013φασί. Eusebius is our only authority for the following story. Rufinus (VI. 21) tells a similar tale in connection with Zephyrinus.
275:2014τὸν θρόνον τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς
275:2015On Zebinus, see chap. 23, note 4.
275:2016Babylas occupies an illustrious place in the list of ancient martyrs (cf. Tillemont, Mem. III. 400–409). Chrysostom devoted a festal oration to his memory (In sanctum Babylam contra Julianum et contra Gentiles); while Jerome, Epiphanius, Sozomen, Theodoret, and others make honorable mention of him. There are extant the Acta Babylæ (spurious), which, however, confound him with a martyr who suffered under Numerian. The legends in regard to Babylas and to the miracles performed by his bones are very numerous (see Tillemont, l.c.). He is identified by Chrysostom and others with the bishop mentioned by Eusebius in chap. 34, and there is no good reason to doubt the identification (see Harnack, Zeit des Ignatius, p. 48). The fact of his martyrdom under Decius (see chap. 39) is too well attested to admit of doubt; though upon the manner of it, not all the traditions are agreed, Eusebius reporting that he died in prison, Chrysostom that he died by violence. The account of Eusebius seems the most reliable. The date of his accession is unknown, but there is no reason to doubt that it took place during the reign of Gordian (238–244), as Eusebius here seems to imply; though it is true that he connects it closely with the death of Demetrius, which certainly took place not later than 232 (see above, Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4). There is no warrant for carrying the accession of Babylas back so far as that.
275:2017On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
275:2018On the episcopate of Demetrius, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 4.
275:2019On Dionysius, see chap. 40, note 1.
Chapter XXX.—The Pupils of Origen.
While Origen was carrying on his customary duties in Cæsarea, many pupils came to him not only from the vicinity, but also from other countries. Among these Theodorus, the same that was distinguished among the bishops of our day under the name of Gregory, 2020 and his brother Athenodorus, 2021 we know to have been especially celebrated. Finding them deeply interested in Greek and Roman learning, he infused into them a love of philosophy, and led them to exchange their old zeal for the study of divinity. Remaining with him five years, they made such progress in divine things, that although they were still young, both of them were honored with a bishopric in the churches of Pontus.
Footnotes
275:2020Our sources for a knowledge of the life of Gregory, who is known as Gregory Thaumaturgus (“wonder-worker”), are numerous, but not all of them reliable. He is mentioned by Eusebius here and in Bk. VII. chaps. 14 and 28, and a brief account of his life and writings is given by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 65), who adds some particulars not mentioned by Eusebius. There is also extant Gregory’s Panegyrical Oration in praise of Origen, which contains an outline of the earlier years of his life. Gregory of Nyssa about a century later wrote a life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, which is still extant, but which is full of marvelous stories, and contains little that is trustworthy. Gregory’s fame was very great among his contemporaries and succeeding generations, and many of the Fathers have left brief accounts of him, or references to him which it is not necessary to mention here. He was a native of Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus (according to Gregory Nyssa), the same city of which he was afterward bishop, was of wealthy parentage, and began the study of law when quite young (see his own Orat. Paneg. chap. 5). Coming to Cæsarea, in Palestine, on his way to Berytus, where he and his brother Athenodorus were to attend a school of law, he met Origen, and was so attracted by him that he and his brother remained in Cæsarea five years (according to Eusebius and Jerome) and studied logic, physics, mathematics, ethics, Greek philosophy, and theology with him (see his Orat). At the end of this time the brothers returned to Pontus, and afterwards were made bishops, Gregory of Neo-Cæsarea, his native place; Athenodorus of some unknown city (Eusebius here and in VII. 14 and 28 says only that they were both bishops of churches in Pontus). Of the remarkable events connected with the ordination of Gregory, which are told by Gregory of Nyssa, it is not necessary to speak here. He was a prominent scholar and writer, and a man universally beloved and respected for his deep piety and his commanding ability, but his fame rested chiefly upon the reports of his miracle-working, which were widespread. The prodigies told of him are numerous and marvelous. Eusebius is silent about this side of his career (whether because of ignorance or incredulity we cannot tell, but the latter seems most probable), but Jerome refers to his fame as a miracle-worker, Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita, is full of it, and Basil and other later writers dwell upon it. What the foundation for all these traditions was we do not know. He was a famous missionary, and seems to have been remarkably successful in converting the pagans of his diocese, which was almost wholly heathen when he became bishop. This great missionary success may have given rise to the tales of supernatural power, some cause above the ordinary being assumed by the common people as necessary to account for such results. Miracles and other supernatural phenomena were quite commonly assumed in those days as causes of conversions—especially if the conversions themselves were in any way remarkable (cf. e.g. the close of the anonymous Dialogue with Herbanus, a Jew). Not only the miracles, but also many other events reported in Gregory of Nyssa’s Vita, must be regarded as unfounded; e.g. the account of a long period of study in Alexandria of which our more reliable sources contain no trace. The veneration in which Gregory held Origen is clear enough from his panegyric, and the great regard which Origen cherished for Gregory is revealed in his epistle to the latter, written soon after Gregory’s arrival in Neo-Cæsarea, and still preserved in the Philocalia, chap. 13. The works of Gregory known to us are his Panegyrical Oration in praise of Origen, delivered in the presence of the latter and of a great multitude before Gregory’s departure from Cæsarea, and still extant; a paraphrase of the book of Ecclesiastes, mentioned by Jerome (l.c.), and likewise extant; several epistles referred to by Jerome (l.c.), only one of which, his so-called Canonical Epistle, addressed to an anonymous bishop of Pontus, is still preserved; and finally a trinitarian creed, or confession of faith, which is given by Gregory of Nyssa in his Vita, and whose genuineness has been warmly disputed (e.g. by Lardner, Works, II. p. 634 sq.); but since Caspari’s defense of it in his Gesch. d. Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, its authenticity may be regarded as established. These four writings, together with some works falsely ascribed to Gregory, are translated in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., Vol. VI. p. 1–80. Original Greek in Migne’s Patr. Gr. X. 983–1343. See also Ryssel’s Gregorius Thaumaturgus. Sein Leben und seine Schriften; Leipzig, 1880. Ryssel gives (p. 65–79) a German translation of two hitherto unknown Syriac writings of Gregory, one on the equality of Father, Son, and Spirit, and the other on the passibility and impassibility of God. Gregory’s dates cannot be fixed with exactness; but as he cannot have seen Origen in Cæsarea until after 231, and was very young when he met him there, he must have been born as late as the second decade of the third century. As he was with Origen at least five years, he can hardly have taken his farewell of him until after the persecution of Maximinus (i.e. after 238), for we cannot suppose that he pronounced his panegyrical oration during that persecution. He speaks in the first chapter of that oration of not having delivered an oration for eight years, and this is commonly supposed to imply that it was eight years since he had begun to study with Origen, in which case the oration must be put as late as 239, and it must be assumed, if Eusebius’ five years are accepted as accurate, that he was absent for some three years during that period (perhaps while the persecution was going on). But the eight years cannot be pressed in this connection, for it is quite possible that they may have been reckoned from an earlier time, perhaps from the time when he began the study of law, which was before he met Origin (see Panegyr. chaps. 1 and 5). If we were to suppose the order followed by Eusebius strictly chronological, we should have to put Gregory’s acquaintance with Origen into the reign of Gordian (238–244). The truth is, the matter cannot be decided. He is said by Gregory of Nyssa to have retired into concealment during the persecution of Decius, and to have returned to his charge again after its close. He was present with his brother Athenodorus at one of the councils called to consider the case of Paul of Samosata (see Bk. VII. chap. 28), but was not present at the final one at which Paul was condemned (see ibid. chaps. 29 and 30, and note 2 on the latter chapter). This one was held about 265 (see ibid. chap. 29, note 1), and hence it is likely that Gregory was dead before that date.
276:2021Athenodorus is known to us only as the brother of Gregory and bishop of some church or churches in Pontus (see Bk. VII. chaps. 14 and 28).
Chapter XXXI.—Africanus.
1. At this time also Africanus, 2022 the writer of the books entitled Cesti, was well known. There is extant an epistle of his to Origen, expressing doubts 2023 of the story of Susannah in Daniel, as being spurious and fictitious. Origen answered this very fully.
2. Other works of the same Africanus which have reached us are his five books on Chronology, a work accurately and laboriously prepared. He says in this that he went to Alexandria on account of the great fame of Heraclas, 2024 who excelled especially in philosophic studies and other Greek learning, and whose appointment to the bishopric of the church there we have already mentioned.
3. There is extant also another epistle from the same Africanus to Aristides on the supposed discrepancy between Matthew and Luke in the Genealogies of Christ. In this he shows clearly the agreement of the evangelists, from an account which had come down to him, which we have already given in its proper place in the first book of this work. 2025
Footnotes
276:2022Julius Africanus (as he is called by Jerome) was one of the most learned men of the Ante-Nicene age. Not much is known of his life, though he seems to have resided, at least for a time, in Emmaus, a town of Palestine, something over twenty miles from Jerusalem (not the Emmaus of Luke xxiv. 13, which was but seven or eight miles from the city), for we hear in the Chron., and in Jerome’s de vir. ill. c. 63, of his going on an embassy to the Emperor Heliogabalus, and securing the rebuilding of the ruined city Emmaus under the name of Nicopolis, which it henceforth bore. He does not appear to have been a clergyman, or at any rate not a bishop; for he is spoken of as such by no early authority, and he is addressed by Origen in an extant epistle, which must have been written toward the close of his life, simply as “brother.” His dates cannot be fixed with any exactness. He must have been already a prominent man when he went on an embassy to the emperor (between 218 and 222). He must have been considerably older than Origen, for in his epistle to him he calls him “son,” and that although Origen was at the time beyond middle life himself. Unless Eusebius is mistaken, he was still alive and active in the time of Gordian (238–244). But if he was enough older than Origen to address him as “son,” he can hardly have lived much beyond that reign. He seems to have been a Christian philosopher and scholar rather than an ecclesiastic, and took no such part in the church affairs of the time as to leave mention of his name in the accounts of the synods of his day. He was quite a traveler, as we learn from his own writings, and had the well-deserved reputation of being one of the greatest scholars of the age. Eusebius mentions four works left by him, the Cesti, the Chronicon, and the epistles to Origen and to Aristides. Jerome (l.c.) mentions only the last three, but Photius (Cod. 34) refers to all four. The Cesti (κεστοί “embroidered girdles”) seems to have derived its name from the miscellaneous character of its contents, which included notes on geography, the art of war, medicine, agriculture, &c. It is said by Syncellus to have been composed of nine books: Photius mentions fourteen, Suidas twenty-four. It is no longer extant, but numerous scattered fragments have been preserved. Its authenticity has been doubted, chiefly because of its purely secular character, and the nature of some of the notes, which do not seem worthy of the clear-headed and at the same time Christian scholar. But the external evidence, which is not unsupported by the internal, is too strong to be set aside, and we must conclude that the work is genuine. The extant fragments of it are given in various works on mathematics, agriculture, etc. (see Richardson’s Bibliographical Synopsis, p. 68). The epistle of Africanus to Origen is the only one of his writings preserved in a complete form. It seems that Origen, in a discussion with a certain Bassus (see Origen’s epistle to Africanus, §2), at which Africanus was present, had quoted from that part of the Book of Daniel which contains the apocryphal story of Susannah. Africanus afterward wrote a brief epistle to Origen, in which he contended that the story is not authentic, urging among other arguments differences in style between it and the rest of the book, and the fact that the story is not found in Hebrew, and that certain phrases show that it was composed originally in Greek. Origen replied at considerable length, maintaining the authenticity of the passage, and thereby showing himself inferior to Africanus in critical judgment. Origen’s reply was written from Nicomedia (see §1), where he was staying with Ambrose (see §15). It seems probable that this visit to Nicomedia was made on his way to or from his second visit to Athens (see next chapter, note 4). Africanus’ greatest work, and the one which brought him most fame, was his Chronicon, in five books. The work is no longer extant, but considerable fragments of it have been preserved (e.g. in Eusebius’ Præp. Evang. X. 10, and Dem. Evang. VIII., and especially in the Chronographia of Syncellus), and the Chronicon of Eusebius which is really based upon it, so that we are enabled to gain a very fair idea of its original form. As described by Photius, it was concise, but omitted nothing worthy of mention, beginning with the creation and coming down to the reign of Macrinus. It actually extended to the fourth year of Heliogabalus (221), as we see from a quotation made by Syncellus. The work seems to have been caused by the common desire of the Christians (exhibited by Tatian, Clement of Alexander, and others) to prove in their defense of Christianity the antiquity of the Jewish religion, and thus take away the accusation of novelty brought against Christianity by its opponents. Africanus apparently aimed to produce a universal chronicle and history which should exhibit the synchronism of events in the history of the leading nations of the world, and thus furnish solid ground for Christian apologists to build upon. It was the first attempt of the kind, and became the foundation of Christian chronicles for many centuries. The time at which it was written is determined with sufficient accuracy by the date at which the chronological table closes. Salmon (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) remarks that it must have been completed early in the year 221, for it did not contain the names of the victors in the Olympic games of the 250th Olympiad, which took place in that year (as we learn from the list of victors copied by Eusebius from Africanus). It is said by Eusebius, just below, that Africanus reports in this work that he had visited Alexandria on account of the great celebrity of Heraclas. This is very surprising, for we should hardly have expected Heraclas’ fame to have attracted such a man to Alexandria until after Origen had left, and he had himself become the head of the school. On the fourth writing mentioned by Eusebius, the epistle to Aristides, see above, Bk. I. chap. 7, note 2. The fragments of Africanus’ works, with the exception of the Cesti, have been printed, with copious and valuable notes, by Routh, Rel. Sac. II. 221–509; English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VI. 125–140.
276:2023ἀποροῦντος. A very mild way of putting his complete rejection of the story!
276:2024On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
277:2025In Bk. I. chap. 7.
Chapter XXXII.—The Commentaries which Origen composed in Cæsarea in Palestine.
1. About this time Origen prepared his Commentaries on Isaiah 2026 and on Ezekiel. 2027 Of the former there have come down to us thirty books, as far as the third part of Isaiah, to the vision of the beasts in the desert; 2028 on Ezekiel twenty-five books, which are all that he wrote on the whole prophet.
2. Being at that time in Athens, 2029 he finished his work on Ezekiel and commenced his Commentaries on the Song of Songs, 2030 which he carried forward to the fifth book. After his return to Cæsarea, he completed these also, ten books in number.
3. But why should we give in this history an accurate catalogue of the man’s works, which would require a separate treatise? 2031 we have furnished this also in our narrative of the life of Pamphilus, 2032 a holy martyr of our own time. After showing how great the diligence of Pamphilus was in divine things, we give in that a catalogue of the library which he collected of the works of Origen and of other ecclesiastical writers. Whoever desires may learn readily from this which of Origen’s works have reached us. But we must proceed now with our history.
Footnotes
277:2026“About this time” refers us still to the reign of Gordian (238–244). Eusebius mentions only the commentaries on Isaiah, but Jerome refers also to homilies and notes. The thirty books which were extant in Eusebius’ time extended to XXX. 6, as we are informed here. Whether the commentary originally went beyond this point we do not know. There are extant only two brief Latin fragments from the first and eighth books of the commentary, and nine homilies (the last incomplete) in a Latin version by Jerome; printed by Lommatzsch, XIII. 235–301.
277:2027Eusebius records that Origen wrote only twenty-five books of a commentary on Ezekiel. The form of expression would seem to imply that these did not cover the whole of Ezekiel, but a fragment of the twentieth book, extant in the eleventh chapter of the Philocalia, deals with the thirty-fourth chapter of the prophecy, so that the twenty-five books must have covered at any rate most of the ground. The catalogue of Jerome mentions twenty-nine books and twelve homilies, but the former number must be a mistake, for Eusebius’ explicit statement that Origen wrote but twenty-five books can hardly be doubted. There are extant only the Greek fragment of the twentieth book referred to above, fourteen homilies in the Latin version of Jerome, and a few extracts; all printed by Lommatzsch, XIV. 1–232.
277:2028i.e. to Isa. xxx. 6, where the LXX reads ἡ ὄρασις τῶν τετραπόδων τῶν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, which are the exact words used by Eusebius. Our English versions, both the authorized and revised, read, “The burden of the beasts of the South.” The Hebrew will bear either rendering.
277:2029The cause of this second visit to Athens we do not know, nor the date of it; although if Eusebius is to be relied upon, it took place during the reign of Gordian (238–244). He must have remained some time in Athens and have had leisure for study, for he finished his commentary on Ezekiel and wrote five books of his commentary on Canticles. This visit to Athens is to be distinguished from the one referred to in chap. 23, because it is probable that Origen found the Nicopolis copy of the Old Testament (mentioned in chap. 16) on the occasion of a visit to Achaia, and this visit is apparently too late, for he seems to have finished his Hexapla before this time; and still further, the epistle in which he refers to spurious accounts of his disputation at Athens (see Jerome’s Apol. adv. Ruf. II. 18) complains also of Demetrius and of his own excommunication, which, as Redepenning remarks, points to a date soon after that excommunication took place, and not a number of years later, when Demetrius had been long dead.
277:2030From the seventh chapter of the Philocalia we learn that Origen, in his youth, wrote a small book (μικρὸς τόμος) upon Canticles, of which a single brief fragment is preserved in that chapter. The catalogue of Jerome mentions ten books, two books written early, and two homilies. Eusebius mentions only the commentary, of which, he says, five books were written in Athens, and five more in Cæsarea. The prologue and four books are extant in a Latin translation by Rufinus, and two homilies in a translation by Jerome; besides these, some Greek extracts made by Procopius,—all printed by Lommatzsch, XIV. 233; XV. 108.
277:2031ἰδίας δεόμενον σχολῆς.
277:2032On Pamphilus, see Bk. VII. chap. 32, note 40. On Eusebius’ Life of Pamphilus, see the Prolegomena, p. 28, above.
Chapter XXXIII.—The Error of Beryllus.
1. Beryllus, 2033 whom we mentioned recently as bishop of Bostra in Arabia, turned aside from the ecclesiastical standard 2034 and attempted to introduce ideas foreign to the faith. He dared to assert that our Saviour and Lord did not pre-exist in a distinct form of being of his own 2035 before his abode among men, and that he does not possess a divinity of his own, 2036 but only that of the Father dwelling in him.
2. Many bishops carried on investigations and discussions with him on this matter, and Origen having been invited with the others, went down at first for a conference with him to ascertain his real opinion. But when he understood his views, and perceived that they were erroneous, having persuaded him by argument, and convinced him by demonstration, he brought him back to the true doctrine, and restored him to his former sound opinion.
3. There are still extant writings of Beryllus and of the synod held on his account, which contain the questions put to him by Origen, and the discussions which were carried on in his parish, as well as all the things done at that time.
4. The elder brethren among us 2037 have handed down many other facts respecting Origen which I think proper to omit, as not pertaining to this work. But whatever it has seemed necessary to record about him can be found in the Apology in his behalf written by us and Pamphilus, the holy martyr of our day. We prepared this carefully and did the work jointly on account of faultfinders. 2038
Footnotes
277:2033Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia (mentioned above, in chap. 20) is chiefly noted on account of the heresy into which he fell, and from which Origen won him back, by convincing him of his error. According to chap. 20, he was a learned and cultured man, and Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 60) says of him, gloriose rexisset ecclesiam. We do not know his dates, but we may gather from this chapter that the synod which was called on his account convened during the reign of Gordian (238–244), and apparently toward the close of the reign. Our sources for a knowledge of the heresy of Beryllus are very meager. We have only the brief passage in this chapter; a fragment of Origen’s commentary on Titus (Lommatzsch, V. 287), which undoubtedly refers to Beryllus’ error, though he is not mentioned by name; and finally, a single sentence in Jerome’s de vir. ill. c. 60 (Christum ante incarnationem regat), which, however, is apparently no more than his own interpretation of Eusebius’ words. Our sources have been interpreted very differently, some holding Beryllus to have been a Patripassian, others classing him with the Artemonites (see above, Bk. V. chap. 28). He was, at any rate, a Monarchion, and his position, not to enter here into details, seems to have been that our Lord did not pre-exist as an independent being; but that, with the incarnation, he, who had previously been identified with the πατρικὴ θεότης, became a distinct being, possessed of an independent existence (see Dorner’s Person of Christ, Div. I. Vol. II. p. 35 sq., Edinburgh edition). According to this chapter and chap. 20, Beryllus was the author of numerous treatises and epistles, which were extant in Eusebius’ time. According to Jerome (l.c.), he wrote, varia opuscula et maxime epistolas, in quibus Origeni gratias agit. Jerome reports, also, that there were extant in his time epistles of Origen, addressed to Beryllus, and a dialogue between Origen and Beryllus. All traces of these epistles and other works have perished.
277:2034τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν κανόνα: i.e. the rule of faith.
277:2035μὴ προϋφεστ€ναι κατ᾽ ἰδίαν οὐσίας περιγραφήν
277:2036θεότητα ἰδίαν.
278:2037τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμας οι πρεσβύτεροι. It seems necessary here to take the word πρεσβύτερος in an unofficial sense, which is, to say the least, exceptional at this late date.
278:2038On this Defense of Origen, written jointly by Pamphilus and Eusebius, see above, p. 36.
Chapter XXXIV.—Philip Cæsar.
Gordianus had been Roman emperor for six years when Philip, with his son Philip, succeeded him. 2039 It is reported that he, being a Christian, desired, on the day of the last paschal vigil, to share with the multitude in the prayers of the Church, 2040 but that he was not permitted to enter, by him who then presided, 2041 until he had made confession and had numbered himself among those who were reckoned as transgressors and who occupied the place of penance. 2042 For if he had not done this, he would never have been received by him, on account of the many crimes which he had committed. It is said that he obeyed readily, manifesting in his conduct a genuine and pious fear of God.
Footnotes
278:2039The younger Gordian reigned from the summer of 238 until early in the year 244, when he was murdered by the soldiers, and succeeded by his prætorian prefect, Philip of Arabia, who took the name Marcus Julius Philippus, and reigned until 249, when he was conquered and succeeded by Decius. His son Philip, who was seven years old at the time of his father’s accession, was immediately proclaimed Cæsar and afterward given the title of Augustus. He bore the name Marcus Julius Philippus Severus, and was slain at the time of his father’s death.
278:2040There has been much dispute as to Philip’s relation to Christianity. Eusebius is the first one known to us to represent him as a Christian, and he gives the report only upon the authority of oral tradition (τοῦτον κατέχει λόγος χριστιανὸν ὄντα). Jerome (de vir. ill. 54) states explicitly that Philip was the first Christian emperor (qui primus de regibus Romanis christianus fuit), and this became common tradition in the Church. At the same time it must be noticed that Eusebius does not himself state that Philip was a Christian,—he simply records a tradition to that effect; and in his Vita Const. I. 3 he calls Constantine the first Christian emperor. Little reliance can be placed upon Jerome’s explicit statement, for he seems only to be repeating as certain what Eusebius reported as possible. The only things known to us which can or could have been urged in support of the alleged fact that Philip was a Christian are his act recorded in this chapter and the letter written to him by Origen, as recorded in chap. 36. Moreover, it happens to be the fact that no heathen writer hints that he was a Christian, and we know that he celebrated games in Rome with pagan rites and great pomp. It seems, on the whole, probable that Philip showed himself favorable to Christianity, and perhaps superstitiously desired to gain the favor of the Christians’ God, and hence went through some such process as Eusebius describes in this chapter, looking upon it merely as a sort of sacrifice to be offered to this God as he would offer other sacrifices to other gods. It is quite conceivable that he may have done this much, and this would be quite enough to start the report, after his death, that he had been a Christian secretly, if not openly; and from this to the tradition that he was unconditionally the first Christian emperor is but a step. Some ground for the common tradition must be assumed, but our sources do not warrant us in believing more than has been thus suggested as possible. For a full discussion of the question, see Tillemont, Hist. des Emp. III. p. 494 sq.
278:2041Chrysostom (De St. Bab. c. Gentes. Tom. I.) and Leontius of Antioch (quoted in the Chron. pasch.) identify the bishop referred to here with Babylas, bishop of Antioch (see above, chap. 29, note 8). Eusebius’ silence as to the name of the bishop looks as if he were ignorant on the matter, but there is nothing inherently improbable in the identification, which may therefore be looked upon as very likely correct.
278:2042That is, the place assigned to penitents: μετανοίας χώραν. Christians who had committed flagrant transgressions were excluded from communion and required to go through a course of penance, more or less severe according to their offense, before they could be received again into the Church. In some cases they were excluded entirely from the services for a certain length of time; in other cases they were allowed to attend a part of the services, but in no case could they partake of the communion. In the fourth century a regular system of discipline grew up, and the penitents (pœnitentes) were divided into various classes,—mourners, hearers, and kneelers; the first of whom were excluded entirely from the church, while the last two were admitted during a part of the service. The statement in the present case is of the most general character. Whether the place which he was obliged to take was without or within the church is not indicated. Upon the whole subject of ancient church discipline, see Bingham’s Antiquities, Bk. XVI., and the article Penitence in Smith’s Dict. of Christian Antiq.
Chapter XXXV.—Dionysius succeeds Heraclas in the Episcopate.
In the third year of this emperor, Heraclas 2043 died, having held his office for sixteen years, and Dionysius 2044 received the episcopate of the churches of Alexandria.
Footnotes
278:2043On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2. The third year of Philip’s reign extended from the summer of 246 to the summer of 247, so that if Heraclas became bishop in 232, he cannot have held office fully sixteen years. The agreement, however, is so close as to occasion no difficulty.
278:2044On Dionysius, see chap. 40, note 1.
Chapter XXXVI.—Other Works of Origen.
1. At this time, as the faith extended and our doctrine was proclaimed boldly before all, 2045 Origen, being, as they say, over sixty years old, 2046 and having gained great facility by his long practice, very properly permitted his public discourses to be taken down by stenographers, a thing which he had never before allowed.
2. He also at this time composed a work of eight books in answer to that entitled True Discourse, which had been written against us by Celsus 2047 the Epicurean, and the twenty-five books on the Gospel of Matthew, 2048 besides those on the Twelve Prophets, of which we have found only twenty-five. 2049
3. There is extant also an epistle 2050 of his to the Emperor Philip, and another to Severa his wife, with several others to different persons. We have arranged in distinct books to the number of one hundred, so that they might be no longer scattered, as many of these as we have been able to collect, 2051 which have been preserved here and there by different persons.
4. He wrote also to Fabianus, 2052 bishop of Rome, and to many other rulers of the churches concerning his orthodoxy. You have examples of these in the eighth book of the Apology 2053 which we have written in his behalf.
Footnotes
278:2045τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμας παρὰ πᾶσι λόγου
278:2046Since Origen was born in the year 185 or 186, this must have been as late as 245. Most if not all of the homilies of Origen, which are now preserved, were probably delivered after this time, and reported, as Eusebius says, by stenographers. The increasing boldness of the Christians referred to here was apparently due to their uncommonly comfortable condition under Philip.
278:2047Of the personal history of Celsus, the first great literary opponent of Christianity, we know nothing with certainty, nor did Origen know any more. He had heard that there were two persons of the same name, the one living in the time of Nero, the other, whom he identifies with his opponent, in the time of Hadrian and later, and both of them Epicurean philosophers (see contra Cels. I. 8). The work of Celsus, however, was clearly the work, not of an Epicurean, but of a Platonist, or at least of an eclectic philosopher, with a strong leaning toward Platonism. The author wrote about the middle of the second century, probably in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Keim fixes the date of the work at 178 a.d.). The True Discourse (ἀληθὴς λόγος) is no longer extant, but it can be reconstructed in great part from Origen’s reply to it. It is seen to have been one of the ablest and most philosophical attacks of ancient times, and to have anticipated a great many arguments urged against Christianity by modern unbelievers. Celsus was well acquainted with Christianity in its various forms and with its literature, and he set himself to work with all his learning and skill to compose a complete refutation of the whole thing. He writes apparently less from a religious than from a political motive. He was an ardent patriot, and considered paganism essential to the life of the State, and Christianity its necessary antagonist. He undertakes first to show that Christianity is historically untenable, and then that it is false from the standpoint of philosophy and ethics. It is noticeable that it is not his desire to exterminate Christianity completely, but to make peace with it; to induce the Christians to give up their claim to possess the only true religion, and, with all their high ethics and lofty ideals, to join hands with the upholders of the ancient religion in elevating the religious ideas of the people, and thus benefiting the state. When we look at his work in this light (and much misunderstanding has been caused by a failure to do this), we must admire his ability, and respect his motives. He was, however, by no means free from the superstitions and prejudices of his age. The most important book upon the work of Celsus is Keim’s Celsus’ Wahres Wort, Zürich, 1873, which reconstructs, from Origen’s reply, Celsus’ work, and translates and explains it. Origen’s reply is philosophical and in parts very able, but it must be acknowledged that in many places he does not succeed in answering his opponent. His honesty, however, must be admired in letting his adversary always speak for himself. He attempts to answer every argument urged by Celsus, and gives the argument usually in Celsus’ own words. The result is that the work is quite desultory in its treatment, and often weighted with unimportant details and tiresome repetitions. At the same time, it is full of rich and suggestive thought, well worthy of Origen’s genius, and shows a deep appreciation of the true spiritual nature of Christianity. The entire work of eight books is extant in the original Greek, and is printed in all editions of Origen’s works (Lommatzsch, Vol. XX. p. 1–226), and is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. Vol. IV. 395–669. It was one of Origen’s latest works, as we are told here by Eusebius, and was composed (as we learn from its preface) at the urgent request of Ambrose, to whom also it was dedicated.
279:2048The commentary on Matthew was written toward the close of Origen’s life, as Eusebius informs us here, a fact which is confirmed by references in the work itself to many of his earlier commentaries. There are extant a single fragment from the first book (quoted in chap. 25, above), one from the second book (quoted in the Philocalia, chap. 6), and Books X.–XVII. entire in the original Greek, covering Matt. xiii. 36–xxii. 33. There are also extant numerous notes, which may have been taken, some of them from the commentary, and others from the homilies; and a Latin version of the commentary covering Matt. xvi. 13–xxvii. (See Lommatzsch, Vols. III.–V.). The catalogue of Jerome mentions twenty-five books and twenty-five homilies, and in the preface to his commentary on Matthew, Jerome states that he had read the twenty-five books, but elsewhere (in the prologue to his translation of Origen’s homilies on Luke; Migne, VII. 219) he speaks of thirty-six (or twenty-six) books of the commentary, but this is doubtless a mistake (and so Vallarsi reads viginti quinque in the text). There is no reason to think that Origen wrote more than twenty-five books, which must have covered the whole Gospel (to judge from the portions extant). The books which are preserved contain much that is interesting and suggestive.
279:2049Jerome also mentions twenty-five books upon the twelve prophets (in duodecim Prophetas viginti quinque ἐξηγήσεων Origenis volumina), of which he had found a copy in the library of Cæsarea, transcribed by the hand of Pamphilus (de vir. ill. 75). The catalogue of Jerome enumerates two books on Hosea, two on Joel, six on Amos, one on Jonah, two on Micah, two on Mahum, three on Habakkuk, two on Zephaniah, one on Haggai, two on Zechariah, two on Malachi; but in the preface to his commentary on Malachi, Jerome mentions three books on that prophecy. Of all these books only one fragment of the commentary on Hosea is extant, being preserved in the Philocalia, c. 8.
279:2050These epistles to Philip and his wife Severa are no longer extant, nor can we form an accurate idea of their contents. We are reminded of Origen’s interview with Mammæa, the mother of Alexander Severus, mentioned in chap. 21. Whether he wrote in response to a request from Philip is uncertain, but is not likely in view of the silence of Eusebius. It is possible that the favor shown by the emperor and his wife had led Origen to believe that they might be won for the faith, and there is nothing surprising in his addressing epistles to them with this idea. On Philip’s relations to Christianity, see chap. 34, note 2.
279:2051This collection of Origen’s epistles made by Eusebius is no longer extant. The catalogue of Jerome mentions “eleven books of letters in all; two books in defense of his works.” Only two epistles are preserved entire,—the one to Julius Africanus (see chap. 31, note 1); the other to Gregory Thaumaturgus, written, apparently, soon after the departure of the latter from Cæsarea (see chap. 30, note 1), for Gregory was, at the time it was written, still undecided as to the profession which he should follow. In addition to these two complete epistles, there are extant a sentence from a letter to his father (quoted in chap. 2); also a fragment of an epistle to some unknown person, describing the great zeal of his friend Ambrose (see chap. 18 note 1. The fragment is preserved by Suidas s. v. ᾽Ωριγένης); also a fragment defending his study of heathen philosophy (quoted in chap. 19, above); and two fragments in Latin, from a letter addressed to some Alexandrian friends, complaining of the alterations made by certain persons in the reports of disputations which he had held with them (see chap. 32, note 4. The one fragment is preserved by Jerome, in his Apol. adv. Ruf. II. 18; the other by Rufinus, in his apology for Origen). Of his epistles to Fabian and others no trace remains.
279:2052On Fabian, see chap. 29, note 4. We do not know when this letter to Fabian was written; but it cannot have been written in consequence of Origen’s condemnation by the Alexandrian synods called by Demetrius, for they were held in 231 or 232, and Fabian did not become bishop until 236. There must have been some later cause,—perhaps a condemnation by a later synod of Alexandria, perhaps only the prevalence of a report that Origen was heterodox, which was causing serious suspicions in Rome and elsewhere. We know that the controversies which raged so fiercely about his memory began even before his death.
279:2053On this Defense, see above, p. 36.
Chapter XXXVII.—The Dissension of the Arabians. 2054
About the same time others arose in Arabia, putting forward a doctrine foreign to the truth. They said that during the present time the human soul dies and perishes with the body, but that at the time of the resurrection they will be renewed together. And at that time also a synod of considerable size assembled, and Origen, being again invited thither, spoke publicly on the question with such effect that the opinions of those who had formerly fallen were changed.
Footnotes
279:2054The exact nature of the heresy which is here described by Eusebius is somewhat difficult to determine. It is disputed whether these heretics are to be reckoned with the θνητοπσυχίται (whom John of Damascus mentions in his de Hæres. c. 90, and to whom Augustine refers, under the name of Arabici, in his de Hæres, c. 83), that is, those who taught the death of the soul with the body, or with the ὑπνοψυχίται, who taught that the soul slept between the death and the resurrection of the body. Redepenning, in a very thorough discussion of the matter (II. 105 sq.), concludes that the heresy to which Eusebius refers grew up under Jewish influence, which was very strong in Arabia, and that it did not teach the death (as Eusebius asserts), but only the slumber of the soul. He reckons them therefore with the second, not the first, class mentioned. But it seems to me that Redepenning is almost hypercritical in maintaining that it is impossible that these heretics can have taught that the soul died and afterward was raised again; for it is no more impossible that they should have taught it than that Eusebius and others should have supposed that they did. In fact, there does not seem to be adequate ground for correcting Eusebius’ statement, which describes heretics who must distinctly be classed with the θνητοπσυχίται mentioned later by John of Damascus. We do not know the date at which the synod referred to in this chapter was held. We only know that it was subsequent to the one which dealt with Beryllus, and therefore it must have been toward the close of Philip’s reign.
Chapter XXXVIII.—The Heresy of the Elkesites.
Another error also arose at this time, called the heresy of the Elkesites, 2055 which was extinguished in the very beginning. Origen speaks of it in this manner in a public homily on the eighty-second Psalm: 2056
“A certain man 2057 came just now, puffed up greatly with his own ability, proclaiming that godless and impious opinion which has appeared lately in the churches, styled ‘of the Elkesites.’ I will show you what evil things that opinion teaches, that you may not be carried away by it. It rejects certain parts of every scripture. Again it uses portions of the Old Testament and the Gospel, but rejects the apostle 2058 altogether. It says that to deny Christ is an indifferent matter, and that he who understands will, under necessity, deny with his mouth, but not in his heart. They produce a certain book which they say fell from heaven. They hold that whoever hears and believes 2059 this shall receive remission of sins, another remission than that which Jesus Christ has given.” Such is the account of these persons.
Footnotes
280:2055The Elkesites (῾Ελκεσαιταί) were not a distinct sect, but “a school scattered among all parties of the Judæo-Christian Church.” They are described by Hippolytus (Phil. IX. 8–12) and by Epiphanius (in chap. 19 among the Essenes, in 30 among the Ebionites, and in 53 among the Sampsæans). We learn from Hippolytus that, in the time of Callistus or soon afterward, a certain Alcibiades, a native of Apameia in Syria, brought to Rome a book bearing the name of Elkesai (᾽Ηλχασαί), which purported to contain a revelation, made in the time of Trajan, by the Son of God and the Holy Spirit in the form of angels, and teaching the forgiveness of all sins, even the grossest, by means of belief in the doctrines of the book and baptism performed with certain peculiar rites. The controversy in regard to the forgiveness of gross sins committed after baptism was raging high at this time in Rome, and Hippolytus, who took the strict side, naturally opposed this new system of indulgence with the greatest vigor. Among other doctrines taught in the book, was the lawfulness of denying the faith in time of persecution, as told us by Origen in this chapter, and by Epiphanius in chap. 19. The book was strongly Ebionitic in its teaching, and bore striking resemblances to the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. Its exact relation to those writings has been disputed; but Uhlhorn (Homilien und Recognition des Clemens Romanus) has shown conclusively that it is older than the latter, and that it represents a type of Ebionitic Christianity less modified than the latter by the influence of Christianity. In agreement with the Ebionites, the Elkesites (as all those were called who accepted the teachings of the book, to whatever party they might belong) taught that Christ was a created being; and they also repudiated sacrifices, which compelled them to reject certain portions of the Old Testament (cf. Origen’s statement just below). They likewise refused recognition to the apostle Paul, and ordained the observance of the Jewish law; but they went beyond the Clementines in teaching the necessity of circumcision and the repetition of baptism as a means to the forgiveness of sins. The origin of the name Elkesai has also been disputed. Hippolytus says it was the name of the man who was claimed to have received the revelation, and Epiphanius calls Elkesai a false prophet; but some critics have thought them mistaken, and have supposed that Elkesai must have been the name of the book, or of the angel that gave the revelation. It is more probable, however, as Salmon concludes, that it was the name of a man whom the book represented as receiving the revelation, but that the man was only an imaginary person, and not the real founder of the school, as Epiphanius supposed. The book cannot well be put back of the beginning of the third century, when it first began to be heard of in the Catholic Church. It claimed to have been for a century in secret circulation, but the claim is quite unfounded. Eusebius speaks of the heresy as extinguished in the very beginning, and it seems, in fact, to have played no prominent part in history; and yet it apparently lingered on for a long time in the East, for we hear of a sect in Arabia, as late as the tenth century, who counted El-Chasaiach as their founder (see Salmon’s article, p. 98). See the work of Uhlhorn already mentioned; also Ritschl’s Entstehung d. alt. Katholischen Kirche, p. 234 sq. (Ritschl holds that the Clementines are older than the book of Elkesai), and Hilgenfeld’s Nov. Test. extra Can. rec. III. 153, where the extant fragments of the book are collected. See also Salmon’s article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 95 sq.
280:2056On Origen’s writings on the Psalms, see chap. 24, note 3. This fragment is the only portion of his homily on the eighty-second Psalm extant.
280:2057Alciabades, according to Hippolytus (see above, note 1).
280:2058The apostle Paul (see note 1).
280:2059Origen does not mention the baptism of the Elkesites, which is described at length by Hippolytus. It seems that both belief in the teachings of the book and baptism were necessary. It may be that in Origen’s opinion the receiving of the book itself involved the peculiar baptism which it taught, and that, therefore, he thought it unnecessary to mention the latter.
Chapter XXXIX.—The Persecution under Decius, and the Sufferings of Origen.
1. After a reign of seven years Philip was succeeded by Decius. 2060 On account of his hatred of Philip, he commenced a persecution of the churches, in which Fabianus 2061 suffered martyrdom at Rome, and Cornelius succeeded him in the episcopate. 2062
2. In Palestine, Alexander, 2063 bishop of the church of Jerusalem, was brought again on Christ’s account before the governor’s judgment seat in Cæsarea, and having acquitted himself nobly in a second confession was cast into prison, crowned with the hoary locks of venerable age.
3. And after his honorable and illustrious confession at the tribunal of the governor, he fell asleep in prison, and Mazabanes 2064 became his successor in the bishopric of Jerusalem.
4. Babylas 2065 in Antioch, having like Alexander passed away in prison after his confession, was succeeded by Fabius 2066 in the episcopate of that church.
5. But how many and how great things came upon Origen in the persecution, and what was their final result,—as the demon of evil marshaled all his forces, and fought against the man with his utmost craft and power, assaulting him beyond all others against whom he contended at that time,—and what and how many things he endured for the word of Christ, bonds and bodily tortures and torments under the iron collar and in the dungeon; and how for many days with his feet stretched four spaces in the stocks 2067 he bore patiently the threats of fire and whatever other things were inflicted by his enemies; and how his sufferings terminated, as his judge strove eagerly with all his might not to end his life; and what words he left after these things, full of comfort to those needing aid, a great many of his epistles show with truth and accuracy. 2068
Footnotes
280:2060Philip was defeated and slain near Verona, on June 17, 249 by the Pannonian legions who had compelled Decius, the envoy sent by Philip to quell a mutiny among them, to accept the title of Augustus. Philip’s death made Decius emperor; and he reigned for a little over two years, when he perished in a campaign against the Goths. The cause given by Eusebius for the terrible persecution of Decius is quite incorrect. The emperor, who before his elevation was one of the most highly respected senators, seems to have been a man of noble character and of high aims. He was a thorough-going patriot and a staunch believer in the religion and laws of Rome. He saw the terrible state of corruption and decay into which the empire had fallen; and he made up his mind that it could be arrested only by restoring the ancient Roman customs, and by strengthening the ancient religion. He therefore revived the old censorship, hoping that the moral and social habits of the people might be improved under its influence; and he endeavored to exterminate the Christians, believing that thus the ancient purity of the state religion might be restored. It was no low motive of personal revenge or of caprice which prompted the persecution. We must recognize the fact that Decius was one of the best and noblest of the Roman emperors, and that he persecuted as a patriot and a believer in the religion of his fathers. He was the first one that aimed at the complete extermination of the Christians. He went systematically to work to put the religion out of existence; and the persecution was consequently both universal and of terrible severity, far more terrible than any that had preceded it. The edicts published by Decius early in the year 250 are no longer extant; but we can gather from the notices, especially of Cyprian and Dionysius, that the effort was first made to induce Christians throughout the empire to deny their faith and return to the religion of the state, and only when large numbers of them remained obstinate did the persecution itself begin.
280:2061On Fabianus, bishop of Rome, see chap. 29, note 4.
280:2062After the martyrdom of Fabianus the church of Rome was without a bishop for about fourteen months. The bishopric of that church was naturally under Decius a place of the greatest danger. Cornelius became bishop in 251, probably in March, while Decius was away from the city. After the emperor’s death, which took place in the following winter, Gallus renewed the persecution, and Cornelius with a large part of the church fled to Cività Vecchia, where he died in the summer of 253, according to Lipsius (the Liberian catalogue says 252, which is the commonly accepted date, but is clearly incorrect, as Lipsius has shown). Both versions of the Chron. are greatly confused at this point, and their statements are very faulty (Jerome’s version assigning a reign of only fifteen months to Decius and two years and four months to Gallus). Eusebius, in Bk. VII. chap. 2, says that Cornelius held office “about three years,” which is reasonably accurate, for he was actually bishop nearly two years and a half. It was during the episcopate of Cornelius that the Novatian schism took place (see chap. 43). Eight epistles from Cyprian to Cornelius are extant, and two from Cornelius to Cyprian. In chap. 43 Eusebius makes extended quotations from an epistle written by Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch, and mentions still others which are not preserved. In chap. 46 he refers to one against Novatian addressed to Dionysius of Alexandria, which is likewise lost.
280:2063On Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, see chap. 8, note 6.
281:2064The time of Mazabanes’ accession is fixed approximately by the fact that Alexander’s death took place in the persecution of Decius. His death is put by Eusebius (Bk. VII. chap. 14) in the reign of Gallienus (260–268), and with this the notice in the Chron. agrees, which assigns it to the year 265. Since his successor, Hymenæus, was present at the council of Antioch, in which the case of Paul of Samosata was considered (see below, Bk. VII. chaps. 29 and 30), it will not do to put Mazabanes’ death later than 265.
281:2065On Babylas, see chap. 29, note 8.
281:2066Eusebius gives the name of this bishop as Β€βιος, Jerome as Fabianus, and Syncellus as φλαβιανός. The time of his accession is fixed by the death of Babylas in the persecution of Decius. He was bishop of Antioch while Cornelius was bishop of Rome, as we learn from the latter’s epistle to him, quoted in chap. 43, below. From an epistle written by Dionysius of Alexandria to Cornelius of Rome (referred to in chap. 46), we learn that Fabius died while the latter was still bishop, i.e. before the summer of 253 (see note 3, above). The Chron. pasch. assigns three years to the episcopate of Fabius; and though we cannot place much reliance upon the figure, yet it leads us to think that he must have been bishop for some time,—at least more than a year,—and so we are inclined to put his death as late as possible. The Chron. puts the accession of his Successor Demetrianus in the year 254, which is too late, at least for the death of Fabius. We may conclude that the latter died probably in the year 253, or not long before. Harnack decides for the time between the fall of 252 and the spring of 253. Fabius, as we learn from the epistles addressed to him by Cornelius and Dionysius (see chaps. 43 and 44), was inclined to indorse Novatian and the rigoristic discipline favored by him. We know nothing more of the life or character of Fabius.
281:2067τοὺς πόδας ὑπὸ τέσσαρα τοῦ κολαστηρίου ξύλου παρατηθεὶς διαστήματα. Otto, in his edition of Justin’s Apology (Corp. Apol. Christ. I. p. 204), says: ξύλον erat truncus foramina habens, quibus pedes captivorum immitebantur, ut securius in carcere servarentur aut tormentis vexarentur (“a ξύλον was a block, with holes in which the feet of captives were put, in order that they might be kept more securely in prison, or might be afflicted with tortures”). The farther apart the feet were stretched, the greater of course was the torture. Four spaces seems to have been the outside limit. Compare Bk. VIII. chap. 10, §8.
281:2068A tradition arose in later centuries that Origen died in the persecution of Decius (see Photius, Cod. 118); but this is certainly an error, for Eusebius cannot have been mistaken when he cites Origen’s own letters as describing his sufferings during the persecution. The epistles referred to here are no longer extant. On Origen’s epistles in general, see chap. 36, note 7.
Chapter XL.—The Events which happened to Dionysius. 2069
1. I shall quote from the epistle of Dionysius to Germanus 2070 an account of what befell the former. Speaking of himself, he writes as follows: “I speak before God, and he knows that I do not lie. I did not flee on my own impulse nor without divine direction.
2. But even before this, at the very hour when the Decian persecution was commanded, Sabinus 2071 sent a frumentarius 2072 to search for me, and I remained at home four days awaiting his arrival.
3. But he went about examining all places,—roads, rivers, and fields,—where he thought I might be concealed or on the way. But he was smitten with blindness, and did not find the house, 2073 for he did not suppose, that being pursued, I would remain at home. And after the fourth day God commanded me to depart, and made a way for me in a wonderful manner; and I and my attendants 2074 and many of the brethren went away together. And that this occurred through the providence of God was made manifest by what followed, in which perhaps we were useful to some.”
4. Farther on he relates in this manner what happened to him after his flight:
“For about sunset, having been seized with those that were with me, I was taken by the soldiers to Taposiris, 2075 but in the providence of God, Timothy 2076 was not present and was not captured. But coming later, he found the house deserted and guarded by soldiers, and ourselves reduced to slavery.” 2077
5. After a little he says:
“And what was the manner of his admirable management? for the truth shall be told. One of the country people met Timothy fleeing and disturbed, and inquired the cause of his haste. And he told him the truth.
6. And when the man heard it (he was on his way to a marriage feast, for it was customary to spend the entire night in such gatherings), he entered and announced it to those at the table. And they, as if on a preconcerted signal, arose with one impulse, and rushed out quickly and came and burst in upon us with a shout. Immediately the soldiers who were guarding us fled, and they came to us lying as we were upon the bare couches.
7. But I, God knows, thought at first that they were robbers who had come for spoil and plunder. So I remained upon the bed on which I was, clothed only in a linen garment, and offered them the rest of my clothing which was lying beside me. But they directed me to rise and come away quickly.
8. Then I understood why they were come, and I cried out, beseeching and entreating them to depart and leave us alone. And I requested them, if they desired to benefit me in any way, to anticipate those who were carrying me off, and cut off my head themselves. And when I had cried out in this manner, as my companions and partners in everything know, they raised me by force. But I threw myself on my back on the ground; and they seized me by the hands and feet and dragged me away.
9. And the witnesses of all these occurrences followed: Gaius, Faustus, Peter, and Paul. 2078 But they who had seized me carried me out of the village hastily, and placing me on an ass without a saddle, bore me away.” 2079
Dionysius relates these things respecting himself.
Footnotes
281:2069Dionysius the Great (Eusebius in the preface to Bk. VII. calls him ὁ μέγας ᾽Αλεξανδρέων ἐπίσκοπος) was born toward the close of the second century (he was an aged man, between 260 and 265, as we learn from Bk. VII. chap 27), studied under Origen, and succeeded Heraclas as principal of the catechetical school in Alexandria (see above, chap. 29) in the year 231 or 231 (see chap. 3, note 2). In the third year of Philip’s reign (246–247) he succeeded Heraclas as bishop of Alexandria, according to chap. 35, above. Whether he continued to preside over the catechetical school after he became bishop we do not know. Dittrich (p. 4 sq.) gives reasons for thinking that he did, which render it at least probable. He was still living when the earlier synods, in which the case of Paul of Samosata was considered, were held (i.e. between 260 and 264; see Bk. VII. chap. 27, note 4), but he was dead before the last one met, i.e. before 265 a.d. (see Bk. VII. chap. 29, note 1). Dionysius is one of the most prominent, and at the same time pleasing, figures of his age. He seems to have been interested less in speculative than in practical questions, and yet he wrote an important work On Nature, which shows that he possessed philosophical ability, and one of his epistles contains a discussion of the authorship of the Apocalypse, which is unsurpassed in the early centuries as an example of keen and yet judicious and well-balanced literary criticism (see Bk. VII. chap. 25). His intellectual abilities must, therefore, not be underrated, but it is as a practical theologian that he is best known. He took an active part in all the controversies of his time, in the Novatian difficulty in which the re-admission of the lapsed was the burning question; in the controversy as to the re-baptism of heretics; and in the case of Paul of Samosata. In all he played a prominent part, and in all he seems to have acted with great wisdom and moderation (see chaps. 44 sq., Bk. VII. chaps. 5, 7 sq., chap. 27). He was taken prisoner during the persecution of Decius, but made his escape (see the present chapter). In the persecution of Valerian he was banished (see Bk. VII. chap. 11), but returned to Alexandria after the accession of Gallienus (see Bk. VII. chap. 21). His conduct during the persecutions exposed him to adverse criticism, and he defended himself warmly against the accusations of a bishop Germanus, in an epistle, portions of which are quoted in this chapter and in Bk. VII. chap. 11. The writings of Dionysius were chiefly in the form of epistles, written for some practical purpose. Of such epistles he wrote a great many, and numerous fragments are extant, preserved chiefly by Eusebius. Being called forth by particular circumstances, they contain much information in regard to contemporary events, and are thus an important historical source, as Eusebius wisely perceived. Such epistles are quoted, or mentioned, in chaps. 41, 44, 45, and 46 of this book, and in Bk. VII. chaps. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26. For particulars in regard to them, see the notes on those chapters. In addition to his epistles a work, On Promises, is referred to by Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 28, and in Bk. VII. chaps. 24 and 25, where extracts from it are quoted (see Bk. VII. chap. 24, note 1); also a commentary on the beginning of Ecclesiastes in Bk. VII. chap. 26, and in the same chapter a work in four books against Sabellius, addressed to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, in which he defends himself against the charge of tritheism, brought by some Sabellian adversaries. He was able to clear himself of all suspicion of heresy in the matter, though it is quite clear that he had carried the subordinationism of Origen to a dangerous extreme. The attack upon him led him to be more careful in his statements, some of which were such as in part to justify the suspicions of his adversaries. Athanasius defended his orthodoxy in a special work, De Sententiis Dionysii, and there can be no doubt that Dionysius was honestly concerned to preserve the divinity of the Son; but as in the case of Eusebius of Cæsarea, and of all those who were called upon to face Sabellianism, his tendency was to lay an over-emphasis upon the subordination of the Son (see above, p. 11 sq.). For further particulars in regard to this work, see the chapter referred to, note 4. Upon Dionysius’ views of the Trinity, see Dittrich, p. 91 sq. Besides the writings referred to, or quoted by Eusebius, there should be mentioned an important canonical epistle addressed to Basilides, in which the exact time of the expiration of the lenten fast is the chief subject of discussion (still extant, and printed by Pitra, Routh, and others, and translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers; see Dittrich, p. 46 sq.). There are yet a few other fragments of Dionysius’ writings, extant in various mss., which it is not necessary to mention here. See Dittrich, p. 130. The most complete collection of the extant fragments of his writings is that of Migne, Patr. Gr. X. 1233 sq., to which must be added Pitra’s Spic. Solesm. I. 15 sq. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 87–120. The most complete work upon Dionysius is the monograph of Dietrich, Dionysius der Grosse, Freiburg, i. Br. 1867.
281:2070This Germanus, as we learn from Bk. VII. chap. 11, was a bishop of some see, unknown to us, who had accused Dionysius of cowardice in the face of persecution. In the present instance Dionysius undertakes to refute his calumnies, by recounting accurately his conduct during the persecutions. It must be remembered that the letter is a defense against accusations actually made, or we shall misunderstand it, and misinterpret Dionysius’ motives in dwelling at such length upon the details of his own sufferings. The epistle, a part of which is quoted in this chapter, and a part in Bk. VII. chap. 11, was written, as we learn from the latter chapter, §18, while the persecution of Valerian was still in progress, and recounts his experiences during the persecutions of Decius and of Valerian. The fragment quoted in the present chapter is devoted to the persecution of Decius, the other fragment to the persecution of Valerian. The letter is said to have been written πρὸς Γερμανόν. This might be translated either to or against Germanus. Analogy would lead us to think the former translation correct, for all the epistles mentioned are said to have been written πρὸς one or another person, and it is natural, of course, to expect the name of the person addressed to be given. I have therefore translated the word thus, as is done in all the versions. At the same time it must be noticed that Germanus is spoken of in the epistle (especially in §18 sq. of the other chapter) not as if he were the person addressed, but as he were the person complained of to others; and, moreover, a letter of defense sent to him alone would probably have little effect, and would fail to put an end to the calumnies which must have found many ready ears. It seems, in fact, quite probable that the epistle was rather a public than a private one, and that while it was nominally addressed to Germanus, it was yet intended for a larger public, and was written with that public in view. This will explain the peculiar manner in which Germanus is referred to. Certainly it is hard to think he would have been thus mentioned in a personal letter.
282:2071Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol. I, part 2 of 4. . Hermetic Cloud, https://hermeticcloud.com/library/nicene-and-post-nicene-fathers-ser-ii-vol-i-part-2/. Public-domain text reproduced in full; markup only.